630 likes | 753 Views
Logan Waddell Morgan Buchanan Erik Susemichel Aaron Foster. Asgard Aviation Conceptual Design Review. Craig Wikert Adam Ata Li Tan Matt Haas. Outline. Project mission Selected concept Sizing code results Modeling assumptions Major Design Tradeoffs Carpet plots Aircraft description
E N D
Logan Waddell Morgan Buchanan Erik Susemichel Aaron Foster Asgard AviationConceptual Design Review Craig Wikert Adam Ata Li Tan Matt Haas
Outline • Project mission • Selected concept • Sizing code results • Modeling assumptions • Major Design Tradeoffs • Carpet plots • Aircraft description • Aerodynamics • Airfoil selection • High-lift devices • Performance • V-n diagram • Propulsion • Engine description • Structures • Configuration layout • Weights and Balance • Center of gravity location • Stability and Control • Noise • Cost • Summary
Mission Statement To design an environmentally responsible aircraft that sufficiently completes the “N+2” requirements for the NASA green aviation challenge.
Major Design Requirements • Noise (dB) • 42 dB decrease in noise • NOx Emissions • 75% reduction in emissions below CAEP 6 • Aircraft Fuel Burn • 50% Reduction in Fuel Burn • Airport Field Length • 50% shorter distance to takeoff * *ERA. (n.d.). Retrieved 2011, from NASA: http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/isrp/era/index.htm
Selected Concept Wing loading: 108 lb/ft^2 Wing AR: 7.8 Wing sweep: 31˚ T/W: 0.32 Twin-aisle configuration, ~250 passengers with a two-class configuration
Aircraft Concept Walk-around Advanced Composite Materials Wing Mounted Engines Conventional Vertical Stabilizer Spiroid Winglets
Sizing Code • Using MATLAB software, first order method from Raymer • Used inputs to determine the size of pre-existing aircraft for validation
Incorporating Drag • Drag values affect fuel fraction weights which affect the fuel weight • Drag buildup equation used to predict drag • Wave drag uses Lock’s fourth power law Included in the equation are the parasitic, induced, and wave drag
Component Weights Empty weight buildup from Raymer text.
Validation • Boeing 767-200ER • Passenger Capacity: 224 • Range: 6,545 nmi • Crew: 2 • Cruise Mach: 0.8 • Max Fuel Capacity: 16,700 gal
Validation continued • The sizing code predictions are accurate • The error factor for the takeoff weight is:
Engine Modeling • Used NASA Geared Turbofan tabular data to scale engine to desired propulsion characteristics • Scale factor is based on SLS thrust from tabular data • Scale factors also implemented for technologies
Engine Modeling • Scale Factor used to size up all performance data in NASA file • Ex. • Technology Data Adjustment • Orbiting Combustion Nozzle
Typical Design Mission • Average flight in the continental United States is 650 nm • Typical design mission • Chicago to New York • Approximately 618 nm • Connects two major cities • Typical route carries 212 passengers • 85% load factor
Constraint Cross Plots Takeoff Ground Roll(dTO < 5000 ft) Cross Plot
Constraint Cross Plots Landing Braking Ground Roll(dL < 2000 ft) Cross Plot
Constraint Cross Plots Top Of Climb (TOP >= 100 ft/min) Cross Plot
Other Trade-offs • Geared Turbofan: Less Fuel Weight vs. More Drags • Hybrid Laminar Flow Control: 12-14% Less Drags vs. 2.8% More Cost • Landing Fairing: Reduce noise vs. More Weight
Our concept 787-8 • Length: 180’ 186’ • Wing Span: 167’ 197’ • Height: 51’ 56’ • Fuselage Height: 17’ 19’ 7’’ • Fuselage Width: 16’ 18’ 11’’
Two Class System • Seating • 4 rows 1st Class • 34 rows Economy Class • 250 passengers • Seat Pitch • 39 inches 1st Class • 34 inches Economy Class • Seat Width • 23 inches 1st Class • 19 inches Economy Class
One Class System • Seating • No First Class (Low Cost Carriers) • 44 rows Economy Class • 303 passengers
Airfoil Selection • Supercritical airfoils to be used for all wing and stabilizer sections • Still used for transonic aircraft* • Reduce wave drag • Increase fuel storage space • Airfoil would be designed to meet design goals • Cruise CL = 0.5185, L/D = 15.4654 *http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/futureac.html
Divergent Trailing Edge Airfoil • Separation bubble employed to generate more lift at trailing edge • New technology being developed with advances in CFD • Not much concrete data at this time • Potentially plausible for N+3 goals http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/futureac.html
High-Lift Devices • Slats, Triple-slotted flaps • Used for reliability • Lift coefficients for different configurations • Takeoff CL = 1.3 • Landing CL = 2.5 • Landing and takeoff speeds set at 175 mph (152 kts), 15% faster than stall
Performance V-n (Loads) Diagram Performance Summary
V-n (Loads) Diagram n=+2.11 n=-1
Propulsion • Engine type: High-Bypass Geared Turbofan • Bypass Ratio: 14.5-14.7 • Fan Pressure Ratio: 1.4-1.6 • Overall Pressure Ratio: 42 • SLS Thrust: 49,450 lbs • Dry Weight: 9590 lbs • Improvement Technologies • Orbiting Combustion Nozzle • Improves fuel burn/reduces emissions • Scarf Inlet • Redirects/Decreases fan noise • Chevron Nozzle • Reduces low frequency exhaust noise Courtesy of Airliners.net
Other Technology Effects • Chevron Nozzle • Mixing flows can have adverse effect on thrust • Scarf Inlet • Greatly increases engine nacelle weight • Reduces inlet efficiency • Orbiting Combustion Nozzle • Thrust does not take a huge hit due to converging/diverging exit • Lack of need for diffusers and stators on either end of compressor reduce weight of engine
Engine Performance • Specific Fuel Consumption
Engine Performance • Emissions Reduction/Fuel Burn Savings
Structures: Load Paths • Wing-fuselage intersection • (Wing box) • Pylons • Tail Intersections • Fuselage • Landing gear
Structures: Wing Box Wing-fuselage intersection (Wing box)
Structures: Engine Pylons Engine pylons
Structures: Landing Gear Landing Gear Integration
Structures: Material Selections Composite Fuselage (Carbon Laminate) Composites on leading edges for laminar flow Aluminum and Fiberglass wings Titanium for pylons Steel for elevator, rudder, and landing gear
Weights and Balance Aircraft Group Weights Statement Description of Empty Weight Prediction Location of Center of Gravity
Empty Weight Prediction Method • Equations for a/c components from Raymer • Each component function of designed gross weight • Summation of component weights
CG and Neutral Point • Center of Gravity: • Components included in CG calculation • Fuselage, wing, horizontal tail, vertical tail, nacelles, engines, and landing gears • Other weights put in center of vehicle • Crew, passengers, payload, furnishings, etc. • Neutral Point: 87.6 ft from nose
Stability and Control • Static Longitudinal Stability • Lateral Stability
Tail Sizing • Current Approach • Using Raymer Equations (6.28) and (6.29)
Control Surface Sizing Raymer Figure 6.3 – Aileron Sizing Raymer Table 6.5 – Elevator Sizing