Você está na página 1de 120

A I B C E A P T Y I N G 3EISHT

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

Report (Gramman Aerospace Corp.)

2 n das
23841

BC BJo,/YF

Ad1

720 p

CSCL 01C G3/05

AIRCRAFT WINQ WEsOHT


BUILDmlJP METHODBLOW
W K H MODIFICATION FOR
MATERBAL.9 AND
GONSTRUCTlON TECnWlQUES

prepared-tract
No. NAS2-9805

--Corporation
8 e t h w . N . Y . 11714

2. Gmunmuw-)k.

1. CrrrtLC.

4 l*.rrdfr#ll#m

Aircraft Wing Weight Build-Up Methodology with


Modification for Material and Construction
Technologies
1 *YthO.bi

9 h - l w n * r g*yn*Ullon Nurm rrd *dam

Grumman Aerospace Corporation


South Oyster Bay Road
rBethpage,
NY 11714

-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

values based on actual aircraft f m m the data base.

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

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.

Mr. Gary C. H i l l monitored the study for the AMES Research

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-

erties Control Section of the Grumman Aerospace Corporatfon.

iii

CONTENTS

Page

Section

...................................
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IMPACT OF VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS. CRITERIA AND DESIGN


CONSIDERATIONS ON WING BOX WEIGHT ESTIMATES

SUMMARY

...........
Material Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Advanced Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Applied Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................
...........................

3
3
5
8
8

Dynamics and Aeruelasticity

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

Derivation of Theoretical Equation for Wing Box Cover (Bending)


Material Weight

26

Derivation of Theoretical Equation for Wing Box Substructure


(Shear) Material Weight

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

......................

Wing Fold or Wing Pivot Penalty

....................

Non-Wing Box Basic Structure. Secondary Structure and


Control Surfaces

..............................

Leading Edge Trailing Edge and Miscellaneous Secondary


Structure

................................

Landing Gear Doors and Mechanism

..................

............
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

...............
.........................

Typical Wing Box Showing Components

13

Wing Box Concepts

16

3
4

......................
Wing Box Beam & Rib Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Derivation of Wing Box Cover (Bending) Material Weight . . . . .
Typical Cover Stiffeners

18
19

27

Derivation of Wing Box Substructure (Shear


illaterial Weight

29

Correlation of Basic Box Cover Weight Estimate


(Original Equation)

32

Correlation of Basic Box Substructure Weight Estimate


(Original Equation)

33

Correlation of Total Basic Box Weight Estimate


(Original Equation)

34

10

Correlation of Basic Box Weight Estimate (New Equation)

11

Correlation of Basic Box Substructure Weight Estimate


( N e w Equation)

42

12

Correlation of Tot& Basic Box Weight Estimate


(New Equation)

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

Correlation of Wing Box Engine Weight Penalty Estimate

17

Correlation of Wing Box Fold/Sweep Weight


Penalty Estimate

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

Correlation of Ultimate Load Factor at LDGW Estimate

32

Correlation of Landing Design Gr.>ss Weight Estimate

29

33
34
35

36

Correlation of Spoiler Area Estimate

......

......
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

Correlation of Total Wing Group iVeight Estimate


(Fighter-Attack)

74

Correlation of Total Wing Group Weight Estimate


(Transports)

75

39

Correlation of

76

40

Correlation of Totd Wing Grouh Weight Estimate (Bombers.


AEW.ASW)

77

Correlation of Total Wing Croup Weight Estimate


(Trainers. etc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Folded Wing Span or Pivot Span for Variable Sweep, f t

Weight of Body and Coutents, lb

cl*
c2

cR
cT

Constants

Wing Root Chord Leugth, in.


Wing Tip Chord Length, in.

Cos A

Cosine of Sweep Angle at 40% Chord

Allowable Cover Stress, Ib/in.

FS

Ultimate Developed Shear Stress, 1b;in. 2

Fw

Total Thrust of Wing Mounted Engines

FDGW

Flight -sign

HPW

*B W
KCT
FSC 1%

K~~~

K~~
K~~~~~~
K~~~~

Gross Weight, lh

Total Horsepower of Wing Mounted Engines


Aileron, Elevon, Flaperon or Deceleron Balance Weight Factor

Substructure C a r y Thru Factor


Cover Fail

- Safe Factor

Leadiag Edge Device Factor

Main Landing Gear Factor


Cwer Material/Construction Factor
Substructum Material Factor

KROLL
KTS

Elevon, Flaperon o r Deceleron Factor


Triple Slotted Flap Factor

K~~~~~~~

Cover Temperat me Effects Factor

Is,

Variable Sweep Factor

LDGW

Landing Design Gross Weight, lb

Ultimate Vertical Bending Moment, in. -1b

MCGW

Maximum Clean Gross Weight, lb

MZWFW

Maximun Zero Wing Fuel Weight, lb

Ultimate Load Factor (Maneuver) d FDGW

NB

NBOX
N~~~~
N~~~~

NX

Number of Spanwise Beams

Ultimate Load Factor (Maximum of Maneuver &Gust)


Ultimate Load Factor (Gust)
Ultimate Load Factor at LDGW
Ultimate Axial Running Load in Cover, lb/in.
Ultimate Axial Load in Cuver, lb
Ultimate Shear Flow in Beams , lb /in.

