Postal Penguin An Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle for the Navy. Team 8-Ball Final Presentation April 22 nd, 2003

Transcription

1 Postal Penguin An Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle for the Navy Team 8-Ball Final Presentation April 22 nd,

2 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 2

3 Introduction Team Members and Positions Ben Smith Justin Hayes Greg Little David Andrews Chuhui Pak Nate Wright Jon Hirschauer Christina DeLorenzo Alex Rich 3

4 Introduction Request for Proposal Overview RFP Requirement Mission 1, Strike Range Mission 2, Endurance Payload Cruise Speed Ceiling Sensor Suite Stealth Carrier Ops Specification 500 nm 10 Hrs 4,600 lbs > M 0.7 > 40,000 ft Global Hawk Survivability Effect of Specification High Fuel Requirements Low TSFC, High Fuel Internal Volume No Supersonic, Engine Engine, Aero Performance Volume, Integration Oblique Angles Structural Loads 4

5 Introduction Project Drivers (Pictures Courtesy of Global Security) Carrier Operation Fuel Store Capacity Stealth Sensor Suite Flyaway Costs 5

6 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 6

7 Background Research Existing Aircraft (Pictures Courtesy of GlobalSecurity) 7

8 Background Research Advanced Technologies, VSTOL Harrier Review Panel Study (HaRP) Increased Failure Rates 55 Peacetime Vehicle Losses (17 lives lost) Mishap Rates of per 100,000 hrs Increases Weight, Cost, Volume Mishaps per 100,000 Flight Hours 14 AV-8b Harrier Jump Jet All Other Navy Aircraft Fiscal Year 8

9 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concepts Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 9

10 Concepts Overview Concept Descriptions Concept Conventional Tail Rubber Ducky Biggun Stealth Wing Delta YES U2 Beetle YES Canted Tail YES YES YES Delta Wing YES Flying Wing YES Single Engine YES YES YES YES YES Multi Engine YES Vectored Thrust YES YES YES Water Landing YES Acceptable Length YES YES YES YES 10

11 Concepts Overview Reduction Chart Stealth Wing Beetle Delta U2 Biggun Rubber Ducky 11

12 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 12

13 Design Evolution, Weights Initial Configuration, Problems Severe Instability (21% MAC) Significant cg Travel Landing Problems Drag Divergence Fuel Volume 13

14 Design Evolution, Weights Weight Changes, cg Shift Shift Engine Forward Widen Midsection New Airfoil, MS(1)-0313 Planform Sweep 14

15 Design Evolution, Weights Solving the Weights Problem Ordinance Release Ordinance Retention Loiter JDAM JDAM, pre-drop HARM, pre-drop HARM JDAM/HARM, post-drop 15

16 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 16

17 Final Configuration Postal Penguin Layout 17

18 Final Configuration Postal Penguin Internal Layout Engine Integrated Sensor Suite Exhaust Wing Tanks Main Gear Fuel Tanks Nose Gear Inlets Payload 18

19 Final Configuration Postal Penguin External Layout Flaps Pelikan Tails Ailerons Main Gear Nose Gear Air intake 19

20 Final Configuration For Dr. Brown General Characteristics Length Span Span Folded Height Max 32' 45' 30' 14.3' Weight V Stall V Launch V Land kips 105 knt knt 125 knt AR 4.35 Λ o

21 Final Configuration Penguin Top/Side View Length 35 Folded Length 32 Span 45 Folded Span 30 Wheelbase 15 Track Width 10 21

22 Final Configuration Penguin Front View 22

23 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 23

24 Systems Overview General Systems (Pictures Courtesy of GlobalSecurity, FAS) Defensive Landing Gear Weapons Engine Hydraulics Bomb Bay Command/Control Electrical Flight Control 24

25 Systems Overview Bomb Bay, HARM Must be rail launched Utilize already existing technology LAU-118/A Guided Missile Launcher BRU-32/A Bomb Rack (Courtesy of GlobalSecurity) 25

26 Systems Overview HARM Rail Launch System 26

27 Systems Overview JDAM Pneumatic Ejector Utilize already existing technology Pneumatic Ejector Racks The Advantages of Pneumatic Ejection 27

28 Systems Overview Main Gear Placement Size Geometric Retraction Weight: 600 lbs Tires Type VII cg Diameter: in. Width: 7.30 in. Ground Clearance 28

29 Systems Overview Nose Gear Placement Geometric Retraction Weight: 600 lbs Size Tires Type VII Diameter: in. Width: 4.27 in. 5.5 x 104 Weight vs. Length Weight Length 29

30 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 30

31 Aero-Performance Aerodynamic Considerations General Characteristics: Supercritical airfoil for drag divergence Moderate sweep for transonic performance/neutral point location AR 4.35 λ 0.29 b 45 ft. S 465 ft MAC 11.4 ft Λ 1/2 10 deg High span and area for good L/D characteristics Reasonable thickness for potential fuel storage deg 45 If Penguins Had Wings 31

