Florida International University Mechanics and Materials Engineering SAE Aero Design® Brazil...
If you can't read please download the document
Florida International University Mechanics and Materials Engineering SAE Aero Design® Brazil Competition Senior Design Project Presentation Team 6: PanthAir
Florida International University Mechanics and Materials
Engineering SAE Aero Design Brazil Competition Senior Design
Project Presentation Team 6: PanthAir Cargo Andres Cardenas, Arjav
Patel and Nestor Paz Academic Advisor: Dr. George S.
Dulikravich
Slide 2
TEAM OBJECTIVES Enter the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Aero Design Competition held in Brazil in October 2014 This
objective was modified due to the team not being able to register
for the event To design, build and fly a radio controlled airplane
capable of competing in the SAE Aero Design Brazil Competition
Slide 3
The team wanted to design an airplane worthy of competing
against the best in the world Representing FIU at an international
level Leaving a legacy behind for future students to follow Create
an Aerospace Engineering Club Promote interest in Aerospace
Engineering Motivation
Slide 4
GLOBAL LEARNING COMPONENTS Global Awareness Global Perspective
Global Engagement
Slide 5
Awareness Items Impact of our Research on a Global Scale
Environmental Awareness Ethical Awareness Interaction and exchange
of ideas on an international level Being mindful to respect the
intent of the competition rules Global Awareness
Slide 6
Other materials: Recyclable: -Wood: Decking, wood studs, mulch
-Aluminum: Melted and reused -Steel: Melted and reused Non
Recyclable -Carbon Fiber: Not used in our project Environmental
Impact
Slide 7
SAE Aero Design Brazil Rules ASME (American Society of
Mechanical Engineers) ANSI (American National Standards Institute)
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) AMA (Academy of Model
Aeronautics) Standards Used
Slide 8
PROBLEM STATEMENT The Competition and categories Micro Regular
Advanced We will be competing in the Regular Class
Slide 9
PROBLEM STATEMENT Airplane Requirements Maximum Gross Weight of
44 lb or 20 kg Cargo Bay Minimum of 293 in 3 or 4800 cm 3 Six faces
orthogonal to each other Access door is part of airplane Wood
specimen insertion check Payload must not structurally support
cargo bay
Slide 10
PROBLEM STATEMENT Aircraft Size Requirements Total projection
of plan view cannot exceed 1200 in 2 or 0.775 m 2 Reference: SAE
Brazil Aero Design Rules this box is intended to cover up the sae
brasil chart which cannot be easily seen
Slide 11
PROBLEM STATEMENT Performance Requirements Takeoff and landing
distances 61m or 200 ft for takeoff 122m or 400 ft for landing Time
requirement for takeoff 3 minutes Replacement of payload 120
seconds Reference: SAE Brazil Aero Design Rules
Slide 12
PROBLEM STATEMENT Engine/Propeller Combinations Allowed
engines: K&B 0.61 RC/ABC O.S. 0.61 FX O.S. 0.55 AX Magnum
XLS-61A Allowed propellers: No metal propellers
Advantage Minimal additional projected area Design concepts
Design Concept: A Laterally Configured Cargo Bay High Wing Tricycle
Landing Gear Conventional Tail Disadvantage High frontal surface
area obstructing thrust (Not to scale)
Slide 15
Design Concept: B Cargo Bay in the Wing Distributed Payload
High Wing Design concepts Advantages No additional projected area
Disadvantages Too much wing displacement when subjected to loads
Heavy weight (Not to scale)
Slide 16
Simulation Tests of Concept B In -flight 5 g simulation 26.6mm
displacement Aircraft dropped from 1 meter simulating a hard
landing 25.3 mm displacement Design concepts
Slide 17
Advantage Wing displacement not an issue Lighter weight
Disadvantages Added small projected area of fuselage Design
Concept: C Conventional Cargo Bay in the Fuselage High Wing
Conventional Tail (Not to scale)
Slide 18
Final Prototype Boom tail changed to a conventional tail
Forward swept wings No Winglets Removable wing to access Payload
Tricycle landing gear
Slide 19
Aircraft Sizing Classical aerodynamics principles, values and
calculations were used to size the aircraft including: Aspect
ratios (7.6 for the wing) Taper ratios (.45 for the wing) Mean
Aerodynamic Chords (MAC) Tail Volume Coefficients (.5 from a range
of.3 to.7) Flight control surface size requirements Center of
gravity of aircraft Lift to Drag Ratio Estimations 12.4 using
statistical methods 25.6 using wing coefficient of lift and a
coefficient of drag for the entire aircraft (at Re=300,000) The
ratio for just the wing alone was 61.7 (at Re=300,000)
Slide 20
Aircraft Manufacturing
Slide 21
Weight and Balance Testing
Slide 22
Magnum 61 XLS was chosen Research suggested the 13x4 propeller
for optimum performance Propulsion System SAE Aero Design 2013
Design Report. Michigan: U of Michigan
Slide 23
Tests show 13x4 propeller gave maximum static thrust as well as
max RPM Test Validation
Slide 24
Used very thick steel nose landing gear 3/16 diameter Main
landing gear was Aluminum 6061-T6 1/8 thickness Landing Gear
Slide 25
Timeline and work breakdown
Slide 26
Actual Costs: Cost Analysis Engine/fuel tank$179.56
Electrical$216.87 Glue$50.39 Misc$151.46 Materials$279.68 Nuts and
Bolts$86.17 Landing Gear$158.45 Total:$1,122.58
Slide 27
Theoretical Performance
Slide 28
Actual Testing Results Theoretical Performance results
DateModifications Being Tested Payload [pounds] Remarks
27-Jul-14Maiden Flight0Successful Flight 2-Aug-14wing struts
added7.6Successful Flight 23-Aug-14none9.8Successful Flight
23-Aug-1413x4 propeller12Aircraft rolled too far after landing
30-Aug-14softer tires12Successful flight, but longer take off
distance 30-Aug-14softer tires13.5Successful flight, but longer
take off distance 30-Aug-14return to hard tires14.2Successful
flight, but longer roll after landing 9-Sep-14added
brakes15.7Successful Flight 9-Sep-1413x6 propeller18.5Brake failure
resulted in rolling off runway 16-Nov-14 13x4 propeller and removed
brakes20.1 Takeoff and landing was made at slower speed and higher
AOA. Successful flight
Slide 29
Performance Comparison Panthair Cargo successfully carried 20.1
pounds or 9.16 kg of payload during testing Potential top 10 finish
had the team been given the opportunity to compete in Brazil
(Reference SAE Brasil Aero Design) (Current US Champion) (5 th
place US)
Slide 30
Our Pilot Kishan Kalpoe FIU Engineering Student Very talented
and experienced RC aircraft pilot Has devoted his time to attend
our team meetings and to offer very helpful ideas Thanks
Kishan!
Slide 31
Actual Performance
Slide 32
Aerospace Engineering Club
Slide 33
Special Recognition Mr. Richard Zicarelli: design and
manufacture of brake system components Dr. Andres Tremante and Dr.
Brian Reding: Facilitated radio controller and payload carrier Dr.
Norman Munroe for his generous support of the Aerospace Engineering
Club Dr. George Dulikravich for his outstanding project support
Thank you!