AAE451 Conceptual Design Review
Team 2
Chad Carmack
Aaron Martin
Ryan Mayer
Jake Schaefer
Abhi Murty
Shane Mooney
Ben Goldman
Russell Hammer
Donnie Goepper
Phil Mazurek
Chris Simpson
John Tegah
Conceptual Design Outline













2
Mission Summary
Concept Summary
Best Design
Advanced Technologies Review
Sizing Code
Engine Modeling
Aerodynamics
Performance
Structures
Stability and Control
Noise
Cost
Summary
Mission Statement
To be the primary systems integrator of a high speed, long range
executive transport system with unprecedented efficiency and
minimal environmental impact.
3
Design Mission
2
3
6
Los Angeles
0
Alternate
Hong Kong
1
4
5
7100 nm
8
200 nm
0-1: Take off to 50 ft.
5-6: Climb to 5000 ft. (Best Rate)
1-2: Climb to 41000 ft. (Best Rate)
6-7: Divert to Alternate 200 nm
2-3: Cruise at Mach 0.85
7-8: 45 minute Holding Pattern
3-4: Decent to Land (No Range Credit)
8-9: Land
4-5: Missed Approach (Go Around)
4
7
9
Concept Review
5
Aircraft Concept Walk-Around
•Noise Shielding
Vertical Stabilizers
• Lifting
Canards
Circular Fuselage
•Fuselage – aft
Mounted Engines
Noise Shielding
Low Wing
6
Spiroid Wing-Tips
Major Design Parameters
7
Parameter
Value
Thrust / Weight Ratio
0.34
Aspect Ratio
12
Wing Loading
87 (lb/ft2)
Wing Area
796.4(ft2)
Wing Span
97.8 (ft)
Canard Area
147.4 (ft2)
Canard Span
36.4 (ft)
Scale Three View
8
Interior Cabin Arrangement
9
Cabin Amenities and Features
List of Amenities / Features
Four Passenger Conference Seating
One Galley
One-ConferenceTable
One-Cocktail Galley
Conference-ComputerTable
Two-Lavatories
Pull Down Projector Screen
Twenty -28”x18” Windows
Six-Reclining Seats
One-Pilot Rest Area
Two -3 Passenger Sofa Seats
Two-Reclining Crew Seats
Two-Shared Tables
Maximum Passengers: 16
10
Volume / Passenger max cap.: 150 (ft3)
Cabin Layout and Dimensions
11
Lifting Canard
12
Pros
Cons
 Designed to provide more
 Downwash from canards
lift at high speeds
 Reduces induced drag at
cruise
 May allow for smaller main
wing
has large effect on main
wings
 Stability demands that
canard stall before main
wing, therefore main wing
never reaches full lift
potential
Canard & N+2
 The canard design had a smaller empty weight, but had a
larger fuel burn which implies worse total drag performance
13
Vertical Stabilizer
 Two vertical stabilizers are placed directly on the wings to
shield the engines. The intent was to reduce the noise
signature of the aircraft.
14
Engine Mounting
 Two engines mounted in rear of the fuselage for reliability
and thrust requirements
 The benefit of mounting the engines above the wing and
surrounded by vertical stabilizers will keep noise levels low.
