Team: FUBAR-V(Flying Unmanned Bug Annihilation Remote Vehicle)

2

Presented By

Bryan LinEric JohnsonPhilip MartoranaGlen FetschTherese ProseckyRaj RamachandramoorthyAdam Carrington

ConfigurationAerodynamicsStructuresStability and ControlPropulsionPerformanceCost Analysis

Configuration

Presented by:Bryan Lin

4

Overview

Initial Design Selections

Initial Sizing and Constraint Analysis

Weights and Balances

BL

5

Initial Design Selections

BL

6

Three Selected Designs

BL

7

Initial Sizing

Configuration

Calculated Value Twin Boom

Conventional Pusher

Conventional Tractor

TOGW (Wo) (lb) 1470 1163 1163

Empty Weight (lb) 1155 848 848

We/Wo 0.786 0.729 0.729

Wf/Wo 0.069 0.054 0.054

Mission Fuel Weight (lb) 101.527 62.743 62.743

BL

8

Initial Sizing Model

Leg Discription R (n.mi.) R (ft) C (lb/s) V (knots) L/D Wi/Wi-

1 Wi/Wo1 Warmup+Take off 0.97 0.97 2 Climb 0.985 0.9555 3 Cruise 16.44 99891.34 2E-05 48 11.59 0.9978 0.9534 4 Climb 0.985 0.9391 5 Land 0.995 0.9344

Historical Fuel Fractions

Warmup+Take off 0.97

Climb 0.985

Climb 0.985

Land 0.995

BL

9

Constraint Analysis

Initial constraint analysis using estimated values

Initial Constraint Analysis

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

W / S 0

clmaxl = 3Take OffCruiseDP

BL

10

Refined Constraint Analysis

Constraint analysis after revised valuesConstraint Analysis

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30W/S0

T/W

0

Take OffCruiseLandingDP

BL

11

Weights and Balances

All components were modeled as simple geometric shapes.

Fuselages were modeled as combination of simple geometric shapes (i.e. cones, cylinders, prisms)

Components were first place throughout each configuration and then adjusted for static margin optimization

BL

12

CG rangesCG ranges

0 5 10 15 20

Tractor

Pusher

Twin-boom

Con

figur

atio

ns

X location (ft) Full wieght CGEmpty Wieght Change in CGFull Length

BL

Aerodynamics

Presented by:Eric Johnson

14

Overview

Airfoil SelectionWing GeometryDrag Buildup– Conventional Tractor– Conventional Pusher– Twin-Boom Pusher– Drag Polars

Trade Studies– High-Lift Devices– In-board Spray System

EJ

15

Airfoil Selection

Eppler 431– Analyzed with XFOIL– High-lift at low speeds– Desirable lift and structural characteristics

EJ

16

Wing Geometry

Same basic geometry for all three configurationsRectangular planform with no leading-edge sweep CLmax=1.549 at a=18°

iw=5°

Configuration t/c camber Chord (ft) Span (ft) Sref (ft^2) AR

Conventional Tractor 0.15 4.2% 3.93 31.3 130.8 8

Conventional Pusher 0.15 4.2% 3.93 31.3 130.8 8

Twin Boom Pusher 0.15 4.2% 3.93 31.3 138.7 8

EJ

17

Drag Buildup

Followed method in Raymer for CDo

Initial parasite drag calculation includes:– Wing– Fuselage sections– Tail – Gear– Spray system– Engine cooling

