1 / 43

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Progress Presentation

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Progress Presentation. Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood. November 4 th , 2004 Group #1 – Project #3. Presentation Outline. Review of Project Objectives & Deliverables Early Design Concepts Computer Software Implementation Data Digitalization

coralie
Download Presentation

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Progress Presentation

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. Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Progress Presentation Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood November 4th, 2004 Group #1 – Project #3

  2. Presentation Outline • Review of Project Objectives & Deliverables • Early Design Concepts • Computer Software Implementation • Data Digitalization • WINFOIL Evaluations • Engineering Equation Solver Calculations • Design Concepts • Wing • Landing Gear • Tail • Prop • Schedule Update

  3. Project Objectives • Compete in SAE Aero East Competition • Apply areas of Mechanical Engineering education to a real life problem: • Dynamics • Fluid Mechanics • Modeling & Simulation • Analysis of Stresses

  4. Project Objectives • Dynamics/Analysis of stresses Force of drag, weight, and gravity on the wing/fuselage • Fluid Mechanics Used in analysis of airfoil • Modeling & Simulation For CAD models of wing, fuselage, landing gear

  5. Anticipated Deliverables • Finished calculations • Final wing selection • Sketches of the final design • CAD drawings - wing, fuselage, landing gear • Projected construction budget • Parts order

  6. Problems To Watch Out For • Ideal design needs to be able to be actually constructed • Stability of construction so that the plane does not fall apart on landing • Time management for construction • Previous team only used one design did not iterate • More practice on shrink wrap coating procedure for wing

  7. Early Design Concepts • Biplanes originally popular for increased lifting capacity • At this scale the effect of the additional wing is not worth the additional weight and construction cost

  8. Early Design Concepts • Dual wing plane also considered • Initially thought to be able to produce significantly more lift than standard monoplane • Alignment of wings can produce major parasitic losses if done improperly

  9. Early Design Concepts • Flying wing early popular concept • One large wing has significantly larger area than standard monoplane • Possibly difficult to build and transport • Still under consideration

  10. Early Design Concepts

  11. Data Digitalization • SAE Documentation Provides Data for LMN-1 Airfoil (similar to Selig 1223, Liebeck LD-X17A and other RC aircraft) • Data includes: • The dependence of CL on Aspect Ratio and Angle of Attack • Viscous drag due to lift • Ratio of Thrust to Static Thrust vs. Speed

  12. Data Digitalization • The following graphs are provided in the aforementioned white paper

  13. Data Digitalization manually • Large samples of data points were recorded and entered into MATLAB In the event you missed it, they’re computerized now!

  14. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL • Monoplane first examined • First sought to examine the effects of different designs on L/D Ratio: • Constant Chord • Tapered • Swept Back Tapered • For each design L/D ratio is the same • Can be easily seen from CL αCD • CL=L/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ) • CD=D/(0.5*AP*V2*ρ)

  15. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL • Selected Eppler 193 Mod Wing • Previous designs • Suggestion of Senior Design Coordinator • Higher CL than other airfoils such as NACA 6409 • Relatively easy to build • No fine trailing edge • Reasonable Thickness • Decided against use of Swept Back Tapered • Too many variables • Requires too much precision • Tapered Wing is still under consideration

  16. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL

  17. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL

  18. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL • Effect of wing taper ratio on various performance characteristics examined • Assumptions: • Wing holds entire plane weight assumed to be 7lbs • Max 2hp • No fuselage accounted for

  19. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL • Flying Wing Analysis • Like the Monoplane L/D ratio is independent of wing design for wings of same area

  20. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL

  21. Wing AnalysisWith WINFOIL • WINFOIL 3D Rendering • Still experiencing problems exporting from WINFOIL to CAD programs for tapered wings

  22. Wing Features Being Considered • Hoerner Plates – reduce tip losses • Dihedral Angle – reduces chance of stall under banked conditions May not be necessary for a 60” wingspan

  23. Add’l Computer Analysis • Previously generated MATLAB curve fits utilized in EES for calculations • Entire current EES model included in presentation handouts

  24. Add’l Computer Analysis • Based upon white paper and aerodynamic principles • Input Design Parameters • Takeoff distance (e.g., <190ft) 28 ft • Landing Distance (e.g., <380ft) 46 ft • FuselageLength 10 in • FuselageWidth 5 in • FuselageBoomLength 40 in • WingSpan 60 in • WingAR 1.62 • WingTaper 1.0 • S_Ref 1800 in2

  25. Add’l Computer Analysis • Output Values • Takeoff velocity 48 ft/s = 33 mph • Stall velocity 49 ft/s = 34 mph • Maximum weight (plane + payload) • Next generation of EES development • Currently Weight is an input • Benefits • Rapid design • Reduced chance for calculation errors • Continuous refinement - design called for and time permitted • Reusable in future years

  26. Add’l Computer Analysis • Mathematical analysis entered into to EES

  27. Add’l Computer Analysis • Mathematical analysis entered into to EES

  28. Landing Gear • Tricycle • Conventional Tail Dragger • Tandem

  29. Landing Gear • Tail dragger • Only uses two forward main wheels • Reduces weight • Reduces drag • May be unstable when aircraft turns • Tricycle • Three wheel configuration • Increases control on ground if equipped with steerable front wheel • Tandem usually used on large aircraft

  30. Landing Gear • Landing gear week point in past designs • CAD Model for Conventional Landing Gear Primary Assembly • Aluminum support • Nylon wheels

  31. Landing Gear • Simulate impact of a 30lbs plane dropping from a stall • Applied 80lbs to the surface simulating attachment to the plane

  32. Other Plane Features • Boom length – too long can create increased drag and instability • Vertical stabilizer height – if too large, the control surface induces a large moment leading to instability Led to a crash in 2002

  33. Tail Design • Vertical Stabilizer • Single • Dual Configuration

  34. Tail Design • Stabilizer/Elevator • Fixed Stabilizer Portion • Moveable Elevator • Requires complex mechanism to move elevator • Increases drag if not trimmed for the specific cruising speed of the aircraft • Stabilator • Serves double duty as a stabilizer and elevator • Rotates on aerodynamic center • Mechanism to rotate stabilator will be less complex than required for stabilizer/elevator • Theoretically reduces drag • Generally used in very fast aircraft

  35. Prop Selection • Propeller selection depends upon the size of the engine • Propeller will be purchased from outside source • Precise dimensions difficult to manufacture by hand • Higher grade materials with higher strength to weight ratio available commercially

  36. Prop Selection • Competition rules mandate use of a O.S. .61 FX engine • 0.607 cu in displacement • Manufacturer recommends the following props: • 11x8-10 • 12x7-11 • 12.5x6-7

  37. Prop Selection • Dynathrust Props (www.dynathrustprops.com) sells injection molded fiberglass and nylon propellers • Higher strength to weight ratio than wood props • Prop manufacturer reccomends the following props: • 11x7-8 • 12x6 • A 12x8 prop costs only $3.00 • Manufacturing labor time cost will also be saved

  38. Materials • Balsa wood • Injection molded fiberglass and nylon • Light metal, such as aluminum • Heat shrink monocoat for wing • Rip-stop Nylon • Carbon fiber tubing

  39. Schedule Update

  40. Conclusions • Digitalized data enables swift calculations in EES • Design team has evaluated past difficulties • Wing design is on schedule • Select final wing profile • Select monoplane or flying wing • Landing gear will be selected when plane design is finalized • Monoplane = Conventional Tail Dragger • Flying Wing = Tricycle • Tail will consist of a single vertical stabilizer, exact shape to be determined when wing design is complete • Prop will be outsourced to save time and money

  41. We Welcome Your Questions and Feedback Thank You

  42. References • http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/east • http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/performance/landing.html • http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/wingdesign/wingparams.html • http://www.profili2.com/eng/default.htm • http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/websites/air.htm • http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/planes2/links.html • http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2716/index.html • http://www.winfoil.com/

More Related