AAE 451

Senior Aircraft Design

Preliminary Design Review
4-27-06
Prof. William A. Crossley
Group 6
John Collins
Chad Davis
Chris Fles
Danny Sze Ling Lim
Justin Rohde
Ryan Schulz
Ronald Wong
Yusaku Yamashita
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...........................................................2
Market Review....................................................................3
Design Requirements........................................................4
Carpet Plots .......................................................................6
Aerodynamics.....................................................................10
Structural Analysis............................................................20
Component Weight Breakdown........................................23
Stability...............................................................................27
Configuration and Dimensions ........................................34
Propulsion...........................................................................39
Fuel Selection.....................................................................41
Direct Operating Costs......................................................45
Acquisition Cost.................................................................47
Production Cost.................................................................48
Concept Comparison.........................................................51
Conclusion..........................................................................52
References..........................................................................53
Merit Pool............................................................................54
2
Executive Summary
Current forecasts on the world fossil fuel supply have shown the possibility of nearing
peak oil production within the next few decades. To date, no significant steps have been
taken to prevent the effects of declining oil availability on the aviation community.
However, a large portion of the world economy relies on affordable air transportation.
Thus the need has arisen to design an aircraft which will remain reliable in a time of
transition away from oil dependence.
The goal of an aircraft design company is ultimately, like any other company, to be
profitable. It has been identified that opportunity for profit exists in the emerging air taxi
and air charter markets, as well as in sales to private companies. Through extensive
study, it has been determined that the best way to effectively capture a portion of these
markets is through the development of a light, single turboprop aircraft powered by
alternative fuel the Yamasan 2006.
The Yamasan 2006 is capable of carrying six passengers and two crew members on a 600
nautical mile trip. The aircraft is designed to access runways as short as 2,100 feet. This
enables the owner/operator to avoid congestion at major airports, providing more
convenient point-to-point service. The Yamasan 2006 cruise speed of 250 knots is
comparable to aircraft of similar function, and is capable of a maximum 263 knots.
The design process led to a configuration that is not typical within the general aviation
market. The Yamasan 2006 is a pusher-type turboprop aircraft with a canard
configuration and vertical stabilizers located at the outer end of each wings. The design
has been shown theoretically feasible - both aerodynamically and financially - to be
introduced into the desired market. It is a unique solution for both an uncertain economic
future and the needs of emerging air transport services.
3
Market Review
The target market for Yamasan 2006 consists primarily of air taxi services, air charter
operations, and corporate flight departments. The aircraft is also suitable for use in cargo
and medical emergency roles. The expected market exists not only in the United States,
but also to a large extent in Europe and Asia. The combination of an alternatively-fuelled
aircraft, a broad market, and effective utilization of the many advanced design tools
available today, will allow the aircraft to be successful and competitive against current
and future fleets.
As of 2002, the global business aircraft fleet included 9,785 turboprop aircraft. Of these
aircraft, air taxi service Pogo estimates that a 2% capture of flights of less than 500
nautical miles will be required to remain profitable. This is reinforced by a LinearAir
estimate of 16,000 passengers per day traveling in this range. Furthermore, Eclipse
Aviation projects air taxi services to account for approximately 20% of the entire
business aircraft fleet by 2015, whereas the current figure is approximately 3.9% (382
aircraft.
Through the study of the market size and competition, customer attributes have been
identified, a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) matrix employed, and trade studies
performed to define the necessary design requirements of the Yamasan 2006. The
aircraft concept aims to deliver an affordable and time-saving means of travel to the end-
user at affordable and competitive operating cost levels for the operators. It also aims to
provide a positive solution to potential global oil supply problems. With flexible interior
configurations, it can also provide cross-platform capability for different market needs.
4
Design Requirements
Figure 1 - Design Mission
Design Mission
The anticipated design mission for Yamasan 2006 is given in Figure 1. Based on several
of the performance parameters and requirements, it outlines the segments of an ideal
operation; including taxi time, landing, and emergency procedures. A 10-minute taxi
time was determined using the assumption that the aircraft will be utilized primarily for
small airport operations, and thus will not face significant delays. Based on FAR
requirements, the aircraft will have a 45 minute fuel reserve in the event of an
emergency, such that its range will be extended beyond 600 nautical miles if necessary.
This design mission was selected because of its wide use in the current general aviation
market. The average commercial flight distance is approximately 500 nautical miles.
The selected design mission, at 600 nautical miles, easily accommodates the majority of
the current public market. The length of this mission will maximize the capabilities of
owner/operators, such as air taxi services, to make point-to-point flights available to
customers who simply seek to bypass large airports and reach the same destination more
quickly. Additionally, a load of six passengers was found to be average for the typical
business flight in the selected range, which requires two flight crew members on all
flights.
Requirement Selection
The takeoff distance (ground roll) was chosen in response to the capabilities of similar
aircraft currently in the market. The distance of 2,100 feet is shorter than that of the
majority of the competition; this allows the Yamasan 2006 to access a greater number of
public airports, thereby increasing its utilization potential and creating an advantage over
many competing aircraft. The cruise speed is slightly higher than the primary competing
aircraft, though it does not exceed the capabilities necessary for this regime of flight.
5
The acquisition and direct operating cost requirements are based on a regression of
competing aircraft. The goal of the Yamasan 2006 design was keep the costs at equal or
lower levels, without detracting from the performance and capabilities of the aircraft
itself. The acquisition cost of the Yamasan 2006 is $1.725 million slightly lower than
the design requirement. The direct operating cost of $450 per flight hour represents a
significant improvement over the $550 per hour requirement. The results of Yamasan
2006 versus the initial requirements are given in Table 1 below.
Yamasan 2006 Design Requirement
Payload (lb.) 1500 1500
T.O./Landing Distance
(Ground Roll, ft)
2100 2100
Capacity 6 passengers, 2 crew 6 passengers, 2 crew
Range (nm)
600 w/200 nm divert
45 min. loiter
600
Speed (kts.)
250 (Cruise)
265 (Max.)
250
Acquisition Cost ($M) 1.725 1.8
D.O.C. ($/hr.) 450 550
Table 1 - Comparison of Yamasan 2006 with Design Requirements
6
Carpet Plots
In order to determine aircraft characteristics such as wing loading, power loading, and
aspect ratio, carpet plots were used. The carpet plots also involve better constraints than
in previous analyses because the models for performance are more accurate. The plots
include aircraft gross take-off weight as a function of wing loading, power loading, and
aspect ratio; also, the carpet plots allow the aircraft characteristics that result in the lowest
gross weight to be determined. Software programs such as FLOPS were utilized, with
aircraft characteristics and mission requirements as input. Parameters such as take-off
field length, maximum cruise speed, and aircraft gross weight were calculated. However,
it was decided to develop a program which could be tailored for this specific aircraft type
and design mission. The new program greater control and understanding of the carpet
plots.
The program developed for the purposes of this design is comprised of three main parts.
The first part is the relationship between wing loading, power loading, aspect ratio, gross
weight, velocity, and the empty weight fraction. The historical regression presented in
Table 6.2 (Raymer
1
) was used. This function represents the empty weight fraction that
was used in the second part of the program, which is the mission weight fraction analysis.
The weight fraction analysis is based on the fuel burn for mission segments, and Equation
6.12 (Raymer) shows how the cruise segment weight fraction is analyzed. Similar
equations are used to for the other mission segments, such as climb and loiter. The
program uses the empty weight fraction, crew and passenger weights, fuel fraction
analysis, an initial gross weight estimate, and an iterative process used in conjunction
with Equation 6.1 (Raymer). The process continues until the initial gross weight estimate
equals the calculated gross weight. The program determines the aircraft gross weights for
a wide range of wing loadings, power loadings, and aspect ratios.
Within the first two parts of the program, other aircraft characteristics or mission
parameters are not fixed by design criteria. Some aircraft characteristics, such as parasite
drag or thrust specific fuel consumption, are determined through the aerodynamic
analysis and engine models presented in this report. Other flight parameters such as the
lift-to-drag ratio for cruise are determined using functions similar to Equation 6.13
(Raymer). One mission parameter that is not constrained is the cruise altitude. There is
no design requirement for cruise altitude, so it was necessary to calculate the altitude that
would maximize the aircraft efficiency while maintaining the cruise speed design
requirement. Equations 5.13, 17.25, and 17.28 (Raymer) represent the flight conditions
for best cruise range. The constraint equation for cruise speed represents the maximum
cruise speed based on the values for wing loading and power loading. With fixed
characteristics, such as wing loading and power loading, the main variable in these
equations becomes the dynamic pressure. The variation of altitude, and how it affects
best cruise speed and maximum cruise speed was studied. The best cruise speed and a
maximum cruise speed based on a cruise power setting have intersecting trends when
plotted against altitude, which can be seen in
2. The intersection occurs at an altitude of 20,500 feet, which represents the best cruise
altitude and the altitude at which the design mission cruise segment is flown the weight
fraction analysis.
7
15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
Velocity vs. Altitude
Altitude (ft)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
f
t
/
s
e
c
)
Best Cruise
Cruise Power
Selected Cruise Altitude
Figure 2 - Cruise Velocity vs. Altitude
The third part of the carpet plot program is the constraint analysis. The two most strict
design constraints for the aircraft based on the initial constraint diagrams were the take-
off distance and cruise speed. Take-off distance and cruise speed are based on the same
parameters that affect the aircraft gross weight, including the wing loading and power
loading. When the program calculates the aircraft gross weight corresponding to a given
wing loading, power loading, and aspect ratio, it also calculates the maximum cruise
speed and take-off distance of that aircraft. Using the aircraft parameters and weights
that meet the requirements, the trends of the maximum cruise speed and take-off
constraints can be plotted along with the aircraft gross weight, wing loading, and power
loading.
The team uses the three main parts of the program to determine the minimum gross
weight that meets the design requirements as well as the corresponding aircraft
characteristics. The carpet plots shown below in Figures 3, 4 and 5 are used to determine
the best aspect ratio, shown in Figure 6. Using the carpet plot analysis, the minimum
aircraft gross weight was determined as 6500 pounds at an aspect ratio of 7.6, a wing
loading of 32 lb/ft
2
, and a power loading of 0.1632 hp/lb.
8

