DOE Real World Design Challenge

1

VT {newt}

Submitted in Response to the DOE Real World Design Challenge

Submitted by Minnesota’s

HUTCH INNOVATORS

TEAM MEMBER NAMES:

Jordyn Koll, Senior, Abbey Machtemes, Christy King, Senior, Jesse Brooks,

Alex Felber, Junior, Jason Corby, Junior, Andrew Paulsen

Hutchinson High School 1200 Roberts Road SW Hutchinson, MN 55350

March 19, 2010

Mentor/Advisor: Daryl Lundin

1200 Roberts Rd. SW, Hutchinson, MN 55350

587-2151 ext. 5408, [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In today‟s world of rising fuel costs, aircraft designs need to increase fuel

efficiency to reduce total operating costs. By designing an airplane tail section

mailto:[email protected]

2

and wings that can have less drag, weight, and greater lift capabilities fuel

efficiency could be increased. The goal of this challenge is for student teams to

create a wing that corresponds with a tail section that can fly 400 knots at 37,000

feet and balance lift and weight, thrust and drag, and have zero pitching

moments.

Hutch Innovators have put together such a correspondence that has the

most difference between lift and drag that the team has found. This means that

the aircraft should run efficiently while flying 400 knots at 37,000 feet. The team

knows, however, that there are still possible problems with the design and the

team has also thought of some possible solutions to these problems, given more

time and the right tools, the team could have tested these solutions and

incorporated them into the final design.

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION ................................................. 3

PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CONSTAINTS ...................................... 3

APPROACH .......................................................................................................... 4

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 11

TASK DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 32

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 34

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 35

3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION

Creating a tail section and a wing that balance lift and weight, thrust and drag,

and has zero pitching moments is important because the lift and weight must be

balanced so that the aircraft will keep in a steady and level flight. When the lift

and weight are not balanced the aircraft will not be able to fly since the downward

force of weight is larger than the upward force of lift. Likewise, when the thrust

and drag are balanced the aircraft can run more efficiently. When the thrust and

drag are not balanced the pilot must apply a larger amount of engine power to

overcome the drag, this makes the aircraft less fuel-efficient. It is also important

to have minimum pitching moments because uncontrolled pitching causes

surface shock which will induce the aircraft to require more power to run and also

causes additional external noise.

PROJECT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND

CONSTAINTS

For the state challenge the Hutch Innovators took into account many variables

that will affect the efficiency of the final design. Variables the team considered

includes; airfoil designs, supercritical versus laminar airfoils, supercritical/laminar

versus symmetrical airfoils, angle of attack, angle of the vertical stabilizer, angle

of the horizontal stabilizer, and type of tail section (ex: “V”, “X”, etc.) The goal of

testing these constraints is to optimize the efficiency of the aircraft.

Likewise, for the national challenge, the team took into account variables that

would affect the wing design‟s optimization such as; wingspan, taper, angle of

sweep, width, slant, and different airfoils. Different variables effected different

types of results, which the team had to figure out and assess.

4

APPROACH

The Hutch Innovators considered all the possible tail sections that we could

create and narrowed it down to a few selections. The team decided to create a

section that is a hybrid of the “V” and “T” tail sections. This was chosen because

part of this challenge is to be innovative and thus it was decided to test a section

that the team developed. When researching the team noted that both the „V‟ and

„T‟ tail sections are widely used. The team figured that a combination of these

two tail sections would be efficient. The team then needed to test different

airfoils to optimize the tail section. It was determined that a laminar airfoil, which

has its maximum thickness at the middle camber line, should be used for the

horizontal stabilizer. The team knew that the vertical stabilizer must be a

symmetrical airfoil to ensure that the aircraft does not yaw to one side or the

other. The team realizes that the horizontal stabilizer of the tail section could be

extended to span the entire length of the „V‟ part to further stabilize the aircraft

because it is possible that the current design could be structurally unsound due

to possible twisting caused by the horizontal section.

For the second part of the challenge the team brainstormed possible wing

designs and tested them with the different variables such as airfoils and angle of

sweep. The team decided to test three airfoils, all supercritical or laminar, for the

wing design and chose the Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J.

Afterwards the team tested the wingspan and width then moved onto to testing

the taper ratio. Because of the team‟s uniquely designed tail section, Mark Beyer

wrote a special program as part of the Cessna Analysis Program for the team.

This program aided the team in the sizing, taper, and other areas of the plane‟s

design.

THE DESIGN PROCESS

Problem Statement: The problem is to design a tail section and wing optimized for minimum drag when cruising 400 knots at an altitude of 37,000 feet.

Product Design: The Hutch Innovators decided to create a tail section that is a hybrid of the common “V” and “T” tail sections. The corresponding wing was chosen to optimize the entire plane design.

5

Investigation & Research… Question and Answer:

What are common designs for tail sections? o Common designs found are the V, T, X, Y, and H tail sections

How does the team run the needed programs? o Watch training videos

Who should the team have as a mentor? o Mentors chosen are Robert Monson and Matt Orris with Lockheed Martin, Arlyn

DeBruyckere at the Hutchinson High School, and Alan Koll and Michael King at 3M.

How does the team design a tail section in Pro E? o Import coordinates of airfoils and use sweep protrusions to create the tail section.

Which airfoils should the team use? o The team chose five possible airfoils for the horizontal airfoil of the tail piece and nine for

the vertical airfoil of the tail piece. The horizontal are supercritical or laminar and the vertical are symmetrical to prevent yawing. For the wing the team chose three different airfoils to test, one of these is a supercritical airfoil while the other two are laminar airfoils.

What equations does the team need to complete this challenge? o The team mostly used the provided spreadsheets to calculate all the needed

information. The team also used trigonometry to find the angle of attack.

How will the team communicate? o The team decided it was easiest to communicate by email.

How will the team move ideas and designs from computer to computer? o The team decided the easiest and most efficient way to transfer anything from computer

to computer was to use jump drives.

How often will the team meet? o The team decided that meeting in the mornings would be the best time in order to avoid

many after school conflicts. Many team members also had class time with Coach Daryl Lundin to work on the challenge.

© TCNJ & PTC

Stakeholders… Identify the major stakeholders in the design and briefly explain what would satisfy each one. Stakeholder What this person/group looks for in a successful design 1: Designers- the designers of the tail section would have set a new benchmark in flight. 2: Builders- builders would be making a tail section that will sell very well and satisfy many people. 3: Airlines- they would be able to save millions of dollars in fuel, which has become so costly. 4: Travelers- it would satisfy ticket buyers because the plane‟s efficiency would save the air lines money, meaning cheaper tickets. 5: Plane owners- from small plane owners to big, they would all be happy with the performance of this tail section.

Design Brief: The goal of this challenge is to create a tail section of an aircraft that balances drag

and thrust as well as lift and weight while flying 400 knots at 37,000 feet. Constraints used were; the

aircraft must be able to rotate to 12 degrees for takeoff and landing, the center of gravity must be

between 15% and 30% MAC, cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, and a standard atmosphere pressure of

3.0893 lbs/in².

6

Tail: Initial Design Sketches…

7

To be innovative the team chose the hybrid of the typical V and T tailpieces in

favor of the T, V, H, X, and Y tail sections after considering each. The team then

decided to put a supercritical or laminar airfoil on the horizontal “T” stabilizer of

the tail and a symmetrical airfoil on the vertical “V” stabilizer of the tail to prevent

yawing.

Tail: Initial Design Sketches…

Tail: Detail Sketches… Symmetrical Airfoil

Laminar Airfoil

8

Tail: Refine Your Design Sketch…

9

Tail: Refine Your Design Sketch…

The Gull Wing

Wing: Initial Design Sketches…

10

11

Wing: Initial Design Sketches…

Wing: Refine Your Design Sketch…

12

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Engineering Design Notebook Appendix 2: Engineering Journal

Appendix 1:

Engineering Design Notebook For Tail Section

Airfoils

Hutch Innovators opted to test four laminar airfoils and one supercritical airfoil for

the horizontal tail section. The team also chose nine symmetrical airfoils to test

for the vertical portion.

Laminar/Supercritical Airfoils N0011SC (Supercritical)

NLF0115

NLF1015

BACNLF

HSNLF213

The difference between the Laminar Airfoils and the Supercritical Airfoils is that

the Laminar has its maximum thickness in the middle camber line while the

Supercritical has its maximum thickness at the leading edge of the airfoil.

Symmetrical Airfoils AH85L120

FX79L100

FX79L120

FX76100

FX76120

FX77080

LWK80100

LWK80120K25

LWK80150K25

13

This list represents the preliminary airfoils that the team tested to compare the

airfoils ability of lift and drag. The symmetrical airfoil was chosen for the vertical

stabilizer to prevent yawing. Also, the Supercritical and Laminar airfoils were

chosen for the horizontal stabilizer to optimize lift over thrust.

Sizing

The NASA Tail Volume Coefficient spreadsheet was used to aid in selecting the

size of the tail section.

Horizontal Tail Coefficient

14

Vertical Tail Coefficient

Performance

The following charts show the performance of each airfoil in terms of lift and

drag.

