Oculus Superne. 2 System Definition Review Mission Objectives Concept of Operations Aircraft Concept Selection Payload Constraint Analysis and Diagrams

Oculus Superne

Andy Cottle Sean DuncanLin Haack Afzaal Hassan Brian Roth Dave Stinson Jeff Studtman Justin Wheeler

2

System Definition Review• Mission Objectives

• Concept of Operations

• Aircraft Concept Selection

• Payload

• Constraint Analysis and Diagrams

• Sizing Studies to Date

• Aircraft Concept

3




• Payload




4

To provide a multi-service UAS which acts as the primary detection method and facilitates a rapid response in the event of a system failure or natural disaster.

Mission Statement

5

Target Market

Mission• Power Line• Pipeline• Forest Monitoring

• Business Plan• Target Customers

• DOT• NPS• Private Oil/Gas Companies

6

Customer Attributes

• Patrolling the Right-of-

Way

– Third Party Infringement

• Constant Coverage

• Cost Reduction

• Safety Factors

7

Engineering Requirements

8




• Payload




9

Operation Profile• Type of Equipment

– Ground Stations– Relay Stations– UAV

• Takeoff/Landing on Rough Airfield• Operate from 1000 ft (AGL)• Observe & Transmit to Local Relay Stations• Relay Stations Transmit Information Back to Operator• Number and Frequency of UAV Flight Completely

Customer Defined

10




• Payload




11

Pugh’s Method• Concepts generated by individual group

members

• Picked base line Aircraft

• Compared generated Aircraft to base line

• Narrowed Scope

• Performed method again, with new hybrid ideas

12

Boo

m T

ail

w/ H

igh

AR

Can

ard

s W

ing

lets

/Pus

her

Fly

ing

Win

g-M

any

En

gine

s (s

mal

l)

Ble

nded

Win

g/B

ody

w/

Hig

h A

R (

P o

r T

?)

C-W

ing

Ble

nded

Win

g/B

ody

Elli

ptic

al P

lan

form

(S

tand

ard

Lay

out

)

Sho

rt W

ing

s/L

ong

Fu

sela

ge (

Trac

tor)

Y-T

ail/P

ush

er (

No

Can

ard

)

Goo

se w

ith F

old

ed W

ings

Duc

k w

/ C

anar

d an

d b

oom

Box

Win

g D

esig

n

Qua

si-B

len

d-T

aper

w/ c

anar

ds

& P

ush

er

Tw

o P

rop

Trac

tor

Boo

m T

ail

Ble

nded

Win

g F

usel

age

(T o

r P

?)

Tw

in E

ngin

e/ C

ON

NE

CT

ED

Tail

(No

Sw

eep

Hig

h A

R)

V-T

ail F

lyin

g W

ing

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)weight (-) - - - - + - - - - + - -

complexity (-) - - - - + - - - - - - -L/D (+) + + + s - - - - + + + -

endurance (+) + + + s - - - - + + + -ceiling (+) s + + s - - - - + + + -

Sensor Location + s s - - + + s s - - sstall speed (C_l max) (-) - + + s - - - - + + + -

Induced Drag (-) s + + - - - - s + - - -development cost (-) - - - - + s - - - - - +power to weight (+) ? - - s + s - - - + - -

Stability - s s + + s - - - - + -AR (+) - s - - - s - - - - s s

+ 3 5 5 1 5 1 1 0 5 0 0 6 5 1- 6 4 5 6 7 7 11 10 6 0 0 6 6 9s 2 3 2 5 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2

Pugh's Method

13

Concept Generation SelectionC

an

ard

s W

ing

lets

/Pu

sh

er

Ble

nd

ed

Win

g/B

od

y w

/ H

igh

AR

(P

ush

)

Bo

om

Tail

w/

Hig

h A

R (

no

sw

eep

)

Tw

in E

ng

ine T

racto

r w

/ B

oo

m T

ail

(2) (4) (17) (Hybrid)weight (-) - + -

complexity (-) - s -L/D (+) + + +

endurance (+) s + sceiling (+) + + +

Sensor Location s - +stall speed (C_l max) (-) + s +

Induced Drag (-) s - -development cost (-) - s -power to weight (+) - + s

Stability s - +AR (+) s s s

+ 3 5 5- 3 3 3s 5 3 3

Comments: Cost

Pugh's Review # 2

14

Models from Pugh’s

15




• Payload




16

Sensors• LIDAR (Laser Imaging

Detection and Ranging)– Corridor Mapping– Land Surveying– Vegetation Growth / Density

LiteMapper 5600 components

Airborne Lidar Terrain Mapping System

• IR/Visual Camera

- Thermal Imaging

- Video Tracking

- Detailed Pictures

17

Payload Requirements

Camera Resolutions

• At 1000 ft AGL– 466 ft x 582 ft

• At 12x Zoom– 34 ft x 43 ft

Weight (lbs) Dimensions (ft) Power Consumption (W)LIDAR 13 1.8 x .66 x .71 30CCNS 9 .82 x .69 x .43 25

IR / Visual Camera 20 .66(d) x 1.1(h) 100

TOTAL 42 1.5 ft3 155

18




• Payload




19

Performance Constraints• Maneuvering

– 2g max

• Climb rates– Terrain adjustment: 0.9ft/s– Minimum Climb Rate at

Service Ceiling : 1.67ft/s

• Altitude– Ceiling: 20,000ft MSL

• Velocity– Loiter: 100kts– 2g Turn: 87kts

20

Constraint Diagram Constants

Cl_max 1.5

C_Do 0.025

Oswald Efficiency Factor 0.8

Lift to Drag Ratio 16

Propeller Efficency 0.7

21

Constraints

• Wing Loading = 16 lb/ft2

• Power to Weight = .08 hp/lb

22




• Payload




23

Aircraft Design Mission• Low Cost Solution for Frequent Area

Coverage

• Long Endurance Time

• Stable Observation Platform

• Designed to Pipeline Constraints

24

Sizing Approach• MATLAB

– From Constraint Diagram• Power to Weight• Wing Loading

• ACS– Results Were Passed Into ACS– Currently Refining Inputs

• Engine Data• Prop Data

25

Current Estimates

Current Target TresholdGross Weight (lbs) 290 300 500Fuel Capacity (hrs) 15 24 12

T/O Length (ft) 900 500 2000Payload Capacity (lbs) 42 30 50

Operational Speed (kts) 100 150 100

Wing Loading (lbs/ft2) 14.5 15 5Power to Weight (hp/lbs) 0.09 0.07 0.11

AR 12 16 10L/D 16 16 12

26

Current Engine Estimate

• UAV Engines ltd– Model AR801-50

Displacement [in3]

Propeller

Efficiency (ηp)

Total Weight [lbs]

0.5

50

8000

18

0.824

57.7

Cruise SFC

[lb/bhp/hr]

Max [hp]

Max [RPM]

27




• Payload




28

Aircraft Configuration• Pusher

– Decreased Vibration (payload)– Clean Air Over Fuselage – Visibility

• High AR– Increased L/D

• Boom Mounted Inverted ‘V’ Tail– Prop Position– Weight Savings– Lower Drag

• Pod Fuselage– Weight Savings

29

Internal Layout• Aircraft Dimensions

– Fuselage Length = 6ft– Width = 1.8 ft– Height = .85 ft– Wingspan = 14 ft

• Payload Volume– 1.5 ft3

• Engine Volume– .86 ft3

• Avionics– .24 ft3

• Wing Box / Extra Fuel– 1.4 ft3

30

3 View Layout

31

Stability AnalysisXcg 3.649

CLα .14

Xac,wing 3.288

Xac,ht 8.313

Cmα -.029

Static Margin .205

•Some basic stability analysis has been done for this aircraft.

•Current estimates of the static margin for a fully loaded aircraft are 20%.

•Current estimates of the static margin with no fuel are 18%.

32

Next Steps• Find more accurate aircraft weights.

• Create a more accurate CATIA model of the aircraft.

• Possible testing of the aircraft shape in FLUENT.

• Final airfoil selection.

• Structural analysis.

33

Summary• Mission Objectives



• Payload




Questions?

Documents

Oculus Superne. 2 System Definition Review Mission Objectives Concept of Operations Aircraft Concept Selection Payload Constraint Analysis and Diagrams