James BearmanAJ BrinkerDean BrysonBrian GershkoffKuo GuoJoseph HenrichAaron Smith
Review of Aircraft RequirementsConcept GenerationAdvanced TechnologyFuselage LayoutConstraint AnalysisCurrent Sizing AnalysisSummaryNext Steps
2
Provide a versatile aircraft with medium range and capacity to meet the needs of a commercial aircraft market still expanding in the year 2058
Incorporate the latest in technology to provide reliability, efficiency, while fulfilling the need for an environmentally friendly transportation system
Possess the ability to operate at nearly any airfield
3
•Mission One•Schaumburg to North Las Vegas•1300 nmi
•Mission Two•South Bend to Burbank•1580 nmi
•Mission Three•West Lafayette to Urbana-Champaign to Cancun•1200 nmi
•Mission Four•Minneapolis to LAX•1330 nmi
4
Engineering Requirement
Condition Target Threshold
Takeoff Distance ≤ 2,500 ft 3,500 ft
Landing Distance ≤ 2,500 ft 3,500 ft
Takeoff Weight ≤ 80,000 lb 100,000 lb
Range ≥ 1800 nm 1500 nm
Maximum Cruise Speed ≥ 0.85 M 0.75 M
Maximum Passenger Capacity ≥ 110 90
5
Pugh’s Method Choose Criterion Generate Concepts Evaluate Improve Iterate
Select “Finalists” Analysis Current
Configuration
Tube and Wing
Bird of Prey
Tandem Wing
Maintenance Cost o - oLow Wt o o oFuel Burn o - -Static Stability o - -Fuel Capacity o + +Fast o + oClean Wing CL o - oPassenger Volume o + oInduced Drag o + -Parasite/Form Drag o - -Low Stall Speed o - -Low Alpha Req for T.O. o - +Noise Factor o - -Small Airport Compatible o + -Aesthetic Appeal o + oPassenger Visibility o - -
+ 0 6 2o 16 1 6- 0 9 8
6
7
8
9
10
Tri-Tail
Geared Turbofans
Lifting Canard
Composite
Composite
Structu
re
Structu
re
PossibleRear Egress
Supercritical Airfoil
Supercritical Airfoil
Powered High-Lift Devices
Powered High-Lift Devices
Advanced Avionics
Composites Stronger and
Lighter than Metals
Glue replaces Fasteners
20% empty weight savings
Current Obstacle: Manufacturability and Repairability
AI/UAV Reduction in flight
crew Potentially Lower
Operational Cost Reduced human
error incidents Automatic Flight
Control Current Obstacle:
Reliability and Risk
11
Pulse Detonation Up to 10% fuel savings (GE) Durable, Easy to Maintain Capable of using Multiple Fuels Current Obstacle: Noise
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/combustion/images/pdwe/engine_schematic2.jpg
12
Geared Turbofan 12% fuel savings 40% reduction in
maintenance cost 70% lower
emissions 30 dB less than
stage 3 noise limithttp://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRHeft07/FRH0710/FR0710a1.jpg
13
Unducted Fans Increase of fuel
economy of 35% Increase in range of
45% Increase in noise
but current test models meet noise criteria
Blade-Out Risk
http://www.md80.it/OLDFILES/immagini/thrust/McDUHB-3.jpg
14
Magnetic Bearings “Floating” shaft
reduces friction in turbine engine
More thrust Possible elimination
of engine oil system Current Obstacle:
Heat generated by magnets
Vectored Thrust Angled Thrust
Provides Vertical Force
AV-8B Harrier II▪ VTOL Weight: 22,000 lbs▪ STOL (1400ft) Weight:
46,000 lbs
Reduce TO Runway Length
Reduce Approach Speed
15
Circulation Control Wing 85% Increase in CLmax 35% Reduction in power
on approach speed 65% Reduction in
landing ground roll 30% Reduction in lift off
speed 60% Reduction in take
off ground roll 75% Increase in typical
payload/fuel at operating weight
AIAA-57598-949 Advanced Circulation Control Wing System for Navy STOL Aircraft
16
Blown Flaps CLmax > 7 Types
▪ Internally Blown▪ Externally Blown ▪ Upper Surface Blowing
