Team 5 Conceptual Design Review Robert Aungst Chris

Team 5 Conceptual Design Review Robert Aungst Chris Chown Matthew Gray Adrian Mazzarella Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 Brian Boyer Nick Gohn Charley Hancock Matt Schmitt April 17, 2007 Slide 1

Outline of Presentation • Mission Summary • Payload Summary • Final Concept • Sizing Analysis • Aerodynamic Analysis • Performance Analysis • Engine / Power Analysis • Structures Analysis • Stability and Controls Analysis Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 2

Concept of Operations “Our mission is to provide an innovative advertising medium through the use of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)” • Continuous area coverage of South Florida metropolitan areas and beaches for advertising purposes • Advertisements change based on location and circumstance – Targeted advertising for specific areas – e. g. advertising Best Buy near Circuit City locations • Large, fuselage mounted LED screens will deliver adverts • Business will be developed around this new technology Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 3

Concept of Operations • Operations based at Sebring Regional Airport, serving 3 high population areas • Continuous area coverage of city for 18 hrs (6 am to 12 am) – 3 missions total with 6 hour loiter each • Seven planes needed for 3 city operations with 1 spare • Coverage area map: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 4

Major Design Requirements • Customer Attributes – Advertisement visibility is paramount in order to meet customer’s needs – Must maintain a loiter speed which allows the public to retain the content of advertisements – For a successful venture, these two requirements must be clearly met in order to provide a superior service to the customer • Engineering Requirements – Screen dimensions: 7. 42’ x 30’ (each) – Loiter Speed: 68 ktas – Loiter Endurance: 6 hrs Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 5

Payload Summary - Screen • Two High Intensity LED Screens – 7. 42 ft X 30 ft • Viewable up to 1500 ft – 500 lbs installed (each) – $120 k cost (each) – Power Consumption • 3. 9 kw/5. 2 hp, each • Driven by DC Generator – Daytime Viewable • Brightness: 6500 cd/m² – Dynamic Display • 60 fps video/text – Weatherproof Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 6

Selected Aircraft Concept – “Walkaround” Diagram High wing configuration Single 755 hp turboprop, propeller T-tail empennage configuration High aspect ratio, zero sweep wing Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 Retractable tricycle landing gear configuration 7. 42’ x 30’ advertising screen April 17, 2007 Slide 7

Selected Aircraft Concept – Key Figures Requirement Final Value Screen Dimensions (each) Loiter Velocity 7. 42’ x 30’ Loiter Time Cruise Range Loiter L/D (clean) Specific Fuel Consumption Cruise Velocity GTOW Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 68 kts TAS 6 hrs 400 nm 21 0. 55 lb/BHP/hr 165 kts TAS 5585 lbs April 17, 2007 Slide 8

Aircraft Sizing Analysis • Sizing Prediction Methods – NASA Langley’s FLOPS • Flight Optimization System – AVID’s ACS – Team Written Matlab Code • Early Weight Predictions – Team written Matlab code – Empty weight - historical database trends • Final Weight Predictions – NASA’s FLOPS Software – Empty weight - FLOPS general aviation equations Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 9

Aircraft Sizing Analysis • Fixed Design Parameter Values Design Parameter FLOPS Input Value CLmax 1. 2 Thickness-to-Chord Ratio . 10 Taper Ratio . 39 Wing Sweep 0° Effective Aspect Ratio 16. 8 Screen Size/Weight 7. 42” x 30” (drove fuselage dimensions input)/1000 lbs Weight Correction Advanced Composites Assumed Atmosphere Correction Standard Atmosphere + 30°F Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 10

Aircraft Sizing Analysis • Tail Sizing Strategy – Historical values for tail volume coefficient • Raymer plus a “fudge” factor – Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient: 0. 975 – Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient: 0. 1 • Engine Modeling – FLOPS turboprop model – Inputs • compressor pressure ratio • turbine inlet temperature • design shaft horsepower • design core airflow • propeller efficiency • propeller RPM Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 11

Carpet Plots • Carpet Plots Procedures – Design Wing Loading: 12. 5 lbs/ft 2 – Design Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0. 24 – Increase and Decrease Wing Loading and Thrust-to-Weight Ratio by factors of approximately 20% and 40% – Determine from sizing code: • Gross Takeoff Weight • Landing Distance • Takeoff Distance Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 12

Carpet Plot Design Area W/S = 12. 5 T/W = 0. 24 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 13

Trade Studies • Using carpet plots – Design wing loading selected – Design thrust-to-weight ratio selected • Trade Studies – Gross Weight Variations from: • Payload weight • Cruise distance • Loiter time Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 14

