Aircraft Design

- The Design Process

For more detailed notes please refer

to www.rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk/aeroxtra

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 1

 Recommended
Further Reading
• D.Howe – Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis
• D.Raymer – Aircraft Design, A Conceptual
Approach
• J.Roskam – Airplane Design, Parts 1-8
• E.Torenbeek – Synthesis of Airplane Design
• L.Jenkinson, P.Simpkin & D.Rhodes – Civil Jet
Aircraft Design
• D.Stinton – The Design of the Aeroplane
• S.Brandt, J.Stiles & R.Whitford – Introduction to
Aeronautics – A Design Perspective

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 2

 Design Process - Overview
• Basic & general requirements.
• Feasibility study.
• Detail requirements & specification.
• Design phases – Roskam/Raymer models
• Project synthesis process (Howe model).
– Configuration, flight regime & powerplant, fuselage
layout, wing configuration, lift, drag & mass
representations, performance representation,
parametric analysis & optimization
• Analysis of detailed design.
• Detail design phase.
• Testing, certification & project life cycle.
01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 3
 Basic Requirements
• New design launched when perceived requirement
arises for aircraft beyond capability of those
existing.
• Usually due to:
– aircraft approaching end of its useful life.
– design overtaken by technological developments.
• Identification of need may originate from:
– manufacturing organization (especially if civil).
– potential operator (especially if military).

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 4

 Basic Requirements (Cont.)
• Initial basic requirements statement often brief,
including class of aircraft and major performance
characteristics.
• Initial statement usually refined after consultations
with appropriate operators and major
manufacturers.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 5

 General Requirements
• Result of many years of previous experience
applicable to various classes of a/c.
• Act as:
– guide to designers.
– basis for eventual clearance of a/c for
intended operators.
• Most important for civil/general
aviation are:
– FAR 25/23 (US), JAR 25/23 (Europe)
– (Federal or Joint Airworthiness
Requirements)
01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 6
 General Requirements (Cont.)
• FAR and JAR written in
identical format with only a few
subtle differences – eventual aim
is for commonality.
• For military a/c use:
– DEF STAN 00-970 (UK), MIL
SPECS (US)
– MIL SPECS being replaced with
requirements defined by individual
manufacturers (Lockheed Martin,
Boeing).

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 7

 Feasibility Study
• Follows basic requirement to assess whether
need can be met with existing technology or
not.
• |Needed due to complexity of aeronautical
projects.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 8

 Feasibility Study (Cont.)
• Also used for other purposes:
– how best to meet basic requirement (adaptation of
existing a/c, major modification of existing a/c,
completely new design (highest risk & cost)).
– concept/configuration comparison studies also
undertaken.
– review and revision of basic requirement
performance characteristics.
– likely output is definition of detailed set of
requirements (specification).
– initial cost estimation.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 9

 Detail Requirements /
Specification
• Covers many aspects, though not all significant
for project synthesis process phase.
Performance
• Range with basic payload mass.
• Alternative range/payload combinations (+ reserves).
• Max (or max normal) operating speed.
• Take-off & landing field length limitations.
• Climb performance (time to height, ceiling, etc.).
• Manoeuvre & acceleration requirements.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 10

 Detail Requirements /
Specification (Cont.)
Operations
• Size & mass limitations (runway loading).
• Crew complement.
• Occupant environment (pressure, temperature).
• Navigation/communications equipment.
• Payload variation & associated equipment.
• Maintenance targets.
• Stealth aspects (military a/c).
• Extended engine failed allowance (ETOPS) – civil.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 11

 Detail Requirements /
Specification (Cont.)
General
• Growth potential.
• Cost targets, availability.
• Airframe life.
• Airworthiness requirements (JAR 25, etc.).

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 12

 Detail Requirements Example
C-5 Specific Operational Requirement – June 1963
(Selected Items)
• Basic design mission: 100,000 to 130,000 lb for 4000 nm
• Alternate mission: 50,000 lb for 5500 nm
• Load factor: 2.5
• Maximum design payload: 130,000 – 150,000 lb
• Cruise speed: > 440 kts (TAS)
• Cruise ceiling: > 30,000 ft
• Take-off at max TOW: < 8000 ft
• Take-off at 4000 nm weight: < 4000 ft
• Landing with 100,000 lb & fuel reserves for 4000 nm: < 4000 ft

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 13

 Detail Requirements Example
C-5 Specific Operational Requirement –
June 1963 (Selected Items) – (Cont.)
• Cargo compartment: length 100 – 110 ft,
width 16 – 17.5 ft, height 13.5 ft.
• Cargo landing: straight through, one full
section, one 9x10ft, truck bed floor height
desirable.
• Powerplant: 6 x turbofans.
• Reliability: 95% probability of completing
10 hr mission.
• Availability: June 1970.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 14

 Aircraft Design Phases
(Raymer/Roskam Models)
Conceptual Design
• All major questions asked and answered.
– will it work?
– what does it look like?
– what requirements drive the
design?
– what trade-offs should be
considered?
– what should it weigh and cost?