Added 5% for losses and perturbances

EJ

18

Drag Buildup: Conventional Tractor

CDo=.0373

Mission Segment Cl (from XFOIL) CL CDi CD L/D

Takeoff/Climb 1.6550 1.2806 0.0805 0.1178 10.87

Cruise/Spray 1.1522 1.1006 0.0595 0.0968 11.37

Descent/Landing 1.6549 1.0760 0.0568 0.0942 11.43

EJ

19

Drag Buildup: Conventional Pusher

CDo=.0378

Mission Segment Cl (from XFOIL) CL CDi CD L/D

Takeoff/Climb 1.6550 1.2806 0.0805 0.1183 10.82

Cruise/Spray 1.1522 1.1006 0.0595 0.0973 11.31

Descent/Landing 1.6549 1.0760 0.0568 0.0947 11.36

EJ

20

Drag Buildup: Twin-Boom Pusher

CDo=.0438

Mission Segment Cl (from XFOIL) CL CDi CD L/D

Takeoff/Climb 1.6550 1.2806 0.0805 0.1243 10.30

Cruise/Spray 1.1522 1.1006 0.0595 0.1033 10.66

Descent/Landing 1.6549 1.0760 0.0568 0.1007 10.69

EJ

21

Drag Polars

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

CD

CL

Tractor Pusher Tw in-Boom

EJ

22

Trade Study: High-lift Devices

Desirable to decrease stall speed for takeoff and landingConsidered plain and split flaps for conventional tractorPotential 15-20% decrease in Vstall

50.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

58.00

60.00

62.00

64.00

66.00

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sflapped/Sref

Stal

l Spe

ed (f

ps)

68.00

Plain Flaps Split Flaps No Flaps (clean)

EJ

23

Trade Study: In-board Sprayer

Desirable to increase efficiency by lowering CDo

In-board system would virtually eliminate sprayer contribution for much of the flight

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

CD

CL

Conventional WICDS L/D Conventional L/D WICDS

Configuration CDo (conv.) CD (sprayer) CDo (in-board) L/Dmax (conv.) L/Dmax (in-board)

Conventional Tractor 0.037321 0.018346 0.018975 11.67 16.37

Conventional Pusher 0.037847 0.018346 0.019501 11.59 16.13

Twin Boom Pusher 0.043823 0.016511 0.027312 10.77 13.63

EJ

Structures

Presented by:Philip Martorana

25

Overview

V-n Diagram– At design wing loading– Trade Study: lower wing loading

Material SelectionLoad Paths– Fuselage construction– Shear and bending moment loads at wing root

Landing Gear– Three configurations– Tire sizing

PM

26

V-n Diagram for W/S=9

-3-2-1012345

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

V (mph)

n

Positve Gust Load at Vc Negative Gust Load at Vc

Positive Gust Load at Vd Negative Gust Load at Vd

High AOA Max q

Gust Load btw Vc and Vd Gust Load btw Vc and Vd

Maneuver Envelope

PM

27

V-n Diagram for W/S=4

-3

-2-1

01

2

34

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

V (mph)

n

Positive Gust Load at Vc Negative Gust Load at Vc

Positve Gust Load at Vd Negative Gust Load at Vd

High AOA Max q

Gust Load btw Vc and Vd Gust Load btw Vc and Vd

Maneuver Envelope

PM

28

Material Selection

Materials Considered– Wood, aluminum, steel,

and titanium– Emphasis on low cost

through ease of manufacturing and maintainability

Current Selection– Aluminum 2024

Other Considerations– Steel 4130– Fiberglass

Material E (ksi)

G(ksi)

Yield Tensile Strength(ksi)

Al 2024 10,600 4,060 50

Steel 4130 29,700 11,600 52.2

PM

29

Fuselage Construction

Three types considered– True monocoque– Semimonocoque– Reinforced Shell

Semimonocoque is current selection– Stick with theme of low cost

Shear and bending moment loads at wing roots for critical cases

Critical case Lift (lb) n+ Wing weight (lb)

Shear force at root (lb)

Bending moment at root (lb-ft)

High AOA 1,319 4.272 152.3 4,984 18,083

Max q 2,942 4.272 152.3 11,918 43,240

PM

30

Semimonocoque Configuration

PM

31

Landing Gear for Conventional Tractor

Taildragger configuration– Increased angle of attack at takeoff– Proper propeller clearance– Risk of ground loop

