NA SA-CR- 19T 182 NASw-4435 A PreliminaryDesignProposalfora Maritime PatrolStrikeAircraft: MPS-2000 Condor (NASA-CR-197182) A PRELIMINARY N95-12689 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR A MARITIME PATROL STRIKE AIRCRAFT: MPS-2000 C_NDOR (Kansas Univ.) 93 p Unclas G3/05 0026170 In Responseto1993/1994AIAA/Mcdonnell DouglasCorp. GraduateTeamAircraftDesignRFP The UniversityofKansasGraduateTeam Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ i 1. Introduction and Interpretation of RFP .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 RFP Requirements ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Mission Prof'fle ................................................................................................................ 1 2. Technical Approach to Meet RFP Requirements ........................................................................... 3 2.1 Weight Sizing ................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Regression Coefficients and Plots ............................................................... 3 2.1.2 Mission Weights ............................................................................................. 6 2.2 Performance Sizing ......................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Wing Loading ................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Thrust to Weight Ratio ................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Aerodynamics ................................................................................................................. 10 2.3.1 Drag ................................................................................................................ 10 2.3.1.1. Drag Breakdown ............................................................................ 10 2.3.1.2. Drag Polar ...................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Stability and Control ................................................................................... 15 2.3.2.1 Empennage/Control Surface Sizing ........................................... 15 2.3.2.2 Stability and Control Derivatives ............................................... 17 2.4 High Lift ......................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.1 Flap Sizing and Placement .............................................................................. 23 2.4.2 Circulation Control ......................................................................................... 23 2.5 Weight and Balance ........................................................................................................ 24 2.5.1 MIL-STD-1374 Weight Breakdown ................................................................ 24 2.5.2 Center of Gravity Locations ............................................................................ 27 The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor i 2.5.2 Center of Gravity Locations ............................................................................ 26 2.6 Performance .................................................................................................................... 28 2.6.1 Takeoff ........................................................................................................... 28 2.6.2 Cruise, Loiter, and Dash ................................................................................. 29 2.6.3 Landing .......................................................................................................... 30 2.6.4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 31 3. Technical Solutions to RFP ........................................................................................................... 33 3.1 Configuration .................................................................................................................. 33 3.2 Systems ........................................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1. Landing Gear Layout ...................................................................................... 37 3.2.2. Cockpit ........................................................................................................... 42 3.2.4 Engine Integration ...................................................................................... 45 3.2.4 Flap Blowing System .................................................................................. 45 3.2.5 Flight Control System ................................................................................. 48 3.2.6 Hydraulic System ....................................................................................... 50 3.2.7 Electrical System ........................................................................................ 50 3.2.8 Variable Wing Sweep System ..................................................................... 52 3.2.9 Fuel System ................................................................................................ 52 3.2.10 Avionics ..................................................................................................... 52 3.2.11 Weapons ..................................................................................................... 54 3.3 Structural Layout ............................................................................................................ 54 3.3.1 Structural Components ............................................................................... 54 3.3.2 Materials Selection ..................................................................................... 56 3.4 Maintainability and Accessibility .................................................................................... 60 3.5 Exceptions to RFP ........................................................................................................... 61 4. Management Organization ............................................................................................................ 64 4.1 Biography of Proposed Management Staff ...................................................................... 64 The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor ii 4.2 Management Procedures ................................................................................................. 65 5. Manufacturing .............................................................................................................................. 67 5.1 Facilities Required .......................................................................................................... 67 5.2 Component Breakdown ................................................................................................... 67 6. Final Design Trade Studies ........................................................................................................... 70 6.1 Takeoff Wing Loading vs. Thrust .................................................................................... 70 6.2 Engine Performance vs. Altitude ..................................................................................... 70 6.3 Flap Blowing Parameters ................................................................................................ 71 7. Implementation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 76 7.1 Program Applications ...................................................................................................... 