2.

PRELIMINARY WEIGHT ESTIMATION

2.1 Background
The basic mission specifies that an airplane be designed to carry NP passengers at a
cruising speed of V miles per hour over a range of R miles using turbojet or turbofan
engines. This specification actually contains all the major economic information which
will decide whether or not a particular commercial design will be successful. The
airplane itself will have an empty weight WE that we shall see is proportional to the
capital cost of the airplane. Thus this weight component is an important driver in
determining the purchase price of the airplane to a prospective buyer. The operating cost,
i.e. the expense incurred by the operator in flying the airplane, is made up of several parts
including fuel expense, crew expense, and maintenance expense. The first item is a
function of airplane design and engine performance while the last two items are
influenced by FAA requirements and tend to be dependent on the size of the airplane.
Therefore major attention will be paid to the amount of fuel necessary to operate the
airplane in accomplishing the mission specification. This factor is readily expressed as
WF, the weight of fuel which must be carried by the airplane. Finally, there is the positive
factor of income generation by the airplane which is accomplished by charging a fee for
each passenger. This illustrates the importance of the payload: it is that portion of the
take-off weight WTO which contributes revenue and is proportional to the number of
passengers. Thus the payload weight WPL=kNP where k is a constant which is generally
set by the operator based upon experience and includes the weight of the typical
passenger and accompanying baggage. Values for this factor k range between 205 and
215 pounds per passenger (Torenbeek, Ref. 2-1, p.79).This value considers an average
passenger weight of 170lbs and an average luggage weight per passenger of 35lbs (short-
hail flights) to 40lbs (long-haul flights. Revenue may also be produced by cargo carried
as part of the payload, but this is difficult to specify in the initial design, being dependent
upon the priorities placed on cargo by different airline operators. Therefore the payload in
the initial design phase will be set by the passenger load alone as described previously.
Once the fuselage design is accomplished the volume available in the cargo hold, over
and above that necessary to accommodate the checked luggage, can be estimated. Then
the additional payload due to freight can be included in the refined weight estimate.

2.2 Weight Components

The take-off weight of the airplane is defined as WTO = WOE + WF + WPL where all terms
have been defined previously except for the operating empty weight of the airplane, WOE
= WE + WTFO + WCREW. The operating empty weight of the airplane is the weight of the
airplane in a condition ready to fly, but with no fuel or payload yet taken on board. It
therefore includes the empty weight of the airplane, WE, the weight of the trapped fuel
and oil (that is, the fuel and oil left in lines and at the bottom of tanks, etc., and therefore
necessary but unusable), WTFO , and the weight of the crew, WCREW . This last term
includes the weight of the flight crew, the flight attendants, and all their baggage. The
number of crew members is usually set by the operator with minima stipulated by the
FAA while the baggage allowance is set by the operator. Torenbeek gives a chart for

27
estimating the number of passengers per flight attendant, a portion of which is given in
Table 2-1. When the number of crew members is determined, their total weight may be
found by using the weight factor k that was used for the passengers. Different values of k
for the flight crew and the flight attendants may be used in later design iterations, but for
preliminary design purposes it is sufficient to use the same average weight for all persons
on board, whether they are flight crew members, flight attendants, or passengers.
Consideration of additional payload in the form of cargo freight will be considered
subsequently, as discussed in Section 2.1.

Table 2-1 Standard Flight Attendant Schedule

Average number of passengers per flight attendant

First Class Mixed Tourist
International Flights 16 21 31
U.S. Domestic Flights 20 29 36

The total usable fuel weight, WF, may be considered to be made up of two parts, the fuel
necessary for the mission of R miles WF,USED and the fuel reserve WF,RES . Again, the latter
is generally set by the operator within the requirements posted by the FAA. The take-off
weight may then be expressed as follows:

WTO = WE + WTFO + WPLC + WF,USED + WF,RES (2-1)

Note the following definitions:

MTFO = WTFO/WTO

WF = WF,USED + WF,RES

MFUEL = WF/WTO

WPLC = WPL + WCREW

This expression for WTO in Eq. (2-1) may be solved for WE and the result written as

WE = (1 – MTFO – MFUEL)WTO – WPLC (2-2)

Thus, the equation for the empty weight is that for a straight line, i.e., WE = aWTO + b.
This result is shown schematically in Fig. 2-1 where it is seen that the quantity WPLC is the
anchor point for the design of the airplane. All the possible results for WE radiate out
from the point (0, -WPLC) and depend upon the coefficient of the WTO term.

