Mayaguez Goat Screw MARINE CORPS Ad Hoc Fubar 18 Years Before Black Hawk Down!
Team: FUBAR-V - PBworksae440a2009.pbworks.com/f/FUBAR-V_Presentation.pdfDesirable to decrease stall...
Transcript of Team: FUBAR-V - PBworksae440a2009.pbworks.com/f/FUBAR-V_Presentation.pdfDesirable to decrease stall...
Team: FUBAR-V(Flying Unmanned Bug Annihilation Remote Vehicle)
2
Presented By
Bryan LinEric JohnsonPhilip MartoranaGlen FetschTherese ProseckyRaj RamachandramoorthyAdam Carrington
ConfigurationAerodynamicsStructuresStability and ControlPropulsionPerformanceCost Analysis
Configuration
Presented by:Bryan Lin
4
Overview
Initial Design Selections
Initial Sizing and Constraint Analysis
Weights and Balances
BL
5
Initial Design Selections
BL
6
Three Selected Designs
BL
7
Initial Sizing
Configuration
Calculated Value Twin Boom
Conventional Pusher
Conventional Tractor
TOGW (Wo) (lb) 1470 1163 1163
Empty Weight (lb) 1155 848 848
We/Wo 0.786 0.729 0.729
Wf/Wo 0.069 0.054 0.054
Mission Fuel Weight (lb) 101.527 62.743 62.743
BL
8
Initial Sizing Model
Leg Discription R (n.mi.) R (ft) C (lb/s) V (knots) L/D Wi/Wi-
1 Wi/Wo1 Warmup+Take off 0.97 0.97 2 Climb 0.985 0.9555 3 Cruise 16.44 99891.34 2E-05 48 11.59 0.9978 0.9534 4 Climb 0.985 0.9391 5 Land 0.995 0.9344
Historical Fuel Fractions
Warmup+Take off 0.97
Climb 0.985
Climb 0.985
Land 0.995
BL
9
Constraint Analysis
Initial constraint analysis using estimated values
Initial Constraint Analysis
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
W / S 0
clmaxl = 3Take OffCruiseDP
BL
10
Refined Constraint Analysis
Constraint analysis after revised valuesConstraint Analysis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30W/S0
T/W
0
Take OffCruiseLandingDP
BL
11
Weights and Balances
All components were modeled as simple geometric shapes.
Fuselages were modeled as combination of simple geometric shapes (i.e. cones, cylinders, prisms)
Components were first place throughout each configuration and then adjusted for static margin optimization
BL
12
CG rangesCG ranges
0 5 10 15 20
Tractor
Pusher
Twin-boom
Con
figur
atio
ns
X location (ft) Full wieght CGEmpty Wieght Change in CGFull Length
BL
Aerodynamics
Presented by:Eric Johnson
14
Overview
Airfoil SelectionWing GeometryDrag Buildup– Conventional Tractor– Conventional Pusher– Twin-Boom Pusher– Drag Polars
Trade Studies– High-Lift Devices– In-board Spray System
EJ
15
Airfoil Selection
Eppler 431– Analyzed with XFOIL– High-lift at low speeds– Desirable lift and structural characteristics
EJ
16
Wing Geometry
Same basic geometry for all three configurationsRectangular planform with no leading-edge sweep CLmax=1.549 at a=18°
iw=5°
Configuration t/c camber Chord (ft) Span (ft) Sref (ft^2) AR
Conventional Tractor 0.15 4.2% 3.93 31.3 130.8 8
Conventional Pusher 0.15 4.2% 3.93 31.3 130.8 8
Twin Boom Pusher 0.15 4.2% 3.93 31.3 138.7 8
EJ
17
Drag Buildup
Followed method in Raymer for CDo
Initial parasite drag calculation includes:– Wing– Fuselage sections– Tail – Gear– Spray system– Engine cooling
Added 5% for losses and perturbances
EJ
18
Drag Buildup: Conventional Tractor
CDo=.0373
Mission Segment Cl (from XFOIL) CL CDi CD L/D
Takeoff/Climb 1.6550 1.2806 0.0805 0.1178 10.87
Cruise/Spray 1.1522 1.1006 0.0595 0.0968 11.37
Descent/Landing 1.6549 1.0760 0.0568 0.0942 11.43
EJ
19
Drag Buildup: Conventional Pusher
CDo=.0378
Mission Segment Cl (from XFOIL) CL CDi CD L/D
Takeoff/Climb 1.6550 1.2806 0.0805 0.1183 10.82
Cruise/Spray 1.1522 1.1006 0.0595 0.0973 11.31
Descent/Landing 1.6549 1.0760 0.0568 0.0947 11.36
EJ
20
Drag Buildup: Twin-Boom Pusher
CDo=.0438
Mission Segment Cl (from XFOIL) CL CDi CD L/D
Takeoff/Climb 1.6550 1.2806 0.0805 0.1243 10.30
Cruise/Spray 1.1522 1.1006 0.0595 0.1033 10.66
Descent/Landing 1.6549 1.0760 0.0568 0.1007 10.69
EJ
21
Drag Polars
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
CD
CL
Tractor Pusher Tw in-Boom
EJ
22
Trade Study: High-lift Devices
Desirable to decrease stall speed for takeoff and landingConsidered plain and split flaps for conventional tractorPotential 15-20% decrease in Vstall
50.00
52.00
54.00
56.00
58.00
60.00
62.00
64.00
66.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sflapped/Sref
Stal
l Spe
ed (f
ps)
68.00
Plain Flaps Split Flaps No Flaps (clean)
EJ
23
Trade Study: In-board Sprayer
Desirable to increase efficiency by lowering CDo
In-board system would virtually eliminate sprayer contribution for much of the flight
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
CD
CL
Conventional WICDS L/D Conventional L/D WICDS
Configuration CDo (conv.) CD (sprayer) CDo (in-board) L/Dmax (conv.) L/Dmax (in-board)
Conventional Tractor 0.037321 0.018346 0.018975 11.67 16.37
Conventional Pusher 0.037847 0.018346 0.019501 11.59 16.13
Twin Boom Pusher 0.043823 0.016511 0.027312 10.77 13.63
EJ
Structures
Presented by:Philip Martorana
25
Overview
V-n Diagram– At design wing loading– Trade Study: lower wing loading
Material SelectionLoad Paths– Fuselage construction– Shear and bending moment loads at wing root
Landing Gear– Three configurations– Tire sizing
PM
26
V-n Diagram for W/S=9
-3-2-1012345
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
V (mph)
n
Positve Gust Load at Vc Negative Gust Load at Vc
Positive Gust Load at Vd Negative Gust Load at Vd
High AOA Max q
Gust Load btw Vc and Vd Gust Load btw Vc and Vd
Maneuver Envelope
PM
27
V-n Diagram for W/S=4
-3
-2-1
01
2
34
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
V (mph)
n
Positive Gust Load at Vc Negative Gust Load at Vc
Positve Gust Load at Vd Negative Gust Load at Vd
High AOA Max q
Gust Load btw Vc and Vd Gust Load btw Vc and Vd
Maneuver Envelope
PM
28
Material Selection
Materials Considered– Wood, aluminum, steel,
and titanium– Emphasis on low cost
through ease of manufacturing and maintainability
Current Selection– Aluminum 2024
Other Considerations– Steel 4130– Fiberglass
Material E (ksi)
G(ksi)
Yield Tensile Strength(ksi)
Al 2024 10,600 4,060 50
Steel 4130 29,700 11,600 52.2
PM
29
Fuselage Construction
Three types considered– True monocoque– Semimonocoque– Reinforced Shell
Semimonocoque is current selection– Stick with theme of low cost
Shear and bending moment loads at wing roots for critical cases
Critical case Lift (lb) n+ Wing weight (lb)
Shear force at root (lb)
Bending moment at root (lb-ft)
High AOA 1,319 4.272 152.3 4,984 18,083
Max q 2,942 4.272 152.3 11,918 43,240
PM
30
Semimonocoque Configuration
PM
31
Landing Gear for Conventional Tractor
Taildragger configuration– Increased angle of attack at takeoff– Proper propeller clearance– Risk of ground loop
PM
32
Landing Gear for Conventional Pusher
Single main gear configuration– More stable– Less drag than taildragger configuration– Historically used on lighter aircraft
