1

HINDUSTAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PADUR

REG. NO. :- 30503101032 MINI PROJECT REPORT
Name of the student : Name of the project: Department: NIJO ALEXANDER ABRAHAM
AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT II ( AE- 433) AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

Certified that this is a bonafide project report carried out on TWO SEATER COMMERCIAL TRAINER AIRCRAFT by NIJO ALEXANDER ABRAHAM of VII SEM AERO(B.E.) during the year 2006.

INT. Examiner _______________

Staff Member in charge ____________

EXT. Examiner _______________________

Name of the Examination: B.E Degree Registration Number : 30503101032

AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT

DESIGN OF TWO SEATER COMMERCIAL TRAINER AIRCRAFT

Submitted by, NIJO ALEXANDER ABRAHAM U.MOHAMED SULTHAN B.E. AERO 7th SEM HINDUSTAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

INDEX
Sl. No. INTRODUCTION TOPIC Pg. No. 4 7 10 12 14 15 19 21 27 33 36 39 42 43 45 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Introduction Comparison of Similar Aircrafts Weight Estimation Engine Selection Aerofoil Selection Wing Geometry Design Fuselage Layout Flap Selection Landing Gear Take off and Landing distance determination Drag Estimation V-n Diagram Load Estimation of Wing and Fuselage Balancing of control Surfaces Structural Considerations Bibliography

4 A trainer is a training aircraft used to develop piloting, navigational or weapon-aiming skills in flight crew. Civilian pilots are normally trained in a light aircraft, with 2 or more seats to allow for student and instructor. The aircraft may be modified to withstand the flight conditions imposed by training flights. Some air forces contract-out training activities to private companies, or arrange for military officers to train using aircraft provided and maintained by a private business. Some military training aircraft are twin-seat versions of combat aircraft types (ground-attack or interceptor) and some of these are capable of rapid conversion in times of emergency to a reconnaissance or combat role. For smaller air forces, such adaptability can have important economic benefits. A minority of military training aircraft, such as the Vickers Varsity, HS125 Dominie or Boeing T-43 were developed from transport designs to train several navigators at the same time. As these navigational trainees are normally learning how to navigate using instruments, they can be seated at consoles within the aircraft cabin and do not require a direct view of the landscape over which the aircraft is flying. The operators of airborne weapons or radar-related systems can be similarly trained, either in training aircraft or in an operational aircraft during training flights. As the costs of developing aircraft have risen in real terms, it has become much less likely that aircraft will be designed specifically for the training role. Classic training types were the De Havilland Tiger Moth, the North American Texan (Harvard in many countries) and the De Havilland Chipmunk. Some jet trainers, such as the Aermacchi MB-326, Folland Gnat, Fouga Magister and British Aerospace Hawk, have become famous through their use by national formation aerobatic teams. Early jet aerobatic teams tended to use combat types such as the Hawker Hunter, English Electric Lightning, and North American F-100 Super Sabre. As air forces' combat fleets were scaled-down, it made sense for most national display teams to change to lighter training types. A few modifications may be needed to enable coloured smoke to be emitted during displays, but essentially these airframes can still perform their pilot training function. Much training is now carried out on simulators that can be positioned in buildings on the ground. A different simulator may be required to simulate each specific type of aircraft that the trainee hopes to fly.

Some of the Aircraft Trainers in use today :

Aermacchi F-260

Cessna 150

Piper Warrior-3

Diamond DA-20

Grunnmann American AA-1

GROB 115

Piper Cherokee

Name

Auster AOP.9
BRITAIN Auster Aircraft Ltd 7.21 11.10 17 7.24 667 1002 58.14 2.56 204 173 283 395 5640 One Blackburn Cirrus Bombardier 203 4-cylinder in-line engine 135 134

Cessna model 150

USA Cessna

Yakovlev

Yak-52
SOVIET Aerostar

Cessna model 152

USA Cessna

Country Company Length(m) Wing span(m) Area ( m2 ) Aspect Ratio Empty Weight (kg) Max TO Weight (kg) Wing loading (kg / sq.m) Height (km) Max speed Cruise Speed Rate of climb Range (m) Service Ceiling (m) Engine (km/hr)

DIMENSIONS
6.56 10.17 14.8 6.98 447 681 49 2.11 200 196 145 563 4300 One Continental C-470 4cylinder horizontally opposed aircooled engine 75 110 7.745 9.3 15 5.766 1015 1305 87 2.7 272 237 420 510 4000 7.34 10.3 14.9 7.12 513 757 51 2.59 204 195 217 1287 4480 One lycoming 0235-L2C flatfour engine

PERFORMANCE

POWERPLANT
1 Vedeneyev M-14P 9cylinder radial engine
270 206

Power (kW) Power/Weight Ratio(W/kg)

