2022년 1월 31일 월요일

MQ-25 Analysis w/ OpenVSP and AerospaceSIM

 

 [See Previous Contents]



 Related my previous articles for Stealth Tankers (USN's MQ-25 and USAF's Stealth Tanker project)

   -> Boeing's-mq-25-candidate is revealed (2018.03.08)
   -> Lockheed's-mq-25-candidate is-revealed (2018.03.26)
   -> General Atomics'-mq-25-candidate is-revealed (2018.04.02)
   -> Additional-image-is-revealed-for MQ-25 of Boeing (2018.04.07)
   -> Additional-image-is-released-for MQ-25 of Lockheed (2018.04.09)
   -> Stealth-tanker-model-from-AFRL and Lockheed (2018.06.30)
   -> Boeing's design is Now MQ-25 (2018.08.31)
   -> Boeing MQ-25 - Additional Images (2018.08.31)



 Recent Progress for Unmanned Aerial Refueling


  This is a kind of reverse engineering contents for MQ-25 which I have interest for its beginning. Still there is no exact data for this aircraft, so I should imagine or estimate some part of design. It does lead to in-exact prediction, but I hope it can provide some provision. 

 Progress are shown in below

1. Shape Design and Sizing for Initial Estimation

2. Aerodynamic Characteristics

3. Stability and Control Characteristics

4. Performance (Flight Trajectory) Analysis



1. Shape Design and Sizing for Initial Estimation




 Roughly designed MQ-25 style model is shown; Planform of main-wing and v-tail is from 3-view while airfoil is approximated as 0.1c thickness with CL 0.2. Canted angle is 70deg from vertical plane. 


 Based on geometric design, rough sizing is done. Empty weight, baseline fuel, and cruise condition are configured to fit known data. Breguet Range equation shows that it is similar to the mission profile; delivering 17,000lb for 500nm distance.
 




 Result is 502nm with 3,750lb fuel; it means that the modeled MQ-25 is very efficient for aerial refueling compared to F/A-18E/F. Heavier F/A-18E/F carrying much more fuel than MQ-25 for the same mission. 


2. Aerodynamic Characteristics





 Baseline model carrying pair of pod depicting A/A42R-1 pod contributed to drag. CG is assumed to 7.1m from the Nose (Total length of aircraft is 17m). Control surfaces are v-tail, inboard and outboard of main wing. 






 At Cruise condition (M0.6), OpenVSP provides 6DOF aerodynamic coefficients. L/D is from 12 to 17 at AoA 0~2deg. 






 M0.2 w/ 30deg flap is powered approach condition; flap is deflection of in and outboard conforl surfaces which are shown in several pictures. it decreaes max L/D due to excessive drag but good at AoA 0 deg. 


3. Stability and Control Characteristics



 OpenVSP provides full 6DOF coefficients and inserted these to longitudinal & lateral matrix to get SnC characteristics. Inertia of model is harder than predicting pure-aero; inertia value is assumed as 1/8 of small transport aircraft. 

It results that 1.5min period of Phugoid w/ 4min of 1/e attenuation. Important thing happened at lateral motion. As shown in coefficient result, it did not have directional stability which requires active damper for real application. 


4. Performance (Flight Trajectory) Analysis



 Engine is modeled by parametric ideal engine; fortunately Rolls Royce AE 3007 engine has well known data. Thrust and Fuel-Flow table is generated for flight condition while thrust is degraded for 5% to account inlet/exhaust shape. 



Trajectory of 1st mission shows modeled aircraft deliver up to 17,000lb fuel for 500nm distance using 3,750lb own fuel. M0.6 at 25,000ft cruise condition is assumed while 17,000lb fule is gone at 500nm. CL conditino change shows that aircraft flew designed condition and CD is about 0.02.  





Max-ferry mission is calculated; if external fuel can be used for MQ-25 entirely, it can fly almost 7000nm for 22hr. There is a doubt about its performance. 





There are several cases; detailed discussion will be shown. 


Result for several mission expected for MQ-25; specification is fitted to reference mission. 

MQ-25 can reach 6930nm if it can use whole fuel for own flight; 19,730lb is used. 

Light-patrol mission carrying two 500lb shows 509nm with standard internal fuel. 

If MQ-25 goes 35kft to save fuel, it can extend its range for 70nm. 



2022년 1월 14일 금요일

Korean Hypersonic ALCM (Baby-Kinzhal?) w/ Aerospace SIM

  [See Previous Contents]



  I had modeled SCRamjet missile expected to be integrated to KF-21. Weight is limited to 3,000lb to fit KF-21's pylon limit. See the detailed result below. 













SUMMARY

Modeled (with some assumed value) Baby-Kinzhal (Kh-47M2) w/ SCRamjet is analyzed. 
- Solid booster rocket 600kg w/ 260 ISP
- SCRamjet fuel 50kg w/ 900 ISP

In order to achieve Mach 5 cruise speed, most of fuel is used for Boost phase. 

3000lb class ALCM shows about 900km range w/ Mach 5 cruise speed. 
- it is reduced to 600km when ground-launch.
- it is reduced to 330km when only rocket is used for same flight profile.
  (it is similar to Kh-15 Kickback class missile)

If missile is launched at ground, range is reduced to 670km.
- but Mach number variation is severe at Cruise Altitude. 
- 0.6t Booster should be used to match Air-Launch profile. 


2022년 1월 12일 수요일

Nuri-rocket and its variation trajectory analysis w/ Aerospace SIM

  [See Previous Contents]



  I had modeled Nuri rocket (KSLV-II) developed by KARI; middle class lift rocket uses 4x75t class for its 1st, 1x75t for 2nd and 1x7t for 3rd stage. Fortunately, many useful information is already in public, so I can reduce my effort to fit the size of Rocket. 

Most of the effort are sizing the dump/propellant weight of each stage and orbit specification. 



Specification from Wiki, weight, motor, payload, and total weight of 2nd stage is known. 
(but propellant mass of 2018 flight, about 14t, is probably not the full loaded mass)



In origin, I targeted 7.9km/s or similar for given altitude for the launch vehicle however, my initial approach gave far-behind launch condition in Aerospace-SIM. So I should increase V_total. 

There are weight (structure, propellant) specification - assumed



Baseline trajectory result from AerospaceSIM, my in-house code, it shows assumed model reach slightly less LEO condition. It is interesting that most of energy from 3rd stage goes to horizontal acceleration. 



Ligher payload (1.5t) make Nuri go to 600km orbit; it requires more time for climb. 



Small launch vehicle that only has 2nd and 3rd stage with 300kg payload; 52t rocket could deliver this payload to 300km orbit with Mach 18. I think burn-time should be tweaked for better acceleration profile. 


SUMMARY

Modeled (with some assumed value) Nuri rocket (KSLV-II) could reach similar profile known to public. 

Upper staged rocket could deliver 300kg payload for LEO (~300km)