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
0.1400 P/W
0.1463 P/W
0.1547 P/W
0.1632 P/W
0.1716 P/W
0.1800 P/W
Aspect Ratio = 6.08
Wing Loading (lbs/ft
2
)
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t

G
r
o
s
s

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
l
b
s
)

Cruise Speed Constraint
Take-off Constraint
P/W = 0.166 hp/lb
W/S = 33 lb/ft
2
GTOW = 6650 lb
Figure 3 - Carpet Plot (AR = 6.08)
9

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
0.1400 P/W
0.1463 P/W
0.1547 P/W
0.1632 P/W
0.1716 P/W
0.1800 P/W
Aspect Ratio = 7.6
Wing Loading (lbs/ft
2
)
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t

G
r
o
s
s

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
l
b
s
)

Cruise Speed Constraint
Take-off Constraint
Design Point:
P/W = 0.1632 hp/lb
W/S = 32 lb/ft
2
GTOW = 6500 lb
Figure 4 - Carpet Plot (AR = 7.6)

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
0.1400 P/W
0.1463 P/W
0.1547 P/W
0.1632 P/W
0.1716 P/W
0.1800 P/W
Aspect Ratio = 9.12
Wing Loading (lbs/ft
2
)
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t

G
r
o
s
s

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
l
b
s
)

Cruise Speed Constraint
Take-off Constraint
P/W = 0.159 hp/lb
W/S = 31 lb/ft
2
GTOW = 6550 lb
10
Figure 5 - Carpet Plot (AR = 9.12)
Figure 6 - Carpet Plot (GTOW vs. AR)
11
Aerodynamics
Wing Airfoil Selection
NACA 44 series and 5 digit series airfoils were considered as possible candidates for the
wing airfoil. NACA airfoils were chosen because of experimental data were easily
available. Another benefit to using NACA airfoils was that many programs such as
XFOIL, XFLR5 and Java foil were able to give good prediction with the empirical data
for many NACA airfoils and thus the aerodynamics performance could be accurately
predicted. Another advantage of the NACA 44s and 5s series airfoil was that surface
roughness has little impact on the lift properties
2
. Thus, the airfoil would not require any
kind of expensive surface finishing which may contribute to additional production costs.
As the canard interaction with the main wing during takeoff is difficult to obtain without
any kind of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis or Wind tunnel
experimentation verification, it was decided that at this current stage, the wing would be
required to carry all the lift during takeoff. Based on our constrain diagrams, the max lift
coefficient C
lmax
required would be 1.5 at takeoff.
The other aerodynamic properties that are important in the selection process are: low
sectional drag coefficient C
d
, high L/D ratio at cruise and low pitching moment
coefficient C
m
. The most important characteristics for Yamasan 2006 would be to meet
the C
lmax
requirement and at the same time induce the lowest drag at cruise as possible,
thereby achieving a high L/D ratio.
In Abbott and Doenhoff
3
, empirical data for the lift and drag coefficients of various
NACA airfoils have published. Five NACA airfoils were identified as suitable airfoils
for Yamasan 2006. They were NACA 4412, 4414, 22012, 23012 and 23014. Thickness
to chord ratio of at least 12% were chosen so that the wing would have adequate volume
to store the fuel and other mechanical or electrical control systems (hydraulics, etc).
An airfoil analysis program JavaFoil
4
was then used to analyze the lift and drag
coefficients of these five airfoils. JavaFoil uses the same multi-panel potential flow
method used in XFOIL, and the results obtained were comparable to XFOIL and
empirical data as long as flow separation did not occurr. The main advantage of JavaFoil
is its ability to analyze the lift coefficient of a finite wing and flapped wing.
Figure 7 shows the lift coefficient at various angles of attack for the five airfoils at a
Reynolds number of four million. It was observed that the NACA 44 series airfoil
generates a much higher lift coefficient than the NACA 5-digit series. However, with a
20 degree flap deflection at the - chord location, all the airfoils could achieve C
lmax
of at
least 1.5 at approximately 5 degrees of rotation. Thus, the airfoil which induces the least
amount of drag would satisfy the aerodynamic design requirements of the Yamasan 2006.
Figure 7 Lift coefficient curve at Reynolds number of 4,000,000
12
Figure 8 - Cd at various Reynolds number
Figure 8 shows the drag coefficient of the five NACA airfoils at various Reynolds
number. It can be seen that the NACA 22012 has the least drag coefficient among the
five airfoils. Thus NACA 22012 was selected as the wing airfoil.
Figure 9 shows the lift coefficient curve for the NACA 22012 airfoil with and without the
deployment of flaps, at a Reynolds number of four million. It can be seen that the
deployment of flaps increased the lift coefficient significantly.
Figure 2 - Effect of Flaps deployment to Lift Coefficient at Takeoff

Figure 30 - Drag Polar
Figure 10 shows the drag polar of the NACA 22012 airfoil during takeoff and cruise. It
can be seen that during takeoff the higher lift coefficient also increases the lift-induced
drag significantly, thus creating a higher C
d
value.
Table 2 below summarizes the aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 22012 airfoil
for the Yamasan 2006.
NACA 22012 C
l
C
d
C
m.25
Takeoff (20
o
Flaps and 5
o
Rotation) 1.622 0.12356 -0.207
Cruise 0.22 0.00784 -0.007
Table 2 - Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 22012 airfoil
Canard Airfoil Selection
The airfoil of the canard was selected based on the cruise L/D requirement for Yamasan
2006. L/D can be calculated using equation 6.13 from Raymer, and is given by:
( )
0
1
10.89
1
/
D
L
qC
W D
W S S q Ae

_
+

,
Where C
D0
= Parasite Drag at cruise
W/S = Wing loading at cruise
A = Aspect Ratio
e = Oswald Efficiency Factor
13
The actual L/D at cruise can be calculated by dividing the lift coefficient of the aircraft
with the drag coefficient at cruise. C
L
at cruise can be calculated by:
At Cruise,
11.77
wing canard
total wing canard
c
L l l
w
L
D
L L L
C
C C C
C
L C
D C
+
+

