Special Purpose EYE. Dumchin Andrey Lipchinsky Catherine Rashkovsky Sasha Vladimisrky Dmitry Magrisso Leo Rubinfeld Matan Supervisor: Dror Artzi

Transcription

1 Special Purpose EYE Dumchin Andrey Lipchinsky Catherine Rashkovsky Sasha Vladimisrky Dmitry Magrisso Leo Rubinfeld Matan Supervisor: Dror Artzi 1

2 Project General Concept Project purpose: UAV performing the observation mission Enlarge the existing aircraft surveillance range Principal Requirements and constrains: Air-Borne, Air Released UAV Min. extra range 100 nm Real time air-borne mission control Two UAV-s in gondola King Air B200 Mother Plane Dimensions: Length m Wingspan m Height 4.54 m Range 3283 km Endurance 8 hr Cruise speed 220 kt Top speed 292 kt Useful load 1790 kg

3 General Mission Scheme Transmitting video from UAV to airplane 2.4 GHz Video receiver Data modem Antenna for UAV Video cam. Transmitter 900 MHz GPS Transponder Data modem Transmitting/Receiving data from UAV to airplane Auto-pilot 3

4 Operational Concept, UAV Selection General Requirements: Real-time video transfer ability Mission range: 100 nm Mission endurance: 2-6 hours UAV Requirements: UAV equipped with surveillance payload. Wing folding ability Light weight can be loaded on an airplane Airborne control ability

5 Simulation Wings unfolding, Inflating Parachute UAV The beginning Stabilization UAV is releasing is of free the air in decrease from the mission ejected open its shell by velocity airuav Doors Doors BRU-46 parachute open close

6 UAV selection Dominator Raytheon MALD ScanEagle Integrator MON Guard Aerosonde Weight Fuel weight, % Endurance Range Speed Cost picture 27kg Concept 150% 24h Concept Concept 100 kg unknown 6h 920km 18kg 30% 20h 500km 111km/h 59kg 40% 24h 990km 150 km/hr 50 kg Unknown, concept 6.5 h 100 km 60 km/h 15kg 33% 30h Conclusion: The Non-Returnable UAV concept was chosen. Concept $ $ n.a. Concept 3000km 80 km/hr $ Payload 2kg 20 kg 11kg 0.6kg Unknown, concept concept

7 MONGuard: 497 7

8 Antenna Self-destruct Mechanism Engine + Generator Fuel tank Avionics Transmitter + Receiver Camera The Camera was placed in the front of the vehicle to ensure maximum spatial view The new The configuration Antenna was placed has in the the same center line as the of wings, gravity to prevent aerodynamic changes as best as possible. Hence Generator, we don t places need next to make to the a engine. new control system. The Transmitter and Receiver were placed arbitrary to balance the moment. Self-destruct Mechanisms: 1 placed near the camera, 2 placed on the transmitter and receiver and 3 was placed for balance and will detonate towards the fuel tank. Fuel Tank changed due to the rest of the configuration.

9 Name/ Manufact urer Sensor Zoom Field of View (FOV) Power Requir ements Weight [kg] Dimensions Micro POP IAI TASE DUO Cloud Cap Day Or Night Wide angle 2-4X electronic Better than 150 μ rad Azimuth ±170 Elevation: W 1.2kg FLIR IR 2X elec. 1 gimbal Azimuth 25W 1.1kg The EO And payload best suited to SP-EYE 360 purpose is: SONY 26X Elevation: MicroPop Vid optical D104mm H180mm D130mm H195mm SCOPe 100 Micropilot Mp Micro Day POP or Night IAI Day or Night Day FCB CCD Wide Better Better μ angle than 200 than Night μ rad X 2gimbel μ rad electronic Optical Better 25X than 400 μ rad 2X Digital 2gimbel Azimuth: ±173 ±170 Elevation +80 : Azimuth ±170 Elevation: W 1.2kg 17 W 3W+ ~1kg D104mm H180mm 0.9kg D 100mm H182mm D110 H210

10 Gondola : chosen sizing & calculating Chosen gondola layout Quantity Name Picture Weight,kg Dimensions L, w, h mmxmmxmm In addition it will contain wiring Doors opening mechanism Gondola - s Pylons with reinforcements standard Antennas launch units UAV-s in BRU-46 protective shells UAV (folded) x377x497 2 Antenna x640x570 2 Protective Shell Gondola - s shape x395x560 2 BRU x51x152 2 Gondola shell Doors opening mechanism and wiring Total ~ x820x600 1 ~20 n/a n/a 10

11 Chosen geometric configuration This configuration is optimal. Foregoing calculations will be based on it. 11

12 12

13 Gondola influences on the flow and aerodynamic performance: Drag Roll Yaw Pitch Side force Lift Model scaling The chosen scale is 1:25 Wind tunnel constraints: Wingspan must not exceed 65cm Cross section area must not exceed 5% of the wind tunnel s cross section.

14 CAD model General surface geometry (Parasolid) was received. Surfaces were translated to solid bodies Wind model creation process The scale was changed (1:25). Gondola geometry (including configuration) were created. The model was prepared for RP printing. 14

15 Assembly Gondolas and other parts were connected with bolts and nuts. Nuts were fixed on the plastic surfaces with glue. Nut 15

16 Balance connector assembly It was decided to connect the balance connector and wing reinforcement. Usually axisymmetric balance connector is used. It was decided to design original connector to accomplish this task. 16

17 Balance connector assembly The back of the model is holed to install a balance. The hole diameter was chosen to enable possible balance displacements. 17

18 18

19 Wind tunnel test preliminary calculations Based on plane s and gondola s geometric properties only, the following results were obtained: Drag, CD : 5% Lifting slope, C : Nochange L 3 Pitch moment, CM : 1.3 *10 absolutevalue Pitching slope, CM : Nochange Windcock, C :6% Roll, C : 9% Side force, C : 3% 0 N L Y

20 Wind tunnel test process The following tests were done: Alpha- sweep to obtain plane s longitudinal characteristics Beta- sweep to obtain plane s lateral characteristics These tests held in three configurations: Clean plane Short gondola Long gondola Smoke and tuft tests to understand the flow inside the cavity of the open gondola.

21

22

23 C C , (28.5%) Original plane long gondola short gondola D Long Drag, (22.6%) D Short Test results C D 0.6 Longitudinal Lateral Original plane Long gondola Short Gondola 1.5 Original plane long gondola short gondola DRAG sweep Original plane long gondola short gondola C Y C L C D Long -0.4, (19.5%) original plane long gondola short gondola expected: C D, Long G 5% , deg , C Y 3.5% C N C D C D C C M , M CN , 0.5 Original plane Long gondola Short Gondola 0 DRAG sweep C R , Original plane Long gondola DRAG sweep, grid -0.2 original plane long gondola short gondola , deg C , CR % % L expected: 3% expected: C Mo % CY CN C 9%, R

24 Reason for inappropriate results Stream Gondola Separation position From Fluid-Dynamic Drag by Hoerner S.F. Re= Re=1.6*10^7 Aircraft Model 24 For better evaluation of the drag in the wind tunnel test the Re number should be increased to demonstrate the real CD.

25 Tuft and smoke tests results Problem solution We have Only 2 one releasing door will modes: be opened for each release First release smooth flow Baffle-board was added Second release cavity disturbed flow Separated flow FWD 25 25

26 1000 Max. Width: 1.4 m Max. Length: 5 m What do we have: Simplification of the UAV-control system: King Air B200 cabin dimensions: UAV- operating system:

27 THE CHOSEN LAYOUT: Emergency Hatch Main Exit 27

28 Conclusions and Summary Acknowledgments The following were accomplished: Mr. Arie Tzinnober Mr. Moti Ringel Gondola MonGuard Wind tunnel Requirements VS Achievements: Mr. Marcel Leventer model & tests Enlarging the surveillance range possible within 100 NM Configuration doors opening internal layout model design LOS Mr. Prosper communication Shounshan possible within Airborne Control Station selection and mechanism weight and Gondola Mr. detailed Danny capability Bodick for carrying two UAVs possible, including structure distribution manufacturing design equipment for each mission design Tests EO Mr. Sensor Tzvika Shahar of 1.5 kg - The MicroPop EO sensor fulfills the Detailed load and stress requirement Aerodynamics Dr. Ehud Kroll analysis Prof. Gill Iosilevskii Prof. Gregory Kopp Prof. Moshe Idan Our Supervisor Mr. Dror Artzi