• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative configurations for conceptual design of a VLA

    2017-11-20 12:07:32BoYoungBeSnghoKimJeWooLeeNhuVnNguyenBongCheulChung
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF AERONAUTICS 2017年2期

    Bo-Young Be,Sngho Kim,*,Je-Woo Lee,Nhu Vn Nguyen,Bong-Cheul Chung

    aDepartment of Aerospace Information Engineering,Konkuk University,Seoul 143-701,Republic of Korea

    bKonkuk Aerospace Design,Airworthiness Research Institute,Konkuk University,Seoul 143-701,Republic of Korea

    Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative configurations for conceptual design of a VLA

    Bo-Young Baea,Sangho Kima,*,Jae-Woo Leea,Nhu Van Nguyenb,Bong-Cheul Chungb

    aDepartment of Aerospace Information Engineering,Konkuk University,Seoul 143-701,Republic of Korea

    bKonkuk Aerospace Design,Airworthiness Research Institute,Konkuk University,Seoul 143-701,Republic of Korea

    Aircraft configuration;Conceptional design;Design requirements;Requirement analysis;Very light aircraft(VLA)

    In this study,a process for establishing design requirements and selecting alternative configurations for the conceptual phase of aircraft design has been proposed.The proposed process uses system-engineering-based requirement-analysis techniques such as objective tree,analytic hierarchy process,and quality function deployment to establish logical and quantitative standards.Moreover,in order to perform a logical selection of alternative aircraft con figurations,it uses advanced decision-making methods such as morphological matrix and technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution.In addition,a preliminary sizing tool has been developed to check the feasibility of the established performance requirements and to evaluate the flight performance of the selected configurations.The present process has been applied for a two-seater very light aircraft(VLA),resulting in a set of tentative design requirements and two families of VLA configurations:a high-wing configuration and a low-wing configuration.The resulting set of design requirements consists of three categories:customer requirements,certification requirements,and performance requirements.The performance requirements include two mission requirements for the flight range and the endurance by reflecting the customer requirements.The flight performances of the two configuration families were evaluated using the sizing tool developed and the low-wing configuration with conventional tails was selected as the best baseline configuration for the VLA.

    1.Introduction

    The life-cycle of an aircraft is divided into the following phases:concept studies on customer requirements,conceptual design,preliminary design,detailed design and development,production,operation and maintenance,decommissioning,and recycling.The conceptual design phase includes several important tasks such as the design requirement analysis,the feasibility study of development,the demand forecasting and market analysis,the conceptual aircraft configuration design and subsystem definition,and the establishment of initial planning for aircraft development.Accordingly the conceptual design phase is most influential in the aircraft life-cycle.Although relatively small investments are necessary during the conceptual design phase,large efforts should be made since 70%–90%of a design is defined in this phase.Therefore,development of a logical and efficient conceptual design method will be of great importance.In the conventional conceptual design approaches,the process of selecting the best configuration typically employs a trial and error method based on the experience of a designer.This increases the development time and cost due to the large number of design iterations.

    Efficient conceptual design requires a series of wellorganized processes that enable designers to make logical and objective decisions on an aircraft design.Many methodologies that can be applied to such processes have been presented in the field of industrial engineering,but there have been very few developments and applications of the methodologies in the conceptual design phase of aerospace engineering.Mavris et al.1,2successfully established an objective and efficient design process.They excluded a designer’s subjective judgment from their proposed aircraft conceptual design process,which includes concept establishment,selection of alternative configurations,and an assessment process.Park3improved Mavris’design process for optimum alternative configurations that re flect user requirements.Yoon et al.4presented an optimum baseline aircraft con figuration selection process using a decision-making model that considers both airworthiness certification regulations and user requirements during the concept design phase.

    In this study,a systematic design requirement analysis,which is an early stage of the aircraft conceptual design phase,is conducted to produce the design requirements considering user requirements,marketability,and certification regulations.Moreover,a baseline configuration design process is established to suggest objective and reasonable baseline configurations that satisfy the resulting design requirements.

    For aircraft design purposes,we have strived to make a logical flow in order to select the design requirements and baseline configurations.In addition,the internal data of the process were consistently managed to reflect the design requirements properly.A two-seater very light aircraft(VLA)was selected for the present study because it is anticipated that two-seater VLAs will be in demand as aero leisure sports are becoming popular domestically and globally.