'BEAM

'BOX

'FLAP
'LED

Beqm Web Area, f t


Wing Box Area, ft

Trailing Edge Flap Area, ft

Leading Edge Device Area, f t

'LEF
'~IGDR

Leading Edge Flap Area, ftMain Landing Gear Door Area, ft

'ROLL

'SLAT

Aileron, Elevon, Flaperon or Deceleron Area, f t


Leading Edge Slat Area, f t

s~~~~~
sW

Spoiler Area, ft

Total Wing Area, f t

sWSB

Wing Speed Brake Area, f t

Beam Web Thickness, in.

%OVER

Cover Thickness, in.

- Off Gross Weight,

TOGW

Take

TR

Wing Root Thickness, in.

TT

Wing Tip Thickness, in.

Ultimate Vertical Shear Load at Body Attachments, lb

vL
vS

C VR
WSUB
W

WFZJEL

wWING
WSTOR Es

lb

Limit Speed, knots EAS

Stall Speed at LDGW, knots


Cover Weight, lb
Substructure Weight, lb
Wing Fuel Weight, lb
Total Wing Weight, lb
Summation of Heaviest Store Weight on all Wing Stations
Including Drop Tanks, lb

Spanwise Location of Wing Certer of Pressure, ft

Y'

Location of Wing Center of Pressure Along Structural Axis, f t

Material Density, lb/in.

Wing Aspeyt Ratio

Xii

Wing Taper Ratio


Wing Thickness to Chord R

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.

Factors r e p e s e n t i n g materials and meth-

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.

wing box area, flap area) or default

values based on actual aircraft f r o m the data base.

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.

IMPACT OF VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS, CRITERIA AND DESIGN


CONSIDERATIONS O N WING BOX WEIGHT ESTIMATES
Material Technobav
Metals .
Aluminum alloys: Virtually all of the aircraft structures included in the data
base are constructed primarily of aluminum. Aluminum alloys 8re lightweight,

corrosion-resistant , and are easily fabricated in a variety of forms. A significant


reduction i n mechanical properties in environments of about 300F limits the use

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.

Considerations such a s stress corrosion resistance and damage

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.

7050-TXXXX alloys for sheet or plate and 7049-TXX alloys for

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.

Its mechanical properties are

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

or stronger structure: however they will provide a structure w h i c h is more


corrosion-resistant and damage-tolerant . Rather than reduce the weight of
structure, they will -revent the weight f r o m increasing above the data base when
t h e requirements of n-w design criteria are adhered to.
High strength steel: Steel used in airframe structure consists of alloys with

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.

Clearance or usable space liritations may also

For example, the F-14 tail support frame required 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

good material choice for high

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).

.-

Miscellaneous metallics: Although many m e t a l s are capable of sustaining w i n g


'loads, it appears that m e t a l wing box construction WiLl continue using the three

primary materials discussed above.

Design properties (Ref. 1) for these materials

are shown in Table 1. Other metallics are too specialized or not cost-effective

for general use.

M o r e development is underway in the area of manufacturing

techniques for titanium and this is discussed under Manufacturing Methods.


Powdered metallurgy techniques are being developed to form various shapes
Similar to forgings. These techniques include cold isostatic pressing, hot pressing and hot isastatic pressing.
Advanced composites.

Advanced composite materials offer the best near-term

prospect for significantly reuucing wing weight.

The use of advanced composite

materials in first generation applications offers an improvement over historical


wing weights of 15-30%. Unlike metals, advanced composites may be tailored to
particular applications or requirements for greater structural efficiency.

The

epoxy-ba-sd composites are corrosion and fatigue resistant and may be tailored
for good damage tolerance characteristics.

The combination of high strength, low

density and tailored design accounts for the significant weight savings achieved
by utilizing advanced composite design.

The major composite material utilized at this time is Type A graphite/epoxy,


due to it.r nigh specific shear strength, specific compressive strength, specific
stiffness and resistance to crack propogation compared to other m a t e r i a such as
aluminum. Grapl.ite/epoxy hybrid materials are also used with Kevlar , fiberglass
a i d boron, used in combination with t h e graphite/epoxy.

The material in the

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-

development which will improve t h e weight savings potential of ad-

composites include :
High Strain Design

Improved design techniques may allow utilization of

the materials m a x i m u m strain capability (5000 to 6000 p - h . ) instead of the


in.
currevit limits (3000 to 4000
in.

e)

Post Buckled Strength - Designing to minimize the frequency of buckling


the structure at lower load levels, but allowing more buckling at higher
less frequent loads is being studied.

s3
c c

0 0

tu!

ZE

Low Density Materids - N e w lightweight materials with excellent elastic


properties are under development.

Kevlar is an example of this type of

material which is now available.


Design Considerations
Applied loads.
Flight loads: hlaneuver and gust are the primary flight conditions that influ-

ence the design of aircraft wings.

Fighter-attack aircraft wings are generally

designed by specified maneuver loads (e.g. , symmetrical or rolling pullout),


while the design requirements for transport, patrol, ASW and AEW aircraft wings
are a combination of maneuver and gust loads. Maneuver loads result from movement of the controls while gust loads are caused by atmospheric turbulence.
magnitude of the maneuver loads is defined in the aircraft specification
of load factors, limit speed, pitching and rolling accelerations.

;I,

The

terms

The wing must be

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

Simplified gust formula as defined in the applicable specification (e.g..


FAR Part 25)

Discrete gust analysis for a given gust velocity and altitude

Power spectral density - A statistical analysis of the anticipated gust


environment.

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.

Crash load requirements which are defined in the aircraft specification.


This includes barricade engagement for carrier base aircraft and fuel
containment requirements for wing fuel tanks. These loads are difficult
to define in an empirical analysis and are generally contained within the
equation constants.

