(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Extent 6-9 August 2001 Montreal, Canada

A01-37229
AIAA 2001-4008

BASELINE DESIGN CONFIGURATION FOR MILITARY JET TRAINER THROUGH CORRELATIONS BASED ON DESIRABLE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS K Ibrahim* ABSTRACT Configuration and performance data of jet trainers and light attack airplanes has been analyzed. Correlations, based on desirable flight characteristics, have been evolved for choosing wing airfoil section, thickness to chord ratio, quarter chord sweep, aspect ratio, taper ratio, dihedral, aileron size and trailing flap area; fuselage length; horizontal tail area, arm, aspect ratio and elevator area; and vertical tail area, arm and rudder area for baseline design configuration of military jet trainers and light attack airplanes. These correlations bring out that a) benefits of supercritical sections in terms of improvement in maximum Mach number taper off at higher Mach numbers, b) aspect ratios of the airplanes with lower sweepback tend to diverge from the pitch-up boundary, c) wing planforms of most of the airplanes are less tapered compared to sweep/taper boundary for minimum induced drag and d) fuselage fineness ratios are higher than those optimum for the streamlined bodies of revolution. NOMENCLATURE Wing aspect ratio, b2/S Horizontal tail aspect ratio, bht2/Sht b Wing span, m bht Horizontal tailplane span, m C Wing mean aerodynamic chord, m Cl, C2 & C3 Constants Qp Airplane lateral static stability (Qp)r Lateral static stability due to dihedral (Cip)A Lateral static stability due to sweepback Lateral static stability due to wing location Lateral static stability due to vertical tail Cma Airplane longitudinal static stability (Cma)fus Longitudinal static stability due to fuselage (Cmo)ht Longitudinal static stability due to H.Tail Cnp Airplane directional static stability (Cnp)fus Directional static stability due to fuselage
A Aht

hf If S San Seie Sf Sht Sr Svt TO t/c Vs W Wf Ac/4 F

Horizontal tailplane arm, m Vertical tailplane arm, m Maximum Mach number Directional static stability due to vertical tail Max depth of fuselage, m Fuselage length, m Reference wing area, sqm Aileron area, sqm Elevator area, sqm Trailing edge flap area, sqm Horizontal tailplane area, sqm Rudder area, sqm Vertical tailplane area, sqm Sea level static thrust at ISA conditions Thickness to chord ratio, percent Stall speed Airplane weight Max width of fuselage, m Quarter chord sweep, deg Dihedral angle, deg Taper ratio INTRODUCTION

Past experience constitutes the primary source for selection of baseline design configuration, initial inputs to the iterative process of aircraft design. It is a cut and dried method and therefore time consuming. If, on the other hand, initial inputs are chosen based on the desirable flight characteristics, conceptual design cycle time can be reduced significantly. There is, therefore, a need to evolve easy to use design tools for selection of baseline design configuration. Selection of wing airfoil type, thickness to chord ratio, quarter chord sweep, aspect ratio and taper ratio for advanced jet trainers and light attack airplanes is dealt by Ibrahim1. Whereas a comprehensive exposition of aircraft conceptual design with simplified but complete set of first order analytical methods with special emphasis on aircraft configuration layout is provided by Raymer2. Statistical correlations for selecting baseline design configuration for advanced jet trainers and light attack airplanes are evolved by Ibrahim3. Roskam4 presents a rapid method for preliminary sizing in terms of gross take-off weight, empty weight, mission fuel weight, take-off thrust/power, wing area and aspect

* Former Deputy General Manager (Design), Aircraft Research and Design Centre, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore, India. Copyright 2001 by Ibrahim. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc with Permission.