PM
33
Landing Gear for Twin Boom Pusher
Modification of single main gear configuration– Twin boom configuration does not allow for one rear
auxiliary wheel– Two auxiliary wheels used– Slight increase in drag
Tire Selection– Used method from Raymer
Landing Gear Type
Main tire diameter (in)
Main tire width (in)
Wing tire diameter (in)
Wing tire width (in)
Tail tire diameter (in)
Tail tire width (in)
Taildragger 16.489 6.2308 N/A N/A 10.124 4.029
Single MainGear
19.9667 7.3932 10.124 4.029 10.124 4.029
Modified Single Main Gear
19.9667 7.3932 10.024 4.029 7.949 3.245
PM
Stability and Control
Presented by:Glen Fetsch
35
Overview
Initial tail sizing– Control surface sizing
Neutral Point– Calculation formula
Center of Gravity– Calculation in conjunction with Configurations
Static Margin– Power on– Power off
GF
36
Tail Configuration
Conventional Tractor– Conventional Tail
Conventional Pusher– Conventional Tail
Twin Boom Design– Utilized two vertical
stabilizers and one main horizontal
GF
37
Control Surface Sizing
Aspect Ratio– Historical Data
Area (s)
Span (b)
vtvt
vt
c bSSl
=ht
htht l
SCcS =
h h hb AR S= ⋅
v v vb AR S= ⋅
GF
38
Control Surface Sizing
Calculated using historical values from RaymerAverage between Sailplane and Agricultural
GF
39
Neutral Point and Center of Gravity
Neutral Point Calculation – Power on– Power off
Center of Gravity– Conjunction with Configurations– Approximated weight model
GF
40
Static Margin
Aimed for a higher Static Margin– For easy pilot control– Wide turning radius ~500 ft
Power on– ~35.8% Twin Boom– ~40.0% Conventional Tractor– ~4.5% Conventional Pusher
GF
Propulsion
Presented by:Therese Prosecky
42
Overview
RequirementsChoicesSelected Power PlantPropellersPower Calculations
TP
43
Propulsion Requirements
Manage:– Cruise speed: 47 knots– Take-off speed: 48 knots– Landing speed: 48 knots
Handle weight of payload and aircraft– 300 lbs of payload– 1100lbs-1500lbs for weight of aircraft, depending on
model
TP
44
UAV Engines
Use for lightweight unmanned aerial vehiclesUAV Engines and ROTAX
Manufacturer Model Weight (lb) Power (hp) Max. RPMFuel Consumption (gal/hr)
UAV Engines AR801 53.7 50 8000 2.5
AR801R 65 51 8000 2.4
ROTAX 582 UL-2V 79.2 53.6 6000 3.3
582 UL-2V 79.2 65 6500 3.6
912 UL 121.3 79 5500 2.9
Photo from: http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_engines/rotax_582UL.htmTP
45
Propulsion System Selection
ROTAX 582 UL-2V: 65 horsepower– 2-cylinder, 2-stroke rotary engine– Self-sufficient liquid cooling system– Unleaded/leaded MON 83 fuel– Intake silencer
Manufacturer ModelLength (in)
Weight (lb)
Power (hp)
Max. RPM
Max. Torque (ft-lb)
Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)
ROTAX 582 UL-2V
30.35 79.2 65 6800 55.3 7.2
TP
46
Propellers
Material: metal-more efficient than wood
Constant-pitch ~12 degrees-lighter than constant-speed prop
Diameter: 62in2 Blades vs. 3 Blades
http://www.bearplugs.com/prodimg/HEI-20EVOE100P.jpg
TP
47
Power Calculations
Power Loading
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
P o w e r ( h p )
TP
48
Thrust vs. Velocity
Thrust required: 385 lbf
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
V el oci t y ( kt s)
TP
Performance
Presented by:Rajaprakash Ramachandramoorthy
50
OverviewPrimary Mission Profile– Take-off and Climb– Spraying Segment– Descent and Landing
Ferry Mission
RR
51
