Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2017), 30(2): 738751

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

Process of establishing design requirements and

selecting alternative configurations for conceptual
design of a VLA
Bo-Young Bae a, Sangho Kim a,*, Jae-Woo Lee a, Nhu Van Nguyen b,
Bong-Cheul Chung b

a
Department of Aerospace Information Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
b
Konkuk Aerospace Design, Airworthiness Research Institute, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea

Received 18 January 2016; revised 11 August 2016; accepted 27 October 2016

Available online 17 March 2017

KEYWORDS
Aircraft conguration;
Conceptional design;
Design requirements;
Requirement analysis;
Very light aircraft (VLA)
Abstract In this study, a process for establishing design requirements and selecting alternative con-
gurations for the conceptual phase of aircraft design has been proposed. The proposed process
uses system-engineering-based requirement-analysis techniques such as objective tree, analytic hier-
archy process, and quality function deployment to establish logical and quantitative standards.
Moreover, in order to perform a logical selection of alternative aircraft congurations, it uses
advanced decision-making methods such as morphological matrix and technique for order prefer-
ence by similarity to the ideal solution. In addition, a preliminary sizing tool has been developed to
check the feasibility of the established performance requirements and to evaluate the ight perfor-
mance of the selected congurations. The present process has been applied for a two-seater very
light aircraft (VLA), resulting in a set of tentative design requirements and two families of VLA
congurations: a high-wing conguration and a low-wing conguration. The resulting set of design
requirements consists of three categories: customer requirements, certication requirements, and
performance requirements. The performance requirements include two mission requirements for
the ight range and the endurance by reecting the customer requirements. The ight performances
of the two conguration families were evaluated using the sizing tool developed and the low-wing
conguration with conventional tails was selected as the best baseline conguration for the VLA.
2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author. 1. Introduction

