Aircraft Design: Assignment (52, Assignment 6: Improved Drag Prediction)

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN
Course year 2009/2010
Aircraft Design COURSE 2009/2010

Assignment [52, Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction]
Student Names and Study Numbers:
[Wout De Backer, 1396013]
[Victor Muhawe, 1310801]
Instance [first delivery]
Hours spent on assignment: [42]
Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction

Written by Wout De Backer & Victor Muhawe
Aircraft type: Passenger Transport Airliner

Aircraft number: 52
Requirement type
Payload
Range
Cruise altitude
Cruise speed
Take-off distance
Landing distance
(at maximum weight)
Value
190
5500
11800
0.82
2100
1650
Unit
passengers
km
m
Mach
m
m
Table 1.1: Matrix Requirements
Figure 1.1: Concept sketch

II
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Drag estimation ......................................................................................................................... 1
General Method ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Reynolds Number .................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1
Wing Contribution....................................................................................................................... 2
2.2
Fuselage Contribution ................................................................................................................. 3
2.3
Empennage Contribution ........................................................................................................... 3
2.3.1. The horizontal tail..................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2. The vertical tail .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.4
Nacelle/Pylon Contribution ...................................................................................................... 5
2.4.1. The nacelles ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.4.2. The pylons ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.5
Landing-gear and stores contribution ....................................................................................... 7
2.6
Windshield Contribution ............................................................................................................ 7
2.7
Trim Contribution ....................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 3: The Cl - Cd Graph.................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 4: Environmental improvements ................................................................................................ 9
References ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 12
1 Aircraft parameters ............................................................................................................................. 12
2 Aircraft technical drawings ................................................................................................................ 14
3 T/W W/S Diagram ......................................................................................................................... 18
4 Reference aircraft table ...................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Airbus aircraft parameters .................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Boeing aircraft parameters ................................................................................................... 22

III
Chapter 1: Introduction
After having designed all the basic elements of the aircraft, (such as the size, the drag shape,
propulsion system, the wing, the stability), the final note is to look once again, but more closely
to the drag of the aircraft. Hence in this report a more elaborate evaluation of the drag coefficient
will be discussed by analyzing the aircraft in separate pieces and calculating its effect individually
on the drag polar. The first chapter (chapter 2) will subdivide every contribution of the aircraft
parts, and sectional drags will be determined. Next, in chapter 3, all these small parts will be
added in the Cl Cd plot, and a comparison will be made with previous drag predictions. Finally,
in chapter 4, 5 points of improvement on this aircraft will be discussed, so that the next
generation of this aircraft, or the more detailed design would be much more environmentally
friendly.
Chapter 2: Drag estimation

General Method
The general method to recalculate the effect of drag is by calculation both the zero-lift drag CD0
and the lift induced drag CDL as shown in Equation 1.
(1)
CD CD0 CDL
The reason for this methodology is simply because CD0 remains a constant while CDL is
determinant to the lift coefficient CL or an angle of attack . The improved drag coefficient CD
will be predicted for the most significant parts, which from the drawings, are: Fuselage, Wings,
Horizontal and vertical tail empennages, Nacelles and pylons as listed in Table 2.1. A small note
on landing gear and stores contribution is also included for clarity.
Component
The fuselage
The wing
The horizontal tail
The vertical tail
The engine nacelles
The engine pylons
The landing gear
The stores
The windshield
Trim settings
Chapter
2.1
2.2
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.7
Table 2.1 Main drag-contributing components
Since the aircraft Mach speed at cruise is 0.82 Mach (and thus above 0.6) the aircraft can be
evaluated as fully transonic. This means that the cruise phase is quite significant and thus the
improved drag polar in the cruise condition at cruise altitude and cruise speed should be
evaluated for this report.
Reynolds Number
The Reynolds number Re is determined according equation 2 with the velocity V at Mach 0.82,
the air density , the dynamic viscosity of air air and the length of the aircraft section in question
as x.
Re
V x
(2)
air
This equation is used often for all the different section of the design aircraft. Finally, from
assignment 1, the basic input parameters required are listed in table 2.2.
Symbol:
M
V
v
T
MAC
Data flight conditions
Description:
Cruise Mach number
Cruise speed
Kinematic viscosity of air
Density of air at cruise
Temperature of air at cruise
Mean aerodynamic chord
Value:
0.82
247.53
1.43*10-5
0.3212
226.68
4.818
Unit:
m/s
Ps
kg/m3
K
m
Table 2.2: basic input parameters
2.1
Wing Contribution
The wing drag can be calculated by first separating the different lift coefficients. All values used
to calculate the this drag is shown in Table 2.3 while the output variable is shown at the bottom
of that table. Many variables are taken from previous reports such as most wing geometry and lift
characteristics coming from Assignment #4. The only the most relevant variables are shown. The
actual contribution can be found in chapter 3.
Symbol:
(t/c)max
df
lf
b
ct
cr
t/cw
Swet,w
S
W
CLa
A
LE,w
c/4,w
ReLfus
Rwb
RLS,w
Data wing
C w _ exp
Description:
Sweep angle at max thickness
Fuselage diameter
Fuselage length
Wing span
Tip chord
Root chord
Taper ratio
Wing thickness to chord ratio
Wetted area of the wing
Wing surface area
Weight of the aircraft
Wing lift gradient
Aspect ratio
Sweep angle at leading edge of wing
Sweep angle at quarter chord
Fuselage Reynolds number
Wing/fuselage interference factor
Lifting surface correction factor of wing
Mean geometric chord of wing
Wing Reynolds number
Chord at wing -fus connection
exposed geometric chord
Value:
0.523
4.16
42.5
37.70
1.37
7
0.197
0.14
323.75
157.94
975083.09
5.73
9
0.524
0.467
2.41*108
1.015
1.28
3.569
2.03*107
5.759
16.771
Unit:
rad
m
m
m
m
m
m2
m2
N
1/rad
rad
rad
m
m
m
cfw
L
Turb. flat plate friction coeff. of the wing

Airfoil thickness parameter
0.00245
1.2
c we
Rew

CD/CL2
CD0
Ratio of drag and wing lift coefficient squared

Wing zero lift drag coefficient (subsonic)
0.0389
0.00787
Mdd
Mdd 0.25c
CdwavePeak
Cdwavepeak0.25
Matcdwavepeak
Matcdwavepeak0.25
C Dw
Mach drag divergence

corrected value for quarter chord
0.72
0.762
0.14
0.105
1
1.058
0.007
0.0148
wat M 0.6
wave
CD0
corrected for quarter chord