1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

ratio for homebuilt airplanes to supersonic cruise vehicle to a given mission specification. Roskam5 provides configuration data for 12 types of airplanes and also suggests a range for each parameter.
In this paper configuration and performance data of 20 jet trainers and light attack airplanes (Table I)1'3 has been analyzed. Correlations based on desirable flight characteristics, have been evolved for wing airfoil section, thickness to chord ratio, quarter chord sweep, aspect ratio, taper ratio, dihedral, aileron area and trailing flap area; fuselage length; horizontal tailplane area, arm length, aspect ratio and elevator size; and vertical tailplane area, arm length and rudder size. Multi-variable least square technique is employed. Where dispersion of data did not yield meaningful correlations support has been drawn from military combat aircraft data. These correlations bring out that a) benefits of supercritical sections in terms of improvement in maximum Mach number taper off at higher Mach numbers, b) aspect ratios of the airplanes with lower sweepback tend to diverge from the pitch-up boundary, c) wing planforms of most of the airplanes are less tapered compared to sweep/taper boundary for minimum induced drag and d) fuselage fineness ratios are higher than those optimum for the streamlined bodies of revolution. The correlations can be effectively utilized for selection of baseline design configuration for military jet trainers and light attack airplanes.
BASELINE DESIGN CONFIGURATION

drag divergence Mach number are, type of airfoil (Conventional NACA/Supercritical) and its thickness to chord ratio, wing sweepback, aspect ratio and operating lift coefficient. NACA 6-series sections, when smooth, support extensive laminar boundary layer thereby giving relatively low drag coefficients around the design lift coefficients. These airfoils, therefore, are preferred for high performance aircraft. Drag divergence Mach number of NACA 6-series sections is higher than that of its predecessors. Amongst the NACA 6-series, NACA 64-series offer minimum drag, relatively higher drag divergence Mach number and favorably comparable maximum lift coefficient.
A survey of airfoil sections employed on various airplanes reveals that about half of them employ modern airfoils. Supercritical airfoils developed by NASA and aircraft companies have improved lift to drag ratio, higher drag divergence Mach number, higher maximum lift coefficient and consistently gentle stall. These airfoils, therefore, are optimally suited for military jet trainers and light attack airplanes. Incorporating these airfoils results in a configuration that will have a thicker wing (less structural weight and more fuel volume) lesser wing sweep (lower weight and better handling and low speed performance) for a specified drag divergence Mach number. As a result cruise speed, sustained manoeuvrability, range and flying qualities are improved. On the debit side, because of the increased aft loading, the pitching moments for a given lift coefficient are substantially more negative than those for the NACA 6-series airfoils. Since adequate data, documented systematically like that of classical NACA airfoils to enable selection of supercritical airfoils for applications is not yet available, wind tunnel tests ought to be carried out beforehand to ensure desired aerodynamic characteristics.

Selection of baseline design configuration includes choosing appropriate combination of wing loading (W/S) and thrust to weight ratio (To/W) based on point performance requirements in terms of take-off distance, maximum rate of climb at sea level, maximum level speed at sea level as well as altitude and landing distance. Training sortie duration, range and radius of action in a light attack role form the criteria for computing clean airplane weight and fuel fraction employing statistical trends. Subsequently various parameters describing the wing, fuselage and empennage configuration are selected. Correlations to choose these parameters are dealt in the following sections.
WING AIRFOIL SECTION, THICKNESS TO CHORD RATIO AND QUARTER CHORD SWEEP

For military jet trainers and light attack airplanes maximum Mach number is a measure of drag divergence Mach number. Parameters that influence the

Aspect ratios of most of the trainers and light attack airplanes lie in the range of 4 to 6.68. Average increment in the drag divergence Mach number due to three-dimensional effect is about 0.0256 and is assumed to remain same for all the airplanes analyzed. Lift coefficients corresponding to maximum Mach number flight condition are less than 0.2. At these lift coefficient there is no significant effect on the drag divergence Mach numbers7. Thus drag divergence Mach number of jet trainers and light attack airplanes is primarily influenced by the type of airfoil, its thickness ratio and wing sweepback. Correlation of wing section and planform parameters with their corresponding

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

maximum Mach numbers for 27 airplanes is presented in Figure 1.

Supercritical Airfoils Mmax = 1.10635 0.027151 (t/c)% Cos2Ac/4

Su Der ttend

ar

*Gnat T *T-2 \*Myster e IV A jee^Hunt \^AIphdj< kT-3^C/>^/

the farther aft the tip is from the centre of gravity and greater the forward movement of centre of pressure when lift is lost at the tips. Airplane, therefore, undergoes a rapid and uncontrolled nose-up movement, which constitutes the phenomenon of pitch-up. Thus sweepback and aspect ratio combination is the primary factor in establishing pitch-up tendencies.

^
> 7

X
m339A
arn

^<

^^

"%N x^^
skra ^
AA

P x\ .Aviojet T-46A

3 105\

er Saeta Ciran l]j\ Conventional Airfoils M max = 1.090675 - 0.035556 (t/c)% Cos 2 A c/4 Jet Prove Fouga 90

(t/c)% Cos 2 A c / 4

Fig. 1 Choice of quarter chord sweep and airfoil thickness to chord ratio

Data segregates broadly into two groups, one belonging to conventional NACA airfoils and the other to supercritical sections. Equations of the linearly regressed lines are given below.
Mmax = 1.0907 - 0.0356 (t/c) Cos2Ac/4

...(1)

Pitch-up boundary in terms of aspect ratio and quarter chord sweep evolved by NASA8 is shown in Figure 2. For pitch-up free flight characteristics it is necessary to choose a right combination of sweepback and aspect ratio, such that sufficient margin is incorporated from the pitch-up boundary. Sweepback angles and aspect ratios of 27 airplanes are superposed on the NASA boundary. Aspect ratios of most of the airplanes are sufficiently below the NASA boundary. However, aspect ratios of the airplanes with lower sweepback tend to diverge from the pitch-up boundary. Most of these airplanes have been designed for transonic speed capability required for penetration. High aspect ratios permitted by the pitch-up boundary impose large transonic drag penalty and inhibit transonic penetration speeds. On the other hand, lower aspect ratios reduce the severity of transonic wave drag and hence the divergence between the design aspect ratios and pitchup boundary. Equation of the regressed line is as under.
A - 5.852 - 0.005 (Ac/4) 1.7
Aspect Ratio = 5.85219 - 0.004957 (Ac/4)1'

for conventional airfoils and

Mmax = 1.1064 - 0.0272 (t/c) Cos2Ac/4

...(la)

(2)

for supercritical airfoils.

Besides, the correlation brings out another significant aspect of wing design. Converging of the two regressed lines towards higher Mach number suggests that the benefits of supercritical sections in terms of improvement in maximum Mach number taper off at higher Mach numbers.
WING ASPECT RATIO

Aspect ratio influences lifting ability of the wing at a given angle of attack, the induced drag and angle of attack at stall. For military jet trainers and light attack airplanes transonic speed capability forms additional criterion for selecting aspect ratio.
In a sweptback wing local lift coefficients in the outboard region are higher than those in the inboard region. Since the onset of flow separation is strongly dependent on the local lift coefficient, a highly sweptback wing is, therefore, prone to early tip stall. The higher the sweepback and aspect ratio combination,

10

15 20 25 30 Quarter Chord Sweep (Ac/4), deg

35

40

Fig. 2 Quarter chord sweep and aspect ratio boundary for transonic capability
WING TAPER RATIO

At moderate to high lift coefficients corresponding to subsonic cruise and manoeuvre conditions, induced drag forms a significant (> 50%) part of airplane total drag. The induced drag is because of spanwise

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

variations of wing loading. It is well known that elliptic load distribution along the span offers minimum induced drag. Spanwise load distribution is primarily dependent on the wing planform. The larger the aspect ratio the lower will be the induced drag. Aspect ratios cannot be larger than those permitted by the NASA pitch-up boundary. Increasing the wing sweep causes the loading to move outboard thereby distorting it from the ideal elliptic. Likewise taper causes the local lift coefficient at the tip to increase. However, because of reduction in the local chord, spanwise loading will tend to move towards the elliptic. Hence by choosing an appropriate combination of wing sweepback and taper it is possible to achieve near elliptic loading.

Equation of the exponential regression fit nearly parallel to the NASA sweep/taper boundary is given below.
Taper Ratio (X) = 0.5588 exp (-0.0173 Ac/4) ... ..(3)
WING DIHEDRAL

Airplane lateral static stability, rolling moment due to sideslip, can be expressed as sum total of the contributions from various sources as below.
(vt

... ... ...

(4)

A relation between wing quarter chord sweep and taper ratio required for approximately elliptical loading, derived by NASA9 is presented in Figure 3 for planforms without twist, along with design data of 26 military jet trainers and light attack airplanes. It is observed that wing planforms of most of the airplanes are less tapered compared to NASA sweep/taper boundary. It can be deduced that in the case of jet trainers and light attack airplanes a practical lower limit to taper ratio is imposed by structural height required at the tip to provide adequate room for ailerons and their control elements. Besides the points in Figure 3 lie in a region where wing loading moves outboard. In majority of theses designs certain amount of wing twist (washout) has been incorporated. This suggests that modern trend is to go for less tapered wing planforms and alleviate the outboard loading through a suitable twist. Less tapered wings also offer more room for installation of external stores and associated control elements, which are essential for performing light attack roles.
Taper ratio = 0.55881 Exp(-0.01731 A c /4> Aviojet MB.326

It is observed that all the military jet trainers currently either in development or in series production have straight or mildly sweptback and tapered low/high wing monoplanes. Sweep effect, therefore, is relatively small. Airworthiness requirements in regard to crew vision, operational requirements in respect of accommodating a specified percentile of pilot population and assurance of structural integrity by means of carry-through wing do not accord much freedom to the airplane designer to adopt diverse cross-section shapes for trainer fuselages. Besides, closer examination reveals that the relative widths (w/b) of the trainer fuselages are about the same. Therefore for jet trainers and light attack airplanes order of magnitude of the effect of low/high wing on the lateral static stability is assumed to remain same. Order of magnitude of the vertical tailplane contribution to lateral static stability is small. In view of the above, expression for aircraft lateral static stability can be rewritten as under.
Qp - (Cip)r + (Qp)A + Constant
(5)

*Parr

MB. 339* L2$\^ im^lskra _ CL.419 I- t6A^\.

AlvIX

Gnat T
Ajeet T

~~"\. S.21 *
\x
Skyf

^Kiron II

~^-\
H

*\

^sr\
*G-4

ha jet

\x^
"\
\^

""^--~4AR.93>
*T
2

Assuming that for a class of airplanes order of magnitude of lateral static stability remains same, substituting for the contributions of dihedral and sweepback in terms of taper ratio, aspect ratio and quarter chord sweep and simplifying yields the following expression for the dihedral.
= Cl [1+C2/A] + C3 Tan Ac/4 ... (6)

HF-24

~^~~-

^---^
~~^~~fn^ary

" 921

Regression of aspect ratio, taper ratio and quarter chord sweepback for low wing aircraft provides the following expression for dihedral.
T - 47.39 [1- 4.89/A]
- 2.294 Tan Ac/4 ... (6a)

Quarter Chord Sweep (\/4), deg

Fig. 3 Quarter chord sweep and taper ratio boundary for minimum induced drag

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AILERONS

The following regression lines define the upper and lower bounds.
Sf =-1.94 + 0.278 (upperbound) ...
.-.(8)

The ailerons provide roll control to the airplane. Aileron power must be adequate a) to provide desired roll rate to the airplane, b) to overcome the rolling moments arising during cross wind take-off and landing, and c) to effect required bank angle for a coordinated turn under specific conditions of flight. Requirement at a) generally forms the design criterion.

Sf =-1.40 + 0.188 (lowerbound) ...

Depending upon the requirement of stall speed in the landing configuration suitable training edge flap area lying within the specified bounds can be chosen.
FUSELAGE LENGTH

While providing a steady roll rate, ailerons must overcome wing damping due to roll. Accordingly, correlation of aileron area with wing area yields the following equation.
= 0.069 S
TRAILING EDGE FLAP AREA
(7)

Based on practicable considerations, for sizing of the fuselage length two criteria a) practicable fineness ratio and b) recovery from spin are suggested.
The optimum fineness ratio for a fuselage with a specified frontal area and volume are around 3 and 5 respectively. However, in view of the interference from the adjoining components, requirement of adequate space for installation of equipment and appropriate arm lengths for the tailplanes, fuselages in practice are found to be longer than the optimum.
Cockpit configuration in terms of side-by-side or tandem seats along with percentile pilot population to be accommodated uniquely determines the maximum width of the fuselage. Maximum depth, however, is influenced by the vision requirements at the forward and aft crew stations. In regard to length, forebody houses equipment, center fuselage accommodates the crew stations and rear fuselage generally houses the engine. Thus fuselage length also varies depending upon the type of equipment, crew station and engine employed. Correlation of fuselage length with maximum depth for tandem seat configurations yields the following regression line.
Lf=6.6h f
(9)

Trailing edge flaps provide additional lift required during take-off and landing. They do not increase the angle of stall. In fact they tend to reduce the stall angle by increasing the adverse pressure gradient over the top of the airfoil, which promotes flow separation. Trailing edge flaps commonly employed on military jet trainers are plain flap, split flap and slotted flap.