76 7.2 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................. 76 7.2.1 RDTE Cost ................................................................................................. 77 7.2.2 Acquisition Cost ......................................................................................... 79 7.2.3 Operating Cost ............................................................................................ 79 7.2.4 Life Cycle Cost ........................................................................................... 81 7.2.5 Cost breakdown With Varying Numbers of Airplanes ................................. 81 7.2.6 The Cost Comparison ................................................................................. 83 7.3 Environmental Impact ..................................................................................................... 84 8. Description of Automated Design Tools ....................................................................................... 85 8.1 Advanced Aircraft Analysis (AAA) ................................................................................. 85 8.2 Aircraft Computer Aided Design (ACAD) ...................................................................... 86 9. References .................................................................................................................................... 87 The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor iii List of Symbols Symbol Description Units A,B Regression Coefficients A Aspect Ratio Cr_ Drag Coefficient CI. Lift Coefficient C_t Momentum Coefficient C Cost USD ($) e Oswald's Efficiency Factor E Endurance hours ft h Altitude L/D Lift to Drag Ratio re_dot Mass Flow Rate Ibm/s R Range nm ft2 S Reference Area (Wing) ft S Field Length f2t S" Effective Blown Flap Area T Thrust Ibs V Velocity ftls or kts Ibs W Weight The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor iv 1. Introduction and Interpretation of RFP The four member graduate design team assembled to submit aproposal for the 1993/1994 RFP at the University of Kansas has designed a four seat, variable swept wing, twin turbofan aircraft with STOL capabilities. The aircraft is named the MPS-2000 Condor and is capable of carrying air-to-surface or air-to- air weapon systems along with attack and surveillance radar and IFR systems. The aircraft has a cruise range of 800 nautical miles, a loiter of 4 hours, and a dash speed of 500 kts. The Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements and the Mission Profde for the Condor are summarized in Sub-sections 1.1 and 1.2 respectively. 1.1 RFP Requirements The AIAA Request for Proposal calls for a Maritime Patrol Strike Aircraft design to meet the needs of the U.S. Navy to contain regional conflicts and deter large scale aggression. The aircraft must be able to conduct surveillance over large expansions of water and land with little support for long periods of time. The RFP dictates that the proposed design must be a four seat multi-mission combat aircraft able to operate from a TARAWA or Wasp class amphibious assault ship. The aircraft must be able to intercept small, fast surface crafts and other small, armed aircraft. Other variants may included capabilities to conduct drug interdiction, law enforcement and search and rescue missions. 1.2 Mission Profile The rigorous mission profile for the Maritime Patrol Strike Aircraft as dictated in the RFP can be summarized in Table 1.1: Table 1.1: Mission :theCondor Phase 1: Prepare for Launch 15 minutes Phase 2: Warm-up & takeoff 10 minutes Phase 3: Cruise 400 nm. to patrol station Phase 4: Loiter on station 4 hours / Speed < 200 kts. Phase 5: Detect targets and accelerate to intercept 10minutes speed Phase 6: Dash at intercept speed 100 nm. Mach 0.9 or 500 kts @ S/L Phase 7: Attack and destroy target Two passes maximum Phase 8: Return 400 nm. to vessel The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor 1 Tomeetthemissionprof'derequirementtsh,e MPS-2000 Condor is designed with the following payload capabilities: • Anti-air Weapons: 2Raytheon & Ford Instrument AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles 2 Raytheon & Hughes AIM-120A Amraam missiles Anti-surface Weapons: 2McDonnell Douglas RGM-84 Harpoon missiles • Standard flare & Chaff Dispensers • ESM/ECM • IR equipment • UHF/VHF • Control displays / Video Display Terminals • Radar: 250" x40" elliptical / 120 deg. coverage / 360 deg total coverage / 250 KVA • Crew: 4 members (pilot, navigator/co-pilot, weapons systems officer, tactical officer) The performance constraints imposed on the Condor during completion of the mission profile are listed in Table 1.2. Table 1.2: Performance Constraints for the Condor ..... ., ,,, i iiii,iii,i,i,i,iiiiiiii,i,i,i,!!iii,iil,l,iiiiiiiiiiii e m ¢ Critical Field Length (Ground run) 500 ft Minimum initial cruise altitude 38,000 ft. Cruise Speed > 250 kts. Loiter Speed < 200 kts. Dash speed Mach 0.9 @ alt. 500 kts. @ S/L Return from loiter station after four hours with full payload Launch and recovery from WASP or TARAWA class amphibious assault ship This proposal presents the preliminary design aspects of the Condor as the apply to resllictions and requirements set forth by the RFP. The following chapters are keyed according to the RFP requirements. The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor 2 2. Technical Approach to Meet RFP Requirements The approach taken by the this design team toward the f'mal design of the Condor presented in this proposal is based on methods found in References 2 to 9. After a full understanding of the RFP is believed to be achieved, the preliminary design of the aircraft entails weight sizing, performance sizing, aerodynamic characteristics, high lift capabilities, weight and balance and performance. This step-by-step process is presented in Sections 2.1 through 2.6 respectively. 2.1 Weight Sizing Preliminary weight sizing of the Condor is based on methods found in Reference 2. The first approach involves studying similar aircraft and using statistical data to estimate takeoff and empty weights. This analysis, as conducted for the Condor, is described in Section 2.1.1. The fuel weight of the aircraft can be estimated from the mission specification as presented in Section 2.1.2. 2.1.1 Recession Coefficients and Plots. To f'mdan initial estimation of the takeoff and empty weight, the following relationship was used: WE = Loglo "Loglo (WTo)- A|-I Eq. 2.16 Ref. 2 B J A = -0_5269 B = 1.177 The constants A and B were found from a linear-logarithmic regression analysis of comparable fighters with variable sweep wing. Table 2.1.1 shows the airplanes considered with their takeoff and empty weights, and Figure 2.1.1 shows the linear-logarithmic regression extrapolation. The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor 3 Table 2.1.1: Similar Ait _lanes iiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!ii!ii!ii!iii!i!iiiiiiiii_i'iili_iiiii_i_ii!iiiiiiiiii!i i iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii F-14 74,349 41,780 Tornado 61_620 30,620 Mig-23 39_250 22,485 Su-24M 87r520 41,885 Mig-27 44,750 26_.52 F-111A 91r500 46,172 The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor 4 o _ _ _ < un 0 _,-4.Q r._ 0 I °_ r_ o _o_ o H r-,,..1 .-4 The University of Kansas MPS-2000 Condor 5