Contents

1. Function of the Structure ......................................................................................................4

2. Wing Structure ......................................................................................................................5
2.1 Specific Roles of Wing (Mainplane) Structure .................................................................5
2.2 Basic Functions of Wing Structural Members ..................................................................6
2.2.1 Spars............................................................................................................................6
2.2.2 Skin .............................................................................................................................6
2.2.3 Stringers ......................................................................................................................6
2.2.4 Ribs .............................................................................................................................7
2.3 Wing Box Configurations..................................................................................................7
2.3.1 Mass Boom Layout .....................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Box Beam or Distributed Flange Layout ....................................................................8
2.3.3 Multi-Spar Layout.....................................................................................................10
2.4 Wing Component Fabrication Methods ..........................................................................12
2.4.1 Spars..........................................................................................................................12
2.4.2 Ribs ...........................................................................................................................13
2.4.3 Skin ...........................................................................................................................15
3. Fuselage Structure...............................................................................................................16
3.1 Fuselage Layout Concepts...............................................................................................16
3.1.1 Mass Boom & Longeron Layout ..............................................................................16
3.1.2 Semi Monocoque Layout..........................................................................................17
3.2 Fuselage Layout Considerations......................................................................................18
3.2.1 Fighter Aircraft .........................................................................................................18
3.2.2 Transport Aircraft .....................................................................................................19
4. Empennage (Tail) Structural Layout ..................................................................................21

1
 List of Figures
2.1 Typical wing structural layout
2.2 Typical single-spar D-nose wing layout
2.3 Cross section of two-spar mass boom wing layout
2.4 Typical box beam wing layout
2.5 Cross sections of two & three spar box beam wing layouts
2.6 Built-up skin-stringer-rib examples
2.7 Integrally-stiffened panel examples
2.8 Typical fighter aircraft multi-spar wing section & details
2.9 Examples of Fighters with Multi-Spar Wings
2.10 Multi-spar delta wing layout possibilities
2.11 Typical spar construction & configuration
2.12 Types of spars
2.13 Typical rib construction & configuration
2.14 Rib alignment possibilities
2.15 Typical swept wing airliner rib alignments
3.1 Typical mass boom & longeron fuselage layout
3.2 Typical semi monocoque fuselage layout
3.3 Typical bulkhead designs
3.4 Typical circular section fuselage aircraft – Airbus A310 and BAC111
3.5 Typical double bubble section fuselage aircraft – Airbus A320 and B707
3.6 Typical ovoid section fuselage aircraft – Airbus A380
3.7 Typical flat-sided fuselage aircraft – Shorts 330
4.1 Typical small transport aircraft horizontal stabilizer layout (Boeing 707)
4.2 Typical large transport aircraft horizontal stabilizer layout (Boeing 747)
4.3 Full depth honeycomb construction used on fighter aircraft tailplanes
4.4 Typical fin and rear fuselage layout
4.5 Typical light aircraft fin layout
4.6 Typical transport aircraft fin layouts

2
3
1. Function of the Structure
The primary functions of an aircraft’s structure can be basically broken down into the following:

• To transmit & resist applied loads.

• To provide and maintain aerodynamic shape.

• To protect its crew, passengers, payload, systems, etc.

For the vast majority of aircraft, this leads to the use of a semi-monocoque design (i.e. a thin,
stressed outer shell with additional stiffening members) for the wing, fuselage & empennage.
These notes will discuss the structural layout possibilities for each of these three main areas, i.e.
the wing, fuselage and empennage.

4
2. Wing Structure
2.1 Specific Roles of Wing (Mainplane) Structure
The specific structural roles of the wing (or mainplane) are:

• To transmit:

Wing lift to the root via the main spanwise beam

Inertia loads from the powerplants, undercarriage, etc. to the main beam.

Aerodynamic loads generated on the aerofoil, control surfaces & flaps to the
main beam.

• To react against:

Landing loads at attachments points.

Loads from pylons/stores.

Wing drag and thrust loads.

