Charlie Rush Zheng Wang Brandon Wedde Greg Wilson Stephen Beirne Miles Hatem Chris Kester Jim Radtke Preliminary Design Review AAE 451 Team V The Flying

Charlie RushCharlie RushZheng WangZheng Wang

Brandon WeddeBrandon WeddeGreg WilsonGreg Wilson

Stephen BeirneStephen BeirneMiles HatemMiles HatemChris KesterChris Kester

Jim RadtkeJim Radtke

Preliminary Design ReviewPreliminary Design Review

AAE 451 Team VAAE 451 Team V

The Flying V Barn OwlThe Flying V Barn Owl

4/18/20064/18/2006 AAE 451 Team VAAE 451 Team V 22

OutlineOutline1.1. MarketMarket2.2. Design RequirementsDesign Requirements3.3. Present ConceptPresent Concept4.4. SizingSizing5.5. AerodynamicsAerodynamics6.6. PerformancePerformance7.7. StructuresStructures8.8. Weight and BalanceWeight and Balance9.9. StabilityStability10.10.PropulsionPropulsion11.11.CostCost12.12.SummarySummary


GA Market ReviewGA Market Review

• Product Product – 4 Seat Single Engine Piston Aircraft for 4 Seat Single Engine Piston Aircraft for

Hobbyists, Training Fleets, and Fixed Base Hobbyists, Training Fleets, and Fixed Base OperatorsOperators• Powered by an Alternative FuelPowered by an Alternative Fuel

• Customer NeedsCustomer Needs– 100LL Replacement 100LL Replacement

• Current staple fuel for GA piston enginesCurrent staple fuel for GA piston engines• Production uncertain after 2015Production uncertain after 2015• Provides opportunity to be first to marketProvides opportunity to be first to market

– Petroleum fuel alternative for post peak oilPetroleum fuel alternative for post peak oil


Design RequirementsDesign Requirements

Design Design RequirementsRequirements

Team V Team V PlanePlane

T/O Distance <1500 1499

600 lb Payload 600

150 kts cruise speed 153

600 nm range 600

48”x46” cabin dim. 50”x50”

<2800 lb GTOW 2705

Acq. Cost <$300k $298,400


Current Design Current Design The “Barn Owl”The “Barn Owl”


15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000Wing loading vs. GTOW

W/S [lbs/ft2]

GT

OW

[lb

s]

Design pointDesign point

Carpet Plot Carpet Plot Stall (57 kts)

Cruise (150 kts)

Climb (1300 fpm)

Takeoff (1500 ft)

Aspect Ratio (increments of 0.5)

Turn (n=2)

AR=6

AR=10

Note: Sizing was done with a predetermined 200 hp engine

Design SpaceDesign Space


I/O for Carpet PlotI/O for Carpet PlotNotable InputsNotable Inputs

Cd0Cd0 == 0.0260.026

Payload WeightPayload Weight == 600 [lbs]600 [lbs]

CL_maxCL_max == 1.61.6

Cruise AltitudeCruise Altitude == 8000 [ft]8000 [ft]

L/DL/D == 1010

BBhphpSFCSFC ==.439.439

[[lblb//hp*hrhp*hr]]

Stall SpeedStall Speed == 57 [kts]57 [kts]

Oswald efficiency Oswald efficiency factorfactor == 0.650.65

Prop DiameterProp Diameter == 74 [in]74 [in]

Prop efficency Prop efficency (cruise)(cruise) == 0.860.86

Prop efficency (climb)Prop efficency (climb) == 0.760.76

Notable OutputsNotable Outputs

GTOWGTOW == 2705 [lbs]2705 [lbs]

W/SW/S == 17.717.7

ARAR == 7.57.5

Takeoff (50 ft obs.)Takeoff (50 ft obs.) == 1499 [ft]1499 [ft]

Power / WeightPower / Weight == 0.0740.074

Sea Level Climb RateSea Level Climb Rate ==1351 1351

[fpm][fpm]

Wing AreaWing Area == 153 [ft153 [ft22]]

Turn Load FactorTurn Load Factor == 2.062.06

Cruise SpeedCruise Speed == 153 [kts]153 [kts]

Fuel WeightFuel Weight == 463 [lbs]463 [lbs]

Fuel VolumeFuel Volume == 63 [gal]63 [gal]


Drag Polar

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

0.009

0.01

0.011

0.012

0.013

0.014

0.015

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Cl

Cd

2412 Laminar

2412 Tripped

FVGA 5121 Laminar

FVGA 5121 Tripped

•FVGA 5121-12.1% thick•Designed using Genetic Algorithm •Laminar flow•Large Laminar bucket•Performance comparable to 2412 when tripped•30% less drag at cruise commpared to 2412•Low penalty at high Cl

New Airfoil DesignNew Airfoil Design


Wing Planform DesignWing Planform Design

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 200

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8Polynomial Twist for wing CL = 0.3

Distance along wing

Sec

tion

lift

* S

ectio

n co

rd

Wing twist distributionEliptical distribution

-20

2

-15

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

x

y

•Span = 33.87Span = 33.87•Taper ratio = 0.7Taper ratio = 0.7•Polynomial twistPolynomial twist•Close to elliptical lift distributionClose to elliptical lift distribution•1.51 degrees total twist1.51 degrees total twist

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2Twist Distribution for CL = 0.3

Distance along span (ratio)

Tw

ist

angl

e (d

eg)


Cmarc AnalysisCmarc Analysis

• Used to acquire an accurate Used to acquire an accurate prediction of induced drag prediction of induced drag and parasite drag.and parasite drag.

• Detailed fuselage shaping to Detailed fuselage shaping to minimize interference dragminimize interference drag

• Bathtub style wing joint Bathtub style wing joint utilized, with smooth LE/TE utilized, with smooth LE/TE junctions, possible with junctions, possible with composite skin layovercomposite skin layover

• 8 deg tail upsweep to 8 deg tail upsweep to minimize wake interferenceminimize wake interference


CCD0D0 Determination Determination

CCD0D0 = 0.022 = 0.022 (Sref = (Sref = 153)153)

• Lower than Cessna Lower than Cessna 172 @ 0.027172 @ 0.027

• The FVGA5121 airfoil The FVGA5121 airfoil is laminar at low CLis laminar at low CL

• Incompressible flight Incompressible flight envelopeenvelope

• No wing strutsNo wing struts• Aerodynamic fuselageAerodynamic fuselage• Close to elliptical Close to elliptical

loadingloading

3D Drag Polar

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

CL

CD

Barn Ow l

AR = 9.6

Poly. (Barn Ow l)

Poly. (AR = 9.6)


L/DL/DMAXMAX Determination DeterminationCmarc 3D L/D vs CL

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

-0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

CL

L/D

L/DL/DMAXMAX = 10.4 = 10.4

• This is because the This is because the FVGA5121 airfoil is FVGA5121 airfoil is laminar at low CLlaminar at low CL

• Most efficient cruise at Most efficient cruise at 185 ft/s (109 kts)185 ft/s (109 kts)


3D Lift Curve3D Lift CurveLift Curve

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

-5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

Alpha

CL

Wings oriented to have a level fuselage at max cruise speed.Wings oriented to have a level fuselage at max cruise speed.


PerformancePerformance

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

V-n Diagram

Ve [Knots]

n

Design Limit Design Limit LoadLoad

3.8 g 3.8 g

per FAR 23.337per FAR 23.337

FAR Gust FAR Gust Velocities Under Velocities Under

20,000 ft20,000 ft

50 ft/s @ V50 ft/s @ VCruise Cruise

25 ft/s @ V25 ft/s @ VDive Dive

Design Loading

Gust Loading


PerformancePerformance


StructureStructure• Material SelectionMaterial Selection

– Aluminum frame with fiberglass skin selectedAluminum frame with fiberglass skin selected– Cost savings expectedCost savings expected– Slight weight savings achievedSlight weight savings achieved

