Group 13

Heavy Lift Cargo Plane

Stephen McNulty
Richard-Marc Hernandez
Jessica Pisano
Yoosuk Kee
Chi Yan

Project Advisor: Siva Thangam

 Overview
Objectives
Schedule/Progress
Design Concepts and Analysis
 Airfoil
 Fuselage
 Tail
 Landing Gear
End of Semester Deliverables
Next Semester Goals
 Objectives
Competition Specs are not posted for 2004
competition
The plane meets the specifications of the 2004
SAE Aero Design East/West competition
To finish the design of the plane by December
and begin construction and testing in January
To compete well at competition and improve
Stevens reputation
For the team to improve and expand their
knowledge of the design and construction of
airplanes
Schedule
 Journal/Progress
Researched airfoil computer analysis
software
Calculations for Airfoil
 Competition rules keep changing and are no
longer posted on website
Stereo-lithography Lab
Landing Gear models and analysis
Fuselage Design and Calculations
Tail Design
 Airfoil
Low camber, low drag,
high speed, thin wing
Deep camber, high lift,
low peed, thick wing
Deep camber, high lift,
low speed, thin wing
Low lift, high drag, reflex
trailing edge
Symmetrical (cambered
top and bottom)
 Airfoil
Airfoils used from previous years:
 Year 2000: E 211
 Year 2001: E 423
 Year 2002: OAF 102

From research:
 E 214
 S 1223
CL vs. AoA
 Airfoil Matrix

Important OAF10
Factor E122 E214 E423 2 S1223

Cl 5 1 2 2 3 5

Cd 2 5 4 4 3 2
Constructio
n 3 5 5 4 4 3

Overall 50 30 33 30 33 38
Airfoil Design and Calculations
Wing:

Re (S1223) 326529

Swet [in^2] 3016.6402

VL
Re  Wing Span [in] 120

 Wing Chord [in] 12

S wet Sref [in^2] 1440

C D min  FF  C f Clmax 2.3648
S ref
Cf (turbulent) 0.005559594
4
t t
FF  [1  L   100  ]  R
Cf (laminar) 0.002324006

c c t/c 0.121

x/c 0.2

FF 1.384435888

Cdmin (turb) 0.016124153

Cdmin (laminar) 0.006740173

 Wing Shape
Rectangular

Tapered

Rounded (or Elliptical)

Swept Wing

Delta Wing
 Wing Shape Comparison
Rectangular Wing
Advantages:
 Greater aileron control
 East to construct
Disadvantages:
 Not efficient in terms of stall and drag

Tapered Wing
Advantages:
 Decrease drag / Increase lift
 Harder to construct
Disadvantages:
 Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag
 Wing Shape Comparison
Elliptical Wing
Advantages:
 Minimum drag
 Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered
Disadvantages:
 Hardest to construct
Swept and Delta Wings
Advantages:
 Minimum drag in high speed
 Very stable and flexible
Disadvantages:
 Suitable only for high speed aircrafts
 Wing Shape Matrix
Wing Efficiency Stall Construct. Overall
Characteristic
importan 4 5 4 65
ce
Rect. 4 4 5 56

Tapered 4 4 4 52

Elliptical 5 5 2 48

Swept 3 3 3 36

Delta 3 3 3 36
 Dihedral angle
Dihedral Wing

Flat Wing

Cathedral Wing

Gull Wing
 Wing Angle Comparison
Dihedral Wing
Advantages:
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning
Disadvantages:
 Stress concentration at wing roots
 Harder to construct

Flat Wing
Advantages:
 Easy to construct
 Load distribution is equally spread out the wing
Disadvantages:
 Not as stable as dihedral wings
 Wing Angle Comparison
Cathedral Wing
Advantages:
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning
Disadvantages:
 Stress concentration at wing roots
 Harder to construct
 Suitable for high speed cargo planes

Gull Wing
Advantages:
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side
 Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning
Disadvantages:
 Stress concentration at the Gull point
 Hardest to construct
 Suitable for high speed aircrafts
 Wing Angle Matrix

