AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT I (MULTIROLE FIGHTER) A PROJECT REPORT Submitted by Batch - 3

M.S RAJESHWARAN REG.NO:11907101039 R. PRABAKARAN REG.NO:11907101033 R.VIGNESH REG.NO:11907101056

In partial fulfillment for the award of the degree Of BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING VEL TECH ENGINEERING COLLEGE ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025 APRIL 2010

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE Certified that this project report AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT I (MULTIROLE FIGHTER) is the bonafide work of

M.S RAJESHWARAN REG.NO:11907101039 R. PRABAKARAN REG.NO:11907101033 R.VIGNESH REG.NO:11907101056 Who carried out the work under my supervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE Mr. S. Boopathi M.E., Mr. M. Ramakrishna M.E., HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL GUIDE Dept of Aeronautical Engg. Dept of Aeronautical Engg. Vel tech Engg. College Vel tech Engg. College No.42 , Avadi - Vel Tech Road, No.42 , Avadi - Vel Tech Road, Chennai-62. Chennai-62.

CERTIFICATE FOR EVALUATION College Name : 119 - VEL TECH ENGG. COLLEGE Branch : AERONAUTICAL ENGG. Semester : VI S.NO Name of the Students Who have done the project Title of the project Name of the Supervisor with Designation 1. M.S.Rajeshwaran Multirole Super cruise Fighter

Mr. M. Ramakrishna M.E., Lecturer Internal guide 2. R.Prabakaran 3. R.vignesh

The reports of the project work submitted by the above students by applying their knowledge in the curriculum of Bachelor of Engineering degree

In Aeronautical Engineering of Anna University were evaluated and confirmed to be the reports of the work done by the above students and then evaluated.

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project, though done by us would not have been possible, without the support of various people, who by their cooperation have helped us in bringing out this project successfully. We are grateful to our Chancellor, Prof.Dr.R.Rangarajan B.E (Elec),(Mech),MS (Auto) for his patronage towards our project. We thank our principal, Dr. K. Natarajan M.S. Ph.D., who had always served as an inspiration for us to perform well. We would like to express our faithful thanks to our head of the department, Mr. S. Boopathi M.E., for having extended all the department facilities without slightest hesitation. We would like to express our unbounded gratefulness to our internal guide and project incharge, Mr. M. Ramakrishna M.E., lecturer, Dept of Aeronautical Engg. For his extremely valuable guidance and encouragement throughout the project. We thank all faculty members and supporting staff for the help they extended to us for the completion of this project.

ABSTRACT

The current scenario in air fighting requires stealthy movement and quick completion of the mission. This report summarizes the design of an aircraft with its design parameters and design considerations. The design includes the blend wing stealth technology which can perform multiple roles with greater flexibility. The external carriages (even though reduces stealth) permits the aircraft to carry missiles and drop tanks increasing the endurance and range. The huge amount of thrust from turbofan jet engine allows the aircraft to take off & land shortly (STOL) and reach the cruise altitude in minimum time. The design has fully variable inlet and nozzle for good performance of the engine at various speeds.

CONTENTS

Abstract 1 Symbols 5 Tables 6 Graphs 6 Figures 7 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project aim 1.1 1.2 Present Fighters 1.1

2 COMPARITIVE STUDY

2.1 Configuration study 2.1 2.2 Specification study 2.1 2.3 Performance study 2.2

3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 3.1 Design Concepts 3.1 3.1.1 The wing 3.1 3.1.1.1 Rectangular wing 3.2 3.1.1.2 Tapered wing 3.3 3.1.1.3 Delta wing 3.3 3.1.2 Elevator and rudder 3.3 3.1.3 Inlet and nozzle arrangement 3.3 3.2 Mission Requirements 3.3 3.2.1 Multirole 3.3 3.2.2 Takeoff and landing 3.4

3.2.3 Stealth 3.4 3.2.4 Performance 3.4 3.2.5 Failure withstanding capability 3.4 3.3 Configuration selection 3.4 3.3.1 The wing 3.4 3.3.2 Elevator and rudder 3.5 3.3.3 Inlet and nozzle 3.5 3.3.4 The nose 3.5 3.4 Conceptual drawing 3.6

4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 4.1 Wing Loading 4.1 4.1.1 Introduction 4.1 4.1.2 Takeoff and landing 4.1 4.1.3 Ground roll 4.1 4.1.4 Cruise 4.2 4.1.4.1 Oswalt efficiency factor 4.2 4.1.4.2 Zero lift drag coefficient 4.3 4.1.5 Instantaneous turn 4.4 4.2 Weight Estimations 4.4 4.2.1 Introduction 4.4 4.2.2 Takeoff-Weight 4.4 4.2.3 Empty Weight Estimation 4.4 4.2.4 Fuel-Fraction Estimation 4.5 4.2.4.1 Mission Profile 4.5 4.2.4.2 Takeoff 4.6 4.2.4.3 Climb 4.6 4.2.4.4 Cruise 4.6 4.2.4.5 Combat 4.7 4.2.4.6 Cruise back 4.7 4.2.4.7 Descend 4.7 4.2.4.8 Loiter 4.7 4.2.4.9 Landing 4.8 4.2.4.10 Fuel weight 4.8 4.2.5 Sizing iterations 4.8 4.2.6 Overall weights 4.10 4.3 Power plant selection 4.10

4.4 Airfoil Selection 4.11 4.5 Stability 4.14 4.5.1 Center of gravity 4.14 4.5.1.1Elevon 4.17 4.5.1.2 Engine compartment 4.18 4.5.1.3 Wings 4.19 4.5.1.4 Front fuselage 4.19 4.5.1.5 Whole aircraft 4.20 4.5.2 Aerodynamic center 4.21 4.6 Modified three view diagram 4.22 4.7 Specifications 4.24

4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.7.5 4.7.6 4.7.7

Type 4.24 Dimensions 4.24 Wing 4.24 Airfoil 4.24 Weight 4.24 Engine 4.25 Performance 4.25

4.8 Result 4.25 References

SYMBOLS A Aspect ratio B Span C Chord CG Centre of gravity C Specific fuel consumption CDo Parasite drag coefficient Cfe Skin friction drag coefficient CL Lift coefficient D Drag D Duration of combat Dgr Ground roll distance G Acceleration due to gravity K Drag due to lift factor

L Lift M Mach number

Mass flow rate N Load factor q0 Dynamic pressure R Range S Surface area of wing Sref Reference surface area Swet Wetted surface area T Thickness of airfoil T Thrust V Free stream velocity W Weight x/c Chord ratio

Tables Table No Table Name Page No Table 2.1 Configuration study 2.1 Table 2.2 Performance study 2.1 Table 2.3 Specification study 2.2 Table 4.1 Historical data for Skin friction drag 4.2 Table 4.2 Historical data of Empty weight fraction 4.5 Table 4.3 Historical weight fractions 4.6 Table 4.4 Ratio of wetted to ref surface area 4.6 Table 4.5 Engine selection 4.10

Graphs Graph No Graph Name Page No Graph 4.1 SFC Vs Mach 4.6 Graph 4.2 Cl Vs Alpha 4.12 Graph 4.3 Cl Vs Cd 4.13 Graph 4.4 Cl/Cd Vs Alpha 4.13

FIGURES Figure No Figure Name Page No Fig 3.1a Wing positions 3.2 Fig 3.1b Wing positions 3.2 Fig3.2 Tapper wing 3.2 Fig 3.3 Swept backward 3.2 Fig 3.4 Swept forward 3.2 Fig 3.5 Types of delta wing 3.3 Fig 3.6 2D Inlet 3.3 Fig 3.7 Front view 3.6 Fig 3.8 Side view 3.6 Fig 3.9 Top view 3.7 Fig 4.1 Mission Profile 4.5 Fig 4.2 Airfoil coordinates 4.12 Fig 4.3 cg parts separation 4.14 Fig 4.4 Elevon CG Parts separation 4.17 Fig 4.5 Resultant CG of elevons 4.18 Fig 4.6 CG of engine compartment (side view) 4.18 Fig 4.7 Cg location of the wing (top view) 4.19 Fig 4.8 Cg position in the front fuselage 4.20 Fig 4.9 Resultant Cg & Ac of Aircraft 4.22 Fig 4.10 Modified Front View 4.22 Fig 4.11 Modified Side View 4.23 Fig 4.12 Modified Top view 4.23

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT AIM

To design a multirole fighter aircraft which can operate in very small airports, portable runways, more flexible for different missions and can reach greater speeds than that of the present fighters. To include the stealth characteristics to the aircraft by its design and to reduce the maintenance cost due to stealth. 1.2 PRESENT FIGHTERS Fighter aircrafts are the aircrafts used only for the defense purpose of a country. There are different types of fighter aircrafts depending on the mission to accomplish some of them are Interceptor, bomber, reconnaissance etc., The present time fighters are of 4.5 and 5th generation aircrafts. The specialty of them are stealth, swift, STOL, multirole etc. The fifth generation is the complete stealth fighters capable of operating at different atmospheric conditions. Even though there are no bombers in the fifth generation the multirole fighter it acts as a bomber. The stealth aircraft is an ideal aircraft for reconnaissance. Some of the fifth generation planes are F-35 lightening, F22 Raptor, X-32, and SU-HAL FGFA etc. F-35 Lightening is a VTOL aircraft with stealth body whereas F-22 Raptor is a STOL aircraft with both stealth body and stealth coatings. The stealth coating (Radiation absorbing paints) makes the aircrafts maintenance charge more than anyone else of its kind.

CHAPTER 2 COMPARATIVE STUDY 2.1 Configuration study Parameter \ aircraft Saab JAS 39 GRIPEN Saab JA 37 Viggen su-30 MKI su-33 su-34 Role multirole fighter multirole fighter multirole air superiority fighter multirole fighter fighter bomber Status active Retired active operational operational testing Crew 1 1 2 1

Table 2.1 Configuration study 2.2 PERFORMANCE STUDY Parameter \ aircraft Saab JAS 39 GRIPEN Saab JA 37 Viggen su-30 MKI su-33 su-34 G-limits -3 to +9 9 Thrust to weight ratio 0.97 1.15 0.83 0.68 Max speed (at sea level) Mach 1.1 1.1

1.2 Max speed (at altitude) Mach 2M a 11km 2.1M at11km 2.34M at 11km 2.17M at 10km 1.8M Service ceiling (m) 15240 18000 17300 17000 15000 Range (km) 1600km(typical) / 3200km (ferry) 2000km 5000km 3000km (typical) 4000km(ferry) Wing loading (kg/sqm) 336 401 483 629

Table 2.2 Performance study

2.3 SPECIFICATION STUDY Parameter \ aircraft Saab JAS 39 GRIPEN Saab JA 37 Viggen su-30 MKI su-33 su-34 Length (m) 14.1 16.4 21.9 21.94 23.34 Height (m) 4.5 5.9 6.36 5.93 6.09 Wing span (m) 8.4 10.6 14.7 14.7 14.7 Wing area (sqm) 30 46

62 62 Empty weight (kg) 6620 9500 18400 16000 Max takeoff weight (kg) 14000 20000 38800 32000 45100 Max payload (kg) 6500 6000 6500 8000 Fuel capacity (kg) 2270kg 5000 L 9400kg Power plant

after burning turbofan afterburning turbo fan afterburning turbofans with thrust vectoring after burning turbo fans afterburning turbofans No. of power plants 1 1 2 2 2 Thrust (with or without) after burner 54kN\80.5kN 72.1kN\125Kn 131kN each 74.5kN\122.6kN (each) - \137.2 kN

Table 2.3 Specification study

CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 3.1 DESIGN CONCEPT Designing an aircraft involves many choices depending on the different configurations of their parts available. But the design depends on the mission requirements and the flight configuration. For example reconnaissance aircraft requires a slow movement at very high altitude and so its range is important, so the design needs a very high aspect ratio wings and large fuel tanks for higher endurance. The fighter interceptor aircraft needs a very swift movement with a good maneuverability so its design is slender body with almost blended, strong wings. The bomber needs to carry more payload, fuel and almost stealth movement so the design is a blend body design with simple control surface and a good stable configuration As the project aims for a fighter aircraft the different parts of the aircraft and its different configurations are discussed in this section. The parts under discussion are . The wing . The elevators and rudders . The engine inlet and nozzle systems 3.1.1 THE WING Wing is the part which is solely responsible for lift. There are three types of wings available based on geometry they are . Rectangular wing . Tapered wing . Delta wing 3.1.1.1 RECTANGULAR WING It is a simple old configuration available. There are three different configurations of rectangular wing based on the position they are . High wing . Low wing . Mid wing

airplane-wing-forms-configuration2.gif airplane-wing-forms-configuration2.gif airplane-wing-forms-configuration2.gif airplane-wing-forms-configuration2.gif airplane-wing-forms-configuration2.gif 260px-Wing_variable_sweep.png H:\Documents & Books\Aircraft design project\ADP-1 REPORT 10.40pm\Junk\AA Project works\switchblade-fight.jpg C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Downloads\wing config_files\showthread_data\imageHK0.jpg Fig 3.1a Wing positions Based on the angle made with the lateral axis there are two types . Dihedral wing . Anhedral wing

Fig 3.1b Wing positions They are shown in fig 3.1a and fig 3.1b. The disadvantage of rectangular wing is that they have very high drag and produces a lot of wave drag. This is wing not eligible for supersonic flight. 3.1.1.2 TAPPERED WING These types of wing have a different root chord and tip chord. The taper may be uniform or variable as shown in fig 3.2. These wings are also not suited for supersonics. But there are two other configuration common for rectangular and tapered wings performs well in supersonics speeds. They are the swept wings. There are two ways of sweeping such as 1.swept forward 2.swept back ward. As shown in fig 3.3 and fig 3.4 fig3.2 Tapper wing Fig 3.3 Swept backward Fig 3.4 Swept forward The swept forward wing is highly unstable wing and structurally weaker wing. The swept backward is apt for supersonics speeds.

p254a.jpg p254b.jpg p254d.jpg H:\Documents & Books\Aircraft design project\ADP-1 REPORT 10.40pm\Junk\Downloa\rect nozzle.jpg 3.1.1.3 DELTA WING The delta wing is a triangular wing with its apex as the leading edge. This wing performs well at both supersonic and subsonic. There are different configurations of delta wing they are as follows . Single delta wing . Double delta wing . Cropped delta wing

Fig 3.5 Types of delta wing The advantage of delta wing is that they are structurally strong, provides more space inside the wing, and gives lift at subsonic speed because of the vortex lifting. 3.1.2 ELEVATOR &RUDDER There are 3 different arrangements for placing the rudder and elevator they are, . Rudder and elevator separately attached to empennage . Elevator placed above rudder . Elevons (both combined together)

3.1.3 INLET & NOZZLE ARRANGEMENT The inlet can be placed at the nose or two separate inlets for each engines placing each at the wing root or adopting a rectangular single inlet. The rectangular inlet is advantageous at supersonic speeds as it is easy to operate the variable cross section. Nozzle can be kept separately for each one or can be combined to a single one for the number of engines. The rectangular or two dimensions nozzle is advantageous for nozzle vectoring and for variable cross section. Fig 3.6 2D Inlet 3.2 MISSION REQUIREMENTS The project aims at multirole aircraft. The major requirements of the aircraft are listed below 3.2.1 MULTIROLE . The aircraft has to be able to carry heavy missiles each weighing more than 2000 kg and should have more than 5000kg armaments.

. The aircraft range should be more such that it can be used for reconnaissance role; the aircraft needs a stealth character in this case. . The aircraft should be able to move quickly to the battle field and do high end maneuvers at high speeds. The aircraft should take the intercepts role also.

3.2.2 TAKEOFF & LANDING The aircraft have to take off and land at shorter runway with minimum possible time. The aircraft should have STOL capability. 3.2.3 STEALTH . The aircraft should be able exhibit stealthy characteristics without affecting the maintenance cost and aerodynamic performance of the aircraft. . The aircraft should able to reduce the radar cross section by flying at very high altitude. . The IR signature must also be low at crushing speeds. 3.2.4 PERFORMANCE . The aircraft has to perform well in both subsonic and supersonic speeds. . The aircraft should have good maneuverability over a wide range of speeds. . The structure should be stable and should withstand the loads during maneuvers. . The engines and inlet has to perform well with varying speeds.

3.2.5 FAILURE WITHSTANDING CAPABILITY . Even if one of the engines failed the aircraft should able to land safely with the power of the other engines. . The structure should withstand bullet shots to a limit and the aircraft has to return home safely even after a hard battle. . The pilot should be comfortable in the cockpit. 3.3 CONFIGURATION SELECTION From the above configuration the design of the aircraft is decided as follows. 3.3.1 WING The project aims at multirole fighter and so we need a good performance of the wing at both the subsonic and supersonic speed so delta wing can be implemented. In delta wing a single simple delta is chosen for the preliminary design.

3.3.2 ELEVATOR & RUDDER For a delta wing there is no need of elevators and rudder but for a quick and easy maneuvering we need elevator and rudder. In rudder elevator configuration the first two types seems to require more wetted area then the third type which is elevons configuration and so elevons are chosen for preliminary design. 3.3.3 INLET &NOZZLE From the available configuration the rectangular inlet and exit seems to be easy for operation and so it is chosen for the preliminary design. 3.3.4 STEALTH The aircraft needs to be stealthy and so some of the technologies are . Applying absorptive coating . Reflective surface (as F-118) . Blending the fuselage and wing Of these three technologies the first one is costly and needs very high maintenance charges, the second produces more drag, and the third is simpler and the blending provides higher lifting surface compared to the other two. Therefore blend the blend wing body is chosen for the design. The nose of the aircraft is the part which reflects most of the radio waves in the present generation of aircrafts. The circular nose cross section reflects the radio waves back to the radar at all the angles which destroys the stealth behavior but the nose cross sections of SR-71, F-22Raptor, F-35 lighting are designed in such a way that the sticking radio waves are reflected at some other angles. The nose angle is kept as low as possible for minimizing the drag at supersonic speeds. The bottom surface of the fuselage is sized such that it contributes to lift and partially compress the air for the inlet. The wing is deflected down wards from the 10th meter onwards to have angles of inclined with the longitudinal axis. The flaps (inboard flaps) have area slightly greater than 3m2 each for better control over the lift. Double slotted flaps are used to increase the lift coefficient of the wing. Small ailerons (outboard flaps) are provided for a better control of the attitude of the aircraft. At subsonic speeds the deflected flap takes a good control, at supersonic speed a slight deflection is enough for effective controlling, but at transonic speeds the flaps has to be deflected upwards by 1 to 3 degree so that the wing takes a super critical aerofoil shape to fight the transonic wave drag. Leading edge flaps are also selected for more control over the speed variation.

old 3 view's front view thick.jpg old 3 view's side view thick.jpg 3.4 CONCEPTUAL DRAWING Thus the three view diagram is presented below

Fig 3.7 Front view

Fig 3.8 Side View

old 3 view's top view thick.jpg Fig 3.9 Top view

CHAPTER 4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 4.1 WING LOADING 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION The wing loading is simply weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the reference wing. Wing loading affects stall speed, climb rate, takeoff and landing distances, and turn performance. The wing loading determines the design lift coefficient, and impacts drag through its effect upon wetted area and wing span. 4.1.2 TAKEOFF AND LANDING Initially the approach speed of the aircraft is assumed from the statistical data (assumed as 42m/s). The lift coefficient can be very difficult to estimate at this stage so this value is also initially taken from data available as approximately 0.4 for delta winged aircraft at subsonic speeds. The lift will be approximately 1.3 times the max takeoff weight WS=12.V2Cl WS=121.2254220.4=432.19Kgm2 4.1.3 GROUND ROLL Wing loading at the landing ground roll phase can be calculated by using the following formula with help of coefficient of lift and s= Takeoff altitude densitySea level density=1.117(at 2km)1.225=0.82 .... ........=80.......... ....1.......................... WS=3000.822.580=7.68Kgm2 The value of wing loading is very low for Fighter aircraft hence initially we can ignore this value for estimation.

4.1.4 CRUISE Cruise wing loading can be found by the standard formulas for that we need to consider the two aerodynamic parameters Oswalt efficiency factor and coefficient of drag at zero lift. 4.1.4.1 OSWALT EFFICIENCY FACTOR Oswalt efficiency factor (e) is a measure of a drag due to lift efficiency and is found using the following equation e = 4.61 * (1-0.045 A0.68) * (cos a) 3.1 e = 4.61 * (1-0.045 (2.025)0.68) * (cos 62) 3.1 e =0.7364 4.1.4.2 ZERO LIFT DRAG COEFFICIENTS The drag coefficients at zero lift can be found as follows. First of all we need to find the skin friction co-efficient Cf= 0.035 at Subsonic speeds from the table 4.1 and the parasitic drag is

Table 4.1 Historical data for Skin friction drag CDo = Cfe (Swet / Sref) CDo = 0.0035 * 3.5 = 0.01225. Now we found the two aerodynamic parameters with this we need to proceed for cruise wing loading. At a speed of 0.9 MACH and at an altitude of 11Km we can find the density from the ISA table. Therefore density . = 0.364 Kg/m3. From the isentropic table at mach 0.9 (P / Pt) = 0.5913.From the ISA table Pt = 22.700 KN/m2. Thus the pressure

is found to be P =13.42 KN/m2 at 11Kms altitude and the velocity of flight at that altitude is found as follows M = V / a 0.9 = V / (1.4 * 287 * 216.66)1/2 V = 265.14 m/s Dynamic pressure q = * 0.364 *265.142 = 12.79 KN/m2 If the parasite drag is three times the induced drag then the flight can obtain the maximum range at certain wing loading. The zero lift drag can be found by basic equation CDo = 3K*Cl2 Where K = 1 / (p e A) e Oswalt efficiency factor A Aspect ratio (W / S)optimum cruise = q [(p * e * A * CDo)/3]1/2 = 1.95 x 103 [(p * 0.7364 * 2.025 * 0.01225)/3]1/2 =270.6 Kg/m2 Thus the Cruise phase wing loading is found to be 270.6 Kg/m2. 4.1.5 INSTANTANEOUS TURN (): An aircraft is specially designed with a requirement of high maneuverability must have high rate of turn. If the aircraft turns at a quicker rate, the drag becomes greater than available thrust, so the aircraft begins to slow down or lose altitude. The instantaneous turn rate is the highest turn rate possible, ignoring the fact that the aircraft will slow down or lose altitude. At a velocity of 300 m/s and at an altitude of 11 Kms the temperature and pressure is found as T = 216.66K, P = 22700 N/m2 from the ISA table. Instantaneous turn = [g (n2- 1)1/2 ] / V 0.3 = 9.81[n2 - 1]1/2 / 300 Therefore load factor is found to be n = 9.2 and for this high load factor we need to build a very strong and stable structure. With this we can find the combat phase wing loading as shown here (W /S)combatmax = [ P * Cl] / n = [22700 * 1.5] /9.2 =377.27 Kg/m2. Thus the combat phase wing loading is found and these datas will be used in the next phase of designing that is weight estimation.

4.2 WEIGHT ESTIMATIONS 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION There are many levels of design procedure. The simplest level just adopts past history. Thus the comparative study of different types aircrafts gives the rough idea about various weights of the aircrafts. Based on the comparative study some initial assumptions were made and future calculations are followed to find the weight fractions. To get the right answer takes several years, many people, and lots of money. Actual design requirements must be evaluated against a number of designs, each of which must be designed, analyzed, sized, optimized, and redesigned any number of times. 4.2.2 TAKEOFF-WEIGHT Design takeoff gross weight is the total weight of the aircraft as it begins the mission for which it was designed. In most cases the takeoff gross weight is assumed to be the design weight. Design takeoff gross weight can be broken into crew weight, payload (it refers to missiles and weapons in this design) weight, fuel weight and the remaining is empty (this includes structure, engines, landing gear, avionics and other equipments) weight. Wo = Wcrew + WPayload + W Empty + Wfuel The basic design requirement gives us the weight of crew and payload with this we can find unknowns such as weight of fuel and empty weight of aircraft. To do this we need to find the fuel takeoff weight and empty to takeoff weight fractions. From our design requirements we have Wcrew = 100Kgs, Wpayload = 12000 Kgs. 4.2.3 EMPTY WEIGHT ESTIMATION The empty weight fraction can be estimated statically from historical data available from the reference Table 4.2 and with the following equation

Mission Profile.jpg Table 4.2 Historical data of Empty weight fraction We/Wo= [a+ (bWoC1)*(AC2)*(T/Wo)C3 *(Wo/S)C4 *(Mmax)C5] Kvs We/Wo = [-0.02+ (2.16xWo-0.1-0.10)*(2.025)*(490000/Wo) 0.04 *(Wo/160)0.10 0.082*(3.0)] Where A - Aspect ratio (2.025) T - Max.Thrust (490000KN) S - Wing Plan form area (160m) Kvs - Const for fixed wing (1) 4.2.4 FUEL-FRACTION ESTIMATION Only part of the aircrafts fuel supply is available for performing the mission. The other fuel includes reserve fuel as required by design and trapped fuel (which cannot be pumped out of the tanks). The required amount of the mission fuel depends upon the mission to be done, aircraft aerodynamics, and engines fuel consumption. Thus the fuel fraction can be estimated based on the mission to be flown using the approximations of the engines fuel consumption and aerodynamics. 4.2.4.1 MISSION PROFILE The simple mission profile of the fighter aircraft is shown in Fig 4.1 with the mission segments. Our mission profile includes eight segments and the fuel consumed at end of each mission segment is found individually.

Fig 4.1 4.2.4.2 TAKEOFF The takeoff segment which includes warm up phase also and the weight fraction for this segment can be found from the historical data available for the fighter aircrafts, and it is found to be W1 /W0=0.98. 4.2.4.3 CLIMB The climb segment weight fraction can be found in similar way as we found the weight fraction for takeoff phase i.e., from the historical data for the fighter aircrafts and it is found to be W2 /W1=0.985. Table 4.3 Historical weight fractions 4.2.4.4 CRUISE Cruise segment mission weight fraction can be found using the Brequet range equation WiWi-1=e-..R*CV*..LD .... Graph 4.1 SFC Vs Mach Table 4.4 Ratio of wetted to ref surface area Where SFC= 1.2 Kg/KN.hr (assumed from the Graph 4.1), L/D max=10 (from the Table 4.4), V=3186.43 Km/hr (at cruise altitude of 11Km and at mach of 3.0), Range=2500 Kms.

W3W2=e-{2500*1.23186.43*(10)} = 0.9221 Thus the cruise segment weight fraction is W2 /W1=0.9211. 4.2.4.5 COMBAT The combat mission leg is normally specified as either time duration (d) at maximum power Combat time (d at full power): 2.5 min Combat time (d at normal time): 10 min Thrust to weight ratio at combat phase (T/W) is found using the following eqn (T/W)combatcombatcombat43 combat43 54 max6 576 = 0.98x(245000/490000)/(0.98*0.985*0.9221) (T/W) = 0.550 By using this (T/W) , engines SFC and combat time we can find the combat phase weight fraction W/W= 1- C*(T/W)*d = 1[(1.7/3600)*0.550*(2.5*60)] W/W= 0.9610 4.2.4.6 CRUISE BACK This segment is simply same as that of cruise phase because we have not considered any weight drop in the initial sizing. The weight drop will be included in following sections. W/W= 0.9221 4.2.4.7 LOITER Loiter segment mission weight fraction can be found using the Brequet endurance equation W6W5=e-{E*C..LD ..} Where SFC= 0.7 per hr (assumed from the Graph4.1.), L/D=10 (from the Table4.4), Endurance = 0.5 hrs W6W5=e-{0.5*0.7(10)} = 0.9656 Thus the cruise segment weight fraction is W/W=0.9656. 4.2.4.8 LANDING The landing segment weight fraction can be found from the historical data available for the fighter aircrafts, and it is found to be W/W=0.9605.

4.2.4.9 TOTAL MISSION WEIGHT FRACTION Total mission weight fraction can be found from the product of each segment weight fractions W7/Wo =( W1/W0)* ( W2/W1)* ( W3/W2)* ( W4/W3)* ( W5/W4)* ( W6/W5)* ( W7/W6) =0.98*0.985*0.9221*0.9610*0.9221*0.9656*0.995 =0.7578 This fraction gives us the value of approximately 0.75 it says that the 75% of an initial takeoff weight was retained at the landing. 4.2.4.10 FUEL WEIGHT The total fuel fraction is estimated as follows this includes a 5% of reserve fuel and 1% of tapered fuel (unusable stored inside the tank) Wf/Wo = 1.06(1- W7/Wo) = 1.06(1-0.7578) = 0.2567 The above result shows that about 25% of total takeoff weight is weight of fuel. 4.2.5 SIZING ITERATIONS Thus the empty weight fraction and fuel to takeoff weight fraction were obtained. With this first we need to guess the total takeoff weight and proceed with a calculation which gives us the tentative empty weight of aircraft. This tentative empty weight must be 0.5% times the empty weight of the aircraft. Until we get the difference between these two weights within the range we need to iterate these values by guessing different total takeoff weight. The following are some of iterations and the description for the various notations used is WTo guess - Guessed total takeoff weight Wf used - Weight of fuel used Wf res - Weight of reserve fuel Wf - Total weight of fuel WOE tent - Tentative operational empty weight WE tent - Tentative empty weight Wcrew - Crew weight WPL - Weight of payload Wlub Weight of lubricant(0.5% of takeoff weight) Iteration 1: WTo guess = 39,500 Kgs Wf used = (1- Wf/Wo)WTo guess = (1-0.7578)*39,500 = 9,566.9 kgs Wf = Wf used + Wf res = 9,566.9 + 965.69 =10,523.59 kgs

WOE tent = WTO -Wf - WPL = 39,500 10,523.59 -12,000= 16,976.41 kgs WE tent = WOE tent - Wlub Wcrew = 16,976.41 197.5 100 = 16,678.91kgs. WE = inv log {(log WTO - A)/B} = inv log {(log 39,500 0.4221)/0.9876} =16,862.06 kgs Iteration 2: WTo guess = 41,000 Kgs Wf used = (1- Wf/Wo)WTo guess = (1-0.7578)*41,000 = 9,930.2 kgs Wf = Wf used + Wf res = 9,930.2 + 993.02 = 10,923.22 kgs WOE tent = WTO -Wf - WPL = 41,000 10,923.22 -12,000 = 18,076.78 kgs WE tent = WOE tent - Wlub Wcrew = 18,076.78 205 100 = 17,771.59 Kgs WE = inv log {(log WTO - A)/B} = inv log {(log 41,000 0.4221)/0.9876} = 17,510.59 kgs Iteration 3: WTo guess = 40,000 Kgs Wf used = (1- Wf/Wo)WTo guess = (1-0.7578)*40,000 = 9,688.0 kgs Wf = Wf used + Wf res = 9,688.0 + 968.80 = 10,656.80 kgs WOE tent = WTO -Wf - WPL = 40,000 10,656.80 -12,000 = 17,343.20 kgs WE tent = WOE tent - Wlub Wcrew = 17,343.20 200 100 = 17,043.20 Kgs WE = inv log {(log WTO - A)/B} = inv log {(log 40,000 0.4221)/0.9876}

= 17,078.60 kgs By repeating the same procedure we finally get the above result which satisfies the condition that the tentative empty weight must be 0.5% times the empty weight of the aircraft. Hence our total takeoff weight is 40000Kgs. WE tent - WE =17078.60 17043.20 = 35.40( which is less than 0.5 % of WE ) 4.2.6 OVERALL WEIGHTS Empty weight: 17250Kg, Max. Takeoff weight: 40000Kg, Weight of fuel: Internal: 10650 Kg , External: 2.5 x 2 = 5000 Kg (instead of missiles) Weight of crew 100 Kg, Max Payload weight: 12000kgs. 4.3 POWER PLANT SELECTION Para meters Engine Name Type Length (m) Diameter (m)

Dry Weight (Kg) Max. Thrust ( KN) Thrust to Weight SFC ( Kg/ KNhr)

National Origin GE F414 Turbofan 3.91 0.88 ? 98 ? ? US GE-F110 Turbofan 4.635.90 1.18 1778-1996 120.00125.00 6.36:1 ? US GE-F118 Turbofan 2.55 1.18 1452 84.5 5.90:1 ?

US Saturn AL-31 Turbofan 4.99 1.28 1520 122.6 9.00:1 195.8 max Russia RollsRoyce Pegasus Turbofan 3.48 1.21 1796 106 6.00:1 77.5 max UK Pratt & Whitney F135-PW100 Turbofan 5.59 1.29 ? 191

? 90.4 min US Pratt & Whitney F119 Turbofan 5.16 ? 1770 156.0+ 9.00:1 ? US Pratt & Whitney F100 Turbofan 4.85 1.18 1696 130 7.80:1 197.8 max US GE-F101 Turbofan 4.6 1.4 1995

138 7.04:1 251 max US Kuznetsov NK-32 Turbofan 6 1.46 3400 245 7.2:1 173.5max Russia

Table 4.5 Engine selection The engine is the heart of the aircraft. It works as long as the flight works. The engines that are compared in the comparative data sheet are the engines of very successful fighter aircrafts. An engine has to be selected has to selected from the comparative data sheet which can best suit our project. In the table 4.5 there only five engines with full details required for the calculations, those Rolls Royces Pegasus, Saturn AL-31, P&W F100, and GE F101and Kuznetsov NK-32. The Rolls Royces Pegasus is turbofan engine which can give a maximum thrust of 106 KN, having a maximum SFC of 77.5 Kg/KN-hr; it weighs about 1796 Kg only. But the thrust to weight ratio of the engine is only six which is least as compared with the other engines. Saturn AL-31 is a Russian turbo fan engine having the greatest thrust to weight ratio of 9:1. This is the lightest of all the engine weights of only 1520 kgs. The maximum thrust that the engine can give is only 122.6 KN with the fuel consumption of a 195.8 Kg/KN.hr. This makes the engine as bad choice because the engine can produce only 122.6 KN with such huge fuel consumption. The last engine that we saw produces a maximum of 106 KN which is almost 0.9% of the Saturns thrust with only 40 to 50% of Saturns SFC. Pratt & Whitney F119 Proves itself as a bad choice just by its SFC which is highest of all fighter engines available. The engine can produce only 138 KN with 251 SFC. By comparing this engine to Pegasus and GE F101 is a very inefficient engine. Pratt & Whitney F100 is a turbo fan engine producing 138 KN (max) with SFC of 197.8 Kg/KN-hr. Compared to Saturn AL-31 this engine seems to be better even though it is un comparable to Pegasus. Kuznetsov NK-32 is a Russian made turbo fan which has the highest thrust of 245KN with only 173.5 Kg/KN-hr; of SFC. This engine seems to performing well and can be compared to Pegasus. The design aims for a delta wing aircraft which demands the center of gravity to present more rearwards. This is possible only if the weight of the engine is more and so we go for a Kuznetsov NK-32 which weights 3400Kgs. This engine can best suite the project which is aiming for a maximum speed of 3.6 Mach. 4.4 AIRFOIL SELECTION

ui.png 30000.png Since we are in the stage of selecting an airfoil for our super cruise fighter we initially selected NACA 0009, NACA 0004 and NACA 0006 because all these come under symmetric thin airfoils. Based on the structural requirements and the fuel volume accommodation we selected NACA 0006, and also it gives better performance as compared with the other airfoils. It is a symmetrical airfoil and has a maximum thickness of 0.672m and thickness to chord ratio of 6%. The two dimensional scaled plot of this NACA 0006 airfoil is shown in Fig 4.2. Fig 4.2 Airfoil cordinates Distance of maximunm thickness from the leading edge is almost 0.3 times the chord and our average chord is measured to be 5.6m. The above mentioned are the airfoil and wing geometry. Now at present we constrained ourself to the incompressible flow parameter simulation to the above mentioned airfoil. Thus the airfoil is tested at fixed Renoylds number of 300000 at a speed of 0.3 Mach and the variation of lift coefficient with the range of anle of attack (0 to 15 deg) is plotted and shown in Graph 4.2 Graph 4.2 Cl Vs Alpha

30000.png 30000.png In the same way the variation of drag coefficient with the lift coefficient is plotted with the same above mentioned Renoyleds number and the Mach number and is shown in Graph 4.3 Graph 4.3 Cl Vs Cd From the above simulations we can see the flow seperates to larger extent at an angle of attack of 12 deg. The lift coefficient variation with drag coefficient shows that that the drag coeffient is 0.2 of maximum value. The ratio of lift to drag coefficient is plotted with the angle of attack it indirectly gives the lift to drag ratio and is shoown in Graph 4.4

Graph 4.4 Cl/Cd Vs Alpha

cg parts seperation in the top view.jpg 4.5 STABILITY Stability is one of the important concepts to be considered in the designing an aircraft which predicts the maneuverability and performance of the aircraft. To find the stability of the aircraft we need to find the point where the load acts (centre of gravity) and the point where the resultant of all the pressure force on the surface aircraft lies (neutral point). First we shall estimate the centre of gravity of the aircraft then we go to aerodynamic centre.

4.5.1 CENTER OF GRAVITY To find the centre of gravity, we need to find the weights contributed by the different parts of the aircraft like, the fuel tank, engine, cargo bay, drop tanks etc. As we are not sure about structural weight distribution we divide the aircraft into four separate parts such as

. . . .

Elevons Engine Compartment Wings Front portion of fuselage

As shown in Fig 4.3 Fig 4.3 cg parts separation The Elevons weight is the sum of the reserve fuel tank, the structure and actuation system. Shortly (1) Elevons = Fuel tank + Structure + Actuators The Engine compartment weight is due to the engine itself, nozzle materials, engine accessories and nozzle actuation systems. Shortly (2) Engine Compartment = Engine + Nozzle + Accessories The wings weight contribution is due to the fuel tank, structural parts and flap, slat, actuating systems. Shortly (3) Wing = Fuel tank + Structure + Accessories

The front portion of the fuselage has cargo bay, the mechanism to drop bombs, a small fuel tank, cockpit, instruments, etc. Shortly (4) Front fuselage = Cargo bay + Fuel tank + Cockpit From the weight estimations we have Fuel Weight = 10,650 Kgs Empty Weight = 17,250 Kgs Fully Loaded Weight (Without external carriages) = 33,000 Kgs Fully Loaded Weight (With external carriages) = 40,000 Kgs Fuel is stored in four different places namely . . . . Elevon Loiter Tank (ELT) Left wing Main Tank (LMT) Right wing Main Tank (RMT) Fuselage Reserve Tank (FRT)

From the fuel fraction and weight calculation we have 15% of the total fuel capacity as reserved and 10% of the total fuel is allotted for loiter. The remaining 75% of the fuel is separated into two halfs and kept in the main tanks. Elevon Loiter fuel = 1065 Kgs Fuselage reserve fuel = 1585 Kgs Left wing main tank = 4000 Kgs Right wing main tank = 4000 Kgs We Know the internal pay load i.e., the internal weapons load which is 5000 Kgs. From the engine Specifications we know the weight of the engines which is 3400 Kgs each and so for two engines it weights 6800 kgs. Now the weight contribution table is (1) (2) (3) (4) . . . . [ [ [ [ 1065 ]f 6800 ]E 8000 ]f x ]ck,s + + + + [ [ [ [ u ]s V ]N,A W ]s 1585 ]f +[ y ]I + [ 5000 ]c + [ z ]m

[ 10,650 ]f +[ 5000 ]c +[ 6800 ]E + [ u + w ]s + [ V ]N,A + [ x ]ck,s + [ y ]I + [ z ]m =33,000Kgs Where [ u ]s is the unknown weight of the elevons contributed by the structural members and the actuators inside the elevons.

[ V ]N,A is the unknown weight in the engine compartment due to the nozzle parts, its actuating systems and the engine accessories. [ W] s is the unknown weight in the wings due to its structural members, landing mechanism and their related, flap and aileron actuating systems and external cargo releasing mechanisms. [ x ]ck,s is the unknown weight of the cockpit and its structural parts [ y ]I is the unknown instruments weight including the fly by wire systems computer and black box etc. [ z ]m is the weight of the bomb dropping mechanism and cargo bay door opening mechanism. The sum of all these unknown weights is = 33,000 ( 10,650 + 5000 + 6800 ) = 10,550 Kgs As the weight [ z ]m is only due to the machineries and the mechanisms let us take the value as 500 Kgs. The instruments, Computers and radar and the like may not weigh above 500 Kgs so we assume the values as 5000 kgs for [ y ]I. Cockpit weight [ x ]ck,s is due to the ejection seat, the pilot and its composite structure. Since we use composites extensively in cockpit the structural weight of the cockpit reduces compared to the other parts which are almost metallic. Therefore we consider the cockpit weight as 1000 Kgs. The nozzle parts in the engine compartment has to bear a very high temperature and so heavy insulation are to be employed and metals which can withstand high temperature has to be employed an so the weight of nozzle parts, the engine accessories and the nozzle actuators are assumed to be 1000 Kgs. The remaining 7650 Kgs is due to the structural contribution of the wings and elevons. The wings contribution is more compared to the elevons. The contribution of elevons are assumed nearly above 15% of the remaining weight and so the structural weight of elevons are 1050 Kgs and the remaining 6400 Kgs is given equally to each wing. The unknown weights are finalized as follows [ u ]s = 1050 Kgs [ V ]N,A = 1000 Kgs [ W] s = 6400 Kgs [ x ]ck,s = 1000Kgs [ y ]I = 500 Kgs

elevons cg calc 2al.jpg [ z ]m = 500 Kgs Now the finalized weight contribution table is as follows (1) (2) (3) (4) Kgs . . . . [ [ [ [ 1065 6800 8000 1000 ]f + [ 1050 ]s = 2115 Kgs ]E + [ 1000 ]N,A = 7800 Kgs ]f + [ 6400 ]s = 14,400 Kgs ]ck,s + [ 1585 ]f +[ 500 ]I + [ 5000 ]c + [ 500 ]m = 8585

[ 10,650 ]f +[ 5000 ]c +[ 17,250 ]Empty weight + [ 100 ]pilot = 33,000Kgs Now we shall find the point on which the calculated weight of the aircraft acts. To find this we need to know the point of action of weight of the different parts considered above. It is done as follows. 4.5.1.1 ELEVON On the side view of the aircraft the elevons look as shown in Fig 4.4.The center of gravity of the elevon acts approximately at the centroid of area. Fig 4.4 Elevon CG Parts separation The centroid lies at ..x=AxA,y=AyA.. which is X=....1242.8..2.6..+....121.42.8..4.46..7.56=3.08m.3.1m Y=[5.60.93]+[1.961.866]7.56=1.1m Therefore (X, Y) = (3.1, 1.1).

elevons cg calc 2.jpg engine compartment cg calculation.jpg The value that we got is with respect to the reference axis that point is 19.08m from the nose tip, 3.1m from the ground and on the center line of the aircraft. Thus the resultant center of gravity position is shown in Fig 4.5. Fig 4.5 Resultant CG of elevons 4.5.1.2 ENGINE COMPARTMENT Here there are two engines of same and so the resultant of those two lies at the middle of the engines and the cg of the nozzle parts and actuators also present at its middle. So the center of gravity of the engine compartment is X= MxM= (68003)+(10006.5)7800=3.448.3.5 Y = 0.75m Fig 4.6 CG of engine compartment (side view)

cg calculation of wingl.jpg The above value is with respect to the reference axis as shown in Fig 4.6. With respect to the whole aircraft the center of gravity of the engine compartment lies at a distance of 16.5m from the nose tip, 1.35m from the ground and on the center line of the aircraft. 4.5.1.3 WINGS The wing is a simple triangle of 14m base and 7.5m in height as shown in Fig 4.7. The center of gravity acts approximately at the centroid of the wing which is at the point ..1423,7.53...(9.5,2.5) with respect to the reference axis. With respect to the aircraft the point lies at a distance of 15.5m from the tip, 4m from the center line and approximately at a height of 1.8 from the ground, while considering both the wings the center of gravity of the wings comes to the center line. Fig 4.7 Cg location of the wing (top view) 4.5.1.4 THE FUSEALGE The weight of this part is due to the cockpit and its instruments, the cargo bay and the reserve fuel tank. In the cargo bay the weights are equally distributed and so the weight lies exactly at their center point which is 9.5m from nose tip, 2.25m from the ground and on the centerline. The reserve tanks center of gravity is at a point 11.5m from the nose tip, 2.2m from the ground and on the center line. The cockpits center of gravity lies at a point which is approximately 4m from the nose tip, 2.4m from the ground and in the center line. The resultant of the above three parts is

