SAWE Report - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5.3 - Wing Planform Table 5.I - Wing Measurements Planform Area 1,500 ft 2 (139 m 2 ) Span 54.8 ft (16.7m) Root Chord 46.8 ft (14.3 m) Tip Chord 8.0 ft (2.4 m) MAC 32.0 ft (9.8 m) y Location of MAC 10.5 ft (3.2 m) Aspect Ratio 2.0 Leading Edge Sweep 40.0º Sweep at Quarter Chord 20.5º Sweep at Half Chord 4.7º Trailing Edge Sweep -30.0º Taper Ratio 0.17 Leading Edge Flap Area 137 ft 2 (12.7 m 2 ) Trailing Edge Flaperon Area 238 ft 2 (22.1 m 2 ) Flapped Wing Area 935 ft 2 (86.9 m 2 ) 25
5.3 Wing Thickness The effect of wing thickness on the performance of the aircraft was studied so that the optimum thickness could be chosen. Initially a wing thickness of 3% of the chord was chosen based on existing supercruising aircraft. Increasing the root thickness of the wing was considered to reduce the weight of the wing. The effects of wing root thickness on wing weight, cross sectional area, and fuel consumption were studied. The weight of the wing was estimated using the method presented in Raymer, and the additional cross sectional area was calculated numerically. The resulting wing weights and cross sectional areas for wing root thicknesses from 3% to 6% are shown in Figure 5.4. The effect of the resulting weights and cross sectional areas on the fuel consumption during the mission were estimated using the same method used for the wing sizing. The results in Figure 5.5 show that the larger cross section of a thicker wing root adds more wave drag than the induced drag savings from the reduced wing weight. Based on this result, a constant wing thickness of 3% was chosen. 8,500 8,000 t root = 3% Weight of Wing (lb) 7,500 7,000 t root = 4% t root = 5% 6,500 t root = 6% 6,000 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Maximum Frontal Cross Sectional Area of Wing (ft 2 ) Figure 5.4 - Effect of Root Chord Thickness on Wing Weight and Cross Sectional Area 26
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 and 14: Table 1.II - Summary of Design Requ
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1.3 - F-15 Strike Eagle F-11
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: 1 GHz. 40º LE Sweep 10 GHz. 40º L
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?