PRINCIPLES OF AIRCRAFT DESIGN

STUDY 3 (WING DESIGN) UCK451E

LECTURER
ASSIST. PROF. DR. HAYR ACAR
SEZER KEFEL
OUZHAN KESER
ALVARO JIMENEZ AIRES
YUSUF Z
HAMD TRKMEN
TEVFK CAN BASLL

Deadline 21.10.2016
1

INDEX
1...................................................................INTRODUCTION
......................................................................................3
2..................................................................WNG LOCATON
......................................................................................4
3.

ARFOL SELECTON......................................................................................5

4.

WING INCIDENCE.......................................................................................12

5.

ASPECT RATO (PREVOUS DATA).....................................................................13

6.

TAPER RATO............................................................................................13

7.

SWEEP ANGLE...........................................................................................15

8.

TWST ANGLE............................................................................................18

9.

DHEDRAL ANGLE.......................................................................................20

10.

HGH LFT DEVCE (FLAP)...........................................................................21

11.

ALERON...............................................................................................22

12.

WNGTPS.............................................................................................23

13.

TAL CONFGURATON...............................................................................24

14.

CATPART DRAWNGS ADDTONAL INFO........................................................29

15.

SUMMARY..............................................................................................33

1. INTRODUCTION
Basically, the principles and methodologies of systems engineering are followed in the
wing design process. Limiting factors in the wing design approach originate from design
requirements such as performance requirements, stability and control requirements,
producibility requirements, operational requirements, cost, and flight safety. Major
performance requirements include stall speed, maximum speed, take-off run, range, and
endurance. Primary stability and control requirements include lateral-directional static
stability, lateral-directional dynamic stability, and aircraft controllability during probable
wing stall.
During the wing design process, 18 parameters must be determined. They are as
follows:
1. Wing reference (or planform) area (SW or Sref or S);
2. Number of wings;
3. Vertical position relative to the fuselage (high, mid-, or low wing);
4. Horizontal position relative to the fuselage;
5. Cross-section (or airfoil);
6. Aspect ratio (AR);
7. Taper ratio ();
8. Tip chord (Ct);
9. Root chord (Cr);
10. Mean aerodynamic chord (MAC or C);
11. Span (b);
12. Twist angle (or washout) (t);
13. Sweep angle (_);
14. Dihedral angle (_);
15. Incidence (iw) (or setting angle, set);
16. High-lifting devices such as flap;
17. Aileron;
18. Other wing accessories.

Figure 1. Wing Design Procedure

2. WING LOCATION
Location of the wing separates to 4 types which are low wing, mid wing, high wing and

Parasol wing. When we consider the best efficiency of the wing mid wing is the worst one of
these. If we use the mid wing, we are expose to air which comes from the directly engine.
When high wing is considered, we can say that best efficiency at all. However, maintenance is
difficult and leads to much cost. When locations are optimized, we choose the low wing in our
project.

Figure 2. Types of Wing Locations

A.

Some Advantages of Low Wing

1. The aircraft take-off performance is better, compared with a high-wing

configuration, due to the ground effect.
2. The pilot has a better higher-than-horizon view, since he/she is above the wing.
3. The retraction system inside the wing is an option, along with inside the fuselage.
4. The landing gear is shorter if connected to the wing. This makes the landing gear
lighter and requires less space inside the wing for the retraction system. This will
further make the wing structure lighter.
5. In a light GA aircraft, the pilot can walk on the wing in order to get into the
cockpit.
6. The aircraft is lighter compared with a high-wing structure.
7. The aircraft frontal area is less.

3. AIRFOIL SELECTION
Airfoil selection plays the most important role on wing design. As a result of this
reason, firstly, all historical data and similar aircrafts which was determined at first week
examined deeply. Then some airfoils are determined as useful which are AH82-150A, FX735

CL2-152, NACA4415, NACA63-415, NACA64(2)-415, NACA64A-215, NACA65(2)-215, HONERAHOR12, NACA64(2)-612 and reached that solution.

