oklahoma state university aerospace capstone orange team final presentation “shamu: a whale of a...
TRANSCRIPT
Oklahoma State UniversityOklahoma State UniversityAerospace CapstoneAerospace Capstone
Orange Team Final Presentation
“Shamu: A Whale of a Plane”
April 16, 2001
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 2
Orange Team Presentation Orange Team Presentation OverviewOverview
Team Architecture and Group Responsibilities Technical Group Reports
– Aerodynamics Group– Propulsion Group– Structures Group
Financial Overview Highlight Video Questions
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 3
Orange Team ArchitectureOrange Team Architecture
Advisor
Aerodyna m ics Lea d Propulsion Lea d
Fusela ge T ea m
W ing T ea m
La nding G ea r T ea m
Structures Lea d
C hief Engineer
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 4
Technical Group Technical Group ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities
Aerodynamics Group– Design of the aircraft
Airfoil Selection Wing and Tail Sizing Fuselage Configuration Control Surface Sizing
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 5
Technical Group Technical Group ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities
Aerodynamics Group (con’t)– Integration of Propulsion Needs
Speed Controller, Motor, and Battery cooling
– Adaptation to Structural Requirements Wing carry-through structure, tail mounting, and
control linkages
– Construction Drawings
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 6
Technical Group Technical Group ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities
Propulsion Group– Testing
Power, Capacity, and Thrust from past motors and batteries
– Selection and Sizing Motor, Propeller, Batteries, and Gear Box
– System Performance Theoretical Flight Profile with Aerodynamics Group
Optimization Develop Sortie Strategy from Prototype Flight Tests
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 7
Technical Group Technical Group ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities
Structures Group– Structural Analysis and Design
Major Components are Wing, Fuselage, Tail, and Landing Gear
– Construction Techniques and Materials– Component Placement– Group Responsible for Aircraft Construction
8
Orange TeamOrange TeamAerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Tiffany Boehm – Lead
Luke Bell
Charles O’Neill
Greg Schulke
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 9
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Preliminary Design Considerations– Optimization– Conceptual sketches were drawn by entire team– Additional sketches from underclassmen
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 10
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Optimization– Blends the contest rules and scoring details
with aerodynamic and physical principles.– Produces the best scoring mission profile.– Also defines some aircraft information such as
wing area and the amount of lift needed.
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 11
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Optimization Program Logic
Input:Guess Values
Score
Output:Optimized
IterateTakeoff
Geometry
Propulsion
Cruise
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 12
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
01
23
4
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Score
Steel Sorties
Sortie Optimization: Score versus sorties
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 13
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Preliminary Design Considerations– Evaluation of conceptual design– Selection of aircraft configuration– Further design decisions– Payload configuration exploration
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 14
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Five main configurations were considered in detail.
Conventional design chosen using decision matrix.
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 15
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Further design decisions for configuration– Wing placement– Tail configuration
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 16
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Payload configuration – Speed of payload exchange– Structural considerations– Weight
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 17
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Detail Design Considerations– Main airfoil selection– Stability and control development– Drag analysis and reduction– Further development of the optimization
program
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 18
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Airfoil Selection– Wing span limited by contest rules.– Wing area and needed lift performance found
using the optimization program– Polar plots used to find an airfoil with the
desired lift and drag performance– Eppler 423 airfoil was chosen
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 19
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Stability and Control Issues– Weight and balance– Sizing of vertical and horizontal tail surfaces– Trim analysis– Aileron sizing– Polyhedral analysis
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 20
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Drag Analysis and Reduction– Identify main sources of drag– Design refinements for reduction of drag– Post-production modifications for further
reduction of drag
21 Orange Team April 16, 2001
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Wing48%
Horizontal Tail7%
Vertical Tail4%
Landing Gear2%
Upsweep1%
Fuselage38%
Drag Breakdown
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 22
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Steps taken to reduce drag– Improve surface smoothness of entire aircraft– Smooth, rounded transitions between surfaces– Tapered surfaces for the fore and aft assemblies– Fillets between the wing and fuselage surfaces– Fillets between the tail and fuselage surfaces– Wheel pants
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 23
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Empire State Building
1.4
Large Birds (Ravens)
.40
Shamu .03
Drag Coefficients
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 24
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Optimization Program refinements– Aerodynamic Additions
Inclusions of drag analysis
– Propulsion Additions Experimental values integrated into program Flight testing data used to further refine the program
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 25
Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group
Final Design Summary– Conventional aircraft configuration– Low wing– Polyhedral wing– Cylindrical fuselage
26
Propulsion PossePropulsion Posse
pro·pul·sion - pro·pul·sion - (pr -p l sh (pr -p l sh n) n) n.n.
The process of driving or propelling.