Trade Studies - Payload Weights • 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens • Cruise Distance = 112 nm – 1 LED Screen • Payload Weight: 500 lbs • Gross Takeoff Weight: 3942 lbs • Empty Weight: 2368 lbs • Fuel Weight: 1008 lbs – 2 LED Screen • Payload Weight: 1000 lbs • Gross Takeoff Weight: 5431 lbs • Empty Weight: 2996 lbs • Fuel Weight: 1360 lbs Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 15

Trade Studies - Cruise Distance • 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens • Varying Cruise Distances Cruise Range: 1 LED Screen (Payload = 500 lbs) 2 LED Screen (Payload = 1000 lbs) 175 N. M. Cruise GTOW: 4243 lbs. Empty: 2491 lbs. Fuel: 1184 lbs. GTOW: 5869 lbs. Empty: 3186 lbs. Fuel: 1605 lbs. 150 N. M. Cruise GTOW: 4118 lbs. Empty: 2440 lbs. Fuel: 1111 lbs. GTOW: 5686 lbs. Empty: 3106 lbs. Fuel: 1503 lbs. 100 N. M. Cruise GTOW: 3889 lbs. Empty: 2347 lbs. Fuel: 976 lbs. GTOW: 5356 lbs. Empty: 2963 lbs. Fuel: 1318 lbs. Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 16

Trade Studies - Loiter Length • 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens • Varying Loiter Lengths Loiter Length: 1 LED Screen (Payload = 500 lbs) 2 LED Screen (Payload = 1000 lbs) 4 hr. Loiter GTOW: 3336 lbs. Empty: 2124 lbs. Fuel: 650 lbs. GTOW: 4564 lbs. Empty: 2626 lbs. Fuel: 868 lbs. 6 hr. Loiter GTOW: 3942 lbs. Empty: 2368 lbs. Fuel: 1008 lbs. GTOW: 5431 lbs. Empty: 2996 lbs. Fuel: 1360 lbs. 8 hr. Loiter GTOW: 4127 lbs. Empty: 2387 lbs. Fuel: 1173 lbs. GTOW: 6682 lbs. Empty: 3570 lbs. Fuel: 2029 lbs. Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 17

Aircraft Description – 3 -view 10 ft 5 ft 78 ft 3 ft 6 ft 13 ft Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 42 ft April 17, 2007 Slide 18

Aircraft Description - Internal Layout 42 ft. Generator Nose Landing Gear (beneath engine) Rear Landing Gear Tail Camera Screen Avionics Engine 13 ft Fuel Nose Camera Screen Ballistic Recovery System Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 19

Aircraft Description - Retractable Tricycle Landing Gear • Nose Gear: – – 4 ft. from the nose Center of plane Retracts to the rear 3. 25 ft. long strut • . 1 ft diameter – Oleopneumatic shockstrut with drag brace – 2 Type VII tires (redundancy) • • . 4 ft width. 75 ft radius 100 psi Rated at 174 kts Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 • Main Gear: – – 22 ft. from the nose Edges of the fuselage Retract to the rear 5. 75 ft. long struts • . 14 ft diameter – Oleopneumatic shockstruts with drag braces – Type VII tires • • . 4 ft width. 75 ft radius 225 psi Rated at 217 kts April 17, 2007 Slide 20

Aircraft Description - Landing Gear Design Considerations • No tail strike on landing (ground clearance > 1. 2 ft) – 2 ft ground clearance • Propeller ground clearance (>. 84 ft) – 2 ft ground clearance • Tipback prevention (> 15˚) – Angle of 19˚ off vertical from main gear to center of gravity • Overturn prevention (< 63˚) – Overturn angle 45˚ • Optimal weight sharing (8 -15% by nose) – Nose gear carries 10. 4% • Main gear retraction – Thin fairing opens at top of screen – Screen assembled in modules Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 21

Aerodynamic Design • Wing design summary • Wing details • Airfoil selection and performance characteristics • Parasite drag build-up • Aircraft drag polars • Other aerodynamic considerations Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 22

Aerodynamic Design – Wing Design Summary Parameter Wing area Wing span Root chord Tip chord Mean aerodynamic chord Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 Value Units 434. 51 77. 99 8. 03 ft 2 ft ft 3. 11 5. 93 ft ft April 17, 2007 Slide 23

Aerodynamic Design – Wing Design Summary Parameter Taper ratio Geometric aspect ratio Effective aspect ratio (due to winglets) Value 0. 39 14. 0 16. 8 Quarter chord sweep 0. 0 Leading edge sweep 0. 0 Dihedral 0. 0 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 Units Non-dimensional ° ° ° April 17, 2007 Slide 24

Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Twist Distribution • Wing twist designed: – to achieve a minimum induced drag spanwise lift distribution – to provide desirable stall characteristics • Preliminary twist distribution derived using lifting-line theory Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 25

Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Thickness Distribution • Thickness distribution designed: – to minimize the form drag of the wing – to provide potential weight savings • Preliminary thickness distribution based on current aircraft designs Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 26

Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Wing • Wing Requirements – Promotes laminar flow – Delays transition to turbulent flow • In order to accomplish this, the NACA 64912, 10, 08 airfoil was chosen for the different thicknesses required NACA 64 -912 Drag Polar & Lift-curve slope for NACA 64 -912 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 27

Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Tail • Vertical Tail – Requires a symmetric airfoil to prevent side forces • Horizontal Tail – Must allow for stability of aircraft Chose NACA 0012 for both vertical and horizontal tail – By using the same characteristic airfoil for both, it will reduce manufacturing costs – It meets the symmetry requirements – A 12% thickness, this allows structural considerations NACA 0012 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 28

Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up • Two methods were used to predict parasite drag: – Component build-up method* – FLOPS (Flight Optimization System) breakdown • Data from both predictions were analyzed and compared, giving a parasite drag prediction *Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach; D. P. Raymer; 2006. Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 29

Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up • Parasite drag build-up [clean configuration]: Component Form Reference Skin Friction Wetted Drag Factor Reynolds Coefficient Area Coefficient Number [ft 2] [106] Wing 1. 190 4. 20 0. 0029 747. 77 0. 0061 Fuselage 1. 611 29. 76 0. 0025 763. 98 0. 0070 Horizontal Tail 1. 184 1. 74 0. 0040 78. 18 0. 0009 Vertical Tail 1. 184 3. 74 0. 0041 181. 27 0. 0021 Miscellaneous Drag 0. 0048 Protuberance Drag 0. 0021 Total Parasite Drag = 0. 0231 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 30

Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up • Parasite drag breakdown [clean configuration]: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 31

Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars • Aircraft drag polar [clean configuration]: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 32

Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars • Aircraft drag polar [dirty configuration]: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 33

Aerodynamic Design – Other Considerations Winglets • Proposed to add winglets to reduce the wing induced drag • Applicable to this aircraft due to the design mission characteristics: – Long endurance – Low design flight speed. • Winglets increase the effective aspect ratio – sizing code uses the effective aspect ratio • No detailed design carried out • Further detailed aerodynamic design would incorporate winglet design High-lift devices • With an approach speed of 67 keas, it was felt that high-lift devices, at this stage of the design, were not needed Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 34

Performance • Specific excess power • Power available and required • Flight envelope • V-n diagram • Performance summary Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 35

Performance – Specific Excess Power • Specific excess power, at maximum gross takeoff weight: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 36

Performance – Power Available and Power Required • Power available and power required, at maximum gross take-off weight: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 37

Performance – Flight Envelope • Flight envelope, at maximum gross take-off weight: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 38

Performance – V-n Diagram • V-n diagram (maneuver loads), at maximum gross take-off weight: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 39

Performance – Turn Performance • Turn radius, at maximum gross take-off weight: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 40

Performance – Turn Performance • Time to turn 180° at maximum gross take-off weight: Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 41

Performance – Performance Summary Operating Speeds Stall speed Loiter speed Cruise speed Maximum speed Approach speed* Best range speed** Best endurance speed 51 67 162 223 67 46 61 keas keas *Approach speed based on 1. 3*Vs 1 -g **Note: best range speed is below the stall speed Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 42

Performance – Performance Summary Other Take-off distance*** 1910 ft Landing distance*** 3650 ft Service Ceiling**** 30800 ft Wing Loading 12. 5 lbs/ ft 2 Design Point L/D 21. 0 Non-dimensional ***Take-off and landing distances based on standard sea-level conditions, temperature STD +30 F ****Service ceiling based on the FAR requirement of a climb rate of 100 fpm for propeller aircraft Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 43

Propulsion System – Engine and Propeller • Honeywell TPE-331 -5 Turboprop – – – Power: 776 shp (S. L. static) SFC: . 577 lb/hr/hp @ max power Cost: $100 k-$150 k Dry Weight: 355 lbs Installed Weight: 500 lbs Prop Shaft Speed: 2000 RPM • Propeller – – – – Hartzell HC-B 3 TN-5 Matched to TPE-331 3 -Blade, Variable Pitch Constant Speed, Feathering Steel Hub, Aluminum Blades Tip Mach: 0. 82 J: 0. 90 AF: 99. 8 η: 0. 785 Cp: 0. 114 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 44

Power Budget • Power Source – Up to 50 hp extracted from engine – D. C. generator attached to accessory gearbox • Power Requirements – LED Screens • 2 @ 5. 2 hp = 10. 4 hp – Micro. Pilot MP-Day/Nightview Cameras • 2 @ 6 watts = 0. 02 hp – Avionics Components • Communications (VHF/UHF), Navigation (GPS), Flight Control, Telemetry, Video • Estimated @ 20 k. W = 26. 8 hp • ~37 hp used, 13 hp reserve available Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 45