PM

32

Landing Gear for Conventional Pusher

Single main gear configuration– More stable– Less drag than taildragger configuration– Historically used on lighter aircraft

PM

33

Landing Gear for Twin Boom Pusher

Modification of single main gear configuration– Twin boom configuration does not allow for one rear

auxiliary wheel– Two auxiliary wheels used– Slight increase in drag

Tire Selection– Used method from Raymer

Landing Gear Type

Main tire diameter (in)

Main tire width (in)

Wing tire diameter (in)

Wing tire width (in)

Tail tire diameter (in)

Tail tire width (in)

Taildragger 16.489 6.2308 N/A N/A 10.124 4.029

Single MainGear

19.9667 7.3932 10.124 4.029 10.124 4.029

Modified Single Main Gear

19.9667 7.3932 10.024 4.029 7.949 3.245

PM

Stability and Control

Presented by:Glen Fetsch

35

Overview

Initial tail sizing– Control surface sizing

Neutral Point– Calculation formula

Center of Gravity– Calculation in conjunction with Configurations

Static Margin– Power on– Power off

GF

36

Tail Configuration

Conventional Tractor– Conventional Tail

Conventional Pusher– Conventional Tail

Twin Boom Design– Utilized two vertical

stabilizers and one main horizontal

GF

37

Control Surface Sizing

Aspect Ratio– Historical Data

Area (s)

Span (b)

vtvt

vt

c bSSl

=ht

htht l

SCcS =

h h hb AR S= ⋅

v v vb AR S= ⋅

GF

38

Control Surface Sizing

Calculated using historical values from RaymerAverage between Sailplane and Agricultural

GF

39

Neutral Point and Center of Gravity

Neutral Point Calculation – Power on– Power off

Center of Gravity– Conjunction with Configurations– Approximated weight model

GF

40

Static Margin

Aimed for a higher Static Margin– For easy pilot control– Wide turning radius ~500 ft

Power on– ~35.8% Twin Boom– ~40.0% Conventional Tractor– ~4.5% Conventional Pusher

GF

Propulsion

Presented by:Therese Prosecky

42

Overview

RequirementsChoicesSelected Power PlantPropellersPower Calculations

TP

43

Propulsion Requirements

Manage:– Cruise speed: 47 knots– Take-off speed: 48 knots– Landing speed: 48 knots

Handle weight of payload and aircraft– 300 lbs of payload– 1100lbs-1500lbs for weight of aircraft, depending on

model

TP

44

UAV Engines

Use for lightweight unmanned aerial vehiclesUAV Engines and ROTAX

Manufacturer Model Weight (lb) Power (hp) Max. RPMFuel Consumption (gal/hr)

UAV Engines AR801 53.7 50 8000 2.5

AR801R 65 51 8000 2.4

ROTAX 582 UL-2V 79.2 53.6 6000 3.3

582 UL-2V 79.2 65 6500 3.6

912 UL 121.3 79 5500 2.9

Photo from: http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_engines/rotax_582UL.htmTP

45

Propulsion System Selection

ROTAX 582 UL-2V: 65 horsepower– 2-cylinder, 2-stroke rotary engine– Self-sufficient liquid cooling system– Unleaded/leaded MON 83 fuel– Intake silencer

Manufacturer ModelLength (in)

Weight (lb)

Power (hp)

Max. RPM

Max. Torque (ft-lb)

Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)

ROTAX 582 UL-2V

30.35 79.2 65 6800 55.3 7.2

TP

46

Propellers

Material: metal-more efficient than wood

Constant-pitch ~12 degrees-lighter than constant-speed prop

Diameter: 62in2 Blades vs. 3 Blades

http://www.bearplugs.com/prodimg/HEI-20EVOE100P.jpg

TP

47

Power Calculations

Power Loading

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

P o w e r ( h p )

TP

48

Thrust vs. Velocity

Thrust required: 385 lbf

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

V el oci t y ( kt s)

TP

Performance

Presented by:Rajaprakash Ramachandramoorthy

50

OverviewPrimary Mission Profile– Take-off and Climb– Spraying Segment– Descent and Landing

Ferry Mission

RR

51

Primary Mission Profile

1) Taxi 2) Ground roll 3) Climb to 50 ft4) Descent to 20 ft

5) Spray Chemicals6) Climb to 50 ft7) Descend 8) Land

Main ConstraintLanding and Take off Distance within 750 feet

RR

52

Take Off And ClimbEquations Used

ST = √(R2 – (R – hTR)2)Sc = (hobstacle – hTR ) / tan(γC)

Aircraft Designs Take-off Distance Fuel ConsumedConventional Tractor 633 feet 0.42 litersTwin Boom Design 669 feet 0.46 litersConventional Pusher 633 feet 0.42 liters

RR

53

Spraying Segment

S shaped Turns Spiraling to center Translating EllipseTurn Radius = 31.30 ft Turn Radius = Vary Turn Radius = 39.38 ft Number of Passes =24 Number of Spirals = Vary Number of Passes = 16Spray distance=12 miles Spray distance= Vary Distance = 16.93 miles

Conventional Pusher Twin Boom Design Conventional Tractor3.94 liters 3.63 liters 3.94 liters

Translating Ellipse – Fuel Consumption

RR

54

Descent and Landing

Aircraft Design Landing Distance Fuel ConsumedConventional Tractor 462 feet 0.060 litersTwin Boom Design 489 feet 0.055 litersConventional Pusher 462 feet 0.060 liters

Equations Used

ST = √(R2 – (R – hF)2)Sc = (hobstacle – hF ) / tan(γC)

RR

55

Ferry Mission

Take off

Climb

Cruise

Descent

Landing

Fuel ConsumptionAircraft Designs

Take off / Landing Distances Take-off Climb Cruise Landing

Conventional Tractor 389 feet / 439 feet 0.37 liters 1.64 liters 0.40 liters 0.035 liters

Twin Boom Design 409 feet / 466 feet 0.40 liters 1.87 liters 0.35 liters 0.030 liters

Conventional Pusher 389 feet / 439 feet 0.37 liters 1.64 liters 0.40 liters 0.035 liters

RR

Cost Analysis

Presented by:Adam Carrington

57

Overview

Spray SystemAvionicsCost Breakdown– Material Cost Influence

Avionics Integration Diagram

AC

58

Spray System

Spray System

Component Price Quantity Total Price

PVC Pipe $10 2 $20

Spray Nozzles $5 10 $50

Chemical Turbine Driven Pump $100 1 $100

Flow Rate/ Pressure Gauge $100 1 $100

Digital Fuel Level/Voltmeter Gauge $334 1 $334

Flow Rate Controller $100 1 $100

Solid Particle Distribution Servo $75 1 $75

Miscellaneous (nuts, bolts, adhesive, etc…) $100 1 $100

Total $879

AC

59

Avionics

Autopilot– GPS– Accelerometer– Altimeter– Airspeed

HORIZON Ground Control– In-flight Mission

Reprogramming– Joystick Interface– Multiple UAV Profiles– Payload Operations

Wireless Modems– 30 mile range– High Speed & Secure

Transmission

HORIZON Ground Control Software

Autopilot System with Hardware

AC

60

Avionics

Avionics

Component Price Quantity Total Price

Laptop $500 2 $1,000

MP2128g Autopilot with HORIZON $3,500 1 $3,500

MHX2420 Wireless Modem $350 2 $700

Stabilized Payload Camera $400 1 $400

Rubber Ducky Antenna $10 2 $20

Analog to Digital Converter $40 1 $40

Digital Fuel Level/Voltmeter Gauge $334 1 $334

Miscellaneous (nuts, bolts, adhesive, etc…) $100 1 $100

Total $6,094

AC

61

Cost Analysis

Conventional– Graphite

$43,600– Aluminum

$40,500– Fiberglass

$29,300Twin Boom– Graphite

$54,300– Aluminum

$50,500– Fiberglass

$36,000

Cost Comparison for Different Materials

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Twin Boom Conventional

Model Type

Cos

t per

UA

V

Aluminum

Graphite

Fiberglass

AC

62

Cost Analysis

Conventional Model Total Cost Breakdown

17%

27%

4%11%

28%

8%

4%

1%Flight Test Cost

Manufacturing MaterialCostEngine Cost

Tooling Cost

Manufacturing Cost

Quality Control Cost

Avionics

Spray System

AC

63

Cost Analysis

Operation and Maintenance Cost– 200 hours per year– 20 year life span– 6 acres per minute– $41.75 per hour– 12 cents per acre– Total: $167,000

Variation of Life Cycle Cost due to Model and Number Built

Number produced Model Life Cycle Cost

Twin Boom $237,958.59

50 Conventional $224,611.25

Twin Boom $217,515.72

100 Conventional $207,482.60

Twin Boom $193,829.71

500 Conventional $188,159.79

AC

64

Future Work

Re-select design point given new constraint analysis.Optimize fuselage designs for transportationInvestigate other airfoils Incorporate high-lift devicesHigher horsepower engineDetailed stress analysis on aircraft using different materialsIntegrate multiple materials to reduce costImplement integrated spray systemMore accurate calculations for the climb and descent mission segmentsGradual payload reduction systemPerformance calculations with heavier load and higher altitudes

65

References[1] Raymer P. Daniel., “Initial Sizing,” Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4thedition., AIAA Educational Series, Reston, 2006. [2] “UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database”, 2 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, www.ae.uiuc.edu/m_selig/ads/coord_database.html [3] Nice, Karim, “How Rotary Engines Work,” HowStuffWorks, 9 Oct. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm/printable [4] “ROTAX Engines”, Skydive: UK Distributors for ROTAX Engines, 15 Oct. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.skydrive.co.uk/sd_re.asp [5] “Continental O-200 Engine,”Zodiac XL, 11 Oct.2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/o200.html [6] Perkins, D.Courtland., Hage, E.Robert., “Airplane Performance,” Airplane Performance Stability and Control, Seventh printing, John Wiley and Sons, New York, Aug 1958, pp.155-167. [7] Asselin Mario., “Level Flight,” An Introduction to Aircraft Performance, AIAA Education Series, Reston, 1997, pp.92-95. [8] Wood, D.Karl., “Aircraft Performance,” Technical Aerodynamics, Ulrich’s Book Store, Ann Abhor, 1955, pp.12-22. [9] “FAR Part 23,” Flightsim Aviation Zone, 2 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23.html [10] “Aviation,” Integrated Publishing, 7 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14014/css/14014_78.htm [11] “Aircraft Landing Gear Layouts,” Aerospaceweb, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.aerospaceweb.org/questions/design/q0200.shtml. [12] “MicroPilot, World Leader in Miniature UAV Autopilots”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.micropilot.com [13] “Microhard Systems Inc.”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.microhardcorp.com [14] “Pegasus Autoracing Supplies”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecId=5296 [15] “HyperLink Technologies”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/2.4ghz_5.8ghz_triband_rubber_duck_antenna_rsp.php [16] “Professional Equipment”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.professionalequipment.com/water-pressure-gauge-water-flow-rate-meter-995-01sku397-654/water-pressure-gauges/ [17] “Dell, Inspiron 1501 Notebook”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspn_1501?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs [18] “Lowe’s”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.lowes.com [19] “John Deere, Parts”, 11 Nov. 2007, Mozilla Firefox, http://www.deere.com

66

Questions?