Presentation - Florida International University

Report
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?

similar documents