Poorvi Kalaria
Andy Grimes
Tara Palmer
Vicki Huff
Jack Yang
Roman Maire
Motohide Ho
Greg Freeman
Nick Gurtowski
Sanjeev Ramaiah
1
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
2
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
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
Sukhoi S-21
4
Conceptual Design 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 248 units will be sold in order to operate
profitably between 24 city pairs
• Still air range is 5450 nmi.
• Design cruise altitude is 50,000 ft.
• Design maximum cruise Mach number is 1.8
5
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
6
Concepts of Operation
Airport Code
Airport Code
Distance (nmi)
Airport Code
Airport Code
Distance (nmi)
LA to Tokyo
LAX
NRT
4737
NYC to London
JFK
LHR
2999
SF to Tokyo
SFO
NRT
4462
NYC to Paris
JFK
CDG
3158
SF to Seoul
SFO
ICN
4927
NYC to Amsterdam
JFK
AMS
3166
Seattle to Tokyo
SEA
NRT
4144
Boston to London
BOS
LHR
2837
Seattle to Seoul
SEA
ICN
4533
Boston to Paris
BOS
CDG
2997
Tokyo to Singapore
NRT
SYD
>4211 (+200)
Boston to Amsterdam
BOS
AMS
3004
Tokyo to Sydney
NRT
SIN
2889
Miami to London
MIA
LHR
3845
SF to Honolulu
SFO
HNL
2083
Miami to Paris
MIA
CDG
3987
LA to Honolulu
LAX
HNL
2227
New York to Lisbon
JFK
LIS
2934
Vancouver to Honolulu
YVR
NRT
2349
Philadelphia to London
PHL
LHR
3081
Transpacific City Pairs
Transatlantic City Pairs
7
Concepts of Operation
• Meeting the customers needs:
• Luxurious cabin space
• Improved seating space compared
to the Concorde
• High quality entertainment and
communication capabilities for
improved productivity during flight
• Shorter travel time
• Payload and Passenger capacity:
•
•
•
•
4 Crew members (180 lbs)
49 (180 lbs)
53 pieces of luggage (50 lbs)
Extra Payload 10,000 lbs
Total Payload = 22,190 lb
8
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
9
Major Design Requirements
Airline
•Airport
compatibility
Passenger
•Comfort
Public
•FAA
requirements
•Cargo space
•Maintenance
cost
NASA/Lockheed
Martin
•Supersonic
cruise
efficiency
•Quiet
•Quick trip time
•Low sonic boom
•Low emissions
•Operational life
•Affordable
ticket price
•High lift for T/O
and landing
•Turnaround time
•Oversea Range
Customer Attributes
10
Major Design Requirements
Requirement
Unit
Condition
Target
Threshold
Design
Takeoff Field Length
[ft]
<
10,000
11,800
10,081
Range
[nmi]
>
5100
4000
5100
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
0.51
Cabin Volume per Pax
[ft^3/pax]
>
60
40
85
Cruise Altitude
[ft]
50000
60000
50000
Aircraft Life
[years]
>
30
20
20
Aspect Ratio Subsonic
[N/A]
<
2
3.86
2.6
Aspect Ratio Supersonic
[N/A]
<
2
2.3
1.9
Crew
[crew]
<
3
5
4
Number Engines
[N/A]
<
3
4
3
Cruise SFC
[1/hr]
<
0.78
0.8
1.13
Combustor Temperature
[Rankine]
>
3,700
3,200
3,500
>
0.7
0.4
0.6
By-Pass-Ratio
Engineering Requirements
11
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
12
Selected Aircraft Concept
Delta wing with double
sweep, fits inside Mach
cone of 60º, root chord of
95ft
Canards
for
stability of
the aircraft
Possible Winglets
for compression
lift, AR = 1.9
Placed
>5ft from
door
13
Selected Aircraft Concept
Main Gears
will fold
inward to
fuselage
4 Engines
required to
provide enough
thrust.
Low Wing
Configuration
Inlet to engines are
variable for
supersonic and
subsonic flight
Tricycle Landing
gear
configuration
14
Selected Aircraft Concept
Fuselage
designed
according to
Sears Haack
Body(area rule)
Nose has a
slight droop for
aerodynamics
Nose Gear
Exhaust point for
APU, approx 2ft in
diameter
15
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
16
Aircraft Design Mission
Design Mission Worst Case Scenario
17
Aircraft Design Mission
Clarification on the transonic regime
(acceleration and deceleration)
During cruise (50,000 ft)
D/W = 0.105
During transonic acceleration
(30,000 ft)
D/W = 0.085
18
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
19
Sizing Results
• MATLAB sizing approach
– Consists of functions for different flight segments
(i.e. climb, cruise, etc.)
