t eam 2
play

T eam 2 AAE451 System Requirements Review Chad Carmack Ben - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 06, 2023 •551 likes •958 views

T eam 2 AAE451 System Requirements Review Chad Carmack Ben Goldman Aaron Martin Russell Hammer Ryan Mayer Donnie Goepper Jake Schaefer Phil Mazurek Abhi Murty John T egah Shane Mooney Chris Simpson Outline Brief Market Overview

  1. T eam 2 AAE451 System Requirements Review Chad Carmack Ben Goldman Aaron Martin Russell Hammer Ryan Mayer Donnie Goepper Jake Schaefer Phil Mazurek Abhi Murty John T egah Shane Mooney Chris Simpson

  2. Outline Brief Market Overview •  Customer needs, benefits ,market size and competitors. Concept of Operations •  Customer satisfaction  Flight ranges, runway lengths  Aircraft Payload and passenger capability  Mission Sketch  Segment descriptions System Design Requirements •  Quality Function Deployment(QFD)  NASA N+2 goals  New technology adopted Initial Estimations •  Lift to Drag ratio, Specific Fuel Consumption(SFC)  Empty weight fraction prediction Future Progress •  Project goals and deadlines. 1

  3. Mission Statement  Designed to maximize productivity and minimize travel time.  Design an environmentally sensitive business jet with a wide range of capabilities. An elite ownership experience awaits 2

  4. Benefits  Time saving capability  Long range  Comfort and Luxury 3

  5. Primary Customers  Multinational Corporations  Celebrities  Governments  Fractional Air Services “Now more than ever, a business aircraft is an essential tool for capturing new opportunities, for compacting two- to three- week trips into two to three days. ” -Jeff Habib, Senior Vice President of U.S. and Canadian Sales, Dassault Falcon Jet 4

  6. Projected Market The graph indicates that the Long Range market will continue to grow in the next decade. *Source – Honeywell Aviation Forecast 5

  7. Jet Purchases Big Cabin Jets Captured 40% of Mentions and ~70% of $Value* *Source – Honeywell Aviation Forecast 6

  8. Purchase Expectations by Region Source – Honeywell Aviation Forecast 7

  9. Meeting Our Customer’s Needs  Travel Fast ◦ Mach 0.85 Long Range Cruise ◦ An Initial Cruise Altitude of 42,000 ft. helps evade commercial traffic  Travel Far ◦ Maximum Range of 6350 nm ◦ LA to Hong Kong, Chicago to Tokyo, non-stop.  Travel Productively ◦ Spacious and comfortable cabin provides a generous place to both work and relax 8

  10. Proposed Fuselage 9

  11. Aircraft Amenities Amenities Dimensions Recliners (10x) – 10 Seats L: 35”, W: 33” Sofas (2x) – 6 Seats L: 90”, W: 35” Tables (3x) L: 24”, W: 35” ConferenceTable L: 36”, W: 60” Lavatories (2x) L: 62” Bar L:62”, W:40” Flight Attendant Seating (2x) – 2 Seats L: 30”, W:30” 10

  12. Amenity Dimensions Approximating Cabin Length Amenity Amenity Length Current T otal Length 1 Lavatory 62” x 1 Lavatories 5’ 2” 4 Recliners 35” x 4 Recliners 16’ 10” 1 Tables 24” x 1 Table 18’ 10” 1 Conference Table 38” x 1 Conference Table 22’ 2 Sofas 90” x 2 Sofas 37’ 1 Bar/Kitchenette 72” x 1 Bar/Kitchenette 43’ Miscellaneous Spacing 84” 50’ 11

  13. Cabin Layout and Dimensions

  14. Fuselage Cross-Section 13

  15. Aircraft Characteristics Total Aircraft Length = (50’ Cabin) + (14’ 2” Nose) + (23’ 10” Tail) = 88’ Cabin Diameter = 8’ 10” Fineness Ratio = 9.96 Volume per passenger (Max. Capacity) = 81.5 cubic feet 14

  16. Representative City Pairs  Non-stop possibilities: ◦ LA to Seoul  (5209 nm) ◦ Dallas to Moscow  (5035 nm) ◦ LA to Beijing  (5432 nm) ◦ New York to Dubai  (5949 nm) ◦ Chicago to Tokyo  (5452 nm) ◦ LA to Hong Kong  (6309 nm) 15

  17. Design Mission 3 Cruise 2 7 6 Climb Los Angeles Alternate Hong Kong 0 Takeoff 1 4 5 8 9 6350 nm 200 nm 0-1: Take off to 50 ft. 5-6: Climb to 5000 ft. (Best Rate) 1-2: Climb to 42000 ft. (Best Rate) 6-7: Divert to Alternate 200 nm 2-3: Cruise at Mach 0.85 7-8: 45 minute Holding Pattern 3-4: Decent to Land (No Range Credit) 8-9: Land 4-5: Missed Approach (Go Around) 16

  18. Operating Missions  New York to Los Angeles ◦ Mach 0.9* ◦ 2146 nm ◦ 16 passengers  Chicago to Houston ◦ Mach 0.9* ◦ 804 nm ◦ 4 passengers *Maximum operating Mach dependent on engine selection 17

