14 Fixedwingfighteraircraft Flightperformance II 150228115124 Conversion Gate02

Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft
Flight Performance
Part II
SOLO HERMELIN
http://www.solohermelin.com Updated: 04.12.12

28.02.15
1
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Table of Content
Introduction to Fixed Wing Aircraft Performance F
Earth Atmosphere i
x
Aerodynamics e
Mach Number d
W
Shock & Expansion Waves
i
Reynolds Number and Boundary Layer n
g
Knudsen Number
P
Flight Instruments a
Aerodynamic Forces r
Lift and Drag Forces t
Aerodynamic Drag I
Wing Parameters
Specific Stabilizer/Tail Configurations
2
SOLO
Table of Content (continue – 1)
Aircraft Propulsion Systems F
i
Aircraft Propellers
x
Aircraft Turbo Engines e
Afterburner d
W
Thrust Reversal Operation i
Aircraft Propulsion Summary n
g
Vertical Take off and Landing - VTOL P
Engine Control System a
Aircraft Flight Control r
t
Aircraft Equations of Motion I
Aerodynamic Forces (Vectorial)
Specific Energy
Three Degrees of Freedom Model in Earth Atmosphere
3
SOLO

Parameters defining Aircraft Performance
Takeoff (no VSTOL capabilities)
Landing (no VSTOL capabilities)
Level Flight
Gliding Flight
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Steady Climb (V, γ = constant)
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State
Approximation (ESA)
Minimum Fuel-to- Climb Trajectories using Energy State
Approximation (ESA)
Maximum Range during Glide using Energy State
Approximation (ESA)
Aircraft Turn Performance
Maneuvering Envelope, V – n Diagram
4
SOLO

Air-to-Air Combat
Energy–Maneuverability Theory
Aircraft Combat Performance Comparison
Supermaneuverability
Constraint Analysis
References
5
SOLO Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
This Presentation is about Fixed Wing Aircraft Flight Performance.
The Fixed Wing Aircraft are

• Commercial/Transport Aircraft (Passenger and/or Cargo)
• Fighter Aircraft
Continue from Part I

SOLO Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Parameters defining Aircraft Performance
The Aircraft Flight Performance is defined by the following parameters
• Take-off distance
• Landing distance
• Maximum Endurance and Speed for Maximum Endurance
• Maximum Range and Speed for Maximum Range
• Ceiling(s)
• Climb Performance
• Turn Performance
• Combat Radius
• Maximum Payload
7
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
To understand how different parameters affect Aircraft Performance we start with a

Simplified Model, where Analytical Solutions can be obtained.
Results for real aircraft will then be presented.
Assumptions:
• Point mass model. L

• Flat earth with g = constant.
T
• Three-dimensional aircraft trajectory. yB
 xB yW
• Air density that varies with altitude ρ=ρ(h) V D
xW
• Drag that varies with altitude, Mach
number and control effort D = D(h,M,n) zB
and is given by a Parabolic Polar. zW
• Thrust magnitude is controllable by the

throttle. Aircraft Coordinate System
• No sideslip angle.
• No wind.
8
Return to Table of Content
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff
Assume no Vertical Takeoff
Capability.
The Takeoff distance sTO
is divided as the sum of the Transition
following distances: R
hobs
sg – Ground Run Ground Run V TO
Rotation
θ CL
V=0
sr – Rotation Distance htr
st – Transition Distance sg sr str sCL
sc – Climb Distance to sTO
reach Screen Height

Takeoff htransition < hobstacle
sTO  s g  sr  st  sc
We distinguish between two cases

of Takeoff Transition
• The Aircraft must passes over R

θ CL
Rotation
an obstacle at altitude hobs.. V=0
Ground Run V TO
hobs
• The obstacle is cleared during
sg sr sobs
the transition phase.
sTO
9
Takeoff htransition > hobstacle
SOLO
Takeoff (continue – 1)
Ground Run R
L
During the Ground Run there are additional D T

effects than in free flight, that must be considered: μR
- Friction between the tires and the ground W
during rolling.
- Additional drag due to the landing gear
fully extended.
- Additional Lift Coefficient due to extended
flaps. Transition Climb
- Ground Effect due to proximity of the wings Ground run sg distance st distance sc
to the ground, that reduces the Induced Drag

and the Lift. Stall safety
VMCG VCR
γc
The Aircraft can leave the ground when the velocity VS VT
reaches the Stall Velocity where Lift equals Weight Acceleration at

full power
Take-off possible
with one engine
Stop take-off if Continue take-off
1 2 W 1 engine fails before if engine fails
W  Lstall   0 Vstall2 S C L ,max Vstall  this point after this point
2 0 S CL,max
Total take-off if distance
The Liftoff Velocity is 1.1 to 1.2 Vstall. 10

SOLO
Ground Run R L
dx T
V D
μR
dt V
T DR
W
dV
V  
dt W /g
R  W  L Ground Reaction
Transition Climb
Average Coefficient of Friction Values μ Ground run sg distance st distance sc
Stall safety
hc
VMCG VCR
VS VT γc
Acceleration at Take-off possible

full power with one engine
Stop take-off if Continue take-off
engine fails before if engine fails
d s sx VW /g this point after this point

dV T  D   W  L  Total take-off if distance
dt W/g

dV T  D   W  L  11
SOLO
Ground Run (continue -1) R L
V W
 T  D   R 
T
D
μR
g V
R  W  L Ground Reaction
Transition Climb
T (Prop) Ground run sg distance st distance sc
Lift, Drag, Thrust, Resistance – lb
T (Jet) Stall safety

hc
VMCG VCR
Texcess(Prop)=T(Prop) -(D+μ R) γc
L, D, T, R
VS VT
Texcess(Jet)=T(Jet) -(D+μ R)
D +μ R Stop take-off if Continue take-off
engine fails before if engine fails
this point after this point
Ground Speed – ft/s Vground

12
SOLO
R L
Ground Run (continue – 2) T

D
μR
To obtain an Analytic Solution assume that V
during the Ground Run the Thrust can be W
approximated by
Transition Climb
Ground run sg distance st distance sc
T  T0  B V  C V 2
Stall safety
 1

hc
 D  V 2
S CD VMCG VCR
 2 VS VT γc
Using  Acceleration at Take-off possible
L  1  V 2 S C
 Stop take-off if Continue take-off


L
2 engine fails before
this point
if engine fails
after this point
d s sx gS

V a :  C D   C L   C g
dV a V 2  bV  c 2W W
Bg
dt 1 where b :
 2W
dV a V 2  bV  c
T 
c : g  0   
W  13
SOLO
Takeoff (continue – 5) T  T0  B V  C V 2
Ground Run (continue – 3) R L
ds sx V D

μR
V
dV a V 2  bV  c W
dt 1
 Transition Climb
a V 2  bV  c
Ground run sg distance st distance sc
dV
Stall safety
Integrating those equations between two hc
VMCG VCR
velocities V1 and V2 gives VS VT γc
a V22  b V2  c
1
sg 
ln
a V12  b V1  c Stop take-off if Continue take-off
2a engine fails before if engine fails
this point after this point
b  1  a2 1  a1 
 ln 
 1 a  1 a 

2a b  4ac
2
 1 2  2 a V1  b
a1 :
where b2  4 a c
1  1  a1 1  a2  2 a V2  b
tg  ln   a2 :
1 a  1 a  b2  4 a c
b  4ac
2
 2 1 
14
SOLO
R L
Ground Run (continue – 4) T

D
Assume μR
V
V1  0 T  T0  B  0, C  0 W
then
Transition Climb
1 a V22  c Ground run sg distance st distance sc
sg  ln
2a c
Stall safety
  VCR
hc
W /S  1  VMCG
VS VT γc
 ln  
 g C D   C L  CD   CL
1   full power with one engine

 T0 / W    C LT 

Stop take-off if
engine fails before
Continue take-off
if engine fails
where this point after this point
2W / S
C LT : & VT : V2
 VT2
1 Z 1
A further simplification, using ln  Z , gives
1 Z
W /S
sg  T0 W /S
 g C LT  0    
T
W  g C LT s g 15
W 
SOLO
R L
Takeoff (continue – 7) D
μR
T
Rotation Distance W
At the ground roll and just prior to going into transition phase, most aircraft are
Rotated to achieve an Angle of Attack to obtain the desired Takeoff Lift Coefficient
CL. Since the rotation consumes a finite amount of time (1 – 4 seconds), the distance
traveled during rotation sr, must be accounted for by using
sr  Vt  t
where Δt is usually taken as 3 seconds.
Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
Ground Run V TO θ CL
V=0
htr
sg sr str sCL
sTO
16
SOLO
Transition Distance
In the Transition Phase the Aircraft is in the Air (μ = 0) and turn to the Climb Angle.
The Equation of Motion are:
d s sx V W / g

dV T D Transition
R
dt W/g hobs

Rotation
T D
V=0
htr
dV sg sr str sCL
sTO
Assuming T – D = const., we can

Integrate the Equations of Motion
(assuming Va > VT)
 W Va2  VT2
st 
 2g T D
 Va  VT
t  W Va  VT


t
2g T D
17
SOLO
Climb Distance
The Climb Distance is evaluated from the following (see Figure):
 c 1
hc hc
sc  
tan  c c
For small angles of Climb L = W. Transition

R
We can write Ground Run V TO
Rotation
θ CL
hobs
V=0
C  k C L ,c
2 htr
T D T
c   c   D0 sg sr str sCL
W Lc W C L ,c sTO
We have
hc
sc 
T / W  CD 0 / CL ,c  k CL ,c
18
SOLO
Takeoff Summary
sTO  s g  sr  st  sc Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
Ground Run V=0

htr
sg sr str sCL
1 a V22  b V2  c
sg  ln sTO
2a a V12  b V1  c
b  1  a2 1  a1  2 a V1  b
 ln 
 1 a 1 a 
 a1 :
2a b2  4 a c  1 2  b2  4 a c
2 a V2  b
a2 :
1  1  a1 1  a2  b2  4 a c
tg  ln 
1 a  1 a 

b2  4 a c  2 1 
sr  Vt  t  t  1 4 sec Rotation Phase

 W Va2  VT2
 t
s 
 2g T D
 Va  VT Transition Phase
t  W Va  VT


t
2g T D
hc
sc  Climb Phase 19
T / W  CD 0 / CL ,c  k CL ,c
Summary of takeoff requirements
In order to establish the allowable
takeoff weight for a transport
category airplane, at any airfield,
the following must be considered:
• Airfield pressure altitude
• Temperature
• Headwind component
• Runway length
• Runway gradient or slope
• Obstacles in the flight path
Minimum required takeoff runway lengths. 20

SOLO
Landing
Landing is similar to Takeoff, but in reverse.
γ
We assume again that the Aircraft doesn’t have
VTOL capabilities. hg
Transition
Touchdown
The Landing Phase can be divide in the following hf
Phases: Float
Glide sg Flare st sf Ground Run sgr
1. The Final approach when the Aircraft
Airborne Phase
Glides toward the runway at a steady
Total Landing Distance
speed and rate of descent.
2. The Flare, or Transition phase.

The Pilot attempts to rotate the Aircraft nose up and reduce the Rate of Sink to zero and the
forward speed to a minimum, that is larger than Vstall.
When entering this phase the velocity is less than 1.3Vstall and 1.15 Vstall at touchdown.
3. The Floating Phase, which is necessary if at the end of Flare phase, when the rate of
descent is zero, an additional speed reduction is necessary. The Float occurs when the
Aircraft is subjected to ground effect which requires speed reduction for touchdown.
4. The Ground Run after the Touchdown the Aircraft must reduce the speed to reach a
sufficient low one to be able to turn off the runway. For this it can use Thrust Reverse (if
available), spoilers or drag parachutes (like F-15 or MIG-21) and brakes are applied.
21
SOLO
Landing (continue – 1)
Descending Phase
The Aircraft is aligned with the landing runaway at an altitude hg and a gliding angle γ.
The Aircraft Glides toward the runway at a steady speed and rate of descent, until it reaches
The altitude ht at which it goes to Transition Phase, turning with a Radius of Turn R. The
Descending Range on the ground is :
hg  ht hg  R cos   1 hg  R
sg   
tan  tan  
Transition
hg Touchdown
hf
Float
Airborne Phase
22
SOLO
Transition Phase γ
If γ is the descent angle and R is the turn radius hg

Transition
Touchdown
then the Aircraft must start the Transition Phase hf
at an altitude ht, above the ground, given by: Glide sg Flare st
Float
Ground Run sgr
sf
ht  R 1 cos   Airborne Phase

The Transition Range on the ground is
st  R sin   R 
To calculate the turn radius we must use the flight velocity which varies between 1.3 Vstall
at the beginning to 1.1 Vstall at Touchdown. Let use an average velocity
Vt  mtVstall mt 1.1  1.3
If the Transition Turn Acceleration is nt = 1.15 – 1.25 g than the Turn Radius is
2
Vt
R
nt  1 g
 Vt 
tt  
The Transition Turn time is
Vt / R nt  1 g
23
SOLO
Float Phase
In this phase the Pilot brings the nose wheel to the ground at the touchdown velocity Vt:
s f  Vt  t
where Δt is between 2 to 3 seconds.
Transition
hg Touchdown
hf
Float
Airborne Phase
24
SOLO
γ
Transition
Ground Run Phase hg Touchdown
hf
The equations of motion are the same as those Glide sg Flare st

Float
sf Ground Run sgr
developed for Takeoff, but with different Airborne Phase
parameters, adapted for Landing. Those equations Total Landing Distance
are:
gS
T  T0  B V  C V 2 a :  C D , gr   C L , gr  
Cg
2W W
d s sx V
 where b :
Bg
dV a V 2  bV  c 2W
dt 1 T 
 c : g  0   
dV a V 2  bV  c W 
1 a V22  b V2  c b  1  a2 1  a1  2 a V1  b
sg  ln  ln    a1 :
2 a a V12  b V1  c 2 a b 2  4 a c  1  a1 1  a2  b2  4 a c
where 2 a V2  b
 1  a1 1  a2  a2 :
1 b2  4 a c
tg  ln   
b 2  4 a c  1  a2 1  a1 
Assume a constant Thrust T = T0: B = 0, C = 0. V1 = Vtouchdown, V2 = final velocity

1 a V12  c 1  1  a1 1  a2  gS T 
sg   tg  ln    a :  CD   CL , b  0, c : 25
g 0 
ln
2 a a V22  c  4 a c  1  a2 1  a1  2W W 
SOLO
γ
Ground Run Phase (continue – 1) Transition

hg Touchdown
hf
Assume a constant Thrust T = T0: B = 0, C = 0. V1 = Vtouchdown, Float
Ground Run sgr
Glide sg Flare st sf
V2 = final velocity
Airborne Phase
1 a V12  c
sg   ln gS
2 a a V22  c
where
a :  C D , gr   C L , gr  a1 :
2 a V1
2W  4ac
 1  a1 1  a2  T  a2 :
2 a Vtouchdown
tg 
1
ln    c : g  0    b  4ac
 4 a c  1  a2 1  a1  W 
For the Landing Ground Run Phase the following must included:
• if Thrust Reversal exists we must change T0 to – T0_reversal .
• The Drag Coefficient CD0,gr must consider:
- the landing gear fully extended.
- spoilers or drag parachutes (if exist)
• μ – the friction coefficient must be increased to describe the brakes effect.
26
SOLO
Summary γ
Transition
hg Touchdown
Descent Phase hf
hg  Vt 2 / nt  1
Float
hg  h f hg  R cos 
sg    Airborne Phase
tan  tan   Total Landing Distance
Transition Phase
Vt 
2
 Vt 
st  R   tt  
nt  1 g Vt / R nt  1 g
Float Phase
s f  Vt  t
Ground Run Phase
1 a V12  c
sg   ln gS
2 a a V22  c
where
a :  C D , gr   C L , gr  a1 :
2 a V1
2W  4ac
 1  a1 1  a2  T  a2 :
2 a Vtouchdown
tg 
1
ln    c : g  0    b  4ac
 4 a c  1  a2 1  a1  W 
27
28
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
SOLO
Level Flight
The forces acting on an airplane in Level Flight are
Lift
shown in Figure
Equations of motion:
L W  0
Quasi-Static
T D0 Thrust Drag
x  V
h  0 Weight
Lift and Drag Forces:
2W
L
1
 V 2 S CL  W CL 
2  SV 2
1 1

D   V 2 S CD   V 2 S CD0  k CL  T
2 2
2

1 2  4kW 2  1  2kW 2 
D   V S  CD 0  2 4 2    V S CD 0  
2
2 

2   V S  2   V S 
29
SOLO
Level Flight Lift
1 2kW 2
D   V S CD 0 
2
2   V 2 S
Thrust Drag
 
ParasiteDrag Induced Drag Weight
Because of opposite trends in

Parasite Drag and Induced Drag,
with changes in velocity, the Total
Drag assumes a minimum at a
certain velocity. If we ignore the
change in velocity of CD0 and k with
velocity we obtain
1
dD 4kW 2  V 2 S CD0
  V S CD 0  0 2
dV  V 3S
2kW 2
The velocity of minimum Total
V*  V 2S
Drag is
2W k
V 4 V*
S CD 0
30
We see that the velocity of minimum Total Drag is equal to the Reference Velocity.
SOLO
Level Flight Lift
1 2kW 2
D   V S CD 0 
2
2   V 2 S
Thrust Drag
 
ParasiteDrag Induced Drag Weight
For the velocity, V*, of minimum

Total Drag we have
2kW 2
Di   W k CD 0
 V* S
2
and
Dmin  W k CD0  W k CD0  2W k CD0 1

 V 2 S CD0
2
2kW 2
 V 2S
V*
31
Comparison of Takeoff Weight and Empty Weight of different Aircraft
M. Corcoran, T. Matthewson, N. W. Lee, S. H. Wong, “Thrust Vectoring” 32

SOLO
Lift
Level Flight
The Power Required, PR, for Level Flight is
Thrust Drag
1 2kW 2
PR  D V   V S CD 0 
3
2 VS
Weight
The Power Required for Level Flight assumes

a minimum at a certain velocity Vmp. If we
ignore the change in velocity of CD0 and k
with velocity we obtain 1
 V 3 S CD 0
PR ,min 2
d PR 3 2kW 2
  V 2 S CD 0  0 2kW 2
dV 2  V 2S
VS
or 1 *
V
2W k 1 * 3
Vmp  4  V
S 3 CD 0 3
2W 3 CD 0
CL,mp    3 CL
*
 S Vmp
2
k
8 kW 2 W Vmp
emp 
CL ,mp

3 CD 0 / k

3 1
 0.866 e* PR ,min   33
CD 0  k CL ,mp
2
C D 0  k 3 CD 0 / k  4 k CD 0 3  Vmp S 0.866 e*
SOLO
Level Flight
Power
Available Aircraft Power and Thrust
Pa, propeller
• Propeller Lift
At a given Altitude h Thrust Drag
Weight
PA, propeller  T V  small variation with airspeed

V
Lift
Propeller Aircraft Available Power

• Turbojet Thrust Drag
at Altitude (h)
At a given Altitude h Weight
Thrust
TA, jet  small variation with airspeed
Ta, jet
• Throttle Effect
T   TA 0    1
V
Jet Aircraft Available Power

at Altitude h
SOLO
Level Flight
A
Pa, propeller B
To have a Level Flight the requirement must be satisfied by
the available propulsion performance. ηaPa, propeller
• For a Propeller Aircraft, the available power Pa,propeller , at
a given altitude h, is almost insensitive with changes in Pmin PR
velocity. The Velocity in Level Flight is steady when the
graph of Required Power PR intersects the graph of
Pa,propeller at points A and B. We get two velocities Vmin (h) Vmin Vmax
at A and Vmax (h) at B. By controlling the Propeller Power
ηa Pa,propeller (0< ηa <1) we can reach any velocity between Propeller Aircraft
Vmin (h) and Vmax (h).
• For a Jet Aircraft, the available Thrust Ta,jet , at a given

altitude h, is almost insensitive with changes in velocity. A
The Velocity in Level Flight is steady when the graph of Ta, jet B
Required Thrust TR intersects the graph of Ta,jet at points η Ta, jet

A and B. We get two velocities Vmin (h) at A and Vmax (h) at Dmin
B. By controlling the Jet Thrust η Ta,jet (0< η <1) we can TR
reach any velocity between Vmin (h) and Vmax (h).
Vmin Vmax
Jet Aircraft 35
SOLO
Level Flight
Lift
Analytical Solution for Jet Aircraft

Thrust Drag
We have
Weight
1
2
2 2 1
2
2

T  D   V S CD 0  k CL   V S CD 0 
2kW 2
 V 2S

Define V 2W k
u : , V * : 4
V* S CD 0
A
* Ta, jet B
C CD0
e : L * , C L * 
*
, CD *  2 CD 0
CD k η Ta, jet
Dmin
T e* T 2
z :  TR
W W k CD 0
Vmin Vmax
2W k
Jet Aircraft
2 V2 S CD 0
T  
W k CD 0

2W k V2
 u4  2 z u2 1  0
2z  S CD 0 1/ u 2
 36
2
u
SOLO
Level Flight Lift
Analytical Solution for Jet Aircraft Thrust Drag
u4  2 z u2 1  0 Weight
Solving we obtain
umin  z  z 2  1
A
Ta, jet B
umax  z  z  1 2
η Ta, jet
Dmin
2W k
Vmin  uminV *  umin 4 TR
S CD 0
2W k
Vmax  umax V *  umax 4 Vmin Vmax
S CD 0
Jet Aircraft
V 2W k
u : , V * : 4
V* S CD 0
*
CL CD0
e* : *
, CL *  , CD *  2 CD 0
CD k
T e* T 2 37
z : 
W W k CD 0
SOLO
Level Flight Lift
Analytical Solution for Jet Aircraft Thrust Drag
Weight
umin  z  z 2  1
umax  z  z 2  1 umax  z  z 2  1
V 2W k
u : , V * : 4
V* S CD 0
C
*
CD0 umin  z  z 2  1
e : L * , C L * 
*
, CD *  2 CD 0
CD k
T e* T 2
z : 
W W k CD 0
At the absolute Ceiling (when is only one possible velocity) we have umax = umin, therefore
z = 1.
Vstall 
2W 38
 S CL ,max
SOLO
Drag Characteristics
39
SOLO
Level Flight
Aircraft Range in Level Flight
Range in Level Flight of Jet Aircraft Lift
L W  0 Thrust Drag
T D0
Weight
x  V
h  0
We add the equation of fuel consumption
W  c T
c – specific fuel consumption
We assume that fuel consumption is constant for a given altitude.
d x d x dW
 V
d t dW d t
dx V V T D V
   40
d W W cT cD
SOLO
Level Flight
dx V
 Thrust Drag
dW cD
The quantity dx/dW is called the “Instantaneous Range” Weight
and is equal to the Horizontal Range traveled per unit load

of fuel or the “Specific Range”.
Multiply and divide by L = W
dx  L  V  C  V
       L 
dW  D   cW   CD  c W
Integrating we obtain
Wf  C  1 dW
R : x f  xi    L  V
Wi
 CD  c W
41
SOLO
Level Flight
Wf  C  1 dW
R : x f  xi    L  V
Wi
 CD  c W Thrust Drag
To perform the integration we must specify the variation Weight
of CL, CD and V. Let consider two cases:

a. Range at Constant Altitude of Jet Aircraft
1 2W
We have W L  S V 2C L V
2  S CL
The velocity changes (decreases) since the weight W decreases due to fuel
consumption.
Wf  C  1
R   
Wi  C
L 

2 d W 2  CL

 S W c  CD


 W f  Wi


 D c 
42
SOLO
Level Flight
a. Range at Constant Altitude of Jet Aircraft Lift
Wf  C  1
R   
Wi  C
L 

2 d W 2  CL

 S W c  CD


 W f  Wi


 D c 
Thrust Drag
The maximum range is obtained when

Weight
Rmax
2  CL 
 
c  CD 
W f  Wi 
max
 CL   CL 
   
 CD   CD 0  k CL 
2
  max   max
1 CD 0  k CL2
 2 CL k CL
d  CL  2 CL
   0  CD 0  3 k CL2  0
d CL  CD 0  k CL2 
  C D0 kC L
2 2
1 CD 0 1
CL  
*
The maximum range is obtained when CL
3 k 3
2W t  2W t  4
The Velocity at maximum range is V t   4 3  3 V * t 
 S CL / 3
*
 S CL *
43
SOLO
Level Flight
b. Range at Constant Velocity of Jet Aircraft Lift
Wf  C  1 d W V  C L   Wi 

R     L  V    ln
 
Thrust Drag
Wi
 D
C c W c  D  Wf
C 
Weight
The maximum range is obtained when

1  CL  W  V * *  Wi 
Rmax  V  ln  i  e ln  
c  C D  max  W f  c

W
 f


The Velocity V is constant and equal to V* corresponding to initial weight Wi.
2Wi 2Wi k
V*   4
 S CL *
S CD 0
To keep Velocity V constant when weight W decreases, the air density ρ must
also decrease, hence the Aircraft will gain (qvasistatic) altitude
d  h  d h dW
   0 e h / h0   c p P 44
dt dt dt
SOLO
Level Flight Lift

Range in Level Flight of Propeller Aircraft Thrust Drag
The equation of fuel consumption
W  cP P Weight
cp – specific fuel consumption (consumed per unit power developed by the engine per
unit time
We assume that fuel consumption is constant for a given altitude.
d x d x dW
 V
d t dW d t
dx V V
 
d W W cp P
PR  D V - Required Power
D V
PR  PA P
PA   p  P - Available Power p
45
ηp – propulsive efficiency
SOLO
Level Flight Lift

dx V  p LW L  p  C  p
     L  Weight
dW cp P cp D D cp W  CD  c p W
Wf  C   p d W
Integration gives R : x f  x f    L 
Wi
 CD  c p W
We assume
• Angle of Attack is kept constant throughout cruise, therefore e = CL/CD is
constant
• ηp is independent on flight velocity
p Wi
R e ln Bréguet Range Equation
cp Wf
The maximum range of Propeller Aircraft in Level Flight is
p Wi  p 1 W 46
Rmax  e* ln  ln i
cp W f c p 2 k CD 0 W f
SOLO
The Bréguet Range Equation
The Bréguet range equation determines the maximum flight
distance. The key assumptions are that SFC, L/D, and flight speed,
V are constant, and therefore take-off, climb, and descend portions
of flights are not well modeled (McCormick, 1979; Houghton,
1982).
V L / D   Winitial 
Range  ln
g  SFC W 
 final 
where
Winitial = Wfuel + Wpayload + Wstructure + Wreserve

Wfinal = Wpayload + Wstructure + Wreserve
Louis Charles Bréguet
V L / D   W fuel 

(1880 – 1955)
Range  ln 1 
g  SFC  W payload  Wstructure  Wreserve 

where SFC, L/D, and Wstructure are technology parameters while Wfuel, Wpayload, and Wreserve
are operability parameters.
47
SOLO
Level Flight Lift

Let assume that the flight to maximum range is

performed in one of two ways Weight
1. Propeller Aircraft Flight at Constant Altitude

In Constant Altitude Flight the velocity changes with the decrease of weight such that
2W t 
V t   V * 
k
4
S CD 0
2. Propeller Aircraft Flight with Constant Velocity

In Constant Velocity Flight the velocity is the V* velocity based on the initial weight
of the Aircraft
2Wi k
V V*  4  const.
S CD 0
48
SOLO
Level Flight
Aircraft Endurance in Level Flight
The Endurance of an Airplane remains in the air and is
usually expressed in hours.
Endurance of Jet Aircraft in Level Flight Lift
We have W  c T
Thrust Drag
c – specific fuel consumption

d W T  D d W L W 1 L d W e dW Weight
dt    
cT cD cD W c W
Wf e dW
Integrating we obtain t  
Wi c W
Assuming that the Angle of Attack is held constant throughout the flight, e =C L/CD is constant
e Wi e* Wi
t  ln tmax  ln 
1 W
ln i
c Wf c W f 2 c k CD 0 W f
49
The Maximum Endurance for Jet Aircraft occurs for e = e*, CL = CL*, V = V*, D = Dmin.
SOLO
Level Flight
Aircraft Endurance in Level Flight
The Endurance of an Airplane remains in the air and is
usually expressed in hours. Lift
Endurance of Propeller Aircraft in Level Flight

W  c p P  c p D V /  p
Thrust Drag
We have
cp – specific fuel consumption (consumed per unit power Weight
developed by the engine per unit time.

ηp – propulsive efficiency
p dW L W p L 1 dW p 1 dW
dt    e
c p D V cp D V W cp V W
Integrating we obtain
Wf p 1 dW
t   e
Wi cp V W
Assuming that the Angle of Attack is held constant throughout the flight, e =C L/CD is constant
The Endurance of Propeller Aircraft depends on Velocity, therefore we will assume two cases
1. Flight at Constant Altitude
2. Flight with Constant Velocity
50
SOLO
Level Flight
Wf p 1 dW CL
t   e e Lift
Wi cp V W CD
1. Propeller Aircraft Flight at Constant Altitude Thrust Drag
The velocity will change to compensate for the decrease in weight Weight
1 2W
We have W L  S V 2C L V
2  S CL
2 p  CL 3 / 2 
 
 S  1 1 
t 

c p  CD  2  W f Wi 
For Maximum Endurance Propeller Aircraft has to fly at that Angle of Attack such that
(CL3/2/CD) is maximum, which occurs when CL=√3 CL* and V = 0.76 V*.
2 p  1
 27 
  S  1 1 
t max  
c p  4 k 3CD 0 
 2  W f Wi 
51
SOLO
Level Flight
Wf p 1 dW CL
t   e e Lift
Wi cp V W CD
Thrust Drag
2. Propeller Aircraft Flight with Constant Velocity
Weight
p 1 Wi
t e ln
cp V Wf
For Maximum Endurance Propeller Aircraft has to fly at a velocity such that e=(CL/CD) is
maximum, which occurs when CL=CL* and V = V*, which is based on initial weight Wi
1
V* 
2Wi

2Wi
4
k e* 
 S CL *
S CD 0 2 k CD 0
p 1 Wi  p 1 2Wi k W p Wi 1 W
t max  e* ln  4 ln i  4 ln i
cp V *
W f c p 2 k CD 0 S CD 0 W f c p 2 S k CD 0
3
Wf
52
SOLO
Graphical Finding of Maximum Range and
Endurance of Jet Aircraft in Level Flight Lift
Maximum Range
V
R   d x  
Thrust Drag
d
W
c D 0
Weight
V  D
Rmax  max    min  
V
 D V
V
From Figure we can see that min (D/V) is D=TR
obtained by taking the tangent to D

graph that passes through origin.
Slope min(PR/V)
The point of tangency will give D and V
for (D)min.
Maximum Endurance V
1 T D 1 1
t   d W    c D d
W V*
cT 0 0
tmax Bréguet
1
t max  max    min D  Velocities for Maximum Range and Maximum
V
D V Endurance of Propeller Aircraft
From Figure we can see that min (PR) is 53
obtained by taking the PR and V for (PR)min.
SOLO
Graphical Finding of Maximum Range and
Lift
Maximum Range
V p V p V Thrust Drag
R d x   W  
d W  
d dW
c p P 0 c p PR 0 c p D V 0 Weight
V  P 
Rmax  max    min  R   min D
V
 PR  V
V V
From Figure we can see that min (PR/V) PR

is obtained by taking the tangent to PR
graph that passes through origin.
The point of tangency will give PR and V Slope min(PR/V)
for (PR/V)min.
Maximum Endurance
1 p 1 V
t   d
 W   d
 W 0.866 V* V*
c p P 0 c p PR 0 tmax Rmax
 1 
tmax  max    min PR   min D V  Velocities for Maximum Range and Maximum
V
 PR  V V Endurance of Propeller Aircraft
From Figure we can see that min (PR) is 54
obtained by taking the PR and V for (PR)min.
55
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00-80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
56
57
SOLO
Jet Aircraft Flight Envelope Determined by Available Thrust
Flight Envelope: Encompasses all Altitudes
and Airspeeds at which Aircraft can Fly Lift
Thrust Drag
Weight
Required
Thrust Excess Thrust
Flight Ceiling by the provides the ability
Available
available Climb Rate Thrust Thrust
- Absolute 0 ft/min E to accelerate or climb
- Service 100 ft/min
- Performance 200 ft/min
True Airspeed
Required
Absolute Ceiling AvailableThrust
Service Ceiling E C Thrust D
Altitude Performance Ceiling Thrust
C D True Airspeed
Available Changes in Jet Aircraft
Thrust Thrust with Altitude
A B A B
Required
Thrust Thrust
True Airspeed
True Airspeed
Stengel, MAE331, Lecture 7, Gliding, Climbing and Turning Performance

58
SOLO
Propeller Aircraft Ceiling Determined by Available Power
Lift
h0 < h1 <h2 < hcruise PR
h0
Pa, propeller Thrust Drag
h1 Weight
h2
A hcruise
Changes in Propeller Aircraft Power

and Thrust with Altitude
VC
To find graphically the maximum Flight Altitude (Ceiling) for a Propeller Aircraft we use
the PR (Power Required) versus V (Velocity) graph. The maximum Flight Altitude
corresponds to maximum Range Rmax.
We have shown that to find Rmax we draw the Tangent Line to PR Graph, passing trough
the origin.
The intersection point A with PR Graph defines the Ceiling Velocity VC, and the Pa 59
(Available Power – function of Altitude) with this point defines the Ceiling Altitude.
SOLO
Gliding Flight
A Glider is an unpowered airplane.
Quasi-Steady L  W cos   0 L W
  1
Flight D  W sin   0 D W   0
x  V cos 
x  V
h  V sin 
h  V 
W  0
W  const .
Lift and Drag Forces:
1 2W
L  V 2 S CL  W V
2  S CL
1 1
 
D   V 2 S C D   V 2 S C D 0  k C L  W 
2 2
2
D W L D C 1
     D 
W L CL e
60
SOLO
Gliding Flight
We found
D W L D C 1
V
2W      D 
W L CL e
 S CL
Flattest Glide” (γ = γmin) e

1
The Flattest Glide (γ = γmin) is given by: 2 k CL *
Dmin 1
 min     2 k C L  2 k C D 0
*
W emax CL * CL
CD0 CL/CD as a function of CL

CL * 
k
The flight velocity for the Flattest Glide is given by:
1 W k
2W 2W k qG   S VF .G.  *  W  const.
2
VF .G.   V*  4
 S CL* S CD 0 2 CL CD 0
The flight velocity for the Flattest Glide is equal to the reference velocity V* or 61u = 1.
The Flattest Glide is conducted at constant dynamic pressure.
SOLO
Gliding Flight
LIFT to DRAG
RATIO (L/D)max CLEAR CONFIGURATION
L/D
LANDING CONFIGURATION
LIFT COEFFICIENT, CL
LANDING CONFIGURATION
RATE OF
(L/D)max CLEAR CONFIGURATION
SINK
TANGENT TO RATE OF SINK

GRAPH AT THE ORIGIN
VELOCITY
Gliding Performance
62
SOLO
Gliding Flight
Distance Covered with respect to Ground
We have:
dx
V
dt dx V 1 L
   e  
dh
V  dh V  D
dt
Assuming a constant Angle of Attack during Glide, e is constant and the Ground
Range R, to descend from altitude hi to altitude hf is given by:
e d h  e hi  h f   e  h
hf
R : x f  xi    e
hi 1
and h
2 k CL *
Rmax  emax  h 
2 k CD 0
CL * CL
CL/CD as a function of CL
The maximum Ground Range is covered for the Flattest Glide at the reference
63
*
velocity V or u = 1.
SOLO
Gliding Flight
Rate of Sink
Rate of sink is defined as:
D D

dh D V W L 2W CD 2W  CD 
hs    V      
 S CL CL S  C 3/ 2 
dt W V
2W
 S CL
 L 
The term DV = PR represents the Power Required to sustain the Gliding Flight.
Therefore the Rate of Sink is minimum when the Power Required is minimum, or
(CD/CL3/2) is minimum
d  CD  d  CD 0  k CL 2  2 k CL CL
3/ 2

3 1/ 2

CL CD 0  k CL
2
 
4 k CL  3 CD 0  k CL
2

2
k CL  3 CD 0
2
 3/ 2     2   0
 
d CL  CL  d CL  C 3/ 2  3 5/ 2 5/ 2
 L  CL 2 CL 2 CL
Denote by CL,m the value of Lift Coefficient CL for which (CD/CL3/2) is minimum
3 CD 0
CD 0  CD  CD 0  k 3
3 CD 0
C L* 
k  3/ 2   k  4 k CD 0
CL ,m  
* C  3/ 2
3 CL  L  min  3 CD 0  27
k   64
 k 
SOLO
Gliding Flight
Rate of Sink
We found:
 CL 3/ 2 
CD 0
C L* 
1 27
 
 C   4 k 3C
3 CD 0 k
 
*
CL ,m 3 CL
k  D  max D0
3/2
CL
The velocity Vm for glide with minimum e
CL CD
sink rate is given by: CD
2W 2W k
Vm   4
 S C L ,m S 3 CD 0
1  2 W k 
  0 . 76 V *
3   S C D 0 
4
4
 
~ 0.76
V*
*
CL * CL
The minimum sink rate is given by: 3 CL
2W  CD  2 W k 3C D 0
hs , min    
S  C 3/ 2  27  S 65
 L  min
SOLO
Gliding Flight
Endurance
The Endurance is the total time the glider remains in the
air.
dh 2W  CD 
V     
S  C 3/ 2 
dt  L 
dh  S  C L 3 / 2 
dt  
V 2W  
 CD 
Assuming that the Angle of Attack is held constant during
the glide and ignoring the variation in density as function
of altitude, we have
 S  C L 3 / 2   S  C L 3 / 2 
 hi  h f 
hf
t   dh
hi 2W 
 CD  2W 
 C D 
For Maximum Endurance the Glider has to fly at that

Angle of Attack such that (CL3/2/CD) is maximum, which Minimum Flatest
Sink Rate Glide
occurs when CL=√3 CL* and V = 0.76 V*. tmax Rmax
S 27  hi  h f  66
t max  4
3

 

2W k CD 0  4  Return to Table of Content
Start with
T sin   L
n': Total Load Number
W
L
n : Load Factor
W
L q S CL CL
e :   Lift to Drag Ratio
D q S CD CD 0  k CL 2
We assume a Parabolic Drag Polar:
CD  CD0  k CL
2
Let find the maximum of e as a function of CL

 e CD0  k CL  2 k CL CD0  k CL e
2 2 2
  0 1
 CL 
CD0  k CL
2 2

CD0  k CL 
2
 2
2 k CL *
The maximum of e is obtained for
CD0 CL
CL * 
CL *
k
CL/CD as a function of CL
C D *  C D 0  k C L *  C D 0  k
CD0 67
 2 CD0
2
k
L q S CL CL e
e :   1
D q S CD CD 0  k CL 2 2 k CL *
The maximum of e is obtained for

CL * CL
CD0
CL * 
k CL/CD as a function of CL
C D *  C D 0  k C L *  C D 0  k
CD0
 2 CD0
2
k
CD 0
C * k  1 1 1
e*  L   
CD * 2 CD 0 2 k CD 0 2 k 2 C L *2 2 k CL *
1
We have L  q S CL   V 2 S C L  nW
2
 W 2W k
V * : 1  4
  S CL *  S CD 0
 2
Let define for n = 1 
 V
u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
 68


Using those definitions we obtain  2W k

V * :
  S CD 0
 L  q S C L  nW CL * 
  q  q*n u :
V
q * S CL * W CL  V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
1 
q*
V 2 * 1
n 2  2
q 1 u
V 2
q* C *
CL  n CL *  n L2
q u
   2 CL * 
2
D  q S C D 0  k C L  q * S u  C D 0  k n 
2 2
4  CD0 1
 u  q * S CD0  q * S CL * W
CL * 2e*
k C L *2  C D 0
2 2 CD 0   2 n2 
 q * S u  CD0  n 4 
 q * S C D 0  u  2 
 u   u 
Therefore
W  2 n2 
D 
u  u2 

69
2e*   Return to Table of Content
Aircraft Drag
W  2 n2 
We obtained D 
u  u2 

2e*  
Let find the minimum of D as function of u.

u 0 n
D W  n2  W u 4  n2
  2 u  2 3   0 - - - - 0 + + + + +
u 2e*  u  e * u 3 D
u
 u n
2
D ↓ min ↑
nW
Dmin  D u 2  n 
e*  2W k
V * :
  S CD 0
 V
u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V * 70
2

Aircraft Drag
Maximum Load Factor  2W k
V * :
Lh,V    S CD 0
n  nMAX  V
W u :
 V*
W  2 nMAX 
2

u  2 
1
 q* : 2  V *
2
D nn
MAX
2 e *  u  
Maximum Lift Coefficient or Maximum Angle of Attack

C L  , M   C L _ MAX M  or    STALL h,V 
1 
2
D n
e*   u 2  MAX2 

W 2 u 
We have D
e*
q* C * n C L _ MAX W n  nMAX
CL  n C L *  n L2   u C L _ MAX
LIMIT Dmin
q u u CL CL _ MAX CL * LIMIT e*  u 2
W
W  2  C L _ MAX  2 
2
1   C L _ MAX  n
2

1     u2
DC  u    u  2   C L
  
1 n2 
L  C L _ MAX
2e*   C *  
D
e*   u 2  2 
 L W 2 u 
W   C L _ MAX   2
2
 1    u
2 e *   C L *  
u
u  nMAX u  u MAX
 
CL *
uCORNER  nMAX
C L _ MAX
Maximum dynamic pressure limit D

e*
as a function of u
W 71
q   h  V 2  q MAX or V  VMAX h 
1 VMAX
 u : u MAX
2 V*
Energy per unit mass E
V2
Let define Energy per unit mass E: E : h 
2g
Let differentiate this equation:
VV V   T cos   D  T cos   D  V T  D  V
ps : E  h   V sin    g   sin    
g g   W  W W
W  2 n2  
D  u  2  & V  u V * 2W k
2 e *  u  V * :
  S CD 0
 V
T  u :
Define z :   e * 

V*
W  1
q* : 2  V *
2
W  T  1  2 n 2  
  e *   u  2  u V *
We obtain ps 
T  DV

e * W  2 u 

V *  1  2 n 2 
u  z   u  2 
W W e *  2  u 
or
ps 

V *  u 4  2z u 2  n2 
2e* u
u  z  z 2  n 2
1
ps nconst  0  u 4  2z u 2  n2  0  zn
u2  z  z 2  n 2
 ps

   
V *  4u 3  4 z u u   u 4  2 z u 2  n 2 V *  3 u 4  2 z u 2  n 2
 zn
u n const
e* u2 e* u2
u1  u 2
 ps z  z 2  3 n2  u MAX 72
u2
0 u MAX  2
u n const
3
 
ps
V *  u 4  2z u 2  n2 ps as a function of u
ps 
e* u
n 1
n
nMAX
u1 u1  u 2 u MAX u2 u
2
 2W k
ps 

V *  u 4  2z u 2  n2  V * :
  S CD 0
2e* u  V
u :
2 e * ps 2 e * ps  V*
u  u 4  2 z u 2  n 2  n 2  u 4  2 z u 2  u  1
q* : 2  V *
2
V* V*
2 e * ps 
From which n   u 4  2z u 2  u
V*
 
 n2
 4 u 3  4 z u 
2 e * ps
u ps  const
V*
 
2 n2
 12 u 2  4 z  0  u 
z 73
u2 ps  const
3
Load Factor n
 
2 n2
 12 u 2  4 z  0  u 
z  
 2 n2
 u2
u2 ps  const
3
z
u
3
 2W k
V * :
  S CD 0
Integrating once  
 n2
 V
u u :
ps  0  V*
  
ps  0
1
 n2 q* : 2  V *
2
2 e * ps
 4 u 3  4 z u 
u V*
ps  0
u 
p s  const
z z
3
n2 ps  0
Integrating twice ps  0
ps  0
u
2 e * ps
n   u  2z u  4
u 2
z z 2z
V* 3
   
 2 n2  n2 2
, ,n as a function of u 74
u2 u
 2W k
V * :
Load Factor n   S CD 0
 V
For ps = 0 we have u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
n   u 4  2z u 2 0u 2z 
Let find the maximum of n as function of u. u 0 √z √2z

n  4u  4 z u
3
 0 ∂ n/∂u |+ + + 0 - - - - |- -
u 2  u4  2 zu2
n ↑ Max ↓
Therefore the maximum value for n is
achieved for u  z n
n 
ps 0 MAX
z ps  0
nMAX
z ps  0
n as a function of u ps  0
u
CL * z 2z
nMAX
CL_MAX
75
V2
E : h 
2g
Energy Height versus True Airspeed Energy Height versus Mach Number
V
TAS : Vsound h M
T T M :
T0
V
T0 Vsound h 

Equation of Motion for Steady Climb:
W d    C  const.
L  W cos   V 0
g dt L  W cos  C
W dV
T  D  W sin   0
g dt T  D Excess Thrust
sin   
x  V cos  W Weight
h  V sin 
V  T  D  Pa  PR
Define the Rate of Climb: hC  V sin     ps
W W
Lift
where
Pa = V T - available power Thrust
PR = V D - required power
ps - excess power per unit weight
Drag
Weight
77
1
W cos  C   V 2 S CL
2
1

T V   V 3 S CD 0  k CL
2
 1

 1 W 2 cos 2  C


hC  2   T V   V S CD 0  k
3
  ps
W W  2 1
V S  Lift
 
 2 
Thrust
For a Propeller Aircraft we assume that Pa=T V= constant.
 1  1 W 2 cos 2  C  Drag
hC , Prop   Pa   V S CD 0  2 k
3
  ps
W 2  V S  Weight
Let find the velocity V for which the Rate of Climb is maximum, for the Propeller Aircraft:
d hC,Prop d ps 1  3 2 k W 2 cos 2  C 
     V S CD 0 
2
  0
dt d t W  2 V 2 S 
or 1 2W k 1
VClimb.Prop  4  4 V *  0.76 V *
4
3 S CD 0 3
We can see that the velocity at which the Rate of Climb of Propeller Aircraft is maximum
is the same as the velocity at which the Required Power in Level Flight is maximum.78
1
W cos  C   V 2 S CL
2
1

T V   V 3 S CD 0  k CL
2
 1

 1 W 2 cos 2  C


hC  2   T V   V S CD 0  k
3

W W  2 1
V S 
 
 2 
For a Jet Aircraft we assume that T = constant.
Let find the velocity V for which the Rate of Climb is maximum, for the Jet Aircraft:
d hC 1  3 2 k W 2 cos 2  C 
  T   V S CD 0 
2
  0
d t W  2 V 2 S 
*
Define V 2W k C CD 0 T e* T 2
u : , V * : 4 e : L * , CL * 
*
, CD *  2 CD 0 z : 
V* S CD 0 CD k W W k CD 0
2W k
S
2 z u 2  cos 2  C  0
2

2 V CD 0 4
T 3  2
cos 2  C  0 3 u
W k CD 0 2W k V
 
2z  S CD 0 1/ u 2
79
 u  z  z 2  3 cos 2  C
u2
W dV
T  D  W sin   0
g dt
Define
*
V 2W k C
u : , V * : 4 e : L * ,
*
V* S CD 0 CD
CD 0 T e* T 2
CL *  , CD *  2 CD 0 z : 
k W W k CD 0
ps versus the nondimensional velocity u
W  2 n2 
D  u  2 
2e*  u  n1
T  D ps 1   2 1 
sin     * 2 z   u  u 2 
W V 2e   
To find the maximum γ we must have

d sin  1  2
  *  2u  3   0
du 2e  u 
u max  1 V max  V * 
2W
4
k
S CD 0
ps versus the velocity V
ps , max 

V *  u  2z u  n
4 2 2
 
V*
z  1 sin  max 
ps , max

z 1
2e* u n 1 e* V max e* 80
u 1
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Specific Excess Power contours ps
ps : E  h   V sin    g   sin    
g g  W  W W
Construction of the Specific Excess Power contours ps in the
Altitude-Mach Number map for a Subsonic Aircraft below the
Drag-divergence Mach Number.
These contour are constructed for a fixed load factor W/S and
Thrust factor T/S, if the load or thrust factor change, the ps
contours will shift.
In Figure (a) is a graph of Specific Excess Power contours ps
versus Mach Number. Each curve is for a specific altitude h.
In Figure (b) each curve is for a given Specific Excess Power ps
in Altitude versus Mach Number coordinates.
The points a, b, c, d, e, f for ps = 0 in Figure (a) are plotted on
the curve for ps = 0 in Figure (b).
Similarly all points ps = 200 ft/sec in Figure (a) on the line AB
are projected on the curve ps = 200 ft/sec in Figure (b).
Specific Excess Power

contours ps for a Subsonic
Aircraft 81
Specific Excess Power contours ps
  VV V   T cos   D  T cos   D  V T  D  V

ps : E  h   V sin    g   sin    
g g  W  W W
In the graphs of Specific Excess

Power ps versus Mach Number
Figure (a) for a Supersonic
Aircraft we see a “dent” in h
1 8
contour in the Transonic
Region. This is due to the
3 4 5 6
5
6 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 increase in Drag in this region.
In Figure (b) the graphs of

4 7 8
2 2 3 4 7 7
1 2 3 Altitude versus Mach Number
we see a “closed” ps = 400 ft/sec
8 8 8
contour due to the increase in
1 1 1
Drag in this Transonic Region.
Specific Excess Power contours ps for a Supersonic Aircraft

82
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
V2
We defined the Energy per unit mass E (Specific Energy): E : h 
2g
Differentiate this equation:
d E  VV V   T cos   D  T cos   D  V T  D  V
ps :  h  V sin    g   sin    
dt g g   W  W W
Minimum Time-to-Climb
The time to reach a given Energy Height Ef is computed as follows
dE Ef dE
dt  tf  
E E0 E
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E  
max
at each level.
Ef dE
t f ,max  
E0 E max
83
ps : E  h   V sin    g   sin    
g g  W  W W
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E max
at
each level.
Minimum Time Climb Profiles for Subsonic Speed Stengel, MAE331, Lecture 7, Gliding,
Climbing and Turning Performance
Energy can be converted from potential to kinetic or vice versa along lines of constant
energy in zero time with zero fuel expended. This is physically not possible so the 84
method gives only an approximation of real paths.
SOLO
ps : E  h   V sin    g   sin    
g g  W  W W
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using
each level.
E max
at
Stengel, MAE331, Lecture 7, Gliding,

Climbing and Turning Performance
The optimum flight profile for the fastest time to altitude or time to speed involves climbing to
 
maximal altitude at subsonic speed, then diving in order to get through the transonic speed
range as quickly as possible, and than climbing at supersonic speeds again using E max .
85
Minimum Time Climb Profiles for Supersonic Speed
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E 
max
at
each level .
Minimum Time Climb Profiles
Shaw, “Fighter Combats – Tactics and Maneuvering” 86

The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E max at
each level.
Approximate (ESA) Solutions.
Implicit to ESA Approximation

is the possibility of
instantaneous jump between
kinetic to potential energy
A
(from A to B ).
B This non physical situation is
called a “zoom climb” or
“zoom dive”.
A.E. Bryson, Course “Performance Analysis of Flight Vehicles”, AA200, Stanford University, Winter 1977-1978
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “Energy-State Approximation in Performance Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.6,
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
87
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E max
at
each level.
Comparison between
“Exact” and Approximate
(ESA) Solutions.
“Exact” calculated using

D Optimization Methods
Computations
Implicit to ESA
Approximation is the
possibility of instantaneous
A C jump between kinetic to
potential energy (from
B A to B , and from C to D).
This non physical situation
is called a “zoom climb”
or “zoom dive”. We can see
the “exact” solution in
those cases.
A.E. Bryson, Course “Performance Analysis of Flight Vehicles”, AA200, Stanford University, Winter 1977-1978
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
88
F-15 Streak Eagle Time to Climb Records, which follow the ideal path to reach set altitudes in a
minimal amount of time. The Streak Eagle could break the sound barrier in a vertical climb, so
the ideal flightpath to 30000m involved a large Immelmann.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLka4GoUbLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7YAN9--3MA
F-15 Streak Eagle Record Flights part 1 F-15 Streak Eagle Record Flights part 2
http://msflights.net/forum/showthread.php?1184-Supersonic-Level-Flight-Envelopes-in-FSX 89
F-15 Streak Eagle Time to Climb Records, which follow the ideal path to reach set altitudes in a
minimal amount of time. The Streak Eagle could break the sound barrier in a vertical climb, so
the ideal flightpath to 30000m involved a large Immelmann.
How to climb as fast as possible Return to Table of Content
Takeoff and pull up: You want to build energy (kinetic or potential) as quickly as you
can. Peak acceleration is at mach 0.9, which is the speed that energy is gained the
fastest. You should first accelerate to near that speed. Avoid bleeding off energy in a
high-g pull up. Start a smooth pull up before at mach 0.7-0.8 and accelerate to mach
0.9 during the pull.
Climb: Adjust your climb angle to maintain mach 0.9. In a modern fighter, the climb angle
may be 45-60 degrees. If you need a heading change, during the pull and climb is a good time
to make it.
Level off: between 25000 and 36000ft by rolling inverted. Maximum speed is reached at
36000, but remember the engines produce more thrust at higher KIAS, so slightly denser air
may not hurt acceleration through the sound barrier.
Break the mach barrier: Accelerate to mach 1.25 with minimal wing loading (don't turn, try to
set 0AoA)
Climb again: to 36000ft for maximum speed, or higher as to not exceed design limits or
to save fuel for a longer run 90
http://msflights.net/forum/showthread.php?1184-Supersonic-Level-Flight-Envelopes-in-FSX
Minimum Fuel-to- Climb Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)

The Rate of Fuel consumed by the Aircraft is given by:
df d W c p P Propeller Aircraft
 
dt d t cT T Jet Aircraft
dE WdE
We can write dt  
E V T  D 
The fuel consumed in a flight time , tf for a Jet Aircraft is:
tf d f tf dE tf cTW
ff   d t   cT T  dE
0 dt 0 
E 0 V 1  D / T 
The minimum fuel consumed in a flight time tf is obtained when using
Maximum Thrust and the Mach Number that minimize the integrand:
tf cT W
f f ,min  arg min
M 
0 V 1  D / Tmax 
dE
for each level of E.

91
Minimum Fuel-to- Climb Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)

Assuming W nearly constant, during the climb period, contours of constant
V Tmax  D 
can be computed, as we see in the Figure
cT Tmax
The Minimum Fuel-to- Climb

Trajectory is obtained by choosing
V Tmax  D 
cT Tmax at each state.
The Minimum Time-to- Climb

A
Path is also displayed.
B Implicit to ESA Approximation is the

possibility of instantaneous jump
between kinetic to potential energy
(from A to B) where the Total Energy
is constant.
A.E. Bryson, Course “Performance Analysis of Flight Vehicles”, AA200, Stanford University, Winter 1977-1978 92
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
Maximum Range during Glide using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
Equations of motion
W d
V  L  W cos   0
g dt
W  T  D V
V  T  D  W sin  sin   
g W g d h h h  T  D V  1
x  V cos     
d x x V cos   W
 
g  cos 
h  V sin   T  D V 
h  V   
 W g
1
E : h  V 2
2 d E T  D  1

ps : E 
T  D  V 
dx W V cos 
W
dh  D V 
During Glide we have: T = 0, W = constant, dE≤0, |γ| <<1, therefore    
dx  W g
dE D E  V D E  V
 
L E 
L E 
dt W
dx W L E  W
  R   d x   d E   dE
D E  D E  D E  D E 
dx
V dE
dt
93
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
Climbing Aircraft Performance Return to Table of Content

Maximum Range during Glide using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
W L E 
We found R   d E   dE
D E  D E 
Using the first integral we see that to maximize R we must choose the path that
minimizes the drag D (E). The approximate optimal trajectory can be divided in:
1. If the initial conditions are not on the maximum range glide path the Aircraft
shall either “zoom dive” or “zoom climb” at constant E0, A to B path in Figure .
2. The Aircraft will dive on the min D (E)
until it reaches the altitude h = 0 at a
velocity V and Specific Energy E1=V2/2,
B to C in the Figure.
3. Since h=0 no optimization is possible and
to stay airborne one must keep the drag
such that L = W, by increasing the Angle of
Attack and decreasing velocity until it
reaches Vstall and Es=Vstall2/2, C to D in Figure
Since h=0, d E=V dV.
E0 W E1 W Es WV
Rmax    d E d E dV
E0 D  E  E0 D  E E1 D V 
  min h  0
0 on path1
94
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
 g
 r  sin  cos 

W
V

qW  T sin   L  g cos  cos 

 mV V
T sin   L L
n' :  n
W W
Therefore
 g
 W V sin  cos 
r 

q  g n' cos  cos  
 W V
g
  rW 2  qW 2  sin 2  cos 2   n'2 2 n' cos  cos   cos 2  cos 2 
V
or
g
 n'2 2 n' cos  cos   cos 2 
V
V2V 1
R 
 g n'2 2 n' cos  cos   cos 2  95
 
T sin   L cos   g cos  
g
n' cos   cos  
mV V V
 
T sin   L  sin   g sin 
cos  V cos 
1. Vertical Plan Trajectory (σ = 0)
  0
 
g
n'  cos  
V
V2 1
R
g n'  cos 
2. Horizontal Plan Trajectory    0,   0 
 
g
n' cos   1  0  n'  1
V cos 
2
g g 1 g
  n' sin   n' 1     n'2 1
V V  n'  V
V2 1
R
g n'2 1 96
97
SOLO
Vertical Plan Trajectory (σ = 0)
Prof. Earll Murman, “Introduction to Aircraft Performance and Static Stability”, September 18, 2003
98
SOLO Horizontal Plan Trajectory
g
  n'2 1  :
V
V R
Contours of Constant n and Contours of Constant Turn Radius 99

in Turn-Rate in Horizontal Plan versus Mach coordinates
Horizontal Plan Trajectory
V
 :
g R
  n'2 1
V
Maneuverability Diagram 100

Horizontal Plan Trajectory
F-5E Turn Performance

101
We can see that for n > 1
g g
  n' 2 1  n2 1 Horizontal Turn Rate
V V
V2 1 V2 1
R  Horizontal Turn Radius
g n' 2 1 g n 2  1  2W k
V * :
  S CD 0
CL * CL 2 
CL  n  n u V
We found that u2 CL * u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
n CL

nMAX C L _ MAX
nMAX
CL _ MAX n2 nMAX
C L2 C CL  CL *
L1 n1 u2
CL1
n u2 u
CL * u
CL * CL * CL CL *
ucorner nMAX nMAX n1 ucorner  nMAX
CL_MAX CL1 C L _ MAX C L _ MAX
102
n, CL as a function of u
V C
We defined u : & n  L u2
V* CL *
2
g g g  CL  2 1
  n2 1  n2 1    u  2
We found V uV * V *  CL *  u
This is defined for CL * CL *

u corner  n MAX  u  : u1  1
C L _ MAX C L _ MAX
 2W k
 V * :
  S CD 0
g CL_MAXnMAX 1 
2
V
V* CL * nMAX u :
C L _ MAX  V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2

C L2
nMAX
C L1
n2
n1 u
u MAX
g CL * g CL *
u1  ucorner nMAX
V* CL_MAX V* CL_MAX
103
Horizontal Turn Rate 
 as function of u, with n and CL as parameters
2. Horizontal Plan Trajectory    0,   0  
2
From g g g  CL  2 1
  n 2 1  n 2 1    u  2
V uV * V*  L 
C * u
V V *2 u2 V *2 1
R :  
 g n2 1 g  CL 
2
1
   4
 CL *  u  2W k
Therefore V * :
  S CD 0
 V
RC 
V *2 1
u1 
CL *
u
CL *
nMAX  ucorner u :
 V*
L _ MAX
g  C L _ MAX 
2 C L _ MAX C L _ MAX
1  1
   4 q* : 2  V *
2
 CL *  u 
V *2 u2 CL *
Rn  u nMAX  ucorner
g nMAX  1 C L _ MAX
MAX 2
V *2 1 CL * CL *
RC  u1  u nMAX
L
g  CL 
2 CL CL
1
   4
 CL *  u
V *2 u2 CL *
Rn  u n 104
g n2 1 C L _ MAX
C L2 C L1 n2
 2W k
C L _ MAX n1 V * :
  S CD 0
nMAX  V
u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
V *2 C L * nMAX
u 
g C L _ MAX nMAX  1
2
g CL * g CL *
u1  ucorner nMAX
V* CL_MAX V* CL_MAX
R (Radius of Turn) a function of u, with n and CL as parameters

V V *2 u2 V *2 1
R :  
 g n2 1 g  CL 
2

1
  4 105
 CL *  u Return to Table of Content
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of ps, n
V *  u  2 z u  n 
4 2 2
p s
2e* u
2e*
n 2  u 4  2 z u 2  ps u
V*
2e*
 u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1
g n 1 2
g V*
  2

V* u V* u2
 2W k
V * :
 2e*  2  2e*    S CD 0
  4 u  4z u  ps  u  2 u   u 4  2 z u 2  p s u  1
3
 V*   V*   V
  g u 4 u :
  V*
u V * 2e*  1
 u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1 q* : 2  V *
2
2 V * 
u2
Therefore e*
 u4  ps u  1
  g V*

u V *  2e* 
u 4   u 4  2z u 2  p s u  1
 V* 
For ps = 0
g  u 4  2z u 2  1
 ps 0
 u1  z  z 2  1  u  z  z 2  1  u 2
V* u2
  g  u4 1 106
 u1  z  z 2  1  u  z  z 2  1  u 2
u ps 0
V* 
u 4  u 4  2z u 2 1 
For ps = 0
g  u 4  2z u 2  1
 ps 0
 u1  z  z 2  1  u  z  z 2  1  u 2
V* u2
  g  u4 1
 u1  z  z 2  1  u  z  z 2  1  u 2
u ps 0
V* 4

u  u  2z u 1
4 2
  2W k
V * :
  S CD 0
Let find the maximum of  as a function of u  V
u :
 V*
 1
  g  u4 1  q* :  V *2

   2
u ps 0
V* u 4  u 4  2z u 2 1
 
u 0 u1 1 (u1+u2)/2 u2
u
  u  1 p 0 2  z  1
g
 MAX 
ps  0 s
V*  ∞ + + 0 - - - - - - -∞
From ↑ Max ↓
e*
 u4  ps u  1
  g V*
 u 4  2z u 2 
2e*
ps u  1 
g V* u V *  2e* 
  u 4   u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1
V* u2  V* 
107
e*
Because u0 ,we have
V*
 ps 0
  p 0   p 0
s s
     
 0
u u 1 u u 1 u u 1
ps 0 ps 0 ps 0  2W k
V * :
    S CD 0

u V
u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
ps  0 u 
ps  0 ps  0
e*
 u4  ps u  1
  g V*

u V *  2e* 
u 4   u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1
 ps  0  V* 
ps  0 2e*
g
2  z  1  u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1
g V*
V*  
V* u2
ps  0
 
 , as a function of u with ps as
u u
parameter
u1 u 1 108
u2
  u 4  2z u 2 
2e*
ps u  1
g C L _ MAX 2
n MAX 1  
g V*  2W k
V* * V* u2 V * :
 S CD 0
C L n MAX

C L _ MAX g 2
nMAX 1  V
ps  0
V *u u :
LIMIT nMAX
 V*
LIMIT
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
2  z  1
g
V* ps  0 Instantaneous 
Turn
 C L _ MAX
2
 2 2e*
 u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1
g 1
  u  2
V*  CL
*
 u
Sustained g V*
ps  0 Turn  
V* u2
u
CL*
u1 u1 u 2  a function of u, with ps
CL _ MAX CL*
nMAX
as parameter
CL_MAX
109

2e*
 u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1
g V*
 
V* u2
 2W k
V V *2
R 
u4
u1  p s   u  u 2  p s  V * :
 g 2e*   S CD 0
 u  2z u 
4 2
ps u  1 
V* V
u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
 2e*   2e* 

4 u 3   u 4  2z u 2  p s u  1  u 4   4 u 3  4 z u  ps 
 V*   V* 
2
 4 2e* 
  u  2z u  p s u  1
2
R V * 2
 V* 

u g u4
2
2e*
 u 4  2z u 2  ps u  1
V*
 3e * 
2 u 3  2z u 2  ps u  2 
 
2
V* V*

g 3
2  2e* 
2 u   u  2z u 
4 2
p s u  1
 V*  110
or
 3e * 
u  2z u 2  ps u  2 
R V * 2
 V* 

u g  4 2e* 
3
  u  2z u  p s u  1
2
 2W k
 V*  V * :
  S CD 0
We have  V
u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
 3e *  e* 
2

 ps u  9  p s   16 z
 V* V * 
u R1  0
u 0 u1 uR2 u2
R  4z
0  
u  R ∞ - - -0 + +∞
2
3e *  e* 
 ps u  9  p s   16 z
u  V *  V *  u
0
 R2
4z
R ↓ min ↑
V *2 u4
R p 0  u1  z  z 2  1  u  z  z 2  1  u 2
s
g  u 4  2z u 2 1
R

2V *2 
u z u 2 1  u1  z  z 2  1  u  z  z 2  1  u 2
u ps 0
g  u 4

 2z u 2  1
3
111
Minimum Radius of Turn R is obtained for u  1/ z
2
V* 1
R p 0 
s
g z 2 1
e* R R  u Rmin  u Rmin
Because u0 ,we have R ps 0 ps 0 ps 0
u Rmin
ps 0 ps 0 ps 0
V*
V *2 u4  2W k
R V * :
g  u 4  2z u 2 
2e*
ps u  1   S CD 0
R V*  V
u :
 V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
V* 1

g  CL * 
2
   14 nMAX
C  u ps  0
 L _ MAX  LIMIT
ps  0 V V *2 u4
R 
C L _ MAX
ps  0  g  u 4  2z u 2 
2e*
ps u  1
V* 1 LIMIT V*
z 2 1
u1  ps   u  u 2  ps 
g
V *2 u2
g nMAX  1
2
V * CL * nMAX
g C L _ MAX nMAX  1
2
u R (Radius of Turn) a function

of u, with ps as parameter
CL * 1
CL *
C L _ MAX z nMAX
C L _ MAX
z  z 2 1 z  z 2 1
112
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of V , n
VV T  D  V
p s : E  h  
g W
For an horizontal turn h  0

VV u V * 
ps   V
g g
 2W k
V * :
2e*   S CD 0
 u4  2 zu2  ps u  1
We found g V* 
  u :
V
V* u2  V*
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
 V  
 u 4  2  z  e * u 2  1
from which  
g  g 
2
V* u
defined for
2 2
 V   V   V   V 
u1 :  z  e * 
  z  e *  1  u   z  e *   z  e *  1 : u 2
 g   g   g   g 
113

Let compute
  V   2  4  V  2 
  4 u 3
 4 
 z  e * 
 
u u  2 u   u  2 
 z  e * u  1
  g     g  
  g u 4

u V *  V  2
 u  2  z  e * u  1
4

 g  2W k
2 V * :
2
  S CD 0
u
 V
u :
 V*
or  1
q* : 2  V *
2

  g  u4 1

u V *   V   u 0 u1 1 (u1+u2)/2 u2
u 4  u 4  2  z  e * u 2  1
  g   ∞ + + 0 - - - - - - -∞
 
u
 ↑ Max ↓
g  V 
 MAX  2  z  e * 1
V*  g 
114
  V 
 u 4  2 z  e * u 2  1
g CL_ MAX nMAX 1
2
 
g  g 
V * CL * nMAX V* u2
g
nMAX  1
2
C L _ MAX V  0  2W k
V *u V * :
LIMIT n MAX   S CD 0
V  0 
2 z  1
g V
LIMIT u :
V* V*
V  0 
 1
q* : 2  V *
2
2
 CL _ MAX  2 1 
g
  u  2
V*  L 
C * u
 as function of u
u and V as parameter
u1 u 1 u2
CL *
CL *
C L _ MAX nMAX Return to Table of Content
CL _ MAX
115
SOLO
Example of Horizontal Turn, versus Mach, Performance of an Aircraft
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?69698-Canards-and-the-4-Gen-aircraft/page11 116
SOLO
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98497
Mirage 2000 at 15000ft.
9G Vc (Max instant.
Rate) is around
0.65M/320KCAS
looking at 23.5 deg
sec
Max sustained rate

(at around 6.5G on
the 0 Ps line)
occurring at around
0.9M/450KCAS
looking at around
12.5 deg sec
117
Example of Horizontal Turn, versus Mach, Performance of MiG-21
http://n631s.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/book-review-boyd-fighter-pilot-who.html 118
SOLO
Comparison of Sustained ( V  0 ) Turn Performance of three Fightry Aircrafts

F-16, F-4 and MiG-21 at Altitude h = 11 km = 36000 ft 119
SOLO
120
SOLO
F-4
The black lines are the F-4D, the dark orange

lines are the heavy F-4E, and the blue lines are
the lightweight F-4E (same weight as F-4D). Up
to low transonic mach numbers and up to
medium altitudes, the F-4E is about 7% better
than the F-4D (15% better with the same weight).
At higher mach numbers, the F-4 doesn't have to
pull as much AoA to get the same lift, so the slats
actually cause a drag penalty that allows the F-
4D to perform better. For reference, the F-14 is
known to turn about 20% better than the
unslatted F-4J. So, if the slats made the F-4S
turn about 15% better, sustained turn rates would
almost be pretty close between the F-14 and F-4S.
The F-4E, being heavier, would still be
significantly under the F-14. However, with
numbers this close, pilot quality is everything
rather than precise performance figures.
http://combatace.com/topic/71161-beating-a-dead-horse-us-fighter-turn-performance/ 121
SOLO
F-4
F-15
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/62863-comparing-fighter-performance-same- 122
generations-important-factor-war-2.html
SOLO
Return to Table of Content 123

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/print.main?id=153429
SOLO
Typical Maneuvering Envelope

V – n Diagram
n Structural
Load Limit
Maneuvering Envelope:
Corner Speed Structural
Limits on Normal Load Factor and
Limit
Maximum Allowable Equivalent Airspeed
Operational
Positive Load Limit - Structural Factor
Capability Area of - Maximum and Minimum
(CL) max Structural allowable Lift Coefficient
Load Factor - n
Limit Damage of
Airspeed
- Maximum and Minimum
Failure
Airspeeds
Vmin - Corner Velocity: Intersection of
V Maximum Lift Coefficient and
Operational
Maximum Load Limit
Maximum Load Factor
Negative Structural
Capability Limit
(CL) min Structural
Load Limit
124

V – n Diagram
125
SOLO
R.W. Pratt, Ed., “Flight Control Systems, Practical issues in design and implementation”,
126
AIAA Publication, 2000 Return to Table of Content
SOLO Air-to-Air Combat
See S. Hermelin, “Air Combat”, Presentation, http://www.solohermelin.com
Destroy Enemy Aircraft to achieve Air Supremacy in order to prevent the enemy
to perform their missions and enable to achieve tactical goals.
127
Air-to-Air Combat
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/110779-taktik-ve-manevralar-
hakk%C4%B1ndaki-e%C4%9Fitim-g%C3%B6rselleri-oz/page-2
Before the introduction of all-aspect Air-to-Air Missiles destroying an Enemy Aircraft was
effective only from the tail zone of the Enemy Aircraft, so the pilots had to maneuver to reach
this position, for the minimum time necessary to activate the guns or launch a Missile. 128
SOLO
Energy–Maneuverability Theory
Energy–maneuverability theory is a model of aircraft performance. It was

promulgated by Col. John Boyd, and is useful in describing an aircraft's
performance as the total of kinetic and potential energies or aircraft specific
energy. It relates the thrust, weight, drag, wing area, and other flight
characteristics of an aircraft into a quantitative model. This allows combat
capabilities of various aircraft or prospective design trade-offs to be predicted and
compared.
Boyd, a skilled U.S. jet fighter pilot in the Korean War, began
developing the theory in the early 1960s. He teamed with
mathematician Thomas Christie at Eglin Air Force Base to
use the base's high-speed computer to compare the
performance envelopes of U.S. and Soviet aircraft from the
Korean and Vietnam Wars. They completed a two-volume
report on their studies in 1964. Energy Maneuverability came
to be accepted within the U.S. Air Force and brought about
improvements in the requirements for the F-15 Eagle and
later the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters Colonel John Richard Boyd
(1927 –1997)
129
130
F-4E
MiG-21
Turning Capability Comparison of F4E and MiG21 at Sea Level

131
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?96201-fighter-maneuverability-comparison
SOLO
http://www.aviationforum.org/military-aviation/16335-fighter-maneuverability-comparison.html
MiG-21
132
F4 _Phantom versus MIG 21
133
134
135
SOLO
Energy Management
In combat, a pilot is faced with a variety of limiting factors. Some limitations are
constant, such as gravity, drag, and thrust-to-weight ratio. Other limitations vary
with speed and altitude, such as turn radius, turn rate, and the specific energy of
the aircraft. The fighter pilot uses Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) to turn these
limitations into tactical advantages. A faster, heavier aircraft may not be able to
evade a more maneuverable aircraft in a turning battle, but can often choose to
break off the fight and escape by diving or using its thrust to provide a speed
advantage. A lighter, more maneuverable aircraft can not usually choose to
escape, but must use its smaller turning radius at higher speeds to evade the
attacker's guns, and to try to circle around behind the attacker.[13]
BFM are a constant series of trade-offs between these limitations to conserve
the specific energy state of the aircraft. Even if there is no great difference
between the energy states of combating aircraft, there will be as soon as the
attacker accelerates to catch up with the defender. Instead of applying thrust, a
pilot may use gravity to provide a sudden increase in kinetic energy (speed), by
diving, at a cost in the potential energy that was stored in the form of altitude.
Similarly, by climbing the pilot can use gravity to provide a decrease in speed,
conserving the aircraft's kinetic energy by changing it into altitude. This can help
an attacker to prevent an overshoot, while keeping the energy available in case
136
one does occur
SOLO
Energy Management
Colonel J. R. Boyd:
In an air-to-air battle offensive maneuvering advantage will belong to the pilot who
can enter an engagement at a higher energy level and maintain more energy than his
opponent while locked into a maneuver and counter-maneuver duel. Maneuvering
advantage will also belong to the pilot who enters an air-to-air battle at a lower energy
level, but can gain more energy than his opponent during the course of the battle, From a
performance standpoint, such an advantage is clear because the pilot with the most energy
has a better opportunity to engage or disengage at his own choosing. On the other hand,
energy-loss maneuvers can be employed defensively to nullify an attack or to gain a
temporary offensive maneuvering position.
“New Conception for Air-to-Air Combat”, J. Boyd, 4 Aug. 1976

137
http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/fast_transients.pdf
SOLO
F-16
http://www.alr-aerospace.ch/Performance_Mission_Analysis.php
138
SOLO
139
Comparative Ps Diagram for Aircraft A and Aircraft B. Two Multi-Role Jet Fighters
Comparison of Turn Performance of two WWII Fighter Aircraft:
Russian Lavockin La5 vs German Messershmitt Bf 109
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5 140
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
SOLO
Comparison of Turn Performance of two WWII Fighter Aircraft:
Russian Lavockin La5 vs German Messershmitt Bf 109
141
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5
SOLO
North American
F-86 Sabre
MiG-15
142
F-86F Sabre and MiG-15 performance comparison
SOLO
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?47529-MiG-29-kontra-F-16-(aerodynamics-)
F-16 FulcrumMiG-29
Falcon F-16C versus Fulcrum MIG 29, 143

left is w/o afterburner, right is with it, fuel reserves 50%
Comparison of Turn Performance of two Modern Fighter Aircraft:
Russian MiG-29 vs USA F-16
F-16
FulcrumMiG-29
http://www.evac-fr.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t984.html 144
F-16
FulcrumMiG-29
http://www.evac-fr.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t984.html
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_012a.html 145
F-16
Fulcrum MiG-29
146
F-16
MiG-29
While the turn radius of both aircraft is very similar, the MiG-29
has gained a significant angular advantage.
147
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117e.html
F-16
MiG-29
With afterburner, fuel reserves 50%
Without afterburner, fuel reserves 50%
148
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=30263
149
David T. Johnson, “Evaluation of Energy Maneuverability Procedures

in Aircraft Flight Path Optimization and Performance Estimation”,
November 1972, AFFDL-TR-72-53
An assessment is made of the applicability of Energy Maneuverability techniques (EM)
to flight path optimization. A series of minimum time and fuel maneuvers using the F-4C
aircraft were established to progressively violate the assumptions inherent in the EM program
and comparisons were made with the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory's (AFFDL)
Three-Degree-of-Freedom Trajectory Optimization Program and a point mass option of the
Six-Degree-of-Freedom flight path program. It was found the EM results were always optimistic
in the value of the payoff functions with the optimism increasing as the percentage
of the maneuver involving constant energy transitions Increases. For the minimum time
paths the resulting optimism was less than 27%f1o r the maneuvers where the constant energy
percentage was less than 35.',", followed by a rather steeply rising curve approaching in the
limit 100% error for paths which are comprised entirely of constant energy transitions. Two
new extensions are developed in the report; the first is a varying throttle technique for use
on minimum fuel paths and the second a turning analysis that can be applied in conjunction
with a Rutowski path. Both extensions were applied to F-4C maneuvers in conjunction with
'Rutowski’s paths generated from the Air Force Armament Laboratory's Energy Maneuverability
program. The study findings are that energy methods offer a tool especially useful in
the early stages of preliminary design and functional performance studies where rapid
results with reasonable accuracy are adequate. If the analyst uses good judgment in its applications
to maneuvers the results provide a good qualitative insight for comparative purposes.
The paths should not, however, be used as a source of maneuver design or flight
schedule without verification especially on relatively dynamic maneuvers where the accuracy
and optimality of the method decreases. 150
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
151
152
Typical Ps Plot for Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
SOLO
153
F-104 Flight Envelope
F-104A flight envelope 154

SOLO
http://defence.pk/threads/design-characteristics-of-canard-non-canard-fighters.178592/
155
SOLO
http://defence.pk/threads/design-characteristics-of-canard-non-canard-fighters.178592/
156
SOLO
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4146/image4u.jpg
157
SOLO
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rbi-blogs/wp-content/uploads/mt/flightglobalweb/blogs/the-
dewline/assets_c/2011/05/chart%20combat%20radius-thumb-500x375-125731.jpg
158
SOLO
Supermaneuverability
Supermaneuverability is defined as the ability of an aircraft to perform high

alpha maneuvers that are impossible for most aircraft is evidence of the
aircraft's supermaneuverability. Such maneuvers include Pugachev's Cobra
and the Herbst maneuver (also known as the "J-turn").
Some aircraft are capable of performing Pugachev's Cobra without the aid
of features that normally provide post-stall maneuvering such as thrust
vectoring. Advanced fourth generation fighters such as the Su-27, MiG-29
along with their variants have been documented as capable of performing
this maneuver using normal, non-thrust vectoring engines. The ability of
these aircraft to perform this maneuver is based in inherent instability like
that of the F-16; the MiG-29 and Su-27 families of jets are designed for
desirable post-stall behavior. Thus, when performing a maneuver like
Pugachev's Cobra the aircraft will stall as the nose pitches up and the
airflow over the wing becomes separated, but naturally nose down even from
a partially inverted position, allowing the pilot to recover complete control.
159
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermaneuverability
SOLO
160
SOLO
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
161
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html
SOLO
Herbst Maneuver
The Herbst maneuver or "J-Turn" named after Wolfgang Herbst is the only thrust
vector post stall maneuver that can be used in actual combat but very few air frames
can sustain the stress of this violent maneuver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbst_maneuver 162
Constraint Analysis
The Performance Requirements can be translated

into functional relationship between the Thrust-to-
Weight or Thrust Loading at Sea Level Takeoff
(TSL/WTO) and the Wing Loading at Takeoff (WTO/S).
The keys to the development are
• Reasonable assumption hor Aircraft Lift-to-Drag
Polar.
• The low sensibility of Engine Thrust with Flight
Altitude and Mach Number.
The minimum of TSL/WTO as functions of WTO/S are required for:

• Takeoff from a Runway of a specified length.
• Flight at a given Altitude and Required Speed.
• Climb at a Required Speed.
• Turn at a given Altitude, Speed and a required Rate.
• Acceleration capability at constant Altitude.
• Landing without reverse Thrust on a Runway of a given length. 163
Constraint Analysis
V2
Let define Energy per unit mass E: E : h 
2g
Let differentiate this equation:
ps : E  h   V sin    g   sin    
g g  W  W W
define
T h   hT h  0   TSL TSL – Sea Level Thrust
W   WTO 0   1 WTO – Take-off Weight
T D p TSL   D ps 
  s    
W W V WTO   W V 
L q S CL
n :  Load Factor
W W
n n
CL  W  WTO
qS qS 164
Constraint Analysis
W W – Aircraft Weight during Flight

 : 0   1
WTO WTO – Take-off Weight
165
General Mission Description of a Typical Fighter Aircraft
Constraint Analysis
n n
CL  W  WTO
qS qS
D  R  q S CD  q S CR Total Drag
D, CD - Clean Aircraft Drag and Drag Coefficient

R, CR – Additional Aircraft Drag and Additional Drag Coefficient caused by
External Stores, Bracking Parachute, Flaps, External Hardware
TSL   q S 
  CD  CR   ps 
WTO    WTO V 
Assume a General Lift-to-Drag Polar Relationship
2
 n  WTO   n  WTO 
CD  K1CL  K 2CL  CD 0  K1    K 2    CD 0
2
 q S   q S 
TSL   q S   n  W 2  n  WTO   p 
   K1  TO
  K 2    C D 0  C DR   s 
WTO    WTO   q S   q S   V 

166
Constraint Analysis
Case 1: Constant Altitude/Speed Cruise (ps = 0)
Given:
dh
 0,
dV
 0, n  1, L  W  Lift
dt dt
We obtain: Thrust Drag
 
TSL     WTO  CD 0  CDR 

Weight
  1
K    K  
WTO   q S 
2
  WTO  
 

 q  S  

We can see that TSL/WTO → ∞ for WTO/S → 0 and WTO/S→∞, therefore

a minimum exist. By differentiating TSL/WTO with respect to WTO/S and
setting the result equal to zero, we obtain:
 WTO  q CD 0  CDR
  
 S  min T /W  K1
 TSL 
  


2  CD 0  CDR  K1  K 2 
 TO  min
W 167
Constraint Analysis
Case 1: Constant Altitude/Speed Cruise (ps = 0)

Case 2: Constant Speed Climb (ps = dh/dt)
Given:
dh
 0, n  1, L  W 
dt
We obtain:
 
TSL     WTO  CD 0  CDR 1 d h 

 K1    K2   
WTO   q S    WTO  V d t 
 

 q  S  

  
 S  min T /W  K1
 TSL    d h
   2 CD 0  CDR  K1  K 2  1 
 TO  min
W   V dt  169
Constraint Analysis L nW
  1n
  cos1 
Case 3: Constant Altitude/Speed Turn (ps = 0)

W  W V 2
   V   
 g0   g 0  Rc
dV dh
Given:  0,  0, n  1,
dt V , h given
d t V ,h given
We obtain:
 
TSL    2   WTO  CD 0  CDR 1 d h 

  1
K n    K n   
WTO   q S 
2
  WTO  V d t 
 

 q  S  

  
 S  min T /W n  K1
 TSL 
  
n

2  CD0  CDR  K1  K 2 
 TO  min
W
2 2
 V   V2 
n  1     1    170
 g0   g 0 Rc 
Constraint Analysis
Case 4: Horizontal Acceleration (ps = (V/g0) (dV/dt) )

Given: dh
 0, n  1, L  W 
d t h given
Lift
We obtain:
 
    WTO  CD 0  CDR 1 d V 
Thrust

Drag
TSL
  1
K    K   
WTO   q S 
2
  WTO  g 0 d t 
 
Weight

 q  S  

This can be rearranged to give:
 
1 d V  TSL 
   WTO  CD 0  CDR 

 K1    K2  
g 0 d t  WTO  q  S    W 
 TO  

 q  S  
171
Constraint Analysis
Case 4: Horizontal Acceleration (ps = (V/g0) (dV/dt) ) (continue – 1)
Given: dh
 0, n  1, L  W 
d t h given Lift
We obtain:
 
 CD 0  CDR 
Thrust Drag
1 d V  TSL    WTO  
 K1    K2  
g 0 d t  WTO  q  S    WTO   Weight
 

 q  S  
This equation can be integrated from initial velocity V0 to final velocity Vf,
from initial t0 to final tf times.
1 Vf V d V
g 0 V0 ps V 
t f  t0 
where   
 T   W C D 0  C DR  
 
ps  V  SL
  K1  TO   K2  
  WTO  q  S    WTO   
  
 q  S   
The solutions of TSL/WTO for different WTO/S are obtained iteratively. 172
Constraint Analysis
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html 173
Constraint Analysis
Case 5: Takeoff (sg given and TSL >> (D+R) )
dh
Given: 0
dt h given Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
V=0
htr
Start from: sg sr str sCL
sTO
 TS L
  
 TSL  D  R  V
d V d V d s  g 0  TSL 
d h V d V  
    
ps    dt ds 
dt   WTO 
dt g dt
  WTO
1/ V
0
Integration from:
  WTO 
 V dV   WTO  VTO2
ds sg   
 g 0  TSL   g0
s = 0 to s = sg  SL  2
T
V = 0 to V = VTO
sg – Ground Run
The take-off velocity VTO is
VTO = kTO Vstall
Where Vstall is the minimum velocity at at which Lift equals weight and
kTO ≈ 1.1 to 1.2:
1 1 V
2
VTO
2
2 Vstall  kTO
2 2
 WTO 
 WTO  Lstall  0 Vstall S CL,max  0 TO 2 S CL,max
2
 kTO   
2 2 kTO 2 2 0 CL,max  S  174
Constraint Analysis
Case 5: Takeoff (sg given and TSL >> (D+R) ) (continue – 1)
We obtained:
  WTO  VTO2
sg   
 g0  TSL  2 Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
k
θ CL
 WTO 
2 2 2 Ground Run V TO
VTO 2 Vstall
V=0
 kTO  TO
  htr
2 2 0 CL,max  S  sg sr str sCL
sTO
from which:
  WTO   kTO2
 WTO 
sg     
 g0  SL  0 CL,max
T  S 
TSL  2  kTO2
 WTO 
  
WTO  s g  0 g 0C L ,max  S 
We have a Linear Relation between TSL/WTO and WTO/S
175
Constraint Analysis
Case 6: Landing γ
Transition
hg Touchdown
We found hf
Float
Airborne Phase
Ground Run Phase Total Landing Distance
1 a V12  c
sg   ln
2 a a V22  c g a1 :
2 a V1
where a :  C   C L , gr   4ac
2  WTO / S 
D , gr
2 a Vtouchdown
1  1  a1 1  a2  T  a2 :
tg  ln    c : g  0    b  4ac
 4 a c  1  a2 1  a1  W 
T  T0  B V  C V 2
For a given value of sg , there is only one value of WTO/S that satisfies this equation.
WTO / S  f s g 
This constraint is represented in the TSL/WTO versus WTO/S plane as a vertical line, at
WTO/S corresponding to the required sg.
176
Constraint Analysis
 