Vertical airfoils

AIRFOIL NAME LIFT DRAG DIFFERENCE

AH85L120* 2130.219685 2130.219685 0

FX79L100* 6068.586638 2117.585593 3951.001045

FX79L120* 6109.08267 2131.345268 3977.737402

FX76100* 6175.56036 2142.605647 4032.954713

FX76120* 6142.43301 2149.070423 3993.362587

fx77080* 5547.429339 2101.890097 3445.539242

lwk80100* 6072.941553 2124.394987 3948.546566

lwk80120k25* 6124.88238 2137.237256 3987.645124

lwk80150k25 6450.354054 2158.35955 4291.994504

15

Horizontal airfoils

AIRFOIL NAME LIFT DRAG DIFFERENCE

n0011sc 4139.3099 2497.280105 1642.029795

nlf0115 5370.148809 2191.526409 3478.6224

nlf1015 6177.484413 2140.289791 4037.194622

BACNLF 5165.817583 1985.169649 3180.647934

hsnlf213 5249.651389 1986.186246 3263.466143

16

Compare The Y Axis is the difference between lift and drag on the following charts:

17

Single Solution

The Hutch Innovators chose the airfoils NLF1015 for the horizontal stabilizer and

the LWK80150K25 for the vertical stabilizer because the tests showed that these

airfoils had the most lift while having less drag and thus a bigger difference as

can be seen in the previous charts.

Angle of Attack

The team decided to test the angles of attack of 15, 10, 5, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0.5, 1.5,

1.51, 1.52, 1.55, 1.6, and 1.75 degrees. Both the horizontal and vertical airfoils

were tested at zero degrees. Once the two best airfoils for lift and drag were

evident, the airfoils were then tested at different angles of attack.

Difference Between Lift and Drag for Angle of Attacks

18

LIFT vs. DRAG

Airfoil Testing

First, the team created a baseline run for the airfoil design. Then the team ran

tests to see how much lift and drag were created when the angle of the vertical

stabilizers were changed. The amount of lift and drag created was documented

and then the design was edited to better fit the specifications of the challenge.

This was done for the chosen airfoils.

VERTICAL AIRFOILS:

LWK80150K25

Angle of the ‘V’ section-85º

Goal Name Unit Value Averaged Value Minimum Value Maximum Value

GG X - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 2110.493621 2137.237256 2104.53722 2215.101079

GG Z - Component of Force 1 [lbf] 6072.863767 6124.88238 5966.388336 6232.164534

Iterations: 99

Analysis interval: 37

19

LWK80150K25





Iterations: 98


LWK80150K25





Iterations: 99


HORIZONTAL AIRFOILS:

NLF1015

Angle of Attack 0°




Iterations: 102


NLF1015

Angle of Attack 3º




Iterations: 109


20

NLF1015

Angle of Attack 4º




Iterations: 104


NLF1015

Angle of Attack 5º




Iterations: 322


NLF1015

Angle of Attack 10º




Iterations: 82


NLF1015

Angle of Attack 15º




Iterations: 131


21

After observing the data, the team found that by repositioning the unbalanced

vertical force closer to zero the unbalanced pitching moment continually

decreased. The team understands that the variables need to change this trend.

Therefore, this design established that the vertical force and the pitching moment

are close to zero.

GS GHOST ISOMETRIC VIEW

Engineering Design Notebook for Wings

Airfoils The team chose three airfoils to test on the wing design. All three of these airfoils are supercritical or laminar airfoils. This type of airfoil was selected to optimize lift over thrust.

Drela AG18

Eppler e214

Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J

The Drela AG18 is supercritical while both the Eppler e214 and Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J are laminar airfoils.

22

Sizing With the help of the NASA Tail Volume Coefficient Spreadsheet and the build gull wing program, the team of properly sized the stabilizers.

Performance

23

Single Solution The Hutch Innovators chose the airfoil BACJ, Boeing Commercial Airplane

Company airfoil J, for the wing because the tests showed that this airfoil had the

most lift while having less drag and thus a bigger difference as can be seen in

the previous chart.

Angle of Attack The team tested three different angles of attack for the combination of the

wings and tail section. These angles are:

1.5˚

1.25˚

0˚ The angle of attack of 1.5˚ and the wing at an angle of 1.5˚ was found to be the best angle of attack for optimization.

Airfoil Testing Out of the three airfoils that the team tested the best airfoil was found to be the Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J. These airfoils were tested with a torque of -15˚. Please note that these airfoils have been scaled down to allow for a shorter testing time. However, they are still proportional to the correct results.

