Appendix 10.

2
AN EXAMPLE OF AIRPLANE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PROCEDURE - JET TRANSPORT
E.G.Tulapurkara
A.Venkattraman
V.Ganesh
REPORT NO: AE TR 2007-4
APRIL 2007
An Example of Airplane Preliminary Design
Procedure - Jet Transport
E.G.Tulapurkara

A.Venkattraman

V.Ganesh

Abstract
In this report, we present an application of the preliminary design
procedure followed in aircraft design course. A 150 seater jet airplane
cruising at M = 0.8, at 11 km altitude and having a gross still air
range(GSAR) of 4000 km is considered. The presentation is divided
into eight sections
Data collection
Preliminary Weight estimation
Optimization of wing loading and thrust loading
Wing design
Fuselage design, preliminary design of tail surface and prelimi-
nary layout
c.g. calculation
Control surface design
Features of designed airplane
Details of performance estimation

AICTE Emeritus Fellow, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Madras

B.Tech Student, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Madras

Dual Degree Student, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Madras

1
Contents
1 Data Collection 6
1.1 The Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.1 Type of Aircraft and Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.2 Budget and Time Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1.3 Other Constraints and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Preliminary Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.2 Wing parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.3 Empennage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.4 Control Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.5 Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.6 Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.7 Landing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3 Overall height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Revised Weight Estimation 21
2.1 Fuel fraction estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.1 Warm up and Take o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.2 Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.3 Cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.4 Loiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.5 Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Empty Weight Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Wing Loading and Thrust Loading 25
3.1 Landing Distance Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Maximum Speed(V
max
) Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Estimation of K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3 (R/C)
max
consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4 Based on Minimum Fuel for Range (W
f
min
) . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.5 Based on Absolute Ceiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.6 Summary of Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.7 Consideration of Wing Weight (W
w
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.8 Choosing a W/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.9 Thrust Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.9.1 Requirement for V
max
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.10 Requirements for (R/C)
max
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.11 Take-O Thrust Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.12 Engine Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2
3.13 Engine Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4 Wing Design 42
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Airfoil Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2.1 Design Lift Coecient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.2 Airfoil Thickness Ratio and Wing Sweep . . . . . . . . 43
4.3 Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3.1 Aspect Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3.2 Taper Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3.3 Root and Tip Chords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3.4 Dihedral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3.5 Wing Twist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4 Cranked Wing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.5 Wing Incidence(i
w
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.6 Vertical Location of Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.7 Areas of Flaps and Ailerons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5 Fuselage and Tail Layout 48
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2 Initial Estimate of Fuselage Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3 Nose and Cockpit - Front Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.4 Passenger Cabin Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.4.1 Cabin Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.4.2 Cabin length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.4.3 Cabin Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.5 Rear Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.6 Total Fuselage Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.7 Tail surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.8 Engine Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.9 Landing Gear Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6 Estimation of Component Weights and C.G Location 55
6.1 Aircraft mass statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1.1 Structures Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1.2 Propulsion Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.1.3 Fixed equipment group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2 Weights of Various Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.3 C.G Location and C.G Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.3.1 Wing Location on Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.4 C.G Travel for Critical Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3
6.4.1 Full Payload and No Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.4.2 No Payload and No Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.4.3 No Payload and Full fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.4.4 Payload distribution for 15% c.g travel . . . . . . . . . 59
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7 Control Surfaces 60
7.1 Stability and Controllability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.2 Static Longitudinal Stability and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.2.1 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.2.2 Aft Center of gravity limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.2.3 Forward center of Gravity Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7.2.4 Determination of initial parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7.3 Lateral Stability and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.3.1 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.3.2 Equations for directional stability . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.3.3 Determination of initial parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8 Features of the Designed Airplane 67
8.1 Three View Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.2 Overall Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.3 Engine details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.4 Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.5 Wing Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
8.6 Fuselage Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
8.7 Nacelle Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
8.8 Horizontal Tail Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
8.9 Vertical Tail Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8.10 Other details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8.11 Crew and Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8.12 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
9 Performance Estimation 72
9.1 Estimation of Drag Polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
9.1.1 Estimation of (C
D
o
)
WB
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
9.1.2 Estimation of (C
D
o
)
V
and (C
D
o
)
H
. . . . . . . . . . . 74
9.1.3 Estimation of Misc Drag - Nacelle . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
9.1.4 C
D
o
of the airplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
9.1.5 Induced Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
9.1.6 Final Drag Polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
9.2 Engine Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4
9.3 Level Flight Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
9.3.1 Stalling speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
9.3.2 Variation of V
min
and V
max
with Altitude . . . . . . . . 82
9.4 Steady Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
9.5 Range and Endurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.6 Turning Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
9.7 Take-o distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
9.8 Landing distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
9.9 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10 Acknowledgements 107
5
1 Data Collection
1.1 The Design Philosophy
The conceptual design forms the initial stage of the design process. In spite
of the fact that there are numerous aircrafts, each having its own special fea-
tures, one can nd common features underlying most of them. For example,
the following aspects would dominate the conceptual design of a commercial
transport jet.
1.1.1 Type of Aircraft and Market
The Civil Transport Jets could be classied in the following way :
Class No.of Seats Typical GSAR(km) Propulsion
B-747 >400 >13000 High Bypass
type Turbofan
B-757 200-400 10000 High Bypass
type Turbofan
B-737 100-200 5000 Medium Bypass
type Turbofan
Regionals 30-100 2000 Turboprop
Table 1: Classication of Civil Jet Airplane
From the values of gross still air range in table, it is clear that inter-
continental ights would be restricted to the rst two classes while the last
two would handle bulk of the trac in regional routes. The dierent classes
cater to dierent sections of the market. One decides the range and pay-
load(ie passengers) after identifying the target market. In this example, we
plan to cater to the trac in regional routes. We will design a Transport
Jet with a Gross Still Air Range(GSAR) of 4000km (=R
g
) and a single-class
seating capacity of 150. We could roughly classify our aircraft as belonging
the B-737 class. We collect data for similar aircrafts and use this data set as
the basis for making initial estimates.
Our aim is to design an aircraft that satises the following requirements.
Gross Still Air Range = 4,000 km
No. of passengers = 150
6
Flight Cruise Mach No. = 0.80
Altitude =11,000 m
1.1.2 Budget and Time Constraints
Any design team would be required to work with a limited amount of funds
and time. These could dictate various aspects of the design process.For exam-
ple, innovations which could end up in a spiralling budget may be shelved.
Also, in case of highly competitive markets, the ability to get the aircraft
ready in the prescribed time frame is very crucial. The design team must
ensure that cost and time over-runs are minimized to the extent possible.
1.1.3 Other Constraints and Standards
Some of the major demands on the design arise from the various mandatory
and operational regulations. All commercial aircrafts must satisfy the Air-
worthiness requirements of various countries. Typically, each country has its
own Aviation Authority (e.g, DGCA in India, CAA in UK, FAA in USA).
Airworthiness requirements would cover the following aspects of the aircraft
1. Flight
This includes performance items like stall, take-o, climb, cruise, de-
scent, landing, response to rough air etc. Also included are require-
ments of stability,controllability and manoeuvrability.
2. Structural
Flight loads, ground loads, emergency landing conditions, fatigue eval-
uation etc.
3. Powerplant
Fire protection, auxillary power unit,air intake/exhaust,fuel systems,cooling.
4. Other
Materials quality regulations, bird strike.
Passenger Safety is the primary motive behind these specications. Ad-
ditional route-specic constraints may have to be taken into account on a
case-by-case basis. e.g, cruise altitude for aircrafts ying over the Himalayas
must be well over 8 km.
In addition to safety and operational requirements, the design must satisfy
the environmental constraints. Two major environmental concerns are noise
and emissions :
7
The Engines are the primary source of noise in an aircraft. The airframe
could also add to this.Maximum noise is produced during take-o and
landing. This can reduced by opting for a shallower approach, as this
reduces the ight time spent near the airport. However the reduction in
noise may not be signicant. The development of high-bypass turbofan
engines has signicantly reduced noise production.
The predominant source of emissions is the engine. The exhaust con-
tains particles, various gases including carbon dioxide(CO
2
) , water va-
por (H
2
O) , various oxides of nitrates, carbon monoxide(CO),unburnt
hydrocarbons and sulphur dioxide(SO
2
). All components except CO
2
and H
2
O are considered as pollutants Again,as was the case with noise,
emissions during landing and take-o are of particular concern due to
the communities near airports. Various aviation authorities have set
limits on these emissions. The design team must adhere to such con-
straints.
1.2 Preliminary Design
If we look at the commercial transport jets in use, one can nd many common
features amongst them. Some of these are :
Medium bypass turbofans
This choice regarding the type of engine is due to the following reasons.
In the ight regime of Mach number between 0.6 to 0.85, turbofans give
the best eciency and moreover reduction in thrust output with speed
is not so rapid. Also, the noise generated by a medium-by pass turbo
fan engine is considerably less. We follow this trend and choose a
medium-by pass turbo fan as our powerplant.
Wing mounted engines Though not a rule, wing mounted engines
dominate the designs of top aircraft companies like Boeing and Airbus.
Alternative designs could be adopted. But,given the experience gained
with the wing mounted engines and the large data available for such
congurations, we adopt two wing mounted engines.
Swept back wings and a conventional rear-tail conguration is cho-
sen. Again, this choice is dictated by the fact that we have a large
amount of data(to compare with) for such congurations.
8
1.2.1 Preliminary Weight Estimate
Given the number of passengers, we can estimate the payload in the following
way:
1. Include one cabin crew member for 30 passengers. In our case, this
gives 5 crew members
2. Include ight crew of pilot and co-Pilot.
Thus the total of passenger + crew is 150+5+2 = 157.
3. Allow 110 kg for each passenger (82 kg weight per passenger with carry
on baggage + 28 kg of checkin baggage)(Reference 1.11, page 214)
We thus obtain a payload W
pay
of 157 110 = 17270 kgf. We now esti-
mate the gross weight of the aircraft (W
g
).
From data collection, we observe the following.
Aircraft No.of passengers Still air range (km) W
TO
(kgf)
737-300B 149 4185 60636
737-400B 168 3852 64671
737-700A 149 2935 60330
Table 2: Take o weight
Based on the data collected, we choose an initial weight of 60,000 kgf.
1.2.2 Wing parameters
To estimate the wing parameters, we need to choose a value for wing loading(W/S).
This is one of the most important parameters that not only decides the wing
parameters but also plays an important role in the performance of the air-
plane.We observe similar airplanes and choose an initial estimate for (W/S)
to be 5500 N/m
2
.Once the (W/S) has been decided, the other parameters
of the wing are chosen based on similar aircraft.
Aerodynamically, it is desirable to have a large aspect ratio(A). How-
ever, structural considerations force us to settle for an optimal value. As the
structural design improves, the value of A also keeps increasing. We choose
a value of 9.3. Most modern aircrafts(see data base in Table A) have values
close to 9.The taper ratio() is a geometric parameter that is roughly the
9
same for all the aircrafts in the data set. We choose an average value of 0.24
for .The wing quarter chord sweep(
c/4
) is chosen as 25

.Consequently
S = W
g
_
S
W
_
= 107.02m
2
(1)
The wing span(b) can be calculated from A and S
b =

SA = 31.55 m (2)
The root chord(c
r
) and tip chord(c
t
) can now be found using the following
equations :
c
r
=
2S
b(1 +)
= 5.47 m (3)
c
t
= c
r
= 1.31 m (4)
1.2.3 Empennage
As explained earlier,we have chosen the conventional rear-tail conguration.
The geometric parameters of the horizontal and vertical tails are obtained
here.
The values of S
h
/S and S
v
/S are obtained from the data set of similar
airplanes.
We have chosen
S
h
S
= 0.31
S
v
S
= 0.21
Hence,
S
h
= 33.18 m
2
S
v
= 22.47 m
2
We choose suitable aspect ratios(A
h
, A
v
) from the data set. Our choices
are A
h
= 5 and A
v
= 1.7. Using eq.(2), we get the spans(b
h
, b
v
) as
b
h
=
_
A
h
S
h
= 12.88 m (5)
10
b
v
=
_
A
v
S
v
= 6.18 m (6)
The chosen values for the taper ratios(
h
,
v
) from the data set are
h
=
0.26
v
= 0.3. We can now compute the root chord (c
rh
, c
rv
) and tip chord
(c
th
, c
tv
) of tails as
c
rh
=
2S
h
b
h
(1 +
h
)
= 4.09 m (7)
c
th
=
h
c
rh
= 1.06 m (8)
c
rv
=
2S
v
b
v
(1 +
v
)
= 5.59 m (9)
c
tv
=
v
c
rv
= 1.68 m (10)
From the data set, we choose quarter chord sweep back angles of
h
= 30

and
v
= 35

. This completes the broad geometric design of the empennage.