  19. Benchmark Aircraft  Gulfstream G550  Bombardier Learjet 60 XR  Gulfstream G650  Bombardier Learjet 85  Bombardier Global Express  Cessna Citation Sovereign XRS  Gulfstream G150  Bombardier Global 5000  Hawker 4000  Gulfstream G500  Hawker 750  Citation X  Hawker 850XP  Bombardier Challenger 300  Hawker 900XP  Bombardier Challenger 850 18

  20. Fuel Consumption Benchmark  6.31 lbs/nm (Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft) for the Gulfstream G650  3.78 lbs/nm As 40% Reduction Design Goal  Currently the G150 Burns approximately 3.49 lbs/nm 19

  21. NASA Subsonic Fixed Wing Project  Develop improved prediction methods and technologies for lower noise, lower emissions, and higher performance for subsonic aircraft  Analyzing Research and Testing Methods to make major improvements by 2020 20

  22. Advanced T echnology  Unducted Fan shows promise to reduce emissions and fuel consumption  “ERA is focused on the goals of NASA’s N+2, a notional aircraft with technology primed for development in the 2020 time frame as part of the agency’s subsonic fixed wing program” ◦ Aviation Week Dec 14, 2009 21

  23. Benefits of UDF  Relative to 1998 levels, NASA plans to reduce cumulative noise levels to 42 dB below stage 4, 75% lower NOx emissions, and reduce fuel burn by 40% ◦ Aviation Week 22

  24. House of Quality 23

  25. Requirements Compliance Matrix Part 1 Performance Target Threshold Current Characteristics Range 6300 nm 6000 nm 6300 nm Takeoff Distance 6000 ft 7000 ft 6000 ft Max. Pax. 17 8 16 Cruise Mach 0.85 0.8 0.85 Cruise Altitude 45000 ft 40000 ft 45000 ft 24

  26. Requirements Compliance Matrix Part 2 Performance Target Threshold Current Characteristics Cabin Noise 60 dB 70 dB 65 dB LTO NOx CAEP 6-75% CAEP 6-60% CAEP 6-70% Emissions Cumulative 232 dB 274 dB 274 dB certification noise limits 25

  27. Requirements Compliance Matrix Part 3 Performance Target Threshold Current Characteristics Fuel cost per 3.8 lb/mile 4 lb/mile 6.23 lb/mile mile Loading Door 4 ft 5 ft 4 ft Still height Variable Costs $4100/hr $4300/hr $4100/hr 26

  28. Constraint Diagram 27

  29. Constraint Diagram Analysis  T/W limited by Second Segment Climb ◦ Current min. is ~0.33  W/S limited by Landing Ground Roll (3500ft) ◦ Current max. is ~100 28

  30. Aircraft Database  Database Includes two classes ◦ Class 1: Larger Business Jets  Gulfstream G500  Gulfstream G550  Gulfstream G650  Bombardier Global 5000 29

  31. Aircraft Database  Database Includes two classes ◦ Class 2: Smaller Business Jets  Cessna Citation X  Cessna Citation Sovereign  Bombardier Challenger 300, 850  Bombardier Learjet 60XR, 85  Gulfstream G150  Hawker 750, 850XP, 900XP, 4000 30

  32. Aircraft Database T eam 2 Aircraft Database y = 1.378x -0.08 0.65 0.63 Class 1: Larger Planes 0.61 0.59 0.57 We/Wo 0.55 0.53 0.51 0.49 Class 2: Smaller Planes 0.47 0.45 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 Wo 31

  33. Performance Estimates  Aspect Ratio ◦ AR = 8.0 ◦ Estimated from existing Business Jets  Lift to Drag Ratio at Cruise ◦ L/D = 0.85[1.4(AR)+7.1] = 15.56 ◦ Source: Raymer and Carte  Specific Fuel Consumptions ◦ SFC cruise = 0.5 ◦ SFC loiter = 0.6 ◦ Estimated from existing Business Jet engine data 32

  34. Weight Estimates  Least Squares Regression: 108,000 lbs W c 1 c 2 c 3 c 4 c 5 c 6 e bW AR ( T / W ) ( W S / ) M Range 0 SL 0 cruise W 0 W 0.154 0.016 0.394 0.089 0.934 0.032 e 3.08 W AR ( T / W ) ( W S / ) M Range 0 SL 0 cruise W 0 33

  35. Weight Estimates  Curve Fit with Similar Planes: 92,000 lbs W c 0.422 e 67.69 aW W 0 0 W 0 Similarly Sized Planes y = 67.69x -0.42 0.57 0.56 0.55 We/Wo 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.5 84000 86000 88000 90000 92000 94000 96000 98000 100000 102000 Wo 34

  36. Performance Prediction Range vs. Mach for Various Loadings 08 Passengers 7200 12 Passengers 16 Passengers 7000 6800 6600 Range (nmi) 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 Mach Number 35

  37. T echnology Factors  Currently none are being used ◦ Predicts “worst case” in early design stage ◦ Should make it easier to meet initial design goals once technology factors are included  Anticipated T echnology Factors ◦ Empty Weight (composites) ◦ Engine Efficiency (unducted turbofan) 36

  38. Next Steps  More accurate L/D equations  Inclusion of technology factors in sizing  Development of aircraft performance code  Acquiring engine configurations and performance data  Choosing wing type and analyzing aerodynamic data to minimize drag  Completing aircraft Catia model 37

  39. Questions? 38

Recommend

More recommend