PAD - Fall2018 - 12591 - Final Report - Group3

UCK 451E: Final Project Report
CRN: 12591 – Tuesday

Due on Sunday, Jan 5, 2018
Assist. Prof. Dr. Hayri Acar
Group#03
Student Student Participation
Full Name ID (Y/N)
Kadir Demirci 110160544 Yes
Yasin Yaşar Bayol 110160546 Yes
Mustafa Kara 110160554 Yes
Muhammed Destan 110160504 Yes
Alireza Mahmoudi 110100904 Yes
Group#03 UCK451E Part#Final
1
UCK 451E: Project Study Part#01

Due on Sunday, Oct 14, 2018
Group#03
Full Name ID (Y/N)
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
2. Design Requirements...............................................................................................................3
3. Similar Aircrafts......................................................................................................................5
4. Graphics.................................................................................................................................10
4.1. We/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic)............................................................................10
4.2. Wf/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic).............................................................................12
4.3. Cruise Speed of aircrafts.................................................................................................13
4.4. Range of aircrafts............................................................................................................14
4.5. Maximum Take-off Weight (kg).....................................................................................16
4.6. Take-off Distance (m).....................................................................................................17
4.7. Landing Distance (m)......................................................................................................18
4.8. Maximum Wing Loading (lb/ft2)...................................................................................20
4.9. Power Loading (lb/h.p.)..................................................................................................21
4.10. Payload Weight (kg)....................................................................................................23
5. References..............................................................................................................................24
3
1. Introduction
The researching of aircrafts to find out the data list of properties and configuration of aircraft will
be the purpose of this study. The aircrafts will be given below were compared in terms of the
specific requirements. Also, the graphs of some important specifications were plotted. This
study is very important for following steps of design and also it help to understanding the limits
to planning an aircraft.
2. Design Requirements
The required aircraft is TWO-SEAT JET TRAINER AIRCRAFT. Design requirements are given
in following
TABLE 1. Design Requirements
Parameter Value
Maximum Cruise Speed > Mach 1.3
Design Cruise Speed > Mach 0.8
Powerplant Turbofan
Empty Weight < 14000 lbs
Design Take-Off Weight < 27000 lbs
Stall Speed (landing configuration) < 110 KCAS
Landing Approach Speed < 120 KCAS
Maximum Rate of Climb (@ sea level) > 20000 ft/min
Service Ceiling Altitude > 42000 ft
Maximum Endurance (@15,000 ft) >3h
Range (@15,000 ft) > 1000 nm
Total Take-Off Distance (@ sea level) < 1500 ft
Total Landing Distance (@ sea level) < 1800 ft
Combat Radius < 600 km
g limits +8 / -3 g
And the important design parameters to be determined are listed below:
4
*Aircraft
*Wing thickness ratio (root)
*Country
*Wing thickness ratio (tip)
*Accomodation (Crew)
*Airfoil (root)
*Payload Weight, Wp (kg)
*Airfoil (tip)
*Empty Weight,We (kg)
* Flaps
*Fuel Weight, Wf (kg)
* Cruising Speed (knots)
*Maximum Take Off Weight, W0 (kg)
* Stalling Speed, flaps up (knots)
*Powerplant
*Stalling Speed, flaps down (knots)
*Power (h.p.)
*Max. Wing Loading, W/S, (lb/ft2)
*Wing Span (m)
*Max. Power Loading, (lb/h.p.)
*Wing Area (m)
*Service Ceiling (m)
5
*Wing Aspect Ratio
*Take Off Distance (m)
*Wing Taper Ratio
*Landing Distance (m)
*Sweep Angle (l.e.)
*Range (nautical mile)
*Sweep Angle (c/4)
*Max Rate of Climb (ft/min)
3. Similar Aircrafts
The sample aircraft’s specifications are given in the table below. 9 similar aircrafts can be found
in the following pages, and their list is given as follow:
*HAIG L-15 (Hongdu) *KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 Golden Eagle
*Denel (Atlas) Cheetah *HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn)
*Nanchang Q-5 (Fantan) *Hawker Siddeley Harrier/AV-8A
*Northrop T-38 Talon *Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle)
*Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master
Aircraft HAIG L-15 KAI Lockheed Denel (Atlas)

(Hongdu) Martin T-50, FA-50 Cheetah
Golden Eagle
Country China South Korea South Africa
Accomodation (Crew) 2 2 1-2(Cheetah D)
Payload Weight, Wp 3,000 4,750 5250
(kg)
6
Empty Weight, We 4,500 6,480 6,600

(kg)
Fuel Weight, Wf (kg) 1,750 2,200 1713
Maximum Take Off 9,500 13,470 13,700
Weight, Wo (kg)
Powerplant 2x afterburning Afterburning turbofan Afterburning
turbofans turbojet
Power (h.p.)
Wing Span (m) 9.48 9.45 8.22
Wing Area (m^2) 23.7 34.85
Wing Aspect Ratio 1,94
Flaps
Cruising Speed 803 815 1,269
(knots)
Stalling Speed, flaps 105
up (knots)
Stalling Speed, flaps 150
down (knots)
Max Wing Loading, 74,55 52
W/s (lb/ft^2)
Service Ceiling (m) 16,000 14,935 17,000
Take Off Distance (m) 400
Landing Distance (m) 520
Range (nautical mile) 1674 1403 702
Max Rate of Climb 39,370 39,600 45,950
(ft/min)
Aircraft HESA Shafaq (Before Nanchang Q-5 Hawker

The Dawn) (Fantan) Siddeley
Harrier/AV-8A
Country Iran China United Kingdom
Accomodation (Crew) 1-2 1-2 1-2

Payload Weight, Wp 2,572 2,268
(kg)
Empty Weight, We 4,361 6,375 5,530
(kg)
Fuel Weight, Wf (kg) 2,883 3,600
Maximum Take Off 6,900 11,830 11,530
Weight, Wo (kg)
Powerplant Turbofan 2xafterburning Turbofan
7
turbojets
Power (h.p.)
Wing Span (m) 10.45 9.68 7.70
Wing Area (m^2) 27.95 18.7
Wing Aspect Ratio 3.18
Sweep Angle (l.e) 35.17
Cruising Speed (knots) 621 653 640
Max Wing Loading, 86.7
W/s (lb/ft^2)
Service Ceiling (m) 16,780 16,500 16,764
Take Off Distance (m) VTOL
Landing Distance (m) 1,000 VTOL
Range (nautical mile) 1,100 1,026
Aircraft Northrop T-38 Talon Guizhou JL-9 Shanying Alenia Aermacchi M-

(FTC-2000 Mountain 346 Master
Eagle)
Country USA China Italy
Accomodation 2 2 2
(Crew)
Payload 125 2,200
Weight, Wp
(kg)
Empty Weight, 3,270 4,960 4,610
We (kg)
Fuel Weight, 1930 1,999

Wf (kg)
Maximum 5,485 9,800 9,600
Take Off
Weight, Wo
(kg)
Powerplant 2 x General Electric J85- 1 x Guizhou Liyang 2 × Honeywell F124-
GE-5A afterburning WP-13F(C) turbojet GA-200 ,
turbojet engine
Power (h.p.)
Wing Span (m) 7,70 8.32 9.72
Wing Area 16,0 26.7 23.52

(m^2)
Airfoil (tip)
8
Flaps
Cruising Speed 745,56 593.95 571,814
(knots)
Max Wing 69.53 58.3
Loading, W/s
(lb/ft^2)
Service Ceiling 15,240 16,000 13,716
(m)
Take Off 701,04 430 320
Distance (m)
Landing 1127,76 430 470
Distance (m)
Range (nautical 991 1,350 1,070
mile)
Max Rate of 33,600 38,000 22,000
Climb (ft/min)
9
4. Graphics
4.1. We/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic)

Aircraft We/W Empty Maximum Take
0 Weight Off Weight
We (kg) W0 (kg)
HAIG L-15 (Hongdu) 4,500 9,500
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, 6,480 13,470
FA-50 Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah 6,600 13,700
HESA Shafaq (Before The 4,361 6,900
Dawn)
6,375 11,830
Nanchang Q-5 (Fantan)
Hawker 5,530 11,530

Siddeley Harrier/AV-8A
Northrop T-38 Talon 3,270 5,485

Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC- 4,960 9,800
2000 Mountain Eagle)
Alenia Aermacchi M-346 4,610 9,600

Master
10
We/Wo - Wo
0.70
0.60
f(x) = − 0 x + 0.68
R² = 0.53
0.50
0.40
We / Wo
0.30 Wo/We -
Wo
Linear
0.20 (Wo/We -
Wo)
0.10
0.00
4000.00 6000.00 8000.00 10000.00 12000.00 14000.00 16000.00
Wo (kg)
11
4.2. Wf/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic)
Aircraft Wf/W0 Fuel Weight Maximum Take

Wf (kg) Off Weight
W0 (kg)
HAIG L-15 (Hongdu) 1,750 9,500
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 2,200 13,470
Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah 13,700
HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn) 6,900
2,883 11,830
Hawker 11,530
Northrop T-38 Talon 5,485

Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 9,800
Mountain Eagle)
12
We/Wo - Wo
0.70
0.60
f(x) = − 0 x + 0.68
R² = 0.53
0.50
0.40
We / Wo
0.30 Wo/We -
Wo
Linear
0.20 (Wo/We -
Wo)
0.10
0.00
4000.00 6000.00 8000.00 10000.00 12000.00 14000.00 16000.00
Wo (kg)
4.3. Cruise Speed of aircrafts
Aircraft Cruise Speeds Vc (knots)

HAIG L-15 (Hongdu) 803
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 815
Golden Eagle
HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn) 621
653
Hawker 640

593.95
Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master 571,814
13
1400.00 Aircraft - Cruise Speed (knot)
Aircraft -
Cruise Speed
1200.00 (knot)
Average
1000.00
800.00
V cruise (knot)
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
Aircraft
4.4. Range of aircrafts
Aircraft Range (nm)

HAIG L-15 (Hongdu) 1,674
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 1,403
Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah 702
HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn)
1,100
Hawker 1,026
Northrop T-38 Talon 991

Mountain Eagle)
1,070
14
1800.00 Aircraft - Range (nm)
Aircraft -
1600.00 Range (nm)
Average
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Range (nm)
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
Aircraft
4.5. Maximum Take-off Weight (kg)
Aircraft Maximum Take Off Weight

W0 (kg)
HAIG L-15 (Hongdu) 9,500
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 13,470
Golden Eagle
HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn) 6,900
11,830
Hawker 11,530
15

Mountain Eagle)
Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master 9,600
Aircraft - Wo (kg)
16000.00
Aircraft -
14000.00 Wo (kg)
Average
12000.00
10000.00
8000.00
Wo (kg)
6000.00
4000.00
2000.00
0.00
Aircraft
4.6. Take-off Distance (m)
Aircraft Take Off Distance

T.O.D. (m)
HAIG L-15 (Hongdu)
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah
16
Hawker 664
Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle) 430
Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master 320
Aircraft - Take Off Distance (m)

800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
T.O.D. (m)
400.00
Aircraft - T.O.D (m)
Average
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
KAI Lockheed M. T-50 Hawker Harrier Northrop T-38 Talon Guizhou JL-9 Alenia Aermacchi
Aircraft
4.7. Landing Distance (m)
Aircraft Landing Distance

L.D. (m)
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah
HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn) 1000
17
Hawker

Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle) 430
Aircraft - Landing Distance (m)

1200.00
1000.00
800.00
L.D. (m)
600.00 Aicraft - L.D. (m)

Average
400.00
200.00
0.00
KAI Lockheed M. T-50 Nanchang Q-5 Hawker Harrier Northrop T-38 Talon Guizhou JL-9 Alenia Aermacchi
Aircraft
4.8. Maximum Wing Loading (lb/ft2)
18
Aircraft Max. Wing Loading W/S (lb/ft2)

HAIG L-15 (Hongdu)
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 116.21
Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah 80.38
86,54
Hawker 126.07
Northrop T-38 Talon 70.09
Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 75.05
Mountain Eagle)
Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master 86.08
Aircraft - Wing Loading (lb/ft2)

140.00
Aircraft - Wing
120.00 Loading (lb/ft2)
Average
100.00
80.00
Wing Loading (lb/ft2)
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Aircraft
19
4.9. Power Loading (lb/h.p.)
Aircraft Power Loading

(lb/h.p)
HAIG L-15 (Hongdu) 0.19
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 0.28
Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah 0.32
HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn) 0.23
Nanchang Q-5 (Fantan) 0.61
Hawker
Northrop T-38 Talon 0.36
Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 0.25
Mountain Eagle)
Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master 0.29
20
Aircraft - Power Loading (lb/hp)

0.70
0.60
Aircraft -
Power Loading
(lb/hp)
0.50
Average
0.40
Power Loading (lb/hp)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Aircraft
21
4.10. Payload Weight (kg)
Aircraft Payload(Wp)
KAI Lockheed Martin T-50, FA-50 4750
Golden Eagle
Denel (Atlas) Cheetah 5250
Nanchang Q-5 (Fantan) 2572
Hawker 2268
Northrop T-38 Talon 125
Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000
Mountain Eagle)
6000.00 Aircraft - Wp (kg)
Aircraft -
Wp (kg)
5000.00
Average
4000.00
3000.00
Wp (kg)
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
Aircraft
22
5. References
6. Jane's All the World's Aircraft (2010-2011 ed.). (2010). Ihs Global Inc.
7. Militaryfactory.com https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/modern-trainer-
aircraft.asp
8. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/trainer-aircraft.asp
9. Aircraftcompare.com https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Lockheed-
Martin-T50-Golden-Eagle/172
10. Flightglobal.com https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1987/1987%20-
%202158.PDF
11. Jane's all The World's Aircraft Online Database. (2016). (IHS) Retrieved from
12. https://janes.ihs.com/Default.aspx?Category=JAWA
13. AV-8A_Harrier_SAC November_1972
14. NEXT GENERATION TRAINERS AIR International - July 2016
23

Due on Sunday, Oct 23, 2018
Group#03
Full Name ID (Y/N)
24
Contents
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................2
2. Initial Configuration....................................................................................................................2
2.1. Wing Configuration..............................................................................................................2
2.2. Tail Configuration................................................................................................................3
2.3. Selected Configuration’s Sketch...........................................................................................3
3. First Guess Weight and Wing Area Sizing for Specified Missions.............................................4
3.1. Weight Calculations..............................................................................................................4
3.1.1. Aspect Ratio...................................................................................................................4
3.1.2. Payload and crew weight...............................................................................................6
3.1.3. Mission Segment Weight Fractions...............................................................................6
3.1.4.........................................................................................................................................8
4. Final Weight Calculations...........................................................................................................8
5. Concluison.................................................................................................................................11
6. References..................................................................................................................................11
25
1. Introduction
1-we changed all the design and rewrite explanation parts.
2-We selected wing as mid wing.
3-We recalculated weights and other parameters.
In this study, according to the design requirements and design mission given in Table 1.1 and
Figure 1.1, we have to make a trade study, and initial configuration selection and conceptual
sketches of our aircraft. At the end, we plan to estimate the first weight guess and determine the
configuration of the aircraft generally.
2. Initial Configuration
The initial configuration is one of the most important steps in designing an aircraft.In order to
satisfy the general design requirements at a conceptual level the first configurations for the main
aircraft component have to be accomplished.
2.1. Wing Configuration

Three different wing configurations are shown in Fig. 2.2 Acoording to our project , mid wing
configuration is selected.Maneuverability is an important parameter for our aircraft and mid
wing is suitable for that reason.
Figure 2.1 Wing configurations
26
2.2. Tail Configuration

There are some tail configurations shown in Fig 2.2. Higher Effectiveness is an important
parameter for tail and according to our term project we selected conventional tail.
Figure 2.2 Tail configurations
2.3. Selected Configuration’s Sketch

According to general determination of the configuration of aircraft the first sketch can be seen in
Fig.2.3
27
First sketch Fig.2.3
3. First Guess Weight and Wing Area Sizing for Specified Missions
Figure 3.1 Road map
3.1. Weight Calculations
3.1.1. Aspect Ratio

There is a step that is affecting some performance parameters.Wing area.First we have to
determine L/D but before it’s calculation we have to know Wetted aspect ratio.Wetted aspect
ratio can be found as;
𝐴𝑅𝑤𝑒𝑡 = 𝐴𝑅 (𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡⁄𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓)
28
To find wetted aspect ratio we need to know (𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡⁄𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓)
Figure 3.2𝑺𝒘𝒆𝒕⁄𝑺𝒓𝒆𝒇 ratio for specific aircrafts
So wetted aspect ratio can be determined as
4.318/4.2=1.03
Since the wetted aspect ratio is known from figure 4 the maximum lift to drag ratio can be
estimated as
L/D=13
Table 3.1(L/D)max value for some mission segments and different engine types
29
3.1.2. Payload and crew weight
Comparing with a similar aircraft and checking the competitor study the payload can be assumed
as
Wpayload=2000kg=2500lb
Since the jet trainer holds 2 person crew,we assumed one person has weight 100kg.
Wcrew=200kg=441lb
3.1.3. Mission Segment Weight Fractions

In this section weight fractions calculated for each flight step.
Take-Off
According to Table 3.2, the fraction of the section is found as:
W1
=0.97
W0
Climb
W2
=0.985
W1
Cruise
From the Brequet range equation; In order to estimate the weight fraction for the cruise,
R=1000nm=6076000 ft
Mcruise=0.8
@15000 ft
a=1057 ft/s
Vcruise=0.8*1057=845.6 ft/s
30
C=0.5*1/60*60=0.00013891 1 /s
L/D=13*.0866=11.258
− RC
V ( L/ D )
W 3/W 2=e =0.9152
Descent
During the descent, it is assumed that the aircraft does not burn any fuel. So the fraction for the
W4
section is taken as =0.995
W3
Loiter
E=30 min=1800 s
C=0.4*(1/60)*60=0.0001111 1/s
L/D=13
− RCloi
( L/ D )
W 5/W 4=e =0.984
Landing
W6
=0.995
W5
Then the W6/W0 should be calculated:
W1
∗W 2
W0
∗W 3
W1
∗W 4
W2
∗W 5
W3
∗W 6
W6 W4
= =0.845
W0 W5
31
Wf/W0=1.06-(1-0845)=0.1504
3.1.4 Wing area
Acording to past study the estimated wing loading was 73 lb/ft2
S
S= ∗W =265.754
W
When we compare with similar aircrafts and the competitor study it shows that convenient as a
first guess approximations.
4. Final Weight Calculations
441+4500
W 0=
1−0.157−1.59 W 0
Wo guess Wo calculated
19650 19657,42145
19655 19656,24433
19660 19655,06768
19665 19653,89151
19670 19652,7158
19675 19651,54056
So
Wo=19656 lb
Wf=19400*0.1564 = 3034.16 lb
32
We=1.59*196560.9 = 11629 lb
Weight 0,8Mc 0,9Mc 1,1Mc

W0 19645,6 18927,5 18018,5
7 3
We 11620,3 11195,5 10657,8
2 4
Wf 3072,63 2791,00 2419,66
7 4 2
Vcruise 845,6 951,3 1162,7
Max Take-off Weight and Cruise Speed

1400
1200
1000
800
V (ft /s)
600
400
200
0
17800 18000 18200 18400 18600 18800 19000 19200 19400 19600 19800
W0 (lb)
Empty Weight and Cruise Speed

1400
1200
1000
V (ft / s)
800
600
400
200
0
10600 10800 11000 11200 11400 11600 11800
We (lb)
33
Fuel Weight and Cruise Speed

1400
1200
1000
V (ft /s)
800
600
400
200
0
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Wf (lb)
Weigh 0,8R 0,9R 1,1R 1,2R

t
W0 18418,1 18992,9 20239,4 20916,7
2 5 9
We 10894,2 11234,1 11971,5 12372,1
1 9 2 6
Wf 2582,90 2817,70 3326,93 3603,62
9 8 2 8
Range 4860800 5468400 6683600 7291200
Max Take-off Weight and Max Range

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
R (ft )
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
18000 18500 19000 19500 20000 20500 21000 21500
W0 (lb)
34
Empty Weight and Max Range

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
R (ft)
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
10800 11000 11200 11400 11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600
We (lb)
Fuel Weight and Max Range

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
R (ft)
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700
Wf (lb)
5. Concluison
This initial and important calculations and guesses could be replaced later after specifying the
rest of the aircrafts dimensions and tools.Acording to our study it seems that the economic
approach directs not to take high values for cruise speed for high altitude.
6. References
Jane's All the World's Aircraft (2010-2011 ed.). (2010). Ihs Global Inc.
Dr Hayri Acar Lecture Notes (ITU UUBF)
35
Due on Sunday, Nov 4, 2018
Group#03

Full Name ID (Y/N)
36
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................2
2. 1.WING AIRFOIL SELECTION................................................................................................2
2.1. AIRFOIL THICKNESS RATIO..........................................................................................4
3. Wing Geometry...........................................................................................................................7
3.1. Taper Ratio (λ)......................................................................................................................7
3.2. Aspect Ratio (A)...................................................................................................................7
3.3. Sweep Angle (⋀)...................................................................................................................8
3.4. Twist Angle estimation.........................................................................................................9
3.5. Wing Incidence.....................................................................................................................9
3.6. Vertical Location of Wings (Γ)..........................................................................................10
3.7. Dihedral (Γ)........................................................................................................................11
4. Wing Selection...........................................................................................................................12
4.1. Wing Tips...........................................................................................................................12
4.2. Tail Arrangement................................................................................................................13
4.3. Tail Airfoil..........................................................................................................................14
5. Tail Geometry............................................................................................................................16
5.1. Aspect Ratio........................................................................................................................16
5.2. Taper ratio...........................................................................................................................17
5.3. Sweep angle........................................................................................................................18
5.4. Tail vertical location...........................................................................................................18
6. References;................................................................................................................................19
37
1. Introduction
In this stage of the project, the airfoil and wing geometry of aircraft will be formed and
configuration of aircraft also is finding out generally. In addition the wing will be formed based
on aspect ratio, taper ratio and sweep. After all of this, the take-off weight will be calculated
according to the route.
2. WING AIRFOIL SELECTION
The airfoil affects the

1. cruise speed
2. takeoff and landing distances
3. stall speed
4. handling qualities (especially near the stall)
5. overall “aerodynamic efficiency” during all phases of flight.
Figure Airfoil
Selection of the wing airfoil is the major part of the aircraft design as it generates most of the lift
needed for flight. The three parameters given below was used to select the best airfoil for the
design.
1. Stall angle
2. Maximum C l/C d
3. C l max
First, calculations for the parameters which affect the selection of airfoils covered in this study
will be presented. Initial guesses about Reynolds number and C l as follows.
max
38
Some parameters which calculated according to 12801 m, given in table below to determine
Reynolds number and C l values.
PARAMETERS VALUES
Maximum Cruise Speed @ 12801 m 1.3 Mach (383,5 m/s)
Altitude 12801 m
Mean Chord 2,824339 m
Dynamic Viscosity @ 12801 m 0,000014322 kg/m.s
Air Density @ 12801 m 0,273946 kg/m3
ρ∗V ∗c
ℜ=
μ
ρ=0,273946 kg /m3
V =383,5m/ s
c=¿2,824339 m
μ=0,000014322kg /m. s
0,273946∗383,5∗2,824339
ℜ= =¿ 20716925,7
0,000014322
For cruise flight C l is calculated as below,
W =L=qSCl
1
∗W
q
C l=
S
The wing loading parameter calculated from average wing loading values of similar aircrafts.
w
=333,059684 kg/m 2=¿ 3266,2 N/m2
s
The dynamic pressure, 𝑞 can be calculated as,
1
q= ∗ρ∗V 2
2
39
ρ=0,273946 kg /m 3
V =383,5m/ s
q=0.5∗0,273946∗383,52 = 20144,9273 kg/ms2
1
∗W
q 1 = 0,162135
C l= = ∗3266,2
S 20144,9273
3. AIRFOIL THICKNESS RATIO

The “airfoil thickness ratio” (t/c) refers to the maximum thickness of the airfoil divided by its
chord.
Airfoil thickness ratio has a direct effect on
1. drag
2. maximum lift
3. stall characteristics
4. structural weight
The airfoil type is selected as thinner airfoil (6%<t/c<14%) because the speed of a jet trainer
with afterburning turbofan powerplant exceeds the speed of sound (Mach 1, in this case Mach
1.3). Further investigations and eliminations are made and 5 airfoil candidates are analysed using
XFLR5 program. Reynolds number is taken as 2e+07 during the batch analysis. Taking non-
subsonic Mach number in XFLR5 is problematic, and because of that some of the analysis are
made manually. Concerning graphs are given below with the comments.
40
Figure C m−α comparison graph of the candidate airfoils
Figure C l /C d −α comparison graph of the candidate airfoils
Figure C l−C d comparison graph of the candidate airfoils
41
Figure C l−α comparison graph of the candidate airfoils
Airfoil Thickness Camber Cl max

