1 / 34

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane. November 7, 2006. Ducks on a Plane. Joe Lojek Justin Sommer James Koryan Ramy Ghaly. Introduction. Objectives Conceptual Design & Selection Body Design Wing Design Fuselage Design Tail Design Landing Gear Areas of Technical Analysis Technical Analysis

august-lawrence
Download Presentation

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Heavy Lift Cargo Plane November 7, 2006 Ducks on a Plane Joe Lojek Justin Sommer James Koryan Ramy Ghaly

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Conceptual Design Comparison Body Design • Mono-plane • Bi-plane • Tri-plane

  5. 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 Selected Design: Pros/Cons Body Design

  6. Conceptual Design Comparison Wing Design • Eppler 423 • (CL=2.3) • Selig 1210 • (CL=2.1) • Aquila • (CL=1.148) • Clark Y • (CL=1.2)

  7. Conceptual Design Comparison Wing Design

  8. Conceptual Design Comparison Wing Design

  9. 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 Selected Design: Pros/Cons Wing Design

  10. Wing Shapes Elliptical Swept Tapered Advantages Decrease Losses Increase Stability Increase Maneuverability Conceptual Design Comparison Wing Design

  11. Technical Analysis Coefficient of lift CL = (gross weight * 3519) / (s * V2 * S) s: (density of air) @ sea level : 1 S: wing area V: speed in mph

  12. Technical Analysis High Lift Devices • Flaps • Plain • Split • Fowler • Slotted • Slats • Fixed • Retractable

  13. Technical Analysis Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

  14. Technical Analysis Pitching moment +/-, Nose up/Nose Down Assumption- 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 : 1 S - wing area V - speed in mph

  15. Technical Analysis Horizontal Tail TMA = (2.5 * MAC * 0.20 * WA) / HTA TMA – Tail moment arm, inches HTA – Horizontal tail area, in2 WA – Wing area, in2 MAC – Mean aerodynamic chord, in Ex. With a pitching moment of -148.6 lb-in, and a TMA of 40.33 inches the download needed is 3.68 lbs

  16. Wing Drag Calculation

  17. Conceptual Design Comparison Fuselage Design CD=0.242 CD=0.198

  18. Selected Design: Pros/Cons Fuselage Design • Fuselage A • Advantages • Simpler Construction • Larger Payload Area • Disadvantages • Higher Drag • Fuselage B • Advantages • Lower Drag • Disadvantages • Small Payload Area • Construct more difficult

  19. Fuselage Drag Calculation Wing Design

  20. Conceptual Design Comparison Tail Design • Tail Design Types • V-Tail • T-Tail

  21. 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 Selected Design: Pros/Cons Tail Design

  22. Horizontal Tail Drag Calculation Wing Design

  23. Vertical Tail Drag Calculation Wing Design

  24. Engine Blockage Drag Calculation 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:

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

  26. Takeoff Velocity Calculation Using EES, the takeoff Velocity (VTO) was calculated to be for a takeoff distance of 180 ft.

  27. Cruising Velocity and Thrust Using EES, the cruising Velocity (V) was calculated to be Using EES, the cruising Velocity (V) was calculated to be

  28. EES Calculation Summary

  29. Budget: Material Costs

  30. Phase II Progress

  31. 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

  32. 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.)

  33. Questions

  34. Title: SAE Heavy Lift Cargo PlaneTeam Members: Justin Sommer, James Koryan, Joseph Lojek, Ramy N. GhalyAdvisor: Prof. S. Thangam Project Group Number: 5 ME 423 Design Progress Nugget Chart

More Related