Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 53

Final Report

Aircraft Design
ME 4770, C'08
Prof. D. Olinger

Dustin Bradway '08


Kyle Miller '09

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
Specifications Table .................................................................................................................... 5
Dimensions and Detailed Specifications .................................................................................... 6
Background ................................................................................................................................. 7
Mission Profile ............................................................................................................................ 8
Initial Weight (W0) Estimation ................................................................................................... 9
Trade Studies ............................................................................................................................ 10
Detailed Drawings .................................................................................................................... 12
Interior....................................................................................................................................... 13
Airfoil Selection ........................................................................................................................ 14
Airfoil Performance .................................................................................................................. 15
Wing Area ............................................................................................................................. 16
Aspect Ratio .......................................................................................................................... 16
Wingspan .............................................................................................................................. 16
Wing Sweep .......................................................................................................................... 16
Wing Taper Ratio and Root Chord ....................................................................................... 17
Mean Chord Length .............................................................................................................. 17
Stall Behavior........................................................................................................................ 17
W/S Calculations ...................................................................................................................... 18
Cruise .................................................................................................................................... 19
Loiter ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Landing/Stall ......................................................................................................................... 19
Takeoff .................................................................................................................................. 19
Refined Weight (W0) Estimation .............................................................................................. 20
"Newton's Equations of Takeoff" ............................................................................................. 21
T/W Ratio and Fixed Engine Design ........................................................................................ 22
Updated Wing Characteristics .................................................................................................. 23
Wing Area ............................................................................................................................. 23
Wingspan .............................................................................................................................. 23
Wing Taper Ratio and Root Chord ....................................................................................... 23
Mean Chord Length .............................................................................................................. 24
Tail Geometry ........................................................................................................................... 24
Horizontal Tail Geometry ..................................................................................................... 24
Horizontal Tail Area ............................................................................................................. 24
Horizontal Tailspan ............................................................................................................... 25
Horizontal Tail Root Chord and Tip Chord .......................................................................... 25
Vertical Tail Geometry ......................................................................................................... 25
Vertical Tail Area ................................................................................................................. 25
Vertical Tail Height .............................................................................................................. 25
Wing and Tail Geometry Summary .......................................................................................... 26
Winglets .................................................................................................................................... 26
Structural Analysis .................................................................................................................... 27
Landing Gear ............................................................................................................................ 29

3
Fuel Tanks ................................................................................................................................. 30
Thrust-Drag Analysis ................................................................................................................ 30
Stability Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 32
Maneuvers ................................................................................................................................. 34
Climb..................................................................................................................................... 34
Turn ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Logo and Name ......................................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion and Summary ......................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A: Historical Comparison Data ................................................................................ 37
Appendix B1: Initial Weight Estimate Iteration ....................................................................... 38
Appendix B2: Initial Weight Estimate Iteration ....................................................................... 39
Appendix C: Initial Weight Trade Studies................................................................................ 40
Appendix D: Artwork ............................................................................................................... 41
Appendix E: Airfoil Geometry Data ......................................................................................... 47
Appendix F: XFOIL Analysis ................................................................................................... 48
Appendix H: Calculated Drag ................................................................................................... 50
Appendix I: Center of Gravity .................................................................................................. 51
Appendix J: Final Presentation Slides ...................................................................................... 52
Note: "Creativity" is denoted throughout by an asterisk (*) in the margin of the text.

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Range Map ...................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Historical design trends ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Mission profile ................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 4: Trade studies.................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5: ProEngineer CAD model............................................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Concept art .................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Interior layout ................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 8: Cross-section of our NACA 64008a airfoil ................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Airfoil performance plots .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 10: Wing sweep trends ...................................................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Leading edge flow separation at stall .......................................................................... 18
Figure 12: Moment coefficient about quarter-chord point ........................................................... 18
Figure 13: Fuel allocation ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 14: Takeoff capability........................................................................................................ 22
Figure 15: Installed PW308B engines .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 16: T-tail ............................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 17: Winglets....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 18: Box spar....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 19: Plot of shear force (N) and bending moment (N-m) throughout the wing .................. 28
Figure 20: Shear force (left) and bending moment (right) distributions in the wing .................... 28
Figure 21: Wing deflection ........................................................................................................... 29
Figure 22: Fuel tank location and size .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 23: Coefficients of drag ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 24: Thrust-drag plot ........................................................................................................... 32
Figure 25: Stability diagram ......................................................................................................... 34
Figure 26: Turn rate ...................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 27: Logo............................................................................................................................. 36

Introduction
We have designed a two-pilot business jet, capable of transporting eight to ten passengers
and their baggage on routes on the order of Halifax-to-London and Los Angeles-to-Honolulu
(see range map below, showing capabilities from three major world cities). Our aircraft has a
range of 2,500 nautical miles, a cruise speed of 560 mph, and a cruise altitude of 45,000 feet. We
have planned for special situations and contingencies by building in a generous loiter time (one
hour), designing for use on short runways (< 5,000 ft), and specifying a modular interior so that
our aircraft can be used for other purposes (e.g., high-altitude photography). Our aircraft
employs composite materials in an effort both to keep weight down and to help examine the
feasibility of designing future aircraft in a similar manner.
Our aircraft will be designed for high reliability to executives and companies, wasted
time is wasted money and 24-hour readiness and operability. Twin engines allow for high
safety margins, and the aircraft will be able to fly and climb safely on a single engine. Our jet
features a generous fuel supply stored in the wings, air conditioning, soundproofing, and a full
glass cockpit. Following are the specifications for our new business jet.

Specifications Table
Aircraft type
Aircraft purpose
Crew number
Estimated payload
Range
Propulsion system type
Cruise speed and altitude
Mission
Loiter time
Maneuverability
Takeoff distance and speed
Stall speed

Small business jet


Intercontinental passenger travel
Two pilots
2,000 kg (6-8 passengers and luggage)
2,500 nautical miles
Turbofan (2 x Pratt & Whitney 308B)
485 kts at 45,000 feet (Mach 0.726)
Takeoff cruise loiter land
1 hour
Basic (climb, descend, turn)
~ 4,000 feet at 135 kts
120 kts

Figure 1: Range Map

Dimensions and Detailed Specifications


Specification
General
Crew
Wcrew
Passengers
Payload
Range
SFCcruise
SFCloiter
Loiter time
Maximum speed
Cruise speed
Stall speed
Cruise altitude
W0
T/W
L/D
Oswald efficiency, e
Wing loading, W/S
Wing
Airfoil type
Aspect ratio
Wingspan
Area, Swing
Wing taper,
Dihedral
Wing incidence angle
Wing sweep
Airfoil thickness
Mean chord, c
Chordroot
Chordtip
Winglets
Tails
Tail type
Horizontal
Tail sweep
Tail taper
Aspect ratio
Tail span
Shtail
Mean chord, c
Vertical
Tail sweep
Tail taper
Aspect ratio
Tail span
Shtail
Mean chord, c
Stability Analysis
Fuselage length
Length overall
Height
Fuselage diameter
XNeutral Position
XMost Forward
XCenter of Gravity

Preliminary

Interim

Final

Historical

2
200 kg
8
2,000 kg
2,500 nm
0.5
0.4
1 hour
485 kts
45,000 ft
13,730 kg
.0917
10.9
-

2
200 kg
8
2,000 kg
2,500 nm
0.5
0.4
1 hour
485 kts
120 kts
45,000 ft
14,543 kg
.0967
10.34
0.8258
82.09 lb/ft2

2
200 kg
8
2,000 kg
2,500 nm
0.5
0.4
1 hour
524 kts (Mach 0.91)
485 kts (Mach 0.84)
120 kts
45,000 ft
14,543 kg
.0967
10.34
0.8258
82.09 lb/ft2

~2
6 to 12
~ 1,080 kg
1,500 to 3,000 nm
0.5
0.4
~480 to 500 kts
120 to 140 kts
39,000 to 43,000 ft
~ 16,000 kg
0.625 to 0.1
60 to 95 lb/ft2