E-mail address: kimsh85@konkuk.ac.kr (S. Kim).
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
The life-cycle of an aircraft is divided into the following
phases: concept studies on customer requirements, conceptual
design, preliminary design, detailed design and development,
production, operation and maintenance, decommissioning,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2017.02.018
1000-9361 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative congurations
and recycling. The conceptual design phase includes several
important tasks such as the design requirement analysis, the
feasibility study of development, the demand forecasting and
market analysis, the conceptual aircraft conguration design
and subsystem denition, and the establishment of initial plan-
ning for aircraft development. Accordingly the conceptual
design phase is most inuential in the aircraft life-cycle.
Although relatively small investments are necessary during
the conceptual design phase, large efforts should be made since
70%90% of a design is dened in this phase. Therefore,
development of a logical and efcient conceptual design
method will be of great importance. In the conventional con-
ceptual design approaches, the process of selecting the best
conguration typically employs a trial and error method based
on the experience of a designer. This increases the development
time and cost due to the large number of design iterations.
Efcient conceptual design requires a series of well-
organized processes that enable designers to make logical
and objective decisions on an aircraft design. Many method-
ologies that can be applied to such processes have been pre-
sented in the eld of industrial engineering, but there have
been very few developments and applications of the method-
ologies in the conceptual design phase of aerospace engineer-
ing. Mavris et al.1,2 successfully established an objective and
efcient design process. They excluded a designers subjective
judgment from their proposed aircraft conceptual design pro-
cess, which includes concept establishment, selection of alter-
native congurations, and an assessment process. Park3
improved Mavris design process for optimum alternative con-
gurations that reect user requirements. Yoon et al.4 pre-
sented an optimum baseline aircraft conguration selection
process using a decision-making model that considers both air-
worthiness certication regulations and user requirements dur-
ing the concept design phase.
In this study, a systematic design requirement analysis,
which is an early stage of the aircraft conceptual design phase,
is conducted to produce the design requirements considering
user requirements, marketability, and certication regulations.
Moreover, a baseline conguration design process is estab-
lished to suggest objective and reasonable baseline congura-
tions that satisfy the resulting design requirements.
For aircraft design purposes, we have strived to make a log-
ical ow in order to select the design requirements and baseline
congurations. In addition, the internal data of the process
were consistently managed to reect the design requirements
properly. A two-seater very light aircraft (VLA) was selected
for the present study because it is anticipated that two-seater
VLAs will be in demand as aero leisure sports are becoming
popular domestically and globally.
Fig. 1 Quantitative requirements analysis methods.
739
For the requirement analysis, the voices of users, designers,
and clients were collected through a survey of various groups of
people including VLA pilots, students and faculty in aerospace
engineering, and aviation company engineers. The proposed
process of selecting baseline congurations used the quantita-
tive requirements analysis methods (see Fig. 1). It also used ini-
tial sizing and a performance analysis respectively to generate
the baseline aircraft congurations and to evaluate whether
they satisfy the mission and performance requirements.
2. Building model
2.1. Brainstorming
The systematic method proposed in this paper uses a series of
decision-making models to address the design requirements
and the design alternatives in a more logical, objective, and
quantitative manner.5 In this section, the decision-making
models used in the present method are briey described.
2.2. Affinity diagram
This method is a long-term human intellectual activity to orga-
nize data by grouping the data into groups based on natural
relationships. The term afnity diagram was devised by Jiro
Kawakita in the 1960s and has been used as a business tool to
organize ideas and data.6,7 The method allows a large number
of ideas stemming from brainstorming to be sorted into groups
for review and analysis.
2.3. Tree diagram
The tree diagram8 is a graphical method that lays out a hierar-
chical structure of objectives and measures systematically to
nd the most appropriate measures in order to achieve the
goals. In general, this method is used for spreading out the
subordinate goals of the primary goal or for breaking down
a large-scale project into progressively smaller feasible tasks.
2.4. Analytic hierarchy process
A psychology and mathematics based method, the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP), is a multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) method for making decisions about complicated
problems rationally and efciently. The AHP was developed
by Satty in the 1970s based on the fact that the brain uses a
phased or hierarchical analytic process when a human makes
a decision.9
740
During the AHP, the entire decision-making process is
divided into several phases and each phase is analyzed to make
a nal decision. Users rstly decompose their decision problem
into a hierarchy of more easily comprehended sub-problems.
Once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers systematically
rank the order of importance of the elements in the same hier-
archical level by performing pairwise comparisons with respect
to their impacts on an element above them in the hierarchy.
Since the AHP converts these evaluations into numerical val-
ues that can be processed until numerical priorities are calcu-
lated for each of the decision alternatives, it has been widely
used for MCDM problems.
2.5. Quality function deployment
Quality function deployment (QFD)10 was originally devel-
oped as a quality assurance method by Mizuno and Akao in
199411 and has been used in a wide variety of services and con-
sumer products. QFD is described as a method to transform
user demands into design quality, to deploy the functions
forming quality, to deploy methods for achieving the design
quality into subsystems and component parts, and ultimately
to specic elements of the manufacturing process. Quality
methods prior to QFD focused on reducing internal defects,
but QFD focuses on transforming customer needs into engi-
neering characteristics of a service or product. The house of
quality (HOQ) tool is used to materialize QFD (see Fig. 2).
2.6. Morphological matrix
Morphological analysis12 is a structured or systematic method
developed by Fritz Zwicky (1967, 1969) for exploring all the
possible solutions to a multi-dimensional, non-quantied com-
plex problem.13 The method uses a morphological matrix to
analyze and list the major components of a system and to gen-
erate and identify alternative congurations of the system by
exploring possible combinations of the components listed. A
designer can determine some possible alternatives, eliminating
the illogical solution combinations.
2.7. Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
The technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal
solution (TOPSIS)14 was rstly developed and introduced by
Fig. 2 House of quality (HOQ).10
B.-Y. Bae et al.
Hwang and Yoon in 1987. It is based upon the concept that
the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from
the positive ideal solution (PIS) and the farthest from the neg-
ative ideal solution (NIS). Using this method, the alternatives
presented as the solutions to a multi-criteria decision-making
problem may be the closest to the PIS; that is, the most bene-
cial alternative solutions are to be selected.
As the design requirements are determined in more detail,
brainstorming, the afnity diagram, the tree diagram, the
AHP, and QFD are used sequentially based on the character-
istics of the decision-making models. Similarly, as the design
alternative congurations are dened in more detail, QFD,
the morphological matrix, and the TOPSIS are used systemat-
ically. A detailed description of how the decision-making mod-
els are used in the design requirement analysis and the design
baseline conguration selection process can be found in Sec-
tions 3 and 4.
3. Systematic process
In this study, a systematic process of establishing a quantita-
tive standard for the design requirement analysis and the base-
line conguration selection in the conceptual aircraft design
phase was developed by applying the quality design technique
and the decision-making technique. The whole process can be
divided into the design requirements analysis process in the ini-
tial conceptual design phase and the baseline conguration
selection process. The two processes can be schematized into
one process using the decision-making model as shown in
Fig. 3. For the design requirements analysis process, the
requirement categories are divided into user requirements,
competition-based requirements, and certication regulation
requirements for analysis. The requirement analysis results of
the three requirement categories are used to establish tempo-
rary design requirements and mission prole of the aircraft.
Based on those temporary design requirements and mission
prole, design alternatives are selected and then primary
design requirements are suggested through the verication pro-
cess composed of both initial sizing and performance analysis.
The process of selecting baseline congurations among the
alternatives is also performed using the resulting primary
design requirements as the decision standards. During this pro-
cess, the selected alternative congurations and baseline con-
gurations are used as necessary input parameters for the
sizing analysis tool. Finally, the best baseline conguration is
selected for the rest of the conceptual design.
The key concept of this study, the decision-making process,
can be carried out by aggregating information on the alterna-
tives and preferences of the decision makers. There is a need to
quantify the standard elements to conduct a quantied evalu-
ation of the design candidates since there is a risk of contradic-
tions among the standard elements in simple comparison. The
user requirements analysis process uses an afnity diagram and
tree diagram in order to organize the user requirements col-
lected through the survey and brainstorming as shown in
Fig. 4.
The MCDM methods, AHP and QFD, are used in grasping
and laying down the priorities of the organized design ele-
ments. The results of the AHP and QFD are then used for set-
ting the range of the design requirements and evaluating the
baseline conguration.
Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative congurations 741

Fig. 3 Quantitative requirement analysis process for baseline conguration selection.

