System RequirementsReview XG International

presented by:

Gihun Bae - Joe Blake - Jung Hoon Choi - Jack Geerer - Jean Gong - Hwan Song -

Daniel Kim - Mike McCarthy - Nick Oschman - Bryce Petersen - Lawrence Raoux1

Outline

• Mission Statement

• Market and Customer Overview

• Potential Competitors

• Concept of Operations

• System Design Requirements

• Advanced Technologies

• Initial Design Parameters

• Summary and Next Steps2

Mission Statement

• Our environmentally-sensitive aircraft is going to provide the customer with a transportation method that combines speed, comfort, and convenience all while meeting NASA’s N+2 criteria.

3

Environmentally-Sensitive

• Environmentally-sensitive implies demanding the final product have as little environmental impact as possible.

• An aircraft can damage the environment in many ways, from fossil fuel usage to harmful emissions to noise, all of which must be considered.

• Environmentally-sensitive does not imply a lack of performance. 4

Customer•Benefits:1) Lower fuel consumption

and therefore lower operating cost.

2) Services wide range of airports.

3) Quiet, efficient travel option.

•Primary Function:1) Transport business executives.2) Travel a distance of 800-1000 NM

such as from Chicago to New York at a Mach number of about .85 .

3) Meet all NASA N+2 criteria

•Needs1) Speed2) Comfort3) Reliability4) Convenience

5

Market

• The primary market for our aircraft includes partial jet ownership firms and private businesses.

• Rolls-Royce’s 2009 forecast predicts 20,921 business jet deliveries between 2019 -2028. This figure scales down to 11,600 deliveries between 2020-2025.

• If our design meets all performance goals as well as NASA’s N+2 criteria, we think we can sell 5% of these projected deliveries.

• To be conservative we will aim to sell a 3% market share, corresponding to 350 aircraft needed between 2020-2025.

6

Competitors

Plane Units Cost per Unit

Bombardier Challenger 300245 delivered

USD 20.97 mil, typically equipped

Bombardier Challenger 600 series 795 delivered

USD 28.08 mil, typically equipped

Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign 287 deliveredUSD 17.469 mil, typically equipped

Cessna 750 Citation X301 delivered

USD 21.721 mil, typically equipped

Cessna Citation series 225 expected to sell in 2010

Dassault Falcon 2000417 produced

USD 28.55-30.765 mil (2000DX, 2000LX)

Dassault Falcon 50, 50EX 352 delivered USD 20.6 mil (yr. 2004)

Gulfstream 350/450 170 deliveredUSD 31.955 mil (G350), USD 36.955 mil (G450)

Hawker 4000 130 orderedUSD 21.671 mil, typically equipped

7

Competitors

•Besides competition from other aircraft manufacturers, other forms of competition include:

1) Other forms of high speed public transportation, for example bullet trains.

2) A major advancement in the commercial aviation industry.3) Some other form of never before seen futuristic

transportation.

8

Customer Needs

• For Private

– Noise Reduction

– Safety

– Large Cabin Area

• For Charter Company

– Lower Operating Cost

– Long Max Range

– Fast Cruise Speed

9

To Satisfy Needs

• Private

– Low Noise Emission Engine

– Dual Engine, Good Sliding Capability

– Maximum Legroom

• Charter Company’s

– Fuel Efficient Engine

– Transatlantic Capability for more Customers

– Max cruise speed of 0.82M

10

Passenger Capacity / Payload

• 1 pilot, 1 co-pilot

• 8 to 12 passengers (depending on customer requirement)

• 1 flight attendant for transatlantic flight (FAR Section 121.391)

• Maximum Payload = 4000 lb

11

Mission Sketch

12

Aircraft Design Missions

13

Asia & Europe Airports

City Airport Runway Length (ft) Elevation (ft)

