BRUNEL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

PRINCIPLES OF AIRCRAFT DESIGN ME2605/ME3605/ME3611 DR. C. MARES

2011-2012

1. HISTORY OF THE AIRCRAFT AND ITS DESIGN

1.1 Pre-Wright Flight Eilmer of Malmesbury In 1010, benedictine monk Eilmer (also known as Oliver) strapped man-made wings to his arms and jumped from Malmesbury Abbey. He is reported to have stayed afloat for 200 metres, which was considered a huge success (despite his breaking both legs in the process). This pioneering flight inspired many more flights of a similar vein, often ending in serious injury, if not death (these early airmen are often referred to as tower jumpers) Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) In the period between 1486 to 1490, Leonardo Da Vinci designed a number of manpowered ornithopters (flying machines with flapping wings). Although the ingenuity of Leonardos designs cannot be contended, to this day no man-powered ornithopter has ever flown. George Cayley (1773-1857) In 1799, Sir George Cayley conceived of the configuration of the modern airplane: having a fixed wing (inclined at an angle relative to the relative motion of air); a fuselage; a tail for stability; a means of control; and a separate propulsive mechanism. For this profound contribution he is often referred to as the father of aviation. Before Cayley, researchers believed that the propulsion system should generate both lift and forward motive force at the same time, as birds were able to do. So they constructed their flying machines with flapping wings (i.e. ornithopters) to resemble the motion of birds. Cayley, on the other hand, realized that the propulsion system should generate thrust but that the wings should be fixed and inclined to the relative airflow, so as to create lift. Otto Lilienthal (1848-1896) A series of detailed and meticulous aerodynamic experiments were performed and published by Otto Lilienthal in 1890. These experiments clearly demonstrated the advantages of the cambered airfoil in comparison to a straight aerodynamic surface. He also made the first successful gliders and performed several public demonstrations in a five-year period starting from 1891. In 1896, during a demonstration, a sharp gust of wind made his glider pitch up and stall he broke his back and died in hospital the next day. Samuel Langley (1834-1906) Langley was an astronomer and director of the well-respected Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC. In 1896, he successfully built an un-manned steam-powered aircraft

that flew for three-quarters of a mile before it ran out of fuel and landed undamaged. Based on this success, and his status as a respected researcher, Congress granted him a significant budget to build a man-carrying aircraft. Langley believed that the steam engine was too heavy for manned aircraft, and so, with help from his assistant, Charles Manly, developed the first gasoline-fueled reciprocating radial engine for an aircraft. The first attempt to fly this aircraft, in 1903, resulted in the aerodrome (as it was known) falling into the Potamac river moments after it was launched (by catapult). The second attempt ended in similar failure, prompting the withdrawal of funding and signalling the end of Langleys attempts at building a manned aircraft (and nearly the end of Manlys life, who was the pilot in both instances). Langleys failure is commonly attributed to his preoccupation with perfecting the power plant and neglecting considerations of aircraft control; others have cited poor structural design.

1.2 The Wright Brothers In Dec 1903, nine days after Langleys final failure, Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first manned and powered flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The Wright Flyer managed four flights on that day, the last covering a distance of 850ft (260 metres). Unlike Langley, the Wright brothers recognised the importance of carefully considering each of the basic components of the aircraft system (propulsion; airframe structure; flight control; and aerodynamics) this proved to be key to their success. Some of their design decisions and innovations are described below Aerodynamics The airfoils used by the Wright Brothers closely resembled those used by Lilienthal: thin and significantly cambered (see Figure 1). Based on the results of numerous wind-tunnel experiments, they chose an airfoil with a camber ratio (ratio of maximum camber to chord length) of 1/20, with the maximum camber near the quarter-chord location (rather than at the half chord location, as in Lilenthals gliders). Moving the position of maximum camber nearer the leading edge made the adverse pressure gradient on the aft portion of the upper surface less severe, and consequently, the flow was less susceptible to separation from the upper surface and the downstream wake smaller as a result (reducing profile drag).

