1 / 61

Asgard Aviation Conceptual Design Review

Logan Waddell Morgan Buchanan Erik Susemichel Aaron Foster. Asgard Aviation Conceptual Design Review. Craig Wikert Adam Ata Li Tan Matt Haas. Outline. Project mission Selected concept Sizing code results Modeling assumptions Major Design Tradeoffs Carpet plots Aircraft description

jabir
Télécharger la présentation

Asgard Aviation Conceptual Design Review

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. Logan Waddell Morgan Buchanan Erik Susemichel Aaron Foster Asgard AviationConceptual Design Review Craig Wikert Adam Ata Li Tan Matt Haas

  2. Outline • Project mission • Selected concept • Sizing code results • Modeling assumptions • Major Design Tradeoffs • Carpet plots • Aircraft description • Aerodynamics • Airfoil selection • High-lift devices • Performance • V-n diagram • Propulsion • Engine description • Structures • Configuration layout • Weights and Balance • Center of gravity location • Stability and Control • Noise • Cost • Summary

  3. Mission Statement To design an environmentally responsible aircraft that sufficiently completes the “N+2” requirements for the NASA green aviation challenge.

  4. Major Design Requirements • Noise (dB) • 42 dB decrease in noise • NOx Emissions • 75% reduction in emissions below CAEP 6 • Aircraft Fuel Burn • 50% Reduction in Fuel Burn • Airport Field Length • 50% shorter distance to takeoff * *ERA. (n.d.). Retrieved 2011, from NASA: http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/isrp/era/index.htm

  5. Selected Concept Wing loading: 108 lb/ft^2 Wing AR: 7.8 Wing sweep: 31˚ T/W: 0.32 Twin-aisle configuration, ~250 passengers with a two-class configuration

  6. Aircraft Concept Walk-around Advanced Composite Materials Wing Mounted Engines Conventional Vertical Stabilizer Spiroid Winglets

  7. Sizing Code • Using MATLAB software, first order method from Raymer • Used inputs to determine the size of pre-existing aircraft for validation

  8. Incorporating Drag • Drag values affect fuel fraction weights which affect the fuel weight • Drag buildup equation used to predict drag • Wave drag uses Lock’s fourth power law Included in the equation are the parasitic, induced, and wave drag

  9. Component Weights Empty weight buildup from Raymer text.

  10. Validation • Boeing 767-200ER • Passenger Capacity: 224 • Range: 6,545 nmi • Crew: 2 • Cruise Mach: 0.8 • Max Fuel Capacity: 16,700 gal

  11. Validation continued • The sizing code predictions are accurate • The error factor for the takeoff weight is:

  12. Selected Concept Predictions

  13. Fixed Design Parameter Values

  14. Engine Modeling • Used NASA Geared Turbofan tabular data to scale engine to desired propulsion characteristics • Scale factor is based on SLS thrust from tabular data • Scale factors also implemented for technologies

  15. Engine Modeling • Scale Factor used to size up all performance data in NASA file • Ex. • Technology Data Adjustment • Orbiting Combustion Nozzle

  16. Design Mission

  17. Typical Design Mission • Average flight in the continental United States is 650 nm • Typical design mission • Chicago to New York • Approximately 618 nm • Connects two major cities • Typical route carries 212 passengers • 85% load factor

  18. “Basic” Carpet Plot

  19. Constraint Cross Plots Takeoff Ground Roll(dTO < 5000 ft) Cross Plot

  20. Constraint Cross Plots Landing Braking Ground Roll(dL < 2000 ft) Cross Plot

  21. Constraint Cross Plots Top Of Climb (TOP >= 100 ft/min) Cross Plot

  22. Final Carpet Plot

  23. Other Trade-offs • Geared Turbofan: Less Fuel Weight vs. More Drags • Hybrid Laminar Flow Control: 12-14% Less Drags vs. 2.8% More Cost • Landing Fairing: Reduce noise vs. More Weight

  24. Our concept 787-8 • Length: 180’ 186’ • Wing Span: 167’ 197’ • Height: 51’ 56’ • Fuselage Height: 17’ 19’ 7’’ • Fuselage Width: 16’ 18’ 11’’

  25. Two Class System • Seating • 4 rows 1st Class • 34 rows Economy Class • 250 passengers • Seat Pitch • 39 inches 1st Class • 34 inches Economy Class • Seat Width • 23 inches 1st Class • 19 inches Economy Class

  26. One Class System • Seating • No First Class (Low Cost Carriers) • 44 rows Economy Class • 303 passengers

  27. Airfoil Selection • Supercritical airfoils to be used for all wing and stabilizer sections • Still used for transonic aircraft* • Reduce wave drag • Increase fuel storage space • Airfoil would be designed to meet design goals • Cruise CL = 0.5185, L/D = 15.4654 *http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/futureac.html

  28. Divergent Trailing Edge Airfoil • Separation bubble employed to generate more lift at trailing edge • New technology being developed with advances in CFD • Not much concrete data at this time • Potentially plausible for N+3 goals http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/futureac.html

  29. High-Lift Devices • Slats, Triple-slotted flaps • Used for reliability • Lift coefficients for different configurations • Takeoff CL = 1.3 • Landing CL = 2.5 • Landing and takeoff speeds set at 175 mph (152 kts), 15% faster than stall

  30. Performance V-n (Loads) Diagram Performance Summary

  31. V-n (Loads) Diagram n=+2.11 n=-1

  32. Performance Summary

  33. Propulsion • Engine type: High-Bypass Geared Turbofan • Bypass Ratio: 14.5-14.7 • Fan Pressure Ratio: 1.4-1.6 • Overall Pressure Ratio: 42 • SLS Thrust: 49,450 lbs • Dry Weight: 9590 lbs • Improvement Technologies • Orbiting Combustion Nozzle • Improves fuel burn/reduces emissions • Scarf Inlet • Redirects/Decreases fan noise • Chevron Nozzle • Reduces low frequency exhaust noise Courtesy of Airliners.net

  34. Other Technology Effects • Chevron Nozzle • Mixing flows can have adverse effect on thrust • Scarf Inlet • Greatly increases engine nacelle weight • Reduces inlet efficiency • Orbiting Combustion Nozzle • Thrust does not take a huge hit due to converging/diverging exit • Lack of need for diffusers and stators on either end of compressor reduce weight of engine

  35. Engine Performance • Specific Fuel Consumption

  36. Engine Performance

  37. Engine Performance • Emissions Reduction/Fuel Burn Savings

  38. Structures: Load Paths • Wing-fuselage intersection • (Wing box) • Pylons • Tail Intersections • Fuselage • Landing gear

  39. Structures: Wing Box Wing-fuselage intersection (Wing box)

  40. Structures: Engine Pylons Engine pylons

  41. Structures: Landing Gear Landing Gear Integration

  42. Structures: Material Selections Composite Fuselage (Carbon Laminate) Composites on leading edges for laminar flow Aluminum and Fiberglass wings Titanium for pylons Steel for elevator, rudder, and landing gear

  43. Weights and Balance Aircraft Group Weights Statement Description of Empty Weight Prediction Location of Center of Gravity

  44. Empty Weight Prediction Method • Equations for a/c components from Raymer • Each component function of designed gross weight • Summation of component weights

  45. CG and Neutral Point • Center of Gravity: • Components included in CG calculation • Fuselage, wing, horizontal tail, vertical tail, nacelles, engines, and landing gears • Other weights put in center of vehicle • Crew, passengers, payload, furnishings, etc. • Neutral Point: 87.6 ft from nose

  46. Center of Gravity Travel

  47. Stability and Control • Static Longitudinal Stability • Lateral Stability

  48. CG and Longitudinal Stability

  49. Tail Sizing • Current Approach • Using Raymer Equations (6.28) and (6.29)

  50. Control Surface Sizing Raymer Figure 6.3 – Aileron Sizing Raymer Table 6.5 – Elevator Sizing

More Related