• To provide:

Fuel tankage space.

Torsional rigidity to satisfy stiffness and aeroelastic requirements.
To fulfil these specific roles, a wing structural layout will conventionally comprise:

• Spanwise members (known as spars or booms)

• Chordwise members (ribs).

• A covering skin.

• Stringers.
Figure 2.1 shows a typical arrangement for these members.

5
 Figure 2.1 Typical wing structural layout
2.2 Basic Functions of Wing Structural Members
The structural functions of each of these types of members may be considered independently as:
2.2.1 Spars

Form the main spanwise beam.

Transmit bending and torsional loads.

Produce a closed-cell structure to provide resistance to torsion, shear and tension loads.
In particular:

Webs - resist shear and torsional loads and help to stabilise the skin.

Flanges - resist the compressive loads caused by wing bending.
2.2.2 Skin

To form impermeable aerodynamic surface.

Transmit aerodynamic forces to ribs & stringers.

Resist shear torsion loads (with spar webs).

React axial bending loads (with stringers).
2.2.3 Stringers

Increase skin panel buckling strength by dividing into smaller length sections.

React axial bending loads.

6
2.2.4 Ribs

Maintain the aerodynamic shape.

Act along with the skin to resist the distributed aerodynamic pressure loads.

Distribute concentrated loads into the structure & redistribute stress around any
discontinuities (e.g. undercarriage wells, access panels, fuel tanks, etc.).

Increase the column buckling strength of the stringers through end restraint.

Increase the skin panel buckling strength.
2.3 Wing Box Configurations
Several basic configurations are in use nowadays:

Mass boom concept

Box beam (distributed flange) concept – built-up or integral construction

Multi-spar

Delta wing

Figure 2.2 Typical single-spar D-nose wing layout

2.3.1 Mass Boom Layout
In this design, all of the spanwise bending loads are reacted against by substantial booms or
flanges. A two-boom configuration is usually adopted but a single spar “D-nose”
configuration is sometimes used on very lightly loaded structures. The outer skins only react
against the shear loads, forming a closed-cell structure between the spars. These skins need
to be stabilised against buckling due to the applied shear loads; this is done using ribs and a
small number of spanwise stiffeners.

7
 Figure 2.3 Cross section of two-spar mass boom wing layout
The resulting layout is simple in terms of design, manufacture and analysis.
2.3.2 Box Beam or Distributed Flange Layout

Figure 2.4 Typical box beam wing layout

This method is more suitable for aircraft wings with medium to high load intensities and differs
from the mass boom concept in that the upper and lower skins also contribute to the spanwise
bending resistance. Another difference is that the concept incorporates spanwise stringers
(usually “z” section) to support the highly-stressed skin panel area. The resultant use of a large
number of end-load carrying members improves the overall structural damage tolerance.
Design difficulties include:
• Interactions between the ribs and stringers so that each rib either has to pass below the
stringers or the load path must be broken. Some examples of common design solutions
are shown in Figure 2.6.
• Many joints are present, leading to high structural weight, assembly times, complexity,
costs & stress concentration areas.

8
 Figure 2.5 Cross sections of two & three spar box beam wing layouts

Figure 2.6 Built-up skin-stringer-rib examples

The concept described above is commonly known as a built-up construction method. An
alternative is to use a so-called integral construction method. This was initially developed for
metal wings, to overcome the inherent drawbacks of separately assembled skin-stringer built-up
construction and is very popular nowadays. The concept is simple in that the skin-stringer panels
are manufactured singly from large billets of metal. Advantages of the integral construction
method over the traditional built-up method include:
• Simpler construction & assembly.
• Reduced sealing/jointing problems.

9
 • Reduced overall assembly time/costs.
• Improved possibility to use optimised panel tapering.
Disadvantages include:
• Reduced damage tolerance so that planks are used.
• Difficult to use on large aircraft panels.

