School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering

AE 4011
AIRCRAFT DESIGN
8 November 2013
Submitted by:

Koh Boon Yong James

KohZhongBao Andy
Lim Boon Kiat
Ng Zi Juan
Tan Zhenyang

U1020048J
U1021621E
U1021935H
U1020999C
U1021237K

Supervisors:

Associate Professor TonseGokuldasPai

Associate Professor Sunil Chandrakant Joshi

LUXY
LHT-4

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL......................................................... 4
2.1 Performance Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Other Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Safety Constraints ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Economic Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Mission Profile ........................................................................................................................................... 6
2.6 Initial Mission Fuel Segment Estimation ..................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Final Mission Fuel Segment Estimation ...................................................................................................... 9
2.8 Updated mission profile ........................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 3: 3 VIEW DRAWING OF AIRCRAFT ..................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN FEATURES OF AIRCRAFT ................................................................... 14
4.1 Configuration Selection ............................................................................................................................ 14
4.1.1 Wings configuration ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.1.2 Tail configuration .................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Airfoil Selection ........................................................................................................................................ 14
4.3 High Lift Devices ....................................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 5: CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS FOR OPTIMUM W/S AND T/W ......................... 16

CHAPTER 6: GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF WING, HORIZONTAL TAIL, VERTICAL
TAIL, FUSELAGE ............................................................................................................................. 17
6.1 Study of similar aircraft ............................................................................................................................ 17

6.2 Wing Sizing............................................................................................................................................... 18

6.3 Horizontal Tail Sizing ................................................................................................................................ 18
6.4 Vertical Tail Sizing .................................................................................................................................... 19
6.5 Fuselage Sizing ......................................................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 7: LIFT AND DRAG AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS ................................................. 23

7.1 Lift Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 23
7.1.1 Wing ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
7.2 Horizontal Tail and Vertical Tail ............................................................................................................... 24
7.3 Drag Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 8: ENGINE FEATURES ............................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER 9: MASS COMPONENT AND CENTRE OF GRAVITY CALCULATIONS .......... 30
9.1 Mass Component Calculation ................................................................................................................... 30
9.1.1 Payload Calculation ................................................................................................................................. 30
9.1.2 Sub Component Mass Calculation .......................................................................................................... 31
9.2 Centre of Gravity calculation .................................................................................................................... 32
9.2.1 Centre of gravity calculation for each component ................................................................................. 32
9.2.2 Adjustment of location of wing to meet C.G requirement ..................................................................... 34
9.2.3 SM value to meet stability of aircraft ..................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 10: AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE ............................................................................. 36

10.1 Take-off distance for all engines operating ............................................................................................ 36
10.2 Balance field length for one engine inoperative ..................................................................................... 37
10.3 Climb gradient requirements (in FAR) .................................................................................................... 38
10.4 Displacement, fuel, and time spent to reach cruise velocity at 12km altitude ........................................ 39
10.5 Load factor vs. velocity envelope ........................................................................................................... 40

ii

10.6 Trade-off between payload and range ................................................................................................... 41

10.7 Specific Excess Power ............................................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER 11: STABILITY AND CONTROL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 43

11.1 Longitudinal Stability ............................................................................................................................. 43
11.1.1 Contribution of Aircraft Components ................................................................................................... 43
11.1.2 Luxys Longitudinal Stability .................................................................................................................. 46
11.2 Directional Stability................................................................................................................................ 47
11.2.1 Contribution of Aircraft Component ..................................................................................................... 48
11.3 Longitudinal Control............................................................................................................................... 49
11.3.1 Elevator Power ...................................................................................................................................... 49
11.4 Directional Control ................................................................................................................................. 51
11.4.1 Rudder Power ....................................................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 12: AIRCRAFT SYSTEM ............................................................................................ 53

12.1 Fuel System ............................................................................................................................................ 53
12.1.1 Type of Fuel Used.................................................................................................................................. 53
12.1.2 Fuel Tanks ............................................................................................................................................. 53
12.1.3 Vent System .......................................................................................................................................... 54
12.1.4 Fuel Management and Transfer System ............................................................................................... 55
12.1.5 Fuel Jettison System ............................................................................................................................. 55
12.2 Avionics.................................................................................................................................................. 56
12.2.1 Flight Control System ............................................................................................................................ 56
12.2.2 Communication System ........................................................................................................................ 57
12.2.3 Navigation System ................................................................................................................................ 57
12.2.4 Collision Avoidance System .................................................................................................................. 57
12.3 Environmental control ........................................................................................................................... 58
12.3.1 Cabin Pressure ...................................................................................................................................... 58
12.3.2 Cabin Temperature ............................................................................................................................... 59
12.3.3 Ice Removal ........................................................................................................................................... 59

CHAPTER 13: AIRCRAFT COST ESTIMATION ANALYSIS .................................................. 61

iii

13.1 RDT&E and Flyaway Costs ...................................................................................................................... 61

13.1.1 Operations & Maintenance................................................................................................................... 63
13.1.2 Direct Operating Costs .......................................................................................................................... 63
13.1.3 Indirect Operating Costs ....................................................................................................................... 66
13.1.4 Overall Operations & Maintenance Cost .............................................................................................. 66
13.2 Disposal Cost .......................................................................................................................................... 66
13.3 Life-Cycle Cost ........................................................................................................................................ 67
13.4 Comparison with other commercial transport aircrafts .......................................................................... 67

CHAPTER 14: UNIQUE SELLING POINTS ................................................................................ 68

14.1 Long Term Operations ............................................................................................................................ 68
14.1.1 Reliability .............................................................................................................................................. 68
14.1.2 Operational Sustainability ..................................................................................................................... 68
14.2 Environmental Considerations ............................................................................................................... 69
14.2.1 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 69
14.2.2 Engines .................................................................................................................................................. 70
14.2.3 Emissions .............................................................................................................................................. 70
14.3 Manufacturability .................................................................................................................................. 71
14.3.1 Variability reduction. ............................................................................................................................ 71
14.3.2 Technological advancement ................................................................................................................. 71

CHAPTER 15: COMPLIANCE MATRIX ...................................................................................... 73

15.1 RFP Compliance ..................................................................................................................................... 73
15.2 FAR Compliance ..................................................................................................................................... 74

CHAPTER 16: BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 75

CHAPTER 17: APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 79

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1: World air travel has grown 5% per year since 1980 .................................................. 1
Figure 2: Oil Prices are expected to remain elevated and volatile [2] ....................................... 2
Figure 3: Fuel has doubled as a percentage of airline costs over the past 10 years [2] ............. 2
Figure 4: Mission profile ........................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Atmospheric properties .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Top View Luxy ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Front view of Luxy ................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Side View Luxy ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 9: Lockheed-Georgia C-141 airfoil .............................................................................. 15
Figure 10: RAE 103 airfoil ...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: Double-slotted flaps and its effects on lift curve slope .......................................... 15
Figure 12: Constraint analysis diagram ................................................................................... 16
Figure 13: Fuselage interior layout .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 14: Interior layout of Economy class cabin .................................................................. 21
Figure 15: LD3 containers [30]................................................................................................ 22
Figure 16: Cargo bay layout .................................................................................................... 22
Figure 17: 2D Lift Curve Slope (Wing) [31] ........................................................................... 23
Figure 18: 2D Lift curve slope (Horizontal tail and Vertical tail) [32] ................................... 24
Figure 19: Breakdown of parasite drag .................................................................................... 25
Figure 20: Drag components .................................................................................................... 26
Figure 21: Total thrust variation with altitude ......................................................................... 28
Figure 22: TSFC variation with altitude .................................................................................. 29
Figure 23: Centre of gravity location of fuel tank ................................................................... 33
Figure 24: Carpet plot of Mass (kg) vs C.G. position (m) ....................................................... 34
Figure 25: Plot of graph to estimate location of wing on aircraft ............................................ 35
Figure 26: Schematic of aircraft taking off .............................................................................. 36
Figure 27: Plot of displacement versus velocity. The green and red line corresponds,
respectively, to the total distance required for take-off and landing, if oneengineinoperative
occurs at an aircraft velocity .................................................................................................... 37
Figure 28: Plot of power versus velocity. The blue and red lines corresponds to the power
available and power required, respectively. The green line corresponds to the excess power
available. .................................................................................................................................. 39

Figure 29: Plot of load factor versus velocity. The yellow and green lines correspond to an
altitude of 5km and 10km, respectively, while the cyan, blue and red lines correspond to an
altitude of 11km, 12km, and 13km, respectively. .................................................................... 40
Figure 30: Plot of payload versus range. The green line corresponds to maximum payload
until maximum take-off weight. The blue line corresponds to replacing some payload with
fuel, until the fuel tank is filled. The red line corresponds to adding more fuel storage. ........ 41
Figure 31: Specific Excess Power............................................................................................ 42
Figure 32: Multhopp's method of segmentation ...................................................................... 45
Figure 33: Component contribution to pitching moment and overall longitudinal stability ... 46
Figure 34: Locations of fore and aft most CG, neutral point (NP), showing CG traverse and
static margin ............................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 35: Conditions for directional stability ......................................................................... 48
Figure 36: Ratio of surface area to flap effectiveness.............................................................. 49
Figure 37: C_m vs C_L for Luxy at different elevator settings ............................................... 50
Figure 38: Elevator setting vs C_L for trimmed conditions showing the operating regime.... 51
Figure 39: Vent system on aircraft........................................................................................... 54
Figure 40: Centre of gravity location of fuel tank ................................................................... 55
Figure 41: Fly by wire system in aircraft ................................................................................. 56
Figure 42: Generic functions of avionics system ..................................................................... 58
Figure 43: Breakdown of the RDT&E costs into its components ........................................... 63
Figure 44: Breakdown of Operation & Maintenance costs ..................................................... 66
Figure 45: Perceived Noise Level vs. Bypass Ratio ................................................................ 70
Figure 46: Usage of Composite Material ................................................................................. 72
Figure 47: Location of C.G of wing......................................................................................... 89

vi

List of Tables
Table 1: Initial mission fuel segment ......................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Reference aircraft parameters .................................................................................... 17
Table 3: Geometric properties of Luxy's wing ........................................................................ 18
Table 4: Geometric properties of Luxy's horizontal tail .......................................................... 18
Table 5: Geometric Parameters of Luxy's vertical tail ............................................................ 19
Table 6: Fuselage and cabin dimensions ................................................................................. 21
Table 7: CD0 values of main components of Luxy ................................................................... 25
Table 8: Trent 890-17 (improved model in 2020) specifications ............................................ 27
Table 9: Number distribution of passenger/crew on board ...................................................... 30
Table 10: Calculation of payload ............................................................................................. 30
Table 11: Masses of each aircraft sub component ................................................................... 31
Table 12: Different aircraft components and their respective C.G. positions ......................... 32
Table 13: Centre of gravity location of fuel tank ..................................................................... 33
Table 14: Most Forward and Most Aft C.G location ............................................................... 34
Table 15: Thrust, maximum take-off mass and take-off lift coefficient .................................. 36
Table 16: Decision speed, balance field length and take-off distance for OEI........................ 38
Table 17: Required and actual climb gradients........................................................................ 38
Table 18: Displacement, fuel used, and time spent to reach cruise velocity at 12km altitude 40
Table 19: Mass of fuel, payload, take-off mass, and thrust specific fuel consumption ........... 41
Table 20: Wing contribution to longitudinal stability.............................................................. 43
Table 21: Tail contribution to longitudinal stability ................................................................ 44
Table 22: Fuselage contribution to longitudinal stability (1)................................................... 45
Table 23: Fuselage contribution to longitudinal stability (2)................................................... 45
Table 24: Luxy's overall longitudinal stability ........................................................................ 46
Table 25: Results of SM min and max and CG traverse.......................................................... 47
Table 26: Component contribution and overall directional stability ....................................... 48
Table 27: Elevator Authority ................................................................................................... 49
Table 28: Rudder Authority ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 29: Summary of RDT&E costs ...................................................................................... 62
Table 30: Parameters associated with the production scale ..................................................... 63
Table 31: Direct Operating Costs Analysis (yearly basis) ....................................................... 65
Table 32: Life cycle cost summary .......................................................................................... 67

vii

Table 33: Comparison with A340-600 and Boeing777-300ER ............................................... 67

Table 34: RFP Compliance Matrix .......................................................................................... 73
Table 35: FAR Compliance Matrix ......................................................................................... 74

viii

Chapter 1: Executive Summary

Air travel is an essential part of personal and business life for many travellers. Over the years,
improved aviation technology and efficiency has allowed airlines to make air travel more
affordable, so that the airfares make up a less significant portion of the total trip costs. As
such, the demand for air travel has been booming over the decade. Commercial aircraft
programmes are driven by demand, particularly in long haul transport aircrafts as travellers
are travelling further away for vacation or work and studies. Commercial aviation has
endured many downturns previously to achieve a 5% growth rate annually (measured by
revenue passenger kilometres) since 1980 (in Figure 1).

Figure 1: World air travel has grown 5% per year since 1980

However, there are environmental concerns about the greenhouse gas emissions as stated in
the International Transport Forum [1], global carbon dioxide emissions from transport have
grown by 45% from 1990 to 2007, with shipping and aviation sectors having the highest
growth rates. Besides that, based on the future outlook by Boeing [2], the long term elevated
oil prices are going to put pressure on the affordable airfares as shown in Figure 2 and fuel
costs constitute a larger percentage of the total cash operating cost as compared to a decade
ago (see Figure 3).

Figure 2: Oil Prices are expected to remain elevated and volatile [2]

Figure 3: Fuel has doubled as a percentage of airline costs over the past 10 years [2]

To be in line with the long term aims of current aviation industry, the project team has
carefully designed an aircraft to be environmentally progressive, long range, fast, reliable
with a low operating cost while providing an enriching passenger experience so as to create
more value to our customers in all markets. The aircraft, namedLuxy, is developed to comply
with the customers Request for Proposal (RFP) and the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 25
(FAR 25) for the transport category aircrafts. Due to the foreseen advancement in the current
aviation technology, Luxy possesses a higher capability of performances and fuel efficiency
than the current referenced models.
The main specifications of Luxyare described in the following paragraphs:
Luxy is able to accommodate 400 passengers including all the pilots and crew, with 12 in
First Class; 54 in Business Class; 314 in Economy Class; and crew consisting of 16 flight
attendants and 4 pilots.
2

Next, for the wing design of Luxy, she utilized twodouble-slotted flaps to allow for larger lift
generation during takeoff and landing. These lift devices had given the capability to takeoff
with a balanced field length of 1840 m. For the engine selection, two Rolls-Royce Trent 89017 engines were mounted on the fuselage and Luxy is able to climb to an altitude of 12km
and maintain a maximum cruise speed of 0.86Mach. Moreover, it is capable of achieving a
range of over 11000km even after taking into account the fuel capacity available in the wings.

Chapter 2: Analysis of Request for Proposal

The objective of the project team is to design a Long Haul Transport (LHT) Aircraft that can
achieve 20% better operational efficiency than the selected referenced aircrafts. Considering
the technological advancements in year 2020, the designed aircraft needs to fulfil all the
requirements in the RFP and the FAR 25 which will be elaborated in this section.