Boeing Commercial Airfoil Company Airfoil J

Sweep: 41.35˚


GG X - Component of Force 1 [N] 11.83845794 11.83994672 11.67823697 12.73442748

GG Y - Component of Force 1 [N] 66.24736631 66.64866209 65.88021695 68.14508851

Iterations: 111


Drela AG18

Sweep: 11.49˚




24

Iterations: 78


Eppler e214

Sweep: 10.6˚




Iterations: 108


Eppler e214

Sweep: 23.29˚




Iterations: 73


Eppler e214

Sweep: 23.29˚




Iterations: 69


25

Cessna Analysis Program Data

26

27

28

29

GS GHOST ISOMETRIC VIEW

30

Hutch Innovators Current Design

The Hutch Innovators found that the design the team came up with balanced lift

and drag. The team also successfully cleared runway takeoff distance by 2.7317

inches according to the 12-degree ground plane geometry. All tail component

sizes were analyzed by the NASA tail component size spreadsheet, and found

tail components to be sized properly for the size of the fuselage and wings. The

center of gravity requirement of between 15% and 30% MAC was also met by

this current design. The Cessna Analysis Program found this design‟s MAC

center of gravity to be at 15.77%.

The data below shows the current design:

Area of Wing (486.18 sq.ft)

Takeoff and landing ground clearance (2.7317 inches)

MAC of 15.77%

Lift (26077.3 lbs.)

Drag (3177.7 lbs.)

Thrust (3192.4 lbs.)

Aircraft weight (27108.4lbs.)

Unbalanced vertical force (-725.2 lbs.)

Unbalance pitching moment (191.0 in-lbs.)

Angle of Attack (1.5°)

Appendix 2:

Engineering Journal

October: The Real World Design Challenge was introduced during October.

The team was assembled and began to look at the material available as well as

brainstorm what type of tail section to create.

31

November: During November the team was assigned positions and began to

watch the provided training videos. The team researched tail sections and tail

cones to find common parts that could be modified. Furthermore, the team

researched the needed equations and symbols so that the team could better

understand the uses when the time came that they were needed. The team also

began making practice tail cones in Pro E and running Flo EFD on the validation

model. The team ran into problems exporting coordinates from Pro E.

December: December was a month of frustration for the team. The team spent

the whole month trying to figure out how to export coordinates from Pro E. To

solve this problem the team did their best to research, including contacting all

mentors and posting a question in the PTC.com forums. The team also tried

multiple ways to export the coordinates but to no avail. In addition, a lot of time

was spent trying to understand the software needed; including Flo EFD and

ConTEXT Editor. To use ConTEXT Editor a command prompt was needed,

which is unfortunately blocked on the school computers. Team member, Jordyn,

was able to bring in her laptop on which the command prompt was accessible. In

the long run, however, this issue ended up tying into the first since the

coordinates from Pro E was needed to use ConTEXT Editor.

January: During January the team was finally able to begin testing the airfoils

and tail section designs. A lot of time was spent running tests on the fourteen

airfoils that were chosen, as well as working on the final report. The team came

to a conclusion on the airfoils to used and worked to put them together in a single

tail section.

February: Throughout February the team began to work on the National

Challenge, which is to design a wing that corresponds with the tail section

already created. The team sketched out ideas and began testing different

variables such as airfoils and angle of attack. Also, the team corrected some of

the errors of the tail section to optimize it.

32

March: This month the team tested more variables on their wing design and

finalized it. The team also worked on the final report and finished up the Real

World Design Challenge for 2010.

TASK DESCRIPTION

The Hutch Innovators‟ task in this Real World Design Challenge is to create a tail

section and wing for a commercial aircraft and balance it‟s lift and weight, as well

as thrust and drag to make it more efficient. The team did this by testing different

airfoils in EFD Pro and ConTEXT Editor to narrow it to two airfoils; a symmetrical

one for the vertical stabilizer and a laminar one for the horizontal stabilizer for the

tail section. Likewise, the team tested the three wing airfoils and narrowed it

down to one, then the team moved on to testing other variables. The Cessna

Analysis Program was the team‟s main mode for testing these variables.

Team Roles: The team assembled this year worked extremely well together.

Everyone was supportive of each other‟s work and when there was an issue

team members stepped up to the challenge and worked together to solve

problems. The team worked on the challenge whenever possible, during the

coach‟s class and before and after school.

Jordyn Koll:

Project manager- Jordyn is a senior this year at Hutchinson High School and

plans to attend Iowa State University for aerospace engineering. She utilizes the

core values of „STEM‟, which are science, technology, engineering, and math.

Jordyn was essential to the team. She made sure everyone had a responsibility

and that everyone knew what he or she was supposed to do. She jumped in to

help whenever there was an issue with the programs. Jordyn also made sure the

team was on track to finishing the Real World Design Challenge on time.

33

Abbey Machtemes:

Simulation Engineer- Abbey is also a senior who plans to attend Iowa State

University; she is interesting in aerospace engineering. Abbey learned how to

use Flo EFD very efficiently and she ran all of the tests on our airfoils.

Jason Corby:

Design Coordinator- Jason is a junior this year and he made sure that everyone

knew when we were going to meet and where. Jason watched all the training

videos and made sure everyone knew what to do.

Alex Felber:

System and Test Engineer- Alex is a junior who helped the team make a product

that worked well and efficiently. He has been creating models in Pro E and

helping assist others in Pro E.

Jesse Brooks/Andrew Paulsen:

Project Scientist- These two helped our model become more efficient by using

their knowledge of physics and incorporating it into our design. They also spoke

with our physics mentor to find things such as atmospheric pressure and the

temperature at 37,000 ft. They are both good at science and math.

Project Mathematician- Jesse and Andrew also worked with the Build a Wing

spreadsheet and the RWDC NASA Tail Volume Coefficient spreadsheet.

Christy King:

Project Communicator- Christy, who is also a senior, plans to attend North

Dakota State University next year to major in engineering. Christy recorded

meeting agendas as well as working on the final report. She also recorded how

close the team was to accomplishing the design of the tail section.

34

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Having more time the team could have tested the possibility of extending

the horizontal „T‟ section all the way across the vertical „V‟ section of the tail. It is

possible that the current design could be unsound due to the possible twisting

caused by the horizontal piece. The team realizes that this is a possible problem

and that it is an opportunity for this generation to solve and improve on.

This team learned many new things through this challenge and found that

there are many things yet to learn.

Hutch Innovators learned:

How to do variable section sweep and a swept blends in Pro

Engineer

How to do fluid analysis in Flo EFD

About Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC)

What a stall is (when pressure of lift no longer is greater than or

equal to the weight of the air craft)

What supercritical and laminar airfoils are: supercritical is when the

maximum thickness is in the middle of the camber line and a

laminar airfoil is when the maximum thickness is at the leading

edge of the airfoil

That thrust must be equal to or greater than drag

The temperature and air pressure at 37,000 feet

How to run programs such as Flo EFD, and ConTEXT Editor.

How to export X, Y, Z coordinates to and from Pro E

About the movement of the point of balance

o Moving wings back and forth changes the balance

o Moving the tail section forward allows for a smaller tail for lift

35

Things yet to learn:

The team needs to better understand the analysis program and

how to use it

The team needs to iron out issues with software

How to get the unbalanced pitching moment to zero and at the

same time get the unbalanced vertical force to zero

REFERENCES

The Hutch Innovators utilized their mentors as a reference. The mentors that the

team used are Mr. Robert Monson and Mr. Matt Orris from Lockheed Martin, Mr.

Arlyn DeBruyckere at the Hutchinson High School, as well as Mr. Alan Koll and

Mr. Michael King from 3M. The team used these mentors to help them figure out

how to run software such as Pro E and Flo EFD. The mentors also assisted the

team by helping them when problems came up with the aforementioned software

and by giving tips on how to work as an efficient team.

The mentors were chosen partially by availability and partially for their expertise.

The team utilized the mentors for finding atmospheric pressure and the

temperature at 37,000 feet. Mr. DeBruyckere helped the team find these to be

3.0893lbs/in² for atmospheric pressure and –69.7ºF. The temperature was also

found in the training videos; however, the team did calculate it themselves with

the help of their mentor, Mr. DeBruyckere.

The team utilized Mr. Monson and Mr. Orris when problems came up with Pro E

and Flo EFD as well as when there were terms the team did not understand.

There are a series of emails between the team and these mentors as well as

phone calls since neither mentor were in close proximity.

Mr. Koll and Mr. King are both parents of team members who assisted when the

members were working on the challenge at home. Mr. Koll helped Jordyn learn

how to use the command prompt as well as help teach her Pro E. Mr. King gave

36

Christy tips on how to take meeting minutes and organize files so the team could

work more efficiently together.

Overall the team learned much from their interactions with these mentors. The

ability to reach out to them for help was essential to the team‟s success.

Although he was not a mentor the team would like to especially thank Mark

Beyer for helping with the issues encountered in the Cessna Analysis Program.

The team would also like to thank Mark Fischer and Mentor Graphics for helping

with the issues encountered in Flow.edf.

Documents

DOE Real World Design Challenge