The document provides an overview and design details for a next generation strategic military transport aircraft called the UR1T. Key points discussed include: - The UR1T is designed to improve payload transportation capabilities and reduce loading/unloading times compared to the current fleet. - Design aspects covered include the wing, engines, fuel system, payload integration, and flight envelope. Aerodynamic analyses were performed to determine wing and tail sizing. - The UR1T is designed to carry a maximum payload of 300,000 lbs with a range of 1,800 nm at a cruise speed of Mach 0.75 and altitude of 30,000 ft. - Payload integration focuses on fitting standard 463

1. Tactical Aeronautic
Group
Next Generation Strategic Military Transport
Conceptual Design
ADAM ORTEGA- PROJECT MANAGER
JUSTIN ELLERBEE DWIGHT NAVA
RAMON NAVARRO MIGUEL OSORIO
GEORGE PAGUIO DONG JIN RYOO
ANDREA VALDEZ TONY YE
1

2. T.A.G.
Justin Ellerbee
Dwight Nava George Paguio
Adam Ortega
Project Manager
Dong Jin Ryoo
Tony Ye
Miguel Osorio
Ramon NavarroAndrea Valdez
2

3. Overview
•Concept Of Operations
•Trade Studies
•Tail Design
•Takeoff & Landing
•Mission Design
•Aerodynamics & Wing
•Flight Envelope & Tactical Approach
•Fuselage Layout
•Structural Analysis
•Cost
3

4. Concept of
Operations
4

5. 5
Configuration Drawings (UR1T)FIX

6. Concept Of Operations
6
Purpose:
◦ Extend the aircraft fleet life and performance
◦ Improve payload transportation
Performance requirements:
◦ Reduce time for:
◦ Loading/unloading
◦ Cargo transfer
◦ Servicing and refueling
◦ Improve takeoff, climbing and landing
◦ Main focus of mission design will be unloading and loading the aircraft
during a tactical approach.

7. Mission Profile
Cruise 1 & 2 at Mach 0.75
Time to Climb: 20 min
7

8. Manufacturing and Disposal
•Manufacturing
• Fuselage construction: Washington, UT
• Wing and Empennage construction: Mayford, NV
• Landing Gear: UTC Aerospace Systems
• Avionics design: J.P. Instruments
• Engine: General Electric, Cincinnati, Oh
All units to be inspected and stress tested upon arrival to Mayford, NV
Aircraft assembly will begin at TAG facilities
•Disposal
• Removal of military components at air force bases
• Removal & disposal of hazardous materials according to state regulations
• Alloys are segregated using the highly advanced Delta Hand-Held XRF Analyzer
• Avionics destruction includes shredding all electronic items, and refining them in acid
baths to retrieve precious metals
• Removal of classified hardware, flight path data and black box devices
8

9. Maintenance
•Engine Maintenance
• No present Genx overhaul capability in North America
• GE Facilities in Cincinnati and Dallas
• Line maintenance services
• Lighter workscopes with quick turn around
• MRO sites
• Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies
• Air France
• On-Site Repair Team
•Aircraft Maintenance
• Skin Repairs
• Any flight operation locations
• GE facilities
• Structural Repairs
• North American GE facilities
9

10. Preliminary
Sizing
10

11. Constraint Diagram
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
T/W
W/S (psf)
Design Point:
T/W=0.225
W/S=118
Actual:
T/W=0.28
W/S=122
Landing Distance
Climb
Cruise
11

12. Detailed Weight Breakdown
Element Weight (lbs.)
Wing 88,346
Fuselage 74,866
Propulsion 44,390
Landing Gear 35,359
Fuel System 9,623
Horizontal Tail 16,814
Vertical Tail 13,691
Engine Controls 193
Element Weight (lbs.)
Starting System 4,266
Surface Controls 13,086
Instruments 1,208
Electrical 9,846
Furnish 8,443
A/C + Icing 5,185
Avionics 1,700
Empty W 327,034
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 700,000 lbs.
12

13. Trade Studies: UR1T
13

14. Trade Studies
14
670000
680000
690000
700000
710000
720000
730000
740000
750000
Weight(lb)
Effective Mach With Respect to Altitude
M=0.65
M=0.75
M=0.7
M=0.8
M=0.85
W/S=116

15. 670000
680000
690000
700000
710000
720000
730000
740000
750000
760000
770000
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Weight(lbs)
Effective Aspect Ratio With Respect to Wing Area
S=4500
S=5000
S=6000
Trade Studies
AR=9
AR=8.5
AR=8
AR=7.5
S=5500
15
W/S=118

16. 690000
700000
710000
720000
730000
740000
750000
760000
Weight(lbs)
Effective Aspect Ratio With Respect to Mach Number
AR=7
AR=6
M=.7
M=.65
M=.6
Trade Studies
AR=8
AR=9M=.75
16
W/S=124

17. Airfoil Selection
17
SC(2)-0714 SC(2)-0614 SC(2)-0414 NACA
23012
Clmax 1.77 1.75 1.65 1.51
Stall Angle (deg) 15.5 15.5 15.6 15.3
Super critical airfoil selected to reduce wing sweep

18. Engine Selection: GEnx
Key Factors PW 4000 Trent 1000 GEnx
Continuous
Thrust
52,000 lb 58,000 lb 72,300 lb
Weight 9,570 lb 12,700 lb 12,800 lb
T/W 5.4 4.6 5.65
SFCSL .361 .35 .348
Unit Cost 15 M 16 M 13 M
18

19. Engine Selection: GEnx
PW 4000
Trent 1000
GEnx
y = 0.4054x0.9255
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
DryWeight
SLS Thrust
Engine Dry Weight
19

20. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)
PW980
20
• Two-shaft gas turbine engine
• Provides bleed air for cabin conditioning and main
engine starting
• Provides electrical power from two gearbox-mounted,
120kVA generators
• Delivers in-flight back up power
• Used on A380
• Located in the rear end of the aircraft

21. Tail Design
21

22. Horizontal Tail Sizing
22
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
HorizontalTailVolumeCoefficient
CG Location w.r.t. LEMAC
Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient
Rear Stability Limit
Nosewheel Liftoff
Landing Flare
Cg Travel
Cht = .8
Sht = 1,450 ft2

23. Tail Sizing (UR1T)
Where y*L = x*T
T = 62,000lbs*2
y = 100ft
X1 = 50ft
X2 = 80ft
Then Lvt = 76,800lbs
Δ𝐶 𝐿𝑣𝑡 = 0.8 =
𝐿
𝑞∗𝑆𝑣𝑡
Svt = 1,460ft2
Vertical Tail:
23
X
C.G.
x
y
T
T
C.G.
Lvt

24. C.G. Travel
24
Weight empty
Operating weight
empty
Zero fuel weight
Takeoff gross
weight
Zero payload
weight
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
0.09 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.29
Weight(lb)
x/MAC
A.C.@25%M.A.C.

25. Takeoff &
Landing
25

26. Takeoff
•Requirements:
◦ Takeoff in 9,000ft
◦ At both S.L. +30°C or 10,000ft +10°C
•Found that 10,000ft +10°C was constrained condition.
26
Alt (ft)
+30C
T.O Distance
(ft)
0 4760
5000 5670
10000 6800
15000 8210
17500 9060

27. Takeoff (UR1T)
Knowns:
10,000ft +10°C Case
Wt.o. = 700,000 lbs
Sref = 5,750 ft2
K = 0.053
Thrust = 256,000 lbs
μ = 0.05
Vto = 166 knots
n = 1.20
27
T.O. Distances (ft)
Sg = 5,560
SR = 560
STR = 1,250
STot = 7,370
• CLmax = 2.70
• Vstall = 136 knots
• Achieved at AoA = 20o
• Tip Back Angle = 20o

28. Balanced Field Length
Takeoff @10,000 ft +10°C
V1 = 151 knots
Continue/Brake Distance = 3,250 ft
Total Balanced Field Length = 7,750 ft
28

29. Landing (UR1T)
Knowns:
◦ 10,000ft +10°C Case
◦ Wlanding = 611,000 lbs (Half Fuel)
◦ Sref = 5,750 ft2
◦ μ = 0.33
◦ VTD = 157 knots
Distances (ft)
Sa = 960
Sfr = 800
Sbr = 3,540
Stot = 5,300
Stot/.6* = 8,830
• Maximum landing weight = 615,000 lbs.
• Fuel dump system in place in event of emergency
landing.
29
*From FAR 25.125

30. Landing (UR1T)
Determined CLmax = 2.70 (Vstall =136 knots)
Wing Design/Airfoil Selection:
◦ NACA SC (2)-0714 (Clmax = 1.75)
Double Slotted Flaps with Leading Edge Slats:
◦ Flap Deflection = 40o
Tip Back Angle = 15o
30

31. Mission Design
31

32. Missions UR1T
MTOW
(lbs)
Fuel
Weight
(lbs)
Fuel
Ratio
Range
(nm)
Cruise
Mach
Cruise
Altitude
(ft)
Mission 1 (120,000lb) 689,000 191,000 0.3 6,301 0.75 30,000
Mission 2
(300,000lb)
699,000 76,900 0.11 1,800* 0.75 30,000
Ferry
(No Payload)
569,000 191,000 0.35 8,900 0.75 30,000
32
Mission 1 MTOW has insufficient fuel to swap for payload
Mission 2 was constraining mission so MTOW of vehicle was determined
*For intercontinental flight

33. Payload with respect to Range
33
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Payload(lbs)
Range (nm)
Payload vs. Range
Mission 2
300,000 lb payload
Mission 1
120,000 lb payload

34. Cruise
2 Cruise Segments composes of 98% of range
Acceleration and climb composes the remaining 2%
34
Cruise 1 Cruise 2
Altitude (ft) 22,000 30,000
Climb Time(min) 10.5* 6.6
Mach 0.75 0.75
Airspeed (knots) 457 442
L/D 16.3 17.8
Distance (nm) 1,500 4,700
*Under 20 Mins

35. Aerodynamics
35

36. Airfoil Selected
NACA SC(2)-0714
36
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Cl
α (deg)
Lift Curve Slope
NACA SC(2)-0714

37. UR1T Aero Data
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 5 10 15 20 25
CL
α (degrees)
Lift Curve
Plain Wing
CLmax = 2.7
Cruise CL = 0.48
Cruise α = 3.9°
37
Landing and Takeoff

38. UR1T Aero Data
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
CL
CD
Drag Polar
Cruise CL = 0.48
Cruise CD = 0.027
K = 0.053
e = 0.77
38

39. Wing
39

40. Wing Configuration and Location
Wing
From nose to A.C 130 ft
From nose to 0.25C 112.72 ft
Anhedral 5°
Height 32 ft
40

41. Wing Planform
UR1T
Area 5,750 ft^2
AR 7.75
λ 0.31
Root
Chord
49.5 ft
Tip Chord 14.85 ft
ΛLe 30°
t/c 0.14
Control
Surface
Chord
0.3c
Flap Area 0.6Sw
41

42. Fuel Tanks
Fuel Used: JP-8
Total fuel volume: 28,232 US gal
2 Integral tanks located inside wing
42

43. Flight Envelope
& Tactical
Approach
43

44. Operational Envelope
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
PressureAltitude,1000feet
True Airspeed, knots
Rate of Climb Ceiling Limit
44

45. V-n Diagram at 30,000 feet
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Speed, keas
LoadFactor,n
Vs
VA VC VD
VB
VB gust
Vc gust
VD gust
45
Maneuvering Envelope

46. Tactical Approach
Maximum Load Factor 3.0
Maximum Bank Angle 50°
Turn radius 2,971 ft
Able to land from 10,000 ft in 4.8 minutes
46

47. Payload
Integration
47

48. UR1T Fuselage Layout
Airplane designed around conventional
cylindrical shape
Dimensions:
◦ Length – 190 feet
◦ Max Width – 25 feet
◦ Max Usable Height – 15 feet
48

49. Key Design decisions on UR1T
Design
Streamlined Design
◦ Cylinder width was chosen to accommodate 2 rows of Master Pallets
lengthwise
◦ Rather have longer and thinner fuselage for lower drag, better
takeoff/landing performance, and smaller tail restrictions
Back loading only of payload:
◦ CG closer to back of plane, expedites loading of higher weight, higher
volume cargo
49

50. Payload Specifications
463L MASTER PALLETS
Dimensions:
◦ Length – 9 feet
◦ Width – 7.34 feet
◦ Height – Negligible
Must fit 44 via AIAA RFP
M104 WOLVERINE ASSAULT
BRIDGE
Dimensions:
◦ Length – 44 feet
◦ Width – 11.42 feet
◦ Height – 13 feet
Must fit 1 via AIAA RFP
50

51. Floor Strength
Found that constraining Payload requirement was M104
Wolverine Assault bridge
◦ Configuration can be treated as a point load exerting stress on whole
floorplan
The picture below depicts the reinforcing of the floor in respect to
required payload:
51

52. Auxiliary Capabilities
TAG UR1T was also designed to fit the
following RFP optional items:
• M1A Abrams Tank - 10 units
• M2/M3 Bradley Infantry Vehicles - 16 units
• Apache Helicopter - 6 units (with rotor blades unattached)
*Note that these quantities have been verified
volumetrically: floor strength was not designed to
necessarily hold the weight of these number of
units.
52

53. UR1T Payload Layout: 463L
Master Pallets
Cross Section View
53
Loaded using rolling conveyor belt
technology embedded into fuselage
flooring
Placed according to specifications shown
in following diagrams

54. UR1T Payload Layout: 463L
Master Pallets
Side View
54
• Rows of 22 pallets
• Spacing designed to minimize CG travel
• 3 feet from cockpit area
• 4.52 feet from cargo door
• 1 foot between each pallet in row

55. UR1T Payload Layout: 463L
Master Pallets
Top View
55
• 2 pallet rows
• 3 feet space between rows for foot traffic
• .5 feet from each wall of fuselage per FAR requirements

56. Cargo Door: 463L Master Pallet
Configuration
Loading/Unloading Specifications:
ATLAS Forklift will be used to get
pallets onto cargo door to be pushed
into configuration:
ASSUME Forklift places 2 pallets onto
cargo door every 30 seconds -> total
placement time = 11 minutes
Average human walking speed =
4.55 ft/s
𝑇𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝑛=1
22 187−8.34𝑛
4.55
= 8 minutes
Total load time for Pallets =
19 minutes
Cargo Door Layout
56

57. UR1T Payload Layout: M104
Wolverine Assault Bridge
Cross Section View
57
• Loaded by driving M104 Bridge up
cargo door ramp
• Placed according to specifications
shown in following diagrams

58. UR1T Payload Layout: M104
Wolverine Assault Bridge
Side View
58
• Bridge placed to minimize CG travel by fixing at CG point
• 98 feet from cockpit
• 48 feet from cargo door

59. UR1T Payload Layout: M104
Wolverine Assault Bridge
Top View
59
• Drivable flooring centers M104 Bridge in middle of fuselage to avoid
creating a rolling moment:
• 6.79 feet from each side wall

60. Cargo Door: M104 Wolverine
Assault Bridge Configuration
Cargo Door Layout
60
Loading/Unloading Specifications:
• Loading drive speed of M104
Bridge estimated to 4 mph = 5.87
ft/s
• Load time = (Xdoor+Xdoor-CG)/Vbridge
• T = (27.66ft+89ft) / 5.87 ft/s =
20seconds

61. Landing Gear
61

62. Landing Gear
Nose Gear
◦ Load: 130,259 lb (18.6%)
◦ 1 Dual in Tandem (4 Wheels)
◦ Steerable / Single Strut
Main Gear
◦ Load: 568,239 lb (81.4%)
◦ 4 Duals in Tandem (16 Wheels)
62

63. Landing Gear
63

64. Structural
Analysis
64

65. Wing Loads / Reactions
= Wing Structure
= Engines
= Lift
= Fuel
Va
Mb
65

66. -3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
-115 -65 -15 35 85
WingLoading(lbs/ft)
Span (ft)
Wing Load Distribution
Wing Loading
Wing Lift
Wing Weight
Fuel Weight
66

67. Wing Loads
Maximum Shear Force = 221,000 lbs
-25000
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Shear(lbs)
Span Location (ft)
Shear Distribution
67

68. Wing Loads
Maximum Bending Moment = 12E6 ft•lbs
-2500000
-2000000
-1500000
-1000000
-500000
0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
BendingMoment(ft*lbs)
Span Location (ft)
Bending Moment Distribution
68

69. Wing Spar Locations
2 spars placed @ 30% and 70% as percent chord.
(From AIAA 2004 – 1624 AC Struct Layout) 69

70. Spar Sizing
Front spar sees majority of load at root
◦ M = 29,400,000 ft•lbs
Rear spar sees significantly less at root
◦ M = 6,580,000 ft•lbs
h = 7ft
t = 2.75 in
h = 4 ftt = 1.9 in
Material σy MPa
Density
g/cm3 Weight (lbs)
Alloy 2014-
T6
410 2.8 2,240
Alloy 6061 -
T6
275 2.7 3,221
Alloy 7075-
T6
510 2.81 1,832
*Note: Not to scale
70

71. Structural Design
71
Wing Structure
Rib Spacing = 2 ft.
Spars @ 30% and 70% chord
(From AIAA 2004 – 1624 AC Struct Layout)

72. Wing Rib Spacing
Similar to 747
Ribs placed every 2 feet in the span direction (55 Ribs)
(From AIAA 2004 – 1624 AC Struct Layout) 72

73. Structural Design
73
Fuselage Airframe Frame Spacing = 20 in.
(From AIAA 2004 – 1624 AC Struct Layout)

74. Materials
Material Density Tensile
Strength
Modulus of
Elasticity
Location/
where used
Aluminum
(7075-T6)
0.102 lb/in3 503 MPa 71.7 GPa Frame,
Leading
edge of wing
& tail
Titanium
(Ti6Al4V)
0.160 lb/in3 1,000 MPa 110 GPa Landing
gear &
turbine
mounts
Carbon
Composites
0.056 lb/in3 3.5 GPa 85 GPa Fuselage &
wing skin
Fiberglass 0.055 lb/in3 3.5 GPa 80 Gpa Wing & tail
joints
74

75. Cost Analysis
75

76. Cost Analysis
Prototype
Cost/Unit
Developmenta
l Engineering
Cost
Developmenta
l Tooling Cost
Developmenta
l
Manufacturin
g Cost
Material and
Equipment
Cost
TOTAL
PROTOTYPE
COST
Average Cost
at 85% LC
1.25 Billion 466 Million 386 Million 26.5 Million 2.65 Billion
Average Cost
at 90% LC
1.31 Billion 488 Million 404 Million 27.8 Million 2.75 Billion
TOTAL COST
for 3 %85 LC
Prototypes
3.75 Billion 1.4 Billion 1.15Billion 79.6 Million 7.95 Billion
TOTAL COST
for 3 %90 LC
Prototypes
3.93 Billion 1.46 Billion 1.21 Billion 83.3 Million 8.25 Billion
76

77. Cost Analysis
0.00
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
600,000.00
700,000.00
800,000.00
900,000.00
1 21 41 61 81 101
85% Production Engineering
85% Production Tooling
85% Manufacturing Labor
85% Quality Control
90% Production Engineering
90% Production Tooling
90% Manufacturing Labor
90% Quality Control
85% VS 90% LEARNING CURVE OF MANHOURS PER
UNIT
77
Hours
Units

78. Cost Analysis
0.00
20,000,000.00
40,000,000.00
60,000,000.00
80,000,000.00
100,000,000.00
120,000,000.00
1 21 41 61 81 101
85% Production Engineering
85% Production Tooling
85% Manufacturing Labor
85% Quality Control
85% LEARNING CURVE OF PRODUCTION COST PER UNIT
78
Hours
Units

79. Cost Analysis
0.00
50,000,000.00
100,000,000.00
150,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
250,000,000.00
300,000,000.00
1 21 41 61 81 101
TOTAL 85% LC COST
TOTAL 95% LC COST
TOTAL 90% LC COST
LEARNING CURVE COMPARISON OF COST PER
UNIT FOR 120 UNITS
79
Hours
Units

80. COST ANALYSIS
Unit
95% Learning
Curve Unit Cost
90% Learning
Curve Unit Cost
85% Learning
Curve Unit Cost
10th 202Million
169Million 240Million
60th 177 Million 129 Million 92 Million
120th 168 Million 116 Million 78.3 Million
Average Unit Cost 181 Million 136 Million 101 Million
Total Production
Cost
21.8 Billion 16.3 Billion 12.1 Billion
80

81. Conclusion
81

82. Compliance Matrix
Requirement Value Compliance
Range 6,300 nm @ 120,000#
load
Max Payload ≥ 300,000#
Cruise Mach ≥ .60
Time to Climb ≤ 20 minutes @
205,000# load
Takeoff/Landing Field
Length
≤ 9000ft @ max
payload
Takeoff/Landing
Performance
Conditions
Met at SL for ISA +30
C
&
Met @ 10,000ft above
MSL for ISA +10 C
82

83. Compliance Matrix
Requirement Value Compliance
Mission with Engine
Inoperative
Even – N/2 inoperative
engines
Odd – N/2 + 1
inoperative engines
Tactical Approach Aircraft shall be able to
perform a tactical
approach for arrivals
to bases embedded in
combat environments
83

84. Compliance Matrix
Requirement Value Compliance
Cargo Volume 463L Master Pallets –
44 units
M104 Wolverine
Heavy Assault Bridge
– 1 unit
Climb Speed
Limitations
Climb Speed < 250kts
below 10,000ft
Unit Production 120 units
Entry Into Service By year 2030
84

85. Conclusion
•Initial sizing was based on maximum payload of 300,000 lbs.
•The higher the altitude, the more difficult the landing.
• Lower density
•Safety factors push requirements steeper.
•Excessive wing speed is bad for low speed lift.
•Large point loads are a constraining factor in design cargo area.
•Design is an iterative process.
•Meet bare minimum of the RFP.
85

86. 86