15
Cabin Considerations
 Stand up cabin in the aisle to accommodate the “plush”
comfort level
 Crew areas expanded to allow sleeping quarters for reserve
pilot
 Two lavatories and galley necessary for full passenger load
16
Summary of Advanced Concepts
 Geared Turbofan
 15% reduction in fuel burn
 Noised lowered to approximately 20 dB below stage 4
 50% below CAEP-6 emissions
 Composites
 20% reduction of structural weight
 Spiroids
17
Spiroid Wingtips
•
•
•
•
•
18
6-10% drag reduction in cruise flight
Yielded a 10% improvement in fuel
burn
Installed on more than 3,000 aircraft,
including several business jet types, as
well as the Boeing 737 and 757 airliners
Aid the US Federal Aviation
Administration in increasing airspace
capacity near airports
Potential for large decreases in wake
intensity. This could substantially alter
the requirements for separation
distances between lead and following
aircraft in airport traffic patterns
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger
/2008/06/spiroid-wingtip-technology-the.html
MATLAB Code Flowchart
Initial Guess Wo
Geometry
Calculations
We Prediction
Wfuel Prediction
Engine Model
Drag Calculation
Set W0 guess to W0
W0 Calculation
19
W0 =
W0 calc
calc
Calibration Factors
• Calibrated Canard design to Beechcraft Starship
20
Weight
Conventional
Canard
Fuel Weight
0.89
0.89
Empty Weight
1.16
0.96
Gross Weight
1.03
0.98
Technology Factors
 Composites reduced structural weight by 20%
 Spiroids reduced SFC drag by 10%
 Canards reduce induced drag (assume 5-10%)
 Geared turbofan reduced fuel burn (SFC) by 15%
21
Application
Tech Value
WStructure
0.80
Di (canard only)
0.93
SFC
0.75
Carpet Plots - Conventional
Aspect Ratio vs W 0 for Conventional a/c
4
9
x 10
8.8
8.6
8.4
W
0
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
22
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
AR
10.5
11
11.5
12
•
Best AR = 10 => W0 = 76000 lbs
•
Limited by top of climb (100 ft/min @ 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)
Carpet Plots - Canard
Aspect Ratio vs W 0 for Canard a/c
4
8
x 10
W
0
7.5
7
6.5
10
23
10.5
11
11.5
12
AR
12.5
13
13.5
14
 Limited by top of climb (100 ft/min @ 41k ft) and takeoff distance (4000 ft)
Canard Sizing Summary
 AR = 12
 T/W = .34
 W0/S = 87
 W0 = 71,300 lbs
 Wempty = 38,000 lbs
 Wfuel = 31,500 lbs
 Landing ground roll = 2200 ft
 Takeoff ground roll = 3900 ft
24
Drag Prediction
 Component drag build up based on four types of drag
 Drag: pressure, induced, miscellaneous, and wave
 Components: pylons, engines, fuselage, wings, etc.
 Induced drag is a sum of that produced by both the main
wing and canard, with the canard contributing its own
downwash onto the main wing
 Viscous effects are not strong enough to damp out the
downwash over the distance between the canard and main
wing
25
Drag at Cruise
 CD = kCD,p + TF*CD,i + CD,misc + CD,w


= 1.05CD,p + TF*CD,i + CD,w
= 0.01661 + 0.01002 + 0.00002
• CD,cruise = 0.02665
26
Wing Airfoil Selection
 Required Cl
 Takeoff: 1.2
 Cruise: 0.46
 Landing: 2.0
 Supercritical Airfoil use
 Comparison of RAE 2822 to
NASA SC(2)-0610.
 NASA airfoil would provide
higher lift but have a greater
moment.
 NASA SC(2)-0610 selected for
wing design.

27
Geometry and comparison from
http://www.worldofkrauss.com/
Flap Selection
 Regular flap vs Single
slotted Flap
 Higher lift, but more
complex
 Can meet required lift
of 2.0 with only single
slotted flap

28
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.
gov/19750064451_1975064451.pdf
Tail airfoil Selection
 Small operating range for
angles of attack.
 Laminar flow foil
selected to reduce drag.
 Symmetrical airfoil.
 NACA 64(2)-015 was
selected for use.
29
Canard airfoil
 Symmetric Supercritical
airfoil was desired for the
canard
30
Engine Modeling
 Engine Deck similar to CF-34
 Generated with ONX/OFFX
 Scaled From Data Sheet
 Based on required thrust
31
Engine Description
 Geared Turbofan
 Sea Level Static Thrust: 11,900 lb
 Bypass Ratio: 12:1
32
Mission Modeling
 Calculated fuel weight for individual mission segments
2
25200 lbs
3
6
1350 lbs
250 lbs
0
7
1400 lbs
130 lbs
125 lbs
280 lbs
280 lbs
1
4
7100 nm
33
2700 lbs
5
8
200 nm
9
V-n Diagram
 Aircraft limited by Clmax at low speeds and by the structure at
high speeds
 Design speed for max gust same as cruse speed due to Clmax at
altitude
 Maneuver load factor
 nmax = 2.5
 nmin = -1
 Gust load factor
 ns_max = 2.63
 ns_max = -1.13
 Dive Mach
 Md = .87
V-n Diagram
35
Payload Range Diagram
Payload Range Diagram
4500
4000
Payload Weight (lbs)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
36
0
1000
2000
3000
*Mach = 0.85
Altitude = 41,000 feet
Still air range
4000
5000
Range (nmi)
6000
7000
8000
9000
Thrust Curves at Sea Level
4
Thrust Required Curve at Sea Level
x 10
2
Thrust (lbf)
1.5
1
0.5
Thrust Required
Thrust Available
0
37
100
150
200
250
300
350
Velocity (kts)
400
450
500
550
Thrust Curves at Cruise
Thrust Required Curve at 41000 feet MSL
4500
4000
Thrust (lbf)
3500
3000
2500
2000
Thrust Required
Thrust Available
250
38
300
350
400
Velocity (kts)
450
500
Structural Overview
Fillets
Pylons Supported by
Bulkheads/ Beams
Landing Gear
Supporting Structure
Frames
Door Sills
Window Sills
Fillets
Fillets
Shear Webbing
Longerons
Fillets
Main Spar
Structural Load Paths
Structural Highlights
41
Material Selection Process
 Static Dissipation and Electrically Conductive
 Icephobic Coatings
 Maintenance
 Cost
 Density and Fatigue Resistance
42
Materials
 Silicones
 Ability to maintain its elasticity and low modulus over a broad temperature range provides
excellent utility in extreme environments
 Protection against static accumulation and discharge
 Composites
 Light and very strong but maintenance is an issue and is expensive
 No Established data
 Aluminum
 Lower cost
 Easier certification
 Established maintenance
 Steels
 Used mainly in the landing gear
 Advanced Alloys
 Higher elastic modulus
 Density savings
43
Aircraft Components
 Fuselage skins and wing stringers - Aluminum Alloys
 Better Fatigue Crack Growth (FCG) performance reduces structural weight.
 Canard, Control surfaces and wing skin panels – Glare Composites
 Resistant to damage at high temperatures
 Landing gear – Steel Alloy
 High strength, corrosion resistant
 Nose, Leading and Trailing edges - Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
 Lighter than titanium
 Higher fracture toughness and yield strength
44
Static Longitudinal Stability
 Assuming symmetry about the centerline, changes in angle of attack no
influence on yaw or roll of aircraft.
 To achieve stability in pitch, any change in angle of attack must generate
resisting moments.
