presents…mason/mason_f/hokieworkspresv2.pdf40mm cannon key features: • 40mm m2a1 is located on a...
TRANSCRIPT
HokieWorksPresents…
Ben Cheyne Mike ShermanJared Collins Amy TharpDrew Diefenderfer Nikolai VozzaMichael LaPierre Jason WallaceChris Legendre Jon Worrell
April 26, 2005 AOE 4066
Phoenix Gunship
Phoenix Gunship
Phoenix 3-View
Weapons Selection“A weapon for every target”
Target Weapon
Paveway II LaserGuided Bomb
Buildings
105mm CannonLight Armored Vehicles
40mm Cannon/105mm Cannon
Trucks
40mm Cannon/105mm Cannon
AAA
40mm CannonMANPADS/Personnel
40mm Cannon
Key Features:• 40mm M2A1 is located on a turret near the nose of the aircraft• Fires high explosive-plugged (HE-P) rounds ideal for personnel• Target Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS) i.e. “what you see is what
you get” (currently used in the AH-64 Apache)• Auto-feed loader feeds the 40mm shells into the gun via belt drive• All Light Level Television and Infrared Detection System provide for
target detection.
40mm GuidanceTarget Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS)
105 mm Cannon
“The most cost effective persistent firepower weapon”
- AC-130H pilot Col. Scott Stephens (ret.)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m102.htm
Benefits:
•Large Coverage area
•Cannon concealed inside fuselageof aircraft – allowing cabinpressurization
•Advanced AAQ-26 InfraredDetection Set (IDS) – allows forsimultaneous target tracking
•Low cost - $500 per round
How the 105mm Works
Cannon Layout
Laser Guided Munitions
GBU-12 Paveway IITargets
•Mobile Hard
•Fixed Soft
•Fixed Hard (buildings)
Benefits
•Laser Guided – Increased Precision
•8 nm range
•Light at 500 lbs
•$19,000 unit cost – Cost Effective
Guidance System
•Pave Tack AN/AVQ-26
Viper Strike BAT Munitions
•Unpowered stable glider
•Autonomous Weapon
•Operates in adverse conditions dayand night
•Designed to be dropped directly ontotargets
•Perfect for loitering
Weight Analysis
Total Weight = 15,568 lbs
88 lbsViper Strike (2)
1,600 lbsPaveway II (2)
5,280 lbs105mm Ammo (120)
4,800 lbs105mm Cannon (1)
2,000 lbs40mm Ammo (400)
1,800 lbs40mm Cannon (1)
WeightItem (Quantity)
Survivability
• Plot shows the amountthat can be spent onsurvivabilityenhancements(systems/add-ons) asthe survivability (Pkincreases)
Assumptions:Lost aircraft are replaced at cost
Survivability
• Shows that as the number of planes boughtincreases the amount of money that can bespent on survivability decreases (becauselosing aircraft becomes less importantcompared to the increased costs due tosurvivability improvements)
• Around $2 million should be spent onimprovements based on our aircraft costpredictions
Survivability
< $500,000< 10002 x Fire Detection and Extinguishing Systems
$56,0002,000Titanium Armor under Ammunition Stores
$56,0002,000Titanium Armor under Pilot
< $30,000< 500Chaff and Flare
$73,000< 50Extra Flight Control System
$1,300,000< 50Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system
Cost, $Weight, lbsEnhancements
Sizing
• Using equations from Raymer and requirementsfrom the RFP we created carpet plots andconstraints for those plots to size the aircraft.
• The landing distance requirement is dependenton two variables, Clmax and the wing loading,W/S.
• It was assumed that with one engine out, andone engine with a thrust reverser the the landingdistance would increase by a quarter.
Sizing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000L
an
din
g D
ista
nce, f
t
Clmax
W/S, lb/ft^2
70
80
90
100110
120130
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
RFP, landing dist 5000 ft
Sizing
• A wing loading of 100 lb/ft2 and Clmax of2.1 are both reasonable values.
• Figure 2 shows the constraint lines for ourthe landing distance and the 1.5 gmaneuver at 20,000 ft (probably turning).
Sizing
Sizing
• Green dot represents sizing based on the givenconstraints, value normalized to take-offconditions
0.3
T/W
10069,250
W/S, lb/ft^2TOGW, lbs
StructuresMaterial Layout
Carbon/Epoxy
Titanium
Aluminum/Lithium
E-Glass/Epoxy
StructuresMaterial Layout
Corrosion resistant and highstrength
GrayTitaniumWing Joint Connections
SurvivabilityGray
TitaniumShielding below WeaponStores
Pilot protection/survivabilityGrayTitaniumShielding below Pilot
Other Considerations
BlackCarbon Fiber / EpoxyFuselage
BlackCarbon Fiber / EpoxyControl Surfaces
Lightweight, excellent electricalcharacteristics
GreenE-Glass / EpoxyNose / Radome
BlackCarbon Fiber / EpoxyHorizontal Tail
Heat resistant (near engines),lightweight, strong
GrayTitaniumVertical Tail & Fin Skin
Tough, lightweightBlue
Aluminum-lithiumLeading Edges (horizontaltail, wing, fin)
Lightweight, strong, fatigue/corrosionresistant
BlackCarbon Fiber / EpoxyWing (skin & spar)
ReasonsColorMaterialComponent
StructuresMember Layout
• Wing– 3 spar wing design for redundancy
– Ribs placed on each edge and middle of eachof the three control surfaces to providetorsional stiffness and connection points forpayload and control surfaces
StructuralMember Layout
• Horizontal Tail– 3 spar setup for
redundancy (like wing)
– Ribs placed every 2 ft
• Vertical Tail– 2 spars
– Titanium skin fortemperature resistancenear engines
StructuresMember Layout
• Fuselage– 3 bulkhead compartments separating pilot
area, 40 mm gun area and 105 mm gun areaproviding firewalls between sections andallowing individual pressurization of sections
– 11 transverse supports (including thebulkheads) placed in critical areas (around105 door opening, at door connections,wing/fuselage intersection)
StructuresComplete Layout
StructuresV-n Diagram
Vc Vd
StructuresLanding Gear
0.1090.24Outer Radius (ft)
0.1090.02Thickness (ft)
0.1500.1156Volume (ft3)
SolidHollow
• Making the members hollowcylinders reduces the amount ofmaterial needed, thus reducingmaterial costs and weight.
Landing Gear
Front Landing Gear
Back Landing Gear
Tip over Angles
Aerodynamics
• Take-off Lift Coefficient
Where TOP is take-off parameter at RFP constraint of 5000 ft and sigma isthe density ratio.
Calculated at sea level, lowest possible lift coefficient
= 1.333
= 1.613
Maximum take-off lift coefficient is 1.21 times the take-off lift coefficient
( ) ( )WTCTOPSW
TOLσ)(=
TOLC
MAXTOLC
Lift Coefficient
• Landing Lift Coefficient
Worst situation is stated in the RFP where the wing loading at landing is 80percent the maximum take-off wing loading. Therefore the landing wingloading is equal to 80.
Based on the landing distance of 5000 ft given in the RFP, the lowestmaximum lift coefficient is 1.45. The need for high lift devices are minimal.
( ) aL
Landing SCS
WS +⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=
max
1*80
σ
Flap Analysis
• Used both single-slotted flaps and Fowler flaps to analyze the increase inlift coefficient at take-off and landing
for two different flaps
• For take-off it is about 60%-80% of those at landing
1.51.05Fowler
1.30.91Single-slotted
For LandingFor Take-off
..cos9.0maxmax LH
ref
flappedlL S
SCC Λ⎟
⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛Δ=Δ
maxlCΔ
0.7120.496Fowler
0.6170.432Single-slotted
at landing at take-offmsxLCΔmsxLCΔ
t/c ratio based on Korn Equation
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 15 30 45 60
sweep, deg
max
imu
m t
/c r
atio
M = 0.85
M = 0.8
M = 0.75
M = 0.68M=0.7
• Sweep at quarter chord = 15. 9º•Using the RFP requirements to cruise at an altitude of at least 30,000 ftwith a speed no slower than 400 knots or Mach of 0.68•The thickness to chord ratio can be no greater than 0.22.
Λ−
Λ−
Λ=
32 cos10coscosLA
DD
CctK
M
Airfoil Selection
• Based on NASA SupercriticalAirfoils
– Design lift coefficient between 0.6 and0.7
– Thickness to chord ratio between 0.10and 0.14
• Supercritical airfoils which wereanalyzed in more depth
– SC(2)-0612 and SC(2)-0714
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Pressure Distributions-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cp
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cp
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cp
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Cp
Supercritial airfoils SC(2)-0612 and SC(2)-0714 respectively at angle of attack of 0degrees and Mach of 0.7
Supercritical airfoils SC(2)-0612 and SC(2)-0714 respectively at angle of attack of 2 degrees and Mach of 0.7
0.016730.01410.01679Total
0.0004900.00047Landing Gear
0.000260.000240.00025Pylons
0.0015100.00145Flaps
00.000310.00032Paveway II
00.000330.00035Viper strike
0.000880.000800.00085Vertical Tail
0.002010.001830.00193Horizontal Tail
0.006310.005760.00608Fuselage
0.005280.004830.00509Wing
LandingCruiseTake-Off
Drag Breakdown for Phoenix
Drag Polars
• Assuming a parabolic drag polar, using
Ae
CCC LDoD π
2
+=
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
CD
CL
L/D)max = 11.1 @ CL = 1.7
Drag polar for Take-off conditions
Drag polar at cruise conditions Drag polar at landing conditions
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
CD
CL
L/D)max = 19.3 @ CL = 0.6
2.19.33Landing
0.619.3Cruise
1.711.1Take-off
CLL/Dmax
Lift to Drag ratios:
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
CD
CL L/D)max = 9.33 @ CL = 2.1
Stability & Control
Main concerns:– T-tail sizing
– Control surface sizing
– Stable or Unstable?
– Engine out analysis
Tail and Controls Sizing
• T-tail selected in order toremove the elevatorsfrom the downwash of thewing
• Several iterations ofsizing resulted indramatically increasingtailspan well beyond thenacelles
8.914.01Ctip (ft)
9.908.91Croot (ft)
0.900.45Taper Ratio
45.023.6Sweep (deg)
1.555.5Aspect Ratio
7.2335.53Span (ft)
136.82229.55Area (ft)
Vertical TailHorizontal Tail
15.43075Rudder
34.13585Elevators
19.32530Ailerons
Area (ft2)% Chord% Span
Stability
VLMpc & JKayVLM
– Takeoff
– Cruise
– Loiter
– Landing
SM = 39% (fully loaded)
Very stable!
Will handle large 105mm recoilforce!
Engine Out
Engine Out – LDstab (takeoff)– 5º bank– 11.96º sideslip– 3.61º rudder deflection– 13.35º aileron deflection
Weights
Major Component Breakdown
• TOGW = 69,984 lbs– In range of currently used gun ships
• Fuel = 20,903 lbs
• Weapons = 15,000 lbs
• Crew = 1,000 lbs
Weights
Weights
Weights Savings
• Mix of composite materials and standardaircraft materials used
• Save more than 2,300 lbs by usingcomposites
Weights
Weight Savings
• Greatest weight reduction in fuselage andwings
Weights
CG Travel
• Placed fuel and weapons in ideal locationto reduce CG travel during mission– 40 mm cannon acts as counterbalance to
engines
– 105 mm cannon placed towards center ofaircraft
– Missiles and bombs on hard points on wings
Weights
CG Travel• 300 cubic feet of fuel in wings
– Placed around wing main wing strut
• 145 cubic feet located in two tanks oninside of fuselage as close as possible tocenter of plane
• CG moves only 0.4 ft or 4.37% MACduring mission
Weights
CG Travel Throughout Mission
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CG Location % MAC
Mis
sio
n P
oin
t
Fully Loaded
_ Fuel _ Weapons
No Fuel No Weapons
_ Fuel All Weapons
No Fuel All Weapons
_ Fuel Hard Points Empty
Propulsion
Engine Location• Two high bypass ratio turbofan engines
mounted on either side of vertical tailWhy?
– Places engines out of the line of fire– Reduces chances of ingesting debris from
runway during takeoff– Act as counterbalance to 40mm cannon in
front of aircraft
Propulsion
Engine Location Continued
• Allows for greatest variety of weaponssystems– Wing mounted and internally mounted
weapons
• Two engines for survivability reasons
Propulsion
Engine Type
• High bypass engines diffuse heat intoenvironment efficiently
• Produce more thrust and are more fuelefficient than lower bypass ratio engines
Propulsion
Engine Sizing
• Scaled down AIAA engine deck
• 4 ft inlet diameter, 7.8 ft long
• Weight = 865.3 lbs each
• Max sea level thrust = 22,000 lbs each
• Max thrust/weight = 0.63
• 5% loss due to installation losses andengine wear
Propulsion
Nacelle Sizing• 4.75 ft inlet diameter, 9.17 ft long• Weight = 369 lbs each• Inlet area larger than minimum area required
to produce shock at a maximum cruise machnumber of 0.7
• Access hatch on bottom for maximumaccessibility
• 12.5 ft from ground so cherry picker must be used
Propulsion
Thrust Reverser• Choose clam shell over cascading type
• Light weight
• Mechanically Simpler, less parts
• More compact
• Reverses both the bypass and jet exhaust
Propulsion
Nozzle Design• 3.5 ft nozzle exit diameter
• Mixing nozzle selected• Reduces noise
• Reduces engine exhaust temperature
Propulsion
Optimum Operating Thrust
• Optimum mach number determined foractivity and altitude
• Optimum power level was found from plotof thrust versus fuel flow at given speedand altitude
Propulsion
Propulsion
Thrust at Operating Conditions
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Altitude, H, ft
Th
rust
, T, l
bs
Available Thrust
Optimal Thrust
Mission Requirements• Design Mission
– Takeoff BFL no greater than 5,000ft.
– Climb at max power– Cruise at best speed for at least
500 nm (speed > 400 kts)– Loiter at 20,000 ft for 4 hrs.– Descend to 10,000 ft and expend
payload– Climb at max power– Cruise at best speed and alt– Descent to sea level– Loiter at best endurance for 30 min– Land with 5 percent reserve fuel– Clear 50 ft. obstacle with one
engine out and land on wet runway– Landing distance no greater than
5,000 ft.
• Ferry Mission– Takeoff BFL no greater than 5,000
ft.– Cruise climb to best cruise speed
and altitude– Cruise at best cruise speed and
altitude for at least 2,600 nm(speed > 400 kts)
– Descent to sea level– Loiter at best endurance for 30
min– Land with 5 percent reserve fuel– Clear 50 ft. obstacle with one
engine out and land on wetrunway
– Landing distance no greater than5,000 ft.
Takeoff/Landing Analysis
TAKEOFF (BFL)• TO Velocity (1.2Vs): 219.6 fps (130.1 kts)
• TO Clmax: 2.109• TO Distance: 4,779 ft.
LANDING• Landing Velocity (1.15Vs): 206.3 fps (122.2 kts)
• Landing Clmax: 2.3• Landing Distance: 4,445 ft.
(Has to clear 50 ft obstacle with one engine out)
Cruise Performance
35,000 ft.
36,000 ft.
37,000 ft.
Optimal CruiseConditions:
Speed: ~Mach 0.7
Altitude: 36,000 ft
SR: 0.123 nm/lb
Primary Mission Summary
1,64019,753424TOTAL
------10. Land
35857301201119. Descend/Loiter
5002,867541036,0004638. Cruise
355348836,0003777. Climb to cruise
---510,0002756. Descend/Drop
4648,1972401220,0001655. Descend/Loiter
5004,112541036,0004634. Cruise
1061,67016736,0003163. Climb to cruise
-4382-0-2. Takeoff
-1,07820-0-1. Taxi
Distance (nm)Fuel (lb)Time (min.)L/DAltitude
(ft)Speed (kts)Mission Segment
Additional Mission Information
Service Ceiling: 37,500 ft.
Absolute Ceiling: 42,000 ft.
Climb Angle: 21.1 degrees
Time to Climb: 16.1 min
Range: 5,185 nm
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Max Rate of Climb, ft/min
Alt
itu
de,
ft
Service Ceiling
Absolute Ceiling
Main Systems
• Electric System– Hamilton-Sundstrand– Exterior/Interior lighting– Ventilation– Cabin pressurization– Thrust Reverser deployment
• Flight Control System– Controls flaps, ailerons, rudder,
horizontal stabilizer– Fly-by-Light (FBL) system
• Larger bandwidth than FBW• Lighter than FBW• Immune to Electromagnetic
Interference (EMI)
• Hydraulic System– Eaton Aerospace– Canon movement– Weapons ejection– Landing gear– Steering/Braking
• Fuel System– Eaton Aerospace– Air refueling– Ground refueling– Fuel flow to engines
ForwardBattery
CurrentTransformer
Aft Battery
Left, Auxiliary,Right AC/DC
PowerDistributor
Secondary PowerDistributor
Integrated DriveGenerator
Aft Standby DCPower Distributor
Forward StandbyAC/DC PowerDistributor
Electric System
Torque Shafting
Rotary Actuator
Angle Gearbox
AMC-cPCI – 300Advanced MissionComputer
ElectronicControl Unit
Electro-hydrostaticPower Drive Unit
Yaw Damper LinearActuator
Fiber Optic Cable
Flight Control System
Rotary Motion ActuatingCylinder + Vicker'sHydraulic Motor
Stationary Piston-Moveable
Actuating Cylinder
Single Piston Double-Rod Actuating Cylinder
Hydraulic PumpWeapon Ejection System
Hydraulic System
Hydraulic Line
Air RefuelingPort
GroundRefueling Port
Fuel Line
Fuel Pump
Fuel System
Reseal-ableFuel Tanks
Inboard FuelTank
Secondary Systems
Hamilton-Sundstrand Air Management System
-Ventilation, Heating/Cooling, Pressurization
Environment
BAE Systems Radar Enhanced Vision System
- Ensures pilot visibility in 0/0 conditions
Pilot Visibility
BAE Systems AMC – cPCI – 3000
- Flight/information management, missioncomputing, display processing
Mission Computer
TRW Communication/Navigation/Identification (CNI)
- Enables air-ground communication, navigationprocessing, and friend-or-foe identification
Communication/Identification System
H-764 Adaptive Configurable EGI
- Uses GPS, INS, or blended GPS/INS
Navigation System
Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasure (LAIRCM)
- Active system to defend against advanced IRmissiles and MANPADs
Countermeasure System
Cockpit Layout
Cost Analysis
• RDT&E Cost
• Manufacturing Cost
• Flyaway Cost and Price per Plane
RDT&E Cost
Category CostAirframe Engineering and Design $215.59Development Support and Testing $62.02Flight Test Airplanes $568.51Flight Test Operations $24.91Profit $113.12Financing $147.06Total RDTE Cost $1,131.21
Airframe Engineering and
Design19%
Development Support and
Testing5%
Flight Test Airplanes
51%
Flight Test Operations
2%
Profit10%
Financing13%
*All figures are in millions of 2005 USD
Manufacturing Cost
Category 100 Planes 200 Planes 500 PlanesAirframe Engineering and Design $149.04 $196.19 $250.63Airplane Production $1,638.93 $3,656.03 $6,169.19Production Flight Test Operations $20.00 $40.00 $80.00Financing $200.89 $432.47 $727.20Total Manufacturing Cost $2,008.86 $4,324.69 $7,272.02
*All figures are in millions of 2005 USD
Flyaway CostCategory 100 Planes 200 Planes 500 Planes
Manufacturing Cost $2,008.86 $4,324.47 $7,272.02Manufacturing Profit $200.89 $432.47 $727.20Total Flyaway Cost $2,209.75 $4,756.94 $7,999.22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
100 planes 200 planes 400 planes
Pri
ce p
er p
lan
e, m
illi
on
s o
f U
SD
….resulting in a Price per Airplane of……
*All figures are in millions of 2005 USD
Questions?