Figure 3. Colors of Airfoil Examples

Figure 4. Cl-Cd Graph of Selected Airfoils

Figure 5. Cl-Alpha and Cm-Alpha Graphs

Figure 6. Cl-Xtr and Cl/Cd-Alpha Graphs

After this solution, we have to determine CL max value and we also need the stall
velocity value to define Cl max.
Vstall

77 knots (39.61 m/s)

c lmax =

2L
2
v stall Sref

c lmax =1.873

c Lmax =

c lmax
c lmaxHLD
0.855

 c lmaxHLD 0.7 for plain flap

c Lmax =1.49

Now,

c ld value is the necessary for determining the airfoil type or types;

c ld =

2L
@ 15000 ft v 2cruise Sref

@ 15000ft
v cruise

0.771
kg/m3
159.44 m/s

Sref

9.56 m2
c ld =0.184

Figure 7. Maximum lift coefficient versus ideal lift coefficient for several NACA airfoil
sections. Reproduced from permission of Dover Publications, Inc.

The reached values for these airfoils are given below;

10

Name

Thicknes
s
(%)

Max
Thickness
(%)

Cambe
r (%)

Cl,
max

15.00

40.40

3.28

1.75

15.22

22.22

6.63

2.34

14.99

30.30

4.01

1.88

14.99

35.35

3.31

1.68

14.99

35.35

2.20

1.61

14.97

35.35

2.20

1.60

14.96

35.35

1.10

1.53

14.98

40.40

1.10

1.48

AH82150
a
FX 73CL2-152
NACA
4415
NACA
63(2)-615
NACA 63415
NACA
64(2)-415
NACA 64215
NACA
65(2)-215

L/D max
202 at

215 at =
4.5
160 at =
5.5
119 at =
7.0
117 at =
8.5
115 at =
8.0
110 at =
9.0
108 at =
8.5

Stall
Angel
(o)

Cl

Cm at 0
degree

17.5

0.078

-0.11

17.0

0.107

-0.229

19.5

0.0972

-0.095

20

0.102

-0.116

20

0.105

-0.078

20.5

0.102

-0.08

20.5

0.115

-0.040

21.5

0.103

-0.041

NACA64A-215 is chosen by using these calculations and analysis as a root airfoil.

The reasons of selection of NACA64A-215;

1.

c Lmax

value of this airfoil is the nearest one to our

c Lmax = 1.5 for 0.2

c ld

c Lmax value (

value at NACA64A-215)

2.
Increasing of camber and thickness of an airfoil towards to the tip part
increased the stability and maneuver regime. Because of this reason our wing is
improved by using 3 airfoil types which are NACA64A-215/415/612.
3.
The moment coefficient of this airfoil is the much better than other
airfoils, this reason also effects the aircrafts stability because the variation of
moment coefficient has a big effect on stability of the aircraft.
4.
Thickness ratio is determined as 15 percent by considering the fat
airfoil.

11

Figure 8/ Airfoil Geometric Parameters

Figure 9. Characteristics of NACA64A-215

12

A.

AIRFOIL SELECTION CRITERIA:

1. The airfoil with the highest maximum lift coefficient (Clmax).

2. The airfoil with the proper ideal or design lift coefficient (Cld or Cli).
3. The airfoil with the lowest minimum drag coefficient (Cdmin).
4. The airfoil with the highest lift-to-drag ratio ((Cl/Cd)max).
5. The airfoil with the highest lift curve slope (Clmax
).
6. The airfoil with the lowest (closest to zero; negative or positive) pitching moment
coefficient (Cm).
7. The proper stall quality in the stall region (the variation must be gentle, not sharp).
8. The airfoil must be structurally reinforceable. The airfoil should not be so thin that
spars cannot be placed inside.
9. The airfoil must be such that the cross-section is manufactural.
10. The cost requirements must be considered.
11. Other design requirements must be considered. For instance, if the fuel tank has
been designated to be placed inside the wing inboard section, the airfoil must allow
sufficient space for this purpose.

4. WING INCIDENCE
The wing incidence (iw) is the angle between the fuselage center line and the wing
chord line at its root, it is taken as 2 degrees in general applications of training aircrafts. The
wing incidence must satisfy the following design requirements:
1. The wing must be able to generate the desired lift coefficient during cruising flight.
2. The wing must produce minimum drag during cruising flight.
3. The wing setting angle must be such that the wing angle of attack could be varied
safely (in fact increased) during take-off operation.
4. The wing setting angle must be such that the fuselage generates minimum drag
during cruising flight (i.e., the fuselage angle of attack must be zero in cruise).

