SAWE Report - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 4.5 4 Lift Curve Slope (1/rad) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Mach Figure 5.8 – Variation in Lift Curve Slope with Mach Number Next, the stall angle of the wing was estimated under subsonic conditions by calculating the lift distribution of the wing using LinAir. The section lift coefficient was calculated as a function of the span-wise location of the section for different wing angles of attack. The wing was assumed to stall when one of the section lift coefficients exceeded the maximum lift coefficient given in Theory of Wing Sections. The stall angle of attack of the wing was determined to approximately 14º. Because the wing tip was shown to stall at a much lower angle of attack than the rest of the wing, adding a –3º angle of incidence to the wing tip was considered. The resulting twist extends the stall angle of attack to approximately 16º; however the twist decreased the lift coefficient at a given angle of attack and could impact RCS and supersonic aerodynamics. Ultimately, the non-twisted wing was chosen. The lift distributions of the wing with and without twist are shown in Figure 5.9. The effects of the trailing edge flap were estimated using the stall angle of attack and lift coefficient increments given in Nicolai. The effect of the leading edge flap was estimated by assuming that a 10º leading edge flap deflection would increase the stall angle of attack by approximately 10º, and the decrease in lift coefficient was estimated based on the change in effective angle of attack. The resulting subsonic lift curve at Mach 0.2 is shown in Figure 5.10. 29
1 Section Lift Coefficient 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Max. Section Lift Coefficient 0º Tip Incidence 16º 15º 16º 15º 14º 13º 14º 12º 13º 12º - 3º Tip Incidence <strong>Cal</strong>culated Using LinAir 0.2 0.1 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Spanwise Distance (percent semi-span) Figure 5.9 - Lift Distribution of Wing with and without Twist 2 Lift Coefficient 1.5 1 0.5 0 C L = 1.20 C L = 1.15 C L = 0.56 C L α = 2.33 1/rad C L = 1.51 30º TE Flap Deflection Clean LinAir 10º LE Flap Deflection -0.5 Tail Strike Angle (14º) -1 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Angle-of-Attack (degrees) Figure 5.10 - Subsonic Wing Lift Curve 30
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 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: 5.4 Airfoil The NACA 65A-003 airfoi
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?