James BearmanAJ BrinkerDean BrysonBrian GershkoffKuo GuoJoseph HenrichAaron Smith

Review of Aircraft RequirementsConcept GenerationAdvanced TechnologyFuselage LayoutConstraint AnalysisCurrent Sizing AnalysisSummaryNext Steps

2

Provide a versatile aircraft with medium range and capacity to meet the needs of a commercial aircraft market still expanding in the year 2058

Incorporate the latest in technology to provide reliability, efficiency, while fulfilling the need for an environmentally friendly transportation system

Possess the ability to operate at nearly any airfield

3

•Mission One•Schaumburg to North Las Vegas•1300 nmi

•Mission Two•South Bend to Burbank•1580 nmi

•Mission Three•West Lafayette to Urbana-Champaign to Cancun•1200 nmi

•Mission Four•Minneapolis to LAX•1330 nmi

4

Engineering Requirement

Condition Target Threshold

Takeoff Distance ≤ 2,500 ft 3,500 ft

Landing Distance ≤ 2,500 ft 3,500 ft

Takeoff Weight ≤ 80,000 lb 100,000 lb

Range ≥ 1800 nm 1500 nm

Maximum Cruise Speed ≥ 0.85 M 0.75 M

Maximum Passenger Capacity ≥ 110 90

5

Pugh’s Method Choose Criterion Generate Concepts Evaluate Improve Iterate

Select “Finalists” Analysis Current

Configuration

Tube and Wing

Bird of Prey

Tandem Wing

Maintenance Cost o - oLow Wt o o oFuel Burn o - -Static Stability o - -Fuel Capacity o + +Fast o + oClean Wing CL o - oPassenger Volume o + oInduced Drag o + -Parasite/Form Drag o - -Low Stall Speed o - -Low Alpha Req for T.O. o - +Noise Factor o - -Small Airport Compatible o + -Aesthetic Appeal o + oPassenger Visibility o - -

+ 0 6 2o 16 1 6- 0 9 8

6

7

8

9

10

Tri-Tail

Geared Turbofans

Lifting Canard

Composite

Composite

Structu

re

Structu

re

PossibleRear Egress

Supercritical Airfoil

Supercritical Airfoil

Powered High-Lift Devices

Powered High-Lift Devices

Advanced Avionics

Composites Stronger and

Lighter than Metals

Glue replaces Fasteners

20% empty weight savings

Current Obstacle: Manufacturability and Repairability

AI/UAV Reduction in flight

crew Potentially Lower

Operational Cost Reduced human

error incidents Automatic Flight

Control Current Obstacle:

Reliability and Risk

11

Pulse Detonation Up to 10% fuel savings (GE) Durable, Easy to Maintain Capable of using Multiple Fuels Current Obstacle: Noise

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/combustion/images/pdwe/engine_schematic2.jpg

12

Geared Turbofan 12% fuel savings 40% reduction in

maintenance cost 70% lower

emissions 30 dB less than

stage 3 noise limithttp://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRHeft07/FRH0710/FR0710a1.jpg

13

Unducted Fans Increase of fuel

economy of 35% Increase in range of

45% Increase in noise

but current test models meet noise criteria

Blade-Out Risk

http://www.md80.it/OLDFILES/immagini/thrust/McDUHB-3.jpg

14

Magnetic Bearings “Floating” shaft

reduces friction in turbine engine

More thrust Possible elimination

of engine oil system Current Obstacle:

Heat generated by magnets

Vectored Thrust Angled Thrust

Provides Vertical Force

AV-8B Harrier II▪ VTOL Weight: 22,000 lbs▪ STOL (1400ft) Weight:

46,000 lbs

Reduce TO Runway Length

Reduce Approach Speed

15

Circulation Control Wing 85% Increase in CLmax 35% Reduction in power

on approach speed 65% Reduction in

landing ground roll 30% Reduction in lift off

speed 60% Reduction in take

off ground roll 75% Increase in typical

payload/fuel at operating weight

AIAA-57598-949 Advanced Circulation Control Wing System for Navy STOL Aircraft

16

Blown Flaps CLmax > 7 Types

▪ Internally Blown▪ Externally Blown ▪ Upper Surface Blowing

Reduce takeoff distance by as much as 74%

W.H. Mason Some High Lift Aerodynamics17

Co-Flow Jet Flow Control

Test results show: Reduction of CL=0 from 0° to -4° Increase of CLmax of 220% from 1.57 to 5.04 AoA CLmax increase of 153% from 19° to 44° Reduction of CDmin(AoA=0°) from 0.128 to -

