You are on page 1of 33

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

U Un ni iv ve er rs si it ty y o of f B Br ri is st to ol l
D De ep pa ar rt tm me en nt t o of f A Ae er ro os sp pa ac ce e E En ng gi in ne ee er ri in ng g
A AE EN NG G3 33 36 60 00 0/ /M M3 36 60 00 0 A Ae er ro os sp pa ac ce e V Ve eh hi ic cl le e
D De es si ig gn n a an nd d S Sy ys st te em m I In nt te eg gr ra at ti io on n



C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s

12
th
March 2007

Group 4






Written by:
Marvin Anthony Rodrigo Saverymuthapulle
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

- - i ii i - -
Three-View

5 x LD3-45W Containers



General Details

Model
Description
Aft fuselage mounted engines,
high T tail, narrow body.
List Price SR/ER
($US)
2005: 49M / 55M
2015: 61M / 68.5M
Launch 2010
Entry into Service 2015
Accomm.(STD PAX) 150 PAX
Single(max) HD/dual 150 / 132

Design Criteria

Max Operating V
mo
/M
mo
360 kts CAS / 0.84
Dive V
D
/M
D
-
Certified Max Alt. 41000 ft
Landing Gear V
LO
/V
LE
235 KCAS / 320 KCAS
Max. Flaps V
FE
162 KCAS

External Geometry

Overall Length 38.25m / 125.49ft
Overall Height 8.87m / 29.10ft
Wingspan (excl Wlts) 32.27m / 105.87ft
Wing Area (gross) 126m
2
/ 1356.25 sq.ft
Wing Area (ESDU) 106m
2
/ 1141 sq.ft
Wing ARatio 9.16
1/4 Chd Swp (Airbus) 30
t/c - Root / Kink 1
/ Kink 2 / Tip
0.14/ 0.12 / 0.10 /
0.10
Cabin Geometry




Cabin lngth / volume 25.6m / 83.99ft
159.0m
3
/ 5615.0cu.ft
Max cbn wdth / hght 3.73m / 12.24ft
2.13m / 6.99ft
Cabin floor width 3.67m / 12.04ft

Fuslge wdth / hght
(external)
3.94m / 12.93ft
Fwd/Aft + Aux cargo
17.5m
3
/0m
3

618cu.ft/0cu.ft + 8m
3

Unpress. cargo vlume 0 cu.ft

Systems

Engine Rolls Royce V2500 (Scaled)
APU Sundstrand APS 3200
Avionics
Suite
Honeywell, Sundstrand,
Collins, Smith Ind.


Payload-Range Diagram
Spec. OWE,
LRC


A315 Atlas

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

- - i ii ii i - -
A315 SR
Weights & Loadings

Maximum Ramp Weight 65174kg / 143685lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 65156kg / 143645lb
Maximum Landing Weight 55383kg / 122099lb
Max Zero-Fuel Weight 54950kg / 121145lb
Operationl Weight Empty 39951kg / 88076lb
Maximum Payload 16848kg / 37144lb
Maximum Usable Fuel: 13231kg / 29170lb
** 6.75 lb per USG 4321 USG
Payload at max. fuel 11974kg / 26399lb

Wing Loading (MTOW) 517.1 kg/m
105.9 lb/sq.ft
Thrust (max) to Weight 0.317
Empty Weight/STD Accom. 587.2 lb/PAX
OWE/MTOW Fraction 0.613
(MZFW-OWE)/MTOW Fractn 0.230
Max Fuel Fraction 0.203

Performance

Engine Rating
Takeoff Rating Max 101.2kN / 22750lbf
Flat Rating ISA + 15 deg.C

Airfield Performance (MTOW/MLW)
TOFL, ISA, SL 1820m / 5971ft
TOFL, ISA+20C, 5000 ft 2450m / 8038ft
LFL, ISA, SL 1164m / 3820ft
Approach Speed (MLW) 135 KCAS

En route Perf: Climb (AEO, ISA, MTOW br.)
Time to Climb to FL 350 -
Time to Climb to ICA 20.9 min
Initial Cruise Altitude 35000 ft

En route Performance: Cruise
Long Range Cruise M0.80 / 435 KTAS
High Speed Cruise M0.84 / 460 KTAS

Payload-Range
Reserves Description

FAR121,200 nm alt.
Accommodtn / Weight ea. 150 PAX / 100 kg
Design range for given
accommodation [@ LRC]
1800 nm

Block Performance (given PAX, ISA, s.a.)
Assumptions: 100 kg per PAX, LRC speed
500 nm Block fuel 2395kg / 5279lb
Block time 91 mins
TOGW 59844kg / 131934lb

Max Range Block fuel 7697kg / 16968lb
Block time 262 mins
TOGW 65156kg / 143645lb

A315 ER

Weights & Loadings

Maximum Ramp Weight 70527kg / 155485lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 70509kg / 155445lb
Maximum Landing Weight 59933kg / 132129lb
Max Zero-Fuel Weight 54950kg / 121145lb
Operationl Weight Empty 39951kg / 88076lb
Maximum Payload 16848kg / 37144lb
Maximum Usable Fuel: 16983kg / 37442lb
** 6.75 lb per USG 5547 USG
Payload at max. fuel 13575kg / 29927lb

Wing Loading (MTOW) 559.6 kg/m
114.6 lb/sq.ft
Thrust (max) to Weight 0.346
Empty Weight/STD Accom. 587.2 lb/PAX
OWE/MTOW Fraction 0.567
(MZFW-OWE)/MTOW Fractn 0.213
Max Fuel Fraction 0.241

Performance

Engine Rating
Takeoff Rating Max 119.7kN / 26911lbf
Flat Rating ISA + 15 deg.C

Airfield Performance (MTOW/MLW)
TOFL, ISA, SL 1960m / 6430ft
TOFL, ISA+20C, 5000 ft 2480m / 8136ft
LFL, ISA, SL 1210m / 3970ft
Approach Speed (MLW) 135 KCAS

En route Perf: Climb (AEO, ISA, MTOW br.)
Time to Climb to FL 350 -
Time to Climb to ICA 24.7 min
Initial Cruise Altitude 35000 ft

En route Performance: Cruise
Long Range Cruise M0.80 / 435 KTAS
High Speed Cruise M0.84 / 460 KTAS

Payload-Range
Reserves Description

FAR121,200 nm alt.
Accommodtn / Weight ea. 150 PAX / 100 kg
Design range for given
accommodation [@ LRC]
3000 nm

Block Performance (given PAX, ISA, s.a.)
Assumptions: 100 kg per PAX, LRC speed
500 nm Block fuel 2395kg / 5279lb
Block time 91 mins
TOGW 59844kg / 131934lb

Max Range Block fuel 13007kg / 28676lb
Block time 419 mins
TOGW 70509kg / 155445lb


C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

- - i iv v - -
Number of Batteries 4
Extrnl AC or DC Hook-Up AC
Main Distrbtn System 3 Phase + 270V DC


ATA 27 - Flight Controls
Flight Control
Philosophy
Fly by wire,
using Hydraulic
actuators and
EHAs
Aileron Actuation Mthod Hydraulic (prim)
EHA EHA (sec)
Description of Rudder Conventional
Rudder Actuation Method 1 x Hydraulic 2
xEHA
Fixed / Var. Incd. Tail Variable
Elevator Actuation Mthd Hydraulic (prim)
EHA EHA (sec)
Stall Protection
Devices
Software
controlled stall
protection
Flap System Overview
2 panels per side
4 tracks per side
Flap (Slat) Deflection
- Takeoff (Highest)
20
O
(None)
Flap (Slat) Deflection
- Landing Configuration
20
O
(None)
HI Lift LE Device None
HI Lift LE Dev. Actuatn None
HI Lift TE Device Single slotted flap
HI Lift TE Dev. Actuatn Hydraulic
Total Number of Roll
Splers / Flight Splers
/ Ground Splers / Total
4 / 8 / 8 / 8
Spoiler Actuation Hydraulic

ATA 28 - Fuel System
Tot. Usable Fuel Capac. 5547 USG
Tank Capacity (Wing) 4321 USG
Tank Capacity (Center) 1226 USG
Tank Cap. (Aux. + Trim) None
Fuel System Overview
2 integral (wet
wing) tanks
1 center tank (ER
only)
2 Collector tanks
located next to
the engines
Loctn Aux. Fuel Tanks none



Systems Description

ATA-21 Air Conditioning
ECS Overview
2 ECS packs
2 zones (3 OPT)
emergency press.
ram air scoop
located in wing-
fuselage fairing
fan precooler
ECS Location Belly Fairing
Cockpit / Cabin
Pressure Control
automatic and
manual
Cockpit / Cabin
Temperature Control
automatic and
manual
No. Cabin Control Zones 1
Press. System Overview digital controller
Fresh Air Ratio
2 recirc fans
100% fresh air
Overpress. Valve Diff. 9.1 psi
Cabin Alt. at Max Alt. 8000 ft
Cooling Cycle Overview
2 ECS packs with:
3-wheel air cycle
machine, dual
heat exchanger,
water separator

ATA 22 - Auto Flight
Auto Flght Cntrl Descr. Dual digital FCC
comp
Flight Director Descr. 2 FDs (1 per FCC)
Yaw Damper Descr. Provided by stall
management
Auto Pitch Trim Descr. Trim via variable
incidence H-stab.

