EB 1609 Peregrine Final Report

Edward Barber Weights and CAD

Katie Murphy Supersonic Aero
William Siregar Subsonic Aero
Timothy Sung Stability
Brian Louie - Propulsion

MAE 154A Preliminary Design of Aircraft

Winter 2015

HENRY SAMUELI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
 Aircraft Specification Sheet
Crew: 2 Pilots plus one executive steward(ess)

Cabin Seating: 8 seats in executive (max range) configu; 12 seats in max seating config

Range: 2,800 nautical miles at Mach 1.6 and 4,200 nautical miles at Mach 0.95

Supersonic Cruise Mach Number: 1.6

Subsonic Cruise Mach Number: 0.95

Maximum Operating Mach Number: 1.9

Supersonic Cruise Altitude: 43,000-49,000 feet (climb cruise)

Subsonic Cruise Altitude: 30,000-46,000 feet (climb cruise)

Service Ceiling: 54,600 feet

Absolute Ceiling: 55,670 feet

Payload with Maximum Fuel: 3,000 lbs

Takeoff Climb Speed V2 (SLSD): 286 ft/s

Approach Speed V2 (SLSD): 207 ft/s

Rate of Climb: 5960 fpm at SLSD conditions and max gross weight.

Time to climb to 40,000 ft is 5 minutes

Takeoff Distance (to clear 35 ft obstacle): 3,360 feet

Landing Distance (glide over 50 ft): 3,740 feet

ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Configuration and Design ....................................................................................................... 2
3 Weights ................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Initial Estimates ................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Detailed Estimates ............................................................................................................ 3
3.2.1 Crew.............................................................................................................................. 3
3.2.2 Payload ......................................................................................................................... 4
3.2.3 Empty Weight ............................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Iteration ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Final Aircraft Weights ...................................................................................................... 9
4 Layout and Balance............................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Wing and Tail ................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Fuselage .......................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.1 Passenger Cabin .......................................................................................................... 10
4.2.2 Nose ............................................................................................................................ 10
4.2.3 Aft Section .................................................................................................................. 11
4.3 Engines ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Landing Gear .................................................................................................................. 11
4.5 Fuel Tanks ...................................................................................................................... 12
4.6 Balance ........................................................................................................................... 12
4.7 Area Ruling .................................................................................................................... 13
5 Subsonic Aerodynamics........................................................................................................ 15
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Wing Parasite Drag ........................................................................................................ 15
5.3 Fuselage Drag ................................................................................................................. 17
5.4 Tail and Nacelle Drag .................................................................................................... 19
5.5 Interference Drag............................................................................................................ 19
5.6 Drag Breakdown ............................................................................................................ 19
5.7 Range Parameter Maximization ..................................................................................... 20
5.8 High Lift Configuration ................................................................................................. 23
5.9 Span-wise Distribution ................................................................................................... 24
5.10 Conclusion and Future Work ...................................................................................... 25
6 Supersonic Aerodynamics .................................................................................................... 27
6.1 Wing Design ................................................................................................................... 27
6.1.1 First Design Iteration .................................................................................................. 27
6.1.2 Wing Planform Design ............................................................................................... 28
6.1.3 Root Chord Sizing ...................................................................................................... 32

iii
 6.1.4 Wing Specifications .................................................................................................... 34
6.1.5 Other Wing Considerations ........................................................................................ 35
6.2 Lift and Drag .................................................................................................................. 35
6.2.1 Wing Drag .................................................................................................................. 36
6.2.2 Fuselage Drag ............................................................................................................. 37
6.2.3 Engine Drag ................................................................................................................ 38
6.2.4 Tail Drag ..................................................................................................................... 38
6.2.5 Interference Drag ........................................................................................................ 39
6.2.6 Total Drag and L/D..................................................................................................... 39
6.2.7 Other Considerations .................................................................................................. 41
6.3 Flight Cruise Profile Estimate ........................................................................................ 42
6.4 Transonic Drag ............................................................................................................... 43
6.5 Changes from the First Design Iteration ........................................................................ 45
6.6 Future Improvements ..................................................................................................... 45
7 Propulsion and Performance ................................................................................................. 47
7.1 Engine Selection, Background, Motivation ................................................................... 47
7.2 Takeoff/Landing Calculations: ....................................................................................... 48
7.3 Range .............................................................................................................................. 52
7.4 Rate of Climb and Ceiling .............................................................................................. 52
7.5 Required Thrust .............................................................................................................. 54
8 Stability and Controls ........................................................................................................... 58
8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 58
8.2 Analysis Overview and Assumptions ............................................................................ 58
8.3 Wing/Tail Placement, Tail Sizing, and Drag Considerations ........................................ 60
8.4 Fuel Management, Neutral Point, and Trim Calculations .............................................. 64
8.5 Vertical Tail Sizing ........................................................................................................ 73
9 Structures and Materials ....................................................................................................... 75
10 Conclusions / Future Iterations ............................................................................................. 76
11 References ............................................................................................................................. 78
12 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 79
12.1 Appendix A: All Wing Planform Scenarios ............................................................... 79
12.2 Appendix B: Wing24s Mach 1.6 CFD Output .......................................................... 79
12.3 Appendix C: Wing24s Mach 1.5 CFD Output .......................................................... 80
12.4 Appendix D: Transonic CFD Output for Varying Machs at AoA 3.2deg .................. 80
12.5 Appendix E: Supersonic Early Design Matrix and Other Parameters........................ 80
12.6 Appendix F: Range Parameter Tables based on Mach number and AOA ................. 81
12.7 Appendix G: Important Raw Data Variables for Stability Analysis .......................... 82
12.8 Appendix H: Sample Calculations ............................................................................. 82
12.9 Appendix I: Parameters for Weight ............................................................................ 83

iv
List of Figures

Figure 1: Empty weight components .............................................................................................. 5

Figure 2: Furnishing weight breakdown ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Mission profile for the SSBJ, with stage numbers labeled.. ............................................ 7
Figure 4: Aircraft takeoff weight breakdown ................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: Cross-sectional area variation from nose to tail ............................................................ 14
Figure 6: Section Drag and Lift Coefficient for NACA 64A010 at Re = 9 x 106 ........................ 16
Figure 7: Comparison of CL/CD .................................................................................................. 21
Figure 8: Maximum-Lift Trends vs Sweep Angle for Several Classes of Aircraft ...................... 24
Figure 9: Spanwise Lift Distribution at various Mach Number and Angle of Attack .................. 25
Figure 10: 2D coefficient of lift over the 3D coefficient of lift .................................................... 31
Figure 11: Maximum L/D versus CL for the Wing24 planform .................................................. 34
Figure 12: Drag breakdown by type ............................................................................................. 41
Figure 13: Drag breakdown by component .................................................................................. 41
Figure 14: Transonic L/D versus Mach number ........................................................................... 45
Figure 15: Rate of climb vs. altitude. ............................................................................................ 53
Figure 16: Subsonic thurst needed at cruise. ................................................................................ 54
Figure 17: Subsonic thrust needed at altitude. .............................................................................. 55
Figure 18: Supersonic thrust needed at cruise. ............................................................................. 56
Figure 19: Supersonic thrust needed vs. altitude. ......................................................................... 57
Figure 20: Correlation of aircraft horizontal tail volume.............................................................. 61
Figure 21: Boundaries of horizontal tail position ......................................................................... 62
Figure 22: Low subsonic cruise trim plot for LC 2. ..................................................................... 65
Figure 23: High subsonic cruise trim plot for LC 2 ...................................................................... 66
Figure 24: Supersonic cruise trim plot for LC 2 ........................................................................... 66
Figure 25: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the takeoff, before climb condition. ........................... 71
Figure 26: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the start of high subsonic cruise condition. ............... 72
Figure 27: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c for the end of high subsonic cruise condition. ........................... 72
Figure 28: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the start of supersonic cruise condition. .................... 73
Figure 29: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the end of supersonic cruise condition....................... 73
Figure 30: Correlation of aircraft vertical tail volume .................................................................. 74

v
List of Tables

Table 1: Payload weight estimates. ................................................................................................. 4

Table 2: Advanced composites weight fudge factors (Raymer) ..................................................... 6
Table 3: Wing Reynolds Number at Various Altitude and Mach Number ................................... 17
Table 4 Component drag coefficient breakdown .......................................................................... 20
Table 5: Range Parameter at Different Mach Number and Angle of Attack with Total Drag ..... 22
Table 6: Coefficient of Lift at Various Cruise Stage and Altitude ............................................... 23
Table 7: The initial wing design for the EB1609 .......................................................................... 28
Table 8: Selected wing planforms and their results ...................................................................... 29
Table 9: Root chord sizing and its effect on CL and wing loading .............................................. 33
Table 10: Current wing specifications for the EB1609 ................................................................ 35
Table 11: Aerodynamic values for the current wing configuration .............................................. 35
Table 12: Total CD and final L/D ................................................................................................. 40
Table 13: Mach 1.5 versus Mach 1.6 considerations .................................................................... 42
Table 14: Flight cruise profile; L/D estimations ........................................................................... 43
Table 15: Transonic drag estimates .............................................................................................. 44
Table 16: Basic engine specifications (for one engine) ................................................................ 48
Table 17: Loading Conditions and their Weights. ........................................................................ 60
Table 18: Fuel management plans for each loading condition including alternate plans. ............ 64
Table 19: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at Takeoff.................................................... 67
Table 20: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at Takeoff, cont. .......................................... 67
Table 21: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at the start of transonic cruise. .................... 67
Table 22: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at start of the transonic cruise cont. ............ 68
Table 23: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at end of transonic cruise. ........................... 68
Table 24: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at end of transonic cruise cont. ................... 68
Table 25: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the start of supersonic cruise. ............ 69
Table 26: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the start of supersonic cruise cont. .... 69
Table 27: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the end of supersonic cruise. ............. 69
Table 28: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the end of supersonic cruise cont. ...... 69
Table 29: Neutral Points and Static Margins for the 4 LC's at each flight condition. .................. 70

vi
1 Introduction

The EB 1609 Peregrine is a supersonic business jet designed to provide comfort and

speed to select customers. The Peregrine is designed so it is able to cruise at both subsonic (M =

.9) and supersonic (M = 1.6) speeds at altitudes up to 51,000 ft. The primary market for this

aircraft is expected to be people of significant worth who are in a hurry. Since comfort is one of

the top priorities of customers, the Peregrine will face competition from subsonic aircraft such as

the Gulfstream G650, although subsonic aircraft cannot compete with the speed of the Peregrine.

The Peregrine is designed to be capable of efficient cruise at both high subsonic Mach numbers

and supersonic Mach numbers up to 2.

1
2 Configuration and Design

To begin, an initial aircraft configuration and size was chosen. To do so, a number of

current business jets were examined, particularly those with payload and range characteristics

similar to the required aircraft specifications, such as the Gulfstream G450. Although no

supersonic business jets are currently in production, proposed designs, such as the Aerion AS2,

were also considered. Between aircraft in this class, low-wing, T-tail configurations are the

norm, usually with two or three engines mounted in pods at the fuselage rear. For simplicity, a

similar configuration was chosen for the first-pass iteration of the EB-1609.

Detailed sizing of the aircraft was achieved iteratively. First, an initial estimate max

takeoff weight was selected. With this, sub- and supersonic aerodynamic calculations could be

performed to size the wing and to find the thrust required. From the thrust required, a value for

the aircraft specific fuel consumption was found. Along with the lift-to-drag ratio, this was

returned to estimate range. By comparing this value to the range required, a new estimate for

max takeoff weight was chosen and the sizing parameters recalculated to suit. After the

calculated range matched the required range to a reasonable degree, sizing of the tail and

fuselage was performed, based on the chosen wing and engines.

Although detailed sizing procedures and calculations for each stage are provided later, the

first-pass preliminary design for the EB-1609 is provided in the drawing package included.

These include a three-view drawing, arrangement of the fuel tanks, and a drawing of the

passenger cabin layout.

2
3 Weights

3.1 Initial Estimates

After comparing multiple business jets of similar payload capacity and range, the

Gulfstream G450 was found to be a reasonable baseline from which to estimate the EB-1609

initial parameters. Thus as a first-pass estimate, 80,000lbs was used as an initial estimate for the

aircraft max takeoff weight (TOW). However, to account for the expected additional fuel

required by supersonic cruise an additional 10,000lbs was added, bringing the total TOW to

90,000lbs. Naturally, due to the crude nature of this estimate, a more accurate measure would be

required to reflect the actual aircraft weight in subsequent aerodynamic and performance

calculations.

3.2 Detailed Estimates

To find a more accurate estimate for TOW, Raymer gives the following Equation 1

Equation 1

0 = + + +

Therefore, a detailed measure for TOW (a.k.a. 0 ) can be found with accurate calculations for

its components. For the EB-1609, the components are found as follows.

3.2.1 Crew

As described in the aircraft requirements, the crew consists of three: two pilots and an

attendant. Both Raymer and the FAA estimate flight deck crew at 190lbs + 50lbs luggage each

for a total of 240lbs each. Similarly, attendants are estimated at 170lbs + 40lbs luggage each.

Combined, crew is estimated at 690lbs.

3
3.2.2 Payload

Payload carried includes the passengers, their luggage, and provisions required per

passenger (safety equipment, in-flight meals, etc.). Torenbeek provides detailed estimates of

each depending in the length of flight and other factors in Table 8-12, p. 292. These estimates

are used for the two payload cases: Max Passenger (12 passengers) and Extended Range (8

passengers). The results are listed below in Table 1, with total payload weight equal to 3000lbs

and 2000lbs, respectively.

Table 1: Payload weight estimates.

Operational Items From Table 8-12, Torenbeek p.292 unless otherwise noted
Configuration Max Pass. Extended Range
N_passengers 12 8
Passenger weight 1980 1320
Passenger baggage 564 376
Passenger supplies 288 192
Water/toilet chemicals 78 52
Safety equipment 90 60
Operational Items, Total 3000 2000

3.2.3 Empty Weight

From the first-pass aircraft geometry, the empty weight is estimated based on detailed

weight approximations presented by Chapter 15 in Raymer and Chapter 8 in Torenbeek. These

are statistical equations based on a variety of past aircraft. Although SSBJ configurations have

not been produced in the past, the general aircraft configuration matches reasonably well to a

standard subsonic business jet and as such the weight estimation methods can be expected to be

reasonably accurate. The main discrepancies would be with the thinness of the wings and the

size of the engines compared to most current business jets, however the final results do not seem

4
too unreasonable in this regard. The results for the designed aircraft are plotted in Figure 1

below. Exact values listed in the appendix.

Avionics
A/C and Anti-ice Furnishings Empty Weight Breakdown
5% 6%
3% Wempty = 43139lbs
Electrical Systems
2% Wing
21%

Hydraulics Horizontal Tail

0% 2%

Flight Controls Vertical Tail

12% 2%

Fuselage
7%
Fuel System
6% Main Gear
4%
Nose Gear
Installed Engine 1%
29%

Figure 1: Empty weight components

In general, Equations (15.46) through (15.58) in Raymer are used. However, Raymer also lists

what he calls fudge factors to approximate for the savings across a weight group through the

use of composites. These were incorporated into the final design, as the range gained from the

weight savings incurred by composites are noticeable. The factors are listed in Raymer under

Table 15.4, p. 408, and reproduced below in Table 2. Although the factors may be conservative

due to the advancement of composites since publishing of the 4th edition in the 1990s, the use of

composites reduces the aircraft empty weight by nearly 3000lbs, equivalent to 7% to total final

empty weight.

5
Table 2: Advanced composites weight fudge factors (Raymer)

Weight Group Multiplier

Wing 0.85
Tails 0.83
Fuselage/nacelle 0.90
Landing gear 0.95
Air induction system 0.85

Finally, it should be noted that equations from Torenbeek are used to find the total furnishings

weight. Although Raymer does present an equation for furnishings, it is simply a multiplier for

our original aircraft, the furnishings were approximated to weigh over 6000lbs, approximately

the same as for a 737! On the other hand, Torenbeek includes a very detailed set of

approximations in Table 8-2, p.291. The total furnishing weight is broken down in Figure 2

below, with detailed values listed in the appendix.

Furnishing Weight Breakdown

Wfurnishings = 2581lbs Insulation, shades, etc
35%
Cargo restraints
0%

Floor covering Oxygen supplies

4% 3%

Portable extinguishers
2%
Lavtory
12%
Escape provisions
1%

Flight deck components

Galley + provisions 11%
10% Cabin seating
22%

Figure 2: Furnishing weight breakdown

6
3.2.3.1 Fuel

Fuel weight is estimated based on the method described by Raymer in Chapter 6 and using the

following mission profile.

SSBJ MISSION PROFILE

60
3
50
ALTITUDE (K FT)

2
40
30
20
10
0 0 1 4 5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
RANGE (NM)

Figure 3. Mission profile for the SSBJ, with stage numbers labeled. Takeoff, climb, descent, and landing distances
extended for clarity.

Segment weight fractions for takeoff, descent, and landing are estimated using the conservative

value given by Raymer in Eqs. (6.8), (6.22), and (6.23), respectively. The conservative estimate

is used to provide a slight buffer in case the aircraft structural weight is greater than estimated.

Eqs. (6.9) and (6.10) provide segment weight fractions as a function of Mach number for

subsonic and supersonic climb, respectively. For simplicity, climb Mach number is assumed to

equal cruise Mach number throughout (i.e. the climb segment weight ratio for a mission with

Mach 1.6 cruise is calculated using Mach 1.6 in Eq. (6.10)). Cruise segment weight ratio is

calculated using Equation 2, based on range, velocity, , and / at cruise conditions. These

are initially calculated using the crude total weight estimate and changed as a more accurate

value is found.

7
Equation 2

3
= exp( )
2
( )

After calculating segment weight fractions, each segment weight is calculated from the estimated

takeoff weight 0, as:

Equation 3


= 0,
1
=1

A modified version of Equation 4 is then used to find segment weight burn (it appears the 4th

edition has a typo):

Equation 4

= (1 ) 1

The total fuel burn (the mission fuel) is then simply the sum of all segment fuel burns. With an

additional 5% reserve fuel and 1% trapped allowance included, as suggested by Raymer, the total

fuel weight is:

Equation 5

= 1.06

3.3 Iteration

After all component weights have been calculated, the resulting 0 is compared to 0, .

Estimated takeoff weight is then adjusted until both the calculated and estimated values

converge. In the case where they do not converge, range must be adjusted to reduce fuel weight.

8
3.4 Final Aircraft Weights

Based on the initial aircraft performance at 90,000lb takeoff weight, additional fuel is

required to meet the range requirement. Max TOW is thus increased to 110,000lbs in order to

ensure enough fuel can be stored, but without increasing the size of the aircraft dramatically.

Inputting this value, along with aircraft subsonic /, , calculated empty weight, and etc.

yields the fuel required to meet range. After minor adjustments to ensure all values agree, the

designed aircraft takeoff weight, under extended range configuration, is plotted in Figure 4.

These values were then incorporated into the CAD model for balancing.

Aircraft TOW Breakdown

TOW = 110,000lbs
Crew Payload
Empty
1% 2%
39%
Trapped Fuel
0%

Mission Fuel Reserve Fuel

55% 3%

Figure 4: Aircraft takeoff weight breakdown

9
4 Layout and Balance

4.1 Wing and Tail

The wing and tail are sized from aerodynamic considerations. Similarly, the tail and its

distance to the wing are chosen for stability considerations. Please see those sections of the

report for details.

4.2 Fuselage

Fuselage layout is divided into three compartments: passenger cabin, nose, and aft

sections. Each include different design considerations which govern their shape.

4.2.1 Passenger Cabin

As a passenger aircraft, the fuselage cross-section is largely determined by this

requirement. Based on similarly-sized business jets and discussions in Raymer, the fuselage is

sized with an 8ft outer diameter. Allowing for 2in wall thickness, the maximum aisle height is 7ft

2in if allowances are made for under-floor room for electrical cabling, hydraulic lines, and

similar. Using a standard business-class seat, twelve seats are arranged to fit within a 25ft

section of fuselage in accordance with aisle and seat clearances specified by Raymer in Chapter

9.3. An additional 5ft is included for a lavatory at the rear of the cabin, bringing the total cabin

length to 30ft.

4.2.2 Nose

The nose of the aircraft houses the cockpit, crew compartment, and galley. As a

supersonic aircraft, the area-rule should be observed to reduce drag in that sense a longer nose

is desirable. However, the pilots must be able to see past the nose when landing, in which case a

shorter nose is desirable. To reconcile both requirements, the overnose angle is used to define

10
minimum taper. The minimum overnose is approximately related to the landing approach angle

and velocity (in knots) by Equation 6 in Raymer:

Equation 6

= + 0.07

For = 100 and = 5, 12. This angle and other lofting

methods are used to form the nose. Including provisions for the pilots and other unusable space,

the nose has 9-11ft of length of a galley and crew compartment.

4.2.3 Aft Section

The fuselage aft section is made with the same area rule in mind as for the nose, but is not

restricted by pilot sight requirements. Compartments within it (baggage, engine piping, and

additional fuel) have limited shape requirements. The aft section is thus simply lofted to form a

smooth taper to the tail with enough volume to contain the required components above.

4.3 Engines

The engine sizing is decided by the propulsion team. However, along with the fuselage,

they are an important tool for placing the center of gravity due to their weight. They are placed

beside the fuselage to reduce pylon length, whilst ensuring the fuselage boundary layer is not

ingested.

4.4 Landing Gear

Landing gear tires are sized based on the statistical equations presented by Raymer in

Table 11.1 in Chapter 11. Raymer also provides governing equations for the relative locations of

the main and nose gear in relation to the center of gravity. Unfortunately, due to the thinness of

the wing, wing-mounted gear would be unable to retract. Instead, they are adjacent to the

11
fuselage, below the aft section. This may lead to landing instability however, so wing-based gear

may be re-examined.

4.5 Fuel Tanks

Fuel tank placement is chosen based on two main factors:

1. Pilot must be able to drain tanks without shifting CG to beyond the allowable margin

2. Tanks must be placed away from all crew and passenger compartments

Although most commercial aircraft place fuel solely within the wing, the thin airfoils of a

supersonic aircraft restrict the available volume greatly. As an alternative, fuel must be placed in

the far aft portion of the fuselage and possibly in the tail. In the case of the tail, only the vertical

stabilizer would be used, as the horizontal was deemed too thin. Wing tip tanks are also

considered, but with a swept wing they could cause dangerous aerodynamic flutter and were thus

ruled out. In all, three possible locations were identified: the wing, rear fuselage, and the vertical

tail.

With these locations in mind, CAD models are developed of each tank to quickly analyze

their volumes. These are based on the wing, tail, and fuselage models, with offsets to account

for structural members and other obstacles. In all, the total volume exceeds the required volume

significantly, allowing for flexibility when trimming the aircraft in the next phase.

4.6 Balance

Having introduced the major aircraft components, the aircraft can be balanced at the

required loading conditions. During this phase, the location of the wing in relation to the tail are

fixed, however the location of the wing along the fuselage length and the placement of the

aircraft engines can be manipulated to pick a reasonable baseline CG location. In order to do

12
so, an extreme loading condition must be chosen and designed for. With the fuselage and

engines now fixed, the remaining loading conditions can be evaluated for stability. Additionally,

due to the excess fuel tank volume available, fuel management plans can be employed to shift

the CG to a more desirable location during certain loadings.

For the aircraft as designed, two extreme loading conditions are identified: extreme

forward CG at maximum payload weight with minimum fuel (Loading II) and extreme aft CG at

minimum payload with maximum fuel (Loading III). Between these loadings, the fuselage and

engines are fixed in relation to the wing.

After fixing the fuselage, each load configuration is examined in CAD to measure the

aircraft CG in relation to the wing MAC quarter chord. Naturally, only certain fuel tank

combinations will contain enough fuel for the required loading for simplicity, the four main

fuel tanks (fuselage, wing centerline, and one per wing) are sized such that when full the aircraft

will contain the maximum fuel required without the use of trim tanks. In analysis, if the baseline

fuel configuration is found to be unstable, a single tank will be drained and the trim tank filled.

Due to the rearward aerodynamic center shift at supersonic, both trim tanks are behind the

baseline CG. For simplicity, the rear fuselage tank is set to equal the combined volume of both

wing tanks and the tail trim tank set to equal the wing centerline tank.

A full discussion of the Loading conditions and fuel management is addressed in Section 6.

4.7 Area Ruling

After all components are placed, the aircraft must be analyzed for variation of cross-

sectional area over its length. In order to minimize supersonic wave drag, the transition between

areas should be smooth. With the areas plotted, any sudden increases should be countered with a

decrease in fuselage area.

13
 Currently, although an analysis of cross-sectional area variation was performed, area-ruling

was not applied to the fuselage. During analysis, the aircraft configuration was not fixed until

fairly late in the design process, leaving insufficient time to adjust the fuselage whilst ensuring

tank volumes and weight distributions remain unchanged. A plot of cross-sectional area is

shown in Figure 5 below. Notably, the increase is area with the engines is so great that an area

reduction would require reducing the fuselage diameter by over half! In future iterations, longer

and more gradually-changing engine cowlings should be examined.

120

100
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA [FT^2]

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
FUSELAGE LOCATION [FEET FROM NOSECONE]

Figure 5: Cross-sectional area variation from nose to tail.

14
5 Subsonic Aerodynamics
5.1 Introduction
The subsonic aerodynamics characteristics of EB-1609 Peregrine in subsonic flight are

examined in this section. The decision from the team was to maximize the range for supersonic

flight while still making the minimum range for subsonic flight. Thus, wing planform was

largely determined by the supersonic aerodynamics member. Wing airfoil did not change from

the Midterm Report because the given CFD code can only be run using the NACA 64A006

airfoil. The wing configuration and size are presented in Appendix A: All Wing Planform

Scenarios.

5.2 Wing Parasite Drag

Wing parasite drag was determined with simplified procedure (Bendiksen, 2015) using a

2D drag polar for the NACA 64A010 airfoil because the report for 64A006 was not available.

The simplified parasite drag equation is shown in Equation 7. After using the trendline function

from Microsoft Excel and eliminating the linear term of CL, parasite drag equation was obtained

and is shown in Equation 8. The plot of the airfoil coefficient of lift and drag is shown in Figure

6. The trendline does not take the drag bucket into account because it would be hard to maintain

laminar flow over most of the airfoil.

Equation 7

= + " 2

Equation 8

= 0.005056 + 0.005201 2

15
 With this equation, parasite drag can be approximated depending on how much

coefficient of lift is exerted by the wing. The data of the airfoil drag and lift coefficient was

obtained at Reynolds number of 9 million. The Reynolds number of the wing at various Mach

number and altitude is shown in Table 3. As seen from the highlighted Reynolds number, the

simplified parasite drag equation is valid for very small part of the subsonic flight. Low

Reynolds number wind tunnel test has to be used with caution, but in preliminary design it is a

decent estimate for parasite drag for subsonic flight.

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008
Cd

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Cl
Without Bucket Bucket Poly. (Without Bucket)

Figure 6: Section Drag and Lift Coefficient for NACA 64A010 at Re = 9 x 10 6

16
 Table 3: Wing Reynolds Number at Various Altitude and Mach Number

Altitude (ft)
M 0 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
0.1 10,068,134 8,761,735 7,588,477 5,604,501 4,043,858 2,714,993 2,137,131 1,682,417
0.2 20,136,269 17,523,471 15,176,955 11,209,002 8,087,716 5,429,987 4,274,262 3,364,834
0.3 30,204,403 26,285,206 22,765,432 16,813,503 12,131,575 8,144,980 6,411,393 5,047,250
0.4 40,272,538 35,046,941 30,353,909 22,418,004 16,175,433 10,859,974 8,548,524 6,729,667
0.5 50,340,672 43,808,677 37,942,387 28,022,505 20,219,291 13,574,967 10,685,655 8,412,084
0.6 60,408,807 52,570,412 45,530,864 33,627,006 24,263,149 16,289,960 12,822,786 10,094,501
0.7 70,476,941 61,332,147 53,119,341 39,231,507 28,307,007 19,004,954 14,959,917 11,776,917
0.8 80,545,075 70,093,883 60,707,819 44,836,008 32,350,866 21,719,947 17,097,049 13,459,334
0.9 90,613,210 78,855,618 68,296,296 50,440,509 36,394,724 24,434,940 19,234,180 15,141,751
1 100,681,344 87,617,353 75,884,773 56,045,010 40,438,582 27,149,934 21,371,311 16,824,168

5.3 Fuselage Drag

The parasite drag of the fuselage can be estimated using Equation 9 from Raymers

Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach.

Equation 9

( )
(0 ) = + + &

The subscript c indicates that the value is different for each component. Cf indicates the skin

friction coefficient. This value can be calculated using Equation 10, Equation 11, and Equation

12, from Raymer assuming the flow covering the fuselage turbulent.

Equation 10

0.455
=
(log10 )2.58 (1 + 0.1442 )0.65

FF, the form factor, for fuselage can be approximated as

17
Equation 11

60
= (1 + + )
3 400

where

Equation 12

And l and d are the length and diameter of the fuselage.

Reynolds number can be calculated using Equation 13

Equation 13

where the characteristic length l for fuselage is the fuselage length.

Because Peregrine cruises subsonic at M = 0.95, there will be some wave drag. Assuming

the fuselage has Sears-Haack body, the minimum wave drag can be calculated with Equation 14.

Wave drag coefficient can be obtained after it is normalized with the wing area.

Equation 14

128 2
=
4

Because this is minimum wave drag at supersonic, we would multiply it by a factor of 0.4

to get the wave drag at transonic speed. This factor is completely arbitrary because we were

unable to obtain wave drag at transonic speed.

18
5.4 Tail and Nacelle Drag

Drag on tail and nacelle of the engine can be calculated with flat plate approximation using

Equation 15 and Equation 15.

Equation 15

0.455
=
(log )2.58

The drag from the cross section area of the engine is neglected because the engine already

produces thrust for the airplane.

2% of the total parasite drag is added to account for trim drag (McCormick) because the

lift that the horizontal tail produces is not known. Normally, the induced drag of the horizontal

stabilizer would be used for trim drag.

5.5 Interference Drag

Interference drag from wing-fuselage, tail-fuselage, and engine nacelle-wing can be

calculated by adding 5% of the parasite drag to the total drag.

5.6 Drag Breakdown

After obtaining all the parasite drag values from wing, fuselage, tail, nacelle, and interference

drag, the wing induced and wave drag from the CFD can be added to get the total drag of the

airplane. After the range parameter is maximized, cruise Mach number would be 0.95, with CL =

0.257. Table 4 presents the breakdown of coefficient of drag of the aircraft at Mach 0.95. Letter

p indicates parasite, w wave, and i induced. In this calculation, the multiplier for the fuselage

wave drag is 0.4.