TSL  
   WTO  C  CDR 

 K1    K 2  D0 
WTO   q S    WTO  
 

 q S  

WTO / S  f s g 
 
TSL   C  CDR 1 d h 
 2   WTO  
 K1 n    K 2n  D0  
WTO   q S    WTO  V d t 
 

 q S  

TSL  2  kTO2
 WTO 
  
WTO  s g  0 g 0C L ,max  S 
Constraint Diagram 177

SOLO
Comparison of Fighter Aircraft Propulsion Systems
178
SOLO
Comparison of Fighter Aircraft Propulsion Systems
179
Constraint Analysis
180
Composite Thrust Loading versus Wing Loading – for different Aircraft
SOLO
Constraint Analysis
Constraint Diagram for F-16

181
Weapon System Agility
Weapon System Agility

182
SOLO
References
L. George, J.F. Vernet, “La Mécanique du Vol, Performances des
Avions et des Engines”, Librairie Polytechnique Ch. Béranger, 1960
Miele, A., “Flight Mechanics , Theory of Flight Paths, Vol I”, Addison Wesley, 1962
L.J. Clancy, “Aerodynamics”, Pitman International Text, 1975
J.D. Anderson, Jr., “Introduction to Flight”, McGraw Hill, 1978, Ch. 6, “Elements
of Airplane Performance”
N.X. Vinh, “Flight Mechanics of High-Performance Aircraft”,
Cambridge University Press, 1993
J.D. Anderson, Jr., “Aircraft Performance and Design”, McGraw Hill, 1999
F.O. Smetana, “Flight Vehicle Performance and Aerodynamic

Control”, AIAA Education Series, 2001
A. Filippone, “Flight Performance of Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft”,
Elsevier, 2006
M. Saarlas, “Aircraft Performance”, John Wiley & Sons, 2007

183
Stengel, MAE 331, Aircraft Flight Dynamics, Princeton University
SOLO
References (continue – 1)
Brandt, “Introduction to Aerodynamics – A Design Perspective”, Ch. 5 ,
Performance and Constraint Analysis
J.D. Mattingly, W.H. Heiser, D.T. Pratt, “Aircraft Engine Design”, 2nd Ed., AIAA
Education Series, 2002
Prof. Earll Murman, “Introduction to Aircraft Performance and Static Stability”,
September 18, 2003
Naval Air Training Command, “Air Combat Maneuvering”, CNATRA P-1289
(Rev. 08-09)
L.E. Miller, P.G. Koch, “Aircraft Flight Performance”, July 1978, AD-A018 547,
AFFDL-TR-75-89
Patrick Le Blaye, “Agility: Definitions, Basic Concepts, History”, ONERA
Randal K. Liefer, John Valasek, David P. Eggold, “Fighter Aircraft Metrics,

Research , and Test”, Phase I Report, KU-FRL-831-2
B. N. Pamadi, “Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes”,

184
AIAA Educational Series, 1998, Ch. 2 , Aircraft Performance
SOLO
Asselin, M., “Introduction to Aircraft Aerodynamics”, AIAA Education Series, 1997
Courtland_D._Perkins,_Robert_E._Hage, “Airplane Performance Stability and
Control”, John Wiley & Sons, 1949
Donald R. Crawford, “A Practical Guide to Airplane Performance and Design”,
Crawford Aviation, 1981
Francis J. Hale, “ Introduction to aircraft performance, Selection and

Design”, John Wiley & Sons, 1984
J. Russell, ‘Performance and Stability of Aircraft“, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996
Jan Roskam, C. T. Lan, “Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance”,
DARcorporation, 1997
Nono Le Rouje, “Performances of light aircraft”, AIAA, 1999
Peter J. Swatton, “Aircraft performance theory for Pilots”, Blackwell Science,
2000
S. K. Ojha, “Flight Performance of Aircraft “, AIAA, 1995
W. Austyn Mair, David L._Birdsall, “Aircraft Performance”, 185
Cambridge University Press, 1992
SOLO
E.S. Rutowski, “Energy Approach to the General Aircraft Performance Problem”, Journal of
the Aeronautical Sciences, March 1954, pp. 187-195
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “Applications of Optimal Control Theory in Aerospace Engineering”,

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 4, No.5, May 1967, pp. 553
A.E. Bryson, Jr., M.N, Desai, W.C. Hoffman, “Energy-State Approximation in Performance
Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.6, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1969, pp.
481-488
W.C. Hoffman, A.E. Bryson, Jr., “A Study of Techniques for Real-Time, On-Line Optimum
Flight Path Control”, Aerospace System Inc., ASI-TR-73-21, January 1973, AD 758799
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “A Study of Techniques for Real-Time, On-Line Optimum Flight Path
Control. Algorithms for Three-Dimensional Minimum-Time Flight Paths with Two State
Variables”, AD-A008 985, December 1974
M.G. Parsons, A.E. Bryson, Jr., W.C. Hoffman, “Long-Range Energy-State

Maneuvers for Minimum Time to Specified Terminal Conditions”, Journal of
Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol.17, No. 5-6, Dec 1975, pp. 447-463
186
SOLO
Solo Hermelin Presentations http://www.solohermelin.com
• Aerodynamics Folder
• Aircraft Systems Folder
• Propulsion Folder
Return to Table of Content 187

SOLO
Technion
Israeli Institute of Technology
1964 – 1968 BSc EE
1968 – 1971 MSc EE
Israeli Air Force

1970 – 1974
RAFAEL
Israeli Armament Development Authority
1974 –
Stanford University
1983 – 1986 PhD AA
188
SOLO
OODA loop
The OODA loop (for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) is a concept originally applied
to the combat operations process, often at the strategic level in military operations. The
concept was developed by military strategist and USAF Colonel John Boyd.
Colonel John Richard Boyd

(1927 –1997)
189
190
191
Comparison Tables

SOLO
193
SOLO
Aircraft Avionics
194
R.W. Pratt, Ed., “Flight Control Systems, Practical issues in design and implementation”,
AIAA Publication, 2000
Ray Whitford, “Design for Air Combat” 195

SOLO
196
SOLO
SOLO
Ray Whitford, “Design for Air Combat” The rear fuselage presented a
ghter
problem, however, since the F-5
is, along with other twin-engined
aircraft, characterised by a wide,
very flat belly. This also
T
contributes favourably to high-
N
AOA performance. The question
S
of how to reconcile this with a
1
single engine basically circular in
e
section was solved by adding
t
shelves, not unlike those on the F-
1
16, aft of the wing trailing edge to
2
flatten the aft underbody. The
g
increased skin friction drag was a
r
small price to pay to lessen the
3
risks of the radical change
s
represented by the switch from a
a
twin to a single-engined layout.
p
The shelves house the horizontal
a
tail control runs.
s
The Northrop F-20 Tigershark (initially F-5G) was a a
•F-5 Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J85-GE-21B turbojet p
privately financed light fighter, designed and built by
• Dry thrust: 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) each
Northrop. Its development began in 1975 as a further s
• Thrust with afterburner: 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) each
evolution of Northrop's F-5E Tiger II, featuring a new
F-20 Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-100 engine that greatly improved overall performance, and a
turbofan, 17,000 lbf (76 kN) modern avionics suite including a powerful and flexible
radar. Compared with the F-5E, the F-20 was much 199 faster,
F-16
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117c.html 200
F-16
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117c.html 201
The three most important (but far from the only) things to consider about an aircraft's turning
performance are shown and explained in relation to the P-51's EM (energy/maneuverability)
diagram below;
202
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/174942-wing-loading-and-turning/
F-15
F-15 Flight
203
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis/page2
F-15 Drag
F-15
204
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis/page2
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
SOLO
Level Flight
216
217
218
219
SOLO
V – n Diagram n Structural
Load Limit
Corner Speed Structural

Limit
Maximum
Operational
Positive
Corner Velocity Turn Capability
Load Limit
Area of
(CL) max Structural
Load Factor - n
Limit Damage of
Airspeed
• Corner Velocity
Failure
Vmin V
Operational
Maximum Load Limit
2 nmax W Negative

Structural
Vcorner Capability Limit
C Lmax  S
(CL) min Structural
Load Limit
• For Steady Climbing or Diving Flight • Turning Rate
sin  
Tmax  D
 corner 

g nmax  cos 2 
2

W V cos 
• Turning Radius • Time to Complete a Full Circle
0 V 2 cos 2 
Rmax 
2
 cos 2  V cos 
 n'  cos  
g g nmax t 2 
g nmax  cos 2 
2
V
V2 1 220

g n'  cos 
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/62863-comparing-fighter-performance-same- 221
generations-important-factor-war-2.html
http://www.zweefportaal.nl/main/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=2537&rowstart=0
http://www.iitk.ac.in/aero/fltlab/cruise.html
222
Maximum Range at L/Dmax
Effect of Altitude on Specific Range and Endurance
How Wind Affects Range and Optimum Cruise Speed 223

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/training/aerodynamics/range_prop.htm
SOLO
Drag
224
SOLO
Drag
225
226
SOLO
Drag
227
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html
228
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html 229
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html
230
Comparison of Climb Performance of F-16 and F-$
F-16
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5487 231
F-15
http://indiandefence.com/threads/comparing-modern-western-fighters.41124/page-16
232
http://indiandefence.com/threads/comparing-modern-western-fighters.41124/page-16
233
Split S
Cobra Turn
Roller
Scissors
Immelmann turn
234
http://defence.pk/threads/supermaneuverability.39916/
F-22
F-15
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13114
235
F-15 versus F-22
F-22
F-15
236
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?72673-Boyd-s-E-M-Theory 237
238
http://defence.pk/threads/cope-india-how-the-iaf-rewrote-the-rules-of-air-combat.300282/page-3
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5487
239
F-16
240
F-16
241
F-16
242
F-16
243
SOLO
Performance in Level Flight
244
SOLO
245
SOLO
Determination of Maximum Flight Altitude in Level Flight
246
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/training/aerodynamics/range_jet.htm
247
Air-to-Air Combat
248
Air-to-Air Combat
249
Air-to-Air Combat
250
Configurations Evolution 251
North American P-51 Mustang
252
Ps Diagram for a Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft at n = 1 253
Ps Diagram for a Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft at n = 5 254
SOLO
255
SOLO
256
257
Generic E/M Diagram

14 Fixedwingfighteraircraft Flightperformance II 150228115124 Conversion Gate02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Fixedwingfighteraircraft Flightperformance II 150228115124 Conversion Gate02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft

http://www.solohermelin.com Updated: 04.12.12

Table of Content (continue – 2)

Table of Content (continue – 3)

This Presentation is about Fixed Wing Aircraft Flight Performance.

The Fixed Wing Aircraft are

Continue from Part I

To understand how different parameters affect Aircraft Performance we start with a

• Point mass model. L

• Thrust magnitude is controllable by the

st – Transition Distance sg sr str sCL

sc – Climb Distance to sTO

reach Screen Height

We distinguish between two cases

• The Aircraft must passes over R

During the Ground Run there are additional D T

- Friction between the tires and the ground W

to the ground, that reduces the Induced Drag

reaches the Stall Velocity where Lift equals Weight Acceleration at

The Liftoff Velocity is 1.1 to 1.2 Vstall. 10

Acceleration at Take-off possible

T (Jet) Stall safety

Total take-off if distance

Ground Speed – ft/s Vground

Ground Run (continue – 2) T

during the Ground Run the Thrust can be W

Using  Acceleration at Take-off possible

 Stop take-off if Continue take-off

Total take-off if distance

Ground Run (continue – 3) R L

Ground Run (continue – 4) T

where this point after this point

Total take-off if distance

where Δt is usually taken as 3 seconds.

Assuming T – D = const., we can

For small angles of Climb L = W. Transition

Ground Run V=0

sr  Vt  t  t  1 4 sec Rotation Phase

Minimum required takeoff runway lengths. 20

2. The Flare, or Transition phase.

Total Landing Distance

If γ is the descent angle and R is the turn radius hg

ht  R 1 cos   Airborne Phase

Total Landing Distance

where Δt is between 2 to 3 seconds.

Total Landing Distance

The equations of motion are the same as those Glide sg Flare st

developed for Takeoff, but with different Airborne Phase

parameters, adapted for Landing. Those equations Total Landing Distance

Assume a constant Thrust T = T0: B = 0, C = 0. V1 = Vtouchdown, V2 = final velocity

Ground Run Phase (continue – 1) Transition

Total Landing Distance

tan  tan   Total Landing Distance

Lift and Drag Forces:

Level Flight Lift

Because of opposite trends in

Level Flight Lift

For the velocity, V*, of minimum

Dmin  W k CD0  W k CD0  2W k CD0 1

M. Corcoran, T. Matthewson, N. W. Lee, S. H. Wong, “Thrust Vectoring” 32

The Power Required for Level Flight assumes

At a given Altitude h Thrust Drag

PA, propeller  T V  small variation with airspeed

Propeller Aircraft Available Power