Where C
c
= Mean Aerodynamic Chord of the Canard
C
w
= Mean Aerodynamic Chord of the Wing
C
L
at cruise = 0.320
C
D
at cruise = 0.027
The drag coefficient C
D
at cruise can be obtained by using the component buildup method
as discussed in the drag section. NACA 2212 airfoil was selected, as it would provide
adequate C
l
at cruise and subsequently, an L/D ratio of 12.26.
Although the lift contribution of the canard during takeoff were ignored, a sufficiently
large C
l
is required during takeoff to rotate the aircraft. From the weights and balance
section of this report, lift coefficient of about 0.823 is required to rotate the aircraft
during the takeoff phase. In order to achieve this high Cl value, a flapped canard is
required.
Table 3 summarizes the aerodynamic properties of the NACA 2212 airfoil:
NACA 2212 C
l
C
d
C
m.25
Takeoff (With 10 degree flap deflection) 0.823 0.10154 -0.137
Cruise 0.437 0.03432 -0.039
Table 3 - Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 2212 airfoil
Vertical Tail Selection
As the vertical tail on the Yamasan 2006 is located at the wing tips of the aircraft, the
vertical tail also acts as a winglet. As the main reason for locating the vertical tail at the
wing tip is to improve the lateral stability and rudder effectiveness of the aircraft, the
main criteria for the airfoil selection is to ensure that the camber of the airfoil should be
greater than that of the wing to produce enough side force and have a four degree
leading-edge-out incidence angle
4
. The NACA 4412 airfoil was chosen, as it fulfills the
requirements stated above. A 12% thickness-to-chord ratio was selected to provide
enough space to house the rudder control mechanisms.
14
Drag Calculation
The drag on the aircraft comprises of the following 3 components:
The parasite drag, C
D0
mainly due to the skin friction drag and a small contribution from
separation pressure drag.
Lift induced drag C
Di
due to the downwash created by the wing tip vortices when lift is
created.
Compressibility wave drag due to a shock wave when the wing is at some critical Mach
number where transonic flow is achieved.
Total Parasite Drag
The compressibility wave drag can be ignored in this case as Yamasan 2006 would not be
flying at speeds close to the critical Mach number. The parasite drag can be obtained
using the component buildup method as discussed in Raymer, where:
( )
& o MISC L P
fc C C WETC
D D D
ref
C FF Q S
C C C
S
+ +

Where C
fc
= Component Skin Friction Coefficient
FF
c
= Component Form Factor
Q
c
= Component Interference Factor
S
wetc
= Component Wetted Surface
S
ref
= Wing Reference Area
The Skin Friction Coefficient can be calculated using the formula:
2.58 2 0.65
10
0.455
(log ) (1 0.144 )
f
C
R M

+
Where R = Reynolds number
M = Mach number
The Component Form Factor can be calculated using the formula:
For the Wing, Vertical Tail, Canard
4
0.18 0.28
0.6
1 100 1.34 (cos )
( / )
m
m
t t
FF M
x c c c
1
_ _
1 + +
1

]
, ,
1
]
15
Where (x/c)
m
= chord wise location of airfoil max thickness point
(t/c) = thickness to chord ratio
M = Mach number
A
m
= sweep of the max-thickness line
For the Fuselage
3
60
1
400
f
FF
f
_
+ +

,
,
l
f
d

Where l = length of fuselage = 40 ft

d = diameter of fuselage = 5 ft
Table 4 summarizes the Parasite drag of each component:
Wing Vertical Tail Canard Fuselage
Cruise Takeof
f
Cruise Takeoff Cruise Takeof
f
Cruise Takeof
f
C
f
0.0030
4
0.00349 0.00356
1
0.00411
8
0.0032 0.00368 0.0022
6
0.00255
FF 1.978 1.3643 1.5689 1.1675
Q 1.25 1.1 1.3 1
S
wet
434.5576 ft
2
41.1551 ft
2
67.98 ft
2
72.3942 ft
2
S
ref
212 ft
2
C
do
0.0154
2
0.01768 0.00103
8
0.0012 0.0021 0.00241 0.0009 0.00102
Table 4 Summary of the Parasite drag of each component
Miscellaneous Drag , C
dmisc
The upsweep angle of the fuselage creates some form of drag which can be
predicted by using the formula below:
16
( )
0
2.5
max
3.83
/
0.00258
upsweep
upsweep
d
ref
D
u A
q
D q
C
S
_

,

Where u = Upsweep Angle in Radians from the Fuselage Centerline
A
max
= Maximum Cross-sectional Area of the Fuselage
S
ref
= Wing Reference Area
During the takeoff phase, landing gears also contribute significantly to the parasite drag
and could be estimated using table 12.5 in Raymer [1].
( )
( )
0
/ 0.25 0.3
/
3 0.00926
wt s
gears
gears
d
ref
D q f f
D q
C
S
+

Where f
wt
= Frontal Area of the wheel and tire
f
s
= Frontal Area of the strut
The dimension of the landing gear strut is approximately 2.725 feet by 0.3 feet in
diameter and of the wheel is 1.2 feet by 0.3 feet in diameter.
The total parasite drag can then be calculated by summing up the parasite drag of each
individual component and the miscellaneous drag and the multiplying the values by 5%
to account for the drag due to leakage and protuberance.
Total Parasite Drag (Cruise) Total Parasite Drag (Takeoff)
0.023231 0.045393
The total drag on the aircraft can be obtained by summing the parasite drag contributions
on the aircraft together with the lift induced drag. The lift induced drag can be obtained
from the following equations:
17
2
0.68
1
1.78(1 0.045 ) 0.64
i
d L
C KC
K
Ae
e A

Where e = Oswald Span Efficiency Method
A = Aspect Ratio
The total drag, C
D
can then be calculated as follows:
0
2
D D L
C C KC +
The total drag coefficient during takeoff does not take into consideration of the lift-
induced drag produced on the canard. However, since the Yamasan 2006 was able to take
off with around 50% of the available horsepower, this additional drag will not affect the
takeoff capabilities of the aircraft.
Total Drag Coefficient (Cruise) Total Drag Coefficient (Takeoff)
0.0276 0.1577
18
Loading
V-n Diagram
Figure 11 - V-n diagram of Yamasan 2006
Figure 11 shows the V-n diagram of the Yamasan 2006. The maximum load factor that
could be attained by Yamasan 2006 is given by approximately 2.6 (see below) at a
cruising altitude of 20,000 feet and the minimum is at -1.
At straight and level flight,
max
max
/
L
L
Lift Weight
L nW
qSC
n
W
qC
n
W S

Where q = dynamic pressure

W/S = Wing loading
The stall speed can be obtained by using the above formula and substituting n as 1 to
solve for the velocity and is calculated to be 68 knots Equivalent Air Speed (EAS).
The maximum speed is typically 50% higher than the cruise speed
4
and is given by 273
Knots (EAS). To convert from EAS to True Air Speed (TAS) the following formula is
used:
SL
TAS EAS
V V

,

Where = density at current altitude

SL
= sea level density
The summary of the EAS speed at different load factors are given below:
19