ATA 23 - Communications
Comms System Overview
2VHF 2HF systems
SATCOM
FlySmart
CVR
cockpit audio sys
ACARS STD
SELCAL STD

ATA 24 - Electrical Power
Main Power Type Separate AC, DC
Power Distr. Frequency 370 - 770 Hz
Number of Main Genrtors 4
Main Generator Power 150kVA / 70kVA
Aux. Generator & Power
(APU)
1 x 90 kVa
Emergency Power Source 70kVa AC RAT
Main System DC voltage 28 V
Battery Type & Power Ni-Cd @ 50Ah

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

- - v v - -
ATA 32 - Landing Gear
Landing Gear Actuation hydrlc, man. bckup
Emerg. Extension
Procedure
manual release
gravity extension
Main Landing Gear Type cantilever
Location of MLG wing aux spar +
gear rib
MLG Strut Type oleo-pneumatic
Tire Size - MLG H43 x W17.5 R17
Tire Pressure - MLG 175 psi
MLG Braking System
Electrically
powered
autobrake (3 set)
carbon brakes
anti-skid
Nose Landing Gear Type cantilever
Spatial Direction for
Retraction of NLG
Forward
NLG Strut Type oleo-pneumatic
Tire Size - NLG H30 x W8.8 - R15
Tire Pressure - NLG 190 psi
NLG Steering Overview Electric
(integrated with
the Wheel Tug
system)

ATA 34 Navigation
Number of ADS Computers 2
Number of AHRS 2
STD / OPT GPS STD
EFIS Displays Overview 8 of 8.0x8.0 LCDs
Number of IRS 2 STD
STD / OPT EGPWS STD
STD / OPT TCAS STD
No. of Radio Altimeters 2 STD
STD / OPT HUD STD
STD / OPT CatIIIa Appr. STD
STD / OPT CatIIIb Appr. STD
STD / OPT Autoland STD
GPWS / Wind Shear Detec STD
Digital Weather Radar STD
STD / OPT EVS STD
STD / OPT MLS STD
Number of VHF Radios 2 STD
No. of HF Transceivers 2 STD
Number of ADF Receivers 2 STD
No. of DME Transceivers 2 STD
STD / OPT Mode S Trnspn STD
STD / OPT Coupled VNAV STD
RNP Capability Yes
Overview of FMS System 2 FMS

ATA 35 - Oxygen


Fuel Pump Overview
4 boost pumps in
main tank
2 boost pumps in
centre tank (ER
only)
4 boost pumps in
collector tanks
1 boost pump for
the APU feed
Cross-Feed Capability yes
Single Pt Refuel Capab. yes
Gravity Refuel Capablty yes
Location of Fuel Filler
Ports
LE of right wing
for pressure

ATA 29 - Hydraulic Power
Hydrlic System Overview Two Hydraulic lines
Hydraulic Bay Location belly fairing
Number of Main Systems 2
Hydraulic Fluid Type(s) phosphate ester
family
Nominal Working Pressre 3000 psi
Hydraulic Pumps
1 engine-driven
per engine
1 electrical per
engine
1 RAT
Hydraulically Actuated
Items
Undercarriage
Elevators
Ailerons
THS
Rudder
Yaw Damper
Spoilers
Flaps


ATA 30 - Ice and Rain Protection
Anti-Ice System
Overview
Electro thermal
heating mats on
the leading edge
of the wing and
pneumatic cowl
anti-icing
Wing Electro-heated mats
H-tail no protection
V-tail no protection
Nacelle Intake 5th stage engine
bleed air
Probes & Sensors electriclly heated
Windshield
electrically
heated for: anti-
icing, defogging,
defrost
two wipers for
rain protection
Rain Repellent

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

- - v vi i - -

Struct. & Material -
Vertical tail
2 spars
composite with
CarbonF TE panels
Struct. & Material -
Rudder
1 piece, carbon
fibre
Structure & Material -
Wing
2 spars
machined ribs
extruded machined
string. rivetd to
chem-milled skins
aluminium wingbox
Wing Tip Geometry Type Blended upper
surface winglet
Structure & Material -
Aileron
carbon fibre
Structure & Material HI
Lift LE Device
None
Structure & Material HI
Lift TE Device
trailing edge:
Carbon fibre al
honeycomb
Structure & Material
Speed Brakes
carbon fibre

ATA 71-80 Engine
Engine Manufacturer Rolls Royce
Engine Designation V2500 (Scaled)
Turbofan No. of Stages
Fan/Boost/Compaxial +
Compcent//HPT/LPT
1 / 4 / 10 + 0 // 2
/ 5
Number of Engines 2
Mounting Point Aft Fuselage
Max. Takeoff Thrust
each
101.2kN / 22750lbf
119.7kN / 26911lbf
Flat Rating Temperature ISA + 15
Thrust Reversr Overview Bucket Type
Bypass Ratio 5
Overall Pressure Ratio 35
TSFC at M0.80, FL 350 0.5776 lb/lb.hr
FADEC or DEEC FADEC
ETOPS Capability 90 min

External Noise, MTOW (ICAO Annex 16)
Takeoff / Stage 4 Limit 76.25/91.23 EPNdB
Sideline / Stage 4 Lim. 95.4/97.16 EPNdB
Approach / Stage 4 Lim. 96.8/100.36 EPNdB
Cumultv Margin to Stg 4 15.72 EPNdB

Emissions (ICAO LTO cycle)
NOx TBD
CO TBD
Unburnt Hydrocarbons TBD



Oxygen System Overview
crew: 114 cu. ft
capacity
chemical oxygen
genertrs for PAX


ATA 36 - Pneumatics
Pneumatic System Overvw port switching
Location of Bleed Ports
and Capacity
fan: yes
int: 5th stage
high: 9th stage

Pneumatic Source & Use
Engine cowl anti
icing (supplied
byengine)
Engine start up
(supplied by APU)
Bleed Leak Detection yes

ATA 39 - Electrical / Electronic Panels
Loc. of Major Elec.
Components & System
cockpit
Main Display Panels LCD screens
Main Display Size (HxW) 8.0 X 8.0
No. Main Display Panels 8
Avionics Suite Designtn VIA
Avionics Suite
Manufacturer
Honeywell,Rockwell
Collins, Smiths
Avionics Rack Location underfloor of
forward cabin

ATA 49 - Auxiliary Power Unit
Std / Opt APU STD
APU Designation APS 3200
APU Manufacturer Sundstrand
APU Location Tailcone
APU Reqrd for Dispatch no
APU Operation & Control FADEC
APU Fire Extinguishing Yes
APU Max Start. Altitude 41000 ft
APU Max Oper.
Payload RangeDiagramFor Advanced Conventional Aircraft
0
5 000
10 000
15 000 20 000
25 000
30 000 35 000
40 000
45 000
0 1 000 200 0 3 000 400 0 5 000 600 0 7 000 Ra nge ( n m)
Payload(lb) BGW HGW
41000 ft

ATA 53, 54, 55 & 57 - Structure
Strctrl Press. Diffrntl 8.3 psi
Struc. Life cycle 75000 cyc
Structure Overview 35% Composite, 55%
Ali, 10% Other
Structure & Material
Nacelle / Pylon
Pylon Aluminium
Nacelle - CFRP
Struct. & Material -
Horizontal tail
2 spars
composite with
CarbonF TE panels
Struct. & Material -
Elevator
1 piece, carbon
fibre

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

- - v vi ii i - -
15.00m
37.88
38.25m
5.44m
26.50m
27.35m
21.65m
4.00m
1.20m
12m
0.51m
3.93m
1.44m
3.82m
35m
4.10m
3.06m
4.82m
40m
5 x LD3-45W Containers
43.88m
30m
1.44m
8.50m
6.50m

