Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

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
Selected Design Pros/Cons
Body Design

• 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

• Conceptual Design Selection
• Mono-plane High Wing

6
Conceptual Design Comparison
Wing Design

• Eppler 423
• (CL2.3)
• Selig 1210
• (CL2.1)
• Aquila
• (CL1.148)
• Clark Y
• (CL1.2)

7
Conceptual Design Comparison
Wing Design
8
Conceptual Design Comparison
Wing Design
9
Selected Design Pros/Cons
Wing Design

• 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

• Conceptual Design Selection
• E423

10
Conceptual Design Comparison
Wing Design

• Wing Shapes
• Elliptical
• Swept
• Tapered
• Advantages
• Decrease Losses
• Increase Stability
• Increase Maneuverability

11
Technical Analysis

• Coefficient of lift

Coefficient of Lift Required Coefficient of Lift Required Wing area (S) 880 in2 Wing area (S) 880 in2 Wing area 800 in2 Wing area 800 in2 Wing area 750 in2 Wing area 750 in2
  Take - Off Cruise Take - Off Cruise Take - Off Cruise
  Gross Weight lbs. at 20 mph at 50 mph at 20 mph at 50 mph at 20 mph at 50 mph
Empty Weight 9 1.44 0.23 1.58 0.25 1.69 0.27
Payload 5lbs 14 2.24 0.36 2.46 0.39 2.63 0.42
Payload 10lbs 19 3.04 0.49 3.34 0.54 3.57 0.57
Payload 15lbs 24 3.84 0.61 4.22 0.68 4.5 0.72
Payload 20lbs 29 4.64 0.74 5.1 0.81 5.44 0.87
Payload 25lbs 34 5.44 0.87 5.98 0.95 6.38 1.02
CL (gross weight 3519) / (s V2 S)
s (density of air) _at_ 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) _at_ sea level 1
• S - wing area
• V - speed in mph

Pitching moment lbs/in Pitching moment lbs/in Wing area 880 in2 Wing area 880 in2
  Take - Off Cruise
  Chord Length (C) in. at 20 mph at 50 mph
  10 -21.61 -135.09
  11 -23.78 -148.6
  12 -25.6 -162.1
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

Tail Moment Arm in. Tail Moment Arm in. Wing area 880 in2 Wing area 880 in2 Wing area 800 in2 Wing area 800 in2
  Chord Length in. HTA at 180 in2 HTA at 200 in2
  10 36.67 36.67 20 20
  11 40.33 40.33 22 22
  12 44 44 24 24
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
CD0.242
CD0.198
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
Selected Design Pros/Cons
Tail Design

• 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

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
Item Qty. Cost/Unit Cost
Servos 4 25.00 100.00
Balsa Wood   25.00 25.00
Wheels 3" 4 5.00 20.00
6V 3700mAh NiMH Battery Module 1 18.95 18.95
Servo Extension wires 4 9.00 36.00
Sandpaper Grit assortment 1 15.00 15.00
Epoxy 1 3.50 3.50
Wood Glue 1 3.50 3.50
Servo Arm Standard Assortment 2 3.95 7.90
X-Acto Basic Knife Set 1 24.00 24.00
Propeller 11x6-13x6 6 13.95 13.95
Plywood 8x4x1/8 1 15.00 15.00
Carbon fiber tubing 2 15.70 31.40
Spinner 1 10.00 10.00
Motor Mount 1 17.00 17.00
Total 30 204.55 341.20
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 Plane Team Members
Justin Sommer, James Koryan, Joseph Lojek, Ramy
N. Ghaly Advisor Prof. S. Thangam
Project Group Number 5
ME 423 Design Progress Nugget Chart
Objectives Designing and modeling a heavy lift cargo airplane to compete in SAE Aero Design East 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. Minimizing empty weight while maximizing the payload. Takeoff, 360 degrees turn, and landing safely. Results obtained at this point Advantages and disadvantages of different conceptual designs. Airfoil Eppler 423 Takeoff distance, time, velocity calculations. Cursing velocity, drag, and thrust calculations. Drag, thrust, rolling forces calculations. Circular fuselage, straight rectangular wings, and tricycle landing gear design configurations.
Types and Focuses of Technical Analysis Using light materials with high strength Balsa wood, composites. WinFoil simulation, FoilSim, and SolidWorks Focusing selecting the airfoil, reducing drag, construction methods. Results obtained at this point Advantages and disadvantages of different conceptual designs. Airfoil Eppler 423 Takeoff distance, time, velocity calculations. Cursing velocity, drag, and thrust calculations. Drag, thrust, rolling forces calculations. Circular fuselage, straight rectangular wings, and tricycle landing gear design configurations.
Types and Focuses of Technical Analysis Using light materials with high strength Balsa wood, composites. WinFoil simulation, FoilSim, and SolidWorks Focusing selecting the airfoil, reducing drag, construction methods. Drawing and Illustration
Design Specifications Engine stroke motor 0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp. Max. Planform Area 1000 in2 Weight 35 lb (empty)8 lb (payload) 27 lb Cargo utility rectangular (4x4x16) in2 Wing span 80.4 in Fuselage length 54 in Drawing and Illustration