James Bearman AJ Brinker Dean Bryson Brian Gershkoff

James Bearman AJ Brinker Dean Bryson Brian Gershkoff Kuo Guo Joseph Henrich Aaron Smith Daedalus Aviation The Daedalus One

Agenda �Review of Aircraft Requirements �Concept Generation �Advanced Technology �Fuselage Layout �Constraint Analysis �Current Sizing Analysis �Summary �Next Steps 2

Daedalus One Mission �Provide a versatile aircraft with medium range and capacity to meet the needs of a commercial aircraft market still expanding in the year 2058 �Incorporate the latest in technology to provide reliability, efficiency, while fulfilling the need for an environmentally friendly transportation system �Possess the ability to operate at nearly any airfield 3

Mission Profiles • Mission One • Schaumburg to North Las Vegas • 1300 nmi • Mission Two • South Bend to Burbank • 1580 nmi • Mission Three • West Lafayette to Urbana-Champaign to Cancun • 1200 nmi • Mission Four • Minneapolis to LAX • 1330 nmi 4

Engineering Requirements Engineering Requirement Condition Target Threshold Takeoff Distance ≤ 2, 500 ft 3, 500 ft Landing Distance ≤ 2, 500 ft 3, 500 ft Takeoff Weight ≤ 80, 000 lb 100, 000 lb Range ≥ 1800 nm 1500 nm Maximum Cruise Speed ≥ 0. 85 M 0. 75 M Maximum Passenger Capacity ≥ 110 90 5

Selection Process Pugh’s Method Choose Criterion Generate Concepts Evaluate Improve Iterate Select “Finalists” Analysis Current Configuration Tube and Bird of Tandem Wing Prey Wing o o Maintenance Cost o o o Low Wt o Fuel Burn o Static Stability o + + Fuel Capacity o + o Fast o o Clean Wing CL o + o Passenger Volume o + Induced Drag o Parasite/Form Drag o Low Stall Speed o + Low Alpha Req for T. O. o Noise Factor o + Small Airport Compatible o + o Aesthetic Appeal o Passenger Visibility + 0 6 2 o 16 1 6 0 9 8 6

Initial Concepts 7

Second Round 8

The “Finalists” 9

Current Design Configuration Tri-Tail Po we red Lifting Canard te i s po m Co Advanced Avionics Hig h-L ift De vic es ure t c u Str Possible Rear Egress Su per crit ica l Ai rfo il Geared Turbofans 10

Advanced Technologies Composites Stronger and Lighter than Metals Glue replaces Fasteners 20% empty weight savings Current Obstacle: Manufacturability and Repairability AI/UAV Reduction in flight crew Potentially Lower Operational Cost Reduced human error incidents Automatic Flight Control Current Obstacle: Reliability and Risk 11

Propulsion Pulse Detonation Up to 10% fuel savings (GE) Durable, Easy to Maintain Capable of using Multiple Fuels Current Obstacle: Noise http: //www. seas. ucla. edu/combustion/images/pdwe/engine_schematic 2. jpg 12

Propulsion Geared Turbofan 12% fuel savings 40% reduction in maintenance cost 70% lower emissions 30 d. B less than stage 3 noise limit http: //www. flug-revue. rotor. com/FRHeft 07/FRH 0710/FR 0710 a 1. jpg 13

Propulsion Unducted Fans Increase of fuel economy of 35% Increase in range of 45% Increase in noise but current test models meet noise criteria Blade-Out Risk http: //www. md 80. it/OLDFILES/immagini/thrust/Mc. DUHB-3. jpg 14

Propulsion Enhancement Magnetic Bearings “Floating” shaft reduces friction in turbine engine More thrust Possible elimination of engine oil system Current Obstacle: Heat generated by magnets Vectored Thrust Angled Thrust Provides Vertical Force AV-8 B Harrier II ▪ VTOL Weight: 22, 000 lbs ▪ STOL (1400 ft) Weight: 46, 000 lbs Reduce TO Runway Length Reduce Approach Speed 15

High Lift Devices Circulation Control Wing 85% Increase in CLmax 35% Reduction in power on approach speed 65% Reduction in landing ground roll 30% Reduction in lift off speed 60% Reduction in take off ground roll 75% Increase in typical payload/fuel at operating weight AIAA-57598 -949 Advanced Circulation Control Wing System for Navy STOL Aircraft 16

High Lift Devices Blown Flaps CLmax > 7 Types ▪ Internally Blown ▪ Externally Blown ▪ Upper Surface Blowing Reduce takeoff distance by as much as 74% W. H. Mason Some High Lift Aerodynamics 17

High Lift Devices Co-Flow Jet Flow Control AIAA 2005 -1260 High Performance Airfoil Using Co-Flow Jet Flow Control Test results show: Reduction of CL=0 from 0° to -4° Increase of CLmax of 220% from 1. 57 to 5. 04 Ao. A CLmax increase of 153% from 19° to 44° Reduction of CDmin(Ao. A=0°) from 0. 128 to -0. 036 18

Technology Readiness Levels � TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported � TRL 2 Concept and/or application formulated � TRL 3 Analytical and experimental proof-of concept � TRL 4 Component validation in lab environment � TRL 5 Component validation in relevant environment � TRL 6 Prototype demo in a relevant environment � TRL 7 Prototype demo in operational environment � TRL 8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified” � TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level 19

Technology Readiness Levels Type Description Weight/Cost Savings Composites 9 UAV/AI Pilot 6 Pulse Detonation 3 Geared Turbofans 6 Magnetic Bearings 3 Thrust Vectoring 7 Circulation Control 7 Blown Flaps 9 Co Flow Jet Control 4 Propulsion Type Propulsion Enhancement High Lift TRL 20

Fuselage Conceptualization �Fuselage sketches before configuration set �Aircraft evolution -> Fuselage change �Pressurized Cabin Shape Cylindrical Cross-Section Non-Cylindrical Cross-Section �Investigation of existing aircraft Fuselage Dimensions Galley/Lav/Cockpit Dimensions Seat Dimensions �Generated CAD Model 21

Fuselage Layout Length: 72. 1 ft Width: 14 ft 102 Seats, Single Class Seat Pitch: 32 in Aisle Width: 20 in Seat Width: 24 in 2 Galley Areas: 35 and 16 ft 2 2 Lavs: ~20 ft 2 22

Constraint Analysis �Major Constraints 2500 ft TO/Landing Roll 5000 ft Balanced Field OEI 500 ft/min Climb Rate at 36000 ft Top of Climb 100 ft/min Climb Rate at 41000 ft Service Ceiling 2 g Maneuver at 36000 ft Second Segment Climb Gradient OEI ▪ 2. 4%--2 Engine ▪ 2. 7%--3 Engine ▪ 3. 0%--4 Engine 23

Assumptions + Parameters �High and Hot Takeoff— 500 o ft + 25°F �Aspect Ratio 10 �Oswald Efficiency Factor 0. 8 �CD 0 0. 015 �CLMax 4. 0—Technology Improvement �L/D Second Segment Climb 11. 5 24

Constraint Diagram TO Field & 2 ND Segment Climb Size Aircraft W/S— 84 psf T/W— 0. 23 25

Sizing: Mission and Approach �Design Mission Altitude: 36, 000 ft Speed: 0. 75 M Cruise Range: 1, 800 nmi Steady, Level Flight �Analysis Tools: RDS Historical Database CATIA 26

Sizing: Procedure �Model Construction Basic Model of Aircraft Neglecting Landing Gear Technology Weight Savings Not Included �Sizing Analysis Initial “Guess” Values Used Initial Values Derived from Aircraft Database 27

Engineering Variables �Sizing Inputs: W/S – 84 lbs/ft 2 T/W – 0. 23 AR – 10 Wing Sweep – 10° �Sizing Output: We/Wo – 0. 60 Wo – 88, 000 lb 28

Current Compliance Matrix -Fuel Burn suspect. Sizing code analysis to be investigated. -Weight neglects gear and tech savings. 29

Summary 102 Passengers 1800 nmi Range ESTOL Capable Ability to operate at small airports, alleviating large airports Advanced Technologies 30

Next Steps �Sizing Refine current models Size Control Surfaces and Stabilizers Comparison with Other Codes �Final Technology Selection �Aerodynamic Analysis �Performance and Stability Analysis �Cost Analysis 31

Questions?