Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
B(NASA-CP-166173)
U I L U - U E HETHOOOLOGY
HIME ! Y O D I F I C A T I O E FaE
Y A T E B i A L S A N D CONSTRULYIG:, T E C H N I Q U E S Final
Ndl-23068
2 n das
23841
BC BJo,/YF
Ad1
720 p
prepared-tract
No. NAS2-9805
--Corporation
8 e t h w . N . Y . 11714
2. Gmunmuw-)k.
1. CrrrtLC.
4 l*.rrdfr#ll#m
-am
September 1980
6 h t o r m 0rvw-W
Peter York
Raymond W. Labell
0 P . r f o m q C k p a r a t l o na m t
-t
10 Wolh W h t
11 b n t t r t OI
13 T ~ O 01
C
IUO
No
C-I
--.1
rb
NAS2- 9805
I2 s a l o n s a e q ~ v - r d * d d r a
x-%wMo
a m rrd
R.Mcom~d
Contractor Report
L
PREFACE
This report presents an aircraft Wing weight estimating method based on an analytical approach which is sensitive to material and constructim techniques. This study
was sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract
number NAS2-9805.
Center. Work was performed in two phases, between December 1977 and December
1978, and later between April 1979 and September 1980 by the Weight and Mass Prop-
iii
CONTENTS
Page
Section
...................................
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY
...........
Material Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Advanced Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Applied Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................
...........................
3
3
5
8
8
10
Damage Tolerance
11
.............................
Design Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Box Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Box Structural Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Carry-Thru Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Special Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lllanufacturing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Material Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assembly Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weight /Cost Tradeoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Design to Cost
iv
11
11
11
12
15
20
21
22
22
24
25
CONTENTS (CONTD)
Pr ge
.
Section
THEORETICAL WING WEIGHT EQUATIOAS
..................
26
26
28
...............................
..........................
Linear Regression Theory
........................
Statistical Correlation of Wing Box Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEVELOP'IENT AND INTEGRATION OF FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Box Cover Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fail-safe Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carrv-Thru Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials and Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temperature Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Box Substructure Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fail-safe Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carry-Thru Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials and Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Philosophical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Modification of Previous Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TOTAL WING WEIGHT METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Box Penalty Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Store Penalty to Wing Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
blain Landing Gear Penalty to Wing Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Fuel Penalty to Wing Box
.....................
V
28
30
35
35
35
35
35
36
37
37
37
37
37
39
39
44
44
44
44
44
CONTENTS (CONTD)
Section
Engine Penalty to Wing Box
......................
....................
..............................
................................
..................
............
Trailing Edge Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leading E d g e Flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spoilers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing Speed Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEFAULT ALGORITHMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ai1eror.s blevons Flaperons and Decelerons
............................
SURIhIARY OF METHOD AND INPUTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Inputs for Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B Material /Construction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C Material /Construction Factors (I$,. TLCVR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................
D Temperature Effects Factors (KTEalpCvR)
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Default Parameters
vi
Page
.
44
44
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
58
58
72
86
92
95
104
107
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure
...............
.........................
13
16
3
4
......................
Wing Box Beam & Rib Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Derivation of Wing Box Cover (Bending) Material Weight . . . . .
Typical Cover Stiffeners
18
19
27
29
32
33
34
10
11
42
12
43
13
14
...........................
.........................
.........................
.......................
....
..........................
..........................
Correlation of Wing Box Stores Weight Penalty Estimate . . . . .
Correlation of Wing Box Main G e a r Weight Penalty
Estimate
15
..............................
Correlation of Wing Rox Fuel Weight Penalty Estimate . . . . . .
16
17
18
41
45
46
47
.....
48
.........................
Correlation of L .E .. T .E. . 8 Miscellaneous Weight Estimate . . .
49
vii
51
ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTD)
.
YHge
Figure
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
....
Correlation of T.E. Roll Control Device Weight Estimate . . . . .
Correlation of Trailing Edge Flap Weight Estimate . . . . . . . .
Correlation of Slat 8 Leading E d g e Flap Weight Estimate . . . .
Correlation of Spoiler Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correlation of Wing Speed Brake Weight Estimate . . . . . . . .
Correlation of Wing Box Area Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correlation of T.E. Roll Control Device Area Estimate . . . . . .
Correlation of Trailing Edge Flap Area Estimate . . . . . . . . .
Correlation of Leading Edge Device APea Estimate . . . . . . . .
Correlation of L.G. Door and Mechanism Weight Estimate
30
...............
Correlation of Wing Speedbrake Area Estimate . . . . . . . . . .
31
32
29
33
34
35
36
......
......
Correlation of Wing Fuel Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correlation of Main Landing G e a r Door Area Estimate . . . . . .
Correlation of hlaximun: Zero Wing Fuel Weight Estimate . . . . .
Correlation of Total Wing Group Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . .
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
73
74
75
39
Correlation of
76
40
77
78
37
38
41
.........................
...........................
Total Wing Grou;, Weight Estimate (Cargo) . . . .
.............................
viii
.......
TABLES
Table No.
1
2
... . ..... .. ..
Design Properties of Composite Rlaterials . . . . . . , . . . .
Material Type and Construction.
. . . ... . . . .
Design Properties of Various Metals.
ix
.
)
Page
6
38
LlST OF SYMBOLS
b
Wingspan, ft
cl*
c2
cR
cT
Constants
Cos A
FS
Fw
FDGW
Flight -sign
HPW
*B W
KCT
FSC 1%
K~~~
K~~
K~~~~~~
K~~~~
Gross Weight, lh
- Safe Factor
KROLL
KTS
K~~~~~~~
Is,
LDGW
MCGW
MZWFW
NB
NBOX
N~~~~
N~~~~
NX
'BEAM
'BOX
'FLAP
'LED
'LEF
'~IGDR
'ROLL
'SLAT
s~~~~~
sW
Spoiler Area, ft
sWSB
%OVER
TOGW
Take
TR
TT
vL
vS
C VR
WSUB
W
WFZJEL
wWING
WSTOR Es
lb
Y'
Xii
xiii
-1.
SUMMARY
This study defines an aircraft wing weight estimating method based on a component buildup technique. A simplified analytically derived beam model, modified
by a regression analysis is used to estimate the wing box weight utilizing a data
base of 50 actual airplane wing weights.
ods of construction w e r e derived and incorporated into the basic wing box equa-
tions. Weight penalties to the wing box for fuel engines , landinr gear, stores
and fold or pivot are also included. Methods fur estimating the weight of additional items (secondary structure, control surfaces) have the aption of using
details available at the design stage (i.e.
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this study is to derive a theoretically based, empirically
corrected wing weight method and to define and derive weight influence factors
for materials and methods of construction and design philosophies. The method
will provide correct trends for design tradeoff studies as well as reasonable
accuracy. An extensive existing data base of m e t a l wings of various aluminum
,:lays plus the F-14A and F-15A whose wing boxes are made entirely or partly
of titanium w e r e used. A simplified Mam model similar to the Grumman "Level II"
method w a s chosen to provide a theoretical basis for the structural analysis. A
substantial amount of knowledge on material and mnstruction techniques was
accumulated and compiled in a unique data base. W h i l e some general information
is available in the open literature, the actual details (alloys, stiffener spacings,
rib construction, design philosophy) used to derive weight correction factors for
the data base aircraft w e r e often obtainable only f r o m the manufacturers. In all,
sufficient information w a s obtained to derive material/construction factors for 22
aircraft of the existing data base of 50 aircraft. Most of these material data w e r e
acquired with the assistance 01 blr. Gary Hill of the NASA A m e s Research Center
and hlr. Gerry Seidel of NADC Johnsville , PA.
of aluminum alloys on aircraft designed for f i g h t above Mach 2.5 and on local
areas of severe thermal environment (e.g., engine exhaust).
Although the amposition of aluminum alloys have changed w i t h t i m e due to
material technology, the basic mechanical properties have not experienced tremendous improvement.
tclerance have limited the application of the higher strength alloys (e.g. 7075T73 type alloy is usually preferred over higher streirgth 7075-T6 alloy for better
stress corrosion resistance).
The most popular alloys for utilization in current aircraft a r e generally :he
CXXX-series.
forgings are likely candidate materials because of resistance to stress and exfoliation corrosion. Their mechanical properties
rlre
approximately
%-loo%of the
7075 and 7079 alloys previously used in similar applications (e.g., t h e material in
many of the data base wings). Alloy 7475-T7651 has been developed primarily
for applications requiring high fracture toughness.
also approximately 90%of previously used 7075-T651 alloy, but its fracture tough-
ness far exceeds any other aluminum alloy of comparable strength. Potential
advantage exists for use of 7075-T651 in wings designed to meet the damage
tolerance criteria defined by specification MIL-A- 83444.
3
.-.--.
_-__
I-.
