User talk:J2sande

September 2013

Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to VTOL have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at Files for upload

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at VTOL. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: VTOL was changed by J2sande (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.8621 on 2013-09-12T21:37:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verticraft

Hi, I have attached a paper published by Georgia Tech Research Institute about the Verticraft

The information supplied can be verified by Dr. Dan Schrage, at the Gerogia Tech School of Aerospace Engineering which built the computer simulation model shown in the photo. Call him at the University to verify the information, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.173.13.179 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Wikipedia community do not regard any individual in person, such as Dr. Schrage himself, as a reliable source. Nor are an editor's personal communications with an individual acceptable. Published writings will usually be accepted, provided the reliability of the published source can be verified, for example if it is a peer-reviewed journal. Media reports, etc. can establish the existence of claims, though not their validity. If you like, I can ask my fellow editors to look at the venture capital sites and see if there is anything notable about your project and whether there might be a place for it here. But please could you give deeper urls to the relevant material, you cannot expect editors to trawl these resources themselves. To help with that, I'll restore your material below here so it is easy to find. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Refer to:

02.101.001.13.123124
9 May 2013
DARPA/TTO
675 North Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203-2114
Subject: DARPA-BAA-13-28
GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION (GTRC) is pleased to submit
the enclosed proposal for your consideration in response to DARPA-BAA-13-28.
Administrative and Financial Data
This proposal is made on the basis that any resulting award will be a costreimbursement
research and development type grant with a validity date 6 months
beyond the closing date of receipt for proposals. The award should be made out in the
name of the GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION (GTRC) which is
incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia with its business address at Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0420.
Initiation Date and Duration
The Contractor is prepared to initiate the proposed program immediately upon
completion of contractual arrangements and 08 August 2013 is suggested as an
appropriate initiation date. A contract period of thirty (10) months is contemplated by
this proposal.
Cost Estimate
The overhead rate used in the cost estimate has been approved by the Office of
Naval Research, Atlanta Regional Office (representing the Department of Defense) for
the period 1 July 2012 through 30 June 2013. Information concerning the overhead rate
may be obtained from Office of Naval Research, Atlanta Regional Office, 100 Alabama
Street, Suite 4R15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104.
This proposal is presented on the basis that your agency will accept as applicable
to any resultant contract the same overhead rates and periods of application as are
established by the Office of Naval Research in connection with the administration of
research and development contracts. The overhead determination is made in accordance
with OMB Circular A-21 and is based upon the fiscal year which ends June 30.
Additional Information
The CAGE Code for GTRC is 1G474. The Duns Number is 09-739-4084. The
offeror is not a socially and economically disadvantaged business, a historically
black/minority institution, a women owned business, or a small business. Below is a
listing of Government Agencies cognizant of the activities indicated?
Cognizant Federal Audit Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency, Atlanta Branch
2233 Lake Park Drive SE
Suite 200
Smyrna, GA 30080-8813 (678) 309-8400
Cognizant Overhead Rates Negotiation Authority
Office of Naval Research
Indirect Cost, Code 242
Department of the Navy
800 North Quincy Street
Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660 (703) 696-4514
Military Security Authority
Defense Investigative Service
Director of Industrial Security
2300 Lake Park Drive, Suite 250
Smyrna, Georgia 30080-7606 (S4110) (770) 429-6340
Administrative Contracting Officer
Office of Naval Research
Atlanta Regional Office
100 Alabama Street, N.W.
Suite 4R15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 (404) 562-1611
Cognizant Equal Employment Opportunity Office
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Civil Rights
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909 (404) 562-7886
Contractual Arrangements
GTRC requests that any award resulting from this proposal incorporate the terms
and conditions that are appropriate to this offeror's status as a nonprofit, educational state
institution. We will be pleased to discuss contract terms and conditions at your
convenience.
Organizational Conflict of Interest
The Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) Policies and Procedure Manual,
Statement No. 7: Federal and State law and Georgia Tech policies prohibit the
establishment of legal relationships which may create the appearance of, or an actual,
organizational conflict of interest. No SETA support is being provided to the government
at this time.
We believe that the enclosed proposal will provide you with all necessary
information. However, if additional information is desired, please contact us at your
convenience. Technical matters should be referred to Dr. Daniel Schrage at e-mail:
(daniel.schrage@ae.gatech.edu); phone: 404-894-6257 and contractual matters to the
undersigned e-mail: dan.sibble@gatech.edu, phone: 404-894-6947, or fax: 404-385-0864.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to the
results of your evaluation.
Sincerely,
Contracting Officer
Office of Sponsored Programs
BAA Number: DARPA BAA-13-28
Technical Area: Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node (TERN)
Volume I: Technical and Management Proposal
TERN with Innovative Science & Technology
(TWIST)
Submitted by the
Georgia Institute of Technology
Type of business: Other Educational
with
Verticraft LLC Guided Systems Technologies Inc. Bain Aero LLC
Other Small Business Other Small Business Other Small Business
Eagle Aviation Technologies LLC
Veteran-Owned Small Business
A Unique, Robust VTOL Tail Sitter UAS to Provide
the Navy a Large, Long-Endurance, Ship-recovered Unmanned
Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node (TERN)
Technical POC:
Dr. Dan Schrage
School of Aerospace Engineering, MC 0150
Georgia Institute of Technology
Award type: Cost Reimbursable
Place of Performance: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Period of Performance 10 months
Cost Summary $1,995,992 $20,000,000 $20,000,000
Audit Agency (DCAA) Audit Office: DCAA ATL Branch Ofc.
2233 Lake Park Dr. SE. Suite 200
Smyrna GA 30080-8813
DUNS number: 09-739-4084
TIN number: 58-0603146
Cage code: 1G474
Prepared: May 9, 2013
Validity period: May 10, 2013 through November 6, 2013
iii
Table of Contents
1.1! Organizational Conflict of Interest Affirmations and Disclosure ................................... iv!
1.2! Human Use ...................................................................................................................... iv!
1.3! Animal Use ...................................................................................................................... iv!
1.4! Statement of Unique Capability Provided by Government Team Member .................... iv!
1.5! Government or Government-funded Team Member Eligibility ..................................... iv!
2! Technical Details .................................................................................................................... 1!
2.1! Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 1!
2.2! Initial TERN Objective System Conceptual Design ........................................................ 3!
2.2.1! Background ............................................................................................................... 3!
2.2.2! Key Technologies ..................................................................................................... 4!
2.2.3! TOS Initial Design .................................................................................................... 5!
2.3! Phase I Execution Plan ..................................................................................................... 7!
2.3.1! Technical Approach .................................................................................................. 7!
2.3.2! Analysis Tools .......................................................................................................... 9!
2.3.3! Shipboard Integration .............................................................................................. 10!
2.3.4! Software Development ............................................................................................ 11!
iv
1.1 Organizational Conflict of Interest Affirmations and Disclosure
NONE
1.2 Human Use
NONE
1.3 Animal Use
NONE
1.4 Statement of Unique Capability Provided by Government Team Member
Not Applicable.
1.5 Government or Government-funded Team Member Eligibility
NONE
1
2 Technical Details
2.1 Executive Summary
Georgia Tech proposes the TERN With Innovative Science and Technology (TWIST) as our
baseline concept for both the TERN Objective System (TOS) and the TERN Demonstrator
System (TDS). TWIST is a tail-sitter configuration that incorporates several innovative
technologies to make it the simplest, most efficient, and most robust TERN concept possible.
Our initial TOS conceptual design includes the following technologies:
1. A large diameter coaxial prop rotor for low disk loading
and improved hover efficiency and controllability.
2. A free-wing that pivots in response to the downwash
velocity generated from the coaxial prop rotor and
adjusts in response to ship air wake flows and
crosswinds to always allow vertical takeoff into the
wind with 15 to 45 degrees tilt.
