D 3.

2 "Preliminary design of the reference

PrandtlPlane"

PARSIFAL Project
“Prandtlplane ARchitecture for the Sustainable Improvement of Future AirpLanes”
G.A. 723149

Work Package 3:
PrandtlPlane Design

Deliverable 3.2
"Preliminary design of the reference PrandtlPlane"

Deliverable nature Report

Dissemination Level Public

Author(s) SKYBOX: V. Binante, G. Palaia

UNIPI: A. Frediani, K. Abu Salem, M. Picchi
Scardaoni, V. Cipolla
Organization responsible for deliverable SKYBOX

Delivery date 30/04/2018

Start date of project 01/05/2017

Duration 36 Months

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 723149
 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

Document Control Sheet

Project Number 723149

Project Acronym PARSIFAL
Project Full Title Prandtlplane ARchitecture for the Sustainable Improvement
of Future AirpLanes
Project URL www.parsifalproject.eu
Deliverable D 3.2 " Preliminary design of the reference PrandtlPlane "
Work Package WP3: PrandtlPlane Design
Document URL
Date of Delivery Contractual M12
Actual M12
Nature Report X
Prototype
Demonstrator
Other
Dissemination level Public X
Restricted to programme
Restricted to group
Confidential
Partners Owning: SKYBOX
Partners Contributed: UNIPI

History of Changes

Date Edition/Revision Changes

30/04/2018 1.0 -
30/06/2018 1.1 Minor changes

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 2

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

Index

1 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................... 4
2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5
3 Conceptual design of the PrandtlPLane ....................................................................................... 7
3.1 Fuselage design ..................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Aerodynamic Design.............................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Structural model and FEM results ....................................................................................... 11
3.4 Landing gear design ............................................................................................................. 14
4 PrandtlPlane reference configuration ........................................................................................ 16
5 Comparisons between PrandtlPLane and conventional aircraft ................................................ 18
5.1 Induced drag ........................................................................................................................ 18
5.2 Wing loading........................................................................................................................ 19
5.3 Weight of fuselage .............................................................................................................. 20
5.4 Weight of wings ................................................................................................................... 20
6 Conclusions and further development ....................................................................................... 22
7 References .................................................................................................................................. 24

Attachment

None

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 3

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

1 NOMENCLATURE
CG = Centre of Gravity
cl = Local lift coefficient
ICA = Initial Cruise Altitude
ICAO = International Civil Aviation Organization
ISA = International Standard Atmosphere
L/D = Lift-to-Drag ratio (or Aerodynamic Efficiency)
MEW = Manufacturer’s Empty Weight
MLW = Maximum Landing Weight
MTOW = Maximum Take-Off Weight
OEW = Operating Empty Weight
PrP = PrandtlPlane
nz = Vertical Load Factor
SL = Sea Level
SM = Static Margin of Stability
SWbay = Wing bay sweep angle
TOFL = Take-Off Field Length
VAT = Approach speed threshold
W⁄S = Wing loading
Wdes = Design weight
ZFW = Zero Fuel Weight
ε = Tolerance
λbay = Wing bay taper ratio

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 4

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

2 INTRODUCTION
According to the activities indicated in Task 3.2 “Conceptual design of PrP” of PARSIFAL Project
proposal, the present document provides a description of the activities, carried out in Work
Package 3 “PrandtlPlane Design”, which have led to the definition of a preliminary configuration of
the PrandtlPlanes (PrP).
The definition of such aircraft configuration is the 1 st milestone (MS1) of the project, which has
been delivered according to the project timetable. More in details, the following data have been
made available to the consortium:
 a document describing the main characteristics concerning overall weight and dimensions,
aerodynamics, flight mechanics, CG position of components, as well as design conditions;

 a MATLAB database with parameters relevant for the geometric description of the PrP
configuration;

 a CAD model of fuselage and wing system;

 a FEM model of wings and fuselage main structures;

 a sketch of the cabin seats arrangement.

