See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320538767

Aircraft design project designing a competitor fighter aircraft

Research · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 9,878

5 authors, including:

Ege Konuk
Old Dominion University
9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ege Konuk on 20 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Aircraft design project designing
a competitor fighter aircraft

Ege Konuk, Hasan Hüseyin Aydoğdu, Fatih Ahmet

Sarıgül, Moumin Quran, Fettullah Arslan

Abstract

The process of air vehicle design is a complex combination of numerous disciplines which have to be blended
together to yield the optimum design to meet a given set of requirements. The systems engineering approach is
defined as an interdisciplinary approach encompassing the entire technical effort to evolve and verify an integrated
and lifecycle-balanced set of system people, products, and process solutions that satisfy customer needs. Multi-
discipline system engineering design involves the application of a systems engineering process and requires
engineers with substantive knowledge of design across multiple technical areas and improved tools and methods
for doing it. Complex aircraft systems, due to the high cost and the risks associated with their development become
a prime candidate for the adoption of systems engineering methodologies. The systems engineering technique has
been applied in the development of many manned airplanes. An aircraft is a system composed of a set of
interrelated components working together toward some common objective or purpose. Primary objectives include
safe flight achieved at a low cost. Every system is made up of components or subsystems, and any subsystem can
be broken down into smaller components. For example, in an air Transportation system, the aircraft, terminal,
ground support equipment, and controls are all subsystems. Throughout the text, the systems engineering approach
is examined and implemented. The report has been arranged to facilitate the designers’s gradual understanding of
design techniques. Statement proofs are provided whenever they contribute to the understanding of the subject
matter presented. Special effort has been made to provide example problems so that the reader will have a clear
understanding of the topic discussed. The reader is encouraged to study all such solved problems carefully; this
will allow the interested reader to obtain a deeper understanding of the materials and tools. The aircraft design has
been construct on some certain step processes. The processes that are applied in this project is goes like this; weight
estimation, initial sizing, airfoil and geometry selection ,Thrust to weight and wing loading analysis, configuration
layout, propulsion and fuel system analysis, aerodynamic analysis, stability and finally the cost analysis. Those
processes has been implemented in this project and each and every study is applied by comply the methods and
rules that are gathered from aircraft design books. These books are very well accomplished on the area and highly
trustworthy sources for a wide range of analysis approaches. This project is been applied on that foundation of
ethics so that a good designed aircraft to come out of these analysis.

Keywords

Aircraft design, Fighter jet design, Competitor fighter, Performance analysis, Cost analysis,
Configuration layout for fighter jet, weight estimation ,Competitor fighter, Aerodynamic analysis for
fighter aircraft, Drag analysis, Propulsion analysis, Fuel system analysis, Stability evaluation for fighter
jet, Subsystem analysis, Sizing and trade study
Introduction
Aircraft design is essentially a branch of engineering
design. Design is primarily an analytical process,
which is usually accompanied by drawing/drafting.
Design contains its own body of knowledge,
independent of the science-based analysis tools
usually coupled with it. Design is a more advanced
version of a problem-solving technique that many
people use routinely. Design is exciting, challenging,
satisfying, and rewarding. The general procedure for
solving a mathematical problem is straightforward.
Design is much more subjective, there is rarely a
single “correct” answer. The world of design involves
many challenges, uncertainties, ambiguities, and
inconsistencies. This chapter is intended to familiarize
the reader with the basic fundamentals and overall
process of design. This report has been written
primarily to provide the basic tools and concepts
required to create an optimum/efficient aircraft design
that will meet the necessary design requirements. In
general, a design process includes three major
operations: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Analysis is the process of predicting the performance
or behavior of a design candidate. Evaluation is the
process of performance calculation and comparing the
predicted performance of each feasible design
candidate to determine the deficiencies. The noun
synthesis refers to a combination of two or more
entities that together form something new. In this text,
synthesis is employed interchangeably with design.
Hence, synthesis is defined as the creative process of
putting known things together into new and more
useful combinations. Synthesis is the vehicle of the
design, with evaluation being its compass. The
candidate designs that fail to satisfy (partially or
completely) the requirements are reiterated. That is
new values, features, characteristics, or parameters are
determined during synthesis operation. The
redesigned candidate is reanalyzed again for
compliance with the design requirements. This
iterative process is continued until the design
requirements are met. A design process requires both
integration and iteration, invoking a process that
coordinates synthesis, analysis, and evaluation. These
three operations must be integrated and applied
iteratively and continuously throughout the lifecycle
of the design.
Methodology
A. Data Acquisition of Competitor Fighters
There are numerous fighter type of aircraft has been
produced over the years from different origins and
manufacturers. They intended to serve in a similar
kind of purpose in military of the country that they
have been sold. Furthermore, the each manufacturer
has claimed to have a best design possible at that time
comparing to the other equivalent fighter aircraft
around. This paper presents a selection of fighter jets
that have been picked accordingly to the this design
study. In this study some commonly shared
parameters of those fighter jets has been taken and
analyzed by the team members. Several graphs has
been produced by using couple of those parameters
and after that using some mathematical tools and
numerical methods some accurate comparisons will be
obtained of desired parameters. Assuredly, those
calculations will have yield some result which create
a efficient design path to follow for the further design
analysis.
Finally, all graphs have obtained and managed to get
best statistic results as possible in all processes. Next
step is the construct a multiple nonlinear regression in
order to do that a regression equation will needed and
by using parameter in each dependent parameter the
equations obtained as follows;
𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒
= −0.0001𝑊𝑊0 − 3.0639 −
𝑊𝑊0
1.8508𝑒𝑒 0.0002𝑉𝑉𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 − 3.010𝐿𝐿 + 0.0010𝑅𝑅 −
9.0445𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊) + 8.6961(𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊) (1)
𝑇𝑇
= −0.0543𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑊𝑊0) − 2.6174 − 2.0028 +
𝑊𝑊
0.012𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 + 2.5436 + 0.003𝑅𝑅 +
2.1412𝑒𝑒 −0.004𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆 (2)
𝑊𝑊
= 103 + 2393.6 − 1.8𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 + 749.4 + 0.2𝑅𝑅 +
𝑆𝑆
1.1 − 2534.9(𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊) + 1611.6(𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊)2 (3)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 30.2962𝑒𝑒 − 0.0001𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 29.0772 −
1.6654 + 4.8937𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊 − 5.8330(𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊)2 (4)
𝐿𝐿 = 0.0061𝑒𝑒 0.002𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 27.1868 − 0.0475𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 +
24.4228 − 0.0019𝑅𝑅 + 2.1002𝑒𝑒 0.8504𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊 (5)
𝑆𝑆 = 56.2370 − 29.4468 + 0.09𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 −
22.1521 + 0.0016𝑅𝑅 − 3.7558 − 245.2855(𝑇𝑇/
𝑊𝑊) + 134.4720(𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊)2 (6)
B. Initial Weight Estimation
First sketch of the mission profile for the fighter
aircraft. Then W0 equation will be calculated by using
formulas on the Raymer’s book. We develop a Matlab
codes that solving and iteration for W0 by using
secant method. This iteration will be continuing till the
variation is become insignificant.
Finally, we investigate the effect of the payload and
range by changing those values that are given on the
mission and try to obtain result from code and
demonstrate the W0 values and how that is effect our
calculation.
W0 = Wcrew +Wfixed payload + Wdropped payload + Wfuel +
Wempty 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊10
= 1.06𝑥𝑥 �1 − � ( 13)
(7) 𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0

𝑊𝑊0 = 𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑊𝑊𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑊𝑊10 𝑊𝑊1 𝑊𝑊2 𝑊𝑊3 𝑊𝑊4 𝑊𝑊5 𝑊𝑊6 𝑊𝑊7 𝑊𝑊8 𝑊𝑊9 𝑊𝑊10
= (14)
𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + � � 𝑊𝑊0 (8) 𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊1 𝑊𝑊2 𝑊𝑊3 𝑊𝑊4 𝑊𝑊5 𝑊𝑊6 𝑊𝑊7 𝑊𝑊8 𝑊𝑊9
𝑊𝑊0

𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊+𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
Next, for W1 /W0 , the historical trend in the Raymer’s
𝑊𝑊0 = 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊 (9) book table 3.2 was used and defined.
1− − 𝑒𝑒
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0
𝑊𝑊1
= 0.97 (Raymer Table 3.2) (15)
𝑊𝑊0
(We/ W0) is the Empty-weight fraction and it can be
estimated from historical experiments from several Then, for W2 /W1 , from the our lecture notes it has
published sources to obtained those data’s or by been assumed that climb starts at M=0.1 for
constructing graph by using historical values and supersonic. Also, rate of climb speed was used and
applying curve fitting and numerical methods we can obtained the equation 6.
obtain this fraction. It is varying from 0.3 to 0.7 and it
will decrease by increase of total aircraft weight
𝑊𝑊2
= 0.991 − 0.007𝑀𝑀 − 0.001𝑀𝑀2 (16)
Wf / W0 is called Fuel fraction. Fuel fraction is 𝑊𝑊1
independent from aircrafts weight unlike fuel used.
Because when fuel is burn in the air Wf decreases at Rate of Climb Speed=300 m/s, M=0.88
the same rate W0 decreases so Wf / W0 will not
change. Fuel fraction can be estimated depending on
the mission profile since the required fuel will depend 𝑊𝑊2
on mission to be flown. By using historical values and = 0.977 (17)
𝑊𝑊1
total mission weight fraction (Wx/W0) a fuel fraction
estimation can be obtained by assuming 6% allowance Next, in order to determine the climb weights
for reserve fuel; proposition, the exponential equation in the Raymer’s
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊10
book was used. Also, equation 4.49 in the
= 1.06𝑥𝑥 �1 − � (10) Mohammed Sadraey’s book was used to determine
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0
climb speed by using assumption from maximum
Firstly, the mission profile was determined according speed. In addition to these, specific fuel consumption
to information required. Second, the crew and for low bypass turbofan aircrafts and L/D estimation
payloads were found from the resources. were determined from table 3.3 in the Raymer’s
book.
Pilot=90 kg (x1)
IRIS-T=87.4 kg (x4) 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
−
𝑊𝑊3 𝐿𝐿
AGM-65K=306 kg (x4) = 𝑒𝑒 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 �𝐷𝐷�𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0.866 (18)
Mızrak-U=37.5 kg (x2) 𝑊𝑊2
Cirit=15 kg (x4)
Ammunition=300 kg Vmax = 2.2 M @max,
Speed of sound @14000
Then, as stated in the homework and the Raymer’s km
book, the main equations were used for the first weight = 1062
h
estimation.
For that cruise segment, the weight was changed
For the We /W0 part of the main equation was taken because of dropping missiles and weapons. Therefore,
from our previous study. It was stated before as it was written two situations as initial and last one.
Then, the weights of the missiles and weapons were
removed and computed by reference of equation in the
𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒
= 5𝑥𝑥10−10 𝑊𝑊02 − 2𝑥𝑥10−5 𝑊𝑊0 + 0.73(4) (11) Raymer’s book.
𝑊𝑊0
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑉𝑉𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 2236
ℎ
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
𝑊𝑊0 = (12)
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒 c=0.8 for cruise (Raymer Table 3.3)
1− −
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0
 𝐿𝐿 𝑊𝑊6 = 0.977𝑊𝑊5
� � 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 10 (Raymer Figure 3.6)
𝐷𝐷
𝑊𝑊6 = 0.894𝑊𝑊0 − 1327.7 (29)
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 2336 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 = = = 1797
1.3 1.3 ℎ Next, for 𝑊𝑊8 /𝑊𝑊7 , loiter weight fractions were found
from the endurance equation in the Raymer’s book.
𝑊𝑊3
= 𝑒𝑒 −0.0257 = 0.975 (19) 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑊𝑊2 𝑊𝑊8 − 𝐿𝐿
= 𝑒𝑒 �𝐷𝐷�𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑒𝑒 −0.0175 = 0.983 (30)
𝑊𝑊7
For W4 /W3 , it has been ignored descent. Therefore,

𝑊𝑊4 E=15 minutes, C=0.7 for loiter

= 1 (20 )
𝑊𝑊3
Next, for W9 /W8 , the historical trend for descent in
Vc = 1.3x1062 = 1380 km/h , R=100 km, c=0.8 the Raymer’s book table 3.2 was used.

𝑊𝑊5 𝑊𝑊9
= 0.99 =1 (31)
𝑊𝑊4 𝑊𝑊8

𝑊𝑊4 𝑊𝑊1 𝑊𝑊2 𝑊𝑊3 𝑊𝑊4 Next, for W10 /W8 , again the historical trend for
= = 0.924 (21) descent in the Raymer’s book table 3.2 was used.
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊1 𝑊𝑊2 𝑊𝑊3
𝑊𝑊10
𝑊𝑊4 = 0.924𝑊𝑊0 = 0.995 for landing, (32)
𝑊𝑊9
𝑊𝑊5 = 0.99𝑥𝑥0.924𝑊𝑊0 − 1359
Then, we were back to main equations and done
𝑊𝑊5 0.915𝑊𝑊0 − 1359 some computations for results.
= (22)
𝑊𝑊4 0.924𝑊𝑊0
𝑊𝑊10 𝑊𝑊1 𝑊𝑊2 𝑊𝑊3 𝑊𝑊4 𝑊𝑊5 𝑊𝑊6 𝑊𝑊7 𝑊𝑊8 𝑊𝑊9 𝑊𝑊10
=
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊1 𝑊𝑊2 𝑊𝑊3 𝑊𝑊4 𝑊𝑊5 𝑊𝑊6 𝑊𝑊7 𝑊𝑊8 𝑊𝑊9
Next, for W6 /W5 , the historical trend for climb in the
Raymer’s book table 3.2 was used.
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊10
= 1.06 �1 − � (33)
𝑊𝑊6 𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0
= 0.977 (23)
𝑊𝑊5
𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒
= 5𝑥𝑥10−10 𝑊𝑊0 2 − 2𝑥𝑥10−5 𝑊𝑊0 + 0.73
Then, for this mission, combat equation in our lecture 𝑊𝑊0
notes was used to determine weights proposition.
From the V-n diagram of Muhammed Sadraey and After the results were done, equation was found for
Dr. Müller, the n value was obtained by assumption 𝑊𝑊0 . However, one of the numerical computational
and duration was known as 8 minutes. methods, Secant Method, was used to solve this
equation and find the roots. Therefore,
𝑊𝑊7 0.794𝑊𝑊0 − 1179.6 − 648
= (24) 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
𝑊𝑊6 0.894𝑊𝑊0 − 1327.7 𝑊𝑊0 =
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒
1− −
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0
𝑊𝑊7 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
=1− (Combat) (25)
𝑊𝑊6 𝐿𝐿 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊+𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
� � 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0.866 𝑊𝑊0 − = 𝑓𝑓(𝑊𝑊0 ) = 0 (34)
𝐷𝐷 1−
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊
− 𝑒𝑒
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0

n=9, d=8 minutes

(Secant method)
𝑊𝑊7 0.96
=1− = 0.889 (26) For two initial points x0 and x1 , the secant method
𝑊𝑊6 8.66
algoritm is
For n=1,2,3…
𝑊𝑊7 𝑊𝑊6 𝑊𝑊7
= (27) 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 − 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛−1
𝑊𝑊6 𝑊𝑊5 𝑊𝑊5 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛+1 = 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 − 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 ) (35)
𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 ) − 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛−1 )

𝑊𝑊5 = 0.915𝑊𝑊0 − 1359 (28) until stopping criteria.

𝑊𝑊7 = 0.868𝑊𝑊5 Stopping criteria = Error < 0.5x10−6

𝑊𝑊7 = 0.794𝑊𝑊0 − 1179.6 xn − xn−1

Error = | |
xn
In addition, as an important part of evolution and 𝑊𝑊 = 𝐿𝐿 = 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 = 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒
refinement, the range and payload trade was done by
1 𝑊𝑊
using Excel. 𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 = � � (36)
𝑞𝑞 𝑆𝑆
Wo Guess We/Wo Wo Calculated
Also, the thickness ratio affects the maximum lift and
20000.000 0.5303 19282.503
stall characteristics primarily by its effect on the nose
19282.503 0.5436 14776.747
14776.747 0.5373 16185.274 shape. For a wing of high aspect ratio and moderate
16185.274 0.5385 15879.010 sweep, a larger nose radius provides a higher stall
15879.010 0.5387 15839.110 angle and a greater maximum lift coefficient, as shown
15839.110 0.5387 15840.439 in Fig. 4.13. For initial selection of the thickness ratio,
15840.439 0.5387 15840.434 the historical trend shown in Fig. 4.14 of Raymer’s
Table 1. Weight Estimation book can be used. The shape of the reference wing is
on the other hand determined by its aspect ratio, taper
ratio, and sweep. Jet aircraft evidence a strong trend of
When R=2000 km
Wo Guess We/Wo Wo Calculated aspect ratio decreasing with increasing Mach number
20000.000 0.5300 19942.744 evidence due to drag due to lift becoming relatively
19942.744 0.5300 20170.943 less important at higher speeds. Designers of high-
20170.943 0.5300 20174.756 speed aircraft thus use lower-aspect-ratio wings to
20174.756 0.5300 20174.843 save weight. For initial wing layout, the values and
20174.843 0.5300 20174.843 equations provided Table 4.1 in Raymer’s book can be
Table 2. Weight Estimation with range trade 4. used.

Wing sweep is another important parameter that is

When Wpayload=4000 kg
used primarily to reduce the adverse effects of
Wo Guess We/Wo Wo Calculated transonic and supersonic flow. Theoretically, shock
20000.000 0.5300 20238.300 formation on a swept wing is determined not by the
20238.300 0.5337 22711.588 actual velocity of the air passing over the wing, but
22711.588 0.5353 23248.906 rather by the air velocity in a direction perpendicular
23248.906 0.5358 23392.026 to the leading edge of the wing. Figure 4.19 that shows
23392.026 0.5358 23400.356 a historical trend line for wing leading-edge sweep and
23400.356 0.5358 23400.465 Mach number was used by reference of Raymer’s
23400.465 0.5358 23400.465
book.
Table 3. Weight Estimation with payload trade 2.
Wing taper ratio, A, is the ratio between the tip chord
and the centreline root chord. Most wings of low
sweep have a taper ratio of about 0.4-0.5. Most swept
wings have a taper ratio of about 0.2-0.3 by reference
of Raymer’s book. Wing twist is used to prevent tip
C. Airfoil Selection and Wing Geometry stall and to revise the lift distribution to approximate
an ellipse. Typically, wings are twisted between zero
The cross-sectional shape of the wing is named airfoil. and five degrees. Fig. 4.23 in Raymer’s book, the
The airfoil, in many respects, is the heart of the effect of sweep on desired taper ratio was used for
airplane. The airfoil affects the cruise speed, take-off determining the taper ratio of our aircraft.
and landing distances, stall speed, handling qualities
and overall aerodynamic efficiency during all phases Wing Geometry Determination
of flight. The first consideration in initial airfoil
selection is the design lift coefficient. This is the lift To obtain a definite wing shape, aspect ratio, taper
coefficient at which the airfoil has the best L/D in Fig. ratio, wing area, sweep angle and twist angle should
be determined As it was found from the first Project
4.9 of Raymer’s book as the point on the airfoil drag
of aircraft design lecture, the graph which shows the
polar that is tangent to aline from the origin and closest relation between W0 and S gives the area of the wing
to the vertical axes. As a first approximation, it can be to be as S=34.72 m2.By continuing with such a value;
assumed that the wing lift coefficient Cl equals the from the table 4.1 in Raymer Book a formula so called:
airfoil lift coefficient, Cl In level flight the lift must be AR=a*MmaxC is used and for a=5.416 and for c=-
equal to the weight, so the required design lift 0.622 is used with Mmax=2.2. After applying this
coefficient can be found as follows: formula, AR is found to be as 3.316 while it was equal
to 3.132 in the first study. This is an advantage for the
design because high aspect ratio wing does not
experience as much of a loss of lift and increase of
drag due to tip effects as a low aspect ratio wing of
equal area[1].After that from the formula: AR=b2/S.
After putting the values into equation; b is found to be
equal to 10.731.The to find the twist of the wing
because of the complexities in the process an
assumption is made according to historical values
which also decrement the price of the production of
airplane. It means is that doing like that is
economically more efficient and is also easier to
produce. As a result twist is assumed to be 3 degrees
from historical values which is taken from Raymer
book again .After that ,to find the sweep angle the
figure 4.19 from the Raymer book and the formula 90-
arcsin(1/M) is used .For Mach value ,cruise speed is
taken and at the end it is found to be as _Ʌ_=56 0 and
it is also known that µ <_Ʌ_ from geometric relations.
To choose the correct taper ratio ,the elliptical lift
distribution can be useful . The span efficiency factor
is 1 for elliptical efficiency and less than other shape.
Less span efficiency means grater induced drag. The
span efficiency is a function of AR and taper ratio (J.
Anderson Aircraft Performance and Design, Fig.
2.39). For the known AR and minimum induced drag
the aspect ratio can be thought a value between 0.2 and
0.4. Using smaller taper ratio, the wing can made
lighter. However, wings with low taper ratios exhibit
undesirable flow separation and stall behavior. In this
case as another reference, from the figure 4.23 in
Raymer Book the value for the taper ratio is assumed
to be ɤ=0.3 to get more approximated result for the
expectation from designing of a fighter airplane. Then,
by using the formula ɤ=Ct/Cr from the area of the wing
calculation; ((Ct + Cr)/2)*(b/2) =S/2 which is made by
only one of the wing and by considering the wing to
be trapezoidal shape. After continuing the application
of the formula the values for Ct =1.493 and Cr =4.977
are found. Also in these calculations, because it is also
known that to get most efficient wing the distribution
of lift should be elliptical and the more the wing is
elliptical, the more the wing is efficient.
Figure(1) relation between the oblique shock
and wave angle
The angle µ of a Mach wave relative to the flow
direction is called the Mach angle. It can be
determined by considering the wave to be the
superposition of many pulses emitted by the body. At
some time interval t after the pulse is emitted, the
radius of the circle will be at, while the body will travel
a distance V t. The Mach angle is then seen to be:
𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 𝒂𝒂 𝟏𝟏
𝑠𝑠𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊 µ = = = (37)
𝑽𝑽𝑽𝑽 𝑽𝑽 𝑴𝑴
1
µ = 1/𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (38)
𝑀𝑀
The above relation is, however, only theoretical. In
practice, the shock wave does not have an angle µ but
an angle β, called the wave angle. For shock waves we
always have β > µ. Finally there is the special case
with β = 90◦, at which we once more have a normal
shock wave. Therefore, a normal shock wave is just a
special case of the oblique shock
wave.
Figure (2) oblique shock geometry
Mn,1= M1 sinβ (39)
γ−1
1+�
2
�Mn,1
M2 n,2= γ−1 (40)
γ Mn,1−� �
2
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀2
M2= (41)
sin(𝛽𝛽−𝜃𝜃)
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡(𝛽𝛽−𝜃𝜃)
=
2+(γ−1)(M1)῍2 (sin)῍2 β
(42)
tan 𝛽𝛽 (M1)῍2 (γ + cos (2β)) + 2
M2 1 sin2 β − 1
tan θ = 2𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (43)
M2 1 (γ + cos (2β)) + 2.
This equation is called the θ-β-M relation. Many
important things can be derived from it. Let’s suppose
we know θ and M1. We can then find the
corresponding values of the wave angle β. For
relatively low values of θ you will find two solutions
for β. There are thus two possible shock waves. The
shock wave with the higher angle of β is called the
strong shock wave, while the one with the lower angle
2 is called the weak shock wave. In nature, the weak
shock wave is almost always present. So usually the
smallest of the two solutions can simply be used.
This relation is vital to the analysis of oblique shock
waves, and results from it are plotted in figure 9.9
which located in the Fundamentals of aerodynamics
page (613).
In this study, the deflection angle of the nose has
been determined as 8° and the deflection angle of the
wing has been determined as 26° with respect to the
nose. Using this geometrical relation and the
maximum speed (2.2 M) of the aircraft, the maximum
perpendicular air speed that comes the wings has been
calculated as 0.68 M. This value can be used when the
airfoil is selected, because Critical Mach number of
the airfoil should be greater than 0.68. As a result, 0.7
M has been determined as the constraint for the critical
Mach number of an airfoil.
For the wing shape;

AR=3.336
Taper ratio= 0.3
Sweep angle = 56°
Twist angle = 3°

Airfoil Selection

To select the correct airfoil, four airfoils have been

determined by using the historical data. These airfoils
have been analyzed according to aerodynamic Figure (6) Airfoil shape (ANSYS)
coefficient, critical Mach value, stall behavior and
maximum speed. The analysis has been done with
Ansys Fluent which is a flow simulation program. Cl = 1.7119e-01
Cm = -6.3452e-02
• Lockheed-Georgia Supercritical Airfoil
Cd = 2.6155e-02
Stall angle= 10-13
Mcr < 0.7 M

Figure (3) Airfoil shape

To show the flow behavior of the airfoil for the • Naca 64209 Airfoil
constraint of critical Mach number, the airfoil has been
analyzed at 0.7 M and zero angle of attack.

Figure (7) Airfoil Shape

To show the flow behavior of the airfoil for the

constraint of critical Mach number, the airfoil has
been analyzed at 0.68 M and 4° angle of attack.

Figure (4) Airfoil shape (ANSYS)

Cl = 1.9839e-01
Cm = -8.3394e-03
Cd = 1.6646e-02
Stall angle= 11-13 Figure (8) Airfoil shape (ANSYS)
Mcr < 0.7 M

• NASA Supercritical (2)-0414 Airfoil Cl = 7.7715e-01

Cm = -4.2612e-02
Cd = 1.6629e-02
Stall angle=8-9
Mcr = 0.7578
Figure (5) Airfoil shape

To show the flow behavior of the airfoil for the

constraint of critical Mach number, the airfoil has been (44)
analyzed at 0.7 M and zero angle of attack.
 • Naca 64206 Airfoil appropriate speed.

This analysis has been done to find the maximum lift

coefficient, stall angle and slope (a0) of the angle of
attack- lift coefficient graph for the airfoil.
Figure (9) Airfoil shape
Naca 64209 Airfoil
To show the flow behavior of the airfoil for the
constraint of critical Mach number, the airfoil has been At the previous part, Mcr ≥ 0.7 has been determined
analyzed at 0.7 M and zero angle of attack. as constraint for the airfoils. To check this constraint,
a formula has been used for finding the Mcr with
zero angle Cl = 1.6712e- Cd = 8.7746e-03 minimum Cp value;
of attack 01
Cm = -2.5256e- Mcr = (Cp0)min= -
4° angle of Cl= 5.4969e- Cd= 1.3742e-02 02 0.7578 0.3685
attack 01
Table (5) Mcr, (Cp0)min, Cm for Naca 64209
6° angle of Cl = 7.5201e- Cd = 2.4986e-02
attack 01 The aircraft stalls an angle between 8°-10°

7° angle of Cl = 7.8193e- Cd = 4.1034e-02 Naca 64206 Airfoil

attack 01
zero angle of Cl = 1.2846e-01 Cd = 9.5309e-03
8° angle of Cl= 8.1469e- Cd= 8.9763e-02 attack
attack 01
4° angle of Cl = 5.4626e-01 Cd = 1.3742e-02
10° angle of Cl= 6.4460e- Cd= 1.1185e-01 attack
attack 01
6° angle of Cl = 6.4941e-01 Cd = 3.6696e-02
Table (4) Cl, Cd vs Angle of attack for Naca 64209 attack

7° angle of Cl = 6.7986e-01 Cd = 5.5390e-02

attack

8° angle of Cl = 6.9827e-01 Cd = 8.3897e-02

attack

9° angle of Cl = 6.9698e-01 Cd = 1.0455e-01

attack

Table (6) Cl, Cd vs Angle of attack for Naca 64206

Figure (10) Airfoil shape (ANSYS) Cm = -3.2094e- Mcr = 0.8046 (Cp0)min= -0.250338
02
Cl = 7.4055e-01
Table (7) Mcr, (Cp0)min,Cm for Naca 64206
Cm = -2.5256e-02
Cd = 1.9264e-02
Stall angle=7-8 The aircraft stalls an angle between 8°-9°
Mcr = 0.8046
According to historical data and fighter aircraft trend,
4 airfoil have been selected but two of them are not
Moreover, above analysis has been done to show the suitable for the maximum speed of aircraft. Other
behavior of flow at this constraint speed region. As a
airfoils have been analyzed at different speed and
result, Lockheed-Georgia Supercritical Airfoil and
NASA Supercritical(2)-0414 Airfoil have been angle of attack to find aerodynamic coefficient. As a
elected because of undesirable Mcr values. Therefore, result Naca 64209 Airfoil has been determined for root
for these two airfoils will not be done more analysis. chord and Naca 64206 Airfoil has been determined for
However, the above analyses for Naca 64209 Airfoil tip chord. Clmax can be determined as their average ;
and Naca 64206 Airfoil show the maximum speed (for
aircraft 2.2 M and for wing 0.68 M) behavior at 4° Clmax = 0.7558
angle of attack which is determined as appropriate. For
these two airfoils, an analysis will be done for stall
speed of the aircraft and an additional analysis for an
D. Estimation of the Critical Performance
Parameters
Wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio are
interconnected for a number of performance
calculations, such as takeoff distance, which is
frequently a critical design driver. A requirement for
short takeoff can be met by using a large wing (low W
IS) with a relatively small engine (low T IW). While
the small engine will cause the aircraft to accelerate
slowly, it only needs to reach a moderate speed to lift
off the ground. On the other hand, the same takeoff
distance could be met with a small wing (high WIS)
provided that a large engine (high TIW) is also used.
In this case, the aircraft must reach a high speed to lift
off, but the large engine can rapidly accelerate the
aircraft to that speed. Due to this interconnection, it is
frequently difficult to use historical data to
independently select initial values for wing loading
and thrust-to-weight ratio. Instead, the designer must
guess at one of the parameters and use that guess to
calculate the other parameter from the critical design
requirements. In many cases, the critical requirement
for wing loading will be the stall speed during the
approach for landing. The estimated wing loading can
then be used to calculate the T/W required to attain
other performance drivers such as the single-engine
rate of climb.
T/W directly affects he performance of the aircraft. An
aircraft with a higher T/W will accelerate more
quickly, climb more rapidly, reach a higher maximum
speed, and sustain higher turn rates. On the other hand,
the larger engines will consume more fuel throughout
the mission, which will drive up the aircraft's takeoff
gross weight to perform the design mission. For
aircraft designed primarily for efficiency during
cruise, a better initial estimate of the required T/W can
be obtained by "thrust matching." This refers to the
comparison of the selected engine's thrust available
during cruise to the estimated aircraft drag. In the
𝑇𝑇
Raymer’s book from table 5.3, the equation
𝑊𝑊𝑜𝑜
𝐶𝐶
𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 was used for first estimation of trust weight
ratio.
The wing loading is the weight of the aircraft divided
by the area of the reference wing. As with the thrust-
to-weight ratio, the term "wing loading" normally
refers to the takeoff wing loading, but can also refer to
combat and other flight conditions. Wing loading
affects stall speed, climb rate, takeoff and landing
distances, and turn performance. The wing loading
determines the design lift coefficient, and impacts
drag through its effect upon wetted area and wing
span. Wing loading has a strong effect upon sized
aircraft takeoff gross weight. If the wing loading is
reduced, the wing is larger. This may improve
performance, but the additional drag and empty
weight due to the larger wing will increase takeoff
gross weight to perform the mission. The leverage
effect of the sizing equation will require a more-than-
proportional weight increase when factors such as
drag and empty weight are increased. For example, the
stall speed of an aircraft is directly determined by the
wing loading and the maximum lift coefficient.
Airfoil Analysis
Airfoil analysis performed and result are obtained then
they have been compared for most suitable airfoil
which is the one that gives a best L/D ratio and Clmax
as a result. Total seven airfoils have been picked by
judging of their specifications that are determined
from historical experiments.
Four of those airfoils have been determined as
suitable for root chord airfoil and three of them is
suitable for tip airfoil. The thickness ratios are 6% or
below are generally gives a best Cl/Cd values for low
angle of attacks hence they stall at low angle of attacks
since the wing has been decided that to have some
twist angle which lower the angle of attack of tip foil
it is wise idea to use airfoils that have a lower
thickness values than conventional ones. Airfoils that
has a higher Clmax values are decided for the root foil
selection. Since aircraft will face high angle of attack
flow over root section. First analysis was performed
by those airfoils in JAVAFOIL, which has a capability
of resolving viscous flow and high Reynolds numbers.
The following graphs are obtained for airfoils
1.2
1 Cl vs Alpha (Root Airfoils)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
=
-0.4 Alpha
-0.6
Cl
FX 66-H-60 Naca 64005.92
NACA 64-209 NACA 65-209
Figure (11) Cl vs Alpha for root airfoils with no
high-lift device
 𝜌𝜌 𝐯𝐯𝐿𝐿
0.8
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = = 16309989
𝜇𝜇
Cl vs Alpha (Tip Airfoils) Mach = 0.146; Re = 16309989
0.6
0.4
As clearly seen from the graphs Naca 64209 has
0.2 performed better that other airfoils in terms of L/D
0 ratio which is perfectly suitable for the root airfoil. The
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 further analysis has been conducted in same
-0.2
Alpha conditions but implementing high-lift devices such as
-0.4 flaps and slats to the root airfoil. Only the root airfoils
-0.6 have been selected because it has been assumed that
Cl

NACA 64A004.29 NACA 64-206 the half of the wing has been determined for flapped
area for the wing which is closed to the root airfoil as
NACA 65-206
per the shape.
Figure (12) Cl vs Alpha for tip airfoils with no In the second analysis four root airfoil candidates has
high-lift device been equipped with 12.5° downward deflection
trailing edge flap and 10° downward deflection
Leading edge slats. This state has been determined as
0.12 take-off state for the fighter. The hinge points are
Cd vs Alpha (Root Airfoils) determined as 0.2c for the slats 0.3c for flaps (from tip
0.1
point) [1].
0.08 These graphs are obtained as shown below
0.06

0.04
Cd vs Alpha With +12.5 T.E Flap and +10
0.02 0.12 L.E SLAT

0 0.1
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415 0.08
Cd

Alpha
FX 66-H-60 Naca 64005.92 0.06
NACA 64-209 NACA 65-209
0.04
Figure (13) Cd vs Alpha for root airfoils with no
high-lift device 0.02
0
0.12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Cd vs Alpha (Tip Airfoils) FX 66-H-60 naca 64209
0.1
Naca 65009 naca 64005.92
0.08
Figure (15) Cl vs Alpha for tip airfoils with flap
0.06
deflection 12.5° and slat deflection 10°
0.04

0.02 Cl vs Alpha With +12.5 T.E Flap and +10 L.E

2 SLAT
0 Alpha 1.5
-5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Cd

1
NACA 64A004.29 NACA 64-206
0.5
Figure (14) Cd vs Alpha for tip airfoils with no high- 0
lift device
-0.5 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

All analysis has been conducted conditions as

FX 66-H-60 naca 64209
written;
V=50m/s (stall speed) naca 65209 naca 64005.92

L=4.977m Figure (16) Cd vs Alpha for tip airfoils with flap

ρ=1.225 kg/m3 at sea level deflection 12.5° and slat deflection 10°
50m/s at sea level = 0.146 M

For final case with 25° downward deflection trailing
edge flap and 20° downward deflection Leading edge
slats has been implemented to the root airfoils in order
to achieve highest lift coefficient during low speed
flight conditions hence this state has determined as
landing state for the fighter.
(Clmax)flapped for 25 = 2.203 (Landing-stall)
(Clmax)flapped for 12.5 = 1.677 (take-off)
(CLmax)unflapped=1.009 x 0.9 = 0.9081
(CLmax)Landing-stall=1.591
(CLmax)take-off=1.29

All conditions are kept the same and the graphs are T/W and W/S fractions are obtained from Raymer’s
obtained for landing state as shown; book as shown below;

T/W:
Cl vs Alpha With +25 T.E Flap and +20 L.E
(Mmax) 0.594 =1.035
2.5 SLAT
T/W is obtained from empirical formulas at Raymer’s
2 book Table 5.3 as shown below;
T/W= 1.035
1.5 1
(T/W) cruise= 𝐿𝐿 (45)
�𝐷𝐷�𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
1

0.5 Stall:
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 W/S has been determined by using stall speed at lift
Cl

Alpha equation for steady level flight;

FX 66-H-60 naca 64209 2 𝑊𝑊 1
Vstall=� . (46)
𝜌𝜌 𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Figure (17) Cl vs Alpha for tip airfoils with flap
Vstall=50m/s
deflection 25° and slat deflection 20° 𝑊𝑊
( )Stall =1/2 𝜌𝜌(Vstall) 2(CLmax)
𝑆𝑆
𝑊𝑊
= ½ 𝜌𝜌 (Vstall)2(CLmax) = 243.61Kg/m2
𝑆𝑆

Cd vs Alpha With +25 T.E Flap and +20 Landing:

L.E SLAT
0.12
𝑤𝑤
2 𝑊𝑊 1 𝑗𝑗.( )
𝑠𝑠
0.1 Sg = 𝑗𝑗. 𝑁𝑁� . + (47)
𝜌𝜌 𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔CLmax.µ

0.08 Sg<1500ft at sea level

j=1.1, N=3, µ=0.4
0.06 1.1
𝑤𝑤
2 𝑊𝑊 1 𝑠𝑠
457.2=1.1x3� . =
0.04 1.225 𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶1.591 9.81 𝑥𝑥 1.225 𝑥𝑥 1.591 𝑥𝑥 0.4
𝑤𝑤
= = 267.67 kg/m 2
0.02 𝑠𝑠

0 Take-off:
Cd

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Alpha 1.21(𝑤𝑤/𝑠𝑠)
Sg= T (48)
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔CLmax( )
FX 66-H-60 naca 64209 w

Naca 65009 naca 64005.92 sg<1500ft at sea level

Figure (18) Cd vs Alpha for tip airfoils with flap
𝑠𝑠(𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)
deflection 25° and slat deflection 20° Clmax=0.9�(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶)𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 . +
𝑠𝑠(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)
𝑠𝑠(𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)
+(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶)𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ) (49)
𝑠𝑠(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)
Wing loading and Trust-weight fraction
formulations
Sflapped =22.033, Sunflapped=12.685
𝑠𝑠(𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓) 𝑠𝑠(𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢)
JAVAFOIL Results for NACA 64209: Sref=34.72, =0.635 , =0.365
𝑠𝑠(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟) 𝑠𝑠(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)
CLmax flapped (take-off =12.5)
CLmax flapped (Landing&stall=25) CD=CD0 + K Cl2 (50)
𝑊𝑊 457.2 𝑥𝑥 9.81 𝑥𝑥 1.29 𝑥𝑥 1.035 𝑥𝑥 1.225
(Clmax)unflapped=1.009 = = 606.26 kg/m2
𝑆𝑆 1.21
 Sustained Turn: engine. This engine will be fixed in size and thrust in
our design process.
𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 The new design engine can be built an any dimensions
n= = , to obtain
𝑊𝑊 𝐷𝐷 𝑊𝑊 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 and thrust this is called “rubber engine” because it’s
e=0.95 obtained from historical rules can be stretched during design process to fit any
M=v/a => v=301.95 m/s so, required thrust amount. Rubber-engine sizing is used
in early stages of aircraft development. The procedure
M=0.9, a=335.5 (speed of sound)
is to determine the characteristic of the engine that
Q (dynamic pressure) =1/2 𝜌𝜌V2 should have in order to satisfy the performance for the
Clmax=0.9081 designed aircraft and tell the engine company to that
information. When the engine company finalize the
q=1/2 𝜌𝜌V2=1/2(301.95) (1.11) =197.58
design and manufacture of this engine that it becomes
A=aspect ratio = 3.316 fixed-sized engine. The problem is to apply procedure
Aspect ratio was found in the previous study for rubber sizing engine is financial in initial design.
Because the development for an jet engine can cause
CD0=0.01945
billions of dollars to spent and it can increase the time
CD=CD0 + K Cl2 spent for initial design of the aircraft which will again
Cl=1.6902, CD=0.3879 increase the cost of the project so the designer should
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 rely on fixed sized engine procedure during initial
=4.3573
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 stages of development so this is to pick an existing
𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 engine and try out the parameter of this engine to fit
so n= => n=4.5098 (load factor)
𝑊𝑊 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
the existing aircraft design to have a more complete
𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇 4𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0
𝑤𝑤 �𝑊𝑊�+�𝑊𝑊𝑥𝑥𝑊𝑊−(3.14𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) design process in a much more economical and time
= =274.35kg/m2 (51) efficient way.
𝑠𝑠 2.𝑛𝑛.𝑛𝑛/𝑞𝑞3.14𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

Instantaneous Turn: W0 formulation has been discussed over study two.

For the missions with payload drop, a different
Clmax =0.9081 equation is needed to be applied it is as shown in
𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 below;
n= = =4.5098,
𝑊𝑊 𝐷𝐷 𝑊𝑊 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

q=167.58 so, We ∕ 𝑊𝑊0 = (a + b𝑊𝑊0𝐶𝐶1 𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶2 (T/𝑊𝑊0 )𝐶𝐶3 (𝑊𝑊0 /𝑆𝑆)𝐶𝐶4 𝑀𝑀𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝐶5
)𝐾𝐾𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣

𝑤𝑤 𝑞𝑞.𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
= (52) Coefficients are pre-defined for fighter jet as shown
𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛
𝑤𝑤 (167.58)(0.9081)
as;
= = 33.74 kg/m2
𝑠𝑠 4.5098
a= -0.02, b= 2.16, C1= -0.10, C2= 0.20, C3= 0.04, C4=
Cruise:
-0.10, C5= 0.08
𝑤𝑤 𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0
= 𝑞𝑞 � (53)
𝑠𝑠 3 the takeoff weight is calculated by summing the crew
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 = 0.015 𝑒𝑒 = 0.6 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 weight, payload weight, fuel weight, and empty
weight. Now since the refined sizing is using we can
𝑤𝑤
= 98 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙/𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 2 specify the gun weight and add as a fixed payload.
𝑠𝑠 The engine weight is not included in fixed payload
since that it hasn’t been decided yet. And the equation
for gross weight estimation is followed below;
E. Refined Weight Estimation

Aircraft sizing is an important procedure that is 𝑊𝑊0 = 𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑊𝑊𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
determination of the takeoff gross weight and fuel 𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒
+ 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + � � 𝑊𝑊0 (54)
weight for an aircraft to perform a design method for 𝑊𝑊0
it. In study two a basic conceptual sizing has been
performing with limited data from designers. The To obtained Wfuel in this equation this formula will be
purpose of it to have an initial guess on gross weight used;
before anything and have better approach on
upcoming calculation throughout the design study. 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖 = �1 − � 𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 (55)
This study will contain more detailed and accurate 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖−1
estimation for weight and other parameters. An
aircraft can be sized by existing engine or a new design The weight fraction that are defined in study two are
used to complete the fuel equation. There is no need to
define those equations since they are already defined
in study two.
The solution obtained from this equation will iterate
by using same numerical methods that applied in study
two until it reaches the final value.
W0 = Wcrew +Wfixed payload + Wdropped payload + Wfuel +
Wempty
We
= ( -0.02 +2.16 x W0-0.1x AR0.2 x( )0.04 x (
𝑊𝑊0 𝑊𝑊0
x 2.20.08 )
So the new analysis has been conducted as the
previous weight analysis and the new Wf/W0 fraction
has been obtained as;
𝑾𝑾𝒇𝒇 𝟎𝟎.𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝑾𝑾𝟐𝟐𝟎𝟎 −𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑾𝑾𝟎𝟎 +𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏.𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
= 𝟎𝟎.𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝑾𝑾𝟐𝟐𝟎𝟎 −𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑾𝑾𝟎𝟎
𝑾𝑾𝟎𝟎
Integrating new fuel fraction to the previous weight
equation and using the W0 solver code. Now the real
W0 has been obtained as;
W0 = 20776 kg
F. Configuration Layout and Design Sketch
The next procedure is to determine configuration of
the fighter that is designing. This study most likely to
be the most complex of all studies because
determination of configuration for fighter is generally
massively complex process because there are lots of
things to determine and calculate in order to get a fully
functioning fighter which is going compete with other
fighter in the market.
This process includes numerous statistical date to be
gathered, making some analytical predictions over
some numerical optimizations. However, the most
essential part is to drawing of the aircraft that has
designed. To remember that the analytical approach is
important still the drawing is vitally required to study
to be accomplished.
This procedure could be costly and time consuming so
it is highly required to initial design to be credible.
Fuel System
Fuel system is essential for fighter aircraft. Because
fighters need, lots of performance for complete the
mission. Escape or eliminate the enemy is also
important phase for the fighter to perform.
So the carried fuel has to be at least enough to
complete all that missions.
The fuel system includes the fuel tanks fuel lines and
fuel pumps and fuel management. The most important
part in this study is to determine the fuel tanks where
they stored, how far it is placed span wise and chord
wise.
The chord wise calculation restricts by the front and
rear spar locations of the wing which are also going to
determine in this study. In this study 85% of the fuel
has be carried internally which means that the wings
are have to hold 85% of the total mission fuel.
Fuselage Configuration
Fuselage is the biggest part of the aircraft and also the
one the most effective for design approach by its
geometry. The fuselage design differs with the
configuration layout according to the type of aircraft
that is designing
𝑇𝑇 𝑊𝑊0 -0.1
) .
𝑆𝑆
However general design techniques remain almost
same with some dependable changes with
applications. One of the most imported technique is
the “lofting” process.
Lofting process is the process of defining external
(56) geometry of the aircraft. “Production lofting,” is the
most detailed form of lofting. It provides exact
mathematical definition for the entire aircraft’s
fuselage from very start point to end. For the
production side it can be very essential process of
entire design. The fuselage can be designed and
fabricated at different plant sites yet those part are
assembled together in main plant factory without a
problem.
In order to create a smoothly lofted fuselage by using
conics, make sure that all the points that are located in
various cross sections can be connected longitudinally
by the smooth line. The figure below shows the upper
half of the fuselage;
Figure (19) Longitudinal control lines.
For initial layouts, sufficient accuracy can be
achieved graphically through the use of the flexible
splines. Points are taken from the control cross
sections and plotted in side and top view, then
connected longitudinally using a spline to draft a
smooth line. In fact, a designer with a "good eye" can
obtain sufficient smoothness using a French Curve If
spline and ducks are not available.
 Table.8 Fuselage length vs W0.
Fuselage length can be determined from historical
values. W0 is the main determination criteria for
fuselage length. But there may be some constraint
aside the W0. The procedure is for initial sizing for
fuselage length can be determined by complying those
criterial according to that obtain the W0 by using the
values that are found on the Table.8
Figure (20) Conic fuselage development.
While the fuselage is being lofted one the most
critical parameter to consider is the cockpit location.
This is a crucial part of the fuselage. Pilot must be
perfectly place in the cockpit and able to see wide
range of view. There some geometric angle that
define the pilot’s visibility for a good cockpit design.
Figure (21) Cockpit layout and inboard profile of F-
16.
Wing Configuration
In study 3 wing sizing has been determined with
assumed historical values in the wing section the wing
parameter has been determined. But these estimated
wing parameters will not have reflected the precise
value. So the more refined wing sizing has been
performed in this study. A new parameter can have
determined by using a refined W0 value that is
obtained previous studies. These parameters include
the aspect ratio (A), taper ratio (λ), sweep, dihedral,
and thickness. As well as these parameters an
appropriate airfoil was considered.
From these parameters the geometrical dimensions
that are required to shape the wing or tail can be
determined. As shown figure in below;
(57)
(58)
(59)
Figure (22) Reference wing/tail.
For initial design, simpler methods for wing and tail
lofting can be used. These assumptions rely upon the
assumption of the airfoil coordinates themselves that
are smoothly lofted. This is an excellent assumption,
as otherwise the airfoil performance would be poor.
2 1+𝜆𝜆+𝜆𝜆2
𝐶𝐶̅ = 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ( ) (60)
3 1+𝜆𝜆
𝑏𝑏 1+2𝜆𝜆
𝑌𝑌� = � � (61)
6 1+𝜆𝜆
For a vertical tail, Y is twice the value calculated in
Eq. (5). Figure 1 shows a quick graphical method of
determining the span wise (Y) location of. the mean
aerodynamic chord (MAC or C), which is
Mathematically determined by Eq. (5). The location of
the mean chord is obtained graphically as the
intersection of the mean-chord line and a line drawn
from a point located at the tip chord length behind the
root chord to a point at the root chord length ahead of
the tip chord.
 Figure (23) Nontrapezoidal wings

For twist angle can be interpolate as proportionally in
span wise as shown in below;
Figure (25) Wing airfoil layout-linear interpolation.
The fillets are the lofted surfaces that are connected
between sharp edges. This implementation is proved
the improve aerodynamics efficiency. The wing fillets
is generally defined by a circular arc with varying
radius Typically a wing fillet has a radius of about
10% of the root-chord length [1].

There is figure that demonstrates the fillet shape and

the implementation area;

Figure (24) Airfoil layout with twist.

Fir the wing that are design with different airfoils from
root to tip chords it can be hard the draw a decent
shape through. In that situation linear interpolation can
be used to smooth the shape and draw the wing
proportionally without occurrence of a distortion of
the surface of the loft.
These process can be finalizing with five steps. In step
1 The root and tip airfoils are drawn. As for the step 2
A constant percent-chord line is drawn connecting the
root and tip airfoil, and vertical lines are drawn from
the intersection of that line with the chord lines. The Figure (26) Wing fillet layout.
airfoil points found at those vertical lines are "swung
down" to the chord line using an arc centered at the
intersection of the chord line and the vertically in step
3. These "swung down" points for the root and tip
airfoils are then connected by a straight line in step 4.
At the desired location of an interpolated airfoil, a
chord line is drawn. The intersection of that chord line
with the line drawn in step 4 defines the chord wise
location of a point on the interpolated airfoil. In step 5
this point is "swung up" to its thickness location by an
arc centered at the intersection of the chord line and
the span wise percent-chord line from step 2.

This process repeated as the general shape of the Figure (27) Wing tips
airfoil is visualized when the required amount of
airfoil reached drawing finalized with lofting process.
This method is not required in modern world
applications since the computation drawing software’s
has equipped with the algorithm that performs this
interpolation automatically.

The interpolation step shown below;

Figure (28) Mid Wing

For fighter aircraft wing location is crucially important tail areas cannot be selected until the initial estimate
and constraint by some performance and physical of aircraft takeoff gross weight has been made. There
parameter. One of those parameter is ground clearance are some historical ratios shown below;
of the bombs that are carried on the wing which is a
common way for a fighter. Bombs and the missiles
have to be clear of conflict when the jet is on the
ground.

The location and length of the MAC is important

because the wing is located on the aircraft so that some
Table.9 Tail aspect ratio and taper ratio
selected percent of the MAC is aligned wit he aircraft!
center of gravity is provides a first estimate of the wing
For a high speed region aircraft Leading-edge sweep
position to attain the required stability characteristics
of the horizontal tail is usually set to about 5 degrees
.
more than the Wing sweep. This tends to make the tail
For a stable aircraft with an aft tail, the wing should be
stall after the wing, and also provides the tail with a
initially located such that the aircraft center of gravity
higher Critical Mach Number than the wing, which
is at about 30% of the mean aerodynamic chord. When
avoids loss of elevator effectiveness due to shock
the effects of the fuselage and tail are considered; this
formation. Vertical-tail sweep varies between about
will cause the center of gravity to be at about 25% of
35 and 55 degree
the total subsonic aerodynamic center of the aircraft.
For a high-speed aircraft, vertical-tail sweep is used
primarily to insure that the tail's Critical Mach
For an unstable aircraft with an aft tail, the location of
Number is higher than the Wing's.
the wing depends upon the selected level of instability,
but will usually be such that the center of gravity is at
Landing gear Configuration
about 40% of the mean aerodynamic chord.
Of the many internal components that must be defined
For a canard aircraft, such rules of thumb are far less
in an aircraft layout, the landing gear will usually
reliable due to the canard _downwash an its influence
cause the most trouble. Landing gear must be placed
upon the wing. For a control-type canard with a
in the correct down position for landing, and must
computerized flight control system (i.e., unstable
somehow retract into the aircraft without chopping up
aircraft), the wing can be initially placed such that the
the structure, obliterating the fuel tanks, or bulging out
aircraft center of gravity is at about 15-25% of the
into the slipstream.
wings mean aerodynamic chord.
There are several landing gear arrangements that are
used in aircrafts. The landing gear selection is critical
part for military fighter jet. While selecting landing
Tail Configuration
gear configuration for the aircraft there are some
angles to take into consideration, which will determine
Tails are the little wing that are located in the fuselage.
the criteria for landing gear selection.
Their design purposes are place the control surfaces
and balance the moment that created by the wings and
other parts. For the horizontal tail, trim primarily
refers to the balancing of the moment created by the
wing. An aft horizontal tail typically has a negative
incidence angle of about 2-3 degree to balance the
wing pitching moment. As the wing pitching moment
varies under different flight conditions, the horizontal
tail incidence is usually adjustable through a range of
about 3-degree up and down.

For the vertical tail, the generation of a trim force is

normally not required because the aircraft is usually
left-right symmetric and does not create any
unbalanced yawing moment. The vertical tail of a
multi-engine aircraft must be capable of providing a
sufficient trim force in the event of an engine failure.
The tails are also a key element of stability, acting
much like the fins on an arrow. While it is possible to
design a stable aircraft without tails, such a design is
usually penalized in some other area, such as a
compromised airfoil shape, excessive wing area or
sweep, or narrow center-of-gravity range.
The surface areas required for all types of tails are
directly proportional to the aircraft's wing area, so the
Figure (29) Landing gear types.
These angles are as follows;
• Tipback angle
• Taildown angle
• Overturn angle
These angles will help the designer to determine on
the aircraft by considering he landing gear’s size and
geometry these angle are represented for tricycle
landing gear configuration with figures as;
 Figure (30) Tricycle landing gear geometry.
Table.10 Tire sizing.
Tire sizing is the final sizing determination for landing
gear design. The tires are sized to carry the weight of
the aircraft. Typically, the main tires carry about 90%
of the total aircraft weight. Nose tires carry only about
10% of the static load but experience higher dynamic
loads during landing.
For early conceptual design, the engineer can copy
the tire sizes of a similar design or use a statistical
approach. Table 3 provides equations gathered from
Raymer’s book in for rapidly estimating main tire
sizes (assuming that the main tires carry about 90%
of the total aircraft weight. Nose tires carry only
about 10% of the static load but experience higher
dynamic loads during landing.
For early conceptual design, the engineer can copy the
tire sizes of a similar design or use a statistical
approach. Table 3 provides equations gathered from
Raymer’s book in for rapidly estimating main tire
sizes (assuming that the main tires carry about 90% of
the aircraft weight).
These calculated values for diameter and width should
be increased about 30% if the aircraft is to operate
from rough unpaved runways.
Figure (31) Wheel load geometry.
Figure (32) Tire contact areas.
Figure (33) Wheel diameter for braking.
C.G estimation
Center of gravity estimation is the final but most
important estimation for aircraft. In order to perform
a C.G estimation all of the part that are aircraft
equipped has to be positioned and the weights have to
obtained for each part. The rest is a basic moment
calculation. First the datum point has to be selected
with respect to the aircraft geometry this point is
assigned as the origin point for the calculation. Later
the moment has calculated by taking the datum point
as a moment location. By doing this operation C. G’s
distance to the datum point has taken as an unknown
distance, which is desired to obtained after calculation.
C.G location and weight percentages of each part with
respect to the total gross weight can be found from
historical datas or some assumptions from aircraft
design book’s. This procedure is suitable for initial
C.G location determination.
Initial Sketch
After all the data has been collected from studies and
configuration calculations, an initial sketch can be
drawn from known values. The three-view has to be
obtained after the 3-d drawing of the aircraft. This
sketch most probably will not be representing that
what will come out as a final product. However, for
the first sketch is essential for general visualization of
the aircraft that are going to produced.
 with %5 empty places between each other and the
wing root chord by reference of Raymer’s book.

Finally wing dihedral and twist angle according to the

Raymer’s historical data as shown;

Dihedral=-2°

Twist=3°

Figure (34) Example three-view concept sketch.

Wing geometry

Since W0 has been obtained S can be determined by

the division of the W0 to (W/S) take-off;

(W/S) take-off =124 lb./ft2 (62) Figure (35) Isometric view of the designed wing

W0 45578.2 lbf
S= W = lbf2
= 467.1 ft 2 (63) Fuel tank estimation
�S� 98
takeoff ft
Since the wing has been parametrically designed, the
main fuel tanks which are going to located on the wing
𝑆𝑆 = 43 𝑚𝑚2 can be calculated.
The conventional approach for the wing fuel tank are
defined as
And the other parameters are obtained as shown;
• Fuel must be stored between front and the
rear spar of the wing
𝑏𝑏 = √𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 (64) • All of the wing from span wise can be used
as a fuel tank
= 39.17 ft. = 11.94 m
• For modern approach almost all of the
camber can be shaped as the fuel tank
2𝑆𝑆
𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = = 5.54 m (65) For the calculation, front spar is determined as %15
𝑏𝑏(1+𝜆𝜆)
of the chord length and rear spar is determined as the
%74.5 of the chord length [3]. 0.05c length has been
removed for clearance from the flap mechanism from
𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 𝜆𝜆𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 1.66 m (66) the rear.
Fuel tanks are drawn with the help of the Solidworks
CAD software in 2d dimension.
2 1+𝜆𝜆+𝜆𝜆 2
𝐶𝐶̅ = 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 =3.94 m (67) Fuel volume of the fuel tank “frustum” volume
3 1+𝜆𝜆
equation has been calculated as shown;

𝑏𝑏 1+2𝜆𝜆 ℎ
𝑌𝑌� = � � = 2.45 𝑚𝑚 (68) 𝑉𝑉 = (𝑆𝑆1 + 𝑆𝑆2 + �𝑆𝑆1 𝑆𝑆2 (69)
6 1+𝜆𝜆 3

S1= Top area (tip airfoil area)

Also, for the flap and aileron of the wing, they were
placed to the wing by a proportion of %60 and %30 S2= Base area (root airfoil area)
 Figure (36) Root chord base area for fuel tank
Figure (38) Side view of fuel tank in the wing
Schematic
Figure (37) Tip chord top area for fuel tank
S1 and S2 are obtained as;
S1= 0.087 m2
S2= 1.482 m2
Since the span is known as 11.94m
b/2=5.97m
Volume is obtained from eq.14;
V=3.83687 m3 =3836.87 L
This is for one tank total two tanks on each
wing
Vtotal= 7.67374 m3 =7673.74 L
Fuel type used for military aircraft JB-8 which
has an average density of 802.8 g/L or kg/m3.
[1]
Wwingfueltotal=6.97826*802.8=6160.47 kg
Since required fuel for mission is known as
Wf=7296 kg
Wwingfueltotal/Wf= 0.846 = %84.6
This concludes that roughly 85 percent of the
fuel can be carried with wing fuel tank.
Figure (39) Top view of fuel tank in the wing
Schematic
Fuselage analysis
When the W0 is known fuselage length is easy to
calculate.
Raymer’s book fuselage range has been
determined by some coefficient as function W0;
𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 0.93𝑊𝑊0 0.39 =61.1 ft = 18.6 m
Another parameter for the fuselage is the
maximum diameter which can be calculated as
shown;
Lfuselage/Dmax=14 is assumed for fighter aircraft [1]
fuselage length is known then Dmax ≈ 1.3m
This value is not satisfying the thickness so the
scaling is required for this case
Thickness Scaled by two;
Dmax ≈ 2.6m
Horizontal Tail geometry
Required parameters have obtained by using eq.
For the horizontal tail, the thickness of airfoil 8-13 as shown;
was obtained %10 thinner than wing [1]. Also,
NACA 0009 was used with 56’ degree sweep NACA 64-008.1A (root)
angle.
For the area of horizontal tail, the following NACA 64-005.4A (tip)
formula was used;
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 1
̅ 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤
𝑐𝑐𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 0.4𝑥𝑥12.93𝑥𝑥467
𝑆𝑆𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = = = 79𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 2 (70)
𝐿𝐿𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 30.5
𝜆𝜆 = 0.3
For the horizontal tail length, an estimation that
says the tail arm is about %45-50 of the fuselage 𝐿𝐿𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 9 𝑚𝑚
length [1].
𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 3.9 𝑚𝑚2
From the above formulas, root and tip chord and
mean aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail 𝑏𝑏 = 1.97 𝑚𝑚
were found. In addition, aspect ratio, λ,
incidence and dihedral angle of the horizontal 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟 = 3.95 𝑚𝑚
tail was assumed to be 3, 0.3, -2 and 0-degree in
sequential [1]. Also, flap and aileron were placed 𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 = 0.9 𝑚𝑚
to the horizontal tail by a proportion of %60 and
%30 with %5 empty places between each other 𝐶𝐶̅ = 2.1 𝑚𝑚
and root chord.
𝑌𝑌� = 0.4
Required parameters have obtained by using eq.
8-13 as shown; Capture Area and Inlet Sizing

Naca 0008.1 (Root) It has been used table 10.13 and the formula for
the capture area of our aircraft in the Raymer’s
Naca 0005.4 (Tip) book. Capture area can be sized for conditions
of 0.8M @14000m [1]
𝑏𝑏𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 15.4 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 4.7 𝑚𝑚
Air mass flow: Approximately 200 lbs./sec[4] =
90.71 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘/𝑠𝑠
̅ = 1.7 𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
𝑚𝑚0 = ρ0 𝑈𝑈0 𝐴𝐴0 (71)
𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 2.39 𝑚𝑚
ρ0 = 226 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘/𝑚𝑚3
𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 = 0.7 𝑚𝑚
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑌𝑌�𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 0.96 𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚0 = 90.71
𝑠𝑠
𝑚𝑚
𝑈𝑈0 = 0.8 ∗ 295 = 236𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
𝐿𝐿𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 9.3 𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠

Vertical Tail geometry Capture area;

𝐴𝐴0 = 1.7𝑚𝑚2
For vertical tail, NACA 64A series has been
used by an assumption of some fighter aircrafts. Acrequired is found from raymer from fig 10.13
Like the horizontal tail airfoils kept %10 thinner 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 0.86 𝑚𝑚2
than wing and also, 55-degrees sweep angle was
used. For root, tip and mean aerodynamic center, Inlet diameter;
length and area of vertical tail, the following 𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 1.09 𝑚𝑚[4]
formulas were used and results were found.
Landing gear analysis
For a better C.G estimation landing gear analysis
need to conduct.
Tricycle landing gear configuration has been
selected because of suitability for fighter jets.
Firstly, the upswept angle should be determined.
For most of the fighter, upswept angle is 6°. [2]
There is a figure show the upswept angle for and
different type of aircraft;
Figure (40) upswept angle for different
type of aircrafts.
Figure (41) upswept visualization and
ground clearance
Table.11 Recommended clearance for various
aircraft components
Next the inlet clearance shown for low bypass
turbofan engine is between 0.5m and 1.5m at
table 5. [2]
1.2 m is selected as inlet clearance.
From the historical data and the general fighter
information it has been determined that the
Approximate ratio of the landing gear that stand
in to the fuselage is 1/3.
So,
2/3 Llanding gear=1.2m
Llanding gear =1.8m
Wheelbase and wheel track length has been
assumed as same as F/A-18 from table 9.5 at
Sadraey’s book. Since the gross weight of our
fighter is similar to the F/A-18.
Wheel base = 5.42 m
Wheel track = 3.11 m
According to the Sadraey, Nose landing gear
carry %20 of the load thus, %40 percent of load
will carried by each main landing gear.
Figure (42) Wheel load geometry
Loads are distributed as on the Wheel load
geometry figure above. Bn and Bm are obtained
as following;
Bm = 1.084 m
Bn= 4.336 m
Figure (43) center of gravity drift
Landing gears causes to C.G to move 0.043m
to the left.
New C.G is obtained as;
C.G= (7.557m, 1.44m, 0m)
 𝐵𝐵
𝑊𝑊 = 𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 (74)
Next analysis conduct on the overturn angle
(Φ) of the landing gear. 𝐴𝐴 = 0.0980

It has been calculated by using trigonometric 𝐵𝐵 = 0.467

relations between wheel track and the length of
the landing gear as shown; 𝑊𝑊 = 0.32 𝑚𝑚

Φ= 40.9° (overturn angle)

Width of the main (rear) landing gear
By using Sadreay’s book eqn 9.34:
𝐵𝐵
Tip back angle is found as; 𝑊𝑊 = 𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 (75)

β=36.95° 𝐴𝐴 = 0.0980

Finally Taildown angle found by estimating 𝐵𝐵 = 0.467

geometric relations of the aircraft;
𝑊𝑊 = 0.398 𝑚𝑚
Θ=11.54°

As it was discussed, nose landing gear takes Stealthiness

%20 of the weight of the aircraft. Moreover,
Stealthiness of the aircraft is depend on some
each rear landing gear takes %40 of the weight
parameters. Main aspects that are effect the
of the aircraft So;
stealthiness are as follows;

WWnose =4500 kg • Sharp edges

• Radar reflecting skin paint etc.
WWrear =9000 kg (x2) • Lower temperature values on the
engine

Diameter of the nose (front) landing gear Aircraft design sketch has been drawed while
considering these parameters.
𝐵𝐵
𝐷𝐷 = 𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 (72)
C.G estimation
𝐴𝐴 = 1.59
The weight fractions of our aircraft components
𝐵𝐵 = 0.302 were calculated by reference of table 10.3 in the
Mohammad Sadraey’s book.

Supersonic fighter structural

𝐷𝐷 = 0.65024 𝑚𝑚 weight breakdown in terms of
W0.
Diameter of the main (rear) landing gear Fuel %30
Crew %0.5
𝐵𝐵 Engine %7.5
𝐷𝐷 = 𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 (73)
Wing %14
𝐴𝐴 = 1.59 Landing %6
Gear
𝐵𝐵 = 0.302 Payload %10
Equipment %10
Fuselage %18
𝐷𝐷 = 0.32 𝑚𝑚
Tail %4

Width of the nose (front) landing gear Table.12 Structural breakdown chart.
According to these the percentages for weight distribution
the center of gravity locations for each part can be obtained
as shown in table 7;

Coordinates Weight X Y Z
(m) (kg)

W (Total) 22500 7.56 1.44 0

Cockpit 225 3.5 2.2 0

Gun and 400 5.6 0.5 0

Ammunition
Fuel Tank 1600 6.1 0.3 0

Equipment 2250 4 1.44 0

Fuselage 4100 5.68 1.44 0

Wing(Right) 1575 7.95 1.41 -4.94

Wing (Left) 1575 7.95 1.41 4.94

Payload 2008 8 0.98 0

Engine 1700 15.8 1.5 0

Vertical Tail 400 16.6 2.4 0

Horizontal Tail 250 16.9 1.94 2.25

(Right)

Horizontal Tail 250 16.9 1.94 -2.25

(Left)
Front Landing 400 3.26 0.47 0
Gear

Right Rear 475 8.68 0.47 1.56

Landing Gear

Left Rear 475 868 0.47 -1.56

Landing Gear
Fuel Tank (Right 2800 7.95 1.41 4.94
Wing)

Fuel Tank (Left 2800 7.95 1.41 -4.94

Wing)

Table.13 center of gravity table for aircraft parts.

Initial Sketch For designed Fighter
G. Aerodynamic Analysis and Drag
Calculation

The previous chapters have presented methods for the

design layout of a credible aircraft configuration.
Initial sizing, wing geometry, engine installation, tail
geometry, fuselage internal arrangement, and
numerous other design topics have been discussed.
The initial sizing was based upon rough estimates of
the aircraft's aerodynamics, weights, and propulsion
characteristics. At that time, we could not calculate the
actual characteristics of the design because the aircraft
had not been designed yet! Now the aircraft design
can be analyzed "as-drawn" to see if it actually meets
the required mission range. If not, we will resize the Table.14 Drag analysis table.
aircraft until it does.
Lift curve slope
Also, a variety of trade studies can now be performed Subsonic curve slope
to determine the best combination of design
parameters (T/W, W/S, aspect ratio, etc.) to meet the (76)
given mission and performance requirements at the
minimum weight and cost.
By using the simplified methods from aircraft design
book a good approach for drag.
(77)
Viscous separation is largely responsible for the drag
of irregular bodies such as landing gear and boundary-
layer diverters. It also produces base drag, the pressure
drag created by a "cut-off" aft fuselage.
The subsonic drag of a streamlined, nonlifting body
consists solely of skin friction and viscous separation
drag and is frequently called the "profile drag." Profile
drag is usually referenced to the maximum cross- (78)
sectional area of the body. Note that the terms "profile
drag" and "form drag" are frequently intermixed,
although strictly speaking the profile drag is the sum
high subsonic speeds, the shocks form first on the
of the form drag and the skin-friction drag. Also note
upper surface of the wings because the airflow is
that the term "profile drag" is sometimes used for the
accelerated as it passes over the wing.
zero-lift drag of an airfoil. Interference drag is the
increase in the drag of the various aircraft components Drag forces that are a strong function of lift are
due to the change in the known as "induced drag" or "drag-due-to-lift." The
airflow caused by other components. For example, the induced drag is caused by the circulation about the
fuselage generally causes an increase in the wing's airfoil that, for a three-dimensional wing, produces
drag by encouraging airflow separation at the wing vortices in the airflow behind the wing. The energy
root. required to produce these vortices is extracted from
the wing as a drag force, and is proportional to the
Interference drag usually results from an increase in square of the lift.
viscous separation, although the skin-friction drag can
Amax I is the sweep of the wing at the chord location
also be increased if one component causes the airflow
where the airfoil is thickest.
over another component to become turbulent or to
increase in velocity. "Wave drag" is the drag caused
If the airfoil lift-curve slope as a function of Mach
by the formation of shocks at supersonic and high
number is not known the airfoil efficiency 'Y/ can be
subsonic speeds. At shocks at supersonic and high
approximated as about 0.95. (In several text: books
subsonic speeds.
this term is dropped by assuming that 'Y/ equals 1.0
at all Mach numbers.) "Sexposed" is the exposed
wing planform, i.e., the wing reference area less the
part of the wing covered by the fuselage. "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.
The actual lift-curve slope of a wing in supersonic
flight is difficult to predict without use of a
sophisticated computer program There are some
charts available to determine the lift curve slope at
supersonic regime. To use these charts, the wing
aspect ratio, taper ratio, and leading-edge sweep are
employed. The six charts each represent data for
wings of a different taper ratio. If a chart for the actual
taper ratio of a wing is not provided, interpolation
must be used. The term divided by the tangent of the
leading-edge sweep is calculated and found on the
horizontal axis of highly nontrapezoidal planforms,
contains additional estimation procedures. However,
these charts are rarely used in industry where
computerized "panel methods" are available. The
chart. If this ratio is greater than 1.0, it is inverted and
the right side of the chart must be used.
Then the appropriate line is selected by calculating the
wing aspect ratio times the tangent of the leading-edge
sweep and the vertical-axis value is read. To obtain
the approximate slope of the lift curve, this value is
then divided by the tangent· of the leading-edge
sweep, if on the left side of the chart, or by 3 if on the
right side of the chart.
As this value is referenced to the exposed planform of
the wing, it must be multiplied by (Sexposed/Sref) as
trapezoidal wings without kinks or strakes. For highly
nontrapezoidal planforms. However, these charts are
rarely used in industry where computerized "panel
methods" are available.
Maximum lift coefficient
The maximum lift coefficient of the wing will usually
determine the wing area. This in turn will have a great
influence upon the cruise drag. This strongly affects
the aircraft takeoff weight to perform the design
mission. Thus, the maximum lift coefficient is critical
in determining the aircraft weight; yet the estimation
of maximum lift is probably the least reliable of all of
the calculations used in aircraft conceptual design.
Even refined wind tunnel tests cannot predict
maximum lift with great accuracy. Frequently an
aircraft must be modified during flight test to achieve
the estimated maximum lift.
For high-aspect-ratio wings with moderate sweep and
a large airfoil leading edge radius, the maximum lift
depends mostly upon the airfoil characteristics.
The maximum lift coefficient of the "clean" wing (i.e.,
without the use of flaps and other high-lift devices)
will usually be about %90 of the airfoil's maximum
lift as determined from the 2-D airfoil data at a similar
Reynolds number.
Sweeping the wing reduces the maximum lift, which
can be found by multiplying the upswept maximum
lift value by the cosine of the quarter chord sweep
equation. This equation is reasonably valid for most
subsonic aircraft of moderate sweep.
(79)
Maximum Lift with High-Lift Devices
There is always a basic incompatibility in aircraft
wing design. For cruise efficiency a wing should have
little camber and should operate at a high wing-
loading. For takeoff and landing a wing should have
lots of lift, which means a lot of camber and a low
wing-loading.
In the history of aviation almost every imaginable
device for varying the wing camber and wing area has
been attempted, including a. wing a telescoping outer
panel, a fabric membrane which unfurls behind the
wing, a device which pivots out from the fuselage
forming an extended flap, and in Eq. 1. Also, the value
must be multiplied by F from Eq. 2 to account for the
fuselage lift effect. Note that these charts give best
results only for even something called a "mutable"
wing having variable span, camber, and sweep.
Parasite drag
Parasite drag has been calculated by component
buildup method. These method requires the parasite
calculation for all components of the aircraft that is
exerted to directly to air one by one and summing
those values in to parasite drag equation would give
the total parasite drag at given conditions.
Equations and figures are given below shows the
process of calculation;
∑ 𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑄𝑄𝐶𝐶
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0,𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = + 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝐿𝐿&𝑃𝑃
𝑆𝑆
0.455
𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓 = (80)
(log10 Re)2.58 (1+0.144M2 )0.65
𝜌𝜌∞ 𝑉𝑉∞ 𝑐𝑐̅
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = ; (6)
𝜇𝜇∞
𝑙𝑙 1.053
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 38.21 � � (81)
𝑘𝑘
 0.6 𝑡𝑡 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 3.32 𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = �1 + 𝑥𝑥 � �+
� 𝑐𝑐 � 𝑐𝑐
𝑚𝑚 𝜂𝜂 = 0.95
𝑡𝑡 4
100 � � � �1.34𝑀𝑀 0.18
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐Λ0.28
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡 � 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 5.31 𝑚𝑚2
𝑐𝑐

60 𝑓𝑓 𝑏𝑏 = 11.94 𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹 = �1 + + �
𝑓𝑓3 400
𝑑𝑑 = 2.6 𝑚𝑚
Where Equation 12.33 in Raymer as gives f:
We have sliced fuselage and observed the
𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙
𝑓𝑓 = = (82) maximum cross sectional area. Our airfoil choice is
𝑑𝑑 4
�� �𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜋𝜋 NACA 64209 for the root and NACA 64206 for the
tip.
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = [1 + 0.35/𝑓𝑓] (83)
𝛬𝛬𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡 = 46.9°
Induced Drag

Induced drag calculaions is fairly is when compared 𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 39.63 𝑚𝑚2

to the parasite drag calculation 𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 43 𝑚𝑚2

2.6 2
𝐹𝐹 = 1.07 ∗ (1 + ) = 1.59
11.94
By using these findings Lift curve slope has been
(84) plotted with the help of Matlab code (See Appendix
These three equation are need to be calculated in C) as shown in figure;
order to plot indiced drag vs Mach curve.

Lift Curve Slope

From Raymer’s book, subsonic lift curve slope is

given by:

2𝜋𝜋∗𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝛼𝛼 = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡2 𝛬𝛬𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡
∗ ∗ 𝐹𝐹
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑆𝑆
2+�4+ 2 ∗𝛽𝛽2 ∗(1+ )
𝜂𝜂 𝛽𝛽2

(12)

where Figure (44) CLalpha vs Mach number graph

𝛽𝛽2 = 1 − 𝑀𝑀2 (85)

Maximum Lift Coefficient for Clean
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝛼𝛼 Configuration
𝜂𝜂 = 2𝜋𝜋 (86)
β

First, it should be checked if the wing considered has

𝛬𝛬𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡 is the sweep of the wing at the chord
a low AR or not.
location where the airfoil is the thickest. 3
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≤ (89)
(𝐶𝐶1 +1)𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝛬𝛬𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
If the airfoil lift-curve slope as a function of Mach
𝐶𝐶1 = 0.49 from Figure 12.11 of Raymer for 𝜆𝜆 = 0.3
number is not known, the airfoil efficiency 𝜂𝜂 can be
𝛬𝛬𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 56°
safely approximated as about 0.95. F is the fuselage
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 3.32
lift factor that accounts for the fact that the fuselage 3
of diameter d creates some lift due to “spill-over” 3.32 ≤ (0.49+1)𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐56° (90)
of the lift from the wing. We proved that our wing is low AR wing. Therefore,
the formula to be used is equation 12.19 from Raymer:
Raymer defines F in his book in 4th edition as:
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 + ∆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (91)
𝑑𝑑
𝐹𝐹 = 1.07(1 + )2 (87)
𝑏𝑏

𝑑𝑑 = �
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(88) To calculate 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 and ∆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 we will be using
𝜋𝜋/4
Fig. 12.12 and Fig. 12.13 of Raymer’s book
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is the maximum cross sectional area of the respectively. Thus, we need to calculate the
fuselage. Values according our design area: followings. Since our airfoil is NACA 64209, it is
assumed that ∆𝑦𝑦 = 0.9 from Raymer’s book. 41.7
∆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.9 ∗ 0.3 ∗ ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐56° = 0.146
43
𝐶𝐶1 = 0.49 from Figure 12.11 for 𝜆𝜆 = 0.3
𝐶𝐶2 = 0.75 – From Figure 12.11 for 𝜆𝜆 = 0.3 For Mach Number 0.2
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.7 + 0.20 + 0.146 = 2.046
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 3.32
(𝐶𝐶1 + 1) ∗ ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝛬𝛬𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = (0.49 + 1) ∗ ∗
𝛽𝛽 �1−0.22
For Mach Number 0.5
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐56° = 2.85 (92) 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.67 + 0.20 + 0.146 = 2.016

(𝐶𝐶2 + 1) ∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝛬𝛬𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = (0.75 + 1) ∗ 3.32 ∗

Drag Divergence Mach Number
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡56° = 8.61 (93)
For drag divergence Mach number, we will use
Mach Number 0.2
Equation 12.47 in Raymer:
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 2.47
MDD = MDD,L=0 L𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 − 0.05𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿,𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (97)
(𝐶𝐶1 + 1) ∗ ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝛬𝛬𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = (0.49 + 1) ∗ ∗ Mach number is found by Figure 12.26 in Raymer:
𝛽𝛽 �1−0.22
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐50° = 2.85 (94) MDD,L=0 = 0.91
Using Figure 12.12, Design lift coefficient=0.2
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = 0.87 By using Figure 12.29 in Raymer, it is obtained:
Using Figure 12.13 LFDD=0.98
∆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.3 Drag divergence number for the wing is:
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.17
MDD = (0.91) (0.98) - (0.05) (0.2) = 0.88
39.63
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.17 ∗ ∗ 1.58 = 1.7
43
It also has been to checked fuselage drag divergence
Mach Number 0.5 Mach number. To do this, we will use Figure 12.30 in
Raymer. We must calculate the length of the nose to
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 2.47 the location where the cross sectional area becomes
(𝐶𝐶1 + 1) ∗ ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝛬𝛬𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = (0.49 + 1) ∗ ∗
𝛽𝛽 �1−0.52 constant and equivalent diameter at that location.
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐50° = 3.19 (95) ln: length of the nose to the location where the cross
sectional area becomes constant
Using Figure 12.12
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = 0.85 ln=6.5 m=21 ft
d=2.6 m=8.5 ft (from study 6 max diameter)
Using Figure 12.13 In order to read the figure, calculate the following:
∆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.3
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.15 2𝑙𝑙𝑛𝑛 2(21)
= = 5.25
39.63 𝑑𝑑 8.5
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.15 ∗ ∗ 1.58 = 1.67
43
From Figure 12.30:
Maximum Lift Coefficient with High Lift Devices MDD = 0.91

Calculations will be done using Equation 12.21 of It has chosen the smaller of the MDD values for the
Raymer: wing and the fuselage since smaller one will diverge
𝑆𝑆𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
∆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.9 ∗ ∆𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∗ ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝛬𝛬𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 (96) first. Therefore:
𝑆𝑆
Using Raymer’s Table 12.2, ∆𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 of plain leading MDD = 0.88
and trailing edge flaps are obtained as 0.9 and 0.3
Parasite Drag
respectively.

For estimation of parasite drag, we will use

Trailing Edge Flaps
“Component Buildup Method”. This is given by
𝑆𝑆𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 19.8 𝑚𝑚2 Equation 12.24 in Raymer as:
∑ 𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑄𝑄𝐶𝐶
𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 27.4 𝑚𝑚2 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0,𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑆𝑆
+ 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝐿𝐿&𝑃𝑃 (98)
𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 43 𝑚𝑚2 Where 𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓 is flat-plate skin-friction drag coefficient,
∆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.9 ∗ 0.3 ∗ 0.72 ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐0° = 0.20 FF is form factor, Q is interference factor. 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ,
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷,𝐿𝐿&𝑃𝑃 are miscellaneous drag for special features of
Leading Edge Flaps: the aircraft such as retracted landing gear, flaps and so
on, and leakage and protuberance drag, respectively. 𝑙𝑙 1.053
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 44.62𝑥𝑥 � � 𝑀𝑀1.16 (105) 𝑓𝑓or
𝑘𝑘
Wing:
Transonic and Supersonic
Since our airplane is a high-speed airplane, we will
assume that flow is turbulent on the wing. For Swet =1011.8 ft2
turbulent flows, 𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓 is given by Equation 12.27 in Equation 12.31 in Raymer gives form factor for
Raymer as: fuselage:
0.455
𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓 = (99)
(log10 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅)2.58 (1+0.144𝑀𝑀2 )0.65 60 𝑓𝑓
𝜌𝜌 𝑉𝑉 𝑐𝑐̅ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = �1 + + � (106)
𝑓𝑓3 400
Where 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = ∞ ∞ ; 𝑉𝑉∞ = 𝑀𝑀∞ 𝑎𝑎∞ ;
𝜇𝜇 ∞
𝑙𝑙 = 𝑐𝑐̅=3.94 𝑚𝑚 (mean aerodynamic chord length from Where Equation 12.33 in Raymer as gives f:
study 6). 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙
In addition, if the surface is relatively rough, the 𝑓𝑓 = = (107) and Q=1.
𝑑𝑑 4
�� �𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜋𝜋
friction coefficient will be higher than the above
equation. This is accounted for by the use of “cutoff Tails:
Reynolds number” which is determined by the
𝜌𝜌∞ 𝑉𝑉∞ 𝑐𝑐̅𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
following: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝑙𝑙 1.053
𝜇𝜇∞
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 38.21 � � (100) For Subsonic
𝑘𝑘
𝑙𝑙 1.053
𝑙𝑙 1.053 1.16 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 38.21 � � for Subsonic
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 44.62𝑥𝑥 � � 𝑀𝑀 (101) 𝑘𝑘
𝑘𝑘
For Transonic and Supersonic 𝑙𝑙 1.053
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 44.62𝑥𝑥 � � 𝑀𝑀1.16 𝑓𝑓or Transonic
𝑘𝑘

We will assume that airplane is camouflaged by paint and Supersonic

on aluminum. From Table 12.4 in Raymer: Form factor for tail is exactly same as wing form
𝑘𝑘 = 3.33 𝑥𝑥 10−5 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 factor:
Swet = 947.224 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 2
For wing, form factor for wing is given by Equation 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

12.30 in Raymer: 0.6 𝑡𝑡

= �1 + 𝑥𝑥 � �
� � 𝑐𝑐
0.6 𝑡𝑡
𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = �1 + 𝑥𝑥 � �+
� 𝑐𝑐 �
𝑚𝑚
𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡 4
+ 100 � � � �1.34𝑀𝑀0.18 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐Λ0.28
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡 � (108)
𝑡𝑡 4 𝑐𝑐
100 � � � [1.34𝑀𝑀0.18 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐Λ0.28
𝑚𝑚 ] (102)
𝑐𝑐
𝑡𝑡
� � = 0.081 for horizontal tail
𝑐𝑐

𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥
Where � � the chord wise location of the airfoil � � ≅ 0.3 for horizontal tail
𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡

maximum thickness point is, Λ𝑚𝑚 is the sweep of

Λmax,t = 46.9° for horizontal tail
maximum-thickness line.
𝑡𝑡
𝑡𝑡 � � = 0.081 for vertical tail
� � = 0.09 for NACA 64209 airfoil 𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑐
𝑥𝑥
𝑥𝑥 � � ≅ 0.4 for vertical tail
� � ≅ 0.5 assuming that maximum thickness 𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡
𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡
is 0.3 chord. Λmax,t = 45.9° for vertical tail
Λmax,t = 46.9° and Q=1.0 mid wing configuration Q=1.03 for tail surfaces according to Raymer.
according to Raymer’s book.
Swet for horizontal tail =316.13 ft2
Fuselage:
Swet for vertical tail=217.75 ft2
𝜌𝜌∞ 𝑉𝑉∞ 𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = ; (103)
𝜇𝜇∞
Inlet
𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑓 = 61.02 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (Fuselage length from previous
topic).
We will treat inlet like a nacelle.
𝑙𝑙 1.053 𝜌𝜌∞ 𝑉𝑉∞ 𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 38.21 � � (104) for Subsonic 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = (109)
𝑘𝑘 𝜇𝜇∞
 𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 5𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 D 9π Amax 2
� � = � � (111)
𝑙𝑙 1.053
q Sears−Haack 2 laircraft
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 38.21 � � for Subsonic
𝑘𝑘

𝑙𝑙 1.053
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 44.62𝑥𝑥 � � 𝑀𝑀1.16 For Transonic 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 − 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝑘𝑘
and Supersonic
𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 61.02 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Swet=215.278 ft2
After with these parameters that are determined a
Equation 12.31 in Raymer gives form factor for parasite drag plot vs Mach number can be plotted by
nacelle –in our case inlet-: using Matlab code (See Appendix) as shown in
below;
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = [1 + 0.35/𝑓𝑓]

Where 𝑓𝑓 is given by Equation 12.33:

𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 50.4
𝑓𝑓 = = = 4.42
�� 4 � 𝑥𝑥𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �� 4 � 𝑥𝑥10.01
𝜋𝜋 𝜋𝜋

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = [1 + 0.35/4.42] = 1.07

And Q=1.3, since the inlet is less than 1 diameter

away from the fuselage according to Raymer.

Miscellaneous Drag

From lecture notes,

𝐷𝐷
Figure (45) Parasite drag vs Mach number
Drag of the bombs on wing: = 0.2 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡 2 graph
𝑞𝑞

𝐷𝐷
Drag of the missiles: = 0.15 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡 2 Induced Drag Form Factor
𝑞𝑞

For subsonic speeds, Equation 12.48 in Raymer gives

𝐷𝐷 form factor:
Drag of gun on fuselage: = 0.25 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡 2 1
𝑞𝑞
𝐾𝐾 = (112)
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋
Where 𝑒𝑒 is given by for swept wings in Equation
Supersonic wave drag 12.50 in Raymer:
𝑒𝑒 = 4.61(1 − 0.045 × 𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅0.68 )(cos∧𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 )0.15 − 3.1
Equation 12.46 in Raymer gives supersonic wave For supersonic regime, Equation 12.52 in Raymer
drag: gives form factor:
D
� � 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴�𝑀𝑀2 −1� cos∧𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
q wave 𝐾𝐾 = (113)
�4𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴�𝑀𝑀2 −1�−2
0.57
1 − 0.326(M − 1.2)
D With these formulations induced drag vs Mach
= EWD � πΛ0.77
LE,deg �� � (110) number can be plotted by using Matlab (See
�1 − � q Sears−Haack
100 Appendix) is shown in figure below;
Where 𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 is an empirical wave-drag efficiency
factor

and is the ratio between actual wave drag and the

Sears-Haack value.

According to Raymer page 341, typical supersonic

fighter has value of EWD = 1.4 − 2. To be on the
safe side we will choose 2, and ΛLE = 56°

Equation 12.45 gives wave drag of Sears-Haack

body in Raymer:
Figure (46) induced drag vs Mach number graph
 matching technique. If a similar type of engine’s
thrust curves and table are known those can be
H. Final Performance and Stability interpolated to the current engine that is analyzed and
Upon reaching this point of designing and competitor by that way thrust available can be obtained
fighter a numerous of design parameter has been approximately.
analyzed and computations has been done in favor of
the making the design of the aircraft more efficient
and capable of beat the other competitor fighter jets in
performance base competition. Since all of those steps
has been taken by the designer the next step is the final
step for the analytical design approach for the fighter
jet. Most crucial parameter of the aircraft is there to be
determined for the final time and its time check
whether the performance parameter satisfy the
required values that are given from the authorities or
not. In below discussion there are some main topics
that going to be analyzed as per the mission of the
Figure (47) Thrust and power
study. There seven main topics are explained in below
by considering the importance for them to the
analysis.
Range and Endurance

Thrust for Maximum speed

Range and the endurance is one of the most
remarkable performance parameter for an aircraft.
Thrust is a changing parameter for a jet engine. For
Range defines the how far will the aircraft with a one
the flight envelope of a fighter aircraft there are
load of a fuel. On the other hand, endurance
several different conditions and challenging
corresponds a how long the aircraft can stay in the air
maneuvers or speed requirements in the table for a
with a given one load of a fuel. Range and endurance
designer. In order to design a better aircraft these
cannot obtain at the same time due to that they have
parameters were meticulously compromised and
different formulations. It is certain that these
optimized.
parameters are dependent on lots of parameter during
a normal flight conditions but with some assumptions
For any kind of aircraft thrust is limited with some
relatively easy equations can be obtained.
term called thrust required. This thrust required is a
value for thrust at given conditions that is determined
to performance limitations of an aircraft with that
given engine. Thrust required is compared with the
(115)
thrust available of the aircraft and this term is also
dependent on some atmospheric conditions such as
In above equation has been presented. This equation
density viscosity etc. In order to fighter to accelerate
is called as Breguet range equation
through the air this thrust available must be greater
than the thrust required value. From that point it can
Endurance equation is important when a mission
be perceived that the when the thrust required is equal
requires to stay in the air as long as possible due to
to thrust available at high speed regime that point is
surveillance mission or watching ground of some
determined the maximum speed of the aircraft at that
sorts.
given conditions.
There are some equations to calculate this thrust term
The flight conditions for maximum endurance are
by approximated with techniques like thrust matching
different from those for maximum range.
etc.
For a fighter jet aircraft endurance is defined as this
The thrust required equation is a basic formula and
formulation;
given below as;
1 𝐿𝐿 𝑊𝑊0
TR = D= q.s.CD =q. s (CD+kCl2) 𝐸𝐸 = ln (116)
(114) 𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 𝐷𝐷 𝑊𝑊1

However, there is no explicit equation for a thrust W0 is the initial weight of the aircraft, W1 is the weight
available value thrust available need to test with the of the aircraft after fuel burn. In order to maximize the
engine but this value can be determined with thrust endurance some conditions are obtained from the
equation 2;
• Fly at max L/D
• Have the lowest possible thrust specific fuel
consumption
• Have the highest ratio of W0 to W1
Rate of Climb and flight celling
Analytical optimization of velocity for best angle and
rate of climb can be messy. Graphical analysis is more
reliable, but doesn't give an analytical feeling for the
key variables.
Analytical optimization of velocity for best angle and
rate of climb can be messy. Graphical analysis is more
reliable, but doesn't give an analytical feeling for the
key variables.
To determine the velocity for best rate of climb of a
jet aircraft, Eq. () must be maximized.
by expanding the drag term small enough that lift
approximately equals weight:
Rate of climb equation that is defined in Raymer’s
book;
(117)
Aircraft velocity that deriving from R/C max
formulation;
(118)
Figure (48) Graphical approach for the Rate of
Climb
Stall speed
For the stall speed determination V-n curve must be
drawn. N is the load factor of the aircraft which is
equates to the L/W ratio of the aircraft when
maximum n =1 this occurs when the all of the aircraft
weight is equal to the maximum lift that can be
generated. Hence below that speed stall occurs so this
speed is determined to be the stall speed of the aircraft.
From general L equation if we integrate the n into the
equation and take the n as 1 the free stream velocity is
become the Vstall so the equation yields;
2 𝑊𝑊 𝑛𝑛
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = � (119)
ρ∞ 𝑆𝑆 (𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Figure (49) Sample V-n diagram
Instantaneous turn rate and corner velocity
Instantaneous turn rate and corner velocity are two
important performance characteristic for a fighter jet.
Instantaneous turn is defined as if the aircraft allows
to slow down to make a turn this turn is the
Instantaneous turn it has to be greater than the
opponent fighter in order to beat them in a dog fight.
When V-n charts are drawn. The corner speed can be
determined. The intersection of the stall limit and the
structural limit defines as the “corner speed” which is
a velocity of the maximum Instantaneous turn rate.
For a typical fighter multirole aircraft this speed is
between 300-350 knots. In a classical turn in dogfight
fighters will try to get their corner speed’s as soon as
possible.
There are some equations for turn speed and the
corner velocity which they dependent to each other so
once one is determined other can be found in the same
equation;
1 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝑛𝑛𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = ρ∞ 𝑉𝑉∞2 (120)
2 𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆
Instantaneous turn rate equation;
𝑔𝑔�𝑛𝑛2 −1
𝜓𝜓𝜓 = (121)
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐

Figure (50) Turn rate and corner speed
Excess power and acceleration
The excess power and the acceleration one of the
most important parameter for a fighter when
performing dog fight mission. If the acceleration
time is small, then the fighter has a more change of
escaping from missiles or threats.
The excess power and the acceleration time is also
proportional to each other if the thrust difference
between thrust required and thrust available are
bigger then the competitor aircrafts then the fighter
has a better selling point. Acceleration time is also
basic formulation which comes from Newton’s third
law of motion.
Take-off and landing distance
Take-off and landing distance calculation are the key
part of the design analysis and it is a carry an
important role of the fighter’s capability’s over take-
off from small fields or the aircraft carrier, which is
a desirable for a fighter aircraft.
Derived equation for a takeoff distance;
(122)
Landing analysis perform similar with the takeoff
one.
The final equation for a both landing and takeoff
distance calculation as shown below;
𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙/takeoff=80×(𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆) ×1/(𝜎𝜎×(𝐶𝐶LMAX)) (123)
Figure (51) Landing analysis
H. Static stability
Figure (52) Static and dynamic stability
Static stability is wide range of topic for and
analysis. In this study it can be performed as a
shortened version. Only parameter that are going to
check is the most important ones for the
longitudinal stability analysis. These are;
• Static margin
• Pitch stiffness
These values will have plotted as a function of a
Mach number and stability will be check and the it
will decide that whether the aircraft stable at static
condition or not;
Static margin equation is depending on the neutral
point which is as follows;
𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑Ɛ
ℎ𝑛𝑛 = ℎ𝑜𝑜 + ŋ𝑠𝑠 𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠 ( 𝑠𝑠 )(1 − ) (124)
𝑎𝑎𝑤𝑤 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
hn is the neutral point of the aircraft. The static
calculations must have been performed with the
most forward and most backward center of gravity
locations. These C.G locations obtained with and
without fuel and bomb conditions. Once two C. G
locations obtained in terms of the Mean aerodynamic
chord length. Neutral points has been subtracted
from to these C.G locations and plotted in contrast
of the Mach number.
𝐾𝐾 = ℎ𝑛𝑛 − ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐(𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏) (125)
That how the static margin obtained. q=997.2 Ibs /ft2

Pitch stiffness is obtained from static margin it is TR= qS(CD0+KCL2)

equation the lift coefficient multiply by the static
margin and the equations as follows; 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 1 42254 1
CL = . = . =0.0399 (130)
𝑆𝑆 𝑞𝑞 981 997.2
𝐶𝐶𝑚𝑚 = −𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 . 𝐾𝐾 (126)
TR=997.2 x 981 (0.015 + 0.453(0.0339)2)

Equation for thrust required has given the values for

required thrust at 2.2 Mach at 14000m altitude;
TR=16633.5 Ibs

Now this thrust values need to be compared with the

thrust available of the fighter’s engine. To find thrust
available extrapolation has been performed from
known values of similar type of jet engine whose
thrust curves are obtained from historical values as
shown;
Figure (53) Typical pitching moments
43000
Maximum speed TA=25000. (0.9) =32250 Ibs.
30000

To find the maximum speed of the fighter at 14000m
and combat weight, First, the weight at combat
mission phase has to be determined. Calculations for
combat weight that is known from weight analysis as
shown;
Wcombat = We + We + Wpayload + Wf .50% (127)
Wcombat = W0 - Wf. 50%
Wcombat = 50190 -7936 =42254 Ibs.
Combat weight has found. Now first analysis conduct
for thrust with afterburner. It has been assumed that
Mach 2.2 has been tested in thrust required
formulation to find out the whether the aircraft is able
to provide thrust to fly at Mach 2.2 which is the
maximum speed that is set by requirements for the
design;
M= 2.2 with afterburners at 46000 ft (14000m)
Vmax + 2.2 x 968 =2129.6 ft/s
TR = D= q.S.CD =q. S (CD0+KCl2) (128)
0.9 correspond to thrust losses during installation
43000lbs is the static thrust of the current engine
25000 lbs. are obtained as a uninstalled thrust at 2.2
Mach and 45000 feet which is a closest altitude to the
planned flight altitude. TA>TR And it concludes that
the thrust available is greater than the thrust required
at afterburner usage conditions which satisfies the
Mach 2.2 flight at given conditions for the fighter.
The next analysis conduct on thrust without
afterburner, which means that the dry thrust of that
engine, is used during this analysis.
Combat weight has already obtained from previous
analysis;
Wcombat =42254 Ibs
The target has been set on Mach 1.2 for the maximum
speed for dry engine. This decision has been taken
according to the predicted characteristic of the
aircraft;
M=1.2 for without afterburner at approx. 46000ft
(14000m)

q= ½. ρ. V2 =1/2 (0.00044) (2129.6)2 (129) Vmax=1.2 (968) =1161.6 ft./s

TR=D=q.S.CD=qS(CD0+KCL2) (131)
Parasite drag, induced drag and the total reference
area that is required for the calculations are gathered q=1/2 ρ V2=1/2 (0.00044) (1161.6)2
from study 7 as shown;
q=295.5 Ibs /ft2
CD0=0.015
K=0.453 Values from study 7 as shown;
S=981 ft2
CD0=0.02 At range speed as 1.7M and at sea level.
K=0.183
S=981 ft2 K=0.3293
CD0=0.0168
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 1 42254 1
CL= . = . =0.135
𝑆𝑆 𝑞𝑞 981 295.5
(𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )1/2 3 1
TR =295.5(981) (0.02+0.883(0.135)2) ( )= ( ) 1/4 (134)
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 4 0.3293(0.0168)^3
TR =7312 lbs.
(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) 1/2
( ) =21.217
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Thrust available equation has been obtained from
2 2 (𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )1/2
same source. From thrust curves 10000 lbs. has been R= .� ( ) ((W2)1/2-(W3)1/2) (135)
𝑐𝑐 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷
interpolated as uninstalled thrust value;
2 2
28000
R=
0.7/3600
�(0.002377)(981)21.217((47954)1/2
TA =10000. .(0.9)
30000
TA =8400 Ibs -(32894)1/2)

TA>TR R=7602708.4 ft. = 2317.3 Km

And again the thrust available is obtained greater than

2317.3 km range has been found by the analysis for
the thrust required for the non-afterburner analysis.
full payload carried situation.
This has been concluded for once more that the fighter
is able to fly over Mach 1.2 at 14000m.
The latter range without payload has been performed;

Range calculations
W0= 50190 -Wpayload
First range calculations include the aircraft of fully W0=50190 – 4601
loaded. It has been performed that on sea level W0=45589 lbs
conditions and all fuel is consumed during the range
calculations; Wf=16021 lbs

W0=50190 Ibs Weight fractions are obtained from Raymer’s book;

Wf=16021 Ibs 𝑊𝑊1
For take-off; =0.97
𝑊𝑊0
𝑊𝑊2
Weight fractions are obtained from Raymer’s book; For climb; =0.985
𝑊𝑊1 𝑊𝑊1
For take-off =0.97
𝑊𝑊0
Range between W2-W3 (cruise). We are assumed %6
𝑊𝑊2 fuel must remain in the fuel tank %94 fuel is
For climb =0.985
𝑊𝑊1
consumed.
For cruise W2-W3 (Range)
W2=0.956 (W0) =43583 Ibs
We are assumed %6 fuel must remain in the tank W3 =W2 -Wf (0.94) =30523 Ibs
%9 fuel is consumed
2 2 (𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )1/2
R= .� ( )((W2)1/2-(W3)1/2)
𝑐𝑐 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷
W2=0.956
(𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )1/2
( )=21.217
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷
W0=47954 Ibs
2 2
R=
0.7/3600
�0.002377(981).(21.217)((43583)1/2-(30523)1/2)
W3=W2-Wf (0.94) =32894 Ibs

2 2 (𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )1/2 R=6883223.5ft. =2098 km without payload

R= � ( ) ((W2)1/2-(W3)1/2) (132)
𝑐𝑐 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷
2098 km range has been found by the analysis for non-
(𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )1/2 3 1 payload carried situation
( )= ( )1/4 (133)
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 4 3𝐾𝐾𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
Endurance Analysis 7.17h’s of endurance has been obtained with non-
payload weight conditions.
Endurance with full payload at sea level has been
analyzed as shown below; Service Ceiling

W0=50190 Ibs Next analysis is a calculations of the service ceiling of

Wf=16021 Ibs the fighter at sea level conditions and with combat
weight value.

Weight fractions obtained from Raymer’s book;

In order to find the service ceiling first, the rate of
𝑊𝑊1
climb equation has been implement to the matlab
For takeoff = 0.97 code. Then the required values have been gathered
𝑊𝑊0
𝑊𝑊2 from the results of rate of climb solving code. This
For climb = 0.985
𝑊𝑊1 code is also connected with the drag polar calculator
and the parasite drag calculator which gathers the
Endurance between W2-W3 %6 fuel is remained is values from those two matlab codes simultaneously in
assumed, So, %94 fuel is consumed. order to perform an analytical analysis for maximum
rate of climb.
W2=0.956
Anderson’s Maximum rate of climb for jet equation
W0 =47954 Ibs has been used in the code;
W3=W2 -0.94
1
𝑊𝑊 3
Wf =32894 Ibs � 𝑆𝑆 �𝑍𝑍 2
𝑇𝑇 2 𝑍𝑍 3
(𝑅𝑅/𝐶𝐶)𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = � � � � �1 − − 𝑇𝑇 2 𝐿𝐿 2
�
3𝜌𝜌∞ 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 𝑊𝑊 6 2� � � � 𝑍𝑍
𝑊𝑊 𝐷𝐷 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Endurance formations shown below;
And Z is;
1 𝐿𝐿 𝑊𝑊2
E= . ( ) .ln ( ) (136)
𝑐𝑐 𝐷𝐷 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑊𝑊3
3
𝑍𝑍 = 1 + �1 + 𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 2
(137)
Maximum Cl/Cd value obtained as 11.37 from matlab ( )2 � �
𝐷𝐷 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑊𝑊
code that is developed for drag polar calculations (See
Appendix).
CD0 at M.85 has been used for this equation. Since it
𝐿𝐿 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 has been analyzed and determined that lowest
=( ) max=11.37
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 parasite, occur at that point which leads to highest L/D
1 47954 that is 11.37. After the analysis of the solver
E= . 11.37(ln ( )) maximum rate of climb versus altitude chart has been
0.7/3600 32894
obtained as shown below;
E=21784 seconds =6.05h

6.38h’s of endurance has been obtained with full

payload weight. Endurance without payload at sea
level has been calculated as follows;

W0=50190-Wf =45589 Ibs

Wf=16021 Ibs
W2=0.956W0 =43583 Ibs
W3=W2-0.94 Wf =28523 Ibs

Endurance formulations as follows;

1 𝐿𝐿 𝑊𝑊2
E= . ( ) max .ln ( )
𝑐𝑐 𝐷𝐷 𝑊𝑊3
1 43583 Figure (54) R/Cmax vs altitude
E= . 11.37 .ln ( )
0.7/360 28523

E=24790 s =6.88 h So, from the Figure X. (R/C) max is obtained at sea level
as;
(𝑅𝑅/𝐶𝐶)𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 767.47 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/𝑠𝑠 (233.92𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠)
 From previous study CLmax at clean configuration is
It has been checked from requirements and it has been equal to;
seen that the maximum rate of climb requirements has
not been met for this case. CLMAX=1.67

VStall=160.53 ft. /s (48.93 m/s)

Next case is to find out the service ceiling of the
aircraft. Service Ceiling is where the R/Cmax is equal
V-n graph has been plotted by using matlab for the
to 1.66ft/s. From values of the Matlab code values are
clean configuration;
obtained as follows;

Service ceiling=61500 ft. (18745 m)

Absolute ceiling=61700 ft. (18806 m)

Figure (56) V-n diagram clean configuration

Figure (55) Flight Speed for R/Cmax vs altitude
Stall Speed
The stall speed is the essential for the performance
analysis. In this part stall speed was determined.
In order to determine the stall, speed some parameters
are needed to know. One the most important
parameter is the load factor of the aircraft;
@sea level
Next case with high lift devices equipped;
CLMAX=2.046
VStall=145 ft. /s (44.2 m/s)
V-n graph has been plotted by using matlab for the
high lift device equipped configuration;

𝐿𝐿
𝑛𝑛 = (138)
𝑊𝑊

Stall speed is constrained by the CLmax values at the

V-n graph. In order to find the load factor at stall speed
a basic assumption is needed to make;
n=1, (steady flight)

This means L=W. This points that the all lift that is
generated by the aircraft is used to lift the aircraft.
Essentially this is the thing that determines the stall
speed of the aircraft; If the V∞ of the aircraft is equal to
the stall speed equation substituted and it becomes;
Figure (57) V-n diagram with high-lift
devices @sea level
2 𝑊𝑊 𝑛𝑛
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = � (139)
ρ∞ 𝑆𝑆 (𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
It has been seen that with the high lift devices fighter
W0=50190 lbs. manages to stay in the air till it’s speed drop to
S=981 ft2 44.2m/s. Finally, this concludes that the 50m/s stall
𝜌𝜌∞ = 0.002377 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠/𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓3 speed requirement has been satisfied.
 Takeoff Distance
Takeoff parameter shall be calculated firstly and it
will interpret the takeoff distance. It has defined as:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃=(𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆)/(𝜎𝜎×𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶TO×(𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊))
where 𝜎𝜎=𝜌𝜌/𝜌𝜌SL =1 at sea level. Then wing loading
𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆 at sea level can be found as, where W is the
takeoff grows weight.
𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆=𝑊𝑊0/𝑆𝑆=50190 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙s/981 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓2= 51.16 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙/𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓2
Then thrust to weight ratio can be found as at max.
thrust:
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆=80×51.16×1/ (1× (0.87+0.346))
=3365.8 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓.
1500ft<3365.8ft
This result concludes that landing distance is not
(140) satisfied with max gross weight. So aircraft is not
certified with the required landing distance.
Instantaneous turn rate and Corner velocity
For this analysis first of all corner velocity will have
to obtained. Maximum Limit factor has obtained from
V-n graph at 7000m and combat weight;

𝑇𝑇/𝑊𝑊0=0.856

And lift coefficient (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) at takeoff condition

(contribution from wings and 20% contribution from
flaps) can be written as:

𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿=𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚, 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏+0.2× (Δ𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿, 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙+Δ𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿, 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡)

So;
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿=0.87+0.2× (0.346) =0.94

Figure (58) V-n diagram @ 7000m

Then everything is obtained to calculate 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇,
so it is;
nmax= 7.1; obtained from figure 12 at 180m/s
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇=51.16/ ((1) × (0.94) × (0.856)) = 63.58
The equation for corner speed as follows;
From Raymer, Fig. 5.4 this TOP corresponds to a 1 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
takeoff distance of approximately 830(253m) 𝑛𝑛𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝜌𝜌∞ 𝑉𝑉∞2 (142)
2 𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆
ρ=0.00114396 slug/ft3
With that result, it has been certain that the required W=42254 lbs. combat weight
performance is satisfied for takeoff S=981 ft2 reference area of all aircraft

830ft<1500ft CLmax has obtained from last study for high lift devices
equipped state;
Landing Distance
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 2.046
Similar to the takeoff, landing distance of the aircraft
can be calculated. The landing distance is directly Then corner velocity obtained as;
defined as;
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 =455.15 ft./s
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆=80×(𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆) ×1/(𝜎𝜎×(𝐶𝐶LMAX)) (141) 𝑎𝑎∞ = 1024.52 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/𝑠𝑠
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 = 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 /𝑎𝑎∞
Here 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 is to be taken as full 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 with both 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 = 0.444 ≅ 0.45 𝑀𝑀
flaps fully deployed. And 𝜎𝜎 is similarly taken as 1 for
sea level. This distance is to be calculated for takeoff Equation for instantaneous turn rate is follows;
gross weight to check if the aircraft can land just after
it took-off. 𝑔𝑔�𝑛𝑛2 −1
𝜓𝜓𝜓 = (143)
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐
𝐶𝐶LMAX=0.346; same with take off

Then; g is the gravitational force and it is 32.2 ft./s so

equation becomes;
 K=0.1016
32.2�7.12 −1 CL= (42254)/(981x166) = 0.259
𝜓𝜓𝜓 = (144)
461.034 Next Thrust required formulation has been
calculated;
So instantaneous turn rate obtained as; 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = (166)(981)(0.0124+(0.1016)(0.235)2 )
= 3133 lb
𝜓𝜓̇ = 0.4909 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 28.12°

Then Thrust available formulation has been calculated

28.12° > 26° in same manner;

Therefore, with this analysis instantaneous turn rate
has been satisfied with the requirements.
Excess power and acceleration analysis
It has been calculated the acceleration time of our
airplane from M=0.9 to M=1.4 at 14000 m altitude
@combat weight. Therefore, the following steps were
done by reference of Raymer and Anderson’s design
books;
𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 42254 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙,
Altitude=46000 ft. (14000m)
ρ=0.000438 slug/cubic foot,
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 = 0.84𝑥𝑥43000 = 36223 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Acceleration is found as;
Acc.= (36223-3172)/1312 = 25.2 ft./𝑠𝑠 2
Time spent on acceleration calculated.
𝜕𝜕t = (0.1x968)/25.2 = 3.8 s
Thus, this method of findings is iterated to the other
Mach numbers in order to calculate total time spent as
follows;
Acceleration analysis for M=1.0

𝑎𝑎∞ = 968 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/𝑠𝑠 Calculations obtained for 1 Mach number and initial
V=𝑎𝑎∞ M (145) values are calculated. The parameters below are
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑞𝑞∞ = 0.5ρ𝑉𝑉 2 2 (146) obtained from previous studies;
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓

V= 968 ft./s
𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = 𝑞𝑞∞ 𝑆𝑆(𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐾𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 )
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑞𝑞∞ = 205 2
𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = (147) 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = 5735 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑞𝑞∞
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 = 36223 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
(ρ/ρ0 )𝑚𝑚 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥0 = 𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 (148) CL= 0.19
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 = 0.0227
T0 (static thrust) is known from specifications of to K=0.1016
F135 engine; Acc.= 23.2 ft./𝑠𝑠 2
𝑇𝑇0 = 43000 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
Time spent on acceleration calculated by using
𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 −𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴
Acceleration= (149) eqn.36;
𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 /𝑔𝑔
𝜕𝜕t=𝜕𝜕V/a (150) Time spent found as;
∂t = 4.17 s
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 , 𝑆𝑆 and K were taken from our previous study 6
values. Process for this analysis contains acceleration Acceleration analysis for M=1.1
and the time spent on each 0.1 increment of the Mach
number in order to find the final time spent to Calculations obtained for 1.1 Mach number and initial
accelerate the aircraft to planned speed. values are calculated. The parameters below are
obtained from previous studies;
Acceleration analysis for M=0.9
Calculations starts on 0.9 Mach number and initial V= 1064 ft./s
values are calculated. The parameters below are 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑞𝑞∞ = 247 2
obtained from previous studies; 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
V= 968x0.9 = 871 ft./s 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = 6863 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
S=981 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 2 𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 = 36223 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 = 0.0124 CL= 0.157
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 = 0.0226
K=0.1456 V= 1353 ft./s
Acc.= 22.5 ft./𝑠𝑠 2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑞𝑞∞ = 403 2
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Time spent on acceleration calculated by using 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = 8834 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
eqn.36; 𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 = 36223 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
CL= 0.096
Time spent found as; 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 = 0.0184
∂t = 4.3 s K=0.2470
Acc.= 20.8 ft./𝑠𝑠 2
Acceleration analysis for M=1.2
Time spent on acceleration calculated by using
Calculations obtained for 1.2 Mach number and initial eqn.36;
values are calculated. The parameters below are
obtained from previous studies; Time spent found as;
∂t = 4.65 s
V= 1276 ft./s
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 The final process is to sum those values up to get a
𝑞𝑞∞ = 357 2
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 total acceleration time value from 0.9M to 1.4M;
𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = 8588 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 � 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 3.98 + 4.24 + 4.4 + 4.55 + 4.59 = 21.8 𝑠𝑠
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 = 36223 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
CL= 0.109
So, this process demonstrated as a satisfaction on the
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 = 0.0205
acceleration requirement;
K=0.1831
21.8 𝑠𝑠 < 25 𝑠𝑠
Acc.= 21.1 ft./𝑠𝑠 2
Static margin and pitch stiffness analysis
Time spent found as;
∂t = 4.58 s Since aircraft starts to shape up and most of the
performance parameters and geometric parameters
Acceleration analysis for M=1.3 has been determined, it is time to analyse the static
stability of the aircraft.
Calculations obtained for 1.3 Mach number and initial
values are calculated. The parameters below are The first static analysis that is needed to done is Static
obtained from previous studies; margin calculations. These calculations then needed
to plot in contrast of the Mach number.
V= 1258 ft./s However, in order to perform this longitudinal
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑞𝑞∞ = 346 2 stability analysis most forward and most backward
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 C.G locations has to be determined.
𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = 5735 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 = 36223 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 The C.G location has been obtained in study 6.Now
CL= 0.113 the second C.G locations which is anticipated as the
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷0 = 0.0191 most backward C.G locations need to be determined.
K=0.2164 All fuel is consumed, all ammunition and bombs are
Acc.= 21.4 ft./𝑠𝑠 2 shoot out for the backward C.G calculation.

Time spent on acceleration calculated by using A sketch has been drawn to demonstrate the effect of
eqn.36; weight drop in flight to C.G location

Time spent found as; Quantities that are removed

∂t = 4.52 s
• Center fuel = 1600kg
Acceleration analysis for M=1.4 • Wing fuel(x2) = 2800kg
• Ammunition = 300kg
Calculations obtained for 1.4 Mach number and initial • Total Weapon Payload
values are calculated. The parameters below are x-distance to the margin
obtained from previous studies; • 6.1m
 • 7.95m
𝐾𝐾 = ℎ𝑛𝑛 − ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐(𝑓𝑓,𝑏𝑏)
• 5.6m
• 8m
𝐾𝐾(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)
C.G has been calculated for this state of the weight
distribution and the following sketch has been drawn For this calculation matlab code has been generated in
that show the C.G location change dues to weight and order to solve this equation and since the lift curve
moment change on the aircraft’s body; slopes are dependent on the Mach number Static
margin has been plotted as a function of Mach number
as shown below;

Figure (59) C.G locations sketch

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐶𝐶. 𝐺𝐺 = 0.3𝑐𝑐̅ = ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶. 𝐺𝐺 = 0.53𝑐𝑐̅ = ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

𝑐𝑐̅ = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜

Next process is to calculate the static margin.

In order to calculate static margin, Neutral point of the
aircraft needed to be find.
Figure (60) Static margin at most forward
Neutral point equation as follows; C.G location vs Mach number graph

𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑Ɛ
ℎ𝑛𝑛 = ℎ𝑜𝑜 + ŋ𝑠𝑠 𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠 ( 𝑠𝑠 )(1 − ) (151)
𝑎𝑎𝑤𝑤 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑐𝑐 = 12.926 ft.
(mean aerodynamic chord of the wing)

For the values to calculate neutral points are obtained

either from previous studies or from some coefficients
assumed according to the information available
through the resources;

𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠 = 30.5 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ𝑡𝑡)

𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 = 462.8 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 2 (𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)

𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠 Figure (61) Static margin at most backward

𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠 = (152) C.G location vs Mach number graph
𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 𝑐𝑐
= 0.4 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
Final stability analysis conduct on pitch stiffness,
ŋ𝑠𝑠 = 0.6 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒) which has a formula of;
𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠
= 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝐶𝑚𝑚 = −𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 . 𝐾𝐾 (153)
𝑎𝑎𝑤𝑤 = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
For CL following equation has been implement into
𝑑𝑑Ɛ the code;
= 0.41 (𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2𝑊𝑊
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 = 2 𝑆𝑆 (154)
ρ∞ 𝑉𝑉∞
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑ℎ 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠
𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)
Finally, these two graph are obtained for pitch
stiffness calculations;
ℎ𝑜𝑜 = 0.25𝑐𝑐̅ (Aerodynamic center)

There are two graph can obtain the static margin

formula;

Figure (62) Pitch stiffness at most backward C.G
location vs Mach number graph
Figure (63) Pitch stiffness at most forward C.G
location vs Mach number graph
I. Cost Analysis
The completion of the engineering aspect of a fighter
jet design a new process arrives to the interest area.
This process is the determination the cost of the
designed airplane. From that point most of the interest
area are depending on some restrictions called
requirement which has compromised the design at
some points of analysis and it also made the designer
achieve their goal of with more concrete bottom-line
of competing with other competitor company that has
the same market area. That is way the last study “The
Cost Analysis” has become important of all. Even
dough it may see that the requirement satisfaction has
not been accomplished as much as the competitor the
cost area could still be the hope for that company if
the estimated cost arrives as a bargain for the customer
Then the first effect on the buyer will be good and the
aircraft will be desirable for the customer that are
interested buying a fighter jet.
Cost-Estimating methods
The actual cost varies depending upon the maximum
speed, avionics sophistication, production rate, and
numerous other factors, but weight remains the most
important cost-factor within a given class of aircraft.
The cost-estimating methods for a full-scale
development proposal are based upon a detailed
assessment of the actual tasks to design, test, and
produce the aircraft. A "work breakdown structure"
(WBS) is prepared. This is an organized tabulation of
all of the tasks, and in its most complex form may
include hundreds or thousands.
In this approach, “RDTE” cost analysis will used. This
approach is a well suited for a prototype cost
estimation up to four aircraft applications. The RDTE
cost analysis is much more simplified that other
approaches that are defined in the books and from the
historical analysis, it has shown its reliability on the
approach for small amount of porotype calculations.
It has been assumed that the budget for this design
project is limited so that the this approach is give a
good view of the prototype cost and for the result. It
will also let that whether the serial production of this
fighter aircraft will be the wise idea or the other
competing company has a better product over the
ours. This will be the breaking point for the initiation
of the production for this given aircraft.
For this analysis, Dan Roskam’s airplane design book
has been referenced [3] for the following calculations;
Prototype cost with Roskam’s way;
𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =
0.35 0.99 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
(1115.4)(103 )�𝑊𝑊𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 � �𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � � �
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶1973
(151)
Above equation is Eqn 3.20 from book of Dan
Roskam.
Number of prototype => 𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1
Wampr = invlog{0.1936 + 0.8645(log WTO )}
Wampr is the so-called AMPR weight of the airplane.
It stands for: Aeronautical Manufacturers Planning
Report.
Take-off weight =>WTO = 50190 lbs. (taken as W0)
There is a value called cost escalation factor (CEF)
This value changes by years depending on the
inflation on that year for the US dollars.
It has base of 1970 where the CEF is equal to 1.
From the example from Roskam CEF at 1973 has
been taken for the denominator part of the CEF and
then year part is taken from 1990 as a value of 3 which
has the latest data from the Figure 2.7 at Roskam’s
book;
 References

1. Raymer D., P. Aircraft design: a conceptual

approach. Second ed. Washington: American
institute of aeronautics and astronautics, 1992.

2. Sadraey M., H. Aircraft design: a system

engineering approach.1st ed. John Wiley & Sons,
2013

3. Airplane design parts I-VII: Dan Roskam, 1985.

4. http://www.turbokart.com/about_f135.htm
Figure (64) Variation of CEF with years
5. http://ciurpita.tripod.com/rc/notes/neutralPt.html
Equations yield result of below; 6. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Wampr =14044.7 lbs. 7. Anderson J., D. Aircraft Performance and Design.
So eqn X becomes; 2nd ed. WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999. (1946, accessed
11 November 2016)
𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 83,037,909.46 $

This data is obtained for year of 1990. Therefore, it Notation

need to be converted to the today’s dollar value. In
order to do the inflation calculator has been used [6]. Wf fuel weight
Inflation is found as 1 to 1.85 rate of change.
W0 gross weight
So the new cost for 2017 dollar obtained as shown;
AR aspect ratio
𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 153,620,132.5 $
𝜆𝜆 taper ratio
This final cost is obtained as shown note that this price
is full cost of the prototype including the engine. 𝐿𝐿𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 length of vertical tail

𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 vertical tail surface area

Conclusion
It has been seen that the aircraft design is a very high 𝑆𝑆𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 horizontal tail surface area
disciplinary area for and engineering point of view
and it has to taken very precisely. This can be seen 𝐿𝐿𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 length of horizontal tail
with a wider perspective after all those analysis and
hard work for the purpose of an creating a fighter jet
𝑏𝑏 span of given geometry
that can compete with current generation competitor
aircraft. All these processes are became and
experience for designer even if the aircraft is not a 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟 root chord length
succeed in the market or a as engineering point of
view. The lesson has been learn and skills are gained 𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 tip chord length
thought-out this design process.
At the end of this design project there are some
𝐶𝐶̅ mean aerodynamic center chord
qualities earned as such versatility, obtaining
efficient working process, hard work and at some
points of the work there are some questions that are 𝑌𝑌� distance of mean aerodynamic chord
require to designer to see from outside of the box so
that obtain the solution from a different perspective. (W/S) take-off take-off wing loading
This is the most founded way of success in the
industry and the academic works. Even dough the β tipback angle
design process that we go through in this report are
generally based on historical datas and findings and Φ overturn angle
as it can be called “simplified” version of a real
process it still has lots of influence on the students to
precede on their goals of becoming a better C.G center of gravity
engineers through their lifetimes.
Bn distance between nose gear and C.G
 ℎ𝑜𝑜 aerodynamic center
Bm distance between rear gear and C.G
ŋ𝑠𝑠 stabiliser efficiency
Llanding gear landing gear length
ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 forward C.G point static margin
AR aspect ratio
ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶. 𝐺𝐺 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜆𝜆 taper ratio
𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 Thrust required
𝑏𝑏 span of given geometry
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 Thrust available
𝑐𝑐̅ mean aerodynamic center chord
𝑐𝑐̅ aerodynamic mean chord
𝛬𝛬𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑡𝑡 sweep of airfoil at the chord location

where the airfoil is the thickest.

𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 exposed area

𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 reference area

Lfuselage fuselage length

M mach number

F fuselage lift factor

𝜂𝜂 airfoil efficiency

𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 drag divergence number

ln length of the nose to the location

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 cutoff Reynolds number

𝑥𝑥
� � chordwise location of the airfoil
𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚

maximum thickness point

Λ.𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 sweep of maximum-thickness line.

Swet wetted area

FF form factor

𝐶𝐶𝑚𝑚 Pitch stiffness

𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 lift coefficient

ρ∞ density at given altitude

𝑉𝑉∞. Free stream velocity

𝑆𝑆 aircraft reference area

𝐾𝐾 induced drag factor

𝑣𝑣𝑠𝑠 stabilizer volume coefficient

𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠 tail arm length

𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 wing reference area

ℎ𝑛𝑛 neutral point

View publication stats