VLJ
Uploaded by
tolomeo10VLJ
Uploaded by
tolomeo104062 Aircraft Design
LECTURER: MAZIAR ARJOMANDI
Conceptual Design of a Very-Light-Jet Transition
Trainer
Keith Crouch 1104167
Joshua Holmes 1120127
Rahim Kurji 1126547
Lara Parkinson 1111561
Marius Trif 1118723
Wednesday, 16th April 2008
The University of Adelaide
School of Mechanical Engineering
Page ii
Executive Summary
A single engine Very Light Jet Trainer was to be designed to train pilots with little or no
flying experience.
The jet was specified to FAR23 standards, while following given
specifications set by AIAA.
These stipulations included the fact that the jet was to
accommodate two pilots sitting side by side, capable of hard landings and have retractable
landing gear, but no ejection system. The VLJ was designed successfully to correspond to
the specified flight profile and technical task.
Statistical data was collected and the information used to calculate the Mass Fuel Fraction
and subsequently the preliminary weights for the aircraft. The conceptual design of the
aircraft took into consideration the major attributes required of a VLJ as well as the
aesthetic desires of the designers. All elements of the aircraft were intended to take into
account the aerodynamics, stability and performance of the aircraft.
The fuselage was sized to incorporate a two seated cockpit, as well as to fit the wings, tail
and landing gear. The wings were sized using statistical data and fitted to the bottom of
the fuselage for required life and stability criterion, as well as to suit the overall layout of
the aircraft. Likewise, the conventional tail was selected for the low level of weight which
it added to the design and due to the fact that it provides ideal spin recovery. The layout of
the cockpit incorporated the side by side seating of the pilots, and satisfied the
communication, instrumentation placement and safety measures required. Consideration
was also given to the visibility clearance of the pilots in the cockpit. To conclude the
conceptual design phase, tricycle landing gear was selected and as specified by AIAA, a
retractable mechanism was incorporated into the system. The landing gear was designed to
be mounted on the wings; however a mechanism is specified to retracts the gear into the
undercarriage.
Weight and balance analysis were also undertaken to ensure an aircraft which is stable and
relatively well balanced in flight. The VLJ also satisfied requirements of the stability and
control analysis.
The VLJ Trainer is designed to FAR23 standards with all required elements addressed.
The aircraft satisfies the specified mission profile specified by AIAA.
Page iii
Page iv
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ iii
Contents ................................................................................................................................ 5
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 8
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 9
1
External Design .......................................................................................................... 11
1.1
Project Outline ..................................................................................................... 11
1.2
Market Research .................................................................................................. 12
1.3
General characteristics of Very Light Jets ........................................................... 13
1.4
Justification of Parameters ................................................................................... 14
1.5
Technical Task ..................................................................................................... 24
1.5.1
Standardization ................................................................................................ 24
1.5.2
Performance Parameters .................................................................................. 24
1.5.3
Technical Level of the Product ........................................................................ 24
1.5.4
Economical Parameters .................................................................................... 24
1.5.5
Power Plant Type and Requirement ................................................................ 25
1.5.6
Main System Parameters.................................................................................. 25
1.5.7
Special Systems and Miscellaneous................................................................. 25
1.5.8
Reliability and Maintenance ............................................................................ 25
1.5.9
Unification Level ............................................................................................. 25
1.6
2
Mission Profile ..................................................................................................... 26
Preliminary Weight Estimations .............................................................................. 27
2.1
Phase 1 Start Up, Warm Up & Taxi ................................................................. 27
2.2
Phase 2 Takeoff................................................................................................. 27
2.3
Phase 3 Climb ................................................................................................... 28
2.4
Phase 4 Cruise ................................................................................................... 30
2.5
Phase 5 Descent ................................................................................................. 31
2.6
Phase 6 Loiter ................................................................................................... 32
Page 5
2.7
Phase 7 Descent to sea level ............................................................................. 32
2.8
Phase 8 Landing ................................................................................................ 33
2.9
Mass Fuel Fraction ............................................................................................... 34
Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................... 35
3.1
Takeoff weight sensitivity to payload weight ...................................................... 35
3.2
Takeoff weight sensitivity to empty (structural) weight ...................................... 35
3.3
Takeoff weight sensitivity to range...................................................................... 36
3.4
Takeoff weight sensitivity to loiter ...................................................................... 36
3.5
Take off weight sensitivity to Specific Fuel Consumption (Range) .................... 36
3.6
Take off weight sensitivity to Specific Fuel Consumption (Loiter) .................... 36
3.7
Takeoff weight sensitivity to cruise velocity ....................................................... 37
3.8
Takeoff weight sensitivity to L/D (Range) .......................................................... 37
3.9
Takeoff weight sensitivity to L/D (Loiter)........................................................... 38
Preliminary Sizing ..................................................................................................... 39
4.1
Sizing to Stall Speed Requirements ..................................................................... 39
4.2
Sizing to Takeoff Distance Requirements ........................................................... 39
4.3
Sizing to Landing Distance Requirements ........................................................... 41
4.4
Sizing to Climb Requirements ............................................................................. 41
4.5
Sizing for Time to Climb ..................................................................................... 44
4.6
Sizing to Flight Ceiling ........................................................................................ 45
4.7
Sizing to Manoeuvring Requirements ................................................................. 46
4.8
Sizing to Cruise Speed Requirements .................................................................. 47
4.9
Matching Diagram ............................................................................................... 49
4.10
Summary of Preliminary Sizing........................................................................... 50
Conceptual Design ..................................................................................................... 51
Fuselage Layout ......................................................................................................... 56
6.1
Primary Considerations ........................................................................................ 56
6.2
Finesse Ratio ........................................................................................................ 57
6.3
Secondary considerations..................................................................................... 58
Design of Cockpit ....................................................................................................... 60
7.1
Cockpit Layout..................................................................................................... 60
Page 6
7.2
Crew Requirements .............................................................................................. 61
7.3
Positioning of Instrumentation ............................................................................. 64
7.4
Visibility .............................................................................................................. 65
7.5
Communication .................................................................................................... 66
7.6
Emergency Equipment ......................................................................................... 67
7.7
Summary .............................................................................................................. 67
Selection and Integration of the Propulsion system................................................ 68
8.1
Engine Specifications........................................................................................... 68
8.2
Inlet Geometry and configuration ........................................................................ 70
8.3
Nozzle Integration ................................................................................................ 72
8.4
Fuel System .......................................................................................................... 73
Wing Planform Design & Sizing of Lateral Control Surfaces ............................... 76
9.1
Approximation of Parameters .............................................................................. 76
9.2
Airfoil Selection and Sizing ................................................................................. 78
9.3
Disposition of Main Spars ................................................................................... 83
10
Empennage and Control Surface Sizing and Disposition ...................................... 85
10.1
Statistical Analysis of Parameters ........................................................................ 85
10.2
Vertical tail design ............................................................................................... 87
10.3
Horizontal tail design: .......................................................................................... 89
10.4
Summary .............................................................................................................. 91
11
Landing Gear Sizing and Disposition ...................................................................... 93
11.1
Design and Integration ......................................................................................... 93
11.2
Sizing the tyres ..................................................................................................... 96
11.3
Shock Absorber Integration ............................................................................... 102
11.4
Retraction Mechanism ....................................................................................... 105
12
Weight and Balance Analysis.................................................................................. 107
12.1
Weight estimation .............................................................................................. 107
12.2
Statistical Estimation ......................................................................................... 108
12.2.1 Structural weight distribution ........................................................................ 108
12.2.2 Propulsion weight distribution ....................................................................... 109
12.2.3 Fixed equipment distribution ......................................................................... 109
Page 7
12.2.4 Take Off Weight Vs Weight of Components ................................................ 110
12.2.5 Statistical Estimate Results ............................................................................ 110
12.3
Analytical Estimation......................................................................................... 111
12.3.1 Second Estimate Results ................................................................................ 111
12.3.2 Correlation Analysis ...................................................................................... 112
12.4
Class I Weight Estimation and Balance ............................................................. 112
12.4.1 Empty weight components ............................................................................. 112
12.4.2 Operational empty weight components ......................................................... 112
12.4.3 Takeoff weight components ........................................................................... 112
12.5
Center Of Gravity Estimation ............................................................................ 113
12.5.1 CoG as a percentage of MAC ........................................................................ 115
12.5.2 Summary of COG on MAC ........................................................................... 115
12.6
Loading Scenarios with Primary Coordinate System ........................................ 116
12.6.1 Movement of CG ........................................................................................... 117
12.6.2 3D Center of Gravity Distribution ................................................................. 117
12.7
13
Summary of Results ........................................................................................... 118
Stability and Control Analysis ................................................................................ 119
13.1
Longitudinal x-plot ............................................................................................ 119
13.2
Directional X-Plot .............................................................................................. 121
14
Drag Polar Determination ....................................................................................... 125
15
Performance and Flight Mechanics ....................................................................... 127
16
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 130
17
References ................................................................................................................. 131
List of Figures
Figure 1.1- Statistical data for Range .................................................................................. 15
Figure 1.2 - Statistical data for service ceiling .................................................................... 16
Figure 1.3 - Statistical data for stall speed ........................................................................... 18
Figure 1.4 - Statistical data for Engine start up to take off time .......................................... 20
Page 8
Figure 1.5 - Statistical data for cruise speed ........................................................................ 21
Figure 1.6 - Statistical data for loiter time ........................................................................... 22
Figure 1.7 - Statistical data for take off and landing runway length.................................... 23
Figure 1.8 - Mission Profile ................................................................................................. 26
Figure 5.1- First Conceptual Sketch of the VLJ .................................................................. 51
Figure 5.2 - Cross section of the VLJ .................................................................................. 52
Figure 5.3 - Early Conceptual Design of Cockpit and Fuselage.......................................... 52
Figure 5.4 - Conceptual Design of Fuselage ........................................................................ 53
Figure 5.5 - Design of Canopy and fuselage........................................................................ 53
Figure 5.6 - Detailed Canopy Section .................................................................................. 53
Figure 5.7 - Conceptual Design of the VLJ ......................................................................... 54
Figure 5.8 - Conceptual Design of the VLJ ......................................................................... 55
Figure 6.1 - Length Versus Takeoff Weight ........................................................................ 56
Figure 6.2 - Fuselage Geometry........................................................................................... 57
Figure 6.3 - Fuselage Length Plot ........................................................................................ 58
Figure 6.4 - Drag break up ................................................................................................... 58
Figure 7.1 - Cockpit Layout ................................................................................................. 61
Figure 7.2 The 95th Percentile Male.................................................................................... 62
Figure 7.3, Standard seating arrangement for pilot.............................................................. 63
Figure 7.4 Accessibility Measure ........................................................................................ 64
Figure 7.5 Accessibility Measure ........................................................................................ 65
Figure 7.6 Visibility Considerations .................................................................................... 66
Figure 8.1 - Preliminary Flight Envelope ............................................................................ 68
Figure 8.2- Engine Envelope ............................................................................................... 70
Figure 8.3 - Step Diverter Configuration ............................................................................. 72
Figure 8.4 - Nozzle Geometry ............................................................................................. 72
Figure 8.5 - Positioning of Fuel Tanks ................................................................................ 75
Figure 10.1 - NACA-0009 Data........................................................................................... 89
Figure 10.2 - Possible arrangements for horizontal tail ....................................................... 90
Figure 10.3- Tail Disposition ............................................................................................... 92
Figure 11.1 - Tricycle Configuration ................................................................................... 93
Figure 11.2 - Location of Main Gear with respect to Most Aft C.G ................................... 94
Figure 11.3 - Minimum Strut Length for tip back criteria ................................................... 94
Figure 11.4 - Positioning of Nose Gear ............................................................................... 96
Figure 11.5 - Landing Gear Arrangements .......................................................................... 97
Figure 11.6 - Tyre Dimensions ............................................................................................ 99
Figure 11.7 - Statistical Data for Wheel Diameter ............................................................ 102
Figure 11.8 - Oleo pneumatic Shock Strut......................................................................... 103
Figure 11.9 - Birds eye view of Retracted Landing Gear Positioning ............................... 105
Figure 11.10 - Front on view of main landing gear arrangement ...................................... 106
Figure 13.1 - Longitudinal X-Plot ..................................................................................... 121
Figure 13.2 - Directional X-Plot Data................................................................................ 123
Figure 13.3 - Directional X-Plot ........................................................................................ 124
Figure 15.1 - Coordinate System used of aircraft .............................................................. 127
List of Tables
Page 9
Table 1.1 - Specific Fuel Consumption ............................................................................... 16
Table 1.2 - Statistical data for Engine start up to take off time ........................................... 19
Table 1.3 - Performance Parameters .................................................................................... 24
Table 1.4 - Mission Profile .................................................................................................. 26
Table 8.1 - J1200 Engine Specs ........................................................................................... 69
Table 9.9.1 - Statistical wing parameters ............................................................................. 76
Table 10.1 - Tail Configuration of VLJ ............................................................................... 85
Table 10.2 - Statistical data for vertical tail dimensions ...................................................... 86
Table 10.3 - Statistical data for horizontal tail dimensions ................................................. 86
Table 10.4 - Summary of Tail .............................................................................................. 92
Table 11.1- Main Tyre Data................................................................................................. 99
Table 11.2- Nose Tyre Data ............................................................................................... 101
Table 13.1- Longitudinal X-Plot Data ............................................................................... 120
Table 14.1 - Individual Wetted Area Components ............................................................ 125
Page 10
1 External Design
1.1
Project Outline
The VLJ concept design project for University of Adelaide MECH ENG 4062 stems from the
2007-20087 AIAA undergraduate individual aircraft design competition.
The AIAA request for proposal stipulates that a single engine, light weight jet is to be
designed with the specific aim of training pilots with little or no jet experience. It goes
further to stipulate that the craft must possess benign flying qualities and given its role as a
trainer it must be a robust craft in all aspects including hard landings as well as have a
common avionics platform.
The AIAA applies a set of constrains and design requirements that have to be adhered to, for
qualification. As this project is an adaptation of the AIAA proposal, the initial section of this
report is dedicated to the justification of these parameters as well as qualified modifications
based on the interpretation of the team.
Page 11
1.2
Market Research
A recent study conducted by VLJ Magazine has finally resulted in official figures
forecasting the trend growth of very light jets and the enormous market they are envisaged to
capture over the next decade. Introduced in 2007, the low operating costs coupled with
simplistic designs have resulted in an unprecedented 200% growth (Botts, 2008) in market
demand for this period leading up to 2010. The short take off or landing abilities of micro jets
are making them a viable extension to the business jet industry for their capacity to avoid
large airport hubs. This growing trend is expected to hold strongly over the next decade and
with a predicted market chare of 0.72% in the US in 2017 (Butterworth-Hayes, 2007), this
sector will continue to yield solid profits for manufactures. A new day has dawned in the
business aviation world and with it comes a new set of technical, ethical and logistical
problems.
