1 / 30

AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI

AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI Team Members: John Collins Chad Davis Chris Fles Danny Sze Ling Lim Justin Rohde Ryan Schulz Ronald Wong Yusaku Yamashita Market Review Target: Business Market Corporate Flight Departments

Patman
Télécharger la présentation

AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006 Preliminary Design Review Group VI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. AAE 451 Senior Aircraft Design Spring 2006Preliminary Design ReviewGroup VI Team Members: John Collins Chad Davis Chris Fles Danny Sze Ling Lim Justin Rohde Ryan Schulz Ronald Wong Yusaku Yamashita

  2. Market Review • Target: Business Market • Corporate Flight Departments • Air Taxi and Air Charter • Fractional Shares • Profit Opportunities • Air taxi, fractional ownership expected to more than double in coming decade • Increasing incentive for use by small business • Strong business aviation growth expected in European and Asian markets over next 20 years

  3. Cabin Capacity - 2 Crew + 6 Passengers Cruise Range - 600 nm Cruise Speed - 250 kts T.O./Landing Distance - 2,100 ft Acquisition Cost - $1.8 Million D.O.C./Hour - $550 Design Requirements • Pilots (150 lbs. each) • Passengers (200 lbs. each) • 1500 lbs. Total Payload 600 nm range Reserve Cruise 200 nm cruise + 45 min loiter V-cruise = 250 kts @ 20,500 ft Descend for Landing Climb Begin Landing Take-off 2100 ft. Runway Taxi Execute Missed Landing Land 2100 ft. Runway

  4. Present Concept

  5. Sizing • Major parameters • P/W = 0.1716 hp/lb • W/S = 32 lb/ft • AR = 7.6 • TOGW = 6500 lb • λ = 0.4 • Costs • Acquisition = $1.725 Million • Direct Operating = $450/Hour • Carpet Plot Approach • We/Wo – Regression: • P/W, W/S, AR, V-max, TOGW • We/Wo – Verified: • Component Weight Analysis

  6. Concept Comparison

  7. Aerodynamics • Wing Airfoil Selection Criteria • High Clmax (Required Clmax=1.5) • High L/D (Required L/D = 11.66) • Low Cd • Low Cm.25 at cruise • NACA 22012 was selected as it can meet the requirements at a lower drag penalty than NACA 4412 • 20 degree deflection of plain flaps located at ¾-chord were used during takeoff to augment the Cl required

  8. Drag Polar Cl – alpha curve with and without flaps

  9. Aerodynamics – Wing Selection • Canard Airfoil • NACA 2212 was selected as it provides adequate CL at cruise to meet the L/D requirement. • Winglet Airfoil • NACA 4412 was selected based on Raymer’s textbook, “the camber of the winglet must be greater than that of the wing to ensure sufficient side force.”

  10. Drag Estimation Note: Figures might not add up due to rounding error

  11. Summary of Aerodynamic Performance • CLmax = 1.622 • CLcruise = 0.320 • L/D = 12.26 • Cd cruise = 0.026 • Cd takeoff = 0.148

  12. V-n Diagram Vstall = 68 kts Vcruise = 250 kts Vdive = 280 kts VAOA = 115.65 kts

  13. Structures • Box Beam Analysis Program • Compares Different Materials • Includes Tolerances • Deflection • Buckling • Shear • Program Minimizes Material Used • Loading Conditions • Trapezoidal Lift Distribution • Large Bending Moment at Wing Root • Lateral Forces Applied on Winglet

  14. Structures • Results • Aluminum Composite • 140 lb Supporting Structure / Wing • Aluminum • 170 lb Supporting Structure / Wing • Loading Factor – 2.0 Before Failure • Further Optimization Required

  15. Component Weight Breakdown (Numbers)

  16. Component Weight Breakdown (empty) Total Empty Weight = 3321.6 lb

  17. Gross Takeoff Weight = 6500 lb Component Weight Breakdown (Gross takeoff Configuration)

  18. Component Weight Distribution

  19. CG Travel and Static Margin

  20. Propulsion • Propeller • Diameter - 8 ft • 4 Blades • ηp Max Speed – 0.91 • Variable Pitch • Feathering and Reversible • Cruise SFC – 0.553 • Installed Power – 1000 hp • Similar Engine - PT6A-60A PT6A – Large – www.unitedtubrine.com

  21. Propulsion Considerations

  22. Fuel Considerations • BioJet Fuel • First Created by University of North Dakota • Heating Value – 16,000 (btu/lb) • Specific Gravity – 0.87-0.89 • TSFC – 0.553 *Approximate • Compatible with Current Turbines • Engine Heat Used to Prevent Gelling

  23. Cost • Acquisition • $1.725 Million • Regression of Similar Aircraft • Based on: • Gross Weight • Aircraft Performance • DOC • $450 / Hour • Component Analysis

  24. Acquisition Cost Baron G58 - $1.22 M Adam A500 - $1.25 M Pilatus PC-12 - $2.80 M Concept 15 - $1.725 D.O.C./Hour Baron G58 - $288 Adam A500 - $450 Pilatus PC-12 - $400 Concept 15 - $450 Competing Aircraft

  25. Production Costs • Recurring Costs • Manufacturing • Materials •  Quality Control • Development Support • Engines • Avionics • Inventory • Non-Recurring Costs • Engineering/Design • Tooling • Flight Testing • DAPCA model (Raymer) used to estimate costs • Adjusted to current dollar value • Weighting used for composite components • Learning curve applied to various recurring • man-hours as production progresses

  26. Production Costs • Significant decrease in unit cost as • production increases • Acquisition cost of $1.725M; includes • 30% profit • Break even point ~ 210 aircraft

  27. Production Cost Breakdown • Engineering, development, and testing decrease substantially in percentage as production increases • Manufacturing, materials costs begin to level off

  28. Production Cost Breakdown

  29. Summary • Concept 15 • Design Requirements Achieved • Mission Requirements Met • Stable Aircraft (Positive Static Margin) • Aerodynamic Properties Possible • Need Wind Tunnel Verification (Better Approximations) • Competitive Cost Achieved

  30. Questions

More Related