System Definition Review Report Team 3 Tom Zettel Mike Bociaga

System Definition Review Report Team 3 TToomm ZZeetttteell MMiikkee BBoocciiaaggaa JJoonnaatthhaann OOllsstteenn JJaammiiee RRoossiinn HHaayynnee KKiimm BBrraannddoonn WWaasshhiinnggttoonn MMaarrqquueess FFuullffoorrdd CCoonntteennttss MMiissssiioonn SSttaatteemmeenntt MMiissssiioonn PPllaannss DDeessiiggnn RReeqquuiirreemmeennttss AAiirrccrraafftt CCoonncceepptt SSeelleeccttiioonn CCaabbiinn//FFuusseellaaggee LLaayyoouutt CCoonnssttrraaiinntt AAnnaallyyssiiss SSiizziinngg SSttuuddiieess AAddvvaanncceedd TTeecchhnnoollooggiieess SSuummmmaarryy NNeexxtt SStteeppss Mission Statement To create an innovative and cost effective commercial aircraft capable of take-off and landing in extremely short distances, making it available to a larger number of runways, in order to open up more airports, primarily to relieve the continuous growing congestion of large hubs. Mission Plans The goal of Team Arrival’s aircraft is to relieve congestion at major hubs. The three hubs that experience the most congestion (according to www.bts.gov) are Chicago O’Hare, New York LaGuardia, and Newark International. The first mission is to take off from Gary Chicago and land at Dallas Love Field. Gary Chicago airport is located 42 miles from Chicago O’Hare and Dallas Love Field is located 20 miles from Dallas International. This mission is intended to redirect some of the traffic from both Chicago O’Hare and Dallas International to secondary airports that experience less congestion. Team Arrival’s aircraft will have the capability of takeoff and landing on runways of 3000 feet or less making this mission possible. The second mission is to do a half-runway takeoff from New York LaGuardia and do a non-interfering spiral descent at Miami International. Both of the airports at LaGuardia and Miami have a significant amount of road traffic around them and it is Team Arrival’s feeling that most passengers will not want to fly into a secondary airport and then sit in street traffic for an extended period of time in order to get to their final destination. The third mission is to do a half-runway takeoff from Charlotte International, land at Essex County, then takeoff from Essex County without refueling, and return to Charlotte International and do a non-interfering spiral decent. This mission was planned as a round trip without refueling because Essex County is currently a small airport that may not have the equipment or personnel to refuel the aircraft and get it ready to takeoff again in a reasonably short amount of time. If this airport sees an increase in use in the future and increases it’s equipment and personnel this mission can be changed to refuel at Essex County. It would be more cost effective to refuel the aircraft because the aircraft would be lighter upon initial takeoff. This is hopefully something that can be done in the future, but Team Arrival is preparing for the current conditions. Design Requirements Team Arrival’s current design requirements can be seen in Table (1) below. While much of this table is the same as what was seen in the previous review, there was a change in max takeoff weight. The max takeoff weight has now been set with a target of 100,000 pounds and a threshold of 150,000 pounds. Mission Requirements Target Threshold Takeoff Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000ft Landing Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000ft Height to Passenger Door Sill at OWE ≤ 5 ft 9ft Height to Baggage Door Sill at OWE ≤ 4 ft 6ft Typical Cruise Mach Number ≥ 0.80 0.76 Range w/ Max Payload ≥ 2000 nmi 1500nmi Max Take-Off Weight ≤ 100,000 lb 150,000 lb Max Passengers (single class) ≥ 170 pax 150pax $/seat- $/seat- Operating Cost ($US 2007) ≤ 0.08 mile 0.12mile Table (1) Current design requirements for threshold and target values Aircraft Concept Selection Aircraft concept selection was done using Pugh’s method. The first step of Pugh’s method was to develop the criteria that would be used to judge the concpets. The majority of the criteria that was used in Pugh’s method where developed during the Quality Function Deployment method. With the exception of rotation angle which was developed later to further evaluate and eliminate concepts. Concept design criteria where chosen roughly based on personal experience and the general requirements established by NASA. The ten criteria that were established are as follows: extremely short takeoff and landing, high lift over drag during cruise, high mach cruise number, high take off thrust, low door sill height, passenger comfort, low noise, low complexity, safety, and rotation angle. After the criteria were selected they were placed in a matrix which can be seen below in Table (2). After the matrix was formed each team member generated up to ten different concepts. From