Seoul Incheon (ICN) 13123 63

TokyoNarita (NRT) 13123 135

Haneda (HND) 9843 21

ShanghaiHongqiao (SHA) 11154 10

Pudong (PVG) 13123 13

Dubai Dubai (DXB) 13123 62

New Delhi Delhi (DEL) 14534 777

ParisParis-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) 13780 392

Paris-Orly (ORY) 11975 291

LondonLondon Heathrow (LHR) 12799 83

London City (LCY) 4948 19

14

American Airports

City Airport Runway Length (ft) Elevation (ft)

New York

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 14572 13

Newark Liberty (EWR) 11000 18

LaGuardia (LGA) 7000 21

ChicagoO’Hare (ORD) 13000 668

Chicago Midway (MDW) 6522 620

LA Los Angeles (LAX) 12091 126

Las Vegas McCarran (LAS) 14510 2181

Miami Miami (MIA) 13000 8

Seattle Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) 11900 433

15

City-Pairs Operations

Departure Arrival

Airport Code Range (nmi)

JFK

LHR 3016.22

LAX 2129.86

SEA 2092.49

LAS 1939.55

MIA 946.32

ORD 619.58

New York Flight

16

City-Pairs Operations

Departure Arrival

Airport Code Range (nmi)

SHA

DEL 2297.57

NRT 992.37

ICN 452.74

CDG

DXB 2831.99

CIA 605.68

LHR 187.70

International Flight

17

CONSTRAINT DIAGRAM

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

40 60 80 100 120 140 160

TS

L/W

0

W0/S [lb/ft2]

Top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.85 @ h=45K, service ceiling)

Subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10K

Takeoff ground roll 4000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day

Landing ground roll 2500 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day

Second segment climb gradient above h = 5K, +15° hot day

Thrust to Weight Ratio ≈ 0.34

Wing Loading ≈ 88 lb/ft2

18

Estimated Lift to Drag Ratio and Specific Fuel Consumption

Lift to Drag Ratio

Subsonic (L/D)max 19.7

Subsonic (L/D)cruise 17.139

Subsonic (L/D)loiter 19.7

•Lift to Drag Ratio varies with Aspect Ratio

Specific Fuel Consumption

SFCcruise 0.5

SFCloiter 0.4

•Specific Fuel Consumption was obtained from various jets

•This will change the thrust of the jets ( )

19

Empty Weight Fraction Predictor

• Used carefully chosen data from 11 existing airplanes of various manufacturers– Technical specifications from…

• Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft• Aviation Week• Each manufacturer’s websites

• Gulfstream: G200, G250• Bombardier: Challenger 850, Learjet 60XR,

Learjet 85• Cessna: Citation Sovereign, Citation XHawker:

750, 850XP, 900XP, 4000 20

Equation - Technology Factor - Results

1 2 3 4 5( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )e SL oC C C C C

o MAX

f o

W T Wb W AR M

W W S

eW

fW

oW

•Used MATLAB to obtain the coefficient values

•Technology factor = 0.95

=19628.83 lb

=10016.57 lb

=31805.40 lb

21

Design QFD

• The ‘What’

– Performance

– Design

– Practical

– Comfort

22

Design QFD

• NASA Subsonic Transport Research Goals

23

Design QFD

• The ‘How’– Noise – Fuel Consumption – Take off Distance– LTO Nox Emissions – Speed– Size – Weight– Initial costs– Long term costs– Range

24

Design QFD

25

Airplane Cabin Layouts

26

27

Benchmarking

PlaneNumber of

SeatsWe

(lb)

W0

(lb)

Mcruise

Max.Range with

Reserve(mi)

FAATakeoff

Field Length

(ft)

FAA Landing

Field Length

(ft)

Endeavour XG 8-12 19,628 31,805 .80 4,258 4,000 2,500

Bombardier Challenger 300 11 23,500 38,850 .80 3,568 4,810 2,600

Cessna Citation Sovereign 9-12 17,720 30,300 472 mph 3,276 3,640 2,650

Cessna Citation X 8-12 21,700 36,100 552 mph 3,533 5,140 3,400

Dassault Falcon 2000DX 8-19 22,360 41,000 .80 3,250 5,300 2,640

Gulfstream G250 10 23,750 39,600 .80 3,906 - -

Hawker 4000 8-10 22,800 39,500 .82 4,119 5,169 2,99528

Benchmarking

• Comparable range, weight, and passenger count to G250

• Will implement advanced concepts to achieve N+2 goals for 2020 launch

29

Design RequirementsCompliance Matrix

Requirement Target Threshold Current Estimate Compliant

Maximum Mach Number 0.85 0.8 0.8 Yes

Empty Weight (lb) 18,500 20,000 19,629 Yes

Gross Weight (lb) 28,000 32,000 31,805 Yes

Takeoff Distance (ft) 2,300 2,800 3,100 No

Maximum Range (nmi) 3,700 3,600 3,700 Yes

Design Mission Range (nmi) 3,700 3,600 3,700 Yes

Noise (dB) 40 50 77 No

Seats 10 8 8 Yes

Volume Per Passenger (ft^3) 65 60 60 Yes

TSFC (% of avg) 55 65 65 Yes

N0X Emissions (% of avg.) 25 50 100 No

* Highlighted Requirements denote NASA N+2 guidelines.

Targets and Thresholds are based on "Project Opportunity Description" N+2 guidelines, as well as market, client, and company-driven protocols.

Current Estimates were generated using several comparable in-service aircraft including the Cessna Citation and Gulfstream G540

30

Advanced Concepts

• Solar Film– New films are flexible, lightweight, rapidly increasing in

efficiency, declining in price

– Could generate up to 30 watts per square foot, power interior lighting, avionics, high-tech devices

• Propfan– 35% better fuel efficiency than contemporary turbofans

– Integrated AVCS to reduce cabin noise

– Mach .8 achievable

31

Advanced Concepts

• High-Lift Devices– Engine blows direct flow along external downward flaps at

trailing edge (“Cascade effect”)

• Vortex Generators– Delay flow separation

– Increase maximum takeoff weight

• Selective Catalytic Reduction

– Reduces N0X emissions by as much as 90%

– Creates ammonia as a byproduct

32

Advanced Concepts•Composite Material–Large Scale Composite Material via VARTM (Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Method)–20%+ reduction of weight–Up to 60% of body made up of Composite material

•Carbon Nanotube–Possible increase of strength–Reduction of weight–High cost to overcome

33

Next Steps

• Demonstrate ability to meet performance targets, customer requirements through benchmarking, proof-of-concept testing

• Further explore possible configurations, technologies

– Place engines, wings, control surfaces

– Analyze effects/trade-offs of integrated systems

• Revisit/Refine QFD, Requirements Compliance Matrix, sizing code, 3-D model

• Begin aerodynamic analysis34

Summary

• 8 Passenger, 3700 mi range N+2 compliant aircraft scheduled for deployment in 2020

• Environmentally-Sensitive manufacturing/operation without sacrificing performance

• Focus on fractional ownership firms, foreign markets

• At least 600 aircraft sold by 2031

• Incorporates hybrid power systems & advanced aerodynamics to reduce fuel consumption, increase mission flexibility

• Serves as a design platform for meeting NASA N+3 guidelines by 2025 35

Appendix

36

Citation

• Aviation Week & Space Technology: Aerospace Source Book 2009 1 Feb. 2010.

• http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

• http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/16/322533/sikorksy-to-test-active-vibration-control-for-s-92-rotor.html

• http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0067.shtml

• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980aiaa.confR....M

• http://www.arvinmeritor.com/media_room/pdfs/gp0440.pdf

• Project Opportunity Description

• Crossley, William “Aircraft initial sizing Excel file”, “In-class QFD example file”, “Constraint diagram Excel file” 1 Feb. 2010.

• Del Rosario, R., and Wahls, R., “Subsonic Transport Research at NASA”, presented as the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics Colloquium, Nov. 5, 2009.

37