Chapter 1

AIRCRAFT
PERFORMANCE
AND SIZING,
VOLUME II
AIRCRAFT
PERFORMANCE
AND SIZING,
VOLUME II
Applied Aerodynamic Design
TIMOTHY TAKAHASHI
Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume II: Applied Aerodynamic Design

Copyright Momentum Press, LLC, 2016.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any otherexcept for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published in 2016 by
Momentum Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net
ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-945-6 (print)
ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-946-3 (e-book)
Momentum Press Aerospace Engineering Collection
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.,
Chennai, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
Abstract
This book is a concise practical treatise for the student or experienced professional aircraft designer. This volume comprises key applied subjects for
performance based aircraft design: systems engineering principles; aircraft
mass properties estimation; the aerodynamic design of transonic wings;
aircraft stability and control; takeoff and landing runway performance.
This book may serve as a textbook for an undergraduate aircraft design
course or as a reference for the classically trained practicing engineer.
KEYWORDS
Aerodynamics, Aircraft Design, Aircraft Performance, Aircraft Sizing,
Drag, Lift, Aircraft Stability, Aircraft Control, Aviation
Contents
List of Figures
ix
List of Tables
xix
Acknowledgmentsxxi
Chapter 1 Systems Engineering andthe Design Process
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
The Systems Engineering Veea Plan for Success

Conceptual Design
Multidisciplinary Trade Studies
Model Fidelity
Detail Design
Risk Reduction and Mitigation
Chapter 2 Weight and Volume Estimation

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
A Self Referential Problem: How Much

an Aircraft Weighs at Takeoff is a
Function of How Much it Weighs Empty
Approaches to Aircraft Sizing
Empirical Methods to Estimate Empty Weight
Modeling and Simulation Methods to Estimate
Empty Weight
Estimating Mass Moments of Inertia
1
1
3
8
10
12
13
17
19
21
22
34
50
Chapter 3 Stability and Controllability
53
3.1
3.2
3.3
53
57
3.4
Aerodynamic Database Generation

Aerodynamic Database Presentation
Empirical Methods to Size theVertical
and Horizontal Tail
Modeling and Simulation Approach
toStability and Control
60
62
viiiContents
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Longitudinal Trim
Longitudinal Stability
CG Placement, Horizontal Tail,
andElevator Sizing
Lateral-Directional Trim
Lateral-Directional Stability
Lateral-Directional Control
Chapter 4 Field Performance Principles

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
65
67
72
76
78
85
91
Takeoff in a Nutshell
93
Simplified Statistical Method for Takeoff
98
Computing Takeoff Cue Speeds
100
Modeling and Simulation Methods for Takeoff
111
Takeoff NoiseCertification and Abatement
Procedures121
Approach and Landing in a Nutshell
124
Computing Landing Cue Speeds
125
Simplified Statistical Model for Landing
127
Modeling and Simulation Methods for Landing
128
Chapter 5 The Aerodynamic Design of Wings
135
5.1
5.2
5.3
Planform Geometry
137
Three-Dimensional Flow Effects
139
Transonic Flow Over Two-Dimensional
Airfoils144
5.4
Selecting an Appropriate Airfoil
for Transonic Flight
152
5.5
Sweep Effects
158
5.6 Nonplanarity
169
5.7
Designing a Wing for Optimal Performance
172
Chapter 6 Aircraft Sizing andSynthesisPutting
ItAll Together
187
6.1
6.2
6.3
Aircraft Sizing in a Nutshell

187
Simple Sizing Using Breguets Equation
191
Sizing Using a Multidisciplinary Optimization
Approach192
6.4
Systems Design Examples
193
6.5 Afterword
236
Index
239
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Systems engineering Vee. FRR, flight readiness review;
SRR, systems requirement review; PDR, preliminary
design review; CDR, critical readiness review.
2
Figure 1.2. Example functional decomposition tree.
Figure 1.3. Example integrated master plan (IMP). WBS, work

breakdown structure; SOW, statement of work; PDR,
preliminary design review; CDR, critical design review. 6
Figure 1.4. MIL STD 1374 weight reporting form.
Figure 1.5. Trade study process.
Figure 1.6. NASA/DoD risk chart.
15
Figure 1.7. Risk reduction waterfall.
15
Figure 2.1. The self-referential nature of weight estimation.

Everything influences everything.
19
Figure 2.2. Empirical regression of large aircraft weightOEW

and MTOW. OEW, operational empty weight; MTOW,
maximum takeoff weight.
20
Figure 2.3. MIL STD 1374 weight reporting form.
22
Figure 2.4. Wing bending moment relief.
25
Figure 2.5. Uninstalled engine weight as a function

of static thrust.
28
Figure 2.6. One gear landing.
29
Figure 2.7. Landing gear (a) nose wheel with in-line oleo strut and
steering link, (b) six-wheel main gear with vertical oleo
strut.30
Figure 2.8. Sketch of the trapezoidal basis for wing spar locations
superimposed upon an arbitrary cranked planform.
The arbitrary planform is shown in green, the fundamental
x List of Figures
trapezoidal geometry is shown in black, the spar locations

are shown in red.
36
Figure 2.9. Sketch of spanwise variation in wing thickness to chord
ratio (t/c).
36
Figure 2.10. Sketch of the mid-chord sweep-aligned structural
coordinate system (x y) as opposed to the global
lofting coordinate system (x y).
37
Figure 2.11. Sketch of the shear and bending moment arising from
wingstructural and nonstructural mass under flight
and hard-landing loading conditions.
38
Figure 2.12. Sketch of a lumped mass model comprising wing

structural and nonstructural mass under a nominal 1 gee
loading. MLG, main landing gear.
38
Figure 2.13. Sketch describing envelope loading situations
(+Nz flight vs Nz ground).
39
Figure 2.14. Sketch resolving wing bending moment into forces

along the upper and lower wing covers (comprising
the spar caps, skin, and any stiffeners).
40
Figure 2.15. Sketch resolving the torque box into spar caps, skin,
and any stiffeners.
41
Figure 2.16. Wing chord, thickness ratio, distance between spars

and the maximum thickness a wing for a B737
sized aircraft.
45
Figure 2.17. Example of aerodynamic less net inertial loads.
46
Figure 2.18. Shear force and bending moments at Nz = +1

(flight load) and 1 (landing gear load) as a function
ofglobal BL location. Overall wing bending torque
at Nz = +2.5 and Nz = 3 gee.
47
Figure 2.19. Minimum cover area for tension loading criteria vs

actual cover area needed to satisfy tension, compression,
stiffened panel buckling and local panel buckling criteria
while resisting critical envelope loads.
48
Figure 2.20. Von Mises stress contours of wing structure designed
using the equations in this text. (a) Internal structure
stress contours; (b) wing upper surface skin stress
contours.48
Figure 2.21. Impact of changes in MTOW on torque box weight.
(a) Regional jet, (b) narrow body, (c) wide body.
Holding Sref , AR, TR, L, t/c, Nzmax constant.
49
List of Figures xi
Figure 3.1. Wind tunnel testing.
54
Figure 3.2. Typical aerodynamic coefficient sign convention.

LE, leading edge; TE, trailing edge; L.H wing,
left-hand wing; R.H. wing, right-hand wing.
55
Figure 3.3. Typical plots made from a simple aerodynamic database.
58
Figure 3.4. Longitudinal stability and control screening plots

made from a simple aerodynamic database.
59
Figure 3.5. Lateral-directional stability and control screening

plots made from a simple aerodynamic database.
60
Figure 3.6. Longitudinal pitch trim. (a,c,e) nominal CG; (b,d,f)

forwards CG, (a,b) controls fixed moments; (c,d) control
power, (e,f) deflection for trim.
66
Figure 3.7. Pitching moment vs angle-of-attack for fixed

elevator deflection.
68
Figure 3.8. Aerodynamic center location as function of mach

and angle of attack for a notional aircraft.
69
Figure 3.9. Simplified one-degree of freedom short-period

frequency model.
70
Figure 3.10. MIL STD-8785C Category A chart.
72
Figure 3.11. Skymap short-period frequency (radians per

second) as a function of speed and altitude. Notional
narrow-body transport aircraft.
75
Figure 3.12. Picture of airliner w/all-moving horizontal tail

for trim PLUS elevator to pitch control authority.
75
Figure 3.13. Skymap of elevator deflection needed for trim.
76
Figure 3.14. Aerodynamic contributors to dutch roll stability.

(a) Directional stability; (b) lateral stability;
(c) Cndynamic (where Izz/Ixx ~ 2).
81
Figure 3.15. Skymap of dutch roll frequencies for a notional

narrow-body transport aircraft.
81
Figure 3.16. Lateral directional stability of a highly swept

combat aircraft (a) directional stability;
(b) lateral stability.
82
Figure 3.17. Stick-fixed open-loop dutch roll stability of a highly swept

combat aircraft. (a) Oscillatory frequency (Hz),
(b) Time-to-double (sec).
83
xii List of Figures
Figure 3.18. Lateral directional characteristics of the North

American X-15 configuration with and without
ventral fin. (a) Lateral stability, (b) directional stability.
After day.
84
Figure 3.19. Bihrle-Weissman chart.
86
Figure 3.20. Bihrle-Weissman chart with total flight envelope

characteristics of a narrow-body airliner.
88
Figure 3.21. Bihrle-Weissman chart with total flight envelope

Characteristics of a narrow-body airliner.
89
Figure 4.1. Runway information for San Jose International

Airport (SJC). Courtesy airnav.com.
95
Figure 4.2. Runway condition ratings and associated coefficients

of friction (m).97
Figure 4.3. FAA wet braking coefficient of friction schedule.
(a) Equations, (b) Coefficients.
97
Figure 4.4. Roskam T/O equation applied to an aircraft

with Sref = 1,000 ft2, CLmax = 2, T = 30,000 lbf
(2 15,000 lbf engines).
99
Figure 4.5. Force balance for simplified VMCG computation.
102
Figure 4.6.
VMCG trade study. Narrow-Body airliner.
102
Figure 4.7.
Force and Yawing moment balance for simplified

VMCA computation.
103
Figure 4.8. Side force balance for simplified VMCA computation.
104
Figure 4.9. Rolling moment balance for simplified VMCA

computation.104
Figure 4.10. VMCA trade study. Narrow-Body airliner.
105
Figure 4.11. Vmu schematic.
105
Figure 4.12. Lift slope (dCL/da) multiplier in-ground-effect.
106
Figure 4.13. Vmu effect of wing height. Notional transport

aircraft.107
Figure 4.14. Force balance to rotate nose wheel.
108
Figure 4.15. Minimum distance between the main landing

gear and the aircraft Center-of-Gravity to prevent
unintentional Tip-Back.
108
Figure 4.16. Schematic of takeoff procedure (AEO Accel-Go