0.036

AIAA 2005-1260 High Performance Airfoil Using Co-Flow Jet Flow Control

18

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported TRL 2 Concept and/or application formulated TRL 3 Analytical and experimental proof-of concept TRL 4 Component validation in lab environment TRL 5 Component validation in relevant environment TRL 6 Prototype demo in a relevant environment TRL 7 Prototype demo in operational environment TRL 8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified” TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through

successful mission operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level

19

Type Description TRL

Weight/Cost Savings

Composites 9

UAV/AI Pilot 6

Propulsion Type

Pulse Detonation 3

Geared Turbofans 6

Propulsion Enhancement

Magnetic Bearings 3

Thrust Vectoring 7

High Lift

Circulation Control 7

Blown Flaps 9

Co Flow Jet Control 420

Fuselage sketches before configuration set

Aircraft evolution -> Fuselage change Pressurized Cabin Shape

Cylindrical Cross-Section Non-Cylindrical Cross-Section

Investigation of existing aircraft Fuselage Dimensions Galley/Lav/Cockpit Dimensions Seat Dimensions

Generated CAD Model21

Length: 72.1 ft Width: 14 ft 102 Seats, Single

Class Seat Pitch: 32 in Aisle Width: 20 in Seat Width: 24 in 2 Galley Areas: 35 and

16 ft2

2 Lavs: ~20 ft2

22

Major Constraints 2500 ft TO/Landing Roll 5000 ft Balanced Field OEI 500 ft/min Climb Rate at 36000 ft Top of

Climb 100 ft/min Climb Rate at 41000 ft Service

Ceiling 2g Maneuver at 36000 ft Second Segment Climb Gradient OEI

▪ 2.4%--2 Engine▪ 2.7%--3 Engine▪ 3.0%--4 Engine

23

High and Hot Takeoff— 500o ft + 25°F

Aspect Ratio 10Oswald Efficiency Factor 0.8CD0 0.015CLMax 4.0—Technology ImprovementL/D Second Segment Climb 11.5

24

TO Field & 2ND Segment Climb Size Aircraft

W/S—84 psf T/W—0.23

25

Design Mission Altitude: 36,000 ft Speed: 0.75 M Cruise Range: 1,800 nmi Steady, Level Flight

Analysis Tools: RDS Historical Database CATIA

26

Model Construction Basic Model of Aircraft Neglecting Landing Gear Technology Weight Savings Not Included

Sizing Analysis Initial “Guess” Values Used Initial Values Derived from Aircraft

Database27

Sizing Inputs: W/S – 84 lbs/ft2

T/W – 0.23 AR – 10 Wing Sweep – 10°

Sizing Output: We/Wo – 0.60 Wo – 88,000 lb

28

Metric Status Current Condition Target Threshold Unit

Takeoff Distance 2500 2500 3500 ft

Landing Distance 2500 2500 3500 ft

Gross Takeoff Weight 88000 80000 100000 lbs

Range 1800 1800 1500 nmi

Maximum Cruise 0.75 0.85 0.75 M

Passenger Capacity 102 110 90 pax

Payload Capacity 26300 28300 23300 lb

Fuel Burn 0.05 0.10 0.12 lbs/seat-nmi

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

///////////////////////////////////

Meets or Exceeds Target

Meets or Exceeds Threshold

Noncompliant Data Out of Date Capability Frozen

Key

-Fuel Burn suspect. Sizing code analysis to be investigated.-Weight neglects gear and tech savings. 29

102 Passengers 1800 nmi Range ESTOL Capable Ability to operate

at small airports, alleviating large airports

Advanced Technologies

30

Sizing Refine current models Size Control Surfaces and Stabilizers Comparison with Other Codes

Final Technology SelectionAerodynamic AnalysisPerformance and Stability AnalysisCost Analysis

31