2.1 Performance Requirements

Long Haul
Transport

Payload
325-425
Mixed Class

LHT-4

Speed
0.86M 0.89M

Takeoff &

Altitude
11km to
13km

Endurance

11000km

Engine

Landing

Wing

Distance

Type

Location

<2600m

Turbofan

Fuselage

Conventional

2.2 Other Requirements

The RFP states that the cabin of a transport aircraft should include a cockpit for two pilots, a
passenger compartment with stand-up headroom not less than 1.83m along the aisle and
overhead compartments on both sides of the aisle. The transport aircraft cockpit should have
two flight crew stations in a side by side arrangement. Since the proposed flight is more than
9 hours, there is a spare team of flight crew in the passenger cabin.
It is also stated that cabin pressure for transport aircraft is supposed to be equivalent to an
altitude of 1676m (5500ft), including in the baggage compartment for mission time longer
than 9hours. Baggage compartment must be big enough to accommodate passenger/crew
baggage (23kg or 0.25m3 for economy class passengers and twice the baggage allowance for
first and business class passengers) and 30% excess baggage. For passenger baggage,
containers and pallets of standard sizes shall be used.
The aircraft shall be designed to meet FAR Part 25 requirements and have a cruise Mach
number less than the drag divergence Mach number.

2.3 Safety Constraints

Additional fuel storage is required for refused landing and diversion to alternate airport up to
200 nautical miles away plus 30minutes loiter at 4572m (15000ft). Assume that the aircraft is
at its descent path and gets the diversion signal from Air Traffic Control, at 914m (3000ft)
altitude and climbs to 4572m (15000ft) before cruising to alternate airport. For multi-engine
aircraft, the second segment climb gradient (CGR) capability with one-engine inoperative
(OEI) shall be greater than 2.8%. Other conditions for second segment climb include landing
gears retracted and wing flaps in takeoff position with speed not less than 1.2 Vstall and at an
altitude of 122m (400ft) above takeoff field altitude. Finally, other safety constraints
specified in FAR Part25 are to be complied with.

2.4 Economic Constraints

Production cost estimates are to be based on a production run of 500 aircrafts which includes
a good estimation of total flyaway cost. Other costs to be determined include direct operating
costs and life cycle cost.

2.5 Mission Profile

Figure 4shows the mission profile for transport aircraft for international flight.
It is characterized by 14 different flight segments.

Figure 4: Mission profile

Flight segment 1-3:

Luxy would be warming up its engine for approximately1min at Max Dry before taxiing.
Taxi is the movement of an aircraft on the ground, under its own power, to move to its
starting position. It was not considered under the acceleration or deceleration during takeoff
and landing.
The lift coefficient for taking off was assumed to be 1.7, and the corresponding stall velocity
for Luxy was computed to be 68.3m/s. Taking a factor of 1.2 for takeoff speed to meet FAR
regulation, takeoff speed of 82m/s was obtained.

Flight segment 4:
Luxy would continue its acceleration to its cruise speed of 254m/s as its best climb speed is
larger than its cruise speed and maintain the velocity to the cruise altitude of 12,000m.

Flight Segment 5-6:

Upon reaching the cruise altitude, Luxy wouldremain at its cruise speed of Mach number
0.86 at cruise altitude of 12000m, where it will be cruising for a distance of 11000km with an
additional 10 percent requirement.
Flight Segment 7:
Luxy would descend to its target destination before refused landing. Fuel consumed for
descent was accounted for in the mission profile.
Flight Segment 8-9:
Similar considerations for climb and cruise were applied. Luxy would climb at cruise speed
and cruise at 0.86M for the distance of 200nautical miles. The fuel consumed was computed
correspondingly.
Flight segment 10:
Segment 10 was similar to segment 7.
Flight Segment 11-12:
Segments 11 and 12 occur when Luxy has to loiter at 15,000 ft at maximum endurance before
clearance to land.
Flight Segment 13-14:
Luxy would descend and land at its final target destination.

2.6 Initial Mission Fuel Segment Estimation

For an initial estimation, typical values of fuel weight fractions had been approximated
except for segments 5, 6,9 and 12.
The fuel weight fraction had been calculated for these segments using the following
equations with lift-to-drag ratio as 18, v=254m/s and

as 48.52kg/kN/hr.

Segment 5: Cruise segment of 11000km

( )

Segment 6: Cruise segment of 1100km

( )
Segment 9: Diversion to alternate airport

( )
Segment 12: Hold for 30 min

( )
Table 1: Initial mission fuel segment

Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Mission Segment
Engine start and warm-up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb
Cruise to full range
10% additional range
Descent to destination and refused landing
Climb
Diversion to alternate airport 200nm away
Descent
Climb to 15000 feet
Hold for 30min
Descent
Landing

11000km
0.99
0.99
0.995
0.98
0.752
0.972
0.99
0.98
0.990
0.99
0.98
0.987
0.99
0.992

13000km
0.99
0.99
0.995
0.98
0.714
0.967
0.99
0.98
0.990
0.99
0.98
0.987
0.99
0.992

Mission ratio (W_final/W_TO)

1,2,3,4,5,7,14 (minimum scenerio)
Fuel ratio (W_fuel/W_TO)

0.631
0.726
0.376

0.596
0.694
0.412

With the total weight fractions estimation, the required fuel ratio of 0.376 was obtained. An
initial estimate of gross takeoff weight in initial takeoff weight estimation was then
8

calculated.Weight fraction of fuel was computed for 13000km range and used as a reference
for designing the plane with respect to the amount of fuel storage space required.

2.7 Final Mission Fuel Segment Estimation

For more accurate mission fuel segment estimation, changes in atmospheric properties,
engine performances and aerodynamic characteristics have to be taken into consideration.
The changes in atmospheric properties are as shown in Figure 5. Temperature will affect the
density of the air and hence flight performance.

Figure 5: Atmospheric properties

Luxy will be cruising at an altitude of 12km.However, the first and last segments of flight
will be within the troposphere where density plays a huge part on flight performance.
Therefore, the variations have to be taken into consideration.

2.8 Updated mission profile

Lift coefficient CLwas computed by estimating L=W at 60% fuel capacity
At 60% Fuel, Weight of Luxy = 1,839,000 N
L=W=
CL = 0.45
CD = CD0 + kCL2 = 0.0230
T=D=
T = 93,860 N (at cruise)
Cj = 0.476 kN/kN/hr = 48.5 kg/kN/hr
Table 2: Distance, time taken, thrust, and fuel spent for certain segments

Segment
5
6
9
12

Distance
10894 km
1100 km
370 km
127 km

Time
11.91hr
1.20hr
0.40hr
0.50hr

Thrust
93.8kN
93.8kN
93.8kN
93.8kN

Fuel spent
54,222 kg
5,475 kg
1,842 kg
2,276 kg

Table 3: Updated mission profile

Segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Phase I
Engine start and warm-up
Taxi
Take-off
Climb
Cruise to full range
10% Additional range
Descend
but
refused
landing
Climb
Diversion to alternate
airport 200 nm away
Descent
Climb to 15,000 ft
Loiter for 30 min
Descend
Landing

Phase III
Remaining
Fuel
mass
Balance
235,521
81,621
233,166
79,266
232,886
78,986
230,928
77,028
176,706
22,806
171,231
17,331

0.99
0.99
0.995
0.98
0.752
0.972

Fuel
spent
2,379
2,355
280
1,958
54,222
5,475

0.99

1,566

169,665

15,765

0.991

0.98

1,958

167,707

13,807

0.988

0.99

1,842

165,865

11,965

0.989

0.99
0.98
0.987
0.99
0.992

1,566
746
2,276
1,253
1,280

164,299
163,553
161,277
160,024
158,744

10,399
9,653
7,377
6,124
4,844

0.991
0.995
0.986
0.992
0.992

Wi/Wi-1
0.99
0.99
0.999
0.992
0.765
0.969

10

The fuel spent in segments 1, 2, and 14 were assumed to follow the generic numbers.
Segments 3 and 4 were based on numerical computations. Segments 5, 6, 9, and 12 were
computed based on the time spent and the corresponding thrust and thrust specific fuel
consumption. (Since segments 3 and 4 had been calculated to cover a distance of 106 km,
segment 5 was taken as cruise for the remaining 10894 km). Segments 8 and 11 were taken
with respect to segment 4. Segments 7, 10, and 13 were assumed to consume 80% the fuel
used during climb, as a conservative estimate. The balance fuel after landing would safely
account for wave drag due to compressibility effects (neglected in the calculation of CD),
which is not significant but non-zero at a cruise Mach number of 0.86.

11

Chapter 3: 3 View Drawing of Aircraft

Figure 6: Top View Luxy

Figure 7: Front view of Luxy

12

Figure 8: Side View Luxy

13

Chapter 4: Design features of Aircraft

4.1 Configuration Selection
4.1.1 Wings configuration
Luxy employed a low wing configuration. This configuration is advantageous in several ways
as compared to a high wing configuration [3]:

Presence of ground effect improves the aircraft take off performance

Lower induced drag

Less downwash by the wing on the tail results in a more effective tail

Lighter aircraft

Higher lateral control

Longitudinally stabilizing

4.1.2 Tail configuration

Since Luxy's engines are mounted on the fuselage, a T-tail configuration was adopted. The
key advantages that a T-tail provides are that it is out of the regions of wing wake, wing
downwash, wing vortices, and engine exhaust. As a result, the effectiveness of the T-tail is
increased. [4]

4.2 Airfoil Selection

Luxy's RFP states the cruising Mach number to range from 0.86 to 0.89 at an altitude
between 11km and 13km. This required Mach number falls in the transonic regime. Since
airflow accelerates over the top of an airfoil, critical Mach number may be reached at some
point. Beyond this critical Mach number, a shock normal to the airfoil occurs. These shocks
create an adverse pressure gradient which results in flow separation.
In order to delay the onset of flow separation to a point as far away as possible from the
leading edge of the airfoil, a supercritical airfoil was selected for Luxy. Supercritical airfoils
have a flatter upper surface as compared to normal airfoils, to reduce flow acceleration. This
thus results in a delayed onset of flow separation. Furthermore, a higher drag divergence
Mach number is also achieved with a supercritical airfoil. [5]
Figure 9 below shows the airfoil selected for Luxy's wings. The airfoil has a maximum
thickness of 13% at 40.2% chord and a maximum camber of 1.1% at 64.5% chord.
14

Figure 9: Lockheed-Georgia C-141 airfoil

On the other hand, a symmetric airfoil was selected for Luxy's vertical tail. This is to ensure
the symmetricity of the aircraft in the x-z plane as a non-symmetrical airfoil section would
create aerodynamic pitching moments. Moreover, to ensure that there are no compressibility
effects at the tail, a thinner airfoil than the wing's airfoil was chosen. A thinner airfoil makes
sure that the flow Mach number at the vertical tail is less than that at the wing. [6]
Figure 10 below shows the airfoil selected for Luxy's vertical tail. The airfoil has a maximum
thickness of 10% at 40% chord.

Figure 10: RAE 103 airfoil

4.3 High Lift Devices

Luxy was designed with double-slotted flaps at the trailing edge of its wings to provide
greater lift during take-off or landing. Double slotted flaps increase the camber of Luxy's
airfoil. At every angle of attack, lift coefficient is thus increased compared to an airfoil with
no flaps at the trailing edge, as shown inFigure 11. [7]

Figure 11: Double-slotted flaps and its effects on lift curve slope

15

Chapter 5: Constraint Analysis for Optimum W/S and T/W

The two key parameters that influence the performance of a transport aircraft are thrust-toweight ratio (T/W) and wing loading (W/S). Optimization of these two parameters is essential
in designing an aircraft. This can be achieved by considering performance requirements in
mission segments such as take-off, climb, cruise and landing. However, these performance
requirements put conflicting demands on W/S and T/W.
A feasible design space can be obtained from the constraint analysis diagram which is a plot
of T/W against W/S for the respective performance requirements. A design point is then
selected within the feasible design space, where both T/W and W/S satisfy the design
requirements.
Figure 12 below shows the constraint diagram for Luxy. For initial sizing, a T/W value of
0.35 and W/S of 5500N/m2 were selected. The design point was not chosen right on the
boundary to allow room for aircraft growth potential.
1.400
Takeoff Field Length
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio, T/W

1.200

Landing Field Length

1.000

Cruise
Second Segment Climb Gradient

0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Wing Loading, W/S (N/m^2)

Figure 12: Constraint analysis diagram

16

Chapter 6: Geometric Parameters of Wing, Horizontal Tail, Vertical Tail,

Fuselage
6.1 Study of similar aircraft
To obtain an initial design, extensive research was conducted on existing aircrafts with
parameters similar to those stated in the RFP. From this research, initial design parameters
such as sizing were obtained.
Table 2 shows the parameters of the three reference aircrafts that were used in the initial
design of Luxy. Luxy's initial design was based on the Airbus A340-600 as it satisfies the
RFP to the largest extent.
Table 2: Reference aircraft parameters

Aircraft Parameters
Range (km)
Max Take Off Weight (kg)
Cruise Speed (Mach)
Wing Span, b (m)
Wing Area, S (m2)
Wing Aspect Ratio
Fuselage Length (m)
Fuselage Width (m)
Fuselage Cross Section
Seating Capacity
Horizontal Tail Span (m)
Vertical Tail Effective Span (m)

Airbus 340-600
14,600
365,000
0.83
63.45
437
9.3
75.36
5.64
Circular
380
22.59
8.8

Airbus 330-300
11,900
240,000
0.82
60.3
361.6
10.06
63.69
5.64
Circular
295
19.4
11.12

Boeing 747-400
13,450
396,890
0.85
59.64
511
6.97
70.67
Circular
358
-

17

6.2 Wing Sizing

Changing the wing parameters such as taper ratio, wing area and wing span will affect the
fuel volume and wing loading. Therefore, these parameters were set as variables and adjusted
according to Luxy's fuel requirements.Table 3 below shows the finalised wing geometry of
Luxy.
Table 3: Geometric properties of Luxy's wing

Parameters
Location
Distance from fuselage nose
Span, b
Area, S
Root chord
Tip chord
Mean aerodynamic chord
Aspect ratio
Taper ratio
Sweep

Dimensions
Low
30 m
60 m
406 m2
11.5
3.45
7.90
8.87
0.3
32

6.3 Horizontal Tail Sizing

Special consideration was made to ensure that the horizontal tail has a lower aspect ratio than
that of the wing. Since a deflection of the elevator creates a large bending moment at the tail
root, a lower aspect ratio would result in a smaller bending moment [6]. Besides that, the tail
sweep angle was also set at a slightly higher angle than the wing sweep angle. This is to
ensure that the horizontal tail will have a higher critical Mach number to delay transonic
effects. As Luxy is an aft fuselage-mounted engine aircraft, a slightly larger tail was designed
to balance the aircraft's centre of gravity which is slightly towards the aft of fuselage [8].
With these considerations in mind, the horizontal tail was designed and the parameters are as
shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Geometric properties of Luxy's horizontal tail

Parameters
Span
Area
Root Chord
Tip Chord
Mean Aerodynamic Chord
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
Sweep

Dimensions
24 m
113.4 m2
7m
2.45 m
5.09 m
5.08
0.35
35

18

6.4 Vertical Tail Sizing

The primary design driver of the vertical tail is to maintain the aircraft's directional stability.
Directional stability can be easily met if the vertical tail area is of sufficient area and vertical
tail moment arm is of sufficient length. In addition, the vertical tail must be able to maintain
aircraft directional trim and directional control [6]. Keeping these design requirements in
mind, initial vertical tail parameters were determined and the geometric parameters are as
shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Geometric Parameters of Luxy's vertical tail

Parameters
Span
Area
Root Chord
Tip Chord
Mean Aerodynamic Chord
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
Sweep

Dimensions
8m
192 m2
8m
6m
7.05 m
1.33
0.75
35

6.5 Fuselage Sizing

A similar circular, single-deck fuselage as the reference aircraft was adopted. A circular
cross-section ensures that air flow will not separate at moderate angles of attack or sideslip. A
circular fuselage can also resist the loads with tension stresses when the fuselage is
pressurized [9].
RFP requires the aircraft to carry 325 to 425 passengers in a mixed class configuration. Luxy
can accommodate a total 380 passengers in a three class seating. There are 12 First class seats,
54 Business class seats and 314 Economy class seats. Since Luxy can accommodate the same
number of passengers as the reference aircraft, similar fuselage interior layout was adopted.
The locations and number of emergency exits were decided according to FAR requirements.
FAR 25.807 states that no passenger emergency exit shall be more than 60 feet from any
adjacent passenger emergency exit on the same side of the fuselage. Hence, the locations of
emergency exits were evenly distributed on each side of the fuselage as shown in Figure 13.

19

Emergency Exits

Figure 13: Fuselage interior layout

20

Figure 14 shows the interior layout of Luxy's economy class cabin and the cargo bay under
the passenger compartment. Seat pitch of 1.53m, 0.92m and 0.78m were selected for First,
Business and Economy class respectively. In addition, the cabin was designed with an aisle
width of 0.6m for First and Business classes and 0.5m for Economy class. This allows
passengers to move about comfortably around the cabin. An additional 0.125m was added to
cabin diameter, to account for fuselage skin, and the final fuselage diameter obtained was
5.65m. Suitable segments for flight deck and empennage were also added to arrive at an
overall fuselage length of 74.08m. Detailed cabin and fuselage parameters are as shown
inTable 6.

Figure 14: Interior layout of Economy class cabin

Table 6: Fuselage and cabin dimensions

First Class
Seat Pitch
1.53m
Seat Width
0.7m
Aisle Width
0.6m
Business Class
Seat Pitch
0.92 m
Seat Width
0.7 m
Aisle Width
0.6 m
Economy Class
Seat Pitch
0.78 m
Seat Width
0.55 m
Aisle Width
0.5 m
Fuselage Geometry
Cabin Length
59.7 m
Cabin Diameter
74.08 m
Fuselage Length
5.4 m
Fuselage Diameter
5.65 m

21

Standard size unit load devices were employed to store passenger baggage in the cargo bay
under the passenger compartment. Luxy was designed to hold 42 LD3 containers (Figure 15)
with a total volume of 189m3 which is adequate to hold the required passenger baggage as
stated in the RFP. The cargo bay layout is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 15: LD3 containers [30]

Figure 16: Cargo bay layout

22

Chapter 7: Lift and Drag Aerodynamic Analysis

7.1 Lift Analysis
7.1.1 Wing
As the finite wing's lift curve slope (CL) is different from its 2D lift curve slope, corrections
had to be made to the airfoil's lift curve slope (Cl). The lift curve slope of the wing can be
approximated as

where e is the Oswald efficiency factor and AR is aspect ratio of the wing.

Figure 17: 2D Lift Curve Slope (Wing) [31]

Figure 17 shows the lift curve slope of the wing airfoil and a Cl value of 5.84/rad was
obtained from the graph. CL of the wing was then calculated to be 4.83/rad.
CLmax for cruise was calculated using the formula

and a value of 0.66 was

obtained. The CLmax for landing was assumed to be 2.8 by taking into account 100% of
additional lift contributed by fully deployed flaps. C Lmax for takeoff was assumed to be 1.8 by
considering 65% of the additional lift contributed by deployment of flaps during takeoff.

23

7.2 Horizontal Tail and Vertical Tail

The same symmetric airfoil, RAE 103 was used for both Luxy's horizontal and vertical
tails.Figure 18 shows the lift curve slope for RAE 103 airfoil and its lift curve slope is 6.17.
The lift curve slope of a 3D tail was calculated in the same way as the wing and a value of
4.45 was obtained.

Figure 18: 2D Lift curve slope (Horizontal tail and Vertical tail) [32]

24

7.3 Drag Analysis

The drag on Luxy can be divided into parasite and induced drag. Wave drag was not taken
into consideration since the aircraft was designed to fly below the drag divergence Mach
number. The parasite drag was estimated using the component build-up method. This method
uses a calculated flat-plate skin-friction drag coefficient (Cf) and a component "form factor"
(FF) that estimates pressure drag due to viscous separation, to determine the subsonic parasite
drag of each component. In the case of flaps and landing gear, parasite drag was estimated
using formulation based on their respective frontal areas. Luxy's induced drag on the other
hand, was based on Oswald's efficiency factor. Oswald's efficiency factor accounts for Luxy's
wing's non-elliptical lift distribution and flow separation. [7]
The respective component's parasite drag for Luxy is shown inTable 7. In addition, Figure 19
revealed that the fuselage and wing are the two major contributors to Luxy's parasite drag, as
expected.
Table 7: CD0 values of main components of Luxy

Component
Wing
Horizontal
Tail
Vertical Tail
Fuselage
Nacelle
Flaps
Landing Gear
Total

CD0 value
0.0045
0.0013
0.0021
0.0074
0.0002
0.0088
0.0019
0.0157

1%

29%

Wing
Horizontal Tail
Vertical Tail

48%

Fuselage
8%

Nacelle

14%

Figure 19: Breakdown of parasite drag

25

To compute the induced drag for Luxy, a proportionality factor k which depends on Luxy's
aspect ratio as well as Oswald's efficiency factor, was first calculated. Luxy has an aspect
ratio of 8.867 and an Oswald efficiency factor of 0.7. However, 0.7 is slightly lower than
typical values thus an Oswald efficiency factor of 0.85 was adopted. After considering
technologies available in 2020, k was evaluated to be 0.04. This value was then multiplied by
the square of the lift coefficient to give induced drag.

0.06
0.05
CD / CDi / CD0

0.04
Total Drag

0.03

Parasite Drag

0.02

Induced Drag

0.01
0
-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

CL
Figure 20: Drag components

Figure 20 illustrates clearly that the total drag (CD) of Luxy is the summation of its parasite
drag (CD0) and induced drag (CDi). The drag polar is given by the blue graph. By computing
CL at the maximum lift-to-drag ratio, values for CDi and thus CD were calculated. Finally, an
updated L/D value of 21 was obtained which was higher than the initial assumption of 18.
This new value was then used to re-evaluate Luxy's mission fuel.

26

Chapter 8: Engine Features

Luxy uses the Rolls-Royce Trent 890-17 engine. The Trent 800 series is reputable for its
industry-leading reliability and capability of continued thrust growth. Moreover, it generates
low noise and low emissions. The three-shaft design improves the efficiency of the engine
thus making it lighter than competing engines. Low weight and high thrust in turn leads to
savings in fuel consumption [10].
Table 8shows the specifications of Trent 890-17 engine (improved model in 2020). Luxy
requires a total thrust of 811kN and this amount of thrust can be provided by two Trent 89017 engines.
Table 8: Trent 890-17 (improved model in 2020) specifications

Parameter
Maximum Thrust
Dry Weight
Cruise
Specific
Consumption
Bypass Ratio
Compressor
Turbine
Fan Diameter
Length

Value
467 kN (15% improvement in year 2020)
58 kN
Fuel 48.5 kg/kN/hr (15% improvement in year 2020)
5.74
14 Stages: 8 Intermediate Pressure, 6 High Pressure
7 Stages:
5 Low Pressure, 1 Intermediate Pressure, 1 High
Pressure
2.79 m
4.37 m

Figure 21shows the total thrust, provided by two Trent 890-17 engines, variation with altitude.
At sea level, both engines are capable of producing a total thrust of 934kN. At cruise altitude
of 12km, a total thrust of 207kN can be produced.

27

14000
12000

Altitude (m)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-

4
Thrust

5
(105

N)

Figure 21: Total thrust variation with altitude

Thrust is strongly degraded as altitude increases as it is highly dependent on the density of the
atmosphere.

Figure 22shows the thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) variation of the engines, with
altitude. At sea level, the engines will have a TSFC of 35.68kg/kN/hr. As TSFC decreases
with altitude, the engines will have a TSFC of 30.94kg/kN/hr at cruise altitude of 12km.

28

16000
14000

Altitude (m)

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
30

31

32

33

34

35

36

TSFC (kg/kN/Hr)

Figure 22: TSFC variation with altitude

29

Chapter 9: Mass Component and Centre of Gravity Calculations

9.1 Mass Component Calculation
9.1.1 Payload Calculation
Luxy was designed to carry a total of 400 passengers and crew with the breakdown as shown
in Table 9.
Table 9: Number distribution of passenger/crew on board

Number of
passengers
First Class
Biz Class
Economy class
Total

Number of flight
attendants
12
54
314
380

Number of pilots
2
3
11
16

In an engineering perspective, each additional passengeron the aircraft is equivalent to having

additional weight. Table 10 shows the average weight and the baggage allowance for each
passenger and crew, according to different classes. An additional 30% for baggage has been
considered and the weights of amenities and LD3 containers were also taken into account.
Table 10: Calculation of payload

Total Pax:
Weight per pax(kg):
Weight(kg):
Total pax of economy/crew:
Baggage +check in per pax (kg):
Weight(kg):
Total pax of 1st class/business:
Baggage +check in per pax (kg):
Weight(kg):
Total weight of baggage:
Inclusive of 30%
Amenities
LD3 containers
Total payload(kg)

400
91
36400
334
31
10354
66
80
5280
15634
20324.2
4800
3570
65,094

30

9.1.2 Sub Component Mass Calculation

Sub component masses of the aircraft are as shown in Table 11. The aircraft was assumed to
use full aerodynamic surface controls during flight. Detailed mass calculations are indicated
in Appendix E:
Table 11: Masses of each aircraft sub component

Component

in lbs

in Kg

Wing
Horizontal Tail
Vertical Tail
Fuselage
Main Gear
Nose Gear
Payload
Engine
APU
Navigation System
Hydraulics
Electrical
Electronics
Furnishing
Air Conditioning
Operating Items

78,126
8,245
6,336
116,731
18,821
2,729
143,508
18,602
2,660
1,200
3,057
4,940
1,500
29,868
5,700
16,000

35,437
3,740
2,874
52,948
8,537
1,238
65,094
8,438
1,207
544
1,387
2,241
680
13,548
2,585
7,257

With
With Tech
Adjustment
Factor
(kg)
(kg)
33,928
27,142
3,580
2,864
2,752
2,201
50,693
40,554
8,173
6,539
1,185
948
62,321
49,857
8,078
6,463
1,155
924
521
417
1,328
1,062
2,145
1,716
651
521
12,971
10,377
2,475
1,980
6,948
5,559

Initially, a zero fuel weight of 332,000lbs was obtained from drag analysis. However, a zero
fuel weight of 454,000lbs was obtained from sub component mass calculations. An average
of these 2 values was thus used and is as shown in the column 'With Adjustment' in Table 11.
In addition, a technological factor of 80% was considered assuming improvements in aircraft
materials by the year 2020. The final mass of each component is reflected in the column
'With Tech Factor' in Table 11.

31

9.2 Centre of Gravity calculation

9.2.1 Centre of gravity calculation for each component
The centre of gravity of the aircraft was estimated using formulated calculations. Some areas
were estimated using references from an online report by Chai.S and Mason.W [11]. The
values are written as shown in Table 12. Detailed information of the calculation done is
written in the Appendix E. The calculation for fuel tank volume and maximum fuel when
filled is also shown in Appendix E.
Table 12: Different aircraft components and their respective C.G. positions

Component
Wing
Horizontal Tail
Vertical Tail
Fuselage
Main Gear
Nose Gear
Engine
APU
Navigation System
Hydraulics
Electrical
Electronics
Furnishing
Air Conditioning
Operating Items

CG Location in m
37.38
72.49
72.06
34.82
41.5
10.37
52.73
72.06
34.82
34.82
34.82
34.82
34.82
37.04
37.04

The wing location was initially estimated to be 38m from the nose of the fuselage and further
calculations and adjustments are done to shift the location of the wing accordingly. Distance
cg of individual components times the individual weight equals the sum of the total C.G
times the weight.
Amount of fuel and percentage of maximum payload may vary with each flight. Therefore,
25 different cases of mass and C.G. locations were considered by taking into account 0%,
25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of payload and fuel. The centre of gravity position of fuel is as
shown in Table 13 and Figure 23. The calculation for the fuel tank volume is presented in the
appendix.

32

Table 13: Centre of gravity location of fuel tank

Fuel tank position

Location of C.G

Inboard -30% fuel

42.12m

Midboard 45%

38.73m

fuel
Outboard 25%

34.90m

fuel

Figure 23: Centre of gravity location of fuel tank

33

9.2.2 Adjustment of location of wing to meet C.G requirement

300000.00
Mass(kg) vs CG(m)
250000.00

0 Fuel
25% Fuel

200000.00

50% Fuel
75% Fuel

150000.00

100% Fuel
0 Pax

100000.00

25% Pax
50% Pax

50000.00

75% Pax
100% Pax

0.00
38

38.2

38.4

38.6

38.8

39

39.2

39.4

Figure 24: Carpet plot of Mass(kg) vs C.G. position (m)

The most forward and most aft C.G. of the aircraft can be obtained fromFigure 24. Distance
between the most forward and most aft C.G, d, was then calculated as shown Table 14.
Table 14: Most Forward and Most Aft C.G location

Most Forward C.G

Most Aft C.G
d

38.07m
39.25m
1.171m

As mentioned previously, the head of the wing was 38m from the nose of the fuselage.This
resulted in a large distance between the most forward and most aft C.G. Distance d is
supposed to be approximately 15% of MAC which is 1.185m. Hence, the wing was shifted
forward and backwards by 2m and 25 different cases of mass and C.G. locations were
calculated again using the two new wing locations. Figure 25 shows the distances d for the
three wing locations.

34

d1
d2
d3
x1
x2
x3

3.52m
4.26m
5.09m
36m
38m
40m

Equation
MAC
15% of MAC
Value of x at
d= 1.185m

d=0.3869x - 10.4357
7.9
1.185
30.01

Difference of most forward C.G and most Aft C.G

6
5
4

Difference of
most forward
C.G and most
Aft C.G

3
2
1
0
36

38

40

Figure 25: Plot of graph to estimate location of wing on aircraft

As shown in Figure 25, an equation of d= 0.3869x 10.4357 is formed. This value is an

extrapolated value and the values are assumed to vary linearly. The value of x at d of 1.185m
is calculated to be around 30m and the wing is shifted accordingly. The d value is measured
to be around 1.4m after iteration and it is a little far away from the target of 15% of MAC.
The wing is adjusted again to be 29m away from nose of aircraft and the d value calculated is
1.17m which is an acceptable value.
9.2.3 SM value to meet stability of aircraft
In order to meet longitudinal stability of Luxy Aircraft, the SM value has to be 3-5% of MAC
value. It is calculated in section0that the SM value is 3.6% of MAC which shows that the
aircraft is able to meet longitudinal stability.

35

Chapter 10: Aircraft Performance

10.1 Take-off distance for all engines operating
Lift-off

35 ft-high
obstruction

Figure 26: Schematic of aircraft taking off

Level acceleration is a function of lift, drag, and ground friction, which in turn are functions
of the aircraft velocity to the second order. The displacement is clearly non-linear with
respect to time, and hence a numerical computation was used. Take-off distance, which is the
sum of the distance covered during level acceleration for all engines operative and the
horizontal displacement to climb and pass a 35 ft-high obstruction (Figure 26), was computed
to be 1100m. (Please refer to Appendix F1 for the detailed computation procedure).
Table 15: Thrust, maximum take-off mass and take-off lift coefficient

Thrust per engine (with 15% technological improvement)

467 kN

Total thrust for all engines operative

934 kN

MTO,max

243,000 kg

CL,TO

1.7

Take-off distance for AEO

1100 m

36

10.2 Balance field length for one engine inoperative

Figure 27: Plot of displacement versus velocity. The green and red line corresponds, respectively, to the total distance
required for take-off and landing, if oneengineinoperative occurs at an aircraft velocity

Both engines in Luxy have the same characteristics and provide the same thrust. The decision
speed was computed numerically, since displacement varies non-linearly with respect to the
velocity, and was determined to be 66 m/s, as seen from Figure 27: Plot of displacement
versus velocity. The green and red line corresponds, respectively, to the total distance
required for take-off and landing, if oneengineinoperative occurs at an aircraft velocity. If
one engine fails before the aircraft reaches the decision velocity of 66 m/s, the pilot should
abort take-off and brake, because there is insufficient ground distance for take-off. On the
other hand, if one engine fails when the aircraft velocity is above 66 m/s, the pilot should
continue with take-off as there will be insufficient ground distance for the aircraft to brake.
The braking distance has included a 2 seconds delay in shutting down of the remaining
working engine, and another 1 second delay in initiating the brakes. In addition, the
deceleration is limited to 0.25g in the interest of passenger comfort.
The corresponding balance field length obtained was 1840 m(please refer to Appendix F1 for
the detailed computation procedure).
The balance field length with one engine inoperative was greater than 115% of the distance
required to clear 35 ft obstruction with all engines operating. Therefore, take-off distance will
follow the value of the balance field length, which is 1840 m, as shown in Table 16.

37

Table 16: Decision speed, balance field length and take-off distance for OEI

Decision speed

66 m/s

Balance field length

1840 m

Take-off distance for OEI

1840 m

10.3 Climb gradient requirements (in FAR)

The climb gradient requirements as stipulated in the FAR require an aircraft with one engine
inoperative to meet a minimum climb gradient corresponding to various climb gradients, as
shown in Table 17. Our Luxy has met all the respective requirements. (Please refer to
Appendix F1 for the detailed computation procedure).
Table 17: Required and actual climb gradients

Segment

Description

Requirement

Luxy

Lift-off to clearing 35 ft obstruction

Positive

9.3%

35 ft to 400 ft

2.4%

6.2%

Accelerate to Vcruise (since VbestROC>Vcruise)

Positive

4.3%

400 ft to 1500 ft

1.2%

4.5%

38

10.4 Displacement, fuel, and time spent to reach cruise velocity at 12km altitude

Figure 28: Plot of power versus velocity. The blue and red lines corresponds to the power available and power
required, respectively. The green line corresponds to the excess power available.

From the plot in Figure 28(please refer to Appendix F2 for the computation procedure), it can
be observed that the best rate of climb, which is the velocity corresponding to the maximum
excess power available, is 290 m/s. Since this velocity is greater than the cruise velocity of
254 m/s (at Mach 0.86), the analysis shall be based on the aircraft climbing at cruise velocity
rather than best climb velocity.
The entire process to reach cruise velocity at 12km altitude will be divided into three
segments. The first segment involves a level ground accelerating from zero to lift-off velocity.
The second segment involves accelerating from lift-off velocity to cruise velocity at (near)
sea level, hence properties were taken to be at sea level but the ground friction was neglected.
The third segment involves climbing at a constant velocity of 254 m/s until an altitude of 6km.
The air density was taken to be at an altitude of 6km, because air density varies non-linearly
with altitude but it is difficult to account for the change numerically so an average altitude
was taken. The climb gradient corresponds to force balance between the thrust, drag, weight
and lift. (Please refer to Appendix F2 for the detailed computation procedure).The results are
presented inTable 18.

39

Table 18: Displacement, fuel used, and time spent to reach cruise velocity at 12km altitude

Displacement

Fuel used

Time spent

To accelerate to lift-off velocity

0.92 km

280 kg

22 s

To accelerate to cruise velocity at sea level

+ 8.97 km

+ 629 kg

+ 50 s

To climb to 12km altitude

+ 95.69 km

+1329 kg

+ 379 s

Total

106 km

2238 kg

451 s

10.5 Load factor vs. velocity envelope

Load factor is the ratio between the lift-force and the weight of the aircraft. The maximum
load factor was capped at 2.5 while the minimum load factor was limited to -1.0 in the
interest of passenger comfort. The left-bound of the enveloped shown in Figure 29
corresponds to stall velocity, while the right-bound corresponds to the maximum Mach
number of 0.92 for Luxys chosen airfoil, after which divergence occurs. The curved lines on
the left correspond to CLmax of 2.8 at varying altitudes. (Please refer to Appendix F3 for the
plotting procedure).

Figure 29: Plot of load factor versus velocity. The yellow and green lines correspond to an altitude of 5km and 10km,
respectively, while the cyan, blue and red lines correspond to an altitude of 11km, 12km, and 13km, respectively.

40

10.6 Trade-off between payload and range

Table 19: Mass of fuel, payload, take-off mass, and thrust specific fuel consumption

Fuel mass

84,000 kg

Maximum fuel mass (full tank)

97,900 kg

Mpayload

65,100 kg

MTO

237,900 kg

MTO,max

243,000 kg

Cj

0.476 kN/kN/h

Using data fromTable 19, we analyse how the range can be increased, at the expense of
reduced payload. The range shown in the figure below have included safety considerations
such as additional 10% cruise, descent but refused landing and hence climb and divert to
alternate airport 200 nautical miles away. (Please refer to Appendix F4 for the detailed
computation procedure).

Figure 30: Plot of payload versus range. The green line corresponds to maximum payload until maximum take-off
weight. The blue line corresponds to replacing some payload with fuel, until the fuel tank is filled. The red line
corresponds to adding more fuel storage.

AsFigure 30 shows, the range at maximum payload is slightly over 11,000km (to satisfy the
RFP) at maximum take-off weight. This means Luxy can travel from Singapore to Frankfurt
(10,300 km away) or Hawaii (10,900 km away) without any stop-over. The size of Luxys
fuel tank is large enough for additional fuel to be added so as to achieve a range of close to
41

14,000km, but some of the payload had to be removed so as to keep within the maximum
take-off weight as determined by our constraint analysis. Alternative fuel storage can also be
arranged so as to further increase the range, but at the expense of reduced payload. The
maximum range is just over 20,000km when there is zero payload.

10.7 Specific Excess Power

The specific excess power graph of Luxy is as shown in Figure 31. This graph is used to
analyse the aircraft performance capabilities, climb performance and level acceleration.
The cyan line represents the energy height while the red line represents the SEP. Energy
height represents the sum of Luxys specific potential and kinetic energies. If all kinetic
energy were converted to potential energy without any loss, it will be able to climb to 14.8km
at zero airspeed.
The critical Mach number is represented by the green line and the blue line, stall velocity.
The boundary limits the TAS at which the aircraft should fly.

0m/s
10m/s
20m/s
30m/s
40m/s
50m/s

Figure 31: Specific Excess Power

42

Chapter 11: Stability and Control Analysis

11.1 Longitudinal Stability
It is defined as the aircrafts stability in the pitching plane and it determines if an aircraft is
able to develop a counter pitching moment to bring it back to equilibrium again in the
presence of disturbances in the pitching plane which affects the angle of attack of the aircraft.
To achieve longitudinal stability, the following conditions must be met:
and
This means that the pitching moment,

vs angle of attack,

plot should have a negative

slope and positive intercept such that trimmed flight conditions can be achieved at positive
angles of attack.
11.1.1 Contribution of Aircraft Components
11.1.1.1 Wing Contribution
The wing contribution to longitudinal stability can be calculated using the following:

Table 20: Wing contribution to longitudinal stability

Parameters

Values
Fore Most CG Aft Most CG
-0.2518

-0.2205

0.9580

1.6736

Therefore, from the values calculated in Table 20, it can be concluded that the wings have a
destabilizing effect on Luxy, which is common for most conventional transport aircraft. This
is due to Luxyscentre of gravity location being slightly aft of the aerodynamic centre.

43

11.1.1.2 Horizontal Tail Contribution

The tail contribution to longitudinal stability can be calculated using the following:

Table 21: Tail contribution to longitudinal stability

Parameters

Values
0.5338
-3.06

Tail contribution has a stabilizing effect on the overall longitudinal stability as its
used to compensate for wings negative

to ensure that the overall

can be

is positive. Tail

setting is crucial in contributing to the stability of the aircraft as a negative tail setting will
of the tail. In Luxys case, the tail setting is set at

increase the
at

while wing setting is

11.1.1.3 Fuselage Contribution

The fuselage contribution to longitudinal stability can be calculated using Multhopps method
[12]. The equation is as follows:

Where
is the correction factor for the body fineness ratio;
is the average width of the fuselage section;
is the wing zero-lift angle relative to the fuselage reference line (FRL);
is the incidence of the fuselage camber line relative to the FRL
is the length of the fuselage increment.

44

Figure 32: Multhopp's method of segmentation

The fuselage was divided into different segments for calculation. Luxy was divided into 10
equal segments, each approximately 7.007m. The value of

can be determined from

the graph above by using the maximum length to diameter ratio.

Table 22: Fuselage contribution to longitudinal stability (1)

Parameter

Value
-0.00055

Similarly, Multhopps method can be used to find

However, it should be noted that the manner in which fuselage was segmented was different.
The section between the wing was not included in the calculation as it was assumed to be
unaffected by the wing wake. The fuselage can be segmented into sections as shown in
Figure 32.
Table 23: Fuselage contribution to longitudinal stability (2)

Parameter

Value
0.01031

It can be noted that fuselage also has a destabilizing effect on the overall aircraft.

45

11.1.2 Luxys Longitudinal Stability

The overall longitudinal stability can be computed by summing up the

and

values of

each individual components and it is shown inTable 24:

Table 24: Luxy's overall longitudinal stability

Fore most CG

Aft most CG

0.2820

0.3133

-2.1026

-1.3870

It can be seen that Luxy is able to achieve longitudinal stability in both the fore most and aft
most CG positions. Therefore, this can show that Luxy is able to remain longitudinally stable
throughout the flight as the centre of gravity varies during the flight due to consumption of
fuel. The graphs of

for the wing, tail, fuselage and the entire aircraft are plotted

inFigure 33:

Component Contribution to Pitching Moment

0.8
0.6

C_mcg

0.4
C_mcgWing

0.2

C_mcgTail
0

-5

10

15

-0.2

20

25

C-mcgFuselage
C_mcgA/C

-0.4
-0.6

Angle of attack, (in degrees)

Figure 33: Component contribution to pitching moment and overall longitudinal stability

To find the neutral point of the aircraft which is the point where there is neutral stability i.e.
and

46

The neutral point of Luxy was found to be 7.923m from the leading edge of the wing mean
aerodynamic chord. The static margin (SM) of Luxy was then calculated for both the
foremost and aft most centre of gravity of Luxy and listed inTable 25:
CG Traverse

Figure 34: Locations of fore and aft most CG, neutral point (NP), showing CG traverse and static margin

Table 25: Results of SM min and max and CG traverse

Static Margin
CG Traverse (m)

Foremost CG

Aft most CG

0.4333 (SMmax)

0.2850 (SMmin)
1.1711

11.2 Directional Stability

It is defined as the tendency of an aircraft to return to its equilibrium condition when
subjected to yawing disturbances. To achieve directional stability, the slope of the yawing
moment curve must be positive

so that the aircraft can create a restoring moment

to turn the aircraft back to equilibrium position (See Figure 35). The overall directional
stability of Luxy can also be evaluated in terms contribution of the major components.

47

Figure 35: Conditions for directional stability

11.2.1 Contribution of Aircraft Component

11.2.1.1 Wing-fuselage Contribution
The wing-fuselage contribution can be calculated from the following equation:

The fuselage and engine nacelles are generally destabilizing, therefore the vertical tail must
be sized appropriately to ensure the directional stability of the aircraft.
11.2.1.2 Vertical Tail Contribution
The contribution of the vertical tail can be calculated using the equation below:

)
Table 26: Component contribution and overall directional stability

Parameter

Value

Wing-Fuselage Yawing coefficient,

-0.03507

Vertical Tail Yawing coefficient,

0.2904

Overall

0.2554
48

Therefore, as shown in the table, Luxy was able to achieve overall directional stability after
summing up the wing-fuselage and vertical tail contributions.

11.3 Longitudinal Control

11.3.1 Elevator Power
It is crucial that the elevator of an aircraft is able to maintain longitudinal control during
flight. For calculation of the elevator control power of Luxy, flap effectiveness is required as
it is a crucial parameter of the elevator-related equations. The flap effectiveness can be found
from Figure 36which shows the relationship between flap effectiveness,

and ratio of

elevator surface area and horizontal stabilizer area.

Figure 36: Ratio of surface area to flap effectiveness

The ratio of the elevator area to the horizontal stabilizer area was initially estimated to be
35%, which gives a flap effectiveness parameter of approximately 0.58. This parameter was
then used to compute the elevator effectiveness which would be used to evaluate the control
adequacy of the aircraft. The elevator power can be computed as shown in Table 27:

Table 27: Elevator Authority

Elevator Parameters
Values
Area (m^2)
39.69
Control Power, C_me -3.233

49

Considering the forward most and aft most C.G. situations, the above parameters were then
used to compute the required elevator angle and angle of attack for trimmed flight during
cruise, using the equations as follows:
[

Where

By plotting

]and

(Figure 37) and find the points where

lines and the points are then plotted for

equals to zero for the plotted

to determine the operating regime.

C_M vs C_L
0.8
0.6
0.4
e=0

0.2

e=-5

0
C_M

-0.5

-0.2

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

e=-4
e=-3

-0.4

e=-2

-0.6

e=-1

-0.8

e=1

-1
-1.2

C_L

Figure 37: C_m vs C_L for Luxy at different elevator settings

50

Operating Regime for Trim & CG Traverse

30
emax

e (in degrees)

20

Aircraft
Capability

10
e0
0
0

0.5

1.5

Fore Most CG
Aft Most CG
2.5

Max/Min elevator deflection

Max C_L (Landing)

-10

-20
emin
-30

C_L

Figure 38: Elevator setting vs C_L for trimmed conditions showing the operating regime

As seen from Figure 38, the maximum elevator deflection required to maintain trim at
maximum

during landing is

. Thus, the maximum allowable deflection angle limits

from -25 to 25 for elevator is sufficient which is similar to current transport aircrafts. This
excess 9.8 can allow room for pitching maneuverability in situational cases such as wind
gusts.

11.4 Directional Control

11.4.1 Rudder Power
The size of the rudder must be sufficient to provide enough yawing control power. The most
demanding maneuvers for the rudder are during asymmetrical thrust due to engine failure,
and crosswind takeoff. Rudder power can be calculated based on the following equation:

51

11.4.1.1 One Engine Inoperative Takeoff

The asymmetric power is due to one engine failure. When one engine is inoperative, the dead
engine is assumed to produce drag equal to 20% of the maximum thrust. This results in a
yawing moment which must be countered by a rudder deflection to produce an opposite and
equal force. Rudder deflection required for engine failure case:
[

Where
In the case of one engine takeoff at height of 10.668m(35ft), the parameters used for
calculation can be found at appendix.
11.4.1.2 Crosswind Landing
For crosswind landings, according to FAR, the aircraft must have enough rudder power to
land the plane when there is a90 crosswind up to a velocity equal to 0.2 times that of stall
velocity. This means a wind speed of two-tenths of the airplanes stalling speed with power
off and landing gear/flaps down. Rudder deflection required for crosswind landing case:
{

This maximum crosswind translates to a sideslip , of 8.75 . With a rudder to vertical tail
ratio of 0.35, Luxy requires a rudder deflection of 17.03 .
The overall rudder authority can be summarised in Table 28:
Table 28: Rudder Authority

Rudder Authority

Values

Rudder Area

19.6

Rudder Control Power,

-0.1312

Rudder deflection for asymmetric power takeoff (

10.28

Rudder deflection for crosswind landings (

17.03

52

Chapter 12: Aircraft System

12.1 Fuel System
An aircraft fuel system allows the crew to pump, manage, and deliver fuel to the propulsion
system of an aircraft. Fuel systems differ greatly due to different performance of the aircraft
in which they are installed. Fuel is piped through fuel lines to a fuel control valve (usually
known as the fuel selector). This valve serves several functions. The first function is to act as
a fuel shut-off valve. This is required to provide the crew with a means to prevent fuel
reaching the engine in case of an engine fire. The second function is to allow the pilot to
choose which tank feeds the engine. Many aircrafts have the left tank and right tank
selections available to the pilot. Some airplanes feed only from both tanks; and many have
the option to feed from left, right, or both tanks. The ability to have left only and right only
options allows pilots to balance fuel load to improve stability. In some aircraft, the shut-off
function is a different valve located after the fuel selector valve.
12.1.1 Type of Fuel Used
Aviation fuel is a specialized type of petroleum-based fuel used to power aircraft. It is
generally of a higher quality than fuels used in less critical applications, such as heating or
road transport.
The type of fuel that will be used in Luxy is Jet A-1, which is the standard specification fuel
used in the rest of the world other than the United States. Jet A-1 is a kerosene grade of fuel
suitable for most turbine engine aircrafts, such as Luxy. [13]
Luxy is designed according to the Aviation Fuel Quality Requirements for Jointly Operated
Systems, or AFQRJOS, Check List. The Check List represents the most stringent
requirements of the DEF STAN and ASTM specifications for JET A-1. By definition, any
product meeting Check List requirements will also meet either DEF STAN or ASTM
specifications. Different countries have different specifications for their Jet A-1 requirements.
[2]

12.1.2 Fuel Tanks

The fuel of Luxy is stored in 6 integral tanks found in the wings, complete with necessary
manifolds, valves and pumps. The integral tanks are formed by sealing off structural areas in
the wings and they will be able to hold up to a maximum fuel capacity of 97,000kg. The
53

amount of fuel required by RFP is 84,000kg, which means that Luxy is capable of extended
range and endurance beyond the mission requirements.
12.1.3 Vent System
The main function of the vent systems in Luxy is to maintain the fuel tank pressure within
structural limits during all phases of flight operation. The difference in pressure in the fuel
tank is due to the change in external pressure from the change in altitude, which may cause
rupture or buckling of the fuel tanks. Vents are designed to allow gases to manoeuvre
between the tank and outside so as to equalize the pressure difference between tank and the
ambient.

Figure 39: Vent system on aircraft

The fuel tanks are vented through vent line tubings connected to surge tanks and the ambient.
Fuel is sucked out of the fuel tanks due to a low pressure region at higher altitude, sucking
out the fuel from the fuel tanks. The surge tank will collect the fuel and pump it back into the
fuel tanks, hence preventing fuel loss while allowing change in fuel tank pressure. The vent
system is designed to be fail-safe such that any single blockage will not cause the whole
system to fail.

54

12.1.4 Fuel Management and Transfer System

Figure 40: Centre of gravity location of fuel tank

Fuel sequencing for Luxy will be as such: Fuel from the inboard tank will be emptied first,
followed by the midboard tank and finally the outboard tank. Spanwise and chordwise baffles
are placed in the fuel tanks to prevent sloshing and fuel getting collected in the corners of the
tank. They also ensure that the C.G. of the fuel in individual tanks is always at the same point
regardless of the amount of fuel. The C.G. of each segment of the fuel tank is indicated in
Figure 40 as shown above. The fuel transfer system allows transfer of fuel among the fuel
tanks to allow trimming of the plane during flight as well as to manipulate the C.G. of the
plane. During engine failure, fuel can be pumped from one wing to the other wing to feed the
operative engine. Trim transfers are controlled automatically by Fuel Control and Monitoring
Computer (FCMC). It also measures the fuel quantity that is available on the aircraft and
indicates it to the aircrew. The pilots can override the automatic control within the fuel
system through the control panel in the cockpit if necessary. This allows crew to manage fuel
distribution in the aircraft.
12.1.5 Fuel Jettison System
In the case where emergency landing is required, the fuel jettison system is available to
reduce the weight of Luxy. The fuel jettison system comprises of a combination of fuel lines,
valves, and pumps provided to dump fuel overboard during an emergency while in flight.
Fuel leaves the aircraft through valves close to the wingtips, preventing the dumped fuel from
being sucked into the engine. The fuel jettison system is designed to obtain the maximum
permissible landing weight within 3 minutes, as stated by the FAR.
55

12.2 Avionics
The main basis for the design of avionics for Luxy is safety, cost savings and efficiency.
While also taking the technology advancement in 2020s into consideration, the design for
LUXY avionics system is formulated for awesomeness.
The avionic system used on the LUXY consists of the following general subsystems:

Flight control system

Communication system
Navigation
Collision avoidance system

12.2.1 Flight Control System

We will be adopting a fly-by wireless system, with revolutionary operating system, also
known as Intelligent Flight Control System (IFCS), and easily operated user interface.
With the changes from fly-by wire to fly-by optics, we are adopting an even more fantastic
solution to reduce the wire of the aircraft, fly-by wireless. Wiring constitutes a considerable
amount of weight to an aircraft, and replacing the wires saves fuel cost. Beyond that, it helps
to improve maintainability of the system. It addresses disadvantages associated with fly by
wire systems, where long man hours are spent troubleshooting the key failures points
associated with the wires and connectors .

Figure 41: Fly by wire system in aircraft

Besides the fantastic hardware system, the software is also revolutionary and innovative in its
own senses. Intelligent Flight Control System is able to compute all the relevant parameters
and making sense of the actual flight conditions. It is capable of adjusting the settings so as to
compensate for all the possible aircraft failure scenarios and ensure the greatest safety and
comfort of the passengers.

56

To improve the user's experience and make the system as simple as possible, a personal
assistant and knowledge navigator implemented in the system, are able to conduct
conversational interaction with the pilots. It is able to preview all the essential parameters by
the pilot's commands and present data relating the aircraft performance in a concise and
effective manner.
12.2.2 Communication System
Luxy will be incorporating the two aircraft bands for its communication system, V.H.F and
the H.F. The VHF air band uses the frequencies between 108 and 137 MHz while the H.F is
between 3 and 30 MHz.
In 2020s, the usage of Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS)
will be replaced by Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) protocol for Air
Traffic Control communications and by the Internet Protocol for airline communications.
The Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) is an internetwork architecture that
allows ground/ground, air/ground, and avionic data sub networks to interoperate by adopting
common interface services and protocols based on the ISO OSI Reference Model.
12.2.3 Navigation System
There will be satellite navigation as well as radio navigation systems present in Luxy.
Satellite-based navigation system involves Global Positioning System (GPS) and Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS). For radio navigation system, there are VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR), Air Traffic Control Transponder (ATC) and Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME).
12.2.4 Collision Avoidance System
Three collision avoidance system will be present in Luxy to ensure highest safety standards.
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS): This system actively interrogates the
transponders of other aircrafts and in case of a threat, enabling collision-avoidance tact.
Ground-Proximity Warning Systems (GPWS): It uses a radar altimeter to detect close to
ground proximity and unusual descent rate, alerting pilots in the scenario of flying into the
ground.

57

Terrain Awareness Warning System (TAWS): The system employs the usage of a digital
terrain map predicting the future flight path of the aircraft, and warns the pilot of potential
contact with high ground obstacles.

Figure 42: Generic functions of avionics system

12.3 Environmental control

12.3.1 Cabin Pressure
When cruising at an altitude of 12km, the pressure and temperature is approximately 19.4kPa
and -56.5C. In addition, the relative and absolute humidity is extremely low. Such
conditions are not suitable for passengers and hence we require a controlled environment
within the aircraft cabin.
The aircraft cabin has to be pressurised because lower pressure means a lower oxygen density
and hence less oxygen can be absorbed by the red blood cells and transported to other parts of
the body. Older airlines maintain an aircraft cabin pressure of up to 8000 ft, which
corresponds to a pressure of 75kPa and is the minimum pressure mandated by the U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration. For greater passenger comfort, we will set the aircraft cabin
pressure of Luxy to be at 6000 ft, corresponding to a pressure of 81kPa, similar to the case of
the Boeing 787. Simple calculations will show that the fuselage will need to withstand a
pressure of over 60kN/m2, which has already been achieved with the current technology. The
58

strength of composites can be expected to improve by year 2020, and it is possible that the
cabin can be pressurised to a greater extent for more passenger comfort.
12.3.2 Cabin Temperature
Air-conditioning takes up the second largest amount of energy in an aircraft, after the
propulsion system. The air passing through the air-conditioners and into the cabin is a
mixture of filtered internal cabin air and external air, which is compressed to the appropriate
pressure and then passed through a heat exchanger so that the air is approximately at 22C.
An ACM (air cycle machine) is commonly used for environmental control in aircrafts, and
operates in conditions when the temperature of the external environment is as low as -56C
during cruise, to as high as over 30C on the ground during summer time or in tropical
countries. The ACM comprises of a centrifugal compressor, two air-to-air heat exchangers,
and an expansion turbine [14]. There must be at least two ACM systems so that failure of a
single system will not be catastrophic.
The relative humidity of air in the cabin is kept at a low 10~20% (which is still higher than
that of the exterior air) in order to minimize condensation. In comparison, Singapore has a
relative humidity of over 80% on average. A low relative humidity will cause passenger
discomfort such as dry eyes, skin and nasal passage. Nonetheless, safety is of utmost
importance thus the relative humidity in the cabin still has to be low.This is to minimize
condensation which may corrode metals or damage electrical equipment, and also aid the
growth of micro-organisms.
12.3.3 Ice Removal
In addition to controlling the environment within the cabin, it is also necessary to protect the
exterior of our aircraft from ice formation. Ice formation alters the aerodynamic properties of
the aircraft and increases drag. Ice on the wing also reduces lift. Hence, this causes problems
such as increased fuel usage and in turn cost and more importantly, compromises safety. Ice
may form when water vapour condenses and then freezes, but is often formed when an
aircraft passes through clouds.
Ice formed may be removed by passing hot air through, or using electrical heating. The iceremoval system should ensure that the ice do not simply melt and flow to another region only
to freeze again, by vaporizing the ice or having the melted ice flow off the aircraft before refreezing. De-icing fluids may also be applied through small openings.
59

It will be more economical and energy efficient to passively prevent or minimize ice
formation, possibly by utilising ice-phobic surfaces on the wings and fuselage skin. Superhydrophobic surfaces, such as the CassieBaxter model, appear to be a good candidate, but
the increased surface area actually increases the sites for nucleation and ice adhesion. Last
year, a team of researchers from Harvard reported that their ice-repellent material based on
SLIPS (slipper, liquid-infused porous surface) [15]are able to maintain an ice-free surface in
temperatures as low as -22C, and noted its potential application in the field of aviation.
However, the aerodynamic changes are unknown and the benefits of a passive anti-icing
surface could be outweighed by the disadvantages due to poorer aerodynamic properties.

60

Chapter 13: Aircraft Cost Estimation Analysis

The aircraft cost estimation and analysis is mainly about the life cycle cost of the aircraft and
it can be sub-divided into
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)

Flyaway Cost (also known as production cost)
Ground support equipment and initial spares
Special Construction
Operations and Maintenance (O&M, mainly direct & indirect operating costs)
Disposal

The focus of the cost analysis will be on RDT&E, flyaway cost and operations& maintenance
of Luxy which make up most of the airline costs. RDT&E and production costs were
determined using the Rand Corporations DAPCA IV cost models cost estimation
relationships (CERs). The model may not provide the most accurate of CERs, but it provides
reasonable cost estimation for reference. The forecasted demand for Luxy aircraft within the
next five years would be 500 units.

13.1 RDT&E and Flyaway Costs

To gain certification from FAA, two flight models of Luxy were manufactured and flight
tests were conducted. The cost model would be based on the forecasted demand of Luxy
within the next 5 years which is around 500 units.
RDT&E takes into account all the technology research, design engineering, prototype
fabrication, flight and ground testing, and evaluations for operational suitability. For civil
aircrafts, RDT&E also takes into consideration certification costs. RDT&E costs are fixed
regardless of how many aircrafts are ultimately produced. It is typically less than 10% of total
life cycle cost. RDT&E and production costs are usually combined as it is difficult to separate
clearly the RDT&E from production costs, especially in the areas of prototype fabrication and
engineering.
The Development and Procurement Costs of Aircraft model (DAPCA IV) developed by the
RAND Corporation was employed to estimate the hours required for RDT&E and production
by the engineering, tooling, manufacturing, and quality control groups. As the cost model
assumes that the engine costs are known, research has been done to estimate the cost of a
Trent 800 series engine and it would cost approximately US$22 million in year 1999 dollars.

