DESIGN PROJECT ON REINCARNATION OF CONCORDE

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by,

ANANTHA RAMAN.L ASHOK KUMAR BALASUBRAMANIAM GOPALSAMY.M HERBERT JAYARAJ.J KARTHICK.S KAUSHIK.M.B LIJOMON.H.M MANIKANDAN.K
in partial fulfillment for the

97605101003 97605101011 97605101012 97605101018 97605101019 94605101025 97605101026 97605101029 97605101030

AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT PHASE-1 INFANT JESUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KEELAVALLANADU, TUTICORIN.

ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this report DESIGN PROJECT ON REINCARNATION

OF CONCORDE is the bonafide work of project members

Who carried out the project work under my supervision.

SIGNATURE Prof. S.C.GHOSH HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Aeronautical engineering, Infant jesus college of engineering, keelavallanadu. 628851.

SIGNATURE Mr.KARTHIKEYAN PROJECT GUIDE

Lecturer, Aeronautical engineering, Infant jesus college of engineering, Keelavallanadu -628851

Internal Examiner

External Examiner

CONTENTS CHAPTER NO TITLE PAGE

i) ii) iii) iv) v)

ABSTRACT LIST OF SYMBOLS LIST OF GRAPHS LIST OF DIAGRAMS INTRODUCTION

6 7 9 9 10

1. COMPARITIVE STUDY OF CONCORDE

AIRCRAFT SPECFICATION 1.1 DIMENSIONS 1.2 WEIGHT SPECFICATIONS 1.3 PERFORMANCE SPECFICATIONS 2. SELECTION OF MAIN PARAMETERS 2.1 Selection Of Airfoil 2.2 Wing Configuration 2.3 Landing Gear Selection 2.4 Location Of Cg 2.5 Co-Efficient Of Lift Vs Mach Number 2.6 Max.L/D Vs Velocity Or Mach No 2.7 Weight Vs Velocity 2.8 Velocity Vs Wing Loading(W/S): 2.9 Specific Fuel Consumption Vs Mach No 2.10 Airfoil Selection 2.11 Coefficient Of Lift Vs Angle Of Attack 15 15 15 15 15 16 17 18 20 20 20 12 13 14

2.12 Coefficient Of Lift Vs Coefficient Of Drag(Cl Vs Cd) 20

2.13 Maximum L/D Vs Velocity 2.14 Dihedral Effect 2.15 Velocity Vs Range: 2.16 Coefficient Of Lift Vs Coefficient Of Drag 2.17 Velocity Vs Aspect Ratio: 2.18 Velocity Vs Altitute 2.19 Co-Efficient Of Lift Vs Angle Of Attack (Cl Vs ) 2.20 conclusion

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

3. WEIGHT ESTIMATION 3.1 Mission Profile 3.2 Approximate Weight Estimation 3.3 Actual Weight Estimation 3.4 calculation of take off weight 3.5 % Of Error Calculation 3.6 Iteration 3.7 conclusion 4. ENGINE SELECTION 4.1 Location Of Engine 4.2 Thrust Calculation 4.3 Advantages Of Low Wing 4.4 Disadvantages Of Low Wing 4.5 Thrust Vs Sfc 4.6 Thrust Matching 4.7 Calculation Of L/D 4.8 Conclusion 5. AIRFOIL SELECTION 5.1 Co-Efficient Of Lift 5.2 without flap 5.2 Drag polar 5.3 With flap deflection 5.4 conclusion 36 36 37 37 43 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 28 28 30 30 31 32 32

6. WING SELECTION 6.1 Equivalent Aspect Ratio 6.2 conclusion 7. WETTED SURFACE AREA AND DRAG ESTIMATION 7.1 Drag polar for cruise condition 7.2 Drag polar 7.3 Calculation of drag 7.4 conclusion 8. ESTIMATION OF RATE OF CLIMB 8.1 CALCULATION OF RATE OF CLIMB 8.1.1 At sea level, 8.1.2 At h=2.46km, 8.1.3 At h=4.92km 8.1.4 At h=7.38km 8.2 CONCLUSION 9. HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL TAIL SIZING 9.1 Horizontal Tail Sizing 9.2 Vertical Tail Sizing 9.3 Load Considerations 9.4 volume consideration 9.5 Aerodynamic Considerations 9.6 Drag consideration 9.7 correctness of clmax Conclusion 10. CALCULATION OF TAKE-OFF & LANDING DISTANCE 10.1 Length Of Take-Off Distance 10.2 Length Of The Landing Distance 10.3 Conclusion 11. CALCULATION OF CENTRE OF GRAVITY 12. THREE VIEW DIAGRAM 58 60 60 61 12 57 57 55 55 56 56 56 56 9.8 52 46 48 48 51 44 45

54

13. BIBILIOGRAPHY

13

ABSTRACT

As we know concorde was the only one supersonic transport aircraft. That was so famous because of the time consuming ability by its supersonic speed. By the way it had a performance in its accidents during flying.

