progressfeb_28 - AAE 490T/590T AT 490D Tech 581N...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: AAE 490T/590T AT 490D Tech 581N Design/Build/Test Progress Report On Oblique Wing with Extendable Span Project February 28, 2003 Name Hours worked Signature Jeff Decker Wade McMillan Doug Mousseau Stephanie Steber 1.0 Introduction This week, most of the analyses on the aircraft were performed, including analysis on aerodynamics, performance, and structures. Additional span extension mechanisms were explored, and analyses were performed to prove the speed of the mechanisms. Also, an IronCAD model of the aircraft was made as a baseline for the final aircraft layout. 2.0 Aircraft Model An aircraft model was constructed in IronCAD [1] to provide a visual, scaled representation of the design. It includes an extending wing structure, which enables the observance of the morphing capabilities. It also gives insight as to how much the wing planform will actually change during flight. See Figure 2.1 for scaled versions of the aircraft with fully retracted and fully extended spans, respectively. Figure 2.1: Aircraft 3-View 2 3.0 Aerodynamics 3.1 Aircraft Airfoil Though several attempts have been made to reach the manufacture of the intended baseline aircraft, the U.S. AirCore Trainer 40, no useful response has been received. Despite the lack of confirmation, the airfoil section is believed to be on the AirCore Trainer is a basic Clark-Y, and it is this airfoil which has been investigated. Table 3.1 shows the lift and drag parameters of the airfoil as they apply to this aircraft. The drag polar is shown in Figure 3.1, and compares the sections performance at several different Reynolds numbers. This information was obtained through the Nihon University website [2]. As discussed in the following section, the aircraft will be operating around Re = 400,000. The minimum drag coefficient was estimated using the equivalent flat plate method, which a skin friction coefficient of 0.0055 as per Daniel Raymers Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach [3]. Table 3.1: Aerodynamic Performance of the Clark-Y on the AirCore Trainer 40 Drag Analysis Parameter Symbol Unit 2/28/03 Skin Friction Coefficient C fe- 0.0055 Minimum Drag Coeff, Ext C Do,ext- 0.0214 Minimum Drag Coeff, Ret C Do, ret 0.0223 Lift Analysis Parameter Symbol Unit Zero Lift AoA zero-lift rad-0.0662 3D Lift-Curve Slope C Lalpha rad-1 3.50 Maximum Lift Coeff. C Lmax- 1.15 Finite Wing Correction K- 0.08 Min Power Lift Coeff C Lminpower- 0.871 3 Clark - Y Drag Polar -0.4-0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Cd CL 102600 203800 301200 61300 Figure 3.1: Drag polar for Clark-Y at several different Reynolds numbers 3.2 Aircraft Performance A considerable amount of time was invested in calculating the performance figured of the aircraft, in both the wings extended and retracted positions. A summary of interesting performance figures is presented in Table 3.2, and more complete listing of performance estimations is included in Appendix A. From these preliminary estimates, the performance of the aircraft appears reasonable in both configurations, wings extended...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/15/2012 for the course AAE 490 taught by Professor Andrisani during the Fall '09 term at Purdue University-West Lafayette.

Page1 / 15

progressfeb_28 - AAE 490T/590T AT 490D Tech 581N...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online