Vs OEI Accel-Go Vs RTO).109
Figure 4.17. Balanced field length terminology chart.
119
List of Figures xiii
Figure 4.18. Critical field length trade study. Accel-Stop (RTO),

Accel-Go (OEI), Accel-Go (AEO) and Critical Field
Length as a function of takeoff weight. V1 may be
limited either by VMCG or VR.
120
Figure 4.19. Noise abatement takeoff profile.
122
Figure 4.20. Roskam landing equation applied to an aircraft with

Sref = 1,152 ft2, CLmax = 2.6, VMCL = 110 KIAS.
128
Figure 4.21. Schematic of aircraft approach, flare, touchdown

and landing roll out. AGL, above ground level
129
Figure 5.1. Schematic representation of thin-airfoil-theory.
136
Figure 5.2. Schematic representation of the superposition of

pressures. Upper Surface (Cpu); Lower Surface (Cpl);
Mean Pressures (produced by the thickness); Net
Pressures (from incidence & camber).
136
Figure 5.3. Wing planform.
138
Figure 5.4. Profile vs. Spanwise view of flow (after Munk).
139
Figure 5.5. Finite wing effects. Applicable range of 2D theory

(after Kchemann).
140
Figure 5.6. Planforms examined for thickness, and incidence

trade studies.
140
Figure 5.7. Wing surface peak underpressure distribution at zero

lift. (a) Hershey Bar Planform, (b) Swept & Tapered
Planform with constant t/c, no twist, zero incidence.
141
Figure 5.8. Section lift distribution per unit incidence. (a) Hershey
bar planform, (b) Swept & tapered planform.
143
Figure 5.9. Critical Mach number peak suction pressure

coefficient relationship for 2D flow.
145
Figure 5.10. Critical Mach number envelope of classic NACA

sections (from NACA 824).
146
Figure 5.11. Critical Mach number envelope of classic NACA

sections (from NACA 824).
147
Figure 5.12. Decomposition of forces into lift and drag.
147
Figure 5.13. Midspan airfoilBoeing 747100.
148
Figure 5.14. Airfoil pressure distributions of the B747100

midspan airfoil.
149
Figure 5.15. Section CL vs. Mach number for the Boeing

747100 airfoil.
150
xiv List of Figures
Figure 5.16. Section CD vs. Mach number for the Boeing 747100
airfoil.150
Figure 5.17. Section M(L/D) vs. Mach number for the Boeing
747100 airfoil.
151
Figure 5.18. Korn Equationbi-linear correlation between

Drag Divergence Mach number (MDD), design lift
coefficient (CLdes), and section thickness (t/c).
153
Figure 5.19. Pearcey & Osborne correlation between drag

divergence mach number (MDD), design lift
coefficient (CLdes), and section thickness.
154
Figure 5.20. Airfoil pressure distributions. Symmetric NACA.

(a) t/c = 10%, 0% camber, = 0o; (b) t/c = 10%,
0% camber, = 5o (c) t/c = 10%, 1% camber,
= 4o.155
Figure 5.21. Full factorial sampling of incidence and camber for
NACA 64-series thickness forms critical Mach
number (Mcr) vs. low-speed lift coefficient (CLinc).
(a) (t/c) = 8%; (b) (t/c) = 18%.
156
Figure 5.22. Transonic design guidelines for NACA type airfoils.

(a) allocation of low-speed-thickness (t/c) as a function
of low-speed lift-coefficient (CLLS) and desired Mcr.
(b) recommended camber.
157
Figure 5.23. Critical Mach number allocation strategies using
the Kady & Takahashi reduced-order method.
158
Figure 5.24. Geometry of a swept wings. (a) Freestream vs leading

edge reference, (b) yawed, (c) sheared.
159
Figure 5.25. Pressure distributions on an oblique R4009 airfoil.
(t/c)LE = 9%; aLE = 2o. b = leading edge sweep
back angle.
160
Figure 5.26. Comparison of analytical and computational

estimates of lift for swept wings.
163
Figure 5.27. Pressure distributions (CP vs % chord ) on an oblique

NACA 64009 Airfoil. CPs referenced to the dynamic
pressure in leading edge reference frame, q.
164
Figure 5.28. Critical Mach number peak suction pressure

coefficient relationship for swept wing flow.
167
Figure 5.29. Relative weight impacts of reduced bending

moment lift distributions on a large, long range
transport aircraft (after Takahashi).
168
List of Figures xv
Figure 5.30. Non planar wing geometry options.
169
Figure 5.31. Span efficiency factor for nonplanar wing

geometry.170
Figure 5.32. Transverse span load associated with a h/b = 0.2
winglet.171
Figure 5.33. Tall retrofit winglet on a Boeing 737-NG.
171
Figure 5.34. Block diagram of wing synthesis procedure.
173
Figure 5.35. Five control point wing-body model (fuselage plus

four wing control points).
174
Figure 5.36. Example, spanwise distribution of lift (running load,

L(y)).175
Figure 5.37. Example, spanwise distribution of chord; tapered
wing with Yehudi c(y).175
Figure 5.38. Example, cruise spanwise distribution of section
lift coefficient for notional tapered wing with
Yehudi cl(y).176
Figure 5.39. Example, Korn equation suggested thickness
distribution, t/c(y). k = 0.82.
176
Figure 5.40. Wing synthesis procedure rendered wing.
177
Figure 5.41. Example, low-speed spanwise distribution of section

lift coefficient, cl(y).177
Figure 5.42. Spanwise location of stall impacts pitch up and roll
off characteristics.
178
Figure 5.43. Spanwise section lift coefficient distribution.

(a) TR = 0.15 no yehdui, (b) TR = 0.45 no Yehudi.
179
Figure 5.44. Twist perturbation and lift response functions for

a given wing planform.
181
Figure 5.45. Example twist distribution. (a) Wing with no camber,

(b) wing with spanwise camber.
182
Figure 5.46. Actual vs. ideal transverse lift distribution for a five
control point wing/body.
183
Figure 5.47. Upper surface isobars contoursnominal

elliptically loaded wingKorn equation based
thickness allocation.
183
Figure 6.1. Data flow associated with a simple sizing problem.

S&C, stability and control.
188
Figure 6.2. Simple spreadsheet sizing of 100 seat regional jet.
192
xvi List of Figures
Figure 6.3. Aerisan almost conventionally configured

green 70-seat regional jet.
194
Figure 6.4. Aeris interior layout.
195
Figure 6.5. Initial wing design flowchart.
196
Figure 6.6. Detail wing design flowchart.
196
Figure 6.7. Wing section twist, camber and thickness distribution. 197
Figure 6.8. Wing upper surface isobar plot.
197
Figure 6.9. Spanwise wing lift distribution.
198
Figure 6.10. Bypass ratio/engine scale factor trade study.
199
Figure 6.11. Staggered engine installation for rotor burst

considerations.199
Figure 6.12. Specific range skymap.
200
Figure 6.13. Horizontal tail/elevator placementLanding gear

configuration and ground stance to mitigate tip-back
and ground-handling issues.
200
Figure 6.14. Engine sizing.
201
Figure 6.15. Second segment climb at maximum takeoff weight

with FADEC scheduled thrust derate.
202
Figure 6.16. Aeris optimum flight profiles. (a) 1500 nM mission,

(b) 500 nM mission.
203
Figure 6.17. Comparable aircraft benchmark.
203
Figure 6.18. Payload vs. Range Plot.
204
Figure 6.19. Cessna citation X fuel burn.
207
Figure 6.20. MDO model comprising a linked collection of codes,

developed using Model Center.209
Figure 6.21. Noble Knight configuration layout.
211
Figure 6.22. Noble Knight basic aircraft specifications.
212
Figure 6.23. High lift system and elevon arrangement.
212
Figure 6.24. Aerodynamic stability and control data from

VORLAX.
214
Figure 6.25. Dynamic stability screening criteria. (a) BihrleWiessman Chart. (b) MIL 8785C short period
frequency chart.
215
Figure 6.26. Weight breakdown statement.
216
Figure 6.27. Aerodynamic performance (L/D) predicitons

from EDET
216
List of Figures xvii
Figure 6.28. Specific range skymap (a) for flight at W = 22,500 lbm
(near MTOW) (b) flight at end of cruise.
217
Figure 6.29. Comparable aircraft benchmark.
218
Figure 6.30. Latin-hypercube sampling and sorting for wing

rigging.221
Figure 6.31. Dependent variable vs dependent variable plot used
to select wing planform.
222
Figure 6.32. Pareto sensitivity study for system performance.
222
Figure 6.33. Conventionally configured N + 1 B737 replacement

aircraft.223
Figure 6.34. Conventionally configured N + 1 B737 replacement
aircraft.223
Figure 6.35. Weight estimates of conventionally configured
N + 1 B737 replacement aircraft.
224
Figure 6.36. Benchmark comparison.
224
Figure 6.37. Benchmark comparison.
226
Figure 6.38. Transport category regulations applicable to the

conceptual design process.
226
Figure 6.39. Fuselage trade studies.
227
Figure 6.40. Multivariate designeffect of AR on design lift

coefficinent, zero-lift drag and empty weight.
228
Figure 6.41. Wing refinement study(a) Mdes (t/c, sweep),

(b) OEW (t/c, swepp), (c) fuel burn (Sref), (d) fuel
burn (t/c).229
Figure 6.42. Required section lift distribution for elliptical
transverse span loads.
229
Figure 6.43. Spanwise distribution of wing thickness for drag

divergence and elliptical span loading. (a) t/c,
(b)dimensional thickness.
231
Figure 6.44. Induced drag benefit of adding winglets to HATT.231

Figure 6.45. Engine trades.
233
Figure 6.46. Mission performance trades(a) low altitude climb

speed, (b) cruise altitude.
234
Figure 6.47. Mission performance trades(a) cruise altitude,

(b) low altitude climb-speed.
235
List of Tables
Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.
Minimum Climb Capability for Certified Takeoff of

Transport Category Aircraft
121
Minimum Climb Capability for Certified Landing of

