Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
description
Transcript of Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Group #1Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson
Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee WoodAdvisor: Professor Siva Thangam
December 9th, 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
Camber 0.0992 Trailing edge angle[deg] 7.5231
Thickness 0.1252 Leading edge radius 0.0265
Wing Features• Eppler 423 - a subsonic high lift airfoil
– Camber 0.0992– Trailing edge angle 7.523° From XFOIL
– Thickness 0.1252– Leading edge radius 0.0265 Based on unit Chord
• Dihedral– Angle of 3.5°– 2” at ends (http://www.colorado-research.com/~gourlay/dome/hiFreq/)
• Horner Plate– ½” larger than thickness in one direction– 10% increase to the area of rib (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Tip_Plates/m_2282825/tm.htm)
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
Balsa Sheets Characteristic Carbon Fiber rodsCheap Cost ExpensiveFragile Strength Durable
Easy to modify shape Construction Hard to modify
Light Weight Light
More resistant to torque
Moment comparison
Succeptible to torque
• 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)
http://www.ticonsole.nl/parts/springs/what.htm
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– Vtakeoff ≈ 39 mph– Takeoff distance ≈ 60’
• Other Outputs (sample)– Thrust (@Vtakeoff) ≈ 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
ttnacfusacaacg lNMMCzNxM ,
• Analysis generalized• Lift/Drag forces
resolved to act normal/parallel to airplane reference line
M / qcSW = CM• Moments all converted
to “coefficient” form
ww
ww
iLiDCiDiLN
sincossincos
Tail Plane Size
• Profili Software utilized for lift/drag/moment coefficients
Cl vs Angle of Attack
y = -1.170E-05x4 + 5.367E-05x3 - 1.289E-03x2 + 1.019E-01x + 1.082E+00R2 = 9.999E-01
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Angle of Attack
Cl
• Lift coefficient of primary airfoil (Eppler 423) determined as a function of attack angle
• CD = f(CL)
• CM = 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: 183.4 in2
• Rule of thumb: Tail area is 15-20% of wing area
• Wing is 1200 in2
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 #1Matthew Chin, Aaron Dickerson
Brett J. Ulrich, Tzvee WoodAdvisor: Professor Siva Thangam