Fig. 4 User requirements analysis process.

742 B.-Y. Bae et al.

The function that determines the scope of design require- analysis results. This process can be applied to two-seater
ments is built through survey and analysis of the competing VLAs as well as to diverse aerospace systems including other
models. In addition, the certication regulations, which are a xed-wing aircraft and rotary-wing aircraft.
social restriction, are investigated and applied to the require-
ments setting. Through this process, temporary design require- 4. Implementation and results for a two-seater VLA
ments and mission proles can be developed and veried using
a simple sizing analysis tool. Finally, the primary design 4.1. Introduction to two-seater VLA and purpose of development
requirements are generated as a result of the initial conceptual
design and may be revised and supplemented during the rest of
A two-seater VLA is an aircraft classied under the Certica-
the conceptual design phase.15
tion Specications for Very Light Aircraft (CS-VLA) by the
As shown in Fig. 4, the baseline conguration decision pro-
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). It has two or fewer
cess uses the morphological matrix to generate alternative con-
seats. Its maximum take-off weight is 750 kg or less and its
gurations. The multi-attribute decision-making method,
stall speed is 83 km/h (45 kn) or less. It is a single-engine plane
TOPSIS, is used to obtain an optimal alternative. The AHP
that is only allowed to y during the day, and the engine must
and QFD results presented above are used as weighting factors
have an ignition plug or be a compressed ignition type engine.6
for the evaluation of alternatives. Two or more families of
It is predicted that two-seater VLAs will account for over
baseline congurations can be selected for design.
50% of global sales in the next ten years, and the demand
The enhanced in-house sizing methodology and tool were
for VLAs is on the rise. The US government has supported
developed and validated for various type of aircraft such as
the aviation industry with the law of the American Society
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned combat aerial
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for light sports aircraft
vehicles (UCAVs), regional jet aircraft, and electric powered
(LSA), newly enacted in 2004, to fulll the desires of the
light aircraft from the given set of requirements including users
American people for ying. Currently, more than 230,000 light
and airworthiness regulations.16 The sizing tool is composed of
aircraft are in operation, and light aircraft for leisure will be in
the integration of a simplied aerodynamics, corrective weight
great demand globally in the near future.
fraction from recent aircraft database and a simplied mission
The advantages of the competing aircraft models presented
and performance analysis module to perform the inverse per-
as part of a sales strategy by other companies were examined
formance design by the support of an optimization loop to
to establish a development goal of the two-seater VLA in this
ensure the satisfaction of users and airworthiness regulation
study. The resulting advantages were ight attributes (speed,
requirements. In addition, the proposed sizing tool reduces
ight range, fuel consumption rate, stability, etc.), comfort
the assumptions at the preliminary sizing stage by introducing
on long ights (interior, pilot seat size, passenger seats, etc.),
a rough estimation from a similar aircraft database collection.
visibility (front, sides, openable windows during ight, etc.),
The in-house sizing tool yields relatively good and quick
aircraft with stylish exterior, safety (fuel tank location, mate-
results at the maximum error of 15.23% compared to the exist-
rial, safety devices, etc.), smooth landing (landing gear, seats,
ing MQ-1 Predator wing area data in the sizing stage, while the
etc.), doors for comfortable entrance and easy loading, and
existing sizing tool provides many assumptions for aerody-
electrical equipment for easy and stable piloting (Garmin
namics analysis and an over-predicted empty to gross weight
products, various cockpit forms, electrical piloting, etc.). Based
ratio based on meta aircraft regression data. Therefore, the
on this information, the development goal was established as
in-house sizing tool is developed and used for selecting the
shown in Fig. 5.
alternative conguration for the conceptual design of VLAs.
This sizing tool with the AHP, QFD, and mission analysis
4.2. Analysis of competing models
results will be used to constitute the optimization problem. The
sizing analysis is carried out for each family of baseline
congurations. The CS-VLA is the certication regulation applied to the two-
Then a nal baseline conguration can be selected through seater VLA. This class of aircraft has a maximum take-off
the TOPSIS analysis using the sizing and the user requirements weight (MTOW) of 750 kg but the target MTOW was set as

Fig. 5 Development goal.

Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative congurations
a maximum of 650 kg in order for the VLA to have stronger
competitiveness so that it can also enter the LSA market, with
simple modication if necessary. An LSA is dened as an air-
craft that is a heavier-than-aircraft or a lighter-than-aircraft,
other than a helicopter, with a maximum gross take-off weight
of no more than 560 kg for a lighter-than-aircraft, or 600 kg
for a heavier-than-aircraft not intended for operation on water
or 650 kg for an aircraft intended for operation on water. For
these reasons, both VLA class and LSA class aircraft need to
be considered as competitors. The authors have conducted
research on the exterior features, performance, materials, and
engines of the selected VLA models that were available for sale
and the best-selling LSA models based on the market share
data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) as of December 2010 (Fig. 6).
4.3. Analysis of user requirements
In order to analyze the user requirements for the two-seater
aircraft in a quantitative and systematic way, we have con-
ducted an analysis of the user requirements by applying the
decision-making model.17 User requirements have been deter-
mined through a survey and brainstorming in which under-
graduates, aircraft developers, and VLA pilots participated.
Then, an afnity diagram and a tree diagram were completed
based on the user requirements investigated. Using the afnity
diagram (see Fig. 7), the top-level user requirements were clas-
sied into marketability, environmental friendly, safety, and
performance as shown in the gure. Fig. 8 shows the results
of the analysis using the tree diagram.
Here, the Level 1 user requirements are the voice of cus-
tomer (VOC), namely, what customers need with regard to air-
Fig. 6 Analysis of competing models.
743
craft quality. The Level 3 user requirements are the voice of
engineer (VOE), namely, what engineers consider in aircraft
design to satisfy the customer needs with regard to aircraft
quality.
The AHP18 and QFD were conducted through a survey
based on the resulting tree. A total of 31 personnel including
VLA developers, VLA pilots, and foreign advisors participated
in the survey. Every pair of the top-level user requirements,
namely marketability, performance, environmental friendly
and safety, were compared using the AHP technique in order
to estimate the relative importance of the top-level user
requirements. Only data with a consistency index of less than
20% were used to ensure a reliable estimation. The results
are shown in Fig. 9.
The AHP and the primary QFD are linked, and the pri-
mary QFD and the secondary QFD are linked. The primary
and secondary QFD results for Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the tree
diagram are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The values of the
weighting result are normalized so that the sum of the weight-
ing result becomes 1. The Level 2 categories of the tree dia-
gram and the results of the primary QFD are used as the
evaluation categories and weights when the baseline congura-
tion is selected. The categories from the results of the sec-
ondary QFD that are directly related to the design
requirements affect the design requirement settings so they
are used for the competing model-based requirement analysis
and the mission analysis
4.4. Analysis of competing model based requirements
Data gained by examining the competing models were used to
analyze the trends in weight and performance. The importance
744
Fig. 7 Afnity diagram.
Fig. 8 Tree diagram.
gures related to performance among the user requirement
analysis results are presented in Table 1. Performance func-
tions for the maximum take-off weight were extracted from
the performance trends investigated. Trends of stall speed
(for landing conguration), speed limit, service ceiling, maxi-
mum cruising speed, take-off distance (including ground roll),
landing distance (including ground roll), ight range, and
endurance were formulated as functions. As the development
goals previously presented, a 10% improvement in the design
requirement values for performance compared to those of
B.-Y. Bae et al.
Fig. 9 AHP results.
Fig. 10 Primary QFD results.
Fig. 11 Secondary QFD results.
the competing models was suggested using the performance
functions. These suggested design requirements for perfor-
mance were tentative and will be rened after a feasibility
study using the initial sizing and the performance analysis.
4.5. Analysis of certification regulation requirements
Two-seater light aircraft need to satisfy the CS-VLA as the
VLA class certication regulations to acquire the VLA type
certication. In addition, the ASTM standard was analyzed,
as shown in Table 1, to secure the competitiveness against
LSA class aircraft.
 Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative congurations
Table 1 Analysis of certication regulations requirement.19
Design specication KAS-VLA ASTM for LSA
Regulation Content Flight condition Regulation Content Flight condition
Basic Number of KAS-VLA 1 1 or 2 4.2.1 1 or 2
characteristics seat Minimum
useful load
requirement
Power plant Type of KAS-VLA 1 Single engine, ignition plug FAA Single engine, ignition
engine of compressed ignition type plug of compressed
engine ignition type engine
Power
Weight Maximum KAS-VLA 1 Less than 750 kg (1) 1 pilot, 1 passenger (each FAA Less than 600 kg
take-o 86 kg), full oil, minimum 1 h fuel (ground), less than 650 kg
weight for full throttle (water)
(2) 1 pilot (86 kg), full oil, full
fuel
Useful 4.2.1 Wu = 1690 + P, (N)
load Minimum P = rated engine power,
useful load kWSO, Wu = 195 kg
requirement
Structure Target of g KAS-VLA 337 1.5  n  3.8 5.2.5 Limit 2n4
limit Limit maneuvering
maneuvering load load factors
factors
Performance Maximum KAS-VLA 1505 The maximum structural (1) Cruise speed: EAS (FAA) 220 km/h (120 kn) (1) Level ight
*
cruise Airspeed cruising speed VNO must be Vemin: Function of positive load Maximum
speed limitation 0.89VNE established, not less factor and W/S speed
than the minimum value of
VC and not more than the
lesser of VC
Stall speed KAS VLA 49 May not exceed 83 km/h (1) Power condition set forth in 4.2.1 Stalling Not exceed 83 km/h (1) MTOW
(VS0) Stall speed (45 kn) Subparagraph (c) speeds (45 kn) (2) Landing conguration
(2) Propeller in the take-o (3) Throttle closed
position (4) Most unfavorable CG
(3) Landing gear extended (5) Still air condition,
(4) Wing aps in the landing standard ICAO atmosphere,
position S.L., IAS or CAS air speed
(5) Cowl aps closed
(6) CG in the most unfavourable
position within the allowable
range
(7) Maximum weight

