aerostar fj 100

NEXUS
Business Aircraft
Preliminary Design Review
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
17/1/05
Objectives
Development of new generation
Business Aircraft
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
2
The Team
A N D O S A
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
B O S A
3
Content
• Market Survey
• Design Point
• Initial Layouts – first phase
–
–
–
–
–
–
External Layout & Aerodynamics
Powerplant
Performance
Internal Layout
Cost
Stability
• Configuration Selection
• Second phase
• Summary
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
4
Market Survey
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
5
Market Survey
Price Vs. Passengers
Price Vs. MTOW
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
0
25
Price Vs. BEW
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Price Vs. Range
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5000
10000
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
15000
20000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
6
Market Survey
• For the coming years, High demands for small Business
•
aircraft is expected
The sales expectation are 8000 units in the “Business Ultra
Light” category in next 10-15 years.
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
7
Market Survey
Niche Selection
• There is lack of aircrafts between GE & Bizjet
• Global trend to develop
New Small Business aircraft
• Intervals Definition
– 4 To 10 Passenger
– 1000 To 2000 NM
– 1.5 To 2.5 M$
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
8
Market Review
Zoom In
Price Vs. MTOW, price under 2.5M$
Price Vs. Passengers, under 2.5M$
2.5
2.5
2
2
7pass.@2MS
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
4000kg@$M2
1.5
3
6
0
9
Price Vs. BEW, Price under 2.5M$
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
600
1200
1800
2400
Angel 44
D-JET
A-500
Mirage
Leader
Avocet Projet
Aerostar FJ100
Citation 510
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
4000
1.5
1.5
0
3000
1300NM@$M2
2
2300kg@2M$
2
2000
Price Vs. Range, Price under 2.5M$
2.5
2.5
1000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Angel 44
D-JET
A-500
Mirage
Leader
Safire Jet
Grob G 160
Avocet Projet
Aerostar FJ100
A-700
Citation 510
9
Market Survey
Aircraft
General
ANGEL 44
D-JETA 500 Mirage Leader Safire Grob
Jet GAvocet
160 NEXUS
Manufacturer
Angel Aircraft
Diamond
Corp.
Adam
Aircraft
AircraftMaverick
Safire Grob
Aircraft
Price
M$
0.7 0.71 0.94 0.97 1.25
1.4 1.64
Accomodation (pilot + pass.) 8
5
6
4
5
6
7
External Dimention:
Wing Span
m
12.16 11.8 13.4 13.1 10.13
12
13
AR
7.06
7.6
Length
m
10.21 10.8 11.2
8.8 8.69 11.1 11.4
Height
m
3.51
3.1 2.9
3.4 2.74 4.57 3.43
Internal Dimention:
Cabin Length
m
3.51
3.5 4.15 3.76 2.64 4.24
5
Max cabin width m
1.07 1.42 1.37 1.26 1.32 1.41 1.58
Max cabin heightm
1.14 1.44 1.31 1.19 1.09 1.37 1.42
Weights
Basic Empty Weight
kg
1760 1175 1905 1409 1315
Max Takeoff weight
kg
2631 1999 2858 1969 2630
3300
Max payload
kg
559
635
720
Performance:
Range
NM
1720 1320 1470 1345 1500 940 1782
Cruise Speed Knots
175 315 230
394
350 380
270
Max Mach
0.297 0.53 0.39 0.67 0.594 0.64 0.46
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
2
6
2
7
12.29
13
11.28
3.94
11
4.47
1.48
1.45
4
1.7
1.55
1987
3247
635
875
1200
365
0.619
1300
360
0.6
10
Design Point Definition
• Price:
• Passenger:
• Range:
• Cruise:
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
2 M$
1Pilot+1+6
1300 NM
0.6 Mach @ 30Kft
11
Range Capability
1300 NM
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
12
Initial Layout – First Phase
The Vision
Biscuit
TurboFan
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
TurboProp
13
Initial Layout – First Phase
The Vision
• The group divided into 2 Work Groups
TurboFan Team
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
TurboProp Team
14
Initial Layout – First Phase
Turbofan
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
15
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout - initial Sizing
• Takeoff Weight
– Assumption:
• Payload – 715 kg ( =1pilot x 85pass + 7x(85+20) )
• Max L/D = 15
(for cruise 0.866 x 15 = 12.9)
• Profile (Acc. To FAA)
Cruise to Dest
Cruise to Alt
Loiter
LND
Takeoff
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
16
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout - initial Sizing
• Wo = Wf + Wu + We
• Fuel friction –
Wf
 0.241
Wo
Wu
W

o
We
Wf
1

Wo
Wo
Wu
Wu


1 0.58 0.253
0.179
(Inc. fuel for: s\u, Tx, TO, climb, cruise, endurance, decent, alternate)
• Fuel friction Aerospace Faculty, Technion
We
 0.58
Wo
Wu
715
W 

