A Report on

INTER THEATER TACTICAL TRANSPORT WITH AUSTERE STOL CAPABILITY

By
N/C SYED HASSAN MAHMOOD WASTI (060901)

Submitted to Sqn Ldr MESSAM ABBAS

In fulfillment of the requirements for the course

AE-441, Aircraft Conceptual Design

Major: Aerospace Engineering

Department of Aerospace Engineering

COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

PAF Academy, Risalpur

DATED 8TH APRIL 2010

1
 CH-69
(INTER-THEATER TACTICAL TRANSPORT WITH AUSTERE STOL CAPABILITY)

2
TABLE OF CONTENT

i Introduction 4
.
i Design requiremets 5
i
.
i Conceptual sketch 6
i
i
.
i Initial weight sizing 8
v
.
v Airfoil geometry selction 10
.
v Thrust to weight and wing loading 12
i
.
v Revised weight sizing 14
i
i
.
v Geometric sizing 16
i
i
i
.
i Special considerations 19
x
.
x Propulsion and fuel integration 23
.
x Aerodynamics 27
i
.
x Structures and loads 34
i
i
.
x Weight approximation 40
i
i
i
.
x Stability 46
i
v
3
 x Performance 50
v
.
x Solid edge model 60
v
i
.
x Conclusion 67
v
i
i
.

INTRODUCTION

As fighting and insurgencies intensify around the world, different countries continue to
send aid, in the form of troops as well as material aid, to stricken areas in the hopes of
defending and improving their lives. It is therefore necessary for the military to provide
these troops with the best technology to aid in the fighting. This RFP magnifies the need
for tactical warfare mobility to be utilized by Air Forces throughout the world. This short
take off and landing concept for a transport aircraft is yet to be used extensively and is
still a relatively new concept when it comes to aircraft industry.

The basic requirements for this aircraft state that it must be able to carry payload the
dimensions and weight of a future deployable armored vehicle. The aircraft must be
capable of short take-off and landings on an unimproved runway. Considerations must
be made for the required aircraft range, ensuring that the aircraft can safely be operated
in combat situations. The transport must also be able to reach speeds of at least Mach
0.8. While all criteria mentioned in the RFP must be met, several stand out as driving
factors of the design. The speed, payload size, range, and conditions at landing are of
the most concern. The engine selection is based on factors such as the required Mach
of 0.8, as well as the take off and landing distance requirements. The take off and
landing requirements will also drive the aerodynamic design of the aircraft. Stability will
be concerned. The cargo hold and loading ramp must be designed in order to
accommodate the payload size and ease of use in combat conditions. Fuel
considerations must be made in order to ensure the aircraft can meet the range
4
requirements for different missions, especially factoring in the differing payload
requirements of the missions.

Now I would describe and explain different procedures I have used in aircraft design
accompanied by relevant graphs and drawings. Every possible effort has been made to
make this report concise and pertinent.

The procedure followed is shown in the table below

Table 1. design sequence

I. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

FDAV Mission

• Payload

✔ 25 tons with additional 5 tons of support equipment which raises the nominal
payload to 60000lb
✔ Volume of payload dimension: 56 in. long, 128 in. wide, and 114 in. high
✔ Additional 12 in. wide escape path around the vehicle
✔ Center of gravity of the vehicle located 28 in longitudinally, 64 in laterally, and 48
in

• Crew

✔ light crew: 2 (pilot and copilot)

✔ Cabin crew: 1 (loadmaster)

5
 • Mission Requirements

✔ Balanced field takeoff length must not exceed 2,500 ft. with the aircraft able to
clear 50 ft obstacle in 3000ft.
✔ Cruise/climb to best cruise altitude
✔ Cruise at best cruise altitude and M cruise at 0.8 for 500 nm less distance
traveled during climb out
✔ Descend to 1000 ft for 100 nm at speed of Mach 0.6
✔ If powered lift not required, use idle power
✔ Useful area of 3000 feet by 150 feet
✔ 50 foot obstacles at 250 feet from either end of the runway
✔ Landing length of 3000 feet
✔ Takeoff under combat rules, with mirrored mission segments for return and climb
over a 50 foot obstacle from a standing start

Ferry Mission

• Payload

✔ 10 tons of bulk cargo

✔ density of 20 lb/ft3 when properly packed

• Crew

✔ Flight crew: 2 (pilot and copilot)

✔ Cabin crew: 1 (loadmaster)

• Mission requirements

✔ Balanced field takeoff length must not exceed 2,500 with the aircraft able to clear
50 ft obstacle in 3000ft.
✔ Cruise/climb to best cruise altitude
✔ Cruise at best cruise altitude and M cruise > 0.8 for 3200 nm less distance
traveled during climb out
✔ Aerial refueling permitted to achieve range
✔ Descend to sea level
✔ Normal approach to runway of 3000 ft or less
✔ If powered lift not required, use idle power
✔ Enough reserve fuel for a missed approach plus 150 nm diversion and 45 minute
hold at 5,000 ft

6
 I. MISSION PROFILE

FDAV MISSION

Fig.1 FDAV mission

FERRY MISSION

Fig. 2 ferry mission

II. Conceptual sketch

Concept chosen

7
 III. INITIAL WEIGHT SIZING

In this section a rough weight of the aircraft was to be determined. Here I would like to
mention that in rough weight sizing we do not cater payload drop however as payload
drop was a major segment of my mission therefore I have included it in my calculation.
The calculations are shown below:

FDAV MISSION

flight segment weight fraction weight after flight fuel consumed

TO W3/W1 0.97 127757.85 3951.27
climb W4/w3 0.98 125841.48 1916.36
Cruise W5/W4 0.96 121851.12 3990.35
descend W6/W5
cruise W7/W6 0.992 120918.53 932.59

8
landing W8/W7 0.995 120313.94 604.59
PL drop 60313.940
TO W9/W8 0.97 58504.52 1809.41
climb W10/w9 0.985 57626.95 877.56
cruise W10/W9 0.992 57185.90 441.05
Climb W11/W10 0.985 56328.11 857.78
cruise W12/W11 0.968 54541.98 1786.13
landing W13/W12 0.995 54269.27 272.70

FINAL RESULTS TRANSPORT

W0 131709
.12
We/Wo 0.407
W empty 53669.
27
17439.
Wf 85

FERRY MISSION

flight segment weight weight after flight fuel consumed

fraction
TAKE OFF w2/w0 0.97 71746.88 2218.97
CLIMB w3/w2 0.985 70670.67 1076.20
CRUISE w4/w3 0.815 57501.06 13169.61
LOITER w5/w4 0.997 57375.10 125.96
LANDING w6/w5 0.995 57088.22 286.87

MISSED APPROACH

9
flight segment weight weight after flight fuel consumed
fraction
CRUISE W7/w6 0.990 56539.01 549.20
LOITER W8/W7 0.980 55434.05 1104.96
LANDING W10/W9 0.995 55156.88 277.17

FINAL RESULT FERRY MISSION

0.424
27823
We/W0 9
73965
.8582
Wo 3
31382
.1040
We 7
18808
Wf .9718
5

Note:

As can be seen that the empty load obtained from transport mission is greater than ferry
therefore empty weight of transport mission was selected. Secondly, as the ferry
mission was consuming more fuel therefore, the fuel storage capacity would be chosen
accordingly.

IV.AIRFOIL AND GEOMETRY SELECTION

AIRFOIL SELECTION

While considering airfoil it was kept in mind that the airfoil should have

1. A high value of Cl max

10
 2. Should have a high critical mach number to avoid shock waves and drag losses
related to it.
3. High L/D ratio

Keeping these considerations in mind the following airfoils were analyzed

clmax (mach 0.1) design cl(mach cd at design cl

0.8)
SC(2)-0614 1.15 0.55 0.0075
SC(2)-0710 1.35 0.6 0.007
airfoil J 1.36 0.62 0.008
SC(2)-0610 1.15 0.7 0.0082

The airfoil selected was bacj ( airfoil J ) primarily because its critical mach was 0.82

This airfoil produces the lift coefficient needed for cruise at roughly -0.3 degrees angle
of attack. A drag divergence Mach number occurs around Mach 0.82. This airfoil allows
for cruise speeds of Mach 0.8 without a dramatic increase in drag due to shockwave
formation. This configuration results in efficient cruise conditions, which cut down on
fuel consumption, weight, and cost.

11
the other selections are summarized below

Λ LE 30
Λ/4 18
λ 0.25
Twist 3°
WING INCIDENCE 1°
DIHEDRAL -3
WING TIPS WINGLET
TAIL GEOMETRY
Λ le 35
vertical tail sweep 50
HORIZONTAL TAIL
AR 2.94
λ 0.5
VERTICAL TAIL
AR 0.7
λ 1.0

LE sweep

The LE sweep selected was 30 from fig 4.20. This would further decrease the velocity
component of air at mach 0.8 delaying Mdd to 0.946.

Taper ratio

Taper ratio eliminates undesired effect of constant chord on rectangular wing and thus
brings the lift distribution close to the elliptical lift distribution (ideal).Wing taper ratio is
the ratio between centreline root chord and tip chord. A taper ratio of 0.25 was selected
as it is easier to manufacture and gives good results

Location of Wing:

12
A high-wing vertical location was selected based on:

• Historical trend
• Clearance for cargo trucks to pass under
• Improves stability due to effective dihedral effect
• Fuselage closer to ground so its easier to load it
• Fuselage only 4-5 feet above the ground for easy loading without ground
equipment
• Less chances of wing tip striking the ground

Wing Twist:

3° twist is chosen for our swept back aircraft following the historical trends. It delays tip
stall and provides elliptical distribution.

Wing Incidence

a wing incidence of 3° is chosen in accordance with historical data. More over the value
of cl also increases contributing in lift.

Wing Tip Arrangement

Winglet was selected. Although it is a trade off between skin friction drag and parasite
drag but the overall effect on drag is positive. a winglet is cambered and twisted so that
a lift force is created that is in the positive direction hence decreasing drag.

13
TAIL ARRANGEMENT

Horizontal tail

T tail was selected as the end plate effect of T TAIL allows

1. Smaller vertical tail

2. Lifts the horizontal tail clear of wake
3. Makes it more efficient and reduces size

HORIZONTAL TAIL
AR 2.94
λ 0.5

Vertical tail

VERTICAL TAIL
AR 0.7
λ 1.0

14
 I. INITIAL DESIGN POINT SELECTION

a constraint diagram was made in order to ascertain the acceptable T/W and W/S
values the major constraints in my case were

• Cruise at 30000ft @ M 0.8

• Cruise at 1000ft @ M 0.6
• Landing
• Take off

Selection point

Initially the design point was selected as

T/W=0.36

W/S=83

However, later on while computing performance I noticed that the aircraft was not
fulfilling certain requirements due to less thrust and therefore the revised design point
was selected as

T/W=0.42

W/S=83

I. REVISED WEIGHT SIZING

Aircraft sizing is the process of determining the take off gross weight and fuel weight
required for an aircraft to do its mission profile, the Initial sizing which is done earlier in

15
this report was a rough sizing depend on limited to fairly simple design mission, in this
chapter the weight of the aircraft is revised as some of the geometric and aerodynamic
parameters of the aircraft are now known.

