Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

John Meissner Leo Nakanishi Ryan McDonell Patty Martinez Team Stinger-409 presents Aereon Corps.’: Project Sponsor: Bill Putman Project Advisor: Dr. Jim.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "John Meissner Leo Nakanishi Ryan McDonell Patty Martinez Team Stinger-409 presents Aereon Corps.’: Project Sponsor: Bill Putman Project Advisor: Dr. Jim."— Presentation transcript:

1 John Meissner Leo Nakanishi Ryan McDonell Patty Martinez Team Stinger-409 presents Aereon Corps.’: Project Sponsor: Bill Putman Project Advisor: Dr. Jim Lang, Ph.D.

2 WASP UAV

3

4

5 Mission Profile

6 Internal Components

7

8 AE 3007 Thrust vs Mach

9 AE 3007 SFC vs Mach

10 Aerodynamics Introduction –Prediction is based on WASP configuration A with AR=2.9 –S ref =836ft 2 –b=49.22ft

11 Aerodynamics Key Features –The increase of C Lmax with flap deflection –C Lmax of approximately 1.8 –Various optimal AoA’s Takeoff/Landing Cruise Flaps 20 deg Flaps 40 deg Flaps 60 deg Δα stall (deg)-2-3-4 ΔC Lmax.456.647.715

12 Aerodynamics cont’d Aircraft at sea level Key Features –Approximate Mach Critical Number of.8 according to Nicolai –Aircraft stays subsonic –Cdo approximately constant at this region –Drag polar of C D =.009+.016C L 2 at M=.2

13 Aerodynamics cont’d Key Features –Approximate Critical Mach Number of.8 –K (drag due to lift) is also constant in this region –K=K’ + K’’ according to Nicolai, but for our aircraft K=K’

14 Aerodynamics cont’d Key Features –Significant increase in drag with flap deflections –Optimal AoA at: Takeoff/Landing Cruise

15 Stability and Control Outline –Aerodynamic Center and neutral point located 19.01ft. from aft –Cg. at 18.92 ft. from aft –Static Margin = -.004 –Cg travel diagram –Aerodynamic Force diagram –Pitching Moment Curve with Flap Deflections –Trade Studies of control with different wing tips

16 Stability and Control

17

18 Stability and Control cont’d Key Features –SM≈0 –Nose down pitching moment as the flap gets deflected –Need for control surfaces to stabilize the aircraft –What can we do?

19 Stability and Control Cont’d The Range of Control from the wing tip 1 –Extreme points occur when the flaps get deflected 60 deg’s –The wing tips help to stabilize the aircraft –The vortex fences creates a nose up pitching moment to stabilize the aircraft

20 Stability and Control – Trade Studies with Various Wing Tips Per 1 wing tip Wing Tip 1Wing Tip 2Wing Tip 3 C do.0083 K.251.168 CLδeCLδe.034.030.038 C lδa (per rad) -.0206-.0221-.0196 C nδ a (per rad ).0055.0047.0053 C mδe (per rad) -.0258-.0177-.0245

21 Error Error Analysis is Broken into 3 Main Categories –5% –5-10% –10-15%

22 5% Error Thrust Data Provided By Aereon

23 5-10% Error Aerodynamics – (Agrees with Aereon calculations and Dr. Lang estimations) Ps calculations – (dependent somewhat upon Thrust data, which is from a reliable source) Endurance –(also directly dependent on assumed correct data provided to us, as well as reasonably accurate aerodynamic data) Shear

24 10-15% Error Dynamic Lift Calculations –(Difficult to estimate due to unsteady flow conditions and somewhat unknown performance characteristics) cg characteristics –(due to uncertainties in true, final and required placement of components) Cost analysis Inlet and Nozzle effects – (addressed very little due to an assumed 5% installed thrust loss)

25 Specific Excess Power (n=1) *NOTE: q limit is NOT a factor until after M=0.9 *Altitude in ten thousands

26 Specific Excess Power(n=2.5) *NOTE: q limit is NOT a factor until after M=0.9 *Altitude in ten thousands

27 Turn Rate Performance

28

29 Maximum Sustained Turn Rates Sea Level M = 0.2 TR = 31.78 Deg/sec M = 0.6 TR = 10.60 Deg/sec M = 0.18 TR = 35.33 Deg/sec[MAX] 22K ft. M = 0.2 TR = 24.2 Deg/sec M = 0.6 TR = 11.4 Deg/sec M = 0.31 TR = 21.95 Deg/sec[MAX]

30 Turn Rate Performance Maximum Instantaneous Turn Rates Sea Level M = 0.18 TR = 35.33 Deg/sec (same as for sustained) 22K ft. M =.23 TR = 29.7 deg/sec

31 Dynamic Lift Addition of Vorticity and Circulation at a Rate such that Inviscid Effects dominate Viscous Diffusion and Dissipation Effectively Increases the Stall Angle of Attack, thereby Increasing CLmax and Maximizing Lift.