61

The inflation rate estimation based on NASA New Start Inflation Index for Financial Year
2013 from year 1999 to 2020 is 177.9% [16].
However, DAPCA does not take into account the cost of avionics. Luxy's avionics cost was
thus approximated to be $10,000 per kilogram in 1999 dollars. Besides that, an allowance for
the cost of interiors for passenger aircrafts such as seats, luggage bins, closets, lavatories,
insulation, ceilings, floors, walls, and similar items was estimated to be $2500 per passenger.
The total RDT&E cost was then calculated to be the sum of all respective components as
shown in Table 29.
The unit cost price was subsequently calculated by dividing the RDT&E cost by the number
of aircrafts to be produced in 5 years, in addition to the 2 flight test aircrafts. Next, an
investment cost factor was taken into consideration which includes the cost of money and
contractor profit. The investment factor was roughly approximated as 1.25 times of the
RDT&E cost. Finally, the unit selling price can then be determined from the RDT&E cost
multiplied by the investment cost factor. The target unit selling price of Luxy was estimated
to be about $251 million in 2020 price.
Table 29: Summary of RDT&E costs

Hours

Rates

1999 Price

2020 Price

(millions)

(millions)

Engineering

47,518,600

86

4,087

7,271

Tooling

31,722,200

88

2,792

4,967

Manufacturing

184,516,600

73

13,470

23,963

Quality Control

24,540,700

81

1,988

3,537

Development Support

488

868

Flight Test

38

68

Manufacturing Materials

8,647

15,383

Engine

22,088

39,295

Avionics

10000

2,732

4,861

Allowance for interior

2500

477

848

Total cost

56,807

101,060

Unit cost price

113

201

Investment cost factor

71,009

126,325

Unit selling price

141

251

62

Table 30: Parameters associated with the production scale

Parameters

Values
206,275

Empty Weight, We (lbs)

Maximum Velocity, V (knots)

511

Number of aircrafts to be produced in 5 years,

500

Q
Flight Test Aircraft, FTA

Total Number of Engines, Neng

1004

Cost of an engine, Ceng

22,000,000

Research Development and Test & Evaluation +

Flyaway Costs
1%
5%

Engineering

5%
7%

Tooling
24%

39%

Manufacturing
Quality Control
Dev Support
Flight Test

15%

Mfg Materials
0%

3%

1%

Engine
Avionics

Figure 43: Breakdown of the RDT&E costs into its components

From table, with a production run of 502 Luxy, the total cost would amount to around
US$101 billion in 2020. In order to achieve an investment cost factor of 25%, the unit selling
price would have to be at US$251 million; thereby producing a 10% profit of US$10 billion.
13.1.1 Operations & Maintenance
13.1.2 Direct Operating Costs
The DOC consists of Luxy consists of the following categories: Fuel, Crew (1999),
Maintenance (1999), Depreciation, Insurance. It should be noted that some of the costs are in
year 1999 dollars; thus rate of inflation on the years will need to be taken in to account. To
63

account for inflation over the 21 year period, NASA New Start Inflation Index for Financial
Year 2013 is being used as the data in the index has approximated inflation rates up to year
2022 and from the table; it is observed that the estimated inflation rate from year 1999 to year
2020 is 177.9%.
Luxy is designed for long haul range. Most commercial airlines will run their aircraft at least
6 days per week, and 48 weeks a year. (Given an average of 4 weeks per year down for
maintenance) From earlier calculations, the flight time is estimated to be 12 hours and given
that the average turnaround time for a commercial long haul aircraft is 2 hours; this means
that Luxy can be assumed to be flying at a frequency of approximately 10 times a week.
With the ground hold, taxi, airborne holding and air traffic control compliance time total
approximated to be half an hour, Luxy has 12.55 block hours for each flight. Taking into
account the frequency of the flight, this would amount to a total of 6024 block hours per year.
Also, it can be seen from the executive summary that fuel prices are fluctuating constantly.
Even with the past statistics of the oil prices, it is very difficult to predict the oil prices in
2020. Therefore, the fuel costs for DOC would be based on the prices in year 2013.
For depreciation, the airframe and the engine would be considered separately as these two
main components make up the whole complete aircraft and account for the main costs of the
final product. Assume Luxy has a 25 year life span and a residual value of 10% at the aircraft
end-of-life.

64

Table 31: Direct Operating Costs Analysis (yearly basis)

In 1999 dollars (US)

In 2020 dollars (US)

Fuel
Price of fuel per gallon

2.90

Price of fuel per cubic metre (m )

739.68

Average fuel burnt per hour (m3/hr)

6.988

Average flight hours per year

5760

Price of fuel per flight

62030

Subtotal per year

29,775,000

663.34

1,180.08

Crew
2-man crew (per crew hour)
Block hours/year

6024
3,963,000

Subtotal per year

7,109,000

Maintenance
Mission flight time (hrs)

12

Block time per mission (hrs)

12.55

Cycles

480

Materials cost per FH

2,844

5,060

Materials cost per cycle

34,132

60,720

16,383,000

29,146,000

Subtotal per year

Depreciation (Flat Rate)

Airframe depreciation period

25

Resale value

9,700,000

17,256,300

Airframe depreciation value per year

3,492,000

6,212,000

Engine depreciation period

Engine depreciation value per year
Subtotal per year

25
880,000

1,566,000

3,976,000

7,778,000

Insurance
1% of operating cost

1,146,000

Subtotal per year

1,146,000

Total DOC

74,894,000

65

13.1.3 Indirect Operating Costs

These are costs not directly connected with the actual flight operation of the aircraft; rather
they are more associated with the costs of running an airline. It varies from different airlines
and the cost components include ground handling facilities, in-flight catering, landing fees,
baggage handling, and passenger services. Based on past statistics, it is assumed that the IOC
is around 35% of the total operating cost. This would mean that the IOC for Luxy is around
US$39.74 million/year.
13.1.4 Overall Operations & Maintenance Cost
Assuming average passenger occupancy of 79% throughout its lifetime service as supported
by statistics from the Air transport Action Group in 2012 [17], the total available seat miles
for each Luxy is approximately 985 million seat miles. The operating costs are converted to
cost per seat mile to give a more comprehensive measurement of the overall costs. The fuel
costs and expected passenger occupancy are included in the calculations to provide a more
accurate measure of the average cost.

Operating Cost per Seat Mile (CSM) in cents

Fuel CSM, 3.02,
26.0%
IOC CSM, 4.04,
34.7%

Fuel CSM
Crew CSM
Maintenance CSM
Depreciation CSM
Crew CSM, 0.72,
6.2%

Insurance CSM
IOC CSM

Insurance CSM,
0.12, 1.0%
Depreciation CSM,
0.79, 6.8%

Maintenance CSM,
2.96, 25.4%
Figure 44: Breakdown of Operation & Maintenance costs

13.2 Disposal Cost

It is the cost incurred at the end of the shelf life of an aircraft and in this cost analysis, it is
assumed to be 1% of the life-cycle cost of an aircraft. Thus, the disposal cost ofLuxy is
expected to be US$31.5 million per unit.
66

13.3 Life-Cycle Cost

It is the total cost of manufacturing an aircraft from the initial research development and test
& evaluation phase to the operation and maintenance of aircraft and finally, including the
aircrafts disposal at the end of its service life. The life cycle cost is summarised in Table 32.
Table 32: Life cycle cost summary

Unit Life Cycle Costs

US$3147 million
Service Life
25 years
Flight Hours
5760
Passenger seat miles per year (assuming an average of 79%
occupancy)
985 million
life cycle seat miles
24.623 billion
12.79 cents per seat
Life Cycle cost per seat mile
mile

13.4 Comparison with other commercial transport aircrafts

Assuming 79% passenger occupancy, some of the known costs of similar commercial
transport aircrafts are tabulated and compared with Luxy in 2020 US dollars. Also, the cruise
speed and the distance travelled are taken to be the same as requested in the RFP i.e.
11000km and 0.86M for comparison purposes.
Table 33: Comparison with A340-600 and Boeing777-300ER

Luxy
RDT&E & Flyaway Unit Costs (US$)
Passenger Capacity
Operations and Maintenance Cost per seat
mile (cents)
Life Cycle cost per seat mile (cents)

A340-600

251,000,000 291,000,000

Boeing 777300ER
333,800,000

380

475

365

11.65

13.75

12.66

12.79

15.13

13.94

Note: Assume disposal cost is same for all aircrafts

67

Chapter 14: Unique Selling Points

14.1 Long Term Operations
Long-term operational aspects of an aircraft can determine the reliability and sustainability of
an aircraft in the long run. Factors such as maintenance, repair and operation (MRO) costs,
survivability of aircraft under different conditions and ground operation costs contribute to
these two main aspects which can determine the profitability of an aircraft.
14.1.1 Reliability
Luxy must be designed such that it is able to withstand and be under full control of the pilot
under the different weather conditions such as strong gusts, heavy rain, foggy weather,
varying temperatures and humidity, etc. The materials used in the manufacture of the exterior
of the aircraft will need to have exceptional structural properties such as corrosion resistance,
high tensile strength and fatigue strength. Therefore, composite materials are used
extensively on Luxy. The special composites used on Luxy have higher corrosion resistance
than the traditional metal alloys, meaning that the aircraft components can last longer.
Next, the automated ability of Luxy to control the usage of fuel has further enhanced its
reliability. An advanced fuel transfer system can allow the transfer of fuel in between tanks to
allow trimmability of aircraft through manipulation of C.G. Moreover, during engine failure,
fuel can be pumped readily from one wing to another wing to feed the operative engine.
Finally, passenger comfort during flight should not be compromised. Thus, there are two air
cycle machines on Luxy to ensure adequate environmental control in the cabins and that the
failure of one machine will not have catastrophic effects on the aircraft.
14.1.2 Operational Sustainability
Although Luxy already has reliable components and subsystems, regular routine maintenance
is still required as preventive measures to ensure that they are operationally ready for all
flights. Therefore, Luxy is designed to have a simple maintenance process for ease of MRO
purposes.
Firstly, the components of Luxy are more widely used and produced by industry. Therefore,
the costs of procuring spare parts are lower due to economies of scale and they are readily
available from the original equipment manufacturers. In addition, since the parts are
standardized, the maintenance procedures would be similar to the general industry and
68

technicians with the relevant knowledge would be available and there would be no necessity
for retraining of technicians for the specialized knowledge.
Next, Luxy is changing from fly-by wire to fly-by optics to fly-by wireless system and this
can provide simpler maintenance as errors and malfunctions in the control systems can be
repaired easier and less man-hours are spent on troubleshooting the failure points associated
with the wires and connectors. Even though fibres are resistant to corrosion and oxidation,
they are delicate and can be damaged when over-stretched. Faults within the cable are also
not evident to naked eye immediately and additional tools are required to detect faults. In the
case of wireless systems, faults due to transmission can be detected easily from the receiver
or the transmitter.
Much consideration was given to the composite material usage on Luxy as composites have a
much higher strength to weight ratio and that means the weight of aircraft components can
reduce significantly while maintaining the equivalent strength. Weight savings will lead to
decrease in fuel consumption, improve efficiency and reduce the direct operating costs of
Luxy. Another main benefit of weight savings is that it can lead to less greenhouse gases
being produced in individual flights, improving environmental sustainability as well.
Finally, the doors and ports of Luxy are situated such that different service vehicles would be
able to work on the aircraft simultaneously. This can help to cut down on the ground
servicing time and the parking charges involved, leading to reduced maintenance costs.

14.2 Environmental Considerations

Noise and emissions have been of concern since the beginning of aviation, and increasing
public awareness have made environmental performance one of the most critical aspects of
commercial aviation today. In this section, the team will look into these two environmental
considerations for the plane Luxy.
14.2.1 Noise
Aircraft noise is generally divided into two sources: that due to engines, and due to the
airframe itself. The scale most often used for aircraft noise measurement is the Perceived
Noise Level (PNL) scale, measured in the units of PNdb. For Luxys noise analysis, PNdB is
used, and a rough method to convert dB to PNdB is by adding an absolute value of 12dB,
meaning that 100 dBA = 112 PNdB (Kryter, 1959). We will further consider noise analysis
of Luxy by looking into the noise due to engine and noise due to the landing gear.
69

To gauge the acceptable noise level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopts a
Day-Night Average A-Weighted Sound Level (DNL). The legislated DNL systems limit for
acceptable noise level is at 65 dB, which is normally compatible with residential land use.
This translates to 77 PNdB on the PNL scale.
14.2.2 Engines
Engine noise accounts for most of aircraft's external noise. Luxy uses the Rolls Royce Trent
890-17 turbofan engine, which has a bypass ratio of around 5.74:1. The relative perceived
noise level vs bypass ratio can be estimated from Figure 45 [18]. The engine is estimated to
produce 31 PNdB of jet noise and 38 PNdB of fan noise, amounting to a total of 69 PNdB
[18]. This is below the acceptable limit of 77 PNdB as stated by the DNL system, thus the
engine meets the expectation for the aviation standards for noise. [19]

Figure 45: Perceived Noise Level vs. Bypass Ratio

14.2.3 Emissions
Reducing aircraft emissions is pivotal for aircraft industry to remain competitive in the global
market. The Rolls Royce Trent 890-17 turbofan engine uses Jet 1A engine fuel, which is
mainly kerosene, and burning of kerosene produces emissions like carbon dioxide, nitrogen
oxides and water vapour.

However, the Rolls Royce Trent 890-17 turbofan engine

incorporates technologies that will be able to reduce emissions up to 10-15%. [20]

70

14.3 Manufacturability
We will be adopting an innovative approach for increased manufacturability. It uses
improvement in process flow and technological advancement as the main basis that results in
greater ease and at the same time reduces the cost.
For process flow, we will be improving the manufacturability through variability reduction.
14.3.1 Variability reduction.
Firstly, we will be maximizing the amount of common parts and components used across the
possible different variant types of Luxy. This will result in greater manufacturability as the
cost of producing them decrease with the increase in quantity produced. It reduces inventory
cost, as the amount of parts we need to hold decreases. Cycle time is also reduced as it is
much easier to plan for the demand of the parts.
Secondly, variability reduction is also applied across the different segments of the aircraft.
The amount of parts and tools used will be standardized. It further reduces the inventory cost,
cycle time and increase efficiency.
Thirdly, variability reduction is not only applied to hardware, but the process in
manufacturing the parts will also be as homogenous as possible. This results in specialization
and hence the time and cost will automatically be reduced.
14.3.2 Technological advancement
For greatest weight reduction, we can expect the aircraft requiring use of large amount of
composites. Currently composites are labour intensive and involve complex fabrication
process. However we will be expecting the technological advancement to reduce the time and
cost, allowing us to realize the potential huge benefits of composites to aircraft designers.
Therefore, the usage of composites on aircraft can be seen to increase in the more recent
models as shown in Figure 46.

71

Figure 46: Usage of Composite Material

Firstly, the usage of composite will be able to improve manufacturability as it reduces the
need for parts such as replacements for welded metallic parts, cylinders, tubes, ducts, blade
containment bands etc. Composite parts eliminate joints/fasteners, providing part
simplification and integrated design compared to conventional metallic parts
Secondly, we will be increasing the size of composite materials used. Producing larger
integral composite will reduce the need for joining and aid in making the manufacturing
process less complex and contribute to greater manufacturability. It thereby reduces the
assembly time required.

72

Chapter 15: Compliance Matrix

15.1 RFP Compliance
Table 34: RFP Compliance Matrix

73

15.2 FAR Compliance

Table 35: FAR Compliance Matrix

74

Chapter 16: Bibliography

[1]

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) & International

Transport Forum, Reducing Transport Greenhouse Gas Emissions, OECD-ITF,
2010.

[2]

Randy Tinesh (Vice-President, Marketing), Current Market Outlook, Boeing

Commerical Airlines, US, 2013.

[3]

M. Sadraey, Wing Design, 2013.

[4]

M. Sadraey, Chapter 6 Tail Design.

[5]

D. P. Raymer, Airfoil and Geometry Selection, in Aircraft Design: A Conceptual

Design, American Institute of Aeoronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 1999, pp. 39-41.

[6]

M. H. Sadraey, Tail Design, in Aircraft Design, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012, pp.
265-329.

[7]

D. P. Raymer, Aerodynamics, in Aircrraft Design: A Conceptual Approach,

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 1999, pp. 333-340.

[8]

I. Kroo and J. Alonso, Engine Placement.

[9]

Cabin

Layout

and

Fuselage

Geometry,

[Online].

Available:

http://mail.tku.edu.tw/095980/fuselage.pdf.
[10] Rolls-Royce plc, Trent 800, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.rollsroyce.com/civil/products/largeaircraft/trent_800/.
[11] C. .S and Mason.W, Landing Gear Integration in Aircraft Conceptual Design,
[Online]. Available: www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/ mason/Mason f/M96SC02.pdf. [Accessed
10 October 2013].
[12] R. Nelson, Flight Stability and Automatic Control, Mc-Graw Hill, 1998.

75

[13] Exxon Mobil Aviation, World Jet Fuel Specifications, 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpecifications2005.pd
f.
[14] I. Martinez, Aircraft Environmental Control, 1995.
[15] P. Kim, T. S. Wong, J. Alvarenga, M. J. Kreder, W. E. Adorno-Martinew and a. J.
Aizenberg, Liquid-Infused Nanostructured Surfaces with Extreme Anti-Ice and AntiFrost Performance, ACS Nano, 6, 6569-6577, 2012.
[16] NASA,

NASA

New

Start

Inflation

Index,

2012.

[Online].

Available:

http://www.nasa.gov/724337main_2012%20NASA%20New%20Start%20Inflation%2
0Index%20use%20in%20FY13%20Distribution%20File..

[Accessed

15

October

2013].
[17] Facts & Figures, Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), March 2012. [Online].
Available: http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html. [Accessed 2 November 2013].
[18] L.

Cuddeback,

Noise,

[Online].

Available:

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/noise/noise.html. [Accessed 30 October 2013].

[19] UK Civil Aviation Authority , Engine Type Certification Data Sheet No.1051, 22
October

2004.

[Online].

Available:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/SRG_PRO_1051%20Iss14.pdf.
[20] Confederation of British Industry's, Rolls-Royce: investing in low-carbon aviation,
2013.

[Online].

Available:

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/case-

studies/2011/04/rolls-royce-investing-in-low-carbon-aviation/.
[21] David Darling, Satellite Mass Categories, The Worlds of David Darling, [Online].
Available:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/satellite_mass_categories.html.
[Accessed 10 September 2013].
[22] The Japan Times, Farmers turn to satellites to aid rice crop, The Japan Times, 2 June
2001.

[Online].

Available:

76

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2001/06/02/national/farmers-turn-to-satellites-toaid-rice-crop/#.Ui6g3uP2PIU. [Accessed 10 September 2013].

[23] Space Daily, University To Set Up Satellite Venture To Assist Rice Farming, Space
Daily,

26

November

2004.

[Online].

Available:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/microsat-04v.html. [Accessed 10 September 2013].

[24] Fujitsu Limited, Fujitsu Uses Image Analysis Technology to Generate Rice Paddy
Parcel Maps from Satellite Images and Aerial Photos, Fujitsu, 17 August 2012.
[Online].

Available:

http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2012/20120817-01.html.
[Accessed 10 September 2013].
[25] J.

R.

W.

(Editor),

Spacecraft

Attitude

Determination

and

Control,

London/Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1978.

[26] O. L. d. Weck, Attitude Determination and Control (Lecture Slides), Massachusetts:
MIT, 2001.
[27] Air University Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, Chapter 10: Spacecraft Design, Structure
and Operations, in Air University Space Primer, Alabama, Air University Press, 2003.
[28] C. Kaplan, LEO Satellites: Attitude Determination and Control Components; Some
Linear Attitude Control Techniques, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey, April 2006.
[29] F. S. Robert, Spacecraft Sensors and Actuators (Lecture slides for MAE 342),
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Spring 2008.
[30] DSV Global Transport and Logistics, LD3/AKE/AVE container, [Online].
Available:

http://www.dsv.com/air-freight/unit-load-devices/LD3-AKE-AVE-

container.
[31] AirfoilTools.com, Lockheed C-141 BL0 Airfoil, 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=c141a-il.

77

[32] AirfoilTools.com,

RAE

103

Airfoil,

2013.

[Online].

Available:

http://www.airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=rae103-il.
[33] Exxon Mobil Aviation, World Jet Fuel Specifications, 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpecifications2005.pd
f.

78

Chapter 17: Appendix

A1 Estimation of cabin dimensions
This appendix shows the detailed calculations in arriving at a fuselage length of 74.08m.
Cabin layout studies were carried out for both single class and mixed class seating and the
eventually, the longer mixed class seating configuration was adopted.
For mixed class:
Number of

Number

seats

of rows

First Class

12

Business Class
Economy
Class

Aisle

Seat Pitch

Seat Width

1.53m

0.7m

0.6m

54

0.92m

0.7m

0.6m

314

41

0.78m

0.55m

0.5m

Width

Estimated length of all other cabin components (e.g. galley, toilets): 21*0.78 = 16.38m (21
rows of Economy Class)
Length of cabin: (1.53*2) + (0.92*9) + (0.78*41) + 16.38 = 59.7m

For full economy class:

Economy
Class

Number of

Number of

seats

rows

425

54

Seat Pitch

Seat Width

Aisle Width

0.78m

0.55m

0.5m

Length of cabin: (54*0.78) + 16.38 = 58.5m

Estimated length of empennage: 75.36 - 60.98 = 14.38m (from ref a/c)

Cabin width: (0.5*2) + (0.55*8) = 5.4m
Fuselage width: 5.4 + 0.125 + 0.125 = 5.65m
Length of fuselage: 59.7 + 14.38 = 74.08m

79

B1 Aircraft component drag buildup

This appendix gives details on the parameters involved in the calculation of Luxy's parasite
drag.
Wing
Re_l
C_F_turb
K_wing
S_wet
S
C_D0 wing

42423760
0.002407
0.906745
838.39
406
0.004507
Fuselage

Fuselage Diameter
Length
Fineness ratio
K_fuselage
S_wetted_fuselage
S
C_D0 fuselage

5.65
74.08
13.11
1.0594

Horizontal Tail
Re_l
28337065
C_F_turb
0.002556
K_horizontal_tail
0.872968
S_wet
234.171
S
113.4
C_D0 horizontal_tail
0.001287
Nacelle

Vertical Tail
Re_l
39248784
C_F_turb
0.002435
K_vertical_tail
0.866088
S_wet
396.48
S
192
C_D0 vertical_tail
0.002059
Flaps

Nacelle diameter
Nacelle length
Fan cowl length
Gas gen length

Cf/C
A
f
B

1184 Plug length

419 Fineness ratio
0.007438 S_wet fan_cowl
S_wet gas_gen
S_wet plug
S_wet nacelle
S
K_nacelle
C_D0 nacelle

2
5.8725
4.35
0.6525

0.2
0.0011
40
1

0.87 bf/b
2.93625 C_D0 flaps
27.12079
0.432702
1.91323
29.46672
11.745
1.1192
0.000208

0.7
0.0088

Landing gear
CDlg
wheel diameter
width
Slg
strut cross section
C_D0 lg

0.3
1.5
0.5
0.75
0.3
0.001884

Overall C_D0 = 0.015706

Oswald efficiency, e = 0.699216
Improved e = 0.85
k = 0.042233
Improved k = 0.85*0.042233 = 0.035898
B2 Calculation of New L/D
CL @ L/Dmax = 0.661451
CDi = 0.015706
CD = 0.031412
L/D = 21.0571
80

C1 Constraint Analysis
Takeoff Analysis:

Takeoff Analysis
s_1 (m) (70% of TO dist.
2500m)
k_1
g (m/^2)
(kg/m^3)
C_Lmax (assumed)

Gradient of graph

1750
0.9
9.81
1.225
1.7
0.02
4.47536E-05

Landing Analysis
{

Landing Analysis
s_2 (m) (65% of Landing Dist. 2500m)
d (assumed)
(kg/m^3)
_app
C_Lmax (assumed)
Constant of graph

1625
1.962
1.225
0.631
2.8
10254.88

Cruise Analysis

Cruise Analysis
C_D0
AR (assumed)
e
k
Mach no.
P_atm (Pa)
q
_cruise (assumed)

0.016
8.866995074
0.8
0.044872852
0.86
101325
52457.979
0.65

81

_cruise^2

0.70090384

Second Segment Climb Analysis

[

Climb Analysis (assumed cruise altitude 12km)

N/(N-1)
2
_climb
0.9654
_climb (density ratio at 6km)
0.538865
(in radians)
0.024
L/D
21
L/D (0.8*L/D_max)
16.8

82

D1 Engine performance equations

This appendix lists the equations used to obtain the curves for Thrust v.s. Altitude and TSFC
v.s. Altitude.

where = density of air, TSFC = Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption, T = temperature and
subscript SL indicates values taken at sea level.

83

EMass component calculations

Fuel tank on one wing
Inbound width
Outbound width
Wing length
Tank length

allowance for wing material

h
a
b
c
d
volume (in cubic meter)

Total volume (2 wings)

Density of aircraft fuel
Fuel mass when tank is filled

5.75 m
2.93 m
24.66 m
17.26 m

20% (10% on top and 10%on bottom)

19.73 m
5.75 m
1.20 m
2.93 m
0.61 m
80.05 m3

160 m3
800 kg/m3
128,000 kg

E1. Wing
Wing Mass = 4.22 x Wing Area + 1.642 x 10-6 x (Ultimate Load Factor x Wing Span b3 x
(Take-off Weight x Zero Fuel Weight)0.5 x (1 + 2 x Taper Ratio) / (Average Thickness Ratio
x Cos(Sweep Back of elastic axis)2 x Wing Area x (1+ Taper Ratio))

Wing(lbs)

78126

Wing Area

4370

Take-off Weight

524480

Fuel Weight

185188

Zero Fuel Weight

339291

Taper Ratio

0.3

Wing Span b

197

Average Thickness Ratio

Sweep Back of elastic axis

0.13
0.559

84

Ultimate Load Factor

3.75

CLmax

2.8

Density at 11km altitude(*Density and speed higher at 11km altitude)

0.370

Max speed at 11km altitude

229

n(max)

2.5

E2. Horizontal Tail

Mass of horizontal tail = 5.25 x Horizontal Tail Area exposed + 0.8 x 10-6 x (Ultimate Load
Factor x Tail Span^3 x MAC of wing x (Horizontal Tail Area exposed)0.5/( Average
Thickness Ratio x (cos Sweep Back of elastic axis)2 x Tail Arm x (Horizontal Tail Area
gross)1.5)

Horizontal Tail(lbs)

8245

Horizontal Tail Area exposed

1221

Horizontal Tail Area gross

1221

Tail Span

79

MAC

26

Ultimate Load Factor

3.75

Average Thickness Ratio

Sweep Back of elastic axis
Tail Arm
Aircraft C.G(estimated)
AC of Tail

0.1
0.61
132.38
98.43
4.08

AC of Tail from back of plane

12.24

Root Chord Length

24.67

Tip Chord Length

7.97

E3. Vertical Tail

Mass of vertical tail = 2.62 x Vertical Tail Area including rudder area + 1.5 x 10-5 x (Ultimate
Load Factor x (Vertical Tail Span)^3 x(8.0 + 0.44 x Take off Weight/ Wing Area))/(
thickness ratio x (cos Sweep Back of Elastic axis)^2)

Vertical Tail(lbs)
Vertical Tail Area including rudder area
Vertical Tail Span
Wing Area Gross
Ultimate Load Factor
thickness ratio

6336
2067
26
4370
3.75
0.1
85

Sweep Back of Elastic axis

0.611

E4. Fuselage
Pressure Index = 1.5 x 10-3 x Max Pressure Differential x Fuselage Width
Bending Index = 1.91 x 10-4 x Limit Load Factor x W x Fuselage Length / (Fuselage Height)2
W = Zero Fuel Weight (Wing Mass + Mass of propulsion)

Fuselage(lbs)
Pressure Index
Bending Index
Max Pressure
Differential
Fuselage Width
Fuselage Height
Fuselage Length
Limit Load Factor
n
Cabin Pressure(8000ft)
Pressure at 13000km
W
I(Fuse)
Wing root chord
L(Fuss eff)
S(Fuss)

116731
33
147
1176
19
19
243
4.5
2.5
1573
397
242563
77
38
224
13055

The calculated value or pressure index is less than bending index. It makes I(Fuse) =
((Pressure Index)2 + (Bending Index)2)/(2 x Bending Index)
S(Fuse) = Pi x Fuselage Width x Fuselage Length
Mass of fuselage = (1.05 + 0.102 x I(Fuse)) x S(Fuse)
E5. Landing Gear
Mass of main gear = 40 + 0.16 x (Take off Weight)0.75 + 0.019 x Take off Weight + 1.5 x 10-5
x (Take off Weight)1.5
Mass of nose gear = 20 + 0.10 x (Take off Weight)0.75 + 2 x 10-6 x (Take off Weight)1.5
86

Landing
Gear(lbs)
Main Gear
Nose Gear

21550
18821
2729

E6. Surface Control

Surface control used is full aerodynamic controls
Mass of surface control = (I(sc)-full aerody controls) x (Horizontal Tail Area + Vertical Tail
Area)

Surface Control(lbs)
I(sc)-full aerody controls
Horizontal Tail Area
Vertical Tail Area

5588
1.7
1221
2067

E7. Propulsion System

Mass of propulsion System = 1.42 x Engine Dry Weight

Propulsion
System(lbs)
Engine Dry
Weight

18602
13100

E8. APU
Weight of APU = 7 x Number of seats

APU(lbs)
Number of seats
W(APU) in lbs

2660
380
2660

E9. Navigation System

Mass of Navigation system = 1200 for long range transport aircraft

Navigation System(lbs)
Long range transport aircraft

1200
1200

E10. Hydraulics

87

Mass of hydraulics = 0.65 x S(ref)

Hydraulics(lbs)
S(ref)

3057
4703

E11. Electrical Devices

Mass of electrical equipment = 13 x Number of seats

Electrical(lbs)
W(Electrical) in lbs

4940
4940

E12. Electronics Devices

Mass of electrons = 1500 for long range transport aircraft

Electronics(lbs)
Long range Transport

1500
1500

E13. Furnishing
Number of seats exceeds 300.
Mass of furnishing = (43.7 0.037 x 300) x Number of seats + 46 x Number of seats

