Team One

Team Members: Saverio Rotella (Team Leader), Taylor Berry, Jeremy Bushey, Javier Esquivel, Geoff
Fishering, Walter Glowicki, Christopher Schwall, Daniel Steinbaugh
Outline of CDR
2
Sam
-Project Mission and Target Market -Propulsion
-Design Mission and Design Requirements -Structures
-Best Aircraft Concept -Weights and Balance
-Aircraft Sizing and Carpet Plots -Stability and Control
-Design Trade-offs -Environmental Impact
-Aircraft Description -Autonomy
-Aerodynamics -Cost
-Performance Summary -Summary
Project Mission and Target Market
Project Mission
Carry 100,000 lbs
Travel 6,500 miles
Cruise at Mach 0.85
Reduce Environmental Impact to N+2
Standards as set forth by NASA
Target Market
Primary Customer would be United States
Aiming to replace C-17
Sam
3
Design Mission and Design Requirements
Design Missions
Take-off <5,000 ft
Range: 6,500 mi
Altitude: 3,000 ft
Mach 0.85
No Refueling
Payload: 100,000 lb
Landing <3,000 ft
Requirements
Minimum Range of 6,500 miles
Cruise at Mach 0.85
Carry a minimum of 100,000 lb
Meet N+2 standards set forth by NASA
Consider Autonomy



4
Sam
Aircraft Concept Improvements
Reduction in noise and Nox emissions
Reduction in fuel burn by 40% compared
to C-17 ferry mission.
Reduced induced drag by 10% by
incorporating Box Wing design.
Shorter take-off distance
Engines mounted above wing to protect
from ground debris and noise shielding
5
Chris
Aircraft Walk-Around
Double-Bubble Fuselage:
-Added Lift
-Added Cargo Volume
Boxed Wing:
-Reduced Induced Drag
-Higher Effective AR
-Reduce Structural Weight
-Added Fuel Storage
Above-Wing Engines:
-Debris Shielding
-Noise Shielding
Landing Gear Fairings :
-Reduce Noise
-Reduce Drag
Chevrons:
-Noise Reductions
Ultra Compact Combustor/Counter-Rotating
Turbine:
-Increase Engine Efficiency
-Reduce Fuel Burn
High T-Tail:
-Reduce Takeoff distance
-Increase Loadability
Ramp:
-Easy loading
Supercritical Airfoil:
-Improved transonic
performance
Jeremy
Final Design Weights & Parameters
Design Values XT1 Globetrotter
TOGW 499,500 lb
Empty Weight 275,000 lb
Typical Range 5,600 nmi (6500 mi)
Typical Payload 100,000 lb
Max. Range 10,100 nmi
Max. Payload 170,000 lb
Take-off Distance 4,850 ft.
Landing Distance 2,950 ft.
Acquisition Cost (USD 2012) $ 180,000,000
Operating Cost (USD 2012) $ 800,000/Year
Development Cost (USD 2012) $ 5,730,000/AC
Design Parameter
Thrust -to-weight 0.27
Wing Loading 130 lb/ft^2
Wing Sweep 25 deg.
Wing Span 156 ft.
Aspect Ratio 8.3
Climb Rate 2000 ft/min
Cruise Mach 0.83-0.85
Cruise Altitude 28,000 ft.
Clmax 2.9
MAC 17 ft.
7
Chris
Sizing Code
Development
8
Sizing Code
Iterative MATLAB script using computed TOGW
Features:
Fuselage dimensions from Payload layout
VSP calculated Fuselage wetted area
Wing/Engine wetted area calculations and
weight calculations from Raymer for Tube and
Wing
Box wing modifications and calculations were
self determined.
Drag Component Build-up



Taylor
9
Fuselage Sizing
Determine dimensions of payload section
Add clearance
Other important dimensions:
Cockpit
Ramp
APU
Lavatory
Geometrically Determine necessary
nose/tail lengths
Length, diameter of fuselage calculated
Taylor
10
Fixed Performance Parameters
CL_max = 2.9
Based on Airfoil, Implemented HLDs
t/c = 0.12
Supercritical Airfoil
Wing Sweep: 25 degrees
To prevent transonic wave drag
Taper Ratio: 0.4
Chosen from calibration of C-17

Taylor
11
Box wing Estimation
In the sizing code the box wing was
treated as two separate wings as shown
to the right.

The wing area for bottom was
calculated by assuming the wing will
need to lift ~60% of the aircrafts weight.

The wing area for the top wing was
calculated by assuming that the wing
will need to lift the remaining ~40% of
the aircraft.

The wing weight was then calculated for
both of the wings separately and added
together.
Photo provided by: Khan, Fahad A., Lule University of Technology,
Preliminary Aerodynamic Investigation of Box-Wing
Configurations using Low Fidelity Codes.
12
Chris
Sizing Code Calibration Using the C-17
Globemaster
Aircraft
Specifications
C-17
Globemaster
III
Results
from Sizing
code
Percent
error
[%]
Fuselage Length 174 [ft] 174 [ft] Input
Parameter
Wing Span 169 [ft] 156 [ft] 7.6
Wing Area 3800 [ft^2] 3400 [ft] 10.5
Horizontal Tail Area 845 [ft^2] 950[ft^2] 10.9
Empty Weight 276500 277600 0.39
TOGW 585000 509100 12.9
The aircraft was calibrated using our modified engine deck and code
which was researched and predicted to reduce the fuel consumption by
~10%. This results in the TOGW to be less than the actual which the
code found it to be ~13% lighter.
13
Chris
Concept Comparison
Double Bubble Box Wing
Takeoff Gross Weight: lbs
Fuel Weight: lbs
Payload Weight: 100600 lbs
Empty Weight: 275000 lbs
------------------------------------------------------------
Empty Weight breakdown
------------------------------------------------------------
Wing: 86078 lbs
Fuselage: 56345 lbs
Vtail: 1719 lbs
Engines: 24714 lbs
Gear: 21438 lbs
Misc: 84757 lbs
------------------------------------------------------------
Costs :
Acquisition Cost : $ 180,000,000 (USD 2012)
Operating Cost: $ 800,000 (USD 2012)
Performance:
Takeoff Distance:
Landing Distance:
Elliptical Tube and Wing
Takeoff Gross Weight: lbs
Fuel Weight: lbs
Payload Weight: 100600 lbs
Empty Weight: 301808 lbs
------------------------------------------------------------
Empty Weight breakdown
------------------------------------------------------------
Wing: 87613 lbs
Fuselage: 53785 lbs
Vtail: 4624 lbs
Htail: 7391 lbs
Engines: 28295 lbs
Gear: 24245 lbs
Misc: 95854 lbs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costs :
Acquisition Cost : $ 197,000,000 (USD 2012)
Operating Cost: $ 890,000 (USD 2012)
Performance:
Takeoff Distance:
Landing Distance:

14
Chris
Cross-Plots
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Specific Excess Power Cross-Plots
Wing Loading (lb/ft
2
)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

E
x
c
e
s
s

P
o
w
e
r

(
l
b
f
)


T/W = .3
T/W = .25
T/W = .2
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Landing Distance Cross-Plots
Wing Loading (lb/ft
2
)
L
a
n
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Takeoff Distance Cross-Plots
Wing Loading (lb/ft
2
)
T
a
k
e
o
f
f

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)


T/W = .2
T/W = .25
T/W = .3
Ran code for wing loading range of 40
to 160 pounds per square foot at three
different thrust-to-weights: .2, .25, and
.3. This gave a range of design points
to be plotted on final carpet plot.

Jeremy
15
Carpet Plot
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
x 10
5
Thrust-Weight Carpet Plot
W/S [lb/ft
2
]
W
T
O

[
l
b
]


T/W = 0.2
T/W = 0.25
T/W = 0.3
dist
TO
< 5000 ft
Specfic Power > 50
Design Point
Constraints:
-Specific Power > 50
-Takeoff Distance < 5000 ft
-Landing Distance < 3000 ft

Design Point:
-Wing Loading of 130
pounds per square foot
-Thrust-to-Weight of .27
-TOGW of 499500 lbs
16 Chris
Fuel Efficiency Trade-off
The Fuel efficiency for the
C-17 was calculated from
ferry.

Our constraint is to burn
50% less fuel than the C-
17 on the same typical
mission but information
was unavailable.

Assuming that the ferry
efficiency is the most
efficient full burn then the
design point was chosen to
be within 40-50% of the
ferry efficiency.
Design Point: W/S = 130 lb/ft^3
T/W = 0.27

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fuel Burn Carpet Plot
W/S [lb/ft
3
]
F
u
e
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
l
b
/
n
m
i
]


T/W = 0.2
T/W = 0.25
T/W = 0.3
Fuel/nmi < 50% C-17
Fuel/nmi < 40% C-17
Design Point
17 Chris
Design Trade-offs
Box wing reduces induced drag and has a lower structural
weight but results in a small increase in parasite drag.
T-tail decreases drag due to endplate and increases rate of
pitch but increases structural weight.
Engines on top allow for noise reduction and debris
shielding but increased maintenance.
Electric Taxi decreases fuel burn but increases the empty
weight.
Double bubble allows for increase in lift from the fuselage
but increases the parasite drag.

Technology trade-offs are examined in the Propulsion
section.
18 Chris
Final Aircraft Dimensions
161 ft.
133 ft.
19
Jeremy
Fuselage Layout
L = 161 ft.
D = 32
ft.
= 463L Master Pallets

= Landing Gear

= Loading Ramp
Component Length (in) Width (in)
Pallet 108 88
Ramp 234 216
15 ft.
Taylor
20
Aerodynamics
Airfoil selection, wanted to select a supercritical airfoil
to delay effects of drag divergent Mach number.
Starting point was C-17 airfoil: sc(2)-0412
More lift created using the sc(2)-0612 ~ 10%

Geoff
21
High Lift Devices
Implementing two high lift devices:
-Slats -Triple Slotted
Flaps:



max
1.9
l
C A =
max
.4
l
C A =
Values from Raymer Table: 12.2
Geoff
22
CL Max
Sc(2) 0612 :
Addition of slats:
Addition of triple:
Total:

max
1.264
l
C =
max
.4
l
C A =
max
1.9
l
C A =
max
3.564
l
C =
max max .25
.9 cos
L l c
C C = A Equation 12.15
max
2.9
L
C =
Final Value:
Geoff
23
Code Drag Prediction
Total drag equals summation of two
separate forms:


Need these values in order to compute
final drag, that value is used in our weight
and fuel codes.






0 i
D D D
C C C = +
Geoff
24
Parasite Drag
Component Build Up


Allows for drag calculation during
different stages, but cruise conditions
were used for fuel predictions.
Allows calculation of pressure drag
caused by large upsweep at the rear of
the aircraft.




0
&
( )
c
misc Wave
fc c c wet
D D DL P D
ref
C FFQ S
C C C C
S
= + + +

Raymer (12.42)
Geoff
25
Wave Drag

C
D
W

0 s C
D
W
s .002
Geoff
26
Comparison
Verify results by comparing to initial
estimates from Raymer.


Initial estimate = .0355
Final estimate using component build
up, plus wave and misc. drag = .0325








C
D
0
= C
fe
S
wet
S
ref
Raymer (12.23)
.0035
fe
C =
Geoff
27
Induced Drag
Use equation 5.62 from Anderson



2
( R) e
i
L
D
C
C
A t
= .67
L
C =
Using our calculated vales of AR = 8.3, and e = .6822
.0231
i
D
C =
Geoff
0
.0586
i
D D D
C C C = + =
28
Performance Summary
Design Values XT1 Globetrotter
Typical Range 5,600 nmi (6500 mi)
Typical Payload 100,000 lb
Max. Range 10,100 nmi
Max. Payload 170,000 lb
Take-off Distance 4,850 ft.
Landing Distance 2,950 ft.
Climb Rate 2000 ft/min
Cruise Mach 0.83-0.85
Clmax 3
Thrust -to-weight 0.27
28
Chris
Tech
Engine:
Ultra Compact Combustor [1, 2, 3]
Increased efficiency, reduced emissions, reduced engine length
Counter-Rotating Turbine [4, 5]
Reduced pressure losses, increased efficiency
Chevrons [6, 7]
Decreased noise
Scarfed Inlet [8]
Noise deflection, debris ingestion shielding, improved performance at
positive AoA
Frequency Adjustable Acoustic Liners [9]
Improved noise performance
Other:
Lading Gear Fairings [10]
Reduced drag and noise
Electric Taxiing [11, 12]
Reduced emissions and fuel consumption
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_787_engine_chevrons.jpg
Figure from Reference [3]
Dan
30
Engine Description
High bypass geared turbofan with ultra
compact combustor and counter rotating
turbines
B=14.3
OPR=42
FPR=1.5
Low CPR=2.33
High CPR=12
Gear ratio = 2.0
Engine deck Tsls = 23369.2 lb with SFC =
0.2569

Data from ref [13]
Dan
31
Modeling the engine
Using engine deck from NASA, found
efficiencies at design condition using 1D
equations interation
Changed the efficiencies to reflect the new
tech and added inlet and nozzles with
typical efficiencies
Using outputs from 1D eqns, scaled engine
deck to reflect new tech and installation
losses
Validated scaling using Raymer:
1% pressure loss at inlet = 1.3% specific thrust
loss
Dan
32
V-n Diagram
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Equivalent Speed (ft/s)
L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r
Sam
33
Important Load Paths
Sam

34
Wing-Fuselage Intersection and Engine Pylons
Wing Fuselage Intersection
Front wings
Low wing carry through
Connects to longerons
Back wings
High wing carry through
Connects to T-tail
Engine Mounts
Attaches to top of wing to front spar
Sam
35
Landing Gear
Gear Set Length (ft) Width (ft) Height (ft)
Main Gear 10.2 4.2 5
Nose Gear 3.55 4.85 3.55
Main Gear: 2x3 bogey (from 777)
*Sized using Raymer Chapter 11
Sam 36
Materials Selection
Steel
Spars, longerons, keelson, landing gear,
and wing attachments
Aluminum-2024
Skin of aircraft, stringers, engine pylons,
flaps, etc.
Sam
37
Aircraft Group Weights
Structures Weights, lb Loc., ft Moment, ft-lb Equipment Weights, lb Loc., ft Moment, ft-lb
Wing 86077.64703 60.87 5239546.375 Flight Controls 81.56 80.56 6570.242097
Vertical tail 1719.326071 147.7 253944.4607 APU 1,320.00 159.34 210328.8
Fuselage 56345 70.62 3979083.9 Electrical 1,762.85 80.56 142015.5007
Main Landing Gear 17150.75811 60.98 1045853.229 Avionics 1,840.27 9.27 17059.29197
Nose Landing Gear 4287.689527 27.81 119240.6457 Anti-icing 999.09 60.87 60814.786
Load and handling 1,584.00 68.11 107886.24
Propulsion Weights, lb Loc., ft Moment, ft-lb
Engine(s) - installed 24713.5 71.7 1771957.95 Useful load Weights, lb Loc., ft Moment, ft-lb
Engine Controls 46.69651544 71.7 3348.140157 Crew 600.00 10 6000
Starter 285.9980757 71.7 20506.06203 Fuel - usable 123,895.88 57.42 7114101.43
Fuel System/tanks 343.2067933 80.56 27648.73927 Cargo/Payload 100,600.00 72.14 7257284
TOGW 499546
Empty Weight breakdown
____________________________________
Wing: 86078 lb
Fuselage: 56345 lb
Vtail: 1719 lb
Engines: 24714 lb
Gear: 21438 lb
Misc: 84757 lb
38
Javier
C.G. Calculation
39
Javier
Stability and Control
40
Javier
C.G. Travel Diagram
41
Javier
Using historical data from Raymer,
volume coefficient eqns used
Elevator C_e/C_ht=.25, b_e=.9*b_ht
(assumed normal T-tail)
Aileron C_a/C_w=.15 to .25, b_a=.4b_w
positioned .5b_w to .9b_w
Rudder C_r/C_vt = 0.35, b_r = .9b_vt
Dan
42
Fuel Burn
Calculated when aircraft is acting as a Ferry




* Fuel Burn Measured in lb-Fuel/nmi
Fuel Burn Reduction
Globetrotter 19.75 -------
C-17 38.06 48%
777-200ER 34 44%
Walter
43
NOx Reduction
NOx Calculation done by Matlab Code
Equation to Calculate NOx (From Gas Turbine Combustion:
Alternative Fuels and Emissions) [4]
Emissions (g/kN) = (NOx Index + Fuel Flow + Time In Mode) / Max Thrust at Sea
Level




Percent Below CAPE/6 = 71%

Use of geared turbofan engine combined with compact combustor led to
reduction in Nox

Total NOx Emissions (with cruise included) = 34.67 (g/kN)
CAPE / 6 63.36
Ours 18.35
Walter
44
Noise Reduction
Features used to reduce community
noise
Geared Turbofan [1]
22 EPNdB approximate cumulative reduction
Noise Shielding [2]
20 EPNdB approximate cumulative reduction
(tested with chevrons)
Landing Gear Fairings
4.50 EPNdB approximate cumulative reduction
Acoustic Liners
3 EPNdB approximate cumulative reduction
Walter
45
Aircraft Noise Estimation
Roughly Followed Professor Kroos Noise Calculation method set fourth in his Aircraft
Design, Synthesis, and Analysis Book [3]
Use Boeing 747-400 Freighter as baseline data (ICAO Noise Database)












Total Cumulative Noise Reduction: 49.5 EPNdB

* Aircraft Noise Estimation Estimation = 40 + 10 log W
Sideline
EPNdB
Take Off
EPNdB
Approach
EPNdB
Baseline 99.7 101.5 104.7
Geared Turbofan -7.333 -7.333 -7.333
Noise Shielding 0 -5 -15
Acoustic Liners -1 -1 -1
Landing Gear
Fairings
0 -2.25 -2.25
Airframe Noise* -1.8684 -1.8684 -1.8684
Total 89.507 84.0486 79.117
Walter
46
Autonomy
Three options for approaches:
Completely Autonomous
Remove one pilot and replace with an
autopilot
Do nothing in terms of Autopilot
Issues with autonomy:
Technology
Safety
Integration amongst civilian population
Sam
47
Cost
Currently 239 C-17s in service that are
operated by the United States government
Throughout course of production, the C-17s
will have accumulated 30 years of service and
will need to be retired or upgraded at a
significant cost
Cost Dollars (2012)
Developmental 6 Mil
Acquisition 180 Mil
Operating 800,000
Sam
48
Cost Calculation Methods
Equations were taken from Aircraft
Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4
th

Edition, by Daniel Raymer
Calibrated acquisition cost to the cost to
purchase a C-17, then used calibration
factor to calibrated operating cost as well
Sam
49
Summary
50 Sam
Compliance Matrix
Final Compliance Matrix
Requirement Target Threshold Double Bubble
Range (w/ max payload) 2200 nmi 1800 nmi 2,400 nmi
Range (w/ typical payload) 6517 nmi 5648 nmi 5,648 nmi
Max Payload 195,000 lb 160,000 lb 170,000 lb
Typical Payload 130,000 lb 100,000 lb 100,000 lb
Cruise Mach Number 0.85 >0.74 0.85
Landing Field Length <3,000 ft <3,500 ft ~2950ft
Takeoff Field Length <5,500 ft <6,000 ft ~4900 ft
Design Mission Fuel
Burned
<107,600
lb <129,100 lb *123,600 lb
Acquisition Cost <$202M <$240M $180M
= Equal to/Greater Than Target
= Beats Threshold, Does not meet
Target
= Does Not meet Threshold

*=Based on Ferry

Chris
51
Future Work
Drag Polars for airplane
Find a better way to determine
aerodynamic center of box wing
Further analysis on noise reduction and
NOx emission
Re-adjust Landing Gear
Determine Lift generated from body
52
Sam
References
[2] Envia, E. Emerging Community Noise Reduction Approaches, 3rd AIAA Space
Environments Conference, AIAA, Honolulu, HI, 2011
[1] Pure Power PW1000G Engine, Pratt and Whitney, East Hartford, CT,
[http://www.purepowerengine.com/]
[3] Kroo, I.,Aircraft Design: Synthisis and Analysis, Stanford University, California,
2006. [http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/AircraftDesign.html Acessed 4/2/2012]
[4] Lefebrve, A., Ballal, D. Gas Turbine Combustion: Alternative Fuels and
Emissions, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2010.




53
References
1. Donald D. Johnson, Marc D. Polanka. Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB, Ohio, 45433, U.S.A. Cooling
Requirements for an Ultra-Compact Combustor AIAA 2012-0948
2. Zelina, J. Ehret, R. D. Hancock, D. T. Shouse and W. M. Roquemore, G. J. Sturgess. Air Force Research
Laboratory WPAFB, OH 45433. ULTRA-COMPACT COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY USING HIGH SWIRL FOR
ENHANCED BURNING RATE AIAA2002-3725
3. Alejandro M. Briones, Joseph Zelina, Viswanath R. Katta. Flame Stabilization in Small Cavities. AIAA 44162-759
4. David Lior. Technion, Institute of Technology. Haifa, Israel 32000. Rafael Priampolsky. Becker Engineering ltd.
Rehovot, Israel 76706. Stator-Less Turbine Design. AIAA-2005-4220-400
5. Qingjun Zhao, Jiafei Qiao, Huishe Wang, Xiaolu Zhao, and Jianzhong Xu. Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences 1, Beijing, 100190, China. Experimental and Numerical Investigation on Flow
Characteristics of a Vaneless Counter-Rotating Turbine at Off-Design Conditions. AIAA-2009-4835-346
6. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel
=awst&id=news/awst/2012/01/16/AW_01_16_2012_p21-
413463.xml&headline=Surprising%20Designs%20For%20E co-friendly%20Airliner&next=10
7. http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2011/nrl- researchers-study-ways-to-reduce-jet-aircraft-noise
8. Donald S. Weir, Bruce Bouldin, and Jeff M. Mendoza. Static and Flight Aeroacoustic Evaluations of a Scarf inlet.
Honeywell Engines, Systems, and Services, Phoenix, AZ, 85072, USA
9. Michael Perrino, Jeff Kastner, Ephraim Gutmark, Sivaram Gogineni. Towards Development of an Active Single-
Layer Acoustic Liner for Jet Engine Noise Reduction. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221
10. Perforated Fairings for Landing Gear Noise Control - K. Boorsma and X. Zhang N. Molin AIAA
11. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/greener_aircraft.html
12. http://honeywell.com/News/Pages/Safran-and-Honeywell-Commence-Electric-Green-Taxiing-System-Testing.aspx
13. Mark D. Guynn, Jeffrey J. Berton, Kenneth L. Fisher, William J. Haller, Michael T. Tong, Douglas R. Thurman.
Refined Exploration of Turbofan Design Options for an Advanced Single-Aisle Transport. Glenn Research Center,
Cleveland, Ohio
54