82 108

Name

Piper pa-28161
USA piper

Piper pa-38
USA piper

Thorp t-211
USA Thorp aero

FWA AS 202 BRAVO

ITALY Siai Marchetti

Country Company

DIMENSIONS
Length(m) Wing span(m) Area ( m2 ) Aspect Ratio Empty weight Max TO Weight (kg) Wing loading (kg / sq.m) Height (km) Max speed Cruise speed Range (m) Service Ceiling (m) Rate of climb (m/min) Engine (km/hr)
7.12 10.668 15.8 7.2 680 1107 70.1 2.2 256 235 1167 3350 79knots Textron Lycoming O320-D3G 160 108 7.04 10.36 11.6 9.25 512 757 65.38 2.77 5.49 7.62 9.67 6.004 339 575 60 2.41 193 120 764 3810 229 7.5 9.75 13.86 6.85 700 1050 75.75 2.81 226 203 965 5485 1 x Avco Lycoming AEIO360-B1F flat-four piston engine 134 127

PERFORMANCE
202 200 867 4000 219

POWERPLANT
1x Avco Lycoming O-235-L2A
55 75

1x Jabiru 3300
75 130

Power (kW) Power/Weight Ratio(W/kg)

Name

Beachcr Diamon aft-77 d da20

USA Beach aircraft corporation 7.3 9.1 12.1 6.84 500 760 62.8 1.81 USA Diamond

Grob g15
GERMANY Grob

van s aircraft rv-6 9

USA Van s aircraft

Country Company

DIMENSIONS
Length(m) Wing span(m) Area ( m2 ) Aspect Ratio Empty weight Max Takeoff Weight (kg) Wing loading (kg / sq.m) Height (km) Max speed Cruise speed Range (m) Service Ceiling (m) Rate of climb (m/min) Engine Power (kW) Thrust/Weight Ratio (km/hr)
7.16 10.87 11.61 10.177 529 750 64.6 2.18 7.59 10 12.2 8.196 690 990 81.14 2.8 6.21 7.10 10.2 4.8 437 724 70.98 1.62

PERFORMANCE
263 194 719 3900 220 304 259 759 5364 304.8 250 170 1150 3050 320 420 300 1166 7900 320

POWERPLANT
1 Lycoming O-235-L2C flat-4 engine 86 113 1 x TCM IO240-B
93 124

1x Jabiru 3300
135 136

1x Textron Lycoming AE360-B 134 185

10

Cruise velocity Range Aspect ratio P/W W/S Altitude

0.15M or 180 km/hr 600 km 7 115 W/kg 65 kg/m2 4800 m

Weight Estimation:

The weight of the aircraft (W) is the key factor in almost aircraft performance problems. The gross weight is distributed in the following manner:

W0 = Wempty + Wfuel + Wcrew + W payload W0

= _

Wcrew + W payload 1-( Wf/W0)-(We/W0)

Wcrew =

200 kg ( approx)

We/W0 = AW0C Kvs Where , A= constant = 2,36 for propeller trainer Kvs = 1.00 for fixed sweep = 2.36 (W0-0.18 )* 1

11

Wf/Wo =1.06(1-(Wx/Wo))

Wx/W0 = W5/W0 = 0.906 Gives, Wf/W0 = 0.099 i.e. = W0 = 200 ---------------------------0.901 (2.36 W0 -0.18)

Iteration:W0 1000 905 955 930 935 We/W0 0.680 0.692 0.663 0.651 0.672 W0 956.44 956.93 931.51 945.98 943.62

12

942 940

0.647 0.670

938.92 940.08

i.e W0 = Take off Weight = 940 kg Engine Selection

From the first weight estimate, we can have a rough idea of the weight of the power-plant that is to be used. The total weight of the power-plant (0.055W) requires to be 51.70 kg. Choice of engine is a Piston engine for obvious reasons such as lower speed and easy maintenance. Engines can be used either as a combination of engines or a single engine. Its better to use a single engine for better directional stability and of course for less weight.
Engine Model Vedeneyev M-14P 9-cylinder radial engine Blackburn Cirrus Bombardier 203 4-cylinder in-line engine Jabiru 3300 Lycoming O-540-E4A5, Textron Lycoming O-320-D3G Avco Lycoming AEIO-360-B1F flat-four piston engine Power Takeoff SFC Weight [kg] (KW) [/hr] 270 135 135 195 134 160 0.44 0.45 0.5 0.52 0.43 0.45 55.825 55.11 54.45 60.61 60.885 57.75

The preferable choice of engine from those listed above would be the Jabiru 3300 engine which meets our demand of weight .

Fuel weight validation

13

The choice of a suitable engine, having been made, it is now possible to estimate the amount of fuel required for a flight at the given cruising speed for the given range.
Thrust at altitude is calculated using the relation

lt a 0

0.752 = _________ = 0.613 1.2256

P = P0 * 1.2

= 75.03 KW

Wfuel = (no. of engines) x (Power at altitude) x Range x SFC x 1.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 52.08 kg Cruise velocity The factor of 1.2 is provided for reserve fuel NOTE: This fuel weight estimate will help in counter checking if the First weight estimate has been appropriately made. With the aid of the fuel weight thus obtained, the Aircraft weight can be reestimated and if the newly found weight tends to deviate away from the first weight, the engine is changed or the design parameters such as range and cruise velocity suitably altered. This process is performed in an iterative manner and the aircraft weight is calculated in every iteration. If the aircraft weight converges and the Engine selected found to be the same in successive iterations, the Weight estimate and Engine selection has been successful.