It is predicted that 7,650 VLJs will be delivered into the global market during 2007-2016
(Butterworth-Hayes, 2007) and as a result, the question arises wether aircraft delivered will
outpace the availability of training equipment. Many pilots are finding the transition from
similar functioning propeller aircraft to jets to be a problematic obstacle and there exists very
few companies offering jet training for aspiring pilots, and those that are generally use
existing military surplus jets. With only two micro jet trainers in the market, the Eclipse ECJ
and the Cessna Mustang, the majority of current training is undertaken in flight training
devices such as simulators which fail to truly capture realistic flight conditions.
Accordingly, the transition trainer market is under much controversy and has been identified
as a major sector for growth in the next few years. The stringent underwriting criteria and
emphasis that insurance companies place on ample training is it making it more likely that
many pilots will choose to invest heavily in a VLJ only to discover they do not satisfy
underwriting requirements and are unable to operate the aircraft. The need exists for training
pilots who have never before flown jets and this design project aims to propose a feasible
solution that is not only intuitive from an engineering perspective but from an economical
and social standpoint as well.
Page 12
1.3
General characteristics of Very Light Jets
In order to satisfy authority regulations and standards, the proposed very light jet must posses
the following attributes:
-
Lower operating costs than conventional jets;
Maximum takeoff weight of less than 10,000lbs;
Lighter than business jets;
Able to operate from runways as short as 3,000ft;
Enable a convenient, personal and on demand point-to-point air service for business
and upscale leisure travellers;
Capable of servicing most airports both major and regional (including grass airstrips);
Capable of operating at altitudes of up to 41,000ft;
Servicing lengths up to 1,300 nautical miles;
Better equipped than many of the aircraft in todays commercial fleets due to
advanced avionics;
On intersection runways, are capable of routine Land and Hold Short Operations
(LAHSO), (stop short and fast).
Page 13
1.4
Justification of Parameters
The proposed project will aim to design a two person VLJ suitable for pilot training.
Stringent insurance underwriting requirements and training guidelines necessitate that a
mentor pilot accompany any training VLJ pilot for the first year of flight (NBAA, 2005), and
as such, a side by side seating configuration is specified for the cabin. Furthermore, only a
single jet engine is defined in order to simplify the required operational knowledge of the
pilot and to reduce the empty weight of the VLJ, resulting in a more manoeuvrable aircraft. It
is hoped that a familiar configuration to FAR23 requirements, coupled with already existing
and established modern avionics systems should allow for a smooth transfer for any pilot into
a jet engine interface. Additionally, the craft must be able to endure hard landings and
possess benign flying qualities to aid any novice pilots in their training program.
Due to the nature of the aircraft, the option of an ejector seat has not been included to
optimise the functionality of the aircraft. As the proposed VLJ will only be used for civilian
training purposes, and not military, it is not expected to be subjected to any high-g
manoeuvres or banking loads and as such there is no merit in fitting an expensive system for
pilot egress.
Through examination of several comparable jet aircraft and their range in the figure below, it
becomes apparent that the proposed VLJ design must benchmark against these competitors.
The shortest range currently offered by such an aircraft is approximately 750-800 nautical
miles from the Viper Jet, and accordingly, this proposal will specify a range exceeding 800
nautical miles. This appears to be an adequate range allowing for minimum travel distance in
between most regional airports.
Page 14
Figure 1.1- Statistical data for Range
Hawk 128
T-38
PC-9
Javelin MK-10
Viper et
Javelin MK-10
diamond d10
Cessna Citation Mustang 510
Maverick Jets (Smart Jet)
Embraer
Adam Aircraft - A700 AdamJet
Eclipse 500
Honda Jet
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
RANGE (NAUTICAL MILES)
The aircraft must have a usable altitude of at least 36000 ft so as to be able to train pilots to
fly at that altitude. The primary justification for this is that it is a comparable ceiling to other
aircraft. The service ceiling is the altitude at which with all engines operating and producing
maximum continuous power, the rate of climb is 100ft/min. By definition of a VLJ, an
aircraft of this nature cannot operate above 41000ft. This is the service ceiling for the current
existing VLJs; the Cessna Mustang and the Eclipse 500. However these aircraft are twin
engine. The requirement for this design is that a single engine is used, reducing the feasible
service ceiling.
Page 15
Figure 1.2 - Statistical data for service ceiling
Hawk 128
T-38
PC-9
Javelin MK-10
Viper et
Javelin MK-10
diamond d10
Cessna Citation Mustang 510
Maverick Jets (Smart Jet)
Embraer
Adam Aircraft - A700 AdamJet
Eclipse 500
Honda Jet
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
SERVICE CEILING (FT)
Also, for engine specifications, it is noted that the maximum cruise specific fuel consumption
is a minimum at 36000ft from the data given in table below.
Table 1.1 - Specific Fuel Consumption
Mach
Maximum
Cruise
Thrust
Specific Fuel
Consumption
((lbm/hr)/lbf)
<umber
SL
5,000 ft
10,000
20,000
30,000
36,000
40,000
45,000
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
0.00
0.406
0.404
0.402
0.05
0.434
0.429
0.425
0.419
0.10
0.460
0.456
0.448
0.443
0.15
0.488
0.482
0.475
0.466
0.20
0.517
0.510
0.503
0.490
0.492
0.25
0.549
0.537
0.528
0.516
0.511
0.509
Page 16
0.30
0.580
0.563
0.554
0.538
0.530
0.526
0.533
0.35
0.608
0.598
0.580
0.562
0.549
0.550
0.553
0.40
0.639
0.624
0.608
0.588
0.572
0.570
0.577
0.580
0.45
0.672
0.649
0.637
0.609
0.594
0.591
0.594
0.598
0.50
0.700
0.681
0.664
0.636
0.616
0.610
0.615
0.620
0.55
0.732
0.714
0.691
0.652
0.636
0.626
0.632
0.639
0.60
0.762
0.738
0.721
0.677
0.656
0.643
0.644
0.662
0.768
0.744
0.704
0.671
0.660
0.664
0.678
0.759
0.724
0.695
0.677
0.683
0.700
0.749
0.711
0.694
0.699
0.714
0.80
0.730
0.710
0.720
0.735
0.85
0.748
0.730
0.738
0.749
0.90
0.768
0.745
0.754
0.764
0.65
0.70
0.75
It can also be seen in table 1.2 that for high speeds (above mach 0.45) the specific fuel
consumption is less at 40000ft than it is at altitudes of below 30000ft. Further it is noted that
at 45000ft the specific fuel consumption has risen further. This was not considered important
due to the fact that the aircraft cannot exceed a ceiling of 41000ft. From this data it can be
concluded that for the purpose of conserving fuel, the craft must be capable of a service
ceiling of at least 36000ft.
As specified by FAR 23.201, VSO and VS1 must not exceed 61knots at maximum weight,
with exceptions requiring further specifications to be met. However, since the aircraft is
single engine, and it exceeds the FAR guidelines, it must meet further specifications. For an
increased stall speed, it means the aircraft can operate at a lower angle of attack, and thus use
less fuel. This is important for the design of a very light aircraft since weight is critical and
reducing fuel usage reduces take off weight.
Based on the data tabulated below, 88% of aircraft function with a maximum clean stall
speed of above 70 knots and hence are not suitable for hard landing and training manoeuvres.
For this reason, our aircraft will aim to compete and dominate the 12% market share for
training VLJs. Accordingly, a stall speed not exceeding 70 knots is specified.
Page 17
Figure 1.3 - Statistical data for stall speed
Hawk 128
T-38
PC-9
Javelin MK-10
Viper et
Javelin MK-10
diamond d10
Cessna Citation Mustang 510
Maverick Jets (Smart Jet)
Embraer
Adam Aircraft - A700 AdamJet
Eclipse 500
Honda Jet
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
STALL SPEED (KTS)
The primary justification for a retractable landing gear is to reduce drag in flight. The landing
gear structure contributes largely to the drag of the airplane, with researchers estimating up to
40% of the total fuselage drag from tests in the PRT (Propeller Research Tunnel). It is thus
clear that a retractable landing gear is necessary to reduce fuel usage, resulting in a reduced
take off weight.
The aircraft of interest is a trainer and therefore an instructor would be present. Hence two
people would be travelling in the trainer aircraft. 220 lbs was selected by the AIAA as the
weight of each person. Training is usually done in military single engine jets, which was
originally designed for military pilots, stated by the AIAA project. Therefore the trainee
would resemble a weight which would be greater than the average weight of a human. The
current average weight of a person in Canada was found to be 167.5 lbs (H. Orpana, 2006).
The United States A.T.B.C.B suggests the use of the 95th percentile human weight of 224 lbs
(American Institutes of Research, 1998). This supports AIAAs proposed weight of 220 lbs.
R. Stefani, 2005, states that the baggage for a commercial passenger is presumed to weigh 25
lbs for a domestic flight. Cathay Pacific allows for a passenger to have a baggage weight of
Page 18
44 lbs (Cathay Pacific, 2007). The evidence expressed justifies the baggage weight of 25 lbs
per person, which gives rise to 50 lbs of baggage given in the AIAA project specifications.
When the aircraft is taking off maximum power from the engines is required to achieve flight.
Statistical data from Table 1.2 will be used to justify the AIAA specifications. If 8 minutes is
allocated to the warm-up and taxi then the total time including take-off is 10 minutes given
by the AIAA. From Figure 1.4 the average time was 9.29 minutes, thus the time allocated is
0.71 minutes above the average time calculated. The data is seen to compliment the AIAA
time and is considered to be within a reasonable result from the average time determined.
Firstly idle power operation can simply be justified for warm-up and taxi as the aircraft firstly
must warm the engines up, and would not run them at maximum power or a power greater
than idle power. Also when taxiing, the aircraft would operate the engines at a very low
power such that the aircraft propels slowly forward to move into position for take-off.
Therefore operation at idle power for taxi is a good assumption to use as given in the AIAA
specifications. The following table 1.2 expresses the time allowed for the warm-up to take
off for different commercial flights (Cathay Pacific, 2007).
Table 1.2 - Statistical data for Engine start up to take off time
Engine start-up
Aircraft
to take off time
<umber
(minutes)
Airline
SQ232/868
11
Singapore
3Q4446
China Yunnan
3Q4465R
China Yunnan
China
CZ341
Southern
China
CZ342
12
Southern
CX401
13
Cathay Pacific
CX460
12
Cathay Pacific
Average time
9.29
These results from the data above were then expressed in the following figure.
Page 19
Figure 1.4 - Statistical data for Engine start up to take off time
CX460
CX401
CZ342
CZ341
3Q4465R
3Q4446
SQ232/868
0
10
12
14
ENGINE START UP TO TAKE OFF TIME (MIN)
When considering the time for warm-up to taxi operation, 8 minutes places the aircraft 1.29
minutes below the average range.
Although, Figure 1.4 includes the time to take off
therefore, 8 minutes agrees well with the data in Table 1.2 as it is below the average time
calculated.
From the data below, a cruise speed of not less that 350 knots was specified so that the pilots
could be trained in conditions replicated by roughly 70% of the jet aircraft currently in
operation.
Page 20
Figure 1.5 - Statistical data for cruise speed
Hawk 128
T-38
PC-9
Javelin MK-10
Viper et
Javelin MK-10
diamond d10
Cessna Citation Mustang 510
Maverick Jets (Smart Jet)
Embraer
Adam Aircraft - A700 AdamJet
Eclipse 500
Honda Jet
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TOP SPEED (KNOTS)
Loitering is sometimes required of an aircraft due to bad weather, hazards on the runway, or
more typically because there is a number of aircraft waiting to land. Some airports report
average loiter times of just a few minutes (Datta, 2007), however some major international
airports such as Mumbai International Airport also report average loiter times of between 30
and 45 minutes daily, (Singhal, 2008). Because of this, the VLJ trainer has been specified to
have a loiter time of 45 minutes to allow for an extended loiter for both regional and major
airports. Furthermore, according to the graph below, 80% of the data examined suggested that
a suitable loitering time of 45 minutes should be satisfied in order to compete effectively in
the VLJ market.
Page 21
Figure 1.6 - Statistical data for loiter time
Hawk 128
T-38
PC-9
Javelin MK-10
Viper et
Javelin MK-10
diamond d10
Cessna Citation Mustang 510
Maverick Jets (Smart Jet)
Embraer
Adam Aircraft - A700 AdamJet
Eclipse 500
Honda Jet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LOITER TIME(min)
The VLJ is requires specifications which allow for the greatest possible distance covered, and
therefore the greatest level of fuel consumption.
At lower altitudes the specific fuel
consumption of the aircraft is higher. As the aircraft descends, the level of fuel used by the
VLJ increases, therefore when descending to sea level this specification allows for the
greatest possible level of fuel consumption.
By examining similar aircraft, statistical data below shows average values for takeoff and
landing distances to be about 2200 ft. In order to provide an aircraft that is capable of serious
competition in the market, this design will aim to have significantly shorter takeoff and
lengths than comparable aircraft. Therefore, this design will aim to have a maximum take off
and landing length of 2000 ft.
Page 22
Figure 1.7 - Statistical data for take off and landing runway length
Hawk 128
T-38
PC-9
Javelin MK-10
Viper et
Javelin MK-10
diamond d10
Cessna Citation Mustang 510
Maverick Jets (Smart Jet)
Embraer
Adam Aircraft - A700 AdamJet
Eclipse 500
Honda Jet
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
TAKEOFF AND LANDING LENGTH (FT)
Page 23
1.5
Technical Task
1.5.1
Standardization
The VLJ Trainer will comply with FAR 23 standards given the size and nature of the aircraft.
1.5.2
Performance Parameters
Tabulated below is a summary of the initial performance parameters that will be used for the
remainder of this design.
Table 1.3 - Performance Parameters
Performance Parameter
Value
Payload Weight
50lb
Crew Weight
440lb
Range
800 nm < Range < 1,300 nm
Top Speed
Must exceed 350 knots
Service Ceiling
36,000 ft < Ceiling < 41,000 ft
Stall Speed
Must exceed 70 knots
Takeoff Distance
Not more than 2,000 ft
Landing Distance
Not more than 2,000 ft
1.5.3
Technical Level of the Product
This aircraft is a two seat single engine Very Light Jet Trainer used for training pilots with
little or no jet experience. As such, the VLJ trainer must encompass benign flying qualities
and be capable of hard landings.
1.5.4
Economical Parameters
Page 24
The VLJ must be a low maintenance, robust aircraft with excellent fuel efficiency.
1.5.5
Power Plant Type and Requirement
The engine to be utilised is the J1200 providing a maximum take off thrust of 1200 lb/psf.
1.5.6
Main System Parameters
All avionics systems must be modern systems similar to those found in current VLJs.
1.5.7
Special Systems and Miscellaneous
The landing gear is retractable and no ejection system is required or allowed, therefore no
arrester system is considered, e.g. no parachute included.
