AIAA2010 Example1

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. 1.2. 2. 3. Request for proposal. Summary of the AIAA general requirements ...................................... 3 Competition requirements ....................................................................................................... 3
Competition on the market.............................................................................................................. 4 Design definition ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1. Approaches ............................................................................................................................. 5 A conventional aircraft.................................................................................................... 5 An inflated wing.............................................................................................................. 6 An airship alike ............................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.2. 4.
Iteration design........................................................................................................................ 8
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) ............................................................................................ 10 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. Engine start-up and take off .................................................................................................. 11 Climb and accelerate to cruise conditions............................................................................. 11 Cruise out to destination ....................................................................................................... 12 Return cruise ......................................................................................................................... 12 Loiter ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Landing ................................................................................................................................. 13 Thrust specific fuel consumption extrapolation .................................................................... 13
5. 6.
Design point .................................................................................................................................. 14 Hull design .................................................................................................................................... 16 6.1. Static lift ................................................................................................................................ 17 Aerostatics of airships ................................................................................................... 17 Sizing the airship hull ................................................................................................... 18
6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.2.
Hull design selection ............................................................................................................. 19 Sketch 1. The original and simple GOE 570 airfoil-shaped hull................................ 19 Sketch 2. The modified and complex GOE 570 airfoil-shaped hull .......................... 19
6.2.1. 6.2.2. 6.3. 7.
Hull airfoil............................................................................................................................. 21
Wing design .................................................................................................................................. 22 7.1. CFD: some basic background ............................................................................................... 24
8. 9.
Tail design ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Static margin ................................................................................................................................. 27
10.Structure and loads ........................................................................................................................... 29 10.1. V-N diagram and design load factor ................................................................................. 29
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle 10.2. 10.2.1. 10.2.2. 10.3. 11. 12. Shear and Bending Moment Analysis ............................................................................... 32 Wings ............................................................................................................................ 32 Fuselage ........................................................................................................................ 34 Preliminary structure design ............................................................................................. 35
Cargo bay design....................................................................................................................... 37 Propulsion ................................................................................................................................. 41 Conventional approach ..................................................................................................... 41 Europrop TP400-D6 ...................................................................................................... 44 Progress D-27................................................................................................................ 45 Unconventional approach ................................................................................................. 45
12.1. 12.1.1. 12.1.2. 12.2. 13.
Air cushion landing system (ACLS) ......................................................................................... 46 ACLS definition ................................................................................................................ 46 Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 47 RFP-related requirements ................................................................................................. 47 Basic configuration ........................................................................................................... 48 ACLS design ..................................................................................................................... 48 ACLS characterization ...................................................................................................... 50
13.1. 13.2. 13.3. 13.4. 13.5. 13.6. 14. 15. 16.
Landing issues ........................................................................................................................... 51 Balanced field length ................................................................................................................ 54 Costs.......................................................................................................................................... 55 Situation on the market ..................................................................................................... 55 Cost estimate: DAPCA IV method ................................................................................... 57 Cost estimating relationships (CERs) ........................................................................... 57 Results ........................................................................................................................... 59 Operation and maintenance costs ...................................................................................... 60 Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 62 Results reliability .............................................................................................................. 62
16.1. 16.2. 16.2.1. 16.2.2. 16.3. 16.4. 16.5. 17. 18.
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 63 References ................................................................................................................................. 65 Books ................................................................................................................................ 65 Papers/patents ................................................................................................................... 66 Websites ............................................................................................................................ 66
18.1. 18.2. 18.3.
1. Introduction
The project is a student exercise for aerospace engineering students from IST Lisboa. It takes two semesters with a group of 6 students. In our group, students from Lisbon (IST), Madrid (UPM), and Terrassa (UPC) work together. We have the chance to apply the knowledge gathered over the last years to a practical end in this Masters project, sharing different views from our varied background. The report describes the design process of ahybrid airship proposed by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics(AIAA). The concept is worked out during the design phase. The hybrid airship configuration is developed with the help of Excel spreadsheets fromCorke (2002) regarding weight, wing loading, wing sizing, fuselage design, propulsion, control, stability, performance, structures, and cost analysis.
1.1.
Request for proposal. Summary of the AIAA general requirements
The outcome of this project was to design an airship that is able to transport goods across the Pacific Ocean in less than two days or could remain on station with reduced payload for up to eight days using conventional fuel. In other words, provide a maximum unrefueled range (no winds) of 11112 km. The cruise speed must have nominal value of 166.68 km/h, and must never be higher than 203.72 km/h. In addition, the airship has to be able to carry a cargo bay volume greater than 4672.28 m3. The maximum payload weight is 544.3 tons. Table 1-1 summarizes the most important requirements:
Table 1-1 General requirements
General Requirements Maximum Payload Weight Cargo Bay Volume Maximum Unrefueled Range (no winds) Maximum Refueled Range (no winds) InitialCruise Altitude MaximumCruise Altitude Nominal Cruise Speed MaximumCruiseSpeed 1.2. Competitionrequirements 544.3 tons >4672.28 m3 11 112 km 18520 km 4000 ft 9000 ft 166.68 km/h 203.72 km/h
During the last few decades the aircraft industry has grown exponentially in size and has become expensive in terms of financial and intellectual resources. In order to share these costs and the risk of huge investments, the industry has evolved into an international partnership.
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Nowadays, these challenges have been met by using huge aircraft, usually adapted from existing versions, or the challenges were met by naval or land based systems or by a combination of these. The Airbus A380 is a similar project with multi-national involvement and due to its size, an even bigger logistical challenge. A specifically modified transport aircraft the Airbus Beluga can transport big cargo payloads, but it does not have the capability to transport the much larger sections. The common ships are an economical solution to the transportation problem, but dont cover the speed requirements. They are too slow. Therefore a combination of naval, land and airborne transportation methods are being used to transport big cargo payloads across locations all over the world. The projects objective is to design an airship that fulfills this task more efficiently. This report highlights the design of a hybrid airship that came out as a winning concept in the conceptual design phase.
2. Competition on the market

We have considered some vehicles as competition to ours. Nowadays the only two types of vehicles capable to transport so much weight across the world are a cargo airship and a container boat. We consider Antonov An-225, as an example of a cargo airplane, and a large container boat our competitors. Skycat 1000 was chosen because it has the same characteristics as our projected vehicle, a hybrid air vehicle capable to lift hundreds of tons. Boeing Pelican is a futuristic airplane from Boeing that will lift 1400 tons and so it was considered as well for competition. In the Table 2-1are showed relevant characteristics of the today and future competitors.
Table 2-1Competitiononthemarket
Antonov An-225 Speed Range (kts) Max operating altitude (ft) Max range (nm) Payload (lb) Overall length (ft) Overall width (ft) Overall height (ft) Operational trip costs (/h) 430-460 36100 2172 550000 275.6 59.3 10754
Skycat 1000 0-100 9000 4000 2000000 1007 253 9215
Boeing Pelican 240 200000 9719 2800000 400 500 20 84598
Container Boat 24.1-25 365000000 1199.1 168 4700
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Its important to note that the cheapest method per ton to transport something is by a container boat but this kind of transportation loses in time, its then the slowest competitor as well. The conventional airship, Antonov An-255, is the fastest competitor but its the most expensive one. Skycat 1000 could delivery cargo at acceptable prices a little bit faster than a container boat, so its the best competitor with our airship. The prices for transportation by Boeing Pelican are unknown for now, so we estimated with the Antonov values. This was obviously a rough estimation and we forecast that would be cheaper than Antonov in terms of price per ton. This airship will be faster than a hybrid but much more expensive. Concluding we need to propose a better hybrid vehicle than future Skycat 1000 that will carry large weights to every place with the speed needed.
Figure 2-1Antonov An-225 (left) and container boat (right)
Figure 2-2SkyCat 1000 (left) and Boeing Pelican (right)
3. Design definition
3.1. Approaches
From an initial brainstorming process we obtained different generic ideas that later on were put into three main groups considered as possible approaches to be studied: 3.1.1. A conventional aircraft
Following such an approach we were guaranteed a solid knowledge basis with many historical data; thus, to carry on with the project would have been much easier.
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle However, a conventional aircraft does not fulfill the lighter than air lift generation, which is probably the most important requirement. Furthermore it would be necessary an enormous surface wing to lift the desired payload as well as many wing-mounted engines along its span (Fig. 3-1), so the flexion amounts on the idealized cantilever-wing would be huge. Last but not least, this approach uses a wheel gear landing system not an air cushion as required; then, it exists the possibility to overrun the existing paved runways.
Figure 3-1Conventional aircraft approach
3.1.2.
An inflated wing
The idea of this concept is to inflate the wing with a lighter-than-air gas (e.g. helium) before the take off. Following this approach we can solve some of the aforementioned drawbacks, i.e., the ones on the lift generation and the surface wing. Meanwhile, the main advantage, i.e. prior knowledge, is converted into a con. Lighter-than-air lift is generated through the entrapped helium, whereas the aerodynamic lift comes from the enormous surface wing available (the overall aircraft is understood as an extruded airfoil, Fig. 3-2). However, this last amount could be exaggerated because of the needed volume (hence, the area) to store the gas is huge. Prior studies on inflated wings have been used to lift the own wing in spite of the overall airship. Thus, there are no useful historical data and its feasibility remains doubtful.
Figure 3-2Inflated wing approach
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle 3.1.3. An airship alike
The last proposed idea is a mixture between two conventional designs: an aircraft and an airship. The fuselage volume reminds an airship because it stores the needed gas, whereas the wing and tail combination is typical for aircrafts. There are many parallel competition projects, so this approach can be considered as feasible. Furthermore, its performance on stability and control are well proven and an air cushion landing system is used. Unlike the inflated wing, both fuselage volume and wings surface are dimensioned in order to fulfill the 40/60 (aerodynamics/buoyancy) lift generation requirement. The conventional aircraft drawbacks reappear, with a required surface wing still too big and high flexion stress due to the wing-mounted engines.
Figure 3-3 Airship alike approach. Starting design.
We have decided to build a matrix where the most important aspects for the aircraft design are considered as well as its influence (i.e. relative weight) in order to value quantitatively the pros and cons of each approach. The chosen is the one whose design will be iterate.
Table 3-1 Approachselectionmatrix
Buoyancy lift Aerodynamics lift Engine Structure Environment Capital cost Operating cost Maintenance TOTAL
Relative weigth (%) 15 15 20 15 15 10 5 5 100/100
Conventional aircraft 1 5 2 1 3 4 2 5 2,65/5,00 7
Inflated wing 5 5 3 3 2 1 3 2 3,20/5,00
Airship alike 5 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 4,25/5,00
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Each aspect was discussed and graded from 1 to 5, being the lowest and the highest marks respectively. Some subjects, as the lift generation or structural problems have already been explained, whereas the rest will be stated below. Capital costs are related to the design and manufacturing steps; hence, these must be higher for future approaches that require studies, prototypes, etc. On the other hand we have taken the operating costs into account; the presence of solar cells and newer engine technologies reduces the polluting agents emission. Meanwhile, historical experience and the use of current infrastructures allow us to conclude that the conventional aircraft maintenance must be the cheapest. The overall conclusion is that the airship alike approach, with a 4,25 mark out of 5, seems to be the most feasible to develop, so this is the one that is going to be iterate till the final design.
3.2.
Iteration design
Fig. 3-4 is the starting point that has to be improved. Its main pros and cons have already been detailed.
Figure 3-4Second iteration design: airship alike with canard configuration
The main drawback of the airship alike with conventional aerodynamic devices (i.e. wings and tail) is its huge surface to produce the required lift for such a payload. The answer to this problem is the canard configuration: the wings are reduced thanks to a lifting canard generating a 15-25% of the total (aerodynamic) force. Furthermore this bow-horizontal stabilizer reduces the overall drag. Due to the smaller span wing the engines are located at the back, taking care with the new tail configuration effect. Fig. 3-4shows the airship alike from underneath, so the air cushion can be defined. The main wing is put back in order to avoid the canard downwash; although minimized, it still affects its performance. However, such a surface wing remains as the main problem.
Figure 3-5Third iteration design: airship alike with tandem-wing configuration and vectorial thrust
The canard stabilizer is increased while the main wing is reduced to such a value that the airship alike design can be considered as a tandem configuration (Fig. 3-5), so its surface amount (per wing) can be reasonable. Canard advantages (and disadvantages) are again reproduced. However, the rear wing originally the main one is still further. Another change from the previous iteration is the twin-tail, chosen in order to avoid the centerline maximum fuselage wake. Last but not least is the appearance of vectorial thrusters inside the aerodynamic devices (Fig. 3-5 detail). These are retractable systems that, despite its complexity, improve the control surfaces performance by increasing the incoming airflow; they can also be beneficial for low velocity and hover conditions. Nevertheless, for cruise flight the thrusters do not disturb at all because they are aligned with the wetted surface.
Figure 3-6 Alternative iteration design: airship alike with H-tandem-tail configuration
Fig. 3-6 shows an alternative design. It has not been taken into account because we are not sure of its feasibility; in fact, there should be some more steps between this iteration and the previous one. The idea is to position the vertical stabilizers in air, so the huge fuselage does not disturb them. It also reduces the required size of the horizontal stabilizer because of the winglet effect. Engines location and vectorial thrusters are maintained from previous iterations, whereas a main wing returns because the vertical stabilizers working as wingletsstructurally limit the horizontal ones size. Due to its complexity, the iteration process has been stopped at the third step with the tandem-wing configuration. This is the design around which the project is developed.
4. Maximum take-off weight (MTOW)

