Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Group #1 Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam December 9 th, 2004

Overview SAE Aero Design Rules Conceptual Design –Design Matrix Materials Budget Boom Wing Selection –Previous Designs –Features Landing Gear FEM Analysis EES Calculations Tail Plane Calculations Team Dynamics & Conclusion

Design Concepts & Materials Selection

SAE Aero Design Rules For Regular Class: –Wing Span Limit – maximum width of 60 inches –Payload Bay Limit – 5” x 6” x 8” –Engine Requirements single, unmodified O.S. 0.61FX with E-4010 Muffler –Take off time limited to a max of 5 minutes –Maximum takeoff distance of 200 ft and landing distance of 400 ft Aero East Competition –Date: April 8–10 –Location: Orlando, Florida

Conceptual Design (recap) Reviewed past design entries Considered: –Flying wing –Monoplane –Bi-plane –Two sequential wings Design alternatives were evaluated for performance, feasibility, and cost.

Design Decision Matrix

Materials Balsa wood –Ease of use –Used in rib manufacture –Fuselage Plywood –Stronger than balsa wood –Used in construction for wing –Will reinforce dihedral design Carbon fiber –Composite material –Stronger and lighter than other metals –Reinforce wings with rods Aluminum –Engine bracket –Landing Gear Thermal Monocot –Reduce parasitic losses on wings

Projected Budget

Wing Selection & Boom Design

Selected for competition in: –2000: Eppler 211 –2001: Eppler 423 –2002: OAF 102 –2003: Selig 1223 Our selection: –Eppler 423 –High coefficient of lift Previous Wing Selection

Wing Features Eppler a subsonic high lift airfoil –Camber –Trailing edge angle 7.523° From XFOIL –Thickness –Leading edge radius Based on unit Chord Dihedral –Angle of 3.5° –2” at ends ( Horner Plate –½” larger than thickness in one direction –10% increase to the area of rib (

Main Wing Previous structural weakness Model currently too complex for COSMOS to mesh 22.5 lb on lower surface fixed face Symmetric model for FEM analysis

Boom Balsa sheets versus Carbon Fiber rods Chose Balsa sheets from reasons stated above Taper –More Aerodynamic –Less Mass –Sleek design

FEM Analysis

Landing Gear & Engine Mount

Landing Gear Weakness in past years – strength is a priority Tricycle design: focus on main rear wheels –Aluminum 6061 – Parabolic spring (actually elliptical in shape)

Engine Mounting Aluminum 6061 Mount for engine, secures to front face of fuselage (backing plate to be used with through bolts) Engine/Muffler 23.6 oz

EES Takeoff Calculations Method derived from fluid mechanics text and Nicolai’s ‘white paper’ Calculates take-off distance by two methods → yielding similar results Key Inputs –Weight (max) = 45lb –Fuselage length = 15” –Fuselage width = 6.5” –Boom length = 34” –Wingspan = 60” –Wing AR = 3 Key Outputs –V takeoff ≈ 39 mph –Takeoff distance ≈ 60’ Other Outputs (sample) –Thrust takeoff ) ≈ 45 lb –Drag ≈ 5 lb –Various Reynolds numbers –Area projected

Tail Plane Calculations

Tail Plane Function Aircraft control Stabilize aircraft pitch Small tail plane results in instability Extra large tail plane increases drag

Tail Plane Size Offsets all moments generated in flight –Lift/Drag forces on primary airfoil –Pitching moment of primary airfoil about its aerodynamic center –Pitching moment of airflow around fuselage –Pitching moment of tailplane –Lift/Drag forces on tail plane Tail drag force and pitching moment are negligible

Tail Plane Size Moments all taken about center of gravity Analysis generalized Lift/Drag forces resolved to act normal/parallel to airplane reference line M / qcS W = C M Moments all converted to “coefficient” form

Tail Plane Size Profili Software utilized for lift/drag/moment coefficients Lift coefficient of primary airfoil (Eppler 423) determined as a function of attack angle C D = f(C L ) C M = f(α) ≈ -0.2

Tail Plane Size Downwash from primary foil effects tailplane (NACA 0012) Lift coefficients determined with Profili Pitching moment of the fuselage depended upon: –Change in airfoil pitching moment with respect to angle of attack –Change in lift coefficient with respect to angle of attack –Fuselage “fineness ratio”

Tail Plane Size Mathematical model for tail plane size entered into EES Final tail plane minimum planform area: in 2 Rule of thumb: Tail area is 15-20% of wing area Wing is 1200 in 2

The Wrap Up

Chosen Design Various Unused Features Final Design

Team Dynamics Learned how difficult team work can be In fighting over who was in charge often resulted in wasting of time Personality conflicts occasionally made working environment difficult Ultimately produced quality work

Concluding Remarks Selected foils: –Main Wing: Eppler 423 –Tail Wing: NACA 0012 Preliminary calculations estimate a lifting capacity of 30 lbs Plane ready for construction Expect minor refinements over the coming weeks subject to completion of add’l FEA tests

Your Feedback is Appreciated Group #1 Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee Wood Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam