conceptual design review - aae 451 - team 5 april 17, 2007 slide 1 conceptual design review robert...
TRANSCRIPT
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 1
Conceptual Design Review
Robert AungstChris ChownMatthew GrayAdrian Mazzarella
Brian BoyerNick GohnCharley HancockMatt Schmitt
Team 5
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 2
Outline of Presentation
• Mission Summary• Payload Summary• Final Concept• Sizing Analysis• Aerodynamic Analysis• Performance Analysis• Engine / Power Analysis • Structures Analysis• Stability and Controls Analysis
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 3
Concept of Operations
• Continuous area coverage of South Florida metropolitan areas and beaches for advertising purposes
• Advertisements change based on location and circumstance– Targeted advertising for
specific areas– e.g. advertising Best Buy
near Circuit City locations
• Large, fuselage mounted LED screens will deliver adverts
• Business will be developed around this new technology
“Our mission is to provide an innovative advertising medium through the use of an
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)”
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 4
Concept of Operations
• Operations based at Sebring Regional Airport, serving 3 high population areas
• Continuous area coverage of city for 18 hrs (6am to 12am)– 3 missions total with 6 hour
loiter each• Seven planes needed for 3 city
operations with 1 spare• Coverage area map:
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 5
Major Design Requirements
• Customer Attributes– Advertisement visibility is paramount in order to
meet customer’s needs– Must maintain a loiter speed which allows the public
to retain the content of advertisements – For a successful venture, these two requirements
must be clearly met in order to provide a superior service to the customer
• Engineering Requirements– Screen dimensions: 7.42’ x 30’ (each)– Loiter Speed: 68 ktas– Loiter Endurance: 6 hrs
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 6
Payload Summary - Screen
• Two High Intensity LED Screens– 7.42 ft X 30 ft
• Viewable up to 1500 ft
– 500 lbs installed (each)– $120k cost (each)– Power Consumption
• 3.9 kw/5.2 hp, each• Driven by DC Generator
– Daytime Viewable• Brightness: 6500 cd/m²
– Dynamic Display• 60 fps video/text
– Weatherproof
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 7
Selected Aircraft Concept – “Walkaround” Diagram
7.42’ x 30’
advertising
screen
T-tail empennage
configuration
High wing
configuration
High aspect
ratio, zero
sweep wing
Single 755 hp
turboprop, propeller
Retractable
tricycle landing
gear
configuration
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 8
Selected Aircraft Concept – Key Figures
Requirement Final Value
Screen Dimensions (each)
7.42’ x 30’
Loiter Velocity 68 kts TAS
Loiter Time 6 hrs
Cruise Range 400 nm
Loiter L/D (clean) 21
Specific Fuel Consumption
0. 55 lb/BHP/hr
Cruise Velocity 165 kts TAS
GTOW 5585 lbs
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 9
Aircraft Sizing Analysis
• Sizing Prediction Methods– NASA Langley’s FLOPS
• Flight Optimization System
– AVID’s ACS– Team Written Matlab Code
• Early Weight Predictions– Team written Matlab code– Empty weight - historical database trends
• Final Weight Predictions– NASA’s FLOPS Software– Empty weight - FLOPS general aviation
equations
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 10
Aircraft Sizing Analysis
• Fixed Design Parameter Values
Design Parameter FLOPS Input ValueCLmax
1.2
Thickness-to-Chord Ratio .10
Taper Ratio .39
Wing Sweep 0°
Effective Aspect Ratio 16.8
Screen Size/Weight 7.42” x 30” (drove fuselage dimensions input)/1000 lbs
Weight Correction Advanced Composites Assumed
Atmosphere Correction Standard Atmosphere + 30°F
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 11
Aircraft Sizing Analysis
• Tail Sizing Strategy– Historical values for tail volume coefficient
• Raymer plus a “fudge” factor
– Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient: 0.975– Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient: 0.1
• Engine Modeling– FLOPS turboprop model– Inputs
• compressor pressure ratio• turbine inlet temperature• design shaft horsepower• design core airflow• propeller efficiency• propeller RPM
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 12
Carpet Plots
• Carpet Plots Procedures– Design Wing Loading: 12.5 lbs/ft2
– Design Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.24– Increase and Decrease Wing Loading
and Thrust-to-Weight Ratio by factors of approximately 20% and 40%
– Determine from sizing code:• Gross Takeoff Weight• Landing Distance• Takeoff Distance
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 13
Carpet Plot
Design Area
W/S = 12.5
T/W = 0.24
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 14
Trade Studies
• Using carpet plots– Design wing loading selected– Design thrust-to-weight ratio selected
• Trade Studies– Gross Weight Variations from:
• Payload weight• Cruise distance• Loiter time
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 15
Trade Studies - Payload Weights
• 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens• Cruise Distance = 112 nm
– 1 LED Screen• Payload Weight: 500 lbs• Gross Takeoff Weight: 3942 lbs• Empty Weight: 2368 lbs• Fuel Weight: 1008 lbs
– 2 LED Screen• Payload Weight: 1000 lbs• Gross Takeoff Weight: 5431 lbs• Empty Weight: 2996 lbs• Fuel Weight: 1360 lbs
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 16
Trade Studies - Cruise Distance
• 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens• Varying Cruise Distances
Cruise Range: 1 LED Screen(Payload = 500lbs)
2 LED Screen(Payload = 1000lbs)
175 N.M. Cruise
GTOW: 4243 lbs.Empty: 2491 lbs.Fuel: 1184 lbs.
GTOW: 5869 lbs.Empty: 3186 lbs.Fuel: 1605 lbs.
150 N.M. Cruise
GTOW: 4118 lbs.Empty: 2440 lbs.Fuel: 1111 lbs.
GTOW: 5686 lbs.Empty: 3106 lbs.Fuel: 1503 lbs.
100 N.M. Cruise
GTOW: 3889 lbs.Empty: 2347 lbs.Fuel: 976 lbs.
GTOW: 5356 lbs.Empty: 2963 lbs.Fuel: 1318 lbs.
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 17
Trade Studies - Loiter Length
• 1 LED Screen vs. 2 LED Screens• Varying Loiter Lengths
Loiter Length: 1 LED Screen(Payload = 500lbs)
2 LED Screen(Payload = 1000lbs)
4 hr. Loiter GTOW: 3336 lbs.Empty: 2124 lbs.Fuel: 650 lbs.
GTOW: 4564 lbs.Empty: 2626 lbs.Fuel: 868 lbs.
6 hr. Loiter GTOW: 3942 lbs.Empty: 2368 lbs.Fuel: 1008 lbs.
GTOW: 5431 lbs.Empty: 2996 lbs.Fuel: 1360 lbs.
8 hr. Loiter GTOW: 4127 lbs.Empty: 2387 lbs.Fuel: 1173 lbs.
GTOW: 6682 lbs. Empty: 3570 lbs.Fuel: 2029 lbs.
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 18
13 ft42 ft
Aircraft Description – 3-view
78 ft
5 ft
6 ft
10 ft
3 ft
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 19
Aircraft Description - Internal Layout
Screen
Screen
Engine
Generator
Avionics
Nose Camera
Tail Camera
Ballistic Recovery System
42 ft.
13
ft
Rear Landing Gear
Fuel
Nose Landing Gear
(beneath engine)
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 20
Aircraft Description - Retractable Tricycle Landing Gear
• Nose Gear:– 4 ft. from the nose– Center of plane– Retracts to the rear– 3.25 ft. long strut
• .1 ft diameter
– Oleopneumatic shock-strut with drag brace
– 2 Type VII tires (redundancy)
• .4 ft width• .75 ft radius• 100 psi• Rated at 174 kts
• Main Gear:– 22 ft. from the nose– Edges of the fuselage– Retract to the rear– 5.75 ft. long struts
• .14 ft diameter
– Oleopneumatic shock-struts with drag braces
– Type VII tires• .4 ft width• .75 ft radius• 225 psi• Rated at 217 kts
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 21
Aircraft Description - Landing Gear Design Considerations
• No tail strike on landing (ground clearance > 1.2 ft)– 2 ft ground clearance
• Propeller ground clearance (> .84 ft)– 2 ft ground clearance
• Tipback prevention (> 15˚)– Angle of 19˚ off vertical from main gear to center of
gravity
• Overturn prevention (< 63˚)– Overturn angle 45˚
• Optimal weight sharing (8-15% by nose)– Nose gear carries 10.4%
• Main gear retraction– Thin fairing opens at top of screen– Screen assembled in modules
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 22
Aerodynamic Design
• Wing design summary• Wing details• Airfoil selection and performance
characteristics• Parasite drag build-up• Aircraft drag polars• Other aerodynamic
considerations
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 23
Aerodynamic Design – Wing Design Summary
Parameter Value Units
Wing area 434.51 ft2
Wing span 77.99 ft
Root chord 8.03 ft
Tip chord 3.11 ft
Mean aerodynamic chord 5.93 ft
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 24
Aerodynamic Design – Wing Design Summary
Parameter Value Units
Taper ratio 0.39 Non-dimensional
Geometric aspect ratio
14.0 Non-dimensional
Effective aspect ratio (due to winglets)
16.8 Non-dimensional
Quarter chord sweep 0.0 °Leading edge sweep 0.0 °Dihedral 0.0 °
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 25
Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Twist Distribution
• Wing twist designed:– to achieve a minimum induced drag spanwise
lift distribution– to provide desirable stall characteristics
• Preliminary twist distribution derived using lifting-line theory
Wing Twist Distribution
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Non-dimensional Spanwise Location, eta = 2y/b
Tw
ist
ang
le [
deg
.]
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 26
Aerodynamic Design – Wing Spanwise Thickness Distribution
• Thickness distribution designed:– to minimize the form drag of the wing– to provide potential weight savings
• Preliminary thickness distribution based on current aircraft designs
Wing Thickness-to-Chord Distribution
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Non-dimensional Spanwise Location, eta = 2y/b
t/c
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 27
Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Wing
• Wing Requirements– Promotes laminar flow– Delays transition to turbulent flow
• In order to accomplish this, the NACA 64-912,10,08 airfoil was chosen for the different thicknesses required
Drag Polar & Lift-curve slope for NACA 64-912
NACA 64-912
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 28
Aerodynamic Design - Airfoil Selection - Tail
• Vertical Tail– Requires a symmetric airfoil to prevent side forces
• Horizontal Tail– Must allow for stability of aircraft
Chose NACA 0012 for both vertical and horizontal tail– By using the same characteristic airfoil for both, it will
reduce manufacturing costs– It meets the symmetry requirements– A 12% thickness, this allows structural considerations
NACA 0012
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 29
Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up
• Two methods were used to predict parasite drag:– Component build-up method*– FLOPS (Flight Optimization System)
breakdown
• Data from both predictions were analyzed and compared, giving a parasite drag prediction
*Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach;
D.P. Raymer; 2006.
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 30
Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up
Component Form Factor
Reference Reynolds Number
[106]
Skin Friction
Coefficient
Wetted Area
[ft2]
Drag Coefficient
Wing 1.190 4.20 0.0029 747.77
0.0061
Fuselage 1.611 29.76 0.0025 763.98
0.0070
Horizontal Tail
1.184 1.74 0.0040 78.18 0.0009
Vertical Tail 1.184 3.74 0.0041 181.27
0.0021Miscellaneous Drag 0.0048
Protuberance Drag 0.0021
Total Parasite Drag = 0.0231
• Parasite drag build-up [clean configuration]:
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 31
Aerodynamic Design – Parasite Drag Build-up
• Parasite drag breakdown [clean configuration]:
Profile Drag Breakdown [Clean Configuration]
27%
30%4%
9%
21%
9%
Wing
Fuselage
Horizontal Tail
Vertical Tail
Miscellaneous Drag
Protuberance Drag
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 32
Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars
• Aircraft drag polar [clean configuration]:
Com plete Aircraft Drag Polar [Clean Configuration]
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
-0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
CL
CD
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 33
Aerodynamic Design – Drag Polars
• Aircraft drag polar [dirty configuration]:
Com plete Aircraft Drag Polar [Dirty Configuration]
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
-0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
CL
CD
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 34
Aerodynamic Design – Other ConsiderationsWinglets• Proposed to add winglets to reduce the wing induced
drag• Applicable to this aircraft due to the design mission
characteristics:– Long endurance– Low design flight speed.
• Winglets increase the effective aspect ratio – sizing code uses the effective aspect ratio
• No detailed design carried out• Further detailed aerodynamic design would incorporate
winglet design
High-lift devices• With an approach speed of 67 keas, it was felt that
high-lift devices, at this stage of the design, were not needed
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 35
Performance
• Specific excess power• Power available and required• Flight envelope• V-n diagram• Performance summary
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 36
Performance – Specific Excess Power
• Specific excess power, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Specific Excess Power - Flight Envelope
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Mach Number
Pre
ss
ure
Alt
itu
de
(ft
)
0 ft/min
100 ft/min
500 ft/min
1000 ft/min
1500 ft/min
2000 ft/min
2500 ft/min
3000 ft/min
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 37
Performance – Power Available and Power Required
• Power available and power required, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Power Available and Power Required
0
50
100150
200
250
300
350
400450
500
550
600
650
700750
800
850
900
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Mach Number
Po
wer
Ava
ilab
le a
nd
Po
wer
Req
uir
ed
(hp
)
1,000 ft.
10,000 ft.
Power Available
Pavail after extraction
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 38
Performance – Flight Envelope
• Flight envelope, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 39
Performance – V-n Diagram
• V-n diagram (maneuver loads), at maximum gross take-off weight:
V-n Diagram [Maneuver]
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Veas [kts]
n
@ Maximum Gross Take-off Weight, 5432 lbs
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 40
Performance – Turn Performance
• Turn radius, at maximum gross take-off weight:
Turn Performance - Turn Radius
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Veas [kts]
Tu
rn R
adiu
s [f
t]
Stall Boundary Maximum Load Factor Boundary
Sta
ll B
ound
ary
@ Maximum Gross Take-
off Weight, 5432 lbs
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 41
Performance – Turn Performance
• Time to turn 180° at maximum gross take-off weight:
Turn Performance - Time to Turn 180 degrees
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Veas [kts]
Tim
e to
Tu
rn 1
80 d
egre
es [
s]
Stall Boundary Maximum Load Factor Boundary
@ Maximum Gross Take-
off Weight, 5432 lbs
Sta
ll B
ound
ary
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 42
Performance – Performance Summary
Stall speed 51 keas
Loiter speed 67 keas
Cruise speed 162 keas
Maximum speed 223 keas
Approach speed* 67 keas
Best range speed** 46 keas
Best endurance speed
61 keas
Operating Speeds
*Approach speed based on 1.3*Vs1-g
**Note: best range speed is below the stall speed
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 43
Performance – Performance Summary
Take-off distance***
1910 ft
Landing distance***
3650 ft
Service Ceiling**** 30800 ft
Wing Loading 12.5 lbs/ ft2
Design Point L/D 21.0 Non-dimensional
Other
***Take-off and landing distances based on standard sea-level conditions, temperature STD +30F
****Service ceiling based on the FAR requirement of a climb rate of 100 fpm for propeller aircraft
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 44
Propulsion System – Engine and Propeller
• Honeywell TPE-331-5 Turboprop– Power: 776 shp (S.L. static)– SFC: .577 lb/hr/hp @ max
power– Cost: $100k-$150k– Dry Weight: 355 lbs– Installed Weight: 500 lbs– Prop Shaft Speed: 2000 RPM
• Propeller– Hartzell HC-B3TN-5 – Matched to TPE-331– 3-Blade, Variable Pitch– Constant Speed, Feathering– Steel Hub, Aluminum Blades– Tip Mach: 0.82 – J: 0.90 AF: 99.8– η: 0.785 Cp: 0.114
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 45
Power Budget
• Power Source– Up to 50 hp extracted from engine– D.C. generator attached to accessory gearbox
• Power Requirements– LED Screens
• 2 @ 5.2 hp = 10.4 hp– MicroPilot MP-Day/Nightview Cameras
• 2 @ 6 watts = 0.02 hp– Avionics Components
• Communications (VHF/UHF), Navigation (GPS), Flight Control, Telemetry, Video
• Estimated @ 20 kW = 26.8 hp
• ~37 hp used, 13 hp reserve available
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 46
Structure - Internal Structural Layout
13 ft
78 ft
42 ft
Rear SparMain Spar
Front SparRibs
Stringers
2.5 ft
2.5 ft
1.88 ft
3.13 ft
1.88 ft
1.25 ft
Key:
Stringer:
Rib:
Spar:
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 47
Structure - Aircraft Material Selection
Component Material Modulus (GPa) Ultimate Strength (GPa) Density (g/cm^3)
SkinAramid/Epoxy (Kev 49/Epoxy) 70.00 1.40 1.40
StringersBoron/Aluminum (B/Al 2024) 210.00 1.50 2.65
SparsBoron/Aluminum (B/Al 2024) 210.00 1.50 2.65
RibsCarbon/Epoxy (AS4/3501-6) 140.00 2.10 1.55
ComparisonAluminum (2024) 70.00 0.14 2.70
ComparisonTitanium (Ti-6Al-4V) 110.00 0.92 4.46
•Skin (Aramid/Epoxy): 49% weight savings, same modulus, 10x the ultimate strength
• High strength resists FOD damage
•Stringers (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3x modulus increases fuselage rigidity
• Inhibits LED screen damage from fuselage strain
•Spars (Boron/Aluminum): Same weight, but 3x modulus increases wing rigidity
• Large span would otherwise exhibit wing bending; increases aerodynamic efficiency
•Ribs (Carbon/Epoxy): 43% weight savings, 2x stiffer inhibit wing twist
• High wing-twist resistance increases aerodynamic efficiency and endurance
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 48
Stability and Control- Weight SummaryMASS AND BALANCE SUMMARY % TOTAL POUNDS
Wing 17.85 969Horizontal Tail 0.61 33Vertical Tail 1.69 92Fuselage 11.86 644Landing Gear 3.73 202STRUCTURE TOTAL 35.74 1941
Engines 6.35 500Fuel System - Tanks and Plumbing 2.43 132PROPULSION TOTAL 8.78 632
Surface Controls 0.71 38Hydraulics 3.48 189Electrical 2.76 150Avionics 0.92 50Ballistic Recovery System 0.69 150SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT TOTAL 10.63 577Weight Empty 55.15 3150
Unusable Fuel 1.21 66Engine Oil 0.16 9Operating Weight 56.54 3225
Advertising Screens 18.41 1000Zero Fuel Weight 74.95 4225
Mission Fuel 25.05 1360Ramp (Gross) Weight 100.00 5585
• Aircraft and Component Weights• FLOPS sizing code• FLOPS is widely used for
aircraft of this size• The results, overall, agree with
earlier sizing studies
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 49
Stability and Control – Static Margin
• Static Margin– From internal layout and weight summary
• Fuel tank located near the c.g.– Very little c.g. travel as fuel is burned
• Static margin remains constant throughout mission
42 ft.
13
ft 19.95 ft 9 in
Location (ft)C.G. 19.95Xn 20.70SM 0.13
Datum
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 50
Cost
• Aircraft development and maintenance costs estimated from FLOPS cost model
• Production includes 7 complete aircraft with 2 spare engines
• Payroll assumes 21 person staff, with a rotation of 12 operators
• Revenue model based on servicing 3 cities, 18 hours per day, 50 weeks per year
Startup Costs
Development $2,619,000.00
Production $26,845,000.00
Office Equipment $100,000.00
Payroll $7,680,000.00
Cost of Manufacturing Site $240,000.00
Advertising $2,160,000.00
Subtotal $39,644,000.00
Operating Costs (Yearly)
Fuel $3,359,700.00
Maintenance $9,044,600.00
Payroll $5,260,000.00
Advertising $720,000.00
Hangar Costs $33,800.00
Subtotal $18,418,100.00
Summary
Yearly Revenue $25,130,250.00
Yearly Income $6,712,150.00
Years to Break Even 6
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 51
Conclusions – Selected Concept
7.42’ x 30’
advertising
screen
T-tail empennage
configuration
High wing
configuration
High aspect
ratio, zero
sweep wing
Single 755 hp
turboprop, propeller
Retractable
tricycle landing
gear
configuration
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 52
Conclusions - Design Compliance
Requirement Final Target Initial
Screen Dimensions (each)
7.42’ x 30’ 7.42’ x 30’ 8’ x 45’
Loiter Velocity 68 kts TAS < 65 kts < 55 kts
Loiter Time 6 hrs > 6 hrs > 8 hrs
Cruise Range 400 nm > 400 nm > 400 nm
Loiter L/D (clean) 21 > 16 > 22
Specific Fuel Consumption
0. 55 lb/BHP/hr
< 0.5 lb/BHP/hr
< 0.5 lb/BHP/hr
Cruise Velocity 165 kts TAS
> 80 kts > 135 kts
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 53
Conclusions - Project Feasibility
• While technically feasible, the project has major pitfalls• FAA regulations greatly restrict flight over
populated areas• Business case is overly optimistic of
industry• Price point is very high• Cost model assumes infinite demand• Innovative idea could invigorate industry
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 54
Conclusions - Future Work
• Business– Market Research to confirm business
feasbility
• Aerodynamic Analysis– CFD Analysis to confirm FLOPS results
• Structural Analysis– Generation of predicted loads– Finite Element Analysis
• Stability– Lateral Stability Analysis– Aileron and Rudder Sizing– Elevator Sizing
Conceptual Design Review - AAE 451 - Team 5 April 17, 2007 Slide 55
Questions?
Thank you for your time!Comments and Questions?