1.2.4 Control Surfaces
A number of aircraft and their 3-view drawings as well as design data have
been studied and the following parameter values are chosen.
S
flap
/S = 0.17
S
slat
/S = 0.10
b
flap
/b =0.74
S
ele
/S
ht
= 0.22
S
rud
/S
vt
= 0.25
Trailing edge aps type : Fowler aps
Leading edge high lift devices : slats
Hence,
S
ele
= 7.53 m
2
S
rud
= 5.8 m
2
Area of T.E aps = 18.98 m
2
Area of L.E slats = 11.60 m
2
b
flap
= 23.7 m
11
1.2.5 Fuselage
Aerodynamic considerations would demand a slender fuselage. But, pas-
senger comfort and structural constraints would limit the slenderness. We
obtain the length l
f
and diameter d
f
by choosing l
f
/b = 1.05 and l
f
/d
f
=
8.86 from data collection.
Hence,
l
f
= 33.6 m (11)
d
f
= 3.79 m (12)
1.2.6 Engines
Observing the thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) of similar airplanes, we arrive
at a T/W of 0.3.This implies a thrust requirement of
T = 0.3 W
g
= 180 kN or 90 kN per engine
The CFMI FM56-3-B1 model of Turbofan comes closest to this re-
quirement.
1.2.7 Landing Gear
We choose a retractable tricycle type landing gear. It is the most commonly
found type of landing gear. It is favored for two reasons:
1. During take-o and landing the weight of the plane is taken entirely by
the rear wheels.
2. It has better lateral stability on ground than bicycle type landing gear.
We choose to have a total of 10 wheels - 2 below the nose and two pairs
each on the sides(near the wing fuselage junction). The location of the wheels
was chosen from three-view drawings of similar aircraft.
1.3 Overall height
Based on dimensions of Boeing 737 - 300, 400 and 500, the overall height is
taken as 11.13 m.
12
TABLE A - Data on Existing Airplanes(150 seater category)
(Source : http://www.bh.com/companions/034074152X/)
13
14
15
16
17
Figure 1: Three view drawing of Boeing 737-300
Source : http://www.virtualswa.com/Boeing737-300/3view.gif
Figure 2: Three view drawing of Boeing 737-500
Source : http://www.virtualswa.com/Boeing737-500/3view.gif
18
Figure 3: Three view drawing of Boeing 737-700
Source : http://www.virtualswa.com/Boeing737-700/3view.gif
19
F
i
g
u
r
e
4
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
t
h
r
e
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
a
i
r
p
l
a
n
e
u
n
d
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
20
2 Revised Weight Estimation
In the previous section, an initial estimate for the aircraft parameters has
been done. The weight estimate is being revised using rened estimates
of fuel weight and empty weight. The fuel fractions for various phases are
worked out in the following steps. The fuel fractions for warm-up, take-o,
climb and landing are taken from Raymer[4], chapter 3.
2.1 Fuel fraction estimation
The fuel weight depends on the mission prole and the fuel required as re-
serve. The mission prole for a civil jet transport aircraft involves
Take o
Climb
Cruise
Loiter before landing
Descent
Landing
2.1.1 Warm up and Take o
The value for this stage is taken by following the standards given in Raymer[4],
chapter 3
W
1
W
0
= 0.97
W
0
is the weight at take-o and W
1
is the weight at the end of the take-o
phase.
2.1.2 Climb
The weight-ratio for this stage is chosen by following the standards given in
Raymer[4], chapter 3.
W
2
W
1
= 0.985
21
2.1.3 Cruise
The weight ratio for the cruise phase of ight is calculated using the following
expression from Raymer[4], chapter 3.
W
3
W
2
= exp
_
RC
V (L/D)
_
(13)
Gross still air range is 4000 km.Hence
Cruise Safe Range =
GSAR
1.5
=
4000
1.5
= 2667 km
(L/D)
max
is taken as 18 from gure 3.6 of Raymer[4]. This corresponds
to the average value for civil jets.
As prescribed by Raymer[4], chapter 3
(L/D)
cruise
= 0.866(L/D)
max
(14)
(L/D)
cruise
= 0.866 18 = 15.54
To account for allowances due to head wind during cruise and provision
for diversion to another airport we proceed as follows.
Head wind is taken as 15 m/s. The time to cover the cruise safe range of
2667 km at V
cr
of 849.6 km/hr is
Time =
2667
849.6
= 3.13 hours
Therefore, with a head wind of 15 m/s or 54 km/hr the additional dis-
tance that has to be accounted for is
Additional distance = 54 3.13 = 169 km
The allowance for diversion to another airport is taken as 400 km.
The total extra distance that has to be accounted for in the calculations
is 169 + 400 = 569 km.
The total distance during cruise = 2667 + 569 = 3236 km.
Substituting the appropriate values in eq.(13) we get,
W
3
W
2
= exp
_
3236 0.6
849.6 15.59
_
= 0.863
22
2.1.4 Loiter
The weight ratio for Loiter phase of ight is calculated using the following
expression from Raymer[4], chapter 3
W
4
W
3
= exp
_
E TSFC
(L/D)
_
(15)
During Loiter, the airplane usually operates at (L/D)
max
and hence the
appropriate value should be used in eq.(15). Also, we design for a loiter time
of 30 minutes.
Therefore we get,
W
4
W
3
= exp
_
0.5 0.6
18
_
= 0.983
2.1.5 Landing
Following the standards specied by Raymer[4], chapter 3, we take this ratio
as
W
5
W
4
= 0.995
Therefore,
W
5
W
g
=
W
5
W
0
= 0.97 0.985 0.863 0.983 0.995 = 0.806
Allowing for a reserve fuel of 6% we obtain the fuel fraction() as
W
f
W
g
= = 1.06
_
1
W
5
W
0
_
= 0.205
2.2 Empty Weight Fraction
To determine the empty weight ratio, we follow the method in Raymer[4],
chapter 3 which gives a relation between W
e
/W
g
and W
g
as follows.
W
e
W
g
= 1.02(2.202W
g
)
0.06
(16)
where W
g
is in kgf.
23
Hence,
W
g
=
W
pay
1 W
f
/W
g
W
e
/W
g
=
17270
1 0.205 1.202(2.202W
g
)
0.06
(16A)
We solve this equation by iteration
W
g
(guess) W
e
/W
g
(from eq.(16)) W
g
(from eq.(16A))
60000 0.50274 59090
59090 0.50320 59184
59184 0.50315 59174
59174 0.50316 59175
59175 0.50316 59175
Table 3: Iterative procedure for W
g
Hence, the gross weight W
g
is obtained as
W
g
= 59, 175 kgf
The critical weight ratios are
W
e
W
g
= 0.503
W
f
W
g
= 0.205
W
pay
W
g
= 0.292
24
3 Wing Loading and Thrust Loading
The thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) and the wing loading(W/S) are the two
most important parameters aecting aircraft performance. Optimization of
these parameters forms a major part of the design activities conducted after
initial weight estimation. For example, if the wing loading used for the initial
layout is low, then the area would be large and there would be enough space
for the landing gear and fuel tanks. However it results in a heavier wing.
Wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio are interconnected for a number
of critical performance items, such as take-o distance, maximum speed etc.
These are often the design drivers. A requirement for short takeo can be
met by using a large wing (low W/S) with a relatively low T/W. On the
other hand, the same takeo distance could be met with a high W/S along
with a higher T/W.
In this section, we use dierent criteria and optimize the wing loading
and thrust loading.
Wing loading aects stalling speed, climb rate,takeo and landing dis-
tances, minimum fuel required and turn performance.
Similarly, a higher thrust loading would result in more cost which is un-
desirable. However it would also lead to enhanced climb performance.
Hence a trade-o is needed while choosing W/S and T/W. Optimization
of W/S and T/W based on various considerations is carried out in the fol-
lowing subsections.
3.1 Landing Distance Consideration
To decide the wing loading from landing distance consideration we need
to choose the landing eld length. Based on data collection of similar air-
craft(Table A) the landing eld length is chosen to be 1425 m.
s
Land
= 1425 m
Next,we choose the C
L
max
of the airplane. The Maximum lift coecient
depends upon the wing geometry,airfoil shape,ap geometry and span,leading
edge slot or slat geometry,Reynolds number,surface texture and interference
25
from other parts of the aircraft such as the fuselage,nacelles or pylons.
Raymer[4], chapter 5 provides a chart for C
L
max
as a function of
c/4
for
dierent types of high lift devices(gure 5.3 of Raymer[4]). For our airplane
we decided to use Fowler ap and slat as the high lift devices. This gives us
a C
L
max
of 2.5 for a
c/4
= 25
o
.
C
L
max
= 2.5
To calculate W/S based on landing considerations,we use the formula
W
S
=
1
2
V
2
s
C
L
max
(17)
The stalling speed V
s
is estimated in the following way,
s
Land
= 1425 m
The approach speed (V
a
) in knots is related to the landing distance(s
Land
)
in feet as,
V
a
(in knots) =
_
s
Land
0.3
= 128.34 knots = 64.17 ms
1
From the approach speed, the stalling speed can be calculated,
V
s
=
V
a
0.3
= 49 ms
1
(18)
Now, using this value for V
s
in eq.(17),
_
W
S
_
Land
= 3743 Nm
2
Since W
Land
= 0.85W
t.o
the W/S at take-o is,
_
W
S
_
t.o
=
1
0.85
_
W
S
_
Land
= 4403 Nm
2
Allowing a 10 % variation in V
s
we get a range of wing loading as
3639 < p < 5328 N/m
2
26
3.2 Maximum Speed(V
max
) Consideration
Generally the M
max
is determined as follows
M
max
= M
cr
+ 0.04
Hence,for our airplane,
M
max
= 0.80 + 0.04 = 0.84
The drag polar is generally expressed as
C
D
= C
D
0
+ KC
2
L
(19)
where,
K =
1
Ae
(20)
C
D
0
for the airplane is given as
C
D
0
= C
f
e

S
wet
S
(21)
S
wet
/S = 6.33 from Fig 2.5 of Raymer[4].
3.2.1 Estimation of K
We estimate e from Roskam[6], chapter 2
1
e
=
1
e
wing
+
1
e
fuse
+ 0.05 (22)
e
wing
= 0.84 for unswept wing of A = 9.3 and = 0.25.
Hence,e
wing
for the swept wing is
e
wing
= 0.84 cos( 5) = 0.84 cos(25 5) = 0.7893 (23)
1
e
fuse
= 0.1
Hence,
1
e
=
1
0.7893
+ 0.1 + 0.05 = 1.417
e = 0.707
27
K =
1
9.3 0.707
= 0.0482
To get C
D
0
we note from gure 3.6 of Raymer[4] that (L/D)
max
=18.This
has already been used in section 2.
(L/D)
max
=
1
2
_
C
D
0
K
(24)
Hence,
C
D
0
=
1
4K(L/D)
2
max
=
1
4 0.0482 18
2
= 0.0161
Further,
C
D
0
= C
fe
S
wet
S
(25)
gives,
C
fe
=
0.0161
6.33
= 0.00254
Hence, the drag polar is
C
D
0
= 0.0161 + 0.0482C
2
L
To obtain the optimum W/S based on maximum speed,we the follow
method given in Lebedinski[7], chapter IV of writing the drag polar as a
function of p (=W/S)
C
D
= F
1
+ F
2
p + F
3
p
2
(26)
where,
F
1
= C
fe
_
1 +
S
ht
S
+
S
vt
S
__
S
wet
S
_
w
= C
fe
K
t
(27)
F
2
=
(C
Do
F
1
)
W/S
(28)
F
3
=
K
q
2
(29)
To calculate F
1
, F
2
, F
3
values for our airplane we proceed as follows.
28
From our preliminary estimations ,
S
ht
S
= 0.31
S
vt
S
= 0.21
Hence,
K
t
= 1 +
S
ht
S
+
S
vt
S
= 1.52
_
C
Do
_
W
= C
fe
_
S
wet(exposed)
S
_
W
(30)
To calculate (S
wet(exposed)
/S)
W
we need to obtain dimensions of the ex-
posed wing.We proceed as follows. From preliminary estimate in section 1
S = 107.02 m
2
= 0.24
A = 9.3
c
r
= 5.47 m
c
t
= 1.31 m

c/4
= 25

Hence, for the equivalent trapezoidal wing, the chord distribution is given
by
c(y) = c
r

c
r
c
t
b/2
y
= 5.47 0.264y
Taking fuselage diameter of 3.79 m, the chord at y = 1.895 m is
c
r(exposed)
= 4.97 m
b
exposedwing
= 15.78
3.79
2
= 13.89 m
29
S
wet
= 2S
exposed
_
1 + 1.2(t/c)
avg
_
(31)
S
exposedwing
=
1
2
(4.97 + 1.31) 13.89 2 = 87.23 m
2
Assuming (t/c)
avg
of 12.5%
S
wet(exposedwing)
= 2
_
1 + 1.2(0.125)
_
87.23 = 200.63 m
2
Hence,
(C
Do
)
W
= 0.0025
200.63
107.02
= 0.004687
F
1
= 1.52 0.004687 = 0.007124
We also know that the drag polar is
C
D
= 0.0161 + 0.0482C
2
L
F
2
=
C
Do
F
1
W/S
= 1.632 10
6
m
2
/N
The above drag polar will not be valid at M greater than the M
cruise
.
Hence we need to estimate the drag polar (values of C
Do
and K) at M
max
.
The drag divergence Mach number(M
DD
) for the aircraft is xed at M = 0.82
which is 0.02 greater than M
cruise
. This would ensure that there is no wave
drag at M
cruise
of 0.80. To estimate the increase in C
Do
from M = 0.80 to
M = 0.84, we make a reasonable assumption that the slope of the C
Do
Vs
M curve remains constant in the region between M = 0.82 and M = 0.84.
The value of this slope is 0.1 at M = 0.82. Hence, the increase in C
Do
is
estimated as 0.02 0.1 = 0.002.
From the data on B 787 available in website[2] we observe that the varia-
tion in K is not signicant in the range M = 0.82 to M = 0.84. Hence,value
of K is retained as in subcritical ow. However better estimates are used in
performance calculations presented later.
Consequently the drag polar that is valid at M
max
is estimated as
C
D
= 0.0181 + 0.0482C
2
L
(32)
30
The change in the C
Do
is largely due to change in the zero lift drag of the
wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail. This means that the change in C
Do
aects F
1
value alone.
Hence at M
max
F
1
= 0.009124
The value of F
3
depends on the dynamic pressure at V
max
.
V
max
= M
max

_
speed of sound at h
cruise
= 0.84 295.2 = 248.1m/s
q
max
=
1
2
V
2
max
= 0.5 0.364 248
2
= 11200.95
F
3
=
0.0482
11200.95
2
= 3.84 10
10
m
4
/N
2
To obtain the optimum value of W/S, we minimize the thrust required
for V
max
. The relation between t(ie T/W) and p is
t
V
max
= q
max
_
F
1
p
+ F
2
+ F
3
p
_
(33)
On minimizing t
V
max
, we get
p
optimum
=
_
F
1
F
3
p
optimum
=
_
0.009124
3.84 10
10
= 4873.31N/m
2
The t
V
max
value at p
opt
is found from eq.(33) as
t
V
max
= 0.06022
Allowing a 5 % extra thrust and using the new t
V
max
in eq. (33) gives two
values of p viz.
p
1
= 3344 Nm
2
p
2
= 7101 Nm
2
Thus, any p between p
1
and p
2
would be acceptable from V
max
consider-
ations with a maximum of 5% deviation from optimum.
3344 < p < 7101 N/m
2
31
3.3 (R/C)
max
consideration
The value for (R/C)
max
at sea level was chosen as 700 m/min (11.67 m/s)
which is typical for passenger airplanes.The thrust required for climb at cho-
sen ight speed(V ) is related to (R/C) in the following way(section 4.2.4 of
text).
t
R/c
=
R/C
V
+
q
p
C
D
(34)
But, C
D
is
C
D
= F
1
+ F
2
p + F
3
p
2
(35)
q =
1
2

0
V
2
(36)
t
R/C
=
R/C
V
+
1
2

V
2
p
(F
1
+ F
2
p + F
3
p
2
) (37)
The ight speed for optimum climb performance is not high and values
of F
1
and F
2
correspond to their values for M < M
cruise
. F
3
is a function of
the dynamic pressure.
Our motive is to nd the minimum sea level static thrust (t
s
R/c
) for various
values of V and then choose the minimum amongst the minima. For a given
V ,
p
opt
=
_
F
1
F
3
Therefore, a table is prepared for dierent values of velocity(Table 4)
and the corresponding t
R/C
is obtained using eq.(37) and the corresponding
value of F
3
. This t
R/C
is converted to t
s
R/C
by using the plots provided in
Reference 1.13, chapter 9. These plots provide the climb thrust variation for
engine with bypass ratio 6.5 as a function of velocity and altitude. Using
these plots,the t
R/C
is converted to t
s
R/C
.
32
V (m/s) p
opt
t
R/C
t
s
R/C
80 1507 0.1893 0.2868
100 2355 0.1637 0.2641
120 3391 0.1487 0.2507
140 4615 0.14 0.2469
150 5298 0.1373 0.2483
160 6028 0.1356 0.2510
170 6805 0.1346 0.2554
180 7629 0.1343 0.2617
190 8500 0.1345 0.2691
200 9419 0.1354 0.2780
Table 4: Variation of t
R/C
with p for (R/C)
max
We observe that the value of t
s
R/C
remains low and almost constant for
a range of V values from 120 to 170 m/s. This provides a range of values of
p as given below
p
1
= 3391 N/m
2
p
2
= 6793 N/m
2
Therefore, for
3391 < p < 6805 N/m
2
the climb performance is near the optimum.
3.4 Based on Minimum Fuel for Range (W
f
min
)
In cruise ight, the weight of the fuel used (W
f
) is related to the range(R)
and wing loading(p) as follows(section 4.2.5 of [5])
W
f
=
R
3.6
_

0
2
TSFC

q
_
F
1
p
+ F
2
+ F
3
p
_
(38)
The values of F
1
, F
2
, F
3
corresponding to cruise conditions are as follows
F
1
= 0.007124
F
2
= 1.632 10
6
33
V
cruise
= M
cruise
295.2 = 0.8 295.2 = 236.3 m/s
q
cruise
= 0.5 V
2
= 0.5 0.364 236.3
2
= 10159.59 N/m
2
F
3
=
0.0482
10159.59
= 4.67 10
10
m
4
/N
2
Using eq.(38) we minimize W
f
and obtain p
optimum
as
p
optimum
=
_
F
1
F
3
(39)
p
optimum
=
_
0.007124
4.67 10
10
= 3905.84 N/m
2
Using this value of p in eq.(38) along with R = 4000 km and TSFC =
0.6hr
1
, we get W
fmin
as
W
fmin
= 0.1514
Allowing an excess fuel of 5 % i.e. W
f
min
= 0.1590 and using eq.(38) we
get two values p
1
and p
2
as
p
1
= 2676 N/m
2
p
2
= 5700 N/m
2
Thus, any p within p
1
and p
2
would be acceptable from the point of view
of minimizing W
f
.
2676 < p < 5700N/m
2
3.5 Based on Absolute Ceiling
At absolute ceiling, the ight is possible at only one speed. Observing the
trend of H
max
as h
cruise
+ 0.6 km we choose the absolute ceiling to be H
max
= 11.6 km. To nd the t
H
max
, we solve the following two equations(section
4.2.3 of [5]).
34
t
h
=
_
4K(F
1
+ F
2
p) (40)
t
h
= 2q
hmax
_
F
1
p
+ F
2
_
(41)
The F
1
and F
2
values corresponding to this case are
F
1
= 0.007124
F
2
= 1.632 10
6
In the absence of a prescribed velocity at H
max
, the velocity corresponding
to ight at (L/D)
max
is taken to calculate q
max
. C
L
value corresponding to
ight at (L/D)
max
is given by
C
L
=
_
C
Do
K
=
_
0.016
0.048
= 0.577 (42)
q
h
max
=
(W/S)
C
L
=
5500
0.577
= 9532.06
The solution for p
opt
is obtained by solving eqs.(40) and (41).
p
opt
= 5500 Nm
2
as it should be.
t
h
max
corresponding to p
optimum
is
t
h
max
= 0.05581
Allowing a 5 % variation in Thrust, we get
t
hmax1
= 0.05302
t
hmax2
= 0.05860
The solutions to eq.(40) with the new t
h
max
values are
p
1
= 4567 Nm
2
p
2
= 6547 Nm
2
Similarly, using in eq.(41), we get
35
p
1
= 4942 Nm
2
p
2
= 6201 Nm
2
From the above four values, the nal lower and upper bounds from the
ceiling considerations are
p
1
= 4942 Nm
2
p
2
= 6201 Nm
2
4942 < p < 6201 N/m
2
3.6 Summary of Constraints
We now tabulate the various constraints on the choice of W/S
Performance Criteria Allowable range of W/S in (Nm
2
)
s
Land
3639 - 5328
V
max
3344 - 7101
(R/C)
max
3391 - 6805
W
f
2676 - 5700
h
max
4942 - 6201
Table 5: Choice of (W/S)
From the table, we see that the allowable range of W/S values is
4942 < p < 5328 N/m
2
3.7 Consideration of Wing Weight (W
w
)
The weight of the wing depends on its area. According to Raymer[4], chapter
15, for passenger airplanes, the weight of the wing is proportional to S
0.649
.
Thus a wing with lower area will be lighter and for lower wing area, the W/S
must be higher. Hence we examine the advantage of choosing a higher wing
loading than that indicated by minimum fuel requirement. It may be pointed
out that the weight of wing structure is about 12% of W
g
.
36
The optimum W/S from range consideration is 3906 N/m
2
whereas with
a 5% increase in W
f
, the wing loading could go up to 5700 N/m
2
. If the
wing loading of 5700 N/m
2
is chosen, instead of 3906 N/m
2
, the weight of
the wing would decrease by a factor of
_
3906
5700
_
0.649
= 0.782
Taking weight of the wing as 12% of W
g
, the saving in the wing weight
will be 2.6%. However this higher wing loading will result in an increase in
the fuel by 5% of W
g
. In the present case, W
f
would be around 20% and
hence 5% of W
f
means an increase in the weight by 0.05 0.2 = 1%.
Thus by increasing W/S from 3906 to 5700 N/m
2
, the saving in the W
g
would be around 2.6 - 1 = 1.6%. Thus it is advantageous to have higher
W/S.
3.8 Choosing a W/S
We see from the Table 5 that a wide range of p is permissible which will still
satisfy various requirement with permissible deviations from the optimum.
To arrive at the nal choice we consider the take-o requirement and choose
highest wing loading which would permit take-o within permissible distance
without excessive (T/W) requirement. From data collection, the take-o
distance, balanced eld length, is assumed to be 2150 m. From gure 5.4
of Raymer(Reference 1.11) the take-o parameter {(W/S)/C
L
t.o
(T/W)} for
this eld length is 180. With (W/S) in lb/ft
2
. We take = 1 (take-o at sea
level),C
L
t.o
= 0.8 C
L
max
= 0.8 2.5 = 2. Generally these types of aircraft
have (T/W) of 0.3.Substituting these values we get,
p
final
= 108.2 lb/ft
2
= 5195 Nm
2
It is reassuring that this value of p lies within the permissible values
summarized in Table 5.
3.9 Thrust Requirements
After selecting the W/S for the aircraft, the thrust needed for various design
requirements is obtained. These requirements decide the choice of engine.
37
3.9.1 Requirement for V
max
We use the chosen value of p in the following equation
t
V
max
= q
max
(
F
1
p
+ F
2
+ F
3
p) (43)
and get the thrust required for V
max
at cruise altitude as
_
T
W
_
M
max
= 0.0602 (44)
Referring to engine charts in Jenkinson[8], chapter 9, for a turbo fan
engine with bypass ratio of 6.5, the sea level static thrust is
T
W
=
0.0602
0.18
= 0.334 (45)
In our case, this would mean a Thrust requirement of
T
req
= 193.9 kN
3.10 Requirements for (R/C)
max
As in the case for V
max
, we use our nal design choice for (W/S) in the
following equation,
t
R/c
=
R/C
V
+
1
2

V
2
p
(F
1
+ F
2
p + F
3
p
2
) (46)
Substituting appropriate values, we get
_
T
W
_
R/C
= 0.252 (47)
In our case, this would mean a thrust requirement of
T
req
= 146.3kN
3.11 Take-O Thrust Requirements
The take of (T/W) is taken to be 0.3(choice is motivated by similar aircraft).
This implies a thrust requirement of
T
to
= 0.3 W
g
= 174.2 kN
38
3.12 Engine Choice
From the previous section, we see that the max. Thrust requirements occurs
from Take o considerations.
T
max
= 193.9 kN
As we have adopted a twin engine design, this means a per engine thrust
of
T
max
= 96.95 kN/engine
We look for an engine which supplies this thrust and has a TSFC of
0.6hr
1
and bypass ratio of around 6.5. Some of the engines with perfor-
mance close to these numbers are taken from Jenkinson[8], chapter 9 and
website[1].
Finally, we chose CFM56-2B model of turbofan with a sea level static
thrust of 97.9 kN as this engine satises nearly all our requirements.
3.13 Engine Characteristics
For performance analysis, the variation of thrust and TSFC with speed and
altitude are required. Jenkinson[8], chapter 9 has given non dimensional
charts for turbo fan engines with dierent bypass ratios. Choosing the charts
for bypass ratio = 6.5 and sea level static thrust of 97.9kN, the engine curves
are presented below.
39
F
i
g
u
r
e
5
:
C
r
u
i
s
e
T
h
r
u
s
t
p
e
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
f
o
r
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
40
F
i
g
u
r
e
6
:
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
l
i
m
b
T
h
r
u
s
t
w
i
t
h
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
a
n
d
M
a
c
h
N
o
.
(
B
y
p
a
s
s
r
a
t
i
o
=
6
.
5
)
41
4 Wing Design
4.1 Introduction
The weight and the wing loading of the airplane have been obtained in sec-
tions 2 and 3 as 59175 kgf(579915 N) and 5195 N/m
2
. These give wing area
as 111.63 m
2
. The wing design involves choosing the following parameters.
1. Airfoil selection
2. Aspect ratio
3. Sweep
4. Taper ratio
5. Twist
6. Incidence
7. Dihedral
8. Vertical location
In the following subsections, the factors aecting the choice of parameters
are mentioned and then the choices are eected.
4.2 Airfoil Selection
The airfoil shape inuences C
L
max
, C
D
min
, C
L
opt
, C
mac
and stall pattern.
These in turn inuence stalling speed, fuel consumption during cruise, turn-
ing performance and weight of the airplane.
For high subsonic airplanes, the drag divergence Mach number(M
DD
) is
an important consideration. It may be recalled that (M
DD
) is the Mach
number at which the increase in the drag coecient is 0.002 above the value
at low subsonic Mach numbers. A supercritical airfoil is designed to increase
M
DD
. NASA has carried out tests on several supercritical airfoils and recom-
mends the use of NASA-SC(2) series airfoil with appropriate thickness ratio
and camber.
42
4.2.1 Design Lift Coecient
The airfoil will have a C
l
opt
at which its drag coecient is minimum. For
general design the airfoil is chosen in such a way that the C
L
cruise
of the
airplane is equal to the C
l
opt
of the airfoil.
C
L
cruise
=
(W/S)
q
cruise
(48)
Using the value of (W/S) = 5195 Nm
2
and the q corresponding to
M = 0.8 at 11 km altitude, we get
C
l
cruise
= 0.512 (49)
For choice of thickness ratio and wing sweep, we take C
l
opt
= 0.5.
4.2.2 Airfoil Thickness Ratio and Wing Sweep
Airfoil thickness ratio(t/c) has a direct inuence on drag, maximum lift, stall
characteristics, structural weight and critical Mach number. A higher t/c im-
plies a lower critical Mach number but also a lower wing weight.Thus we need
to choose an optimum t/c for the airfoil.
C
l
opt
= 0.5 has been chosen and the cruise Mach number is 0.8. In order
to ensure that the drag divergence Mach number is greater than M
cruise
, we
choose M
DD
as 0.82. This is based on the consideration that there should
be no increase in drag at M
cruise
, C
D
wave
is 0.002 at M
DD
and the slope of
the C
D
Vs M curve around M
DD
is 0.1 . NASA[3] gives experimental results
for several super-critical airfoils with dierent (t/c) and C
l
opt
. Curves for
C
l
opt
= 0.4, 0.7, 1.0 are available in the aforesaid report. We interpolate and
obtain the curve for C
l
opt
= 0.5.
The M
DD
for the wing can be estimated in the following manner.
M
DD
= (M
DD
)
a/f
+ M
A
+ M

(50)
where M
A
and M

are corrections for inuences of the aspect ratio

and the sweep.
The change in M
DD
with A is almost zero for A > 8. Since we have
chosen A = 9.3, the second term in the above equation will not contribute to
M
DD
. Further from Hoerner[9], chapter 15, the change in M
DD
due to sweep
is given as
1

90
=
1 M
DD
1 M
=0
(51)
43
The supercritical airfoil with (t/c) = 14% has M
DD
= 0.74 at C
L
opt
of
0.5. Using this in eq.(51) we obtain which would give M
DD
of 0.82,
1

90
=
1 0.82
1 0.74
= 27.7

The average thickness has been arrived at as 14 %. However, to reduce

structural weight, the (t/c)
root
is increased and the (t/c)
tip
is decreased, Con-
sidering the features for Airbus A310 and Boeing B 767 which have
M
cr
= 0.8 and similar values of
c/4
, it is decided that the variation of (t/c)
along span be such that (t/c) of 15.2% at root, (t/c) of 11.8% at spanwise
location of the thickness break and (t/c) of 10.3% at the tip.
Thickness break location is the spanwise location upto which the trailing
edge is straight. From the data collection this location is at 34% of semispan.
4.3 Other Parameters
4.3.1 Aspect Ratio
The aspect ratio aects C
L

, C
D
i
and wing weight. The value of C
L

de-
creases as A decreases. For example, in the case of an elliptic wing,
C
L

=
A
A + 2
(C
l

)
a/f
(52)
The induced drag coecient can be expressed as
C
D
i
=
C
2
L
A
(1 + ) (53)
where depends on A, and . A high A increases the span of the wing
which in turn requires more space in the hangar. A higher Aspect ratio would
also result in poor riding quality in turbulent weather. All these factors need
careful optimization. However at the present stage of design we choose
A = 9.3 based on trends indicated by data collection.
Correspondingly, the wing span would be
b =

AS = 32.22m
44
4.3.2 Taper Ratio
Wing taper ratio is dened as the ratio between the tip chord and the cen-
terline root chord. Taper ratio aects the
Induced drag
Weight
Tip stalling
Induced drag is low for taper ratios between 0.3-0.5. Lower the taper ratio,
lower is the weight. A swept wing also has higher structural weight than
unswept wing. Since the present airplane has a swept wing, a taper ratio of
0.24 has been chosen based on the trends of current swept wing airplanes.
4.3.3 Root and Tip Chords
Root chord and tip chord of the equivalent trapezoidal wing can now be
evaluated.
c
r
=
2S
b(1 +)
= 5.59 m
c
t
= c
r
= 1.34 m
c =
2
3
(1 + +
2
)
(1 + )
c
r
= 3.9 m
Location of the quarter chord of the mac from wing leading edge at the
root is 4.76 m
4.3.4 Dihedral
The Dihedral is the angle of the wing with respect to the horizontal when
seen in the front view .Dihedral of the wing aects the lateral stability of the
airplane.Since there is no simple technique for arriving at the dihedral angle
that takes all the considerations into eect we need to initially choose a di-
hedral angle based on data collected(Table A). Hence we choose a reasonable
value for the dihedral as
= 5
o
4.3.5 Wing Twist
We have assumed a linear twist of 3
o
.
45
4.4 Cranked Wing Design
If we observe the design of current high subsonic airplanes, we see that the
trailing edge is straight for a part of the span, in the inboard region. A
larger chord in the inboard region has the following advantages
1. more space for fuel and landing gear
2. the lift distribution is changed such that more lift is produced in the
inboard section which reduce the bending moment in the root.
This type of design is called a wing with cranked trailing edge. The value
of the span upto which the trailing edge is straight has to be obtained by
optimization. However at the present stage of design, based on the current
trends, the trailing edge is made unswept till 35% of semi span. Root chord
of the cranked wing is
c
rcranked
= 7.44 m
Span of wing portion with unswept trailing edge = 0.35 32.22 = 11.28 m
Figure 7: Plan View of Cranked Wing
46
4.5 Wing Incidence(i
w
)
The wing incidence angle is the angle between wing reference chord and
fuselage reference line. Wing incidence angle is chosen to minimize drag at
some operating conditions,usually cruise.The incidence angle is chosen such
that when the wing is at the correct angle of attack for the selected design
condition,the fuselage is at the angle of attack for minimum drag(usually at
zero angle of attack). Usually wing incidence is ultimately set using wind
tunnel data.However, for an initial estimate for our preliminary design we
proceed as follows
C
L
cruise
= C
L

(i
w

0L
) (54)
In the present case,
C
L
cruise
= 0.512
C
L

is computed using the following formula in Raymer[4], chapter 12,

C
L

=
2A
2 +
_
4 +
A
2

2
(1 +
tan
2

max

2
)
(
S
exp
S
ref
)(F) (55)
where,

2
= 1 M
2
= 1
F = 1.07
_
1 +
d
b
_
2
S
exp
= area of exposed wing
Substituting various values, we get
C
L

= 6.276 rad
1

L=0
for the airfoil was calculated using camber line of the supercritical
airfoil with 14% thickness ratio. The value is 5.8

. Substituting the values

yields a value of i
w
which is negative. This can be attributed to the fact that
the airplane is exible. Hence the value of i
w
is chosen from similar airplanes.
i
w
= 1

which is the value recommended in Raymer[4], chapter 4.

4.6 Vertical Location of Wing
The wing vertical location for the designed airplane has been chosen to be a
low wing conguration which is typical of similar airplanes.
47
4.7 Areas of Flaps and Ailerons
These areas are chosen based on the initial data collection of similar aircraft.
1. Trailing edge : Fowler aps.
2. Leading edge : full span slats.
We choose
S
flap
S
= 0.17
S
slat
S
= 0.1
S
ail
S
= 0.03
5 Fuselage and Tail Layout
5.1 Introduction
The fuselage layout is important in the design process as the length of the
airplane depends on this.The length and diameter of the fuselage are related
to the seating arrangement.
The Fuselage of a passenger airplane can be divided into four basic sec-
tions viz. nose, cockpit, payload compartment and tail fuselage. In this
section, the fuselage design is carried out by choosing the various parame-
ters.
5.2 Initial Estimate of Fuselage Length
By observing the l
f
/b of similar airplanes, we get the rst estimate of l
f
for the present case. The l
f
/b value chosen is 1.05. Using b = 32.22m as
obtained from wing design, the Fuselage length is 33.83 m.
Raymer[4], chapter 6 provides a relation between gross weight and length of
fuselage as follows.
l
f
= aW
c
o
(56)
48
where W
o
is in lbs and l
f
in ft. For a jet transport airplane, a = 0.67
and c = 0.43. Using W
o
= 59175 2.205 lbf, an l
f
of 31.83 m is obtained.
This is in good agreement of the value obtained based on data collection.
5.3 Nose and Cockpit - Front Fuselage
The front fuselage accommodates the forward looking radar in the nose sec-
tion, the ight deck with associated windscreen, and the nose undercarriage.
Anthropometric data for ight crews has provided the basis for the arrange-
ment of pilots seats, instruments and controls. Development of electronic
displays has transformed the traditional layout of the ight deck. The air-
craft must be capable of being own from either pilot seat position; therefore
the wind screen and front geometry will be symmetrical about the aircraft
longitudinal center line. Modern glass cockpit displays and side stick con-
trollers have transformed the layout of the ight deck from the traditional
aircraft conguration. The front fuselage prole presents a classical design
compromise between a smooth shape for low drag and the need to have at
sloping windows to give good visibility. The layout of the ight deck and
the specied pilot window geometry is often the starting point of the overall
fuselage layout.
For the current design, the ight deck of various similar airplanes are
considered and the following value of l
nose
/l
f
and is chosen.
l
nose
l
f
= 0.03
For the cockpit length (l
cockpit
), standards have been prescribed by Raymer
(Reference 1.11,chapter 9). l
cockpit
for the two member crew is chosen as 100
inches (2.5 m).
l
cockpit
= 2.5 m
5.4 Passenger Cabin Layout
Two major geometrical parameters that specify the passenger cabin are
Cabin Diameter and Cabin Length. These are in turn decided by more
specic details like number of seats, seat width, seating arrangement (num-
ber abreast), seat pitch, aisle width and number of aisles.
49
5.4.1 Cabin Cross Section
The shape of the fuselage cross section is dictated by the structural require-
ments for pressurization. A circular shell reacts the internal pressure loads
by hoop tension. This makes the circular section ecient and therefore low-
est in structural weight. However a fully circular section may result in too
much unusable volume above or below the cabin space. This problem is
overcome by the use of several interconnecting circular sections to form the
cross-sectional layout. The parameters for the currently designed airplane
are arrived at by considering similar airplanes(Table A).
We choose a circular cross section for the fuselage.
The overall size must be kept small to reduce aircraft weight and drag,yet
the resulting shape must provide a comfortable and exible cabin interior
which will appeal to the customer airlines. The main decision to be taken is
the number of seats abreast and the aisle arrangement.The number of seats
across will x the number of rows in the cabin and thereby the fuselage
length.Design of the cabin cross section is further complicated by the need to
provide dierent classes like rst class, business class, economy class etc.
5.4.2 Cabin length
Following the trend displayed by current aircraft, we choose to have two
classes viz Economy class and Business class.The total number of seats(150)
is distributed as 138 seats in the economy class and 12 seats in the business
class.
Cabin parameters are chosen based on standards for similar airplanes. The
various parameters chosen are as follows
Parameter Economy Class Business class
Seat Pitch (in inches) 32 38
Seat width (in inches) 20 22
Aisle width (in inches) 22 24
Seats abreast 6 4
Number of Aisles 1 1
Max. Height (in m) 2.2 2.2
Since the business class has a 4 abreast seating arrangement,the number
of rows required will be 3 and the economy class will have 23 rows.The cabin
length is found out by using the seat pitch for each of the classes.
50
Class No.of seats No.of rows Seat Pitch (in) Cabin length(m)
Economy 138 23 32 18.4
Business 12 3 38 2.85
Hence,the total cabin length will be 18.4 + 2.85 = 21.25 m.
5.4.3 Cabin Diameter
Using the number of seats abreast,seat width,aisle width we calculate the
internal diameter of the cabin.
d
f(internal)
= 22 1 + 19 6 = 136 in = 3.4 m
According to the standards prescribed by Raymer[4], chapter 9, the struc-
tural thickness is given by
t = 0.02d
f
+ 1

