AE451 Aerospace Engineering Design: Team H

AE 451 Team H Study 4 Due Date: 20\01\2022
AE451
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING DESIGN
TEAM H
Final Study
NAME ID Contribution
Ahmed Chawa 2349843 Missions Profile
Hazem Kholosi 2349876 Weight Estimation and Trade-off Studies
Osama Moustafa 2203883 Competitor Study
Ömer Uğur Zayifoğlu 2300945 Decision Matrix
Yusuf Can Okyay 2311223 Aircraft Requirements
Instructor : Prof. Dr. Dilek Funda Kurtuluş

Assistant : Ilgın Çolak
Due Date : 18/11/2021
ABSTRACT
In this final report, a whole design of the aerial firefighting jet aircraft is given. Starting from
weight estimation, geometry sizing, thrust to weight ratio, flap sizing, cg envelope etc. studies
are conducted to lay out the whole configuration of the aircraft. Numerous parameters were
taken into account to achieve the best possible aerial firefighting aircraft design.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………..i
Table of Contents…...…...…………………………………………………………………ii
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………iv
List of Symbols……………………………………………………………………………..v
1. Introduction…………………………..……………………………………………...…1
2. Study-1………………………………………………………………………………....2
3. Aircraft Requirements…………………………………………………………..……...2
4. Mission Profile……………………………….………………………………………...3
5. Competitor study…………………………………………………………………….…5
6. Take of weight estimation………………………………………………………….…...7
7. Trade off study……………………………………………………………….……..…18
8. Decision Matrix ……………………………………………………………….….…..24
9. Study-2…………………………………………………………………………..…....27
10. Airfoil selection……………………………………………………………….……....27
11. Wing geometry ……………………………………………………………..………. .44
12. Tail geometry ………………………………………………………………………....49
13. Study-3………………………………………………………………………………..53
14. Flap selection and Estimation of Cl max ……………………………………………..53
15. Parasite Drag coefficient Estimation ………………………………………………….58
16. Thrust to Weight Ratio Estimation……………………………………………………59
17. Wing loading Estimation ……………………………………………………………..62
18. Constraint Diagram…………………………………………………………………...63
ii
19. Engine Selection………………………………………………………………………69
20. Study-4………………………………………………………………………………..73
21. Layout Sizing and Lofting of Main Parts……………………………………………...73
22. Wing…………………………………………………………………………………..80
23. Tail…………………………………………………………………………………....80
24. Aircraft Wetted Area and Volume……………………………………………………83
25. Fuel Calculations………………………………………………………………….…..85
26. Weight analysis and CG envelope………………………………………………….....88
27. Wing Positioning…………………………………………………………………..….94
28. Dimensional Comparison of our aircraft with its competitors……………………….97
29. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………98
30. References…………………………………………………………………………….99
31. Appendix…………………………………………………………………………....107
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Main Mission Profile. ................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: No-Drop Mission Profile. ........................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Ferry Range Mission Profile (Empty Payload) .......................................................... 4
Figure 4: Retardant Capacity vs Take-off Weight ..................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Retardant Capacity...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Empty Weight Ratio vs Take-off Weight (Logarithmic Scale) including Raymer’s
Historical Data (Raymer, 2006, p. 30, fig. 3.1) [77] ................................................................ 10
Figure 7: 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡/𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 of different aircrafts (Raymer, 2006, p. 40, fig. 3.6) [77] ..................... 13
Figure 8: (L/D)max vs Wetted Aspect Ratio (Raymer, 2006, p. 69, table 3.5) [77] ................ 14
Figure 9: Design Radius & Retardant Capacity Trade-off Study ............................................ 19
Figure 10: Design Radius & Retardant Capacity Trade-off Study (Points of interest) ............ 20
Figure 11: Retardant Capacity vs Take-off Weight (Potential Aircraft Included) ................... 21
Figure 12: Retardant Capacity vs Empty Weight Ratio (Potential Aircraft Included) ............ 22
Figure 13: Empty Weight Fraction vs Take-off Weight (Potential Aircraft Included) including
Raymer’s Historical Data (Raymer, 2006, p. 30, fig. 3.1) [77] ................................................ 23
Figure 14: Thickness Ratio vs Design Mach Number (Raymer, P. 71, Fig. 4.14) .................. 27
Figure 15: NASA SC(2)-0714 Airfoil [5] ................................................................................ 28
Figure 16: FX 61-140 Airfoil [5] ............................................................................................. 28
Figure 19: AH 93-W-145 Airfoil [5]........................................................................................ 30
Figure 20: DSMA-523B Airfoil [5] ......................................................................................... 30
Figure 21: FX 61-147 Airfoil [5] ............................................................................................. 31
Figure 22: KC-135 BL52.44 Airfoil [5] ................................................................................... 31
Figure 23: 𝐶𝑙 vs AOA Comparison (Drop) .............................................................................. 32
Figure 24: 𝐶𝑙 vs AOA Comparison (Cruise) ............................................................................ 33
Figure 25: 𝐶𝑙 vs 𝐶𝑑 Comparison (Drop) .................................................................................. 33
Figure 26: 𝐶𝑙/𝐶𝑑 vs AOA Comparison (Drop) ....................................................................... 34
Figure 27:𝐶𝑙 vs 𝐶𝑑 Comparison (Cruise)................................................................................. 34
Figure 28: 𝐶𝑚 vs AOA Comparison (Drop) ............................................................................ 35
Figure 29: 𝐶𝑙/𝐶𝑑 vs AOA Comparison (Cruise) ..................................................................... 35
Figure 30: 𝐶𝑚 vs AOA Comparison (Cruise) .......................................................................... 36
Figure 31: Minimum Pressure Coefficient vs Mach Number at 2° AOA ................................ 37
Figure 32: 𝐶𝑙 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE= 2-9*10^6) .............................. 41
Figure 33: 𝐶𝑙 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=9-18*10^6) ............................. 41
Figure 34: 𝐶𝑑 𝑣𝑠 𝐶𝑙 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=2-9*10^6) ............................ 42
Figure 35: 𝐶𝑑 𝑣𝑠 𝐶𝑙 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=9-18*10^6) .......................... 42
Figure 36: 𝐶𝑚 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=2-9*10^6)............................. 43
Figure 37: 𝐶𝑙 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=9-18*10^6) ............................. 43
Figure 38: Figure showing wing sweep angle in CAD ............................................................ 44
Figure 39: Figure showing dihedral angle in CAD .................................................................. 45
Figure 40: Figure showing upswept in CAD ........................................................................... 45
Figure 41: Figure showing wingspan value in CAD ................................................................ 46
Figure 42: Figure showing root chord length in CAD ............................................................. 47
Figure 43: Figure showing tip chord length in CAD ............................................................... 47
iv
Figure 44: Wing geometry in CAD .......................................................................................... 48

Figure 45: Wing with flap line drawing ................................................................................... 54
Figure 46: 𝐶𝐿, 𝑚𝑎𝑥 vs 𝛬𝐶/4 for different flap types. (Raymer, p. 127, fig. 5.3) .................... 54
Figure 47: AVL Wing Model ................................................................................................... 55
Figure 48: AVL Lift and Drag Polars of the wing at maximum AoA (no flap deflection) ..... 56
Figure 49: Flap deflection in AVL ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 50: AVL Lift and Drag Polars of the wing at maximum AoA (full flap deflection) .... 57
Figure 51: 3D CAD drawing of the aircraft ............................................................................. 58
Figure 52: Thrust at Cruise Over Thrust at takeoff vs Altitude (Raymer, p.122, fig. 5.1) ...... 62
Figure 53: Takeoff parameter vs Takeoff distance (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 130, 𝑓𝑖𝑔. 5.4) ...................... 64
Figure 54: Mach number vs Uninstalled Thrust. (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑥 𝐸. 2) ......................... 66
Figure 55: Constraint Diagram ................................................................................................. 68
Figure 56: CFM56-5 The example picture of our engine CFM56-5C4C4 .............................. 70
Figure 57: Initial CAD Drawing .............................................................................................. 70
Figure 58: Updated CAD Drawing After Engine Selection ..................................................... 71
Figure 59: Matching Chart (After Engine Selection) ............................................................... 72
Figure 60: Some generic fuselage configurations given in [3, pg 345], .................................. 73
Figure 61: Chart given by Roskam for deciding geometrical parameters of a fuselage .......... 74
Figure 62: Pilot’s Cabin minimum required parameters .......................................................... 76
Figure 63: Basic Aircraft Configuration .................................................................................. 76
Figure 64: Aircraft Loft ............................................................................................................ 77
Figure 65: Fuselage Layout ...................................................................................................... 77
Figure 66: Aircraft Layout (Top View) .................................................................................... 78
Figure 67: Full View of Aircraft .............................................................................................. 79
Figure 68: CAD drawing of horizontal tail .............................................................................. 82
Figure 69: CAD drawing of the vertical tail ............................................................................ 82
Figure 70: Figure Showing Fuselage exposed area and volume .............................................. 83
Figure 71: Figure Showing Fuselage exposed area and volume .............................................. 84
Figure 72: Volume and Exposed Areas of Horizontal tail ....................................................... 84
Figure 73: Exposed Area and volume of Vertical tail .............................................................. 85
Figure 74: CAD drawing of the fuel tanks ............................................................................... 87
Figure 75: Typical pitching-moment derivative values. (Raymer, p. 593, Fig. 16.4) .............. 92
Figure 76: CG Envelope ........................................................................................................... 92
Figure 77: Wing Positioning with Aircraft Layout .................................................................. 92
Figure 78: Aircraft Layout (Top View) .................................................................................... 92
Figure 79 DC-10 Air Tanker [67] ............................................................................................ 92
Figure 80 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 [68] ............................................................................ 92
Figure 81 Lockheed C-130Q Hercules [69] ............................................................................. 92
Figure 82 Boeing 737-300 [70] ................................................................................................ 92
Figure 83 BAE146 [71] ............................................................................................................ 92
Figure 84 Ilyushin Il-76 [72] .................................................................................................... 92
Figure 85 Boeing 747 SuperTanker [73] .................................................................................. 92
Figure 86 Beriev Be-200 [75] .................................................................................................. 92
Figure 87 ShinMaywa US-2 [74] ............................................................................................. 92
Figure 88 Bombardier Dash 8 Q400-MR [76] ......................................................................... 92
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Aircraft Requirements .................................................................................................. 2
Table 2: Competitor Study ......................................................................................................... 5
Table 3: Weight Data of Firefighting Aircrafts .......................................................................... 8
Table 4: The decision matrix for different problems for fire fighting aircraft ......................... 24
Table 5: Final Chocies Based on the Decision Matrix ............................................................. 25
Table 6: Best Decision Vs. Worst Decision Comparison. ....................................................... 26
Table 7: Flight Conditions\Properties for Drop and Cruise Segments..................................... 32
Table 8: Selected Airfoils List.................................................................................................. 37
Table 9: Properties of Selected Airfoils (Drop) ....................................................................... 39
Table 10: Properties of Selected Airfoils (Cruise) ................................................................... 40
Table 11: Wing Configuration Decision Matrix ...................................................................... 46
Table 12: Decided Dimensions ................................................................................................ 48
Table 13: Flap Type Decision Matrix ...................................................................................... 49
Table 14: Flap Decision Table ................................................................................................. 53
Table 2: Thrust-to-Weight ratio estimation (Raymer, p. 119, table 5.3) .................................. 59
Table 3: Max Lift-to-Drag ratio to Cruise and Loiter. ............................................................. 61
Table 17: Typical Takeoff Wing Loading (Raymer, p.124, table 5.5) .................................... 63
Table 18: Flight Conditions of Different Segments ................................................................. 67
Table 19: Engine type decision matrix ..................................................................................... 69
Table 20: Candidate engines specifications ............................................................................. 69
Table 21: Engine position decision matrix ............................................................................... 70
Table 22:Decided Geometrical Parameters .............................................................................. 75
Table 23: Initial Fuselage Parameters ...................................................................................... 75
Table 24: Decided Fuselage Parameters .................................................................................. 76
Table 25: Wing Parameters ...................................................................................................... 80
Table 26: Table for the control surface sizing (Raymer, p. 162. Table 6.5) ............................ 83
Table 27: Average Fuel Densities in (lb/gal) or {kg/liter} (Raymer, p.327, table 10.5) ......... 86
Table 28: Statistical Weights of Components .......................................................................... 89
Table 29: Approximate Empty Weight Buildup. (Raymer, p.568, Table 15.2) ....................... 90
Table 30: Components Mass and Location (Max Take-off Weight Case) .............................. 91
Table 31: Dimensional Comparison table for our final design and some of our competitors . 91
vi
List of Symbols
AIAA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
VFR: Visual flight rules
IFR: Instrument flight rules
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
EIS: Entry into Service
𝑾𝟎 ∶ Take-off Weight
𝑾𝒆 : Empty Weight
𝑾𝑓 : Fuel Weight
𝑾𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 : Crew Weight
𝑾𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 ∶ 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑡)
A: Empty-weight fraction trend constant
AR: Aspect Ratio of the wing
𝑨𝑹𝒘𝒆𝒕 : Wetted Aspect Ratio
C: Specific fuel consumption rate of aircraft
c: Slope of the empty-weight fraction trend curve
D: Drag force
E: Endurance
Kvs: Variable sweep Angle constant
L: Lift force
𝑺𝑾 : 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 Area
Sref: Reference wing area
vii
Swet: Wetted Wing Area
V: Cruise velocity
CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics
MAC: Mean Aerodynamic Chord
HT: Horizontal Tail
NACA: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
VT: Vertical Tail
𝜶: Angle of Attack
̅ : MAC distance from the centerline

𝒀
𝝀: Taper Ratio
𝑨𝑹: Aspect Ratio
𝒃: Wingspan
𝒄𝒅 : Drag Coefficient
𝒄𝒍 : Lift Coefficient
𝒄𝒎 : Pitching Moment Coefficient
𝒄𝒅𝟎 : Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient
𝒄𝒍𝒎𝒂𝒙 : Maximum Lift Coefficient
𝒄𝒎𝟎 : Zero-Lift Pitching Moment Coefficient
𝑪𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒕 : Wing Root Chord Length
𝑪𝒕𝒊𝒑 : Wing Tip Chord Length
𝑳𝒙 : Length of the Fuselage
𝑳𝑪𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒏 : Length of the Cabin
𝑳𝑪𝒐𝒄𝒌𝒑𝒊𝒕 : Length of the Cockpit
viii
𝑳𝑻𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒆 : Length of Tailcone
𝑺𝑹𝑬𝑭 : Wing Reference Area
𝑺𝑪: Super Critical
𝑾𝟎 : Maximum Take-off Weight
𝑪𝑳,𝒎𝒂𝒙 Maximum coefficient of Lift
MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord
𝑪𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒕 Root Chord Length
𝑪𝒕𝒊𝒑 Tip Chord Length
𝑺𝒇𝒍𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒅 Area Including Flaps
𝑺𝒓𝒆𝒇 Reference Area
𝝀 Taper Ratio
𝚲𝑪/𝟒 Quarter Chord Sweep Angle
𝑪𝑫,𝟎 Parasite Drag Coefficient
𝑪𝒇𝒆 Skin Friction Drag Coefficient
𝑺𝒘𝒆𝒕 Wetted Area
𝑺𝑾 Wing Reference Area
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum Mach Number
𝑻 Thrust
𝑾𝟎 Takeoff Weight
𝑻
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio
𝑾
𝑳
Lift-to-Drag Ratio
𝑫
𝑲 Drag due to Lift Coefficient
𝒆 Oswald Efficiency Number
ix
𝑨𝑹 Aspect Ratio
𝚲𝑳𝑬 Leading Edge Sweep Angle
TOP Takeoff Parameter
𝝈 Density Ratio
𝑨𝒐𝑨 Angle of Attack
ℎ W𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑏 W𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛
𝑾𝟎 : Take-off Weight
𝒍𝒇 : Fuselage length
𝒍𝒇𝒓 : Tail cone length
𝒅𝒇 : Fuselage diameter
𝜽𝒇𝒄 : Tail cone angle
𝒍𝒉 : the lever arm of the horizontal tailplane is the distance between the aerodynamic centers of
wing and horizontal tailplane,
𝒍𝑽 : the lever arm of the vertical tailplane is the distance between the aerodynamic centers of
wing and vertical tailplane
𝐶𝐻 : horizontal tail volume coefficient (historical trend)
𝑪𝑽 : vertical tail volume coefficient (historical trend)
𝒃𝑾 : wingspan,
𝒄𝑴𝑨𝑪 : mean aerodynamic chord of the wing
𝝀𝒘 : Wing Taper Ratio
𝝀𝑯𝑻 : Horizontal Tail Taper Ratio
𝝀𝑽 : Vertical Tail Taper Ratio
𝑾𝒆 : Empty Weight
x
𝑾𝒅𝒈 : Flight Design Gross Weight
𝑵𝒁 : Ultimate Load Factor
𝑺𝑾 : Trapezoidal Wing Area
𝑨 : Aspect Ratio
𝑺𝒄𝒔𝒘 : Control Surface Area
𝑲𝒖𝒉𝒕 : 1.143 for unit horizontal tail, 1.0 Otherwise
𝑭𝒘 : Fuselage Width at Horizontal Tail Intersection
𝑩𝒉 : Horizontal Tail Span
𝑺𝒉𝒕 : Horizontal Tail Area
𝑳𝒕 : Tail Length
𝑲𝒚 : Aircraft Pitching Radius of Gyration
𝚲𝒉𝒕 : Horizontal Tail Sweep Angle
𝑨𝒉 : Horizontal Tail Aspect Ratio
𝑺𝒆 : Elevator Area
𝑯𝒕 : Horizontal Tail Height Above Fuselage
𝑯𝒗 : Vertical Tail Height Above Fuselage
𝑺𝒗𝒕 : Vertical Tail Area
𝑲𝒁 : Aircraft Yawing Radius of Gyration
𝑨𝑽 : Vertical Tail Aspect Ratio
𝑲𝑳𝒈 : 1.12 for Fuselage-mounted Main Landing Gear
𝑺𝒇 : Fuselage Wetted Area
𝑲𝒘𝒔 : Wing Sweep Factor
𝑽𝒕 : Total Fuel Volume
𝑽𝒊 : Integral Tanks Volume
xi
𝑽𝒑 : Self-sealing Tanks Volume
𝑵𝒕 : Number of Fuel Tanks
𝑲𝒓 : Constant (1.0)
𝑲𝒕𝒑 : Constant (1.0 for Turbofan)
𝑵𝒄 : Number of Crew
𝑵𝒆𝒏 : Number of Engines
𝑳𝒇 : Total Fuselage Length
𝑩𝒘 : Wingspan
𝑵𝒇 : Number of Separate Functions Performed by Surface Controls
𝑹𝒌𝒗𝒂 : System Electrical Rating (135 for our case)
𝑳𝒂 : Electrical Routing Distance
𝑵𝒈𝒆𝒏 : Number of Generators
𝑊𝑢𝑎𝑣 : Uninstalled Avionics Weight
xii
AE 451 Team H Final Study Due Date: 1/2/2022
Introduction
Since climate change is one of the biggest concerns of our today’s world, humans have to devise
new ways to battle the crushing effects of the violent disasters that are caused by the climate
change. One of the main disasters we face constantly due to the climate change is fire outbreaks
on big scale in the forests that normal firefighting methods cannot effectively solve. Thus, an
urgent need for much more effective ways of dealing with these fires is appeared.
Aerial firefighting aircrafts are the most effective machines to deal with large scale forest fires.
However, generally aerial firefighting aircrafts are not actually designed for aerial firefighting.
Instead, they are converted from old aircrafts that are not designed to fight fires in the first place.
This situation causes inefficiencies as expected since these old aircrafts are not specifically
designed for aerial firefighting. As a result, aircrafts which are specifically designed for
firefighting should be developed. In this whole semester our group has worked for this sole
purpose.
Whole design process consists four smaller studies. The first study consists of aircraft
requirements, mission profile, data collection from historical aircrafts and initial take-off weight
estimation by using Raymer’s book[86] regarding aerial firefighting aircrafts. Moreover, a
decision matrix for the aircraft configuration is developed.
In the second study, airfoil selection process is given regarding Reynolds number, thickness ratio
and airfoil types. Moreover, initially selected geometries for fuselage, wing and tail geometry are
laid out. Finally, a 3D CAD drawing of whole aircraft is presented.
The third study is conducted to estimate some crucial performance characteristics such as parasite
drag coefficient,maximum lift coefficient, stall speed, thrust-to-weight ratio, and wing loading. It
should be noted that thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading are determined considering a
constraint diagram where the optimal values for all aircraft service conditions are selected.
Moreover, the changes to the design parameters due to the performance characteristics such as
wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio are also explained in this study. Finally, flap dimensions
and the engine model and its location are presented.
The fourth study consists of final geometries of the fuselage, tail and wing. In addition to that
fuselage lofting, cabin dimensions and layout are also given in this study. The wetted areas and
volumes of the wing, fuselage and tail are presented by using CAD software. Moreover, fuel type
and fuel tank location is determined by using Raymer’s book[86]. Landing gear arrangement and
properties are also calculated. Finally, the weights of the components of whole aircraft are
calculated by using various equations from various references to determine the CG of the airplane
and CG envelope of the airplane which is very important for stable operation of the aircraft.
1
1. Study 1
1.1. Aircraft Requirements
In today’s world, climate change is one of the most important topics that we should discuss. Since
the temperatures rise gradually every year, the number of violent wildfires rapidly rise too.
Moreover, these wildfires do not just happen in some specific regions of the world but all. Our
forests, wildlife and breath are in danger. As a solution, there is an urgent need to develop effective,
efficient, potent, and affordable aerial firefighting aircraft since traditional methods include
converting old military or commercial aircraft into aerial firefighting aircraft by integrating
equipment. As a result, inefficiencies arise since these converted aircraft are not designed for aerial
firefighting in the first place. For instance, the payload difference between commercial
transportation and aerial firefighting mission is a serious concern as the density of the firefighting
retardant induces significant structural loads. These structural loads are enhanced when sharp
maneuvers are needed to deliver firefighting retardants. Specific designs for aerial firefighting
could make easily repairable or replaceable structures with a potential of weight savings rather
than having robust structural designs.
Table 1: Aircraft Requirements
Description Requirements
4000 gal
Fire Retardant Capacity Multi-drop capable; minimum 2,000 gal per drop
Fire retardant reload >= 500 gal / min
Retardant density of at least 9 lbs. / gal
Payload drop Drop speed <= 150 kts
Drop altitude <= 300 ft AGL
Design Radius with Full Payload 200 nmi
Design Ferry Range (No 2000 nmi
Payload)
Dash Speed (After Payload 300 kts
Drop)
Field Requirements Balanced field length <= 8,000 ft @ 5,000 ft MSL elevation on a +35°F hot day
Capable of VFR and IFR flight with an autopilot
Certifications Capable of flight in known icing conditions
Meets applicable certification rules in FAA 14 CFR Part 25
2030
Use existing engine(s) or one that is in development will be in service by 2028,
or
Entry Into Service at least two years prior to the airplane EIS.
Assumptions on at least specific fuel consumption/efficiency, thrust/power and
weight must be documented.
2
1.2. Mission Profile

According to the specified requirements mentioned earlier, we drew the main mission profile as
depicted in Fig.[1]. Our firefighter is designed such that it can perform missions that are within a
400nm radius from the take-off location for this profile. The mission starts by taking-off at an
altitude of 5000 ft, climbing, then cruising @ 400 kts for 400nm. Then, the aircraft will decend
and perform 3 drops below 300 ft Above Ground Level (AGL) @125 kts. Afterwards, the airplane
will climb back and dash for 400nm @500 kts to return back to the take-off location then decend
and land at the same initial altitude of 5000 ft.
Figure 1: Main Mission Profile.
Moving on, the second mission profile we drew is shown in Fig. [2]. Similar to the first mission
profile, the airplane will also take-off @5000 ft and then climb and cruise for 400nm @400kts to
reach the fire location. However, this time the firefighter will make any retardant drops but will
simply climb back and dash for 400nm @500kts back to the take-off location where it will descend
and land. This especially designed to ensure the aircraft can turn back in case of any malfunction
in drop mechanism with the load safely back to the base.
Figure 2: No-Drop Mission Profile.
3
Finally, the 3rd mission profile we drew is shown in Fig.[3]. This mission profile depicts the
case where the aircraft will fly with empty retardant tanks with the payload consisting of only
the 3-member crew. Taking-off @5000ft, climbing, then cruising for its ferry range distance
of 3000 nm. The airplane will then descend, loiter, and land @5000 ft. This is designed to
ensure the aircraft can relocate to distant places in the fastest time possible without refueling
stops to fight fires in distant locations from the main base.
Figure 3: Ferry Range Mission Profile (Empty Payload)
4
1.3. Competitor Study

Table 2: Competitor Study
McDonnell Lockheed
Douglas MD- C-130Q
Airplane DC-10 Air Tanker 87 Hercules Boeing 737-300 BAe 146
DIMENSIONS
Length (ft) 170.5 119.1 97.0 106.0 93.7
span (ft) 165.4 107.8 132.0 94.8 86.4
Height (ft) 19.8 11.8 38.0 12.2 28.2
Aspect Ratio 6.91 9.62 10.1 9.17 9.0
Mass (lb)
Max Take-off 581217.2 139993.4 175002.9 124495.0 92999.8
Max Landing 403000.1 127868.0 129995.6 114001.0 85000.0
Fuel Weight 255641.1 42807.1 45898.0 19191.2 N\A
Zero-fuel 367999.6 118000.1 117352.1 105599.2 35833.0
Max Payload 106549.3 38843.2 41788.6 35340.1 11233.0
Empty Weight 267561.5 73310.2 75561.2 70259.1 24600.0
Retardant
Volume (gal) 12000 4000 4000 4000 3000
PERFORMANCE
Loadings
Max Power 5.14
Load (kg/kN) 372.37 342.5 kg/kw 317.3 N\A
Max Wing Load
(kg/m^2) 716.99 565.5 433.7 620.3 N\A
T/W 0.3 0.3 N\A 0.3 N\A
range (nm) 5373.0 2372.0 3800.0 2850 3650
landing speed
(kt) 147.0 133.0 70.0 133.0 N\A
Maximum
Speed [SL]
(ft/s) 894.5 842.2 491.1 429.0 404.0
Maximum SL
rate of climb
(ft/s) 33.0 50.0 35.0 50.0 33.3
Cruise speed
(kt) 530.0 499.0 291.0 429.0 426.0
Cruise altitude
(ft) 31000.0 27000.0 28000.0 35000.0 30000.0
Service ceiling
[ft] 42000.0 37000 ft 30560.0 37000.0 36000.0
Take-off run [ft] 9829.4 6118.8 3050.0 5905.5 1390.0
Landing run [ft] 5971.1 4760.5 1400.0 5610.2 1190.0
REFERANCES [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] [7],[8],[9],[10] [11],[12] [13],[14],[15],[16],[17] [18],[19],[20],[21]
5
747 ShinMay Bombardier Dash 8

Airplane Ilyushin Il-76 Supertanker wa US-2 Beriev Be-200 Q400-MR
DIMENSIONS
Length (ft) 152.9 225.2 33.46 103.1 107.6
span (ft) 165.7 204.4 33.2 107.5 93.2
Height (ft) 20.7 26.6 9.8 29.2 27.6
Aspect Ratio 8.5 7.39 8.1 9.1 12.6
Mass (lb)
105160.
Max Take-off 374782.0 874860.4 0 82011.0 61700.8
105160.
Max Landing 336202.0 629993.0 0 77161.8 60499.3
Fuel Weight N\A N\A 40560.0 27025.0 58734.0
Zero-fuel 262348.0 534995.8 N\A 72399.1 55499.2
Max Payload 103616.0 134892.0 N\A 16534.0 19283.0
Empty Weight 158732.0 400103.7 56504.0 55865.1 37886.4
Retardant
Volume (gal) 11419 19600 3595 3173 2600
PERFORMANCE
Loadings
Max Power 3.29
Load (kg/kN) N\A 393.1 kg/kW 278.0 3.7 kg/kw
Max Wing Load
(kg/m^2) 566.7 755.9 331.3 316.8 443.7
T/W N\A 0.3 N\A 0.37 (TO) N\A
range (nm) 3600.0 7100.0 2537.0 2078.0 1100.0
landing speed
(kt) 130.0 153.0 N\A 109.6 115.0
Maximum
Speed [SL] (ft/s) 746.0 827.0 531.7 646.4 607.6
Maximum SL
rate of climb
(ft/s) 50.0 50.0 39.0 45.9 41.7
Cruise speed
(kt) 442.0 490.0 315.0 383.0 360.0
Cruise altitude
(ft) 35000.0 35000.0 20000.0 9840.0 25000.0
Service ceiling
[ft] 50850.0 45000.0 23606.0 36080.0 27000.0
Take-off run [ft] 5249.0 10000.0 1607.0 2300.0 4605.0
Landing run [ft] 3280.0 7217.8 4921.0 3120.0 4225.0
[22],[23],[24[, [28],[29],[30],[3 [35],[36], [38],[39],[40],[4 [45],[46],[47],[48],[4
REFERANCES [25],[26],[27] 1],[32],[33],[34] [37] 1],[42],[43],[44] 9],[50],[51],[52],[53]
6
1.4. Take-off Weight Estimation

No doubt take-off weight of an aircraft is an important parameter that influences the performance
parameters significantly. Therefore, it was crucial to have an initial estimation for the take-off
weight of the aircraft we are designing. For this purpose, various estimations methods and data
found in books and literature were considered [77], also comparing competitors’ aircrafts. To
start of our estimation, it was decided to use Raymer’s take-off weight equation (Raymer, 2006,
p. 28, eq. 3.1) [77] to initiate the estimation with strong basis.
𝑊0 = 𝑊𝑒 + 𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝑊𝑓 + 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 (1)
Rearranging the equation and writing 𝑊𝑒 and 𝑊𝑓 in terms of take-off weight we get:
Wcrew + Wpayload
W0 = (2)
W W
1 − We − Wf
0 0
Payload will be the fire retardant, the density of the fire retardant considered will be 9lb/gal.
Empty Weight Estimation

To estimate the empty weight fraction, we used the equation found in Raymer’s book (Raymer,
2006, p. 31, table. 3.1) [77]:
𝑊𝑒
= 𝐴𝑊0𝑐 𝐾𝑣𝑠 (3)
𝑊0
Since our aircraft class does not fall in a specific category as the ones found in literature, thus
using the competitors weight data tabulated below, an empty weight line was fitted using the
MATLAB routine in the appendix.
7
Table 3: Weight Data of Firefighting Aircrafts
Empty Empty
Retardant W_0 [lb] W_e Weight Weight Ratio References
Plane Category Volume [gal] W_0 [lb] (Firefighting) [lb] Ratio (Firefighting)
PZL-Mielec
M-18
Dromader Firefighting 570 11.685 11.685 5.975 0.5113 0.5113 [55]
Air Tractor
AT-802F Firefighting 807 16,000 16,000 9000 0.5625 0.5625 [56]
AT-1002 Firefighting 1,000 20000 20000 8,200 0.41 0.41 [57]
Grumman S- Anti-
2 Tracker submarine 1,200 29150 29150 18750 0.6432 0.6432 [58]
Douglas DC- Commercial
7 Transport 3,000 116599 81500 58150 0.4987 0.7134 [59]
Lockheed C- Military
130Q Transport 4,000 155,000 126800 82000 0.5290 0.6467 [10] [110]
Anti- [60] [61] [62]
P-3 Orion submarine 3,000 142000 142000 61500 0.4331 0.4331
747 Commercial
Supertanker Trasport 19,600 873000 650,000 399301 0.4574 0.6143 [29][33][34]
Cargo
Martin Mars Transport 7,200 164,906 164,906 75,572 0.4583 0.4583 [63]
Douglas DC- Commercial
10 Trasport 12,000 590000 420000 266,191 0.4512 0.6338 [1][5][6]
Strategic
Ilyushin Il-76 Airlifter 11,419 418878 418878 196211 0.4684 0.4684 [26][27]
Beriev Be-
200 Firefighting 3,173 43000 43000 25120 0.5842 0.5842 [44]
Bombardier
Dash 8
Q400-MR Firefighting 2,600 68,200 68,200 37721 0.5531 0.5531 [45][46]
PBY
Catalina Firefighting 1,000 35,420 35,420 20,910 0.5903 0.5903 [64]
Bombardier
CL-415 Firefighting 1,621 43,850 43,850 28,400 0.6477 0.6477 [65]
Commercial
BAe 146 Transport 3,000 93,000 88,000 52,650 0.5661 0.5983 [19][20][21]
ShinMaywa Air-sea
US-2 rescue 3,595 105160.5 105160.5 56500 0.5373 0.5373 [35][37]
AN-32P
Firekiller Firefighting 2,113 59525 59525 37038 0.6222 0.6222 [66]
Boeing 737- Commercial
300 Transport 4,000 139500 123454 72532 0.5199 0.5875 [13][17]
McDonnell
Douglas MD- Commercial
87 Transport 4,000 140000 124000 73300 0.5236 0.5911 [9][6]
8
Figure 4: Retardant Capacity vs Take-off Weight
Figure 5: Retardant Capacity
9
Figure 6: Empty Weight Ratio vs Take-off Weight (Logarithmic Scale) including Raymer’s Historical Data (Raymer, 2006, p. 30, fig. 3.1) [77]
10
From figure (4) it shows that the take-off weight difference between aircrafts with lower
retardant capacity and subsequently lower payload (as the retardant is the payload in our aircraft)
and the ones with greater retardant volume (more than 3000 gallons). Moving to figure (5) it
shows that aircrafts with lower retardant capacity show a more random behavior in the empty
weight ratios, this can be especially due to the fact that these aircrafts are from a broad range of
classes and do not hold similar characteristics, this is the reason why aircrafts with a retardant
capacity of less than 2200 gallons were excluded from our main weight analysis. Using the
remaining aircrafts, the following empty weight ratio vs take-off weight logarithmic curve was
plotted in figure (6). Moreover, from the figures, we can see that the modified aircrafts would
have a significantly lower take-off weight and greater empty weight ratio, which means that
aircrafts when converted into their firefighting versions, the operation of the aircrafts in such
mission would be rather inefficient, which is further backed by the “randomness” of the
converted aircrafts’ data points in figure (6) which did not even set the grounds for a line of best
fit with the as their was no trend to be deduced.
Based on the observations mentioned, we decided to use the aircrafts’ data during their
normal operations rather than the converted versions, as from the competitor study earlier, these
aircrafts have characteristics close to the ones desired for the aircraft we are designing and since
our design will be will be oriented on our payload being the fire-retardant and a firefighting
mission profile. Therefore, from figure (6) form the “Normal Operations” curve fit, and based on
equation (3) above we get the following A and c constants. Moreover, comparing with empty
weight ratio curves found in Raymer’s [77], we find our results really close to civil transport jets
whilst being further away from the military cargo aircrafts, which could be explained by the
→ A = 1.4076
→ 𝑐 = −0.0856
Since all the aircrafts considered do not have a variable sweep so we are going to take 𝐾𝑣𝑠 = 1,
making the empty weight estimation equation into:
𝑊𝑒
= 1.4076𝑊0−0.0856 (4)
𝑊0
Fuel Weight Estimation
In order to compute the fuel fraction used by the aircraft we need to consider the mission
profile; the analysis will be made based on the “Main Mission Profile” above, along with the
specific fuel consumption and aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft.
The mission profile as shown above is divided into different segments, each point’s
weight as ratio of the pervious point can be estimated with the aid of ratios provided in Raymer’s
book (Raymer, 2006, p. 34, table 3.2) [77] while taking the retardant drops into consideration.
Finally, the landing weight as a ratio of the take-off weight can be computed as follows:
11
𝑊𝑛 𝑊1 𝑊2 𝑊3 𝑊𝑛
= 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥. . . 𝑥 (5)
𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊1 𝑊2 𝑊𝑛−1
𝑊
From there the fractional decrease in weight will be (1 − 𝑊𝑛) which would account for both the
0
fuel burned and payload weight during the mission there the payload (retardant) is dropped, and
since we know the weight of the retardant (𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 ) we can subtract its weight fraction from
the fractional decrease in weight and get 𝑊𝑓 .
𝑊𝑓 𝑊𝑛 𝑊𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
→ = 1.06 (1 − − ) (6)
𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊0
It was multiplied by 1.06 to account for the 6% extra fuel reserve.
For cruise segments “Breguet Range Equation” will be used (Raymer, 2006, p. 34, eq. 3.6) [77]:
𝑊𝑖 −𝑅𝐶
= 𝑒 𝑉(𝐿/𝐷) (7)
𝑊𝑖−1
From our competitor study
During loiters the weight fraction is also estimated using endurance equation found in Raymer’s
(Raymer, 2006, p. 35, eq. 3.8) [77]:
𝑊𝑖 −𝐸𝐶
=𝑒 (𝐿/𝐷) (8)
𝑊𝑖−1
Where, initially assuming the use of turbojet engines from competitor study we get the following
estimations for the fuel consumption (Raymer, 2006, p. 36, table 3.3) and Lift-to-Drag ratio from
Raymer’s [77]:
Cruise Loiter
C [l/h] 0.5 0.4
L/D 0.866(𝐿/𝐷)𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝐿/𝐷)𝑚𝑎𝑥
12
To estimate L/D, the figures below from Raymer’s [77] were used.
Figure 7: 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 /𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 of different aircrafts (Raymer, 2006, p. 40, fig. 3.6) [77]
From figure (7) above, the two closest aircrafts to the one’s in the competitor study table (2) are
𝑆
the Beech Duchess and Boeing 747, by scaling we found out that their 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 were 4.87 and 6.20
𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡
respectively, we considered taking the average of = 5.54 in our estimation. Moreover, by
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓
taking the aspect ratio average from our competitor study which came out to be AR = 9.5. We
can now estimate our wetted aspect ratio to be:
→ 𝐴𝑅𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐴𝑅/(𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 /𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) = 1.71
13
Using the figure (8) below, and since most of the aircrafts considered on the competitor study
table (2) were originally subsonic civil jets, (𝐿/𝐷)𝑚𝑎𝑥 is estimated to be 20.68.
Figure 8: (L/D)max vs Wetted Aspect Ratio (Raymer, 2006, p. 69, table 3.5) [77]
Preliminary Take-off Weight Estimation

Starting from equation (1), we will consider having a 3-person crew in our aircraft, a pilot, first
officer and a flight engineer. Taking the average weight of to be 180 pounds, the retardant
capacity and design radius to be 8000 gal and 400 nmi respectively to meet the objective.
𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 = 180 ∗ 3
→ 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 = 540 𝑙𝑏
𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 9 ∗ 8000
→ 𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 72000 𝑙𝑏
14
Basing the initial estimate of the aircraft’s weight on the main mission profile on figure (1)
above:
𝑊
Start & Taxi: 𝑊1 = 0.97
0
𝑊
Climb to fire site (altitude <300 ft): 𝑊2 = 0.985
1
−(400𝑛𝑚𝑖) ∗(0.5𝑙/ℎ)
𝑊
Cruise to fire site for 400 mni at 400 kts: 𝑊3 = 𝑒 (400𝑘𝑡𝑠)(0.866∗20.68) = 0.9725
2
−(5∗60) ∗(0.4𝑙/ℎ)
𝑊
Loiter 1 (5 minutes): 𝑊4 = 𝑒 (20.68) = 0.9984
3
𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 𝑊
Before Drop 1: 𝑊4 = 𝑊1 𝑥 𝑊2 𝑥 𝑊3 𝑥 𝑊2 𝑥 𝑊1 = 0.97 ∗ 0.985 ∗ 0.9725 ∗ 0.9984
0 0 1 2 1 0
𝑊
→ 𝑊4 = 0.9276
0
𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 9∗8000
Drop 1: 𝑊5 = 𝑊4 − = 𝑊4 − → 𝑊5 = 𝑊4 − 24000
3 3
𝑊 𝑊 24000 𝑊 24000
After Drop 1: 𝑊5 = 𝑊4 − → 𝑊5 = 0.9276 −
0 0 𝑊0 0 𝑊0
𝑊
Loiter 2 (Equal endurance to Loiter 1): 𝑊6 = 0.9984
5
𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 23,960
Before Drop 2: 𝑊6 = 𝑊5 𝑥 𝑊6 → 𝑊6 = 0.9261 −
0 0 5 0 𝑊0
Drop 2: 𝑊7 = 𝑊6 − = 𝑊7 − → 𝑊7 = 𝑊6 − 24000
3 3
𝑊 𝑊 24000 𝑊 47,960
After Drop 2: 𝑊7 = 𝑊6 − → 𝑊7 = 0.9261 −
0 0 𝑊0 0 𝑊0
𝑊
Loiter 3 (Equal endurance to Loiter 1): 𝑊8 = 0.9984
7
𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 47,890
Before Drop 3: 𝑊8 = 𝑊7 𝑥 𝑊8 → 𝑊8 = 0.9246 −
0 0 7 0 𝑊0
Drop 3: 𝑊9 = 𝑊8 − = 𝑊9 − → 𝑊9 = 𝑊8 − 24000
3 3
𝑊9 𝑊8 24000 𝑊9 71,880
After Drop 3: = − → = 0.9246 −
𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊0
𝑊10
Loiter 4 (Equal endurance to Loiter 1): = 0.9984
𝑊9
𝑊
Climb to dash back to base: 𝑊11 = 0.985
10
−(400𝑛𝑚𝑖) ∗(0.5𝑙/ℎ)
𝑊
Dash to base at 500 kts: 𝑊12 = 𝑒 (500𝑘𝑡𝑠)(0.866∗20.68) = 0.9779
11
15
−(20∗60)∗(0.4𝑙/ℎ)
𝑊
Loiter before landing (20 mins): 𝑊13 = 𝑒 (20.68) = 0.9936
12
𝑊
Landing: 𝑊14 = 0.995
13
Thus, the mission profile’s weight fraction come to:

𝑊14 𝑊9 𝑊10 𝑊11 𝑊12 𝑊13 𝑊14
→ = 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥
𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊9 𝑊10 𝑊11 𝑊12 𝑊13
𝑊14 71,890
→ = (0.9246 − ) ∗ 0.9984 ∗ 0.985 ∗ 0.9779 ∗ 0.9936 ∗ 0.995
𝑊0 𝑊0
𝑊14 68,350
→ = 0.8791 −
𝑊0 𝑊0
Inserting into equation (6)
𝑊𝑓 𝑊14 𝑊𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
→ = 1.06 (1 − − )
𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊0
𝑊𝑓 68,350 72000
→ = 1.06 (1 − 0.8791 − − )
𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊0
𝑊𝑓 140,350
→ = 1.06 (1 − 0.8791 − ) (9)
𝑊0 𝑊0
Replacing equations (4) and (9) into (2)

3 ∗ 180 + 8 ∗ 9000
W0 =
140,350
1 − 1.4076𝑊0−0.0856 − 1.06 (1 − 0.8791 − 𝑊0 )
72540
→ W0 =
140,350
1 − 1.4076𝑊0−0.0856 − 1.06 (1 − 0.8791 − 𝑊0 )
Using the MATLAB routine attached this equation was solved numerically for 𝑊0
𝑊0 = 183888 𝑙𝑏
The same process was repeated for the no drop mission profile in figure (2):
No drop case:
𝑊0,𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 = 193184 𝑙𝑏
To calculate the ferry range for the empty weight of the main mission profile figure (3) was
considered.
From, the 𝑊0 we can get 𝑊𝑒 from equation (4)
16
𝑊𝑒
= 1.4076(183888)−0.0856 = 0.4985
𝑊0
→ 𝑊𝑒 = 0.4985 ∗ 183888 = 91660 𝑙𝑏
Then we calculate he fuel weight used during that mission by rearranging equation (1):
𝑊𝑓 = 𝑊0 − 𝑊𝑒 − 𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 − 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 = 183888 − 91660 − 540
→ 𝑊𝑓 = 19688 𝑙𝑏
To calculate the empty weight for the ferry mission take-off weight, the payload weight is
subtracted from the take-off weight of the same mission:
𝑊0,𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑦 = 𝑊0 − 𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 183888 − 72000
𝑊0,𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑦 = 111,888 𝑙𝑏
From there we can get the fuel to weight ratio of the ferry mission:
𝑊𝑓 19688
= = 0.1760
𝑊0,𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑦 111,888
We can derive from ferry mission weight fraction from equation (6)
𝑊5 𝑊𝑓 1 0.1760
=1− ∗ =1−
𝑊0 𝑊0 1.06 1.06
W5
→ = 0.8340
W0
We divide the by weight fractions of the start-taxi, climb, loiter and landing to get the cruise
𝑊
weight fraction (𝑊3).
2
𝑊
Start & Taxi: 𝑊1 = 0.97
0
𝑊
Climb: 𝑊2 = 0.985
1
−(20∗60)∗(0.4𝑙/ℎ)
𝑊
Loiter before landing (20 mins): 𝑊4 = 𝑒 (20.68) = 0.9936
3
𝑊
Landing: 𝑊5 = 0.995
4
𝑊3 𝑊5 𝑊1 𝑊2 𝑊4 𝑊5
= ÷( 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 )
𝑊2 𝑊0 𝑊0 𝑊1 𝑊3 𝑊4
𝑊3
→ = 0.8829
𝑊2
17
Rearranging the range equation (7):

𝐿 𝑉 𝑊2
𝐹𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = ( ) 𝑙𝑛 ( )
𝐷 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑊3
500 𝑘𝑡𝑠 1
→ 𝐹𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = (0.866 ∗ 20.86) 𝑙𝑛 ( )
0.5 𝑙/ℎ𝑟 0.8829
→ 𝐹𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 2232 𝑛𝑚𝑖
Which is above our requirement ferry range of 2000 nmi but yet below the objective which is
3000 nmi, thus to explore more weight options the next section will be regarding a design radius
and payload weight trade-off studies.
1.5. Tradeoff Study
We repeated the same process in the previous weight estimation section, but for a range of
design radii and retardant capacity (which is our payload thus proportional), with the aid of the
MATLAB routine attached, a contour plot was produced to help us identify the optimum weight
option.
18
Figure 9: Design Radius & Retardant Capacity Trade-off Study
19
Figure 10: Design Radius & Retardant Capacity Trade-off Study (Points of interest)
20
From figure (10) we can see that with just about 20,000 pounds extra take-off weight taking the
take-off weight was roughly 𝑊0 = 200000 𝑙𝑏, we would be satisfying not only all
requirements but objectives, with our aircrafts being able to hold 8300 gal of retardant and
design radius of 685 nmi. This weight also allows the aircraft to cover the no drop case
mentioned in the previous section and the missions’ profile section. Moreover, this weight will
allow the aircraft to have a retardant capacity of upwards to 9400 gal while covering the basic
required design radius. All of this, while maintaining the ferry range at 3000 nmi allowing the
aircraft to reposition from any point to another across the continental United States.
Using the weight decided to be considered for the initial weight estimation, figures (4), (5) and
(7) were replotted with our potential aircraft in figures (11), (12), and (13). We can see from
the figures below that our aircraft would have a much lower take-off weight than most aircrafts
that can carry a similar retardant volume amount whilst maintain the objective performance,
being comparable in weight to turbofan driven civil aviation aircrafts in literature in terms of
empty and take-off weights.
Figure 11: Retardant Capacity vs Take-off Weight (Potential Aircraft Included)
21
Figure 12: Retardant Capacity vs Empty Weight Ratio (Potential Aircraft Included)
22
Figure 13: Empty Weight Fraction vs Take-off Weight (Potential Aircraft Included) including Raymer’s Historical Data
(Raymer, 2006, p. 30, fig. 3.1) [77]
23
1.6. Decision Matrix
Table 4: The decision matrix for different problems for fire fighting aircraft
Problem Solution option-1 Solution option-2
Wing position Low wing (+1) High wing (-1)

Easier to land and take off. Needs less More stable than low wing. More ground
advantages structural strengthening of the body (+3) clearence Fuel flows easier (+2)
Reduced rudder and elevator effectiveness. Need to strengthen upper body for wing. High
disadvantages Less ground clearence (-2) profile drag. Hard to refuel (-3)
Engine position Over the wing (+1) Under the wing (0)
Reterdand and ground clearence is higher. Easy for maintanence. Aerodynamically more
advantages Easy to take off and land (+3) affective (+2)
Higher noise in the cabin. Lower aerodynamic
disadvantages performance (-2) Low reterdand and ground clearence (-2)
Tail type T-tail (+1) Conventional tail (-1)
Better aerodynamic performance due to less Needs less material to strengthen the tail. Easy
advantages wing affect (+3) to maintanence (+2)
disadvantages Needs more strengthening of the tail (-2) Lower aerodynamic performance (- 3)
Engine type Turboprop (-1) Turbofan (+1)
advantages Low cost of engine (+1) Overall Better performance of thrust (+2)
Hard to place the propellers . less performance
disadvantages at higher speeds (-2) High cost (-1)
Material selection Aluminum (+1) Composite (+1)
Comperatively less cost. Easy to use and
advantages produce (+3) Lower weight. More corrosion resistant (+2)
disadvantages Less resistance to corosion. Higher weight (-2) High cost. (-1)
landing gear position 1 at front 2 at wings (-1) 1 at front 2 at rear body (+1)
Extra support for wings during its time in
advantages ground (+1) Needs less additional structural support (+2)
Needs additional structural support for wings Reduces the retardand drop zone in the lower
disadvantages (-2) body (-1)
landing gear retractibility Retractable (+1) Nonretractable (-1)
advantages Better aerodynamics during flight (+3) No need for additional retraction system (+2)
disadvantages Needs additional system for retraction (-2) less aerodynamic performance during flight (-3)
24
Table 5: Final Chocies Based on the Decision Matrix

Final choice References
Low wing: [78]

This choice is good for making only one zone of airplane stronger instead of making lots of
parts stronger and heavier
Engine is Over the wing: [79]

The ground clearence and Retardand clearance during drops is specifially adventageous for
our airplane
T-tail: [80]
Having better aerodynamic performace is important even though we will have extra
structural weight at tail the elevator will evade from downwash effects
Turbofan engine: [81]

Turbofan choose is a better choice for overall performance
Both Aluminum and Composite material: [82]

Using both materials is common and affective
1 landing gear at front 2 at rear body: -

Adding structural weight to the wings is a bad idea instead we add the landing gears to the
places where structure is already strong
Retractable landing gears: [83]

The drawback of additional weight will easily be overcomed by less drag values
25
Table 6: Best Decision Vs. Worst Decision Comparison.

Best decision according to table-4 Worst decision according to table-4
Fire fighter airplane with low wing positioning Fire fighter airplane with high wing
will help us to get lower structural weight. positioning will require additional
strengthening of the top part of the
airplane
Two turbofan engines produce higher thrust
than the turboprop option. Also upper position
of the engine provides higher ground clearence. Two turbprop engines produce less
However it is harder for maintenance thrust than the turbofan option.
However it will be cheaper than the
turbofan option.
T- tail configuration produces healtier tail lift
than the conventional one since it is affected by Also its lower position helps for
downwash less. maintanence
Retractable landing gears will provide less drag Convention tail configuration will
during flight. The position of these landing be affected by downwash coming
gears won’t require additional structural weight from wings and propellers so it will
much. be less stable during air
Using both aluminum and Composite material Nonretractable landing gears

for airplane’s structure will provide us better generates more drag during the
structural durability and less cost. flight.
Due to above facts the plane will be more stable Due to above facts the plane will be
during flight. heavier hence will consume more
fuel to fly
26
2. Study 2
2.1. Airfoil Selection
In this study we have compared 8 different models of airfoils using XFOIL then plotted and
tabulated relevant properties. We based our selection process on literature research and
competitors’ airfoils from study 1.
From Raymer[85], we found a historical trend line for the airfoil thickness vs the design Mach
number.
Figure 14: Thickness Ratio vs Design Mach Number (Raymer, P. 71, Fig. 4.14)
From study 1, our cruise and dash Mach numbers are between 0.63-0.78. from fig. (14) we can
see the corresponding airfoil thickness for our design Mach number is between 0.14-0.15 %
based on this we chose the following airfoils for our comparison.
27
Figure 15: NASA SC(2)-0714 Airfoil [5]
Figure 16: FX 61-140 Airfoil [5]
28
29
Figure 19: AH 93-W-145 Airfoil [5]
Figure 20: DSMA-523B Airfoil [5]
30
Figure 21: FX 61-147 Airfoil [5]
Figure 22: KC-135 BL52.44 Airfoil [5]
31
For our XFOIL analysis, we used two different Reynold’s numbers for the two most important
segments from our mission profiles in study 1, cruise to fire location and retardant drop.
Moreover, the MAC value used is 5.65 m which was obtained from a weighted average with
respect to the maximum take of weight of our competitors’ MAC considering our weight
estimation of 200,000 lb. Furthermore, the actual MAC we are going to consider for our project
will be calculated further down the line in this report.
Table 7: Flight Conditions\Properties for Drop and Cruise Segments

Flight Altitude Temperature Velocity Density Dynamic Reynold’s
segment [ft] offset [kts] viscosity number
(*107 )
Drop 5300 35 125 0.928890 0.0000193203 1.7462
Cruise 10000 0 400 0.904637 0.0000171150 6.1432
Figure 23: 𝐶𝑙 vs AOA Comparison (Drop)
32
Figure 24: 𝐶𝑙 vs AOA Comparison (Cruise)
Figure 25: 𝐶𝑙 vs 𝐶𝑑 Comparison (Drop)
33
Figure 27:𝐶𝑙 vs 𝐶𝑑 Comparison (Cruise)
Figure 26: 𝐶𝑙 /𝐶𝑑 vs AOA Comparison (Drop)

34
Figure 29: 𝐶𝑙 /𝐶𝑑 vs AOA Comparison (Cruise)
Figure 28: 𝐶𝑚 vs AOA Comparison (Drop)
35
Figure 30: 𝐶𝑚 vs AOA Comparison (Cruise)

The process of choosing which airfoil we are going to use for our project aircraft starts as
follows: First of all, looking at fig. (23) and fig. (24), we can see the coefficient of lift vs
angle of attack plots for the selected airfoils. Immediately, we can see that the following
airfoils:
FX 61-140 AIRFOIL (fx61140-il)
(ah93w145-il) AH 93-W-145 AIRFOIL
(fx61147-il) FX 61-147 AIRFOIL
KC-135 BL52.44 AIRFOIL (kc135a-il)
Are significantly behind the rest when it comes to 𝐶𝑙 performance. Moreover, we can see that
the 2 best performers are NASA SC(2)-0714 and DSMA-523B in cruise and drop
performances respectively.
Moving on, looking at fig. (25) and (26), again, we can see that the same 4 airfoils we
excluded earlier are also the weakest performers here as well. Also, the DSMA airfoil gives
the most drag for the same lift compared to the other 3 airfoils, while the NASA SC(2)-0714
is consistently giving less drag for both flight segments.
36
In addition, looking at fig. (27), and (28), we can quickly conclude that all the airfoils have
nearly the same performance when it comes to Lift-to-Drag Ratio.
Finally, looking at fig. (29) and (30), to further stabilize the airplane in case the aerodynamic
center is close to the center of gravity, having a more negative Cm value would be better the 2
airfoils we considered from our earlier discussion have almost the same Cm values, with the
DSMA-523B’s Cm value being slightly lower than the NASA SC(2)-0714. Moreover, both
have a stable break (i.e., negative). However, the NASA SC(2)-0714’s break occurs at a
higher angle of attack.
Table 8: Selected Airfoils List
Airfoil Code Airfoil Name

AF1 (sc20714-il) NASA SC(2)-0714 AIRFOIL
AF2 FX 61-140 AIRFOIL (fx61140-il)
AF5 (ah93w145-il) AH 93-W-145 AIRFOIL
AF6 DSMA-523B AIRFOIL (dsma523b-il)
AF7 (fx61147-il) FX 61-147 AIRFOIL
AF8 KC-135 BL52.44 AIRFOIL (kc135a-il)
Critical Mach Number
Figure 31: Minimum Pressure Coefficient vs Mach Number at 2° AOA
37
Since there were no information available regarding the Critical Mach Number, we used
XFoil to estimate the critical Mach number up to a very close margin.
First, we determined the 𝐶𝑝,𝑚𝑖𝑛 , at cruise condition using XFoil. Then using Karman-Tsien
Compressibility Correction factor [91]
𝐶𝑝,0
𝐶𝑝 =
𝑀∞2
( ) 𝐶𝑝,0
1 + √1 − 𝑀 2
2 + ∞
√1 − 𝑀∞ 2
We found the corresponding 𝐶𝑝,𝑚𝑖𝑛 for the compressible case for different Mach numbers.
Then, on the same plot (fig. (31)), we plotted the critical pressure coeffcients corresponding to
the same Mach numbers, where the intersection of the 2 plots is the Critical Mach Number
Value.
γ
2 γ−1
2 1 + [(γ − 1)/2]𝑀𝑐𝑟
𝐶𝑝,𝑐𝑟 = 2
[( ) − 1]
γ𝑀𝑐𝑟 1 + (γ − 1)/2
Fig. (31), shows us that the 2 airfoil candidates, namely the DSMA-523B and the NASA
SC(2)-0714, the later has the higher 𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 value.
In Conclusion, based on the aforementioned factors, we chose the NASA SC(2)-0714 to be

the candidate for our project aircraft, bearing in mind that the DSMA-523B is the airfoil being
used in the DC-10-30 which was one of the aircrafts in our competitor study, where we
demonstrated that this aircraft was one of the closet existing aircrafts to our goals and
requirements. However, the NASA SC(2)-0714 has the upper hand overall.
38
Table 9: Properties of Selected Airfoils (Drop)
Stall Angle of Zero-lift Angle

Airfoil Cl_max Attack [deg] of Attack [deg] Cd_0 Cm_0
(sc20714-il) NASA SC(2)-
0714 AIRFOIL 2.422 22.5 -5 0.00596 -0.1306
FX 61-140 AIRFOIL
(fx61140-il) 2.0378 17 -4.5 0.00587 -0.116
0414 AIRFOIL 2.3441 23 -2.5 0.00622 -0.083
0614 AIRFOIL 2.3923 22.5 -4 0.00605 -0.1096
(ah93w145-il) AH 93-W-
145 AIRFOIL 1.9586 19 -4 0.00548 -0.0927
DSMA-523B AIRFOIL
(dsma523b-il) 2.4728 21 -4.5 0.00675 -0.1434
(fx61147-il) FX 61-147
AIRFOIL 1.9941 17.5 -5.5 0.00608 -0.1304
KC-135 BL52.44 AIRFOIL
(kc135a-il) 1.8171 21 -1.5 0.00544 -0.0201
39
Table 10: Properties of Selected Airfoils (Cruise)
Stall Critical Zero-lift

Angle of Mach Angle of
Attack Number Attack
Airfoil Cl_max [deg] [deg] Cd_0 Cm_0
(sc20714-il) NASA SC(2)-0714 0.4646
AIRFOIL 2.6013 24 -4.5 0.00614 -0.1343
FX 61-140 AIRFOIL (fx61140-
il) 2.2101 17.5 0.5669 -4.5 0.00509 -0.1193
(sc20414-il) NASA SC(2)-0414
AIRFOIL 2.5264 24.5 0.5250 -2.5 0.00588 -0.0848
(sc20614-il) NASA SC(2)-0614
AIRFOIL 2.5722 24.5 0.4858 -4 0.006 -0.1117
(ah93w145-il) AH 93-W-145
AIRFOIL 2.1194 20 0.5669 -4 0.00472 -0.0937
DSMA-523B AIRFOIL
(dsma523b-il) 2.5774 22.5 0.4308 -5 0.00639 -0.1455
(fx61147-il) FX 61-147
AIRFOIL 2.1625 18.5 0.5512 -5.5 0.00538 -0.1336
KC-135 BL52.44 AIRFOIL
(kc135a-il) 1.97 22 0.6159 -1.5 0.00516 -0.0183
40
Theoretical Plots for the Airfoil we chose from a NASA paper [92]:
Figure 32: 𝐶𝑙 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE= 2-9*10^6)
Figure 33: 𝐶𝑙 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=9-18*10^6)
41
Figure 34: 𝐶𝑑 𝑣𝑠 𝐶𝑙 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=2-9*10^6)
Figure 35: 𝐶𝑑 𝑣𝑠 𝐶𝑙 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=9-18*10^6)
42
Figure 36: 𝐶𝑚 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=2-9*10^6)
Figure 37: 𝐶𝑙 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 (Theoretical) for NASA SC(2)-0714 (RE=9-18*10^6)
43
2.2. Wing Geometry

Aspect Ratio
Aspect ratio can be defined as the ratio of square of the span length of wing and wing area,
therefore.
𝑏2
𝐴𝑅 =
𝑆
Aspect ratio is an important parameter in terms of aerodynamic characteristics of wing
geometry. A lift generating geometry will have According to lecture notes [87] Aspect ratio has
effect on the lift curve slope of wing, structural weight of wing and Induced drag coefficient of
wing. So, deciding the aspect ratio value is crucial for most of the aerodynamic parameters of
wing.
According to Raymer [86, pg. 78] The twin engine general aviation airplanes have aspect ratio
value of 7.8. However, for our study we will be using average aspect ratio value obtained from
our competitor study [88] which is 9.6.
Wing Sweep
According to Lecture Notes [87] the objective of wing sweep is reducing the negative effects
of transonic and supersonic flow. Theoretically the velocity felt by wing section can be reduced
by angular tilting of velocity vector which can be provided by sweep.
The sweep angle can be calculated according to both leading edge and quarter chord. According
to Raymer [86, pg. 82] airplanes with aspect ratio 9.6 in general have quarter chord sweep angle
about 6.7 degrees so we will use this value for sweep angle of our wing.
Figure 38: Figure showing wing sweep angle in CAD

Wing Twist
Twist can be defined as rotating the wing sections from center to tip so that the airfoil at the tip
of the wing would have lower values of angle of attach which helps to prevent from tip stalling.
According to Raymer [86, pg. 82] 3 degrees of wing twist provides enough characteristics for
wing to prevent from stalling. Therefore, we will use 3 degrees of wing twist in our design.
44
Dihedral Angle
Dihedral can be defined as the angle between horizontal plane and wing plane. Dihedral angle
contributes to airplane’s lateral stability.
According to Raymer [86, pg.89] airplanes with low wing position have 3 to 7 degrees of
dihedral. Therefore, for our wing design we can use 5 degrees of dihedral which is the mid
value given in [86]
Figure 39: Figure showing dihedral angle in CAD

Wing tips
For reducing the effects of wing tip vortices wing tips can be used. As we see from our
competitor study in our aircrafts in general have upswept geometry for wingtips. Therefore, we
will be using upswept for our wing tip.
Figure 40: Figure showing upswept in CAD

Wing incidence Angle
The drag coefficient during cruise must be as low as possible so the fuselage has zero degrees
of angle of attack. However, the wings are supposed to produce enough lift during cruise. For
that reason, Wing incidence angle is used for increasing lift coefficient of wings so that it can
provide enough lift during cruise.
According to Raymer [86] transport type airplanes in general have 1 degrees of wing incidence
angle which will be used in our wing design too.
Wing Vertical Location

There are three possibilities for vertical positioning of the wing High Mid and Low positioning
As in our first study we can use a decision matrix for deciding wing vertical location
45
Table 11: Wing Configuration Decision Matrix
The structural weight is the most important parameter for our aircraft so we doubled its values
since it includes propellent storage structural area as well as landing gear’s and wing root
structural weight.
Taper Ratio
According to Raymer [86, pg. 82] Most sweep wings’ taper ratio is between 0.2 and 0.3. Also,
from the competitor study we made in first study we got average value of 0.23 which is coherent
with the Raymer.
Wingspan and Wing area

From the competitor study we made in Study-1 [88] we found that average wingspan value is
44.58 meters. Therefore, with the decided aspect ratio value 9.6 we can decide wing area as 207
𝑚2
Figure 41: Figure showing wingspan value in CAD
46
Chord length Calculations

After deciding on Taper ratio and Mean aerodynamic chord values
2×𝑆 2×207
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 = [𝑏(1+𝜆)]
= [44.58×(1+0.23)] = 7.5501 𝑚
Figure 42: Figure showing root chord length in CAD

If so, then
𝐶𝑡𝑖𝑝 = 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 × 𝜆 = 7.5501 × 0.23 = 1.73653 𝑚
Figure 43: Figure showing tip chord length in CAD
Mean Aerodynamic chord

According to lecture notes [87] the mean aerodynamic chord is chord length 𝑐 at a distance 𝑌
to the centerline where
2 (1 + 𝜆 + 𝜆2 )
𝑐 = 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡
3 1+𝜆
2 (1 + 0.23 + 0.232 )
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 , 𝑐 = 7.5501 = 5.2498 𝑚
3 1 + 0.23
At the distance
𝑏(1 + 2𝜆)
𝑌=
6(1 + 𝜆)
44.58(1.46)
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 , 𝑌 = = 8.819349 𝑚
6(1.23)
47
Decided Dimensions
Table 12: Decided Dimensions
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 [𝑚2 ] 207
AR 9.6
Wingspan 44.58
𝜆 0.23
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 [𝑚] 7.5501
𝐶𝑡𝑖𝑝 [𝑚] 1.7365
MAC [m] 5.2498

Sweep angle [deg] 6.7
Twist [deg] -3
Dihedral angle [deg] 5
Figure 44: Wing geometry in CAD
48
Flaps
Table 13: Flap Type Decision Matrix
Flap type Plain Flap Single slotted Flap Double Slotted Flap
Cost 1 2 1
Lift Performance 1 2 3
Drag Performance 1 2 2
Simplicity 3 2 1
Total 6 8 7
For the flap type decision like wing vertical location, we build a decision matrix. As one can
see Single slotted flap type has better overall performance than the others. Therefore, our
selection for flap type will be single slotted flap.
2.3. Tail Geometry
To decide on tail geometry, various tail arrangements are considered and as a result, t-tail
configuration is chosen since it has a superior elevator control and rudder control which are
both very essential to our mission as our mission includes some sharp maneuvers. According
to [4], one may find horizontal and vertical areas using equations below:
𝐶𝐻 𝑆𝑊 𝑐𝑀𝐴𝐶
𝑆𝐻 =
𝑙ℎ
𝐶𝑉 𝑆𝑊 𝑏𝑊
𝑆𝑉 =
𝑙𝑉
Where,
𝑙ℎ = the lever arm of the horizontal tailplane is the distance between the aerodynamic centers
of wing and horizontal tailplane,
𝑙𝑉 = the lever arm of the vertical tailplane is the distance between the aerodynamic centers of
wing and vertical tailplane,
𝐶𝐻 = horizontal tail volume coefficient, (this is decided from historical trend)
𝐶𝑉 = vertical tail volume coefficient, (this is decided from historical trend)
𝑏𝑊 = wingspan,
𝑐𝑀𝐴𝐶 = mean aerodynamic chord of the wing,
Since we are still not in the phase for deciding mass and center of gravity. Tail lever arms can
be only estimated from the fuselage length. It is stated in [89] that one can take 𝑙ℎ and 𝑙𝑉 as
follows:
𝑙ℎ = 0.5𝑙𝐹
49
𝑙𝑣 = 0.55𝑙𝐹
Where 𝑙𝐹 means fuselage length.
By doing calculations we found:
𝑆𝐻 = 58.4775 𝑚2
𝑆𝑉 = 37.7512 𝑚2
Now one must decide on aspect ratios of the vertical and horizontal tail. Again, by using
reference [89] we can simply decide on aspect ratios as:
𝐴𝐻 = 0.5535𝐴𝑊 = 5.3136
𝐴𝑉 = 1.4 (Taken for a t-tail arrangement)
Since aspect ratio is defined as span square over area one can easily find the span of the
vertical tail and horizontal tail as:
𝑏𝐻 = 17.627 𝑚
𝑏𝑣 = 6.144 𝑚
To be able to complete tail sizing, taper ratio of the vertical and horizontal tail should be
defined with sweep angles of the vertical and horizontal tail from reference [89]. To define
chord lengths at the tip and root of the vertical and the horizontal tail the following equations
from class notes can be used:
𝜆ℎ𝑡 = 1.2 ∗ 𝜆𝑤
𝜆𝑉 = 0.8 (Taken for a t-tail configuration from historical data)
2𝑆ℎ𝑡
(𝑐𝑟 )ℎ𝑡 = = 5.200 𝑚
𝑏ℎ𝑡 (1 + 𝜆ℎ𝑡 )
2𝑆𝑣𝑡
(𝑐𝑟 )𝑣𝑡 = = 6.827 𝑚
𝑏𝑣𝑡 (1 + 𝜆𝑣𝑡 )
(𝑐𝑡 )ℎ𝑡 = (𝑐𝑟 )ℎ𝑡 𝜆ℎ𝑡 = 1.435 𝑚
(𝑐𝑡 )𝑣𝑡 = (𝑐𝑟 )𝑣𝑡 𝜆𝑣𝑡 = 5.462 𝑚
For the sweep angles reference [89] suggests taking the vertical and horizontal tail sweep
angles as around 40 degrees.
Generally, most of the aircrafts use symmetric airfoils such as NACA0012 and NACA0008.
Considering our aircraft size, initially it is convenient to take NACA0012 airfoil for both
horizontal tail and vertical tail.
50
Figure 32: CAD Drawing of the Aircraft
51
Figure 33: Three View Drawing
52
3. Study #3
3.1. Flap Selection and Estimation of 𝑪𝒍,𝒎𝒂𝒙
As we decided in the second study, we will use single slotted flap type.
Flaps are High lift devices used for increasing lift. According to Sadrey [93] The best position for high
lift device is the inboard portion of the both left and right of the wing sections. This is important due to
less Rolling moment production hence the aircraft stays laterally trimmed. Furthermore, inboard
selection of location is better since it produces lower bending moment on the wing root which would
result in less structural and overall weight.
● So we can say that for flaps being close to wing root is better for overall performance. When
we consider fuselage width and the fact that engine will be located at top of the wings we can
position the flaps such that flap begins at 30% of the half wing span.
● According to Sadrey [93] the flap span could be as long as 80 percent of the half wing span
length and as short as 30 percent of the half wing span length. According to [a] aircrafts with
turbofan engines in general have flap span of approximately 50 percent of half wing span length.
● For the chord length calculations again according to Sadrey [93] 20% of the chord length is a
good starting value. So, we will be using 0.2*MAC value for the span root chord length.
● The max deflection of the flaps for common airplanes are listed in Sadrey [93, p .83]. In general
we can see during take-off 20 degrees of deflection and during landing 40 degrees of deflection
is being used. So, our maximum flap deflection can be taken as 40 degrees.
So if we use the decided properties we will see the following overall flap sizing decisions.
Table 14: Flap Decision Table

Parameter Decision Calculation Final
Decision
Flap 30% of the half wing span Starting at:41.44*0.5*0.3= 6.216 m 6.2 m
position length
Flap span 50 % of half wing span 0.25*41.44= 10,36 m 10 m
length
Flap root 20% of MAC 0.2*5.2498= 1.04996 m 1m

chord
Flap tip - 0.23*4*C_root 0.92 m

chord
Max 40 degrees - 40 degrees
deflection
Area “S” - 0.5*(C_root+C_tip)*span=0.5*1.92*10=9.6 9.6 m^2
m^2
53
Figure 45: Wing with flap line drawing

For the calculation of maximum lift coefficient we can use the figure given in Raymer [86]
Figure 46: 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 vs 𝛬𝐶/4 for different flap types. (Raymer, p. 127, fig. 5.3)
Figure Historical value of maximum lift coefficient for our wing

According to this table we can see that our maximum lift coefficient from historical data comes out as
2.22. However, this value is for airplanes having aspect ratio between 4 and 8 so we will use another
method.
According to Raymer [86, pg,270] the following formula can be used to calculate Maximum lift
coefficient value without the flaps.
𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 = 0.9 × 𝐶𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥 × 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝜆)
Our value for 𝐶𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum 2-D lift coefficient of the airfoil which is approximately 2.6 and
our sweep angle value is 6.7 degrees. Therefore, our unflapped “clean” maximum lift coefficient can be
found as 2.324.
To calculate flaps’ effect, we can use the following formula given in Raymer [86, pg.279]
54
𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑
𝛥𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥 × × 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝜆)
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓
Where 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑 is the vertical area that including the flaps it can be calculated as 38.724 𝑚2 . The value
of 𝐶𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥 can be taken as 1.3 for single slotted flaps. Then for one flap lift coefficient increase can be
found as 0.2794
Therefore the flapped maximum lift coefficient can be taken as
𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑 = 3.1622
We also used AVL to calculate the maximum flapped lift coefficient as following.
First, we model our wing as in figure 3

The
Figure 47: AVL Wing Model

analyze for no flap case for 24 degrees angle of attack, which is the stall angle of attack for our airfoil
from study 2, gives the following results .
55
Figure 48: AVL Lift and Drag Polars of the wing at maximum AoA (no flap
deflection)
As we can see the result for unflapped case is very close to our result calculated via Raymer.
After that we added the flaps as in following figure you can see the effect of the flaps on flow.
Figure 49: Flap deflection in AVL
After we analyze for this flapped model on AVL, we can obtain the flapped maximum lift coefficient.
56
Figure 50: AVL Lift and Drag Polars of the wing at maximum AoA (full flap deflection)
So, as you can see the value for 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑 = 3.034 which is again very close to our value that is
calculated according to Raymer.
Therefore, we can take the AVL result which is 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑 = 3.034 to have a margin of safety
compared to computed results.
57
3.2. Parasite Drag Coefficient Estimation

According to [94], one can estimate CD0 value of the aircraft from wetted area of the aircraft
since parasite drag acts on a solid body in a fluid which is air in our case. Below equations are
used for calculating CD0:
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡
𝐶𝐷,0 = 𝐶𝑓𝑒 (10)
𝑆𝑊
Where, 𝐶𝑓𝑒 is equivalent skin friction drag.
Generally, according to [94] jet engine powered aircraft has a 𝐶𝑓𝑒 value between 0.003-0.004
to be convenient we will take average which is 𝐶𝑓𝑒 = 0.0035.
Now, 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 can be found from the cad drawings of the aircraft:
Figure 51: 3D CAD drawing of the aircraft
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 = 1082.073 𝑚2
𝑆𝑊 = 178.95 𝑚2
When we do the calculations, we get:
𝐶𝐷,0 = 0.0212
58
3.3. Thrust-to-Weight Ratio Estimation
We can estimate the thrust over take-off weight ratio from table 5.3 [86].
Knowing that our max. Mach number is around 𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.78, and since our aircraft is closest
to jet transport category from Study 1, we get:
Table 15: Thrust-to-Weight ratio estimation (Raymer, p. 119, table 5.3)
𝑇 𝑐
= 𝑎𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 ; 𝑎 = 0.267, 𝑐 = 0.363
𝑊0
𝑇
⇒ = 0.244
𝑊0
Moreover, we can use a method called Thrust matching to find Thrust-to-Weight ratio.
Since we know that during steady level flight, drag equals Thrust, and Weight equals Lift.
Therefore, for our cruise profile we have the following equation from Raymer. [86] :
𝑇 1
( ) = (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 120, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 5.2) (11)
𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 ( 𝐿 )
𝐷 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
Furthermore, we know that the Lift-to-Drag ratio is at its maximum when Lift doesn’t change
with a change in Drag, so:
𝑑 𝐶𝐿
=0 (12)
𝑑𝐶𝐿 𝐶𝐷
We also know that from equation (13):
𝐿 𝐶𝐿
( ) = (13)
𝐷 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐶𝐷 0 + 𝐾𝐶𝐿2
𝐿
Now, let us use the condition in eqn. (11) to find (𝐷) , such that:
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑑 𝐶𝐿 𝐶𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐶𝐿2 − 2𝐾𝐶𝐿 (𝐶𝐿 ) 𝐶𝐷0 − 𝐾𝐶𝐿2

𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑒𝑞. (2) ⇒ ( ) = 2 = 2 =0
𝑑𝐶𝐿 𝐶𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐶𝐿2 (𝐶𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐶𝐿2 ) (𝐶𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐶𝐿2 )
59
𝐶𝐷0
⇒ 𝐶𝐷0 − 𝐾𝐶2𝐿 = 0 ⇒ 𝐶𝐿 = √
𝐾
Plugging back in eqn. (12):
√ 𝐷0
𝐶
𝐿 (14)
( ) = 𝐾
𝐷 𝑚𝑎𝑥 2𝐶𝐷 0
To use equation (13), we need to estimate K, we can use the following equation to do that from
Raymer [86]:
1
𝐾= (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 444, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 12.47) (15)
𝜋 ∗ 𝐴𝑅 ∗ 𝑒
Where e is the Oswald efficiency factor, which can be estimated by linearly interpolating
between the following two equations [Raymer]:
0.68
𝑒 = 1.78(1 − 0.045𝐴𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) − 0.64 (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 444, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 12.48) (16)
0.68
𝑒 = 4.61(1 − 0.045𝐴𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑓 )(𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛬𝐿𝐸 )0.15 − 3.1 (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 444, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 12.49) (17)
Where the leading-edge sweep angle (𝛬𝐿𝐸 ) [95] is:
1−𝜆
𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛬𝐿𝐸 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛬𝑐/4 + [ ] (18)
𝐴𝑅(1 + 𝜆)
1−0.23
● 𝛬𝐿𝐸 = (𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝑡𝑎𝑛 6.7° + [9.6(1+0.23]) = 10.353°
Where 𝐴𝑅𝑒 is the effective aspect ratio, which can be found by equation from Raymer [86]:
ℎ 2
𝐴𝑅𝑒 = 𝐴𝑅 (1 + ) (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 400, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 12.11) (19)
𝑏
2
1.3
𝐴𝑅𝑒 = 9.6 (1 + ) = 10.212
41.44
[1.78(1 − 0.045 ∗ 10.2120.68 ) − 0.64] + [4.6(1 − 0.045 ∗ 10.210.68 )(𝑐𝑜𝑠 10.353 )0.15 − 3.1]
𝑒=
2
0.7511 + 0.49396
⇒𝑒= = 0.6225
2
1
⇒𝐾= = 0.0533
𝜋 ∗ 9.6 ∗ 0.6225
Therefore, plugging back into eqn. (13):
𝐿 √0.0212
0.0533 = 14.874
( ) =
𝐷 𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 ∗ 0.0212
Furthermore, we can get Lift-to-Drag ratio at cruise from the following table from Raymer [86]:
60
Table 16: Max Lift-to-Drag ratio to Cruise and Loiter.
𝐿
⇒( ) = 0.866 ∗ 14.916 = 12.881
𝐷 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
Plugging back in eqn. (11):

𝑇 1
( ) = = 0.0776
𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 12.917
Moreover, we can find the Thrust-over-Weight ratio at takeoff using the following relation:
𝑇 𝑇 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓
( ) =( ) ( )( ) (20)
𝑊 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
From our previous studies, we know the weight ratio of cruise and takeoff. Also, we can get the
thrust ratio from the following plot from Raymer [86].
61
Figure 52: Thrust at Cruise Over Thrust at takeoff vs Altitude (Raymer, p.122, fig. 5.1)
As we can see from figure (52): 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 = 34509.4 𝑙𝑏 ; 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 = 24952.81 𝑙𝑏
Plugging back in equation (11):

𝑇
-(𝑊) = 0.0776 ∗ (0.97 ∗ 0.985)(1/0.34) = 0.218 (Cruise at 10000 ft)
𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓
𝑇
(𝑊) = 0.0776 ∗ (0.97 ∗ 0.985)(1/0.24) = 0.308(Cruise at 30000 ft)
𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓
62
3.4. Wing Loading Estimation
From Study 1, we concluded that our aircraft weight is close to the historical trend of the jet
transport category. According to Raymer [86], we can see from the below table (17), the typical
W/S for Jet transport category is 120 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡 2 .
Table 17: Typical Takeoff Wing Loading (Raymer, p.124, table 5.5)
3.5. Constraint Diagram

Wing loading is also a crucial parameter for aircraft design, which is the aircraft weight divided
by the wing area. The wing loading affects take-off and landing distance, stall velocity, climb
rate, the aircraft weight and maneuverability. It also affects the wing size and take-off weight.
A. Stall condition
In stall condition wing loading can be estimated. Lift is equal to the steady level weight
and lift coefficient is equal to 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 . So, equation (21) from Raymer [2] used is as
follows.
1 2
𝑊 = 𝐿 = 𝜌 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑆 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 126, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 5.6) (21)
2
From this equation we could calculate the wing loading. Since the stall velocity is not
given in the requirement table, we estimate our design stall velocity as 112 kts for safety,
since the aircraft needs to drop at 125 kts. So, the wing loading is measured as shown
in equation (22).
63
𝑊 1 2
= 𝜌 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 (22)
𝑆 2
B. Takeoff distance
Since wing loading affects takeoff distance as mentioned in last part, the wing loading
is calculated as shown in equation (23)
𝑊 𝑇
= (𝑇𝑂𝑃) 𝜎 𝐶𝐿𝑇𝑜 (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 130, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 5.9) (23)
𝑆 𝑊
Where, 𝜎 is the ratio of the air density at sea level to the air density at takeoff and 𝐶𝐿𝑇𝑜 is
equal to 0.8 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 according to Raymer [86].
Figure 53: Takeoff parameter vs Takeoff distance (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 130, 𝑓𝑖𝑔. 5.4)
From Raymer we can match our objective takeoff distance of 5000 ft (objective) and
8000 ft (requirement) to around 125 TOP and 197 respectively as per requirements FAR
25 of the FAA.
64
C. Landing distance
To find landing wing loading, one can find the following equation from Raymer [86].
𝑊 1
𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 80 ∗ + 𝑆𝑎 (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑝. 133, 𝑒𝑞𝑛. 5.11) (24)
𝑆 𝜎 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥
Where 𝑆𝑎 = 1000 ft, according to Raymer this value corresponds to transport jets which
was the aircraft class closest to our design from Study 1. and 𝜎 is the ratio of the air
density at SL to the air density at takeoff.
D. Cruise
Equation (25) from Gudmundsson [96] relates wing loading to thrust weight, which is
important for finding the required power.
𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 1 1 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
= 𝑞 𝐶𝐷0 +𝐾 (25)
𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑞 𝑆
𝑆
Where from earlier, K= 0.0533 and 𝐶𝐷0 = 0.0212
So, from equation (20)

𝑇 𝑇 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓
( ) = ( ) ( )( ) (26)
𝑊 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
𝑇
Where ( 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 ) can be estimated from the following figure (54) from Raymer [86]:
𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
65
Figure 54: Mach number vs Uninstalled Thrust. (𝑅𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑥 𝐸. 2)
𝑇 34176.47
Where ( 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 ) = 25058.82 for cruise at 10000 ft
𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 34176.47
(𝑇 ) = 11411.76 for cruise at 30000 ft
E. Sustained turn
The below equation (27) from Gudmundsson [96] relates the wing loading to the service
ceiling.
𝑇𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛 𝐶𝐷 0 𝑛 2 𝑊2
=𝑞 ( + 𝐾( ) ) (27)
𝑊2 𝑊2 /𝑆 𝑞 𝑆
1
As shown in equation (27), n should be found where 𝑛 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝜙) . so, we need to assign
the value of 𝜙. We assigned a value of 40 degree for 𝜙 (bank angle) corresponding to
the examples given in FAR25. So 𝜙 value is chosen as 40 degrees for safety reasons.
𝑇 𝑇𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛 𝑊2 𝑊1 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓
( ) = (28)
𝑊 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊2 𝑊1 𝑊2 𝑇𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛
The values of 𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛 and 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 were found from the plot in figure (54)
66
F. Service Ceiling
From Gudmundsson [96] we get the following equation (29) for service ceiling:
𝑇 𝑅𝑜𝐶 𝐾𝐶𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛
= + 4√
𝑊 3
(29)
2𝑊 𝐾
√
𝜌 𝑆 √3𝐶𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛
Where:
𝐶𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝐶𝐷0 + 𝐶𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐶𝐷0 = 0.0212
𝐶𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.007 (Minimum drag coefficient of the airfoil used from STUDY 2)
By using equations 21 through 29 and the method mentioned above, a constraint diagram was
constructed according to the flight conditions listed in table by using the MATLAB routine in
the appendix. From figure (55) below, based on the results of above equations, we can see that
𝑙𝑏
the optimum point lies at almost 0.24 T/W and around 58 𝑓𝑡 2 wing loading. However, since our
𝑙𝑏
initial estimate had a 103 𝑓𝑡 2 wing loading, which is actually closer to the values suggested by
Raymer earlier, along with most turbofan engines considered later in this report can supply
more the minimum thrust-to-weight ratio that satisfies all our objectives while maximizing our
wing loading more by taking a T/W value of 0.32 and a corresponding maximum wing loading
𝑙𝑏
of around 77 𝑓𝑡 2 .
Table 18: Flight Conditions of Different Segments
Altitude [ft] Speed [kts] Temperature Off-set [F] Density [kg/m^3]
Stall 5300 112 35 0.977525
Cruise (mission) 10000 400 0 0.904637
Cruise (relocation) 30000 400 0 0.458312
Rate of Climb 5000 35 0.9866
Take-off 5000 135 35 0.9866
Landing 5000 - 35 0.9866
Service Ceiling 40000 400 0 0.301559
67
Figure 55: Constraint Diagram
68
3.6. Engine Selection
Engine Type selection

As we did in first study, we think Turbofan engine has the overall better performance according
to the table below.
Table 19: Engine type decision matrix
Engine type Turboprop (-1) Turbofan (+1)

advantages Low cost of engine (+1) Overall better performance of thrust (+2)
Hard to place the propellers. (-1)
disadvantages Less performance at higher speeds (-1) High cost (-1)
After deciding the engine type, we can continue with the engine model selection which will be
mainly based on required thrust.
Engine Model Selection
As we found in an earlier part of this report our Thrust to Weight ratio is 0.3 so required thrust
for our weight can be found as 60 000 so one engine should provide us 30 000 lbf
With this value we can list the following engines coming from the [97]
Table 20: Candidate engines specifications
Length Diameter Width Weight SFC[lb/lbf

Engine Name Manufacterer Thrust (lb-f) used airplanes
(in) (in) (in) (lb) hr]
CFM56-5C4 CFM 34 000 72.3 103 76.6 5700 0.33 A340-213/-213X/-313/-313X/-8000
CFM56-5C4/1P CFM 34 000 72.3 103 76.6 5700 0.33 A340-313/-313X
CF6-6D GE 39 300 188,000 86.4 105,00 7896 0,345 DC-10-10/-10F/-10F(CF)
CF6-6K GE 39 300 188,000 86.4 105,00 8176 0,346 DC-10-10/-10F
PW1130G-JM Pratt Whitney 33 110 133.9 56 57.6 6300 - A321-272N/-272NX
PW2037 Pratt Whitney 37 530 141.4 78.5 84.8 7300 0,335 757-200/-200ET
Olympus 593 Mk.610-14-28 Rolls-Royce/Snecma 31 350 148.4 47.75 6510 1.39 Concorde
CFM56-5B1 CFM 30 000 102.4 68.3 72,00 5250 0.35 A321-111/-212
If we consider specific Fuel consumption Weight and Thrust requirements, we can easily select
the engine CFM56-5C4 due to its low weight, low specific fuel consumption and overall
popularity in use.
69
Figure 56: CFM56-5 The example picture of our engine CFM56-5C4C4
Now that we know the engine geometry, we can elaborate on the engine positioning more. The
following table is given in the first study.
Table 21: Engine position decision matrix
Engine position Over the wing (+1) Under the wing (0)
Retardant and ground clearance is higher. (+2) Easy for maintenance. (+1)
advantages Easy to take off and land (+1) Aerodynamically more affective (+1)
Higher noise in the cabin.
disadvantages Lower aerodynamic performance (-2) Low retardant and ground clearance (-2)
So, for us there is no harm in continuing with the decided Over the wing positioning. If we add it to our
Cad drawing the following drawing can be obtained.
If we Reposition the engine upwards for adding it more clearance the following CAD drawing can be
obtained as an improved version of the positioning.
Figure 57: Initial CAD Drawing
70
Figure 58: Updated CAD Drawing After Engine Selection
From figure (59) below we can see that the engine we have selected gives us a thrust to weight
ratio to 0.34 which allows us to have a margin of safety away from the constraints limits of the
point we have chosen earlier, to keep the mission requirements fulfilled as much as possible in
case anything does not run or executed as planned.
71
Figure 59: Matching Chart (After Engine Selection)
72
4. Study #4
4.1. Layout, Sizing, and Lofting of Main Parts
4.1.1. Fuselage
Fuselage configurations
According to Sadraey [99, pg 345], The following fuselage configurations are optimum for
their specified mission types.
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 Generic fuselage configurations given in Sadraey [??, pg 345]
Figure 60: Some generic fuselage configurations given in [99, pg 345],
Using these as a reference we can select the fuselage configuration (a) given in above figure.
This configuration should provide us sufficient space for retardant tanks landing gears and all
of the aircraft systems. Also it is the similar geometry that is used by most of our competitors
as well as most of the transport aircrafts.
Fuselage sizing:
Fuselage length
We can start fuselage sizing by deciding on the fuselage length. According to Raymer [86, pg
157] the fuselage length can be approximated using the following formula.
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 𝑎 𝑊0𝐶
For Jet transport category aircrafts
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 0.67 𝑊00.43
We know from our Study-1 that Weight of our aircraft is approxiamtely 200 000 lb so
plugging that value to this equation gives us.
𝐹𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 0.67 × 200 000 0.43 = 127.5022 𝑓𝑡 = 38.863 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

Therefore we can say that 40 meters is a good value for the fuselage length of our aircraft.
73
Tail cone and Fuselage diameter

After deciding on the fuselage length, we can continue with calculating geometric parameters
of fuselage. According to Roskam [100, p. 110] the following chart can be used for deciding
geometrical parameters of an airplane.
Figure 61: Chart

Figure given\* by
SEQ Figure Roskam
ARABIC forwedeciding
2 table geometrical
used for deciding parameters
geometrical of aoffuselage
parameters our
airplane taken from [!! , pg110]
If we consider jet transport category in this table and 40-meter fuselage length we calculated
the following geometrical parameters can be obtained.
74
Table 22:Decided Geometrical Parameters
parameter Value decided

𝑙𝑓 /𝑑𝑓 8
𝑙𝑓𝑐 /𝑑𝑓 3.8
𝜃𝑓𝑐 14
With these values thatTable-x

are in the
The intervals
parametersgiven in Figure-61
we decided we gettothe
to use according following parameters
Figure-2
Table 23: Initial Fuselage Parameters
Parameter Value
Fuselage length 40 meters
Maximum body diameter 5 meteres
Tail cone angle 14 degrees
Tail cone length 19 meters
Using these we see that 21 m is left for cockpit main body and nose. Now we can continue with
the decision of these values.
Cockpit
According to [101, p 372] a person in ruder would need the following dimensions at least.
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3 minimum control zone dimensions according to [$$, 75
pg 372]
Figure 62: Pilot’s Cabin minimum required parameters

We are designing
a firefighting airplane we will not have any passengers hence there is no harm in using long
cockpit length. Therefore, we decided to use 5-meter Cockpit length even though a shorter value
could provide enough ergonomics. This will be beneficial for extending cabin windows’ size
hence pilot’s view capability which is a crucial parameter for firefighting missions.
Main Body and nose

At this point we only need to decide on body length and nose length of the airplane. If we take
1 meter nose length 15 meters would appear as the main body length. This value should be
enough for filling equipment, retardant tanks, and all the systems.
Table 24: Decided Fuselage Parameters
Parameter Value
Fuselage length 40 meters
Maximum body diameter 5 meters
Nose cone angle 14 degrees
Tail cone length 19 meters
Main body length 15 meters
Cockpit 5 meters
Nose length 1 meters
So, with this and our selected fuselage configuration we can draw the following figure.
Cockpit Main body Tail cone
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4 2D drawing of our fuselage

Figure 63: Basic Aircraft Configuration
76
Fuselage lofting
For the tail and body we decided to use circular cross-section and for cockpit we used elliptic
cross-sections as in the following figure.
Figure 64: Aircraft Loft
The circular cross-section of body is used widely in this type of aircrafts. We used elliptic cross-
section for cockpit so that body becomes more streamlined.
Fuselage layout
The fuselage will be containing most of the heavy parts of the airplane so positioning these
parts will also have an affect on the center of gravity too
Figure 65: Fuselage Layout
77
Also, if we look from the top
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 6 possible Fuselage layout which will also be used in center of mass calculations
Figure 66: Aircraft Layout (Top View)
78
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 7 top view of fuselage layout

Since now we have a fuselage, we can also provide the complete view of our aircraft as
following.
Figure 67: Full View of Aircraft
79
4.1.2. Wing
Most of the wing parameters were decided on study-2 and 3 in this study we only changed the
wing span of our aircraft from 44.58 meters to 48.13 as you can also see in Figure 8. All of the
wing parameters are also stated below.
Table 25: Wing Parameters
Parameters Value Unit

Aspect Ratio 9.6
Wing Span 48.13 [meters]
Referance Wing Area 241.3 [m^2]
Root Chord 7.5501 [meters]
Tip Chord 1.7365 [meters]
Mean Aerodynamic Chord 5.2498 [meters]
Quarter Chord Sweep Angle 6.7 [degrees]
Twist -3 [degrees]
Dihedral angle 5 [degrees]
Wing incidence 1 [degrees]
4.1.3. Tail
To decide on tail geometry, various tail arrangements are considered and as a result, t-tail
configuration is chosen since it has a superior elevator control and rudder control which are
both very essential to our mission as our mission includes some sharp maneuvers. According
to [102], one may find horizontal and vertical areas using equations below:
𝐶𝐻 𝑆𝑊 𝑐𝑀𝐴𝐶
𝑆𝐻 =
𝑙ℎ
𝐶𝑉 𝑆𝑊 𝑏𝑊
𝑆𝑉 =
𝑙𝑉
Where,
Since we are still not in the phase for deciding mass and center of gravity. Tail lever arms can
be only estimated from the fuselage length. It is stated in [102] that one can take 𝑙ℎ and 𝑙𝑉 as
follows:
𝑙ℎ = 0.5𝑙𝐹
𝑙𝑣 = 0.55𝑙𝐹
Where 𝑙𝐹 means fuselage length.
80
By doing calculations we found:

𝑆𝐻 = 63.34 𝑚2
𝑆𝑉 = 47.51 𝑚2
Now one has to decide on aspect ratios of the vertical and horizontal tail. Again by using
reference [102] we can simply decide on aspect ratios as:
𝐴𝐻 = 0.5535𝐴𝑊 = 5.3136
𝐴𝑉 = 1 (Taken for a t-tail arrangement)
Since aspect ratio is defined as span square over area one can easily find the span of the vertical
tail and horizontal tail as:
𝑏𝐻 = 18.34 𝑚
𝑏𝑣 = 6.89 𝑚
To be able to complete tail sizing, taper ratio of the vertical and horizontal tail should be defined
with sweep angles of the vertical and horizontal tail from reference [102]. In order to define
chord lengths at the tip and root of the vertical and the horizontal tail the following equations
from class notes can be used:
𝜆ℎ𝑡 = 1.2 ∗ 𝜆𝑤
𝜆𝑉 = 0.8 (Taken for a t-tail configuration from historical data)
2𝑆ℎ𝑡
(𝑐𝑟 )ℎ𝑡 = = 5.413 𝑚
𝑏ℎ𝑡 (1 + 𝜆ℎ𝑡 )
2𝑆𝑣𝑡
(𝑐𝑟 )𝑣𝑡 = = 7.662 𝑚
𝑏𝑣𝑡 (1 + 𝜆𝑣𝑡 )
(𝑐𝑡 )ℎ𝑡 = (𝑐𝑟 )ℎ𝑡 𝜆ℎ𝑡 = 1.494 𝑚
(𝑐𝑡 )𝑣𝑡 = (𝑐𝑟 )𝑣𝑡 𝜆𝑣𝑡 = 6.129 𝑚
For the sweep angles reference [102] suggests to take the horizontal tail sweep angles as same
as the wing sweep and take the vertical tail sweep around 20 degrees. So, the horizontal tail
sweep is taken as 6.7 degrees and vertical tail sweep is taken as 20 degrees.
81
Generally, most of the aircrafts use symmetric airfoils such as NACA0012 and NACA0008.
Considering our aircraft size, initially it is convenient to take NACA0012 airfoil for both
horizontal tail and vertical tail. Below the CAD drawings of horizontal and vertical tail is given.
Figure 68: CAD drawing of horizontal tail
Figure 69: CAD drawing of the vertical tail
According to the Raymer, we can use the table for the sizing of the chord of the control
surfaces; elevator and rudder.
82
Table 26: Table for the control surface sizing (Raymer, p. 162. Table 6.5)
Also, from our class notes it is stated that elevator and rudder generally starts from the fuselage
and extends 90% of the vertical or horizontal tail span. Thus, from calculations we get:
(𝑐𝑡 )𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑟 = 2.040 𝑚
(𝑐𝑟 )𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑟 = 2.3 𝑚
(𝑐𝑡 )𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 0.415 𝑚
(𝑐𝑟 )𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 1.353 𝑚
Control surfaces can be seen from the previous CAD drawings.
4.2. Aircraft Wetted Area & Volume

For Wetted Areas and Volumes of the aircraft parts are as following
Fuselage
The fuselage wetted area is approximately 469.107 𝑚2 and fuselage volume is 497.05 𝑚3 as
can be seen from Figure-70
Figure 70: Figure Showing Fuselage exposed area and volume
83
Wing
Wing exposed area is 245.375 𝑚2 and Wing exposed volume is 63.663 𝑚3 . For two wings it
is 490.75 𝑚2 and 127.326 𝑚3 As can be seen from Figure-71
Figure 71: Figure Showing Fuselage exposed area and volume

Horizontal Tail
Volume of Horizontal tail is 19.915 𝑚3 and Area of horizontal tail is 130.44 𝑚2 As can be
seen from Figure 72
Figure 72: Volume and Exposed Areas of Horizontal

tail
84
Vertical Tail
Volume of Vertical Tail is 27.048 𝑚3 and Exposed area of Vertical Tail is 97.983 𝑚2
Figure 73: Exposed Area and volume of Vertical tail
85
4.3. Fuel Calculations

4.3.1. Fuel Type:
The next step after selecting our engine, which we did in our previous study, would be to select
the type of fuel that we will be feeding out engine with. This task is important to be done
carefully, as the fuel type would significantly affect the weight and the weight changes during
the fuel consumption, consequently leading to potential performance and stability changes
which should be accounted for. Table (27) from Raymer [86], below shows aircraft fuel types
and their respective densities.
Table 27: Average Fuel Densities in (lb/gal) or {kg/liter} (Raymer, p.327, table 10.5)
According to Raymer [86], JET A-4/B is mainly used for operations in extremely cold climates,
JP-5 is used on aircraft carrier operations, JP-10 is used on missiles, whilst JP-6/7 are used on
high supersonic aircrafts propulsion. Eliminating all the aforementioned fuel types as they are
irrelevant to our application, we are left with AvGas, JET A-1 and JET A, since most
commercial transport aircrafts, which our aircraft closely resembles in design, use either JET
A/A-1, we have decided to go with JET A-1 as it has an edge with a lower freezing point and
an anti-static additive.
4.3.2. Fuel Weight and Volume:
From study one our empty weight equation:
𝑊𝑒
= 1.408𝑊0−0.0856 (30)
𝑊0
For a maximum take-off weight of 200000 lb, we get an empty weight of 𝑊𝑒 = 99052.28 lb,
if we subtract from the maximum take-off weight our payload (retardant), crew, and empty
weight we will be left with a fuel weight of 𝑊𝑓 = 28407.72 lb. Which from table (27), the
average density for the JET A-1 fuel is 6.735 lb/gal. Therefore, our fuel tanks should have a
volume of at least 4217.92 gallons.
86
4.3.3. Fuel Tank:

According to Raymer [86], there are three types of fuel tanks, discrete, bladder and integral.
Discrete tanks are usually used in small general-aviation homebuilt aircrafts, whilst bladder
type are used mainly in military aircrafts as it is made of rubber, making it fit for the operating
conditions as the rubber would self-seal in an event of a bullet penetrating the tank, minimizing
losses, however; the rubber absorption may lead to a fuel loss of up to 10%. For the stated
reasons, we will be opting for the third type of tanks which is the integral tank.
From fuel volume calculations it is found that our fuel tanks should have a volume of at least
4217.92 gallons. However, it is not convenient to build a fuel tank just for the needed fuel
volume so volume of the fuel tank is taken as 5000 gallons which is equivalent to approximately
19 m^3 of volume. Thus, we decided to put integral fuel tanks in both wings and the bottom of
the main body. The CAD drawing of the fuel tank is given below:
Figure 74: CAD drawing of the fuel tanks
The wing fuel tanks has a volume of approximately 7.5 m^3 in each wing and fuselage fuel
tank has a volume of approximately 4 m^3. Thus, it adds up to 19 m^3 total volume which
makes us meet our volume goal.
87
4.4. Weight Analysis and CG Envelope

First, we used the following statistical method equations from Raymer 86] for Cargo/Transport
category
0.557 0.649 0.5

𝑡 −0.4
𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.0051(𝑊𝑑𝑔 𝑁𝑍 ) 𝑆𝑊 𝐴 ( ) (1 + 𝜆)0.1
𝑐 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 (31)
× (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛬)−0.1 0.1
𝑆𝑐𝑠𝑤
𝑊ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙
0.639 0.10
= 0.0379 𝐾𝑢ℎ𝑡 (1 + 𝐹𝑤 / 𝐵ℎ )−0.25 𝑊𝑑𝑔 𝑁𝑍 (32)
0.75 −1.0 0.704 −1.0 0.166
× 𝑆ℎ𝑡 𝐿𝑡 𝐾𝑦 (𝑐𝑜𝑠Λ ℎ𝑡 ) 𝐴ℎ (1 + 𝑆𝑒 /𝑆ℎ𝑡 )0.1
0.556 0.536 −0.5

𝑊𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙 = 0.0026(1 + 𝐻𝑡 /𝐻𝑣 )0.225 𝑊𝑑𝑔 𝑁𝑧 𝐿𝑡
0.5 0.875 (𝑐𝑜𝑠Λ )−1 0.35 (𝑡/𝑐)−0.5 (33)
× 𝑆𝑉𝑡 𝐾𝑧 𝑉𝑡 𝐴𝑉 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡
0.5
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 0.3280 𝐾𝑑𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝐾𝐿𝑔 (𝑊𝑑𝑔 𝑁𝑧 ) 𝐿0.25 𝑆𝑓0.302 (34)
× (1 + 𝐾𝑤𝑠 )0.04 (𝐿/𝐷)0.10
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = 2.405𝑉𝑡0.606 (1 + 𝑉𝑖 /𝑉𝑡 )−1.0 (1 + 𝑉𝑝 /𝑉𝑡 )𝑁𝑡0.5 (35)
0.5
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 = 4.509𝐾𝑟 𝐾𝑡𝑝 𝑁𝑐0.541 𝑁𝑒𝑛 (𝐿𝑓 + 𝐵𝑤 ) (36)
0.937
𝑊ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑠 = 0.2673𝑁𝑓 (𝐿𝑓 + 𝐵𝑤 ) (37)
0.782 0.346 0.10

𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 7.291𝑅𝐾𝑉𝑎 𝐿𝑎 𝑁𝑔𝑒𝑛 (38)
0.983
𝑊𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑠 = 1.73 𝑊𝑢𝑎𝑣 (39)
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 0.0577 𝑁𝑐0.1 𝑊𝑐0.393 𝑆𝑓0.75 (40)
Using, equations (31) to (40), the weights of the aforementioned components were calculated
and tabulated using the required parameters in the equations, tabulated in table (28) below
88
Table 28: Statistical Weights of Components
Parameter [unit] Value Reference Weight [lb]

Component
Wdg [lb] 200000 [1]
Nz 3.75 [2]
Sw [ft^2] 2597.332 Geometry
A 9.6 Geometry
Wing t/c rooot [%] 0.14 Study 2 19827.0562
Wing Taper Ratio 0.23 Geometry
Wing Quarter Chord
6.7 Geometry
Sweep [deg]
Scsw [ft^2] 368.1257 Geometry
Sht [ft^2] 681.77 Geometry
Bh [ft] 60.17 Geometry
Fw [ft] 7.87 Geometry
A_h 5.3136 Geometry
Wdg [lb] 200000 Geometry
Lt [ft] 65.62 Geometry
Horizontal tail 2299.32249
Horizontal Tail Quarter
6.7 Geometry
Chord Sweep [deg]
Kuht 1 [1]
Se/St 0.225 [1]
Ky [ft] 19.69 Geometry
Nz 3.75 [2]
Ht/Hv 1 [1]
Av 1 Geometry
Svt [ft^2] 511.39 Geometry
Kz [ft] 65.62 Geometry
Vertical tail Nz 3.75 [2] 1823.67227

(t/c)root [%] 0.12 Study 2
Vertical Tail Quarter
20 Geometry
Chord Sweep [deg]
Lt [ft] 65.62 Geometry
Wdg [lb] 200000 [1]
Kdoor 1 [1]
KLg 1.12 [1]
Wdg [lb] 200000 [1]
Nz 3.75 [2]
L [ft] 131.2336 Geometry
Fuselage Sf [ft^2] 4604.586 Geometry 17038.0953
Kws 0.1678 [1]
L/D 8 [1]
89
Vt [gal] 5000 Geometry

Vi [gal] 4218 Geometry
394.080396
Fuel system Vp [gal] 0 Geometry
Nt 3 Geometry
Engine L_ec [ft] 90.20998 Geometry
452.649883
controls N_en 2 Study 3
Avionics W uav [lb] 1000 [1] 1538.31793
Rkva [kV] 135 [1]
Electrical La [ft] 32.8084 Geometry 1211.55165
Ngen 2 [1]
Uninstalled Nen 2 Study 3
11400
engine Wen [lb] 5700 Study 3
Nc 3 Study 1
Furnishing Wc [lb] 72000 Study 1 13631.1
Sf [ft^2] 4895.8 Geometry
Other components, such as the nacelle weight, and the landing gear weight were not included
in the statistical weight computations as these components were not sized and designed in
detail. Therefore, the following estimation table (29) was used from Raymer [86].
Table 29: Approximate Empty Weight Buildup. (Raymer, p.568, Table 15.2)
From table (29), we can calculate from our decided TOGW of 200000 lb, both the installed
engine and landing gear weight.
𝑊𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 8600𝑙𝑏
→ 𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 7310 𝑙𝑏, → 𝑊𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 1290 𝑙𝑏
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 = 14820 𝑙𝑏
→ 𝑊𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒 = 3420 𝑙𝑏
Our maximum-takeoff weight adding all the fuel, retardant and crew weights computed earlier
comes out to 𝑊0 = 182130.9162 𝑙𝑏, which is less than 10% from the computed 𝑊0 in study
1, making all the decisions based on the weight still valid.
90
Using these weights and the positioning discussed earlier, the c.g. location of the aircraft is
computed.
Table 30: Components Mass and Location (Max Take-off Weight Case)
Component cg x mm cg z mm mass of component (lb)

STRUCTURE
Wing 5958 -396 19827.05618
H- tail 26384.998 8935 2299.322487
V -tail 25193.78 5775.617 1823.672273
Fuselage 5179.1 681.844 17038.09528
PROPULSION
Engine 5961.574 1103.69 11400
Nacelles 7900 700 3420
Fuel wings 5344.231 -424.762 6452.193712
Fuel body 3200 -500 5980.572632
Fuel System 3770 -443 394.0803963
Equipments
Avionics and electronics -2500 1500 2749.869581
Furnishings -8740 500 13631.1
Useful load
Retardant 3500 455.249 72000
Crew -8740.587 634.878 540
Landing Gear
Nose Landing Gear -3600 -2000 1290
Main Landing Gear 2400 -2000 7310
Note: Nose tip location is – 12000 mm, 600 mm so subtracting these values to the above values
which are with respect to xyz CAD coordinate gives cg locations about nose tip!
At maximum take-off weight:
→ 𝑋𝑐𝑔 = 15.7480 𝑚 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑝
→ 𝑍𝑐𝑔 = −0.2487 𝑚 (𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟) 𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑝
91
CG Envelope
Before using our weight components and position table to draw our CG envelope we need first
to decide on our aft CG and forward CG positions, this is not an easy task since we did not
discuss the stability of our aircraft yet. However, we will try to estimate it based on the
longitudinal stability according to the pitching moment curve slope.
Figure 75: Typical pitching-moment derivative values. (Raymer, p. 593, Fig. 16.4)
From figure (75), from Raymer [86], we can see that the typical pitching moment for an aircraft
of a transport category which, our aircraft closely resembles is around -1.14 per radian for our
cruise Mach number.
𝐶𝑚α
̅̅̅̅̅
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 (𝑆𝑀) = (𝑋 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝑛𝑝 − 𝑋𝑐𝑔 ) = − (41)
𝐶𝐿α
From Study 2, we can see the lift curve slope for our selected airfoil is around 6.75 per radian
at moderate angles-of-attack. Corrected by equation (41), would give us around 6.0335 per
radian corrected to wing lift.
Therefore, Static Margin (SM) = 0.1889.
We will use the computed static margin value as the average where our CG envelope sound be
around.
→ (Xnp − Xcg ) = 0.1889 ∗ MAC

avg
92
→ (Xnp − Xcg ) = 0.9917 m

avg
The aerodynamic center of subsonic aircrafts is around the quarter chord of MAC, from our
geometry is at 15.3965 m from the nose tip. Moreover, according to Raymer [86], “an old rule-
of-thumb says that those limits must be separated by no more than 8% of the wing MAC “, so
if we follow this rule basing our average:
→ (Xcg ) = 15.7173 m
avg
0.08
→ 𝐶𝐺𝐸𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑠 = 15.7173m ± ∗ MAC
2
→ 𝐶𝐺 𝐸𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑠 = 15.7173 m ± 0.2200 m
→ 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 15.5073 𝑚
→ 𝐴𝑓𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 15.9373 𝑚
Using these values, and by changing weight values in table (30) according to the mission
profiles, the following envelopes were plotted.
93
Figure 76: CG Envelope
94
4.5. Wing Positioning
Systems
Door SYSTEMS
Cockpit Retardant
A
o
n
v
i
Tank
fuel collector
NLG tank LG
Wing box
Figure 77: Wing Positioning with Aircraft Layout
Cockpit
Fuel tanks
Retardant Tank
Systems
actuators
Landing gear
Door
Figure 78: Aircraft Layout (Top View) 95

Figure 79: Aircraft Wing MAC quarter chord location and forward and aft center of gravity locations (Top View)
If we consider wing mean aerodynamic chord’s quarter chord line as wing aerodynamic
chord, we can easily see that the forward and aft CG limits are both in front of the
aerodynamic chord as intended.
The truth is to satisfy CG being in front of the aerodynamic center we needed to do lots of
repositioning inside the fuselage as well as shifting wing vertical location through the
fuselage.
In the end we decided to use the one that has stable characteristics which is MAC quarter
chord is 16.7687 meters away from the nose tip and having low wing configuration. You can
check Figures 8 and 20 for checking decided wing positioning.
96
Dimensional Comparison of our aircraft with its competitors

Table 31 Dimension Comparison table for our final design and some of our competitors
OUR Boeing 737 Boeing 737 DC-10 Air Mc Donnell

DESIGN 300 400 Tanker Douglas MD-87
Parameter Value Value Value Value Value Unit
FUSELAGE
Fuselage Length 40 32.3 68.63 51.97 36.3 [meters]
Maximum Body Diameter 5 3.73 6.5 06.02 3.61 [meters]
Tail cone angle 14 - - - - degrees
Tail cone length 19 - - - - [meters]
Main body length 15 - - - - [meters]
Cockpit 5 - - - - [meters]
Nose length 1 - - - - [meters]
WING
Aspect Ratio 9.6 9.17 7.39 6.91 6..91 -
Wing Span 48.13 28.9 62.3 50.4 32.87 [meters]
Referance Wing Area 241.3 91.04 525 367.7 112.3 [m^2]
Root Chord 7.5501 - - - - [meters]
Tip Chord 1.7365 - - - - [meters]
Mean Aerodynamic
5.2498 3.73 9.68 8.59 04.08 [meters]
Chord
Quarter Chord Sweep
6.7 25 - - [degrees]
Angle
Twist -3 - - - - [degrees]
Dihedral angle 5 - - - - [degrees]
Wing incidence 1 - - - - [degrees]
Taper Ratio 0.23 0.24 275 0.22 195 -
HORIZONTAL TAIL
Root Chord 5.413 - - - - [meters]
Tip Chord 1.494 - - - - [meters]
Span 18.34 12.7 22.08 21.69 12.24 [meters]
Aspect Ratio 5.535 5.15 3.57 3.78 5.14 -
Sweep 6.7 30 32 35 30 [degrees]
VERTICAL TAIL
Root Chord 7.662 - - - [meters]
Tip Chord 6.129 - - - [meters]
Span 6.89 6 - - [meters]
Aspect Ratio 1 1.56 1.34 2.22 0.95 -
Sweep 20 - 45 40 42.5 [degrees]
If we look at the table-31 we can see that the dimensions of our aircraft are smaller than 2 of
the competitors and larger than the other 2 competitors. This is expected since we begin the
design process by taking average parameters of the competitor aircrafts. Therefore, we can say
that our final aircraft dimensions are coherent with the design process and the final dimensions
of our aircraft is close to average dimensions of competitor aircrafts.
97
CONCLUSION
To conclude, a whole design process of the aerial firefighting aircraft from scratch is
presented through this final report.
In the first study, aircraft requirements and mission profiles were decided. An exhausting
research is conducted to collect data from similar aircrafts to better estimate our take-off
weight and aircraft configuration. In addition, a decision matrix is used to get the best
configuration that we can.
The second study included the selection of airfoil which is crucial for the aircraft since it
decides important aerodynamic characteristics. Moreover, a basic initial sizing of the
fuselage, wing and tail geometry was conducted in this study.
In the third study, design parameters and some performance characteristics were laid out.
Wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio which both have significant importance considering
the aircraft performance are selected considering the constraint diagram. After those
performance characteristics were laid out, some changes were made to the dimension of tail
and wing. Lastly, the engine and its location is determined.
The fourth study consists of the finalized geometry of the whole aircraft which are fuselage,
wing and tail geometry. Every dimension is determined and moreover, fuselage lofting, cabin
dimension and layout are given. The fuel type and fuel tank considering our needs are chosen.
Finally, landing gear configuration and dimensions are determined and by using component
weight equations CG and CG envelope of the aircraft is calculated.
As a final word, even though it was very exhausting and hard process, through this journey
we gained invaluable knowledge based on an aircraft design. We would like to thank to our
instructor and assistants and their guidance through this course.
98
References
[1]: 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.10tanker.com/>

[2]: Boeing.com. 2021. [online] Available at:
<https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/dc10.pdf>
[Accessed 17 November 2021].
[3]: Easa.europa.eu. 2021. [online] Available at:
<https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA-TCDS-
A.210_%28IM%29_Boeing_DC--10_and_MD--11_series-01-02122013.pdf> [Accessed 17
November 2021].
[4]: Booksite.elsevier.com. 2021. Butterworth-Heinemann – Civil Jet Aircraft Design – Aircraft Data
File – Douglas,Boeing and Lockheed Aircraft. [online] Available at:
<https://booksite.elsevier.com/9780340741528/appendices/data-a/table-6/table.htm>
[5]: Nata.aero. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.nata.aero/agso/astgcache/089abbdc-cd68-
40df-a980-5fca8c93a248.pdf> [Accessed 17 November 2021].
[6]: Fs.usda.gov. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
08/fs_standards_for_airtanker_operations_-_final_08192020.pdf> [Accessed 17 November
2021].
[7]: Booksite.elsevier.com. 2021. Butterworth-Heinemann – Civil Jet Aircraft Design – Aircraft Data
File – Douglas,Boeing and Lockheed Aircraft. [online] Available at:
[8]: Aero Corner. 2021. McDonnell Douglas MD-87 – Price, Specs, Photo Gallery, History – Aero
Corner. [online] Available at: <https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/mcdonnell-douglas-md-87/>
[9]: GlobalAir.com. 2021. McDonnell Douglas MD-87 Specifications, Cabin Dimensions,
Performance. [online] Available at: <https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-
sale/Specifications?specid=840> [Accessed 17 November 2021].
2021].
[11]: Eol.ucar.edu. 2021. [online] Available at:
<https://www.eol.ucar.edu/system/files/c130.investigators_handbook.chapter1.pdf>
2021].
2021].
99
[14]: Booksite.elsevier.com. 2021. Butterworth-Heinemann – Civil Jet Aircraft Design – Aircraft

Data File – BoeingAircraft. [online] Available at:
[15]: SKYbrary Aviation Safety. 2021. B733. [online] Available at:
<https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/B733> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[16]: Modern Airliners. 2021. Boeing 737 Specs – Modern Airliners. [online] Available at:
<https://modernairliners.com/boeing-737/boeing-737-specifications/> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[17]: Palt, K., 2021. Boeing 737-300 – Specifications – Technical Data / Description. [online]
Flugzeuginfo.net. Available at:
<http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7373_en.php> [Accessed 18 November
2021].
[18]: Aerospace-technology.com. 2021. BAE Avro RJ – Aerospace Technology. [online] Available
at: <https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/avro_rj/> [Accessed 18 November
2021].
[19]: Conair.ca. 2021. Avro RJ85 AT. [online] Available at: <https://conair.ca/conair_fleet/rj85at>
[20]: Palt, K., 2021. Bae, British Aerospace Bae 146-200 / AVRO RJ85 – Specifications – Technical
Data / Description. [online] Flugzeuginfo.net. Available at:
<http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_bae1462_en.php> [Accessed 18 November
2021].
2021].
[22]: En.wikipedia.org. 2021. Ilyushin Il-76 – Wikipedia. [online] Available at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[23]: Κωνσταντίνος, Π., 2021. Il-76 TDP (P) Firefighting aircraft – RedStar. [online] Redstar.gr.
Available at:
<https://www.redstar.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2438:il-76-tdp-p-
firefighting-aircraft&catid=428&lang=en&Itemid=527> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[24]: Aero Corner. 2021. Ilyushin IL-76 – Price, Specs, Photo Gallery, History – Aero Corner.
[online] Available at: <https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/ilyushin-il-76/> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[25]: Pike, J., 2021. Il-76 CANDID. [online] Globalsecurity.org. Available at:
<https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/il-76-specs.htm> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[26]: Palt, K., 2021. Iljuschin / Ilyushin Il-76 – Specifications – Technical Data / Description.
[online] Flugzeuginfo.net. Available at:
<http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_il76_en.php> [Accessed 18 November
2021].
[27]: Gfmc.online. 2021. GFMC: Global Emergency Response – GFMC. [online] Available at:
<https://gfmc.online/emergency/ger.html> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
100
[28]: En.wikipedia.org. 2021. 747 Supertanker – Wikipedia. [online] Available at:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/747_Supertanker> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[29]: Globalsupertanker.biz. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://globalsupertanker.biz/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/GSTS-technical-data.pdf> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[31]: Booksite.elsevier.com. 2021. Butterworth-Heinemann – Civil Jet Aircraft Design – Aircraft
Data File – BoeingAircraft. [online] Available at:
[32]: Pike, J., 2021. Il-76 CANDID. [online] Globalsecurity.org. Available at:
<https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/il-76-specs.htm> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[33]: aircraft, W. and 747-400, B., 2021. Boeing 747-400 commercial aircraft. Pictures,
specifications, reviews.. [online] Airlines-inform.com. Available at: <https://www.airlines-
inform.com/commercial-aircraft/boeing-747-400.html> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
2021].
[35]: ShinMaywa Industries, Ltd. 2021. Performance of the State-of-the-Art US-2. [online] Available
at: <https://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/aircraft/english/us2/us2_capability.html> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[36]: Military Wiki. 2021. ShinMaywa US-2. [online] Available at:
<https://military.wikia.org/wiki/ShinMaywa_US-2> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[37]:2021. [online] Available at:
<https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=1254#:~:text=Overall%20le
ngth%20of%20the%20aircraft,(MTOW)%20of%20105%2C150%20lb> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[38]: Web.archive.org. 2021. IRKUT Corporation :: The Be-200 Multipurpose Amphibious Aircraft
:: The Be-200 Multipurpose Amphibious Aircraft. [online] Available at:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20080925172707/http://www.irkut.com/en/services/production/
BE200/> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[39]: 2021. [online] Available at:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20070317005310/http://www.irkutseaplane.com/be200.html>
[40]: Beriev.com. 2021. Beriev – Be-200 multipurpose amphibious aircraft. [online] Available at:
<http://www.beriev.com/eng/Be-200_e/Be-200_e.html> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[41]: Aerospace-technology.com. 2021. Beriev Be-200 – Aerospace Technology. [online] Available
at: <https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/beriev_be-200/> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[42]: Uacrussia.ru. 2021. Бе-200. [online] Available at:
<https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/special/be-200/#aircraft-specific> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
101
[43]: GALLET, M., 2021. Beriev Be-200ChS. [online] AviationsMilitaires.net. Available at:
<https://aviationsmilitaires.net/v3/kb/aircraft/show/4997/beriev-be-200chs#tab:tab-details>
[44]: Palt, K., 2021. Berijew / Beriev Be-200 – Specifications – Technical Data / Description.
[online] Flugzeuginfo.net. Available at:
<http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_be200_en.php> [Accessed 18 November
2021].
[45]: 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.airlines-inform.com/commercial-aircraft/dash-
8q400.html> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[46]: Conair.ca. 2021. Dash 8-400AT Airtanker. [online] Available at:
<https://conair.ca/conair_fleet/q400-airtanker> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
<https://web.archive.org/web/20161006005926/http://www2.bombardier.com/q400/en/specifi
cations.jsp> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
<https://web.archive.org/web/20051030013243/http://www.cascadeaerospace.com/products/
Q400%20Air%20Tanker%20Conversion> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[49]: Google Docs. 2021. Bombardier_Q Series_Final.pdf. [online] Available at:
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q5aIXPORcZttepF3Qk6qmnCzBr-
T1mRh/view?usp=sharing> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[50]: Google Docs. 2021. BCA_5446_03_Q400_Factsheet_Update_EN_vF.pdf. [online] Available
at:
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NvRrFYYMm39dUmR6Mw9DaUVYaCr6OOlK/view?usp
=sharing> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[51]: Air-Tec. 2021. BOMBARDIER DASH 8 300/Q400 • Air-Tec. [online] Available at:
<https://www.air-tecm.com/fleet/bombardier-dash-8-aircraft/> [Accessed 18 November
2021].
<https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190001250/downloads/20190001250.pdf> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[53]: The Flying Engineer. 2021. Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72. [online] Available at:
<https://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/> [Accessed
18 November 2021].
[55]: K. Palt, PZL Mielec M18 Dromader – specifications – technical data / description. [Online].
Available: http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_m18_en.php. [Accessed: 18-Nov-
2021].
[56]: “At-802F fire boss – firefighting aircraft,” Air Tractor, 15-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://airtractor.com/aircraft/at-802f-fire-boss/. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[57]: “Air Tractor at-1002A AT1002A NAAA debuts at.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.trottercontrols.com/tc-content/techpub/SP-1018-Ag-Air-Update-AT1002F-
201002.pdf. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021]. .
102
[58]: K. Palt, Grumman S-2 (S2F) tracker – specifications – technical data / description. [Online].
Available: http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_s2_en.php. [Accessed: 18-Nov-
2021].
[59]: Event details. [Online]. Available: https://www.fss.aero/accident-

reports/look.php?report_key=16. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[60]: K. Palt, Lockheed P-3 Orion – specifications – technical data / description. [Online]. Available:
http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_p3_en.php. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[61]: NASA. [Online]. Available:

https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/sunsat/archive/download/Hskping_P3_20180927_R2.ict.
[Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[62]: “Airstrike firefighters, LLC,” Fire Fighting. [Online]. Available:

http://www.airstrikefirefighters.com/fire-fighting.html. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[63]: K. Palt, Martin JRM Mars – specifications – technical data / description. [Online]. Available:
http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_jrmmars_en.php. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[64]: “PBY Specifications,” The Catalina Preservation Society, 30-Sep-2018. [Online]. Available:
http://pbycatalina.com/specifications/. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[65]: WinAir, “Everything that you need to know about the 103ontour103 CL-415 – winair (aviation
management software),” WinAir. [Online]. Available: https://winair.ca/blog/everything-need-
know-canadair-cl-415/. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[66]: “Antonov An-32 specifications, Cabin Dimensions, performance,” GlobalAir.com.
[Online]. Available: https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-sale/Specifications?specid=1337.
[67]: L. Planes, McDonnel Douglas DC-10. [Online]. Available:

http://lostplanes.net/McDonnel_douglas_dc10.htm. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[68]: theblueprints.com, McDonnell Douglas MD-87. [Online]. Available: https://www.the-

blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/mcdonnell-
douglas/54711/viewsingle/mcdonnell_douglas_md-87/. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[69]: Huaban, 花瓣. [Online]. Available: https://huaban.com/pins/3204953155/. [Accessed: 18-Nov-

2021].
[70]: “1984 Boeing 737-300 V2 blueprints free,” Outlines. [Online]. Available:

https://getoutlines.com/blueprints/17948/1984-boeing-737-300-blueprints. [Accessed: 18-
Nov-2021].
[71]: “Commons:BAE146,” Wikimedia Commons. [Online]. Available:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/103ontour103a/commons/4/42/BAE146v1.0.png. [Accessed:
18-Nov-2021].
103
[72]: “Commons: Ilyushin_Il-76,” Wikimedia Commons. [Online]. Available:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/104ontour104a/commons/thumb/1/15/Ilyushin_Il-
76.svg/1200px-Ilyushin_Il-76.svg.png. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[73]: “Commons: Boeing747-400,” Wikimedia Commons. [Online]. Available:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/104ontour104a/commons/thumb/c/c6/Boeing_747-
400_3view.svg/1200px-Boeing_747-400_3view.svg.png. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[74]: Index of /images6/AN/AN82-2/23-2. [Online]. Available:

http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AN/AN82-2/23-2.jpg. [Accessed: 18-Nov-2021].
[75]: “Aircraft,” Blueprints. [Online]. Available: https://drawingdatabase.com/beriev-be-200/.

[76]: “FJS-Dash 8 Q400 manual – ‫خط الطيران‬Flying way.” [Online]. Available:

https://air.flyingway.com/books/manual/FJS-Dash_8_Q400_Manual.pdf. [Accessed: 18-Nov-
2021].
[77]: D. P. Raymer, Aircraft design: A conceptual approach. Reston, VA: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
[78]: Pilotmall.com. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/high-wing-
vs-low-wing-what-s-the-difference-between-them> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[79]: HighSkyFlying. 2021. Why are Jet Engines Below the Wing? – Top 5 Reasons! (Advantages,
Disadvantages & Different Engine Locations) | HighSkyFlying. [online] Available at:
<https://www.highskyflying.com/why-are-jet-engines-below-the-wing/> [Accessed 18
November 2021].
[80]: Boldmethod.com. 2021. Do You Know These 5 Unique Characteristics Of T-Tail Airplanes?.
[online] Available at: <https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2019/08/5-unique-
characteristics-of-t-tail-airplanes/> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[81]: Grc.nasa.gov. 2021. Turbofan Engine. [online] Available at:
<https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/aturbf.html> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[82]: CompositesLab. 2021. Composites VS. Aluminum – Composites Compared. [online] Available
at: <http://compositeslab.com/composites-compared/composites-vs-
aluminum/#:~:text=Composites%20are%20excellent%20at%20handling,is%20sensitive%20t
o%20tension%20loads.> [Accessed 18 November 2021].
[83]: Dglr.de. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.dglr.de/publikationen/2018/480058.pdf>
[84]: Climate Change Indicators: Wildfires | US EPA. (2021). Retrieved 18 November 2021, from
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires
[85]: How Planes Became Firefighters’ Best Friend—And Then Drones Became Their Worst Enemy.
(2021). Retrieved 18 November 2021, from
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/a24109/fighting-fires-and-flying-drones-a-
growing-danger/
104
[86]: D. P. Raymer, Aircraft design: A conceptual approach. Reston, VA: American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
[87]: METU AEE-451 Aerospace Engineering Design Lecture Notes of 11 November 2021
[88]: METU AEE-451 Aerospace Engineering Design Team-H study-1 Report
[89]: Barua, P., Sousa, T., and Scholz, D., “Empennage Statistics and Sizing Methods for
Dorsal Fins,” Tech. rep., Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, 2013.
[90]: Airfoil database search. [Online]. Available: http://airfoiltools.com/search/index.

[Accessed: 20-Dec-2021].
[91]: Anderson Jr, J. D. (2010). Fundamentals of aerodynamics. Tata McGraw-Hill

Education.
[92]: C. D. Harris, D. O. Allison, and R. J. McGhee, “Low-speed aerodynamic characteristics
of a 14-percent-thick NASA phase 2 supercritical airfoil designed for a lift coefficient of 0.7 –
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS),” NASA, 01-Dec-1980. [Online]. Available:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19830013896. [Accessed: 20-Dec-2021].
[93]: Sadraey, M., 2021. Chapter-5 Wing Design. [online] Wpage.unina.it. Available at:
<http://wpage.unina.it/fabrnico/DIDATTICA/PGV_2012/MAT_DID_CORSO/09_Progetto_Ala/Wing_Des
ign_Sadraey.pdf> [Accessed 31 December 2021].
[94]: Dieter Scholz Drag Estimation - HAW Hamburg. https://www.fzt.haw-

hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/materialFM1/DragEstimation.pdf.
[95]: METU AEE-451 Aerospace Engineering Design Lecture Notes of 2 December 2021
[96]: Gudmundsson, S. (2021). General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and
procedures. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[97]: Civil Turbojet engine specifications . Civil Turbojet/turbofan specifications. (n.d.).

Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.jet-engine.net/civtfspec.htm
[98] Federal Aviation Administration. FAR Part 25 Sec. 25.337 effective as of 05/08/1970.
(n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2022, from
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/5D3CEA6C015DDA
8685256672004EC387?OpenDocument
[99]: M. H. Sadraey, Aircraft design: A systems engineering approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,
2013.
[100]: J. Roskam, AIRPLANE DESIGNPART II PRELIMINARY CONFIGURATION
DESIGN AND INTEGRATION OF THE PROPULSION SYSTEM. Ottawa, Kansas:
Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, 1985.
105
[101]: V. G. Duffy, Digital Human Modeling. San Dieho: Springer, 2009.

[102]: Barua, P., Sousa, T., and Scholz, D., “Empennage Statistics and Sizing Methods for Dorsal
Fins,” Tech. rep., Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, 2013.
106
Appendix
MATLAB CODE #1
%% STUDY1 WEIGHT ANALYSIS AND TRADE-OFF ROUTINE %% TEAM H %% FALL ‘21’22 %%
clc,clear,close all
[num,txt,raw] = xlsread(‘Empty Weight Analysis’,’A2:K21’);
retard_payload = num(:,2);
W_0 = num(:,3);
W_0_ff = num(:,4);
W_e = num(:,5);
titles = txt(:,1);
W_0_s = W_0(1:7);
W_0_b = W_0(8:20);
W_0_ff_s = W_0_ff(1:7);
W_0_ff_b = W_0_ff(8:20);
W_e_s = W_e(1:7);
W_e_b = W_e(8:20);
titles_s = titles(1:7);
titles_b = titles(8:20);
figure(1)
hold on
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NORMAL %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x = W_0;
y = retard_payload;
% Get coefficients of a line fit through the data.
Coefficients = polyfit(x, y, 1);
% Create a new x axis with exactly 1000 points (or whatever you want).
xFit = linspace(min(x), max(x), 1000);
% Get the estimated yFit value for each of those 1000 new x locations.
yFit = polyval(coefficients , xFit);
% Plot everything.
Plot(xFit, yFit); % Plot fitted line.
Plot(W_0,retard_payload,’x’,’Color’,’r’)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FF DUTY %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x = W_0_ff;
y = retard_payload;
% Plot everything.
Plot(xFit, yFit); % Plot fitted line.
Plot(W_0_ff,retard_payload,’v’,’Color’,’b’)
legend(‘Normal Operations’,’Aicrafts (Normal Operations)’, ‘(MODIFIED)
Firefighting Duty’...
,’Aircrafts (Modified)’....
,’Location’,’best’)
hold off
xlabel(‘Take-Off Weight (W_0) [lb]’)
107
ylabel(‘Retardant Capacity [gal]’)

grid on
figure(11)
hold on
plot(W_e./W_0_ff,retard_payload,’v’,’Color’,’b’)
plot(W_e./W_0,retard_payload,’x’,’Color’,’r’)
legend(‘Aircrafts (Modified)’,’Aicrafts (Normal
Operations)’,’Location’,’best’)
xlabel(‘Empty Weight Ratio’)
ylabel(‘Retardant Capacity [gal]’)
grid on
figure(2)
hold on
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NORMAL %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x = log(W_0);
y = log(W_e);
% Plot everything.
Loglog(exp(xFit), exp(yFit)); % Plot fitted line.
Plot(W_0,W_e,’x’,’Color’,’r’)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FF DUTY %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x = log(W_0_ff);
y = log(W_e);
% Plot everything.
Plot(W_0_ff,W_e,’v’,’Color’,’b’)
,’Aircrafts (Modified)’....
,’Location’,’best’)
hold off
xlabel(‘Take-Off Weight (W_0) [lb]’)
ylabel(‘Empty Weight (W_e) [lb]’)
grid on
%% empty weight ratio study

figure(3)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% PLOT BIG A/C %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x = log(W_0_b);
y = log(W_e_b./W_0_b);
%%%%%%%%%% calculate A & c %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
c = log(exp(yFit(1000))/exp(yFit(1)))/log(exp(xFit(1000))/exp(xFit(1)));
108
A = exp(yFit(1))/exp(xFit(1))^c;
% Plot everything.
Hold on
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% PLOT BIG FF data A/C %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x = log(W_0_ff_b);
y = log(W_e_b./W_0_ff_b);
% Plot everything.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% PLOT RAYMER DATA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
W_0_raymer = [2e4:100:1e6];
mc_ratio = 0.93*W_0_raymer.^(-0.07);
cj_ratio = 1.02*W_0_raymer.^(-0.06);
loglog(W_0_raymer,mc_ratio)
loglog(W_0_raymer,cj_ratio)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ADD LEGENDS, GRIDS AND POINTS DATA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
plot(W_0_b,W_e_b./W_0_b,’x’,’Color’,’r’)
text(W_0_b,W_e_b./W_0_b,titles_b,’FontSize’, 9)
plot(W_0_ff_b,W_e_b./W_0_ff_b,’v’,’Color’,’b’)
text(W_0_ff_b,W_e_b./W_0_ff_b,titles_b,’FontSize’, 9)
legend(‘Normal Operations’,’(MODIFIED) Firefighting Duty’,’Raymers Military
Cargo Data’,...
‘Raymers Civilian Jet Data’,’Aicrafts (Normal Operations)’,’Aircrafts
(Modified)’,...
‘Location’,’best’)
xlabel(‘Take-off Weight (W_0) [lb]’)
ylabel(‘Empty Weight Fraction (W_e/W_0)’)
grid on
%% weight calculations stuff

wr = 9*8000;
start_taxi = 0.97;
climb = 0.985;
land = 0.995;
C_cruise = 0.5/3600;
C_loiter = 0.4/3600;
max_LD = 20.68;
cruise_LD = 0.866*max_LD;
cruise = @(R,V) exp(-R*6076.12*C_cruise/(V*1.68781*cruise_LD)); % R in nmi,
V in kts
loiter = @(E) exp(-E*C_loiter/max_LD); % E in seconds
%% ferry flight
W_0_range = [1e3:1:50e4];
w_fracs = [start_taxi climb cruise(3000,500) loiter(20*60) land];
w_w0 = prod(w_fracs);
wf_w0 = 1.06*(1-w_w0);
payload_ferry = 3*180;
rhs = W_0_range;
lhs = payload_ferry./(1-wf_w0-A.*W_0_range.^c);
residue = abs(lhs-rhs);
min_res = min(residue);
109
index = find(residue == min_res);

W_0_ferry = W_0_range(index)
%% max flight
W_0_range = [1.5e5:1:2.2e5];
w_fracs = [start_taxi climb cruise(400,400) loiter(20*60) climb
cruise(400,500) ...
loiter(20*60) land];
w_w0 = prod(w_fracs);
wf_w0 = 1.06*(1-w_w0);
payload_max = 3*180+wr;
rhs = W_0_range;
lhs = payload_max./(1-wf_w0-A.*W_0_range.^c);
W_0_max = W_0_range(index)
%% main mission profile

W_0_range = [1e4:1:4e5];
wr_w0 = wr./W_0_range;
w_fracs_bd = [start_taxi climb cruise(400,400) loiter(5*60)];
w4_w0 = prod(w_fracs_bd);
w5_w0 = w4_w0 – wr_w0./3;
w6_w0 = w5_w0.*loiter(5*60);
w7_w0 = w6_w0 – wr_w0./3;
w8_w0 = w7_w0.*loiter(5*60);
w9_w0 = w8_w0 – wr_w0./3;
w10_w0 = w9_w0.*loiter(5*60);
w_fracs_ad = [climb cruise(400,500) loiter(20*60) land];
w14_w0 = w10_w0.*prod(w_fracs_ad);
wf_w0 = 1.06*(1-w14_w0-wr_w0);
payload_main = 3*180+wr;
rhs = W_0_range;
lhs = payload_main./(1-wf_w0-A.*W_0_range.^c);
W_0_main = W_0_range(index)
%% trade-off
W_0_range = [0:1:10e5];
wr_to = [4000:100:12000]*9;
dr_to = [200:5:800];
for I = 1:length(wr_to)
for j = 1:length(dr_to)
wr_to_w0 = wr_to(i)./W_0_range;
w_fracs_bd = [start_taxi climb cruise(dr_to(j),400) loiter(5*60)];
w4_w0 = prod(w_fracs_bd);
w5_w0 = w4_w0 – wr_to_w0./3;
w6_w0 = w5_w0.*loiter(5*60);
w7_w0 = w6_w0 – wr_to_w0./3;
w8_w0 = w7_w0.*loiter(5*60);
w9_w0 = w8_w0 – wr_to_w0./3;
w10_w0 = w9_w0.*loiter(5*60);
110
w_fracs_ad = [climb cruise(dr_to(j),500) loiter(20*60) land];

w14_w0 = w10_w0.*prod(w_fracs_ad);
wf_w0 = 1.06*(1-w14_w0-wr_to_w0);
payload_main(i) = 3*180+wr_to(i);
rhs = W_0_range;
lhs = payload_main(i)./(1-wf_w0-A.*W_0_range.^c);
min_res(I,j) = min(residue);
index = find(residue == min_res(I,j));
W_0_to(I,j) = W_0_range(index);
end
disp(num2str(i))
end
W_ratio_to = A.*W_0_to.^I;
W_e_to = A.*W_0_to.^(c+1);
wr_fr = ones(81,121).*wr_to’;
wf_to = W_0_to – W_e_to – wr_fr – 180*3;
W_0_fr = W_0_to – wr_fr;
wf_w0_fr = wf_to./W_0_fr;
frange_fracs = [start_taxi climb loiter(20*60) land];
w5_w0_fr = 1-wf_w0_fr./1.06;
cruise_frac = w5_w0_fr./prod(frange_fracs);
frange = log(1./cruise_frac).*cruise_LD.*500.*1.68781./C_cruise;
%%
% load(‘tradeoff_plot.mat’)
% W_ratio_to = A.*W_0_to.^I;
figure(4)
hold on
111ontour(dr_to,wr_to’./9,W_0_to)
[C,h] = contour(dr_to, wr_to’./9, frange./6076.12);
clabel(C,h)
h.LineColor = ‘r’;
[C,h] = contour(dr_to, wr_to’./9, W_ratio_to);
clabel(C,h)
h.LineColor = ‘c’;
a = colorbar;
% plot([400 400],[4000 12000],’LineWidth’,2, ‘Color’, [1, 0.843, 0])
% plot([200 800],[8000 8000],’LineWidth’,2,’Color’, [1, 0.843, 0])
a.Label.String = ‘Take-Off Weight (W_0) [lb]’;
ylabel(‘Retardant Volume [gal]’,’FontSize’, 12)
xlabel(‘Design Radius [nmi]’,’FontSize’, 12)
L1 = plot(nan, nan, ‘r-‘);

L2 = plot(nan, nan, ‘c-‘);
legend([L1 L2], {‘Ferry Range [nmi]’,’Empty Weight
Ratio’},’Location’,’best’...
,’FontSize’, 12)
%% our aircraft
W_0_oa = W_0_to(44,98);
111
W_ratio_oa = W_ratio_to(44,98);
W_e_oa = W_e_to(44,98);
rc_oa = wr_to(44)/9;
%
figure(1)
hold on
plot(W_0_oa,rc_oa,’O’,’LineWidth’,2)
,’Aircrafts (Modified)’,’Potential Aircraft’,’Location’,’best’)
figure(11)
hold on
plot(W_e_oa/W_0_oa,rc_oa,’O’,’LineWidth’,2)
legend(‘Aircrafts (Modified)’,’Aicrafts (Normal Operations)’,’Potential
Aircraft’,...
‘Location’,’best’)
figure(3)
hold on
plot(W_0_oa,W_e_oa./W_0_oa,’O’,’LineWidth’,2)
text(W_0_oa,W_e_oa./W_0_oa,’Potential Aircraft’,’FontSize’, 9)
legend(‘Normal Operations’,’(MODIFIED) Firefighting Duty’,’Raymers Military
Cargo Data’,...
‘Raymers Civilian Jet Data’,’Aicrafts (Normal Operations)’,’Aircrafts
(Modified)’,...
‘Potential Aircraft’,’Location’,’best’)
MATLAB Code #2:
%% AE451 – STUDY 2 – Team H – FFC – HAZEM KHOLOSI
clc, clear, close all
%
delete(‘AF1_1.ac’,’AF2_1.ac’,’AF3_1.ac’,’AF4_1.ac’,’AF5_1.
ac’,’AF6_1.ac’,’AF7_1.ac’,’AF8_1.ac’)
%
delete(‘AF1_2.ac’,’AF2_2.ac’,’AF3_2.ac’,’AF4_2.ac’,’AF5_2.
ac’,’AF6_2.ac’,’AF7_2.ac’,’AF8_2.ac’)
% read data
[num,txt,raw] = xlsread(‘AIRFOILS LIST.xlsx’);
ft2m = 0.3048;
kts2ms = 0.514444;
AF_code = txt([2:9],1);
AF_name = txt([2:9],2);
MAC_comp_av = 18.53033864*ft2m;
flight_con = {‘Drop’, ‘Cruise’};
V = [125 400]*kts2ms;
mu = [0.0000193203 0.0000171150];
rho = [0.928890 0.904637];
Re = rho.*V.*MAC_comp_av./mu;
AoA_min = -10;
AoA_max = 28;
AoA_step = 0.5;
%% X FOIL
112
%excute
exfname = ‘excute’;
%Location of avl
xfoilLocation = ‘xfoil.exe’;
for j = 1:length(flight_con)
disp([‘Flight Condition ‘, num2str(j) , ‘/’,
num2str(length(flight_con)), ‘: ‘, char(flight_con(j))])
for I = 1:length(AF_code)
%Open the file with write permission
fid = fopen(strcat(exfname,’.txt’), ‘w’);
%Load the dat file of the airfoil

fprintf(fid, ‘LOAD %s\n’,
strcat(char(AF_code(i)),’.dat’));
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘’);
%Disable Graphics
fprintf(fid, ‘PLOP\ng\n\n’);
% add points
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘PPAR’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘n’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘300’);
% scale
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘GDES’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘SCAL’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, num2str(MAC_comp_av));
% operate
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘OPER’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘iter’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘50’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘visc’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, num2str(Re(j)));
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘CINC’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘PACC’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s%s\n’,
strcat(char(AF_code(i)),’_’,num2str(j),’.ac’));
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, ‘aseq’);
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, num2str(AoA_min));
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, num2str(AoA_max));
113
fprintf(fid, ‘%s\n’, num2str(AoA_step));
fprintf(fid, ‘\n’);
%Quit Program
fprintf(fid, ‘Quit\n’);
%Close File
fclose(fid);
% Execute Run
%Run XFOIL using
[status,result] = dos(strcat(xfoilLocation,’ <
‘,exfname,’.txt’));
disp([‘LOADING: ‘, num2str(i), ‘/’,
num2str(length(AF_code))]);
end
end
%%
% color code
color_seq =
[{‘#ff0000’},{‘#ffa500’},{‘#F0FF00’},{‘#00FF00’},{‘#0000FF
’}...
,{‘#800000’},{‘#000000’},{‘#FF69B4’}];
% plot
for j = 1:length(flight_con)
figure(1+(j-1)*4)
hold on
readmatrix(strcat(char(AF_code(i)),’_’,num2str(j),’.ac’),’
FileType’,’text’,’range’,’A13’,’Delimiter’,’ ‘,...
‘ConsecutiveDelimitersRule’,’join’);
Cl_max(I,j) = max(ans(:,2));
max_Cl_index = find(Cl_max(I,j)==ans(:,2));
Cl_0_index = find(abs(ans(:,2))==min(abs(ans(:,2))));
AoA_stall(I,j) = ans(max_Cl_index,1);
AoA_0(I,j) = ans(Cl_0_index,1);
Cd_0(I,j) = ans(Cl_0_index,3);
Cm_0(I,j) = ans(Cl_0_index,5);
AoA_cruise = 2;
cruise_AoA_index = find(ans(:,1) == AoA_cruise);
min_Cp(I,j) = ans(cruise_AoA_index,6);
if length(ans)>0
str = char(color_seq(i));
color = sscanf(str(2:end),’%2x%2x%2x’,[1 3])/255;
114
plot(ans(:,1),ans(:,2),’LineWidth’,1.5,’Color’,color)
if find(ans(:,2) == max(ans(:,2))) ==
length(ans(:,2))
disp(strcat(‘ERROR01: ‘,char(AF_code(i)), ‘
needs to be changed’))
end
else
disp(strcat(‘ERROR02: ‘, char(AF_code(i)), ‘ needs
to be changed’))
end
end
legend(AF_name,’location’,’best’)
xlabel(‘Angle of Attack (\alpha) [deg]’)
ylabel(‘Lift Coefficient (C_l)’)
title(strcat(‘Re = ‘, [‘ ‘
num2str(round(Re(j),4,’significant’))], ‘ (‘,
flight_con(j),’)’))
grid on
hold off
figure(2+(j-1)*4)
hold on
if length(ans)>0
end
end
xlabel(‘Drag Coefficient (C_d)’)
ylabel(‘Lift Coefficient (C_l)’)
grid on
hold off
figure(3+(j-1)*4)
hold on
115
if length(ans)>0
plot(ans(:,1),ans(:,2)./ans(:,3),’LineWidth’,1.5,’Color’,c
olor)
end
end
ylabel(‘Lift-to-Drag Ratio (C_l/C_d)’)
grid on
hold off
figure(4+(j-1)*4)
hold on
for I = 1:8
if length(ans)>0
end
end
ylabel(‘Moment Coefficient at Quarter Chord (C_m @ c/4)’)
grid on
hold off
end
%% find M_crit
Mstep = 0.00001;
116
M_crit_range = [0.3:Mstep:0.7]’;
gamma = 1.4;
Cp_cr = 2./(gamma.*M_crit_range.^2).*(((1+((gamma-
1)/2).*M_crit_range.^2)./...
(1+(gamma-1)./2)).^(gamma./(gamma-1))-1);
%Karman-Tsien COMPRESSIBILITY CORRECTION
min_Cp_kt(:,i) = min_Cp(I,2)./(sqrt(1-
M_crit_range.^2)+(M_crit_range.^2....
./(1+sqrt(1-M_crit_range.^2)).*min_Cp(I,2)/2));
residue = abs(min_Cp_kt(:,i) – Cp_cr);
M_crit_index(I,1) = find(residue == min(residue));
end
M_crit = M_crit_range(M_crit_index);
figure(9)
hold on
plot(M_crit_range,min_Cp_kt(:,i),’Color’,color,’LineWidth’
,1.5)
end
plot(M_crit_range,Cp_cr,’LineWidth’,1.5)
legend([AF_name; ‘Cp_c_r’],’location’,’best’)
xlabel(‘Mach Number’)
ylabel(‘Pressure Coefficient (C_p)’)
grid on
set(gca, ‘Ydir’,’reverse’)
hold off
%% form table and save a xlsx
T_titles = {‘Airfoil’,’Cl_max’,’Stall Angle of Attack
[deg]’, ‘Zero-lift Angle of Attack [deg]’,...
‘Cd_0’, ‘Cm_0’};
% Drop
T1 = table(AF_name, Cl_max(:,1), AoA_stall(:,1),
AoA_0(:,1), Cd_0(:,1), Cm_0(:,1));
T1.Properties.VariableNames = T_titles
% Cruise
T2 = table(AF_name, Cl_max(:,2), AoA_stall(:,2),
AoA_0(:,2), Cd_0(:,2), Cm_0(:,2));
T2.Properties.VariableNames = T_titles
%export
117
writetable(T1,’Airfoils_Chars.xlsx’,’Sheet’,’Drop’);
writetable(T2,’Airfoils_Chars.xlsx’,’Sheet’,’Cruise’);
%% airfoil drawings
figure(9+i)
readmatrix(strcat(char(AF_code(i)),’.dat’),’FileType’,’tex
t’,’Delimiter’,’ ‘,...
plot(ans(:,1)*MAC_comp_av,ans(:,2)*MAC_comp_av,’Color’,col
or)
axis equal
axis off
legend(AF_name(i))
saveas(gcf,strcat(char(AF_name(i)), ‘.png’))
end
%%
MATLAB Code #3
%% AE451 - STUDY 3 - Team H - FFC - HAZEM KHOLOSI
clc, clear, close all
fpm2mps = 0.00508;
kts2ms = 0.514444;
deg2rad = pi/180;
kgpm2tlbpft2 = 0.20481614/9.81;
CL_max = 3;
CD_0 = 0.0212;
T_W_range = [0:0.001:0.6]';
rho_SL = 1.225;
V_stall = 112*kts2ms;
V_to = 1.2*V_stall;
W2_W0 = 0.97*0.985;
K = 0.0533;
w2s_range = [20:0.1:200]'./kgpm2tlbpft2;
% stall
rho_stall = 0.977525;
ws_stall = 0.5*rho_stall*V_stall^2*CL_max;
% take-off
TOP = [125 197];
rho_to = 0.986600;
sigma_to = rho_to/rho_SL;
CL_to = 0.8*CL_max;
ws_to = TOP.*sigma_to.*CL_to.*T_W_range;
% landing
118
S_land = [5000 8000];

S_a = 1000;
rho_land = 0.986600;
sigma_land = rho_to/rho_SL;
ws_land = (S_land - S_a).*sigma_land.*CL_max./80;
% cruise
rho_cruise = [0.904637 0.45312];
V_cruise = 400*kts2ms;
q_cruise = 0.5*rho_cruise*V_cruise^2;
T2_W_cruise = q_cruise*CD_0.*1./w2s_range+K.*w2s_range./q_cruise;
T_W_cruise = T2_W_cruise*W2_W0.*[345/250 345/116];
% T_W_cruise = T2_W_cruise*W2_W0.*[1/0.34 1/0.24];
% turn
phi = 40*deg2rad;
n = 1/cos(phi);
rho_sust = 0.904637;
V_sust = 400*kts2ms;
q_sust = 0.5*rho_sust*V_sust^2;
T2_W_sust =
q_sust.*(CD_0.*1./w2s_range+K.*w2s_range.*(n./q_sust).^2);
T_W_sust = T2_W_sust*W2_W0.*[345/250];
% T_W_sust = T2_W_sust*W2_W0.*[1/0.34];
% service ceiling
CD_min = CD_0 + 0.006;
RoC_sc = 100*0.00508;
rho_sc = 0.301559;
T_W_sc =
RoC_sc./(sqrt(2/rho_sc.*w2s_range.*sqrt(K/(3*CD_min))))+4*sqrt(K*CD_
min/3);
%% plot
% color code
color_seq =
[{'#ff0000'},{'#ffa500'},{'#F0FF00'},{'#00FF00'},{'#0000FF'}...
,{'#7F00FF'},{'#800000'},{'#000000'},{'#FF69B4'}];
for i = 1:length(color_seq)
color(i,:) = sscanf(str(2:end),'%2x%2x%2x',[1 3])/255;
end
figure (1)
hold on
for c = 1:length(ws_land)
plot(ws_land(c).*ones(length(T_W_range),1),T_W_range,'LineWidth',1.5
,'Color',color(c,:))
end
for c = 1:2
plot(ws_to(:,c),T_W_range,'LineWidth',1.5,'Color',color(c+2,:))
end
for c = 1:2
plot(w2s_range*W2_W0*kgpm2tlbpft2,T_W_cruise(:,c),'LineWidth',1.5,'C
olor',color(c+4,:))
end
119
plot(ws_stall*kgpm2tlbpft2*ones(1,length(T_W_range)),T_W_range,'Line
Width',1.5,'Color',color(7,:))
plot(w2s_range*W2_W0*kgpm2tlbpft2,T_W_sust,'LineWidth',1.5,'Color',c
olor(8,:))
plot(w2s_range*W2_W0*kgpm2tlbpft2,T_W_sc,'LineWidth',1.5,'Color',col
or(9,:))
plot(77.32,0.32,'x','LineWidth',2,'Color','k')
plot(120,0.218,'o','LineWidth',2)
plot(77.32,0.34,'x','LineWidth',2,'Color','r')
hold off
grid on
xlabel('W/S [lb/ft^2]')
ylabel('T/W')
legend('Landing @ 5000 ft (5000 ft)', 'Landing @ 5000 ft (8000
ft)','Take-off @ 5000 ft (5000 ft)',...
'Take-off @ 5000 ft (8000 ft)','Cruise @ 10000 ft','Cruise @
30000 ft',...
'Stall','Sustained Turn @ 10000 ft','Service Ceiling','Our
Choice','Raymers 2nd Approach (10000 ft)'...
,'Raymers 2nd Approach (30000 ft)','Raymers 1st Approach','Max
Thrust (Engine of Choice)', 'location','best')
xlim([20 125])
ylim([0 0.4])
120
Figure 79 DC-10 Air Tanker [67]
Figure 80 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 [68]
121
Figure 81 Lockheed C-130Q Hercules [69]
122
Figure 82 Boeing 737-300 [70]
Figure 83 BAE146 [71]
123
Figure 84 Ilyushin Il-76 [72]
Figure 85 Boeing 747 SuperTanker [73]
124
Figure 87 ShinMaywa US-2 [74]
Figure 86 Beriev Be-200 [75]
125
Figure 88 Bombardier Dash 8 Q400-MR [76]
126

AE451 Aerospace Engineering Design: Team H

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

AE451 Aerospace Engineering Design: Team H

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AE 451 Team H Study 4 Due Date: 20\01\2022

Instructor : Prof. Dr. Dilek Funda Kurtuluş

6. Take of weight estimation………………………………………………………….…...7

7. Trade off study……………………………………………………………….……..…18

8. Decision Matrix ……………………………………………………………….….…..24

10. Airfoil selection……………………………………………………………….……....27

11. Wing geometry ……………………………………………………………..………. .44

12. Tail geometry ………………………………………………………………………....49

14. Flap selection and Estimation of Cl max ……………………………………………..53

15. Parasite Drag coefficient Estimation ………………………………………………….58

16. Thrust to Weight Ratio Estimation……………………………………………………59

17. Wing loading Estimation ……………………………………………………………..62

18. Constraint Diagram…………………………………………………………………...63

19. Engine Selection………………………………………………………………………69

21. Layout Sizing and Lofting of Main Parts……………………………………………...73

24. Aircraft Wetted Area and Volume……………………………………………………83

25. Fuel Calculations………………………………………………………………….…..85

26. Weight analysis and CG envelope………………………………………………….....88

27. Wing Positioning…………………………………………………………………..….94

28. Dimensional Comparison of our aircraft with its competitors……………………….97

Figure 44: Wing geometry in CAD .......................................................................................... 48

VFR: Visual flight rules

IFR: Instrument flight rules

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration

FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

EIS: Entry into Service

𝑾𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 : Crew Weight

𝑾𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 ∶ 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑡)

A: Empty-weight fraction trend constant

AR: Aspect Ratio of the wing

𝑨𝑹𝒘𝒆𝒕 : Wetted Aspect Ratio

C: Specific fuel consumption rate of aircraft

c: Slope of the empty-weight fraction trend curve

Kvs: Variable sweep Angle constant

Sref: Reference wing area

Swet: Wetted Wing Area

CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics

MAC: Mean Aerodynamic Chord

HT: Horizontal Tail

NACA: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

VT: Vertical Tail

̅ : MAC distance from the centerline

𝑨𝑹: Aspect Ratio

𝒄𝒎 : Pitching Moment Coefficient

𝒄𝒅𝟎 : Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient

𝒄𝒍𝒎𝒂𝒙 : Maximum Lift Coefficient

𝒄𝒎𝟎 : Zero-Lift Pitching Moment Coefficient

𝑪𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒕 : Wing Root Chord Length

𝑪𝒕𝒊𝒑 : Wing Tip Chord Length

𝑳𝒙 : Length of the Fuselage

𝑳𝑪𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒏 : Length of the Cabin

𝑳𝑪𝒐𝒄𝒌𝒑𝒊𝒕 : Length of the Cockpit

𝑳𝑻𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒆 : Length of Tailcone

𝑺𝑹𝑬𝑭 : Wing Reference Area

𝑺𝑪: Super Critical

𝑾𝟎 : Maximum Take-off Weight

𝑪𝑳,𝒎𝒂𝒙 Maximum coefficient of Lift

MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord

𝑪𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒕 Root Chord Length

𝑪𝒕𝒊𝒑 Tip Chord Length