In this design project we are going to concentrate on the possible modification which is suitable to low SFC with relative high range and endurance. Our main concentration is on the speed of the aircraft. The supersonic speed is reduced by removing the afterburners.

According to the following conclusion, we also going to do the modification in power plants and airfoil, etc. Finally we designed a 3-D view of concorde, according to the calculation made by us.

LIST OF SYMBOLS USED

W W0 Wf We L D CL CD S b T T/W W/S A.R Cr,Ct Tr,tt S CD L.E 7

Weight of aircraft Overall weight Weight of fuel Empty weight Lift of aircraft Drag of the aircraft Coefficient of lift Coefficient of drag Wing area Wing span Thrust Thrust loading Wing loading Aspect ratio Chord length of root,tip thickness of root, tip Wetted surface area Coefficient of drag of wetted surface area Sweep angle of the leading edge Dihedral angle Angle of attack

Density(kg/m3) Wing mean chord Ground friction Kinematics viscosity Taper ratio Center of gravity range Endurance Free stream velocity Chord Length of fuselage Vertical tail Horizontal tail Angle of flap deflection Span station of flap Gravity Distance Height altitude

C
C.G R E

V
C Lf VT HT 0,i g s H h

LIST OF GRAPHS s.no Graph 1 Graph 2 Graph 3 Graph 4 Graph 5 Graph 6 Graph 7 Graph 8 Graph 9 Graph 10 Graph 11 Graph 12 Graph 13 Graph 14 Graph 15 Graph 16 Graph 17 title mach no vs Cl velocity vs L/D velocity vs weight velocity vs w/s velocity vs range velocity vs weight velocity vs T/w velocity vs aspect ratio velocity vs altitude Cl vs SFC vs thrust 2 x percent vs (u/v) vs Cl u/v vs Y(per cent c) station vs ordinate vs Cl Cl vs Cd page no 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 34 38 39 40 42 42 43

LIST OF DIAGRAMS s.no 1 2 3 4 5 title mission profile Centre of gravity Front view Top view Side view 9 63 64 page no 28 61 62

INTRODUCTION
Airplane Design Introduction Three major types of airplane design are 1. Conceptual design 2. Preliminary design 3 Detailed designs 1. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: It depends on what are the major factors for the designing the aircraft

A. powerplant location
The power plant location is either padded or buried type engines are more preferred .Rear location is preferred for low drag, reduced shock and to use whole thrust.

B. Selection of engine:
The engine to be used is selected according to the power required.

C. Wing selection:
The selection of wing depends upon the selection of low wing mid wing high wing

2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN:
Preliminary design is based only on loitering; U is the mathematical method of skinning the aircraft after skinning the aircraft looks like a masked body. Preliminary design is done with the help of FORTRAN software.

10

2. DETAILED DESIGN:
In the detailed design considers each and every rivets, nuts, bolts, paints, etc. In this design the connection and allocation are made.

11

1.COMPARATIVE STUDY

TABLE 1.1 DIMENSION: S.no: Aircraft name Length Height Crew Wing span (m) (m) (m) 93.27 m 14.1 m 3 Wing area (m2) Aspect ratio 2.8

Boeing 2707-sst

32.23meters 358.25 m 25.56 meters 28.80 meters

AEROSPATIALE- 62.10 BAC meters CONCORDE TUPOLEV TU144 65.70 meters

11.40 3 meters 12.85 3 meters

385.25 1.6 sq_meters 438.00 1.8 sq_meters

12

TABLE 1.2 WEIGHT: S.n o: Aircraft name Empty weight Loaded Weight Maximum takeoff weight

Boeing 2707SST

287,500 lb (130308 kg)

75,000 lb (34020 kg)

675,000 lb (306175 kg)

AEROSPATIAL E-BAC CONCORDE TUPOLEV TU144

78,700kg (173,500lb),

12,700kg (28,000lb).

185,065kg (408,000lb).

85,000 kg

19,500 kg

180,000 kg

13

TABLE 1.3 PERFORMANCE:

S. Aircraft name No:

Speed (km/hr )

Mach Range No: (km)

Service Rate W/S ceiling of (kg/m2) (m) climb (m/s)

T/W

Boeing 2707

2900

2.7

6840

18,300

25.40 854.64

.15

AEROSPATI ALE-BAC CONCORDE TUPOLEV TU-144

2180

2.2

6580

18,290

25.40 217.85

0.374

2500

2.4

6500

18300

25.40 410

.110

14

2. SELECTION OF MAIN PARAMETERS FOR AIRCRAFT DESIGN

2.1 SELECTION OF AIRFOIL : Selection of airfoil is depend up on the need of the weight of the aircraft . The airfoil selection is an very important in the a/c design. 2.2 WING CONFIGURATION : The dihedral effect is created by wing dihedral angle o , which is positive for tip chord above the root chord. 2.3 LANDING GEAR SELECTION : The landing gear selection is depend upon the types of aircrafts. For our aircraft we use tricycle type landing gear. So the visibility of the pilot will be high because of the use of nose wheel. 2.4 LOCATION OF cg : Location of cg is the important factor which responds to the stability of the aircraft . It has some limits and thus these both are inter related.