• No variation from aircraft design mission
• Assumes no range descents/deceleration
• Approach is included in landing
– Functions were set up for thrust and drag
– Iterative “while” loop to solve for TOGW, fuel
weight, empty weight
20
Segment Functions
– Takeoff
• Uses combination of takeoff parameters to determine weight
fraction (sfc, bfl)
– Climbs
•
•
•
•
Does not physically compute drag as weight changes
Simple equations for subsonic and supersonic climb
Subsonic weight ratio: 1.0065-0.0325*M
Supersonic weight ratio: 0.991-0.007*M-0.01*M^2
– Cruise
• Segmented approach dividing cruise into 500 segments
recalculating weight fraction in each loop
• Output final cruise weight fraction
• Incorporates Breguet Range equation
21
Segment Functions cont’d
– Loiter
• Function of current weight and current wing area
• Incorporates Breguet Endurance equation
– Landing
• Simple constant fraction of 0.995 used based on past numbers
– Sufficient for conceptual design
22
Engine Modeling
• ONX and OFFX
• Turbofan with mixed exhaust (no A/B)
– Datum from Raymer Appendix E.1
• Iterated with different:
– Compressor & Fan Pressure Ratios
– Bypass Ratio
• Output:
– TSFC, thrust as functions of altitude, Mach
– TSFC as a function of altitude, Mach, partial thrust
23
Important Constants
Constants
Constraint Diagram
Values
Carpet Plot
(optimized) Values
T/W0
107
115
AR (subsonic)
2.6
2.6
AR (supersonic)
1.9
1.9
W0/S (lbs/ft2)
0.45
0.45
Sweep Angle (deg)
60
60
24
Weight Fractions
Constraint Diagram Values
Carpet Plot (optimized) Values
Flight Segment
Weight Fraction
Flight Segment
Weight Fraction
Takeoff
0.940
Takeoff
0.938
Climb 1
0.993
Climb 1
0.993
Climb 2
0.993
Climb 2
0.993
Climb 3
0.994
Climb 3
0.994
Climb 4
0.946
Climb 4
0.946
Total Climb
0.927
Total Climb
0.927
Cruise
0.667
Cruise
0.665
Loiter 1
0.952
Loiter 1
0.953
Missed Approach
0.990
Missed Approach
0.989
Cruise: Alt. airport
0.958
Cruise: Alt. airport
0.959
Loiter 2
0.956
Loiter 2
0.956
Land
0.995
Land
0.995
We/W0
0.522
We/W0
0.520
25
Final Weights
Constraint Diagram Weight
Carpet Plot Weight
Empty Weight
Fuel Weight
Empty Weight
Fuel Weight
Payload Weight
Crew Weight
Payload Weight
Crew Weight
Baggage Weight Cargo Weight
1% 2%
2% 0%
Baggage Weight Cargo Weight
1%
2%
2% 0%
46%
47%
48%
49%
W0 = 467,000 lbs
Wf = 226,000 lbs
We = 218,000 lbs
W0 = 453,000 lbs
Wf = 219,000 lbs
We = 209,000 lbs
26
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
27
Objective & Variables
• Objective:
– Minimize Takeoff Gross Weight, W0 [lb]
• Variables:
– Wing Loading, W0/S [lb/ft2]
• Center Point: 110 lb/ft2
• 90 lb/ft2, 100 lb/ft2, 110 lb/ft2, 120 lb/ft2, 130 lb/ft2
– Thrust-to-Weight Ratio, T/W0
• Center Point: 0.45
• 0.35, 0.45, 0.55
28
Constraints
• Five Constraints
– Takeoff Distance =
– Landing Distance =
– Climb Gradient, 2nd Segment Climb =
– Fuel Efficiency =
– Specific Power, 2g Maneuver =
29
Constraints
• Five Constraints
– *Take-off Distance = dTO ≤ 10,000 ft
– Landing Distance = dL ≤ 10,000 ft
– Climb Gradient, 2nd Segment Climb = CGR ≥ 3%
– *Fuel Efficiency = η ≥ 3 pax-mi/lb-fuel
– Specific Power, 2g Maneuver = PS ≥ 0 ft/s
30
Sizing Matrix
T/W = 0.35
T/W = 0.45
T/W = 0.55
W/S = 90 lb/ft2
W/S = 100 lb/ft2
W/S = 110 lb/ft2
W/S = 120 lb/ft2
W/S = 130 lb/ft2
W0 = 506212.22 lb
dTO = 8000 ft
dL = 6045.11 ft
CGR = 2.6%
η = 1.07 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = -2.87 ft/s
W0 = 477352.87 lb
dTO = 9000 ft
dL = 6594.32 ft
CGR = 2.6%
η = 1.13 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps =-16.46 ft/s
W0 = 456038.6 lb
dTO = 9900 ft
dL = 7143.53 ft
CGR = 2.6%
η = 1.18 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = -30.14 ft/s
W0 = 439883.88 lb
dTO = 10800 ft
dL = 7692.75 ft
CGR = 2.6%
η = 1.22 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = -43.88 ft/s
W0 = 427472.87 lb
dTO = 11500 ft
dL = 8241.96 ft
CGR = 2.6%
η = 1.24 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = -57.68 ft/s
W0 = 512463.75 lb
dTO = 6200 ft
dL = 6045.11 ft
CGR = 10%
η = 1.06 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 33.89 ft/s
W0 = 483056.71 lb
dTO = 6800 ft
dL = 6594.32 ft
CGR = 10%
η = 1.12 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 20.31 ft/s
W0 = 461369.07 lb
dTO = 7400 ft
dL = 7143.53 ft
CGR = 10%
η = 1.17 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 6.63 ft/s
W0 = 445009.54 lb
dTO = 8200 ft
dL = 7692.75 ft
CGR = 10%
η = 1.21 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = -7.11 ft/s
W0 = 432358.43 lb
dTO = 9100 ft
dL = 8241.96 ft
CGR = 10%
η = 1.23 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = -20.91 ft/s
W0 = 519309.07 lb
dTO = 5050 ft
dL = 6045.11 ft
CGR = 17.4%
η = 1.05 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 70.66 ft/s
W0 = 489227.75 lb
dTO = 5500 ft
dL = 6594.32 ft
CGR = 17.4%
η = 1.11 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 57.07 ft/s
W0 = 467143.16 lb
dTO = 6200 ft
dL = 7143.53 ft
CGR = 17.4%
η = 1.16 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 43.4 ft/s
W0 = 450412.76 lb
dTO = 6750 ft
dL = 7692.75 ft
CGR = 17.4%
η = 1.19 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 29.65 ft/s
W0 = 437528.69 lb
dTO = 7100 ft
dL = 8241.96 ft
CGR = 17.4%
η = 1.22 pax-mi/lb-fuel
Ps = 15.86 ft/s
31
Carpet Plot with Constraints
W0 trends
550000
530000
T/W = 0.35
T/W = 0.45
510000
T/W= 0.55
dTO
490000
Ps
n
W0 [lb]
470000
dL
Power (T/W = 0.35)
450000
Power (T/W = 0.45)
Power (T/W= 0.55)
430000
Poly. (dTO)
Poly. (Ps)
410000
390000
R² = 1
370000
75
85
95
105
115
125
135
145
155
165
W/S [lb/ft2]
32
Conclusions from Carpet Plot
• Initial Values
• Carpet Plot Values
• W0/S
• Best W0/S
– 107 lb/ft2
• T/W0
– 0.45
• WT0
– 467214 lb
– 115 lb/ft2
• Best T/W0
– 0.45
• Optimized WT0
– 452642 lb
*Meet all constraints except fuel efficiency.
33
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
34
Aircraft Description
•Fuselage Length = 198’
•Height of Airplane
with landing gears down = 33’
•Span of Delta Wing = 103.17’
•AR = 2.6 with Wingtips Up
•AR = 1.9 with Wingtips Down
35
Aircraft Description
•Cabin Length = 90’
•Max Diameter = 8.5’
•Tail Diameter = 2’
•2 Class Configuration
of First and Business
36
Aircraft Description
37
Aircraft Description
38
Aircraft Description
Cabin Bin Volume = 111.03 ft3
Cabin Bin Vol. / PAX = 2.3 ft3
Cabin Height from Seat = 1.25 ft
39
Aircraft Description
•First Class Seat Pitch = 46”
•Business Class Seat Pitch = 42”
•1 Boarding Door (1R)
•2 Emergency Exits
•2 Lavatories
•Galley located aft of Business Class
40
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
41
0.3
Aerodynamics Details
0.2
Choice of Airfoil
0.1
0.5
Airfoil from research paper:
Optimum airfoil thickness
distribution for minimum drag at M
= 1.75 ≈ 1.8
0
0.4
-0.1
0.3
Reduction of 10% of the drag from
the wing during cruise.
Insert airfoil
profile
-0.2
0.2
from optimum
drag -0.3airfoil
3% thickness due to structure
constraint
0.1
-0.4
0
-0.5
-0.1 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
42
Aerodynamics Details
Compression Lift
From the B-70 data:
L/D improvement
of
ΔL/D = 0.4
≈ 30 % of lift
generated by
compression
43
Aerodynamics Details
Supersonic Aerodynamics
From Raymer’s approximation of lift
curve slope for different taper:
The airfoil lift curve slope has a
value of CLα = 0.0423
3.3o Angle of Attack needed if
compression lift not used
1.5o Angle of Attack with use of
compression lift
The induced drag is reduced by the
wave drag is increased. Further
analysis needed to make sure it is
beneficial at speeds as low as M =1.8
44
Aerodynamics Details
Lift curve at subsonic regimes
Lift built up method
Coefficient of Lift vs. AoA
1.4
1.2
Assumptions:
1
0.8
0.6
C
L
High lift device off
High lift device on
Take off
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-10
0
10
20
AoA [deg]
30
40
50
Inner part of the wing
behaves as a delta wing
(mostly vortex flow
generated lift)
Outer part of the wing
behave as a regular wing
(mostly airfoil generated lift)
45
Aerodynamics Details
High Lift devices
Delta wing high lift devices research
(Japan)
Trailing edge span wise jet blowing
used to increase the CL of delta
wings at low speeds by avoiding flow
reversal.
Increase of CL ≈ 0.2
46
Drag Prediction Approach
• Three types of drag
– Parasite drag
– Induced drag
– Wave drag
• Subsonic drag
– Parasite drag (zero- lift drag)
• Skin friction, Pressure, Interference drag coefficients
• Miscellaneous drag
– Induced drag
• Induced drag coefficient
47
Drag Prediction Approach
• Method for estimation of subsonic drag
o Parasite drag
o Wings
o Fuselage
o Nacelles
o Induced drag
48
Drag Prediction Approach
• Method for estimation of supersonic drag
o Parasite drag
• No adjustment for form factor and interference
o Induced drag
49
Drag Prediction Approach, Focus Upon Wave Drag Approach:
• Difficulties and Constraints- Limited resources in regarding to the fact that each company uses many
proprietary methods that are not available to the general publics.
- Difficult to obtain a very accurate wave drag model in a short period of
time.
- CFD does not allow simple and prompt prediction of the required
aerodynamic data.
• Approach-With limited resources and time as constraints, an approach simpler than
CFD analysis and as accurate as possible must be taken.
50
Rallabhandi and Mavris’s Approach
• Assumptions:
-This is the analytical expression for the wave
drag assuming the aircraft body to be SearsHaack body.
51
Raymer’s Approach
• Assumptions:
-Correlates aircraft wave drag to an equivalent
Sears-Haack body at M = 1.2.
52
Results: CDWave Comparison With Two Methods
53
Wave Drag Build Up With Raymer’s Approach
54
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
55
Sonic Boom
• Sonic- boom predicted for Supersonic climb/ cruise (Mcruise= 2.1)
• Analysis performed to predict:
o Bow- shock overpressure
o Signature duration
• Used NASA Langley published ‘Simplified Sonic- Boom prediction’ paper
by Harry W. Carlson
• Assumptions made according to Carlson’s paper
o The effects of flight- path curvature and aircraft acceleration are
ignored
o The analysis is restricted to standard atmospheric conditions with no
winds
o Pressure signal generated by the aircraft is of the far- field type
56
Sonic Boom
• Bow- shock over pressure (Δp)
• where,
Kp= Pressure amplification factor
KR= reflection factor, assumed to be 2.0
pv= atmosphereic pressure at aircraft altitude, psf
pg= atmospheric pressure at ground level, psf
M= Mach number
he= effective altitude, ft
Ks= aircraft shape factor
57
Sonic Boom
• Signature duration (Δt)
• where,
Kt= signature duration factor
M= Mach number
Ks= aircraft shape factor
• Shape and atmospheric factors found using
aircraft operating conditions from the charts given
in Carlson.
58
Sonic Boom
• Results
• Bow-shock overpressure
• Δ p = 2.5342 psf
• Signature duration time
• Δ t = 0.2830 s
•
Concorde boom variables
• Δ p = 2.3 psf (According to Carlson’s method)
• Δ p = 2.0 psf (Published)
• Sky’s boom overpressure and signature duration is within
reasonable limits
59
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
60
Propulsion
• ONX and OFFX
• Medium bypass turbofan (no A/B)
–
–
–
–
Compressor Pressure Ratio: 21.0
Fan Pressure Ratio:
5.5
Bypass Ratio:
0.6
Combustor Exit T (TT4):
3500.0°R
– Uninstalled Thrust (SL):
– TSFC (SL):
55000 lbs
0.84 1/hr
61
Propulsion
• Thrust and TSFC vs. Mach # and Altitude
Full Throttle Thrust vs. Mach #
TSFC vs. Mach #
70000
1.4
SL
60000
10k
20k
40000
30k
30000
40k
20000
10k
1.2
TSFC (1/hr)
50000
Thrust (lbf)
SL
1.3
20k
1.1
30k
1
40k
0.9
50k
0.8
10000
50k
0
60k
60k
0.7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Mach #
Mach #
62
Propulsion
• Variable Inlet Geometry
• External Compression
– 3 oblique shocks, 1
normal shock
– 96% pressure recovery
– Mach 1.8 to Mach 0.8
• Variable geometry
shown
• Allow for max flow in
subsonic flight
63
Propulsion
• Converging/Diverging Ejector Nozzle
• Fan Bypass Air Reinjection
• Nozzle Exit Area Variation
– Max engine performance
– 98% nozzle efficiency
• Thrust Reversers
– 25% total thrust reversed
64
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
65
Important Load Paths
• Loading from wings is
transferred to the bulkheads
in fuselage via wing boxes
• Bulkheads/frames resist
twisting torque on fuselage
• Additional support from
frames, stringers, etc.