28
The remaining problem in the weight estimation process is the determination of the
coefficient of the take-off weight in the equation for empty weight. That is, the slope of
the line given by a = 1 – (MTFO + MFUEL), where the term MFUEL clearly depends upon the
amount of fuel used in carrying out the mission specification including the reserve
requirements. The total weight of fuel actually used is WF = WTO – WFINAL and

WF/WTO = 1 – WFINAL/WTO = 1 - MFINAL (2-3)

This means that the fraction of take-off weight that is usable fuel is given by MFUEL = 1 -
MFINAL. The fuel fraction MFUEL may be found by applying a chain product of n stage
weight fractions as follows:
n
W W W
M FINAL = FINAL = 11 = ∏ i (2-4)
WTO W0 i =1 Wi −1

WE

Increasing
(1 – MTFO - MFUEL )

0
WTO

-WPLC
Figure 2-1 Empty weight as a function of take-off weight

Here we are using eleven stages to the mission: engine start and warm-up, taxi, take-off,
climb, cruise to full range, one hour additional flight at cruise conditions, descent to
destination and refused landing, climb, diversion to alternate airport 200nm distant,
descent, landing. These stages are numbered and appear in the Fig. 2-2 and Table 2-1.
The normal flight plan calls only for stages 1 through 5 plus stages 10 and 11 while
stages 6 through 9 represent possible flight diversions due to poor weather or other such
situations. These extra stages require the use of the reserve fuel which must always be
carried by the aircraft. Operational rules for determining fuel reserve requirements are set
out by the Air Transportation Association of America and are described in Appendix I.

29
 5 6 9

4
8 1
7
0

1 2 3 11

Figure 2-2 Mission profile showing the 11 flight stages for a domestic flight
(R<3000 nm). International flights have an additional segment between 10 and 11
calling for a 30 minute hold at 15,000 ft altitude and segment 6 is calculated at
10% of the normal cruise time, rather than a blanket 1 hour.

These rules have been used in setting out the additional flight segments mentioned
previously. To calculate the portion of fuel used and the portion of fuel kept in reserve we
note that the former is given by

WF ,USED
= M F ,USED = 1 − M FINAL − M F , RES (2-5)
WTO

Then the nominal landing weight fraction is

WLAND , NOM
= M FINAL + M F ,RES (2-6)
WTO

The latter term is given by

WF , RES  5 W  9
W 
M F , RES = =  ∏ i  1 − ∏ i  (2-7)
WTO  i =1 Wi −1   i = 6 Wi −1 

The total fuel, it will be recalled, is

WFUEL W
= 1 − FINAL = 1 − M FINAL (2-8)
WTO WTO
Recall that the normalized maximum fuel load is given by

WF ,USED + WF , RES
M FUEL = = M F ,USED + M F ,RES (2-9)
WTO

30
For purposes of illustration, this term may be approximated using information on empty
weights and numbers of passengers quoted in the literature for 41 operational jet airliners
as follows:

WTO − WE − WPLC W + WPLC

M FUEL ≈ = 1− E (2-10)
WTO WTO

Data using his approximation is shown in Fig. 2-3 along with a trend line given by MFUEL
= 0.0048R1/2. Note that for very long range aircraft the total fuel fraction approaches half
the take-off weight. This information provides a check on the estimates being made for
the fuel requirements of the aircraft being designed.

The eleven general mission stages are described in the Table 2-1, along with Roskam's
(Ref. 2-2) suggestions for applicable average weight fractions. Note that stages 6 through
9, inclusive, are typical of FAA reserve requirements and that the normal flight includes
only stages 1 through 5, plus 10 and 11. The terms used in the table are explained more
fully later in this chapter.

