Vendetta Final Proposal Part 2 - Cal Poly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

allows Vendetta to remain on the front-side of the power curve. The additional angle-of-attack provided by the leading edge flaps provides a margin for error during takeoff and landing, and is useful during slow speed turns. Ground handling tasks performed with the second revision made it apparent that the loading on the nose gear was too small. Because of this, the nose gear on the final Vendetta configuration was moved back 8.5 ft to take 8% of the weight. This enhanced the ground handling qualities substantially. Initial sizing of the vertical stabilizer for static stability yielded a rather small area. After flying this configuration, it became very apparent that the lateral stability was inadequate. The vertical area was increased a 35 ft 2 . This greatly increased lateral stability. As shown in Table 10.IV, Vendetta’s high frequency Dutch roll mode still required attention. The addition of a rate-feedback yaw damper in the form of a washout compensator added damping and made the Vendetta receive higher pilot ratings from the test pilots who flew the simulator. 58
11 Performance 11.1 Specific Excess Power Requirements Compliance with RFP specific excess power requirements is best shown using specific excess power envelopes including those required as measures of merit. Figure 11.1 shows the 1-g military specific excess power envelope. The RFP requirement of 0 ft/s at Mach 1.6 and 50,000 ft is met with 33.7 ft/s specific excess power. The 1-g maximum (afterburner) specific excess power envelope, in Figure 11.2, shows that the RFP requirement of 200 ft/s is met with a value of 212.5 ft/s. This envelope also shows that the maximum Mach number at 36,000 ft measure of merit is 2.18. The 2-g maximum specific excess power envelope, in Figure 11.3, shows that the RFP requirement of 0 ft/s is met with a value of 8.0 ft/s. This requirement is design driver for the thrust produced by the propulsion system. The 5-g maximum specific excess power envelope and maximum sustained load factor envelope required as measures of merit are shown in Figure 11.4 and Figure 11.5 respectively. 70,000 60,000 RFP Requirement 0 50,000 P s = 0 ft/s Altitude (ft) 40,000 30,000 Stall Limit 50 100 150 150 200 20,000 10,000 Flaps 200 300 400 q Limit 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Mach Figure 11.1 - 1-g Military Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight 59
Page 1 and 2: well as a tip back angle which did
Page 3 and 4: Table 9.II - Final Component Weight
Page 5 and 6: the center-of-gravity location clos
Page 7 and 8: 10 Stability and Control To initial
Page 9 and 10: management system could then be use
Page 11 and 12: 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 2
Page 13 and 14: flight. This would require a large
Page 15 and 16: Table 10.IV - Longitudinal and Late
Page 17: Additional components were integrat
Page 21 and 22: 70,000 60,000 50,000 Altitude (ft)
Page 23 and 24: 11.3 Mission Requirements The RFP d
Page 25 and 26: 11.4 Takeoff & Landing The RFP requ
Page 27 and 28: 12 Payload Weapon internal layout w
Page 29 and 30: ange occurs due to the additional w
Page 31 and 32: 13 Cockpit Cockpit design began wit
Page 33 and 34: Due to RFP requirements the majorit
Page 35 and 36: fuelled systems offer high power to
Page 37 and 38: 14.4 Government Furnished Equipment
Page 39 and 40: The assembly line would allow for m
Page 41 and 42: is a learning curve associated with
Page 43 and 44: Table 17.I - RFP Compliance Checkli
Page 45 and 46: 20,000 0.9 581 2,164 3,231 4,407 5,
Page 47 and 48: Appendix B - Design Tools Company S
Page 49: 25. Roskam, J. Airplane Flight Dyna

Vendetta Final Proposal Part 2 - Cal Poly

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?