Weight and Materials

Airplane Weight
Spacecraft Weight
Material Properties
Composite Materials
MAE 155A
P-61C Landing Gear
2
MAE 155A
Aircraft Weight Statement
The aircraft weight (or mass) statement summarizes build-up of the final takeoff gross
weight estimate.
Structure
Wing
Horizontal Tail
Vertical Tail
Fuselage
Landing Gear
...
Propulsion
Engines
Accessories
Exhaust
Cooling
Fuel Tanks
...
Equipment
Flight Control
APU
Hydraulics
Pneumatics
Electrical
...
Useful Load
Crew
Passengers
Cargo
Fuel
Oil
...
3
MAE 155A
Aircraft Weight Estimates
Many sources have collected data from various airplanes in a effort to derive
empirical formulas for weight estimation.
Representative aircraft are not usually listed are they comparable to your new design?
How old are the aircraft in the database has technology changed?
A single (real) airplane may be the most valuable comparison
Appendix I of Nicolai and Carichner provide weight statements for several airplanes
Individual components can be compared as needed
W
t
=0.00428 S
w
0.48
( AR) M
0
0.43
(W
T O
N)
0.84
\
0.14
(100 t / c)
0.76
( cos A
1/ 2
)
1.54
W
t
=wing weight estimate(lb)
M
0
=Mach at sealevel
A
1/ 2
=sweep at half chord
t / c=max thickness ratio
\=taper ratio
AR=aspect ratio
N=ultimateload factor
S
w
=wing area( ft
2
)
W
T O
=takeoff weight ( lb)
4
MAE 155A
Spacecraft Weight Estimates
The spacecraft mass statement establishes the launch mass
Launch mass is matched to capability of the anticipated launch vehicle.
See Aviation Week Sourebook for a listing of launch vehicles and their payload capabilities.
Spacecraft Weight Definitions:
On-Orbit Dry Mass = Payload Mass + Platform Mass
Spacecraft Wet Mass = On-Orbit Dry Mass + Propellant
Launch Mass (LM) = Spacecraft Wet Mass + Launch Vehicle Adapter Mass (LVA)
Require Launch Vehicle Capability = Launch Mass + Mass Margin
Historical Spacecraft Data
Earth-Orbiting Satellites: On-Orbit Dry Mass is about 5 times the Payload Mass
Planetary Satellites: On-Orbit Dry Mass is about 7.5 times the Payload Mass
LVA (kg) = 0.08*LM (kg) + 50 (kg)
5
MAE 155A
Stress and Strain
A load (force) applied to a structural element causes stress in the material.
c=
F
A
F=applied force
A=cross section area
c=stress
Compression:
Tension:
F F
F F
Al
c
Al
l
Strain measures how the material reacts to applied loads.
The modulus of elasticity defines a linear relationship between stress and strain.
c=Ec
c=strain
E=Young ' s modulus of elasticity
Al
length=l
6
MAE 155A
Shear Strain and Strain
Shear acts tangentially to the cross-sectional area under load.
The modulus of rigidity defines a linear relationship between shear stress and strain.
t=
F
A
Shear:
F
F
F=applied force
A=cross section area
t=shear stress
t=G0
0=shearing strain
G=modulus of rigidity
F
F
0
7
MAE 155A
Metallic Materials
Material
Aircraft Steel 260 220 240 155 30 11
Stainless Steel 185 150 158 120 29 11
Aluminum 61 45 37 37 11 4
Titanium 160 145 154 100 16 6
Inconel 155 100 100 100 31 11
10
3
lb/ inch
2
10
6
lb/ inch
2
c
tu
c
ty
c
cy
c
su
E G
Strain
Stress
c
tu
=ultimatetensile stress
c
ty
=yield tensile stress
c
cy
=yield compressive stress
c
su
=ultimate shear stress Yield
stress
Ultimate
stress
Fracture
Proportional
limit
Inelastic Elastic
8
MAE 155A
Aerospace Composite Applications
Fighter Aircraft AV-8B, F-16, F-14, F-18 (*20%), YF-23, F-22 (24%),
Gripen JAS39 (20%), Mirage 2000, Rafael (26%),
Eurofigher (40%), Lavi, EADS Mako (25%),
MIG-29, Su Series
Bombers B-2
Transport KC-135, C-17, Boeing 777 (20%), Boeing 767,
MD-11, A320 (28%), A340, A380 (21%),
Tu-204, ATR-42, Falcon 900
General Aviation Piaggio, Starship, Premier
Rotary Aircraft V-22 (50%), Eurocopter, Comanche, RAH-66,
BA-609, EH-101, Super Lynx 300, S-92
*Percentages quoted by structural weight.
Source: Quilter, A., Composites in Aerospace Applications, ESDU International.
9
MAE 155A
Risk and Reward of Composites
Reward
Composites demonstrate high strength-
to-weight ratios
Composites provide numerous options
for structural tailoring for known loading
conditions
Risk
Composite materials are expensive
Composites have practically no ductility
The mechanical properties of
composites have a strong link to the
manufacturing processes
hard to detect substandard adhesive
bonds in composite structures
hard to detect the precise location of
defects in composite structures
More Risk
Composites are highly sensitive to notches
hard to incorporate cutouts and reinforcements
without offsetting mass savings
Composites are sensitive to accidental
damage
inspection methods for composites are
expensive and complex
composite structures are difficult to repair
Composite structures may need lightning
strike protection
Notable Failures
Airbus A300 Vertical Tail Separation
X-33 Liquid Hydrogen Tank - Debond
Space Shuttle Columbia Debris Impact
10
MAE 155A
Best Practices in Composite Design
The design/development approach must integrate materials, structures and manufacturing
technologies.
The building-block development approach for design, manufacturing scale-up, and test of
composite structures must be used.
In-depth reviews by experienced practitioners (i.e., external peer reviewers) should be used
throughout the process to ensure that all issues are addressed. In order to alleviate design
issues and potential failure occurrences, these reviews should be at the design level as
well as the formal review level. Early expert reviews have the greatest effect on successful
investigations as well as on mission success.
Document engineering requirements as clearly as possible. All requirements, including
seemingly minor changes, should be clearly documented and tracked in order to avoid
misinterpretation.
In a totally new system, requirements may have to be continually reviewed for applicability.
Requirements may have changed as a result of trade studies or design maturity and must
be considered.
Aerospace systems are designed to withstand worst-case life-cycle environments;
however, any structure can fail when subjected to load cases for which it is not designed.
Thus, the credibility of mission failure scenarios is vital to the evaluation of potential failure
modes of the structure.
Ransom, JR, Glaessgen, EH, Raju, IS, Knight, NF, and Reader, JR, Lessons Learned from Recent Failure and
Incident Investigations of Composite Structures, 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference, Apr. 2008.