    For the requirement analysis,the voices of users,designers,and clients were collected through a survey of various groups of people including VLA pilots,students and faculty in aerospace engineering,and aviation company engineers.The proposed process of selecting baseline configurations used the quantitative requirements analysis methods(see Fig.1).It also used initial sizing and a performance analysis respectively to generate the baseline aircraft configurations and to evaluate whether they satisfy the mission and performance requirements.

    2.Building model

    2.1.Brainstorming

    The systematic method proposed in this paper uses a series of decision-making models to address the design requirements and the design alternatives in a more logical,objective,and quantitative manner.5In this section,the decision-making models used in the present method are briefly described.

    2.2.Affinity diagram

    This method is a long-term human intellectual activity to organize data by grouping the data into groups based on natural relationships.The term ‘a(chǎn)ffinity diagram” was devised by Jiro Kawakita in the 1960s and has been used as a business tool to organize ideas and data.6,7The method allows a large number of ideas stemming from brainstorming to be sorted into groups for review and analysis.

    2.3.Tree diagram

    The tree diagram8is a graphical method that lays out a hierarchical structure of objectives and measures systematically to find the most appropriate measures in order to achieve the goals.In general,this method is used for spreading out the subordinate goals of the primary goal or for breaking down a large-scale project into progressively smaller feasible tasks.

    2.4.Analytic hierarchy process

    A psychology and mathematics based method,the analytic hierarchy process(AHP),is a multi-criteria decision-making(MCDM)method for making decisions about complicated problems rationally and efficiently.The AHP was developed by Satty in the 1970s based on the fact that the brain uses a phased or hierarchical analytic process when a human makes a decision.9

    Fig.1 Quantitative requirements analysis methods.

    During the AHP,the entire decision-making process is divided into several phases and each phase is analyzed to make a final decision.Users firstly decompose their decision problem into a hierarchy of more easily comprehended sub-problems.Once the hierarchy is built,the decision makers systematically rank the order of importance of the elements in the same hierarchical level by performing pairwise comparisons with respect to their impacts on an element above them in the hierarchy.Since the AHP converts these evaluations into numerical values that can be processed until numerical priorities are calculated for each of the decision alternatives,it has been widely used for MCDM problems.

    2.5.Quality function deployment

    Quality function deployment(QFD)10was originally developed as a quality assurance method by Mizuno and Akao in 199411and has been used in a wide variety of services and consumer products.QFD is described as a method to transform user demands into design quality,to deploy the functions forming quality,to deploy methods for achieving the design quality into subsystems and component parts,and ultimately to specific elements of the manufacturing process.Quality methods prior to QFD focused on reducing internal defects,but QFD focuses on transforming customer needs into engineering characteristics of a service or product.The house of quality(HOQ)tool is used to materialize QFD(see Fig.2).

    2.6.Morphological matrix

    Morphological analysis12is a structured or systematic method developed by Fritz Zwicky(1967,1969)for exploring all the possible solutions to a multi-dimensional,non-quantified complex problem.13The method uses a morphological matrix to analyze and list the major components of a system and to generate and identify alternative configurations of the system by exploring possible combinations of the components listed.A designer can determine some possible alternatives,eliminating the illogical solution combinations.

    2.7.Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution

    The technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution(TOPSIS)14was firstly developed and introduced by Hwang and Yoon in 1987.It is based upon the concept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution(PIS)and the farthest from the negative ideal solution(NIS).Using this method,the alternatives presented as the solutions to a multi-criteria decision-making problem may be the closest to the PIS;that is,the most beneficial alternative solutions are to be selected.

    Fig.2 House of quality(HOQ).10

    As the design requirements are determined in more detail,brainstorming,the af finity diagram,the tree diagram,the AHP,and QFD are used sequentially based on the characteristics of the decision-making models.Similarly,as the design alternative configurations are defined in more detail,QFD,the morphological matrix,and the TOPSIS are used systematically.A detailed description of how the decision-making models are used in the design requirement analysis and the design baseline configuration selection process can be found in Sections 3 and 4.

    3.Systematic process

    In this study,a systematic process of establishing a quantitative standard for the design requirement analysis and the baseline configuration selection in the conceptual aircraft design phase was developed by applying the quality design technique and the decision-making technique.The whole process can be divided into the design requirements analysis process in the initial conceptual design phase and the baseline configuration selection process.The two processes can be schematized into one process using the decision-making model as shown in Fig.3.For the design requirements analysis process,the requirement categories are divided into user requirements,competition-based requirements,and certification regulation requirements for analysis.The requirement analysis results of the three requirement categories are used to establish temporary design requirements and mission profile of the aircraft.Based on those temporary design requirements and mission profile,design alternatives are selected and then primary design requirements are suggested through the verification process composed of both initial sizing and performance analysis.

    The process of selecting baseline configurations among the alternatives is also performed using the resulting primary design requirements as the decision standards.During this process,the selected alternative con figurations and baseline configurations are used as necessary input parameters for the sizing analysis tool.Finally,the best baseline con figuration is selected for the rest of the conceptual design.

    The key concept of this study,the decision-making process,can be carried out by aggregating information on the alternatives and preferences of the decision makers.There is a need to quantify the standard elements to conduct a quantified evaluation of the design candidates since there is a risk of contradictions among the standard elements in simple comparison.The user requirements analysis process uses an affinity diagram and tree diagram in order to organize the user requirements collected through the survey and brainstorming as shown in Fig.4.

    The MCDM methods,AHP and QFD,are used in grasping and laying down the priorities of the organized design elements.The results of the AHP and QFD are then used for setting the range of the design requirements and evaluating the baseline configuration.

    Fig.3 Quantitative requirement analysis process for baseline configuration selection.

    Fig.4 User requirements analysis process.

    The function that determines the scope of design requirements is built through survey and analysis of the competing models.In addition,the certification regulations,which are a social restriction,are investigated and applied to the requirements setting.Through this process,temporary design requirements and mission profiles can be developed and verified using a simple sizing analysis tool.Finally,the primary design requirements are generated as a result of the initial conceptual design and may be revised and supplemented during the rest of the conceptual design phase.15

    As shown in Fig.4,the baseline configuration decision process uses the morphological matrix to generate alternative configurations.Themulti-attributedecision-making method,TOPSIS,is used to obtain an optimal alternative.The AHP and QFD results presented above are used as weighting factors for the evaluation of alternatives.Two or more families of baseline con figurations can be selected for design.

    The enhanced in-house sizing methodology and tool were developed and validated for various type of aircraft such as unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs),unmanned combat aerial vehicles(UCAVs),regional jet aircraft,and electric powered light aircraft from the given set of requirements including users and airworthiness regulations.16The sizing tool is composed of the integration of a simplified aerodynamics,corrective weight fraction from recent aircraft database and a simplified mission and performance analysis module to perform the inverse performance design by the support of an optimization loop to ensure the satisfaction of users and airworthiness regulation requirements.In addition,the proposed sizing tool reduces the assumptions at the preliminary sizing stage by introducing a rough estimation from a similar aircraft database collection.The in-house sizing tool yields relatively good and quick results at the maximum error of 15.23%compared to the existing MQ-1 Predator wing area data in the sizing stage,while the existing sizing tool provides many assumptions for aerodynamics analysis and an over-predicted empty to gross weight ratio based on meta aircraft regression data.Therefore,the in-house sizing tool is developed and used for selecting the alternative configuration for the conceptual design of VLAs.

    This sizing tool with the AHP,QFD,and mission analysis results will be used to constitute the optimization problem.The sizing analysis is carried out for each family of baseline configurations.

    Then a final baseline configuration can be selected through the TOPSIS analysis using the sizing and the user requirements analysis results.This process can be applied to two-seater VLAs as well as to diverse aerospace systems including other fixed-wing aircraft and rotary-wing aircraft.

    4.Implementation and results for a two-seater VLA

    4.1.Introduction to two-seater VLA and purpose of development

    A two-seater VLA is an aircraft classified under the Certification Specifications for Very Light Aircraft(CS-VLA)by the European Aviation Safety Agency(EASA).It has two or fewer seats.Its maximum take-off weight is 750 kg or less and its stall speed is 83 km/h(45 kn)or less.It is a single-engine plane that is only allowed to fly during the day,and the engine must have an ignition plug or be a compressed ignition type engine.6

    It is predicted that two-seater VLAs will account for over 50%of global sales in the next ten years,and the demand for VLAs is on the rise.The US government has supported the aviation industry with the law of the American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM)for light sports aircraft(LSA),newly enacted in 2004,to fulfill the desires of the American people for flying.Currently,more than 230,000 light aircraft are in operation,and light aircraft for leisure will be in great demand globally in the near future.

