SUPERSONIC FIGHTER AIRCRAFT(SWEPT BACK WING)

A Project report

Submitted by

VEERAPPAN R 411011101021

PRABHAKARAN P 411011101015

In the partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

Of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

IN

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025

COMPARATIVE DATA SHEETS:
GENERAL CHARACTERSTICES;

s. Name of Cre Lengt Win Wing Empt Loade Max Aspec Powe Power H
n the w h (m) g area y d takeo t ratio r plant E
o aircraft spa (m^ weigh weigh ff plant I
n 2) t (kg) t (kg) weigh Dry With G
(m) t (kg) thrus After H
t(KN) burne T
r
thrust (m)
(KN)
1 Grumma 2 19.4 11.5 54.5 1983 27,70 33,72 2.5 61.4 123.7 4.8
n f-14 8 8 0 0 8
tomcat
2 General 2 22.4 9.75 48.7 2140 3760 4530 1.95 79.6 112 5.2
dynamic 7 0 0 0 2
f-111f
3 Panavia 2 16.72 13.9 26.6 1389 2800 7.2 43.8 76.8 5.9
tornado 0 0 5
4 Sukhoi 1 19.02 11.0 34.5 1216 1840 3.5 76.4 109.8 5.1
su-17 2 0 0 2
5 Mig-23 1 16.7 13.9 34.1 9595 1570 1803 5.7 83.6 127 4.8
mcd 7 6 0 0 2
flogger-k
6 Dassault 1 15.30 8.40 25.0 7400 1090 1620 2.8 49.0 70.6 4.5
mirage f- 0 0 0 3 0
1
7 MC 2 19.2 11.7 49.2 1375 1882 2803 2.8 52.9 79.4 5.0
donnell 7 5 0
douglas
f4
phantom
ii
8 Sukhoi 2 22.5 10.3 55.2 2230 3804 4375 1.9 75 109.8 6.1
su-24 4 0 0 5 9
9 Vought 1 17.86 12.1 41.8 9915 1466 1759 3.5 73.4 131.2 4.9
xf8u-3 6 0 0 8
crusader-
iii
1 English 1 16.8 10.6 44.0 1409 1863 2075 2.5 55.7 71.17 5.9
0 electric 1 2 8 2 4 7
lightning
1 Mikoyan- 1 11.26 9.63 22.6 3919 5350 6069 4.1 22.5 33.8 3.8
1 gurevich 0
mig-17F
1 Chengdu 1 14.88 8.32 24.8 5292 7540 9100 2.8 44.1 64.7 4.1
2 j-7MG 5 8 6 1

PERFORMANCES;

Name of Cruise Range(k Service Thrust/wei Rate of Wing

the speed(km/ m) ceiling( ght climb(m loadin
s.n aircraft hr) m) /s) g
o (kg/m
^2)
1 Grumman 2485 2960 15,200 .92 229 508.25
f-14
tomcat
2 General 2655 6760 20100 0.61 131.5 771.96
dynamic
f-111f
3 Panavia 2400 3890 15240 0.55 76.7 707.95
tornado
4 Sukhoi 1860 2300 14200 0.68 230 533.33
su-17
5 Mig-23 2445 2820 18500 0.88 240 434.18
mcd
flogger-k
6 Dassault 2338 3300 20000 0.67 243 436
mirage f-
1
7 MC 2370 2600 18300 0.86 210 416.48
donnell
douglas
f4
phantom
ii
8 Sukhoi 1654 2775 11000 0.60 150 689.13
su-24
9 Vought 925 3290 19800 0.74 165 351
xf8u-3
crusader-
 iii

10 English 2100 2040 16000 0.78 100 423.49

electric
lightning
11 Mikoyan- 1145 2060 16600 0.63 65 236.72
gurevich
mig-17F
12 Chengdu 2200 3290 17500 0.84 195 303.05
j-7MG
 PRELIMINARY GRAPHS OF VARIOUS
PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO VELOCITY

1.

2
3
4

6
7

8
9
10

11

12
1 LENGTH 17.67(m)

2 HEIGHT 5.045(m)

3 ASPECT RATIO 3.44

4 WING AREA 38.449(m2)

5 WING SPAN 10.95(m)

6 EMPTY WEIGHT 12796.5(kg)

7 LOADED WEIGHT 19349(kg) RETRIVED DATA

8 RANGE 3173.75(km) FROM GRAPH
9 TAKEOFF WEIGHT 23966(kg)

10 SEVICE CEILING 16870(m)

11 T/W 0.73

12 WING LOADING 484.295(kg/m2)

13 CRUISE SPEED 2048.08

14 Rate of climb 169.6(m/s)

15 Dry thrust 59.79(kN)

16 After burner thrust 92.4975(kN)

PRELIMINARY WEIGHT ESTIMATION
Weight estimation:
The common choice to subdivide and categorize the weight components of an airplane is:

1. CREW WEIGHT W crew -it comprises the people necessary to operate the plane in flight. For our
design the crew is 2

2. PAYLOAD WEIGHT WP-The payload is what the airplane intended to carry.in our design
payload is missiles.

3. FUEL WEIGHT Wf-is the weight of the fuel in the fuel tanks which decreases with time during
flight.

4.EMPTY WEIGHT We-is weight of everything else the structure ,engines ,avionics ,landing
gear ,seats and anything else that is not crew, payload or fuel.

The designs take-off weight W O is the weight of the airplane at the instant it
begins its mission. Hence it can be shown that,

W0 = Wcrew + WP + Wf + We
 The crew and payload weight are both known since they are given in design
requirement.The only unknowns are the fuel weight and empty weight. However, they are both
depend on the total aircraft weight.

To simplify the calculation, both fuel and empty weight can be expressed as
fraction of the total take-off weight (i.e) (Wf/W0) and (We/ W0).

Thus above eqn becomes

W0 = Wcrew + WP + (Wf/W0) W0 + (We/ W0) W0.

This can be solved for W0 as follows:

W0- (Wf/W0) W0 - (We/ W0) W0= Wcrew + WP

W0
W crew +W P

Wf Now we can be determine if (Wf/W0) and (We/ W0).can be
1( )
W0
(W e /W 0)
estimated .these are described below.

CREW WEGHT ESTIMATION:

In our design crew = 2

On an average, taking 200kg person,

Crew load = 2 x 90.72=182kg

PAYLOAD ESTIMATION:

In our design,

Pay load=4000 kg, and its given by

Armaments detail:
Type Weight(kg)
Mk 82 227
Mk 83 454
Mk 84 907
 Mk 117 340
GBU 10 907
BLU 109 907
GBU-12 257

FUEL WEIGHT ESTIMATION:

Mission profile:
Mission profile is explaining the various stages and maneuvers during flight of
the aircraft from start to shut down. The mission for our fighter aircraft is shown in below

Phase 1 : engine start and warm up

Phase 2 : taxi

Phase 3 : take-off

Phase 4 : climb

Phase 5 : cruise-out

Phase 6 : loiter

Phase 7 : descend

Phase 8 : dash-out
Phase 9 : drop bombs

Phase 10 : strafe

Phase 11 : dash in

Phase 12 : climb to cruise

Phase 13 : cruise in

Phase 14 : descend

Phase 15 : landing

Mission fuel fraction (Mff):

The fuel weight ratio can be obtained from product of mission
segment weight at the end of the segment divided by the weight at the beginning of segment.

1. Engine start up : start weight is WTO and end weight is W1

W1/WTO=.990

2. Taxing : start weight is W1and end weight is W2

W2/W1=.990

3. Take-off : start weight is W2 and end weight is W3

W3/W2=.990

4. Climb : start weight is W3 and end weight is W4

W4/W3=.971

The phase covered during climb phase needs to be calculated. It can be

assumed, that the climb is performed at an average speed of 500m/s and with an average climb rate
of 100m/s.to 16870m this takes 2.8 min. The range covered is 2.8*500=1400km (For direct climb to
40000ft. at max.WTO In 8 min is desired. Climb rate on one engine, at max. W TO should exceed
500fpm on a 950f day)

5. Cruise out : start weight is W4 and end weight is W5

W5/W4=.954

The cruise phase is to be carried out at 16870 m and with a speed corresponding
to M=1.67(with external load), this means Vcruise=568.91m/s. fuel used during this part of the
mission can be estimated from Braguest range equation:
 Rcr = (V/Cj)cr (L/D)cr ln (W4/W5)
The range is 3173.75-1400=1773.75km. Because this fighter carries its bomb
load externally and because it cruise at a rather cruise speed, the L/D value during cruise out likely
to be very high. A value of 7.0 seems reasonable. for Cj , 0.6 might be an optimistic choice with
these phase follows from range eqn

W5/W4=.928

6. Loiter : start weight is W5 and end weight is W6

During loiter the lift-to-drag ratio will be significantly better than during high speed
cruise-out. A value of 9.0 for (L/D)ltr will be used. for Cj, indicates that 0.6 is o.k loiter is specified at
30min. the fuel fraction for this phase follows from Brequest endurance equation

Eltr= (Vcr/Cj) (L/D) ln W5/W6

This yields W6/W5=0.967

7. Descend : start weight is W6 and end weight is W7

W7/W6 =.99

8. Dash out : start weight is W7 and end weight is W8

W8/W7=.951

9. Drop bombs : start weight is W8 and end weight is W9

W9/W8=1

10. Strafe : start weight is W9 and end weight is W10

W10/W9=0.986

11. Dash in : start weight is W10 and end weight is W11

W11/W10=.966

12. Climb to Cruise: start weight is W11 and end weight is W12

W12/W11=.969

13. Cruise in : start weight is W12 and end weight is W13

W13/W12=.956

14. Descend : start weight is W13 and end weight is W14

W14/W13=.99
15. Landing : start weight is W14 and end weight is W15

W15/W14=.995

Therefore the mission fuel fraction is given by

M ff =
{( W15/W14)*( W14/W13)*( W13/W12)*( W12/W11)*( W11/W10)*( W10/W9)*( W9/W8)*( W8
/W7)*( W7/W6)*( W6/W5)*( W5/W4)*( W4/W3)*( W3/W2)*( W2/W1)*( W1/WTO)}

Mff=0.693
The weight of the fuel required for the mission is calculated using the formula

WF/W0 = (1-0.693)

Therefore WF = 0.307*W0

Where, W0-average Take-off value taken from the graph

W0 = 23966kg

WF = 0.307*23966

WF = 7357.562kg

EMPTY WEIGHT ESTIMATION (We):

The value of empty weight is calculated using the formula

WEtent=W0Etent-Wtfo-WCrew

Where, W0Etent=W0-Wf-WPayload ,

Wtfo=0.005*W0
WOEtent= 23966-7357.562-4000

WOEtent=12608.438kg

Therefore empty weight

WEtent=12608.438-(0.005*23966)-182

WEtent=12306.608kg

Where,
 WOEtent -operating empty weight tentative(kg),

WTfo -Trapped fuel-0il weight(kg)

We/ W0=12306.608/23966

We/ W0 =0.513
W crew +W p

Wf
W0 1( )
W0
(W e /W 0)

182+ 4000
W0 10.3070.513

W0=23233.33kg

ITERATION PROCESS:

We/ W0=A(W0)CKVS

For fighter aircraft {A=2.34, C=-0.13, Kvs=1}

Iteration-1:

We/ W0 = 2.34*(23233.33)-0.13*1

= 0.633

Wo = 19441.71

Iteration-2:

We/ W0=2.34*(19441.71)-0.13*1

=0.648

Wo=18987.07

Iteration-3:

We/ W0=2.34*(18987.07)-0.13*1

=0.650

Wo=18929.75

Iteration-4:
 We/ W0=2.34*(18929.75)-0.13*1

=0.650

Wo=18921.18

Iteration-5:

We/ W0=2.34*(18921.18)-0.13*1

=0.650

=18920.2

Iteration-6:

We/ W0=2.34*(18920.20)-0.13*1

=0.650

Wo=18920.07

OVERALL WEIGHT ESTIMATION:

Take off weight:

Wo =18920Kg

WEIGHT OF FUEL:

Wf = 0.307*18920

=5808.44Kg

Empty weight:

WEtent=W0Etent-Wtfo-WCrew

Where, W0Etent=W0-Wf-WPayload , Wtfo=0.005*W0

WOEtent =18920-5808.44-4000

WOEtent = 9111.56kg

Therefore empty weight

 WEtent = 9111.56-(0.005*18920)-182

WEtent = 8834.96kg

RESULTS OFF THE WEIGHT ESTIMATION:

WEIGHTS UNIT(kg) UNIT (N)

Empty weight 8834.96 86670.95

Weight fuel 5808.44 56980.79

Overall weight (or)maximum take- 18920 185605.2

off weight

Weight of crew 182 1785.42

Weight of pay load 4000 39240

ESTIMATION OF CRITICAL PERFORMANCE

PARAMETER:
1. Airfoil selection
2. Wing selection
3. Power plant selection
 4. Wing tail and
5. Control surfaces (flap).

