Lockheed Martin Corporation

Transcription

1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CHALLENGE PROJECT PLAN ENGINEERING 466 LMC 01 CLIENT Lockheed Martin Corporation FACULTY ADVISORS Dr. Greg Smith Dr. Steve Holland TEAM MEMBERS Jennifer Byer Brian Cheney Robert Gaul Travis Grager Joe Hodgin Adam Jacobs Alicia Kuhlman Mike Plummer Tom Ramey Ali Soderberg Daniel Stone Ronald Teo DATE SUBMITTED September 27, 2008

2 REPORT DISCLAIMER NOTICE DISCLAIMER: This document was developed as a part of the requirements of a multidisciplinary engineering course at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. This document does not constitute a professional engineering design or a professional land surveying document. Although the information is intended to be accurate, the associated students, faculty, and Iowa State University make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, quality, or adequacy of the information. The user of this document shall ensure that any such use does not violate any laws with regard to professional licensing and certification requirements. This use includes any work resulting from this student prepared document that is required to be under the responsible charge of a licensed engineer or surveyor. This document is copyrighted by the students who produced this document and the associated faculty advisors. No part may be reproduced without the written permission of the course coordinator.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 4 Acknowledgments... 4 Problem Statement... 5 Need Statement... 5 Concept Sketches... 5 System Block Diagram... 8 Airplane System Description... 9 Avionics and Electrical Systems Descriptions Rail Launch System Description Key Technical Challenges Operating Environment User Interface for Ground Station Functional Requirements Non functional Requirements Market Literature Survey Deliverables Estimated Time and Manpower Project Schedule Deliverables Schedule For fall Estimated Cost of Project Closing Summary Contacts Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 2

4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conceptual sketch of airplane design... 5 Figure 2: Byron pipe dream... 6 Figure 3: Rail launch in transport mode... 7 Figure 4: Rail launch with legs out... 7 Figure 5: Plane cradle and rail design... 7 Figure 6: A system block diagram of what components are in project... 8 Figure 7: Launch components...20 Figure 8: Ground station user interface concept...24 Figure 9: LM challenge team breakout...27 Figure 10: Airplane design tree diagram...28 Figure 11: Rail launch design tree diagram...29 Figure 12: Avionics and electrical systems tree diagram...31 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Time commitment for airplane system...28 Table 2: Time commitment for rail launch system...30 Table 3: Time commitment for avionics and electrical system...33 Table 4: Project schedule...34 Table 5: Project Budget...36 Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 3

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A major trend of modern warfare is the increasing likelihood of combat in urban environments and other developed areas, presenting unique challenges to today s soldier. An urban setting makes it difficult for soldiers to observe potential dangers that are blocked from their vision by structures. A system needs to be designed so that soldiers can see these dangers before they may encounter them and then use that data to more effectively encounter the upcoming challenges. The Multidisciplinary Design Class has been given the challenge to design an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) that can be launched from an urban setting and spot these dangers. One of the difficulties for a UAV in this type of setting is the difficulty inherent in launching between buildings and other obstacles. A vertical launch system must be incorporated to assist the aircraft in reaching a safe altitude. To ensure this is an easy system for a soldier to operate, the UAV must be launched, flown, and landed through an autonomous system such that the soldier only needs to designate waypoints for the flight. A camera system needs to be incorporated within the aircraft to provide a live video feed to the soldiers on the ground. Our project team has divided this challenge into three main areas. Our Aeronautics design group has looked at possibilities for different configurations of the airplane. The Launch System team has looked into different pneumatic systems to meet our requirements. The Avionics team has looked into different autopilots and camera systems. All three groups will interface their subsystems together to work as one system. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The LM Challenge Team would like to thank Dr. Smith, Professor Holland, and Cory Tallman from Lockheed Martin Skunk Works out of Fort Worth, TX for all of their guidance and support on this project. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 4