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

peated loads spectrum

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.

Identifyincr fail-safe material in the substructure encounters problems similar


to the covers. Members added explicitly for fail-safe on a typical aircraft investigated were of the order of 5% to 7%. The additional hidden fail-safe material occurs
i n s p r s caps. rib caps, splice material, and hardware.
completely empirical approach to determination of a failsafe wing box weight penalty was selected. The factor determined by this
For these reasons.

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.

Dynamics and aeroelasticity - Aerodyrinmic forces resulting f r o m the elastic


motions of the wing structure are called aero1 .astic phenomena. These include
such problems as flutter, buffeting and divergence. Wing weight may be penalized by flutter and divergence. as described below.
Flutter: When exciting forces acting on the wing produce vibrations which
are at or near the natural frequency of the wing, unstable oscillations of the wing
take place. These oscillations, which will cause structural failure of the wing. are
referred to as flutter. This phenomena is prevented by increasing the torsional
stiffness of the wing box. to insure that flutter critical speeds are well above tile
operating range of aircraft. Flutter penalties are most likely to occur when combining high speed and high aspect ratio. Empirical relationships for stiffness
requirements may be used to determine the weight increment above a strength
determined design. Flutter penalty for wing weight estimates i s a function of
such variables as a q e c t ratio and limit airspeed.
Divergence: Wing bos weight may also be inflnenced by the necessity of
limiting wing deflection to a level which will not allow the development of load
divergent conditions. Divergence is a major design factor in unique wing designs
such u s forward swept wing.

The deflection characteristics of the wing box milst

be controlled by proper placement of material in the box covers and beams.

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.

Damage tolerance criteria are defined by Military Speufi-

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

smaller initial flaws, this penalty could be reduced significantly.


Design to cost. - Wing materials, labor and fabrication technology advancements are significant contributors to the weight cost trades in the design to cost
process. Advanced cwmposite materials mixed with high strength metals show
promising trends in the weightlcost relationship in the 1980s.
The unit production cost advantage inherent in including advanced materials
manifests itself f r o m the interplay of material and labor costs a s one material is
substituted for another, and also f r o m the iterated effects of reduced weight on
overall vehicle size and therefore wing size, weight and cost.
Tile weight /cost relationship is dependent on customer requirements for a

particular vehicle. Weight may be critical on high performance aircraft, justifying


a low weight /high cost design. If low cost is the goal, then a high weight /low
cost design would be justified.
Actual aircraft designs are usually a compromise between cost and weight.
The value of a pound for the vehicle being considered will determine when cost /
weight compromises must be implemented. The cost /weight compromises associated with wing box design usually involve type of material, type of construction.
fabrication techniques and assembly procedures.
Design Concepts
Wing box description. - That part of the wing which transfers net aerodynamic and inertia loads to the fuselage is referred to as the wing box. It is
essentially a box beam which resists these applied wing loads by shear. bending
mid torsion in the box.

In addition, the box supports the control surfaces.

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.

Wing box structural concepts. - It is always desirable to design structural


components of minimum weight. To determine the lightest structural desi? the
optimum configuration of each alternative construction must be evaluated. Only
after the minimum weight design has been determined for each candidate concept
is it possible to compare the various forms of construction on a common basis.
Final decisions are usually based on economic considerations, durabiliLy , serviceability, manufacturing familiarity, availability, etc. and not necessarily on minimum weight.
Multi-Spar design: Multi-spar construction defines a wing box having three

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.

The covers may be stiffened

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

by beams connecting the covers. Multiple-spar designs are most advantageous


where large shear loads are introduced into the wing box such as at wing fold
joints o r wingifuselage connections, (e.g., F-106, F-15, F-16).
hlcllti-Rib design: Multi-rib constructions define a wing box having closely
spaced ribs supporting the covers between heams and transferring shear load to
the beams.

Generally, there are only two or three beams in this configuration

u n l t s s lociil requirements dictate otherwise.

Multi-rib construction is usually used


o n deeper wings where there i s adequate stiffener clearance between the covers

( e . g . , E - 2 A . 747, D C 8 . 767 wing). Multi-rib design i s well adapted to wing


boxes also used as fuel tanks, since the ribs serve as fuel tank b-ilkheads and
bufflcs.

12

\
Cover

sheet

Figure 1.

- Typical wing box showing components.

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

'ng design: The structural arrangement for delta planforms are

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

stable cover system.

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

baffles lend themselves well to ribs of the w e b type design.


Beem d e s g n - Basic beam design is very similar to rib desip- and the comments for ribs apply to beams

CIS

uell.

Fuel tank ornsiderstions: Special considerations m u s t be given to wing boxes

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:

I he advantages and disadvantages of ccxnmn cover

stiffeners a m fisted below.


Integrally machined stiffeners

- Good for fuel tank sealing,

but less

structurally efficient unless expensive machining processes are used

(flanged vs unflanged stiffener).

Zee stiffened sheet - Eesy to manufacture on automated machines and


good structural efficiency. Requires sealing of fasteners to sheet for
fuel tanks.
Hat stiffened sheet - Easy to manufacture on automated machines and has

good structural efficiency. The additional m u of Casteners required over


Zee stiffening increases sealing pmblems and cost of manufacturc. The
inside of hat stiffeners cznnot be inspected easily.
T-stiffen& sheet - Easy to manufacture on automated machines and has
v e r y good structural efficiency. The additional r o w of fasteners required

over hat stiffeners increases cost oi assembly. Enclosed area cannot be


inspected. Used on F-14 outer panel upper wver.

