John Meissner Leo Nakanishi

Ryan McDonell Patty Martinez

Team Stinger-Team Stinger-409409

presents Aereon Corps.’:

Project Sponsor: Bill Putman Project Advisor: Dr. Jim Lang, Ph.D.

WASP UAV

Mission Profile

Internal Components

Internal Components

AE 3007 Thrust vs Mach

AE 3007 SFC vs Mach

Aerodynamics

• Introduction– Prediction is based on

WASP configuration A with AR=2.9

– Sref=836ft2

– b=49.22ft

Aerodynamics

• Key Features– The increase of CLmax

with flap deflection

– CLmax of approximately 1.8

– Various optimal AoA’s • Takeoff/Landing• Cruise

Flaps

20 deg

Flaps

40 deg

Flaps

60 deg

Δαstall(deg) -2 -3 -4

ΔCLmax .456 .647 .715

CL Vs Alpha

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Alpha (deg)

CL

CL(base)

CL(20)

CL(40)

CL(60)

Aerodynamics cont’d

• Aircraft at sea level• Key Features

– Approximate Mach Critical Number of .8 according to Nicolai

– Aircraft stays subsonic– Cdo approximately

constant at this region– Drag polar of

CD=.009+.016CL2 at

M=.2

Cdo Vs Mach

Critical Mach Number

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Mach

Cdo

Aerodynamics cont’d

• Key Features– Approximate Critical

Mach Number of .8– K (drag due to lift) is

also constant in this region

– K=K’ + K’’ according to Nicolai, but for our aircraft K=K’

K Vs. Mach

Critical Mach Number

0.05

0.15

0.25

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Mach

K

Aerodynamics cont’d

• Key Features– Significant increase in

drag with flap deflections

– Optimal AoA at:• Takeoff/Landing• Cruise

Cd vs alpha

00.05

0.10.15

0.20.25

0.3

-20 0 20 40

alpha (deg)

Cd

baseline config

Cd (20)

Cd(40)

Cd(60)

Stability and Control

• Outline– Aerodynamic Center and neutral point located 19.01ft.

from aft– Cg. at 18.92 ft. from aft– Static Margin = -.004– Cg travel diagram– Aerodynamic Force diagram– Pitching Moment Curve with Flap Deflections– Trade Studies of control with different wing tips

Stability and Control

Stability and Control

Stability and Control cont’d

• Key Features– SM≈0– Nose down pitching

moment as the flap gets deflected

– Need for control surfaces to stabilize the aircraft

– What can we do?

Cm Vs. Alpha

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Alpha (deg)

Cm

Baseline

Flaps 20 deg

Flaps 40 deg

Flaps 60 deg

Stability and Control Cont’d

• The Range of Control from the wing tip 1– Extreme points occur when the flaps get deflected 60 deg’s– The wing tips help to stabilize the aircraft– The vortex fences creates a nose up pitching moment to

stabilize the aircraft

Cm Vs. Alpha

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Alpha (deg)

Cm

Baseline

Flaps 20 deg

Flaps 40 deg

Flaps 60 deg

Moment Characteristic Wing Tip 1

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Wing tip deflection (deg)

Cm

Stability and Control – Trade Studies with Various Wing Tips

Per 1 wing tip

Wing Tip 1 Wing Tip 2 Wing Tip 3

Cdo .0083 .0083 .0083

K .251 .251 .168

CLδe .034 .030 .038

Clδa (per rad) -.0206 -.0221 -.0196

Cnδa(per rad) .0055 .0047 .0053

Cmδe (per

rad)

-.0258 -.0177 -.0245

Error

• Error Analysis is Broken into 3 Main Categories– 5%– 5-10%– 10-15%

5% Error

Thrust Data Provided By Aereon

5-10% Error

• Aerodynamics– (Agrees with Aereon calculations and Dr.

