Agricultural Unmanned Aircraft System (AUAS)

Agricultural Unmanned Aircraft System (AUAS) Team Two-CAN Albert Lee (TL) Jacob Niehus Adam Kuester Chris Cirone Michael Scott Kevin Huckshold 1

Presentation Overview Configuration Selection (KH) Initial Sizing (KH) Constraint Analysis (CC) Performance (CC) Aerodynamics (AL) Propulsion (MS) Stability and Control (JN) Structures (AK) Configuration (KH) Cost (MS) Conclusion (AL) 2

Configuration Selection Conventional Canard Biplane Tandem Wing Blended Wing Body Flying Wing Joined Wing Huckshold 3

Configuration Selection Conventional Canard + Tractor Canard + Pusher Final Three Configurations Huckshold 4

Initial Sizing Initial weight sizing model was the same for all three configurations Take-off Gross Weight = 800lb Empty-weight fraction = 0.54 Fuel-weight fraction = 0.049 Huckshold 5

Constraint Analysis 0.2 (P/W) o 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 Take-off Constraint Cruise Constraint Sustained Turn Constraint Landing Constraint Design Point (11.5, 0.1) 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 (W/S) o (lbf/ft 2 ) Cirone 6

Performance Chris Cirone Cirone 7

Performance Overview 2007 2008 AIAA Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competition, AIAA, 2007. Take Off Analysis Cruise Analysis Turn Analysis Mission Time Fuel Consumption Cirone 8

Take Off Analysis RFP Constraint: 750 ft assumed total ground roll allotment. Team Constraint: No high lift devices. Approach: Find necessary C L,TO and corresponding V TO. Assumptions Friction coefficient for grass airfield. Ideal Thrust. (T=P*η/V, and max P for take off) Drag form drag polar. (From Aerodynamics) Maximum Take Off Weight. (From Configurations) Take Off Parameters Conventional Tractor Canard Pusher Canard Minimum C L,TO 0.934 0.977 0.978 Maximum V TO 68.8 mph 68.1 mph 68.0 mph Factor of Stall Speed 1.24 1.21 1.21 Cirone 9

Cruise Analysis Description: Spray Operation Steady level flight at 20 ft AGL V op =1.3*V stall Turn Sustained turns Strategy: Determine most efficient spray pattern. Race-track pattern with turns on short ends Minimize number of turns Permits short half turns Cirone 10

Cruise Analysis Maximize turn radii to limit load factors and high speeds 33 Passes 30.3 ft Swath 257.6 ft & 242.4 ft Turn Radii 21.3 mi cruise distance Land on opposite side of field Maximizes both major and minor turn radii Cirone 11

Turn Analysis Priority: Validate the possibility of making the desired turns. Cirone 12

Mission Time & Fuel Consumption Cruise Mission Time Range: 21.26 mi Spray legs V op = 72.2 mph Turns C L,stall Constant Weight 17.6 minutes Fuel Estimation RFP requirement: 20 minutes of reserve fuel Using a maximum specific fuel consumption Cruise: 7.818 lbs Reserve fuel: 8.890 lbs (V min,power = 60.4 mph) 2.2 Gallons Total Cirone 13

Future Work in Performance Climb Analysis Dynamic Weight Model Enhancement of Take Off and Turn Analysis Include improved thrust model Update Mission Time and Fuel Consumption Include all mission segments Include improved fuel consumption model Cirone 14

Aerodynamics Albert Lee Lee 15

Aerodynamics Overview Airfoil Selection Wing Characteristics Drag on the Plane Coefficients for Each Mission Segment Lift-Drag Polars Lee 16

Airfoil Selection NACA 1412 Simple geometry, little camber C l,max =1.6, α =16 C L,max t/c=12% x Anderson, J. D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill, New York, 2005. http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html Lee 17

Wing Characteristics Rectangular wing S ref =69.6ft 2 AR=6 C L,max =1.44, α =19 C L,max Oswald span efficiency e=0.87 Lee 18

Drag on the Plane Calculated parasite drag using the form factor method outlined in Raymer Conventional Canard w/ Tractor Canard w/ Pusher Component C D0 C D0 C D0 Wing 0.0070 0.0070 0.0070 Horizontal Tail 0.0021 0.0027 0.0019 Vertical Tail 0.0012 0.0016 0.0028 Fuselage 0.0043 0.0048 0.0047 Landing Gear 0.0081 0.0094 0.0099 Spray Boom 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 TOTAL 0.0272 0.0301 0.0309 C D,L&P (% of total) 10 10 10 C D0 0.0299 0.0331 0.0340 Lee 19

Coefficients for Each Mission Segment Conventional C L C Do C D L/D Takeoff 0.93 0.030 0.054 17.3 Cruise 0.85 0.030 0.074 11.5 Turn 1.44 0.030 0.156 9.2 Landing 1.23 0.030 0.123 10.0 Canard w/ Tractor C L C Do C D L/D Takeoff 1.00 0.033 0.069 14.5 Cruise 0.85 0.033 0.077 11.0 Turn 1.44 0.033 0.159 9.0 Landing 1.23 0.033 0.126 9.8 Canard w/ Pusher C L C Do C D L/D Takeoff 1.00 0.034 0.067 14.9 Cruise 0.85 0.034 0.081 10.4 Turn 1.44 0.034 0.170 8.5 Landing 1.23 0.034 0.134 9.2 Lee 20

Lift-Drag Polars 0.18 0.16 0.14 Conventional Canard w/ Tractor Canard w/ Pusher 0.12 0.1 CD 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 C L Lee 21

Future Work in Aerodynamics Develop CFD analysis method to get more accurate wing performance data Look into methods of providing more lift while minimizing drag, size and weight. Lee 22

Propulsion Michael Scott Scott 23

Propulsion Overview Motor Selection Propeller Sizing Engine Cooling System Fuel System Future Work Scott 24

Motor Selection 17 motors down selected to 4 Historical agricultural aircraft power loading 11 lbf/hp 72.7 hp needed Engine Zoche Aero-diesels (ZO 03A) UAV Engines Ltd (AR682) Rotax (912 UL DCDL) Jabiru Aero Engine (2200A) Power max (HP) RPM 70 2500 75 6000 81 5800 85 3300 Scott 25

Thrust-Velocity Curve at Maximum RPM 500 450 400 Zoche Aero UAV Engines Jabiru Aero Rotax 350 Thrust (lbf) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Velocity (mph) Scott 26

Propeller Sizing Historical single engine aircraft disk loading 3 hp/ft 2 8 hp/ft 2 Fixed pitch, 3 bladed propeller Maximized blade length without tip reaching sonic velocity Implemented gear box to reduce propeller RPM Engine Zoche Aero-diesels (ZO 03A) UAV Engines Ltd (AR682) Jabiru Aero Engine (2200A) Rotax (912 UL DCDL) w/gb Pitch Chord T/hp (deg) (ft) (lb/hp) 0.80 22 0.309 3.00 0.65 10 0.320 2.44 0.63 12 0.341 2.36 0.70 20 0.333 2.63 ή p,max Scott 27

Engine Cooling System Down-draft vs. Up-draft Entrance area directly related to horsepower Exit area set at 80% the entrance area and expandable to 200% Engine Zoche Aero-diesels (ZO 03A) UAV Engines Ltd (AR682) Jabiru Aero Engine (2200A) Rotax (912 UL DCDL) w/gb A (ft 2 ) 0.32 0.34 0.39 0.37 Fuel System Fuselage fuel tank - 7 gal. - Reduce wing structure - Ease to manufacture and maintain At cruise 75% throttle - ZO 03A 2.7 gal/hr - 2200A 4.0 gal/hr - 912 UL 6.3 gal/hr - AR682 6.7 gal/hr Scott 28

Future Work in Propulsion Detailed motor analysis over throttle range Motor down select Motor mounting Actual propeller data Detailed air intake analysis Detailed fuel consumption Scott 29

Stability and Control Jacob Niehus Niehus 30

Stability and Control Overview Determine tail and control surface geometry for adequate controllability Determine center of gravity location for longitudinal static stability RFP requirement: ease of operation Niehus 31

Tail Sizing Method Tail volume coefficient method V h = S h c Values found from historical correlations Control surface sizing from historical dimensions l S h ref lvs V v = bs v ref Niehus 32

Tail Sizing Trade Study Planform area of horizontal stabilizer (ft^2) 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 5 7 9 11 13 15 Distance between center of gravity and horizontal stabilizer (ft) Niehus 33

Tail Sizing Results Niehus 34

Longitudinal Stability Method Neutral point is the location at which pitching moment is constant with angle of attack X np = C Lα X acw C C mαfus Lα + η + η h h S S S h ref S h ref C C Lαh Lαh α h X α α h X α ach ach F + qs F + qs pα ref pα ref α p X α p Empirical values from methods in Raymer Center of gravity must fall in front of neutral point for positive static stability 2%<SM<15% Niehus 35

Longitudinal Stability Trade Study Neutral point location behind wing quarter-chord (ft) 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 5 7 9 11 13 15 Distance between center of gravity and horizontal stabilizer (ft) Niehus 36

Longitudinal Stability Results Conventional Canard-Pusher Canard-Tractor Neutral Point X np (ft) 0.78-2.05-2.06 X cgaft Center of Gravity Limits for Stability (ft) (ft) 0.71 0.27-2.12-2.56-2.13-2.57 X cg forward Niehus 37

Future Work in Stability and Control More detailed control surface sizing analysis Lateral and directional static stability Dynamic stability in all axes Niehus 38

Structures Adam Kuester Kuester 39

Structures Overview V-n diagram and load factor Materials selection Aircraft structure Wing structure Landing gear Future work Kuester 40

V-n Diagram 4 3 C Design load factors Load Factor n 2 1 0-1 A B D Effect of a more symmetric airfoil Nearly identical for conventional and two canards E -2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Velocity (mph) Design Load Cruise Gust Load Dive Gust Load Maneuver Load Kuester 41

Materials Selection Consider durability and cost Wood Performance in weather Composites Steel Costs Heavy but strong Aluminum Lighter and commonly used Primarily aluminum Steel and composite use Properties of Various Aircraft Materials Wood 8.75 750 Carbon Fiber Composites Stainless Steel Alloys (15-5PH) Aluminum Alloys (7075) Specific Yield E/ ρ Strength ksi 4 x10 ksi 3 lbm/in 3 lbm/in 52.5 8000 10 500 10 700 Kuester 42

Aircraft Structure Longerons carry bending and axial loads Bulkheads located at concentrated loads Landing gear, hopper, wing spar carrythrough Stressed skin carries shear and torsional loads Kuester 43

Wing Structure Wing box carrythrough Most unobtrusive option Easiest construction Wing structure Two spars Folding Wing Quarter chord and aileron support Common in general aviation Hinge towards rear of wing One or two person job Cessna Mustang with Folded Wings http://www.mustangaero.com/mustang%20ii/foldingwing.html Kuester 44

Landing Gear Conventional and Canard Tractor Distance Ahead of CG (ft) Distance Below CG (ft) Conv. 1.4 3.8 Canard Tractor Canard Pusher 1.45 4-1 2.9 Taildragger Solid spring main gear Castoring tail wheel Canard Pusher Tricycle Solid spring main gear Oleo strut front gear Prop strike Wheel sizing 5.00-5 tires Common on light aircraft Kuester 45

Future Work in Structures Fuselage structure Determine shape, size, and material of members Minimize structural weight Wing structure Determine internal structure of ribs, spars, and ailerons Finalize folding wing design Landing gear Finalize placement, general dimensions, and tire size Insure durability of aircraft Kuester 46

Configuration Kevin Huckshold Huckshold 47

Configuration Objectives Estimate aircraft weight Determine internal/external layout Track CG location throughout mission Develop CAD model Huckshold 48

Weight Buildups Aircraft weight a sum of component group weights, defined by Raymer Equn. 15.46-59 Component weights a function of geometry, other known constants, based on historical data ie, wing weight = f (S w, AR, sweep angle, dynamic pressure, thickness ratio, load factor, TOGW) Components modeled (in addition to payload, fuel): Wings Fuselage Tail/Canard Surfaces Landing gear Installed engine Fuel system Flight controls, hydraulics Electrical system TOGW (lbs) for heaviest payload: Conventional: 771.3, Canard/Pusher: 811.0, Canard/Tractor: 811.5 Huckshold 49

Configuration Wing and empennage sizes, positions relative to CG given by Aero, S&C Landing gear location given by Structures Most other component locations constrained- ie, flight controls must go on wings, etc. Motor must go in front (tractor) or in back (pusher) Challenge- place few remaining components to move CG to desired location, this defines fuselage length Huckshold 50

Center of Gravity Per S&C, 2-15% Static Margin acceptable CG locations calculated for varying amounts of fuel No payload (blue) Wet payload -235 lbs (red) Dry payload -300 lbs (green) Fuel Level (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Conventional Fuel Level (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Canard/Pusher Fuel Level (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Canard/Tractor 10 10 10 0 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Static Margin (%) 2 0 0 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Static Margin (%) 2 0 0 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Static Margin (%) 2 0 Huckshold 51

Internal Layout Motor (2.38 x 1.82 x 1.5 ft.) Battery (~1 x 1 x 1 ft.) Pump (2 ft. OD sphere) Hopper (1.87 ft. x 2 ft. OD) Fuel Tank (7 gallons- 1.37 x 1.37 x 0.5 ft.) Fuselage diameter: 2.5 ft. Tail (tractor)/nose (pusher) cone length: 6 ft. Huckshold 52

Huckshold 53

Huckshold 54

Huckshold 55

Future Work in Configuration Develop more accurate component-based weight buildup Continue refining layout, reduce fuselage length if possible Calculate vertical CG location, envelope as payload empties Calculate moments of inertia Huckshold 56

Cost Analysis Conventional configuration is cheapest Costs of canards are approximately equal Conventional/Tractor Canard/Tractor Canard/Pusher Conventional/Tractor Canard/Tractor Canard/Pusher Zoche Aero-diesels (ZO 03A) UAV Engines Ltd (AR682) Fabric Aluminum Composite Fabric Aluminum Composite 23550 27450 31150 24950 28850 32550 24150 28200 32050 25550 29600 33450 24150 28200 32050 25550 29600 33450 Jabiru Aero Engine (2200A) Rotax (912 UL DCDL) Fabric Aluminum Composite Fabric Aluminum Composite 28650 32550 36250 27000 30900 34600 29250 33300 37150 27600 31650 35500 29250 33300 37150 27600 31650 35500 Scott 57

Conclusion Leading configuration: Conventional with Zoche diesel engine Cheapest and lightest configuration Best performance due to lower drag and more efficient propulsion system Smallest configuration Future Work Develop more detailed analysis methods Optimize airplane performance Lee 58

References [1] 2007 2008 AIAA Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competition, AIAA, 2007. [2] Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed. AIAA, Reston, VA, 2006. [3] Sobester, A., Keane, A., Scanlan, J., and Bresslof, N., Conceptual Design of UAV Airframes Using a Generic Geometry Service, AIAA 2005-7079, September 2005. [4] Anderson, J. D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill, New York, 2005. [5] Bernard Hooper Engineering Ltd [online], http://users.breathe.com/prhooper/ [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [6] The Engine Specifications, Hpower-Ltd [online], http://www.hpowerltd.com/pages/specifications.htm [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [7] Limbach L1700 EA, L2000 EA, L2400 EB, Limbach Flugmotoren [online], www.limflug.de[retrieved 7 November 2007]. 59

References [8] Zoche Aero-diesels Specifications, Zoche [online], http://www.zoche.de/specs.html [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [9] Mikron IIIB, Moravia Inc [online], http://www.moraviation.com [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [10] UAV Engines [online], http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [11] Rotax Aircraft Engines [online], www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [12] Jabiru 2200 4 Cylinder 85bhp, Jabiru Aircraft Engines [online], http://www.jabiru.co.uk/engines.htm [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [13] HAE-100 Data Sheet 2, Howell Aero Engines Limited [online], http://www.howells-aeroengines.co.uk/d2.html [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [14] 235 Cubic Inch Engine Series, Lycoming Engines-A Textron Company [online], http://www.lycoming.textron.com/ [retrieved 7 November 2007]. 60

References [15] DAIR-100 Technical Features, FTI Diesel Tech, LLC [online], http://www.dieseltech.cc/techfeatures.htm [retrieved 7 November 2007]. [16] Kroo, Ilan. "Tail Design and Sizing." Aircraft Aerodynamics and Design Group. Stanford University. 12 Nov. 2007 http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/stability/taildesign.html. [17] Chiles, I., Structures: V-n Diagrams, AE 440-A Course Notes, URL: http://courses.ae.uiuc.edu/ae440-a/files/structuresrefresher.pdf, 2007 [retrieved 13 November 2007]. [18] Federal Aviation Administration, FAR Part 23, Federal Aviation Regulations [online], URL: http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf/mainframe? OpenFrameSet [retrieved 14 November 2007]. [19] Megson, T. H. G., Principles of Stressed Skin Construction, Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, 3rd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 1999, pp. -211-232. [20] Broeren, A. P., Conceptual Design Report-Preliminary Cost Model, AE440 Aerospace Systems Design I, [handout], 11 October 2007. 61

Any Questions? 62