    The advantages of the competing aircraft models presented as part of a sales strategy by other companies were examined to establish a development goal of the two-seater VLA in this study.The resulting advantages were flight attributes(speed,flight range,fuel consumption rate,stability,etc.),comfort on long flights(interior,pilot seat size,passenger seats,etc.),visibility(front,sides,openable windows during flight,etc.),aircraft with stylish exterior,safety(fuel tank location,material,safety devices,etc.),smooth landing(landing gear,seats,etc.),doors for comfortable entrance and easy loading,and electrical equipment for easy and stable piloting(Garmin products,various cockpit forms,electrical piloting,etc.).Based on this information,the development goal was established as shown in Fig.5.

    4.2.Analysis of competing models

    Fig.5 Development goal.

    The CS-VLA is the certification regulation applied to the twoseater VLA.This class of aircraft has a maximum take-off weight(MTOW)of 750 kg but the target MTOW was set as a maximum of 650 kg in order for the VLA to have stronger competitiveness so that it can also enter the LSA market,with simple modification if necessary.An LSA is defined as an aircraft that is a heavier-than-aircraft or a lighter-than-aircraft,other than a helicopter,with a maximum gross take-off weight of no more than 560 kg for a lighter-than-aircraft,or 600 kg for a heavier-than-aircraft not intended for operation on water or 650 kg for an aircraft intended for operation on water.For these reasons,both VLA class and LSA class aircraft need to be considered as competitors.The authors have conducted research on the exterior features,performance,materials,and engines of the selected VLA models that were available for sale and the best-selling LSA models based on the market share dataprovided bytheFederalAviation Administration(FAA)as of December 2010(Fig.6).

    4.3.Analysis of user requirements

    In order to analyze the user requirements for the two-seater aircraft in a quantitative and systematic way,we have conducted an analysis of the user requirements by applying the decision-making model.17User requirements have been determined through a survey and brainstorming in which undergraduates,aircraft developers,and VLA pilots participated.Then,an affinity diagram and a tree diagram were completed based on the user requirements investigated.Using the affinity diagram(see Fig.7),the top-level user requirements were classified into marketability,environmental friendly,safety,and performance as shown in the figure.Fig.8 shows the results of the analysis using the tree diagram.

    Here,the Level 1 user requirements are the voice of customer(VOC),namely,what customers need with regard to aircraft quality.The Level 3 user requirements are the voice of engineer(VOE),namely,what engineers consider in aircraft design to satisfy the customer needs with regard to aircraft quality.

    The AHP18and QFD were conducted through a survey based on the resulting tree.A total of 31 personnel including VLA developers,VLA pilots,and foreign advisors participated in the survey.Every pair of the top-level user requirements,namely marketability,performance,environmental friendly and safety,were compared using the AHP technique in order to estimate the relative importance of the top-level user requirements.Only data with a consistency index of less than 20%were used to ensure a reliable estimation.The results are shown in Fig.9.

    The AHP and the primary QFD are linked,and the primary QFD and the secondary QFD are linked.The primary and secondary QFD results for Levels 1,2,and 3 of the tree diagram are shown in Figs.10 and 11.The values of the weighting result are normalized so that the sum of the weighting result becomes 1.The Level 2 categories of the tree diagram and the results of the primary QFD are used as the evaluation categories and weights when the baseline configuration is selected.The categories from the results of the secondary QFD thataredirectly related to the design requirements affect the design requirement settings so they are used for the competing model-based requirement analysis and the mission analysis

    4.4.Analysis of competing model based requirements

    Fig.6 Analysis of competing models.

    Data gained by examining the competing models were used to analyze the trends in weight and performance.The importance figures related to performance among the user requirement analysis results are presented in Table 1.Performance functions for the maximum take-off weight were extracted from the performance trends investigated.Trends of stall speed(for landing configuration),speed limit,service ceiling,maximum cruising speed,take-off distance(including ground roll),landing distance(including ground roll),flight range,and endurance were formulated as functions.As the development goals previously presented,a 10%improvement in the design requirement values for performance compared to those of the competing models was suggested using the performance functions.These suggested design requirements for performance were tentative and will be refined after a feasibility study using the initial sizing and the performance analysis.

    Fig.7 Affinity diagram.

    Fig.8 Tree diagram.

    Fig.9 AHP results.

    Fig.10 Primary QFD results.

    Fig.11 Secondary QFD results.

    4.5.Analysis of certification regulation requirements

    Two-seater light aircraft need to satisfy the CS-VLA as the VLA class certification regulations to acquire the VLA type certification.In addition,the ASTM standard was analyzed,as shown in Table 1,to secure the competitiveness against LSA class aircraft.