6 PLANNING PROBLEM STATEMENT Current UAV technology is not capable of launching vertically using a rail launch system into the atmosphere. This presents the problem of not being practical for use in an urban environment because of the difficulty for soldiers to see preexisting dangers in an urban combat zone with current UAV technology. NEED STATEMENT The Iowa State LM Challenge Team has been asked to design an unmanned autonomous vehicle to take off from a vertical or near vertical pneumatic launch system within the confines of an urban environment. This vehicle will be used to fly low altitude reconnaissance missions prior to U.S. ground troops occupying the designated area. CONCEPT SKETCHES AIRPLANE SYSTEM CONCEPT FIGURE1: CONCEPTUAL SKETCH OF AIRPLANE DESIGN Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 5

7 FIGURE 2: BYRON PIPE DREAM The plane will be able to launch vertically into an urban environment. By launching vertically, the plane will be able to avoid obstacles and reach altitude quicker, which will mean that the plane is less susceptible to attack. The rail launch system is designed so that a rod less pneumatic actuator will be used to obtain a large amount of vertical force in a compact area. In addition to the rail design, a magnetic cradle system will be utilized to push the plane up the rail vertically. This plane concept is based off of a Byron s Pipe Dream that was last made in the late 1980 s. The plane is capable of being vertical rail launched because of its robust aluminum tube fuselage. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 6

8 RAIL LAUNCH SYSTEM CONCEPT FIGURE 3: RAIL LAUNCH IN TRANSPORT MODE FIGURE 4: RAIL LAUNCH WITH LEGS OUT FIGURE 5: PLANE CRADLE AND RAIL DESIGN The proposed pneumatic launch system is designed to be transported in the back of a Humvee (see Figure 3). Once set up and ready to launch the airplane, the rail launch system has legs that fold out and mount into the ground (see Figure 4). Figure 5 shows a close up view of the proposed airplane cradle and rail geometry. See definition below on the launch system for more explaniation on the design. On the rail launch system, a carriage runs along the top of the of piston chamber. This carriage holds the airplane on top with two extrusions that help to cradle the airplane. Also, a slot is provided in the front of the carriage so a hook can be inserted into it. The airplane will have a hook on the front of the belly of the fuselage that will insert into the slot. Through that hook, the force from the launch system will be transferred to the airplane. The hook Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 7

9 will pull the airplane, providing stable aircraft acceleration and trajectory. When the carriage reaches the end of the launch system, the carriage will stop, allowing the airplane to continue on its vertical trajectory. With the vertical trajectory and speed of the airplane, the airplane will successfully meet the requirements of a vertical launch UAV system. SYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM FIGURE 6: A SYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM OF COMPONENTS IN PROJECT Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 8

10 AIRPLANE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION When designing the airplane for this project there are 6 main components that will need to be considered: propulsion, wing design, flight performance, configuration, landing gear, and controls. PROPULSION METHOD TO POWER THE AIRCRAFT Gas power Advantages: Range, power to weight Disadvantages: Noise, reliability, safety Gas power would only be used if it could be determined that a gas engine could far out perform an electric engine. NFR01 states that the engine is preferred to be electric. Electric power Advantages: Quiet, Reliable Disadvantages: Heavier (batteries), limited range An electric engine is the best option because it is easier to start on the launch pad and safer to start for the soldiers. It will also be more reliable for the avionics system, and it will be used to satisfy NFR01. AIRFOIL SELECTION FOR MAIN WING Symmetrical Aerobatic, with little lift Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 9

11 Semi symmetrical Semi aerobatic, with average lift Flat bottom High lift, and recoverable flight characteristics, more stable, high drag After initial assumptions and calculations, our aircraft will require an S*Cl=4.33 ft 2 where S is measured in ft 2. Very high lift airfoils provide too much drag, and symmetrical airfoils do not provide enough lift. The investigation is continuing knowing our size requirements of the Humvee, NFR02. WING DESIGN FOR OPTIMUM LIFT TO DRAG RATIO Straight Easy to manufacture, less efficient Optimized (sweep, taper, dihedral) Hard to manufacture, more efficient One piece wing Strongest configuration of wing Wingspan is limited to length of Humvee cargo area Two piece wing Allows for a wider wing span, widest possible would be double the length of the Humvee cargo area Weaker than one piece wing Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 10