1.5.8
Reliability and Maintenance
Given that the aircraft is primarily used for training new pilots, reliability is of paramount
importance. The aircraft must be extremely robust and have a low level of maintenance and
therefore minimal downtime.
1.5.9
Unification Level
Side-by-side seating is suggested for pilot and instructor tuition, and no gallery is included in
the design. The guidance/navigation/ and controllability features block has been designed to
integrate with similar aircraft allowing for ease of control for pilots. Furthermore, overall
shape, arrangement and disposition are based on currently produced aircraft allowing for
trouble-free acquisition and manufacturing of components.
Page 25
1.6
Mission Profile
Table 1.4 - Mission Profile
Phase
Operation
1. Warm-up and taxi at idle power for 8 minutes.
2. Takeoff
3. Climb to a cruise altitude of 35,000ft at 3,000 fpm.
4. Cruise at 35,000 altitude and 350 knots.
5. Descend to 1000 ft for 100 nm.
6. Loiter for 45 minutes (reserve)
7. Descend to sea-level
8. Land and taxi
Figure 1.8 - Mission Profile
Page 26
2 Preliminary Weight Estimations
2.1
Phase 1 Start Up, Warm Up & Taxi
2.2
Phase 2 Takeoff
Page 27
2.3
Phase 3 Climb
Page 28
Page 29
2.4
Phase 4 Cruise
Page 30
2.5
Phase 5 Descent
Page 31
2.6
Phase 6 Loiter
2.7
Phase 7 Descent to sea level
Page 32
2.8
Phase 8 Landing
Page 33
2.9
Mass Fuel Fraction
Page 34
3 Sensitivity Analysis
A = 0.473869
B = 0.921744
WTO = 4222.64lbs
WE = 2626.005lbs
R = 900nm
C = 1 (1 + M res )(1 M ff ) M unus .
= 1 (1 + 0.06)(1 0.7574) 0.005
= 0.737844
D = W pl + Wcrew
= 50 + 2 * 220
= 490lbs
3.1
Takeoff weight sensitivity to payload weight
WTO
BWTO
0.921744 * 4222.64
=
=
= 15.8102
W pl C (1 B)WTO D 0.737844(1 0.921744) * 4222.64 490
Accordingly, the addition of 1 pound of payload weight means we must increase the take off
weight by 15.8 pounds.
3.2
Takeoff weight sensitivity to empty (structural) weight
WTO BWTO 0.921474 * 4222.64
=
=
= 1.4817
WE
2626 .005
W E
Accordingly, the addition of 1 pound of empty weight means we must increase the take off
weight by 1.48 pounds.
F = BWTO2 [CWTO (1 B ) D ] 1 (1 M res ) M ff
= 0.92174 * 4222.64 2 [0.73784 * 4222.64 * (1 0.921744) 490] 1 * (1 0.06) * 0.737844
= 46303.6286lbs
Page 35
3.3
Takeoff weight sensitivity to range
C j = 0.646
V = 350kts
L
=8
D
WTO
L
= FC j (V ) 1 = 46303.63 * 0.646 /(350 * 8) = 10.68291lbs / nm
R
D
Accordingly, the addition of 1 nautical mile of range means we must increase the take off
weight by 10.68 pounds.
3.4
Takeoff weight sensitivity to loiter
C j = 0.55
L
=8
D
WTO
L
= FC j ( ) 1 = 0.55 * 46303.63 / 8 = 3183.375lbs / hr
E
D
Accordingly, the addition of 1 hour loiter time means we must increase the take off weight by
3183.375 pounds.
3.5
Take off weight sensitivity to Specific Fuel Consumption (Range)
V = 350kts
L
=8
D
WTO
L
= FR(V ) 1 = 46303.6286 * 900(350 * 8) 1 = 14883.3092lbs / lbs / lbs / hr
C j
D
If the specific fuel consumption for cruise were increased by 0.1, the design take off gross
weight will increase by 1488 pounds.
3.6
Take off weight sensitivity to Specific Fuel Consumption (Loiter)
Page 36
E = 0.75hr
L
=8
D
WTO
L
= FE ( ) 1 = 46303.6286 * 0.75 / 8 = 4340.9652lbs / lbs / lbs / hr
C j
D
If the specific fuel consumption for loiter were increased by 0.1, the design take off gross
weight will increase by 434 pounds.
3.7
Takeoff weight sensitivity to cruise velocity
R = 900nm
C j = 0.646
V = 350kts
L
=8
D
WTO
L
= FRC j (V 2 ) 1 = 46303.6286 * 900 * 0.646 /(350 2 * 8) = 27.4703lbs / kts
V
D
Whilst this is mathematically correct, from a practical view point this is incorrect as when
cruise velocity increases, coefficient of lift will fall causing the Lift to Drag ratio to fall as
well as a change in specific fuel consumption.
3.8
Takeoff weight sensitivity to L/D (Range)
C j = 0.646
L
=8
D
WTO
L
= FRC j (V ( ) 2 ) 1 = 46303.6286 * 900 * 0.646 /(350 * 8 2 ) = 1201.8272lbs
L
D
If the Lift to Drag ratio during cruise could be increased form 8 to 9, the takeoff gross weight
would decrease by 1201lbs
Page 37
3.9
Takeoff weight sensitivity to L/D (Loiter)
E = 0.75
C j = 0.55
L
=8
D
WTO
L
= FEC j ( ) 2 = 46303.6286 * 0.75 / 8 2 = 298.4414lbs
L
D
If the Lift to Drag ratio during loiter could be increased form 8 to 9, the takeoff gross weight
would decrease by 1201lbs
Page 38
4 Preliminary Sizing
The VLJ Trainer will comply with Federal Aviation Regulations in all aspects of design,
manufacturing and flight operation. Given the size and nature of the aircraft, FAR 23 air
worthiness standards have been selected to size the aircraft.
4.1
Sizing to Stall Speed Requirements
Clean Stall Speed
= 70
= 118.3 ft/s
Where,
= 2.38 10 /
, = 1.5
And,
=
2
1
= (2.38 10 118.3 )
= 24.948
4.2
Sizing to Takeoff Distance Requirements
= 2
1.21
2
=
1.21
Then
= 1.653
= 4.923 + 0.009223
Page 39
Where
STOG = takeoff ground run distance
STO = 2000ft
1.66
2000
=
1.66
And
= 1204.819
Therefore
= 4.923 + 0.009223
1204.819 = 4.9 + 0.009
Solving gives
TOP23 = 183.82
Then find density ratio
Where
h= 7.38 x 10-4 slugs/ft3= density at 31,000ft
0 = 2.38 x 10-3 slugs/ft3 = density at sea level
Assuming
= 0.1
= 3.11 10
= 23
1
= (183.82) 3.11 10 (1.653)(0.1)
9.44
18.87
0.2
28.31
0.3
Resulting in
7.38 10
=
2.38 10
= 9.44
0.1
Page 40
4.3
37.75
0.4
47.18
0.5
56.62
0.6
Sizing to Landing Distance Requirements
= 2000
Maximum landing field length is given as
So, Landing stall speed is given by
= 1.395
= 1.3952000
As a results
4.4
= 62.38
1
=
2
1
= (2.38 10 105.3 )
= 26.353
Sizing to Climb Requirements
AIAA asks for the aircraft to be sized according to the FAR23 requirements. For climb
sizing, FAR23 is designed for propeller driven aircraft. As the engine is a jet it was assumed
that the FAR25 climb requirements would be used instead of the FAR 23 climb requirements.
It is also noted that the stall speed provided by AIAA is 70 knots when FAR 23 states that the
stall speed should be less than 61 knots.
WTO = 4222.641lbs
C L TO = 2
C L Land . = 2
One engine jet
Using Roskams method for calculating the drag polar:
Page 41
S wet = log 1 (c + d log WTO )
To obtain c and d the trainer is considered to be in the clean configuration.
Using Table 3.5
c = 0.8565
d = 0.5423
S wet = log 1 (0.8565 + 0.5423log 4222.641) = 644.744 ft 2
Using Table 12.3 from Raymer C f = 0.0055
From Table 3.4 of Roskam
a = 2.2614
b =1
f = log 1 (a + b log S wet ) = log 1 (2.2614 + log 664.744) = 3.641 ft 2
Assume (
W
) TO = 25 based on stall speed calculations
S
S = 168.906 ft2
CD o =
f
3.641
=
= 0.0215564 = 0.0216
S 168.906
Where the aspect ratio is found from
Given statistical data for a jet fighter cruising at a mach number of 0.6,
a= 4.110
C= -0.622
Aspect ratio is computed,
= 4.110 0.6.
= 5.25
Given this, it was decided that an aspect ratio of 5.25 would be used for the design.
Page 42
The following requirements are to be considered:
FAR 25.111 (OEI) CGR> 0.012 not applicable as one engine
FAR 25.121 (OEI) CGR> 0 not applicable as one engine
FAR 25.121 (OEI) CGR> 0.024 not applicable as one engine
FAR 25.121 (OEI) CGR> 0.012 not applicable as one engine
FAR 25.121 (OEI)-balked landing CGR> 0.021 not applicable as one engine
FAR 25.119 (AEO)-balked landing CGR> 0.032
Configuration: gear down, landing flaps, take-off thrust on the engine, h = 0, t = 50oF and
34% humidity, landing weight, VS = 1.3VS L
C L Landing = 2
2
= 1.1834
1 .3 2
e = 0.75 Table 3.6
C L max . =
C D o = 0.017 Landing gear down, Table 3.6
C D o = 0.065 Landing flaps down Table 3.6
CD = CD o
C L2
1.1834 2
+
= 0.10356 +
= 0.21677
Ae
12.37
L CL
=
= 5.4593
D CD
1
1
T
) L 50o F =
+ CGR =
+ 0.032 = 0.215175
L
5.4593
W
D
Need to account for the 50oF temperature and convert to standard temperature. So assume
T500 F
Tst
= 0.8 . Also the worst case scenario is assumed so WL = WTO
T 0 T
T
= 50 F st
W TO W L T500 F
0.21575
=
= 0.2697
0
.
8
Page 43
4.5
Sizing for Time to Climb
= 7.0
= 2.38 10 /
= 0.1137
= 5.25
= 0.85
= 3000 /
And
1
=
Where
When
= 20
2
=
2(20)
(2.38 10 ) (0.1137)(5.25)(0.85)
V=115.4534ft/sec
20
115.4523
30
141.3996
40
163.2742
50
182.5461
60
199.9692
Therefore
Which Leads to
When = 20 (V=115.4523ft/sec)
1
5 = (115.4523)
Page 44
= 0.186165
Resulting in
4.6
20
0.186165
30
0.178218
40
0.17348
50
0.170247
60
0.167861
Sizing to Flight Ceiling
The calculations were done for a clean configuration without stores. Using Table 3.8 the
minimum rate of climb for the jet aircraft is 500 fpm set at a service altitude of 35000 ft.
The absolute altitude was considered to be 45000 ft, whereby it was found that military
trainers have an absolute ceiling which varies from 35000 to 45000 ft.
RC SL =
RC
500
=
= 2250 fpm = 37.5 fps
h
35
1
1
habs
45
A = 5.25
e = 0.85
C D o = 0.0216
1 Ae
L
=
= 12.73817 = 12.738
D max . 2 C D o
st = 2.3786 x10 3 slug / ft 3
Need to correct the density for a temperature difference as the AIAA requires take off at 95oF
for sea level.
Temperature ratio is
T95 F 554.7
=
= 1.069
Tst
518.7
2.3786x10 3
=
= 0.002224slug / ft 3
1.069
Page 45
V =
W
2
S TO
C D oAe
RC
1
T
+
=
V
L
W TO
D
These equations lead to the results which are shown in the following table.
(W/S)TO
clean
(psf)
5
10
20
24
25
40
60
80
100
4.7
V (fps)
90.39349
127.8357
180.787
198.0422
202.126
255.6714
313.1322
361.574
404.252
(T/W)TO
clean
0.513346
0.391838
0.305919
0.287847
0.284021
0.245166
0.218251
0.202206
0.191257
Sizing to Manoeuvring Requirements
The aircraft was sized to the FAR 23 manoeuvring requirements.
When sizing to sustained manoeuvrability it was necessary to first find the maximum load
factor, nmax.
Where,
1
|
2
Taking the worst case scenario as being for stall speed at 36000ft we get;
= 4.94
= 1.5
= 170. 09
@70, 36000
= 4.94 1.5 170.09
Page 46
And
from
prelim
weight
= 1260.38
calculations
1260.38
4222.64
it
was
found
that
= 4222.64
= 0.2984
n is then used in the following equation to determine the thrust loading in relation to the
=
+
wing loading.
= 0.0216
where,
From this the following table was calculated
W/S
4.8
(W/S)TO
1st term
2nd term
(T/W)clean
(T/W)Tomax
(T/W)static
5.9
0.452622508
0.044305182
0.496927691
0.439759019
0.747590332
10
11.8
0.226311254
0.088610365
0.314921619
0.278691698
0.473775887
20
23.6
0.113155627
0.17722073
0.290376357
0.256970227
0.436849387
30
35.4
0.075437085
0.265831095
0.34126818
0.302007239
0.513412306
40
47.2
0.056577814
0.35444146
0.411019273
0.36373387
0.618347579
50
59
0.045262251
0.443051825
0.488314076
0.43213635
0.734631795
60
70.8
0.037718542
0.53166219
0.569380732
0.503876754
0.856590482
Sizing to Cruise Speed Requirements
= 0.7103 10 / at 36000ft
= 0.0216
= 5.25
= 0.85
= 590.733 /
Page 47
=
+
123.935 0.0431
=
+
123.935 5.25 0.85
10
0.273456
20
0.145361
30
0.1065
40
0.089947
50
0.082317
60
0.079149
Resulting in,
Page 48
4.9
Matching Diagram
From the matching diagram, we notice that the critical requirements are the sizing to climb,
stall speed and cruise. From these requirements we are able to define an explicit MET area
and extract data from point P, the matching point.
Page 49
4.10 Summary of Preliminary Sizing
For this very light jet, all requirements are met when sized at the following parameters
Weight
= 4222.64
= 2626.005
Aerodynamic Parameters,
= 0.2689
= 24.948
= 1.5
= 2
= 2
=8
Wing Structure
= 5.25
= 168.906
Page 50
5 Conceptual Design
With the introduction of many new Very Light Jet (VLJ) aircraft, there is a need for training
pilots who have never before flown jets. Most VLJs are single pilot aircraft, often owner
pilots, and these pilots do not necessarily have jet training. Current VLJ companies offer
training in surplus single engine jets, but these were originally designed for military pilots.
The following major considerations were established during the design stages of the VLJ
trainer,
It is required that the VLJ have two pilots, seated side by side
The aircraft is to have a single engine
FAR23 requirements must be met
Be able to be flown by pilots with little to no flying experience
The aircraft must be capable of hard landings
The landing gear should be retractable
Preliminary sketches visualised the VLJ to have a two pilot, tandem seating arrangement.
The following sketch was the first conceptual sketch made of the VLJ trainer in the early
stages of design. The design indicates landing gear to be housed in the wings, and this design
satisfies the requirement of being single engine.
Figure 5.1- First Conceptual Sketch of the VLJ
Page 51
It was stipulated by AIAA that the VLJ carry two pilots with side by side seating
arrangements. Therefore the previous design of tandem seating was discarded in favour of a
design with satisfied this AIAA requirement.
The cockpit was designed with FAR23
requirements in mind and also with the seating capable of fitting the 95th percentile male
pilot. The seats placed in the cockpit layout so that the visibility of the pilots is optimum
with little to no visual obstructions. The visibility of the pilot was also to be increased with
the design excluding any beams or supports in the canopy by use of a high impact acrylic.
The fuselage design eventuated through evolved sketches.
Firstly a cross section of the fuselage was constructed
Figure 5.2 - Cross section of the VLJ
An early design shows a longer nose and shorter canopy area than the final design. The
fuselage also has a uniform shape along its length with a founder, less contoured design.
Figure 5.3 - Early Conceptual Design of Cockpit and Fuselage
The following sketches show the evolution of the fuselage, the shape extended to suit the
cockpit requirements, aesthetics and the aerodynamic abilities of the aircraft.
Page 52
Figure 5.4 - Conceptual Design of Fuselage
The canopy is added and the nose is rounded to suit the desired shape.
Figure 5.5 - Design of Canopy and fuselage
Detail is added to the nose and the canopy to define desired shape further.
Figure 5.6 - Detailed Canopy Section
Page 53
The final fuselage design incorporates all the design requirements specified. The design
satisfies the required length needed to incorporate the wings, tail, and the side by side seating
of the pilots. The design also satisfies the desired aesthetics for the aircraft and the required
visibility of the pilots with the shape, size and angle of the canopy. The fuselage also
incorporates the air intakes required for the given single jet engine.
The final design of the fuselage and other components of the aircraft can be seen in the figure
below.
Figure 5.7 - Conceptual Design of the VLJ
The tail of the VLJ was developed with consideration given to spin recovery criteria and
additional weight contributions. A conventional tail was selected due to the light weight
characteristics of the configuration. The tail also fit in with the overall aesthetics of the craft
and due to the Very Light Jet characteristics, the minimal weight it added to the design made
it the ideal selection for the aircraft considering the application.
The wings of the jet are positioned underneath the fuselage. This design was implemented
after other locations were considered. The size and shape were drafted, and the angles, size
etc were considered from statistical analysis of jets of similar size and purpose.
An
appropriate aerofoil was selected and the final design configured using the process set out in
Roskam. Final placement of the wings took into consideration the aerodynamic properties
and abilities of the craft, as well as the desired overall look and function of the VLJ.
The landing gear was specified by AIAA to be retractable. The tricycle configuration was
selected for the landing gear. Other landing gear configurations were not considered due to
the fact that the tricycle landing gear configuration allows the aircraft to be stable on the
ground and also allows the pilot to land at a large crab angle, which design considered most
appropriate for a learning pilot in the VLJ. The design of the landing gear ensured the
Page 54
retractable landing gear configuration would be retracted into the belly of the aircraft, yet
mounted on the wings. This design was selected to ensure static stability of the aircraft.
The selected tricycle configuration is depicted in the following figure.
Figure 5.8 - Conceptual Design of the VLJ
The overall conceptual design was achieved by the selection and integration of all
components of the aircraft given the major considerations previously mentioned.
The
conceptual design of the VLJ was developed and the final design is detailed in the following
sections.
Page 55
6 Fuselage Layout
6.1
Primary Considerations
The initial sizing of the fuselage was based on statistical data rather than analytical design.
Design optimization theory including incorporation fluid flow dynamics would be
incorporated in the detailed design sections. However, constant consideration was given to
from drag, and hence the inclusion of swept, lofted and curved section wherever possible.
The preliminary sizing was based on the relationship between the takeoff weight and overall
length of the aircraft.
L = aWTO c
Where:
L= length of the aircraft in meters
a=0.3611
c= 0.4
WTO=Take Off weight (1919.64 Kg)
Length Vs WTO
Length (m)
10
8
6
4
2
0
800
1300
1800
2300
2800
Weight (Kg)
Figure 6.1 - Length Versus Takeoff Weight
L = aWTO c
L = ( 0.361)(1919 )
0.4
L = 7.42m
Page 56
6.2
Finesse Ratio
Finesse ratio is the ratio between the fuselage length and its maximum diameter. The
technical task stipulated that the two man crew had to be seated in the cockpit in a side by
side configuration. According to the data collected for the 95th percentile Caucasian male, the
minimum cabin radii for this configuration is .65. This gives a collective cabin crosssectional area of 1.3 m2. No other restrictions were stipulated in the technical task giving
relative flexibility in defining the dimensions of the fuselage.
Figure 6.2 - Fuselage Geometry
In order to range the optimal solution , a continuum of length to diameter solution subsets
were considered, the only restriction being the minimum diameter restriction for side by side
seating. This was done to form he initial basis to carry out an iterative study on the break
down of the fuselage. These figures would then be run through the cockpit design section and
crosscheck ion the aerodynamic efficiency section to ensure all safety requirements and
minimum clearance requirements are being met whilst still maximizing efficiency. As this
was a highly iterative process, the initial diameter to length ratio was ranged through a
reasonably large band, covering the ratios seen in small to large jet trainers on the market.
Page 57
80
5.4
FUSELAGE RADII (CM)
70
5.6
5.8
60
50
6.2
40
6.4
30
6.6
6.8
20
10
7.4
7.6
0
5
5.5
6.5
FUSELAGE LENGTH (M)
7.5
8.5
7.8
8
Figure 6.3 - Fuselage Length Plot
6.3
Secondary considerations
Drag
CDparasite = CDskin + CDform + CDinterference
Figure 6.4 - Drag break up
In order to shift the separation point towards the rear and reduce the wake, the fuselage has
been designed to resemble a large aerofoil with an optimal exposed surface area for the nose
of the plane giving a drag coefficient of only 0.4.
Skin friction drag results from roughness on the surface causing an earlier transition form
laminar to turbulent boundary layers and typically comprise about 50% of the total drag on an
aircraft at cruise (Barnes & McCormick, 1979). There are three key factors affecting skin
Page 58
friction drag that can be altered in order to minimise the resistance; reducing the surface area
of the aircraft (Sw), reducing the roughness of the material (Cf) and reducing the airspeed to
decrease dynamic pressure (q).
Df = qCfSw
(Brandt et al, 2004)
Taking this into account, whilst the aircrafts speed cannot be reduced, the design process will
aim to minimise the surface area of the fuselage and select smooth materials and joints. The
fuselage design must consider the boundary layer formations at the leading edge and aim to
maintain a laminar velocity profile and delay the transition to turbulence (Roskam, 2004).
This criterion is addressed through the selection of aluminium alloy 2024, a relatively smooth
material, and the implementation of flush riveting and polishing on the body. The fuselage
can also be tailored to reduce the amount of interference drag affecting flight. As interference
drag generates vortices when two surfaces meet at sharp angles, this can be easily prevented
by specifying that all angles on the plane, such as those between the fuselage and wings, are
to consist of fairings that alter them into fillet junctions (Roskam, 2004).
Page 59
7 Design of Cockpit
7.1
Cockpit Layout
The layout of the cockpit must take into account the number of pilots, baggage, seating and
restraints for the pilots. The placement of instrumentation is also vital, as is the visibility of
the pilots flying the aircraft. The pilots must also be able to talk to each other, as well as
ground control and also be in possession of adequate safety equipment and features.
The only crew on board the Very Light Jet are the two pilots. The only payload to be
considered is their baggage. Baggage for the two crew members totals 50lb. The two pilots
are to be seated side by side, and it is proposed that the crews baggage will be stowed behind
the seats at the rear of the cockpit. Entry to the cockpit is to be made through the canopy
which slides all the way back on a rail.
The following dimensions and layout is proposed for the cockpit.
Page 60
Figure 7.1 - Cockpit Layout
A firewall is positioned at the front of the aircraft to guard the pilots in the event of a fire.
7.2
Crew Requirements
The cockpit of the jet trainer is designed for the 95th percentile man (however many aspects
are changeable for the comfort of female pilots), and is generally comfortable for pilots under
72 inches (standard for general aviation aircraft). The following diagram shows the
dimensions of the 95th percentile man, (all measurements are in mm).
Across shoulders: 533mm
Across Elbows: 561mm
Page 61
Across Hips: 457mm
Figure 7.2 The 95th Percentile Male
(Roskam, 2004)
The length of the selected male is 1750mm.
The standard seating template defines the dimensions that have to be specified for the seating
male crew. All measurements are in inches unless stated otherwise. Dimensions D and E are
in degrees.
Page 62
Figure 7.3, Standard seating arrangement for pilot
(Roskam, 2004)
The pilots seatback is set at 19 degrees, however the seat can be moved up-down, forwardbackward, and the backseat angle is changeable.
Human body ergonomics are heavily
considered for seat design.
The two pilots are to be seated at the very rear of the cockpit area to ensure adequate space.
The seats are 60cm wide and the standard 48cm deep. The seats are directly side by side and
the width includes the arms rests. A clearance of 5cm is given for the pilots on each side
closest to the canopy. Due to the minimal clearance available due to space restrictions, all
instrumentation is to be placed on the dash.
The two pilots are to be restrained in their seats by a shoulder harness. The harnesses do not
prevent crew access to the flight controls, while also restraining the pilots against high g
impact accelerations.
Page 63
7.3
Positioning of Instrumentation
The instrumentation panels are located within reach of the pilots and are set out such that
both pilots are able to reach all instruments and manuals without effort. The instrument
panels are well lit with adjustable lighting, and all controls and indicators have standardises
labelling, sizing and positioning.
From the standard seating template the following dimensions can be determined.
Figure 7.4 Accessibility Measure
(Roskam, 2004)
The following accessibility diagram is used to ensure all instrumentation can be reached by
the pilot. Because all seating dimensions are derived from standard templates, it can be
adequately concluded that the seating layout will satisfy the required reach envelope.
Page 64
Figure 7.5 Accessibility Measure
(Roskam, 2004)
7.4
Visibility
The placement of the pilot seat is crucial to ensure the pilot has adequate visibility out of the
front canopy. To aid in optimised visibility for the pilots, the canopy is made of a high
impact acrylic, eliminating the need for supports in view of the pilots.
Visibility checks are made for the pilot for both upward vision and downward vision. The
vision of the pilot must be unobstructed 20 degrees above eye level, and 15 degrees below
eye level. It is found that the vision of the pilot is unobstructed in their seat both upwards and
downwards.
Page 65
Figure 7.6 Visibility Considerations
Because there are no struts in the canopy, the pilots vision is unobstructed 20 degrees
upward. Downward, the pilots view is unobstructed 78.7cm, therefore the pilots view is
unobstructed to the canopy. This satisfies visibility requirements.
7.5
Communication
The pilots are to wear head sets to communicate to ground services, controls for such system
are positioned in an easy to reach location (commonly on the joystick). The pilots are seated
in a manner by which they are able to talk to each other without the need for special devices
and are placed not far from each other so they are also able to communicate by eyes and
touch. The pilots are to have instrumentation which allows them to receive all related
information about onboard equipment, payload, weather conditions etc. online and ready to
use.
Page 66
7.6
Emergency Equipment
The following safety measures are included in the cockpit
The canopy is able to be opened from inside and can be opened without excessive
effort
The canopy has a method of opening which is simple and obvious (a pyrotechnic
fasteners for release), even in darkness with provisions against jamming by fuselage
deformation
Seat belts can be released in one motion
Systems are in place to give the pilots maximum information so an appropriate
emergency procedure proceed
7.7
A firewall is in place to guard the cockpit against fire
Pilots are fitted with parachutes in the event of a required mid-flight evacuation.
Summary
The proposed cockpit layout takes into account communications between pilots, safety,
instrumentation and visibility while adhering to the dimension constraints given by design.
Page 67
8 Selection and Integration of the Propulsion system
8.1
Engine Specifications
Obviously the requirements of the project specify that the aircraft must operate on a jet
propulsion system in order to train would be jet pilots. However, the specified requirements
of the aircraft, in terms of cruise speed, service ceiling and range mean that no other
propulsion system is capable of satisfying our design. Through comparing the preliminary
flight envelope of the jet, figure 8.1, to data extracted from Roskam, it is apparent that the
flight envelope of an airplane has a significant effect on the choice of propulsion system, and
in this case, only a turbojet or turbofan will suffice for a mission requirement of 350knots at
35000ft.
Figure 8.1 - Preliminary Flight Envelope
(Roskam, 1985)
The technical task for this project also specifies the integration of only one jet engine. For
this application, we must select to either integrate an existing engine into the design or
develop a new engine with specified requirements. Due to the lengthy and expensive lead
time, 7 -10 years, involved in the development of a new engine, a selection has been made to
integrate an already existing propulsion system for rapid and economical entry into the
market.
Page 68
The engine selected in this case is the J1200 with a maximum takeoff thrust of 1200lbs/ft2. In
order to satisfy the sizing requirements defined previously, the engine selected must be able
to supply the following thrust:
= 4222.64 0.2689
= 1135.5 lbs/ft
Appropriately, the J1200 is an adequate choice, providing ample power for take off. Tabulate
below are some key parameters for the J1200 propulsion system.
Table 8.1 - J1200 Engine Specs
Weight (installed)
300 lbs
Overall Length
48 inches (1.2192 m)
Max Diameter
17 inches (0.4318m)
4 inches high under the
Accessories
engine
Bypass Ratio
3.3
= 0.8
From the above parameters, the engine frontal face flow diameter can be calculated
= 0.8 1.4167
= 1.13336
= 0.183
Similarly the Engine Mass Flow rate is found
= 0.183 1.13336
= 0.235 /
It was decided that to size of the aircraft, and the requirement for side-by side seating, the jet
engine be mounted aft of the cockpit within the fuselage allowing ease of access for reduced
assembly and maintenance times. In order to provide adequate reduction in air velocity for
feeding the engine, correct placement and geometry of any air inlets becomes crucial.
Page 69
8.2
Inlet Geometry and configuration
Due to the nature of the landing gear nose mount, a chin configuration is unacceptable as it
would block and distort any flow entering the inlet as well as possibly throwing rocks and
water into the inlet. Accordingly, side mounted inlets with short ducts mounted in an over
wing configuration are suggested. Such an arrangement with short split ducts would provide
clean flow into the buried engine, although care must be taken to keep the two halves of the
duct separate all the way to the engine front face in order to prevent pressure instabilities that
can stall the engine. Figure 8.2 below illustrates this engine and air intake configuration.
