Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The Meridian
William Donovan
University of Kansas
2335 Irving Hill Road
Lawrence, KS 66045-7612
http://cresis.ku.edu
Technical Report
CReSIS TR 125
June 25, 2007
This work was supported by a grant from the
National Science Foundation
(#ANT-0424589).
Executive Summary
This report describes the requirements development and preliminary design of three
candidate aircraft for use in the research of ice sheets.
Preliminary sizing,
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. AST-0424589.
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. vi
Nomenclature ........................................................................................................... viii
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. ix
1
Science Rationale ................................................................................................ 1
2
Requirements Definition and Development...................................................... 2
2.1
Stall Speed and Climb Performance ............................................................. 3
2.2
Aircraft Range............................................................................................... 3
2.3
Takeoff and Landing Distances .................................................................... 8
2.4
Cruise Speed ................................................................................................. 9
2.5
Payload Requirements ................................................................................ 10
2.6
Size Requirements ...................................................................................... 12
2.7
Logistical Requirements ............................................................................. 13
2.7.1
Maintenance Requirements................................................................. 13
2.7.2
Communications ................................................................................. 14
2.7.3
Regulations ......................................................................................... 14
2.7.4
Environmental Issues .......................................................................... 15
2.7.5
Special Operations Requirements ....................................................... 15
2.8
Requirements Summary.............................................................................. 16
3
Aircraft Survey.................................................................................................. 17
3.1
Aircraft Currently Used in Cold-Weather Research................................... 17
3.1.1
Lockheed C130 ................................................................................... 18
3.1.2
Lockheed P-3 Orion............................................................................ 19
3.1.3
DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter......................................................... 20
3.2
Uninhabited Air Vehicles ........................................................................... 21
3.2.1
Similar Uninhabited Air Vehicles....................................................... 24
3.3
Optionally Piloted Vehicle Concepts.......................................................... 29
4
Preliminary UAV Designs ................................................................................ 32
4.1
Red Design.................................................................................................. 34
4.1.1
Preliminary Aircraft Sizing................................................................. 34
4.1.2
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................ 38
4.1.3
Performance Matching........................................................................ 38
4.1.4
Configuration Selection ...................................................................... 40
4.1.5
Class I Weight and Balance ................................................................ 64
4.1.6
Class I Stability and Control ............................................................... 70
4.1.7
Class I Drag Analysis.......................................................................... 73
4.1.8
Red Design Summary ......................................................................... 75
4.2
White Design .............................................................................................. 77
iii
4.2.1
Preliminary Aircraft Sizing................................................................. 77
4.2.2
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................ 80
4.2.3
Performance Matching........................................................................ 80
4.2.4
Class I Drag Analysis.......................................................................... 81
4.2.5
White Design Summary...................................................................... 84
4.3
Blue Design................................................................................................. 86
4.3.1
Similar Aircraft ................................................................................... 86
4.3.2
Preliminary Aircraft Sizing................................................................. 89
4.3.3
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................ 92
4.3.4
Performance Matching........................................................................ 92
4.3.5
Configuration Selection ...................................................................... 96
4.3.6
Class I Weight and Balance .............................................................. 108
4.3.7
Class I Stability and Control ............................................................. 113
4.3.8
Class I Drag Analysis........................................................................ 115
4.3.9
Blue Design Summary ...................................................................... 118
5
Summary of Preliminary Designs.................................................................. 120
6
Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................. 122
6.1
Ongoing Design ........................................................................................ 122
6.1.1
Detailed Landing Gear Design.......................................................... 122
6.1.2
Engine Selection Turboprop Variant ............................................. 123
7
References........................................................................................................ 125
iv
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Map of Antarctica....................................................................................... 4
Figure 2.2: Design Mission Profile............................................................................. 17
Figure 3.1: Lockheed C130 Operating from Snow Runway [19]............................... 18
Figure 3.2: Lockheed P-3 Orion on Ice Runway in Antarctica [20]........................... 19
Figure 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter Operating from Snow Runway [33] ................ 21
Figure 3.4: Current Commercially Available UAVs [3, 12, 13] ................................ 23
Figure 3.5: General Atomics Predator B [4]............................................................... 25
Figure 3.6: General Atomic Predator [4] .................................................................... 25
Figure 3.7: Northrop Grumman E-Hunter [2]............................................................. 26
Figure 3.8 General Atomics I-Gnat [4]....................................................................... 26
Figure 3.9: AAI Shadow 200 [21] .............................................................................. 27
Figure 3.10: AAI Shadow 600 [21] ............................................................................ 28
Figure 3.11: Geneva Aerospace Dakota UAV [22] .................................................... 28
Figure 4.1: Takeoff Weight Regression Plot for Similar Aircraft .............................. 35
Figure 4.2: Performance Matching Plot for Red Design ............................................ 39
Figure 4.3: Preliminary Fuselage Layout for Red Design .......................................... 41
Figure 4.4: Engine Power ........................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.5: Engine Weight.......................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.6: Engine Power-to-Weight Ratio ................................................................ 46
Figure 4.7: Red Design Wing Planform ..................................................................... 49
Figure 4.8: Lift-Curve-Slop for Clark Y Airfoil [8] ................................................... 51
Figure 4.9: Wing Lift Distribution for the Red Design .............................................. 55
Figure 4.10: Definition of V-Tail Planform Area [7] ................................................. 57
Figure 4.11: V-Tail Planform Drawing for the Red Design ....................................... 58
Figure 4.12: Landing Gear Placement for Lateral Tip-Over Requirements ............... 62
Figure 4.13: Landing Gear Layout and Retraction Scheme for Red Design .............. 63
Figure 4.14: Three-View of Red Design..................................................................... 68
Figure 4.15: Center of Gravity Excursion for the Red Design ................................... 69
Figure 4.16: Longitudinal X-Plot for the Red Design ................................................ 71
Figure 4.17: Directional X-Plot for the Red Design ................................................... 72
Figure 4.18: Drag Polars for the Red Design.............................................................. 74
Figure 4.19: Lift-to-Drag Ratio for the Red Design ................................................... 74
Figure 4.20: Final Three-View of the Red Design ..................................................... 76
Figure 4.21: Takeoff Weight Regression for the White Design ................................. 78
Figure 4.22: Drag Polars for the White Design .......................................................... 83
Figure 4.23: Lift-to-Drag Ratios for the White Design .............................................. 83
Figure 4.24: Summary of the White Design ............................................................... 85
Figure 4.25: Aviat Pitts S-2C [17] .............................................................................. 87
Figure 4.26: Aviat Christen Eagle II [17] ................................................................... 88
Figure 4.27: Beech Model 17 (Staggerwing) [18] ...................................................... 89
Figure 4.28: Takeoff Weight Regression Plot for Blue .............................................. 90
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Mission Information for Fine, Local, and Regional Surveys ...................... 6
Table 2.2: Aircraft Range Trade Study Based on Number of Flights Required........... 6
Table 2.3: Summary of Airports in Antarctica [1]........................................................ 8
Table 2.4: Runways in Greenland [5] ........................................................................... 9
Table 2.5: Dimensions of Standard Shipping Containers [9] ..................................... 13
Table 2.6: Summary of Design Requirements............................................................ 16
Table 3.1: Lockheed C130H Summary [14]............................................................... 19
Table 3.2: Lockheed P-3C Orion Summary [14]........................................................ 20
Table 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter-300 Summary [13]............................................ 21
Table 3.4: Summary of Similar Aircraft [3, 12, 13] ................................................... 24
Table 3.5: Optionally Piloted Vehicle Performance Summary [14]........................... 30
Table 3.6: Additional Range Estimates for Crewed Aircraft...................................... 30
Table 4.1: Mission Fuel Fractions for Red Design ..................................................... 37
Table 4.2: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the Red Design........................ 38
Table 4.3: List of Viable Engines [13]........................................................................ 42
Table 4.4: Wing Planform Summary for Red Design................................................. 50
Table 4.5: Volume Coefficient Values for Existing Aircraft [7] ................................ 57
Table 4.6: V-Tail Geometry Summary ....................................................................... 59
Table 4.7: Landing Gear Disposition Comparison ..................................................... 60
Table 4.8: Landing Gear Summary for the Red Design ............................................. 64
Table 4.9: Group Weight Data for Single Engine Propeller Driven Aircraft [6] ....... 66
Table 4.10: Component Weight Breakdown for the Red Design ............................... 66
vi
Table 4.11: Class I Weight and Balance for Red Design ........................................... 67
Table 4.12: Weight and Balance Summary ................................................................ 70
Table 4.13: Mission Fuel Fractions for the White Design.......................................... 79
Table 4.14: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the White Design................... 80
Table 4.15: Mission Fuel Fractions for Blue Design.................................................. 91
Table 4.16: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the Blue Design..................... 92
Table 4.17: Summary of Flap Trade Study for the Blue Design ................................ 94
Table 4.18: Summary of Preliminary Sizing and Performance Matching for Blue.... 95
Table 4.19: Wing Planform Summary for Blue........................................................ 102
Table 4.20: Fuel Storage Comparison ...................................................................... 103
Table 4.21: Empennage Summary for Blue.............................................................. 106
Table 4.22: Landing Gear Summary for Blue .......................................................... 108
Table 4.23: Weight Breakdown for the Blue Design................................................ 109
Table 4.24: Class I Weight and Balance for the Blue Design .................................. 110
Table 4.25: Class I Weight and Balance Summary for Blue .................................... 113
Table 5.1: Summary of Preliminary Design Concepts ............................................. 120
vii
Nomenclature
Symbol
AR
b
c
CD
CD0
CL
CL
cp
D
Dp
e
f
L
M
np
P
Pbl
R
S
SWet
WE
WF
Wpay
WTO
Description
Aspect Ratio
Wing Span
Wing chord
Drag Coefficient
Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient
Lift Coefficient
Lift-Curve Slope
Specific Fuel Consumption
Drag
Propeller Diameter
Oswalds Efficiency
Equivalent Parasite Area
Lift
Munks Span Factor
Number of Propeller Blades
Engine Power
Blade Power Loading
Range
Wing Area
Wetted Area
Empty Weight
Fuel Weight
Payload Weight
Takeoff Weight
Dihedral Angle
Angle of Attack
Wing Twist
Wing Station
Propeller Efficiency
Biplane Interference Factor
viii
Units
~
ft, in
ft, in
~
~
~
Rad-1
Lbs/hp-hr
Lbs
Ft
~
Ft2
Lbs
~
~
hp
hp/ft2
Nm
Ft2
Ft2
Lbs
Lbs
Lbs
Lbs
Deg
Deg
Deg
~
~
~
Abbreviations
Abbreviation
CReSIS
FAR
NSF
UAV
Description
Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets
Federal Aviation Regulations
National Science Foundation
Uninhabited Air Vehicle
ix
1 Science Rationale
The driving question behind the design mission of this aircraft is: What changes
are occurring in the mass of the Earths ice cover, and how will those changes affect
the climate? To answer this question, four areas must be studied: Sea ice, terrestrial
ice sheets, glaciers, and ice caps.