2.5 MACH NO Vs Cl : As the mach no increases, the value of Cl also increases because of airflow velocity past over the surface of wing increases ,this will gradually increases the coefficient of lift. when the velocity reaches the stalling velocity ,the value of Cl started declines. The graph between mach no vs Cl,

15

2.6 VELOCITY Vs L/D: The graph is plotted between velocity and L/D.

16

The above plot is drawn between (L/D) and Velocity.From the above graph we get the optimum velocity as 605m/s.

2.7 VELOCITY Vs WEIGHT : The graph is drawn between veloicity & weight .It is plotted between the overall weight of similar type of subsonic twintail fighter aircraft and the velocity of the corresponding aircraft for our specification of aircraft, the weight of aircraft is 80,500kg in the corresponding velocity of 605 m/s.

17

2.8 VELOCITY VS WING LOADING (W/S) : The graph is drawn between wing loading & velocity.wing loading is the ratio of weight to the wing span.

18

The above graph is plotted between velocity and w/s (wing loading).from the above graph we get the optimum value of w/s as 210kg/m2 and the optimum velocity is 605 m/s.

19

2.9 SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION Vs MACH NO : The weight of fuel consumed per unit thrust per unit time. Mach number is the ratio between velocities of aircraft to velocity of sound. The variation of thrust with subsonic mach no is drawn for ratio as altitude. 2.10 AIRFOIL SELECTION : The general dynamics designers examined two class of configuration. 1. The conventional wing body arrangement and 2. The blended wing body arrangement. The blended wing body configuration provides two important advantages. It was relatively natural to includes fore body strakes in such a blended configuration and the area ruling was more easily carried out. So I select the blended wing body. 2.11 COEFFICIENT OF LIFT Vs ANGLE OF ATTACK : The experimental data indicate that coefficient of lift varies linearly with angle of attack. Thin airfoil theory which is the subject of more advanced book of aerodynamics also predicts the same type of linear variation. The slope of the linear portion of lift curve is designed as = dC L d = lift slope

2.12 COEFFICIENT OF LIFT Vs COEFFICIENT OF DRAG : For every aerodynamic body there is a relation between coefficient of lift and drag that can be graph. Both equation and graph is called drag polar. 2.13 MAXIMUM L/D Vs VELOCITY : Speed, altitude, range were the primary performance goals. For supersonic fighter aircraft high value of L/D and W/S were important. The variation of L/D max with mach no is shown in fig. Here we see example of how dramatically the aerodynamic characteristic of and an air plane change we can go from subsonic to supersonic speeds. The value of L/D max is almost in half of drag divergence/wave drag effects at supersonic speeds on the other hand the resulting value of L/D max is 6.5 at mach3.

20

2.14 VELOCITY Vs RANGE : Range is the total distance traversed ofan airplane on one load of fuel.we denote range R. R=2/Cl* 2 / * S *(Cl/CD)*(wo.5-w1.5)

The above plot is drawn between Range and Velocity.From the above graph we get the optimum velocity as 605 m/s and the optimum Range as 6500km2.15

21

2.15 VELOCITY Vs WEIGHT : The graph is plotted between the velocity and the overall weight of similar type of twintail subsonic fighter aircraft.by that graph we get the optimum value of overall weight of the aircraft.

The above plot is drawn between Weight and Velocity.From the above graph we get the optimum velocity as 605 m/s and the optimum Weight as 185065 kg.

22

2.16 VELOCITY Vs T/W : The graph is drawn between Thrust/Weight & velocity. In addition to Clmax ,the other important parameter affecting take-off & ranging distance is T/W. The choice of a too high T/W is determinant to efficient cruise. The value T/W is 0.355 in the corresponding velocity of 605m/s.

The optimum T/W from the above graph is 0.355 in the corresponding velocity of 605 m/s.

23

2.17 VELOCITY Vs ASPECT RATIO The graph is drawn between the aspect ratio & velocity, the choice of low aspect ratio the wing having full span leading edge flaps, the vertical tails are casted outward by 28o & incorporate conventional rudders

The above plot is drawn between AR (aspect ratio) and Velocity.From the above graph we get the optimum velocity as 605 m/s and the optimum Aspect ratio as 6.

24

2.18 VELOCITY Vs ALTITUDE : The graph is drawn between the altitude &velocity. It is main design parameter. The optimum altitude is 9.850 km in the corresponding velocity of 605 m/s

25

The above plot is drawn between Altitude and Velocity.From the above graph we get the optimum velocity as 605 m/s and the optimum Altitude as 9.85km.

2.19 COEFFICIENT OF LIFT Vs ANGLE OF ATTACK (Cl vs ) : The experimental data indicated that Cl varies linearly with over a large range of angle of attack. Thin airfoil theory which is the subject of more advanced book on aerodynamics also predicts the same type of linear variation, slope of the linear portion of the lift curve is designed as o = cl / =lift slope .at the angle of attack=12o,the Clmax is 1.4.

