AA190

Conceptual Design and Optimization of Clean Hybrid Ultra Large Aircraft (CHULA)
Stanford University

Kyle Tsai
6/8/2011

This paper seeks to describe a rational approach to designing and optimizing the performance of a heavy-lift hybrid airship that is capable of transporting a 1,000,000 pound payload.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................3 DESIGN OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................................4 OPTIMIZATION STRATEGY .............................................................................................................................................5 NACA FOR-LOOP ........................................................................................................................................................6 K_LIFT FOR-LOOP .......................................................................................................................................................7 AR FOR-LOOP .............................................................................................................................................................7 DESIGN METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................8 AIRSHIP SIZING...........................................................................................................................................................8 AIRSHIP WEIGHT ......................................................................................................................................................10 PAYLOAD ..................................................................................................................................................................10 FLIGHT CREW ...........................................................................................................................................................11 EMPTY WEIGHT .......................................................................................................................................................11 VOLUME OF ENVELOPE ...........................................................................................................................................12 SHAPE ......................................................................................................................................................................12 LENGTH ....................................................................................................................................................................13 REFERENCE AREA .....................................................................................................................................................15 DRAG BOOKKEEPING ...................................................................................................................................................16 PARASITE DRAG .......................................................................................................................................................16 INDUCED DRAG ........................................................................................................................................................18 AERODYNAMIC LIFT .................................................................................................................................................18 TAKE-OFF FIELD LENGTH .............................................................................................................................................19 LANDING FIELD LENGTH ..............................................................................................................................................20 RANGE .........................................................................................................................................................................21 STOL RANGE .............................................................................................................................................................21 VTOL RANGE ............................................................................................................................................................21 SUPERHEAT EFFECTS....................................................................................................................................................22 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................23 OPTIMIZATION OF GRID SIZE ...................................................................................................................................23 DISCUSSION OF ERRORS ..........................................................................................................................................24 12000 NM RANGE, 4500 FT. TOFL AND LFL CONSTRAINT .......................................................................................24 12000 NM RANGE, 1000 FT. TOFL AND LFL CONSTRAINT .......................................................................................26 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................................27 FUTURE WORK .............................................................................................................................................................28 APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF VOLUME OF ENVELOPE ...............................................................................................29 APPENDIX B: AIRSHIP EMPTY WEIGHTS.......................................................................................................................30 APPENDIX C: HOERNERS FORMULA FOR DRAG OF REVOLVED BODY ........................................................................31 APPENDIX D: MATLAB MAIN FILE ................................................................................................................................32 APPENDIX E: VOLUME CALCULATION ..........................................................................................................................35 APPENDIX F: DRAG COEFFICIENTS CALCULATION .......................................................................................................37 APPENDIX G: CALCULATES TOFL ..................................................................................................................................38 APPENDIX H: CALCULATES LFL .....................................................................................................................................39 WORKS CITED ..............................................................................................................................................................40

INTRODUCTION

The Clean Hybrid Ultra Large Aircraft (CHULA) is a heavy-lift freight airship. Hybrid airships derive part of their overall lift from aerodynamic lifting forces, which necessitates taking off and landing just like normal airplanes. In effect, hybrid airships, when operating at their max takeoff weight (MTOW), become short take-off and landing (STOL) aircraft. The CHULA is clean because its cargo hold and crew compartments are completely enclosed within the airship envelope, leaving the body aerodynamically pure.1 A clean exterior allows for the potential of integrating boundary layer control (BLC) devices to increase the performance of the airship. Cargo-carrying airships such as the CHULA could prove to be an integral part of the global supply chain, which is currently dominated by three modes of conveyance: overland freight, overseas shipping, and air transport. Airplanes provide the fastest means of shipping, but are the costliest; thus, highly valuable and perishable goods like fresh seafood and flowers are typically serviced by air cargo. Low value commodities with long shelf life are transported via a combination of ships, rail, and trucks. Mid-range value and longer-lasting goods such as tropical fruits and fresh meats currently do not have a mode of freight that is cheaper than planes and faster than overland and marine shipping. However, recent studies have shown that airships can fill this niche. Prentice, Beilock, and Phillips write that for airships with a cargo capacity of 220 tons 2 , operating costs would be comparable to that of trucking. At 1100 tons, freight rates become competitive with marine and rail transport. When one also considers that airships do not need runways, roads, or canals to operate, there is a compelling argument for the continuing development of airship technologies. Within the past two decades, there has been a revival in interest to develop such heavy-lift freight airships. The recent Walrus program was a DARPA initiative to design a Hybrid Ultra Large Aircraft (HULA) capable of carrying 1 to 2 million pounds of cargo up to 12,000 nautical miles. The CargoLifter CL160 was a German program to build a 19 million cubic foot heavy lifting cargo platform capable of carrying 160 metric tons or 350,000 pounds 3 . Two other companies, the California-based Aeros and World SkyCat of the United Kingdom both offer hybrid airship solutions, and are in varying stages of funding and development. This paper presents a rational approach to design and optimize the performance of the CHULA.

The Hindenburg-class airship also attempted to integrate the crew, passenger, and payload sections within the superstructure of the envelope. 2 Throughout this paper, the unit ton will be used to mean short ton, equal to 2000 pounds. 3 Its parent-company, CargoLifter AG, announced insolvency in 2002. The CL160s hangar is now the site of Tropical Islands, an artificial tropical resort in Brandenburg, Germany. 3

DESIGN OBJECTIVES

The main design point of the CHULA will be its full payload capacity of 1 million pounds. The optimization of its design will involve three constraints: range, take-off field length, and landing field length. At full load, the CHULA will be operating as a short take-off and landing (STOL) aircraft When it is carrying a sufficiently low fraction of its payload capacity, it will operate as a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft These two operating modes represent different performance regimes, which affect the design constraints. Because performance conditions are most critical when the CHULA is fully loaded, the constraints are evaluated at STOL mode. The CHULA will be expected to meet the design range and payload capacity of the Walrus HULA; thus, it will have a 1 million pound cargo capacity and must be able to fly 12,000 nautical miles at gross capacity. The CHULA will have a design take-off field length (TOFL) and landing field length (LFL) of 4500 feet. The landing field length calculation will be performed assuming two different ground surfaces: concrete and wet grass. Out of curiosity, an attempt will also be made to assess if it can take-off and land within 1000 feet, allowing it to operate out of any commercial airport in the world4. In practice, an airship of this size would never be able to take-off or land safely in such a short space, but it is interesting to see how the configuration would be affected. In summary, the constraints used in this optimization are5: Range: 12,000 n.mi. TOFL: 4500 ft. and 1000 ft. LFL: 4500 ft. and 1000 ft.

