Team 3Marques Fulford Mike BociagaJamie Rosin Brandon Washington

Jon Olsten Tom ZettelHayne Kim

2

Outline

• Mission Statement• Mission Plans• Design Requirement• Aircraft Concept Selection• Cabin/Fuselage Layout• Constraint Analysis• Sizing Studies• Advanced Technologies

3

Mission Statement

• To create an innovative and cost effective commercial aircraft capable of take-off and landing in extremely short distances, making it available to a larger number of runways, in order to open up more airports, primarily to relieve the continuous growing congestion of large hubs.

4

Mission Plans

• Gary Chicago to Dallas Love Field• 693 nmi

• New York LaGuardia to Miami International• 935 nmi

• Charlotte International to Essex County, NJ• 460 nmi• Round trip without refueling

5

Design Requirements

Mission Requirements Target Threshold

Takeoff Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft

Landing Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft

Height to Passenger Door Sill at OWE ≤ 5 ft 9 ft

Height to Baggage Door Sill at OWE ≤ 4 ft 6 ft

Typical Cruise Mach Number ≥ 0.80   0.76  

Range w/ Max Payload ≥ 2000 nmi 1500 nmi

Max Take-Off Weight ≤ 100,000  lb 150,000  lb

Max Passengers (single class) ≥ 170 pax 150 pax

Operating Cost ($US 2007) ≤ 0.08$/seat-

mile 0.12$/seat-

mile

6

Concept Generation

• Each group member generated ten different concepts. • From those ten concepts

each member chose their top two designs.

• Then the group voted on those designs to get the top four designs.

• The top four designs were further developed and then discussed.

7

Low Swept Wing; Engines Over Wing

High Wing Swept; Engines Under Wing High Swept Wing; Engines Under Wing

Low Forward Swept Wing; Engines Over Wing

8

Pugh’s Method

Criteria DefinitionESTOL Ability to take off and land on a short runway (d<3000 ft)

High L/D (cruise) High L/D ratio in cruise configuration. L/D = 23

High M (cruise) High Mach number in cruise configuration (M>0.76)

High TO Thrust High Take-Off Thrust available from engines.Passenger Comfort

Ability to provide enough space to keep passengers comfortable.

Low Door Sill Height

Low door sill height (low landing gear) to allow access at terminals with limited service (no jet ways) (h<9 ft.)

Low Noise Low noise pollution (db<75db)

Low ComplexityLow system complexity to reduce cost and increase safety/reliability.

Low WeightLow weight to decrease acquisition cost, including low empty weight fraction.

Safety High safety, low system component failure rates.

9

10

Pugh’s Methods Results

The aircraft was not designed by any one particular person however it was a hybrid of several concepts blended together.

Special Design Features•Forward swept wings•Engines mounted over the wing•Plasma stream over the lifting surfaces.

11

Cabin/Fuselage Layout

• Two Class Layout • 176 passengers• Mid-fuselage exits

• Still being placed

12

Cabin/Fuselage Layout

• Single Class Layout • 180 passengers• Mid-fuselage exits

• Still being placed

13

Constraint Analysis

• Major Performance Constraints• Takeoff and Landing Distance• Cruise Mach• 1.5g Maneuver at Cruise Altitude

14

Important Assumptions

AR=10e=0.8CLmax=4.0

L/D =23Engines = 2We/Wo=0.49

CD0=0.015

Mcruise = 0.78

L/D by Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080

Year

L/D

15

Constraint Diagram

W0/S: 78 psfT/W: 0.28Takeoff: 1500 ftLanding: 500 ft

16

Constraint Diagram

W0/S: 141 psfT/W: 0.305Takeoff: 2500 ftLanding: 900 ft

17

Sizing Approach

• Sizing done using methods found in “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach” by Daniel Raymer.

• Using these methods Arrival created MATLAB script files to complete sizing.

18

Sizing Approach Initial Results

Parameter Target Range Threshold Range

TOGW [lbs] 100,000 95,000

We [lbs] 50,000 50,000

We/Wo 0.49 0.49

Fuel Weight [lbs] 13,000 11,000

Est. Wing Span 1500 ft Ground Roll [ft] ~113 ~113

Est. Wing Span 2500 ft Ground Roll [ft] ~84 ~84

Est. Wing Area 1500 ft Ground Roll [sq ft] ~1270 ~1270

Est. Wing Area 2500 ft Ground Roll [sq ft] ~703 ~703

19

Advanced Concepts Trade Study

• After applying Pugh’s Method, the “surviving” configuration concepts were compared to select the final ideal configuration.

• Two concepts, a design based off of the Boeing “Fozzie” concept, only with GTF engines and a modified tail, and a low-mounted FSW concept with Canards and USB.

20

Advanced Concepts Trade Study

• The FSW concept won out due to the ability to mount the wings further aft. This means the main gear can be mounted further aft and thus increase the rotation angle on takeoff, thus helping Arrival meet its ESTOL requirement.

21

SFC vs. Certification Date

y = 2E+44x-13.476

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080

Certification Date

SFC

SFC

Power (SFC)

SFC = 0.36

Advanced Technology StudySpecific Fuel Consumption Improvements

22

Advanced Technology StudyComposites Weight Savings

TRL 9

Empty Weight Fraction Material Comparison

y = 233.08x-0.5017

y = 851.58x-0.6321

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

TOGW [lb]E

mp

ty W

eig

ht

Fra

ctio

n Boeing/Airbus Current

Boeing/Airbus CFRP

Power (Boeing/AirbusCurrent)

Power (Boeing/Airbus CFRP)

Empty Weight Fraction Comparison

y = 3853.1x-0.6833 y = 549.16x-0.5221

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000

TOGW [lb]

Em

pty

Wei

ght F

ract

ion

Airbus A330

Boeing 777

Boeing 787

Power (Boeing 787)

Power (Boeing 777)

15% weight savings factor on the Empty Weight of our aircraft

23

• UDF and GTF provided a conservative savings of 15% each. Optimistic savings were 20% (per Bombardier) for GTF and 25% for UDF.

• Bombardier’s estimate selected, then projected based on the trend in SFC reduction vs. certification date found on Slide 15.

Power Series Projection

CertificationYear SFC

UDF SFC(15% savings)

UDF SFC(25% Savings)

GTF SFC(15% Savings)

GTF SFC(20% Savings)

2010 0.59 0.51 0.45 0.51 0.48

2015 0.57 0.49 0.43 0.49 0.46

2020 0.56 0.47 0.42 0.47 0.44

2025 0.54 0.46 0.40 0.46 0.43

2030 0.52 0.44 0.39 0.44 0.42

2035 0.50 0.43 0.38 0.43 0.40

2040 0.49 0.41 0.36 0.41 0.39

2045 0.47 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.38

2050 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.39 0.36

Advanced Technology StudyIncreased Fuel Economy

TRL 8-9

24

• USB provided a CLmax of 5 on the YC-14. Blown flaps had a CLmax of 5 to 7 on the YC-15.

• USB exceeds Arrival’s conservative CLmax assumption of 4.

YC-14 YC-15

Advanced Technology StudyUpper-Surface Blowing, Blown Flaps

TRL 8

25

Advantages:• Lower sweep angle for same shock sweep• Increased thickness-to-chord ratio• Control surfaces stall at higher AOA• Higher CL at low speeds

Primary Disadvantage: • Weight penalty to avoid structural divergence

Solution:• Advanced composite materials may be used to

tailor the structural divergence.• Exhibited in X-29 and Su-47

Advanced Technology StudyForward-Swept Wings

TRL 8

26

• To delay leading-edge separation over the wing and control surfaces.

• How it works:“The process of ionizing the air in this configuration is classically known as a

single dielectric barrier discharge. The ionized air (plasma) in the presence of an electric field gradient produces a body force on the ambient air, inducing a virtual aerodynamic shape that causes a change in the pressure distribution over the surface on which the actuator is placed. The air near the electrodes is weakly ionized, and there is little or no heating of the air.”

• Demonstrated in laboratory and on a sailplane fitted with plasma actuators.

Taken from Overview of Plasma Flow Control: Concepts, Optimization, and Applications

T. Corke and M. Post, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN AIAA-2005-563 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 10-13, 2005

Advanced Technology StudyLeading Edge Plasma Actuators

TRL 5

27

Advanced Technology StudyLeading Edge Plasma Actuators

TRL 5

28

Current Aircraft Design

29

Requirements ComplianceMission

Requirements   Target Threshold Current

Takeoff Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft 2500 ft

Landing Runway Length ≤ 2500 ft 3000 ft 900 ft

Height to Passenger Door Sill at OWE ≤ 5 ft 9 ft 8 ft

Height to Baggage Door Sill at OWE ≤ 4 ft 6 ft 6 ft

Typical Cruise Mach Number ≥ 0.8   0.76   0.78  

Range w/ Max Payload ≥ 2000 nmi 1500 nmi 2000 nmi

Max Take-Off Weight ≤ 100,000 lb 150,000  lb 100,000 lb

Max Passengers (single class) ≥ 170 pax 150 pax 170 pax

Operating Cost ($US 2007) ≤ 0.08 $/ASM 0.12 $/ASM 0.05 $/ASM

30

Next Steps

• Finish quantifying advanced concepts• Finish aircraft sizing• Develop design details• Finalize performance characteristics• Estimate total cost• Determine environmental impact• Determine component weight

breakdown

Questions & Comments

32