The preliminary estimation of the Take-Off Weight was made using the algorithm developed by Thomas C. Corke in Design of Aircraft. This algorithm provides a good procedure to make these estimations considering a conventional aircraft. Looking back at the objective proposed by RFP AIAA it's clear that there's nothing conventional on this particular case study. The considerations made were the following: Conventional aircrafts generate their lift entirely through aerodynamic means. The airship is supposed to generate 40% of its total lift this way. The lift is required to sustain the airships payload, fuel and structure weight. Consider 40% of these summed weights and supply them as the initial estimate of MTOW.
At this point there is no information whatsoever about the structure weight and fuel, so only 40% of the payload was considered. This decision will introduce error in the initial estimate. However, the final value resulting from the convergence of the algorithm will remain the same, keeping in mind that more iterationsmay occur before convergence has been achieved. The result from this value will give an estimate of the mass (40% of the total) that is supposed to be lifted only by aerodynamical means 10
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle and will also be used after to establish the wing loading and design point for our aerodynamic structure.The other fraction of the weight is meant to be lifted entirely through buoyancy. As mentioned before, take-off weight is a sum of the contributions of the fuel, payload and (empty) structure weights: (4.1) The payload can be subdivided into two categories: (4.2) Expendable payload normally represents military ordnance. Since the airship's main purpose is transportation, with no combat stage whatsoever, all the payload is considered non-expendable. Lets delve into a deeper analysis of the fuel weight. The fuel weight is intrinsically dependent on the flight plan whereas the fuel consumed in all flight phases must be considered. One must consider the following flight phases: Engine start-up and take off; Acceleration to cruise velocity and altitude; Cruise out to destination; Acceleration to high speed; Combat; Return cruise; Loiter; Landing.
Of all the phases presented above, two can be immediately removed from consideration, being that acceleration to high speed and combat. Both this phases fall completely out of the airship's purpose as defined in the project requirements. All of these phases use a fractional portion of the total fuel weight available at take-off and there should also be some considerations concerning reserved and trapped fuel. Lets proceed with an individual analysis of each phase.
4.1.
Engine start-up and take off
The fuel fraction was calculated using the empirical expression: (4.3)
The terms and represent the final and initial weights respectively. Historical data showed that for a conventional aircraft, the fuel fraction in this phase is usually limited between 0.97 and 0.975. The efficient value was chosen based on the fact that the airship is supposed to be built in the next decade, existing more efficient engines at that time.
4.2.
Climb and accelerate to cruise conditions
To determine the fuel fraction in this phase the expression used was: 11
(4.4) This expression is indicated for subsonic Mach numbers. The term represents the cruise Mach number. The Mach number used was 0.139, which led to the presented fuel fraction.
4.3.
Cruise out to destination
The expression to determine the fuel fraction for this flight phase is deduced from the Brequet range equation. At this point it is necessary to assume that the airship will have its propulsion based on turbo propeller engines. (4.5)
The term correspondes to the range, is the thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC), is lift, is drag and is the propulsive efficiency. At this point two assumptions were made regarding the values of TSFC and the propulsive efficiency. The former will be explained in greater detail in one of the following sections. Regarding the propulsive efficiency, the usual value for a regional turboprop is 0.85. In this case, based on the same assumption made previously, considering more efficient engines in the following decade, the final value used was 0.9. The lift-over-drag ratio is determined according to: (4.6) This expression is valid only for a subsonic cruise Mach number. The term represents the aspect
ratio with the value 8. After having all the terms determined, the estimated fuel fraction was .
4.4.
Return cruise
This phase can be viewed as the second half of the cruise phase and it was considered in a similar to the Cruise out to destination.
4.5.
Loiter
This phase consists on cruising for a certain amount of time over a small region. In this particular this phase only occurs previously to landing. The expression used to determine the fuel fraction was also deduced from the Breguet range equation. (4.7)
The term stands for loiter time and is the cruise speed (for a simplicity matter). The loiter time assumed was fifteen minutes, keeping in mind that most of the times, the airship will land on places with few or no traffic at all.
12
4.6.
Landing
This phase was treated similarly to Engine Start-Up and Take Off. Accounting all fuel fractions in the various phases, it is possible to determine the weight after landing and consequently the total fuel weight. (4.8) The term designates the weight after landing and the weight of the expendable payload, which is null in this particular case. It is necessary to account an additional 5 percent for reserve fuel and 1 percent for trapped fuel. The available empty weight is then calculated as: (4.9) This value is then compared to the required empty weight which represents the expected structure weight and is defined as: (4.10) The term is called the structure factor and for this particular case it was assumed to be 0.4, considered a reasonable value and suggested by course teacher. This structural factor is takes into account both the aerodynamic and blimp structure. The first assumption made was 0.3 however it was criticized as being too aggressive and a recommendation was made to increase it to 0.4. The difference between these two empty weights will define the surplus that will be subtracted to the initial MTOW estimation, and a new iteration then begins. The stop criterion is defined as when this surplus reaches a null value. The value achieved this way was , and it is a representation of what would weight to lift 40% of the payload having also the blimp structure. To determine the final MTOW, one must add the missing payload which will raise the value to 2543592.792lbs =1 153 754.28 kg. From here on, 40% of this final MTOW will have to be lifted through aerodynamic means and the rest through buoyancy.
4.7.
Thrust specific fuel consumption extrapolation
The TSFC is an efficiency parameter that characterizes an engine. This value specifies the fuel efficiency of a determined engine and it allows the comparison between different engines in size, shape, etc... Fig. 4-1shows the TSFC values for some turboprop and jet engines by year. These values are lowering with the improved new technologies that enable the engines fuel efficiency to be lowered year by year. The most appropriate engine to our airship is a turboprop considering that it has to move at a slow speed (near 0.15 Mach). Then we extrapolate a tendency line with the values given by the graph (Fig. 4-1) where we can forecast the future TSFC values for turboprop engines. In 2020 (year when our project will to be produced) the TSFC value reaches 0.31 lb/lbf.h, converted from 9 mg/Ns.
13
Figure 4-1 TSFC for some engines
5. Design point
At this point, it was already computed an initial value for MTOW providing an estimation of the Fuel Weight required to perform the mission and so complying with the requirements. Furthermore, in this section, also other important design variables and fractions are going to be estimated and calculated. These are the basis for any design [1]. The objective of this design phase is to obtain combinations of power over weight, , and wing , looking for a design area where the aircraft satisfies all the mission phases and loading, requirements [1]. The outcome should be an optimal but sustainable solution. We aim to maximize the and , minimizing both the wing surface, , and the required power, . However some operational constraints must be taken into account. Depending on the aircrafts purpose and mission different sets of constraints are taken into account. We deliberated the following [1][2]: Cruise speed Range Endurance Maximum ceiling Sustained Turn
Cruise Speed
Range
14
Endurance
Maximum Ceiling
Sustained Turn
Table 5-1 Coefficients and corresponding values
Coefficient Speed, V [m/s] Cruise speed Air density, [kg/m3] Aspect Ratio, AR [-] K [-] Engine efficiency, p[-] Drag coefficient, CD0[-] Range Endurance Maximum ceiling Speed, V [m/s] Air density, [kg/m3] K [-] Drag coefficient, CD0[-] Speed, V [m/s] Air density, [kg/m ]
3
Value
Comment Optimized within the allowed limits At cruise altitude (4500ft)
Reasonable value 1 Assuming a GOE 570 airfoil for the hull Assuming cruise speed Assuming cruise altitude
Assuming a GOE 570 airfoil for the hull Assuming cruise speed Assuming cruise altitude
Sustained turn
K [-] Drag coefficient, CD0[-] Engine efficiency, p[-] Load Factor, n [-] Assuming an NACA 23024 airfoil Reasonable value 1 Assuming a 45 turn
Combining all the presented equations and inequations over a series of wing loading values, we were able to find our design area - marked by the red area in the Fig. 5-1.
1 Although we were unable to find the efficiency value for the selected engine, most engines found during research showed to have similar values around 90%.
15
Figure 51Design point
Thus, it was by finding the optimal solution but considering a small margin that we found our design point:
6. Hull design
The next step in the airship design process is to size the hull. The volume of the hull defines the buoyant lift capability of the airship, and determines the maximum achievable altitude. It is first necessary, however, to develop some relationships between mass, volume, and gas densities, as governed by aerostatic principles. After getting the size and shape of the airship defined, we may calculate the drag force experienced at a particular airspeed. The required coverage area for solar cells may then be analyzed, along with the mass available for structure and other systems. The lift calculations are divided in two different subparts, namely the static lift and the dynamic lift. The static lift is the one that is generated by the buoyancy gas, the helium contained in the airship. The dynamic lift is created during flight by the shape of the airship.
16
6.1.
6.1.1.
Static lift
Aerostaticsofairships
The upward buoyancy force generated by an airship is equal to the weight of the displaced air. This force is typically referred to as gross lift", and is defined as (6.1) Where Vn is the net volume of displaced air, gravity. is the density of air, and g is the acceleration of
Subtracting the weight of the lifting gas (Helium), we obtain the net lift Ln. We know that the volume of displaced air is equal to the volume occupied by the Helium, the equation for the net lift is (6.2) The density of both the air and helium vary with altitude. Assuming that both gases have the same pressure and temperature, their densities change uniformly with altitude. Although a slight pressure differential is required, it is small enough to neglect for the purposes of this analysis. As the airship rises, the density of Helium decreases along with the atmospheric density. Therefore, since the mass of the Helium remains fixed, the volume Vn must increase. This variation in internal lifting gas volume is achieved through ballonets (bags of air inside the hull which expand and contract to regulate the internal pressure and thereby the volume). At the launching altitude (assume sea level), the density is at its highest value. The ballonets are expanded to their maximum volume, and Vn is at a minimum. As the airship begins to rise, the ambient density and pressure both fall, and air is automatically ejected from the ballonets to match the falling pressure. Clearly, at some point during the ascent, the ballonets will become completely empty. At this point, no further expansion of the lifting gas volume is possible. The net volume has reached a maximum value, Vmax. This point is called the pressure altitude". Continued ascent causes a reduction in net lift as the densities fall but the volume remains constant. The pressure differential also increases, creating a superpressure condition, which can result in rupture of the exterior skin if the differential becomes too great. Helium may be vented to avoid rupture, but this is extremely undesirable in long-endurance applications as it reduces the available lift and shortens the mission life. It is therefore an important criterion in autonomous operations to keep the airship below the pressure altitude. It can be shown that the net lift is constant over all altitudes,up to the pressure altitude. This is based upon the assumption that the density of the lifting gas changes at the same rate as the atmospheric density. Note here that the pureness of the helium that is contained in the gas is not exactly 100%. Getting such a high level of purity implies a huge cost, so a gas with a bit lower percentage of helium will be use. This percentage is usually a value between 0.94 and 0.96, but for the following volume
17
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle estimation, a gas density equal to the pure helium one will be considered, for simplicity and because the final result is not significantly affected by this supposition Let be the density of air at sea level. The density ratio is: (6.3) At an altitude of 4500ft, p = 0.89 (Corke (2002), Appendix A). Where is the density of air at a given altitude .The density of Helium at that altitude is: (6.4) The net volume is equivalent to the mass of helium divided by the density of helium, so rewriting: (6.5)
This shows that the net lift is independent of altitude. At the pressure altitude, the net volume becomes . Let the density ratio at this altitude be denoted by p. The equations for the volume at the pressure altitude and at sea level are: (6.6)
(6.7)
It follows that the volume of helium at sea level and the maximum volume are related through
p.
To maintain vertical equilibrium through the buoyancy force, the net lift must be equal to the combined weight of the airship that is meant to be lifted by the helium buoyancy. (6.8) Here, mb represents the mass that is meant to be lifted entirely by buoyancy. 6.1.2. Sizingtheairshiphull
Given the basic aerostatic principles that govern the airship, and assuming a classic teardrop shape for the hull, it is possible to choose a set of dimensions that provide a volume suitable for a pressure airship operating at a pressure height of 4500 ft. Combining Eqs. 1.6, 1.5 and 1.8 we get to the following expression: (6.8)
18
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle This equation determines the total required volume of the airship hull. Introducing the values of , p and mbin equation 1.9, we obtain the maximum volume: ,
6.2.
Hull design selection
We distinguish between two sketches: 6.2.1. Sketch 1. The original and simple GOE 570 airfoil-shaped hull
The hull shape is based on the GOE 570 airfoil in order to get the 40% of the heavier-than-air (aerodynamic) lift, which at the same time represents the 40% of the overall lift. Aft wings are permanently attached to the hull, whereas the bow ones are retractable i.e. located inside the hull structure while the vehicle takes off or lands due to runway width restrictions. Hence, vectorial thrust is needed to complete both operations.
Figure 6-1 Sketch 1
6.2.2.
Sketch 2. The modified and complex GOE 570 airfoil-shaped hull
The hull shape is also based on the GOE 570 airfoil, although both wings of the tandem configuration are permanently secure. The final shape is far away from the clean airfoil shape of the first sketch. As the ellipsoid alike volume is much wider at the front, it has to be modified in order to attach the bow wings without exceeding a 100 meters width. This extracted volume is reallocated at the upper side while maintaining the GOE 570 lines.
19
Figure 6-2 Sketch 2
To decide whether to carry on with the first or the second sketch, we have decided to build a matrix where the most important aspects for the hull design are considered as well as its influence (i.e. relative weight) in order to value quantitatively the pros and cons of each approach. The chosen is the one whose design will be widely developed.
Table 6-1 Hull design selection matrix
Hull aerodynamics Cruise Overall aerodynamics Take off and landing* Structure Engine Capital Cost Maintenance TOTAL *Restriction: maximum runways width of 100 meters.
Weight (%) 15 70 30 30 25 15 10 5 100/100
Sketch 1 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4.15/5.00
Sketch 2 5 5 1 3 3 4 3 3.64/5.00
Each aspect has been discussed and graded from 1 to 5, being the lowest and the highest marks respectively. Regarding the hull aerodynamics, sketch 2 performance is considered as ideal: the shape, well known and taken from a concrete airfoil, is chosen to maximize this point. Meanwhile, sketch 1 shape has been slightly modified to contain the wings so it cant be as appropriate; furthermore, its associated study would be much more complicated. Another aspect to take into account is the overall aerodynamics, i.e. the sum of the hull shape, the wings and other devices contribution. This point is divided into two cases properly weighted: cruise phase and takeoff and landing operations. Both sketches operate in cruise with extended wings, so are graded equally. Nevertheless, sketch 1 underside can interact with the vehicle rear-end mainly the aft wings while working with some angles of attack. This turbulent effect must decrease slightly its performance, so is consequently reflected in the matrix.
20
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle On the other hand, the takeoff and landing operations are diametrically opposed because of the different wings configuration. Sketch 1 reproduces the aforementioned angle of attack-related problem, whereas sketch 2 probably has to work without front wings the total width when extended is too large; most runways cant afford such a dimension. Hence, the takeoff/landing operations have to be carried out through the introduction of vectorial thrust. Sketch 1 unusual shape isnt very helpful when thinking the structure; anyway its loads envelope is well defined and closed. Sketch 2 structure is much more complex because of the push/pull actuator that extends/retracts the front wings; this root mechanism requires a robust structure. Furthermore the loads envelope is more complicated, as they are critically changing when the wings are being either extended or retracted. Sketch 1 engines are normally attached to the front wings. This configuration doesnt make sense for sketch 2 because the engines may eventually be located inside the vehicle when taking off or landing i.e. with the wings retracted. Then, they must be properly attached to the main body; notice the disturbing effect on aerodynamics. Capital costs are very important for both cases, although the second option is considered as less favorable. We assume that sketch 2 retractable wing mechanism must increase hugely the cost, so finally its overall amount is higher even though the construction phase can be considered as costsaving thanks to the simpler shape (always compared to sketch 1). The extendable/retractable wings process is critical in terms of loading, so it requires a deep and regular maintenance.
6.3.
Hull airfoil
Figure6-3 GOE 570 airfoil
The hull will produce 40 percent of the total aerodynamic lift as said before. The airfoil GOE 570 was chosen so that would happen. This airfoil was chosen attending to its important characteristics and so that it will produce enough lift force. The airfoil parameters are shown in the Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Airfoil parameters
Parameters Thickness Camber Max CL Max CL angle 21
Values 33.7% 9.7% 2.417 15.0
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Max L/D Max L/D CL Cm Cl 40.361 1.257 -0.014 0.1425
As you can see the airfoil has great thickness and camber so that would allow the volume needed for helium. The airfoil also has a good relation L/D and a high CL. The parameters and were calculated by the slope of the next graphic.
Figure 64 Variation of the lift coefficient and moment coefficient with the angle of attack
7. Wing design
The characteristics of a wing profile have to be determined. They can be obtained from any airfoil software that contain NACA airfoil database. The selection is based on expected aerodynamic properties from the airship, based on researched.
Table 7-1 NACA
Digit 1 2 3 4 5
Description DesignLiftCoefficient (20/3) (First decimal of the maximum camber location) 2 (Second decimal of the maximum camber location) 2 First decimal of t/c Second decimal of t/c
From the many databases of airfoils, it was found that the NACA 4-digit and NACA 5-digit series would be optimal for this design. These series are normal airfoils, suitable for any speed regime slower than Mach 0,6.
22
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle The 4 and 5-series have similar properties. The difference is that the 5-series has a relatively low pitching moment and a high maximum lift coefficient, which is important for the slow-flight characteristics of the vehicle. For these reasons, the NACA 5-series appears to be the best option.As a starting point in the selection of the airfoil the NACA 23012 airfoil is chosen.
Table 7-2 NACA
Nomenclature Maximumcamber Designliftcoefficient Lift coefficient at max. L/D Positionofmaximumcamber Thickness to chord ratio cmax Cl max Cl max L/D Xcmax t/c
Value 0,02 c 1.5 2*0.15=0.30 0.3 c/2= 0.15c 0.12
To sum up, the airfoil has a t/c value of 12%, a design lift coefficient of 0.15, and a maximum t=c location of 15%. Anyway, this profile is not the definitive one. There must be improvements attending to facts like the unloading, or thickness to chord ratio optimum ranges. In determining the thickness-to-chord ratio, the most important parameters are the cruise drag and the internal volume. A good region of this value would be somewhere between 0.2 and 0.4. A value of t/c= 24% is selected. The airfoil selected for the airship is the NACA 23024. We get the following data:
Figure 7-1 NACA 23024 Table 7-3Airfoil data
Thickness Camber Trailing edge angle Lower flatness Leading edge radius Max CL Max CL angle Max L/D 23
24.0% 2.8% 32.3% 14.6% 7.4% 1.36 15.0 27.038
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Max L/D angle Max L/D CL Stall angle Zero-liftangle 6.0 0.761 1.5 1.0
Figure 7-2 NACA 23024 drag polar
7.1.
CFD: some basic background
The main purpose of employing CFD here is to predict and obtain the flow behavior round the airfoil. The essence behind CFD is to solve the governing equations for fluid (the Navier-Stokes equations) which normally take the form of integral or partial differential equations using numerical methods. Another advantage of using CFD is its ability to perform flow visualization. Air being invisible, under normal circumstances, the humans naked eye is unable to see how the air behaves. Typically, flow visualization is being carried out either in a smoke tunnel or water tunnel. But with CFD, flow can be visualize by analyzing the velocity vector plots and injecting tracking the particles being injected into the simulation and by observing the flow pattern will enable a better understanding of the physics of the flow. Due to the time limitations, only simulations for the airfoil were performed.Anyway, it is possible to test the whole airship with the help of programs as fluent or CFX and deeper knowledge in its use. For this flow visualization ANSYS Fluent 12.0 is used. Since the immediate airfoil vicinity is the most interesting for us, it is necessary to refine the mesh around the airfoil. There are several methods to generate a gradient in special discretization. Bi-geometric method was used to refine the mesh around the airfoil. The mesh was then converted to unstructured grid and ironed out to eliminate sudden changes in special steps. Here is presented the final messed geometry.
24
Figure 7-3 Final mesh of the airfoil
Further improvement in the accuracy of results can be obtained by increasing mesh density and experimenting with various modeling schemes, increasing at the same time the computational cost. The results for the velocity vector are plotted in Fig. 7-4. As can be seen, the velocity of the upper surface is faster than the velocity on the lower surface On the leading edge, we see a stagnation point where the velocity of the flow is nearly zero. The fluid accelerates on the upper surface as can be seen from the change in colors of the vectors.
Figure 7-4 Path lines colored velocity vector
25
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle InFig. 7-5, the pressure coefficient is plotted. The lower curve is the upper surface of the airfoil and has a negative pressure coefficient as the pressure is lower than the reference pressure. From the contour of pressure coefficient, we see that there is a region of high pressure at the leading edge (stagnation point) and region of low pressure on the upper surface of airfoil. This is of what we expected from analysis of velocity vector plot. From Bernoulli equation, we know that whenever there is high velocity, we have low pressure and vice versa.
Figure 7-5 Pressure coefficient along the chord
Figure 7-6Contoursofpressurecoefficient
8. Taildesign
The tail design is very important in stability terms to achieve vertical and horizontal stability. The horizontal tail was not implemented because the back wing placement allows it to work as a horizontal tail. In the next section is described more deeply the importance of the back wing in the horizontal stability. The dimensions of the back wing are the same as the front wing as said before.
26
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle The vertical was dimensioned with the related worksheet from the classes. The dimensions achieved were too small for the airship, in a way that the vertical tail was probably working in recirculation area of the hull airfoil as you can see in Fig. 8-1. It was decided that it was possible to prevent this situation by over dimension the vertical tail so that it work out of the recirculation area. The final configuration is shown.
Figure 81 Tail configuration
9. Static margin
Figure 91 Total length of the aircraft and wing positions (meters)
To determine the static margin, first we have to identify the neutral point and the center of gravity location. The wing positions were defined as shown in Fig. 9-1. The value of the static margin will allow us to know if the aircraft is stable. The center of gravity was calculated with the position of three different centers of mass, fuel, body and payload. In the Table 9-1 are shown the location of these three centers of mass.
Table91 Center of gravity calculation
X coordinate (m) Weight (kg)
Fuel 55 278576.326
Body 116.39 330867.112
Payload 78 544310.844
Centergravity 83.46 1153754.282
27
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle The fuel center of mass was defined near the front wing position because thats where the engines are located. The body center of mass was calculated with the help of Solidworks software and the payload center of mass was defined as the center of the cargo bay. The payload has the higher influence in the position of the center of gravity as you can see by table inspection. Now we have to consider that the aircraft has three aerodynamic centers (hull, front and back wing) as shown in Fig. 9-2.
Figure 92 Aerodynamic centers position in meters
These positions were considered as the quarter of the mean chord of the hull and wings respectively. In these positions are considered lift and moment forces. To achieve the neutral point location we have to determinate the solution of the equation 9.1.
(9.1)
The values considered are presented in the Table 9-2.

Table92Neutral point calculation
Frontwing (i=1) Backwing (i=2) Hull (i=3)
0.070833 0.070833 0.083743
-0.00933 -0.00933 -0.014
4.59 17.61 5.43
11.52 11.52 250
1069 1069 10666.4
The values for were obtained with the 2D values from the airfoil by two different ways. The first way, approximation of the lifting line theory, was used for the wings and is used for high aspect . ratios. The equation 9.2 was used to determine the 3D value for (9.2) For the hull, another expression was used on which its only restriction wasthe Mach number, that had to be in subsonic conditions.
28
(9.3)
This second is supposed to be only dependent on the Mach number, howeversince there is no information, one should be cautious and assume that it maybe an empiric correction of the slope, when shifting from 2D to 3Deffects. It is quite hard to define the hull's aspect ratio, because ofship's side "lobes", and also very difficult to find a mean value. Becauseof this, when using that expression, we considered only the aspect ratio ofthe central section, which doesn't account for the lobes, increased it alittle bit, predicting that the lobes must at least increase the mean A.R bya little. The last step was applying a discount on the obtained 3D slopeassuming that the expression has some dependencies on high aspect ratiosphysics, which are not present in this case. In Fig. 9-3 are shown the values for the neutral point and the center of gravity.
Figure 93 Neutral point and center of gravity position in meters (right and left respectively)
The value for the static margin is which implicates that the aircraft is marginally stable. This value can be improved (augmented) with active control or changing the position of the center of gravity. Also this value isnt certain because of the dimensions of the aircraft and use of the main wing mean chord in the calculus.
10.Structure and loads