Transport Category Aircraft
128
Acknowledgments
Life is an adventure. As a small boy, I watched the moon landings on television and dreamed of a career in aerospace. Through many twists and turns,
I had never imagined that one day I would work at the Skunk Works, own
a mansion in Kansas, or teach in Arizona. Along this circuitous journey,
I learned aircraft design by doing it not by studying itthrough many
collaborations with work colleagues, mentors, and students.
For this work, I would like to specially call out a few names from my
industrial past: Luis Miranda, Bob Coopersmith, and the late Bill Evans
for otherwise unwritten insight into aerodynamic design as well as Wayne
Cosgrove and Fred Keable for showing me the proper way to analyze flight
performance.
While I never had the chance to formally study under Professor Emeritus W.H. (Bill) Mason from Virginia Tech, he has been an inspiration
and role model for me. He is a unique academic who addresses deeply
practical issues in aircraft design, otherwise overlooked by the scholarly
community.
Id also like to thank my many AIAA conference paper collaborators,
especially these former students of mine: Shane Donovan, Christopher
Gedeon, Nicholas Heitzman, Shane Huffer, James Jensen, Christopher
Kady, Jeffrey Kirkman, Tyler Knight, Cameron Langley, Tyler Lemonds,
Michael Merrell, Nicholas Mora, Matthew Swann, and Donald Wood.
Our papers together formed the foundation of these books.
Finally, I would like to thank my reviewers: Lance Bays, Josh Cohn,
and Ruben Perez, for all of their help during the formative stages of this
project.
To the reader, please enjoy my unusual treatise on aircraft performance and sizing.
Timothy T. Takahashi
Tempe, AZ
January 2016
CHAPTER 1
Systems Engineering
andthe Design Process
Aircraft are complex systems. It takes a team of experts, not an individual,
to design an aircraft. Thus, considerable attention needs to be paid when
assembling, managing, and leading a technical team. The U.S. government, led by the military, has identified many best practices and established clear project management guidelines for aerospace systems design.
These are documented in MIL STD-881C.1
Typically, a pressing business or military need defines the top-level
concept. A very small number of engineers, business executives, or military leaders conceive both the basic vehicle configuration and its overall
concept of operations. By the nature of this conceptualization process,
a vehicle configuration developed at program inception lacks stringent
technical rigor. The design is either cartooned with no numerical analysis,
or, at best, is supported by some back-of-the-envelope calculations. The
decisions made or implied during this phase of the program have significant future consequences because they define so many key attributes: for
example, the choice of principal business partners, the choice of materials, the number of engines, or the use or disuse of specific technologies.
1.1 THE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

VEEA PLAN FOR SUCCESS
The systems engineering process uses an interdisciplinary approach to conceptualize and build complex products.2 As practitioners of systems engineering, systems engineers focus on defining customer needs, [and]
documenting requirements.3 The systems engineering process should coordinate design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem. The role of systems engineering should be to integrate all the
disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation.4
2 AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND SIZING
Systems engineering uses a

formal decision-making review
process to provide external visibility to the design activity, manage
project scope, and establish basic
requirements. Basically, systems
engineers force other engineers,
who prefer to be hermits, to share
their incomplete designs with one
another at regularly scheduled
Figure 1.1. Systems engineering Vee.
meetings. The idea behind these
FRR, flight readiness review; SRR,
formal gate review meetings is
systems requirement review; PDR,
to encourage stakeholder involvepreliminary design review; CDR,
critical readiness review.
ment, dialog, and participation. A
schematic of the design steps and the gate review meetings may be seen in
Figure 1.1.4
Traditional systems engineering, as articulated by Defense Acquisition Order DoD5000.023 and MIL-STD 499A,5 breaks down the aircraft
design process into several phases from inception through first flight:
1. A Systems Requirements Definition (SRD) phase, leading to a
Systems Requirements Review (SRR);
2. A Preliminary Design (PD) phase, leading to a Preliminary
Design Review (PDR);
3. A Detail Design phase, leading to a Critical Design Review
(CDR), and
4. An assembly and ground test phase that supports a Flight Readiness Review (FRR).
Technical reviews allow the government an overview of the evolving system design and an opportunity to evaluate its capability to satisfy
performance requirements. The objective of these reviews is to search out
design weaknesses, faulty designs that preclude certification (on a commercial program), or designs which may be cost drivers (on a military program). Engineers write technical status reports to support design reviews.
Managers then use these reports to identify, clarify, and mitigate potential
items of concern before the formal design review meeting.
It is essential that customer representatives participate in formal design reviews. Typically, the technical review will proceed as a series of
formal presentations by the contractors design team. Presentations should
begin with a brief overview of the overall program (scope, deliverables,
and milestone schedules) to set the stage for the design briefs. Presentations should contain an overall systems perspective reflecting the major
subsystems and how they interface to comprise the total system.
Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 3
The symmetrical Systems Engineering Vee (see Figure 1.1) ties the
system specification, generated by tasks found on the left-hand side of
the diagram to the system verification results, performed by tasks found
on the right-hand side of the vee. Ideally, requirements developed in the
early phase of the program drive the validation process performed in later
phases. In this structure, parts design is performed at the bottom of the
vee. The steps preceding detail design level serve to decompose requirements; steps after detail design serve to verify performance. SRR and PDR
occur on the left-hand side, and the bottom of the systems engineering vee
comprises the development time between PDR and CDR.
It is widely believed that engineering design determines 80 percent of
a products cost.6 Unit costs are materially impacted by poor conceptual design that requires revision and change during detail design or development
(delaying product delivery or producing a product that does not meet requirements). Poor concept design gives us products that fundamentally do not
meet expectations. Poor detail design results in products where required parts
tolerances are too tight for economical construction, assembly techniques are
needlessly expensive or unreliable, or products where parts fail needlessly in
service. To build a successful product requires more than serendipity or unharnessed technical expertise; it requires a structured process to ensure that
small technical missteps do not grow into program-threatening problems.
1.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

During the conceptual design phase, the technical team should be small
and nimble. In practice, supply chain considerations have a driving influence at this phase of design because the industry is not vertically integrated.
A new aircraft design is the product of a partnership between airframe prime
(e.g., a Boeing), a propulsion house (e.g., a Pratt & Whitney), and principal subsystems contractors (e.g., a Honeywellfor the landing gear and
brakes). Often, a large team is required to formalize requirements between
the primary integrator and its major subcontractors. This is necessary because the technical team cannot acquire necessary data without negotiating
formal contracts that establish joint fiduciary responsibilities and establish
intellectual property rights. If a company like Boeing is going to build a
new airframe around Pratt & Whitneys new engine, neither technical team
can operate in a vacuum without access to the others trade secret data.
The roles and responsibilities of the various members of the program team
are defined by the work breakdown structure (WBS).1 When you express
the WBS in graphical form, you can see the functional decomposition of the
project (see Figure 1.2). Each item on the WBS (box element on the functional decomposition tree) may have a different lead vendor. For example, a
Boeing military aircraft (system integrator) might have a Raytheon fire-control
system. In turn, differing Raytheon

divisions might have leadership on
the detection radar system and the
missile guidance system. Raytheon
might further subcontract the tracking optics to a sub-subcontractor.
Unfortunately, this subcontracting process limits flexibility
Figure 1.2. Example functional
to implement significant changes
decomposition tree.
in the overall design configuration; the result is that key aircraft design decisions, such as the number of
engines and basic engine size, are typically frozen prior to SRR.
At the SRR level, systems engineering seeks to formalize concrete,
verifiable requirements that define what the final product will be able to
do but not how the system will do it. Thus, the purpose of an SRR is to balance customer desires and stakeholder needs against public policy (e.g.,
regulatory compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA))
and/or military standards as well as practical constraints.
Once you pass SRR, you transcribe the agreed upon requirements
into a System Requirements Document (SRD). In addition, you publish
documents like a System Verification Plan (SVP) and System Acceptance Plan (SAP). These procedural guides describe the steps required to
demonstrate compliance with these requirements.
Requirements define what, how well, and under what conditions a
product will achieve a given purpose.7 The baseline SRD should describe
the system in both a qualitative/conceptual and a quantitative/detailed
manner. The systems engineering team should encourage input from all
stakeholders, including managers, technical staff, and operational staff,
and the requirements plan should consider and reflect the complete life
cycle (system development, deployment, training, transition, operations
and maintenance, upgrades, and retirement) of the proposed system.
An SRR briefing3 should address:
System requirements and capabilities: Demonstrate that the system specification is complete; that the nonnegotiable design requirements have been identified; and that the design team understands
the product from an operational, system and technical perspective.
{{ Explicit requirements: These are technical requirements derived from the stated mission requirements: How much payload?
How far? How fast? How economical? Out of what runway?
{{ Implicit requirements: These are engineering requirements
inherent to the vehicle class (e.g., the regulations found within
14 CFR 25).
Test, evaluation, and certification of product: Identify the role

of modeling and simulation (M&S) in testing; demonstrate that
airworthiness criteria are understood and reflected in the specification; document the requirement verification methodology with the
type of analyses, tests, inspection, or demonstrations planned; define the roles of all certifying agencies in the forward project plan
Engineering processes, control, and analysis: Establish measures of
effectiveness (MOEs) (these are the numbers that define the value of
the productfor example: per-seat-fuel-consumption over a mission
plan); measures of performance (MOPs) (these are the numbers that
define compliance with the key constraintsfor example, takeoff runway length); key performance parameters (KPPs) (these are other
useful numbers, but those that only indirectly, rather than directly, impact the requirement or constraintsfor example, stall speed).
Program Master Schedule, earned value and cost: The review
should include an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated
Master Schedule (IMS) (see Figure 1.3). The audit teams should be
convinced that the program plan is complete and staffed at reasonable levels with realistic performance expectations.
Program execution risk and performance risk: The SRR should
identify program technical risks and program execution (cost and
schedule) risks. The risk management plan must also address who
is responsible for carrying out the risk mitigation strategies.
1.2.1 PROGRAM EXECUTIONSRR TO PDR (CONCEPTUAL
AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN)
The objective of this phase of the design project is to determine the specifications of a new aircraft which meets specific requirements. In other words,
conceptual design of an aircraft requires the technical team to understand:
How large does the fuselage need to be to meet mission performance requirements?
How large does the wing need to be to meet mission performance
requirements?
How large does the tail need to be to meet mission performance
requirements?
How large does the engine need to be to meet mission performance
requirements?
Once an initial concept gains support and attracts funding, a larger design
team forms; this team develops the preliminary design of the final product.
On a commercial program, this phase begins with an official program launch.
On a military program, this phase

