DESIGN OF A MULTI ROLE

FIGHTER AIRCRAFT - AIRCRAFT

DESIGN LAB II

AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT II

2013-2014

DEPARTMENT OF
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT II

2013-2014
2

NEHRU INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
COIMBATORE-641105
(AFFILIATED TO ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI)

DEPARTMENT OF
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
AE-0031002 AIRCRAFT DESIGN LAB II

RECORD NOTE BOOK

Name

:_______________________________________________________________

Reg. No.

:_______________________________________________________________

Semester

:_______________________________________________________________

NEHRU INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
COIMBATORE-641105
(AFFILIATED TO ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI)

Reg. No.

_______________________________________________

Subject Name

_______________________________________________

Subject Code

______________________________________________

Certified that this is the bonafide record of work

done

in

the

LABORATORY by
number

AIRCRAFT

DESIGN

_______________________________

_________________

AERONAUTICAL

PROJECT
having

semester

ENGINEERING

II

register

VII

of

B.E.

branch

in

the

academic year 2013-2014.

Staff in charge

Head of The Department

Submitted for the University Practical Examination held on

_________________

Internal Examiner

External Examiner

DESIGN OF A
MULTIROLE FIGHTER
AIRCRAFT

Ramalingam.K.B
Ramachandran.T
6

Nagendran.R
Suryakanth.S

CONTENTS

LIST OF SYMBOLS....................................................................................................... 6
DATA FROM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN (ADL I).......................7
STUDY ON ERROR PERCENTAGE...............................................................................11
DETAILED DESIGN (CAD DRAWING)..........................................................................13
FORWARD SWEPT DESIGN STUDY.............................................................................17
MATERIAL SELECTION............................................................................................... 19
VN DIAGRAM (GUST AND MANEUVERABILITY ENVELOPE).......................................20
LANDING GEAR DESIGN CALCULATIONS...................................................................28
SCHRENKS APPROXIMATION METHOD.....................................................................33
WING STRUCTURAL WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION.............................................................35
LOAD ESTIMATION (SHEAR FORCE AND BENDING MOMENTS)..................................36
PERFORMANCE AND STABILITY ANALYSIS.................................................................38
BALANCING AND MANEURING LOADS ON TAIL PLANE, AILERON AND RUDDER LOADS
................................................................................................................................. 42
OTHERS.................................................................................................................... 46
LIST OF AIRCRAFT LOADS.......................................................................................... 52
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 53
REFERENCE.............................................................................................................. 54

LIST OF SYMBOLS
R -Range
V -Velocity
L/D -lift to drag ratio
V alt -Velocity at altitude
alt -Density at altitude
S - wing surface area
b - wing span
alt -coefficient of viscosity at altitude
S W -Wing area
CW

-Wing mean chord

bW

-Wing span

S W -Wing area
V* - Corner Velocity
D -Diameter:

A P - Pavement or contact area

Rr -rolling radius
w

-width

DATA FROM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND PRELIMINARY

DESIGN (ADL I)
SPECIEFICATIONS

GEOMETRY
LENGTH
HEIGHT
WING SPAN
WING AREA
ASPECT RATIO

18.444 m
3.971 m
16.231 m
48.788 m2
5.4

WEIGHT
PAY LOAD
EMPTY WEIGHT
FUEL WEIGHT
MTOW
Engine Weight
LOADED WEIGHT
WING LOADING

5,443.1 Kg
7,904.3 Kg
2,418 Kg
15,000 Kg
2010 Kg
15,856.1 Kg (155.55 KN)
325 Kg/m2

PERFORMANCE
THRUST/WEIGHT
RANGE
SERVICE CEILING
CRUISE SPEED
MAXIMUM SPEED
RATE OF CLIMB
CREW
L/D RATIO

0.43
1,700 Km
13,000 m
250 mps
300 mps
40 m/s
1 (90.7 Kg)
12.8

POWER PLANT
ENGINE
Thrust required
Thrust Available
Afterburner thrust
Mass flow

10

1 turbo jet SATURN AL -7F

66.885 KN
67.1 KN
98.1 KN
113.4 Kg/s

WING GEOMETRY
ASPECT RATIO
SPAN (b)
AREA (s)
LENGTH

5.4
16.231 m
48.788 m2
18.444 m

WING SWEEP
SWEEP FORWARD (MAC)
SWEEP FORWARD (LE)
SWEEP FORWARD (TE)

45
53
40

STABILITY
Longitudinal Stability
Lateral Stability
Directional Stability

Canard Mounted Elevator

Tip Mounted Ailerons
Vertical rudder and fin

WING CHORD
C (root)
C (mean)
C (tip)

4.8094 m
3.0060 m
1.2024 m

WING TAPER
TAPER RATIO
Angle of incidence

0.25
0 through the wing

WING PROPERTIES
DIHEDRAL
WING POSITION
WING DESIGN

0
Mid wing
Aerodynamic twist

AIRFOIL
NACA 65A006
NACA 65A005

11

root airfoil
tip airfoil

t/c = 6%
t/c= 5%

FUSELAGE GEOMETRY
FUSELAGE LENGTH
FUSELAGE DIAMETER

18.444 m
1.6770 m

POWER PLANT GEOMETRY

ENGINE LENGTH
ENGINE DIAMETER

6.4715 m
1.2943 m

ELEVATOR GEOMETRY
ELEVATOR FIN SPAN
ELEVATOR FIN CHORD

7.7658 m
3.2358 m

ELEVATOR DESIGN
ELEVATOR FIN ASPECT RATIO
ELEVATOR FIN TAPER RATIO

4
0.25

RUDDER GEOMETRY
RUDDER FIN SPAN
RUDDER FIN CHORD

3.2358
3.8830

RUDDER DESIGN
RUDDER FIN ASPECT RATIO
RUDDER FIN TAPER RATIO

1.4
0.25

TAKE-OFF & LANDING DISTANCE

SLG
STO

979.95 m
1092.47 m.