(continued on next page)

745
746 B.-Y. Bae et al.

4.6. Analysis of temporary design requirements

Notes: VC Design cruising speed; Wu Minimum useful load; kWso kW (unit revised); n Load factor; VNE Never exceed speed; VNC Maximum structural cruising speed; CG Centre of
standard ICAO atmosphere,

standard ICAO atmosphere,

S.L., IAS or CAS air speed

S.L., IAS or CAS air speed

The design requirements in the initial conceptual design phase

(4) At least 1.3VS1, 15 m

gravity; ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization; S.L. Sea level; IAS Indicated air speed; CAS Calibrated air speed; VS1 Stalling speed; MTOW Maximum take-off weight.
(4) Still air condition,

(3) Still air condition,

for aircraft were classied into the user requirements, compet-

(2) Climb ap angle

ing model-based requirements, and certication regulation

(3) Full throttle

Flight condition

(2) Full throttle

requirements for analysis. Mission proles for two-seater
VLAs comprising warm up, taxiing, take off, climb, cruise,
(1) MTOW

(1) MTOW
descent, reserve, landing and taxiing&shutdown were set up,

obstacle
as shown in Fig. 12. The missions for ight range and cruising
time for the analysis of user requirements are suggested in
Table 2. The results of the temporary design requirement set
are shown in Table 3 and a sizing interpretation tool was used
Over 95 m/min (321 ft/

to provide feasible values of the ight range and endurance

under the given mission conditions.
min, 1.6 m/s)

4.7. Selection of baseline configurations

Content

The decision-making model was employed to quantitatively

and systematically determine a baseline conguration for
ASTM for LSA

two-seater VLAs as shown in Fig. 13. The vertical location

4.4.2 Take-o

of the main wings, tail wing conguration type, use of fuselage

4.3.3 Climb
Regulation

strut, and engine location were used as the baseline congura-

(a) Not more than take-o power

o from a dry, level hard surface

must be determined and must not

(c) Wing aps in take-o position

rational and conservative manner

(b) This must be determined, in a
(a) The distance required to take

and climb over a 15 m obstacle

(d) Cowl aps in the position
(b) Landing gear retracted

used in the cooling tests

Flight condition

exceed 500 m

Fig. 12 Mission prole.

Table 2 Mission conditions.

Mission Base Flight condition
condition
1 Maximum 2 pilots, maximum fuel, best cruise
Less than 500 m (15 m

range speed
2 6 h ight 2 pilots, maximum fuel, maximum
Minimum 2 m/s

range cruise speed

obstacle)
Content

Table 3 Design requirements in initial conceptual design

phase.
Parameter Value
KAS-VLA 65

KAS-VLA 51
Regulation
KAS-VLA

Weight MTOW (kg) <620

Takeo

Useful load (kg) >250

Climb

Baggage (kg) >70

Structure Target of g limit 2<g<4
Maximum

Performance Maximum cruise speed (km/h) >217

Take o
distance
rate of
Table 1 (continued)

Stall speed (km/h) >74

climb
Design specication

Never exceed speed (km/h) 272

Maximum climb speed (m/s) >5
Service ceiling (m) >4500
Performance

Take-o distance (m) <140

Landing distance (m) <150
Range (nmile) >722
Endurance (h) >6
Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative congurations 747