I
_
L
Aluminum will still be used extensively in future aircraft structure i n the form
of more recently developed alloys. These alloys will not provide noticably lighter
a wide range of maximum s t r e n g t * s . The more commonly used are the higher
strength alloys. Application includes major attachment fittings, landing gear
components, hinge fittings and control surface tracks and linkage. The usual
criteria for steel usage are high strength requirement, high temperature environment * or a combination of both.
dictate the use of steel.
structure because of space limitations around the engine. U s e of steel for basic
wing box structure as in the early 1960s (e.g. * F- 111 Center Section), w a s replaced on later designs requiring high strength material (e.g., F- 14) by titanium
alloys (See Titanium discussions). Since the current and projectea use of steel
in wing box structure is limited to local fittings, there appears to be no great
impact on wing box weight due to steel alloys in the near future.
Titanium Alloys: Titanium alloys used for aircraft structure m k Pliitively
lightweight. having a very good strength to weight ratio and ore corrosiopresistant. They retain good mechanical properties for prolonged exposure to high
temperature of at least 750F, making titanium
performance aircraft. Due to its high strength. good strength to weight ratio
and fatigue resistance, titanium has replaced steel in many structural applicatioris
(e.g., F - 1 4 wing box). The major drawback of titanium has been cost, especially
where alumirvrm can meet the requirements within an acceptable weight penalty.
Damage tolerance studies have revealed that certain titanium alloys, although
they exhibit hiK, strength and good fatigue characteristics, suffer from rapid
crack growth rates. This reduces the structural efficiency of these particular
alloys for applications including damage tolerance requirements ; however different
annealing processes may improve crack growth characteristics minimizing the impact of this criteria ( e . g . , Beta annealed Ti 6A1-4V alloy may be used in place
of mill snnenled Ti 6A1-4V and Ti 6A1-6V-2Sn alloys).
.-
are shown in Table 1. Other metallics are too specialized or not cost-effective
The
epoxy-ba-sd composites are corrosion and fatigue resistant and may be tailored
for good damage tolerance characteristics.
density and tailored design accounts for the significant weight savings achieved
by utilizing advanced composite design.
hybrid depends on the application (i.e., boron for high stiffness). Design
pr3perties fo- various composite materials are shown i n Table 2.
Fut
vaiic
0
1-
composites include :
High Strain Design
e)
s3
c c
0 0
tu!
ZE
;I,
The
terms
designed to meet these criteria at the worst possible points within the airplane
flight envelope. Gust loads are determined by one or more of the following methods, depending on the requirements of the customer or certifying agency.
0
The mttsimum vertical Ioad factor at the aircraft center of gravity (maneuver or
gust) has been found to be the most satisfactory parameter for representation of
applied load affects on wing box weight.
Ground loads: Three ground load conditions which may influence wing
weight are :
0
Landing loads for wing mounted landing gear. The landing gear reactions
generally ndd weight locally, particularly in ribs, spcm and lociil uttachment fittings. The landing vertical load factor is the best defined purumeter for determining the impact of these loads on wing weight.
Negative "g" loads on wing. This includes the effect of large concentrated
weights mounted on the wing such as engines and external stores.
Other conditions for ground handling, such as jacking 1oad.s do not usually have a
Substantial impact on total wing weight.
Fatigue loads: The previous discussion of flight and ground loads involved
static design loads only. To prevent fatigue failure in wing structure a fatigue
analysis must be performed dealing w i t h frequency as well as magnitude of loads.
This not only considers the frequency due to aircraft environment, but the affect
of dynamic response for flexible wings. Studies of the
result i n a safe working stress which is generally used in the design phase and
may be utilized for weight estimates. Weight penalties may be determined by
analytical methods using the static allowable stress and the safe working stress to
cakulate the additional material required for the latter. More extensive fatigue
analysis and testing are used as the design progresses to verify the integrity of
the structure.
Fail-safe design: Fail-safe criteria imposed on a design requires that even
after failure, the wing will remain intact and sustsin flight. Fail-safe structure
is required for FAA certification under FAR Part 2 5 , and introduces substantial
cover and substructure weight penalties to the wing box. Fail-safe is rarely r e quired for military tactical aircraft, but may be incorporated i n designs where it
can be accomplished without increasing weight or cost appreciably. Isolating the
wing bending (cover) material required for a fail-safe design is difficult to assess
from weight statements except for those structurai members added explicitly aiid
only for that purpose. The maprity of the cover weight increment required for
fail-safe is included in the rib and spl.i.cr, pads, splice hardware and increased
thicknesses to suppress stress levels. The magnitude of the analysis that would
be required did not permit breaking out the penalty analytically.
approach is as follows:
Bending Material (cover) fail-safe factor ( KFSCVR ) = 1.261
This parameter when applied to the substructure, however, proved t o be insignificiint in the regression analysis and was not retained i n the final equation.
Advtuic'e composite coiistruction is most adaptable to these criteria since cover and
beiini
I I I ~ L ' I ' S niny be tailored to obtain the desired elastic properties of the s t r u c -
t ural elements.
10
Damage tolerance.
cation MIL-A- 83444, and are intended to improve structural reliability by prctecting safety-of-flight structure f r o m effects of flaws, cracks or damage which may
occur during production, and /or service. This is a relatively new specification
and little data is available on the weight impact of this requirement. Funded
studies of application to the F-14 aircraft (Ref. 2) indicate a sizeable penalty for
current technology metallics. If available metallics vith better crack growth resistance were incorporated in the design and inspection techniques could determine
11
leading and trailing edges, secondary structure and other possible wing-mounted
items such as landing gear and engines. Figure 1 illustrtrtes the compcnents
which make up a wing box.
or more spanwise beams which support the box covers and transfer shear loads
spanwise through the box. Chordwise ribs are placed at end closures, points of
load introduction and at intermediate positions as required. For closely spaced
beams ?he number of ribs will be minimal. The spar spacing is determined by
geometric and packaging requirements in the wing.
sheet where the beam spacing is large, or a flat plate when the beams are closely
spaced. hlultiple spars may be selected to accommodate packaging requirements
such as a large landing gear cutout in a wing box, or thin wings having inadequate depth for flanged stifreners making it more practical to suppcrt the covers
12
\
Cover
sheet
Figure 1.
Lower cover
Stiffened covers must always be used with rib designs. Rib spacing is determined by the co1: mn strength required for the stiffeners for compression load
in the covers and the ribs are designed to accommodate a combination of local airload. mver crushing loads, fuel preisure loads o r local at :.r hment loads.
Full depth honeycomb: Honeycomb construction may be used to replace beams
and ribs as cover support (full depth). The full depth concept is particularly
useful for very thin wings where assembly space is inadequate for spars o r ribs.
The major disadvantage of full depth honeycomb is that fuel tank volume is lost
from the wing box.
Delta
usually a gridwork formed by spars and ribs with rib and spar spacing approximately equal a.id with covers stiffened in the spanwise direction. The spar
locations are dictated by the wing fuselage attachments while the rib spacing is
dictated by control surface attachments and a realistic column length for the
cover stiffeners. The shuttle wing, F-106, b-58 and SAAB Viggen are good
examples of this configuration.
Cover design unstiffened: Unstiffened covers are used with closely spaced
spars which provide the only support for the cover material ( e . g . , F-111 Outer
Panel). This arrangement is well adapted to the stiffness critical design of thin
wings, since the cover material is totally effective for both torsional stiffness and
bending stiffness. The s m e applies to full depth honeycomb covers; however,
the compression strength of the covers is improved since total cover support is
provided by the core.
Cover design stiffened: Stiffened covers include the cover sheet and the stife i n g elements required for compression stakilization of the cover Aeet (or plate).
The stiffeners provide stabilization of the sheet for locd failure and. in combiriation with the sheet, provide column strength for the cover ( e .g. , F- 14 Octer
Panel). Honeycomb panels are a variation of stiffened covers where two sheets
separated b y core material provide
Rib design: Basic rib designs are either t r u s s type or shear web coristrcction. T r u s s ribs are gvnerally the minimum weight design for thick wings using
mullirib design ( e . g . , Shuttle Wing). For thin wings, full shear web ribs are
more efficient thnn trusses. especially when lightning holes are incorporated in
the webs. Xing boxes used as fuel tanks requiring sed& compartments and
CIS
uell.
used as fuel t%nksincluding rib design mentioned above and fuel pressure bads
induced by aircraft maneuvers. Fuel tank sealing. accessability for cleaning and
inspection. and control of fuel distribution m u s t also be considered in the r i n g
box design. It is difficuir to isolate the total weight penalty for wing fuel since
there may e duplicate functions for certain items (e.g.. hand holes may be
requi-ed for wing assembly as well as fuel tank inspection).
Figure 2 illustrates several of the design concepts discussed above.
Construction
- techniques.
Cover stiffener t-es:
but less
15
16
Honeyamb panels
p o d structural
Other stiffe~rig
systems are generally a variation of the types iisted above.
