1. 1 HARP - High Altitude Reconnaissance Platform Design Proposal Dr. James D. Lang, Project Advisor Dr. Leland M. Nicolai, Project Sponsor Dr. Paul A. Wieselmann, Project Sponsor Steven H. Christenson –Team Lead Ceazar C. Javellana III Marcus A. Artates

2. 2 Presentation Overview -Define Requirements -Design Process and Assumptions -Aircraft Configuration/Sizing -Weight Breakdown -Mission Analysis and Compliance -Aerodynamics -Performance -Propulsion -Stability and Control -Materials and Structure -Cost Estimations -Future Work -References and Acknowledgements

3. 3 Requirements Provide 24/7 ISR Coverage with 2 Aircraft 2000 nm Radius for ISR Mission 10500 nm Ferry Flight 6963 lb Payload (Installed Weight) -(4) X Band Radar Arrays – 3.3 x 6.1 ft -(2) UHF Radar Arrays – 4.9 x 40.6 ft Minimize Take-off Weight and Life Cycle Cost

4. 4 Mission Endurance 2*(One-Way Transit) + Time on Station Time on Station 2*(One-Way Transit) + Turnaround Time Derived Requirements for 24/7 Coverage with 2 Aircraft Transit TA TOS Transit TA TOS Transit TOS Transit TA TOSTransit Aircraft 1 Aircraft 2 Endurance

5. 5 ISR Mission Descend to Sea Level Climb to Cruise Altitude Cruise Out 2000 nmCruise Back 2000 nm Loiter 16 Hours (TOS) Sea Level Loiter for 30 min 55000 ft Distance (nm) 2000 nm

6. 6 Max Distance Ferry Mission Descend to Sea Level Climb to Cruise Altitude Cruise 10500 nm Sea Level Loiter for 30 min 55000 ft Distance (nm) 10500 nm

7. 7 Assume Wto and W/S Size Wing Calculate Component Weights Calculate Fuel Fractions Yes/No Determine Fuel Available Fuel)aval > Fuel)reqd Determine Fuel Required for Mission Aerodynamics Size Engine Performance AR, Taper, Sweep Fuselage Sizing and Shape Estimate Tail Size Study Mission Requirements Refine Wto and W/S Estimates Refine Aerodynamic Parameters Size Control Surfaces/Tail Calculate Drag Determine Performance Capabilities Mission Requirements Met? Refine Wto and W/S Optimize Design -Assumptions Made/Refined- -Configuration Assumptions Made/Refined to Meet Mission Requirements- Design Process Yes/No

8. 8 Aircraft Configuration -L/D)max,wing = 35 for 0 deg Sweep, 20 AR, 60% Laminar Flow Lockheed Martin Aerodynamic Data -2250 lb Thrust,.55 TSFC for 2015 Advanced Technology Turbofan Engine at Full Power and 55000 ft Design Analysis Based on the Following Assumptions:

9. 9 Aircraft Configuration Wto = 50000 lbW/S = 60 lb/ft^2 Wing Area = 833 ft^2Wing Span = 129 ft Wing Sweep = 0 degAspect Ratio = 20

10. 10 Radar Geometry X Band Radar (4) -3.3 x 6.1 ft -Azimuth Field of Regard (FOR) +/- 70 degrees -Located to give 360 Degree Coverage UHF Radar (2) -4.9 x 40.6 ft -Azimuth FOR +/- 70 degrees -Located to View Out Each Side

11. 11 Horizon Distance 55000 ft Horizon 5.17 deg 250 nm LOS Design Array Angles for Desired Footprint

12. 12 Aircraft Configuration Wing Area = 833 ft^2Wing Span = 129 ft Wing Sweep = 0 degAspect Ratio = 20 Fuselage Length = 62 ft Height = 6 ft Width = 10 ft

13. 13 Aircraft Configuration

14. 14 Aircraft Configuration Wing Fuel Tank Center of Gravity & Aerodynamic Center

15. 15 1.Start up/Take-Off.970 2.Climb to Cruise Alt.950 3.Cruise Out.902 4.Loiter on Station.754 Loiter Fuel10219 lb Maneuvering Fuel671 lb 5.Cruise Back.902 6.Descend to SL1.00 7.Loiter 20 min.994 Take-Off Weight50000 lb Fuel Weight 23874 lb Fuel Fraction.48 Fuel Volume3511 gal Weight Fractions -ISR -Cruise at.943*L/D)max -Loiter at L/D)max (1) 2015 Technology Turbofan Engine SLS Thrust = 8000 lb SLS TSFC =.40 T/W =.16