When designing an aircraft, structure constitutes a critical fraction of the total project. In this section we propose to perform a semi-general analysis in order to give an estimation of the overall structural requirements.
10.1.
V-N diagram and design load factor
The V-N diagram, V representing velocity and N the load factor, provides information regarding the expected loads the airship will experience at different air speeds. This diagram was created, based on theoretical and empirical data and will be explained thoroughly, throughout this section. In Fig. 10-1 it is present the airships diagram. 29
Figure 40-1 V-N Diagram and gust envelope
The first important aspect to have into consideration is to define the load limits that the ship is supposed to withstand. Corke (2002) provides some empirical information based on FAR-25, which places these limits in between the upper and lower values of 3.5 and -1.5 respectively, for a commercial transport. The book also goes into further detail specifying that a typical upper value for an aircraft weighting more than 50000 lbs. is 2.5. This value was then established as the upper limit and the lower limit as defined as being -1, trying to respect a conservative proportional relation regarding the commercial transport example. Let's consider the following five points A to E: The A-B curve is governed by extreme load factor conditions inherent of instantaneous change in the high angle of attacks. In this case, the load factor can be determined by the following expression. (10.1) The curve itself represents the variation of the load factor with speed, starting from a null value until it reaches the upper limit. The A-D curve is quite similar to the previous one, except we now consider a negative instantaneous change of the attack angle. The curve is limited by lower value defined earlier. The line connecting B-C is representative of the limit imposed earlier. Even though we proceed along the velocity axis, the load factor cannot cross the proposed value. The point C is marked at the dive velocity, which was defined as:
30
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle (10.2) Equally defined but this time representing negative load factors, we have the line D-E. The point E is marked at the design cruise velocity. The final segment connects E and the n = 0 point at dive velocity.
The methods present provide a preliminary load factor envelope, however this analysis is still complete since it disregards one important factor, which is the presence of gusts during flight. This new element introduces instantaneous changes in air speed, which consequently translate into changes in the airship angle of attack and load factor. In Fig. 10-1 it is possible to already observe the gust envelope superimposed with the original V-N diagram. In this next analysis our main focus points are from F-K but lets delve into a more detailed explanation: The points F and G represent a positive and negative gust with at the highest added to the upper and lower angle of attack with an incremental load factor of limit load factor of 2.5 and -1; The points H and I represent a similar situation but this time with a gust of , at added to the upper and lower cruise conditions, with an incremental load factor limit load factor of 2.5 and -1; The last ones J and K are also similar with a gust of at dive conditions, with an added to the upper and lower limit load factor of 2.5 incremental load factor of and -1.
The gust speeds just mentioned where picked from statistical data presented in Corke (2002) and all considering heights below 20000 ft., which is above this airship flight ceiling. All incremental loads were calculated using the methods presented in Corke (2002), however its values are extremely low. There are two possible reasons for this behavior: either the ships wing loading ratio is extremely high compared to a conventional airship and therefore invalidating the porting made from these methods, or there was an error when trying to use I.S. units instead of the imperial ones which govern this equations. Having the load factor diagram designed we now are able to extract the limit load factor, which is the maximum absolute value in the diagram plus the incremental load due to the gust. (10.2) (10.3) It is also necessary to consider a safety margin and therefore the limit load factor is multiplied by a . The design load factor is then: safety factor standardized in the aircraft industry as being (10.4) This value is then carried and taken into account during the tensile and compressive loading studies.
31
10.2.
Shear and Bending Moment Analysis
Having calculated and defined a design the design load factor we now reach a point, where to progress any further it is necessary to estimate the shear stress and bending moments that our structure will be subjected. One of the first things to do is to have an idea how things will be placed and how much to they weight/lift, depending on which element we are considering. We further provide an analysis focused on the wings and the elements along its span. Corke (2002) has methods to do the same with the fuselage, however as it will be shown posteriorly, there are some obstacles trying when trying to port that method to the airship. 10.2.1. Wings Aerodynamic lift, drag forces and weight are responsible for the loads present on the wings. One usual approach allows us to disregard the span-wise drag distribution since the wing structure is strong in that direction, having its relevant length in the wing chord. The design driver is then the wing thickness bending moments. The wing generates lift, in a distributed manner, along its span. For trapezoidal wings it is known that (10.5) represents the sectional lift, the total required lift of half wing, the wing span and is the wings taper ratio. is know after consulting the calculations done during the MTOW analysis. To estimate the wing structure weight, we consulted some statistical data present in Corke (2002) and the used criteria was: (10.6) When performing calculation, this weight was also distributed in similar fashion used in expression (3) only replacing the total lift term with total weight. Another common element of nowadays wings, are the flaps. Flaps provide lift increments and ours is no exception. It was assumed that this increment would be 40% of the total lift generated by half a wing. (10.7) The placement of these flaps was made going from the wing root to 0.4 of half wingspan. The lift increment is considered evenly spread through this region. Flaps have a physical structure and therefore weight, however we considered that its weight is minimal compared to the other elements and decided to assume that it was already imputed in the wings structure weight. Fuel tanks and fuel itself are also important elements in the wing. In our design we considered that for containment we would use fuel bladders, which are very light and consequently its weight can be ignored. The fuel weight can be extracted from the MTOW analysis, having in consideration that only the front wing will have engines, fuel tanks and fuel. where
32
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle (10.8) The placement of these fuel tanks is similar to the flaps. The final elements to be considered are the engines. In this analysis engines provide only concentrated weights. The engines weight is known -priori however one must also foresee the additional load coming from their installment. To estimate this, the following expression, deduced in Corke (2002) was used. (10.9) In this airship there are four engines, two on each half wing and they were placed at 0.1 and 0.3 of half wingspan starting in the wing root. Bellow we present Table 10-1 condensing all the information explained above as well as the final shear stress and bending moment diagrams.
Table 20-1 Wing Load distribution
Load Type L (unflapped) L (flapped) fuel engine (1) engine (2) structure
Magnitude 305337.3596 122134.9438 115221.6451 3638.887065 3638.887065 240057.38
y/(b/2)_start y/(b/2)_end 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 0 1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 1
dw
13570.54931 12802.40501 3638.887065 3638.887065
Figure 50-2 Shearstressfrontwing
V(y)
5000.00 4000.00 V [lbf] 3000.00 2000.00 1000.00 0.00 -1000.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 y/(b/2) 0.80 1.00 1.20
33

Figure 103Bendingmomentfrontwing
V(y)
12000.00 10000.00 8000.00 6000.00 4000.00 2000.00 0.00 -2000.00 0.00
V [lbf]
0.20
0.40
0.60 y/(b/2)
0.80
1.00
1.20
Figure 10-4 Shearstressrearwing
M(y)
300000.00 250000.00 200000.00 150000.00 100000.00 50000.00 0.00 -50000.00 0.00
M [lbf-ft]
0.20
0.40
0.60 y/(b/2)
0.80
1.00
1.20
Figure 105 Bending moment rear wing
M(y)
300000.00 250000.00 200000.00 150000.00 100000.00 50000.00 0.00 -50000.00 0.00
M [lbf-ft]
0.20
0.40
0.60 y/(b/2)
0.80
1.00
1.20
10.2.2. Fuselage The fuselage section works just the same way as the wing section so this time well skip most of the explanations since the reader should already be familiarized at this point with the sort of steps that 34
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle will be conducted. The big difference now is that now we have to into account the moments around the airships aerodynamic center. It is from this resultant moment that the required lift from the tail is determined (considering the conventional airplane case). Knowing the aerodynamic center is and has been one of the major drawbacks of this airship design, and not knowing its position set us in a position where we are blindly placing loads here trying to achieve the most stable configuration possible, out of common sense. The only thing is that one may argument, is that the helium distribution can be made in such a way to counter any resultant moment applied to the aerodynamic center. We present bellow some estimation of the final placements just as an example but no shear stress and bending moments are shown since the lack of accuracy at this point could provide misleading information.
Table 30-2 Preliminary longitudinal load displacement
Load Type Magnitude (lbf) x/L_start x/L_end Helium Lift 1526686.798 0 1 Fuel 614370.9683 0.3 0.3 Payload 1200415.565 0.2 0.4 Structure 11000 0 1 Engine(s) 14555.54826 0.3 0.3 Wing Struct. 240057.38 0.3 0.3 Second Wing Struct 240057.38 0.8 0.8 1st Wing Lift 305337.3596 0.3 0.3 2nd Wing Lift 305337.3596 0.8 0.8 Tail Struct. 23608.42 0.75 9 One can also see by checking the table we totally disregarded any lift produced from the tail, since in our case it only performs yaw actuations hence not contributing with any load besides its own weight.
10.3.
Preliminary structure design
Bellow we present some sketches of possible configurations. They are merely concept designs.
Figure 10-6 Structural concept design
35
Figure 10-7 Structural concept design perspective detail
Figure 10-8 Structural concept design front section detail
36
Figure 10-9 Structural concept design side section detail
11.Cargo bay design

The cargo bay was designed to ensure that every payload can fit, enter and exit. To guarantee that would happen we study every payload configuration first. The requirements needed for every payload are presented in the Table 11-1.
Table111Cargo characteristics
Payload TEU M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank AH-64D Apache Longbow Helicopters 463L Pallets** Passengers/Paratroops*** Medical Litters
Length (m) 6.1 9.77 17.73 2.24 1.016 2.13
Width (m) 2.4 3.7 5.227* 2.74 0.7112 0.58
Height (m) 2.6 2.4 4.64 0.057 1.9304 0.25
Volume (m3) 28.0 86.76 430.01 0.35 1.39 0.31
Quantity 96 9 6 60 1000 300
Total Volume (m3) 2688.0 780.82 2580.06 20.99 1394.87 92.655
*the rotor paddles are removed; **only considered the support; ***these dimensions are related to their seats The minimum volume required for these payloads are 2688 m3 but we have to consider some tolerance distance. In the requirements the minimum volume is 4672.28 m3, so we have plenty space to manage the configurations of the different types of payload. Table 11-2 shows us the configurations adopted in the cargo bay. These configurations allow minimizing the volume needed in the cargo bay and fit to every kind of payload.
Table112Cargo characteristics
Payload TEU M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank AH-64D Apache
Length (units) 8 5 3 37
Width (units) 4 2 2
Height (units) 3 1 1
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Longbow Helicopters 463L Pallets Passengers/Paratroops Medical Litters
20 60 20
3 6 15
1 3 1
The total volume required for the cargo way is 54x12x9 = 5832 m3. The length used is 18x3 = 54 m, the 3 Apache Longbow Helicopters defined it by its length. The maximum width allowable by the design was 12m and finally the height was imposed by the TEUs dimensions. The configurations adopted in the cargo bay are shown in Fig. 11-1 to Fig. 11-6.
Figure 111 TEUssconfiguration
Figure 112Tankssconfiguration
38
Figure 113Helicopterssconfiguration
Figure 114Palletssconfiguration
39
Figure 115Passengerssconfiguration
Figure 116Medical litterssconfiguration
40
12.Propulsion
The selection of the engines is one of the most important features in the project. In general, the main characteristics when choosing an engine should take into account: Power (and corresponding number of engines) Fuel efficiency Pollution Weight (engine, fuel, batteries)
We can approach the propulsion issue from many different ways. There is a large group of internal combustion engines available, like the turbojet, the turbofan and the turboprop engines. The turbofan is the most common these days, powering the A380 and the Antonov An-225. Turboprop engines are generally used on small subsonic aircraft but can also be found on large civilian and military aircrafts like the Lockheed L-188 Electra and the russian Tu-95. We also investigated unconventional approaches like the use of superconducting electric engines, fuel cells and solar power. This way we decided to split this section in two parts. First well consider a conventional approach, choosing an internal combustion kind of engine and in the second well present ideas for an unconventional approach taking advantage of futuristic concept ideas.
12.1.
Conventional approach
Since were assuming a conventional approach the first step is finding out which kind of internal combustion has the best performance taking into account our design conditions:
Table42-1 Design conditions
Cruise Mach Cruise Altitude MTOW (total) Static Lift Aerodynamic Lift P/W W/S
0,1689 4500 ft 11318 kN 6791 kN 4527 kN 5,3 1270
The total power required can be computed in the following way:
Plotting the fuel consumption along the Mach number for the various kinds of engines should be a good way to make this decision. The airships speed range is represented by the red area in Fig. 12-1. It is evident that neither the turbofan nor the turbojet are a viable solution, at least at such low speeds. However both the turboprop and the common piston like engines seem to behave well. The turbofan engines with a high BPR are slightly less efficient than the previous two.
41
Figure 12-1 Engine performance.
Turboprop engines are very efficient at flight speeds below 450 mph because the jet velocity of the propeller (and exhaust) is relatively low. As for the High-bypass turbofan, they can achieve lower specific fuel consumption than a common turbo fan because the combination of a higher overall pressure ratio and turbine inlet temperature improves thermal efficiency. This, together with a lower specific thrust (better propulsive efficiency), leads to a lower specific fuel consumption. Although the high-bypass turbofan engines are more efficient than the usual turbofan engines they are still considerably less efficient than the turboprop engines and since this is a main factor we choose to discard them. Well not consider the option of a piston engine because we were unable to find anyone who could provide the required power. Looking for a good candidate we investigated both western and Eastern turboprop engines that power big aircrafts. We considered: Europrop TP400-D6 Pratt & Whitney PW150A Kuznetsov NK-12MA Klimov TV7-117 Progress D-27 (Airbus A400M) (Bombardier Q400) (Tupolev Tu-95) (Ilyushin Il-112 and Il-114) (Antonov An-70 and An-180)
Since power and the corresponding number of engines was a big issue this was the first factor to take into account. The number of engines required was calculated rounding the number of engines to the next pair number: (12.1)
42
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle This way we can assure that in case of failure, were able to supply the required thrust to continue operation. Furthermore, it is also important to have symmetry in terms of propulsion since the engines will be located under the wings. We decided that all the engines should be located under the wings due to the airships configuration. Placing one engine in the top was not an option since we could not guarantee a constant air flow, at least similar to the flow that the other engines would be subjected to see Fig. 12-2. Additionally it would have additional structural and maintenance issues or even mean trouble when pumping the fuel to the engine. Moreover, not having the engines working at their maximum power output will endure their life cycle and reduce the probability of occurring an engine failure.
Figure 12-2 Airships hull (side view) Table 15-2 Number of engines required
Engines Europrop TP400-D6 Pratt & Whitney PW150A Kuznetsov NK-12MA Klimov TV7-117 Progress D-27
Power (kW) 8200 3781 11185 2088 10400
Power/Engine Power 2,9 6,3 2,2 11,5 2,3
N of Engines 2 4 8 4 12 4
We can now eliminate both the Pratt & Whitney and the Klimov. Since they have a lower power output than the other engines it would require a larger number of engines. This is a negative factor since it would reflect an increase cost in maintenance and a higher probability of occurring and engine failure (among others). To help deciding which engine better suits our airship we compared the various engines specific fuel consumption which is similarly to the number of engines is one of the key factors. We also compared their weight and the year when they first flew.
Table 16-3 Engine comparison
Engines Europrop TP400-D6 Kuznetsov NK-12MA Progress D-27
SFC3 (Kg/HP.h) 0,15 0,16 0,13
Weight (Kg) 1890 1155 1650
Year 2009 1950s 1992
The most efficient one seems to be the Progress D-27, followed by the Europrop TP400-D6. However the newest seems to be the Europrop which could be a sign of having more recent and better
2 3
Number ceiled to the next pair number to assurea symmetric thrust. SpecficFuelConsumption
43
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle technology. As for the Kuznetsov NK-12MA, besides being the lightest of the three, was built in the 1950s and seems a bit out of place. Also, the weight actually isnt a key factor since it can be diluted in the weight of the wings which are unusually big (90m of wingspan). We decided that the Europrop and the Progress are the stronger candidates so we looked further into them.
Figure 12-3 Engines located in the designed aircraft
12.1.1. Europrop TP400-D6 The Europrop TP400-D6 engine is the third most powerful turboprop engine in the world, after the contra-rotating Kuznetsov NK-12 and Progress D-27, making the TP400 the most powerful singleaxle props. It was developed to power the Airbus A400M which is a military purpose tactical airlifter with strategic capabilities aircraft (Fig. 12-4). The A400M is undergoing flight testing as of December 2010.
Figure 12-4 and 12-5 Airbus A400M andEuroprop TP400-D6 engine
The TP400-D6 is a three-shaft turboprop engine. It works at moderate temperatures to endure its life cycle. It has a modular design which targets maintainability and low life cycle costs. It also meets future noise and emissions requirements.According to Europrops website the engine can be replaced within 4 hours
44
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle 12.1.2. Progress D-27 The Progress D-27 engine was developed by the Ivchenk-Progress Design Bureau for commercial and military transport aircraft. It was designed to power high fuel efficient passenger and transport airplanes with improved takeoff and landing characteristics. It can be found on the Antonov An-70 military transport aircraft (Fig. 12-6) and in the Beriev A-42PE.
Figure 12-6 and 12-7 Antonov An-70 and Progress D-27 engine.
The engine meets the environmental requirements of ICAO standards.Currently, there is no massproduced aircraft that is powered by the D-27.
Table 17-4 Engine selection matrix
Fuel efficiency Maintenance Acquisition Cost Life Cycle Cost Durability Total
Points (1-5) 5 4 3 3 3 85
Europrop TP400-D6 4 5 2 5 4 73
Progress D-27 5 4 4 3 3 71
Although the Progress D-27 is the most efficient we decided that the Europrops TP400-D6 is ther right choice because it guarantees a faster and cheaper maintenance due to its modular design and has a higher durability since it works at moderated temperatures.
12.2.
Unconventional approach
To conclude with this part, it is basic to take care about the future purposes of the aviation. Sustainability in the aviation industry calls for aircraft that are significantly more quiet and more fuel efficient than todays fleet. Achieving this requires revolutionary new concepts, in particular, electric propulsion. Superconducting rotating machines (motors and generators) are destined to play a key role in this conversion as the enabling technology that will allow this conversion to electric propulsion within the very stringent weight and volume constraints imposed by an airborne application.Superconducting machines are the only viable way to get the power densities needed for electric aeropropulsion.These electric planes would be eco-friendly, exceptionally quiet and highly energy efficient as well as dramatically cutting down on maintenance costs through the elimination of engine hydraulics. A 45
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle superconducting motor would be very lightweight and far more efficient electrically, generating three times the torque of a conventional electric motor for the same energy input and weight. In addition, an electric aircraft would be far more quiet than a conventional jet as there are no internal combustion processes involved. A fuel cell produces no polluting emissions, just warm water as the hydrogen combines with oxygen. This would mean zero carbon emissions from the aircraft as it flies. However, the main disadvantage is that it is still a technology costly to develop. Besides being a good idea to introduce this technology in our design, and to represent a good field of improvement in the aviation, we neglect it because of the impossibility to reach more data and to know how we can quantify it.
13.Air cushion landing system (ACLS)

13.1. ACLS definition
The function of the air cushion gear is to replace wheel gear, hull, float and skis or their combinations with a single, lightweight, powered, retractable air cushion gear. The air cushion is a large pocket of air beneath the aircraft, contained by a flexible material cushion trunk and kept at the slight pressure needed to support the aircraft by a continuous airflow escaping the bottom near the ground. The flexible trunk, when inflated, is like half of a distorted inner tube, sliced across its axis and fastened to the bottom of the aircraft. Engine fan bleed or a separate onboard fan accomplishes inflation for takeoff or landing. The fan pressure keeps the trunk inflated. No other feed is needed to pressurize the air cushion, and keep the trunk just off the ground, supporting the aircraft nearly friction free. Residual ground friction depends on the amount of airflow, the surface roughness and the longitudinal trim. When not in use, either in flight or on the ground, the trunk is retracted. When the aircraft reaches a takeoff or landing attitude and the front of the trunk rises, full cushion pressure cannot be retained. If wing lift is not enough to carry the remaining aircraft weight, some of it will be supported by the trunk, which will flatten against the ground, forming a rear footprint at the pressure inside the trunk, about twice the normal cushion pressure, butstillvery low. Because there are nozzles at the bottom, air escapes into the footprint forming a lubricating film, so that there is still very low ground friction in takeoff rotation and landing touchdown. In landing, vertical impact energy is absorbed by increased pressure in the cushion cavity as the trunk is squashed and by the trunk footprint spreading. The available stroke is the hard structure clearance. Expulsion of air from the cushion and trunk throughout the stroke provides vertical damping. If cushion pressure andair gap are maintained, there will be no braking. To brake the bottom of the trunk is distorted at the pads by internal actuators to deliberately vent the cushion and cause padcontact and ground friction. The pads are at each side, for differential action, and far enough forward not to interfere with the rear footprint.
46
13.2.
Advantages
The advantages claimed for the air cushion landing gear are as follows: Tolerance of conditions. It makes for an easier takeoff and landing maneuver and relaxes the airfield requirement (i.e. any surface softness is acceptable). It also accepts crabbed groundroll in takeoff and landing, being the crosswind tolerance unlimited. Triphibious weight/drag savings. It permits triphibious takeoff and landing (land, water, snow), without the weight/drag penalties of conventional landing gear combinations. Safety and comfort. It provides a higher takeoff and landing accident tolerance and has low vulnerability to damage, leading to improved safety compared with wheelgear. The element of danger in incidents such as landing short or overrunning the paved runway may be largely avoided Emergency landing in fields or water ditching is possible without damage.ACLG also introduces a soft touch-down (and takeoff) which is comfortable and should be highly acceptable to passengers. Increased payload. The relaxed surface requirement (especially water) allows the ACLG airplane to be designed for longer takeoff and landing, resulting in improved payload/grossweight and economy. Basing flexibility.The multi-surface capability increases operational versatility, allowing (for one example) taking off from snow or runway for a destination landing on water ortaxi from a water landing to a ground parking ramp. This permits a baking flexibility for both commercial and military operations worldwide. Ground level parking. Because of the inherent characteristic of the air cushion, when the air vehicle has landed and the air supply is turned off, or reversed, the air vehicle will be gently lowered down. By appropriate design, the payload module can be arranged to be lowered with the air vehicle so as to be in a positions where cargo can be easily off-loaded from a ramp of the payload module. Load distribution. The ACLG can diffuse ground loads into the aircraft structure. Particularly for very large aircraft (two or more times the 747);this will save weight and avoid a requirement for special runways. Extended high-speed taxi and takeoff maneuvers can be tolerated in an equilibrium condition in contrast to the limited transient loadings required on conventional tires.
13.3.
RFP-related requirements
The air vehicle has to integrate an air cushion landing system (ACLS) (like a hovercraft) instead of conventional aircraft landing gear. This enables the air vehicle to land and takeoff from virtually any reasonable flat surface. Reversing the ACLS engines on landing creates suction to a solid surface facilitating loading and unloading and eliminated the need for ground-handling crews or elaborate tie downs in the lighter-than-air mode when the air vehicle is empty of payload and fuel. The hybrid air vehicle shall be capable of amphibious operating, i.e. landing and taking off with large heavy payloads from anywhere, whether it is from remote fields, deserts, marshes, harbors, waterways, even covered with snow or ice. Thus it does not require the support of an airport. Meanwhile, the cargo bay floor shall be less than 5 feet above ground. It shall be designed to support a loading of at least 500 psf.
47
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle The landing system shall provide a parking mode suitable for safe vehicle parking in variable winds up to 30 kts, and head-on winds up to 50 kts. Finally the takeoff distance shall not be superior to 6700 ft (measured when the air has achieved a 35 ft altitude without winds).
13.4.
Basic configuration
The ACLS configuration analyzed is shown in Fig. 13-1. The model includes four primary subsystems: the fan, the feeding system, the trunk and the cushion. Air from the fan flows through the ducts and plenum (feeding system) and enters the trunk. The trunk has several rows of orifices that communicate both with the cushion and atmosphere. Thus, the airflow from the trunk has two components one part entering the cushion and the other leading directly to the atmosphere. The cushion flow exhausts to the atmosphere through the clearance gap formed between the trunk and ground. Plenum bleeding causes some of the air to flow directly from plenum to atmosphere. A pressure relief valve is also included.It allows additional flow to vent from the plenum whenever the pressure exceeds a preset level, and thus improves stability by reducing fan stall. The support force acting on the aircraft is made up of two components. The first occurs due to the cushion pressure acting over the cushion area. The second, which comes about only during ground contact, is given by the contact pressure acting over the trunk contact area.
Figure 13-1a and 13-1b ACLS configuration. Plan (a) and frontal (b) views
In plan (Fig. 13-1a), the cushion has an oval shape, made up of a rectangular section with semicircular ends. The lengths a andb are the horizontal and vertical spacing between the points of attachment of the trunk to the aircraft body. The initial (undeformed) trunk shape is defined by the above two parameters, and the perimeter l and the heightHy. The cushion volume consists of two parts: an active region and a dead region.
13.5.
ACLS design
13.5.1. First design: twin ACLS attached to the payload modules
48
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle The first design is shown in Fig. 13-2, where two sets of air-cushion landing systems are attached to the under surface of the payload modules or passenger cabins; these may be relatively widely spaced apart so as to improve the stability of the air vehicle when on the ground and when landing and taking off. Each of landing gear units comprises a flexible skirt defining an air cavity into which pressurized air can be blown until provide the air cushion. It is also necessary to rapidly exhaust air from the air cavity so that a suction or hold-down force is applied to hold the air vehicle down while positioned on the ground.
Figure 13-2a, 13-2b and 13-2c Two air cushion landing system (2) mounted beneath both payload modules (1). Side (a), plan (b) and frontal (c) views.
Do not consider the overall vehicle design; focus on the ACLS/payload distribution. The air cushion landing units are retractable into cavities or housings within the underside of the payload module (or cabin) so as to lie flush with the lower surface of this structure. The mentioned underside shall be flatter than its topside, at least in a central region, to mount the payload module and landing gear units. The twin payload module design provides multiple separate loading ramps, lower envelope stress due to more evenly distributed loading and the possibility of widening the overall hull to provide increased aerodynamic efficiency. 13.5.2. Second design: four independentACLS around a single payload module The second design is shown in Fig. 13-3, where four sets of air-cushion landing systems are located around a single payload module or passenger cabin. This plurality of landing pads positioned fore and aft of the center of gravity improves the stability and handling of the air vehicle during takeoff, landing and touchdown.
49
Figure 13-3 Four independent ACLS (1) around a single payload module (2).
As aforementioned, do not consider the overall vehicle design. This design maximizes the advantages in ground handling, maneuverability and mooring offered by air cushion landing systems.
Figure 13-4 Retractable units
The ACLS units are retractable into cavities or housings within the underside of the hull as shown in Fig. 13-4. Vectored thrust is used on all the engines, allowing vertical thrust vectors to act through the center of gravity. Thus there is the facility for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), as well as generally improved control. The air cushion units may be differentially powered to assist, for instance, in takeoff and landing where the rear of the payload module or cabin may be the first portion to touch down and the last to lift off the ground. This second array-alike air cushion units distribution design is the chosen to continue the analysis.
13.6.
ACLS characterization
The trunk dimensions and pressures are chosen so that the ACLS can operate with the available fans activated directly by the engines. The trunk has to support the RFP required loading of 500 psf (23,94KPa). Meanwhile, the already estimated entire vehicle weight is 2.543.594 lbs (1.153.755 kg), so the needed surface is (13.1) This surface is distributed for the four individual ACLS; thus, the single diameter of each circularshaped unit measures 7 meters (Fig. 13-5a). 50
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle The ACLS units array is distributed symmetrically along the longitudinal plane. Its emplacement can't affect the location of the payload module, as is shown in the Fig. 13-5b.
Figure 13-5a and 13-5b Renders showing the geometry (a) and its emplacement related to the payload module (b) Figure 13-6 Air supply transmission
The fans are assumed to be single stage axial fans driven through a clutch and gearbox from the main engines. There will be a fan for each ACLS unit. The ducts that connect both engine and air cushion run under the floor (Fig. 13-6), serving for both trunk pressurization and deflation. It is also important to notice that the use of ACLS does not contemplate changes to flight controls or aerodynamic surfaces.
14.Landing issues
Lighter-than-air airships have a main problem when they lie unloaded on the ground: the buoyancy lift is higher than the overall weight because neither the payload nor the fuel are inside the vehicle. The maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), already studied, is the load that the overall lift i.e the sum of aerodynamics and buoyancy has to make up for.
51
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle The 60% of this weight is lifted by the helium, whereas the remaining 40% is completed by the aerodynamics. This last heavier-than-air fraction, at the same time, is divided into two main groups: the weights withstood by the tandem- configuration wings (60%) and the hull (40%). In order to accomplish such a big amount, the hull has taken the shape of an airfoil called GOE 570. Table 14-1 shows the lift-related weight breakdown:
Table 14-1 Lift-related weights breakdown
MTOW, 2543594 lbs
Aerodynamics 1017437 lbs Buoyancy 1526156 lbs
(40%), Wings (60%), 610462 lbs Hull (40%), 406975 lbs (60%),
On the ground, stopped, the aerodynamics lift isnt working, while the helium is still performing. Hence, the body tends to lift when its overall weight is lesser than the helium-related weight. Problem: weight < 1526156 lbs From the MTOW spreadsheet we notice that the weights breakdown is (Table 14-2):
Table 14-2 Weights breakdown
MTOW, 2543594 lbs
Empty weight, 729437 lbs Payload, 1200000 lbs Fuel weight, 614156 lbs
Hence, the excess buoyancy lift can be easily reached when the air vehicle has landed (i.e. without fuel) and the cargo bay has been unloaded. To solve this problem the first idea that comes up is to install engines with vectorial thrust, so they would point upwards in order to maintain the vehicle on the ground. This solution, despite its feasibility, seems a bit extreme and very energy-consuming: it would mean to keep the engines working until a certain amount of ballast is added (or the helium is partially removed). To avoid these headaches we have preferred planning a system whose main goal is either to cool or to compress the helium, leading to its density increase. Thus, when both air and helium densities are close, the buoyancy lift disappears. The helium weight that this cooling/compressing mechanism has to counteract is: (14.1)
Where we have assumed that both fuel and payload weights have been respectively consumed and unloaded. This result is equivalent to the 50% of the total volume helium. Converting to force: 3545193 N The volume of the hull filled with helium remains constant, being V = 759340 m3. Evaluating the air kg/m3), we can obtain the necessary final helium density: density at sea level (
N
52
(14.2)
kg/m3
Again at sea level, the helium density is kg/m3. The rise would be:
(14.3)
kg/m3
(14.4)
The apostrophe indicates the cooled /compressed state parameters. Then, helium behaviour is obtained through the equations (14.5) (14.6) Where R = 2077 J/(kgK) is the specific gas constant. We assume that the original state pressure is 287 K. Thus, the initial temperature is 1 atm 101325 Pa for standard conditions.
In order to achieve the desired density rise, it is possible to follow either a compressive or a cooling method, or both at the same time. Table 14-3 shows the temperature increase given the pressures quotient as input:
Table 14-3 Helium density rise. Pressure vs. temperature gradients
1 2 3 4 4.21
10.67 C 7.35 C 4.02 C 0.69 C 0.00 C
We assume that the most feasible way to increase the helium density is to cool the gas volume only a fraction of volume, as has been already demonstrated while the pressure is maintained constant. , i.e. the first Thus, there is no compressive contribution; this case corresponds to row of the Table 14-3. This operation could be carried out creating and individual cavity inside the hull storing the aforementioned 796719 lbs; the mechanism must start when the air vehicle is approaching the destination, so on the ground the gas is properly cooled. To obtain the required work to achieve we have to recall the Carnot cycle, a thermodynamic cycle capable of converting a given amount of thermal energy into work or as our case conversely creating temperature difference by doing a given amount of work. The Carnot cycle formula gives the amount of energy transferred as work: (14.7)
53
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Where the sub-indexes mean: H, hot; C, cold; A, initial state and B, final state. Meanwhile, S is the entropy which is calculated (as a calorically perfect gas) through: (14.8)
Where TB and PB are equivalent to and The helium heat capacity at constant temperature is
, whereas TA and PA are
and
(14.9) Hence, maintaining the pressure (recall: first row of the Table 14-3) (14.10) The work needed to decrease the temperature by 10.67 C is (14.11) Therefore, instead of using vectorial thrust we have decided to cool an amount of 796719 lbs of helium by 10.67 C. Then, the buoyancy lift is completely counteracted while the air vehicle lies on the floor unloaded and with empty fuel tanks.
15.Balanced field length

The total take off distance determines the minimum airfield length that is required for the vehicle to take off; landing distance, on the other hand, normally is shorter. The important airfield length at both take-off and landing is called the balanced field length. This corresponds to the total airfield length that is required for safety in the event that one engine of a multiengine aircraft fails. In this event there is a reference velocity, i.e. the decision speed; if the engine fails when the take-off velocity is below the decision speed, the field length has to be long enough to allow the aircraft to take off and clear the necessary obstacle height. The balanced field length can be estimated from the following empirical formula: (15.1)
Different parameters have to be defined: , being a four-engine vehicle. , where has been obtained from the lifting line theory: the climb angle and rad for
54
(15.2)
degrees-1 is the NACA 23040 (i.e. the wing airfoil) slope of the 2D lift 15 degrees (both shown coefficient, . in Fig. 15-1) and the aspect ratio is is increased a 40% thanks to the flaps, value. obtaining the final Quotient , having assumed the sea level altitude as general case to operate. N/m2 as has already been obtained from the design point.
Figure 15-1 NACA 23024: vs.
feet. It is an AIAA general requirement. is the weight that has to be lifted by the aerodynamics (wings and hull).
Meanwhile, Tav for a propeller engine is: (15.3) Finally, is the shaft horsepower for the previously chosen engine. is the number of engines. is the propeller diameter.
feet = 769.153 meters
(15.4)
16.Costs
16.1. Situation on the market
To evaluate the situation on the market is a complicated process because there are few studies published about hybrid airships related-costs. Furthermore the amounts that are found usually have been developed through different approaches in order to present, so the direct comparison cannot be considered feasible. The Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC), integrated in the United States Navy, presented a monograph focused on Lighter-than-air systems distinguishing between balloons, aerostats, manned and unmanned airships for low and high altitudes, and hybrids (our case). Despite not specifying the hybrid amounts, it may be interesting to summarize the aerostat and airship costs. 55

Table 16-1 Summary of aerostat and airship costs
LTA types Aerostats < 15000 ft Manned airships < 10000 ft Unmanned airships < 10000 ft
Unit cost system estimate $5M - $6M $3M - $10M $3M - $10M
b a
Deployment a or development b $0.5M - $1M (year)

a
$1M - $3M (year)
$10M - $20M RDT&E
Both unit cost and RDT&E concepts will be explained later. A completely different approach is the followed by World SkyCat Ltd., a lighter-than-air design and construction company that compares the costs of its range of vehicles against aircrafts of equivalent characteristics.
Table 16-2 Comparative costs between the SkyCat hybrid and some aircrafts
Iliushin IL-76 Boeing 747-200 Boeing 747-400 Antonov 124 SkyCat 220 Payload a
a
Payload (tons) Cost per hour ($) Cost per ton/hr ($) 43 3900 91 95 7450 78 110 9300 85 120 6750 56 220 6350 29
Hybrid vehicle.
Table 16-3 SkyCat 220 basic costs
Meanwhile, the detailed costs of the hybrid SkyCat 220 are as shown in Table 16-3. The direct operating costs include everything a user would have to pay above the dry lease, i.e. fuel, consumables, crew and time-dependent maintenance. The lease costs include cost of finance, insurance on the hull and ground equipment and annual maintenance. It is interesting to notice that the costumer can operate the vehicle through a purchase deal (basic price) or a lease agreement.
Vehicle basic price $80M - $92M Direct operating costs per annum $6.200.000 per flight hour $1380 per ton/km $0.04 Lease costs per annum $22.4M - $25.7M per month $1.8M - $2.1M Total costs per annum $28.6M - $31.9M per flight hour $6350 - $7090 per ton/km $0.19 - $0.21
To compare Table 16-1 and Table 16-3 is complicated; there are a few parameters that have already appeared and later will be quantified, so we can get an idea of the desired order of magnitude. Unit cost. It is related to both the unit cost estimate (Table 16-1) and the vehicle basic price (Table 16-3). Cost/production aircrafts. It is related to the development from Table 16-1. Operations and maintenance. It is related to both the deployment (Table 16-1) and the direct operating costs (Table 16-3), amounts which are expressed per year.
56
16.2.
Cost estimate: DAPCA IV method
16.2.1. Cost estimating relationships (CERs) The estimated cost to build a usual aircraft from a conceptual design consists of two main parts: the research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) and the acquisition (A, also called flyaway cost). To complete the whole life-cycle cost (LCC), the operations and maintenance-related costs (O&M) have to be also considered. The Ultra Heavy Lift Hybrid Air Vehicle, as an extreme and special case, must follow a sensibly changed approach. The number of prototype (ND) and production (NP) aircrafts, respectively referred to the RDT&E and acquisition phases, are ND = 1 and NP = 250/500 units; the last amount comes from the AIAA Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements. As shown in Fig. 16-1, each part is divided into multiple elements whose derived costs are going to be estimated.
Engine and avionics Manufacturing labor Airframe engineering Development support RDT&E Flight test aircraft Flight test operations Profit Engine and avionics Manufacturing labor A Manufacturing materials Tooling Manufacturing materials Airframe engineering Tooling Quality control Profit
Quality control
Fig. 16-1 Costs-derivate elements division
Engineering hours. It includes the airframe design and analysis, test engineering, configuration control and system engineering. Tooling hours. It comprises all the preparation for production and the ongoing tooling preparation. Manufacturing labor. Direct labor to fabricate the vehicle. Quality control. It embraces all inspections to subassemblies and to the overall vehicle. Development support. It involves all the non-recurring costs. Flight test operations. It comprises the costs incurred in order to demonstrate the airworthiness needed for certification. Manufacturing materials. It includes the raw materials, as well as the equipment.
57
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle In order to quantify each phase it is necessary to use model equations that, through the correlation of important characteristics of a large group of aircrafts, can estimate the overall RDT&E and acquisition related costs; these equations are called cost estimating relationships (CERs). The used CERs have been developed and updated through the years by the RAND Corporation; its last version, written by R. W. Hess and H. P. Romanoff, is DAPCA IVs Airframe Cost Estimating Relationships: study approach and conclusions (R-3255-AF) that dates back from December 1987. The subsample that fits better to this project is the Bombers and transports (R-2283/3-AF) section. The RAND report estimates the costs in 1987 US dollars ($); these need to be converted to present dollars thanks to an appropriate economic escalation factor found at the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics website. The total inflation over the period from January 1986 to January 2011 is 101%; hence
=
Table 16-4 Phases-related cost estimating relationships
(16.1)
RDT&E Airframe engineering Development support Engine and avionics Manufacturing labor Manufacturing materials Tooling Quality control Flight test Profit X X X X X X X X X
A X
Related CER
X X X X X
(*)
(16.2)
lbs is the structure weight calculated thanks to the MTOW spreadsheet, whereas kts is known through the RFP requirements and N is the number of aircrafts, i.e. ND = 2 or NP = 250 (and 500) for the RDT&E and A phases. Other parameters that appear in the engine and avionics CER are the maximum thrust at sea level ), the maximum Mach ( ), the number of engines ( ) and the turbine inlet ( temperature ( , expressed in Rankines). lbs and , values taken from the propulsion analysis (engine chosen: Kuznetsov NK-12MA). , also from the AIAA RFP requirements. 58
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle R, taken from Cumpsty (2003) and shown in Fig. 16-2 because it is not specified in the RollsRoyce TP400D6 datasheet.
Figure 16-2 Turbine entry temperatures for Rolls-Royce engines since 1940.
Some of the CERs are estimated as costs, i.e., 1986 US dollars ( ); meanwhile, other CERs are estimated as hours, so they have to be converted to cost amounts through appropriate hourly rates /h, , and [$/hour] such as: . These rates are already expressed in 2011 US dollars, so it will not be necessary to use the aforementioned economic escalation factor. 16.2.2. Results Tables 16-5 and 16-6 exhibit the flyaway and RDT&E costs for a production of 250 and 500 units respectively, as asked in the RFP requirements. Meanwhile, Fig. 16-3 and 1-4 show the related cost breakdown.
Table 16-5 Flyaway and RDT&E costs for a production of 250 units
Airframe engineering Development support Engine and avionics Manufacturing labor Manufacturing materials Tooling Quality control Flight test Subtotal Profit (10%) Total Cost/Prod. Aircraft Unit cost
RDT&E $4.623.125.360 $649.730.908 $419.539.032 $1.825.296.435 $500.460.454 $2.336.902.569 $153.352.866 $43.680.114 $10.552.087.738 $1.055.208.774 $11.607.296.512
A $10.156.217.712 $52.442.378.998 $40.313.705.966 $23.702.866.270 $8.320.088.377 $3.386.968.948 $138.322.226.270 $13.832.222.627 $152.154.448.898 $58.036.483 $666.654.278 $608.617.796
Subtotals $14.779.343.071 $649.730.908 $52.861.918.030 $42.139.002.401 $24.203.326.724 $10.656.990.946 $3.540.321.814 $43.680.114 $148.874.314.009 $14.887.431.401 $163.761.745.410
1 to 200 201` to 250
Table 16-6 Flyaway and RDT&E costs for a production of 500 units
59
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle RDT&E $4.623.125.360 $649.730.908 $419.539.032 $1.825.296.435 $500.460.454 $2.336.902.569 $153.352.866 $43.680.114 $10.552.087.738 $1.055.208.774 $11.607.296.512 A $11.371.032.250 $104.884.757.996 $62.865.583.531 $41.240.491.526 $9.983.867.951 $5.281.672.182 $235.627.405.435 $23.562.740.543 $259.190.145.978 $58.036.483 $576.416.775 $518.380.292 Subtotals $15.994.157.610 $649.730.908 $105.304.297.027 $41.740.951.980 $64.690.879.966 $12.320.770.520 $5.435.025.047 $43.680.114 $246.179.493.173 $24.617.949.317 $270.797.442.490
Airframe engineering Development support Engine and avionics Manufacturing labor Manufacturing materials Tooling Quality control Flight test Subtotal Profit (10%) Total Cost/Prod. Aircraft Unit cost
1 to 200 201 to 500
C_P ($) C_E ($) 9% C_D ($) 9% 0% C_EN ($) 32% C_QC ($) C_T ($) 2% 7% C_ML ($) 26% C_MM ($) 15% C_EN ($) 32%
C_P ($) 9%
C_E ($) 9% C_D ($) 0% C_ML ($) 26% C_MM ($) 15%
C_QC ($) C_T ($) 7% 2%
Figures 16-3 and 16-4 Flyaway and RDT&E costs breakdown for 250 and 500 units.
Both calculations have been obtained considering that 200 aircrafts have to be built in order to amortize the cost of RDT&E.
16.3.
Operation and maintenance costs
The DARPA IV method has been used to calculate the RDT&E and the acquisition-related costs. Nevertheless, as has already been explained, to complete the whole life-cycle cost (LCC), the operations and maintenance-related costs (O&M) have to be also considered. The O&M phase answers how the aircraft will be operated. Raymer (1992) considers three main branches: the fuel as well as the crew salaries (as operation, O) and separately the maintenance (M). Fuel
The AIAA RFP requirements ask for a maximum unrefueled range of 6000 NM, which is higher than the scenarios distance of 4500/5000 NM (from Tokyo to LA, or from St. Lewis to Pusan). Taking 60
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle into account the first amount, the MTOW analysis gives a total fuel weight of 1.9M lbs in order to accomplish the scenarios. Considering the nominal cruise speed of 90 kts and a regular distance of 5000 NM, we can assume that the missions can be completed in 2.5 days. To carry out the rest breaks the vehicle has to be commanded by two crews that work alternatively. For a periodicity of one flight per week, assuming the aforementioned mean distance and considering a mean fuel weight on board of 1.2M lbs, the volume of fuel burned a year raises to 35000 m3 (it has been used an approximated jet fuel density of 800 kg/ m3). IATA Fuel Price Monitor from the energy information provider Platts shows the global average price paid at the refinery for aviation jet fuel. The last update (March 2011) quantifies the fuel at 134.7$/barrel. The final fuel cost (a year) is: CF $29.650.000. It could be also considered the oil consumption although it is less than 1% compared to fuel consumption, so it will be neglected. Crew salaries
Two crews of three members have to be permanently onboard. Raymer (1992) proposes the following CER for three-man crew cost:
$86
(16.3)
Where W0 = 2.543.594 lbs is the takeoff gross weight and VC = 90 kts is the cruise velocity. Remembering the economic escalation factor $11/$86:
$641.4 per block hour1

1
(16.4)
Block hour: total time the aircraft is in use, from the blocks removing before departure to its placing after arrival.
Project missions last more than two days, so it is not necessary to distinguish between block and flight hours. Annually, the crew salaries-related cost is: CS $2.000.000. Maintenance
Maintenance activities are scheduled by the number of accumulated flight hours or by cycles. Maintenance Man-hours per Flight Hour (MMH/FH) is assumed to be 40 (Raymer, 1992) for a long mission, i.e., for each flight hour it is needed 40 more for maintenance. The maintenance labor cost can be determinated from the manufacturing labor wrap-rate presented . Thus, annually we obtain: CM $13.165.000. earlier, Depreciation
61
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Depreciation is the allocation of the purchase price over the operating life of the aircraft. A straightline schedule provides a reasonable first estimate. CDEP = Unit cost1
1
/ years
After amortization unit cost for a production of 500 units
Assuming a value decrease of 10% after 30 years: CDEP $1.728.000 Overall O&M cost
(year) 16.4. Comparison
(16.5)
It is possible to analyze the exhibited results and the published costs published by companies (e.g. World SkyCat Ltd.) or organizations (e.g. NRAC) through the aforementioned direct comparisons: Unit cost. It is related to both the unit cost estimate (16-1) and the vehicle basic price (Table 16-3). Cost/production aircrafts. It is related to the development from Table 16-1. Operations and maintenance. It is related to both the deployment (Table 16-1) and the direct operating costs (Table 16-3), amounts which are expressed per year.
Table 16-7 Costs comparison
Unit cost Cost/Prod. Aircraft Operations and maintenance

1 2
Actual market $80M - $92M $10M - $20M (RDT&E) $1M - $6M (year)
Project results1 $500M $58M (RDT&E) $47M (year)
500 units production. 201 to 500 units (i.e. amortized cost).
16.5.
Results reliability
The formulation of the DARPA IV Aircraft airframe cost estimating relationships: all mission types study was carried out with the main characteristics of 20 aircrafts. The sample did not include any aircraft that were (are) both relatively large and fast. The maximum empty weight considered was the one from the Lockheed C5 (320.085 lbs), whereas the lowest maximum speed matched the Douglas C133 (304 kts). This point is illustrated in Fig. 16-5; notice that the weight-related variable is the airframe unit weight (lb) which a grossomodois equivalent to the half of the empty weight (the whole sample mean division value of both weights is 47%). Our project case is clearly not included in Fig 16-5. Neither the maximum speed nor the airframe unit kts) weight (or the empty weight) do not appear in the graph, being respectively too low ( lbs). and too high (
62

Figure 16-5 Aircrafts sample: airframe unit weight vs. max. speed
Study results concerning the specific bomber/transport subsample were published in a note called N2283/3AF Aircraft airframe cost estimating relationships: bombers and transports. The key result of this last effort was that the experts were unable to identify a single acceptable estimating relationship for any of the individual cost elements; this discouraging conclusion was not surprising, since the transport sample was very small (just 5 aircrafts) and heterogeneous. Hence, the expounded results about RDT&E and A cannot be considered as very feasible because they have been obtained thanks to a method thought for conventional aircrafts whose main characteristics are really different to these of our projected hybrid. Meanwhile, the O&M costs have been developed following theoretical explanations by Raymer (1992) who does not indicate the aircraft studied sample, its results validity range or whatever. Nevertheless the obtained value is really huge; such an important annual amount does not make sense because invalidates the whole project.
17.Conclusions
First its important to refer that the first problem in the project was thelack of resources to achieve a complete 3D analysis of the aircraftaerodynamics. The values presented in the report related to aerodynamics arenot very reliable for a real implementation of the project. These valueswere mostly accomplished from corrected 2D values from the airfoils withsome additional empiric considerationsmade. A wind tunnel analysis wasfundamental to establish a solid knowledge base and enable a further and more precise design. Another problem in the project is the incongruences with airfoils of thehull and wings working area. It was defined that the working area of theairfoils was between two angles, the zero lift angle and the stall angle.The hull's airfoil has a working area between -9.5 and -1.0 degrees and thewing's airfoil between -1.0 and 1.5 degrees. The most critical is clearlythe wing working area which it only allows to work in 2.5 degrees, it meansthat the takeoff climb angle and the landing descent angle will defer only 1degree to the cruise angle of attack. Even though the maneuverabilityexpectancy of an aircraft like this is already low, 2.5 degrees is extreme.A problem like this shouldn't happen at all since we started with the entireairfoil database at our disposal, however the lack of experience in thisfield didn't
63
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle allow us to notice this error sooner and when it was detectedit was already too late to perform the necessary changes. In an overall look of this project what was made was some sort of afuturistic concept on how heavy cargo hybrid airships may evolve. The designtakes into consideration a large number of engineering key points and canprove to be a design driver for future projects on the same concept. And onthis bombshell we present you with some rendered images of the airship.
64
Figures 17-1, 17-2, 17-3 and 17-4 Final configuration: different views
18.References
18.1.
Books
Cumpsty, Nicholas. Jet propulsion. A simple guide to aerodynamic and thermodynamic design and performance of jet engines. 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2003. Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design. A conceptual approach. 2nd Ed. AIAA Education Series. Washington DC, 1992. Brederode, Vasco de. Fundamentos de AerodinmicaIncompressvel. Author edition, 1997. Chun, H.H., et.al. Longitudinal Stability and Dynamic Motions of a Small Passenger WIG Craft. Ocean Engineering, 2002. 65
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle Corke, Thomas C. Design of Aircraft. Prentice Hall, 2002. Etkin, Bernard; Dynamics of Flight Stability and Control. 3th Ed. John Wiley & Sons, 1996. Roskeam, Dr. Jan, et. al.; Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance; DARcorporation, 1997. Caractersticas del helio para el transporte en dirigibles. Publicaciones de la UPM ETSIA, 2010.
18.2.

Papers/patents
Earl, T. Desmond.Air cushion landing gear applications study. NASA Report no. D7605927002. Buffalo (New York), 1979. Boghani, A. B.; Captain, K. M.; Wormley, D. N. Heave-pitch-roll analysis and testing of air cushion landing systems. NASA Contractor Report 2917.Waltham (Massachusetts), 1978. Munk, Jeffery Roger.Hybrid air vehicle having air cushion landing gear.US Patent no. 6880783 B2.Aylesbury (Buckinghamshire, GB), 2005. Earl, T. Desmond et al. Aircraft undercarriage.US Patent no. 3738597.Buffalo (New York), 1973. Earl, T. Desmond.Air cushion type undercarriage.US Patent no. 3790110.Buffalo (New York), 1974. Bonnin Stewart, H. M. Air-cushion landing system for a hybrid vehicle which is mounted on the underside of the payload module or passenger cabin. UK Patent no. 2445744 A. Wytham (Oxford, GB), 2008. Munk, Jeffery Roger.Lighter-than-air aircraft with air cushion landing gear means.US Patent no. 7040572 B2.Aylesbury (Buckinghamshire, GB), 2006. Gardner, Lloyd H. et al. Stol tactical aircraft investigation. Volume VI: air cushion landing system study. The Boeing Company. Seattle (Washington), 1972. Morehead, John P. et al. Retracting air cushioned landing system for air vehicles. US Patent no. 2010/0001128 A1. Irvine (California), 2010. Jenkins, Dave H. Air cushion trunk valving system for aircraft. US Patent no. 3844509. Lockheed Aircraft Co. Burbank (California), 1973. Lee, E.G.S. et al. Experimental and analytical studies of advanced air cushion landing systems.NASA Contractor Report 3476.Waltham (Massachusetts), 1981. Hess, R. W.; Romanoff, H. P. Airframe Cost Estimating Relationships: study approach and conclusions (R-3255-AF). RAND Corporation. 1987.
18.3.

Websites
http://www.ivchenko-progress.com/welcome.do?id=168 http://www.deagel.com/Turboprop-Aircraft-Engines/D-27_a000902001.aspx http://www.antonov.com/products/air/transport/AN-70/index.xml;jsessionid=a2CtdyDEtGIFlight Global - A400 article Retrieved: 1 November 2008 Rolls-Royce TP400-D6 datasheet Retrieved: 16 November 2009 http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/troph3.shtml http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/Kuznetsov-NK-12-RussianFederation.html http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/Klimov-TV7-117S-RussianFederation.html 66
Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/pw150a (PW150A datasheet) World Power Systems Briefing (Aero) - EuroProp International TP400 (feb 2007) United States Department Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index (CPI) www.bls.gov/cpi/ World SkyCat technical datasheet. World SkyCat Ltd. Wytham (Oxford), 2002.
67

AIAA2010 Example1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA2010 Example1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.2. 4.

6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.2.

6.2.1. 6.2.2. 6.3. 7.

Wing design .................................................................................................................................. 22 7.1. CFD: some basic background ............................................................................................... 24

Tail design ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Static margin ................................................................................................................................. 27

12.1. 12.1.1. 12.1.2. 12.2. 13.

13.1. 13.2. 13.3. 13.4. 13.5. 13.6. 14. 15. 16.

16.1. 16.2. 16.2.1. 16.2.2. 16.3. 16.4. 16.5. 17. 18.

18.1. 18.2. 18.3.

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Request for proposal. Summary of the AIAA general requirements

2. Competition on the market

Skycat 1000 0-100 9000 4000 2000000 1007 253 9215

Boeing Pelican 240 200000 9719 2800000 400 500 20 84598

Container Boat 24.1-25 365000000 1199.1 168 4700

Figure 2-1Antonov An-225 (left) and container boat (right)

Figure 2-2SkyCat 1000 (left) and Boeing Pelican (right)

Figure 3-1Conventional aircraft approach

Figure 3-2Inflated wing approach

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle 3.1.3. An airship alike

Figure 3-3 Airship alike approach. Starting design.

Table 3-1 Approachselectionmatrix

Relative weigth (%) 15 15 20 15 15 10 5 5 100/100

Conventional aircraft 1 5 2 1 3 4 2 5 2,65/5,00 7

Inflated wing 5 5 3 3 2 1 3 2 3,20/5,00

Airship alike 5 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 4,25/5,00

Figure 3-4Second iteration design: airship alike with canard configuration

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

4. Maximum take-off weight (MTOW)

Engine start-up and take off

Climb and accelerate to cruise conditions

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Cruise out to destination

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Thrust specific fuel consumption extrapolation

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Figure 4-1 TSFC for some engines

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Table 5-1 Coefficients and corresponding values

Comment Optimized within the allowed limits At cruise altitude (4500ft)

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Figure 51Design point

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Hull design selection

Figure 6-1 Sketch 1

Sketch 2. The modified and complex GOE 570 airfoil-shaped hull

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Figure 6-2 Sketch 2

Weight (%) 15 70 30 30 25 15 10 5 100/100

Figure6-3 GOE 570 airfoil

Parameters Thickness Camber Max CL Max CL angle 21

Values 33.7% 9.7% 2.417 15.0

Value 0,02 c 1.5 2*0.15=0.30 0.3 c/2= 0.15c 0.12

Figure 7-1 NACA 23024 Table 7-3Airfoil data

24.0% 2.8% 32.3% 14.6% 7.4% 1.36 15.0 27.038

Figure 7-2 NACA 23024 drag polar

CFD: some basic background

Ultra heavy lift hybrid air vehicle

Figure 7-3 Final mesh of the airfoil

Figure 7-4 Path lines colored velocity vector