Figure 1. The PrP configuration delivered as “Milestone 1”: CAD model (left) and FEM model (right)

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 5

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

The present document concerns the conceptual design carried out in accordance to the Top
Level Aircraft Requirements (TLARs) defined in WP2, which are detailed in [1] and summarized in
the following table:

Requirement Description

R01 N. pax MAX = 320 Max passenger number (full density)

R02 N. pax MIN = 250 Min passenger number @MTOW

R03 Range H = 4000 km Maximum range at max payload (harmonic range)

R04 Mach MIN = 0.78 Minimum Cruise Mach

R05 ICA = 36000 ft (11000 m) Initial Cruise Altitude

R06 H max = 38500 ft Max. operating (cruise) altitude (Climb with 100 ft/min @ ISA)

R07 TTC < 35 min Time-to-climb (TTC) from 1500 ft (457m) to ICA

R08 TOFL MAX = 2200 m Maximum Take-Off Field Length at sea level

R09 LDN < 1850 m Landing distance (LDN) @ MLW, SL, ISA

ICAO Aerodrome Ref. 4 = TOFL > 1800 m

R10
Code = 4C C = wingspan < 36 m, wheel span < 9 m (and > 6m)

The aircraft shall fulfil the aircraft approach category C

R11 VAT MAX = 140 kt
specification (121 kt < VAT < 140 kt)

Wake Turbulence Wake turbulence characteristics must not be worse than current
R12
Category M. category “Medium”

R13 N. eng. = 2 Engine number

Table 1. Top Lever Aircraft Requirements for PARSIFAL project

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 6

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE PRANDTLPLANE

3.1 Fuselage design

The study of possible cabin configurations has been introduced in [1], where both single deck
and double deck solution have been taken into account.
After the TLARs introduction and considering the fuselage layout of the possible competitors of
PARSIFAL PrP, i.e. future evolution of Airbus 320 and Boeing 737 families, the single deck solution
has been selected.
In order to carry a number of passengers higher than the short-medium haul competitors while
maintaining almost the same fuselage length, it is not possible to use a single-aisle circular
fuselage. The fuselage designed for this purpose has cross section made by circular arcs tangent
each other (Figure 2), which allows to minimize the wetted surface of a two-aisle fuselage, with 8
seats abreast in 2-4-2 layout.

Figure 2. Sketch of the aircraft cabin interior

A high-density arrangement for the PrP is described in this paragraph. The need to speed up
ground operations, thus reducing the turnaround time, leads to new solutions for the interior
arrangement. In particular, the two aisles are enlarged compared to the conventional economy-
class aisles; this solution allows a passenger to put his baggage into the overhead bin without
stopping the flow of other passengers (as sketched in Figure 3 with a comparison with a
conventional single aisle section).

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 7

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

Figure 3. Comparison between a typical single aisle fuselage and PrandtlPlane fuselage solution

Moreover, the space in the overhead bins is enough to allocate two standard hand-baggage per
person; this could also make passengers prefer to not embark a cargo baggage, facilitating even
more ground operations, especially for short point-to-point flights.
The embark/disembark time reduction leads also to the possibility to introduce an extra door in
the middle of the fuselage; the increase of the passenger number is so supported by three
different exit paths, as highlighted in Figure 4; with this high-density arrangement it is possible to
transport 308 passengers (324 with airstairs positioned in the tail cone). Each door is equipped
with autonomous airstairs, in order to make the aircraft independent of airport infrastructures
also in aprons far from the terminal (Figure 5-left, artistic view).

