Upload
tulia
View
42
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Team Stinger-409 presents Aereon Corps.’:. WASP UAV. John Meissner Leo Nakanishi Ryan McDonell Patty Martinez. Project Sponsor: Bill Putman Project Advisor: Dr. Jim Lang, Ph.D. WASP UAV. Mission Profile. Internal Components. Internal Components. AE 3007 Thrust vs Mach. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
John Meissner Leo Nakanishi
Ryan McDonell Patty Martinez
Team Stinger-Team Stinger-409409
presents Aereon Corps.’:
Project Sponsor: Bill Putman Project Advisor: Dr. Jim Lang, Ph.D.
WASP UAV
Mission Profile
Internal Components
Internal Components
AE 3007 Thrust vs Mach
AE 3007 SFC vs Mach
Aerodynamics
• Introduction– Prediction is based on
WASP configuration A with AR=2.9
– Sref=836ft2
– b=49.22ft
Aerodynamics
• Key Features– The increase of CLmax
with flap deflection
– CLmax of approximately 1.8
– Various optimal AoA’s • Takeoff/Landing• Cruise
Flaps
20 deg
Flaps
40 deg
Flaps
60 deg
Δαstall(deg) -2 -3 -4
ΔCLmax .456 .647 .715
CL Vs Alpha
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Alpha (deg)
CL
CL(base)
CL(20)
CL(40)
CL(60)
Aerodynamics cont’d
• Aircraft at sea level• Key Features
– Approximate Mach Critical Number of .8 according to Nicolai
– Aircraft stays subsonic– Cdo approximately
constant at this region– Drag polar of
CD=.009+.016CL2 at
M=.2
Cdo Vs Mach
Critical Mach Number
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mach
Cdo
Aerodynamics cont’d
• Key Features– Approximate Critical
Mach Number of .8– K (drag due to lift) is
also constant in this region
– K=K’ + K’’ according to Nicolai, but for our aircraft K=K’
K Vs. Mach
Critical Mach Number
0.05
0.15
0.25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mach
K
Aerodynamics cont’d
• Key Features– Significant increase in
drag with flap deflections
– Optimal AoA at:• Takeoff/Landing• Cruise
Cd vs alpha
00.05
0.10.15
0.20.25
0.3
-20 0 20 40
alpha (deg)
Cd
baseline config
Cd (20)
Cd(40)
Cd(60)
Stability and Control
• Outline– Aerodynamic Center and neutral point located 19.01ft.
from aft– Cg. at 18.92 ft. from aft– Static Margin = -.004– Cg travel diagram– Aerodynamic Force diagram– Pitching Moment Curve with Flap Deflections– Trade Studies of control with different wing tips
Stability and Control
Stability and Control
Stability and Control cont’d
• Key Features– SM≈0– Nose down pitching
moment as the flap gets deflected
– Need for control surfaces to stabilize the aircraft
– What can we do?
Cm Vs. Alpha
-0.35
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Alpha (deg)
Cm
Baseline
Flaps 20 deg
Flaps 40 deg
Flaps 60 deg
Stability and Control Cont’d
• The Range of Control from the wing tip 1– Extreme points occur when the flaps get deflected 60 deg’s– The wing tips help to stabilize the aircraft– The vortex fences creates a nose up pitching moment to
stabilize the aircraft
Cm Vs. Alpha
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Alpha (deg)
Cm
Baseline
Flaps 20 deg
Flaps 40 deg
Flaps 60 deg
Moment Characteristic Wing Tip 1
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Wing tip deflection (deg)
Cm
Stability and Control – Trade Studies with Various Wing Tips
Per 1 wing tip
Wing Tip 1 Wing Tip 2 Wing Tip 3
Cdo .0083 .0083 .0083
K .251 .251 .168
CLδe .034 .030 .038
Clδa (per rad) -.0206 -.0221 -.0196
Cnδa(per rad) .0055 .0047 .0053
Cmδe (per
rad)
-.0258 -.0177 -.0245
Error
• Error Analysis is Broken into 3 Main Categories– 5%– 5-10%– 10-15%
5% Error
Thrust Data Provided By Aereon
5-10% Error
• Aerodynamics– (Agrees with Aereon calculations and Dr.
