Aerospace Project

Diogo Moreira Carlos Henriques Jos Afonso Anabela Reis Pedro Casau Noel Leito Simon Steidl

55587 56285 56293 56323 56338 56341 66762

Aerospace Project

1.
2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.3.4. 2.3.5. 2.3.6. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 4. 6. 7. 7.1.1. 7.1.2. 7.2. 7.2.1. 7.2.2. 8.1. 9. 9.1.

Index
The Design Philosophy................................................................................................. 5 Design Requirements ................................................................................................... 5 Mission Segments Overview ...................................................................................... 6 Competitive Analysis .................................................................................................... 7 Conventional Configuration ....................................................................................... 8 Box-wing Configuration............................................................................................... 9 Three-Surface Configuration - TSC........................................................................10 Blended Wing Body .....................................................................................................11 C-Wing Configuration .................................................................................................12 Morphing Wing .............................................................................................................13 Concept generation .....................................................................................................15 Concept (1) .....................................................................................................................15 Concept (2) .....................................................................................................................16 Concept (3) .....................................................................................................................18 Concept (4) .....................................................................................................................20 Concept (5) .....................................................................................................................22 Concept (6) .....................................................................................................................23 Choice of Concept .........................................................................................................25 Maximum Take-Off Weight ......................................................................................27 Flight Envelope .............................................................................................................35 Wing design ....................................................................................................................38 Wing Planform ..............................................................................................................38 Wing Airfoil ....................................................................................................................39 High Lift Devices ...........................................................................................................44 Passive Lift Enhancement .........................................................................................44 Active Lift Enhancement ...........................................................................................45 Landing Gear ..................................................................................................................48 Engine Selection ...........................................................................................................49 Requirements and resulting tasks: .......................................................................49

Aerospace Project
9.2. 9.3. 9.3.1. 9.3.2. 9.4. 9.5. 10. 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 11. 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.3.1. 11.3.2. 12. 12.1. 12.2. 12.2.1. 12.2.2. 12.2.3. 12.2.4. 12.3. 12.3.1. 12.3.2. 12.3.3. 12.3.4. 13. 13.1. 13.2. State of the art: ..............................................................................................................50 Fuel Efficiency ...............................................................................................................51 Number of Engines ......................................................................................................51 Engine Type....................................................................................................................51 Noise Reduction ............................................................................................................53 Choice of engines..........................................................................................................54 Aircraft CAD Model ......................................................................................................57 Component Volume Estimation..............................................................................57 Component Weight estimation ...............................................................................58 Centre of Gravity ..........................................................................................................60 Aircraft Stability ...........................................................................................................61 Longitudinal Stability .................................................................................................61 Lateral Stability.............................................................................................................64 Control Surfaces Design.............................................................................................66 Rudder Design...........................................................................................................66 Aileron Design...........................................................................................................67 Structure Design ...........................................................................................................70 Idealization .....................................................................................................................70 1st Iteration .....................................................................................................................70 Assumptions ..............................................................................................................70 Sketch ...........................................................................................................................71 Bending Moment ......................................................................................................72 Shear Strength ..........................................................................................................74 2nd Iteration ....................................................................................................................76 Assumptions ..............................................................................................................76 Sketch ...........................................................................................................................77 Bending Moment ......................................................................................................78 Shear Strength ..........................................................................................................80 Materials Selection ......................................................................................................82 Innovative typology ....................................................................................................82 Composite Materials ...................................................................................................82

Aerospace Project
13.3. 13.3.1. 13.3.2. 13.4. 14. 14.1. 14.2. 14.3. 14.4. 15.1. 15.2. 15.2.1. 15.2.2. 15.2.3. 15.2.4. 15.2.5. 16. 17. Natural Composites .....................................................................................................83 Sandwich Technology ............................................................................................84 Cost comparison.......................................................................................................85 Smart Materials.............................................................................................................85 Features of the designed airplane .........................................................................87 Take-Off and Landing distances .............................................................................87 Inputs analysis ..............................................................................................................89 Innovation .......................................................................................................................92 Sustainability .................................................................................................................94 Production Costs ..........................................................................................................96 Operating Costs .............................................................................................................99 Crew ..............................................................................................................................99 Fuel ................................................................................................................................99 Maintenance ..............................................................................................................99 Fees ............................................................................................................................ 100 Total Operating Costs .......................................................................................... 101 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 102 References ................................................................................................................... 105

Aerospace Project

2.

