SAWE Report - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The RFP also lists several aircraft that collectively fulfill the mission of the proposed interdictor. These are each outlined below. F-111 - “Aardvark” The F-111 (Figure 1.2, Table 1.III) is specifically mentioned as the predecessor to the aircraft requested in the RFP. The F-111 officially entered service in 1967 and was retired in 1996; a replacement is badly needed. It has been partially replaced by several aircraft, each outlined in detail in the sections to follow. The F-111 is a very large aircraft capable of carrying a 31,000 lb (14,061 kg) payload over 2,000 nm (3,704 km). Both the payload and combat radius are large thus yielding a 91,000 lb (41,276 kg) aircraft. Though the F-111 is capable of Mach 2.2, but it does not cruise supersonically. The F-111 was designed for a very different mission than the one outlined in the RFP. The F-111 was actually designed to cruise subsonically to the target area, dash in supersonically at low level, drop its payload, and fly out of the threat area quickly. After retiring the aircraft, the air force decided a new aircraft was needed to drop precision weapons from remote airfields with minimal support. F-15E - “Strike Eagle” Figure 1.2 - F-111 Aardvark The F-15E Strike Eagle (Figure 1.3, Table 1.III) partially filled the role of the F-111 after it was retired. The F-15E was designed to be capable of both air superiority and ground attack missions. Superior maneuverability was achieved with the F-15E due to its high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading. 3
Figure 1.3 - F-15 Strike Eagle F-117 – “Night Hawk” The Night Hawk (Figure 1.4, Table 1.III) also aided in the replacement of the F-111. However, it has a vastly reduced payload capacity and a limited range. The F-111 is also not capable of supersonic speeds and is thus more vulnerable if it were detected. If a supersonic aircraft were detected, the window of opportunity for an attack is relatively small. Thus, faster aircraft have a tendency to be less venerable. Due to the small payload and high maintenance of the first generation stealth technology, the F-117 is a poor replacement for the F-111. Figure 1.4 - F-117 Night Hawk 4
Page 1 and 2: SAWE Paper No. 3232 Category No. 10
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Abstract_________
Page 5 and 6: List of Figures Figure 1.1 - Design
Page 7 and 8: Figure 13.4 - Rectilinear Vision Pl
Page 9 and 10: Nomenclature AIAA American Institut
Page 11 and 12: α Angle of Attack, degrees, rad.
Page 13: Table 1.II - Summary of Design Requ
Page 17 and 18: Table 1.III - Comparison of the F-1
Page 19 and 20: Many of the equations buried in the
Page 21 and 22: 3 Configuration The current configu
Page 23 and 24: Another problem arises from the 20
Page 25 and 26: • Span = 54.7 ft • m.a.c. = 32
Page 27 and 28: 4 Stealth Considerations As mention
Page 29 and 30: Table 4.I - Common Ground Radars Ra
Page 31 and 32: 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 1 GH
Page 33 and 34: 5 Aerodynamics The major aerodynami
Page 35 and 36: 1 GHz. 40º LE Sweep 10 GHz. 40º L
Page 37 and 38: 5.3 Wing Thickness The effect of wi
Page 39 and 40: 5.4 Airfoil The NACA 65A-003 airfoi
Page 41 and 42: 1 Section Lift Coefficient 0.9 0.8
Page 43 and 44: 90 80 Wing Cross Sectional Area (ft
Page 45 and 46: 6 Propulsion In developing the prop
Page 47 and 48: Table 6.II - RFP Dimensions Compare
Page 49 and 50: 38 Figure 6.1 - VAATE Goals
Page 51 and 52: TSFC 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.
Page 53 and 54: Deflection Angle Analysis for Mach
Page 55 and 56: Figure 6.8 - Cost Association with
Page 57 and 58: The inlet has a boundary layer dive
Page 59 and 60: 7 Materials and Structure The overa
Page 61 and 62: Vertical Attachment Points Horizont
Page 63 and 64: 8 Landing Gear Landing Gear design
Page 65 and 66:
steel. This means that more braking
Page 67 and 68:
Table 9.II - Final Component Weight
Page 69 and 70:
throughout the 5-hour mission. Usin
Page 71 and 72:
10 Stability and Control To initial
Page 73 and 74:
difference in neutral point and cen
Page 75 and 76:
40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 2
Page 77 and 78:
The Vendetta configuration utilizes
Page 79 and 80:
-0.6 -0.4 UNSTABLE NEUTRAL -0.2 Lif
Page 81 and 82:
Validation of an aircraft design su
Page 83 and 84:
consumption. The main aspects of th
Page 85 and 86:
In addition to the performance requ
Page 87 and 88:
70,000 Altitude (ft) 60,000 50,000
Page 89 and 90:
11.4 Mission Requirements By comple
Page 91 and 92:
Table 11.VIII - Landing Flight Prof
Page 93 and 94:
11.7 Alternate Missions In addition
Page 95 and 96:
12 Payload Weapon internal layout d
Page 97 and 98:
13 Cockpit Cockpit Design began wit
Page 99 and 100:
that could be used in landing and t
Page 101 and 102:
14 Systems The systems of the Vende
Page 103 and 104:
14.3 Fuel System Initial fuel syste
Page 105 and 106:
15 Manufacturing Several manufactur
Page 107 and 108:
16 Cost Analysis The final and perh
Page 109 and 110:
Appendix Threats Chart Common Surfa
Page 111 and 112:
Wing Break Point Fuel Aft Fuselage
Page 113 and 114:
The Vendetta Design Team Chris Atki
Page 115 and 116:
References 1. “Ejection Systems,
Page 117:
35. www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/HTML
show all

SAWE Report - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?