begins with a contract award that
funds development toward something that the government calls
out as Milestone A.
To prepare for PDR, the engineering team must first engage
in high-level design studies:
In principle, the SRR phase
permits the engineering team to
define only general design speciFigure 1.3. Example integrated master
fications needed to meet specific
plan (IMP). WBS, work breakdown
performance goals. Between
structure; SOW, statement of work; PDR,
SRR and PDR, the engineering
preliminary design review; CDR, critical
team must flesh out the design.
design review.
In practice, budget, schedule
(IMP/IMS), and other programmatic constraints often restrict the design space to consider only limited variations on an initial conceptual
idea oftentimes established before SRR.
Ideally, if the outcome of any specific feasibility study is negative,
the results should be used to revise the bounds of permissible technology, size, or performance.
The first element to define is the aircrafts overall size and configuration. This includes its external shape (including a near-final wing
aerodynamic design) and internal arrangement, and definition of the principal subsystems (propulsion, landing gear, avionics and other mission
electronics, and basic details about the interior or weapons bay). Locking
down the external loft (the wing aerodynamic thickness, twist, and camber; the fuselage shape; and the tail geometry) allows wind tunnel testing
to commence. A nuanced external geometry allows the team to understand
the available internal volume in the wing that must accommodate fuel,
structure and the landing gear. These technical details must be defined
prior to a successful PDR. Once these design details are established, unexpected test results can cause ripple effects that can doom a program.
Current practice encourages the development of many different models to represent the entire system simultaneously. By PDR, the design team
needs to have the following:
Physical representation of the system that includes:
{{ a CAD solid model,
{{ integration drawings, and a
{{ bill of materials.
Numerical performance representation of the aircraft that includes:

{{ Six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF)
aerodynamic data (CL, CD,
Cm, dCY/d, dCn/d, dCl/d,
Cm/elevator, etc.) (see Volume II, Chapter 3)
{{ Propulsion
five-column-data
tables (see Volume I, Chapter 3)
{{ Essential mass properties (see
Volume II, Chapter 2).
Mass properties representation
of the aircraft, which comprises
a formal group weight statement
(see MIL STD 1374 reporting
forms8Figure 1.4)
Maintenance functional representation, which includes block diagrams of steps necessary to repair
systems and subsystems.
The goal of the PDR is to assesses
the allocated design captured in subsystem and component product specifications.3 It ensures that the physical
properties of the system (i.e., weight,
power, cooling, etc.) have been properly allocated to subsystems and components in accordance with acceptable
design growth margins and analysis.
When you get to PDR, the technical
team should have defined the baseline design well enough that they can
show that the basic design is compliant with system-level attributes such
as safety, interoperability, and security. Figure 1.4. MIL STD 1374
The mission performance and mass weight reporting form.
properties stated at PDR should substantiate a design compliance with
requirements.
Preliminary sketches and not-yet-built drawings should support
system-level (overall aircraft) analysis. These need to be detailed enough
to support quantitative analysis of the allocated physical attributes, interactions with loads and environment, and system-level properties.
During the PDR, the technical review team should be able to discern
whether the proposed subsystem designs are likely to satisfy the overall
system requirements. The audit team should ferret out any incorrect interface requirements or conflicting interpretations by design groups between
subsystems (i.e., weapon bays in the middle of fuel tanks).
A successful review is predicated on the (reviewers) determination
that the subsystem requirements, subsystem preliminary design, results of
peer reviews, and plans for development and testing form a satisfactory
basis for proceeding into detailed design.
1.3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY TRADE STUDIES

In order to move a project from SRR to PDR, the technical team needs to
first establish the high-level design.
How does a team define a complex design where everything affects everything else? Conventional systems engineering thinking understates the
engineering rigor necessary to perform the feasibility study and other concept exploration tasks in the early-phase design process. Many concept exploration decisions are typically made on the basis of rational relationships
substantiated only by textbook equations or even by subjective opinion.
It is human nature to support decisions when commonly known engineering equations support program interests. For example, a decision
to incorporate a propulsion technology that reduces thrust-specific fuel
consumption would be expected to produce an aircraft with higher overall
efficiency. Looking more deeply into the problem, we must understand
that this decision-making process relies on a belief that cause-and-effect
relationships apply broadly across the design space; all design decisions
are supported by simple back-of-the-envelope trends.
Such an approach neglects potentially crucial coupling between disciplinary metrics. In the presence of substantial nonlinear and unforeseen
cross-disciplinary effects, a decision-making process that is informed by
rational relationship arguments may fail. In such a situation, unexpected,
emergent system behavior develops. If the designer cannot identify the
source of the cross-coupling, he cannot find solutions to remedy the problem. When this occurs, programs begin to unravel.
In order to mitigate this, the engineering team needs to perform all basic
trade studies with, what I call, heightened scrutiny analysis. At the PDR
phase, the team needs to make sure that it can fully substantiate the design.
Using detailed analytical and computational models, the team must evaluate
the design while considering the many physical, logistical, and operational
constraints that could have been easily neglected. If we link a collection of
engineering tools, we can perform multidisciplinary optimization (MDO).
Systems engineering practice encourages

formal trade studies (see Figure 1.5).4 In order to
succeed, disciplinary engineers need to work with
systems engineers. Complex systems design projects require a we are all brothers mentality. Formal trade studies include the following steps:
1. State the problem: The trade study must
define evaluation criteria, dependent and
independent variables, and constraints that
limit the range of acceptable alternatives. To
eliminate confirmation bias, engineers must
establish evaluation criteria before they actually study alternative concepts. Engineering
analysis tools should be developed prior to
embarking on the design project. Disaster
awaits those who make their engineering tools
as they go along. I cannot reiterate how important it is to have quality engineering analysis
tools in place early in the design process.
Figure 1.5.Trade
2. Generate ideas: The design space should study process.
comprise a broad range of variation in independent continuous variables (i.e., wingspan) as well as differing
design topologies (i.e., engines under the wing versus engines buried in the tail). Systems engineering best practices discourage the
premature selection of alternatives. Although engineers should keep
an open mind and seriously evaluate all viable options, they should
remember that proposals made through open brainstorming sessions
rarely survive expert technical scrutiny.
3. Analyze candidate solutions: After the design space has been formalized, the team should perform a systematic analysis of the alternatives. The evaluation should measure the technical benefit as well
as the feasibility of each alternative.
4. Select practicable solutions: The process should segregate the
candidate designs into feasible and infeasible categories.
5. Evaluate candidates: The feasible candidate designs should be
evaluated by a broad team of stakeholders and technical experts.
6. Decide upon an optimum solution: The team then documents the
feasibility study to show what feasible solutions exist and recommend a solution which should be established as a formal baseline.
The requirements definition, documentation, validation, and trade
study processes of the conventional systems engineering paradigm are
steps that formalize and document a compliant design. The engineering

team should not forget that its task is to establish a point design baseline
configuration as rapidly as possible. Once the baseline high-level design
has been established, the technical team then fleshes out the design by
releasing part drawings and final supplier specifications.
Once the baseline has been established and detail design begins in
earnest, a broad engineering team applies very strict, detailed disciplinary
scrutiny to all aspects of the proposed design. In my industrial experience,
at this point, confirmation bias vanishes. Management tends to question
any expert technical judgment that does not support the baseline: leadership adopts a fix-it-but-dont-change-anything mentality. The system
design will rapidly unravel as more and more elements become noncompliant with specification during detail design.
1.4 MODEL FIDELITY

Following conventional systems engineering rules, it is easy to omit
cross-disciplinary and nonlinear couplings and rely upon simple, hand
calculations. Insufficiently detailed high-level design is the root cause of
many of the downstream programmatic shortfalls. Troubled programs fall
into this trap because they suffer from an inflexible reliance on baseline
designs in the face of evidence of noncompliance, or are tied to a timetable
devised by leaders who made key decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate technical data. Either way, a baseline design that cannot withstand
strict technical scrutiny places the program at risk.
Programmatic leadership is understandably increasingly resistant to consider large-scale changes to the baseline configuration after more detailed
design has begun. In the short term, a management approach of maintaining
the established baseline will permit the program to remain on-schedule and
on-budget; moving forward with an inadequate configuration will likely result in failure at system validation. Conversely, if the leadership accepts an
error in the baseline and attempts to reconceptualize the design before the
next milestone, the program will deviate markedly from schedule and budget.
Several common circumstances degrade the quality of information
prepared during conceptual and preliminary design:
Germane basis data may not exist because necessary research for
technologies required in the design has yet to provide useful results,
(e.g., the natural laminar flow wing profile intended for the Consolidated B-24 did not bear fruit in actual flight test).
The basis data in any one discipline may contain either systematic
or random error that skews the overall systems solution, (e.g., the
systematic underprediction of transonic drag on the Convair XF-102

program).
The basis data in each discipline may be of fine quality, but the
error may be one of integration between the disciplines.
In each case, when the resultant system was built, the end product underperformed its initial expectations.
Successful functional decomposition will identify the appropriate geometric fidelity necessary for analysis. Some managers think that if too little fidelity is bad, overkill must be good. However, we MDO practitioners long ago
found that an all high-fidelity-coupled analysis is intractable. If you try to automate a CAD model of a production airframe to somehow go automatically
generate and run CFD, FEM, and propulsion simulations, you have implicitly
tried to perform high-level design in terms of a model containing millions,
rather than dozens, of independent variables. Moreover, experience has shown
that CFD cannot accurately predict airframe drag and FEM cannot accurately
predict airframe weight. Complexity alone does not produce accuracy.
In order to develop an MDO model of an aircraft for comprehensive trade studies to establish the high-level-design, the engineering team
needs the following:
A basic CAD system that renders 3D surface geometry for visualization
A Wing Shape Synthesis Toolkit that help specify the nuanced
thickness, camber, and twist of the wing
A Weight Estimation Toolkit that accurately predict overall system
weights from a superficial geometric model of the aircraft
A Zero-Lift-Drag Estimation Toolkit that accurately predicts zero-lift
drag of a production aircraft as a function of Mach number and altitude
A general Aerodynamic Force and Moment Estimation Toolkit that
accurately predicts lift, drag-due-to-lift, pitching, rolling, and yawing moments for arbitrary configurations
A general Propulsion System Performance Model that includes
both the thermodynamics and aerodynamics of propulsion, to produce five-column-data of thrust and fuel flow for an arbitrary engine as a function of speed, altitude, and power-lever-angle setting.
A Propulsion System Weights and Geometry Toolkit that describes
the bulk size and weight of the integrated propulsion system including engine, inlet, nozzle, engine-mounted accessories, as well as
the detailed nacelle geometry
A general Stability and Control Toolkit to decide how stable and
controllable the aircraft is at its intended CG location. This toolkit
can be used in two ways:
a. to help size the tail of the candidate aircraft to make the aerodynamics fit the CG,
b. to help understand how to locate principle subsystems inside
the aircraft to make the CG fit the aerodynamics of the design
A Mission Performance Toolkit that computes the fuel consumed
by an aircraft as it flies a mission.
A Point-Performance Toolkit that computes performance parameters like rate-of-climb or specific range of an aircraft as a function
of speed, altitude and weight (see Volume I, Chapter 5).
A Take-Off and Landing Toolkit that computes runway utilization
requirements for operation under FAA rules, including computation of climb gradients for engine inoperative takeoff, discontinued
approach and balked landing. This toolkit can be used in two ways:
(1) to understand how heavy the aircraft can be to operate out of an
existing runway and (2) to understand the requirements for the flap
system. This tool is used to build a runway utilization chart like that
shown in Volume I Figure 1.15.
Subsequent chapters of this book introduce students to the mathematical
fundamentals needed to create these toolkits.
1.5 DETAIL DESIGN

Upon successful completion of the PDR, the engineering team will continue on to CDR. At CDR,3 the following is ensured:
Most mechanical parts will have been designed.
A significant number of parts for the first flight article will have
been fabricated.
The aerodynamics team will have completed all wind-tunnel tests.
Some subsystem bench-test data will be in hand.
Embedded software development will be in progress.
CDR should occur long before final assembly begins on the first flight
article.
The CDR is a technical assessment whose goal is to establish the build
baseline. The CDR will ensure that the system under review has a reasonable expectation of being judged operationally effective and suitable. This
review assesses the final design as captured in product specifications
and ensures that item has been captured in detailed documentation.4
At CDR, build baseline includes hardware, software, support equipment,
training systems, system integration laboratory, and technical data.
Once the reviewers determine that the subsystem requirements, subsystem detail design, results of peer reviews, and plans for testing form a
satisfactory basis for proceeding into system fabrication, demonstration

and test, the CDR is successful.
If the team has performed a superior conceptual and preliminary design, there should be smooth sailing from PDR to CDR. Although minor
technical glitches may arise, the system will meet or exceed all explicit
and implicit requirements. Hopefully, the prototype will delight the customer. Remember, a satisfied customer is a repeat customer!
1.6 RISK REDUCTION AND MITIGATION

Risk is the potential for variation in the cost, schedule, or performance
or its products.9 While such variation can include positive opportunities,
risk is more generally considered to be the potential for a negative future
reality. Risk management is the process where risk is identified, assessed,
and prioritized. To ensure program success, leadership must minimize,
monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events.
On an aircraft design project, it is common for engineering group leads to
supply risk management data on a weekly basis.
Program risk arises in many different forms.
System risks occur when the product does not meet minimum performance requirements or the manufacturer becomes subject to legal injunction due to patent/trademark/copyright/trade secret infringement.
Performance risk occurs when the product fails to perform as
promised. This can be the result of a problem in conceptual design,
preliminary design, detail design, assembly, compliance verification, or even from oversights in Operational Test.
Schedule risks occur when key milestones are not met (SRR, PDR,
CDR, FRR).
Cost risks can occur in many different ways. Both recurring
(unit-production) and nonrecurring (development) costs can exceed
planned expenditures. This could be either due to labor overruns
or materials or subcontracting overruns. Cost risks also arise from
central banking (interest rates), as well as national and global (inflation, labor markets) economic factors.
A risk analysis and remediation plan increases probability of program
success. The idea is that prudent upfront planning will help reduce program schedule and cost by: (1) delivering a better basic program plan and
(2) having a policy in place to guide resource allocation (labor and money)
when a problem arises.
Risk assessments are not to be confused with program performance
assessments. If a risk is described in the past tense, the likelihood of
occurrence is 100 percent, it has happened, and it is an issue. The important difference between an issue and a risk is that issue management is
focused toward mitigating current effects, while risk management seeks
to mitigate future effects and root causes. Risk assessment involves identifying sources of potential harm, assessing the likelihood that harm will
occur, and the consequences if harm does occur.
Risk management evaluates which risks identified in the risk assessment process require management and selects and implements the plans
or actions that are required to ensure that those risks are controlled. Risk
management is basically comprised of four process elements:

Risk identification: What can go wrong?

Risk analysis: How big is the risk?
Risk mitigation planning: How can the risk be reduced?
Risk mitigation plan implementation: How can the mitigation
plan be implemented?
Suppose we conduct a test and discover that a subsystem does not

meet a key requirement? Now it is no longer uncertain that the subsystem
was the crap we suspected it to be, it is crap. Yet, consider whether we have
eliminated program risk? In this case, project risk increases because the
subsystem did not meet a key requirement. We must now address the project risk by implementing an action plan: either fix the subsystem design or
design around it by changing other parts of the design
In order to track emergent risks, the risk identification process identifies theoretical risks upfront (before the SRR), assigns each risk a numerical value upfront, and then tracks the risk as a function of time as the
program executes. Because fear of some harm ought to be proportional
not only to the magnitude of the harm, but also to the probability of the
event,10 program risks are characterized in terms of two values: the severity of the consequence (typically on a scale of 15) and the likelihood of
occurrence (also on a scale of 15). As these numbers are subjective (see
Figure 1.6 for the NASA/DoD chart and guidelines), systems engineers
are interested in whether they are increasing or decreasing with time.
If the reported risk suddenly spikes, management should divert additional
resources to that portion of the project.
Upfront, mangers identify an initial set of risks based on general project management experience (costs, hiring, schedule, or planning). Risks for
meeting each MOE and MOP should be identified. If minimum threshold
target values for various KPPs are known in advance (i.e., subsystem weights,
or drag levels), they should be tracked as part of the risk management plan.
Risk mitigation planning is a key part of the SRR planning process.
After the team identifies initial areas of risk, they should plan analyses,
Figure 1.6.NASA/DoD risk chart.
simulations, and ground tests that trace the planned path to reduce uncertainty (see Figure 1.7) for each high-risk item. These activities must be consistent with schedule; they should be conducted as soon as possible. After
each milestone, management should reassess program risk based on test
results. The goal of this process is to make sure that engineers uncover and
fix any design problems prior to the scheduled CDR. The arrival of any new
KPP data within specification (such as weights, drag numbers, or thrust
levels) should help overall program confidence. If things start to unravel,
the systems engineer should keep management and customer informed.
An overly ambitious program promotes another type of risk. Engineers should be cognizant of a form of risk management known as risk
transfer and risk sharing. These contractual mechanisms can often hinder
a technical solution to a technical problem. When management outsources
a task; somebody else becomes responsible for the task.11 Because that
Figure 1.7. Risk reduction waterfall.
subcontract is governed by a legal contract; the agreement may specify

financial damages as a consequence of the outsourcer breaching the terms
of the contract. Management can use outsourcing as an insurance policy
to define and/or manage cash flow. If the supplier underperforms, the lead
manufacturer can claw back some expenses. Risk sharing is another popular approach where two firms collaborate together in a legal joint venture. Another form of risk sharing is found in incentive pay plans, where
engineers are paid below normal wages in return for a promise of some
fraction of the profit of their deliverable.
These strategies incentivize a mistaken belief that you can reduce, as
opposed to shift, program risks through legal means. What happens when
your supplier comes in so far off target that your customer cancels your
program? What happens when you have to delay product launch by months
or years? It is small consolation to the enterprise that develops cash flow
problems and places its employees at layoff risk. These problems can and
will continue to occur: consider how Boeing, during the development of
the 787, found themselves in a quagmire as an elaborate network of subcontractors unraveled after a prototype wing failed initial structural test.12
ENDNOTES
1. Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items, MIL STD-881C,
U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1993.
2. The Defense Acquisition System, Department of Defense Directive No.
5000.01, May 12, 2003.
3. Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, Department of Defense
Instruction No. 5000.02, January 7, 2015.
4. Anon., Systems Engineering for Intelligent Transportation Systems: An Introduction for Transportation Professionals, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007.
5. Engineering Management, MIL-STD-499A, U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, D.C., May 1, 1974.
6. Forsberg, K., Mooz, H., Cotterman, H., Visualizing Project Management:
Models and Frameworks for Mastering Complex Systems, Third Edition,
Wiley, New York, 2005.
7. Anon., Processes for Engineering a System, Electronics Industry Association
Standard, EIA-632, issued Sept. 2003.
8. Weight and Balance Data Reporting Forms for Aircraft (Including Rotorcraft),
MIL STD-1374, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., September
30, 1977.
9. NASA Risk Review Template, T2006, Rev C, Effective March 25, 2009.
10. Arnauld, A., Logic, or the Art of Thinking, Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridege, UK, 1996.
11. Denning, S., The Boeing Debacle: Seven Lessons Every CEO Must Learn,
Forbes Magazine, January 17, 2013.
12. Denning, S., What Went Wrong at Boeing, Forbes Magazine, January 21, 2013.
Index
A
A-12 stealth Navy attack aircraft
program, 18
ABAQUS nonlinear finite-element
analysis, 35
Accelerate-go distance, 114116
Accelerate-stop-distance available
(ASDA), 9596, 100, 112114
Aeris
BPR 12 engines, 199
design of, 194204
development of, 194
engine sizing, 201
features, 200201
interior layout, 195
optimum flight profiles, 203
Aerodynamic center, 6869
Aerodynamic database
elements of, 5557
generation, 5357
presentation, 5760
lateral-directional, 5960
longitudinal, 5859
Aerodynamic efficiency, 21, 58
as function of angle of attack, 216
Aerodynamic Force and Moment
Estimation Toolkit, 11
Aerodynamic Lift at Supersonic
Speeds, 158
Aerodynamic load distribution,
3840
Aerodynamic performance
efficiency, 151, 234
Aerodynamics
aerodynamic center and, 69
lateral-directional, 5960
longitudinal, 5859
model for efficiency, 21
of wings. See Wings, aerodynamic
design of
Aerostructures, idealized and
actual, 3334
Aft-swept wing, 178
Aileronrudder interconnect
(ARI), 89
Airbus A319, 169, 193
Airbus A320, 169, 218, 219
Airbus A321, 169, 219, 225
Airbus A350XWB, 193
Airbus A380, 200, 205
Airbus A380-800, 20
Aircraft
aileron size and configuration, 64
arrangement, and propulsion
characteristics of, 17
design
conventionally configured narrow body airliner, 218225
empennage, 234
engine cycle selection and scaling, 232233
fuel fraction approach to, 21
high lift system, 233234
high-speed business jet, 205218
interior layout and fuselage
length, 227228
240 INDEX
Aircraft (Continued)
Mach 0.95 sonic cruiser
aircraft, 225235
mission optimization, 234235
mission simulation approach
to, 2122
regional jet, 193204
empty weight
empirical methods. See Empirical
methods
empirical regression of, 20
modeling and simulation methods. See Modeling and simulation methods, empty weight
self-referential nature of
estimation, 19
weighs at takeoff and, 1921
field performance principles
landing. See Landing
takeoff. See Takeoff
horizontal tail
and elevator size, 63
empirical methods to size,
6062
mass moments of inertia, 5051
numerical performance representation of, 7
politics of acquisition, 18
procedure requires to, 122123
seating arrangements, 2324
sizing, 17
fuel fraction approach, 21
mission simulation approach,
2122
in nutshell, 187190
simple spreadsheet, 192
specifications needed for,
188189
using Breguets equation, 191
using multidisciplinary
optimization approach,
192193
stability and controllability
aerodynamic database. See
Aerodynamic database
central gravity placement,

horizontal tail, and elevator
sizing, 7276
lateral-directional control,
8590
lateral-directional stability, 7885
lateral-directional trim, 7678
longitudinal stability, 6771
longitudinal trim, 6467
modeling and simulation
approach to, 6264
systems engineering, 13
conceptual design, 38
detail design, 1213
model fidelity, 1012
multidisciplinary trade
studies, 810
risk reduction and mitigation,
1316
vertical tail
empirical methods to size,
6062
and rudder size, 63
weight and balance report, 18
wings, aerodynamic design
of. See Wings, aerodynamic
design of
Airfoils
Boeing 747, transonic characteristics of, 148151
critical Mach number, 145148
innermost, 196
pressure distributions, 154155,
164
selecting appropriate for transonic flight, 152158
transonic design guidelines for, 157
transonic flow over twodimensional, 144151
Airframe Structural Design, 23
Air phase, of landing, 129131
Airplane Flight Dynamics, 62
Angle of attack, 80, 155
aerodynamic efficiency and, 58
lift-generating, 165
INDEX 241
pitching moment
neutral, as function of, 66
stick-fixed, 67
Aspect ratio (AR), 228
Assumed Temperature Method,
123, 124
Asymmetric thrust, 201
Aviation
fuel, 205
history of, 225
Axial forces, 147
Braking effect, 132

Breguets equation, 21
aircraft sizing using, 191192
British Aerospace 146, 204
Build baseline, 12
Built-in optimizer (Solver), 191
Busemanns theory, 159
Business & Commercial Aviation
Business Aircraft Buyers
Guide, 207
Bypass ratio (BPR), 198, 199, 232
B
B747-8I, 20
B777 aircraft, 169
B787 aircraft, 169, 205
BaE Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, 199
Balanced field length, 118120
Balked landing climb, 128129
Bell X-2 rocket plane, 85
Bending moment, 25, 3840, 47
Bending torque, 3840
Bernoullis principle, 135
BihrleWeissman Chart, 8687,
214, 215
Blade element theory, 140
Bob Hope Burbank Airport
(BUR), 218
Body-heavy aircraft, 51, 84
Boeing 707, 197
Boeing 717s, 24
Boeing 727, 197
Boeing 737, 218, 219
Classic Flight Crew Training
manual, 123, 124
Boeing 737-300, 24, 45
Boeing 737-800, 109, 126, 219
Boeing 737-900ER, 225
Boeing B737-700, 208
Boeing 747100, 148151
Boeing 787, 193, 199
Bombardier CRJ-700, 24, 203
Bombardier Q400, 203
Brake-energy limits, 119
Braking coefficient of friction, 96
C
C11, 187
CAD model, 11, 18
Camber
lines, 180
physics-based method to,
153158
selection of, 180
on two-dimensional sectional
flow properties, 137
CATIA solid modeling, 35
Center-of-gravity (CG), 50,
54, 7276
Certification flight path, 122123
Certified performance manual, 94
Cessna Citation X, 205218
Chordwise flow effect, 139
spanwise distribution of, 175
Classical pulley-and-bellcrank
reversible control systems, 65
Climb capability
minimum, 121, 128
weight limits due to inadequate,
120121
Climb speed, 234235
Closed-loop feedback control
system, 71
Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) rules. See also Federal
Regulation
for airworthiness, 53
high-altitude transonic transport
and, 225
242 INDEX
Coefficient, definition of, 96

Compressive yield strength, 36
Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD), 54
Euler flow, 148
Conceptual design phase
of aircraft, 38
program execution, SRR to
PDR, 58
Control coupling, 79
Conventionally configured narrow
body airliner, 218225
Cost risk, 13
Coupled engine scale factor, 198,
199
Critical Design Review (CDR),
2, 3, 12
Critical field length (CFL), 94,
99, 188
definition of, 112
pilots convenience, 119
Critical Mach number, 136, 145148
CRJ-200, 20
Cross-disciplinary effects, 22
Cross-sectional area, of wing
covers, 4041
Crud
drag, 190
weight, 3334
Cruise altitude, 234235
Cue speeds, 190
landing, 125127
takeoff, 100111
Curse of dimensionality, 222
D
Defense Acquisition Order, 2
Density, 36
Derated thrust, 123124
Design lift coefficient, 146,
153154, 228, 230
high-speed, 190
impact of, 158
Detail design, phase of aircraft,
2, 1213
Developed wing span, 170

Dihedral angle, 63
Dihedral effect, 172, 214
Discontinued approach, 128129
Drag, 5557
coefficient, 58
crud drag, 190
decomposition of forces into, 147
dimensional-induced, 170
elevator deflection on, 66
induced, 68, 171172, 231
Munk elliptical span load
solution for, 167
pressure, 148
transonic, 150, 156
of wing, 6869
zero-lift, 190
Drake, Hubert, 85
Dutch roll, 79
in aerodynamic database, 80
coupling, 85
frequency, 80, 89
model, 234
Dynamic stability, 67, 214
E
Elastic modulus, 36
Elevator
deflection, 65
effect on lift and drag, 67
positive, definition of, 66
sizing, 7276
Embraer 135, 193
Embraer 170, 24, 203
Embraer 175, 24
Embraer 190, 24
Emirates Airlines A340-500, 123
Empennage, 234
structural weight, 2627
Empirical Drag Estimation
Technique (EDET), 194,
209, 221
Empirical methods
for empennage structural weight,
2627
INDEX 243
for fuselage structural weight,

2728
for landing gear weight, 2930
for mass moments of inertia,
5051
for non-structural weight
elements, 3032
for payload weight and volume,
2324
for propulsion system weight, 28
to size vertical and horizontal
tail, 6062
for wing structural weight, 2426
Empty weight
empirical methods for. See
Empirical methods
methods. See Modeling
and simulation methods,
empty weight
operational. See Operational
empty weight (OEW)
Engine cycle selection, 232233
Engine failure speed (VEF), 100
Engine size, measurement of, 232
ERJ-135ER, 20
Euler buckling equation, 43
Euler flow computational fluid
dynamics, 148
European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) CS-25 standards, 91
EXCEL. See Microsoft EXCEL
Explicit requirements, 4
Explicit sizing algorithm, 22
F
Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), 4, 33, 91
-certified braking friction, 96
and MIL standards, 132
regulations for certification, 208
Transport Category Airworthiness Regulations, 219
wet braking coefficient of friction schedule, 97
Federal Regulation
14 CFR 4b, 94
14 CFR 23, 91
14 CFR 25, 91, 94, 98, 127, 205,
206, 220, 225
14 CFR 25.105, 93
14 CFR 25.105(d), 97
14 CFR 25.107, 93
14 CFR 25.109, 112
14 CFR 25.109(i), 93, 96, 114
14 CFR 25.111, 93, 114
14 CFR 25.113, 93, 111, 116
14 CFR 25.119, 128
14 CFR 25.121, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.121(a), 121
14 CFR 25.121(b), 121
14 CFR 25.121(b)(1), 93, 220
14 CFR 25.121(c), 121
14 CFR 25.121(d), 128
14 CFR 25.125, 126, 129, 131, 132
14 CFR 25.149, 94
14 CFR 25.173, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.177, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.237, 109
14 CFR 25.473, 29
14 CFR 25.733, 202
14 CFR 25.783, 220
14 CFR 25.793, 220
14 CFR 25.807, 195, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.809, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.817, 220
14 CFR 25.841, 200, 205, 208,
224, 226
14 CFR 25.903, 199
14 CFR 25.904, 94
14 CFR 25.951, 33
14 CFR 25.957, 33
14 CFR 25.969, 33
14 CFR 33, 206
14 CFR 36, 206
14 CFR 36 Appendix A, 121
14 CFR 36 Appendix B36.7, 122
14 CFR 91, 94, 206
14 CFR 91.117, 235
14 CFR 121, 94, 206
244 INDEX
Federal Regulation (Continued)