19
 Table 4: Component drag coefficient breakdown.

Component CD %
Wing,i+w 0.01061 40.5%
Wing,p 0.00549 21.0%
Fuselage,p 0.00390 14.9%
Fuselage,w 0.00331 12.7%
Nacelles 0.000744 2.8%
Horizontal Tail 0.000963 3.7%
Vertical Tail 0.000351 1.3%
Interference 0.000300 1.1%
Trim 0.000513 2.0%
CD,total 0.02618 100.0%

5.7 Range Parameter Maximization

To find the optimum range parameter, , a table consisting of all the drag is created at

different Mach number and angle of attack. Table3 presents CL and CD,total for different flight

condition. The complete table of the drag at different Mach number can be found in Appendix F:

Range Parameter Tables based on Mach number and AOA. It can be seen that maximum L/D

occurs at Mach 0.95, angle of attack of 4 degree, and CL = 0.2569. In Table 6, the coefficient of

lift CL are calculated at various altitude and weight to check which altitude would give

coefficient of lift nearest to the value of 0.2569.

Initially, maximum L/D was to be found by using only the output of CFD file, lift

coefficient of the wing and induced and wave drag. However, this would be misleading because

as shown in Figure 7, when the drag of the whole aircraft was added, the graph would shift to the

right, and maximum L/D would not occur at the same point. Total drag of the airplane has to be

added in the range parameter calculation. Only CL/CD at M = 0.95 are plotted because at other

Mach number the graphs overlap each other, i.e. L/D exhibit the same behavior even at different

Mach number and same angle of attack.

20
 0.5000
0.4500 8 8
7 7
0.4000
6 6
0.3500
5 5
0.3000 4.5 4.5
4 4
CL

0.2500
3.5 3.5
0.2000 3 3
0.1500
2 2
0.1000
0.0500
0.0000
0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700
CD
CL/CD,wing M=0.95 CL/CD,aircraft M=0.95

Figure 7: Comparison of CL/CD between Drag from Wing (Parasite, Induced, Wave) and Total Drag from Aircraft

This CL value would determine the optimum climb cruise schedule altitude during cruise.

Although at Mach 0.98 the ML/D is larger, we feel that this velocity is too close to Mach 1,

which has a lot of nonlinear characteristics and large wave drag. The values at Table 5 are

calculated at altitude of 37,000 feet to reflect altitude during the middle of cruise.

21
 Table 5: Range Parameter at Different Mach Number and Angle of Attack with Total Drag

M CL CD,total CL/CD ML/D M CL CD,total CL/CD ML/D

0.85 2 0.1238 0.0183 6.7744 5.7582 0.95 2 0.1287 0.0183 7.0524 6.6998
3 0.1857 0.0206 8.9984 7.6486 3 0.1932 0.0210 9.1854 8.7261
4 0.2468 0.0248 9.9521 8.4593 3.5 0.2252 0.0232 9.7250 9.2388
5 0.3060 0.0311 9.8400 8.3640 4 0.2569 0.0258 9.9422 9.4451
6 0.3614 0.0398 9.0900 7.7265 4.5 0.2880 0.0291 9.8934 9.3988
7 0.4113 0.0503 8.1743 6.9482 5 0.3182 0.0330 9.6523 9.1696
8 0.4541 0.0625 7.2608 6.1717 6 0.3743 0.0425 8.8043 8.3641
0.88 2 0.1251 0.0182 6.8586 6.0356 7 0.4237 0.0539 7.8577 7.4648
3 0.1877 0.0207 9.0693 7.9810 8 0.4640 0.0667 6.9532 6.6055
4 0.2495 0.0251 9.9585 8.7634 0.98 2 0.1305 0.0183 7.1230 6.9805
5 0.3092 0.0316 9.7901 8.6153 3 0.1959 0.0212 9.2223 9.0379
6 0.3647 0.0405 9.0071 7.9262 4 0.2606 0.0263 9.9146 9.7163
7 0.4144 0.0513 8.0782 7.1088 5 0.3228 0.0337 9.5758 9.3843
8 0.4563 0.0637 7.1657 6.3058 6 0.3794 0.0436 8.7092 8.2737
0.9 2 0.1261 0.0182 6.9188 6.2269 7 0.4287 0.0553 7.7584 7.3704
3 0.1892 0.0208 9.1048 8.1943 8 0.4685 0.0683 6.8600 6.5170
4 0.2515 0.0253 9.9577 8.9620
5 0.3116 0.0319 9.7548 8.7793
6 0.3672 0.0410 8.9513 8.0562
7 0.4167 0.0520 8.0146 7.2131
8 0.4581 0.0645 7.1042 6.3938
0.91 2 0.1266 0.0182 6.9468 6.3216
3 0.1899 0.0208 9.1203 8.2994
4 0.2525 0.0254 9.9571 9.0609
5 0.3128 0.0321 9.7358 8.8596
0.92 2 0.1271 0.0182 6.9691 6.4116
3 0.1907 0.0209 9.1369 8.4060
4 0.2535 0.0255 9.9481 9.1523
5 0.3116 0.0319 9.7606 8.9797

22
 Table 6: Coefficient of Lift at Various Cruise Stage and Altitude

Begin Mid End

Cruise Cruise Cruise
Altitude
110000 lb 95091 lb 80181 lb 65272 lb 50364 lb
(ft)
30000 0.2693 0.2328 0.1963 0.1598 0.1233
31000 0.2810 0.2429 0.2048 0.1667 0.1286
32000 0.2952 0.2552 0.2152 0.1751 0.1351
33000 0.3092 0.2673 0.2254 0.1835 0.1416
34000 0.3240 0.2801 0.2362 0.1922 0.1483
35000 0.3396 0.2936 0.2476 0.2015 0.1555
36000 0.3562 0.3079 0.2596 0.2114 0.1631
37000 0.3737 0.3230 0.2724 0.2217 0.1711
38000 0.3920 0.3389 0.2857 0.2326 0.1795
39000 0.4112 0.3555 0.2998 0.2440 0.1883
40000 0.4314 0.3729 0.3145 0.2560 0.1975
41000 0.4526 0.3912 0.3299 0.2685 0.2072
42000 0.4748 0.4104 0.3461 0.2817 0.2174
43000 0.4980 0.4305 0.3630 0.2955 0.2280
44000 0.5224 0.4516 0.3808 0.3100 0.2392
45000 0.5481 0.4738 0.3995 0.3252 0.2509
46000 0.5749 0.4970 0.4191 0.3412 0.2632
47000 0.6031 0.5214 0.4396 0.3579 0.2761

5.8 High Lift Configuration

The type of high lift devices needed for Peregrine can be found using Figure 5.3 from

Raymers Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. At quarter chord swept angle of 57.72 and

aspect ratio of 5.9, triple slotted flap and slat are required to achieve CL,max of 1.8. If a clean

leading edge is desired, double slotted flaps can give a CL,max of around 1.5. Figure2 shows how

these high lift configuration was decided.

23
 Figure 8: Maximum-Lift Trends vs Sweep Angle for Several Classes of Aircraft

5.9 Span-wise Distribution

Span-wise distribution of lift is important to find out which part of the wing would stall

first. At 400 feet, the aircraft would retract its flap and keep its altitude constant. One possible

combination would be M = 0.34 and of = 12.3 to get a coefficient of lift of 0.621. Although

the angle is large, the important feature about this distribution is that the peak is at around 0.5 of

the 2y/b. By plotting the lift distribution at various Mach number and angle of attack, it can be

seen that as angle of attack increases, the stall characteristics would improve. Since subsonic

cruise is at angle of attack of 4, the peak occurs at 2y/b around 0.88. This can be a problem if

tip stall occurs. The observed slight jump at the value of cl(y)/CL at 2y/b = 0.99 is caused by

instability from the CFD calculation and can be ignored.

24
 1.4

1.2

1
M = 0.95 AoA = 4

M = 0.9 AoA = 4
0.8
cl(y)/CL

M = 0.85 AoA = 4

0.6 M = 0.34 AoA = 12.3

M = 0.95 AoA = 2
0.4
M = 0.95 AoA = 6

M = 0.95 AoA = 8
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
2y/b

Figure 9: Spanwise Lift Distribution at various Mach Number and Angle of Attack

5.10 Conclusion and Future Work

For parasite drag of the airfoil, wind tunnel data with higher Reynolds number is needed to

accurately estimate the parasite drag. Transonic drag for fuselage and other aircraft components

also need experimental data. The drag presented here is most likely overestimated because of the

wave drag. Lift from the tails are also unknown, thus more details can be achieved by calculating

the induced drag from tail. For high lift configuration, a clean leading edge is desirable, as

argued by Gulfstream. Due to high sweep angle, it might not be possible to achieve the desirable

CL,max. More updated calculation needs to be done for takeoff performance with lower CL,max.

One structural issue would be high wing loading value, 107 lb/ft2 at takeoff weight. This can be

an issue, but perhaps future technological advancement in structural engineering can help to

realize this wing. Finally, looking at the span-wise lift distribution, the wing is prone to tip stall.

25
One possible solution is to apply washout so that the tip has lower incidence angle. This washout

cannot be applied to our current CFD program, and thus future work to add washout or even on

the CFD can be helpful. The wing loading is also a possible structural issue, with wing loading

of around 107 lb/ft2 at takeoff weight.

This wing planform was designed fully to support supersonic range. The drag calculated in

this section is most likely an overestimation of the actual drag. Even with this, we were able to

meet the 4,500 nm range in subsonic cruise. Thus this airplane has no problem meeting the

specified range at subsonic flight.

26
6 Supersonic Aerodynamics

The EB1609 Peregrine had a design goal of traveling at least Mach 1.6 for a range of

4500nmi to greatly decrease the travel time for its passengers. The supersonic aerodynamics of

the wing are calculated with this in mind, optimizing for supersonic speeds and for range by

maximizing initial L/D of the wing. The desired cruise altitude is from 41,000ft to 49,000ft as a

climbing cruise, and with a service ceiling set at 51,000ft. The following pages walk through the

design considerations and basic calculations for the EB1609 Peregrine.

6.1 Wing Design

This section covers the wing design of the EB1609, starting with the initial configuration

and optimizations made using a Computational Fluid Dynamics program, or CFD.

6.1.1 First Design Iteration

The first iteration of the EB1609 Peregrine had the dimensions found in Table 7. This

produced a final L/D of around 2.5 after the initial calculations. While the parasitic drag on the

fuselage was found to be overestimated in these calculations, these calculations also did not

include wave drag on the fuselage nor drag on the engines. The maximum L/D of this wing,

only considering wave and induced drag on the wing, was 5.65. This is too low a starting point

considering additional drags will need to be added, and the desired L/D at Mach 1.6 to meet the

range of 4500nmi was closer to 7. Thus, a new wing design is needed.

27
 Table 7: The initial wing design for the EB1609

Initial Wing Sizing

In Design Handout - NACA 64A006
First Iteration Size
Half Wingspan (b/2) 42.5 ft
Root to Tip Ratio (Ct/Cr) 0.3886
Aspect Ratio (AR) 7.2015
Sweep Angle, Leading Edge 37 deg
Sweep Angle, Trailing Edge 26.98 deg
Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) 12.566 ft
eta, MAC 0.4266
Leading Edge Location, MAC 0.8037
(X,le,MAC)
Wing Area (S,w) 1003.26 ft2
Wing Root Chord (Cr) 17 ft
Wing Tip Chord(Ct) 6.6062 ft

6.1.2 Wing Planform Design

Using the CFD code, different wing planforms could be run at different Mach numbers

and angles of attack (AoA). The output of the CFD code gave data such as CL, CD, and the

maximum L/D for the wing. Various wing planforms were run through the code at a Mach of 1.6

and at varying angles of attack in order to determine the wing that would provide the greatest

L/D for supersonic speeds. It should also be noted that the airfoil, the NACA 64A006, did not

change from the first design iteration.

A total of 25 different wing planforms were run through the CFD code, the total list of

which can be found in Appendix A: All Wing Planform Scenarios. Select wings and their CL,

CD, and L/D results are shown below in Table 8. Throughout the tests, the angle of attack of 3.2

degrees gave the largest L/D value for the wing. However, the angle of attack of 2.5 degrees is

closer to the actual cruise AoA and is displayed as well.

28
 Table 8: Selected wing planforms and their results

M=1.6 Current Wing1 Wing2 Wing3 Wing4 Wing12 Wing13

(b/2)/Cr 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 2 2
LE,sweep 37 45 40 50 50 55 59
TE,sweep 26.98 35.754 29.21 42.357 40.089 46.483 52.202
Taper 0.3886 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.25 0.25

AoA 3.2
CL 0.175 0.179 0.177 0.181 0.176 0.180 0.195
CD,i+w 0.031 0.027 0.029 0.025 0.024 0.021 0.020
L/D,i+w 5.653 6.689 6.123 7.393 7.341 8.426 9.997
Delta L/D baseline 1.036 0.469 1.740 1.688 2.772 4.343
AoA2.5
CL 0.137 0.140 0.139 0.142 0.138 0.141 0.152
CD,i+w 0.028 0.023 0.025 0.021 0.020 0.018 0.016
L/D,i+w 4.858 6.097 5.507 6.841 6.784 7.931 9.598
Delta L/D baseline 1.239 0.650 1.983 1.927 3.073 4.741

Wing14 Wing15 Wing17 Wing19 Wing24 Wing25

(b/2)/Cr 2 2 1.5 1.6 2 2
LE,sweep 55 59 55 56 59 59
TE,sweep 48.446 52.733 43.875 47.105 53.252 53.759
Taper 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.4

AoA 3.2
CL 0.178 0.197 0.171 0.172 0.197 0.198
CD,i+w 0.023 0.020 0.021 0.021 0.020 0.020
L/D,i+w 7.816 9.903 8.094 8.109 9.823 9.759
Delta L/D 2.162 4.250 2.440 2.456 4.169 4.105
AoA 2.5
CL 0.139 0.153 0.133 0.134 0.155 0.156
CD,i+w 0.019 0.016 0.018 0.018 0.016 0.017
L/D,i+w 7.218 9.505 7.547 7.533 9.460 9.415
Delta L/D 2.361 4.648 2.689 2.675 4.603 4.557

Currently the best three wings are Wing 13, Wing15, and Wing24, strictly based upon

maximum L/D as found in Table 8.

29
 Through comparisons of Wings 1 and 2, it can be seen that a higher leading edge sweep

produces a larger L/D value by a significant amount. Wings 3 and 4 show that a change of span

does affect the L/D, with the minimal span having the higher L/D value, but not as significantly

as the leading edge sweep. Wings 13 and 15 show the effect of taper ratio, with the smaller taper

ratio found in Wing 13 producing a greater L/D than the one in Wing 15. These trends held true

through all the wing iterations, and thus provide the general trend that the wing with the

maximum L/D has a maximized leading edge sweep angle, minimized span, and minimized

taper.

There is a limit to these maximums and minimums, however, as tip stall needs to be

considered as well. If the wing is too swept with too small a taper ratio, the tip of the wings will

stall, causing the pilots to lose control of the plane. A first order estimate of tip stall is to simply

plot the calculated three-dimensional (3D) CL over the two-dimensional (2D) CL, both provided

by the CFD code, compared to the location on the wing. This tip stall graph can be found in

Figure 10 for some of the various wings run through the CFD program.

30
 2D-cl/3D-CL versus Wing Location
1.6

1.4

1.2
Wing12
Wing14
cl/CL

1
Wing15
Wing17
0.8 Wing19
Wing24

0.6

0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Wing Location (1/Cr)

Figure 10: 2D coefficient of lift over the 3D coefficient of lift compared to location on the wing;
Data at AoA 3.2 degrees and Mach of 1.6
Due to the nature of the swept wings, most peak at around 0.9, or 90% of the wing span

measured from the root chord. This is rather close to the tip of the wing, and so the desired wing

would preferably peak the earliest. A sudden spike in the graph is also not desirable, and a

smooth curve is more ideal. In this respect, Wing15 and Wing24 are the best for avoiding tip

stall. They are smoother curves, with essentially no spike, that peak at closer to 0.8, or 80% of

the wing span. Wing13 has the same general nature as these other two. Between the three

however, Wing24 has a better curve regarding tip stall at subsonic speeds, as mentioned earlier

in the report.