66
Wing-Fuselage Intersection
• Two wing box
configuration, one for
each sweep
• Additional stiffening
with stringers (bending),
frames (twisting,
maintain wing shape)
• Carry-through spars
attach to bulkheads in
fuselage
67
Engine Mounts
• Utilizes the forward
wing box
• Locations at sparframe intersections
– Strongest locations
for securing the
engines
68
Landing Gear Integration
• Landing gear retracts into
fuselage
• Rear gear is attached to
forward wing box in wing
and main bulkheads in
fuselage
– Strongest location for
resisting large landing loads
• Front gear attached to two
bulkheads
69
Materials
• Main Factors
- Performance at High Temperatures
Raymer: Average temperature at Mach 1.6-1.8 is 350⁰
- Weight
Composites save up to 20%, Aluminum Lithium saves up to
20%
- Efficiency
Corrosion resistance, Service life
- Affordability
70
Material Selection
Material
Component
Advantages
Aluminum Lithium 2199
Fuselage
Weight savings up to 20%,
increases expected lifetime by 1.53 times, increases fuel efficiency
and decreases Co2 emissions,
assembly techniques and training
same as conventional metals
Glare (FML) Composites
Wing, Canard, Control
surfaces
Weight savings up to 20%, fire and
impact damage resistant, corrosion
resistant
Ferrium S53
Landing Gear
Fiberglass Composites
Leading Edge of wing
Nose Radome
Optimizes radar transmission
characteristics, high impact
damage tolerance, corrosion
resistant
Honeycomb Composites
Engine Nacelles
Decreases weight by 20%,
corrosion and impact resistant
Ultra high strength, corrosion and
wear resistant, tough
71
Material Selection
• Aluminum Lithium 2199 - Fuselage
• Glare Sandwich Composites – Wing, Canard, V tail
• Ferrium Steel 53 – Landing Gear
• Fiberglass Composites – Nose radome, Leading edge
• Honeycomb Composites – Engine nacelles
72
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
73
Weight and Balance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instruments, Avionics
Crew, A/C, Anti-ice, Handling Gear
Canard
Nose Landing Gear
Passengers, Furnishings
Fuselage Fuel
Fuselage, Hydraulics, Electrical, Flight Controls
Wing Fuel
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Wing
Main Landing Gear
Engines, Propulsion Systems, Engine Controls
Starter
Cargo
Aft Fuel
Vertical Tail
APU
74
Weight and Balance
Sky Group Weights
• Used Raymer’s fighter and cargo transport empty weight predictions
• From Raymer’s equations used, WeConcorde/Wepredicted = 1.103
• This correlation factor was then used to predict Sky’s empty weight
components
Structures
Component
Weight (lb)
% of We
Material Factor
Loc. (ft)
Moment (ft-lb)
Wing
86699.79
42.51%
0.9
116.5
10100525.54
Canard
2943.23
1.44%
0.9
27.0825
79710.02648
Vertical Tail
13260.55
6.50%
0.88
173.775
2304352.076
Fuselage
32200.23
15.79%
0.95
98.75
3179772.713
Main Landing Gear
4552.6
2.23%
1
120
546312
Nose Landing Gear
595.34
0.29%
1
42.4
25242.416
Engine Mounts
224.79
0.11%
0.95
127.5
28660.725
75
Weight and Balance
Sky Group Weights
Propulsion
Component
Weight (lb)
% of We
Loc. (ft)
Moment (ft-lb)
Engines
35970.68
17.64%
127.5
4586261.7
Engine Cooling Systems
1333.9
0.65%
127.5
170072.25
Oil Cooling Systems
172.33
0.08%
127.5
21972.075
Engine Controls
134.36
0.07%
127.5
17130.9
Starter
270.9
0.13%
135
36571.5
Fuel Systems/Tanks (FWD)
9144.47
4.48%
85
777279.95
Fuel Systems/Tanks (AFT)
4187.84
2.05%
170
711932.8
76
Weight and Balance
Sky Group Weights
Equipment
Component
Weight (lb)
% of We
Loc. (ft)
Moment (ft-lb)
Flight Controls
Instruments
Hydraulics
2119.03
621.04
427.88
1.04%
0.30%
0.21%
98.75
20
98.75
209254.2125
12420.8
42253.15
Electrical
Avionics
APU Uninstalled
1341.59
2362.82
859.34
0.66%
1.16%
0.42%
98.75
20
180
132482.0125
47256.4
154681.2
Furnishings
Air Conditioning
Ant-Ice
Handling Gear
1992.75
1413.56
957.47
143.62
0.98%
0.69%
0.47%
0.07%
73.3
26
26
26
146068.575
36752.56
24894.22
3734.12
77
Weight and Balance
Sky Group Weights
Useful Load
Component
Weight (lb)
% of Wo
Loc. (ft)
Moment (ft-lb)
Crew
720
0.17%
26
18,720
Fuel-useable (Wing)
116,084
26.75%
115
13,349,725
Fuel-useable (Fuselage)
53,321
12.29%
85
4,532,297
Fuel-useable (AFT)
36,707
8.46%
170
6,240,301
Trapped Fuel and Oil
1,711
0.39%
115
196,784
Passengers
11,470
2.64%
73.3
840,751
Cargo/Payload
10,000
2.30%
140
1,400,000
78
Weight and Balance
Sky’s total empty weight We: 203,930 lb
Concorde's Empty Weight Distribution
Equipment
Propulsion 7%
Rest of Structures
4%
6%
Wing
37%
Sky's Empty Weight Distribution
Rest of Canard
Equipment Structures 1%
6%
3%
Engines
21%
Fuselage
21%
Vertical Tail
4%
Propulsion
7%
Wing
43%
Engines
18%
Fuselage
16%
Vertical Tail
6%
79
Weight and Balance
C.G. Location (ft)
MTOGW
115.16
Aft Fuel Burned
110.10
Fuselage & Aft Fuel Burned
113.99
Landing
113.47
Unload Passengers
115.60
Weight (lbs)
433944.65
397236.99
343915.85
227831.28
216361.28
Center-of-Gravity Envelope Diagram for Flight
350000
300000
250000
Landing Weight
107.00
109.00
111.00
113.00
115.00
Subsonic Neutral Point
400000
200000
105.00
MTOGW
Forward C.G. Limit
Gross Weight (lb)
450000
117.00
No Pax
119.00
c.g. Location from Nose (ft)
80
Weight and Balance
Loading Sequence 1
We
Add Cargo
Add Pax
Add Aft Fuel
Add Wing Fuel
Add Fuselage Fuel
Add Crew
c.g. Location (ft)
114.72
115.91
113.74
121.62
119.56
115.31
115.16
Center-of-Gravity Envelope Diagram for Loading
Sequence 1
Gross Weight (lb)
450000
Crew
Main Landing Gear
400000
350000
300000
250000
Pax
Cargo
200000
113.00 114.00 115.00 116.00 117.00 118.00 119.00 120.00 121.00 122.00 123.00
c.g. Location from Nose (ft)
81
Weight and Balance
Loading Sequence 2
We
Add Cargo
Add Pax
Add Wing Fuel
Add Aft Fuel
Add Fuselage Fuel
Add Crew
c.g. Location (ft)
114.72
115.91
113.74
114.17
119.56
115.31
115.16
Center-of-Gravity Envelope Diagram for Loading
Sequence 2
450000
400000
Main Landing Gear
Gross Weight (lb)
Crew
350000
300000
250000
200000
113.00
Pax
114.00
Cargo
115.00
116.00
117.00
118.00
c.g. Location from Nose (ft)
119.00
120.00
82
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
83
Stability and Control
• Neutral Point locations xn (from nose): Subsonic = 116. 5 ft
Supersonic = 130.75 ft
• Mean Aerodynamic Chord MAC: 55 ft
• SM = (xcg -xac)/MAC
MTOGW
SM
2.43%
Weight (lbs)
433944.65
Aft Fuel Burned
11.65%
397236.9931
Fuselage & AFT Fuel Burned
Landing
30.48%
5.51%
343915.8503
227831.2788
84
Stability and Control
Modeling assumptions:
- for the initial analysis , the vertical tail, canard, and control surfaces
were sized as percentages of the wing planform area
* Scanard = 0.05Swing
* SVT = 0.08Swing
* Sailerons = 0.1Swing
* Srudder = 0.3SVT
- The sizing of the vertical tail and control surfaces were based off of
estimations for the Concorde
Wing
Dimensions
Canard
Dimensions
Vertical Tail
Dimensions
S (ft2)
4093.82
S (ft2)
204.69
S (ft2)
327.51
b (ft)
103.17
b (ft)
19.72
b (ft)
22.16
AR (Subsonic)
2.60
AR
1.90
AR
1.50
85
Stability and Control
• From initial analysis, it was found that the vertical tail is too small
compared to an estimation of Concorde’s vertical tail volume
coefficient
Vertical Tail
CVT
Concorde
0.07
Sky
0.05
• From Raymer, the area split allocates about 25% to the canard and
75% to the wing. From initial analysis, the canard has about 5% of
the total area. Canard will need to be enlarged
• Analysis will be done on the lifting capabilities of the canard and the
appropriate sizing of the elevons
• The sizing code will then need to be updated as a result of initial
analysis of the stability of the aircraft
86
Stability and Control
• From the initial modeling assumptions, the control surfaces were
assumed to be:
* Sailerons = 0.1Swing
* Srudder = 0.3SVT
• From Raymer, the chord of a rudder is typically 25-30% of the tail
chord. The chord of the ailerons are typically 15-25% of the wing
chord. The control surfaces were then sized appropriately
Control Surfaces
Rudder Area (ft2)
Rudder Chord (ft)
Rudder Span (ft)
Aileron Area (ft2)
Aileron Chord (ft)
Aileron Span (ft)
Dimensions
98.25
4.43
22.16
204.69
10.00
20.47
Rudder
Cr/C
Raymer's Jet Transport
Sky
0.32
0.30
87
Stability and Control
88
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
89
Cost
• Around 248 units will be sold in order to operate profitably
between 24 city pairs
City Pairs
LA to Tokyo
SF to Tokyo
SF to Seoul
Seattle to Tokyo
Seattle to Seoul
Tokyo to Singapore
Tokyo to Sydney
NYC to London
NYC to Paris
NYC to Amsterdam
Boston to London
Boston to Paris
Units Needed
City Pairs
Units Needed
Boston to Amsterdam
20
5
Miami to London
15
10
Miami to Paris
10
5
Shanghai to Singapore
5
6
Hong Kong to Singapore
2
16
Hong Kong to Tokyo
5
15
Bombay to Dubai
17
15
SF to Hawaii
16
14
LA to Hawaii
14
15
NY to Lisbon
13
3
Vancouver to Honolulu
10
6
Philadelphia to London
4
7
90
Cost
• Using NASA’s Airframe Cost Model and Aircraft Turbine Engine Cost
Model calculators, a crude estimation for the development and
manufacturing cost for one aircraft was found
• Sell price for each plane for a 248 unit production run is $315 million
Airframe
Engines
Non-Recurring
- Engineering
- Tooling
- Dvpmt. Support
- Flight Test
Recurring
- Engineering
- Tooling
- Manufacturing
- Material
- QA
Total Cost to MQT (1 unit)
Sell Price
Profit (Million) 10-15 yrs
Cost (2009
$Million)
210.1277
42.4212
45.33836
25.36828
11.43902
8.086573
0.444494
164.7894
33.62087
10.82851
73.71099
37.99083
8.638174
252.5489
315
15487.86
Cost Breakdown to Develop and Manufacture
Engineering (NonRecurring)
10%
QA
4%
Engines
17%
Tooling (NonRecurring)
5%
Dvpmt. Support
(Non-Recurring)
3%
Flight Test
0.18%
Engineering
(Recurring)
13%
Material
15%
Manufacturing
29%
Tooling (Recurring)
4%
91
DOC Estimation
• Using NASA’s contracting report prepared by
McDonnell Douglas in 1995 the Direct
Operating Cost for our longest range was
estimated.
• MTOGW = 433944 lbs and AFW = 203930 lbs
• Trip time = 5.5 hrs
92
DOC
Ground Rules, Assumptions, and Element Cost
Cockpit Crew [$/Trip]
1,890.15
Cabin Crew [$/Trip]
700.7
Landing Fee [$/trip]
1,844.26
Navigation Fee [$/trip]
1,416.53
Fuel [$/Trip]
92,135.55
Maintenance Cost
AFLAB: [MMH/FH]
4.37
AFLAB: [MMH/FC]
3.51
AFLAB: [MMH/Trip]
27.55
Direct labor Cost [$/Trip]
688.87
Element Cost
93
DOC Continued
Airframe Maintenance Material Cost
AFMAT: [$MAT/FH]
73.91
AFMAT: [$MAT/FC]
201.79
AFMAT: [$MAT/Trip]
608.3
Maintenance Burden [$/trip]
1,377.74
Engine Maintenance Labor
ENGLAB: [MMH/Trip]
48.16
Engine Direct labor [$/trip]
1,204.21
ENGMAT:[$MAT/Trip]
1,879.84
ENG Maintenance Burden [$/trip]
2,408.41
Airframe Maintenance
94
DOC Continued
DOC for Longest Range Trip
Depreciation %
12.26
Insurance (35% of total cost)
110,250,000
DOC [1993 $]
106,154.57
Inflation Rate
1.6
DOC [2009 $/Trip]
170,346.94
DOC [$/year]
124,353,264
¢/seat-nmi
0.68
Ticket Price Business (5% profit)
3,650
DOC for one Leg
95
Ticket Price
San Francisco To Seoul
Ticket Price Business Class [$]
3,650
Ticket Price First Class [$]
3,820
Asiana Airline’s Ticket business price [$]
1,944
U.S. Airways Ticket business price [$]
3,635
Korean Air Ticket first class price [$]
5,398
United Airlines Ticket first class price [$]
7,041
Break even Plane [# of planes]
199
Profit [billion $]
15.435
One way Trip
96
Conceptual Design Review
I. Mission Objectives
IX. Aerodynamics
II. Concept of Operations
X. Sonic Boom
III. Major Design Requirements
XI. Propulsion
IV. Aircraft Concept
XII.Structures
V. Design Missions
XIII.Weight/Balance
VI. Sizing Results
XIV.Stability and Control
VII.Carpet Plot Summary
XV.Cost
VIII.Aircraft Description
XVI.Summary
97
Major Design Requirements
Requirement
Unit
Condition
Target
Threshold
Design
Takeoff Field Length
[ft]
<
10,000
11,800
10,081
Range
[nmi]
>
5100
4000
5100
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
0.51
Cabin Volume per Pax
[ft^3/pax]
>
60
40
85
Cruise Altitude
[ft]
50000
60000
50000
Aircraft Life
[years]
>
30
20
20
Aspect Ratio Subsonic
[N/A]
<
2
3.86
2.6
Aspect Ratio Supersonic
[N/A]
<
2
2.3
1.9
Crew
[crew]
<
3
5
4
Number Engines
[N/A]
<
3
4
3
Cruise SFC
[1/hr]
<
0.78
0.8
1.13
Combustor Temperature
[Rankine]
>
3,700
3,200
3,500
>
0.7
0.4
0.6
By-Pass-Ratio
Engineering Requirements
98
Summary
• Is it feasible?
Business class comparison
First Class comparison
6000
Ticket price in USD
Ticket price in USD
7000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Series1
Sky
British
Airway
s
3650
5747
Lufthan United
US
sa
Airlines airways
6036
3600
3600
Delta
airlines
3700
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Series1
Sky
British
Airways
Lufthans
a
United
Airlines
US
airways
Delta
airlines
3820
8306
0
8714
3800
3700
• Sky is fast, saves time to a great extent and the best part - is affordable!
• Small supersonic airliner is a very plausible aircraft and deserves further
design and development work
99
Summary
• Additional
work:
oInvestigate lateral stability
oUpdate sizing of canard vertical tail and control surfaces
oInclude more constraints in carpet plots
oPerform CFD or wind tunnel analysis of the aircraft
oPerform a trade off analysis of the compression lift
oMore detailed structure analysis (component analysis and placement of
components)
oDevelop a better engine performance code (in house)
100
Questions?
101
References
•
•
•
•
“Current Market Outlook 2008-2027”. Boeing. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/index.html
Cyr, Kelly. “Airframe Cost Model”. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. May 2007.
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/airframe.html.
“Time Table Request”. Travelocity.
http://travel.travelocity.com/lognlogin.ctl?tr_module=TIME&Service=TRAVELOCITY
Cyr, Kelly. “Aircraft Turbine Engine Cost Model”. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. May 2007.
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/ATECM.html
References Aerodynamics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fedorov and Malmuth, “Supersonic Transitional Airfoil Shapes of Minimum Drag” AIAA 1997-2231, Rockwell International
Science Center and Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology
Torenbeek, Jesse and Laban, “Conceptual Design and Analysis of a Mach 1.6 Airliner”, AIAA 2004-4541, 10th AIAA
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, August – September 2004, Albany, New York
Muller and Hummel, “Time-Accurate CFD Analysis of the Unsteady Flow on a Fixed Delta Wing”, AIAA 2000-0138, 38th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Hummel and Oelker, “Low-Speed Characteristics for the Wing-Canard Configuration of the International Vortex Experiment”,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 4, July-Aug 1994
Miyaji and Arasawa, “High-Lift Devices for a Delta Wing Installed Around a Trailing Edge”, Journal of Aircraft Vol. 40, No. 5,
September-October 2003, Yokohama National University, Japan
“Theory of Wing Sections”, Abbott
Luckring, “Reynolds Number and Leading-Edge Bluntness Effects on a 65o Delta Wing”, AIAA 2002-0419, NASA Langley
Research Center, Virginia, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 14-17 January 2002, Reno, Nevada
Ross and Rogerson, “XB-70 Technology Advancements”, North American Aircraft Operations, Div Rockwell International Corp
Bushnell, “Supersonic Aircraft Drag Reduction”, AIAA 1990-1596, NASA-Langley, Hampton VA
102
References
References Propulsion:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Koff, B., and Koff, S., “Engine Design and Challenges for the High Mach Transport,” 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cincinnati, OH, July 8-11, 2007, AIAA 2007-5344.
Papamoschou, D., and Debiasi, M., “Conceptual Development of Quiet Turbofan Engines for Supersonic Aircraft,” Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 19, No. 2, March-April, 2003.
Maddalena, L., Shafer, T.C., and Schetz, J.A., “Studies of the Detailed Vortical Structures in a Jet in a Supersonic Crossflow,”
46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 7-10, 2008, AIAA 2008-87.
Conners, T.R., and Howe, D.C., “Supersonice Inlet Shaping for Dramatic Reductions in Drag and Sonic Boom Strength,” 44th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 9-12, 2006, AIAA 2006-30.
Kauser, F.B., “An Overview of Gas Turbine Propulsion Technology,” 30th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference,
Indianapolis, IN, June 27-29, 1994, AIAA 1994-2828.
Raymer, D. P., “Propulsion and Fuel Systems,” Aircraft Design – A Conceptual Approach, Third Edition. AIAA, Washington, DC,
1999.
Evelyn, G.B., Johnson, P.E., and Sigalla, A., “Propulsion for Future Supersonic Transports – 1978 Status,” 14th AIAA/SAE Joint
Propulsion Conference, Las Vegas, NV, July 25-27, 1978, AIAA 1978-1051.
Sippel, M., “Research on TBCC Propulsion for a Mach 4.5 Supersonic Cruise Airlifter,” 14th AIAA/AHI Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, AIAA 2006-7976.
Hirokawa, J., Toshinori, S., and Futatsudera, N., “Assessment of Tandem Fan Concepts for the Next Generation High Speed
Civil Transport,” AIAA Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations Meeting, Monterey, CA, August 11-13, 1993, AIAA 1993-3962.
Edwards, T., Harrison III, W.E., and Maurice, L.Q., “Properties and Usage of Air Force Fuel: JP-8,” 39th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 8-11, 2001, AIAA 2001-0498.
103