those seventy concepts; the team voted on them to get the top four designs which would move on for further clarification and evaluation. Those top four designs were the forward swept wing, high wing with engines mounted on bottom, high wing with engines mounted on top of the wing, and low mounted wing with engines mounted over the wing. The team took those four designs and compared them to the selected datum of a 737 NG+2. A comparison of two of those designs can be seen in Table (2). A simple +,-,S rating system was used to determined which concept would be selected as the team’s top choice. The top design was chosen based on the number of + and the number of – and S values. The concept with the highest number of (+) and the lowest number of (-) was determined to be the teams winning concept. The idea that was the best of the concepts was the low forward swept wing with blown flaps. Sketches of the major concepts that were considered are available in Appendix (A). Low Aft Low forward swept wing w/blown Criterion swept wing flaps Low straight wing w/plasma ESTOL + + High L/D (cruise) + S High M (cruise) S S High TO Thrust S S Passenger Comfort S S Low Door Sill Height + - Low Noise S - Low Complexity - S Low Weight DATUM (737 NG+2) - S Safety + S Rotation Angle + + + 5 3 S No 3 6 - 3 2 Check 11 11 Pugh's Survivor? Yes Yes Table (2) Pugh’s method comparison The initial winning concept was then evaluated to determine what areas required improvement. After the problem areas were identified, an attempt was made to combine the positive aspects of the selected concepts in order to improve on the weaknesses of other concepts. If those solutions did not work the team tried to think of new ideas with which to solve the problems. This resulted in a hybrid of the original winning concept. Once this process was completed it was once again ran through the matrix using the original winning concept as the datum and reexamining where the flaws lied in the new design. This lead the team to the winning concept of the low forward swept wing aircraft with blown flaps and plasma generators. The final design is shown in Figure (1). Figure (1) Current aircraft configuration Future work needs to be done on this design to determine the exact placement of the control surfaces and the need of the designed lifting surfaces. Also more work needs to be done in the aerodynamics and control of the aircraft. The canard will most likely be moved up and behind the main cabin door so that it will not interfere with ground operations. The overall need for the canard is still being assessed. If the desired rotation angle can be achieved by using a T-tail then the canard may be replaced. Cabin/Fuselage Layout For the interior layout of the aircraft, Arrival plans on offering a two class and all economy class version of the plane. For the all economy version the planned layout includes 29 rows with 3 seats on each side of the aisle for a total of 174 passengers. The two class version will feature 4 rows of first class with 2 seats on each side of the row, and 24 rows of economy for a total of 160 passengers. For the first class section standard seat pitch will be 37 inches with a seat width of 20 inches. For the economy section, standard seat pitch will be 32 inches with variations around emergency exit locations, and a seat width of 18 inches. The preliminary interior layouts are pictured below; Figure (2) shows the economy only layout, and Figure (3) shows the two class arrangement. Figure (2) Preliminary economy lay-out of cabin Figure (3) Preliminary two class lay-out of cabin Currently there are doors on both sides of the plane in the open space next to the fore and aft lavatories. There will be two more emergency exits on each side of the plane added in the cabin either over the wing, or in the middle of the fuselage depending on how far aft the wing is in the final design. Alterations will then be made in the seat pitch of the surrounding rows to accommodate these emergency exits. These two layouts were designed in CATIA to get an estimate of how long the cabin and fuselage would need to be. The current estimate for cabin size is 96 ft, and the fuselage is 128 ft long. The current cabin layouts will probably be altered in the final design to improve lavatory and galley placement, especially in the two class configuration. Another reason to alter the layout is to move the doors into a section of the fuselage that isn’t tapering, as recommended by Boeing. The final cabin configuration will also include detail on overhead bins, windows, lavatory interiors, and the cockpit configuration. Constraint Analysis In order to perform the constraint analysis for the ESTOL aircraft, Arrival begun by using the mission requirements and generating other performance criteria with which to constrain the aircraft.

Load more