JLFANG-LDS Light Dynamic Strikefighter Dr. James Lang, Project Advisor Aircraft Design by Team Bling-Bling Marcus Artates Connor McCarthy Ryan McDonnell
Project Overview Goal: To Design an unmanned multi-mission aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force -Strike Mission -ISR/Attack Mission Design should be comparable in performance and production to manned aircraft
Outline Design Factors Mission Profiles Initial Designs Final Design Aerodynamics Take Off and Landing Wing Weights Propulsion and Engine Characteristics Performance Stability and Control Materials and Construction Subsystems Maintenance Future Design Work
Design Factors Design meets all requirements for both missions Multiple Payload Options Low Production and Maintenance Costs Stealth
Mission Profiles - Strike StageDescription Fuel Fraction 1 -> 2Taxi, Take Off > 3Climb, M =.5 to ft > 4500 NM at M =.8, range maximized > 5Descent to ft1 5 -> 6Strike Patrol, 3 hrs, M = > 710 x 360 deg turns > 8Dash, 50 NM, M = > 8180 deg turn > 950 NM Egress, M = > 10Climb, M =.8 to ft > NM, return > 12Descent to Sea Level1 12 -> 13Loiter,.5 hr0.99 ~0.425
Mission Profiles – ISR/Attack Final Take-Off Weight W TO =13800 lbs W fuel = 5170 lbs W empty = 6630 lbs StageDescription Fuel Fraction 1 -> 2Taxi, Take Off > 3Climb, M =.5 to ft > 4Cruise Out > 6ISR/Attack Segment > 532 x 360 deg turns > 7Cruise Home > 8Descend to Sea Level1 8 -> 9Loiter,.5 hr
Initial Design Concepts
Initial Design Concepts – con’t
Decision Matrix RequirementRequiredDesign Option #1Design Option #2Design Option #3 Takeoff Distance8000 ft+++ Landing Distance8000 ft-++ Range550(strike)/TBD(ISR)+ / - 1g Spec. Excess Power-Max. T (M=1.6/25000)900 ft/sec-+- Treq-max -+- Cl max -+- Takeoff Weight --++ Turn Rate in Maneuvering Stage18.0 deg/s max.+++ W fuel -++ W empty -++ W/S)to -++ T/W)to -++ Wf/W -++ S (wing area) ++- B (wingspan) ++- Engine -+- W engine -++ A inlet -++ L engine -++
Final Design – 3 View
Final Design – Isometric View
Final Design – 2-View Internal
Aerodynamics Aspect Ratio, A = 9 (endurance), 6 (combat) S wing = ft 2, b = 39 ft (A=9), b = 36 ft (A=6) MAc = 4.85 ft, C_root = 6.93 ft Leading Edge Wing Sweep, Δle= 25° Taper Ratio, λ =.25 t/c =.167, Δt/c = 6° NACA 2412 (L/D)max = 16.5, Clmax = 1.8 Mcrit =.815 W/S) TO =81.65 lb/ft 2 W/S) TD =38.7 lb/ft 2
Aerodynamics – con’t (Cd0 vs. M)
Aerodynamics – con’t (K vs. M)
Aerodynamics – con’t (Area-Ruling)
Take Off and Landing Using T/W) TO =0.92 and W/S) TO =81.65, and assuming sigma=0.96 yields a Take Off Parameter of 48 Using Figure 6.1, we calculated a Takeoff Distance of 1600 ft. Using Landing Equation, Landing Distance = 2995 ft Landing Distance = 2995 ft V stall,TO = 194 fps V TO = 235 fps V TD = 158 fps V stall,TD = 137 fps V stall,TD = 137 fps
Weight Estimates for Wings Using USAF method –W wing = lbs Using USN method –W wing = 1707 lbs USAF wing– 13.7% wt USN wing – 25.7 % wt
Propulsion Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-100 Dual engine setup W engine = lbs D engine = in Inlet Area (2) = 3.0 ft 2 each Nozzle Area (2) = 1.3 ft 2 each Diffuser Area = 10.4 ft 2 Fuel System Volume = ft 3 (above diffuser)
Propulsion – con’t Thrust vs. Mach Number
Propulsion – con’t T.S.F.C. vs. Mach Number
Performance Requirement Requirement CalculatedRequired Military Thrust; M 0.85, ft - 1g fps300 fps Maximum Thrust; M 0.85, ft - 1g fps900 fps Maximum Thrust; M 0.85, ft - 5g fps100 fps Maximum Thrust; M 1.60, ft - 5g 99.9 fps100 fps
Performance - con’t Turn Performance at Sea Level
Performance – con’t Turn Performance at feet
Performance – con’t 1-g Specific Excess Power
Performance – con’t 5-g Specific Excess Power
Performance – con’t Maximum Thrust Sustained Load Factor Envelope
Stability and Control Horizontal Tail (adjustable pitch) –S = ft 2 –Span = 5.7 ft each Vertical Tail –S = ft 2 –Height = 5 ft each
Materials and Structures Composite Structure Pros: –High Stiffness –Light Weight –Good corrosion resistance –High overall performance Cons : –Expensive –Difficult to repair Standard spar and stringer structure
Subsystems Landing gear arrangement –Tripod system – 2 wheels to rear, one wheel up front Hydraulic & electrical subsystems –Not dealt with in depth yet Avionics components –See internal drawing for placement of Avionics
Final Design – 2-View Internal repeated
Maintenance Removable panels – easy access for servicing engine Composite structure – replacement of structural parts is somewhat difficult, but weight saving benefits are valuable and thus composites are a good choice More analysis should be done on lifetime cost of maintenance of composites versus more traditional aluminum
Future Work Needed - Refinement of aircraft weight - Refinement of aircraft weight - Examine maintenance needs - Examine maintenance needs - Cost analysis of materials used - Cost analysis of materials used - Further sizing of wings and fuselage - Further sizing of wings and fuselage - Optimization of plane to mission profiles - Optimization of plane to mission profiles - Control and Dynamics - Control and Dynamics