AIRFOIL SELECTION:

Airfoil nomenclature:
Chord length (c) length from the leading edge to the trailing edge of a wing cross section that is
parallel to the vertical axis of symmetry.

Mean camber line line halfway between the upper and lower surfaces.

Leading edge (LE) is the front most point on the mean camber line. trailing edge (TE) Is the
most rearward point on mean camber line.

Camber maximum distance between the mean camber line and chord line, measured
perpendicular to the chord line

Un camber the airfoil is symmetric above and below the chord line.
Thickness distance between upper surface and lower surface measured perpendicular to the mean
camber line
 Family Advantages Disadvantages Applications
4-Digit 1. Good stall characteristics 1. Low maximum lift coefficient 1. General aviation
2. Horizontal tails
2. Small center of pressure movement 2. Relatively high drag
across large speed range Symmetrical:
3. High pitching moment
3. Roughness has little effect 3. Supersonic jets
4. Helicopter blades
5. Shrouds
6. Missile/rocket fins
5-Digit 1. Higher maximum lift coefficient 1. Poor stall behavior 1. General aviation
2. Piston-powered bombers,
transports
2. Low pitching moment 2. Relatively high drag
3. Commuters
4. Business jets
3. Roughness has little effect
16-Series 1. Avoids low pressure peaks 1. Relatively low lift 1. Aircraft propellers
2. Ship propellers
2. Low drag at high speed
6-Series 1. High maximum lift coefficient 1. High drag outside of the 1. Piston-powered fighters
optimum range of operating 2. Business jets
conditions 3. Jet trainers
2. Very low drag over a small range of
4. Supersonic jets
operating conditions
2. High pitching moment
3. Optimized for high speed
3. Poor stall behavior

4. Very susceptible to roughness

7-Series 1. Very low drag over a small range of 1. Reduced maximum lift Seldom used
operating conditions coefficient

2. Low pitching moment 2. High drag outside of the

optimum range of operating
conditions

3. Poor stall behavior

4. Very susceptible to roughness

8-Series Unknown Unknown Very seldom used

SELECTION PARAMETER:
Normally to select an efficient aerofoil to produce maximum lift
initially we consider about some parameters like,

1. Co-efficient of lift

2. Stalling velocity

3. Reynolds number

4. t/c ratio

STALLING VELOCITY:
Stalling speed of fighter aircraft is given by
 VA=1.2Vstall

Where, velocity approach for fighter aircraft is given by

VA=150 kts

Vstall = 150/1.2

Vstall=64.43m/s

COFFICIEND OF LIFTS:

L=(1/2)*(Vstall)2 **S*CLmax

Considering steady state level flight , L=W

1. calculation of aircraft maximum coefficient of lift(CLmax)

( V stall ) 2S

CLmax 2W

Where, W0=18920Kg

W0=185605.2N

S=38.449m2

=1.225 Kg/m3 at sea level

Vstall=64.43m/s

Therefore,

( V stall ) 2S

CLmax 2W

( 64.43 ) 21.22538.449

CLmax 2185605.2

CLmax =1.9
2.calculation of wing maximum lift coefficiend

0.95

Clmax(w) = C Lmax

=1.9/0.95

=2

3.calculation of wing airfoil gros maximum lift coefficient

0.9

Clmax(gross) = Clmax (w)

=2.2 (FLAP DOWN)

Where the wing airfoil gross maximum coefficient in which the effect of
high lift devices is include eg, flap

3.calculation of wing airfoil net maximum lift coefficient

Cl max = Clmax(gross) - Cl(HLD)

HIGH LIFT DEVICE SELECTION (FLAP): Cl(HLD)

For an double sloteted flap CL is given by

Cf/C=0.3

Therefore CL= 0.3*1.6

=0.48

Therefore, The calculation of wing airfoil net maximum lift coefficient is given by

Cl max = Clmax(gross) -Cl(HLD)

HIGH LIFT DEVICE SELECTION:

The Functions of High Lift Device

One of the design goals in wing design is to maximize the capability of the wing in the
generation of the lift. This design objective is technically shown as maximum lift coefficient
(CLmax). In a trimmed cruising flight, the lift is equal to weight. When the aircraft generates its
maximum lift coefficient, the airspeed is referred to as stall speed.

( V stall ) 2S

CLmax 2W

Two design objectives among the list of objectives are: 1. maximizing the payload
weight, 2. minimizing the stall speed (Vs). As the equation 5.36 indicates, increasing the CLmax
tends to increase the payload weight (W) and decrease the stall speed. The lower stall speed is
desirable since a safe take-off and landing requires a lower stall speed. On the other hand, the
higher payload weight will increase the efficiency of the aircraft and reduce the cost of flight. A
higher CLmax allows the aircraft to have a smaller wing area that results in a lighter wing. Hence,
in a wing design, the designer must find way to maximize the C Lmax. In order to increase the lift
coefficient, the only in-flight method is to temporarily vary (increase) the wing camber. This will
happen only when the high lift device is deflected downward. In 1970s the maximum lift
coefficient at take-off was 2.8; while the record currently belongs to Airbus A-320 with a
magnitude of 3.2.
The primary applications of high lift devices are during take-off and landing operations.
Since the airspeed is very low compared with the cruising speed, the wing must produce a bigger
lift coefficient. The aircraft speed during take-off and landing is slightly greater than the stall
speed. Airworthiness standards specify the relationship between take-off speed and landing
speed with stall speed. As a general rule, we have,
VTO=K.VS
where k is about 1.1 for fighter aircraft, and about 1.2 for jet transports and GA aircraft.
The application of the high lift device tends to change the airfoil sections and wings
camber (in fact the camber will be positively increased). This in turn will change the pressure
distribution along the wing chord as sketched in figure 5.52. In this figure, CP denotes the
pressure coefficient.
In contrast, the leading edge high lift device tends to improve the boundary layer energy
of the wing. Some type of high lift device has been used on almost every aircraft designed since
the early 1930s. High lift devices are the means to obtain the sufficient increase in CLmax.
At the airfoil level, a high lift device deflection tends to cause the following six changes in the
airfoil features:
1. Lift coefficient (Cl) is increased,
2. Maximum lift coefficient (Clmax) is increased,
3. Zero-lift angle of attack (o) in changed,
 4. Stall angle (s) is changed,
5. Pitching moment coefficient is changed.
6. Drag coefficient is increased.
7. Lift curve slope is increased.

Pressure distribution of the wing when HLD deflected

CP

Pressure distribution of original wing

f x/C

Figure 5.52. Example of pressure distribution with the application of a high lift device
These effects are illustrated in figure 5.53. Along with three desirable advantages (first
two items) to the application of high lift devices; there are a few negative side-effects (the last
five items) as well. A plain flap tends to decrease stall angle, while a slotted flap and leading
edge slat tend to increase the stall angle. In addition, among all types of flaps, the Fowler flap
and leading edge slat tend to increase the lift curve slope (CL). On the other hand, leading edge
flap tend to increase (shift to the right) the zero-lift angle of attack (o).
A
reduction in stall angle is undesirable, since the wing may stall at a lower angle of attack.
During the take-off and landing operation, a high angle of attack is required to
successfully take-off and land. The high angle of attack will also tend to reduce the take-off run
and landing run that is desirable in the airport at which have a limited runway length. An
increase in pitching moment coefficient requires higher horizontal tail area to balance the
aircraft. An increase in drag coefficient decreases the acceleration during take-off and landing.
Although the application of high lift device generates three undesirable side effects, but the
advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
If the natural value of CLmax for an aircraft is not high enough for safe take-off and landing, it can
be temporarily increased by mechanical high lift devices. Thus, employing the same airfoil
section; one is able to increase CLmax temporarily as needed without actually pitching the aircraft.
Two flight operations at which the CLmax needs to be increased are take-off and landing. Table
5.14 shows the maximum lift coefficient for several aircraft at take-off and landing
configurations.
 Cl

Cm Cd
Clmax

Cdmin
Cli
Cl
S

without flap deflection with flap deflection

Figure 5.53. Typical effects of high lift device on wing airfoil section features
In a cruising flight, there is no need to utilize the maximum lift coefficient since the speed is
high. These mechanical devices are referred to as High Lift Devices (HLD). High Lift Devices
are parts of wings to increase the lift when deflected down. They are located at inboard section of
the wing and usually employed during take-off and landing.

CLmax Cessna Piper Short Gulfstream DC-9 Boeing Airbus Learjet

172 Cherokee Skyvan 3 II 727 300 25
Take-Off 1.5 1.3 2.07 1.4 1.9 2.35 2.7 1.37
Landing 2.1 1.74 2.71 1.8 2.4 2.75 3 1.37
Table 5.14. Maximum lift coefficient for several aircraft

5.12.2. High Lift Device Classification

Two main groups of high lift devices are:
1. leading edge high lift device (LEHLD), and
2. trailing edge high lift devices (TEHLD or flap).
There are many types of wing trailing edge flaps that the most common of them are split
flap, plain flap, single-slotted flap, double-slotted flap, triple-slotted flap, and fowler flap as
illustrated in figure 5.54a. They are all deflected downward to increase the camber of the wing,
so CLmax will be increased. The most common of leading edge devices are leading edge flap,
leading edge slat, and Kruger flap as shown by in figure 5.54b.
A common problem with the application of high lift devices is how to deal with the gap
between high lift device and the main wing. This gap can be either sealed or left untouched. In
both cases, there are undesirable side effects. If the gap left open, the airflow from downside
escapes to the upper surface which in turn degrades the pressure distribution. On the other hand,
if the gap is sealed by a means such diaphragm, it may be blocked by ice during flight into colder
humid air. In both cases, it needs special attention as an operational problem. In the following,
the technical features of various high lift devices are discussed.
 a. Plain flap
b. Split flap c. Single slotted flap

d. Double slotted flap e. Triple slotted flap f. Fowler flap

a. Trailing edge high lift device

g. Leading edge flap h. Leading edge slat i. Kruger flap

b. Leading edge high lift device

Figure 5.54. Various types of high lift devices
1. The plain flap (figure 5.54-a) is the simplest and earliest type of high lift device. It is an
airfoil shape that is hinged at the wing trailing edge such that it can be rotated downward and
upward. However, the downward deflection is considered only. A plain flap increases the lift
simply by mechanically increasing the effective camber of the wing section. In terms of cost,
a plain flap is the cheapest high lift device. In terms of manufacturing, the plain flap is the
easiest one to build. Most home build aircraft and many General Aviation aircraft are
employing the plain flap. The increment in lift coefficient for a plain flap at 60 degrees of
deflection (full extension) is about 0.9. If it is deflected at a lower rate, the CL increment will
be lower. Some old GA aircraft such as Piper 23 Aztec D has a plain flap. It is interesting to
know that the modern fighters such aircraft F-15E Eagle (Figures 4.21 and 9.14) and MIG-29
(Figure 5.61) also employ plain flaps.