Figure 8.2- Engine Envelope
In order to size the capture area of the inlets accurately, we must consider the rate at which
the air is slowed within the intake. For an aircraft cruising at approximately Mach 0.6, the
inlet must slow the air to about Mach 0.4. Accordingly, the ratio between throat area and
engine front face is given by the following calculations.
For throat area,
For engine front face,
1 1 + 0.2
1.2
1 1 + 0.2 0.6
=
1.2
0.6
1 1 + 0.2 0.3
=
1.2
0.3
= 1.188
Page 70
= 2.035
This results in a ratio of,
1.188
=
2.035
= 0.5838
= 0.764
This gives the following diameter ratio for the inlet,
And a value of 0.866 ft for the inlet diameter.
Due to the nature of the aircraft, we will not enter the transonic or supersonic regime of
flight, and as a result no complex inlet geometry is required to deal with the possible
formation of shock waves. Accordingly, the most economical and mechanical simple inlet
geometry available is a pitot (normal shock inlet), and will be implemented in this design,
with care taken to fillet the cowl lip in order to optimise intake pressure recovery in the flight
envelope.
Furthermore, in order to optimise engine performance and ensure proper inlet operation,
consideration must be given to the effect of boundary layer build up on the aircraft fuselage.
As the aircrafts inlets are located a sizeable distance away from the nose, we must account for
the low energy air that may affect our propulsion system.
In order to maintain simplistic design features in this subsonic aircraft, a step diverter
configuration for the inlet has been chosen due to its ability to push aside boundary layer. The
step diverter should have an airfoil-like shape that is faired smoothly to the nacelle as shown
in the figure 8.3 below.
Page 71
Figure 8.3 - Step Diverter Configuration
(Raymer, 1992)
The diverter should extend about one inlet diameter forward of the inlet, roughly equal to
0.866ft (0.2639m), and should be have a depth equal to roughly 2-4% of the fuselage length
ahead of the inlet, in this case about 0.075m
8.3
<ozzle Integration
The nozzle selection and sizing is crucial if the propulsion system is to function effectively.
In order to achieve the desired exit speeds of any exhaust gas, the nozzle must converge to a
desired exit area. Again, due to the subsonic nature of the aircraft, an already existing and
simplistic nozzle design is integrated onto the aircraft without change.
A fixed convergent nozzle, drawn below in figure 8.4 has been selected for the design in
order to maximise the nozzle exit area for cruise efficiency. Whilst this results in slight loss
of performance power at low speeds, the gain in simplicity and weight reduction maintains
this selection as optimal.
Figure 8.4 - Nozzle Geometry
Page 72
(Raymer, 1992)
For a subsonic convergent nozzle, the range for required exit area is a given as function of
capture area, where we must consider the air from both inlets.
0.5 0.7
1.178 1.649
8.4
Fuel System
In order to properly size the fuel tanks required to sustain flight, we must take into
consideration the volume of the fuel used, based upon initial mass fuel fraction calculations.
The fuel weight is given by,
= 1.06 1
= 1.06 4222.64(1 0.7574)
= 1085.877
From published data in Raymer, the density of aviation gasoline at 32oF is given as 6.1 lb/gal.
Accordingly, we can approximate the volume of fuel needed,
=
=
1085.877
6.1 /
= 178.013
Page 73
0.54 1 + +
=
(1 + )
Where the wing volume is given by
From section 7,
= 23.797
10
= =
= 0.909
11
= 101.988
As a result, it is determined that there is adequate spacing in the wings to place all of the
fuel. However, in order to manipulate a slightly more aft centre of gravity, it has been
decided that the fuel is to spread out over three separate locations. Two bladder tanks
will be incorporated into the aircraft, one in each wing. The tanks will contain a total of
100 kg (36 gallons) fuel in each, and every effort will be made to coincide the centre of
gravity of the fuel tanks with that of the wing. Each respective tank must have a volume
of 4.83ft3 (0.136 m3).
A third fuel tank will be integrated into the fuselage body to hold an additional 300kg of
fuel. This tank is to have a volume of 14.49 ft3 (0.4101m3) and positioned starting at
2.228m aft of the cockpit (4.628m from the nose tip), with a centre of gravity at 5m
from the nose tip. This arrangement is illustrated below to summarise the fuel system
layout for this aircraft.
Page 74
Figure 8.5 - Positioning of Fuel Tanks
Page 75
9 Wing Planform Design & Sizing of Lateral Control Surfaces
The wing of the aircraft must be designed to accommodate for the mission specifications and
the lift requirements. The initial specifications of the wing are taken from statistical data of
similar aircraft and then refined to meet the needs of the mission.
9.1
Approximation of Parameters
In this section the following characteristics of the wing will be determined:
1.Size (area). S
2. Aspect ratio. A
3. Sweep angle.
4. Thickness ratio. t/c
5. Airfoils
6. Taper ratio.
7. Incidence angle. iw and twist angle. at
8. Dihedral angle. w
9. Lateral control surface size and layout
Table 9.1, was created using data form table 6.8 and table 8.8(b) in Roskam and was used to
gain approximate values for the wing parameters.
Aero
Microjet
DBID Alphajet
Chord Ratio
Aileron
location
Aileron Span
Wing Type
Max Speed
Taper Ratio
Sweep Angle
Angle
Aspect Ratio
Incidence
Angle
Dihedral
Table 9.9.1 - Statistical wing parameters
2.5
4.4
0.52
491 ctl/low
in
out
in
0.39
300 ctl/low
0.62
0.93
0.36 0.34
4.8
28
0.36
495 ctl/
0.64
0.96
0.29 0.32
-6 NA
Shoulder
Page 76
out
Aermac. MB3UA
2.6 NA
SM S-211
-2
2.2
5.3
0.58
500 ctl/low
5.1
16
0.46
400 ctl/
0.68
0.23 0.27
0.6
0.92
0.25 0.25
Shoulder
PZL TS-ll
2.7 NA
0.51
404 ctl/mid
0.58
0.97
0.22 0.21
5.6
0.6
428 ctl/low
0.55
0.95
0.23 0.27
CASA C-l-l
Bae Hawk Mkl
2 NA
5.3
22
0.34
572 ctl/low
0.61
0.93
0.26 0.27
NA
35
0.27
526 ctl/low
0.65
0.26 0.32
1.31
2.05 5.69 13.44 0.45
0.62
0.96
0.26 0.28
Tupolev Tul54
Average
5.7
457.33
Various parameters have already been approximated in previous sections.
Wing area, = 168.92
Aspect ratio, = 5.25
Thus, we can determine the span of the wing.
= 168.9 5.25
= 25.4
From the data, the following parameters were approximated
Sweep angle, c/4 = 15-20
Taper ratio, = 0.45
Incidence angle, iw = 0
Twist angle at tip = -2
Dihedral angle. w = 3
Page 77
The sweep angle must be able to achieve the critical mach number required for the aircraft
specifications. This critical mach number was determined to be 350 knots at 36000ft. This
To determine the appropriate sweep, we first estimated the cruise lift coefficient, , .
gives M=0.606.
0.4
The cruise lift coefficient was estimated from:
, =
=
(4222.64 0.4(1085.87)
123.63 168.9
= 0.18
~0.2
From Figure 6.1a, Roskam, to determine the effect of thickness ratio and sweep on critical
mach number, the following was found:
For
/ = 16, = 12%
= 0.77
/ = 16, = 10%
And for
= 0.83
Thus, the sweep angle was estimated at 16.
Using the span, area and taper ratio, the root and tip chords of the wing were calculated
using;
This
9.2
gave
+
=
2
2 2
Cr=7.85ft
and
Ct=3.53ft
Airfoil Selection and Sizing
Page 78
The Airfoil chosen was the NACA 4611 for the root foil and the NACA 4610 for the tip. The
foils have a maximum lift coefficient of 1.768 and1.728 respectively. This
For a short coupled plane, , = 1.05,
, =
, + ,
2
Where, is a constant for the taper ratio and = 0.95 = 0.45.
, =
0.95(1.768 + 1.728)
2
= 1.6606
Now, accounting for the swept wing we get,
,
, / cos /
=
, = 1.6606 cos(16)
= 1.5878
, = 1.05 1.5878
= 1.5122
This was very close to the approximated value for cruise of 1.5. As such this value was
assumed for flap sizing.
Determining the incremental values of maximum lift coefficient which need to be produced
by the high lift devices:
The Values for , and , were the same since both maximum lift coefficients
had been approximated at 2.
Page 79
, = , = 1.05 , ,
= 1.05(2 1.5)
= 0.525
The factor of 1.05 accounts for the additional trim penalties incurred by the use of flaps.
Due to the relatively small incremental lift coefficient it is appropriate to use a single slotted
flap.
The required incremental section maximum lift coefficient with the flaps down was
, = ,
calculated from:
Where, is the corresponding wing area to the flaps and
= 1.08
= 1.08 (16) (16)
Arbitrary calues of
For
= 0.89903
= 0.3 and 0.6 were used initially
= 0.3, we get , = 0.525 . 0.89903
= 1.5733
Page 80
For
= 0.6, we get , = 0.525 . 0.89903
= 0.7866
For preliminary design, the incremental section lift coefficient was estimated at;
= (1/),
From Figure 7.4, Roskam, = 0.85
For a single slotted flap with a hinge at: = 0.1 &
= 0.25
The flap deflection angle is estimated at = 25 for both take off and landing.
From figure 7.8, Roskam, we get = 0.5
Where, is the flapped section lift curve slope which was assumed to be 2.
is the non-flapped section lift curve slope
= 1 + 2 tan
Page 81
25
= 1 + (. 04) tan
2
= 1.017
= 1.017 2
= 6.389
Now,
= 6.389 0.5 25
180
= 1.394
= ,
Also,
, = 0.85 1.394
Interpolating the for the ratio of
= 1.1857
we got the following value;
= 0.398
Summarizing the flaps:
Page 82
= 0.398, = 0.1 &
= 0.25 .
For both Takeoff and Landing, = 25
The ratio of flapped wing area to wing area, (/_ = ) 0.398, now needs to be translated
into the required spanwise flap stations.
=
=
Now,
4.5
4.5
14.94
= 0.15
2 (1 )( +
= ( )
(1 + )
0.58 = ( 0.15)
2 (1 0.45)( + 0.15
(1 + 0.45)
= 0.503
9.3
Disposition of Main Spars
From Table 7.1, it can be seen that the average chord ratio is 0.262 to 0.28 and the span
location is 0.616 to 0.957.
From this the chord ratio was determined to be 0.25 to keep consistency with the flap chord
ratio.
Also, the span was determined to be 0.6 to 0.95.
Page 83
The front spar is located at 0.2c, and the rear spar loacation was determined by; (1 0.25
.05) = 0.745 to account for the ailerons and flaps with .005c clearance.
Page 84
10 Empennage and Control Surface Sizing and Disposition
10.1 Statistical Analysis of Parameters
Firstly the tail configuration has to be determined. This was achieved by investigating tail
configurations which has been used on developed jet trainers. The results of the investigation
are shown in the following table.
Table 10.1 - Tail Configuration of VLJ
Jet Trainer
Tail Configuration
British Aerospace Hawk
Conventional
Fairchild Republic T-46A
H-Tail
Marchetti S-112
Conventional
Aermacchi M.B. 339A
Conventional
Dassult-Breguet Alpha Jet
Conventional
Aero L-39 Albatros
Conventional
CASA C-101 Aviojet
Crucifix
PZL Mielec Iskra-Bis D
Crucifix
It is seen from the table that the most common tail configuration for a jet trainer is the
conventional configuration. The crucifix aids in lifting the horizontal tail above the exhaust
of the engines, although in this arrangement the exhaust is at the back of the aircraft so it
provides no benefit. In high angles of attack and in spin there is a section below the
horizontal tail which is exposed to undisturbed flow providing control benefits. The
conventional tail provides adequate stability and control for the lightest weight. As the
design is of a very light jet this configuration is most beneficial. Based on this analysis a
conventional arrangement was selected for the tail configuration.
Statistical data was obtained for the dimensions of the empennage which includes the vertical
and horizontal tail coefficients. This data is expressed in the following tables.
Page 85
Table 10.2 - Statistical data for vertical tail dimensions
Rudder
Aircraft
Sv ft2
xv ft
Vv
Sr/Sv
chord
root/tip
Aileron
Sa/Sw
fr. cv
Aero
L39C
Microjet
200B
span ba
ca in/out
in/out fr.
fr. of cw
of b/2
37.8
13.9
0.083
0.28
0.36/0.33
0.066
0.62/0.93 0.36/0.34
14.5
10
0.089
0.39
0.37/0.43
0.073
0.64/.96
.29/.32
32
14.8
0.084
0.21
.32/.36
0.059
.68/1.0
.23/.27
25.5
12.6
0.043
0.26
.30/.38
0.069
.60/.92
0.25
21.6
13.5
0.078
0.33
.37/.36
0.1
.58/.97
.22/.21
24.2
16.8
0.066
0.31
.24/.47
0.085
.55/.95
.23/.27
34.4
15.8
0.072
0.41
.37/.36
0.08
.61/.93
.26/.27
27
12.1
0.059
0.23
.28/.31
0.073
.65/1.0
.26/.32
DassultBreguet
Alpha Jet
Aermacchi
M.B.
339A
Marchetti
S-112
PZL TS11
CASA C101
Aviojet
British
Aerospace
Hawk
Table 10.3 - Statistical data for horizontal tail dimensions
Elevator
Aircraft
Sh ft
xh ft
Vh
Se/Sh
chord root/tip
fr. of ch
Aero L39C
54.6
15.2
0.58
0.23
.35/.44
Microjet 200B
22.9
8.98
1.12
0.32
.37/.34
Page 86
Dassult-Breguet
42.4
14.1
0.43
1.0
Stabilator
46.9
14.6
0.52
0.23
.26/.36
Marchetti S-112
36.4
15.2
0.75
0.40
.41/.40
PZL TS-11
38.1
16.3
0.57
0.33
.31/.32
47.8
15.2
0.54
0.23
.33/.46
46.6
14.8
0.61
1.0
Stabilator
Alpha Jet
Aermacchi M.B.
339A
CASA C-101
Aviojet
British Aerospace
Hawk
10.2 Vertical tail design
From Table 10.2 by taking an average of the data given, results could be found. Therefore
Vv yields a value of 0.07175 and xv gives rise to 13.7 ft/4.18m. Using these values the area
of the stabiliser can be obtained from the volume coefficient.
Sv =
Vv Sb 0.07175 *168.906 * 29.7785
=
= 26.342 ft 2
xv
13.7
From this the dimensions of the stabilizer can be determined. It is found from statistical
analysis that the aspect ratio of the stabilizer varies from 1.0 to 2.9 for jet trainers. Therefore
an aspect ratio for the aircraft was selected to be 2 which lies within the statistical range.
Thus the span and chord of the stabiliser becomes;
bv =
cv =
AS = 7.25837 = 7.26 ft
b
= 3.62919 = 3.63 ft
A
Page 87
The taper ratio of the stabiliser can also be determined from statistical data which was found
to have a range of 0.32 to 0.74. Therefore a taper ratio of 0.5 was chosen as a reasonable
taper ratio for the jet trainer.
cr = c
3 1 + v
= 4.6661 = 4.67 ft
2 1 + v + 2v
This gives rise to a tip chord of ct = 2.3331 = 2.33ft. The sweep of the stabiliser also has to
be investigated. It is required by the stabiliser and elevator to have a greater sweep than the
wing so that the onset of stall occurs later than the wing, allowing for control under stall.
This is vital as the aircraft is a jet trainer so the pilot must be able to regain control under stall
and spin conditions. Therefore it was selected that the sweep of both control devices should
be 30 degrees which is greater than the 16 degree sweep of the main wing. This result will
therefore help to increase the critical Mach number of the vertical and horizontal foils. The
vertical tail will also have a dihedral angle of 90 degrees which is the obvious choice with no
incidence.
The foil shape must also be determined and it was decided that the foil will be selected from
the NACA series as the properties of this family is well defined. The shape of the foil was
chosen to be symmetrical such that the coefficient of moment will be zero. In order to have
the critical Mach number greater than that of the wing, the thickness to chord ratio should be
less than the wing which is 10%t/c. Upon investigation of possible foils it was decided that a
NACA 0009 would be a good choice for the vertical tail.
Page 88
Figure 10.1 - NACA-0009 Data
From Figure 10.1 it can be seen that the theoretical maximum coefficient of lift is 1.084 at an
angle of attack of 12 degrees just before the foil stalls. Using Figure 6.1a from Roskam, it
was found that the critical Mach number given the sweep and thickness ratio was
approximately 0.87, which is 4.82% greater than the critical Mach number of the wing. This
allows for control of the aircraft in stall conditions.
The rudder can be sized based on the statistical data which is available in Table 1.2. It is
found from taking averages of the data that the rudder cr/ct chords are 0.35/0.36 as a fraction
of the MAC of the vertical tail.
To obtain the centre of gravity location for the vertical tail it was assumed that the location
was approximately at the aerodynamic centre of the foil which is at 25%MAC location. It is
therefore assumed that the centre of gravity will lie at 30%MAC position. Therefore if it is
considered that the coordinate system is taken from the nose of the fuselage then the location
is (24.05, 21.073, 0) ft.
10.3 Horizontal tail design:
Page 89
For the horizontal tail, Table 10.3 was considered to obtain averages of the data presented. It
was found that an average value for Vh was 0.61. From statistical analysis, the aspect ratio of
the horizontal tail varies from 3 to 5.1 for jet trainers. Thus an aspect ratio of 4 was selected
for the aircraft which lies within the statistical range. The taper ratio was determined from
statistical data which was found to have a range of 0.32 to 0.74 such that 0.6 was chosen as a
reasonable taper ratio for the jet trainer. Therefore using Vh, A, h as well as assuming the
placement of the horizontal tail to have the quarter chord sitting at 65% of the MAC of the
vertical tail, it was possible to obtain the cr of the horizontal tail. This positioning of the
horizontal tail was made such that in spin and stall, the aircraft can regain control by having
use of the tail. This is because the aircraft is a trainer, so must be able to enter in and out of
spin successfully to help train the pilot. Therefore at high angles of attack the flow from the
horizontal tail will not interfere with the flow over the vertical tail, explained in the following
figure.
Figure 10.2 - Possible arrangements for horizontal tail
(Roskam, 1985)
The following equations were used to obtain the root chord;
Sh =
Vh S C
= bh c h
xh
bh = Ac h
cr = c
3 1 + h
2 1 + h + 2h
Page 90
Through substitution of the three equations it was found that the root chord of the elevator
was cr = 3.6174 = 3.62ft. Therefore the following can be determined;
ch = cr
2 1 + h + 2h
2 1 + 0.6 + 0.6 2
= 3.6174 * *
= 2.95421 = 2.95 ft
3 1 + h
3
1 + 0.6
x h = 16.74 ft ( from the assumption)
Sh =
Vh S C 0.61 *168.906 * 5.6721
=
= 34.909174 = 34.91 ft 2
xh
16.74
ct = h c r = 0.6 * 3.6174 = 2.1704 = 2.17 ft
bh =
Ac h = 4 * 2.95 = 11.81684 = 11.82 ft
As discussed in the vertical tail section, the sweep of the horizontal tail will be 30 degrees.
The dihedral angle and incidence angle will both be zero degrees for simplicity in the design.
The foil shape can be determined such that the critical Mach number is greater than that of
the main wing.
Again the shape will be selected from the NACA series and will be
symmetrical such that the coefficient of moment is zero. This is so that the elevator does not
have to operate at a greater angle of attack to oppose the induced moment by the horizontal
tail. From this a NACA 0009 was again selected for the horizontal tail design. Figure 1.1
displays a theoretical maximum coefficient of lift of 1.084 at a maximum angle of attack of
12 degrees. It was found that the critical Mach number was 4.82% greater than that of the
main wing.
Using Table 10.3 the sizing of the elevator can be achieved through taking averages of the
statistical sizing. It was found that the elevator root/tip chords were 0.34/0.39 as a fraction of
the MAC of the horizontal tail.
To calculate the centre of gravity location it was assumed that it will lie at approximately
30%MAC. Given this the (x, y, z) location will be (27, 17.06, 3.774) ft.
10.4 Summary
Page 91
Table 10.4 - Summary of Tail
Mean
Taper
Aero
Span(ft) chord(ft) ratio
Vertical Tail
Horizontal
Tail
7.26
3.63
0.5
11.82
2.95
0.6
Sweep
(deg)
Foil
profile
NACA
30 0009
NACA
30 0009
CGx
(ft)
CGy
(ft)
CGz
(ft)
24.05
21.07
27
17.06
+/-3.77
Figure 10.3- Tail Disposition
Page 92
11 Landing Gear Sizing and Disposition
11.1 Design and Integration
The design and configuration of the landing gear is crucial as an incorrectly sized
undercarriage can alter the whole performance of the aircraft. Due to the nature of this
aircraft, a retractable landing gear is required. This means that care must be taken to ensure
that the landing gear does not clash with components of the fuselage or wings, or protrude
into the slipstream during cruise.
For the purpose of this design, a nose wheel tricycle configuration, Figure 11.1, has been
selected due to its simplicity, performance and ease of integration. As the aircraft will be used
for training, this configuration allows for a large crab angle and good forward visibility.
This arrangement consists of two main wheels aft of the c.g and an auxiliary forward wheel
forward of the c.g.
Figure 11.1 - Tricycle Configuration
(Raymer, 1992)
The conceptual design must ensure that the landing gear is long enough so that the tail
doesnt hit the ground on landing. Assuming worst case scenario for the conceptual design,
calculations must be carried out with a tipback angle of 15o. The following figure illustrates
the longitudinal tip-over criteria which must be satisfied in the positioning of the landing gear
with respect to the fuselage length.
Page 93
Figure 11.2 - Location of Main Gear with respect to Most Aft C.G
From preliminary calculations for centre of gravity, Section 10, the c.g of the aircraft was
determined and iterated against the positioning of the landing gear to give the following
coordinates
XCG, FORWARD = 3.06m ,
from the nose of the aircraft
XCG, AFT = 3.32m
from the nose of the aircraft
YCG= 0.369 m
above the underneath face of the fuselage.
By considering the most aft centre of gravity, we are able to size a minimum main gear strut
length for clearance during take off and landing, allowing for a tipback angle of 12o.
Figure 11.3 - Minimum Strut Length for tip back criteria
Page 94
= 5.81 sin 12
= 1.21
Allowing for adequate clearance of the tail during tip back, a rounded up value of strut length
will be accepted for safety reasons.
= 1.25
Therefore, the vertical component of distance form the centre of the wheel to the centre of
gravity is given by,
= +
= 0.369 + 1.25
= 1.621 (3.5574 ft)
The x-component of the landing gear positioning of the landing gear with respect to the c.g
can be found as
= tan 12
= 0.213
Therefore the positioning of the landing gear in the x direction, with respect to the nose tip is
given as
= +
= 0.213 + 3.32
= 3.53
Page 95
As the main gears are positioned on the wings, and are completely vertical, there is no need
to conduct a lateral stability analysis as the aircraft can not tip.
In order to position the nose gear we must consider the following geometry. The main gear is
positioned 3.53m from the nose tip, and 0.9m out along the wing in the z-plane. This gear has
a strut length of 1.25m.
Figure 11.4 - Positioning of Nose Gear
(Raymer, 1992)
By considering the z component of the main gear location to be 0.9 m, elementary
mathematics places the location of the nose gear as being 0.4m from the nose tip of the
aircraft.
11.2 Sizing the tyres
In order to minimise weight, suitable tyres must be selected to ensure that the maximum loads
can be carried by the smallest geometry possible. The main tyres must be sized to carry about
90% of the aircraft weight, leaving the nose heel to sustain only up to a possible 10% of the
total weight.
First we must calculate the load per tire,
Page 96
Figure 11.5 - Landing Gear Arrangements
(Raymer, 1992)
Assuming a braking coefficient of 0.3 and braking deceleration of 10ft2/s, the maximum
static loading per main wheel is given by
()
()
=
2
3800 7.319
10.269
=
2
() =
2708.36
2
() = 1354.18
Similarly, assuming the nose wheel can carry only about 10% of the static load, the
maximum static loading for the nose wheel is given by
() = 422 0.25
Where the Ma/B parameter is assumed to be 0.25
() = 105.5
Page 97
And the Mb/B parameter is assumed to be 0.10
() = 422 0.1
() = 42.2
In order to allow for later growth of the aircraft, a 25% margin for static load will be
incorporated. This gives the following results
() = 1692.725
() = 131.875
() = 52.75
From this data we are also able to estimate the dynamic braking load on the nose wheel.
() =
() =
10
10 3.5736 422
32.185 10.269
() = 45.63
Through the use of calculated static load values and published statistical tyre sizing data from
Raymer, the following equation allows us to approximate the required diameter of the main
tyre size.
Which simplifies to the following expression for a jet trainer,
Page 98
.
= 1.59
= 1.59 1692.725.
= 15.01
By correspondence of required values to catalogued values, a type VII tire was selected for
integration in the main landing gear. The characteristics of this tire are tabulated below.
Table 11.1- Main Tyre Data
Size
18 x 4.4
Max Load
2100 lb
Maximum Inflation Pressure
100 psi
Max Tyre diameter
17.9 inches
Wheel Diameter
10 inches
Rolling Radius
7.9 inches
<umber of Plies
We must check that the inflation pressure of the tyre does not exceed 100psi.
Figure 11.6 - Tyre Dimensions
(Raymer, 1992)
From the outlined geometry, figure 11.6, the contact area of the tire can be found as:
Page 99
= 2.3
2
= 2.34.45 17.9
= 21.55
17.9
7.9
2
Therefore, the inflation pressure required is given as
=
=
1692.725
21.55
= 78.5
This is an acceptable value for civil airfield operation, and thus we can validate the
integration of this particular tyre onto the main gear.
Similarly, we must consider the total dynamic nose wheel load when selecting a nose wheel
tyre.
()
=
() + ()
1.3
137.83 + 131.875
=
1.4
= 192.646
By correspondence of required values to catalogued values, a Type III tire was selected for
integration in the main landing gear. The characteristics of this tire are tabulated below and.
Page 100
Table 11.2- Nose Tyre Data
Size
5.00 - 4
Max Load
1200 lb
Maximum Inflation Pressure
55 psi
Max Tyre diameter
13.25 inches
Wheel Diameter
4 inches
<umber of Plies
Finally, the kinetic energy absorbed by the brakes on the main wheels must be calculated to
ensure the aircraft is capable of hard landings.
Assuming, both main gear tyres are fitted with braking systems, the kinetic energy absorbed
is given by,
Where the landing weight is approximated as 95% of the takeoff weight to allow for
emergency landings directly after takeoff
1 4011
118.3
2 32.185
1 10
This is a very small requirement for braking energy, and by comparison with figure 11.7, is
consistent with statistical data for what is expected of a light jet/fighter trainer with a main
gear wheel diameter of 10 inches.
Page 101
Figure 11.7 - Statistical Data for Wheel Diameter
(Raymer, 1992)
11.3 Shock Absorber Integration
As the marketed intention of this aircraft is to train jet pilots, the structure as a whole must be
capable of hard landings. Accordingly, an appropriate shock absorber mechanism must be
integrated onto the landing gear to absorb impact during landings and smoothen out taxing.
An oleo pneumatic shock strut will be incorporated into the landing gear design due to its
simplicity, easily accessible parts and ability to function with a retractable landing gear
system. Illustrated below in figure 11.8 is a schematic diagram of all major component in the
oleo strut.
Page 102
Figure 11.8 - Oleo pneumatic Shock Strut
(Raymer, 1992)
In order to size the shock absorber, preliminary calculations must first be conducted to
determine the required deflection of the strut, also know as the Stroke. Through the
implementation of a fixed orifice oleo pneumatic fixed orifice absorber, the expected
efficiency of the shock absorber is in the order of 0.75.
= 0.75
Efficiency of the shock absorber is expressed as
Where the landing weight is approximated as 95% of the takeoff weight to allow for
emergency landings directly after takeoff and the gear load factor for a FAR23 certified
aircraft is given as 3.0.
However, we must account for the deflection of the tyre upon landing to absorb impact.
Stroke of the tyre is given as half the diameter minus the rolling radius. Therefore, for the
main gear:
= 0.625
The approach speed for civil aircraft during landing is given as 1.3 times the stall speed
Page 103
= 1.3 118.3
= 153.70 /
Assuming an angle of 4o for descent slope, the vertical component of landing velocity is
given by
= sin 4
= 153.70 sin 4
= 10.7 /
This value is consistent with what is expected for an air force aircraft, according to statistical
data in Raymer. Consequently, if we assume an average tire efficiency of 0.47, and a nose
gear load factor of 4.0 for a an air force fighter, a computed value for the stroke of the main
gear is found:
10.7
0.47
=
0.625
2 32.185 0.75 4 0.75
= 0.201 ( 6.13)
This is well below the acceptable threshold for deflection of the strut.
The average total load on the shock absorber during landing is found by:
=
= 4 4011
Page 104
= 16043.6
And hence the oleo diameter can be approximated as
= 1.3
Where the pressure inside the oleo is given as 1800psi (259200 psf)
4 16043.6
= 1.3
259200
= 0.365 ( 11.2 )
11.4 Retraction Mechanism
Due to the cruise speed nature of this aircraft, it is required to implement a mechanical
retracting system for the landing gear. In order to optimise the aerodynamic attributes of the
aircraft and reduce any drag associated with landing gear, the mechanism is designed to
retract into the wing-fuselage junction at 3.53m from the wingtip, as illustrated below in
figure 11.9. Likewise, the nose gear is located 0.4m from the nose tip and retracts rearwards
into the bottom of the fuselage underneath the cockpit.
