Final Design Review

1
Final Design Review

• Group 4F Colossus

Simon Ridley Mike Smallwood Martin Bracewell
2
(No Transcript)
3
Specification
4
Key Design Drivers

• 1. Low Fuel Burn
• 2. Minimal DOC
• 3. Payload
• 4. Range
• 5. High Utilisation

LFB
DOC
PAY
RAN
UTL
5
Concept Selection
DOC reduction / Risk Analysis
6
Canard Selection
Improved L/D
7
Canard Selection
75m
Improved L/D
Wing Aspect Ratio 9.92
8
Canard Selection
Improved L/D
Low mounted canard
9
Canard Selection
High Wing
10
Improved Cruise Performance
Max Range 10694nm
5500 nm

• L/D start of cruise 19.07

L/D end of cruise 18.55
11
Improved Cruise Performance
158 tonne block fuel
Mach 0.85
12
Feasibility1 CLmax Limitation
Slats increase CLmax
13
Feasibility2 Canard Interference

• - Wing unaffected by downwash during the cruise
  condition
• - Take-Off / Landing critical case

13.5
14
Feasibility2 Canard Interference

• - Wing twist reduces downwash effect
• - Restricts movements of centre of pressure

Lateral Separation -21.7m
15
Feasibility3 - Stability
Zero Fuel Max Cargo
12.5 MAC CG range
Max Fuel Zero Cargo
16
Feasibility3 - Stability
Canard Trim Tank
12.5 MAC CG range
Max Fuel Zero Cargo
17
Feasibility3 - Stability
18
Feasibility4 Ramp Safety
21.7m
19
Feasibility4 Ramp Safety
Ramp Safety for Night Operations
20
Feasibility5 Tip Strike
21
Feasibility5 Tip Strike
5 bank angle 0.42m tip clearance
22
Wing Design
33º
23
Canard Design
35

• Canard set to 14 of total reference area
• Geometry defined to ensure canard CL
• is larger than for the wing CL
• Twist optimised to produce elliptical lift
• distribution and match downwash

24
Aerodynamics

• Drag Summary
• Profile Drag 46
• Induced Drag 49
• Compressibility 5
• Drag
• Drag Polar (cruise) 0.0175 0.0514CL2

25
Vertical Tail 3.3 Wing 32.8 Pylons 4.9 Fusel
age 27.4 Nose Gear 3.9 Main Gear 23.6 Canard 4
.2
3 Weight Saving on Conventional Configuration
26
Advanced Material Selection
GFRP
8.2 Weight Saving on conventional materials
27
(No Transcript)
28
Cargo Layout

• Pallet / container configuration
• Nose door / side door loading
• Electrically assisted loading system

29
Family Concept
30
Propulsion

• Inboard engine cascade thrust reversers on ¾ cowl
• 40 68 semi-span positioning avoids canard
  wake as much as possible

31
Noise

• Noise Minimisation through.
• Chevron nozzles
• Fairings on landing gear
• Geared fan
• Inlet acoustic Liner
• To meet stage 3 minus 25EPNdB

Chevron Nozzles
32
Emissions

• Emissions Minimisation through.
• Minimal engine bleed (only for nacelle
  anti-icing)
• Pre-mixing, lean burn annular combustor
• High L/D
• To meet 40 margin to CAEP/6

Annular Combustor
33
More Electric Aircraft

• 1. Minimise Weight
• - No hydraulics
• - 270V DC power
• Maximise Efficiency
• - EHAs, EMAs
• - DC power
• - Bleedless Engine
• - Fuel Cell APU

34
Single Pilot Operations

• - Reduced Direct Operating Costs
• - Reduced Operator Costs

• - Pilot Incapacitation 2 single pilot crews
• - Pilot Overload Specifically designed cockpit
• Enhanced FANS
• Optional assistant station

35
8.89
36
Break Even Analysis
37
Key Design Drivers

• 1. Low Fuel Burn
• 5 Cost Reduction
• 2. Minimal DOC
• 8.89 Reduction
• 3. Payload
• 175 Tonnes
• 4. Range
• 5500nm
• 5. High Utilisation
• 2.5 Increase

38
(No Transcript)