15

16

Honeyamb panels

- Good for fuel tank sealing and

p o d structural

efficiency for multi-spar designs, where edge! material is effective as


bending material at panel/spar rlonnection. Expensive to manufacture
and difficult to repair.

Other stiffe~rig
systems are generally a variation of the types iisted above.

Figure 3 iumstrates the stiffeners discussed above.


Beam and rib oonstruction: Two basic methods of constructing wing box

beams and ribs are described b e l o w , and illustrated in Figure 4.


0

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.

Ifitegrally mad '2ed web/stiffener combina-

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

q box born a rib mnmudom.

19

Fastener systems: Wing boxes are a s s e m b l e d with

combination of fasteners

as outlined helow.
Conventional aluminum fasteners

U s e d where strength albwables an

adequate.
Hi-lock type fasteners - U s e d where high strength is required or fuel
sealing is required.

Steel and titanium fasteners available; however

titanium fasteners m e oostly.


Interference fit fasteners - U s e d where high strength or fuel sealing is

required. Interference fit fasteners provide improved fatigue allowables


and fuel sealing without additional hardware such as 0 rings and washers.
They are available in steel and titanium and are well suited to automated
installation. Titanium fasteners provide cost effective weight savings
when installed with automated devices. The F-14 and Gulfstream III wing
boxes utilize interference fit fasteners in parts of the box assembly.
Blind fasteners

U s e d where installatmn gf mnventional fasteners is not

possible due to access problems. Usually avoided if possible, because


they hake experienced reliability problems in the past.
Wing carry-thru structure.
Continuous wing box: On aircraft configurations with adequate fuselage
volume, wing boxes are extended across the fuselage for a continuous box f r o m
tip to tip (e.g. , A - 4 . A-.. A - 6 , A-7. F-4, F-8 and most transport aircraft).
This is most efficient

lrOm

a structural aspect , since symmetrical spanwise bend-

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

several discrete locations.

All loads in the exposed wing must be transferred into

t h e fuselage at these attachments.

Structurally this is not an efficient load path

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.

A sizeable weight penalty can result f r o m folding mechanism, hinge and


latch fitting and load path dismntinuities in the wing box.
Variable geometry:

Variable geometry increases the weight of a given con-

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

discontinuities in the primary load carrying structure requiring increased strength


in the remaining structure.

These penalties

tire

best evaluated by empirical

met hods also.


Winglets:

For modifications to existing wings. winglets attached to the wing

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-

crtift u modification of the Culfstream : I .

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.

Extruded parts may

be manufactured in a variety of shapes and sizes including parts as large as the


wing cover planks used on the C-SA.

For wing box construction they are limited

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.

Stiffeners machined integrally with webs eliminate a sizeable amount

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.

It is used for beam and rib web

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.

Chem-milling is a very cost-effective method of

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.

Complex shapes may be fnbriclitcd

at lower cost by eliminating much of the material that otherwise would require
removal by machining operations.

Ribs or bulkheads with an integral gridwork

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.

Among these are press

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.

To date, both in the industry and at

Grumman the primary manufacturing process is autoclave molding. Since the


process allows molding of several parts (as defined in metal construction) in a one
step operation, assembly costs are lower than for comparable sheet metal
construction.
Grumman specifications that control the processing of Boron/Epoxy composites,
approved by the Navy, are:
0

GSS 11200 - Boron/Epoxy Composite Parts Fabrication

SP-AS1-CS- 1B

Fabrication, Assembly and Testing of the Horizontal


Stabilizer Box Beam

The SP specification is specific for manufacture of the F-14 horizontal stabilizer


only. Such special processing specifications are generally required for primary
structures of advanced designs using advanced materials.
Several advanced composite developed processing specifications utilized in
development programs are:
0

SP-(3-011

Processing of BoronlEpoxy Sandwich Structures

Gr- lOOA

Processing of LHS Craphite/Epoxy

H - lOOA

- Processing of Boron /Craphite/Epoxy Hybrids

T -100

- Processing for Tubular Members Using Advanced Composites

Protection systems : Corrosion protecLion requires surface treatment of


structural parts before assembly in the aircraft. This may be a treatment such
HS

alodine coating or anodizing, or use of clad aluminum on exposed si:rfaces.

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.

Fewer individual F .rts

are involved in machined assemblies thereby reducing assembly hardware weight.


Electron beam welding where applicable (such as the F-14 wing center section)
provides a strong efficient assembly with a minimum of mechanical fasteners.
Handling problems may determine the maximum size of a machined part used in an
assembly (e.g.. machined wing ewer planks must be a reasonable length for
handling after machining).
Built-up sheet metal: Sheet metal construction utilizes mechanic& fastening
systems to assemble individual ?arts into major components and subassemblies.
The numerous yurts and associated assembly hardware are weight and cost i n efficiencies. Recent deve'yment work in sheet metal is aimed at reducing the
number of individual parts. Super plastic formed diffusion bonded titanium
assemblies are being developed along these lines with cwst and weight savings as
the major goals.

This method forms stiffening elements integral with basic sheet


and connects elements by diffus:on bonding. The Air Force has ffinded develop-

ment studies of this technique. to Crumman and North Am2rican (Aft Fuselages)
tind Boeing and McDonald Douglas (Wing Center Sections). under the title of

Built-up Low -cost Advanced Titanium Structures (BLATS)

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

benefits of composites by reducing required assembly hardware. This bdnefit

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.