The operational requirement of stall speed with flaps forms the design driver for sizing of the flap area and selecting the deflection angle. However, a survey of the flap areas for the military jet trainers and light attack airplanes suggests that the flap area is related to gross wing area. Regarding deflection angle, with a view to derive full benefit, designer prefers to employ angles (35 to 50 deg.) corresponding to the largest increment in maximum lift coefficient. Correlation of flap area with wing area (Figure 4) results in a broadband.
Sf, sqm = -1.9365 + 0.2711 S

*AMX

G-4/i ryci /

x^
+T-4
/ /

IAR.93

Pampa

Alphajet,
+L-39

/ y/K-8 /Hawk /

+IAR.99 Aviojet ^ AT- 3 */ MB.33S x / '

The correlation suggests that fineness ratio of fuselages for jet trainers and light attack airplanes is higher than that of the streamlined bodies of revolution.
Military jet trainers are required to be capable of spinning and recovery from the spin upon application of rudder, a classical recovery control input. Compliance of spin recovery requirement necessitates ensuring of more than 1/3 of unshielded (by the horizontal tailplane) rudder area at attitudes relevant to spin as well as equal distribution of mass along the wing and lyy). The fuselage (zero loading category wherein

Jet Squall ,s

x
X

T-4-6A

S f , sqm = -1.3991 4- 0.1816 S

16

18

20

22

24

Wing area (S), sqm

Fig. 4 Trailing edge flap size

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

former is ensured through appropriate relative location of horizontal and vertical tailplanes. Whereas accomplishing distribution of a given set of masses typical to military jet trainers and light attack airplanes along the wing and fuselage to achieve Ixx lyy suggests that a correlation ought to exist between the wingspan and fuselage length. Correlation (Figure 5) brings forth the following results.
l f = 1.18b (10)

[(Shtlht/SC)] = Constant+[(wf2lf/SC)] ... ...

(12)

Correlation of horizontal tailplane area with fuselage length and width yields the following regression.
Sht = 0.862 [(SC/lf) +0.536 wf2] ... ... ... (13)

Horizontal tailplane arm upon correlation with fuselage length turns out as below.
lht = 0.382 lf ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (14)

for military jet trainers and

HORIZONTAL TAIL ASPECT RATIO

l f = 1.18+1.25 b ... ...

(lOa)

for light attack airplanes.

,etS

Wing span (b), m

Horizontal tailplane with a relatively large geometric aspect ratio enhances longitudinal static stability by virtue of its high lift curve slope. Besides, large aspect ratio reduces the area exposed to the fuselage wake thereby improving horizontal tailplane effectiveness. Both these effects cause a reduction in horizontal tailplane area. Increase in structural weight due to increase in aspect ratio may balance out with that caused by reduction in area. However, in order to retain control of the airplane throughout the flight envelope, horizontal tailplane ought to stall at angles of attack greater than those at which the wing stalls. This is accomplished through choosing a tailplane of aspect ratio smaller than that of the wing. Accordingly, aspect ratios of the horizontal tailplanes are correlated with those of wing in Figure 6.
= 0.6414 + 0.6991 A

Fig. 5 Fuselage length

While choosing fuselage length care ought to be exercised to ensure that it is not very much at variance with the value specified by the spin recovery criterion.
HORIZONTAL TAIL SIZE AND ARM

Jet Squa us i^MB.339

Major contributions to airplane longitudinal static stability come from fuselage and horizontal tailplane. While providing the required level of longitudinal static stability to the airplane, the horizontal tail overcomes the destabilizing contribution of the fuselage. Therefore, airplane longitudinal static stability can be broadly expressed as
c ~ (Cma)ht + (Cma)fhs

.2 9

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

Wing aspect ratio

Fig. 6 Horizontal tailplane aspect ratio

Assuming that the order of magnitude of longitudinal stability for a class of airplanes remains same and substituting for contributions of horizontal tailplane and fuselage in equation (11) yields the following expression.