The inputs were

Cruise @ 30000ft
T/w 0.42
W/s 83
AR 8.49600394
1
M max 0.8
q @ 30000ft 282.0675
Cdo 0.015
e 0.8
Range @ 30000ft 3038057.7
TSFC ( c ) 0.00013888
9
V @ 30000ft 795.84

16
 cruise @ 10000ft

FDAV mission V@10000 667.44

flight Wi-1/Wi weight weight afterR fuel 607611.55

segment fraction flight C consume 0.000138889
d
q 514.2643521
TO W3/W1 0.97 156687.93 4846.01
climb W4/w3 0.978 158016.58 1328.65
cruise W5/W4 0.966 152725.04 5291.54 W/s 81.1 L/D 15.5
descend W6/W5 0.99 151197.79 1527.25
cruise W7/W6 0.986 149191.29 2006.49 W/s 77.6 L/D 9.46
landing W8/W7 0.995 148445.343 745.956
PL drop 88445.3433
TO W9/W8 0.97 85791.9830 2653.3
climb W10/w9 0.984 84479.00 1312.9
cruise W10/W9 0.972 82564.81 1914.18 W/s 43.4 L/D 5.51
climb W11/W10 0.99 82021.07 543.73
cruise W12/W1 0.945 77510.19 4510.8 W/s 42.1 L/D 9.3
descend W13/W12 0.99 76735.09 775.10
landing W 14/W13 0.995 76351.41 383.67
and taxi

Final results

We/Wo 0.448281
2
Wo 161533.9
5
Wf 27839.83
8
We 72412.62

17
 9

MISSED APPROACH

FERRY MISSION v 877.68

R@5000FT 911417 FT
W crew 600 lb
.3
W payload 22046.24 lb
LOITER@500 2700 SEC
4
0FT
V@30000ft 795.84 ft
q 785.72
R 1944357 ft 86
0
C 0.000138 l/s
9
AR 8.342536
5
SWET/SRE 4.8
F
L/D MAX 19
CRUISE 16.454
L/D

loiter

flight Wi-1/Wi weight weight V

fuel 296.18
segment fraction after flight consumed 69
TO w2/w0 0.97 134355.7 DENSI
4155.3 2.04E-
TY 03
climb w3/w2 0.97 131426.8 2928.95
q 117
cruise w4/w3 0.79 104518.9 26907.8 w/s 67.5 l/d 14.8
descend w5/w4 0.99 103473.7 1045.18
cruise w6/w5 0.978 101289.4 2184.36 w/s 53.16 l/d 6.75
loiter W7/w6 0.97 98998.4 2290.9 w/s 52.04 l/d 16.3

18
descend W8/W7 0.99 98008.4 989.9
landing W10/W9 0.995 97518.43 490.04

FINAL RESULTS

W fuel 40992.68
7
We 62903.82
1
Wo 138511.1
2

NOTE:

As the empty load obtained from transport mission is greater than ferry therefore empty
weight of transport mission was selected. Secondly, as the ferry mission was
consuming more fuel therefore, the fuel storage capacity would be chosen accordingly

II. GEOMETRIC SIZING

After the value of gross weight has been estimated and revised, the fuselage, wing, and
vertical tail in addition to the control surfaces can be sized. This chapter deals with the
calculation of the different parameters of fuselage, wing, tail and control surface which
will help us in the later stages of the design process.

The major parts that were to be sized in my case were:

1. Fuselage
2. Wing
3. Vertical tail
4. Horizontal tail
5. Control surfaces

19
FUSELAGE

During fuselage sizing I took into consideration the geometry of the payload that it has
to carry. That was 56 in. long, 128 in. wide, and 114 in. high. Maximum upsweep of 25
was chosen The dimensions are shown in the figure below

I would like to mention here that the rfp already provided a clearance of 1 ft at all sides
hence the total clearance at the the top would be 3.86 ft and a clearance of 2 ft at
each side if the payload is loaded centrally

Length of the fuselage was also decided while keeping the rfp in mind.

20
WING

SPAN AREA 1936.94

b 128.28
C root 24.15
C tip 6.03
Mean Chord ĉ 16.91
AR 8.49
Λ LE 30
Λ/4 18
λ 0.25
Twist 3°
WING INCIDENCE 1°

21
 DIHEDRAL -3
WINGLET USED

HORIZONTAL TAIL

The airfoil used was

Naca 63-510 t/c 0.1

LHT 55.33
CHt 0.95
Cw 16.91
Sw 1936.94

22
 SHT 562.38
AR 3.08
λ 0.5
b HT 41.66
C root 18
C tip 9
C MEAN 14

VERTICAL TAIL

23
The airfoil used was

naca 63012 t/c 0.12

LVT 50.72
Cvt 0.076
bw 128.28
Sw 1936.94
SVT 372.31
AR 0.67
λ 1
bvt 15.87
C root 23
C MID 23
C tip 23

24
 Control surfaces:

Control surfaces are responsible for controlling and stabilizing the aircraft in the same
time according to the mission requirement, as my aircraft is conventional therefore it
requires all ailerons for roll control, elevator for pitch control and rudder for yaw control.
Ailerons and flaps

As my primary requirement is STOL therefore flap requirement was of paramount

imortance

Chord Ca/Cw 0.25

AILERON span/ bw 0.32
b aileron 41.0
C aileron 4.22

25
 span 456.5

ELEVATOR

EXTEND 90% of
to span
chord 0.25
Ce/Cw
Ce 4.2277452
37

RUDDER
chord Cr/Cw 0.32
Cr 5.411513903

I. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Carry through structure

For my aircraft the most important consideration is the wing carry through structure in
my situation I have used a wing box configuration. This configuration minimizes the
fuselage weight as the fuselage is not taking any bending weight.

26
Flutter
The solution to the control surface flutter is that do not allow the centre of mass to be
behind hinge line .the control surface should never be convex, and have bevelled
trailing edge

Fuel Tanks

The aircraft is designed is such a way to give the least vulnerability. The fly by wire
system gives it high stability even when a portion of the controls is damaged. Stand by
hydraulic system and electric system is also in there .The self-sealing bladder, and their
location away from the engine makes them safe.

Maintainability considerations:

The design aircraft uses systems as modules where ever possible so that in case of
failure the complete module can be changed immediately. Panels are present on the
fuselage to give an easier access to the in inner of the aircraft like engine, instruments
and components.

Aural signatures
As the aircraft might have to operate from civil airports therefore its aural signature
should be low for this well designed engine mounts and mufflers can be used.

Fire, Air, Icing Systems

The aircraft’s fire protection is composed to two components. The Ansul Cleanguard
handheld extinguisher will provide electrically non-conductive and bio-friendly protection
for the cockpit. The rest of the aircraft will be automatically monitored by the Ansul
INERGEN system which utilizes inert agents, and a quick detection and reaction system
that are both electrically safe and people friendly as well.

The air conditioning and pressurization system will consist of the typical systems in
place on cargo and commercial aircraft. Bleed air will be directed from different stages
of the four engines into two heat exchangers. From there it will be led through an air
cycle Machine underneath the flight deck which will perform a refrigeration cycle on the
air and send it through a mix manifold. From there the air will be circulated by fans
through the flight deck and the cargo area. The flight deck and cargo area will both be
pressurized to 8,000 ft atmospheric conditions. In addition, the flight deck will contain a

27
25 L oxygen converter for pilot and co-pilot, and a separate 25 L converter will be
placed in the cargo area for the load master.

The aircraft will feature an electric de-icing system from Cox & Company Inc. This
system, called an Electro-Mechanical Expulsion Deicing System (EMEDS), is a low
powered ice protection system that utilizes electronically triggered actuators that work
with the composite structure of the aircraft to remove ice from leading edge slats,
engine inlet cowls and cockpit windows.

The light system on the aircraft will feature MIL Spec and FAR light systems. Green,
red, and white position lights will be placed on the right, left and rear surfaces of the
aircraft. In addition, the aircraft will include anti-collision strobe lights on the top and
bottom of the center of the fuselage.

Counter Measure Systems

Several pre-existing counter measure systems were selected to provide both electronic
and physical protection from various missile based threats. These systems’ primary
purposes are to warn the crew and help defeat both infrared and radar based missile
systems.

The countermeasure dispensing unit assembly consists of 3 AN/ALE-47

Countermeasure Dispensor Systems, CMDS, set up with one facing downwards from
the underside of the aircraft’s fuselage and one on either side of the aircraft’s fuselage.
This setup provides a highly effective cover pattern by dispensing countermeasures
both behind the fuselage and behind the wing mounted engines to best mask the heat
signature of the aircraft . These dispensing units were chosen based on their current
use in other comparable USAF aircraft and for their ability to dispense both infrared
defeating flares and radar defeating chafes in both manual and automated modes.

II. CREW STATION, PASSENGER AND PAYLOAD

The cockpit layout is same as that used in conventional cargo aircrafts

28
CARGO DOOR
Three types of configurations were available
1. Rear door
2. Side opening door
3. Nose opening door
Keeping in mind that the aircraft would have to operate from unprepared fields the first
option was chosen as
• It is easier and simpler to manufacture
• Requires lesser time to open and close
• Requires no extra equipment

I. PROPULSION AND FUEL SYSTEM

The sizing of the engines, their characteristics, intakes nozzles, geometry are analyzed
in this section.
While deciding the propulsion system different options were available like
• Turboprop
• Axial flow turbojet
• Centrifugal turbojet
• High by pass Turbo fan engine

29
 • Low by pass turbo fan engine

The engine selected was high by pass turbofan as it was providing the best fuel
economy and was operatable at the given altitude and MACH number.

Engine selection

After deciding to use high by pass engine different engines were analyzed and the TF-
39 was selected. It was decided to use 2 engines to cater for engine failure The total
thrust requirement was

THRUST 2 engines 67521.74276

1 engine 33760.87138

30
Another major reason for TF-39 selection was the availability of thrust variation with
altitude data.

Engines Variants Thrust

Aviadvigatel PS-90 I. PS-90A 35300 lbf

II. PS-90A-76 32000 lbf

III. PS-90A2 39600 lbf

Pratt & Whitney PW2000 I. PW2000 38400-43800 lbf

Rolls-Royce RB211 I. RB211-535C 37400 lbf

II. RB211-535E4 40100 lbf

Tf – 39 41 100 lbf

V 2500 I. V2500-A1 25000 lbf

II. V2533-A5 33,000 lbf

III. V2524-A5 23500 lbf

IV. V2527-A5 27000 lbf

V. V2528-D5 28000 lbf

31
The final specifications and dimensions as inferred from the available data were:

32
 altitude (max ) 41000
weight 8000
length 22.58
fan tip diameter 8.33

The scale factor was coming out to be 0.821 and after catering for this the specifications
and dimension were:

L 16.69
D 7.93
W 4832.59
A max 49.40

CAPTURE AREA

Next the capture area was calculated

Rough estimation (fig 12.26) 45.2 ft^2

Accurate calculation 38.3ft^2

FUEL SYSTEM

According to calculations the fuel required was

Transport mission 752 ft^3

Ferry mission 890 ft^3

Accordingly the volume of wing was taken out from solid edge and was found out to be
1265. Using bladder tanks and leaving 20% space for control surfaces still allowed all
the fuel to be filled in the wing

I. AERODYNAMICS

33
The initial sizing of the aircraft was based upon rough estimates of the aircraft
aerodynamics, weights and propulsion characteristic. At that time we couldn’t calculate
the actual characteristics of the design because the aircraft had not been designed yet,
now the aircraft design can be analyzed as it is drawn to see it actually meets the
required mission range.

In this section I have calculated lift curve slope, zero lift drag, lift induced drag
coefficient,

LIFT CURVE SLOPE

Although my aircraft requirement is only mach 0.8 however, as I do not know the actual
achievable mach right now so I have calculated lift curve slope at supersonic speed as
well.

Discussion

In the transonic regime there is no formula available and therefore these values were
interpolated. The shape at transonic regime is flat in accordance to theory for thick
airfoils. Subsonic Lift Curve Slope is function of aspect ratio, sweep at maximum cross
sectional area and increases with the mach no. gradually until the transonic region
starts. There is an abrupt increase in drag at transonic speeds so for a steady level
flight the same amount of thrust should also be produced so we expect a lift increase in
this region which is shown in the graph. The supersonic Lift curve slope decreases with
the mach no. as the aircraft flies at smaller angle of attack so the amount of lift
produced by the lifting device is reduced. CLmax is a function of Reynolds no. With the
increase in mach no, the Reynolds no. is increasing and has Inverse effect on Clmax,
therefore Clmax is decreasing with mach no.

MAXIMUM LIFT

Next maximum lift was calculated for both clean and flapped conditions. This was an
important parameter as far as our design was concerned. Flaps and slats were
incorporated in the design to get a high CL max.

TRIPPLE SLOTTED FLAP (ΔCL MAX)

34
 LANDING TAKE OFF
FLAPS 1.59 1.275
SLATS 0.299 0.239
TOTA 1.892 1.514
L

α CL MAX

DRAG POLAR

Drag polar is the standard presentation format for aerodynamic data used in
performance calculation. It is simply the plot of the coefficient of lift vs. coefficient of
drag. Virtually all aerodynamic information of the aircraft is wrapped up in the drag
polar.

PARASITE (ZERO LIFT) DRAG

The zero lift drag consists of:

• Skin friction drag

• Form drag
• Interference drag
• Miscellaneous drag
• Wave drag

For the calculation of skin friction drag wetted areas were needed. They were calculated
on solid edge. The values were

Fuselage 3562 ft^2

Nacelle 658 ft^2
Wing 3463 ft^2
Vertical tail 721 ft^2
Horizontal tail 1012 ft^2

35
The flow was assumed to be laminar till 0.15c for subsonic flow. As is in the case of
subsonic aircrafts.

In the miscellaneous drag calculations the following drags were included:

• Upsweep drag
• Landing gear drag
• Flap drag

Next wave drag was calculated using the transonic drag rise estimation as given in the
book.

These calculations were done on different altitude

The combined Cdo vs mach curves were

DRAG DUE TO LIFT (INDUCED DRAG):

The induced Drag coefficient at moderate angles of attack is proportional to the square
of the lift co-efficient with a proportionality factor called the drag due to lift factor.

There are two methods for the calculation of K.

• Oswald Span Efficiency Method
• Leading Edge Suction Method

I have used the second method for calculations.

36
Discussion on graphs

• As my aircraft was subsonic therefore, according to raymer the value of leading

edge suction factor would vary from 0.8 at design lift coefficient to 0.8 at stall lift
coefficient.
• The value of K could lie 0.23 and 0.04 in this case
• The variation in K value is extremely less at different MACH #.
• The variation in K at different Cl values is also very low
• The value of induced drag increases with Cl
Drag polar

Discussion on graphs

• Due to the increase of velocity the Re# increases , subsequently the skin friction
coefficient decreases , now we know as the coefficient decreases the drag due to this
coefficient decreases which in turn reduces the Cdo in subsonic flow only with increase in
mach number.
• In transonic region the drag rise is because of the presence of the shock waves it is
exclusively the pressure drag effect due to adverse pressure gradient.
• In supersonic flow Cdo also tends to reduce with the increase of Mach number but it is
still more than the drag in subsonic flow because of the wave drag.
• CDo increases with increasing altitude: because density decreases, it is clear
from the graph that parasite drag coefficient is different at different altitudes and it
varies with mach numbers
• Parasite drag coefficient is different at different altitudes and it varies with mach
numbers. The drag in the subsonic region is mainly due to the friction and due to
the compressibility effect. As the mach increases above Mdd, Cdo starts
increasing and the increment in supersonic regime is purely due to wave drag.

CD=CDo+kCL2

• Tangent line from the origin to the drag polar locates the point of maximum L/D
ratio of aircraft.
• With increase in CL there is a corresponding increase in CD for the same Mach
No.
• For the same values of Cl there is a corresponding decrease in Cd with increase in
Mach number

37
• Subsonic drag-coefficient rise with an increase in lift coefficient is more prominent as
the leading edge sweep is quite high. So for the same amount of drag produced the
Lift generated by the wing is less.

I. PROPULSION ANALYSIS
Till now we had only calculated the uninstalled thrust now I am going to calculate the
installed thrust which is less than uninstalled thrust

Reference Engine Thrust:

The following graph shows the data of original thrust as provided by roskam.

Figure 19 Original Uninstalled thrust

Scaled down Thrust:

Using a scale factor of 0.832 the following data was achieved:

Figure 20 Scaled-up Uninstalled thrust

Installed Engine Thrust Corrections:

The manufacturer’s un-installed engine thrust is based upon an assumed inlet pressure
recovery. For a supersonic engine, it is approximated that the inlet has the pressure
recovery of approximately 85% to 90%.

The short duct of a subsonic-podded nacelle will have a pressure recovery of 0.98 or
better. Reducing inlet pressure recovery has a greater than proportional effect on the
engine thrust.

38
The following corrections are applied to the scaled-up thrust values:

• Loss due to incomplete pressure recovery across intake

• Loss due to air bleed
• Loss due to Inlet drag
• Loss due to nozzle drag

Loss due to Air Bleed:

Cbleed is the “bleed correction factor”. This is provided by the manufacturer for various
flight conditions. For initial analysis, Cbleed can be approximated as 2.0. And the bleed
mass flow has been taken as 5% of the engine mass flow, using equation 13.8 of the
text book which is shown below.