cg calculation of front fucellage 1.jpg X=MxM=[55009.5]+[158511.5]+[10004]5500+1585+1000=9.2m i.e. 9.2m from the nose tip Y=MyM=[55002.25]+[15852.2]+[10002.4]5500+1585+1000=2.25m Fig 4.8 cg position in the front fuselage i.e. The center of gravity of this part is on the center line of the aircraft, 9.2m from the nose tip and at a height of 2.25m from the ground. 4.5.1.5 WHOLE AIRCRAFT The center of gravity of the whole aircraft can be found by the following formula ..x=MxM,y=MyM,z=MzM.. X Distance of the center of gravity on the x-axis which is parallel to long axis and lies on the ground. Y Distance on y-axis which is parallel to lateral axis and at the nose tip. Z Height of the point from ground i.e. the distance on the z-axis which is parallel to the vertical axis and at the nose tip. X=[211519.1]+[780016.5]+[1440015.5]+[85859.2]33000=14.28m.14.3m Y=[21150]+[78000]+[144000]+[85850]33000=0m Z=[21153.1]+[78001.35]+[144001.8]+[85852.25]33000=1.88m.1.9m

This is the point of the center of gravity of the whole aircraft at fully loaded condition without the external carriages. Now we shall find the aerodynamic center of the aircraft. 4.5.2 AERODYNAMIC CENTER It is the point about which the moment does not change with angle of attack. The neutral point (Aerodynamic center ) is dictated by the wing and its geometry, canard or elevator area and location and the velocity of the aircraft. The wing is a single delta wing with a tip chord of 10cm. To find the aerodynamic center of the delta wing we need to find the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing. The aerodynamic center lays at 25% o the mean aerodynamic center at subsonic speed and at 50% of the mean aerodynamic center at supersonic speed. The distance of mean aerodynamic center from the root is given by Mean aerodynamic center = Half span X 1+2T3+(1+T) Taper ratio(T)=Tip chordRoot chord=0.1m14m=7.1410-3 Mean Aerodynamic Distance=7.51+2(7.1410-3)3(1+7.1410-3)=2.5m Mean aerodynamic center = 8.3m The aerodynamic center lies at a point 13.6 from the nose tip and on the center line, if the fighter is at subsonic speed. At supersonic speeds the aerodynamic center moves to 15.3m from the nose tip. For a good healthy static stability the center of gravity be 10% mean aerodynamic center in front of aerodynamic center of the aerodynamic center. From the diagram and the calculated values, the center of gravity is behind the aerodynamic center of speed by 0.9m (unstable) and at supersonic speed it is before the aerodynamic center of supersonic speed by 0.8m which is approximately 10% of the mean aerodynamic center and it is a healthy stable position. For good maneuverability we need a nearly unstable configuration so canard is added in front to bring the aerodynamic center forward such that it becomes easier to maneuver at supersonic speeds. Thus the following figure 4.9 shows the resultant center of gravity and the resultant aerodynamic center.

cg and aerodynamic centre position of the aircraft (top view).jpg modified 3 view's front view.jpg Fig 4.9 RESULTANT CG & AC OF AIRCRAFT 4.6 MODIFIED THREE VIEW DIAGRAM

Fig 4.10 FRONT VIEW

modified 3 view's side view with good inlet.jpg modified 3 view's top view.jpg Fig 4.11 SIDE VIEW Fig 4.12 TOP VIEW

4.7 SPECIFICATION 4.7.1 Type: Single seater multirole aircraft 4.7.2 Dimensions: Length: 21.4 m Height: 4.80 m Wing Span: 18m delta wing Aircraft Wetted surface area: 560m2 (~3.5 times wing area), Aircraft Wetted aspect ratio: 0.578 Wing LE Sweep angle: 62 Canard area: 4.5 m2 4.7.3 Wing: Type: Delta wing Span: 18m Max. Chord: 14m Wing area: 150 m2 Aspect Ratio: 2.025 Mean Aerodynamic Chord: 9.2 m Max. Thickness: 0.84 m 4.7.4 Airfoil: NACA 0006 T/C Ratio: 6% Distance of max thickness from L.E: 0.3C L/D maxl max : : 10 C1.8 4.7.5 Weights: Empty weight: 17250Kg, Max. Takeoff weight: 40000Kg, Weight of fuel: Internal: 10,650 Kg External: 2.5 x 2 = 5000 Kg (instead of missiles) Weight of crew 100 Kg, Max Payload weight: 12 tones Weapons: 2 X 1.5 ton Missile (or) bomb (or) launcher = 3.0 tones 2 X 2.5 ton Drop tank (or) Missile (or) launcher = 5.0 tones

Guns and Bombs = 5.0 tones. Max. Arms drop = 10 tone 4.7.6 Engine: Engine: Turbofan engine Engine name: Kuznetsov NK-32 No. of engines: 2 Cruise thrust: 100 kN (each) Max. Thrust: 245KN with afterburner (each) SFC: 1).subsonic:0.7 kg/kN.hr 2.) Max. Cruise: 1.7 kg/kN.hr 4.7.7 Performance: Range: 2500 Km (without drop tanks) Max Mach: 3.6M Cruise Mach: 2.6M to 2.8M Cruise Velocity: 990m/s (max), {3186.53 Km/hr at 11 Kms altitude}, Thrust to weight: 1.27. 4.8 RESULT Thus the aircraft design project-I is completed successfully by designing an aircraft to meet our aims and requirements, also the general characteristics of the aircraft are calculated and mentioned. For the aircraft design project II we are aiming to reinforce the calculations and to produce a 3D diagram. REFERENCES . Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Third Edition, AIAA, Inc., Reston, VA, pp. 229-270, 379-401, 406, 408-412, 426-446, 2006. . Roskam, Jan., Airplane Design, Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Ottawa, KS, 2007. . Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Second Edition, AIAA, Inc., Reston, 2006. . Lloyd R. Jenkinson and James F. Marchman III, Aircraft Design Projects for engineering students, 2003.