ENME362 Aerospace Design Principles and Production Management

Tutorial questions
Lecture 6

Wing Horizontal tail Fuselage

Sref = 26.0 m2 Sref = 6.5 m2 Swet = 48.0 m2
Sexposed = 21.4 m2 Sexposed = 4.4 m2 Length = 10.8 m
A = 9.6 A = 6.0 Diameter effective, d = 1.9 m
λ = Ctip/Croot = 0.6 λ = Ctip/Croot = 0.57 Q (interference) = 1.1
Sweep-LE, ΛLE = 2.0° Sweep-LE, ΛLE = 4.6° Upsweep = 10.0°
t/c average = 0.088 t/c average = 0.08 X (nose) = 0.0 m
CL design = 0.5 X (quarter-chord) = 10.4 m
CLmax aerofoil = 1.9
X (quarter-chord) = 3.7 m

6.1 For the aircraft defined in the table, prepare the wing lift curve at Mach 0 and at Mach 0.6. Also graph
lift-curve slope vs. Mach up to Mach 2.

This semi-empirical formula can be used up to the drag-divergent Mach number and is reasonably accurate
almost to Mach 1 for a swept wing:

CL =
2 πA
( Sexposed
)
F

√
S ref
( )
α
2 2
A β tan 2 Λ maxt
2+ 4 + 2 1+
η β2
2 2
where β =1- M
Cl
η= α
≈ 0.95 (aerofoil efficiency)
2π/ β
Λ max t = sweep of the wing at the chord location where the aerofoil is thickest
Sexposed = exposed wing planform (i.e. Sref less are covered by fuselage)
F = 1.07(1 + d/b)2 (Fuselage lift factor accounts for fuselage of diameter d creating some lift)

Let’s assume Λmax t = Λc/4. Using tan Λ ¿=tan Λc /4 + [ ( 1−λ ) / A ( 1+ λ ) ] .

Λ c/ 4=tan
−1
( tan Λ ¿−[ ( 1− λ ) / A ( 1+ λ ) ] ) =tan−1 ( tan 2−[ ( 1−0.6 ) /9.6 ( 1+0.6 ) ]) =0.51 °
We can find the wingspan using b = (ASref)0.5 = (9.6×26)0.5 = 15.8 m.

F is the fuselage lift factor that accounts for the fact that the fuselage of diameter d creates some lift due to
the ‘spill-over’ of lift from the wing. F = 1.07(1 + 1.9/15.8)2 = 1.34.

Note that, on this occasion, the product (Sexposed/Sref)F = (21.4/26)1.34 = 1.11 is greater than one, implying that
the fuselage produces more lift than the portion of the wing it covers. This is unlikely and should probably be
suppressed by setting this product to a value slightly less than 1.0, say, 0.98.

The semi-empirical solution is found from

2 π ×9.6 × 0.98
CL =

√ ( )
α
2 2 2
9.6 β tan 0.51
2+ 4 + 2
1+ 2
0.95 β

The subsonic 2D theoretical value, which should form the upper bound to any potential solution, is found from

Copyright – The University of Canterbury

 ENME362 Aerospace Design Principles and Production Management

Tutorial questions
2π
CL = α
√ 1−M 2
These results are summarised in the following table:

Mach number, M [-] 0 0.6

β2 [-] 1.00 0.64
CLα, semi-empirical [/rad] 4.81 6.74
CLα, subsonic theoretical [/rad] 6.28 7.85

The actual lift-curve slope of a wing in supersonic flight is difficult to predict without the use of a sophisticated
computer programs. We can find the upper bound, when M > 1/cosΛLE, using

4 4
CL = =¿ =2.31
α
√ M −1
2
√22−1

Copyright – The University of Canterbury

 ENME362 Aerospace Design Principles and Production Management

Tutorial questions
6.2 Calculate the total parasitic drag at Mach 0.01 and Mach 0.6 at sea level using the component build-up
method (assume turbulent flow). Compare to result via the equivalent skin friction method. Which is better?
Easier?

Equivalent skin friction method

Suitable for initial subsonic analysis and for checking the results of the more detailed method.

CD0 = Cfe(Swet/Sref)

The reference area Sref is taken as the wing planform; Sref = 26.0 m2. Assuming Cfe = 0.0035 for a jet fighter.

Wing: Swet =21.4[1.977+0.52×0.088] = 43.3 m2

Tail: Swet =4.4[1.977+0.52×0.08] = 8.88 m2
Fuselage: Swet =48 m2 (provided)

Therefore CD0 = 0.0035(43.3 + 8.88 + 48)/26.0 = 0.0135.

We do not have any information about the vertical tail, engine nacelles, etc. So the final parasitic drag would
likely be higher.

Component build-up method

CD =
∑ Cf c
FF c Q c S wet c
+C D +C D
0
Sref misc L∧P

Flat-plate skin friction coefficient vs. Reynolds number. In the question it said to assume turbulent flow. We
use the graph to find Cf from Re:

Leakage and protuberances add drag that is difficult to predict by any method. We can add 5% for a typically
aircraft.

Wing:

The leading-edge sweep is only 2.0° so let’s approximate Λ m = Λc/4 in the interests of simplicity. Let’s assume
(x/c)m = 0.25.

Copyright – The University of Canterbury

 ENME362 Aerospace Design Principles and Production Management

Tutorial questions

[ () ()
]
4
0.6 t t
FF = 1+ +100 [ 1.34 M 0.18
( cos Λm )
0.28
]
()
x
c m
c c

[
¿ 1+
0.6
0.25
4 0.18
]
0.088+100 × 0.088 [ 1.34 M ( cos 0.51 ) ]
0.28

FF=0.71@ ( M =0.01 ) , FF=1.49 @ ( M =0.6 )

Standard mean chord, SMC = (Sref/A)0.5 = (26.1/9.6)0.5 = 1.65 m. For the air properties, we will use sea level
values.

ρ× V × SMC 1.225× V × 1.65

ℜ= =
μ 1.789× 10
−5

ℜ=3.84 ×105 @ ( M =0.01≈ 3.4 m/ s ) , ℜ=2.32×10 7 @ ( M =0.6 ≈ 206 m/s )

C f ≈ 0.0053 @ ( M =0.01 ) , C f ≈ 0.0025@ ( M =0.6 )

Component interface drag, Q = 1

Tail:

Again, we assume that the quarter chord sweep corresponds to the point of maximum aerofoil thickness

Λ c/ 4=tan−1 ( tan Λ ¿−[ ( 1− λ ) / A ( 1+ λ ) ]) =tan−1 ( tan 4.6−[ ( 1−0.57 ) / 6 ( 1+ 0.57 ) ] ) =1.99°

[ ( ) ( ) ] [1.34 M
4
0.6 t t
FF = 1+
( x /c )m c
+100
c
0.18
( cos Λ m )
0.28
]
¿ 1+
[ 0.6
0.25
4
]
0.08+100 × 0.08 [ 1.34 M ( cos 1.99 ) ]
0.18 0.28

FF =0.64 @ ( M =0.01 ) , FF=1.34 @ ( M =0.6 )

Standard mean chord, SMC = (S/A)0.5 = (6.5/6.0)0.5 = 1.04 m.

ρ× V × SMC 1.225× V × 1.04

ℜ= =
μ 1.789 ×10−5
ℜ=2.42× 105 @ ( M =0.01 ) , ℜ=1.47 × 107 @ ( M =0.6 )
C f ≈ 0.0058 @ ( M =0.01 ) , C f ≈ 0.0027 @ ( M =0.6 )

Component interface drag, Q = 1.03

Fuselage:

Fineness ratio, f = l/(4Amax/π)0.5 = 10.8/(4π(1.9/2)2/π)0.5= 5.68

(
FF= 0.9+
f
5
1.5
+
f
400 )
=1.28

ρ× V × L 1.225 ×V ×10.8
ℜ= =
μ 1.789 ×10
−5

Copyright – The University of Canterbury

 ENME362 Aerospace Design Principles and Production Management

Tutorial questions
ℜ=2.51× 10 @ ( M =0.01 ) , ℜ=1.52 ×10 8 @ ( M =0.6 )
6

C f ≈ 0.0038 @ ( M =0.01 ) , C f ≈ 0.0018@ ( M =0.6 )

Component interface drag, Q = 1

Upsweep angle contribution:

( ) ( )
2.5
10 π 1.9 2
( D/q upsweep ) / Sref =( 3.83 u2.5 A max ) /S ref =3.83 × ×π /26=0.0053
180 2

Summary:

CD0
Compone FF FF Cf Cf CD0
Swet [m2] Q @M=0.0
nt @M=0.01 @M=0.6 @M=0.01 @M=0.6 @M=0.6
1
Wing 43.29 1.00 0.71 1.49 0.0053 0.0025 0.0063 0.0062
Tail 8.88 1.00 0.70 1.46 0.0058 0.0027 0.0014 0.0014
Fuselage 48.00 1.10 1.28 1.28 0.0038 0.0018 0.0098 0.0046
Upsweep
0.0053 0.0053
angle
Total CD0: 0.0228 0.0175
CD0 + 5% C D L∧P 0.0239 0.0184

The total parasitic drag at Mach 0.01 and Mach 0.6 at sea level using the component build-up method
(assuming turbulent flow), is 0.0239 and 0.0184, respectively. The equivalent skin friction method value is
0.0135. The advantage of the equivalent skin friction is the much simpler calculation and less requirements on
the number of input parameters. The component build-up method has the advantage of being able to account
for atmospheric changes, air speed changes and can explicitly describe the various aircraft component
contributions.

6.3 Calculate drag due to lift at CL = 0.5 and CL = 0.9.

With the Oswald span efficiency method, we have K = 1/πAe. We will assume e = 0.8 for most aircraft.
Therefore K = 1/(π×9.6×0.8) = 0.041. The induced drag is proportional to the square of the lift coefficient, with
a proportionality called the ‘drag-due-to-lift factor,’ or K (i.e. KCL2).

CL [-] 0.5 0.9

CDi [-] 0.0104 0.0336

6.4 True/false/neither? Why? ‘CFD should only be used after the external lines of the aircraft are finalised
and is really not suited to conceptual design.’

CFD can be used throughout the design process, from conceptual design to detailed design, to inform initial
concepts and refine advanced concepts. CFD is also used to lessen the amount of physical testing that must be
done to validate a design and measure its performance. CFD is used to predict the drag, lift, noise, structural
and thermal loads, combustion, performance in aircraft systems and subsystems, etc.,

However, CFD is often computationally demanding and models take time to manually set-up and post-process
the results. Therefore, CFD is often not well suited to situations where multiple design iterations are required.
Semi-empirical methods and/or panel codes might be more practical at the initial design stage.

Copyright – The University of Canterbury

 ENME362 Aerospace Design Principles and Production Management

Tutorial questions
Lecture 7

7.1 A transport aircraft is to have seven seats across with two aisles. Using the minimum required values for
economy seating, sketch the fuselage cross section and determine the minimum allowed round fuselage
diameter. Assume the floor is 15 cm thick. Select a suitable container to fit the aircraft.

We’re given dimensioning guidelines in the Lecture 7 notes;

Economy
Seat pitch [cm] 86-91
Seat width [cm] 43-56
Head room [cm] >165
Aisle width [cm] 46-51
Aisle height [cm] >195
Passengers per cabin staff
31 -36
(international-domestic)
Passengers per lavatory
40-60
[1 m x 1 m]
Galley volume per passenger [m3] 0.03-0.06

Seven seats = 2-3-2 configuration (with two isles):

Interior trim-to-trim = 7×43+2×46 = 393 cm.
Assuming wall thickness is about 10 cm:
Exterior (min. allowed round fuselage diameter) = 393 + 2×10 = 413 cm.

The remaining space for the container has the following maximum dimensions; base width = 180 cm, Overall
width = 290 cm, height = 120 cm. The only commercially container that would satisfy this height requirement
would be the LD3-45, as used on the Airbus A320 family (base width = 156 cm, Overall width = 244 cm, height
= 114 cm). For later stages of the design process, we could explore making the fuselage slightly oval to increase
the height available for the containers.

Copyright – The University of Canterbury