Results of the Weight estimation

14

MTOW (N) Wcrew(N) Wst (N) Wfe (N) Wpowerplant (N) Wfuel (N) Cruise altitude (m) Sigma Range (km) Cruise Velocity (Mach) Power plant chosen Dry weight (kg) Thrust per engine (kW) Take-off SFC (/hr)

9221.4 1962 5723.84 490.5 534.15 510.904 4800 0.613 600 0.15 Jabiru 3300 54.45 75 0.5

SELECTION OF AEROFOIL:
Formula:2 t 0 .3 1 )2 =( ) +( M cos 1.3 [1 5 * ) [ ( M cos ]3.5 ] 3 # c M M cos (5 + M )

Here, M (or) MDD is the drag divergence Mach number of the aircraft is the sweepback angle at wing quarter chord
M# =M* CL (cos ) 2

M* is 1.05 for high speed airfoils and 1.0 for other normal airfoils CL is estimated now using the mean wing loading during cruise.

CL

cos

Mcos

M#

t/c

15

0.12

0.069 15

0.965

0.115

0.926

0. 207

t/c = 0.207

Wing Geometry design

The geometry of the wing, is a function of four parameters, namely the Wing loading (W/S), Aspect Ratio (b2/S), Taper ratio () and the Sweepback angle at quarter chord The Take-off Weight that was estimated in the previous analysis is used to find the Wing area S (from W/S).The value of S also enables us to calculate the Wingspan b (using the Aspect ratio). The root chord can now be found using the equation

The root chord can now be found using the equation.

C root =

2 S b (1 + )

2.2

The tip chord is given by

Ctip = Cro o t

= 0.55

The mean aerodynamic chord is simply the average chord of the wing representative of a rectangular wing of similar span. It may be found graphically as shown in the diagram below which represents the basic wing structure.

16

Final MTOW (Kg) W/S from graph (kg/sq.m) Wing area S (sq.m) Aspect Ratio Span b (m) Taper ratio Root Chord (m) Tip chord (m) Mac from drawing (c)

940 65 14.46 7 10.06 0.25 2.2 0.55 1.5

Aerofoil selection:

17

Aerofoil
NACA66021 Eppler E857 Rutan DEFCDNI RAF69 LS421MOD LS421 GOE798 GOE383

Thickness Camber
0.21 0.203 0.2092 0.2064 0.2096 0.2090 0.2000 0.2023 0.000 0.0467 0.0446 0.0179 0.0232 0.0241 0.0603 0.0497

Leading Edge Radius

0.0333 0.022 0.0279 0.1040 0.0477 0.0485 0.0628 0.0607

Trailing Edge Angle

10.15 13.344 18.69 22.12 2.2117 6.3087 27.78 19.97

Purpose
Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic

Eppler E857 was chosen because its t/c value and camber was found to be

satisfactory from calculated from formula. It is also used for flying wing purposes. Also Clmax and Cdmin were found to be satisfactory.

Name EPPLER 857

Cl max 1.241

Cd min 0.0072

Aerodynamic Twist

18

In order to obtain better span-wise distribution of lift and to have better stalling characteristics (the root should stall before the tip so that the pilot may realize and avoid a stall by sensing the vibrations on his control stick), it is usually necessary to provide a lower t/c to the tip section and a higher t/c to the root section. Hence, Section used at the mean aerodynamic chord Section used at the tip Section used at the root

- EPPLER E857 - EPPLER E856 - EPPLER E858

We assume that the fuel tank extends between 0.15 and 0.65 of the chord, till 75% of the semi-span. The volume available is calculated using the formula below

_ t _ b Vav = 2 c 0.5 c 0.75 0.8 c 2

= 2.811

The 0.8 at the end of the formula is to account for the error induced by the assumption of the wing cross-section being rectangular. The volume required, can be simply calculated by dividing the fuel mass (weight) by its density (110 kg/m3).

Mass of fuel (kg) Density of fuel (kg/m3)

52 110

Position of Wing

Required Fuel Volume (m3) 2.11 Volume available for fuel (m3) 2.811

19

The location of the wing in the fuselage (along the vertical axis) is very important. Each configuration (Low, High and Mid) has its own advantages but in this design, the Low-wing offers significant advantages viz. Places the fuselage closer to the ground Propellers will have sufficient ground clearance without excessive landing gear length. Wing tips are not likely to touch ground during take-off. Also for a trainer aircraft , which is better to have short takeoff and landing , the high position allows room for the very large wing flaps needed for a high lift coefficient.