NACA 64008a
7.461
19.96 m
53.416 m2
0.45
5
1
20
0.179m
2.804 m
3.7 m
1.66 m
Yes

NACA 64008a
7.461
15.98 m
34.26 m2
0.45
5
1
20
0.179 m
2.25 m
2.95 m
1.33 m
Yes

NACA 64008a
7.461
15.98 m
34.26 m2
0.45
5
1
20
0.179 m
2.25 m
2.95 m
1.33 m
Yes

7.25 to 9.10
12.2-17 m
24 to 48 m2
0.4 to 0.5
3-7
14 to 31
-

T-tail

T-tail

T-tail

25
0.85
4
-

25
0.85
4
4.64 m
5.37 m2
-

25
0.85
4
4.64 m
5.37 m2
1.16 m

15 to 30
-

30
0.7
1.0
-

30
0.7
1.0
2.71 m
7.37 m2
-

30
0.7
1.0
2.71 m
7.37 m2
2.71 m

35 to 55
-

17.69 m
-

17.69 m
18.61 m
6.60 m
2.35 m
10.14 m
9.09 m
9.58 m

~ 20 m
~ 18 to 20 m
~5.5 to 7.5 m
-

Background
We considered four aircraft as a basis for our own design. Examined in detail were the
following aircraft, with a summary of their major specifications:

Range
Cruise speed
Cruise altitude
Max. ramp weight
Max. payload

Engines

Length
Wingspan
Wing area
Height

Gulfstream G200

Learjet 60XR

Cessna Sovereign

3400 nm
459 kt
39,000 ft
35,600 lb
4,050 lb
2 Pratt &
Whitney Canada
306A
(6040lb each)
62.25 ft
58 ft
369 ft2
21.5 ft

2365 nm
466 kt
41,000 ft
23,750 lb
1,820 lb
2 Pratt &
Whitney 305A
(4600lb each)

2664 nm
431 kt
41,000 ft
30,550 lb
2,500 lb
2 Pratt &
Whitney Canada
PW306C
(5690lb each)
61.1 ft
63.3 ft
510 ft2
19.1 ft

58.7 ft
43.8 ft
264.5 ft2
14.5 ft

Cessna Citation X

3250 nm
595 kt
41,000 ft
36,400 lb
1,200 lb
2 Allison AE
3007C
(6400lb each)
72.1 ft
63.9 ft
527 ft2
18.9 ft

Each is an 8-12 passenger aircraft with two pilots. The overall design of the reference
aircraft also matched what we envisioned for our plane: low wing, high tail out of the way of
wing turbulence, two aft fuselage-mounted engines, and so on.
Averages of the above values have been computed and are used in some early
calculations later in this report. In addition to the four reference aircraft, we also examined a
larger pool of business jets of various sizes, from 5-passenger very light jets (VLJs) to large
planes capable of transporting 25 people distances exceeding 3700 nautical miles. Our goal with
this study was to determine whether trends can be discerned in aircraft development and
characteristics, to help us envision the "business jet of the future" and to ensure that our work
produces a realistic aircraft.
Some of our successful attempts at finding correlations can be seen below. Our aircraft's
final specifications are also presciently indicated in red, demonstrating that ours is a design that
successfully follows contemporary and historical design trends. It should be noted that our
adherence to trends is a result of following the tried-and-tested design process, not from an
attempt to "not deviate from the line."

Empty Weight (lb, X) vs. Wingspan (ft, Y)

Length (ft, X) vs. Wingspan (ft, Y)

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0
0

50

100

150

20000

Passengers (X) vs. Empty Weight (lb, Y)

40000

60000

Length (X) vs. Engine Power (Y)

60000

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0

50000

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0

10

20

30

50

100

150

Figure 2: Historical design trends

Interestingly, when we attempted studies comparing changes over time, we found no


correlations wingspan, passenger capacity, engine power, and other factors have not changed
markedly or predictably since the first business jets were produced in the 1960s.
The historical data used for these studies can be found in Appendix A: Historical
Comparison Data.

Mission Profile
Our aircraft's mission profile is very simple, consisting only of takeoff, climb, cruise
(with altitude variations as required by ATC), descent and landing. Our aircraft is also capable of
loiter for up to one hour (not pictured).

Altitude (feet)

40000

30000

20000
10000
0
0

250

750

1250

1750

2250

2500

Distance (nautical miles)

Figure 3: Mission profile

Initial Weight (W0) Estimation


The four reference aircraft matching our design requirements were examined in detail to
help prepare our estimate for W0; more information on these aircraft and other research can be
found in the Background section previous. We averaged maximum ramp weights for the four
aircraft, found it to be 14,322 kilograms, and used that as our starting point for estimating W0.
The following values were used in our initial weight estimate, most derived by rounding
off average values from the four reference planes:

Range: 2,500 nm (allowing Halifax-to-London, NYC-to-LAX, and LAX-to-Honolulu)


Cruise speed: 485 kts (250 m/s)
Ccruise: 0.5 / hr (textbook)
Cloiter: 0.4 / hr (textbook)
L/D: 10.9 (textbook)
Wcrew: 200 kg (two pilots and gear)
Wpayload: 2000 kg (eight 220-lb passengers and 1,200 kg of cargo, baggage, gear, etc.)
Loiter endurance: 1 hour (to allow flexibility in CEO schedules)
Wingspan: 17.1 m (reference aircraft)
Swetted: 510.6 m2 (preliminary sketches; see below)

Swetted was computed with the aid of our preliminary sketches (tails, wings, winglets) and
by calculating the surface areas of tubes (the main fuselage and two engines), a cone (fuselage
tail), and a hemisphere (the fuselage nose):
Swetted = Stails + Swings + Sbody tube + Snose + Stail cone + Swinglets + Sengines

10
To obtain an initial estimate of the weights in the different mission stages, historical trends and
equations were used as follows:
W1 = 0.97 W0
W2 = 0.985 W1

W5 = 0.995 W4

(where W1 = weight after take-off, W2 = weight after climb, W3 = weight after cruise, W4 =
weight after loiter, W5 = weight after landing).
Wf / W0 was then calculated with a 6% safety margin:
(

We / W0 could then be computed using the formula provided in the textbook in Table 3.1:

And finally our initial weight estimate was updated:

Three iterations were necessary to bring our estimate to within a successive iterative error
of less than 0.5%. Our updated estimate for W0, using conventional construction materials, is
16,080 kilograms. For details, see Appendix B1: Initial Weight Estimate Iteration.
We have decided, however, to use a composite material construction, the details of which
are discussed in the Trade Studies section to follow. As a result, our final W0 estimate is actually
13,730 kilograms.

Trade Studies
We conducted several studies to determine the weight tradeoffs that would be required if
we changed our aircraft's specified range, payload capacity, and loiter time. Values were
computed with the use of our iteration algorithm, allowing for the quick and easy creation of
several data points in each study. The results are as follows, and details can be found in
Appendix C: Initial Weight Trade Studies.

11

W0 vs. increasing range

W0 vs. increasing loiter

45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0.5

1.5

2.5

W0 vs. increasing payload


30000
25000
20000
15000

10000
5000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Figure 4: Trade studies

We reduced our specified payload early in the design process as a result of conducting
trade studies; our initial specification of 2,500 kg caused our aircraft to exceed our reference
aircraft average by too large a margin, and we now feel 2,000 kg is perfectly adequate given the
passenger capacity of our jet (and whatever luggage those passengers could possibly need to
bring). We are satisfied by where we sit on the range and loiter curves, feeling no need to
increase either specification; however, we note that loiter could be increased beyond its already
above-average value without incurring too much of a penalty.
We have also decided to use composite materials in our aircraft construction, in an effort
to keep rising weights down and to add an element of "futurism" to our design. As an example,
the Learjet 85, introduced in October of 2007, will feature an all-composite structure designed by
Grob Aerospace. We are of the opinion that composite aircraft, with declining material prices
and ever-advancing manufacturing processes, will become more common in the future.
To account for a composite structure, the We / W0 ratio is adjusted to 95% of its original
value with the following formula:

12

W0 is then calculated as before. Our early estimate for an initial weight using composite
materials is 13,730 kilograms. This is 85% of the weight of a conventional aluminum structure.
Because of this, we have decided to use composite construction in our business jet.

Detailed Drawings
Full sets of detailed drawings are located in Appendix D: Artwork. A CAD model of our
aircraft was created with PTC's ProEngineer software. The dimensions used in the model are, of
course, the same as the final specifications we provide in this report. Here is one view of our
model:

Figure 5: ProEngineer CAD model

In the spirit of the design process (and simulating the role of an Art Department), we
have also produced "concept art" for our aircraft, to better illustrate our proposed aircraft's shape
and details. These graphics are entirely of our own creation, having been steadily modified
throughout the design process to represent our evolving design. For all the drawings one could
possibly desire, including a visual depiction of the evolution of our aircraft, see Appendix D.
Depicting details can be difficult in ProEngineer, but is quite simple with illustration software
(here, Adobe Flash). It should be noted, too, that these drawings are made exactly to scale.