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 15

 Aircraft Design Phases
(Raymer/Roskam Models)
Conceptual Design (Cont.)
• No correct solution and process involves great
deal of compromise, iteration and trade-offs.
• Illustrated when different teams are requested to
submit designs based upon an initial basic
requirement or specification – all will be
different and the customer can then choose
accordingly.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 16

 JSF Conceptual Designs

(a)
(b)
(a) Lockheed-Martin X-35 – successful
(b) Boeing – rejected after demonstrator
flights
(c) McDonnell-Douglas – rejected after
concept design phase (c)
01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 17
 Aircraft Design Phases
(Raymer/Roskam Models)
Conceptual Design (Cont.)
• Various activities to be covered include:
– configuration possibilities
– preliminary sizing (weight)
– drag polar equation estimation
– performance sizing & matching using W/S and T/W
relationships – to optimally fix wing size and engine
thrust power
– wing layout and high-lift devices

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 18

 Aircraft Design Phases
(Raymer/Roskam Models)
Conceptual Design (Cont.)
• Followed by:
– confirmation of configuration
– fuselage sizing
– propulsion selection & integration
– empennage sizing
– weight and balance analysis
– stability analysis

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 19

 Aircraft Design Phases
(Raymer/Roskam Model)
Preliminary Design
• Begins when major design changes are over.
– configuration and major characteristics “frozen”.
– “lofting” developed.
– testing and development tools developed.
– major items designed.
– cost estimates refined.
• Followed by detail design, production, testing and
certification phases.
01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 20
 Project Synthesis Process
(Howe Model)
• Considered as an extension of feasibility study.
• Though a different aim – to produce reasonably well-
defined design to be offered to potential customers.
• Requires considerably more thorough and detailed studies
than in feasibility work.
• Forms bulk of undergraduate group project work.
• Involves parallel working of many inter-related disciplines
with numerous trade-offs and optimization procedures.
• Equivalent to Raymer/Roskam “Conceptual Design” phase.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 21

 Project Synthesis Process

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 22

 Project Synthesis Process
Configuration Selection
• First task is selection of one or more configurations.
• Unconventional layouts only adopted if unusually
dominant requirement.
• Usually well-established conventional layout for given
class of a/c.
• Technological advances may render some concepts as
unsuitable for future (e.g. impact of flight control systems
and thrust vectoring on stability/control surfaces).
• Optimum solution often not adopted due to lack of
experience, uncertain design data, customer reticence, etc.
01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 23
 Project Synthesis Process
Flight Regime & Powerplant Selection
• Set of operating conditions (Mach number, altitude)
usually defined in specification.
– if only given in general terms then have to be
assumed in greater detail for synthesis process.
• Flight regime directly defines powerplant type to be
used:
– piston-prop, turbo-prop, turbofan, low bypass
turbofan, propfan, turbojet, ramjet, rocket, etc.
• Powerplant selection also influences configuration.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 24

 Project Synthesis Process
Fuselage Layout
• Good starting point for synthesis process.
• Often established independently of lifting surfaces.
• Payload definition main driver and often specified.
• Also crew provision affects forward fuselage design
and often known at outset.
• Only overall dimensions required to make first
prediction of aircraft mass.
• Geometry and size primarily derived with little use of
analytical methods so no single solution.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 25

 Project Synthesis Process
Wing Configuration
• Fundamental to aircraft performance.
• Complex with large number of parameters to be
considered and refined during optimization process.
• Major impact on lift, drag & mass of a/c design - all
should be considered when initially selecting layout.
• Initial aim to produce layout with minimum number of
parameters for use in initial synthesis.
• Soon leads to wing loading estimation and then wing
area once initial mass prediction is known.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 26

 Project Synthesis Process
Lift, Drag & Mass Estimations
• These are the primary characteristics determining a/c
performance for given powerplant & flight regime.
• Can sometimes be estimated using typical values from
previous similar a/c (if information is available).
• But preferable to use simple analytical expressions to
formulate initial values for use on first optimization.
• More comprehensive methods necessary eventually.
• High degree of interdependence with wing configuration.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 27

