1 / 31

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Proposal

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Proposal. Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson, Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood. October 5 th , 2004 Group #1 – Project #3. Project Introduction. The apex of design courses, work will focus on applying course knowledge to an industrial project

leena
Download Presentation

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Proposal

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 PlaneProposal Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson, Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood October 5th, 2004 Group #1 – Project #3

  2. Project Introduction • The apex of design courses, work will focus on applying course knowledge to an industrial project • Project will encompass planning, design, construction and testing of a complete engineering endeavor • Teamwork and leadership skills will be an important factor in the synthesis of a complete design • Learn / Experience design process first hand from design to construction to testing

  3. Background • Need for heavy lift cargo planes to serve energy/mining/military sectors • Short takeoff and landing (STOL) • Fuel efficiency for long range transport • Current market limited - Ukrainian-built Antonov only real contender - Antonov An-225 capable of transporting over 250 tons – only one built • An-124 – 150 ton payload capacity

  4. Project Impact • Change air transport options • Enhance ability to distribute natural resources • Reduce shipping costs, time, and energy consumption • Broader military transport options

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

  6. Competition Selection • Regular Class: • Maximum wing span • One type of engine, no modifications allowed • Open Class: • No wing span restriction • Any reciprocating internal combustion engine allowed • Maximum empty weight • Micro Class: • No wing span restriction or weight limit • Internal combustion or electrical engines allowed • Winner determined by highest lift/weight ratio

  7. Competition Selection • Open and Micro Class require more in-depth design • Selection of engine & fuel • Gearbox ratios different from 1:1 • Gyroscopic assist allowed • Regular Class requires less design decisions • Concentrate on Airfoil & Body Design • Able to compete better with schools that focus on aerospace engineering • Stevens has previously entered Regular Class

  8. 2005 Regular Class Requirements • No lighter-than-air or rotary wing aircraft • Maximum wing span of 60 inches • Take off zone of 200 feet • Landing zone of 400 feet • Single, unmodified O.S. .61FX Engine with E-4010 Muffler • Payload bay must enclose a block measuring 5 in. x 6 in. x 8 in. • Plane that lifts the most wins

  9. 2005 Regular Class Requirements • Cannot simply refine the 2004 entry • Requirements vastly different in 2004: • 10 ft. wing span minimum • 6 in. x 5 in. x 4 in. payload bay • Some components can be re-used to reduce cost: • Engine requirement is the same from 2004 • Functioning servos can be reused

  10. Anticipated Hurdles • No group members have any previous aerospace engineering experience • Rule changes have forced the team to conceive a totally different design from previous teams • Construction irregularities must be minimized to produce results expected from theoretical design

  11. Overcoming the Hurdles • Consultation with project advisor and past competition participants will give insight into aerospace design process • Existing research links • Techniques for design and building • WINFOIL software will be employed in aircraft design • Enables trial and error approach to augment theoretical calculations • Design can be exported to CAD • CAD drawings can be used with CNC machinery

  12. Preliminary Concepts • Flying wing • Fuselage is built into wing, cuts down on air resistance • Reduces material required for fuselage • May be difficult to support/brace payload bay properly • Biplane • Larger wing surface area • Increase in lift • Not enough engine power supplied

  13. Preliminary Concepts • Monoplane • Clear and distinct parts • Easy to build • High lift when right wing is chosen • Large quantity of known data • Rather “simple” calculations • Team selected Monoplane for design

  14. Preliminary Concepts

  15. Conceptual Designs • Limited conceptual designs available at this time: • No group member has previous aeronautical engineering or RC plane design experience • Competition requirements have only been available since the end of September • WINFOIL Software will be used in developing wing and fuselage design

  16. Project Needs/Metrics

  17. Project Needs/Metrics

  18. Project Needs/Metrics

  19. Heavy Lift Considerations • High lift versus Wing weight/Stability • Material • Number of Ribbing • Thickness of Wing • Lesson Learned from last year • Flaps • Max lift for area • Angle of wing • Aspect Ratio • Actual Type of Wing (ex. NACA 6409) • Type of Plane (ex. Monoplane)

  20. Preliminary WINFOIL Trial

  21. 3D Airfoil

  22. Future Planes:The Technology • Entire planes tested and designed on the computer • Wings • Tail Fins • Fuselage • No tedious calculations • No human errors • Easy inputs • Pretty graphs and easily interpretable results • All plane data incorporated into program

  23. Sample Calculations

  24. Gantt Chart

  25. Work Breakdown Schedule

  26. Phase I: Design Budget • Design budget does not include construction or competition costs • Employee Cost: • Wage: $30/hr (10 hrs per week, 14.5 weeks) • Benefits estimated at 50% wages: $15/hr • Total Phase I Employee Cost: $26,100 • Additional funds required to cover overhead estimated at approximately 50% of total labor cost: $13,050 • Total estimated Phase I Budget: $39,150

  27. Future Deliverables • Conceptual design sketches • Final calculations • Metrics used in airfoil selection • Final plane design selection • Model of final design • Phase II: Construction Budget

  28. Conclusions • Design requirements dictate the concentration on airfoil and fuselage design • Utilization of WINFOIL will enable the design team to overcome any theoretical inadequacies among team members • Large scope of project dictates strict adherence to the proposed GANTT Chart

  29. Feedback is Appreciated Thank You

  30. References • http://airfieldmodels.com/information_source/index.htm • http://web.umr.edu/~aavg/ • http://airfieldmodels.com/information_source/math_and_science_of_model_aircraft/flaperons_on_model_aircraft.htm • http://www.winfoil.com/ • http://www.ctaz.com/~kelcomp/airfoils5.htm • http://www.pdas.com/index.htm • http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/airplane/TH2.htm • http://www.towerhobbies.com/rcwairinfo.html • http://www.easyrc.com/airplanes/airplanes3.html • http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/east/

More Related