DRAG
Drag at cruise
Drag at take-of
Drag at landing

12

3,768.83N
34,473.92 N
126,023.10N

LIFT
Lift at cruise
Lift at take-of
Lift at landing

47,254.00 N
629,872.33 N
1,392,349.36N

TRICYCLE-WHEEL ARRANGEMENT
NOSE-1L/G
MAIN-2L/G

13

-2 WHEELS
-1 WHEEL

STUDY ON ERROR PERCENTAGE

ERROR PERCENTAGE FOR GEOMETRY
A/C
NAME
AVG

LENGTH
(m)
12.664

HEIGHT
(m)
3.971

WING SPAN
(m)
10.5735

WING
(m)
26.64

AREA

DMRFA
% error

18.444
31.3381

3.971
0

16.231
34.85614

48.788
45.39641

ASP
RATIO
4.60192
5
5.4
14.7791
7

b/l
RATIO
0.8944
76
0.88
1.6183
67

ERROR PERCENTAGE FOR WEIGHT

A/C
NAME
AVG

TOTAL
WT (Kg)
11305.25

EMPTY
WT (Kg)
4995.9

FUEL
WT (Kg)
3220

PAYLOAD
WT (Kg)
9459

DMRF
A
%
error

15856.1

7904.3

2418

5443.1

28.70094

36.79516

24.9068
3

42.45586

We/Wo
RATIO
0.37393
5
0.49850
2
24.9883
5

WING LOADING
(Kg/m)
330.7636
325
1.742524

ERROR PERCENTAGE FOR PERFORMANCE

A/C NAME
AVG
DMRFA
% error

MAX
SPEED
(m/s)
299.9535
300
0.0155

CRUISE
SPEED (m/s)
229.164
250
8.3344

RANGE (Km)

ENDURANCE (hr)

1630.2
1700
4.105882

2.375
1.888889
20.46784

ERROR PERCENTAGE FOR PERFORMANCE

A/C
NAME
AVG

SERVICE
CEILING (m)
13843.15

ROC
(m/s)
57.4675

DMRFA

13000

% error

6.090738

14

L/D
RATIO
12.8

40

t/w
RATIO
0.50454
5
0.43

30.3954
4

14.7747
7

12.8

MACH
NO
1.12444
4
0.90909
1
19.1519
9

THRUST
(KN)
29.795
67.1
55.5961
3

OVERALL ERROR PERCENTAGE FOR DESIGN AIRCRAFT

20.29593444

15

DISCUSSIONS ON ERROR
The individual errors clearly shows the extra 28.7% additional weight from
the 20 surveyed aircrafts and this is compensated with 55.5 % of increased thrust in
order to deliver wide role of aircraft maneuvers. This has led to a greater usable
geometry with increased performance like speed, range and rate of climb for lesser
endurance. This endurance can be increased by air to air refueling process. Hence
the design is 20.3% deviated from other fighter designs. Those were found to be

in error are the unique operational performance of the aircraft.

16

DETAILED DESIGN (CAD DRAWING)

EVOLUTION OF DETAIL DESIGN FROM PREVIOUS DATA:

The design is critically evaluated from the all known dimensions and the
exact final CAD model is obtained. The design was initiated in CATIA V5 platform
and all smooth finishing and renderings are done in the ANSYS modeler.

17

ISOMETRIC VIEW

FRONT VIEW

18

SIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW

RENDERING AND SMOOTHNESS

19

DESIGN OUTPUT
DESIGN DATA
Area[m2]
282.061
Volume[m3]
44.318
Density[kg_m3 1000
]
C.G OF AIRPLANE

20

Gx[mm]
-1888.691
Gy[mm]
-300.16
Gz[mm]
1.205
PRINCIPAL MOMENTS
M1[kgxm2]
63005.487
M2[kgxm2]
838311.059
M3[kgxm2]
877360.839
MOMENT OF INERTIA
IoxG[kgxm2]
64130.969
IoyG[kgxm2]
876235.373
IozG[kgxm2]
838311.043
IxyG[kgxm2]
-30253.304
IxzG[kgxm2]
112.813
IyzG[kgxm2]
-0.951

21

FORWARD SWEPT DESIGN STUDY

FSW
The mission specifications for the X-29 pictured in below figure came from a
1977 request for proposals from the U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory in
which they were seeking a research aircraft that would explore the forward swept
wing concept and validate studies that indicated such a design could provide better
control and lift qualities in extreme maneuvers.

ADVANTAGES

22

Better of-design span loading (but with less taper: Cl advantage, weight
penalty)
Aero elastically enhanced maneuverability
Smaller basic lift distribution
Reduced leading edge sweep for given structural sweep
Increased trailing edge sweep for given structural sweep - lower C Dc
Unobstructed cabin
Easy gear placement
Good for turboprop placement
Laminar flow advantages?

DISADVANTAGES

Aeroelastic divergence or penalty to avoid it

Lower |Clb| (efective dihedral)
Lower Cnb (yaw stability)
Bad for winglets
Stall location (more difficult)
Large Cm0 with flaps
Reduced pitch stability due to additional lift and fuse interference
Smaller tail length???