Figure 11.9 - Birds eye view of Retracted Landing Gear Positioning
Page 105
Such a configuration allows for any mechanical apparatus to be placed inside the fuselage,
instead of the wing and thus reducing excess weight in the wings to minimise structural
weight on the wing box. Furthermore, the large amounts of excess space buried within the
fuselage make such a configuration ideal. The total length of the strut plus the radius of the
tyre is 1.475m. From figure 11.10 below, we have a total of 1.55m clearance if the landing
gear is positioned 0.9m down the wing, and thus are confident that this landing gear
configuration will function properly with no conflict.
Figure 11.10 - Front on view of main landing gear arrangement
(Raymer, 1992)
Page 106
12 Weight and Balance Analysis
12.1 Weight estimation
In the preliminary design section the actual components of the aircraft are not yet known.
Hence an estimation of the aircrafts weight distribution (lbs) will examined by external
design. Form the initial list of suitable aircraft he following data was obtained.
COMPONENT
NORTHROP
T38A
Engines
Wing
Empennage
Fuselage
Engine group
Landing gear
Structural Total:
Engine(s)
Air Intake
Fuel System
Propulsion System
Power Total:
ROCKWELL
CESSNA T37A
NAA
2
2
2
Payload
CANADAIR CL41
2
2
765
305
1985
147
457
3659
STRUCTURE
1753
297
2014
315
728
5107
531
128
839
1089
165
743
330
1828
459
2456
1038
136
285
171
1630
POWER PLANT
959
12
190
140
1301
751
14
225
205
1195
Avionics and inst
211
Surface Controls
425
Hydraulics/Pneumatics
154
Electrical
296
Electronics
246
Air Cond system/anti icing 142
Furnishing
460
Auxiliary System
24
Fixed Total:
1958
Trapped Fuel and Oil
Max Fuel
Fuel Total
FOUGA
MAGIS
FIXED EQUIPMENT
122
344
116
720
407
333
857
892
201
955
40
318
2406
2899
132
154
56
194
86
69
256
3
950
62
3916
3978
FUEL
89
5805
5894
104
1959
2063
1299
1299
2082
2082
426
Payload
1500
400
400
400
172
Page 107
12.2 Statistical Estimation
In order to estimate the distribution of weight within the concept design, the external weight
data was broken down in to five distinct categories. The categories included the structural
group, the propulsion group, the fixed equipment, fuel and payload. This weight breakdown
system was employed to ensure that components within the same classification are grouped
together to ensure an accurate and consisted group weight estimation. This system would also
help in analyzing the effect of a particular weight group on the overall balance of the aircraft
and this would help in determining the sensitivity of the aircrafts center of gravidity (CG) to
individual components weights.
12.2.1 Structural weight distribution
CANADAIR CL-41
FOUGA MAGIS
Wing
Empennage
CESSNA T37A
Fuselage
Engine group
ROCKWELL NAA
Landing gear
NORTHROP T38A
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Page 108
12.2.2 Propulsion weight distribution
CANADAIR CL-41
FOUGA MAGIS
Engine(s)
CESSNA T37A
Air Intake
Fuel System
ROCKWELL NAA
Propulsion System
NORTHROP T38A
0
500
1000
1500
2000
12.2.3 Fixed equipment distribution
Avionics and inst
CANADAIR CL-41
Surface controls
FOUGA MAGIS
Hydraulics/Pneumatics
CESSNA T37A
Electrical
ROCKWELL NAA
Electronics
NORTHROP T38A
Aircond system/anti
icing
Furninshing
0
1000 2000 3000 4000
In order to correct for difference in weight and configuration, the group weights were plotted
verses the recorded takeoff weights. The data was then extrapolated and a trend was
determined. The first estimate for the concept aircrafts weight was substituted to derive the
first estimate for the aircrafts group weight.
Page 109
12.2.4 Take Off Weight Vs Weight of Components
W(TO) Vs W comp
7000
Comp weight (lbs)
6000
5000
STRUCTURE
4000
POWER PLANT
3000
FIXED EQUIPMNET
2000
FUEL
PAYLOAD
1000
0
0
5000
10000
W(TO) LBS
15000
20000
12.2.5 Statistical Estimate Results
Trend line approximation R2 > .95
WStructure = 0.2734 x + 228.41
WPropulsion = 0.0107 x + 1251
WFixed = 0.1899 x 266.26
This system of estimates generated the following results.
Empty weight = 1458 kg
Operational weight= 1911 kg
Takeoff weight = 2362 kg
Page 110
12.3 Analytical Estimation
As the estimation of the weight is critical when estimating the CG of the aircraft and hence
the overall stability of the aircraft, it was decided that an independent verification of the
approximated weights be carried out. This was done by comparing the data collected with
standard statistical benchmarks for weight breakdown and distribution.
WE = WSTRUCTURE + WPROPULSIO3 + WSYSTEM
Where
WSTRUCTURE = WFUSELAGE + WWI3G + WEMPE33AGE + WLG
W fuselage = 30 40%
Wwing = 30 40%
Wempennage = 5 10%
Wgear = 10 15%
12.3.1 Second Estimate Results
Component/ DATA
WEIGHT (LBS)
W(TO)
WEIGHT
(KG)
WTO
1.00
4222
1915.06
Engine Weight (PROPULSIO<)
0.07
300.18
136.16
Fuel Weight
0.26
1085.02
492.16
System Weight
0.12
429.99
195.04
Crew/PAYLOAD Weight
0.12
490.17
222.33
W structure= wfuel-wprop-wpayload-wsystem
0.46
1924.38
872.89
Wings
0.40
769.75
349.15
Fuselage
0.40
769.75
349.15
Empennage
0.10
192.43
87.29
Gear
0.10
192.43
87.29
Structural break down
The second method of estimation gives the following results in terms of group weight
Empty weight= 1499 kg
Operational weight= 1939 kg
Page 111
Takeoff weight = 2489 kg
12.3.2 Correlation Analysis
Empty
Operational
Takeoff
Estimate 1
1458.15
1911.75
2384.00
Correlation
0.99862605
Estimate 2 Difference % error
1498.99
40.84
2.80
1938.99
27.24
1.46
2488.99
104.99
4.40
Form the collected data it can be concluded that the two methods yield results which have
less than 5% error between the individual component estimated and a linear correlation of
.998. Hence we can confidently assume that the preliminary weight estimation will lead to a
reasonable estimate in the estimation of the aircrafts center of gravity.
12.4 Class I Weight Estimation and Balance
12.4.1 Empty weight components
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Fuselage group
Wing group
Empennage group
Engine group
Landing gear group
Fixed equipment group
i =6
WE = Wi
i =1
12.4.2 Operational empty weight components
7. Trapped fuel and oil
8. Crew
i =8
WOE = Wi
i =1
9.
10.
11.
12.
12.4.3 Takeoff weight components
Fuel
Passengers
Baggage
Cargo
Page 112
i =12
WTO = Wi
i =1
The static stability of the aircraft was determined by exploring the cg movement of the
aircraft under various loading conditions. Given the constraints of this project, the stability
analysis stopped short of plotting an excursion diagram. The table below summarizes the
estimated location of individual inertial points on the aircraft as calculated in their respective
section and a combined weight estimate. Table 12.5 lists out the moment of the aircrafts cg
under primary loading conditions.
A dynamic stability analysis (exploring the effects of the aircrafts cg under various flight
regimes had been ignored.
12.5 Center Of Gravity Estimation2
WEIGHT
(KG)
X
CORD
XW
Y
CORD
YW
Z
CORD
ZW
FUSELAGE GROUP
FUSELAGE
350
2.16
756
5.65
1977.
5
WI<G GROUP
WI<G (RIGHT)
175
3.15
875
WI<G (LEFT)
175
3.15
551.2
5
551.2
5
875
EMPE<<AGE
HORIZO<TAL LEFT
26.184
8.23
215.4
9
5.2
136.1
5
-1.15
26.184
8.23
5.2
7.33
136.1
5
224.2
3
1.15
34.912
215.4
9
255.9
0
30.1
2
30.1
2
0
LA<DI<G GEAR
GROUP
LA<DI<G GEAR
87.29
3.45
301.4
0
4.375
381.8
9
FIXED EQUIPME<T
AVIO<ICS
191.42
2.2
5.65
297
2.2
1081.
52
1678.
05
FUR<ISHI<GS
421.1
2
653.4
0
E<GI<E GROUP
E<GI<E
136
8.75
1045.
84
5.65
HORIZO<TAL
RIGHT
VERTICAL
6.423
5.65
768.4
Coordinates from primary coordinate system
Page 113
EMPTY WEIGHT
TRAPPED FUEL
A<D OIL
CREW
OPERATIO<AL
WEIGHT
FUEL
FUEL TA<K
(RIGHT)
FUEL TA<K (LEFT)
FUEL TA<K (BACK)
1498.99
0
0
0
220
1938.99
2.2
968
5.65
2486
100
3.15
315
500
100
300
3.15
5
315
1500
5
5
500
1500
0
0
50
2.30
0
0
250
0
0
0
CARGO GROUP
BAGGAGE
CARGO
TAKEOFF WEIGHT
2488.99
Page 114
12.5.1 CoG as a percentage of MAC
FUSELAGE GROUP
0.3808
WI<G GROUP
WING (RIGHT)
0.5553
WING (LEFT)
0.5553
EMPE<<AGE
HORIZONTAL LEFT
1.4510
HORIZONTAL RIGHT
1.4510
VERTICAL
1.2923
LA<DI<G GEAR GROUP
LANDING GEAR
0.6088
FIXED EQUIPME<T
AVIONICS
0.3879
FURNISHINGS
0.3879
E<GI<E GROUP
ENGINE
1.3558
CREW
0.3879
FUEL
FUEL TANK (RIGHT)
0.5553
FUEL TANK (LEFT)
0.5553
FUEL TANK (BACK)
0.8815
12.5.2 Summary of COG on MAC
EMPTY WEIGHT
0.5842
OPERATIONAL WEIGHT
0.5397
TAKE OFF WEIGHT
0.5713
Page 115
12.6 Loading Scenarios with Primary Coordinate System
I
n order to determine the moment of the center of gravity under numerous loading conditions,
four loading conditions were predetermined and the center of gravity calculated at the
respective points .
These were then plotted to determine the movement of the center of gravity and determined
the most forward and most aft center of gravity. The final results of this iterative process are
tabulated below.
LOADI<G SCE<ARIOS
XCG
YCG
ZCG
EMPTY WEIGHT
1498.99
3.313676
0.035889
5.426267
EMPTY WEIGHT+ CREW
1938.99
3.060958
0.030659
5.477037
EMPTY WEIGHT + CREW +FUEL
2438.99
3.306765
0.030524
5.379243
EMPTY WEIGHT+ CREW +FUEL +PAYLOAD
2488.99
3.240337
0.03192
5.371625
Page 116
WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
3000
2000
Weight (kgs)
1000
0
LOADING SCENARIOES
LOADING SCENARIOS
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
3
3.05
3.1
3.15
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
LOADING SCENARIOES
12.6.1 Movement of CG
The movement of the CG was determined by observing the overall moment of the planes
center of gravity under general loading conditions. The most aft and forward CG was
determined in this section. For clarity, the aircrafts static margin and neutral point are quoted
in the summary table below but are derived in the next chapter.
12.6.2 3D Center of Gravity Distribution
The 3D surface plot below gives a crude visual aid to the overall three dimensional stability
of the aircraft. The data collected from the preliminary calculations suggests that the aircrafts
static stability is reasonable.
Page 117
3D CG Distribution
6
4-6
2-4
2
ZCG
0
0-2
YCG
1
2
XCG
3
4
12.7 Summary of Results
MOST FROWARD CG = 3.06
MOST AFT CG = 3.31
NEUTRAL POINT = 3.5
STATIC MARGIN = 5.6%
Page 118
13 Stability and Control Analysis
13.1 Longitudinal x-plot
The CG is calculated using the weight and balance analysis to locate the CG of the aircraft.
From this the weight of the horizontal tail is given on a per ft2 basis. Assuming that it is
independent of the surface area, the CG can be obtained for various surface areas. As the
area of the tail increases the location of the centre of gravity will change. This can be
corrected using the following equation;
X H = 26.2631 + 0.25 *
SH A
A
This can then be applied to the centre of gravity analysis with the modified location of the
horizontal tail. The following equation was used for the calculation of the changed centre of
gravity of the aircraft;
X CG =
W X
W
i
The aerodynamic centre is determined from the following equation;
Xac H +
Xac A =
Xac H (C LH (1
d H S H
)( ))
d
S
C L W + F
d
S
(C LH (1 H )( H ))
d
S
1+
C L W + F
Firstly it is noted that the downwash angle () diminishes aft of the wing to a value of
approximately half the wing angle of attack at the tail of a typical aircraft. The downwash
Page 119
angle
was
found
to
be
degrees
C Lh =
C Lh
+ i h OLh
C Lh =
C m w S w C w 0.512 *168.906 * 5.6919
=
= 0.84432
16.7 * 34.91
xH S H
for
the
horizontal
tail.
0.84432
= 16.1357
0.13963 0.0873 + 0 0
CL
1.5
1.5
C L (W + F )
= 0
=
= 5.7296
0
+ i w OL 10 + 0 + 5
0.1745 + 0.0873
C Lh =
Using Figure 16.12 from Raymer
d H
0.49
d
From this the longitudinal X-plot can be generated using Excel for varying horizontal tail
area given in the table.
Table 13.1- Longitudinal X-Plot Data
(1-de-h/dalpha) =
0.51
C-LalphaH =
C-LalphaW+F =
Sh
X h (ft)
16.16357
5.7296
XW
ft^2
(ftkg)
X-acA
Xcg (ft)
Xcg bar
X-acH (ft)
(S-H/S)
X-acA
(ft)
bar
SM
26.2631
687.673
10.63229858
1.867962
26.2631
10.33465
1.815668
0.052294
26.60813
10
696.7073
10.63955802
1.869238
26.60813278
0.059205
11.61202
2.040086
-0.17085
26.75105
20
700.4495
10.64256498
1.869766
26.75105004
0.118409
12.72425
2.235492
-0.36573
26.80864
25
701.9576
10.64377676
1.869979
26.80864473
0.148011
13.22688
2.323798
-0.45382
26.83527
27.5
702.6548
10.644337
1.870077
26.83527214
0.162812
13.46627
2.365856
-0.49578
26.84045
28
702.7903
10.64444594
1.870096
26.84045027
0.165773
13.51324
2.374108
-0.50401
26.86071
30
703.3209
10.6448723
1.870171
26.8607143
0.177614
13.6982
2.406602
-0.53643
26.87547
31.5
703.7074
10.64518281
1.870226
26.87547244
0.186494
13.83392
2.430447
-0.56022
26.95317
40
705.7417
10.64681746
1.870513
26.95316556
0.236818
14.55795
2.55765
-0.68714
This gives rise to the following graph for the longitudinal x-plot;
Page 120
Longitudinal X-Plot
Xac-A and Xcg-fr. wing chord
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Horizontal Tail Area S-h ft^2
Xcg-aft fr wing chord
Xac-A
Figure 13.1 - Longitudinal X-Plot
Roskam suggests about 5% static margin (SM) for this type of aircraft. As the jet is a trainer a
bit extra stability would be beneficial since the training pilot would be inexperienced. 5.6%
SM was used for the aircraft and using the x-plot this corresponded to an area of 31.5 ft2.