31
 Thus, Wing24 was chosen as the wing planform for the EB1609 based upon high L/D

and best avoidance of tip stall at both supersonic and subsonic. The CFD outputs of Wing 24 at

a Mach of 1.6 as well as Mach 1.5 are found in Appendix B: Wing24s Mach 1.6 CFD Output

and Appendix C: Wing24s Mach 1.5 CFD Output.

6.1.3 Root Chord Sizing

The CFD gives results in terms of root chord, so the next step is to size the root chord,

which will then size the other parameters of the wing based off the Wing24 planform. The main

restriction on root chord sizing is wing loading; although a smaller root chord is ideal for a

greater CL, it will also produce greater wing loading. Desired wing loading is closer to 80lbs,

with up to 100lbs being acceptable. Table 9 below shows iterations of the root chord size in units

of feet, with the resulting CLs, max L/D, and wing loads. This is using a start-of-cruise weight

of 102,192lbs, a Mach of 1.6, and at a start-of-cruise altitude of 43,000ft. The decision to start at

an altitude of 43,000ft instead of 41,000ft for cruise will be discussed later in the report.

The CLs were calculated with the standard trim equation shown below.

Equation 16: Standard lift equation for trim

1 1
= = 2 = 2
2 2

1
102192 = (1.4)(340.53)(1.6)2 (1026.7)
2

where is air density at altitude, is airspeed velocity, is 1.4 for air, and is air pressure at

given altitude. The value of at the altitude of 43,000ft is 340.53lbs/ft2.

32
 Table 9: Root chord sizing and its effect on CL and wing loading. Values obtained using a
102,192lb start weight at an altitude of 43,000ft and a Mach of 1.6

Cr (ft) S (ft2) CL L/D, W/S

max (lbs/ft2)
15.0 607.5 0.2757 9.095 168.2
17.0 780.3 0.2146 9.779 131.0
17.5 826.9 0.2025 9.810 123.6
18.0 874.8 0.1914 9.808 116.8
18.5 924.1 0.1812 9.748 110.6
19.0 974.7 0.1718 9.646 104.8
19.5 1026.7 0.1631 9.551 99.5
20.0 1080.0 0.1551 9.463 94.6
20.5 1134.7 0.1476 9.270 90.1
21.0 1190.7 0.1406 9.087 85.8
21.5 1248.1 0.1342 8.916 81.9
22.0 1306.8 0.1281 8.757 78.2
24.0 1555.2 0.1077 7.921 65.7

From this table, it is seen that anything under 19.5ft in root chord pushes the wing

loading to over 100lbs/ft2. This leaves the root chord sizing to be 19.5ft or above, considering

100lbs/ft2 is already close to what is deemed acceptable wing loading.

Another aspect to consider is the ideal CL for the maximum L/D. The results for Wing24

are displayed in Figure 11, below.

33
 Max L/D versus CL for Wing24
11.000
10.000
9.000
L/D max

8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
CL

Figure 11: Maximum L/D versus CL for the Wing24 planform

The curve depicts the max L/D to be close to 10 for the value of about 0.2 CL. While a

root chord length of 17.5 produces a CL of 0.2025 and a max L/D of 9.81, it has a weight loading

of 123.6lbs/ft2 and therefore cannot be used. Keeping under the wing loading, the value of 19.5ft

for the root chord length should be used as it produces the highest CL and L/D while obeying

this limit. Normally, a bit more compromise would be used, but considering the ideal weight

loading is actually 80lbs/ft2 and 100lbs/ft2 is considered the upper limit of what is acceptable, the

weight limit will be more strictly observed to ensure the plane wing is not overloaded to an

unsafe level.

Thus, the root chord value of 19.5ft is used, as it produces the highest L/D while staying

under the wing loading limits.

6.1.4 Wing Specifications

The final wing design is displayed in Table 10 below, using the wing planform of

Wing24 and the root chord length of 19.5ft. Definitions of variables can be found in Table 7.

34
 Table 10: Current wing specifications for the EB1609

Cr Ct S b/2 Taper AR LE TE MAC eta, X,LE,

(ft) (ft) (ft2) (ft) (Ct/Cr) sweep sweep (ft) MAC MAC
(deg) (deg)
19.5 6.825 1026.68 39 0.35 5.926 59 53.252 14.18 0.4198 1.3972

6.1.5 Other Wing Considerations

Due to the highly swept and largely tapered style of the wing, its structural integrity must

be considered. There is no present-day technology that allows for this wing to be built and be

structurally sound. This is why supersonic aircraft have delta wings instead of arrow wings; the

extra area provides structural stability at the cost of greater drag. However, advancements in

composites, materials strength, and rapid manufacturing will allow for this wing to be viable in

the future.

6.2 Lift and Drag

Lift and drag are calculated for a Mach of 1.6, as per the aircraft design goal. Using a

start-of-cruise weight of 102,192lbs and a starting altitude of 43,000ft, the following values in

Table 11 were calculated. AC stands for aerodynamic center in the table below.

Table 11: Aerodynamic values for the current wing configuration

CL AoA CM,cr/4 CM,mac CD,i+w L/D,i+w MaxMach CL,alpha X,AC AC as

(deg) %MAC
0.1631 2.636 -0.389 -0.0335 0.0171 9.551 2.411 3.546 1.978 79.83

From these values, the total drag of the aircraft can be calculated.

35
6.2.1 Wing Drag

The given induced and wave drag for the wing at Mach 1.6, output by the CFD, is

0.0171. While this is the bulk of the wing drag, parasitic drag, namely in the form of skin

friction, still needs to be accounted for.

The parasitic drag is calculated in the same method as for subsonic, using the high

Reynolds number graph for the given airfoil, the NACA 64A006. The Reynolds number is

calculated as follows:

Equation 17: Reynolds Number

( )
=

(1548 14.18) 7
= 0.000533 = 41,216,218 = 4.12 10

where is the kinematic viscosity of air at the given altitude. The Reynolds number indicates

that the flow over the wing is turbulent, as expected. Thus, the highest available Reynolds

number on the airfoil graph is used to calculate parasitic drag as it indicates turbulent flow. The

equation produced after the plot is digitized is

Equation 18: Parasitic wing drag

= 0.00506 + 0.0052 2

This equation is valid for the airfoil, regardless of other varying factors. This equation

can then be used to find the CD,parasitic for the wing simply by plugging in CL.

0.00506 + 0.0052(0.1631)2 = 0.0052

The overall wing drag is the sum of the induced, wave, and parasitic, resulting in a final value of

CD,wing=0.0223.

36
6.2.2 Fuselage Drag

The fuselage drag comes from parasitic drag, again in the form of skin friction, as well as

wave drag. First, the parasitic drag involves the calculation of Reynolds number for the

fuselage, which has a length of 110ft and a diameter of 8ft. Using the same Equation 17 above

with the same V and values, only changing the MAC to be the fuselage length, the Reynolds

number becomes 3.20 108 . This is also turbulent flow, and so a turbulent flow equation shall

be used.

Equation 19: Turbulent boundary layer skin friction

= 0.455( )2.58
10

The Reynolds number in inserted into the equation to determine the CF, or skin friction

coefficient and in this case parasitic drag. This returns the value of 0.00182. See Future

Improvements section for additional comments on this value and why it is slightly off mark

numerically and rather off mark conceptually, in particular regards to shape correction factor.

The wave drag equation for the fuselage comes from the class notes, equation 7.73

reiterated below here as Equation 20. Here, Vol is volume.

Equation 20: Wave drag

1
128 (2 2 ) 2
= 4

128( 2 )2 128(42 110)2

, = 1 2 = 4 = 1027 1104 = 0.00829
(2 )

This is a first order calculation of the fuselage wave drag, as it assumes a Sears-Haack

body, or a fuselage that perfectly follows the Area Rule of gradually increasing to the maximum

37
diameter before gradually decreasing again. To more accurately calculate this value would take

heavy integration.

Combining both values gives a total fuselage coefficient of drag of 0.0101.

6.2.3 Engine Drag

Engine drag is very similar to fuselage drag, as they are similar shapes. However, wave

drag is not included in the drag calculations, as the engine is not a static object in the airflow like

the fuselage. The engine is taking in air as the aircraft flies, thereby reducing the wave drag to a

minimal factor. Thus, only parasitic drag will be considered on the two engines.

The engines are 5.58ft in diameter and 20ft in length. Their Reynolds number, calculated

with the same method as the fuselage and wing with 20ft as the length, is 5.81 107 . Using

Equation 19 again, and multiplying it by 2 for two engines, gives a value of 0.003635. Include

the drag from the nacelles, which is approximated as 0.0012 as given in the McCormick

textbook, the total CD for the engines is 0.004835.

6.2.4 Tail Drag

The horizontal tail is approximately 22% of the wing by planform. It is the same design

as the wing, using Wing24 as the planform. Thus, for the horizontal tail, the parasitic, wave, and

induced drag can be found by multiplying the wing drag by 0.22. These values total to be

0.004896 for the horizontal tails coefficient of drag.

The vertical tail has a similar area but different design. Typically, vertical tails produce

less drag than the horizontal ones, producing about 70% of what the horizontal tail produces

based off of current subsonic aircraft values found in the McCormick textbook. 70% of the 22%

38
for the horizontal tail is about 15% of the wing drag values. Rounded up slightly to 16%, this

produces a value of 0.003561 for the coefficient of drag for the vertical tail.

Together, the tail both vertical and horizontal adds up to a CD value of 0.008457.

While a good first estimation, these numbers should be evaluated more in-depth with

later iterations of the design. The tail uses a different airfoil than the wing, using the standard tail

airfoil of NACA0012 instead, therefore producing different results. However, these numbers are

an appropriate first order estimate for drag produced by the tail.

6.2.5 Interference Drag

Interference drag is approximated as 5% of the parasitic drag values. Considering the

interferences between the wing and fuselage, tail and fuselage, and engine and nacelle, this value

totals to be 0.000532.

6.2.6 Total Drag and L/D

Adding these values together, the total coefficient of drag value is 0.04618, as shown in

Table 12. This is then used to find the total L/D for the aircraft. The lift provided from the tail is

taken into account, again as 22% of the wing lift, providing a total CL of 0.199. This produces a

final L/D of 4.309.

39
 Table 12: Total CD and final L/D

CD,wing 0.02225
CD,fuse 0.01010
CD,eng 0.00484
CD,inter 0.00053
CD,tail 0.00846
CD, total 0.04618
CL,wing 0.16311
CL,tail 0.03588
CL,total 0.19900
L/D 4.30890

This L/D falls short of the requested L/D of around 7 to meet the range design goal.

Instead, this L/D gives a range of about 2900nmi.

This low L/D is simply because the drag at supersonic flight is very high. In particular,

wave drag increases exponentially. For supersonic flight, pressure differentials kick in

significantly more as shocks fly across the aircraft, producing a significant amount of wave drag.

This is shown in Figure 12, which shows the breakdown of drag by type. Wave drag (combined

with induced drag) constitutes over half the drag on the aircraft.

In addition, Figure 13 shows the breakdown of drag by aircraft component, where the

wing is very predominant in drag. This chart seems a little off, however, as the drag from the

fuselage and the engines should account for a greater percentage of the total drag.

40
 Drag Breakdown by Type

4%

27%
Parasitic
Wave and Induced
Other

69%

Figure 12: Drag breakdown by type

Drag Breakdown by Component

Wing

18%
1% Fuselage

48% Engines
11%

Interference

22%
Tail (Horizontal and
Vertical)

Figure 13: Drag breakdown by component

6.2.7 Other Considerations

In an attempt to raise the L/D and thus the range, a Mach of 1.5 was considered, in the

hopes that a lower drag value will produce a higher L/D. The calculations were redone in their

entirety with Mach being equal to 1.5. The results are found in the table below.

41
 Table 13: Mach 1.5 versus Mach 1.6 considerations

M=1.5 M=1.6
CL,total 0.2264 0.1990
CD,total 0.0431 0.0462
L/D 5.2539 4.3089
M*(L/D) 7.8809 6.8942

With the same planform wing at Mach 1.5, the max L/D was close to 11. This is reflected

in the CL and CD totals, where the CL is higher and the CD is lower than at Mach 1.6. The total

M*(L/D) is greater as well. However, despite the improved L/D, the range goal of 4500nmi was

still not met. And since flying at Mach 1.6 is another design goal, it was decided to keep the

Mach at 1.6. This ensures that at least one design goal is met, considering the range was not met

in either condition.

Finally, the starting cruise altitude was changed from the initial 41,000ft to 43,000ft. This

is again in the goal of obtaining a greater L/D and an extended range. At 41,000ft, the

atmospheric pressure is greater, thereby decreasing the CL as well as the overall L/D, which

drops to 4.06. It was decided to increase the cruise altitude to 43,000ft to gain a bit more L/D as

well as a bit more range since it did not seem to cause too much strain on the other aircraft

parameters such as propulsion.

6.3 Flight Cruise Profile Estimate

This section provides a very rough calculation of the L/D as it changes throughout the

cruise flight. It includes a steady weight loss throughout the cruise as the aircraft climbs from

43,000ft to 49,000ft. Nominally, it should include a speed increase as well, but for these

calculations the Mach is assumed to be constants at 1.6. Thus, due to the constant speed, these

numbers are simply a first order estimate.

42
 Table 14: Flight cruise profile; L/D estimations

Alt (ft) P (psf) Weight (lbs) CL CD L/D

43000 340.53 102192 0.1631 0.0462 4.3089
43500 332.48 97873 0.1600 0.0458 4.2606
44000 324.62 93554 0.1566 0.0454 4.2077
44500 316.94 89235 0.1530 0.0450 4.1456
45000 309.45 84916 0.1492 0.0447 4.0731
45500 302.13 80597 0.1450 0.0443 3.9941
46000 294.99 76278 0.1405 0.0439 3.9080
46500 288.01 71959 0.1358 0.0434 3.8144
47000 281.2 67640 0.1307 0.0430 3.7124
47500 274.56 63321 0.1254 0.0425 3.6013
48000 268.07 59002 0.1196 0.0420 3.4726
48500 221.73 54683 0.1340 0.0433 3.7793
49000 255.54 50364 0.1071 0.0412 3.1755

6.4 Transonic Drag

Table 15 provides an estimate of transonic drag at a constant AoA of 3.2, using the same

methods and equations as outlined above. The CL value was taken from the raw data runs of the

CFD code for simplicity, as this is only a first order estimate. The raw data output from the CFD

runs can be found in Appendix D: Transonic CFD Output for Varying Machs at AoA 3.2deg.