3. All moving vertical and horizontal tail surfaces for
enhanced controllability.
4. A tiltable turboprop engine with an inline connection to
the prop rotor without directional gearboxes.
5. An adaptive neural net flight control system that automatically adjusts to changes in the
air vehicle’s dynamic characteristics making it highly suitable for a tail-sitter with a very
broad flight regime.
The TWIST configuration is based on the Verticraft concept developed by Stan Sanders of
Verticraft LLC. Over the past two years Georgia Tech has analyzed and simulated this concept
in the Integrated Product Lifecycle Engineering Laboratory (IPLE). The results of this analysis
indicate that this configuration can readily meet DARPA’s overall goals for the TERN program.
We propose a complete system with the following key elements:
• Air vehicle – a tail-sitter configuration with coaxial prop rotors and a free-wing and
horizontal stabilizer. Compared to tail-sitter designs developed in the 1950s, the use of a
free-wing is a unique feature that greatly improves handling performance in the transition
region between vertical and forward flight. It also improves the ability of the system to
effectively hover in the airflow near a ship.
• Ground control station – compatible with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) unmanned
system common control architecture. Using the common control architecture leverages
functionality already available for other unmanned systems and reduces the logistics and
support requirements for integrating the TERN system on the LCS.
• Automated landing system – compatible with the existing approach and landing system
and Light Harpoon Landing Restraint System (LHLRS) used by Fire Scout. Unique
features of the landing system include flight control algorithms to match the aircraft’s
motion to the ship’s motion and gust disturbance rejection algorithms to mitigate the
effects of the ship’s air wake during landing. Another unique feature incorporated is an
adaptive neural net flight control system, the development of which was pioneered at
Georgia Tech for UAV applications.
2
• Container – the system consisting of two air vehicles and support equipment is contained
in standard ISO shipping containers, the preferred method for packaging unmanned
systems for the LCS.
To develop the conceptual design and concept of operations for TWIST, Georgia Tech has
assembled a team with significant experience in the design, development, and operation of
unmanned aerial systems. The Georgia Tech School of Aerospace Engineering (GT AE) and the
Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) will jointly lead the team which includes Verticraft LLC
(creator of the Verticraft concept), Guided Systems Technologies Inc. (a UAV developer), Bain
Aero LLC (CFD specialist), and Eagle Aviation Technologies LLC (a proven prototype
manufacturer). GT AE is well suited to lead the team having served as the prime contractor or
integrator on numerous programs such as DARPA’s Software Enabled Control (SEC),
Helicopter Quieting, Mission Adaptive Rotor, and Phase 2 Heliplane programs and the Army’s
Autonomous Scout Rotorcraft Testbed (ASRT) Program. Similarly, GTRI, the applied research
arm of Georgia Tech, has been the prime contractor and system integrator for a wide variety of
DoD prototype development programs and served as the prime contractor for several helicopter
flight test programs for the U.S. Air Force.
Our team leverages experience from several previous and ongoing efforts for the U.S.
government and other agencies. GTRI has several current programs directly relevant to the
TERN program including the development of the Common Software Architecture for the LCS
mission packages, sponsored by Navy PMS 420, and the development of the Joint Precision
Approach and Landing System (JPALS), sponsored by Navy PMA 213. Another program that
will be leveraged is Guided Systems Technologies’ successful effort to develop the flight control
system for Aerovironment’s SkyTote, a tail-sitter UAV sponsored by the Air Force Research Lab
for cargo delivery. GST and Georgia Tech closely collaborated to develop the flight dynamics
simulation and an adaptive neural net flight control system for the SkyTote.
The proposed schedule for developing and testing a TERN prototype system, presented below in
Figure 1, is closely aligned with the requirements laid out in the TERN BAA. The conceptual
designs for the TOS and TDS will be completed within Phase I (10 months). Also during Phase
I a more detailed schedule and budget will be prepared for Phases II and III that meets DARPA’s
timeline and funding constraints for the TERN program.
Figure 1: Proposed Schedule
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Phase+I
System'Req.'Definition
'''Initial'Design
'''TOS'conceptual'design
Tech.'Maturation'Plan
Phase'II/III'Prg.'Plan
'''TDS'conceptual'design
Phase+II
TDS'Peliminary'Design
Risk'reduction'testing
TDS'Detail'Design
Phase+III
Fabrication
Assembly'&'Integration
Preliminary'flight'testing
L&R'demonstration
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
PDR
TMP
CDR
rollFout
flt'demo L&R'
demo
SRR'
Prg.'Plan
Review'3
Review'2
Review'1
Test'Results
3