Lang estimations)• Ps calculations
– (dependent somewhat upon Thrust data, which is from a reliable source)
• Endurance – (also directly dependent on assumed correct
data provided to us, as well as reasonably accurate aerodynamic data)
• Shear
10-15% Error
• Dynamic Lift Calculations – (Difficult to estimate due to unsteady flow
conditions and somewhat unknown performance characteristics)
• cg characteristics – (due to uncertainties in true, final and required
placement of components)• Cost analysis• Inlet and Nozzle effects
– (addressed very little due to an assumed 5% installed thrust loss)
Specific Excess Power (n=1)
*NOTE: q limit is NOT a factor until after M=0.9
*Altitude in ten thousands
Specific Excess Power(n=2.5)
*NOTE: q limit is NOT a factor until after M=0.9
*Altitude in ten thousands
Turn Rate Performance
Turn Rate Performance
Turn Rate Performance
Maximum Sustained Turn RatesSea Level
M = 0.2 TR = 31.78 Deg/secM = 0.6 TR = 10.60 Deg/secM = 0.18 TR = 35.33 Deg/sec[MAX]
22K ft.M = 0.2 TR = 24.2 Deg/secM = 0.6 TR = 11.4 Deg/secM = 0.31 TR = 21.95 Deg/sec[MAX]
Turn Rate Performance
Maximum Instantaneous Turn Rates
Sea LevelM = 0.18 TR = 35.33 Deg/sec
(same as for sustained)
22K ft.M = .23 TR = 29.7 deg/sec
Dynamic Lift
• Addition of Vorticity and Circulation at a Rate such that Inviscid Effects dominate Viscous Diffusion and Dissipation
• Effectively Increases the Stall Angle of Attack, thereby Increasing CLmax and Maximizing Lift.
WASP Analytical CL Charts
CL Vs Alpha
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Alpha (deg)
CL
CL(base)
CL(20)
CL(40)
CL(60)
Dynamic Lift
Dynamic Lift
Dynamic Lift
TAKE-OFF IMPLEMENTATION
• A/C Accelerates Down the Runway with a Clean Configuration
• Quickly reaches Take-Off Velocity Due to Lowered Drag
• Just Before Take-Off Velocity is Reached, Flaps are lowered to Max Setting, Vortex Fences are Deployed, and AofA is Quickly Increased
Dynamic Lift
Dynamic Lift
LANDING IMPLEMENTATION
• Bird-Like Manuever• A/C Approaches Runway/Deck at High
Thrust and Negative AofA• One Second Before Ground Contact,
Flaps Down, Vortex Fences Up, and AofA Increased to Large Positive Setting
• A/C ‘Flares’, Thereby Increasing Drag to Reduce Velocity, and Increasing Lift to Avoid Ground Collision
WASP Analytical Model Settings
• Flaps– Max Setting = 20 Degrees– Deployment Rate = 20 Deg/Sec
• Vortex Fences– Max Setting = 85 Degrees– Deployment Rate = 85 Deg/Sec
• Angle of Attack– Max Setting = 35 Degrees– Deployement Rate = 35 Deg/Sec
• Head Wind– 0 ft/sec and 10ft/sec
WASP Analytical Model Results
• Head Wind = 0 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 3.5 Secs– Distance to L>W: 170 feet
• Head Wind = 10 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 2.9 Secs– Distance to L>W: 140 feet
• Head Wind = 0 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 5.5 Secs– Distance to L>W: 250 feet
• Head Wind = 10 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 5.9 Secs– Distance to L>W: 280 feet
Take-Off w/Dynamic Lift
Take-Off w/out Dynamic Lift
WASP Analytical Model Results
Head Wind = 0 ft/sec
TA
KE
-OF
F
WASP Analytical Model Results
Landing
• Head Wind = 0 ft/sec– Velocity at Touch-Down: 40 ft/sec– Distance to Stop: 135 feet
Endurance Mission
• Loiter Phase Requires High Endurance at Best Endurance Mach
• This occurs at L/D)max
• L/D)max = 13.1 Occurs at M = 0.27
• Endurance = 10.0 Hrs.
Wing Tip Shear and Moments
• Cantilever Beam Approximation Used For Order of Magnitude Calculation– Low g-Limit Craft, Not Much Stress
• Resultant Shear at Wing Tip Root• Results in Stress = O(10-100)
• Carbon Composite Yield Strength• Stress = O(10000-100000)
• Order of Loads/Stresses << Yield Limits
Weights Summary (pounds)
• Carbon Composite Construction, some Al• Weights Summary (pounds)
– Main Gear 579– NoseGear 158– Engine 1580– Payload 3000– Electrical 449– Avionics 1082– Fuel Tank 2000– Fuel Tank 2000– Fuel Tank 963
– Total Weight 11811– Empty Weight 6848
C.G. Travel
x-Axis Moments
Moment Summary about X axis
Moment (pounds) Distance from C.G Moments about X
Main Gear 13322.79 5 ft 66613.95
Nose Gear 989.08 2 ft 1978.16
Engine 16590 2.5 ft 41475
Payload 67650 7.5 ft 507375
Electrical 9878 1.5 ft 14817
Avionics 21640 1 ft 21640
Fuel Tank 1 35000 6 ft 210000
Fuel Tank 2 35000 6 ft 210000
Fuel Tank 3 25519.5 10 ft 255195
Ixx 41308.28625 slug-ft2
y-axis Moments
Moment Summary about Y axis
Moment (pounds) Distance from C.G Moments about Y
Main Gear 13322.79 3.91006181 52092.93238
Nose Gear 989.08 12.83993819 12699.72606
Engine 16590 8.59993819 142672.9746
Payload 67650 3.45006181 233396.6814
Electrical 9878 2.90006181 28646.81056
Avionics 21640 0.90006181 19477.33757
Fuel Tank 1 35000 1.59993819 55997.83665
Fuel Tank 2 35000 1.59993819 55997.83665
Fuel Tank 3 25519.5 7.40006181 188845.8774
Iyy 24,538 slug-ft2
Cost Analysis
We 2318 lbs
V 487.54 knots
Q 100
FTA 2
Neng 100
Tmax 14000 lbs
Tturb inlet
2355 Rankine
Cavionics $100,000
Mmax 0.8
Rates ($/hr)
1989Values
Re 59.1
Rt 60.7
Rm 50.1
Rq 55.4
Cost Analysis
Raymers Cost Estimation
Method
Eng hours 1,072,533
Tooling hours 4,818,711
Mfg hours 1,621,278
Qc 0.133
Devel support cost
$18,693,125.46
Flt test cost $5,780,084.64
Mfg materials$25,580,941.4
0
Eng prod cost $1,316.72
RDT&E $437,108,450.0
3
Flyaway $50,285,823.60
RDT&E+Fly away
$487,394,273.64
1989 Dollars
Model Construction
Contents•Goals for Model Construction•Solid Works Modeling•Material Selection•Mastercamm and CNC Machining•Main Body Construction•Sleeve Mounting•Winglet Construction•Flap Construction•Other Construction Details•Summary
Goals for Model Construction
• Accurate Shape– CNC machining used to achieve this
• Sturdy Construction– Strong material needed
• Force Transfer– Completely fix sting within body to ensure
complete aero load transfer to sensors
SolidWorks Modeling
• Goal - use a simple program to design fuselage and winglets
• Use Mastercamm (NC Program) to translate SolidWorks design to our material
SolidWorks Model
Material Selection
• Initial Decision
– Wire-cut foam
– NC high-density foam
– Wood
– Other Materials
• Wood was chosen
– Ease of manufacturing
– Low cost
– Availability
– Ability to anchor sleeve easily; Ability to join pieces easily
NC Machining
• Use Mastercamm to cut model
• Ensures high accuracy in our model shape
• Ensure tight piece-joining
MasterCamm Model
Main Body Construction
• SolidWorks– Several scaled 23-024 airfoils in the middle
area to achieve rounded nose
– Lofted out to 633-018 airfoil at the connection point of the winglets
• Layup of Wood plys • Squaring of material• NC machining• Joining of pieces
Main Body Construction – Cutting to Size
Main Body Construction – CNC Machining
Sleeve Mounting
• One of the main reasons wood was chosen as a construction material was because it could be machined easily and attached firmly to the sleeve
• The sleeve will be fitted into a machined hole in the center section, mounted to an aluminum plate on the top of the sleeve, which can then be securely fastened to the rest of the model
Winglet Construction
• Same procedure as main body – SolidWorks to NC
• 633-018 Symmetric Airfoil• 3 different designs
– At 15 and 30 degree anhedral-1) chord length=span, taper ratio = .5-2) chord length=span, taper ratio = .5, reverse airfoil-3) 1.5xchord length=span, taper ratio = .5
• 30 degree options will be static; 15 degree will be capable of varied incidence angles
Flap Construction
• Construction Issues– Non-flat mounting Surface
• Definitely an issue; trying to get a fit with no gap between flap and fuselage
– Material• Most likely going to be constructed of 1/8” or ¼”
aluminum
– Mounting• Several peg holes in the bottom for easy
application and removal
– Configuration• 20, 40, 60 degree deflection – angled holes for
each setup for plug-and-fly capability
Other Construction Details
• Varnish coating to ensure smoothness after sanding to fit and smooth
• Canard – possible future option forward of the nose
• Vortex Fences – Also a future option (with possible construction in the coming week)– Holes for plug-and-fly capabilities at
several angles of attack– Similar to the flaps, the biggest problem is
the lack of a flat surface to mount to; contours increase the difficulty
Summary
• Wood chosen for ease of construction and sturdiness
• Ability to transfer loads directly from the model to the sting is a primary concern
• With the use of NCM, we can ensure highly accurate shape and a smooth surface
Wind Tunnel Testing
• Wind Tunnel Testing Plans• Possible Site: Allied Aerospace Industries• Wind Tunnel Testing to last approximately 8.25
hours• Approximate constant velocity of 100 ft/s• Input: reference C.G., reference balance, and
reference area• Output: CL, CD, CY, Cl ,Cm, Cn• Data to be measured for an angle of attack sweep
of -5 deg to 40 degrees• Basic Configurations• Basic + Wingtip Extension #1• Basic + Wingtip Extension #2• Basic + Wingtip Extension #3
Variables
• Side Slip – -15 deg to 15 deg
• Split Flaps – 20 deg, 40 deg, and 60 deg
• Tip Deflections– -20 deg, 0 deg, 20 deg
• Anhedral – 15 deg & 30 deg
• Vortex Fences – 30 deg, 60 deg, and 90 deg
A Look at Testing Plans….
Wing Tip #1, for Example:
Data Summary
TOGW 11682 lbs
T/W (takeoff) 0.676
Span b 49.22 ft
Sweep 60 degrees
Taper Ratio Main Body: .2
Winglet 1: .5
Winglet 2: .5
Winglet 3: .5
Take Off D (with Dynamic Lift) 150-175 ft
Landing D (with Dynamic Lift) 135 ft
Take Off D (withOUT Dynamic Lift) 300-325 ft
Landing D (withOUT Dynamic Lift) ~300 ft
Cl max (with Flap Deflection = 60 degrees) 1.82
Cl max (no Flap Deflection-baseline configuration) 1.29
Inst. Load Factor 4
Sust. Load Factor 2
Future Work
• A look into other conceptual designs such as a canard design and very high aspect ratio wing tips
• More in depth look into dynamic lift
• Wind tunnel test and data analysis
• Detail iterations of design analysis to reduce uncertainty
Acknowledgements
• Dr. Jim Lang – for all your guidance and knowledge
• Tom Chalfant – for your HUGE help with all aspects of the model-building
• Bill Putman – for all of your perspective on the project and for helping us in whatever way we asked
References
• Fundamentals of Aircraft DesignNicolai, M. Leland/1975
• Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Daniel P. Raymer / AIAA Education Series / Third Edition, 1999
• Theory of Wing Sections Ira H. Abbott, Albert E. Von Doenhoff
• Airplane Design, Part 6:Preliminary Calculations of Aerodynamics, Thrust & Power/J. Roskam Staff / Hardcover / Published 1987-1997
• Fundamentals of Gas TurbinesWilliam W. Bathie