SAWE Report - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 11.XII - Alternate Mission Results Design Mission Mission Radius 1,750 nm (3,240 km) Takeoff Weight 124,800 lb (56,610 kg) Mission Time 4 hr. 57 min. 8 × 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs – Supersonic Mission Radius 1,690 nm (3,130 km) Takeoff Weight 132,800 lb (60,240 kg) Mission Time 4 hr. 51 min. 4 × 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs – Subsonic Mission Radius 2,380 nm (4,410 km) Takeoff Weight 124,800 lb (56,610 kg) Mission Time 11 hr. 16 min. 8 × 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs – Subsonic Mission Radius 2,300 nm (4,260 km) Takeoff Weight 132,800 lb (60,240 kg) Mission Time 10 hr. 56 min. 83
12 Payload Weapon internal layout drove the Vendetta’s size and layout. For small C.G. excursion due to weapons deployment all stores were initially positioned as close to the C.G as possible. As shown in Figure 12.1, three configurations were produced. Configuration one utilizes a standard weapons bay configuration. The large weapons bay drove the configuration to over 120 ft (36.576m) in length when room for landing gear and weapons targeting systems were integrated. In an effort to decrease overall size a small rotary launcher was designed and integrated into a second configuration. This step increased the maximum cross sectional area by 5ft 2 (0.464m 2 Figure 12.1 - L to R configurations 1, 2, 3 ) and shortened the length of the aircraft to 95ft (28.9m). Figure 12.2 - 180 inch MPRL The next iteration of the design utilized the existing 180in (4.57m) MPRL out of the B-1B and shown in Figure 12.2. This caused the final configuration to grow to 105ft (32m) in length and maximum cross sectional area of 55 ft 2 (5.11m 2 ). Utilizing the MPRL allowed for a wide selection of alternate missions and configurations to be discussed later. In an effort to ascertain the feasibility of RFP delineated weapons as supersonic deployment candidates research was done for each proposed system. As can be seen in the foldout only one of all of the weapons has even been wind tunnel tested for supersonic deployment. This led to the proposed systems for possible supersonic deployment. Retrofitting many of the weapon systems with a ballute and sabot, shown in Figure 12.3, would aide in supersonic stability. The use of a bomb bay supersonic flow deflector and acoustical resonance damping system as well as flow modification system would aide in deployment. Figure 12.3 - Ballute and Sabot 84
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 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: 11.7 Alternate Missions In addition
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?