DTIC ADA361001: D/B/F 98: Final Report Of the AIAA Student Aircraft Design, Build & Fly Competition

778 Pages·29.1 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

D/B/F 98: Final Report
Of the AIAA Student Aircraft
Design, Build & Fly
Competition
Grant: N00014-98-1-0493
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, seerchng existing data sources, gathemg and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this colecton of information,
nduding suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington.
VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
17 January 1998 Final Report, 1 April - 31 December 1998
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
D/B/F 98: FINAL REPORT OF THE AIAA STUDENT AIRCRAFT DESIGN, BUILD & FLY G: N0OO14-98-1-O493
COMPETITION PR: 97PR04749-00
6. AUTHORS
By Gregory Page. Chris Bovias, Michael Selig and the student participants of D/B/F 1998.
Compiled by Robert Paczula, AIAA
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
ATTN: AIAA Foundation 98DBF7630
1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Ste 500
Reston, VA 20191-4344
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY
REPORT NUMBER
Office of Naval Research
800 North Quincy St (ONR 351)
Arlington, VA 22217-5660
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
This report is made up of the combined reports of 17 separate teams of students who entered the 1998 Design, Build & Fly Competition. The objectives
of the Design, Build & Fly Competition were to have students teams design, build and fly unmanned remote control electric aircraft designed for
maximum range on a limited battery. A "fly-off took place on the Westport Airport near Wichita, KS, in April 1998. Winners of the contest: 1st
place. University of Southern California; 2nd, Texas A&M University; 3rd, Syracuse University. The Design, Build & Fly Competition was supported
by Cessna, the Office of Naval Research and the AIAA Foundation.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Unmanned / Remote / Control / RC / Student / Design / Build / Fly / AIAA 791
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
REPORT THIS PAGE ABSTRACT
SAR
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Computer Generated STANDARD FORM 298 (Rev 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18
298-102
OTIC QUALITY INSPECTED 2 .,;
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
*
Tab Number School
1 University of Alabama
2 University of Arizona
3 University of California at Los Angeles
4 University of Central Florida
5 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7 Oklahoma State University
•
8 San Diego State University
9 Queen's University at Kingston
10 University of Southern California
11 Syracuse University
12 Texas A&M University
13 University of Texas at Austin
14 Utah State University
15 Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
16 Washington State University
17 West Virginia University
19990310 101
Reproduced From
Best Available Copy
Wings
AIAA/Cessna/ONR Student Design/Build/Fly Competition
Wichita, Kansas
Department of Aerospace Engineering
University of Alabama
16 March, 1998
Table of Contents
Executive Summary '•
Management Summary J
Conceptual Design "
Preliminary Design "
Detail Design 14
Manufacturing Plan 19
Appendix A - References 23
Appendix B - Acknowledgements 24
Appendix C - Sponsors 25
Executive Summary
The design of the aircraft was broken into three major phases. These phases were the
conceptual, preliminary, and detailed design phases. During the first stage of design, the
conceptual phase, the mission parameters were considered, while choosing the overall
configuration of the airplane. A traditional airplane was chosen. In the next phase, the
preliminary phase, major components were sized for a given flight mission profile,
payload, and maximum battery weight. The final stage, the detailed design phase,
included a detailed analysis of the aircraft. This analysis was used to size the internal
structures. Once all internal and external structures had been sized, the necessary
materials were ordered and plans for construction began.
The types of aircraft considered during the conceptual phase were the three-surface,
canard, and conventional aircraft. After these configurations were selected each type was
rated on its flight characteristics, controllability, and ease of construction. Other features
of the aircraft investigated included fixed versus retractable landing gear, tricycle versus
taildragger landing gear, high wing versus low wing, and t-tail versus conventional tail.
The flight characteristics weighed most heavily in determining aircraft configurations
were trim drag reduction, stall behavior, and general stability. The type of motor that
would be used and the capacity and voltage of the battery were also topics investigated
during this phase. Design tools used to determine which features were most efficient
included advice from faculty and Raymer's text, Aircraft Design, A Conceptual
Approach.
The preliminary design phase was greatly influenced by a desire to achieve the greatest
efficiency. The characteristics given the most attention were the cruise velocity and lift
coefficient of the airplane. The fuselage length and cross section was also given much
attention during this phase. The wing's aspect ratio, taper ratio, twist, and sweepback
angle were also important characteristics examined at this time. The horizontal and
vertical tail airfoils were also investigated during this stage. The characteristics
scrutinized for the horizontal and vertical tails as well as the wing were aspect ratio, taper
ratio, and sweepback angle. MathCAD and MATLAB were used to predict the trim and
performance of the airplane.
Obtaining a final wing configuration was the primary objective of the detailed design
phase. Numerous airfoils were closely examined in order to find the airfoil that would
perform as needed to meet the mission parameters. The rate of climb and take off
performance for the aircraft were also predicted during this phase. Another important
element of the airplane investigated during the detailed design phase was the position of
the centers of gravity for the wing and horizontal and vertical tail. The centers of gravity
for all the other major components were also calculated at this time. After the placements
of the vertical and horizontal tail were determined, wing and horizontal tail incidences
were calculated. All of the aforementioned characteristics were decided by using
approximations from Raymer, knowledge gained in previous classes, and advice from
faculty members. Once the airplane's major attributes were agreed upon, the materials
and components were ordered and construction plans were begun.
The three phases of the design as well as the design parameters considered in each phase
and their relative importance to the design are illustrated in the table below:
Phase of Design: Relative
Importance:
Conceptual:
1. Aircraft type 10%
2. Gear Type/Placement 6%
3. Wing Position 3%
4. Motor type and Battery capacity and voltage 10%
Preliminary:
1. Cruise Velocity and Lift Coefficient 10%
2. Aspect Ratio of Wing 4.5%
3. Wing Taper Ratio, Twist, and Sweepback Angle 2.5%
4. Fuselage Length and Cross Section 5%
5. Horizontal and Vertical Tail Airfoils 3.5%
6. Horizontal and Vertical Tail Sizes, Aspect Ratios,
Taper Ratios, and Sweepback Angles 5%
7. Sizes of Ailerons, Elevators, and Rudder 4%
Detailed:
1. Wing Airfoil 12%
2. Position of Aerodynamic Centers of Wing and 6%
Horizontal and Vertical Tails
3. Centers of Gravity of Components 5%
4. Vertical Placement of Horizontal Tail 2.5%
5. Wing and Horizontal Tail Incidence 3%
6. Rate of Climb Required and Take Off Performance 8%
Table 1.1
Management Summary
The University of Alabama's Design/Build/Fly (DBF) Team is composed of the
•
following people, with the following duties: Tara O'Neill, Team Leader and
Communications Specialist; Brian Isaac, President of AIAA and Co-Team Leader;
Calvin Kalbach, Head of Design; Michael Knight, AMA Pilot and Assistant in Design
and Construction; Norman Antonio, Raymond Lenski, Tryshanda Moton, Anne-Michelle
Reif, and Chad Woodard, Assistants in Design and Construction.
The original team concept was that Tara was our Team Leader and Communications
Specialist, and the other team members were Assistants. As time went on, however, this
structure gradually changed to what is stated above. The final team structure, as well as
the communication and command structure is illustrated in Figure 2.1, with the arrows
showing the appropriate directions of communication and authority.
As Team Leader, Tara's responsibilities included scheduling meetings and informing the
team of design developments, sponsor contacts, and financial status. As Communications
Specialist, she also served as the contact person for our sponsors. Due to his status as
AIAA president and his previous involvement in DBF, Brian served as Co-Team Leader,
assisting Tara in scheduling team meetings and in communicating with the AIAA faculty
advisor regarding monetary funds specifically for DBF. As a graduate student, Brian also
assisted Calvin in designing the aircraft. Calvin served as Head of Design, due to his
status as a senior and his design experience. In this capacity, he delegated duties to the
Assistants, such as finding the prices of components and formatting and analyzing
information leading to the choice of the wing airfoil, construction materials, radio,
propulsion system, and landing gear. He also scheduled meetings to design and build the
aircraft, as well as reporting design progress to Brian and Tara during general meetings.
Michael Knight is our Pilot, as he is the only member of our team with an AMA License
and remote piloting experience. The remainder of the team served as Assistants in
Design and Construction of the aircraft, as well as preparing the final report.
Figure 2.2 is a chart showing planned and actual execution of each step in the design
project.
T3
C
cd
s
E
o
U
o
g
U
3
60
1■ ■1
TaJ) ■0tit.)
1
Q.
< g
a.
^
.C IO |v- 1 1
ÜcCO m^** HI F^H t^— •Qc.
2 a. <
a> < ■ ■
XI 11^
&n3 E0 XaE00a>>I) 1 ^Sm 2C0O T«iaK-. T"<vQTC>- . DCO
u0.) m Q ^- 1 6 sco
x: co
2" 2i a> CM eo 2 x: H e
C3CO 1E IP c^o XaE>I X<E5I i g 0en) H
-Ch>O_ =7 2 xEi e®l Ö CirM? 0<o <0o 1T> Oag 3
0 ' x: Ji 2» e^ <;
CM CM 2 2
aXaa<EIEükD>>I. ^ov_^ ^X•aQ«Eaa>3I)^. X "^aE«aQS5>>I . aCx■Ki<PPa&_M>D>i o -*«ÜaO«0°-->-» XO*O(OOD■*I I■W■1kl IlI1I ■hIg 7C(«M0 Ca£f3cMf1 i• C cc3^CM1oO XC3aO>I Jutac5:>
0
XI ^H^H 1 CM 3CO 3CO +e-n*
z ^ E 3 s
CM fc
XJID_I E w ^flH^^^HH a> a. CS
Oo ®O. o ■ IH^ 'S. * CN
O
3
i <o MM
k.
.0a) CM 3
E ^^^^H ^^^H
<D 3 H^H 11
■B. 3 ^H
a> ^-H
0-} ■
<»■ ■
3H ■
o)H
3
<
k. c
£
CA 0
X1aE>2I ■s000). <20co» 2U «A J■cCaOO> _c0o c0
a> 0 0 §1 CO 3 CO
E a. 2 4-J N
w O a (c0 8. 'E
1a4ud->."* 4ECIo-DO« I9EE 52» .'Oca25>* >.2(»0» 21-5t3j O>t5t). .f«El0> Ü0»CO aCMcOa. O'aS>. aa(C0O>
'*caE5«>* 0DC> «<(30= "t3au5»t ..CE§O 0«c0l "Qac5>a5 —ä3ca ■nCO an<0a0.. |(20 TE3cttJ)
a40:) 2(0 Ü0 Oc0 Ia. 0& ai%-J 0i3s BO <K C2L Era X<)