You are on page 1of 4

MS_4: Aerodynamics Analysis and Stability

Kristian Fodor (krifo756) , Thibault Perdrix (thipe075)


TMAL51, Linköping University, 2018

1 Milestone Introduction 2.2 Mission Details


In this milestone, we applied notions of sizing opti- We first implemented our design parameters from
mization, mission calculation and parameters, basic MS1 in the Solver Inputs. We also added a 10%
aerodynamics and stability for our NMA. Again, laminar quotient on the wing and 2% on the fuse-
we extensively used BeX in which we refined some lage/nacelle: these values are quite common in recent
parameters of the previous milestone. Sources of aircrafts with nicely shaped wings. The SFC factor
information that were used, such as guidelines and was set to 0,90 to match our R&R Trent 7000 model.
equations, from the course book [1] and [2]. Some This gave us 92% of tank filling to fulfill the mission.
data from Raymer [3] was also used. We then changed the ones from the Mission tab. This
included to set the speed to more realistic and oper-
ational values. The limit of 250kts/FL100 was re-
spected and can be seen in Figure2 as well as some
2 Main Part
common altitudes for each step. Our cruise speed is
In this section we will show our work process and still set to M0.85, we decided to set M0.65 for the
results from our refinements/optimization as well as Cruise 2 which is not used under normal operation and
our new input parameters. our climbing speed are between M0.65 and M0.68.
The cabin pressure was set to 6000ft which is cur-
rently a new standard. One final parameter that was
2.1 Layout of Lifting Surfaces changed is the time for holding. It was set to 60min as
there is more and more traffic and airports can some-
Our fuselage geometry was previously introduced in times get crowded.
BeX in MS3. Here we did a first draft of our wing It is important to comment that our values for the burnt
geometry and empennage configuration which can be fuel for the descending and landing steps in Figure2
seen in Figure7. The wing and empennage sweeps are extremely low and do not represent reality. Since
were iteratively tuned in order to get common values we did not change everything in the engine sheets,
from recent aircrafts (around 30◦ ). It can also be seen more refinements might need to be made later. We
that the engine size was changed and moved at its right only changed the bypass ratio to meet ours (10:1) as
place under the wing. well as the thrust which is around 72000 lbs.
A value of 461 m2 for Wing Wet Surface, 67 m2 for BeX calculated a weight of 79381kg of fuel needed
Horizontal Stabilizer and 78,6 m2 for the Vertical Sta- for the mission for a 79861kg aircraft empty weight.
bilizer were calculated by BeX. We kept the usual val- We got a 1% difference between the design and the
ues of 15% of chord for slats and 30% for flaps. Also mission calculation as seen in Figure1.
our aspect ratio is 9,39.
This particular geometry layout was chosen as it rep-
resents the so-called "standard" aircraft configuration,
i.e. typical representative of the wide-body aircraft
class. Another plus of this configuration is the amount
of space one gains in the fuselage and thus increas-
ing the payload capabilities of the aircraft. Additional
space for fuel is also obtained in the form of a center
wing tank. The positioning of the engines was cho-
sen to be below the wing as this way the wing load-
ing is reduced and the mounting structure (pylons) are
lighter and easier to implement. Fig. 1 . Weights result for our mission inputs.

1
krifo756, thipe075

2.3 Aerodynamics Authenticity and Plagiarism


In this part, an implementation of the NMA data in- By submitting this report, the author(s) listed above declare that
this document is exclusively product of their own genuine work,
side Aerodata sheet from BeX was performed. This and that they have not plagiarized or taken advantage from any
sheet requires the most important data for the aircraft other student’s work. If any irregularity is detected, the case will
aerodynamics as an input and based on that calculates be forwarded to the University Disciplinary Board.
the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft, using
statistics and semi-empirical formulas. REFERENCES
Based on the Lift/Drag ratio the ideal cruising speed
for our aircraft would be between Mach 0.73 and [1] Staack I and Berry P. Conceptual Aircraft Design with BeX.
Linköping University; Division for Fluid and Mechatronic
Mach 0.85, where the ratio is the highest, having val- Systems, 2018.
ues ranging from 14.5 to 15. The drag computed from [2] Jenkinson L R, Rhodes D and Simpkin P. Civil jet aircraft de-
BeX is the Parasitic Drag, which is a result from a sign. AIAA education series, 2003rd ed. Reston, VA : Amer-
object moving through a fluid. It includes form drag, ican Insitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999.
skin drag and interference drag. Results obtained [3] Raymer D P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach.
from the Lift/Drag ratio estimation are quite relevant AIAA education series, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
to other competitor aircraft. Usual values range be-
tween L/D = 12 − 20, thus the NMA is comparable
to its competitors. Lift/Drag ratio in respect to Mach
number can be seen in Fig.5.
Based on the Zero lift drag plot, as seen in Fig.3, a
maximum cruising speed can be selected. A reason-
able value for that would be around Mach 0.85, be-
cause as one can see this is the point were the drag
starts to increase. A maximum speed would be Mach
0.90, as this is the point where the drag is high but still
in reasonable values. Any values above that would re-
sult in very high drag for the aircraft to handle. How-
ever, going above Mach 0.85 would result in addi-
tional aerodynamic shocks which are not taken into
account in BeX.
Further characteristics of the NMA can be checked in
the Thrust to Drag over Mach plot. This graph can
be seen in Fig.4. From it can be seen that the thrust
of the NMA is sufficient to ensure higher thrust than
drag until Mach 0.90. Excess thrust is also available.

2.4 Sizing Diagram


A modification of the input data inside Sizing sheet
in order to get a good design point on the sizing dia-
gram was performed. The final diagram is shown in
Fig.6. The optimum design point should be slightly
lower from the position in which it is now. By lower-
ing the position, we actually lower the Thrust/Weight
ratio, which is essentially "money", or one does not
want too much excess thrust, one wants just enough.
The toughest restriction for the sizing diagram as of
now would be the Take-off phase and the Buffet limit.
In order to reduce the Thrust/Weight ratio, the restric-
tions for Landing and Take-off with one engine are
usually just barely met, which is in this case also.

2
MS_4

Fig. 2 . Mission characteristics and altitudes (ft). Wf is the burnt fuel for one step.

Fig. 3 . Zero lift drag graph.


Fig. 5 . Lift/Drag ratio over Mach number.

Fig. 4 . Thrust to Drag over Mach number.


Fig. 6 . Sizing Diagram of the NMA.

3
krifo756, thipe075

Fig. 7 . Geometry Overview (Side and Top views).