32 WASP Analytical CL Charts

33 Dynamic Lift

34 TAKE-OFF IMPLEMENTATION A/C Accelerates Down the Runway with a Clean Configuration Quickly reaches Take-Off Velocity Due to Lowered Drag Just Before Take-Off Velocity is Reached, Flaps are lowered to Max Setting, Vortex Fences are Deployed, and AofA is Quickly Increased

35 Dynamic Lift

36 LANDING IMPLEMENTATION Bird-Like Manuever A/C Approaches Runway/Deck at High Thrust and Negative AofA One Second Before Ground Contact, Flaps Down, Vortex Fences Up, and AofA Increased to Large Positive Setting A/C ‘Flares’, Thereby Increasing Drag to Reduce Velocity, and Increasing Lift to Avoid Ground Collision

37 WASP Analytical Model Settings Flaps –Max Setting = 20 Degrees –Deployment Rate = 20 Deg/Sec Vortex Fences –Max Setting = 85 Degrees –Deployment Rate = 85 Deg/Sec Angle of Attack –Max Setting = 35 Degrees –Deployement Rate = 35 Deg/Sec Head Wind –0 ft/sec and 10ft/sec

38 WASP Analytical Model Results Head Wind = 0 ft/sec –Time to Take-Off Velocity: 3.5 Secs –Distance to L>W: 170 feet Head Wind = 10 ft/sec –Time to Take-Off Velocity: 2.9 Secs –Distance to L>W: 140 feet Head Wind = 0 ft/sec –Time to Take-Off Velocity: 5.5 Secs –Distance to L>W: 250 feet Head Wind = 10 ft/sec –Time to Take-Off Velocity: 5.9 Secs –Distance to L>W: 280 feet Take-Off w/Dynamic Lift Take-Off w/out Dynamic Lift

39 WASP Analytical Model Results Head Wind = 0 ft/sec TAKE-OFF

40 WASP Analytical Model Results Landing Head Wind = 0 ft/sec –Velocity at Touch-Down: 40 ft/sec –Distance to Stop: 135 feet

41 Endurance Mission Loiter Phase Requires High Endurance at Best Endurance Mach This occurs at L/D) max L/D) max = 13.1 Occurs at M = 0.27 Endurance = 10.0 Hrs.

42 Wing Tip Shear and Moments Cantilever Beam Approximation Used For Order of Magnitude Calculation –Low g-Limit Craft, Not Much Stress Resultant Shear at Wing Tip Root Results in Stress = O(10-100) Carbon Composite Yield Strength Stress = O(10000-100000) Order of Loads/Stresses << Yield Limits

43 Weights Summary (pounds) Carbon Composite Construction, some Al Weights Summary (pounds) –Main Gear 579 –NoseGear 158 –Engine 1580 –Payload 3000 –Electrical 449 –Avionics 1082 –Fuel Tank 2000 –Fuel Tank 963 –Total Weight 11811 –Empty Weight 6848

44 C.G. Travel

45 x-Axis Moments Moment Summary about X axis Moment (pounds)Distance from C.GMoments about X Main Gear13322.795 ft66613.95 Nose Gear989.082 ft1978.16 Engine165902.5 ft41475 Payload676507.5 ft507375 Electrical98781.5 ft14817 Avionics216401 ft21640 Fuel Tank 1350006 ft210000 Fuel Tank 2350006 ft210000 Fuel Tank 325519.510 ft255195 Ixx 41308.28625 slug-ft 2

46 y-axis Moments Moment Summary about Y axis Moment (pounds)Distance from C.GMoments about Y Main Gear13322.793.9100618152092.93238 Nose Gear989.0812.8399381912699.72606 Engine165908.59993819142672.9746 Payload676503.45006181233396.6814 Electrical98782.9000618128646.81056 Avionics216400.9000618119477.33757 Fuel Tank 1350001.5999381955997.83665 Fuel Tank 2350001.5999381955997.83665 Fuel Tank 325519.57.40006181188845.8774 Iyy 24,538 slug-ft 2

47 Cost Analysis We2318 lbs V487.54 knots Q100 FTA2 Neng100 Tmax14000 lbs Tturb inlet 2355 Rankine Cavionic s$100,000 Mmax0.8 Rates ($/hr) 1989 Values Re59.1 Rt60.7 Rm50.1 Rq55.4

48 Cost Analysis Raymers Cost Estimation Method Eng hours1,072,533 Tooling hours4,818,711 Mfg hours1,621,278 Qc0.133 Devel support cost $18,693,125.4 6 Flt test cost$5,780,084.64 Mfg materials $25,580,941.4 0 Eng prod cost$1,316.72 RDT&E $437,108,450.0 3 Flyaway$50,285,823.60 RDT&E+ Fly away $487,394,273.6 4 1989 Dollars

49 Model Construction Contents Goals for Model Construction Solid Works Modeling Material Selection Mastercamm and CNC Machining Main Body Construction Sleeve Mounting Winglet Construction Flap Construction Other Construction Details Summary

50 Goals for Model Construction Accurate Shape –CNC machining used to achieve this Sturdy Construction –Strong material needed Force Transfer –Completely fix sting within body to ensure complete aero load transfer to sensors