12 Attaching the wing pieces to the fuselage could be done using a wing mounting bracket design from an RC plane Three piece wing Allows for very wide wing span, widest possible would be triple the length of the Humvee cargo area Weaker than one piece wing Method of attaching the tip piece to the center section is problematic Method of attaching the center section to the fuselage is also problematic The preferred option for wing design is a combination of straight and optimized. We will have a taper ratio of somewhere around 0.5 to reduce the induced drag and we will have a small dihedral angle to increase the flight characteristics of the aircraft. A one piece wing is the strongest, but it doesn't allow for nearly enough wingspan, so the wing will be in multiple pieces. The wing will be two pieces because it allows for enough wingspan and it is possible using some wing mounting brackets that the Pipe Dream offers to attach the wings to the fuselage in a fairly simple way. The wing is stronger in the direction of travel and thus can handle the expected G loading from the vertical takeoff. We will build our own set of wings for the Pipe Dream so that stall speed can be determined as well as analyze the plane as a whole. GENERAL CONFIGURATION OF AIRCRAFT Requirements: Wing Single wing Simple to analyze Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 11

13 Simple to manufacture Bi wing Produces more lift with a short span More difficult to manufacture Tail Conventional Simple to analyze Simple to manufacture Easy to control V tail Lighter than conventional tail Produces less drag than conventional tail Requires complex control system Fuselage Boom Allows for changing center of gravity Easy to manufacture Box Center of gravity is fixed Easy to manufacture Contoured Center of gravity is fixed Difficult and expensive to manufacture Our recommended design is based on the Byron s Pipe Dream which includes a single wing, conventional tail, and Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 12

14 boom fuselage. This is a simple design that leaves room for plenty of optimization. The simplicity also allows for ease of manufacturing. A circular boom fuselage allows for a movable center of gravity, which is necessary for a changing payload and to optimize weight reduction. This best solves the problem because of the flexibility it offers to integrate with the other systems. The Pipe Dream also allows us to start from a proven design that can be used as a starting point. Control surfaces Size Size of control surfaces will be determined and the wings will be built by comparing wings of similar size. LANDING SYSTEM Gear Tricycle Tail dragger Hard body belly land Parachute A belly landing plane will simplify the launching system and allow the plane to land on any semi solid surface as per FR04. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 13

15 AVIONICS AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS CAMERA SYSTEM Requirements: Provide onboard real time video transmission to a ground station Have the ability to resolve a 6 inch square target from a distance of 100 feet Have the ability to transmit video while within autopilot control range Designed in a modular fashion to facilitate payload alterations Components: 1. Camera 2. Video Transmitter 3. Interfaces to Onboard Power Systems The camera system of the UAV will take the form of a fixed position camera to provide a high resolution picture via radio transmission to an operator at the ground station. The ground station will have the capability to display and store the video for later use. At this time, the camera system will likely be recessed into the aircraft body to accommodate belly landings, the planned method of flight termination. In order to best protect the camera during a belly style landing, the fuselage will be constructed with a transparent viewing window for the camera. This window will protect the camera during landing. The video system will use the onboard power systems in a fashion that provides appropriate power to both the camera and transmitter for the duration of a 2 hour flight. It is planned that the transmitter will output its video signal in NTSC format, allowing for easy transmission, display, and eventual storage. As a system, the camera and transmitter will be designed so as to reside within the craft and interface with its systems in a way that makes removal easy and non damaging to any systems to allow for the changing of payloads. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 14