0.6

0.5
1 - (We+Wpl)/Wto

0.4

0.3
1-(We+Wpl)/Wto = 0.0048R^0.5
0.2

0.1

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Range (miles)

Figure 2-3 The total fuel fraction MFUEL as a function of range as estimated from
available information on 41 jet operational airliners. The solid line is an
approximate curve fit to the data shown.

The ratio of the weight of the aircraft at the end of stage i to the weight at the start of
stage i (i.e. the end of the previous stage) is Wi/Wi-1. Compilations of representative
values for these weight fractions for all stages except the cruise stage are given in Ref. 2-
2 and appear in the Table 2-2.

31
 Table 2-2 Weight Fractions for the Various Mission Segments

Stage Description Wi/Wi-1

1 Engine start and warm-up 0.990
2 Taxi 0.990
3 Take-off 0.995
4 Climb 0.980
5 Cruise to full range exp [-RCj/V(L/D)]
6 One hour additional flight at cruise conditions exp [-Cj/(L/D)]
7 Descent to destination and refused landing 0.990
8 Climb 0.980
9 Diversion to alternate airport 200n.m. distant exp [-230Cj/V(L/D)
10 Descent 0.990
11 Landing 0.992

Obviously it is during the cruise stage that the major portion of the fuel weight will be
consumed and therefore the details of the aircraft operating performance must be
considered. It may be noted that once the characteristics of the airplane are known in
greater detail it will be possible to more accurately determine the weight of fuel used
during climb and descent and this would be carried out in order to obtain more refined
weight estimates. For example, Fig. 2-4 shows the ratio of the weight at the end of climb
to that at the start of climb as a function of the weight at start of climb; that is, the ratio
W4/W3 in Table 2-2. The values shown are taken from Shevell (Ref. 2-3), and refer to the
fuel to climb for the Douglas DC-10-10 airliner; in particular, the data for the case of
climb to 35,000 ft was used. In Table 2-2 Roskam's generic value, W4/W3=0.98, is
specified, and this is reasonably close to the more accurate values in Fig. 2-2. A
discussion of the climb and descent segments of the mission profile is presented in
Chapter 8.

Our objective is to estimate the empty weight of the design aircraft and in order to obtain
an appreciation of where the value of WE for the new design should lie within the
radiating fan of lines in Fig. 2-1 it is instructive to see what historical precedents apply.
Roskam (Ref. 2-2) has collected a substantial database on existing aircraft and has
generated curve fits describing the relationship between WE and WTO. These results
suggest a correlation equation of the form

log10 WE = ( log10 WTO − A ) / B (2-

11)

32
In Eq. (2-11) the values of A and B are constants that are different for different classes of
aircraft. For jet transport aircraft Ref. 2-2 offers A = 0.0833 and B = 1.0383, which is
actually very close to a straight line and may be approximated by the equation
WE = 0.5WTO . A database that has been compiled here for 45 operational transports
provides the results shown in Fig. 2-5 which support this simplified result.

0.978
0.976
Climb Weight Fraction

0.974
0.972
0.97
0.968
0.966
0.964
0 100 200 300 400 500
Gross Weight (000 lbs)

Figure 2-4 The ratio of the weight at the end of climb to that at the start of climb
as a function of the gross weight at start of climb; that is, the ratio W4/W3 of Table
2-1. The values shown are taken from Shevell (Ref. 2-3), for the Douglas DC-10-
10 airliner; in particular, the data for the case of climb to 35,000 ft was used.

It must be kept in mind that this simple correlation is based on wide variety of
commercial aircraft built over a fairly long period of time and the scatter, though
appearing small on Fig. 2-5, is in the range of up to tens of thousands of pounds. When
the focus is narrowed to the particular class of market survey aircraft considered, the
scale of the graph of WE vs. WTO will be larger and the deviations from the historical
curve more evident. The utility of a correlation of this type is in its ability to provide a
guideline for the development of a new design.