51 SolidWorks Modeling Goal - use a simple program to design fuselage and winglets Use Mastercamm (NC Program) to translate SolidWorks design to our material

52 SolidWorks Model

53 Material Selection Initial Decision –Wire-cut foam –NC high-density foam –Wood –Other Materials Wood was chosen –Ease of manufacturing –Low cost –Availability –Ability to anchor sleeve easily; Ability to join pieces easily

54 NC Machining Use Mastercamm to cut model Ensures high accuracy in our model shape Ensure tight piece-joining

55 MasterCamm Model

56 Main Body Construction SolidWorks –Several scaled 23-024 airfoils in the middle area to achieve rounded nose –Lofted out to 63 3 -018 airfoil at the connection point of the winglets Layup of Wood plys Squaring of material NC machining Joining of pieces

57 Main Body Construction – Cutting to Size

58 Main Body Construction – CNC Machining

59 Sleeve Mounting One of the main reasons wood was chosen as a construction material was because it could be machined easily and attached firmly to the sleeve The sleeve will be fitted into a machined hole in the center section, mounted to an aluminum plate on the top of the sleeve, which can then be securely fastened to the rest of the model

60 Winglet Construction Same procedure as main body – SolidWorks to NC 63 3 -018 Symmetric Airfoil 3 different designs –At 15 and 30 degree anhedral -1) chord length=span, taper ratio =.5 -2) chord length=span, taper ratio =.5, reverse airfoil -3) 1.5xchord length=span, taper ratio =.5 30 degree options will be static; 15 degree will be capable of varied incidence angles

61 Flap Construction Construction Issues –Non-flat mounting Surface Definitely an issue; trying to get a fit with no gap between flap and fuselage –Material Most likely going to be constructed of 1/8” or ¼” aluminum –Mounting Several peg holes in the bottom for easy application and removal –Configuration 20, 40, 60 degree deflection – angled holes for each setup for plug-and-fly capability

62 Other Construction Details Varnish coating to ensure smoothness after sanding to fit and smooth Canard – possible future option forward of the nose Vortex Fences – Also a future option (with possible construction in the coming week) –Holes for plug-and-fly capabilities at several angles of attack –Similar to the flaps, the biggest problem is the lack of a flat surface to mount to; contours increase the difficulty

63 Summary Wood chosen for ease of construction and sturdiness Ability to transfer loads directly from the model to the sting is a primary concern With the use of NCM, we can ensure highly accurate shape and a smooth surface

64 Wind Tunnel Testing Wind Tunnel Testing Plans Possible Site: Allied Aerospace Industries Wind Tunnel Testing to last approximately 8.25 hours Approximate constant velocity of 100 ft/s Input: reference C.G., reference balance, and reference area Output: CL, CD, CY, Cl,Cm, Cn Data to be measured for an angle of attack sweep of -5 deg to 40 degrees Basic Configurations Basic + Wingtip Extension #1 Basic + Wingtip Extension #2 Basic + Wingtip Extension #3

65 Variables Side Slip –-15 deg to 15 deg Split Flaps – 20 deg, 40 deg, and 60 deg Tip Deflections – -20 deg, 0 deg, 20 deg Anhedral –15 deg & 30 deg Vortex Fences – 30 deg, 60 deg, and 90 deg

66 A Look at Testing Plans…. Wing Tip #1, for Example:

67 Data Summary TOGW11682 lbs T/W (takeoff)0.676 Span b49.22 ft Sweep60 degrees Taper RatioMain Body:.2 Winglet 1:.5 Winglet 2:.5 Winglet 3:.5 Take Off D (with Dynamic Lift)150-175 ft Landing D (with Dynamic Lift)135 ft Take Off D (withOUT Dynamic Lift)300-325 ft Landing D (withOUT Dynamic Lift)~300 ft Cl max (with Flap Deflection = 60 degrees)1.82 Cl max (no Flap Deflection-baseline configuration)1.29 Inst. Load Factor4 Sust. Load Factor2

68 Future Work A look into other conceptual designs such as a canard design and very high aspect ratio wing tips More in depth look into dynamic lift Wind tunnel test and data analysis Detail iterations of design analysis to reduce uncertainty

69 Acknowledgements Dr. Jim Lang – for all your guidance and knowledge Tom Chalfant – for your HUGE help with all aspects of the model-building Bill Putman – for all of your perspective on the project and for helping us in whatever way we asked

70 References Fundamentals of Aircraft Design Nicolai, M. Leland/1975 Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Daniel P. Raymer / AIAA Education Series / Third Edition, 1999 Theory of Wing Sections Ira H. Abbott, Albert E. Von Doenhoff Airplane Design, Part 6:Preliminary Calculations of Aerodynamics, Thrust & Power/J. Roskam Staff / Hardcover / Published 1987-1997 Fundamentals of Gas Turbines William W. Bathie


Download ppt "John Meissner Leo Nakanishi Ryan McDonell Patty Martinez Team Stinger-409 presents Aereon Corps.’: Project Sponsor: Bill Putman Project Advisor: Dr. Jim."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google