 Static Margin = (Xnp – Xcg)
 c.g. must be ahead of the neutral point in order to be stable
 Typical transport aircraft: 5-10%
Xnp
45
Fuel
CG
[%fuselage]
SM
[% chord]
Full
68.3
18.3
Empty
62.0
85.8
Xcg
Control Surface Sizes
Control
Surface
Surface Area
[ft2]
Rudder
10 x 2
Aileron
15
Elevator
35
Raymer Figure 6.3 – Aileron Sizing
46
Raymer Table 6.5 – Elevator Sizing
Noise Estimation
 The Method
 Assumed that engine is primary noise source
 Evaluated noise due to exhaust and fan
 Obtained EPNL values with a few approximations:
 Altitude at 6000m from runway after Takeoff
 Altitude at 2000m from runway before Landing
 Volumetric Flow Rate
 Temperature
 Pressure
47
Noise Estimation
 The Process
 Find sound power of each source
 Convert to sound power level (SWL)
 Calculate sound pressure level (SPL) based on SWL and distance
from source
 Assumes spherical wave propagation
 Adjust for A-weighted SPL
 Calculate dominant tonal frequency
 Convert to Noy based on SPL and dominant tonal frequency using
equal loudness contours
 Sum Noy for both the exhaust jet and fan
 Convert from Noy to PNL
 Calculate EPNL based on PNL
48
Noise Estimation
 The Results
 EPNL dB prediction for engine models without airplane noise
shielding
Geared Turbofan
49
Unducted Fan
Sideline
97
102
Takeoff
90
95
Approach
97
100
Noise Estimation
 Noise estimation for installed Geared Turbofan in EPNL dB
 Stage 4 - total 274 EPNL dB
Location
50
Airplane Noise [EPNL dB]
Sideline
87
Takeoff
80
Approach
87
Total
254
Cost: Purchase Price
 Production run of 150 aircraft assumed
 Based on comparable aircraft, projected market growth
 RAND DAPCA IV Model
 CERs prepared from statistical cost data
 Predicts RDT&E and flyaway costs
 Engine costs estimated separately
 GTF in appropriate thrust class assumed to exist in 2020
51
Cost: Purchase Price
Engineering
Tooling
Manufacturing
Quality Control
Development Support
Flight Test
Manufacturing Materials
Engine Cost
Avionics Cost
Investment Cost Factor
Production Run
Aircraft Purchase Price
52
(2009 dollars)
$1,250,000,000
$764,000,000
$2,186,000,000
$355,000,000
$210,000,000
$44,700,000
$886,000,000
$3,610,000
$1,820,000
10%
150 airframes
$49,700,000
Cost: Operations and Maintenance
 Included expenses and assumptions:
 Utilization: 500 hours per year – 200 cycles
 Fuel Costs
 Price: $4.50/gallon Jet A
 Crew salaries
 Three crew on average flight, paid per block hour
 Estimated using CERs from Boeing data
 Maintenance (labor and materials)
 MMH/FH: 3
 Materials costs estimated using RAND CERs
 Insurance
 Hull Insurance Rate: 0.32%
 Depreciation
 Average 10% of airframe value per year
53
Cost: Operations and Maintenance
54
Fuel
Crew
Maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
Insurance
Depreciation
$1,510/hr
$714/hr
$282/hr
$619/hr
$136,000/yr
$4,250,000/yr
Total Cost (No Depreciation)
Total (Depreciation)
(500 flight hours per year)
$3,400/hr
$8,500/hr
(2009 dollars)
Summary
Requirements Compliance Matrix
56
Performance Characteristics
Target
Threshold
Current
Still Air Range
7100 nm
6960 nm
7100 nm
MTOW Takeoff Ground Roll
4000 ft
5000 ft
3900 ft
Max. Passengers
16
8
16
Volume per Passenger per Hour
(Design)
13.3 ft3/(pax⋅hr)
2.28 ft3/(pax⋅hr)
20.7 ft3/(pax⋅hr)
Cruise Mach
0.85
0.8
0.85
Initial Cruise Altitude
41000 ft
40000 ft
41000 ft
Cumulative Certification Noise
Limits
274 dB
274 dB
254 dB
Cruise Specific Range
0.3 nm/lb
0.26 nm/lb
0.31 nm/lb
Loading Door Sill Height
4 ft
5 ft
5 ft
Operating Cost
$4100/hr
$4300/hr
$3400/hr
Summary of N+2 Goals
57
Criteria
Goal
Our
Aircraft
Achieved
Noise
-42 dB below Stage 4
-20 dB
No
Emissions
-75%
-50%
No
Fuel Burn
-40%
-25%
No
Takeoff Field Length
-50%
-33%
No
Plausibility
 Not Currently
 N+2 goals are difficult to meet
 Worth pursuing
 Significant improvements over current performance possible
58
Additional Work
• Structural Analysis
• Fatigue and temperature analysis
• Sizing of spars and ribs
• Aerodynamic Analysis
• CFD
• Wind Tunnel Testing
• Manufacturing process
• Engine
• Boundary layer ingestion
59
Questions?