Chapter 1 INTODUCTION TO AIRCRAFT DESIGN

1.1

Understanding Design

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia explains design as: creating an object's form and function. Design can involve making products, machin es, and structures that serve their intended purpose and are pleasing to the eye as well. Encyclopedia Britannicas Dictionary provides numerous meanings of design as a noun as well as a verb. Most of them are given as under: As a noun As a verb a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group deliberate purposive planning a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down a deliberate undercover project or scheme a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be exe cuted an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (as a scientific experiment); also the process of preparing this the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs intention, plan to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan to conceive and plan out in the mind to have as a purpose to devise for a specific function or end

In the light of the above description, we can now understand design as an activi ty involving the setting out of a strategy that ends up as a solution to the giv en problem which at the same time remains within the existing constraints. In en gineering, the design process is of fundamental importance which determines the manufacturing scheme of a product. Any shortcoming or defect in a products field service is finally attributed to its designer.

1.2

Initiation of a New Design Process

Innovation and creativity are continuously required in the technological dynamic s of any dimension of applied knowledge. The reasons for the initiation of a new design process are listed as follows: Customer requirement New requirement based on future market trends or research New technology or innovation

1.3

Aircraft Design

Aircraft design is both an art and a science. John D. Anderson, Jr. Aircraft Performance and Design McGrawHill, 1999, pp. 381 An aircraft is a very diverse system whose production demands input from the var ious subfields of aeronautics and avionics. Raymer declares aircraft design a se parate discipline of aeronautical engineering, apart from aerodynamics, structur es, propulsion and controls. An aircrafts design is the outcome of an iterative p rocess that is accomplished through the optimization of various candidate config urations and combinations. The following chart shows the methodology of the conc eptual design process of an aircraft.

Chapter 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND MISSION PROFILE

RFP, or Request for Proposal, is a proposal made by a commercial organization in viting bids from possible suppliers of a product or service, or by a government or other funding agency inviting bids from possible research bodies. The RFP giv en to me was for the AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competit ion, 2008 2009. The RFP demanded for conceptual design of a new commercial transport aircraft de sign with a capacity for 150 passengers in a dual class configuration. Airbus A3 20 and Boeing 737600 were declared as the existing comparables. The RFP required the aircraft to be environmentally friendly, compatible with the existing airpor ts infrastructure and fuel efficiency. Also, it constrained the use of turboprops . Other technical specifications that RFP had asked for are listed as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Passenger weight: 185 lbf Baggage: 60 lbf/paxx Maximum Range: 2800 n mi Cruise: 0.8 M Maximum Operating Altitude: 43,000 ft (Absolute Ceiling) Maximum landing speed (at Maximum Landing Weight): 135 knots

7.

Takeoff Field Length (TOFL), MTOW: 7000 ft

2.1

Mission Profile

With the specifications at hand, I started the design process. A mission profile based on the designers choice was carved out, displayed as follows: The mission profile is stationed as follows: 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 Taxi and TO Climb Cruise: 2600 n mi @ 36,000 ft, 0.8 M Descent Loiter: 20 min Attempt to Land Divert (climb) Cruise: 200 n mi @ 20,000

Descent Loiter: 20 min Landing

The mission profile ensures that its accomplishment would mean the satisfaction of most of the requirements.

Chapter 3 CONCEPT SELECTION

An artistic sketch of the aircraft was made, after selection of the choices from a morphological matrix.

3.1

Morphological Matrix

The morphological matrix was formed as shown: Choices Aircraft Configuration Conventional Span Loaded Flying Wing ing Multi Fuselage Flatbed No. of Fuselages 1 2 3 Wing Configuration High Wing Mid Wing Low Wing Wing Sweep Forward Backward Tail Type Conventional TTail HTail VTail No. of Tails 1 2 3 No. of Engines 2 3 4 5 6 Wing Twist Aerodynamic Geometric Sweep Type Fixed Variable Double Triple Wing Position Anhedral Dihedral Tandem W

Based on the selections of this morphological matrix, the following layout was m ade for the asdrawn aircraft:

Fig. 3.1

Top View

Fig. 3.2

Front View

Fig. 3.3

Side View

Fig. 3.4

Isometric View

The sketches and the 3D model were created having no idea about the dimensions, or any type of geometric detail. These were drafted using a pure artistic approa ch. The next section explains the reasons for going for this unconventional layo ut.

3.2

Reasons for Triple Hull Layout

A key motive for the decision of this configuration was differentiation, and esp ecially for a laymans eye. Other important reasons for the ruling are stated as u nder: 1. The theory of similarity predicts reduction of the payload capability wh en the dimensions of an aircraft are increased. Application of multifuselage airc rafts can improve the situation. (Ref. 2) 2. Separation of a large central mass into distributed outboard masses subs tantially alleviates wing bending loads (Ref. 3) 3. About 8% reduction in aircraft empty weight (Ref. 1) 4. Better fuel efficiency; require smaller engines as that of a comparable singlefuselage design (Ref. 3) 5. Allows high aspect ratios to be used (Ref. 3) 6. Disliking of twinfuselage arrangement by the pilots (Ref. 1) Having these augmented benefits, I opted for this layout and froze my concept.

Chapter 4 AS DRAWN CONFIGURATION

4.1

Initial Weight Sizing

Initial Weight Sizing was carried out following the 3rd Chapter of the textbook. The subsequent sections explain the procedure. Only the results are presented h ere. For complete steps of calculation, see Appendix A. In the initial weight si zing, it is assumed that fuel fraction for the descent segment equals unity. 4.1.1 Empty Weight Estimation

The average of the take off weights of the reference aircrafts were taken as the sized TO weight. WTO)A320 = 162,000 lbf WTO)B737 = 174,200 lbf Therefore, Sized WTO = 168,000 lbf

From Table 3.1: We/Wo = 0.496 8% empty weight saving due to triple fuselage layout results in: We/Wo = 0.456 4.1.2 Fuel Weight

The weight fractions of the mission segments are presented as: W1/Wo = 0.970 W2/W1 = 0.985 W3/W2 = 0.834 W4/W3 = 1 W5/W4 = 0.993 W7/W5 = 0.995 W8/W7 = 0.985 W9/W8 = 0.983 W10/W9 = 1 W11/W10 = 0.993 W12/W11 = 0.995 So, the weight fraction of the whole mission equals: W12/Wo = 0.753 With 6% reserves: Wfuel/Wo = 1.06(1 W12/Wo) = 0.262 4.1.3 Payload Wpassengers = 27750 lbf WBaggage = 9000 lbf Therefore, WPayload = 36750 lbf 4.1.4 Crew

WCrew = 1850 lbf 4.1.5 Calculation of Total TO Weight

After determining the fuel weight and empty weight fractions, along with the wei ght of crew and payload, the total takeoff weight of the aircraft came out after iterating the following equation for We/Wo and Wo.

The results were:

Wo = 139369.907 lbf, with We/Wo = 0.461

4.2

Airfoil and Geometry Selection

Following considerations were kept in mind while selecting the aerofoil: 1. 2. 3. 4. High Cl,max High Mcr to avoid transonic drag Cl,design close to 0.493 (estimated design CL of the aircraft) Sufficient thickness to cater for the fuel weight

The aerofoil thus selected was NASA SC(2)0610 (Mcr 0.81). No supercritical aerofo il was available for design Cl of 0.5 with the desired thickness. The supercriti cal aerofoil was selected, as it is effective in reducing wave drag, which would be there in the transonic regime.

4.2.1

Wing Geometry 30o 1o 0.7

AR 9.412 LE Sweep Incidence Twist 3o Taper Ratio

Mid wing was selected with a dihedral of 1o. 4.2.2 Tail Geometry

TTail was selected for its added effectiveness and efficiency over the other conf igurations. AR Taper Ratio Horizontal Tail 4.5 0.5 Vertical Tail 1.2 0.9 4.2.3 Tail Airfoil LE Sweep 35o 40o

Following considerations were taken into account while selecting the tail aerofo il: 1. 2. Symmetric Higher Cl,max than wing

3. 4.

Higher Mcr than the wing 10% less thicker than the wings aerofoil

The airfoil thus selected was NACA SC(2)0010. There was no thinner airfoil availa ble in the category.

4.3

Design Point Selection

Design point means the selection of T/W and W/S for the aircraft. The design poi nt for the aircraft was selected based on the study of 5th Chapter of the textbo ok. The T/W was selected by the Thrust Matching Technique, as T/W = 0.278 (greater than that obtained from Table 5.3)

The wing loading was calculated for each mission requirement, and the detailed c alculations are available in Appendix A. For the selected T/W, the wing loadings for the various requirements were obtained as:

Requirement W/S (lbf/ft2) Stall Speed 108.042 Takeoff Distance 179.254 Landing Distance 106.242 Cruise 92.050 Loiter 21.488 Absolute Ceiling 114.005 From Table 5.5, the value should be 120 lbf/ft2. The value obtained for loiter, the least important and also very low, was dropped. Also, that obtained for crui se was significantly less than 120 lbf/ft2. Keeping in view the 3rd Para of Arti cle 5.4 (P 110), the selected W/S is the one determined by the absolute ceiling, i.e. W/S = 114.005 lbf/ft2 (about 5% less than 120 lbf/ft2)

In T/W and W/S, T refers to the uninstalled, static and maximum thrust of the en gine; W refers to the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft; and S refers to th e reference area of the wing.

4.4

Revised Weight Sizing

This section follows the calculation practices of the 6th Chapter of the textboo k. Here, the weight calculations were refined, and were more accurate than those determined in the initial sizing phase, as there was more information available . 4.4.1 Empty Weight Fraction

With guessed Wo = 168,000 lbf, We/Wo = 0.516 (from Table 6.1); and incorporating the benefit of empty weight reduction for the multi fuselage design gives: We/Wo = 0.475

4.4.2

Fuel Weight

The fuel weight fractions for the mission segments were obtained as: W1/Wo = 0.98 W2/W1 = 0.979 W3/W2 = 0.849 W4/W3 = 0.991 W5/W4 = 0.993 W7/W5 = 0.995 W8/W7 = 0.986 W9/W8 = 0.984 W10/W9 = 0.995 W11/W10 = 0.993 W12/W11 = 0.995 As there is no payload drop and combat phase in the mission profile, fuel weight can be estimated as a fuel fraction. W12/Wo = 0.761 With 5% reserves and 1% trapped fuel: 4.4.3 Payload and Crew Weight WPayload = 36750 lbf WCrew = 1850 lbf 4.4.4 Final Results WFuel/Wo = 0.253

Eq. 6.3 reduces to Eq. 6.1 when WPayload drop = 0. Therefore, Eq. 6.1 is used to perform iterations to find WTO; and the result is: Revised WTO = 143686.55 lbf, with We/Wo = 0.478

4.5

Geometric Sizing

This section deals with the dimensions of the aircraft. The numbers here are bas ed on the revised aircraft weight and the design point. The details can be seen in Appendix A. The configuration contained two tails and three fuselages. Fuselage Length per fuselage Max. Diameter 9.195 ft Wing Sref Span croot ctip M.A.C. 1260.353 ft2 108.915 ft 13.614 ft 9.53 ft 11.692 ft Span 41.914 ft 12.419 ft 6.21 ft 390.389 ft2 68.961 ft

Horizontal Tail croot ctip S

Vertical Tail croot ctip S

Span 20.27 ft 17.78 ft 16.002 ft 342.377 ft2

4.6

Control Surface Sizing

The dimensions of the aircrafts control surfaces were determined similar to those obtained above. Aileron croot ctip Elevator ctip Rudder croot ctip 2.45 ft 1.715 ft croot 3.105 ft 1.552 ft 5.69 ft 5.121 ft

4.7

Conclusion

With control surface sizing done, the geometric configuration of the aircraft wa s ready, and prepared for the next step of the conceptual design process: the An alysis, after the selection of a suitable power plant unit, i.e. engine. The eng ine specifications and the data are presented in the 7th Chapter. Now, the selec tion of the optimized aircraft is presented in the next chapter, which will be f ollowed by the various analyses of that aircraft in the subsequent chapters of t his report.

Chapter 5

OPTIMIZATION

5.1

Background

The analyses of the as drawn configuration were carried out after deciding the d esign point. The computations for those analyses were done in the Microsoft Exce l Spreadsheets. After having the analyses (aerodynamic, propulsive and structura l) done, the empty weight of the aircraft was found out using the more accurate methods of its evaluation, presented in the textbook (Eq. 15.25 to Eq. 15.45). T he aircraft was then converged for the empty weight obtained, and the one got ea rlier in the revised weight sizing. The performance of this converged aircraft ( now no more asdrawn) was then evaluated. The performance results show that whethe r the requirements/specifications have met or not. All the parameters in the analyses kept on changing, the weights, areas, lift an d drag coefficients, etc. except the design point of the aircraft. This design p oint is the prime parameter in the aircraft performance. A flowchart summarizing the scheme of work is shown as:

This iteration was carried out for each aircraft configuration, by varying the d esign point. The design point was varied by +10% of the initial values of T/W an d W/S. A sizing matrix was made to get an overview of the results.

