Preliminary Design Review

Preliminary Design Review
A&AE 451 Senior Design

Spring 2006
Preliminary Design Review April 27, 2006
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary……………..………………………………………….………….pg.3
2. Introduction................………..…………………………………………………….......pg.4
2.1 Product and Market Review……………………………………………………....pg.4
2.2 Initial Design Requirements……………………………………………………....pg.5
2.3 Design Missions…………………………………………………………………pg.5
3. Design Concept......………..……………………………………………………...........pg.8
3.1 Wing........................................................................................................................pg.9
3.2 Fuselage…………………………………………………………………………...pg.9
3.3 Tail.…………………………………………………..…………………………..pg.10
3.4 Landing Gear.........................................................................................................pg.10
3.5 Cabin Layouts........................................................................................................pg.11
4. Sizing............................................................................................................................pg.15
4.1 Rough Sizing.........................................................................................................pg.15
4.2 Constraint Sizing...................................................................................................pg.17
4.2.1 Constraint Diagram……………………………………………………….pg.18
4.2.2 Carpet Plots…………………………………………………………….…pg.19
4.3 Detailed Sizing......................................................................................................pg.20
5. Compliance with Design Requirements.......................................................................pg.21
6. Structures......................................................................................................................pg.22
6.1 Wing and Tail........................................................................................................pg.22
6.2 Fuselage.................................................................................................................pg.23
6.3 Landing Gear.........................................................................................................pg.24
6.4 Material Selection..................................................................................................pg.24
7. Aerodynamics...............................................................................................................pg.26
7.1 Airfoil....................................................................................................................pg.26
7.2 Drag Polar..............................................................................................................pg.26
7.2.1 Lift Estimation............................................................................................pg.27
7.2.2 Drag Estimation..........................................................................................pg.28
8. Weight and Stability.....................................................................................................pg.30
8.1 Weight Breakdown................................................................................................pg.30
8.1.1 Structural Weight........................................................................................pg.32
8.1.2 Propulsion Weight......................................................................................pg.32
8.1.3 Systems and Equipment Weight.................................................................pg.33
8.1.4 Operating Weight........................................................................................pg.34
8.1.5 Payload Weight...........................................................................................pg.35
8.2 Stability and Balance.............................................................................................pg.36
8.2.1 Weight Locations........................................................................................pg.36
8.2.2 Center of Gravity and Static Margin...........................................................pg.37
8.2.3 Tail Configuration.......................................................................................pg.42
8.2.3.1 Vertical Tail..........................................................................................pg.42
8.2.3.2 Horizontal Tail......................................................................................pg.44
8.2.4 Longitudinal Trim.......................................................................................pg.46
9. Performance..................................................................................................................pg.46
9.1 Performance Values..............................................................................................pg.46
9.2 V-n Diagram..........................................................................................................pg.47
AAE 451 Group 1 page 1 of 79

Table of Contents (continued)

9.3 Operating Envelope...............................................................................................pg.48
10. Propulsion.....................................................................................................................pg.49
10.1 Engine Selection....................................................................................................pg.49
10.2 Propeller Design....................................................................................................pg.50
10.3 Fuel Selection........................................................................................................pg.51
10.3.1 Fischer-Tropsch-based Jet Fuel..................................................................pg.51
10.3.2 Soy-Methyl-Ester-based Jet Fuel................................................................pg.52
10.3.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................pg.52
11. Cost...............................................................................................................................pg.52
11.1 Acquisition Cost..................................................................................................pg.53
11.2 Research, Development, Testing, Evaluation and Flyaway Cost........................pg.54
11.3 Direct Operating Cost..........................................................................................pg.56
12. Conclusion....................................................................................................................pg.58
12.1 Feasibility............................................................................................................pg.58
12.2 Open Issues..........................................................................................................pg.58
13. References.....................................................................................................................pg.59
14. Appendix.......................................................................................................................pg.60
Design Team Members

Miguel Alanis Aaron Mayne
Tim Block Jason Olmstead
Becca Dale Joseph Fallon
Sarah Weise

1. Executive Summary
Author: Miguel A. Alanis
The design team has conceptually created a rugged, versatile aircraft fueled by a non-
petroleum-based alternative fuel that will mainly serve the international markets such as
Australia and South America. The motivation for this design was the lack of affordable
petroleum-based fuels that are crippling the aviation industry. Possible markets for the proposed
aircraft include the European Union and Australia, who have expressed concern over emissions
and would find a cleaner-burning fuel beneficial. Fischer-Tropsch kerosene and biodiesel,
among other fuels, have been explored as possibilities to replace Avgas and diesel for their
compatibility to current storage and power plant technology, as well as their environment-
friendly makeup. The aircraft will be powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67D
turboprop engine. A four-bladed, variable pitch Hamilton standard propeller with a diameter of
110 in has been selected to convert the power of the engine into thrust. Several trade studies
were preformed to develop initial sizing values for the aircraft. Among these were GTOW and
range trade studies. A performance constraint diagram was also created based on a specified
design mission. This design mission is a one-way, 1200 nm trip for combination payload of
2000 lbs.
There were many sections to the analysis, including structures, aerodynamics, stability,
performance, propulsion, and cost. Several aluminum alloys will be used to manufacture the
plane. A NACA 4412 airfoil was chosen for the wing of the plane. The aircraft designed is
never in an unstable position. The cruise speed is 170 knots, and the stall speed is 61 knots. The
airplane’s engine has 1248 hp to power it. The current acquisition cost estimate for the plane is
$3.24 million (US 2006), which is considerably more than the cost of the Cessna Grand Caravan
($1.75 million) but comparable to the cost of the PC-12 ($3.4 million), both planes which are in
the same class as the designed plane. Per hour, the designed plane has an operating cost of about
$425 (US 2006), which is higher than both the Grand Caravan and the PC-12. When petroleum
fuels are more expensive, it the DOC of the Grand Caravan and the PC-12 will increase to
comparable or higher levels than the DOC of the designed plane. The team decided after
analysis that the design was feasible. There were, however, several open issues, such as
performance analysis at landing and takeoff, detailed wing design, and dynamic stability
analysis.

2. Introduction
2.1 Product and Market Review
The aircraft being designed is described as follows: a rugged, dependable, versatile
airplane powered by non-petroleum based fuel that would serve as a transport vehicle in
underdeveloped and rural areas of the world. Possible customers could be air charters,
governments (land surveying, mail), medical transport, and supply delivery companies that
operate in these rural, developing areas of the world such as Australia, South America, or even
rural parts of Canada.
There are many markets around the world that offer the potential for a successful
business case. Australia and the European Union, for example, have expressed concern over the
environment and thus would be interested in green transportation. There are many international
markets that are also in need of an alternative fuel-based aircraft to replace their existing fleet or
to meet a growing demand.
Australia is one of the countries with expressed interest in replacing aging fleets. In a
2003 paper written by S.J. Swift1 it is pointed out that as a result of the population distribution of
their country; regional airlines are of significant importance to their economy. As Figure 1
depicts, most of the population is concentrated in the coastal regions, with 84% of Australians
living on 1% of the continent; the other 16% scattered in rural regions. Because of these
demographics, air transportation is vital to the general welfare of Australia.
Figure 1: Population Density of Australia, taken from Swift1

The Canadian airline industry also faces many problems, including rapid consolidation,
inconsistent service and rising costs. It is apparent that Canada needs smaller aircraft to service
smaller markets around the country. Between major cities lies vast rural terrain that is not
serviced regularly by the monopolistic national airline Air Canada. According to Dadgostar and
Poulin2, a significant change in the regulation of the Canadian aircraft industry is needed. The
existing market includes several successful regional airlines, including Pacific Coastal Airlines
and Bearskin Airlines. Both of these airlines use existing aircraft that are comparable to the
capabilities and requirements used in developing the current design.
The need for a small, general aviation replacement aircraft is evident in the Latin
American region as well. A very successful aircraft in this market is the Cessna Grand Caravan.
It is ideal for military transport, air rescue, border patrol, surveillance and supply operations.
Cessna Grand Caravans are used extensively by Chile, Brazil, and Colombian government
organizations. Additionally, these aircraft are utilized by airlines in Brazil, Venezuela, and
Mexico. Often serving as an airline transport from remote locations to major airports, these
aircraft offer spacious cabins, room for cargo, and are versatile. An aircraft similar in function
and capacity to the Cessna Grand Caravan is ideal for this region’s needs and has the potential to
compete in a highly successful market.
2.2 Initial Design Requirements
Based on market analysis, collected costumer attributes, and an extensive Quality
Function Development (QFD) matrix, the following design requirements were initially
considered:
• Passenger range: 9 - 12
• Max Range: 1200 nm
• Max Cruise speed: 200 kn
• Max Service Ceiling: 25000 ft
• Take Off Distance: <2000 ft
• GTOW: 10,000 lbs
• Acquisition Cost: ≈ $2.0 million (US2006)
2.3 Design Missions

In order to begin designing an aircraft, initial design missions were established. All of the
design missions have taken into account the rural routes targeted as well as the lack of
infrastructure needed to refuel in underdeveloped areas. Figure 2 shows a mission profile for a
1200 nm design range, with mission reserves in the event of a landing being unavailable at the

scheduled airport. This mission would also be used in the event of unfavorable weather
conditions or other extenuating circumstances at the location of the planned landing. The steps
of this mission are as follows:
• 0-1: Take-off (<2000 ft)
• 1-2: Climb to <10,000ft
• 2-3: Cruise climb <1200nm
• 3-4: Descend
• 4: Loiter <45min
• 4-5: Approach
• 5-6: Attempt to land
• 6-7: Climb
• 7-8: Divert to a neighboring airport
• 8-9: Descend
• 9-10: Approach
• 10- 11: Land
Figure 2: Design Mission for Full Range Flight

For the above mission, the airplane would attempt to land at the prescribed location. The
design mission includes a reserve segment that meets FAR part 23 requirements, which is
expected to be compatible with requirements elsewhere in international markets. From here, the
aircraft must descend and loiter again around the airport to which it has been diverted.
The mission profile shown in Figure 3 represents a flight from one airport, to a
destination, and back to the original airport. The distance from origin to destination is
approximately 475 nm. This is an important mission, because the aircraft will be using
alternative fuels, thus refueling stations may not be available at all airports. Thus, the aircraft

will need to return to the original airport in order to refuel for the next mission. The steps of this
mission are as follows:
• 0-1: Take-off (<2,000 ft)
• 1-2: Climb to <10,000ft
• 3-4: Descend
• 4-5: Approach
• 5-6: Land
• 6-7: Take-off (<2000 ft)
• 7-8: Climb to <10,000ft
• 9-10: Descend
• 10-11: Approach
• 11-12: Land
Figure 3: Design Mission for a Round trip Flight without Refueling
The design mission in Figure 3 was taken into account when creating a preliminary constraint
diagram.

3. Design Concept
Author: Aaron Mayne
In order to fulfill the requirements set forth by the design team, a concept was generated.
This concept was generated to be qualitatively rugged, durable, and simple. In addition, the
aircraft had to be versatile and able to hold combinations of cargo and passengers. The concept
for this aircraft is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Isometric view of the Design Concept

The main features were developed for the concept by splitting the aircraft components into four
categories: Wing, Fuselage, Tail, and Landing Gear.

3.1 Wing
The wing of this concept airplane was designed with features that compromise between a
high performance and low structural weight. The concept features a high tapered wing with a
strut.
The wing was placed in a high configuration for considerations of ground clearance.
With the market this aircraft is being designed to serve, there will be times when unimproved or
dirt runways will have to be used. In these instances there may be small obstacles or tall plants
that may cause damage to the wing and its structure. With the wing elevated it is possible to
avoid many of these hazards.
The taper on the shape of the wing was put there in order to help produce an elliptical
load distribution. The wing’s elliptical loading provides the most efficient performance. Also, a
loading assumption was needed in order to complete structural calculations. The discussion of
structural needs led to the final major feature of the wing.
The conceptual wing was designed to be supported by struts. Strut support is an option to
consider when a high wing is present. This option reduces the structural weight inside the wing
while actually reducing the aerodynamic performance, since the struts add drag to the aircraft.
The simplicity and structural weight reduction of the wing justifies the placement of a strut on
the wing.
3.2 Fuselage
The features present on the fuselage of this concept were selected in order to help aide in
the ability to carry both passengers and cargo for the specific market presented for this aircraft.
In order to complete these missions the aircraft should be simple and flexible.
The first feature is a non-pressurized cabin. The non-pressurized cabin was selected to
keep the conceptual aircraft lightweight and to reduce the necessary systems. Also without
needing to pressurize the cabin, a square cross section is possible. A square cross section is the
easiest way to wrap the fuselage around a standard LD3 shipping container. The ability to carry
these cargo containers was a key design point for this concept. The second fuselage feature also
enables the ability to use the standard shipping containers, the cargo door.
A large sliding cargo door is present on the side of the fuselage. Placed behind the wing
this 66” wide sliding door was designed in order to be able to fit the 62” wide LD3 shipping
containers through with small clearance around the edges. This is a key feature that made this

design concept a good choice for the market that the team is trying to reach.
3.3 Tail
The tail section of the selected concept as shown in Figure 4 is a T style tail. This tail
configuration was selected for this concept primarily for the aerodynamic advantages. A specific
quality of a T-tail configuration is a reduction in necessary tail surface area. This is due to the
horizontal stabilizer acting as a tip device on the tail section, reducing the tip effects and
increasing the percentage of the area that is effective to create a stabilizing force on the aircraft.
Also the Horizontal stabilizer can have a smaller exposed area, as compared to the area for a
conventional tail configuration. This is due to the fact that in this configuration the moment arm
from the aerodynamic center of the wing to the horizontal stabilizer is longer. A smaller area is
then needed because a smaller force is necessary to produce the needed force on the aircraft.
This information on the effect of tail configuration comes from the text by Dan Raymer3.
3.4 Landing Gear
The final feature that was considered an integral part of this design concept is the landing
gear. The design team decided that a fixed landing gear would be used for the design concept.
The reasoning behind this decision was the durability issue for landings on unimproved runways.
It can be seen from many existing aircraft that are capable of using rough runways and airfields
that a fixed landing gear system is a feasible design choice. This choice of fixed landing gear
was weighed between the structural advantages and the aerodynamic performance reductions.
The final choice was made for the sake of simplicity. A simple fixed gear design allows for two
major advantages: an ease of manufacture and repair, and landing gear that are always available.
It is more important for the concept aircraft to always be able to land than to have the
aerodynamic advantages.
The layout and features of the design concept presented are shown in the fully
dimensioned representation of Figure 5.

Figure 5: Dimension 3-view representation of the concept aircraft

As stated previously, this concept was chosen in order to service the market presented in
Section 2. This market is made up of many, small, unimproved, rough, or otherwise challenging
airfields and runways that will be used. Also the ability to carry a flexible combination of
payload or passengers is a key to the specified market. The design concept presented here was
created to be capable of performing these specific tasks set about by the market requirements and
the design mission.
3.5 Cabin Layouts
Author: Sarah Weise
The layout of the cabin interior is essential for sizing an aircraft. This aircraft will be used
not only as a passenger transport, but also as a cargo transport. For the cargo aspect of this
aircraft’s mission, the LD-3 industry standard shipping container was chosen. This container has
dimensions of 5’1” by 5’4” by 5’1½”. Because of the designated missions of the aircraft, the

dimensions of the cabin were dependent on three sizing factors. First, the shipping container size
set the cabin height and width for all possible interior configurations. The third and final
constraint on the cabin size was the volume per passenger aboard the aircraft. This constraint
mainly affected the overall length of the cabin. A graph summarizing passenger comfort is
shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Passenger Comfort4

This graph shows the relationship between passenger comforts, cubic feet per person, and trip
length. The data in this graph was essential in sizing the length of the cabin for certain flights.
For a flight of six hours, a goal of 55 ft3 was set. For shorter flights, 30 ft3 was acceptable. The
pitch of the seats, or the distance between the seats, was also an important factor in designing the
interior of the aircraft. However, this value was simply adjusted to meet the volume per person
goals. In a few of the layouts that are to be described, a standard lavatory has been included in
the floor plan, which is 2’10” by 3’2”5.
The chosen standard layout included five rows of two seats each. Figure 7 depicts the
basic floor plan, including the passenger-only flight option.

Figure 7: Passenger Only Configuration

Because this configuration does not include a lavatory, it is intended for shorter distance flights.
The overall dimensions of the interior were 5’6” by 5’2½” by 19’8”. These dimensions were
dependant on the cubic volume per person as described earlier. For a comfortable interior, the
passengers had a 36” pitch, and 47.7 ft3 per person. The cross-sectional area for this
configuration is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Cabin Cross-Section

The cross-section of the cabin interior was sized using the LD-3 shipping containers. Thus, the
width and height were dependent on the dimensions of these containers. Because of this, the
aisle was calculated to be 26” wide, since the seats were assumed to be 18” wide3.
There were several other configurations chosen for this aircraft. One such alteration to
the original design was made so that an executive version could be created. This aircraft included
a lavatory, but only had six seats instead of ten. For this case the pitch was 50” and the volume
per person was 79.6 ft3. This option is depicted in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Executive Cabin Layout

This layout would be used as a more plush setting for high paying customers. This
configuration, as with most of the configurations, could also include the lavatory in the back of
the aircraft; however, this option has not been depicted here. The reason for the lavatory to be
moved to the rear of the cabin is for the comfort of the passengers. Passengers would prefer not
having a lavatory directly across from the entrance. Because this configuration included a
lavatory, it will be used for longer distance flights such as a 1,200 nm trip.
The next configuration for this aircraft was similar to the previous layout, except that it
had eight seats instead of six. This configuration would be used as a comfortable flight option
for longer trips since it included a 40” pitch and 59.7 ft3 per person, and a lavatory. While this
option was not as plush as the executive version, it was more comfortable than the original
layout with ten seats, and would be acceptable as a long range transport aircraft.
There were three options for this cabin size including shipping containers. All of the
options for this cabin size including shipping containers did not include a lavatory. First, one
LD-3 was placed onboard. This option can be viewed in Figure 10.
Figure 10: One LD-3 Shipping Container

The interior included eight seats with a 34” pitch and 41.2 ft3 per person, or it included six seats
with a 40” pitch and 54.9 ft3 per person. Another configuration included two LD-3 shipping
containers. In this case the pitch was 36”. There was enough space for fours seats with 45.4 ft3
per person. The final configuration for this size of cabin included three LD-3 shipping
containers. This configuration is depicted in Figure 11. In this case there was no room for extra
passenger seating.
Figure 11: Three LD-3 Shipping Containers
4. Sizing
Author: Aaron Mayne
Conceptual sizing of an aircraft can take into account as few or as many parameters as
can be defined about the concept. Most sizing models are based off of historical data sets of
existing aircraft. The stages of sizing for this design can be separated into three distinct phases.
These phases will be called rough sizing, constraint sizing, and detailed sizing. Each section will
be described in detail, and present with some significant findings. During the conceptual sizing
process, the concept was defined quantitatively and became a design.
4.1 Rough Sizing
During the early stages of this process a rough estimate of the gross weight,
empty weight and fuel consumed for the design mission were necessary. For this rough sizing
case a simple weight buildup model was created from historical data of existing aircraft used.
For this initial sizing, the technique was taken from the text by Dan Raymer3. This technique
used equation (eq. 4.1), and forms of the Breguet Range (eq 4.3) and Endurance equations (eq.
4.3). These three equations made it possible to create a calculation routine to find a basic weight
of the aircraft that was being designed.

The weight buildup was an iterative process that used several estimated values,
approximated both by the design team and from previously designed aircraft. The weight of the
aircraft was estimated as,
Wcrew + W payload
W0 =
W f We (4.1)
1− −
W0 W0
where
W0 = GTOW
Wcrew = weight of the total crew
W payload = weight of the payload or passengers
W f = weight of the fuel necessary to complete the mission
We = empty weight of the aircraft.
For this and all further sizing it was assumed that a 2 man flight crew would be present on every
flight of the design mission. Also, it was determined that each crew member would be given a
weight of 200 lbs. The payload weight was determined from the design requirements laid out for
the concept. The empty weight was estimated by taking a database of similar mission aircraft
and using simple design parameters to create a multivariate regression for this database. This
empty weight equation was found by taking the values of range, cruise speed, payload, and
takeoff weight from the database and using a least squares method to find an equation that would
calculate the empty weight. This regression equation was,
ln We = 0.2353 ln Vcr + .0088R + 1.0488 ln W0 + .2937 AR − 2.8803 (4.2)
where
Vcr = cruise velocity
R = Range
AR = Aspect Ratio of the wing.
The last piece of the weight breakdown was the weight of the fuel necessary to complete
the design mission. The fuel weight was found using the Breguet equations for range and
endurance. These equations find the weight change for each portion of the design mission. The
design mission was simplified by having takeoff, climb, and landing sections of the design

mission use average weight fractions taken from Raymer3 (Table 3.2, pg. 20). The range
equation (eq. 4.3) was used to find the fuel consumption for the cruising section of the design
mission.
RC
−
⎛L⎞
wi Vcr ⎜ ⎟
=e ⎝D⎠
(4.3)
wi−1
where
C = specific fuel consumption
L
D
= Lift to drag Ratio
wi
= weight fraction of before and after the cruise segment.
wi −1
The endurance equation (eq.4.4), used for the loiter sections of the design mission is the similar
to the Range Equation,
EC
−
⎛L⎞
wi ⎜ ⎟
=e ⎝D⎠
(4.4)
wi −1
with one exception,
E = Endurance time,
which is substituted for the Range over Velocity. The values that were estimated for those two
equations were the L/D of 13.8, taken from diagrams in Raymer’s3 book, estimated values from
the aircraft database, and the specific fuel consumption values for simple Kerosene turbine fuel.
4.2 Constraint Sizing
This stage of the sizing process was completed in order to determine necessary values of
parameters for the aircraft. The three major parameters determined from this process were the
Wing Loading (W/S), the Power to Weight ratio (P/W) and the Aspect ratio of the wings (AR).
These three parameters can describe many things about the size and performance of the airplane.
These values effect whether or not the design mission is feasible within the design requirements.

4.2.1 Constraint Diagram

The first step in this process was to create a constraint diagram, which plots the required
W/S and P/W necessary to perform mission requirements. This constraint diagram was created
originally on general assumptions about the aircraft and its performance. Later on during the
design process, it was able to be updated with numbers obtained for parameters such as
maximum lift coefficient, climb rates, etc. Figure 12 is the final constraint diagram which gives
the possible ranges of P/W and W/S.
Sealevel Takeoff
0.25
5000ft altitude Takeoff on a Hot

Day
0.2 Sealevel Cruise

Power to Weight Ratio (hp/lb)
10000 ft altitude cruise
0.15
Sealevel Climb
10000 ft altitude climb
0.1
15000 ft cruise
Emergency Landing at 5000ft

0.05
altitude on an Icy Runway

altitude on an Icy Runway
With Fuel Dump Option
0 altitude on a Hot Day
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Comparison Aircraft Design
Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) Points
Figure 12: Constraint Diagram

The lines on this plot show the feasible design space. The final design point is shown on this
constraint diagram, in red, as a comparison to the constraints and existing aircraft. The P/W
values need to be above the horizontal curves in order to perform the maneuvers, and the wing
loading needs to be below the vertical lines present. These constraints were then transferred to
the next step of constraint sizing, carpet plots. From this initial sizing and constraint analysis, it
was seen that the best design point had to have a wing loading below 58 lb/ft2 and a power to
weight ratio of at least 0.07 hp/lb. These constraints were then transferred to the next step of
constraint sizing, carpet plots.

4.2.2 Carpet Plots

A carpet plot is a method of comparing P/W, W/S, and AR and their effects on the
GTOW. The comparisons made on the carpet plots make it possible to find a best aspect ratio
for each wing loading and power to weight ratio. A sample of these carpet plots is shown in
Figure 13. This carpet plot contains the final design point of the aircraft. From the constraint
diagram, the limiting case for the aircraft being designed seemed to be the climb from sea level.
This constraint along with a takeoff, stall, and maximum gross weight constraints were used in
order to determine the best design point.
13000
0.09
12500 0.095
0.1
12000
0.105
TOGW
11500
Stall
11000
FAR 23 GTOW max
10500 Sea level Takeoff
Climb Rate 5 ft/s, @ Sea

10000 Level, Takeoff Flight
15 25 35 45
W/S
Figure 13: Carpet plot of Aspect Ratio 9

From a series of carpet plots such as this, which are presented in the appendix at the end of this
report, a set of minimum GTOW design points were obtained. From these design points the
point producing the lowest weight was chosen as the design W/S, P/W, and AR. These design
point values are as follows in Table 1.

Carpet Plot Design Points Summary

AR W/S P/W T/W GTOW
8 31.3 0.091 0.3140392 11360
9 31.3 0.0875 0.3019608 11317
10 31.3 0.086 0.2967843 11343
11 31.3 0.086 0.2967843 11448
Table 1: Summary of least GTOW design points
The chosen design point for the least weight is a P/W of 0.0875 and a W/S of 31.3. These
analyses gave the design parameters that were necessary to move forward with other portions of
the analysis and a more detailed sizing model.
4.3 Detailed Sizing
Detailed sizing for this design project was done using the FLOPS, Flight Optimization
System, release 6.11. With this tool, the aircraft was able to be sized with many separate and
specific parameters that make this airplane operational. When using the FLOPS sizing code, the
first consideration in the sizing process was that the model was designed to describe large
commercial and/or military aircraft. In order to calibrate this sizing model, an input file based on
the Cessna Grand Caravan was created to determine the best way the input parameters had to be
set to get reliable and correct results from the sizing model. As shown in Table 2 after
calibrating the FLOPS sizing model, it produced very reliable outputs for the sizing values.
Cessna Grand Caravan
Published FLOPS Error
Passengers(#) 10 to 14 10
Range 1 way (leg of Round Trip) (nm) 907 907
Wing Span (ft) 52.1 51.61 0.94%
Length (ft) 41.6 41.6
Height (ft) 15.5 15.5
2
Wing Area (ft ) 279.4 278.81 0.21%
Empty Weight (lbs) 4237 4250 -0.31%
Gross Weight (lbs) 8750 8727 0.26%
Engine Power (hp) 675 673.2257143 0.26%
Max Speed (kts) 212 212
Normal Cruise (kts) 175 173.1 1.09%
Stall Speed (kts) 61 61
Table 2: FLOPS sizing code calibration results

Some of the characteristics of the model that were changed were multiplication factors that
controlled performance numbers, most importantly the L/D ratio and SFC. Also, some of the

weights such as the furnishings group were reduced because the amount of empty weight
originally attributed to them didn’t make sense for this rugged, simple class of aircraft.
Taking this calibrated input file, an accurate sizing model of the design concept was able
to be produced. After changing the design point parameters and the design requirements of the
aircraft a size and weights estimate was made. Iterations were then made to the input file for the
sizing model, as subsystems and parts of the aircraft were more defined. Finally, once all the
areas of the aircraft: aerodynamics of the wing and tail, stability of the aircraft, performance of
the design propeller, structural makeup of the concept, and performance; the final inputs were
run through the sizing model to create up to date design characteristics. In Table 3 a summary of
the aircraft design is given as it was finally sized.
Design Concept
Passengers/Payload 10 or 2000lbs
Range 1 way (leg of Round Trip) (nm) 1200 (475)
Wing Span (ft) 59.95
Length (ft) 52
Height (ft) 19.7
2
Wing Area (ft ) 397.2
Empty Weight (lbs) 6113
Gross Weight (lbs) 12432
Engine Power (hp) 1248
Max Speed (kts) 245
Normal Cruise (kts) 170
Stall Speed (kts) 61
FAA TO Length (ft) 3295
Fuel Capacity (lbs) 3906
Table 3: Final Values of the aircraft sizing code

These values represent the size of the aircraft designed around the design requirements laid out
for this project.
5. Compliance with Design Requirements
Author: Aaron Mayne
The aircraft design was based around the accomplishment of specific requirements that
would enable it to serve its target market. A comparison of the current characteristics of the
design with the requirements points out where improvements still need to be made. Table 4 lists
the design requirements as goals and thresholds, and then places where the current value stacks
up against these goals. These design compliances are a simple way to judge what has been
accomplished and what is still necessary.