USAGE OF FORWARD SWEEP FROM VARIOUS ASPECTS

AERODYNAMICS - Inward span wise flow
PERFORMANCE - Stall Characteristics
STABLILTY - Yaw Instability (Rudder Area)
AIRFRAME - Main Spar Location (More space)
STRUCTURES - Aero Elasticity (Material)
AEROELSATICITY- Aero elastic tailoring of composite material

23

MATERIAL SELECTION
ESTIMATION OF EMPTY STRUCTURAL MASS
Overall Mass = 15856.1 kg (from preliminary design)
Mass of fuel = 2418 kg
Mass of crew = 90.7 kg
Mass of payload = 5443.1 kg
Mass of power plant = 2010 kg
Hence, empty structural mass estimated is 5894.3 kg.
ESTIMATION OF EMPTY STRUCTURAL VOLUME
Overall Volume = 44.318 m3 (from detailed design)
Volume of engine = diameter of engine2 length of engine/4
= 1.29431.29436.4715/4 = 8.5146 m3
Volume of fuel = m/
3
fuel=.81kg/L=810kg/m )

Jet fuel

=2418/810 =2.9851 m3 (

Jet

Volume for landing gear bay & 20 bombs = 27.5300 m 3

Volume of cabin = 1 m3
Hence, empty structural volume estimated is 4.2883 m3.
MATERIAL SELECTION
Hence, empty structural mass of 5894.3 kg is to be in 4.2883 m 3 volume.
Since for forward swept wing the composite material is necessary to overcome aero
elasticity, we cannot utilize aluminum for the wing design purpose. Hence, the
material selection of aluminum is reduced to some extent in the design.
MATERIAL

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE

24

Density of
Material
(kg/m3)
Aluminum
=2500
kg/m3
Composite

Mass of
combination
(Kg)
4000 kg

Volume
(m3)

1000 kg

0.66666666

1.6

Overall
percentage
of Volume
37.3108224
7%
15.5461760

OTHERS (PLASTICS,
EPOXY, AND
FAIRINGS)

=1500
kg/m3
NA

NA

3%

2.02163333
3

47.1430015
%

VN DIAGRAM (GUST AND MANEUVERABILITY ENVELOPE)

GENERAL FLIGHT MANEUVERABILITY ENVELOPE

At higher speeds, n

max

is limited by the structural design of the airplane. These

considerations are best understood by examining the figure which is a diagram showing load
factor versus velocity for a given airplane in the V-n diagram. Here curve AB is given by
equation (2). Consider an airplane flying at velocity V1, where V1 is shown in figure. Assume that
the airplane is at angle of attack such that C L< CL max . This flight condition is represented by point
1 in figure.
n =L/W = V2SCL
W
Now assume that the angle of attack is increased to that for obtaining C L max, keeping the
velocity constant at V1. The lift increases to its maximum value for the given V 1, and hence the
load factor n=L/W reaches its maximum value n

max

for the given V1. This value of n max is given

by equation (2), and the corresponding flight condition is given by point 2 in figure. If he angle
of attack is increased further, the wing stalls and the load factor drops. Therefore, point 3 in
figure is unobtainable in flight. Point 3 is in the stall region of the V-n diagram. Consequently,
point 2 represents the highest possible load factor that can be obtained at the given velocity V 1.
Now, as V1 increased, say, to a value of V4, then the maximum possible load factor n

max

also

increases, as given by the point 4 in the figure, and as calculated from equation. However, n

max

cannot be allowed to increase indefinitely. Beyond a certain value of load factor, defined as the
positive limit load factor and shown as the horizontal line BC in figure, structural damage may
occur to the aircraft. The velocity corresponding to point B is designed as V *. at velocities higher
than V*, say V5, the airplane must fly at values of C L less than CL max so that the positive limit load
factor is not exceeded. If flight at CL

max

is obtained at velocity V5 in figure, then structural

damage will occur. The right-hand of the V-n diagram, line CD, is a high-speed limit. At

25

velocities greater than this, the dynamic pressure becomes so large that again structural damage
may occur to the airplane. (This maximum velocity limit is, by design, much larger than the level
flight V max calculated in Sections. In fact, the structural design of most airplanes is such that the
maximum velocity allowed the V-n diagram is sufficiently greater than the maximum diving
velocity for the airplane). Finally, the bottom part of the V-n diagram, given by curves AE and
ED in figure, corresponds to negative absolute angles of attack, that is, negative load factors.
Curve AE defines the stall limit. (At absolute angles of attack less than zero, the lift is negative
and acts in the downward direction. If he wing is pitched downward to a large enough negative
angle of attack, the flow will separate from the bottom surface of he wing and the downwardacting lift will decrease in magnitude; that is, the wing stalls). Line ED gives the negative limit

26

load

factor,

beyond

which

structural

damage

will

occur.

Hence,
n max = V2 CL max [ W/S]
As a final note concerning the V-n diagram, consider point B in figure. This point is called
maneuver point. At this point, both CL and n are simultaneously at their highest possible values
that can be obtained anywhere throughout the allowable flight envelope of the aircraft.
Consequently, from equation and this point corresponds simultaneously to the smallest possible
turn radius and the largest possible turn rate for the airplane. The velocity correspond the largest

27

possible turn rate for the airplane. The velocity corresponding to point B is called the corner
velocity and is designed by V* in figure. The corner velocity can be solving equation for velocity
yielding,

V* = [2nmax W] / [ CL max S].

n =L/W = V2SCL
W

n max = V2 CL max [ W/S]

By using these three formulae the V-n flight envelope values are tabulated and the flight
envelope curve is drawn.
Further the limiting load factor and ultimate load factor for both positive and negative
incidence is calculated. Red line speed for the curve is taken as 300 m/s.

28

FLIGHT MANEUVERABILITY ENVELOPE VALUES

VELO
CITY
300

275

250

225

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0
0
25
50

29

LOAD
FACTOR
5.8221594
92
4.8922312
4
4.0431663
14
3.2749647
14
2.5876264
41
1.9811514
94
1.4555398
73
1.0107915
78
0.6469066
1
0.3638849
68
0.1617266
53
0.0404316
63
0
0
0.1057765
42
0.4231061

75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
300
300
300
0
0
300
300
0
0
300

68
0.9519888
78
1.6924246
73
2.6444135
51
3.8079555
13
5.1830505
6
6.7696986
9
8.5678999
05
10.577654
2
12.798961
59
15.231822
05
15
-7
8.256
8.256
5.504
5.504
-6.256
-6.256
-3.504
-3.504

V-n FLIGHT MANEUVERABILITY ENVELOPE CURVE

30

31

GENERAL GUST ENVELOPE

Gust envelope is the modified form of the V-n curve where all gust velocities
are taken from steady level flight of load factor n=1. A normal gust envelope would
look like this.

The gust envelope readings are tabulated and the curve is drawn below from
n=1.

32

FLIGHT MANEUVERABILITY ENVELOPE VALUES

300
250
175
0
175

250
300
GUST ENVELOPE CURVE

33

5
6
5.183
051
1
1.981
15
-2.5
-2

FINAL V-n DIAGRAM

After including the drag divergence efects, compressibility efects and Mach
efects the final V-n diagram would look like this.

34

LANDING GEAR DESIGN CALCULATIONS

1. DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF THE WHEEL
D=A W W

Where,
A&B is constant,

W w =load on single wheel.

For main wheel that value is 80% of the total aircraft weight and for auxiliary wheel it is 20% of
total aircraft weight. So,

W w for main wheel = 0.8 W O

=0.8 15856.19.81 =12684.889.81= 124438.67N.

W w for auxilary wheel = 0.2 W O

=0.2 15856.1 =3171.22 9.81=31109.66 N.
Diameter of main wheel
D=A W W

The constants from RAMER book becomes,

A=1.51
B=0.349
We are choosing a tricycle configuration .so, two main wheels and one auxiliary wheel. So, for
one main wheel,

35

Ww

is 62219.33.

D=1.51

62219.33

0.349

=71.13 cm.
Diameter of auxiliary wheel

31109.660.349

D=1.51

=55.85 cm.

2. WIDTH OF THE WHEELS

B

For main wheel(w)=A W W

Where,
A=0.7150
B=0.312
W=0.7150

62219.33

0.312

=22.39 cm.
For auxiliary wheel (w) =A W W

= 0.7150

31109.660.312

= 18.03 cm.

3. PAVEMENT OR CONTACT AREA

WWB
a) Main wheel,

36

=P

AP

Where

A P = 2.3

w . d

d
( 2

R r )

Rr = rolling radius
w

=width

d =diameter

For major civil and military airfield P=120 psi =84368.35kg/m2 =8.436835kg/cm2

AP =

62219.33
8.4432
=7369.16 cm2.

A P = 2.3

37

22.39 71.13

71.13
R r )
2

Rr =44.72 cm.
b) Auxiliary wheel,

AP =

31109.66
8.4432

= 3684.58 cm2.

A P = 2.3

18.03 55.85

55.85
R r )
2

Rr =22.55 cm.

GEAR RETRACTION GEOMETRY

Another design aspect of the landing gear is to decide what to do with it after take-off
operation. In general, there are four alternatives as follows:
1. Landing gear is released after take-off.
2. Landing gear hangs underneath the aircraft.
3. Landing gear is fully retracted inside aircraft (e.g. wing, or fuselage).
4. Landing gear is partially retracted inside aircraft.
No

Item

Fixed (unretractable) Landing Gear

1
2
3
4

Cost
Weight
Design
Manufacturing

Cheaper
Lighter
Easier to design
Easier to manufacture

5
6
7

Maintenance
Drag
Aircraft
performance

Easier to maintain
More drag
Lower aircraft performance (e.g. maximum
speed )

Longitudinal
stability

More stable (stabilizing)

38

Retractable Landing
Gear
Expensive
Heavier
Harder to design
Harder to
manufacture
Harder to maintain
Less drag
Higher aircraft
performance (e.g.
maximum speed)
less stable
(destabilizing)

9
10

Storing bay
Retraction system

Does not require a bay

Does not require a retraction system

11

Fuel volume

More available internal fuel volume

12

Aircraft structure

Structure in un-interrupted

Fixed and retractable landing gear comparison

KINETIC ENERGY DISTRIBUTION

1) K.E Braking =1/2 W Landing V Stall 2
g
W Landing =80-90 % W0
W0

=15856.19.81 N. [D.P. I]

W Landing = (85/100) 15856.19.81

W Landing =13477.699.81 N.
V Stall = (2W0 / S CL max)
= (215856.1) / (1.22548.7881.26)
V Stall =20.52 m/s.