= 0.02 136 + 1 = 3.72 in = 0.093 m

Therefore the external diameter of the fuselage is obtained as 3.4+0.093
2 = 3.59 m.
5.5 Rear Fuselage
The rear fuselage prole is chosen to provide a smooth, low drag shape which
supports the tail surfaces. The lower side of the prole must provide ade-
quate clearance for aircraft when rotation during take o. The rear fuselage
should also house the auxillary power unit(APU).
Based on data collected for similar aircraft we choose the ratio l
tail
/l
f
as
0.25.
5.6 Total Fuselage Length
The cabin length and cockpit length have been decided to be 32.08 m and
3.3 m respectively.We have also chosen the ratios of nose and tail length with
respect to l
f
as 3% and 25%. Thus cabin and cockpit length form 72% of l
f
.
Hence the fuselage length is calculated as 23.75/0.72 = 33 m.The lengths of
51
various parts of the fuselage are indicated below
Nose length = 1 m
Cockpit length = 2.5 m
Cabin length = 21.25 m
Rear length = 8.25 m
Total = 33 m
5.7 Tail surfaces
The type and area of the tail surfaces are important in determining the sta-
bility of the airplane. A conventional tail arrangement is chosen. Some of
the important parameters that decide the aerodynamic characteristics of the
tail are area ratio (S
t
/S), tail volume ratio(V
H
and V
V
), tail arm, tail span
etc. All these parameters have to be decided for both the horizontal and
vertical tail.
From data collected on similar airplanes, we choose the following values
for the tail parameters.
Parameter Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail
Area ratio (S
t
/S) 0.31 0.21
Aspect ratio 5 1.7
Taper ratio 0.26 0.31
Area
The Areas of the horizontal and vertical tail(S
h
and S
v
) are calculated
as
S
h
= 0.31 111.63 = 34.61 m
2
S
v
= 0.21 111.63 = 23.44 m
2
Span
The span of the horizontal and vertical tail (b
h
and b
v
) are given as
b
h
=
_
A
h
S
h
(57)
b
v
=
_
A
v
S
v
(58)
52
Taking AR
H
= 5 and AR
V
= 1.7, we get
b
H
= 13.15 m
b
V
= 6.31 m
Root and tip chords
The chord lengths of the horizontal and vertical tail are obtained as
c
rh
=
2S
h
b
h
(1 +
h
)
= 4.18 m
c
rv
=
2S
v
b
v
(1 +
v
)
= 5.67 m
c
th
= c
rh
= 1.09 m
c
tv
= c
rv
= 1.76 m
Tail arm
Tail arm is the distance between the wing aerodynamics center and
the tail(horizontal or vertical) aerodynamic center.The value of the tail
arm is chosen based on data collection. ratio.
Choosing l
h
as 45% of l
f
and l
v
as 42% of l
f
yield,
l
h
= 14.85 m
l
v
= 13.86 m
V
H
=
S
h
l
h
Sc
(59)
V
V
=
S
v
l
v
Sb
(60)
Hence,
V
H
= 1.18
V
V
= 0.09
53
5.8 Engine Location
The type of Engine mounting and its location play a major role in deciding
the overall drag coecient of the airplane. A conventional wing mounted en-
gine is chosen as it facilitates periodic maintenance in an industry where an
unscheduled downtime could mean huge losses to the airliners. The engines
are attached to the lower side of the wing using pylons to reduce drag. The
other reason for choosing a wing mounted engine is the fuel is stored in the
wings itself, thereby reducing the length of the fuel line.
From the data collection of similar airplanes, the engine location is xed
at 34% of the semi span.
5.9 Landing Gear Arrangement
One of the principal moving parts on the aircraft is the landing gear. This
must be light, small, provide good ride dynamics during taxiing and safe en-
ergy absorption at touch down. It must be retractable to reduce drag during
ight. So housing of the landing gear is a space constraint.A conventional tri-
cycle landing gear is chosen based on trend followed by similar aircraft. The
important parameters of this type of landing gear are wheel track, wheel base
and turning radius. The values of the parameters(shown below)were based
on data collected from similar aircraft.
Parameter Value
Wheel base (in m) 13.2
Track length (in m) 5.8
Turning radius (in m) 19.3
54
6 Estimation of Component Weights and C.G
Location
Aircraft weight is a common factor which links dierent design activities
(aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, layout, airworthiness, environmental,
economic and operational aspects).To this end, at each stage of the design,a
check is made on the expected total mass of the completed aircraft. A sepa-
rate design organization(weights department)is employed to assess and con-
trol weight.In the preliminary design stage,estimates have to made from his-
torical statistical data of all the component parts of the aircraft from similar
airplanes. As parts are manufactured and the aircraft prototype reaches com-
pletion it is possible to check the accuracy of the estimates by weighing each
component and where necessary instigate weight reduction programmes.
6.1 Aircraft mass statement
The weight of the entire airplane can be sub-divided into empty weight and
useful load. The empty weight can be further subdivided into
Structures group
Propulsion group
Equipment group
DCPR(Defense Contractor Planning Report) weight is taken as the weight
obtained after deducting weights of wheels, brakes, tires, engines, starters,
batteries, equipments, avionics etc from the empty weight.DCPR weight is
important for cost estimation, and can be viewed as the weight of the parts of
the airplane that the manufacturer makes as opposed those of items bought
and installed.
It has become normal practice in aircraft design to list the various com-
ponents of aircraft mass in a standard format.The components are grouped
in convenient subsections as shown below.
6.1.1 Structures Group
1. Wing(including control surfaces)
2. Tail(horizontal and vertical including controls)
3. Body(or fuselage)
55
4. Nacelles
5. Landing gear (main and nose units)
6. Surface controls
6.1.2 Propulsion Group
1. Engine(s)(dry weight)
2. Accessory gearbox and drives
3. Induction system
4. Exhaust system
5. Oil system and cooler
6. Fuel system
7. Engine controls
8. Starting system
9. Thrust reversers
6.1.3 Fixed equipment group
1. Auxiliary power unit
2. Flight control systems(sometimes included in structural group)
3. Instruments and navigation equipment
4. Hydraulic systems
5. Electrical systems
6. Avionics systems
7. Furnishing
8. Air conditioning and anti-icing
9. Oxygen system
10. Miscellaneous(e.g.re protection and safety systems)
56
6.2 Weights of Various Components
After making the classication between various groups and listing the com-
ponents in each group,we next proceed to determine the weights of these
components.
In the preliminary design stages it is not possible to know the size of indi-
vidual aircraft components in great detail but it is possible to use prediction
methods that progressively become more accurate as the aircraft geometry
is developed.Most aircraft design textbooks contain a set of equations empir-
ically derived based on existing aircraft. For the present design, we choose
to follow equations prescribed in Appendix 8.1 of [5]. Using these equations,
the weights of various individual components are calculated.
6.3 C.G Location and C.G Travel
6.3.1 Wing Location on Fuselage
The wing longitudinal location is decided based on the consideration the C.G
of the entire airplane with full payload and fuel is around the quarter chord
of the m.a.c.We tabulate the weights and the corresponding C.G locations
of various components and then apply moment equilibrium about the nose
of the airplane in order to solve for X
l.e
(the distance of leading edge of root
chord of the wing from the nose).In tabulating the results,we assume that
the C.G locations of wing, horizontal tail and vertical tail are at 40% of the
respective m.a.c.The fuselage C.G is taken to be at 42% of its length.The
engine C.G location was taken to be at 40% of its length.The distance of
the engine C.G from the root chord was measured for various airplanes and
we chose a distance of 2 m.All other components were taken to have a net
C.G location at 42% of the fuselage length.The tabulated values are given
below.The nose wheel was placed at 14% of the fuselage length and the main
landing gear position was determined by using the wheelbase from section 5.
Remark
Using data for equivalent trapezoidal wing in section 4, the location
of wing c.g. is at 5.34 m behind the leading edge of the root chord.
The quarter chord of m.a.c is at 4.76 m behind the leading edge of root
chord.
Noting that the tail arm is 14.85 m and that the c.g of tail is 15 %
behind the a.c., the distance of horizontal tail c.g. from leading edge
57
of root chord of wing is 20.05 m. In a similar way, c.g. of vertical tail
is at 19.56 m behind leading edge of the root chord of wing.
Component Weight(kg) C.G Location from Nose(m)
Wing 5855.41 X
le
+5.34
Fuselage 6606.60 13.86
Horizontal tail 1160.94 X
le
+20.05
Vertical tail 746.22 X
le
+19.56
Engine group 5659.19 X
le
+2
Nose Wheel 363.18 4.62
Main landing gear 1961.25 17.82
Fixed equipment total 7421.09 13.86
Fuel 12130.88 X
le
+4.76
Payload 17270 14.13
Gross Weight 59175 X
le
+4.76
By applying moment equilibrium about the nose of the airplane,we obtain
location of wing leading edge at the root to be 9.85 m from the nose of the
airplane.
The C.G of the airplane lies at 14.61 m from the nose.
6.4 C.G Travel for Critical Cases
6.4.1 Full Payload and No Fuel
For the case of full payload and no fuel,the fuel contribution to the weight
is not present.However, since we have assumed that the c.g of the fuel to
be at the quarter chord of the m.a.c of the wing(where the c.g of the entire
airplane has been positioned)there will be no c.g shift in this case.
Hence,the C.G shift is 0%.
6.4.2 No Payload and No Fuel
For this case,the fuel as well as the payload contribution are not present.Since
the c.g of payload is not at the c.g of the entire airplane,the c.g is bound to
shift by a certain amount in this case.The moment calculations were per-
formed and the new c.g location was obtained as 14.93 m.Therefore the c.g
shift is 14.93 - 14.63 = 0.3 m.
Hence the c.g shift is +7.28% of m.a.c.
58
6.4.3 No Payload and Full fuel
For this case,since there is no payload, the c.g is bound to shift.On perform-
ing calculations,we obtain the new c.g location to be 14.84 m.Therefore the
c.g shift is 14.84 - 14.63 = 0.21 m.
Hence the c.g shift is +5.17% of the m.a.c.
6.4.4 Payload distribution for 15% c.g travel
According to Lebedenski[7], a total c.g shift of 15% is acceptable in general
for commercial airplanes.Hence,we go on to obtain the maximum payload
that can be concentrated in the front portion of the passenger cabin such
that a c.g shift of 7.5% is produced.
We assume the percentage of payload to be x and also assume the pay-
load c.g to be at x% of the passenger cabin length.Performing the calculations
yields the value of x to be 90%.
Similarly,we also obtain the maximum payload that can be concentrated
at the rear half of the passenger cabin resulting in a c.g shift of 15%.
On performing calculations we obtain the value of x as 70%.
Hence,the c.g locations for various critical cases and payload distribution
for c.g shift of 15% have been calculated.
6.5 Summary
Wing location(leading edge of root of trapezoidal wing) - 9.85 m
c.g location with Full payload and full fuel - 14.61 m
c.g travel for No Payload and No Fuel - 7.28%
c.g travel for No Payload and full Fuel - 5.17%
For a c.g travel of 7.5% on either side of original c.g location,90% of
passengers can be concentrated in the front and 70% in the rear.
59
7 Control Surfaces
7.1 Stability and Controllability
The ability of a vehicle to maintain its equilibrium is termed stability and
the inuence which the pilot or control system can exert on the equilibrium
is termed its controllability.The basic requirement for static longitudinal sta-
bility of any airplane is a negative slope of the curve of the pitching moment
coecient, C
mcg
, versus lift coecient,C
L
. Dynamic stability requires that
the vehicle be not only statically stable,but also that the motions following
a disturbance from equilibrium be such as to restore the equilibrium.
Even though the vehicle might be statically stable, it is possible that the
oscillations following a disturbance might increase in magnitude with each
oscillation,thereby making it impossible to restore the equilibrium.
7.2 Static Longitudinal Stability and Control
7.2.1 Specications
The horizontal tail must be large enough to insure that the static longi-
tudinal stability criterion,dC
mcg
/dC
L
will be negative for all anticipated
center of gravity positions.
An elevator should be provided so that the pilot will be able to trim
the airplane(maintain C
m
= 0) at all anticipated values of C
L
.
The tail should be large enough and and its elevator powerful enough
to enable the pilot rotate the airplane during the take-o run to the
required angle of attack.This condition is termed as the Nose wheel
Lift-o condition.
7.2.2 Aft Center of gravity limit
For the stick free case and for small angles of attack,the following expres-
sion for the aft center of gravity limit in terms of the tail-size parameter,V
we have the following equation. (Section 9.2 of [5])
(x
c.g
)
aft
= x
a.c

_
dC
m
dC
L
_
Fus,Nac
+
a
t
a
w
V
t
_
1
d
d
__
1
C
h
C
h
_
+
_
dC
m
dC
l
_
power
(61)
The value of x
c.g
from above equation is termed the stick-free neutral
point,since it is the c.g location at which the static stability is neutral.
60
7.2.3 Forward center of Gravity Limit
The forward c.g. limit is not generally dependent on maintaining stability.
As the c.g is moved forward ,the stability contribution x
c.g
x
a.c
of the wing
becomes more and more negative ,thereby increasing the static stability.In
order to keep the airplane in equilibrium as the c.g is moved forward,the
elevator must be capable of trimming out the resulting negative pitching
moment.The pitching moment will be the greatest when the airplane is at
C
Lmax
when the airplane is landing and ground eects decrease the down-
wash at the tail.
The equation of pitching moments may be solved for the position of the
most forward c.g by assuming the airplane trimmed(C
mcg
= 0) at C
Lmax
as
follows(Section 9.2 of [5])
(x
cg
)
forward
= x
ac

C
m

C
Lmax
_

emax
+

w

G
i
w
+ i
t

+
C
mac(flaps)
+ C
m(fus)
+ C
m(power)
C
m

_
(62)
7.2.4 Determination of initial parameters
(
dC
m
dC
L
)
Fus
_
dC
m
dC
L
_
Fus
=
K
f
W
2
f
L
f
Sca
w
(63)
The value of K
f
is obtained as 0.0119 from graph 1-9:1 of K.D.Wood[10].
a
w
=6.276 /radian = 0.1095 /degree
from the value obtained in section 4.5 on wing design.
Therefore,
_
dC
m
dC
L
_
fus
=
0.0119 3.59
2
33
111.63 3.9 0.1095
= 0.1036
The contribution of nacelle to (dC
m
/dC
L
) is neglected.
d/d
d
d
=
114.6 a
w
A
(64)
61
d
d
=
114.6 0.1095
9.3
= 0.4297

_
dC
m
dC
L
_
power
_
dC
m
dC
L
_
power
=
Tt
p
Wc
(65)
t
p
is the distance of thrust line from c.g(the distance is measured per-
pendicular to the thrust line).For the designed airplane we make an
estimate of t
p
to be 0.19 m.At the cruise altitude, we choose a (T/W)
of 0.06.
Therefore,
_
dC
m
dC
L
_
power,cruise
=
0.06 0.62
13
= 0.00292
(C
L
)
max
is taken as 2.5 from Section 3. (C
L
)
max
with no aps is 1.4.
(C
L
)
flaps
= 1.1.
a
wg
is the lift curve slope of the wing close to the ground. It is ob-
tained by calculating the value of a
w
at lower velocities. A value of
V = 1.3 49 = 63.7m/s corresponds to a value of M = 0.19 and hence
gives a value of
(a
w
)
landing
= 4.57/radian = 0.0796.
The a
wg
is obtained by adding the ground eect to the (a
w
)
landing
ob-
tained.Hence
(a
wg
)
landing
= 1.1(a
w
)
landing
= 5.027/radian = 0.0877/deg (66)

Wg

Wg
=
(C
L
)
max
a
wg
k
(67)
k is the ground eect factor obtained from Fig 1-9:4 of Wood[10].
(C
L
)
max
is the value without aps and corresponds to 1.4. k was ob-
tained as 1.1((for height of a.c above ground)/semi span of 0.1).

Wg
= 10.16

62
a
t
and a
tg
a
t
is obtained as 0.0828/deg by using the tail parameters in eq.(55).
a
tg
is the lift curve slope of the wing close to the ground. It is ob-
tained by calculating the value of a
t
at lower velocities. A value of
V = 1.3 49 = 63.7m/s corresponds to a value of M = 0.19 and hence
gives a value of
(a
t
)
landing
= 3.91/radian = 0.0682/deg.
The a
tg
is obtained by adding the ground eect to the (a
t
)
landing
ob-
tained.Hence
(a
tg
)
landing
= 1.1(a
t
)
landing
= 5.027/radian = 0.0877/deg (68)
i
w
is taken as 1

from Section 4.
C
mjet
at landing = 0
C
mac(flaps)
C
mac(flaps)
= C
mac
+ C
mac(f)
S
f
c
f
Sc
(69)
C
mac
for the airfoil is taken as 0.1 from airfoil database.C
mac
is
taken as -0.4 from Perkins and Hage[11], Figure 5.40.
C
mac(flaps)
= 0.1 0.4 0.56 1.1 = 0.3464
C
m(Fus)
_
dC
m
d
_
fus
=
_
dC
m
dC
L
_
fus
C
L
alpha
(70)
Hence using the value of C
L

with ground eect,

(C
m

)
fus
= 0.1036 0.0877 = 0.0091
C
m
fus
= 0.0091 (
w
i
w
) = 0.0091(10.16 1) = 0.0834
63
C
h
and C
h
The values of C
h
and C
h
are obtained from Fig 1-9:5 of Wood[10].
Since not much detail is available about the nature of elevators we
assume the standard design and obtain the following values.
C
h
=-0.00660
C
h
=-0.01140
C
m
C
m
= a
t
S
t
S
l
t
c

t
(71)
C
m
= 0.08095 0.95 0.57 V
H
= 0.04438V
H

emax

emax
is chosen as 25

which is typical of most airplanes.

i
t
For the preliminary design we assume i
t
= 1 which is the typically
the value of passenger airplanes.
Now,that we have obtained the various parameters required for the longi-
tudinal stability criterion we go on to calculate V which aects the horizontal
tail sizing. We adopt the following consideration to determine V . C
m

is
approximately equal to -1.15 for transport airplane at M = 0.8(Raymer[4],
chapter 16). Assuming c.g at a.c
_
dC
m
dC
L
_
=
1.15
6.276
= 0.183
Hence
x
cg(aft)
c

x
ac
c
= 0.183
Substituting in eq.(61), we get
0.183 = 0.1036 0.2958V + 0.00292
V = 0.98
We obtain the horizontal tail area to be
64
S
ht
=
0.98 3.9 111.63
14.86
= 28.71m
2
Remark: Keeping in view the large number of approximations involved in
calculation of parameters during landing and take-o, the cross check for
forward c.g. location and nose wheel lift-o conditions are not carried out at
this stage.
7.3 Lateral Stability and Control
7.3.1 Specications
The directional stability criterion,dC
n
/dC

should be negative for any

anticipated speed greater than 1.2 times the stalling speed.
The yawing moment control(rudder) must be powerful enough to (a)
counteract the yawing moment encountered in rolls(adverse yaw),
(b)in cross-wind landings or takeos, (c)in one engine o condition
and (d)in spin when the recovery is eected primarily by the rudder
control.
To regain and maintain straight ight with one engine inoperative at a
minimum speed not greater than 1.3 times the stalling speed.
7.3.2 Equations for directional stability
The equations for directional stability can be derived as
dC
n
d
= C
n(wing)
+ C
n(Fus)
+ C
n(power)
+ C
n(Tail)
(72)
7.3.3 Determination of initial parameters
In the preliminary analysis of directional static stability, the contributions of
wing, power and interference eects are ignored.
C
n(fus)
C
n(fus)
=
k
n
V
n
28.7Sb
(73)
The value of k
n
was obtained from Figure 1:9-2 of Wood[10] as k
n
=0.95
C
n(fus)
=
0.95 217.86
28.7 111.63 32.22
= 0.002005
65
C
n(tail)
C
n(tail)
= a
v
S
v
S
l
v
b
(74)
a
v
= 0.0378 per degree.
C
n(tail)
= 0.0378 V
V
The value of C
n(desirable)
is given by Perkins and Hage[11] as follows
C
n(desirable)
= 0.0005
_
W
b
2
_
1/2
(75)
Therefore ,for the present case we have,
C
n(desirable)
= 0.001709
Hence,
C
n(desirable)
= C
n(fus)
+ C
n(tail)
(76)
0.001709 = 0.002005 0.0378 V
V
(77)
or V
V
= 0.098
This value is almost the same as what we obtained in our initial tail
sizing.
Therefore,vertical tail area is
S
vt
=
111.63 32.22 0.098
13.86
= 25.43m
2
66
8 Features of the Designed Airplane
8.1 Three View Drawing
The 3-view drawing of the airplane designed is given in gure
8.2 Overall Dimensions
Length : 34.32
Wing Span : 32.22 m
Height above ground : 11.17
Wheel base : 13.2 m
Wheel track : 5.8 m
8.3 Engine details
Similar to CFM 56 - 2B
Seal Level Static Thrust : 97.9 kN
By pass ratio : 6.5 (For which the Engine characteristics are given in [8] )
SFC : at M = 0.8, h = 10972 m(36 000 ft), SFC is taken as 0.6 hr
1
8.4 Weights
Gross Weight : 59175 kgf
Empty Weight : 29706 kgf
Fuel Weight : 12131 kgf
Payload : 17338 kgf
Maximum Landing Weight : 50296 kgf
67
F
i
g
u
r
e
8
:
T
h
r
e
e
v
i
e
w
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
a
i
r
p
l
a
n
e
68
8.5 Wing Geometry
Planform Shape : Cranked wing
Span : 32.22 m
Area : 111.63 m
2
Airfoil : NASA - SC(2) series, t/c = 14%, C
l
opt
= 0.5
Root Chord : 5.59 m (Equivalent Trapezoidal wing)
Tip Chord : 1.34 m (Equivalent Trapezoidal wing)
Root Chord of Cranked Wing : 7.44 m
Portion of wing with straight trailing edge : 11.28 m
Mean Aerodynamic Chord : 3.9 m
Quarter chord Sweep : 27.69
o
Dihedral : 5
o
Twist : 3
o
Incidence : 1.4
o
Taper Ratio : 0.24 (Equivalent Trapezoidal wing)
Aspect Ratio : 9.3
8.6 Fuselage Geometry
Length : 33 m
Maximum Diameter : 3.59 m
8.7 Nacelle Geometry
No. of nacelles : 2
Nacelle Diameter : 1.62 m
Cross sectional Area : 2.06 m
2
Length of Nacelle : 3.3 m (based on B737 Nacelle)
8.8 Horizontal Tail Geometry
Span : 11.98 m
Area : 28.71 m
2
Mean Aerodynamic Chord : 2.67 m
Quarter Chord Sweep : 32
o
Root Chord : 3.80 m
Tip chord : 0.99 m
69
Taper Ratio : 0.26
Aspect Ratio : 5
8.9 Vertical Tail Geometry
Span : 6.58 m
Area : 25.43 m
2
Root Chord : 5.90 m
Tip chord : 1.83 m
Mean Aerodynamic Chord : 4.22 m
Quarter Chord Sweep : 37
o
Taper Ratio : 0.31
Aspect Ratio : 1.70
8.10 Other details
C
L
max
without ap : 1.4
C
L
max
with landing aps : 2.7
Maximum Load Factor n
max
: 3.5
C
L
max
with T.O aps : 2.16
8.11 Crew and Payload
Flight crew : 2(pilot and co-pilot)
Cabin crew : 5
Passenger seating : 138 economy and 12 business class
8.12 Performance
The detailed performance estimation is given in section 9. The highlights are
as follows.
The performance is worked for a gross weight of 59175 kgf and wing
loading of 5195 Nm
2
except for landing where the landing weight is
taken as 85% of take-o weight.
Maximum Mach No. at 36000 ft with cruise thrust = 0.859, with climb
thrust = 0.874.
70
Maximum still air range at M = 0.81 and h = 36000 ft is 5602 km.
Maximum rate of climb at sea level with climb thrust = 1087 m/min
Service ceiling = 11.55 km, Absolute ceiling = 11.88 km
Take-o distance over 50 ft = 860 m(2820 ft) and balanced eld length
= 1830 m(6000 ft)
Landing distance from 15 m = 1140 m(3740 ft)
Remark : The designed airplane meets the requirements set out in the
specications. The seating arrangement takes care of the passenger comfort
and the choice of engine reects low level of noise.
71
9 Performance Estimation
The details regarding overall dimensions, engine details, weights, geometric
parameters of wing, fuselage, nacelle, horizontal tail, vertical tail, vertical tail
and other details like C
L
max
in various conditions and maximum load factor
are given in section 8.2 - 8.10. The details of ight condition for estimation
of drag polar are as follows
Altitude : 10972 m = 36000 ft
Mach number : 0.8
Kinematic Viscosity : 3.90536 10
5
m
2
/s
Density : 0.3639 kg/m
3
Speed of Sound : 295.07 m/s
Flight Speed : 236.056 m/s
Weight of the Airplane : 59175 kgf
9.1 Estimation of Drag Polar
The drag polar is assumed to be of the form
C
D
= C
Do
+
C
2
L
Ae
The quantity C
D
O
is assumed to be given by
C
D
O
= (C
D
O
)
WB
+ (C
D
O
)
V
+ (C
D
O
)
H
+ (C
D
O
)
Misc
(78)
where suces WB, V, H, Misc denote wing-body combination, vertical tail,
horizontal tail, and miscellaneous contributions respectively.
9.1.1 Estimation of (C
D
o
)
WB
Initially, the drag polar is obtained at a Mach number of 0.6 as suggested by
[6]. (C
D
o
)
WB
is then given as :
(C
D
o
)
WB
= (C
D
o
)
W
+ (C
D
o
)
B
S
B
S
ref
The sux B denotes fuselage and S
B
is the maximum frontal area of fuselage.
(C
D
O
)
W
is given as :
(C
D
o
)
W
= C
f
w
_
1 + L
_
t
c
__ _
S
wet
S
ref
_
wing
72
Here, the Reynolds number used to determine the turbulent at plate
skin friction coecient is based on the mean aerodynamic chord c
e
of the
exposed wing. (S
wet
)
e
is the wetted area of the exposed wing.
Now c
r
= 5.59m, c
t
= 1.34m, b/2 = 16.11m and d
fus
= 3.59m. Hence
c
r
e
= 5.59
5.59 1.34
16.11

3.59
2
= 5.116m

e
=
1.34
5.116
= 0.262
c
e
=
2
3
_
5.116
_
1 + 0.262 + 0.262
2
1 + 0.262
__
= 3.596m
(b/2)
e
= 16.11 1.795 = 14.315m
M = 0.6, a = 295.07m/s V = 177.12m/s. Also = 3.90536 10
5
.
Hence,
Re =
177.12 3.596
3.90536 10
5
= 16.31 10
6
k = 1.015 10
5
m corresponds to standard camouage paint, average
application (from [4]). Hence
l
k
=
3.596
1.015 10
5
= 3.543 10
5
The Re
cutoff
corresponding to the above l/k is 30 10
6
. The C
f
w
is then
measured from the graph in [6] as
C
f
w
= 0.00265
(t/c)
avg
= 14% and (t/c)
max
at x/c > 0.3 L = 1.2.
S
exposedplanform
= 14.314
_
5.116 + 1.341
2
_
2 = 92.41m
2
S
wet
w
= 2 92.41(1 + 1.2 0.14) = 215.8m
2
Hence,
(C
D
f
)
w
= 0.00265 (1 + 1.2 0.14)
215.8
111.63
= 0.00598
(C
D
o
)
B
is given as:
(C
D
O
)
B
= (C
D
f
)
B
+ (C
D
p
)
B
+ C
D
b
(C
D
O
)
B
= C
f
B
_
1 +
60
(l
b
/d)
3
+ 0.0025
_
l
b
d
__ _
S
wet
S
B
_
fus
+ C
D
b
S
base
S
ref
73
l
f
= 33.0m and d
max
= 3.59m
Re
b
=
177.12 33
3.905 10
5
= 149.6 10
6
k = 1.015 10
5
m corresponds to standard camouage paint, average
application. Hence
l
k
=
33
1.015 10
5
= 32.51 10
5
The Re
cutoff
corresponding to the above l/k is 2.610
8
. The C
f
w
is then
measured from the graph in [6] as
C
f
w
= 0.0019
(S
wet
)
fus
= 0.75 3.59 33 = 279m
2
S
B
=

4
3.59
2
= 10.12m
2
Hence.
(C
D
f
)
B
= 0.0019
279
10.12
= 0.0524
(C
D
p
)
B
= 0.0019
_
60
(33/3.59)
3
+ 0.0025 (33/3.59)
_
279
10.12
= 0.00524
C
D
b
is assumed to be zero, since base area is almost zero. Hence
(C
D
O
)
B
= 0.0524 + 0.00524 + 0 = 0.0576
(C
D
)
canopy
is taken as 0.002. Hence (C
D
O
)
B
= 0.0596
Finally we have:
(C
D
o
)
WB
= 0.00598 + 0.0596
10.12
111.63
= 0.01138
9.1.2 Estimation of (C
D
o
)
V
and (C
D
o
)
H
The estimation of (C
D
o
)
H
and (C
D
o
)
V
can be done in a manner similar to that
for the wing. However the details regarding the exposed tail area etc. would
be needed. In the absence of the detailed data on the shape of fuselage at
rear etc., a simplied approach given in [6] is adopted, wherein C
D
f
= 0.0025
for both horizontal and vertical tails.
74
S
W
= 2(S
h
+ S
v
)
Hence,
(C
D
o
)
hv
= 0.0025(28.71 + 25.43)
1
111.63
= 0.0024 (79)
9.1.3 Estimation of Misc Drag - Nacelle
For calculating drag due to the nacelles we use the short cut method for
which we have:
(C
D
o
)
nacelle
= 0.006
S
wet
S
ref
where, S
wet
is the wetted area of nacelle. Here S
wet
= 16.79m
2
. Since we
have two nacelles the total drag will be twice of this. Finally we get:
(C
D
o
)
nacelle
= 0.006
16.79
111.63
2 = 0.0018
9.1.4 C
D
o
of the airplane
Taking 2% for the interference drag (from [6]), we get the C
D
o
of the airplane
as
C
D
o
= 1.02 [0.01138 + 0.0024 + 0.0018] = 0.0159 (80)
9.1.5 Induced Drag
The induced drag component has the Oswalds eciency factor e which is
estimated by adding the eect of all the aircraft components on induced drag.
The rough estimate of e can be obtained from:
1
e
=
1
e
wing
+
1
e
fuselage
+
1
e
other
From [9]
e
wing
= (e
w
)
=0
cos( 5)
where is the wing sweep. (e
wing
)
=0
= 0.97 for AR = 9.3, = 0.24
from [12].
Hence e
wing
= 0.97 cos (27.69 5) = 0.8948. Also
1/e
fus
(S
f
/S)
= 0.8 for a round
fuselage. Hence
1
e
fus
= 0.8
10.122
111.63
= 0.0725
75
1
e
other
= 0.05
Finally we have:
e =
1
0.8948
1
+ 0.0725 + 0.05
= 0.8064
Hence
K =
1
Ae
=
1
9.3 0.8064
= 0.04244
9.1.6 Final Drag Polar
C
D
= 0.0159 + 0.04244 C
2
L
(81)
Figure 9: Subsonic Drag Polar
76
Remark
The polar given by 81 is valid at subcritical Mach numbers. The in-
crease in C
D
o
and K at higher Mach numbers is discussed in section
4.2.
The maximum lift to drag ratio ((L/D)
max
) is given by
(L/D)
max
=
1
2
_
C
D
o
K
Using equation 81, (L/D)
max
is 19.25, which is typical of modern jet
transport airplanes.
It may be noted that the parabolic polar is an approximation and is not
valid beyond C
L
max
. It is not accurate close to C
L
= 0 and C
L
= C
L
max
9.2 Engine Characteristics
To calculate the performance, the variations of thrust and SFC with speed
and altitude are needed. Chapter 9 of [8] contains these variations for turbo-
fan engines with various bypass ratios. The Thrust variations versus Mach
number with altitude as parameters are given in non-dimensional form for
take-o, cruise and climb ratings. The values were read from the curves and
later smoothed. The values multiplied by 97.9 kN, the sea level static thrust
rating for the chosen engine, are shown in Figures 10 and 11. Figure 10
also contains (a) the variation of thrust with Mach number at sea level with
take-o rating. (b) variations of climb thrust with Mach number at
h = 38000 and 39000 ft; these are obtained by interpolating values at 36000
and 40000 ft and are used for computation of performance at these altitudes.
The SFC variation is also given in [8], but is taken as 0.6hr
1
under cruise
conditions based on the value recommended by [4].
77
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
0
:
T
a
k
e
O

f
o
r
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
C
l
i
m
b
T
h
r
u
s
t
p
e
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
f
o
r
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
78
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
1
:
C
r
u
i
s
e
T
h
r
u
s
t
p
e
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
f
o
r
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
79
9.3 Level Flight Performance
In steady Level ight, the equations of motion, in standard notation are
T D = 0 (82)
L W = 0 (83)
L =
1
2
V
2
SC
L
= W =
1
2
V
2
SC
L
(84)
D =
1
2
V
2
SC
D
= T (85)
9.3.1 Stalling speed
In level ight,
V =

_
2W
SC
L
_
(86)
Since C
L
cannot exceed C
L
max
, there is a ight speed below which level
ight is not possible. The ight speed at C
L
= C
L
max
is called the stalling
speed and is denoted by V
s
V
s
=

_
2W
SC
L
max
_
(87)
Since decreases with altitude, V
s
increases with height. We note that
W/S = 5195N/m
2
, C
L
max
= 2.7 with landing aps and C
L
max
= 1.4 without
aps. The values of stalling speed at dierent altitudes and ap settings are
tabulated in Table 6 and shown in Figure 12.
80
h V
s
(C
L
max
= 1.4) V
s
(C
L
max
= 2.7)
(m) (kg/m
3
) (m/s) (m/s)
0 1.225 77.83 56.04
2000 1.006 85.86 61.83
4000 0.819 95.18 68.54
6000 0.659 106.06 76.37
8000 0.525 118.87 85.59
10000 0.412 134.09 96.56
11000 0.363 142.80 102.83
12000 0.310 154.52 111.27
Table 6: Variation of stalling speed with altitude
Figure 12: Stalling speed Vs Altitude
81
9.3.2 Variation of V
min
and V
max
with Altitude
To determine the V
min
and V
max
at each altitude, the following procedure is
adopted.
The engine thrust as a function of velocity at each altitude is obtained
from the smoothed data.
The drag at each altitude is found as a function of velocity using the
drag polar and the level ight formulae given below.
C
L
=
2 (W/S)
V
2
(88)
C
D
= C
D
o
+ KC
2
L
(89)
Drag =
1
2
V
2
SC
D
(90)
T
avail
= f(M) (91)
Where C
D
o
= 0.0159 and K = 0.04244.
However, the cruise Mach number (M
cruise
) for this airplane is 0.8.
Hence C
D
o
and K are expected to become functions of Mach number
above M
cruise
. To get some guidelines about variations of C
D
o
and K,
we consider the drag polars of B-727 given in Volume 6, Chapter 5 of
[13]. These drag polars are shown in the Figure 13 as discrete points.
82
Figure 13: Drag polars at dierent Mach numbers for B727-100; Symbols are
data from [13] and Solid lines are the parabolic ts
These polars were approximated by the parabolic polar expression
namely C
D
= C
D
o
+K C
2
L
. The values of C
D
o
and K for the various
Mach numbers are given in the Table 7. The parabolic t is also shown
in Figure 13.
M C
D
o
K
0.7 0.01631 0.04969
0.76 0.01634 0.05257
0.82 0.01668 0.06101
0.84 0.01695 0.06807
0.86 0.01733 0.08183
0.88 0.01792 0.103
Table 7: Variation of C
D
o
and K with Mach number (Parabolic t)
The variations in C
D
o
and K with Mach number are plotted in the
Figures 14 and 15. It is seen that there is no signicant increase in
83
Figure 14: Variation of C
D
o
with Mach number
C
D
o
and K upto M = 0.76. This is expected to be the cruise Mach
number for the airplane (B727-100). Following analytical expressions
have been found to closely represent the changes in C
D
o
and K from
M = 0.76 to M = 0.86.
C
D
o
= 0.01634 0.001 (M 0.76) + 0.11 (M 0.76)
2
(92)
K = 0.05257 + (M 0.76)
2
+ 20.0 (M 0.76)
3
(93)
In the case of the present airplane, the cruise Mach number is 0.8. The
variations of C
D
o
and K above M
cruise
and upto M = 0.9, based on
B727-100 data is taken as follows.
C
D
o
= 0.0159 0.001 (M 0.8) + 0.11 (M 0.8)
2
(94)
K = 0.0455 + (M 0.8)
2
+ 20.0 (M 0.8)
3
(95)
84
Figure 15: Variation of K with Mach number
The thrust available and thrust required curves are plotted at each
altitude as a function of velocity. The points of intersection give the
V
min
and V
max
at each altitude. To arrive at V
min
, the stalling speed
also needs to be taken in to account. Hence in the Figures. 16 to 21,
the portion of the V
min
curve below V
s
is shown as dotted lines, as the
drag polar is not valid there. V
s
is taken for C
L
max
without aps.
The calculations are carried out for h = 0, 10000, 15000, 25000, 30000
and 36000 ft, i.e S.L, 3048, 4572, 7620, 9144 and 10972.8 m using T
avail
as climb thrust and cruise thrust. Results are presented only for climb
thrust case.
85
h h V
s
V
min
(m/s) V
min
(m/s) V
max
(m/s) V
max
(m/s)
(in ft) (in m) T
cr
T
climb
T
cr
T
climb
S.L 0 77.833 < V
s
< V
s
258.711 269.370
10000 3048 90.579 < V
s
< V
s
272.060 280.595
15000 4572 98.131 < V
s
< V
s
275.613 283.300
25000 7620 116.292 < V
s
< V
s
272.929 279.291
30000 9144 127.278 < V
s
< V
s
267.854 271.755
36000 10972 142.594 176.054 169.071 253.671 258.154
38000 11582 149.557 217.386 200.896 243.676 248.630
38995 11884 153.159 235.471 229.865 235.483 238.649
Table 8: Variation of V
min
and V
max
Figure 16: Available and Required Thrust at S.L
86
Figure 17: Available and Required Thrust at h = 3048.0m
Figure 18: Available and Required Thrust at h = 4572.0m
87
Figure 19: Available and Required Thrust at h = 7620.0m
Figure 20: Available and Required Thrust at h = 9144.0m
88
Figure 21: Available and Required Thrust at h = 10972.8m
Figure 22: Variation of V
min
and V
max
with altitude
89
9.4 Steady Climb
In this ight, the C.G of the airplane moves along a straight line inclined to
the horizontal at an angle . The velocity of ight is assumed to be constant
during the climb. Since the ight is steady, acceleration is zero and the
equations of motion can be written as:
T D W sin = 0 (96)
L W cos = 0 (97)
To calculate the variation of rate of climb with ight velocity at dierent
altitudes, we adopt the following procedure.
Choose an altitude.
Choose a ight speed.
Noting that C
L
= 2W cos /SV
2
, we get
C
D
= C
D
o
+ K
_
2W cos
SV
2
_
Also
V
c
= V sin
cos =
_
1
V
2
c
V
2
Using the above equations,
A
_
V
c
V
_
2
+ B
_
V
c
V
_
+ C = 0 (98)
A =
kW
2
1
2
V
2
S
; B = W; C = T
avail

1
2
V
2
SC
D
o

2kW
2
V
2
S
(99)
Since altitude and ight velocity have been chosen, the thrust available
is read from the climb thrust curves in 10. Further the variation of C
D
o
and K with Mach number is taken as in Equations 94 and 95.
90
Equation 98 gives 2 values of V
c
/V . We choose the value which is less
that 1.0 as sin cannot be greater than unity. Hence
= sin
1
(V
c
/V ) (100)
V
c
= V sin (101)
This procedure is repeated for various speeds between V
min
and V
max
.
The entire procedure is then repeated for various altitudes.
The variations of (R/C) and with velocity and with altitude as pa-
rameters are shown in Figure 23 and 25. The variations of (R/C)
max
and
max
with altitude are shown in Figure 24 and 26. The variations
of V
(R/C)
max
and V

max
with altitude are shown in Figure 27 and 28. A
summary of results is presented in table 9.
h h (R/C)
max
V
(R/C)
max

max
V

max
(in ft) (in m) (in m/min) (in m/s) (in degrees) (in m/s)
0 0.0 1086.63 149.7 8.7 88.5
10000 3048.0 867.34 167.5 6.0 111.6
15000 4572.0 738.16 174.0 4.7 125.7
25000 7620.0 487.41 198.2 2.6 164.1
30000 9144.0 313.43 212.2 1.5 188.0
36000 10972.8 115.57 236.1 0.5 230.2
38000 11582.4 41.58 236.9 0.2 234.0
38995 11885.7 1.88 235.8 0.0 235.8
Table 9: Climb Performance
91
Figure 23: Rate of Climb Vs Velocity for various altitudes
Figure 24: Maximum Rate of Climb Vs Altitude
92
Figure 25: Angle of Climb Vs Velocity for various altitudes
Figure 26: Maximum angle of Climb Vs Altitude
93
Figure 27: Velocity at Maximum Rate of Climb Vs Altitude
Figure 28: Velocity at Maximum angle of Climb Vs Altitude
94
Remarks
1. The discontinuties in slope in Figures 27 and 28 at high velocities are
due to the change in drag polar as the Mach number exceeds 0.8.
2. From Figure 24, the absolute cieling (at which (R/C)
max
is zero) is
11.88 km. The service cieling at which (R/C)
max
= 50m/min is 11.55
km
95
9.5 Range and Endurance
In this section, the range of the aircraft in a constant altitude and constant
velocity cruise is studied. Range is given by the formula
R =
3.6V
TSFC
_
KC
d
o
_
tan
1
2W
1
V
2
S

K
C
d
o
tan
1
2W
2
V
2
S

K
C
d
o
_
(102)
where W
1
is the weight of the aircraft at the start of the cruise and W
2
is the weight of the aircraft at the end of the cruise.
The cruising altitude taken is h = 10972m. TSFC is taken to be con-
stant as 0.6hr
1
. The variation of drag polar above M = 0.8 is given by
Equation.94 and 95.
W
1
= W
o
= 59175 9.81N
W
f
= 0.205 W
1
Allowing 6% fuel as trapped fuel, W
2
becomes
W
2
= W
1
0.94 W
f
The values of endurance (in hours) are obtained by dividing the expres-
sion for range by 3.6V where V is in m/s. The values of Range(R) and
Endurance(E) in ight at dierent velocities are presented in Table 10 and
are plotted in Figures 29 and 30.
96
Figure 29: Constant Velocity Range at h = 10972 m
Figure 30: Endurance at h = 10972 m
Remarks
1. It is observed that the maximum range of 5600 km is obtained at a
velocity of 239m/s (860 kmph). Corresponding Mach number is 0.81
97
M V C
L
C
D
L/D R E
(in m/s) (in km) (in hours)
0.50 147.531 1.312 0.089 14.75 2979.0 5.61
0.55 162.285 1.085 0.066 16.48 3608.0 6.18
0.60 177.038 0.911 0.051 17.82 4189.6 6.57
0.65 191.791 0.777 0.041 18.72 4691.7 6.80
0.70 206.544 0.670 0.035 19.17 5095.6 6.85
0.75 221.297 0.583 0.030 19.23 5396.5 6.77
0.80 236.050 0.513 0.027 18.95 5599.8 6.59
0.81 239.001 0.500 0.027 18.78 5602.3 6.51
0.82 241.952 0.488 0.027 18.36 5527.0 6.35
0.83 244.902 0.476 0.027 17.65 5352.2 6.07
0.84 247.853 0.465 0.028 16.62 5070.1 5.68
0.85 250.803 0.454 0.030 15.29 4691.2 5.20
0.86 253.754 0.444 0.032 13.76 4242.3 4.64
0.87 256.705 0.433 0.036 12.13 3758.8 4.07
0.88 259.655 0.424 0.040 10.52 3275.3 3.50
Table 10: Range and Endurance in Constant Velocity ight at h = 10972m
(36000ft)
which is slightly higher than the Mach number beyond which C
D
o
and
K increase. This can be explained based on two factors namely (i)
the range increases as the ight speed increases (ii) after M
cruise
is
exceeded, C
D
o
and K increase thus reducing (L/D)
max
.
2. The range calculated above is the gross still air range. The safe range
would be about two-thirds of this. In the present case, the safe range
would be 3733km.
3. The maximum endurance of 6.85 hours occurs in a ight at V =
206m/s. (742 kmph). It can noted that the endurance is roughly
constant over a speed range of 190 m/s to 230 m/s.
98
9.6 Turning Performance
In this section, the performance of the airplane in a steady, co-ordinated,
level turn is studied. The equations of motion in this case are:
T D = 0
W Lcos = 0
Lsin =
W
g
where is the angle of bank.
These equations give:
r =
V
2
g tan

=
V
r
=
g tan
V
Load Factor n =
L
W
=
1
cos
where n = L/W ,

is the rate of turn and r is the radius of turn.
The following procedure is used to obtain r
min
and

max
1. A ight speed and altitude are chosen and the level ight lift coecient
C
LL
is obtained as :
C
LL
=
2(W/S)
V
2
2. If C
L
max
/C
LL
< n
max
, where n
max
is the maximum load factor for
which the aircraft is designed, then the turn is limited by C
L
max
and
C
LT
1
= C
L
max
. However if C
L
max
/C
LL
> n
max
, then the turn is limited
by n
max
, and C
LT
1
= n
max
C
LL
.
3. From the drag polar, C
DT
1
is obtained corresponding to C
LT
1
. Then
D
T1
=
1
2
V
2
SC
DT
1
If D
T1
> T
a
, where T
a
is the available thrust at that speed and alti-
tude, then the turn is limited by the engine output. In this case, the
maximum permissible value of C
D
in turning ight is found from
C
DT
=
T
a
1
2
V
2
S
99
From the above relation, the value of C
LT
is calculated as
C
LT
=
_
C
DT
C
D
o
K
However if D
T1
< T
a
, then the turn is not limited by the engine output
and the value of C
LT
calculated in step (ii) is retained.
4. Once C
LT
is known, the load factor during the turn is determined as
n =
C
LT
C
LL
Once n is known, the values of , r and

can be calulated using the
equations given above.
The above steps are then repeated for various speeds and altitudes. A
typical turning ight performance estimation is presented in Table 11. In
these calculations, C
L
max
= 1.4 and n
max
= 3.5 are assumed. The variation
of turning ight performance with altitude is shown in Table. 12. Figures
31, 32, 33, 34 respectively present (a) radius of turn with velocity and with
altitude as parameter, (b) minimum radius of turn with altitude, (c) rate of
turn with velocity and with altitude as parameter and (d) maximum rate of
turn with altitude.
v n C
lt
(in degrees) r (in m)

78.83 1.026 1.4000 12.892 2767.70 0.0285

98.83 1.612 1.4000 51.670 787.21 0.1255
118.83 2.331 1.4000 64.596 683.63 0.1738
138.83 2.813 1.2376 69.173 747.41 0.1858
158.83 2.993 1.0062 70.482 911.60 0.1742
178.83 3.089 0.8192 71.112 1115.38 0.1603
198.83 3.080 0.6607 71.053 1383.50 0.1437
218.83 2.930 0.5189 70.045 1772.43 0.1235
238.83 2.573 0.3826 67.132 2452.36 0.0974
241.83 2.494 0.3617 66.363 2609.20 0.0927
Table 11: A typical turning ight performance at Sea level
100
Figure 31: Radius of Turn Vs Velocity at various altitudes
Figure 32: Velocity at R
min
Vs Altitude
101
Figure 33:

Vs Speed at various altitudes
Figure 34: Velocity at

max
Vs Altitude
102
h r
min
V
r
min

max
V

max
(in m) (in m) (in m/s) (in m/s)
0.0 666 126.8 0.1910 127.8
3048.0 945 132.6 0.1410 133.6
4572.0 1155 135.1 0.1170 136.1
7620.0 1971 138.3 0.0731 165.3
9144.0 3247 151.3 0.0513 187.3
10972.8 8582 211.0 0.0256 231.0
Table 12: Turning ight performance
Remarks
1. The maximum value of

is 0.191 and occurs at a speed of 127.8m/s
at sea level.
2. The minimum radius of turn is 666 m and occurs at a speed of 126.8m/s
at sea level.
3. The various graphs show a discontinuity in slope when the criterion
which limits the turn changes from n
max
to thrust available.
9.7 Take-o distance
In this section, the take o performance of the airplane is evaluated. The
take-o distance consists of take-o run, transition and climb to screen
height. Rough estimates of the distance covered in these phases can be
obtained by writing down the appropriate equations of motion. However the
estimates are approximate and [4] recommends the following formulae for
take-o distance and balance eld length based on the take-o parameter.
This parameter is dened as:
Take O Parameter =
W/S
C
L
TO
(T/W)
(103)
where W/S is wing loading in lb/ft
2
, C
L
TO
is 0.8 C
Lland
= 0.8 2.7 =
2.16 and is the density ratio at take-o altitude.
In the present case:
W
S
= 5195N/m
2
= 108.2lb/ft
2
; C
L
TO
= 0.82.7 = 2.16; = 1.0(sea level)
103
and
T
W
=
2 97.9kN
59175 9.81
= 0.3373
Hence
Take O Parameter =
108.2
1.0 2.16 0.3373
= 148.86 (104)
From [4], the take o distance, over 50, is 2823

or 861m. The balance

eld length for the present case of two engined airplane is 6000

or 1829m.
Remark
It may be noted that the balance eld length is more than twice the take o
distance itself.
9.8 Landing distance
In this section the landing distance of the airplane is calculated. From [4]
the landing distance for commericial airliners is given by the formula
S
land
= 80
_
W
S
_
1
C
L
max
+ 1000ft (105)
where W/S is in lbs/ft
2
. In the present case:
(W/S)
land
= 0.85 (W/S)
takeoff
= 0.85 108.5 = 92.225lb/ft
2
C
L
max
= 2.7
= 1.0
Hence
S
land
= 80 92.225
1
1.0 2.7
+ 1000 = 3732ft = 1138m (106)
104
9.9 Concluding remarks
1. Performance of a typical commercial airliner has been estimated for
stalling speed, maximum speed, minimum speed, steady climb, range,
endurance, turning, take-o and landing.
2. The performance approximately corresponds to that of B737-200.
3. Figure 35 presents the variation with altitude of the characteristic ve-
locities corresponding to
stalling speed, V
s
maximum speed, V
max
minimum speed as dictated by thrust, V
min
thrust
maximum rate of climb, V
(R/C)
max
maximum angle of climb, V

max
maximum rate of turn, V

max
minimum radius of turn, V
r
min
105
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
5
:
F
l
i
g
h
t
E
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
106
10 Acknowledgements
The rst author(EGT) thanks AICTE for the fellowship which enabled him
to carry out the work at IIT Madras.
References
[1] http://www.cfm56.com/engines/cfm56-5c/tech.html
[2] http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/
[3] NASA Technical Paper 2969, Charles Harris (Mar 1990)
[4] Raymer.D.P. Aircraft design a conceptual approach. AIAA educational
series, 2006
[5] Tulapurkara.E.G Lecture Notes on Aircraft Design, Department of
Aerospace Engineering I.I.T Madras, 2007
[6] Roskam J. Methods of estimating drag polars of subsonic air-
planesRoskam Aviation & Engineering Corporation, Ottawa, Kansas,
1983
[7] Lebedenski.A.A Aircraft design parametric studies Published by I.I.Sc,
Bangalore, 1971
[8] Jenkinson L.R., Simpkin P. and Rhodes D. Civil Jet Aircraft Design,
Arnold, 1999
[9] Hoerner S.F. Fluid dynamic drag, published by Hoerner Fluid Dynamics,
Brick Town, NJ, 1965
[10] Wood K.D. Aerospace vehicle design, Volume 1, Johnson publishing
company, Boulder, Colorado, 1966
[11] Perkins C.D. & Hage A.E. Airplane performance syability & control,
McGraw Hill, 1963
[12] Abbot I.H. and Doenho A.E. Theory of wing sections, Dover publica-
tions, 1959
[13] Roskam J. Aircraft design, Roskam Aviation & Engineering Corpora-
tion, Ottawa, Kansas, 1990
107