26

2.20 CONCLUSION: SL.NO 1 2 3 4 5 PARAMETER Altitude Velocity Range Weight Aspect Ratio OPTIMUM VALUES 18,900 m 605 m/s 6500 km 1,70,095 kg 1.628

27

3. WEIGHT ESTIMATION
3.1 MISSION PROFILE: The mission profile for our aircraft is as follows,

1-2:warm-up and take-off 2-3:climbing 3-4:cruising 4-5:descending 5-6:landing 3.2 APPROXIMATE WEIGHT ESTIMATION : overall weight of the aircraft, wo=wcrew+wpayload+wfuel+wempty The mission profile of the fighter aircraft the loitering is neglected (fighter aircraft loitering is 10 minutes allowed). Mission profile segment a/c weight at the end of the mission segment

28

weight fraction

a/c wt. at the beginning of the mission segment

= Wi / W(i-1) Range, R=L/D* ln(Wi / W(i-1) )*V/C

In fighter aircraft , W10 = W1 W1*W2*W3*W4*W5* In take off, W2/W1 = 0.99 In climbing flight mission, W3/W2=1.0065-0.0325*0.56 =0.9883 In cruising, W4/W3=exp(-RC/V*(L/D)max) R- the range in nautical mile C- SFC in lb/lb*hr V- velocity in knots W4/W3= e-(291*0.6/458*7) W4/W3 = 0.95 Decending , W5/W4= 0.99 Landing and shut down, W6/W5= 0.995 W6/W1= 0.768 Then the fuel weight fraction is , Wf/Wo = 1-(W6/W1) = 1- (0.768) Wf/Wo = 0.238 Wcrew + Wpayload W2*W3*W4*W5*W6*

29

W0 = 1-(Wf/Wo) (We/Wo) = (128+12700)/(1-0.232-0.55)

W0 = 58844.03 kg

3.3 ACTUAL WEIGHT CALCULATION : In warm up and take off, W2/W1= 0.99 Climbing flight mission, W3/W2= 1.0065 0.0325 * 0.33 W3/W2 = 0.9957

In cruising, W4/W3= e-(204.95*0.6/233.4*7) W4/W3= 0.93 In decending, W5/W4=0.99 In landing, W6/W1= 0.99 Therefore, W6/W1 = 0.761 Then the fuel fraction is, Wf/W0= 1- (W10/W1) =1 - 0.761 Wf/W0 =0.238 Wactual= 0.238*1.06 = 0.25288 As we know, We/Wo = A*W0c 3.4 CALCULATION OF TAKE-OFF WEIGHT (T/W):

30

L (1)cruise(T/W)=1/ ( ) max cruise D L L For cruise flight ( ) max cruise = ( ) max *0.866 D D L ( ) max cruise = 7.8 * 0.866 = 6.7548 D ( (2)For loitering ( (3)For take-off T Wcruise T T ) *( T .O ) )take off = ( )cruise *( W WT .O Tcruise W = 0.148 * (8500/12,500 ) * (52.0 /81.0 ) = 0.064 Thus the calculated (T/W) ratio and optimum (T/W) ratio values are approximately met each other. ( T L )loitering = 1/ ( ) max W D = 0.1282 T L )cruise = 1/ ( ) max cruise = 1/ 6.5748 = 0.1480 W D

For supersonic aircraft A = 1.02,C =-0.06 Hence We/Wo = 1.02*30500-0.06 = 0.548

Then, Wtotal = Wcrew + Wpayload + W empty + W fuel Wcrew + Wpayload = 1 Wf/W0 We/W0 W0 = (128+ 12700/1-0.238-0.548) =59906.54kg Wo = 59906.54kg

31

3.5 % OF ERROR CALCULATION : error % = Wactual Wapprox Wactual = (59906.05-58844.03 /58844.03)*100 error % = 1.172%

3.6 CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM WEIGHT USING ITERATION METHOD : i) We/Wo=1.02*59906.05-0.06=0.516 ii) We/Wo=1.02*58844.03
-0.06

=0.517

iii) We/Wo=1.02*58843-0.06=0.527 From ii & iii The gross weight of the aircraft is 58844.03 kg

3.7 CONCLUSION: Wo = 59906.54kg This is the total weight of the aircraft which we considered from the above calculation

32

4. ENGINE SELECTION
4.1 LOCATION OF ENGINE: Two engine configuration was selected. This type of engine is podded engine. 4.2 THRUST CALCULATION: T= W0*(T/W) = 33732.71*0.355 = 11975kg = 26400.41lb Thrust per each engine = 13217.56lb

4.3 ADVANTAGES OF LOW WING TYPE AIRCRAFT : 1) Integrated structure of wing having maximum strength for carrying the maximum wing loading 2) Because of low wing type,the downwash to the horizontal stabilizer is greatly reduced. 3) Maintenance of engine in low-wing type is easily possible. 4.4 DISADVANTAGES OF LOW WING TYPE AIRCRAFT : 1 )Requires long landing gear for maintaining the optimum clearance between ground and engine. 2)chance for entering the dust particles into engine which seriously affect the engine efficiency.

