Selecting Principal Parameters of Baseline Design

Configuration for Light General Aviation Aircraft

K Ibrahim* and Anshul Mohnot

Plexion Technologies, Bangalore 560 025, Karnataka, India

Design and performance data of light general aviation aircraft (4 to 8 Pax including crew) have been
analyzed employing figure of merit expressions and heuristic approach. Simple and effective correlations
have been evolved for selecting principal parameters - take-off weight, empty weight, fuel weight, wing
area and span, taper ratio, dihedral, flap and aileron areas, fuselage length, area of horizontal and vertical
tailplanes, elevator and rudder, engine power and propeller diameter - of baseline design configuration
for light general aviation aircraft.

Nomenclature
A Wing aspect ratio, b
2
/S
b Wingspan, m
C Mean aerodynamic chord, m
C
Lmax
.
TO
Take-off lift coefficient
D Drag, kg
Di Induced drag, kg
d
P
Propeller diameter, m
e Airplane efficiency factor
h
f
Maximum depth of fuselage, m
l Overall length, m
l
f
Fuselage length, m
L Lift, kg
N Propeller rotation speed, rpm
N
B
Number of propeller blades
Pax Number of passengers (Including crew)
P Engine power, kW
P
O
Standard day sea level static power, kW
R Range (with 45 min of fuel reserve), km
S Wing reference area, m
2

S
ail
Aileron area, m
2
S
ele
Elevator area, m
2

S
f
Trailing edge flap area, m
2

sfc Specific fuel consumption, kg/kW.h
s
G
Take-off ground run, m
s
TO
Take-off distance, m
S
ht
Horizontal tailplane area, m
2

S
r
Rudder area, m
2

S
vt
Vertical tailplane area, m
2

V Airplane speed, m/s or km/h
W
E
Basic empty weight, kg
w
f
Maximum width of fuselage, m
W
F
Internal fuel weight, kg
W
TO
Take-off weight, kg
Propulsive efficiency
Wing dihedral, deg
Taper ratio
Ratio of ambient air density to standard
day sea level air density

I. Introduction
While the designs of civil transport aircraft and military combat airplanes are the result of continuous
sustained research and development activity, designs of light general aviation aircraft are inspired by innovative
instincts of individuals. Included in this category of light general aviation aircraft are single pistonprop fixed
wing configurations with fixed and retractable landing gears and a seating capacity of 4 to 8 Pax (Including
crew). These aircraft form a large percentage of the general aviation aircraft. It is, therefore, considered
appropriate to treat light general aviation aircraft as a separate class and evolve design norms.
Optimization of light aircraft configuration in terms of sizing the aircraft and its principal components has
been dealt in Ref. 1. Comprehensive exposition of aircraft conceptual design with simplified analytical methods
is provided by Raymer
2
. Roskam
3
presents a rapid method for preliminary sizing in terms of take-off weight,
empty weight, mission fuel weight, take-off power, wing area and aspect ratio of single pistonprop light
airplanes to given mission specification. Roskam
4
provides configuration data for the same category airplanes
and suggests a range for each parameter.
In this paper design and performance data
5-7
of light general aviation aircraft (4-8 Pax), some basic
parameters of which are listed in Table 1, have been analyzed using figure of merit expressions for principal
design parameters. Where figure of merit expression was found infeasible heuristic approach has been employed.
It is assumed that for a category of airplanes, orders of magnitude of zero-lift drag coefficient, airplane efficiency
factor, propeller efficiency, specific fuel consumption of engines at cruise altitude, levels of static stability about
longitudinal and directional axes, remain same. Simple and effective correlations have been evolved for selecting
principal parameters - take-off and empty weights, fuel weight, wing area and span, taper ratio, dihedral, flap and
aileron area, fuselage length, area of horizontal and vertical tailplanes, elevator and rudder, engine power and
propeller diameter - of baseline design configuration for light general aviation aircraft.
* Consulting Aerospace Engineer (Design), Plexion Technologies, Bangalore 560 025, India.
Analyst Engineer, Plexion Technologies, Bangalore 560 025, India.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference
5 - 8 June 2006, San Francisco, California
AIAA 2006-3316
Copyright 2006 by Ibrahim K. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Still air range (R), km
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
e
i
g
h
t

(
W
T
O
/
R
/
P
a
x
)
,

k
g
/
k
m
/
P
a
x
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
W
TO
= 0.0392 R Pax + 258.4 Pax
Fig. 1 Specific weight
GA-8
A-25
Stallion
Ovation
IL.103
II. Take-Off Weight
During the conceptual design stage of a new aircraft, before
the first 3-view drawing is created, knowledge of maximum take-
off weight is essential. The weight estimation method dealt herein
emphasizes simplicity to provide a fast but reasonably accurate
tool for computing the initial take-off weight of an aircraft when
only the basic mission requirements, typical passenger capacity
and range are known.
It is assumed that maximum take-off weight is primarily
influenced by number of passengers corresponding to full
payload at a typical seating density and distance (still air range
with 45 min of fuel reserve) over which they are transported
8
.
Accordingly, specific weight viz., take-off weight per passenger
seat per kilometer of range with full payload, is correlated with
full payload range in Fig. 1.
Long range is associated with large aircraft equipped with relatively more powerful engines. A survey of
piston engine performance reveals that specific fuel consumption decreases with increase in power. Besides,
large aircraft structures can be designed more efficiently from weight point of view. These two factors contribute
partly to the reduction in specific weight with increase in range. Equation of the regressed line upon modification
yields the following expression for take-off weight.
R Pax 0392 . 0 Pax 4 . 258 W
TO
+ = (1)

III. Basic Empty Weight
Basic empty weight has been declining over the
years due to a) availability of more advanced and
powerful methods of structural analysis enabling more
efficient design from weight point of view and b)
increased use of composites in the primary structure of
fuselage and wing.
Basic empty weight also depends on useful load and
range. Accordingly basic empty weight is correlated
with maximum take-off weight (Fig. 2). The data
segregates into two groups; one with fixed landing gear
and the other with retractable landing gear. A few data
points, denoted by filled symbols, from each group stand
out. Dispersion of data points clearly brings out that
retractable landing gear entails higher empty weight. This is primarily due to weight associated with retracting
mechanism. Equation of the regressed lines are as under.
Take-Off Weight (W
TO
), kg
750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
B
a
s
i
c

e
m
p
t
y

w
e
i
g
h
t

(
W
E
)
,

k
g
500
750
1000
1250
1500
W
E
= -133.3 + 0.718 W
TO
W
E
= 0.5721 W
TO
R
e
tr
a
c
ta
b
le
G
e
a
r
F
ix
e
d
G
e
a
r
GA-8
M-7
A25
IL.103
S-208
Fig. 2 Basic empty weight
(2)
for aircraft with fixed landing gear and
E T
W 0.5721 W =
O
TO
(3)
E
W 133.3 0.718 W = +
for aircraft with retractable landing gear.
Weight increase associated with retractable
gear is 6.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent at the lower
and upper ends of the take-off weight spectrum
respectively.

IV. Fuel Weight
Mission requirements specify range on
internal fuel. Knowing airplane aerodynamics and
engine performance internal fuel can be computed
by analytically flying the flight profile. However,
during conceptual design phase lack of
aerodynamic details and engine performance
precludes such an exercise. It is assumed that fuel
weight is influenced primarily by take-off weight
and the distance (range) over which it is to be
transported
8
. Accordingly, fuel weight is
correlated with take-off weight and still air range on maximum standard fuel in Fig. 3. Like in the case of basic
W
TO
0.859
R
0.735
/500
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
F
u
e
l

w
e
i
g
h
t

(
W
F
)
,

k
g
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Fig. 3 Fuel weight
W
F
= -34.23 + 0.929 W
TO
0.859
R
0.735
/500
P32
Arrow
C.RG
L.ES
SR20
ACG91
IL103
W
F
= -13.01 + 1.038 W
TO
0.859
R
0.735
/500
F
i
x
e
d

G
e
a
r
R
e
t
r
a
c
t
a
b
le
G
e
a
r
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
empty weight, data points get segregated into two groups; a) fixed and b) retractable landing gear. A few data
points denoted by filled symbols, however, stand out. Correlation suggests that around 20 percent of fuel can be
saved through incorporation of retractable landing gears. Expressions for the regressed lines are given below.
for aircraft with fixed gears and (4) 500 / R W 038 . 1 01 . 13 W
735 . 0 859 . 0
TO F
+ =
for aircraft with retractable landing gears. (5) 500 / R W 929 . 0 26 . 34 W
735 . 0 859 . 0
TO F
+ =

V. Wing Loading
Large wing area leads to increased weight and drag to the detriment of aircraft performance. Flight segments
where profile drag is prominent such as high-speed cruise at altitude favour a small wing. Whereas, short take-
off and landing, cruise for maximum range and endurance and loiter considerations demand a large wing area.
Influence of wing area on rate of climb and time to climb to altitude is relatively weak. Wing loading is thus
determined from field performance and cruise considerations. However, industry design practices suggest that
the wing area is more or less defined by field performance requirements.
Take-off distance is sum total of ground distances a)
from brakes release to lift-off and b) from lift-off to passing
the 15.24m (50) obstacle. Figure of merit expression for
take-off ground run in terms of relative design parameters
is given below.
( )
1.5
TO O TO
G
1.5
L max .TO
(W / P ) (W / S
s
C

(6)
It is assumed that for a class of airplanes ground
distance from lift-off to passing over the 15.24m obstacle is
proportional to take-off ground run. Hence

( )
1.5
TO O TO
TO
1.5
L. max .TO
(W / P ) (W / S)
s
C

(7)
For the light general aviation aircraft, types of high lift
devices employed are plain, single slotted and fowler flaps.
Take-off lift coefficient, which is a fraction of maximum lift coefficient that can be achieved, deploying these
devices for achieving desired take-off distance, has almost reached a plateau. Therefore for a specified power
loading, reduction in take-off distance can be achieved through appropriate choice of wing loading.
Take-off weight (W
to
), kg
750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
W
i
n
g

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

(
W
t
o
/
S
)
,

k
g
/
m
2
60
80
100
120
140
160
Lancair IV
Gavilan
GA-8
I-23
PC6H2
Fig. 4 Wing loading
W
TO
/S = 4.69 + 0.0583 W
TO
W
TO
/S = - 4.77 + 0.0782 W
TO
Data of light general aviation aircraft plotted in Fig. 4 broadly segregates into two groups. Data points of
Beech, Cessna, Mooney and Piper and some aircraft whose designs are inspired by Cessna aircraft stand
regressed along one line while rest of the aircraft stand coalesced along the other. This clearly states the
philosophy of established design houses to opt for a lower wing loading. A few data points denoted by filled
symbols, however, stand out.
While Lancair IV is a high speed aircraft in its category hence has high wing loading, Pilatus PC6 Porter is
designed for short take-off and landing hence has low wing loading. Gippsland GA-8 Airvan and Gavilan 358
being utility aircraft are surmised to have limited short take-off and landing capability hence their wing loading
is moderate. Equations of the regressed lines for the above
two categories of aircraft are as under.
TO TO
W 0583 . 0 69 . 4 S / W + =
TO TO
W 0782 . 0 77 . 4 S / W + =
(8)
for Beech, Cessna, Mooney and Piper and
(9)
for others.
)
,

k
g
/
m

VI. Span Loading
Airplane induced drag can be expressed as below.

=
2 2
2
i
b V e
W 2
D
It is seen from the above equation that the most powerful
design parameter for reducing induced drag is span
loading (W
TO
/b). It is span loading that determines how
efficiently the wing performs its lifting function. Induced
drag during second segment climb and maximum lift to
drag ratio during cruise for range and endurance form the criteria for selecting span loading. Span loading of
Take-off weight (W
TO
), kg
750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
S
p
a
n

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

(
W
T
O
/
b
80
100
120
140
160
180
PC6H2
Malibu
Gavilan
210R
GA-8
Fig. 5 Span loading
W
TO
/b = 4.4 + 0.0885 W
TO
W
TO
/b = 18.13 + 0.0885 W
TO
Lancair IV
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
light general aviation aircraft is correlated with take-off weight in Fig. 5. Like in the case of wing loading, span
loading also segregates into two groups; aircraft from established design houses and those of smaller design
houses. A few points, denoted by filled symbols, belonging to relatively larger aircraft in the category, however,
stand out. Equations of the regressed lines are as under.
TO TO
W 0885 . 0 4 . 4 b / W + = for Beech, Cessna, Mooney, and Piper aircraft and (10)
TO TO
W 0885 . 0 13 . 18 b / W + = for other aircraft (11)

VII. Thickness Ratio
A study of the thickness ratios employed on light general aviation aircraft suggests that the choice of
thickness ratio is influenced by considerations other than aerodynamic. Thickness ratios so chosen, however,
would satisfy the aerodynamic requirements too. The study did not yield a meaningful correlation. It, however,
suggested a broad band with 12% and 18% at the lower and upper ends respectively.

VIII. Sweep
A few of the aircraft, Commander, Mooney and Piper, employ a small sweep. Sweep of less than 10 deg
may be employed more for suitably locating the airplane centre of gravity.

IX. Taper Ratio
At moderate to high lift coefficients corresponding to subsonic cruise induced drag forms significant (>50%)
part of airplane total drag. Incorporation of appropriate taper results in near elliptical loading along the span and
consequently minimum induced drag. Broadly three types of
planforms a) constant chord, b) single taper and c) rectangle-taper
are employed on light general aviation aircraft. A few of them
(Beech and piper series) have a small leading edge strake at the
root. Robin, Cessna and Piper series favoured rectangle-tapered
wing planforms.
Constant chord wing planform lends itself for ease of
manufacturing at the expense of higher induced drag and weight.
Straight wing with an optimum taper ratio would offer near
elliptical spanwise loading
9
at the expense of extensive tooling
required for manufacturing. Rectangular-tapered wing
approximates almost the elliptical lift distribution along the
span
10
. Manufacturing effort is more than that of constant chord
wing but less than that of single taper wing. However for
realizing the full benefits computational and experimental studies
are required for optimum spanwise location of commencement of
taper and value of taper. Taper commences from around 41% of
wing semispan for Cessna series and 55% for piper and 63 % for Robin series.
Wing aspect ratio (A)
5 6 7 8 9
T
a
p
e
r

R
a
t
i
o

(
C
t
/
C
r
)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Simple Taper
Rectangle-Taper
R400
R3000
Beech
Fig. 6 Wing taper
NACA R 921
Constant Chord Planforms
10
Majority of light general aviation aircraft have straight wings. Taper ratio recommended for subsonic
aircraft with straight wings is about 0.46
9
. However a survey of the taper ratios employed for light general
aviation aircraft suggests that taper ratio is related to wing aspect ratio. Accordingly Fig. 6 depicts variation of
taper ratio with aspect ratio. Dispersion of data points of tapered wings suggests a marginal decrease in taper
ratio with increasing aspect ratio for effectively reducing the root bending moment. It is evident that barring
Beech series which employ taper ratio close to that recommended in Ref. 9, the rest of the aircraft employ less
tapered wings with a taper ratio of around 0.7. These aircraft possibly alleviate outboard loading through a
suitable twist and gain adequate space for locating control elements associated with aileron actuation.

X. Dihedral
High wing configuration gives rise to a positive effective dihedral, whereas the low wing arrangement a
negative effective dihedral. The magnitude of contribution depends on the vertical placement of the wing,
fuselage cross-sectional shape and its relative width (w
f
/b). A large number of light general aviation aircraft are
high wing configurations. Ideally, therefore, these aircraft ought not to have any dihedral. These can have an
anhedral to overcome the excessive effective dihedral if any introduced by the high wing. Design trends,
however, suggest that the high wing light general aviation aircraft have their wings set at a dihedral. Fuselage
cross-sectional shapes and their relative widths (w
f
/b) are possibly such as not to impart adequate lateral static
stability to the configuration. Effective dihedral induced by the vertical placement of wing increases
11
with
increase in fuselage relative width (w
f
/b). Assuming that the order of magnitude of dihedral stability remains
same for a category of aircraft, geometric dihedral to be incorporated decreases with increase of relative fuselage
width for high wing configurations and increases with increase of relative fuselage width. The same is reflected
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
in Fig. 7, for both high and low wing positions. Russian aircraft Aeropract 25 with high wing stands out from the
rest in its group. It has its wing tips deflected down like down pointing winglets. Such a wing configuration is
likely to induce anhedral. In order to overcome the same additional dihedral has been incorporated. In regard to
low wing configurations, Cirrus SR 20 and CAC Eagle
have their fuselages rounded at the wing fuselage junction
which is likely to induce additional dihedral stability and
hence their geometric dihedral is lower than the rest. Piper
aircraft fuselage has rectangular section at the wing
fuselage junction which is likely to induce negative
dihedral stability and hence their geometric dihedral is
more than the rest of the aircraft. Expressions for the
regressed lines are as below.
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
b
w
11 . 33 98 . 1
f
(12)
for low wing configurations and
|
.
|

\
|
=
b
w
91 . 27 66 . 4
f
(13)
for high wing configurations.
Relative Width of Fuselage (w
f
/b)
0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15
W
i
n
g

D
i
h
e
d
r
a
l

(

)
.

d
e
g
0
2
4
6
8
Eagle SR 20
Aeropract 25
Pipers
High Wing
Low Wing
Fig. 7 Wing dihedral
= 1.98 + 33.11 w
f
/b
= 4.66 - 27.91 w
f
/b

XI. Ailerons
Wing area (S), m
2
8 10 12 14 16 18 2
A
i
l
e
r
o
n

a
r
e
a

(
S
a
i
l
)
,

m
2
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
Gavilan
GA8
S
ail
= -1.001 + 0.1647 S
Fig. 8 Aileron area
0
The ailerons provide roll control to the airplane.
Aileron power must be adequate to a) provide desired roll
rate, pb/2V>0.07, to the airplane, b) overcome the rolling
moments arising during cross wind take-off and landing,
and c) effect required bank angle for a coordinated turn
under specific conditions of flight.
While providing a steady roll rate, ailerons must
overcome wing damping due to roll. Accordingly,
correlation (Fig. 8) of aileron area with wing area results in
a broad dispersion with an upper limit. The following
regression line define the upper bound.
S 165 . 0 0 . 1 S
ail
+ = (Upper bound) (14)

XII. Trailing Edge Flap Area
Wing area (S), m
2
8 10 12 14 16 18 2
T
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

e
d
g
e

f
l
a
p

a
r
e
a

(
S
F
)
,

m
2
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
GA8
Gavilan
R400
Tempest
Pipers
Cessnas Beech
Mooneys
M-4
Zlin A25 Eagle
114B
IAR823
CH400
S
f
= -0.806 + 0.204 S
Fig. 9 Trailing edge flap area
0
Trailing edge flaps employed on light general aviation
aircraft are single slotted, fowler and plain type. The
mission requirement of stall speed with flaps deployed
forms the design driver for sizing the flap area and
selecting the deflection angle. However, a survey of the
flap areas for light general aviation aircraft suggests that
flap area is related to gross wing area. Regarding deflection
angle, with a view to derive full benefit, designer prefers to
employ angles (35 to 50 deg.) corresponding to the largest
increment in maximum lift coefficient. Correlation of flap
area with wing area (Fig. 9) suggests an upper bound with
many aircraft lying below that. Wings of the aircraft that
stand out are surmised to have been sized for stall speed.
Expression for the upper bound is as under.

S 204 . 0 806 . 0 S
f
+ = (15)

XIII. Fuselage
In practice the fuselage shape and size are determined strictly by practical constraints. Front fuselage houses
the power plant (Tractor configuration), therefore, its dimensions are determined by engine envelope. Centre
fuselage constitutes passenger cabin whose size is determined by the number of passengers and seating layout.
Rear fuselage is more a gradually tapering cone to reduce the maximum depth and width to practical minimum.
The rear fuselage may house some equipment.
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
For light general aviation aircraft with Pax 4 to 8, two seats abreast is the optimum choice. Fuselage width
ranges from 1.1m to 1.4m and depth varies from 1.17m to 1.5m depending upon the passenger comfort and the
anthropometric size of passenger population being targeted.
For a specified volume, length of the optimum volume
fuselage configuration can easily be computed. However, due to
interference from the adjoining components and providing
adequate a) space for equipment and b) tailplane arm lengths,
fuselages in practice are found to be longer than the optimum
volume configurations.
Compliance of spin (Entered inadvertently) recovery
requirement necessitates ensuring of more than 1/3 of unshielded
(by the horizontal tailplane) rudder area at attitudes relevant to
spin as well as equal distribution of mass along the wing and
fuselage (zero loading category wherein I
XX
I
YY
). The former
is ensured through appropriate relative location of horizontal and
vertical tailplanes. Accomplishing equal distribution of a given
set masses, typical to light general aviation airplanes along the
wing and fuselage suggests that a correlation ought to exist
between the wing span and fuselage length. Accordingly, wing span and fuselage length (assuming proportional
to aircraft length) have been correlated (Fig. 10). Equation of the mean line is as under.
Wing span (b), m
6 8 10 12 14 16
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

(
l
/
b
)
,

m
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Stationair 8
Eagle
Fig. 10 Relative length
l/b = 1.083 - 0.0315 b
l / b 1.083 0.0315 b =
XIV. Horizontal Tailplane Area
Major contributions to airplane longitudinal static
stability come from fuselage and horizontal tailplane.
While providing the required level of longitudinal static
stability to the airplane, the horizontal tailplane
overcomes the destabilising contribution of the fuselage.
Therefore, airplane static longitudinal stability can be
broadly expressed as
Fuselage Volume Coefficient (w
f
2
l/SC)
0.36 0.48 0.60 0.72 0.84 0.96 1.08
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

T
a
i
l

V
o
l
u
m
e

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
S
h
t
l
/
S
C
)
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
A25-HW
Stallion HW
M-4 HW
C
e
s
s
n
a
s
, T
e
m
p
e
s
t
a
n
d
K
2
5
0
Fig. 11 Horizontal tailplane area
S
ht
= 0.071 (SC/l) + 2.548 w
f
2
S
ht
= 0.373 (SC/l) + 1.146 w
f
2
O
th
ers
( ) ( )
fus m ht m m
C C C

+ = (17)
Assuming that the order of magnitude of static
longitudinal stability for light general aviation aircraft
remains same and substituting for contributions of
horizontal tailplane and fuselage in the equation (18) yield
the following expression.
2
ht ht f f
S l w l
Constant
SC SC


= +




(18)
It is further assumed that horizontal tailplane arm is proportional to the fuselage length. Correlation (Fig. 11)
of horizontal tailplane area with wing and fuselage
parameters segregates broadly into two groups; one
belongs to high tail configuration comprising of
primarily Cessna series and those inspired by Cessna
aircraft such as Jaran Tempest and Kestrel 250, and
the other to mid and low tail configurations. A few
points from high wing group cross over. Equations of
the regressed lines after modification yield the
following expressions for horizontal tailplane area.
( )
2
ht f f
S 0.071 SC l 2.548 w = + (19)
for high wing configurations and
Wing aspect ratio (A)
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

t
a
i
l

a
s
p
e
c
t

r
a
t
i
o

(
A
h
t
)
3
4
5
6
7
Fig. 12 Horizontal tailplane aspect ratio
A
ht
= - 0.817 + 0.755 A
Pipers
Cessnas
Beech &
Mooney
TB.10 & 20
and I.23
R400
Stallion
IL.103
R3000
A36
M.4
Z.43
ACG.91
Eagle
( )
2
ht f f
S 0.373 SC l 1.146 w = + (20)
for low wing configurations.

XV. Horizontal Tailplane Aspect Ratio
Horizontal tailplane with a relatively large geometric aspect ratio enhances longitudinal static stability by
virtue of its high lift curve slope. Besides, large aspect ratio reduces the area exposed to the fuselage wake
thereby improving horizontal tailplane effectiveness. Both these effects cause a reduction in horizontal tailplane
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
area. Increase in structural weight due to increase in aspect ratio may balance out with that caused by reduction
in area. However, in order to retain control of the airplane throughout the flight envelope, horizontal tailplane
ought to stall at angles of attack greater than those at which the wing stalls. This is accomplished through
choosing a tailplane of aspect ratio smaller than that of the wing. Accordingly aspect ratios of the horizontal
tailplane are correlated with those of wing in Fig. 12. Dispersion of the data points suggests an upper bound
with data points of Socata, I-23, Beech, Cessna and Mooney lying well below except Pipers. Expression for the
upper bound is given below.
A 755 . 0 817 . 0 A
ht
+ = (21)

XVI. Elevator
In a classical design, elevator is sized to provide
adequate control at the most forward C.G. locations at
high angles of attack.
The higher the level of stability, the larger will be the
control power required to execute a manoeuvre.
Accordingly correlation (Fig. 13) of elevator area with
horizontal tailplane area reveals that barring Polish I-23
aircraft rest of the data points stand regressed along a
straight line. Expression for the regressed line is as under.
E
l
e
v
a
t
Horizontal tail area (S
ht
), m
2
2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4
o
r

a
r
e
a

(
S
e
)
,

m
2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
S
ele
= 0.43 S
ht
I-23
Fig. 13 Elevator area
ht ele
S 43 . 0 S = (22)

XVII. Vertical Tailplane Area
Contribution to airplane directional static stability from wing and its relative location are negligibly small
and major contributions come from fuselage and vertical tailplane. While providing the desired level of
directional static stability to airplane, vertical tailplane
overcomes the destabilizing contribution of fuselage.
Therefore, airplane static directional stability can be
broadly expressed as
( ) ( )
vt
n
fus
n n
C C C

+ = (23)
Assuming that the order of magnitude of static
directional stability for light general aviation aircraft
remains same and substituting for the contributions of
fuselage and vertical tailplane yields the following
expression.
2
vt vt f f
S l h l
Constant
Sb Sb


= +




(24)
It is further assumed that vertical tail arm is
proportional to fuselage length. Correlation (Fig. 14) of vertical tailplane area, excluding a couple of data points,
segregates broadly into two groups; a) high wing configurations comprising of primarily Cessna series and
aircraft inspired by Cessna and b) low wing configurations. Low wing configurations demand a smaller vertical
tail because of favourable sidewash at the vertical tail
arising from the wing fuselage interference, making the
vertical tail more efficient.
Fuselage Volume Coefficient (h
f
2
l/Sb)
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

T
a
i
l

V
o
l
u
m
e

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
S
v
t
l
/
S
b
)
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Eagle
TB.10-20
P.66
Pipers
Stationair8
Mooneys
C
essn
as
Fig. 14 Vertical tailplane area
Svt = 0.006757 Sb/l+ 0.92 h
f
2
Svt = 0.00473 Sb/l+ 0.694 h
f
2
Aerodynamic damping in pitch and yaw is
proportional to the square of the tail arm. Since the
damping of the Dutch roll is inherently poorer than the
short-period pitch oscillations it is an accepted practice to
have a longer vertical tail arm. Relative locations of the
horizontal and vertical tailplanes of Socata TB.10 and
TB.20 suggest that the vertical tail arm is less. Hence
their vertical tailplanes are larger despite being low wing
configurations. Following are the expressions for the
regressed lines.

m
2
( )
2
vt f f
S 0.00676 Sb l 0.92 h = + (25)
for the high wing configurations and
Vertical tail area (S
vt
), m
2
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
R
u
d
d
e
r

a
r
e
a

(
S
r
)
,
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Z.43
ACG91
Dauphin
S
r
= 0.384 S
vt
Fig. 15 Rudder area
( )
2
vt f f
S 0.00473 Sb l 0.694 h = + for the low wing configurations. (26)
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
XVIII. Rudder Area
Classical design norm is to size rudder powerful enough to a) overcome adverse yaw to enable the airplane
to execute a coordinated turn at low speeds and b) trim the airplane to maintain alignment with the runway
during crosswind take-off and landing.
Like in the case of elevator, rudder size is also found to be primarily influenced by the vertical tailplane
area. Accordingly rudder area is correlated with vertical tailplane area in Fig. 15. Barring Z-43, R400 and
ACG.91 aircraft, rest of the data points stand regressed along a straight line. Following is the expression for the
regressed line.
vt r
S 384 . 0 S = (27)

XIX. Engine
Optimum combination of wing loading and power loading is conventionally chosen through compliance of
point performance specified in the mission requirements. Take-off weight is derived from the range
considerations, which when used in conjunction with power loading, yields engine power.
It is, however, noted that in the case of light general
aviation aircraft, compliance of second segment climb
gradient requirement constitutes criterion arising from
airworthiness standards. It has been found that, climb
gradient requirement forms the more stringent criterion
than the point performance stipulated in mission
requirements for the choice of power requirements.
Take-off weight, (W
to
), kg
750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
P
o
w
e
r

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

(
W
t
o
/
P
0
)
,

k
g
/
k
W
4
6
8
10
12
L-40
PC6H2
M-4
Lancair IV
Picchio
IAR.823
W
to
/P
o
= 10.8313 - 0.001729 W
to
W
to
/P
o
= 9.6635 - 0.001618 W
to
High Power Aircraft
Low Power Aircraft
Fig. 16 Power loading
Climb gradient () =
( )
TO
P DV 1
W V

(28)
Replacing weight by lift and reorganizing the terms in
equation (27) yields
( )
TO
P 1
V
W L D
| | | |
= +
|

\ . \ .
|
|
(29)
It is assumed that orders of magnitude of climb gradients, lift to drag ratios, and climb speed (V
2
) during
second segment remain same for a category of aircraft. Thus the engine power is directly related to aircraft
weight. Accordingly engine power is correlated with aircraft weight in Fig.16.
The data segregates into two groups. Some of the data points that stand coalesced along the lower line have
been categorized as high performance aircraft. It, therefore, can be inferred that the aircraft which are
represented by the other data points standing along the same line also are high performance aircraft. Additional
power of these high performance aircraft can be used during take-off, climb or high speed cruise. Besides, during
operation at high altitude and high ambient temperature the
additional power also offsets the reduction in power maintaining
the desired aircraft performance. Equations of the regressed lines
are as under.
TO
TO
O
W
9.664 0.00162 W
P
| |
=
|
\ .
(30)
for high performance aircraft and
TO
TO
O
W
10.831 0.00173 W
P
| |
=
|
\ .
(31)
for other aircraft.

XX. Propeller Diameter
Salient design features of the propeller are its diameter,
number of blades, blade activity factor which is a measure of
power absorbing capacity, integrated design lift coefficient which represents the weighted average of the blade
section design lift coefficients, and rotational speed. Usually a larger propeller will have a higher efficiency, as it
catches more incoming fluid and distributes it power and thrust on a larger fluid volume. Expression for power
absorbed by the propeller can be modified to render the following figure of merit expression for the diameter of
the propeller.
Power absorbed per blade (P
O
/N
B
), kW
40 60 80 100 120 140
P
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
,

(
d
p
)
,

m
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
Malibu
Dauphin
Picchio
Aeropract 25
Lancair IV
Encore
Ovation
I-23
IAR823
Gavilan
V35B
F33A
Z143
Cessnas
d
p
= 0.984 (P
O
/N
B
)
0.148
d
p
= 0.776 (P
O
/N
B
)
0.223
SR20
Fig. 17 Propeller diameter
( )
4
1
B
2 P
VN
N / P
K d

= (32)
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The above expression suggests that propeller chosen for operation at high speed cruise will have smaller
diameter compared to that chosen for operation at take-off and speeds corresponding to maximum range and
endurance. Likewise diameter of propeller chosen for higher rotational speed will be smaller than that operating
at lower rotational speed.
Piston engines installed on the light general aviation aircraft run at a max rpm of around 2700. Furthermore,
propellers are normally selected to absorb the maximum power likely to be developed in flight at the most
favourable atmospheric conditions (ISA). Consequently the above equation suggests that the propeller diameter
is proportional to one-fourth power of the engine power absorbed per blade. Accordingly, propeller diameters
have been correlated with power absorbed and number of blades in Fig.17.
Data segregates into two groups. The segregation is attributable to airplane speed. As stated earlier, the
upper regression line corresponds to propellers operating at speeds for take-off, long range and high endurance
and the lower line corresponds to those operating at high speed cruise.
Equations of the logarithmic regression lines are as under.

224 . 0
B
O
p
N
P
776 . 0 d
|
|
.
|

\
|
= for propellers operating at low forward speed. (33)

148 . 0
B
O
p
N
P
984 . 0 d
|
|
.
|

\
|
= for propellers operating at high forward speed. (34)
Choice of number of blades is influenced by the ground clearance requirement and size of the undercarriage.
Propeller diameter, number of blades and undercarriage length can be mutually traded for evolving an optimum
weight configuration. Propeller with a blade activity factor of 100-120 and design lift coefficient of around 0.3
for high-speed operations and 0.5-0.7 for low speed operations is suggested.

Conclusions
Simple and effective correlations have been evolved for selecting principal parameters - take-off weight,
operating empty weight, fuel weight, wing area and span, dihedral, flap and aileron area, fuselage length, area of
horizontal and vertical tailplanes, elevator and rudder, engine power and propeller diameter - of baseline design
configuration for light general aviation aircraft. These correlations further reveal the following.
a) Airplane specific weight decreases with increasing range,
b) Empty weight of aircraft with retractable undercarriage is more than that of aircraft with fixed undercarriage.
c) For a given take-off weight and range, aircraft with retractable gear demand less fuel than that of aircraft with
fixed gear.
d) Wing loading and span loading of Beech, Cessna, Mooney, Piper and those aircraft inspired by Cessna are
smaller than the rest
e) Less tapered wings are employed on light general aviation aircraft than that recommended for straight wings
f) With increase in fuselage relative width (w
f
/b) geometric dihedral increases for low wing configurations and
decreases for high wing configurations
g) Larger horizontal tailplane are employed by Cessna and those designs inspired by Cessna and
h) Power loading decreases with increase in take-off weight.

Acknowledgements
The authors express their deep sense of gratitude to Dr M K Padmanabhan, President and Dr D H Bonde,
Chief Executive Officer of Plexion Technologies, Bangalore, India for permitting publication of this work.

References
1 B W Silver, Optimization Studies in Aircraft Design Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, June 1971.
2 Daniel P Raymer, "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach", AIAA Education Series, 1989.
3 Jan Roskam, Airplane Design Part II: Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration of the Propulsion System.
Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation.
4 Jan Roskam, Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, DARcorporation, 1997.
5 John W R Taylor, Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1977-78 and 1984-85.
6 Paul Jackson, Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1994-95 and 1999-2000.
7 Airliners.net.Aircraft info and history section.url
8 Paul W Scott and Dennis Nguyen, The Initial Weight Estimate, SAWE Paper No. 2327, 1996.
9 Deyoung, John Harper and Charles W, Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading at Subsonic Speeds for Wings Having
Arbitrary Planform, NACA TR 921, 1948.
10 F X Wortmann, Drag Reduction in Sailplanes. Soaring, June-July 1966.
11 Herman Schlichting and Erich Truckenbrodt, Aerodynamics of the Airplane, McGraw-Hill International Book
Company, New York, 1979.
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

TABLE 1 - LIGHT GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
No. W Country Aircraft Pax b S Sail Sf L W
E
W
F TO
P
O
N
B
/d
P
Sht Sele Svt Sr
1 Australia GA-8 8 12.37 19.32 0.8 0.8 8.79 862 244 1814 225 4.17 1.76 2.08 0.73
2
2 Austria DA 40 4 11.84 12.8 7.77 680 114 1100 123

3 Colombia Gavilan 8 12.8 18.95 0.97 1.12 9.53 1270 326 2041 261 3/2.13 2.41 0.9 2.39 0.91
2
4 Czech Zlin Z-43 4 9.76 14.5 1.408 1.408 7.75 730 93 1350 157 2/2.0 2.59 1.36 1.35 0.81
6
5 Z-143 4 10.14 14.78 7.58 830 1350 175 3/1.95
6
6 France DR400 Dauphin 8.72 13.6 1.15 0.7 6.96 580 72 1000 104 2/1.78 2.88 1.24 0.63

7 R3000/160 4 9.81 14.47 1.32 2.02 7.51 650 1150 135 1.83/ 2.44 1.3
6
8 TB-10 4 9.76 11.9 0.91 3.72 7.7 700 151 1150 134 2/1.88 2.56 1.51 0.63
4.5
9 TB-20 4 9.76 11.9 0.91 3.72 7.71 800 234 1400 186 2/2.03 3.06 1.51 0.63
6.5
10 Italy Picchio 9.9 13.3 1.19 1.72 7.5 861 229 1360 224 2/1.98 2.94 1.27 1.37 0.49
6
11 P.66C-160 4 9.986 13.4 1.29 1.71 7.24 600 117 990 119 2/1.88 2.17 1.18 0.45
1.5
12 Poland IL I-23 4 8.94 10 0.72 1.54 7.1 596 130 1050 134 2/1.83 2.47 0.39 1.33 0.48
4
13 Romania IAR-823 10 15 1.2 1.78 8.24 910 259 1380 216 2/ 3.30 1.5
7
14 Russia Aeropract A.25 4 10.6 14.7 1.22 1.42 7.95 907 190 1255 132 2/1.8 2.63 1.17 2.38 0.95
3
15 IL-103 4 10.56 14.71 1.137 2.423 8 900 150 1285 157 2/1.93 3.05 1.16 1.4 0.56

16 S Korea ACG 91 4 10.2 14.86 1.09 2.02 7.7 680 159 1225 149 2/1.88 2.64 1.85 0.52
6
17 USA Stallion 6 10.67 13 7.62 998 490 1724 224 3/ 3.07 1.78

18 Cessna 172P 4 10.92 16.17 1.7 1.97 8.2 650 117 1089 119 2/1.91 3.35 1.35 1.73 0.69
1.75
19 Cessna R172 4 10.92 16.17 1.7 1.97 8.28 701 142 1157 145.4 2/ 3.35 1.35 1.73 0.69
1.75
20 Cessna Cutlass RG 4 10.92 16.17 1.7 1.97 8.36 726 180 1202 134 2/1.93 3.35 1.35 1.73 0.69
1.75
21 Cessna 180 4 10.92 16.16 1.7 1.97 7.81 749 240 1270 171.5 2/2.08 3.34 1.4 1.71 0.68
1.75
22 Cessna 182R 4 10.92 16.16 1.7 1.97 8.53 786 250 1406 171.5 2/2.08 3.60 1.47 1.73 0.65
1.75
23 Cessna 182RG 4 10.92 16.16 1.7 1.97 8.53 809 250 1406 175 2/2.08 3.60 1.47 1.73 0.65
1.75
24 Cessna 185 7 10.92 16.16 1.7 1.97 7.81 783 240 1519 224 3/2.03 3.34 1.4 1.71 0.68
1.75
25 Cessna Stationair 6 6 10.92 16.17 1.6 2.63 8.61 883 250 1633 224 3/2.03 4.17 1.86 1.73 0.65
1.75
26 Cessna Stationair 8 8 10.92 16.17 1.6 2.66 9.8 939 166 1723 224 3/2.03 4.17 1.86 1.49 0.65
1.75
27 Cessna Centurion 210 6 11.2 16.25 1.75 2.74 8.59 970 245 1724 224 3/2.03 3.60 1.87 1.6 0.65
1.5
28 Piper Warrior 4 10.67 15.8 1.23 1.36 7.25 611 136 1106 119 2/1.88 2.46 1.07 0.38
7

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

TABLE 1 - LIGHT GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS (CONTD.)
No. W Country Aircraft Pax b S Sail Sf L W
E
W
F TO
P
O
N
B
/d
P
Sht Sele Svt Sr
29 Piper Archer 4 10.67 15.8 1.23 1.36 7.25 641 136 1156 134 2/1.93 2.46 1.07 0.38
7
30 Piper Arrow 4 10.8 15.79 1.23 1.36 7.52 801 210 1247 149 2/ 2.46 1.07 0.38
7
31 Beech A36 4 10.21 16.8 1.06 1.98 8.38 1052 201 1655 224 3/2.03 3.42 1.67 1.45 0.52
6
32 Beech F33A/C 4 10.21 16.8 1.06 1.98 8.13 964 201 1542 212.5 3/2.03 3.42 1.67 1.45 0.52
6
33 M-4 Rocket 4 9.4 14.17 1.35 1.36 6.71 553 114 1043 156.6 2/1.88 2.47 1.3 1.53 0.49
1
34 MX-7-180 Star Rocket 10.03 15.38 7.16 517 191 1134 134 2/1.93
1
35 Mooney Ranger 10.67 15.51 1.07 1.63 7.06 691 142 1168 134 2/1.88 3.12 1.12 1.32 0.58
5.5
36 Mooney Allegro 4 11 16.26 1.06 1.66 7.52 783 174 1315 149 2/1.88 3.10 1.11 1.31 0.58
5.5
37 Mooney Ovation 4 11 16.26 1.06 1.66 8.15 1009 242 1528 224 3/1.85 3.10 1.11 1.31 0.58
5.5
38 Cirrus SR 20 4 10.85 12.54 8 816 163 1315 149 3/1.93
4.5
39 Commander 114B 4 9.98 14.12 1.02 1.67 7.59 927 191 1474 194 3/1.96

40 Express Express 4 9.45 12.08 7.92 771 147 1313 156.6 0.4
5
41 Jaran 184 Tempest 4 11.07 16.54 1.67 1.39 8.2 635 185 1202 134 2/1.83 3.48

42 Kestrel K-250 4 11.2 16.69 8.15 624 191 1134 119 2/1.88

43 Lancair IV 4 9.19 9.1 1.12 7.62 907 223 1451 261 3/1.88

44 Lancair ES 4 10.82 13.01 7.62 771 207 1361 149 2/1.93

45 Lancair Columbia 300 4 11 13.19 7.67 928 286 1542 224 3/1.96

46 Lancair Columbia 350 4 11 13.19 7.68 1043 267 1542 231 3/

47 Luscombe Spartan185 4 11.73 15.51 7.24 612 109 1034 138 2/1.93

48 Beech Sierra 6 9.98 13.57 1.25 1.74 7.85 772 155 1247 149 2/1.93 2.52 1.36 0.43
6.5
49 Beech Sundowner 4 9.98 13.57 1.25 1.74 7.85 683 155 1111 134 2/1.93 2.52 1.36 0.43
6.5
50 CAC Eagle 4 9.75 15.51 1.42 1.5 8.69 975 229 1542 212.5 2/2.13 3.18 1.48 1.52 0.59
4.5



11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics