Team 2

AAE451 System Requirements Review

Chad Carmack

Aaron Martin

Ryan Mayer

Jake Schaefer

Abhi Murty

Shane Mooney

Ben Goldman

Russell Hammer

Donnie Goepper

Phil Mazurek

John Tegah

Chris Simpson

Outline

1

• Brief Market Overview Customer needs, benefits ,market size and competitors.

• Concept of Operations Customer satisfaction

Flight ranges, runway lengths

Aircraft Payload and passenger capability

Mission Sketch

Segment descriptions

• System Design Requirements Quality Function Deployment(QFD)

NASA N+2 goals

New technology adopted

• Initial Estimations Lift to Drag ratio, Specific Fuel Consumption(SFC)

Empty weight fraction prediction

• Future Progress Project goals and deadlines.

Mission Statement

Designed to maximize productivity and

minimize travel time.

Design an environmentally sensitive business jet

with a wide range of capabilities.

An elite ownership experience awaits

2

Benefits

Time saving capability

Long range

Comfort and Luxury

3

Primary Customers

Multinational Corporations

Celebrities

Governments

Fractional Air Services

4

“Now more than ever, a business aircraft is

an essential tool for capturing new

opportunities, for compacting two- to three-

week trips into two to three days. ”

-Jeff Habib, Senior Vice President of U.S. and

Canadian Sales, Dassault Falcon Jet

Projected Market

5

*Source – Honeywell Aviation Forecast

The graph indicates that the Long Range market will continue to

grow in the next decade.

Jet Purchases

6

Big Cabin Jets Captured 40% of Mentions and ~70% of $Value*

*Source – Honeywell Aviation Forecast

Purchase Expectations by Region

7

Source – Honeywell Aviation Forecast

Meeting Our Customer’s Needs

Travel Fast

◦ Mach 0.85 Long Range Cruise

◦ An Initial Cruise Altitude of 42,000 ft. helps evade

commercial traffic

Travel Far

◦ Maximum Range of 6350 nm

◦ LA to Hong Kong, Chicago to Tokyo, non-stop.

Travel Productively

◦ Spacious and comfortable cabin provides a generous

place to both work and relax

8

Proposed Fuselage

9

Amenities Dimensions

Recliners (10x) – 10 Seats L: 35”, W: 33”

Sofas (2x) – 6 Seats L: 90”, W: 35”

Tables (3x) L: 24”, W: 35”

ConferenceTable L: 36”, W: 60”

Lavatories (2x) L: 62”

Bar L:62”, W:40”

Flight Attendant Seating (2x) – 2 Seats L: 30”, W:30”

10

Aircraft Amenities

Amenity Amenity Length Current Total Length

1 Lavatory 62” x 1 Lavatories 5’ 2”

4 Recliners 35” x 4 Recliners 16’ 10”

1 Tables 24” x 1 Table 18’ 10”

1 Conference Table 38” x 1 Conference Table 22’

2 Sofas 90” x 2 Sofas 37’

1 Bar/Kitchenette 72” x 1 Bar/Kitchenette 43’

Miscellaneous Spacing 84” 50’

11

Approximating Cabin Length

Amenity Dimensions

Cabin Layout and Dimensions

Fuselage Cross-Section

13

Total Aircraft Length = (50’ Cabin) + (14’ 2” Nose) + (23’ 10” Tail)

= 88’

Cabin Diameter = 8’ 10”

Fineness Ratio = 9.96

14

Aircraft Characteristics

Volume per passenger (Max. Capacity) = 81.5 cubic feet

Representative City Pairs

Non-stop possibilities:

◦ LA to Seoul

(5209 nm)

◦ Dallas to Moscow

(5035 nm)

◦ LA to Beijing

(5432 nm)

◦ New York to Dubai

(5949 nm)

◦ Chicago to Tokyo

(5452 nm)

◦ LA to Hong Kong

(6309 nm)

15

Design Mission

16

0-1: Take off to 50 ft. 5-6: Climb to 5000 ft. (Best Rate)

1-2: Climb to 42000 ft. (Best Rate) 6-7: Divert to Alternate 200 nm

2-3: Cruise at Mach 0.85 7-8: 45 minute Holding Pattern

3-4: Decent to Land (No Range Credit) 8-9: Land

4-5: Missed Approach (Go Around)

3

0 1

2

4 5

6 7

8 9Takeoff

Climb

Cruise

6350 nm 200 nm

Los Angeles Hong Kong Alternate

Operating Missions

New York to Los Angeles◦ Mach 0.9*

◦ 2146 nm

◦ 16 passengers

Chicago to Houston◦ Mach 0.9*

◦ 804 nm

◦ 4 passengers

*Maximum operating Mach dependent on engine selection

17

Benchmark Aircraft

Gulfstream G550

Gulfstream G650

Bombardier Global Express

XRS

Bombardier Global 5000

Gulfstream G500

Citation X

Bombardier Challenger 300

Bombardier Challenger 850

Bombardier Learjet 60 XR

Bombardier Learjet 85

Cessna Citation Sovereign

Gulfstream G150

Hawker 4000

Hawker 750

Hawker 850XP

Hawker 900XP

18

Fuel Consumption Benchmark

6.31 lbs/nm (Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft) for

the Gulfstream G650

3.78 lbs/nm As 40% Reduction Design Goal

Currently the G150 Burns approximately 3.49

lbs/nm

19

NASA Subsonic Fixed Wing Project

Develop improved prediction methods and

technologies for lower noise, lower emissions,

and higher performance for subsonic aircraft

Analyzing Research and Testing Methods to

make major improvements by 2020

20

Advanced Technology

Unducted Fan shows promise to reduce emissions and fuel

consumption

“ERA is focused on the goals of NASA’s N+2, a notional

aircraft with technology primed for development in the 2020

time frame as part of the agency’s subsonic fixed wing

program”

◦ Aviation Week Dec 14, 2009

21

Benefits of UDF

Relative to 1998 levels, NASA plans to reduce

cumulative noise levels to 42 dB below stage 4, 75%

lower NOx emissions, and reduce fuel burn by 40%

◦ Aviation Week

22

House of Quality

23

Requirements Compliance Matrix

Part 1

24

Performance

Characteristics

Target Threshold Current

Range 6300 nm 6000 nm 6300 nm

Takeoff Distance 6000 ft 7000 ft 6000 ft

Max. Pax. 17 8 16

Cruise Mach 0.85 0.8 0.85

Cruise Altitude 45000 ft 40000 ft 45000 ft

Requirements Compliance Matrix

Part 2

25

Performance

Characteristics

Target Threshold Current

Cabin Noise 60 dB 70 dB 65 dB

LTO NOx

Emissions

CAEP 6-75% CAEP 6-60% CAEP 6-70%

Cumulative

certification

noise limits

232 dB 274 dB 274 dB

Requirements Compliance Matrix

Part 3

26

Performance

Characteristics

Target Threshold Current

Fuel cost per

mile

3.8 lb/mile 4 lb/mile 6.23 lb/mile

Loading Door

Still height

4 ft 5 ft 4 ft

Variable Costs $4100/hr $4300/hr $4100/hr

Constraint Diagram

27

Constraint Diagram Analysis

T/W limited by Second Segment Climb

◦ Current min. is ~0.33

W/S limited by Landing Ground Roll

(3500ft)

◦ Current max. is ~100

28

Aircraft Database

Database Includes two classes

◦ Class 1: Larger Business Jets

Gulfstream G500

Gulfstream G550

Gulfstream G650

Bombardier Global 5000

29

Aircraft Database

Database Includes two classes

◦ Class 2: Smaller Business Jets

Cessna Citation X

Cessna Citation Sovereign

Bombardier Challenger 300, 850

Bombardier Learjet 60XR, 85

Gulfstream G150

Hawker 750, 850XP, 900XP, 4000

30

Aircraft Database

31

y = 1.378x-0.08

0.45

0.47

0.49

0.51

0.53

0.55

0.57

0.59

0.61

0.63

0.65

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

We/W

o

Wo

Team 2 Aircraft Database

Class 2: Smaller Planes

Class 1: Larger Planes

Performance Estimates

Aspect Ratio

◦ AR = 8.0

◦ Estimated from existing Business Jets

Lift to Drag Ratio at Cruise

◦ L/D = 0.85[1.4(AR)+7.1] = 15.56

◦ Source: Raymer and Carte

Specific Fuel Consumptions

◦ SFCcruise = 0.5

◦ SFCloiter = 0.6

◦ Estimated from existing Business Jet engine data

32

Weight Estimates

Least Squares Regression: 108,000 lbs

33

0.154 0.016 0.394 0.089 0.934 0.032

0 0

0

3.08 ( / ) ( / )eSL cruise

WW AR T W W S M Range

W

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0

0

( / ) ( / )c c c c c ceSL cruise

WbW AR T W W S M Range

W

Weight Estimates

Curve Fit with Similar Planes: 92,000 lbs

34

y = 67.69x-0.42

0.5

0.51

0.52

0.53

0.54

0.55

0.56

0.57

84000 86000 88000 90000 92000 94000 96000 98000 100000 102000

We/W

o

Wo

Similarly Sized Planes

0.422

0 0

0

67.69ceWaW W

W

Performance Prediction

35

0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9

5600

5800

6000

6200

6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

Mach Number

Range (

nm

i)

Range vs. Mach for Various Loadings

08 Passengers

12 Passengers

16 Passengers

Technology Factors

Currently none are being used

◦ Predicts “worst case” in early design stage

◦ Should make it easier to meet initial design

goals once technology factors are included

Anticipated Technology Factors

◦ Empty Weight (composites)

◦ Engine Efficiency (unducted turbofan)

36

Next Steps

More accurate L/D equations

Inclusion of technology factors in sizing

Development of aircraft performance code

Acquiring engine configurations and performance data

Choosing wing type and analyzing aerodynamic data to minimize drag

Completing aircraft Catia model

37

Questions?

38