1. 1

2. Systems Design Review Presentation Joe Appel Todd Beeby Julie Douglas Konrad Habina Katie Irgens Jon Linsenmann David Lynch Dustin Truesdell 2

3. Outline Mission statement Design requirements Concept generation and selected concepts Technology and effects Engine sizing and technology Constraint diagrams Sizing code Stability, CoG and Tail Sizing Summary of aircraft concepts Next Steps 3

4. Mission Statement Design an Environmentally Responsible Aircraft (ERA) that lowers noise, minimizes emissions, and reduces fuel burn Utilize new technology to develop a competitive medium-size aircraft that meets the demands of transportation for continental market Deliver a business plan focusing on capitalizing on growing markets Submit final design to NASA ERA College Student Challenge 4

5. Major Design Requirements NASA ERA Goals 5 Large twin aisle reference configuration = Boeing 777-200LR

6. Major Design Requirements Market Goals – 200 passengers – Intra - Continental Range 3200 Nautical Miles Operability – Maintenance – Turnaround time – Production and operating costs 6

7. Design Process Concept Generation – Created functional flow block diagram – Brainstormed design features – Assembled morphological matrix – Designed 8 initial concepts – Two rounds of Pugh's method 7

8. Concept Generation & Selection – Initial Concepts 8

9. Selected Concepts: Concept 1 9

10. Concept 1 10

11. Concept 1: Cabin Layout 11

12. Concept 2 12

13. Concept 2 13

14. Concept 2: Cabin Layout 14

15. Technologies Concept 1: – “Double bubble” fuselage – C - wing – Aft mounted engines Concept 2: – High wing – Under wing engines – High aspect ratio wing 15

16. Technologies On both concepts – Laminar flow – Composite Materials 16 Courtesy NASA

17. Technology Effects Double Bubble Fuselage – 19% fuel burn reduction, 15 min load/unload time reduction, pressurization difficulties C – wing – 11% reduction in induced drag, increased wing weight Aft mounted engines – 16 % fuel burn reduction, 5db noise reduction, maintenance issues 17

18. Technology Effects High Wing – Allows for GTF to be fixed in under wing configuration Under Wing Engines – No increase in maintenance time or cost High AR Wing – 1% increase in span = 1.7% decrease in induced drag Laminar Flow – 25% laminar flow on wing = 25% reduction in parasite drag, no leading edge devices limits slow speed ability 18

19. Technology Effects Composite Materials – Fiber Laminate Core(FLC) reduces over 40% directional strength, 15% lower density then Al – Alcoa Wing Box, 20% wing weight reduction 19 Photos courtesy of ALCOA

20. Engine Selection The Geared Turbo Fan (GTF) Pros - Fuel economy-up to 15% savings Noise-max of10dB reduction Emissions –surpass CAEP/6 by 50% for NOx Cons - Maintenance costs for gearbox 20 http://www.aric.or.kr/trend/history/images/propellant/pw_ge ared_turbofan.jpg

21. Engine Sizing Modeling the baseline engine to the GEnx-1B64 Modeled engine features: Weight=11,900 lbs; T:W=4.951; BPR=10; Pressure ratio 20:1 Genx-1B64 features: Weight=12822 lbs ; T:W=5.21; BPR=19/2; Pressure ratio 23:1 21 Altitude (ft)Thrust (lbf)TSFC (lb/hr/lbf) 0618000.262 5000595000.263 10000508000.268 15000429000.273 20000359000.28 25000297000.287 30000243000.294 35000197000.302 40000155000.303 45000122000.303 Courtesy GE Aircraft Engines

22. Engine Technology Effects Cheverons- Improved exhaust and bypass air mixing reducing engine exhaust noise by 3 dB Soft Vanes- Reduce fan noise by 1-2 dB by reducing unsteady pressure response on stator surface. 22 http://memagazine.asme.org/artic les/2006/november/Put_Nozzle.cf m Assessment of soft vane and metal foam engine noise reduction concepts-NASA Glenn

23. Major Performance Constraints Top of Climb: – Alt = 42,000 ft, Mach = 0.75 2-G Maneuver: – Alt = 10,000 ft, V = 250 Kts, Landing Braking Ground Roll @ High-Hot Cond. : – Length = 4000 ft, (Alt = 5000 ft, T = +15 F) Takeoff Accel. Ground Roll @ High-Hot Cond. : – Length = 2000 ft Second Segment Climb @ High-Hot Cond.: – 1 engine out, FAA min. climb gradient (2.4%) 23

24. InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value190.48-1.180.50.42.260.015120150165 Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots Basic Assumptions 24 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Concept 2 – High Wing InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value190.54-1.180.50.42.260.015120150165 Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots

25. Constraint Diagram: Concept 1 25 T sl /W 0 = 0.29 (lbf/lb) W 0 /S = 103 (lbs/ft 2 )

26. Constraint Diagram: Concept 2 26 T sl /W 0 = 0.26 (lbf/lb) W 0 /S = 84 (lb/ft 2 )

27. Trade Studies Aspect Ratio – Varied aspect ratio between 9 & 20 Mach Number – Target performance specifications yielded a mach number of 0.75 Sweep – Researched the effects of sweep between 0 ° & 35° on both concepts and chose appropriate sweep angles 27

28. Aircraft Design Mission 0 1 2 4 5 76 4’5’ 8 9 Taxi & takeoff Climb Cruise Climb No range descent Loiter (30 min) Land Climb No range descent Land Attempt to Land Loiter (30 min) 6800 ftRange: 3200 nmi4950 ftFuel Reserves 3 32000 ft 28

29. Code Status Current Status Validated Code for Boeing 757-200 and 767-200ER Split up sizing code into weight and drag components Location of center of gravity for Hybrid Concepts Validation using similar a/c: Boeing 757-200 TOGW = 255000 lb, OEW = 127000 lb, W fuel = 74510 lb 29

30. InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value190.48-1.180.50.42.260.015120150165 Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots Basic Assumptions 30 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Concept 2 – High Wing InputL/DW e /W 0 αSFC c SFC l (CL) max C D0 V st V t/o V appr Value190.54-1.180.50.42.260.015120150165 Unit-- lbf/ftlb/(lbf*h) -- knots

31. Sizing Approach 31 Empty Weight – Statistical equations for components from Raymer Text – Weights added to Payload & Fuel to estimate TOGW – If fuel weight isn’t sufficient, weights adjusted (iteration) Fuel Weight – Segment fuel fractions using Range and Endurance eqns Drag – Component drag build-up Parasite, for each exposed aircraft component Induced, for wing and tail surfaces Wave, neglected for cruse Mach ~ 0.75

32. InputW 0 /ST SL /W 0 ARΛt/c(CL) max Value1030.2910250.12.26 Unitlb/ft 2 -- deg-- Concept Descriptions 32 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Concept 2 – High Wing InputW 0 /ST SL /W 0 ARΛt/c(CL) max Value840.261860.12.26 Unitlb/ft 2 -- deg--

33. Component Weight Breakdown 33 Double Bubble High Wing Fuselage:20585lbs Wing:22470lbs Engine:21600lbs Horiz Tail:9329lbs Vert Tail:2402lbs Furnishings:21717lbs Nacelle:5262lbs Landing Gear:4862lbs Avionics:1840lbs Electrical:1041lbs APU:616lbs Instruments:504lbs Hydraulics:326lbs Engine Ctrls:88lbs Fuselage: 21452 lbs Wing: 30291 lbs Engine: 21600 lbs Horiz Tail: 8845 lbs Vert Tail: 2918 lbs Furnishings: 21918 lbs Nacelle: 5262 lbs Landing Gear: 4751 lbs Avionics: 1840 lbs Electrical: 1041 lbs APU: 616 lbs Instruments: 580 lbs Hydraulics: 424 lbs Engine Ctrls: 88 lbs

34. Sizing Output 34 Double Bubble High Wing Empty Wt Fraction:0.48 TOGW:264400lbs OEW:128000lbs Empty Wt:126000lbs Fuel Wt:77500lbs Payload Wt:59000lbs Crew Wt:1800lbs Empty Wt Fraction:0.53 TOGW:257400lbs OEW:138000lbs Empty Wt:136200lbs Fuel Wt:60000lbs Payload Wt:60000lbs Crew Wt:1800lbs

35. Center of Gravity 35 Concept 1 – Double Bubble Static Margin = -20 Datum c.g. 73’ 65’ 69’ 122’ 125’ 130’ a.c. 93’

36. Center of Gravity 36 Concept 2 – High Wing Static Margin = -18 Datum c.g. @ 70’ 56’ 69’ 75’ 145’ 150’ a.c. @ 88’

37. Tail Sizing Relate wing aspects to tail – Wing yaw moments countered by wing span – Pitching moments counted by wing mean chord – Correlate using volume coefficients Equations 6.28 & 6.29 from Raymer 37

38. Concept 1: Exterior 38 130’ 20’ 160’ 15.6’

39. Concept 1: Interior 39 Cabin height = 7ft 2in

40. Concept 1: LOPA 40

41. Concept 2: Exterior 41 231’ 150’ 17.8’ 17.5’

42. Concept 2: Interior 42 Cabin height = 7ft 2in

43. Concept 2: LOPA 43

44. Compliance Matrix 44

45. Next Steps Drag component build up Carpet plots and more in-depth trade studies C.G. travel diagram Additional technology integration Improve engine model accuracy 45

46. On a scale of one to ten, 46

47. Concept Generation & Selection House of Quality 47

48. Appendix Morphological Matrix 48

49. Appendix Pugh’s Method 49