Figure 1. A Wright airfoil (source: Langley Research Center, NASA) The Wright Brothers were also keenly aware of the need to reduce parasite drag (or what was known as head resistance at the time). Unlike Lilienthal, who hung vertically below his gliders, Orville lay horizontally on the aircraft structure to minimise the surface area that was exposed in the direction of flight (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Wright Flyer (source: www.libraries.wright.edu)

However, the major drawback of strut-and-wire biplanes, like the Wright Flyer, is the inordinately high parasitic drag generated by the struts and wires, and despite the Wrights attention to reducing parasitic drag in other areas of the airplane, this was overlooked. Aircraft Control Unlike Langley, the Wrights paid careful attention to ensure that they could control the aircraft when in flight. They were the first to realise the benefits of being able to control the aircraft in the lateral (roll) axis, in addition to the standard longitudinal (pitch) and directional (yaw) control. They achieved this by a mechanism that differentially warped the wing tips, altering the amount of lift on each wing and tending to roll the aircraft accordingly. Ailerons, in the form of triangular flaps at the wing tips, were developed a short while later by Glenn Curtiss and proved to be a much simpler and more efficient way of generating the same effect. The idea, however, was the same as that conceived by the Wrights, i.e. to differentially alter the lift on each wing. Airframe Structure The Wright Flyer had a lightweight and sturdy airframe. The efficiency of the structure was partly due to the Wrights expertise as bicycle makers, but mainly as a result of the previous work of Octave Chanute (a civil engineer) who developed a Pratt-truss system (similar to that found in bridge design) of rigging a biplane glider; the Wrights directly adopted this approach (see Figure 2). Propulsion Perhaps the single-most impressive innovation of the Wrights, especially considering their non-mathematical background, was the development of basic propeller theory (remnants of which exist today in standard blade element propeller theory) . Wilbur realised that the propeller was effectively a twisted wing that generated lift in the direction of motion, and so, to design an optimal propeller, the variation of twist should be such as to maintain the most efficient angle of attack of relative airflow at each radial point on the propeller. Using this theory they designed a propeller that had an efficiency of 70% (the percentage of shaft power converted into propeller power output). This was a dramatic improvement on contemporary propellers such as that used by Langley.

1.3 Fighter Planes of World War 1 By far the most common aircraft configuration during World War 1, and for several years after, was the strut-and-wire biplane. Figures 3 and 4 show two of the most famous fighter planes of this type: the French Nieuport 17 and the German Albatross D-III. The Albatross was heavily inspired by the Nieuport 17 design, both having Vtype interplane struts connecting a small-chord lower wing to a largerchord upper wing. A notable difference being the semimonocoque structure of the Albatross. The German fighter also had a more powerful engine and had greater armament, having two fixed forward-facing machine guns syncronized to fire between the revolving propeller blades.

Figure 3. French Nieuport 17, (soucre: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/warbirds_en_normandie/)

Figure 4. German Albatross D-III, (soucre: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/warbirds_en_normandie/)

The pursuit of more powerful propulsion, rather than drag minimisation, preoccupied aircraft designers of the War era. This allowed an erroneous aerodynamic assumption about wing design to survive for much longer than it would have otherwise; namely,

that an efficient wing should be thin, like those of the Wright brothers (see Figure 1). This mistaken belief probably originated because early wind-tunnel experiments were performed at extremely low Reynolds numbers, where thin sections behave better than thicker ones, and possibly because birds wings tend to also be thin. A thin wing section has two major drawbacks: first, a thin wing is more prone to separation and stall at relatively low angles of attack, thus limiting the maximum lift obtainable; and second, a thin section cannot be internally braced, requiring combinations of external struts and wires to support the wing(s) generating high parasitic drag. The longevity of the biplane configuration was partly owing to this predisposition to thin wings, and partly to a mistrust of the monoplane configuration. Bleriot successfully flew a monoplane across the English Channel in 1909, however, aeroelastic problems such as flutter and divergence contributed to many crashes and a backlash in the configurations popularity. Furthermore, the monoplane has reduced roll control in comparison to the biplane (because of the increased moment of inertia around the roll axis), and in the era of World War 1 with control and manoeuvrability a high priority, pilots and designers were loathe to give up the biplane configuration. Towards the end of the war possibly the most characteristic of all World War 1 fighters was introduced into combat: the German Fokker DR-1 triplane (see Figure 5). The DR-1 is commonly associated with Manfred von Richtofen (the Red Baron), although, incidentally, Richtofen scored the majority of his eighty victories flying albatross fighters such as that D-III shown in Figure 4. Its most significant contribution to the evolution of aircraft design is its use of thick airfoil sections. This allowed the DR-1 to dispense with wire bracing between the wings and employ single struts near the wing tips, which did not materially add to structural strength but were used to reduce vibration and flexing at high speeds. This feature gave the plane a very low zero-lift drag coefficient. Furthermore, the thick sections enabled the DR-1 to reach high angles of attack without stalling, enabling a large maximum lift coefficient and excellent climb performance compared to other fighters of the time. The impressive climb rate, combined with the response in roll afforded by the triplane configuration, made the DR-1 one of the most manoeuvrable and deadly fighters of the war.