33

4.5 THRUST Vs SFC :

The above engine meet the thrust requirement of our aircraft with minimum sfc. The configuration of the engine is podded engine. So from this above graph at 0.789 is the optimum sfc at 553450 N of thrust.

4.6 THRUST MATCHING: For further selection of aircraft parameters we consider the thrust matching between the optimum T/W by plotting graph and the T/W ratio obtained by using wetted aspect ratio. 4.7 CALCULATION OF L/D:

34

aspect ratio Wetted aspect ratio = (wetted surface area / reference surface area) Here the wetted surface area represents the wing area and the reference surface area represents the extra projection from fuselage or wing like canard surface etc. From the historical data , S wet = 3 8.4/11.2 = 3.4285 Sref wetted aspect ratio= 1.75/3.4285 = 0.511 From the graph, for wetted aspect ratio=1.967 (L/D)max = 7.8 4.8 CONCLUSION Hence from the above calculations (from aircraft data book)

Thrust per each engine = 13217.56lb Hence turbojet engine is used for propulsion, with the absence of the after burner to reduce the speed to subsonic level.

35

5. AIRFOIL SELECTION
The optimum altitude = 9.85km The density at this altitude = 0.43966 kg/m3 5.1 COEFFICIENT OF LIFT (CLmax) Vstal = 0.25*Vcruise = 0.25 * 552.8 = 138.2 2(w/s) CLmax = alt*v2stall = 2*221.4 *9.81/(0.43966* 138.22) = 0.5173 5.2 WITHOUT FLAP ANGLE OF ATTACK() CO-EFFICIENT OF LIFT (CL) -7 -5 -3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.75 1 0.75 0.45 0.35 0.25 CO-EFFICIENT OF DRAG (CD) 0.045 0.0289 0.0229 0.01287 0.01287 0.01823 0.02895 0.04988 0.0792 0.1086 0.14352 0.17316 0.20583

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 17

36

5.3 DRAG POLAR (CD Vs CL) : The drag polar is the drag minimum at the graph CL and CD . The graph is plotted CL and CD. This graph is used to find the value of minimum drag co-efficient is 0.006647. Station and ordinates given in % of airfoil chord (x/c,y/c) The graph is plotted between stations in percent of chord x/c and y/c. The leading edge radius is 0.256m. 5.4 WITH FLAP DEFLECTION : ANGLE OF ATTACK () -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 1 2 4 6 7 CO-EFFICIENT OF LIFT -0.9 -0.7 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.65 CO-EFFCIENT OF DRAG 0.006647 0.04503 0.02845 0.045 0.066 0.093 0.125 0.163 0.184 0.229 0.205 0.1946

Landing CLmax landing = 1.75*(25% of CLmax take off) =0.765625 CD = CDO +KCL2 CDO = Cfe (Swet/Sref) ; K = (1/ *AR*e) ; e = 0.79 Reynolds number, Vstall Cm Re = Cm = Cv + Ct 2 = 3.57m

37

Vstall = 30m/s Re = 10.928*106 From the above data we selected aerofoil NACA 64006 for the required co-efficient of lift.then the plots are as follows X (percent c) 0 0.5 0.75 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 (u/v)2 0 0.912 1.016 1.084 1.127 1.152 1.167 1.179 1.195 1.208 1.217 1.225 1.230 1.235 1.220 1.119 1.163 1.133 1.102 1.069 1.033 0.995 0.957 0.918 0.878 0.839

38

y (percent c) 0 0.658 0.794 1.005 1.365 1.875 2.259 2.574 3.069

(u/v) 0 0.955 1.008 1.041 1.062 1.073 1.008 1.093 1.099

39

3.437 3.704 3.884 3.979 3.992 3.883 3.684 3.411 3.081 2.704 2.291 1.854 1.404 0.961 0.550 0.206 0

1.103 1.107 1.109 1.111 1.105 1.091 1.078 1.064 1.054 1.034 1.016 0.997 0.978 0.958 0.937 0.916 0.901

40

For the selected aerofoil,

Upper surface Station 0 0.459 0.704 1.198 2.440 4.934 7.432 9.933 14.937 19.943 24.952 29.961 34.971 39.981 ordinate 0 0.542 0.664 0.859 1.208 1.719 2.115 2.444 2.970 3.367 3.667 3.879 4.011 4.066

Lower surface Station 0 0.541 0.796 1.302 2.560 5.066 7.568 10.067 15.063 20.057 25.048 25.087 35.029 40.019 ordinate 0 -0.442 -0.524 -0.645 -0.836 -1.087 -1.267 -1.140 -1.624 -1.775 -1.877 -1.877 -1.951 -1.924

