Postal Penguin An Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle for the Navy
Team 8-Ball Final Presentation April 22nd, 2003
1 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
2 Introduction Team Members and Positions
Justin Hayes Greg Little Ben Smith
David Andrews Chuhui Pak
Alex Rich Nate Wright Jon Hirschauer Christina DeLorenzo 3 Introduction Request for Proposal Overview
RFP Requirement Specification Effect of Specification Mission 1, Strike Range 500 nm High Fuel Requirements Mission 2, Endurance 10 Hrs Low TSFC, High Fuel Payload 4,600 lbs Internal Volume Cruise Speed > M 0.7 No Supersonic, Engine Ceiling > 40,000 ft Engine, Aero Performance Sensor Suite Global Hawk Volume, Integration Stealth Survivability Oblique Angles Carrier Ops Structural Loads
4 Introduction Project Drivers (Pictures Courtesy of Global Security)
Carrier Operation Fuel Store Capacity
Stealth Sensor Suite Flyaway Costs 5 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
6 Background Research Existing Aircraft (Pictures Courtesy of GlobalSecurity)
7 Background Research Advanced Technologies, VSTOL
Harrier Review 14
Panel Study AV-8b Harrier Jump Jet (HaRP) 12 10 Increased Failure Rates 8
55 Peacetime 6 Vehicle Losses All Other Navy Aircraft (17 lives lost) 4 2 Mishap Rates of Hours 100,000 Flight per Mishaps 14-20 per 100,000 0 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 hrs Fiscal Year Increases Weight, Cost, Volume 8 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concepts Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
9 Concepts Overview Concept Descriptions
Concept Rubber Stealth Ducky Biggun Wing Delta U2 Beetle Conventional Tail YES YES Canted Tail YES YES YES Delta Wing YES Flying Wing YES Single Engine YES YES YES YES YES Multi Engine YES Vectored Thrust YES YES YES Water Landing YES Acceptable Length YES YES YES YES 10 Concepts Overview Reduction Chart
Stealth Wing Beetle Delta U2 Biggun Rubber Ducky 11 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
12 Design Evolution, Weights Initial Configuration, Problems
Severe Instability (21% MAC) Significant cg Travel Landing Problems Drag Divergence Fuel Volume
13 Design Evolution, Weights Weight Changes, cg Shift
Shift Engine Forward
Widen Midsection
New Airfoil, MS(1)-0313
Planform Sweep
14 Design Evolution, Weights Solving the Weights Problem
Ordinance Release Ordinance Retention
Loiter
JDAM
JDAM, pre-drop
HARM, pre-drop HARM
JDAM/HARM, post-drop
15 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
16 Final Configuration Postal Penguin Layout
17 Final Configuration Postal Penguin Internal Layout
Exhaust Wing Tanks Engine Integrated Sensor Suite
Fuel Tanks Main Gear
Nose Gear Inlets Payload
18 Final Configuration Postal Penguin External Layout
Pelikan Tails Ailerons Flaps
Main Gear Nose Gear Air intake
19 Final Configuration For Dr. Brown
General Characteristics Length 32' Weight 16-34.5 kips
Span 45' VStall 105 knt
SpanFolded 30' VLaunch 130-150 knt
HeightMax 14.3' VLand 125 knt
AR 4.35 Λo 22.7°
20 Final Configuration Penguin Top/Side View
Length 35’ Folded Length 32’ Span 45’ Folded Span 30’ Wheelbase 15’ Track Width 10’
21 Final Configuration Penguin Front View
22 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
23 Systems Overview General Systems (Pictures Courtesy of GlobalSecurity, FAS)
Landing Gear Defensive
Weapons
Engine
Hydraulics Bomb Bay
Command/Control
Electrical Flight Control
24 Systems Overview Bomb Bay, HARM
Must be rail launched
Utilize already existing technology
LAU-118/A Guided Missile Launcher
BRU-32/A Bomb Rack (Courtesy of GlobalSecurity)
25 Systems Overview HARM Rail Launch System
26 Systems Overview JDAM Pneumatic Ejector
Utilize already existing technology
Pneumatic Ejector Racks
The Advantages of Pneumatic Ejection
27 Systems Overview Main Gear
Placement
Size
Geometric Retraction
Weight: 600 lbs
Tires – Type VII cg Diameter: 25.84 in. Width: 7.30 in.