2. In the split flap (figure 5.54-b), only the bottom surface of the flap is hinged so that it can be
rotated downward. The split flap performs almost the same function as a plain flap. However,
the split flap produces more drag and less change in the pitching moment compared to a plain
flap. The split flap was invented by Orville Wright in 1920, and it was employed, because of
its simplicity, on many of the 1930s and 1950s aircraft. However, because of the higher drag
associated with split flap, they are rarely used on modern aircraft.

3. The single slotted flap (figure 5.54-c) is very similar to a plain flap, except it has two
modifications. First, the leading edges of these two trailing edge flaps are different as shown
in figure 5.51. The leading edge of a single slotted flap is carefully designed such that it
modifies and stabilizes the boundary layer over the top surface of the wing. A low pressure
is created on the leading edge that allows a new boundary layer to form over the flap which
in turn causes the flow to remain attached to very high flap deflection. The second
modification is to allow the flap move rearward during the deflection (i.e. the slot). The aft
movement of single slotted flap actually increases the effective chord of the wing which in
turn increases the effective wing planform area. The larger wing planform area naturally
generated more lift.
 Thus a single slotted flap generates considerably higher lift than a plain and split flap.
The main disadvantage is the higher cost and the higher degree of complexity in the
manufacturing process associated with the single slotted flap. Single slotted flap are in
common use on modern light, general aviation aircraft. In general, the stall angle is increased
by the application of the slotted flap. Several modern GA light aircraft such as Beech
Bonanza F33A and several turboprop transport aircraft such as Beech 1900D and Saab 2000
has deployed single slotted flap.

4. The double slotted flap is similar to a single slotted flap, except it has two slots; i.e., the flap
is divided into two segments, each with a slot as sketched in figure 5.54-d. A flap with two
slots almost doubles the advantages of a single slotted flap. This benefit is achieved at the
cost of increased mechanical complexity and higher cost. Most modern turboprop transport
aircraft such as ATR-42 (Figure 3.8); and several jet aircraft such as and jet trainer Kawasaki
T-4 employ the double slotted flap. The jet transport aircraft Boeing 767 (Figure 5.4) has
single slotted outboard flap and double slotted inboard flap. It is a common practice to deflect
the first segment (slot) of the flap during a take-off operation, but employs full deflection
(both segments) during landing. The reason is that more lift coefficient is needed during a
landing that a take-off.

5. A triple slotted flap (figure 5.54-e) is an extension to a double slotted flap; i.e. has three slots.
This flap is mechanically the most complex; and costly most expensive flap in design and
operation. However, a triple slotted flap produces the highest increment in lift coefficient. It
is mainly used in heavy weight transport aircraft which have high wing loading. The jet
transport aircraft Boeing 747 (Figures 3.7, 3.12, 9.4) has employed the triple slotted flap.

6. A Fowler flap (figure 5.54-f) has a special mechanism such that when deployed, not only
deflects downward, but also translates or tracks to the trailing edge of the wing. The second
feature increases the exposed wing area; which means a further increase in lift. Because of
this benefit, the concept of the Fowler flap may be combined with the double slotted and
triple slotted flaps. For instance jet transport aircraft Boeing B-747 (Figures 3.7, 3.12, 9.4)
has utilized triple slotted Fowler flap. In general, the wing lift curve slope is slightly
increased by the application of the Fowler flap. Maritime patrol aircraft Lockheed Orion P-3
with 4 turboprop engines has a Fowler engine.

7. A leading edge flap (or droop) is illustrated in figure 5.54-g. This flap is similar to trailing
edge plain flap, except it is installed at the leading edge of the wing. Hence, the leading edge
pivots downward, increasing the effective camber. A feature of the leading edge flap is that
the gap between the flap and main wing body is sealed with no slot. In general, the wing
zero-lift angle of attack is shifted to the right by the application of leading edge flap. Since
the leading edge flap has a lower chord compared with the trailing edge flaps, it generates a
lower increment in lift coefficient (CL is about 0.3).

8. The leading edge slat (see figure 5.54-h) is a small, highly cambered section, located slightly
forward of the leading edge the wing body. When deflected, a slat is basically a flap at the
leading edge, but with an unsealed gap between the flap and the leading edge. In addition to
the primary airflow over the wing, there is a secondary flow that takes place through the gap
between the slat and the wing leading edge. The function of a leading edge slat is primarily to
modify the pressure distribution over the top surface of the wing. The slat itself, being highly
cambered, experiences a much lower pressure over its top surface; but the flow interaction
results in a higher pressure over the top surface of the main wing body. Thus it delays flow
separation over the wing and mitigates to some extent the otherwise strong adverse pressure
gradient that would exist over the main wing section.

By such process, the lift coefficient is increased with no significant increase in drag.
Since the leading edge slat has a lower chord compared with the trailing edge flaps, it
generates a lower increment in lift coefficient (CL is about 0.2). Several modern jet aircraft
such as two seat fighter aircraft Dassault Rafale (Figure 6.8), Eurofighter 2000 (Figure 3.7),
Bombardier BD 701 Global Express, McDonnell Douglas MD-88 (Figure 9.4), and Airbus
A-330 (Figures 5.51 and 9.14) have leading edge slat. In general, the wing lift curve slope is
slightly increased by the application of leading edge slat.

No High lift device CL

1 Plain flap 0.7-0.9
2 Split flap 0.7-0.9
3 Fowler flap 1-1.3
4 Slotted flap 1.3 Cf/C
5 Double slotted flap 1.6 Cf/C
6 Triple slotted flap 1.9 Cf/C
7 Leading edge flap 0.2-0.3
8 Leading edge slat 0.3-0.4
9 Kruger flap 0.3-0.4
Table 5.15. Lift coefficient increment by various types of high lift devices (when deflected 60
degrees)
9. A Kruger flap is demonstrated in figure 5.54-i. This leading edge high lift device is
essentially a leading edge slat which is thinner, and which lies flush with the bottom surface
of the wing when not deflected. Therefore, it is suitable for use with thinner wing sections.
The most effective method used on all large transport aircraft is the leading edge slat. A
variant on the leading edge slat is a variable camber slotted Kruger flap used on the Boeing
747 (Figures 3.7, 3.12, and 9.4). Aerodynamically, this is a slat, but mechanically it is a
Kruger flap.
As a general comparison, table 5.15 shows the typical values of maximum wing lift
coefficient for various types of high lift devices. In this table, the symbol Cf/C denotes the ratio
between the chord of high lift device to the chord of the main wing body as shown in figure 5.55.
Table 5.16 demonstrates various features for high lift devices of several aircraft.
5.12.3. Design Technique
In designing the high lift device for a wing, the following items must be determined:
1. High lift device location along the span
2. The type of high lift device (among the list in figure 5.54)
3. High lift device chord (Cf)
 4. High lift device span (bf)
5. High lift device maximum deflection (down) (fmax)

The last three parameters are sketched in figure 5.55. The first and second item must be
selected through an evaluation and analysis technique considering all advantages and
disadvantages of each option regarding design requirements. However, the last three parameters
must be determined through a series of calculations. In the following, the design technique for
high lift device to determine the above five items will be presented.

Fuselag
e
Center
Lin
e Cf C
bf/2

b/2

a. Top-view of the right wing

Leadi Trailin
ng g
edge Chord edge
line

fmax
Cf

b. The side-view of the inboard wing (flap deflected)

Figure 5.55. High lift device parameters

a. HLD Location
The best location for high lift device is the inboard portion of both left and right of the
wing sections. When high lift device is applied symmetrically on the left and right wing sections,
it will prevent any rolling moment; hence the aircraft will remain laterally trimmed. The
deflection of high lift device will increase the lift on both inboard sections, but since they are
generated symmetrically, both lift increments will cancel each others rolling moments.
There are two reasons for the selection of inboard section. First of all, it produces a lower
bending moment on the wing root. This makes the wing structure lighter and causes less fatigue
on the wing in the long run. The second reason is that it allows the aileron to have a large arm,
which is employed on the outboard wing trailing edge. The larger arm for the aileron, when
 installed on the outboard panels, means the higher lateral control and a faster roll. The
design of the aileron will be discussed in chapter 12.
b. Type of High Lift Device
The options for the high lift device are introduced in Section 5.11.2. Several design
requirements will affect the decision on the type of high lift device. They include, but not limited
to: 1. Performance requirements (i.e. the required lift coefficient (CL) increment during take-off
and landing); 2. Cost considerations; 3. Manufacturing limitations; 4. Operational requirements;
5. Safety considerations; and 6. Control requirements. The following guideline will help the
designer to make the right decision.
The final decision is the outcome of a compromise among all options using a table
including the weighted design requirements. For a homebuilt aircraft designer, the low cost is the
number one priority, while for a fighter aircraft designer the performance is the first priority. A
large transport passenger aircraft designer, believe that the airworthiness must be on the top of
the list of priorities.
The following are several guidelines that relate the high lift device options to the design
requirements:

1. A more powerful high lift device (higher CL) is usually more expensive. For
instance, a double slotted flap is more expensive than a split flap.
2. A more powerful high lift device (higher CL) is usually more complex to build. For
example, a triple slotted flap is more complex in manufacturing than a single slotted
flap.
3. A more powerful high lift device (higher CL) is usually heavier. For instance, a
double slotted flap is heavier than a single slotted flap.
4. The more powerful high lift device (higher CL), results in a smaller wing area.
5. The more powerful high lift device (higher CL), results in a slower stall speed,
which consequently means a safer flight.
6. A heavier aircraft requires a more powerful high lift device (higher CL).
7. A more powerful high lift device results in a shorter runway length during take-off
and landing.
8. A more powerful high lift device (higher CL) allows a more powerful aileron.
9. A simple high lift device requires a simpler mechanism to operate (deflect or retract)
compared with a more complex high lift device such as a triple slotted flap.
SELECTED HIGH LIFT DEVICE : IS DOUBBLE SLOTTED
For double slotted CL = 1.6(cf/c)

Where cf/c=0.3, CL = 0.48

Therefore, Cl max = 2.2 0.48

Cl max=1.72 (FLAP UP)

the corresponding airfoils are given by

The NACA airfoil series

The early NACA airfoil series, the 4-digit, 5-digit, and modified 4-/5-digit, were generated using
 analytical equations that describe the camber (curvature) of the mean-line (geometric centerline)
of the airfoil section as well as the section's thickness distribution along the length of the airfoil.
Later families, including the 6-Series, are more complicated shapes derived using theoretical
rather than geometrical methods. Before the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(NACA) developed these series, airfoil design was rather arbitrary with nothing to guide the
designer except past experience with known shapes and experimentation with modifications to
those shapes.