Primary Mission Profile
1) Taxi 2) Ground roll 3) Climb to 50 ft4) Descent to 20 ft
5) Spray Chemicals6) Climb to 50 ft7) Descend 8) Land
Main ConstraintLanding and Take off Distance within 750 feet
RR
52
Take Off And ClimbEquations Used
ST = √(R2 – (R – hTR)2)Sc = (hobstacle – hTR ) / tan(γC)
Aircraft Designs Take-off Distance Fuel ConsumedConventional Tractor 633 feet 0.42 litersTwin Boom Design 669 feet 0.46 litersConventional Pusher 633 feet 0.42 liters
RR
53
Spraying Segment
S shaped Turns Spiraling to center Translating EllipseTurn Radius = 31.30 ft Turn Radius = Vary Turn Radius = 39.38 ft Number of Passes =24 Number of Spirals = Vary Number of Passes = 16Spray distance=12 miles Spray distance= Vary Distance = 16.93 miles
Conventional Pusher Twin Boom Design Conventional Tractor3.94 liters 3.63 liters 3.94 liters
Translating Ellipse – Fuel Consumption
RR
54
Descent and Landing
Aircraft Design Landing Distance Fuel ConsumedConventional Tractor 462 feet 0.060 litersTwin Boom Design 489 feet 0.055 litersConventional Pusher 462 feet 0.060 liters
Equations Used
ST = √(R2 – (R – hF)2)Sc = (hobstacle – hF ) / tan(γC)
RR
55
Ferry Mission
Take off
Climb
Cruise
Descent
Landing
Fuel ConsumptionAircraft Designs
Take off / Landing Distances Take-off Climb Cruise Landing
Conventional Tractor 389 feet / 439 feet 0.37 liters 1.64 liters 0.40 liters 0.035 liters
Twin Boom Design 409 feet / 466 feet 0.40 liters 1.87 liters 0.35 liters 0.030 liters
Conventional Pusher 389 feet / 439 feet 0.37 liters 1.64 liters 0.40 liters 0.035 liters
RR
Cost Analysis
Presented by:Adam Carrington
57
Overview
Spray SystemAvionicsCost Breakdown– Material Cost Influence
Avionics Integration Diagram
AC
58
Spray System
Spray System
Component Price Quantity Total Price
PVC Pipe $10 2 $20
Spray Nozzles $5 10 $50
Chemical Turbine Driven Pump $100 1 $100
Flow Rate/ Pressure Gauge $100 1 $100
Digital Fuel Level/Voltmeter Gauge $334 1 $334
Flow Rate Controller $100 1 $100
Solid Particle Distribution Servo $75 1 $75
Miscellaneous (nuts, bolts, adhesive, etc…) $100 1 $100
Total $879
AC
59
Avionics
Autopilot– GPS– Accelerometer– Altimeter– Airspeed
HORIZON Ground Control– In-flight Mission
Reprogramming– Joystick Interface– Multiple UAV Profiles– Payload Operations
Wireless Modems– 30 mile range– High Speed & Secure
Transmission
HORIZON Ground Control Software
Autopilot System with Hardware
AC
60
Avionics
Avionics
Component Price Quantity Total Price
Laptop $500 2 $1,000
MP2128g Autopilot with HORIZON $3,500 1 $3,500
MHX2420 Wireless Modem $350 2 $700
Stabilized Payload Camera $400 1 $400
Rubber Ducky Antenna $10 2 $20
Analog to Digital Converter $40 1 $40
Digital Fuel Level/Voltmeter Gauge $334 1 $334
Miscellaneous (nuts, bolts, adhesive, etc…) $100 1 $100
Total $6,094
AC
61
Cost Analysis
Conventional– Graphite
$43,600– Aluminum
$40,500– Fiberglass
$29,300Twin Boom– Graphite
$54,300– Aluminum
$50,500– Fiberglass
$36,000
Cost Comparison for Different Materials
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Twin Boom Conventional
Model Type
Cos
t per
UA
V
Aluminum
Graphite
Fiberglass
AC
62
Cost Analysis
Conventional Model Total Cost Breakdown
17%
27%
4%11%
28%
8%
4%
1%Flight Test Cost
Manufacturing MaterialCostEngine Cost
Tooling Cost
Manufacturing Cost
Quality Control Cost
Avionics
Spray System
AC
63
Cost Analysis