thickness of sea ice; and the mass balance of terrestrial ice sheets are of paramount
importance. [5]
Advances in aircraft and satellite remote sensing have enabled advances in the
study of the ice sheet mass balance. The most important parameters used to define
these large ice sheets are surface elevation and its change with time, ice velocity and
grounding line locations, ice thickness, and surface melting. All of these parameters
except for ice thickness can be measured with satellites. This is done, however, at
low spatial and temporal resolutions. Efforts are currently underway at NASA to
develop a means of measuring ice thickness from orbit in addition to using NASAs
Geoscience Laser Altimeter System to produce precise lidar measurement of ice
surface elevation and its change over time. This technology has yet to be fully
developed though. [5]
The use of sub-orbital platforms, especially high performance uninhabited air
vehicles, can offer significant improvements in the spatial and temporal resolution of
ice sheet measurements as well as offer synergistic complements to the systems being
developed by NASA. [5]
that 75 percent of the continent could be reached from three bases with an aircraft
with a range of 4,000 km as shown in Figure 2.1.
Regional Survey:
Local Survey:
Fine Survey:
20 km x 20 km with 1 km spacing
350 km Ingress/Egress Distance
The technology requirements specify that the UAV will have to be able to fly three
fine scale missions in one four week period by December 2008. Upon success of this
mission, the scientists would like to be able to fly at least one local scale survey and
one fine scale survey in a 4 week period. This would allow the scientists to survey a
large area, then return to survey an area of high interest.
The survey areas were converted into vehicle range requirements by first
calculating the ground track distance that must be covered for each survey using
Equation 3.1.
Ground Track Dist. = (Width * Length) / Line Spacing + Width + Length (3.1)
Equation 3.1 is used to calculate the ground track distance assuming a lawn-mower
type pattern in one direction.
perpendicular flight paths, which doubles the ground track distance for each survey
area.
The ground track distances for each mission are shown in Table 2.1.
The
ingress/egress distances shown are for missions near Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica.
Table 2.1: Mission Information for Fine, Local, and Regional Surveys
Parameter
SI Units
Fine
Local
Regional
km/hr
km
km
km
km
km
hrs
200
20
20
1
350
880
4.4
200
100
100
2.5
350
8,400
42
200
500
500
10
0
52,000
260
Ground Speed:
Grid Width:
Grid Length:
Line Spacing:
Distance from Base:
Ground Track Distance:
Total Time of Data Acquisition:
English Units
Fine
Local
Regional
Ground Speed:
Grid Width:
Grid Length
Parameter
kts
nm
nm
108
10.8
10.8
108
54
54
108
270
270
Line Spacing:
Distance from Base:
Ground Track Distance:
Total Time of Data Acquisition:
nm
nm
nm
hrs
0.54
189
475.2
4.4
1.35
189
4,536
42
5.4
0
28,080
260
The ground track distances shown in Table 2.1 were then used to determine the
number of flights required to complete a Fine, Local, and Regional mission for
aircraft with various ranges. This is shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Aircraft Range Trade Study Based on Number of Flights Required
Fine Scale
Local
Regional
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
# of Flights
Required
~
3
2
1
1
1
1
Length of
Each Flight
hrs
5
7.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
# of Flights
Required
~
28
11
7
5
4
3
Time for
Each Flight
hrs
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
# of Flights
Required
~
52
35
26
21
18
15
Time for
Each Flight
hrs
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
4000
4500
5000
1
1
1
4.4
4.4
4.4
3
3
2
20
22.5
25
13
12
11
20
22.5
25
The Fine and Local scale missions are the only ones considered under these
requirements. The Regional scale data is shown for comparison only.
The time requirement of 4 weeks was used to determine the absolute minimum
aircraft range based on the number of flights required. The weather in Antarctica is
such that flying every day of the 4 week period would be improbable. Therefore, it is
assumed that 1 of every 3 days will be flyable. This leaves 9 flyable days in a given
season. As is shown in Table 2.2 the minimum design range should therefore be
somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 km.
For an aircraft with a range greater than 1,580 km the Fine Scale mission would
only take one day. This leaves 8 flyable days to complete the Local Scale mission.
The required aircraft range was calculated to be 1,750 km (945 nm) using Equation
3.2.
Range =
RGrFine
N Fine
Where:
+ 2 Ringress / egressFine +
RGrLocal
N Local
+ 2 Ringress / egressLocal
(3.2)
Typically, fuel reserves for 45 minutes of additional flight are added to the fuel
requirements. Due to the extreme nature of the design mission of this aircraft, fuel
reserves will be sized to allow for 1.5 hours of extended flight. At a nominal cruise
speed of 200 km/hr, this essentially adds 300 km to the range requirement.
The Range requirements for this aircraft design are:
Range:
Fuel Reserves:
Elevation
meters
feet
232
760
21
68
45
149
5
15
2,835
9,300
45
147
Runway
Length (m)
~
meters
feet
Graded Earth 1,260
4,134
Snow
3,048
10,000
Snow
762
2,500
Snow
1,067
3,500
Snow
3,658
12,000
Graded Earth 1,292
4,238
The runways available in Greenland are shown in Table 2.4. The possibility of
using one of these commercial runways is undetermined. There is a possibility that a
groomed snow runway will be used instead. The exact dimensions of the runway that
will be used are unknown. Therefore, the takeoff and landing distance requirement
will be specified in another manner. Members of the NSF have expressed the desire
to be able to operate from the same runway that a DeHavilland Twin Otter could
operate [31].
Airport Name
ICAO
Usage
Runway
IFR
Runway
Length
Runway
Length
ft
Aasiaat
Aasiaat
BGAA
Civ.
Paved
Yes
2600
792
Constable Pynt
Constable Pynt
BGCO
Civ.
Unpaved
Yes
3200
975
Godthab
Godthab
BGGH
Civ.
Paved
Yes
3100
945
Jakobshavn / Ilulissat
Jakobshavn / Ilulissat
BGJN
Civ.
Paved
Yes
2700
823
1189
Kulusuk
Kulusuk
BGKK
Civ.
Unpaved
Yes
3900
Maniitsoq
Maniitsoq
BGMQ
Civ.
Paved
Yes
2600
792
Narsarsuaq
Narsarsuaq
BGBW
Civ.
Paved
Yes
6000
1829
Sisimiut
Sisimiut
BGSS
Civ.
Paved
Yes
2600
792
Sondre Stromfjord
Thule
Uummannaq
BGSF
Civ.
Paved
Yes
9200
2804
Thule Ab
Qaarsut
BGTL
BGUQ
Mil.
Civ.
Paved
Unpaved
Yes
Yes
10000
2900
3048
884
The Twin Otter has a takeoff and landing distance of approximately 1,500 ft using
conventional landing gear on a conventional runway.
of 108 kts, not a cruise speed. This is a more complicated requirement, due to the fact
that the wind speeds in Antarctica can be as much as 30 kts. This means that the
actual cruise speed of the aircraft could be anywhere from 78-138 kts. The lowest
acceptable flight speed for normal operations is typically 1.3 times the stall speed.
The stall speed with flaps extended is 58 kts. This implies the lowest flight speed
with flaps extended is 75 kts. Using the flaps during cruise is unacceptable in terms
of aerodynamic efficiency therefore the acceptable ground speed was renegotiated to
be 120 kts nominally. The ground speed will be allowed to vary to:
In terms of the design cruise speed requirement, this implies two separate critical
design conditions:
10
The primary payload requirements that will affect the vehicle design are the
antenna array size, the payload volume and weight, and the payload power
consumption.
The antennas must be mounted to the wing and are sensitive to the type of structure
around them, specifically any electrically reflective materials that are directly above
the antennas, in other words, in the wing.
Materials such as aluminum, carbon fiber, or even fuel can reflect the signals the
antennas are receiving thereby adding extraneous noise to the signal. There are three
solutions to this problem:
1. Place the antennas one quarter wavelength below the wing (0.5m or 20)
2. Build a radar absorbing material above the antennas allowing them to be
flush-mounted in the lower surface of the wing.
3. Design a dielectric wing that would not reflect the signals, thereby allowing
them to be flush-mounted in the wing.
The first mounting option is the best choice in terms of the antennas due to two
factors. First, this option has the highest probability of success as the second and
third options have not been fully investigated. Secondly, if the antennas are mounted
a quarter wavelength below a reflective surface, then the interference from this
surface will actually add to the total signal, thereby reducing the power required by
the antennas.
In terms of the aircraft design, namely aerodynamic efficiency, the second and third
options are the most desirable. However, the third mounting option was deemed
unacceptable by the antenna designers due to its low probability of success.
11
At the time of this design there was insufficient data to support or refute the
possibility of the second mounting option.
aircraft designs should be performed using the two mounting options. This will help
give insight into how much the antenna requirements are driving the aircraft design.
Shipping Constraints
Facility Constraints Hangar Size
Manufacturing Facilities
Runway Width
This increases the facility setup costs, but in a less drastic way than
12
The aircraft and ground station must fit entirely in a standard twenty foot shipping
container.
This is different than simply specifying the maximum length or wing span of the
vehicle. For instance, the wing could be manufactured in two pieces meaning the
maximum wing span is larger than twenty feet.
Table 2.5: Dimensions of Standard Shipping Containers [9]
20 ft Dry Container
ft
19.42
7.68
7.80
Length
Height
Width
inches
233.00
92.13
93.63
cm
591.82
234.00
237.81
40 ft Dry Container
Length
Height
Width
ft
39.03
7.70
7.80
inches
468.38
92.38
93.63
cm
1189.67
234.63
237.81
Maintenance
Communications
Regulatory Issues
Environmental Issues
13
in cold weather. This means that the number of parts the aircraft is broken into for
shipping should be minimized. It also has implications on the type of connections
and fasteners used.
2.7.2 Communications
The aircraft must be able to communicate with the ground station in terms of
vehicle health and control commands. In other words, the ground station operator
must be able to identify the health state of the UAV in terms of position, attitude, fuel
quantity, etc and must also be able to command changes in the aircrafts mission. The
update rate for this type of control is fairly low so this will not affect the preliminary
design of the vehicle in a large way. Therefore, the communication requirements will
be summarized as follows:
The aircraft must be able to carry the necessary data acquisition and
communications devices to allow monitoring and control of the vehicle at up to 650
km from base.
2.7.3 Regulations
The UAV will be designed for operation in Antarctica, Greenland, and testing in
the United States. The aircraft must comply with all necessary regulations related to
uninhabited air operations in each of these areas.
14
15
systems must be maintained throughout the flight, which could require onboard
heaters.
In addition to temperature control in the fuselage, wing icing must be considered.
While current data indicates that icing is rarely a problem in these climates due to low
humidity, it can occur and must be manageable. Therefore, this aircraft must employ
some form of anti-icing on all critical surfaces.
Value
Range
950 nm (~1750 km) w/ 1.5 hr Reserve
Endurance
> 9 hrs
Cruise Speed
100-120 kts (~180-220 km/hr)
Maximum Ceiling
15,000 ft (4,500 m)
Rate of Climb
1,600 ft/min (490 m/min)
Takeoff Distance
1,500 ft (~450 m)
Landing Distance
1,500 ft (~450 m)
Payload Volume
20" x 20" x 8" (~0.5 x 0.5 x 0.2 m)
Payload Weight
120 lbs (~55 kg)
Payload Integration
Wing Mounted Antennae
Power Generation
300 W
Stall Speed
58 kts (105 km/hr)
Stability and Control
FAR 23, where applicable
Maneuvering Requirements
FAR 23, where applicable
Aircraft Wingspan
19 ft (5.8 m)
Aircraft Length
19 ft (5.8 m)
16
Importance
Source
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
Trade Studies
Trade Studies
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Twin Otter Performance
Twin Otter Performance
Twin Otter Performance
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Twin Otter Performance
FAR 23
FAR 23
20 ft. Container Dimensions
20 ft. Container Dimensions
190 nm
(350 km)
190 nm
(350 km)
6
7
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Warmup
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb (No Range Credit)
Cruise Out (Optimum Alt. and Speed)
6.
7.
8.
9.
3 Aircraft Survey
Three types of aircraft were investigated for this mission:
17
Lockheed C130
Lockheed P-3
18
Lockheed C130H
Parameter
Units
Value
ft
ft2
ft
132.6
1,745
97.75
lbs
lbs
155,000
76,000
nm
kts
kts
ft
ft
4,250
300
100
5,160
2,750
Geometry
Wing Span
Wing Area
Length
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Performance
Range
Cruise Speed
Stall Speed
Takeoff Distance
Landing Distance
19
Units
Value
ft
2
ft
ft
99.7
1,300
116.8
lbs
lbs
135,000
61,490
nm
kts
kts
ft
ft
4,830
328
112
5,490
2,770
Geometry
Wing Span
Wing Area
Length
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Performance
Range
Cruise Speed
Stall Speed
Takeoff Distance
Landing Distance
20
Figure 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter Operating from Snow Runway [33]
Table 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter-300 Summary [13]
Units
Value
ft
2
ft
ft
65
420
51.75
lbs
lbs
12,500
7,400
nm
kts
kts
ft
ft
700
182
58
1,500
1,940
Geometry
Wing Span
Wing Area
Length
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Performance
Range
Cruise Speed
Stall Speed
Takeoff Distance
Landing Distance
performance data for over 200 UAVs. The data for this list was taken from a
combination of manufacturers websites as well as a list of UAV resources (See
References 3, 12, and 13).
21
The UAVs were organized in terms of range and payload capacity in Figure 3.4.
Several crewed platforms that are currently used in Cryospheric research are also
shown in Figure 3.4.
The original mission specification for this aircraft design was vague in terms of the
range requirement. The mission concepts varied from small, portable aircraft for
operation from field camps to large, long range vehicles capable of operating from
remote bases. For this wide variety of possible mission, a three tiered approach was
used to help classify aircraft concepts [5]. These were referred to as Tier a, Tier B,
and Tier C and are described as:
Tier A
Small, short-range (<1,000 km) vehicle capable of carrying either the
scanning LIDAR topographic mapper OR the radar depth sounder (~50
kg).
Tier B
Medium range (~5,000 km) vehicle capable of carrying the scanning lidar
topographic mapper AND the radar depth sounder (~100 kg).
Tier C
Long range (>10,000 km) vehicle capable of flying from off-continent any
time of the year and capable of carrying the scanning lidar topographic
mapper, the radar depth sounder, as well as other small payloads such as
cameras or gravimeters (~150 kg).
There are several aircraft in that meet the Tier A requirements in terms of range and
payload weight, but these aircraft do not meet the payload volume requirements.
There are no aircraft that lie directly in the Tier B or Tier C design spaces. This is
due to the fact that the requirements for these aircraft are skewed towards high range
capability with low payload capacity.
22
100000
Tier C
Tier B
10000
10
13
12
4
1
2
11
Tier A
1000
Crewed Aircraft
100
10
9
1
0
0
10
100
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Manufacturer
AAI
Meteor
Aurora
General Atomics
AAI
General Atomics
Aerospatiale
Northrop Grumman
Kawada
Aurora
DeHavilland
Lockheed
Lockheed
1000
23
10000
Designation
E-Hunter
Mirach 26
Perseus B
Predator
Heron
Gnat 750
Sarohale
Global Hawk
Robocopter
Theseus
Twin Otter
P-3 Orion
C130
100000
Company
Designation
General Atomics
Predator B
General Atomics
Predator
Northrop Grumman
E-Hunter
General Atomics
I-Gnat
AAI
Shadow 600
AAI
Shadow 200
Geneva Aerospace
Dakota
Company
Designation
General Atomics
Predator B
General Atomics
Predator
Northrop Grumman
E-Hunter
General Atomics
I-Gnat
AAI
Shadow 600
AAI
Shadow 200
Geneva Aerospace
Dakota
WE
lb
2,800
1,200
1,430
850
327
200
160
WTO
lb
6,500
2,350
2,100
1,650
585
316
240
Wpay
lb
3,800
450
220
650
85
50
80
bw
ft
66.0
48.7
54.5
42.2
22.4
12.8
15.6
Length
ft
36.0
27.0
24.5
20.8
15.6
11.2
9.5
End.
hr
30
40
30
48
14
8
4.5
Range
nm
OTH*
7,400
OTH*
1,500
575
Ceiling
ft
25,000
25,000
25,000
30,000
17,000
15,000
20,000
Speed
kts
220
220
120
160
108
115
100
WE
kg
1,270
544
649
385
148
91
73
WTO
kg
2,948
1,066
952
748
265
143
109
Wpay
kg
1,723
204
100
295
39
23
36
bw
m
20.1
14.8
16.6
12.9
6.8
3.9
4.8
Length
m
11.0
8.2
7.5
6.3
4.8
3.4
2.9
End.
hr
30
40
30
48
14
8
4.5
24
production in 1997 and is currently in production for the United States and Italian Air
Force [4].
25
The I-Gnat is
26
27
28
These
29
Designation
Empty
Weight
~
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond
~
C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star
kg
34,504
27,916
3,677
736
1,725
4,331
1,260
~
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond
~
C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star
lbs
76,000
61,490
8,100
1,621
3,800
9,540
2,780
Gross
Weight
Payload
Range
Cruise Speed
Takeoff
Dist.
kg
20,400
9,075
1,990
544
907
4,375
440
km
8,334
5,000
1,400
1,500
2,000
2,900
2,360
km/hr
602
611
241
259
333
533
250
m
1,433
1,673
457
461
626
994
350
nm
4,500
2,700
780
820
1,100
1,589
1,275
kts
325
330
130
140
180
288
135
ft
4,700
5,490
1,500
1,514
2,053
3,260
1,150
SI Units
kg
70,370
63,451
5,675
1,158
3,973
7,772
1,700
English Units
lbs
155,000
139,760
12,500
2,550
8,750
17,120
3,750
lbs
44,974
20,007
4,387
1,200
2,000
9,645
970
Table 3.5 shows that all of the aircrafts investigated have much higher payload
capacity than is needed for this mission. This excess weight can be converted into
extra fuel by installing additional fuel tanks in these aircraft. The possible increases
in aircraft range were investigated, the results of which are shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Additional Range Estimates for Crewed Aircraft
Company
Designation
Stock
Range
km
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond
C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star
8,334
5,000
1,400
1,500
2,000
2,900
2,360
nm
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond
C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star
4,500
2,700
756
810
1,080
1,566
1,274
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
Additional Fuel
Capacity
SI Units
kg/hr
3,900
1,814
262
52
136
249
18
English Units
lbs/hr
8,580
3,991
577
115
299
549
40
Total Fuel
Used**
kg
km
Liters
10,173
4,510
968
245
426
2,160
193
8,856
5,498
2,138
2,820
2,626
4,632
4,499
71,504
33,258
4,806
956
2,494
4,573
330
lbs
nm
gallons
22,380
9,922
2,129
757*
937
4,752
424
4,782
18,877
2,969
8,780
1,155
1,269
1,523
252
1,418
658
2,501
1,207
2,429
87
* Extra fuel may be limited by available volume.
** Fuel volume required to complete 3 Fine Scale Surveys.
- Currently used in polar research
30
The fuel consumption numbers were taken from manufacturer specifications. The
additional range was simply determined by multiplying the estimated fuel
consumption by the estimated additional fuel capacity. The additional fuel capacity
was estimated as half of the vehicle payload capacity less the 55 kg (121 lb) science
payload requirement. The fuel densities were assumed to be 6.0 lbs/gal for aviation
gasoline and 6.8 lbs/gal for Jet-A.
The numbers for the Diamond Twin Star shown in Table 3.6 were verified against
an experimental flight test performed by Diamond Aircraft [24]. This test showed the
vehicle range was increased from 1,275 nm to 1,900 nm after installing an additional
26 gallon ferry fuel tank to the existing 78 gallon fuel tank. Only 72 gallons was used
for the flight. The company estimates that the vehicle with the ferry tanks could
achieve a 2,500 nm range, which is very close to the estimate shown in Table 3.6.