• FrameFrame– ““Big bones” approachBig bones” approach– Manufacturing cost reduced due to fewer Manufacturing cost reduced due to fewer

components and advanced joiningcomponents and advanced joining

• SkinSkin– Fiberglass cured in large segmentsFiberglass cured in large segments– Segments bonded to frameSegments bonded to frame


Structural LayoutStructural Layout

C-ChannelsI-Beam Spar

Ribs


Spar CarrythroughSpar Carrythrough• Spar located Spar located

at front of rear at front of rear seatsseats

• Spar does not Spar does not hinder cabin hinder cabin comfortcomfort


Component WeightsComponent Weights

• Began with Began with Raymer’s Statistical Raymer’s Statistical Group Weights Group Weights methodmethod

• Replaced with Replaced with known or calculated known or calculated weightsweights– EngineEngine– PropellerPropeller– WingsWings– FuselageFuselage


Component WeightsComponent Weights• EngineEngine

– Total installed weight from DeltaHawkTotal installed weight from DeltaHawk– Includes all pumps, turbocharger, lines, Includes all pumps, turbocharger, lines,

exhaust, and mountexhaust, and mount– 390 lbs390 lbs

• PropellerPropeller– Off the ShelfOff the Shelf– 51 lbs51 lbs

20


Wing SizingWing Sizing• Cross-sectional optimization along spanCross-sectional optimization along span• Design Variables:Design Variables:

• Constrained by:Constrained by:Allowable StressesAllowable Stresses Upper Skin Upper Skin

BucklingBuckling

Spar Web BucklingSpar Web Buckling Damage ToleranceDamage Tolerance

Skin ThicknessSkin Thickness Spar Web Spar Web ThicknessThickness

Spar Cap SizeSpar Cap Size

Stringer AreaStringer Area Spar Cap Spar Cap ThicknessThickness

Rib SpacingRib Spacing


Wing SizingWing Sizing

• Validation of sizing algorithmValidation of sizing algorithm– Raymer statistical weight:Raymer statistical weight: 302 lbs302 lbs– All-aluminum wing optimization:All-aluminum wing optimization: 300 lbs300 lbs

• Our designOur design– S2-glass/epoxy skinS2-glass/epoxy skin– New weight:New weight: 286 lbs286 lbs– Difference due to minimum gauge skin over Difference due to minimum gauge skin over

outer 1/3 spanouter 1/3 span


FuselageFuselage

• Preliminary model created and Preliminary model created and analyzed with I-DEASanalyzed with I-DEAS

• Ability to sustain limit load verifiedAbility to sustain limit load verified


Weight and BalanceWeight and Balance

• Design Design gross weight gross weight from sizingfrom sizing– 2705 lbs2705 lbs

• Detailed Detailed gross weight gross weight predictionprediction– 2694 lbs2694 lbs

Component Dist. from nose [in.] Weight [lbs]Engine 30 390Prop/ Spinner 6 51Avionics 81 51Fuel System 123 47Electrical System 60 130Wing 129 286Flight Controls 160 41Hydraulics 138 3fuel 123 463Front Seat PAX 106 300Rear Seat PAX 143 300Furnishings 125 92Fuselage 160 241Horiz Tail 321 98Vert Tail 321 21Main Gear 138 151Nose Gear 44 29

Total Weight 2694 lbsCenter of mass 117 in. from nose


CG Travel

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

109 111 113 115 117 119

CG position (in)

Wei

gh

t

C.G. and Static StabilityC.G. and Static Stability• Static Margin with full loadStatic Margin with full load 10.6%10.6%• Static Margin with no fuel, 1 pilotStatic Margin with no fuel, 1 pilot 19.6%19.6%

A Empty Fuel, Rear PAXB Full Fuel, Rear PAXC Full Fuel, all PAXD Full FuelE Full Fuel, Front PAXF Empty Fuel, 2 Front PAXG Empty Fuel, 1 Front PAXH Empty

GF

ED

A

C

B

H

20% S.M. 10% S.M.


