Asgard Aviation (formerly team 2)

ASGARD AVIATION(FORMERLY TEAM 2)

Logan WaddellMorgan BuchananErik SusemichelAaron Foster

Craig WikertAdam AtaLi TanMatt Haas

1

2

OutlineI. Mission StatementII. Market and Customers

a. Market sizeb. Customer Benefits / Needs

III. CompetitionIV. Concept of Operations

a. Representative City Pairsb. Payload / Capacityc. Design Mission

V. System Design Requirementsa. Design Requirementsb. Benchmarking

VI. Technologies / Advanced ConceptsVII. Initial Sizing

3

Mission Statement To design an environmentally responsible aircraft

that sufficiently completes the “N+2” requirements for the NASA green aviation challenge.

“N+2” Goals○ Burn 50% less fuel burn○ Cumulative -42 dB noise reduction (Approach, Landing, Taxi)○ 75% reduction in LTO nitrogen oxide emissions

4

Customer Needs / Benefits

NASA○ “N+2” goals

Airlines

General PublicAirport Noise levels

5

Market / Customers

*Boeing

• Twin Aisle - Value ($B) ~3,600

• Twin Aisle – 7,100 new airplanes

• Boeing projects the worlds fleet to double by 2029

6

Market / Customers

*Boeing

• Steady increase in RPK since 1977, ~ 5% annually

• Largest Markets: Asia-Pacific, North America, Europe

7

Competition Similar size aircraft:

○ Boeing 767-300, 757-300, 787○ Airbus A330-200

High speed rail○ Bullet trains

Boeing 757 and 767

8

CONOPS - City Pairs Mission design represents popular routes Examples Routes Great Circle Distance Passengers /

Year ____________________________(nm)__________________________

Domestic range requirement of 3200 nm based on: MIA to SEA facing 65 kts headwind FAR Reserves

London New York 2999 1609337Miami Seattle 2363 N/ANew York San Francisco 2224 909514Los Angeles New York 2145 1697593Miami New York 948 955838Atlanta New York 659 935265Chicago New York 641 1182326Las Vegas Los Angeles 205 924732Boston New York 162 988976

9

Runway Length

*MIT

Airport Runway lengths (ft)

JFK 14572

ORD 13001

LAX 12091

SFO 11870

LHR 12799

LAS 14510

MIA 13000

ATL 11890

BOS 10083

SEA 11900

10

Aircraft Payload / Passenger Capacity 250 Passengers 180 lb/passenger Baggage 50 lb/passenger On board Baggage 15 lb/passenger

7 Crew Members 180 lb/crew Baggage 30 lb/crew

Wpayload = 61250 lbs

Wcrew = 1470 lbs

11

Design Mission

12

Typical Operating Mission

Typical Design Missions

Aircraft Qualities Aircraft Limitations Typical Design Mission

Range 4,000 nm 750 nm

City Pairs Seattle to Miami Chicago to New York

Passengers 250 212

Cruise Altitude 35,000 ft 30,000 ft

Reserve Segments 200 nm 100 nm

Takeoff Weight 268,000 lbs 243,100 lbs

Mach Number 0.8 0.8

13

Design RequirementsCompliance Matrix

Requirement Unit Target Threshold Current

Range naut. miles 4000 3600 -

Payload pax 250 230 250

Cruise Mach # - 0.8 0.76 0.8

Runway Length (Takeoff) ft 7000 9000 -

Runway Length (Landing) ft 6000 6500 -

Emissions g/kN thrust 15 22 -

Noise (Cum.) dB -42 -32 -

Fuel Burn (SFC)-Cruise lb/(lbs*hr) 0.3 0.45 -

14

Design RequirementsNoise

(below stage 4)-42 dB

LTO NOx Emissions

(below CAEP 6)

-75%

Performance: Aircraft Fuel

Burn

-50%

Performance:Field Length

-50%

ERA N+2 Requirements

Noise prediction/reduction technologies for airframe/propulsion systems

Emissions-reduction technologies (mainly NOx)

Alternative Fuel Usage Improved vehicle

performance from: Lightweight, durable structures High-lift aerodynamics Higher bypass ratio engines

NASA Subsonic Fixed Wing Project Goals:

15

Benchmarking

Max Passenge

rs OEW (lb)Max Takeoff Weight (lb)

Max Payload (lb)

Usable Fuel (lb)

Cruise Mach #

Max Field Length (ft)

Max Range (nmi)

Boeing 757-200PF 279 142,350 270,000 38,200 79,980 0.80 13,500 4,750

Boeing 767-200ER 255 181,610 395,000 78,500 161,738 0.80 13,000 6,385

Boeing 777-200LR 301 320,000 766,000 141,000 320,863 0.84 14,000 9,395

Airbus A321-200 220 103,527 187,393 54,000 51,370 0.79 15,000 3,200

Airbus A330-200 380 264,845 480,607 115,012 97,530 0.82 15,000 7,250

•Info on Boeing aircraft from boeing.com•Info on Airbus aircraft from airbus.com

16

Technologies/Advanced Concepts Fuel Burn

Spiroid winglets Advanced engine

concepts Noise

Landing gear Emissions

Less fuel burn

17

Technologies/Advanced concepts Winglets

○ Blended

○ Spiroid

○ Multi-Winglets

18

Geared Turbofan Engine Pratt & Whitney currently has a line of geared

turbofan engines called the PurePower family. Developing advanced GTF for Airbus and Boeing next gen narrow body replacement aircraft.

Geared Turbofan allows fan to operate at lower speeds while compressor and turbine operate at high speeds.

Provides 12%-15% improvement in fuel burn range, 50% NOx emissions reduction, and 20 dB decrease from CAEP noise standards

19

Affordable Large Integrated Structures Eliminates structural discontinuities and

fastened assemblies Reduction in part count Lower manufacturing time and cost

Northrop Grumman

20

Landing Gear Fairings Reduces the noise in the mid and high

frequency domain compared to the plain landing gear configuration up to 4.5 dB

Reduces vortex shedding due to bluff-body nature of nose and main landing gear

Northrop Grumman

Hybrid Laminar Flow Control

21

•Active drag reduction technique•Design of the suction surface •Chambers underneath the perforated skin •Applied to the vertical and horizontal tail reduces drag by 1%

*Clean Sky

22

Composite Materials Lighter weight

○ High strength to weight ratio○ Reduction of overall weight 20% or more

Stronger ○ Graphite/epoxy composite○ Greater resistance to damage from cyclic loading

Hybrid○ Addition of fiberglass or kevlar ○ Creates greater fatigue toughness○ Impact resistance

23

Sizing•Using MATLAB to create a comprehensive sizing code based on first order method from Raymer text

•Empty weight prediction based off of Raymer database (Table 3.1)

• Equation Used: We/W0=A*W0C*Kvs

•Fuel weight prediction based on drag and fuel burn predictions

• Climb, Landing, Warmup and Takeoff fractions used historical data• Cruise fraction used Breguet range equation:

• exp(-R*C/(V*L/D))• Loiter fraction used endurance equation:

• exp(-E*C/(L/D))•L/D prediction

• Equation Used: L/D = 1.4*AR+7.1

24

Aircraft DatabasePublished Information (from Jane’s All the Worlds Aircraft and Boeing.com)

Boeing 767-200ER Airbus A330-200

Range 6,545 [nmi] 6,750 [nmi]

Takeoff Gross Weight 395,000 [lb] 507,050 [lb]

Empty Weight (OWE) 184,400 [lb] 263,075 [lb]

Fuel Weight 159,920 [lb] 186,255 [lb]

Total Fuel capacity 23,980 [gal] 36,750 [gal]

Boeing 767-200ER Airbus A330-200

25

Sizing Code Predictions

Actual Prediction % Error

Gross Takeoff Weight

395,000 [lb] 408,264 [lb] 3.35

Empty Weight Fraction

.46684 .4698 0.63

L/D (cruise)

18 18.3 2.22

Actual Prediction % Error

Gross Takeoff Weight

507,050 [lb] 365,624 [lb] -27.89

Empty Weight Fraction

.51883 .47295 -8.80

L/D (cruise)

N/A N/A N/A

Boeing 767-200ER Airbus A330-200

•The initial sizing calculations prove to be mostly accurate on both of the baseline aircraft

26

Our Design PredictionsPrediction

Gross Takeoff Weight 267,365 [lb]

Empty Weight 128,848 [lb]

Empty Weight Fraction .48192

27

Summary and Next Steps Finalizing the sizing code Including the new technologies into the

sizing Constructing a preliminary CAD

geometry for the aircraft

28

References

Boeing http://www.boeing.com

Airbus

http://www.airbus.com NASA

www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/isrp/era/index.htm

MIT

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/files/mit_n3_final_presentation.pdf

Northrop Grumman

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/files/northrop_grumman_final.pdf

Aviation Week

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/commercial/

Perforated Fairings for Landing Gear Noise Control , N. Molin

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/43011/1/paper_vancouver_noabsolute_small.pdf