Operation and Maintenance Cost– 200 hours per year– 20 year life span– 6 acres per minute– $41.75 per hour– 12 cents per acre– Total: $167,000
Variation of Life Cycle Cost due to Model and Number Built
Number produced Model Life Cycle Cost
Twin Boom $237,958.59
50 Conventional $224,611.25
Twin Boom $217,515.72
100 Conventional $207,482.60
Twin Boom $193,829.71
500 Conventional $188,159.79
AC
64
Future Work
Re-select design point given new constraint analysis.Optimize fuselage designs for transportationInvestigate other airfoils Incorporate high-lift devicesHigher horsepower engineDetailed stress analysis on aircraft using different materialsIntegrate multiple materials to reduce costImplement integrated spray systemMore accurate calculations for the climb and descent mission segmentsGradual payload reduction systemPerformance calculations with heavier load and higher altitudes
65
References[1] Raymer P. Daniel., “Initial Sizing,” Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4thedition., AIAA Educational Series, Reston, 2006. [2] “UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database”, 2 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, www.ae.uiuc.edu/m_selig/ads/coord_database.html [3] Nice, Karim, “How Rotary Engines Work,” HowStuffWorks, 9 Oct. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm/printable [4] “ROTAX Engines”, Skydive: UK Distributors for ROTAX Engines, 15 Oct. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.skydrive.co.uk/sd_re.asp [5] “Continental O-200 Engine,”Zodiac XL, 11 Oct.2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/o200.html [6] Perkins, D.Courtland., Hage, E.Robert., “Airplane Performance,” Airplane Performance Stability and Control, Seventh printing, John Wiley and Sons, New York, Aug 1958, pp.155-167. [7] Asselin Mario., “Level Flight,” An Introduction to Aircraft Performance, AIAA Education Series, Reston, 1997, pp.92-95. [8] Wood, D.Karl., “Aircraft Performance,” Technical Aerodynamics, Ulrich’s Book Store, Ann Abhor, 1955, pp.12-22. [9] “FAR Part 23,” Flightsim Aviation Zone, 2 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23.html [10] “Aviation,” Integrated Publishing, 7 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14014/css/14014_78.htm [11] “Aircraft Landing Gear Layouts,” Aerospaceweb, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.aerospaceweb.org/questions/design/q0200.shtml. [12] “MicroPilot, World Leader in Miniature UAV Autopilots”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.micropilot.com [13] “Microhard Systems Inc.”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.microhardcorp.com [14] “Pegasus Autoracing Supplies”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecId=5296 [15] “HyperLink Technologies”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/2.4ghz_5.8ghz_triband_rubber_duck_antenna_rsp.php [16] “Professional Equipment”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.professionalequipment.com/water-pressure-gauge-water-flow-rate-meter-995-01sku397-654/water-pressure-gauges/ [17] “Dell, Inspiron 1501 Notebook”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspn_1501?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs [18] “Lowe’s”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.lowes.com [19] “John Deere, Parts”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.deere.com
66
Questions?