Poorvi Kalaria
Andy Grimes
Tara Palmer
Vicki Huff
Jack Yang
Roman Maire
Motohide Ho
Greg Freeman
Nick Gurtowski
Sanjeev Ramaiah
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
2
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
3
Mission Objectives
• Design an aircraft with supersonic capabilities that is
able to link major business city pairs.
• Compete with other existing aircraft on the market.
Aerion Corporation SBJ
Lockheed Martin QSST
Dassault Aviation HISAC
Team 1
Sukhoi S-21
4
System Requirements Review
• First and Business class seating
• Prime design focuses are cruise Mach number and cruise
efficiency
• Will fly only overseas due to FAR36 and to avoid the ill
effects of sonic boom overland
• Around 203 units will be sold in order to operate
profitably between 19 city pairs
• Still air range is 5450 nmi.
• Design cruise altitude is 50,000 ft.
• Design maximum cruise Mach number is 1.8
Team 1
5
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
6
Major Design Requirements
• Takeoff field length
• Landing field length
• Door height above ground
• Airframe life
• Range
• Number of passengers
• Cruise Mach number
• Cabin volume per passenger
Team 1
• Operating cost
• Cruise altitude
• Cruise efficiency
• Cumulative certification noise
• Stall speed
• Wing span
• NOx emissions
7
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
8
Aircraft Concept Selection
• Pugh’s Method
– Evaluation of designs
• Process Overview
1.
2.
3.
4.
Choose criteria
Form matrix
Choose datum
Run matrix and evaluate
results
5. Choose new datum
6. Iterate until “winning
concept” is found
Team 1
9
Aircraft Concept Selection
• Initial Concept Selection
Concept Description Categories
– Each group member
designed his or her own
design
– Based on agreed-on
categories
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
• Initial Datum
– Concorde
Nose Type
Canards (Yes or No)
Fuselage Design
Wing Type
Engine Placement
Engine Inlet Geometry
Nozzle Geometry
Tail Configuration
Gear Type and Placement
Door Placement
• Two Iterations Completed
– Thirteen concepts
evaluated
Team 1
10
Initial Concept Designs
Team 1
11
Initial Concept Designs
Team 1
12
Aircraft Arrangement
Team 1
13
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
14
Advanced Technologies/Concepts
• Components
–
–
–
–
–
• Other Technologies
– Skin and structural
materials
– Compression lift
Engine selection
Inlets
Combustors
Nozzles
Wing tips
Team 1
15
Engine Selection
• Supersonic Regime
Considerations
–
–
–
–
Operation power
Limit on pressure ratio
Engine noise
Combustion emissions
Team 1
16
Engine Selection
• Medium Bypass Turbofans
– Variable cycle technology
• Superior efficiencies
– Higher TSFC
– Reduced turbine
temperatures
Image: "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach" - Daniel Raymer
Team 1
17
Combustor Technology
• Nox Emissions
– Direct functions of Gas
temperature
• Cannot remain above 3300° F
for too long
• Unacceptable levels of Nox
• Efficient Mixing
– Increase full vaporization
prior to injection
Image: "Engine Design and Challenges for
the High Mach Transport" ~ Koff
Inlet Design
• Ramp Inlet
• Variable Inlet Geometry
– Mass flow requirements
– Shock creation and
control
Image: "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach" - Daniel Raymer
Team 1
19
Inlet Design Analysis
• Drag Trends
– 2-D Ramp vs. Axisymmetric
– Increase in drag
Image: "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach" - Daniel Raymer
Nozzle Design
• Variable Nozzle Geometry
– Better match between
different operating
conditions
• Ejector Nozzle
– Used with variable geometry
Image: "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach" - Daniel Raymer
Team 1
21
Wing Tip Inclusion
• Advantages
– Reduction of the AR during cruise
– More stability surfaces
– Reflection of the oblique shock (extra compression)
• Disadvantages
– Extra complexity
– Extra weight
– May interfere with landing constraints in case of
failure
Team 1
22
Advanced Concepts: Materials
• Factors:
– Performance at high temperatures
• Skin temperature increases more rapidly at higher
speeds
• Raymer: 350° average skin temperature at Mach 1.6-1.8
– Affordability
– Efficiency
• Corrosion
• Service Life
– Availability
Team 1
23
Advanced Concepts: Materials
• Aluminum Alloys