There is a slight nonlinearity in the relationship of empty weight to take-off weight that is
not apparent in Fig. 2-5, but is made clearer in Fig. 2-6. There the correlation

−0.079
We  W 
= 0.82  to  (2-12)
Wto  1000 

We
is shown to fit the actual data better than the simple approximation = 0.5 .
Wto

33
 700.0

Empty weight, We (klbs)

600.0 Actual weights
logWe=(logWto - A)/B
500.0
We=0.5Wto
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0
Take-off weight, Wto (klbs)

Figure 2-5 Empty weight versus take-off weight for 45 operational transports

0.700
Empty weight fraction,

0.600
0.500
We/Wto

0.400
0.300 We/Wto = 0.82/(Wto)^.079
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0
Take-off weight, Wto (klbs)

Figure 2-6 Variation of the empty weight fraction We/Wto with take-off weight
Wto for the 45 transports of Fig. 2-4 illustrating the slight nonlinearity of the
relationship between the empty weight and the take-off weight.

As an additional indicator of the design range for the new aircraft under consideration
one may make use of the characteristics of the three or four market survey aircraft that
have a similar mission. Since the empty and take-off weights are known for these aircraft
they may be represented as discrete points on a WE vs. WTO plot. Those points, which
represent the aircraft most like the design aircraft, serve to further limit the probable
region of the design plot where the new aircraft will fall. This is shown in Fig. 2-7.

34
 WE
WE=aWTO +b

WE=0.504WTO

Market survey aircraft

0 WTO

-WPLC

Figure 2-7 Estimation of empty weight using empirical weight relations and
characteristics of market survey aircraft which are shown as circular symbols

2.3 Fuel Consumption in Cruise

A discussion of the Breguet range equation suitable for this stage of the investigation is in
Chapter 8 and it may be written as follows:

V L W
R= log e 4 (2-13)
Cj D W5

This form is applicable to aircraft powered by turbofan or turbojet engines; here R is the
range, V is the cruise speed, L/D is the lift to drag ratio, and Cj is the thrust specific fuel
consumption. All the variables in the equation are to be evaluated under cruise
conditions. The fuel weight fraction expended during cruise may be obtained from the
above equation in the following form:

W5   V L  −1 
= exp  − R    (2-
W4   C j D  
 
14)

In this equation the units must be consistent, for example, R in miles, V in miles per hour,
and Cj in pounds fuel per hour per pound of thrust, so that the argument of the
exponential function is dimensionless. One may now determine a value for W5/W4,
W6/W5, and W9/W8 and therefore MF for the prescribed range if one picks a set of values
for V, Cj, and L/D. A range of representative values for some of these parameters may be

35
found in Refs. 2-1 and 2-2. Of course, wherever possible, it is preferable to use
information from the market survey aircraft to improve the estimates for these values.

2.4 Selection of Cruise Performance Characteristics

The cruise speed V should be as high as is reasonable, remembering that the drag rises
with the square of the speed and the engines selected later on in the design process must
provide the thrust to overcome this drag. At the speeds considered for jet transports it is
preferable to consider the cruise Mach number since the drag is a strong function of the
Mach number. Furthermore, the commercial jet transports considered here generally
cruise in the stratosphere where the atmospheric temperature, and therefore the speed of
sound, is approximately constant, so it is also convenient to work with the cruise Mach
number. Standard atmospheric profiles may be used in the design process, as shown in
Appendix J. Typical cruise Mach numbers are in the range of 0.76<M<0.86 and the
actual values for the market survey aircraft may be used as a guide for the present design.

Similarly, the cruise value of the specific fuel consumption should be as low as possible,
but should be in keeping with existing or planned engine characteristics. Current turbofan
technology has provided cruise specific fuel consumptions in the range 0.5<Cj<0.6 in the
units of pounds of fuel per hour per pound of thrust. Again, published data for the engines
used by the market survey aircraft can provide a guide for representative values to be
used for the current aircraft design. It should be noted that some engine data shows values
for take-off specific fuel consumption which are down around 0.3 to 0.4 pounds of fuel
per hour per pound of thrust, but this applies only to take-off conditions and should not
be used for cruise calculations. For example, in the cost estimating procedure given in
Appendix J, the Air Transportation Association suggests 15 minutes for ground maneuver
time, including 1 minute for take-off. As indicated in Table 2-1, Roskam suggests
W3/W0=.99*.99*.995=0.9752. Then, for a 300,000 lb take-off weight the fuel consumed is
7,440 lb and therefore the fuel consumption rate is 29,760 lbs/hr. For a typical take-off
thrust to weight ratio of (T/W)to=0.3, the take-off thrust is Tto=90,000 lb and the effective
TSFC= 29,760/90,000= 0.33, which is roughly equivalent to the take-off value of about
0.35 that will often be seen to be quoted. To repeat, the value of TSFC for cruise is
considerably larger, namely 0.5 to 0.6.

The lift to drag ratio L/D represents the aerodynamic efficiency of the airplane and should
be as high as possible. Current commercial jetliners have lift-to-drag ratios in the range
of 14<L/D<19, with the higher values associated with long-range versions. The actual
L/D for the design aircraft will ultimately be calculated so it is wise, as usual, to try to
make reasonable estimates at every stage of the design. Though the cruise lift for an
aircraft is easily determined since it is merely equal to the weight of the aircraft at any
stage of the cruise, the drag is not easily determined. Indeed the drag is a closely guarded
secret of the aircraft manufacturer and great efforts are expended to continually reduce
the drag of new designs. The techniques used for reduced drag designs are quite
sophisticated and beyond the scope of this handbook. Thus the lift-to-drag ratios to be
determined later in the design process will not be as high as achieved in current practice,
so it is advisable to be somewhat conservative in the choice of the cruise lift-to-drag ratio,

36
probably confining the maximum value to 16.
Loftin (Ref. 2-4) discusses the estimated L/D for the Boeing B-707 and the Douglas DC-
8, which he gives as 19.0-19.5 and 17.9, respectively. He suggests that the additional
length of the DC-8 fuselage increases the total wetted area of the airplane and therefore
the profile drag coefficient CD,0, thereby bringing down L/D. The Boeing 767-200 is said
to have L/D=18. Once, again, the reduction from the 19 or so of the B-707 is attributed to
the fact that the ratio of wetted surface area to wing planform area, Swet/S, is larger for the
B 767-200, although S is comparable for both. The Boeing B-747 is estimated to have
L/D=18, like the B 767-200. Other wide-body airliners, like the older Lockheed L 1011-
200 and the McDonnell-Douglas MD 10-30 are estimated to have L/D values between 17
and 17.5. Heffley and Jewell (Ref. 2-5) present data on the characteristics of a number of
aircraft in cruise, as well as in power approach and landing configurations. A particular
case is that of the Convair CV-880, a medium size four jet airliner, similar to and
contemporaneous with the B 707 and DC-8 airplanes. The L/D and ML/D behavior with
Mach number is shown in Fig. 2-8. Note that although the L/D drops quite rapidly with
Mach number, the more important quantity for the range equation, ML/D ~ VL/D, drops
much more slowly.

20
Convair CV-880 35 kft
L/D 23 kft
15
ML/D
35 kft
10
Power approach
23 kft
Landing
5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mach Number

Figure 2-8 Data from Heffley and Jewell (Ref. 2-5)shows L/D and ML/D for the
Convair CV-880 jetliner at two altitudes. The L/D for power approach and
landing at sea level is also shown.

2.5 Fuel Characteristics

Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon fuel composed primarily of paraffin (approximately 70%) and
aromatic (approximately 20%) petroleum compounds. Some characteristics are shown in
Table 2-3 as taken from Ref. 2-6. The most commonly used fuel in the U.S. is Jet A and
that fuel will be used in developing the aircraft design. Fuel density is variable and fuel is
sold on a volumetric rather than a weight basis, so for it will be considered sufficient to
use the standard density shown. Some of the fuel (and lubricating oil) carried on the

37
aircraft will not be drainable from the tanks and therefore is unusable. The weight of this
component has been denoted by WTFO and we need an estimate of this value to calculate
the term MTFO used in the relation between WE and WTO used to generate Fig. 2-7.
Torenbeek (Ref. 2-1, p. 292) provides an expression for the weight of trapped fuel and oil
in terms of the volume of the fuel tanks on the aircraft. That expression can be converted
into an expression involving the weight of the fuel by using the value for the density of
Jet A in Table 2-3. Using Torenbeek’s approach on the database of 41 operational
airliners results in the data shown in Fig. 2-9, for which the following curve fit applies:

M TFO ≈ 0.227 M FUEL

2/3
WTO−1/ 3 (2-15)

Table 2-3 Characteristics of Commonly Used Jet Fuels

General U.S. U.S. Density Freezing Energy Energy

Designation Commercial Military at Point in Content Content
Designation Designation 15C in degrees C Btu/lb Btu/gal
lb/gal
Wide –cut Jet B JP-4 6.36 -50 to -58 18,720 119,000
gasoline
Kerosene Jet A, JP-8 6.76 -40 to -50 18,610 125,800
Jet A-1

0.003

0.0025
Mtfo=0.227(Mfuel)^2/3(Wto)^-1/3
0.002
Mtfo

0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0
0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000
Take-Off Weight (lbs)

Figure 2-9 Application of Torenbeek’s expression for trapped fuel and oil (Ref 2-
1, p.292) to the commercial airliner database and a curve-fit to the results

This expression for MTFO depends upon WTO (in pounds) while in the equation for WE it
was assumed that it is a constant. However, it is expected that MTFO will be small, and it

38
can be demonstrated that it lies in the range 0.001<MTFO<0.005. Therefore it is suggested
that MTFO be estimated using the value of MFUEL calculated and an approximate value for
WTO based on the values for the market survey aircraft.

2.6 Estimation of the Take-off and Empty Weights

Equipped with a small set of reasonable performance estimates for the design aircraft a
number of design lines can be entered on the WE vs WTO plot. The vicinity of the
confluence of the design lines, the historical data correlation, and the market survey data
correlation is the design region and this is illustrated in Fig. 2-10. It is within this design
region that the design choice exists and it must be finally be specified. That choice will
be one which best defines the initial estimate of the empty weight and the take-off weight
of the design aircraft. These weights will influence the subsequent development of the
design and if they are chosen poorly may require substantial alteration and iteration later
on. Nevertheless a choice must be made and the major result of this chapter of the design
report is the design plot of Fig. 2-10 with all its information and the final values for WE
and WTO and the associated assumed performance data.

WE
Design curves for various values of V, Cj, and L/D

Design region

Market survey aircraft

Historical Correlation
WE=0.5WTO

0 WTO

-WPLC

Figure 2-10 General design curve illustrates the manner in which the design
region is determined. The final choice for WE and WTO is set by the
appropriate values of V, Cj, and L/D for the proposed aircraft.

The design lines for the different sets of Cj, V, and L/D should appear and be identified on
the design chart as should the market survey aircraft points. The design point for your
aircraft must be clearly shown and a discussion illustrating the criteria by which this
choice was made is to be included in the report. In addition, a weight breakdown table

39
showing the relevant data for the market survey aircraft and for the design aircraft should
be provided. Of course, all of the work carried out must be described in the narrative of
the chapter.

2.7 New Materials for Weight Reduction

The need to reduce aircraft weight has manufacturers on a quest for new materials that
can outperform conventional airplane construction materials at lower weight. There is
extensive work underway to incorporate ever-greater percentages of aircraft structure to
composite materials in particular and they are being assiduously pursued in the new 555
passenger Airbus A380 and the proposed Boeing 7E7, among others. There is still
concern about material lifetime, particularly with regard to fatigue, as well as to the
ability to affordably accommodate repair and maintenance work. There are other issues
surrounding the use of composite regarding porosity, environmental robustness, effect of
lightning strikes, and the like. A chart indicated the rapidly growing use of composites in
aircraft with the A380 using it for around 25% of total airframe weight and Boeing
proposing to use up to 50% in the B7E7. Military aircraft are leading the way in this
regard with the Bell Boeing V-22 and the Eurofighter already using composites for about
75% of the airframe weight and the F/A-22 and F/A-18E/F using between 50% and 60%.
The material of choice for the Airbus A380 is glass fiber reinforced aluminum while that
for the Boeing 7E7 is carbon fiber reinforced plastic, known as CFRP. See Refs. 2-7 and
2-8.

2.8 Weight Estimation for Turboprop Powered Aircraft

The recent rapid rise in fuel prices has forced a revaluation of turboprop powered aircraft,
particularly for regional airline service. For short range applications the cruise speed is
not as important in keeping travel time brief as it is for longer range flight. This becomes
apparent when one considers that most of the time in a short range flight is spent in
taxiing from the gate, climbing, descending, and once again taxiing to the gate. The best
time advantage for a turbofan compared to a turboprop may be assumed to be in the ratio
of the cruise speeds, that is, about 500mph/350mph =1.43, a 90 minute flight in a
turbofan would be about a 2 hour flight in a turboprop. Of course, a transcontinental
flight would be quite different, with a 6 hour flight becoming a 9 hour flight. Thus for
ranges of up to 500 or 600 miles the turboprop can deliver its good fuel economy with
relatively little passenger inconvenience. In general, the public has been moved to
consider jet aircraft to be the preferred mode of travel, even foe regional distances, so that
the question remains as to how much emphasis will be placed on returning turboprops to
a major role in airline service. At the moment the high and uncertain fuel prices are
moving airline operators to seriously consider asking aircraft manufacturers for advanced
design turboprop aircraft. The weight estimation procedures in Section 2 are still
applicable with some minor changes specific to turboprop engines. In particular, Table 2-
2 showing the weight fractions for different mission segments is modified for turboprop
applications as given by Roskam (Ref. 2-2) and is shown in Table 2-4.

40
 Table 2-4 Weight Fractions for the Mission Segments for Turboprop Aircraft

Stage Description Wi/Wi-1

1 Engine start and warm-up 0.990
2 Taxi 0.995
3 Take-off 0.995
4 Climb 0.985
5 Cruise to full range exp [-RCp/375η p(L/D)]
6 One hour added flight at cruise conditions exp [-RCpV/375η p(L/D)]
7 Descent to destination and refused landing 0.985
8 Climb 0.985
9 Diversion to alternate airport 200n.m. distant exp [-200Cp/375η p(L/D)
10 Descent 0.990
11 Landing 0.995

The correlation between empty weight and take-off weight given by Eq. (2-12) is still
appropriate so that the only factors to deal with are the two new variables, Cp and η p,
appearing in Table 2-4. The quantity Cp is the specific fuel consumption of the turboprop
engine in the units of pounds of fuel per hour per shaft horsepower (lbs/hr-hp) and the
quantity η p is the propeller efficiency and is dimensionless. Note that the range R is still
in miles and the velocity V is the cruise velocity in miles per hour. The cruise speed of
turboprop commercial aircraft are in the range of 300mph to 350mph while lift to drag
ratios while lift to drag ratios are in the range of 14 to 18. Propeller efficiencies are in the
range of 82% to 92% while specific fuel consumption is in the range of 0.5 to 0.7 lbs/hp-
hr. The procedure for estimating the take-off and empty weights follows that given
previously for turbofan aircraft.

2.8 References

2-1 Torenbeek, E.: Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1982.

2-2 Roskam, J.: “Rapid Sizing Method for Airplanes”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 23,
No. 7, July 1986, pp. 554-560.

2-3 Shevell, R.: Fundamentals of Flight, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989

2-4 Loftin, K.: Quest for Performance – The Evolution of Modern Aircraft, NASA
SP-468, 1985

41
2-5 Heffley, R.K. and Jewell, W.F.: “Aircraft Handling Qualities Data,” NASA CR-
2144, December, 1972

2-6 Chevron Products Company: “Aviation Fuels Technical Review”, FTR-3, Chapter
2, 2000, www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/aviationfuel/toc.shtm

2-7 Aviation Week and Space Technology, April 26, 2004, p.59

2-8 National Research Council, et al: “New Materials for Next-Generation

Commercial Transports”, National Academy Press, 1996, on-line at
www.nap.edu/openbook/0309053900/html/R1.html

42