A driving or propelling force. Amanda Ciskowski
27
Propulsion PossePropulsion Posse
Team Members
Binaya Thapa – Lead
Blake Cook
Millay Brians
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 28
Propulsion OverviewPropulsion Overview
Literature Survey Restrictions Motor Selection Battery Selection Propeller Selection
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 29
Contest RestrictionsContest Restrictions Motor
– Restricted to Only Two Companies– Maximum Amperage - 40 Amps– Propeller Driven Brushed Electric Motor– Unmodified and “Over-the-Counter”
Battery– Nickel-Cadmium– Maximum Weight - Five Pounds– “Over-the-Counter”
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 30
Motor SelectionMotor Selection
Power Output – 1150 Watts AstroFlight Motors
– 640– 660– 690
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 31
Motor Efficiency versus Motor Efficiency versus CurrentCurrent
85.9%
85.5%
83.4%
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
0 10 20 30 40 50
Current (A)
Effic
ien
cy
(%
)
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 32
Motor Figure of MeritsMotor Figure of MeritsDecision Factor Weight Astro 40 Astro 60 Astro 90
Power Output .2 -1 0 1
Efficiency .3 0 0 -1
Ability to Handle
Current Load.1 -1 0 0
Cost .1 0 0 1
Weight .2 1 0 -1
Availability .1 0 0 0
Score 1.0 -.1 0 -.2
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 33
Battery SelectionBattery Selection
Application Capacity per Mass Weight
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 34
Battery StatisticsBattery StatisticsPart Number Size
Capacity (mAh)
Mass (g)Price (US
Dollar)
Capacity per Mass (mAh/g)
N-800AR A 800 34 3.00 23.53
N-1300SCR Sub-C 1300 52 2.25 25.00
N-4000DRL D 4000 160 5.50 25.00
N-1250SCRL 4/5 Sub-C 1250 43 3.50 29.06
N-3000CR C 3000 84 4.50 34.17
N-1900SCR Sub-C 1900 54 3.50 35.19
RC-2400 Sub-C 2400 54 5.50 44.44
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 35
Battery Figure of MeritsBattery Figure of Merits
Decision Factor Weight N-1900SCR RC-2400 N-3000CR
Weight .4 0 1 -1
Efficiency .2 0 1 1
Capacity per Mass
.3 0 1 1
Cost .1 0 -1 -1
Total 1.0 0 .8 0
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 36
Propeller SelectionPropeller Selection Types of Propellers
– APC– Wood– Carbon Fiber– Epoxy Composite
Pitch to Diameter Ratio Theoretical/Experimental Analysis
– Wind Tunnel Testing
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 37
Final Propulsion SystemFinal Propulsion System
AstroFlight – 661 Motor Gear Box Ratio – 2.71 37 Cells of RC-2400 Batteries 22x20 Bolly Propeller
38
Structures GroupStructures Group
Michael Ayres – Team Lead
Jim Meiseman
Voon-Seng Chea
Chir Siang Pea
Naoki Hosoda
Loh Yuh
Jogendran Pulendran
Cheng Shan Gan
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 39
Structures OverviewStructures Overview
Fuselage Wing Tail Section Landing Gear Speed Loader
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 40
Fuselage Structure OptionsFuselage Structure Options
Longerons
Reinforced Skin
Stringers
Keelson
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 41
Fuselage Figures of MeritFuselage Figures of Merit
Weight Bending Strength Connection Interface Construction Complexity
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 42
Wing Structure OptionsWing Structure Options
Tube Spar
C-Channel Spar
End Grain Balsa Spar
Hybrid Spar
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 43
Wing Figures of MeritWing Figures of Merit
Weight Bending Strength Connection Interface Construction Complexity
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 44
Landing Gear TypesLanding Gear Types
Conventional Bow
Single Stroke Strut
Two-Stroke Strut
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 45
Landing Gear Figures of MeritLanding Gear Figures of Merit
Weight Drag Ground Steerability Dependability Manufacturability
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 46
Final DesignFinal Design
Materials, carrythrough structure, and construction methods
Fuselage
- Foam/Carbon Fiber Sandwich
- Rotocut Tooling
- Balsa Sandwich Wing Carrythrough
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 47
Final Design Cont’dFinal Design Cont’d
Wing and Tail Section - Foam/Carbon Fiber Sandwich - Feathercut Tooling and Formica Templates - Landing Gear Carrythrough
Landing Gear - Multiple Layers of Carbon Fiber
Speed Loader - Custom Sized Duffle Bag
48
Financial OverviewFinancial Overview
Amanda Ciskowski- Chief Engineer
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 49
Financial OverviewFinancial Overview
Funding– Corporate and private sponsorship – Material Donations
Expense Categories– Mechanical and Electrical systems– Consumable materials
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 50
Expense BreakdownExpense Breakdown
47%
29%24%
Construction
Mechanicaland Electricalsystems
ConsumableMaterials
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 51
Thank you to our sponsors…Thank you to our sponsors…
Mercruiser Advanced Composites
Group Pump and Motor
Works, Inc. Phillips 66 Chevron-Phillips OSU Flight Factory
Advanced Racing Composites
AstroFlight NASA Charles Machine
Works Anheuser-Busch Frankfurt-Short-Bruza
Associates
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 52
More sponsors…More sponsors…
William and Evelyn Ciskowski Glen and Chris Taylor Garryl and Tracy Keel Keith and Barbara Keel
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 53
Special Thanks to…Special Thanks to…
Dr. Arena and Joe for all of their help Dan Bierly, our pilot Dr. Delahoussaye for his support…and the
microwave Janet Smith and Sally Kellenberger for the
survival kits
April 16, 2001 Orange Team 54
Questions?Questions?