Figure 2.7 Integrally-stiffened panel examples

The most efficient use of composites is in an integrally-machined (i.e. moulded) configuration
for the wing structure. The skins & webs are then made up with series of laminations having
fibre directions oriented to match the applied loading conditions. Indeed, this is a major
advantage associated with the use of composites and directly leads to significant potential for
structural mass reductions. There are problems, however, especially regarding increased costs
and manufacturing difficulties. In particular, the manufacture of moulded components demands
careful planning & control procedures. The use of integrally-machined composite wing
structures is becoming more and more common nowadays due to significant weight reduction
possibilities and as material and production costs fall and manufacturing experience is gained.
2.3.3 Multi-Spar Layout
These are often used on thin wing (e.g. supersonic) designs, where the usual stringer depth
approaches the desired aerofoil section thickness due to aerodynamics (wave drag reduction)
considerations. If this is the case, then it is more structurally efficient to dispense with the use of

10
the stringers altogether and replace them with more substantial additional spars. This tends to
improve skin buckling stability. These types of wings are usually of low aspect ratio as well as
being thin and results in a closely-packed matrix of ribs & spars, sometimes known as an “egg-
box” layout. Several layout possibilities exist (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.8 Typical fighter aircraft multi-spar wing section & details

Figure 2.9 Examples of Fighters with Multi-Spar Wings

11
 Figure 2.10 Multi-spar delta wing layout possibilities
2.4 Wing Component Fabrication Methods
2.4.1 Spars
These usually comprise thin aluminium alloy webs and flanges, sometimes with separate vertical
stiffeners riveted to the webs. The flanges are extruded or machined and bolted or riveted onto
the webs.

Figure 2.11 Typical spar construction & configuration

12
 Figure 2.12 Types of spars
In the case of a two or three spar box beam layout, the front spar should be located as far
forward as possible to maximise the wing box size, though this is subject to there being:
• Adequate wing depth for reacting vertical shear loads.
• Adequate nose space for LE devices, de-icing equipment, etc.
This generally results in the front spar being located at 12% to 18% of the chord length.
For a single spar D-nose layout, the spar will usually be located at the maximum thickness
position of the aerofoil section (typically between 30% and 40% along the chord length).
For the standard box beam layout, the rear spar will be located as far aft as possible, once again
to maximise the wing box size, but positioning will be limited by various space requirements for
flaps, control surfaces, spoilers, etc. This usually results in a location somewhere between about
55% and 70% of the chord length. If any intermediate spars are used, they would tend to be
spaced uniformly unless there are specific pick-up point requirements.
2.4.2 Ribs
For a typical two spar layout, the ribs are usually formed in three parts from sheet metal by the
use of presses & dies. Flanges are incorporated around the edges so that they can be riveted to
the skin and the spar webs. Cut-outs are necessary around the edges to allow for the stringers to
pass through. Lightening holes are usually cut into the rib bodies to reduce the rib weight and
also to allow for the passage of control runs, fuel, electrics, etc. Rib bulkheads do not include

13
any lightening holes and are used at fuel tank ends, wing crank locations and attachment support
areas.

Figure 2.13 Typical rib construction & configuration

The ribs should be ideally spaced to ensure adequate overall buckling support to spar flanges. In
reality, however, their positioning is also influenced by:

• Facilitating attachment points for control surfaces, flaps, slats, spoiler hinges,
powerplants, stores, undercarriage attachments, etc.

• Positions of fuel tank ends, requiring closing ribs.

• A structural need to avoid local shear or compression buckling.

Figure 2.14 Rib alignment possibilities

There are several different possibilities regarding the alignment of the ribs on swept-wing
aircraft (Figures 2.14 and 2.15).
(a) is a hybrid design in which one or more inner ribs are aligned with the main axis
while the remainder are aligned perpendicularly to the rear spar.

14
 (b) is usually the preferred option but presents several structural problems in the root
region.
(c) gives good torsional stiffness characteristics but results in heavy ribs and complex
connections.

Figure 2.15 Typical swept wing airliner rib alignments

2.4.3 Skin
The skin tends to be riveted to the rib flanges and stringers, using countersunk rivets to reduce
drag. It is usually pre-formed at the leading edges, where the curvature is large due to
aerodynamic considerations.