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Most widely used
Abundant
Moderate cost
Excellent strength-to-weight ratio
High strength: 7075
Aluminum Lithium Alloy comparable to composites
250°F maximum operating temperature
Weak in fracture toughness and creep resistance
Team 1
24
Advanced Concepts: Materials
• Titanium Alloys
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
High stiffness
Resistant to high temperatures
Corrosion resistant
High strength to weight ratio
Difficult to form
Excessive weight
Expensive (5X aluminum)
Primary use on wing and tail leading edge
Also, engine components and landing gear
Team 1
25
Advanced Concepts: Materials
• Composites
– Weight reduction
– Filament-reinforced: high strength to weight ratio
and weight savings
– Graphite Epoxy (Carbon-fiber composite): high
strength-to-weight ratio but very expensive (20X
aluminum)
– Max temp: 350°
Team 1
26
Advanced Concepts: Materials
• Composites:
– Cannot accept concentrated loads
– Strength affected by many factors
– Susceptible to damage
– Internal damage difficult to find
– Difficult to repair
– Complex material properties
Team 1
27
Advanced Concepts: Materials
• Aerion:
– Wing: Carbon Epoxy
• Leading edge: Coated with metal for erosion resistance
– Fuselage: Aluminum & Composites
• QSST:
– No new “breakthrough” materials
• XB-70
– Stainless steel
– Sandwiched honeycomb
– Titanium
Team 1
28
Advanced Concepts: Materials
• Next Steps:
– 2020: vast advances in composites
– Two main focus points:
• Weight & temperature
– Different materials in different locations
– Work with sizing
• Determine maximum loads
– Look into joints & sealants
Team 1
29
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
30
Initial Cabin Layout
Team 1
31
Initial Cabin Layout
Team 1
32
Initial Cabin Layout
Emergency Exit
Emergency Exit
Emergency Exit
Boarding Door
Team 1
33
Initial Cabin Layout
•First Class Seat Pitch = 46”
•Business Class Seat Pitch = 42”
•1 Boarding Door (1R)
•3 Emergency Exits
•2 Lavatories
Team 1
34
Initial Fuselage Dimensions
• Length = 196’
• Width at Max = 9’
• Width at Tail = 4’
Team 1
35
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
36
Constraint Analysis / Constraint Diagram
• Major Performance Constraints:
-Cruise
• 1g Steady Level Flight, M = 1.8 at h=50,000 ft
• Assuming Standard Atmosphere Conditions
-Subsonic Maneuver
• 2g turn at 250 knots at h = 10,000 ft
• Assuming 92% of the take off weight
-Takeoff Ground Roll
• 6000 ft at h = 0 ft
• +15° Hot Day
-Landing Ground Roll
• 4000 ft at h = 0 ft
• +15° Hot Day
-Second Segment Climb Gradient
• above h = 0 ft
• +15° Hot Day
Team 1
37
Basic assumptions made for each constraint
Cruise
Subsonic
Maneuver
Take Off
2nd segment climb
Landing
Engine Lapse Rate (α)
42 %
82%
99 %
99 %
99 %
25 % Reverse T
Weight fraction (Wi/Wo)
91 %
92 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
1.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
AR
Oswald Efficiency
LE angle
82 %
60o
CLmax
Cdo
0.018
CDW
0.022
0.018
Number of engines
3
Climb Gradient
2.7 %
Distance Constraint
6000ft
Team 1
4000ft
38
1g steady, level flight, M = 1.8 @ h=50K (Sky)
Compression Lift, 3 engines,
folding winglets configuration
Design:
Wing Loading ~ 104 psf
Thrust to Weight Ratio ~ 0.455
subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10K (Sky)
takeoff ground roll 6000 ft @ h = 0K, +15° hot day (Sky)
landing ground roll 4000 ft @ h = 0K, +15° hot day (Sky)
second segment climb gradient above h = 0K, +15° hot day (Sky)
0.8
0.7
Thrust to Weight Ratio
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
80
90
100
110
Wing
Loading
[psf]
Team 1
120
130
140
39
Compression Lift, 3 engines,
Non-folding winglets configuration
Design:
Wing Loading ~ 104 psf
Thrust to Weight Ratio ~ 0.515
Cruise
Subsonic Maneuver
Take Off
Landing
2nd Segment Climb
0.8
0.7
Thrust to Weight Ratio
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
80
90
100
110
Wing
[psf]
TeamLoading
1
120
130
140
40
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
41
Current Sizing Approach
• Writing MATLAB code
– Advances the Initial Sizing Spreadsheet
• More detailed breakdown of each segment of design
mission to get more accurate segment weights, fuel
weights
• More detailed geometry
• Inclusion of Lift, Drag, SFC as functions of geometry,
engine specs, altitude, Mach number, etc.
