ASGARD AVIATION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW Logan Waddell Morgan

ASGARD AVIATION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW Logan Waddell Morgan

ASGARD AVIATION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW Logan Waddell Morgan Buchanan Erik Susemichel Aaron Foster Craig Wikert Adam Ata Li Tan Matt Haas 1 Outline 1. Project mission 2. Selected concept 3. Sizing code results Modeling assumptions 4. Major Design Tradeoffs

Carpet plots 5. Aircraft description 6. Aerodynamics Airfoil selection High-lift devices 7. Performance 8. Propulsion Engine description 9. Structures Configuration layout 10.Weights and Balance

Center of gravity location 11.Stability and Control 12.Noise 13.Cost 14.Summary V-n diagram 2 Mission Statement To design an environmentally responsible aircraft that sufficiently completes the N+2 requirements for the NASA green aviation challenge. 3 Major Design Requirements Noise (dB)

42 dB decrease in noise NOx Emissions 75% reduction in emissions below CAEP 6 Aircraft Fuel Burn 50% Reduction in Fuel Burn Airport Field Length 50% shorter distance to takeoff * *ERA. (n.d.). Retrieved 2011, from NASA: http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/isrp/era/index.htm 4 Selected Concept Wing loading: 108 lb/ft^2

Wing AR: 7.8 Wing sweep: 31 T/W: 0.32 Twin-aisle configuration, ~250 passengers with a two-class configuration 5 Aircraft Concept Walkaround Technology Suite Geared Turbo Engines Scarf Inlets Chevron Nozzle Wing Mounted Engines Advanced Composite Materials Landing Gear Fairings Advanced Composites Spiroid Winglets Conventional Vertical Stabilizer

Hybrid Laminar Flow Control Spiroid Winglets 6 Sizing Code Using MATLAB software, first order method from Raymer Used inputs to determine the size of pre-existing aircraft for validation 7 Incorporating Drag

Drag values affect fuel fraction weights which affect the fuel weight Drag buildup equation used to predict drag Wave drag uses Locks fourth power law Included in the equation are the parasitic, induced, and wave drag 8 Component Weights Empty weight buildup from Raymer text. Component

Weight (lb) Fuselage 45,723 Wings 51,396 Vertical Tail 2,224 Horizontal Tails 5,494 Engines 25,200 Main Landing Gear 14,972

Nose Landing Gear 2,641 9 Validation Boeing 767-200ER Passenger Capacity: 224 Range: 6,545 nmi Crew: 2 Cruise Mach: 0.8 Max Fuel Capacity: 16,700 gal 10 Validation continued Actual

Prediction % Error Gross Takeoff Weight 395,000 [lb] 426,560 [lb] 7.99 Empty Weight Fraction .46684 .45765 1.97

The sizing code predictions are accurate The error factor for the takeoff weight is: 11 Selected Concept Predictions Take Off Gross Weight [lb] Empty Weight Fraction Wempty [lb] Wfuel [lb]

Wpayload [lb] Wcrew [lb] 309050 .478 147650 105000 55000 1400 12 Fixed Design Parameter Values Parameter Value Cd0

0.0198 Cl (cruise) 0.5185 L/D (cruise) 15.4654 Thickness to Chord Ratio Sweep angle 31 13 Engine Modeling Used NASA Geared Turbofan tabular data to scale engine to desired propulsion characteristics Scale factor is based on SLS thrust from tabular data

Scale factors also implemented for technologies [ ] ( ) ( ) = = Concept Aircraft MTOW (lbs) Baseline CS300ER

139600 0.335 2 23369 n/a Conventional w/ tech 309050 0.32 2 49448 2.116 0.35

2 55342 2.368 1 2 H-Tail 316240 TSL/ W0 # of Max SLS Thrust engines (lbf) Scale

Factor 14 Engine Modeling Scale Factor used to size up all performance data in NASA file Ex. = (). Technology Data Adjustment Orbiting Combustion Nozzle Performance Characteristic NOx Emissions Fuel Burn Adjustment Factor 0.75 0.85

15 Design Mission 16 Typical Design Mission Average flight in the continental United States is 650 nm Typical design mission Chicago to New York Approximately 618 nm Connects two major cities Typical route carries 212 passengers 85% load factor 17 Basic Carpet Plot 18

Constraint Cross Plots Takeoff Ground Roll(dTO < 5000 ft) Cross Plot 19 Constraint Cross Plots Landing Braking Ground Roll(dL < 2000 ft) Cross Plot 20 Constraint Cross Plots Top Of Climb (TOP >= 100 ft/min) Cross Plot 21 Final Carpet Plot Design Point W/S[lb/ft^2] 108 T/S 0.32

W0 309050 22 Other Trade-offs Geared Turbofan: Less Fuel Weight vs. More Drags Hybrid Laminar Flow Control: 12-14% Less Drags vs. 2.8% More Cost Landing Fairing: Reduce noise vs. More Weight 23 Our concept Length: 180 Wing Span: 167 Height:

51 Fuselage Height: 17 Fuselage Width: 16 787-8 186 197 56 19 7 18 11 24 Two Class System Seating 4 rows 1st Class 34 rows Economy Class 250 passengers

Seat Pitch 39 inches 1st Class 34 inches Economy Class Seat Width 23 inches 1st Class 19 inches Economy Class 25 One Class System Seating No First Class (Low Cost Carriers) 44 rows Economy Class 303 passengers

26 Airfoil Selection Supercritical airfoils to be used for all wing and stabilizer sections Still used for transonic aircraft* Reduce wave drag Increase fuel storage space Airfoil would be designed to meet design goals Cruise CL = 0.5185, L/D = 15.4654 *http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/futureac.html 27 Divergent Trailing Edge Airfoil

Separation bubble employed to generate more lift at trailing edge New technology being developed with advances in CFD Not much concrete data at this time Potentially plausible for N+3 goals http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/futureac.html 28 High-Lift Devices Slats, Triple-slotted flaps Used for reliability

Lift coefficients for different configurations Takeoff CL = 1.3 Landing CL = 2.5 Landing and takeoff speeds set at 175 mph (152 kts), 15% faster than stall 29 Performance V-n (Loads) Diagram Performance Summary 30 V-n (Loads) Diagram n=+2.11 n=-1 31 Performance Summary Performance Summary

Values Best Range Velocity 473 knots Best Endurance Velocity 412 knots Stall Speed 132 knots (no flaps) Maximum Speed during Climb 191 knots Maximum Speed during Cruise M = 0.8 Takeoff Distance (ground

roll) 4,500 ft Landing Distance (ground roll) 1700 ft 32 Propulsion Engine type: High-Bypass Geared Turbofan Bypass Ratio: 14.5-14.7 Fan Pressure Ratio: 1.4-1.6

Overall Pressure Ratio: 42 SLS Thrust: 49,450 lbs Dry Weight: 9590 lbs Improvement Technologies Orbiting Combustion Nozzle Improves fuel burn/reduces emissions Scarf Inlet Redirects/Decreases fan noise Chevron Nozzle Reduces low frequency exhaust noise Courtesy of Airliners.net 33 Other Technology Effects Chevron Nozzle Mixing flows can have adverse effect on thrust Scarf Inlet

Greatly increases engine nacelle weight Reduces inlet efficiency Orbiting Combustion Nozzle Thrust does not take a huge hit due to converging/diverging exit Lack of need for diffusers and stators on either end of compressor reduce weight of engine 34 Engine Performance Specific Fuel Consumption 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2

0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Partial Throttle Cruise SFC 0.55 0.5 NASA Data Rubber Engine Rubber w/Tech SFC (1/hr) SFC (1/hr) Full Throttle Sea Level SFC 0.45 NASA Data Rubber Engine Rubber w/Tech

0.4 0.35 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Mach Number 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 Mach Number 35

Engine Performance Available vs. Required Thrust (30k feet) Thrust (lbf) Thrust (lbf) Available vs. Required Thrust (35k feet) 18000.00 16000.00 14000.00 Thrust Available 12000.00 Thrust Required 10000.00 Polynomial (Thrust 8000.00 Required) 6000.00 4000.00 2000.00 0.00 500.00 550.00 600.00 650.00 700.00 750.00 800.00 25000.00

20000.00 10000.00 5000.00 0.00 450.00 550.00 650.00 750.00 850.00 Velocity (ft/s) Velocity (ft/s) Available vs. Required Thrust (Takeoff) Available vs. Required Thrust (Landing) 120000.00

250000.00 100000.00 Thrust Available Thrust Required 80000.00 60000.00 200000.00 Thrust (lbf) Thrust (lbf) Thrust Available Thrust Required Polynomial (Thrust Required) 15000.00 40000.00

20000.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Velocity (ft/s) 150000.00 100000.00 Thrust Available Thrust Required 50000.00 0.00 0.00 100.00200.00300.00400.00500.00600.00 Velocity (ft/s) 36 Engine Performance Emissions Reduction/Fuel Burn Savings

LTO NOx Emissions CAEP 6 Standard 83 g/kN 75% below CAEP 6 20.75 g/kN Original Engine Deck 54 g/kN % Improvement 34.9% Rubber Engine 21.1 g/kN % Improvement 74.6%

Fuel Burn (Cruise) RB-211 (757) 7023 lb/hr Rubber GTF Engine 3841 lb/hr % Reduction 45.31% 37 Structures: Load Paths Wing-fuselage intersection (Wing box) Pylons Tail Intersections Fuselage Landing gear 38

Structures: Wing Box Wing-fuselage intersection (Wing box) 39 Structures: Engine Pylons Engine pylons 40 Structures: Landing Gear Landing Gear Integration 41 Structures: Material Selections Composite Fuselage (Carbon Laminate) Composites on leading edges for

laminar flow Aluminum and Fiberglass wings Titanium for pylons Total Materials Steel for elevator, rudder, and landing gear Composites Aluminum Titanium Steel 42 Weights and Balance Aircraft Group Weights Statement Description of Empty Weight Prediction Location of Center of Gravity 43

Empty Weight Prediction Method Equations for a/c components from Raymer Each component function of designed gross weight Summation of component weights 44 CG and Neutral Point Center of Gravity: Components included in CG calculation Fuselage, wing, horizontal tail, vertical tail, nacelles, engines, and landing gears Other weights put in center of vehicle

Crew, passengers, payload, furnishings, etc. Neutral Point: 87.6 ft from nose 45 Center of Gravity Travel 46 Stability and Control Static Longitudinal Stability Lateral Stability 47 CG and Longitudinal Stability CG from Nose [ft]

Weight [lb] Static Margin EW 84.32 147650 14.6% OEW 84.0 214550 16% OEW+fuel 82.18 254050

24.1% MTOW 83.30 309050 19.1% MTOW-fuel 85.46 204050 9.5% 48 Tail Sizing Current Approach

Using Raymer Equations (6.28) and (6.29) Concept 1 Tail area 815 ft2 Vertical Tail area 660 ft2 49 Control Surface Sizing Raymer Figure 6.3 Aileron Sizing Raymer Table 6.5 Elevator Sizing Control Surface Surface Area [ft2] Aileron

476 Elevator 149 Rudder 198 50 Noise Reduction Technologies Geared turbofan engine Approximate 20% in noise Engine developed twice as powerful as anything presently built, 10% reduction in noise used

Compared to Boeing 777-200ER with GE 90-90B engines, this is a 9 dB decrease Chevron nozzle Reduces noise up to 2.5 dB Due to engine size, reduction assumed to be 1 dB Scarf Inlet No concrete data could be found, noise reduction assumed to be 1 dB Landing Gear Fairings Reduce noise by 2 dB 51 Boeing 777-200LR Noise Data http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/noise/noise.html 52 Conclusion on Noise

For Stage 4 standards, noise generated must be less than 90 dB in any given test. To meet N+2 requirements, the cumulative margin between the noise generated and 90 dB must be at least 42 dB. Estimates give a 9 dB deficit from Stage 4, with a cumulative noise reduction of 27 dB. Goal is NOT met. Plenty of noise reduction technology is in development, but none would be ready by 2025. 53 Cost Prediction * the accuracy of results obtained with these models for commercial aircraft is questionable Airframe cost in 2011$, millions # A/c Non-recurring 1 10 50

100 200 400 1000 Recurring cost Total Cost Cost per A/C 4495.35 1147.7 5643.05 5643.05 4495.35 3561.55 8056.9 805.69 4495.35 7981 12476.35 249.527 4495.35 11382.7 15878.05 158.7805 4495.35 16350.7 20846.05

104.23025 4495.35 23703.8 28199.15 70.497875 4495.35 39477.2 43972.55 43.97255 Cost per Aircraft (Millions) Airframe cost (RDT&E) 6000 5000 4000 Airframe cost (RDT&E) 3000 Non-Recurring Costs Engineering Tooling Development support Flight tests Recurring Costs

Engineering Tooling Manufacturing Material Quality Assurance Increase cost by ~ 20% to account for all new technologies 2000 1000 0 0 50 100150200250300350400450 Number of aircraft produced * Analysis from NASA Airframe cost model 54 Cost Prediction Airframe cost # A/c Non-recurring 1 10 50 100

200 400 1000 Recurring cost Total Cost Cost per A/C 4495.35 1147.7 5643.05 5643.05 4495.35 3561.55 8056.9 805.69 4495.35 7981 12476.35 249.527 4495.35 11382.7 15878.05 158.7805 4495.35 16350.7

4495.35 4495.35 23703.8 39477.2 20846.05 104.23025 28199.15 43972.55 70.497875 43.97255 Example case if producing 200 A/C Would have to sell each aircraft for $104M to break even Using the modified DAPCA IV Cost Model (costs in 2011 dollars) *Increased cost by 20% to account for technologies Production of 200 aircraft RDT&E + Flyaway = $34.1208 B

Would have to sell 200 aircraft for $170.6 M each to breakeven 55 Cost: Operations and Maintenance Fuel costs Price: ~$5.50 / gallon Jet A (2011 price) Crew Salaries Maintenance Insurance Commercial: add approx. 1-3% to cost of operations *Raymer Depreciation ~ 4.0% total value per year 56 Cost: Operations and Maintenance In 2011$

Cockpit Crew: $912.66 /block hour (domestic) $1003.15 / block hour (international) Cabin crew: Landing fee: ~$647.14 /block hour (domestic) ~$841.07 / block hour (international) $679.5 / trip Maintenance labor: 3.64 MMH/FH airframe 6.84 MMH/TRIP Engine Maintenance material: $85.74/ flight hour $1416.12/trip Engine airframe * Advanced subsonic Airplane design & Economic Studies (NASA) 57 Summary of Final Design Tube and Wing design with advanced technologies

Swept back wings Technologies Spiroids Laminar Flow Geared Turbofan Composite Materials 58 Compliance Matrix Design Requirements Units Target Threshold Final Design

Compliant Range Nautical Miles 4,000 3,600 4,000 Yes Payload Passengers 250 230 250

Yes Cruise Mach # - 0.8 0.72 0.8 Yes Takeoff Ground Roll ft 7,000 9,000 4,500

Yes Landing Ground Roll ft 6,000 6,500 1,700 Yes Fuel Burn lb/hr 4,250 4,500 3,841

Yes Emissions(NOx) g/kN thrust 15 (-75%) 22 21.1(-74.6%) No Noise (Cumulative) dB -42 -32 -27

No 59 Design Requirements Plausible? Fuel Burn ~ Possible Field Length ~ Possible Emissions ~ Very difficult but can be possible Noise ~ Not possible for N+2 Noise shielding Engine configuration 60 Future Work More detailed sizing code/calculations

Aircraft Model Build 3-D model Work with airlines to receive feedback Enter NASA competition 61

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Presentation - Indico

    Presentation - Indico

    XLoom Communications 10GB-100GB Parallel Optical Interconnect Challenges Dr. Hanan Yinnon Consultant, Former CSO XLoom Communications, Ltd., Tel Aviv, Israel
  • Pandemic Influenza Planning for the Long-Term Healthcare Workplace

    Pandemic Influenza Planning for the Long-Term Healthcare Workplace

    Risk Classification Structure Who's Who: World Health Organization (Phases 1-6) US Government (Stages 1-5) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — CDC (Categories) OSHA Risk Pyramid 5 Evidence of significant human-to-human transmission 2 Higher risk of human cases 6 4...
  • Agile Software Development Processes

    Agile Software Development Processes

    AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES Cheruku Smitha ... Control changes Continuously verify quality Use component based architectures RUP PHASES There are four phases in RUP Inception phase Elaboration phase Construction phase Transition phase In the inception phase the life cycle objectives...
  • Flame Test - nkhs.nkschools.org

    Flame Test - nkhs.nkschools.org

    Procedures. Clean 11 test tubes for your table and place them in a test tube rack. Place 1mL of each solution into each of the test tubes. CAUTION: Before you use the burner in the next procedures, check to see...
  • History of the National Association of Composers, U.S.A ...

    History of the National Association of Composers, U.S.A ...

    Early History of the National Association of Composers, U.S.A.presented by Jeannie Gayle Pool, Ph.D. Founded in 1933 The organization, originally called the National Association for American Composers and Conductors (NAACC) was founded by American composer and conductor, Henry Hadley.
  • Indian Empires

    Indian Empires

    Caste System. Because the Aryans regarded the people they conquered as inferior. Castes (Jatis)- by occupation. Brahmins (priests) ... the strategic location of Southeast Asia in the global trade routes connecting China, India, and the Mediterranean.
  • The Case for Discipline-Specific Licensure

    The Case for Discipline-Specific Licensure

    Engaged in policy, aesthetics, and finance as well as technical. ... Virtuous Engineers assert their responsibilityfor engaging in a combined human performancethat involves the exercise of practical judgmentto enhance the material well-being of all peopleby achieving safety, sustainability and ...
  • Values attitudes and Behaviors - United States Marine Corps

    Values attitudes and Behaviors - United States Marine Corps

    Joe filed charges against Louisa and the doctor. Judge Robins fined D Pressley for contempt of court, but pardoned Louisa because she was a minor. __ Louisa __ Joe __ Judge Robins __ Anne __ Dr Pressley MY ATTITUDE AFFECTS...