Figure 10. Wing Setting Angle

13

5. ASPECT RATIO (PREVIOUS DATA)

AR was determined in the second project as 7.5

Figure 11. Aspect Ratio Table

6. TAPER RATIO
The taper ratio () is defined as the ratio between the tip chord (Ct) and the root
chord(Cr). This definition is applied to the wing, as well as the horizontal tail and the vertical
tail.

Ct
Cr

The geometric result of taper is a smaller tip chord. In general, the taper ratio varies
between zero and one:
01

14

Figure 12. Wings with various taper ratios: (a) Rectangle ( = 1); (b) Trapezoid 0 < < 1
(straight tapered); and (c) Triangle (delta) = 0
Taper ratio is determined as 0.45 by using the graphical data and lecture notes. When
taper ratio has this value, airfoil almost behaves like an elliptical airfoil.

Figure 13. The typical effect of taper ratio on the lift distribution

15

7. SWEEP ANGLE
Consider the top view of an aircraft. The angle between a constant percentage chord
line along the semi-span of the wing and the lateral axis perpendicular to the aircraft center
line (y-axis) is called the leading edge sweep (LE). The angle between the wing leading
edge and the y-axis of the aircraft is called the leading edge sweep ( LE). Similarly, the angle
between the wing trailing edge and the longitudinal axis (y-axis) of the aircraft is
called the trailing edge sweep (TE). In the same fashion, the angle between the wing
quarter chord line and the y-axis of the aircraft is called the quarter chord sweep ( C/4).
And finally, the angle between the wing 50% chord line and the y-axis of the aircraft is
the 50% chord sweep (C/2).

Figure 14. Sweep Angles

16

Figure 15. Wing Geometry

b = 8.46 m
Croot = 1.5586 m
Ctip = 0.7014 m

1+2
= b ) (1+ ) =1.9 m
6

17

Figure 16. LE- Mmax Graph

From that graph;
LE =3.6

Figure 17. C/4

Graph

C/4 approximately = 0
Validation of these reading;
18

tan LE = tan C/4 + [(1- )/ A(1 +

)]

This calculation satisfies our values.

According to taper ratio, mean chord length could be calculated.
2

1+ +

C=2/3
Cr (
)
1+

C=1.1842m

8. TWIST ANGLE
If the wing tip is at a lower incidence than the wing root, the wing is said to have
negative twist or simply twist (t) or washout. In contrast, if the wing tip is at a higher
incidence than the wing root, the wing is said to have positive twist or washin. The twist
is usually negative, which means the wing tip angle of attack is lower than the root angle
of attack.
When the tip incidence and root incidence are not the same, the twist is referred to as
geometric twist. However, if the tip airfoil section and root airfoil section are not the same,
the twist is referred to as aerodynamic twist. Both types of twist have advantages and
disadvantages, by which the designer must establish a selection that satisfies the design
requirements. The application of twist is a selection at decision making, but the amount
of twist is determined via calculations.

19

Figure 18. Wing twist: (a) Geometric twist; (b) Aerodynamic twist

There are two major goals for employing the twist in a wing design process:
1. Avoiding tip stall before root stall.
2. Modification of the lift distribution to an elliptical one.
In addition to the two above-mentioned desired goals, there is another one unwanted
output in twist:
3. Reduction in lift.

Figure 19. The typical effect of a (negative) twist angle on the lift distribution
By using these reasons and historical data twist angle is reached as -2 degrees.

20

Figure 20. Twist Angles for Several Aircraft (Geometric Twist)

9. DIHEDRAL ANGLE
When you look at the front view of an aircraft, the angle between the chord line plane
of a wing with the xy plane is referred to as the wing dihedral (). The chord line plane
of the wing is an imaginary plane that is generated by connecting all chord lines across
the span. If the wing tip is higher than the xy plane, the angle is called positive dihedral
or simply dihedral, but when the wing tip is lower than the xy plane, the angle is called
negative dihedral or anhedral.

Figure 21. (a) Dihedral and (b) anhedral (aircraft front view)

21

Figure 22. The effect of dihedral angle on a disturbance in roll (aircraft front view): (a)before
gust; (b) after gust

Figure 23. Typical values of dihedral angle for various wing configurations
Our dihedral angle is determined by using these typical values as 4 degrees.

