Preliminary Design Review The Flying Pigs
Preliminary Design Review The Flying Pigs Ting Wei Chin Ryan Mann Melissa Montenegro Andrew Senita Pablo Trefftz Posada University of Michigan
1 / 34
Overview 1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Introduction Three-view dimensioned drawings of the three configurations Red Configuration Blue Configuration White Configuration Comparison Table Description of New Technologies Motor Battery Feasibility Regions Down-Selection Rationale Stability and Control Propulsion System Aerodynamics of Configuration Computation Procedure Code Verification Q&A References 2 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
Objective Design an aircraft that maximizes the function: f = ωη η + ωR R + + ωV V + ωt t Mission Requirements FAI class C-1-a Powered by electric motor(s) Only ’off the shelf’ technology Takeoff from Willow Run Airport
3 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
0.28
1.20
0.43
Teal Inspired Configuration
6.72
0.92
0.48
1.84
0.67 0.90
1° 2.54
1
16.0959
61 °
16.03083°
29.243 74°
09
1.20
57 .4 1.86
0.93
0.54 7.14
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:100
red_3view
A3
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 1: Red Configuration 4 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
1.12
Sailplane Inspired Configuration
0.76
0.47
2.99
12.49
5.70°
5.18 0.93
1.87
9.35
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:1
full_plane_2
A2
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 2: Blue Configuration 5 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
Sailplane Inspired Configuration - Cockpit Views
6°
7.6
100
14
200
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:50
half_body SHEET 1 OF 1
A3
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG
Figure 3: Side View
Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:1
half_body_top
A4
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 4: Top View 6 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
Blended Wing Body Inspired Configuration 1
2
4
3
6
5
7
8
A
1.88
4.50
0.91
A
B
1.40
B
C
C
56
.94
°
1.50 D
1.56
0.79
1.40
D
10.30°
15°
19.85°
E
7.16
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D
F
MFG Q.A
1
2
3
4
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
BWBDriver_3_vIEW A3
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:32
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 5: White Configuration 7 / 34
Comparison Table
Comparison Data
Aircraft Takeoff Weight [kg] Empty Weight [kg] Battery Weight [kg] Cruise CL Landing CL Takeoff CL Cruise L/D P/W [kW/kg] W /S [kg/m2 ] Engine Type Model Maximum Power [kW]
Red 500 231 187 0.49 1.24 1.24 14.7 0.069 97.7 Electric KERS 60
White 500 231 187 0.296 0.994 0.994 11.24 0.1 48.8 Electric KERS 60
Blue 500 231 187 0.666 1.02 1.02 18.6 0.07 48.8 Electric KERS 60
Teal 500 308 − − − − − − − Gas O-200-A 1 74.6
Elektra One 300 100 100 − − − − − − Electric − 16
Yuneec e430 430 172 84 − − − − − − Electric Power Drive 40 40.3
Table 1: Aircraft Specifications
8 / 34
Comparison Table
Comparison Data - Continued
Aircraft Objective Function Speed [km/hr] Climb Time [s] Efficiency [m/kJ] Range [km] Span [m] Reference Area [m2 ] Aspect Ratio Average t/c Cruise Speed [km/hr]
Red 66 379 1440 2.37 266 7.14 5.12 10 15 234
White 42 414 1107 1.78 248 7.16 12.65 6 20.28 234
Blue 80 375 1440 2.93 408 12.4 12.4 15 15 230.4
Teal − − − − 3220 7.26 5.57 − 18 −
Elektra One − − − − 400 8.6 6.4 − − −
Yuneec e430 − − − − 227 13.8 11.37 − − −
9 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Motor
New Technologies - Motor
Criteria for motor: High power Low weight Low volume
We are looking for a high power to weight ratio
10 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Motor
New Technologies - Honda KERS Motor
Figure 6: Honda KERS Motor
11 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Motor
New Technologies - Honda KERS Motor
Motor Power [kW] Mass [kg] Volume [L] Power density [kW/kg] Power density [kW/L]
Honda KERS 60 7.7 1.571 7.8 38.19
Remy HVH250 60 33.5 6.76 1.8 8.87
Yuneec PD60 60 30 12.87 2.0 4.66
Table 2: Comparison Table for Different Motors for a Given Power Capacity
12 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Battery
New Technologies - Battery Criteria for battery: High specific power Low weight
Types of Batteries analyzed: Lithium Ion − Higher Energy Density Lithium Polymer − Lighter Weight & Flexible Form We looked for highest