33.98
3.43m
1.74m
2.26m
0.75
12.34m
7.38m
6.00m
27m

FEDR Configuration
All Dimensions in metres
12
th
March 2007
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s

- - v vi ii ii i - -
List of Tables
05-03-01 Available Supercritical Aerofoils 2
05-04-01 Lifting Characteristics of the A315 Atlas 14
05-04-02 Skin Roughness Value k (Raymer
3
) 15
05-04-03 Drag Calibration for the wing 16
05-04-04 Total Drag Calibration and Calculation at Cruise 16
05-04-05 Subsonic Drag due to High Lift Devices 17
05-04-06 Transonic Parasite Drag 17
05-04-07 Lift to Drag Ratios 18




List of Figures
05-02-00 Aerodynamics Iteration Flow Chart 1
05-03-01 M
DD
Variation with Sweep [Raymer
3
] 3
05-03-02 LF
DD
: Lift Adjustment for M
DD
[Raymer
3
] 4
05-03-03 The Sensitivity of Block Fuel to Aspect Ratio 5
05-03-04 Maximum Aspect Ratio for Tip Stall Boundary 5
05-03-05 Variation of Twist over Span 6
05-04-01 Variation of Cl vs Incidence for NASA (SC) 0610 8
05-04-02 Variation of Cd vs Incidence for NASA (SC) 0610 8
05-04-03 Variation of Cl/Cd vs Incidence for NASA (SC) 0610 9
05-04-04 Variation of Chordwise Cp for NASA (SC) 0610 9
05-04-05 Chordwise Cp distribution for NASA (SC) 0610 9
05-04-06 Lift Curve Slope at Mach 0.8 (Excluding Buffet) 11
05-04-07 Maximum Lift Adjustment at Higher Mach Numbers 11
05-04-08 Buffet Onset Boundary 12
05-04-09 Spanwise Lift Distribution at Mach 0.8 12
05-04-10 Efficiency of a Slotted Flap at varying deflections 13
05-04-11 Cl vs Mach Numbers along Flight Profile 18
05-04-12 L/D vs Mach number along Flight Profile 19
05-04-13 L/D vs C
L
at different Mach numbers 19
05-04-14 C
D
vs C
L
(constant conditions) 20
05-04-15 MLD vs M (constant conditions) 20











C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - i ix x - -
Nomenclature Utilised
Notation Definition Units
A Aspect Ratio -
A
max
Total Exposed (Wetted) Surface Area m
2

Alpha (angle of attack)
a Wing lift curve slope (with -
b Span (including winglets) m
c
root
Root Chord Length m
c
tip
Tip Chord Length m
C
D
Coefficient of Drag (Total) -
C
D0
Skin Friction Drag Coefficient (Profile) -
C
DDR
C
D
Transonic Drag (due to Compressibility) -
C
DLD
C
D
Increment due to Lift Dump deployment -
C
DEI
C
D
Increment due to inoperative engine -
C
Di
Coefficient of Induced Drag -
C
l
Aerofoil 2D lift coefficient -
C
L
Wing Lift Coefficient -
C
Lmax(approach)
Max Lift Coefficient at Approach -
C
Lmax(take-off)
Max Lift Coefficient at Take off -
C
Lmax(cruise)
Max Lift Coefficient at Cruise -
d Fuselage Diameter m
E Oswald Efficiency Factor -
F Fuselage Lift Factor -
F
0
Form Factor -
K Lift Dependant Drag Constant -
M Mach number -
M
c
Critical Mach number -
M
DD
Drag Divergent Mach number -
MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord -
q Dynamic Pressure -
S
ref
Reference Wing Area m
2

S
exposed
Exposed (Wetted) Wing Area m
2

t/c Thickness to Chord Ratio -
(t/c)
70
t/c at 70% semi-span -
V
app
Approach Speed ms
-1

V
stall
Stall Speed ms
-1

V Airspeed ms
-1

Prandtl-Glauert correction factor -
Taper ratio -

c/4
Sweep (Quarter Chord)

c/2
Sweep (Half Chord)

LE
Sweep (Leading Edge)

Max(t/c)
Sweep of Maximum thickness line
MTOW Maximum Take-off Weight N
MLW Maximum Landing Weight N
OWE Operating Weight Empty N
L/D Lift to Drag Ratio
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - x x - -
Contents

General Arrangement Drawing i
Design Data Sheet ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
Nomenclature Utilised vi

05-01-00 Introduction 1
05-02-00 Iteration Procedure 1

05-03-00 Sizing and Design 2
05-03-01 Aerofoil Selection 2
05-03-02 Wing Sizing 2
05-03-03 Wing Sweep 3
05-03-04 Thickness to Chord Ratio and Taper 4
05-03-05 Aspect Ratio 5
05-03-06 Wing Twist 6
05-03-07 High Lift Devices 7

05-04-00 Lift and Drag 8
05-04-01 Aerofoil Analysis 8
05-04-02 Lift Curve Slopes 10
05-04-03 Lift Distribution 12
05-04-04 High Lift Devices 13
05-04-05 Subsonic Drag Estimation 14
05-04-06 Transonic and Induced Drag Estimation 17
05-04-07 Lift-Drag Polars 19

05-05-00 Other Aerodynamic Considerations 21
05-05-01 Engine Integration 21
05-05-02 Winglets 21
05-05-03 Fuselage 22
05-05-04 Active and Passive Flow Control? 22
05-05-05 Impact of Future Derivatives 22

05-06-00 References 23



C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 1 - -
MTOW obtained from Weights and
Balance Team. Geometric limits
obtained from design Specification
Wing and High lift System sized for
Derivative at cruise, climb, takeoff
and approach
Sweep, Thickness to chord ratio,
Aspect Ratio and Taper Selected
Wave Drag,
Buffet Cl, Tip stall
Boundary
condition met?
Yes
No
Lift ad Drag values Estimated and
Passed onto Performance Team.
Performance requirements met?
Yes
No
Aerodynamic Loads Calculated
and Passed on to Structures. Loads
and Fuel/Part Volume acceptable?
Pass on Wing Area to Weights Team
Has MTOW
changed?
Yes
No
No Yes
Fix design and
optimise other
Aerodynamic
Parameters
05-01-00 Introduction
The morphology of the A315-Atlas was selected to minimise the turnaround time and
maintenance on the ground and maximise takeoff/approach capability without
impinging on cruise performance. This approach has been continuously adhered to
in terms of aerodynamics (as well as its influence in other aspects) in the evolution of
the Atlas. The aerodynamic considerations, tradeoffs made and the final best
compromise values used are outlined in this document. All calculations were verified
and validated whenever possible and only consistent methods were used, mainly
from the sources listed in Section 05-06-00.

05-02-00 Iteration Procedure
Figure 5-02-01 below summarises the iteration procedure adopted in the basic design
development.
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 2 2 - -
Figure 5-02-01: Aerodynamics Iteration Flow Chart
05-03-00 Sizing and Design


05-03-01 Aerofoil Selection
The initial calculation of lift and drag required the input of basic aerofoil properties.
Although the final design would utilise a tailored 3D wing section, a basic airfoil shape
was needed for the sizing. The obvious choice considering the transonic design cruise
speed was the NASA Supercritical series (designed from the Whitcomb Airfoil). These
are named NASA (SC) XXXX with the first 2 letters representing the design lift
coefficient and the last 2 denoting the thickness to chord ratio. Detailed data on the
suitable aerofoils was obtained
1, 2
and analysed [See section 05-04-01]. The list of
aerofoils is shown in Table 05-03-01 below. The aerofoils chosen were the SC 0614 for
the root section and the SC 0610 for the rest of the wing.

Design CL = 0 CL = 4 CL = 6 CL = 7 CL = 10
t/c = 6% - 0406 0606 0706 1006
t/c = 10% 0010 0410 0610 0710 1010
t/c = 12% 0012 0412 0612 0712 -
t/c = 14% - 0414 0614 0714 -
Table 05-03-01: Available Supercritical Aerofoils (NASA (SC) XXXX)


05-03-02 Wing Sizing
The Maximum Takeoff Weight for a 180 passenger derivative was obtained from the
Weights and Balance Team (approximately 15% higher than Extended Range variant
MTOW). This value was modified by the Performance team to allow for fuel burn at
different altitudes in the cruise-climb profile. These weights were then used in
conjunction with the maximum lift coefficient available [See section 05-04-02] to
determine the wing area required to sustain lift or climb. It was found that the cruise
and approach conditions were most critical due to buffet and approach speed
limitations. Climb was not an issue due to the amount of thrust and CL available.