Fuselage Layout
A)b/l ratio and Fuselage Fineness ratio The two dimensions that basically define a fuselage are its length and its diameter (equivalent diameter in case of non-circular sections). These two dimensions are determined by two non-dimensional parameters which are standard for most aircraft, namely the b/l ratio and the fuselage fineness ratio. The b/l ratio and the fuselage fineness ratio were estimated on comparing those of similar aircraft and were estimated. The results of this comparison yielded these dimensions for our fuselage.
b/l ratio fineness ratio Span b (m) Fuselage length l (m) Width (m) Height 0.9 10.1 10.06 11.17 1.5 1.5

The width was chosen based upon the height of the engine, which was about 0.75m. So it was thought of burying the engine within the fuselage itself. A circular fuselage has been chosen, as they are capable of resisting pressure loads (at high altitudes) with tension stresses, rather than the more severe bending loads that

20

arise on non-circular shapes. Moreover, by eliminating corners, we can avoid the separation of flow at moderate angles of attack or side-slip. B)Nose & Tail cone Fineness of fuselage The nose fineness is dependent on the Drag-divergence Mach number as it is similar to considering the flow accelerating to sonic speed locally at the surface of the airfoil ( in this case , the fuselage nose). the nose fineness for MDD=0.12 was found to be 1.6. The nose cone was thus modified to prevent excessive increase in drag due to compressibility.

Similarly the tail cone is designed such that the base drag due to it is kept to the minimum value possible. The tail fineness ratio selected is 1.8.
Nose fineness ratio for given MDD Tail fineness ratio

1.6 0.97

21

So rounded corners , chined noses as well as canted vertical tails are provided to reduce radar signatures.

Flap Selection
High Lift devices are necessary in order to provide the additional or excess Lift that is required at Take-off and at Landing. The high lift devices in most common use are the flaps and the Leading edge Slats. The design of High lift devices involves the estimation of CLmax and its increase due to the presence of these devices. The critical condition of application of High lift devices is at the time of landing when the pilot has to fly at a very low speed, the length of the runway imposing a limit on landing at high speeds. Moreover a smooth Touchdown is possible only at low speeds. At these speeds, the Lift produced by the wing alone will not be enough and the service of High lift devices becomes vital. A) Required CLmax Estimation: The landing distance is found to be standardized by FARs (Federal Aviation Rules) s at 1650m for aircrafts of similar MTOW and hence, it is possible to estimate the approach velocity Vapp by using a simple equation of motion analysis. The deceleration offered due to friction between the ground and tires and also due to thrust reverser is approximately 0.17g. Taking these into consideration the equation of motion is given as below.
2 0 = Vapp 2 0.17 g 1650

i.e. Vapp= 74.18 m/s The approach velocity thus found is a function of the stalling velocity Vs. Vapp is approx 1.1 times the stall velocity Vs. From Vs, the value of CLmax that is required of the wing and the high lift devices is calculated. Therefore,

Vs = 67.44 m/s

22

W 0.95 C L m ax = S 1 V2 s 2
The Wing Loading at landing can be as low as 0.7 of the design Wing Loading but here, we design it for the most critical condition which may be a Landing soon after Take-Off due to Engine failure or similar problems. The required CLmax thus found was 3.8.

Required C L max

= 0.056

From the airfoil that was chosen for the mean aerodynamic chord, the available Clmax is 1.1. This data is applicable for two-dimensional un-swept wings. When used on a three-dimensional swept wing, the available CLmax is given by Available C L max = 0.9 Cl max cos C L max =1.241 From the airfoil chosen
C L max = 1.241 0.056 C L max = 1.19

As wing mounted engines have been used, the engine pylons and jet exhaust affect the flow over slats and flaps respectively, an additional 0.12 is included in the required CLmax calculation. Therefore,
L max = 1.31 C

B) Flap Selection Flaps are the most commonly employed high lift devices and contribute at least 60% of the total CLmax. The CLmax obtainable from the flaps is a function of the thickness (t/c) of the wing section. The type of flap most suitable for our application of this type is the Double Slotted flap which combines the versatility of the Fowler flap and offers less drag like the simple split flap. Triple Slotted flaps could also be used but are very complex in nature. The data obtained (below) for Double Slotted flaps gives the basic Clmax obtainable from it as a function of t/c.

23

The basic Clmax for a thickness of 0.207 is found to be 2.3 from the above graph. However this Clmax is based on the following assumptions : The flap extends throughout the span. The flap covers 25% of the chord. The flap is deflected through 50 degrees. The wing is un-swept. The corrections due to the deviation of the wing-flap system from these assumptions are applied using the formula.
S flapped S ref

C L max =

K1 K 2 K Cl max

where, Sflapped is the flapped area of the wing. Sref is the area of the reference wing. K1 is the correction for flap-chord ratio. K2 is the correction for deflection. K(sweep) is the correction for sweepback angle. Clmax is the basic increase in CLmax due to a Double-split flap. Application of corrections to the basic Clmax

24

The flap-chord ratio for comparable aircraft was found to have values as high as 33%. In our design, we take a flap-chord ratio of 32%. The linear variation of the curve implies that the correction factor for 32% will be 1.28.
K1 = 1.28

25

The correction K2 for deflection of the flap is calculated from the following graph which gives the correction to be applied in terms of the deflection of the flap in degrees. The deflection of flaps while poised for Landing can be as much as 60. From the graph the correction for 60 was calculated to be 1.1
K 2 = 1.1

The correction due to sweepback K(sweep) is calculated from an empirical formula. For the sweepback angle of 15, the sweepback correction is calculated.
K = (1 0.08 cos 2 ) cos 0.75
K = 0.905

C) Estimation of Flapped Area

26

Typical flapped area ratios were found to range between 55% to 70% of the wing area. A flapped area ratio of 61% was assumed. The flap has been split into an inboard and outboard flap to reduce complexity of the mechanism involved. The CLmax due to the addition of flaps to the wing can now be calculated.
C L max = S flapped S ref K1 K 2 K Cl max

( L max ) flap =1.0182 C

This is just more than the required CLmax from these high lift systems. This corresponds to the Landing configuration. CLmax in the take-off configuration can be estimated assuming 20 flap deflection.

Landing Gear

27

The Landing gear is one of the aircraft components whose failure can cause drastic results. It is the component that bears the entire load of the aircraft most of the time (i.e., the time when it is on the ground). The landing gear design involves the location of the main wheels and nose wheel longitudinally and laterally, followed by the tyre selection. By far, the tricycle landing gear suits and works best for all types of aircraft. Hence the same type is used here as well. Its advantages outweigh those of the other types. A tricycle landing gear is proposed with the nose wheel elevated than the main wheel from the ground surface inorder to provide the initial lift during take off as the aerofoil is symmetric A) Main wheel location The main wheel has to be designed to take a maximum of 92% of the all-up weight aircraft. The fuselage upsweep plays a significant role in the determination of the position of the main wheel. As of now, the CG of the aircraft was assumed to act at through 0.3 of the MAC. This value however, cannot be maintained at the same spot throughout the flight period owing to change in fuel weight as well as different payload conditions. Therefore a movement of CG between 0.2 and 0.4 of the MAC is permissible. This point at 0.4 of MAC is known as the most aft CG of the aircraft and it corresponds, also to the position of the CG when the load on the main wheel is maximum. The load on the main wheel when the CG is at this point requires to be 92% of the MTOW. The fuselage must be able to rotate through 30 about its lateral axis with the main wheel on the ground. Assuming such a condition, a line tangent to the fuselages upswept portion is drawn followed by a line through the most aft CG, making an angle equal to or slightly greater than the fuselage upsweep angle with the vertical. The point of intersection of these two lines gives the position of the main-landing gear. Shown in fig 1. B) Calculation of Wheelbase

28

From the drawing thus obtained, the location of the main gear from the most aft CG location (M) will be known.

Taking moment about the front point, we obtain the expression that can be used to find the wheelbase F (since M is known).
W ( F M ) = 0.92W F

The nose gear position is also known now. C) Lateral Location of Main Wheel The lateral location of the main wheel is a function of the aircrafts overturn angle () which is a measure of the aircrafts tendency to overturn when taxied around a sharp corner. This tendency to overturn can be prevented by providing a larger Track length. However, it serves to keep the track to the minimum extent possible as we have to take note that the main wheel strut has to be placed in the wing and it must not cause any damage to the structure which may as well lead to failure or fuel leakage. The expressions to obtain the Track length (2X) are
Y = H tan

= sin 1 (Y ) N
X = F tan

29

Height of CG from ground (m) H

1.51

30
Distance of main wheel from aft CG M (m) Wheel Base - F (m) Distance of nose wheel from aft CG N (m) (overturn angle) < 63 Y (m) (degrees) X (m) Track -2X (m) 0.475 12.625 11.615 53 1.137 5.61 1.24 2.48

The nose gear must have at least 8% of the load on it to allow enough traction in order to steer the aircraft. Likewise, if the load on the nose wheel becomes greater than 15%, it will become difficult to lift the nose wheel off the ground. These conditions are checked with the CG located at the most forward and the most aft positions respectively. For the chosen location of the landing gear, the variation in load on the nose wheel was found to be between 8% and 14% of the total aircrafts load. D) Tyre Selection Finally, the Tyre selection is done based on the weight carried by each tyre. The main wheels are 2 in number (1 on each strut). Nose wheels are2 in number. In the following section, lbs will be used instead of pounds as all tyres were rated in terms of lbs only. Main wheel tyres are given a 7% allowance before the tyre selection is done based on the tyres design or rated load.

31

We go for Radial tires because of static loading requirement.