Lang estimations)• Ps calculations

– (dependent somewhat upon Thrust data, which is from a reliable source)

• Endurance – (also directly dependent on assumed correct

data provided to us, as well as reasonably accurate aerodynamic data)

• Shear

10-15% Error

• Dynamic Lift Calculations – (Difficult to estimate due to unsteady flow

conditions and somewhat unknown performance characteristics)

• cg characteristics – (due to uncertainties in true, final and required

placement of components)• Cost analysis• Inlet and Nozzle effects

– (addressed very little due to an assumed 5% installed thrust loss)

Specific Excess Power (n=1)

*NOTE: q limit is NOT a factor until after M=0.9

*Altitude in ten thousands

Specific Excess Power(n=2.5)

*NOTE: q limit is NOT a factor until after M=0.9

*Altitude in ten thousands

Turn Rate Performance

Turn Rate Performance

Turn Rate Performance

Maximum Sustained Turn RatesSea Level

M = 0.2 TR = 31.78 Deg/secM = 0.6 TR = 10.60 Deg/secM = 0.18 TR = 35.33 Deg/sec[MAX]

22K ft.M = 0.2 TR = 24.2 Deg/secM = 0.6 TR = 11.4 Deg/secM = 0.31 TR = 21.95 Deg/sec[MAX]

Turn Rate Performance

Maximum Instantaneous Turn Rates

Sea LevelM = 0.18 TR = 35.33 Deg/sec

(same as for sustained)

22K ft.M = .23 TR = 29.7 deg/sec

Dynamic Lift

• Addition of Vorticity and Circulation at a Rate such that Inviscid Effects dominate Viscous Diffusion and Dissipation

• Effectively Increases the Stall Angle of Attack, thereby Increasing CLmax and Maximizing Lift.

WASP Analytical CL Charts

CL Vs Alpha

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Alpha (deg)

CL

CL(base)

CL(20)

CL(40)

CL(60)

Dynamic Lift

Dynamic Lift

Dynamic Lift

TAKE-OFF IMPLEMENTATION

• A/C Accelerates Down the Runway with a Clean Configuration

• Quickly reaches Take-Off Velocity Due to Lowered Drag

• Just Before Take-Off Velocity is Reached, Flaps are lowered to Max Setting, Vortex Fences are Deployed, and AofA is Quickly Increased

Dynamic Lift

Dynamic Lift

LANDING IMPLEMENTATION

• Bird-Like Manuever• A/C Approaches Runway/Deck at High

Thrust and Negative AofA• One Second Before Ground Contact,

Flaps Down, Vortex Fences Up, and AofA Increased to Large Positive Setting

• A/C ‘Flares’, Thereby Increasing Drag to Reduce Velocity, and Increasing Lift to Avoid Ground Collision

WASP Analytical Model Settings

• Flaps– Max Setting = 20 Degrees– Deployment Rate = 20 Deg/Sec

• Vortex Fences– Max Setting = 85 Degrees– Deployment Rate = 85 Deg/Sec

• Angle of Attack– Max Setting = 35 Degrees– Deployement Rate = 35 Deg/Sec

• Head Wind– 0 ft/sec and 10ft/sec

WASP Analytical Model Results

• Head Wind = 0 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 3.5 Secs– Distance to L>W: 170 feet

• Head Wind = 10 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 2.9 Secs– Distance to L>W: 140 feet

• Head Wind = 0 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 5.5 Secs– Distance to L>W: 250 feet

• Head Wind = 10 ft/sec– Time to Take-Off Velocity: 5.9 Secs– Distance to L>W: 280 feet

Take-Off w/Dynamic Lift

Take-Off w/out Dynamic Lift

WASP Analytical Model Results

Head Wind = 0 ft/sec

TA

KE

-OF

F

WASP Analytical Model Results

Landing

• Head Wind = 0 ft/sec– Velocity at Touch-Down: 40 ft/sec– Distance to Stop: 135 feet

Endurance Mission

• Loiter Phase Requires High Endurance at Best Endurance Mach

• This occurs at L/D)max

• L/D)max = 13.1 Occurs at M = 0.27

• Endurance = 10.0 Hrs.