This methodology began to change in the early 1930s with the publishing of a NACA report
entitled The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil Sections from Tests in the Variable Density
Wind Tunnel. In this landmark report, the authors noted that there were many similarities between
the airfoils that were most successful, and the two primary variables that affect those shapes are
the slope of the airfoil mean camber line and the thickness distribution above and below this line.
They then
presented a series of equations incorporating these two variables that could be used to generate an
entire family of related airfoil shapes. As airfoil design became more sophisticated, this basic
approach was modified to include additional variables, but these two basic geometrical values
remained at the heart of all NACA airfoil series, as illustrated below.

WING SELECTION:

INTRODUCTION

After the final weight estimation of the aircraft, the primary component of the aircraft to
be designed is the wing. The wing weight and its lifting capability are in general, a function of the
aerofoil section that is used in the wing structure. The first setup towards designed the wing is the
thickness estimation. The thickness of the wing, in turn depends on the critical Mach number of the
aerofoil or rather, the drag divergence Mach number corresponding to the wing section.

The critical Mach number can well be delayed by the use of an appropriate sweep-back
angle to the wing structure. The nature choice of the standard series is the 65 series which is
designed specifically for use in high-speed.
WING GEOMETRY DESIGN

The geometry of the wing is a function for four parameter, namely the Wing loading (w/s),
Aspect ratio (b2/s), Taper ratio () and the sweepback angle at quarter chord (qc)
The take-off weight that was estimated in the previous analysis is used to find the wing area
S (from W/S). The value of S also enables to calculate the wingspan b (using the Aspect
ratio). The root chord can now be found using the equation.

POSITION OF WING

The location of the wing in the fuselage (along the vertical axis) is very important. Each
configuration (Low, High and mid) has its own advantages but in this design, the mid wing

Mid Wing
In general, features of the mid-wing configuration (Figure 5.3-b, and Figure 5.4-4) stand
somewhat between features of high-wing configuration and features of low-wing configuration.
The major difference lies in the necessity to cut the wing spar in two half in order to save the
space inside the fuselage. However, another alternative is not to cut the wing spar and letting it to
pass through the fuselage; which leads to an occupied space of the fuselage. Both alternatives
carry a few disadvantages. Other than those features that can be easily derived from two previous
sections, some new features of a mid-wing configuration are as follows:

1. The aircraft structure is heavier, due to the necessity of reinforcing wing root at the
intersection with the fuselage.
2. The mid wing is more expensive compared with high and low-wing configurations.
3. The mid wing is more attractive compared with two other configurations.
4. The mid wing is aerodynamically streamliner compared with two other configurations.
5. The strut is usually not used to reinforce the wing structure.
6. The pilot can get into the cockpit using the wing as a step in a small GA aircraft.
7. The mid-wing has less interference drag than low-wing and high-wing.

. The Significance of Lift and Load Distributions

The distribution of wing non-dimensional lift (i.e. lift coefficient; CL) per unit span along the
wing is referred to as lift distribution. Each unit area of the wing along the span is producing a
specific amount of lift. The total lift is equal to the summation of these individual lifts. The lift
distribution goes to zero at the tips, because there is a pressure equalization from the bottom to
the top of the wing precisely at y = -b/2 and +b/2. Hence no lift is generated at these two points.
.
In addition, the variation of lift coefficient times sectional chord (C CL) along span is referred
to as the load distribution. Both lift distribution and load distribution are of great importance
in the wing design process. The major application of lift distribution is in aerodynamic
calculation, while the primary application of the load distribution is in wing structural design as
well as controllability analysis.
In the past (1930s), it was thought that for an elliptic lift distribution, the chord must vary
elliptically along the span. The direct result of such logic was that the wing planform must be
elliptical. For this reason, several aircraft wing planforms such as Supermarine Spitfire (Figure
8.3), a famous British World War II fighter were made elliptic. But, today, we know that there
are various parameters that make the lift distribution elliptic, thus, there is no need for the wing
planform to be planform.

The type of both lift distribution and load distribution are very important in wing design;
and will influence the aircraft performance, airworthiness, stability, control, and cost. Ideally
both lift distribution and load distribution are preferred to be elliptical. For the above mentioned
reasons, the elliptical lift distribution and the elliptical load distribution are ideal and are the
design objectives in the wing design process. An elliptical lift distribution is sketched in figure
5.32, where a front view of the wing is illustrated. The horizontal axis in figure 5.32 is y/s where
y is the location is y-axis, and s denotes the semispan (s = b/2). In this figure, no high lift device
(e.g. flap) is deflected and the effect of the fuselage is ignored. The elliptical lift distribution and
elliptical load distribution have the following desirable properties:

1. If the wing tends to stall (CLmax), the wing root is stalled before the wing tip (CLroot = CLmax
while CLtip < CLmax). In a conventional aircraft, the flaps are located inboard, while the
ailerons are installed outboard of the wing. In such a situation, ailerons are active, since the
flow over the wing outboard section is healthy. This is of greater importance for spin
recovery (which often happens after stall); since the aileron (in addition to rudder)
application are very critical to stop the autorotation. Thus, the elliptical lift distribution
provision guarantees the flight safety in the event of stall (see figure 5.33).

2. The bending moment at the wing root is a function of load distribution. If the load
distribution is concentrated near to the root, the bending moment is considerably less that
when it is concentrated near the tip. The center of an elliptical load distribution is closer to
the wing root, thus it leads to a lower bending moment, which results in a less bending stress
and a less stress concentration at wing root (see figure 5.34). This means a lighter wing spar
and lighter wing structure that is always one of the design requirements. The load distribution
is a function of the lift distribution.

CL

Front view y/s

-b/2

+b/2

Figure 5.32. Elliptical lift distribution over the wing

3. The center of gravity of each wing section (left or right) for an elliptical load distribution is
closer to the fuselage center line. This means a lower wing mass moment of inertia about x-
axis which is an advantage in the lateral control. Basically, an aircraft rolls faster when the
aircraft mass moment of inertia is smaller.
4. The downwash is constant over the span for an elliptical lift distribution [4]. This will
influence the horizontal tail effective angle of attack.
5. For an elliptical lift distribution, the induced angle of attack is also constant along the span.
6. The variation of lift over the span for an elliptical lift distribution is steady (gradually
increasing from tip (zero) to the root (maximum)). This will simplify the wing spar(s) design.

CL CL

CLmax CLmax

0 0
root tip root tip
a. Non-elliptical (tip stalls before the root) b. Elliptical (root stalls before the tip)
Figure 5.33. Lift distribution over the half wing

Total lift generated by a half wing Total lift generated by a half wing
. .
C CL C CL

Bending moment arm

0 0 Bending moment arm tip

root tip root

a. Non-elliptical (load is farther from root) b. Elliptical (load is closer to root)

Figure 5.34. Load distribution over the half wing
The reader may have noticed that if the contribution of the fuselage is added to the wing lift
distribution, the distribution may not be elliptical; due to negligible fuselage lift contribution.
This is true, and more realistic, since in a conventional aircraft, the wing is attached to the
fuselage. What we examined here in this section is an ideal case, and the reader may modify the
lift distribution by considering the fuselage contribution. Figure 5.35 depicts the fuselage
contribution to a low wing configuration. Similar case may be made for the effect of flap of lift
distribution when deflected. Figure 5.36 illustrates the flap contribution to the wing lift
distribution. In principle, the goal in the wing design is to obtain an elliptical wing distribution
without considering the contributions of fuselage, flap, or other components.
 Lift

Fuselage

Low wing

Figure 5.35. The fuselage contribution to the lift distribution of a low wing configuration

Lift

Wing

Flap Flap

Figure 5.36. The flap contribution to the lift distribution

In Section 5.15, a mathematical technique will be introduced to determine the lift and load
distribution along the wing.
SELECTED WING:
SWEEP-BACK WING:
Sweep
Angle
Consider the top view of an aircraft. The angle between a constant percentage chord line
along
the semispan of the wing and the lateral axis perpendicular to the fuselage centerline (y-axis) is
called leading edge sweep (LE). The angle between the wing leading edge and the y-axis of
the aircraft is called leading edge sweep (LE). Similarly, the angle between the wing trailing
edge and the longitudinal axis (y-axis) of the aircraft is called trailing edge sweep (TE). In the
same fashion, the angle between the wing quarter chord line and the y-axis of the aircraft is
called quarter chord sweep (C/4). And finally, the angle between the wing 50 percent chord
line and
the y-axis of the aircraft is 50 percent chord sweep
(C/2).
 If the angle is greater than zero (i.e. wing is inclined toward tail), it is called aft sweep
or simply sweep; otherwise it is referred to as forward sweep. Figure 5.37 shows five wings
with various sweep angles. Figure 5.37a illustrates a wing without sweep, while figures 5.37b
through
5.37d show four swept wing. The leading edge sweep is depicted in the wing of figure 5.37b,
while trailing edge sweep is shown in the wing of figure 5.37e. In addition, the quarter chord
sweep is illustrated in the wing of figure 5.37d, and the 50 percent chord sweep is illustrated
in the wing of figure 5.37c. Most high-speed airplanes designed since the middle 1940s such
as North American F-86 Saber - have swept wings. On sweptback tapered wing, typical of
almost all high speed aircraft, the leading edge has more sweep than the trailing edge.
With reference to the definition of sweep angle, a particular wing may have aft leading
edge sweep, while it has forward trailing edge sweep. Among four types of sweep angles, the
quarter chord sweep and leading edge sweep are the most important ones. The subsonic lift due
angle of attack normally acts at the quarter chord. In addition, the crest is usually close to the
quarter chord. The discussion in this section regarding the characteristics (advantages and
disadvantages) of sweep angle is mostly about leading edge sweep angle, unless
otherwise stated. Basically, a wing is being swept for the following five design goals:
1. Improving the wing aerodynamic features (lift, drag, pitching moment) at
transonic, supersonic and hypersonic speeds by delaying the compressibility effects.
2. Adjusting the aircraft center of gravity.
3. Improving static lateral stability.
4. Impacting longitudinal and directional stability.
5. Increasing pilot view (especially for fighter pilots).