Team 1
42
Main Code
Inputs
TSL/W0, W0/S, W0,guess,
SFCSL … etc
Determine Other Variables
TSL = (TSL/W0)W0
S = W0/(W0/S)
b 
AR * S
We = f(W0, S, TSL, etc)
Wfuel = f(W0, S, TSL, etc)
W0,guess = W0,new
W0,new = Wpay + Wcrew + We + Wfuel
False
W0,new ≈ W0,guess
True
W0
Team 1
43
Example of segment function: Cruise
Inputs
Vcruise, Rcruise, Wcurrent
Wcurrent = W1
i = 1:n
Di = f(geometry, Wi, M, h)
SFC = f(h,M,D)
Li = Wi
Calculations
Wi+1/Wi = exp[-(Rseg*C)/(V(Li/Di))
Wi+1 = Wi*Wi+1/Wi
Team
W 1
n+1
44
Component Weight Prediction
• Used component weight prediction equations
from Raymer 15.3
• Used Concorde as “standard”
– Obtained values for variables
• Calculated correction factor from Concorde
– Published We / Predicted We
– Factor = 2.04
• Will be used once more of our variables are
found/calculated
Team 1
45
Current Values
• Based on Initial Sizing Spreadsheet
– ARcruise = 1.9
– T/W0 = 0.45
– W0/S = 107
– SFC = 0.78 1/hr
• Gross T.O. Weight: 299,100 lbs
• Fuel Weight: 169,300 lbs
• Total Empty Weight: 118,200 lbs
Team 1
46
Next Steps
• Include Engine Specs
• Find reasonable prediction for wave drag
• Employ advanced flight control equations for
better prediction of aerodynamic coefficients
• Develop Lift, Drag, SFC, etc. functions
• Finish Advanced Sizing Code
Team 1
47
System Definition Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mission Objectives
Design Requirements
Aircraft Concept Selection
Advanced Technologies and Concepts
Initial Cabin Layout
Constraint Analysis and Diagrams
Sizing Studies
Summary of Aircraft Concept
Team 1
48
Summary
Team 1
49
Summary
Requirements Compliance Matrix
Requirement
Unit
Condition
Target
Threshold
Design (to Date)
Takeoff Field Length
[ft]
<
10,000
11,800
11000
Range
[nmi]
>
5410
4000
5410
Payload
[pax]
>
49
35
49
Cruise Mach #
[N/A]
>
1.8
1.6
1.8
Cruise Efficiency
[lb fuel/pax-nmi]
<
0.25
0.33
0.36
Certification Noise
[PldB]
<
50
70
69
Cabin Volume per Pax
[ft^3/pax]
>
10
8
8.55
Cruise Altitude
[ft]
50000
60000
50000
Aircraft Life
[years]
>
30
20
28
Aspect Ratio
[N/A]
<
2.6
1.9
1.9
Thrust to Weight Ratio
[N/A]
>
0.37
0.3
0.45
Wing Loading
[N/A]
>
125
95
104
Crew
[crew]
<
3
5
4
Table #. Requirements Compliance Matrix to Date
Team 1
50
Summary
• Pugh’s method was used to evaluate design concepts
• Engine concept evaluation led to the positive
utilization for variable cycle technology
• Variable geometry for engine inlets and nozzles will
allow for most efficiency in supersonic regime
• Material focuses are weight and temperature; different
materials will be used in different locations
• Constraint diagrams show that limiting factor is
subsonic 2g maneuver and landing
• From trade studies, it was found that 3 engines were
preferred as well as folding winglets configuration
• Excel sizing code updated and advanced sizing code in
progress
Team 1
51
Next Steps
• Third phase of sizing
– Utilization of sizing code
– Find more accurate weights
• Further investigation of advanced technologies
• Create more accurate CATIA model
• Structural and Dynamic Analysis
– Vertical tail sizing
– Canard sizing
• Create Carpet Plots
Team 1
52
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kauser, Fazal B., California State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona
AIAA-1994-2828 . ASME, SAE, and ASEE, Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 30th, Indianapolis, IN,
June 27-29, 1994
Bernard Koff, TurboVIsion, Inc., Miami, FL; Steven Koff, TurboVIsion, Inc., Miami, FL
AIAA-2007-5344 . 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cincinnati, OH, July
8-11, 2007
EVELYN, G. B., Boeing Commercial Airplane Co., Seattle, Wash.; JOHNSON, P. E., Boeing Commercial
Airplane Co., Seattle, Wash.; SIGALLA, A., Boeing Commercial Airplane Co., Seattle, Wash.