32 Aero-Performance The Contenders MS(1)-0313 SC(2)-0712 MS(1)-0317 MS(1)-0313 The Penguin presented unique design requirements: High L/D, good low-speed lift, all in a very small package. Some characteristics looked at are below. 40 kft SC(2)-0712 MS(1)-0317 MS(1)-0313 CL max α max t/c The MS(1)-0313 provided the best combination of characteristics. 32

33 Aero-Performance Drag Polar, Build-up Drag Polar (40,000 ft) Example drag polar for the cruise altitude of 40,000 ft (deep strike/sead missions) The marker signifies maximum L/D of 13.8 L/D) MAX = 13.8 CL CD 33

34 Aero-Performance Sweep and MDD A supercritical airfoil alone is not enough to counter the effects of increased wave drag. Wing has been swept 10 deg at mid-chord to raise Mach drag divergence. MDD CL vs. M DD 10 deg 5 deg 0 deg CL 34

35 Aero-Performance Thickness and MDD While sacrificing fuel volume, the decreased thickness in the wings allowed for great improvement in the Mach drag divergence values for all potential angles of sweep. M DD Midchord Sweep vs. M DD CL = % t/c 17 % t/c Midchord sweep (deg) 35

36 Aero-Performance Performance Factors Requirements refresher: 0.85 Mach at Sea Level 0.7 Mach (or better) cruise speed at 40kft or better (Deep Strike/SEAD) 10 hour endurance/loiter mission 8400 ft/min (or better) initial climb rate RFP Endurance 14.5 h Range (40,000 ft) 550 nm Max Speed (SL) 0.83 M Initial ROC (SL) ft/min Carrier T/O Accel. 5g Stall Speed 109 kts Approach Speed 131 kts T/O speed 150 kts Other Ceiling 57,700 ft L/D Max 13.8 Loiter Velocity 0.54 M Range Velocity 0.71 M 36

37 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 37

38 Control and Stability Control Surface Sizing Take Off Rotation Speed JDAM MISSION knots HARM MISSION knots LOITER MISSION knots Aileron Size Flap Size Rudder Size 7.28 ft^ ft^ ft^2 38

39 Control and Stability Roll Required Roll Rate: 45 degrees in 1.4 seconds Landing Take off Cruise Mach # HARM (Deg/sec) JDAM (Deg/sec) Loiter (Deg/sec)

40 Control and Stability HARM Mission Sideslip Flight ( Beta = 11.5 deg ) Take Off Landing Cruise Mach # Delta A (degrees) Delta R (degrees) PHI (degrees)

41 Control and Stability JDAM Mission Stead/Level Flight Control Power Assessment Landing Take Off Cruise Mach # CL trim Delta e (degrees) AOA (degrees)

42 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 42

43 Structural Analysis Material Usage Large, One-Piece, Carbon Composites Titanium, Ceramic Aramid Composites BMI Silicon Titanium Radar Absorbent Paint 43

44 Structural Analysis Wing Box Layout Skin Stiffeners Aft Spar Aileron LE Spar 44

45 Structural Analysis Bulkhead/Spar Placement 36% 60% 12% Al 7075 Al

46 Structural Analysis Bulkhead Placement Leading Edge Spar, Inlet Support Engine Support Exhaust Support Nose Gear Tie In Main Gear Tie In Aft Tail, Tail Hook Support 46

47 Structural Analysis Engine Bulkhead Design Engine mounts Removable piece Supporting plate Weapons bay doors Ordinance mounts Navy requires engines be removable through bottom of airframe 47

48 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 48

49 Pelikan Tail About the Pelikan Tail What is a Pelikan tail? Why do we want to use it? Testing the Pelikan Tail 49

50 Pelikan Tail What Is the Pelikan Tail? A tail configuration that obtains yaw and pitch control through the use of two rear control surfaces. Named for Ralph Pelikan. 50

51 Pelikan Tail Look at our Model Courtesy: NOVA JSF Video 51

52 Pelikan Tail Obtaining Yaw POSITIVE DEFLECTION NEGATIVE DEFLECTION Opposite deflection causes equivalent side forces, creating yaw. Induced rolling moment will be countered by control system & ailerons. 52

53 Pelikan Tail Why Use a Pelikan Tail? Stealth Fewer vertical surfaces reduces RCS Other Factors Less skin friction drag Only 2 actuated rear control surfaces Unproven design 53

54 Pelikan Tail Importance of Stealth The stealth of the aircraft keeps it safe from the enemy Interceptors are faster & more agile, survivability depends on stealth Stealth CAN provide all of an aircrafts survivability: Courtesy: 54

55 Pelikan Tail Other Factors Drag The less skin friction drag the better Fewer rear control surfaces Only 2 hydraulic actuators, less weight Unproven Design Opportunity to explore a new idea with physical testing No previous examples to justify Pelikan tail implementation Can we get enough side force? 55

56 Pelikan Tail Testing Senior Design / Junior Lab Partnership Dr. Mason & Dr. Devenport Would provide future senior design teams with the opportunity to test their designs Would expose juniors to a vast array of different aerodynamic designs. CLASS OF Promote healthy Junior / Senior relations! 56

57 Pelikan Tail Model Construction Draft tail sections in UniGraphics Construct base plate (poplar) Fabricate tail sections with 3D printer Coat with epoxy, then fiberglass Epoxy hinges & attach deflection braces 57

58 Pelikan Tail Model Dimensions Base Plate 9 Hinge Angle = 15 o Tail Airfoil Section NACA o *Note: Drawings not to scale 4 58

59 Pelikan Tail Experimental Goals Can we obtain the Yaw force needed? Will Pitch controls produce excess Yaw? Discover any unexpected characteristics We do not have direct control over the testing process 59

60 Pelikan Tail Pictures (Pictures Courtesy of Perez s Junior Lab Group) 60

61 Pelikan Tail Testing Data C Y vs. Angle of Attack V = 80mph Re = 540,000 L-Neg / R-Pos R-Neg / L-Zero Both Negative C Y C Y Both Positive R-Pos / L-Zero Both Zero L-Pos / R-Neg Angle of Attack (degrees) (Data from Perez s Junior Lab Group) 61

62 Pelikan Tail Test Conclusions We can obtain the Yaw needed. There is little Yaw effect in pitch. Testing still in progress. From what data we have we believe that the Pelikan tail is a viable tail design. 62

63 Pelikan Tail Conclusion Thank you to the TAs and students who participated in this concept test Rafael Perez s Lab Group Nanyaporn Intaratep s Lab Group Any groups to test this week Additional thanks to Dr. Devenport and Dr. Mason for this unique opportunity and we hope this partnership continues in the years to come. 63

64 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 64

65 Autonomy Mission Logic Launch Release Stores SEAD Climb Waypoint Cruise Combat Approach Abort Attack Seek Target ISR Launch Climb Waypoint Cruise ISR Pattern Search Return Information Command/Control Retreat/Cruise Land Land 65

66 Autonomy Flight Controls, Weapons Arming Fly-by-Wire Pre-Programmed Missions Autonomous Capability ISR SEAD Auto Pre-launch Weapons Arming Pin-Puller Mechanisms, Electronic 66

67 Carrier Integration Autonomous Integration, Spot SPOT (Courtesy of Alec Gosse) Autonomous Movement in Carrier Precise Placement and Manuevering Lessens Crew Requirements 67

68 Carrier Integration Carrier Characteristics Carrier Characteristics Landing Length (ft) Deceleration Take-off Length (ft) Acceleration (g s) Launch Angle (deg) # UCAVs Design Design EMALS Landing and Stowing Procedure 68

69 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 69

70 Costs Postal Penguin Cost Analysis Life-cycle: 20 years Production Run: 100 RUN COSTS Program Cost: $ 7.3 billion Unit Program Cost: $ 72.9 million Unit Life Cycle Cost: $ 84 million Production Run: 500 RUN COSTS Program Cost: $ 15 billion Unit Program Cost: $ 30.1 million Unit Life Cycle Cost: $ 41.9 million Using Raymer DAPCA IV 70

71 Agenda Summary Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 71

72 Questions Thank You, We appreciate your time and attendance 72

73 References Carrier Suitability Testing Manual, Pax River MD Rev 2, Sept 1994 Boeing Corporate Website, Doyle, Michael R. Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System EMALS, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, NJ Northrop Corporate Website, Global Security Website, Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design. Reston: AIAA, 1999 Kennedy, Michael, Younossi, Obaid, Graser, John C. Military Airframe Costs, The Effects of Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes. Santa Monica: Rand, 2001 Eden, Paul and Moeng, Soph. Modern Military Aircraft Anatomy. New York: Friedman/Fairfax, 2002 Niu, Michael C. Airframe Structural Design. Los Angeles: Conmilit Press, 1988 Beer, Ferdinand P. and Johnston, E. Russel. Mechanics of Materials. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1992 Kirschbaum, Nathan with Mason, W.H. Aircraft Design Handbook, Aircraft Design Aid and Layout Guide. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech, 1993 NOVA Films, Battle of the X-Planes. Broadcast on PBS, 2003 Mason, W.H. Configurational Aerodynamics. Online Notes, avail Whitford, Ray. Fundamentals of Fighter Design. Shrewsbury: Longlife, 2002 Knott, Eugene F., Schaeffer, John F. and Tuley, Michael T. Radar Cross Section. 2ed. Boston: Artech House, 1993 Jenn, David C. Radar and Laser Cross Section Engineering. Reston: AIAA, 1995 Survivability Book MORE REFERENCES (freshman?) 73