Furnishing(lbs)
W(furnishing) exceeding 300 in lbs

29868
29868

E14. Air Conditioning

Mass of air conditioning = 15 x Number of seats

Air
Conditioning(lbs)
W(Aircon) in lbs

5700
5700

E15. Operating Items

Mass of operating items = 40 x Number of pax for long range aircraft
88

Operating Items(lbs)
Long range
W(operating items) in lbs
Number of pax

16000
16000
400

E16. Crew
Mass of crew = 190 + 50 x Number of flight crew

Crew(lbs)
Number of flight crew
W(crew) in lbs

390
4
390

E17. Attendants
Mass of attendants = 170 + 40 x Number of flight attendants

Attendants(lbs)
Number of flight attendants
W(attendants) in lbs

810
16
810

E18. Payload

Payload(lbs)

144000

E19. Wing

Figure 47: Location of C.G of wing

89

Wing(m)
Wing Span, b
Wing Area, S
Wing Tip C_t
Chord Root C_r
MAC
chord at 0.35b/2
Xrs at 0.55C
Xfs at 0.25C
sweep
o
0.7(Xrs-Xfs)

46.38
60
406
3.45
11.5
7.90
8.68
4.78
2.17
0.56
6.56
1.82

E20. Vertical Tail

Vertical Tail(m)
Hv
chord at 0.55hv,c
Root Chord
Length
Tip Chord Length
0.42c
sweep
o

72.06
8
6.9
8
6
2.90
0.611
3.08

E21. Horizontal Tail

90

Horizontal
Tail(m)
Root Chord
Length
Tip Chord Length
span
chord at 0.19bh,c
0.42c
sweep
o

72.49
7
2.45
24
5.27
2.21
0.611
3.19

E22. Fuselage
C.G of Fuselage is assumed to be at the 47% from the front of the aircraft which is at X=
34.82m
E23. Landing Gear
The main gear is located at the neutral point location which is at 38.0m from the nose of
aircraft. The nose gear is located at 0.14 that of the length of the fuselage which is 10.37m
away from the nose of the fuselage.
E24. Engine
The C.G of the engine is estimated based on the dimension of the engine and the position the
aircraft designed the engine to be as a reference and the centre of gravity is calculated to be
52.73m

91

F.Matlab Codes
F1 Code for calculation of decision speed, balance field length, and climb gradient

92

93

94

95

F2 Code for calculation of displacement, fuel, and time to reach cruise velocity at 12km
altitude

96

97

F3 Code for plotting Flight envelope

98

F4 Trade-off between payload and range

99

F5 Specific Excess Power

100

101

102

G Stability and Control Analysis

G1 Wing contribution to longitudinal stability
The wing contribution to longitudinal stability can be calculated using the following:

Parameters

Value
Fore Most CG

Aft Most CG

-0.2938
4.8278

3D wing

0.2115
Distance from leading edge of
wing to CG (m)
Distance from leading edge of

wing to aerodynamic centre (m)

Length of MAC (m)

3.5426

4.7137

1.975
7.9
0.9580

1.6736

-0.2518

-0.2205

103

G2 Tail Contribution to longitudinal stability

The tail contribution to longitudinal stability can be calculated using the following:

Parameter

Value
Tail Efficiency

0.9

Horizontal tail volume ratio

1.1755

3D tail

4.4497

Downwash angle at zero angle of attack

0.06103

Wing setting

Tail setting

-0.05236

Rate of change of downwash angle with respect to angle of attack

0.30
0.5338
-3.06

G3 Fuselage Contribution to longitudinal stability

The fuselage contribution to longitudinal stability can be calculated using Multhopps method.
The equation is as follows:

Where
is the correction factor for the body fineness ratio;
is the average width of the fuselage section;
is the wing zero-lift angle relative to the fuselage reference line (FRL);
is the incidence of the fuselage camber line relative to the FRL
is the length of the fuselage increment.

104

The fuselage is divided into different segments for calculation. Luxy is divided into 10 equal
segments, each approximately 7.007m. The value of

can be determined from the

graph above by using the maximum length to diameter ratio.

Section

(rad)

7.007

-0.02618

3.45

-2.183

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

7.007

-0.02618

5.65

-5.856

10

7.007

-0.02618

-0.2443

3.05

-17.631
-66.662

Total

Parameter

Value
0.96
406

7.9
)

-66.662
-0.00055

105

Similarly, Multhopps method can be used to find

However, it should be noted that the manner in which fuselage is segmented is different. The
section between the wing is not included in the calculation as it is assumed to be unaffected
by the wing wake. The fuselage can be segmented in to sections as shown in the figure.

106

For the first 4 segments, the change in local flow angle with respect to angle of attack,
obtained from graph (a) by using

, the distance from the start of the wing to the mid-point

of each segment. For 5th segment, value of

the segments,

, is

can be obtained from graph (b). For the rest of

can be computed from the following equation:

Section
1

6.0074

27.033

2.351

1.725

1.2

21.451

6.0074

21.026

1.828

3.243

1.2

75.816

6.0074

15.018

1.306

5.65

1.2

230.126

6.0074

9.011

0.784

5.65

1.4

268.48

6.0074

3.004

0.522

5.65

2.4

460.251

4.7555

2.378

5.65

0.0392

5.955

4.7555

7.133

5.65

0.1177

17.865

4.7555

11.889

5.65

0.1961

29.775

4.7555

16.644

5.45

0.2746

38.787

10

4.7555

21.400

4.864

0.3531

39.721

11

4.7555

26.155

1.936

0.4315

7.691
1195.918

Total

Parameter

Value

406

7.9
1195.918

0.01031

Parameter Value
107

-0.00055
0.01031
G4 Calculation of Neutral Point and Static Margin (SM)
Parameter

Value

x_ac
mac
C_mFusel
C_LWing

1.975
7.9
0.0103
4.8277
1.17555
0.9
4.4497
0.35
6.9656

C_LTail
x_NP

Parameters

Value
Fore Most CG

Aft Most CG

x_cg

3.5426

4.7137

dC_M/dC_L

-0.4333

-0.2850

SM

0.4333

0.2850

CG Traverse

1.1711

G5 Wing-fuselage contribution to directional stability

The wing-fuselage contribution can be calculated from the following equation:

Parameter Description

Value

wing body factor which depends on fuselage side area distribution 0.014
ahead and behind the CG
Reynolds Number factor which depends on Reynolds number 2.2
based on fuselage length
Fuselage projected side area (m2)

395.896

108

fuselage length (m)

70.07

wing area (m2)

406

wing span (m)

60

Yawing coefficient of Wing-fuselage

-0.03507

G6 Vertical tail contribution to directional stability

The contribution of the vertical tail can be calculated using the equation below:

Parameter

Description

Value

Vertical tail area (m2)

56

Wing area (m2)

406

Sweep angle of wing quarter chord

28.5

Distance, parallel to the z axis, from wing root

1.8

quarter chord point to fuselage centerline (m)

Maximum fuselage diameter (m)

5.65

Aspect ratio of wing

8.867
1.156

)
Vertical tail volume ratio

0.0757

3D tail

3.3187

Yawing coefficient of vertical tail

0.2904

109

G7 Longitudinal Trim with Elevator

e=0
C_M when C_L=0
C_L
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3

0.3554
C_M
C_L
0.3554 -0.0566
0.2687 0.1434
0.1820 0.3434
0.0954 0.5434
0.0087 0.7434
-0.0779 0.9434
-0.1646 1.1434
-0.2512 1.3434
-0.3379 1.5434
-0.4246 1.7434
-0.5112 1.9434
-0.5979 2.1434
-0.6845 2.3434
-0.7712 2.5434
-0.8579 2.7434
-0.9445 2.9434

C_M
C_L
0.6375 -0.0453
0.5509 0.1547
0.4642 0.3547
0.3776 0.5547
0.2909 0.7547
0.2042 0.9547
0.1176 1.1547
0.0309 1.3547
-0.0557 1.5547
-0.1424 1.7547
-0.2290 1.9547
-0.3157 2.1547
-0.4024 2.3547
-0.4890 2.5547
-0.5757 2.7547
-0.6623 2.9547

e=-2

e=-1

e=1

C_L
-0.0226
0.1774
0.3774
0.5774
0.7774
0.9774
1.1774
1.3774
1.5774
1.7774
1.9774
2.1774
2.3774
2.5774
2.7774
2.9774

e=-5

C_M
C_L
0.4682 -0.0113
0.3816 0.1887
0.2949 0.3887
0.2083 0.5887
0.1216 0.7887
0.0349 0.9887
-0.0517 1.1887
-0.1384 1.3887
-0.2250 1.5887
-0.3117 1.7887
-0.3984 1.9887
-0.4850 2.1887
-0.5717 2.3887
-0.6583 2.5887
-0.7450 2.7887
-0.8316 2.9887

C_M
0.4118
0.3251
0.2385
0.1518
0.0652
-0.0215
-0.1082
-0.1948
-0.2815
-0.3681
-0.4548
-0.5414
-0.6281
-0.7148
-0.8014
-0.8881

e=-4

C_L
0.0113
0.2113
0.4113
0.6113
0.8113
1.0113
1.2113
1.4113
1.6113
1.8113
2.0113
2.2113
2.4113
2.6113
2.8113
3.0113

e=-3
C_M
C_L
0.5811 -0.0340
0.4944 0.1660
0.4078 0.3660
0.3211 0.5660
0.2345 0.7660
0.1478 0.9660
0.0611 1.1660
-0.0255 1.3660
-0.1122 1.5660
-0.1988 1.7660
-0.2855 1.9660
-0.3721 2.1660
-0.4588 2.3660
-0.5455 2.5660
-0.6321 2.7660
-0.7188 2.9660

C_M
0.5247
0.4380
0.3513
0.2647
0.1780
0.0914
0.0047
-0.0819
-0.1686
-0.2553
-0.3419
-0.4286
-0.5152
-0.6019
-0.6886
-0.7752

C_M
0.2989
0.2123
0.1256
0.0390
-0.0477
-0.1344
-0.2210
-0.3077
-0.3943
-0.4810
-0.5677
-0.6543
-0.7410
-0.8276
-0.9143
-0.9445

110

G8 Operating Regime with Trim and CG traverse

Values
Parameters Fore Most CG Aft Most CG
e0
0.109903
C_m0
0.355365
C_me
-3.23343
dC_M/dC_L
-0.43329 -0.285049643
de/dC_L
-0.134 -0.088157096

C_L
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2.8

Foremost
e(rad)
e(deg)
0.109903
0.042901
-0.0241
-0.0911
-0.1581
-0.22511
-0.26531

6.296997288
2.458067087
-1.380863115
-5.219793316
-9.058723517
-12.89765372
-15.20101184

C_L
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2.8

Aft Most
e(rad)
e(deg)
0.109903336
6.296997288
0.065824788
3.771482519
0.02174624
1.24596775
-0.02233231
-1.27954702
-0.06641086
-3.80506179
-0.1104894
-6.33057656
-0.13693653
-7.84588542

G9 Rudder authority
Rudder power:
Parameters

Values

_v

0.9

V_v

0.0757

C_Lv

3.3187

_rudder

0.58

C_nr

-0.1312

Scenario 1: One Engine Inoperative Take-off

[

Where

111

In the case of one engine takeoff at height of 10.668m(35ft), the parameters used for
calculation are as follows:
Parameters Values
N_E

2436732

1.225

83.3

406

60

C_nr

-0.1312

r(rad)

0.1794

r(deg)

10.28

Scenario 2: Crosswind Takeoff/Landing

Rudder deflection required for crosswind landing case:
{

Parameters

Values

C_n

0.2554

0.1526

C_nr

-0.1312

r(rad)

0.2972

r(deg)

17.03

112

H Aircraft cost estimation

H1 RDT&E and Flyaway
Modified DAPCA IV Cost Model (costs in 1999 dollars):
Engineering Hours, HE =
Tooling Hours, HT =
Manufacturing Hours, HM = 7.37
Quality Control Hours, HQ =
Development Support Cost, CD = 66
Flight Test Cost, CF =
Manufacturing Materials Cost, CM = 1
RDT&E = HERE + HTRT + HMRM + HQRQ + CD + CF + CM + CengNeng + Cavionics
Inputs
Empty weight

We (lbs)

Max Velocity

V (knots)

511

# to be produced

500

Flight test aircraft

FTA

# of engines

Neng

1,004

Cengine

206,275

22,000,000

113

Hours

Rates

Cost

1999 price

2020 price

Engineering

47,518,581.35

86 4,086,597,996.19

4,087,000,000

7,270,773,000

Tooling

31,722,186.44

88 2,791,552,407.09

2,792,000,000

4,966,968,000

Manufacturing

184,516,617.89

73 13,469,713,105.94

13,470,000,000

23,963,130,000

Quality Control

24,540,710.18

81 1,987,797,524.52

1,988,000,000

3,536,652,000

Dev Support

487,608,535.81

488,000,000

868,152,000

Flight Test

37,533,237.59

38,000,000

67,602,000

Mfg Materials

8,647,351,404.05

8,647,000,000

15,383,013,000

Engine

22,088,000,000.00

22,088,000,000

39,294,552,000

2,732,440,000

4,861,010,760

476,900,000

848,405,100

Total Cost

56,807,000,000

101,059,653,000

Unit cost price

113,000,000

201,027,000

Investment factor

71,008,750,000

126,324,566,250

Unit selling price

141,000,000

250,839,000

Avionics
Allowance for interior

10000 2,732,436,200
2500 476,900,000

114

H2 O&M Cost
Direct Operating Costs
Assume 79% filled
(ASM)
Fuel
Avg fuel burnt/hr
(m^3/h)
Avg yearly flight hrs
Total fuel burnt/year
Fuel Price
Total fuel cost/year
CSM (in cents)

984907688 Per aircraft

Crew (1999
costs)
yearly block
6.99 hours
5760.00 V_c (km/hr)
40253.25 W_TO (kg)
2person crew
739.68 cost
29774525.2 3person crew
7 cost
3.02 subtotal/year
CSM

Crew (2020
costs)
6024
913.10
237900

Maintenance
(1999)
25% O&M
Material Costs/FH
C_a_ aircraft cost less
engine

663.34

1180.08 C_e_cost per engine

893.78
3995945

1590.04 N_e no. of engines

7108787
0.72 Material Costs/cycle
Material Costs/year
CSM

Maintenance
(2020)

2844.3

5060

97000000.00

172563000

22000000

39138000
2

34131.6
16383168

60720.12
29145655.87
2.96

115

Depreciation
(1999)
Airframe Dep Period
Resale
Airframe Dep value per year
Airframe Dep value per flight hr
Engine Dep Period
Engine Dep Value per year
Engine Dep Value per flight hr
Total Dep per year
Total Dep per flight hr
CSM

Indirect Operating Costs

CSM

Depreciation
(2020)
25
9700000
17256300
3492000
6212268
606.25
1078.51875
25
880000
1565520
152.78
271.7916667
4372000
7777788
759.028
1350.31
0.790

Insurance
1% Operating Costs
CSM

1146958
0.12

39742099.48
4.035109074

116

117