Goal Threshold Value

Payload (lbs) 2000 ≥ 1500 2000
Range, Full Payload (nm) 1200 ≥ 900 1200
TO Field Length (ft) ≤ 2000 ≤ 5000 3295
GTOW (lbs) ≤ 12,500 12,432
Max Speed (knots) ≥ 250 ≥ 184 241
Acq. Cost ($US2006 millions) ≤ $2.5 ≤ $3.5 $3.24
DOC ($US2006) ≤ $500/hr $424/hr
Table 4: Chart displaying compliance with design requirements
The majority of the design requirements have been fulfilled. There are a few areas, such as
acquisition cost and takeoff performance, which have yet to meet the set goals, and require
further work.
6. Structures
Author: Jason Olmstead
The preliminary structural analysis and design was done using several design resources
and techniques. A comparison to existing aircraft, including the Cessna Grand Caravan, was also
considered. A representative view of the main structural systems including the wing and tail, the
fuselage, and the landing gear will be examined. Finally, the material selection for each
structural member will be explained.
6.1 Wing and Tail
Shown in Figure 14 is a representation of the interior wing structure and the very similar
tail configuration. The tapered wing is modeled very closely to other aircraft of similar size, such
as those in the database. The main load-bearing members in the wing are the spars. In this
design, there is a main spar and a rear spar which are both shown in green. These members carry
the force and moments due to the span-wise lift distribution. Further analysis can be done to
decrease the weight of the spar by using a spar-cap and web combination instead of an I-beam or
rectangular beam. The spar-cap and web would provide similar strength capabilities but would
also reduce the cross-sectional area of the beam, therefore decreasing the weight. The chord-wise
pressure and shear distributions on the NACA 4412 airfoil are carried to the spars by the thin
wing skin and by the ribs which help to keep the airfoil’s shape. These members are shown in
yellow in the figure below. The design incorporates ten rib structures on each side for a total of
twenty ribs which also help to resist the wing twisting and torsion effects. The stringers are the

longitudinal members shown in red. These rods help transmit the skin surface loads to the ribs
and spars and stop the skin from bending under high loads. Also shown in the representative
figure below are the two fuel tanks, shown in blue (not to scale), which are placed between the
spar structures.
Figure 14: Interior Wing and tail structures

6.2 Fuselage
The fuselage structure (Figure 15) is a semi-monocoque design that consists of 12 rib
frames, or bulkheads, which run perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. The fuselage beams,
called longerons, along with the stringers, help to stiffen the fuselage skin. The main part of the
fuselage includes a keel-type beam that is used to strengthen the fuselage floor for potentially
heavy payloads. Initially, two beams were used in the design. The switch to a single beam was
made to decrease the structural weight. The entire fuselage structure helps to increase the
bending and torsion stiffness of the overall fuselage shape.
Figure 15: Fuselage Structure

6.3 Landing Gear

Figure 16 shows a representation of the aircraft’s landing gear arrangement. The landing
gear is non-retractable and is configured as a tricycle arrangement. Non-retractable landing gear
was chosen for strength considerations for potential rough landings along with the simplicity of
the design. Using Raymer’s design book along with some online sources, the wheel base was
computed to be 17 feet along with a tread length of 10.54 feet. The main landing gear angle from
the ground is close to 51 degrees.
Figure 16: Landing Gear

6.4 Material Selection
The material selection is a very important part of the structural design process. The
aircraft’s structural body is entirely comprised of aluminum alloy. The final selection was based
on the use of the different alloys for a specific aircraft section or part. All of these aluminum
alloys include high strength-to-weight characteristics, high resistance to corrosion, ease of
fabrication and a relatively low cost. The materials selected for the structural components and
their advantages are summarized in Table 5.

Aircraft Material Yield Approximate Advantages Disadvantages

Section Selection Strength Cost
Wing/Tail Aluminum Strength, resists
Structure Alloy ~70,000 $4.00 – corrosion. Fatigue life
(Spars, ribs, 7075 or psi 5.00/lb commonly used, low
stringers) 7150 cost
Fuselage Aluminum Strength, resists
Structure Alloy ~70,000 $4.00 – corrosion. Fatigue life
(Keel beams, 6061 or psi 5.00/lb commonly used, low
ribs, 7075 cost
longerons)
Wing/tail Skin Aluminum Very high strength, relatively new
& Fuselage Alloy ~77,000 Up to resist corrosion, material, more
skin 2090-T83 psi $10.00/lb weight reduction expensive
Landing Aluminum 60,000 – Strength, resists
Gear Alloy 70,000 $3.00/lb corrosion. Fatigue life
2024-T6 psi commonly used,
cheap
Table 5: Materials (Data from Alcoa Inc. Aerospace Materials)
For the Wing and Tail structural members alloy 7075-T6, an Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy, was
used. Introduced in 1943, most aircraft structures have been specified in alloys of this type. A
higher-strength alloy in the same series, 7150-T6 (78,000-psi yield strength), was developed in
1951; it has not generally displaced 7075-T6, which has superior fracture toughness. Alloy 7150-
T6 is used primarily in structural members where performance is critical under compressive
loading.
Alloy 6061 was selected to create the main structure of the fuselage. Various tempers of
this alloy are some of the most widely used alloys in the 6000 series. This standard structural
alloy is on of the most versatile and heat-treatable alloys and is popular for medium to high-
strength requirements. 6061 also has good fracture toughness characteristics. This alloy also has
excellent corrosion resistance to atmospheric conditions and sea water. This versatile alloy will
be a perfect material used for a variety of parts for this aircraft.
When making a decision on what material to use for the aircraft skin the following
information was used to decide on. aluminum alloy 2090-T83. This sheet metal used for the
wing and fuselage skin is a fully commercialized aluminum-lithium alloy developed for many
high strength aerospace applications. The Al-Cu-Li alloy offers an 8 percent density savings
when compared with other aerospace alloys. This alloy also has a 10 percent higher elastic

modulus then average aluminum sheets. When coupled with the low density feature, this
provides for unique weight saving benefits. Alloy 2090-T83 has strengths comparable with other
high strength aluminum alloys and superior corrosion resistance. This alloy is also one of the
easiest aluminum products to weld that is available.
The material selected for the landing gear arrangement is a 2024 series aluminum alloy
which is a common choice for an aircraft of this size and function. Steel landing gear is also
used, but would add to the overall structural weight. The landing gear tires should be selected
carefully and should be based on the type of landing or runway conditions. Aluminum alloy 2024
was introduced by Alcoa in 1931 as a sheet in the T3 temper class. It was the first Al-Cu-Mg
alloy to have a yield strength approaching 50,000-psi and generally replaced 2017-T4, or
Duralumin, as the predominant 2000 series aircraft alloy. With its relatively good fatigue
resistance, especially in thick plate forms, 2024 continues to be specified for many aerospace
structural applications. 2024 series alloys, such as higher purity 2124 and 2324, with
improvements in strength and other specific characteristics, have also found application in
critical aircraft structures.
7. Aerodynamics
Author: Joseph Fallon
7.1 Airfoil
A NACA 4412 airfoil was used for the wing of the plane. Data for this airfoil was taken
from Abbot (p. 488-489) 14. From this data, the lift curve slope, clα , the stall angle, α stall , the
angle of attack for zero lift, α L =0 , and the change in angle of attack due to the flap, Δα flap , were
estimated. The airfoil drag polar was needed as well. Since the wind tunnel testing was only
performed for Reynolds numbers of three, six and nine million, X-Foil was used to estimate the
drag polar for higher Reynolds numbers. These results were superimposed over the airfoil data;
the results are located in the appendix.
7.2 Drag Polar
In order to quantify the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft, a drag polar was
needed. A NACA 4412 airfoil was chosen for the wing because it had the highest lift
coefficient, clα . The wing’s taper ratio of 0.3 was chosen because it produces the minimum
induced drag factor as illustrated in Anderson (p.376 fig 5.18)6. Also, a twist angle of 3°, a

typical initial guess (p. 66) 3, was chosen in order to cause the root of the wing to stall first. This
twist angle allows control of the ailerons during stall. The stall conditions are the determining
factor in the size of the wing. In order to meet FAA regulations, a stall speed of 61 knots was
required. A simple slotted flap with a single hinge was decided upon due to its simplicity.
7.2.1 Lift Estimation
A series of calculations was required in order to correctly estimate the lift produced by
the wing. The process is outlined as follows. The lift curve slope of the wing was approximated
by
c lα
C Lα = (7.1) (p.100, eq. 4.14)7
1 + (57.3clα / πeAR )
The span efficiency factor, e, was estimated by
2
e= (7.2) (p.107, eq. 4.15)7
(
2 − AR + 4 + AR 1 + tan Λ t max
2 2
)
where
Λ t max = the sweep angle of a line connecting the maximum thickness of the root and tip airfoils.
Equation 7.2 produced a span efficiency factor of 0.88. A similar analysis was performed for the
tail with tail properties provided by the stability analysis. The effect of the tail on the lift curve
slope was scaled in proportion to the ratio of planform areas of the wing and the horizontal tail.
This effect is given in equation 7.3.
⎛ ∂ε ⎞ S t
ΔC Lα = C Lαt ⎜1 − ⎟ (7.3) (p.111, eq. 4.22)7
⎝ ∂α ⎠ S
∂ε
The scaling factor accounts for the downwash effect of the wing on the tail. This is given
∂α
by
.25
∂ε 21°C Lα ⎛c ⎞ ⎛ 10 − 3λ ⎞⎛ z h ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ (7.4) (p.111, eq. 4.21)7
∂α AR 0.725 ⎜l ⎟ ⎝ 7 ⎟⎠⎜⎝1 − b ⎟⎠
⎝ h ⎠
where
c = mean chord of the wing,
lh = horizontal distance between the quarter cord of the root of the wing and tail, and
zh = height of the tail chord from the wing chord.

The effect of the flap is estimated by assuming a α L =0 for the flapped airfoil, α stall for the
clean airfoil and a C Lα from the sum of equations 7.1 and 7.3. The results of the lift estimation
are shown in Figure 17.
3.5
3
2.5
2 Airfoil
Airfoil with Flap
1.5
CL or cl
Wing
1
Wing and Tail
0.5 Dirty wing and Tail
0
-15 -10 -5 -0.5 0 5 10 15 20
-1
α (°)
Figure 17: Lift Curve Slope

The wing area required for cruise at 10,000 ft and 168 knots is only 250 ft2. A wing area
of 400 ft2 was determined from constraint analysis. To allow for a stall speed of 61 knots, a flap
area of 91% is required. This means that the flap must extend 25.1 ft from the fuselage. When
this wing is evaluated at cruise conditions, a C L of 0.5 is required. This requires a root angle of
attack of 1.9°. Thus, the aircraft's wing root chord will be inclined by 1.9° from the chord of the
fuselage.
7.3 Drag Estimation
The drag polar for the airfoil was approximated by a second order polynomial, using two
reference points from wind tunnel testing. The drag due to the wing was then estimated by
(
C D = c d + C L / πeAR
2
) (7.5)
The drag polar of the entire aircraft is given by
(7.6) (p.125, eq. 4.48)7
2
C D = C D 0 + k 1C L + k 2 C L
where k1 is given by
k1 = 1 /(πe0 AR) (7.7) (p.112, eq. 4.27)7
e0 is given by

( )
e0 = 4.61 1 − 0.045 AR 0.68 (cos Λ LE )
0.15
− 3.1 (7.8) (p.114, eq. 4.30)7
Λ LE is the sweep angle of the leading edge. k 2 was found by
k 2 = −2k1C L min D (7.9) (p.115, eq. 4.31)7
C D 0 = C fe (S wet / S ) + k1C L min D (7.10) (p.115, eq. 4.34& 4.35)7

2
where
C fe =correction factor to find parasitic drag normalized for wetted area.
C fe values are determined from historical data. A C fe of 0.005 was used. This came from
Table 4.1 of Brandt (p.114)7.

The whole-body drag polar for the dirty configuration was determined by subtracting the
clean-wing drag from the clean, whole-body drag and adding the dirty-wing drag; the results of
this are given in Figure 18.
2.5
1.5
Clean (whole aircraft)
Dirty (whole aircraft)
CL
1
Clean (just the wing)
Dirty (just the wing)
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
-0.5
-1
CD
Figure 18: Drag Polar

8. Weight and Stability

Author: Becca Dale
8.1 Weight Breakdown
The weight of the aircraft as comprised of several different components both in the physical
structure of the plane and the interior make up, as can be seen in Table 6.
WEIGHT
COMPONENT (lbs)
WING 825
HORIZONTAL TAIL 48
VERTICAL TAIL 56
FUSELAGE 1244
LANDING GEAR 524
ENGINES 527
FUEL SYSTEM-TANKS AND PLUMBING 130
SURFACE CONTROLS 102
AUXILIARY POWER 338
INSTRUMENTS 107
HYDRAULICS 156
ELECTRICAL 626
AVIONICS 594
FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT 700
AIR CONDITIONING 136
CREW AND BAGGAGE 410
UNUSABLE FUEL 75
ENGINE OIL 17
PASSENGER SERVICE 165
PASSENGERS, 1600
BAGGAGE 400
MISSION FUEL 3651
Table 6: Detailed Weights of the Aircraft
All of these weights had varying affects on the balance of the aircraft. Figure 19 demonstrates a
detailed description of all of the weights and what percentage of the total weight of the plane
they each make up. In addition, Figure 20 shows each of these weights but in a much broader
view: structural, propulsion, systems and equipment, operations, payload, and fuel. Both of
these figures are shown on the page to follow.

Detailed Weight Breakdown
WING
6.6%
HORIZONTAL TAIL
VERTICAL TAIL
0.4%
FUSELAGE
0.4%
LANDING GEAR
10.0%
29.4%
ENGINES
FUEL SYSTEM-TANKS AND PLUMBING
4.2% SURFACE CONTROLS
AUXILIARY POWER
4.2% INSTRUMENTS
HYDRAULICS
ELECTRICAL
1.0% AVIONICS
0.8% FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT
3.2% 2.7% AIR CONDITIONING
0.9% CREW AND BAGGAGE
1.3% UNUSABLE FUEL
12.9% 4.8% ENGINE OIL
5.0%
1.3% 5.6% PASSENGER SERVICE
0.1% 1.1% PASSENGERS,
0.6% BAGGAGE
3.3% MISSION FUEL
Figure 19: Weight Distribution
Overall Weight Breakdown
Structural Weight
21.7%
29.4%
Propulsion 'Weight
Systems and Equipment

Weight
5.3%
Operating Weight
Payload Weight
16.1% 22.2%
Fuel Weight
5.4%
Figure 20: Generalized Weight Distribution

8.1.1 Structural Weight

The structural weight makes up 21.7% of the total gross takeoff weight of the aircraft
when it is fully loaded with 2,000 lbs of payload. This group is comprised of the weights for
the: wing, vertical tail, horizontal tail, fuselage, and landing gears. Figure 21 demonstrates a
breakdown of all of these weights and how they play into the total 2,697 lbs of the plane.
The structural weight was figured into the empty weight of the plane when calculating the
center of gravity, neutral point, and static margin.
Structural Weight Breakdown
46.1%
19.5% WING
HORIZONTAL TAIL
VERTICAL TAIL
FUSELAGE
LANDING GEAR
2.1%
1.8%
30.5%
Figure 21: Detailed Structural Weight Distribution

Since the fuselage is the largest portion of the structure of the plane, it naturally is the
heaviest, weighing in around 1,244 lbs. The wing is the next heaviest, followed by the landing
gear, vertical tail and horizontal tail. All of these weights were calculated using FLOPS, a sizing
code for aircraft.
8.1.2 Propulsion Weight
The propulsion weight does not make up a very major portion of the plane since the
engine and fuel tanks only weight a total of 657 lbs combined. Of this weight, the majority of it,
goes to the engine weight, as can be seen in Figure 22.

Propulsion Weight Breakdown
19.7%
ENGINES
FUEL SYSTEM-TANKS
AND PLUMBING
80.3%
Figure 22: Weights for the Propulsion System

The fuel however, which will be stored in the fuel tanks, as well as running through the engine
for power weighs 3,903 lbs, which plays a major role in the gross takeoff weight of the aircraft.
The fuel is 29.4% of the overall weight of the plane at takeoff, as can be seen in Figure 20. As
the fuel burns throughout the flight, the center of gravity and static margin of the plane both
vary. This is all part of the balancing of the aircraft that is discussed later.
8.1.3 Systems and Equipment Weight
The systems and equipment in the plane make up 22.2% of the total GTOW of the
aircraft weighing in around 2,759 lbs. This portion of the weight breakdown of the plane is
made up of various portions of the plane, with the three largest being furnishings, avionics and
electrical wiring and systems. Figure 23 shows a more precise make-up for the systems and
equipment portion of the weight estimation. These weights, too, help to determine the stability
and balance of the aircraft.

Systems and Equipment Weight Breakdown
5.0% 3.7%
SURFACE CONTROLS
12.3%
AUXILIARY POWER
25.4% 3.9%
INSTRUMENTS
5.7% HYDRAULICS
ELECTRICAL
AVIONICS
FURNISHINGS AND
22.7% EQUIPMENT
21.5%
AIR CONDITIONING
Figure 23: Weights for the Systems and Equipment of the Aircraft
8.1.4 Operating Weight
For the aircraft to fly, certain additions must be made to the plane, such as a crew to
operate the plane in flight. Oil must be added to the engine for it to run properly, as well as fuel.
Some of the fuel will remain trapped in the engine after the flight; this is considered the unusable
fuel, as it is trapped in the engine, the plumbing, or the fuel tanks. All of these portions of the
plane’s operating weight add up to a total of 668 lbs. This is not a very major portion of the
GTOW, but it still does have an affect, as do all of the weights in the airplane, in the balance and
total GTOW. Figure 24, shown below, demonstrates a weight breakdown of the operational
weights. As can be seen the crew make up the largest portion of this weight at 61.5% of the
operating weight.

Operating Weight Breakdown
11.4%
2.6%
24.6%
CREW AND BAGGAGE

UNUSABLE FUEL
ENGINE OIL
PASSENGER SERVICE
61.5%
Figure 24: Airplane’s Operational Weight

8.1.5 Payload Weight
The payload of the aircraft can range in size from 0 to 2,000 lbs. When the payload is at
full capacity of 2,000 lbs it makes up 16.1% of the GTOW of the aircraft. In Figure 25 the
payload is demonstrated assuming that there are 10 passengers on-board plus their luggage. A
weight of 160 lbs was estimated for each passenger, with a total baggage weight of 400 lbs for
all of the passengers combined. The plane is designed to carry storage containers as well, so
instead of a passenger configuration, cargo would work as payload too as long as it did not
exceed the 2,000 lb design limit.

Payload Weight Breakdown
80.0% PASSENGERS,
20.0% BAGGAGE
Figure 25: Payload Weights for 10 Passengers plus Baggage

8.2 Stability and Balance
The aircraft designed is never in an unstable position. No matter, if the plane is in the air
or on the ground it cannot be put into an unstable position with how the weights are distributed.
The plane can be loaded with a full load of 2,000 lbs or with out any payload and it will not ever
have a negative static margin.
8.2.1 Weight Locations
The weights discussed in the previous section are located throughout the length of the
aircraft. Figure 26 shows where the major weights of the airplane are located in relation to each
other. The locations of the weights as well as the amount of each weight were used to determine
the center of gravity, neutral point, and static margin for the aircraft.

Figure 26 Weight Locations on the Aircraft

With the weights located in the positions shown in the previous figure, the neutral point
of the plane was determined to be 17.31 ft from the nose of the plane. The neutral point was
determined using the values for the aerodynamic center of the wing and the horizontal tail
volume coefficient. For this particular plane the aerodynamic center of the wing is located 15 ft
from the front of the plane and the volume coefficient for the horizontal tail is .69.
8.2.2 Center of Gravity and Static Margin
The center of gravity of the aircraft was determined by using the weights diagramed in
Figure 26 and their locations relative to the nose of the plane (the datum). The center of gravity
of the plane moves throughout the flight as fuel is burned. Figures 27 and 28 demonstrate the
distances the center of gravity travels throughout the flight. Figure 27 is for when there are two
pilots, whereas, Figure 28 is when there is only one pilot operating the plane. The most the
center of gravity ever moves throughout the flight is less than 0.25 inches, as can be seen in
Table 7.

Center of Gravity Travel with 2 crew members
13000
12000
2000 lbs
11000
1750 lbs
1500 lbs
10000
Weight (lbs)
1250 lbs
1000 lbs
9000 750 lbs
500 lbs
8000
250 lbs
crew only
7000
6000
16.2000 16.2500 16.3000 16.3500 16.4000 16.4500 16.5000 16.5500 16.6000 16.6500
CG Location (ft)
Figure 27: Travel of the Center of Gravity with different payloads (2 crew)
Center of Gravity Travel with 1 crew memeber
13000
12000
2000 lbs
11000
1750 lbs
1500 lbs
10000
Weight (lbs)
1250 lbs
1000 lbs
9000 750 lbs
500 lbs
8000
250 lbs
crew only
7000
6000
16.3000 16.3500 16.4000 16.4500 16.5000 16.5500 16.6000 16.6500 16.7000 16.7500 16.8000 16.8500
CG Location (ft)
Figure 28: Travel of the Center of Gravity with different payloads (1 crew)

Payload (lbs) 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0
CG travel (ft) 2 crew 0.2024 0.1864 0.1826 0.1769 0.1714 0.1639 0.1557 0.1465 0.1351
CG travel (ft) 1 crew 0.2499 0.2483 0.2474 0.2448 0.2428 0.2389 0.2347 0.2302 0.2234
Table 7: Distance Center of Gravity moves throughout Flight
The center of gravity envelope shown in Figure 30 demonstrates that the aircraft never
has a negative static margin (center of gravity location, % MAC from datum). The numbers used
for the center of gravity envelope are shown in Figure 29 and Table 8. The static margin limits
of 5% and 20% were determined from historical data stating that the majority of planes in this
size range have a static margin around this point. With the C.G. limits at 5% and 20% this
means the center of gravity cannot move forward farther than 15.98 ft or aft beyond 19.97 ft.
The forward limit can probably be moved forward as much as to 14.65 ft and the plane would
still be stable around 40% static margin, but at this point the plane is becoming very stable and
may be hard to control throughout flight.
General Weight Breakdown
16.4%
3.4%
30.0% Empty Weight

Payload
Crew
Fuel
50.2%
Figure 29: Weights used for the Center of Gravity Envelope

Empty Weight 6113 lbs

Payload 2000 lbs
Crew 410 lbs
Fuel 3903 lbs
Table 8: Major Weights for C.G. Envelope
Figure 30: CG Envelope

A – Empty airplane
A-B fuel is added
B-C crew is added
C-D payload is added
D – Takeoff
D-E fuel is burned
E-F payload is taken off the plane
F-A crew gets off the plane

The static margin of the plane varies throughout the flight depending on the amount of
payload the plane is carrying. Assuming the plane starts off carrying approximately 3,900 lbs of
fuel, the static margin of the plane will change up to 3.76% when there is one crew member
flying the aircraft and up to 2.87% when there are two crew members operating the plane. These
numbers as well as the change in static margin with varying payload weight can be viewed in
Table 9. In addition, the static margin is plotted verses the total weight of the plane at varying
payloads for both one and two crew members; Figures 31 and 32 demonstrate this.
Payload (lbs) 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0
SM (%) 2 crew 2.87 2.81 2.75 2.67 2.57 2.47 2.35 2.21 2.05
SM (%) 1 crew 3.76 3.74 3.73 3.69 3.65 3.60 3.54 3.46 3.37
Table 9: Change in Static Margin for varying Payloads
Static Margin Range During Flight with 2 crew
13000
12000
2000 lbs
11000
1750 lbs
10000 1500 lbs

Weight (lbs)
1250 lbs
9000
1000 lbs
750 lbs
8000
500 lbs
7000
6000
9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00
SM (%)
Figure 31: Static Margin for various payloads (2 crew)

Static Margin Range During Flight with 1 crew
13000
12000
2000 lbs
11000
1750 lbs
10000 1500 lbs

Weight (lbs)
1250 lbs
9000
1000 lbs
750 lbs
8000
500 lbs
7000
6000
7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
SM (%)
Figure32: Static Margin for various payloads (1 crew)

8.2.3 Tail Configuration
The design of the tail is a very subjective process which involves often conflicting
requirements of the weight, size, center of gravity, static margin, range, and designed aircraft
handling properties. To determine the length of the plane first the volume coefficients for the
vertical and horizontal tail needed to be decided upon. To determine these values historical data
for aircrafts of similar size with a T-tail were investigated. Table 10 shows the values for the
sizing of both the horizontal and vertical tails.
Veritcal Tail Horizontal Tail
distance from AC of v-tail to AC of wing 32 ft distance from AC of h-tail to AC of wing 34 ft
v-tail volume coefficient 0.0665 h-tail volume coefficient 0.69
2
Area of vertical tail 49.4 ft Area of horizontal tail 53.5 ft2
Table 10: Tail Properties
8.2.3.1 Vertical Tail
The vertical tail moment arm (distance from the aerodynamic center of the wing to the
aerodynamic center of the vertical tail) was determined by varying the length to obtain a suitable
value that did not create a very large static margin as well as a very large wetted area. The larger
the wetted area the heavier the tail will get. Figure 33 demonstrates the trend of the length of the
moment arm compared to the wetted area required. In addition, Figure 34 shows the trend of the

static margin verses the moment arm of the vertical tail. These trends were created by varying
the length of the vertical tail moment arm, while keeping the horizontal tail moment arm
constant.
Vertical Tail Moment Arm verses Area
85
80
75
70
65
Area (ft2)
60
55
50
45
40
17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Moment Arm (ft)
Figure 33: Vertical Tail Moment Arm verses Wetted Area

Vertical Tail Moment Arm verses Static Margin
14.3
14.2
14.1
14
Static Margin (%)
13.9
13.8
13.7
13.6
13.5
13.4
13.3
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Moment Arm (ft)
Figure 34: Vertical Tail Moment Arm verses Static Margin (%)
As can be seen by the Figure 33, as the moment arm increases the wetted area required for
control surfaces decreases, which creates a lighter tail that helps with stability. Also, in Figure
34 it is noted that as the moment arm increases the static margin for the aircraft decreases.
Therefore the design point chosen for the vertical tail moment arm was 32 ft.
8.2.3.2 Horizontal Tail
The horizontal tail is the determining factor in the length of the aircraft. With a larger
moment arm for the horizontal tail, this in turn creates a longer aircraft. Once again, like the
vertical tail, when the length of the moment arm is varied it affects the static margin, center of
gravity, and wetted area required. Figure 35 shows the horizontal tail moment arm verses the
static margin for the plane. Also, Figure 36 demonstrates the values required for the wetted areas
for both the vertical tail and the horizontal tail as these values are increased simultaneously.

Airplane Length verses Static Margin
26
24
22
Static Margin (%)
20
18
16
14
12
22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Horizontal Tail Moment Arm (ft)
Figure 35: Horizontal Tail Moment arm verses Static Margin (%)
Tail Length verses Tail Area
80
75
70
65
Tail Area (ft2)
Vertical Tail
60
Horizontal Tail
55
50
45
40
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Tail Moment Arm (ft)
Figure 36: Tail length verses Wetted Area Required

As was the case with the vertical tail, very similar trends take shape. The static margin increases
as the tail gets shorter since the control surfaces are depleting. In addition, as the moment arms
increase the amount of surface area required begins to decrease. Therefore, the moment arm
length required for the horizontal tail was 34 ft.
With the vertical tail moment arm length of 32 ft and a horizontal tail moment arm length
of 34 ft, the overall length of the plane was determined to be 50.55 ft.
8.2.4 Longitudinal Trim
The longitudinal trim of the aircraft was determined to ensure the stability of the plane.
The center of gravity, aerodynamic center, GTOW, and the distance from the aerodynamic center
of the horizontal tail to the center of gravity were all used to determine the lift required by the
wing and the horizontal tail. The lift required by the wing and the horizontal tail are 11,909 lbs
and 517.5 lbs respectively.
9. Performance
Author: Miguel Alanis
Performance analysis was made using equations and concepts from chapter 5 of Brandt7.
This section is comprised of three parts: important performance values, V-n diagram, and
operating envelope.
9.1 Performance Values
Several important velocities were calculated for the airplane. To reiterate, the aircraft
will cruise at approximately 170 knots, as calculated by FLOPS for the design range of 1200 nm.
The stall speed is 61 knots and is regulated by FAA regulations; the wing area had to be
increased from initial estimates to meet this requirement. The velocity for the maximum glide
range was found to be 148 knots, using equations from Brandt7. The airplane has good climb
performance as can be seen from Table 11.
In addition to the values in Table 11, there were other values calculated that were not depicted.
Among these were the design flight time of 7.10 hrs and 3213 lbs of fuel needed.

Parameter Value Units
Vcruise 170 knots
Vstall 61 knots
Vmaxgliderange 148 knots
γmaxclimb 16.3 deg
Climb ratemax 46 ft/s

Table 11: Tail Properties
9.2 V-n diagram
The V-n Diagram depicted in Figure 37 describes the structural limits of the aircraft to create lift
for specific maneuvers. The design loading factors were n=3 and n=-1, which are the positive
and negative structural limits, respectively. The point on the curved portion of the diagram is the
stall speed of the airplane, where the loading factor is n=1. The V-n diagram was computed for a
clean configuration at sea level.
Figure 37: V-n Diagram, red=normal flight conditions, blue= gusty flight conditions

9.3 Operating Envelope

Figure 38 shows four constraints that construct the envelope. The blue curves are
constant energy heights, computed from equation (5.69)7. The red line is the stall limit, as set by
FAA regulations and equation (5.67)7. The black curve is the curve defined at velocities and
heights where there is no excess power available for acceleration. This was computed using
equation (5.70)7. The orange curve is defined by a structural limit (dynamic pressure tolerance).
Finally, the green line is the altitude where the plane will be cruising.
Figure 38: Operating envelope, red=stall limit, black=excess power limit, orange=q limit, green=cruise altitude

10. Propulsion
Author: Tim Block
The subject of propulsion as covered in this preliminary design review has three sections.
First, the engine selection will be discussed followed by an analysis of the propeller that converts
the engine power into thrust. Finally the alternate fuel choice and its impacts on the design will
be discussed.
10.1 Engine Selection
A single turbine power plant was chosen based on the rubber sized engine approach.
Further detailed studies of the aircraft size, weight, and aerodynamics finalized the required
power output at 1250 hp.
The market for small turbines in the class of 1250 hp is dominated by the very successful
PT6A series (see Figure 39) of turbines built by Pratt & Whitney Canada. Screening the PT6A
product line narrowed the selection down to the PT6A-67D model that is capable of producing a
max. rated power of 1271 shp. For more technical information refer to Table 12, which provides
all information based on conventional jet fuel.
Figure 39: PT6A Turbine

Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67D

mech. rated shp 1271 dry weight (lbs) 515
shaft rpm 1700 length (in) 74
Basic HSI (hr) 2000 envelope (in) 19
Basic TBO (hr) 6000 sfc@max. power (lb/hp/hr) 0.538
overall pressure ratio 10.8
Table 12: Technical facts of the PT6A-67D
Based on the selected propeller, and conventional Jet-A fuel in the selected engine, the calibrated
FLOPS sizing code estimated the engine thrust specific fuel consumption at 0.4559 lb/lb/hr
during cruise.
10.2 Propeller Design
A four-bladed variable pitch Hamilton standard propeller with a diameter of 110 in has
been selected to convert the power of the engine into thrust. The propeller is aluminium made for
both cost and ease of maintenance reasons and will be full feathering and reversible. Detailed
technical information including the generated thrust can be found in Tables 13 and 14.
The propeller design has been performed in two steps. A preliminary design was carried
out using fully empirical formulas8 based solely on the engine power output. These preliminary
design numbers were then compared to the baseline Pilatus PC-12 propeller, which is set to
convert a maximum of 1200 shp into thrust. As the numbers corresponded well, these values
were used for preliminary design and sizing purposes.
The second step involved the use of the formulas from Raymer’s textbook3 and Hamilton
Standard propeller efficiency charts. This final design was done in an iterative approach of first
comparing different activity factors and blade numbers at the three most significant design points
(take off, climb, and cruise) and afterwards comparing propeller dimensions and speeds in order
to refine the design further. As all efficiency values from the propeller efficiency charts are for
free propellers installation losses were taken into consideration by using assumptions from
Raymer’s textbook.
Hamilton Standard propeller

diameter [in] 110 activity factor 140
rpm [1/min] 1700 integrated design CL 0.5
blades [-] 4 max. tip speed [Ma] 0.78
material aluminum
Table 13: technical details of propeller

flight condition velocity [kn] thrust available [lbf] thrust required [lbf] prop.eff. @ max. thrust prop.eff. @ req. thrust
static - 3462.20 - - -
take-off 70 3001.10 1360 0.5157 0.6001
climb 110 2482.70 750 0.6986 0.7408
cruise 170 1840.10 810 0.787 0.8109
Table 14: thrusts and propeller efficiencies

10.3 Fuel Selection
After team 1 decided to use a single turbine as the power plant, two choices of alternative
fuels were considered. Fischer-Tropsch-based jet fuel (FT fuel) and Soy-Methyl-Ester-based jet
fuel (SMT fuel) which both have the capability of replacing current petroleum-based jet fuel.
The general characteristics of both alternate fuel types have been described previously in the
SDR. Thus emphasis is now put on the performance in the given engine.
10.3.1 Fischer-Tropsch-based Jet Fuel
The impact of FT fuel on the performance of a jet engine is hard to estimate. As of now,
there is only one FT fuel employed on a regular basis. This fuel is produced from coal by the
Sasol Company in South Africa and has been approved for use in a blend with traditional Jet-A
fuel. However, only scarce information on the actual performance of this fuel available.
The properties of FT fuels are dependent on the process characteristics and the
conventional or renewable resources used to produce the fuel. Conventional resources for this
process have tended to be coal, while renewable resources include any of a number of types of
biomass. The process characteristics are currently heavily under research and thus may alter fuel
specifications until entry of service of the proposed aircraft. There are only very general
statements on the impacts of FT fuel available. As a pure generic fuel, it is free of sulphur and
has a lack of aromatics, reducing its lubricating quality, but improving emissions. Some sources9
state that FT fuel has a slightly lower energy content, which if not offset by superior combustion
characteristics, it will lead to higher fuel consumption. Tests of FT diesel in piston engines for
heavy trucks10 revealed no changes in fuel consumption, but significant improvements in
emissions.
The only available FT fuel today has been approved for use in current jet engines under
the given regulations. Thus, the performance of FT fuel can be assumed to meet the minimum
performance requirements of current Jet-A fuel.

10.3.2 Soy-Methyl-Ester-based Jet Fuel

SMT fuel commonly known as Bio-Diesel is the second choice of alternate fuel for the
proposed aircraft. Recent research conducted at the University of North Dakota11 indicates
significant improvements of the low temperature characteristics making SMT fuel a potential
aviation fuel.
As the low temperature characteristics of SMT fuel have yet prevented its application in
the aviation sector there a no reliable numbers on its performance in gas turbines available.
Figures from piston engines12 indicate a specific fuel consumption penalty of about 15%.
Comparing the gravimetric energy content13 of regular SMT fuel available for piston engines
with conventional Jet-A produces a 13.5% lower value for the SMT fuel. A comparison of these
fuels can be found in Table 15.
Gravimetric Energy Content Density (g/cm3) Volumetric Energy content
(BTU/lb) (BTU/gal)
Jet A 18610 0.775-0.840 125800
SMT fuel 16108 0.88 118296
FT Fuel Comparable to Jet A Jet A Comparable to Jet A
Table 15: Fuel Properties
This leads to the assumption that the fuel consumption of a gas turbine running on SMT
fuel will be about the magnitude of 15% higher similarly to the performance in piston engines.
10.3.3 Conclusion
The numbers used in the design process were based on regular Jet-A fuel, which applies
to FT fuel. For the case of SMT fuel, a later recalculation will be required as more accurate
numbers for this kind of fuel are available. Seeing that it is not currently available for use in gas
turbines, it is very likely that the aircraft will have a lower performance while using SMT fuel
compared to FT fuel.
11. Cost
Author: Sarah Weise
Cost of any design is an important issue. The acquisition cost is driven by the
development cost along with the manufacturing cost. This acquisition cost is a driving force in
the sale of every aircraft. Besides the acquisition cost, other expenses such as direct operating
costs are important to customers looking to purchase an airplane.

11.1 Acquisition Cost

The total purchasing price of this aircraft was determined using a method based off of
data from competing aircraft. A trend was found using a least squares method assuming the
acquisition cost was a power series function which depended on several key factors. These
variables were chosen because they were important factors in the overall cost of an aircraft.
These variables were as follows: wing span, aspect ratio, gross take-off weight, shaft
horsepower, cruise speed, and range. This power series was assumed to be of the following
form:
cost = Sa AR b GTOW c T d V e R f g (11.1)

Where
cost = acquisition cost
S = wing span
AR =Aspect Ratio
GTOW= gross take-off weight
T = thrust in hp
V = cruise velocity
R = range
a, b, c, d, e, f, and g are all constants solved for using a least squares method. To solve
for these constants, the natural log of both side of this equation are found. A vector of all the
competing aircraft acquisition costs made up the left hand side of this equation, and a matrix of
all of other data made up the right hand side of the equation. When the natural log of the cost
vector was divided by the natural log of the remaining data matrix in Matlab, the constants are
found. This yielded the following constants:
a = 0.2049
b = 0.269
c = 0.6206
d = 0.497
e = 0.5855
f = 0.1427
g = 0.0473

From these constants and the values for aspect ratio, etc.; the acquisition cost of the aircraft was
found to be $3.24 million (US 2006). This value seems a little bit high for the size and range of
the aircraft, but within reasonable limits. This value is acceptable due to the experimental nature
of the propulsion system.
11.2 Research, Development, Testing, Evaluation and Flyaway Cost
The research, development, testing and evaluation costs, RDT&E, are the costs due to the
initial creation of an aircraft. The amount of money spent to develop an aircraft is important to
recover within a certain amount of time. For this aircraft a break even point was assumed to be
after 200 aircraft would be sold. To estimate the research costs of this aircraft, the DAPCA3
model outlined in Raymer’s Text was used to calculate the acquisition cost, development cost,
and flyaway cost. This model consisted of the following equations:
This equation (11.2) is the calculation of the engineering hours required for the project.
H E = 7.07We0.777V 0.894 Q 0.163 (11.2)
This equation (11.3) is the calculation of the tooling hours required.
H T = 8.71We0.777V 0.696 Q 0.263 (11.3)
This equation (11.4) is the calculation of the manufacturing hours required.
H M = 10.72We0.82V 0.484 Q 0.641 (11.4)
This equation (11.5) is the calculation of the quality control hours required.
H Q = 0.133 (11.5)
This equation (11.6) is the calculation of the development support costs.

C D = 66.0We0.630V 1.3 (11.6)
This equation (11.7) is the calculation of the flight test costs.
C F = 1807.1We0.325V 0.822 FTA1.21 (11.7)
This equation (11.8) is the calculation of the manufacturing costs.
C M = 16We0.921V 0.621Q 0.799 (11.8)
This equation (11.9) is the calculation of the engineering production costs
C eng = 2251.0[0.043Tmax + 243.25M max + 0.969Tturbine _ inlet − 2228] (11.9)
where
We = empty weight

V = maximum velocity
Q = number of aircraft produced in 5 years
FTA = number of flight test aircraft
Neng = total production quantity times number of engines per aircraft
Tmax = engine max thrust
Mmax = engine max Mach number
Tturbine inlet = turbine inlet temperature
Cavionics = avionics cost
Several assumptions were made for these equations. First of all, the number of aircraft to
break even was 200 aircraft in ten years. Thus, Q was 100, since that was the number of aircraft
sold in five years. This number of aircraft to break even was a conservative estimate for the
break even point for this aircraft. Many of the aircraft of this type and class broke even at
approximately 200 aircraft as well. Next, two flight test aircraft were used, which was a low
number of flight test aircraft; however, since this airplane was so similar to existing aircraft in its
design, fewer testing aircraft are needed. Finally, the avionics costs were assumed to be 7% of
the flyaway cost. This percentage was set based on the sophistication of the equipment. Since
this aircraft did not need highly priced equipment like that of a military fighter, a low percentage
was chosen.
By combining the above hours with the following wages in US1999,
RE = $86 (Engineering)
RT = $88 (Tooling)
RQ = $81 (Quality Control)
RM = $73 (Manufacturing)
the total acquisition cost can be calculated. This relation can be seen in the following equation:
RDT & E + flyaway = H E RE + H T RT + H M RM + H Q RQ
+ C D + C F + C M + C eng N eng + C avionics (11.10)
While this equation was used to calculate an acquisition cost for the aircraft, the results were less
than favorable for the competing aircraft. The comparison of the calculated data from the
DAPCA model and the actual acquisition costs can be seen in Table 16.

Calculated Cost Real Cost % error

Cessna Grand
Caravan $2,989,043.68 $1,750,000.00 58.55%
Explorer 500T $3,012,662.57 $1,035,000.00 34.35%
Pilatus PC-12 $4,670,977.14 $3,400,000.00 72.79%
Table 16: Real Cost, Calculated Cost, and Percent Error
As can be seen from this table, the DAPCA model did not yield a consistent model for
calculating the acquisition cost. This was the reason the model previously described in section
11.1 was used instead of the DAPCA model. This model was inaccurate due to its creation from
military data. While the acquisition cost cannot be estimated from the DAPCA model, the
research and flyaway costs may still be estimated from this model. These costs were calculated
using specific parts of the DAPCA model. These costs were calculated by assuming the
development cost was a combination of the engineering costs, tooling costs, development
support costs, flight test costs, and engineering production costs. The flyaway cost was a
combination of manufacturing costs, quality control costs, manufacturing materials costs, and
avionics costs. From these summations, the manufacturing and flyaway costs were calculated.
Again, these values were not accurate. However, the fraction of the acquisition cost that was the
research cost and the flyaway cost was consistent for each of the competing aircraft. The
summary of these fractions is given in Table 17.
% Research % Flyaway
Cessna Grand Caravan 64.68% 35.32%
Explorer 500T 65.30% 34.70%
Pilatus PC-12 62.04% 37.96%
Table 17: Research and Flyaway Percentages
From this the percent of the acquisition cost that was the research expenses was 64% and
the flyaway percentage was 36%. From these values, the total research cost was calculated to be
$415 million US2006 and the flyaway cost of each aircraft was $1.17 million (US 2006).
11.3 Direct Operating Cost
The direct operating cost, DOC, was again calculated using the DAPCA model. The
DOC was a combination of the fuel costs, maintenance costs, material costs, depreciation and
insurance. The fuel costs were calculated by assuming that there were 1000 flight hours per year
of operation of the aircraft. This number was chosen from the assumption that this aircraft will
be used as a commuter transport. The cost of FT kerosene was estimated to be $7.40 per gallon.
By combining the SFC, cost of FT kerosene, and flight hours per year, the fuel costs per year

were calculated. From here, the maintenance man hours per flight hour was estimated as 1
MMH/FH. This value came from Table 18.1 in Raymer’s text. The maintenance labor hourly
rates were assumed to be the same as those of the manufacturing hourly rates from the
acquisition cost model. The material costs were estimated using the following equation:
material cost ⎛C ⎞ ⎡ ⎛C ⎞ ⎤
= 3.3⎜ a6 ⎟ + 10.2 + ⎢58⎜ e6 ⎟ − 19⎥ N e (11.11)
FH ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎦
where
Ca = aircraft cost minus the engine
Ce = cost per engine
Ne = number of engines
The engine cost was assumed to be about $250,000. A rough estimate for this value was
acceptable since the model was not exact. The engines for the competing aircraft were assumed
to be about the same price. Depreciation was also calculated for this aircraft. This value was
assumed to be 10% of the acquisition cost per year. This value is the decrease in value of the
aircraft over time. Finally, the insurance costs were estimated as 1% of the total yearly costs.
From all of these correlations, the yearly DOC and then the hourly DOC can be calculated. Like
the acquisition cost, the calculated DOC was not the same as the real DOC from the competing
aircraft data. However, for this case there was a correlation between the calculated value and the
real value. This correlation was found to be approximately 64%. Therefore, the real DOC was
64% of the calculated DOC. This calculation was done for the current fuel cost of $2.40 per
gallon. Thus, the DOC to be calculated for the aircraft which was designed must first be
calculated with standard JetA fuel prices. From this calculation, the DOC for the aircraft was
found with standard fuel, and then adjusted according to the increase in fuel prices. The final
calculated value for the DOC was found to be $763.02 per hour. This value seems high for a
direct operating cost. However, the reason this value is so large is due to the fuel prices. With
standard fuel the DOC would be $317.63 per hour. Therefore the extra $418.39 per hour was
due to the use of expensive fuel.

12. Conclusion
12.1 Feasibility
The preliminary design of the aircraft proposed is feasible since there were no indications
in any analysis that pointed to a serious flaw. There were many tools and techniques used in the
analysis of the design, and they were all validated using existing information from the
benchmark plane, the Cessna Grand Caravan. The rugged and versatile features will do well in
markets wishing to reach a rural population. Also, the alternative fuel-based engine will be a key
selling point in a society where petroleum is no longer an affordable commodity.
12.2 Open Issues
Due to time and knowledge constraints, there were several issues that the team would
have liked to explore further but did not get the chance. Among these are the stall characteristics
of the T-tail that may be important to the safety of the vehicle in flight. Performance needs to be
analyzed at landing and takeoff. Finally, more detail needs to go into the design of the control
surfaces of the airplane.

13. References
[1] Swift, S J. Big Challenges For Little Airliners. Australian International Aerospace
Congress. Brisbane, Australia: AIAC, 2003. 1-11.
[2] Bahram Dadgostar and Bryan Poulin. “Smaller Carriers in Small Markets Better for
Customers.” Canadian Business Economics. February, 2001.
[3] Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design : A Conceptual Approach, Third Edition
[4] Class Notes, AAE 451, Professor Crossley, Spring 2006
[5] Stanford University. AA 241 A,B Aircraft Design: Synthesis and Analysis. 4 Jan 2005
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/fuselayout/fuseplanform.html [cited 9 February 2006]
[6] Anderson, John D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Third Edition. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 2001.
[7] Steven A. Brandt, Randall J. Stiles, John J. Bertin, Ray Whitford. Introduction to
Aeronautics: A Design Perspective.1997. AIAA, Inc., Reston, Virginia.
[8] Howe, Dennis. Aircraft Conceptual Design Sythesis. London, UK: Professional
Engineering Publishing Limited, 2000.
[9] Bob Saynor, Ausilio Bauen, Matthew Leach. The Potential for Renewable Energy
Sources in Aviation. Imperial College, London, UK, 2003,
http://www.iccept.ic.ac.uk/pdfs/PRESAV%20final%20report%2003Sep03.pdf
[cited 2 February 2006]
[10] Various Authors, Fuel Property, Emission Test, and Operability Results from a Fleet of
Class 6 Vehicles Operating on Gas-To-Liquid Fuel and Catalyzed Diesel Particle Filters.
SAE International 2004-01-2959, 2004, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/36363.pdf
[11] David Dodds, UND scientists nearing test for new biojet fuel. The Grand Herald Folks,
2006, http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/13948062.htm
[12] U.S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center, Emissions Characteristics of Soy
Methyl Ester Fuels in an Underground Mining Diesel Engine with and without Diesel
Oxidation Catalyst Aftertreatmen. National Biodiesel Board, 1994,
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/min/19941201_min-002.pdf
[cited 24 January 2006]
[13] National Biodiesel Board, Biodiesel fact sheets – energy content,
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/BTU_Content_Final_Oct2005.pdf
[cited 27 January 2006]
[14] Abbot, Ira H., and Von Doenhoff, Albert E. Theory of Wing Sections. New York, NY:
Dover Publications, Inc., 1959.

14. Appendix
14.1 Database

14.2 QFD Matrix

14.3 Sample Concepts for Pugh’s Method

14.4 Tabulated Cabin Layout Specifications

Length Width Height Seats Per Row
Cabin Size 1 22'10" 5'2.5" 5'6" 2
Option Lavatory Containers Passengers Pitch Volume Per Person

1 yes 0 10 36" 56.8 ft^3
2 no 0 12 36" 47.3 ft^3
3 yes 1 8 34" 41.2 ft^3
4 yes 1 6 36" 54.9 ft^3
5 no 1 10 35" 42.0 ft^3
6 no 1 8 40" 52.5 ft^3
7 yes 2 4 36" 68.0 ft^3
8 no 2 6 36" 45.4 ft^3
9 yes 3 0 -- --
10 no 3 2 40" 62.1 ft^3

Cabin Size 2 19'8" 5'2.5" 5'6" 2

1 no 0 10 36" 47.7 ft^3
2 yes 0 8 40" 59.7 ft^3
3 yes 0 6 50" 79.6 ft^3
4 no 1 8 34" 41.2 ft^3
5 no 1 6 40" 54.9 ft^3
6 no 2 4 36" 45.4 ft^3
7 no 3 0 -- --

14.4 Tabulated Cabin Layout Specifications (cont.)

Cabin Size 3 16'10" 5'10" 5'6" 3

1 yes 0 9 36" 49.3 ft^3
2 yes 0 9 32" 49.3 ft^3
3 no 0 12 36" 37.0 ft^3
4 no 0 12 32" 37.0 ft^3
5 yes 1 6 33" 46.3 ft^3
6 no 1 9 33" 30.9 ft^3
7 yes 2 0 -- --
8 no 2 3 42" 37.4 ft^3

Cabin Size 4 18'5" 5'10" 5'6" 3

1 yes 0 9 40" 55.0 ft^3
2 yes 0 9 36" 55.0 ft^3
3 no 0 12 40" 41.2 ft^3
4 no 0 12 36" 41.2 ft^3
5 yes 1 6 40" 54.8 ft^3
6 no 1 9 40" 36.5 ft^3
7 yes 2 0 -- --
8 no 2 3 60" 54.4 ft^3

April 27, 2006
page 65 of 79
AR=8
13000
0.09
12500
0.095
12000 0.1
0.105
11500
Group 1
Stall
11000
FAR 23 GTOW max
10500 Takeoff @ 5000ft alt.
on a hot day
14.5 Carpet Plots
Climb rate 5 ft/s, @

10000
Sea Level, Takeoff
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Flight
AAE 451
April 27, 2006
page 66 of 79
AR=9
0.09
13000
0.095
12500
0.1
12000
0.105
TO GW
Group 1
11500
Stall
11000 FAR 23 GTOW max
Sea level Takeoff
10500
Climb Rate 5 ft/s, @ Sea

10000 Level, Takeoff Flight
15 25 35 45
AAE 451
W/S
April 27, 2006
page 67 of 79
AR=10
13000
0.09
12500 0.095
0.1
12000
TOGW (lbs)
0.105
11500
Group 1
Stall
11000
FAR 23 GTOW max
10500
Sea Level Takeoff
10000 Climb rate 5 ft/s, @

15 25 35 45 Sea Level, Takeoff
AAE 451
Flight
Wing Loading (lbs./sq.ft)
April 27, 2006
page 68 of 79
AR=11
0.09
13000
0.095
12500
0.1
12000
TOGW (lbs)
0.105
11500
Group 1
Stall
11000
FAR 23 GTOW max
10500 Sea Level Takeoff
10000 Climb rate 5 ft/s, @

15 25 35 45 Sea Level, Takeoff
AAE 451
Flight
Wing Loading (lbs./sq.ft)
14.6 Propeller Code

% AAE451 - Spring 2006
% Tim Block
% prop design
close all
clear all
clc
format short
% --- design values ---

V_cr=170*1852/3600; % m / sec
V_to=70*1852/3600; % m / sec
V_cl=110*1852/3600; % m / sec
D=110*2.54/100; % m
n=1700/60; % rev per sec
Sc=pi*(0.5)^2; % m^2
z=4; % number of blades
P0=1250*0.7457; % kW
P_clcr=1000*0.7457; % kW
S_wet=24*40/3.280839895^2; % m^2
% estimated wetted area in prop wash
% imperial units
V_cr_i=V_cr*3.280839895; % ft / sec
V_to_i=V_to*3.280839895; % ft / sec
V_cl_i=V_cl*3.280839895; % ft / sec
D_i=D*100/(2.54*12); % ft
P0_i=P0/0.7457; % hp3
P_clcr_i=P_clcr/0.7457; % hp
S_wet_i=S_wet*3.280839895^2; % ft^2
% key design parameters
Pow_load=P0/(pi*D^2/4); % Power disc loading
% output: 145.9495
V_prop=D*n; % Blade Tip speeds at static conditions
% output: 79.1633
% suggested design values
z_sugg=0.4*P0^0.35 % suggested amount of blades
% output: 4.3790
n_sugg=(433*P0^-0.4)*60 % suggested rpm
% output: 1686.0
Pow_load_sugg=4.7*P0^0.5 % suggested power disk loading
% output: 143.4944
D_sugg=3*(n*D)*P0^0.365*10^(-3) % suggested prop diameter (m)
% output: 2.8807
% 0 ft sea level take off and climb condition

T_SL=288.15; % degree K
rho_SL=1.22500; % kg / m^3
p_SL=101327; % N / m^2
a_SL=340.2979; % m / sec
% imperial units
T_SLi=518.67; % degree R
rho_SLi=0.00237; % slugs / ft^3
p_SLi=2116.22; % lb / ft^2
a_SLi=1116.449; % ft / sec
% 10000 ft cruise altitude

T_100=268.338; % degree K
rho_100=0.90464; % kg / m^3
p_100=69683.5; % N / m^2
a_100=328.3910; % m / sec
% imperial units
T_100i=483.008; % degree R
rho_100i=0.00175; % slugs / ft^3
p_100i=1455.33; % lb / ft^2
a_100i=1077.384; % ft / sec
% prop tip speeds

V_tip=sqrt(V_cr^2+(pi*V_prop)^2);
M_tip=V_tip/a_SL
% output: 0.7747
% advance ratios
J_to=V_to/(n*D);
J_to_corr=J_to*(1-0.329*Sc/D^2)
J_cl=V_cl/(n*D);

J_cl_corr=J_cl*(1-0.329*Sc/D^2)
J_cr=V_cr/(n*D);
J_cr_corr=J_cr*(1-0.329*Sc/D^2)
% max. achievable efficiency (@cruise):

eta_max_low=0.82*J_cr_corr^0.4;
eta_max_high=(0.82*J_cr_corr^0.16)/(10^(0.3*(log(J_cr_corr))^2.4));
% output: 0.8337
eta_limit=1.8*rho_100*z^0.15*(n*D)^3.7*J_cr_corr*P0^0.095*10^(-7)
% output: 4.3385
% approx. cruise efficiency

eta_cr_appr=0.59*P0^0.05
% output: 0.8305
% power
cp_to=P0*1000/(rho_SL*n^3*D^5)
cp_cl=P0*1000/(rho_SL*n^3*D^5)
cp_cr=P0*1000/(rho_100*n^3*D^5)
% read propeller efficiency from chart:

eta_to=0.64;
eta_to_corr=eta_to*(1-1.558/D^2*.0035*S_wet)
eta_cl=0.79;
eta_cl_corr=eta_cl*(1-1.558/D^2*.0035*S_wet)
eta_cr=0.85;
eta_cr_corr=eta_cr*(1-1.558/D^2*(rho_100/rho_SL)*.0035*S_wet)
% thrust
cT_stat=0.0085*z^0.15*(P0/(pi*D^2/4))^0.65*(1-1.558/D^2*.0035*S_wet)
% output: 0.2571
T_st=cT_stat*rho_SL*n^2*D^4;
T_st_lb=T_st/9.81*2.204622476
% output: 3462.2 lb
T_to=eta_to_corr*P0_i*550/V_to_i
ct_to=T_to/(rho_SLi*n^2*D_i^4)
T_cl=eta_cl_corr*P0_i*550/V_cl_i
ct_cl=T_cl/(rho_SLi*n^2*D_i^4)
T_cr=eta_cr_corr*P0_i*550/V_cr_i
ct_cr=T_cr/(rho_100i*n^2*D_i^4)
T_cr_appr=eta_cr_appr*P0*1000/V_cr;
% T_cr=eta_cr_appr*P0*1000/(J*n*D)
T_cr_appr_lb=T_cr_appr/9.81*2.204622476;
% output: 1989.2
% fuel consumption assumptions

sfc_p_sugg_metr=2.88*(1-0.025*P0*10^(-3))*(1-0*0.2*V_cr/a_100);
sfc_p_sugg=sfc_p_sugg_metr/9.81*2.204622476*0.7457;
% output: 0.4714
sfc_t_sugg_metr=(V_cr/a_100)*(rho_100/rho_SL)^0.117*(1-0.025*P0*10^(-3))*(1-
0.2*V_cr/a_100)/eta_cr_appr;
sfc_t_sugg=sfc_t_sugg_metr/9.81*2.204622476*0.7457;
% output: 0.0480
14.7 Performance Code

%Miguel Alanis
%AAE 451 Senior Design
%Performance and Constraint Analysis
%Spring 2006
clear
clc
%******************THRUST CURVE**********************************
%Variable Definitions (ALL IN ENGLISH UNITS)
Np=.825; %Taken from Assumption on pg 143 of Brandt
TSFCsl=.1604; %Propeller Assumptions from Raymer pgs.395-397
ESHP= 1670*550; %Effective Shaft Power (sea level)
V=100:.1:400; %Velocity (ft/s)
W=12432; %GTOW lbs
rhosl=.00237; %density at sea level

rho1= .002308; %density at 1000 ft

%******************TSFC CURVE**********************************
ctsl=TSFCsl;
Tsl=518.69;
T=linspace(518.7,483.1,1791);
ct=ctsl.*sqrt(T./Tsl);
h=linspace(0,10000,1791);
figure(1)
plot(h,ct)
grid on
xlabel('altitude (ft)')
ylabel('Thrust-Specific Fuel Consumption')
title('TSFC vs Altitude for Turboprop Engine')
%******************POWER CURVES**********************************
rho=rhosl.*exp(-(32.2./1716./T.*(h-h(1))));
V1=linspace(100,500,1791);
S=397.2;
q=.5.*rho.*V1.*V1;
qmax=1.1.*.5.*rhosl.*V1(length(V1)).*V1(length(V1));
CL=W./q./S;
k1= 0.060409554;
k2=-0.018122866;
CD0=0.0191;
CD=CD0+k1.*CL.*CL+k2.*CL;
Tr=CD.*q.*S;
Pr=Tr.*V1.*0.00181818182;
figure(2)
Pa=ones(size(Pr));
Pa=Pa*1248;
plot(V1.*0.592483801,Pr,V1.*0.592483801,Pa,'--')
grid on
legend('Power Required','Power Available')
xlabel('True Air Speed (knots)')
ylabel('Power Required (hp)')
title('Required Power vs Speed for Turboprop Engine')
figure(3)
Ta=ESHP.*(rho(length(rho))/rhosl).*Np./V1; %Available Thrust
plot(V1.*0.592483801,Tr,V1.*0.592483801,Ta,'--')
grid on
legend('Thrust Required','Thrust Available')
ylabel('Thrust Required (lbs)')
title('Required Thrust vs Speed for Turboprop Engine')
Msl=V./1116.4;
M1=V./1112.6;
M2=V./1097.1;
M3=V./1077.4;
%*********************** nmax vs velocity curve********************

figure(4)
CLMAX=2.48;
nmax=CLMAX.*rho(length(rho)).*S.*V1.*V1./2./W;
plot(V1.*0.592483801,nmax)
grid on
ylabel('nmax')
title('Nmax vs air speed')
%********************PERFORMANCE OUTPUTS******************************
display('Vstall, in knots')
Vstall=sqrt(2*W/rhosl/S/CLMAX)*0.592483801
Vstallfe=sqrt(2*W/rhosl/S/CLMAX)*0.592483801

display('Maximum Glide Range Velocity, in Knots')

CLmgr=0.629; %CL at MAX L/D
qmgr=W/CLmgr/S;
Vmgr=sqrt(2*qmgr/rho(length(rho)))*0.592483801
display('Maximum Angle of Climb, in degrees')

gamma=asin(max(Ta-Tr)/W)*180/pi
display('Maximum Rate of Climb, in ft/sec')

RATE_OF_CLIMB=max(Pa-Pr)*550/W
display('Endurance (hr) and Max Range (nautical miles)')

Wfdot=450*0.00123561712 ; %lbs/hr (N/s)
c=Wfdot/(1248*745.699872)
CLe=sqrt(3*CD0/(k1+k2))
CDe=CD0+k1.*CLe.*CLe
E=(Np/c)*((CLe^(1.5))/CDe)*(sqrt(2*rho(length(rho))*515.378818*0.09290304*S))*(((4.44822162*8781)
^(-.5))-((4.44822162*W)^(-.5)))/3600
Range=(Np/c)*17*log(W/8781)*0.000539956803
%******************OPERATING ENVELOPE**********************************
He=linspace(500,11000,7); %Energy heights (ft)

V2=linspace(1,800,1791);
for j=1:length(He),
hfl(j,:)=He(j)-V2.*V2/2/32.2; %constant energy height curves
figure(5)
hold on
plot(V2.*0.592483801,hfl(j,:),'--')
end
grid on
ylabel('Altitude and Energy heights')
title('Ps Diagram')
V_STALL=sqrt(2*W./rho./CLMAX./S)*0.592483801;
figure(5)
hold on
plot(V_STALL,h)
hmax=V2./V2.*10000;
plot(V2.*0.592483801,hmax,'--')
V_q=sqrt(2.*qmax./rho)*0.592483801;
plot(V_q,h)
V_p=0.592483801*(2*550*1248./CD./S./rho).^(1/3);
plot(V_p,h)
14.7 V-n Diagram Code

% V-n Diagram
% Becca Dale
% AAE 451
clear all
close all
clc
n_max_pos = 3.0; %max positive g-loading

n_max_neg = -1.0; %nax negative g-loading
n_positive = 0:(n_max_pos/200):n_max_pos; %range of positive structural g-loading

n_negative = 0:(n_max_neg/200):n_max_neg; %range of negavtive structural g-loading
rho10000 = .001756; %air density at 10,000 ft slugs/ft^2
rhoSL = .002377; %air density at sea level slugs/ft^2
V_stall = 61; %kts velocity at stall (occrus when N_positive=1
V_cruise = 170; % cruise velocity
V_dive = V_cruise*1.5; %dive velocity
W_S = 31.3; %wing loading
CLmax = 2.48; %CLmax

V_e = sqrt(rho10000/rhoSL)*V_cruise; %equivalent velocity

c_bar = 6.66;
CLalpha = .0908;
V_corner = 129.5;
V_neg = 104.5;
V1 = 0:(V_corner/200):V_corner;
V2 = 0:(V_neg/200):V_neg;
%9E-05x2 + 0.0006x
n_plus = .0001.*V1.^2+0.0104.*V1;
%-4E-05x2 - 0.0078x
n_minus = -.00007.*V2.^2-0.0021.*V2;
NPOS = [n_max_pos n_max_pos];

V_1 = [V_corner V_dive];
NNEG = [n_max_neg n_max_neg];

V_2 = [V_neg V_cruise];
V_3 = [V_dive V_dive];

N_3 = [n_max_pos 0];
V_4 = [V_cruise V_dive];
N_4 = [n_max_neg 0];
%Ude = [38.877 29.624 14.812];

Ude = [65 50 25];
upos = (2*W_S)/(rho10000*32.2*c_bar*CLalpha) %mass ratio positive

uneg = (2*W_S)/(rho10000*32.2*c_bar*CLalpha) %mass ratio negative
Kpos = (.88*upos)/(5.3+upos)
Kneg = (.88*uneg)/(5.3+uneg)
U1 = Kpos.*Ude
U2 = Kneg.*Ude
Vg = V_corner+12;
% n1 = (1+(rho10000*U1(1)*(Vg*1.688)*CLalpha)/(2*W_S))
n1 = n_max_pos+(rho10000*Ude(1)*(Vg*1.688)*CLalpha)/(2*W_S)
n2 = n_max_pos+(rho10000*Ude(2)*(V_cruise*1.688)*CLalpha)/(2*W_S)
n3 = n_max_pos+(rho10000*Ude(3)*(V_dive*1.688)*CLalpha)/(2*W_S)
n4 = n_max_neg+(rho10000*Ude(1)*(Vg*1.688)*CLalpha)/(2*W_S)
n5 = n_max_neg+(rho10000*Ude(2)*(V_cruise*1.688)*CLalpha)/(2*W_S)
n6 = 0+(rhoSL*Ude(3)*(V_dive*1.688)*CLalpha)/(2*W_S)
ngplus = [1 n1 n2 n3];
ngminus = [1 n4 n5 n6];
Vgust = [0 Vg V_cruise V_dive];
gustp = [1 3.1 3.27 2.75];

gustn = [1 -.8 -.88 -.26];
plot(V1,n_plus,'r',V2,n_minus,'r',V_1,NPOS,'r',V_2,NNEG,'r',V_3,N_3,'r',V_4,N_4,'r',V_stall,1,'k*
')
hold on
%plot(0,1,'b-',Vg,n1,'b-',V_cruise,n2,'b-',V_dive,n3,'b-',Vg,n4,'b-',V_cruise,n5,'b-
',V_dive,n6,'b-')
plot(Vgust,gustp,'b:',Vgust,gustn,'b:')
%plot(Vgust,ngminus,'b:',Vgust,ngplus,'b:')
title('V-n Diagram');
xlabel('Velocity (kts)');
ylabel('Load');
grid on
% hold off

14.8 Competing Aircraft Data
Acquisition Wing Aspect Gross Take- Cruise

Aircraft Cost Span Ratio off Weight Thrust Speed Range
Cessna 208
caravan 675 1800000 52.1 9.7 8000 675 214 1490
Cessna 206B
Super Cargo
Master 1650000 52.1 9.7 8750 675 201 1238
TMB 700C2 2772000 41.6 8.9 7394 700 293 1235
Explorer 500T 1035000 47.4 11.3 6600 600 180 950
G 140TP 1000000 33.8 7.9 3968 450 196 1320
Ranger G 160 2800000 42.7 8.2 7275 850 300 2500
PA-46-500 TP
Meridian 1810000 43 10.1 5134 500 299 1155
Beech King Air 350 5970000 57.9 11 15000 2100 273 1839
Beech King Air
B200 5088000 54.5 9.8 12500 1700 254 2019
Beech King Air
C90GT 2952000 50.3 8.6 10100 1100 237 1389
Beech 1900D 5420000 57.8 11 17120 1279 319 1382
P.180 Avanti II 6000000 46 12.2 11609 1700 415 2013
Ae 270 2195000 45.4 9.1 8157 850 253 1852
AP68TP-600 Viator 1200000 39.4 7.8 6669 840 230 931
PAC 750XL 1020000 42 5.8 7500 750 192 669
PC-12/45 2895000 53.3 10.2 9920 1200 276 2602
Yun-12 (Y-12) 4410000 56.5 8.6 12100 1240 156 837

14.9 Cessna Grand Caravan FLOPS Calibration .in file

Caravan.in
CARAVAN EXAMPLE for AAE 451, Spring 2006
Run a full analysis including costs - caution, costs probably not be accurate for
single piston, use IFITE=2
$OPTION
IOPT=1, IANAL=3, ICOST=1, IFITE=2,
$END
Enter fuselage dimensions assume all pax
are first class, use one fuselage-mounted engines
Tails are specified with volume coefficients and default parameters
$WTIN
ULF=3.,
WF=5.2, DF=4.3, XL=41.6, XLP=16.7,
FPITCH=36., NFABR=2, TPITCH=36., NTABR=2, NEW=0,
NEF=1,WENG=350, FULWMX=23.,NPF=0, NPT=10, NFLCR=2, NSTU=0, NGALC=0,
CARGF = 0., CARGOF=0., FRLGN=75, FRLGM=175, WELEC=450, WAVONC=400, WFURN=700,
FLAPR=.98, FSTRT = 1, DIH=3,
FULWMX=13.,
WPPASS =160.,
$END
Maintain constant wing loading, thrust/weight ratio, and
modified tail volume coefficients - note: coefficients should be checked
$CONFIN
GW=8750, DESRNG=907.,
AR=9.555, WSR=31.3, TWR=.15168,
TCA=.145, TR=.586, SWEEP=2,
HTVC=0.975, VTVC=0.1,
VCMN=0.2712, CH=25000.,
$END
Moderate technology wing
$AERIN
CAM=.04,
AITEK=1.0, FLTO=1365., FLLDG = 950.,
CLTOM=1.8, CLLDM=1.8, FCLDES=.629, FMDES=.277,
$END
Calculate cost information, starting development year 2006, fuel price Feb 2006
use 100 percent first class seating, production run 300 a/c
$COSTIN
DEVST=2006., DYEAR=2006, FUELPR=7.50, NPOD=1, PLMQT=2014., Q=300.,
IWIND = 1, PCTFC = 100, SFC = .64,
$END
Generate engine deck in cycle analysis module and
extrapolate to get consistent flight idle data
$ENGDIN
IDLE=1, IGENEN=1,FFFSUB=1.2, MAXCR=1, NGPRT=0,
$END
Generate an internal combustion engine, use propeller input info
$ENGINE
IENG=4, IPRINT=0,
OPRDES=29.5, TETDES=2660.0,ETAPRP=.8,FHV=18941.6,SHPOWA=60.0,
YEAR=2006,
SFCMAX=.64,
$END
Size aircraft for specified range, fly minimum fuel-to-climb,
optimum altitude for cruise Mach, and max L/D descent
$MISSIN
FCDSUB=1.065, IFLAG=2, IRW=1,
TAXOTM=10., TAKOTM=0.4, TAXITM=10., TIMMAP=5.,
CLMMIN=.2,
RCIN = 100., CRALT=10000,
DEMMIN=.12,
ITTFF=1, FWF=-1., RESRFU=0.05, THOLD=.05,
$END
START
CLIMB
CRUISE
DESCENT
END

14.10 Final Design FLOPS .in file

FinalDesign.in
SINGLE TUROBOPROP Aaron Mayne, Team 6 for AAE 451, Spring 2006
Run a full analysis including costs - caution, costs probably not be accurate for
single piston, use IFITE=2
$OPTION
IOPT=1, IANAL=3, ICOST=0, IFITE=2,
$END
Enter fuselage dimensions assume all pax
are first class, use one fuselage-mounted engines
Tails are specified with volume coefficients and default parameters
$WTIN
ULF=3,
WF=5.5, DF=5.2, XL=52, XLP = 22.83,
FPITCH=36., NFABR=2, TPITCH=36., NTABR=2, NEW=0,
NEF=1,WENG=530, EEXP=1 FULWMX=15.,NPF=0, NPT=10, NFLCR=2, NSTU=0, NGALC=0,
CARGF = 0., CARGOF=0., WFURN=700,
FLAPR=.98, FSTRT = 1,FCOMP=0,
WPPASS =160.,
CGW=178.08, CGHT=415.62, CGVT=365.01,
HHT=1,SHT=54.0, ARHT=5, TRHT=.6,
SVT=49.7, ARVT=1.2, TRVT=.6, SWPVT=55.,
$END
Maintain constant wing loading, thrust/weight ratio, and
modified tail volume coefficients - note: coefficients should be checked
$CONFIN
GW=12500, DESRNG=1200.,
AR=9, WSR=31.3, TWR=.3,
TCA=.12, TR=0.3, SWEEP=0,
HTVC=0.69, VTVC=0.0665,
VCMN=.29, CH=10000,
$END
Moderate technology wing
$AERIN
CAM=.04,
AITEK=1.5,VAPPR=77.1, FLTO=2000., FLLDG = 2000.,
CLTOM=2.48, CLLDM=2.48,FCLDES=.629, FMDES=.277,
$END
Calculate cost information, starting development year 2006, fuel price Feb 2006
use 100 percent first class seating, production run 300 a/c
$COSTIN
DEVST=2006., DYEAR=2006, FUELPR=7.50, NPOD=1, PLMQT=2014., Q=300.,
IWIND = 1, PCTFC = 100, SFC = .546,
$END
Generate engine deck in cycle analysis module and
extrapolate to get consistent flight idle data
$ENGDIN
IDLE=1, IGENEN=1,FFFSUB=1.2, MAXCR=1, NGPRT=0,
$END
Generate an internal combustion engine, use propeller input info
$ENGINE
IENG=4, IPRINT=0,
OPRDES=29.5, TETDES=2660.0,ETAPRP=.8,FHV=18941.6,SHPOWA=60.0,
YEAR=2006,
$END
Size aircraft for specified range, fly minimum fuel-to-climb,
optimum altitude for cruise Mach, and max L/D descent
$MISSIN
FCDSUB=1.065, IFLAG=2, IRW=1,
CLMMIN=.2,
IOC=3, CRALT=10000
DEMMIN=.12
ITTFF=1, FWF=-1., RESRFU=0.05, THOLD=45,
$END
START
CLIMB
CRUISE
DESCENT
END

Rerun sized aircraft for shorter range with existing

weights, wing, and engine
$RERUN
mywts=1, wsr=0., twr=0.,
$END
Use same mission except for design range above
Turn off detailed segment output
$MISSIN
FCDSUB=1.35,IFLAG=0, IRW=2,
CLMMIN=.2,
NCRUISE=1, IOC=3,
DEMMIN=.12,
ITTFF=1, FWF=-1., RESRFU=0.05, THOLD=45,
CRALT=10000., NSOUT=2, NSADJ=2, MIRROR=8,
$END
START
CLIMB
CRUISE 1
COMBAT 23 .117 5000
COMBAT 22 .1 100
COMBAT 22 .1 10
COMBAT 1.4 .2 10
CLIMB
CRUISE 1
DESCENT
END
14.11 Stability Code

% Center of Gravity calculation and Static Margin
% Becca Dale
clear all
close all
clc
We = 6113; %total empty weight of plane
Wfuel = 3903; %weight of fuel
Sw = 397.2; %ft^2 exposed planform area of wing
bw = 59.79; %wing span
c_bar = 6.64; %mean chord for wing
c_ht = 3.34; %mean chord for h-tail
%weights
Wwing = 825; %weight of wing
Whtail = 48; %weight of horizontal tail
Wvtail = 56; %weight of vertical tail
Wfuselage = 1244; % weight of fuselage
Wland = 525/3; %weight of landing gear
Wengine = 1.35*527; %weight of engine

Wfueltanks = .7*130; %weight of fuel tanks
Wfplumbing = .3*130; %weight of plumbing for fuel tanks to the engine
Wsurface_ctrl = 102; %surface controls

Winstraments = 107; %weight of intramentation
Wavionics = 594; %weight of avionics
Wac = 136; %weight of air conditioning unit
Wunusable = 75; %weight of unusable fuel

Woil = 17; %weight of engine oil
Wcrew = 410; %Weight of Crew

Wpayload = 2000; %weight of passengers/payload
GTOW = We+Wfuel+Wcrew+Wpayload; %Take off Gross Weight
% GTOW = 12432;
t=Wfuselage+3*Wland+Wwing+Wengine+Wvtail+Whtail+Wavionics+Wfueltanks+ ...
Wfplumbing+Wac+Winstraments+Wfuel+Wpayload+Wcrew+Wunusable+Woil+ ...
Wsurface_ctrl;
Welse = GTOW-t;
w = 15.0; %Xac
le = w-(c_bar*.25); %leading edge
te = w+(c_bar*.75); %trailing edge

% *******************************************************************
%tail configuration
%moment arms - distance from c/4 of wing to c/4 of tail
Lvt = 36; %vertical tail moment arm from Htail c/4 to wing c/4
Lht = 38; %horizontal tail moment arm from Htail c/4 to wing c/4
Cht = .69; %horizontal tail volume coefficient

Cvt = .0665; %veritcal tail volume coefficient
Svt = (Cvt*bw*Sw)/Lvt %ft^2 exposed planform area of vertical tail

Sht = (Cht*c_bar*Sw)/Lht %ft^2 exposed planform area of horizontal tail
% *******************************************************************
L = w+Lht+(c_ht*.75); %ft length of fuselage
% components multiplied by their distance from the nose of the plane

% then divided by the total weight of the plane to find CG in x-direction
% datum that distance fractions are taken from is from nose of plane
% +Wpayload*(17.4/L) Wcrew*(9.5/L)+ +Wfuel*((w+1)/L)
num_takeoff = Wcrew*(9.5/L)+Wland*(6/L)+Wpayload*(17.4/L)+Wfuselage*.6+ ...

Wwing*(w/L)+2*Wland*(23/L)+Wengine*(3/L)+Wvtail*((w+Lvt)/L)+Woil*(3/L)+ ...
Whtail*((w+Lht)/L)+Welse*((17.0)/L)+Wavionics*(6/L)+ ...
Wfplumbing*((w-8)/2)/L+Wac*(6/L)+Winstraments*(4/L)+Wunusable*(5/L)+ ...
Wsurface_ctrl*(w+12)/L+Wfueltanks*((w+1)/L)+Wfuel*((w+1)/L);
num_land = Wcrew*(9.5/L)+Wland*(6/L)+Wpayload*(17.4/L)+Wfuselage*.6+ ...

Wwing*(w/L)+2*Wland*(23/L)+Wengine*(3/L)+Wvtail*((w+Lvt)/L)+Woil*(3/L)+ ...
Whtail*((w+Lht)/L)+Welse*((17.4)/L)+Wavionics*(6/L)+ ...
Wfplumbing*((w-8)/2)/L+Wac*(6/L)+Winstraments*(4/L)+Wunusable*(5/L)+ ...
Wsurface_ctrl*(w+12)/L+Wfueltanks*((w+1)/L)+.1*Wfuel*((w+1)/L);
m = GTOW;
cg_takeoff = num_takeoff/m*L
% *******************************************************************
xac = w; %aerodynamic center of plane

xn = xac + Cht*c_ht %neutral point
SM_takeoff = (xn - cg_takeoff)/c_bar %static margin at takeoff
%SM_land = (xn - cg_land)/c_bar
% *******************************************************************
%folling are calculations to be used for cg envelope diagram

cg_1 = (num_takeoff);
cg_2 = (num_takeoff-Wpayload*(17.4/L));
cg_3 = (cg_2-Wcrew*(9.5/L));
cg_4 = (cg_3-Wfuel*((w+1)/L));
cg_5 = (num_takeoff-Wfuel*((w+1)/L));
cg_6 = (cg_5-Wpayload*(17.4/L));
cg_7 = (cg_6-Wcrew*(9.5/L));
cgs = [cg_4 cg_3 cg_2 cg_1 cg_5 cg_6 cg_7];

SM2 = (xn - (cg_2/(GTOW-Wpayload)*L))/c_bar; %static margin w/fuel and crew
SM3 = (xn - (cg_3/(GTOW-Wcrew-Wpayload)*L))/c_bar; %static margin w/fuel
SM4 = (xn - (cg_4/(GTOW-Wpayload-Wcrew-Wfuel)*L))/c_bar; %static margin empty
SM5 = (xn - (cg_5/(GTOW-Wfuel)*L))/c_bar; %static margin w/payload and crew

SM6 = (xn - (cg_6/(GTOW-Wfuel-Wpayload)*L))/c_bar; %static margin w/crew
SM7 = (xn - (cg_7/(GTOW-Wpayload-Wcrew-Wfuel)*L))/c_bar; %static margin empty
W_1 = We;
W_2 = W_1+Wfuel;
W_3 = W_2+Wcrew;
W_4 = W_3+Wpayload;
W_5 = We+Wcrew;
W_6 = W_5+Wpayload;
SMS=[SM4 SM3 SM2 SM_takeoff];

Ws=[W_1 W_2 W_3 W_4];
flight = [SM_takeoff SM5 SM6 SM7];
Wf = [W_4 W_6 W_5 W_1];

% r = MAC4-.15;
r = .05;
fl = [r r r r]; %forward cg limit
% k = MAC4+.3;
k = .2;
al = [k k k k]; %aft cg limit
%figure(1)
plot(SMS,Ws,'c-',SMS,Ws,'gs',fl,Ws,'r--',al,Ws,'r--')
xlabel('c.g. location, %M.A.C. from datum');
ylabel('Gross Weight');
title('Center of Gravity Envelope Diagram Loading the Plane');
hold on
%figure(2)
plot(flight,Wf,'b-',flight,Wf,'b*',fl,Ws,'r--',al,Ws,'r--');
xlabel('c.g. location, %M.A.C. from datum');
ylabel('Gross Weight');
title('Center of Gravity Envelope Diagram Unloading the Plane');
%figure(3)
% *******************************************************************
% Longitudinal Trim
Mac = 0; %moment about aerodynamic center of wing

xcg = cg_takeoff; %center of gravity of plane
lt = Lht+(xac-xcg); %distance from aerodynamic center of h-tail to xcg
R = [1 1;(xcg-xac) -lt];
K = [GTOW;Mac];
M=R^(-1);
load_required=M*K; %answers: L & Lt
14.12 NACA 4412 Airfoil Data

Preliminary Design Review

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Preliminary Design Review

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Preliminary Design Review

A&AE 451 Senior Design

AAE 451 Group 1 page 1 of 79

Table of Contents (continued)

Design Team Members

AAE 451 Group 1 page 2 of 79

AAE 451 Group 1 page 3 of 79

Figure 1: Population Density of Australia, taken from Swift1

AAE 451 Group 1 page 4 of 79

2.3 Design Missions

AAE 451 Group 1 page 5 of 79

Figure 2: Design Mission for Full Range Flight

AAE 451 Group 1 page 6 of 79

Figure 3: Design Mission for a Round trip Flight without Refueling

AAE 451 Group 1 page 7 of 79

Figure 4: Isometric view of the Design Concept

AAE 451 Group 1 page 8 of 79

AAE 451 Group 1 page 9 of 79

AAE 451 Group 1 page 10 of 79

Figure 5: Dimension 3-view representation of the concept aircraft

AAE 451 Group 1 page 11 of 79

Figure 6: Passenger Comfort4

AAE 451 Group 1 page 12 of 79

Figure 7: Passenger Only Configuration

Figure 8: Cabin Cross-Section

AAE 451 Group 1 page 13 of 79

Figure 9: Executive Cabin Layout

Figure 10: One LD-3 Shipping Container

AAE 451 Group 1 page 14 of 79

Figure 11: Three LD-3 Shipping Containers

AAE 451 Group 1 page 15 of 79

Wcrew = weight of the total crew

W payload = weight of the payload or passengers

W f = weight of the fuel necessary to complete the mission

We = empty weight of the aircraft.

ln We = 0.2353 ln Vcr + .0088R + 1.0488 ln W0 + .2937 AR − 2.8803 (4.2)

AAE 451 Group 1 page 16 of 79

AAE 451 Group 1 page 17 of 79

4.2.1 Constraint Diagram

5000ft altitude Takeoff on a Hot

0.2 Sealevel Cruise

10000 ft altitude cruise

10000 ft altitude climb

Emergency Landing at 5000ft

Emergency Landing at 5000ft

Figure 12: Constraint Diagram

AAE 451 Group 1 page 18 of 79

4.2.2 Carpet Plots

10500 Sea level Takeoff

Climb Rate 5 ft/s, @ Sea

Figure 13: Carpet plot of Aspect Ratio 9

AAE 451 Group 1 page 19 of 79

Carpet Plot Design Points Summary

Table 2: FLOPS sizing code calibration results

AAE 451 Group 1 page 20 of 79

Table 3: Final Values of the aircraft sizing code

AAE 451 Group 1 page 21 of 79

Goal Threshold Value

AAE 451 Group 1 page 22 of 79

Figure 14: Interior Wing and tail structures

Figure 15: Fuselage Structure

AAE 451 Group 1 page 23 of 79

6.3 Landing Gear