For example, a manufacturing procedure which uses fewer

individual parts w i l l probably be the lightest practical design. Many companies


have design to cost manuals which serve as a guide in selecting the most cost /
weight effective methods of manufacturing aircraft components. These manuals
are usually of a proprietary nature, and therefore could not be included in this
study.

25

THEORETICAL WING WEIGHT EQUATIONS


bliiny wing weight equations have been proposed. Some have been strictly
theoretical, based on simple beam theory or more elaborate models, sometimes modified by experience or other factors for a particular case (for example, Ref. 3,
4. 5).

Others have been almost entirely empirical, relying on a regression analy-

sis of parameters known or assumed to be important (Ref. 6).

The synthesis of

these approaches has yielded the most useful wing estimating equations (Ref. 7,
8) for preliminary design studies.

These methods rely on a rational, though

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.

It is considered desirable to have single weight estimatian methodology for

all types of aircraft.

Identification of factors that separate "fighter,

"

"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
-

A strdghtforward beam model was selected as a basis for the empirically

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

weight is shown in Figure 5 .

26

I
DEFINE TWE CENTER OF PRESSURE FOR A UNIFORMLY LOADED WING AS THE CENTROID OF AREA

Ill

CALCULATE T H ACTUAL CENTCR OF PRESSURE LOCATION ALONG THE STRUCTUAAi AXIS


1 . M CHORD1

THE AIRLOAD ON WING IS


V

IBln

THE BENDING MOMENT AT THE ROOT IS

BECALISE THIS IS INTENDED AS A M I S FOR AN tUPlRlCAL METHOD. AN ARBITRARY (BUT RE*SONABLEI


SPAN STATION MAY BE SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS A STATION 213 IN FROM TIP CAN BE TAKEN 6REPRESENTATIVE
FOR SCALING RESULTING I N A BENDING MOVEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 1R T M t ROOT BENDING MOMENT
BASED ON A PIRABOLIC BENDING MOMENT CURVE

151

THE COVER LOAD 2 . 3 IN FAOM TIP

IS

IbI
THE RUNNING LOAD 2 3 I N FROM TIP IS

ASSUME THAT THE

v)

Box WIDTH IS 1 2 THE CHORD

CORPECT THE AVG CHORD

TO AN APPROXIMATE BOX WIDTH

THE BENDING tCDVERI *EIGHT IS

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.

- Dorivrtion of wino box mor (knding) nuterirl might.


27

Derivation of

Theoretical Jiquation for Wing Box Substructure (Shear)


Material Weight

The derivation ef a simple expression for substructure (shear) material


weight is presented in Figure 6. This relationship is based only on a representation of shear loading in beams; no attempt is made at this stage to account for ribs
Because the correlation will be done using weights tsken from actual weig?it reports where airload designed ribs are not ordinsrily differentiated from load distribution and closure ribs,

theoretical expression tasea on airloads can not be

expected to yield a good correlation.

Therefore, a separate expression for Tibs

is not included in this report.

Linear Regression Theory


-,

The statistical correlations were obtained k y utilizing the "least squares"


method of linear regression. The method of least squares develops a rriterion that
says the regression Line should minimize the sum of the squares of the difference
between the actual and calculated points.
= a + bx, the attempt would be to nuriIniie
CALC.
The solution for a and b i s provided t y the following set

I f the equation were y

*
yCAI,C.)

(yACT. *
of "normal" equations:

IJ'A-T.

:. s y

=a

= na + bXx

:: x + b

1. x

where n is the number of ciata points.

The proble-n with the least squares app-

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.

The solution i s to divide each item b y i t s


2

)
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 normiil equations can he cbxpanded to include more indepemkant variables.

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

THE RIRLOAO ON W *XiIS:


V = ( 8 )n

(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

T W SHEAR FLOW 1R IN F R O M T'P

(11)

IS:

THE SHEAP MATERIAL WElLHT IS


WvsVB'*tSgEAM

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

Another form of equation used is yCALC = a x

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

beam weights are the summation of the

actual cover p l u s sLbstructure weights less their respective penalties. Wing b o x


design data is tabulated in Appendix A .
The main objective in deriving the equations for the regression tmdysis was
to adhcrc

:IS closely as

sossible to the analytical approach derived in Figures 5

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

w a s correlated in the regression analysis u n g with various other parameters in


an attempt to a-unt
for rnbimurn gage, non-opsmum factor and combined bending and shear. The addition of a n area (SBOx) t e r m to compliment t h e theory
w a s based on:
'BOX

better reflects the internal load distribution on the entire wing

span (Le., the derivation is for only one spanwise location)


'BOX better reflects mver weights if influenced by minimum gage.

The following equation for mver weight w a s derived:

and resulted in a percent standard deviation of 19.5%


The theory for substructure (shear) weight derived in Figure 6 , Equation
(16).

'SUB

='2

[.

bl

w a s mrrelated in t h e regression analysis along with various other parameters in


an attempt to account for minimum gages, non-optimum factors and secondary
loads in the substructure.
In the regression analysis the addition ot a chord t e r m (or S

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.

w e felt justified in adding this parameter since as explained previously, the


theory for the subPructure w a s derived for beams only with the ribs being
ignored. Adding the chord term would s e e m to help in accounting for the rib
weights. The addition of a volume (SBox (TR+TT) ) term better reflects the
number of beams and ribs as well as beam & rib weights when influenced by minimum gage.
The following equation for substructure was derived :
"SUB = 0.00636

B n Sw l

0.5614

[SBOX(~RT ~ ) !
+

und resulted in

LI

percent sttindard deviation of 30.6%.

0.144

DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF FACTORS


The primary objective of this study is to obtain and integrate correction
factors for the empirical equation that reflect the influence of various materials,
types of cunstruction and broad design phibsophies.

The equations developed

in the previous section wiU be enhanced by incorporating these factors.


WinE Box Cover Wight
The cover weight obtained f r o m the equation derived in the section on
Theoretical Wing Weight Equations is influenced only by external loading.

The

effects of material. construction and design will be incorporated with additional


factors while maintaining the basic theoretical approach.
Fail-safe design.

-A

awnpletely empirical approach w a s selected to determine

a fail-safe factor (Refer to the paragraph on Applied Loads).

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~~~~~

varied between 1.24 and 1.30.

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.

A carry-thru factor (KCT) is used to denote whether

!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,-

22 of the 50 airplanes and partial

data w a s acquired for 7 airplanes; this data is tabulated in Appendix B.


2.

Develop materiallconstruction factors for one type of alloy in aluminum,


titanium and steel and also for advanced oomposite (graphite-epoxy). This

a wing multi-station analysis computer program


(Ref 9.) on a representative wing (A-6A) and varying required parameters.
Factors w e r e obtained for load factor (NBoX) versus construction type/rib or
spar spacing for the upper and lower covers. Of 65 wing box elements (i.e..
wing outer panel, wing center section and wing substructure) for which we
were able to identify the alloy used, 49 were 7 X S X series aluminum. Accordingly, when faced with the selection of a "reference material", w e chose
iO75-T6 (room temperature) '2' stiffened with a rib spacing of 12 in. Appendix C shows the selection as having a factor of 1.000; all other factors shown
in Appendix C were then computed relative to the baseline.
was accomplished by using

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

worthwhile step. time did not permit this to

be pursued as part of this study.

36

TU ) and den-

4.

Inclusion of this material/oonstruction factor (KmLCvR

) i n the regression

baae to 7075-T6 alumtnum. TMs factor was


considered to be a key parameter but a u l d not be included in the regression
analysis as data was only available on 22 of the 50 data base airplanes. A
~arpofmgtairld
a a x m t r u ~ o n afar the 22 akphlw b ahown ln
analysis, to normalize the data

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-

retical equations derived in Figure 6. The parameters added to the equatim in


Statistical Correlation of Wing Box Weight amount for secondary effects. The
effects of material and design w i l l be added by hroarporating the following
factors.
Fail-safe design.

- A completely empirical approach w a s taken, as in the

covers, to determine a factor for fail-safe. The factor w a s determined, through


the regression analysis, to be insignificant and w a s not retained in Equation
(20)

Carry-Thru design.

- The carry-thru factor (KCTI

obtained for the sub-

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.

- The lack of material information available on sub-

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 Considerations

Other "philosophical" influences on the wing box weight may be enumerated, but sufficient definition within the existing data base simply could not be
found.

Damage tolerance is possibly a subset of the fail-safe factor but certain

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]

A ( C R + CT) (2TR + TT) (2CR

+ CT)

[original: Equation (17) repeated]

"CVR

= 0.039041

0.5074
b

[Cos'

(CR + 2CT)

0.5279

B n Sw

A ( C R + CT) (2TR = TT)(2CR + C T )

[new : Equation ( 19) 1

39

Although it w a s not a requirement of the study, the standard deviation of the


new equation has improved:
Standard deviation of the original equation = 19.5%
Standard deviation of the new equation = 17.0%

'SUB

= 0.00636

(" n Sw] 0.5614

0.144

[origintrl: Equation (18) repeated1


0.1877

0.518

'SUB

PCT]

KIblTLSUB

[new : Equation ( 20) 1


Standard deviation of the original equation = 30.6%
Standard deviation of the new equation = 28.2%
The standard deviation for the basic box improved f r o m 17.4% to 14.5%. Correlation plots for mvar weight, substructure weight and basic box weight are shown
in Figures 10, 11 and 12, respectively.

40

TOTAL WING WEIGHT METHODOLOGY


The equations derived in t h e preceding sections, for wing box covers
and wing box substructure. estimate only the basic wing box weight. To obtain
a total wing weight. ecluations have been developed to account for weight penalties

to the wing box plus the additional components of the wing.


Wing Dox Penalty ?unctions
S:.~rePenaltv
To Wing Box (Figure 13).
A_-

o * 0 1 4 WTORES

for sweeping store stations (Le., F-1llA)

Slain Landing Gear Penalty To King Box (Figure 14).


_
_
_
I

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

is 1.0 for tklditq w i n g s

H I I 0
~ .556

for viiricible sweep wings.

Non-Wing Box Basic Structures, Secondary Structure and Control Surfaces


h a d i n g Ed=,
(Fimtre 18).

Trailing Edge and Miscellaneous Secondary Structure

0.07235 (Sw

Where K m

- SBOX )0*2595 (TOGW)o-S281(SW)0.3192 KLED

is 1.0 except 0.8410 for a leading edge device.

Landing G e a r Doors and Mechanism (Figure 19).

Ailerons, Elevons, Flaperons and Decelerons (Figure $0).

is 1.0 except 1.732 for elevons. 1.023 for flaperons, 1.609


where K~~~~
for decelerons and KBW is 1.0 except 1.541 for ailerons, elevoras, fhperons or
decelerons with balance weights.

Trailing Edge Flaps (Figure 21).


0.0008759 SFLAp(VL)0.3565

1576 ( c

LDGW) 00321(Vs)0*5 KTS

%AX

Where KTS is 1.0 except 1.976 for triple slotted flaps.


Slats 'Figure 22).
0.2727 SSUT

4703

Leading Edge Flaps (Figure 22).


0.31 SLEF

P L ) O- 4703

Spoilers (Figure 23).


0.8699 (vL)0.3461 (sw)0.8445
O- 2697 (%OIL

Wine SDeed Brakes (FiPure 24).


0.5909
.01053 SWSB(TOGW)

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

(.Ailem9 or Elevon Area)


0.05 Sv:

0.10

sw

(bar horizontal tail area greater than zero)


(for horizontal tail area equal to zero)

c ) Trailing Edge Flap Area (SFUP )


0.08 SF\,
0.12

s\I'

il. 16 S

\I'

d)

(land based. fighter/attack)

(carrier based, fighter/attack)


(bomber, transport, cargo)

Leading Edge Device Area (s

Figure 28
LED
(Slat (SSLt\'&1 and/or L. E. Flap (SLEF)Area)
0 . 0 s Sw

58

- Figure 27

(for horizontal tall area greater than zero)

e)

Spoiler Area (SspoIL 1


0.05

- Figure

29

\ (carrier based, fighter/attack)

0.07 Sw (bomber,transport, cargo)

for horizontal tail area greater than zero


f)

Wing Speed Brake Area

bB)
- Figure 30

0.03 Sw (carrier based, fighter /attack)

295xLIXX

r)

vS6
h)

i)

SW

Ultimate Load Factor at LDGW (NLm


4.2

(average for land based)

7.4

(sverage for carrier based)

sw

)-Figure31

Landing Design Gross W e i g t (LDGW)- Figure 32


0.93983
1.6149 (TOGW)
Where KWE
and 'TYPE

S A S E 'TYPE

is 1.0 except 0.9712 for c m e r based


is 1.0 except 0.9407 for fighter/attack

and 1.0201 for bomber, transport and cargo

0.74358
o.o91r'9 (SBOX)
(TOGW)0.68475

Where K
and K

BAS:

TYPE

K~~~~

K~~~~

is 1.0 zxcept 0.9659 for carrier based


is 1 . 0 except 0.6031 for fighter/attack

and 0.8958 for bomber, transport and cargo

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)

I$AsE is 1 . 0 except 1.957 for carrier based

Maximum Zero Wing Fuel Weight (MZWFW)

- Figure 35

2.923 (TOGW)o*8819 for bomber, transport, cargo only

m) Ultimate Load Factor @IcvsT)


2

0.8 b VL
1.5 +

as an approximation of load factor for gust conditions.

SLhlbIARI OF NETHOD AND INPUTS

This wing weight estimating mettod is a c p e not cmly in the area of material and
ronstrcction techniqes where

a substsnthtl ELmauat of data has been accumulated, hut

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

niethod that is accurate for trending early in the pre-

design phase and leads to

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

whg weights classified by aircraft bpe.

WING GROUP
WEISHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS

Wing m a per airplane, f t 2 ( s e e note *)


Wing box area per airplane, ft 2 (see note *)
hlaximum of, ultimate load factor at FDCW (n) , or apprordma-

tion of ultimate load factor for gust conditions (NGusT)


B

cR
cT

Body and contents weight, lb (see note *) defined as:


Maximum Clean Gross Weight or nlaximum Zero Wing Fuel
Weight
Less: Wing Croup
Wing Fael (Amount in above gross weight)
Main landing gear if in the wing
N a c e l l e Group if in the wing
Propulsion Group if engines are in the wing
Electrical Group if engines are in the wing
Oil and Unusuable Fuel if engines are in the wing
Wing root chord length, in. (see note
Wing tip chord length, in.

*)

TR

Wing mot thickness, in. (see note

TT

Wing tip thickness, in.

Wing span (tip to tip), ft (see note *)

cos .I

Cosine of sweep angle of 40% chord

"L
'FSCVR

*)

Limit speed, knots EAS


1.0 except 1.261 for cover fail -safe design

79

WING GROUP
WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS (CONTD)

K~~~~~~

1.0

if all wing covers are baseline material: ;375-TS,'Z'


stiffened aluminum, 12 inch rib spacing. For other
materials see factors in Appendix C to calculate
K~~~~~~
* whew

K~~~~~~

- (Kupper center seciion


+

e.g.,

Kupper outer panel

Kupper center section


Klower center section
Kupper outer panel
Klower outer panel

K~~~~~~
KTEICIPCVR

1.0

%TLS UP

'WSTORES

80

1.0

Klower center section

Klower outer panel)/4

= 0.893

6-6-2 Titanium 'Integ'

= 0.931

6-6-2 Titanium 'Integ'

= 0.976

7075-T6 Aluminum 'Integ'

= 1.133

7075-T6 Aluminum 'Integ'

= 3.93314 = 0.983

if all wing covers utilize room temperature materials, for


other temperatures see factors in Appendix D to calculate
where
K~~~~~~~~
*

--.
+

KCT

~
(Kupper~ center section
'upper

outer panel

~ center section
~
%ewer

Klower outer pane1)/4

except 2.0 if wink carry-thru is in Body Group weight


(see note *)

1.0 for aluminum substructure, 0.787 for titanium


substructure

Summation of heaviest stores weight on all wing stations


including drop tanks, Ib

WING GROUP
WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS (CONTD)

N~~~~

Ultimate load factor at LDGW

LDCW

Landing Design Gross Weight, Ib

KMG

1.0 except 0.5938 if main landing gesr are in engine nacelles


on wing

W~~~~~
FW

Internal wing fuel weight, lb

Total thrust of wing mounted engines

HPW

Total horsepower of wing mounted engines

b'

Folded wing span or pivot span for variable sweep, ft

Ultimate load factor at FDGW (for maneuver)

K\w

1.0

TOCW

Take-Off Gross Weight, Ib (see note *)

K~~~
'RIGDR

SROLL

'ROLL

'BW
%LAP

1 .O

except 0.556 for variable sweep wings

except 0.847 for leading edge device

Main Iwding gear door area, ft

Aileron, elevon, flaperon or deceleron area per airplane, ft

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

Trailing edge flap area per airplane, ft

81

WING GROUP
WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS (CONTD)
C

equation in Default Algorithm section

See C
LSIA X

L~~~

vS

Stall speed at TLDGW, knots

KTS

1.0 except 1.976 for triple slotted flaps


Slat area per airplaxie, f t 2

SLAT

Leading edge flap area per airplane, f t 2

LEF

SPOIL

Spoiler area per airplane, f t

WSB

Wing speed brake area per airplane, f t 2

WING

Total wing weight, lb

See NGITST equation in Default Algorithm section

GUST

MZWFW

Maximum Zero Wing Fuel Weight, lb

hlCGW

Maximum Clean Gross Weight, lb

NOTE

This method calculates either a total wing weight (center


section/carry - thru plus outer panel), or an exposed wing
weight (outer panel), consistent with the coding of weight

in weight reports. For wings with carry - thru in the Body


Group weight , use a K
= 2.0 and exposed win, xilues for
parameters with asteris%$ (*)

82

WING GROUP

WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD


DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS (CONI'D)

B*=.(S*/S ) B

w w

TOGW* = (S&/Sjv; TOGW

Use Sun values. for those pammeters without asterisks

WING GROUP
WBIGHT ESTIMATING METHOT,

,0.5074

0.039o.u

b* ( C i +X,&B+N-S&

R C T) (2TB +TT) (2C;

COS A (C*

Is*BOX]

STORES PENALTY TOWING=


0.Ul FV
I
\VSTORES
0.014

I\\;,.,,,sI

(for sweeping store statims. i. e, F-IlU;

S I N S LANDISLC!XR PENALTY
0. DO1416 yS

TO WING BOX (NO Doon)

LDCH 1 (LDCW) KyG

WING I. LEL

PENALTS TO WlXG BOX

0.9191 \,,.F,.EL

,O. 5436

ENGISE PEXALTY TO HINC BOX


D.004

of

0. 03 jHP\yi

\%FOLD

84

OH WING SWEEP It*\.rLTY

0.1634

0.5279

lvL]

KFSCVR KMTLCV& KTEbWCVR

or

WING CROUP

WEIGHT ESTIMATING METHOD


LEADZNC EDGE. 'I'RAILING EDGE t MECELLANEOUS
0.07235 [S&

0.8991

0.52~

- S$, :j0.2595 [r-+1

[SMGDR'

1.. 067

0.3192

F&l

KLED

r 5)0.2252

AlLERONS. ELEVONS. FLAPERONS

k DECELERONS

TRUUXC EDGE FLAPS

LEADISC EDGE FLAPS


0.3100 [ S

0.4703

LEF'

[",I

SPOILERS
O 2697 %OIL

8699

[V,l

0.3461

lSwI

0.8445 ibl-l.117

WING SPEED BRAKES


0.5909
0.01053 ISLvSB) ITOGWI

-z

85

APPENDIX A
INPUTS FOR REGRESSION ANALYSIS

This appendix contains a fist of variables, used in the various regression


analysis, for the data base of 50

airclrakt. in general, values presented are taken

directly &om dimensional data sheets of the actual weight reports of the particular

aircraft; others have been generated fkom actual values.

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

-CR. *'".5.h T&h


ir

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

---VI. Lt KCT KFS "9


---kt

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.

Partial information collected on a number of other

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

Constructions available are:


0

0
0
0
0

'2' Stiffened Sheet (Multi-rib design)


'HAT' Stiffened Sheet (Multi-rib design)
'Y*Stiffened Sheet (Multi-rib design)
Integrally Stiffened Sheet (Multi-rib design)
Flat/Thick Sheet (Multi-spar design)

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

Rib rprciy, inelms

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

--

Consindon: Hat stiff.

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

Spar spacing, inches

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

ylrrirl: T h h m U L I V - S I J Am. (RTJ

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

sllvrrsw miwm (nr3

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

contained in this appendix modify the cover weight for temper-

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.

Investigation of the Impact of Specification MIL-A- 83444, "Airplane Damage


Tolerance Requirements", on the Weight and Cost of the F-14A Airplace,
NADC N62269-77-C-0174

3.

NASA TM X-62, 157 "Transonic Transport Study


Aerodynamics, v1 May 1972

4.

NASA CR151970 "Parametric Study of Transport Aircraft Systems Cost and


Weight," Table 3.1

5.

NASA CR145070 'Vehicle Design Evduation T-ogram ," Jan. 1977

6.

Nicolai, L.M. "Fundamentals of Aircraft Design ," p. 20- 3

7.

Crumman Aerospace Corp., "Weight Engineering Manual,'' Vol. 2

8.

Roland, H .A. "Weight Synthesis - Sizing Techniques, " Fifth Weight


Prediction Workshop, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1969

9.

Grurnman Aerospace Corp., "Weight Engineering Manual." Vol. 3

Structures and

107

Você também pode gostar