10.

HIGH LIFT DEVICE (FLAP)

Flap is determined as Plain flap by using historical data.

22

Figure 24. Various types of high-lift device: (a) Trailing edge high-lift device; (b) Leading
edge high-lift device
There are many types of wing trailing edge flaps but the most common are split flap,
plain flap, single-slotted flap, double-slotted flap, triple-slotted flap, and Fowler flap as
illustrated in Figure 24(a). They are all deflected downward to increase the camber of
the wing, so CLmax will be increased. The most common leading edge devices are leading
edge flap, leading edge slat, and Kruger flap as shown in Figure 24 (b).

Figure 25. Lift coefficient increment by various types of high-lift device (when deflected 60
degrees)
We took the CL value as 0.7 according to table and used this value while we were
calculating CLMAX.

23

Figure 26. High-lift device parameters: (a) Top view of the right wing; (b) Side view of the
inboard wing (flap deflected)

11.

AILERON

An aileron is very similar to a trailing edge plain flap except it is deflected both up and
down. An aileron is located at the outboard portion of the left and right sections of a wing.
Unlike a flap, ailerons are deflected differentially, left up and right down or left down
and right up. Lateral control is applied on an aircraft through the differential motions of
ailerons. Aileron design is part of wing design, but because of the importance and great
amount of material that needs to be covered for aileron design. The design of the

aileron will be discussed later.

Figure 27. Typical location of the aileron on the wing

24

12.

WINGTIPS

Wing-tip shape has two effects upon subsonic aerodynamic performance.

The tip shape affects the aircraft wetted area, but only to a small extent. A
far more important effect is the influence the tip shape has upon the lateral
spacing of the tip vortices. This is largely determined by the ease with which
the higher-pressure air on the bottom of the wing can "escape" around the
tip to the top of the wing.

Figure 28. Winglet Effect

25

Figure 29. Wing Tips

Wing tip is decided as Hoerner, however it can be changed after analysis
report.

13.

TAIL CONFIGURATION
a. TAIL ARRANGEMENT

For the tail study, we have to take into account the whole previous
study, because many of the discussion concerning wings are also proper for
the tail surface. However, it is necessary to notice that the wing is designed
to create a lift distribution but not the tail. The major goal of the tail is
controlling the aircraft.
In the image below we can see different types of tail arrangements. In
our study we can use conventional, T-tail or Cruciform configuration (most
aircraft designs use one of these three). The conventional tail provides
adequate stability and control at the lightest weight. Nevertheless, a T-tail
configuration (heavier than conventional tail) provides compensating
advantages, like smaller vertical tail (due to end-plate effect), reduction of
the buffet on the horizontal tail, or the possibility of using engines mounted
in pods on the aft fuselage (this increases wing lift and decreases wing
26

drag), but we have to notice that a T-tail is inherently heavier than a

conventional tail because vertical tail must be strengthened to support the
horizontal tail.
Finally, the cruciform tail presents a compromise between the
conventional and T-tail arrangements because in this configuration, the
horizontal tail has a lift distribution and it has less of a weight penalty
according to T-tail. However, the cruciform tail will not provide a tail-area
reduction due to end-plate effect as T-tail.
In our aircraft we will use cruciform arrangement because in this
configuration we have a compromise solution which gives as the advantages
of a conventional arrangement and T-tail arrangement as well. The
cruciform arrangement also allows exposing the lower part of the rudder to
undisturbed air during high angle-of-attack conditions and spins. If we
compare with TAI-HURKUS, we can notice that it has conventional
arrangements, which allows a lightest weight but larger tail-area has to be
used.