Wing Tip Shear and Moments

• Cantilever Beam Approximation Used For Order of Magnitude Calculation– Low g-Limit Craft, Not Much Stress

• Resultant Shear at Wing Tip Root• Results in Stress = O(10-100)

• Carbon Composite Yield Strength• Stress = O(10000-100000)

• Order of Loads/Stresses << Yield Limits

Weights Summary (pounds)

• Carbon Composite Construction, some Al• Weights Summary (pounds)

– Main Gear 579– NoseGear 158– Engine 1580– Payload 3000– Electrical 449– Avionics 1082– Fuel Tank 2000– Fuel Tank 2000– Fuel Tank 963

– Total Weight 11811– Empty Weight 6848

C.G. Travel

x-Axis Moments

Moment Summary about X axis

Moment (pounds) Distance from C.G Moments about X

Main Gear 13322.79 5 ft 66613.95

Nose Gear 989.08 2 ft 1978.16

Engine 16590 2.5 ft 41475

Payload 67650 7.5 ft 507375

Electrical 9878 1.5 ft 14817

Avionics 21640 1 ft 21640

Fuel Tank 1 35000 6 ft 210000

Fuel Tank 2 35000 6 ft 210000

Fuel Tank 3 25519.5 10 ft 255195

Ixx 41308.28625 slug-ft2

y-axis Moments

Moment Summary about Y axis

Moment (pounds) Distance from C.G Moments about Y

Main Gear 13322.79 3.91006181 52092.93238

Nose Gear 989.08 12.83993819 12699.72606

Engine 16590 8.59993819 142672.9746

Payload 67650 3.45006181 233396.6814

Electrical 9878 2.90006181 28646.81056

Avionics 21640 0.90006181 19477.33757

Fuel Tank 1 35000 1.59993819 55997.83665

Fuel Tank 2 35000 1.59993819 55997.83665

Fuel Tank 3 25519.5 7.40006181 188845.8774

Iyy 24,538 slug-ft2

Cost Analysis

We 2318 lbs

V 487.54 knots

Q 100

FTA 2

Neng 100

Tmax 14000 lbs

Tturb inlet

2355 Rankine

Cavionics $100,000

Mmax 0.8

Rates ($/hr)

1989Values 

Re 59.1

Rt 60.7

Rm 50.1

Rq 55.4

Cost Analysis

Raymers Cost Estimation

Method  

Eng hours 1,072,533

Tooling hours 4,818,711

Mfg hours 1,621,278

Qc 0.133

Devel support cost

$18,693,125.46

Flt test cost $5,780,084.64

Mfg materials$25,580,941.4

0

Eng prod cost $1,316.72

RDT&E $437,108,450.0

3

Flyaway $50,285,823.60

RDT&E+Fly away

$487,394,273.64

1989 Dollars

Model Construction

Contents•Goals for Model Construction•Solid Works Modeling•Material Selection•Mastercamm and CNC Machining•Main Body Construction•Sleeve Mounting•Winglet Construction•Flap Construction•Other Construction Details•Summary

Goals for Model Construction

• Accurate Shape– CNC machining used to achieve this

• Sturdy Construction– Strong material needed

• Force Transfer– Completely fix sting within body to ensure

complete aero load transfer to sensors

SolidWorks Modeling

• Goal - use a simple program to design fuselage and winglets

• Use Mastercamm (NC Program) to translate SolidWorks design to our material

SolidWorks Model

Material Selection

• Initial Decision

– Wire-cut foam

– NC high-density foam

– Wood

– Other Materials

• Wood was chosen

– Ease of manufacturing

– Low cost

– Availability

– Ability to anchor sleeve easily; Ability to join pieces easily

NC Machining

• Use Mastercamm to cut model

• Ensures high accuracy in our model shape

• Ensure tight piece-joining

MasterCamm Model

Main Body Construction

• SolidWorks– Several scaled 23-024 airfoils in the middle

area to achieve rounded nose

– Lofted out to 633-018 airfoil at the connection point of the winglets

• Layup of Wood plys • Squaring of material• NC machining• Joining of pieces

Main Body Construction – Cutting to Size

Main Body Construction – CNC Machining

Sleeve Mounting

• One of the main reasons wood was chosen as a construction material was because it could be machined easily and attached firmly to the sleeve