Wh kg
to determine the best battery
13 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Battery
New Technologies - Swing 5300 Li-ion Battery
Figure 7: Swing 5300 Li-ion Battery
14 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Battery
New Technologies - Swing 5300 Li-ion Battery
Battery Total Energy [Wh] Mass [kg] Specific Energy [Wh/kg] Duration for Full Capacity Discharge [hrs]
Swing 5300 38789.31 0.0935 203.09
BX2493 20201.93 2.45 105.77
CU-J523 34449.45 8.00 180.36
sparkfun PRT-08484 37836.87 0.11 198.10
0.65
0.34
0.57
0.63
Table 3: Comparison Table for Different Batteries
15 / 34
Feasibility Regions
Feasibility Regions - Red Configuration
Figure 8: Objective Function Results for Teal Inspired 16 / 34
Feasibility Regions
Feasibility Regions - White Configuration
Figure 9: Objective Function Results for BWB Inspired 17 / 34
Feasibility Regions
Feasibility Regions - Blue Configuration
Figure 10: Objective Function Results for Sailplane Inspired 18 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale Best Design out of the three: Sailplane-inspired design
Figure 11: Blue Configuration - Dragonfly 19 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale
Met the requirement constraints Performed best at... Aircraft Range [km] Efficiency [m/kJ] Speed [km/hr] Climb Time [s] Objective Function
Red 266 2.37 379 1440 66
White 248 1.78 414 1107 42
Blue 408 2.93 375 1440 80
Table 4: Objective Function: Breakdown of Components
20 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale - Sensitivity Justifications
Input Variable Range [km] Efficiency [m/kJ] Speed [km/hr] Time [s]
Sensitivity of Obj. Function 0.35 [1/km] 0.039 [kJ/m] 0.054 [hr/km] -0.032 [1/s]
Relative Change in Obj. Function [%] 1.251 0.001 0.2025 -0.4549
Table 5: Sensitivity Results for the Obj. Function
21 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale - Sensitivity Justifications
Quantity Varied Payload Weight [kg] Cruise L/D Battery Weight [kg] Empty Weight [kg] Battery Energy Density [MJ/kg]
Absolute Change in Range [km] -1.00 27.20 0.43 -1.00 286.05
Relative Change in Range [%] N/A 1.00 0.30 -0.82 1.00
Table 6: Sensitivity Results for Range
22 / 34
Stability and Control
Stability and Control V-tail Configuration Stail = 0.6014m2 using Raymer’s method & Table 6.4 [Raymer, 2012] Ltail = 6.71m Cg calculated using Raymer’s method & Table 15.2 [Raymer, 2012] Static margin of 0.3
Locations Inboard Span Location [% of b/2] Outboard Span Location [% of b/2] Inboard Chord Fraction [% chord] Outboard Chord Fraction [% chord]
Ailerons 8 56 30 30
Flaps 63 93 30 30
Ruddervators 14 81 50 50
Table 7: Control Surface Locations 23 / 34
Propulsion System
Propulsion System
6°
7.6
100
14
200
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:50
half_body
A3
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 13: Ducted Fan Under Test Figure 12: Side View
24 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Aerodynamics of Configuration - Wing Span= 12.4 m AR= 15 λ = 0.4 Airfoil = NACA 4415 Dihedral = 5◦ Sweep = 0◦ Twist = 2◦ to −2◦ (Non−Linear Distribution) Low wing
Figure 14: View of the Wing 25 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Aerodynamics of Configuration - Tail Span= 0.91 m AR= 1.43 λ = 0.8 Airfoil = NACA 0009 Dihedral = 45◦ Sweep = 0◦ No Twist V-Tail
Figure 15: View of the Tail 26 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Aerodynamics of Configuration - Takeoff and Cruise Takeoff Speed = 28 m/s Cruise Speed = 64 m/s Stall Speed at Cruise = 53 m/s Unconventional Takeoff − No Rotation & Drooped Wingtip
Figure 16: Drooped Wingtip with Wheel 27 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Lift Coefficient Curve
Figure 17: CL − Span Distribution 28 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Drag Polar
Figure 18: CD vs CL 29 / 34
Computation Procedure
Computation Procedure
Figure 19: Code Flow Chart 30 / 34
Code Verification
Code Verification - Weight Estimates
Category Weight [kg] Crew Weight 163.2 Battery Weight 83.5 Initial Guess 430 Output 425.3 Table 8: Validation of Code with Yuneec e430
31 / 34
Code Verification
Code Verification - Design Space Constraints
Figure 20: Validation of Code with Teal 32 / 34
Q&A
Q&A
33 / 34
References
References
Daniel P. Raymer (2012) Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Jan Roskam (1989) Airplane Design Vol. I-VIII
34 / 34
1 / 34
Overview 1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Introduction Three-view dimensioned drawings of the three configurations Red Configuration Blue Configuration White Configuration Comparison Table Description of New Technologies Motor Battery Feasibility Regions Down-Selection Rationale Stability and Control Propulsion System Aerodynamics of Configuration Computation Procedure Code Verification Q&A References 2 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
Objective Design an aircraft that maximizes the function: f = ωη η + ωR R + + ωV V + ωt t Mission Requirements FAI class C-1-a Powered by electric motor(s) Only ’off the shelf’ technology Takeoff from Willow Run Airport
3 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
0.28
1.20
0.43
Teal Inspired Configuration
6.72
0.92
0.48
1.84
0.67 0.90
1° 2.54
1
16.0959
61 °
16.03083°
29.243 74°
09
1.20
57 .4 1.86
0.93
0.54 7.14
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:100
red_3view
A3
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 1: Red Configuration 4 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
1.12
Sailplane Inspired Configuration
0.76
0.47
2.99
12.49
5.70°
5.18 0.93
1.87
9.35
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:1
full_plane_2
A2
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 2: Blue Configuration 5 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
Sailplane Inspired Configuration - Cockpit Views
6°
7.6
100
14
200
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:50
half_body SHEET 1 OF 1
A3
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG
Figure 3: Side View
Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:1
half_body_top
A4
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 4: Top View 6 / 34
Three-View Dimensioned Drawings of the Three Configurations
Blended Wing Body Inspired Configuration 1
2
4
3
6
5
7
8
A
1.88
4.50
0.91
A
B
1.40
B
C
C
56
.94
°
1.50 D
1.56
0.79
1.40
D
10.30°
15°
19.85°
E
7.16
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D
F
MFG Q.A
1
2
3
4
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
BWBDriver_3_vIEW A3
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:32
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 5: White Configuration 7 / 34
Comparison Table
Comparison Data
Aircraft Takeoff Weight [kg] Empty Weight [kg] Battery Weight [kg] Cruise CL Landing CL Takeoff CL Cruise L/D P/W [kW/kg] W /S [kg/m2 ] Engine Type Model Maximum Power [kW]
Red 500 231 187 0.49 1.24 1.24 14.7 0.069 97.7 Electric KERS 60
White 500 231 187 0.296 0.994 0.994 11.24 0.1 48.8 Electric KERS 60
Blue 500 231 187 0.666 1.02 1.02 18.6 0.07 48.8 Electric KERS 60
Teal 500 308 − − − − − − − Gas O-200-A 1 74.6
Elektra One 300 100 100 − − − − − − Electric − 16
Yuneec e430 430 172 84 − − − − − − Electric Power Drive 40 40.3
Table 1: Aircraft Specifications
8 / 34
Comparison Table
Comparison Data - Continued
Aircraft Objective Function Speed [km/hr] Climb Time [s] Efficiency [m/kJ] Range [km] Span [m] Reference Area [m2 ] Aspect Ratio Average t/c Cruise Speed [km/hr]
Red 66 379 1440 2.37 266 7.14 5.12 10 15 234
White 42 414 1107 1.78 248 7.16 12.65 6 20.28 234
Blue 80 375 1440 2.93 408 12.4 12.4 15 15 230.4
Teal − − − − 3220 7.26 5.57 − 18 −
Elektra One − − − − 400 8.6 6.4 − − −
Yuneec e430 − − − − 227 13.8 11.37 − − −
9 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Motor
New Technologies - Motor
Criteria for motor: High power Low weight Low volume
We are looking for a high power to weight ratio
10 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Motor
New Technologies - Honda KERS Motor
Figure 6: Honda KERS Motor
11 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Motor
New Technologies - Honda KERS Motor
Motor Power [kW] Mass [kg] Volume [L] Power density [kW/kg] Power density [kW/L]
Honda KERS 60 7.7 1.571 7.8 38.19
Remy HVH250 60 33.5 6.76 1.8 8.87
Yuneec PD60 60 30 12.87 2.0 4.66
Table 2: Comparison Table for Different Motors for a Given Power Capacity
12 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Battery
New Technologies - Battery Criteria for battery: High specific power Low weight
Types of Batteries analyzed: Lithium Ion − Higher Energy Density Lithium Polymer − Lighter Weight & Flexible Form We looked for highest
Wh kg
to determine the best battery
13 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Battery
New Technologies - Swing 5300 Li-ion Battery
Figure 7: Swing 5300 Li-ion Battery
14 / 34
Description of New Technologies
Battery
New Technologies - Swing 5300 Li-ion Battery
Battery Total Energy [Wh] Mass [kg] Specific Energy [Wh/kg] Duration for Full Capacity Discharge [hrs]
Swing 5300 38789.31 0.0935 203.09
BX2493 20201.93 2.45 105.77
CU-J523 34449.45 8.00 180.36
sparkfun PRT-08484 37836.87 0.11 198.10
0.65
0.34
0.57
0.63
Table 3: Comparison Table for Different Batteries
15 / 34
Feasibility Regions
Feasibility Regions - Red Configuration
Figure 8: Objective Function Results for Teal Inspired 16 / 34
Feasibility Regions
Feasibility Regions - White Configuration
Figure 9: Objective Function Results for BWB Inspired 17 / 34
Feasibility Regions
Feasibility Regions - Blue Configuration
Figure 10: Objective Function Results for Sailplane Inspired 18 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale Best Design out of the three: Sailplane-inspired design
Figure 11: Blue Configuration - Dragonfly 19 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale
Met the requirement constraints Performed best at... Aircraft Range [km] Efficiency [m/kJ] Speed [km/hr] Climb Time [s] Objective Function
Red 266 2.37 379 1440 66
White 248 1.78 414 1107 42
Blue 408 2.93 375 1440 80
Table 4: Objective Function: Breakdown of Components
20 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale - Sensitivity Justifications
Input Variable Range [km] Efficiency [m/kJ] Speed [km/hr] Time [s]
Sensitivity of Obj. Function 0.35 [1/km] 0.039 [kJ/m] 0.054 [hr/km] -0.032 [1/s]
Relative Change in Obj. Function [%] 1.251 0.001 0.2025 -0.4549
Table 5: Sensitivity Results for the Obj. Function
21 / 34
Down-Selection Rationale
Down-Selection Rationale - Sensitivity Justifications
Quantity Varied Payload Weight [kg] Cruise L/D Battery Weight [kg] Empty Weight [kg] Battery Energy Density [MJ/kg]
Absolute Change in Range [km] -1.00 27.20 0.43 -1.00 286.05
Relative Change in Range [%] N/A 1.00 0.30 -0.82 1.00
Table 6: Sensitivity Results for Range
22 / 34
Stability and Control
Stability and Control V-tail Configuration Stail = 0.6014m2 using Raymer’s method & Table 6.4 [Raymer, 2012] Ltail = 6.71m Cg calculated using Raymer’s method & Table 15.2 [Raymer, 2012] Static margin of 0.3
Locations Inboard Span Location [% of b/2] Outboard Span Location [% of b/2] Inboard Chord Fraction [% chord] Outboard Chord Fraction [% chord]
Ailerons 8 56 30 30
Flaps 63 93 30 30
Ruddervators 14 81 50 50
Table 7: Control Surface Locations 23 / 34
Propulsion System
Propulsion System
6°
7.6
100
14
200
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME
DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
REVISION
TITLE:
DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A
MATERIAL:
WEIGHT:
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:50
half_body
A3
SHEET 1 OF 1
Figure 13: Ducted Fan Under Test Figure 12: Side View
24 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Aerodynamics of Configuration - Wing Span= 12.4 m AR= 15 λ = 0.4 Airfoil = NACA 4415 Dihedral = 5◦ Sweep = 0◦ Twist = 2◦ to −2◦ (Non−Linear Distribution) Low wing
Figure 14: View of the Wing 25 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Aerodynamics of Configuration - Tail Span= 0.91 m AR= 1.43 λ = 0.8 Airfoil = NACA 0009 Dihedral = 45◦ Sweep = 0◦ No Twist V-Tail
Figure 15: View of the Tail 26 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Aerodynamics of Configuration - Takeoff and Cruise Takeoff Speed = 28 m/s Cruise Speed = 64 m/s Stall Speed at Cruise = 53 m/s Unconventional Takeoff − No Rotation & Drooped Wingtip
Figure 16: Drooped Wingtip with Wheel 27 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Lift Coefficient Curve
Figure 17: CL − Span Distribution 28 / 34
Aerodynamics of Configuration
Drag Polar
Figure 18: CD vs CL 29 / 34
Computation Procedure
Computation Procedure
Figure 19: Code Flow Chart 30 / 34
Code Verification
Code Verification - Weight Estimates
Category Weight [kg] Crew Weight 163.2 Battery Weight 83.5 Initial Guess 430 Output 425.3 Table 8: Validation of Code with Yuneec e430
31 / 34
Code Verification
Code Verification - Design Space Constraints
Figure 20: Validation of Code with Teal 32 / 34
Q&A
Q&A
33 / 34
References
References
Daniel P. Raymer (2012) Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Jan Roskam (1989) Airplane Design Vol. I-VIII
34 / 34