The value of total fuel used represents the amount of fuel that would be used to
complete 3 Fine Scale surveys. The highlighted aircraft in Table 3.6 represent the
aircraft that are currently used for polar research. The column indicating the amount
of fuel required to complete 3 Fine Scale missions is representative of the possible
savings in operational costs that can be achieved by transitioning to a smaller, more
efficient platform.
From an operational cost standpoint, the Diamond Twin Star is an ideal candidate
for this mission. It is a high performance aircraft that fits nearly all of the proposed
requirements. However, integrating the antenna array into the Twin Star would be
extremely difficult.
31
performance. These facts do not eliminate the Twin Star as a viable candidate for this
mission. They do, however, support the argument that a new aircraft design should
be performed to see if a better solution can be achieved.
Conventional Tail-Aft
Twin Fuselage
Canard
Three-Surface
Joined Wing
Tandem Wing
Flying Wing
The preliminary aircraft design concepts and trade studies performed prior to this
design helped in the selection of the candidate configurations [5]. The canard and
three-surface configurations were not chosen for direct investigation based
preliminary sizing studies that indicated that a single, fuselage mounted engine will
be used [25]. The use of a canard is incompatible with a fuselage-mounted, tractor
engine. However, the implementation of a canard will be considered if the engine is
mounted in a pusher configuration.
32
The
conventional and joined wing (biplane) configurations were selected as the options
for further study.
In the payload requirements definition, two antenna mounting options were
developed. One assuming flush-mounted antennas and one assuming the antennas
would hang below the wing. Typically, in preliminary aircraft design it is desirable to
perform independent design studies of different configurations. These preliminary
designs can then be evaluated to determine the best configuration that will be
optimized in the detail design process.
preliminary aircraft design studies will be performed, each with a different antenna
mounting solution.
Aircraft Configurations:
1. Red Design:
2. White Design:
3. Blue Design:
The purpose of the remainder of this section is to describe the Class I preliminary
design of these four configurations. This will include:
33
34
10,000
Predator B
Red Design
Point
E-Hunter
Shadow 600
1,000
Empty Weight, lbs
Shadow 200
Predator
Dakota
I-Gnat
100
1,000
10,000
35
(5.1)
The fuel fractions for the climb and cruise segments were calculated using the
Breguet endurance and range equations respectively [6].
The following assumptions were used for the climb segment:
Climb Height:
5,000 ft
Rate of Climb:
500 ft/min
L/D:
0.56 lbs/hp-hr
Propulsive Efficiency:
Speed:
Range:
Speed:
120 kts
Propulsive Efficiency:
0.47 lbs/hp-hr
L/D:
The mission fuel fractions determined as well as the total mission fuel fraction are
shown in Table 4.1.
36
Fuel Fraction
Warm-Up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb
Cruise
Descent
Land/Taxi
Total Mission
0.980
0.996
0.996
0.996
0.841
0.992
0.992
0.801
Payload Weight:
Fuel Reserves:
22.5% of WTO
WE = 450 lbs
The preliminary sizing data shown here are the results of several iterations. This
preliminary sizing process produces an estimation of the takeoff weight based on the
mission specification and several assumptions including aerodynamic efficiency,
engine performance, and selection of similar platforms.
37
propulsion performances can and have been verified using class I methods. However,
the ratio of takeoff to empty weight is driven by the selection of similar aircraft.
Therefore, several iterations were performed using different combinations of aircraft
in the regression plot to determine how this would affect the WTO estimation. The
final iteration was selected as the most reasonable based on the designers judgment.
Units
Cruise
Climb
W to/W pl
W to/W e
4.8
4.8
1.9
1.9
Fuel Consumption
W to/cp
hp-hr
1,100
31
Range
W to/R
lb/nm
0.7
W to/(L/D)
W to/(p)
lb
-50
-1.5
lb
-828
-19.2
Payload
Empty Weight
Lift-to-Drag
Propeller Efficiency
38
The performance matching plot shown in Figure 4.2 was generated using the above
requirements. The wing loading, power loading, and maximum lift coefficient chosen
are:
C Lmax = 1.6
L
C LmaxTO = 1.2
Design Point
(W/S) = 15.5 psf
(W/P) = 11.0 lb/hp
C LMaxTO = 1.2
C LMax = 1.6
L
39
The wing loading, power loading, and maximum lift coefficients were chosen as
the result of several iterations trading airfoil selection, flap sizing, and performance
requirements.
Fuselage Layout
The purpose of this section is to describe the design of the fuselage layout for the
Red Design. The following items will be installed in the fuselage:
Avionics (Approximately 6 x 6 x 6)
Nose Gear
Main Gear
The fuselage layout can be seen in Figure 4.3. The engine and science payload
widths are fairly similar and therefore drove the fuselage width. The engine height
however is larger than the science payload height. The height of the fuselage is
40
therefore driven by the engine size. This results in a moderate amount of unused
space in the fuselage. The fuselage height could be contracted immediately after the
firewall to save wetted area however, the change in wetted area would be relatively
small. The excess available volume will serve as a buffer in case of increases in the
required payload, fuel, or landing gear volume.
41
aircraft range was expected to be >10,000 km. Now that the range requirement has
decreased, the aircraft will be operating much closer to base. This greatly increases
the probability of being able to retrieve the aircraft in the case of a crash. Also, the
amount of data that would be lost in the event of a crash would be much less than
previously thought.
The sensitivity analysis shown in Section 4.1.2 on page 38 of this report indicated
that the engine specific fuel consumption is one of the most critical parameters for
this design. Table 4.3 shows that the engines that could be used in a twin-engine
configuration (< 60 hp) have much higher s.f.c. values than the larger engines.
A single engine configuration was chosen for the purposes of simplifying the
aircraft systems and maximizing efficiency in terms of fuel consumption.
Table 4.3: List of Viable Engines [13]
Manufacturer
~
Country
~
Model
~
Cooling
~
Power
hp
SFC
lbs/hr-hp
Weight
lbs
P/W
hp/lb
135
160
100
227
70
0.36
0.40
0.53
0.32
0.36
295
327
205
423
121
0.46
0.49
0.49
0.54
0.58
50
95
50
68
86
42
65
81
100
115
0.50
0.52
0.70
0.54
0.62
0.70
0.59
0.47
0.47
0.47
43
112
35
163
181
59
64
122
125
141
1.16
0.85
1.41
0.42
0.48
0.71
1.02
0.66
0.80
0.82
165
0.70
188
0.88
Diesel Engines
Centurion
DeltaHawk
DieselAir
SMA
Zoche Aerodiesels
Germany
US
UK
France
Germany
1.7
DH160V4
DAIR-100
SR 305
ZO03A
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Air
Air
Avgas Engines
UAV Ltd
UAV Ltd
Limbach
Limbach
Limbach
Rotax
Rotax
Rotax
Rotax
Rotax
UK
UK
Germany
Germany
Germany
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
AR801
AR682
L550 E
L2000 EO/EC
L2400 EB
447-UL
582-UL
912-A
912-ULS
914-UL
Innodyn
US
165TE
Liquid
Liquid
Air
Air
Air
Fan
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Turboprop Engines
Air
42
Engine Selection
The selection of the engine depends on several factors:
Power
Weight
Power-to-Weight Ratio
Specific Fuel Consumption
Cold Weather Operations
Cost
The most important of these factors for this design are fuel consumption, power,
and cold weather operations. The engine power-to-weight ratio is important, but the
sensitivity analysis showed that an increase in specific fuel consumption would have
a bigger effect on the overall design than an increase in empty weight. Therefore, the
engine with the lowest s.f.c. that meets the power requirement is the primary engine
choice disregarding cold-weather operations.
Figure 4.4 through Figure 4.6 show the power, weight, and power-to-weight ratios
respectively for the selected engines, plotted against specific fuel consumption. As
can be seen from the three plots, the Zoche ZO03A and Rotax 912-A are the most
appealing engines for the Red Design in terms of power-to-weight ratio and s.f.c.
However, the Zoche ZO03A engine has not been manufactured or tested. Using this
engine as the primary choice for the CReSIS UAV would be extremely risky.
Therefore, the Rotax 912-A was chosen as the primary engine choice.
43
250
SMA SR 305
Innodyn 165TE
200
DeltaHawk DH160V4
Centurion 1.7
Power, hp
150
DieselAir DAIR-100
Rotax 914-UL
100
Rotax 912-S
Rotax 912-A
Zoche ZO03A
50
Diesel Engines
Avgas Engines
Turboprops
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
44
0.60
0.70
0.80
450
400
SMA SR 305
350
DeltaHawk DH160V4
Centurion 1.7
300
Innodyn 165TE
Weight,lbs
DieselAir DAIR-100
250
Rotax 914-UL
200
Rotax 912-S
Rotax 912-A
150
Zoche ZO03A
100
50
Diesel Engines
Avgas Engines
Turboprops
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
45
0.60
0.70
0.80
1.60
1.40
Innodyn 165TE
1.20
Power-to-Weight, hp/lbs
Rotax 914-UL
1.00
Rotax 912-S
0.80
Rotax 912-A
0.60
Zoche ZO03A
SMA SR 305
0.40
Centurion 1.7
0.20
0.00
0.00
Diesel Engines
Avgas Engines
Turboprops
0.10
DieselAir DAIR-100
DeltaHawk DH160V4
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
46
0.60
0.70
0.80
Propeller Diameter
The propeller diameter was then determined using Equation 5.1.
DP =
4 PMax
n p Pbl
Where:
(5.2)
Dp = Propeller Diameter
nP = Number of Blades
Pmax = Maximum Power
Pbl = Blade Power Loading
The blade power loading was selected based on an average number for single
engine aircraft. The power loading selected is 3 hp/ft2, which resulted in a propeller
diameter of 50 inches. This diameter is comparable to a typical propeller diameter for
a Rotax 912 engine, so it is reasonable.
Engine Disposition
The decision between a tractor or puller engine installation depends on several
factors including:
47
infrared (FLIR) requirements for this aircraft. The engine will therefore be mounted
in a tractor configuration.
A typical ratio of the engine weight to gross takeoff weight for single engine,
general aviation aircraft is 0.15-0.20. While this aircraft is not in the general aviation
class, this weight ratio can still be used as a general guideline. The engine-to-takeoff
weight ratio for the current Red Design with the Rotax 912-A is 0.16, which is
acceptable.