16 GROUND STATION The ground station hardware will consist of one or more laptop computers, two transceivers, and a portable power supply. It shall be capable of rapid deployment from a Humvee. Ground control software installed on the computer(s) shall provide an interface for control, video streaming and storage of video. The ground station will provide a means for manual override control of the UAV. At this point in time, separate displays, transceivers, and computers for the video and flight control systems are being designed. There is not a current plan to integrate the two systems into one unit. For a more detailed ground station user interface description please see the section entitled User Interface for Ground Station. ONBOARD POWER SYSTEM Requirements: The power system of the LM Challenge UAV shall supply power to all onboard systems necessary for flight of the UAV for the entire duration of any flight meeting the flight time required. The power system of the LM Challenge UAV shall supply power to the onboard video system of the UAV The power system of the LM Challenge UAV shall have a power source with the ability to re charge after use to allow for multiple flights with the same power source. The contents of the power system of the LM Challenge UAV will be dependent upon the other systems installed on the UAV. The selection of power system components will be completed following the selection of the components for all other electrical systems onboard the LM Challenge UAV. In the early stages of planning for the LM Challenge UAV, lightweight, high power density batteries such as Lithium Ion and Lithium Polymer batteries are being considered for the main power source. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 15

17 AUTOPILOT SYSTEM Requirements: The autopilot system for the LM Challenge UAV shall use waypoint navigation to navigate a given course. The autopilot system for the LM Challenge UAV shall be able to transmit real time flight data back to the ground station. The autopilot system for the LM Challenge UAV does not need to be able to change flight plan in midflight. The autopilot system for the LM Challenge UAV does not need to have collision avoidance built in. The autopilot system for the LM Challenge UAV does not need to be able to land the plane at the end of flight. Contents GPS Flight path Real time position Transmitter/Receiver Flight Data Override Flight Control Interface Interface to flight control systems Other than the client s requirements, our team has to take into consideration the size, weight, and power consumption of the autopilot system. We have to take into consideration that the plane can only be so big and carry only so much weight. With this in mind we need to make sure that the physical size of the autopilot system fits into the plane body. Next we need to make sure that the system itself does not weight too much. Keeping this weight down allows the plane to be smaller. The final consideration is the power consumption of the system. The less power it consumes the smaller the power supply can be thus lowering the overall weight of the plane. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 16

18 Because of time constraints we have chosen to purchase an off the shelf autopilot system as opposed to a custom built solution. RAIL LAUNCH SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Currently Unmanned Autonomous Systems are launched from a variety of systems such as pulley, bungee and pneumatic forms of energy. In the case of the Lockheed Martin Challenge System, the UAS will be pneumatically launched from a vertical or near vertical position. To design a complete system, many components are required such as the below list. Requirements: Attachment of the plane to the launch system Pneumatic piston Initiation of the launch Stop the piston and plane attachment Compression of gas Air storage and compression unit Valve type and size Rail launch Attached to ground Compact Two solutions to attach the aircraft to the launch system were investigated. The first was to create a support for the airplane that would fit around the backside of the wings, near the fuselage. The second solution would be to Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 17

19 find a way to provide thrust to the plane through a direct attachment to the fuselage. Each option had two sub solutions: to have a cradle the fit snugly around the plane and/or to have a hook on the plane that would engage the launch system in some way. After consideration, the best option will provide a way to give thrust to the plane through direct attachment to the fuselage with a cradle that will support the plane from shifting side to side and a slot for a hook to give the main thrust to the plane. Our design will include a method for transferring the air pressure to the fixture the plane will be mounted on. Different kinds of piston designs were considered: An insert into a tube/cylinder, a sleeve on placed over a tube, or an enclosed tube with a sliding magnetized piston. Each of the first two designs involves a piston that extends during launch. The third, which seems the most reliable and durable, has a piston contained within a tube. The piston holds a magnet on the top, which connects to a sliding carriage that has the mate magnet (see Figure 4). INITIATING AND CONCLUDING THE LAUNCH SEQUENCE Initiating and concluding the launch sequence each have only a couple solutions. For initiation, the launch sequence could either be started manually such as turning a release valve, or electronically from a computer. Coordinating everything from the computer is the smoothest management method. To conclude the launch, the piston needs to be stopped by an attachment to the launch system or by the ground after a period of flight for the piston. In an urban environment having a flying piston is not safe, so a rubber bumper on the end of the piston tube is provided to stop the piston. PNEUMATIC SYSTEM DESIGN Gas compression Several different gasses were considered based on their volume, density and availability. It has been decided that air will be the primary gas used to launch the system because it is cheap, abundant and can be easily compressed. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 18

20 Storage of compressed air Pneumatic cylinder of compressed air such as a scuba tank Small air compressor and storage tank unit A cylinder of compressed air could take up less room and simplify the design however it would be need to be refilled periodically and multiple tanks would be required for multiple missions. An air compressor would require a fuel source but would refill the storage tank on its own and would also provide a reliable source of air for the system. Due to these positive components, a compressor and storage cylinder have been chosen for the final design. Air release by valve Solenoid valve Dump valve Control valve Slow opening valve The larger the valve, the larger the force that can be applied to the piston and launch the UAS. Initially, a valve approximately 2 4 in diameter will be used to release the air. Several types of valves have been considered such as a solenoid valve, dump valve, control valve, and slow opening valve. A control valve will be used because of the versatility it offers when testing the launch system as well as for future possible changes to the airplane and payload weight. A control valve will allow for the airflow to be adjusted so that the force behind the piston may also be adjusted to launch either light or heavy payloads as well as launch the same payload to different altitudes. See Figure 7 below for a visual reference of a pneumatic system design containing all components discussed above. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 19

21 FIGURE 7: LAUNCH COMPONENTS RAIL LAUNCH DESIGN In the rail launch design portion of this project many different factors contribute to the final design of launch system. One major component that has been explored is the rail of the launcher. The rail length, number of tracks that will be used, type of rail, attachment to the surface, and collapsibility all play major roles in choosing the correct design that works for our project. The length of the rail will be approximately 4 feet, which will give the UAS enough room to stabilize during takeoff before the system is flying by itself without launch the system underneath. One main rail will be used which will contain the pneumatic air pressure and actually launch the plane. A three rail design has been considered which will include two side rails to act as guides when the plane is vertically launched. If one rail was used the airplane would have difficulties stabilizing on the launch pad due to the size and weight of plane compared to the small surface area and limited spread of a one rail launch system. Four different rail types were considered for the rail launch design. Of flat, round, indented, and t shape rail kinds looked at, the indented rail type was chosen. It was chosen due to the unwavering stability given by this design. Movement of the launcher may cause instability of launch; to decrease the movement during a launch, we have researched stakes, friction pad, and legs to determine the best mount for our design. We chose the stakes to attach to the ground due to lack of movement that is created when mounted with stakes. In addition, the system should include a collapsible launch sub system which could be stored in the back of a small Humvee and assembled in as little as 5 minutes. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 20

22 KEY TECHNICAL CHALLENGES The aeronautical challenges that need to be met in this design will need to be addressed in a systematic and efficient manner. The first issue to be addressed is the wing design that will be most efficient at a cruising speed of 50 knots and at a 100 foot altitude with respect to the highest obstacle (~200 feet above sea level in Baghdad, Iraq). The team's current estimate of weight is no greater than 22 lbs. The team will design a wing that will be most efficient at lifting this weight in a 200 ft level cruise at 50 knots. Through this wing design an estimation of drag will be utilized to define the thrust and power requirements of the aircraft. After the assembly of the wing and engine, they will be attached to an existing R/C aircraft body and test flown to prove the design characteristics. The launch system also provides many technical challenges. Firstly, the integration between the launch system and the avionics will present difficulty. In the avionics, it will be difficult to switch on the autopilot at the right time after the aircraft leaves the launch system. Additional knowledge of the autopilot systems and triggers will be acquired before finalizing the design of the launch system. Also, the stability of the launch system needs to be closely monitored and addressed adequately. It will be challenging to know how the launch system will react to the interaction of the forces between the weight of the plane and the thrust of the launch. Further research and calculations of the center of gravity and location of applied forces will precede construction of the launch system. Furthermore, the forces applied to the aircraft will need to be closely monitored and calculated. Due to a relatively short distance of launch and a large desired final speed, the acceleration will be large. If the acceleration is too large, the G forces applied to the aircraft may cause the aircraft to break apart after several launches. The avionics systems present challenges in the forms of range, endurance, and control. The aircraft needs to provide video data to the ground station over a distance of several miles. Given the size and target cost of our craft, directional antennas are impractical, leading to the need for a very powerful and power intensive transmitter. One goal of our project is to attempt a flight endurance of approximately 2 hours. Given the size of the airframe and first round design status of the project, we are aiming for a 30 minute to 1 hour endurance as a proof of concept to prove the viability of the system when used with our new launch system. Finally, we face a Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 21

23 challenge adapting a commercial autopilot system to be compatible with our launch system. The violent and unconventional method of launch could confuse many autopilots, potentially causing damage to components or the craft itself and leading to unreliable operation of the aircraft. We will need to customize any autopilot we use to be compatible with the initial climb out phase of takeoff then resume control once cruising altitude is reached, or create our own rudimentary autopilot for the launch phase that can maintain a climb and attitude control until cruising altitude is reached. OPERATING ENVIRONMENT Requirements: The electrical and avionics systems will be designed to conform to dimensions and weight limitations in coordination with the physical construction of the aircraft. The systems will be designed as to operate in ideal weather conditions. No provisions will be made for the possibility of operation in inclement weather. The systems will be designed to allow for transportation in a military Humvee without damage to components or failure of systems Note: All operating requirements outside of electrical and avionics systems shall be detailed by the respective teams/subgroups of the LM Challenge. At this time the only designated environment for operation is an urban setting. No provisions will be made for the aircraft to operate in any particular geographical setting. USER INTERFACE FOR GROUND STATION Requirements: Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 22

24 The ground station for the LM Challenge UAV shall display real time video as transmitted from the onboard camera. The ground station for the LM Challenge UAV shall have the controls necessary for manual override of the UAV. The ground station for the LM Challenge UAV shall have ability to transmit and receive flight data to the onboard autopilot system. The ground station for the LM Challenge UAV shall be mobile and have the ability to be transported in the back of a military Humvee. Contents of the ground station: Display Screens Video Flight Data Transmitters and Receivers Video Flight Data Manual Override Flight Controls Computers Video Storage Flight Controls Software Power source: Since the LM Challenge UAV ground station must be mobile, the ground station will either be battery powered or powered by a small generator. The power source will be chosen based upon the power requirements of the components of the ground station and will be chosen after all other components are chosen. Physical Appearance: Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 23

25 The components of the LM Challenge UAV ground station will be chosen with an emphasis on mobility. The ability of the ground station to be assembled in a timely fashion will be major focus of the avionics team. At this point in time separate displays, transceivers, and computers for the video and flight control systems are being designed. There is not a current plan to integrate the two systems into one unit. This design also aids in the modular design of the craft as the airplane can operate with just the autopilot computer and transceiver without the video system. With additional payloads, unique ground station additions can be designed. All ground station components will require a power source that is mobile, lightweight, and fairly small. To this end, we plan to utilize a large battery pack or small gas generator to power the computer and transmission equipment. FIGURE 8: GROUND STATION USER INTERFACE CONCEPT Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 24

26 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FR01 The aircraft shall be capable of flying at a cruising speed of knots FR02 The aircraft shall be capable of flying for 2 hours FR03 The aircraft shall be capable of providing images of a handgun 100ft above a building FR04 The aircraft shall not utilize landing gear and belly land FR05 The aircraft shall be capable of vertical or near vertical launch from a pneumatic rail system FR06 The aircraft shall be capable of climbing 100ft FR06 The aircraft shall be capable of leveling off in the width of a street (approximately 25ft) NON FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS NFR01 The aircraft shall use an electric motor NFR02 The aircraft shall fit into the back of a Humvee (4'x2.5'x1.5') NFR03 The aircraft will not need in flight modification of the way point navigation NFR04 The aircraft shall not need to fly in all weather conditions. It shall only fly when wind is minimal, and no severe weather conditions such as rain, sleet, or snow. NFR05 The aircraft shall be capable of autonomously navigating through way points in its mission MARKET LITERATURE SURVEY After reviewing available products similar to ours, we have determined that while there are many UAV craft that perform the reconnaissance duties our craft is intended for none are capable of vertical launch and operation in Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 25