Juancho E. Yrausquin Airport (SAB), located on the island of Saba of the Netherlands Antilles, is home to the worlds shortest commercial airport runway at 1300 ft. with only about 1000 ft. of useable runway. 5 The FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 and the ICAO Annex 14 represent two common sources of geometric specifications for airfield design. They establish that the 80 meter box is the maximum span and length that commercial airports can accommodate. Originally, a span constraint of 80 meters was going to be implemented, but it proved to be outside the design space of the airship.

OPTIMIZATION STRATEGY

The optimization of the CHULAs performance will be conducted using a grid search. The optimizer will compute every possible design point by running nested for-loops, each of which vary one parameter within a certain range. These parameters are the airships cross-sectional body profile NACA, the ratio of aerodynamic lift to total lift , and its aspect ratio AR. A search function will be performed using the above constraints to winnow out the combinations that do not meet the above constraints. An example of the pseudo-code used to implement the optimization is shown below:
% MATLAB PSEUDOCODE

% DESIGN OBJECTIVES CARGO_WT = 1000000 FUEL_WT = 125000 % VARYING PARAMETERS NACA K_LIFT AR

% %

[lbs] [lbs]

% OPTIMIZATION LOOPS for i = 1:length(NACA) for j = 1:length(K_LIFT) for k = 1:length(AR) evaluate TOFL(i,j,k) evaluate LFL_CONCRETE(i,j,k) evaluate LFL_WETGRASS(i,j,k) evaluate STOL_RANGE(i,j,k) end end end % ESTABLISH FEASIBLE DESIGN SPACE Find TOFL <= 4500 & ... LFL_CONCRETE <= 4500 & ... LFL_WETGRASS <= 4500 & ... STOL_RANGE >= 12000 & ... maximize VTOL_RANGE

% % % %

[ft.] [ft.] [ft.] [n.mi]

NACA FOR-LOOP

To expedite calculations, the airship is modeled as a buoyant wing section with the crosssectional geometry of a NACA 4-series airfoil. Because the cargo hold of the airship will most likely be located along the lower surface of the airship for structural and roll stability reasons, an airfoil with a relatively flat lower surface yields the least wasted space. Following visual inspection, I concluded that 12 to 18 percent thick airfoils with 8 to 9 percent camber, the highest point of which is located either 20 or 30 percent of the chord, provide suitable body profiles. These airfoils and some of their 2-D performance information are listed below.6
NACA

Zero-Lift Angle

Max L/D

Max L/D Angle

Max L/D Cl

Unit Chord Illustration

Max Cl Max Cl Angle

8212

1.915

12.5

50.776

1.0

1.028

1.0

-7.0

8214

2.030

15.0

50.819

1.0

1.045

1.0

-7.0

8216

1.849

15.0

43.491

1.5

1.030

0.0

-7.0

8218

1.862

15.0

40.241

1.5

1.017

-0.5

-7.0

8312

1.973

12.5

54.702

0.5

1.027

7.0

-7.5

8314

2.093

15.0

50.086

0.5

1.043

1.0

-7.5

8316

1.960

15.0

48.526

0.0

0.996

0.0

-7.5

8318

2.000

15.0

41.458

3.5

1.260

-0.5

-7.5

Data taken from Airfoil Investigations Database (http://www.worldofkrauss.com) 6

Max Cl

Stall Angle

1.915

2.030

1.849

1.862

1.973

2.093

1.960

2.000

9214

2.129

14.0

37.449

-0.5

0.980

-0.5

-8.0

2.129

9216

1.927

15.0

42.241

1.0

1.064

-0.5

-8.0

1.927

9218

1.941

15.0

39.719

1.0

1.058

-0.5

-8.0

1.941

9316

2.041

15.0

46.245

1.0

1.140

-0.5

-8.5

2.041

9318

2.089

15.0

43.340

0.5

1.082

-0.5

-8.5

2.089

K_LIFT FOR-LOOP

Generally, hybrid airships derive 30% of their lift from aerodynamic lift The range of values for tested is from 0.26 through 0.45. Values below 0.26 and above 0.45 yield imaginary results for the CHULA model.

AR FOR-LOOP

Aspect ratios range from 0.1 through 2. At an aspect ratio of 0, the airship ceases to have any span and many equations that depend on this value result in a trivial value of 0 as well. Ive capped the analysis at an aspect ratio of 2 because if the airship is too much wider than it is long, the chance of tip-strike while maneuvering low to the ground is high.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY

In the next sections, I will explain the aerodynamic equations and mathematical formulations by which I approached the design and optimization of the CHULA.

AIRSHIP SIZING

The HULAs volumetric displacement is written as terms:

. It is broken down into three main

The volume occupied by what would otherwise be a gondola or cockpit is assumed to be negligible compared to the vast volumes necessary for lifting gases, ballast, and the cargo. At cruise, the airship derives its lift from aerodynamic lift and buoyant force:

Accounting for the weight of the lifting gas and the air in the ballonets, we arrive at the equation for the net lift, which is the amount of useful lift that can counteract the total weight of the airship. (1) We can artificially set the amount of aerodynamic lift by introducing aerodynamic lift to overall lift. , the ratio of

Substituting this relationship into equation 2 and rearranging, we arrive at a relationship for as a function of and .

Substituting these relationships into the equation for total weight, we can rewrite the formulation for or .

Using the Archimedes principle,

we can expand the equation for net lift to the following equation:

Its a commonly held belief that as an airship ascends, its buoyancy diminishes as a function of the decreasing density of air in which it floats. In actuality, the amount of buoyant lift is constant because as the altitude increases, and the density of the surrounding air decreases, there is a concomitant decrease in the density of the helium within the envelope caused by the enlargement of the ballonets in which the gas is stored. Thus, an airships net lift is independent of the altitude so long as the airship is below pressure altitude, the height at which the complete fullness of lifting gas space is achieved (Burgess, 1927). The pressure altitude reflects the altitude at which structural limit for the expansion of the helium ballonets and further ascent necessitates an ejection of helium to relieve stress on the ballonet. The maximum fullness of the helium gas space at sea level must not exceed the relative density of the air at the design pressure altitude. The ratio of the volume of helium to the volume of the envelope is equal to that of the relative density of the atmosphere at the pressure altitude. The volume of the helium gas cell can be expressed:

The volume of the air ballast as solely a function of equation 1 and substituting in the above equation:

can be found by rearranging

Substituting

and

into the expanded form for net lift, yields:

A rearrangement of this equation produces an estimation of of the airship and the atmospheric conditions of its cruise mode.

based on the total weight

For a full derivation of this equation, please refer to Appendix A.

9

AIRSHIP WEIGHT

To solve for , an approximation of the total weight of the airship must be made. Its weight can be broken down into the following components: (12)

PAYLOAD 7

There are three major types of air cargo containers: Unit Load Devices (ULD), pallets, and intermodal containers. ULDs are most commonly used for cargo transport during commercial airline operations because they are standardized for the airplanes lower deck holds. These containers directly lock into an aircrafts restraint systems without the need for tie-downs or exterior netting. Pallets are designed for use with the conveyor systems in terminals and in aircraft. Cargo is secured to the pallet with cargo nets tightened with straps. The intermodal container is the largest type of air container, which can directly interface with land and air transportation without rehandling. To facilitate analysis, I will assume that the entire airships payload is stored within enclosed 20 by 8 ISO intermodal containers. These containers have a tare weight of 4500 lbs and a payload capacity of 40,000 lbs, making for a gross weight of 44500 lbs, assuming a full load (Bates, 2005). The volume of the cargo hold can be estimated as:

where The weight and volume of the cargo can be expressed:

(13) (14)

In this section, I will use the terms payload and cargo interchangeably. 10

FLIGHT CREW

The augmented crew complement of the C-130H Hercules for an 18 hour crew duty is: three pilots, two navigators, two flight engineers, and two loadmasters (GlobalSecurity.org). Because the trans-oceanic cargo hauls of the CHULA will probably necessitate 24 hours shift.s, it would probably require more personnel to operate. However, in this analysis, I will assume it has the same crew complement as the C-130. According to a 2004 FAA Advisory Circular on estimated aircraft loads, the average weight of flight crewmembers can be considered to be 190 pounds, each with 50 pounds of baggage.

EMPTY WEIGHT

To perform a rapid approximation of the CHULAs empty weight, I assumed a relationship between existing airships size and their respective structural weights. Out of the 33 airships sampled, 22 used hydrogen as a lifting gas and 11 used helium. Hydrogen is about 93% less dense than helium per volume at sea level. To normalize the data, I assumed this ratio stays constant through the operating altitudes of these airships, and divided the reported volumes of hydrogen airships by 0.93 to determine how large they would have to have been in order to lift the same gross weight had they been filled with helium instead. I plotted this normalized volume against the Manufacturers Empty Weight (MEW) and performed a regression, which determined that the following power curve fits the data with an R2 of 0.9823. (16)

Empty Weight as a Function of Normalized Volume

250,000 Empty Weight [lbs] 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 Volume [ft3] y = 0.0845x0.9326 R = 0.9823

11

One should be cautious in using this mathematical relationship because this study samples airships produced across the entire gamut of powered flight, from airships built with WWI-era manufacturing processes to those constructed with modern-day composite technology. The relationship also does not take into account the differences in weight between rigid and semirigid configurations, nor does it consider inequities in scaling. The specific data points used in this regression can be found in Appendix B. With this final relationship, we can express the total weight of the airship:

VOLUME OF ENVELOPE

Substituting the expression for total weight into the formulation for equation:

, we arrive at this

After some rearrangement, we can express it as a polynomial with which we can use polynomial solvers to calculate .

SHAPE

The general shape of the airship has two distinct components: a cross-sectional geometry that is an airfoil and sides that are revolved about the airfoils mean camber line. Mathematically, we can treat the first as an extruded airfoil and the second as a revolved body. We can take the length of the airship to be and the constant thickness span-wise portion to be . Because the airship is so large, it has appreciable thickness, and a consideration must be made to the extra span that the revolved wingtips add to the width. Its overall width can be defined as:

For modeling purposes, the airships cross-sectional geometry is that of a NACA 4-series airfoil. The NACA four digit series family is a convenient way to shape the airship because it is mathematically defined by the elements of its name. The first digit of a 4-series designation indicates maximum camber ratio, multiplied by 100. The second is the chordwise location of
12

the maximum camber point, times 10. The third and fourth digits represent its thickness to chord ratio, . The camberline of the airfoil is defined by the following two parabolas: for for And the thickness distribution is given:

, in this equation, is the chord of the wing, which is equal to the length of the airship, . Since the cargo hold will be located along the bottom of the airship, an airfoil with a relatively flat lower surface would be preferable. 4-series airfoils with a maximum camber ratio of 8% or 9%, a maximum camber point of 0.2 through 0.4 of the chord, and a thickness of 12% through 18% yield such approximately flat-bottomed surfaces. In order to complete the following calculations, it is useful to have a method of obtaining the coordinates of the NACA 4-series airfoil for which the leading and trailing edges are located on the x-axis. The following calculations assume such information is at hand and the number of coordinates is known.8

LENGTH

The length of the airship can be calculated as a function of the airships aspect ratio and its volume. To find this relationship, we break the airship into the extruded airfoil component and the body of revolution.

VOLUME OF EXTRUDED AIRFOIL

The volume of the extruded airfoil is equal to the cross-sectional area of the airfoil times the length of its extrusion, , which can be expressed as . Greens theorem, which gives the relationship between a line integral around a closed curve and a double integral of the plane defined by that closed curve, can be applied to yield the area of the airfoil using its coordinates:

I used Professor Alonsos Hess-Smith panel method MATLAB code to generate the airfoil coordinates used in this analysis. 13

Usually, airfoil coordinates are non-dimensionalized to represent a unit airfoil. Therefore, it is useful to represent the numerical implementation of Greens theorem for a unit airfoil with number coordinates as follows:

To scale the area of the unit airfoil up to the full size of the airship, we multiply it by . The volume of the extruded component of the CHULA is merely the scaled area of the unit airfoil times its span:

VOLUME OF REVOLVED WINGTIP

The volume of the revolved component can be found using the volume of a conical frustrum, shown below:

The volume of a conical frustrum is expressed:

Because the airfoil may not be symmetrical, we must first average the -coordinates on the upper side with their respective coordinates on the lower side to essentially make an equivalent symmetrical airfoil. This process can be numerically implemented using the following process:

To scale

to the full size of the airship, we must multiply by

14

Expanding the equation and , we find:

using the equations for

Because span can be expressed as , we can substitute this relationship into the above equation and rearrange to find the length of the airship.

REFERENCE AREA

With the length of the airship calculated, we can calculate the reference area of the airship using its aspect ratio.

15

DRAG BOOKKEEPING

Drag bookkeeping involves the decomposition of the total drag of an aircraft into its components: parasite drag and induced drag. Parasite drag is the component of drag independent of lift which includes friction and pressure drag. Induced drag or vortex drag is the liftdependent component that quantifies the drag force that occurs whenever a moving object redirects flow to produce lift In the application of this method to the CHULA, wave drag need not be considered as the airships cruise speed is nowhere near the transonic regime. Thus, total drag can be expressed in non-dimensionalized form:

PARASITE DRAG

Typically, the parasite drag of conventional cigar-shaped airships is calculated using Hoerners formula for the volumetric drag coefficient of revolved bodies.9 However, because the CHULA is essentially a buoyant wing section, I use equations for calculating the drag of wings instead. The calculation of is described in Kroos aircraft design text.

is the form factor, which is a reflection of the increase in drag due to the higher surface velocity of air caused by the wings thickness, . According to Kroo, a value of agrees well with empirical data.

If there is no sweep, the equation simplifies to:

is the skin friction coefficient for a flat plate. In the case of the CHULA, I assume that it is fully turbulent.

Hoerners formula for the volumetric drag coefficient of revolved bodies can be found in Appendix C. 16

is the wetted area, which Shevelle approximates as:

More accuracy can be achieved using numerical calculation. Again, we can think of the airship as the summation of two parts: an extrusion and a revolution.

The surface area of the extrusion is the arc length of the airfoil multiplied by its span. With airfoil coordinates that describe a unit airfoil, one can calculate the unit arc length and then scale it by the length of the airship.

The surface area of the revolved airfoil can be computed by discretizing it into a series of conical frustrums and summating their respective lateral surface areas. The lateral surface area of a conical frustrum is given by the following expression:

The radii of the frustrum can be thought of as the y-coordinates of the airfoil, and the height can be the x-coordinates.

To calculate the actual surface area of the revolution, one must scale this result by

17

INDUCED DRAG

The equation for induced drag has two components: , the variation of with viscous effects; and , the uneven distribution downwash across the span of the wing.

due to

where is the correction for fuselage interference and is the planform efficiency factor, which we will assume to be 0.99. Because there is no fuselage interference, is simply 1. Raymer provides a general relationship that can be derived from Shevelles quoted values of :

AERODYNAMIC LIFT

The equation to calculate the 3-D coefficient of lift for an elliptical wing is as follows:

Because the CHULA is untwisted, the angle of attack does not vary along the wing and thus remains constant. Therefore,

18

TAKE-OFF FIELD LENGTH

Kroo, in Aircraft Design: Synthesis and Analysis, provides a statistical method for determining the take-off field length using a parameter defined as:

where the lift off speed is taken as 1.2 times the stall speed. Although Kroo does not provide an equation of line for a 4 propeller plane, I was able to extrapolate the data points and create my own fit.

4-engine Prop TOFL vs Parameter

8000 Take Off Field Length [ft] 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Parameter y = 0.0275x2 + 6.4521x + 564.43 R = 0.9997

19

LANDING FIELD LENGTH

Kroo also describes a method to determine landing field length, which approximates it as the summation of an air run and a ground deceleration distance.

The air distance models a steady state glide with deceleration at constant altitude:

where is the effective drag, is 1.3 times the stall speed, and approximately 1.25 times the stall speed. The ground distance is expressed:

is taken at

where

is the final weight and

is the total stopping force.

is calculated:

Here, is the braking coefficient of friction, and D is the total drag of the aircraft including flaps, slats, and spoilers. To be conservative, my analysis will not take into account these devices and so will be the same as . Currey provides measured friction coefficients in his book, Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles and Practices. Dry 40 MPH 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.4 Wet 40 MPH 0.65 0.40 0.45 0.71 0.45 0.52 0.3 0.2

Surface Asphalt Concrete, rough Concrete, smooth Gravel Snow, dry, packed Snow, moist, packed 0.5 in. Snow over ice Grass

5 MPH 0.95 0.92 0.65 -

5 MPH 0.95 0.70 0.58 0.70 0.45 0.50 -

20

RANGE

As I wrote earlier, the CHULA will have two operating modes depending on its load situation: vertical take-off and landing mode and short take-off and landing mode. When its payload is small enough for the airship to achieve flight through gas buoyancy alone, it will operate in VTOL mode. When it is loaded past that point, it will have to take off and land like an airplane, so it will be in STOL mode. Presumably, the airship will fly farther flying under VTOL mode because no energy need be expended to overcome gravity as it is neutrally buoyant.
STOL RANGE

For airplanes, the chemical energy in fuel is ultimately used to overcome drag and gravity. The Breguet range equation is as follows:

According to Shevelle, a typical markup on manufacturers engine specification is about 3%.

When applied to airships, the initial and final weights can be considered as the portion of the total weight with and without fuel that exceeds the amount of lift gas buoyancy provides.

VTOL RANGE

The VTOL range is calculated as:

Here, , in units of horsepower, is the power required to overcome the drag force at cruise velocity. Assuming that drag and velocity are in SI units, it is calculated:

21

SUPERHEAT EFFECTS

Caused by the radiative heat of the sun, superheating can cause significant changes in the buoyancy of airships. According to Buckley, for light colored ships, superheat can reach 15 degrees Fahrenheit, and 40 for dark airships. When calculating the volume of the ballonets as a function of the pressure height of the airship, margin must be included in order to account for the effect of superheating. The ideal gas law is as follows:

Substituting for and rearranging, we see that the volume of the envelope is also a function of the temperature of the gas inside it.

The previously derived equation for airship envelope volume assumes standard atmospheric conditions and does not account for the effect of superheating. In order to incorporate a margin for these temperature variations, there should be a distinction between the airships maximum safe operating ceiling and the pressure altitude.

22

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

To summarize, the three parameters I varied were the body profile shape, aerodynamic lift to total lift, ; and the aspect ratio of the airship, accordingly: Parameter : : :

; the ratio of . I varied them

Range 8212, 8214, 8216, 8218, 8312, 8314, 8316, 9214, 9216, 9218, 9316, 9318 0.26 through 0.45 0.1 through 2

After obtaining an i j k - sized grid of results for take-off field length, landing field length, and STOL range, a search was performed to filter out only results that fulfilled the following criteria: Range: 12,000 n.mi. TOFL: 4500 ft. /1000 ft. LFL: 4500 ft. /1000 ft.

OPTIMIZATION OF GRID SIZE

The NACA for-loop has a fixed number of elements, but the k_lift and AR for-loops are free to be any size. Too small and the model risks not being thorough enough. Too large and computation time might be too long to be practical. I tested differently sized loops and noted the ratio of successful configurations to total grid size as well as the computation time.10 NACA K_LIFT 13 50 13 100 13 50 13 200 13 300 AR 50 100 150 200 300 Grid Size 32,500 130,000 97500 520,000 1,1700,000 Good Config. 1,081 3,708 3,244 13,681 29,893 Success Rate 3.33% 2.85% 3.33% 2.63% 2.55% Calc Time 7.1338 17.4926 12.9219 68.6598 110.0709

I determined that 100 elements in both the

and aspect ratio for-loops would be sufficient.

10

I performed the calculations on a HP Pavilion dm3 laptop with an Intel Core2 Duo P9300 running at 2.26 GHz and 4 gigabytes of RAM.

23

DISCUSSION OF ERRORS

One of the main shortcomings of my code is that it does not reliably calculate drag. The methods I use assume a conventionally sized airplane with a wing of aspect ratio between 3 and 14. Prandtl-Lanchester Lifting Line theory does not hold well below an AR of 3, which is the design space of the CHULA. I believe the inaccuracy in drag significantly affected my VTOL range calculation because they fell short of my expectations. As I wrote earlier, the VTOL range values should exceed those for STOL range, but my MATLAB code indicates that in the best scenario, it was 650 nautical miles, which is far too small. Another source of error was that my propulsion parameters do not change with altitude or velocity. The code uses constant values for engine SFC and thrust, which affect range and takeoff field length calculations.
12000 NM RANGE, 4500 FT. TOFL AND LFL CONSTRAINT

After evenly spacing the and AR arrays to have 100 elements, a feasible design space comprising of 3708 different possible airship configurations were found, taking 17.5 seconds to compete the search. An airship with the above constraints yields a success rate of 2.85%. The main distinguishing parameters were the landing field lengths for concrete and wet grass, and the STOL range. The configurations that produce the top 20 ranges of the airship are shown below:
NACA K_LIFT AR TOFL LFL WETGRASS LFL CONCRETE STOL RANGE

8312 8212 8312 8212 8312 8212 8312 8212 8312 8212 8312 8212 8312 8212 8312 8212 8312 8212 8312

0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26

2.00 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.97 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.95 1.95 1.94 1.94 1.92 1.92 1.91 1.91 1.90 1.90 1.89

564.6024 564.6103 564.603 564.6109 564.6036 564.6115 564.6042 564.6122 564.6048 564.6128 564.6054 564.6134 564.606 564.6141 564.6067 564.6148 564.6073 564.6154 564.6079

2096.206678 2095.328475 2089.655019 2088.782198 2083.077504 2082.210121 2076.473846 2075.611959 2069.843756 2068.987424 2063.186937 2062.336221 2056.503085 2055.658049 2049.791892 2048.952602 2043.053044 2042.219566 2036.286218
24

2100.678352 2099.731583 2094.174283 2093.231648 2087.645355 2086.706876 2081.091316 2080.157011 2074.511907 2073.581798 2067.906865 2066.980972 2061.275924 2060.354267 2054.61881 2053.701411 2047.935247 2047.022128 2041.224954

32048.46 31997.31 31948.46 31897.5 31848.09 31797.31 31747.34 31696.75 31646.21 31595.8 31544.69 31494.46 31442.77 31392.73 31340.46 31290.61 31237.75 31188.09 31134.64

At a of 0.26 the CHULA would need to have a volume of 28,323,000 cubic feet, four times as voluminous as the LZ-129 Hindenburg. For aspect ratios between 2 and 1.89, its length would be between 555 ft. and 565 ft.about the length of the British R-23 (1917). Under the 4500 ft. take-off field length and landing field length constraint, the results indicate that they were never critical, even when operating on wet grass. The largest ranges were achieved when the aspect ratio was as large as possible and when the amount of aerodynamic lift was as small as possibleboth of which work towards minimizing induced drag. It also suggests that the airship velocity, which is the lowest at a of 0.26, was not critical in influencing maximum STOL range as a faster velocity would have made the range greater. Its interesting to note that two similar airfoils had a monopoly over these mega-ranges: the NACA 8212 and the NACA 8312. Their sectional max L/Ds are 50.776 and 54.702, respectively.
Though high, these values are on par with some of the other airfoils such as the NACA 8214 and 8314. One must look at the overall L/D of the airship to differentiate the NACA 8212 and 8312 from the 8214 and 8314. The lift component of the overall L/D is only the aerodynamic lift of the airship, which is kept constant by fixing . Since the aerodynamic lift of the airship should be more or less constant

across the board, it is the drag that we must look at. Airships with profiles of the NACA 8212 and 8312 are thinner than those with the NACA 8214 and 8312, and so have less parasite drag. At these ranges, however, the landing field lengths are also as high as they can be because the air run portion of the landing distance is directly proportional to L/D as well. This reveals a tradeoff between landing field length and rangewith range, in this case, driving the design.

25

12000 NM RANGE, 1000 FT. TOFL AND LFL CONSTRAINT

In trying to satisfy the somewhat artificial constraint of landing within 1000 ft., we arrive at a design space that is significantly smaller. Using the same and AR arrays of 100 elements, only 85 possible configurations exista 0.06% success rate.
NACA K_LIFT AR TOFL LFL WETGRASS LFL CONCRETE STOL RANGE

9214 9318 8312 8212 9316 8314 8214 9214 8318 8218 9318 9218 8316 8216 8312 9316 8212 9216 8314

0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26

0.41 0.46 0.37 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.41 0.35 0.41 0.37

564.8965 565.0206 564.8964 564.9178 564.9941 564.9246 564.9478 564.9121 565.0794 565.1529 565.0383 565.1092 565.0489 565.1055 564.9135 565.0125 564.9357 565.0649 564.9422

992.8518 995.5886 992.744 997.8247 988.3507 968.6228 972.0796 961.0008 976.9758 992.0363 966.3103 978.4999 966.4229 976.519 954.9023 956.8943 957.5765 964.618 937.7723

933.4777 928.1874 928.8786 928.5336 923.9187 916.1769 916.038 912.3261 912.9047 914.5548 909.7924 911.2651 906.987 907.9983 905.5984 903.9315 905.2617 904.6396 894.3566

14232.9 14142.11 14120.37 14099.01 14063.82 13958.98 13940.4 13909.69 13884.66 13870.71 13861.13 13843.55 13783.44 13767.43 13765.73 13758.87 13744.89 13738.8 13625.84

At a of 0.26, the CHULA would still need to have a volume of 28,323,000 cubic feet. However, for aspect ratios between 0.41 and 0.37, its length would be between 905 ft. and 932 ft., a little longer than the Titanic. These results indicate a trend of low and low aspect ratio. Whereas the 4500 ft. constraint allows the STOL range to be maximized at the expense of field length, the 1000 ft. constraint caps the STOL range at a little more than 14,000 nautical miles.

26

CONCLUSIONS

There were a few pieces of information gleaned from this research: The design of 1,000,000 pound payload airships will require that they be the largest manmade objects ever created. These airships will never be able to land on conventional runways because of their size and will almost always require a large field or harbor. When airfoils are used for the cross-sectional profile of a HULA, only its thickness relative to the other airfoils used in the analysis is important. There is a tradeoff between landing field length and STOL range. For maximum range, the airship will want to have low lift and high aspect ratio. For minimum landing field length, the airship will also want to have both low aerodynamic lift and low aspect ratio.

27

FUTURE WORK

Though computationally inexpensive, the drag bookkeeping methods used in this analysis were not accurate enough to provide a good performance model. Computational fluid dynamics or a 3-D panel code would go a long ways towards improving it.

28

APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF VOLUME OF ENVELOPE

Equation (5) is as follows:

Expanding this equation,

Rearranging and collecting the terms,

And, finally, isolating

, we arrive at the final relationship:

29

APPENDIX B: AIRSHIP EMPTY WEIGHTS Total Volume [ft.3] 3,848 170,000 289,580 600,349 1,099,416 2,754,544 2,290,000 2,724,000 2,760,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 70,000 360,000 180,000 328,000 441000 127,000 176,000 1,250,000 700,000 930,000 1,040,000 1,610,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,340,000 875,000 4,075,000 3,707,550 7,063,000 5,156,000

Lotte 2/3 American Blimp MZ-3 LZ N 07 LZ N 17 Skycat 20 RA-180 Holland Navigator ZR-1 USS Shenandoah ZR-2/R38 LZ-126/ZR-3 USS Los Angeles ZRS-4 USS Akron ZRS-5 USS Macon S.S.P. N.S. C Zodiac M O P.V Roma N-1 R-9 R-23 R-31 R-33 L-33 L-49 L-70 Bodensee L-100 LZ-127 Graf Zeppelin LZ-129 Hindenberg R100

Lifting Gas Helium Helium Helium Helium Helium Helium Helium Helium Helium Helium Helium Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen

Normalized 3,848 170,000 289,580 600,349 1,099,416 2,754,544 2,290,000 2,724,000 2,760,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 75,524 388,407 194,203 353,882 475,798 137,021 189,888 1,348,634 755,235 1,003,384 1,122,064 1,737,041 2,265,706 2,265,706 2,265,706 2,524,643 944,044 4,396,548 4,000,103 7,620,323 5,562,847

Empty Weight [lbs] 216 6,300 7,255 12,831 45,292 94,799 80,200 66,000 91000 221000 216,000 2,880 13,900 7,900 11,900 18,100 5,200 8,300 44500 24,200 42,100 39,900 68,300 81,700 67,200 58,200 61,800 28,700 78,600 122,000 206,350 204,000

30

APPENDIX C: HOERNERS FORMULA FOR DRAG OF REVOLVED BODY

Hoerners formula for the volumetric drag coefficient is:

where

is the fineness ratio of the airship; calculated:

The volumetric drag force using Hoerners formula is as follows:

31

APPENDIX D: MATLAB MAIN FILE

% START CLOCK tic; ticID = tic; % MISSION OBJECTIVE Wpayload_US = 1000000; Wfuel_US = 125000; % SET ALTITUDES ALT_SL = 0; ALT_to = 0; ALT_cruise = 5000; ALT_land = 0;

% %

[lbs] [lbs]

% % % %

Sea evel altitude [ft.] Take off altitude [ft.] Cruise altitude [ft.] Landing altitude [ft.]

% ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS (OUTPUTS IN SI) [rho_SL,nu_SL,Vsonic_SL] = getAtmosphere(ALT_SL*0.3048); [rho_to,nu_to,Vsonic_to] = getAtmosphere(ALT_to*0.3048); [rho_cruise,nu_cruise,Vsonic_cruise] = getAtmosphere(ALT_cruise*0.3048); [rho_land,nu_land,Vsonic_land] = getAtmosphere(ALT_land*0.3048); % TENTATIVE CHULA CHARACTERISTICS Nengines = 4; Npanels = 100; engineParameters = getEngineParameters; % VARIABLES NACA_list = [8212,8214,8216,8218,8312,8314,8316,8318,9214,9216,9218, ... 9316,9318]; % creates NACA_list vector k_lift = (linspace(0.26,0.45,100))'; % creates k_lift vector AR = linspace(0.1,2,100); % creates AR vector % CREATE I x J x K GRID for i = 1:length(NACA_list); % RETRIEVE (X,Y) COORD AND PLACES INTO MATRIX [NACA_coordinates(:,2*i-1),NACA_coordinates(:,2*i)] = ... naca4(NACA_list(i),Npanels); % CALCULATE UNIT PARAMETERS [unitConicSurfaceArea(:,i),unitConicVolume(:,i), ... unitArcLength(:,i),unitCrossSectArea(:,i)] = ... getUnitParameters(NACA_coordinates(:,2*i-1), ... NACA_coordinates(:,2*i)); % OBTAIN AIRFOIL PARAMETERS [NACA(i),CLmax(i),CLmax_angle(i),LDmax(i),LDmax_angle(i), ... LDmax_CL(i),stallAngle(i),zeroLiftAngle(i),thickness(i)] = ... getAirfoilParameters(NACA_list(i)); for j = 1:length(k_lift); % CALCULATE VOLUME AND WEIGHT [Volume(j,:),Wi_US(j,:),Wf_US(j,:)] = ... getVolume(Wpayload_US,Wfuel_US,k_lift(j),rho_cruise, ... rho_SL,Nengines); Wi(j,:) = Wi_US(j,:)*4.44822162; % Takeoff Wt in [lbs] 32

Wf(j,:) = Wf_US(j,:)*4.44822162; Wavg(j,:) = (Wi(j,:) + Wf(j,:))/2; for k = 1:length(AR); Length(j,i,k) = (Volume(j)/(unitCrossSectArea(i)*AR(k) ... + unitConicVolume(i))).^(1/3); % CALCULATE Sref Sref(j,i,k) = AR(k)*Length(j,i,k)^2; % [m^2] Sref_US(j,i,k) = Sref(j,i,k)*10.7639104; % [ft.^2] % CALCULATE Cruise Coefficients CL_assumed = 0.025; Vcruise(j,i,k) = ((2*Wavg(j))/(CL_assumed*rho_cruise* ... Sref(j,i,k)))^0.5; % [m/s] [CLcruise(j,i,k),CDp_cruise(j,i,k),CDi_cruise(j,i,k), ... CDcruise(j,i,k)] = getCoefficients(Vcruise(j,i,k), ... ALT_cruise, AR(k),Length(j,i,k),Sref(j,i,k), ... unitArcLength(i), unitConicSurfaceArea(i),thickness(i)); LDcruise(j,i,k) = CLcruise(j,i,k)/CDcruise(j,i,k); Dcruise_STOL(j,i,k) = CDcruise(j,i,k)*0.5*rho_cruise* ... Vcruise(j,i,k)^2*Sref(j,i,k); % [N] % CALCULATE RANGE for STOL SFC = engineParameters(2); Range_STOL(j,i,k) = 325*(0.8/SFC)*(LDcruise(j,i,k))* ... log(Wi_US(j)/Wf_US(j)); % [n.mi] % CALCULATE VTOL RANGE Dcruise_VTOL(j,i,k) = CDp_cruise(j,i,k)*0.5*rho_cruise* ... Vcruise(j,i,k)^2*Sref(j,i,k); Vcruise_kts(j,i,k) = Vcruise(j,i,k)*1.94384449; % [knots] Pcruise_VTOL(j,i,k) = Vcruise(j,i,k)*Dcruise_VTOL(j,i,k); Pcruise_VTOL_HP(j,i,k) = Pcruise_VTOL(j,i,k)*0.00134102209; Range_VTOL(j,i,k) = Wfuel_US*(Vcruise_kts(j,i,k)/ ... (SFC*Pcruise_VTOL_HP(j,i,k))); % [n.mi] Pcruise_STOL_HP(j,i,k) = Vcruise(j,i,k)*Dcruise_STOL(j,i,k)*0.00134102209; fuelFlowRate(j,i,k) = Pcruise_STOL_HP(j,i,k)*SFC; % [lb/hr] t_endurance(j,i,k) = Wfuel_US/fuelFlowRate(j,i,k); % [hr] Range_VTOL2(j,i,k) = Vcruise_kts(j,i,k)*t_endurance(j,i,k); Range_VTOL3(j,i,k) = Wfuel_US*325*(0.8/SFC)*(1/Dcruise_VTOL(j,i,k)); % CALCULATE TAKE-OFF FIELD LENGTH Vstall(j,i,k) = (2*Wi(j)/(CLmax(i)*rho_to*Sref(j,i,k)))^0.5; Vto = 1.2*Vstall(j,i,k); % [m/s] SHPto = Nengines*engineParameters(3); % [SHP] Tto = SHPto*745.699872/Vto; % [N] Tto_US = Tto*0.224808943; % [lbf] RDto = rho_to/rho_SL; % relative density at TO TOFL(j,i,k) = getTOFL(Wi_US(j),RDto,CLmax(i), ... Sref_US(j,i,k),Tto_US); % [ft.] % CALCULATE LANDING FIELD LENGTH 33

V_50(j,i,k) = 1.3*Vstall(j,i,k); % [m/s] Vland(j,i,k) = 1.25*Vstall(j,i,k); % [m/s] [CLland(j,i,k),CDp_land(j,i,k),CDi_land(j,i,k), ... CDland(j,i,k)] = getCoefficients(Vland(j,i,k), ... ALT_land, AR(k),Length(j,i,k),Sref(j,i,k), ... unitArcLength(i), unitConicSurfaceArea(i),thickness(i)); Lland(j,i,k) = CLland(j,i,k)*0.5*rho_land*Vland(j,i,k)^2* ... Sref(j,i,k); Dland(j,i,k) = CDland(j,i,k)*0.5*rho_land*Vland(j,i,k)^2* ... Sref(j,i,k); mu_wetgrass = 0.2; % Braking coef. of fric. for wet grass mu_concrete = 0.75; % Braking coef. of fric. for asphalt LFL_wetgrass_US(j,i,k) = getLFL(Lland(j,i,k),Dland(j,i,k), ... V_50(j,i,k),Vland(j,i,k),mu_wetgrass,Wf(j)); LFL_concrete_US(j,i,k) = getLFL(Lland(j,i,k),Dland(j,i,k), ... V_50(j,i,k),Vland(j,i,k),mu_concrete,Wf(j)); % CALCULATES MAX WIDTH Width(j,i,k) = Length(j,i,k)*AR(k) + thickness(i)* ... Length(j,i,k); Span(j,i,k) = Length(j,i,k)*AR(k); end end end % GRID SEARCH % RETURNS SUCCESSFUL ROW, COLUMN, AND PAGE INDICES [r,c,p] = ind2sub(size(Range_STOL),find(Range_STOL > 12000 & ... TOFL < 4500 & LFL_wetgrass_US < 1000 & LFL_concrete_US < 1000)); r_c_p = horzcat(r,c,p); % r = j; c = i; p = k

for l = 1:length(r) Range_STOL_success(l) = Range_STOL(r(l),c(l),p(l)); TOFL_success(l) = TOFL(r(l),c(l),p(l)); LFL_wetgrass_success(l) = LFL_wetgrass_US(r(l),c(l),p(l)); LFL_concrete_success(l) = LFL_concrete_US(r(l),c(l),p(l)); end % RETURNS SUCCESSFUL AIRSHIP CHARACTERISTICS % [NACA,AR,K_LIFT,TOFL,LFL_WETGRASS,LFL_CONCRETE,RANGE_STOL] AirshipResults = horzcat(NACA(c)',k_lift(r),AR(p)', .... TOFL_success',LFL_wetgrass_success',LFL_concrete_success', ... Range_STOL_success'); % STOP CLOCK toc(ticID); elapsedTime = toc

34

APPENDIX E: VOLUME CALCULATION

% CALCULATE VOLUME OF AIRSHIP ENVELOPE

function [Venvelope,Wi_US,Wf_US] = getVolume(Wpayload_US,Wfuel_US, ... k_lift,rho_cruise,rho_SL,Nengines) % CONTAINER PARAMETERS Vcontainer_US = 20*8*8; Wcontainer_US = 40000; Wtare_US = 4500; Ncontainer = ceil(Wpayload_US/Wcontainer_US); % CALCULATION OF Wcargo and Vcargo Vcargo_US = Ncontainer*Vcontainer_US; Wcargo_US = Ncontainer*(Wcontainer_US + Wtare_US); Vcargo = Vcargo_US*(0.3048)^3; Wcargo = Wcargo_US*4.44822162; % CALCULATION OF Wfuel Wfuel = Wfuel_US * 4.44822162; % CALCULATION OF Wengines engineParameters = getEngineParameters; Wengines_US = Nengines*engineParameters(1); Wengines = Wengines_US*4.44822162; % CALCULATION OF Wcrew Ncrew = 9; Wperson_US = 190; Wbaggage_US = 50; Wcrew_US = Ncrew*(Wperson_US + Wbaggage_US); Wcrew = Wcrew_US*4.44822162; % CONSTANTS g = 9.8065; rho_helium = 0.1786; % CALCULATION OF RDair RDair = rho_cruise/rho_SL; function F = myfun(Venvelope) F = ((rho_cruise*g/(1-k_lift)) - (rho_cruise*g) + ... (RDair*rho_cruise*g) - (RDair*rho_helium*g))*Venvelope - ... 10.443*Venvelope^0.9326 + ... rho_cruise*g*Vcargo - (Wcargo+Wfuel+Wengines+Wcrew); end Venvelope = fsolve(@myfun,600000); Venvelope_US = Venvelope*(3.2808399)^3; Wempty_US = 0.0845*Venvelope_US^0.9326; Wempty = 10.443*Venvelope^0.9326; % % % [m^3] [ft.^3] [lbs]

% % %

[ft.^3] [lbf] [lbf]

% % % % % %

[ft.^3] [lbf] Conversion to [m^3] Conversion to [N] [lbf] Conversion to [N]

% %

[lbf] Conversion to [N]

% [lbf] % Conversion to [N]

% %

[m/s^2] [kg/m^3]

35

Lbuoyant_US = rho_cruise*g*Venvelope*0.224808943;

[lbf]

Wi_US = Wcargo_US + Wengines_US + Wcrew_US + Wempty_US - Lbuoyant_US + ... Wfuel_US; Wf_US = Wcargo_US + Wengines_US + Wcrew_US + Wempty_US - Lbuoyant_US; end

36

APPENDIX F: DRAG COEFFICIENTS CALCULATION

% CALCULATES DRAG COEFFICIENTS function [CLmaxrange,CDp,CDi,CD] = ... getCoefficients(V,ALT,AR,L,Sref,UnitArcLength,UnitConicSurfaceArea,t); % GET AIRFOIL PARAMETERS [rho,nu,Vsonic] = getAtmosphere(ALT); % CALCULATE Length Re Re_l = V*L/nu; % CALCULATE Mach M = V/Vsonic; % FORM FACTOR, K C = 1.1; k = 1 + 2*C.*t./(1 - M.^2).^0.5 + C^2*t^2.*(1 + 5)./(2*(1 - M.^2)); if AR < 1 AR = 1; end %

% WETTED AREA, Swet Swet = L.^2*(UnitArcLength.*AR + UnitConicSurfaceArea); % COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION, Cf Cf = 0.455./(log10(Re_l)).^2.58; % COEFFICIENT OF DRAG (PARASITE), CDp CDp = k*Cf*Swet./Sref; % INTERIM CALCULATIONS sweep = 0; k_viscous = CDp.*(0.38 + 57*10^-6 * sweep^2); u = 0.99; % Planform efficiency factor s = 1; % Fuselage interference correction e = 1./((pi.*AR.*k_viscous) + (1/(u*s))); % CL FOR MAX RANGE CLmaxrange = ((CDp.*pi.*AR.*e)/3).^0.5;

Shevelle pg. 279

% INDUCED DRAG CALCULATIONS CDi = k_viscous.*CLmaxrange.^2 + CLmaxrange.^2/(pi*AR*u*s); % TOTAL DRAG CD = CDp + CDi; end

37

APPENDIX G: CALCULATES TOFL

% CALCULATES TAKE-OFF FIELD LENGTH

function TOFL_4PROP = getTOFL(TOW_US,sigma,CLmax,Sref_US,Tto_US) Index = TOW_US^2/(sigma*CLmax*Sref_US*Tto_US); %TOFL_2 = 857.4 + 28.43*Index %TOFL_3 = 667.9 + 26.91*Index %TOFL_4 = 486.7 + 26.20*Index TOFL_4PROP = 0.0275*Index^2 + end + .0185*Index^2; + .0123*Index^2; + .0093*Index^2 6.4521*Index + 564.43;

38

APPENDIX H: CALCULATES LFL

% % % CALCULATES LANDING FIELD LENGTH Aircraft landing gear design: principles and practices By Norman S. Currey pg. 130

function LFL_US = getLFL(Leff,Deff,V_50,Vland,mu,Wf) LDeff = Leff/Deff; g = 9.8065; R = mu*(Wf - Leff) + Deff; % % % L/D [m/s^2] Overall braking force % % % [m] [m] [m]

d_air = 50*LDeff + (LDeff/(2*g))*(V_50^2 - Vland^2); d_g = Vland^2*Wf/(2*g*R); LFL = d_air + d_g; LFL_US = LFL*3.2808399; end

39

WORKS CITED
Anderson, J. D. (1991). Fundamentas of Aerodynamics 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill. Bain, A., & Schmidtchen, U. (2000). Afterglow of a Myth: Why and how the "Hindenburg" burnt. Berlin: Deutscher Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellen-Verband (DWV). Bates, J. C. (2005, March-April). Containerizing the Joint Force. Retrieved April 24, 2011, from Army Logistician: http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr05/joint.html Buckley, P. (2010). Airships: Everything You Thought You Knew. Hybrid Airships for Heavy-lift Conference (p. 13). The Patuxent Partership. Burgess, C. P. (1927). Airship Design. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific. Federal Aviation Administration. (2004). Advistory Circular - Aircraft Weight and Balance Control. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Fox, R. W., Pritchard, P. J., & McDonald, A. T. (2009). Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. Danvers: John Wiley & Sons. Froude, W. (1865). Discussion of Paper by W.J.M. Rankin. Trans. Inst. Naval Architects , 6, 35-37. GlobalSecurity.org. (n.d.). C-130H Hercules Specifications. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from GlobalSecurity: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft./c-130-specs.htm Khoury, G. A., & Gillett, D. J. (1999). Airship Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Kroo, I. (2007). Applied Aerodynamics: A Digital Textbook. Stanford, California: Desktop Aeronautics, Inc. Landewers, A. (2010). Rigid Airship Design: Rise and Fall of a Dutch Airship Manufacturer. Made: Aerospace Information Service. Prentice, B. E., Beilock, R. P., & Phillips, A. J. (2010, July 17). Economics of Airships for Perishable Food Trade. ISO Polar . Prentice, B. E., Phillips, A., Beilock, R. P., & Thomson, J. (2005). The Rebirth of Airships. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum , Vol. 44, No.1, 173-190. Shevelle, R. S. (1989). Fundamentals of Flight 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

40