SAWE Report - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This leads us to believe that the area required maintaining static stability is not the driving factor in the size of the horizontal. Control power required to rotate the aircraft, dynamic considerations, and high angle of attack recovery will most likely drive this size. A similar study was conducted on the vertical stabilizer to see what area would required for varying cant angles to maintain 0.001 (1/degree) lateral weathercock stability. This is illustrated in Figure 10.3. Figure 10.3 - Vertical Area Required for Static Stability with Cant Angle From Figure 6.3 it can be seen that at 30°, 165 ft 2 of vertical area is required to maintain 0.001 (1/degree) of lateral weathercock stability. Although the 30° cant angle on the verticals was initially selected to match the bottom fuselage facets for RCS considerations, lowering that angle to 20° would allow other advantages. Shallower cant angles are easier to manufacture, require less structure, weigh less, and have less coupling with pitch modes. For these reasons, the impact on RCS was investigated for the 20° cant angle as well as the pitch coupling term for rudder deflection, C δ . m r The RCS code was run on two aircraft configurations. The same wing, fuselage, and horizontal were modeled with the vertical planforms mounted at both 20° and 30°. The results of that study are shown as Figure 10.4. 63
40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 20° Canted Vertical 30° Canted Vertical RFP Requirement Figure 10.4 - Radar Cross Section Impact of 20° vs. 30° Vertical Cant Angle Figure 69 clearly shows that there is an impact on the RCS for changing the cant angle. The RFP required -12 dBm 2 return is shown in red. As mentioned in the RCS section, this requirement is only mandated for the frontal 0° azimuth angle. Going to a 20° cant does not violate this requirement and yields the aforementioned benefits. The effective area of a rudder sized to 27% mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical was calculated in the horizontal plane of the aircraft. In normal non-canted configurations, Cm δ is r nonexistent. Table 10.II shows the values for this coupling term and various cants. Table 10.II - Pitching Moment Coupling with Rudder Deflection for Various Vertical Cant Angles C δ Vertical Cant Angle (165 ft 2 27% m.a.c. Rudder) m r 0° 0.0000 10° 0.0004 20° 0.0009 30° 0.0021 64
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 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: difference in neutral point and cen
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?