Reduce takeoff distance by as much as 74%
W.H. Mason Some High Lift Aerodynamics17
Co-Flow Jet Flow Control
Test results show: Reduction of CL=0 from 0° to -4° Increase of CLmax of 220% from 1.57 to 5.04 AoA CLmax increase of 153% from 19° to 44° Reduction of CDmin(AoA=0°) from 0.128 to -
0.036
AIAA 2005-1260 High Performance Airfoil Using Co-Flow Jet Flow Control
18
TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported TRL 2 Concept and/or application formulated TRL 3 Analytical and experimental proof-of concept TRL 4 Component validation in lab environment TRL 5 Component validation in relevant environment TRL 6 Prototype demo in a relevant environment TRL 7 Prototype demo in operational environment TRL 8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified” TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through
successful mission operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level
19
Type Description TRL
Weight/Cost Savings
Composites 9
UAV/AI Pilot 6
Propulsion Type
Pulse Detonation 3
Geared Turbofans 6
Propulsion Enhancement
Magnetic Bearings 3
Thrust Vectoring 7
High Lift
Circulation Control 7
Blown Flaps 9
Co Flow Jet Control 420
Fuselage sketches before configuration set
Aircraft evolution -> Fuselage change Pressurized Cabin Shape
Cylindrical Cross-Section Non-Cylindrical Cross-Section
Investigation of existing aircraft Fuselage Dimensions Galley/Lav/Cockpit Dimensions Seat Dimensions
Generated CAD Model21
Length: 72.1 ft Width: 14 ft 102 Seats, Single
Class Seat Pitch: 32 in Aisle Width: 20 in Seat Width: 24 in 2 Galley Areas: 35 and
16 ft2
2 Lavs: ~20 ft2
22
Major Constraints 2500 ft TO/Landing Roll 5000 ft Balanced Field OEI 500 ft/min Climb Rate at 36000 ft Top of
Climb 100 ft/min Climb Rate at 41000 ft Service
Ceiling 2g Maneuver at 36000 ft Second Segment Climb Gradient OEI
▪ 2.4%--2 Engine▪ 2.7%--3 Engine▪ 3.0%--4 Engine
23
High and Hot Takeoff— 500o ft + 25°F
Aspect Ratio 10Oswald Efficiency Factor 0.8CD0 0.015CLMax 4.0—Technology ImprovementL/D Second Segment Climb 11.5
24
TO Field & 2ND Segment Climb Size Aircraft
W/S—84 psf T/W—0.23
25
Design Mission Altitude: 36,000 ft Speed: 0.75 M Cruise Range: 1,800 nmi Steady, Level Flight
Analysis Tools: RDS Historical Database CATIA
26
Model Construction Basic Model of Aircraft Neglecting Landing Gear Technology Weight Savings Not Included
Sizing Analysis Initial “Guess” Values Used Initial Values Derived from Aircraft
Database27
Sizing Inputs: W/S – 84 lbs/ft2
T/W – 0.23 AR – 10 Wing Sweep – 10°
Sizing Output: We/Wo – 0.60 Wo – 88,000 lb
28
Metric Status Current Condition Target Threshold Unit
Takeoff Distance 2500 2500 3500 ft
Landing Distance 2500 2500 3500 ft
Gross Takeoff Weight 88000 80000 100000 lbs
Range 1800 1800 1500 nmi
Maximum Cruise 0.75 0.85 0.75 M
Passenger Capacity 102 110 90 pax
Payload Capacity 26300 28300 23300 lb
Fuel Burn 0.05 0.10 0.12 lbs/seat-nmi
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////
Meets or Exceeds Target
Meets or Exceeds Threshold
Noncompliant Data Out of Date Capability Frozen
Key
-Fuel Burn suspect. Sizing code analysis to be investigated.-Weight neglects gear and tech savings. 29
102 Passengers 1800 nmi Range ESTOL Capable Ability to operate
at small airports, alleviating large airports
Advanced Technologies
30
Sizing Refine current models Size Control Surfaces and Stabilizers Comparison with Other Codes
Final Technology SelectionAerodynamic AnalysisPerformance and Stability AnalysisCost Analysis
31