1 / 19

Collaborative Conceptual Design of a U.A.V

Collaborative Conceptual Design of a U.A.V. Initial Concept Proposed by Virginia Tech and Loughborough University to meet requirements stipulated by NAVAIR. Background . Annual collaboration project Virginia Tech Loughborough University August 2007 – May 2008 Specified by NAVAIR.

liang
Download Presentation

Collaborative Conceptual Design of a U.A.V

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. Collaborative Conceptual Design of a U.A.V Initial Concept Proposed by Virginia Tech and Loughborough University to meet requirements stipulated by NAVAIR

  2. Background • Annual collaboration project • Virginia Tech • Loughborough University • August 2007 – May 2008 • Specified by NAVAIR

  3. Team Members Virginia Tech • Robert Briggs • Philip Pesce • Amanda Chou • Anthony Ricciardi • Jessica McNeilus • Erik Sunday • Megan Prince • Ricky Duelley • Belle Bredehoft • Michael Sherman • Alex Kovacic • Dennis Preus Loughborough University • Daniel Marshall • Daniel Jones • Kris Hanna • Rob Noble • Craig Dillon • Peter Christie • Rob Penn • Steve Bennett • Andrew Courtneidge • Balraj Chand • Ben Hanson • Alex Humphrey

  4. Brief To design, build and test an unmanned surveillance vehicle, that can perform the following: • Cruise speed of 50 kt (knots) • Top Speed of 70 kt • Range of 15 nm (nautical miles) • Minimum endurance of eight hours • Service ceiling of 10,000 ft at half fuel • Normal operational altitude of 3000 ft or 2000 ft above ground level (AGL) • Minimum turn rate of 6 degrees per second • Climb rate of at least 200 ft/min at sea level • Maximum Gross Take-Off Weight (MGTOW) of 300 lbs • Minimum payload of 30 lbs (45 lbs desired) • Payload power source of 10 watts • Noise levels below 50 dBA at 200 ft. • All weather operation with a 10 kt crosswind landing capability • Capable of rail catapult pneumatic launch • Landing within a 50 ft x 250 ft parking lot • Less than one flight failure per 100,000 hours of flight • GPS based autonomous operations • Dynamic re-tasking from ground controllers

  5. Competitors Shadow 375lbs (170kg) Watchkeeper 430lbs (195kg) Pioneer 450lbs (204kg) Outrider 385lbs (175kg)

  6. Methodology • Virginia Tech • Broke into two groups and developed two separate concepts. • Loughborough University • Developed two concepts as a group. • Met, and decided on a concept as a whole.

  7. Concepts Twin Boom Conventional H-tail Pylon Mounted Prop

  8. Concepts • Interchangeable Parts • Standard Wing • Tails • Wing Location • Auxiliary Power

  9. Concepts • Critical Points • Complexity of Design • Noise • C of G • Safety • Engine Type (Pusher vs. Puller) • Engine Placement • Thrust Line • Launch & Landing • Propeller Protection • Weight

  10. Downselection • List Advantages & Disadvantages • Eliminated Twin Tail Boom • Discussed in Smaller Groups • Chose Pylon • Suggested Modifications

  11. Downselection • Due to: • Noise • Prop Protection • Diversity of Options • Cooling • Maintenance • Modifications • Wing Placement • Tractor vs. Pusher • Conventional Tail

  12. Final Concept • Assembled by Parts • Fuselage & Pylon • Wing Location • Tail & Empennage • Engine Orientation • Undercarriage

  13. Final Concept

  14. General Arrangement

  15. Key Features Proven Design Simple structure for design and manufacture Good access for maintenance Large internal fuselage volume Modular assembly High aspect ratio wing

  16. Reliability Addressed as a key issue. - 1 or less uncontrolled crashes per 100,000 hours Methods to determine Reliability - FMEA/FMECA & FTA Fussell-Vessely – prioritises importance of sub-systems

  17. Timeline

  18. Work Breakdown

  19. Questions?

More Related