41

44.991 50.000 55.008 60.015 65.020 70.023 75.025 80.024 85.020 90.015 95.007 100

4.014 3.878 3.670 3.402 3.080 2.713 2.307 1.868 1.410 0.940 0.473 0

45.009 50.000 54.992 59.992 64.980 69.977 74.975 79.976 84.980 89.985 940993 100

-1.824 -1.672 -1.480 -1.480 -1.020 -0.768 -0.517 -0.276 -0.064 0.094 0.159 0

L.E. radius:0.256 Slope of radius through L.E.:0.084

42

43

For flap deflection = 60o ; CLmax = 1.75 Here the CL available without flap is 0.9 . Then the CLmax required from the flap is 0.16 . so 10-15o deflection is enough for our lift requirement . CLref = CLavailable + CLmax CLmax = CLreq CLwithout flap = 1.06-0.9 =0.16 with 60o flap deflection = 1.75 we need 15o flap deflection for our aircraft

5.5 CONCLUSION We plot the graphs between cl and cd, and cl and hence concluded that the above calculated airfoil is suitable for our aircraft.

44

6.WING SELECTION
6. 1 EQUIVALENT ASPECT RATIO : A.req = a*Mcmax a=4.11,c=-0.622 A.req=7.71 Optimum w/s=210 kg/m3 S = w/210=33732.71/210=160.63m2 AR = b2/s b2 = AR*S = 6.2*160.63 = 995.906 b = 31.5 m c r= 2b/AR(1+ )

= 0.4 for AR(6-10)

cr = 7.2m

=ct/cr => ct=0.4*7.2

ct=2.88 m Mean Aerodynamic chord=2cr[(1+ + 2)/1+ ]/3 C =5.34 m Volume of fuel=Wt.of fuel/fuel Density of fuel=800 kg/m3 Wf/W0=0.238 Wf=0.238*33732.71 Wf=8028.38 kg

45

Total volume of fuel=8028.38*9.81/800*9.81 =10.03 m3 Assume 80% of fuel carring in the wing, V=[(t/c)*c(0.5*c)*0.5*b*0.75]*2 8.028=[(t/c)*5.34*0.5*5.34*0.5*15.5*0.75]*2 t/c=0.0486 t/cr=0.0486=> troot=34.8 cm t/c tip=0.0486=>ttip=9.9 cm For subsonic, Sweep angle tan LE=tan c/4+[(1- )/AR(1+ )] Here c/4 =34 o Tan LE=0.6745+0.07142

LE=36.72 o

6.2 CONCLUSION From the above calculations we concluded that the low wing is suitable for the designed aircraft.

46

7. ESTIMATION OF WETTED SURFACE AREA AND DRAG

7.1 DRAG POLAR FOR CRUISE CONDITION : 1)fuselage length = awoc from historic data,a=0.366;c=0.42 lf =0.366*(33732)0.42 =29.91m lf /df =7-11 df=29.19/7 df =4.17m fuselage s = /4*df2 s =9.12m2 2) wing area=bw*tw =34.87*10-2*31.5 sw =10.98m2 3)horizontal tail: sht =tht*spanht bht = (sht *A.R)

s=690ft2 ;A.R=3.5 A.R=b2/s b=14.978m tht=t/c*ctip =0.0486*2.88 tht=13.99cm sht=13.99*10-2*14.978 sht =2.096m2 4)vertical tail(twin tail):

47

svt =tvt *bvt A.R=0.6-1.4 A.R=1 A.R=b2/s ,s=650ft2 =60.385m2 1=b2/60.385 b=7.77m svt=13.99*10-2*7.77*2 svt =2.174m2 5)Engine: a = /4*d2 = /4*1.192 for 2 engines, a=2.224m2 6)under carriage, s=(2.224*0.1)+2.224 s=2.4464m2 7)1/4 flap(15o) s = /360* *r2 r= 0.2*cr=1;s =15/360* *1 s =0.1308m2 8)full flap:(25o) s =25/360* *(0.2*5.34)2 s =0.2488 m2

7.2 DRAG POLAR :

48

cDt=cDo+cDo(others)+k k=1/( A.Re)= 0.115 cruise: cD(others) =

4

i=1

(cD *s )/sw

=(0.2736+0.0167+0.017+0.08787)/160.63 cD(others) = 0.00246 Take-off: cDo(others) = (cD *s )/sw

i=1 7

cD(others) = 0.0323 Landing: cD(others) = (cD *s )/sw+(cD *s )8/sw

i=1 6

cD(others)= 0.00328

7.3 CALCULATION OF DRAG : At h=0;T=288.16K;=1.225kg/m3 a= 1.4* 287 * 288.16 =340.26m/s 2(w/s) cl= v2 2(33732.68/160.63)*9.81 = 1.225*v2 cl =3363.3/v2

2 CD0 = ( CDT .O + CDW )/ 1 M 2 CDT = ( CD0 +K CL )*1.05

49

D=( CDT * W0 )/ CL

V(m/s)

CL

M=v/a

CDT .O

CDW

CD0

CDT

D (KN) 142.3 48.03 76.64 78.49 83.37

44 88 132 176 220

1.737 0.4340 0.193 0.1085 0.0694

0.129 0.258 0.388 0.517 0.646

0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323

0.359 0.03386 0.0344 0.0136 0.01275

0.365 0.03838 0.03835 0.01692 0.0161

0.747 0.063 0.0447 0.02918 0.017486

At h=2.46km T=272.57k =0.9784 kg/m3 V(m/s) CL M=v/a CDT .O 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 CDW 0.5562 0.0461 0.0188 0.0142 0.0130 CD0 0.5803 0.0537 0.0340 0.0199 0.0206 CDT 1.135 0.089 0.0267 0.0231 0.0222 D(KN)

44 88 132 176 220

2.175 0.543 0.2416 0.1359 0.0870

0.1329 0.2659 0.3988 0.5318 0.6647

146.68 54.23 36.57 56.24 78.35

At h=4.92km T=254.05k =0.0.7214 kg/m3

50

V(m/s)

CL

M=v/a

CDT .O 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323

CDW 0.666 0.072 0.024 0.0159 0.0137

CD0 0.6784 0.075 0.0287 0.0228 0.0232

CDT 1.42 0.144 0.04254 0.0278 0.0259

D(KN)

44 88 132 176 220

2.88 0.72 0.3209 0.2805 0.1155

0.137 0.274 0.411 0.549 0.686

166.13 66.38 43.89 51.1 71.23

At h=7.38km T=240.12k =0.5635 kg/m3 V(m/s) CL M=v/a CDT .O CDW CD0 CDT D(KN)

44 88 132 176 220

3.776 0.944 0.419 0.236 0.151

0.141 0.283 0.425 0.566 0.708

0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323

1.65 0.1146 0.0323 0.0186 0.0148

1.669 0.123 0.04 0.0269 0.0258

2.47 0.236 0.063 0.0349 0.0298

166.54 32.72 47.75 43.93 65.306

51

At h=9.85km T=224.23k =0.4673 kg/m3 V(m/s) CL M=v/a CDT .O CDW CD0 CDT D(KN)

44 88 132 176 220

4.55 1.138 0.506 0.284 0.182

0.146 0.293 0.439 0.586 0.7329

0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323 0.00323

2.392 0.1611 0.0416 0.0214 0.0160

2.421 0.1718 0.0498 0.0303 0.0282

2.44 0.2367 0.0732 0.0415 0.0336

174.5 28.84 34.91 48.35 61.09

7.4 CONCLUSION Hence the wetted surface area and the drag area is calculated from the above calculations.

8 RATE OF CLIMB ESTIMATION 52

Thrust available = 680.8 KN Thrust required = F. 1.15 =90*((20-h)/(20+h)) 1.15 At sea level, F=680.8 KN At 2.462km, F=965.47 KN At 4.924 km, F=914.40 KN At 7.368 km, F=830.84 KN At 9.85 km, F=713.87 KN 8.1 CALCULATION OF RATE OF CLIMB 8.1.1 At sea level, V(m/s) 805 605 694 D(KN) 48.03 76.64 78.49 T(KN) 680.8 680.8 680.8 680.8 R.C=(T-D)*V*60/W0(Km/min) 16.84 12.08 13.83

8.1.2 At h=2.46km,

53

V(m/s) 805 605 694

D(KN) 146.68 54.23 36.57 56.24

T(KN) 680.8 680.8 680.8 680.8

R.C=(T-D)*V*60/W0(Km/min) 16.6 12.88 14.32

8.1.3 At h=4.92km V(m/s) 805 605 694 D(KN) 166.13 66.38 43.89 51.1 T(KN) 680.8 680.8 680.8 680.8 R.C=(T-D)*V*60/W0(Km/min) 16.35 12.73 14.40

8.1.4 At h=7.38km V(m/s) 805 605 694 D(KN) 166.54 32.72 47.75 43.93 T(KN) 680.8 680.8 680.8 680.8 R.C=(T-D)*V*60/W0(Km/min) 17.24 12.6 14.6

54

8.2 CONCLUSION The rate of climb is calculated for the different values of h.

55

9 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TAIL SIZING

9.1 HORIZONTAL TAIL : The horizontal tail dihedral angle =5 o The root chord = 4.27m The tip chord = 1.71m Tapper ratio =0.4 Sweep angle = 41 o SHT=CHT* C w *SW/LHT Where, SHT-horizontal tail surface area C w -wing mean chord sw-wing area LHT-distance from chord of the horizontal stabilizer to the wing chord 0.4*5.34*160.63 LHT = 64.1 LHT = 5.35m 9.2 VERTICAL TAIL SIZING : Vertical tail area for vertical tail,

L VT = CVT

b w Sw SVT

56

L VT Distance
1/4chord.

from

chord

of

the

vertical

stabilizer

to

the

wing

LVT

= 0.04*8.20*38.4/8 = 1.5744 m

9.3 LOAD CONSERVATION : a. Air loads: Maneuver, component of interaction, gust load, and control deflection buffet load. b. Inertial loads: Acceleration, rotation, vibration, flutter and other dynamic loads.

c. Landing loads:
Breaking loads, vertical load, factors, skin up, spring back, and arrested loads. d. Take-off loads: Aborted load, catapult loads. e. Power-plant loading: Thrust, torque, hammer shock, vibration, duct pressure. f. Other loadings: Bird strike, pressurization, actualization, fuel pressure & crash. 9.4 VOLUME CONSIDERATION : i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. passenger requirement crew requirement fuel storage requirement buried engine and their inlets wing loading gear attachments

9.5 AERODYNAMIC CONSIDERATION :

57

i. ii.

fuselage shapes fuselage fineness ratio

9.6 DRAG CONSIDERATION : i. ii. iii. iv. fuselage wing & horizontal, vertical stabilizer engine landing gear

At root Reynolds number,

V c r 0.19475 315 3.813 = 1.42 10-5 Re r = 16.44 106 Re r =

At the tip Reynolds number,

Re t =

V c t

Re t = 6.5776 106
9.7 CORRECTNESS OF clmax. Take-off:

CLmax takeoff = 1.05 CLmax takeoffreq CLmax available = 1.05 [ 1.36-1.1] CLmax takeoff = 0.273
Landing:

C Lmax Landing = 1.05 C LmaxLandingfreq C L maxavailable = 1.05 [ 1.616-1.1] C Lmax Landing = 0.5418
58

9.8 CONCLUSION The horizontal and vertical tail sizing calculations are calculated above.

10. CALCULATION OF TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DISTANCE

10.1 LENGTH OF TAKE OFF DISTANCE : (1)Ground run: T-D=(W-L)+(W/g)*( dv / dt ) ------------(1) (T-D)-(W-L)= (W/g)*V*( dv / ds )
S1

S1=

ds =
0

V1

(W/g) [(T-D)-(W-L)]

VdV
0

W( V12 /2g) [(T-D)-(W-L)] V1=1.2*Vstall S1= =1.2* 2*( w / s) /( * Clmax inf lap ) =1.2* v1=1.0829 km (2)Transition run :(S2) (W-L)=0 (T-D)=(W/g)*V* ( dv / ds )
ds =(W/g)*V* dv (T-D)
S1

--------------- (2)

S2=

ds
0

59

V2

(W/g) =

V1

VdV

(T-D) = W( V22 V12 ) 2g(T-D) V1=44m/s;V2=88m/s;D=48.03KN S2= 599.254*(882-442) 2*9.81(132.17-48.03) S2=1.59 km (3)Climb: (T-D)-Wsin=0 cot =S3/H ; tan=H/S3 cot=cos/sin = 1 sin 2 sin 1 ( = T D 2 ) W

T D W H * (W 2 (T D)2

= (T-D) 2463* S3 = (132.17-48.03) S3=7.052 km S=S1+S2+S3 = 1.082 + 1.59 +7.015 = 9.68 km

60

10.2 LENGTH OF LANDING DISTANCE : (1)Descend: H* (W 2 ( D T )2 ) S1= D-T 2463* = 48.03-132.17 S1=-11.1 km (2)Transition: W* (V22 V12 ) S2 = 2g(D-T)

599.25 * (882 442 ) S2 = 2*9.81*(48.03-132.17) S2= -2.11 km (3)Ground run : W( V12 /2g) S3= [(D-T)-(W-L)] S3= 0.69 km S=S1+S2+S3

61

= 11.1-2.11+0.69 S = 9.68km 10.3 CONCLUSION :

TAKE-OFF DISTANCE = 9.68 km ; LANDING DISTANCE = 9.68 km

11. CALCULATION OF CENTER OF GRAVITY The major weight components for which we have some idea of this locations are the engines,the crew and payload.Using the information we can make a very preliminary estimation of the location of the center of gravity.The tail,fuselage and wing also contribute the location of cg.we can take them in to account later,when there was a better design made for than for now,ever if they are taken into account,they will give an approximate value of cg.

62

12 THREE VIEWS DIAGRAM

63

64

65

13 BIBLIOGRAPHY 66

1. Daniel p. Raymer, Aircraft conceptual design, seventh edition. 2. L.M. Milne Thomson, Theoretical Aerodynamics; second edition 3. Jan Roshkam, Airplane Design All seven Edition. (1- 7 Volumes) 4. Ira .H. Abbott , Theory of Wing Sections 5. J.D Anderson , Aircraft Performance 6. John F. Fielding, Airplane Design 7. Thomas Cork, Preliminary Aircraft Design 8. Courtland D. Perkins& Robert E. Hage, Airplane Performance and Stability Control. 9. Taylor J. Janes , All The World Aircraft ,Janes , London ,England ,UK, 1976. 10. Aviation Weeks January 2006 Edition www.NASA.org www.ZAP16.com www.COMBATAIRCRAFT.COM Few websites followed, www.Propulsion.org www.ADL.GETCH.edu

67