JLFANG-LDSJLFANG-LDSLight Dynamic Light Dynamic StrikefighterStrikefighter

Dr. James Lang, Project AdvisorAircraft Design by Team Bling-Bling

Marcus ArtatesConnor McCarthyRyan McDonnell

Project OverviewProject Overview

Goal: To Design an unmanned multi-mission Goal: To Design an unmanned multi-mission aircraft for the Royal Australian aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force Air Force

-Strike Mission-Strike Mission

-ISR/Attack Mission-ISR/Attack Mission Design should be comparable in Design should be comparable in

performance and production to manned performance and production to manned aircraftaircraft

OutlineOutline Design FactorsDesign Factors Mission ProfilesMission Profiles Initial DesignsInitial Designs Final DesignFinal Design AerodynamicsAerodynamics Take Off and LandingTake Off and Landing Wing WeightsWing Weights Propulsion and Engine CharacteristicsPropulsion and Engine Characteristics PerformancePerformance Stability and ControlStability and Control Materials and ConstructionMaterials and Construction SubsystemsSubsystems MaintenanceMaintenance Future Design WorkFuture Design Work

Design FactorsDesign Factors

Design meets all requirements for both Design meets all requirements for both missionsmissions

Multiple Payload OptionsMultiple Payload Options

Low Production and Maintenance CostsLow Production and Maintenance Costs

StealthStealth

Mission Profiles - StrikeMission Profiles - Strike

Strike Mission Profile

1312

1110

987b67a5

4

1 2

3

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Altitu

de (f

t)

Stage Description Fuel Fraction

1 -> 2 Taxi, Take Off 0.97

2 -> 3 Climb, M = .5 to 35000 ft 0.97

3 -> 4 500 NM at M = .8, range maximized 0.846

4 -> 5 Descent to 25000 ft 1

5 -> 6 Strike Patrol, 3 hrs, M = .85 0.685

6 -> 7 10 x 360 deg turns 0.978

6 -> 8 Dash, 50 NM, M = 1.6 0.986

7 -> 8 180 deg turn 0.998

8 -> 9 50 NM Egress, M = 1.6 0.986

9 -> 10 Climb, M = .8 to 35000 ft 0.98

10 -> 11 500 NM, return 0.846

11 -> 12 Descent to Sea Level 1

12 -> 13 Loiter, .5 hr 0.99

~0.425

Mission Profiles – ISR/AttackMission Profiles – ISR/Attack

Final Take-Off WeightFinal Take-Off Weight

WWTOTO=13800 lbs=13800 lbs

WWfuelfuel = 5170 lbs = 5170 lbs

WWemptyempty = 6630 lbs = 6630 lbs

ISR/Attack M iss ion

4

1 2

3 6 5

7

8 90

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Altit

ude

(ft)

Stage Description Fuel Fraction

1 -> 2 Taxi, Take Off 0.97

2 -> 3 Climb, M = .5 to 35000 ft 0.97

3 -> 4 Cruise Out 0.986

4 -> 6 ISR/Attack Segment 0.658

4 -> 5 32 x 360 deg turns 0.974

6 -> 7 Cruise Home 0.986

7 -> 8 Descend to Sea Level 1

8 -> 9 Loiter, .5 hr 0.99

0.425

Initial Design ConceptsInitial Design Concepts

Initial Design Concepts – con’tInitial Design Concepts – con’t

Initial Design Concepts – con’tInitial Design Concepts – con’t

Decision MatrixDecision MatrixRequirement Required Design Option #1 Design Option #2 Design Option #3

Takeoff Distance 8000 ft + + +

Landing Distance 8000 ft - + +

Range 550(strike)/TBD(ISR) + / - + / - + / -

1g Spec. Excess Power-Max. T (M=1.6/25000) 900 ft/sec - + -

Treq-max   - + -

Cl max   - + -

Takeoff Weight   -- + +

Turn Rate in Maneuvering Stage 18.0 deg/s max. + + +

W fuel   - + +

W empty   - + +

W/S)to   - + +

T/W)to   - + +

Wf/W   - + +

S (wing area)   + + -

B (wingspan)   + + -

Engine   - + -

W engine   - + +

A inlet   - + +

L engine   - + +

Final Design – 3 ViewFinal Design – 3 View

Final Design – Isometric ViewFinal Design – Isometric View

Final Design – 2-View InternalFinal Design – 2-View Internal

AerodynamicsAerodynamics Aspect Ratio, A = 9 (endurance), 6 (combat) Aspect Ratio, A = 9 (endurance), 6 (combat) SSwingwing = 171.5 ft = 171.5 ft22, b = 39 ft (A=9), b = 36 ft (A=6), b = 39 ft (A=9), b = 36 ft (A=6) MAc = 4.85 ft, C_root = 6.93 ftMAc = 4.85 ft, C_root = 6.93 ft Leading Edge Wing Sweep, Leading Edge Wing Sweep, ΔΔlele= 25= 25°° Taper Ratio, Taper Ratio, λλ = .25 = .25 t/c = .167, t/c = .167, ΔΔt/c = 6°t/c = 6° NACA 2412NACA 2412 (L/D)max = 16.5, Clmax = 1.8(L/D)max = 16.5, Clmax = 1.8 Mcrit = .815Mcrit = .815 W/S)W/S)TOTO=81.65 lb/ft=81.65 lb/ft22

W/S)W/S)TDTD=38.7 lb/ft=38.7 lb/ft22

Aerodynamics – con’t (Cd0 vs. M)Aerodynamics – con’t (Cd0 vs. M)

Cd0 vs Mach # - 25000 ft

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Mach #

Cd

0

Aerodynamics – con’t (K vs. M)Aerodynamics – con’t (K vs. M)

K vs. Mach # - 25000 ft

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Mach #

K

Aerodynamics – con’t (Area-Ruling)Aerodynamics – con’t (Area-Ruling)

Take Off and LandingTake Off and Landing

Using T/W)Using T/W)TOTO=0.92 and W/S)=0.92 and W/S)TOTO=81.65, and assuming =81.65, and assuming sigma=0.96 yields a Take Off Parameter of 48sigma=0.96 yields a Take Off Parameter of 48

Using Figure 6.1, we calculated a Takeoff Distance of 1600 Using Figure 6.1, we calculated a Takeoff Distance of 1600 ft.ft.

