team 3 marques fulford mike bociaga jamie rosin brandon washington jon olsten tom zettel hayne kim
Post on 21-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
Team 3Marques Fulford Mike BociagaJamie Rosin Brandon Washington
Jon Olsten Tom ZettelHayne Kim
2
Outline
• Mission Statement• Mission Plans• Design Requirement• Aircraft Concept Selection• Cabin/Fuselage Layout• Constraint Analysis• Sizing Studies• Advanced Technologies
3
Mission Statement
• To create an innovative and cost effective commercial aircraft capable of take-off and landing in extremely short distances, making it available to a larger number of runways, in order to open up more airports, primarily to relieve the continuous growing congestion of large hubs.
4
Mission Plans
• Gary Chicago to Dallas Love Field• 693 nmi
• New York LaGuardia to Miami International• 935 nmi
• Charlotte International to Essex County, NJ• 460 nmi• Round trip without refueling
5
Design Requirements
Mission Requirements Target Threshold
Takeoff Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft
Landing Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft
Height to Passenger Door Sill at OWE ≤ 5 ft 9 ft
Height to Baggage Door Sill at OWE ≤ 4 ft 6 ft
Typical Cruise Mach Number ≥ 0.80 0.76
Range w/ Max Payload ≥ 2000 nmi 1500 nmi
Max Take-Off Weight ≤ 100,000 lb 150,000 lb
Max Passengers (single class) ≥ 170 pax 150 pax
Operating Cost ($US 2007) ≤ 0.08$/seat-
mile 0.12$/seat-
mile
6
Concept Generation
• Each group member generated ten different concepts. • From those ten concepts
each member chose their top two designs.
• Then the group voted on those designs to get the top four designs.
• The top four designs were further developed and then discussed.
7
Low Swept Wing; Engines Over Wing
High Wing Swept; Engines Under Wing High Swept Wing; Engines Under Wing
Low Forward Swept Wing; Engines Over Wing
8
Pugh’s Method
Criteria DefinitionESTOL Ability to take off and land on a short runway (d<3000 ft)
High L/D (cruise) High L/D ratio in cruise configuration. L/D = 23
High M (cruise) High Mach number in cruise configuration (M>0.76)
High TO Thrust High Take-Off Thrust available from engines.Passenger Comfort
Ability to provide enough space to keep passengers comfortable.
Low Door Sill Height
Low door sill height (low landing gear) to allow access at terminals with limited service (no jet ways) (h<9 ft.)
Low Noise Low noise pollution (db<75db)
Low ComplexityLow system complexity to reduce cost and increase safety/reliability.
Low WeightLow weight to decrease acquisition cost, including low empty weight fraction.
Safety High safety, low system component failure rates.
9
10
Pugh’s Methods Results
The aircraft was not designed by any one particular person however it was a hybrid of several concepts blended together.
Special Design Features•Forward swept wings•Engines mounted over the wing•Plasma stream over the lifting surfaces.
11
Cabin/Fuselage Layout
• Two Class Layout • 176 passengers• Mid-fuselage exits
• Still being placed
12
Cabin/Fuselage Layout
• Single Class Layout • 180 passengers• Mid-fuselage exits
• Still being placed
13
Constraint Analysis
• Major Performance Constraints• Takeoff and Landing Distance• Cruise Mach• 1.5g Maneuver at Cruise Altitude
14
Important Assumptions
AR=10e=0.8CLmax=4.0
L/D =23Engines = 2We/Wo=0.49
CD0=0.015
Mcruise = 0.78
L/D by Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
Year
L/D
15
Constraint Diagram
W0/S: 78 psfT/W: 0.28Takeoff: 1500 ftLanding: 500 ft
16
Constraint Diagram
W0/S: 141 psfT/W: 0.305Takeoff: 2500 ftLanding: 900 ft
17
Sizing Approach
• Sizing done using methods found in “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach” by Daniel Raymer.
• Using these methods Arrival created MATLAB script files to complete sizing.
18
Sizing Approach Initial Results
Parameter Target Range Threshold Range
TOGW [lbs] 100,000 95,000
We [lbs] 50,000 50,000
We/Wo 0.49 0.49
Fuel Weight [lbs] 13,000 11,000
Est. Wing Span 1500 ft Ground Roll [ft] ~113 ~113
Est. Wing Span 2500 ft Ground Roll [ft] ~84 ~84
Est. Wing Area 1500 ft Ground Roll [sq ft] ~1270 ~1270
Est. Wing Area 2500 ft Ground Roll [sq ft] ~703 ~703
19
Advanced Concepts Trade Study
• After applying Pugh’s Method, the “surviving” configuration concepts were compared to select the final ideal configuration.
• Two concepts, a design based off of the Boeing “Fozzie” concept, only with GTF engines and a modified tail, and a low-mounted FSW concept with Canards and USB.
20
Advanced Concepts Trade Study
• The FSW concept won out due to the ability to mount the wings further aft. This means the main gear can be mounted further aft and thus increase the rotation angle on takeoff, thus helping Arrival meet its ESTOL requirement.
21
SFC vs. Certification Date
y = 2E+44x-13.476
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
Certification Date
SFC
SFC
Power (SFC)
SFC = 0.36
Advanced Technology StudySpecific Fuel Consumption Improvements
22
Advanced Technology StudyComposites Weight Savings
TRL 9
Empty Weight Fraction Material Comparison
y = 233.08x-0.5017
y = 851.58x-0.6321
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
TOGW [lb]E
mp
ty W
eig
ht
Fra
ctio
n Boeing/Airbus Current
Boeing/Airbus CFRP
Power (Boeing/AirbusCurrent)
Power (Boeing/Airbus CFRP)
Empty Weight Fraction Comparison
y = 3853.1x-0.6833 y = 549.16x-0.5221
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
TOGW [lb]
Em
pty
Wei
ght F
ract
ion
Airbus A330
Boeing 777
Boeing 787
Power (Boeing 787)
Power (Boeing 777)
15% weight savings factor on the Empty Weight of our aircraft
23
• UDF and GTF provided a conservative savings of 15% each. Optimistic savings were 20% (per Bombardier) for GTF and 25% for UDF.
• Bombardier’s estimate selected, then projected based on the trend in SFC reduction vs. certification date found on Slide 15.
Power Series Projection
CertificationYear SFC
UDF SFC(15% savings)
UDF SFC(25% Savings)
GTF SFC(15% Savings)
GTF SFC(20% Savings)
2010 0.59 0.51 0.45 0.51 0.48
2015 0.57 0.49 0.43 0.49 0.46
2020 0.56 0.47 0.42 0.47 0.44
2025 0.54 0.46 0.40 0.46 0.43
2030 0.52 0.44 0.39 0.44 0.42
2035 0.50 0.43 0.38 0.43 0.40
2040 0.49 0.41 0.36 0.41 0.39
2045 0.47 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.38
2050 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.39 0.36
Advanced Technology StudyIncreased Fuel Economy
TRL 8-9
24
• USB provided a CLmax of 5 on the YC-14. Blown flaps had a CLmax of 5 to 7 on the YC-15.
• USB exceeds Arrival’s conservative CLmax assumption of 4.
YC-14 YC-15
Advanced Technology StudyUpper-Surface Blowing, Blown Flaps
TRL 8
25
Advantages:• Lower sweep angle for same shock sweep• Increased thickness-to-chord ratio• Control surfaces stall at higher AOA• Higher CL at low speeds
Primary Disadvantage: • Weight penalty to avoid structural divergence
Solution:• Advanced composite materials may be used to
tailor the structural divergence.• Exhibited in X-29 and Su-47
Advanced Technology StudyForward-Swept Wings
TRL 8
26
• To delay leading-edge separation over the wing and control surfaces.
• How it works:“The process of ionizing the air in this configuration is classically known as a
single dielectric barrier discharge. The ionized air (plasma) in the presence of an electric field gradient produces a body force on the ambient air, inducing a virtual aerodynamic shape that causes a change in the pressure distribution over the surface on which the actuator is placed. The air near the electrodes is weakly ionized, and there is little or no heating of the air.”
• Demonstrated in laboratory and on a sailplane fitted with plasma actuators.
Taken from Overview of Plasma Flow Control: Concepts, Optimization, and Applications
T. Corke and M. Post, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN AIAA-2005-563 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 10-13, 2005
Advanced Technology StudyLeading Edge Plasma Actuators
TRL 5
27
Advanced Technology StudyLeading Edge Plasma Actuators
TRL 5
28
Current Aircraft Design
29
Requirements ComplianceMission
Requirements Target Threshold Current
Takeoff Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft 2500 ft
Landing Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft 900 ft
Height to Passenger Door Sill at OWE ≤ 5 ft 9 ft 8 ft
Height to Baggage Door Sill at OWE ≤ 4 ft 6 ft 6 ft
Typical Cruise Mach Number ≥ 0.8 0.76 0.78
Range w/ Max Payload ≥ 2000 nmi 1500 nmi 2000 nmi
Max Take-Off Weight ≤ 100,000 lb 150,000 lb 100,000 lb
Max Passengers (single class) ≥ 170 pax 150 pax 170 pax
Operating Cost ($US 2007) ≤ 0.08 $/ASM 0.12 $/ASM 0.05 $/ASM
30
Next Steps
• Finish quantifying advanced concepts• Finish aircraft sizing• Develop design details• Finalize performance characteristics• Estimate total cost• Determine environmental impact• Determine component weight
breakdown
Questions & Comments
32