 Project Synthesis Process
Performance Representation
• Vital part of synthesis process – done by expressing
various flight stages using equations.
• Flight phases include:
– take-off & initial climb, climb to operating altitude, ceilings,
cruise, operating/maximum speed, manoeuvres, descent,
approach & landing, baulked landing & missed approach.
• Recommended equations are specific to design process:
– theoretically derived but modified with empirical data.
– used to give early optimum values of wing loading and
thrust/weight ratio.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 28

 Project Synthesis Process
Parametric Analysis – 1st Stage
• Brings together results of all previous tasks.
• Combines wing and fuselage dimensions into overall a/c
layout.
• Lift, drag and powerplant representations used in performance
equations to produce variations of wing loading (W/S) and
thrust/weight ratio (T/W) for each performance requirement.
• Comparison produces design space to meet all requirements.
• Suitable values for W/S (low) and T/W (high) selected.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 29

 Project Synthesis Process
Parametric Analysis – 2nd Stage
• Selected values of wing loading and thrust/weight ratio
used to calculate aircraft mass.
• Various combinations used to determine minimum (i.e.
optimum) mass value.
• Yields “referee design”, which is then used as basis for
more detailed analysis and evaluation.
• Revised wing size follows directly from procedure,
along with initial notional representations of
empennage and landing gear.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 30

 Project Synthesis Process
Optimization
• Essential feature of project process.
• Target criterion imposed – most usually mass but
sometimes cost.
Mass Optimization
• Size & mass closely related.
• Unusual for size constraints to drive design (exceptions
– a/c operating from ships, large airliners with airport
gate restrictions).
• Generally, lightest a/c is most efficient with greatest
development potential so useful optimisation criterion.
01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 31
 Project Synthesis Process
Cost Optimization
• Several possible aspects:
– first cost
– operating costs
– life cycle costs
• More difficult to obtain accurate cost predictions than
mass predictions.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 32

 Project Synthesis Process
Analysis of Derived (Referee) Design
• Involves use of better analytical tools, including:
– size prediction for stability and control surfaces.
– completion of landing gear layout.
– improved estimation of lift, drag and mass characteristics.
– revised performance calculations using improved input data
and more elaborate estimation methods.
– reconsideration of stability & control requirements.
– repetition of process until mass convergence.
• Sensitivity studies involving variation of certain
parameters to identify critical design areas.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 33

 Project Synthesis Process
Optimization Procedures
Graphical Techniques
• Parametric study results plotted onto graphs and
superimposed, leading to “design space” which meets
various performance requirements.
• Limited to number of parameters conveniently handled.
Mathematical Techniques
• Can handle many parameters simultaneously, e.g. using
the multi-variable optimization (MVO) method.
• Needs powerful computational packages.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 34

 Other Activities
• Many other activities often undertaken in typical
undergraduate group project, depending on a/c type but
typically:
– Structural layout – wing, fuselage, empennage.
– Stress & structural analysis and materials selection.
– Intake/exhaust design.
– flight deck & avionics suite, weapons selection/integration.
– passenger/payload compartment.
– reliability & maintainability.
– survivability & stealth, defensive aids suite.
– hydraulics, pneumatics, electrics, ice protection, fire
detection/suppression, etc.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 35

 Detail Design Phase
• Most extensive phase of whole process.
• Purpose is to verify earlier assumptions and
produce data needed for hardware
manufacture.
• Requires generation of many drawings (by
computer aided design nowadays).
• Best solution required for performance,
manufacturing costs and operations.
01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 36
 Testing
• Ground and flight test hardware manufactured
from detail design phase.
Ground Testing
• Includes wind tunnel tests, structural specimens
and systems rigs.
Flight Tests
• To verify performance and flight characteristics of
actual aircraft.
• Expensive – so must be completed quickly.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 37

 Certification
• Operational flight clearance issued when calculations,
ground and flight testing of design demonstrate to
satisfaction of appropriate airworthiness authority that
all relevant requirements are met.
• Customer also requires demonstration of performance
capabilities.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 38

 Project Life Cycle
• Design phase leading to certification may take up to a
decade.
• Development costs rise with time taken to achieve
certification.
• Manufacturer continues to support aircraft throughout
operational life – can last 50 years+ for a successful
design.

01/19/10 Dr Derek Bray, DAPS 39