1 / 52

Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane. Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi Yan Project Advisor: Siva Thangam. Overview. Objectives Schedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis Airfoil Fuselage Tail Landing Gear End of Semester Deliverables

katy
Download Presentation

Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Stephen McNulty Richard-Marc Hernandez Jessica Pisano Yoosuk Kee Chi Yan Project Advisor: Siva Thangam

  2. Overview • Objectives • Schedule/Progress • Design Concepts and Analysis • Airfoil • Fuselage • Tail • Landing Gear • End of Semester Deliverables • Next Semester Goals

  3. Objectives • Competition Specs are not posted for 2004 competition • The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero Design East/West competition • To finish the design of the plane by December and begin construction and testing in January • To compete well at competition and improve Stevens reputation • For the team to improve and expand their knowledge of the design and construction of airplanes

  4. Schedule

  5. Journal/Progress • Researched airfoil computer analysis software • Calculations for Airfoil • Competition rules keep changing and are no longer posted on website • Stereo-lithography Lab • Landing Gear models and analysis • Fuselage Design and Calculations • Tail Design

  6. Airfoil • Low camber, low drag, high speed, thin wing • Deep camber, high lift, low peed, thick wing • Deep camber, high lift, low speed, thin wing • Low lift, high drag, reflex trailing edge • Symmetrical (cambered top and bottom)

  7. Airfoil • Airfoils used from previous years: • Year 2000: E 211 • Year 2001: E 423 • Year 2002: OAF 102 • From research: • E 214 • S 1223

  8. CL vs. AoA

  9. Airfoil Matrix

  10. Airfoil Design and Calculations

  11. Wing Shape • Rectangular • Tapered • Rounded (or Elliptical) • Swept Wing • Delta Wing

  12. Wing Shape Comparison Rectangular Wing • Advantages: • Greater aileron control • East to construct • Disadvantages: • Not efficient in terms of stall and drag Tapered Wing • Advantages: • Decrease drag / Increase lift • Harder to construct • Disadvantages: • Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag

  13. Wing Shape Comparison Elliptical Wing • Advantages: • Minimum drag • Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered • Disadvantages: • Hardest to construct Swept and Delta Wings • Advantages: • Minimum drag in high speed • Very stable and flexible • Disadvantages: • Suitable only for high speed aircrafts

  14. Wing Shape Matrix

  15. Dihedral angle • Dihedral Wing • Flat Wing • Cathedral Wing • Gull Wing

  16. Wing Angle Comparison Dihedral Wing • Advantages: • Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side • Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning • Disadvantages: • Stress concentration at wing roots • Harder to construct Flat Wing • Advantages: • Easy to construct • Load distribution is equally spread out the wing • Disadvantages: • Not as stable as dihedral wings

  17. Wing Angle Comparison Cathedral Wing • Advantages: • Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side • Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning • Disadvantages: • Stress concentration at wing roots • Harder to construct • Suitable for high speed cargo planes Gull Wing • Advantages: • Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side • Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning • Disadvantages: • Stress concentration at the Gull point • Hardest to construct • Suitable for high speed aircrafts

  18. Wing Angle Matrix

  19. Number of Wings • Monoplane • Biplane • Triplane

  20. Number of Wings Comparison Monoplane • Advantages • Easiest to construct • Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planes • Disadvantages • Produces less lift for the aircraft • Less stable when turning Biplane • Advantages • Adds more lift to the aircraft • More stable when turning • Disadvantages • Harder to construct and repair • Adds more weight to the aircraft Triplane • Advantages • Produces highest lift for aircraft • Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planes • Disadvantages • Hardest to construct and repair • Adds more weight to the aircraft

  21. Number of Wings Matrix • Currently do not have one yet • 2004 Aero East Design rules are not up • Decision is made based upon on the rules and regulations of the competition

  22. Selection • Selig 1223 • Rectangular • Dihedral

  23. Fuselage Design and Calculations

  24. Fuselage • Panels • Wireframe • Cast Mold • Injection Mold

  25. Fuselage Comparison Cons: • Not very strong Panels Pros: • Lightweight • Easy to construct • Easy to assemble • Affordable

  26. Fuselage Comparison Cons: • Heavy • Difficult to construct Wire frame Pros: • Very Strong and sturdy • Affordable

  27. Fuselage Comparison Cons: • unaffordable • Difficult to design a mold • No spare parts Cast Molding Pros: • Very accurate shape • Aerodynamic advantages • Strong frame • No assembly required

  28. Fuselage Comparison Cons: • Unaffordable • Heavy • Difficult to design a mold • No spare parts Injection Molding Pros: • Very accurate shape • Aerodynamic advantages • Strong frame • No assembly required

  29. Fuselage Matrix

  30. Selection Panel Fuselage

  31. Boom Design and Calculations

  32. Tail Boom • 1 spar • 2 spars • 3 spars • 3 or more panels

  33. Tail Boom Matrix

  34. Selection Three Spar

  35. Landing Gear

  36. Landing Gear Analysis • SolidWorks models • Deflection Analysis • Stress Analysis • Deformation Analysis • Top fixed • Force applied to bottom of legs • Force applied = 45lbs • Force = Weight of plane

  37. Landing Gear Design 1 Analysis • Standard Main Landing Gear • Aluminum • Max Deflection .2238 in • Design Rejected • Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi

  38. Landing Gear Design 2 Analysis • Max Deflection .0196 in • Stress Max 1.651 Psi • Main Landing Gear with Rod • Aluminum • Last years final design

  39. Landing Gear Design 3Analysis • Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in • Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi • Main Landing Gear • Truss Design • Aluminum • Design Being Strongly Considered

  40. Landing Gear Design 4Analysis • Max Deflection 1.342e-3 in • Stress Max 5.332e+2 Psi • Main Landing Gear • Modified Truss Design • Aluminum • Design Being Strongly Considered

  41. Landing Gear Design 5Analysis • Max Deflection 1.890e-4 in • Stress Max 2.651e+2 Psi • Main Landing Gear • Modified Truss Design • Modified for Lighter Weight • Aluminum • Selected

  42. Tail Design and Calculations • Tail stabilizer does not provide lift to plane. • Symmetrical airfoil is needed for vertical tail.

  43. Tail

  44. Tail Matrix

  45. Tail • Vertical Tail Stabilizer • 2ft • controls the horizontal movement of plane • keeps the nose of the plane from swinging from side to side • Horizontal Tail Stabilizer • 3.33ft • controls vertical movement of plane • prevents an up-and-down motion of the nose

  46. Construction • Wing/Tail Construction • Foam Core • Risers (Balsa Wood) • Fuselage Construction • Plywood • Aluminum Plate • Boom Construction • Wooden Dowels • Carbon Fiber Tubes • Plywood • Landing Gear • Aluminum • Steel • Tire • Rubber Core • Air Filled Rubber • Sponge

  47. Construction Matrix

  48. ME 423 Senior Design, Fall 2003. Project Number 13Team members: R. Hernandez, Y. Kee, S. McNulty, J. Pisano, C. Yan Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam Title:Creation of a Heavy Lift Radio-Controlled Cargo Plane • Design a high performance heavy lift R/C cargo plane whose purpose is to carry the most weight possible • Enter manufactured design into 2004 SAE Aero Design East Competition in Orlando, FL • Carbon Fiber Spars connecting fuselage and tail • S1223 airfoil • balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings • Rectangular wing planform • Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics • Tail dragger landing gear configuration • Unitized body fuselage • Dihedral Wing • Technology • Utilization of the latest airfoil simulations, composite materials, to obtain the lightest design that creates the most lift • Maximum lift • Selection of airfoil and wing shape • Light materials • Drag reduction • Wingspan: 10ft • Engine: FX OS 2 stroke motor • 0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp • Minimum Cargo Area: 120 in3 • Cargo Weight: 35 pounds • Empty Plane Weight: 10 pounds • Plane Length: 7.5ft • Plane Height: 1 ft

  49. Final Design

  50. End of Semester Deliverables • Completed Airplane design • Calculations • CAD models and analyses • Completed parts list for plane construction • Gantt Chart for spring semester • Budget

More Related