48
49
Value
Units
XLE, w
85.4
in
Zc/4, w
37.6
in
Area
AR
Taper Ratio
c/4
Mean Chord
Span
W
49
4.8
0.57
3.9
3.27
15.33
5
ft
~
~
deg
ft
ft
deg
-2
deg
i,f
13
% b/2
o,f
cf/cw
64
% b/2
0.13
i,a
64
% b/2
o,a
cf/cw
100
0.13
% b/2
~
Wing Disposition
The wing will be a cantilever wing and will attach to the fuselage in a low wing
configuration. These decisions are both driven by the antenna requirements. The low
wing was selected so that the antennas would not be obstructed by the fuselage in any
way.
Airfoil Selection
The Clark Y [8] airfoil will be used for the wing. This airfoil was chosen primarily
for its flat bottom design as this will help with antenna integration. This airfoil has a
moderately high lift coefficient, as well as a moderate pitching moment coefficient.
The lift-curve-slope of the Clark Y airfoil is shown in Figure 4.8.
50
cl = 4.3 rad 1
clMax = 1.55
stall = 18o
cm = 0.06
51
The first step in the flap sizing is to determine the maximum lift coefficient of the
wing. This is done by determining the lift-curve-slope of the clean wing using
Equation 5.2 from [7].
(5.2)
Where:
= 1 M 2
k=
cl
This is then combined with the stall angle of attack of the wing to determine the
maximum clean lift coefficient for the wing. At this stage of the design it is safe to
assume that the wing lift coefficient relates to the aircraft lift coefficient as follows:
C LMaxW = 1.05C LMax
(5.3)
The maximum clean lift coefficient and the assumed lift coefficients for takeoff and
landing are:
C LMaxClean = 1.1
C LTO = 1.2
C LL = 1.6
52
The flap sizing has shown that the wing design is feasible with respect to flap
integration. Typical aileron dimensions for single engine, propeller driven aircraft
are:
Aileron chord ratio:
Aileron span ratio:
0.17 0.30
0.60 1.00
The flap sizing results are shown in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.7. The maximum
outboard span ratio for the flaps will be set as 0.64. This leaves the outer 36% of the
wing half-span for lateral controls. This should be sufficient and will be examined
further in the Class II stability and control analysis.
Fuel Volume
One of the major considerations with this design is the fuel placement. There are a
number of design options for places to store the fuel:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The best option is to store all of the fuel in the wings due to root bending moment
relief as well as center of gravity considerations. Therefore, the available storage of
the wings was calculated first. This was done using Equation 5.4 from Ref [6] and
verified using CAD.
53
(5.4)
The fuel volume calculations resulted in the following:
Fuel Required:
184 lbs
29 gallons
3.90 ft3
215 lbs
34 gallons
4.56 ft3
The following assumptions were made for the fuel volume calculations:
The assumption that the wing will be a wet wing, meaning the structure of the wing
is sealed to form the fuel tank instead of using separate bladders, is not necessarily
correct. There is a possibility that fuel bladders will be used. However, there is a
sufficient amount of excess volume available for fuel to account for using fuel
bladders.
54
The wing dihedral angle was selected by examining similar single engine propeller
driven configurations. A dihedral angle of 5o was selected preliminarily. This value
will be iterated in the stability and control analysis.
A twist of -20 was selected due to the tapered wing design. This value was selected
as the result of a wing lift distribution analysis. The lift distribution of the wing with
2o of washout and an angle of attack of 18o is shown in Figure 4.9. The point of
maximum sectional lift coefficient is inboard of the ailerons, which is acceptable in
terms of tip stall.
55
iw =
Equation 4.1
U S (1.05C L ) 2
2
1
Empennage Layout
The purpose of this section is to discuss the selection of the empennage size,
location and disposition, as well as the size and disposition of the longitudinal and
directional control surfaces for the Red Design.
Empennage Configuration
The following empennage configurations were considered for the Red Design:
The goal for the design of the fuselage is to achieve the highest aerodynamic
efficiency possible. With this in mind the V tail design is very appealing due to the
decreased wetted area and decreased interference drag. The V tail also decreases the
number of actuators required for the longitudinal and directional control surfaces.
Historically, these advantages came at the cost of complicated control mixers, but this
is not necessary in the CReSIS UAV due to the full digital flight control system.
The volume coefficient method will be used for the V tail preliminary sizing. This
process uses Equation 5.5 to calculate a V tail area and moment arm based on current
aircraft shown in Table 4.5 from [7]. The V-tail planform area is defined in Figure
4.10 from [7].
56
Vvee =
S vee X acvee X cg
Equation 4.2
S w cw
Table 4.5: Volume Coefficient Values for Existing Aircraft [7]
Vvee
Aircraft
V-35 Bonanza
0.512
Global Hawk
0.581
Predator
0.78
YF-23
0.194
Fouga
0.596
HKS III
0.597
SHK
0.586
Std. Austria SH 1
0.352
SB 5B
0.338
PIK 16 Vasama
0.426
HP-8
Moneral
HP-18
fs 23 "Hidalgo"
0.779
0.34
0.486
0.279
57
The volume coefficient chosen for this design is Vvee = 0.6 based on the data in
Table 4.5. The empennage moment arm and V-tail area were then traded in an
attempt to minimize wetted area. This resulted in the empennage design is shown in
Figure 4.11. As a first estimate, the V-Tail dihedral angle was set at 45o, which
indicates that it is equally effective in the lateral and longitudinal modes. This will be
optimized in the stability and control analysis section.
The control surface known as a ruddervator, was sized based on typical values for
longitudinal control surfaces. The ruddervator will be a full-span control surface with
a chord ratio of 0.30. All of the geometry data for the V-Tail is shown in Table 4.6.
58
Value
Units
XLE, Vee
205
in
Zc/4, Vee
59.9
Svee
10.5
in
2
ft
ARVee
vee
0.5
c/4,vee
cvee
26.3
deg
1.68
ft
bvee
3.24
ft
vee
45
deg
i,e
% b/2
o,e
ce/cvee
100
% b/2
0.3
The landing gear integration is one of the most crucial parts of any airplane design.
This seemingly simple step has been a show-stopper for many preliminary designs
and will therefore be handled with great care. The unique payload requirements of
this design are such that the landing gear integration will be difficult. This may lead
to unique or unconventional designs.
Landing Gear Type and Configuration
The first step in the landing gear design is to decide between retractable and fixed
landing gear. Retractable landing gear will be used for the following reasons:
59
There are three possibilities that will be considered for the landing gear
configuration:
1. Tailwheel
2. Conventional or Tricycle
3. Tandem with Outriggers
There are arguments that could support using any of the three types of landing gear.
Therefore, all three were heavily considered. Table 4.7 shows a comparison of the
three types of landing gear.
Table 4.7: Landing Gear Disposition Comparison
Landing Gear Type
Taildragger
Tricycle
Tandem w/ Outriggers
Pros
Cons
No ground looping
characteristics.
Good for integration with
complicated structure
(Antenna in center of
fuselage.)
Heavy.
The landing gear disposition choice was made primarily based on integration
issues. The antenna integration requirements are such that placing the landing gear
on the wing is not possible. Also, the antenna located in the fuselage causes problems
60
with integrating the landing gear into the fuselage (see Figure 4.13). This type of
requirement indicates that a tandem gear installation could be the best option.
However, a tandem landing gear does not necessarily agree well with the short field
requirements due to takeoff rotation limitations of tandem gear configurations. The
tandem gear configuration was then removed from consideration.
The tail-dragger configuration was considered due to the integration with the
center antennae. The tail dragger was not chosen however as retraction of the main
gear would intersect the wing spar and it would cause problems in the design of an
auto-land/auto-takeoff system due to the ground-looping problem associated with taildraggers. The tricycle gear design and retraction scheme is shown in Figure 4.13.
The main gear cannot be mounted in the wing due to the antennas, so it will be
mounted in the fuselage. The main gear retracts rearward utilizing a tilted pivot
retraction scheme.
The
61
62
Figure 4.13: Landing Gear Layout and Retraction Scheme for Red Design
63
The maximum static loads for each strut were calculated and tabulated in Table 4.8.
These values were used along with data from [6] to select reasonable tire sizes. These
are also shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Landing Gear Summary for the Red Design
Parameter
Units
Value
in
in
in
70.0
115.0
31.4
in
13.6
Pn
lbs
230.0
Pm
lbs
264.8
Pn/WTO
2Pm/WTO
0.30
0.70
Tire Diameter
Tire Width
in
in
9
3.4
The design mission calls for the ability to use skis or tires as this aircraft will
operate from a wide variety of surfaces. The ski design/selection will be performed
in Class II design.
64
1. Fuselage Group
2. Wing Group
3. Empennage Group
4. Engine Group
5. Landing Gear Group
6. Nacelle Group (Engine Cowling)
7. Fixed Equipment Group
8. Trapped Fuel and Oil
9. Fuel
10. Payload
The aircraft empty weight is the sum of items 1 through 7. The aircraft operating
empty weight is defined as the sum of items 1 through 8. The aircraft gross takeoff
weight is the sum of items 1 through 10. The Nacelle group refers to the engine
cowl weight.
The weight of each of these components was calculated using the weight fraction
method described in [6].
component weights to the gross takeoff weight for various aircraft, then uses this to
estimate the weights of components for the current design. This reference data is
only available for crewed aircraft such as a Cessna 150 or 182, but it can still be used
to provide a good preliminary estimate for the structural weight breakdown. The
weight fractions for several single engine aircraft are shown in Table 4.9. This data
was taken from [6].
The weight fractions in Table 4.9 were averaged, then multiplied by the design
gross takeoff weight of 760 lbs. This resulted in the data shown in Table 4.10. When
the weights of the first column are added, they yield an empty weight of 471 lbs
instead of the calculated empty weight of 450 lbs due to rounding errors. Therefore,
the weight of each component was adjusted in proportion to their component weight.