~ 4000[kg]
o 0.179 0.179
17
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout - initial Sizing
• Wing Loading
(T@SL/MTOW)
– Affect all flight performance
– W/Sref Design To Parameter
(cruise, endurance, TO/Lnd, Mach,…)
Condition
TO & Land
Cruise
Endurance
Competitors
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
W/S [kg/m^2] Wing Area
250
16
[m^2]
240
16.7 [m^2]
415
220-300
9.6
[m^2]
13-18[m^2]
kg
m2
W/S ~ 250
2
Sref = 16.5 m
18
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout – Wing
C
Defining AR : AR  a  M Max
when a  7.5 c  0  AR  7.5
 AR  7.5
W
  250
S
 b  11 m, chosen due to wing load


b2
= 16.12 m 2
 calculating the wing area : Sreff =
AR

Sweep Angle  M max  0.6  sweep  6.5
Taper ratio, recommended


Ctip
Croot
 0.4
Dihadral 4
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
19
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout – Tail
Horizontal tail
C  1.553 m, CHT  0.8, LHT  5.5
S HT 
Vertical tail
CVT  0.07 , LVT  5.5
SVT 
CHT C W SW
 3.46 m 2
LHT
  0.4, Croot _ HT  1.33 m, sweep  12
CVT bW SW
 2.14 m 2
LVT
AR  0.95
b VT  AR  SVT  1.43 m
sweep 40 ,   0.8
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
20
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout – Airfoil
1 W 
 
q  S Cruise
start : W  4000kg  CL _ start  0.315
CL 
end : W  3200kg  CL _ end  0.252
CLdesign 
CL, cruise _ start + CL, cruise _ end
2
The considerations that were taken:
 0.284
L
 The airfoil that gave us minimal drag for the chosen C L design -  
 D  min
 Sufficient volume for fuel
 The ranges of C L values during the cruise is within the "Drag bucket".
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
21
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout – Airfoil
The chosen Airfoil is :
NACA series 6 :
642 215
Max thickness : 0.4 Chord
Design lift coeff : 0.2  0.2
Max thickness : 15%
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
22
Initial Layout – Turbofan
External Layout – Fuselage
• Circular cross section
– By eliminating corners, the flow will not separate at
moderate angles of attack or sideslip i.e low drag
– Productivity
– Low Cost
– When the fuselage is pressurized,
a circular fuselage can resist the loads
with tension stresses, rather than the more
severe bending loads that arise on non-circular
shapes.
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
23
Body Profile Comparison
SINO SWEARINGER SJ30-2
AEROSTAR FJ-100
DIAMOND D JET
HP ALEKTO TT62
MAVERICK LEADER
PIPER MIRAGE
ADAM A700
ADAM A500
GROB G 160
CL
1.45 m
AVOCET PROJECT
ECLIPSE 500
BEECH 390 PREMIER 1
CESNA 510 CITATION MUSTANG
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
24
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Engine Selection
• Thrust To Weight ratio
(T@SL/MTOW)
– Affect all flight performance
– T/W Design To Parameter
(cruise, endurance, TO/Lnd, Mach,…)
condition
Mach
Cruise
T/W
0.23
0.31
Thrust
9
[kN]
11.8
[kN]
TO & LND
0.34
13.3
[kN]
T/W = 0.33
Competitors 0.33 -0.4 12.9-15.7 [kN]
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
25
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Engine Selection
• Total Thrust 13.3 [kN]
(or 6.65 [kN] per engine)
• Optional engines:
Williams FJ44-1C
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
Williams FJ33
AGILIS TF1200
26
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Engine Selection
• Williams International FJ-33 was selected
for the following reasons:
– Total Thrust 13.5 [kN]
– Low weight
– Small dimensions
– High T/W ratio
– Low costs
– Proved itself on other aircrafts
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
27
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Internal Layout
• Ergonomic design:
– Passenger sits in a
comfortable position
– Sufficient room for
passenger’s legs
180 cm
170 cm
145 cm
40 cm
– Window located at face
height
– Comfortable 40 cm wide isle
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
28
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Internal Layout
• Seat design:
– 40X40 cm² seat basis
– 66 cm long seat back
– Seat back diverted
backwards by 25°
– Comfortable hand and
head rests
66 cm
65°
40 cm
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
40 cm
29
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Internal Layout
• Cabin design:
– Cylindrical cabin 4m long
– 4 passengers sits in dual clubs plus two forward
heading seats
– 1 passenger sits with the pilot at the cockpit
FORWRAD
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
4m
30
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Internal Layout
• Aircraft cutaways
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
31
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Performance
Subject Condition Parameter
Unit
S.R
[NM/kg]
S.E
[Sec/kg]
Fuel
Cruise
Fuel Req. for Mission
[kg]
Fuel Vol. for Mission
[liter]
V for Best ROC
[knot]
Max ROC
[ft/min]
Climb
S.L
V for Best Angle
[knot]
Best Angle - Two Eng. [deg]
Best Angle - One Eng. [deg]
Glide Slope
[deg]
TO Dist
[m]
Runway
S.L
BFL
[m]
LND Dist
[m]
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
Value
1.71
24
875
1122
293
6390
152
16.0
6.1
-5
508
1821
638
32
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Stability
2 cases were analysis:
Forward CG
Backward CG
Max Passenger
No Passenger
No fuel
Max fuel
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
33
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Stability
Backward CG
9% Stability
Margin
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
34
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Stability
Backward CG
9% Stability
Margin
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
35
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Stability
Forward CG
18% Stability
Margin
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
36
Initial Layout – Turbofan
Stability
Forward CG
18% Stability
Margin
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
37
Initial Layout – TurboFan
Price
• A price estimation for a turbofan business-jet
with two engines is about 2.5M$.
• This price estimation is also based on delivery of
600-700 planes
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
38
Initial Layout – First Phase
Turboprop
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
39
Initial Layout – Turboprop
External Layout - initial Sizing
3600 kg
W/S ~ 210
kg
m2
Sref = 17 m^2
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
40
Initial Layout – Turboprop
12.6 m
External Layout
10.8 m
f1.8 m
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
41
Initial Layout – Turboprop
AR  9.2
External Layout
S  17 m
Croot  1.64 m
2
Ctip  1.08 m
  0.66
 L.E .  10
T . E .  5
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
42
Initial Layout – Turboprop
External Layout
Selected airfoil
NACA series 6 :
641212
Max thickness : 0.4 Chord
Design lift coeff : 0.2  0.1
Max thickness : 12%
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
43
Initial Layout – Turboprop
External Layout
Selected airfoil
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
44
Initial Layout – Turboprop
Engine Selection
• T/W=0.23
T.O thrust 8.5KN
• Turboprop engines survey led to PT6A-41
• Full feathered HARTZELL propeller
• Constant Speed Unit
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
45
Engine parameters:
• Power: 534kW
• takeoff SFC:
•
0.65lb/h/hp