Wing wave drag coefficient which depends on
the wing sweep angle c/4
Wing zero lift drag coefficient (corrected)
Table 2.3: Wing drag components
2.2
Fuselage Contribution
Table 2.4 represents the input variables for the fuselage section. The wetted fuselage area Swetfuse
has already been calculated from Assignment #5.
Data fuselage
Symbol:
lf
df
ReLfus
db
Sfus
S
Sbfus
CL0
Description:
Fuselage length
Fuselage diameter
Base diameter
Fuselage cross-sectional area
Wing surface area
Fuselage base area
Lift coefficient at =0
Value:
42.5
4.1
2.41*108
0.50
13.59
157.94
0.20
0.2
Unit:
m
m
m
m2
m2
m2
CL
Aircraft lift gradient
5.73
1/rad
Re fus
Rwb
Swet,f
CDp,fus
C dffus _ M0.6
fuselage Reynolds number
2.41E+08
Wing/fuselage interference factor

Wetted area of the fuselage
Fuselage pressure coefficient
Fuselage drag coefficient at mach 0.6
1.02
516
0.00601
0.0017
C dffus
Fuselage friction drag coefficient transsonic
0.00556
CDb,fus
CDb,fus,trans
CDw,fus
CD0,fus
Fuselage base drag coefficient

Base drag of the fuselage at M=0.82
Fuselage wave drag coefficient
Fuselage zero lift coefficient
0.00019
0.00014
0.005
0.01232
2.3
m2
-
Table 2.4: Fuselage drag parameters
Empennage Contribution
The empennage drag consists of the drag created by both the horizontal and vertical tail. The
input and output variables are shown in the tables below. The calculation for the horizontal tail
contribution is similar to the wings calculations. The tail is also similar, but for the tail no liftdependant part is present.
2.3.1. The horizontal tail
Using the method of the wings:

Symbol:
df
lf
b
ct
cr
t/chtail
Swet_hor.tail
S
CLa
A
c/4,hor.tail
ReLfus
Rwb
RLS,htail
c htaile
Rehtail
cfhor.tail
L
CD/CL2
CD0
Data horizontal tail
Description:
Fuselage diameter
Fuselage length
Hor. tail span
Tip chord
Root chord
Taper ratio
Hor. tail thickness to chord ratio
Wetted area of the hor. tail
tail surface area
Horz. Tail lift gradient
Aspect ratio
Hor. tail/fuselage interference factor
Lifting surface correction factor of hor. tail
Mean geometric chord of hor. tail
Value:
4.16
42.5
15.00
1.71
4.28
0.4
0.13
92.007
45.00
4.03
5
36.7
2.41*108
1.015
1.23
3.00
Unit:
m
m
m
m
m
m2
m2
1/rad
deg
m
Hor. tail Reynolds number

Chord at hor. tail -fus connection
Turbulent flat plate friction coefficient of the
hor. tail
Ratio of drag and hor. tail lift coefficient
squared
Hor. tail zero lift drag coefficient (subsonic)
1.81*107
3.257
0.0025
m
-
1.2
0.1014
0.00215

0.72
0.804
0.13
0.075
1
1.117
0.002
0.00415
Value:
4.16
42.5
6.89
Unit:
m
m
m
htailat M 0.6
Mdd
Mdd 0.25c
CdwavePeak
Cdwavepeak0.25
Matcdwavepeak
Matcdwavepeak0.25
CDhtail
wave
CD0

Hor. tail wave drag coefficient which depends
on the hor. tail sweep angle c/4
Hor. tail zero lift drag coefficient (corrected)
htail
Table 2.5: Empennage drag data for the horizontal tail

2.3.2. The vertical tail
In the same manner, the vertical tail can be sized.

Symbol:
df
lf
b
Data vertical tail
Description:
Fuselage diameter
Fuselage length
Vert. tail height

ct
cr
t/cvtail
Swet,vtail
S
A
c/4,vtail
ReLfus
Rwb
RLS,vtail
c vtaile
Revtail
cfvtail
L
CD0
Tip chord vert. tail

Root chord vert. tail
Taper ratio
Vert. tail thickness to chord ratio
Wetted area of the vert. tail
tail surface area
Aspect ratio
Vert. tail/fuselage interference factor
Lifting surface corr. factor of vert. tail
Mean geometric chord vert. tail
1.67
5.58
0.3
0.13
51.12
25.00
1.9
39
2.41*108
1.015
1.21
3.62
m
m
m2
m2
deg
m
Vert. tail Reynolds number

Chord at vert. tail - fus connection
Turbulent flat plate friction coefficient of the
vert. tail
Vert. tail zero lift drag coefficient (subsonic)
2.26*107
3.88
0.0025
m
-
1.2
0.00117

0.72
0.817
0.105
0.056
1.2
1.361
0.0001
0.00128
vtailat M 0.6
Mdd
Mdd 0.25c
CdwavePeak
Cdwavepeak0.25
Matcdwavepeak
Matcdwavepeak0.25
CDvtail
wave
CD0

Vert. tail wave drag coefficient which depends
on the vert. tail sweep angle c/4
Vert. tail zero lift drag coefficient (corrected)
vtail
Table 2.6: Empennage drag of the vertical tail
2.4
Nacelle/Pylon Contribution
To calculate the drag contribution of the engines and construction, it is subdivided in 2 parts: the
pylon and the engine nacelle itself. The nacelles contribution can be calculated using the fuselage
method due to the similar shape, while the pylons contribution is calculated with the vertical-tail
empennage method.
2.4.1. The nacelles
Using the method for fuselages, the drag coefficient of the nacelles can be calculated. The basedrag component has been omitted, since the engine thrust should clear all base drag.
Symbol:
Lnac
Dnac
ReLnac
Dnac
Snac
S
Data Nacelle
Description:
Nacelle length
Nacelle diameter
Nacelle Reynolds number
Base diameter
Nacelle cross-sectional area
Wing surface area

Value:
4.5
2.5
2.56*107
0
4.9
157.94
Unit:
m
m
m
m2
m2
CL0
Lift coefficient at =0
0.2
CL
Aircraft lift gradient
5.73
1/rad
Rwb
Swet,nac
Kw
CDp, nac
C dfnac _ M0.6
Wing/nacelle interference factor

Wetted area of the nacelle
Nacelle pressure drag coefficient
Nacelle drag coefficient at mach 0.6
1.02
35.34
1.19
0.00059
0.0022
m2
-
C dfnac
Nacelle friction drag coefficient transsonic
0.00049
CDb, nac
CDw, nac
e n
i
CD0, nac
Nacelle base drag coefficient