These items will be described in more details in this section. For more information, the reader
needs to refer to technical textbooks that are listed at the end of this chapter. The practical
influence of the sweep angle on various flight features are as follows:
1. The sweep angle, in practice, tends to increase the distance between leading edge
and trailing edge. Accordingly, the pressure distribution will vary.
2. The effective chord length of a swept wing is longer (see Figure 5.38) by a factor of
1/cos (). This makes the effective thickness-to-chord ratio thinner, since the thickness
remains constant.
3. Item 2 can be also translated into the reduction of Mach number (Mn) normal to the
wing leading edge to M cos (). Hence, by sweeping the wing, the flow behaves
as if the airfoil section is thinner, with a consequent increase in the critical Mach
number of the wing. For this reason, a classic design feature used to increase Mcr is to
sweep the wing [6].
4. The effect of the swept wing is to curve the streamline flow over the wing as shown
in figure 5.38. The curvature is due to the deceleration and acceleration of flow in the
plane perpendicular to the quarter chord line. Near the wing tip the flow around the tip
from the lower surface to the upper surface obviously alters the effect of sweep. The
effect is to unsweep the spanwise constant-pressure lines; isobar. To compensate, the
wing tip may be given additional structural sweep.
5. The wing aerodynamic center (ac) is moved aft by the wing aft sweep at about
few percent. The aft movement of the ac with increase in sweptback angle occurs
because the effect of the downwash pattern associated with a swept wing is to raise the
lift coefficient on the outer wing panel relative to the inboard lift coefficient. Since
sweep movers the outer panel aft relative to the inner portion of the wing, the effect
on the center of lift is an aft ward movement. The effect of wing sweep on ac position
is shown in figure 5.39 for aspect ratios of 7 and 10 and for taper ratios of 0.25 and 0.5.

6. The effective dynamic pressure is reduced, although not by as much as in cruise.

7. The sweep angle tends to change the lift distribution as sketched in figure 5.40.
The reason becomes clear by looking at the explanations in item 5. As the sweep angle is
increased, the Oswald efficiency factor (e) will decrease (Equation 5.25).
 The Oswald span efficiency for a straight wing and swept wing are given respectively
by equation 5.27a and 5.27b [12].
e 1.781 0.045AR
0.68
(5.27a)
0.64 0.15 (5.27b)
e 4.611 0.045AR
0.68 3.1
LE

cos
Equation 5.27a is for a straight wing and Equation 5.27b is for a swept wing where
sweep angle is more than 30 degrees. When the Oswald span efficiency is equal to 1, it
indicates that the lift distribution is elliptical, otherwise it is non-elliptic. Equation 5.27 is
not valid for low aspect ratio wings (AR less than 6).

8. The wing maximum lift coefficient can actually increase with increasing sweep angle.
However, the maximum useful lift coefficient actually decreases with increasing sweep
angle, due to loss of control in pitch up situation. Whether or not pitch up occurs depends
not only on the combination of sweep angle and aspect ratio, but also an airfoil type,
twist angle, and taper ratio. Thus, the sweep angle tends to increase stall speed (Vs). The
maximum lift coefficient of the basic wing without high lift device is governed by
the following semi-empirical relationship [13]
Clmax( not eql zero) Cl max 0.86 0.002()
where sweep angle () is in degrees and Clmax denotes the maximum lift coefficient for the
outer panel airfoil section.
9. Wing sweep tends to reduce the wing lift curve slope (CL). A modified equation
based on Prandtl-Glauert approximation is introduced by [13] as follows:

2AR (5.29)
CL


2 AR 2 1 tan 2 M 2
4

10. The aircraft pitching moment will be increased, provided the aircraft cg is forward
of aircraft ac. The reason is that wing aerodynamic center is moving aft with increase in
sweep angle.
11. An aft swept wing tends to have tip stall because of the tendency toward
outboard, spanwise flow. This causes the boundary layer to thicken as it approaches
the tips. For the similar reason, a swept forward wing would tend toward root stall. This
tends to have an influence opposite to that of wing twist.
12. On most aft swept wing aircraft, the wing tips are located behind the aircraft center
of gravity. Therefore, any loss of lift at the wing tips causes the wing center of pressure
to move forward. This in turn will cause the aircraft nose to pitch up. This pitch up
tendency can cause the aircraft angle of attack to increase even further. This may result
in a loss of aircraft longitudinal control. For the similar reason, a forward swept wing
aircraft would exhibit a pitch down tendency in a similar situation.
13. Tip stall on a swept wing is very serious. If the outboard section of a swept wing
stalls, the lift loss is behind the wing aerodynamic center. The inboard portion of
the wing ahead of the aerodynamic center maintains its lift and produces a strong
pitch-up moment, tending to throw the aircraft deeper into the stall. Combined with
 the effect of tip stall on the pitching moment produced by the tail, this effect is very
dangerous and must be avoided by options such as wing twist.
14. A swept wing produce a negative rolling moment because of a difference in
velocity components normal to the leading edge between the left and right wing
sections [14]. The rolling moment due to aft sweep is proportional to the sine of twice
the leading edge sweep angle.
 Cl sin(2 LE
)
This makes the dihedral effect(Cl) more negative and it means that a swept wing has an
inherent dihedral effect. Hence, a swept wing may not need a dihedral or anhedral to
satisfy lateral-directional stability requirements. Thus, the sweep angle tends to reinforce
the dihedral effect. It is interesting to note that making the dihedral effect (Cl) more
negative will make an aircraft more spirally stable. At the same time, the dutch-roll
damping ratio tends to decrease. This presents a design conflict [14] which must be
resolved through some compromise.

15. In supersonic flight, the sweep angle tends to reduce the shock wave drag. The
drag generated by the oblique shock wave is referred to as wave drag, which is
inherently related to the loss of total pressure and increase of entropy across the
oblique shock waves created by the wing. For this purpose, the sweep angle must be
greater (see figure
5.41) than Mach angle,

1
( )
sin- M

1.2 90
where M is the aircraft cruising Mach number. A 20 percent higher sweep angle will
guarantee the low wave drag at supersonic speeds.

16. A wing with high wing loading (W/S) and high quarter-chord sweep (c/4) exhibits a
good ride in turbulence.

At hypersonic speeds (e.g. Space Shuttle), if the oblique shock wave is very close to the wing
leading edge; due to a low sweep angle; it generates very high temperature due to aerodynamic
o
heating (about 3000 F) such that the wing leading edge surface may be melted. Thus, the sweep
angle must be such that wing leading edge surface survive very high temperature. This ensures
that the wing is located inside Mach cone
 17. With the application of the sweep angle, the wing effective span (beff) with be shorter
than original theoretical span. This results in a lower wing mass moment of inertia about
x-axis, which increases the lateral controllability of the aircraft. Hence, the higher the
sweep angle, allows for better maneuverability.
SWEPT BACK WING PARAMETERS:
1.In supersonic flight, the sweep angle tends to reduce the shock wave drag. The
drag generated by the oblique shock wave is referred to as wave drag, which is
inherently related to the loss of total pressure and increase of entropy across the
oblique shock waves created by the wing. For this purpose, the sweep angle must be
greater (see figure
5.41) than Mach angle,

1
( )
sin-1 M

1.2 90
Where, M=1.67
Mach angle(),
(1/1.67)
sin-1

sweep angle()=1.2 90
from above eqn swept back wing angle is ()=63.850
2.effective chord length of swept wing (Ceff)= 1/ cos(
Ceff = 2.26
3.leading edge sweptback(LE)= tan-1[tan(AR)*((1- /(1+ )
Where, AR=3.44
=0.3

substitute all the values in above eqn.

LE= tan-1(2.19)

LE=65.480
4.sweep angle at a reference or half of the chord
c/4 = tan-1[tan(AR)*((1- /(1+ )

c/4= tan-1(1.72)
c/4=59.860

5.The rolling moment due to aft sweep is proportional to the sine of twice the leading edge
sweepangle
 C l sin(2 LE
)

Cl

EFFECTIVE SPAN (beff)

WING PLANFORM

To determine the wing parameters

1. Wing span
2. Root chord
3. Tip chord
4. Equivalent aspect ratio
5. Mean aerodynamic chord
6. Taper ratio
7.wing loading(w/s)

WING LOADING:(W/S)
W/S=0.5*(Vstall)2*(Clmax)*
Where, Vstall=64.43m/s
Clmax=1.7
=1.225Kg/m3
W/S=4322.46N/m3
W/S=440.61Kg/ m3 (at max lift condition)
Wing loading at take off (W/S)TO:
(W/S)TO =0.5*(VTO)2*(Clmax (gross))*
Where, VTO=1.2Vstall
VTO=77.31m/s
=1.225Kg/m3
Clmax (gross)=2.2 (Flap down)
(W/S)TO=8053.78kg/m3
Wing loading at landing (W/S)L:
(W/S)L =0.85 (W/S)TO From, for fighter aircraft WL=0.85WTO
 Where,
(W/S)TO=8053.78kg/m3
(W/S)L=6845.71 kg/m3
WING AREA (S):
S=W0/(W/S)
S=18920/(440.61)
S=42.93m2

WING SPAN(b):
b=(AR*S)0.5
Where aspect ratio is AR=3.44 (from retrived data)
b=12.15m

ROOT CHORD:
2S
Croot = b(1+ ( ) )

where taper ratio( is 0.3 in the order of aspect ratio 3.44

242.93
Croot = 12.15(1+ ( 0.3 ))

= 5.43m
TIP CHORD:

The tip chord is given by,

Ctip = Croot

where taper ratio is 0.3 in the order of aspect ratio 3.34

Ctip = 0.3 5.43

=1.63m

EQUIVALEND ASPECT RATIO:

AReq = A(Mmax)C

Where, A=2.34 , C=-0.13 (for fighter aircraft)

The mach no. =1.67

AReq=2.18

WING AERODYNAMIC CHORD(C):

 1+ ( ) +
C=(2/3)*Croot*( 1+ )

(or)

C=b/AR

C=3.87

VOLUME OF FUEL IN THE WING:

fuel weight( Kg)

= specific gravity of fuel used

5808.44
= 0.721000

=8.06m3

THICKNESS RATIO (t/c):

volume of fuel in the wing = (t/c)*c*0.5*c*0.5b*0.75*2

(t/c)root = 0.118

(t/c)tip = 0.66

THE THICKNESS DISTRIBUTION:

Y=(b/c)*[(1+2 )*(1+ )]

=6.53m

X=b/c

=3.14m

Wing Incidence
The wing incidence (iw) is the angle between fuselage center line and the wing chord line at root
(see figure 5.25). It is sometimes referred to as the wing setting angle (set). The fuselage center
line lies in the plane of symmetry and is usually defined parallel to the cabin floor. This angle
could be selected to be variable during a flight operation, or be constant throughout all flight
operations. If it is selected to vary during flight, there is no need to determine wing setting angle
for the purpose of the aircraft manufacture. However, in this case, the mechanism to vary the
wing incidence during flight phases must be designed. Thus the required wing incidence for
every flight phase must be calculated. The variable wing incidence is not recommended, since
there is a huge safety and operational concerns. To allow for the wing to have a variable setting
angle, there must be a single shaft around which the wing is rotated by pilot control. Such a
mechanism is not 100% reliable for aviation purposes, due to fatigue, weight, and stress
concentration concerns. In the history of aviation, there is only one aircraft (Vought f 8 u
Crusader) whose wing had variable incidence. A flying wing; such as Northrop Grumman B-2
Spirit (Figure 6.8) has no wing incidence, since there is no fuselage, however the wing angle of
attack must be determined for operational purposes.