13

Figure 6: Concept art

Interior
Our aircraft's modular interior can be configured in a variety of seating arrangements, two
of which are depicted here. The red areas indicate exits. The rear of the cabin contains luggage,
loaded externally. An optional head is located directly behind the pilots.
Six seats:

Eight seats:

Figure 7: Interior layout

14

Airfoil Selection
Our background research indicates that smaller-to-midsize business jets use a variety of
airfoil shapes for their wing cross sections, including the IAI Sigma 2, Cessna 7500 and the
NACA 64008a shown below. The NACA 64008a airfoil was chosen for our plane because of its
favorable characteristics when used in our type of aircraft a thin airfoil is important when
flying at high subsonic Mach numbers, because it increases critical Mach and allows for lower
drag at higher flight speeds. A list of non-dimensional geometry data for a NACA 64008a airfoil
can be found in Appendix E: Airfoil Geometry Data.

Figure 8: Cross-section of our NACA 64008a airfoil

Typical flying conditions for our aircraft will be a cruise altitude of 45,000 ft (13,720 m)
and a velocity of 560 mph (250 m/s). To obtain realistic data for the NACA 64008a airfoil and
aircraft wing, we conducted analysis at those cruise conditions. The atmospheric conditions at
cruise altitude are shown here:
Properties at Cruise Altitude

Property
Temperature
Pressure
Density
Dynamic Viscosity
Gamma
Gas Constant

SI Units
216.6 K
15,327 N/m2
0.24646 kg/m3
1.42x10-5 kg/m-s
287 J/Kg-K

English Units
390R
3095 psf
0.4623 slug/ft3
.2969 sl/ft-s
1.4
1717.23 ftlbf/slugR

15

Airfoil Performance
The performance of the NACA 64008a airfoil was evaluated with XFOIL; details are
provided in Appendix F: XFOIL Analysis. Plots of the lift coefficient (Cl) and drag coefficient
(Cd) versus angle of attack are shown below.
0.8
Coefficient of lift Cl

0.6

-4.5

0.4
0.2
-2.5

0
-0.5
-0.2

1.5

3.5

5.5

7.5

5.5

7.5

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Angle of Attack

Coefficient of Drag Cd

-4.5

-2.5

0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.5

1.5
3.5
Angle of Attack

Figure 9: Airfoil performance plots

These graphs are excellent references for deciding and confirming a wing's fixed angle of
attack. Historical data specifies that the typical angle of attack for a commercial aircraft is 1.
Referring to the table in Appendix F: XFOIL Analysis, our airfoil provides a lift coefficient of
0.1623 at = 1. We verified that this value would be sufficient to overcome the weight of the
aircraft with the following equation:
,
where W0 = initial weight and
. We calculated the minimum required lift coefficient
to be 0.04467, indicating that our jet will have no problem becoming airborne from the runway.

16

Wing Area
To calculate the initial size of the wing, the following equation was used:
,
where Swing = area of wing, W0 =initial weight of aircraft, and = wing loading.
The number we used for wing loading was the average of our reference planes: 70.475
lb/ft2 (344.087 kg/m2). A (non-final) value of 53.42 m2 resulted for our wing area.

Aspect Ratio
To calculate the aspect ratio of the wing the following equation was used:
,
where AR = aspect ratio, b = wingspan, and c = chord length.
Since the wingspan, b, and chord length, c, were not yet known, historical data was
needed for initial aspect ratio estimation. This can be found in the course textbook, in table 4.1.
A provided formula,
AR = aMmaxC
allows the calculation of aspect ratio. Values of 7 and -0.02 were used for a and c respectively,
and a Mach number of 0.7267 was used (this Mach number was obtained by dividing the
aircraft's cruise velocity by the speed of sound at 45,000 feet).
The resulting final aspect ratio is 7.46, very close to those of our reference aircraft. This
is a value close to that of historical reference aircraft, and while it may be slightly high on an
absolute scale, our aircraft is nonetheless able to easily support the resulting increased wing root
structural forces (see Structural Analysis section later).

Wingspan
To calculate the wingspan, we used the following formula:

Our values for aspect ratio and wing yielded a (non-final) wingspan, b, of 19.96 m. This
value is consistent with and close to the wingspans of the reference planes.

Wing Sweep
Our aircraft will have a wing sweep of 20 degrees, based on historical trends. This value
was obtained from the textbook. The following is the plot used to estimate this value:

17

Figure 10: Wing sweep trends

Wing Taper Ratio and Root Chord


A taper ratio, 0.45, chosen based on historical data, allows the root chord to be calculated
with the following equation:

where S is the wing reference area, b is the wingspan, and is the wing taper.
The resulting (non-final) root chord was 3.69 m. With this value, the wing's tip chord can
be calculated by manipulating the taper ratio formula and solving for Ctip:

The resulting (non-final) chord for the wingtip was 1.66 m.

Mean Chord Length


To calculate a mean chord length for our wing, we used the following equation:

Our (non-final) mean wing chord length, c, was 2.804 m.

Stall Behavior
The NACA 64008a has a maximum thickness of 8% of its chord. This value is less than
14% and falls in the moderate airfoil thickness category. Because of its thickness, this airfoil
stalls at the leading edge, as shown below.

18

Figure 11: Leading edge flow separation at stall

This airfoil's stall characteristics require a professional pilot familiar with leading-edge
stall behavior; in particular, during stall, the moment about the quarter-chord point changes
drastically, as shown here, and amateur pilots would likely be unable to maintain control of the
aircraft:

Figure 12: Moment coefficient about quarter-chord point

W/S Calculations
To size the aircraft wing accurately and safely, estimates must be made for the ratio of
W/S (weight to wing area). This value depends on the flight condition, and can vary substantially
during the flight. As a result, four values are calculated and compared, and the lowest (i.e., the
lowest wing loading) is selected for safety. Wing loading is important to determining an aircraft's
takeoff, stall and landing speeds, its cruise speed and, of course, its wing size.

19

Cruise

Cruise values for and V were used. CD0 was estimated at 0.015 for a streamlined jet,
and e0, the Oswald efficiency factor, was estimated using equation 12.50 in the textbook:

A value of 60.975 lb/ft2 resulted.

Loiter

The same values for and V were used as in the cruise calculation. A value of 105.61
lb/ft2 resulted.

Landing/Stall

New values for and V were used, assuming a generous landing altitude of 4,000 ft and a
stall speed of 120 kts, a good approximation of the stall speeds of our reference aircraft and
general trends. CLmax was approximated with Figure 5.3 from the textbook, assuming doubleslotted flaps, and was found to be around 2.5.
A value of 109.18 lb/ft2 resulted.

Takeoff

We have used the "alternative" (non-iterative) method to determine W/S for takeoff; the
iteration method produced contradictory values that would not allow us to complete the process.
In the above equation, SG is the takeoff distance (4,000 ft), g is acceleration due to gravity, and
the thrust-to-weight ratio was calculated (from Table 5.3) to be 0.23865 for our aircraft.
A value of 133.64 lb/ft2 resulted.
Each value was then corrected back to the "takeoff condition," i.e., in terms of the
aircraft's initial weight. The corrected values are presented below for ease of comparison.

20

Takeoff
133.64 lb/ft2

Cruise
82.09 lb/ft2

Loiter
145.22 lb/ft2

Landing
150.50 lb/ft2

Our takeoff W/S is very close to the historical trends given in the textbook in Table 5.5 for jet
transports, 120 lb/ft2 is the norm. Our lowest wing loading value is the W/S for the cruise
condition. Using it to calculate our aircraft's wing area, we obtained the following:

( )
This value is in perfect alignment with those of our reference aircraft; the Gulfstream G200 has a
wing area of 369 ft2, and the others are spread to both sides of our value.

Refined Weight (W0) Estimation


Having pinned down some of our aircraft's specifications, we repeated our algorithm to
estimate its W0, this time with a few changes and updates. To summarize:

The starting value for W0 was set to the final value from the first estimate.
L/D was calculated based on power sizing estimates, as the inverse of T/Wcruise.
Wingspan was updated to our new value, 15.98m.
An additional weight segment was added, Wdescent, where

We/W0 was improved with the formula in Table 6.1


Composite construction was still used, resulting in the usual weight reduction.

The final value for W0 is now 14543.4 kg, a weight increase of 5.92% over our first estimate.
This difference is small enough that it does not warrant redoing calculations elsewhere in the
design process. Details from this iterative process can be seen in Appendix B2, following the
initial estimates.
The following chart gives an idea of how fuel use is distributed over the course of an
average mission for our aircraft:

21

*
Cruise
76%

Loiter
11%
Taxi &
Takeoff
5%
Climb
5%

Descent
2%
Landing
1%

Figure 13: Fuel allocation

"Newton's Equations of Takeoff"


Simple equations of motion can be used to compute basic takeoff properties for our
aircraft. Both engines together produce 61,385 N of takeoff thrust (see the Engine Design section
that follows for details). For a takeoff weight of 15453 kg,

The resulting time to reach takeoff speed is

This translates to a takeoff roll of:

Thus, our aircraft can theoretically become airborne in 2,300 feet, although of course
friction and drag have been ignored here. Prevailing winds, runway conditions and other factors
would alter this somewhat, too.
The following graphic depicts our aircraft's theoretical minimum takeoff roll compared to
the lengths of the shortest runways at some of the world's major (and not so major) airports.

22

Shortest runways
Hong Kong
Heathrow
Denver
LAX
Charles de Gaulle
Frankfurt
Honolulu
Newark
T.F. Green
Worcester
Logan
0

2000

4000
6000
8000
Runway length (feet)

10000

12000

Figure 14: Takeoff capability

It is apparent, then, that our aircraft will have no problem serving any destination
required by our customer base. While we have not analyzed braking and deceleration, it is a safe
assumption that, if our aircraft can be landed at an airport, it will be able to take off from that
airport, too.

T/W Ratio and Fixed Engine Design


With the completion of the initial weight estimate, the T/W ratio was calculated using the
following equation:
( )
Our cruise thrust-to-weight ratio is 0.0967. Multiplication of this fraction by the initial weight
yields the minimum thrust needed for our aircraft to fly at cruise conditions. Our resultant
minimum thrust is 1,400 kg, or 4,100 lbf.
Basing our work on data from similar business jets, we have selected a fixed engine
design that uses two Pratt & Whitney 308B high bypass turbofans. Each engine produces
comfortably more thrust than our minimum specification for cruise, an important consideration
for engine-out maneuverability and other emergency conditions. The following table contains the
specifications for the 308B model (per engine):
P&W 308B
Take-off thrust (per engine) 8242 lb 3738 kg
Cruise thrust (per engine) 7400 lb 3356 kg
Dry weight 1043 lb 473 kg
1.92 m
Length 6.3 ft
0.914 m
Width 3 ft

23
Below, a depiction of our engines positioned inside the nacelles:

Figure 15: Installed PW308B engines

Updated Wing Characteristics


The slight increase in our initial weight estimate and the change in the wing loading
characteristics resulted in changes in the values for some of our wing geometries. Following are
the recalculated values.

Wing Area

A new, final value of 34.26 m2 resulted for our wing area.

Wingspan

Our values for aspect ratio and wing area yield a new, final wingspan, b, of 15.98 m. This
value is still consistent with wingspans of our reference planes.

Wing Taper Ratio and Root Chord


Our taper ratio remained the same, at 0.45. It allow calculation of the wing root chord:

24

The resulting, final root chord is 2.95 m. With this value, the final wingtip chord can be
calculated: 1.33 m.

Mean Chord Length


Our new, final mean aerodynamic chord length, c, is 2.25 m.

Tail Geometry
Our aircraft has a T-tail configuration, chosen for several reasons. Despite the T-tail's
typical disadvantage of adding to aircraft weight (due to required extra structural strengthening),
its advantages of the T-tail outweigh the disadvantages. One such advantage is that the T-tail
puts the horizontal tail clear of wing wake and engine exhaust. Another is its aestheticallypleasing design. Overall, however, the T-tail results in higher efficiency and a smaller tail than
would be possible if it were of a different design. Depicted below is our T-tail design:

Figure 16: T-tail

Horizontal Tail Geometry


The sweep of the horizontal tail's leading edge has been set to 25 degrees. This value was
obtained from historical data; a trend in past aircraft has been to sweep the horizontal tail 5
further than the wings. This increase in sweep angle ensures that the tail stalls later than the
wing, important to maintaining control and maneuverability in adverse conditions. An increase in
tail sweep angle also increases its critical Mach number relative to the wing; this prevents the
loss of elevator effectiveness in case of shock formation.
The taper ratio of the horizontal tail has been set to 0.85, based on historical data for Ttails.

Horizontal Tail Area


To calculate the initial size of the horizontal tail, the following equation was used:

25

where Swing = area of wing, =mean chord length of wing,


=tail volume coefficient and
LHT = length between wing and horizontal tail.
Our value for the tail volume coefficient was taken from historical data; this value is
0.085. The length between the wing and horizontal tail was estimated to be 6.34 m. A value of
5.37 m2 resulted for our horizontal tail area.

Horizontal Tailspan
To calculate the horizontal tailspan, we used the following formula:

Our values for aspect ratio and wing yield a tailspan, b, of 4.64 m. This value is
consistent with and close to the tailspans of reference aircraft.

Horizontal Tail Root Chord and Tip Chord


The root chord can be calculated as before, and results in a horizontal tail root chord of
1.25 m. The corresponding tailtip chord is 1.07 m.

Vertical Tail Geometry


The sweep of the vertical tail has been set to 30 degrees, again obtained using historical
data that indicates that vertical tails are swept 5-10 degrees further than the horizontal tail. The
increase in the sweep angle once again also increases the tail's critical Mach number relative to
the wing, preventing loss of critical yaw control during turbulence. The taper ratio of the vertical
tail has been set to 0.7, based on historical data for T-tails; T-tail vertical surface taper ratios are
in the range of 0.5 to 1.0, to provide adequate chord for the attachment of the horizontal tail and
associated control linkages.

Vertical Tail Area


Using a vertical tail volume coefficient taken from historical data (0.95), and an
estimated length from the wing to vertical tail of 6.34 m, we have assigned a value of 7.37 m2 for
the vertical tail area.

Vertical Tail Height


To calculate the height of our vertical tail, we used the following formula:

Our values for aspect ratio and wing yield a height, b/2, of 2.71 m.

26

Vertical Tail Chords


The horizontal tail base chord is 3.19 m. The corresponding top chord is 2.23 m.

Wing and Tail Geometry Summary


Property
Wingspan, b
Mean chord length, c
Wing area, S
Aspect ratio, AR
Wing sweep angle
Taper ratio,
Root chord length, Croot
Tip chord length, CTip
Airfoil thickness

SI Units
15.98 m
2.25 m
34.26 m2

English Units
53.46 ft
7.37 ft
368.80 ft2
7.461
20
0.45
2.95 m
9.70 ft
1.33 m
4.36 ft
0.08

Tails
Vertical
Height
Wing area, S
Root chord length, Croot
Tip chord length, CTip
Vertical taper ratio,
Tail A.R., vertical
Vertical tail sweep
Horizontal
Span, b
Wing area, S
Root chord length, Croot
Tip chord length, CTip
Vertical taper ratio,
Tail A.R.
Horizontal tail sweep

2.71m
7.37m2
3.19m
2.23m

8.91ft
79.43ft2
10.49ft
7.34ft
0.7
1.0
30

4.64m
5.37m2
1.25m
1.07m

15.21ft
57.85ft2
4.91ft
3.49ft
.85
4
25

Winglets
Our aircraft will employ winglets, as is common in modern business jets. While we will
not do detailed analysis on the benefits winglets impart, a few effects can be quantified in a basic
manner.
Winglets improve cruise speed, somewhere on the order of 5%. Maximum speed is not
increased by much, however. Rate of climb increases (see discussion in Maneuvers section) by
around 6%. Stall speed remains unaffected, and handling is improved.

27
Winglets improve aerodynamic efficiency by reducing drag (they help to dissipate
wingtip vortices, a contributor to induced drag at wingtips, and increase Oswald efficiency by
around 10%). Only zero-lift drag increases marginally, because of a small increase in wetted area
(we account for this when required in this report).
The handling benefits offered by winglets are numerous, too: rudder yaw control
improves, heading overshoot is reduced, and stall speeds are lower.
Our winglets are depicted below:
Front:

Side:

Top:

Figure 17: Winglets

Structural Analysis

Research into the nature of composite (carbon fiber) materials in aviation yielded the
discovery that composite wings support loads in a markedly different manner than conventional
aluminum construction. The skin of a carbon fiber aircraft is much
more capable of supporting loads than an aluminum skin would be,
and so the interior structure is very different.
Without the tools at our disposal to completely alter the way
we conduct structural analysis, we have elected to use a box spar,
which, to a limited degree, simulates the skin effect and also the
h
H
tube spars used in some carbon fiber aircraft. Our composite spar is
depicted here.
b
The area of the spar
Properties of carbon fiber
is BH bh. Its moment of
275 GPa

inertia is:
1.75 g/cm3

B
3.5 GPa
Tensile strength
Compressive strength 1.25 GPa
Figure 18: Box spar
[
]
0.69
Poisson's ratio
15.15 GPa
Shear modulus
55.15 MPa
Shear strength
For structural analysis, we used an elliptic
234.4 GPa
Young's
modulus
loading, which is characterized by a distribution as
follows:

With a total aircraft weight of 14,543 kg, the load supported by each wing at cruise is
(14543 / 2) * 9.81 = 71,262 newtons. A safety factor of 3.5 is used henceforth.

28
Integration of the distributed elliptic load results in the total reaction force that the
airframe must exert on the wing at the root. This value is 31,725 newtons.
Integration of the load multiplied by the distance at which it acts results in the total
reaction moment exerted on the wing at the root. This value is 675,977 newton-meters.
Integration of the distributed load with respect to the wingtip results in an equation for
the shear force acting at any point on the wing. The equation is as follows:

Integration of the load multiplied by the distance at which it acts, with respect to the
wingtip, results in an equation for the moment acting at any point on the wing:

Plots and graphical depictions of these functions can be seen below. Original data is
available in Appendix G: Structural Analysis Data.

Figure 19: Plot of shear force (N) and bending moment (N-m) throughout the wing

Figure 20: Shear force (left) and bending moment (right) distributions in the wing

29
Our spar is symmetrical about its center, so the cross-sectional centroid is easily located.
The spar's moment of inertia is calculated by subtracting that of the small rectangle from that of
the large rectangle.
Compressive and tensile stresses are easily determined. One simply multiplies the
moment at the wing root by a vertical distance within the beam, y, and divides by the moment of
inertia. The result can be used to determine the stresses at the points of greatest tension and
compression (along the vertical axis, not longitudinally). Along the top surface of the wing, the
stress is |

. Along the bottom, the stress is |

The values are the same because the spar is symmetrical about the longitudinal axis. Needless to
say, these values are well within the limits of our material, even accounting for very large safety
factors.
Finally, deflection analysis can be conducted. Integrating the moment equation twice
yields an expression for deflection, too complicated to include here. The wing deflection looks
like this:

Figure 21: Wing deflection

The maximum deflection occurs at the wingtip, and has a value of 6.603 mm. This is
certainly reasonable. In non-dimensional form:
or 0.08%

Landing Gear
As with virtually every other business jet in existence, our aircraft will employ tricycle
landing gear. This permits ease of entry, excellent ground handling, good pilot visibility, and the
ability to land "crabbed" in adverse crosswind conditions. The nosewheel will have two tires, to
allow some degree of steering control should one be punctured.
Using Table 11.1 in the textbook as a reference, we have sized our aircraft tires as
follows:
Diameter
Width
Rear tires
67 cm
19 cm
Front tires
60 cm
17 cm
Tires: 6 total
Pressure: 120 psi

30

Fuel Tanks
Based on a Wf/W0 of 0.3037 from our refined W0 estimate, our aircraft's fuel weight is
4416.8 kilograms. With a density of Jet A-1 fuel of approximately 800 kg/m3, our fuel tanks
must have a volume of 5.521 m3. Making some broad assumptions (like a uniform wing
thickness of 0.179 m, based on our airfoil characteristics), the tanks would need to have an area
(when seen from above) of 30.84 m2. This is under our aircraft's wing area, which is around 34
m2. As a result, our aircraft should be able to comply with FAA regulations for passengercarrying aircraft by storing all of its fuel in the wings.
The following is an approximate sketch of the fuel tanks' area and location. Of course,
real aircraft fuel tanks would be compartmentalized to permit pumping of fuel as ballast and to
maintain proper wing loading distributions.

Figure 22: Fuel tank location and size

Thrust-Drag Analysis
Drag is a function of two components that act at different speeds. Induced drag increases
in proportion to the square of the aircraft's velocity, while parasitic drag increases in proportion
to the inverse of the square of the aircraft's velocity. That is, induced drag goes to infinity as the
aircraft travels faster, while parasitic drag goes to zero:
0.03
CD Induced

0.025
0.02
C Do

0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0

100
200
Velocity (m/s)

300

0.0014
0.0012
0.001
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
0

Figure 23: Coefficients of drag

100

200

Velocity (m/s)

300

31
Induced drag is drag due to the lifting forces of the aircraft wing. According to one
explanation, lift is caused by a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing. At
the tips of the wing, however, air can move freely from the high pressure bottom to the low
pressure top of the wing. This movement induces drag through the creation of vortices (which
generate no lift). Two-dimensional induced drag coefficients can be calculated with the
following equation:

However, a better lift coefficient can be calculated for a 3D wing as follows:

,
(

where
, AR = aspect ratio, M = Mach number,
. The complete list of
calculations for induced drag are listed in Appendix H
Parasitic drag, as the name implies, is caused by friction between the air and components
that make up the aircraft's external structure. It can be approximated to any desired or required
degree using the "component build-up" method, which finds individual parasitic drags for each
part of the aircraft and sums them.
For our aircraft, we found drags for the following components: fuselage, tails (vertical
and horizontal), wings, winglets, and engines. We used the most recent version of our aircraft
drawings to ensure the most accurate dimensions for each component.
We used the following parameters, representing our aircraft's cruise conditions, in
determining its parasitic drag (V and Mach number are variables).
Altitude
45,000 ft

Temp.
216 K

0.2371 kg/m3

Vsound
295.06 m/s

The following are sample values taken at our cruise velocity of 485 kts:

Component
Fuselage
Vertical tail
Horizontal tail
Wing
Winglets
Engines

Length
18 m
2.4 m
1.35 m
2.25 m
0.6 m
2.7 m

Reynolds #
74,703,141
9,960,418
5,602,735
9,337,892
2,490,104
11,205,471

Cf
0.00208
0.00281
0.00309
0.00284
0.00355
0.00276

FF
1.2
1.449
1.530
1.458
1.505
1.162

Swetted
169.9 m2
18.0 m2
18.0 m2
54.0 m2
0.7 m2
21.2 m2

To produce our final thrust-drag plot, we performed the above calculations for velocities from 10
m/s to 290 m/s in increments of 10 m/s.
Formulas used are as follows:

32
Form factor calculations depend on the component being considered. Wings, tails and
winglets have a form factor determined by airfoil thickness and sweep, while the fuselage and
engine nacelles have a form factor determined by fineness ratios.
To calculate the total drag that of the plane the following equation is used.

A list of calculated values for total drag can be found in Appendix H. Our aircraft's cruise
speed can be confirmed with the following thrust-drag plot, indicating that cruise thrust and drag
intersect slightly above our specified cruise velocity of 250 m/s.
12000

Thrust & Drag

10000
8000
Drag

6000

Thrust
4000
2000
0
0

50

100

150
200
Velocity (m/s)

250

300

Figure 24: Thrust-drag plot

It should be noted that, as a result of thrust-drag analysis, we realized that our original
engine specification, the Pratt & Whitney 306A, was not powerful enough. The 306A was
therefore discarded in favor of the better-suited 308B.
Using maximum thrust instead of cruise thrust results in our aircraft's maximum speed:
524 kts (Mach 0.91). Our cruise speed is therefore 92.5% of our maximum speed.

Stability Analysis
The stability of an aircraft is a very important design consideration when conceptualizing
an aircraft. Pilot type becomes irrelevant if the plane cannot be made to fly in a stable,
predictable manner (whether by design or by complicated computer tricks). Complete stability
analysis typically considers pitch, roll and yaw moments and displacements within six degrees of
freedom. Due to time constraints, however, we will focus only on static pitch stability.
The first step of the stability analysis is to calculate the aircraft's neutral point, Xnp. This
location is significant because, if the center of gravity were to travel further aft, the aircraft
becomes unstable. As such, knowledge of its location is important to loading and weight

33
distribution, factors that are determined by pilots and computer weight management systems
before and during flight. The value of Xnp can be calculated as follows:

A value of 10.15 m from the aircraft nose results for our plane's neutral point.
The next step is to calculate the aircraft's most forward point, Xmf. The most forward
point, like the neutral point, represents a plane beyond which the center of gravity cannot pass if
stability and proper control are to be maintained. A center of gravity forward of the most forward
point results in control sluggishness and potentially dangerous flight conditions. The following
equation was used to calculate the most forward point:

Our aircraft's most forward point is located 9.09 m behind the nose.
The final step is to calculate the aircraft's center of gravity. As long as the center of
gravity lies between the neutral and most forward points, the aircraft will be stable and will
respond properly to control inputs. Our aircraft's center of gravity was determined, like parasitic
drag, using a component method. A simple statics equation was used:

Centers of gravity for the following components were used in the calculation:

Component
Wings
Horizontal tail
Vertical tail
Engines (both)
Nose gear
Main gear
Avionics
Fuel tanks (full)
Baggage
Fuselage
Passengers
Pilots
Bathroom

Weight
2467 kg
389 kg
388 kg
728 kg
100 kg
407 kg
225 kg
4416 kg
425 kg
3690 kg
800 kg
200 kg
300 kg

xCG
9.2 m
16.7 m
15.8 m
13.5 m
3.1 m
10.5 m
1.2 m
10 m
13.8 m
7.8 m
10 m
3.6 m
5.7 m

34
The total weight for the above components is 14535 kg, very close to our W0 estimate of 14543
kg. This yields a CG location of 9.58 m. Details are in Appendix I: Center of Gravity.
The simplest assessment of stability can be conducted:
Does

Our values satisfy this relation, and our aircraft is therefore stable in its pitch axis. A graphical
representation of the above relation is presented here (to avoid cluttering up our drawings
elsewhere):

Figure 25: Stability diagram

The distance between xnp and xmf is 1.06 m, or 37.8% of our aircraft's mean aerodynamic chord.
The static margin,

works out to 0.253, which is greater than zero, again indicating a stable design.

Maneuvers
Climb
We used the following equations to determine our aircraft's climb characteristics:
Climb angle:
Climb rate:

]
[

Our aircraft's resulting climb angle is 3.54. This corresponds to a climb rate of 15.42 m/s
or 3030 fpm. At this climb rate, our aircraft reaches its cruising altitude of 45,000 ft in
approximately 15 minutes, assuming a takeoff at sea level.
Research performed by NASA indicates that winglets, as used on our aircraft, can
dramatically improve rate of climb. Below 5,000 ft, winglets can raise ROC by 6%, and above

35
that altitude the improvement increases to roughly 15% ("Flight Evaluation of the Effect of
Winglets", Holmes et al., 1980). Theoretically, then, our aircraft could be capable of a climb
rate of up to 3485 fpm (above 5,000 ft), and thus could reach cruise altitude in the vicinity of 13
minutes, shaving two minutes off the non-winglet time. The corresponding improved climb
angle would be roughly 4.

Turn
We used the following equations to determine our aircrafts turn characteristics:
Turn Rate:

Turn Radius:
Our aircrafts calculated turn rate is 0.1316 rad/s or 7.54 deg/s. This results in a turn
radius of 1899 m (6230 ft or 1.18 miles). At this turn rate, our aircraft can complete an 180o turn
in roughly 24 seconds. This is a good value for our aircraft, providing a low response time if it
were necessary to turn the aircraft around and make an emergency landing. The load factor, n,
was set at 3.5 as in the structural analysis section.
An idea of the range of the turn radius values for our jet can be obtained from the
following graph.
3.5

*
Turn Rate (rad/s)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

50

100

150
200
Velocity (m/s)

250

300

350

Figure 26: Turn rate

Logo and Name


More for fun than anything else, we also named our aircraft company and model, as well
as creating simple logos for the same:

36

Figure 27: Logo

Vulcan was, of course, the Roman god of fire, metallurgy and technology. He produced
thunderbolts for Jupiter, the king of the Roman gods. Were Vulcan Aircraft to produce other,
perhaps larger jet models in the future, the naming theme lends itself to other logical (and
agreeable) names like "Jupiter" and "Lightning."

Conclusion and Summary


We present the Vulcan Thunderbolt, a new business jet capable of transporting six to
eight passengers on trans-Atlantic and inter-continental routes in complete comfort and luxury.
Featuring composite construction, a large fuel supply, and high safety margins, our aircraft is
well on its way through the design process.
No major pitfalls were encountered in our design process. Virtually every dimension,
weight and specification is in alignment with historical trends, although our aircraft does "push
the envelope" in a few areas like its composite construction. It checks out, structurally and in
maneuvers, and offers short-field capability and a rapid rate of climb.
As such, not much revision of existing work is necessary. Looking forward, however,
complete stability (in all three axes) would need to be conducted, the design would need to be
laid out and refined (detailed lofting), and scale-model testing and CFD analysis would need to
be conducted. Electrical, hydraulic, mechanical and aeronautical engineering expertise would be
required for these phases of design.
Because our aircraft is a business jet, comfort is of high priority to our customers. Our
interior has been laid out in a basic manner, but individual orders would have specific requests
for customization. Our large payload capacity would permit any number of interior appointments
to be installed.
Once design work ends, engineers perform cost analysis. Passing that, our aircraft would
be prototyped and would undergo rigorous testing by the FAA before receiving its flight
certification. If we were to go ahead with the design process immediately, we wouldn't expect
our aircraft to fly before sometime in 2010 or 2011. Reserve your Vulcan Thunderbolt today!

37

Appendix A: Historical Comparison Data

Hawker 800
Hawker 1000
Cessna S550 Citation
Cessna Citation X
Cessna Citation Excel
Learjet 45
Gulfstream G100
Hawker 400
Sabreliner
Learjet 35
Learjet 28
Learjet 40
Learjet 55
Learjet 23
Gulfstream IV
Gulfstream III
Gulfstream G200
Embraer Phenom 300
Embraer Legacy 600
Bombardier Global Express XR
Bombardier Challenger 500
Dassault Falcon 10
McDonnell 119
Eclipse 500

Pax.

Length (ft)

Wingspan

Height

Empty weight

Power

Year

8
8
8
8
8
9
?
7
6
8
8
6
7
6
15
25
8
6
13
12
14
6
10
5

51.1
51.1
47.25
72.3
63.6
57.5
55.6
48.4
44
48.6
47.5
55.5
55.1
35.6
88.3
88.3
62.25
52
85.4
99.4
68.4
45.4
66.5
33

54.3
54.3
52.25
63.6
63.2
47.8
54.6
43.5
44.5
39.5
43.8
47.8
42.75
43.25
77.9
77.9
58
53.1
68.9
94
64.3
42.9
57.6
37.2

18
18
15
19
20.4
14
18.1
13.9
16
12.25
12.23
14.1
14.6
12.25
24.4
24.5
21.4
16.3
22.1
24.9
20.6
15.1
23.6
11

15670
15670
8060
21700
17700
13695
14400
10550
9257
10119
?
?
12860
6151
35500
38000
19200
?
30000
49750
20485
10760
41000
3550

4660
4660
2500
6764
5686
3500
4250
2965
3000
3500
2944
3500
3750
3000
13850
11400
6040
3200
8810
14750
9140
3230
2980
900

1963
1962
1978
1996
1996
1995
1986
1996
1962
1973
1977
2002
1977
1963
1985
1979
2000
2008
2000
1993
1978
1970
1955
2006

The following formulas, applying to business jets in general, can be derived:

Wingspan = 25.16e0.012 (length)

Wingspan = 7*10-9 (empty weight)2 + 0.001 (empty weight) + 32.88

Empty weight = 25896 ln (number of passengers) 36903

Engine power = 196.4 (length) 6264

38

Appendix B1: Initial Weight Estimate Iteration


Initial parameters
SFC cruise
0.5 / hour

W0
14322 kg

Range
2500 nm

Speed
250 m/s

Wcrew
200 kg

Wpayload
2000 kg

Loiter endurance
1 hour

SFC loiter
0.4 / hour

Wingspan
17.1 m

First iteration
W0 Initial
14322 kg

W1 Taxi, takeoff
13892 kg

W4 Loiter
10418 kg

W5 Landing
10365 kg

W2 Climb
13683 kg
W5 / W0
0.7237

We / W0
0.5744

W0 new
16569 kg

Second iteration
We / W0
0.5694

W0 new
15968 kg

Third iteration
We / W0
0.5707

W0 new
16116 kg

Fourth iteration
We / W0
0.5704

W0 new
16078 kg

W3 Cruise
10807 kg
Wf / W0
0.2928

L/D
10.9

39

Appendix B2: Initial Weight Estimate Iteration


Initial parameters
SFC cruise
0.5 / hour

W0
16078 kg

Range
2500 nm

Speed
250 m/s

Wcrew
200 kg

Wpayload
2000 kg

Loiter endurance
1 hour

SFC loiter
0.4 / hour

L/D
10.34

Wingspan
15.98 m

First iteration
W0 Initial
16078 kg

W1 Taxi, takeoff
15756 kg

W4 Loiter W5 Descent
11616 kg
11529 kg

W2 Climb
14881 kg

W6 Landing
11471 kg
We / W0
0.5539

W6 / W0
0.71345

W0 new
15453 kg

Second iteration
We / W0
0.5539

W0 new
15453 kg

Only two iterations were necessary to converge the result.

W3 Cruise
12074 kg
Wf / W0
0.3037

40

Appendix C: Initial Weight Trade Studies


Range (nm) W0 (kg)
1500
12100
2000
14200
2500
16920
3000
20560
3500
25520
4000
32150
4500
38280
Weight = 0.002 (range)2 3.308 (range) + 12582

Loiter (hr)
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2

W0 (kg)
15819
16380
16980
17600
18280
18980
19740

Weight = 2609 (loiter) + 14421

Payload (kg) W0 (kg)


1000
9130
1500
12060
2000
14860
2500
17570
3000
20210
3500
22800
4000
25330
Weight = 5.387 (payload) + 3953

41

Appendix D: Artwork
Dimensioned drawings:

42

43

44

Side Concept art:

Front Concept art:

Top Concept art:

45

Design evolution:
Preliminary:

Interim:

Final:

Color schemes:

Yellow

Blue

"WPI"

Green

46

CAD drawing:

47

Appendix E: Airfoil Geometry Data


Non-dimensional, normalized coordinates for a NACA 64008a airfoil:
X
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0.0125
0.0075
0.005
0

Yu
0.00018
0.00438
0.00858
0.01278
0.01698
0.02117
0.02521
0.02897
0.03234
0.03524
0.03757
0.03921
0.03998
0.03972
0.03866
0.03681
0.03414
0.03047
0.02559
0.02245
0.01863
0.01353
0.00983
0.00778
0.00646
0

X
0
0.005
0.0075
0.0125
0.025
0.05
0.075
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1

Yl
0
-0.00646
-0.00778
-0.00983
-0.01353
-0.01863
-0.02245
-0.02559
-0.03047
-0.03414
-0.03681
-0.03866
-0.03972
-0.03998
-0.03921
-0.03757
-0.03524
-0.03234
-0.02897
-0.02521
-0.02117
-0.01698
-0.01278
-0.00858
-0.00438
-0.00018

48

Appendix F: XFOIL Analysis

-4
-3.9
-3.8
-3.7
-3.6
-3.5
-3.4
-3.3
-3.2
-3.1
-3
-2.9
-2.8
-2.7
-2.4
-2.3
-2.2
-2.1
-2
-1.9
-1.8
-1.7
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
-1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2

CL
-0.5911
-0.5788
-0.5693
-0.5585
-0.5464
-0.5334
-0.5198
-0.5061
-0.4914
-0.4767
-0.4623
-0.4482
-0.4413
-0.4265
-0.3825
-0.3678
-0.3529
-0.3379
-0.3226
-0.3072
-0.2915
-0.2756
-0.2596
-0.2435
-0.2273
-0.211
-0.1948
-0.1785
-0.1622
-0.146
-0.1297
-0.1134
-0.0972
-0.081
-0.0648
-0.0486
-0.0324
-0.0162
0
0.0162
0.0324
0.0486
0.0648
0.081
0.0972
0.1134
0.1297
0.146
0.1623
0.1785
0.1948
0.2111
0.2274
0.2436
0.2598
0.2758
0.2917
0.3075
0.323
0.3383
0.3534

CD
0.01868
0.01789
0.0167
0.01566
0.0147
0.01381
0.01301
0.01237
0.01173
0.01118
0.01075
0.01038
0.01114
0.01073
0.00971
0.00944
0.0092
0.00899
0.0088
0.00865
0.00851
0.0084
0.00831
0.00823
0.00817
0.00812
0.00808
0.00805
0.00802
0.008
0.00798
0.00796
0.00794
0.00793
0.00791
0.0079
0.0079
0.00789
0.00789
0.00789
0.0079
0.0079
0.00791
0.00793
0.00794
0.00796
0.00798
0.008
0.00802
0.00805
0.00808
0.00812
0.00817
0.00823
0.00831
0.0084
0.00851
0.00865
0.00881
0.00899
0.0092

CDp
0.01569
0.0148
0.01345
0.01225
0.01114
0.01013
0.0092
0.00839
0.00763
0.00695
0.00635
0.00581
0.00557
0.00508
0.0039
0.00358
0.00328
0.00302
0.00278
0.00258
0.0024
0.00224
0.00211
0.002
0.0019
0.00182
0.00175
0.0017
0.00165
0.00161
0.00157
0.00154
0.00152
0.0015
0.00149
0.00147
0.00147
0.00146
0.00146
0.00146
0.00147
0.00147
0.00148
0.0015
0.00152
0.00154
0.00157
0.00161
0.00165
0.0017
0.00175
0.00182
0.0019
0.002
0.00211
0.00224
0.0024
0.00258
0.00279
0.00302
0.00328

CM
-0.0214
-0.0206
-0.0197
-0.0187
-0.0178
-0.0169
-0.016
-0.0151
-0.0143
-0.0134
-0.0126
-0.0117
-0.0104
-0.0095
-0.0071
-0.0063
-0.0056
-0.0049
-0.0043
-0.0038
-0.0033
-0.0029
-0.0025
-0.0022
-0.0019
-0.0017
-0.0015
-0.0013
-0.0011
-0.0009
-0.0008
-0.0007
-0.0006
-0.0005
-0.0004
-0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0001
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
0.0009
0.0011
0.0013
0.0015
0.0017
0.0019
0.0022
0.0025
0.0029
0.0033
0.0037
0.0043
0.0049
0.0055

2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8

0.3683
0.3831
0.3978
0.4126
0.4274
0.4494
0.4636
0.4781
0.4929
0.5076
0.5214
0.5351
0.5481
0.5602
0.571
0.5804
0.5935
0.6096
0.6211
0.6299
0.637
0.6428
0.6477
0.6515
0.654
0.6553
0.6557
0.6555
0.6547
0.6522
0.6488
0.6454
0.6421
0.6383
0.6349
0.6324
0.632
0.6324
0.6324
0.6322
0.6314
0.6307
0.6299
0.6287
0.6263
0.6274
0.6278
0.6284
0.6291
0.63
0.6309
0.6319
0.6332
0.6348
0.6365
0.638
0.639

0.00944
0.00972
0.01002
0.01037
0.01074
0.0104
0.01076
0.01121
0.01176
0.0124
0.01305
0.01385
0.01475
0.01572
0.01677
0.01798
0.01868
0.01915
0.02016
0.02148
0.02294
0.02451
0.02616
0.02785
0.02955
0.03126
0.03301
0.03479
0.03663
0.03839
0.0402
0.04217
0.04426
0.04636
0.04862
0.05105
0.05349
0.05617
0.05881
0.06118
0.06336
0.06548
0.06752
0.06938
0.07104
0.07315
0.07519
0.07722
0.07922
0.0812
0.08314
0.08504
0.0869
0.08873
0.0905
0.09221
0.09391