Nacelle wave drag coefficient
0
0.022
0.50
1/deg
Nacelle incidence
Nacelle zero lift coefficient
-2
0.00299
deg
-
Table 2.7: Data of one nacelle
This calculates the drag increase due to 1 nacelle. For the total increase on the aircraft, this value
should be multiplied by 2.
2.4.2. The pylons
Using again the method for the vertical empennage, the drag contribution of the pylons can be
calculated for one pylon and then multiplied by 2.
Symbol:
b
ct
cr
t/c
Swet,pylon
S
A
c/4,pylon
ReLfus
Rwb
RLS,pylon
c vtaile
Repylon
cfpylon
L
CD0
Data pylon
Description:
Pylon height
Tip chord pylon
Root chord pylon
Pylon thickness to chord ratio
Wetted area of the pylon
pylon surface area
Aspect ratio
Pylon/fuselage interference factor
Lifting surface corr. factor of pylon
Mean geometric chord pylon
Value:
1.5
3
3
0.145
9.24
4.5
0.5
28
2.41*108
1.015
1.28
3.00
Unit:
m
m
m
m2
m2
deg
m
Pylon Reynolds number

Turb. flat plate friction coeff. of the pylon
Pylon zero lift drag coefficient (subsonic)
1.70*107
0.0027
1.2
0.00025
0.8
0.848
0.028
0.021
1.2
1.271
pylonat M 0.6
Mdd
Mdd 0.25c
CdwavePeak
Cdwavepeak0.25
Matcdwavepeak
Matcdwavepeak0.25
CDpylon
wave
CD0
Pylon wave drag coefficient which depends on the pylon sweep

angle c/4
Pylon zero lift drag coefficient (corrected)
0.002
0.0022
pylon
Table 2.8: Data of one pylon
2.5
Landing-gear and stores contribution
Because the drag of this aircraft is estimated at cruising (gear-up) conditions, the contribution of
the landing gear is 0. Also, from the drawings, no substantial stores are present. The drag
contributions of any stores are also set to 0, although the stores for the flap-tracks could present
some interference, but this would be included in a more detailed design phase, where the flaptracks have been sized.
2.6
Windshield Contribution
Although the complex shape of the nose cone has been somewhat accounted for, the windshield
also contributes a small addition in drag and is calculated as follows. The results are shown
below.
Figure 2.1: Windshield selection based on current model.
Symbol:
CD,ws
Sfus
CDCW
Data windshield
Description:
Incidence drag coefficient due to windshield
Frontal fuselage surface
Value:
0.002
13.6
Unit:
m2
Drag due to windshield
0.00017
Table 2.9: Windshield drag
The windshield drag coefficient CDws is constant and does not change with CL.
2.7
Trim Contribution
And lastly the trim contribution must be added, because the aircraft always needs to be trimmed
out for perfect balance and thus this trimming also hands a contribution to the total drag of the
aircraft.
Symbol:
q
Cg-0.25Mac
Cg-taillift
CLah
Sef/Sh
Data Trim
Description:
Dynamic pressure
Distance between the Cg and the wing lift attachment point
Distance between the Cg and the tail lift attachment point
Horizontal tail lift rate coefficient
Effective span vs total tailspan

Value:
9840
0.24
18.36
4.03
0.82
Unit:
Kg/(ms2)
M
m
1/rad
7
Sh/S
Sh
Sflapped
CL/f
Horizontal tail surface vs wing surface

Horizontal tail surface
Flapped tail surface
Horizontal tail sweep
Table 2.10: Trim drag
0.284
45
37.2
36.7
2.51
M2
M2
Deg
-
Now that all major drag contributions have been calculated, the Cl-Cd graph can be made.
Chapter 3: The Cl - Cd Graph

Adding up all additions calculated in chapter 2, and taking into account the proper cl and angle of
attack, the CL-Cd graph can be made. This is shown in figure 3.1. The curves are added from left
to right, so a line is the summation of the previous line plus the contribution due to that segment.
This implies that the most right curve is the total drag coefficient with all contributions.
Figure 3.1: The new Cl-Cd graph versus the old.
As expected the biggest zero-lift drag coefficient segments are the wings, the fuselage and the
empennage. As stated previously the biggest drag contribution is according to the induced drag
from the wings. It is also important to realize that the data is most accurate for the design lift
coefficient when going at Mach 0.82 which is CL equal to 0.2.
Compared to the old drag estimation (indicated with a double line in figure 3.1), the new zero-lift
drag is larger than the one calculated, yet the general shape seems to be very similar. The new
drag coefficients are about 2.7 times larger than the ones calculated earlier. There are several
reasons why they might not match perfectly. In general, it can be concluded that the method used
in earlier design phases is dangerously under estimating the drag on a similar-sized aircraft, and
should be reviewed. This will lead to less iteration when detailing the design in terms of engine
power, fuel consumption and weight.

Chapter 4: Environmental improvements

It is clear that drag contributions play a significant part in aircraft design as they are the main loss
in energy in flight. Reducing environmental impact from aircraft flight has a lot to do with drag
coefficients. Hence in this chapter five improvements that could be done to the aircraft, in order
to reduce the environmental impact or drag from the design aircraft besides reducing the
emissions of the engines, will be discussed.
For illustration purposes, some 3d imagery of the current design will be used. These drawings
represent the aircraft as the authors envisioned it and are built up from the 3-view of the aircraft.
The pylons of the engines could be shortened, making the engines almost stick to the wing. This
would reduce the drag created by the pylons, and could, if the connection was properly designed,
benefit the flow over the wings, creating more lift. A side view of how it is now, compared to a
modern jet liner, shows that short and forward directed pylons benefit the drag reduction. This
would also affect the thrust moment. Since the engines are closer to the wing, the moment
around the wing is smaller, so the aircraft has less of a pitch-up moment when power is added.
Shorter pylons also allow for shorter landing gears, but this will be addressed in the following
point.
Figure 4.1: Our aircrafts pylons in comparison with the Boeing 787s pylons
The transition between the tail cone and the fuselage hull could be made more gradually. If the
angle would be smoothened, the gear wouldnt have to be that long (it is now 2.9m from the
ground to the bottom of the fuselage, which is pretty long). This would significantly decrease the
weight of the gear (the gear can be considered as one of the most heavy and important parts of
the entire aircraft, and the longer it is, the heavier it needs to be to sustain all landing and taxi
loads). The contribution of the gear in total is now 4000kg, or 4% of the MTOW. If this would
be done, it could (rough estimation) reduce the empty weight by around 1000kg, and thus also of
the takeoff weight, not to mention the fuel savings over the lifetime of the aircraft due to the
reduced drag.
One more improvement could be on the smoothness of the nose. Right now, the nose of the
aircraft has only been determined by the required visibility angles earlier assignments. If drag
count is introduced in the design, the transition between the nose, windshield and rest of the
fuselage could be done better. One way to do this is by rounding off the nose down, and putting
cockpit almost into the nosecone. One must, off course, reserve room for the radar array in the
nose of the aircraft, but this can be done. Older aircraft (for example the A300 or B737) have
more pointed noses, with a windshield popping up from the radar cone, just like the current
version of our aircraft. Newer aircraft, like the A380 or B787 have a more rounded nose, but the
whole is smoother. Comparison images can be seen below in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Our aircrafts nose in comparison with the Boeing 787s nose
Some more improvements could be done on the wing, by adding winglets. These aerodynamic
upgrades are a common method of increasing the effective aspect ratio of the wing. This reduces
the tip vortices, which in turn reduces the induced drag of the wing, which is a major contributor
to the drag in an aircraft. This improvement should be decided with a trade-off: the improvement
of the flow comes at a price of profile drag and weight. If done properly, maybe even an
extended-range variant could be made. If the added material does not return the effort in fuel
saving, then this should not be done. When comparing our wing and empennages with similar
aircraft, the wave drag could be reduced by reducing the thickness to chord ratio of the wing and
empennages. Similar aircraft have a t/c of about 0.12, which is lower than our t/c of 0.14 or 0.13.
Again a check should be done with the cantilever ratio of the wing, ensuring structural feasibility.
A final improvement could be done to the fuselage-wing intersection or the empennage intersections. The connection is now a sharp and rough patch-together of the two parts. A smoother
transition, using fairing-type structures could optimize the efficiency even further. This will also
benefit the structural feasibility, giving the ability to strengthen the intersection heavily, and
creating more load paths. It also gives the possibility to include a stronger keel-beam into the
fuselage, which would protect the payload in case of a belly landing, or releasing the bending
loads, with respect to the openings created by the gear-wells. This is shown in figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Our aircrafts wing-body connection in comparison with a sketch of the Boeing 787.

10
References
Websites
General information on aircraft design & Information on existing aircraft.
http://www.janes.com
Lectures notes
http://blackboard.tudelft.nl
Course AE3-021 Aircraft Design (2009-2010)
Files:
PowerPoint sheets, TU Delft, course AE3-021
Books
Aircraft Design: Synthesis and Analysis
Desktop aeronautics, Version 0.99

11
Appendices
1 Aircraft parameters
Symbol
Parameters
Cabin characteristics
Cabin length
Maximum diameter
Maximum cabin height
Maximum width
Aisle width
Aisle height
Wall thickness
Chair width
Chair Pitch
Design configuration
Total passengers for design configuration
Cockpit Characteristics
Overnose angle
Overside angle
Grazing angle
Upward angle
Divergence angle
Flight deck length
MAC
Y
dCl/d
0L
Cd0
Clmax
Clmax clean
0
T/c
Mcr
Cldes
Fuselage Characteristics
Total length
Fineness
Nose fineness
After body fineness
Tail length
Wing airfoil geometry
NACA Airfoil series
Mean aerodynamic Chord
MAC location, engine suspension point
Lift curve slope
Zero lift angle of attack
Minimum drag coefficient
Maximum lift coefficient
Maximum clean lift coefficient
Zero Angle of attack lift coefficient
Thickness to chord ratio
Critical Mach number
Design lift coefficient

Value Unit
33
4.16
2.53
4.1
0.66
2.35
0.08
0.48
0.83
3-class
158
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
-
15 O
35 O
32 O
20 O
19 O
2.5 m
42.5
10.73
1.92
2.56
10.66
64-214
4.818
7.318
0.10
-1.8
0.0062
1.45
1.70
0.229
0.14
0.736
0.203
m
m
m
m
1/rad
O
12
b
S
A
LE
0.25C
0.5C
Re
Cr
Tr
Rc
MDd
trim
CL
CLmax
Mfuelmax
Aircraft Wing geometry

Wing span
Wing area
Aspect ratio
Leading Edge Wing sweep angle
Quarter chord wing sweep angle
Half chord wing sweep angle
Incidence angle
Twist angle
Dihedral angle
Reynolds number at cruise
Root Chord
Taper ratio
Root thickness
Cantilever Ratio
Mach of drag divergence
Trim angle
Lift curve slope, low speed
Maximum wing lift coefficient
Total fuel tank capacity
Engine location
Front spar location
Rear spar location
37.703
157.945
9
30
26.77
23.183
0
0
5
2.688E+07
7
0.197
210.000
20.926
0.757
-0.249
0.080
1.131
32928
on MAC
0.20
0.65
m
m2
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
m
O
1/deg
m
kg
c
c
WE
WMTO
W/S
T/W
Weights and loadings

Cargo weight
Fuel weight
Payload weight
Empty weight
Maximum take-off weight
(maximum) Wing loading
Thrust to weight ratio
4300
29918
17010
52409
99431
6174
0.26
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
N/m2
-
hcruise
Vcruise
CLcruise
CLmax
sTO
sL
R
E
VstallLand
VstallCr
Flight parameters
Cruise altitude
Cruise speed
Cruise lift coefficient
Maximum lift coefficient (take-off)
Take-off distance
Landing distance
Range
Loiter Endurance
Landing stall speed
Cruise stal speed
11800
0.82
0.152
2.4
2100
1650
5500
45
60
77
m
Mach
m
m
km
min
m/s
m/s
Sv
Lv
0.25c
Vertical tailplane geometry

Area
Distance of 0.25MAC to 0.25 MAC wing
quarter chord sweep angle
25 m
20.247 m
39 O

13
A
T/c
b
Cr
Ct
C
Sh
A
t/c
b
Cr
Ct
C
Aspect ratio
Taper ratio
Tail height
Root chord
Tip chord
MAC-V-Tail
Horizontal tailplane geometry
quarter chord sweep angle
Area
Aspect ratio
Taper ratio
Span
Root chord
Tip chord
MAC-H-Tail
1.9
0.3
0.13
6.892
5.581
1.674
3.978
36.69
45
5
0.4
0.13
15.000
4.286
1.714
3.184
m
m
m
m
O
m
m
m
m
m
2 Aircraft technical drawings

See the following 3 pages.

14
Side View
15

16

17
0.40
Reference Aircraft
Average of References
Our Aircraft
0.35
Cl max TO - 1.6
Cl max TO - 1.8
Cl max TO - 2.0
Cl max TO - 2.2
0.30
Clean Config: Vstall - 77m/s

Landing Config: Vstall - 60m/s
Thrust to weight Ratio (T/W)
Cl max LAND - 1.8

Cl max LAND - 2.0
0.25
Cl max LAND - 2.2

Cl max LAND - 2.4
Climb perf. C with A = 8
Climb perf C with A = 9
0.20
Climb perf.C with A = 12

Climb perf. C with A = 15
C/V - A = 7
C/V - A = 9
0.15
C/V - A = 12
C/V - A = 15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Wing loading (W/S) [N/m]
6000
3 T/W W/S Diagram

18
7000
8000
9000
4 Reference aircraft table

4.1
Airbus aircraft parameters
Manufacturer
Type
Model
Initial service date
In service (ordered)
Africa
Middle East/Asia/Pacific
Europe & CIS
North & South America
Total aircraft
Engine Manufacturer
AIRBUS
A300600R
1974
AIRBUS
A310300
1983
AIRBUS
A319100
1995
AIRBUS
A320200
1988
AIRBUS
A321200
1993
28
205(5)
83
72(37)
388(42)
P&W
11
69(5)
87(1)
57
224(6)
P&W
4158
2
257,0
4152
2
231,0
2(1)
(4)
48(82)
57(264)
107(351)
CFMI
CFM565A4
2
99,7
27(6)
162(47)
244(105)
237(146)
670(304)
CFMI
CFM565A3
2
111,2
Max. seats (single class)

Two class seating
Three class seating
No. abreast
Hold volume (m)
Volume per passenger
375
266
228
9
116,00
0,31
280
218
187
9
79,90
0,29
153
124
6
27,00
0,18
Ramp
Max. take-off
Max. landing
Zero-fuel
Max. payload
Max. fuel payload
Design payload
Design fuel load
Operational empty
171400
170500
140000
130000
41100
27100
25270
56330
88900
150900
150000
123000
113000
33300
21500
20710
49624
79666
Ops empty/Max. T/O

Max. payload/Max. T/O
Max. fuel/Max. T/O
Max. landing/Max. T/O
0,521
0,241
0,316
0,821
Standard
Optional
DIMENSIONS
Length (m)
Height (m)
Model / Type
No. of engines
Static thrust (kN)
Operational Items:
Accomodation:
Mass (Weight) (kg):
Weight Ratios:
Fuel (litres):
Fuselage:
AIRBUS
A330200
1998
AIRBUS
A330300
1994
AIRBUS
A340200
1993
AIRBUS
A340300
1994
4
17(32)
84(68)
105(102)
CFMI
CFM565B3
2
142,0
GE
CF680E1A4
2
310,0
59(47)
17(42)
4(42)
80(131)
GE
CF680E1A2
2
300,0
CFMI
CFM-565C2
4
139,0
8(1)
54(10)
69(15)
9(8)
140(34)
CFMI
CFM-565C4
4
151,0
179
150
6
38,76
0,22
220
186
6
51,76
0,24
380
293
253
9
136,00
0,36
440
335
295
9
162,90
0,37
440
303
262
9
136,00
0,31
64400
64000
61000
57000
17390
5360
11780
13020
39200
73900
73500
64500
60500
19190
13500
14250
17940
41310
89400
89000
73500
71500
22780
19060
17670
23330
48000
230900
230000
177150
165142
36400
0
24035
85765
120200
217900
217000
179000
169000
48400
18600
28025
70786
118189
0,531
0,222
0,322
0,820
0,613
0,272
0,295
0,953
0,562
0,261
0,256
0,878
0,539
0,256
0,210
0,826
0,523
0,158
0,478
0,770
68150
75350
61100
68300
23860
23860
23700
26600
53,30
5,64
45,13
5,64
33,84
4,14
37,57
4,14
44,51
4,14

AIRBUS
A340500
2002
AIRBUS
A340600
2002
R-R
(2)
(6)
(27)
(5)
(40)
R-R
Trent 553
4
235,8
Trent 556
4
249,1
440
335
295
9
162,90
0,37
440
350
313
9
134,10
0,30
475
440
380
9
187,74
0,40
257900
257000
181000
172000
49400
21220
24890
111882
120228
271900
271000
190000
178000
48150
33160
28025
113125
129850
365900
365000
236000
222000
51635
31450
29735
164875
170390
365900
365000
254000
240000
63000
29311
36100
151890
177010
0,545
0,223
0,358
0,825
0,468
0,192
0,430
0,704
0,479
0,178
0,412
0,701
0,467
0,141
0,423
0,647
0,485
0,173
0,423
0,696
139090
98250
140000
141500
148700
195620
213120
195620
57,77
5,64
62,47
5,64
58,21
5,64
62,47
5,64
65,60
5,64
69,57
5,64
19

Width (m)
Finess Ratio
5,64
9,45
5,64
8,00
3,95
8,57
3,95
9,51
3,95
11,27
5,64
10,24
5,64
11,08
5,64
10,32
5,64
11,08
5,64
11,63
5,64
12,34
260,00
44,84
6,44
7,73
0,300
10,50
28,00
219,00
43,89
5,89
8,80
0,283
11,80
28,00
122,40
33,91
4,29
9,39
0,240
122,40
33,91
4,29
9,39
0,240
122,40
33,91
4,29
9,39
0,240
363,10
58,00
7,26
9,26
0,251
363,10
58,00
7,26
9,26
0,251
363,10
58,00
7,26
9,26
0,251
363,10
58,00
7,26
9,26
0,251
437,30
61,20
8,35
8,56
0,220
437,30
61,20
8,35
8,56
0,220
25,00
25,00
25,00
29,70
29,70
29,70
29,70
31,10
31,10
Trailing Edge Flaps Type

Flap Span/Wing Span
Area (m2)
Leading Edge Flaps Type
Area (m)
F2
0,800
47,3
slats
30,3
F1
0,840
36,68
slats
28,54
F1
0,780
21,1
slats
12,64
F1
0,780
21,1
slats
12,64
F2
0,780
21,1
slats
12,64
S2
0,665
S2
0,665
S2
0,665
S2
0,665
S2
0,625
S2
0,625
slats
slats
slats
slats
slats
slats
Area (m)
Height (m)
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
1/4 Chord Sweep ()
Tail Arm (m)
Sv/S
SvLv/Sb
45,20
8,60
1,64
0,365
40,00
24,90
0,174
0,097
45,20
8,10
1,45
0,395
40,00
20,20
0,206
0,095
21,50
6,26
1,82
0,303
34,00
10,67
0,176
0,055
21,50
6,26
1,82
0,303
34,00
12,53
0,176
0,065
21,50
6,26
1,82
0,303
34,00
15,20
0,176
0,079
47,65
9,44
1,87
0,350
45,00
25,20
0,131
0,057
45,20
8,45
1,58
0,350
45,00
27,50
0,124
0,059
45,20
8,45
1,58
0,350
45,00
25,50
0,124
0,055
45,20
8,45
1,58
0,350
45,00
27,50
0,124
0,059
47,65
9,44
1,87
0,350
45,00
27,50
0,109
0,049
47,65
9,44
1,87
0,350
45,00
27,50
0,109
0,049
Area (m)
Span (m)
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
1/4 Chord Sweep ()
Tail Arm (m)
Sh/S
ShLh/Sc
69,45
16,26
3,81
0,420
34,00
25,60
0,267
1,062
64,00
16,26
4,13
0,417
34,00
22,50
0,292
1,116
31,00
12,45
5,00
0,256
29,00
11,67
0,253
0,689
31,00
12,45
5,00
0,256
29,00
13,53
0,253
0,799
31,00
12,45
5,00
0,256
29,00
16,20
0,253
0,957
31,00
12,45
5,00
0,256
29,00
16,20
0,253
0,957
72,90
19,06
4,98
0,360
30,00
28,60
0,201
0,791
72,90
19,06
4,98
0,360
30,00
26,50
0,201
0,733
72,90
19,06
4,98
0,360
30,00
28,60
0,201
0,791
93,00
21,50
4,97
0,360
30,00
28,60
0,213
0,729
93,00
21,50
4,97
0,360
30,00
28,60
0,213
0,729
Track (m)
Wheelbase (m)
Turning radius (m)
No. of wheels
(nose;main)
Main Wheel diameter (m)
Main Wheel width (m)
9,60
18,60
34,00
9,60
15,21
31,40
7,60
12,60
20,60
7,60
12,63
21,90
7,60
16,90
29,00
7,60
16,90
29,00
10,70
25,40
41,40
10,70
23,20
10,70
25,40
40,60
10,70
28,53
10,70
32,50
2;8
1,245
0,483
2;8
1,168
0,406
2;4
1,143
0,406
2;4
1,143
0,406
2;4
1,270
0,455
2;8
2;8
2;10
2;10
2;12
2;12
6,70
2,70
6,30
2,70
4,44
2,37
4,44
2,37
4,44
2,37
7,00
3,10
7,00
3,10
4,95
2,37
4,95
2,37
0,359
0,352
0,338
0,338
0,338
0,312
0,312
0.312/0.672
0.312/0.672
6,10
3,05
0.296/0.62
5
6,10
3,05
0.296/0.62
5
Wing:
Area (m)
Span (m)
MAC (m)
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
Average (t/c) %
1/4 Chord Sweep ()
High Lift Devices:
Vertical Tail:
Horizontal Tail:
Undercarriage:
Nacelle:
Length (m)
Max. width (m)
Spanwise location
PERFORMANCE
Loadings:

20

Max. power load
(kg/kN)
Max. wing load (kg/m2)
Thrust per engine
Thrust/Weight Ratio
331,71
655,77
324,68
684,93
320,96
522,88
330,49
600,49
313,38
727,12
370,97
633,43
361,67
597,63
462,23
707,79
448,68
746,35
386,98
834,67
366,32
834,67
0,3073
0,3140
0,3176
0,3084
0,3253
0,2748
0,2819
0,2205
0,2272
0,2634
0,2783
ISA sea level

ISA +20C SL.
ISA 5000ft
ISA +20C 5000ft
2280
3189
2290
2450
2950
3660
1750
2080
2360
2870
2180
2590
2950
4390
2000
2286
3269
2470
2590
3900
2320
2680
3840
2790
3260
4320
3000
3380
4298
3100
3550
4250
3100
3550
4250
ISA sea level.

ISA +20C SL.
ISA 5000ft
ISA +20C 5000ft
1489
1489
1701
1701
1490
1490
1686
1686
1350
1350
1530
1530
1440
1440
1645
1645
1580
1580
1795
1795
1750
1750
1970
1970
1600
1600
1920
1920
1856
1856
2094
2094
1964
1964
2227
2227
2090
2090
2390
2390
2240
2240
153
136
335/M0.8
2
395/M0.8
8
2,44
2,98
156
138
360/M0.8
4
420/M0.9
0
2,45
3,02
133
131
143
134
143
138
158
135
144
136
154
134
158
136
139
144
381/M0.89
350/M0.82
330/M0.86
330/M0.86
330/M0.86
330/M0.86
330/M0.86
330/M0.86
350/M0.82
2,58
2,97
381/M0.89
2,56
3,00
350/M0.82
TBD/M0.8
9
3,10
3,23
365/M0.93
2,21
2,74
365/M0.93
2,51
2,73
365/M0.93
2,60
2,84
365/M0.93
2,61
2,89
365/M0.93
365/M0.93
2,86
2,87
Speed (kt)
Altitude (ft)
Fuel consumption (kg/h)
480
31000
5120
484
35000
4690
487
33000
3160
487
28000
3200
487
28000
3550
500
33000
5000
500
33000
7180
500
33000
7300
Speed (kt)
Altitude (ft)
456
35000
4300
458
37000
3730
446
37000
1980
448
37000
2100
450
37000
2100
470
39000
465
39000
4700
475
39000
5400
475
39000
5700
Max. payload
Design range
Max. fuel (+ payload)
Ferry range
Design Parameters:
W/SCLmax
W/SCLtoST
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)
Seats x Range (seats.nm)
3283
4000
4698
3645
4300
5076
1355
1900
4158
637
2700
3672
1955
2700
2602
4210
6370
3888
4500
7046
6393
7350
8834
6371
7150
8089
7050
8500
9000
9800
5700
7500
7800
8800
2160,21
2678,25
0,0529
1064000
2227,23
2702,77
0,0529
937400
1726,69
2071,39
0,0553
235600
1962,27
2423,85
0,0443
405000
2211,48
2590,29
0,0465
502200
2269,21
3146,34
0,0460
1866410
2150,33
2906,75
0,0470
1507500
2445,04
4224,13
0,0502
2227050
2529,97
4242,69
0,0472
2395250
2865,71
4144,91
0,0554
2975000
2857,63
3912,54
0,0460
3300000
Take-off (m):
Landing (m):
Speeds (kt/Mach):
V2
Vapp
Vno/Mmo
Vne/Mme
CLmax (T/O)
CLmax (L/D @ MLM)
Max. cruise :
Long range cruise:
Range (nm):

21
4.2
Boeing aircraft parameters
Manufacturer
Type
Model
Initial service date
In service (ordered)
Africa
Middle East/Asia/Pacific
Europe & CIS
North & South America
Total aircraft
Engine Manufacturer
BOEING
707320C
1962
BOEING
717200
1999
BOEING
727200Adv
1970
BOEING
737200
1967
BOEING
737300
1967
BOEING
737400
1967
BOEING
737500
1967
BOEING
737600
1998
BOEING
737700
1997
BOEING
737800
1998
53
31
9
25
120
P&W
(60)
(60)
BMW R-R
58
52
94
799
1003
P&W
85
114
147
532
878
P&W
JT3D-7
4
84,5
715
2
97,9
JT8D-15A
3
71,2
JT8D-15A
2
71,2
14(1)
194(19)
272(12)
573(11)
1053(43)
CFMI
CFM56-3B1
2
89,0
7
142(5)
216(4)
97(5)
462(14)
CFMI
CFM56-3B2
2
97,9
17
49(2)
145(1)
165(1)
376(4)
CFMI
CFM56-3B1R
2
82,3
(7)
6(49)
6(56)
CFMI
CFM567B18
2
82,0
(2)
9(24)
21(35)
36(146)
66(207)
CFMI
CFM567B20
2
89,0
2(12)
7(45)
20(110)
13(211)
42(378)
CFMI
CFM567B24
2
107,0
219
147
6
50,27
0,23
110
106
5
25,00
0,23
189
136
6
43,10
0,23
130
115
6
24,78
0,19
149
128
6
30,20
0,20
170
146
6
38,90
0,23
130
108
6
23,30
0,18
132
108
6
23,30
0,18
149
128
6
30,2
0,20
189
160
6
47,1
0,25
152405
151315
112037
104330
38100
12852
13965
71126
66224
52110
51710
46266
43545
12220
8921
10070
9965
31675
95238
95028
72575
63318
18597
24366
12920
35944
46164
52615
52390
46720
43091
15445
9118
10925
13819
27646
56700
56470
51710
47630
16030
8705
12160
12441
31869
63050
62820
54880
51250
17740
13366
13870
15580
33370
52620
52390
49900
46490
15530
5280
10260
11170
30960
65310
65090
54650
51480
9800
7831
10260
18390
36440
69610
69400
58060
54650
11610
10996
12160
19655
37585
78460
78220
65310
61680
14690
15921
15200
21540
41480
Ops empty/Max. T/O

Max. payload/Max. T/O
Max. fuel/Max. T/O
Max. landing/Max. T/O
0,438
0,252
0,471
0,740
0,613
0,236
0,212
0,895
0,486
0,196
0,255
0,764
0,528
0,295
0,341
0,892
0,564
0,284
0,281
0,916
0,531
0,282
0,253
0,874
0,591
0,296
0,303
0,952
0,560
0,151
0,316
0,840
0,542
0,167
0,296
0,837
0,530
0,188
0,263
0,835
Standard
Optional
DIMENSIONS
90299
13892
16065
30622
40068
19532
22598
20105
23170
20105
23170
20105
23170
26024
26024
26024
Length (m)
Height (m)
Width (m)
Finess Ratio
44,35
3,76
3,76
7,30
33,00
3,61
3,61
4,30
41,51
3,76
3,76
7,00
29,54
3,73
3,73
7,40
32,30
3,73
3,73
7,40
35,30
3,73
3,73
7,40
29,90
3,73
3,73
7,40
29,88
3,73
3,73
7,40
32,18
3,73
3,73
7,40
38,08
3,73
3,73
7,40
Model / Type
No. of engines
Static thrust (kN)
Operational Items:
Accomodation:
Max. seats (single class)

Two class seating
Three class seating
No. abreast
Hold volume (m)
Volume per passenger
Mass (Weight) (kg):

Ramp
Max. take-off
Max. landing
Zero-fuel
Max. payload
Max. fuel payload
Design payload
Design fuel load
Operational empty
Weight Ratios:
Fuel (litres):
Fuselage:
Wing:

22

Area (m)
Span (m)
MAC (m)
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
Average (t/c) %
1/4 Chord Sweep ()

283,40
44,42
7,36
6,96
0,259
10,00
35,00
92,97
28,40
3,88
8,68
0,196
11,60
24,50
157,90
32,92
5,46
6,86
0,309
11,00
32,00
91,04
28,35
3,80
8,83
0,266
12,89
25,00
91,04
28,90
3,73
9,17
0,240
12,89
25,00
91,04
28,90
3,73
9,17
0,240
12,89
25,00
91,04
28,90
3,73
9,17
0,240
12,89
25,00
124,60
34,30
4,17
9,44
0,278
124,60
34,30
4,17
9,44
0,278
124,60
34,30
4,17
9,44
0,278
25,00
25,00
25,00
Trailing Edge Flaps Type

Flap Span/Wing Span
Area (m2)
Leading Edge Flaps Type
F1
0,670
44,22
flaps
S2
0,650
F3
0,740
S3
0,720
S3
0,720
S3
0,720
S2
0,599
S2
0,599
S2
0,599
slats
F3
0,740
36,04
slats/flaps
slats/flaps
slats/flaps
slats/flaps
slats/flaps
slats/flaps
slats/flaps
slats/flaps
Area (m)
Height (m)
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
1/4 Chord Sweep ()
Tail Arm (m)
Sv/S
SvLv/Sb
30,47
7,20
1,70
0,410
30,00
21,00
0,108
0,051
19,50
4,35
0,97
0,780
45,00
12,80
0,210
0,095
33,07
4,60
0,64
0,780
53,00
14,20
0,209
0,090
19,70
5,85
1,74
0,288
35,00
12,10
0,216
0,092
23,13
6,00
1,56
0,310
35,00
13,68
0,254
0,120
23,13
6,00
1,56
0,310
35,00
14,90
0,254
0,131
23,13
6,00
1,56
0,310
35,00
12,90
0,254
0,113
23,13
6,00
1,56
0,310
35,00
13,55
0,186
0,073
23,13
6,00
1,56
0,310
35,0
14,7
0,186
0,080
23,13
6,00
1,56
0,310
35,0
17,7
0,186
0,096
Area (m)
Span (m)
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
1/4 Chord Sweep ()
Tail Arm (m)
Sh/S
ShLh/Sc
58,06
13,95
3,35
0,400
36,00
20,50
0,205
0,571
24,20
10,80
4,82
0,380
30,00
14,30
0,260
0,959
34,93
10,90
3,40
0,380
36,00
20,10
0,221
0,814
31,31
12,70
5,15
0,260
30,00
14,78
0,344
1,338
31,31
12,70
5,15
0,260
30,00
14,78
0,344
1,363
31,31
12,70
5,15
0,260
30,00
16,00
0,344
1,475
31,31
12,70
5,15
0,260
30,00
14,00
0,344
1,291
32,40
13,40
5,54
0,186
30,00
13,58
0,260
0,847
32,40
13,40
5,54
0,186
30,00
14,73
0,260
0,919
32,40
13,40
5,54
0,186
30,00
17,68
0,260
1,102
Track (m)
Wheelbase (m)
Turning radius (m)
No. of wheels (nose;main)
Main Wheel diameter (m)
Main Wheel width (m)
6,73
17,98
4,88
17,60
5,23
11,38
5,25
11,00
5,70
2;4
1,016
0,368
2;4
1,016
0,368
2;4
1,016
0,368
5,7
12,4
19,5
2;4
1,016
0,368
5,7
2;4
5,25
12,40
19,50
2;4
1,016
0,368
5,25
14,30
2;8
1,117
0,406
5,72
19,28
25,00
2;4
1,245
0,432
2;4
1,016
0,368
6,00
1,60
0.44/0.71
6,10
1,75
-
7,00
1,50
-
7,00
1,50
0,350
4,70
2,00
0,340
4,70
2,00
0,340
4,70
2,00
0,340
4,70
2,06
0,282
4,70
2,06
0,282
4,70
2,06
0,282
447,47
533,93
264,10
556,20
444,89
601,82
367,91
575,46
317,25
620,28
320,84
690,03
318,29
575,46
396,89
522,39
389,89
556,98
365,51
627,77
0,2278
0,3860
0,2291
0,2884
0,3133
0,3203
0,3203
0,2568
0,2615
0,2789
3033
1829
1939
2222
1832
High Lift Devices:
Vertical Tail:
Horizontal Tail:
Undercarriage:
Nacelle:
Length (m)
Max. width (m)
Spanwise location
PERFORMANCE
Loadings:
Max. power load (kg/kN)

Max. wing load (kg/m2)
Thrust per engine
Thrust/Weight Ratio
Take-off (m):
ISA sea level
3054

2;4
23
ISA +20C SL.

ISA 5000ft
ISA +20C 5000ft
Landing (m):
ISA sea level.

ISA +20C SL.
ISA 5000ft
ISA +20C 5000ft
Max. cruise :
135
383/M0.90
425/M0.95
521
25000
Speed (kt)
Altitude (ft)
478
Max. payload
Design range
Max. fuel (+ payload)
Ferry range
Design Parameters:
W/SCLmax
W/SCLtoST
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)
Seats x Range (seats.nm)
3150
Range (nm):
2109
2432
2637
2475
2003
2316
2649
1878
2042
2316
1445
1494
1494
1661
1661
1350
1350
1615
1615
1396
1396
1576
1576
1582
1582
1695
1695
1362
1362
1533
1533
1268
1268
1356
1356
1600
1600
150
130
438/M0.76
166
137
390/M0.90
M0.95
1,90
2,51
147
131
350/M0.84
148
133
340/M0.82
159
138
340/M0.82
142
130
340/M0.82
392/M0.84
392/M0.84
392/M0.84
2,32
3,06
2,47
3,28
2,38
3,24
2,49
3,32
530
25000
4536
488
25000
4005
491
26000
3890
492
26000
3307
492
26000
3574
41000
41000
41000
467
33000
4309
420
35000
2827
429
35000
2250
430
35000
2377
429
35000
2100
450
39000
1932
452
39000
2070
452
39000
2186,84
1375
2140
2400
1549
1900
2887
1578
2850
3187
1950
2700
2830
1360
1700
3450
3191
3229
3197
3245
2897
2927
1811,43
1788,04
0,0684
145750
2356,82
3918,96
0,1101
326400
1845,48
2537,71
0,0632
218500
1852,54
2196,64
0,0341
364800
2090,56
2506,93
0,0395
394200
1701,59
2024,27
0,0608
183600
0,0534
344628
0,0480
409216
0,0465
463520
2,15
3,01
2,22
Speed (kt)
Altitude (ft)
Long range cruise:
1859
2886
3292
1905
Speeds (kt/Mach):
V2
Vapp
Vno/Mmo
Vne/Mme
CLmax (T/O)
CLmax (L/D @ MLM)
3658
3962
4176
438
35000
5000
2360,53
3947,87

24

Aircraft Design: Assignment (52, Assignment 6: Improved Drag Prediction)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Aircraft Design: Assignment (52, Assignment 6: Improved Drag Prediction)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

Aircraft Design COURSE 2009/2010

Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

Aircraft type: Passenger Transport Airliner

Table 1.1: Matrix Requirements

Figure 1.1: Concept sketch

Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

Chapter 2: Drag estimation

Table 2.1 Main drag-contributing components

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

Data flight conditions

Table 2.2: basic input parameters

Turb. flat plate friction coeff. of the wing

Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

Ratio of drag and wing lift coefficient squared

Mach drag divergence

corrected for quarter chord

Table 2.3: Wing drag components

Aircraft lift gradient

fuselage Reynolds number

Wing/fuselage interference factor

Fuselage friction drag coefficient transsonic

Fuselage base drag coefficient

Table 2.4: Fuselage drag parameters

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

2.3.1. The horizontal tail

Using the method of the wings:

Data horizontal tail

Hor. tail Reynolds number

Mach drag divergence

corrected for quarter chord

Table 2.5: Empennage drag data for the horizontal tail

In the same manner, the vertical tail can be sized.

Data vertical tail

Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Tip chord vert. tail

Vert. tail Reynolds number

Mach drag divergence

Course year 2009/2010

corrected for quarter chord

Table 2.6: Empennage drag of the vertical tail

Assignment 6: Improved drag prediction

AE3-021 : AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Course year 2009/2010

Aircraft lift gradient

Wing/nacelle interference factor

Nacelle friction drag coefficient transsonic

Nacelle base drag coefficient

Table 2.7: Data of one nacelle