65
Table 4.9: Group Weight Data for Single Engine Propeller Driven Aircraft [6]
Weight Item, lbs
Gross Takeoff Weight, GW
Empty Weight, lbs
C-150
1500
946
C-172
2200
1243
C-175
2350
1319
C-180
2650
1526
C-182
2650
1545
L-19A
2100
1527
Beech J-35
2900
1821
Structure/GW
Powerplant/GW
Fixed Equipment/GW
Empty Weight/GW
0.406
0.177
0.068
0.631
0.352
0.157
0.072
0.565
0.330
0.177
0.068
0.561
0.319
0.206
0.065
0.576
0.326
0.206
0.065
0.583
0.327
0.262
0.136
0.727
0.312
0.201
0.115
0.628
Wing Group/GW
Empennage Group/GW
Fuselage Group/GW
Nacelle Group/GW
Landing Gear Group/GW
0.144
0.024
0.154
0.015
0.069
0.103
0.026
0.160
0.012
0.050
0.097
0.024
0.149
0.013
0.047
0.089
0.023
0.152
0.012
0.042
0.089
0.023
0.151
0.013
0.050
0.113
0.030
0.103
0.016
0.064
0.131
0.020
0.069
0.021
0.071
1.35
0.85
5.7
1.29
1.08
5.7
1.30
1.08
5.7
1.34
1.17
5.7
1.34
1.18
5.7
1.37
1.19
5.7
2.13
1.62
5.7
160
28.5
14.1
42.6
175
34.6
18.4
53
175
34.6
18.4
53
175
34.6
18.4
53
175
34.1
18.4
52.5
174
35.2
18.4
53.6
178
0
0
35.8
Wing
Empennage
Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear
Power Plant
Fixed Equipment
Empty Weight
Initial Estimate
lbs
Adjustment
lbs
Class I Weight
lbs
83
19
102
11
43
150
64
471
-4
-1
-5
0
-2
-7
-3
-21
79
18
97
11
41
143
61
450
Payload
Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil
122
184
4.4
760
The power plant weight shown in Table 4.10 is an estimate based on the weight
fraction method and does not reflect the actual weight of the engine. The actual
weight of the Rotax 912A is 122 lbs. The additional 28 pounds will be used as a
66
buffer for engine accessories. These details will be examined further in Class II
weight and balance.
X_cg
in
Y_cg
in
Z_cg
in
Wing
Empennage
79
18
106.3
221.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
50.0
Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear - Extended
Landing Gear - Retracted
97
11
41
41
120.0
60.0
102.0
111.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
32.0
40.0
Power Plant
143
66.0
0.0
45.0
Fixed Equipment
61
110.0
0.0
45.0
450
100.0
0.0
45.2
450
100.8
0.0
45.9
Payload
121.2
100.0
0.0
50.0
Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil
184
4.4
101.0
101.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
760
760
100.2
100.7
0.0
0.0
47.2
47.6
A c.g. excursion diagram was created as shown in Figure 4.15. There are two
feasible loading scenarios for this aircraft:
67
The total c.g. travel is the same for both scenarios, but the latter also shows the c.g.
range for the aircraft with no payload (+Fuel leg). This is important as some of the
initial flight tests will be performed without any payload.
68
Figure 4.14 shows the aircraft arrangement for a detailed arrangement as well as the
simplified layout. A detailed CAD model has been used to estimate the centers of
gravity for each component. This was then used to estimate the center of gravity for
each group listed in Table 4.11. The simplified model is used because the weight and
location of every component is not known at this stage of the design. For Class I
analysis using simplified weight groups provides the best weight and balance
estimate.
800
Retract Landing Gear
W TO
750
- Fuel
+ Payload
700
650
Weight, lbs
+ Fuel
600
- Payload
550
Trapped Fuel
and Oil
W OE
Wing mgc
450
WE
0.21
400
99
0.22
0.23
0.24
100
0.25
0.26
0.27
101
102
Fuselage Station, in
69
Inches
100.0
101.6
1.6
% mgc
0.23
0.27
0.04
directional stability. Consideration was given to takeoff rotation and aircraft trim
capability, but these factors were not included in these calculations as they are part of
Class II design.
The first step in the stability analysis process is to decide whether the aircraft will
be designed for inherent or de-facto stability:
De-facto Stability Required of all aircraft that are stable ONLY with
a stability augmentation system.
The latter method provides improved aerodynamic efficiency due to decreased trim
drag in cruise. However, for this Class I design the aircraft will be designed for
inherent stability with a static margin of approximately 10 percent. This decision can
be iterated in Class II design if necessary.
Longitudinal Stability
The static longitudinal stability of the aircraft was verified using a longitudinal Xplot. This plot shows how the aircraft center of gravity and aerodynamic center vary
70
with v-tail size. This method was used to resize the v-tail as it is more precise than
the volume coefficient method.
The longitudinal X-plot for the Red Design is shown in Figure 4.16. The minimum
v-tail size is shown as 5.5 ft2. This is the v-tail size shown in Figure 4.14.
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
X_c.g.
X_a.c.
SM = 10%
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Directional Stability
The static directional stability of the aircraft was verified with a directional x-plot
as shown in Figure 4.17. A target value for the overall directional stability is:
C n = 0.001deg 1
71
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
Minimum Area
for Directional
Stability
0.001
-0.001
0
10
Equation 4.3
This resulted in a V-tail dihedral angle of 27o. This is a fairly small dihedral angle
for a V-tail. Experience has shown that the vertical tail size is usually driven by
crosswind capability, not the directional X-Plot. Therefore, at this time the V-tail
72
dihedral angle will not be changed. This parameter will be investigated further in
Class II design.
Cruise (Clean)
Takeoff Gear Down
Takeoff Gear Up
Landing Gear Down
Landing Gear Up
OEI
The first step in the Class I drag polar estimation process is to determine the aircraft
wetted area. This was done using a 3-D solid model, and is therefore very accurate.
The wetted area for the Red Design is SWet = 200 ft2.
The drag polars for the Red Design are shown in Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.19. The
L/D ratio was estimated as 12.5 for the preliminary sizing (Section 4.1.1). Figure
4.19 shows that a mid-cruise L/D of 12.5 is achievable based on the Class I drag
analysis.
73
2
Clean
OEI
Takeoff Gear Up
Takeoff Gear Down
Landing Gear Up
Landing Gear Down
1.8
1.6
Drag Polars:
2
Clean: CD = 0.0158 + 0.0857CL
OEI:
CD0 = 0.006
Reference Data:
W TO = 760 lbs
1.4
Lift Coefficient
TOGU:
TOGD:
LGU:
LGD:
S = 49 ft
AR = 4.8
e = 0.80
1.2
CD0 = 0.010
CD0 = 0.025
CD0 = 0.020
CD0 = 0.040
0.8
0.6
VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel
Mid-Cruise Weight
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Drag Coefficient
1.8
1.6
Reference Data:
W TO = 760 lbs
Lift Coefficient
1.4
S = 49 ft2
AR = 4.8
e = 0.80
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
11
12
L/D
74
13
14
15
constrained the wing chord, the only way to gain wingspan is to add wing area,
thereby decreasing the wing loading and increasing wetted area.
While the Red Design is feasible, it is suboptimal for several reasons:
75
76
Parameter
Value
Units
(W/S)TO
15.5
lb/ft
(W/P)TO
11.6
lb/hp
W TO
760
lbs
WE
450
lbs
W Fuel
W Fuel_Res
185
lbs
Wing AR
34
4.6
lbs
~
Wing Area
Preq
49
66
ft2
hp
White Design are similar to the Red Design. Therefore, to save space only the
preliminary sizing, performance matching, and Class I drag analysis of the White
Design will be presented.
77
10,000
Predator B
E-Hunter
White Design
Point
Shadow 600
1,000
Empty Weight, lbs
Shadow 200
Predator
Dakota
I-Gnat
100
1,000
10,000
Climb Height:
5,000 ft
Rate of Climb:
500 ft/min
L/D:
0.56 lbs/hp-hr
78
Propulsive Efficiency:
Speed:
80 kts (Assumed)
Range:
Speed:
120 kts
Propulsive Efficiency:
0.56 lbs/hp-hr
L/D:
The mission fuel fractions determined as well as the total mission fuel fraction are
shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.13: Mission Fuel Fractions for the White Design
Mission Segment
Fuel Fraction
Warm-Up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb
Cruise
Descent
Land/Taxi
Total Mission
0.980
0.996
0.996
0.996
0.763
0.992
0.992
0.727
Payload Weight:
79
Fuel Reserves:
22.5% of WTO
WE = 720 lbs
The preliminary sizing results shown here are the results of several iterations.
Units
Cruise
Climb
W to/W pl
W to/W e
6.97
6.97
1.9
1.9
W to/cp
W to/R
hp-hr
3,820
48
lb/nm
2.3
W to/(L/D)
W to/(p)
lb
-267
-3
lb
-2,850
-36
80
C Lmax = 1.6
L
C LmaxTO = 1.2
incremental increase in zero-lift drag due to the pylons based on both skin friction
drag and interference drag.
Equation 4.4 from [27] was used to estimate the incremental increase in
interference drag of a wing-strut intersection. This drag coefficient is based on the
strut chord length.
incremental zero-lift drag based on the wing area of the White Design.
C DC =
( )
( )
D t 2
= 17
0.05 t
2
c
c
qc
Equation 4.4
Where:
CD = CDc
Equation 4.5
c2
S
Where:
c Chord of strut
81
Equation 4.6 from [27] was then used to estimate the skin friction drag of the struts.
This drag coefficient is based on the strut area. Equation 4.7 was used to convert this
to an incremental zero-lift drag coefficient based on the wing area of the White
Design.
( )
( )
3
C D0 Strut = c f 4 + 2 c + 120 t
t
c
C D0 = C D0 Strut
Equation 4.6
Equation 4.7
tc
S
The drag increase due to the pylons was calculated for various thickness ratios and
pylon chord lengths. For a 25 percent thick pylon with a 6 inch chord, the change in
zero-lift drag is C D0 = 0.013 . While, these parameters are not finalized, this is a
good estimate for the increase in drag due to the pylons.
The drag polars for the White Design are shown in Figure 4.22. The drag polar of
the aircraft without any struts is also displayed to show the effect of the pylons. The
increment in zero-lift drag due to flaps and landing gear were approximated using
estimates from [6]. This drag analysis is the result of several iterations.