16. 16 -16 Hour TOS- Cl =.864 L/D)max = 31.52 Mach.6 and 55000 ft ISR Mission Compliance Mission Endurance 2*(One-Way Transit) + Time on Station = 2*(5.52) + 16.2 hr = 28.4 hr Time on Station 2*(One-Way Transit) + Turnaround Time = 12.2 hr + 4 hr = 16.2 hr -Two Aircraft Coverage- -2000 nm Range- Cl =.628L/D = 29.72 Mach.6 and 55000 ft Total Mission Fuel Required: 23874 lb = 3511 gal

17. 17 Weight Fractions - Ferry 1.Start up/Take-Off.970 2.Climb to Cruise Alt.950 3.Cruise 10500 nm.567 5.Descend to SL1.00 6.Loiter 20 min.994 Take-Off Weight50000 lb Fuel Weight 24685 lb Fuel Fraction.49 Fuel Volume3630 gal Design Pushed by 10500 nm Ferry Flight Approx 800 lb Additional Fuel Required

18. 18 Aerodynamics Aspect Ratio = 20Span = 129 ft Wing Sweep = 0 dege =.9 t/c =.15 K =.01768 Taper Ratio =.50MAC = 6.7 ft Croot = 8.6 ftCtip = 4.3 ft Airfoil: Modified Lockheed Martin Sensorcraft Wing15% to Provide 60% Laminar Flow

19. 19 Aerodynamics L/D)max,wing = 35 Lockheed Martin Aerodynamics Data Cdo)wing =.00817 Referenced to Sref Cdo)fuselage =.00369 Referenced to Sref Cdo)tail =.00121 Referenced to Sref Cdo)aircraft =.01393 Calculated with Interference Effects L/D)max,aircraft = 31.52 From L/D vs Cl Plot

20. 20 Aerodynamics Cl =.864 for L/D)max and Minimum Drag Cl alpha = 6.9 rad -1 =.12 deg -1 at Mach.6 Stall Velocity Based on Cl)max of 2.0 Candidate High Lift Devices -Mission Adaptive Wing (MAW) -Trailing Edge Flaps

21. 21 Aerodynamics Fuselage Sized to Hold Radar Arrays Length = 62 ft Depth = 6 ft Width = 10 ft Fineness Ratio = 6.2 Volume = 2922 ft^3 Wetted Area = 1067 ft^2 Max Cross Sectional Area = 47 ft^2

22. 22 Aerodynamics L/D)max = 31.52

23. 23 Aerodynamics

24. 24 Aerodynamics -Insufficient Data in References to Accurately Calculate M DD -Concern that at Cruise Velocity and Altitude (M.6 @ 55000 ft) Airfoil is Near M DD -Supercritical Wing M DD, Drag Divergent Mach Number

25. 25 Performance Limit Load Factor1.25 Ultimate Load Factor1.88 Turn Load Factor1.15 Maneuvering Turn Rate 1.8 deg/s Dynamic Pres Limit450 lb/ft^2 Stall Velocity159 ft/s Take-Off Velocity 191 ft/s Take-Off Distance5000 ft Landing Distance4000 ft Braking Acceleration –7 ft/s^2

26. 26 Performance

27. 27 Performance

28. 28 Performance

29. 29 Propulsion 2015 Technology Turbofan Engine Moderate Bypass Ratio 8000 lb Thrust (Sea Level Static).40 TSFC (Sea Level Static) Dimensions: Length115 in (9.6 ft) Diameter41 in (3.4 ft) Engine Weight: 1600 lb System Weight:3100 lb -Pitot Inlet, 10 ft^2 Capture Area -Fixed Convergent Nozzle, 6 ft^2 Exit Area

30. 30 Propulsion

31. 31 Propulsion

32. 32 Propulsion

33. 33 Auxiliary Power Required Power128 kW Power Available from Engine70 kW =.061*T alt Additional Power Required58 kW Total Weight1304 lb APU Fuel Weight595 lb Total Weight1899 lb APU – Continental L/TSIO-360

34. 34 Auxiliary Power Engine Excess Power kW =.061*T alt Additional Thrust 957 lb Additional Fuel8562 lb (T-D)*V = Power Additional Thrust 58 lb Additional Fuel523 lb Average Additional Fuel4542 lb