Structure - Internal Structural Layout Key: Stringer: Rib: 13 ft Spar: 1. 88 ft Front Spar Ribs 42 ft 2. 5 ft 1. 88 ft 3. 13 ft Main Spar Rear Spar 78 ft Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 Stringers 1. 25 ft April 17, 2007 Slide 46

Structure - Aircraft Material Selection • Skin (Aramid/Epoxy): 49% weight savings, same modulus, 10 x the ultimate strength • High strength resists FOD damage • Stringers (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3 x modulus increases fuselage rigidity • Inhibits LED screen damage from fuselage strain • Spars (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3 x modulus increases wing rigidity • Large span would otherwise exhibit wing bending; increases aerodynamic efficiency • Ribs (Carbon/Epoxy): 43% weight savings, 2 x stiffer inhibit wing twist • High wing-twist resistance increases aerodynamic efficiency and endurance Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 47

Stability and Control- Weight Summary MASS AND BALANCE SUMMARY Wing Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail Fuselage Landing Gear STRUCTURE TOTAL % TOTAL 17. 85 0. 61 1. 69 11. 86 3. 73 35. 74 POUNDS 969 33 92 644 202 1941 Engines Fuel System - Tanks and Plumbing PROPULSION TOTAL 6. 35 2. 43 8. 78 500 132 632 Surface Controls Hydraulics Electrical Avionics Ballistic Recovery System SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT TOTAL Weight Empty 0. 71 3. 48 2. 76 0. 92 0. 69 10. 63 55. 15 1. 21 0. 16 56. 54 66 9 3225 Advertising Screens Zero Fuel Weight 18. 41 74. 95 1000 4225 Mission Fuel Ramp (Gross) Weight 25. 05 100. 00 • Aircraft and Component Weights • FLOPS sizing code • FLOPS is widely used for aircraft of this size The results, overall, agree with earlier sizing studies 38 189 150 50 150 577 3150 Unusable Fuel Engine Oil Operating Weight • 1360 5585 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 48

Stability and Control – Static Margin • Static Margin – From internal layout and weight summary • Fuel tank located near the c. g. – Very little c. g. travel as fuel is burned • Static margin remains constant throughout mission 42 ft. Location (ft) 19. 95 20. 70 0. 13 19. 95 ft 13 ft C. G. Xn SM 9 in Datum Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 49

Cost Startup Costs Development $2, 619, 000. 00 Production $26, 845, 000. 00 Office Equipment $100, 000. 00 Payroll $7, 680, 000. 00 Cost of Manufacturing Site $240, 000. 00 Advertising $2, 160, 000. 00 Subtotal $39, 644, 000. 00 Operating Costs (Yearly) Fuel $3, 359, 700. 00 Maintenance $9, 044, 600. 00 Payroll $5, 260, 000. 00 Advertising $720, 000. 00 Hangar Costs $33, 800. 00 Subtotal $18, 418, 100. 00 • Aircraft development and maintenance costs estimated from FLOPS cost model • Production includes 7 complete aircraft with 2 spare engines • Payroll assumes 21 person staff, with a rotation of 12 operators • Revenue model based on servicing 3 cities, 18 hours per day, 50 weeks per year Summary Yearly Revenue $25, 130, 250. 00 Yearly Income $6, 712, 150. 00 Years to Break Even 6 Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 50

Conclusions – Selected Concept High wing configuration Single 755 hp turboprop, propeller T-tail empennage configuration High aspect ratio, zero sweep wing Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 Retractable tricycle landing gear configuration 7. 42’ x 30’ advertising screen April 17, 2007 Slide 51

Conclusions - Design Compliance Requirement Final Target Initial Screen Dimensions (each) Loiter Velocity 7. 42’ x 30’ 8’ x 45’ 68 kts TAS < 65 kts < 55 kts 6 hrs > 8 hrs 400 nm > 400 nm 21 > 16 > 22 0. 55 lb/BHP/hr 165 kts TAS < 0. 5 lb/BHP/hr > 80 kts < 0. 5 lb/BHP/hr > 135 kts Loiter Time Cruise Range Loiter L/D (clean) Specific Fuel Consumption Cruise Velocity Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 52

Conclusions - Project Feasibility • While technically feasible, the project has major pitfalls • FAA regulations greatly restrict flight over populated areas • Business case is overly optimistic of industry • Price point is very high • Cost model assumes infinite demand • Innovative idea could invigorate industry Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 53

Conclusions - Future Work • Business – Market Research to confirm business feasbility • Aerodynamic Analysis – CFD Analysis to confirm FLOPS results • Structural Analysis – Generation of predicted loads – Finite Element Analysis • Stability – Lateral Stability Analysis – Aileron and Rudder Sizing – Elevator Sizing Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 54

Questions? Thank you for your time! Comments and Questions? Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 55