group 1 design of a two seat standard glider for maximum endurance
TRANSCRIPT
AeronauticalEngineering II
Design of a Two Seat Standard Glider for Maximum Endurance
Dafydd Hayward 1105759Grace Hynd 1086473
Michael Kontou 1120774Jarrod Mutton 1104863
AeronauticalEngineering II
Conceptual Design
• Weight Calculation
• Sensitivity Analysis
• Aircraft Sizing
AeronauticalEngineering II
Conceptual Design – Weight Calculation
1012682Glaser dirks DG-400
990523.6Akaflieg braunshweig SB-12
616400.4Hanle H 101 salto
1067539Akaflieg Karlsruhe AK-5 standard
998.8572Schleicher ASW-20
1100528Akafleig Hannover AFH 24
957594Akaflieg Braunschweig SB-13
649358.6Marske pioneer II
858506Rollanden schnieder LS-1
448.8220Marske monarch
299.2119.9Maupin carbon dragon
448.8234.3Maupin woodstock one
1038.4598.4Schweizer SGS 2-33A
398.2154Advances aviation Sierra
1155517Schempp hirth ventus
Wto (Ibs)We (Ibs)
Data
AeronauticalEngineering II
Conceptual Design – Weight Calculation
Takeoff Weight Calculation
We = 0.566*Wto - 17.649
100
1000
100 1000 10000
Takeoff Weight (Ibs)
Em
pty
Wei
gh
t (I
bs)
AeronauticalEngineering II
Aircraft Take-off Weight
logWto = 0.7861*logWe + 0.8328
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90
log (Empty Weight)
log
(Tak
eoff
) W
eig
ht
Conceptual Design – Weight Calculation
AeronauticalEngineering IIConceptual Design – Weight Calculation
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Empty Weight (lbs)
Tak
e-O
ff W
eigh
t (lb
s)
Glider Weight Estimation
WTO ≈ 1100lbs
WE ≈ 600lbs
AeronauticalEngineering II
Sensitivity of Take-off Weight to Payload Weight
082.2
]440[11008328.0
])1([
1
1
=×=
−−=∂∂
−
−TOTO
PL
TO WBCDBWW
W
Conceptual Design – Seinsitivity Analysis
AeronauticalEngineering II
Sensitivity of Take-off Weight to Payload Weight
Conceptual Design – Sensitivity Analysis
082.2
]8328.0/)7861.01100log{(log[11008328.0
]/)log{(log[
1
1
=−×=
−=∂∂
−
−
inv
BAWinvBWW
WTOTO
E
TO
AeronauticalEngineering II
Sensitivity of Take-off Weight to Other Parameters
0
0
0
)1(
})1({ 21
=∂
∂
=∂
∂=
∂∂
+=∂∂
∂∂−−=
∂∂ −
y
Wtherefore
y
Mbecause
y
MM
y
Cnow
y
CBWDBCW
y
W
TO
ff
ffres
TOTOTO
Conceptual Design – Sensitivity Analysis
AeronauticalEngineering II
Aircraft Sizing
Matching Diagram
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80
W/S (psf)
W/h
p
Stall SpeedTake Off DistanceLanding DistanceFAR 23.65 RCFAR 23.65 CGRFAR 23.77 CGRCruise Speed
AeronauticalEngineering II
Configuration Design
• Wing Design Considerations• Control Surface Sizing• Aerofoil Selection• Empennage Configuration• Landing Gear• Material Selection• Weight & Balance Analysis• Stability & Control Analysis
AeronauticalEngineering II
Comparison of Wing Geometries and Take-off Weights for Standard Gliders
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Wto (kg) WingLoading(kg/m 2̂)
AspectRatio
Wing Area(m 2̂)
Schempp Hirth Ventus
Rollanden SchniederLS-1Schleicher ASW-20
Akaflieg BraunschweigSB-12Glaser Dirks DG-200
SZD 56 Diana PZL
Configuration Design – Wing Design
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Control Surface Sizing
The calculation for the aileron sizing is shown below:
MAC = 0.74m% MAC = 25%CA = 0.74 x 0.2
= 0.185m
Based on the Aeronautical Engineering II notes the ailerons will extend from 60% to 90% of the wingspan. This relates to a length of 2.25m per aileron.
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Aerofoil Selection
Comparison of NACA "6 digit" aerofoil at Re 1 000 000 and 3 000
000 (Soaring Australia, 2006)
Comparison of old section and "6 digit" NACA section (Soaring
Australia, 2006)
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Empennage Configuration
Glider with T-tail Empennage Configuration (Glossary of Glider Parts, 2007)
Horizontal Tail with Elevator (Frati 1946) Directional Stability of Aircraft Showing Side-force Lift (Frati 1946)
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Empennage Configuration
Vertical tail surface area, SV = (VV × S × MAC) ÷ xV= (0.12 × 10 × 0.74) ÷ 4.2= 0.211 m2
Horizontal tail surface area, SH = (VH × S × MAC) ÷ xH= (1.1 × 10 × 0.74) ÷ 4.4= 1.85 m2
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Landing Gear
Longitudinal Tip-over Criterion for Taildraggers (Roskam 2004)
Ground Clearance Criteria for Gear Placement (Roskam2004)
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Landing Gear
Main Gear
Tail Gear
lm lt
lm + lt
WTO
Pt
Pm
NN 17P483P tm ==
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Landing Gear
2545Pressure, p (psi)
3.45Width, bt (in.)
912Diameter, Dt (in.)
Tail Gear TyreMain Gear Tyre
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Material Selection
• Composites
• Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)
• Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
• Aramid Fibre Reinforced Polymer (AFRP)
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Weight & Balance Analysis
∑
∑
=
== n
ii
n
iii
CG
W
XWX
1
1
243
7.215.1294.677.275.75.21315.35.121243.285.05 ×+×+×+×+×=CGX
∑
∑
=
== n
ii
n
iii
CG
W
YWY
1
1
243
0.115.1275.177.20.25.214.15.1214.105.85 ×+×+×+×+×=CGY
Centre of Gravity PositionThe CG of the aircraft in the x-direction can be found using the following equation:
Equation 3-2: CG position in x-directionTherefore the position of CG in the x-direction is:
The CG of the aircraft in the y-direction can be found using the following equation:
Equation 3-3 CG position in y-directionTherefore the position of CG in the y-direction is:
AeronauticalEngineering IIConfiguration Design – Stability & Control Analysis
Vertical X-Plot
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Vertical Tail Area m^2
Dir
ecti
on
al S
tab
ility
(d
egre
es^-
1)
AeronauticalEngineering II
Conclusion