P16121: SAE Aero Aircraft Design & Build

Subsystem Level Design Review

Project Review System Level Changes

◦ Tail Dragger◦ Airfoil Change and Discussion

Subsystem Selection◦ Fuselage Structure◦ Wing Material◦ Wing Construction◦ Landing Gear Selection◦ Tail Mounting

Aerodynamic Design, Sizing, and Static Stability◦ Aerodynamic Wing Design and Sizing◦ Horizontal Stabilizer Sizing and Longitudinal Static Stability◦ Vertical Stabilizer Sizing and Directional Static Stability ◦ Updated Take-off and landing◦ Testing Plan

Agenda

RIT Aero Design Club has been absent from the SAE Aero competition (Regular Class) since 2008◦ Prior to 2008, RIT had been inconsistent in participating in the

competition annually

Lacking…◦ Experienced veterans to lead/guide the club◦ Aeronautical engineering experience/knowledge◦ Full commitment as students are on co-op for parts of the year◦ Funding

Current State

Deliverables◦ A functional finished aircraft designed and built to SAE Aero standards◦ Comprehensive documentation of design, build, and testing methods and

processes

Jumpstart the Aero Club◦ Build competence through sharing experience from the present Senior Design

project◦ Desired State: Aero Design club is able to compete in the SAE Aero Competition

annually and be competitive

Desired State/Deliverables

Progress and Time Keeping

Objectives Targeted in this Phase

Objectives targeted from functional decomposition◦ Aircraft must have enough lift to fly◦ Aircraft must be stable and controllable◦ Aircraft must survive landing

Other Design Targets this Phase

Bill of Materials

Donated Materials

System Level Changes

More desirable α for takeoff for S1223 airfoil Support of front landing gear more directly

supporting the payload bay Benefits for meeting our dimensional constraints Tail strike during landing now a designed for risk Challenges:

◦ Additional bending stress during takeoff and landing on the tail boom

◦ Propeller strike during landing now more serious risk◦ E423 airfoil less generous in acceptable range of α

Taildragger Configuration

S1223 vs. E423

A tale of two airfoils

S1223E423

Pro or Con Detail:

+ Higher Cl

+ Designed for low Re

+ Cruise α more forgiving for stall characteristics

- Cmac very high

- CD high

- Manufacturing challenges

Pro or Con Detail:+ Cmac lower

+ Easier to trim

+ Smaller tail allows for more lifting area

- Lower Cl

- Flight conditions outside of traditional flight regime

+ Thicker trailing edge is easier to manufacture

+ At a particular angle of attack E423 generates more lift and less drag

Subsystem Selection

Fuselage Truss

Platform

Keel

Wing Material

Foam

Balsa

3D-Printed

Wing SectionOne Piece

Two Piece

Two Piece w/ Wingbox

Landing Gear

Tail MountingBottom

Middle

Wingbox

Feasibility and Analysis

Testing: Reinforced Trailing Edge Thin trailing edge on

S1223 wing configurations has a high risk of snapping

3D printed trailing edges would increase strength without too much of a weight increase

An estimate to get the order of magnitude for expected impact loading

We will want to design for impacts in the range of a thousand pounds

Landing Impact

An estimate to get the order of magnitude for expected bolting strength in the fuselage

We should be able to design for considerable strength

Bolting Strength

Aerodynamic Wing Design and Sizing: Parameter Selection

Horizontal Stabilizer Design: Parameter Selection

Longitudinal Static Stability Sizing Diagram

Preliminary Fuselage Sizing Diagram:Static Stability and Internal Storage Requirements

Horizontal Stabilizer Design: Overall Geometry

Overall Aircraft Longitudinal Static Stability

Vertical Stabilizer Design: Parameter Selection

Vertical Stabilizer Design: Overall Geometry

Overall Aircraft Directional Static Stability

Updated Take-Off and Landing Performance

Plan for continuing testing

Questions?