Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Vehicle Description
ccan
xcan = lnose/2
yprop
xprop
xwing
Dfus
Dnac
2/3 * ltail
Dprop
cwing
0.3 * cwing
bwing
30
bfin
zcan
Key:
Vehcile orientation: Arrow
head = front of vehicle
Takeoff
Vertically
Flight Path
Land
Vertically
Xt
X
b
X = X f
X g
X s
t wing
t
can
Xt =
t fus
t nac
x pl
cr
Xf =
V
Vcr
max
Slack Variables
W ing skin thickness
Canard skin thickness
Angle
of
Attack,
V
max
Cruise Speed
Xg
D fus
b
fin
can , cr
can , V
= x wing
c wing
c
can
bwing
b
can
Xb
x b Propeller x position
y Propeller y position
b
D
Propeller diameter
p
D
Pitch:
diameter ratio
w W ashout, root - to tip
= h = Collective pitch - hover
Collective pitch - cruise
cr
V Collective pitch - Vmax
P Power at Hover and V
max
max
Pcr
Power in cruise
Nacelle diameter
Dnac
max
max
Fusealge Diameter
Fin Span
W ing chord
Canard chord
W ing Span
Canard Spa n
=
x cs Tentative Control System cg
4
2
0
4
2
3
2
1
6
0
4
1
2
2
1
3
1
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Spanwise Coordinate (ft)
3.5
4.5
8
7
6
5
4
Engine Model
3
2
1
0
1
0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Spanwise Coordinate (ft)
3.5
4.5
X me =
1.5 g 0 + ( L max m)
g ( L max l w M max ) I
where:
g = acceleration due to gravity
X me = max negative excursion
( about CG )
m = vehicle mass
I = vehicle pitch inertia
l w = dis tan ce between wing qtr chord and CG
L
M
lw
z
x
Important assumptions about the vehicle model were as
follows.
Conditions were assumed to be low-speed near
hover.
No body lift / drag forces were used.
Flow in the propeller prop-wash region was
assumed to remain axial.
No lift or drag forces were generated by the canard
or wing regions outside the propwash zones.
The only significant forces accounted for were
thrust, vehicle weight, wing normal force and
pitching moment. The latter two forces arise from
the deflected elevon control surfaces in the
propeller slipstream.
Body vertical motion was ignored and assumed
easily controlled by slight thrust variations.
Using these assumptions it is possible to derive the
force and moment balance differential equations and
from these obtain a simple expression for the maximum
Number
1
1
6
2
4
2
1
1
4
3
Propeller clearances
Engine size and volume
Power consistency
Ground Tip over angle
Weight consistency
3
3
1
1
1
15
Comments
Thrust must exceed vehicle weight by 15%.
Maximum excursion < 2.0 ft from equilibrium when disturbed by a 20 step tilt
input.
Lift = Weight; Thrust = Drag; Vehicle must be in trim. (Both cases).
Longitudinal static margin > 5% for cruise and max speed cases.
Wing, canard, body and nacelle maximum strains < 4000 s.
Wing root strains for symmetric and unsymmetric drop cases < 4000 s.
Maximum wing twist < 4 at ultimate load.
Maximum hinge-line deflection < 10% of wing semi-span.
Wing, canard, nacelle and body facesheet gauges >= 0.015.
Payload, fuel and control system volumes must not intersect and must fit within
vehicle.
Certain prescribed clearances from wing, canard and fuselage.
Engine must fit in nacelle in terms of total volume, frontal area and length.
Engine RPM in hover = engine RPM at max speed.
Fin size and CG location must ensure that tip over angle < 20.
Tentative MTOW = calculated MTOW. (Tentative MTOW is a slack variable to
avoid iterations for MTOW.
Tentative control system CG position = calculated position. (This is also a slack
variable to avoid iteration).
Various clearance and positioning constraints (eg that the nacelles lie on the
wings!) as well as reasonable constraints and bounds on variables.
V = 0; = 0;
Cruise Case
max
f ( X b , RPMmax , VV
, Vmax )
(Grid , A ) = f ( X g , can,Vmax )
(Grid , A ) = f ( X g , can,cr )
= f (X b , RPMcr , Vcr , cr )
( v ia , v it , Tcr , Pcr , p , c p )
Important Parameters:
Dcr = Drag
Structural Constraints:
, MVmax )
= f (A,Vmax , Vmax , v ia , v it )
max
( LVmax , Di ,V
( I , x cg m ) = f (W ' s, X g );
Wempty , Wpayload );
W fuel = f ( p , c p ,( L / D)cr ,
Weight Model:
T = Torsions
M = Bending Moments
Wto = Wto,guess;
Phov = PVmax ;
V = Shear Forces
Propeller Clearances;
Iblade , max )
MSbody = f (X g , X t, Vwing );
Consumption
c p = Specific HP Fuel
L
( )cr = Lift: Drag Ratio
D
p = Prop Efficiency
Static Stability;
Trim;
Hover Constraints:
Cd 0 = f ( X g , C f );
Calculate Cd0 :
= f (A,Vcr , cr , v ia , v it )
Cruise Variables
max
, no canard )
Dhov = Drag 0
f ( X g , el
= f (A, v ia , v it );
Hover Variables:
Variables:
Intermediate Aero
Hover Case
= f (X b , RPM max )
( v ia , v it , Thov , Phov )
X t = structual thicknesses
Basic Variables:
1.6
1.5
Starting Points
End Points
1.4
Results
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.6
Fuselage Length, (ft)
4.8
5.2
50
1.2
1.1
Wing Chord
40
35
30
Starting Points
End Points
25
Wing Span
1
0.9
Canard Chord
0.8
0.7
0.6
20
120
140
160
200
180
Takeoff Weight, (lbs)
220
240
0.5
0.4
0
10
20
30
Step Number
40
50
60
O
+
O
+
Vehicle Results
Several
interesting
observations
about
the
configurations selected by the optimiser are
appropriate:
One of the predominant features of all the designs
produced to date has been the clear preference for
short fuselages. Although this results in sacrificing
moment arm length for the wing control surfaces,
this is more than offset by the reduction in pitch
inertia in terms of meeting the hover control
requirements.
All the optimised configurations gravitated towards
having alignment between the canard tip and the fin
and propeller location. If the wing planform
efficiency is plotted as a function of fin position for
fixed wing and canard sizes this position
corresponds to a local maximum.
The sensitivity of the vehicle design to range, payload,
maximum speed, structural weight to skin weight ratio
and engine weight to horsepower ratio were also
investigated. Some of the results of these sensitivity
studies are shown in the graphs below. For all the
results, a baseline vehicle with the parameters shown in
Table 4 was used.
**
Value
400 miles
40 lbs
250 fps
1.4
1.5 lbs/HP
2.0 ft
400
350
300
250
200
150
Wing Span
Canard Span
Propeller Diameter
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
100
400
600
800
1000
Range (miles)
1200
1400
1600
135
140
145
150
155
160
Maximum Speed (kts)
165
170
175
180
Further Work
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
6
10
12
Endurance (hrs)
14
16
18
3
130
250
200
150
100
130
140
150
160
170
Maximum Speed (kts)
180
190
Conclusions
In conclusion it can be stated that the proposed
configuration shows great promise in marrying the dual
requirements of VTOL with efficient forward flight in
a relatively simple design. The vehicle considered in
this paper has shown itself to be a promising concept
References
1