82
2
Clean
OEI
Takeoff Gear Up
Takeoff Gear Down
Landing Gear Up
Landing Gear Down
No Pylons
1.8
1.6
Reference Data:
W TO = 1,270 lbs
1.4
Lift Coefficient
Drag Polars:
No Pylons: CD = 0.0172 + 0.0497CL2
S = 82 ft
AR = 8.0
e = 0.80
1.2
Pylons:
OEI:
CD0 = 0.013
CD0 = 0.003
TOGU:
TOGD:
LGU:
LGD:
CD0 = 0.010
CD0 = 0.025
CD0 = 0.020
CD0 = 0.040
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Drag Coefficient
1.8
1.6
Reference Data:
W TO = 1,270 lbs
1.4
Lift Coefficient
S = 82 ft
AR = 8.0
e = 0.80
1.2
0.8
VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel
Mid-Cruise Weight
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
L/D
83
18
19
20
84
85
Parameter
Value
Units
(W/S)TO
15.5
lb/ft
(W/P)TO
11.6
lb/hp
W TO
1,270
lbs
WE
720
lbs
W Fuel
W Fuel_Res
425
lbs
Wing AR
78
8
lbs
~
Wing Area
Preq
82
110
ft
hp
The UAVs shown in Section 3.2.1 are similar to this aircraft in performance, which
is the primary metric when collecting a list of comparable aircraft. However, this
unique design requires that attention be paid to aircraft of similar configuration as
well. The goal in generating the list of similar aircraft was to collect information on
the most modern biplane designs. However, most current biplanes are simply replicas
of much older designs.
86
modified wingtips, empennage tips, ailerons, and lower fuselage as compared to the
S-2. [16]
aerobatic training, and cross-country sport flying. It is one of the most successful kitplanes ever developed. [17]
87
88
89
10,000
Predator B
E-Hunter
Blue Design
Point
Shadow 600
1,000
Empty Weight, lbs
Shadow 200
Predator
Dakota
I-Gnat
100
1,000
10,000
Climb Height:
5,000 ft
Rate of Climb:
500 ft/min
L/D:
0.56 lbs/hp-hr
90
Propulsive Efficiency:
Speed:
80 kts (Assumed)
Range:
Speed:
120 kts
Propulsive Efficiency:
0.56 lbs/hp-hr
L/D:
The mission fuel fractions determined as well as the total mission fuel fraction are
shown in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Mission Fuel Fractions for Blue Design
Mission Segment
Fuel Fraction
Warm-Up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb
Cruise
Descent
Land/Taxi
Total Mission
0.980
0.996
0.996
0.997
0.804
0.992
0.992
0.767
Payload Weight:
91
Fuel Reserves:
22.5% of WTO
WE = 550 lbs
The preliminary sizing results shown here are the results of several iterations.
Units
Cruise
Climb
W to/W pl
W to/W e
5.65
5.65
1.88
1.88
W to/cp
W to/R
hp-hr
1,950
29
lb/nm
1.2
W to/(L/D)
W to/(p)
lb
-110
-1.5
lb
-1470
-23
92
The performance matching of the Blue Design was iterated several times
investigating the effect of flaps. The antenna requirements specify that the lower
wing contain no control surfaces. This would require the flaps to be only in the upper
wing. Using flaps on the upper wing of a biplane is generally a bad idea due to the
interference the flap has on the lower wing [29].
The use of a standard control surface on the lower wing is unacceptable however, a
split flap manufactured from fiberglass and Kevlar, and actuated from inside the
fuselage could possibly be used on the lower wing without interfering with the
antennas. The benefits of this were investigated by examining the performance
matching results for an aircraft with a low CLmax and a highCLmax as shown in Table
4.17.
93
Table 4.17: Summary of Flap Trade Study for the Blue Design
CL, max
(W/S)TO
S
W TO
WF
Units
No Flaps
With Flaps
1.1
1.6
psf
2
ft
10.8
15.5
88
55
lbs
950
850
lbs
270
225
The two examples shown in Table 4.17 represent a safe (lower performance with
no flaps) option and an ideal option (higher performance with complicated flaps).
The difference in takeoff weight between the two options is not enough to support
using complicated flaps, therefore no flaps will be used on the Blue Design.
The performance matching plot shown in Figure 4.2 was generated using the above
requirements. The wing loading, power loading, and maximum lift coefficient chosen
are:
C Lmax = 1.1
L
C LmaxTO = 1.1
94
140 kts @
Full Power
Design Point
(W/S) = 10.8 psf
(W/P) = 9.8 lb/hp
C LMaxTO = 1.1
C LMax = 1.1
L
Value
Units
(W/S)TO
10.8
lb/ft2
(W/P)TO
9.8
lb/hp
W TO
950
lbs
WE
550
lbs
W Fuel
W Fuel_Res
220
lbs
Wing AR
50
3.43
lbs
~
Wing Area
Preq
88
97
ft
hp
95
Fuselage Layout
The purpose of this section is to describe the design of the fuselage layout for the
Blue design. The following items will be installed in the fuselage:
Autopilot/Avionics (Approximately 8 x 8 x 8)
Nose Gear
Main Gear
The fuselage layout is shown in Figure 4.30. Both the science payload and the fuel
tanks are centered close to the estimated center of gravity. The GPS Antenna location
represents a volume much larger than actually needed for the antenna to account for
any mounting hardware.
96
One engine will be used for the Blue design for the following reasons:
Simplifies operation
While the fuel consumption is the primary concern driving the decision to use a
single engine, the antenna requirements play a role as well. The antenna must be
spaced laterally from any metallic structure to limit interference. If a twin boom
design was used, the antenna spacing would either drive the booms very far apart,
which adversely affects OEI conditions; or the antennas would have to be spaced at
97
uneven intervals. The latter approach is feasible, but it would drive the design to a
higher wing area than optimal. For these reasons, a single engine will be used.
Engine Selection
The power loading (W/P) required for the Blue design is 9.8 lb/hp as determined in
Section 0. For a takeoff weight of 950 lbs, this results in a power requirement of 97
hp. The Rotax 914-F was selected for this design as it has a low specific fuel
consumption and meets the power requirement as shown in Figure 4.4.
Propeller Diameter
The blade power loading was selected based on an average number for single
engine aircraft. The power loading selected is 3 hp/ft2, which resulted in a propeller
diameter of 60 inches. This diameter is comparable to a typical propeller diameter for
a Rotax 914 engine, so it is reasonable.
Engine Disposition
Forward-looking visibility
Empennage layout
The empennage for a pusher must use tail boom extensions from the
wing.
Stability considerations
Tractor engines are destabilizing.
Buffeting
A pusher propeller will be closer to the horizontal tail, causing more
possibilities for buffeting.
Center of Gravity
98
for this aircraft. The engine will be mounted in a standard tractor configuration due
to the small benefits of a pusher configuration.
The wing design of the Blue design is inherently different from typical wing design
in that it is a biplane or box-wing. The biplane configuration was used for several
decades, but was dropped with the advent and improvement of the monoplane.
Aerodynamic efficiency is primarily driven by wingspan and wetted area.
The
wingspan should be maximized while minimizing the wetted area. A biplane will
typically have a lower wingspan than a monoplane of equivalent wetted area.
Therefore, monoplanes are almost always superior to biplanes. Due to this, little
work has been done to improve the performance of biplanes. One of the most notable
areas of improvement lies in the endplate design.
Traditionally biplanes did not utilize endplates, but rather struts and wires.
Properly designed endplates can produce decreases in the large induced drag
associated with low aspect ratio wings. This type of configuration a biplane with
endplates is typically referred to as a box wing.
The endplate effects will not be heavily considered in Class I design. Traditional
biplane design and analysis tools will be used to estimate the vehicle performance.
Biplane design and analysis is described in several NACA reports [32] as well as in
Richard Von Mises Theory of Flight [28]. The problem of conventions presents itself
99
with biplane design due to the fact that there are two wings instead of one. The
convention used in [28] and in this report are:
Stagger The distance from the leading edge of the lower wing to the
leading edge of the upper wing measured in the direction of flight
Many biplanes have been flown with various combinations of these parameters.
Positive stagger (meaning the top wing is forward of the lower wing) has shown to be
aerodynamically beneficial. However, negative stagger has been shown to delay and
smooth out wing stall.
Decalage is can be used to distribute the load between the two wings in the desired
manner. These effects will be ignored in Class I design.
The gap between the two wings has a large effect on the aerodynamics of the
aircraft. Typically, the gap is set to be larger than the wing chord. This is not
possible for this design however due to the antenna requirements The wing lower
wing must be wavelength (~20) below the upper wing. The effect the gap has on
the aerodynamics will be discussed in Section 4.3.8.
100
The wing planform is shown in Figure 4.31. The lower wing is used to house the
antenna and therefore must be completely dielectric. This means that all of the
control surfaces and fuel must be in the upper wing. This aircraft will not utilize flaps
as discussed in Section 0. The ailerons will span the entire upper wing and will have
a chord ratio of ca/cw = 0.30.
101
Value
Units
Area
AR
Taper Ratio
c/4
Mean Chord
Span
W
88
3.43
1
0
2.5
17.17
0
ft
~
~
deg
ft
ft
deg
deg
i,a
13.5
% b/2
o,a
100
% b/2
ca/cw
Gap
Stagger
Decalage
0.3
19.69
0
0
~
in
in
deg
Airfoil Selection
The Clark Y airfoil will be used for the upper wing due to its relatively flat bottom
surface. The Clark Y will also be used for the lower wing for the following reasons:
102
Fuel Required:
270 lbs
45 gallons
6.0 ft3
190 lbs
31.7 gallons
4.31 ft3
The following assumptions were made for the fuel volume calculations:
These calculations show that additional fuel storage is required. There are several
options to fix this problem as shown in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20: Fuel Storage Comparison
Fuel Storage Type
Tank in Fuselage
Pros
Tanks at Wingtips
Enlarge Wing
Cons
The first solution was adopted as it does not adversely affect the aerodynamic
performance of the aircraft.
103
The wing dihedral and incidence angles were initially set to 0o for the Blue Design.
This decision will be examined further in Class II stability and control using a
combination of classical analytical methods and CFD. The wing twist angle was set
to 0o based on the lift distribution shown in Figure 4.32.
represents the lift distribution of the equivalent monoplane wing and was created
using the Advance Aircraft Analysis program [7]. Again, this will be examined
further with a CFD analysis.
Empennage Layout
The following empennage configurations were considered:
104
Butterfly/V Tail
The V tail design is very appealing due to the decreased wetted area and decreased
interference drag. The V tail also decreases the number of actuators required for the
longitudinal and directional control surfaces. Historically, these advantages came at
the cost of complicated control mixers, but this is not necessary in the CReSIS UAV
due to the full digital flight control system.
The v-tail planform is shown in Figure 4.33 and summarized in Table 4.21.
105
Value
Units
Svee
6.5
ft
ARVee
vee
0.5
c/4,vee
26.3
deg
cvee
1.32
ft
bvee
5.1
ft
vee
45
deg
i,e
% b/2
o,e
ce/cvee
100
% b/2
0.3
106
Figure 4.36: Longitudinal Tipover and Ground Clearance Criteria for Blue
The maximum static loads for each strut were calculated and tabulated in Table
4.22. These values were used along with data from [6] to select reasonable tire sizes.
These are also shown in Table 4.22. The relatively short distance between the nose
and main gear results in a fairly large amount of the static load distributed to the nose
gear. The static loads on each wheel are almost equal; therefore the tires for the nose
and main gears will be the same.
107
Units
Value
in
in
in
70.0
115.0
31.2
in
13.8
Pn
lbs
290.2
Pm
lbs
328.9
Pn/W TO
2Pm/W TO
0.31
0.69
Tire Diameter
Tire Width
in
in
9
3.4
The design mission calls for the ability to use skis or tires as this aircraft will
operate from a wide variety of surfaces. The ski design/selection will be performed
in Class II design.
108
The aircraft empty weight is the sum of items 1 through 7. The aircraft operating
empty weight is defined as the sum of items 1 through 8. The aircraft gross takeoff
weight is the sum of items 1 through 10. The Nacelle group refers to the engine
cowl weight.
The weight of each of these components was calculated using the weight fraction
method described in [6]. This method was described in more detail in Section 4.1.5.
The component weights are tabulated in Table 4.23.
Table 4.23: Weight Breakdown for the Blue Design
Wing
Empennage
Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear
Power Plant
Fixed Equipment
Empty Weight
Initial Estimate
lbs
Adjustment
lbs
Class I Weight
(Alum.)
lbs
104
23
127
14
53
188
80
590
-7
-2
-9
-1
-4
-13
-5
-40
97
22
119
13
50
175
75
550
Payload
Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil
122
270
6.1
948
109
component has yet to be determined. In addition, there are several components that
are not included in the detailed arrangement such as wiring and servos. Therefore,
using an estimated center of gravity for groups provides a better estimate at this stage
of the design. As the design progress, the detailed CAD model will be used to
estimate the center of gravity as well as moments of inertia.
Figure 4.37 was then used to locate each of the weight components listed in Table
4.24. The fuselage station, water line, and buttock line of the center of gravity of
each weight component were then tabulated. The centers of gravity for the fuselage,
wing, engine cowl, and empennage were then estimated using data from Roskam [6].
These values were used to determine the center of gravity for the vehicle as shown in
Table 4.24. Note that the landing gear design is such that both the main and nose
gears retract aft. This caused a center of gravity shift as shown in Table 4.24 and
Figure 4.38.
Table 4.24: Class I Weight and Balance for the Blue Design
Class I Weight
lbs
X_cg
in
Y_cg
in
Z_cg
in
Wing
Empennage
97
22
104.0
221.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
50.0
Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear - Extended
Landing Gear - Retracted
119
13
50
50
120.0
60.0
102.0
111.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
32.0
40.0
Power Plant
175
66.0
0.0
45.0
Fixed Equipment
75
110.0
0.0
45.0
550
99.4
0.0
45.2
550
100.4
0.0
45.9
Payload
122
100.0
0.0
50.0
Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil
270
6.1
101.0
101.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
948
948
100.8
100.5
0.0
0.0
47.2
47.6
110
A c.g. excursion diagram was created as shown in Figure 4.38. There are two
feasible loading scenarios for this aircraft:
111
The total c.g. travel is the same for both scenarios, but the latter shows the c.g.
range for the aircraft with no payload (The +Fuel leg). This is important as some of
the initial flight tests will be performed without any payload.
Wing Chord
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.3
1000
Retract Landing Gear
W TO
950
+ Payload
900
850
- Fuel
Weight, lbs
800
750
- Payload
700
Trapped Fuel
and Oil
650
Extend Landing
Gear
600
+ Fuel
W OE
550
WE
500
450
400
98
99
100
101
Fuselage Station, in
112
Inches
% mgc
99.4
100.5
1.1
0.25
0.28
0.04
Longitudinal Stability
The static longitudinal stability of the Blue aircraft was verified using a
longitudinal X-plot based on methods described in [6]. This plot shows how the
aircraft center of gravity and aerodynamic center vary with V-tail size. This method
was used to size the V-tail and locate the wing.
The longitudinal X-plot for the Blue Design is shown in Figure 4.16.
minimum V-tail size is shown as 6.5 ft2.
113
The
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
SM = 10%
0.3
0.2
0.1
x_c.g.
x_a.c.
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Directional Stability
The static directional stability of the Blue Design was verified with a directional Xplot as shown in Figure 4.40. The minimum value for the overall directional stability
is:
C n = 0.001deg 1
114
0.003
0.002
Minimum Area
for Directional
Stability
0.001
-0.001
0
10
This method utilizes the traditional drag polar equation, but with an
equivalent aspect ratio based on the Munk span factor M as shown in Equation 4.8.
C D = C D0 +
C L2
eM 2 A
Equation 4.8
115
M =
(1 + )
+ 2 +
2
Where: =
Equation 4.9
2
b2
b1
L2 L1
The drag polars for the Blue design are shown in Figure 4.42. Note that there are
no flaps in this design. The lift-to-drag ratios are also plotted with an indication of
the mid-cruise lift-to-drag ratio in Figure 4.43. The mid-cruise L/D was determined
from the Class I Drag analysis is approximately 11.5, which is higher than the value
of 10.0 estimated in preliminary sizing (Section 4.3.2). The preliminary sizing will
not be recalculated however due to the marginal reliability of the Class I drag analysis
for a biplane.
116
If the Class II drag analysis results agree with these findings, then the design will
be iterated. Until this analysis is performed, the decision will be to keep the current,
conservative estimate.
2
Clean
1.8
OEI
1.6
Reference Data:
W TO = 950 lbs
Gear Down
S = 88 ft
AR = 3.4
AREquiv = 4.15
e = 0.80
Lift Coefficient
1.4
Clean:
CD = 0.0135 + 0.0793CL
OEI:
CD0 = 0.010
Gear Down: CD0 = 0.025
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Drag Coefficient
117
0.35
0.4
2
Clean
OEI
1.8
Gear Down
1.6
Reference Data:
W TO = 950 lbs
2
S = 88 ft
AR = 3.4
AREquiv = 4.15
e = 0.80
Lift Coefficient
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
L/D
118
119
Parameter
Value
Units
(W/S)TO
10.8
lb/ft
(W/P)TO
9.8
lb/hp
W TO
950
lbs
WE
550
lbs
W Fuel
W Fuel_Res
220
lbs
Wing AR
50
3.43
lbs
~
Wing Area
Preq
88
97
ft
hp
The three designs are summarized in Table 5.1. The fuel required to complete 3
fine-scale mission is shown in Figure 5.1 for the three designs as well as the
Lockheed P-3 and the De Havilland Twin Otter. Figure 5.2 shows the aircraft plotted
on the takeoff weight regression chart.
Table 5.1: Summary of Preliminary Design Concepts
Parameter
Geometry
Wing Area
Wing Span
Length Overall
Height Overall
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Payload Weight
Fuel Weight
Performance
Range
L/DCr
Powerplant
Engine
Power
Units
Red Design
White Design
Blue Design
ft
ft
ft
ft
49
15.33
16
5.5
82
25.6
17.5
5.6
88
17.2
16.5
5.6
lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs
760
450
121
185
1,270
720
121
425
950
550
121
270
nm
~
1,750
12.5
1,750
8.0
1,750
10.0
~
hp
Rotax 912-A
81
Rotax 914-F
115
Rotax 914-F
115
120
Twin Otter
P-3 Orion
1,200
Blue Design
8,000
White Design
119
Red Design
188
82
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Predator B
E-Hunter
Shadow 600
1,000
Predator
Shadow 200
I-Gnat
Dakota
100
1,000
Takeoff Weight, lbs
121
10,000
122
One or many of these options can be employed with the current designs. Providing
several different methods for takeoff and recovery on a UAV has been done on
currently available aircraft [13].
123
124
7 References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
www.worldaerodata.com/countries/Antarctica.php
www.is.northropgrumman.com
www.uavforum.com
www.uav.com
Mission Concepts for Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles in Cryospheric Science
Applications. University of Kansas Remote Sensing Laboratory. KS, 2004.
Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design: Parts I-VIII. DARCorporation. Lawrence, KS.
1997.
Advanced Aircraft Analysis Software. DARCorporation. Lawrence, KS. 2005.
Simons, Martin. Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, 4th Edition. Nexus Special
Interests, 1999.
www.oceanairlogistics.com
www.piaggioamerica.com/
Raymer, Daniel P. Enhancing Aircraft Conceptual Design using
Multidisciplinary Optimization. Ph. D. Thesis, Swedish Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2002.
Worldwide UAV Roundup. www.aiaa.org/images/PDF/WilsonChart.pdf. 2003.
Munson, Kenneth. Janes Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Targets Issue 11. 1999.
Lambert, Mark ed. Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1993-94. Janes Information
Group. Alexandria, VA. 1993.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: An
Emerging New Engineering Discipline, Advances in Structural Optimization
(483-496), Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, 1995.
www.airliners.net. April 25, 2006.
www.aviataircraft.com. April 25, 2006.
www.staggerwing.com. April 25, 2006.
www.comnap.com. May 19, 2005
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00042.htm. May 19, 2006.
www.aaicorp.com. May 19, 2006.
www.genaero.com. May 19, 2006.
www.diamondair.com. May 19, 2006.
http://www.diamond-air.at/en/press/pressarchive/40820.htm. May 19, 2006.
Donovan, William. CReSiS Airborne Platform Summary. The University of
Kansas. 2006.
www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. May 19, 2006.
Hoerner, Sighard. Fluid-Dynamic Drag. Published by Author. Great Britain,
1958.
Von Mises, Richard. Theory of Flight. Dover Publications. New York, 1959.
Barrett, Ron. Discussion Regarding Biplane Design. The University of
Kansas. May 10, 2006.
125
126