1.

Synopsis
1.1

Aircraft Type: Air-superiority fighter

1.2

Crew :

1.3

Design requirements:

1 member

Max Rate of climb:

Max Instantaneous turn rate:
Max Speed:
Service Ceiling:
Combat Radius (on internal fuel):

300 m/s
25 deg/s at 25000 ft
Mach 2.4 at 25000 ft
55000 ft
700 km

Table 1 : Design requirements

1.4

Payload Estimation:
Using a typical Air to Air weapon layout, assume no of external hard points = 12 (10 for
missiles, 2 for external fuel stores)

1.5

Max payload weight of the aircraft:

8000 kg

Weight of single crew member:

100 kg

First Weight Estimation:

For estimating gross weight, we made a semilog plot of the empty weight to gross weight
ratios (We/Wo) and logarithm of fuel weight to gross weight ratios (Wf/Wo) of different
aircrafts. Using a linear fit to the plot we calculated the average values of the above weight
ratios for our design. We randomly guessed a gross weight (Wo) value for the design,
which was used to find weight ratios from the plot which subsequently was used to find
another value of Wo using

, and the same is repeated till weight ratios

and the gross weight values converge.

Estimated weight ratios:
Gross weight of the fighter aircraft:
1.6

2|Page

Detailed mission profile

= 0.5073
35,383 kg

= 0.2638

Fig 1: Detailed mission profile of the proposed aircraft

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Start-up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb to 30000 ft
Cruise at Mach 0.9 for 500 km at 30000 ft
Supercruise at Mach 1.6 for 150 km at 25000 ft into battle
Combat for 15 minutes
Dash at Mach 2 for 100 km at 25000 ft
Cruise at Mach 0.9 for 550 km at 30000 ft
Loiter for 15 minutes at 15000 ft
Descent
Landing and taxi
Table 2: Detailed mission profile

2. Second Weight Estimation

For this we divided our mission profile into 12 segments as shown above. We estimated the weight
ratio of aircraft at the end of the segment to the beginning of the segment. Hence, weight ratio of
the aircraft after the mission to the beginning of it can be shown as,

= (r1).(r2).(r3).(r4).............(r11).(r12)
Ratios r1, r2, r3, r4, r11 and r12 were obtained from historical data of similar aircrafts. Above
ratios corresponds to warm-up, take-off and landing for which historical data can be used for
estimation. These values can vary somewhat but the average values given in References [1] and [2]
are sufficiently reasonable.

Ratio
r1
r2
r3
r4
r11
r12

Aircraft step
Start up
Taxi
Take off
Climb
Descent
Landing and taxi

Value
0.980
0.980
0.990
0.957
0.990
0.995

Table 3: Historical fuel fraction values averaged from References [1] and [2]

3. SFC Estimation
Aircraft

3|Page

Engine

SFC Dry

SFC with
Afterburner

F-14D

General Electric F110-GE-400 afterburning

turbofans

70.4 kg/(kN.h)

198.97 kg/(kN.h)

F-15C

Pratt & Whitney F100-100 or 220

afterburning turbofans

77.5 kg/(kNh)

197.8 kg/(kNh)

Su-47

73.44 kg/(kN.h)

193.68 kg/(kN.h)

Su 27

Lyulka AL-37FU (planned), prototypes used 2

Aviadvigatel D-30F6 afterburning, thrustvectoring (in PFU modification) turbofans
Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F turbofans

68.4 kg/(kN.h)

195.9 kg/(kN.h)

Su
30MKI

Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans with thrust

vectoring, with afterburner

68.4 kg/(kN.h)

195.9 kg/(kN.h)

Table 4: SFC values obtained from Reference [3.1] - [3.2]

From these values we have taken an average since these engines represent a sample set of the type
of engines we will use in our aircraft.
Cdry = 0.1952e-4kg/Ns
Cwet = 0.5353e-4kg/Ns
4.1 L / D Estimation
The max L / D ratio depends not on the wing aspect ratio of the aircraft, but on the wetted aspect
ratio of the plane. Wetted aspect ratio is defined as b2/Swet where Swet is the wetted surface area
of the plane and not the wing. This is because the drag also depends on the area of the plane as a
whole that is in contact with the surrounding air.

To estimate the wetted surface area, we first get an approximate sketch of the design. Then we use
the data shown below

4|Page

Figure 2: Swet/Sref: data obtained from Reference [1]

We have estimated the area Swet / Sref to be 4.5 by taking the eyeball estimate to be somewhere
between the values of F-4 and F-104 planes given in the above figure. We use the following graph
to estimate the max L / D of the plane

Figure 3: L/D versus Wetted aspect ratio obtained from Reference [1]
Here the reference area is nothing but the area of the wing. Estimating the area to be 65m 2 and the
wing span to be 15m, we get
5|Page

Aspect Ratio = 3.462

Hence wetted Aspect Ratio = 3.462 / 4.5 = 0.77
From the graph above, we can see that the L / D values are as follows Subsonic cruise Max L / D = 12
Supersonic cruise Max L / D = 4
4.2

Fuel Fraction Estimation

The most efficient loiter for a jet aircraft happens when it is flying with velocity that gives max L /
D, but the most efficient cruise happens when it is flying with velocity that gives L / D 86.6% of
the maximum. For our initial sizing, these are the values that will be used.
For subsonic cruise 0.866(L / D)max = 0.866*12 = 10.39
For supersonic cruise 0.866(L / D)max = 0.866*4 = 3.46
For Loiter (L / D)max = 12
Ratios r5, r6, r8, r9 were estimated using Breguets equation for range.

Cruise:
For the cruise, we use the Breguets equation for range given by

To calculate r5,
R = range = 500 km
V = speed = Mach 0.9
C = SFC(dry) = 0.1952 e -4 kg/Ns
L/D = lift by drag ratio = 10.39
Hence, r5 = 0.966
to calculate r9,
R = range = 550 km
All the other parameters are the same as those used above
Hence, r9 = 0.961
Supercruise:
For the supercruise, again we use the Breguets equation for range.

Here,
R = range = 150 km
6|Page

V = speed = Mach 1.6

C = SFC(dry) = 0.1952 e -4 kg/Ns
L/D = lift by drag ratio = 3.46
Hence, fuel fraction = 0.983
Dash:
For the dash, afterburner is used for a range of 100 km in the Breguets equation

Hence,
R = range = 100 km
V = speed = Mach 2
C = SFC(with afterburner) = 0.5353 e-4 kg/Ns
L/D = lift by drag ratio = 3.46
Hence, fuel fraction = 0.975
Combat:
The time for combat is 15 minutes. This is split into 2 segments as follows
1) 13 minutes combat without afterburner
2) 2 minutes combat with the afterburner
The fuel fraction for each of these segments is calculated from the Breguets equation for
endurance.

For the first part,

E =endurance = 13 minutes = 780 seconds
C = SFC(dry) = 0.1952 e -4 kg/Ns
L/D = lift by drag ratio for loiter = 12
this gives fuel fraction = 0.987
For the second part,
E = endurance = 2 minutes = 120 seconds
C = SFC(with afterburner) = 0.5353 e-4 kg/Ns
L/D = lift by drag ratio for loiter = 12
This gives fuel fraction = 0.994
Hence total fuel fraction = 0.987*0.994 = 0.982
Loiter:
For loiter, again the Breguets equation for endurance is used.

7|Page


Here,
E = 15 min = 900 seconds
C = SFC(dry) = 0.1952 e -4 kg/Ns
L/D = lift by drag ratio for loiter = 12
This gives fuel fraction as 0.985
The fuel fraction for the sections is given below:
Ratio
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
r10
r11
r12

Aircraft step
Start up
Taxi
Take off
Climb
Cruise
Super-cruise
Combat
Dash
Cruise
Loiter
Descent
Landing and taxi

Value
0.980
0.980
0.990
0.957
0.966
0.983
0.982
0.975
0.956
0.985
0.990
0.995

Table 5: Fuel fraction ratios for different sections of the flight

Assuming that 6% of the fuel is reserved and trapped in the aircraft structure, the fuel weight to
take-off weight can be estimated by the formula given below,

Take-off weight can be calculated using the empty weight ratio obtained using the iterations
keeping the fuel weight ratio constant and equal to what calculated above and formula below,

8|Page

Figure 4: Semi log plot of We/Wo vs Wo

While iterating for Wo, the entry corresponding to F-15C has been considered an outlier and hence
removed, since it is not a heavy air superiority fighter.
Convergence of the iterations is shown below

Figure 5: Iterations for Wo obtained using Matlab code

9|Page

Final result, after iterations:

= 0.5212
Gross weight of the fighter aircraft:

= 0.2416
34,141 kg

4. Conceptual Layout

Figure 6: 3-view schematic of the fighter aircraft obtained from Reference [5]
The conceptual design we have used is based on the Sukhoi Su 27 Flanker series of heavy Air
Superiority Fighters. We have chosen this type of conceptual layout as opposed to more
conventional designs like the F- 15 or the F-22 simply because in terms of Aerial agility and Supermaneuverability the flanker is nearly unbeatable and this is a consequence of its unconventional
design with respect to the aircraft shape and wing configuration.

5. Wing Characteristics
The wing characteristics of our aircraft have the following major Salient features
1.

Wing Type Tandem wing aircraft with three surface layout.

2. Aspect Ratio We implements low aspect ratio to improve roll characteristics and combat
agility.
3. Wing Sweep Backward swept wings tapered at the ends since our aircraft will fly at
supersonic speeds and requires maximum performance at transonic speeds.
4. Blended Wing-Body A smooth transition between the wing and body to reduce the wetted
area and drag.

10 | P a g e

5. Tailplane We use a conventional airplane configuration employing two horizontal

stabilizers and two vertical stabilizers in a twin tail configuration used for most high performance
fighter aircraft.
6. Foreplane We have used canards fore of the wing since even though they increase drag and
decrease stealth capability they greatly improve

6. Airfoil Characteristics
Airfoil chosen for initial design phase: NACA 64A204

Figure 7: NACA 64A204 Airfoil (Reference [6])

This airfoil was also used very successfully in the F-16. The airfoil has low thickness which is
essential for supersonic fighters as it helps reduce wave drag and also increases maneauvrability at
supersonic speeds and gives a better turn rate. This airfoil has a maximum t/c ratio of 4%.

Figure 8: CL vs CD for NACA 64A204 obtained from Reference [4]

11 | P a g e

Figure 9: Lift versus Angle of attack for NACA 64A204 (Reference [6])

Figure 10: Lift versus Drag for NACA 64A204 (Reference [6])
Aircrafts nowadays use custom made airfoils with the help of wind tunnel testing and CFD. But
for our preliminary design phase, this airfoil is sufficient.

7. Conclusion
Second weight estimate gives the gross weight of the aircraft as 34,141 kg
General configuration of the aircraft has been decided upon and a possible airfoil has been
suggested.
12 | P a g e

8. References
[1] Aircraft Design: A conceptual Approach, Daniel P Raymer
[2] Airplane Design Vol 1, Jan Roskam
[3.1] http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/f110/
[3.2] http://vnfawing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=587&sid=5e175bae7c7dab11bb7d87a68197dbb1
[3.3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31
[3.4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31
[4] Experimental drag polar of the F-16 Falcon using wind tunnel tests. D. Boucher and H. Guillot
[5] http://www.flymig.com/aircraft/Su-37/
[6] http://www.airfoildb.com/foils/321

13 | P a g e