BWB300 baseline model bench test

[xjjiang]

Summary

This PR implements another BWB model from FLOPS - BWB300 baseline model.

The BWB300 baseline model implemented here is not exactly the same as the original FLOPS model. This is because Aviary did not implement all the features of FLOPS. More precisely, here are the differences:

• Set NOPRO = 0, Takeoff profile for noise because noise module is not implemented in Aviary.
• Do not set WF = 50.0 because the scenario Aircraft.Fuselage.MAX_WIDTH = 50.0 is not implemented in BWBDetailedCabinLayout component. Can override later.
• Do not set DF = 14.16 because the scenario Aircraft.Fuselage.MAX_HEIGHT = 14.16 is not implemented in BWBDetailedCabinLayout component. Can override later.
• Do not set XLW = 50.0, In Aviary, it is mapped to Aircraft.Wing.ROOT_CHORD which is an output from BWBDetailedCabinLayout component. Can override later.
• Set DGW = 600000., ! We set Mission.Design.GROSS_MASS = 600,000 manually. The original logic is DGW = 1, IF(DGW < 5) DG = DGW * GW, but GW is not read in to Aviary. Should we create a new Aviary variable for GW (Ramp weight)?
• GLOV = 1230.5, ! Originally, GLOV = 0, but computation of Aircraft.Wing.GLOVE_AND_BAT is not implemented. So, take the value from FLOPS run. See subroutine DEFINE().
• SPAN = 186.631829293424, ! Aircraft.Wing.SPAN = 186.3 is incorrect. FLOPS updates value during its run. If we input both Aircraft.Wing.SPAN and Aircraft.Wing.OUTBOARD_SEMISPAN, they must satisfy Aircraft.Wing.SPAN Aircraft.Fuselage.MAX_WIDTH + Aircraft.Wing.OUTBOARD_SEMISPAN*2.
• TCSOB is not read in to Aviary. Assume it is the same as TCF (i.e. Aircraft.Fuselage.HEIGHT_TO_WIDTH_RATIO). Should we add TCSOB (meaning Fuselage thickness/chord ratio at side of body) to Aviary? This will affect the computation of BWB_THICKNESS_TO_CHORD_DISTRIBUTION[1].
• Aircraft.VerticalTail.WETTED_AREA = 125, even though Aircraft.VerticalTail.NUM_TAILS = 0. It is ignored.
• AR = 5.4252, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, is a design variable. But when FLOPS runs, AR is computed. In my aviary model, I have to comment out the line aircraft:wing:aspect_ratio,5.4252,unitless in .csv file in order to follow FLOPS computation.
• Do not set HHT = -100. This scenario (Aircraft.HorizontalTail.VERTICAL_TAIL_FRACTION) is not taken care by fortran_to_aviary().
• Do not set SWPVT = -100. This scenario (i.e. Aircraft.VerticalTail.SWEEP) is not taken care by fortran_to_aviary().
• Do not set ARVT = -100. This scenario (i.e. Aircraft.VerticalTail.ASPECT_RATIO) is not taken care by fortran_to_aviary().
• Do not set TRVT = -100. This scenario (i.e. Aircraft.VerticalTail.TAPER_RATIO) is not taken care by fortran_to_aviary().
• Do not set FULWMX = -1. This scenario (i.e. Aircraft.Fuel.WING_FUEL_CAPACITY) is not taken care by fortran_to_aviary().

Related Issues

• Resolves #

Backwards incompatibilities

None

New Dependencies

None