Ground Clearance
28 Systems Overview Nose Gear
Size Placement Tires – Type VII Geometric Retraction Diameter: 18.27 in. Weight: 600 lbs Width: 4.27 in.
4 x 10 Weight vs. Length 5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 Weight
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Length 29 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
30 Aero-Performance Aerodynamic Considerations
General Characteristics:
Supercritical airfoil for drag divergence AR λ b S MAC Λ 1/2 Moderate sweep for transonic performance/neutral point location 4.35 0.29 45 ft. 465 ft 11.4 ft 10 deg
High span and area for good L/D characteristics
Reasonable thickness for potential fuel storage
22.65 deg
45’ If Penguins Had Wings… 31 Aero-Performance The Contenders
MS(1)-0313
SC(2)-0712 MS(1)-0317 MS(1)-0313
The Penguin presented unique design requirements: High L/D, good low-speed lift, all in a very small package. Some characteristics looked at are below.
40 kft SC(2)-0712 MS(1)-0317 MS(1)-0313
CL max 1.3 1.38 1.42
α max 3.1 6.8 5.2 t/c 0.12 0.17 0.13
The MS(1)-0313 provided the best combination of characteristics.
32 Aero-Performance Drag Polar, Build-up
Drag Polar (40,000 ft)
1.6 Example drag polar 1.4 for the cruise altitude 1.2 of 40,000 ft (deep 1 strike/SEAD missions) 0.8 The marker signifies 0.6 CL maximum L/D of 13.8 0.4
0.2
0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 L/D)MAX = 13.8 CD
33 Aero-Performance Sweep and MDD
A supercritical CL vs. MDD airfoil alone is not enough to counter the 0.74 effects of increased wave 0.72 drag. 10 deg 0.7 5 deg Wing has been DD M swept 10 deg at 0 deg mid-chord to 0.68 raise Mach drag divergence. 0.66
0.64 0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 CL
34 Aero-Performance Thickness and MDD
While sacrificing fuel Midchord Sweep vs.DD M volume, the decreased CL = 0.5 thickness in the wings allowed for great improvement in the Mach drag divergence values for 0.82 all potential angles of 0.8 sweep. 0.78 0.76 DD 13 % t/c M 0.74 17 % t/c 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0 10203040
Midchord sweep (deg)
35 Aero-Performance Performance Factors
Requirements refresher:
0.85 Mach at Sea Level
0.7 Mach (or better) cruise speed at 40kft or better (Deep Strike/SEAD)
10 hour endurance/loiter mission
8400 ft/min (or better) initial climb rate
Endurance Range (40,000 ft) Max Speed (SL) Initial ROC (SL) RFP 14.5 h 550 nm 0.83 M 10260 ft/min
T/O Accel. Stall Speed Approach Speed T/O speed Carrier 5g 109 kts 131 kts 150 kts
Ceiling L/D Max Loiter Velocity Range Velocity Other 57,700 ft 13.8 0.54 M 0.71 M
36 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
37 Control and Stability Control Surface Sizing
Take Off Rotation Speed Aileron Size 7.28 ft^2 JDAM MISSION Flap Size 13.49 ft^2 117.66 knots Rudder Size 16.84 ft^2 HARM MISSION 121.29 knots LOITER MISSION 121.83 knots
38 Control and Stability Roll
Required Roll Rate: 45 degrees in 1.4 seconds Landing Take off Cruise Mach # 0.197 0.227 0.7 HARM 201 262 638 (Deg/sec) JDAM 202 262 456 (Deg/sec) Loiter 201 262 562 (Deg/sec) 39 Control and Stability HARM Mission Sideslip Flight ( Beta = 11.5 deg ) Take Off Landing Cruise Mach # 0.197 0.227 0.7 Delta A 1.82 1.81 1.83 (degrees) Delta R 0.31 0.32 0.21 (degrees) PHI 2.64 2.671 6.92 (degrees) 40 Control and Stability JDAM Mission
Stead/Level Flight Control Power Assessment Landing Take Off Cruise Mach # 0.197 0.227 0.7 CL trim 1.12 0.85 0.48 Delta e -3.9 -.96 0.28 (degrees) AOA 12.54 9.26 -.84 (degrees) 41 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