0.00358
0.00391
0.00426
0.00466
0.00509
0.00583
0.00637
0.00698
0.00766
0.00842
0.00925
0.01017
0.0112
0.01232
0.01353
0.0149
0.0157
0.01622
0.01736
0.01883
0.02042
0.0221
0.02385
0.02565
0.02745
0.02927
0.03111
0.03297
0.03487
0.03668
0.03853
0.04056
0.04271
0.04486
0.04716
0.04963
0.0521
0.05479
0.05745
0.05986
0.06209
0.06424
0.06632
0.06829
0.07007
0.07224
0.07428
0.0763
0.0783
0.08028
0.08222
0.08411
0.08598
0.0878
0.08957
0.09128
0.09298

0.0062
0.007
0.0077
0.0085
0.0094
0.0115
0.0123
0.0132
0.014
0.0148
0.0157
0.0166
0.0175
0.0184
0.0193
0.0202
0.021
0.0217
0.0226
0.0234
0.024
0.0246
0.0251
0.0254
0.0256
0.0256
0.0255
0.0253
0.0248
0.0244
0.0238
0.0225
0.0207
0.0189
0.0167
0.0141
0.0115
0.0084
0.0056
0.0034
0.0018
0.0002
-0.001
-0.0019
-0.0022
-0.0039
-0.0052
-0.0064
-0.0076
-0.0087
-0.0098
-0.0108
-0.0117
-0.0127
-0.0135
-0.0143
-0.0149

Appendix G: Structural Analysis


z
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
3.75
4
4.25
4.5
4.75
5
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
6.25
6.5
6.75
7
7.25
7.5
7.75

V
-20309
-19500.5
-18692.7
-17886.6
-17082.8
-16282.2
-15485.7
-14693.9
-13907.9
-13128.3
-12356.2
-11592.4
-10837.9
-10093.6
-9360.61
-8639.91
-7932.65
-7240.01
-6563.25
-5903.73
-5262.89
-4642.34
-4043.83
-3469.31
-2921
-2401.45
-1913.67
-1461.27
-1048.85
-682.492
-370.997
-129.303

M
103360.5
96949.47
90657.66
84501.9
78497.73
72659.4
67000
61531.43
56264.5
51208.95
46373.44
41765.66
37392.24
33258.87
29370.2
25729.95
22340.81
19204.49
16321.69
13692.05
11314.15
9185.437
7302.174
5659.363
4250.638
3068.129
2102.279
1341.585
772.2251
377.486
136.7789
23.67364

0
1.37E-05
5.35E-05
0.000118
0.000205
0.000313
0.000441
0.000587
0.00075
0.000927
0.001119
0.001323
0.001539
0.001764
0.001999
0.002241
0.00249
0.002746
0.003006
0.003271
0.00354
0.003812
0.004086
0.004362
0.00464
0.004919
0.005199
0.005479
0.00576
0.006041
0.006322
0.006603

50

Appendix H: Calculated Drag


V (m/s)

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
295

Mach
0.03389
0.067781
0.101671
0.135561
0.169452
0.203342
0.237232
0.271123
0.305013
0.338903
0.372793
0.406684
0.440574
0.474464
0.508355
0.542245
0.576135
0.610026
0.643916
0.677806
0.711697
0.745587
0.779477
0.813368
0.847258
0.881148
0.915038
0.948929
0.982819
0.999764

Cl afla
0.082457
0.082464
0.082484
0.082523
0.082588
0.082685
0.082821
0.083004
0.08324
0.083537
0.083906
0.084355
0.084896
0.085541
0.086305
0.087207
0.088266
0.08951
0.090971
0.09269
0.09472
0.097132
0.100023
0.103529
0.10785
0.113295
0.120377
0.130023
0.14418
0.15428

Cd ind
C_d_o
0.000351 0.0244
0.000351 0.0224
0.000351 0.0214
0.000352 0.0208
0.000352 0.0203
0.000353 0.0199
0.000354 0.0196
0.000356 0.0193
0.000358 0.0191
0.000361 0.0188
0.000364 0.0186
0.000368 0.0185
0.000372 0.0183
0.000378 0.0181
0.018
0.000385
0.000393 0.0178
0.000402 0.0177
0.000414 0.0175
0.000428 0.0174
0.000444 0.0173
0.000463 0.0171
0.017
0.000487
0.000517 0.0169
0.000554 0.0167
0.000601 0.0166
0.000663 0.0165
0.000749 0.0163
0.000873 0.0162
0.001074 0.0161
0.016
0.00123

Cd
0.024743
0.022765
0.021761
0.021105
0.020621
0.020239
0.019924
0.019654
0.019416
0.019203
0.019009
0.018829
0.018661
0.018503
0.018354
0.018211
0.018073
0.017943
0.017817
0.017696
0.01758
0.017471
0.017369
0.017275
0.017192
0.017124
0.017082
0.017078
0.017151
0.017243

Drag
Thrust
16.28712 7476.00
59.94061 7476.00
128.9195 7476.00
222.2743 7476.00
339.3479 7476.00
479.6047 7476.00
642.6405 7476.00
827.9743 7476.00
1035.217 7476.00
1263.996 7476.00
1513.999 7476.00
1784.713 7476.00
2075.95 7476.00
2387.185 7476.00
2718.292 7476.00
3068.729 7476.00
3438.17 7476.00
3826.71 7476.00
4233.679 7476.00
4659.278 7476.00
5103.371 7476.00
5566.222 7476.00
6048.031 7476.00
6549.689 7476.00
7072.798 7476.00
7619.774 7476.00
8196.78 7476.00
8813.531 7476.00
9494.465 7476.00
9877.23 7476.00

51

Appendix I: Center of Gravity


Component
Wings
Horizontal tail
Vertical tail
Engines (both)
Nose gear
Main gear
Avionics
Fuel tanks
Baggage
Fuselage
People
Pilots
Bathroom
Total

Weight (kg)
2467
389
388
728
100
407
225
4416
425
3690
800
200
300
14535

xCG (m)
9.2
16.7
15.8
13.5
3.1
10.5
1.2
10
13.8
7.8
10
3.6
5.7

Moment (N*kg)
22696.4
6496.3
6130.4
9828
310
4273.5
270
44160
5865
28782
8000
720
1710
139241.6

52

Appendix J: Final Presentation Slides


SPECIFICATIONS

DUSTIN BRADWAY & KYLE MILLER

Two-crew small business jet (pax: 6 to 8)


485 kts cruise @ 45,000 feet
2 x PW308A

Business Jet

DRAWINGS

2,500 nm range, 1 hr loiter


2,000 kg payload including passengers
Composite materials
Quiet, efficient, comfortable
Airborne at 135 kts, stalls at 120 kts

DESIGN PARAMETER SUMMARY

Payload: 2,200 kg (2 crew, 8 passengers and baggage)


Stall: 120 kts; Cruise: 485 kts (M 0.84); VNE: 524 kts (M 0.91)
W0: 14,543 kg; We: 8,559 kg
L/D: 10.34; T/W: 0.0967
Airfoil: NACA 64008a; AR: 7.46; Wingspan: 15.98 m
5 dihedral; 8% thickness; 1 incidence angle, 45% taper, 20 sweep

T-tail; tailspan: 4.64 m; tail AR: 4.0


Wing loading: 82.09 lb/ft2
Dimensions: 18.61 m long; 6.60 m tall; 2.35 m fuselage diameter
Fuselage fineness ratio: 6.67

Fuel tank volume: 5.52 m3 (4417 kg of Jet A-1)

Box spar, carbon fiber


Moment and shear diagrams
Deflection

AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY


Cruise Thrust from engine > Cruise Thrust Calculated
12000

10000

8000

Thrust & Drag

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY

6000
Drag

Thrust
4000

2000

50

100

150
Velocity (m/s)

200

250

300

53

CREATIVE DESIGN

CREATIVE DESIGN

Coefficient of lift Cl

Concept art
XFOIL
-4.5

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

Historical data correlations


Trade studies

0.5

5.5

Coefficient of Drag Cd

16000

90

14000

80

12000

70
10000

60

Angle of Attack

50

0.1

8000

40

0.08

6000

30
0.06

4000

20
0.04

2000

10

0.02

0
0

0
-4.5

Length (X) vs. Engine Power (Y)

Length (X) vs. Wingspan (Y)


100

0.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

0
0

20

40

60

5.5

Angle of Attack

FUTURE SOLUTIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Complete Stability Analysis


CFD code for fluid forces on Plane

Plane is within Historical Data


Plane is lighter than similar planes
Composite Material

Creative New Design

80

100

120

Вам также может понравиться