• The sleeve will be fitted into a machined hole in the center section, mounted to an aluminum plate on the top of the sleeve, which can then be securely fastened to the rest of the model

Winglet Construction

• Same procedure as main body – SolidWorks to NC

• 633-018 Symmetric Airfoil• 3 different designs

– At 15 and 30 degree anhedral-1) chord length=span, taper ratio = .5-2) chord length=span, taper ratio = .5, reverse airfoil-3) 1.5xchord length=span, taper ratio = .5

• 30 degree options will be static; 15 degree will be capable of varied incidence angles

Flap Construction

• Construction Issues– Non-flat mounting Surface

• Definitely an issue; trying to get a fit with no gap between flap and fuselage

– Material• Most likely going to be constructed of 1/8” or ¼”

aluminum

– Mounting• Several peg holes in the bottom for easy

application and removal

– Configuration• 20, 40, 60 degree deflection – angled holes for

each setup for plug-and-fly capability

Other Construction Details

• Varnish coating to ensure smoothness after sanding to fit and smooth

• Canard – possible future option forward of the nose

• Vortex Fences – Also a future option (with possible construction in the coming week)– Holes for plug-and-fly capabilities at

several angles of attack– Similar to the flaps, the biggest problem is

the lack of a flat surface to mount to; contours increase the difficulty

Summary

• Wood chosen for ease of construction and sturdiness

• Ability to transfer loads directly from the model to the sting is a primary concern

• With the use of NCM, we can ensure highly accurate shape and a smooth surface

Wind Tunnel Testing

• Wind Tunnel Testing Plans• Possible Site: Allied Aerospace Industries• Wind Tunnel Testing to last approximately 8.25

hours• Approximate constant velocity of 100 ft/s• Input: reference C.G., reference balance, and

reference area• Output: CL, CD, CY, Cl ,Cm, Cn• Data to be measured for an angle of attack sweep

of -5 deg to 40 degrees• Basic Configurations• Basic + Wingtip Extension #1• Basic + Wingtip Extension #2• Basic + Wingtip Extension #3

Variables

• Side Slip – -15 deg to 15 deg

• Split Flaps – 20 deg, 40 deg, and 60 deg

• Tip Deflections– -20 deg, 0 deg, 20 deg

• Anhedral – 15 deg & 30 deg

• Vortex Fences – 30 deg, 60 deg, and 90 deg

A Look at Testing Plans….

Wing Tip #1, for Example:

Data Summary

TOGW 11682 lbs

T/W (takeoff) 0.676

Span b 49.22 ft

Sweep 60 degrees

Taper Ratio Main Body: .2

  Winglet 1: .5

  Winglet 2: .5

  Winglet 3: .5

Take Off D (with Dynamic Lift) 150-175 ft

Landing D (with Dynamic Lift) 135 ft

Take Off D (withOUT Dynamic Lift) 300-325 ft

Landing D (withOUT Dynamic Lift) ~300 ft

   

Cl max (with Flap Deflection = 60 degrees) 1.82

Cl max (no Flap Deflection-baseline configuration) 1.29

   

Inst. Load Factor 4

Sust. Load Factor 2

Future Work

• A look into other conceptual designs such as a canard design and very high aspect ratio wing tips

• More in depth look into dynamic lift

• Wind tunnel test and data analysis

• Detail iterations of design analysis to reduce uncertainty

Acknowledgements

• Dr. Jim Lang – for all your guidance and knowledge

• Tom Chalfant – for your HUGE help with all aspects of the model-building

• Bill Putman – for all of your perspective on the project and for helping us in whatever way we asked

References

• Fundamentals of Aircraft DesignNicolai, M. Leland/1975

• Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Daniel P. Raymer / AIAA Education Series / Third Edition, 1999

• Theory of Wing Sections Ira H. Abbott, Albert E. Von Doenhoff

• Airplane Design, Part 6:Preliminary Calculations of Aerodynamics, Thrust & Power/J. Roskam Staff / Hardcover / Published 1987-1997

• Fundamentals of Gas TurbinesWilliam W. Bathie