Weight: 183kg
MATLAB SIMULATION:
Takeoff thrust: 9400Nt
Cruise Thrust: 3100Nt
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
46
Initial Layout – Turboprop
Performance
Subject
Condition Parameter
Unit Value
S.R
[NM/kg] 1.73
S.E
[Sec/kg]
18
Fuel
Cruise
Fuel Req. for Mission
[kg] 2060
Fuel Vol. for Mission
[liter] 970
V for Best ROC
[knot] 204
S.L
Max ROC
[ft/min] 1780
V for Best ROC
[knot] 330
Cruise
Max ROC
[ft/min] 403
V for Best Angle
[knot] 115
Climb
S.L
Best Angle - Two Eng.
[deg] 10.70
Best Angle - One Eng.
[deg] 3.63
V for Best Angle
[knot] 225
Cruise
Best Angle - Two Eng.
[deg] 3.10
Best Angle - One Eng.
[deg] -0.03
Glide Slope
[deg] -5.36
TO Dist
[m] 580
Runway
S.L
BFL
[m] 1638
LND Dist
[m] 494
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
47
Initial Layout – Turboprop
Internal Layout
f1.8 m
4.5 m
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
48
Initial Layout – Turboprop
Stability
(Backward CG)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
5.5% Stability
Margin
4
3
2
1
0
1
0.8
‫כנף‬
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
0.6
‫נ וסע ים‬
‫דלק‬
0.4
‫ א ו ו י ונ יקה‬+‫ט י יס‬
0.2
‫מנ וע ים‬
0
‫קנרד‬
-0.2
‫ג וף‬
Xcg2
-0.4
Xn
top
-0.6
zero
Wa.c
-0.8
-1
canard_start
49
Initial Layout – Turboprop
Stability
(Forward CG)
~35% Stability
Margin
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
50
Initial Layout – TurboProp
Price
• The estimated price at delivery of a business
•
aircraft with two Turboprop engines is 2.58M$
(in 2004 Consumer Price Index USD)
This price estimation based on delivery of
300-400 planes
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
51
Configuration Selection
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
52
Configuration Selection
Comparison Table
Turboprop
+
Turbofan
-
Performance
-/+
+
Appearance
+
+
Challenging Concept
+
-
Development Risk
-
+
Cost (TOC,LCC)
+
-
Innovation
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
53
Configuration Selection
• Commercial project Attitude
• Student project Attitude
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
54
And The Winner is:
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
55
Second Phase Layout
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
56
Second Phase Layout
External Layout
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
57
Second Phase Layout
External Layout
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
58
Second Phase Layout
External Layout
13 m
11 m
1.8 m
13 m
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
59
Second Phase Layout
Internal layout
1.6 m
0.45 m
4m
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
60
Second Phase Layout
Cockpit
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
61
Second Phase Layout
Engine selection
New engine was selected: P&W Canada PT6A-66
-Better performance
-High reliability with business turboprops
like the Piagio P.180 Avanty.
-Reverse configuration is available
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
62
Second Phase Layout
Performance
AR
9.2
9.2
8
Old
S
18.4
15.9
15.9
Eng
Value
1.75
50
798
1023
105
2257
170
682
120
13.38
4.99
245
3.98
0.38
5.36481
1098
494
Value
1.75
42
790
1013
110
2336
180
679
120
13.10
4.71
245
3.85
0.26
5.41530
1158
Value
1.75
42
808
1035
115
2427
185
643
120
12.84
4.46
245
3.69
0.10
5.91531
1534
Value
1.75
50
798
1023
105
1780
170
403
115
10.70
3.63
225
3.10
0.035.36580
1638
541
525
494
Subject Cond. Parameter
Unit
S.R
]NM/kg[
S.E
]Sec/kg[
Cruise
Fuel Req. for Mission
]kg[
Fuel
Fuel Vol. for Mission
]liter[
V for Best ROC
]knot[
S.L
Max ROC
]ft/min[
V for Best ROC
]knot[
Cruise
Max ROC
]ft/min[
V for Best Angle
]knot[
S.L .Eng Two - Best Angle
]deg[
.Eng One - Best Angle
]deg[
V for Best Angle
]knot[
Cruise .Eng Two - Best Angle
]deg[
Climb
.Eng One - Best Angle
]deg[
Glide Slope
]deg[
TO Dist
]m[
S.L
BFL
]m[
LND Dist
]m[
Runway
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
63
Second Phase Layout
Performance – flight envelope
Ceiling ~ 40kft
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
64
Second Phase Layout
Stability
A MATLAB program was used to decide the
final NEXUS configuration ,checking a wide veriaty
of wing(includes fuel & engines) - canard locations,
for static margin of about 7 percent .
Based mainly on the pilots field of view and the
Landing gear location this configuration was chosen.
Xn = 6.4258 m
Xcg1 = 6.3234 m
Xcg2 = 5.7710 m
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
Wing T.E = 10 m
Canard L.E = 0.5 m
65
Second Phase Layout
Stability
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
7%-35% Stability
Margin
4
3
2
1
0
1
0.8
‫כנף‬
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
‫נ וסע ים‬
0.6
‫דלק‬
0.4
‫א ו ו י ונ יקה‬+‫ט י יס‬
0.2
‫מנ וע ים‬
0
‫קנרד‬
-0.2
‫ג וף‬
Xcg1
-0.4
Xn
top
-0.6
zero
Xcg2
-0.8
-1
canard_start
66
Second Phase Layout
Landing Gear
• Constraints on Landing Gear
– Static Stability on Ground
• Cg behind midpoint of WheelBase
– Dynamic Stability on Ground
• Overturn angle – lower than 63 deg
• Vertical Angle = max(Tipback,Rotation)
– Weight on Nose Wheel
• 8%< W <15%
– Smooth ride
• Strut travel angle ~ 7 deg
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
67
Second Phase Layout
Landing Gear
1.4  m
1.6 ]m[
15
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
68
Second Phase Layout
Landing Gear
1.4  m
7
40
20
13
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
69
Summary
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
70
Summary
Configuration evolution
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
71
Summary
Next Semester Goals
• Conceptual Design of Aircraft’s systems
–
–
–
–
Avionics
Electricity
Fuel
Maintenance Hatch
• Detailed Design of chosen Elements:
– Wing
• Structure
• Aerodynamics Surfaces
• Wing Assembly (Engines, Body)
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
72
Summary
Next Semester Goals
• Detailed Design of chosen Elements:
– Landing Gear
– Internal Layout
• Wind tunnel Test !!!
– Strake configuration
– Vertical stabilizers
Aerospace Faculty, Technion
73
Doing Business with Class