20
V
stall
V
dive
V
cruise
V
AOA
68 Knots 273 Knots 182 Knots 115 Knots
Ta
ble
5 -
Su
m
ma
ry
of
the
EA
S
spe
ed
at
diff
ere
nt
loa
d
fac
tor
s
Structural Analysis
An important aspect of the preliminary design is a structural analysis of the most
important structural member of an aircraft - the wing. The first step in performing the
structural analysis is determining the loading conditions present on the wing. While
conventional wings typically have an elliptical lift distribution, the vertical surfaces at the
wing tip and canards that alter the airflow near the wing root create a different loading
condition. Conventional wing tips provide significantly reduced lift when compared to
the rest of the wing due to vortices that form at the tip. The vertical surfaces of the
current design would change the location of the vortices, and the wing near the tip would
perform closer to an idealized infinite wing than the typical elliptical distribution. This
warrants using a trapezoidal load distribution on the wing because the lift near the wing
tip would not reach zero. The presence of canards disrupts the flow of air in front of
wing root, and this could potentially add significant shear forces on the structural
supports. Therefore, it was decided to approximate a larger distributed load on the wing
root than the average force that the rest of the wing experiences. A compressive force on
the wing due to a crosswind on the vertical surface is also included in the analysis, and a
diagram of the loading conditions is shown in Figure 12 - Loading Conditions
Figure 12 - Loading Conditions
The load factor experienced at the wing root is 3.6 times the normal wing loading. The
historical loading factor for similar aircraft is around 2.5, so the higher factor applied to
this structure accounts for a safety factor of approximately 1.5. The load at the wing tip
is 2.4 times the normal wing loading. A lateral force applied on the vertical stabilizer
results in a 1,000 lb compressive force on the wing. A torque of 1,000 lb.-in. was also
examined to test the twist resistance of the structural members in the wing.
The most critical aspect of the load on the wing is the resulting moment. The moment on
the wing creates the largest stress on the wing root and requires the most structural
material in order to support the moment without failure. Figure 43 - Moment vs. Wing
Location shows the moment values as a function of wing location. Additionally, the
shear forces are calculated and are shown in Figure 5 - Shear vs. Wing Location.
21
Figure 43 - Moment vs. Wing Location
22
Figure 5 - Shear vs. Wing Location
The preliminary design of the structural members of the wing was approximated as a box
beam in order to perform the analysis. In order to provide better structural support near
the wing root where the shear force and moment have the greatest magnitude, the box
beam was divided into two segments, one for the wing root and one for the outer segment
of the wing. This would allow for placing more structural support in important areas
while reducing wasted material near the wing tip, where the forces are minimal.
Breaking up the wing into more segments would further reduce the material used in low
stress areas near the wing tip. Figure 15 - Box Beam Design shows the box beam design.
Figure 15 - Box Beam Design
The chord length and airfoil thickness were used to determine the dimensions of the wing
and wing root and to ensure that the base and height of the box beam fit within the wing.
The box beam base is also 2 ft shorter than the chord lengths to allow for control surfaces
and high lift devices near the trailing edge of the wing. The team determined the
thickness of the box beam by using a program that would reveal the minimum thickness
necessary to withstand the loading conditions present on the wing. The minimum
23
thickness is based upon design requirements such as the maximum deflection, twist, and
buckling before the box beam fails. The maximum deflection of the wing before failure
is 10 inches at the wing tip, and the maximum twist of the wing is less than 3 at the tip.
The program also includes a study of different material types such as steel, aluminum,
and composites, which allows for a weight calculation for the necessary structural
material based on the density of each material.
The overall weight of the supporting structure in the wing is the most important result of
the analysis. An aluminum metal matrix composite (MMC) supporting structure would
have an approximate weight of 220 lbs for each wing. This is less than an all-aluminum
structure, which would weigh 260 lbs, and significantly less than steel, which would
weigh 450 lbs. While composites such as aluminum MMC cost more than conventional
metal supporting structures to manufacture, they offer considerable weight savings for the
aircraft.
Currently, the component weight of each wing should be 200 lbs. The wing weight based
on the preliminary structural analysis is higher than this value largely due to the box
beam approximation used in the analysis. The box beam approximation results in excess
material being used in areas near the wing tip, and a more in-depth and optimal structural
design would be necessary to reduce the overall weight. However, based on the
preliminary analysis, achieving the desired ultimate loading factor and structural weight
appears to be feasible.
24
Component Weight Breakdown
The mission requirement set a gross takeoff weight (GTOW) of 6800 lb. This was then
modified by the sizing and mission segment analysis to a value of 6500 lb.
The following section will verify the value above with a component analysis. The
component weights are calculated using individual characteristics and equations from a
model of general aviation by Raymer. The engine weight is modified with a regression
database of 132 single turboprop engines according to the power requirement determined
by the carpet plots.
Summing up the airframe and different components placed the aircraft dry weight at 3322
lb. The breakdown is shown by Table 6 below, categorized into different functional
groups:
COMPONENT
S
WEIGH
T (lb)
COMPONENTS
WEIGH
T (lb)
Structures
Group
Equipment Group
Wing 400
Canard 96 Flight Controls 127
Vertical Tail 34 Hydraulic 7
Fuselage 119 Avionics 300
Landing gear
(Nose)
15 Electrical 516
Landing gear
(Main)
115
Air condition and
anti-ice
337
Furnishings 331
Propulsion
Group
Installed Engine 800
Engine 475
Gearbox 175
Propellers 150
Fuel Systems 125
Total Dry Weight 3322
Table 6 - Dry weight build-up
25
This is then added onto the mission payload and fuel, in Table 7.
COMPONENTS
WEIGHT
(lb)
Total Weight Empty 3322
Useful Load Group
Crew 300
- pilot 150
-co-pilot 150
Fuel 1665
-usable 1580
-trapped 85
Passengers (6 PAX) 1200
TAKEOFF GROSS
WEIGHT
6487
Table 7 - Take-off Gross Weight build-up
The values above can be justified as follows: an average man weighs around 150 lb, so
the pilot and co-pilot each weighs 150lb without baggage. The passengers will be
allowed around 50 lb of baggage each, totaling to 200lb per passenger of weight allotted.
The fuel was calculated using the range 600nm, plus the 200nm divert required by the
FAA. The fuel burn for a typical turboprop engine is 50gal/hr. Traveling at 250 knots,
adding 18 minutes in total for climb, descend and taxiing, gives a total of 4 hours of fuel
burned, or 215 gallons. An estimate of 5% trapped fuel is reasonable, giving us 226
gallons in the tanks. With a specific gravity of 0.88 - an equivalent of 7.344 lb/gal, the
total fuel weight becomes 1665 lbs.
26
A better illustration is given Figures 16 and 17, depicting the percentage of each
component as a percentage of the EDW and the GTOW, respectively.
27
Note: List in legend is
arranged in an ascending
order with regards to the
percentage of the EDW
Figure 16 - Component weight as a percentage of aircrafts dry weight
Figure 17 - Weight build-up as a percentage of GTOW
Component Weight Buildup
26%
6%
6%
51%
6%
5%
Component Total
(empty)
pilot + copilot
row 1
row 2
row 3
FUEL
Component Weight Buildup - empty
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
9%
10%
10%
12%
16%
24%
1%
0%
0%
Hydraulics
Landing gear (Nose)
Vertical Tail
Canard
Landing gear (Main)
Fuselage
Fuel Systems
Flight Controls
Avionics
Furnishings
Air condition and anti-ice
Wing
Electrical
Installed Engine
Note: List in legend is
arranged in an ascending order
with regards to the percentage
of the GTOW
An analysis of market data demonstrates that the breakdown of component weight
distribution of our concept (Table 8) to be superior when compared to our competitors in
several areas. It is important to note, however, that the percentages are only initial
estimates, and do not constitute the final design weights.
Yamasa
n 2006
EADS
TBM
700 [5]
EADS
TBM
850 [5]
Pilatus
PC-12
[6]
Starship
Beechcra
ft 2000A
[7]
Fuel 25% 25% 25% 28% 25%
Payloa
d
23% 18% 18% 25% 33%
Empty 52% 57% 57% 47% 42%
Table 8 - Comparison of Functional Group Weights (as a percentage of GTOW) with competitors
28
Stability
Cent e r of Gravity
The center of gravity of the aircraft moves with differing configurations. The nose of the
aircraft has been chosen as the datum point. The travel of the center of gravity is given in
Figure 18 for all possible weight configurations.
29
Figure 18 - CG location with different configurations
The different configurations are illustrated in Table 9 below:
Mission
#
Configuration
Weight
(lb)
cg position from
datum point (ft)
1 dry 3322 22.07
2 dry+fuel 4987 22.64
3 dry+fuel+crew 5287 21.93
4 LANDING
a dry+crew 3622 21.08
b dry+crew+row1 4022 20.62
c dry+crew+row2 4022 20.99
d dry+crew+row3 4022 21.35
e dry+crew+row1+row2 4422 20.58
f dry+crew+row1+row3 4422 20.91
g dry+crew+row2+row3 4422 21.25
h dry+crew+row1+row2+row3 4822 20.85
5 TAKEOFF
a dry+crew+row1+fuel 5687 21.55
b dry+crew+row2+fuel 5687 21.81
c dry+crew+row3+fuel 5687 22.06
d dry+crew+row1+row2+fuel 6087 21.46
e dry+crew+row1+row3+fuel 6087 21.70
f dry+crew+row2+row3+fuel 6087 21.94
g
dry+crew+row1+row2+row3+fuel
(GTOW)
6487 21.60
Table 9 - Differing Configurations and corresponding CG locations
The furthest forward cg location is 20.58 ft from the nose (case 4e), traveling to 22.06 ft
with the furthest rearward operating configuration (case 5c), moving to the most rear
position of 22.64 ft possible (case 2). Case 2 is not an operating condition unless the
aircraft is configured for UAV operations, and is only considered for the purposes of
forward limit placement of the main landing gear.
The wing strake design is chosen as it allows a forward movement of the fuel, which
increased the static margin to an acceptable level. Previous studies showed that the c.g.
of the wing cannot be placed 28 ft behind the nose, as it reduced the static margin below
the desired 10%.
30
A breakdown of the components contribution to the CG is shown in Figure 19 below, and
tabulated in Table 10:
The distances shown here are given in the table below:
Component Weight (lb) Moment arm Distance (ft)
Canard 96 d_canard 15.4
Avionics 300 d_avionic 15.2
Landing Gear Nose 15 d_lg_n 14.1
Crew 300 d_crew 12.6
Row 1 400 d_row1 6.2
Fuselage + Furnishings + electrical 966 d_fus+fur+elec 5.3
Row 2 400 d_row2 2.5
Fuel 1665 d_fuel 1.1
Row 3 400 d_row3 1.2
Aircraft Condition and Anti-ice and
Pressurization
337 d_a_c+a_i+p 1.9
Wing and Landing Gear Main 515 d_wing+lg_m 3.0
Hydraulics + Flight Control + Fuel
Systems
259 d_hyd+flc+fsys 5.4
Installed Engine 800 d_engine 6.9
Vertical Tail 34 d_vtail 9.9
Table 20 - Moment arm of aircraft components
31
Figure 19 - Component contribution to CG location
Distance from datum point in feet
Longitudinal Stability
Static Margin
The FAA stability certification requirement of an aircraft is a positive static margin.
General and business aviation aircraft have a range between 5-40% margin. By defining
the wing and canard aerofoil and placement, the neutral point can be calculated as:
Where x
ac
= aerodynamic center of the wing;
V
c
= canard volume coefficient is, given by:
a and a
c
are the 3-D lift curve slope of the aerofoil sections. These are converted from the
2-D slope values obtained from XFLR5 for the NACA 2212 and 22012 airfoils:
c
is the mean aerodynamic chord of the wings, and is a function of taper ratio and root
chord length. Table 11 shows the characteristics and placement of the wing and canard:
Table 31 - Characteristics and placement of the wing and canard
c
a
a
V x x
c
c ac n
+
W
W
c c
c
S c
S l
V
AR
a
a
a
D
D
D