tion elements in the initial conceptual design phase as shown in

Table 4 Baseline conguration elements.
Table 4. A total of 16 different combinations could be made
using the conguration elements, and the realizable congura- Content Conguration design elements
tions were then chosen as alternative congurations, as shown Wing location High wing Low wing
in Table 5. Table 6 shows the result of the TOPSIS20 analysis Tail wing conguration T-tail Conventional tail
conducted on each alternative conguration based on the Fuselage strut (yes/not) Yes Not
objective categories in Level 2 of the tree diagram used in Engine location Tractor Pusher
the analysis of customer requirements. Two families were
selected as the resulting baseline congurations of the TOPSIS
analysis. A high wing, a conventional tail wing, a fuselage
strut, and a tractor-type engine were selected for the rst base- user requirements has received the highest score and that air-
line conguration, while a low wing, a conventional tail wing, planes with high wings hold a high rank, the quantitative anal-
no fuselage strut, and a tractor-type engine were selected for ysis of the user requirements and the selection of the baseline
the second baseline conguration. The two selected baseline congurations have promoted awareness of the safety of air-
congurations, Family 1 and Family 2, were generated and planes with high wings. On the other hand, since the safety
their performances were analyzed in the conceptual design. of VLAs can be conrmed by obtaining the type certication,
This selection method for baseline congurations is more sys- the Family 2 conguration could also be a strong alternative
tematic, quantitative, and time-effective than the experience- for VLAs based on the marketability and performance cat-
based baseline conguration selection process, which forms egories of the user requirements.
various types of families through an initial conceptual sketch
and reduces the number of families throughout the design 4.8. Verification and suggestion for design requirements
process.
In this phase, the conguration design elements must be The temporary design requirements including the two mis-
well determined. Quantitative measures for decision-making sions, maximum ight range, and endurance are veried using
can be suggested through the TOPSIS analysis using the deter- a simple sizing tool and a performance interpretation tool. As
mined conguration design elements. a result, the primary design requirements are presented in
For example, the TOPSIS analysis results in Table 6 indi- Table 7. Six-hour endurance and a ight range of 1400 km
cate that, in light of the facts that the safety category of the are also presented as the mission goals.

Fig. 13 Process of selecting baseline congurations.

748 B.-Y. Bae et al.

Table 5 Possible alternative congurations.

Alternative conguration Main wing Tail wing Strut Engine Feasibility
1 High wing T Yes Tractor Yes
2 High wing T Yes Pusher Yes
3 High wing T No Tractor Yes
4 High wing T No Pusher Yes
5 High wing C Yes Tractor Yes
6 High wing C Yes Pusher Yes
7 High wing C No Tractor Yes
8 High wing C No Pusher Yes
9 Low wing T Yes Tractor No
10 Low wing T Yes Pusher No
11 Low wing T No Tractor Yes
12 Low wing T No Pusher Yes
13 Low wing C Yes Tractor No
14 Low wing C Yes Pusher No
15 Low wing C No Tractor Yes
16 Low wing C No Pusher Yes

Table 6 Results of Pugh concept selection and TOPSIS.

Alternative conguration Main wing Tail wing Strut Engine Pugh concept selection TOPSIS
Result Rank Result Rank
Baseline High wing C Yes Tractor 0 3 0.7200 1
1 High wing T Yes Tractor 0.2487 6 0.3782 6
2 High wing T Yes Pusher 0.5167 8 0.2071 11
3 High wing T No Tractor 0.001111 2 0.4814 5
4 High wing T No Pusher 0.42 7 0.2340 7
5 High wing C Yes Pusher 0.5166 8 0.2071 11
6 High wing C No Tractor 0.1280 1 0.5595 2
7 High wing C No Pusher 0.4198 7 0.2340 7
8 Low wing T No Tractor 0.07080 5 0.4828 4
9 Low wing T No Pusher 0.4198 7 0.2340 7
10 Low wing C No Tractor 0.011112 4 0.5338 3
11 Low wing C No Pusher 0.04198 7 0.2340 7

4.9. Analysis result for conceptual designs in two baseline
configurations
Through the analysis of the user requirements and the selec-
tion of baseline congurations using the TOPSIS, a high wing,
a conventional tail wing with a fuselage strut, and a tractor-
type engine were selected for the rst baseline conguration,
while a low wing, a conventional tail wing, no fuselage strut,
and a tractor-type engine were selected for the second baseline
conguration. The rst iteration of the conceptual design was
executed with these two baseline congurations, Family 1 and
Family 2. As a result, we were able to develop the congura-
tions shown in Fig. 14, and the performance results were
obtained as summarized in Table 8.
A comparison of the design requirements and performance
analysis results shows that the results for take-off distance and
endurance do not fulll the design requirements. Therefore,
there is a need to alter the sizing to gain improved performance
and satisfy the design requirements. Moreover, the current con-
cept analysis tool used is not sensitive to conguration changes
in terms of maximum cruising speed, actual climb limit, and
endurance. Thus, there is a need to provide more sophisticated
analysis tools. These were left as problems to be resolved as the
development of VLAs was carried out henceforth.
In order to select a suitable conguration that meets the
user requirements between Family 1 and Family 2, the concep-
tual design results corresponding to the evaluation categories
in Level 2 in the user requirements analysis were quantitatively
compared. In other words, the weight and the performance as
well as the stability coefcient values computed through the
conceptual designs of Family 1 and Family 2 were used for
the TOPSIS analysis to extract the nal baseline conguration.
The TOPSIS analysis was conducted considering the follow-
ing: the lighter the empty weight, the less it costs; the larger
the internal space, the more it improves the comfort; the lighter
the maximum take-off weight, the more it satises the weight
requirements; the lower the fuel consumption rate, the more
it reduces fuel consumption; and the more the stability coef-
cient values satisfy the design requirements, the more they
satisfy the basic characteristics of the aircraft. As a result,
Family 2 received a higher score than that of Family 1. For
that reason, a low wing, a conventional tail wing, no fuselage
strut, and a tractor-type engine were selected as an optimal
baseline conguration.
Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative congurations
Table 7 Primary design requirements.
Design Specication
Basic characteristics Model No.
Type of aircraft
Number of seat
Power plant Type of engine
Power (hp)
Weight Maximum take-o weight (kg)
Useful load (kg)
Cabin comfort level Cabin maximum height (m)
Cabin maximum width (m)
Down vision angle ()
Structure Structure type
Pressurization
Target of g limit
Performance Maximum cruise speed (km/h)
Stall speed (km/h)
Never exceed speed (km/h)
Maximum rate of climb (m/s)
Service ceiling (m)
Take-o distance (m)
Landing distance (m)
Maximum range (km)
749
Flight Condition
V02
KAS-VLA
2 Including 1 pilot
Four-cylinder,
four-stroke
100
<620 (1) 1 pilot, 1 passenger (each 86 kg), full
oil, at least 1 h fuel for full throttle
(2) 1 pilot (86 kg), full oil, full fuel
>275 Useful load=MTOW Empty weight
>1.15 Maximum IML dimension of cross
>1.2 section
>10
Composite semi monocoque
None
2 < g < +4
>217 (1) Maximum cruise power
(2) Level ight
(3) 1 pilot + 50%fuel
(4) FL50
(5) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
<74 (1) MTOW
(2) Landing conguration
(3) Throttle closed
(4) Most unfavorable CG
(5) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
272 (1) MTOW
(2) Full throttle
(3) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
>5 (1) MTOW
(2) Climb ap angle
(3) Throttle below climb throttle
(4) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
>4500 (1) 1 pilot+50%fuel
(2) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
<140 (1) MTOW
(2) Full throttle
(3) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
<150 (1) Closed throttle
(2) Extended aps
(3) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
>1400 (1) 1 pilot, 1 passenger
(2) Full fuel
(3) Best fuel speed, with 30 min VFR fuel
reserve
(4) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed
(continued on next page)
750 B.-Y. Bae et al.

Table 7 (continued)
Design Specication Flight Condition
Endurance (h) >6 (1) 1 pilot, 1 passenger
(2) Full fuel
(3) Maximum endurance speed, with
30 min VFR fuel reserve
(4) Still air condition, standard ICAO
atmosphere, S.L., IAS or CAS airspeed