39

Bay must be provided

Requires a retraction
system
Less available
internal fuel volume
Structural elements
need reinforcement
due to cutout

K.E Braking =1/2 13477.69 9.81

20.522

9.81
K.E Braking =2.837528 MJ

2) K.E Vertical =1/2 W Landing V Vertical 2

g
V Vertical =1.2 V Stall
=1.2 20.52
V Vertical =24.624m/s.
K.E Vertical =1/2 13477.69 9.81 24.6242
9.81
K.E Vertical =8.172081 MJ

40

SCHRENKS APPROXIMATION METHOD

According to classical wing theory, the span wise lift or load distribution is proportional
to the circulation at each span station. A vortex lifting-line calculation will yield the span wise
lift distribution. For an elliptical plan form wing, the lift and load distribution is of elliptical
shape.
For a non-elliptical wing, a good semi empirical method for span wise load estimate is
known as Schrenks approximation method. this method assumes that the load distribution on an
untwisted wing or tail has a shape that is the average of the actual platform shape and an elliptic
shape of the same span and area. The total area under the lift load curve must sum to the required
total lift.

From preliminary design,

Tip chord (Ct) =1.2024 m
Root chord (Cr) =4.8094 m
Span (b)

=16.231 m

ab
Plan form area = 4

41

=29.6811m2

Where,
Semi span (a) =b/2=8.1155 m
2
2
b = Root chord Tip chord =4.656669 m.

SCRENKS TABLE
The tapered wing has to be converted to semi elliptical wing for easier
calculations. The coordinates of ellipse are made for various angles from 0 t0 90
degrees and following table is drawn.

(deg)
0

(rad)
0

10

0.174
603
0.349
206
0.523
81
0.698
413
0.873
016
1.047
619
1.222
222
1.396
825
1.571
429

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5
8.115
5

4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669
4.656
669

a cos

8.115
5
7.992
108
7.625
685
7.027
374
6.215
368
5.214
359
4.054
788
2.771
914
1.404
75
0

b sin

0
0.808
944
1.593
289
2.329
184
2.994
251
3.568
266
4.033
774
4.376
62
4.586
377
4.656
668

SCRENKS CURVE
The graphical form of the semi elliptical wing is called screnks curve. These
coordinates will be used for x and y variables in wing analysis.

42

Area of schrenks curve A=

43

ab
4

=29.6811m2

WING STRUCTURAL WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION

The structural weight is assumed to square of the chord,
WS Cx2
WS =k Cx2
K constant
Cx chord at any point at a distance x from the root.
Since the chord variation is linear along the span,
@ x= 0, Cx =a = Cr
@ x= semi span, Cx =Ct
Cx =a +bx ------------- (1)
Substitute all in eqn (1)
x=0 , Cx =a =Cr =4.8094 m.
x =16.231/1=8.1155 m, Cx = Ct =1.2024 m.
Cx = a + bx
1.2024 =4.8094 +b (8.1155)
b = -0.4444
Cx =4.8094-0.4444x
8.1155

Ww

=k

Cx

dx

8.1155

=k

(4.80940.4444 x )

=k (82.1351)
57823.08 =k (82.1351)

44

dx

k =703.999N/m2.

45

LOAD ESTIMATION (SHEAR FORCE AND BENDING

MOMENTS)
W1=Air load= (Wo*y)/ (2*A)
W2=Resultant load= Airload-KCx2

Load at mid-point==(W1+W2)*a/2

Shear force==W1*a+W2*a/2

Bending moment==W1*a2/2+ W2*a2/6

Sta
tion
poi
nt
1

Cx

KCx2

Airloa
d

resulta
nt load

load at
midpoint

shear
force

8.11
55

1.20
2872

1018
.617

7.99
2108
7.62
5685
7.02
7374
6.21
5368
5.21
4359
4.05
4788
2.77
1914
1.40
475

0.80
8944
1.59
3289
2.32
9184
2.99
4251
3.56
8266
4.03
3774
4.37
662
4.58
6377

1.25
7707
1.42
0545
1.68
6435
2.04
7291
2.49
2139
3.00
7452
3.57
7561
4.18
5129

1113
.605
1420
.634
2002
.218
2950
.74
4372
.366
6367
.509
9010
.444
1233
0.76

2119.7
20308
4174.9
82266
6103.2
87634
7845.9
98779
9350.1
21783
10569.
91793
11468.
29457
12017.
93306

1018.6
16552
1006.1
15637
2754.3
48057
4101.0
70071
4895.2
58311
4977.7
55898
4202.4
08979
2457.8
50646
312.82

4133.2
91316
12683.
8608
28117.
49012
41406.
73248
51700.
83596
58138.
94566
59942.
40951
56508.
81574
47496.
40922

4133.2
913
21285.
1559
45058.
5244
66172.
3479
83537.
9375
96079.
4023
10283
2.494
10304
4.288
96262.
1771

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

46

bendin
g
mome
nt
11181.
24189
80847.
83092
167719
.1395
246002
.347
312108
.7098
362546
.0552
394203
.8619
404638
.1816
392324
.7625

10

4.65
6668

4.80
94

1628
3.73

12202.
1195

32764
4081.6
0853

32951.
00341

82464.
1538

357020
.6042

ESTIMATION OF SHEAR FORCE AND BENDING MOMENTS N A WING

DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS ACROSS THE SPAN

47

SHEAR FORCE VS SPAN

8.115
5
7.992
108
7.625
685
7.027
374
6.215
368
5.214
359
4.054
788
2.771
914
1.404
75
0

-4133.291316

BENDING MOMENT VS
SPAN
-11181.24189

21285.15588

80847.83092

45058.52441

167719.1395

66172.34788

246002.347

83537.9375

312108.7098

96079.40232

362546.0552

102832.494

394203.8619

103044.288

404638.1816

96262.1771

392324.7625

82464.15383

357020.6042

48

PERFORMANCE AND STABILITY ANALYSIS

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
WING LOADING:
In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of
the wing. The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a
smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading.
Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also
decreases maneuverability. The same constraints apply to birds and bats.
Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft.
Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more
air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have
more lift at any given speed. Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to takeoff and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to
turn faster

THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO:
It is a ratio of thrust to weight of a rocket, jet engine, propeller engine, or a vehicle
propelled by such an engine.
The thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading are the two most important parameters in
determining the performance of an aircraft. For example, the thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat
aircraft is a good indicator of the maneuverability of the aircraft.
The thrust-to-weight ratio varies continually during a flight. Thrust varies with throttle
setting, airspeed, altitude and air temperature. Weight varies with fuel burn and changes of
payload. For aircraft, the quoted thrust-to-weight ratio is often the maximum static thrust at sealevel divided by the maximum takeoff weight.
In cruising flight, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an aircraft is the inverse of the lift-to-drag
ratio because thrust is equal to drag, and weight is equal to lift.
LIFT-TO-DRAG RATIO:

49

In aerodynamics, the lift-to-drag ratio, or L/D ratio, is the amount of lift generated by a
wing or vehicle, divided by the drag it creates by moving through the air. A higher or more
favorable L/D ratio is typically one of the major goals in aircraft design; since a particular
aircraft's required lift is set by its weight, delivering that lift with lower drag leads directly to
better fuel economy, climb performance, and glide ratio.

LIFT CALCULATION:
General Lift equation is given by,
1 2
Lift=( 2 v S C L =qS C L

LIFT AT CRUISE
3

= .37417 kg/ m (at the cruising altitude of 10800m)

V = 192.30 m/s
S = 48.788 m2
C D , 0=0.00988
(from the wing and airfoil estimation)
CLcruise = 0.14 (from the wing and airfoil estimation)
Substituting all these values in the general lift equation,
Lcruise = 1/20.37417192.3248.7880.14
Lift at cruise = 47,254.00 N
LIFT AT TAKE-OFF
= 1.225 (at sea altitude)
V = 0.7 x Vlo= 0.7 x 1.2 x Vstall = 161.532 m/s
S = 48.788 kg/m2
O
CLtake-off = 0.57 (flaps extended and kept at the take-off position of 20 )
Substituting all these values in the general lift equation,
2

L(take-off) = 1/21.225 (192.3) 48.7880.57

Lift at take-off = 629,872.33

50

LIFT AT LANDING
= 1.225 (at sea altitude)
V = 0.7 x Vt= 0.7 x 1.3 x Vstall= 174.993 m/s
S = 48.788 kg/m2
o
CLlanding = 1.26 (flaps extended and kept at the landing position of 40 )
Substituting all these values in the general lift equation,
2
L(landing) = 1/21.225 (192.30) 48.7881.26

Lift at landing =1,392,349.36

DRAG CALCULATION:
Generally for jet aircrafts, it is given that
CD,0= 0.0045
e = 0.8
The general drag equation is given by,
D=

1
2

v2S

CL2
Ae )

C D , 0+

For calculating , we use the formula,

16 h 2
)
b
=
16 h 2
1+(
)
b
(

Where h = height above ground,

b = wing span.
h = 3.971 m
b = 16.231 m
C D , 0=0.00988
(from the wing and airfoil estimation)

51

3.971
)
16.231
=
3.971 2 = 0.9387
1+(16
)
16.231
(16

DRAG AT CRUISE
3

= .37417 kg/ m (at the cruising altitude of 10800m)

V = 192.30 m/s
S = 48.788 m2
CLcruise = 0.14 (from the wing and airfoil estimation)
Substituting all these values in the general drag equation,
2
2
Dcruise = 1/2.37417 (192.30) 48.788 (0.00988+0.89 0.14 /3.145.40.8)
Drag at cruise = 3,768.83N
DRAG AT TAKE-OFF
= 1.225 (at sea altitude)
V = 0.7 x Vlo= 0.7 x 1.2 x Vstall =161.532 m/s
S = 48.788 m2
0
CLtake-off = 0.57 (flaps extended and kept at the take-off position of 20 )
Substituting all these values in the general drag equation,
2
2
D = 1/21.225 (192.30) 48.788 (0.00988+0.89 0.57 /3.145.40.8)
Drag at take-off = 34,473.92 N
DRAG AT LANDING
= 1.225 (at sea altitude)
V = 0.7 x Vt = 0.7 x 1.3 x Vstall = 174.993 m/s
S = 48.788 m2
0
CLlanding = 1.26 (flaps extended and kept at the landing position of 40 )
Substituting all these values in the general drag equation,
2
2
D = 1/21.225 (192.30) 48.788 (0.00988+0.89 1.26 /3.145.40.8)
Drag at landing = 126,023.10N
52

PERFORMANCE TABLE:
Thus the performance table and chart is drawn for various operations

53

OPERATI
ON
CRUISE

CL

CD

0.14

TAKEOF
F
LANDIN
G

0.57

0.011
1
0.031
2
0.114

1.26

DENSI
TY
0.374
17
1.225
1.225

L/D
12.61
261
18.26
923
11.05
263

BALANCING AND MANEURING LOADS ON TAIL PLANE,

AILERON AND RUDDER LOADS
TAIL PLANE AREA
S

Wing area =48.788m2

Sh

Horizontal tail area

0.31S

0.31*48.788

15.12m2

Vertical tail area

0.21S

0.21*48.788

10.24m2

Span of horizontal tail

(Ah* Sh)

(4*15.12)

7.77m

Span of vertical tail

(Av*Sv)

(1.4*10.24)

3.78m

2* Sh / bh (1+h)

Taper ratio

2*15.12/7.77 (1+0.25)

3.23m

Sv

bh

bv

HORIZONTAL TAIL
Root chord
Ch

54

Tip chord
Cth

h*Ch

0.25*3.25

0.8125m

2*Sv/bv(1+v)

2*10.24/3.78 (1+0.25)

3.23m

v*Cv

0.25*3.23

0.8075m

Sflap/S

0.17

Sflap

0.17*S

0.17*48.788

8.29m

Sslat/S

0.1

Sslat

0.1*S

0.1*48.788

4.878m

VERTICAL TAIL
Root chord
Cv

Tip chord
Ctv

Area of flap

Area of slats

AREA OF AILERON

55

Saileron/S

0.03

Saileron

0.03*48.788

1.4636m

LANDING GEAR (Weight balancing as done in Landing gear design)

Weight acting on landing gear
Wmain L.G

80% of Woverall

15856.1*9.81(80/100)]

124438.67 N

Wnose/
rear L.G

20% of Woverall
=

15856.1*9.81(20/100)

31109.66 N

Wwf

124438.67 N

Wwr

31109.66 N

1.51

0.349

A*WwfB

1.51*(31109.66)0.349

55.85cm

A*WwrB

1.51*(62219.33)0.349

71.13 cm

Weight on front wheel

Weight on rear wheel

DIAMETER
For fighter

Front wheel

Rear wheel

56

WIDTH
For fighter

Front wheel

Rear wheel

57

0.715

0.312

A*WwfB

0.715*(31109.66)0.312

18.03 cm

A*WwrB

0.715*(62219.33)0.312

22.39 cm

OTHERS
FITTING AND CONNECTIONS STUDY
BOLTED AND RIVETTED
General requirements of repair, maintenance & storage dictate a structure of several main
units to other units by main or primary fittings or connections, such as fittings, bolts, rivets,
welds etc. No doubt main or primary fitting involve more weight & cost per unit volume than
any other part of aerospace structure & therefore fitting & point design plays an important role in
aerospace structural design.

ECONOMY IN FITTING DESIGN

In a wing structure splicing, the beam flanges (or)_ introducing fitting near the centerline`
of aircraft are far costly than splices or fitting placed for outboard, where member base sizes are
small. For this, a designer must have good knowledge of shop process and operations.

FITTING DESIGN LOADS

Limit loads are maximum loads, a flight vehicle may be subjected to during lifetime. The
ultimate design loads multiplied by factor of safety 1.5. The stress analysis of most fittings is
more complicated than for primary structure members due to safe factors as combined stress and
stress combination.

AIRCRAFT BOLTS
Bolts are used to transfer relatively large shear or tension loads from one structure to
another. Hexagon head bolt is Army-Navy bolt made from SAE 2330-3.5% m steel.

AIRCRAFT NUTS
Four standard steel nuts shown in figure nut material is more ductile than bolt material,
thus when the nut is tightened the threads will deflect to seat on the bolt thread. The nut is
probably the most common aircraft nut. It develops the full rated strength of bolts. The shear nut

58

is one half as think the cast head nut has threads only enough to develop one half bolts tensile
stress.

FAILURE BY INTER RIVET BUCKLING

The effective sheet area is considered to act monolithically with stiffness however if the
rivets are spot welded that fasten the rivet to the stiffener are spaced to far apart sheet will buckle
before the crippling stress of the stringers of the stringers is placed. In order to prevent this sort
of buckling rivet spacing has to be selected on the upper surface of the wing. Rivet spacing is
closer than on the lower surface because the compressive loads act on the top of the wing.

GENERAL RULES IN USING BOLTS

Bolt threads shouldnt be placed in bearing or shear. The length of the bolt shank should
be Such that not more than one thread extends below surface fittings ,done by use of washers.
The following types of nuts are generally used

Castle nut
Shear nut
Plain nut
Self locking nut

Shear nut

Castle nut

59

Hexagonal nut
Cut view diagram

AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS
PROTOTYPE
Initially, the applicant firm submits documents to their local aviation regulating body,
detailing how the proposed design would fulfill the airworthiness requirements. After
investigations by the regulator, the final approval of such documents (after the required
comments and amendments in order to fulfill the laws), becomes the basis of the certification.
The firm follows it and draws a proposed timetable of actions required for certification tests.

60

With the application, the regulations to be applied will usually be frozen for this application for a
given amount of time in order to avoid a situation where the applicant would have to change the
design as a result of changed regulation.
An initial design sample known as a prototype is built. This refers to either the aircraft,
the engines or the propeller, depending on the basis of the certification. For the purpose of
illustration, the discussion shall be limited to the aircraft. Normally a few prototypes are built,
each subject to different tests. The prototypes are first used for ground and system tests. One of
the prototypes (known as the "static airframe") is subject to destructive testing, i.e., the prototype
is subject to stress beyond normal and abnormal operations until destruction. The test-results are
compared with initial submitted calculations to establish the ultimate structural strength.
Other prototypes will undergo other systems tests until the satisfaction of the regulators.
With all ground tests completed, prototypes are made ready for flight tests. The flight tests are
flown by specially approved flight test pilots who will fly the prototypes to establish the ultimate
flight limits which should be within the airworthiness rules. If a long range airliner is tested, the
flight tests may cover the whole world.
In parallel with aircraft testing, the applicant firm also draws up maintenance program to
support continuous airworthiness after approval of the design. The program is drawn with inputs
from tests results and also from initial customers' engineering departments. The proposed
maintenance program is submitted to the regulators for comment and approval.
After successful completion of ground and flight tests, along with an approved
maintenance program, the prototype is approved, and the firm is granted the type certificate for
the prototype (as understood that it should include all furnished equipment for its intended role).

CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS
As the aircraft enters into service, it is subject to operational wear and tear which may
cause performance degradations. The approved maintenance program serves to maintain the
aircraft airworthiness. Users have to comply in order to maintain their aircraft's airworthiness
certificate. The maintenance may be light or heavy (such as overhauls) as dictated by the
schedules and tasks in the aircraft's maintenance program.

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
Sometimes during service the aircraft may encounter problems that may compromise the
aircraft's safety, which are not anticipated or detected in prototype testing stages. The aircraft
design is thus compromised. The regulators will now issue an airworthiness directive to the type
certificate holder and to all owners globally. The directives normally consists of additional

61

maintenance or design actions that are necessary to restore the type's airworthiness. Compliance
is mandatory. Airworthiness directives may also be raised with changes of the local or global
aviation rules and requirements, e.g. requirement to fit armored cockpit doors for all airliners
post 9-11.
The certifying authority issues an AD when an unsafe condition is found to exist in a
product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) of a particular type design. AD's are
used by the certifying authority to notify aircraft owners and operators of unsafe conditions and
to require their correction. AD's prescribe the conditions and limitations, including inspection,
repair, or alteration under which the product may continue to be operated.

SERVICE BULLETINS
With increasing in-service experience, the type certificate holder may find ways to
improve the original design resulting in either lower maintenance costs or increased
performance. These improvements (normally involving some alterations) are suggested through
service bulletins to their customers as optional (and may be extra cost) items. The customers may
exercise their discretion whether or not to incorporate the bulletins.

CHANGES TO TYPE CERTIFICATE

Often the basic design is enhanced further by the type certificate holder. Major changes
beyond the authority of the service bulletins require amendments to the type certificate. For
example, increasing (or decreasing) an aircraft's flight performance, range and load carrying
capacity by altering its systems, fuselage, wings or engines resulting in a new variant may
require re-certification. Again the basic process of type certifications is repeated (including
maintenance programs). However, unaltered items from the basic design need not be retested.
Normally, one or two of the original prototype fleet are remanufactured to the new proposed
design. As long as the new design does not deviate too much from the original, static airframes
do not need to be built. The resultant new prototypes are again subjected to flight tests.
Upon successful completion of the certification program, the original type certificate is
amended to include the new variant (normally denoted by a new model number additional to the
original type designation). Typical examples are; the Boeing 737NG (737-600, 737-700, 737-800
and 737-900) which replaced the 737 Classic family (737-100, 737-200, 737-300, 737-400 and
737-500) and the Airbus A340-500 and the A340-600 which is based on the Airbus A340-200
and the A340-300.

SUPPLEMENTARY/SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATE (STC)

62

Any additions, omissions or alterations to the aircraft's certified layout, built-in

equipment, airframe and engines, initiated by any party other than the type certificate holder,
need an approved supplementary ("supplemental" in FAA terminology) type certificate, or STC.
The scope of an STC can be extremely narrow or broad. It could include minor modifications to
passenger cabin items or installed instruments. More substantial modifications may involve
engine replacement, as in the Blackhawk modifications to Cessna Conquest and Beech craft
King Air turboprops, or a complete role change for the aircraft, such as converting a B-17 or
Stearman into an agricultural aircraft. STCs are applied due to either the type certificate holder's
refusal (frequently due to economics) or its inability to meet some owners' requirements. STCs
are frequently raised for out-of-production aircraft types conversions to fit new roles. Before
STCs are issued, procedures similar to type certificate changes for new variants are followed,
likely including thorough flight tests. STCs belong to the STC holder and are generally more
restrictive than type certificate changes.
HUMAN DEFINITIONS:
Human beings come in many shapes and sizes, and there many anthropomorphic
standards. Te figure shows the readily list of dimensions for extremes of size percentages of a
population of male crew member.

63

LIST OF AIRCRAFT LOADS

AIR LOADS
Maneuver and Gust
Control deflection
Component interaction
Buffet
LANDING
Vertical Load factor
Spin-up
Spring-back
Crabbed
One wheel
Arrested
Braking
INERTIA LOADS
Acceleration
Rotation
Dynamic
Vibration
POWER PLANT
Thrust
Torque
Gyroscopic
Vibration
TAXI
Bumps
Turning
OTHER
Towing
Jacking
Pressurization
Bird Strike
Actuation and Crash

64

CONCLUSION
This aircraft project has shown how, for a forward swept aircraft, the design
process is taken from the initial consideration of the operational requirements to
the end of the detailed design phase. Thus showed that the initial configurationally
assumptions for weight and wing loadings, based on data from existing aircraft,
found to be in error were the unique operational performance of this unique
aircraft. Hence, the ever most efficient design was evolved for a forward swept
design. In this detailed design stage, several technical aspects of the design have
been completely analyzed. These include:

The stability analysis of the aircraft.

Material selection.
Wing and fuselage structural design.
Fuselage and wing load distribution.
Weight balancing
Overall performance.

These make calculations much easier to bring out a model for manufacturing. This
overall design is a relatively successful.

65

REFERENCE

Theory of wing section by IRA H.ABBOT and ALBERT E.VON DOENHOFF.

Aircraft performance and design by JOHN D.ANDERSON JR
Aircraft design: A conceptual Approach by DANIEL P.RAYMER
Aircraft design by THOMAS CORK
Aircraft design by MOHAMMAD SADRAEY
Aircraft design by JOHN ROSKAM.
JANES All the World Aircrafts
www.wikipedia.com
www.ramalingamaero.blogspot.com

www.google.com

66

67