35. 35 Fuselage3415 lb Wing4928 lb Control Surface(s)2508 lb Tail297 lb Landing Gear1677 lb Propulsion System3100 lb Flight Systems460 lb Fuel System/Tanks496 lb Hydraulic System172 lb Electrical System849 lb Air Cond/Anti-ice Sys794 lb Payload (Installed)6963 lb Take-Off Weight50000 lb Empty Weight18697 lb Weight with Payload25660 lb Fuel Weight Available24340 lb Fuel Fraction.49 Fuel Volume3579 gal Weight Build-up -Fuselage and Landing Gear Weight Reduced by 15% and 5%, respectively, for 2015 Technology Target Factors

36. 36 Stability and Control Center of Gravity and Fuel Schedule

37. 37 Stability and Control Static Margin (SM) Summary

38. 38 Stability and Control Cmo =.0681

39. 39 Stability and Control Ailerons Area = 37.9 ft^2 each MAC = 1.47 ft Span = 25.8 ft Flap Chord: 25% Wing Chord at Root Flap Span: 27% of Wing Span Flaps Area = 38.0 ft^2 each MAC = 2.15 ft Span = 17.7 ft Total Control Surface Area: 152 ft^2 Aileron Chord: 22% of Wing MAC Aileron Span: 40% of Wing Span

40. 40 Stability and Control V-Tail Cvt =.0145Svt = 55.7 ft^2 Cht =.34Sht = 67.7 ft^2 42 deg from Vertical Rudder Area = 18.6 ft^2 = (1/3)Svt

41. 41 Materials and Structure Carbon Fiber -Wings -Control Surfaces -Fuselage Fiberglass -Array Panels Material Selection Structural Concept Semi-Monocoque Fuselage Structure Carbon Fiber Wing Box, Spars and Landing Gear Struts

42. 42 Materials and Structure

43. 43 Materials and Structure

44. 44 Materials and Structure

45. 45 Materials and Structure Ixx = 2.89E3 slug-ft^2 Iyy = 1.93E5 slug-ft^2 Izz = 6.86E5 slug-ft^2 Mass Moments of Inertia Based on Historical Data

46. 46 Cost Estimations Engineering Hours, Tooling Hours, Manufacturing Hours and Manufacturing Material Costs Based on Historical Data and: -Number of Aircraft Produced -Aircraft Take-off Gross Weight -Maximum Velocity Flight Test Costs Based on Historical Data and: -Number of Flight Test Aircraft -Aircraft Take-off Gross Weight -Maximum Velocity Quality Control Hours Based on Historical Data and: -Manufacturing Hours Development Support Cost Based on Historical Data and: -Aircraft Take-off Gross Weight -Maximum Velocity Engine and Avionics Cost Provided By: -Lockheed Martin

47. 47 Cost Estimations Hours Engineering 7,568,054 Tooling 4,483,622 Manufacturing 13,472,465 Quality Control 1,791,838 Aircraft to be Procured: 100 Flight Test Aircraft: 6 Costs Development Support88,831,854 Flight Test57,056,356 Manufacturing Materials260,106,607 Engine 206,700,000 Avionics 1,590,000,000 Labor Rates Adjusted to 1999 Dollars Engineering$85 Tooling$88 Manufacturing$73 Quality Control$81 Estimated RDT&E + Flyaway Cost = $4,470,179,979 44. 7 Million / Aircraft

48. 48 Future Study -Tailor Fuselage Shape to Minimize Flow Separation -Analyze Control and High Lift Concepts Mission Adaptive Wing (MAW) -Analyze Desired Radar Footprint for Exact Array Orientation -Wing Dihedral -Low Observables -Possible Requirement for Satellite Antenna System Configuration

49. 49 Future Study -Utilize VaRTM Technology -Incorporate High Strength Composites to Replace Traditional Metal Components -Refine Installed Thrust Data -Refine Inlet/Nozzle Design Performance Cost

50. 50 References and Acknowledgements References: Fundamentals of Aircraft Design, Nicolai, L.M., Revised 1984 Lockheed Martin Aerodynamic Data, Nicolai, L.M. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Raymer, D.P., Third EditionAcknowledgements: Dr. James D. Lang, Project Advisor Dr. Leland M. Nicolai, Project Sponsor Dr. Paul A. Wieselmann, Project Sponsor

51. 51 Thank You