14 CFR 121.189, 93, 94, 111
14 CFR 121.195, 125, 127
14 CFR 121.195(e), 125
14 CFR 125(b)(5), 130
Field performance principles
landing
computing cue speeds, 125127
methods for, 128133
in nutshell, 124125
simplified statistical model
for, 127128
takeoff
computing cue speeds, 100111
methods for, 111121
noisecertification and abatement procedures, 121124
in nutshell, 9398
simplified statistical method
for, 9899
Finite-element program, 3334, 35
Finite wing effects, 140
Five-column-data, 7
Five control point wing-body
model, 173174
Flap settings, in transport category
aircraft, 126
Flaps-up safety speed, 101
Flight Dynamics Principles, 62
Flight Optimization System
(FLOPS), 17
Flight Readiness Review (FRR), 2
FORTRAN, 187, 221
Free rolling resistance, 96
Fuel
burn, 229, 234235
fraction approach, 21
weight and volume for, 33
Full Authority Digital Engine
Controller (FADEC), 123,
124, 201
Functional decomposition tree, 3
Fuselage length, 227228
Fuselage-mounted horizontal
tail, 234
Fuselage structural weight, 2728
G
Gate review meetings, 2
Great Recession, 205
Ground effect, 105106
aerodynamics model, 116
H
Handling qualities, 53
Heightened scrutiny analysis, 8
Hershey bar planform, 140142
High-altitude transonic
transport (HATT), 225226,
231, 232
High-level design, 7
High lift system, 233234
High-speed business jet, 205218
High-speed design lift
coefficient, 190
High Speed Wing Theory,
159162
Hondajet, 205
Horizontal tail, 7276
sizing, 6162
volume coefficient, 61, 188, 190
I
Implicit requirements, 4
Incidence
spanwise influence of, 143144
Independent design variables, 188
Inertial roll coupling, 79, 82
Inerting process, 33
In-plane bending moments, 40
Integrated Master Plan (IMP), 5, 6
Integrated Master Schedule
(IMS), 5
Intended cruise speed, 189
International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), 96
INDEX 245
J
JAR (JAR 25), 91
Jet-A, 33
Joint venture, 16
JP-7 fuel, 33
JP-8 military grade fuel, 33
K
KarmanTsien equation, 145,
149, 166
Key performance parameters
(KPP), 5, 188
Knots equivalent airspeed
(KEAS), 219
Knots indicated airspeed (KIAS),
100, 109, 125126
Korn equation, 152153, 175176
Korn factor, 210, 213
L
La Guardia airport (LGA),
92, 218
Landing
air phase, 129131
computation of, 190
cue speeds, 125127
gear configuration, 202
gear weight, 2930
methods for, 128133
in nutshell, 124125
simplified statistical model
for, 127128
Landing distance available
(LDA), 125
Landing distance required (LDR),
125, 188
Landing ground roll (LGR),
125, 131132
Lateral control departure
parameter (LCDP), 8586
Lateral-directional control, 8590
Lateral-directional stability,
60, 7885
Lateral-directional trim, 7678
Lift, 5557
actual vs. ideal transverse
distribution, 183
analytical and computational
estimates of, 163
coefficient, 58, 157
design. See Design lift
coefficient
vs. drag coefficient, 58
maximum, 76, 212
pitching moment vs., 65, 68
section. See Section lift
coefficient
spanwise distribution of,
177179
transonic effects into, 149, 150
cruise spanwise distribution
of, 176
decomposition of forces into, 147
distribution of arbitrary twist, 182
effect of incidence on, 143
elevator deflection on, 66
elliptical or triangular,
distribution as system
optimum, 167169
spanwise distribution of, 175
Lift-induced-drag model, 190
Lift-off speed (VLOF), 101
Linear aerodynamics theory, 182
Lockheed C-5, 34
Lockheed C-130J, 124
Lockheed L-1011, 197
Longitudinal stability, 6771
Longitudinal trim, of aircraft,
64, 6567
Lower cover, sizing of, 42
Lower critical Mach number, 162
Lumped mass approach, 38
M
Mach 0.95 sonic cruiser aircraft,
225235
Mach buffet effect, 76
Mach number, 66
Mason, W. H., 152
246 INDEX
Mass moments of inertia, 5051

direct methods to, 5051
empirical methods to, 51
Mass properties engineer, 17
MATLAB, 187, 194, 221
Maximum crosswind capability,
109111
Maximum lift coefficient, 76, 212
Maximum takeoff weight
(MTOW), 19, 189
operational empty weight and, 20
on torque box weight, 49
Measure of effectiveness (MOE),
5, 188, 210
Measure of performance (MOP),
5, 188, 210
Microsoft EXCEL, 187, 191,
194, 221
Mid-chord sweep, 37
MIL-5011A, 91
MIL 8785C, 83, 89
Milestone A, 6
MIL-STD-3013, 91, 96
MIL-STD 8785C, 53, 7273, 81
Minimum climb capability, 121, 128
Minimum control airspeed
(VMCA), 100, 103105
force and yawing moment
balance for, 103
rolling moment balance for, 104
side force balance for, 104
Minimum control ground speed
(VMCG), 100, 102103
Minimum control landing
airspeed, 127
Minimum unstick speed (Vmu),
100101, 105109
effect of wing height, 107
Mission Code, 194, 210
Mission Performance Toolkit, 12
Mission simulation approach, 2122
ModelCenter, 194, 209210, 219,
221222, 226, 228, 231
Modeling and simulation methods
empty weight
basic loads into shear, bending

moment, and bending torque,
3840
minimum cross-sectional area
of upper and lower covers,
4041
sizes of upper and lower cover,
spar webs and rib web structure, 4145
weight estimation of wing primary structure, 3538
wing torque box design, 4550
for landing, 121124
for takeoff, 111121
Modern control theory, 90
Moment coefficient, 77
Moment reference point (MRP), 54
Multidisciplinary optimization
(MDO), 8, 11, 195, 209
aircraft sizing using, 192193
Multidisciplinary trade studies, 810
Multispar wing, 44
Munk elliptical span load, 167
N
National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA), 207, 216
National Weather Service, 97
Net bending torques, 47
Neumarks wing theory, 162
Neutral longitudinal stability, 68
Noble Knight, 206, 210, 212213
performance of, 217218
Noise abatement takeoff profile,
121122
Non-physics statistical-based
models, 33
Nonplanarity, 169172
Non-structural weight elements,
3032
Normal forces, 147
Nose gear weight, 29
Numerical Propulsion System
Simulation (NPSS), 194,
209210, 232
INDEX 247
O
One-degree-of-freedom model,
70, 80
Operational empty weight (OEW),
19, 189, 229
effect of aspect ratio on, 228
maximum takeoff weight
and, 20
Optimum nonplanar planform,
171172
Oswald efficiency, 221
P
Peakey leading-edge approach,
148, 151, 198
Pareto sensitivity analysis, 222
Payload (PYLD), 21, 189, 204
weight, 2324
Pearcey style, 196
Performance risk, 13
Phoenix Integration, 194, 219
Piaggio P-180 Avanti II, 208
Pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), 72
Pitch control power, 66
Pitching moment, 54, 5657
Pitch-plane model, 62
Pitch responsiveness, 73, 74
Planform geometry, of wings,
137138
Point-Performance Toolkit, 12
PrandtlGlauert effect, 66,
149150, 163
Preliminary Design (PD), 2, 5
Preliminary Design Review
(PDR), 2, 3
goal of, 7
Pressure coefficient, 166167
Pressure drag, 148
Programmatic leadership, 10
Program risk, 13
Proper wing taper ratio, 177179
Propulsion System Performance
Model, 11
Propulsion System Weights and
Geometry Toolkit, 11
R
Raytheon fire-control system, 34
Regional jet, 193204
Requirements, definition of, 4
Reverse thrust, 132133
Rib web structure, 4145
Risk
analysis, 14
assessments, 1314
definition of, 13
identification, 14
management, 1314
mitigation planning, 1415
implementation, 14
sharing, 1516
transfer, 15
Rolling moment, 54, 5557, 60
balance for simplified VMCA
computation, 104
neutral derivative, 59
Rolls Royce Trent XWB
engines, 206
Roll stability. See Dihedral effect
Roll-yaw-plane model, 62
Roskam landing equation,
127128
Royal Air Force of United
Kingdom (RAF), 92
Royal Australian Air Force
(RAAF), 92
Runway
nomenclature, 9498
short-field performance, 119
surface condition, effect of, 99
Runway Condition Reading
(RCR), 96, 97
S
Safety of flight, 53
San Jose International Airport
(SJC), 95, 124
Scaling, 232233
Schedule risk, 13
Seating arrangements, 2324
Second-segment climb speed, 101
248 INDEX
Section lift coefficient, 38

axis, 174175
design, 173
local, 174
section thickness and, 153
spanwise distribution of, 176,
177, 179
Shear, 3840
force, 4445, 47
Shock wave, 145
Short-period frequency, 70
Side force, 5557
computation, 104
Simple cruise model, 21
Simplified quasi-static moment
balance approach, 127
Simplified statistical method
for landing, 127128
for takeoff, 9899
Singapore Airlines Airbus 380, 24
Six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF)
aerodynamic data, 7
problem, 62
Smooth touchdown, 130
Society of Allied Weight
Engineers/Military Standard
1374 (SAWE/MIL STD
1374) form, 22
SolidWorks CAD package, 220
Solver, 191
Span efficiency factor, 170
Spanwise flow effect, 139
of incidence, 143144
of thickness, 140142
Spar caps, 42
Spar web structure, 4145
Specific range skymap, 216, 217
Spin-prone, 178
Spreadsheet Methods for Aircraft
Design, 21
Spreadsheet type sizing
methods, 187
Squared-cube law, 20
SR-71 aircraft, 33
Stability and controllability
aerodynamics
database generation, 5357
database presentation, 5760
center of gravity placement,
horizontal tail, and elevator
sizing, 7276
empirical methods to size
vertical and horizontal
tail, 6062
lateral-directional control, 8590
lateral-directional stability,
7885
lateral-directional trim, 7678
longitudinal stability, 6771
longitudinal trim, 6467
approach to, 6264
Stability and Control Toolkit, 1112
Stability augmentation systems, 71
Stall characteristics, of aircraft,
177179
Static margin, 69
Static stability, 67
Steady-state forces, 5556
Stick-fixed lateral-directional
trim, 77
Stick-fixed longitudinal trim, 65
Stick-fixed short-period frequency,
70, 74, 75
Stick-fixed time to double, 70
Stick-free lateral-directional
trim, 77
Stick-free longitudinal trim, 65
Stiffened panel buckling
equation, 43
Streamwise geometry, of wing, 173
Strip theory, 175
Structural weight
empennage, 2627
fuselage, 2728
wing, 2426
Subsonic Fixed Wing Project, 218
Supervelocities, 141
INDEX 249
Sweep effects, 158169

Sweep theory
introduction, 159161
in practice, 161164
Swept wing pressure
transformations, 164167
Synthesis of Subsonic Aircraft
Design, 23, 215
System Acceptance Plan (SAP), 4
System risk, 13
Systems engineering process, 13
conventional, 8
role of, 1
traditional, 2
uses, 2
Systems Requirements Definition
(SRD), 2, 4
Systems Requirements Review
(SRR), 2, 3
addressing, 45
purpose of, 4
System Verification Plan (SVP), 4
T
Tail strike, 105
Takeoff
computation of, 190
cue speeds, 100111
decision speed, 100
distance, 116118
methods for, 111121
noisecertification and abatement
procedures, 121124
in nutshell, 9398
reference speed, 122
simplified statistical method
for, 9899
weight limits due to inadequate
climb capability, 120121
Take-Off and Landing Toolkit, 12
Takeoff distance available
(TODA), 95
Takeoff ground run distance
(TORA), 95
Takeoff rotation speed (VR), 101

Taper ratio (TR), 230
Tensile yield strength, 36
Thickness, of wings
physics-based method for, 153158
spanwise influence of, 140142
Thickness-to-chord ratio, 190, 230
Thin airfoil theory, 135136, 144
Thrust
asymmetric, 201
derated, 123124
reverse, 132133
Thrust-specific fuel consumption
(TSFC), 21
Torenbeek weights tool, 194,
209210
Touchdown speed (VTD), 127
Traditional systems engineering, 2
Transonic characteristics
of Boeing 747 airfoil, 148151
of wing, 144151
Transport category aircraft, 126
minimum climb capability for
certified landing of, 121, 128
Transverse lift distribution, relative
weight impacts of, 168
Transverse span load, 170171
Trapezoidal taper ratio
definition of, 36
planform, 179
Turbofan engine, weight of, 28
TWA Flight 800, 33
Two dimensional theory, 139140
U
Ullage, 33
Ultimate shear strength, 36
Underpressure, 140
Unstable buffet, effects of, 178
Unstable Dutch roll, 79
Upper cover, 42
Upper critical Mach number, 162
US military, 92
250 INDEX
V
VBA, 187
Vertical tail
sizing, 61
volume coefficient, 61, 188, 190
Von Mises stress, 48
VORLAX tool, 194, 209210,
221, 231
W
Washingtons Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport
(DCA), 218
Wash-in twist, 181
Wash-out twist, 181
Weathercock stability, 214, 234
Weight breakdown, 224
Weight Estimation Toolkit, 11
Weight group, 17
Weight limits, due to inadequate
takeoff climb capability,
120121
Weight prediction, 19. See also
Empty weight
Wet braking coefficient of friction, 97
Wind tunnel testing, 54
Winglets, 169, 172, 231232
Wings
aerodynamic design of, 195196
block diagram of synthesis
procedure, 173
designing for optimal
performance, 172184
nonplanarity, 169172
physics-based method to
determine thickness and
camber, 153158
planform geometry, 137138
searching for optimum nonplanar
planform, 171172
selecting appropriate airfoil
for transonic flight, 152158
sweep effects, 158169
three-dimensional flow effects,
139144
transonic flow over twodimensional airfoils, 144151

chord, 45
cover
minimum cross-sectional area
of, 4041
sizes of, 4145
designing, 228231
dihedral angle, 63
drag of, 6869
geometry, definition of, 35
heavy aircraft, 51
integrated load of, 38
loft, 196
multispar, 44
structural weight, 2426
structure, design of, 3538
torque box, 39, 41, 4550
twist, 231232
camber and thickness
distribution, 197
Wing Shape Synthesis Toolkit, 11
Wing Thickness tool, 209
Work breakdown structure
(WBS), 3
X
X-15 configuration, 85
Y
Yaw damper, 82
Yawed wing geometry, 159
Yawing moment, 54, 5557, 60
computation, 103
Yehudi, 176177
Yehudis, 36
Z
Zero-lift drag, 58, 190, 228
Zero-Lift-Drag Estimation
Toolkit, 11
Zero-lift model, 190
OTHER TITLES IN OUR AEROSPACE

ENGINEERING COLLECTION
Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume I: Fundamentals of Aircraft Performance
by Timothy Takahashi
Momentum Press is one of the leading book publishers in the field of engineering,
mathematics, health, and applied sciences. Momentum Press offers over 30 collections,
including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil, Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical,
and many others.
Momentum Press is actively seeking collection editors as well as authors. For more
information about becoming an MP author or collection editor, please visit
http://www.momentumpress.net/contact
Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering
topics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers, faculty,
and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content in sensors
and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and materials science.
Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

perpetual access for a one-time fee

no subscriptions or access fees required
unlimited concurrent usage permitted
downloadable PDFs provided
free MARC records included
free trials
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future
years.
For more information, please visit www.momentumpress.net/library or to set up a trial in the
US, please contact mpsales@globalepress.com.

Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIRCRAFT

Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume II: Applied Aerodynamic Design

The Systems Engineering Veea Plan for Success

Chapter 2 Weight and Volume Estimation

A Self Referential Problem: How Much

Chapter 3 Stability and Controllability

Aerodynamic Database Generation

Chapter 4 Field Performance Principles

Chapter 5 The Aerodynamic Design of Wings

Aircraft Sizing in a Nutshell

Figure 1.3. Example integrated master plan (IMP). WBS, work

Figure 1.5. Trade study process.

Figure 1.6. NASA/DoD risk chart.

Figure 1.7. Risk reduction waterfall.

Figure 2.1. The self-referential nature of weight estimation.

Figure 2.2. Empirical regression of large aircraft weightOEW

Figure 2.3. MIL STD 1374 weight reporting form.

Figure 2.4. Wing bending moment relief.

Figure 2.5. Uninstalled engine weight as a function

Figure 2.6. One gear landing.

trapezoidal geometry is shown in black, the spar locations

Figure 2.12. Sketch of a lumped mass model comprising wing

Figure 2.14. Sketch resolving wing bending moment into forces

Figure 2.16. Wing chord, thickness ratio, distance between spars

Figure 2.17. Example of aerodynamic less net inertial loads.

Figure 2.18. Shear force and bending moments at Nz = +1

Figure 2.19. Minimum cover area for tension loading criteria vs

Figure 3.1. Wind tunnel testing.

Figure 3.2. Typical aerodynamic coefficient sign convention.

Figure 3.3. Typical plots made from a simple aerodynamic database.

Figure 3.4. Longitudinal stability and control screening plots

Figure 3.5. Lateral-directional stability and control screening

Figure 3.6. Longitudinal pitch trim. (a,c,e) nominal CG; (b,d,f)

Figure 3.7. Pitching moment vs angle-of-attack for fixed

Figure 3.8. Aerodynamic center location as function of mach

Figure 3.9. Simplified one-degree of freedom short-period

Figure 3.10. MIL STD-8785C Category A chart.

Figure 3.11. Skymap short-period frequency (radians per

Figure 3.12. Picture of airliner w/all-moving horizontal tail

Figure 3.13. Skymap of elevator deflection needed for trim.

Figure 3.14. Aerodynamic contributors to dutch roll stability.

Figure 3.15. Skymap of dutch roll frequencies for a notional

Figure 3.16. Lateral directional stability of a highly swept

Figure 3.17. Stick-fixed open-loop dutch roll stability of a highly swept

xii List of Figures

Figure 3.18. Lateral directional characteristics of the North

Figure 3.20. Bihrle-Weissman chart with total flight envelope

Figure 3.21. Bihrle-Weissman chart with total flight envelope

Figure 4.1. Runway information for San Jose International

Figure 4.2. Runway condition ratings and associated coefficients

Figure 4.4. Roskam T/O equation applied to an aircraft

Figure 4.5. Force balance for simplified VMCG computation.

VMCG trade study. Narrow-Body airliner.

Force and Yawing moment balance for simplified

Figure 4.8. Side force balance for simplified VMCA computation.

Figure 4.9. Rolling moment balance for simplified VMCA

Figure 4.11. Vmu schematic.

Figure 4.12. Lift slope (dCL/da) multiplier in-ground-effect.

Figure 4.13. Vmu effect of wing height. Notional transport

Figure 4.15. Minimum distance between the main landing

Figure 4.16. Schematic of takeoff procedure (AEO Accel-Go

List of Figures xiii

Figure 4.18. Critical field length trade study. Accel-Stop (RTO),

The Systems Engineering Veea Plan for Success

Chapter 2 Weight and Volume Estimation

Chapter 3 Stability and Controllability

Aerodynamic Database Generation

Chapter 4 Field Performance Principles

Chapter 5 The Aerodynamic Design of Wings

Aircraft Sizing in a Nutshell

Figure 1.5. Trade study process.

Figure 1.6. NASA/DoD risk chart.

Figure 1.7. Risk reduction waterfall.

Figure 2.3. MIL STD 1374 weight reporting form.

Figure 2.4. Wing bending moment relief.

Figure 2.6. One gear landing.

Figure 2.17. Example of aerodynamic less net inertial loads.

Figure 3.1. Wind tunnel testing.

Figure 3.3. Typical plots made from a simple aerodynamic database.

Figure 3.10. MIL STD-8785C Category A chart.

Figure 3.13. Skymap of elevator deflection needed for trim.

Figure 4.5. Force balance for simplified VMCG computation.

VMCG trade study. Narrow-Body airliner.

Figure 4.8. Side force balance for simplified VMCA computation.

Figure 4.11. Vmu schematic.

Figure 4.12. Lift slope (dCL/da) multiplier in-ground-effect.

Figure 4.19. Noise abatement takeoff profile.

Figure 5.1. Schematic representation of thin-airfoil-theory.

Figure 5.3. Wing planform.

Figure 5.4. Profile vs. Spanwise view of flow (after Munk).

Figure 5.12. Decomposition of forces into lift and drag.

Figure 5.13. Midspan airfoilBoeing 747100.

Figure 5.30. Non planar wing geometry options.

Figure 5.34. Block diagram of wing synthesis procedure.

Figure 5.40. Wing synthesis procedure rendered wing.

Figure 6.2. Simple spreadsheet sizing of 100 seat regional jet.

Figure 6.4. Aeris interior layout.

Figure 6.5. Initial wing design flowchart.

Figure 6.6. Detail wing design flowchart.

Figure 6.9. Spanwise wing lift distribution.

Figure 6.10. Bypass ratio/engine scale factor trade study.

Figure 6.14. Engine sizing.

Figure 6.17. Comparable aircraft benchmark.

Figure 6.18. Payload vs. Range Plot.

Figure 6.19. Cessna citation X fuel burn.

Figure 6.22. Noble Knight basic aircraft specifications.

Figure 6.23. High lift system and elevon arrangement.

Figure 6.26. Weight breakdown statement.

Figure 6.32. Pareto sensitivity study for system performance.

Figure 6.36. Benchmark comparison.

Figure 6.37. Benchmark comparison.

Figure 6.39. Fuselage trade studies.