Figure 30. Tail Types

We also have to select the surface areas required, but as long as they
are directly related to the aircrafts wing area, they cannot be selected until
the initial estimation of aircraft takeoff gross weight has been made. For the
vertical and horizontal tail aspect ratio we can use the following table
(given in our lectures notes), in which we can see that, for T-tail, the proper
values of A and are between 0.7-1.2 and 0.6-1.0 respectively. We will
choose and aspect ratio of 0.9 and untapered horizontal tail ( =1 ), to
reduce manufacturing costs.
27

Figure 31. Tail aspect ratio and taper ratio

Leading-edge sweep angle of the horizontal tail is usually set about 5
more than wing angle sweep, so we will select 35 according to our
previous calculations. For vertical angle sweep we will choose 25.
For the tail airfoils, we will choose an airfoil thinner than the wing
airfoil, to make sure that the tail critical Mach will be always higher than
the wing. We will use the same airfoil for vertical and horizontal tail. Given
this, we can choose NACA0012 (12% chord maximum thickness) for the tail
airfoils.
b. TAIL GEOMETRY
i. Aspect ratio (A):
According to table above, the aspect ratio of horizontal tail varies
between 3-5 and for vertical tail it varies between 0.7-1.2 for our type of
aircraft. Using that data, we can choose and aspect ratio as 3 for horizontal
tail and 1.2 for the vertical to keep the control surface as large as possible.
ii. Taper ratio ( ):
The same with taper ratio. We can also use the table to find the proper
taper ratio for horizontal and vertical stabilizer. In this case we will choose
a taper ratio of 0.5 for horizontal and 0.5 for vertical too.
iii. Sweep angle:
Leading-edge sweep of the horizontal tail is usually set to about 5 deg
more than the wing sweep. This tends to make the tail stall after the wing,
and also provides the tail with a higher Critical Mach Number than the
wing, which avoids loss of elevator effectiveness due to shock formation. So,
28

in for our aircraft, which has 2 as wing sweep angle, we will select around
7 for horizontal tail leading-edge sweep.
For vertical tail, the sweep angle varies between 35 and 55, so we
can select an angle in the middle, for example, 45.

iv. Tail thickness ratio:

Tail thickness ratio is usually similar to the wing thickness ratio, as
determined by the historical guidelines provided in the wing-geometry
section. For a high-speed aircraft, the horizontal tail is frequently about
10% thinner than the wing to ensure that the tail has a higher Critical Mach
Number. In our study we have a wing thickness ratio of 0.15, so we can
choose a thickness ratio for the tail around 0.12-0.13.

c. DRAWINGS
The exact planform of the tail surfaces is actually not very critical in
the early stages of the design process. The tail geometries are revised
during later analytical and wind-tunnel studies. For conceptual design, it is
usually acceptable simply to draw tail surfaces that' 'look right," based upon
prior experience and similar designs.

29

Figure 32. Non Dimensional Drawing of the Horizontal Tail

30

Figure 33. Horizontal Tail Sweep Angle

Figure 34. Non Dimensional Drawing of the Vertical Tail

31

Figure 35. Vertical Tail Sweep Angle

14.

CAT PART DRAWINGS ADDITIONAL INFO

32

Figure 36. Dimensional Sketches of Wing Design

Figure 37. Additional Wing Incidence Information

Figure 38. The Positioning of Flap, Aileron and Profiles

33

Figure 39. Decided Airfoil Profiles (From tip to root respectively

Figure 40. Isometric View of Wing Design

34

Figure 41. Isometric View of Wing Design

Our Selection

HRKU

Airfoil (Root)

NACA 64A-215

Airfoil (Tip)

NACA 64A-612

Aspect Ratio

7.5

6.07

Sweep Angle (L.E.)

Sweep Angle (c/4)

Almost 0

Taper Ratio

0.45

Twist

-2

Dihedral

Wing Vertical Location

Low

Low

Wing Incidence

Figure 42. Comparison with Hurkus (We do not have any online information about that,
however we will dig more)
35

Figure 43. Drawing of Tail (Drawing will be improved)

15.

SUMMARY

In this study, we determined airfoils that the required characteristics of the wing. Later,
aspect ratio, sweep angle, taper ratio, twist and incidence angle, dihedral, wing vertical
location are determined according to references. In some parts, optimization is needed in
order to make easy to meet the requirements. For example, while we have chosen the
necessary airfoil for root, initially we have optimized among parameters like the thickness
ratio (t/c) and higher lift (CLMAX).
Besides these, our project will be included wing and tail analysis, we could not reach the
analyzes yet because of the time and design issues. When we finished analyzes, we will add
the other projects and we will mention that. In addition, we could not find any information
which is classified about HURKUS TAI Trainer Aircraft, but when we reach some information
also will be added to next project.

36