2.2 Initial TERN Objective System Conceptual Design
2.2.1 Background
One aircraft configuration that is highly suitable for UAV operations from the decks of small
Navy ships is the tail-sitter. Such a vehicle has few operational requirements other than a small
clear area for take-off and landing. In addition, the tail-sitter has other unique benefits. In
comparison to helicopters, a tail-sitter vehicle does not suffer the same performance penalties in
terms of dash-speed, range, and endurance because it spends the majority of its mission in a more
efficient airplane flight mode. The only other VTOL concepts that combine vertical and
horizontal flight are the tilt-rotor and tilt-wing; however, both involve significant extra
mechanical complexity in comparison to the tail-sitter, which has fixed wings and nacelles.
The tail-sitter configuration was first realistically evaluated for naval applications in the 1950s
with the Convair XFY-1 Pogo and the Lockheed XFV-1 proof of concept vehicles. Both were
converted conventional takeoff and landing propeller fighter aircraft which were far from
optimized as tail-sitter aircraft. In spite of this, the Pogo successfully demonstrated vertical
takeoff, transition, cruise and landing which proved the potential of tail-sitter aircraft for small
Navy shipboard operations.
Figure 2. Early Tail-Sitter Aircraft
While the Pogo did demonstrate the feasibility of the tail-sitter concept, the configuration has
never been adopted for use as a manned aircraft. One of the main issues with these early
prototypes was that the pilot had poor visibility and orientation in vertical flight mode. To see
the ground, the pilot had to look back over his shoulder and his forward view was blocked by the
fuselage. This made controlling the aircraft during takeoff and landing extremely difficult. On
the other hand, in a UAV application sensors can be located wherever necessary to obtain an
unobstructed view; thus, a tail-sitter UAV is not subject to the limitations of an onboard pilot.
Another reason that these aircraft were not further developed was the rapid growth of jet power
and the military’s need for speed. Neither of these aircraft was capable of flying faster than
580 mph; thus, they were not fast enough to assure survival in a conflict where an adversary
possessed jet power. However, in a UAV application, such as TERN, survival through speed is
not an issue. In short, many of the problems encountered with tail-sitters in manned aircraft
applications are not present in a UAV application.
Since these early proof-of-concept tail-sitters, a number of unmanned tail-sitter concepts have
been developed as prototypes, such as the Aerovironment SkyTote and the Aurora Golden Eye.
However, none of these have reached production for a variety of reasons. They were too
Convair XFY-1 Pogo Lockheed XFV-1
4
complex or had insufficient control power and damping in hover and low speed flight, especially
in higher sea states. Also, both concepts had fixed wings, without pivot, leaving them
susceptible to varying wind conditions in hover and transition.
Figure 3. Tail-Sitter UAVs
2.2.2 Key Technologies
To overcome some of the limitations of earlier tail-sitters, Georgia Tech proposes to develop the
TWIST tail-sitter based on the Verticraft concept created by Stan Sanders, a former Navy and
American Airlines pilot and now president of Verticraft LLC. The Verticraft concept
incorporates several key technologies to achieve superior performance over previous designs.
One key technology is the use of a large diameter coaxial prop rotor for low disk loading and
better hover efficiency. The large diameter prop rotor should also be fairly quiet in loiter, if the
tip speed is low enough, allowing lower surveillance altitudes with low risk of acoustic detection.
Another key technology is a controllable free-wing concept for the main wing. A free-wing
freely rotates about its pitch axis to align itself with the relative wind and maintain a constant
angle of attack. Thus, the free-wing can pivot in response to the changing slipstream angle
caused by the combination of the forward velocity, the downwash generated from the coaxial
prop rotor, and the ship air wake flow. This allows the aircraft to launch and land into the wind
with 15 to 45 degrees of tilt from vertical.
An engine capable of operating in both a horizontal and vertical orientation is another key
technology for the tail-sitter concept. The proposed engine for the TERN demonstrator system is
the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C, a new PT6 turboshaft derivative designed for tiltrotor
operation in the Agusta Westland AW609. Engine certification is slated for 2015. The 1,200 to
2,000 shaft horsepower class PT6C series has been produced in three models and its versatility
has been demonstrated in a wide variety of applications. For the TERN objective system other
propulsion systems will be considered. Regardless of the specific engine, having the prop rotor
mounted at the nose of the vehicle offers the advantage of a straight line connection to the
coaxial prop rotor. This eliminates the need for directional gearboxes that may be found in
configurations such as a tiltrotor with a single fuselage-mounted engine.
To control the aircraft an adaptive neural net controller will be used. Guided Systems
Technologies (GST), in partnership with Georgia Tech has developed, validated, and transitioned
a new adaptive control technology tailored to the requirements of aircraft applications. This
adaptive control technology was successfully demonstrated on the Aerovironment SkyTote tailsitter
prototype UAV and the DARPA Software Enabled Control (SEC) program. As a result of
5
its adaptive nature, the controller does not require precise knowledge of the vehicle’s dynamic
characteristics. This makes it ideal for an application like a tail-sitter that has a very broad flight
regime with transitions between vertical and horizontal flight. Such flight transitions are
challenging to model accurately in simulation; thus, having a control technique that can
compensate for modeling errors is crucial to developing a successful flight controller.
The landing system will leverage the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS)
currently in development. JPALS is the Navy’s next generation ship-based landing system. It
provides a differential GPS navigation solution for conducting precision approaches for both
manned and unmanned air platforms. It consists of a Shipboard Relative GPS system, a JPALS
Air Subsystem on the aircraft, and a JPALS UHF encrypted specific data link between the
aircraft and the ship.
2.2.3 TOS Initial Design
The TOS initial baseline design was sized based on the TERN BAA concept of operation and
identified mission requirements using the Georgia Tech Integrated Product and Process
Development (IPPD) Concept Definition approach (see section 2.3.1). The conceptual design
mission, used to size the baseline, is based on the mission profile shown in Figure 4. The
resulting design (Figure 6 and Figure 7) is a 4,193 lb aircraft with a minimum range of 600 nm
and an on-station loiter endurance of over 7 hours. The baseline TWIST is capable of dash
speeds up to 293 knots, and flight altitudes of over 40,000 ft, as shown in the forward flight
envelope in Figure 5. Control of the free-wing allows the aircraft to maintain a body attitude for
minimum drag while the wing attitude is for the desired flight condition. This allows the baseline
vehicle to be capable of high lift to drag ratios over a large range of forward flight speeds, as
shown at cruise altitude (26,000 ft) in .
Table 1. TWIST Baseline Specifications
Vehicle Rotor Wing
Gross Weight 4193 lbs Disk Loading 18 lb/ft2 Wing Loading 40 lb/ft2
Installed Power 1100 SHP Rotor Diameter 17.2 ft Area 104.8 ft2
Empty Weight 2411 lbs Solidity 0.12 Wing Span 32.4 ft
Fuel Weight 1182 lbs Tip Speed (Hover) 750 ft/s Aspect Ratio 10.0
Mission Payload 600 lbs Tip Speed (Cruise) 675 ft/s Taper Ratio 0.6
Height (on deck) 13.8 ft ηP (Cruise) 0.732 Cruise CL 0.82
Fuselage Equiv. Drag Area 2.08 sqft ηP (Loiter) 0.739 Wing CD0 0.007
Figure of Merit 0.684 Cruise L/D 14.9
6
Figure 4: Baseline Mission Profile
Figure 5. Baseline TWIST Performance
Figure 6. TWIST 3-View
Takeoff'Hover!
SL!103°F!
(2!min!OGE)!
600lb!Payload!
Climb'
minimum!!
1000!;/min!
Cruise'Out'
600nm!at!180!KTAS!
26,000!;!ISA!
(~3.3!hours)!
Decent'
miximum!
1000!;/min!
Loiter'
440!min!(~7.3!hours)!
!125!KTAS!
15,000!;!ISA!
Cruise'In'
600nm!at!180!KTAS!
26,000!;!ISA!
(~3.3!hours)!
Reserve'Loiter'
30!min!at!1000!;!ISA!
Recovery'Hover!
SL!103°F!
(7!min!OGE)!
Turn'Around'
40M60!min!for!recovery,!!
hot!refuel,!system!checks,!
!and!launch!
32.4’&
17.2’&
13.8’&
10.2’&
Configuration+Item
Weight+
(lbs)
Longitudinal+
CG+(in)*
Blades'(Upper) 184 12.0
Swashplate/Controls 213 24.0
Hub 135 30.0
Blades'(Lower) 184 36.0
Transmission 151 48.0
Hydraulic'Boost 68 55.0
Avionics 75 55.0
Engine'Installation 35 56.0
Flight'Control'System 165 58.0
Fuel'System 47 60.0
Engine 230 66.0
Fuselage 451 76.0
Electrical 75 80.0
Wing 88 87.0
Landing'Gear 200 145.0
VQTail 55 150.0
HQTail 55 150.0
Fuel 1182.0 80.0
ISR'Payload 600 110.0
CG'(Takeoff) Q 75.5
CG'(Landing) Q 73.8
*as'measured'from'nose
7
!
Figure 7. TWIST Features
2.3 Phase I Execution Plan
2.3.1 Technical Approach
The Georgia Tech Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) Concept Definition
approach is a six step process illustrated in Figure 8. The initial TOS baseline design was
developed from the first pass through this process. For Phase I, subsequent iterations through six
steps will be undertaken to conduct tradeoffs for finalizing the TOS and TDS.
Figure 8. TWIST Concept Definition Flow
The six steps in the Concept Definition approach are:
Free$Wing)for)smoother)
transi1on)and)gust)rejec1on)))
Coaxial)Proprotor)allows)ver1cal)
takeoff)with)no)an1$torque)
Control)tabs)allow)op1mum)
wing)AoA)independently)of)
body)
Inline)mounted)propulsion)system)
eliminate)direc1onal)gearboxes)
Adap1ve)neural)network)reduces)
need)for)system)iden1fica1on)
Landing)system)leverages)
JPALS)
TERN BAA
CONOPS/Utility
TERN Mission
and System
Requirements
Parametric
Sizing
System
Analyses
Configuration
and Layout
Available and
Enabling Technology
Portfolio
Concept Refinement
and Solutions
Mission Evaluation
and Cost Analysis
Concept
Evaluation and
Selection
1
2
4
3
5
6
Vehicle Synthesis
Performance
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Structures
Mass Properties
Stability
Control System
Landing System
Shipboard Integration
System Sustainability
Life-Cycle Cost
Unified'Tradeoff'
Environment'(UTE)'
Concurrent Engineering
8
Step One: TERN CONOPS Evaluation: Initial Concept of Operations (CONOPS) was
based on TERN BAA and Industry Day Presentation. CONOPS definition is an
iterative process that drives sizing and military utility trades.
Step Two: TERN Mission Analysis: Based on new or updated CONOPS definition new
TERN Mission Analysis will be required.
Step Three: Technology Identification and Evaluation by Disciplinary Teams will be
provided for updated Vehicle Synthesis.
Step Four: Parametric Sizing & Performance Analysis will be conducted with updated
requirements and technology assessment.
Step Five: Concept Definition Solutions will be identified for further refinement, and
Mission and Cost Effectiveness Evaluation.
Step Six: Concept Alternative Evaluation will be made using Qualitative and Quantitative
Decision Techniques to select the Final TOS Design and the TDS Design.
The largely deterministic Concept Definition approach used for the initial TOS Baseline
Configuration will be expanded in Phase I for subsequent iterations to include higher fidelity
tools to create the Unified Tradeoff Environment (UTE), illustrated in Figure 9, to address risk
and uncertainty of top level requirements, concepts, and technologies. To realize the
quantification of reachability, UTE was formulated to simultaneously vary requirements, vehicle
attributes, and technology factors using surrogate models.
Figure 9. UTE for Trading Off Requirements, Concepts and Technologies
The application of this UTE methodology involves a procedural tradeoff process, with a dynamic
objective based on a precise systematic definition of the problem and identification of system
evaluation criteria. Continuous assessment of tradeoffs with Overall Evaluation Criterion (OEC)
results in a design solution that satisfies all the design objectives in the best manner. Specific
configuration elements and design attributes are correlated to design objectives through system
synthesis through multidisciplinary optimization (MDO) and robust design assessment and
optimization. By incorporating life-cycle cost analysis in this tradeoff process, alternatives can
be assessed by their effective value to the overall system. This methodology allows for trades of
system elements, processes, and technologies in a conceptual design synthesis as well as scaling
for application in preliminary and detailed design in Phase II and III.
9
In order to create a robust design assessment and optimization environment for conceptual
system and technology tradeoffs, Georgia Tech will utilize a set-based concurrent engineering
team approach. Discrete design teams will perform “offline” disciplinary analysis of subsystem
and system design concepts simultaneously while in close coordination with program
management. This allows for concurrent elimination of infeasible concepts and identification of
promising concepts. It will be used to calculate many of the design metrics defining mission and
cost effectiveness or elements of Overall Evaluation Criterion (OEC) from each discipline.
Additionally, the approach permits teams to harness the impressive catalog of more advanced
design and analysis tools at Georgia Tech’s and its partners’ disposal. Thorough analysis will
also allow for more flexible management and careful mitigation of identified critical risks. As
tradeoff decisions are made, design teams will converge on a single conceptual design solution
that best meets the requirements of the system with the lowest risk and highest affordability.
2.3.2 Analysis Tools
Georgia Tech is unique in its ability to bring a large array of analysis tools to bear on the design
of the TERN air vehicle. As a leading research institute in aerospace engineering Georgia Tech
has developed and obtained numerous analysis codes through its collaborative efforts with
NASA, DoD research laboratories, and industry. Here are descriptions of some of the tools that
will be used.
Sizing and Performance: Georgia Tech has a library of in-house developed sizing and
performance tools, in addition to its development of a custom tail-sitter sizing algorithm, based
on the RF (fuel fraction) method. Additionally, Georgia Tech maintains expertise in a host of
available sizing and synthesis products such as NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft
(NDARC) and FLight OPtimzation System (FLOPS). Phoenix Integration’s ModelCenter is a
graphical integration environment that supports automation of design processes and tools. It
allows rapid exploration and exploitation of design space to reduce development time and cost.
Aerodynamics: NASA’s OVERFLOW computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code is an overset
structured compressible Navier-Stokes solver. It is widely used by industry, government, and
academia for a range of aerospace applications. The overset grid method allows for modeling
complex and moving geometries. It features high order temporal and special schemes and the
recently added capability to dynamically adapt to flow features.
The Army's comprehensive rotorcraft code RCAS will be used for aerodynamic and dynamic
analysis of the rotor. RCAS is capable of analyzing the blade natural frequencies, the rotor blade
loads, and the stresses in the blades. In Phase I, as initial analyses of rotor blade dynamics are
undertaken, bending and torsional stiffnesses will be used as design variables.
Propulsion: NASA’s Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) is a full propulsion
system simulation tool for predicting and analyzing the aero-thermodynamic behavior of
commercial and military jet engines.
Flight Simulation: X-Plane is commercial flight simulator capable of modeling fairly complex
aircraft designs while being fairly easy to set-up and use. X-Plane is highly suitable for initial
control effector tradeoff investigations. The Georgia Tech UAV Simulation Tool GUST is
capable of modeling fixed and rotary wing aircraft flight dynamics and includes a ship motion
model and an LCS1 graphical model with deck geometry and a deck contact model. GUST also
provides for real-time hardware-in-the-loop simulation of the complete flight control system. An
10
illustration of GUST simulation usage is provided in Figure 10. FLIGHTLAB is a high fidelity
rotorcraft simulation code developed by Advanced Rotorcraft Technology, Inc. FLIGHTLAB is
widely used in the rotorcraft industry and academia to study flight dynamics, handling qualities,
and control system design.
Figure 10. Example of GUST Simulation in DARPA SEC Program
Computer Aided Design: Georgia Tech uses CATIA from Dassault Systemes for 3D modeling
and design. CATIA is widely used in the aerospace industry for design and systems engineering.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis: The Tailored Cost Model (TCM) is an aircraft life cycle cost (LCC)
analysis tool used in the system definition and optimization process. TCM encompasses flexible
and modular combination of cost algorithms selected from various parametric models. Excelbased
TCM was developed in-house to support rapid conceptual design studies and to provide a
mechanism for providing should-cost targets for functional organizations. The cost elements
estimates are integrated into a MIL-STD-881 type Work Breakdown Structure.
2.3.3 Shipboard Integration
The design for shipboard integration will be accomplished using GTRI’s Human System
Integration tool, Jack, which is an ergonomic and human factors software package. Jack can
import 3D Solid Edge models of the LCS mission module systems and create virtual
environments such as mission module spaces and LCS deck space. Anthropometrically and
biomechanically correct human models can be positioned in these virtual environments to study
human-environment interactions for the various tasks associated with operating the TERN
system aboard ship (Figure 11). Jack has recently been used to study clearance issues with ISO
containers on the LCS for stowing equipment and systems such as the Q-20 autonomous
underwater vehicle.
Another key shipboard integration task is integrating the vehicle’s control system with the
Common Software Architecture (CSA) used onboard the LCS for mission packages. GTRI is
currently supporting the LCS Mission Modules Program Office (PMS 420) to develop CSA by
focusing on the common control station functionality for LCS based on the CSA’s Service-
Oriented Architecture (SOA). GTRI is creating software services that support common mission
planning and common control of unmanned systems. Many of these services are based on the
UAV Control Segment (UCS) specifications. In addition, GTRI will use a model-driven
11
software development approach to create an interface application for the JPALS based on the
Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standard.
Figure 11. Examples of Task Simulation and Stowage in Jack
2.3.4 Software Development
GTRI has adopted the Agile software development approach for a subset of its projects. These
projects can be characterized as having a set of very high-level requirements with many of the
lower-level requirements unknown at the time of project initiation. The lower-level
requirements are subsequently developed and defined during the development process through
interactions with the customer via the periodic demonstration of working software. GTRI
follows the SCRUM Agile methodology that is heavily focused on short development iterations
(i.e., 2-4 week development sprints). Each sprint is planned with customer engagement and then
executed by the project team. At the end of the sprint, working versions of the software are
produced for demonstration/testing. These working versions allow for early-on customer review
and comments, allowing the customer to direct the development of the software product to better
fit their needs. In support of the Agile software development process, GTRI uses a variety of
software tools. For sprint planning and tracking, both Redmine and Atlassian JIRA with Green
Hopper are used. For configuration management of software source code, both git and
Subversion are used. For configuration management of documents, Subversion is used.

First, I had trouble with that email dump - it was illegible and I had to reformat it. It was also top-posted, which we do not do here. I took the liberty of correcting those mistakes, but you will communicate with us more effectively if you can follow the formatting conventions and markup used by other editors. In particular, please sign each post with four tildes thus ~~~~ which will automatically sign and timestamp your post.

Second, I am also concerned that you have publicly posted contact, career and other information about private individuals and company business and possibly without obtaining their consent, which would be illegal here in the UK though I cannot speak for the USA. For the sake of their personal privacy I have removed large parts of your post, though I do not know the status of the commercial material so I have left much of that. You may wish to confirm with those named that they are content for their names to remain publicly findable in this page's history logs, and also to establish the company's position. Alternatively, you may wish to contact the Wikipedia administrative community and ask for the relevant parts of the page log to be purged. Let me know if you need any help there.

To the point in hand: as I said, private correspondence is not acceptable source material, the material must have been previously published and you need to provide the details (journal edition, website, ISBN, etc). If you are not prepared to take the time to follow my advice and digest the verifiability guidelines, there is little point in your pursuing Wikipedia as a medium for your information. As a Wikipedia editor, you only get out what you put in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC) [Updated 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)][reply]

P.S. As a project it looks most interesting, I wish you all the best with it and if I come across it somewhere appropriate be sure I will be delighted to post information on Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed from VTOL article

The Verticraft is a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft ( US patent 8505846) that can fly nearly as fast as a private jet but takeoff and land like a helicopter. The Verticraft maximizes safety by eliminating the airport convergence problem of aircraft and the ground collision possibilities of ground vehicles.

The 2 passenger commuter version will be plugin electric battery powered which will make zero operating cost for the average distance traveled. The average travel time by Verticraft is about 8 minutes per day versus 55 minutes by car to travel the average 31 miles. The 4 minutes of air or electricity consumed would be recharged by nearly invisible translucent wind turbines and solar panels at the destination. At home the Verticraft would land on top of the garage roof which would descend on a counter balance weight system to the floor of the garage. The heat generated to compress the air can be used for the home or business hot water heater.

Residential or business solar panels will generate enough electricity to recharge the batteries at no operating cost.

The eight passenger Verticraft uses compressed air expansion rotary engines that use high pressure compressed air stored in cylinders to run the engines and compressed natural gas for trips of longer than average.]

Web sites