The wing area was initially sized at maximum cruise altitude using the maximum lift
coefficient produced after transonic buffet reductions (CLmax (cruise) = 0.667 at Mach
0.8 at FL 410). This was done in accordance with JAR 25.251 Vibration and Buffeting.
A wing area of 126m
2
was chosen as this would be just enough to allow the 180 pax
derivative to cruise at Mach 0.8. Sizing for takeoff and landing was done in parallel
and it was found that with the addition of flaps, the wing was of adequate area.
More details of wing sizing with high lift system deployed are in section 05-04-03.

A furthur study was conducted into the effects of wing area on MDD. This was done
because the drag divergence Mach number is dependent on the lift coefficient at
cruise. A larger wing area would have increased the speed at which drag
divergence occurs. The study showed that a relatively large change in wing area was
needed to cause small increments in MDD. This method was therefore not an
effective means of delaying MDD. The wing area thus chosen produced the maximum
benefit in terms of L/D for the given weight.

The wing area therefore meets all performance requirements. As weight was critical,
margin was not left for wing area beyond the 15% increase in MTOW from the ER
variant. This should not pose a problem later on in the design as the weights estimate
was conservative and tailplane lift contributions were not accounted for.

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 3 3 - -
0.76
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Sweep (c/4)
M
D
D

(
b
o
e
i
n
g
)
t/c
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.010
0.012

05-03-03 Wing Sweep
The range requirements of 1800 and 3000 nautical miles are hard requirements in the
design specification. This directly results in a significant portion of the flight spent at
cruise [350 minutes out of a block time of 420 minutes for a 3000nm journey and 200
out of 260minutes for the 1800nm flight]. As a consequence, the cruise performance
must almost completely be uncompromised. The most efficient way of ensuring this is
by reducing the wave drag at transonic speeds. Wing thickness and sweep play a
major role in this.

The Raymer
3
method was used to calculate the MDD for the wing. The equation for this
is given below.

M
DD
= M
DDL=0
LF
DD
0.05C
Ldesign
(Eqn 05-03-01)

M
DDL=0
(the drag divergence Mach number for an uncambered wing at zero lift)
can be found from Figure 05-03-01 and LFDD (which adjusts MDD to the actual lift
coefficient) can be found from Figure 05-03-02. Both these curves were reproduced
from Raymer
3
. They show how a reduction in thickness to chord ratio and lift
coefficient (increase in wing area) or an increase in sweep can reduce MDD.
Figure 05-03-01: MDD Variation with Sweep

The thickness to chord ratio (discussed in section 05-03-04) was set in later iterations as
10% along most of the wing. As a supercritical aerofoil is being used, the thickness
ratio is multiplied by 0.6 in order to use the figures. Thus the line showing a t/c of 0.06 is
the line that is applicable in this design case. The design lift coefficient was also fixed
with the use of the 0610 aerofoil and the cruise CL of approximately 0.6.

The only remaining parameter was the quarter chord sweep. Values ranging from 20-
35 were entered into the equation to find the resulting drag divergence Mach
numbers. A sweep of 30 or more was needed to produce a value above Mach 0.8.
The 30 sweep generated a MDD of 0.815 for the ER variant. Greater increments in
sweep reduced the drag furthur. However, this caused a significant increment in
weight and resulted in lower lift production in the wing. As the overall cost of
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 4 4 - -
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.95
0.97
0.99
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Cl
L
F
d
d
t/c
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
increasing the drag divergent Mach number furthur outweighed any aerodynamic
benefits, the sweep was set at the minimum of 30. Although the method utilised was
from an updated publication of Raymer
3
, the calculation seems conservative when
compared to recent aircraft (e.g. A330, 777) utilising improved supercritical
technology. It is expected that with further detailed calculations, the sweep angle
could be reduced in later stages of the design.
Figure 05-03-02: LFDD: Lift Adjustment for MDD


05-03-04 Thickness to Chord Ratio and Taper
The thickness to chord ratio has just as much of an impact on MDD for the wing as the
sweep. The thinner the wing, the higher its performance at high cruise speeds. This
however affects the maximum lift generated (reducing the t/c below 12% reduces
the available lift
4 (page 86)
). More significantly however, reductions in t/c dramatically
increase the structural complexity and weight. Space for sufficient fuel is another
contributing factor. The ideal t/c required for the fuel tanks was 0.8. Therefore the only
available aerofoil that will just exceed this t/c is one with a thickness of 10% [See Table
05-03-01]. This therefore just meets the structural/fuel requirements whilst still providing
excellent aerodynamic capabilities. An aerofoil with a t/c of 14% was used at the root
to accommodate landing gear/fuel. In the early calculations, this aerofoil was
assumed to continue till 40% of the semi span with a sudden shift to 10%. The t/c
should be gradually changed during later design stages to produce the appropriate
aerodynamic characteristics. The t/c at 70% span however, should remain at 10%.

The taper ratio was set to 0.24. Taper ratios between 0.2 and 0.4 produce the least
amounts of induced drag
4 (page 172)
. This is done by producing a near elliptic lift
distribution. The taper ratio must not be too close to 0.4 as it would produce a high lift
coefficient on the outer wing and cause early flow separation. Too low a ratio would
cause structural difficulties as well as problems with manufacturing and fuel
accommodation. Although no trade studies or calculations were done regarding this
parameter, the value of 0.24 was chosen as many aircraft of its type employ a similar
value. A more detailed study will be required in later stages of the design.


C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 5 5 - -

05-03-05 Aspect Ratio
As the wing area was already fixed by hard requirements, the aspect ratio depended
solely on the span. Higher aspect ratios produce greater aerodynamic performance.
However, the ICAO Code C airport compatibility limits that apply to the A315-Atlas
restrict the wingspan to 35m. Furthur restrictions arise from the structural complexity
that increases with increasing span, thereby increasing the weight of the aircraft and
the tip stall boundary condition.
In order to quantitatively determine the optimum span, a trade study was
conducted. Figure 05-03-03 shows the decrease in block fuel with increasing aspect
ratio. The blue line shows how the increased L/D alone contributes to the block fuel
reduction. The red line also takes into account the increment in weight that the
lengthened span generates. The curve does not flatten out till aspect ratios greater
than 11 are utilised. Therefore the higher the A, the better the fuel consumption is.
Please note that the values for block fuel quoted on the figure are based on
calculations carried out much earlier in the design phase. The values have now
changed due to changed in the MTOW etc. However, the trend in fuel reduction can
still be applied as it has not changed.

Figure 05-03-03: Sensitivity of Block Fuel to Aspect Ratio
















Figure 05-03-04: Maximum Aspect Ratio for Tip Stall Boundary

The only remaining consideration was the tip stall boundary condition. This was
calculated using Eqn 05-03-02 and the results of these calculations are shown on
Figure 05-03-04 above. The value for the left hand side of the equation was 5.714 for
Sensitivity of Block fuel to aspect ratio
23000
23500
24000
24500
25000
25500
26000
26500
27000
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
Aspect Ratio
B
l
o
c
k

F
u
e
l

(
l
b
s
)
Decrease in Block fuel with higher Aspect Ratio
(increment in weight and aerodynamic
performance cosidered)
Aspect Ratio vs Sweep Required to Avoid Tip Stall
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
Aspect Ratio
S
w
e
e
p

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
AR Range to optimise for
high speed cruise
Ideal Aspect
Ratio at a 30
degree sweep =
9.16
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 6 6 - -
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Eta (Spanwise Location- 2y/b)
J
i
g

T
w
i
s
t

a
n
g
l
e

(
D
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
Approximate Twist Distribution
Calculated using ESDU 95010
Estimated Twist Distribution For
proposed tailored 3D wing
the Atlas. The final values for sweep, aspect ratio and t/c were then entered into the
Korn equation to ensure that they were consistent with each other. As equation 03-
03-03 from the Design Manual
5
shows, the values calculated are in fact correct. The
left hand side is exactly equal to 0.90.

A.(tan
c/4
)0.86 < 5.715 Eqn 05-03-02
90 . 0
cos
) / (
cos 10
23 . 1
cos ) 05 . 0 (
2 /
70
2 /
2
2 /
=

+


+
c c
L
c cruise
c t C
M Eqn 05-03-03

Assumptions and inputs
Mcruise is 0.05 greater than the critical mach number (Mcruise = 0.83)
Critical area of the wing profile is at approximately 50% of the chord
Maximum CL is about 1.23 x mean CL (mean CL=0.6)
Maximum section CL occurs at 70% semispan.
Half chord Sweep Is 27.05 degrees.


