An Outlook on DLR s SBW activities. Daniel Böhnke, Erwin Moerland Air Transportation Systems German Aerospace Center, DLR e.v.

Transcription

1 An Outlook on DLR s SBW activities Daniel Böhnke, Erwin Moerland Air Transportation Systems German Aerospace Center, DLR e.v.

2 DLR.de Chart 2

3 DLR.de Folie 3 Mass distribution D150

4 DLR.de Folie 4 ONERA Strut Braced Wing Wing reference area m m 2 Aspect ratio Wing thickness 13% 10% MTOM 77000kg Cruise Mach

5 DLR.de Folie 5 Mass distribution Albatros without strut D150

6 DLR.de Folie 6 Mass distribution Albatros 30% span D150

7 DLR.de Folie 7 Mass distribution Albatros 53% D150

8 DLR.de Chart 8 FrEACs: Future Enhanced Aircraft Configurations 1 Level of confidence in the design process x 10 4 AR = 10 S wing = 360

9 DLR.de Chart 9 FrEACs: Future Enhanced Aircraft Configurations Unconventional configurations 2

10 DLR.de Chart 10 FrEACs: Future Enhanced Aircraft Configurations Assessment of environmental impact 3

11 DLR.de Chart 11 FrEACs: Future Enhanced Aircraft Configurations Holistic design process 4

12 DLR.de Chart APRIL 2014 Kick-off TLAR DESIGN CAMP Config. Analysis DESIGN CAMP Conceptual Design DESIGN CAMP Physics - based Analysis

13 DLR.de Folie 13 TLAR Values Category Name Unit Description Operator SBW Reason / Explanation payload #Pax [-] number of passengers = 154 (single class layout, 95 [kg] per passenger) m cargo [t] amount of cargo = 4 Boeing CMO 2030 Aircraft Fleet Information Mean Value for Mid-Range Aircraft Airbus Global Market Forecast states similar values A320 payload 18.6 t NACRE payload is 180pax 17.1t Using cargo from payload of A Pax 4 t cargo 4 FrEACS Design Point Source: NASA Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research

14 DLR.de Folie 14 TLAR Values Category Name Unit Description Operator SBW payload #Pax [-] number of passengers = 154 (single class layout, 95 [kg] per passenger) m cargo [t] amount of cargo = 4 range range capability [nm] maximum range (at given payload capacity) > % of actual A320-Flights are less than 1000nm [OAG Data 12/ /2008] 79% Flights [%] OAG Data 12/ /2008 A & Flights Range [nm]

15 DLR.de Folie 15 TLAR Values Category Name Unit Description Operator SBW Reason / Explanation ICAO Class airport class (only max. airport box dimensions and max. landing gear wheel track taken into account) ICAO Code C airport compatibility b [m] maximum wing span < 36 ICAO Code C t wheel runway loading TOFL [m] - [m] maximum wheel track width maximum loading of the runway for rigid pavements cat. A take-off field length (@MTOW, SL, ISA + 15deg) < 9 ICAO Code C (6-9) < 50 < 2100 Typical value of B737 and A320 for rigid pavement subclass A TOFL: 75% of airports have TOFL > 2072m (all airports with DME(distance measurement equipment) CAT 1)

16 DLR.de Folie 16 TLAR Values Category Name Unit Description Operator SBW Reason / Explanation performance targets M [-] Mach number in cruise at ICA = 0.72 NACRE NASA N+3 Aircraft Concepts and Designs: 0.7 suggested by Boeing Current Market Outlook Also used 0.74 ONERA 0.75 Airbus LDA (Low Drag Aircraft) 20 sweep 16 sweep 7 sweep Lamair ICA m Often outcome of optimization process

17 DLR.de Chart 17 DESIGN CAMP Configuration Analysis Operators Jana Ehlers (FT), Gabriel Pinho Chiozzotto (AE) Sebastian Freund (FA), Carsten Liersch (AS) Prozess Integration Till Pfeiffer (LY), Erwin Moerland (LY), Jan Flink (SC) Aerodynamic Till Pfeiffer (LY), Jens Rabe (AS) Carsten Liersch (AS) Daniel Böhnke (LY), Erwin Moerland (LY), Jan Flink (SC) Structures/Aeroelastic Thiemo Kier (SR), Dieter Kohlgrüber (BT) Falk Heinecke (FA), Julian Scherer (BT) Engines Wolfgang Flagner (AT), Sebastien Guerin (AT), Tom Otten (AT) Carsten Klein (AT), Richard Becker (AT) Mission Thomas Immisch (FT) Gertjan Looye (SR), Erwin Moerland (LY) Systems Axel Berres (FT) Peter Zamov (FT) Landing Gear Sunpeth Cumnuantip (AE) Sunpeth Cumnuantip (AE) Assessment Lothar Bertsch (AS) Oliver Schneider (FL)

18 DLR.de Chart 18 Dependencies - N2 Chart TLAR TLAR 1 connection in initialisation phase i input connection in interative phase f feedback connection in iterative phase e connection in evaluation phase FuCD Secondary Sekundärmas mass sen Rumpf, fuselage, Payloadmasse payload Geometrie Fuselage, Rumpf, Payloadmasse Payloadmasse Payload Secondary Sekundärmas mass sen Rumpf, fuselage, Payloadmasse payload TWDat Engine Triebwerks- mass and Masse SFC Engine Schubkennfeld and mass SFC Engine Triebwerkmasse mass and SFC VAMPzero Mass- Breakdown Geometrie Geometry Liftingline & Handbook- Aero Structures, Struktur, Geometrie Geometry Geometrie Geometry Aero Performance Kennfeld Control Klappen Surfaces Geometrie, Structures, Geometry, mass- Breakdown, Mass Breakdown Struktur Aero Lasten Loads Mass- Breakdown PESTsewi Sekundärmas Secondary wing sen Flügel mass Sekundärmas Secondary wing sen Flügel mass WingMass Surrogate Primärmasse Primary mass Flügel + wing Strebe DELiS Primärstruktu Primary mass rmassen aircraft Paradise System Design Triebwerksskalierung Engine scaling Treibstoff- Treibstoff- Trip Fuel FSMS Trip Fuel Verbrauch Verbrauch Mass- Breakdown CMU

19 DLR.de Chart 19 Workflow Principle Setup DOE Computational speed Init / L0 L1 Level of detail L2 Assessment

20 DLR.de Chart 20 Results: Team Orange

21 DLR.de Chart 21 DESIGN CAMP Conceptual Design

22 DLR.de Chart 22 DESIGN CAMP Conceptual Design Evaluate design alternatives Limited to conceptual design knowledge Target function becomes significant Technology vetos

23 DLR.de Chart 23 Conclusion & Outlook Conceptual design phase Preliminary results Combined engine and aircraft development 36m span boundary limits the design significantly Target function changes the name of the game Looking forward to design freeze and physics based analysis

24 DLR.de Chart 24 Thank you for your attention!