AIAA-1978-1051. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Society of Automotive Engineers,
Joint Propulsion Conference, 14th, Las Vegas, Nev., July 25-27, 1978, AIAA 14 p.
Martin Sippel, DLR, German Aerospace Research Center, Cologne
AIAA-2006-7976. 14th AIAA/AHI Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference,
Canberra, Australia, Nov. 6-9, 2006
Timothy Conners, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Savannah, GA; Donald Howe, Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation, Savannah, GA AIAA-2006-30. 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno,
Nevada, Jan. 9-12, 2006
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design – A Conceptual Approach, Third Edition, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1999, p. 114.
Team 1
53
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Seating Charts (Pitch and Width for Business and First on all airlines)
http://www.seatguru.com/charts/business_class.php
Airport database (runway lengths, codes, locations...)
http://www.world-airport-codes.com/
Market Size
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/business/24premium.html
Seat Pitch
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/seating/seat-pitch.jpg
NASA Dryden fact sheet for Tu-144
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html
Aerion Corp-Aerion data
http://www.aerioncorp.com/technology
USAF XB-70 Factsheet
F-14D data
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-specs.htm
M.A.T.S
Team 1
54
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm
Back Up Slide
1g steady, level flight, M = 1.8
@ h=50K (Sky)
r
a
b
M
V
CD0
AR
subsonic 2g manuever,
250kts @ h =10K (Sky)
0.00175
0.000362sl/ft^3
6sl/ft^3
r
0.42
0.1523a
0.85
0.91
0.92
b
1.8
1742.4ft/s
0.018
1.9
K
E_WD
LLE
d_max
l
CDW
0.40996
1.8
40deg
9ft
180ft
0.002004
q
n
dh/dt
g
dV/dt
549.5084lb/ft^2
1
1.666667ft/s
32.17ft/s^2
0ft/s^2
V
CD0
e
AR
q
n
dh/dt
g
dV/dt
422ft/s
0.018
0.82
2.6
156.357
8lb/ft^2
2
0ft/s
32.17ft/s^2
0ft/s^2
second segment climb
takeoff ground roll 6000 ft @ landing ground roll 4000 ft @ gradient above h = 0K, +15°
h = 0K, +15° hot day (Sky)
h = 0K, +15° hot day (Sky)
hot day (Sky)
rho
alpha
beta
CL max
TO
g
s_to
0.00226sl/ft^3
0.99
1
1.2
32.17ft/s^2
6000ft
rho
alpha
alpha_rev
0.00226sl/ft^3
0.99
0.25
1
rho
alpha
beta
CL max
TO
beta
CL max
land
g
mu
1.2
32.17ft/s^2
0.3
g
N
CGR
s_l
4000ft
CD0
AR
e_TO
D CD0
0.00226sl/ft^3
0.99
1
1.2
32.17ft/s^2
3
2.7%
0.018
2.6
0.65
0.0033
W0/S
79.163741
4
Team 1
55