5.2

Sizing Matrix

For preparing the sizing matrix, the design space was enlarged to 10% on both th e sides of the original design point, to get eight more design points. A 3 X 3 m atrix is thus obtained as: T/W W/S (lbf/ft2)

0.278 0.2502 0.306 114.005 Ps @ 43k ft = -1.847 STO = 7603.95 SLanding = 6930.864 WTO = 125619.6 Ps @ 43k ft = -9.114 STO = 8353.814 SLanding = 7217.053 WTO = 125210.1 Ps @ 43k ft = 5.461 STO = 7163.32 SLanding = 6682.94 WTO = 125996.8 102.6045 Ps @ 43k ft = 3.503 STO = 6870.45 SLanding = 6515.77 WTO = 125964.6 Ps @ 43k ft = -3.77 STO = 7535.45 SLanding = 6773.83 WTO = 125551 Ps @ 43k ft = 10.80 STO = 6479.66 SLanding = 6292.07 WTO = 126345.6 125.406 Ps @ 43k ft = -7.279 STO = 8338.15 SLanding = 7342.16 WTO = 125310.4 Ps @ 43k ft = -14.54 STO = 9175.57 SLanding = 7656.38 WTO = 124904.5 Ps @ 43k ft = 0.026 STO = 7846.44 SLanding = 7069.95 WTO = 125684.3 The Ps values are in ft/s, STO and SLanding in ft, and WTO in lbf.

Requirements Ps @ 43k ft = 0 STO < 7000 ft SLanding < 7000 ft The WTO values are the converged ones, after the 15% usage of composites in the aircrafts structure, thus reducing the empty weight of the aircraft by 23% than t he comparables (8% due to multi hull layout). The computations of these results are available with the author in the form of M S Excel Spreadsheets. After making the sizing matrix, the constraints diagram wa s finalized to select the best possible aircraft, meeting the given requirements marginally.

5.3

Constraints Diagram and Selection of Optimized Aircraft

Three constraints of the absolute ceiling, TO distance and landing distance were included in the constraints diagram.

The available design space is the area of the graph enclosed within the three li nes. The rest of the area is constrained by the lines. The final designed point chosen for the optimized aircraft was:

This was the point in the available design space where the T/W was maximum, and wing loading was minimum. At this design point, all the requirements have met, q uite marginally.

5.4

Conclusion

With the optimization done, we now have the final aircraft at hand, which is the best possible configuration for the given specifications. The following chapter s are based on this optimized aircraft. All the computations and procedures that have led to the convergence and optimization, are available as spreadsheets wit h the author.

Chapter 6 AERODYNAMICS

6.1

Introduction

This chapter deals with the aerodynamic analysis of the optimized aircraft. Here , the lift and drag estimates have been made.

6.2

Lift

The lifting characteristics of the aircraft were evaluated using the analytical methods given in the textbook. The results are presented here. 6.2.1 Lift curve slope versus Mach No.

The lift curve slope in the incompressible regime is equal to 3.707 per radian. This is also supported by the Fig. 12.5 of the textbook. 6.2.2 Maximum Lift Coefficient

The maximum lift coefficient of the aircraft in the clean configuration comes ou t to be 1.153. With the usage of High Lift Devices, it boosts up to 2.374. Tripl e slotted flaps and LE slats have been employed as the HLDs. The plot is shown o n the next page.

6.2.3

Stall Angle

In incompressible regime, the aircraft stalls at 18.168 degrees, while at the ma ximum lift coefficient, the stall angle decreases to about 16.7o. The variation of stall angle with Mach number is shown in the following graph.

6.3

Drag

Both the parasite and induced drags were calculated for the aircraft. These esti mates depend upon the wetted area of the aircraft, which was calculated after ge tting the exposed areas of the aircraft components from the CAD model and summin g them up. The wetted area of the aircraft comes out to be 10265.23 ft2. At tran sonic speeds, the wave drag has also been calculated and included in the parasit e drag coefficient. 6.3.1 Parasite Drag Coefficient

As shown in the above graph, the zero lift drag coefficient of the aircraft equa ls 0.0217 at sea level, Mach = 0.1. 6.3.2 Lift due to Drag Factor (K)

6.3.3

0% and 100% K

The increase in the 100% K value in the transonic regime can be seen.

