Progress Report Volante Design Group T' Andonian, O' Duncan, R' Gray, C' Presley, M' Sarisky

1
Progress ReportVolante Design GroupT.
Andonian, O. Duncan, R. Gray, C. Presley, M.
Sarisky
2
Mission Weights, Thrust to Weight Ratio, Wing
Loading, and Wing Geometry

• This presentation will probably involve audience
  discussion, which will create action items. Use
  PowerPoint to keep track of these action items
  during your presentation
• In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button
• Select Meeting Minder
• Select the Action Items tab
• Type in action items as they come up
• Click OK to dismiss this box
• This will automatically create an Action Item
  slide at the end of your presentation with your
  points entered.

3
Report Overview

• Status of design
• Selection of L/D and C
• Mission weight statement
• Thrust to weight ratio
• Wing loading
• Wing geometry
• Projected tasks
• References

4

• STATUS

5
Status

• Mission requirements specified
• Initial sketch developed
• Reference database created
• Regression analysis computed
• Trade study of takeoff weight vs L/D and C
  completed

6

• SELECTION OF L/D AND C

7
Selection of L/D and C

• Value of C
• Expect 5-10 better than Concorde
• Concordes C 1.19 1/hr
• Value to use C 1.08 1/hr
• 90 of Concorde

8
Selection of L/D and C

• Value of L/D
• Use of trade study suggest L/D range of 5.25-5.75
• Values outside range give unreasonable results
• Regression line computed based on aircraft with
  L/D close to this range
• Takeoff weight computed based on an L/D value and
  regression line
• If the L/D value chosen isnt close to those of
  reference planes then takeoff weight is
  erroraneous

9
Selection of L/D and C

• Use average value of range
• L/D 5.5

10

• MISSION WEIGHT STATEMENT

11
Mission Weight Statement

• Use AAA with the previous values of C and L/D to
  generate weight statement

12
Mission Weight Statement
13
Mission Weight Statement
14

• THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO

15
Thrust to Weight Ratio

• T/W calculated at different locations in mission
• Cruise
• Takeoff

16
Thrust to Weight Ratio

• Cruise
• Conditions
• M 2.5
• H 60,000 ft
• Steady-level flight
• T/W 0.182

17
Thrust to Weight Ratio

• Takeoff
• Conditions
• H 0 ft
• T/W 0.342

18

• WING LOADING

19
Wing Loading

• Wing loading computed at critical criteria in
  mission
• Cruise
• Takeoff Distance
• Stall Speed
• Sustained Turn

20
Wing Loading

• Cruise
• Conditions
• M 2.5
• Alt. 60,000 ft
• W/S 105 lbs/ft2
• S 883 ft2

21
Wing Loading

• Takeoff Distance
• Conditions
• Fieldlength 8,000 ft
• Alt. 0 ft
• W/S 71 lbs/ft2
• S 1350 ft2

22
Wing Loading

• Stall Speed
• Conditions
• V100 kts
• W/S 51 lbs/ft2
• S 1880 ft2

23
Wing Loading

• Sustained Turn
• Conditions
• M 2.5
• H 60,000 ft
• Steady turn
• W/S 181 lbs/ft2
• S 530 ft2

24
Wing Loading
25
Wing Loading

• Selected reference area
• Use the largest value from the various wing
  loadings
• Ensures the wing is capable of handling all
  encountered loads
• Sref 1880 ft2

26

• WING GEOMETRY

27
Wing Geometry

• Design trapezoidal reference wing
• Parameters specified
• Aspect ratio (A)
• Reference area (Sref)
• Leading edge sweep angle (?LE)
• Quarter chord sweep angle (?c/4)
• Taper ratio (?)

28
Wing Geometry

• Aspect ratio (A)
• As A increases lift increases
• Wing tips further apart
• Amount of wing affected by wing tip vorticies is
  less
• As A decreases stall angle increases
• Wing tip vorticies reduce effective angle of
  attack

29
Wing Geometry

• As A increases weight increases
• Longer wings produce larger moments about support
  thus requiring heavier supports
• Detailed analysis not needed now
• Use data from similar aircraft to estimate value
  of A
• A 2.0

30
Wing Geometry

• Reference area (Sref)
• Previously calculated from wing loading
• Sref 1880 ft2

31
Wing Geometry

• Leading edge sweep angle (?LE)
• Try to fit wing inside mach cone at M 2.5
• The large degree of sweep produces structural
  problems
• Use a smaller degree of sweep and make use of
  sharp airfoils
• Sharper airfoil allows bow shock wave to attach
  thus reducing area of high pressure

32
Wing Geometry

• Estimate from historical data
• ?LE 58

33
Wing Geometry
34
Wing Geometry

• Quarter chord sweep angle (?c/4) and taper ratio
  (?)
• Found simultaneously
• One equation relates quarter chord sweep to
  leading edge sweep and taper ratio
• Another relation comes from historical data
• ?c/4 49.4
• ? 0.07

35
Wing Geometry
36
Wing Geometry

• AAA used to generated planform view of
  trapezoidal reference wing

37
Wing Geometry
38

• PROJECTED TASKS

39
Projected Tasks

• Discuss wing and tail configurations
• Layout fuselage
• Layout propulsion system
• Class I weight estimation
• Develop c.g. diagram

40

• REFERENCES

41
References

• Reference 1 Advanced Aircraft Analysis 2.4.
  DARcorporation. 2002
• Reference 2 Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design
  A Conceptual Approach. AIAA. Virginia
  Reston. 1999
•  
• Reference 3 Aviation Intranet.
  http//142.26.194.131/
•