Figure 14 charts the L/D data from Table 15

43
 Table 15: Transonic drag estimates
Mach CL CD,i+w CD,wing CD,fuse CD,eng CD,inter CD,tails CL,tails CD,total L/D delta L/D
0.80 0.195 0.006 0.011 0.007 0.005 0.0004 0.004 0.039 0.029 8.150 ---
0.85 0.198 0.006 0.011 0.007 0.005 0.0006 0.005 0.040 0.029 8.184 0.034
0.90 0.202 0.006 0.012 0.007 0.005 0.0006 0.005 0.040 0.029 8.246 0.061
0.95 0.206 0.007 0.012 0.007 0.005 0.0006 0.005 0.041 0.030 8.286 0.041
1.00 0.211 0.007 0.013 0.007 0.005 0.0006 0.005 0.042 0.031 8.283 -0.003
1.05 0.216 0.008 0.013 0.007 0.005 0.0006 0.005 0.043 0.032 8.210 -0.073
1.10 0.220 0.009 0.014 0.007 0.005 0.0006 0.006 0.044 0.033 8.101 -0.109
1.15 0.224 0.010 0.015 0.007 0.005 0.0005 0.006 0.045 0.034 7.998 -0.103
1.20 0.229 0.011 0.016 0.007 0.005 0.0005 0.006 0.046 0.035 7.826 -0.172
1.25 0.234 0.012 0.018 0.007 0.005 0.0005 0.007 0.047 0.038 7.465 -0.361
1.30 0.237 0.014 0.020 0.007 0.005 0.0005 0.008 0.047 0.040 7.056 -0.408
1.35 0.239 0.016 0.022 0.007 0.005 0.0005 0.009 0.048 0.043 6.671 -0.386

Figure 14 shows the effect that Mach 1 has on L/D. This is the traditional transition value

between supersonic and subsonic, and it is visible to see on the figure. Up until that point, L/D

was slowly increasing in value, but once the Mach value reached 1, L/D started to decrease. The

L/D after 1 exponentially gets worse as Mach continues to increase. This is due to the increase of

shocks across the aircraft and therefore a large rise in wave drag.

44
 Transonic: L/D versus Mach
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
L/D

6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
Mach

Figure 14: Transonic L/D versus Mach number

6.5 Changes from the First Design Iteration

The most drastic change from the first design iteration is the new wing planform. The

new wing provides a higher max L/D, which is necessary considering the large amounts of drag

at supersonic speeds. While the overall L/D increased, despite a significant increase in drag as

more components were accounted for, the range goal still could not be met. The starting cruise

altitude changed from 41,000ft to 43,000ft as well.

6.6 Future Improvements

Improvements can always be made to designs, even preliminary ones. In this case, there

are a number of changes that should be made to the current specifications along with a

continuous, iterative improvement in L/D where possible.

45
 First, the incidence angles on the wing and horizontal tail should be included in the CL,

CD, and L/D calculations. Even though the angles are between 1 and 3 degrees, a small

difference in numbers could mean more nautical miles of range.

Next, a couple mistakes were made in the calculation of the drag coefficients for the

fuselage and the engines. These mistakes were found after the team numerical design freeze, and

thus could not be correct for this iteration. However, for the parasite drag, both the engines and

the fuselage are approximated as flat plates. This of course is an error, as they are cylindrical, not

flat like the wings. The correct formula would be to take the CF calculated, multiply that value

by the shape correction factor (for preliminary design that is approximately 1.2 the extra 0.05 is

included in a separate interference calculation) and then multiply by the ratio of planform areas,

as in equation 7.38 in the class notes. This produces a CF value of 0.003718 for the fuselage, for

a total fuselage CD of 0.012. For the engines, this actually decreases the CD from 0.004835 to

0.004174. This changes the total CD for the aircraft to 0.047422 with an L/D of 4.1963, a total

change of -0.1126 in L/D and a change of +0.001222 in CD. While minimal numerically, there is

a large conceptual difference in calculation.

Overall, the calculations in the report above are all first order. The fuselage does not fit

the description of a Sears-Haack body, as shown in the aircraft layout section, yet this equation is

the best way to measure the wave drag without heavy integration. The tail sizings and drags

should be more precise than general percentages, but again, they are a good first order estimate.

The bottom line future improvement, however, is the necessity to increase L/D in any way

possible. Whether this is sweeping the wing farther, allowing for more wing loading, adding

winglets, or adding anti-drag devices, something should be done to improve the range.

46
7 Propulsion and Performance

7.1 Engine Selection, Background, Motivation

BruinJet BJ220 Turboan (Modified)

This engine was chosen due to the fact that it provided good specifications for what our

plane needed. A low-bypass turbofan engine was chosen due to the compromise between noise,

weight, thrust, and efficiency. Turbofans are more efficient over pure jets at supersonic speeds

up to Mach 1.9. As calculations were made for rate of climb and ceiling calculations, if was

noticed that the available thrust from the original engine would not be enough at cruise altitude

in order to overcome the drag at supersonic (M = 1.6) speeds. As a result, the engines were

modified, such that the mass flow rate of air into the engine was increased by almost 3 times in

order to surpass the required thrust at cruise altitude. Another factor that went into the sizing of

the engine is the service ceiling, being that it is when the rate of climb is equal to 500 fpm, which

was, according to the specs, at an altitude of 51,000 feet. The penultimate factor that went into

sizing the engine was for the plane to be able to reach the maximum operating Mach number.

Thus, through iterating the mass flow rate through the engine, a service ceiling of about 51,000

feet was met and surpassed, and the maximum operating Mach number of 1.9 was met. Engine

specifications at various altitudes, Mach numbers, and sizes were found using the PERF program

from the Elements of Propulsion. In comparing the Peregrine and an existing state-of-the-art

subsonic BJ such as the G650, it is important to note that the Peregrine is also capable of

supersonic flight. In terms of raw speed, obviously the Peregrine can fly faster. This is due to

the fact that it is designed for supersonic flight and the engines are sized so that they can handle

supersonic flight, while the G650 cannot. Optimizing for supersonic flight, however, provided

many trade-offs, such as the range and the fuel efficiency of the aircraft. Compared with the

47
G650, the Peregrine has a smaller range in both supersonic and subsonic flight due to the fact

that the wings and fuselage were optimized for supersonic flight, creating higher drag at lower

Mach numbers. Also, since the engines were sized to handle a maximum operating Mach number

of 1.9 on the Peregrine, they consume more fuel in comparison to the engines that the G650

have. As a result, while the Peregrine provides more speed, the G650 provides more range and

fuel efficiency.

Table 16: Basic engine specifications (for one engine)

Static Thrust Bypass Ratio Weight (lb) Inlet Diameter (ft) Mass Flow Rate (lb/s)
(lbf)
63,587 1.59 4,740 4.81 865

7.2 Takeoff/Landing Calculations:

In order to calculate takeoff distance, the ground roll distance as well as the air distance

in order to clear a 35 foot obstacle. The assumptions made were that there was no headwind,

was set to .0325 for a runway, was set to .5, as well as that we are 40% max thrust at takeoff.

Calculating density at sea level, using

Equation 21

We are able to find the stall speed, which is found using

Equation 22

111000
= = = 238.39/
1 1
2 2 (.002378)(1026.8)(1.6)

48
We determined the aircrafts stall speed at CL,max of 1.8 and added a safety factor of 20% so that

the lift-off speed is VLOF = 1.2 Vs= 286.06 ft/s. Using the ground roll distance formula, with the

assumptions that had been made:

Equation 23

( )2
=
( ) . 5 2
2{( ) }

(286.06 0)2
=
46400 (. 0317 (. 02)(. 483)). 5(. 002378)((.7 286.06)2 )
2(32.2) {(111000 .02) 110000 )
1026.8

the ground roll distance was calculated to be 3272.31 ft. Then, the air distance needs to be

calculated using

Equation 24
2
22 111000 286.062 286.062
= [ + ] = [ + 35]
( ) 2 (46400 3168.52) 2(32.2)

Where Davg was taken from

Equation 25

1 2 1
= , = (. 002378)(286.06)2 (1026.8)(0.0317) = 3168.52
2 2

Where CD,LOF was taken from the subsonic aerodynamic calculations and was equal to 0.0317.

The air distance was calculated to be 89.87 ft. Thus adding the ground roll distance and the air

distance gives a total takeoff distance of 3362.18 ft, which is much less than the required 6000 ft.

Setting the total takeoff distance to when the aircraft clears a 35 foot obstacle as directed by the

FAR regulations, the aircraft was able to meet the requirements set in the specifications. The

49
takeoff distance is much less than the required distance due to the amount of thrust that the

engines output compared to the original BJ220 engines.

In calculating landing distance, it was calculated that the Peregrine would be able to land

in 3750 ft. Several assumptions were made, including that the runway friction coefficient, , was

.02 for rolling and b is .5 during braking and that the touchdown velocity, VTD was 1.3 Vstall and

that braking occurs when the airspeed is VB = 0.8VTD. First, the stall speed was calculated from

Equation 22, which allowed us to calculate both VTD and VB. Therefore, using

Equation 26

49435
= = = 0.947
1 2 1
(0.002378)(1027)(206.8)2
2 2

Equation 27

49435
= = = 5444
/ 9.08

Equation 28

5444
= = = 0.104
1 2 1
(0.002378)(1027)(206.8)2
2 2

Which allows us to calculate the coefficients with the assumption that thrust varies with the

airspeed according to the rule: T = T0 aV2.

Equation 29

0 0
= ( ) = 32.2 ( 0.02) = 0.644
49435

50
Equation 30

1
= ( ( ) + )
2

32.2 1
= ( (0.002378)(1027)(0.104 (. 02)(0.947)) + 0) = 6.785 105
49435 2

Which then lets us use

Equation 31
2
1 1 0.0644 (6.785 105 )(206.8)2
= ln ( 2 ) = ln ( )
2 2 (6.785 105 ) 0.0644 (6.785 105 )(165.45)2

= 2572

Then for braking distance, we recalculate A and B, since changes to b, using Equation 29 and

Equation 30. These constants we then plug into the landing roll distance after braking:

Equation 32

1 2 1 16.1 (0.000293507)(165.45)2
2 = ln ( )= ln ( )
2 2(0.000293507) 16.1

= 1178

Therefore, we can use

Equation 33

= + 2 = 2572 + 1178 = 3750

Where the weight was taken as the landing weight, the wing area was taken from aerodynamics,

L/D was taken from subsonic aero, and CL,max is from subsonic aero. Similar to the takeoff

procedure, the landing has two parts: the terminal glide over a 50 ft obstacle to touchdown and a

landing ground run. The flare portion of landing is neglected and it is assumed that the aircraft

touches down at a slightly high sped than it would after flaring. All in all, the total distance to

land ended up being only 3750 feet.

51
7.3 Range

In order to calculate range at a Mach of 1.6, the equation for range was taken from

chapter 2 of the MAE 154A slides:

Equation 34

0 1513 101845
= ( ) ( ) ln ( ) = ( ) (4.3) ln ( ) (. 000164579) = 2814
1 . 000268 50364

In which the initial weight at the start of supersonic cruise is 101845 lb, the final weight at the

end of cruise is 50364 lb, the lift over drag ratio is 4.3, the velocity is about 1513 ft/s, and the

thrust specific fuel consumption for our specific engine is .965 1/hr. Thus, plugging all these

numbers in and converting from feet to nautical miles with the conversion factor of .000164579,

the range for our aircraft is 2,814 nautical miles. This range is less than the specified range on the

initial specification sheet. It has been determined that the initial specifications sheets range is

almost impossible to reach. From the CFD data, the L/D ratio is pretty low. The only way in

which the range would be met is if there was an engine that was very efficient at supersonic

Mach numbers, leaving a small TSFC at Mach 1.6, because the weight ratio does not affect the

range very much and the velocity doesnt change unless cruise speed changes. Also, if there was

a better way to optimize the wing in order to increase the L/D. If too much fuel is added, the EB

1609 might not be able to meet the takeoff requirements. It is also worth it to note that the

subsonic range for our aircraft is 4,200 nautical miles, which is still a little less than the initial

specification sheet range.

7.4 Rate of Climb and Ceiling

The specification sheet defined that at SLSD conditions, the rate of climb needed to be

3500 fpm. According to the formula

52
Equation 35

( ) (41760 3168.52)(286.06)
= = = 60 = 5967.35/
111000

Where thrust, drag, weight, and velocity are all defined at takeoff velocity and with a sample

calculation at liftoff. Assuming that, from the takeoff calculations, that velocity is equal to lift-

off velocity, and that the thrust available is the same as during lift-off, at lift-off velocity, the rate

of climb at SLSD conditions is 5967.35 ft/min, which is greater than the required 3500 ft/min.

As we increase our throttle setting, the rate of climb will increase even more, until the plane is

near the service ceiling. In the formula, thrust varies with velocity as well as altitude, drag varies

with velocity and altitude, and weight varies with flight time. Thus to calculate rate of climb,

each variable was iterated over until all of the values normalized.

Rate of Climb vs. Altitude

25000

20000
Rate of Climb (ft/min)

15000

10000

5000

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
-5000
Altitude (ft)

Figure 15: Rate of climb vs. altitude.

For ceiling calculations, the specification sheet defined the service ceiling at 51,000 ft. Thus, the

engine was sized such that, from the rate of climb formula above, it would be able to be

approximately equal to 500 ft/min. With the engine chosen, the Peregrine will have more than

enough thrust to be able to reach this. Using linear interpolation from Figure 1, the altitude at

which it reaches the service ceiling is 54,600 ft. Also, using linear interpolation, the absolute

53
ceiling, or the altitude at which the Peregrine has a rate of climb of 0 ft/min (theoretically), is

55,675 ft. This is due to the sizing of the engines, in that they were sized bigger than they needed

to be for a service ceiling of 51,000 ft due to the restraint on max cruising speed.

7.5 Required Thrust

The required thrust is basically the when thrust is equal to drag. Thus, the required thrust was

calculated using

Equation 36

1 1
= = 2 = (0.00058)(968.06 1.6)2 (1026.8)(0.046) = 33198
2 2

Where the density is the only variable that changes with altitude and a sample calculation is

given at supersonic cruise at an altitude of 41000 ft.

Subsonic Thrust Needed (Cruise Altitude)

30000

25000
Thrust Needed
20000
Thrust (lbf)

Thrust Available
15000

10000

5000

0
30000 35000 40000 45000
Altitude (ft)

Figure 16: Subsonic thurst needed at cruise.

In this graph, it was assumed that the velocity was set at Mach .95 (subsonic cruise speed), and

thus density only changed. It can be seen that the thrust required decreases similar to 1/x with

altitude. For the flight profile, the thrust needed to maintain a climbing cruise, so that at the

54
beginning of cruise, the altitude is 30,000 ft and at the end of cruise, the altitude is 46,000 ft was

calculated. It is worth nothing that for thrust required, as altitude increases, the weight will

decrease (due to TSFC and time) and thus the thrust needed and by consequence, the rate of

climb will decrease as seen in the figure. As seen in Figure 16, the thrust needed to maintain the

climbing cruise of our flight profile is lower than the thrust available from the engines, so the

Peregrine is fine in terms of thrust for cruise.

Subsonic Thrust Required and Needed vs Altitude

12000

11000

10000 Thrust Needed

Thrust

Thrust Required
9000

8000

7000

6000
30000 34250 38500 42750 47000
Altitude (ft)

Figure 17: Subsonic thrust needed at altitude.

In Figure 17, it can been seen that the thrust needed to maintain the flight profile is just a little bit

greater than the required thrust at the altitude, thus the Peregrine will only climb at a small

amount over a long time to reach the final altitude of 46,000ft.

55
 Supersonic Thrust Needed (Cruise Altitude)
45000

40000
Thrust (lbf) Thrust Needed
35000 Thrust Avaliable

30000

25000

20000
42000 43000 44000 45000 46000 47000 48000 49000 50000
Altitude (ft)

Figure 18: Supersonic thrust needed at cruise.

In this graph, it was assumed that the velocity was set to Mach 1.6 (supersonic cruise speed). It

can be seen that the thrust required decreases like 1/x with altitude, the same as supersonic,

which makes sense since the only variables that change is the velocity and the density. The thrust

needed to maintain the climbing cruise of the flight profile was calculated in the same way as

subsonic cruise, except with updated weights and also with a cruise altitude from 43,000-49,000

ft. It is worth nothing that for thrust required, as altitude increases, the weight will decrease (due

to TSFC and time) and thus the thrust needed and by consequence, the rate of climb will

decrease as seen in the figure. As seen in Figure 18, there is enough thrust available from the

engines chosen in order to be able to keep our cruise flight profile.

56
 Supersonic Thrust Required and Needed vs
Altitude
31000
30000
29000 Thrust Needed

28000 Thrust Required

Thrust

27000
26000
25000
24000
23000
42500 43500 44500 45500 46500 47500 48500 49500
Altitude (ft)

Figure 19: Supersonic thrust needed vs. altitude.

In Figure 19, it can been seen that the thrust needed to maintain the flight profile is just a little bit

greater than the required thrust at the altitude. This is because the Peregrine only needs a small

rate of climb in order over a long time in order for it to climb to 49,000 ft.

57
8 Stability and Controls

8.1 Introduction

As a key aspect for flight, stability designs will dictate the handling qualities of an

aircraft. It is important that the appropriate stability properties are given to the plane so that

human safety is preserved and that the plane is able to achieve its objective; i.e. a fighter jet will

have a different controllability compared to a passenger airliner. For the case of longitudinal

static stability, having a positive static margin and negative values is crucial for positive

stability and the ability for trimmed flight. This section of the report shall evaluate if the EB-

1609 Peregrine does indeed have positive stability without the use of active controls. In order

to conserve space, sometimes just equation numbers and figures of referenced materials from

Raymers Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach will be mentioned. Also, a spreadsheet of

sample calculations for the four loading conditions (LC) at the start of high subsonic cruise will

be provided within Appendix H: for the readers interest.

New attentions in the stability analysis that have been introduced from the previous

report include the consideration of wing drag, tail drag, fuselage effects, and engine thrust.

Furthermore, since different cruising altitudes have been set for transonic and supersonic speeds

and a different wing/tail planform selected for the lane, the aircraft layout and stability engineer

will work together to create a fuel configuration along with fuel management plan to obtain the

best possible static margin ranges within the flight envelope with the constraints inherent in the

design.

8.2 Analysis Overview and Assumptions

In performing the stability analysis, Raymer is heavily referenced for its equations and

figures. To begin, multiple assumptions are made for this preliminary analysis: it is assumed that

58
all dynamic pressure ratios have a value of 0.9 (a typical value according to Raymer), that there

is zero moment about the aerodynamic centers (since the airfoils are symmetric), and that there is

no vertical force from the turning of the airflow at the front face of the engine. Also, power-off

conditions are presumed in the calculation of the neutral point. These assumptions simplify

several terms for Equation 16.7 and for Equation 16.9 (Raymer) that are used to find the and

the neutral point. It also simplifies Equations 16.8 and 16.11 (Raymer) that are used to find

and the static margin. It should be noted that since we are calculating the static margin under

power-off conditions and that in operation jets typically experience a reduction of 1-3% in the

static margin, this difference is accounted for in the design by considering ~7% to ~17% to be

the typical range instead of 5% to 15%.

To account for downwash effects on the tail, interpolation of Figure 16.12 (Raymer) and

Equation 16.21a (Raymer) is used to estimate at subsonic conditions while Equation 16.21b is

used to calculate at supersonic speed. In using Equation 16.21a, we refer to Equation 12.6

(Raymer) to find at Mach 0 under the assumptions that the airfoil efficiency is 0.95 and that the

spill-over lift from the fuselage is about 0.98 per Raymers suggestions. For the fuselage

moment effects, we referred to Stanfords Aerodynamics and Design Groups (ADG) website for

Longitudinal Static Stability for the appropriate value corresponding to a wing MAC

quarter chord located at about 60% of the fuselage and for the equation. Furthermore, the

lift curve slopes for the wing and tail are the same as we decided to use the same planform and

aspect ratio for both structureswith the tail being 22% of the wing sizeand the CFD program

available to the aerodynamics engineers is used to obtain values and aerodynamic center

positions at different speeds. Also, the CFD program is used to obtain aerodynamic center values

for the wing and tail at different speeds. All of these variables will be used to create a trim plot

59
through which the trim analysis will be completed to see if the Peregrine satisfies positive

longitudinal stability.

This analysis will focus on four loading conditions which are tabulated below:

Table 17: Loading Conditions and their Weights.

Loading Conditions W [lbs]

1) Max PL Max Fuel 111000
2) Max PL Min Fuel 49856
3) Min PL Max Fuel 108000
4) Min PL Min Fuel 46856

8.3 Wing/Tail Placement, Tail Sizing, and Drag Considerations

After obtaining the wing planform and size from the aerodynamics engineers, we decided

that the same planform would also be used for the tail in a tail to wing area ratio of 0.22. The

wings MAC quarter chord position is placed at about 60% of the fuselage length and the tail

MAC quarter chord position is placed at about 97%. The original intent with the tail sizing was

to size it such that the neutral point is as close to the wing AC as possible allowing CG positions

to be located forward of the wing AC. Doing this would allow the plane to be positively stable in

case of tail failure. However, after further tweaking to minimize static margin values, this was no

longer the case for all loading conditions. Nevertheless, after consultation with the aircraft layout

engineer, it was determined that in cases where the tail does fail and the CG is located aft of the

wing AC, a fuel dump is possible to move the CG back in front of the wing to obtain stable flight

without uncontrolled pitch-up motion. Therefore, this is not an irreparable issue; other solutions

can be found in future analyses. Also, the selected tail size was picked in accordance with the

historical trend that was referenced from a figure found again on Stanfords ADGs website as

shown below (Tail Design and Sizing):

60
 Figure 20: Correlation of aircraft horizontal tail volume from Stanford's Aerodynamics and Design Group.

2
At a value of about 0.5, the Peregrines tail has a tail volume of about 0.57 which

fits within the expected correlation.

As decided by the group, a high T-tail design would be the most attractive tail

configuration for the plane. Having such a set-up though makes it imperative that the wing can

provide steady flight in case of tail failure by deep stall; hence, the fuel dump option will

guarantee this in the cases where the CG needs to be moved forward of the wing AC. This

requirement is shown below and the horizontal tail was placed at a vertical height of 85% MAC

above the wing as required by the graph from Professor Bendiksens Chapter 10 notes since the

tail is about 1.9 MACs behind the wing quarter chord.

61
 Figure 21: Boundaries of horizontal tail position as provided by Professor Bendiksen in his class notes.

After the wing and tail was set in place, an incidence angle of 2 was imparted to the

wing while an incidence angle of 1.2 was given to the tail. This is done in order to reduce the

aircraft angle of attack in flight and to reduce required elevator deflections for trim. These values

were selected after multiple trials of experimentation and collaboration with the aircraft layout

engineer to ensure that it did not cause a major problem during takeoff.

As mentioned, this preliminary report aims to consider drag effects and to do so a new

relation needs to be used in order to add the appropriate stability terms into the neutral point,

, and equations as used within Raymer. To approximate the drag values, we need to

know how much the coefficient of drag changes with respect to angle of attack and this is done

by taking the derivative of the drag formula:

Equation 37

= ,0 + 2

In order to get:

62
Equation 38

, = 2 ,

Thus, this new consideration affects Equations 16.7, 16.8, and 16.9 as referenced from

Raymer which lead into the equations that are used in this preliminary design report:

Equation 39

+ ( ) +
= ( )

Equation 40

= ( ) , + , , (1 ) ( ) + ,

Equation 41

, + , (1 ) +, ,
=

+ , (1 )

Here, CT is the coefficient of thrust and this is obtained from the propulsion engineer who

provided the appropriate values for each loading condition at the required flight conditions which

will be analyzed within the next subsection. Also, the K value from Equation 38 is obtained from

the aerodynamics engineers. In the interest of saving space, several raw data variables will be

listed in Appendix G: Important Raw Data Variables for Stability Analysis instead of in this

section including values such as K, thrust values, aerodynamic center locations, and so on. Please

refer to this section to view these values.

63
8.4 Fuel Management, Neutral Point, and Trim Calculations

Working in collaboration with the aircraft layout engineer, the center of gravity (CG)

locations are determined for each loading condition in order to obtain the most optimal stability

qualities and trim capabilities within the flight envelope. It should be noted that selecting CG

values that had a lot of different constraints on it as well as inherent limitations from the aircraft

design made it particularly difficult to achieve the optimum 5-15% static margin. For the

calculations regarding the CG, refer back to the Aircraft Layout section. The fuel management

plans devised to obtain these CGs are as listed below, and it should be noted that there is a set of

alternate management plans for loading conditions one and three. This is because it helps to

minimize the static margin for supersonic cruise conditions as seen in the upcoming trim

analysis.

Table 18: Fuel management plans for each loading condition including alternate plans.

Fuel Tanks LC 1 LC 2 LC 3 LC 4
LC 1 LC 3
(Supersonic (Supersonic
variant) variant)
Wing Tanks Filled Empty Filled Empty Empty Empty
Central Wing Tank Empty Empty Empty Empty Filled Filled
Forward Fuselage Filled Empty Filled Empty Filled Filled
Aft Fuselage Empty Empty Empty Empty Filled Filled
Vertical Tail Tank Empty Filled Empty Filled Empty Empty
The resultant CG values will be tabulated later along with their corresponding static

margin values once the results of the trim calculation have been shown.

For this preliminary report, the trim calculations are conducted for five points within the

flight regime: after takeoff when flaps are retracted but before climbing (low subsonic flight), at

the start and end of high subsonic flight, and at the start and end of supersonic flight. The reason

being that if the aircraft is trimmable at these points for all four loading conditions, it is by

extension trimmable for any conditions that lie within the parameters of the four loading

64
conditions and the five flight conditions. Elevators with a chord ratio of 30% and horizontal

length ratio of 80% will be used to trim the aircraft and its effects on the tail lift are found

through Equation 16.16, Equation 16.17, Figure 16.6, and Figure 16.7. Combining this with

Equation 16.32 to find total tail lift and Equation 16.33 to find total aircraft lift, a trim plot can be

created by plotting against for multiple values of angle of attacks, elevator

deflection, and CG positions. Again, since we are considering drag effects, the equations from

Raymer have been slightly altered and Equation 3 will be used to calculate . The three main

trim plots used for analyzing the flight conditions for loading condition two will be shown below

as an example. It should be noted that excel calculations were performed up to a maximum

elevator deflection of +20 and for angle of attack values between -5 and 13; however, only

several deflections are graphed here to show the trend of the trim plots.

Low Subsonic Cruise Trim Plot

0.1

0.05
6 degrees
4 degrees
0
C_m_cg

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 degrees

0 degrees
-0.05
-2 degrees
-4 degrees
-0.1
-6 degrees

-0.15
C_L

Figure 22: Low subsonic cruise trim plot for LC 2 representing flight after takeoff but before climb.

65
 High Subsonic Cruise Trim Plot
0.2

0.1

0 6 degrees
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 4 degrees
-0.1
C_m_cg

2 degrees
0 degrees
-0.2
-2 degrees
-0.3 -4 degrees
-6 degrees
-0.4

-0.5
C_L

Figure 23: High subsonic cruise trim plot for LC 2 representing flight at start of cruise.

Supersonic Cruise Trim Plot

0.4

0.2
6 degrees
0 4 degrees
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
C_m_cg

2 degrees
-0.2
0 degrees

-0.4 -2 degrees
-4 degrees
-0.6 -6 degrees

-0.8
C_L

Figure 24: Supersonic cruise trim plot for LC 2 representing flight at start of cruise.

66
 Utilizing the trim plotswhich noticeably have negative slopes implying positive

stabilityand implementing a written visual basic macro code for interpolation through excel,

trim values are extracted for the loading conditions at the five mentioned flight conditions by

finding the appropriate x-intercept point for the trim coefficient of lift. With these values,

can also be calculated through Equation 40. The trim values correspond to L = W and = 0

and the results are tabulated below:

Table 19: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at Takeoff, Before Climb flight conditions.

Takeoff
LC C_L_.w C_L_.t K _w _t L_w L_t _
1) 2.53637259 2.5363726 0.06 7.0086704 9.0086704 6.724259 97,041.63 13,919.74 0.211796485
2) 2.53637259 2.5363726 0.06 4.1784701 6.1784701 4.493485 66,554.64 1,248.29 0.211796485
3) 2.53637259 2.5363726 0.06 6.5258717 8.5258717 6.343715 91,840.91 16,151.76 0.211796485
4) 2.53637259 2.5363726 0.06 3.8508482 5.8508482 4.235252 63,025.49 697.51 0.211796485

Table 20: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at Takeoff, Before Climb flight conditions cont.

Takeoff
LC C_L C_m, _e [deg] C_m.cg
1) 0.456 -0.2886391 2.15291456 0
2) 0.27863872 -0.8740382 -10.7334338 6.939E-18
3) 0.4438 -0.1335961 7.187326399 0
4) 0.26187211 -0.913486 -10.68379525 0

Table 21: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at the start of transonic cruise.

Transonic Cruise - SOC

LC C_L_.w C_L_.t K _w _t L_w L_t _
1) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 2.303407716 4.303407716 2.56699367 110,619.54 380.46 0.40653421
2) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 -0.002975541 1.997024459 1.19823412 51,333.72 -1,477.72 0.40653421
3) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 2.163405332 4.163405332 2.48390704 107,020.76 979.24 0.40653421
4) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 -0.142977926 1.857022074 1.11514749 47,734.94 -878.94 0.40653421

67
Table 22: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at start of the transonic cruise cont.

Transonic Cruise - SOC

LC C_L C_m, _e [deg] C_m.cg
1) 0.27179323 -0.750706 -6.680477 0
2) 0.12207679 -1.5330891 -1.362972 -8.67E-19
3) 0.26444747 -0.5423055 -5.128582 0
4) 0.11473103 -1.586164 -0.808955 0

Table 23: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at end of transonic cruise.

Transonic Cruise - EOC

LC C_L_.w C_L_.t K _w _t L_w L_t _
1) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 ? #VALUE! #VALUE! ? ? 0.40653421
2) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 2.392870082 4.392870082 2.62008652 39,486.14 10,369.85 0.40653421
3) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 6.784506141 8.784506141 5.22637227 91,470.64 16,529.34 0.40653421
4) 3.606265 3.606265 0.06 2.16994919 4.16994919 2.4877906 36,847.39 10,008.60 0.40653421

Table 24: Trim Calculations for all load conditions at end of transonic cruise cont.

Transonic Cruise - EOC

LC C_L C_m, _e [deg] C_m.cg
1) 0.5801462 #VALUE! ? ?
2) 0.2605745 -1.5158485 -13.94438 0
3) 0.56446657 -0.5217024 -15.35724 0
4) 0.24489487 -1.5699102 -13.12146 0

Note, in Table 23 and Table 24 there are no values reported for LC 1. This means that

due to the aircraft design and limitations, the stability analysis performed on LC 1 in this flight

condition regrettably shows that trimmed flight is not possible here; the excel only considers up

to +20 of movement, since trim values could not be calculated, this means that the requirement

is beyond what the elevator can handle. Considering that this LC should not be typically flown at

the end of transonic cruise conditions and altitude, it is therefore not odd to say that it cannot be

trimmed here. However, for a detailed future design analysis, this issue should be investigated

more and the design of the aircraft should be reworked in order to absolve this currently

experienced problem. At the moment, this does not pose a huge danger to the Peregrine program.

68
Table 25: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the start of supersonic cruise.

Supersonic Cruise - SOC

LC C_L_.w C_L_.t K _w _t L_w L_t _
1) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 2.8957803 4.8957803 3.202207 112,285.84 -1,285.83 0.308577683
2) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 1.188828 3.188828 2.021982 46,097.61 3,758.40 0.308577683
3) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 2.7921767 4.7921767 3.130573 108,268.53 -268.52 0.308577683
4) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 1.0852243 3.0852243 1.950348 42,080.30 4,775.70 0.308577683

Table 26: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the start of supersonic cruise cont.

Supersonic Cruise - SOC

LC C_L C_m, _e [deg] C_m.cg
1) 0.17717262 -1.0255125 -4.548669053 0.00E+00
2) 0.07957764 -2.792167 4.68362706 0.00E+00
3) 0.17238417 -0.6265987 -3.283462574 0.00E+00
4) 0.07478919 -2.8453287 5.518894341 0.00E+00

Table 27: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the end of supersonic cruise.

Supersonic Cruise - EOC

LC C_L_.w C_L_.t K _w _t L_w L_t _
1) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 3.8754205 5.8754205 3.879552 112,766.92 -1,766.91 0.308577683
2) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 1.7427232 3.7427232 2.404958 50,709.73 -853.73 0.308577683
3) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 3.7136316 5.7136316 3.767688 108,059.18 -59.18 0.308577683
4) 3.5461377 3.5461377 0.06 1.6164862 3.6164862 2.317675 47,036.49 -180.48 0.308577683

Table 28: Trim Calculations for all loading conditions at the end of supersonic cruise cont.

Supersonic Cruise - EOC

LC C_L C_m, _e [deg] C_m.cg
1) 0.23609843 -1.0287988 -8.677829801 0
2) 0.10604435 -2.7964564 -0.203066554 0
3) 0.22971739 -0.6290129 -6.132967687 0
4) 0.09966332 -2.8496243 0.793441557 0

Note, while sometimes the total lift may not perfectly match the weight of the loading

conditions and that is not perfectly zero, this is a result of slight errors introduced by

interpolation. The total lift values have extremely small percent differences to the aircraft weight

69
and the values are essentially zero. The above tables show us that for their respective flight

conditions, the LCs for the aircraft are in fact trimmable.

For these trimmable conditions, we can evaluate their stability with the static margin by

using Equation 41 to calculate the neutral point as a percent of MAC (defined as h_n) measured

from the nose. Combining the CG values determined with the fuel management plans (recall

from Table 18 that a different fuel management plan was used for supersonic flight), we obtain:

Table 29: Neutral Points and Static Margins for the 4 LC's at each flight condition.

Takeoff
LC x_cg h_cg h_n SM
1) 69.2 4.8802436 4.978681 0.0984374
2) 66.43 4.6848928 4.9829746 0.2980817
3) 69.93 4.931726 4.9772875 0.0455616
4) 66.24 4.6714933 4.9830283 0.311535
Supersonic Cruise - Start of Cruise Transonic Cruise - Start of Cruise
LC x_cg h_cg h_n SM LC x_cg h_cg h_n SM
1) 72.67 5.124961 5.379329 0.254368 1) 69.2 4.880243617 5.066522 0.186278308
2) 66.43 4.6848928 5.3774616 0.6925688 2) 66.43 4.684892825 5.06531 0.380416906
3) 74.07 5.2236943 5.3791158 0.1554215 3) 69.93 4.931725956 5.066292 0.134566337
4) 66.24 4.6714933 5.3772483 0.705755 4) 66.24 4.671493312 5.06508 0.393586787
Supersonic Cruise - End of Cruise Transonic Cruise - End of Cruise
LC x_cg h_cg h_n SM LC x_cg h_cg h_n SM
1) 72.67 5.124961 5.3801442 0.2551831 1) 69.2 4.880243617 #VALUE! #VALUE!
2) 66.43 4.6848928 5.3785255 0.6936327 2) 66.43 4.684892825 5.061032 0.376138857
3) 74.07 5.2236943 5.3797146 0.1560203 3) 69.93 4.931725956 5.06118 0.129453925
4) 66.24 4.6714933 5.3783138 0.7068205 4) 66.24 4.671493312 5.061047 0.389553593

Since power-off stability is calculated through Equation 41 in the above tables, a 1-3%

reduction penalty should be applied to the SM values to account for power-on condition.

Furthermore, it is noted that as the Mach number at which the aircraft flies at is increased, the

SM increases as well with supersonic having the largest value due to its very aft AC values (refer

to Appendix G:). However, by utilizing the alternate fuel management plan, the SM for

supersonic flight was reduced for LC 1 and LC 3.

While it was not presented in graphs, there is a separate issue concerning the stability of

LC 1 and 3 for after takeoff, but before climb conditions. The trim plots for these conditions

70
have a positive slope which symbolizes an unstable flight. However, the still remains

negative which should represent positive stability. This is probably because of the drag forces

having a stronger effect on the aircraft moment and since the wing has such a large sweep. In the

case of tail failure, the same principle as mentioned before can be applied where a fuel dump can

shift the CG in front of the wing AC. This is the only case where this juxtaposition in results

occurs.

To show that the aircraft is trimmable for forward and aft movement of the CG relative to

our fixed wing, plots of against l_w/c were created to recover the stability of the variations

with respect to wing AC. It should be noted that while the formula for l_w was defined as =

in Raymer, our CG value occasionally lies forwards of the wing AC value instead of

behind it as defined in Raymer. Therefore, some of our data points will be plotted with negative

l_w/c values; this just means that the CG is more forwards than the fixed wing AC:

Takeoff Condition: C_m_alpha vs l_w,c

0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
C_m_

-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
l_w/c

Figure 25: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the takeoff, before climb condition.

71
 Start of High Subsonic Cruise: C_m_alpha vs l_w,c
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.2 0 0.5 1

-0.4
-0.6
C_m_

-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
l_w/c

Figure 26: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the start of high subsonic cruise condition.

End of High Subsonic Cruise: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c

0
-4 -3 -2 -1 -0.2 0 1

-0.4
-0.6
C_m_alpha

-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
l_w/c

Figure 27: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c for the end of high subsonic cruise condition.

72
 Start of Supersonic Cruise: C_m_alpha vs l_w,c
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5

-1
C_m_

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3
l_w/c

Figure 28: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the start of supersonic cruise condition.

End of Supersonic Cruise: C_m_alpha vs l_w,c

0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5

-1
C_m_

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3
l_w/c

Figure 29: C_m_alpha vs l_w/c graph for the end of supersonic cruise condition.

Therefore, we can see that for forward and aft movement of the CG, the plane has

longitudinal stability and can be trimmed for these variations.

8.5 Vertical Tail Sizing

To size the vertical tail, we looked at other vertical tail designs on other planes from

Professor Bendiksens Notes on Aircraft Stability as presented in class. Moreover, we also

73
referenced more historical trends from ADGs Tail Design and Sizing for a better idea of how

it should be sized. This graph is shown below:

Figure 30: Correlation of aircraft vertical tail volume as provided by Stanford's Aerodynamics and Design Group.

2
At a value of about 0.9, the Peregrines vertical tail has a tail volume of about 0.8

which is slightly higher than the historical trend. This is not a problem however, as having more

vertical tail area is not detrimental to the aircraft design.

The horizontal tail is designed to sit on top of the vertical tail and the rudder is chosen to

extend past the root chord of the horizontal tail. No lateral stability derivatives will be performed

for this preliminary analysis, but will need to be considered in a more detailed design analysis.

For this preliminary report, a vertical tail area to wing area ratio of about 18% is selected and the

rudder is chosen to be about 30% of the vertical tail chord. The size of the vertical tail should

provide the EB-1609 with a large enough area and control surface for any required maneuvers.

74
9 Structures and Materials

The material for the aircraft will most likely be carbon fiber reinforced polymer similar to

those found in the Boeing 787. This is due to the structural and weight considerations. This will

probably result in a lighter plane as well as being structurally sound with considerations towards

how thin the wing is as well as how much payload and weight is needed to fly. This will also

cover the high wing loading from takeoff.

75
10 Conclusions / Future Iterations

The propulsion specifications will change as a result of more detailed weight and

aerodynamics estimates. There is hope for a more intensive and comprehensive CFD code in

order to get the aerodynamics, which will change all the calculations. Engine drag will have to be

taken into account as well. Hopefully, more research and focus will be put into creating an

engine that is optimized for this flight profile, since the modified engine isnt optimal. This can

be seen in how much the TSFC at Mach 1.6 affects the range, making it so that the range is

significantly less than the design specification range. Since the lift over drag ratio is most likely

change due to the CFD code that aerodynamics will receive after the midterm, the drag and lift

coefficients given for the midterm will change as well. As more work is done, the flight profile

will likely change, as this is an iterative process. Thus, in the future, everything will likely

change, but not by too much. The engine might also need to be changed in order to meet the

maximum operatisng Mach number due to the new drag estimates.

In terms of stability, the Peregrine has positive stability in the vast majority of the

expected flight envelope including low subsonic, high subsonic, and supersonic speeds of the

mission. It is trimmable at takeoff, trimmable throughout high subsonic cruise except for LC 1,

and trimmable throughout supersonic cruise conditions which in turn suggests that all loading

conditions and flight conditions in between these situations are also trimmable. So far, a

deficiency in the design has made it such that trimming of LC 1 is not possible at the end of high

subsonic cruise, but considering that this LC should not be flown at that point, this issue does not

sound the warning bells. Furthermore, there is an odd juxtaposition of results for the trimming of

LC 1 and 3 at after takeoff, but before climb conditions where trim plots suggest unstable flight

but the says otherwise. Nevertheless, future design analyses and reviews should look into

76
these issues and resolve them as necessary. Overall, the Peregrine is stable in pitch without the

use of active controls in the flight envelope, and provides relatively acceptable stability with its

normal to larger sized static margins. This lets the VIP passengers have a stable, fast trip to their

destination without fear of unstable flight.

As seen from the stability analysis, there is room for improvement in terms of

longitudinal stability of the Peregrine. The greatest problem is the fact that trim values could not

be obtained for LC 1 at the end of high subsonic cruise conditions since the required elevator

deflection exceeded what the stability Excel sheet calculated. Therefore, to fix this in the future,

we suggest that an all-moving incidence tail be considered so that it has a stronger effect on the

aircraft dynamics. Another possible fix would be to see if a different tail configuration would be

possible as the high T-tail imposed many restrictions on the design that was hard to account for

in a two point design. The drag also made a negative impact on the aircraft, and from a stability

standpoint it is also suggested that a wing with less sweep is used as the AC movement is

extremely large and therefore hard to attain good static margins. Another consideration to keep

in mind is ways to reduce the static margin. Reducing the sweep would accomplish this along

with possible repositioning of the wing and tail after picking a new planform as the ideal range to

meet is 5-15% static margin and the Peregrine exceeds this several times in the trim analysis.

Also, lateral directional stability calculations should be performed as well as all other directional

derivatives in order to check the Peregrines stability in all aspects. This is crucial in fleshing out

the analysis and revealing any other shortcomings of the design that need to be fixed.

77
11 References

Bendiksen, Oddvar: Class Notes for MAE 154A. Winter 2015

"Longitudinal Static Stability." Aircraft Aerodynamics and Design Group. Ed. Ilan Kroo.

Stanford, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://adg.stanford.edu/>.

Raymer, D., P.: Aircraft Design A Conceptual Approach Fourth Edition. Virginia: American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, 2006

Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series (5th Edition)

Tail Design and Sizing. Aircraft Aerodynamics and Design Group. Ed. Ilan Kroo. Stanford,

n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://adg.stanford.edu/>.

78
 12 Appendices

12.1 Appendix A: All Wing Planform Scenarios

Wing Designs
(b/2)/Cr LE,sweep TE,sweep Taper Ratio
Current 2.5 37 26.98 0.3886
Wing1 2.5 45 35.754 0.3
Wing2 2.5 40 29.21 0.3
Wing3 2.5 50 42.357 0.3
Wing4 2 50 40.089 0.3
Wing5 3 50 43.784 0.3
Wing6 3.5 45 38.66 0.3
Wing7 2.5 45 34.216 0.2
Wing8 2.5 45 34.992 0.25
Wing9 2.5 45 36.501 0.35
Wing10 2.5 45 37.235 0.4
Wing11 3 47 39.773 0.28
Wing12 2 55 46.483 0.25
Wing13 2 59 52.202 0.25
Wing14 2 55 48.446 0.4
Wing15 2 59 52.733 0.3
Wing17 1.5 55 43.875 0.3
Wing19 1.6 56 47.105 0.35
Wing23 2.5 55 49.914 0.4
Wing24 2 59 53.252 0.35
Wing25 2 59 53.759 0.4
12.2 Appendix B: Wing24s Mach 1.6 CFD Output

AoA TTOL CL CMcr/4 CMmac/4 CD L/Di+w NSUP MACHmax CL/Alpha X@CM=0 X%

1.5 1.371 0.093 -0.221 -0.019 0.013 7.253 72373 2.288 3.544 1.974 79.296
2 1.355 0.124 -0.295 -0.025 0.014 8.642 72373 2.332 3.546 1.976 79.618
2.5 1.342 0.155 -0.369 -0.032 0.016 9.460 72373 2.399 3.548 1.978 79.874
3 1.333 0.185 -0.442 -0.038 0.019 9.794 72373 2.442 3.541 1.977 79.713
3.2 1.329 0.197 -0.471 -0.040 0.020 9.823 72373 2.472 3.536 1.975 79.524
3.5 1.323 0.215 -0.512 -0.043 0.022 9.777 72373 2.511 3.525 1.973 79.122
4 1.312 0.244 -0.580 -0.046 0.026 9.526 72373 5.117 3.501 1.966 78.217
4.5 1.303 0.273 -0.644 -0.049 0.030 9.145 72373 4.973 3.470 1.958 77.078
5 1.295 0.300 -0.704 -0.049 0.034 8.705 72373 4.875 3.433 1.948 75.784
5.5 1.287 0.326 -0.761 -0.049 0.039 8.254 72373 4.733 3.392 1.938 74.401

79
 12.3 Appendix C: Wing24s Mach 1.5 CFD Output

AoA TTOL CL CMcr/4 CMmac/4 CD L/Di+w NSUP MACHmax CL/Alpha X@CM=0 X%

1.5 1.305 0.109 -0.279 -0.041 0.011 10.132 72371 2.200 4.173 2.103 97.007
2 1.288 0.145 -0.367 -0.052 0.013 11.406 72371 2.291 4.143 2.092 95.542
2.5 1.276 0.179 -0.452 -0.062 0.015 11.810 72371 2.298 4.110 2.079 93.824
3 1.263 0.213 -0.532 -0.068 0.018 11.623 72370 2.344 4.060 2.062 91.466
3.2 1.257 0.226 -0.562 -0.070 0.020 11.451 72370 2.432 4.038 2.055 90.485
4 1.237 0.275 -0.676 -0.075 0.026 10.535 72369 4.877 3.945 2.027 86.565
4.5 1.229 0.305 -0.741 -0.076 0.031 9.905 72369 4.735 3.881 2.009 84.159
5 1.223 0.333 -0.802 -0.075 0.036 9.291 72369 4.558 3.816 1.992 81.847
5.5 1.217 0.360 -0.861 -0.074 0.041 8.716 72370 4.381 3.752 1.977 79.688

12.4 Appendix D: Transonic CFD Output for Varying Machs at AoA 3.2deg

M
TTOL CL CMcr/4 CMmac/4 CD L/Di+w NSUP MACHmax CL/Alpha X@CM=0 X%
0.8
0.788 0.195 -0.402 0.021 0.006 32.984 1329 1.710 3.487 1.750 48.464
0.85
0.804 0.198 -0.409 0.020 0.006 32.684 2494 2.027 3.545 1.754 49.050
0.9
0.823 0.202 -0.419 0.019 0.006 31.858 5569 2.410 3.612 1.759 49.720
0.95
0.847 0.206 -0.429 0.018 0.007 30.688 10513 2.270 3.689 1.765 50.601
1
0.879 0.211 -0.443 0.016 0.007 29.033 28977 2.240 3.778 1.775 51.933
1.05
0.914 0.216 -0.458 0.011 0.008 26.978 62480 3.522 3.865 1.791 54.127
1.1
0.949 0.220 -0.471 0.006 0.009 25.141 68026 3.678 3.934 1.809 56.638
1.15
0.984 0.224 -0.489 -0.002 0.010 23.519 70448 3.789 4.010 1.835 60.267
1.2
1.020 0.229 -0.514 -0.015 0.011 21.502 71859 3.975 4.107 1.877 66.049
1.25
1.057 0.234 -0.540 -0.031 0.012 18.799 72209 4.190 4.192 1.925 72.640
1.3
1.096 0.237 -0.562 -0.046 0.014 16.458 72307 4.406 4.249 1.970 78.772
1.35
1.136 0.239 -0.579 -0.059 0.016 14.660 72335 5.097 4.273 2.010 84.220

12.5 Appendix E: Supersonic Early Design Matrix and Other Parameters

CL per given Mach - W/S=80lb/ft2 CL per given Mach -W/S=100lb/ft2

h (ft) p (psf) d 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.8 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.8
35000 499.34 0.2360 0.2826 0.1017 0.0894 0.0706 0.3532 0.1271 0.1118 0.0883
40000 393.12 0.1858 0.3589 0.1292 0.1136 0.0897 0.4486 0.1615 0.1419 0.1122
45000 309.45 0.1462 0.4559 0.1641 0.1443 0.1140 0.5699 0.2052 0.1803 0.1425
50000 243.61 0.1151 0.5792 0.2085 0.1832 0.1448 0.7239 0.2606 0.2291 0.1810

80
 Other Parameters
e (wing efficiency) 0.89620
K = (1/AR*e*) 0.05994
dd (correction factor 0.019
for taper from Fig.
2.14, class notes)
12.6 Appendix F: Range Parameter Tables based on Mach number and AOA
M CL CD,fuselage,p CD,fuselage,w CD,p,wing CD,engine,p CD,tail CD,interference CD,trim C D,total C L /C D ML/D
0.85 2 0.1238 0.00402 0.00331 0.0051 0.0007908 0.001334 0.0003006 0.0002255 0.0183 6.7744 5.7582
3 0.1857 0.00402 0.00331 0.0052 0.0007908 0.001334 0.0003006 0.0002275 0.0206 8.9984 7.6486
4 0.2468 0.00402 0.00331 0.0054 0.0007908 0.001334 0.0003006 0.0002303 0.0248 9.9521 8.4593
5 0.3060 0.00402 0.00331 0.0055 0.0007908 0.001334 0.0003006 0.0002337 0.0311 9.8400 8.3640
6 0.3614 0.00402 0.00331 0.0057 0.0007908 0.001334 0.0003006 0.0002375 0.0398 9.0900 7.7265
7 0.4113 0.00402 0.00331 0.0059 0.0007908 0.001334 0.0003006 0.0002415 0.0503 8.1743 6.9482
8 0.4541 0.00402 0.00331 0.0061 0.0007908 0.001334 0.0003006 0.0002454 0.0625 7.2608 6.1717
0.88 2 0.1251 0.00398 0.00331 0.0051 0.0007868 0.001327 0.0003001 0.0002246 0.0182 6.8586 6.0356
3 0.1877 0.00398 0.00331 0.0052 0.0007868 0.001327 0.0003001 0.0002267 0.0207 9.0693 7.9810
4 0.2495 0.00398 0.00331 0.0054 0.0007868 0.001327 0.0003001 0.0002295 0.0251 9.9585 8.7634
5 0.3092 0.00398 0.00331 0.0056 0.0007868 0.001327 0.0003001 0.0002330 0.0316 9.7901 8.6153
6 0.3647 0.00398 0.00331 0.0057 0.0007868 0.001327 0.0003001 0.0002369 0.0405 9.0071 7.9262
7 0.4144 0.00398 0.00331 0.0059 0.0007868 0.001327 0.0003001 0.0002409 0.0513 8.0782 7.1088
8 0.4563 0.00398 0.00331 0.0061 0.0007868 0.001327 0.0003001 0.0002447 0.0637 7.1657 6.3058
0.9 2 0.1261 0.00396 0.00331 0.0051 0.0007843 0.001323 0.0002998 0.0002241 0.0182 6.9188 6.2269
3 0.1892 0.00396 0.00331 0.0052 0.0007843 0.001323 0.0002998 0.0002261 0.0208 9.1048 8.1943
4 0.2515 0.00396 0.00331 0.0054 0.0007843 0.001323 0.0002998 0.0002290 0.0253 9.9577 8.9620
5 0.3116 0.00396 0.00331 0.0056 0.0007843 0.001323 0.0002998 0.0002325 0.0319 9.7548 8.7793
6 0.3672 0.00396 0.00331 0.0058 0.0007843 0.001323 0.0002998 0.0002364 0.0410 8.9513 8.0562
7 0.4167 0.00396 0.00331 0.0060 0.0007843 0.001323 0.0002998 0.0002405 0.0520 8.0146 7.2131
8 0.4581 0.00396 0.00331 0.0061 0.0007843 0.001323 0.0002998 0.0002442 0.0645 7.1042 6.3938
0.91 2 0.1266 0.00395 0.00331 0.0051 0.0007831 0.001321 0.0002996 0.0002238 0.0182 6.9468 6.3216
3 0.1899 0.00395 0.00331 0.0052 0.0007831 0.001321 0.0002996 0.0002259 0.0208 9.1203 8.2994
4 0.2525 0.00395 0.00331 0.0054 0.0007831 0.001321 0.0002996 0.0002287 0.0254 9.9571 9.0609
5 0.3128 0.00395 0.00331 0.0056 0.0007831 0.001321 0.0002996 0.0002323 0.0321 9.7358 8.8596
0.92 2 0.1271 0.00395 0.00331 0.0051 0.0007818 0.001319 0.0002995 0.0002237 0.0182 6.9691 6.4116
3 0.1907 0.00395 0.00331 0.0052 0.0007818 0.001319 0.0002995 0.0002258 0.0209 9.1369 8.4060
4 0.2535 0.00395 0.00331 0.0054 0.0007818 0.001319 0.0002995 0.0002287 0.0255 9.9481 9.1523
5 0.3116 0.00395 0.00331 0.0056 0.0007818 0.001319 0.0002995 0.0002321 0.0319 9.7606 8.9797
0.95 2 0.1287 0.00390 0.00331 0.0051 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002226 0.0183 7.0524 6.6998
3 0.1932 0.00390 0.00331 0.0052 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002248 0.0210 9.1854 8.7261
3.5 0.2252 0.00390 0.00331 0.0053 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002262 0.0232 9.7250 9.2388
4 0.2569 0.00390 0.00331 0.0054 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002278 0.0258 9.9422 9.4451
4.5 0.2880 0.00390 0.00331 0.0055 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002295 0.0291 9.8934 9.3988
5 0.3182 0.00390 0.00331 0.0056 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002314 0.0330 9.6523 9.1696
6 0.3743 0.00390 0.00331 0.0058 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002355 0.0425 8.8043 8.3641
7 0.4237 0.00390 0.00331 0.0060 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002396 0.0539 7.8577 7.4648
8 0.4640 0.00390 0.00331 0.0062 0.0007782 0.001313 0.0002990 0.0002433 0.0667 6.9532 6.6055
0.98 2 0.1305 0.00386 0.00331 0.0051 0.0007747 0.001308 0.0002986 0.0002218 0.0183 7.1230 6.9805
3 0.1959 0.00386 0.00331 0.0053 0.0007747 0.001308 0.0002986 0.0002240 0.0212 9.2223 9.0379
4 0.2606 0.00386 0.00331 0.0054 0.0007747 0.001308 0.0002986 0.0002271 0.0263 9.9146 9.7163
5 0.3228 0.00386 0.00331 0.0056 0.0007747 0.001308 0.0002986 0.0002309 0.0337 9.5758 9.3843
6 0.3794 0.00386 0.00331 0.0058 0.0007782 0.001308 0.0002986 0.0002351 0.0436 8.7092 8.2737
7 0.4287 0.00386 0.00331 0.0060 0.0007782 0.001308 0.0002986 0.0002392 0.0553 7.7584 7.3704
8 0.4685 0.00386 0.00331 0.0062 0.0007782 0.001308 0.0002986 0.0002429 0.0683 6.8600 6.5170

81
12.7 Appendix G: Important Raw Data Variables for Stability Analysis

Aerodynamic Centers Thrust Values

Wing x_ac_takeoff 67.3314 [ft] Takeoff, before climb 4892.79 [lbs]
Wing x_ac_trans 69.30463 [ft] Start of Transonic Cruise 12308.85 [lbs]
Wing x_ac_sup 73.57469 [ft] End of Transonic Cruise 7401.62 [lbs]
Tail x_ac_takeoff 106.6769 [ft] Start of Supersonic Cruise 20995.15 [lbs]
Tail x_ac_trans 107.111 [ft] End of Supersonic Cruise 18499.7 [lbs]
Tail x_ac_sup 108.0504 [ft]

Fuselage Wing
K_fus 0.87 K 0.06
C_L_alpha
Low subsonic 2.536373 [rad^-1]
High subsonic 3.606265 [rad^-1]
Supersonic 3.546138 [rad^-1]

12.8 Appendix H: Sample Calculations for all 4 LCs at the Start of High Subsonic Cruise
Plane Wing Tail
L 110 [ft] b 78 [ft] z_t 10.3 [ft]
d_fus 8 [ft] c_r 19.5 [ft] 0.3
0.9 MAC 14.17962 [ft] x_c/4.t 78.8 [ft]
M_tsn 0.95 x_c/4.w 65.8 [ft] h_c/4.t 5.557272
q_SOC 397.787705 [psfa] h_c/4.w 4.640463 AR.t 5.9
q_EOC 186.359933 [psfa] AR.w 5.925926 S_t 225.8685 [ft^2]
y_cg 1.52666667 [ft] downwards from centerline S_w 1026.675 [ft^2] i_t 1.2 [deg]
wings 3 [ft] downwards from centerline i_w 2 [deg]
engines 1 [ft] upwards from centerline 0.35

Loading Conditions W [lbs] x_cg [ft] h_cg Thrust [lbs] Aerodynamic Centers
1) Max PL Max Fuel 111000 69.2 4.880244 12308.85 Wing x_ac_trans 69.30463 [ft]
2) Max PL Min Fuel 49856 66.43 4.684893 12308.85 Tail x_ac_trans 107.111 [ft]
3) Min PL Max Fuel 108000 69.93 4.931726 12308.85
4) Min PL Min Fuel 46856 66.24 4.671493 12308.85

Transonic Cruise - SOC

C_L_.w C_L_.t K _w _t L_w L_t _ C_T
3.606265 3.606265 0.06 2.30340772 4.303407716 2.566994 110619.5369 380.46314 0.406534 0.0301393
3.606265 3.606265 0.06 -0.0029755 1.997024459 1.198234 51333.7186 -1477.719 0.406534 0.0301393
3.606265 3.606265 0.06 2.16340533 4.163405332 2.483907 107020.7612 979.23879 0.406534 0.0301393
3.606265 3.606265 0.06 -0.1429779 1.857022074 1.115147 47734.94294 -878.9429 0.406534 0.0301393

Fuselage Elevator
K_fus 0.87 _o/e -0.200733285
C_m,_fus 0.42072114 [rad^-1]

Transonic Cruise - SOC

LC C_L C_m, _e [deg] C_m.cg h_n SM
1) 0.27179323 -0.75070597 -6.6804768 0 5.066522 0.186278308
2) 0.12207679 -1.53308911 -1.3629722 -8.67362E-19 5.06531 0.380416906
3) 0.26444747 -0.54230551 -5.1285817 0 5.066292 0.134566337
4) 0.11473103 -1.58616403 -0.8089552 0 5.06508 0.393586787

82
12.9 Appendix I: Parameters for Weight

Variable Value Units Description

A_ht 0.765 horizontal tail aspect ratio
A_vt 5.925 vertical tail aspect ratio
A_w 5.925 wing aspect ratio
B_w 78.000 ft wing span
D 0.167 ft fuselage structural depth
H_t/H_v 1.000 ft 0.0 for conventional; 1.0 for "T" tail
L 100.000 ft fuselage structural length (excludes radome, tail cap)
L_m 48.000 in length of main landing gear
L_n 48.000 in nose gear length
L_t 30.000 ft tail length; wing quarter-MAC to tail quarter-MAC
M 1.800 Mach number, max
N_en 2.000 number of engines
N_l 3.000 ultimate landing load factor ( = N_gear * 1.5)
N_p 15.000 number of personnel onboard (crew and passengers)
N_t 5.000 number of fuel tanks
N_z 3.000 ultimate load factor ( = 1.5 * limit load factor)
q 175.500 lb/ft^2 dynamic pressure at cruise
S_f 2000.000 ft^2 fuselage wetted area
S_ht 225.904 ft^2 horizontal tail area
S_vt 184.800 ft^2 vertical tail area
S_w 1026.835 ft^2 trapezoidal wing area
t/c_w 0.060 Wing thickness/chord
t/c_ht 0.100 Horizontal tail thickness/chord
t/c_vt 0.100 Vertical tail thickness/chord
V_i 9567.613 gal integral tanks volume
V_pr 2010.619298 ft^3 volume of pressureized section
V_t 9567.613 gal total fuel volume
W_dg 110000.000 lb design gross weight
W_en 4741.000 lb engine weight, each
W_fw 16584.137 lb weight of fuel in wing
W_l 60000.000 lb landing design gross weight
W_press 19.767 weight penalty due to pressurization
W_uav 1000.000 lb uninstalled avionics weight (typically = 800 to 1400 lb)
57.800 wing sweep at 25% MAC
0.350 (c_t/c_r)_wing
_h 0.350 (c_t/c_r)_horzTail
_ht 57.720 horizontal tail sweep at 25% MAC
_v 0.850 (c_t/c_r)_vertTail
_vt 30.000 vertical tail sweep at 25% MAC

83
12.10 Appendix J: Empty Weight Calculations

General-Aviation Weights - Composites construction

Variable Value [lbs] Notes
Wing 9093 Raymer, Eq. 15.46
Horizontal Tail 587 Raymer, Eq. 15.47
Vertical Tail 969 Raymer, Eq. 15.48
Fuselage 3162 Raymer, Eq. 15.49
Main Gear 1729 Raymer, Eq. 15.50
Nose Gear 361 Raymer, Eq. 15.51
Installed Engine 12617 Raymer, Eq. 15.52
Fuel System 2474 Raymer, Eq. 15.53
Flight Controls 5165 Raymer, Eq. 15.54
Hydraulics 110 Raymer, Eq. 15.55
Electrical Systems 842 Raymer, Eq. 15.56
Avionics 1333 Raymer, Eq. 15.57
A/C and Anti-ice 2116 Raymer, Eq. 15.58
Furnishings 2581 Torenbeek (see below)
Total Empty Weight 43139

Furnishing Weights From Table 8-12, Torenbeek p. 291 unless otherwise noted
Flight deck components 298 Modified to suit smaller cockpit
Cabin seating 582 Table 3-2, Torenbeek p. 76
Galley + provisions 250 Main meal galley
Lavtory 300 Medium/long-haul
Floor covering 98
Insulation, shades, etc 913
Cargo restraints 8
Oxygen supplies 69
Portable extinguishers 48
Escape provisions 15
Furnishings, Total 2581

84
85