    ?

    ?

    4.6.Analysis of temporary design requirements

    The design requirements in the initial conceptual design phase for aircraft were classified into the user requirements,competing model-based requirements,and certification regulation requirements for analysis.Mission profiles for two-seater VLAs comprising warm up,taxiing,take off,climb,cruise,descent,reserve,landing and taxiing&shutdown were set up,as shown in Fig.12.The missions for flight range and cruising time for the analysis of user requirements are suggested in Table 2.The results of the temporary design requirement set are shown in Table 3 and a sizing interpretation tool was used to provide feasible values of the flight range and endurance under the given mission conditions.

    4.7.Selection of baseline configurations

    Fig.12 Mission profile.

    Table 3 Design requirements in initial conceptual design phase.

    Table 2 Mission conditions.

    The decision-making model was employed to quantitatively and systematically determine a baseline configuration for two-seater VLAs as shown in Fig.13.The vertical location of the main wings,tail wing configuration type,use of fuselage strut,and engine location were used as the baseline configura-tion elements in the initial conceptual design phase as shown in Table 4.A total of 16 different combinations could be made using the configuration elements,and the realizable configurations were then chosen as alternative configurations,as shown in Table 5.Table 6 shows the result of the TOPSIS20analysis conducted on each alternative configuration based on the objective categories in Level 2 of the tree diagram used in the analysis of customer requirements.Two families were selected as the resulting baseline configurations of the TOPSIS analysis.A high wing,a conventional tail wing,a fuselage strut,and a tractor-type engine were selected for the first baseline configuration,while a low wing,a conventional tail wing,no fuselage strut,and a tractor-type engine were selected for the second baseline configuration.The two selected baseline configurations,Family 1 and Family 2,were generated and their performances were analyzed in the conceptual design.This selection method for baseline configurations is more systematic,quantitative,and time-effective than the experiencebased baseline configuration selection process,which forms various types of families through an initial conceptual sketch and reduces the number of families throughout the design process.

    In this phase,the configuration design elements must be well determined.Quantitative measures for decision-making can be suggested through the TOPSIS analysis using the determined configuration design elements.

    For example,the TOPSIS analysis results in Table 6 indicate that,in light of the facts that the ‘safety’category of the user requirements has received the highest score and that airplanes with high wings hold a high rank,the quantitative analysis of the user requirements and the selection of the baseline configurations have promoted awareness of the safety of airplanes with high wings.On the other hand,since the safety of VLAs can be confirmed by obtaining the type certification,the Family 2 configuration could also be a strong alternative for VLAs based on the ‘marketability’and ‘performance’categories of the user requirements.

    Table 4 Baseline configuration elements.

    4.8.Verification and suggestion for design requirements

    The temporary design requirements including the two missions,maximum flight range,and endurance are verified using a simple sizing tool and a performance interpretation tool.As a result,the primary design requirements are presented in Table 7.Six-hour endurance and a flight range of 1400 km are also presented as the mission goals.

    Fig.13 Process of selecting baseline configurations.

    Table 5 Possible alternative configurations.

    Table 6 Results of Pugh concept selection and TOPSIS.

    4.9.Analysis result for conceptual designs in two baseline configurations

    Through the analysis of the user requirements and the selection of baseline configurations using the TOPSIS,a high wing,a conventional tail wing with a fuselage strut,and a tractortype engine were selected for the first baseline configuration,while a low wing,a conventional tail wing,no fuselage strut,and a tractor-type engine were selected for the second baseline configuration.The first iteration of the conceptual design was executed with these two baseline configurations,Family 1 and Family 2.As a result,we were able to develop the configurations shown in Fig.14,and the performance results were obtained as summarized in Table 8.

    A comparison of the design requirements and performance analysis results shows that the results for take-off distance and endurance do not fulfill the design requirements.Therefore,there is a need to alter the sizing to gain improved performance and satisfy the design requirements.Moreover,the current concept analysis tool used is not sensitive to configuration changes in terms of maximum cruising speed,actual climb limit,and endurance.Thus,there is a need to provide more sophisticated analysis tools.These were left as problems to be resolved as the development of VLAs was carried out henceforth.

    In order to select a suitable configuration that meets the user requirements between Family 1 and Family 2,the conceptual design results corresponding to the evaluation categories in Level 2 in the user requirements analysis were quantitatively compared.In other words,the weight and the performance as well as the stability coefficient values computed through the conceptual designs of Family 1 and Family 2 were used for the TOPSIS analysis to extract the final baseline configuration.The TOPSIS analysis was conducted considering the following:the lighter the empty weight,the less it costs;the larger the internal space,the more it improves the comfort;the lighter the maximum take-off weight,the more it satisfies the weight requirements;the lower the fuel consumption rate,the more it reduces fuel consumption;and the more the stability coeff icient values satisfy the design requirements,the more they satisfy the basic characteristics of the aircraft.As a result,Family 2 received a higher score than that of Family 1.For that reason,a low wing,a conventional tail wing,no fuselage strut,and a tractor-type engine were selected as an optimal baseline configuration.

    Table 7 Primary design requirements.

    (continued on next page)

    Table 7 (continued)

    Fig.14 Baseline configurations of Family 1 and Family 2.9

    Table 8 Performance results for Family 1 and Family 2.9

    5.Conclusions

    This study has devised a method of establishing logical and quantitativestandardsby applying thedecision-making method.This study also proposed a process of evaluating and selecting various alternative configurations based on the devised standards in the initial conceptual design phase for aircraft development.A baseline configuration selection process using a quantitative requirements analysis method was established,and it was applied to a two-seater VLA,resulting in design requirements and baseline configurations at the initial conceptual design phase of the VLA development project.For the requirement analysis,the voices of users,designers,and clients were collected through a survey from various VLA experts and the survey data were efficiently reflected in the decision-making process.The user requirements,marketability,and certification regulations were taken into consideration for the analysis of the design requirements.In addition,measures to evaluate whether the current design technology can satisfy the user requirements in the early development stage were sought.A tree diagram up to Level 3 was made through the user requirements analysis,and the AHP analysis results showed that safety was the most important element.The order of priority and the figures of importance for each category were obtained through the primary and secondary QFD,which were linked to the design requirement settings and baseline configuration settings.Functions for computing the performance with respect to aircraft weights were formulated through the marketability analysis,that is,the analysis of the competing model-based requirements.The computed performance outputs were provided as the performance standard values for the design requirements.The results of the certification requirements analysis given by the CS-VLA and ASTM were set as constraints on the design requirements.

    As a result,the temporary design requirements including two mission profiles were suggested.By applying the TOPSIS to the alternative configurations developed as combinations of configuration design elements in the conceptual design phase,the baseline configurations were set in two families.A high wing,a conventional tail wing,a fuselage strut,and a tractor-type engine were set for Family 1,while a low wing,a conventional tail wing,no fuselage strut,and a tractor-type engine were set for Family 2.For the two family configurations,the conceptual design and analysis were used in conducting the TOPSIS based on the quantitatively measured user requirements.In conclusion,Family 2 was selected as the optimal baseline configuration.The proposed requirement analysis and alternativeconfiguration selection processprovided improved objectivity and quantitation by systematic composition of the decision-making tools,QFD and TOPSIS.In particular,the present process introduced the initial sizing analysis tool to enforce the quantitative assessment in cooperation with the TOPSIS analysis.The efficiency of the process has been validated by applying it to the VLA development.

    Acknowledgements

    The authors are grateful for the support provided for this research by a grant(No.1615001723)from the Light Aircraft Development Program funded by the Ministry of Land,Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean government,and also the support from the National Research Foundation of Korea(No.NRF-2014R1A2A2A01003833)funded by the Korean government(MSIP).

    1.Marvis DN,Baker AP,Schrage DP.Development of methodology for the determination of technical feasibility and viability of affordable rotorcraft systems.The 54th annual forum of the American Helicopter Society;1998 May 20–22;Washington,D.C.Fairfax(VA):American Helicopter Society;1998.

    2.Kirby MR,Marvis DN.Forecasting technology uncertainty in preliminary aircraft design.The 4th world aviation congress and exposition;1999 October 19–21;San Francisco(CA).Warrendale(PA):SAE International;1999.

    3.Park HU.Study on the robust aerospace system design optimization process[dissertation].Seoul:Konkuk University;2007.p.29–41[Korean].

    4.Yoon JW,Nguyen N,Choi SM,Lee JW,Kim S,Byun YH.Multidisciplinary general aviation aircraft design optimizations incorporating airwothiness constraints.10th AIAA aviation technology integration and operation conference;2010 September 3–15;Fort Worth(TX).Reston:AIAA;2010.

    5.Lee SJ,Chung WJ,Kim KJ.A study on optimal design an piece removing automation system using ARIZ and brainstorming based on DMADOV of 6sigma.KSMTE Spring Conference;2008 April;Seoul.Seoul:KSMTE;2008.p.6–7.[Korean].

    6.Baek BS,Won YD.Quality management theory.Seoul:Trade Management Publishing Company;2001.p.114–50[Korean].

    7.Lee SB,Shin DS.Theory of QFD and example.Seoul:I-Tech Publishing Company;2008.p.188–200[Korean].

    8.Park YT.Single PPM quality innovation division of public administration.Seoul:Single PPM Quality Innovation Division;2000.p.78–96[Korean].

    9.Lee JW.Light aircraft system requirement review.Seoul:Light Aircraft Development Center,Konkuk University;2011.p.7–13[Korean].

    10.Lee JW.Research&planning report of light aircraft for sport class.Seoul:Light Aircraft Development Center,Konkuk University;2011.p.36–44[Korean].

    11.Mizuno S,Akao Y.QFD:The customer driven approach to quality planning and deployment.Tokyo:Asian Productivity Organization;1994.p.339.

    12.Chang DY.Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP.Eur J Oper Res1996;95(3):649–55.

    13.Tom R.Problem structuring using computer-aided morphological analysis.J Oper Res Soc2006;57(7):792–801.

    14.Shon KY,Yang JW,Kang CS.Assimilation of public opinions in nuclear decision-making using risk perception.Ann Nucl Energy2001;28(6):553–63.

    15.Lee JW.Aircraft conceptual design.Seoul:Kyungmun Publishing Company;2001.p.25–36[Korean].

    16.Nguyen NV,Tyan M,Lee JW.A modified variable complexity modeling for efficient multi-disciplinary aircraft conceptual design.Optimiz Eng2015;16(2):483–505.

    17.Park HU,Park MY,Lee SJ,Lee JW,Byun YH.Development of requirement driven design concept selection process in aerospace system.Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2006;2006 May 8–11;Glasgow.New York:Springer-Verlag;2006;3984.p.512–21.

    18.Satty TL.The analytic hierarchy process.Boston:Klumer-Nijhoff Publishing;1982.p.192–213.

    19.Chakldar ND,Charaborty S.A combined TOPSIS-AHP method based approach for non-traditional machining process selection.Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B:J Eng Manuf2008;222(12):1613–23.

    20.Ministry of Land,Infrastructure and Transport.Korean airworthiness standards.Korea[updated 2010 May12;cited 2016 Jan 20].[Korean].

    18 January 2016;revised 11 August 2016;accepted 27 October 2016

    Available online 17 March 2017

    *Corresponding author.

    E-mail address:kimsh85@konkuk.ac.kr(S.Kim).

    Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.

    久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 夜夜爽天天搞| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 热99re8久久精品国产| 日韩高清综合在线| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 亚洲av成人av| 成人三级黄色视频| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 在线播放国产精品三级| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 欧美zozozo另类| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 97超视频在线观看视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 日日夜夜操网爽| 一级av片app| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产精品三级大全| 香蕉av资源在线| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲 | 色5月婷婷丁香| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 美女黄网站色视频| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 国产一区二区三区视频了| av在线老鸭窝| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看 | 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 观看免费一级毛片| aaaaa片日本免费| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 午夜久久久久精精品| 亚洲不卡免费看| 如何舔出高潮| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 一级av片app| 一进一出抽搐动态| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产探花极品一区二区| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 脱女人内裤的视频| 免费观看精品视频网站| 国产日本99.免费观看| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 色播亚洲综合网| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 日韩欧美三级三区| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| a在线观看视频网站| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 99久久精品热视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 免费观看的影片在线观看| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| av在线观看视频网站免费| 国产高潮美女av| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 一本综合久久免费| 色5月婷婷丁香| 中文资源天堂在线| 在线播放无遮挡| 成人国产综合亚洲| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 黄色配什么色好看| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 在线观看66精品国产| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 丁香六月欧美| 99热这里只有是精品50| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 午夜激情欧美在线| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 久久亚洲真实| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 极品教师在线免费播放| 嫩草影院新地址| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 国产成人影院久久av| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 久久九九热精品免费| xxxwww97欧美| 亚洲不卡免费看| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 简卡轻食公司| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 久久伊人香网站| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 亚洲av.av天堂| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 日本免费a在线| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 国产真实乱freesex| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 免费av不卡在线播放| 亚洲经典国产精华液单 | 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 国产精品久久视频播放| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 午夜福利免费观看在线| 免费大片18禁| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 97热精品久久久久久| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| www.www免费av| 禁无遮挡网站| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 久久性视频一级片| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 久久久久久久久中文| 日本成人三级电影网站| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 久9热在线精品视频| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| a级毛片a级免费在线| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 亚洲 国产 在线| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 精品午夜福利在线看| 欧美潮喷喷水| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 9191精品国产免费久久| 午夜两性在线视频| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 少妇的逼好多水| 69av精品久久久久久| 亚洲国产色片| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 美女免费视频网站| 色吧在线观看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 午夜免费激情av| 很黄的视频免费| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 赤兔流量卡办理| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 亚洲av免费在线观看| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 欧美色视频一区免费| 午夜激情欧美在线| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看 | 精品国产三级普通话版| a级毛片a级免费在线| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 黄色一级大片看看| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 久久久久久大精品| 一本一本综合久久| 99热这里只有精品一区| 色综合婷婷激情| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 少妇的逼水好多| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 天堂网av新在线| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| aaaaa片日本免费| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国产成人a区在线观看| 国产黄片美女视频| avwww免费| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 色播亚洲综合网| 很黄的视频免费| 天堂网av新在线| 黄色一级大片看看| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 欧美潮喷喷水| .国产精品久久| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 久久久色成人| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 免费观看人在逋| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 精品福利观看| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产三级中文精品| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6 | 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 欧美+日韩+精品| 午夜福利欧美成人| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久 | 一级av片app| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 一进一出抽搐动态| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 日本a在线网址| 成人av在线播放网站| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 少妇高潮的动态图| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 欧美性感艳星| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 熟女电影av网| 热99在线观看视频| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 在线观看舔阴道视频| www日本黄色视频网| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看 | 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 久久草成人影院| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 免费av不卡在线播放| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 国产高清激情床上av| 色播亚洲综合网| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 欧美日本视频| 日本五十路高清| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 国产在线男女| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 一本综合久久免费| 美女免费视频网站| 日韩欧美精品免费久久 | 久久精品人妻少妇| 综合色av麻豆| 国产亚洲欧美98| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 欧美在线黄色| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 国产在视频线在精品| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 毛片女人毛片| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 乱人视频在线观看| 极品教师在线视频| 成年版毛片免费区| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 国产高清激情床上av| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 一本综合久久免费| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 看片在线看免费视频| 深夜a级毛片| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 免费观看精品视频网站| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 69人妻影院| 午夜久久久久精精品| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 极品教师在线免费播放| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 嫩草影视91久久| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 午夜激情欧美在线| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| av天堂中文字幕网| a级毛片a级免费在线| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 内地一区二区视频在线| 不卡一级毛片| av在线天堂中文字幕| 在线播放国产精品三级| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| av黄色大香蕉| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 怎么达到女性高潮| 精品久久久久久,| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 床上黄色一级片| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 全区人妻精品视频| 露出奶头的视频| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 日韩免费av在线播放| 69av精品久久久久久| 99热精品在线国产| 美女免费视频网站| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 国产午夜精品论理片| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 国产av一区在线观看免费| av在线观看视频网站免费| 日本一二三区视频观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产三级在线视频| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 日本成人三级电影网站| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产精品影院久久| 久久久色成人| 亚洲色图av天堂| 国产av不卡久久| 免费黄网站久久成人精品 | 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 一级av片app| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 美女免费视频网站| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 怎么达到女性高潮| 精品国产三级普通话版| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 欧美日韩黄片免| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 免费看日本二区| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 九色国产91popny在线| 日韩中字成人| 久久久久性生活片| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 国产精品三级大全| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| eeuss影院久久| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 91久久精品电影网| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 18+在线观看网站| 变态另类丝袜制服| 午夜久久久久精精品| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 午夜精品在线福利| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 看黄色毛片网站| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 免费av观看视频| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 一本综合久久免费| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 亚州av有码| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 亚洲av.av天堂| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| www.色视频.com| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| xxxwww97欧美| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 国产精华一区二区三区| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 成人国产综合亚洲| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 88av欧美| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 丰满的人妻完整版| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 深夜a级毛片| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 深夜a级毛片| 极品教师在线视频| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 国产精品永久免费网站| 免费av毛片视频| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 一本综合久久免费| or卡值多少钱| 在线播放无遮挡| 日本a在线网址| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 熟女电影av网| 久9热在线精品视频| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 精品人妻视频免费看| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美|