2
2
3
1+

32
The center of gravity is shown to travel as configuration differs, or as fuel is burned.
Therefore the two most severe operable cases were analyzed (furthest forward case 4e;
and furthest back case 5c). Case 5c will be the limiting case for the static margin, and
the value is calculated to be 12.2%. Case 4e will be the limiting case for the lift
contribution of the canard with regards to its moment arm, and is calculated to be 45.7%.
The operating envelope is shown to have a reasonable static margin, therefore we proceed
to check for the balance of forces and moments:
33
Canard Main wing
leading wing x pos (ft) 5.00 22.31
AR 5.00 7.60
Span (ft) 19.36 40.14
S (ft
2
) 75.00 212.00
Swetted (ft
2
) 152.96 432.35
MAC (ft) 3.91 5.60
1/4 MAC (ft) 0.98 1.40
Ybar (ft) y pos of MAC from fuselage 4.56 8.60
ac pos (ft) 6.05 24.04
Volume Coefficient 1.14 -
thickness to chord 0.12 0.12
taper ratio 0.70 0.40
root chord length (ft) 4.56 7.55
tip chord length (ft) 3.19 3.02
sweep angle at 25% MAC 0.00 0.00
sweep angle at leading edge (radians) 0.04 0.06
(degrees) 2.02 3.23
a-2D 6.64 7.81
a-3D 4.67 5.89
L
c
L
Wc
M
c
Mx
c
x
w
l
c
34
Nose Tail
Distance (ft)
moment arm between canard ac and wing ac, lc 17.99
wing ac from cg, xW 3.46
canard ac from cg, xC 14.53
Table 12 - Moment arm distances
Force Balance for takeoff: L
c
+ L
w
W 0
Moment Balance: Lx
c
M M
c
L
c
x
c
= 0
From these two equations, equilibrium for the aircraft can be found:
Lift: L = C
L
qS
Where q =
1
/
2
V
2
S = reference area of the component
C
L
= 3-D lift coefficient of the component
Moment: M = C
M
qSc
Where c = mean aerodynamic chord
C
M
= 3-D moment coefficient of the component
T akeoff
Two scenarios were considered during takeoff for the two cases (4e and 5c):
zero flap deflection
20 deg flap deflection
35
Figure 6 - Moment Balance modelling
The following conclusion is reached: case 5c can only allow takeoff with a 20 degrees of
flap deflection, while case 4e can allow takeoff under both scenarios. The comparison is
given in Table 13.
Takeoff Case 5c Case 4e
Scenario 1
Cl canard required 0.339 0.807
Cl wing 1.171 1.171
Total Lift Generated 5211 5879
Takeoff weight 5687 4422
Scenario 2
Cl canard required 0.657 1.320
Cl wing 1.611 1.611
Total Lift Generated 7442 8389
Takeoff weight 5687 4422
Table 4 - Takeoff cases for the two scenarios
For a 6 degree rotation of the aircraft, 10 degrees of flaps are deployed for the canard,
raising the C
m
to -0.137. Balancing the moments led to the resultant lift required to be
placed at 972 lb. The C
L
value of this aerofoil is also increased with the flap deployment
to 0.823, which gave a lift of 1175lb 200lb greater proving that the aircraft is capable
of rotation.
C ruise
The cruise altitude is defined to be 20,500 ft at a cruising speed of 250 kts. The force
comparisons at this condition are given in Table 14.
Cruise Case 5c Case 4e
Cl canard required 0.0757 0.165
Cl wing 0.22 0.22
Total Lift Generated 5901 6654
Maximum cruising weight 5687 4422
Table 5 - Cruise cases
The moment balance indicates the aircraft has a capability in climbing at 20,500 ft. The
force equilibrium is achieved through cruise climbs.
Lateral Stability
36
The spin-recovery scenario is considered for the lateral stability. This is a comparison of
the tail-damping power factor of that required to recover and that provided by the vertical
tail.
The tail damping power factor (TDPF) available is calculated using the tail damping ratio
and the unshielded rudder volume coefficient. These two parameters are influenced by
the reference and unshielded areas of the tail, the moment arm of the tail to the cg in the
lateral direction, and the reference area of the wing. These equations can be found in
Raymer. The TDPF required is obtained using the rudder alone recovery option from
Figure 16.32 in Raymer gave a value of 0.02.
The effective uncovered area has been estimated to be 5/8
th
of the total reference area.
This is a reasonable assumption, as the vertical tail is placed outboard from the fuselage
on the wing tips, and therefore will be the last to stall in the event of a spin. This has been
confirmed with the 60 deg requirement blanket that extends from the wings leading edge
as shown in figure 16.31 in Raymer [1].
Table 15 lists the properties of the vertical tail. As can be seen, the TDPF value of the
vertical tail is 1.5 times more than that required for spin recovery.
.
Table 15 Vertical Tail Characteristics
37
Characteristics
Aerofoil Section NACA 4412
Area of Vertical Tail (both
sides)
26.48 ft
2
Area of v tail (effective in spin) 16.55 ft
2
Span (both sides) 126.0 ft
root chord length 36.00 ft
tip chord length 23.69 ft
taper ratio 0.66
MAC 30.27 ft
AR 4.16
TDPF 0.0031
TDPF required 0.0020
Configuration and Dimensions
Figure 21 - Three Views of Aircraft
Figure 22 - Diagram of Fuel Tank, Flaps and Engine location
38
The final dimensions of the Yamasan 2006 are shown in Figure 22. The placement of
various internal components can be seen in Figure 23.
Canard Justification:
The canard configuration offers potential advantage over traditional configurations:
Trimmed maximum lift coefficient for a canard is higher than the conventional airplane.
By proper canard/wing layout design it is possible to achieve better trimmed lift to drag
ratios with a canard design.

The canard must be designed such that it stalls before the wing. This way a stable pitch-
break is obtained. Otherwise the wing is allowed to stall before the canard, an
uncontrollable and sometimes violent pitch up motion can occur. To trim out the negative
pitching moment associated with deployment of wing flap as shown in Figure 2, the
canard must be able to develop rather large lift coefficients itself. This can be done with
the introduction of flaps on the canard, by varying the sweep angle of the canard or by
varying the angle of incidence of the canard.
Note that the wing leading edge is given a very large sweep angle or strake, which
serves two purposes:
It provides volume for fuel to be carried close to the empty weight center of gravity.
It serves to delay wing stall.
Most of the canard aircraft features a variable sweep canard. This is used to trim out the
negative pitching moment of the wing flaps.
The pusher-prop arrangement is a feature which seems to be increasing in popularity.
Pusher configurations allow better laminar flow over the fuselage, thus providing an
increase in the upsweep angle at the tail, as well as a slight decrease in the drag over the
fuselage itself. The design also leads to a quieter cabin despite its placement on the
fuselage, as the majority of noise from the engine and propeller can be shielded from the
passengers and will propagate downstream. Another advantage is the reduction in adverse
yaw since there is no prop-wash factor on the vertical tail.
Vertical Tail
The vertical tails on Yamasan 2006 is located at the wing tips also act as winglets. This
design can improve the efficiency of aircraft by lowering the lift-induced drag caused by
wingtip vortices. It also increases the effective aspect ratio of a wing and increases the
amount of lift the wings can generate. Control of yaw is assigned to these vertical
stabilizers.

39
Landing Gear Position
The choice of landing gear layout depends on the size, type and configuration of aircraft.
In this case, the tricycle configuration is used for easy ground handling, better takeoff
ground clearance of pusher engine propeller, and is the most commonly used landing gear
type.
Advantages are that the leveled attitude of nose wheel aircraft makes easier to load and
unload and provides better visibility out of the cockpit while taxiing. Also, shallower
angle of attack makes for a faster acceleration on take-off.
Disadvantages concerned are that the nose wheel has to take a greater load than that of a
tail wheel. Retractable mechanism is also preferred as the drag is greater for a tricycle
configuration.
There are two geometric criteria that need to be considered in positioning the landing
gear struts (Figures 23 and 24).
Tip-over criteria.
Ground Clearance Criteria.
Figure 23 - Tip-over Criterion
The lateral tip over angle is shown in 23. Angle of 35 degrees is the minimum allowed to
with tricycle gear design. The main landing gear must be positioned behind the aft center
40
of gravity (cg) location. The 25 degree angle shown in Figure 4 represents the usual
relation between main gear and the aft cg.
Figure 24 - Longitudinal Ground Clearance Criterion
Figure 24 also shows the required ground clearance angle. The lateral ground clearance
angle applies to both tricycle and tail-dragger configurations. The longitudinal ground
clearance angle applies to tricycles only. Usually tail angle (longitudinal ground
clearance angle) is around 10 to 15 degrees. With a pusher configuration, clearance of 3
feet and 17 degrees is given to safely take-off and land on the runway.
Figure 25 - Landing Gear Overview
When the aircraft lands on the runway, the landing gear shock absorbers and tires are
compressed and deflected such that kinetic energy of descent is changed into a mixture of
thermal and potential energy.
Static Load (lb) Tire Size Tire Dim (in) Flat radius (in) Max. deflection (in)
700 5.00-4 13.25 3.6 3.02
41
800 5.00-5 14.25 4.1 3.00
1100 6.00-6 17.51 4.5 4.25
Table 16 Typical tire characteristics of light aircraft
The data in Table 16 relate the static load per tire to size. The similarly-configured
Beechcraft Starship
5
uses a 19.5 inch x 6.75 inch tire. Since the Yamasan 2006 is two-
thirds the size of the Beech Starship, a tire size of 16 inch x 6 inch was chosen for
Yamasan 2006.
42
Propulsion
To determine the size of the engine a rubber engine sizing approach was used. A
database of 132 engines was compiled, from which relations of horsepower-to-engine
-weight, length, diameter, and specific fuel consumption were gathered. A power
regression equation was determined for each of the sizing relations as a function of
horsepower. Using information from the carpet plots, the initial horsepower requirement
was entered into the formulas to get preliminary engine specifications. Table 17 shows
the equations and values.
Weight = 448.34 [lbs]
y = 1.8211x^0.7915
SFC = 0.552 [lb/shp-hr]
y = 0.8214x^-0.0573
Length = 56.64 [in]
y = 6.1832x^0.3184
Diameter = 25.36 [in]
y = 4.8598x^0.2375
Table 17 -Engine Size Regression Equations
As the aerodynamic characteristics and specifications were determined and updated, the
thrust and drag relationships were continually evaluated and kept in agreement such that
aircraft would be capable of flight during best range cruise, maximum speed, and takeoff.
Engine power was adjusted as necessary to maintain these values. Simultaneously a
propeller was selected for cruise based on the initial propulsion information and
aerodynamics requirements using Hamilton Standard propeller efficiency charts. As the
design evolved the propeller was re-evaluated and reselected as needed to maintain
adequate thrust in all flight regimes. Propeller helical tip speed was monitored to ensure
tip speed was within acceptable limits throughout the entire propulsion system design and
selection process.
Once all values were finalized, the engine specifications were taken and then compared to
all 132 engines in the database. An existing engine was selected that matched the
required rubber engine generated specifications. The decision to use an off-the-shelf
engine was agreed upon to minimize development cost of the aircraft. The engine
selected is a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-60A turboprop engine producing 1,050 eshp
and weighs approximately 475 lbs (dry).
The pusher design of the aircraft placed strict limits on the diameter of the propeller to
allow for adequate rotation on take off. The diameter was determined to be 8 ft from the
design drawings. Due to this strict and specific limit, other engine and propeller
characteristics were determined based on the maximum diameter. Circular blade tip
speed was kept to Mach 0.75 for noise and efficiency reasons. From this the maximum
43
rotational speed of the propeller was calculated to be 2,000 rpm. The forward motion of
the aircraft was factored in to the tip speed to ensure the propeller tips remained subsonic;
this helical blade tip speed is Mach 0.849.
Using propeller efficiency charts, or propeller thumbprints, from Hamilton Standard a
propeller was selected for the aircraft. Propeller thumbprints are efficiency charts for
variable pitch propellers. A variable pitch propeller was chosen due to the large
performance advantage over a fixed pith prop. The flight envelope of this aircraft
demanded a variable pitch prop to effectively perform the mission. Another aspect of the
design mission is to allow landing at airports with runways of 2,100 feet for less. To
ensure that a full stop can be safely achieved, reversible pitch is another feature required
for our propeller. Composite propeller blades were selected to save weight, which is
critical for weight and balance of a pusher setup, and also because composite blades have
a longer FAA certified life due to the fact they are more durable than metal blades.
As stated previously, the propeller was selected to provide adequate amounts of thrust in
all flight regimes. This was done by analyzing the take off condition and maximum
cruising condition. The advance ratio, J, was calculate for take off and maximum cruise,
and the power coefficient, c
P
, was calculated for maximum power settings. Both 3-
bladed and 4-bladed set-ups were investigated, and a 4-bladed propeller was selected. A
4-bladed design was selected because it provided better overall efficiency at max speed,
and its takeoff efficiency was also very favorable. The propeller that was ultimately
selected is a Hamilton Standard 4-bladed, variable pitch propeller with a design c
L
of
0.500 and an activity factor of 80. Table 18 below shows the propeller efficiencies:
c
p
= 0.2005

P
(%) (deg.)
J = 0.5155 47 27
J = 1.6655 90.5 38
Table 18 Propeller Efficiency
The design mission requirement of a take off ground roll of less than 2,100 feet was used
to double check the propulsion sizing. The ground and balanced field length of the
aircraft was calculated using equations 17.101-103 and 17.112-114 found in Raymer.
These calculated ground roll value and balanced field length are 1,150 ft and 1,750 ft,
respectively. The ground roll value is well within the design requirement - well enough
that a 50 ft obstacle can be cleared is a distance less than the designed ground roll. This
was achievable because of the relatively high power-to-weight ratio of the aircraft.
44
Fuel Selection
Alternative Fuels
Originally, the properties of several different alternative fuels for use in twin piston,
single turboprop, and twin turbofan driven aircraft were examined. The advantages and
disadvantages of the best choices are discussed below.
Ethanol Blend - AGE85
AGE85 (Aviation Grade Ethanol) is a well-established and tested ethanol-based
alternative fuel. It is specifically blended for cold starting, which makes it an ideal fuel
for use in aviation where fuel line and carburetor icing must be avoided. It also burns
much cleaner than traditional aviation fuels.
The major disadvantage of AGE85 and other ethanol-based fuels is the dangerous effects
on fuel system components. Ethanol may react with seals or lines, causing corrosion.
Significant modification of these parts would be necessary if an ethanol-based fuel were
to be used. Furthermore, ethanol has a lower energy density than traditional aviation
fuels. Lastly, the research with AGE85 has been primarily focused on driving piston
aircraft performance.
Pure Biodiesel B100
Biodiesel is made mostly from soybean oils, and contains no petroleum products.
Because of this, availability and affordability of biodiesel would not be directly affected
by the world-wide petroleum markets. This is an important economic advantage in a
situation where petroleum becomes prohibitively expensive. B100 already has a
significant production infrastructure, so the availability of the fuel would not be in
question. Other advantages of biodiesel include the fact that diesel reduces engine wear,
is comparatively safe to store and transport, and has some of the lowest harmful
emissions of any of the alternative fuels studied.
There are two major disadvantages of B100. The first is its high freezing and cloud
points, as seen in Table 19. This causes problems for both operation and shipping of the
fuel. Electric heaters would be necessary on the fuel tanks and engines during storage of
the aircraft, and the shipping costs of the fuel would be significantly higher in cold-
weather climates. The other major disadvantage is the reduced energy content. As Table
20 shows, the energy density of B100 is almost 18% lower than traditional aviation fuels.
Beyond the high freezing point and cloud point, researchers have discovered a problem
with using soybean-based biodeisel due to the limitations in growing soybeans fast
enough to produce the required fuel needed for so many flights.
45
No. 2 Diesel (petrol) B100 (pure biodeisel)
Cloud Point (F) -9 35
Pour Point (F) -17 32
Table 19 Pure Biodiesel Cloud & Pour Points
Jet-A Avgas No. 2 Diesel
(petrol)
B100 (pure
biodeisel)
Heat of Combustion (Btu/gal) 123099 115480 131295 117093
Density (lb/gal) 6.676 6.092 7.079 7.328
energy density by mass
(Btu/lb)
18439 18956 18547 15979
Table 20 Energy densities of various fuel options
Biodeisel Blend B20 & others
B20 and other like fuels are blends of petroleum-based diesel fuels with pure biodeisel.
Blending biodesiel with petroleum-based diesel relieves some of the problems with pure
biodeisel. The freezing point is lower, and the energy density is higher than biodeisel
making it a more feasible choice. However, the production of B20 still involves mostly
petroleum. Therefore, B20 can not be considered a renewable fuel, and the price of the
fuel would change with the petroleum market, which would be a major disadvantage
when petroleum is expensive.
BioJet Fuel
The University of South Dakota is currently developing a bio-matter based fuel that has
very desirable properties. Freezing is not a problem for this fuel, as it operates normally
down to -75 F. It has very low emissions, and little modification would be needed to run
in current turboprop engines. This BioJet fuel would be the ideal choice for an
alternatively-fueled aircraft. However, this fuel is only in the experimental phase, and no
infrastructure for the production and distribution exists. Designing an aircraft around
these obstacles would be an extremely large risk.
Choice of Fuel
Additional advantages and disadvantages of alternative fuels are given in Table 21. The
fuel chosen for this project was B100: 100% biodeisel. The advantages of the fuel in
terms of its environmental properties and its 100% renewability make it far superior to
the other fuels, despite its questionable cold start properties. B100 is relatively safe for
transport to airports throughout the country. Limiting factors include the time required to
reproduce soybeans, corn, and other biomatter used in the refining process for production
of B100 fuel.
46
Table 21 - Pros & Cons of Alternative Fuels
Due to BioJet fuel still undergoing developmental and experimental testing, deciding to
allow the use of 100% Biodiesel to fuel our aircraft has caused for slight modifications to
the fuel tanks and powerplant configurations. To support biodiesel fuel, the addition of
filters, heat exchangers, valve tanks, microprocessors, pumps, in-line fuel temperature
gauges, exchanger gauges, low fuel warning lights, visi-fuel & Vo alerts, buzzers, &
switches must be calculated into parameters such as our cost and GTOW. The
conversion for each fuel tank will cost $10,000-$15,000 and weigh approximately 25-30
lbs. This needs to be considered when calculating the weight of the fuel systems in order
to properly calculate the center of gravity for stability of the aircraft. Figure 26 below
shows the items needed for full conversion to Biodiesel from a standard petroleum fuel
configuration:
Figure 26: Fuel system accesories
47
TSFC and BSFC have been calculated for the selected fuel using ONX Parametric Cyclic
Analysis software. Significant combination fuel and engine parameters are listed in
Table 22:
Fuel Heating Value 16,000 (Btu/lb)
Specific gravity: 0.87-0.89
Efficiency: 80.55%
Petroleum Efficiency: 83.28%
TSFC: .567 lb/hr
BSFC: .26-.30 lb/hr
Table 22 Overview of selected fuel parameters:
48
Direct Operating Costs
The direct operating costs were determined using the equations in Raymer. These
equations are based on statistical data for historical aircraft. These equations predicted a
direct operating cost of $450 per flight hour for the Yamasan 2006, which is considerably
lower than our design target of $550 per flight hour.
The different components of the direct operating costs were calculated using the
equations below (Raymer). The fuel costs were calculated by use of simple fuel
consumption calculations using the heating values associated with the fuel chosen for this
aircraft.
Crew:
122
10
51
3 . 0
5
+
,
_

o
c
W
V
Parts:
e
e a
N
C C
1
]
1

,
_

+ +
,
_

19
10
58 2 . 10
10
3 . 3
6 6
Labor:
m
C
FH
MMH
Where V
c
= cruse speed (knots)
W
0
= empty weight (lbs)
C
a
= aircraft cost
C
e
= engine cost
N
e
= number of engines
MMH/FH = maintenance man hours per flight hour
C
m
= maintenance cost per hour
Figure 27 - Breakdown of DOC ($/FH)
Figure 27 shows the breakdown of each category of direct operating cost. Indirect
operating costs such as vehicle depreciation, landing fees, fuel surcharges, and other
taxes were not included in the direct operating cost calculation. The amount of these costs
varies quite significantly with the location and use of the aircraft and therefore is left for
the customer to calculate. Table 23 compares the direct operating costs of the Yamasan
2006 to that of other competing aircraft.
Aircraft DOC ($/FH)
49
Baron G58 288
Adam A500 450
Pilatus PC-12 400
Yamasan 2006 450
Table 23 - Direct Operating Costs
The chosen concept is competitive in direct operating costs. It is important to note that as
conventional fuel prices continue to increase, the Yamasan 2006 will see only a modest
rise in DOC based on increased demand for alternative fuels while other conventionally
fueled aircraft will be forced to endure very significant increases in DOC. In this
scenario, the Yamasan 2006 will have a strong cost advantage for potential customers.
50
Acquisition Cost
Once the aircraft gross weight is calculated, the aircraft acquisition cost can be estimated
in conjunction with the aircraft performance characteristics. Aircraft acquisition cost can
be determined with a linear regression similar to the empty weight fraction. The
Yamasan 2006 is not significantly different from current aircraft in the market, even
considering the alternative fuel usage. The fuel that was selected has similar properties to
petroleum based fuels, and the turboprop engine selected does not need significant
alterations to be compatible. The general similarities of the concept and the competitors
should indicate that the acquisition cost is accurate. The overall acquisition cost for the
concept aircraft calculated using the cost model and regression is $1.725 million. In
addition to the calculation of a single acquisition cost, in previous portions of the project
a trade study was conducted, and the variation of mission parameters and aircraft
characteristics and their effects on aircraft weight and acquisition cost were studied. An
example of that trade study can be seen in Figure 78 - Trade Study (Range and Speed).
Regression Cost Model
( ) D exp V R w Cost
C B A
0


400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
1
1.5
2
2.5
200 kts
225 kts
250 kts
275 kts
300 kts
325 kts
350 kts
Range (nm)
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

(
$
M
)


Figure 78 - Trade Study (Range and Speed)
51
Production Cost
The projected cost to produce a new model of aircraft can be difficult to estimate,
particularly for a startup company. Manufacturers with significant, long-term experience
in aircraft production (i.e. Cessna, Boeing, and Airbus) employ proprietary models to
predict the costs of producing new aircraft. These models have proven extremely reliable
due to relatively unchanged procedures in engineering, tooling and manufacturing
processes between the production of new and previous aircraft lines. A new aircraft
company, however, has no previous production experience on which to base cost
estimates. Therefore, industry-averaged regression models must be used as guidelines for
the development of a new aircraft.
For the purposes of this project, the DAPCA (Development and Procurement Costs of
Aircraft) IV model suggested by Raymer was used to estimate production costs. The
DAPCA IV model, developed by the Rand Corporation, is based on CERs (Cost
Estimating Relationships) which are averaged from the entire aircraft industry. While
this model provides a good overall trend in the dynamics of cost versus number of
aircraft produced, inaccuracies arise based on the size and capabilities of a particular
aircraft manufacturer.
In order to account for these factors, the DAPCA IV model was studied in relation to
existing production costs for light aircraft. This allowed for multipliers (fudge factors)
to be determined to compensate for the size and material usage of a new line of small
aircraft. Such factors were also used to compensate for the use of composite materials in
the aircraft structure.
Two primary sources were used against which to benchmark the DAPCA IV cost
analysis against that of the Yamasan 2006. First, the Meyers Aircraft Company provides
an analysis
6
of two light aircraft of different empty weights using a modified version of
the DAPCA IV model. Both analyses were performed at production numbers of one and
five-hundred aircraft. Secondly, a NASA airframe cost model
7
was used with varying
production numbers. In the NASA model, the term airframe encompasses all
manufacturing, production, and installation costs, but does not include development
support (variable) and inventory (fixed per unit) costs.
The resulting production cost model is given in the MATLAB script mfgcost.m (see
Group 6 files on course website) This DAPCA IV-based model has been adjusted (using
the previously mentioned factors) to accurately reflect the actual production costs of
aircraft with empty weight similar to that of the Yamasan 2006.
The projected production cost of Yamasan 2006 per number produced is given in Figure
29. Initial production is three aircraft, including two flight test units. At this point in the
production, the total program cost will reach approximately $15 million. As production
is increased, the steady-state cost approaches a value of $1.38 million per unit. At a
profit of 25% for the initial production period, the acquisition cost becomes $1.725
million, as previously determined. Assuming a constant profit margin during the initial
52
years of production (estimated previously at 50-100 aircraft per year), the cost would be
recovered after the sale of 316 aircraft (Figure 30).
Many of the costs to develop the new aircraft will remain constant during production,
regardless of the number of aircraft produced. These fixed costs include the engine,
avionics, materials, number of flight test aircraft, and inventory. Several cost
components, however, will decrease in relation to the applied learning curve. These
variable costs include engineering, development support, tooling, manufacturing, and
quality control. As production increases, the cost per unit of variable-cost components
will decrease and eventually reach a steady-state value. Figure 31 shows the percentage
of each component cost in relation to overall cost as production reaches a steady state.
Figure 29 - Production Cost and Revenue vs. Number of Aircraft Produced
53
Figure 30 - Cost Per Unit vs. Number of Aircraft Produced
Figure 31 - Component Cost as Percentage of Overall Steady-State Cost
54
Concept Comparison
Table 24 - Concept Comparison
The Socata TBM 700
8
and Pilatus PC 12
9
are both single engine turboprops that are part
of the target market. It is important that the concept has similar capabilities and costs,
otherwise the benefit of using an alternative fuel will be outweighed by poor aircraft
performance or a prohibitively high acquisition cost. As can be seen in Table 24 -
Concept Comparison, Yamasan 2006 demonstrates similar capabilities at lower costs
when compared with its two main competitors. The design range for the concept aircraft
is 800 nautical miles, including the 200 nautical mile fuel reserve. This is less than both
of the two competitors, which have a range of about 1000-1200 nautical miles. This may
explain the difference in aspect ratios between the aircraft. The shorter design range was
selected during the QFD formation and is based on information that the largest
percentage of flights cover distances less than 500 nautical miles. This justified the
selection of a shorter design mission range. Another difference between the concept
aircraft and the two competitors is the power loading. The concept aircraft is intended to
be cruising at a higher speed, which may account for this difference.
55
Conclusion
The Yamasan 2006 design process has produced an aircraft which meets or exceeds each
design goal set in the beginning of the project. Additionally, the performance is
comparable to the existing competition. Given that the Yamasan 2006 is meant to be
powered by alternative fuel, an aircraft operator should have increased incentive to
purchase. While the aircraft has only undergone a simple design process, it has shown
promise in becoming a successful and practical real-world aircraft based on theoretical,
mathematical, and conceptual models.
The primary goal of this design project was to design a concept which could be
introduced into a selected market in this case, the general aviation market and provide
the owner with a stable and profitable solution to their business needs. The air taxi and
air charter companies have been specifically targeted as potential customers. After
extensive aerodynamic, structural, and cost analysis, it has been determined that the
Yamasan 2006 would be a highly desirable aircraft in which to invest.
56
References

[1] Raymer P. Daniel, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 3
rd
Edition, AIAA
Inc, Virginia 1999
[2] Scott Jeff, NACA Airfoil Series, Aerospaceweb.org, 26
th
August 2001
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/airfoils/q0041.shtml
[3] Abbott and von Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Sections, Dover Publication Inc,
New York 1959
[4] JavaFoil
http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm
[5] Beechcraft Starship 2000A specifications
http://www.starshipdiaries.com/specifications.html
[6] Meyers Aircraft Company, DAPCA IV Model, Oct 1999
http://www.meyersaircraft.com/DAPCA IV/DAPCA IV Intro Page.html
[7] NASA Airframe Cost Model, Jan 21, 2005
http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/airframe.html
[8] Socata TBM 700 and 850 specifications
http://www.socata.eads.net/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000031800002/3/00/3180000
3.html
[9] Pilatus PC-12 specifications
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/html/en/products/index_201.asp?
NavL1ID=31&NavL2ID=194&NavL3ID=200&NavL4ID=0&NavL5ID=0&NavL6ID=0
&L=3
57
Merit Pool
Team Member Merit
John Collins 14.5
Chad Davis 7.5
Chris Fles 14
Danny Sze Ling Lim 14.5
Justin Rohde 12.5
Ryan Schulz 7.5
Ronald Wong 14.5
Yusaku Yamashita 15
Total 100
58