Flying Low and Slow. (and the Tools for its Calculation) Dieter Scholz. Hamburg University of Applied Sciences

Similar documents
Investigation of a Novel Turboprop-Driven Aircraft Concept Including Future Technologies

Flugzeugentwurf / Aircraft Design SS Part 35 points, 70 minutes, closed books. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter Scholz, MSME. Date:

Flugzeugentwurf / Aircraft Design WS 10/ Klausurteil 30 Punkte, 60 Minuten, ohne Unterlagen. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter Scholz, MSME

Environmentally Focused Aircraft: Regional Aircraft Study

NOVEL LOW-FLYING PROPELLER-DRIVEN AIRCRAFT CONCEPT FOR REDUCED OPERATING COSTS AND EMISSIONS

Electric Flight Potential and Limitations

Aircraft Design in a Nutshell

AE 451 Aeronautical Engineering Design Final Examination. Instructor: Prof. Dr. Serkan ÖZGEN Date:

FUEL CONSUMPTION DUE TO SHAFT POWER OFF-TAKES FROM THE ENGINE

Appenidix E: Freewing MAE UAV analysis

Systems Group (Summer 2012) 4 th Year (B.Eng) Aerospace Engineering Candidate Carleton University, Ottawa,Canada Mail:

UNIFIED LECTURE #2: THE BREGUET RANGE EQUATION

AIRCRAFT DESIGN SUBSONIC JET TRANSPORT

Optimum Seat Abreast Configuration for an Regional Jet

SILENT SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Propeller blade shapes

An Integrated Approach to the Design-Optimization of an N+3 Subsonic Transport

blended wing body aircraft for the

EWADE th European Workshop on Aircraft Design Education - Naples 2011

AE 451 Aeronautical Engineering Design I Estimation of Critical Performance Parameters. Prof. Dr. Serkan Özgen Dept. Aerospace Engineering Fall 2015

AN ADVANCED COUNTER-ROTATING DISK WING AIRCRAFT CONCEPT Program Update. Presented to NIAC By Carl Grant November 9th, 1999

Click to edit Master title style

Approche novatrice pour la conception et l exploitation d avions écologiques, sous incertitudes.

AIRCRAFT AND TECHNOLOGY CONCEPTS FOR AN N+3 SUBSONIC TRANSPORT. Elena de la Rosa Blanco May 27, 2010

EAS 4700 Aerospace Design 1

1 b. Definition and Discussion of the Intrinsic Efficiency of Winglets. Dieter Scholz. Hamburg University of Applied Sciences

Three major types of airplane designs are 1. Conceptual design 2. Preliminary design 3. Detailed design

Preface. Acknowledgments. List of Tables. Nomenclature: organizations. Nomenclature: acronyms. Nomenclature: main symbols. Nomenclature: Greek symbols

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Strut-Braced Wing Transonic Transport

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

AVIATION OPERATIONAL MEASURES FOR FUEL AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION WORKSHOP Weight Management

Aircraft Design Conceptual Design

Performance means how fast will it go? How fast will it climb? How quickly it will take-off and land? How far it will go?

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS LICENSE ( FLIGHT PERFORMANCE AND PLANNING)

AIAA UNDERGRADUATE TEAM DESIGN COMPETITION PROPOSAL 2017

Classical Aircraft Sizing II

D-SEND#2 - FLIGHT TESTS FOR LOW SONIC BOOM DESIGN TECHNOLOGY

Design Considerations for Stability: Civil Aircraft

Classical Aircraft Sizing I

POWER ESTIMATION FOR FOUR SEATER HELICOPTER

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF UNMANNED AIR VEHICLE INTERCEPTOR (UAV-Ip)

NASA Langley Research Center October 16, Strut-Braced Wing Transport NAS DA17

The Sonic Cruiser A Concept Analysis

A PARAMETRIC STUDY OF THE DEPLOYABLE WING AIRPLANE FOR MARS EXPLORATION

DESIGN THE VTOL AIRCRAFT FOR LAND SURVEYING PURPOSES SHAHDAN BIN AZMAN

AE 452 Aeronautical Engineering Design II Installed Engine Performance. Prof. Dr. Serkan Özgen Dept. Aerospace Engineering March 2016

The Engagement of a modern wind tunnel in the design loop of a new aircraft Jürgen Quest, Chief Aerodynamicist & External Project Manager (retired)

ESCAPE Economic SCreening of Aircraft Preventing Emissions. Annex I: Designing aircraft for low emissions; technical basis for the ESCAPE project

Part 1 Aerodynamic Theory COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING. EGR 4347 Analysis and Design of Propulsion Systems Fall 2002 ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES

New Design Concept of Compound Helicopter

The Airplane That Could!

OPTIMAL MISSION ANALYSIS ACCOUNTING FOR ENGINE AGING AND EMISSIONS

Making Sense of Aircraft Endurance, Range, and Economy It isn t as simple as the textbook says it is!

AE Aircraft Performance and Flight Mechanics

Annual Report Summary Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) The Green Regional Aircraft ITD

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Truss-Braced Wing Aircraft with Tip-Mounted Engines

Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach, M. Sadraey, Wiley, 2012 Chapter 10 Weight of Components. Tables

Wing Planform Optimization of a Transport Aircraft

STUDY OF INFLUENCE OF ENGINE CONTROL LAWS ON TAKEOFF PERFORMANCES AND NOISE AT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF SSBJ PROPULSION SYSTEM

Aeronautical Engineering Design II Sizing Matrix and Carpet Plots. Prof. Dr. Serkan Özgen Dept. Aerospace Engineering Spring 2014

High aspect ratio for high endurance. Mechanical simplicity. Low empty weight. STOVL or STOL capability. And for the propulsion system:

AIAA Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design

Fuel consumption analysis of motor vehicle

Team 2. AAE451 System Requirements Review. Chad Carmack Aaron Martin Ryan Mayer Jake Schaefer Abhi Murty Shane Mooney

Primary control surface design for BWB aircraft

Chapter 4 Estimation of wing loading and thrust loading - 10 Lecture 18 Topics

ME 408 Aircraft Design Final Report for Team FSLAP Four-Seat Light Airplane

USAF Strike Fighters. An analysis of range, stamina, turning, and acceleration By Spurts

Configuration Selection

AIRCRAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN WITH NATURAL LAMINAR FLOW

Flight Test Evaluation of C-130H Aircraft Performance with NP2000 Propellers

1.1 REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFTS

Chapter 4 Lecture 16. Engine characteristics 4. Topics. Chapter IV

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ECOLOGICAL AIRCRAFT FOR COMMUTER AIR TRANSPORTATION

AERODYNAMIC STUDY OF A BLENDED WING BODY; COMPARISON WITH A CONVENTIONAL TRANSPORT AIRPLANE

DEVELOPMENT OF A CARGO AIRCRAFT, AN OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY AERODYNAMIC DESIGN PHASE

AIRCRAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN USING MULTI- OBJECTIVE OPTIMISATION.

Basic hypothesis. Subjective position may give less Drag at high Mach number to the Typhoon and better Lift at high AoA (>20) for the Rafale.

USAF Strike Fighters. An analysis of range, stamina, turning, and acceleration

Electric VTOL Aircraft

The Optimum Aeroplane and Beyond

Environmental issues for a supersonic business jet

Environautics EN-1. Aircraft Design Competition. Presented by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

1 sur 6 30/09/ :35

AeroTactic Company. FF-1 Rainbird

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MICRO AIR VEHICLE (µav) CONCEPT: PROJECT BIDULE

A Game of Two: Airbus vs Boeing. The Big Guys. by Valerio Viti. Valerio Viti, AOE4984, Project #1, March 22nd, 2001

Dragon Eye. Jessica Walker Rich Stark Brian Squires. AOE 4124 Configuration Aerodynamics

TELFONA, Contribution to Laminar Wing Development for Future Transport Aircraft. K. H. Horstmann Aeronautical Days, Vienna, 19 th -21 st June 2006

7. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A SINGLE AISLE MEDIUM RANGE AIRCRAFT

DEVELOPMENT OF A MORPHING FLYING PLATFORM FOR ADAPTIVE CONTROL SYSTEM STUDY

Research Report ZETJET-Aircraft Engines

Welcome to Aerospace Engineering

JetBiz. Six and Eight Passenger Business Jets

REsearch on a CRuiser Enabled Air Transport Environment (RECREATE)

THE ANALYSIS OF WING PERFORMANCE FOR RECONNAISSANCE UAV ZULKIFLI BIN YUSOF UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG

Multidisciplinary Optimization of Innovative Aircraft using ModelCenter

INVESTIGATION OF ICING EFFECTS ON AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AIRCRAFT AT TSAGI

Chapter 3: Aircraft Construction

Transcription:

AIRCRAFT DESIGN AND SYSTEMS GROUP (AERO) (and the Tools for its Calculation) Hamburg University of Applied Sciences 12th European Workshop on Aircraft Design Education (EWADE) 2015

(and the Tools for its Calculation) Content with New Aircraft Designs Flight Mechanics Fundamentals Drag Polar Specific Fuel Consumption and the SFC-Paradox with a Given Aircraft Summary and Conclusions 10.09.2015, Slide 2

with New Aircraft Designs Standard Jet Configuration "The Rebel" Optimization for minimum fuel Standard Prop Configuration "Smart Turboprop" Optimization for minimum DOC Genetic algorithm (Differential Evolution) proposes parameters. Aircraft designed automatically in EXCEL. About 2000 feasible designs tested in one optimization run. 10.09.2015, Slide 3

with New Aircraft Designs Standard Jet Configuration: "The Rebel" Parameter Value Deviation from A320* Main aircraft parameters m MTO 66000 kg - 10 % m OE 39200 kg -5 % m F 7500 kg - 42 % S W 68 m² - 45 % b W,geo 48.5 m + 42 % A W,eff 34.8 + 266 % E max 26.1 + 48 % T TO 89100 N - 20 % Parameter Value Deviation from A320* Requirements m MPL 19256 kg 0 % R MPL 1510 NM 0 % M CR 0.55-28 % max(s TOFL, s LFL ) 2700 m + 53 % n PAX (1-cl HD) 180 0 % m PAX 93 kg 0 % Dieter SP Scholz 28 in - 3 % Thrust to Weight Ratio [-] Early conceptual design 0.7 [-] 0.6 tio r a 0.5 t h 0.4 ig e 0.3 -w 0.2 tṯo s 0.1 r u h T 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Wing loading in kg/m² 25 Contingency: 10 % Alternate: 200 NM [t] 20 s Loiter time: 30 min a 15 Add. tank: 4 m³ m Ref. aircraft: A320 d a 10 lo y a 5 P 0 012th EWADE 2000 2015 4000 6000 Range [NM] Payload Mass [t] BPR 15.5 + 158 % SFC 1.03E-5 kg/n/s - 37 % h ICA 30000 ft - 23 % s TOFL 2490 m + 41 % s LFL 2110 m + 45 % t TA 32 min 0 % 10.09.2015, Slide 4

with New Aircraft Designs Standard Jet Configuration: "The Rebel" Parameter Value Deviation from A320* DOC mission requirements R DOC 750 NM 0 % m PL,DOC 19256 kg 0 % EIS 2030 ----- c fuel 1.44 USD/kg 0 % Results m F,trip 3700-36 % U a,f 3070 + 6 % DOC (AEA) 93 % -7 % Operating empty mass breakdown Component drag breakdown Direct operating cost breakdown 24% 7% 5% 25% 25% 13% 0.3% 1.0% Wing Fuselage Horizontal tail Vertical tail Engines Landing gear Systems Operator's items 8% 4% 17% 38% 32% Wing Fuselage Horizontal tail Vertical tail Engines 15% 23% 6% 24% 17% 14% 1% Depreciation Interest Insurance Fuel Maintenance Crew Fees 10.09.2015, Slide 5

with New Aircraft Designs Standard Prop Configuration: "Smart Turboprop" Parameter Main aircraft parameters Value Deviation from A320* Parameter Value Deviation from A320* Requirements m MPL 19256 kg 0 % R MPL 1510 NM 0 % M CR 0.51-33 % max(s TOFL, s LFL ) 1770 m 0 % n PAX (1-cl HD) 180 0 % m PAX 93 kg 0 % Dieter SP Scholz 29 in 0 % Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) [-] 400 tio ra 300 s a 200 -m Power to Mass Ratio kw/t rṯo 100 e w o P 0 0 200 400 600 800 Wing loading in kg/m² 25 Contingency: 10 % Alternate: 200 NM [t] 20 s Loiter time: 30 min a 15 Ref. aircraft: A320 m d a 10 lo y a 5 P 0 0 2000 4000 6000 Range [NM] Payload Mass [t] m MTO 56000 kg -24 % m OE 28400 kg -31 % m F 8400 kg -36 % S W 95 m² - 23 % b W,geo 36.0 m + 6 % A W,eff 14.9 + 57 % E max 18.8 + 7 % P eq,ssl 5000 kw ------ d prop 7.0 m ------ η prop 89 % ------ PSFC 5.86E-8 kg/w/s ------ h ICA 23000 ft - 40 % s TOFL 1770 m 0 % s LFL 1300 m -10 % t TA 32 min 0 % 10.09.2015, Slide 6

with New Aircraft Designs Standard Prop Configuration: "Smart Turboprop" Parameter DOC mission requirements Value Deviation from A320* R DOC 755 NM 0 % m PL,DOC 19256 kg 0 % EIS 2030 ----- c fuel 1.44 USD/kg 0 % Results m F,trip 3700 kg - 36 % U a,f 3600 h + 5 % DOC (AEA) 83 % - 17 % Operating empty mass breakdown Component drag breakdown Direct operating cost breakdown 26% 6% 7% 1.4% 18% 13% 1.4% 25% 1.0% 1.7% Wing Struts Fuselage Horizontal tail Vertical tail Engines Landing gear Systems Operator's items Soundproofed material 6% 8% 48% 5% 23% 9% Wing Struts Fuselage Horizontal tail Vertical tail Engines 24% 16% 6% 14% 27% 11% 1% Depreciation Interest Insurance Fuel Maintenance Crew Fees 10.09.2015, Slide 7

Flight Mechanics Fundamentals A/C Performance Often claimed: "There is one speed for minimum drag!" Really only one? flying lower: 1 mg L 2 V C L, md S 2 W 10.09.2015, Slide 8

Flight Mechanics Fundamentals The Pilot's View of Flying Low and hence Fast Lower altitude => Higher Speed of Sound => Higher True Airspeed (cruise Mach number remains constant High Speed & high density => very low lift coefficient => very low L/D => Extremely high fuel consumption! 10.09.2015, Slide 9

Drag Polar Drag Polar (Airbus A320, approximated, based on the following equations) Mach number Mach dependent induced drag wave drag C D0 = 0.0179 C D C C D, 0 D, W 2 CL A e 10.09.2015, Slide 10

Drag Polar Induced Drag Prediction Method (Nita 2012) C D, i 2 CL Ae e Q k e, M PA Q 1 P KC K = 0,38 e theo k D,0 e, F Fuselage: k df 1 b e, F 2 2 from one of many handbook methods Mach: k a e, M e a 0; Generic parameters: e c M M e a b c comp 1 e e e M 1 1 b 10.82 e 0.3 c 0.00152 comp e f ( for unswept wings: e theo 1 1 f ( ) A Hörner 1965 10.09.2015, Slide 11

Drag Polar NACA Report 921 for all sweep angles 25 : opt 0.45e 0.0375 25 opt 0.357 0.45 e 0.0375 25 25 in deg e theo 1 f 1 ( ) A 25 f ( ) 0.0524 ( ) 4 0.15( ) 3 0.1659( ) 2 0.0706( ) 0.0119 10.09.2015, Slide 12

Drag Polar Mach Dependent Induced Drag (A320) e_a320 k_e,m,a320 1,1000 1,0000 0,9000 0,8000 Parameters for A320: y 6 5-4 y = -8431,955x + 31050,614x - 47355,820x + 38277,125x 3 - - 17289,215x 2 + 4136,125x - 408,255 R 2 = 0,998 e_a320 k_e,m k_e,m,a320 Poly: k_e,m Calc: e_a320 0,7000 Calc: e_a320 Polynomisch (k_e,m,a320) 0,6000 0,5000 0,50 0,55 0,60 0,65 0,70 0,75 0,80 0,85 M Parameters for A320: a_e = 0,0027016 b_e = 8,6017 10.09.2015, Slide 13