Fuel SelectionFuel Selection

• Bio-diesel chosen as alternative fuelBio-diesel chosen as alternative fuel• Reasons chosen:Reasons chosen:

– BSFC of 0.439 lbs/(hp*hr) is bested only BSFC of 0.439 lbs/(hp*hr) is bested only by hydrogenby hydrogen

– Most developed technology of all of the Most developed technology of all of the proposed alternative fuelsproposed alternative fuels

– Requires only minor modifications to Requires only minor modifications to available piston enginesavailable piston engines


Engine DesignEngine Design

• Engine Requirements:Engine Requirements:– No more than 200 hp to remain “low No more than 200 hp to remain “low

performance”performance”– Meet dimension constraints for the nose Meet dimension constraints for the nose

of the aircraftof the aircraft– Powerful enough to meet cruise speed Powerful enough to meet cruise speed

target target • An existing diesel aircraft engine An existing diesel aircraft engine

meets our requirements meets our requirements – Development cost savingsDevelopment cost savings


Engine DesignEngine Design

• Deltahawk V4 DH200V4 Deltahawk V4 DH200V4 • Rated PowerRated Power

– 200 hp200 hp

• Total installed Weight Total installed Weight – 390 lbs390 lbs

• Dimensions:Dimensions:– 30x23x32 (inches)30x23x32 (inches)

• CostCost– $32,450$32,450

• Meets all desired Meets all desired requirementsrequirements


PropellerPropeller

• Existing PropellerExisting Propeller– 2 Blade, constant Speed2 Blade, constant Speed– Hartzell HC-C2YK-1 ( )/7666A-2Hartzell HC-C2YK-1 ( )/7666A-2

• Same Propeller as Piper ArrowSame Propeller as Piper Arrow– HP 200HP 200– RPM 2700RPM 2700– Cruise 145 ktsCruise 145 kts

• Specs.Specs.– Max constant HP = 250Max constant HP = 250– Max constant RPM = 2700Max constant RPM = 2700– Diameter = 74”Diameter = 74”


• Three cost estimating relationships:Three cost estimating relationships:– GA Plane LibraryGA Plane Library– Modified RAND DAPCAModified RAND DAPCA– Airframe Weight RelationshipAirframe Weight Relationship

• Weighted average yields purchase price of Weighted average yields purchase price of ~$298,400.00~$298,400.00

• RTD&E Break-Even set by DAPCA model at RTD&E Break-Even set by DAPCA model at ~5 years (~2000 planes)~5 years (~2000 planes)– Reasonable with market that breakeven would Reasonable with market that breakeven would

be met.be met.

Acquisition CostAcquisition Cost


Acquisition CostAcquisition CostPurchase Price v DAPCA CER v AMPR CER

$-

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

$700,000.00

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

GTOW (lbs)

Acq

uis

itio

n C

ost

Purchase Price

AMPR ($277.05/lb)

DAPCA*60%

Expon. (AMPR)

Expon. (DAPCA)

Expon. (Purchase Price)

Barn Owl


• Compiled data from web resources Compiled data from web resources (Company websites; Plane Quest)(Company websites; Plane Quest)

• Allows for current fuel pricesAllows for current fuel prices– 100LL ~ $4.27/gal100LL ~ $4.27/gal– B100 ~ $3.00 - $3.25/galB100 ~ $3.00 - $3.25/gal

• Gives Total Operating Cost of Gives Total Operating Cost of ~$81/hr (2006 USD) ~$81/hr (2006 USD)

Operating CostsOperating Costs


Operating CostsOperating CostsOperating Costs v. GTOW

R2 = 0.8677

R2 = 0.9155

R2 = 0.6407

$-

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$180.00

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

GTOW (lbs)

Op

erat

ing

Cos

ts

Variable DOC/hrFixed DOC/hrTotal Operating Costs/hrBarn Owl (GTOW)Expon. (Total Operating Costs/hr)Expon. (Variable DOC/hr)Expon. (Fixed DOC/hr)

Barn Owl


Operating CostsOperating Costs

• How does ~$81/hr compare?How does ~$81/hr compare?

*Determined using DOC v. GTOW Relationship*Determined using DOC v. GTOW Relationship

Plane Type DOC/hr variable DOC/hr fixed Total Cost/Hr

Diamond DA 40 $ 55.00 $ 15.00 $ 70.00

Flying V Barn Owl $ 55.00 $ 26.00 $ 81.00

Cessna 172S $ 64.00 $ 26.00 $ 90.00

Cessna 182s $ 87.00 $ 44.00 $ 131.00

Cirrus SR 22* $ 99.00 $ 41.00 $ 141.00


Life Cycle Cost EstimateLife Cycle Cost Estimate• Est. Cost for Owner over 12 year span of Est. Cost for Owner over 12 year span of

time?time?Purchase Price $ 298,400.00 Notes:

RTD&E/unit $ 53,712.00 ~20% purch./1.1

Production/unit $ 217,832.00 ~80% purch./1.1

O&M (total over yrs.) $ 767,426.67 ~500 FH/yr.

Fuel $ 234,000.00 B100=$3/gal; 13 gal/FH

Maintenance $ 240,000.00 MMH/FH=0.5; $/MMH=80.00

Insurance $ 24,866.67 ~0.7% purch price/year

Depreciation {f(age)} $ 268,560.00 (purch/12 *age), for age <12

Disposal $ (29,840.00)

Life Cycle Cost $ 1,035,986.67

• Saves Owner over $100,000 than if same plane were Saves Owner over $100,000 than if same plane were powered by 100LL at current prices! (LCC $1,136k)powered by 100LL at current prices! (LCC $1,136k)


Design RequirementsDesign Requirements

Design Design RequirementsRequirements

Team V Team V PlanePlane

T/O Distance <1500 1499

600 lb Payload 600

150 kts cruise speed 153

600 nm range 600

48”x46” cabin dim. 50”x50”

<2800 lb GTOW 2705

Acq. Cost <$300k $298,400


Comparison to Current Comparison to Current CompetitionCompetition

Range @ 45% power (nm) - 638 - 971 - - -Range @ 55% power (nm) - - 930 - - - -Range @ 60% power (nm) 687 - - - - - -Range @ 75% power (nm) - 518 - - 600 700 600Range @ 80% power (nm) 580 - 773 615 - - -Range @ 88% power (nm) - - - - - - -

Power (bhp) 160 180 230 235 180 310 200Power loading (lbs/hp) 15.3 14.2 13.5 13.2 14.1 10.9 13.5

Climb at sea level (fpm) 720 730 924 1040 1070 1304 1351Cruise speed (kts) 122 124 145 159 147 185 153

Stall speed, flap up (kts) 47 48 49 49 49 61 57Balanced field length (ft) 1685 1630 1514 1385 1027 1574 1499

GTOW (lbs) 2457 2558 3100 3112 2535 3400 2705Usefull load (lbs) 818 895 1140 1037 906 1150 1063

Wing area (sf) 174 174 174 174 145 145 153Wing loading (lbs/sf) 14.1 14.7 17.8 17.8 14.5 23.4 17.7

Purchase Price ($) $172k $180k $326k $355k $259k $350k $298k


SummarySummary

• The Barn Owl will be a successful The Barn Owl will be a successful alternative fuel aircraftalternative fuel aircraft

• The current design is feasible and meets The current design is feasible and meets all requirementsall requirements

• Next steps:Next steps:– Controls sizing & dynamic stabilityControls sizing & dynamic stability

– Refine and consolidate structure, aerodynamic, Refine and consolidate structure, aerodynamic, and layout modelsand layout models

– Detailed production cost estimationDetailed production cost estimation

Charlie RushCharlie RushZheng WangZheng WangBrandon WeddeBrandon WeddeGreg WilsonGreg Wilson

Stephen BeirneStephen BeirneMiles HatemMiles HatemChris KesterChris Kester

Jim RadtkeJim Radtke

Preliminary Design ReviewPreliminary Design Review

AAE 451 Team VAAE 451 Team V

The Flying V Barn OwlThe Flying V Barn Owl

This Concludes the…This Concludes the…


Slide left intentionally blank… except for this.Slide left intentionally blank… except for this.