Chapter 7 PROPULSIVE ANALYSIS

7.1

Introduction

From the design point information for the T/W and WTO, the engine of the aircraf t should be capable of producing uninstalled thrust of 34971.38 lbf at sea level . As mentioned earlier in the morphological matrix, there are two engines. So, e ach engine should produce 17485.69 lbf.

7.2

Engine Selection

Rubber engine sizing was done. The engine selected is Rolls Royce Tay 650 (insta lled on Fokker 100).

The specifications of this engine are: Thrust at sea level Bypass ratio Inlet mass flow Weight Length Fan diameter 15,100 lbf 3.07 422 lbm/s 2949.22 lbf 7.9 ft 3.75 ft

Based on the thrust required and the engine data available, the scaling factor o f 1.158 was used to scale the rubber engine. The specifications of the rubber en gine hence become: Thrust at sea level Bypass ratio Inlet mass flow Weight Length Fan diameter Engine Data 17,485.69 lbf 3.07 488.673 lbm/s 3465.64 lbf 8.38 ft 4.04 ft

7.3

The data for the Rolls Royce Tay 650 engine was obtained from Ref. 1 (Chapter 9) . The variation of thrust and TSFC with Mach number and altitude is given below.

7.4

Rubber Engine Data

This was obtained after incorporating the scaling factor in the original engines data. The TSFC curves remain the same.

7.5

Thrust Corrections

A 6% loss in the thrust resulted from the bleed losses. Catering this into the u ninstalled engine data, the net propulsive force was obtained as shown below. Th is data was used further for the performance and stability calculations.

7.6

Capture Area Calculations

The capture area of the engine was calculated using the Fig. 10.16 of the textbo ok. With the engine mass flow known, and the design Mach number as 0.8, the Capt ure Area comes out to be 12.217 ft2. From Eq. 10.16 and 10.17, the capture area comes out to be 11.281 ft2. This valu e is more accurate than that shown above.

7.7

Fuel System

The fuel used is JP5. The total fuel volume comes out to be 4680.36 ft3. The fuel is stored in the wing and the fuselages.

Chapter 8 STRUCTURE AND COMPONENT WEIGHTS

8.1

Empty weight estimation from the component weights

Up till now, the empty weight was calculated from the empirical and statistical equations. This time, the empty weight was computed from the summation of the in dividual weights of the aircraft components, the equations for which have been p rovided in the 15th Chapter of the textbook. The following table shows the weigh ts of the aircraft components. All readings are in lbf. Wing 13670.852 Horizontal Tails 3861.70448 Vertical Tails 2625.59761 Fuselages 34742.4383 Main Landing Gear 1812.87298 Nose Landing Gear 888.83839 Nacelles 1303.08612 Engine Controls 65.1688 Pneumatic Starter 140.202864 Fuel System 1404.94429 Flight Controls 1320.16771 APU 2200 Instruments 417.992903 Hydraulics 205.830709 Electrical 686.142738 Avionics 1689.4102 Furnishings 1237.81227 Air Conditioning 2467.28224

Anti Ice 251.59268 Handling Gear 37.738902 Total Empty Weight 71029.67627 8% Reduction due to Multi Fuselage Layout 15% Reduction due to the use of Composites

65347.30217 55414.512

Hence, the empty weight of the aircraft comes out to be 55414.512 lbf. Furthermo re, this is the weight of the aircraft when converged: The total weight of the a ircraft is 125796.34 lbf, with We/Wo = 0.4405. The multihull configuration along with the use of composite materials reduce the empty weight of the aircraft by 23%. This gives the aircraft a huge competitive advantage. This has resulted in the use of smaller engines, thus reduced drag a nd low fuel consumption. All the computation were performed in the MS Excel Spre adsheets. 8.2 Vn Diagram

The plot between the load factor and equivalent air speed at sea level was made to see the structural limits of the aircraft. Cruise weight was considered for t he calculations. The load factor limits were taken as: Posiive nmax 3.5 Negative nmax 1.5 Positive Ultimate Load Factor Negative Ultimate Load Factor Factor of Safety 1.5

5.25 2.25

Chapter 9 CREW STATION, PASSENGERS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS