D3: Conceptual aircraft design exercise

1. Background

Until now Part 1 and Part 2 of the conceptual design have focused on two areas:

Part 1: the assignment was to compare the Operating Empty Weight (OWE) and Maximum Take-Off
Weight (MTOW) of a series of aircraft selected from a set of 70 models. The selected models provided
valuable comparisons to use in the future. From this we learnt that we can assess our progress in
conceptualising a new aircraft based on how it matches and differs from existing solutions on the
market.

Part 2: we used a Macros-enabled Excel workbook to create a series of curves for different stages of
flight and for a range of design wing loading. The curves were created by using ISA data, our mission
specification, a series of assumptions about cruise altitude/speed and some other points.

The purpose of both was to create a preliminary table/graph of data to use for D3 and the following
assignments.

2. Market Analysis

25 aircraft were initially selected to be within ±50% of the specified range and passenger capacity:
3,700nm and 165 passengers.

Several models were removed, starting with some which were too far from the reference to accurately
model what the desired aircraft should compare to (<2500nm range OR <130 passengers). Lastly, I
removed the B767-200 as it was significantly heavier (And the only wide-body), as well as the DC10
as it’s a trijet with an outdated configuration and presented an outlier compared to more modern
configurations. This left me with 14 aircraft.

Considering the class configuration of 20/80 in my mission specification, I found an airline which
regularly flies this configuration on aircraft in my set. I found Icelandair often flies the 737 Max 8 and
9, as well as the 757-200. They also have around 10-13%/87-90% which is as close as I could find.1

From this I estimated an average passenger + luggage weight of 112.5kg/pax, with a generous 23kg
economy and 64kg business luggage allowance. This left me with an average freight capacity of
1354.4kg for the studied aircraft, which I used as the expected freight utilisation in my mission.

1 Icelandair (2024). Icelandair fleet.

 3. Summary analysis

Starting with the drag equation, we find a formulation giving the relation between Thrust loading T/W
and Wing loading W/Sref for each of the operating conditions. The constants are given based on
atmospheric conditions (ISA data), technological capabilities, simplifications of flight profiles &
mission variations.

In general we are using several assumptions to simplify the process of design. Therefore for each stage
of flight many of the requirements are based on safety standards coming from civil aviation regulators
(eg: CS-25) or simplifications, which establish the safe performance expected from our aircraft.

I will go through each of the curves briefly describing where we are getting our information, and what
each one means. Regardless, each curve has its own variation of the equation relating:

𝑇𝑠𝑙𝑠 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊
∝
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓

1. Cruise at Mach 0.78

Here we are looking at the performance during regular cruise conditions. By convention speed is given
as mach 0.78 and the altitude is 37000ft. We ignore flight plans such as a stepped or continuous climb
and make an assumption about the fuel consumed climbing to cruise altitude/taxiing. See EQ1 for all
of the inputs affecting T/W given by cruise condition.

2. Cruise at Mmo 0.82

The same curve is repeated for a faster Mach 0.82, lower altitude and fuel consumption. Both curves
are plotted with their corresponding variant of the equation. See EQ1, albeit with changed conditions

3. Hold/Turn at 1500 ft

Hold is the condition where an aircraft is waiting for a landing slot, turning at constant speed and
altitude. When in level flight at a much lower altitude, airspeed is defined in knots true airspeed rather
than by Mach number, with a load factor n>1.

The constants imputed this time are also assumptions on the hold altitude 1500ft, the hold TAS 250kts,
the turn rate, the remaining fuel (weight) and throttle setting. In combination with a new function
incorporating the load factor. See EQ3 for inputs, which include load factor 𝑛.

4. 2ng Segment climb

Climb is greatly regulated when it comes to safety, the greatest danger posed to an aircraft with a
failing engine is during take-off. Therefore, the design prepared for one-engine inoperative (OEI)
conditions, so it can be guaranteed that the aircraft can safely return to the runway.

Regulation establishes the minimum climb gradient 2.4%, safe climb airspeed 20% higher than the
stalling speed. All modern aircraft deploy lift-augmenting devices (flaps) which change both CLmax
and increase drag CD0, to achieve this. We also assume that weight and atmospheric conditions
remain the same (sea-level cond.) throughout the climb. See EQ4 for formulation.
 5. Take-Off

Using the take-off field length (limited by runway length) and maximum throttle during the phase. See
EQ5.

6. Landing

Landing is similar but thrust loading is not required in the calculations (there is no throttle setting
specified, etc). We maximise 𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 at landing to achieve a shorter landing field. See EQ6

Design point:

My design point stems from the maximum span. I noticed when comparing to similar aircraft that the
737 Max has a span of 35.9m2, conspicuously close to the 36m of standard gate sizes. Given the 737
was half of my similar aircraft, I worked back from this value using 𝐴𝑅, then 𝑊/𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 , and from there
using the curve which restricted the design point (2nd Segment climb).

Figure 1: Design point

The result: the red dot on the graph, with a 3% margin away from the line.

Figure 2: Thrust Loading vs Wing Loading chart. Figure 3: T/W vs W/S of similar market aircraft, comparison.

Compared to the competitor’s aircraft, mine (orange diamond) seems to fit closely with the A320-200
in terms of payload, passengers, and cargo. Mine has lower thrust loading and wing loading, being
closer to the A319-100 in these terms. However, it has a greater range than the A320-200 or the
A320neo. See appendix table 1 for plotted aircraft.

However, it does also have a significantly increased weight, more akin to the B737 MAX 9.

2 Chris Brady (1999). Boeing 737 Detailed Technical Data. The 737 Information Site
 4. Overall estimates

To produce accurate estimates, I always tried to either base it off the constrains we were given or choose
the closest available data where it wasn’t possible.

Based off the Icelandair luggage allocations, avg. cargo capacity of similar aircraft and passenger weight
surveys, the overall payload is 19,920kg:3

Figure 4: Passenger, Baggage and Cargo weight

For the 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 estimate, we stick to the formulas and the input data from the analysis described in
section D2.4 (slides 18-25) of Lecture 12.

Figure 5: Weight estimation Figure 6: MTOW estimate equation.

Once 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 is found from the derived formula (which uses the coefficients in the graph below) we
can also use the fuel fraction constant 𝐶𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 to find the mass of fuel 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 . The remaining weight which
is neither payload nor fuel is the weight of the aircraft itself.

3 Icelandair (2024). Baggage allowance on international flights.

Figure 7: OWE vs MTOW of market aircraft, comparison.

The OWE vs MTOW chart (my aircraft in an orange diamond) matches other similar aircraft very
closely, which would mean both that the results are as expected, but also that the group of aircraft that
it’s being compared with are similar enough to make evaluations without extrapolating data. See
appendix table 1 for plotted aircraft.

5. Summary table

Figure 8: my aircraft, table of values

6. Discussion

Overall, I didn’t find that there was much for me to change in the inputs, which is possibly a good thing,
minimizing the number of interdependent variables to produce a useful concept.

In general, there were the following types of inputs:

- Mission allocation: 165 pax, 3700nm range, 20/80 class config, 2700 𝑇𝑂𝐹𝐿.
- Safety assumptions: mostly from CS-25, regarding the curves on stages of flight
- Industry standards: mostly relating to existing technology & expected improvements, flight
speeds, airport constraints (wingspan), passenger/baggage/cargo weight.
 - Atmospheric conditions: significantly simplified, ie altitudes remain constant.
- Current market: the only way of checking if the aircraft is a reasonable fit to the mission is by
comparing it to existing aircraft which already have a similar mission.

In all these senses, I get a strong impression that aircraft design at the concept stage is very iterative,
with small (although not insignificant) changes made to accommodate changes in demands from
airlines.

Smaller changes may be made later in the design, as we work out more accurate ways of modelling the
requirements and performance. The one which seemed most obvious to me was that we’re assuming
the entire cruise is done at the same altitude, which according to our lectures is not at all the standard
procedure.

I would assume that at the next stage, more detail would be added, comparing the changes to my current
results. As the complexity increases, I might want to create several versions of the calculations, to test
how each potential change will affect the aircraft. E.g.: if a few options for the powerplant are given, I
would have a separate workbook for each version so I can compare the results from changes in thrust
or weight.

The same could apply to future versions of the aircraft, where the mission allocation is changed slightly
with the shrinking/stretching of the aircraft. Because they would mostly only affect the number of
passengers. The wings will remain the same, so plotting new design points on the T/W vs W/S should
be relatively easy (compared to creating a new aircraft.

7. Appendix

Equations converted from Excel Workbook Unicode format, tested with feedback quizzes.4

- EQ1: Cruise equation (curve 1 & 2):

𝑇𝑐𝑟 𝑅𝑅𝐶 𝑊𝑐𝑟 −1 𝐾 𝑊𝑐𝑟

=( ) + 𝐶𝐷0 ∗ 𝑞𝑐𝑟 ∗ ( ) + ∗( )
𝑊𝑐𝑟 𝑉𝑐𝑟 𝑆 𝑞𝑐𝑟 𝑆

- EQ3: Hold/turn (curve 3):

𝑇𝑡 𝑊𝑡 −1 𝐾 ∗ 𝑛2 𝑊𝑡
= 𝐶𝐷0,𝑡 ∗ 𝑞𝑡 ∗ ( ) + ∗( )
𝑊𝑡 𝑆 𝑞𝑡 𝑆

- EQ4: 2nd Segment Climb (curve 4):

𝑇𝑐𝑙 𝐷𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏
= 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑙 ∗
𝑊𝑐𝑙 𝐿𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏

- EQ5: Take-off field length (curve 5):

4 Dr Jagadeesh, C. (2022). AE2400 Assignment 2 - Sizing Diagram 2022-23. City, University of London
 𝑇𝑇𝑂 𝐶 𝑊𝑇𝑂
= ∗( )
𝑊𝑇𝑂 𝑇𝑂𝐹𝐿 ∗ 𝜎 ∗ 𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑇𝑂 𝑆

- EQ6: Landing (curve 6):

𝑊𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜎 ∗ 𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑
= (𝐿𝐹𝐿 − 𝐴) ∗
𝑆 𝐵

Appendix Table 1: All evaluated market aircraft, with my concept for comparison.

8. References

• Dr Jagadeesh, C. (Unk). AE2400.12 Design 2 - Payload, Fuel, MTOW. City, University of

London.
• Dr Jagadeesh, C. (2023). AE2400 Design Templates 2023-2024. City, University of London.
• Dr Jagadeesh, C. (2022). AE2400 Assignment 2 - Sizing Diagram 2022-23. City, University
of London.
• Icelandair (2024). Baggage allowance on international flights.
<https://www.icelandair.com/en-gb/support/baggage/allowance/>. (Last access 12/02/2024)
• Icelandair (2024). Icelandair fleet. <https://www.icelandair.com/about/our-fleet/>.
(Last access 12/02/2024)
• Chris Brady (1999). Boeing 737 Detailed Technical Data. The 737 Information Site
<http://www.b737.org.uk/techspecsdetailed.htm>. (Last access 12/02/2024)