The Design Philosophy

Air transportation isnt affordable with current technology. Our planets limited resources are pushing us to the edge of our creativity and its our role to come up with new airplane designs. We have been given the task to build a 150 passenger aircraft and these are its most important characteristics: efficiency, ecology and sustainability. Efficiency has to do with cost reduction. Making a more efficient design will decrease fuel consumption while still making the airplane compliable with all applicable regulations and purposes. An ecological aircraft is one which produces less pollution. Current airplane designs produce a lot of noise pollution and air pollution just during its flight. Reducing the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere as well as noise is a major goal to any new design. Any new engineering entrepreneurship needs to focus on sustainability because we have limited resources. We cannot keep digging Earths resources because their renewal is not guaranteed. We need to think about recyclable and reusable components. Having fewer resources also means higher costs thus having a sustainable production loop assures well always have the required materials for the job at an affordable price. These are our main goals for the design we develop on the following sections.

2.1. Design Requirements

Keeping in mind the main goal of the project, our design should be able to satisfy all of the imposed requirements. These several specifications are summarized in the following table.
ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Capacity Class Configuration Cargo capacity (bulk loaded) Maximum payload capability Maximum Range Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) Value 150 passengers Dual Class: (12 seats @ 36 pitch first class and 138 seats @ 32 pitch economy class) >7,5 ft3/passenger Full single class 30 pitch passenger capacity (185 lbs/passenger) + full cargo hold (8 lbs/ft3) 2800 nm with typical mission reserves with full dual class passenger load, assuming 225 lbs/passenger. Maximum Zero Fuel Weight + Reserves for Maximum Range Mission

Aerospace Project
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Typical mission (average) Ranges Cruise speed Requirement Initial Cruise Altitude Capability at MTOW: Maximum operating altitude: Maximum landing speed (at Maximum Landing Weight): Takeoff Field Length (TOFL), MTOW: Community Noise Fuel Burn airplane shall be certifiable to appropriate FARs and entry into service 500 nm (50%), 1000 nm (40%), 2000 nm (10%) 0,78 Mach for Long Range Cruise (LRC) Objective: 0,80 Mach (LRC) > 35,000 ISA + 15 C 43,000 ft 135 knots 7000 ft (sea level), 86 F ICAO Chapter 4 20 dB (cumulative) 500 nm mission shall be requirement: < 41 lbs/seat. Objective: < 38 lbs/seat 2018 8% or better (reduction); objective 10%/seat or better operating cost economics (Crew, Maintenance, Fees and Fuel at $2.50/US gal) than current, comparably sized commercial transports in typical US major airline type operation.

16

Operating costs

Table 1 - Mission Requirements.

2.2. Mission Segments Overview

The mission segment can be described in Figure 1:

Figure 1 - Mission Segments

Aerospace Project
The mission segments can be summarized in:
Warm up and Taxi; Full thrust and Takeoff Climb to cruise altitude Cruise at mach 0.8 Initial descent Loiter Final descent Land Climb to reroute altitude Cruise to alternate Descent to sea level Land
Table 2 - Mission segments

2.3. Competitive Analysis

The purpose of this project is the design of a civil aircraft with 2800 nautical mile range capability. Therefore, it makes all sense to watch closely our competition and identify every potential new technology or development. The main manufacturers of civil airplanes are Airbus and Boeing. Nevertheless, it is important to investigate other manufacturers that might set newer developments or trends, such as Bombardier. Therefore, to carry out the preliminary sizing of our aircraft, it is important to consider historical data of similar aircraft. The result of this study is presented in a comparative table.
Requirement Description Objective A320-200 Boeing 737 700 Bombardier CS300 ER A320 300ER

Year Number of seats Maximum range [nm] Cruise speed [M] Maximum Fuel burn for 500 nm mission [lbs/seat]

2018 150 2800 0,8

1998 150 2600 3000 0,78

1998 126 2885 0.781

2013 120 2950 0,78

2015 150 3000 0,8

38

58,1

52,3

n/a

41,7

Table 3 - Mission requirement objectives vs. current airplanes.

