System Definition Review AAE 451 Andrew Mizener Diane Barney Jon Coughlin Jared ScheidMark Glover Michael CoffeyDonald Barrett Eric SmithKevin Lincoln.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Parts of an Aircraft Parts of an Aircraft Gateway To Technology®
Advertisements

Future civil aircraft engines Anders Lundbladh
System Requirements Review AAE 451 Andrew Mizener Diane Barney Jon Coughlin Jared ScheidMark Glover Michael CoffeyDonald Barrett Eric SmithKevin Lincoln.
What is engineering? Engineering - The branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.
October 28, 2011 Christopher Schumacher (Team Lead) Brian Douglas Christopher Erickson Brad Lester Nathan Love Patrick Mischke Traci Moe Vince Zander.
The Black Pearl Design Team: Ryan Cobb Jacob Conger Christopher Cottingham Travis Douville Josh Johnson Adam Loverro Tony Maloney.
SAE Aero Design Guidelines Rev A, 2013 Aero Design Oral Presentation Guidelines How to Deliver a Presentation The Judges will Notice.
AE 10 Airplane Design. Preliminary Aircraft Design Process 1. Mission Specification 2. Configuration Design 3. Weight Sizing 4. Performance Sizing 5.
U5AEA15 AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES-II PREPARED BY Mr.S.Karthikeyan DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICALENGINEERING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR.
Aerodynamic Shape Optimization in the Conceptual and Preliminary Design Stages Arron Melvin Adviser: Luigi Martinelli Princeton University FAA/NASA Joint.
TEAM PARADIGM 6 SYSTEM DEFINITION REVIEW Farah Abdullah Stephen Adams Noor Emir Anuar Paul Davis Zherui Guo Steve McCabe Zack Means Mizuki Wada Askar Yessirkepov.
1. Outline I. Mission Statement II. Design Requirements III. Concept Selection IV. Advanced Technologies and Concepts V. Engine Modeling VI. Constraint.
JLFANG-LDS Light Dynamic Strikefighter Dr. James Lang, Project Advisor Aircraft Design by Team Bling-Bling Marcus Artates Connor McCarthy Ryan McDonnell.
AME 441: Conceptual Design Presentation
Conceptual Design Review AAE 451
Oculus Superne. 2 System Definition Review Mission Objectives Concept of Operations Aircraft Concept Selection Payload Constraint Analysis and Diagrams.
1 System Definition Review Team III Derek Dalton Megan Darraugh Sara DaVia Beau Glim Seth Hahn Lauren Nordstrom Mark Weaver.
1 AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Systems Definition Review Group VI Team Members: John Collins Chad Davis Chris Fles Danny Sze Ling Lim Justin.
The Barn Owls Chris “Mo” Baughman Kate Brennan Christine Izuo Dan Masse Joe “Sal” Salerno Paul Slaboch Michelle Smith.
Team 3 Marques Fulford Mike Bociaga Jamie Rosin Brandon Washington Jon Olsten Tom Zettel Hayne Kim.
Group 3 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Dane BatemaBenoit Blier Drew Capps Patricia Roman Kyle Ryan Audrey Serra John TapeeCarlos Vergara Team 1: Structures 1 PDR Team “Canard” October 12th,
1 System Design Review Mike Dumas Ben Scott Jason Darby Adam Naramore Gaetano Settineri Tim Sparks David Wilson EcoJet Group Two.
Team 3 Marques Fulford Mike Bociaga Jamie Rosin Brandon Washington Jon Olsten Tom Zettel Hayne Kim.
G.O.D.I.S Complex: “Gaurdian of Defense, Intelligence & Surveillance” Project Advisor: Dr. James Lang Team Leader: Dan Dalton Chief Engineer: Eugene Mahmoud.
Review Chapter 12. Fundamental Flight Maneuvers Straight and Level Turns Climbs Descents.
Team 5 Structures PDR Presented By: Ross May James Roesch Charles Stangle.
Parts of an Aircraft. 8/7/2015Aerodynamics Day 12.
Overview of Chapter 6 Douglas S. Cairns Lysle A. Wood Distinguished Professor.
Modern Equipment General Aviation (MEGA) Aircraft Progress Report Flavio Poehlmann-Martins & Probal Mitra January 11, 2002 MAE 439 Prof. R. Stengel Prof.
Parts of an Aircraft Parts of an Aircraft Gateway To Technology®
System Definition Review - AAE Team 5 March 27, 2007 Slide 1 System Definition Review Robert Aungst Chris Chown Matthew Gray Adrian Mazzarella Brian.
AE 1350 Lecture Notes #9.
Lecture 7: DESCENT PERFORMANCE
PROPRIETARY James Bearman AJ Brinker Dean Bryson Brian Gershkoff Kuo Guo Joseph Henrich Aaron Smith Daedalus Aviation Conceptual Design Review: “The Daedalus.
The Boeing 777 can hold a max of 550 passengers on board and 2 crew members.
Logan Waddell Morgan Buchanan Erik Susemichel Aaron Foster Craig Wikert Adam Ata Li Tan Matt Haas 1.
Team 2 AAE451 System Definition Review Chad CarmackAaron MartinRyan MayerJake SchaeferAbhi MurtyShane MooneyBen GoldmanRussell HammerDonnie GoepperPhil.
Company LOGO System Definition Review Akshay Ashok, Nithin Kolencherry, Steve Skare, Michael McPeake, Muhammad Azmi, Richard Wang, Mintae.
Twice as fast as Concorde: The supersonic jet that will fly from London to New York in TWO HOURS. Plans for the 20-seat craft were unveiled at the Paris.
1. Systems Design Review Presentation Joe Appel Todd Beeby Julie Douglas Konrad Habina Katie Irgens Jon Linsenmann David Lynch Dustin Truesdell 2.
Propulsion PDR #2 AAE451 – Team 3 November 11, 2003 Brian Chesko Brian Hronchek Ted Light Doug Mousseau Brent Robbins Emil Tchilian.
Mensa XE (Extra Efficiency) High Efficiency Family Airplane
HALE UAV Preliminary Design AERSP 402B Spring 2014 Team: NSFW Nisherag GandhiThomas Gempp Doug RohrbaughGregory Snyder Steve StanekVictor Thomas SAURON.
Design Chapter 8 First Half. Design Requirements and Specifications Payload Range Cruising Speed Takeoff & Landing Distance Ceiling.
1. Mission Statement Design Requirements Aircraft Concept Selection Advanced Technologies / Concepts Engine / Propulsion Modeling Constraint Analysis.
AAE 451 Aircraft Design First Flight Boiler Xpress November 21, 2000
Final Design Team 6 December 2 nd, UAV Team Specializations David Neira – Power & Propulsion Josiah Shearon – Materials Selection & Fabrication.
The Private Pilot.
AE 2350 Lecture Notes #9 May 10, 1999 We have looked at.. Airfoil aerodynamics (Chapter 8) Sources of Drag (Chapter 8, 11 and 12) –Look at the figures.
1 Advanced Regional Jet Darin L. Van Pelt AA 241A,B 16 March 2006.
James Bearman AJ Brinker Dean Bryson Brian Gershkoff Kuo Guo Joseph Henrich Aaron Smith.
비행체 구조설계 Aircraft Structural Design
12/11/12 Brandon Campbell & Ernesto Chairez. Purpose  Civil Transport  Large Volume  Efficient  Quiet  Long Range.
SYSTEMS DEFINITION REVIEW Brian Acker Lance Henricks Matthew Kayser Kevin Lobo Robert Paladino Ruan Trouw Dennis Wilde.
6.01 Aircraft Design and Construction References: FTGU pages 9-14, 27
Vehicle Sizing AAE 451: Team 2 Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin
Ground School 3.06 Weight & Balance.
VEHICLE SIZING PDR AAE 451 TEAM 4
Preliminary Wing Sizing
PROPULSION PDR 2 AAE 451 TEAM 4
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Conceptual Design by Kevin Cerven John Clarke
STRUCTURES & WEIGHTS PDR 2
Matching of Propulsion Systems for an Aircraft
AE 440 Performance Discipline Lecture 9
Congratulations…Welcome to UTHM PARIT RAJA….A Place To Be..
Congratulations…Welcome to UTHM PARIT RAJA….A Place To Be..
Weight and Balance Private Pilot Ground School
Charlie Rush Zheng Wang Brandon Wedde Greg Wilson
Embraer ERJ 135 VIP PHOTOS SPECIFICATIONS AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS
Presentation transcript:

System Definition Review AAE 451 Andrew Mizener Diane Barney Jon Coughlin Jared ScheidMark Glover Michael CoffeyDonald Barrett Eric SmithKevin Lincoln Team GoldJet

Mission Statement To design a profitable, supersonic aircraft capable of Trans-Pacific travel to meet the needs of airlines and their passengers around the world.

Major Design Requirements Trans-Pacific Range: − Longer range increases available routes High Cruise Speed : −Makes shorter trip times and allows for more legs per day Good Cruise Efficiency: –Lowers the cost of fuel and the max gross weight

Design Mission Los Angeles (LAX) – Shanghai (PDG) –Range: 5,650 nautical miles

Morphological Matrix To assist Pugh’s Method and Concept Selection Listed design categories and all options

First Concepts Four Concepts Chosen, along with Datum Showed immediate narrowing of possible ideas in some categories –Two wing planforms –Two fuselage types –One landing gear style

Pugh’s Method Two rounds –First against the Datum –Second against one of our first designs (Concept 2) Second round shown –Some narrowing of categories as process went along

Condensed Concepts Taking results of Pugh’s Method, two concepts emerged for further study –One based around a Double-Delta wing Result of min/maxing DD concepts Three Design Choices to make –Engine Location, Canards, and Tail Configuration –One based around a Joined Wing

1x1 Seating Layout 1x1 Seating Configuration Design allows for long slender body, reducing drag Carry-on baggage stowed next to passenger –Allows for easier in flight access –Up to two carry-on bags can be carried due to increased space

1x1 Top View Length 90 feet Lavatories positioned at the front and rear of the cabin Galley located forward Lav Galley Entry Door

1x1 Cross-Section Diameter: 10 ft Aisle Width: 26 inches Aisle Height: 76 inches Seat Pitch: 40 inches Carry On Storage

2x2 Seating Layout 2x2 Seating Configuration Shorter fuselage length, enabling more radical Sears- Haack shaping Carry-on baggage stored overhead

2x2 Top View Length 54 feet Lavatories located aft Galley located aft Lav Galley Entry Door

2x2 Cross-Section Diameter: 11 feet 8 inches Aisle Width: 26 inches Aisle Height: 76 inches Seat Pitch: 40 inches

Performance Constraints 5 main performance constraints identified: –Steady, Level Flight M = 1.8, h = 45,000 ft –Subsonic 2g Manuever, 250kts, h = 10,000 ft –Takeoff Ground Roll 5400 ft, h = 1,000 ft, +15° Hot Day –Landing Ground Roll 5400 ft, h = 1,000 ft, +15° Hot Day –3% Second Segment Climb Gradient (4 engines) Above h = 1,000 ft, +15° Hot Day

Constraint Assumptions Cruise –Lapse Rate = (ρ ratio) –C D0 = –AR = 2 –Λ LE = 45° –d max = ft –l = 180 ft –C Dw = Subsonic Maneuver –C D0 & AR –e = 0.7 Takeoff –β = 1 –C L,max,TO = 1.2 –Field Length = ft –s TO = 6000 ft Landing –α rev = 0.2 –β = 1 –C L,max,Land = 1.5 –μ = 0.2 (wet concrete/asphalt) –Field Length = ft –s Land = 6000 ft 2 nd Segment Climb –C D0, AR, Λ LE –Four Engines (3% CGR) –C L,max,TO = 1.2 –e TO = 0.525

Constraint Diagram

Current Sizing Method Based upon calculating the fuel fraction as described in Raymer Empty weight fraction based upon historical aircraft data Technical Factor of 0.95 for advanced materials

Results Design Variables – Mission Range: 5650 nmi – Aspect Ratio: 2 – Wing Loading: 125 lb/ft 2 – Thrust to Weight: – Maximum Mach Number: 2 – Cruise Mach Number: 1.8 – SFC: 0.8 /hr Resulting Weights – W 0 =341,000 lbs – W e =126,000 lbs – W f =206,000 lbs Wing Area – S=2,700 ft 2

Sonic Boom Prediction Based upon Carlson –“Simplified Sonic-Boom Prediction” Uses a series of non- linear factors based on altitude and shape Determines –Overpressure –Duration

Baseline Overpressure Cruise Condition –M=1.8 –Alt = 45,000 ft Results –Overpressure: 1.66 lb/ft 2 –Duration: seconds

Double Delta Configuration Double Delta Wing Planform Raked Wingtips Low wing Blended Wing/ Circular Fuselage Tricycle Landing Gear 2x2 Cabin Canard, Tail, Engine Location to be optimized DD with no canards and Conventional Tail Rough DD with Canards and No Tail

Joined Wing Configuration Joined Wing Planform Canards Engines podded and aft on fuselage Circular Fuselage Tricycle Landing Gear 1x1 Cabin

Next Steps Preliminary analysis Main concept selection Detailed analysis Final layout/configuration selection

Concept Analysis Double Delta –Engine placement Drag effects Ground clearance –Maintenance cost –Landing gear size/weight Noise shielding –Canards vs. horizontal tail Drag varying with surface size Canard issues at take-off Airport compatibility –Fuselage/wing blending Joined Wing –Wing structure Complexity Fuel storage Weight savings Aerodynamic performance

Analysis Topics Aerodynamics –Cross-sectional area plot –Wave drag –Induced drag –Boom forming Structures –Strength analysis –Weight and weight distribution Propulsion –Engine model –Engine choice Cost Model Systems –Airport gate compatibility –Ground clearance Control –Stability –Static Margin –CG travel Optimization –Detailed sizing –Carpet plots

Questions?