Important
Factor Dihedral Flat Cathedral Gull

Stability 5 5 3 5 3

performance 4 4 3 2 2

efficiency 4 5 4 2 2

construction 3 3 5 3 2

Overall 80 70 58 50 37
 Number of Wings
Monoplane

Biplane

Triplane
 Number of Wings Comparison
Monoplane
Advantages
 Easiest to construct
 Very light weighted compared to Bi- and Tri-planes
Disadvantages
 Produces less lift for the aircraft
 Less stable when turning
Biplane
Advantages
 Adds more lift to the aircraft
 More stable when turning
Disadvantages
 Harder to construct and repair
 Adds more weight to the aircraft
Triplane
Advantages
 Produces highest lift for aircraft
 Most stable compared to Mono- and Bi-planes
Disadvantages
 Hardest to construct and repair
 Adds more weight to the aircraft
 Number of Wings Matrix
Currently do not have one yet
2004 Aero East Design rules are not up
Decision is made based upon on the rules
and regulations of the competition
 Selection

•Selig 1223
•Rectangular
•Dihedral
 Fuselage Design and Calculations
Fuselage:

length 25 in
width 5 in
planforrm area 151 in^2
VL
wetted area 605 in^2
Re 
fuselage/boom

S wet
density 0.002175 slugs/ft^3
C D min  FF  C f
coefficient of viscosity 3.677E-07 slugs/ft-sec S ref
Velocity (flight speed) 51 ft/sec

FF  1  60 /( FR)^ 3  0.0025FR
Re (turbulent) 628484.4982
l/d 5
Form factor 1.4925

Cf 0.004883112
Cd min (turbulent) 0.029200444
 Fuselage
Panels
Wireframe
Cast Mold
Injection Mold
 Fuselage Comparison
Panels
Pros: Cons:
Lightweight Not very strong
Easy to construct
Easy to assemble
Affordable
 Fuselage Comparison
Wire frame
Pros: Cons:
Very Strong and Heavy
sturdy Difficult to construct
Affordable
 Fuselage Comparison
Cast Molding
Pros: Cons:
Very accurate unaffordable
shape
Difficult to design
Aerodynamic a mold
advantages
No spare parts
Strong frame
No assembly
required
 Fuselage Comparison
Injection Molding
Pros: Cons:
Very accurate Unaffordable
shape
Heavy
Aerodynamic
advantages Difficult to design
a mold
Strong frame
No assembly No spare parts
required
 Fuselage Matrix
Importance Panels Wire frame Cast Mold Injection
Mold

Construction 5 5 3 4 2

Weight 5 5 4 3 2

Cost 4 5 4 2 2

Strength 4 3 5 4 5

Total 90 82 71 59 48

Ranking 1 2 3 4
Selection

Panel Fuselage
 Boom Design and Calculations
Tail Boom:

Re 1835174.735

VL
length boom 48 in
Re 
length fuselage 25 in

S wet
 FF  C f
length fuselage/boom 73 in

CD min
Swet 28 in^2
S ref
FF  1.05
Sref 14 in^2

Cf (turbulent) 0.004001212

Cd min (turbulent) 0.008402546

 Tail Boom
1 spar
2 spars
3 spars
3 or more panels
 Tail Boom Matrix
Importance 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more
panels

Construction 4 5 5 5 4

Weight 4 5 4 3 5

Strength 5 3 4 5 3

Total 65 55 56 57 51

Ranking 3 2 1 4
Selection

Three Spar
Landing Gear
Importance
Facto
r 1 Nose 1 Tail 2 Nose 2 Tail
Without Rod Steerability 3 5 3 5 4

Impact 5 2 3 3 4

Construction 3 4 3 3 3

Total 37 33 39 41

With Rod Steerability 3 5 3 5 4

Impact 5 3.5 4.5 4 5

Construction 3 4 3 3 3

Total 44.5 40.5 44 46

Ratings 1-5
 Landing Gear Analysis
SolidWorks models
 Deflection Analysis
 Stress Analysis
 Deformation Analysis
Top fixed
Force applied to bottom of legs
 Force applied = 45lbs
 Force = Weight of plane
 Landing Gear Design 1
Analysis
•Standard Main Landing Gear
•Aluminum

•Max Deflection .2238 in

•Design Rejected

•Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi

 Landing Gear Design 2
Analysis

•Max Deflection .0196 in

•Stress Max 1.651 Psi

•Main Landing Gear with Rod

•Aluminum

•Last years final design

 Landing Gear Design 3
Analysis

•Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in

•Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi

•Main Landing Gear

•Truss Design
•Aluminum

•Design Being Strongly

Considered
 Landing Gear Design 4
Analysis

•Max Deflection 1.342e-3 in

•Stress Max 5.332e+2 Psi

•Main Landing Gear
•Modified Truss Design
•Aluminum

•Design Being Strongly

Considered
 Landing Gear Design 5
Analysis

•Max Deflection 1.890e-4 in

•Stress Max 2.651e+2 Psi

•Main Landing Gear
•Modified Truss Design
•Modified for Lighter Weight
•Aluminum

•Selected
Tail Design and Calculations
•Tail stabilizer does not provide lift to
plane.
•Symmetrical airfoil is needed for vertical
tail.

Horizontal tail: Vertical Tail:

Re (NACA 0012) 175975.6 Re (NACA0012) 246365.9

chord (MAC) 7 in chord (MAC) 9.8 in

Swet 0 in^2 Swet 189 in^2

Wing Span 40 in Tail height 24 in

Sref 280 in^2 Sref 235.2 in

Clmax 0 Clmax

Cf (laminar) 0.003166 Cf (laminar) 0.002675

t/c 0.12 t/c 0.12
x/c 0.287 x/c 0.287

FF 1.271607 FF 1.271607

Cdmin (laminar) 0 Cdmin (laminar) 0.0027339

 Tail
Conventional Tail

T-Tail

H-Tail

Triple Tail

V-Tail
 Tail Matrix
Importance Conventio T-Tail H-Tail Triple Tail V-Tail
nal Tail

Constructi 5 5 4 4 3 4
on

Surface 4 4 4 4 3 4
Area/ Drag

Control/ 4 4 4 4 5 3
Stability

Total 65 57 52 52 47 48

Ranking 1 2 2 5 4
 Tail
Vertical Tail Stabilizer
 2ft
 controls the horizontal
movement of plane
 keeps the nose of the
plane from swinging from
side to side
Horizontal Tail Stabilizer
 3.33ft
 controls vertical movement
of plane
 prevents an up-and-down
motion of the nose
 Construction
Wing/Tail Construction
 Foam Core
 Risers (Balsa Wood)
Fuselage Construction
 Plywood
 Aluminum Plate
Boom Construction
 Wooden Dowels
 Carbon Fiber Tubes
 Plywood
Landing Gear
 Aluminum
 Steel
Tire
 Rubber Core
 Air Filled Rubber
 Sponge
 Construction Matrix
Wing Fuselage Boom Landing Tire
Tail Gear
Foam Riser Aluminum Plywood Wooden Carbon Aluminu Steel Rubber Air Filled Sponge
Importa s Plate Dowels Fiber m Core Rubber
nce Tubes

Ease 3 2 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 4

Strength 3 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 4 4 5 2

Accuracy 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 2

Weight 5 3 5 2 4 4 5 4 3 2 4 5

Machinea 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 2 2 4
bility

Total 57 80 75 85 79 87 72 57 53 66 63
 ME 423 Senior Design, Fall 2003. Project Number 13
Team members: R. Hernandez, Y. Kee, S. McNulty, J. Pisano, C. Yan Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam
Title: Creation of a Heavy Lift Radio-Controlled Cargo Plane
Objectives: Design Results:
•Design a high performance heavy lift R/C cargo •Carbon Fiber Spars connecting fuselage and tail
plane whose purpose is to carry the most weight •S1223 airfoil
possible •balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings
•Enter manufactured design into 2004 SAE Aero •Rectangular wing planform
Design East Competition in Orlando, FL •Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics
•Tail dragger landing gear configuration
•Unitized body fuselage

Design Approach: •Dihedral Wing

Computer Aided Drawing of Design:
•Technology
•Utilization of the latest airfoil simulations,
composite materials, to obtain the lightest design
that creates the most lift
•Maximum lift
•Selection of airfoil and wing shape
•Light materials
•Drag reduction
Design Specifications:

•Wingspan: 10ft
•Engine: FX OS 2 stroke motor
0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp
•Minimum Cargo Area: 120 in3
•Cargo Weight: 35 pounds
•Empty Plane Weight: 10 pounds
•Plane Length: 7.5ft
•Plane Height: 1 ft
Final Design
End of Semester Deliverables
Completed Airplane design
 Calculations
 CAD models and analyses
Completed parts list for plane construction
Gantt Chart for spring semester
Budget
 Summary
Objectives
Schedule/Progress
Design Concepts and Analysis
 Airfoil
 Fuselage
 Tail
 Landing Gear
End of Semester Deliverables
Next Semester Goals
Questions???