This area was 9.8% different from the VH method. Roskam mentions that this is within a
reasonable margin of difference.
13.2 Directional X-Plot
The directional x-plot gives an estimation of the required vertical tail area for the specific
amount of yawing moment due to sideslip derivative. This is obtained using the following
equation;
S X
C n = C nWF + C LV V V
S b
The overall level of directional stability is recommended to be 0.001 per degree. Roskam
Part 5 was used to obtain the aerodynamic quantities. The process is as follows to determine
C nWF and C LV .
C nW = 0 For preliminary purposes
Page 121
S fs l f
C nF = 57.3K 3 K R1
Sb
Figure 10.28 from Roskam can be used for the determination of KN. It was found, using
dimensions of the fuselage, that K 3 0.0004 . Figure 10.29 provides for K R1 as the effect of
the fuselage Reynolds number on wing-fuselage directional stability. This required the
finding of the Reynolds number;
Re =
Vl f 0.0007382 * 591.15 * 30.9
=
= 44.95 x10 6
0.3x10 6
K Rl 1.78 Figure 10.29
102.997 * 30.9
C nF = 57.3 * 0.0004 *1.78 *
= 0.02573
168.906 * 29.883
=
(
2+
+
4
1 +
= 18 From Figure 8.45 of Roskam
= (1 )
= 0.6
= 0.8
=
C l =
()
0.156
= 0.195
0 .8
k = 0.031
1 +
1
= 1.1 From Figure 10.14
= 1 From Figure 10.16
Page 122
= 1.14 From Figure 10.15
= 2.508
C Lv = 0.405
Using these values it was possible to generate a table in Excel for the directional x-plot with
varying vertical tail area.
S-V
C-
ft^2
nbetta
-0.0257
-0.02036
-0.01715
10
-0.01502
15
-0.00967
20
-0.00433
22.5
-0.00166
25
0.001009
25.3
0.001329
25.4
0.001436
25.5
0.001543
26
0.002077
30
0.00635
35
0.011692
Figure 13.2 - Directional X-Plot Data
The results of this table are expressed in the following graph for the directional x-plot.
Page 123
Directional X-Plot
0.015
0.01
C-nbetta per degree
0.005
0
-0.005
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
-0.03
Sv ft^2
C-nbetta
Figure 13.3 - Directional X-Plot
For the overall level of directional stability to be 0.001 per degree the vertical tail area was
found to be 25 ft2. Using the Vv method the surface area was 26.34 ft2. These values vary by
5.1% which is within the allowed 10% margin of error suggested by Roskam.
Page 124
14 Drag Polar Determination
In this section the drag polar values will be calculated based on estimated wetted areas of the
aircraft. The total wetted area was calculated using the CAD software.
Table 14.1 - Individual Wetted Area Components
Part
Wetted area (m2)
Fuselage
47.595
Horizontal tail
3.4822
Vertical tail
5.182
Wing
38.7657
Wing/fuselage
interference
-1
Total
58.7414
A value of Cf=0.003 should be attainable.
=
= 1.765
= .003 58.7414
= 0.164
The zero lift drag coefficient is thus 0 =
1.765
168.9
= 0.01044
The compressibility drag increment can be estimated from figure 12.7, Roskam and can be
seen to be roughly 0.0005.
Because the slight change in cruise drag has a negligible effect on the take-off and landing
polars, these do not need to be re-calculated.
The cruise value of zero lift drag coefficient is now
0 = 0.0005 + 0.01044
= 0.01094
Page 125
The next step in the analysis if this were to taken over into detailed design is to re-calculate
the (L/D)max and then re-calculate the sensitivity based on this parameter.
Page 126
15 Performance and Flight Mechanics
Due to time constraints, an analytical study of the performance and flight mechanics of this
jet was not conducted. However, theoretical data was considered to ensure that the aircraft
sizing was in line with what is expected. The following coordinate system, depicted in figure
15.1, is used throughout the performance examination, with every attempt made to keep
consistent units
Figure 15.1 - Coordinate System used of aircraft
Consideration must be given to the defining criteria in order to select a series of suitable
points within the MET AREA. From, this point, further investigation will aim to optimise
the performance of the aircraft.
By reiteration of the design process, it may be possible to maximise the lift to drag ratio of
the aircraft and resultantly optimise the minimum thrust required for level flight. The chief
equations of interest in this investigation are,
Page 127
Accordingly, through the use of stipulated design equations, it is possible to calculate the
minimum thrust, lift coefficient and drag to maintain level flight. With all these parameters in
consideration, this aircraft would have a much better ability to minimise fuel consumption
and hence maximise range.
In a similar fashion, we are able to approximate these parameters for cruise on minimum
power, and through comparison for different values within the MET AREA, a selection may
be made based upon optimum values.
Such analytical results are then compared to graphical data for quality assurance purposes.
Furthermore, similar analysis are undertaken to optimise velocity, drag and lift coefficients
for the following scenarios
Range optimization
Loiter Optimization
Best Angle and Rate of Climb
Time to climb trajectory and Fuel to climb
Page 128
Sustained and Instantaneous Turning Flight
Through a thorough analysis of these scenarios, by similar equations outlined above, it would
be possible to plot the attributes of several defining points of our MET AREA . By
comparing and evaluating these results, a final selection could be made that would not only
satisfy the criteria outlines in the technical task, but exceed them and provide an optimum
aircraft to manufacture.
Page 129
16 Conclusion
The very light jet outlined in this report was designed with todays technology in mind,
therefore only components which are currently available were considered in the aircrafts
design. An existing jet engine was chosen taking into account the availability and
accreditation of the engine as well as the fact that by todays standards the engine would
provide adequate thrust to enter the jet trainer market. The fuselage and wings were designed
to take into account low drag, ease of manufacturing, and the aerodynamic efficiency.. The
wings and fuselage of the aircraft were also designed to be as lightweight as possible, hence
reducing fuel consumption and therefore resulting in a more sustainable design. The landing
gear of the aircraft was designed and sized to ensure sufficient shock absorption upon impact.
Durability and low maintenance along with ease of manufacture were also considered in its
design. A retraction gear system was added to the design to reduce the drag produced by the
fixed landing gear configuration significantly improving fuel economy. The cockpit was
designed with pilot and passenger comfort and safety as the primary consideration. Standard
ergonomic principles were applied to ensure the cockpit design maintained excellent
visibility with the incorporation of a bubble canopy without sacrificing the aesthetic appeal of
the aircraft. The control surfaces were incorporated into the design to ensure sufficient lift
and excellent manoeuvrability of the aircraft, conforming to the criteria of a very light jet.
Existing avionics systems have been selected and integrated into the aircraft to allow for easy
transferral into a jet environment, while ensuring all navigation requirements were met to
allow the aircraft to be certified. The overall design of the aircraft has met the initial criteria
set out at the beginning of the project ensuring the very light jet complies to required FAR23
standards.
Page 130
17 References
Anderson, J. 1999 Aircraft Performance and Design McGraw Hill, USA.
Arjomandi, M, 2008, Aircraft Design Lecture Notes, University of Adelaide, Australia
Barnes and Mccormick, 1979, Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, Wiley &
Sons.
Beer & Johnston, 1999, Vector Mechanics for Engineers, McGraw-Hill.
Brandt S.A, 2004, Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design Perspective, American Institute of
Aeronautics.
Raymer, D. 2006 Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach AIAA, Reston, Virginia
Roskam, J., 2004, Airplane design, Vol.1-8, DAR corporation, California, USA.
Software Used:
Advanced Aircraft Analysis, DARCORP
Javafoil
Page 131
VLJ TRAINER
TITLE
Three View Drawing
SIZE SCALE
A3
ID
MATERIAL:
1:100
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
TBA
TOLERANCES:
+/- 1mm
221
R 15
160
5
R7
521
190
19
178
160
29
452
180
145
80
R 112
140
255
198
26 109
112
137
96
41
183
943
VLJ TRAINER
TITLE
Three View Drawing
SIZE SCALE
A3
ID
MATERIAL:
1:100
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
TBA
TOLERANCES:
+/- 1mm
939
293
80
182
147
349
1
R6
182
145
145
D
120
D
136
VLJ TRAINER
TITLE
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
SECTION C-C
SECTION D-D
DETAIL VIEW: FUSELAGE
SIZE SCALE
A3
ID
:
MATERIAL:
ALL DIMESNSIONS IN MM
1:100
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
REFER TABLE OF MATERIALS SEC 6
68
R3
2
2
R7
5
R7
6
R7
G 12.5
G 18
R 16
R5
R 62
R3
50
155
182
VLJ TRAINER
TITLE
DETAIL VIEW: FUSELAGE FRONT
SIZE SCALE
A3
ID
:
MATERIAL:
ALL DIMESNSIONS IN MM
1:100
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
REFER TABLE OF MATERIALS SEC 6
75
34
10
19
108
180
190
72
208
5
6
R1
36
R2
R1
30
R2
28
19
VLJ TRAINER
TITLE
Horizontal Stabiliser
SIZE SCALE
DIMENSIONS
1:100
Millimeters
ID
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
MATERIAL: TBA
TOLERANCES:
+/- 1mm
A3
31
6 0
40
R3
229
221
256
120
60
10 4
38
103
R3
39
7
13
R3
R2
VLJ TRAINER
TITLE
Vertical Stabiliser
199
SIZE SCALE
DIMENSIONS
1 : 70
Millimeters
ID
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
MATERIAL: TBA
TOLERANCES:
+/- 1mm
A3
Flapped Area
NACA 4611
NACA 4611
16
NACA 4610
SECTION A-A
6
6
18
2
3
VLJ TRAINER
TITLE
WING ASSEMBLY
SIZE SCALE
A3
ID
MATERIAL:
1:333
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
You might also like
- Aircraft Design: Assignment (52, Assignment 1) : Mission Definition, Analysis of Requirements, ConceptNo ratings yetAircraft Design: Assignment (52, Assignment 1) : Mission Definition, Analysis of Requirements, Concept27 pages
- Aircraft Design Project Eight Seater Short Range Business Jet Aircraft89% (9)Aircraft Design Project Eight Seater Short Range Business Jet Aircraft119 pages
- Design of 300 Seated Long Range Aircraft: Aswath J Hariharan L Navinkumar V (19101006) (19101015) (19101025)No ratings yetDesign of 300 Seated Long Range Aircraft: Aswath J Hariharan L Navinkumar V (19101006) (19101015) (19101025)96 pages
- Aircraft Design Project - 150 Seater Passenger Aircraft75% (12)Aircraft Design Project - 150 Seater Passenger Aircraft118 pages
- AVIAVIS Short Range High Capacity Transport Aircraft Design100% (1)AVIAVIS Short Range High Capacity Transport Aircraft Design106 pages
- AIAA 2019 2020 Undergraduate Team RFP HiNo ratings yetAIAA 2019 2020 Undergraduate Team RFP Hi100 pages
- System For Determine The Key CharacteristicsNo ratings yetSystem For Determine The Key Characteristics33 pages
- Aircraft Design Project On Fighter Aircraft (Sukhoi)100% (4)Aircraft Design Project On Fighter Aircraft (Sukhoi)53 pages
- Aircraft Design Project On Fighter Aircraft SukhoiNo ratings yetAircraft Design Project On Fighter Aircraft Sukhoi53 pages
- AESP415 Fall24 A1 RequirementsFuselage T04 Sub1No ratings yetAESP415 Fall24 A1 RequirementsFuselage T04 Sub131 pages
- Matteo Scalchi 1040030 - Tesi Di Laurea Magistrale100% (1)Matteo Scalchi 1040030 - Tesi Di Laurea Magistrale121 pages
- Nissan Terrano I (Model WD21 Series) (A.k.a. Nissan Pathfinder) Workshop Service Repair Manual 1987-1995 in German (2,500+ Pages, 262MB, Searchable, Printable, Bookmarked, iPad-Ready PDF0% (1)Nissan Terrano I (Model WD21 Series) (A.k.a. Nissan Pathfinder) Workshop Service Repair Manual 1987-1995 in German (2,500+ Pages, 262MB, Searchable, Printable, Bookmarked, iPad-Ready PDF15 pages
- Design and Fabrication of Small Scale Trainer AircraftNo ratings yetDesign and Fabrication of Small Scale Trainer Aircraft24 pages
- MA 4701 AY 15 S1 Aircraft Design - Course Activities and PlanningNo ratings yetMA 4701 AY 15 S1 Aircraft Design - Course Activities and Planning26 pages
- Multirole Fighter Aircraft: U6Aeb29-Aircraft Design Project-INo ratings yetMultirole Fighter Aircraft: U6Aeb29-Aircraft Design Project-I71 pages
- Design Project of Four Hundred Seater Twin Engine Passenger AircraftNo ratings yetDesign Project of Four Hundred Seater Twin Engine Passenger Aircraft67 pages
- Er - Perumal Manimekalai College of Engineering, HosurNo ratings yetEr - Perumal Manimekalai College of Engineering, Hosur53 pages
- Design and Development of Fully Composite Mini Unmanned AerialNo ratings yetDesign and Development of Fully Composite Mini Unmanned Aerial43 pages
- Hybrid Racing K-Swap Radiator Install GuideNo ratings yetHybrid Racing K-Swap Radiator Install Guide6 pages
- SPECIFIC ORDERS-Superguard Posts (Minimized)No ratings yetSPECIFIC ORDERS-Superguard Posts (Minimized)3 pages
- Strategy Management Ford Case Study SolutionsNo ratings yetStrategy Management Ford Case Study Solutions10 pages
- Jjmie: Design Analysis and Modeling of A General Aviation AircraftNo ratings yetJjmie: Design Analysis and Modeling of A General Aviation Aircraft9 pages
- Communication - Usart, Uart, Rs232, Usb, Spi, I2c, TTL, Etc100% (2)Communication - Usart, Uart, Rs232, Usb, Spi, I2c, TTL, Etc3 pages
- Analysis of Tesla's Marketing Strategy in ChinaNo ratings yetAnalysis of Tesla's Marketing Strategy in China10 pages