MTOW (kg) MTOW (lbs) Static Load per main wheel (lbs) Static Load per main wheel (lbs) with 7% allowance Static Load per nose wheel (lbs) corresponds to forward CG location Dynamic Load per nose wheel (lbs) =10*W/(g*F) Total Load on one nose wheel (lbs) (Total Nose wheel load) /1.45 Nose wheel tyres are designed to withstand a total load 1.45 times their rated load. 940 2072.35 864.8 925.33 165.788 167.32 333.108 229.73

32

Based on the above data, tyres were selected from the Michelin aviation tyre manual on the basis of their closeness of their rated loads to the required load bearing capacity.
Tyre specification Rated load (lbs) Maximum diameter d (inches) Maximum width w (inches) Rolling radius Rr Inflation pressure P (psi) Max. Allowable speed (mph) Nose wheel M 8.00 450 8.10 3.06 3.2 55 120 Main wheel 5.00(M) -4(N) 1200 13.25 5.05 5.2 55 120

The tyre area in contact with the ground can be calculated using the formula

33
A = 2.3 w d ( d Rr ) 2

The runway loading can be calculated by dividing the load taken by each wheel by its contact area. The typical runway loading for a well-laid concrete runway can go up to 125 N/cm .
Tyre area (inch2) Load carried (lbs) Runway Loading (lbs/ inch2) Main wheel 27.65 925.33 33.46 Nose wheel 9.733 229.73 23.60
2

This much runway loading is quite acceptable. This completes the conceptual design o f the landing gear. Further design (shock struts, oleo dampers etc.) requires expertise in its design.

Take-Off and Landing Field Length Determination

The Take-off field length covers three distinct phases namely the Ground Roll distance, the transition distance and the Climb distance before an obstacle of height 30m is cleared. The ground friction coefficient is assumed to be 0.04. CLmax is 0.056.Using the following formulae, the take-off length is estimated.
S gr 1.44 W 2 = g SC L max {T [ D + r (W L)] avg }

= 953.9 m
Rtr = (1.15V stall ) 2 0 .2 g

= 3065.71m

sin c limb =

T 1 W LD

= 0.127

34

htr = Rtr (1 cos c lim b )

= 25.185 m
S tr = Rtr ( R tr htr ) 2
2

= 392.154 m
S c lim b = hobstacle htr tan c lim b

= 37.37

S ground roll (m) R transition (m) Climb angle (deg) H transition (m) S transition (m) S climb (m) Total Take off Length (m)

953.9 3065.71 7.34 25.185 392.15 37.37 1382.37

The landing analysis is similar to that of take-off. Only few differences are increased friction coefficient (0.3) due to application of brakes and an increased CLmax of 2.32. The drag is multiplied by a factor of 1.3 in order to account of the use of a thrust reverser. The ratio of velocities at various points to the stall velocity also slightly differs. Here, the obstacle height to be cleared is 30 m.

1.3225 W 2 S gr = g SC L max {[ D 1.3 + r (W L)]avg }

= 348.45 m
R= (1.23V stall ) 2 0.2 g

35

= 35.07
approach
= 25

h flare = R (1 cos approach )

= 3.285 m
S flare = R 2 ( R h flare ) 2

= 219.61
S approach = hobstacle h flare tan approach

= 57.29 m
S approach (m) H flare (m) R flare (m) S flare (m) S ground roll (m) Total Landing field Length (m) 57.29 3.285 35.07 219.61 348.45 625.35

Drag Estimation
The Determination of the Drag polar equation is vital to all performance calculations of an aircraft. The three components of drag that are to be estimated are the parasite drag, induced drag and the Compressibility drag. Parasite drag The parasite drag is calculated using the form factor, the skin friction coefficient and the wetted area. The exposed surfaces that contribute to the parasite drag are the fuselage, the wing, the engine nacelle, the horizontal and vertical tail and the engine pylon. During take-off and Landing, the flaps and the landing gear contribute to an increased amount of drag.

36

The form factor(k) and the skin friction coefficient (Cf) are functions of the Reynolds number which is calculated assuming characteristic length equal to the overall length for bodies like the fuselage and the nacelle (graphs). In case of the wing, tail, pylons etc., the characteristic length to be used is the exposed mean aerodynamic chord. The Non-dimensional of all drag producing surfaces is by done by dividing by the wing reference area. The Parasite drag due to each exposed component is as shown,
S weti S ref

C
Components Wing Horizontal tail Vertical tail Fuselage Engine Pylon Control Surface gap drag Nacelle base drag Fuselage upsweep drag Interference drag (0.015*sum of all C D0) Flap deflection (20 deg) Flap deflection (60deg) Landing Gear

D0

= k i C fi

Cf 0.0021 0.00231 0.00214 0.00157 0.0028 -

k 1.32 1.167 1.148 1.1 1.1 -

Swet / Sref 1.5 0.5 0.4 3.5 0.15 -

CD0 0.004158 0.001347 0.000954 0.00498 0.000462 0.000171 0.000298 0.002175 0.000224 0.003071 0.009213 0.000803

Summing up, the parasite drag coefficient corresponding to the three conditions are found to be
CD0 (cruise) CD0 (TO) CD0 (Landing) 0.015241 0.018312 0.028328

Induced Drag The Wing efficiency factor e has to be necessarily determined to calculate the induced drag- which is almost entirely due to the wing only. The Aspect ratio has to be corrected in case winglets or end-plates have been used. The first estimate of the wing efficiency factor can be determined by making use of the following graph.

37

e is found to be 0.78 from the above graph, but it has to be corrected for sweepback and dihedral angle.
K= K K ebasic AR
0.8 1.005

K =

0.78 7

K = 0.018

The deflection of the flaps also affects the factor K as it modifies the lift distribution. Based on certain empirical correlation, the factor to be included in the induced drag due to flap deflection is also found.
CDi (cruise) CDi (TO) CDi (Landing) 0.018*CL2 0.018*CL2 + 0.01*CL + 0.00092 0.018*CL2 + 0.03*CL + 0.00828

CD0 Cruise configuration Take-Off configuration Landing configuration 0.015177 0.019052 0.025194 0.05*CL2

CDi

CDC (e^(16.5*Mo/0.782)/1.906E10) (e^(16.5*Mo/0.782)/1.906E10) (e^(16.5*Mo/0.782)/1.906E10)

0.05*CL2 + 0.01*CL + 0.00092 0.05*CL2 + 0.03*CL + 0.00828

38

V-n diagram, Gust factor Introduction:

Airplanes may be subjected to a variety of loading conditions in flight. The structural design of the aircraft involves the estimation of the various loads on the aircraft structure and designing the airframe to carry all these loads, providing enough safety factor, considering the fact that the aircraft under design is a commercial transport airplane. As it is obviously impossible to investigate every loading condition that the aircraft may encounter, it becomes necessary to select a few conditions such that each one of these conditions will be critical for some structural member of the airplane.

Velocity-Load Factor(V-n) diagram :

The various external loads on the airplane are usually represented on a graph of the limit load factor n plotted against the indicated airspeed (IAS). This diagram is known better as the V-n diagram. The indicated airspeeds are used, since all air loads are

39

proportional to q or *V2/2. The value of q is the same for the air density and the actual airspeed at altitude, as it is for the standard sea level density 0 and the IAS. The V-n diagram is therefore the same for all altitudes if indicated airspeeds are used. However, in this design case, corrections involving compressibility have to be taken into consideration while calculating the True airspeeds from Indicated airspeeds. Therefore, calculations have been performed with respect to sea-level conditions only.
n= CL * * S *V 2 2 *W

The load factor n is basically the ratio of the wing lift produced to the weight of the aircraft and hence represents the amount of acceleration produced along the z-axis of the plane. For level flight at unit load factor, the value of V corresponding to C Lmax would be the stalling speed of the airplane. In accelerated flight, the maximum lift coefficient can be achieved at higher speeds. The wing is usually analyzed for a coefficient of 1.25C Lmax, and various values of n are obtained by varying the velocity, until the ultimate positive load factor is reached. The line OA of the V-n diagram represents this stalling boundary. It can be made out from this boundary that it is impossible to maneuver at speeds and load factors corresponding to points above or to the left of line OA because this would represent positive high angles of attack (+HAA). The line AC represents the maximum maneuvering load factor for which the airplane is designed. This load factor is usually arrived at by considering both aerodynamic and structural design capabilities. The structural design diving speed is usually specified as 1.15 times the cruise velocity, or is limited by Compressibility effects. Here, a never exceed Mach no. (M ne) of 0.95 and the design diving speed were considered and were found to be of the same order. The line CD of the V-n diagram represents this speed and is also known as the buffeting boundary. The velocity at this boundary is 312 m/s. In a similar manner, the maneuver boundary can be carried to the negative load factor region which is indicative of inverted flight. The gust loads in the negative region are indispensable and can be more severe than the maneuver load factor itself. This region is bounded by OBD.

Gust Load factors :

When an airplane is in level flight in calm air at velocity V, the angle of attack is measured from the wing chord to the horizontal. If the airplane suddenly strikes an

40

ascending air current which has a vertical velocity KU, the angle of attack is increased through an angle . This angle is small, and the angle in radian may be expressed as
= KU V

The change in airplane lift coefficient due to change in angle of attack can be obtained from the lift-AOA curve. For a lift curve slope of m, the change in lift coefficient is given by
C L = mKU V

The increase in airplane load factor n may thus be obtained by using the above equation in our definition of the load factor. Therefore,
n =

SmKU
2W

When the airplane is in level flight, the load factor is unity before striking the gust. The change in load factor n must be combined with the unit load factor to obtain the total gust load factor.
n =1

SmKU
2W

The above two equations may be plotted on the V-n diagram. The line corresponding to the first equation represent load factors obtained when the plane is in a vertical attitude and strikes gusts in directions normal to the thrust line while the second equation corresponds load factors arising during level flight. Aviation specifications recommend a gust velocity U of 12.19 m/s with gust effectiveness K between 0.8 to 1.2 till cruise velocity and 9.14 m/s for higher speeds. Airplanes with higher wing loading pass through the transition region from calm air to air with the maximum gust velocity in a shorter interval of time and hence must be designed for K values greater than 1. In this design case, a gust effectiveness factor of 1.1 has been assumed. The point A represents a high angle of attack condition in the maximum load condition. Hence it is the design point (maximum stressed condition for the wing) for which span-wise load distribution has to be calculated and Bending Moment and Shear Force diagrams is drawn.

