Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

Joe LojekJustin SommerJames KoryanRamy Ghaly

November 7, 2006Ducks on a

Plane

Introduction

• Objectives• Conceptual Design & Selection

– Body Design– Wing Design– Fuselage Design– Tail Design– Landing Gear

• Areas of Technical Analysis• Technical Analysis• Budgeted Material Costs• Phase II Progress• Future Deliverables

Objectives

• Satisfy all required specifications presented by SAE Aerospace competition

• Begin construction of fuselage and landing gear prior to December 10th.

• To successfully take off and land during SAE competition next April 2007

• Achieve a greater appreciation and understanding of aerodynamics & flight theory

Conceptual Design Comparison

• Mono-plane

• Bi-plane

• Tri-plane

Body Design

Selected Design: Pros/Cons

• Mono-Plan– Advantages

• Less Drag• Ease of Construction• Lightest Design• Best Maneuverability

– Disadvantages• Less Stability• Lower Levels of Lift

• Bi-Plane– Advantages

• Higher Lift• Higher factor of Stability

– Disadvantages• Complexity of design/construction• Heavier total Weight

• Tri-Plane– Advantages

• Highest factor of Stability• Greatest total amount of lift• Heaviest total weight

– Disadvantages• Greatest Drag• Most complex to construct• Poorest Maneuverability

Conceptual Design Selection:Mono-plane: High Wing

Body Design

Conceptual Design Comparison

• Eppler 423– (CL=2.3)

• Selig 1210– (CL=2.1)

• Aquila– (CL=1.148)

• Clark Y– (CL=1.2)

Wing Design

Conceptual Design ComparisonWing Design

Cl Vs. AOA

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

AOA

Cl

E423 Re: 200000 AQUILA, Re:101100 AQUILA, Re:150500 AQUILA, Re:203900 AQUILA, Re:301100 Clark Y, Re:63100

Clark Y, Re:20380 E-423, RE: 60300 E-423, RE: 198600 E-423, RE: 296900

Conceptual Design Comparison

Cd vs AoA

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Angle [degrees]

Cd

AQUILA, Re:101100 AQUILA, Re:15500 AQUILA, Re:59400 CLARK Y, Re:23800

CLARK Y, Re:31200 E-423, Re:296900 E-423, Re:60300

Wing Design

Selected Design: Pros/Cons

• E423– Advantages

• Highest Lift• Ease to Construct• Stable

– Disadvantages• High Drag• High Pitch Moment

• S1210– Advantages

• High Lift– Disadvantages

• Complex Construction• Poor Structural Support

• Aquila– Advantages

• Most Stable• Easily Constructed

– Disadvantages• Low Lift Coefficient

• Clark Y– Advantages

• Good Maneuverability• Ease to Construct

– Disadvantages• Low Lift

Conceptual Design Selection:

E423

Wing Design

Conceptual Design Comparison

• Wing Shapes– Elliptical– Swept– Tapered

Advantages– Decrease Losses– Increase Stability– Increase

Maneuverability

Wing Design

Technical Analysis

Coefficient of liftCoefficient of Lift Required Wing area (S): 880 in2 Wing area: 800 in2 Wing area: 750 in2

  Take - Off Cruise Take - Off Cruise Take - Off Cruise

  Gross Weight lbs. at 20 mph at 50 mph at 20 mph at 50 mph at 20 mph at 50 mph

Empty Weight 9 1.44 0.23 1.58 0.25 1.69 0.27

Payload 5lbs 14 2.24 0.36 2.46 0.39 2.63 0.42

Payload 10lbs 19 3.04 0.49 3.34 0.54 3.57 0.57

Payload 15lbs 24 3.84 0.61 4.22 0.68 4.5 0.72

Payload 20lbs 29 4.64 0.74 5.1 0.81 5.44 0.87

Payload 25lbs 34 5.44 0.87 5.98 0.95 6.38 1.02

CL = (gross weight * 3519) / (s * V2 * S) s: (density of air) @ sea level : 1

S: wing area

V: speed in mph

Technical Analysis

High Lift Devices

•Flaps

•Plain

•Split

•Fowler

•Slotted

•Slats

•Fixed

•Retractable

Technical Analysis

Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

Technical Analysis

Pitching moment+/-, Nose up/Nose DownAssumption-The CG is vertically inline with the wings aerodynamic center.

Pitching Moment = (CM * s * V2 * S * C) / 3519

CM - Pitching moment coefficient

S - (density of air) @ sea level : 1S - wing areaV - speed in mph

Pitching moment lbs/in Wing area: 880 in2

  Take - Off Cruise

  Chord Length (C) in. at 20 mph at 50 mph

  10 -21.61 -135.09

  11 -23.78 -148.6

  12 -25.6 -162.1

Technical Analysis

Horizontal TailTMA = (2.5 * MAC * 0.20 * WA) / HTA

TMA – Tail moment arm, inchesHTA – Horizontal tail area, in2

WA – Wing area, in2

MAC – Mean aerodynamic chord, in

Tail Moment Arm in. Wing area: 880 in2 Wing area: 800 in2

  Chord Length in. HTA at 180 in2 HTA at 200 in2

  10 36.67 20

  11 40.33 22

  12 44 24

Ex.

With a pitching moment of -148.6 lb-in, and a TMA of 40.33 inches the download needed is 3.68 lbs

Wing Drag Calculation

wing

TOwing

CVRe

wingref

wingwet

wingFwingwingD S

SCFFC )(

RCTCTLFF wingwingwingwingthickwing *)))/((100/)(1 4

Conceptual Design ComparisonFuselage Design

CD=0.242

CD=0.198

Fuselage A

-4

-2

0

2

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Station

Hei

gh

t

Fuselage B

-4

-2

0

2

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Station

Selected Design: Pros/Cons

• Fuselage A– Advantages

• Simpler Construction• Larger Payload Area

– Disadvantages• Higher Drag

• Fuselage B– Advantages

• Lower Drag– Disadvantages

• Small Payload Area• Construct more difficult

Fuselage Design

Fuselage Drag CalculationWing Design

fuse

TOfuse

CVRe

fuseref

fusewet

fuseFfusefuseD S

SCFFC )(

RCTCTLFF fusefusefusewingfusethickfusefuse *)))/((100/)(1 4

Conceptual Design Comparison

• Tail Design Types– V-Tail– T-Tail

Tail Design

Selected Design: Pros/Cons

• V-Tail– Advantages

• Low Drag• Less Turbulent

– Disadvantages• Increased Stress on

fuselage• Complex control

• T-Tail– Advantages

• Ideal for Low Speed• Flow over tail unaffected

from wing flow– Disadvantages

• Prone to Deep Stall• Tend to be heavier

Conceptual Design Selection:T-Tail

Tail Design

Horizontal Tail Drag CalculationWing Design

horizontal

TOhorizontal

CVRe

horizontalref

horizontalwethorizontalFhorizontalhorizontalD S

SCFFC )(

RCTCTLFF horizontalhorizontalhorizontalntalwinghorizoontalthickhorizhorizontal *)))/((100/)(1 4

Vertical Tail Drag CalculationWing Design

vertical

TOvertical

CVRe

verticalref

verticalwetverticalFverticalverticalD S

SCFFC )(

RCTCTLFF verticalverticalverticalalwingverticcalthickvertivertical *)))/((100/)(1 4

Engine Blockage Drag Calculation

002.DengineC

For an engine blockage diameter of 6 in, the frontal area is A= (6/2)2= .159 ft2. The drag coefficient for this frontal area is:

Landing Gear Drag Calculation

00428.1440/)2)(01.1(3 DLGC

For the landing gear drag, with wheels 4 inches in diameter, and .5 inches wide, the tricycle has a Cd of:

Takeoff Velocity Calculation

mphsftVTO 27.33/8.48

Using EES, the takeoff Velocity (VTO) was calculated to be

for a takeoff distance of 180 ft.

Cruising Velocity and Thrust

mphsftV 7.42/64.62

Using EES, the cruising Velocity (V) was calculated to be

Using EES, the cruising Velocity (V) was calculated to be

lbfT 6.10

EES Calculation Summary

Budget: Material Costs

Item Qty. Cost/Unit Cost

Servos 4 $25.00 $100.00

Balsa Wood   $25.00 $25.00

Wheels 3" 4 $5.00 $20.00

6V 3700mAh NiMH Battery Module 1 $18.95 $18.95

Servo Extension wires 4 $9.00 $36.00

Sandpaper Grit assortment 1 $15.00 $15.00

Epoxy 1 $3.50 $3.50

Wood Glue 1 $3.50 $3.50

Servo Arm Standard Assortment 2 $3.95 $7.90

X-Acto Basic Knife Set 1 $24.00 $24.00

Propeller 11x6-13x6 6 $13.95 $13.95

Plywood 8x4x1/8 1 $15.00 $15.00

Carbon fiber tubing 2 $15.70 $31.40

Spinner 1 $10.00 $10.00

Motor Mount 1 $17.00 $17.00

Total 30 $204.55 $341.20

Phase II Progress

Future Deliverables

• Complete Design of Cargo Plane– Engine mounting design– Wing flap design– Servo placement– Landing Gear

• Status on Fuselage & Landing gear construction

• Completed CAD Rendering• Calculated download needed for horizontal

tail plane

Conclusion

• Calculations verified 35 lb. total load• Wing design feasible • Fuselage capable to containing

specified payload• Concluded plan form area exceeds

1000 sq. in specification• Determined multiple necessary

outputs using EES (eg: V, T, Distance, etc.)

Questions

Title: SAE Heavy Lift Cargo Plane Team Members: Justin Sommer, James Koryan, Joseph Lojek, Ramy N. Ghaly Advisor: Prof. S. Thangam Project Group Number: 5

Objectives: •Designing and modeling a heavy lift cargo airplane to compete in SAE Aero Design East 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. •Minimizing empty weight while maximizing the payload.•Takeoff, 360 degrees turn, and landing safely.

•Results obtained at this point:•Advantages and disadvantages of different conceptual designs. •Airfoil: Eppler 423•Takeoff distance, time, velocity calculations.•Cursing velocity, drag, and thrust calculations.•Drag, thrust, rolling forces calculations.•Circular fuselage, straight rectangular wings, and tricycle landing gear design configurations.

• Types and Focuses of Technical Analysis• Using light materials with high strength: Balsa wood, composites. •WinFoil simulation, FoilSim, and SolidWorks•Focusing selecting the airfoil, reducing drag, construction methods.

Drawing and Illustration • Design Specifications:

•Engine: stroke motor: 0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp.•Max. Planform Area: 1000 in2

•Weight: 35 lb [(empty)8 lb + (payload) 27 lb]•Cargo utility: rectangular (4x4x16) in2

•Wing span: 80.4 in•Fuselage length: 54 in

ME 423 Design Progress Nugget Chart