% age thrust loss = C bleed(bleed mass flow / engine mass flow) x 100%

% age thrust loss = 8 %

Drag due to Inlet:

Thrust loss due to inlet comprises of the following factors:

• loss due to bleed

• loss due to bypass
• loss due to additive drag (spillage)

INLET RECOVERY LOSS (inlet duct)

C ram 1.35
(P1/P0) ref 1
(p1/P0) actual 0.98
% THRUST LOSS 2.7

Drag due to Nozzle:

39
Nozzle drag varies with nozzle position as well as with the flight conditions .to properly
determine nozzle drag the actual geometry as a function of throttle setting and flight
condition must be known and the drag calculated but taking into account the overall
aircraft flow field. As an initial approximation, the effect of nozzle position may be
ignored and the nozzle drag estimated by typical subsonic values shown in table 13.1

D*Afuselage/q 0.038
Afuselage 190.15
q 282.06
drag 0.056

After calculating the values of drag for nozzle we subtract it from the thrust obtained
after applying inlet corrections for each altitude and mach no’s. We get the new graph’s
these values are the net propulsive thrust available.

Figure 21 Corrected Installed Thrust

Discussion:
• Thrust is a direct function of density and with increase in altitude, the thrust should
decrease as it can be observed from the graph. Moreover, with the increase in velocity,
the ram effect of the engine decreases and thus thrust increases with the mach number.
T/TO =ρ/ρo, Where T is the thrust at the required altitude and T O is the thrust at the sea
level, and similarly the ρ is the density at the required altitude, and the ρo is the density
at the sea level.

TSFC Curves

40
Discussions

• TSFC is a ratio of the amount of fuel required to produce unit thrust and therefore
it will not be scaled up or corrected.

I. STRUCTURES

Before the actual members can be sized and analyzed, the loads they will sustain must
be determined. Aircraft load estimation, a separate discipline of aerospace engineering,
combines aerodynamics, structures and weights.

Loads estimation remains a critical area because an error or faulty assumption will
make the aircraft too heavy or will result in structure failure when the real loads are
encountered in flight. This chapter introduces the concepts of load estimation and
summarizes the subjects of aircraft materials and structural analysis.

Air loads:

Basically there are two types of air loads on aircraft:

• Maneuver loads
• Gust Loads
NOTE: I have made V-n diagrams for both transport and ferry missions and have
selected the load factor accordingly.

The requirements for the calculation of V-n diagram were

Vg 82.02 ft^2
V cruise 893.12 ft^2
V LIMIT/DIVE 1328.5ft^2

The V-n diagrams were then made

Transport mission

41
 At V dive At V cruise At V g
U 17.16 U 34.33 U 44.63
Δn 2.23 Δ 2.998 Δ 0.357
n n

Ferry mission

At V dive At V cruise At V g
U 14.89606 U 29.792116 U 38.72975
Δn 3.278324 Δ 4.4077709 Δ 0.526226
n n

AFTER COMBINING BOTH THE V-N DIAGRAMS

Discussion on V-n diagram:

• The aircraft maximum speed, or dive speed (Vdive) , at the right of v-n diagram
represents the maximum dynamic pressure q. The point representing maximum
q and maximum load factor is clearly important for structural sizing. At this
condition, the aircraft is fairly at a low AOA because of high q, so the load is
approximately vertical in the body axis.

• The ultimate load factor is the maximum load factor the aircraft can withstand
without breaking. It cannot be found experimentally. It is found by multiplying the

42
 limit load factor by a factor 1.5. The value of Limit load factor is obtained from
historical trend.

• The lower line (n=-2) represent the negative load factor limit of the aircraft and
corresponds to the amount of load sustained when the aircraft is pulling negative
g’s..

• Max lift line as it shown in the figure , represent the stall velocity at positive
Clmax , for positive load factor , we can see increase in the stall velocity as the
load factor increase.

• The gust load was coming greater for then the maneuver load in the ferry mission
case however theses gust loads are not unusual.

43
 I. WEIGHT ESTIMATION

The estimation of weights of a conceptual aircraft is the critical part of the design
process. There are many ways of weight analysis. The previous weight estimation of the
aircraft was based on crude analysis techniques. Most sophisticated weights methods
estimate the weight of the various components of the aircraft and sum for total empty
weight. This chapter has two different methods of weight estimation. One is the
“Approximate group weight method” and the other is the “statistical equation using
method”. The later technique is sufficient to provide a credible estimate of the major
component group.

The weights of different structural parts are as follows:

components Weight (lb)

Wing 17810.89
Vertical Tail 1845.084
Fusalge 19308.61
Main Landing 3038.22
Gear
Nose Landing 492.89
Gear
Nacelle group 3084.47
Engine Controls 34
Electrical 931.23
Avionics 1840.26
Fuel systems 3434.05
Furnishings 2974.56
Anti-icing 166.56
Handling Gear 24.98
Pneumatics 167.83

44
 Instruments 290.83
Flight Controls 948.54
Engines 9665.6
total 59885

The weight distribution is as follows

Afterwards this empty weight was used in calculation and the total weight was iterated
to get

FDAV mission

Wo 160766.05
Wf 28882.76
We 59885.13

Ferry mission

W fuel 38804.79758
We 59885.13994
wo 133329.6562

The empty weight is almost 6 % lesser than that calculated earlier (in refined weight
sizing). The reason may be that these weights are calculated from statistical equations
which may not yield good results for every aircraft. Moreover there may be an error in
the equation used earlier in refined weight analysis.