41

LOAD ESTIMATION OF WINGS AND FUSELAGE:

W wing = 0.036 Sw0.758 Wfw0.0035 (A/cos2)0.6 Q0.006 0.04 ( 100t/c / cos)-0.3 (Nz Wdg)0.49 = 221.65 kg W horizontal tail = 0.016(NzWdg)0.414 Q0.168 Sht0.896 (100t/c / cosht)-0.12 (A/cos2ht)0.043 h-0.02 = 54.96 kg Wvertical tail = 0.073( 1+ 0.2 Ht/Hv) (NzWdg)0.376Q0.12Svt0.873(100 t/c / cosvt)-0.49 * (A/cos2vt)0.357) vt0.039 = 60.95 kg Wfuselage = 0.052 Sf1.086 (NzWdg)0.177 Lt-0.051 (L/D)-0.072 Q0.241 + Wpress = 334.32 kg

42

Where, A = aspect ratio Sw= trapezoidal wing area Wfw= weight of fuel in wing = wing sweep Nz = ultimate load factor = 1.5* limit load factor Wdg = design gross weight Q = dynamic pressure at cruise Sht = horizontal tail area Ht = Horizontal tail height Hv = Vertical tail height above fuselage Ht/Hv = 0.0 for conventional tail , 1.0 for T tail Wpress = weight penalty due to cabin pressurization

Balancing Of Control Surfaces :

The primary control surfaces are the ailerons(roll), elevator(pitch), and rudder (yaw). Final balancing of these surfaces are based upon dynamic analysis of control effectiveness, including structural bending and control system effects.

43

Aileron guidelines AILERON: The required aileron area can be estimated from the above figure In span , the ailerons typically extend from about 50% to about 90% of the span. In some aircraft , the ailerons extend to way out to the wing tips . This extra 10% provides little contribution to effectiveness due to the vortex flow at the wing tips, but can provide location for an aileron mass balance. Ailerons and flaps are typically about 15-25% of the tail chord.

44

Constant-percent chord control surface FLAPS AND SPOILERS: Wing flaps occupy the part inboard of ailerons, since a large maximum lift coefficient is required, the flap span should be as large as possible. One way of accomplishing is by the use of spoilers. Spoilers are plates located forward of the flaps on the top of the wing. To avoid aileron reversal, an inboard aileron is kept for high speed roll control RUDDERS AND ELEVATORS: Elevators and Rudders generally begin at the side of the fuselage generally begin at the side of the fuselage and extend to the tip of the tail or to about 90% of the tail span. High-speed aircraft sometimes use rudders of large chord which only extend to about 50% of the span. Rudders and elevators are typically about 25-50% of the tail chord. Mass balancing refers to the addition of weight forward of the control-surface hingeline to counter-surface hingeline to counterbalance the weight of the control surfaces aft of the hingeline. To minimize the weight penalty,the balance weight should be located as far forward as possible. Some aircraft mount the balance weight on a boom flush to the wing tip. Others bury the mass balance on a boom flush attached to the control surface.

45 The aerodynamic balance reduces flutter tendencies , can be a notched part of the control surface , an overhung portion of the control surface, or a combination.

Aerodynamic Balance

Structural Consideration:
The weight of the structural members are reduced by providing the shortest , straightest load path available. Longerons: The major fuselage loads are carried to the wing by longerons, which are typically I-H shaped extrusions running force and aft and attached to the skin. Longerons are heavy , so their weight is minimized by designing the aircraft so that they are straight as possible. The purpose of a longeron is to prevent fuselage bending. Stringers :

46 For aircrafts which have fewer cutouts and concentrated loads than a fighter

than a fighter , the fuselage will be constructed with a number of stringers, distributed along the circumference. Another major component is keelson , used to carry fuselage bending loads. Bulkhead: Large concentrated loads must be carried by a strong , heavy structural member such as a fuselage bulkhead. The external struts is used by many light aircrafts to carry the bending moments. Even though this approach is the lightest of all, it obviously has a substantial drag penalty at higher speeds. Spar: Aircraft wings usually have the front spar about 20-30% of the chord back from the leading edge. The rear spar at about the 60-75% chord location. Additional spars may be located between the front and rear spars forming a multispar structure. Aircraft with the landing gear in the wing will usually have the gear located aft of the wing box, with a single trailing edge spar behind the gear to carry the flap loads. Ribs: Ribs carry the loads from the control surfaces, store stations, and landing gear to the soars and skins. Another form of wing structure in which, the multirib or stringer panel box , has only two spars , plus a large number of spanwise stringers attached to the wing skins. Numerous ribs are used to maintain the shape of the box under bending.

47

48

Conclusion:
Thus the preliminary analysis of designing an Aircraft Trainer is completed. All the CAD drawings and the relevant data are submitted in this mini project .

Bibliography
adg.stanford.edu, Stanford University Aircraft Design and Synthesis site Wikepedia .com Americanantigravity.com Airmichelin.com Aircraft Design by Raymer. Aircraft performance J.D Anderson Pdf files by Dr john fischer

Our esteemed thanks to Prof. R. Venkatanarayanan for guiding us through this project.