The t r u s s t j p are made of stable truss members forming cap, post and
diagonal components. The caps are usually channel members facilitating
o o d m !o the w i n g wvers. The other mewbers may be tubes, channels, crudforms. or angles depending on bad and geometric requirements.
Tubes atre the most efficient column m e m b e r s for deep trusstts bhere end
attachments a m not an overpowering weight penalty as may be the case
with short members. Trusses are not readily adaptable to the forward and
aft beams of the wirig box since a dosed box is desirable (and necessary
in the case of a fuel tank) due to leading and trailing edge functions.
0
The web type utilize a full depth web for shear and axial load transfer.
Stiffened sheet (integral or separate stiffeners)diagonal tension webs
arc used extensively since t.ey are a tightweight design which are easily
attached to the covers. They are elso simple to penetrate for access holes
or line runs. Shear resistant designs such as aorrugated sheet or honeycomb panels -we used in certain applications. particularly for advanced
composite design. The honeycomb panels are efficient for fuel tank bulkheads where fuel pressure may be a significant design condition. Wing
-box fuel tanks dictate some aspects of web type design because of sealing
problems. Sealing betweer, caps and covers will establish minimum cap
sizes and fastener patterns.
tions eliminate seaung problems in the web itself and minimizes required
hardware.
17
18
iT
1
clp
t
I
W&
Stifhnrr
F w e 4.
-w
19
combination of fasteners
as outlined helow.
Conventional aluminum fasteners
adequate.
Hi-lock type fasteners - U s e d where high strength is required or fuel
sealing is required.
lrOm
ing loads ( a major design factor) do not enter the fuselage structure. Wing fuel
capacity is much greater with coiltinuous boxes since the section of greatest depth
is within the fuselage confines. The fairings and breather joints associated with
the winglfuselage Intersection for this type design are relatively lightweight
structures ; therefore they do not represent a significant weight penalty.
Integral faselnge carry-tiiru: On small aircraft with fuselage mounted engines
( e . g . , F - 1 1 . F-105. F-15 and F-16). volume for a carry-thru box i s often not
~~vtulable.I n such a case the wing box must be attached to fuselage francs tit
because:
0
Loads must be carried thru the fuselage by frame bending, a less efficient
method than a box beam bending
Shear lag problems in the wing box at the fuselage attachment add a weight
penalty to the exposed wing.
There are requirements fur breather p i n t s with this design, but the amount of
fairing structure will be small.
Special features.
Wing fold: Wing folding is a requirement for storage of many carrier based
aircraft.
figuration. but the penalty to the overall vehicle may be negated by the impmvdd
performancw. The penalties resulting from sweep actuation mechanism, pivot
structure and load path discontinuities must be incorporated into wing weight
estimates. These penalties are best evaluated by empirical methods.
In the case
of the F- 14. the penalty for the pivoting wing is partially offset by eliminating tne
need for a wing fold.
Landing gear. engine acd store mounting: hlounting these items on a wing box
involves the addition of ribs and/or beams. increased strength of local structure
and addition of attachment fittings. In addition landing gear storage frequently
requires cutouts in the main box structure (e.g., the F-5 wing).
This causes
These penalties
tire
tips have proven effective in improving wing performance without major structural
modification. Since use of winglets is a relatively new development, weight penialties t o the wing box presented here are based entirely on the Gulfstrenm 111 air-
21
Manufacturing Methods
Material preparation.
Formed sheet metal: One of the common methods of manufacturing aircraft
wings utilizes flat sheet stabilized by formed sheetmetal m e m b e r s .
This method
is used extensively on lightly loaded wings which do not serve as fuel tan1.s
(e.g., outer panel of the E-2A). The constant thickness of the sheets and the
difficulty in forming thicker material make this technique less practical for more
highly loaded wing covers and beams; however lightly loaded ribs of m u l t i - r i b
design are readily adaptable to this construction.
Extruded sections: Stiffening m e m b e r s of varying shapes may be extuded
when thicker members are required. They may be tailored t o strength and stiffness requirements by machining operations after extruding.
to aluminum alloys.
Machined parts: Machined parts cover the range from small machined fittings
to major sections of wing covers, beams or ribs. Machining operations are used
to fabricate parts requiring specific geometric shapes :ind to remove excess weight.
Machined skins for wing covers or beams allow tailoring for strength and stiffness
requirements.
of sealing hardware, but are usually less efficient structurally than separate
stiffeners attached to machined skins. Major attachment fittings are manufactured
by machining operations because of their complex shapes and strength
requirements.
Chem-milled parts: Chemical removal of unneeded material. is used extensively
in wing box design as a weight saving effort.
fabrication where panel thicknesses may be varied over the surface of the web.
It is also used for structure where countersunk fastener requirements dictate
the depth of the basic sheet, but strength requirements allow thinner panels
between rows of fasteners.
minimizing weight and is used on all but the very low cost designs.
Forgings: The process of manufacturing net or near net shapes by forming
thc metid under pressure is known
11s forging.
at lower cost by eliminating much of the material that otherwise would require
removal by machining operations.
of stiffeners are particularly adaptable to forging before machining for final thicknesses. Small parts may be forged to the final dimensions as so called no draft
forgings. This is primarily a cost saving process and has little impact on weight.
Advanced composite processing/manufacture: Several basic techniques are
available for manufacture of organic matrix composites.
molding. vacuum bag molding and autoclave molding. The basic process is to
apply heat and pressure to t h e starting material (prepreg) to compact the laminae,
remove entrapped air and cure the matrix.
SP-AS1-CS- 1B
SP-(3-011
Gr- lOOA
H - lOOA
T -100
23
Fuel tank interiors may be treated with additional sealing and protection systems.
Protection of the structure is standard procedure on all aircraft and is not to be
considered as a penalty over the empirical data base.
Assembly techniques.
Machined assemblies: Assemb!y of machined parts may utilize mechanical s y s tems o r weldtd connections of steel nnd titanium parts.
ment studies of this technique. to Crumman and North Am2rican (Aft Fuselages)
tind Boeing and McDonald Douglas (Wing Center Sections). under the title of
Honeycomb assemblies: Full depth honeycomb structure is assembled hy bonding covers. bermis ;ind ribs to a basic core assembly for an efficient structural
cmmponent . Honeycomb panel structure must be attached to adjacent structure
b y mechnniclil fasteners. This can be a considerable weight penalty, espt.ci:illy
on smaller panels where a large part of the panel is affected by the fastener
patterr*.s.
Adv:inced compwite assemblies: .4dvcinced composite assemblies may be inte g'rtittxl into
ti
few lnyup and curing promsses , thus eliminating many of the sepn-
rtite ussenibly steps required for other materials. This enhances the weight saving
is considered in the total advanced composite weight savings utilized for weight
estimates.
Weightlcost trades. - The best manufacturing methods for a particular wing
design can only be determined by conducting cost versus weight trade studies.
The so called "value of a pound" for the vehicle in question must be established
as a guide for these studies. Compromises must be accepted to keep the cost and
weight within reasonable constraints. The value of a pound may be high on vehicles required to m e e t high performance standards or particular missions such as
the space shuttle. For early weight estimates. factors may be used to reflect the
relative importance of cost and weight and applied to the weight estimating
relationships.
Recent experience w i t h new designs indicate that low cost does not necessarily
mean higher weight.
25
The synthesis of
these approaches has yielded the most useful wing estimating equations (Ref. 7,
8) for preliminary design studies.
certainly simplified, model for (at least) bending material and determination of
constants, coefficients and exponents by a regression or similar analysis to include non-theoretical influences on the box bemi weight. Such influences as nonoptimum weight. minimum gages and secondary loads, and other design requirements can be accounted for by such empirical adjustments to a theoretical equation.
"
"commer-
cial," "general aviction," and the like are usuaUy a means of grouping design
philosophies. methods of construction. etc, without identifying them explicitly.
This study completely avoids this approach and attempts to identify the underlying physical discriminators so that the same equation can be used to include
variable sweep high performance fighters, utility light aircraft, and the spectrum
of aircraft in between.
3
)
Rlateial Weight
-
corrected wing weight equations. This approach is not preferred in order to p r o duce the most accurate wing weight prediction equation but instead to provide a
theoretical basis for improvement by regression analysis. It is intelltionally restricted to nn elementary format to keep the method mmpatible with the prelirninary design phase. The derivation of the wing box cover (bending) material
26
I
DEFINE TWE CENTER OF PRESSURE FOR A UNIFORMLY LOADED WING AS THE CENTROID OF AREA
Ill
IBln
151
IS
IbI
THE RUNNING LOAD 2 3 I N FROM TIP IS
v)
IYI
COP THE DATA BASE I T WAS ASSUMED THAT F p DID NOT VARY WIDELY AND COULD ACCOfiDINbLY
uL INCORPORATE^ INTO A CONSTANT
Figun 5.
Derivation of
*
yCAI,C.)
(yACT. *
of "normal" equations:
IJ'A-T.
:. s y
=a
= na + bXx
:: x + b
1. x
roach occurs when the dependant variablcs i n the data set vary over a large
r;inge. For example, if the dependant variable were TOGW and the data varied
from 100 to 1 million pounds, the least squares approach would attempt to minimize
t h e Iatte: a t the expense of the former.
)
is reallv minirnrespective dependant varisb!e such that 1' ( 1 - y C A L C . "ACT.
izcci. The x snd y terms in the normal equations would be appropriately mcdif'ed.
The equiitions for the case of two independant variables (yC A I X . = a + bx + cx)
;ire:
'.Y.ACT.
sy =
ti:
2s' -- i i
1111 t
b:.x -t c..z
>
x + b: X" +
z + b
C.
xz
xz + c : z
(3)
THE SHEAR AT A POINT 1 R OF THE WAY FROM THE TIP TO THE ROOT IS APPROXIMATELY
V I R = L 5 (BRh
(11)
IS:
AS IN THE CASE OF THE BENDING MATERIAL. THE FACTOR F5'p IS ASSUMED NOT TO V A R Y
WIDELY A N 0 IS INCORPORATED INTO A CONSTANT
wWe cp [(eln bl
~
RUO- 165101511)
29
b *:
z
I n c r d e r to use the
method of least squares, the form of the equation is modified to more closely
match the "linear" equation. This is done by taking the natural logarithm of both
sides of the equation:
= In a + b In x + c In z
in YCALC.
The nomd equations can now be used to solve for In a , b and c. Note that in
this case (In yACT . -In FCALC. ) is minimized which does not create the same
problem as would have occured i f (yACT- -yCAI,C, ) * w e r e minimized in the previous example.
Statistical Correlation of Wing Box Weight
The actual weights used in the regression analysis w e r e arrived at by taking
the actual weights from weight reports and subtracting out recognized penalties
(i.e.. fuei. engine. stores. landing gear. fold. and sweep). Weight penalties
not available as coded or impliat structural increments in the weight reports wem
calculated by Crumman's own methads. The cover weights comprised items
actually d e d to covers (skin. stiffeners. beam caps. jsf-pints. splices. and
fasteners). a.;d the substructure weights. items actually coded to b e a m s and ribs
( h a m webs. beam caps if integral with w e b s . beam jsf. ribs. bulkheads. chord wise stiffeners. and rib jsf). Total
!AJX
:IS closely as
and 6 . The emphasis was o n u s n g parameters to improve the theory rather than
impro..-- the "fit" of the regression analysis.
The theory for cover (bending) weight derived i n Figure 5 Equation ( 10).
30
'SUB
='2
[.
bl
in Lieu c,f b ) ,
in the theoretical equation. p a t l y improved the accuracy. Although the emphasis i s on Improving the theory rather than the "fit" of the regression analysis.
B n Sw l
0.5614
[SBOX(~RT ~ ) !
+
und resulted in
LI
0.144
The
-A
Ten ( C - g A , C - l 3 5 B ,
C-140A. DC-8, 720. 727, 737, 747, G-159, and G-1159) of the fifty data base aircraft w e r e assumed to have a fail-safe weight penalty. The factor determined by
this approach (see Equation (19)) is as follows:
) = 1.261
Fail-scfe factor (liFSCVR
For the various combinations of parameters that w e r e screened during the study,
K~~~~~
Flutter. - Flutter penalties are most likely to occur when combining high
speed and high aspect ratio (Refer to Dynamics and aeroelasticity). The effects
of flutter on cover weight is represented by inclusion of t h e parameter limit
airspeed (VL) into Equation (19)
Carry-Thru design.
!he wing box continues through the fuselage o r attaches to the side-of-body.
This parameter -.vas used in the regression but w a s found to be insignificant and
was not retained in the final equation for cover weight. The implications nre
that there is no additional weight penalty to the covers for w h g s w i t h no carryt h r u . However. even though there is no discrete weight penalty due to KCT.
35
the fact that exposed values are used for B b , Sw * C g and SBox in the regression and are contained in the cover equation m e a n s there could be an inherent weight penalty.
Materials and constmctions. - Several metimods for obtaining material/construction factors w e r e investigated. The emphasis was placed on developing
factors that would be an extension of the simple analytical approach used in deriving the cover (bending) material weight in Theoretical Wing Weight Equations.
This approach is outlined below.
1.
Gather data, (i.e., type of alloy. stiffener spacing. rib spacing, beam
spacing, construction type and design philosophy) for the data base airplanes. Complete details w e r e obtained
fc,-
3.
Devebp algorithms that would allow factors to be obtained for other alloys of
aluminum. titanium and steel. Obtaining factors thmugh use of the multistation analysis for every alloy would be a monumental task and would also
not allow for future alloys to be considered. An alternate approach would be
to develop algorithms for these factors as a function of material properties
( i . e . . compressive yield stress ( F C y ) . ultimate tensile s t r e s s ( F
sity). Though this appeared
36
TU ) and den-
4.
) i n the regression
Table 3.
Temperature effects. - A factor (KTmpCVR
to account lor the effects of
teriperature w a s generated utilizing a wing multiple station analysis program and
the factors are shown in Appendix D for various temperatures and materials.
Wing Box Substructure W e i g h t
The substructure weight is defined only partially by the flrst order theo-
Carry-Thru design.
structure i s applied only to an exposed wing. The use of exposLd wing area in
the equation compensates for reduced box area. The factor, however, is required to account for the effects of cover loads at the side of body being trans-
ferred into the spars which connect directly to fuselage frames. This results in
a significant substructure weight increment above the substructure weight for a
wing with a straight through wing box.
Materials
&
constructions.
structure did not allow a detailed method to be pursued in this study. The facbetween
an aluminum
and
tor (
K 1 w i l l only
~ distinguish
~
~
~
~ titanium
~ substructure based on the following:
Aluminum
Titanium
Shear Allowable (FS1
24,200 psi
50,000 psi
Density (PI
0.101 p a
0.164 p d
37
38
FS I P
Aluminum
Titanium
0.240 x lo6
0.305 x lo6
1.000
0.787
Other "philosophical" influences on the wing box weight may be enumerated, but sufficient definition within the existing data base simply could not be
found.
identification of enough wing boxes with this characteristic and a detailed understanding of the actual design impact of each m a k e s specific identification of a
factor an exercise in guesswork. Design-to-Cost considerations are reflected at
a more detailed level by exact identification of materials and methods of construction in the material factors.
Modification of Previous Equations
The equations previously developed in the section on Theoretical Wing
Weight Equations were now modified with the factors discussed above and a new
regression analysis performed. The material and temperature factors are irlcluded
as straight multiplying factors, all other factors were derived empirically.
Both
the original equations and the refitted equations are shown below:
0.5479
'CVR
= 0.081223
0.4897
B n Sw
(CR + 2 C T )
['BOX]
+ CT)
"CVR
= 0.039041
0.5074
b
[Cos'
(CR + 2CT)
0.5279
B n Sw
39
'SUB
= 0.00636
0.144
0.518
'SUB
PCT]
KIblTLSUB
40
o * 0 1 4 WTORES
0.001416 NLDCW
LDCW liMC
Where KXIG is 1.0 escwpt 0.5938 if main lsnding gem- are i n engine nwelles cin
the wing:.
Wing Fuel Penalty To Wing Box (Figure 15).
0.5436
k3n
~e Penalty
-To Wing Box ( R g u r e 16).
0.004
FW
17).
Wing -Fold
O r -W
n
ix Pivot Pennltv (Figure
-.
_
_
I
\Vlicre
H I I 0
~ .556
0.07235 (Sw
Where K m
1576 ( c
%AX
4703
P L ) O- 4703
50
-1.117
DEFAULT ALGORITHhIS
The iuputs required for the developed methacls may be too detailed for use early iu
the preliminary design cycle. The usual s0luY-t to this problem is to repert to a
simplified equation, however, the generalized nature of these equations gratly reduces
flexibility. In place of a simplified equation. a series of tilgorithms have been developed
that allow defaulting tbe methods to approodmate the input complexrty of a simpUaed
equation. This will r e m the flexibility of the method to perform detail tradeoffs
early in the design process, while retaining t k inherent simplicity of inputs required
for initial sizing.
D e fault Parameters
a)
W i n s Box A r e a @
BOX
0.4 155 Sw
- Figure 25
1.0159
)-Figure26
b) Trailing Edge Roll Control Device Area (sRoLL
0.10
sw
s\I'
il. 16 S
\I'
d)
Figure 28
LED
(Slat (SSLt\'&1 and/or L. E. Flap (SLEF)Area)
0 . 0 s Sw
58
- Figure 27
e)
- Figure
29
bB)
- Figure 30
295xLIXX
r)
vS6
h)
i)
SW
7.4
sw
)-Figure31
S A S E 'TYPE
0.74358
o.o91r'9 (SBOX)
(TOGW)0.68475
Where K
and K
BAS:
TYPE
K~~~~
K~~~~
63
Id
,
sM B
la'
".
*I?
I
S
.. .. ..
. , . .
) - Figure 34
k) Main Landing Gear Door Area (SMGDR
0.72629
KBASE
0.01027 (LDGW)
Where
1)
- Figure 35
0.8 b VL
1.5 +
This wing weight estimating mettod is a c p e not cmly in the area of material and
ronstrcction techniqes where
a h in the iltilizatim of default values. Default values allow the use of summing 3pe
Level II methodology with only Level 0 or Level I inplt informatiw, This pnrvides a
continuie later in the design cycle when P more accurate estimate can be obtained by
merely upgrading the inputs, This elimioates the problems frequtzdy encountered
when haviug +achaqe methods.
The actual weights of 50 difterent aircraft (attack, fighter, bomber, transport,
anti-submrine, trainer and light utility) were used to develop these formulas m ~ c h
estimate the weights of major c o r n p a t s of I; c? Wing Group with
cl ?.65
a standarddeviation
or the total wing weight (Figure 36). Figures 37 through 91 show the 50 total
WING GROUP
WEISHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS
cR
cT
*)
TR
TT
cos .I
"L
'FSCVR
*)
79
WING GROUP
WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS (CONTD)
K~~~~~~
1.0
K~~~~~~
e.g.,
K~~~~~~
KTEICIPCVR
1.0
%TLS UP
'WSTORES
80
1.0
= 0.893
= 0.931
= 0.976
= 1.133
= 3.93314 = 0.983
--.
+
KCT
~
(Kupper~ center section
'upper
outer panel
~ center section
~
%ewer
WING GROUP
WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS (CONTD)
N~~~~
LDCW
KMG
W~~~~~
FW
HPW
b'
K\w
1.0
TOCW
K~~~
'RIGDR
SROLL
'ROLL
'BW
%LAP
1 .O
1.0 except 1.732 fnr elevons, 1,023 for flaperons, 1.609 for
decelerons
A. 0
except 1.541 for ailerons, elevons, flaperons or decelerons
with balance weights
81
WING GROUP
WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS (CONTD)
C
See C
LSIA X
L~~~
vS
KTS
SLAT
LEF
SPOIL
WSB
WING
GUST
MZWFW
hlCGW
NOTE
82
WING GROUP
B*=.(S*/S ) B
w w
WING GROUP
WBIGHT ESTIMATING METHOT,
,0.5074
0.039o.u
b* ( C i +X,&B+N-S&
COS A (C*
Is*BOX]
I\\;,.,,,sI
S I N S LANDISLC!XR PENALTY
0. DO1416 yS
WING I. LEL
0.9191 \,,.F,.EL
,O. 5436
of
0. 03 jHP\yi
\%FOLD
84
0.1634
0.5279
lvL]
or
WING CROUP
0.8991
0.52~
[SMGDR'
1.. 067
0.3192
F&l
KLED
r 5)0.2252
k DECELERONS
0.4703
LEF'
[",I
SPOILERS
O 2697 %OIL
8699
[V,l
0.3461
lSwI
0.8445 ibl-l.117
-z
85
APPENDIX A
INPUTS FOR REGRESSION ANALYSIS
directly &om dimensional data sheets of the actual weight reports of the particular
86
APPENDIX A
VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION ANALYSIS
p3
-
A-16
400
400
2
3
4
5
A#:
260
260
AQA
A-70
A-1U
S282
8 RA-sc
1 B-SG
8 Mu
9
1)
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
18
-20
R8.OIl
C-SA
c-7n
c)A
GlDI
GlSA
C-1336
c-13s
c-1m
G141A
EC-12lU
DCJ
n m
22 m
23 731
24 747
2s 6-1511
a 6-1158
21 E-2A
28 F-3B
29 F U
30 F-SA
31 FbA
32 F-SJ
33 F-11A
34 F-14A
35 F-1sA
36 F-16A
37 F-1O)D
38 F-1018
39 F-1MC
40 F-141 F-1066
42 F-111A
43 S2E
44 s-3A
45 T-1A
46 T - U
47 T37A
U 149A
49 U I B
0V.l c
sa
5289
375
506
753.1
looQ
Iwo
15425 1512.5
375
506
153.7
780
62al
780
912.4
1ooo.l
12232
1745
2673.1
2433
5125
3228.1
1650
27725
2433
1695
1lo6
5849
609.7
793.5
700
515.8
538.3
1'13.0
557
337
255.3
565
627.6
9121
1000.7
1223.2
1745
2673.1
2433
300
400
368
196.1
385
697.8
525
485
598
238.1
254.9
183.9
342
277.1
330
6200
440
3228.1
1650
27125
2433
169S
1106
5049
609-7
7935
700
515.8
538.3
1738
557
337
207
565
4102
197.3
100
368
1w.a
320
4982
525
485
598
238.1
254.9
139.7
217.3
217.1
330
7
1A5
1 9.6
2 1
1 17.1
2 95
3 11.4
1w
1 63.6
3 I1
3 179
6 4.6
6 15
52
9 I7
1 62
1 I22
2n
1 '67
5 i7
1 I31
1I
6
4 I1
2 101
3P
4 '4
3 ;1
1 6.8
1 10
I !3
3 i4
1 io
91
1 10
1 11.5
1 I3
1 10.8
1 t1.7
7I
12
3 I8
1 I5
2 !l
2 '9.8
1 !5
I i.4
1 i.6
1 B.4
1 15.9
1 i6
128
186
182~6
1859
1329
2s.6
311
651.1
193.6
128
186
182.6
1859
1323
645
42
51
286.6
53.3
148
0
64.9
164
67.8
435
948
311
651.1
193.6
4842
484.2
1613
2134
1795
2153
2903
161.3
2136
179.5
215.9
338
180
352.4
220
2903
338
1638
352.4
380.8
336
220
300.8
336
285.1
222.1
556.6
133.8
285.1
222.1
556.6
133.8
156
2so
282
134.6
301
152
1265
1672
291.1
1955
199.1
173.2
155.8
180
421.6
1503
119
169
110
1142
79.2
139.9
104.8
126
200
156
282
134.6
301
152
1172
1672
23665
160.1
199.1
1732
131.5
167.7
3612
150.9
119
169
110
114.2
73.6
127.5
104.8
126
--
22
143
16.4
13
TT.IK
8.4
2.1
3.4
3.3
10.1
22
2.6
132
11.8
53.1
22.20
5.4
193
194
59.6
10.1
29.5
4.1
263
30.7
8.3
12
40.4
10
50
10.1
56.4
5
19.7
13.3
43
122
39.6
95
46.3
10.1
52.1
8.2
41.8
252
7.1
125
55.8
7.4
18.7
6.4
21.3
7.3
25
6.5
163
1.4
18
1.3
6.5
45
21.1
62
20
2.5
63
4
21.3
2
133
1.8
6.4
3.5
13.3
2.8
11.6
2
4.4
3.4
9.1
14
0.4
3.4
17.8
1.2
23.0
28.7
5
14.3
5.4
13.7
6.9
12.5
6.4
42
14.3
5
152
15.1
7.6
an
n.4
loo
66.4
112
605
132.7
lo2
875
112
91.6
633
160.8
53
76
52
103
51.7
269
loo
79
632
44.2
78
44.4
19.0
49.3
58.7
84
11.3
48.9
48
42
41.9
57.1
54
U.9
42
63
I
-4ft
bo, ft
50
215
53
38.7
575
53
IUS
563
72.5
m 7
95.6
93.3
110
1326
179.6
1308
53.7
159.7
123
142.4
130.0
108
93
195.7
n.3
689
80.6
35.3
38.4
25.2
335
50
27.5
53
38.3
575
53
185
563
l2.5
mi
95.6
93.3
110
132.6
179.6
130.8
46.1
159.7
123
142.4
130.8
108
93
195.7
n3
68
37.6
35.9
338
44.4
45.3
42
682
80.6
35.3
38.4
252
33.5
34.5
27
64.1
31.3
23.1
38.6
39.7
16.5
30.5
32.1
63
69.1
68
37.6
35.9
26.3
38.6
45.3
42
--
34.5
31.6
64.1
40.8
31
38.6
39.7
213
35
38.3
63
69.7
87
APPENDIX A
Aim&
1
2
3
4
5
A-16
A 4
A44
A-70
A-lW
RME
1 8-62s
8 I s v
9 RIJEit
10 c-6A
11 C1A
12 WA
13 C-lm
14 C-1sIA
15 Cl33B
l a C-lm
11 C-lm
18 C141A
19 EGl2lK
28 D C I
2lm
nrn
a m
24
25
29
27
28
a
3@
31
32
33
JI
35
31
38
3#
40
41
42
43
44
Is
141
6-153
6-1158
E-U
F a
F 4
F-SA
F U
F-SJ
F-11A
FIIA
F-15A
F-1U
F-1000
F-lata
F-1W
F-1F-1F-111A
S-2E
s-3A
1-1A
1-U
1-37A
46
47
U 1-NA
48 U4B
50 ov-1c
B0-1654-00BIT:
88
- CONTINUED
-- - --tnh
039!45
0.886
03262
0.8536
1
0.8356
0-7
ami
om1
0.9236
03974
09252
odm
00 s
00.8866
03336
03982
0.8851
OB356
0.8661
0.9191
0.81u
1
09215
09995
0.7688
0.7619
03472
0.7419
0.8395
08384
0.9732
0.8316
0 1
0.74
0.8328
0.9767
0.7318
0.7042
0.971
03989
0.9764
0.9989
1
0.9998
0.8914
0.9997
0.9993
9
10.5
9.8
10.5
11
6.8
27
3
5.5
3.5
3.8
4.5
4.5
3.7
3.8
45
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3n
3.8
3.8
5.3
3.8
5.4
112
9.8
9.8
9-4
10.5
9.8
96
11
11
11
102
11
13
9
11
4.5
5.2
11
11.2
10
6
6.6
7.4
"BOX
r.tt
TOW. I)
9
103
9n
10.5
11
14424
9-
19.521
17.521
20,514
26.391
31311
am
3
0
m
6.8
3
s
w
Srm1
ZIP0
am
5.4
2
0
2
m
3s
7cP1
Srm1
-pa0
1c3poo
5.5
4
63
42
5
5.3
3.8
43332
loQ00
3.8
6-1
5.4
42
5.4
43
5.1
4.7
4
6.1
7.3
5.9
11.2
9.8
9.8
9.4
10.5
98
9.8
11
11
11
10.2
11
13
9
11
4.5
5.2
11
112
10
8.1
7.7
7 .4
19Sl
1791
rm
31.211
276
coo
585
595
49
130
a
P
0
0
rn
519
410
spoo
ww
1~~
am
lOSS0
sm
=a
.m
286800
456.478
14,Wl
14310
27m%33
l57$61
12892.9
16,128
13i.iio
52.776
mpoo
apoo
99813
Il0.m
92.W3
59,583
365,187
14,585
=poO
lam
lam coo
lwoo
2m
400
200
321
275
m$ao
mSoo
360
40,148
318poO
lam
437
410
318,WO
32562
318.000
1=,WO
318.000
zw.000
2
0
3
m
360
161-
460
712m
35.100
161,WO
100boo
712Qoo
35.1 00
5
6
m
5
6
m
20550
2Sm
.
34.127
11m
12,034
1514,852
46,373
20.170
12384
22,570
49.477
32P37
46508
13.47 1
21342
20.198
21233
56.497
41m
28,730
49,477
32.037
46m
13.411
21342
20.198
17.216
56,497
27,326
16,895
34328
34328
38.739
41,142
19.665
34,483
35837
80,977
26,700
41,614
13,338
10.092
6,436
16,117
6,000
12,708
41,442
13.117
28861
25.U3
80,977
26,100
41$14
13.338
10,092
4#9
13m
6,000
12.708
am
12,338
24,193
17.233
67,778
10,470
22,394
9.775
8,323
3,176
7,161
2,832
7.61 1
---
l~goo
2w
49
420
445
341
416
350
63s
800
600
625
630
800
850
850
794
775
160
835
843
835
873
225
440
460
400
382
400
210
390
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
- --
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n2
976
85
106
91.5
106
105
150
143
102
59
99.3
84
79
100
101
99
95
87
102
105
94.3
94.3
94.3
86
101
83
94
121
120
1015
96
107.6
100.8
100
105
115
143
125
120
136
96
81
83
89
61
68
18
58
63.5
APPENDIX A
LOW, lb
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
a
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
A-16
nu
nu
A-70
A-1IA
RA-S
h526
RBU8
c6A
G7A
WA
C-1GlJu
C-1335
c-1m
c-1C-141A
EC-l2lK
DC-8
21 721
zzm
23 737
21 747
25 6 - 1 1
29 6-1156
27 E-2A
28 F-38
2S F4J
38 F-SA
31 F I A
32 F-U
33 F-l1A
34 F-14A
35 F-15A
3S F-18A
37 F-1000
36 F-101)
3S F - 1 W
40 F-1OSB
41 F-1068
42 F-111A
43 S-2E
U S3A
45 T-1A
1 T-2A
47 T-31A
U T3SA
49 U-8B
50 OV-lC
t8&1654-009(T)
17m
rim
33B37
3251
"Lorn
8.0
7.2
6.5
h 6
1
1
1
3
2
m
45
45.m
270poO
ssm
35
3.2
3.6
0.5938
sa00
wm
=Pa
am
51SfJ
9
6
m
m$oa
2amJ
wpoo
257500
om
1r
207
165.000
137m
ss.m
~ p o o
33.600
51.430
40860
23.500
33500
12200
16,559
14,969
15,100
51.830
35m
19,500
24.33,500
16,000
29,227
28,060
70,oW
23.713
37,695
14,500
9 507
5,713
13.000
6,000
10,924
3.0
2.4
1
1
38
38
0.5938
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
42
4.5
7.7
8.1
7.2
4.0
8.1
9.2
1
1
0.5938
6.6
4.1
1
1
0.5938
1
0.5938
1
1
1
1
1
4.5
3.9
1
1
48
4.5
1
1
6.8
0.5938
7.O
6.5
6.0
5.6
5.5
82
1
1
1
1
0.5938
0.5938
- CONTINUED
r.,R
233
275
252
238
57.5
42.0
185-0
563
725
222.1
95.6
933
110.0
132.6
179.6
1308
53.7
159.7
123.0
142.4
130.8
108.0
93.0
195.7
18.3
689
20.3
25.3
27.5
252
25.5
15.7
27.3
178
408
31.0
38.6
39.7
21.9
35.0
38.3
11.7
27.3
29.5
37.6
35.9
33.8
44.4
45.3
42.0
-89
APPENDIX A
--
ALcnh
1
2
3
I
LEO
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
A-16
ASC
A U
A-70
A-1W
I RA-SC
tB426
6
8 c S U
a noam
11
11
12
13
14
15
18
11
18
18
28
22
23
24
25
CSA
CIA
WA
C-1238
C-lm
c-1uI
C-13W
c-llu
C-1HA
EC-l2lK
0C-a
120
721
737
147
6-11
G-llsd
21
27 E-U
28 F-31
28 F 4
M F-SA
31 F W
32 F-W
33 F-11A
34 F-1M
36 F-lSA
38 F-18A
37 F-138 F-1011
30 F-lWC
40 F - 1 0 1
41 F - 1 0 1
42 F-111A
43 s-2E
4445 T-1A
46 TaA
41 T-31A
48 T-39A
II U4b
R ov-1c
ROO-1654-OlC
90
1
1
- COSTINUED
Knoll
-(ELVN)
0.01
49.0 I9Bl
(42.11I1.61
14.6 I931
(43JII12.01
435
23.9
41
199
06.8
ini
2
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
32.6
2!52J
91
38
(492II262l 83.3
110
144.3
119s
24.4
171.1
99.6
161.6
119.6
57
263
222
36.6
I9.51
(4321113.81 283
62
I841
26.1
312
262
92
92
49.7
253 17.01
18.5
(9.01 I721
21.3
(23.6) IS21
(41.7111441 (31.6lI9.31
26.5
313
31.1
14.5 I9.ll
29.6
9.5
15.81
36.5 ISSl
15.4
66.6
(21.7)17.51
9.3
13.3
17.5
19
11.3
16.4
13.9
17.91
40.2
19.51
(58.4)
20.8 17.81
14.41
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
--
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
- -- Knoll
L
p
sFr
-- -- (OUN)
KADw
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
44.1
22.2
10)
43.5
81.3
91.1
797
101
881.7
194
210.8
128
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12.8
35.8
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KTS
342
496.5
362
62.6
528.7
2532
4562
361.6
281
1803
847
110.8
128.8
122
30.5
29.2
19
19.6
8.8
312
10.6
46.6
73.8
640.6
160.0
26.1
34.0
25.0
95.4
2oo.a
100.6
448.0
66.9
25.8
123
15.5
31.3
42
23
61.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
117.8
92.7
111.6
22.1
50.5
15.1
40.3
37 .8
43.6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
60.7
14.0
50.0
16.8
111.1
3S.S
16.8
45.6
36.7
47.1
17.0
22.8
36.3
16.8
-- -- -
APPENDIX A - CONCLUDED
b.o_
l d
1
2
3
4
S
8
1
A-16
A4C
A U
A-70
A-1W
RASC
B-526
8 c C U
RMM
10 G5A
11 C-1A
12 cu
13 C-lrsI
14 C-lm
15 C-1336
16 G13W
11 ClllA
18 C-141A
19 EC-121K
El DC-8
a m
n m
23 737
24 747
25 6-159
ZI 6-1159
21 E-2A
28 F3B
a FU
30 F-5A
31 F4A
32 F-BJ
33 F-11A
34 F-14A
35 F - l U
38 F-1SA
37 F-1060
38 F-1018
3C F - 1 W
40 F-1058
41 F - l W
U F-111A
43 S-2E
44 S 4 A
4s T-1A
0 f.2A
47 T-37A
U T4U
49 U I B
50 ov-1c
P80-1654Q11'
92
-
49.6
148.0
11.0
430.1
415
1072
311.0
4885
104.0
1145
10.7
304.0
49.4
14.6
10.9
30.0
18.7
28.6
12.6
66.3
-.
lb
APPENDIX B
MATERIAL/CONSTRUCTION DATA
Complete material/construction data is presented on 22 aircraft and is used in
obtaining the factor KMTLCVR.
aircraft is also included for reference. The majority of Phase I of the study effort
was expended in this area since the depth of detail required (type of alloy, stiff-
ener spacing, rib and beam spacing, construction and design philosophy) was not
readily available.
92
APPENDIXB
MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION DATA
A-16
A4C
A U
I A-10
6 A-1U
S RA-SC
7 B-St6
8 B-SA
I R8-B
11 M A
11 C I A
12
13 C-1238
14 C 1 3 U
15 C133B
1 I C-1358
17 C l l u
18 C141A
1) EC-12lK
DCJ
21
22 127
23 731
24 747
26 6-159
2) 6-1159
27 E-2A
28 F-3B
1 FU
30 F-SA
31 F-SA
32 F Y
33 F-1lA
34 F-144
35 F-1M
% F-16A
31 F-100D
38 F-1016
38 F-1oIC
10 F-1058
b1 F-1WB
I2 F-11lA
43 S-2E
U S-3A
b5 T-1A
I T-2A
b7 T31A
1) TJOA
bg U-88
1
2
3
-~~
~
~~
- CENTER SECTION
1075-T6
10mT651
1079-T6S1
7ols-T651
4.0
4.5
7015-T8
7079-T651
1075-m1
4.1
2024-Whl
113T6
6.6
1075-T6
Coded t o body
7118-T651
7015-T6
7015-T6
7015-l%
1015-T651
7015-T651
5.2
5.25
525
2.0
4.0
4.0
2024-T351
2024-l.351
2024-T351
1015-T6
202CT351
7015-T651
26.5
25.0
25.0
14.0
14.0
17.0
7075-T651
1015-T651
40.0
11.0
7 .O
7 .O
20.0
15.0
34.2
22.0
cu
50
ov-lC
ROO-1654412
Coded to body
64
Coded to body
Codd to body
4.0
64
Coded to body
Coded to body
Coded to body
D6AC
7075-T6
7075-T7651
3.5
3.1
D6AC
7015-T6
7075-Tl651
Coded to body
Coded to body
1075-16
6 .O
7075-T6
14.0
93
APPENDIX B
MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION DATA
Airtnh
1 A46
2 A4C
3 A U
4 A-7D
5 A-1M
6 RA-SC
7
m
8O-S8A
9 R M M
10 GSA
11 C-7A
12 CJA
13 C-1238
14 C-115 C-1330
19 C-131
17 C-140A
18 C-141A
19 EC-l2lK
2U DCJ
21 728
22 727
23 737
24 747
25 6-15)
2S 6-1159
27 E - U
28 FdB
29 F U
30 F-5A
31 FdA
32 F-U
33 F-11A
34 F-14A
35 F-15A
36 F36A
37 F-1WD
38 F-1018
30 F - 1 W
40 F-1060
41 F-1066
42 F-lllA
43 S-2E
44 SdA
46 T-1A
46 T-2A
47 T37A
48 T40A
49 UdB
w 0V.lC
1075-T6
f075-l651
fO79-n51
fO75-T6
Stihu
Rib
qrkL
inbn
krlrr
-
Ins)
4.0
5.0
T h i i skin
2'
52!i
7075-T6
7075l661
707S-T651
2oz4-T3
lnao
4.1
7075-TB51
2024T351
2024-T351
4.5
4.5
4.5
2.0
4.0
2.6
1178-T651
Thick skin
1075-T6
54-2
1024-TB51
I124-T851
Thick skin
r I 78.~6
Thick skin
l075-T6
ro75.~6
1024-T851
1075-16
1075-l7651
Thick skin
Thick skin
Thick skin
'Hd
lntrO
3.5
3.3
6.0
ro75-~65i
- OUTER PANEL
T
lnts
Thick skin
13.9
25.0
23.1
15.7
23.0
1-
r'
r I 78.~651
1075-T6
1075-T6
1075.T6
ro: mi
fOE-T6
'2'
2'
'z'
lnuO
In-
'y'
lnho
Thick &in
1075-T6
1024-T3
'Hat'
1075-T6
ROO- 16 54-c'13(1)
4.0
4.6
6.0
'z'
7@?5-T6
2024T351
7075-l6
T
T
MI
T
26.5
25.0
25.0
14.0
16.0
13.0
7178-T651
Thick skin
11.1
7075-T6
64
64
7475-T73
Thick skin
Into8
Thick skin
22.0
14.0
18.0
35.0
202CT4
Thick skin
46.0
7075-T6
7075-T6
2024f85 1
2014-T6
7075-T7651
Thick skin
Thick skin
Thick skin
lnhO
35.0
7.7
58.4
15.0
21.0
2024-T3
'Hat'
9.o
24.0
1075-T6
'2'
14.0
202Cl.351
'Mn'
APPENDIX C
MATERIAL/CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
This appendix contains the cover material/construction factors (K
MTLCVR)
generated by a multiple station analysis program. These factors allow the center
section upper and lower covers, and the outer panel upper and lower covers to be
different materials/constructions. Materials avaliable are:
0
0
0
0
Aluminum
Titanium
Steel
Graphite/Epoxy
7075-T6
6A1-6V-2Sn A m .
PH15-7MO
0
0
0
0
95
APPENDIX C
MATERIAL/CONSTRUCTION FACTORS - UPPER COVER
kkw: A L r n i r n 707bT6 (R.1.)
Cwmntir: "stiff.
Limit
krr(mtkr.
Ribqwir.W
108d
Hnstiff.
Ribqwi*irl#
16
fictor
12
16
12
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
1.wo
1.ooo
1.OOo
1.m
1.Ooo
1.OOO
1.Ooo
1.020
1.017
1.021
1.025
1.033
1.036
1.035
Constrdm: ' Y ' M .
Rib qr&c i n c h
1.053
1.350
1.061
1.07 1
1.088
1.093
1.091
0.925
0.918
0.916
0.923
0.940
0.844
0953
12
16
20
12
16
20
0.982
0.962
0.943
0.934
0.934
0334
0.936
0385
0366
0.946
0990
0.977
0.97 1
0.974
0.994
1.002
1.006
0303
0318
5.953
0976
0.997
1.002
1.007
0.943
0.956
0394
1.025
1.OM
1.065
1.067
1.004
1.014
1.048
1.082
1.116
1.127
1.131
Limit
lord
m
o
r
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.O
6.5
7.O
7.5
Limit
lwd
factor
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7 .O
7.5
OM7
0.953
0.959
0.960
0.948
0.947
0.950
0.958
0.98 1
0.996
1.m2
hmllwliw: 1-m.
20
0.994
0.990
0.997
1.w
1.030
1.039
1.044
R i b s l d y W
Comtmclia: Fbtshm
R8@1659016(T)
96
- kryw
spwrpdy,-
12
1.410
1.350
1.274
1.215
1.143
1.122
1.099
1.737
1.666
1563
1.480
1.378
1.349
1.317
2.086
2.m
1.884
1.786
1.663
1.625
1.586
APPENDIX C
CONTINUED
Rib tpwim.
-- iwha
1.185
1.156
1.103
1.037
1.027
1.014
limit
lord
c-&a:
1.239
1.213
1.194
1.179
1.169
1.164
1.157
12
1.119
1 8
1.b56
1.019
0.970
0.958
0.943
12
16
20
12
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
1.308
1246
1.166
1.110
1.047
1.030
1.014
1.308
1.246
1.166
1.110
1.u48
1.03 1
1.014
1.309
1.247
1.?68
1.113
1.054
1.ON
1.021
0.909
0.894
0.888
0.893
0.9 16
0.918
0.9 18
-2 m c t i o n :
-d
1.170
1.128
1.074
1.033
0.985
0.976
0.963
20
1.208
1.164
1.1 14
1.080
1.031
1.016
1.005
factor
limit
lord
la
clllrtnction: Intag.stiff.
'v'stiff.
Ribtpwing,iwha
Rih rprdni i n d m
20
16
1.197
1.175
1.155
1.143
1.111
1.099
1.080
--
comtrclclioa: ?'stiff.
limit
16
0374
0.941
0.925
0.931
0.939
0.943
i! 946
20
1.097
1.061
1.022
1.005
0.992
0.994
0.99 1
Fkdmt
97
APPENDIX C
- CONTINUED
LI
1.655
im
i
m
7.0
75
1.453
1.444
1.a
1-462
1.448
m-m
12
2a
38
4.0
58
65
7.0
7s
canrrir: FyDLwt
srqrirc-
lai - -
bctr
3.4n
33.110
2929
c.5
2900
36
2764
4.0
5.0
6.5
1.0
7.5
2.567
k8*1654-016(TI
98
2411
2213
2.154
2m1
2.639
2.61
2 s
-w=4-
l8
18
T a
Linh
Id
har
25
1.646
11510
1.525
1512
1.498
15%
lS4
1.470
1.w
65
12
12
4.122
3950
3.703
3 s
3.233
3.152
3.069
12
1.413
1357
1311
1282
1
m
1270
1270
19
1.485
1.444
138B
1.365
1350
1352
1.343
a
1.619
1.552
1.487
1.473
1.453
1.150
1.444
APPENDIX C
- CONCLUDED
IMt
Y
frsw
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
2)
FhtrLrt
hit
Id
hraw
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
w u 6
12
0873
OB2
1-032
0.805
0958
0.789
0.702
0.790
0.796
0333
1225
1.189
1.135
1m3
1.037
1.OW
0.890
0382
1m
0.866
1.006
99
APPENDIX C
MATBRIAL/CONSTRUCTION FACTORS - LOWER COVER
--Tat.
LLit
hcnr
12
25
3.0
4.0
5.0
65
7.0
7.i
1.oQD
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
crr.wakc htcailt
Rib-
18
12
18
1.aM
1.015
1 m
1.010
1D22
1 m
1.m
1.036
1-022
1.019
1.033
1
lAl1
1.065
1.07412
1-044
1.042
1.064
1-09)
1.114
1.126
1.129
1-055
1-05)
1.0W
1.105
1.137
1.141
1.143
O
m
1-001
1.002
1.010
1-007
1.006
.as
kmhrlkr:vr#t
liDit
Y
fmu
12
25
3.0
4.0
54
6.5
7.0
7.5
1-098
1.086
1 m
1.OM
1A
n
3
1.077
1
.on
n i b e & b
18
1-098
1.087
1.005
1.089
1.ow)
1.m
1.094
krrlrreyr: laa&sm.
12
18
1.100
1.091
1R92
1.OS
1.131
1.135
1.141
1.02s
1.054
1.107
1.133
1.142
1.1U
1.w
1.ob5
1.064
1.114
1.158
1.171
1.176
1.171
1.064
1
1.130
1.172
1.185
1.196
1.185
cnnrriu: Flrtrlrt
lidt
kJ
futu
2 -5
3.0
4.0
5.0
64
7.0
7.5
100
scrcpiy-
1.532
1.434
1292
1211
1.137
1.121
1.100
1851
1.741
1.!i63
1.418
1249
1.201
1.165
12
2213
21872
1.102
1.1%
1.m
1.383
.am
APPENDIX C
- CONTINUED
limit
M
krar
~~
2.5
3.0
4.0
59
65
1-0
7.5
1.039
0965
0912
0.W
0.W
1m7
0911
0318
0-
om
'
'
1.ow
1.001
8329
0313
om9
12
1.238
1.158
'1.041
0979
0530
0921
0905
18
1.254
1.179
1.082
0393
0.942
0.927
0315
1
1.302
1.220
1.n96
1.014
OM1
OM1
I
0341
Lid
frar
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
12
1.495
1.382
1.213
18
1.a5
1.382
1213
1.094
1.W
0.997
0917
0991
0957
0371
0357
Lirit
Irl
frtrr
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
2153
2.013
1.789
1.610
1393
1.334
1.275
2.566
2.1011
2.153
1346
1.694
1.62s
1.556
1-0
7.5
28
1.495
1382
1213
1.W
0991
0911
0351
12
1.037
00916
0.331
033s
0934
0331
18
28
1.089
1.029
0973
0952
1.192
1.116
1.016
0287
0.94
0377
am
0948
0677
0972
12
3.036
2.64
2.558
2.319
2.026
19%
1.864
R8*165$-017(T
10 1
APPENDIX C
yrrirt
- CONTINUED
1-460
1.115
1.W
1252
1.233
1-
21
1.El
1.6S6
1.501
1.362
1258
1234
1213
1.270
1.240
1230
12
18
1.116
1.614
1.13
1.635
124)
my'm
12
18
--2 5
ljql
l2S9
1246
1.228
3.0
? 02
4.0
5.0
6.5
1.0
7.5
spr'y.;r+dll
3.191
2.984
2.644
2374
2.m
1959
1.810
8
3.137
3.503
3.128
2828
2.251
2358
22%
12
1.613
1.501
1.3W
21
m-21
Fhtttlrt
h:
kw
fmt
18
12
12
4.393
4.130
3.m
3.341
2.915
2.191
2879
18
1.117
1.516
1.a1
1.331
1212
1258
1260
1.824
1.a5
1.a4
1.382
1303
1283
i
m
APPENDIX C
CONCLUDED
Limit
1.111
hchr
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
1.0
7.5
Limit
I d
frtr
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.o
1.5
Limit
krl
hrhc
2.5
3.O
4.0
5.0
6.5
7 .O
7.5
0344
0.906
0.857
0.815
0.854
0853
0.853
19
1.116
1.ma
0.975
0.928
0815
0.875
0.862
12
1.316
1.252
1.136
1. a 9
0262
0943
0913
103
APPENDIX D
TEMPERATURE EFFECTS FACTORS
The factors presented in Appendix C were all based ou room temperature. The
factors (K
TEMPCVR
ature effects.
Materials avaflabie are:
0
0
0
0
- (200F
Aluminum
Titanium
- (200F
Steel
- (400F
Advanced Composite- (180'F
- 300T)
- SOOT)
- 1OOOOF)
- 300F)
APPENDIX D
TEMPERATURE E F F E C T S F A C T O R S
fwr
2.5
3.O
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.O
7.5
UPPER COVER
Alrri.rm
Lit
lad
Titrirn
YlxirrmmPctunl~puaun
2WF
3WF
2WF
-OF
&F
WF
1.037
1A39
1639
1.039
1.w
1.053
1.OM
1.093
1.097
1.104
1.121
1.152
1.163
1.169
1.022
1.026
1.047
1.m
1.068
1.070
1.070
1.052
1.w
1.095
1.119
1.127
1.131
1.132
1.OM
1.104
1.142
1.167
1.188
1.193
1.199
1.119
1.144
1.188
1.214
1.239
1.248
1.257
Sblri
Alrrarlcmpmi@
L i
Id
m sbucmnl a
futaf
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.o
6.5
180F
WOOF
388OF
WF
@WoF
U("F
1.014
1.MI4
1.012
1.014
1.011
1.009
7.5
1.005
1.022
1.012
1.039
1.034
1.ob2
1.029
1.024
1.010
1.008
1.016
1.023
7.0
1.020
1.m
1.030
1.020
1.025
1.019
1.013
1.014
1.022
1.037
1.051
1.062
1.067
1.063
1.035
1.049
1.085
1.105
1.127
1.127
1.131
1.OD
1.035
1.035
lW0F
1.147
1.189
1.278
1.328
1.389
1.408
1.422
R 8 0 - 1 6 5 4 Q I8(T)
105
APPENDIX D
TEMPERATURE EFFECTS FACTORS - LOWER COVER
Akaiur
Limit
I d
Titvim
MaximmmrcblnlIll)nr&un
f8ctor
200F
3W"F
2WF
300F
W F
WOOF
2.5
3.O
1.086
1.102
1.109
1.111
1.110
1.1 13
1.113
1.259
1.285
1.300
1.307
1.317
1.324
1.331
1.013
1.021
1.057
1.083
1.092
1.099
1.106
1.033
1.063
1.124
1.152
1.168
1.179
1.197
1.067
1.112
1.185
1.221
1259
1.268
1.275
1.107
1.159
1.239
1.280
1.322
1.334
1.343
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.O
1.5
limit
load
/I1
factor
1.5
R80-1654-019(T)
10 ti
l compaih
sarl
V a i r l ~ m l t u i a ~ m
1WF
.om
1.014
! 005
1 .ooQ
1.008
1.008
1.008
L
a@"F
1.022
1.032
1.019
1.011
1.022
1.019
1.014
300F
1.035
1.038
1.029
1.019
1.037
1.037
1.031
IOI'F
1.005
1.006
1.013
1 .OM
1 .059
1.065
1.070
600F
1.010
:.?I3
1 .ox
1.080
1.116
1.;18
1.130
800F
1.021
1.039
1000F
REFERENCES
1. MIL-HDBK- 5C, "Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle
Structures," Vol. I and Vol. I1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Structures and
107