45
 II. Stability analysis

The customer requirement is of stable and controllable aircraft. The two are opposite of
each other, so the best combination is a good tradeoff between stability and
controllability. For transport aircrfats, the stability requirement is comparatively higher
than the controllability requirements because the aircraft is not supposed to go in
extreme type of maneuvers.
The requirement for good stability, control and handling quantities are addressed
through the use of tail volume coefficient method and through location of aircraft centre
of gravity at some percent of wing mean aerodynamic chord.
Static Stability:
If a system in an equilibrium state returns to equilibrium following a small disturbance,
the state is said to be a stable equilibrium. On the other hand if the system diverges,
the state is said to be an unstable equilibrium.
Categories of Static Stability

There are mainly three types of static stability in an aircraft,

• Longitudinal Static stability
• Lateral static stability
• Yaw static stability

Calculation of Centre of gravity:

The stability analysis requires that CG location should be known or calculated. After
obtaining the results from previous chapters about the individual weights of the
components, the CG location was estimated.
All the distances were calculated from the nose. The CG location was 61.8 ft from the
back. i.e 45.2 ft from the front

Static longitudinal stability

Ideally for a transport aircraft the Cmα value should be negative. The major contributors
toward longitudinal stability are:
• wing

46
 • horizontal tail and canard ( these are not included in this aircraft)
• engine location
• fuselage
Another rough estimation of the stability, the centre of gravity should be ahead of the
mean aerodynamic centre of the aircraft. The stability of the aircraft changes with the
location of the centre of gravity. The point where the aircraft if disturbed by any external
force moves to some angle of attack will remain at that angle of attack and there will no
effect of longitudinal stability is called neutral point.
From my calculations the stability at the two mach numbers of 0.6 and 0.8 were

47
mach 0.6 mach 0.8
from solid edge X/c from solid edge X/c
X acw 67 3.961923 X acw 67 3.961923
X ach 9 0.532199 X ach 9 0.532199
Xp 72 4.257589 Xp 72 4.257589
Xw 65 3.843656 Xw 65 3.843656

MACH 0.6 MACH 0.8

4.9362138
CLα 7 CLα 5.699314
Cmα 0.0076871 Cmα
FUSELAG 9 FUSELAG 0.007687
ηh 0.9 ηh 0.9
Sh 562.38 Sh 562.38
Sw 1936.94 Sw 1936.94
Sh/Sw 0.29 Sh/Sw 0.290
Clαh 4.0588 Clαh 4.50
dαh/dα 0.657 dαh/dα 0.60
Fpα 2883.642 Fpα 1581.64
dαp/dα 1.2 dαp/dα 1.2
q 514.264 q 282.06

X np 59.80 X np 60.55
static margin 0.11 static margin 0.073
X cg 61.8 X cg 61.8

PER
Cmα -0.6655 PER RADIANS Cmα -0.474 RADIANS
PER
-0.011616 PER DEGREE -0.00827 DEGREE

48
Hence the static margin was acceptable as was the value of Cmα is negative

Static Lateral Stability:

The lateral – directional analysis consists of two very closely coupled moments, these
are the yaw and roll. It is important here to consider that both these stabilities are driven
by the yaw angle “β ” because the restoring force in case of the roll disturbance is also
generated by the yaw angle. Also the deflection of rudder or aileron will produce
moments in both yaw and roll.
The major contributors towards the lateral-directional stability are:
• wing dihedral
• wing configuration
• wing sweep
• dorsal fin
• ventral fin
The aircraft is said to be laterally stabile if the rolling moment derivative with respect to
sideslip angle is negative, and directionally stable, if the yawing moment derivative with
respect to sideslip angle is positive. The formula used for calculating Cnβ is:
Cnβ=Cnβw+CnβFUSE+CnβVT

CnβVT @ 0.6 -0.171 CnβFUSE @ 0.6 -0.072 Cnβw @ 0.6 -0.029

CnβVT @ 0.8 -0.176 CnβFUSE @ 0.8 -0.072 Cnβw @ 0.8 -0.039

Total Cnβ Mach 0.6 0.274

Mach 0.8 0.289

Static Directional Stability:

A point of consideration over here is that we don’t want that much high lateral stability
than directional stability because it will end in unwanted phenomena like Dutch roll while
on the other hand if directional stability is marginally higher than lateral stability then we
may encounter undesired phenomena like spiral roll from dynamic stability point of view

49
Clβ=ClβW+ClβVT

-
- 0.0529
ClβW @ 0.6 0.1337032 Clβvt @ 0.6 8
-
- 0.0545
ClβW @ 0.8 0.1416944 Clβvt @ 0.8 1

total Clβ @
0.6 -0.1867

total Clβ @
0.8 -0.1962

Summary

Mach 0.6 Mach 0.8

Cm α -0.665 -0.474
Cn β 0.274 0.289
Cl β -0.187 -0.196
Static margin 9.8% 7.32%

For an aircraft to be statically stable the following requirements should be met:

• Cmα is positive
• Clβ is negative
• Cnβ is positive

The above mentioned requirements are met. so it can be concluded that The aircraft is
a Statically Stable.

I. PERFORMANCE

After having determined all the aerodynamic and structural parameters now we want to
ascertain whether the designed aircraft would be able to fulfill all the requirements. This

50
section deals with the performance parameters such as turn rate, rate of climb, takeoff
and landing.

I have only calculated those performance parameters that were pertinent to the aircraft
requirements. These are as follows

• Landing and Take off distance

• Specific power and fuel specific energy (Ps and Fs)
• Turn rate
• Minimum turning radius
• Range

LANDING AND TAKE OFF DISTANCE

As the design of the aircraft was based on short take off and landing therefore this
performance parameter was of paramount importance. The take off segment was
broken down into different parts and the distance for each part was calculated before
summing them together. The different parts were:

• Ground roll
• Transition
• Climb

FDAV MISSION

Ground roll

51
Ground roll was calculated for different surfaces as the aircraft should be able to
operate from different surfaces. The calculated values are as follows:

dry 1686.74
concrete
wet 1737.06
concrete
icy 1663.21
concrete
hard turf 1737.06
firm turf 1711.33
soft turf 1792.29
wet grass 1822.00

The difference in values was obviously because of different friction coefficient.

Transition

In the transition phase the aircraft was able to clear the 50ft obstacle. The value of STR
was 981 ft. while the value of HTR was100.1ft. now as the RFP had given obstacle
clear off distance of 3000 ft therefore, trigonometric ratio was used to calculate the
horizontal distance.

ST 981.8
Htr 100.19

The total take off distance was:

dry concrete 2909.789

wet concrete 2960.109
icy concrete 2886.259
hard turf 2960.109
firm turf 2934.379
soft turf 3015.342

52
 wet grass 3045.051

Hence the aircraft was able to fulfill the take off requirement.

FERRY MISSION

Ground roll

Ground roll was calculated for different surfaces as the aircraft should be able to
operate from different surfaces. The calculated values are as follows:

dry concrete 1064.47

9
wet 1090.05
concrete
icy concrete 1052.36
1
hard turf 1090.05
firm turf 1077.03
3
soft turf 1117.58
6
wet grass 1132.16
9

Transition

Again it was seen that the aircraft had cleared the obstacle distance

ST 1110.3
67
Htr 155.94

The same procedure was used to calculate the distance. The final distances were:

dry 2246.4
concrete 31
wet 2272.0

53
 concrete 02
icy 2234.3
concrete 13
hard turf 2272.0
02
firm turf 2258.9
86
soft turf 2299.5
39
wet grass 2314.1
22

Again the aircraft was able to satisfy the requirement.

LANDING PERFORMANCE

The portions involved in landing are:

• Approach distance
• Ground roll
• Flare distance

FDAV MISSION

Braking distance

In the calculation thrust reversal was used and hence the distance was broken into two
parts

i. With thrust reversal

ii. Without thrust reversal

The calculated distances were:

54
dry 671.2205 dry 377.3617
concrete With thrust reversal concrete
wet 707.9553 Without thrust reversal wet 847.7544
concrete concrete
hard turf 686.7624 hard turf 521.7619
firm turf 707.9553 firm turf 847.7544
soft turf 736.2856 soft turf 2379.439
wet grass 736.2856 wet grass 2379.439

Approach distance

The approach distance for the aircraft was

359.57226
S approach 88

Flare distance

The flare distance was

SF 424.670

Free roll

the free roll distance was

S fr 530.76

The total distance was

dry concrete 2350.8

wet concrete 2870.716
hard turf 2523.53
firm turf 2870.71
soft turf 4430.73

55
 wet grass 4430.73

As can be seen that the aircraft was unable to fulfill requirements for soft turf and wet
grass and therefore drag chutes should be deployed.

FERRY MISSION

Same procedure was used and the final results were

S approach 395.740385
SF 352.1958434
S fr 483.3571306

SG
dry 524.447
concrete 6
T
R wet 546.289
concrete 5

hard turf 533.534

5

firm turf 546.289

5

soft turf 563.471

9

wet grass 563.471

9

SG
dry 387.125
concrete 1

wet 847.310
concrete 6

56
 hard turf 530.670
9

firm turf 847.310

6

soft turf 2247.09

5

wet grass 2247.09

5

dry 2142.86
concrete 6
wet 2624.89
concrete 3
TOTAL
hard turf 2295.49
9
firm turf 2624.89
In the case of soft turf and wet 3
grass drag chutes have to soft turf 4041.86
employed of an area of 350
ft^2 the distance reduced to wet grass 4041.86
3542 ft.

SPECIFIC POWER

It is basically the time rate of change of energy height is equal to the specific excess
power. The aircraft can increase its energy height simply by the application of excess
power.

It is time rate of change of energy height & is equal to the specific excess power, graph
below shows Ps contours on Mach # Vs Altitudes graph.

Ps=( )=( )+( )

dhe dh dv
V /g*
dt dt dt
Ps=
(T − D )
V*
W

57
Specific excess power PS actually equals the thrust available into velocity minus the
thrust required into velocity and complete term divided by the weight , as the thrust is
the function of velocity and it is at the same time the function of the altitude so the
specific excess power varies in the same manner with the altitude and the Mach# and
this is the only reason for its variation with Mach# and altitude and that is why a same
aircraft with all the same specifications can go for only a specific number of g’s at
different altitudes depending on the amount of excess power the aircraft has at a
specific altitude and at a specific Mach no.

Both the graphs were made in excel first a graph of Ps vs Mach was plotted and then
taking values from this graph. Ps and Fs curves were plotted

FDAV MISSION
Ps

MIN TIME= 8.52

sec

Fs

MIN. FUEL = 58
1375 LB
Ferry mission

MIN. TIME =7.41

Fs sec

MIN. FUEL = 1215 lb

It was observed that both the time and fuel requirements decreased for ferry mission

Turning performance

Although turning performance was not part of our requirement but as it is necessary to
calculate it. While designing an aircraft the turning performance was calculated.

Minimum turning radius

The minimum turn radius and the load factor at which they are achieved were also
calculated for cruise at 1000ft @ M 0.6 and cruise at 30000ft @ M 0.8. the values are
as follows

For cruise at 1000ft @ M 0.6

R min 604.9419 ft
n Rmin 1.405603 ft

For cruise at 30000ft @ M 0.8

R min 1570.046 ft
n Rmin 1.404499 ft

59
 I. Solid edge views

ISOMETRIC

60
TOP

SIDE

61
FRONT

DIAMETRIC

62
TRIMETRIC

63
 II. CONCLUSION

The results of the aircraft were satisfactory

The aircraft could be further improved by optimizing it. The aircraft is also low cost as no
expensive material was used. This aircraft if manufactured would be the first of its kind
as at present there are no STOL tactical transport aircrafts.

Specifications Result

TO Distance Achieved

Max Mach no Achieved

Absolute Ceiling Achieved

Range Achieved

Landing distance Partially achieved

64