Wing chord line at root

iw

Fuselage center line

Figure 5.25. Wing setting (incidence) angle

A second, very convenient option is to have a constant wing setting angle. The wing can be
attached to the fuselage via welding, screw, or other manufacturing technique at the specified
setting angle. This is much safer compared with variable setting angle. For this option, the
designer must determine the angle at which the wing is attached to the fuselage. The wing
incidence must satisfy the following design requirements:

1. The wing must be able to generate the desired lift coefficient during cruising flight.
2. The wing must produce minimum drag during cruising flight.
3. The wing setting angle must be such that the wing angle of attack could be safely varied
(in fact increased) during take-off operation.
4. The wing setting angle must be such that the fuselage generates minimum drag during
cruising flight (i.e. the fuselage angle of attack must be zero in cruise).

These design requirements naturally match with the wing airfoil angle of attack
corresponding to the airfoil ideal lift coefficient (see figure 5.26). Therefore, as soon as the wing
ideal lift coefficient is determined, a reference to Cl- graph demonstrates the wing setting angle.
Table 5.7 illustrates the wing incidence for several aircraft.
 cl

cli

set
Figure 5.26. Wing setting angle corresponds with ideal lift coefficient
The typical number for wing incidence for majority of aircraft is between 0 to 4 degrees.
As a general guidance, the wing setting angle in supersonic fighters, is between 0 to 1 degrees; in
GA aircraft, between 2 to 4 degrees; and in jet transport aircraft is between 3 to 5 degrees. It is
very hard to have the exact same incidence on both left and right wing sections. Due to this fact,
when there is an inboard stall, the aircraft will roll. The wing outboard stall is unacceptable; if a
transport aircraft is at approach, and an outboard stall occurs, it is a disaster. The reason is that
the ailerons are not effective to apply roll control.

No Aircraft Type Wing Cruising speed

incidence (knot)
o
1 Airbus 310 Jet transport 5 30' Mach 0.8
o
2 Fokker 50 Prop-driven transport 3 30' 282
o
3 Sukhoi Su-27 Jet fighter 0 Mach 2.35
o
4 Embraer FMB-120 Brasilia Prop-driven transport 2 272
o
5 Embraer Tucano Turbo-Prop Trainer 1 25' 222
o
6 Antonov An-26 Turbo-prop Transport 3 235
o
7 BAe Jetstream 31 Turbo-prop Business 3 282
o
8 BAe Harrier V/STOL close support 1 45' 570
o
9 Lockheed P-3C Orion Prop-driven transport 3 328
o
10 Rockwell/DASA X-31A Jet combat research 0 1485
o
11 Kawasaki Prop-driven transport 0 560
o
12 ATR 42 Prop-driven transport 2 265
o
13 Beech Super King Air B200 Turbo-prop Transport 3 48' 289
o
14 SAAB 340B Turbo-prop Transport 2 250
o
15 AVRO RJ Jet Transport 3 6' 412
o
16 McDonnell MD-11 Jet Transport 5 51 Mach 0.87
17 F-15J Eagle Fighter 0 > Mach 2.2
Table 5.7. Wing setting angle for several aircraft [5]
The wing setting angle may be modified as the design process progresses. For instance, a
fuselage with large unsweep over the rear portion to accept aft cargo doors may have their
minimum drag at a small positive angle of attack. In such cases, the wing incidence will be reduced
accordingly. Another, les fundamental, consideration is that stopping performance during landing
operation to get as much weight on the braked wheels as possible. Thus, there is a benefit to reduce the
wing incidence slightly to the extent that the change is not felt significantly in the cabin. Reducing the
nose gear length will do the same thing. This technique is limited in passenger aircraft because a level
cabin floor is desirable on the ground. But, for fighter aircraft, the level floor is not a design consideration.

POWER PLANT SELECTION:

An aircraft engine is the component of the propulsion system for an aircraft that
generates mechanical power. Aircraft engines are almost always either lightweight
piston engines or gas turbines. This article is an overview of the basic types of aircraft
engines and the design concepts employed in engine development for aircraft.

There are several types among this they are as follows:

Shaft Engine

- Incline Engine

- Rotary Engine

- V-type Engine

- Radial Engine

- Horizontally opposed engine

Jet Engine

- Turbojet

- Turbofan

- Turboprop

THRUST REQUIRED TO PROPEL THE ENGINE:

Thrust is one of the four aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft in flight. it is the force that
pushes an aircraft through the air. Thrust must be greater than drag to achieve the forward acceleration
needed for take off and to increases an aircraft speed in level flight. an aircraft flying at constant speed will
have thrust equal to drag.

the generalized thrust equation is given by,

T= (ma){(1+f)Ue-Ua}+ (Pe-Pa)Ae

The formula used for the thrust calculation is given by

T = Take off weight * Thrust loading

 T = W0 *(T/W0)

Where, W0 = 18920 Kg

T/W = 0.73

T = 18920 * 0.73

T = 13811.6 Kg

T = 135.49kN

For TWIN ENGINE fighter aircraft (2) = 135.49KN

That means one engine producing the thrust of 67.45KN (with after burner)

The corresponding rang engine selected is given by (power plant)

S. Engine name Dry thrust Wet thrust(after burner)

NO (KN) (KN)
1 General electric F414 55.6 75
2 Kaveri engine(k-9) 45 75
3 M52-P2 64 95
4 M88-2 50 75

SELECTED ENGINE: KAVERI (K-9)

History:

program:

In 1896 the Indian defence ministrys defence research and developed organization(DRDO)
was authorized to launch a programmed to develop an indigenous power plant for the light combat aircraft.
It had already been decided early in the LCA programmed to equip the prototype aircraft with the general
electric F404-GE-F2J3 afterburning turbofan engine , but if this parallel program was successful, it was
intended to equip the production aircraft with this indigenous engine.

the DRDO assigned the lead development responsibility to its gas turbine research
establishment (GTRE), which had some experience in develop in jet engines. It had developed the GTX37-
14U afterburning turbojet, which first jet engine to be designed entirely in India.

A turbofan derivative, the GT37-14UB, followed. the GTRE Returned to turbojet technology
with the greatly redesigned, but unsatisfactory, GTX-35.

For the LCA programmed the GTRE would again take up a turbofan design which it designated
the GTX-35VS KAVERI (Named after the kaveri river). Full scale development was authorized in April
1989 in what was then expected to be a 93 month programmed projected to cost 3.82 billion (taller ). A
new engine typically cost up to 2(taller)billion to develop, according to engine industry executives.

DEVELOPMENT:
The original plans called for 17 prototype test engines to be built. The first test engine consisted of only the
core module (named "Kabini"), while the third engine was the first example fitted with variable inlet guide
vanes (IGV) on the first three compressor stages. The Kabini core engine first ran in March 1995. Test runs
of the first complete prototype Kaveri began in 1996 and all five ground-test examples were in testing by
1998; the initial flight tests were planned for the end of 1999, with its first test flight in an LCA prototype to
follow the next year. However, progress in the Kaveri development programme was slowed by both political
and technical difficulties.

In 2002, little information had been publicly released concerning the nature of the Kaveri's technical
challenges, but it was known that the Kaveri had a tendency to "throw" turbine blades, which required
securing blades from SNECMA (as well as digital engine control systems).

Continuing development snags with the Kaveri resulted in the 2003 decision to procure the uprated F404-
GE-IN20 engine for the eight pre-production Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft and two naval
prototypes. The ADA awarded General Electric a US$105 million contract in February 2004 for
development engineering and production of 17 F404-IN20 engines, delivery of which is to begin in
2006.which is to begin in 2006.

In mid-2004, the Kaveri failed its high-altitude tests in Russia, ending the last hopes of introducing it with
the first production Tejas aircraft.[7] This unfortunate development led the Indian Ministry of Defence
(MoD) to order 40 more IN20 engines in 2005 for the first 20 production aircraft, and to openly appeal for
international participation in completing development of the Kaveri. In February 2006, the ADA awarded a
contract to SNECMA for technical assistance in working out the Kaveri's problems.

In Dec. 2004, it was revealed that the GTRE had spent over 13 billion (US$211.9 million) on developing the
Kaveri. Furthermore, the Cabinet Committee on Security judged that the Kaveri would not be installed on
the LCA before 2012, and revised its estimate for the projected total development cost to 28.39 billion
(US$463 million).

In April 2005, "There is good progress" on the development of the Kaveri engine, M. Natarajan, Scientific
Adviser to the Defence Minister told The Hindu. "We are planning to integrate a prototype Kaveri engine
into one of the LCA prototypes sometime in 2007 to understand the nuances of such a complex powerpack,"
he further told The Hindu.[10]In Feb. 2006, the US experts told pti that "Kaveri is truly a world-class
engine." "We are ready to join in partnership with the Defence Research and Development Organisation to
make Kaveri work," General William J Begert of Pratt and Whitney, told PTI. But DRDO secretary Natrajan
told PTI that "But Kaveri is and would remain an Indian project.

On 5 February 2007, Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister M Natarajan said nearly 90 to 93 per cent of the
expected performance had been realised and the government had recently floated an expression of interest to
seek partners to move the programme further.Till 11 February 2008, Kaveri had undergone 1,700 hours of
tests and has been sent twice to Russia to undergo high-altitude tests for which India has no facility. The
engine is also being tested to power the next generation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

In July 2007, GTRE divided Kaveri program into two separate programs. They are K9+ Program and K 10
Program. K9+ Program is a program to prove concept of complete design and gain hand-on experience of
aircraft engine integration and flight trials to cover a defined truncated flight envelope prior to the launch of
production version of K10 Standard engine. While K 10 Program is a Joint Venture (JV) partnership with a
foreign engine manufacturer. K 10 program engine will be final production standard Kaveri engine and shall
have less weight and more reheat thrust along with certain other changes to meet the original design intent.
In September 2008, it was announced that the Kaveri would not be ready in time for the Tejas, and that an
in-production powerplant would have to selected. Development of the Kaveri by the GTRE would continue
for other future applications. It was announced in November 2008 that the Kaveri engine will be installed on
LCA by December 2009,apparently for tests only.[citation needed]

In February 2009, it was published in flightglobal that the GTRE had spent 20 billion (US$326.0 million) in
developing the Kaveri engine since 1989, but the powerplant is still overweight and does not have the
21,000-22,500 lb of thrust (93-100 kN) that its customer requires. Natarajan told Flightglobal that the
programme will not be scrapped. "A team of air force engineers is working with GTRE and ADA in
addressing the issues. As an ongoing project, the air force will be involved at the point of integrating the
upgraded version of the engine with the aircraft," he told Flightglobal. "Discussions with Snecma have been
going on for two years," he further adds. "Development and flight-testing of the new engine will take at least
five to six years."

In December 2009, Kaveri-Snecma JV was trying Back-door Entry In LCA. The People's Post reported that
GTRE has agreed to de-link Kaveri from LCA, but has put in a proposal that when the first 40 GE 404
engines in the initial two squadrons of the LCA for the IAF, get phased out should be replaced by the
Kaveri-Snecma engine, in future.

On 3 May 2010, about 1880 hrs of engine test had been completed on various prototypes of Kaveri Engine.
A total of eight Kaveri Engines and four core engines have been manufactured, assembled and tested. High
Altitude testing on core engine has been completed successfully.

In June 2010, the Kaveri engine based on Snecmas new core, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine
that powers the French Rafale fighter, providing 83-85 Kilonewtons (KN) of maximum thrust is being
considered an option by DRDO.In July 2010, according to Vinayak shetty, Tejas aircraft will be Integrated
with Kaveri engine and will be flying on board a Tejas Air frame by early 2011 or some time later in the
year.

A press release in August 2010, stated that GTRE with the help of Central Institute of Aviation Motors
(CIAM) of Russia is trying to match objective of fine tuning of Kaveri engine performance. Until August
2010, one major milestone which is altitude testing, simulating Kaveri engine performance at different
altitude and achieving speed of Mach 1 had been completed successfully. One of Kaveri prototype (K9) was
successfully flight tested at Gromov Flight Research Institute in Moscow, on 4 November 2010.

The test was conducted at the Flying Test Bed at Gromov, with the engine running right from the take-off to
landing, flying for a period of over one hour up to an altitude of 6,000 metres. The engine helped the IL-76
aircraft test bed fly at speeds of 0.6 mach in its maiden flight, according to the Defence Research and
Development Organisation (DRDO).

"The engine control, performance and health during the flight were found to be excellent. With this test,
Kaveri engine has completed a major milestone of development programme," it added. After completing
these milestone Kaveri engine is flight-worthy.[21][22] The Kaveri engine was tested for the first time on a
flying testbed and the trials were a success.

Till April 2011, the first phase of Kaveri engine FTB trials have been completed successfully and further
tests will continue from May 2011 onwards. The flight tests successfully carried out so far are up to 12 km
maximum altitude and a maximum forward speed of 0.7 Mach No

In its annual report for 2010-11, The Comptroller and Auditor General of India noted that 18.92 billion
(US$308.4 million) had been spent on development, with only two out of the six milestones prescribed
having been met. Among its deficiencies, CAG says the engine weight was higher than the design
specifications (1235 kg against 1100 kg) and there was no progress on developing the compressor, turbine
and engine control systems.

On 21 December 2011, "9 prototypes of Kaveri engines and 4 prototypes of Kabini (Core) engines have
been developed" told Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in Rajya Sabha. Further on, 2050 hours of test flight
of engines has been taken place so far. 27 flights for 55 hours duration have been completed on testbed IL-
76 aircraft as well as 12 km maximum forward altitude and a maximum forward speed of 0.7 Mach No had
been recorded

CURRENT STATUS:

The DRDO currently hopes to have the Kaveri engine ready for use on the Tejas in the latter half of the
2010s decade and according to latest news still research on it is going on and date to complete its research
has been extended to 2011-2012.

In recent times, the engine has been able to produce thrust of 82 Kilo Newton but what the IAF and other
stake-holders desire is power between 9095 KN", senior officials told The Hindu. "On using the Kaveri
for the LCA, they said the engine would be fitted on the first 40 LCAs to be supplied to the IAF when they
come for upgrades to the DRDO in the latter half of the decade." Article further adds that in 2011,50-60 test
flights will be carried out to mature the engine in terms of reliability, safety and airworthiness.

India's Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) aims to integrate the Kaveri powerplant with the
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Tejas fighter within the next nine months. A test aircraft operated by
India's Aeronautical Development Agency will be used for the integration, says an industry source familiar
with the programme. If the integration is successful, the GTRE hopes to see a Tejas fly with a Kaveri
powerplant by the end of 2013.

In Lok Sabha on 10 December. 2012 Defence Minister A K Antony gave an update on the progress made by
the Kaveri Engine Development Project as follows:

So far, 9 prototypes of Kaveri Engine and 4 prototypes of Kabani (Core) Engine have been
developed.
2200 hours of test (ground and altitude conditions) has been conducted.
The following two major milestones have been achieved:
Successful completion of Official Altitude Testing (OAT) ; and
Demonstration of First Block of flight of Kaveri Engine in Flying Test Bed (FTB).
Kaveri Engine was integrated with IL-76 Aircraft at Gromov Flight Research Institute (GFRI),
Russia and flight test was successfully carried out up to 12 km maximum altitude and maximum
forward speed of 0.7 Mach No. Twenty Seven flights for 57 hours duration have been completed.

DRDO demonstrated its technological capability in aero-engine technology. This has been a great
achievement in the aerospace community of the country, when the first ever indigenously developed fighter
aircraft engine was subjected to flight testing. Tacit knowledge acquired by the DRDO scientists during this
project will also be applied for further aerospace technology. Kaveri spin-off engine can be used as
propulsion system for Indian Unmanned Strike Air Vehicle (USAV).
In January 2013, the GTRE director said that they are abandoning the plan for co-development with Snecma,
but they still need an overseas partner, which will be selected through competitive bidding.

APPLICATION:

Plans are also already under way for derivatives of the Kaveri, including a non-afterburning version
for an advanced jet trainer and a high-bypass-ratio turbofan based on the Kaveri core, named as
Kabini.[31]
GTX-35VS Kaveri:
HAL Tejas (planned for production models)
Kaveri Engine for LCA
Name of the Project / Programme -- Kaveri Engine for LCA[18]
Date of Sanction30 Mar 1989[18]
Original Probable Date of Completion (PDC) -- 31 Dec 1996[18]
Revised PDC31 Dec 2010[18]
Technologies / Products developed and status of Projects / Programmes on 3 May 2010About
1880 hrs on engine test has been completed on various prototypes of Kaveri Engine. A total of eight
Kaveri Engines and four core engines have been manufactured, assembled and tested. High Altitude
testing on core engine has been completed successfully.
HAL Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (conceptual)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Derivatives:
The Indian government plans to adapt and further develop the Kaveri engine design and technology
to create a gas-turbine powerplant for armoured fighting vehicles such as the Arjun tank.
Kaveri Marine Gas Turbine (KMGT), a recently developed derivative of the GTX-35VS Kaveri
engine for ships.
Indian Railways has expressed interest in utilizing Kaveri to power locomotives.

Type : After burning Turbofan

 Length : 3490 mm

Diameter : 910 mm

Dry weight : 45kN (of their 900Kg weight)

Afterburner(Wet thrust) : 70KN (of their 900Kg weight)

T/W Ratio : 7.25:1(wet thrust)

Blade : DS blades

Manufacturer: gas turbine research establishment

National origin: INDIA

First run: 1996

Major application: originally designed for HAL Tejas

Stage : 1. Six stage core high pressure compressor with variable inlet guide vanes

2. There stage low pressure compressor with transonic blading

Combustion chamber: annular combustion chamber

Fan pressure ratio: 4:1

Overall pressure ratio: 27:1

figure: T/W VsW/S

AERODYNAMIC ESTIMATION:

1. Lift estimation
2. drag estimation
LIFT ESTIMATION:

LIFT: lift is the one of the aerodynamic force.

Component of aerodynamic force generated on aircraft perpendicular to flight

direction.

LIFT COEFFICIENT (CL):

Amount of lift generated depends on:

Platform area (S), air density (), flight speed (V), lift coefficient (CL)
Lift = (1/2 V2)SCL = qSCL
CL is a measure of lifting effectiveness and mainly depends upon:

Section shape, platform geometry, angle of attack (), compressibility effects (Mach
number), viscous effects (Reynolds number).

Generation of Lift:

Aerodynamic force arise from two normal source:

- Variable pressure distribution.
- Shear stress distribution.
Shear stress primarily contributes to overall drag force on aircraft.
Lift mainly due to pressure distribution, especially on main lifting surface, i.e. wing.
Require (relatively) low pressure on upper surface and higher pressure on lower
surface.
 Any shape can be made to produce lift if either cambered or inclined to flow direction.

L F

V
Mo

ac D

The lift equation is given by,

L=0.5**V2*S*Cl
LIFT AT CRUISE:
Where, at cruise speed
Density ()=2.7975 slug/ft3=0.144 kg/m3
wing area S=42.93m2
velocity=568.91m/s
coefficiend of lift= 1.7
therefore, L=1.7 MN
LIFT AT TAKE-OFF:
Where, at take off
Density () = 1.225kg/m3
wing area S=42.93m2
velocity (VTO) = 1.1*Vstall
Vstall = 70.87m/s
VTO=77.31
coefficient of lift at take off (Clmaxgross) = 2.2 (flap extended and kept at take off position of 20o)
Therefore L = 345.74 KN
With, gear down
flap take off
power is maximum
LIFT AT LANDING:
Where, at landing condition
wing area S= 42.93m2
Density()=1.225kg/m3
coefficient of lift at landing: Clmax(L) = Clmax(TO)/(Velocity take off coefficient)2
Velocity take off coefficient = 1.2
Clmax(L)=1.52
Velocity at landing (VL)= {(W/S)L/(0.5** Clmax(L))}0.5
Where (W/S)L= 6845.11 kg/m3
VL=85.75m/s

Therefore,
L=293.88KN
With, gear up
flap landing
power is minimum

DRAG ESTIMATION

DRAG:

Drag is the revolved component of the complete aerodynamic force which is parallel
to the flight direction (or relative on coming airflow).
It always acts to oppose the direction of motion.
It is undesirable component of the aerodynamic force while lift is the desirable
component.

Drag coefficient (CD):

Amount of drag generated depends on:

platform area (S), air density (), flight speed (V), drag coefficient(CD)

CD is a measure of aerodynamic efficiency and mainly depends upon:

Section shape, platform geometry, angle of attack (), compressibility effect
(Mach number), viscous effects (Reynolds number).

Drag components:
Skin friction:

Due to shear stresses produced in boundary layer.

Significantly more for turbulent than laminar types of boundary layers.

Form(pressure) Drag:

Due to static pressure distribution around body component resolving in direction of

motion.
o Sometimes considered separately as forebody and rear (base) drag components

Wave drag:

Due to the presence of shock wave at transonic and supersonic speeds.

Result of both direct shock losses and the influence waves on the boundary
layer.
Often decomposed into portions related to:
Lift.
Thickness or Volume.
Typical streamlining effect:

Lift induced (or) trailing vortex drag:

The lift induced drag is the component which has the included to account for the 3-D nature
of the flow (finite span) and generation of the wing lift.

DRAG POLAR ESTIMATION:

assuming a parabolic drag polar, the drag coefficiend of an airplane can be written as:
CD= CDo+CL2/eAR
The zero lift coefficiend ,CDo can be expressed as:
CDo=f/S
where f- equivalend parasite area
S-Wing area
it is possible to related equivalend parasite area ,f to wetted area. and its shown in fig

The value of a &b depend on Cf value

where c and d value for fighter is given by

C=-o.1289, d=0.7506 W0=18920kg
There fore substitute all the values in above
Swet=1206.02
To find f:
from above eqn with table
a= -2.5229 , b= 1.0000
f=3.61
The zero lift drag eqn is given by
CDo =f/S
wing area=42.93m2

CDo =0.0842

CD= CDo+CL2/eAR
Where , 1/ eAR=K
K= 1/*0.7*3.44 [assuming e=0.7]
K=0.132
The above eqn become

CD=0.0842+0.132CL2
CALCULATION:

The general drag equation is given by,

D=(1/2) *V*S*CD
CD=CD0+K(Cl)2

The drag polar is given by

CD=0.0842+0.132CL2

Therefore above equation become

D=((1/2)pV2S)( 0.0842+0.132CL2)

Drag at Crusie:

P=0.144kg/m3 (at cruising altitude of 16870m)

V=568.91m/s

S=42.93kg/m2

CL(Cruise)=1.7(from the wing and aerofoil estimation)

Substituting all the values in the general drag equation,

D=((1/2)0.144x568.912x42.93)( 0.0842+0.132(1.7)2)

Drag at Cruise D=465.87KN

Drag at Take-off:
Where, at take off
Density () = 1.225kg/m3
wing area S=42.93m2
velocity (VTO) = 1.2*Vstall
Vstall = 64.43m/s
VTO=77.31
coefficient of lift at take off (Clmaxgross) = 2.2 (flap extended and kept at take off position of 20o)
Wher the ground effect is consider CD=CD0+ K(Cl)2

For calculating , we use the formula,

=(16 h/b)/(1+(16h/b)2)

Where h=height above ground=5.045m,

b=wing span=12.15m.

=(16x5.045/12.15)/(1+(16x5.045/12.15)2)=0.147

Substituting all the values in the general drag equation,

D = ((1/2)1.225x77.312x42.93)( 0.0842+0.01943(2.2)2)

Therefore, Drag at Take-off ,D = 28.00KN

With, gear down

flap take off
power is maximum

Drag at Landing:
Where,
wing area S= 42.93m2
Density()=1.225kg/m3
coefficient of lift at landing: Clmax(L) = Clmax(TO)/(Velocity take off coefficient)2
Velocity take off coefficient = 1.2
Clmax(L)=1.52
Velocity at landing (VL)= {(W/S)L/(0.5** Clmax(L))}0.5
Where (W/S)L= 6845.11 kg/m3
VL=85.75m/s
Therefore, Substituting all the values in the general drag equation,

D = ((1/2)1.225x85.752x42.93)( 0.0842+0.132(1.52)2)

Drag at Landing, D=75.24 KN With, gear up

flap landing

power is minimum

CRUISING FLIGHT PERFORMANCE:

CALCULATION OF VELOCITY AT MINIMUM THRUST REQUIRED:

VTR(min)= {(2/ )(k/ CD0)0.5(W/S)}0.5

Where = 0.144kg/m3

CD0=0.0842

W/S=4322.46N/m3
W/S=440.61Kg/ m3 (at max lift condition)
K=0.132
VTR(min) = {(2/ 0.144)(0.132/ 0.0842)0.5(440.16)}0.5
VTR(min)= (7654.38)0.5
VTR(min)=87.48m/s
CALCULATION OF MAX LIFT TO DRAG RATIO (L/D)max:
(L/D)max={1/(4* CD0*K)}0.5
(L/D)max={1/(4* 0.0842*0.132)}0.5
(L/D)max= 4.74
CALCULATION OF VELOCITY AT MAX LIFT TO DRAG RATIO V(L/D)max:
V(L/D)max= VTR(min)
Therefore
V(L/D)max=87.48m/s
THRUST REQUIRED MINIMUM(TR)min:
(TR)min =W0/(L/D)max
whrer, W0=18920kg
(TR)min= 39.15 KN
POWER REQUIRED MINIMUM(Pr):
for level unaccelerated flight
power = Energy/time =force*(distance/time)
=F*V
Pr=TRmin*V
Where V = 568.91m/s
TRmin= 39.15 KN
Pr=39.15*568.91
Pr= 22.27 MN m/s

THRUST AVILABLE:
TA=135.39KN (from engine selection)

POWER AVAILABLE PA:

PA = TA*V
Where TA=135.49KN , V=568.91
PA = 135.49*103*568.91
PA = 77.08MN m/s

MAX RATE OF CLIMB (R/C)max:

 (R/C)max={(W/S)Z/3**CD0}0.5{T/W}3/2{1-(Z/6)-(3/(2*(T/W)2(L/D)2Z))}
Where, z=1+{1+[3/(L/D)2max(T/W)2]}0.5
(L/D)max= 4.7
T/W = 0.73
=1.225Kg/m3
CD0=o.0842
(W/S)TO=8053.78kg/m3
Therefore,
z=1+{1+[3/(4.74)2max(0.73)2]}0.5
Z=2.11

(R/C)max={(8053)2.11/3*1.225*0.0842}0.5{0.73}3/2{1-(2.11/6)-(3/
(2*(0.73)2(4.74)2*2.11))}

(R/C)max=103.26m/s
VELOCITY AT MAX RATE OF CLIMB:
V(R/C)max={[(T/W)(W/S)Z]/[3** CD0]}0.5
Substituting all the values in above eqn

V(R/C)max={[(0.73)(8053.78)2.11]/[3*1.225* 0.0842]}0.5
V(R/C)max=200.22m/s
LEVEL TURN:
Level turn is one in which the curved flight path in horizontal plane parallel to the plane of
around (i,e) in level turn altitude remain constant.
The performance characteristics of turning flight are
1.turn ratius(R)
2.turn rate ()

Turn radius:

R=V2/(g(n2-1)0.5)

Where, n=L/W=9.16

V=568.91m/s

g=9.81 (acceleration due to gravity)

R= 3623.58m

Turn rate ():

 = (g(n2-1)0.5)/V

=0.15 rad
LANDING PERFORMANCE:
let examine the constraint imposed by the specified landing distance the landing distance is the sum
of approach distance Sa, The flair distance Sf, and the ground roll Sg,following the discussion we have for
the path radius during flare.
Flare velocity:
Vf=1.15*Vstall
Vf=1.15*64.43
Vf=74.09m/s
Flare height:
flare height hf is given by,
hf=R(1-cosa)
Where, R=3623.58m
a=sin-1([1/(L/D)]-(T/W))
a= -31.260
hf=3623.58*(1-cos(-31.26))
hf=526.06m
Approach distance:
The approach distance required to clear the50ft(15.24m) distance is,
Sa=(50- hf)/(tan a )
sub all value in above eqn
Sa=841.48m
Flare distance(Sf):
Sf=R*sin a
sub all value in above eqn
Sf=-1880.74m
Ground roll distance:
Sg= j*N{(2W/SClmax}0.5+[(j2(W/S))/gClmaxVTD)
N=3s-time increment in ground roll
VTD=77.31m/s
W0=18920kg
CLmax=1.52
W/S=6845.71kg/m3

=1.225kg/m3
j=1.1
sub all the values in above eqn
Sg=307.08m

The total landing distance Ld=Sa+Sg+Sf

Ld = 307-1880+841.48
Ld=-732.18m [negative sign indicate the direction of
landing(fighter-return)]
Ld=732.18m

PERFORMANCE CURVES:
1.Velocity Vs Thrust required
2.Velocity Vs power required
3.Velocity Vs rate of climb
4.Velocity Vs L/D ratio
 5.Cl Vs Cd
6.Velocity Vs Thrust available
7.Velocity Vs power available
8.Velocity Vs Cl
9.Velocity Vs Cd

VELOCITY Vs THRUST AVIALABLE:

V = 568.91m/s Vs TA=135.49KN

VELOCITY THRUST AVAILABLE

(m/s) (KN)
56.891 135.4
113.787 121.86
170.673 108.32
277.564 94.78
284.455 81.24
341.346 67.70
398.232 54.169
455.128 40.629
512.09 27.09
568.91 13.549

Velocity Vs Thrust available

150

100

Thrust available (KN)

50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
velocity (m/s)

VELOCITY VS THRUST REQUIRED:

V = 568.91m/s Vs TR=39.15KN

VELOCITY THRUST REQUIRED

(m/s) (KN)
56.891 3.915
113.787 7.83
170.673 11.745
277.564 15.66
284.455 19.575
 341.346 23.49
398.232 27.405
455.128 31.32
512.09 35.23
568.91 39.15

Velocity Vs Thrust required

150

100
Thrust required (KN)
50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
velocity (m/s)

VELOCITY Vs POWER AVIALABLE:

V = 568.91m/s Vs PA=77.08(MN)m/s

VELOCITY POWER AVIALABLE

(m/s) (MN)m/s
56.891 77.08
113.787 69.372
170.673 61.664
277.564 53.956
284.455 46.248
341.346 38.54
398.232 30.832
455.128 23.124
512.09 15.416
568.91 7.708

Velocity Vs power available

150

100
power avialable (MN)m/s
50

0
0 200 400 600
velocity (m/s)

VELOCITY Vs POWER REQUIRED

 V = 568.91m/s Vs PR=22.27 (MN)m/s

VELOCITY POWER REQUIRED

(m/s) (MN)m/s
56.891 2.227
113.787 4.454
170.673 6.681
277.564 8.908
284.455 11.135
341.346 13.362
398.232 15.589
455.128 17.816
512.09 20.043
568.91 22.27

Velocity Vs power required

150

100

power Required (MN)m/s

50

0
0 200 400 600
velocity (m/s)

Velocity Vs power required

150

100

power Required (MN)m/s

50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

velocity (m/s)

VELOCITY Vs (R/C)max:
 V = 568.91m/s Vs (R/C)max =103.26m/s

VELOCITY (R/C)max
(m/s) m/s
56.891 10.326
113.787 20.652
170.673 30.984
277.564 41.310
284.455 51.63
341.346 61.96
398.232 72.28
455.128 82.61
512.09 92.94
568.91 103.26

Velocity Vs (R/C)max
150

100
R/C max (m/s)
50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
velocity (m/s)

VELOCITY Vs (L/D)max:

V = 568.91m/s Vs (L/D)max =4.7 NO UNIT

VELOCITY (L/D)max
(m/s)
56.891 0.47
113.787 0.94
170.673 1.41
277.564 1.88
284.455 2.34
341.346 2.82
398.232 3.29
455.128 3.76
512.09 4.23
568.91 4.7
 Velocity Vs (L/D)max
150

100
L/D max
50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
velocity (m/s)

COEFFICIENT OF LIFT VS DRAG [CL Vs CD]max:

CL=1.7 Vs CD=0.46

CL CD
0.34 0.093
0.88 0.18
1.02 0.27
1.36 0.37
1.7 0.46

(CL)Vs (CD) max

5
4
3
(CD)max 2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
CLmax

VELOCITY Vs CLmax:

VELOCITY CL
(m/s)
117.382 0.34
234.764 0.88
352.146 1.02
469.528 1.36
586.91 1.7
 VelocityVs (CL) max
5
4
3
(CL)max 2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
VELOCITY m/s

VELOCITY Vs CDmax:

VELOCITY CD
(m/s)
117.382 0.093
234.764 0.18
352.146 0.27
469.528 0.37
586.91 0.46

VelocityVs (CD) max

5
4
3
(CD)max 2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
VELOCITY m/s

CENTRA OF GRAVITY CALCULATION:

The c.g. calculation of an aircraft is very important. This c.g. must be properly located so that the
airplane will be stable during its operation over different loading schedules. Initially for fully loaded
condition, the c.g. of the individual component in the fuselage and the wing is found out. From that the c.g.
of the fuselage and the wings are estimated. The c.g. of the aircraft is generally fixed at 0.3c by adjusting the
location of the wing on the fuselage. After fixing the wing the c.g. is calculated for different configurations.
The c.g. calculation is done to see how much the c.g. shifts either forward or backward. The allowable shifts
are only 5% over the basic value of 30% mach.

The length of fighter L=17.67m

S.No Components Weight (W) Arm(X) Moment(WX)

1 Crew 1785.42 1.7 3035.214

2 Fuel 56980.79 8.23 468951.90

3 Armmaments 39240 11 431640

4 Engine 63000 8.23 518490

161006.21 1422117.114

Using the above tabulation values, we obtain the location of the centre of gravity of the fuselage section
from the nose of the airplane

WX/W=8.835m

Centre of Gravity is 8.835m