lished, and it was applied to a two-seater VLA, resulting in

design requirements and baseline congurations at the initial
conceptual design phase of the VLA development project.
For the requirement analysis, the voices of users, designers,
and clients were collected through a survey from various
VLA experts and the survey data were efciently reected in
the decision-making process. The user requirements, mar-
ketability, and certication regulations were taken into consid-
eration for the analysis of the design requirements. In addition,
measures to evaluate whether the current design technology
can satisfy the user requirements in the early development
stage were sought. A tree diagram up to Level 3 was made
through the user requirements analysis, and the AHP analysis
results showed that safety was the most important element.
The order of priority and the gures of importance for each
category were obtained through the primary and secondary
QFD, which were linked to the design requirement settings
and baseline conguration settings. Functions for computing
the performance with respect to aircraft weights were formu-
lated through the marketability analysis, that is, the analysis
of the competing model-based requirements. The computed
Fig. 14 Baseline congurations of Family 1 and Family 2.9 performance outputs were provided as the performance stan-
dard values for the design requirements. The results of the cer-
tication requirements analysis given by the CS-VLA and
Table 8 Performance results for Family 1 and Family 2.9 ASTM were set as constraints on the design requirements.
Parameter Requirement Family 1 Family 2 As a result, the temporary design requirements including
two mission proles were suggested. By applying the TOPSIS
MTOW (kg) 620 618.4 612.5
to the alternative congurations developed as combinations of
Empty weight (kg) 350 354.8 317.5
Maximum cruise speed >217 241.2 241.2 conguration design elements in the conceptual design phase,
(km/h) the baseline congurations were set in two families. A high
Stall speed (km/h) >74 72.72 71.89 wing, a conventional tail wing, a fuselage strut, and a
Never exceed speed (km/h) 272 5.18 5.34 tractor-type engine were set for Family 1, while a low wing,
Maximum climb speed (m/s) >5 15180 15180 a conventional tail wing, no fuselage strut, and a tractor-type
Service ceiling (ft) >15,000 160 144 engine were set for Family 2. For the two family congura-
Take-o distance (m) <140 138.1 136.8 tions, the conceptual design and analysis were used in conduct-
Landing distance (m) <150 1464 1487 ing the TOPSIS based on the quantitatively measured user
Range (nmile) >722 5.49 5.49
requirements. In conclusion, Family 2 was selected as the opti-
Endurance (h) >6 0.45 0.40
mal baseline conguration. The proposed requirement analysis
Coecient of stability Cma Negative 1.0403 1.0004
Coecient of stability Cnb Positive 0.09699 0.07870 and alternative conguration selection process provided
improved objectivity and quantitation by systematic composi-
tion of the decision-making tools, QFD and TOPSIS. In par-
ticular, the present process introduced the initial sizing
5. Conclusions analysis tool to enforce the quantitative assessment in cooper-
ation with the TOPSIS analysis. The efciency of the process
This study has devised a method of establishing logical and has been validated by applying it to the VLA development.
quantitative standards by applying the decision-making
method. This study also proposed a process of evaluating Acknowledgements
and selecting various alternative congurations based on the
devised standards in the initial conceptual design phase for air- The authors are grateful for the support provided for this
craft development. A baseline conguration selection process research by a grant (No. 1615001723) from the Light Aircraft
using a quantitative requirements analysis method was estab- Development Program funded by the Ministry of Land,
Process of establishing design requirements and selecting alternative congurations
Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean government, and
also the support from the National Research Foundation of
Korea (No. NRF-2014R1A2A2A01003833) funded by the
Korean government (MSIP).
References
1. Marvis DN, Baker AP, Schrage DP. Development of methodol-
ogy for the determination of technical feasibility and viability of
affordable rotorcraft systems. The 54th annual forum of the
American Helicopter Society; 1998 May 2022; Washington,
D.C. Fairfax (VA): American Helicopter Society; 1998.
2. Kirby MR, Marvis DN. Forecasting technology uncertainty in
preliminary aircraft design. The 4th world aviation congress and
exposition; 1999 October 1921; San Francisco (CA). Warrendale
(PA): SAE International; 1999.
3. Park HU. Study on the robust aerospace system design optimiza-
tion process [dissertation]. Seoul: Konkuk University; 2007. p.
2941 [Korean].
4. Yoon JW, Nguyen N, Choi SM, Lee JW, Kim S, Byun YH.
Multidisciplinary general aviation aircraft design optimizations
incorporating airwothiness constraints. 10th AIAA aviation tech-
nology integration and operation conference; 2010 September 315;
Fort Worth (TX). Reston: AIAA; 2010.
5. Lee SJ, Chung WJ, Kim KJ. A study on optimal design an piece
removing automation system using ARIZ and brainstorming
based on DMADOV of 6sigma. KSMTE Spring Conference; 2008
April; Seoul. Seoul: KSMTE; 2008. p. 67. [Korean].
6. Baek BS, Won YD. Quality management theory. Seoul: Trade
Management Publishing Company; 2001. p. 11450 [Korean].
7. Lee SB, Shin DS. Theory of QFD and example. Seoul: I-Tech
Publishing Company; 2008. p. 188200 [Korean].
8. Park YT. Single PPM quality innovation division of public
administration. Seoul: Single PPM Quality Innovation Division;
2000. p. 7896 [Korean].
751
9. Lee JW. Light aircraft system requirement review. Seoul: Light
Aircraft Development Center, Konkuk University; 2011. p. 713
[Korean].
10. Lee JW. Research & planning report of light aircraft for sport
class. Seoul: Light Aircraft Development Center, Konkuk Univer-
sity; 2011. p. 3644 [Korean].
11. Mizuno S, Akao Y. QFD: The customer driven approach to quality
planning and deployment. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization;
1994. p. 339.
12. Chang DY. Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy
AHP. Eur J Oper Res 1996;95(3):64955.
13. Tom R. Problem structuring using computer-aided morphological
analysis. J Oper Res Soc 2006;57(7):792801.
14. Shon KY, Yang JW, Kang CS. Assimilation of public opinions in
nuclear decision-making using risk perception. Ann Nucl Energy
2001;28(6):55363.
15. Lee JW. Aircraft conceptual design. Seoul: Kyungmun Publishing
Company; 2001. p. 2536 [Korean].
16. Nguyen NV, Tyan M, Lee JW. A modied variable complexity
modeling for efcient multi-disciplinary aircraft conceptual design.
Optimiz Eng 2015;16(2):483505.
17. Park HU, Park MY, Lee SJ, Lee JW, Byun YH. Development of
requirement driven design concept selection process in aerospace
system. Computational science and its applicationsICCSA 2006;
2006 May 811; Glasgow. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2006; 3984.
p. 51221.
18. Satty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. Boston: Klumer-Nijhoff
Publishing; 1982. p. 192213.
19. Chakldar ND, Charaborty S. A combined TOPSIS-AHP method
based approach for non-traditional machining process selection.
Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B: J Eng Manuf 2008;222(12):161323.
20. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Korean airwor-
thiness standards. Korea [updated 2010 May12; cited 2016 Jan 20].
[Korean].