42 Structural Analysis Material Usage
Large, One-Piece, Carbon Composites Titanium, Ceramic Aramid Composites
BMI
Silicon Titanium Radar Absorbent Paint
43 Structural Analysis Wing Box Layout
Skin Stiffeners Aft Spar
Aileron
LE Spar
44 Structural Analysis Bulkhead/Spar Placement
36% 60%
12%
Al 7075
Al 2024
45 Structural Analysis Bulkhead Placement
Leading Edge Spar, Engine Support Inlet Support Exhaust Support
Aft Tail, Nose Gear Tail Hook Tie In Main Gear Support Tie In
46 Structural Analysis Engine Bulkhead Design
Engine mounts
Removable piece Supporting plate
Navy requires engines be removable through Weapons bay doors Ordinance mounts bottom of airframe
47 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
48 Pelikan Tail About the Pelikan Tail
What is a Pelikan tail? Why do we want to use it? Testing the Pelikan Tail
49 Pelikan Tail What Is the Pelikan Tail?
A tail configuration that obtains yaw and pitch control through the use of two rear control surfaces. Named for Ralph Pelikan.
50 Pelikan Tail Look at our Model
Courtesy: NOVA JSF Video 51 Pelikan Tail Obtaining Yaw
PO DE SIT FL IV EC E TI ON
NEG ATIVE DEFL ECTION
Opposite deflection causes equivalent side forces, creating yaw. 52 Induced rolling moment will be countered by control system & ailerons. Pelikan Tail Why Use a Pelikan Tail?
Stealth
Fewer vertical surfaces reduces RCS
Other Factors
Less skin friction drag
Only 2 actuated rear control surfaces
Unproven design
53 Pelikan Tail Importance of Stealth
The stealth of the aircraft keeps it safe from the enemy
Interceptors are faster & more agile, survivability depends on stealth
Stealth CAN provide all of an aircrafts survivability:
Courtesy: www.fas.org 54 Pelikan Tail Other Factors
Drag
The less skin friction drag the better Fewer rear control surfaces
Only 2 hydraulic actuators, less weight Unproven Design
Opportunity to explore a new idea with physical testing
No previous examples to justify Pelikan tail implementation
Can we get enough side force?
55 Pelikan Tail Testing
Senior Design / Junior Lab Partnership
Dr. Mason & Dr. Devenport
Would provide future senior design teams with the opportunity CLASS to test their designs OF Would expose juniors 2003 to a vast array of different aerodynamic 2004 designs. Promote healthy Junior / Senior relations!
56 Pelikan Tail Model Construction
Draft tail sections in UniGraphics
Construct base plate (poplar)
Fabricate tail sections with 3D printer
Coat with epoxy, then fiberglass
Epoxy hinges & attach deflection braces
57 Pelikan Tail Model Dimensions
23”
12”
Base Plate 8”
9”
Hinge Angle = 15o
53o Tail Airfoil Section – NACA 0012
*Note: Drawings not to scale 4” 58 Pelikan Tail Experimental Goals
Can we obtain the Yaw force needed?
Will Pitch controls produce excess Yaw?
Discover any unexpected characteristics
We do not have direct control over the testing process
59 Pelikan Tail Pictures (Pictures Courtesy of Perez’s Junior Lab Group)
60 Pelikan Tail Testing Data
V = 80mph 0.600 CY vs. Angle of Attack Re = 540,000
L-Neg / R-Pos 0.400
0.200 R-Neg / L-Zero
Both Negative
Both Positive 0.000 C CY Y R-Pos / L-Zero
Both Zero -0.200
L-Pos / R-Neg -0.400
-0.600 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Angle of Attack (degrees) 61 (Data from Perez’s Junior Lab Group) Pelikan Tail Test Conclusions
We can obtain the Yaw needed. Pelikan tail is a viable tail design There is little Yaw effect in pitch.
Testing still in progress.
From what data we have we believe that the .
62 Pelikan Tail Conclusion
Thank you to the TAs and students who participated in this concept test
Rafael Perez’s Lab Group
Nanyaporn Intaratep’s Lab Group
Any groups to test this week
Additional thanks to Dr. Devenport and Dr. Mason for this unique opportunity and we hope this partnership continues in the years to come.
63 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
64 Autonomy Mission Logic SEAD ISR Launch Launch Climb Climb Waypoint Cruise Waypoint Cruise Combat Approach ISR Pattern Search Seek Target Return Information Release Abort Stores Attack Command/Control
Retreat/Cruise Land Land 65 Autonomy Flight Controls, Weapons Arming
Fly-by-Wire
Pre-Programmed Missions
Autonomous Capability
ISR
SEAD
Auto Pre-launch Weapons Arming
Pin-Puller Mechanisms, Electronic
66 Carrier Integration Autonomous Integration, “Spot”
Autonomous Movement in Carrier
Precise Placement and Manuevering
Lessens Crew Requirements “SPOT” (Courtesy of Alec Gosse) 67 Carrier Integration Carrier Characteristics
Carrier Characteristics Design 1 Design 2 Landing Length (ft) 350 348 Deceleration 3 3 Take-off Length (ft) 200 285 Acceleration (g’s) 5 4 Launch Angle (deg) 2 3 # UCAVs 30 28
EMALS
Landing and Stowing Procedure 68 Agenda
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
69 Costs Postal Penguin Cost Analysis
Life-cycle: 20 years
Production Run: 100 Production Run: 500
RUN COSTS RUN COSTS
Program Cost: Program Cost: $ 7.3 billion $ 15 billion
Unit Program Cost: Unit Program Cost: $ 72.9 million $ 30.1 million
Unit Life Cycle Cost: Unit Life Cycle Cost: $ 84 million $ 41.9 million
Using Raymer DAPCA IV
70 Agenda Summary
Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions
71 Questions
Thank You,
We appreciate your time and attendance
72 References
Carrier Suitability Testing Manual, Pax River MD Rev 2, Sept 1994 BoeingMaterials Corporate and Manufacturing Website, http://www.boeing.com Processes Doyle, Michael R. Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System – EMALS , Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, NJ 08733 Northrop Corporate Website, http://www.ng.com Global Security Website, http://www.globalsecurity.com Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design. Reston: AIAA, 1999 Kennedy, Michael, Younossi, Obaid, Graser, John C. Military Airframe Costs, . Santa Monica: Rand, 2001 Eden, Paul and Moeng, Soph. Modern Military Aircraft Anatomy. New York: Friedman/Fairfax, 2002 Niu, Michael C. Airframe Structural Design. Los Angeles: Conmilit Press, 1988The Effects of Advanced Beer, Ferdinand P. and Johnston, E. Russel. Mechanics of Materials. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1992 Kirschbaum, Nathan with Mason, W.H. Aircraft Design Handbook, Aircra . Blacksburg: Virginia Tech, 1993 NOVA Films, Battle of the X-Planes. Broadcast on PBS, 2003 Mason, W.H. Configurational Aerodynamics . Online Notes, avail http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~Mason/Mason_f/ConfigAero.html ft Design Aid and Layout Guide Whitford, Ray. Fundamentals of Fighter Design. Shrewsbury: Longlife, 2002 Knott, Eugene F., Schaeffer, John F. and Tuley, Michael T. Radar Cross Section. 2ed. Boston: Artech House, 1993 Jenn, David C. Radar and Laser Cross . Reston: AIAA, 1995 Survivability Book MORE REFERENCES (freshman?) Section Engineering
73