15
3. Fuselage Structure
The fundamental purpose of the fuselage structure is to provide an envelope to support the
payload, crew, equipment, systems and (possibly) the powerplant. Furthermore, it must react
against the in-flight manoeuvre, pressurisation and gust loads; also the landing gear and possibly
any powerplant loads. Finally, it must be able to transmit control and trimming loads from the
stability and control surfaces throughout the rest of the structure.
3.1 Fuselage Layout Concepts
There are two main categories of layout concept in common use:

• mass boom and longeron layout

• semi-monocoque layout
3.1.1 Mass Boom & Longeron Layout
This is fundamentally very similar to the mass-boom wing-box concept discussed in Section
2.3.1. It is used when the overall structural loading is relatively low or when there are extensive
cut-outs in the shell. The concept comprises four or more continuous heavy booms (longerons),
reacting against any direct stresses caused by applied vertical and lateral bending loads.
Frames or solid section bulkheads are used at positions where there are distinct direction
changes and possibly elsewhere along the lengths of the longeron members. The outer shell
helps to support the longerons against the applied compression loads and also helps in the shear-
carrying. Floors are needed where there are substantial cut-outs and the skin is stabilised against
buckling by the use of frames and bulkheads.

Figure 3.1 Typical mass boom & longeron fuselage layout

16
3.1.2 Semi Monocoque Layout
This is the most common layout, especially for transport types of aircraft, with a relatively small
number and size of cut-outs in use. The skin carries most of the loading with the skin thickness
determined by pressurisation, shear loading & fatigue considerations.

Figure 3.2 Typical semi monocoque fuselage layout

Longitudinal stringers provide skin stabilisation and also contribute to the overall load carrying
capacity. Increased stringer cross-section sizes and skin thicknesses are often used around edges
of cut-outs. Less integral machining is possible than on an equivalent wing structure.
Frames are used to stabilise the resultant skin-stringer elements and also to transmit shear loads
into the structure. They may also help to react against any pressurisation loads present. They are
usually manufactured as pressings with reinforced edges. Their spacing (pitch) is usually
determined by damage tolerance considerations, i.e. crack-stopping requirements. The frames
are usually in direct contact with the skin; stringers pass through them and are cleated into place.

Figure 3.3 Typical bulkhead designs

17
3.2 Fuselage Layout Considerations
The structural layout of an aircraft’s fuselage is critically affected in accordance with whether it
is a combat or transport type (in broad terms).
3.2.1 Fighter Aircraft
For the majority of fighter aircraft designs, the main features affecting the fuselage layout
include:

• Powerplant installation
The number and location of the engines directly influences the fuselage shape and sectional
area.
– Single central location (e.g. F16, F102, F106, Mirage, Gnat, MiG-17, etc.)
– Twin side-by-side installation (e.g. F5, F14, F15, F18, Jaguar, MiG-19, Su-15,
etc.)
– Twin vertical installation (uncommon, e.g. English Electric Lightning).
• Fuel/undercarriage installation
• Weapons carriage/integration
The selection of either internal or external carriage will significantly affect the resultant
fuselage structure. The advantages of internal carriage include:
– Improved stealth characteristics.
– Reduced wave drag.
– Constant area rule for further reductions in wave drag.
Internal carriage disadvantages include:
– Reduced flexibility to different roles and changed specifications.
– A significant volume and mass penalty with empty weapon compartment.
– Structural penalties due to the large cut-outs.
• The use of area ruling on transonic/supersonic fighters also significantly affects fuselage
section.
• Pressurisation is usually only required locally in the crew compartment and not in the
rest of the fuselage, leading to reduced loading requirements.

18
3.2.2 Transport Aircraft
Transport aircraft have substantially longer “in-service” lifetimes than fighters and this leads to
two potential problem areas – fatigue and corrosion.
Fatigue prevention involves:
• Careful materials selection.
• Reduction of loads, stress levels and concentrations.
• Eased inspection and maintenance procedures.
Corrosion prevention involves:
• Adequate provision for moisture drainage.
• Maintenance of the surface finish and protective treatment integrity.
Fuselage Cross-Section
The sizing and selection of the fuselage cross-section of a transport aircraft is a lengthy process
and involves compromises between weight, drag, systems, stowage and comfort considerations
(also stealth & weapons integration for military transports). For pressurised aircraft a circular
section is the most efficient in purely structural terms (Figure 3.4); however, this is often
relatively wasteful in terms of volume so that “double bubble” or “ovoid” sections are often used
instead (Figures 3.5 and 3.6).

Figure 3.4 Typical circular section fuselage aircraft – Airbus A310 and BAC111

19
 Figure 3.5 Typical double bubble section fuselage aircraft – Airbus A320 and
B707/727/737/757

Figure 3.6 Typical ovoid section fuselage aircraft – Airbus A380

For aircraft with low pressurisation requirements, flat-sided fuselages are often used as these are
significantly cheaper to design and build.

Figure 3.7 Typical flat-sided fuselage aircraft – Shorts 330

20
4. Empennage (Tail) Structural Layout
This tends to be very similar in many respects to that of the wing structure, though is generally
of a lower aspect ratio and therefore subjected to smaller bending moments. Several designs are
possible for both the vertical and horizontal tails, including:
• A single spar layout with spar caps taking the bending loads – very popular for light
aircraft.
• A single spar with a root pivot operating either a full slab tail or a taileron - used on
many high-speed (supersonic) fighters.
• A standard two spar construction.
• A multi-spar layout, especially on thin section tails.
• Full-depth honeycomb construction.
There are two main categories used for transport aircraft. The smaller ones generally use a
standard built-up or integral layout but with simplifications due to the lack of any stringers
(Figure 4.1). Larger transports are even more conventional and have a classical configuration
comprising spars, skin, ribs and stringers (Fig 4.2).

Figure 4.1 Typical small transport aircraft horizontal stabilizer layout (Boeing 707)

21
 Figure 4.2 Typical large transport aircraft horizontal stabilizer layout (Boeing 747)
Many fighters use full depth honeycomb (FDH) construction (Figure 4.3) due to the required
section thinness.

22
 Figure 4.3 Full depth honeycomb construction used on fighter aircraft tailplanes
Regarding the vertical stabilizer (fin), it is common practice to combine the fin integrally with
the rear fuselage section (Figure 4.4). Using this method, the fin spars are extended to form the
rear fuselage frames or bulkheads. The fin “root rib” is made to coincide with the upper surface
of the rear fuselage. The rear fuselage bulkhead is often inclined to continue the line of the rear
spar. The fin root shear and bending loads are all transmitted into the fuselage skin via the root
rib.

Figure 4.4 Typical fin and rear fuselage layout

For smaller and lighter aircraft, the fin is often designed as a completely separate detachable
component (Figure 4.5). For transport aircraft the layout is usually similar to that of the
conventional wing or horizontal tail (Figure 4.6).

23
Figure 4.5 Typical light aircraft fin layout

24
Figure 4.6 Typical transport aircraft fin layouts

25
 Bibliography
1. Curtis, M. Aircraft Structural Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 1997
2. Donaldson, B.K. Analysis of Aircraft Structures, McGraw-Hill, 1993
3. Howe, D. Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis, Professional Engineering
Publications, 2000
4. Howe, D. Aircraft Loading & Structural Layout, Professional Engineering
Publications, 2004
5. Megson, T.H.G. Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, Arnold, 1999
6. Niu, C.Y. Airframe Structural Design, Conmilit Press, 1988
7. Niu, C.Y. Airframe Stress Analysis & Sizing, Conmilit Press, 2001
8. Peery, D.J. & Azar, J.J. Aircraft Structures, McGraw-Hill, 1982
9. Sun, C.T. Mechanics of Aircraft Structures, Wiley, 1998

26