The correlation suggests a broad band with upper and lower bounds. Equations for the regressed lines are as under.
A h t =- 0.641 + 0.699 (upperbound) ... ... ...(15)
Aht = - 1.218 + 0.420 (lower bound) ... ... ... (15a)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

ELEVATOR SIZE

In a classical design, elevator is sized to provide adequate control at the most forward C.G. location at high angles of attack. Yet another design practice AFWAL-TR-82-308110 suggests that during take-off and landing flight phases elevator control power from trimmed condition should be adequate to cause a pitch acceleration of -0.18 rad/s (nose down), and 0.13 rad/s (nose up). These methods, however, demand detailed knowledge of aerodynamic, mass and inertia characteristics of the configuration.
The higher the level of stability, the larger will be the control power required to execute a manoeuvre. Accordingly correlation (Figure 7) of elevator area with horizontal tailplane area results in a broad band with upper and lower bounds. Following are the expressions for the regressed lines.

tailplane. While providing the required level of directional static stability to airplane, vertical tailplane overcomes the destabilizing contribution of fuselage. Therefore, airplane directional static stability can be broadly expressed as

Assuming that the order of magnitude of directional static stability for a class of airplanes remains same, substituting for the contributions of fuselage and vertical tail plane yields the following expression. (SvJvt/Sb) = Constant + (hf2lf/Sb) (17a)

Correlation of vertical tailplane area with fuselage length and maximum depth brings out the following expression.
vt = 0.099[(Sb/l f +4.53h f 2 )]

(18)

= -1.865 + 0.962 Sht (upper bound)

Seie = -1.178 + 0.607 Sht (lower bound) ... ...

(16) (16a)

Vertical tailplane arm upon correlation with fuselage length provides the following regression line.
1^ = 0.341^ (19)

Comparison of horizontal tail and vertical tail arms suggests that the horizontal and vertical tails are staggered with the latter being ahead of the former, primarily for ensuring more than 1/3 of unshielded (by the horizontal tailplane) rudder area at attitudes relevant to spin.
RUDDER AREA

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

4.4

4.8

5.2

Horizontal tailplane area (Sht ), sqm

Fig. 7 Elevator size

While the upper bound corresponds to configurations with elevator deflection only, the lower bound corresponds to those with elevator deflection and variable incidence tailplane.
VERTICAL TAIL AREA AND ARM

The rudder provides directional control to the airplane. Classical design norm is to size the rudder powerful enough a) to overcome adverse yaw to enable the airplane to execute a coordinated turn at low speeds, b) to trim the airplane to maintain alignment with the runway during crosswind landing and c) to oppose rotation to facilitate recovery from spin. Another design practice suggested in AFWAL-TR-82-308110 prefers to size the rudder to provide a yaw acceleration of not less than 0.2 rad/s2 at low speeds (1.2VS). These practices demand detailed knowledge of aerodynamic, mass and inertia characteristics of the configuration.

Contribution to airplane directional static stability from wing and its relative location are negligibly small and major contributions come from fuselage and vertical

Like in the case of elevator, rudder size is also found to be primarily influenced by the vertical tailplane area. Areas of vertical tailplane and rudder have been correlated in Figure 8.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

REFERENCES

1. K Ibrahim, "Wing Design for Advanced Jet Trainers and Light Attack airplanes - A Statistical // Approach", 3rd National Conference on ^ Jet S qualusX Aerodynamics, Indian Institute of Technology, /Kiran II Bombay, India 3 November 1987. -h L-2S IAF 99xXlpJ a Jet 2. Daniel P Raymer, "Aircraft Design - A Hawk ^ter-1^B-339 Conceptual Approach", AIAA Education Series, 1989. /dlriat- -T 3. K Ibrahim, "Selection of Baseline Design Configuration for Advanced Jet Trainers and Light Attack Airplanes", - Unpublished. 4. Jan Roskam, "Airplane Design ^ Part I: Vertical tail plane area (S t ), sqm Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes", DARcorporation, 1997. Fig. 8 Rudder size 5. Jan Roskam, "Airplane Design - Part II: Following are the expressions for the regressed lines. Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration of the Propulsion System", DARcorporation, Sr = 0.04 + 0.327 S^ (upper bound) (20) 1997. 6. R C Feagin et al, "Delta Method, an Empirical Sr = -0.17 + 0.289 S^ (lower bound) (20a) Drag Build-up Technique", NASA CR 15971, December 1978. CONCLUSIONS 7. Gerald Corning, "Supersonic and Subsonic Airplane Design", College Park, Maryland, 1953. Configuration and performance data of 20 jet trainers 8. Joseph A Shorthall and Bernard Maggin, " Effect and light attack airplanes has been analyzed to evolve of Sweepback and Aspect Ratio on Longitudinal simple and easy to use correlations based on desirable Stability Characteristics of Wings at Low flight characteristics. These correlations bring out that Speeds", NACA TN 1093. a) benefits of supercritical sections in terms of improvement in maximum Mach number taper off at 9. John D Young and Charles W Harper, higher Mach numbers, b) aspect ratios of the airplanes "Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading at with lower sweepback tend to diverge from the pitch-up Subsonic Speeds for Wings Having Arbitrary boundary, c) wing planforms of most of the airplanes Planform", NACA TR 921, 1951. are less tapered compared to sweep/taper boundary for 10. Roger H. Hoh et al., "Proposed MIL Standard and minimum induced drag and d) fuselage fineness ratios Handbook - Flying Qualities of Air Vehicles", are higher than those optimum for the streamlined AFWAL -TR-82-3081 Volume II, November bodies of revolution. The correlations can be effectively 1982. utilized for selection of baseline design configuration.
/+
Sr, sqm = 0.0402 -h 0.327 S^

y^r
/

(t
L-

\T-3

IAR-9C

AMX

Sr, sqm = -0.17 + 0.289 S^

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author expresses his deep sense of gratitude to Prof M R Ananthasayanam from the Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India, for his continued inspiration, constructive criticism and helpful suggestions during the preparation of this paper.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 1. Design Data of Military Jet Trainer and Light Attack Airplanes Empty Weight We, kg
2821
1300 3455 6550
3345 2557 6150 3125 1850 3700

o o

>

No.

Country Argentina Belgium Czech Italy/Brazil France/Germ China/Pak Yugl/Romania Italy Italy Japan Poland Romania Spain Taiwan U.K
U.S.A U.S.A

Airplane Name Pampa Jet Squalus AeroL-39 AMX Alpha Jet K-8 IAR93
MB.339A S.211 T-4 1-22 IAR-99

Takeoff Weight Wt,kg

3700 2000
4525 9600 5000 3500 8826 4400 2750 5500 6082 4630

Thrust atSL To,kN

15.57 5.92 16.87 49.10 26.48 16.01 35.58 17.80 11.13 32.74

Wing Mmax

Fuselage Sweep
Ac/4

CD

Area S,m 2
15.63
13.58 18.80
21.00 17.50 17.02
26.00 19.30 12.60 21.00 19.92

Span b, m
9.69
9.04 9.46
8.87 9.11 9.63 9.62 10.86
8.43 9.94

Aspect Ratio AR
6.00 6.00 5.20
3.75 4.80 5.45 3.60 6.10 5.10 4.70 4.60

1
2
3

0.728 0.650 0.865 0.860 0.930 0.770 0.598 0.900 -

deg 2.95
0.00
1.75 27.50 28.00 35.00 8.48 15.50 27.50 18.00

Taper Ratio X
0.59 0.53
0.52 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.56 0.46 0.36 -

Length If, m
10.90
9.36 12.13
12.55 11.75 10.50 13.41
10.97 9.31 11.96 13.22

Max Width w f ,m
1.90 1.80 1.78 2.053 -

Max depth h f ,m
1.87 1.73 1.69 -

CD

" o >

O 3 0)

4
5

3
3
0)

6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

o'
O Tl

CD Q.

3782 3364 3500 3855

3750

21.58 17.79 16.46 31.14 25.35 32.92 11.84 17.80

18.53 16.54

9.60 10.16 10.60 10.46 9.39 11.84 11.77 9.88 10.70

6.73

Tl CD

18.71 20.00 21.93 16.69 22.22 15.40 19.50 19.00

12.69

5.52 5.60
5.00 5.30

6.58 1.88 7.33

21.50 3.50 22.00 7.47 40.00

0.51 0.60 0.50 0.34 0.38 0.51 0.37

0.40 0.45

11.01 12.50 12.50

10.50

Aviojet AT-3 Hawk

Skyfox T-46A G-4

4570 5216
5150

0.715 0.850 0.880 0.694 0.800 0.600

0.907

2.06 1.65 1.90 1.65 1.37

1.48

1.82 1.95
1.75 O 5 O

3665 2540 3250

2966 2579

7365
3357 4760 4212 3629

6.68 9.00 5.00 6.03

3.57

14.02 9.00 11.86 10.60 10.05

Yugoslavia India India

1.79 1.52

Kiran II Ajeet T

I
CQ

CO

0)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

s
* VH
O r-H

oo
ON oo VO 0 oo vo r 0 0 0 0 ""^ 0 0
r-H

en i
r-H

00

r-H ON

(<vf
~
eN <^>
00
1
r-H Tfr ^

ON 0 O

en
r-H

in
00

in
i
vo
0 0 0

ON

r-H

r- eN

o
0
ON

H
cd
*H ^

as
i
1
1

i
i

o in

>
8^3
eN
$-< .N

tt
-*
0 00

^
0 0 0 0 0 n eN 0 in

eN
"*
^

O <N
ON

en

o
0 0

in
en
eN
eN
ON eN
, 4

r"^ in
en
eN

O OO VO

n in
1

^ "* ^
en
0 0 eN

oo
^J-

eN
1
r-H i 4

0 0 0 O

c~-en

en

en eN

en
en eN
en

eN eN
1 1

~
T ^

fi o
O
C^ QJ

O
r-H

K* H
VO
T H

<S
ON

S
~
'" "^

^
^"^

O 0 0 ! l ~~
1

O 00 0
00
1

0
1
^ ~

o r- in eN in
ON

0 0 f^> ON in vo eN 0 ' ' i 4 ' '

1 I 1 (

0 0

o
00

<
en eN

&

IS

1 5*1 ^
r-H

3.2 a
00
ON

oo
VO ON

eN
0

eN en

ON

in vq
eN

o
en
ON

in
-H

r^
vq
5

*
en en ^ oo . ^

vo ON r- 00 en p
es ^ en
^

in
en

m' m eN
^ ^

S ffi
en

-J
*H ^

ga <J cs^e
m
en vo ^j. en
ON
ON

en
eN
0 00

^_
eN en

c
!M
M

CO

* &

en

en
eN
00

en en

oo
en en
0 in VO en

r- eN in eN en 0 en . en ^ in Tfr
i
en

^
vo ^j-

eN r^en

ON

eN
ON T^en ^ eN

-f
^

*8 H
0 0

c
^ <

Q^

3 <iCO i
OO 0 0
ON

ON

eN eN en eN
O

o
oo
0 VO

p
in
0 0 0
r-H

ON O
eN

0 00

eN en

o o eN -~ 00 o in 0 en vo en in r-H en p

0 00

oo

en

n
L^ < CO
3
ON
^^

Sl=
VH

oo eN
00 00 00
VO

Tfr
00

o
en eN
eN
O 0 O 0 en ^ '

so
eN en eN
O

eN
r-H

eN
en eN

eN eN

0 en ON en

S
in in
eN
O

0 0 0 0

in

en

eN

in eN
0 0 0 ON r-H

0
r-H

o
en en

13
O
0 O , i eN 0

*4-<

0 ,

n
eN
en eN
00
r-H r-H r-H

0 0 0 vo

H
r-H

eN eN p
0
0

00

eN

eN
r-H

in
r-H

s
en
0

!4

i 4

00
(D
O 0

1 73

1
eN
0

5
oo
/ s

p en p eN
0 eN

in

in

0 ON 0 0

p p

oo

g
X-

I
i <
r-H

NACA64A01

NASALS(l)

Supercritical

Supercritical

Supercritical

Supercritical

Supercritical

CO

n
1
1

Supercritical

I 1

eN

00

3C-

o o 1

1 ? .

I
|
U U U
i
VO

cd in

1
p
c/i
( D

s
i
ON
.<

0
1 4

00

a| I 1 H
CO

i!
d

en

IAR93

ON

en en

ON
r-H

ON
00

eN

eN
CO

en

1
,_ ,
eN
en

i
a
^ in
VO

X
VO

t 1

H H

62
r00
ON

eN

en

^ in

vo r-

00

ON