SAE Aero Design® Brazil Competition Senior Design Project Presentation Team 6: PanthAir Cargo Andres Cardenas, Arjav Patel and Nestor Paz Academic Advisor: Dr. George S. Dulikravich Florida International University Mechanics and Materials Engineering TEAM OBJECTIVES Enter the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aero Design Competition held in Brazil in October 2014 This objective was modified due to the team not being able to register for the event To design, build and fly a radio controlled airplane capable of competing in the SAE Aero Design Brazil Competition Motivation The team wanted to design an airplane worthy of competing against the best in the world Representing FIU at an international level Leaving a legacy behind for future students to follow Create an Aerospace Engineering Club Promote interest in Aerospace Engineering GLOBAL LEARNING COMPONENTS Global Awareness Global Perspective Global Engagement Global Awareness Awareness Items Impact of our Research on a Global Scale Environmental Awareness Ethical Awareness Interaction and exchange of ideas on an international level Being mindful to respect the intent of the competition rules Environmental Impact Other materials: Recyclable: -Wood: Decking, wood studs, mulch -Aluminum: Melted and reused -Steel: Melted and reused Non Recyclable -Carbon Fiber: Not used in our project Standards Used SAE Aero Design Brazil Rules ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) ANSI (American National Standards Institute) FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) PROBLEM STATEMENT The Competition and categories Micro Regular Advanced We will be competing in the Regular Class PROBLEM STATEMENT Airplane Requirements Maximum Gross Weight of 44 lb or 20 kg Cargo Bay Minimum of 293 in3 or 4800 cm3 Six faces orthogonal to each other Access door is part of airplane Wood specimen insertion check Payload must not structurally support cargo bay PROBLEM STATEMENT Aircraft Size Requirements Total projection of plan view cannot exceed 1200 in2 or 0.775 m2 this box is intended to cover up the sae brasil chart which cannot be easily seen Reference: SAE Brazil Aero Design Rules PROBLEM STATEMENT Performance Requirements Takeoff and landing distances 61m or 200 ft for takeoff 122m or 400 ft for landing Time requirement for takeoff 3 minutes Replacement of payload 120 seconds Reference: SAE Brazil Aero Design Rules PROBLEM STATEMENT Engine/Propeller Combinations Allowed engines: K&B 0.61 RC/ABC O.S. 0.61 FX O.S. 0.55 AX Magnum XLS-61A Allowed propellers: No metal propellers Design Concepts- Airfoils Wortmann FX 63-137 Eppler 423 Airfoil Optimized Airfoil Eppler 423 Airfoil - PERFORMANCE - STRENGTH - MANUFACTURABILITY Selig 1223 Airfoil Design concepts Design Concept: A Laterally Configured Cargo Bay High Wing Tricycle Landing Gear Conventional Tail Advantage Minimal additional projected area Disadvantage High frontal surface area obstructing thrust (Not to scale) Design concepts Design Concept: B Cargo Bay in the Wing Distributed Payload High Wing Advantages No additional projected area Disadvantages Too much wing displacement when subjected to loads Heavy weight (Not to scale) Design concepts Simulation Tests of Concept B In -flight 5 g simulation 26.6mm displacement Aircraft dropped from 1 meter simulating a “hard landing” 25.3 mm displacement Design concepts Design Concept: C Conventional Cargo Bay in the Fuselage High Wing Conventional Tail Advantage Wing displacement not an issue Lighter weight Disadvantages Added small projected area of fuselage (Not to scale) Final Prototype Boom tail changed to a conventional tail Forward swept wings No Winglets Removable wing to access Payload Tricycle landing gear Aircraft Sizing Classical aerodynamics principles, values and calculations were used to size the aircraft including: Aspect ratios (7.6 for the wing) Taper ratios (.45 for the wing) Mean Aerodynamic Chords (MAC) Tail Volume Coefficients (.5 from a range of .3 to .7) Flight control surface size requirements Center of gravity of aircraft Lift to Drag Ratio Estimations 12.4 using statistical methods 25.6 using wing coefficient of lift and a coefficient of drag for the entire aircraft (at Re=300,000) The ratio for just the wing alone was 61.7 (at Re=300,000) Aircraft Manufacturing Weight and Balance Testing Propulsion System Magnum 61 XLS was chosen Research suggested the 13x4 propeller for optimum performance SAE Aero Design 2013 Design Report. Michigan: U of Michigan Test Validation Tests show 13x4 propeller gave maximum static thrust as well as max RPM Landing Gear Used very thick steel nose landing gear 3/16” diameter Main landing gear was Aluminum 6061-T6 1/8” thickness Timeline and work breakdown Cost Analysis Actual Costs: Engine/fuel tank Electrical Glue Misc Materials Nuts and Bolts Landing Gear Cost Breakdown: $179.56 $216.87 $50.39 $151.46 $279.68 $86.17 $158.45 Total: $1,122.58 Engine/fuel tank 14% Electrical 17% 8% Glue 19% Misc 25% 4% 13% Materials Nuts and Bolts Landing Gear Theoretical Performance Actual Testing Results Date Modifications Being Payload Tested [pounds] Remarks 27-Jul-14 Maiden Flight 0 Successful Flight 2-Aug-14 wing struts added 7.6 Successful Flight 23-Aug-14 none 9.8 Successful Flight 23-Aug-14 13x4 propeller 12 Aircraft rolled too far after landing 30-Aug-14 softer tires 12 Successful flight, but longer take off distance 30-Aug-14 softer tires 13.5 Successful flight, but longer take off distance 14.2 Successful flight, but longer roll after landing 30-Aug-14 return to hard tires 9-Sep-14 added brakes 15.7 Successful Flight 9-Sep-14 13x6 propeller 18.5 Brake failure resulted in rolling off runway 20.1 Takeoff and landing was made at slower speed and higher AOA. Successful flight 13x4 propeller and 16-Nov-14 removed brakes Theoretical Performance results Performance Comparison (Current US Champion) (5th place US) Panthair Cargo successfully carried 20.1 pounds or 9.16 kg of payload during testing Potential top 10 finish had the team been given the opportunity to compete in Brazil (Reference SAE Brasil Aero Design) Our Pilot Kishan Kalpoe FIU Engineering Student Very talented and experienced RC aircraft pilot Has devoted his time to attend our team meetings and to offer very helpful ideas Thanks Kishan! Actual Performance Aerospace Engineering Club Special Recognition Mr. Richard Zicarelli: design and manufacture of brake system components Dr. Andres Tremante and Dr. Brian Reding: Facilitated radio controller and payload carrier Dr. Norman Munroe for his generous support of the Aerospace Engineering Club Dr. George Dulikravich for his outstanding project support Thank you! Questions?