Figure 4. Interior layout and exit paths comparison (high-density arrangement)

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 8

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

Of course, the high-density aircraft with the specification of turnaround time reduction is the
representation of one of the several utilizations of this aircraft, typical of today low-cost carriers.
The extreme flexibility of the configuration allows to arrange the interiors in different ways, in two
or more different classes; for carriers that operate from main hubs and that are not focused on
speed up the ground operations, configuration without airstairs are possible; the front door is also
compatible with the standard loading bridge (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Artistic views of the PrandtlPlane with airstairs (left) and at the terminal with loading bridge (right)

A further favourable characteristic of the PrP fuselage is represented by the cargo bay; the
advanced position of the front wing and the main landing gear configuration (see section D) allow
designing an uninterrupted cargo deck. The deck has a front and a rear door and, thus, loading and
unloading operations can be carried out simultaneously; the difference between the conventional
configurations, where the wing-fuselage intersection interrupts the cargo bay, is highlighted in
Figure 6.

Figure 6. PARSIFAL cargo bay and conventional cargo bay

3.2 Aerodynamic Design

The conceptual design includes also a preliminary sizing of the lifting system, performed
through a low fidelity optimization procedure using the vortex-lattice method code AVL, in which
the PrP is modelled as shown in Figure 7b, coupled with a drag-rise check routine. The constrained
optimization problem is defined as follows:

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 9

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

𝐿
min (− (𝑥))
𝐷
𝑔(𝑥) ≥ 0 (1)
ℎ(𝑥) = 0
{ 𝑙𝑏 < 𝑥 < 𝑢𝑏

The objective function is related to lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) in cruise condition; g(x) and h(x) are
the constraint functions of the problem, which are schematically summarized below:
 Flight mechanics constraints:

𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑠 − 𝜀 ≤ 𝐿(𝒙) ≤ 𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑠 + 𝜀 (2)

𝑆𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑆𝑀(𝒙) ≤ 𝑆𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 (3)
 Aerodynamics constraints:

𝑊 𝑊 𝑊
( ) ≤ ( (𝒙)) ≤( ) (4)
𝑆 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑆 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑆 𝑚𝑎𝑥
max(𝑐𝑙 (𝑦)) ≤ 𝑐𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (5)
 Geometric constraints:

𝜆𝑏𝑎𝑦 (𝒙) < 1 (6)

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑆𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑦 (𝒙) ≤ 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 (7)

Other constraints can be added to the problem, depending on the different analysis case.
The x vector contains the design parameters that define completely the lifting system (chords,
twists and longitudinal positions of each section, sweep angles, dihedral angles, span of each wing
bay). Properly tuned lower and upper bounds (lb and ub) are set for each component of x, defining
the design space.
Other inputs are:
 starting geometry, required to initialize the procedure;

 cruise flight condition, defined by Mach number and altitude;

 design weight and the CG longitudinal position, evaluated by first approximation methods
and necessary for longitudinal trim;

 fuselage characteristics, in order to have a preliminary evaluation of fuselage drag.

The output of each analysis is a family of feasible configurations compliant with the constraints
set; further details about this procedure are in [3].

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 10

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

After this conceptual phase, the design space is well defined and a restricted set of
configurations is chosen for further development; the CAD model of fuselage and box-wing, shown
in Figure 7c, is produced with the code “ASD” (Aerodynamic Shape Designer) developed at
University of Pisa. The preliminary design in transonic cruise condition is carried out by means of
high fidelity CFD analyses, that allows to identify the critical issues, and to modify locally the
geometry in order to have high cruise performance, satisfying the trim condition of the aircraft.
The CFD analyses are performed with the software STAR-CCM+, using steady compressible
RANS equations with a ‘k- ε Realizable’ turbulence model and an ‘All y+ wall treatment’.
Mesh sensitivity analyses have been performed, showing that the best trade-off is to use a
mesh of approximately 30 million of trimmed volume cells for half model. A Mach contour of a
generic PrP configuration is represented in Figure 7d in order to show the last stage of the
standard aerodynamic design flow used in this phase. More details about CFD analyses on
PARSIFAL aircraft can be found in [4].

a) b)

c) d)
Figure 7. PrandtlPlane geometry sketch (a), AVL model (b), CAD geometry (c), CFD post-processing (d)

After an extensive campaign of aerodynamic analyses, a reference configuration for initializing

the detailed design of PARSIFAL PrP has been identified. Some details about this configuration are
reported in the next section.

3.3 Structural model and FEM results

Preliminary structural analyses have been conducted by means of a software developed at

University of Pisa, called WAGNER. Using Python language and Abaqus libraries, WAGNER

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 11

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

automatically creates a complete meshed Finite Element (FE) model of the aircraft, ready to be
submitted for the requested structural analysis.
WAGNER has been deeply developed, debugged and enriched with new features with respect
to the previous version already presented in [5]. The generation of the wing system, with ribs and
stringers, has been implemented, so that analyses are performed on the complete aircraft model;
this feature is quite important, since the PrP configuration presents an over-constrained structure,
with regard to the fuselage and lifting system. Therefore, the equilibrium stress and displacement
distributions depend on the relative stiffness of the aircraft parts, which all must be considered. At
the same time, the last version of WAGNER can deal with conventional configurations (Figure 8),
with minor modifications of the input file.
WAGNER input data and parameters are defined in a “.xml” file, having a functional tree
structure; by means of Python standard libraries and some in-house routines, the code can read
data and create the model.
The detail level of the FE model includes stringers, frames, ribs, pressurization bulkheads, floor
beams and floor struts. WAGNER aims at providing reliable results in a time as short as possible;
for this reason, only shell elements have been used during the meshing phase; furthermore, a
mesh sensitivity analysis has resulted in defining a number of about 400,000 elements for a
complete PrP configuration (fuselage + box-wing + vertical tail), without relevant differences in the
computed solution.
In 15-20 minutes, WAGNER creates the meshed model, solves the problem for stresses and
displacements fields (fully linear elastic solution), evaluates quantities of interest, and report them
in an output file.

Figure 8. PrandtlPlane (left) and conventional aircraft (right) structures modelled with the code “WAGNER”

At this stage of the project, the goal is the preliminary sizing of the structure, fulfilling static
requirements of strength, under both aerodynamic and pressurization loads. Moreover, WAGNER
is useful to predict the total structural weight of the configuration, as well as the coordinates of
centre of gravity and the components of inertia tensor. The evaluation of such quantities is in good
agreement with the values found by means of the well-known statistical and semi-empirical
preliminary aircraft design methodologies available in the literature ([10])
FEM analyses have been carried out under the following reasonable hypotheses:

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 12

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

 linear, homogeneous and isotropic elastic materials (light Alloys);

 absence of geometrical non-linearities;

 the non-structural components weights have been estimated using statistical formula from
[9]; these additional masses have been included in the structural FE model as fictitious
densities assigned properly positioned to zones, so that the resultant mass is conserved
and the error on the evaluation of the centre of gravity position is limited;

 engines and landing gears have been considered as points characterized by an equivalent
mass and inertia;

 inertia relief has been used to simulate the realistic free flight condition;

 aerodynamic load distributions are calculated through the aforementioned Vortex Lattice
Method (AVL) and then applied to wings and winglet ribs;

 since the complete flight envelope is not known at this stage of the project, a reference
loading condition, with nz = 2.5 and pressurization load = 0.0627 MPa has been adopted;

 payload has been modelled as line load, applied to decks floor beams;

 payload contributing to the global configuration inertia has been considered by means of
statistical formula about the inertia of the human sit body [11];

 doors, windows, rivets and other small components are not modelled by WAGNER;
therefore, their contribute is neglected in this preliminary weight evaluations;

 only the wing-box of the lifting system is modelled;

 according to [5], geometrical non-linearity tend to reduce stresses and displacements, as

the structure results stiffer, therefore FE analyses are performed under linear elastic
hypothesis in order to provide conservative results.

The procedure implemented in WAGNER has provided a preliminary sizing of main structural
components of fuselage, box-wing system and vertical tail. The structural weight prediction
indicate a total weight of about 20% of MTOW, divided as follows:
 fuselage structures weight: 9.5 %

 box-wing + tail (twin-fin) structures weight: 10.5 %

Further interesting results concern the volume of in-wing fuel tanks, which can be calculated by
means of WAGNER. Such results show a great availability of space for fuel in both wings, this fact
introduces a new feature in the design of an aircraft: the relative repartition of the necessary fuel
between the two wings can be used as a design variable in order to control the CG position in all
the flight conditions and to guarantee a proper margin of stability of the configuration in all the
scenarios.

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 13

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

Preliminary runs have shown that, by meaningfully varying the relative fuel repartition in the
two wings, while keeping all the other parameters constant, the longitudinal position of CG can
move in a range of more than 2 m.

3.4 Landing gear design

Landing gear layout has been determined taking specific requirements imposed by the
unconventional architecture of the aircraft into account. In particular, because of the box-wing
configuration, a fuselage-mounted main landing gear is used, whereas the nose gear is
conventional.
A sufficient wheel track is obtained by simply placing the main gear at the sides of the fuselage;
the gear retracts forward in pods outside the fuselage cross section, in order to provide an
uninterrupted cargo bay. Specific retraction kinematics and structural attachment to fuselage
frames have been designed.
Small ground clearance of the fuselage (medium target 800 mm) has been chosen to facilitate
loading and unloading operations with proper airstairs.

Figure 9. Main Landing Gear ([8])

Electromechanical actuation has been considered for braking, steering and retraction, following
recent efforts to move towards “full electric” aircraft, in order to improve efficiency and
sustainability of future aviation.
A preliminary sizing of landing gear structural components and actuation systems has been
carried out in order to get an estimation of weight and required stowage. A sketch of the designed
main landing gear is shown in Figure 9. The resulting total mass of the landing gear system is
about 3% of MTOW (excluding fuselage pod structure and doors).

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 14

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

The landing gear preliminary design activity has led to the set-up of dynamic models which will
be used to investigate take-off and landing manoeuvres, and to obtain ground loads to be taken
into account for the airframe structural design. More details are reported in [8].

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 15

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

4 PRANDTLPLANE REFERENCE CONFIGURATION

The aforementioned design activities and analyses have led to the definition of a reference
configuration of the PrP, whose main characteristics are summarized in Table 2.

Aircraft data Design condition

2
Wing Area (front + rear) [m ] 267 N. passengers 308
Wingspan (including winglets) [m] 36 Flight Altitude [ft] 36000
Fuselage Diameter [m] 5.40 Flight Speed [kn] 453
Fuselage Length [m] 44 Cruise Mach 0.79
Table 2. Data of the PrandtlPlane reference configuration

The PrP MTOW estimation has been performed considering:

 the structural weight by means of the procedure implemented through WAGNER code, as
described in the previous section;

 payload weight obtained by considering an average weight of 100 kg per passenger and
luggage ([12], [13]);

 fuel weight has been evaluated using Breguet formula for cruise phase and weight
fractions for the other flight phases ([10])

 power units, systems and operatings weight according to [9]

Due to the level of approximation of the adopted model, it possible to argue that MTOW will be
not lower than 118000kg as well as compliant with the 136000kg limit in accordance to wake
turbulence category “M” requirement indicated by TLARs. Concerning the reference configuration,
details of weight distribution are reported in Table 3 as fractions of MTOW, in which:
 MEW includes weight of structures, engines, landing gear, power units and systems;

 OEW is MEW plus operatings’ weight (increased by 2%);

 ZFW is OEW plus payload weight;

 MTOW is ZFW plus fuel weight.

Fraction of MTOW Fraction of MTOW

Structures 20% MEW 40%
Engines 9% OEW 54%
Landing Gear 3% ZFW 78%
Power units and systems 7%
Operatings (incl. furnishing) 12%
Fuel 22%
Payload 24%
Table 3. Weight distribution for the reference PrandtlPlane

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 16

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

As explained in the previous section, the main efforts have been dedicated to fuselage and wing
system design, therefore vertical tails and engines in Figure 10 have been represented with dotted
lines to indicate that their presence have been considered (e.g.: to evaluate CG and weight), but
their design and integration is still an open problem.

Figure 10. Three views of the PrandtlPlane reference configuration

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 17

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

5 COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRANDTLPLANE AND CONVENTIONAL

AIRCRAFT
The present section present some questions which may arise when PrP is compared to a
conventional aircraft.
In order to define a common mean of comparison, which may be useful to assess the
improvement introduced by the PrP configuration compare to a conventional aircraft, the CeRAS
(Central Reference Aircraft data System) CSR-01 Reference Aircraft Data are taken into account
([14]).

5.1 Induced drag

𝐶𝐿2
𝐶𝐷𝑖 =
𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒
The well-known induced drag formula due to Prandtl lifting-line theory is the result of applying
a model under the hypothesis that the function which describes the circulation (Γ) along the
wingspan of a planar wing can be approximated with a Fourier series, in which each term fulfils
the boundary condition Γ(b/2)=0 (where b indicates the wingspan).
For a PrP such boundary conditions are not verified on front and rear wings, since the
connections with winglets avoid the physical discontinuity which would make the circulation nil at
wing tips. The problem of calculating the induced drag for a box-wing system can be faced
considering the self-induction of the 4 wings (2 horizontal and 2 vertical) and their mutual
induction.
Such problem has been addressed first by Prandtl in 1924 ([15]), who proposed a formula to
approximate the ratio between the induced drag of a box-wing called by Prandtl “BEST WING
SYSTEM” (DBWS) and the induced drag of a monoplane with e=1 (DBWS), as a function of the h/b
ratio, where h is vertical distance between front and rear wings:

Such result was the confirmed by means of a mathematical formulation and then by Frediani
and Montanari in 1999 ([16]):

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 18

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

Figure 11. Induced drag of the “Best Wing System” as a function of the h/b ([16])

5.2 Wing loading

The take-off wing loading of the CERAS CSR-01 is about 630 kg/m², whereas the average wing
loading of the PrP is about 460 kg/m² at the same condition. Even if TLARs were the same for both
the aircraft, a direct comparison would be misleading, since for the PrP the average wing loading
comes from very different values for the two wings. In fact, front wing is more loaded than rear
one, hence they should be considered separately.
For example, concerning MS1 configuration, it comes:
AIRCRAFT/WING S [m^2] Lift [kg] L/S [kg/m^2]
PrP Front Wing 1351 70000 520
PrP Rear Wing 130 36000 275

In a PrP front wing is more loaded than rear one as a result of stability and trim constraints.
Therefore, the wing loading referred to front wing represents a compromise between the search
for higher L/D ratio and constraints due to drag rise and stall occurrence.

In other words, rear wing design is less critical, whereas most of the performance of a PrP, such
as stall speed or critical Mach number, depends on front wing loading. It is worth to note that MS1
configuration is a first step solution, therefore the future design activities will aim to improve the
global performance, including the wing-loading of front wing.

1
portion inside the fuselage NOT included

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 19

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

5.3 Weight of fuselage

MTOW Fuselage mass Fuselage mass/MTOW

AIRCRAFT/FUSELAGE
[tons] [tons] [%]
CERAS CSR-01 fuselage 78 8.9 11.5
Airbus A32x fuselage (Statistic model) 94 10.6 11.3
MS1 PrP Fuselage (FEM) 121 10.5 8.7

The previous table shows that the weight fraction of PrP fuselage, calculated by using the FEM
model presented at paragraph 3.3, is lower than the results of both CERAS and Airbus statistical
model. In particular, if we apply this latter model to the PrP we obtain a result of 10.9%, which is
close to CERAS and A320x cases, instead of 8.7% from FEM.
Even though the FEM has to be refined and completed (only main component such as skin,
frames, stringers, floor beams and floor struts, bulkheads are modelled), it is worth to note that
the PrP fuselage acts as a beam supported by two wings, instead of only one as it happens for
conventional wing-tail aircraft.
This means that, given the same total lift, in a PrP the aerodynamic loads generate a bending
moment along the fuselage whose peak value is lower than the case of a wing-tail configuration.
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the fuselage weight fraction for a PrP should be reduced if
compared to a conventional aircraft.

5.4 Weight of wings

As shown previously, wing loading on front wing is about 1.5 times than Rear Wing. Therefore,
as the following table shows, the front the surface density (M/S) of front wing has to be higher:
M/S [kg/m^2]
AIRCRAFT/WING S [m^2] Mass [kg] Corrected M/S [kg/m^2]
Wing-box only
PrP Front Wing 2 165 7500 45 46(+10%-20%)
PrP Rear Wing 130 3800 29 29 (+10%-20%)

Surface density values in the previous table have been corrected increasing the value of 10%-
20% in order to take the weight of components out of the wing-box into account.
Let us now introduce a further performance index of the wing,  , defined as the ratio between
wing loading and surface density, i.e. the ratio between lift generated by a wing and its own
weight:
 = L/S / (M/S) = L/M.

Let us put in the following table both PrP and CERAS CSR-01 data:

2
portion inside the fuselage included

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 20

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

AIRCRAFT/WING L/S [kg/m^2] M/S [kg/m^2]  (mean value)

PrP Front Wing 510 46 (+10% – 20%) 9.2 – 10.1
PrP Rear Wing 275 29 (+10% – 20%) 7.9 – 8.5
CERAS CSR-01 Wing 630 66 9.6

Values of  for PrP front wing are in quite good accordance with CERAS data, differences shown
are reasonable given the approximation level here adopted. Further optimizations and a
refinement of model adopted will provide more insight about this kind of comparison.

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 21

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

After 12 months from the PARSIFAL project kick-off, a preliminary PrandtlPlane configuration
has been designed in order to define the starting point which the PARSIFAL Consortium will adopt
to achieve, at the end of the project, the main goal of demonstrating that the higher aerodynamic
efficiency of the PrandtlPlane box-wing system can provide a sustainable solution for the growth
of air traffic of the near future.
Such preliminary configuration, in fact, has been designed in order to meet the Top Level
Aircraft Requirements, defined by the Consortium on the basis of the air passenger demand
forecast for 2035, which clearly shows that most of the air transportation growth will involve
short-to-medium routes (below 4000km). As a baseline concept of the project, the higher
aerodynamic efficiency of the PrP configuration is used to reduce the fuel consumption and,
therefore, air pollution, instead of increasing the cruise speed.
Starting from such consideration, the PrandtlPlane layout has been applied to aircraft in the
same segment of Airbus 320 or Boeing 737, i.e. aircraft compliant with ICAO Aerodrome Reference
Code C, whose wingspan is lower than 36m. Given such size constraint, the design has been
carried on in order to find the best compromise between maximum passengers number (or
payload weight) and higher aerodynamic efficiency (lift-to-drag ratio) in cruise flight.
Therefore, the main efforts have been put on fuselage design and aerodynamic investigations
of both fuselage and wings in transonic flight. The studies on cabin has led to a 8 seats abreast
layout, with larger aisles, more room for hand baggage and 3 doors per side, in order to minimize
the time required for passenger boarding and deboarding. In addition, the cargo deck has been
provided with two doors which allow faster loading and unloading operations. Both this aspects
concur in a reduction of the turnaround time, i.e. the time spent by the aircraft in the apron, with
further benefits for airlines, airports and passengers.
Several possible aircraft configurations have been obtained by means of low fidelity tools,
therefore CFD assessment have been performed in order to refine the set of results. In addition, a
code have been developed at University of Pisa for the automatic generation of FEM models of
fuselage and wing structures. FEM analysis have been then used to size structural components and
evaluate their weight.
Among the configurations analysed, a reference one – indicated as the MILSTONE 1 of the
project- has been chosen in order to perform further investigations in next project phase.
In addition to technical activities, the PARSIFAL team has been also active on the dissemination
side. In April 2018, results here described and a 1:50 scaled model of the PrandtlPlane have been
presented at Transport Research Arena, in Vienna, and ILA Berlin Air Show. Figure 12 shows the
scaled model, designed and built in Italy under the coordination of Pisa University, displayed inside
European Commission stands at TRA2018 and ILA2018.

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 22

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

Figure 12. PARSIFAL 1:50 scaled model shown at TRA2018 in Vienna (left) and ILA2018 in Berlin (right)

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 23

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

7 REFERENCES
[1] PARSIFAL Consortium, “Report on socio-economic scenarios and expectations”, PARSIFAL
Project Deliverable D1.1, available on www.parsifalproject.eu

[2] PARSIFAL Consortium, “Requirements for the adoption of the PrandtlPlane as a mean of
transport”, PARSIFAL Project Deliverable D2.1, available on www.parsifalproject.eu

[3] Frediani A., Cipolla V., Abu Salem K., Binante V., Picchi Scardaoni M., “On the preliminary
design of PrandtlPlane civil transport aircraft”, EUCASS Congress, Milan 2017,
https://doi.org/10.13009/EUCASS2017-546

[4] Cipolla V., Frediani A., Abu Salem K., Binante V., Rizzo E., Maganzi M., “Preliminary transonic
CFD analyses of a PrandtlPlane transport aircraft”, Transportation Research Procedia,
Volume 29, 2018, Pages 82-91, ISSN 2352-1465, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.02.008 (from Proceedings of 6th CEAS Conference,
Bucharest, 16-20 October 2017)

[5] Picchi Scardaoni, M., Binante, V., & Cipolla, V. “WAGNER: a new code for parametrical
structural study of fuselages of civil transport aircraft”. Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, Vol. 96 -
No. 3. 2017

[6] Cipolla, V., Abu Salem, K., Bachi, F., “Preliminary Stability Analysis Methods For PrandtlPlane
Aircraft in Subsonic Conditions”, Proceedings of the 7th EASN Conference, Warsaw 26-29
September 2017 (to be published on Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology Journal)

[7] Abu Salem K., Cipolla V., Binante V., Maganzi M., PARSIFAL Project: a breakthrough
innovation in air transport”, Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, Vol. 97 - No. 1. 2018

[8] Nuti A., Bertini F., Cipolla V., Binante V., “Design of a fuselage mounted main landing gear of
a medium-sized civil transport aircraft”, Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, Vol. 97 - No. 2. 2018
[9] Beltramo, M., Trapp, D., Kimoto, B., and Marsh, D., “Parametric Study of Transport Aircraft
Systems Cost and Weight”, NASA CR151970, 1977.
[10] Raymer, D., “Aircraft Design: a conceptual Approach”, AIAA Education Series, 1989
[11] Santschi, W., DuBois, R., and Omoto, J., “Moments of inertia and centres of gravity of the
living human body”, Technical documentary report no. AMRL-TDR-63-36, North America
Aviation Inc., 1963
[12] Association of European Airlines, “Short-medium Range Aircraft AEA Requirements”, 1987
[13] ICAO Working Paper, “AVAILABLE CAPACITY AND AVERAGE PASSENGER MASS”, November
2009

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 24

 D 3.2 "Preliminary design of the reference
PrandtlPlane"

[14] CeRAS-CSR01: Short Range Reference Aircraft (http://ceras.ilr.rwth-

aachen.de/trac/wiki/CeRAS/AircraftDesigns/CSR01)
[15] L. Prandtl, “Induced drag of multiplanes”, NACA TN 182, 1924
[16] Frediani A., Chiarelli M., Longhi A., Troiani E. (2001) The Lifting System with Minimum
Induced Drag. In: Thiede P. (eds) Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Technologies. Notes on
Numerical Fluid Mechanics (NNFM), vol 76. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

[PARSIFAL] G.A. 723149 25