Drag Polar Wave Drag Prediction Method Shevell 1980: A = 0.00057, B = 3.348 Own proposal of generic parameters (from 5 A/C): A = 0.00127, B = 3.4766 0,029 0,027 0,025 In case Mcrit is not given: C_D0 + CD,wave 0,023 0,021 0,019 C_D0 A320 C_D0 Calc witha= A, b= B 0,017 A320: C D0 = 0.0179 0,015 0,60 0,65 0,70 0,75 0,80 0,85 M 10.09.2015, Slide 14

Specific Fuel Consumption The SFC Paradox c T = c : Thrust-Specific Fuel Consumption c T = m F / T c T = 16. 10-6 kg/n/s (typical for jet) Heating value. Kerosene: H = 42.5 MJ/kg m F H : overall efficiency of the flight = 1: V = 680 m/s, M = 2 (MSL) Efficiency increases to any value if only speed is increased. => Paradox! 10.09.2015, Slide 15

Specific Fuel Consumption Deriving a Basic SFC as a Function of Speed or Mach Number c P = c' : Power-Specific Fuel Consumption c P = m F / P / t c P = 0.075. 10-6 kg/w/s (typical for turboprop) m F c T cp ctv c cv c' is slope a* is slope 10.09.2015, Slide 16

Specific Fuel Consumption The Basic SFC Function a* is slope Élodie Roux 2002 10.09.2015, Slide 17

with a Given Aircraft Preparation relative fuel consumption E max C Ae C D0 D0, W E = L/D E E ref k k e, M e, M, ref C C D0 D0 C C D0, W, ref D0, W if the aircraft is unchanged and C L is kept constant E only depends on k e,m and C D0,W 10.09.2015, Slide 18

with a Given Aircraft The Reference The New Flight Condition 10.09.2015, Slide 19

with a Given Aircraft More Basics 10.09.2015, Slide 20

with a Given Aircraft Numbers (A320) 10.09.2015, Slide 21

with a Given Aircraft Results Reference: long range cruise 0,00% -0,50% -1,00% Delta m_f / m_f,ref -1,50% -2,00% -2,50% -3,00% -3,50% -4,00% 0,60 0,62 0,64 0,66 0,68 0,70 0,72 0,74 0,76 0,78 M 10.09.2015, Slide 22

with a Given Aircraft Results V m/s 224 220 215 210 205 200 190 rho kg/m³ 0,364 0,378 0,396 0,415 0,435 0,458 0,507 h m 10999 10698 10333 9955 9563 9158 8300 T K 217 219 221 223 226 229 234 a m/s 295 296 298 300 301 303 307 M 0,76 0,74 0,72 0,70 0,68 0,66 0,62 k_e_m 0,8450 0,8988 0,9399 0,9651 0,9802 0,9891 0,9970 CD0W 0,0011 0,0009 0,0007 0,0005 0,0004 0,0003 0,0001 E 17,9 18,6 19,1 19,4 19,7 19,8 20,0 c kg/n/s 1,66E-05 1,65E-05 1,64E-05 1,63E-05 1,61E-05 1,60E-05 1,58E-05 Bs m 2,47E+07 2,53E+07 2,56E+07 2,56E+07 2,55E+07 2,52E+07 2,45E+07 Mff 0,893 0,895 0,896 0,897 0,896 0,895 0,892 m_f/m_to 0,1072 0,1048 0,1036 0,1034 0,1040 0,1049 0,1077 fuel saving 0,00% -2,26% -3,39% -3,51% -3,01% -2,11% 0,48% E = L/D increases continuously with flying slower (down to M = 0.3). Thrust-specific fuel consumption c = SFC decreases with flying slower. The Breguet factor B s is proportion to speed and decreases once E stops increasing with substancial rate. Fuel consumption decreases as long as the Breguet factor B s increases. 10.09.2015, Slide 23

Summary and Conclusions Flying slower gets you on a better drag polar (this is true also below the critical Mach number) The best lift coefficient has to be maintained This can be done by letting the design find its optimum condition with respect to altitude and wing area and Given aircraft have to accept the given wing area and can fly lower when slower An example calculation showed fuel burn reduction of 3.5 % at 0.05 Mach less than reference Mach number (0.76) This could be done today(!) with all aircraft(!) and would also reduce contrails But: Productivity goes down and DOC go (most probably) up! This is "only" a financial question, however decisive! 10.09.2015, Slide 24