27 the specific environment required by our client. A necessary feature to perform in our envisioned Urban Environment is vertical launch capability in order to clear obstacles such as buildings, terrain, and possible hostile action. No existing UAV systems have this capability, and no standalone UAV launch systems that have both vertical capability and that conform to our dimension limitations. Aircraft such as the Boeing ScanEagle and Advanced Ceramics Research (ACR) Silver Fox have pneumatic launch capability, but only along the horizontal plane, and both systems are too large or heavy for our domain. Launch Systems such as the Robonic Pneumatic Launch System or ACR Portable Pneumatic Launch System cannot be adapted to meet the needs of our problem. Neither the Robonic Pneumatic Launch System nor ACR Portable Pneumatic Launch System will meet the requirements for the LM Challenge. Robonic's product will not meet the size limitations for our project and ACR's is unable to launch vertically and is severely limited by weight. DELIVERABLES DELIVERABLES FOR FALL SEMESTER A. Final design of the entire system B. Demonstrate the plane concept and prototype through R/C test flights C. Demonstrate live video feed with avionics systems not in the aircraft D. Demonstrate the rail system E. Demonstrate launching plane F. Demonstrate controlling the aircraft G. Demonstrate remote control system DELIVERABLES FOR SPRING SEMESTER A. Rail launch prototype using R/C pilot B. Rail launch prototype using R/C pilot on takeoff and landing with autopilot controlling the rest of the flight C. Demonstrate live video feed in aircraft Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 26

28 PROJECT PLAN ESTIMATED TIME AND MANPOWER FIGURE 9: LM CHALLENGE TEAM BREAKOUT LM team challenge has been split up into three functional areas: airplane design, launching system, and avionics and electrical systems (see figure 8). The 12 multidisciplinary engineering students have been split up into functional areas with regard to their specific interests and skills. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 27

29 Airplane Design Propulsion Wing Design Flight Performance Configuraoon Landing Gear Controls FIGURE 10: AIRPLANE DESIGN TREE DIAGRAM The team members on the airplane design team are: 1. Travis Grager 2. Alicia Kuhlman 3. Joe Hodgin 4. Tom Ramey The team has decided to work on all components of the airplane design together with each member putting more emphasis on different aspects of the airplane (see Table 1 for complete list of hours). TABLE 1: TIME COMMITMENT FOR AIRPLANE SYSTEM Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 28

30 FIGURE 11: RAIL LAUNCH DESIGN TREE DIAGRAM Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 29

31 The team members on the rail launch design team are: 1. Jennifer Byer 2. Brian Cheney 3. Ali Soderberg The team has decided to work on all components of the rail launch design together with each member putting more emphasis on different aspects of launch system (see Table 2 for complete list of hours). TABLE 2: TIME COMMITMENT FOR RAIL LAUNCH SYSTEM Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 30

32 FIGURE 12: AVIONICS AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TREE DIAGRAM Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 31

33 The team members on the avionics design team are: 1. Robert Gaul 2. Adam Jacobs 3. Michael Plummer 4. Daniel Stone 5. Ronald Teo The team has decided to work on all components of the avionics and electrical system design together with each member putting more emphasis on different aspects of the avionics and electrical system (see Table 3 for complete list of hours). Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 32

34 TABLE 3: TIME COMMITMENT FOR AVIONICS AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Estimated Time Commitment per Task per Person Adam Jacobs Robert Gaul Mike Plummer Daniel stone Ronald Teo Camera/Video System Choose Camera System Choose Xmitter/Receiver System Test Camer/Xmitter/Receiver Systems Mount Camera/Xmitter Systems Retest in flight Onboard Power System Establish Requirements Choose Power Supply Choose Battery System Finalize interface with flight systems test onboard power system Mount on aircraft Test in flight arrangement Ground Station Determine components required from video and autopilot systems Determine manual flight override in conjunction with autopilot development Determine power source required Compile components and test Refine Layout AutoPilot Choose Autopilot system Choose transceiver system independent testing/calibration integrate with aircraft systems Re test/re calibrate for in flight Total Time Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 33

35 PROJECT SCHEDULE TABLE 4: PROJECT SCHEDULE Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 34

36 DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE FOR FALL Project Plan Sept 27 th, Initial design of each component Oct15 th, Building system complete Nov 1 st, Integration of rail launch to airplane Nov30 th, Prototype Nov30 th, Testing of autopilot system Nov 30 th, Testing of airplane and launch system Dec 1 st, Final draft plan Dec15 th, 2008 ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT Table 5 shows estimates of the costs associated with the project. Materials for the project are projected to cost $22,500 while labors projected cost is $70,300. Labor costs are calculated at $20.00 per hour for student time, $50.00 per hour for advisor time, and $ per hour for outside consulting time. Outside consulting time includes professors at Iowa State University as well as industry professionals that provide input to our project. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 35

37 TABLE 5: PROJECT BUDGET Estimated Total Project Cost Materials Cost Compressor $1, Rail System $1, Control Valve $1, Small Components $1, Radio $ Material for Airplane $1, Motor $1, Computer $1, Camera $1, Autopilot $8, Ground Station $3, Batteries and Power Supply $1, Total Materials $22, Consulting Labor Alison Soderberg $4, Joe Hodgin $4, Jennifer Byer $4, Brian Cheney $4, Travis Grager $4, Alicia Kuhlman $4, Tom Ramney $4, Mike Plummer $7, Dan Stone $7, Adam Jacobs $7, Robert Gaul $7, Ronald Teo $7, Advisor (50 hours) $2, Industry Professionals (20 hours) $2, Total Consulting Cost $70, Total Project Cost $92, Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 36

38 REVIEW CLOSING SUMMARY Our design concept for the aircraft is modeled based off of the Byron s Pipe Dream. We will build the wings and any other components that need to be changed in order to analyze the aircraft. Our design for the rail launch system is a rod less air cylinder. The plane will interface with this cylinder in some type of cradle or hook design. This concept is the best choice because of the flexibility this system has to offer and many alternatives can be studied. The key technical challenge that we will face will be for the aircraft to handle the acceleration force from the take off launch. By the end of December the plane will be launched using the vertical launch system, and the plane will be controlled by a remote control system. The functional requirements achieved at that time will be cruise speed of 40 to 50 knots, landing system of belly landing, vertical launch, and climbing to 100 ft. The avionics for the plane will be designed by that time and will be integrated into the plane. After completion of the airframe and launch system, the avionics and video components will be integrated into the system accompanied by an extensive testing period. It is our goal to be capable of pre programmed autonomous navigation flight with a live video feed by May, as per the project objective and expectations. Based on our initial research and understanding, we believe that a first iteration product is within our capabilities to deliver. Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 37

39 Name: Jennifer Byer CONTACTS Name: Joe Hodgin Name: Tom Ramey Phone #: Phone #: Phone #: Name: Brian Cheney Phone #: Name: Adam Jacobs Phone #: Name: Ali Soderberg Phone #: Name: Robert Gaul Phone #: Name: Alicia Kuhlman Phone #: Name: Daniel Stone Phone #: Name: Travis Grager Phone #: Name: Mike Plummer Phone #: Name: Ronald Teo Phone #: Advisors Name: Dr. Gregory Smith Name: Dr. Stephen D. Holland Phone #: Phone #: Lockheed Martin Challenge Project Plan Page 38