( L/ D)max Stall Angle
ratio (%) (%)
NACA 12.00 1.66 1.98 165 21

22112
NACA 64A- 9.98 0.00 1.60 130 18
010 10.0%
NACA 64A- 9.98 1.33 1.80 138 19
210
NACA 64A- 9.99 2.66 1.88 140 19.5
410
NACA 6409 9.03 5.99 2.15 167 20
9%
Table Properties of the airfoil candidates
When the properties are analysed, it can be seen that even though NACA 22112 and NACA6409
9% stand out with relatively higher ( L/ D)max and C l values, NACA 64A profiles are better for
max
swept-wing supersonic aircraft. Additionally, NACA 22112 is eliminated since thinner airfoils
with very sharp leading and trailing edges are preferred. Because of that, highest stall angle,
42
( L/ D)max and C l values among NACA 64A profiles are taken into consideration, and NACA
max
64A-410 is selected in this case.
Figure NACA 64A-410
NACA 64A-410 has a maximum thickness of 10% at 39.99% chord, and a maximum camber
2.7% at 50% chord.
4. Wing Geometry
4.1. Taper Ratio ( λ )
A taper ratio between 0.3 and 0.5 is for low speed airplanes.
 For sweep wings, a taper ratio λ = 0.2 is commonly selected.
4.2. Aspect Ratio (A)
Jet aircraft show strong trend of AR decreasing with increasing Mach number due to drag-lift
relatively less important higher speeds.
The following table and equations is used to determinant aspect ratio for supersonic jet aircraft;
43
Jet fighter and jet trainer mean values are;
a: 4.42 and c: -0.7855
A=a ×(M max )c
 A = 3.597
4.3. Sweep Angle (⋀ )
There are leading edge sweep and quarter chord line sweep and we estimated the quarter chord
sweep from the similar aircrafts given properties and then we can find out the leading edge
sweep angle from the following equation;
λ= 0.2
AR = 3.597
⋀ c /4 = 24°
From calculation below;
44
( 1−λ )
tan ⋀¿ =tan ⋀ c/ 4+
[ A × ( 1+ λ ) ]
⋀ ¿ = 32.21° obtained .
4.4. Twist Angle estimation
According to Raymer 1992 wing twist typically taken from 0° to -5°. This number applies to
conventional wings which are swept aft wards. Here twist is used to avoid tip stall which is a
characteristic of untwisted and aft swept wings. For untwisted forward swept wings the stall
occurs first at the wing root. However, forward swept wings are also highly susceptible to static
aero elastic divergence.
 So at first the twist is estimated to be -3° for the wings. At this stage of the investigation
the effects of twist regarding the lift distribution are not considered in the estimation.
4.5. Wing Incidence
Incidence angle is define as shown below ,the angle between fuselage reference line and the
wing reference line and denoted by i w .
45
The values of incidence angle can find out from the calculation given below;
 Although to make fuel consumption economic and minimized the cruise drag select the
incidence angle as 0° according to the tunnel tests data given following;
4.6. Vertical Location of Wings ( Γ )
There are three choices of wing’s vertical position such as ;
1. High-wing
2. Mid- wing
3. Low-wing
 Although in previous study Mid-wing has been selected
Lower drag, ground clearance and no blockage of visibility are the advantages of mid-wing
configuration.
In other hand as disadvantage of this configuration is impossibility of passing the wing root
structure and causing higher weight.
46
4.7. Dihedral ( Γ )
Dihedral helps to maintain roll stability of aircrafts. The angle of dihedral is going to select from
the table below as supersonic swept type and for mid-wing configuration which is chosen
before ;
 In order to base the similar Jet trainer aircraft we prefer to select also 0°.
As we can research for example of the different types of aircrafts and dihedral values of
them in the following table, the fighter is the similar example for our aircraft study;
47
5. Wing Selection
5.1. Wing Tips
Clean wing configurations creates vortex which makes have lower aspect ratio for the wing,
therefore, induced drag increases on the wing. Winglet and wingtip designs are important to
make induced drag decrease. The less induced drag means, wing is affected less from drag,
thereby performance of the wing and the aircraft increases on range, fuel efficiency and wing
loading.
A cut-off wing tip can be selected for supersonic aircraft. This tip shape will reduce the torsional
load applied to the wing. For example F-15 fighter used cut-off wing tip.
48
 As the wing tip Cut-off is selected for the trainer jet aircraft.
5.2. Tail Arrangement

Tails are little wings. Much of the previous discussion concerning wings can also be applied to
tail surfaces addition to those tails provide for trim, stability, and control.
Our aim is designing a trainer aircraft, it should have an excellent maneuverability with an
favorable weight.When we look variations,it is absolutely clear that the conventional tail is most
commodious configuration for our study (trainer aircraft).
49
For most aircraft designs, the conventional tail will usually provide adequate stability and control
at the lightest weight.
One of the most important parameter for tail is the tail incident angle. From the historical data at
the reference book and the wing pitching moments, the tail incidence angle is chosen to be -2°
6. Tail Airfoil
Designating airfoil type for tail arrangement is really important parameter for our study.
According to Daniel P.Raymer’s book , tail must be %10 thinner than the airfoil.
In previous section we found thickness ratio as %10.
Having the airfoil of the wing is to be %10 thick, the tails airfoil can be chosen as NACA0009
for the vertical and horizontal tail.
Distance between aerodynamic center of wing and horizontal tail since no chamber is preffered
from stability perspective for horizontal tail, thus a symmetric aerofoil is chosen for horizantol
tail. Because of that after NACA it starts with three zero (000) NACA0009
50
Cl v Cd
Cl v alpha
51
Cm v alpha
Cl/Cd v alpha
7. Tail Geometry
Aspect Ratio
According to known studies, the aspect ratio of horizontal tail changes between 3-4 and for
vertical
52
tail it changes between 0,6-1,4 for the selected type of aircraft.There are 2 reasons for the aspect
ratio of the horizontal is selected 3. First, a long wing has higher bending stress for a given load
than a short one which in turn requires higher structural design. Second, a low aspect-ratio wing
will have a high roll angular acceleration which indicates wing with a low aspect-ratio has more
maneuverability. The aspect ratio of the vertical tail it is selected as
1,4 to keep the control surface as large as possible.
ARhorizontal = 3
ARvertical = 1,4
7.1. Taper ratio

With known studies, taper ratio for horizontal tail is selected as 0.30. and for
vertical tail, it is selected as 0.30. Lower taper ratios would lead to unacceptably small Reynolds
numbers.
λhorizontal = 0.3
λvertical = 0.3
53
7.2. Sweep angle

Leading edge sweep of the horizontal tail is generally chosen about 5° more than the wing sweep
to ensure that the wing stalls before the tail and also to prevent loss of elevator effectiveness due
to shock formation. In Wing Geometry chapter, leading edge sweep of the wing was set to
32.21°. In this case, leading-edge sweep of the horizontal tail should be set to 37.21°.
As for vertical tail sweep, it must be set to a value higher than the wing sweep for an aircraft to
make sure that the tail’s critical Mach number is higher than the wing’s.
The exact planform of the tail surfaces is actually not very critical in the early stages of the
design process so that we set to 40.00°
7.3. Tail vertical location

According to substantial amount of literature researches,the tail configuration is selected as
conventional tail in this study.
(General view of conventional wing configuration)
54
8. References;
https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1285&context=utk_gradthes
http://www.fzt.haw-
hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Airport2030/Airport2030_M_BoxWing_IncidenceTwist_11-12-05.pdf
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=n0009sm-il
55

Due on Sunday, Dec 15, 2018
Group#03
Full Name ID (Y/N)
56
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................2
2. Take-off Stall Speed....................................................................................................................3
3. Take-off Distance........................................................................................................................4
4. Landing Distance.........................................................................................................................6
5. Landing Approach Speed............................................................................................................6
6. Climbing Flight............................................................................................................................7
7. Best Range Flight........................................................................................................................8
8. Sustained Turn.............................................................................................................................8
9. Loiter Flight.................................................................................................................................9
10. Maximum Ceiling Altitude........................................................................................................9
11. Plot and Comparison of Results with Historical Data.............................................................10
12. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................12
13. References................................................................................................................................12
57
1. Introduction
Wing loading and thrust to weight ratio are some of the parameters affecting aircraft
performance, so they need to be optimized. For design thrust to weight ratio, T/W, the
parameters must be taken as thrust at sea level, T SL, and design take-off weight, W 0 ; meaning all
the power loading calculations must be adjusted back to take-off conditions. For the wing
loading, lowest of the value is to be selected so that the wing provides maximum lift. For the
given performance constraints (Table 1.1), wing loading is to be determined according to thrust
to weight ratio and a graph is to be plotted.
MISSION CONDITION W/W0

Take-off stall speed < 115 KCAS knots (Sea level, 0.99
(with double slotted flap) standard day, flaps down, landing
gear down)
Take-off distance to clear 50 < 1500 𝑓𝑡 (Sea level, standard day) 1.00
𝑓𝑡 obstacle
Landing distance (with power < 1850 𝑓𝑡 (Sea level, standard day) 0.62
off approach)
Landing approach speed < 120 𝐾𝐶𝐴𝑆 (Sea level, standard day, flaps 0.62
down, landing gear down, power off)
Climbing flight with ( R/C)max , SL > 9000 ft/min 0.82
V air = 600 ft/s
h start = S.L., h climb = 30000 ft
Best range cruise flight M = 0.85 at 30000 ft altitude with a 0.80
cruise range of 1000 nm
Sustained turn M = 0.6 at 30000 ft altitude with a 0.68
load factor of 3.5 g
Loiter flight 𝑉=210 𝐾𝐶𝐴𝑆 at 10000 𝑓𝑡 altitude with a 0.68
loiter endurance of 30 min
Maximum ceiling altitude 42000 𝑓𝑡 0.73
Table 1
From the Figure 1.1, double slotted flap was selected and sweep angle is taken as 39° , so
corresponding C L is 2.7. For take-off flight, (C ¿ ¿ Lmax )¿ ¿ is %80 of C L value. So;
max max
(C ¿ ¿ Lmax )¿ ¿ = 2.16. In the following parts, the calculations are made according to these values.
58
Figure 1
2. Take-off Stall Speed

The weight reduction during take-off should be taken in to account for further wing loading
calculations.
W
=0.99
W0
Maximum take - off stall speed is given as 100 KCAS. So;
V stall <194,098134 ft /s
(C ¿ ¿ Lmax )¿ ¿ = 2.16
Wing loading calculation is done as ;
1 1
L=W = ρ V 2 S C L = ρsea level V 2 S C L
2 2
59
W 1
= ρ sea level V 2stall C L
S 2 max
Weight reduction is writen from the table of parameters for aircraft ;
W
=0.99
W0
W0 1 1
≤
S 0.99 2 SL ()
ρ σ (V ¿¿ stall)2 (C ¿ ¿ Lmax )¿ ¿ ¿
W0 1
S
≤ ( )
0.99
2.16 x 0.5 x 0.0023769 x 1 x (194,098134)2
W0 lb
≤ 97.69 2
S ft
3. Take-off Distance
The distance which an aircraft needs to reach a specific altitude from brake release is called as
obstacle clearance distance which is usually 50 ft for military aircrafts and 35 ft for commercial
aircraft.
60
Figure 2
From the parameters take off distance is 1500 ft and by this parameter, from the figure above,
TOP is read as 88.
( WS )=( TOP ) σ C ( WT ) for jet aircrafts.

L¿
V =1.1 V stall → C L =¿ (C L )¿
max
1.21
¿
TOP=88
1.76
CL = =1.45
1.12
¿
σ =1 (sea level)
T =σT SL
T W 0/ S
( )≥ 2
W σ C L ( TOP )
¿
T 1 W0
≥
W 0 157.1 S
4. Landing Distance
1800 ft landing distance is needed according to given parameters
Slanding =80 ( WS ) σ C1L max

+S a [ ft ]
Slanding =1850 ft ; C L =2.7 ; S a=600 ft ; σ =1 (sea level)

max
0.62 W 0=W
1
1850>80 ¿)( )+600
2.7
W0 lb
( )
S
<68.044 2
ft
61
5. Landing Approach Speed

V = 202.54 ft/s; W /W 0=0.62; σ =1 (sea level); C L =2.7 max
For military aircrafts ;

V approach =1.2 V stall
Wing loading for stall speed was calculated with this formula;
W 1
= σ ρsea level V 2stall C L
S 2 max
By reproducing this formula as ;
2
W0 1 V
S
< ( )
0.62
C L 0.5 ρsea level σ ( stall )
max
1.2
Placing the values in formula ;
W0 1 202.54 2
S
< ( )
0.62 (
( 2.7 ) ( 0.002377 ) ( 0.5 )( 1 )
1.2 )
W0 lb
< 147.435 2
S ft
6. Climbing Flight
( CR )
max , S L
>150 ft / s; V air =600 ft / s ;
h start =SL ; hclimb =30000 ft ; W =0.82W 0
Except G value, all parameters are found and given. To find G value following steps are applied;
h dh dX
G= ; =V sin γ ; =V cosγ
X dt dt
62
R /C 150
sinγ= = =0.25
V 600
h V sin γ
G= = = tanγ=0.258
X V cosγ
0+30000
h= =15000 ft
2
ρ @15000 ft =14.96∗10−4 slugs/ft 3 ; σ =0.628
1 1
q= ρ V 2= ( 14.96∗10−4 ) ( 600 )2=269.28 slugs/ ft . s2
2 2
W =0.82W 0 ; T =0.628 T SL
2
4 C D0
W
=
[( ) ] √ [( ) ] (
T
W
−G ±
T
W
−G −
π Ae )
S 2
qπ Ae
Calculations were made in Microsoft Excel because it must be made as iterations.
CD
0,628T SL
T
W
≥G+ 2
√ π Ae
0
0,015
0.82 W 0
≥ 0,258+2
√
π ( 4.6 ) ( 0.8 )
T
≥ 0.43
W0
This parameter is important during the iterations. Iterations are made starting from this
point to 1.
7. Best Range Flight

M = 0.85 at 30000 ft altitude with a cruise range of 1000 nm is given.
63
a @ 30000 ft = 994.12 ft/s ; V=M.a=0.85*994.12=845 ft/s;
ρ @ 30000 ft = 0.000891 slugs/ft 3
1
q= ( 0.000891 ) (845)2=318.1 slugs /ft . s2
2
W =0.80 W 0
A=4.6 ; e=0.8 ; C D =0,015

0
W
=q √ πAeC D /3
S 0
W0 1
= ( 318.1 ) √ π ⋅4.6 ⋅ 0.8 ⋅ 0.015 /3=76.48 lb /ft 2
S 0.80
8. Sustained Turn
a @ 30000 ft = 994.12 ft/s ; V=M.a=0.6*994.12=596.47 ft/s;
ρ @ 30000 ft = 0.000891 slugs/ft 3; σ =0.375
1
q= ( 0.000891 ) (596.47)2=158.5 slugs /ft . s2
2
T 0.375 T SL T SL
= =0.55
W 0.68 W 0 W0
[ ]
T 2 4 n2
W
=
T
W
± ( ) √( ) ( )
W
−
π Ae
S n⋅n
2
( qπ Ae )
Calculations were made in Microsoft Excel because it must be made as iterations.
CD
T
( )
W
≥ 2n
√
πAe
0
64
( WT ) ≥ 0.457
0
This parameter is important during the iterations. Iterations are made starting from this
point to 1.
9. Loiter Flight
𝑉=210 𝐾𝐶𝐴𝑆 at 10000 𝑓 altitude with a loiter endurance of 30 min
V =354.44 ft / s; ρ @ 10000 ft = 0.001756 slugs/ft 3
W
=q √ πAeC D
S 0
1
q= ( 17.56∗1 0−4 ) ( 354.44 )2=110.3 slugs /ft . s 2
2
W0
0.68 <100 √ π∗4.6∗0.8∗0.015
S
W0
< 67.55 lb /ft 2
S
10.Maximum Ceiling Altitude

ρ @ 42000 ft ≈ 5.15 x 10−4 slugs/ft 3
a @ 42000 ft = 967.11 ft/s ; V=M.a=0.85*967.11=822 ft/s;
A=4.6 ; e=0.8 ; C D =0,015

0
1
q= ( 5.15 x 1 0− 4 ) ( 822 )2=174 slugs /ft . s 2
2
W
=q √ πAeC D
S 0
W0
0.73 =174 √ π∗4.6∗0,8∗0,015
S
65
W0 2
=99.26 lb /ft
S
11.Plot and Comparison of Results with Historical Data

1 Take-off Stall Plot
Speed
Take-off
Distance
is
0.8
Landing
Distance
Landing
Approach
0.6 Speed
Climbing
T/W
Flight
Sustained
0.4 Turn (+)
Sustained
Turn (-)
0.2 Best Range
Cruise Flight
Loiter
Maximum
0 Ceiling
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Altitude
W/S
given in Figure 3. Best design points are pointed out with red dots. According to that, best points
are given in Table 2.
Figure 3
Best Design Points W/S T/W

1 62 0.46
2 67.5 0.48
Table 2
66
For safety, T/W will be taken as 0.5. Final results are W/S=62, T/W=0.5.
Figure 4
Figure 5
From the formula in Table 5, T/W=0.59; and from Figure 4, T/W=0.4. Our T/W=0.5 being the
average of the results from Figure 4 and 5.
Figure 6
We found that W/S=62, but from Figure 6, it is 50. The difference may be because of the
assumptions made by Raymer. Because our aircraft has better performance than typical jet
trainers.
67
12. Conclusion
One of the most important parameters designing an aircraft is T/W and W/S because they
are important for take-off weight and engine selection. Final results are W/S=62, T/W=0.5.
13. References
Daniel, P. R. (1992). Aircraft design: a conceptual approach. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics Inc.
68
Group#03
Student Participation
Student ID
Full Name (Y/N)
69
Table of Contents
5. Initial Sizing.................................................................................................................................2
5.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................2
5.2. Rubber Engine Sizing...........................................................................................................3
5.2.1. Take-off weight.........................................................................................................3
5.2.2. Empty Weight Fraction..............................................................................................4
5.2.3. Fuel Weight Fraction.................................................................................................5
5.3. Selection An Engine from the Manufacturers List...............................................................9
5.4Geometry Sizing...................................................................................................................11
5.4.1 Fusalage........................................................................................................................11
5.4.2 Wing.............................................................................................................................12
5.4.3 Tail................................................................................................................................12
5.4.4 Control Surface Sizing..................................................................................................14
5.5 Result...................................................................................................................................16
6. References..................................................................................................................................17
70
1. Introduction
In previous studies such study 2, weight estimations were calculated roughly. In this study
engine will be selected and weight and the geometry of the aircraft will be closer to exact values.
Rubber engine sizing will be calculated firstly in this study and after that fixed engine sizing will
be calculated by using values based on rubber engine sizing. The geometry sizing can be
calculated after gross weight of aircraft is found. At the end of the study the length and diameter
of the fuselage, root chord of the wing, horizontal and vertical tail geometries and sizing of
control surface will be found.
In this study, given flight route will be used;
Figure 7 Flight Route
71
2. Rubber Engine Sizing
In this method, some detailed data will be used such as wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratio,
unlike first guess sizing
2.1. Take-off weight
Take-off weight will be calculated by using following equations.
W 0 =W empty +¿W payload +W crew+W fuel ¿
W empty W fuel
W 0 =W payload +W crew + ( W0
W 0+ ) ( )
W0
W0
W empty W fuel
W 0− ( W0 ) ( )
W 0−
W0
W 0=W payload +W crew
W payload +W crew 408.02+6615.86

W 0= =
W empty W 1−0.21−1.59 ×W 0−0.1
1−
( W0 )( )
− fuel
W0
The value of W 0 find out by iterations in previous studies and the result is,
W 0 =31204.15lb
Fuel weight and empty weight are a function of design take-off gross weight but payload and
crew member’s weights are known,
72
W payload =5746.81 lbs
W crew =408.02lbs
2.2. Empty Weight Fraction
By using improved equations empty-weight fraction is calculated;
c3 c4
We W0
W0 [
= a+ b W 0c A c
1
T
W0
2
( )( )MS max
c5
] K vs
AR=4.6
T 0.5∧W 0
= =62lb/ft 2
W0 S
We 0.1 0,2 −0.24 0.11

=[ 0+ 4.28 ×W 0 4.6 ( 0.5 ) ( 62 ) 1.3 ] ×1=1.659× W 0
−0.1 −0.1
W0
73
2.3. Fuel Weight Fraction

Fuel weight fraction can not be calculated in a few steps. This value can be found with
calculations in multiple phases weight fractions.
Take-Off Phases (0-1)
According to historical studies the reference book has given these values;
W1
=0.97−0.99
W0
Average of these values is selected for his study;
W1
=0.98
W0
Climb Phases (1-2)
For subsonic aircrafts, climbing and accelerating to cruise altitude weight fraction,
are given in reference book as in equaiton;
Wi
=1.0065−0.0325 M
W i−1
Where Mach is assumed to be taken from to 0.1 to 0.8 as a climb pattern;
W2
=0.9805
W1
Cruise Phases (2-3)
74
Aerodynamic efficiency which corresponds is calculated first and then weight

fraction is calculated;
L 1
L=W → =
D qc D W 1
0
+
W / S S qπ Ae
C D =0.015
0
W0
=62(lb /ft 2)
S
V= 795 (ft/s)
ρ@ 30000 ft = 0.000891 (slugs/ft2)
e = 0.8
1 1
q= ρ V 2= ×0.000891 ×(795)2 =281.777
2 2
AR =4.6
−RC
Wi
=e V ( L/ D)
W İ −1
−RC
W 3 V ( L/ D )
=e
W2 =
Descent Phases (3-4)
Weight ratio parameter for the descent segment is taken from reference book
which gives the values based on historical experiments;
75
W4
=0.990−0.995
W3
The average value is chosen as value;
W4
=0.9925
W3
Loiter Phases (4-5)
Endurance limit is 30 min. as given in this project. Hence,
(𝐸)𝐸𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒: 30𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.5 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟= 1800 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠
− EC
Wi L/D
=e
W i−1
−EC
W5 0. 866( L/D )
=e
W4
Landing Phases (5-6)
Weight ratio parameter for the landing segment is taken from reference book
which gives the values based on historical experiments;
Wi
=0.992−0.997
W i−1
The average value is chosen as value;
W6
=0.9945
W5
76
Total Weight Fraction
All the mission segment weight fractions are multiplied to find the total weight fraction as
shown;
W1 W2 W 3 W4 W5 W 6 W 6
x x x x x = =0.855
W0 W1 W 2 W3 W4 W5 W 0
To find the fuel fraction by considering a 6% error (reserved or trapped fuel),
Wf W6
W0
=1.06 1−
W0(=0.153)
W payload +W crew
W 0=
W empty W
1−
( W0 )( )
− fuel
W0
Our input values which we found ;
Wf We
=1.659 ×W 0 , W payload =5746.81 lbs , W crew =408.02lbs
−0.1
=0.153 ,
W0 W0
With using these values W 0 equation becames ;
5746.81+ 408.02
W 0=
Wf
1−( 1.659 ×W 0−0.1 )−
W0(=0.153
)
77
W 0 Calculated(lb) W 0 Estimated(lb)
25132,21 25225
25138,34 25200
25144,48 25175
25150,62 25150
25156,78 25125
25162,95 25100
25169,13 25075
After iteration the take of weight is;
W 0 =25150,62lb
W fuel
=0.153 W fuel =3848.045 lb
W0
W empty
=0.60231 , W empty =15148.47 lb
W0
T T
=0.5 , ∗W 0 =0.5∗25150,62 ;
W0 W0
T=12575.31 hp
1. Selection An Engine from the Manufacturers List

It is clear that an engine with 13832.841 bhp will be sufficient, but for safety margin, we will
search engines that will be 10% more thrust. After our engine research best option for our
aircraft is Pratt & Whitney F100.
78
Maximum thrust:14,590 pounds-force (64.9 kN) military thrust

Dry weight: 3,234 pounds (1,467 kg)
N∗T
W 0= 1∗13832.841
T , W 0= , W 0 =27655,68lb
0,5
W0
𝑊𝑓 = 𝑊0 − 𝑊𝑒 – 𝑊 , 𝑊𝑓 = 27655,68 − 15148.47 – 5746.81=6760.4 lbs
Wf W6 6760.4 W6
W0
=1.06 1−(W0 )
=0.153 →
27655,68 (
=1.06 1−
W0
, )
W6
=0.77
W0
W1 W2 W 3 W4 W5 W 6 W 6
x x x x x = =0.77
W0 W1 W 2 W3 W4 W5 W 0
W3 W5
0.98 x 0.9805 x x 0.9925 x x 0.9945=0.77
W2 W4
−EC
W 5 ( L/ D ) W3
=e =0.8314
W4 =0.9765 → W2
79
−RC
W 3 V 0 . 866 ( L/D )
=e
W2 =0.8314, where ;
W3
C=0.8 , V=795 ft/s , L/D=14.68785 x 0.866 , ln( ) = -0.1846
W2
R=8400158.1 ft = 1382.5 nm
2.3.1.
5.4Geometry Sizing
In this part, based on the historical experiments and data, sizing of the fuselage, tail,wing and
control surfaces will be done.
2.3.2. 5.4.1 Fusalage

In historical data from Raymer’s book, a and C values are selected as shown;
a=0.79 ; C=0.41
Lfuselage =a W 0C
Lfuselage =0.79∗( 25150,62 )0.41 =50.33 ft=15.34 m
80
2.3.3. 5.4.2 Wing

By dividing (W) take off weight by take-off wing loading (S), wing area can be calculated.
W
=62 lb/ ft 2
S
W0
Swing =
( WS )takeoff
25150,62
Swing = =405.65 ft 2=405.65 ft 2=37.68 m 2
62
Aspect ratio was found as 4.6 in previous parts of the project.
bw 2
AR=
S wing
b w =43.19 ft=13.16 m
The wing was selected as swept, taper ratio was 0.2 and wing area found previously. So chord of
tip and root can be calculated as ;
2S ( 2 x 405.65 )
c root = =
[ bw ( 1+ λ ) ] 43.19 ( 1+ 0.2 )
c root =15.65 ft=4.77 m
c tip =λ c root =0.2∗15.65=3,13 ft=0.95 m
2.3.4.
81
2.3.5. 5.4.3 Tail

In this part historical data will be used also. From reference book of Raymer, volume coefficients
are selected as;
Figure 4-2. Tail volume coefficient trend data
C HT =0.70
C VT =0.06
From the lecture notes;
Ltail arm =Lfuselage x 0.50
Ltail arm =25.15 ft =7.66 m
The areas of vertical and horizontal tail calculated as;
cVT b w S w
SVT =
LVT
82
0.06 x 43.19 x 405.65

SVT = =41.79 ft 2
25.15
c´w c HT Sw
S HT =
L HT
0.7 x 9.39 x 405.65

S HT = =25.15 ft 2
25.15
Vertical and horizontal tails’ span areas are calculated with AR of horizontal tail: 3 and AR of
vertical tail ; 1.4 as ;
b VT =√ AVT x SVT
b VT =√ 1.4 x 41.79=7.64 ft
b HT =√ A HT x S HT
b HT =√ 3 x 25.15=8.68 ft
2 S HT
c root ,HT = =4.83 ft
b HT ( 1+ λ )
c tip ,HT =λ x c root , HT =0.96 ft
2 SVT
c root ,VT = =9.11 ft
b VT ( 1+ λ )
c tip ,VT = λ x c root , VT =1.82 ft
2.3.6. 5.4.4 Control Surface Sizing

For the main movement axises of aircraft; ailerons, elevator, rudder are the basic and main
control surfaces. In this part their sizing will be calculated.
2.3.6.1. 5.4.4.1 Ailerons

From the reference book, ailerons are selected as %40 of wing span, By using this data in
historical guidelines, wing chord ratio is found as 0.23.
83
ca
=0.23
c´w
ba
=0.4
bw
15.65+3.13
c a= x 0.4=3.76 ft
2
43.19
b a= x 0.23=4.96 ft
2
2.3.6.2. 5.4.4.2 Flaps

From the reference book, 15%-%25 of the wing chord can be written as flap chords. %20 is
selected as average value and wing span ratio was found as %40.
b f =21.6 x 0.2=4.319 ft
c f =9.39 x 0.4=3.756 ft
2.3.6.3. 5.4.4.3 Elevator and Rudder

From the reference book of Raymer, elevator and rudder chords are selected as;
84
3.76+ 4.96
c e =0.35 x =1.52 ft
2
1.82+ 9.11
c r =0.35 x =1.91 ft
2
5.5 Result
Geometry Sizing
Fuselage Lfuselage 50.33 ft 15.34 m
Wing S 405.65 ft2 37.65 m2
b 43.19 ft 13.16 m
c root 15.65 ft 4.77 m
c tip 3.13 ft 0.95 m
Tail SVT 41.19 ft2 3.82 m2
S HT 25.15 ft2 2.33 m2
b VT 7.64 ft 2.32 m
b HT 8.68 ft 2.64 m
c root ,HT 4.83 ft 1.47 m
c tip ,HT 0.96 ft 0.29 m
c root ,VT 9.11 ft 2.77 m
c tip ,VT 1.82 ft 0.55 m
Ailerons c a /c w 0.23
ca 3.76 ft 1.14 m
ba 4.96 ft 1.51 m
85
Flaps cf 3.75 ft 1.14 m

bf 4.32 ft 1.31 m
Elevator ce 1.52 ft 0.46 m
cr 1.91 ft 0.58 m
6. References
Acar, H. (2018). Flight Mechanics - Lecture Notes. Istanbul Technical University. Acar, H.
Raymer, D. P. (2012). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach (6 ed.). AIAA.
86
Group#03
Student Participation
Student ID
Full Name (Y/N)
87
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................2
2. Values Determined Previously................................................................................................3
3. Mean Aerodynamic Chord and Sketches................................................................................4
4. Airfoils.....................................................................................................................................6
5. 3D drawing
6. References
88
1. Introduction
In previous part of this project, sizes of the components of the aircraft were determined. In
this part, main components of the aircraft will be drawn. In addition to drawing sketches of
the wing, tail and fuselage with the help of CATIA, cockpit elements will be designed such
as canopy, flight deck location and seat configuration. Consequently, final volume will be
calculated and compared with similar aircrafts.
89
2. Values Determined Previously

From the previous part of the project, sizes and values will be used in this part due to draw
sketches and design.
Wing Horizontal Tail Tail

Aspect Ratio 4.6 Aspect Ratio 3 Aspect Ratio 1.4
Taper Ratio 0.2 Taper Ratio 0.3 Taper Ratio 0.3
LE Sweep 46 LE Sweep 51 LE Sweep 51
Twist Angle -3 Twist Angle 0 Twist Angle 0
S 405.65 ft2 S HT 25.15 ft2 S 41.19 ft2
b 43.19 ft b HT 8.68 ft b 43.19 ft
c root 15.65 ft c root ,HT 4.83 ft c root 9.11 ft
c tip 3.13 ft c tip ,HT 0.96 ft c tip 1.82 ft
Fuselage
Lfuselage 50.33 ft
Ailerons Flaps
ca 0.23 cf 0.20
cw cw
ca 3.76 ft cf 3.75 ft
ba 4.96 ft bf 4.32 ft
Elevator Rudder
ce 0.52 cr 0.35
c HT c VT
ce 1.52 ft cr 1.91 ft
90
3. Mean Aerodynamic Chord and Sketches

With the equation given below, position of the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing, tail and
vertical tail will be found.
2 1+ λ+ λ 2
ć= () (
3
c root
1+ λ )
Ý = ( b6 )( 1+2 λ
1+ λ )
Surface Mean Aerodynamic Ý

Chord
Wing (ć wing ¿ 10.78 ft 8,4 ft
Horizontal Tail(ć HT ¿ 3.44 ft 1.78 ft
Vertical Tail 6.5 ft 1.56 ft

(ć VT ¿
With the founded values of mean aerodynamic chords and mean aerodynamic chord Y values of
wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail, sketches of these elements are drawn in CATIA.
Wing
91
Horizontal Tail
Vertical Tail
 Parameters are written in ft.
92
4. Airfoils
For wing, NACA 64A-010 is selected due to its satisfying values for our project aircraft’s
requirements such as lift which is directly about lift coefficient.
NACA 64A-410 Airfoil
For the thickness of the root and tip are calculated with the equation formula, which include
thickness to chord ratio.
t root= ( ct ) x c root =% 10 x 15.65=1.56 ft
t tip= ( ct ) x c tip =% 10 x 3.13=0.31 ft
The length of the wing is 43.19 so half span is 21.6 ft. Thickness distribution is drawn with
half span length and thickness at root and tip.
Thickness Distribution of Wing

1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
Thickness (ft)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Span (ft)
93
At the tip of the wing, twist angle is -3 which means wing is nose up and at the root it is 0.
On half span, twist distribution is shown.
Twist Distribution of Wing

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-0.5
-1
Twist Angle
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
Span (ft)
For tail airfoil, NACA 0009 was selected. The reason of this selection is, this airfoil has less
drag coefficient and compatible with the required performances of our aircraft.
NACA 0009 Airfoil
According to given thickness ratio of this airfoil; chord lengths of the horizontal and vertical
tails’ root and tip are written below.
Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail
Root Tip Root Tip

Chord length 4.83 ft 0.93 ft 9.11 ft 1.82 ft
Thickness 0.43 ft 0.083 ft 0.82 ft 0.16 ft
94
The thickness values along the horizontal and vertical wing is calculated and the distribution
of thickness showed on graphs as;
Thickness Distribution of HT
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
Thickness (ft)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Span (ft)
Thickness Distribution of Horizontal Tail
Thickness Distribution of VT
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Thickness (ft)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Span (ft)
Thickness Distribution of Vertical Tail
95
5. 3D Drawing
96
6. References
Acar, H. (2018). Flight Mechanics - Lecture Notes. Istanbul Technical University. Acar,
H.
Raymer, D. P. (2012). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach (6 ed.). AIAA.
97

Group#03
Full Name ID (Y/N)
98
Table of Contents
1. Propulsion System Selection.......................................................................................................2
1.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................2
1.2. Engine Selection...................................................................................................................2
1.3. Engine Dimensions...............................................................................................................3
1.4. Engine Location....................................................................................................................5
2. Designing Of Fuel System...........................................................................................................6
2.1. Discrete Type........................................................................................................................6
2.2. Bladder..................................................................................................................................6
2.3. Integral..................................................................................................................................6
2.4. Fuel Tank Location...............................................................................................................6
2.5. Fuel Tank of the Design.......................................................................................................7
2.6. Capacity of the Fuel Tank.....................................................................................................7
3. References....................................................................................................................................9
99
7. Propulsion System Selection
7.1. Introduction
According to the design Mach number for flight we select the propulsion type which is the first
criteria. As the flight Mach number is 0.8 for our design study and respect to the weight and fuel
consumption and requirement of performance according to the aircraft type and mission the
engine type is selected following;
7.2. Engine Selection
According to the previous study parts we obtain the available turbine engine for our design. The
engine selection is from Pratt & Whitney company F100-PW-220 series.
100
F100-PW-220
Type Afterburning turbofan
Maximum thrust 14,590 Ibf (64.9 kN)
Thrust-to-weight ratio 7.4:1
Specific fuel consumption 0.73 lb/(lbf·h)
Compressor Dual Spool Axial compressor
Bypass ratio 0.63:1
Length 191 inches (490 cm) (15.9 ft)
Diameter 34.8 inches (88 cm) inlet,

46.5 inches (118 cm) (3.87ft) max external
Dry weight 3,234 pounds (1,467 kg)
7.3. Engine Dimensions
Scale factor is the ratio that helps to define the nominal engine which is scaled version of the
existing one. It would reducting fuel consumption and weight to have better performance.
T required
In this case firstly need to define scale factor with defined as SF=
T acual
The T required =12575.31 from calculation of study part 05 and the T acual =14590 is given in
manufacturer properties so:
T required 12575.31
SF= = =0.86
T acual 14590
Scale factor version:
L=Lactual ( SF )0.4=14.96 ft
101
D=D actual ( SF )0.5=3.58 ft
W =W actual ( SF )1.1 =2739.6 pound
The result of the calculation shows that the optimized engine has smaller size and lighter than
fixed one.
The parameters are shown in the following figure,
Although the thrust is proportional to the cross sectional area which is proportional to the square
root of the scale factor respect to the area and diameter relation.
There are some given equation based on statistical jet engine models for subsonic commercial
transports and supersonic fighters aircrafts which is taken for our design aircraft.
The equations for supersonic with mach number bellow M=2.5 and includes bypass ratio
between 0-1 (for after burning engines) are given bellow:
102
Statistical Method:
The Mach number in equations is define as maximum mach number wich is M max =1.3 for our
aircraft.so the result are defined bellow:
W = 1536.97 pound
L = 149.32 ft
D = 35.67
T cruise = 1958 lbf
SFC cruise = 0.925
7.4. Engine Location
With respect to the engine number that our design has one jet engine, we decide to insert turbo
engine inside the fuselage at tail side of fuselage in this case we avoid having extra drag for
engine cross sectional.
103
8. Designing Of Fuel System

An aircraft fuel system includes the fuel tanks, fuel lines, fuel pumps, vents, and fuel-
management controls. There are three types of fuel tank: discrete, bladder, and integral.First we
will give some information about these types.
8.1. Discrete Type

Discrete tanks are fuel containers which are separately fabricated and mounted in the aircraft
bolts or straps. Discrete tanks are normally used only for small general aviation and home built
aircraft. They are usually shaped airfoil leading edge like and inserted in front of the wing or
directly inserted near place to engine in the fuselage.
8.2. Bladder
These kinds of fuel tanks are made by stuffing a shaped rubber bag into cavity in the structure.
Although the bag causes the volume loss approximately 10%, these fuel tank type is widely
being used because of the self-sealing effect of the bag.
8.3. Integral
Integral tanks are cavities within the airframe structure that are sealed to form a fuel tank.
8.4. Fuel Tank Location
104
Figure 2.1 Fuel tank location in the aircraft
Note:It is not seen in the figure 2.1 but, there are saddle,tail,aft and forward tanks in aircraft.
First, stability is an important parameter for an aircraft because of that,tanks location are really
important for that reason. They must be symmetric each other in wings for stability. Secondly,
tails can be used for fuel location. We can see tails as little wings End lastly, wing connection
section of airplane body has extra storage. We can use this blank.
8.5. Fuel Tank of the Design

Bladder tanks, bag tanks or fuel cells, are reinforced rubberised bags installed in a section of
aircraft structure designed to accommodate fuel. The bladder is rolled up and installed into the
compartment through the fuel filler neck or access panel, and is secured by means of snap
fasteners or cord and loops inside the compartment. Many high-performance light
aircraft, helicopters and some smaller turboprop aircraft use bladder tanks. Acording to our
aircraft we chose bladder tank for design.
Inside the tanks foam may be used to reduce fire hazard.
2.5 % loss of fuel volume + 2.5 % fuel absorbed by the foam. Foam weights 2.6 lb/ft3
Fuel mass was determined in previous section as: 𝑊𝑓 = 3848.045 lb
A rule of thumb for internal fuel tank for bladder tanks: 77 % and 83 % respectively.
8.6. Capacity of the Fuel Tank

In this project, Positioning of the fuel tanks will be inside of the wings.
For design requirements, we will be calculate fuel volume, then we will iterate to find the
required length inside the wing to obtain the volume.
For each tank, the cross sectional area loss is taken as 10% of the rectangular area that is shown
in Figure 2.3.
105
Figure 2.3 Area Loss
Mf 3848.045
M𝑓,𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 = = = 1924.02 lb. = 872.722 kg
2 2
M𝑓,𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 wing = 0.85 * 𝜌f * Vone wing , where ; 𝜌f =785 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 M𝑓,𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 wing =872.722 kg
V 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1.308 m3
In total, 2.616 𝑚3 volume is included in the wings, which is 2616 litres.
Using equation below, A1 value can be calculated;
A1=0.9*0.5c*t
A1=0.9*0.5*4.77*0.4765 = 1.023 m2
To calculate A2 and H values
Volume Desired m3 Volume Calculated m3 A2 C2 H
1.308 m3
1,38 0,218714 1,02 2,308816
1.308 m3
1,36 0,223002 1,04 2,248645
3
1.308 m
1,34 0,227291 1,06 2,190119
3
1.308 m
1,32 0,231579 1,08 2,13315
1.308 m3
1,308 0,235868 1,1 2,077656
The results show that the required length is 𝐻 = 2,078𝑚 and the area required at the end of the
fuel tank is 2 = 0,2359 𝑚2
106
9. References
 Acar, H. (2018). Flight Mechanics - Lecture Notes. Istanbul Technical University. Acar,
H.
 Raymer, D. P. (2012). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach (6 ed.). AIAA.
107

PAD - Fall2018 - 12591 - Final Report - Group3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAD - Fall2018 - 12591 - Final Report - Group3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCK 451E: Final Project Report

CRN: 12591 – Tuesday

Assist. Prof. Dr. Hayri Acar

UCK 451E: Project Study Part#01

CRN: 12591 – Tuesday

Assist. Prof. Dr. Hayri Acar

4.1. We/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic)............................................................................10

4.2. Wf/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic).............................................................................12

4.3. Cruise Speed of aircrafts.................................................................................................13

4.4. Range of aircrafts............................................................................................................14

4.5. Maximum Take-off Weight (kg).....................................................................................16

4.6. Take-off Distance (m).....................................................................................................17

4.7. Landing Distance (m)......................................................................................................18

4.8. Maximum Wing Loading (lb/ft2)...................................................................................20

4.9. Power Loading (lb/h.p.)..................................................................................................21

4.10. Payload Weight (kg)....................................................................................................23

TABLE 1. Design Requirements

And the important design parameters to be determined are listed below:

*Wing thickness ratio (root)

*Wing thickness ratio (tip)

*Payload Weight, Wp (kg)

*Empty Weight,We (kg)

*Fuel Weight, Wf (kg)

* Cruising Speed (knots)

*Maximum Take Off Weight, W0 (kg)

* Stalling Speed, flaps up (knots)

*Stalling Speed, flaps down (knots)

*Max. Wing Loading, W/S, (lb/ft2)

*Wing Span (m)

*Max. Power Loading, (lb/h.p.)

*Wing Area (m)

*Service Ceiling (m)

*Wing Aspect Ratio

*Take Off Distance (m)

*Wing Taper Ratio

*Landing Distance (m)

*Sweep Angle (l.e.)

*Range (nautical mile)

*Sweep Angle (c/4)

*Max Rate of Climb (ft/min)

*Denel (Atlas) Cheetah *HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn)

*Nanchang Q-5 (Fantan) *Hawker Siddeley Harrier/AV-8A

*Northrop T-38 Talon *Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle)

*Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master

Aircraft HAIG L-15 KAI Lockheed Denel (Atlas)

Empty Weight, We 4,500 6,480 6,600

Aircraft HESA Shafaq (Before Nanchang Q-5 Hawker

Accomodation (Crew) 1-2 1-2 1-2

Aircraft Northrop T-38 Talon Guizhou JL-9 Shanying Alenia Aermacchi M-

Fuel Weight, 1930 1,999

Wing Area 16,0 26.7 23.52

4.1. We/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic)

Hawker 5,530 11,530

Northrop T-38 Talon 3,270 5,485

Alenia Aermacchi M-346 4,610 9,600

4.2. Wf/W0 - W0 (W0 Axis Logarithmic)

Aircraft Wf/W0 Fuel Weight Maximum Take

Northrop T-38 Talon 5,485

4.3. Cruise Speed of aircrafts

Aircraft Cruise Speeds Vc (knots)

Northrop T-38 Talon 745,56

1400.00 Aircraft - Cruise Speed (knot)

Denel (Atlas) Cheetah HESA Shafaq (Before The Dawn)

Nanchang Q-5 (Fantan) Hawker Siddeley Harrier/AV-8A

Northrop T-38 Talon Guizhou JL-9 Shanying (FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle)