Vendetta Final Proposal Part 1 (3.4 MB) - Cal Poly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and fly out of the threat area quickly. After retiring the aircraft in 1996, the Air Force decided a new aircraft was neededto drop precision weapons from remote airfields with minimal support.F-15E - “Strike Eagle”The F-15E Strike Eagle (Table 1.III) partially filled the role of the F-111A after it was retired. Although the F-15E airframe was designed for fighter type payloads, it is capable of both air superiority and ground attack missions.Superior maneuverability was achieved with the F-15E due to its high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading.F-117 – “Nighthawk”The F-117 Nighthawk (Table 1.III) also aided in the replacement of the F-111A. However, it has a much lowerpayload capacity and a limited range. The F-117 is also not capable of supersonic speeds and is thus more vulnerable ifit were detected. If a supersonic aircraft were detected, the window of opportunity for an attack is relatively small.Thus, faster aircraft have a tendency to be less vulnerable. Due to the small payload and high maintenance of the firstgeneration stealth technology, the F-117 is a poor replacement for the F-111A.B-1B – “Lancer”The B-1A was designed as a replacement for the B-52. It could carry large nuclear payloads supersonically withan intercontinental range. The SALT treaty limited the B-1 to subsonic speeds and led to the creation of the B-1B. Themission of the B-1A was not unlike that of the RFP proposed mission; however it was performed with the aide of anafterburner in supersonic flight. More information is provided in Table 1.III.B-2 – “Spirit”The B-2 (Table 1.III) is very new to the U.S. inventory. It has intercontinental range unrefuled and carries largeconventional and nuclear payloads. The B-2 is a large aircraft that is very costly to operate.3
Table 1.III - Comparison of the F-111A, F-117, B-2, B-1B, and F-15EManufacturer LockheedGeneralDynamicsBoeing Northrop RockwellDesignation F-117 FB-111A F-15E B-2 B-1BSpan - ft 43.6 32.0 42.8 172.0 78.2Aspect Ratio – – 3 – –Length – ft 66.6 73.5 63.7 69.0 147.0Height – ft 12.5 17.1 18.5 17.0 34.0Wing Area - ft 2 913 – 608 5274 1950Empty Weight – lb 29,500 46,171 32,000 153,700 192,001Payload Weight – lb 5,000 31,500 24,500 40,001 133,999Fuel Weight – lb – – 13,122 200,003 194,999Gross Takeoff Weight – lb 52,501 91,492 81,000 375,998 477,003Max power loading – – 1.73 4.86 –Max Mach # 0.9 2.2 2.5 0 1.25Max combat radius 570 2,750 686 6,300 6,479Service Ceiling - ft – 50,853 – 50,000 –The solution to the RFP is not a trivial design problem. The aircraft will have to be well area-ruled in order tominimize wave drag and have a low frontal radar cross-section. The goal of this design is to meet or exceed RFPrequirements while minimizing manufacturing and operating costs.4
Page 6 and 7: Figure 11.1 - 1-g Military Specific
Page 8 and 9: Nomenclature6DOF Six Degrees of Fre
Page 10: 1 IntroductionThe American Institut
Page 15 and 16: The weight fraction method provides
Page 17 and 18: 3 ConfigurationThe current configur
Page 19 and 20: • Span = 53 ft• m.a.c. = 32 ft
Page 21 and 22: VendettaChris DroneyNate SchnaibleK
Page 23 and 24: low signature axisymmetric advanced
Page 25 and 26: 0° Lookup77°50403020100-10-20-30-
Page 27 and 28: 5.2 Wing SweepThe next wing paramet
Page 29 and 30: 5.3 Wing ThicknessThe effect of win
Page 31 and 32: 0.10.050-0.05-0.1-0.150 0.1 0.2 0.3
Page 33 and 34: 5.6 DragDrag was divided into four
Page 35 and 36: 6 PropulsionIn developing the propu
Page 37 and 38: Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET)
Page 39 and 40: 35,00030,000Sea Level 1.5K 5K10K20K
Page 41 and 42: 0.990.980.97Pressure Recovery0.960.
Page 43 and 44: oundary layer diverter for high spe
Page 45 and 46: 7 Structural Layout & Material Sele
Page 47 and 48: Vertical AttachmentPointsHorizontal
Page 49: 8 Landing GearLanding Gear design f

Vendetta Final Proposal Part 1 (3.4 MB) - Cal Poly

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

Delete template?

Save as template?