05-03-06 Wing Twist
The spanwise lift distributions for several aircraft of the same type were obtained in
the initial design stages. These lift distributions were then utilised to determine the
possible spanwise twist for the A315-Atlas. The spanwise lift distribution is shown in
section 05-04-02.

The spanwise lift distribution for different twist changes was calculated using the ESDU
software numbered 95010
6
. This utilises steady lifting surface theory based on the
Multhopp-Richardson solution. The program calculated the loading distributions of
local lift due to incidence, due to camber at zero incidence and twist at zero
incidence. These separate values were summed assuming that their contributions are
linear. The results were verified at 3 spanwise stations (10%, 50% and 90%) using ESDU
data sheet 83040
7
. It was assumed that the NASA 0614 aerofoil was used up to 40% of
the semi span with the NASA 0610 aerofoil covering the remainder of the wing. This
approximation greatly reduced the complexity of the calculation as only the camber
at 2 locations needed to be entered. The Multhopp spanwise and chordwise
collocation stations entered were 33 and 3 as the camber distribution was simple and
A is 5.4. A single crank was assumed in the planform description. The twist was
modified till the integrated lift coefficient equalled the design CL of approximately 0.6.
Figure 05-03-05: Variation of Twist over Span.
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 7 7 - -
Figure 05-03-05 shows the variation in twist with span for the A315. Note that the points
on the graph indicate a steep change in twist at the 40% span location. This is a direct
result of the 2 aerofoil section approximation made. A more accurate method could
not be found as information on possible intermediate aerofoils was not available to
improve the twist distribution. Also note that the effect of the fuselage was not taken
into account into the analysis and was ignored. The red line drawn shows the possible
twist distribution that would be present with the use of a tailored 3D aerofoil with a
smoothly varying t/c ratio. The resulting spanwise lift distribution is in Fig 05-04-09. The
resulting fuselage inclination angle at cruise is 0 degrees.


05-03-07 High Lift Devices
The high lift devices on the A315-Atlas comprise of continuous single slotted trailing
edge fowler flaps. When fully deployed, these produce a total flapped wing area of
163m
2
. They are designed to produce this area with a 20 deflection on takeoff. At
the landing setting, the flaps will be deployed to 30 without an appreciable increase
in area- i.e the flap will simply droop down.

This mechanism can be achieved with the use of a hooked flap track. The other
proposed mechanism is an upside down forward link in conjunction with a straight
track on a fixed structure as aft support. It will be designed so that the pivot point on
the carriage is close to the centre of pressure of the flap. This would greatly reduce
the overturning loads on the drive, thereby easing the actuation loads required
17
. A
continuous flap will be used (as there is no need for engine exhaust clearance). This
would allow better flap performance. It would also enable the use of a single
redundant flap track mechanism as opposed to 2- thereby cutting both
manufacturing and maintenance costs. The efficiency of the flaps would enable a
lower thrust setting to be used- thereby cutting down on both noise and emissions on
approach and takeoff
17
.

The wing area was found to be adequate for takeoff and landing of the more critical
ER variant. The angle of attack required is below the maximum permissible angle of
attack with respect to pilots visibility and with regards to stall. As a result of this slats
were not required. This would greatly cut down on the maintenance costs involved.
Detailed calculations are outlined in section 05-04-03.

The chord length of the flap is only marginally smaller than the space remaining
behind the rear spar. Therefore flap deflection alone will not be sufficient for takeoff
and landing if the MTOW increases significantly. Although small margins were allowed
in the design either the wing area or takeoff/approach speeds would need to be
increased slightly if the 180 pax derivative is to take off in the same field length. The
increment in effective wing area can be achieved by adding a triangular slice to the
trailing edge of the outboard wing and a constant chord increment to the inboard
wing as done on the Airbus A321
17
. The ailerons could also be drooped when required
with the spoilers used to produce roll control in such an event.








C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 8 8 - -
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
Alpha (deg)
C
l
-

N
A
S
A

S
C

0
6
1
0
NASA 0610
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Alpha
C
d
-

N
A
S
A

(
S
C
)

0
6
1
0
05-04-00 Lift and Drag


05-04-01 Aerofoil Analysis
The aerofoil coordinates were obtained
1, 2
, converted into DAT files and analysed in X-
Foil
8
. Values taken from X-Foil were tabulated and plotted on Excel. This produced lift
curve slopes, pressure distributions and drag polars for the 2 chosen aerofoil sections.
Such diagrams were then verified whenever possible using References 1 and 2 and
then input into all the lift and drag calculations performed. Figures 05-04-01 to 05-04-
05 are copies of the lift curves produced for the NASA 0610 aerofoil. The figures
indicate that the ideal lift coefficient of 0.6 occurs at zero aerofoil incidence and that
the Cl is zero at -3 of incidence. Also note that the minimum drag occurs at -3 and
0 incidence where the value for Cl is 0 and 0.6 respectively.
Figure 05-04-01: Variation of Cl versus Incidence (alpha)

Figure 05-04-02: Variation of Cd versus Incidence (alpha)
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 9 9 - -
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-8 -3 2 7 12
Alpha
C
l
/
C
d
-

N
A
S
A

(
S
C
)

0
6
1
0
Figure 05-04-03: Variation of Cl/Cd versus Incidence (alpha)
Figure 05-04-04: Variation of Chordwise Cp (alpha = 1.5degrees)
Figure 05-04-05: Chordwise Cp distribution (alpha = 2.5degrees)

The pressure coefficient distribution diagrams were a direct output from Profili which is
an aerofoil management software that utilises X-Foil. Note that due to the
compressibility limitations on X-Foil, all calculations were run at Mach 0.7.

05-04-02 Lift Curve Slopes
Equation 05-04-01 shows the semi-empirical formula obtained from Raymer
3
to
calculate the wing lift curve slope (per radian). This is accurate up to MDD and
reasonably accurate up to Mach 1 for a swept wing.

( ) F
S
S
A
A
C
ref
osed
c t
L
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
+ + +
exp
2
) / max(
2
2
2 2
tan
1 4 2
2

Eqn 05-04-01

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 10 0 - -
Where,
2 2
1 M = Eqn 05-04-02

95 . 0
2
=


l
C
Eqn 05-04-03
( )
2
1 07 . 1 b d F + = Eqn 05-04-04

The inputs (such as S
exposed
= 102.5m
2
and of
Max (t/c)
=27.5) to the above equations
yielded a lift curve slope 6.29 per radian or 0.11/ for cruise. As the speed of the
aircraft did not exceed Mach 0.85, no transonic or supersonic lift curves were
calculated.

The maximum lift attainable was then calculated, once again using the Raymer
3

method for consistency. This required the calculation of the leading edge parameter,
which is defined as the vertical separation between the points on the upper surface
which are 0.15% and 6% of the aerofoil chord back from the leading edge. This
parameter was easily calculated using the aerofoil coordinates obtained
1, 2
. The
method of calculation, which Raymer
3
obtained from the USAF Digital Datcom
2
is
outlined in equation 05-04-05. The value for this was 2.502.

max
max
max
max max
L
l
L
l L
C
C
C
C C +
|
|

\
|
=
Eqn 05-04-05

Where
max
l
C is the aerofoil maximum lift coefficient at M = 0.2

|
|

\
|
max
max
l
L
C
C
was found from Fig12.8 in Raymer
3
to be 0.78 when the leading
edge sweep is 32 for a wing with a leading edge parameter of 2.502.

max
L
C was found in Fig12.9 in Raymer
3
. This is dependant on Mach number.
The value for this was -0.177 at Cruise Mach number. The fuselage lift factor
was also taken into account by multiplying the whole equation by it and
wing area ratio.

The angle at which maximum stall occurred was divided by the gradient of the lift
curve slope added to the negative angle at which zero lift occurs [see section 05-04-
01] and the correction for nonlinear effects of vortex flow [found to be 3.6 from
Raymer
3
] The lift curve slope (at cruise) is drawn in figure 05-04-06. Note that this does
not take into account buffeting effects or the effects of varying camber or twist that
a 3D aerofoil would possess.
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 11 1 - -
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-5 0 5 10 15
alpha (degrees)
C
L
-3
0.974
9.477
3.6 degrees
Figure 05-04-06: Lift Curve slope at Mach 0.8 (buffet not included)

The maximum lift attainable is reduced near transonic speeds by shocks forming on
the wing (buffet). The maximum lift the wing can achieve is furthur limited by
structural considerations, controllability and flexibility. Figure 05-04-07 taken from
Raymer
3
takes into account the decrease in lift from Mach 0.5 onward due to these
constraints. The maximum CL was multiplied by the reduction factor in the curve to
obtain the available CL after buffet. According to the Design Manual
5
, a furthur
margin of 1.3 was to be applied to this value. The design manual was not used in the
calculation of the buffet boundary as its values were based upon the wing geometry
of the A330. The final variation of available lift with Mach number before and after
the application of this margin is shown in Fig 05-04-08. The red line shows the final CL
available. This was the value used in the sizing of the wing for the 180 pax derivative.
Figure 05-04-07: Maximum Lift Adjustment at Higher Mach Numbers.
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
Mach Number
C
L
m
a
x
/
C
L
m
a
x
(
M
0
.
5
)
0.89
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 12 2 - -
Figure 05-04-08: Buffet onset Boundary


05-04-03 Lift Distribution
Figure 05-04-09: Spanwise Lift Distribution at Mach 0.8

Figure 05-04-09 above shows the Spanwise Lift Distribution that was used to find the
ideal twist. Although the lift distribution is not perfectly elliptic, the maximum sectional
lift coefficient was required to be at 75% of the span according to the Korn Equation
in the Design Manual
5
[see Eqn 05-03-03]. Note that this value is within the buffet
boundary. The other constraint was the integrated lift coefficient- which was to be
near 0.6 in order to maintain level flight at cruise. This lift distribution was different from
the preliminary calculation which was used by the Structures team. Despite this, the
wing structure was found to adequately accommodate the change in loads without
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
Mach No
C
L
Available CL after application of Margin (1.3)
Buffet onset boundary
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Span
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
i
f
t

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

x

l
o
c
a
l

w
i
n
g

c
h
o
r
d

/

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Max Sectional Lift Coefficient at
75% Span (see Eqn 05-03-03)
Integrated Lift Coefficient = 0.596
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 13 3 - -
major alterations. The centre of pressure was also calculated
7
and was found to be at
44% along the span (from the root).


05-04-04 High Lift Devices
The lift curve slope was then calculated with the flaps deflected. As the reference
area and exposed area were now different (Sreference = 163m
2
), the lift curve slope
(Eqn 05-04-01) was 6.44 at takeoff and approach speeds. Note that the same
flapped wing area is used at takeoff and approach. This was done to maximise the
lifting efficiency of the single slotted fowler flaps at both cases.

The efficiency of a single slotted flap is at its peak between 20-25 degrees
9
. The figure
below, taken from ESDU datasheet 93019
9
clearly shows this. The flaps are to be
designed so that they produce the maximum possible wing area at this deflection
angle. Furthur deflection (with no increase in area) will be used on landing to create
the necessary drag.

Figure 05-04-10: Efficiency of a
Single Slotted Flap at varying
degrees of deflection.

The ratio of flap chord to the
extended aerofoil chord as
defined in Reference 9 was set at
0.3. This was the maximum chord
length that was structurally
allowed (rear spar location).
Other inputs were the flap type
correlation factor (1.05), the
spanwise centre of pressure (0.44)
and the inboard and outboard
part span factors (0.1 and 0.7
respectively). The resulting
increment in aerofoil lift
coefficient was found (1.2) and
then used to calculate the
increment in wing lift coefficient
at zero angle of attack. The value
for this was 0.58. As a result, the
lift curve slope and hence the
incidence at which no lift was
generated was pushed to the left
by 3.45 degrees. Stall now occurs
approximately between 10.9 and
11.2 for all takeoff and landing
speeds.

The incidence required by the wing for takeoff and landing is approximately 8-10
(See Performance document). Due to this and the sufficient wing area present, the
use of slats to delay the incidence at stall was not required, thereby eliminating a
significant contributor to maintenance costs. As the wing is attached to the
horizontal fuselage at a 5 inclination, the fuselage is not at more than a 5 incidence
at takeoff and landing. Therefore it is well within the 9 limit imposed in the
specification due to pilot visibility issues.

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 14 4 - -
Additional lift forces are generated near the ground due to ground effect. This was
calculated from the equations in Fig 7.40 of the Design Manual
5
. At a height of 3
metres the incremental CL due to ground effect was 0.22. Table 05-04-01 summarises
the tail off lifting characteristics of the A315-Atlas.

A315- Atlas SR A315- Atlas ER 180 Pax Derivative
CL Top of Cruise [FL410], M0.8 0.58 0.59 0.67
CL Top of Cruise [FL410], M0.8 0.55 0.57 0.63
Max Available CL 0.67 0.67 0.67
Design CL 0.6 0.6 0.6
Wing Loading (Kg
m-2
) 517 560 644
Lift Curve Slope M0.8 (/ rad) 6.29 6.29 6.29
Lift Curve Slope Takeoff (/rad) 6.44 6.44 6.44
CL Max (takeoff)(with ground effect) 2.45 2.45 2.45+(droped ailerons)
CL Max (landing) 2.17 2.17 2.17+(droped ailerons)
Table 05-04-01: Lifting Characteristics of the A315 Atlas


05-04-05 Subsonic Drag Estimation
The drag estimation was made using the Component Build-up method detailed in
Raymer
3
. This was done by calculating the flat plate skin friction drag coefficient (Cf)
and a component form factor (FF). The interference effects on the component drag
are estimated as a factor Q and the total component drag is found as the product of
wetted area, Cf, FF and Q. Equation 05-04-06 outlines this method.

( )
P DL Dmisc
reference
wetc c c c
subsonic D
C C
S
S Q FF Cf
C
& 0
) ( + +

=
Eqn 05-04-06
Where
Dmisc
C is the miscellaneous drag for special features including
unretracted landing gear, aft fuselage upsweep, and base area and

P DL
C
&
is the drag due to leakage and protuberances.

Cf is dependant on skin roughness, Mach number and Reynolds number (Reynolds
number, R is the product of the local air density, flow velocity and characteristic
length divided by the viscosity of the fluid). This coefficient has different values of
laminar and turbulent flow regimes. The method of calculation is shown in Equations
05-04-07 and 05-04-08.

R
Cf
ar la
328 . 1
min
=
Eqn 05-04-07
( ) ( )
65 . 0
2 58 . 2
10
144 . 0 1 log
455 . 0
M R
Cf
turbulent
+
=
Eqn 05-04-08

In areas of the aircraft where the surface finish is rough, Cf will be higher than that
indicated in the above equations. This can be dealt with by the use of a cut-off
Reynolds Number (see Equations 05-04-09 and 05-04-10). The lower value between
the Reynolds number and the cut-off Reynolds number is used.

053 . 1
_
) / ( 21 . 38 k l R
subsonic cutoff
= Eqn 05-04-09
16 . 1 053 . 1
_
) / ( 62 . 44 M k l R
transonic cutoff
= Eqn 05-04-10

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 15 5 - -
Where l = characteristic length
k = skin roughness value (see Table 05-04-02)

Surface k, m
Camouflage paint on aluminium 1.015 x 10
-5

Smooth Paint 0.634 x 10
-5

Production Sheet Metal 0.405 x 10
-5

Polished Sheet Metal 0.152 x 10
-5

Smooth Moulded Composite 0.052 x 10
-5

Table 05-04-02: Skin Roughness Value k (Raymer)

The skin roughness values were used according to the surface finish and the materials
currently used in jet transports. It was assumed that the fuselage, tail and nacelle
were covered in a layer of smooth paint with the wing surface being polished sheet
metal.


Equations 05-04-11 to 05-04-14 outline the calculation of component form factors.

| |
28 . 0
) / max(
18 . 0
4
,
) (cos 34 . 1 100
) / (
6 . 0
1
c t
m
tail wing
M
c
t
c
t
c x
FF
(
(

\
|
+
|

\
|
+ =
Eqn 05-04-11
|
|

\
|
+ + =
400
60
1
3
f
f
FF
fuselage
Eqn 05-04-12
|
|

\
|
+ =
f
FF
nacelle
35 . 0
1
Eqn 05-04-13
( )
max
4 A
l
d
l
FF
fuselage

= =
Eqn 05-04-14

Where (x/c)m is the chordwise location of the aerofoil max thickness point (38%)
l is the characteristic length
d is the diameter.


Component interference factors were 1 for the wing and 1.3 for the nacelle as it was
less than one diameter away from the fuselage. Although this is slightly conservative in
light of recent advances in technology, it was nevertheless used for consistency in
calculation.

Miscellaneous drag contributions arose from the upsweep of the fuselage, landing
gear, flap deflection and base area drag. The formulae used in their calculation are
shown below as drag force over dynamic pressure (which can be divided by wing
reference area to yield the drag coefficient.

tion cross fuselage upsweep
A u q D
sec _ _
5 . 2
83 . 3 / = Eqn 05-04-15
) 10 )( / )( / ( 0074 . 0
_ 0
=
flap reference flapped flap D
S S C Cf C Eqn 05-04-16

Where
flap
is the flap deflection in degrees
Cf is the chord length of the flap

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 16 6 - -
The D/q for the wing mounted speed brakes was found by multiplying the brake
frontal area by 1.6. The D/q for the windshield was set at 0.07 times its frontal area. The
leakage and protuberance drag was assumed to be 2% of the total parasite drag.
The drag due to a windmilling (inoperative) engine was calculated using ESDU
datasheet 84005.

The input of all the characteristic lengths, areas, Reynolds numbers and coefficients
yielded values for drag. These were initially inaccurate as the components used either
laminar or turbulent skin friction coefficients. This is rarely the case as there are usually
some portions of a surface exhibiting laminar flow whilst the rest display a turbulent
flow regime. As there were insufficient sources of information on the amount of
laminar flow in aircraft, the information on the A330 was utilised to calibrate the drag
calculations. The detailed geometry of the A330 was entered along with the
reference Reynolds numbers presented in the Design Manual
5
. The component drag
values calculated were then compared against those for the A330. The percentage
of skin friction coefficient was then modified by considering different portions to have
laminar flow until the drag values coincided. This not only ensured that the amount of
laminar/turbulent flow used was accurate but also compensated for any errors in the
method utilised or inputs chosen. The validated spreadsheet was then used to
calculate the drag for the A315 Atlas at the different Reynolds numbers. The
component values obtained at set speeds are shown and compared against similar
values for the A330 in Table 05-04-03 for the wing and 05-04-04 for the rest of the
aircraft.

Wings- A315-Atlas A330
Characteristic length (m) 4.17 6.44
Reynolds Number 19900000 7220000
Skin Roughness Value (assumed fully polished sheet metal) 0.00000152 0.00000152
Cutoff Reynolds Number (Subsonic) 230000000 364000000
Cutoff Reynolds Number (Transonic) 20700000 328000000
Reynolds Number Used 19900000 7220000
Laminar Flat Plate Skin Friction Coefficient (Cf) 0.000298 0.000494
Turbulent Flat Plate Skin Friction Coefficient (Cf) 0.00255 0.00299
Cf used (assuming 40% laminar flow, 60% turbulent wing) 0.00169 0.00204
Chordwise location of aerofoil max thickness point ((x/c)m) 0.400 0.400
Sweep of max thickness line (deg) 27.2 25
t/c 0.10 0.10
Form Factor (FF) (valid upto drag divergence mach no) 1.43 1.43
Interference Factor (Q) 1.000 1.000
Swet 208 640
(Cfc x FFc x Qc x Swetc) 0.502 1.86
(Cfc x FFc x Qc x Swetc)/Sref (CD0) 0.00398 0.00513
Table 05-04-03: Drag Calibration for the wing

Component CD0 A315- Atlas A330
Wing 0.00398 0.00513
Fuselage 0.00376 0.00438
Tailplane 0.000828 0.00085
Fin 0.000679 0.00074
Interference and Miscellaneous 0.00789 0.00403
Total Subsonic CD0 0.01578 0.01513
Table 05-04-04: Total Drag Calibration and Calculation at Cruise.


C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 17 7 - -
CD0 A315- Atlas A330
Takeoff Flaps 20undercarriage up 0.033 0.0470 (approx)
Takeoff Flaps 20undercarriage down 0.055 0.0698 (approx)
Landing Flaps 30undercarriage down 0.0879 0.0580
CD0 Undercarriage down 0.0219 -
CD0 Windmilling engine 0.00259 -
CDLD (drag at maximum spoiler deflection) 0.0673 -
Table 05-04-05: Drag Calculation due to High Lift devices

The value for total subsonic drag was verified yet again using the basic equivalent
skin friction method.

wet
reference D
Fe
S
S C
C

=
0
Eqn 05-04-17

The value for the equivalent skin friction coefficient obtained (using CD0 [0.0158],
Sreference [126] and Swetted [711.9] was 0.0028. Civil transports fall between 0.0025
and 0.0035. Therefore the subsonic parasite drag calculation is reasonable.


05-04-06 Transonic and Induced Drag Estimation
The transonic parasite drag was considered during the wing sweep selection. The 30
sweep yielded and MDD of 0.815. This is the point where the drag count increases to
20 from the subsonic level. Therefore the critical Mach number (where the drag
increment is 0) must be approximately 0.76. This is rather unlikely considering the high
speeds that modern airliners with similar sweep travel at. Therefore a more modern
compressibility drag rise estimation than that in Raymer
3
was required. This was found
using the values from the A330 in the Design Manual.

The MDD calculated and the resulting drag counts at cruise speed are tabulated in
Table 05-04-06. Note that the drag increment from Mach 0.8 to Mach 0.82 is minor.
This makes high speed cruise (at Mach 0.82) an economical viability- thereby
reducing the block time (and if used frequently, increasing flexibility and utilisation).
The fuselage forward section (i.e the distance from the nose to the constant diameter
section) and the tailplane was also designed so that their compressibility drag onset
occurs after the wing.

Standard Range Extended Range
Drag Divergent Mach Number MDD(Raymer) 0.815 0.815
Drag Divergent Mach Number MDD(Manual) 0.858 0.857
CDDR at Mach 0.8 0.0012 0.0012
CDDR at Mach 0.82 0.00135 0.00136
Table 05-04-06: Transonic Parasite Drag

The induced drag contribution is the product of the induced drag proportionality
factor, K and the square of the lift coefficient. K was calculated using the leading
edge suction method as it is more accurate than the Oswald span efficiency
method. See Equation 05-04-18.

K= SK
100
+ (1-S)K
0 Eqn 05-04-18

Where S is the leading edge suction parameter (this value is 0.93 for the A315
aerofoil at cruise as it is the most efficient near the design Cl).
K0 is the inverse of the lift curve slope
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 18 8 - -
K100 is the reciprocal of (pi x aspect ratio)

The value for K calculated at cruise was 0.0434. This was verified by calculating K
using the Oswald Span Efficiency method (with e= 0.779) which yielded a K value of
0.0446. The aerofoil analysis conducted show that the minimum drag CL is both 0 and
0.6. The aerofoil is therefore treated as symmetrical by using the value of 0 for CL in
the induced drag calculation.

C
Di
= K(C
L
C
L min drag
)
2
Eqn 05-04-18

This produces a value of 0.0146 at cruise for the ER variant. The change in induced
drag for flap deflections was also calculated for takeoff/landing. This had a CDi
value of 0.079.


05-04-07 Lift-Drag Polars
The total drag coefficients and the lift to drag ratios calculated at the top of cruise
(Flight level 410, i.e. 41000ft) for the 2 variants are shown in Table 05-04-07. The weight
to thrust ratio was also determined at cruise to ensure that the L/D readings are
relatively correct. These are also shown on the table. The L/Ds estimated are only
slightly higher than their actual predicted values.

SR ER
CL Mach 0.8 top of cruise (41000ft) 0.579 0.594
CD Mach 0.8 top of cruise (41000ft) 0.0315 0.323
L/D Mach 0.8 top of cruise (41000ft) 18.34 18.39
L/D Mach 0.8 top of cruise (39000ft) 17.18 17.24
Weight at top of cruise (N) (41000ft) 585000 601000
Cruise Thrust (41000ft) 32100 32700
Weight/Thrust Ratio (41000ft) 18.23 18.32
Table 05-04-07: Lift to Drag Ratios

The main FEDR document contains all the high and low speed polar charts at fixed
weight and altitudes. The variation of required lift coefficient at different mach
numbers in the cruise-climb profile (varying altitude and weight) for the ER variant is
shown in Figure 05-04-11
Figure 05-04-11: CL vs Mach number along flight profile
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
Mach number
C
L

(
a
l
o
n
g

c
r
u
i
s
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
)
Increase in required Cl
with altitude
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 1 19 9 - -
Figure 05-04-12: L/D across different Mach Numbers along flight profile

Figure 05-04-12 shows how the lift to drag ratio varies with Mach number as the
aircraft climbs and cruises (at 39000ft and then 41000ft). This takes into account the
changes in aircraft weight as fuel is burned as well as the local atmospheric
conditions. Figure 05-04-13 shows the theoretical change in L/D vs lift coefficient if the
maximum takeoff weight and atmospheric conditions remained constant.

