P16121: SAE Aero Aircraft Design & Build

1. P16121: SAE Aero Aircraft Design & Build System Level Design Review

2. Agenda • Project Review • Needs and Requirements Review • Functional Decomposition • Concept Development • Concept Selection • Initial Risk Identification • Feasibility Analysis • Engineering Analysis • Risk Review • Further Work Done • Questions

3. Current State • RIT Aero Design Club has been absent from the SAE Aero competition (Regular Class) since 2008 • Prior to 2008, RIT had been inconsistent in participating in the competition annually • Lacking… • Experienced veterans to lead/guide the club • Aeronautical engineering experience/knowledge • Full commitment as students are on co-op for parts of the year • Funding

4. Desired State/Deliverables • Deliverables • A functional finished aircraft designed and built to SAE Aero standards • Comprehensive documentation of design, build, and testing methods and processes • Jumpstart the Aero Club • Build competence through sharing experience from the present Senior Design project • Desired State: Aero Design club is able to compete in the SAE Aero Competition annually and be competitive

5. Stakeholders • SAE Aero Organization – Primary Customer • RIT Aero Design Club • MSD I Team Members • Dr. Kolodziej– Faculty Guide • RIT Aerospace Engineering Faculty • Potential Sponsors • Rochester Institute of Technology

6. Needs and Requirements Review

7. The Customer • The competition rules are fulfilling the role of our customer. • The 2015 rules were used for determining the customer requirements. • The 2016 competition rules were published recently. The differences are of minimal consequence for this class of competition. Revision of customer requirements, engineering requirements and the house of quality is a work in progress.

8. Customer Requirements Importance Key: 3=must have, 2=nice to have, 1=preference only

9. Engineering Requirements Importance Key: 9 = Critical 3 = Moderate 1 = Insignificant *Note: All engineering requirements derived from SAE Aero rules are deemed critical as failing to meet the target values will result in penalization or disqualification.

10. House of Quality

11. Constraints

12. Functional Decomposition

13. Functional Decomposition: Part 1 The Aircraft: Fly a required flight path while carrying a payload. Land within required distance Take-off within required distance Obtain required lift Trim aircraft (longitudinal, directional, lateral) Obtain required lift Decrease Velocity Obtain required initial velocity Utilize control surfaces Utilize control surfaces Utilize control surfaces Eliminate engine thrust Rotate ailerons as required Thrust engine (max) Deploy flaps Rotate elevator (-) Pitch aircraft up (drag increase) Rotate elevator as required Deploy flaps Utilize 6 cell (22.2 volt) Lithium Polymer (Li-Poly/Li-Po) battery Rotate rudder as required Rotate elevator (-)

14. Functional Decomposition: Part 2 The Aircraft: Fly a required flight path while carrying a payload. Maneuver in flight Carry payload Obtain required lift Utilize payload bay Trim aircraft Control Aircraft Utilize control surfaces Maintain cruise velocity Pitch aircraft Roll Aircraft Turn directionally Attach to aircraft in a manner that it is easily loaded and removed Thrust engine as required Rotate elevator as required Utilize 6 cell (22.2 volt) Lithium Polymer (Li-Poly/Li-Po) battery Deflect ailerons as required Rotate rudder as required Deflect ailerons as required Rotate rudder as required Rotate elevator as required

15. Dynamic System Architecture

16. Concept Development

17. Benchmarking

18. Morphological Chart

19. Possible Solutions Schematics

20. Solution 1

21. Solution 2

22. Solution 3

23. Solution 4

24. Solution 5

25. Solution 6

26. Solution 7

27. Concept Selection

28. Pugh Selection Chart Datum: University of Manitoba 2014 Aircraft

29. Initial Risk Identification • There are a few risk areas that we identified for close consideration: • Cost. Can we procure the necessary materials within our $500 budget? What can we do to lower our costs? • Take off capability. Can the aircraft generate enough thrust and lift to take off in the required distance? • Power requirement. Can we provide an adequate amount of energy with available batteries? What size does the battery have to be?

30. Feasibility Analysis

31. Overview of Feasibility Analysis • Cost Analysis • Material Properties • Power needs • Thrust Analysis • Flight Conditions • Preliminary Wing Iteration • Take-off and Landing Distance

32. Cost Analysis

33. Materials Properties

34. Power Analysis

35. Thrust Analysis • Thrust is dependent upon the diameter of the propeller, the inlet velocity, and the exit velocity. The exit velocity is impossible to calculate analytically, but we do have an empirical equation developed by a RC enthusiast. • For static thrust: • For dynamic Thrust: • Simplified:

36. Thrust Analysis continued • The diameter has the biggest impact on thrust developed. This is confirmed by standard rule of thumb among hobbyists as well as by data published by APC • The APC data is generated by their own CFD analysis and is available for all their propellers • We will mostly be using our empirical equation to get estimates for static thrust, as the dynamic thrust element is considered suspect • We will also use APC data, as well as a simplified model that was found: • These 3 different thrust estimates will give us a good ballpark estimate of what to expect from a particular prop and RPM

37. Thrust Analysis continued • The equations and data also require an RPM input. This can be estimated if the Kv rating of the motor is known • Kv Rating * Voltage = Ideal RPM • These have been put together into an excel calculator • Depending on our motor, propeller, and current draw, we should be able to get between 10 and 15 pounds of thrust • Testing is needed to refine this

38. Preliminary Flight Conditions

39. Preliminary Wing Design: Iteration 1

40. Feasibility: Take-Off and Landing Distance

41. Engineering Analysis • XFLR5 simulations suggest lower performance than expected. It is known that physical wings generate less lift and more drag than airfoils suggest, but the values are unexpectedly low. • Simulation efforts are proceeding using ANSYS. If this proves to be a reliable method, we will proceed using the simulation process described on the next slide. • Any simulation effort requires some comparison to measured data in order to establish that the simulation is working. We will compare to measured airfoil data by recreating the UIUC windtunnel tests. • Currently we have encountered difficulty meshing the S1223, S1223RTL and S1210 airfoils

42. Simulation workflow Reconsider desire and solution Not Possible Desired Performance Quality or Feature Simulation Possible Analyze Consequences of Design Refine if needed Populate new requirements

43. Risk Review • After our analysis we have reached the following conclusions: • Providing adequate electrical energy should not be an issue if a properly sized battery is purchased. • The takeoff ability of the aircraft will need to be worked on with further wing development and analysis, and the testing of propulsion systems to determine hard thrust numbers. Thrust will need to be maximized. • Cost will be a significant issue if not addressed. However, we can pursue strategies to reduce cost, including using any available loaned or donated materials. Updated risk intensity shown below.

44. Donated Items • Thanks to Professor Wellinwe have been donated these items: • Hacker A60-5S V2 28 Pole Brushless Motor x1 • Phoenix edge lite 130 Electronic Speed Controller, x1 • insulated copper wire (7 gage) ~3feet • Mejzlikmodellbau 27x12TH Propeller, hollow carbon fibre, x1 • APC C-2 21x12W Propeller, plastic x1 • APC C-2 22x10E Propeller, plastic x1 • APC C-2 24x12 Propeller, plastic x1

45. Planning • Developing test plan for the evaluation of: • Propulsion System • Structural strength of wing rib • Material Property testing of Balsa wood and numerous 3D printed plastics • Looking into wind tunnel availability

46. Gantt Chart At the moment we remain on schedule

47. Questions? • Comments • Concerns • Complaints

48. Current Simulation Status • Simulations of basic wings is successful • Simulation of wings of interest is encountering issues with meshing

49. Meshing problems Problematic Region

50. Short Term Simulation Plan • Continue to address meshing problems • Resolve simulation and compare to known values from windtunnel testing • If that is successful we will be able to fill in gaps in published data using the simulation and verify later. • Bounds of error will be assumed to be similar to error between simulation and comparison data