ReferencesReferences• Hartzell Propeller Data. “Hartzell Propeller Data. “TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. P-TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. P-

920 920 Available Available <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rg<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMM akeModel.nsf/0/akeModel.nsf/0/aac7773a13ad299186257114005a5cd0/$FILE/P-aac7773a13ad299186257114005a5cd0/$FILE/P- 920.pdf>. 920.pdf>.

• Plane QuestPlane Quest. Plane Quest Website. Cited 4/1/06. Available . Plane Quest Website. Cited 4/1/06. Available <http://www.planequest.com/operationcosts/default.asp>.<http://www.planequest.com/operationcosts/default.asp>.

• Raymer, Daniel. Raymer, Daniel. Aircraft Design a Conceptual Approach. 3Aircraft Design a Conceptual Approach. 3rdrd Ed. Ed. 1999. 1999. AIAA. Reston, VA. AIAA. Reston, VA.


CFDCFD


CFDCFD


Wing Structure Sizing Wing Structure Sizing ResultsResults

0 50 100 150 2000.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14Spar Web Thickness

Span location [in]

Th

ickn

ess

[in

]



0 50 100 150 2000

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1Spar Cap Thickness

Span location [in]

Th

ickn

ess

[in

]



0 50 100 150 2001

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7Spar Cap Width

Span location [in]

Wid

th [i

n]



0 50 100 150 2000.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09Skin Thickness

Span location [in]

Th

ickn

ess

[in

]



0 50 100 150 2000

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16Stringer Area (of each stringer)

Span location [in]

Are

a [i

n2 ]


PropellerPropellerParameter Value Units Notes Parameter Value Units Notes

density 2.38E-03 slug/ft^3 h=0 V_tip 872.26 fps must be less than (a*.85)speed of sound (a) 1116.40 ft/s h=0 V_tip_helix 908.26 fps must be less than (a*.85)a * .85 948.94 ft/s h=0

Advance Ratio 0.91 --Two Bladed Propeller? yes -- yes or no (no->b= 3)

Power Coefficient 0.06 --V= Forward Velocity 150.00 kts Thrust Coefficient 0.13 -- Raymer 13.13

172.62 smi/h Speed-Power Coefficient 3.39 -- Raymer 13.14253.17 ft/s

Activity Factor per blade 106.4 -- Raymer 13.15SBHP= 200.00 lb-f^2/s^3

Two Blade Diameter 6.17 ft Raymer 10.23D=Drag 630.67 lb-ft/s^2 74.04 inT=Thrust 630.67 lb-ft/s^2 Three Blade Diameter 5.64 ft Raymer 10.24

67.69 inN=RPM 2700.00 1/min Delta Hawk website

45.00 1/s Tip Ground Clearance 1.12 ftMinimum Tip Clearance 0.00 ft random parameter?

Cruise Efficiency 0.86 -- ~.85TO/Land Efficiency 0.70 -- ~.7 for fixed Forward Flight Thrust 630.67 lb-ft/s^2 Raymer 13.17

Static Thrust 987.38 lb-ft/s^2Shaft Ground Clearance 4.20 ft

Propeller lambda 0.80 -- Crossley says ~.8

root chord of prop. 0.50 ft guess


PropellerPropeller

Two and Three Blades

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

HP

Dia

met

er (

in)

Two Blades

R: Two Blade

Three Blades

R: Three Blades

Barn Owl

Two and Three Blades

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750

RPM

Dia

met

er (

in)

Two Blades

Three Blades

Barn Owl

Documents

Charlie Rush Zheng Wang Brandon Wedde Greg Wilson Stephen Beirne Miles Hatem Chris Kester Jim Radtke Preliminary Design Review AAE 451 Team V The Flying