Figure 5. German Fokker DR-1 triplane (soucre: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/warbirds_en_normandie/) Gradually, the benefits of thicker airfoils were universally realised and the thin sections of Lilienthal and the Wrights became obsolete (see Figure 6)

Figure 6. Evolution of the airfoil, 1908-1919 (source: Langley Research Center, NASA)

1.4 Propeller-driven monoplanes The years directly proceeding the war were lean in terms of aircraft development, until in May 1927, Charles Lindbergh recaptured the publics imagination for aviation by flying from New York to Paris in the Ryan monoplane Spirit of St. Louis: a strut-braced high-wing monoplane with a large 360-gallon fuel tank (see Figure 8). Lindberghs success popularised the monoplane in the USA and signalled the decline of the biplane configuration.

Figure 8. Ryan monoplane Spirit of St. Louis (source: www.lindberghfoundation.org) The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was set up in 1915, but it wasnt until 1928 that it made its first significant contribution to the advancement of aircraft design, when it published a report on the aerodynamic benefits of installing a cowling over radial engines. NACA researcher, Fred Gleick, performed full-scale wind tunnel experiments and showed that the drag over an exposed engine-fuselage combination (such as that of the Ryan monoplane in Figure 8) could be reduced by as much as 60% by an engine cowling. Furthermore, the NACA cowling design directed the airflow in such a way as to maintain efficient engine cooling. The Lockheed Vega 5C (a high-wing cantilevered monoplane; see Figure 9) was one of the first aircraft to adopt the NACA cowling. Along with the absence of struts and wires and the inclusion of wheel fairings (known as pants) the Vega 5C was one of the most aerodynamically clean aircraft of its day (despite the fixed landing gear) and one of the most successful aircrafts of the thirties Wiley Post flew the famous Winnie Mae, a Vega 5C, around the globe in seven and half days in 1933.

Figure 9. Lockheed Vega 5C passenger and mail plane (source: www.aerofiles.com) It was long thought that the aerodynamic advantages of a retractable landing gear would be overshadowed by the weight penalty of the associated mechanism. However, on such an aerodynamically clean aircraft as the Vega, the relatively large reduction in zero-lift drag coefficient would more than compensate for the additional mass. Lockheed thus designed the Orion which had retractable landing gear; it first flew in 1931 (see Figure 10). The low-wing configuration of the Orion enabled the gear to be conveniently retracted into the wing and to be kept short and thus light.

Figure 10. Lockheed Orion 9D (source: www.aerofiles.com) Another of the major technical advances of the 1930s was the development of the variable-pitch propeller. The Wright brothers recognised that a propeller is essentially an airfoil, twisted in such a way as to produce an optimal lift-to-drag ratio at each radial blade section. If, however, the aircraft deviates from the design speed, the angle

of attack of each airfoil (blade) section is altered relative to the local flow direction. This reduces the lift-to-drag ratio at each radial point on the blade, with resulting loss of propulsive efficiency. By the mid 1930s the variable-pitch propeller was in common usage. There are two types of variable-pitch propeller: a controllable-pitch propeller and a constant-speed propeller. The former allows the pilot to manually adjust the pitch of the propeller to better suit the flight requirements at a particular moment. The latter is a propeller that automatically adjusts its pitch to maintain a constant engine/propeller rpm. In so doing the propeller is continuously in pitch for optimal performance. The first installation of a variable-pitch propeller was on the Boeing 247 transport plane (see Figure 11). This aircraft adopted much of the state-ofthe-art aircraft technology of the time: Engine cowlings (on the model 247D the full NACA-type cowlings were used) Variable-pitch propellers All metal stressed-skin semi-monocoque construction, which contributed significantly to the overall stiffness and load-carrying capabilities of the aircraft. Landing gear that could retract into the wing A geared supercharger. A compressor used to maintain a sufficient mass of air flow into the engine at high-altitudes.

Figure 11. Boeing 247D, (source: www.aerofiles.com) In direct competition to the Boeing 247, a very similar aircraft was produced: the Douglas DC-1. The DC-1 had all the features of the Boeing 247, but also employed trailing-edge split flaps on each wing to generate extra lift at take-off and landing. The DC-1 was developed into the DC-2 and then the DC-3 (shown in Figure 12), which had its first flight in 1936. A distinctive feature of the DC-3 is the partially swept

wing, which, for purposes of stability and control, was designed as such to position the aerodynamic centre favourably in relation to the aircrafts centre of gravity. The Douglas DC-3 is one of the best-known aircraft ever produced and has been used for nearly every conceivable transport purpose of an aircraft, civil and military. In fact, there are still some DC-3s in revenued service, roughly 70 years after the designs first flight!

Fig 12. Douglas DC-3 (source: www.stinsonflyer.com) Another noteworthy technical development of the 1930s was the introduction of cabin pressurisation so that occupants could breath without the need for pressure suits and oxygen masks. Similarly, significant effort went into developing the supercharger, so that the engine had sufficient air for combustion at high-altitudes. In the late 1930s, NACA designed a new type of airfoil: the laminar-flow airfoil. This type of airfoil was designed to minimise skin-friction drag by maintaining laminar flow, rather than turbulent flow, over as much of the wing as possible. To maintain the laminar boundary layer, a favourable pressure gradient is required, and so, laminar-flow airfoils were shaped to extend the region on the airfoil for which the pressure gradient is positive. To do this the maximum thickness of the section was placed further downstream than on conventional airfoils of the time - see Figure 13.

Conventional Airfoil used in the 30s, NACA 23012

Examples of Laminar-Flow airfoil NACA 63-412 NACA 66-212

Figure 13. Shapes of two NACA laminar-flow airfoils compared with the NACA 23012 airfoil section. The laminar flow airfoil did not, in practice, achieve its aim. Minor imperfections on the wing surface (from manufacture or those acquired in use) were enough to trigger laminar-to-turbulent transition despite the favourable shape of the laminar-flow airfoil. Although it failed in its primary aim, the laminar-flow airfoil did, fortuitously, prove to have exceptionally good high-speed performance and was used on many fighter planes of World War 2 (see Figure 14, the P51 Mustang, for example).

Figure 14. P-51 Mustang (source: http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/)

1.5 The age of the jet aircraft: Subsonic flight As far as high-speed flight is concerned, the propeller has a fundamental limitation. That is, at high subsonic aircraft speeds, the propeller tip must travel at speeds approaching or higher than the speed of sound. In these circumstances, shock waves are generated on the blades, which produce a drastic decline in propeller performance and efficiency. By World War 2, the propeller-driven aircraft had effectively reached maturity. Apart from the Wright brothers first flight, nothing has so radically influenced the development of the aircraft than the invention of the jet engine. It was invented independently by Frank Whittle in England and Dr. Hans von Ohain in Germany. Although Whittle patented his design for the gas-turbine engine as early as 1930, it was Ohain, with aircraft designer Ernst Heinkel, that constructed and flew the first jet-powered aircraft in 1939: the Heinkel He 178. However, the first jet aircraft that was manufactured in any numbers was the Messerschmitt Me 262 (see Figure 15), which was first flown in 1942 and introduced into World War 2 by 1944.

Figure 15. Messerschmitt Me 262, the first operational jet airplane, 1942 (source: www.kheichhorn.de) The turbojet didnt have the tip-shock limitation of the propeller at high speeds, and this made it feasible for the aircraft to approach, and cross, the sound barrier. Although it was the Bell X1-rocket plane that officially first broke the sound barrier in October of 1947, the same feat was achieved in November by a jet-powered aircraft: the F86 Sabre (see Figure 16). The design of the F86 was strongly influenced by German research data that became available after the end of the war. This research demonstrated the advantages of the swept wing for high-speed aircraft. The marked wing sweep, which can be seen in Figure 16, was not designed for the positioning of the aerodynamic centre relative to the centre of gravity (as was the case in the DC-3, see Figure 12), but rather to increase the critical mach number: the speed at which the aircraft can fly without any part of the flow over the wing reaching supersonic speeds and hence causing shock drag. This design feature enabled the Sabre to achieve speeds of Mach 0.9 in level flight.

Figure 16. Sabre F-86 (source: www.airforce.forces.gc.ca) Another aircraft to be directly influenced by the German data on swept wings was the B-47 stratojet bomber (see Figure 17), which was, prior to the end of World War 2, originally intended to have a straight wing. Integrating the engines within the wing would have necessarily thickened the airfoil with the result of lowering the critical mach number. Therefore, a technical innovation on the B-47 was the suspension of podded engines via struts underneath each wing. The position of each engine was sufficiently low and far forward so that there was minimal interference with the flow over the wing. Furthermore, the spanwise distribution of the engines allowed a greater wing loading without excessive bending.

Figure 17. Boeing B-47 stratojet (source: www.aerofiles.com) The B-47 was the basis for the Boeing 707 civil transport plane, and the main characteristics of the design are seen in many modern jet transport aircraft. As an example of this take the Boeing 747 shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18. Boeing 747-400 (source: www.aerofiles.com) A technical development that greatly improved the efficiency of the jet aircraft, and also made it quieter, was the turbofan. It is, essentially, a turbojet engine with the addition of a ducted fan driven by the turbine. The fan is placed before the inlet and a certain proportion of the oncoming air goes through the fan but bypasses the rest of the engine. The fan contributes to the overall thrust of the engine, allowing the engine as a whole to act upon a greater volume of air than it otherwise would: following basic principles of mechanics a propulsive device is more efficient at providing a given thrust if it can accelerate a large amount of air a small velocity than a small amount of air a large velocity. In an engine with a high bypass ratio, such as those used most commonly in subsonic passenger jets, the air volume that flows through the fan and bypasses the core engine is several times greater than the volume that flows through the core engine (see Figure 19, for example).

Figure 19. Pratt & Whitney PW200. A high bypass ratio turbofan. (source: www.aircraftenginedesign.com)

1.6 The age of the jet aircraft: supersonic flight The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, which first flew in 1954, was the first plane to achieve sustained flight at Mach 2. Low-aspect ratio straight wings experience comparable wave drag to high-aspect ratio swept wings this provides a design alternative that was exploited by the F-104. However, the wings had particularly poor performance at subsonic speeds. Most supersonic aircraft have a swept (or delta) wing, as this is the best compromise between minimising wave drag at supersonic speeds and maximising lift at subsonic speeds. However, some, to provide sufficiently low-speed and short landings, employ variable-sweep wings, such as that on the F-14 Tomcat.

Figure 20. Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. The first plane to achieve sustained flight at Mach 2 (source: www.aircraftplanesandjets.com/) Another innovation to come from operation Paperclip (the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extracted scientists from Germany during and after the final stages of the war) was the delta-wing configuration. The delta wing (as shown in Figure 21 on the Convair F-102) has the advantage of large wing sweep, which keeps the wings within the Mach cone up to relatively high supersonic speeds, and, in the same manner as swept wings on subsonic aircraft, helps maintain subsonic flow over the majority of the wing. Furthermore, the extra wing area compensates for the loss of lift resulting from the high sweep angle. At higher supersonic speeds, when the wings are outside the mach cone a straight wing such as that of the F-104 in Figure 20 is preferable. The first prototype of the Convair F-102 (Figure 21, top) did not perform as well as expected in fact, although it was designed as a supersonic airplane, it was unable to break the sound barrier. This, understandably, was a cause for some

embarrassment. At the same time, Richard Whitcombe was working on a so-called area-rule concept for supersonic aircraft design. Simply stated, that the cross-sectional area of the aircraft as a whole (taken in a plane perpendicular to the flight direction) should vary as smoothly as possible over the entire length of the aircraft. This concept is based on the understanding that that the curvature of the volume distribution of the vehicle is directly related to the (shock)wave drag. The later model of the Convair F102 can be seen to have incorporated area ruling, with its fuselage being pinched-in in the region of the delta wing. This is sometimes known as coke-bottling because of the resulting fuselage shape. The adapted aircraft successfully broke the sound barrier during its second flight.

Figure 21. Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, with and without the area-rule design modification (source: www.generalatomic.com/jetmakers)

Probably the most famous supersonic aircraft to employ the delta-wing design is the Concorde, shown in Figure 22, which first flew in 1969. While in service it was the fastest passenger jet, with a maximum speed of Mach 2.04. Despite its striking aesthetics and record-breaking flight speed, it was retired from commercial service in 2003. With the post 9/11 market for premium air travel being practically non-existent, the Concorde could barely break even, let alone recoup huge investment that would have been needed to extend the operational life of the aircraft. Both British Airways and Air France decided, therefore, to write off costs already spent on safety upgrades, rather than having to write off even larger expenditure in the future. There are a number of noteworthy design features of the Concorde. One of them is the droop-snoot nose (see Figure 22). The Concordes wings are designed for optimal performance at Mach 2 at 50,000 ft, but at landing, in comparison to a standard subsonic jet, the lift generation is poor. Consequently, the aircraft has to approach at a very high angle of attack, so much so that the nose had to be designed so that it could be tilted forward to allow pilots adequate vision of the runway. The Concorde was also the first passenger jet to employ analogue fly-by-wire technology. A fly-by-wire aircraft, rather than having mechanical pulleys and cables, uses an electrical circuit to communicate the pilots input to the hydraulic servos that move the control surfaces. Such a system affords a significant weight saving. (note: an aircraft having an autopilot is not necessarily fly-by-wire).

Figure 22. Aerospatiale/British Aerospace Concorde (source: www.concordesst.com)

1.7 State-of-the-Art Jet Transport The Airbus A380, shown in Figure 23, was first flown in April 2005, and will enter commercial service in 2006 as a direct competitor/successor to the Boeing 747. Its double-decker configuration seats 550 passengers and is referred to by the media as a super-jumbo. Its vast payload makes for an incredibly heavy aircraft, and much effort has been put into making the airframe as light as possible. About 25 percent of the A380 is made from composite materials, including carbon/epoxy and GLARE (although strictly not a composite), and fibreglass/aluminium laminate. These materials are very light and resistant to damage and corrosion. The A380, like the A320, employs digital fly-by-wire technology, another weight saving feature.

Figure 23. Airbus A380 (www.samchuiphotos.com) The competition between Airbus and Boeing is fierce, and each company has a different opinion of the future of civil transport, and this is reflected in their aircraft design strategies. The A380 reflects Airbuss belief that future jet air travel will continue to grow following the hub-and-spoke system, i.e. aircraft will mainly be providing shuttle services between the major hubs (e.g., LHR to JFK), with much smaller aircraft (like the A320) transporting passengers from hub to point (the spoke). Boeing has an alternative vision of the future that will see an increase in "Point-to-Point" flights, with passengers flying direct to their destinations rather than flying via a hub. Consequently, Boeing are developing the 787 Dreamliner (formerly known as the 7E7), which is scheduled to enter service in 2008. This aircraft will have a lesser seating capacity than the A380 (between 200-300), but have a much longer range than any other aircraft in its category. The increased level of efficiency will, in

part, be due to the majority of the primary structure being made of composite materials.

Figure 24. Boeing 787 Dreamliner, due for service entry in 2008 (www.hvdm.nl)

1.8 Military Aircraft: Stealth The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, shown in Figure 25, was designed by Clarence Kelly Johnson of the famed Skunk Works, and first flew in 1964. It was specifically designed as a reconnaissance (spy) plane which would fly very high (30km) and very fast (Mach 3) thus reducing its vulnerability to enemy air defences. The SR-71 was made of titanium so that it could withstand the intense viscous heating that occurs during Mach 3 flight, and was painted dark blue (almost black) to promote more rapid heat loss from its surfaces (the paint used also had radar absorbing qualities). Other early stealth design practices that were employed to reduce the SR71s radar cross section (RCS) included the inward canting of the vertical tail planes and the sharp chines at the side of the fuselage and engine nacelles (the chines also generated additional lift and, in the same way as leading edge extensions, reduced the stall speed).

Figure 25. Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird (source: http://www.centennialofflight.gov) The first aircraft to fully exploit exploit low-observable stealth technology was the F-117 Nighthawk (see Figure 26), which had its maiden flight in 1981. The F-117, sometimes known as the Stealth Fighter, was another unorthodox aircraft to come out of the Skunk Works. The design of the F-117 is dominated by features intended to reduce its observability by radar it is compromised aerodynamically as a direct result. The obvious stealth features are: flat highly-angled surfaces on upper body to reduce specular radar returns (from the side and front); the placing of the engine inlets and outlets on the upper surface of the aircraft so as to be invisible from ground radar; no external armament that might otherwise cause significant specular radar returns; and jagged edges on discontinuities perpendicular to the flight path (to reduce the detectability of scattered emissions from surface-travelling radar energy).

Figure 26. Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/) The F-117 Nighthawk is, as an aircraft, inherently unstable. This means that if disturbed from an equilibrium attitude and speed, would not return to the same equilibrium state without some form of control. However, the digital fly-by-wire system in the F-117 automatically applies the necessary control to maintain stable flight without the need for pilot input. (Note: modern fighter planes are designed to be inherently unstable, at least at low speeds. This so-called relaxed stability improves manouevrability. After all, stability is a property of an aircaraft that is reluctant to move from an equilibrium state). A more advanced aircraft, from a stealth perspective, is the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (the Stealth Bomber) which first flew in 1989. Figure 27 shows the flying-wing design with its distinctive saw-tooth trailing edge. The lack of tail instantly reduces the RCS and the coincident angles of the trailing and leading edges (known as planform alignment) further reduces the radar observability from the majority of directions.

Figure 27. Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (source: http://www.fas.org)

1.9 Military Aircraft: Contemporary Fighters In the mid 90s Lockheed Martin and Boeing joined forces to design the F-22 Raptor, a highly-manoeuvrable and stealthy aircraft, which is intended to replace the F-15 as the chief air-superiority fighter of the USAF. It is equipped with two Pratt and Whitney F119 turbojet engines, which have thrust vectoring capability, providing great manoeuvrability and short take-off distances. The F119 engines can power the F-22 to supersonic speeds above Mach 1.4 without the use of afterburner (so-called supercruise), which gives the fighter a greater operating range and allows for stealthier flight operation. It is the most expensive fighter ever developed with an estimated total production cost for the 279 aircraft currently planned of over 70 billion dollars.

Figure 28. F-22 Raptor (source: http://www.aeronautics.ru) Much of the technology developed for the F-22 Raptor will be employed on the latest American fighter in development, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): see Figure 29. It is intended as a multi-role fighter, but is optimised for the air-to-ground role. In a future war, the F-22 and F-35 will perform complementary missions: the F22 will establish and maintain air superiority (air-to-air) allowing the F35 to attack the enemy on the ground (air-to-ground). The F-35B variant of the JSF has short/vertical takeoff and landing capability (SVTOL), like the British Aerospace Harrier. This is achieved by combined use of a ducted lift fan and the main engine which generates vertical thrust by rotation of its nozzle.

Figure 29. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (source: www.defence.gov.au) 1.10 Aircraft of the Future On November the 19 , 2004, the flight-speed record for non-rocket powered flight was broken by the X43A hypersonic plane (see Figure 30); it reached a speed of Mach 9.6 (over 7,000 mph). The X43-A used a Scramjet engine (an engine which operates by burning fuel in a stream of supersonic air compressed by the forward speed of the aircraft) and highly advanced materials that protect the plane from the intense aerodynamic heating that occurs at high Mach numbers. Although the X43A was unmanned and achieved its record speed only for a few seconds, it is thought that this technology might eventually develop to enable hypersonic passenger flight. At speeds of Mach 10 a trip from London to Sydney would take less than two hours.
th

Figure 30. NASA X-43A (source: http://www.matplane.com) In the future there may also be a demand for space tourism, i.e. a means by which ordinary members of the public can buy tickets to travel to space and back. In pursuit of the technology that could enable this vision, the Ansari X-Prize was founded in 1995: a 10 million dollar prize awarded to the first privately-financed

aircraft that could travel into space (flying above 100km) carrying 3 passengers (or equivalent weight), travel safely back to earth, and to repeat the same trip with the same aircraft within 2 weeks. In October of 2004, the prize was claimed by noted aircraft designer Burt Rutan (of Voyager fame). His sub-orbital space plane SpaceShipOne is shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31. Burt Rutans SpaceShipOne, with pilot, Mike Melville, atop (source: www.air-and-space.com)