Using Landing Equation,Using Landing Equation, Landing Distance = 2995 ftLanding Distance = 2995 ft

VVstall,TOstall,TO = 194 fps = 194 fps

VVTOTO = 235 fps = 235 fps

VVTDTD = 158 fps = 158 fps

VVstall,TDstall,TD = 137 fps = 137 fps

Weight Estimates for WingsWeight Estimates for Wings

Using USAF methodUsing USAF method– WWwingwing = 905.7 lbs = 905.7 lbs

Using USN methodUsing USN method– WWwingwing = 1707 lbs = 1707 lbs

USAF wing– 13.7% wt USAF wing– 13.7% wt

USN wing – 25.7 % wtUSN wing – 25.7 % wt

PropulsionPropulsion Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-100Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-100 Dual engine setupDual engine setup WWengineengine = 2098.8 lbs = 2098.8 lbs

DDengine engine = 33.739 in= 33.739 in

Inlet Area (2) = 3.0 ftInlet Area (2) = 3.0 ft22 each each Nozzle Area (2) = 1.3 ftNozzle Area (2) = 1.3 ft2 2 eacheach Diffuser Area = 10.4 ftDiffuser Area = 10.4 ft22

Fuel System Volume = 101.63 ftFuel System Volume = 101.63 ft33 (above (above diffuser)diffuser)

Propulsion – con’tPropulsion – con’tThrust vs. Mach NumberThrust vs. Mach Number

Thrust vs. Mach at 25k ft.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Mach No.

Th

rust,

1000 lb

Max Thrust at 25k ft.

Mil Thrust at 25k ft.

Propulsion – con’tPropulsion – con’tT.S.F.C. vs. Mach NumberT.S.F.C. vs. Mach Number

TSFC vs. M at 25k ft.

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

Mach No.

TS

FC

, lb

/lb

-hr

TSFC at 25k ft

PerformancePerformance

RequirementRequirement Calculated Required

Military Thrust; M 0.85, 25000 ft - 1g 529.69 fps 300 fps

Maximum Thrust; M 0.85, 25000 ft - 1g 835.2 fps 900 fps

Maximum Thrust; M 0.85, 25000 ft - 5g 559.1 fps 100 fps

Maximum Thrust; M 1.60, 25000 ft - 5g 99.9 fps 100 fps

Performance - con’tPerformance - con’t Turn Performance at Sea Level Turn Performance at Sea Level

Performance – con’tPerformance – con’tTurn Performance at 25000 feetTurn Performance at 25000 feet

Performance – con’tPerformance – con’t1-g Specific Excess Power1-g Specific Excess Power

Performance – con’tPerformance – con’t5-g Specific Excess Power5-g Specific Excess Power

Performance – con’tPerformance – con’tMaximum Thrust Sustained Load Maximum Thrust Sustained Load

Factor EnvelopeFactor Envelope

Stability and ControlStability and Control

Horizontal Tail (adjustable pitch)Horizontal Tail (adjustable pitch)– S = 33.25 ftS = 33.25 ft22

– Span = 5.7 ft eachSpan = 5.7 ft each

Vertical Tail Vertical Tail – S = 43.27 ftS = 43.27 ft22

– Height = 5 ft eachHeight = 5 ft each

Materials and StructuresMaterials and Structures

Composite StructureComposite Structure Pros:Pros:

– High StiffnessHigh Stiffness– Light WeightLight Weight– Good corrosion resistanceGood corrosion resistance– High overall performanceHigh overall performance

Cons : Cons : – ExpensiveExpensive– Difficult to repairDifficult to repair

Standard spar and stringer structureStandard spar and stringer structure

SubsystemsSubsystems

Landing gear arrangementLanding gear arrangement– Tripod system – 2 wheels to rear, one wheel up Tripod system – 2 wheels to rear, one wheel up

frontfront

Hydraulic & electrical subsystemsHydraulic & electrical subsystems– Not dealt with in depth yetNot dealt with in depth yet

Avionics componentsAvionics components– See internal drawing for placement of AvionicsSee internal drawing for placement of Avionics

Final Design – 2-View InternalFinal Design – 2-View Internalrepeatedrepeated

MaintenanceMaintenance

Removable panels – easy access for Removable panels – easy access for servicing engineservicing engine

Composite structure – replacement of Composite structure – replacement of structural parts is somewhat difficult, but structural parts is somewhat difficult, but

weight saving benefits are valuable weight saving benefits are valuable and and thus composites are a good choicethus composites are a good choice

More analysis should be done on lifetime More analysis should be done on lifetime cost of maintenance of composites cost of maintenance of composites

versus more traditional aluminumversus more traditional aluminum

Future Work NeededFuture Work Needed

- Refinement of aircraft weight- Refinement of aircraft weight

- Examine maintenance needs- Examine maintenance needs

- Cost analysis of materials used- Cost analysis of materials used

- Further sizing of wings and fuselage- Further sizing of wings and fuselage

- Optimization of plane to mission profiles- Optimization of plane to mission profiles

- Control and Dynamics- Control and Dynamics