Figure 05-04-13: L/D vs CL at Different Mach No (constant conditions)

Figures 05-04-14 and 05-04-15 show the variation of the drag coefficient with lift
coefficient and the variation of ML/D vs M for different Mach Numbers. Both these
curves wee constructed assuming constant atmospheric conditions.
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
Mach
L
/
D
L/D at 39000ft
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Cl at Different Mach No
L
/
D
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 2 20 0 - -
Figure 05-04-14: CD vs CL (constant atmospheric conditions)

Figure 05-04-15: MLD/M for different Mach Numbers











0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
CL
C
D
CD0
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
675000 677000 679000 681000 683000 685000 687000 689000 691000 693000
M (Newtons)
M

L
/
D
Changes to
Climb/Cruise speeds
C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 2 21 1 - -

05-05-00 Other Aerodynamic Considerations


05-05-01 Engine Integration
The aerodynamically efficient integration of the engine to the fuselage was an
extremely important issue. The goal was to reduce the interference factor to one and
minimise the formation of shocks in the convergent-divergent passage in between
the nacelle and the fuselage at transonic speeds. The placement of the engine took
into account factors such as the engine thrust line, debris ingestion, control aspects,
pylon attachment, disk burst, one engine inoperative yaw, evacuation and the
scrubbing of exhaust gasses against the fuselage. The final positioning of the engine
was determined mainly by these factors. This was then verified against common
practise
11
for engine placement. This method is outlined below-

Y= pod vertical separation from wing
D= maximum diameter of the nacelle
Z= pod horizontal separation
c=wing mean chord
X=highlight/Stub wing leading edge separation
S=Pod/Fuselage separation
L= length of nacelle

0.9 Y/D 1.4 0.2 S/D 0.4
0 Z/c 0.25 0.05 X/L 0.15

All inputs were obtained from the CAD team and found to be within the limits shown
above.

Furthur research was conducted during the design phase into improving the
integration issues. The scarfed inlet produces noise reduction while the long cowl
improves specific fuel consumption (the increased profile drag has been accounted
for). The use of a thick tailored pylon and a nacelle with an inswoop or small toe in
angle should cause reductions in drag
12
as well as structural complexity. The inswoop
is defined as a minor widening of the inlet on the inboard section to divert the airflow
through the engine instead of the nacelle-fuselage channel. The benefit is a 4-3
count drag reduction
12
. The most critical zone here is the longitudinal cut on the
nacelle located just below the pylon. All tailoring required the use of CFD and wind
tunnel testing and was therefore not conducted till date. Such analysis will need to be
performed during the detailed design of the A315-Atlas.


05-05-02 Winglets
The wing span of the A315 atlas is marginally within the ICAO Code C boundary. This
is slightly over the maximum span allowable for the sweep used without encountering
tip stall issues. Therefore the use of winglets is currently not needed. However, it is
expected that detailed (and more up to date) calculations on drag divergent Mach
number will reduce the sweep required from the wing. This would enable to aspect
ratio to be increased furthur to improve overall efficiency. It was calculated that the
span limit is exceeded if the sweep drops below 28 degrees. As this was a high
probability, the installation of winglets was accounted for. The current design
proposal therefore has winglets with a large cant angle (waked wing tips) to allow for
the structural impacts of winglet integration in later design stages.

C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 2 22 2 - -
In the event that the span increment occurs, the wing tip extensions must be
designed for first, with the canted, blended winglets added afterward. This is because
the effective reduction in fuel burn for a 15% semi span high winglet can be achieved
for a wing tip extension with a length approximately half its height (8/15)
13
. Detailed
CFD analysis will be required prior to all winglet design work. The current winglet is
derived from a winglet for a similarly sized aircraft in Reference 13. The estimated
overall fuel saving is 3-4% (this has not been taken into account in any calculations).

The winglet currently used has a t/c of 8%, a cant angle of 60 degrees, a root chord
that is 60% that of the wing tip chord and a 30 degree sweep. All interfaces are
blended and smooth.


05-05-03 Fuselage
The fuselage nose and tail section were lengthened to reduce the drag penalty
caused by their blunt profile. Furthur improvements will need to be made in detailed
design stages by tailoring the shape to reduce the drag to a minimum. In the event
that this cannot be achieved, the use of riblets or vortex generators will be viable in
the critical zones if issues with their reliability and practical integration (e.g.- the ability
to paint over riblets etc) are overcome.


05-05-04 Active and Passive Flow Control
One of the areas that needed detailed research after the Preliminary Design Review
was the use of laminar flow control in the Atlas. The research conducted thus far show
that a certain degree of natural laminar flow can be attained with proper profile
tailoring in certain sections of the aircraft. This is done on many aircraft today. The use
of Active laminar flow however is unlikely due to the prohibitive nature of design issues
surrounding it. Although the reduction in fuel burn is appreciable, the clogging of the
suction ducts with dirt and ice is a severe problem that needs to be overcome
14
.
Much research was done on the subject in the 1990s until fuel prices dropped.
Although the viability of such a system has been the topic of much debate, with the
increase in fuel price, there may not be many other options to improve efficiency
14
.

In the event that active flow control is to be used, the ideal location is near the
upsweep of the fuselage. Bleed air can be utilised from the neighbouring engines to
reduce the pressure in a duct within the structure. If a system is to be installed in the
wings, a separate pump may be needed. An initial check shows that this can be
accommodated in the power budget. All calculations done to date do not include
the assumption of active laminar flow.


05-05-05 Impact of Future Derivatives
Derivatives of the A315-Atlas have been accounted for in all aerodynamic
calculations. The changes made are outlined in the individual sections above. The
takeoff/approach case for the larger derivative was the most critical but was also
accommodated. The modifications needed to be made for a 120 or 180 passenger
version are almost negligible and will only be needed to reduce the margin
remaining! All calculations made were verified wherever possible and validated. The
morphology selected should, aerodynamically if not overall produce an efficient
family of aircraft that meets and exceeds competitor performance both now and in
the near future.




C Ch ha ap pt te er r 5 5: : A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s G Gr ro ou up p 4 4 A A3 31 15 5 A At tl la as s
- - 2 23 3 - -
05-06-00 References

1. NASA Supercritical Airfoils, Charles D Harris, NASA Technical Paper
2969, Date: 1990
2. USAF DATCOM (Digital), D Hoak, D Ellison et al. Air Force Flight
Dynamics Lab, Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio
3. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4
th
Edition, Daniel P
Raymer, ISBN-13: 978-1-56347-829-1, Date: 2006
4. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, 2
nd
Edition,
Barnes McCormick, ISBN: 978-0-471-57506-1, Date: 1995
5. Design Manual, Airbus, University of Bristol, Date, 2003
6. ESDU 95010: Computer program for the Estimation of Spanwise
Loading of Wings with Camber and Twist in Subsonic
Attached Flow, Date : 1993.
7. ESDU 83040: Method for the Rapid Estimation of Spanwise Loading
of Wings with Camber and Twist in Subsonic Attached
Flow, Date : 1995
8. XFoil Subsonic Airfoil Development System, Mark Drela, Harold
Youngren, Date: February 2007
9. ESDU 93019: Wing Lift Coefficient Increment at Zero Angle of Attack
Due to the Deployment of Single-Slotted flaps at Low
Speeds, Date: 1995
10. ESDU 84005: Estimation of Drag due to Inoperative Turbo-Jet and
Turbo-fan engines using Data item Nos 81009 and 81004,
Date: 1989
11. Propulsion 3 Lecture Notes, NA (Sandy) Mitchell, University of Bristol,
Date: 2006
12. High Speed Aerodynamic Integration of a Fuselage Mounted
Turbofan Engine, David Yates and Keith Blodgett (GE
Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, OH) and Fassi Fafyeke
(Bombardier Aerospace, Montreal, Canada), Date 1998,
AIAA 98-3421
13. ESDU 98013: Aerodynamic Principles of Winglets, Date: 1998
14. An Overview of Recent Subsonic Laminar Flow Control Flight
Experiments, F.S Collier Jr, NASA Langley Research
Center, Date: 1993
15. Aerodynamic Features of the DC-9, Shevell and Schaufele, Date:
1965, AIAA 65-738
16. Aerodynamic Design Philosophy of the 737, D. A Norton (Boeing
Co., Commercial Airplane Div., Renton, Wash.), Olason,
M. L. Date: 1965, AIAA-1965-739
17. High Lift Systems on Commercial Subsonic Airliners, Rudolph,
Peterkc.
18. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, E Torenbeek, ISBN-13:
9789024727247, Date: 1982