Aerospace Project
From the data listed in Table 3 we notice the demand for a much more efficient design, i.e. one that reduces dramatically the consumption per seat ratio while keeping other parameters almost unchanged. The A320-300ER will enter service in 2015 and its characteristics are fairly close to our objective. Therefore, we consider the fuel burn requirement to be the most important design driver because it demands great improvement in every aspect of the airplane, from wing design to engine selection and so on. The innovation in aircraft designs has reached a point where the current configurations represent highly optimized design solutions. Therefore, the short term available opportunities for innovations are in: New products and technologies; Process technology; Technological innovations that present superior product substitutes. On the other hand, the long term innovation is more ambitious and looks for new designs that mitigate the fuel burn, emissions and noise. A lot of study has been developed to provide an efficient solution for these problems. So, in order to satisfy the imposed requirements, some concepts were evaluated.

2.3.1. Conventional Configuration

The conventional configuration, shown in Figure 2, has an obvious advantage of being under study for the past years. Therefore, it has benefits in terms of design development and post aircraft production.

Figure 2 - Conventional Aircraft Design.

The conventional design with a low horizontal tail is a common option since both horizontal and vertical surfaces roots are attached directly to the fuselage. In this configuration, the effectiveness of the vertical tail is large because the interference with the fuselage and horizontal tail increase its effective aspect ratio. Large tail areas are affected by the converging fuselage flow, however this can reduce the local dynamic pressure.

Aerospace Project
Winglets are used to improve the efficiency of the wing at the expense of some extra weight. Their purpose is to reduce the aircrafts drag by altering the airflow near the wingtips, which results in fuel savings. As a result, positive trade-off can only be accomplished for longer than one hour flights1. In Table 4 are summarized the main advantages of this concept.
Advantages Design Conventional Tail Winglets Less production cost; Minimum weight; Large effectiveness; More stability; Fuel savings; Converging fuselage flow; Extra weight; Disadvantages

Table 4 - Advantages and Disadvantages of a conventional design.

2.3.2. Box-wing Configuration

A visualization of the box-wing configuration can be found in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Box-wing Configuration.

In a box-wing design, the tail horizontal stabilizer is extended and joined to the wing. This is different from a joined wing, where the wings are connected to the vertical stabilizer. This configuration increases the overall span efficiency. Nonetheless, the complexity of the structure leads to many concerns, because the aircraft wings are under a large stress due to bending moments at the endplates between the wings. The engines are mounted on the tail of the aircraft below the upper wing, creating a thrust line close to the CG, behind the passenger compartment. So, yaw control is an important concern.
1

From [6]

Aerospace Project
Through the increased planform area, a larger amount of lift is generated than in a conventional wing design. This larger area results in decreased take-off length, allowing fuel-savings and lower stall speeds.
Advantages Increases the overall span efficiency More lift Fuel Savings Shorter take-off and landing paths Decrease stall speeds
Table 5 - Advantages and disadvantages of box-wing design.

Disadvantages Complexity Large stress at the endplates Yaw control Production Costs

2.3.3. Three-Surface Configuration - TSC

The three-surface concept intends to provide a higher lift to drag ratio (L/D) and additional control surfaces on the aircraft. This design adds a canard to a conventional aircraft, as can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Three-surface Configuration.

Extra generated lift allows shorter take-off and landing distances and fuel-savings or an increased range. The integrated canard stalls before the wing. This provides the pilot enough time to react to the perturbation and recover. Furthermore, integrated canard tends to move aerodynamic neutral point forward in the aircraft, reducing the static margin, which decreases stability. The major disadvantages of including a canard in a conventional configuration are a higher skin friction, higher weight and lower stability. The major characteristics of TSC are summarized in Table 6.

10

Aerospace Project
Advantages Additional Lift Improved rotation behaviour Shorter take-off and landing paths Production Costs
Table 6 Major advantages and disadvantages of the TSC.

Disadvantages Additional skin friction Higher weight Lower stability

2.3.4. Blended Wing Body

Blended wing body is an alternative airframe design which incorporates new design features and can be seen in Figure 5. This is not a new idea but only now, with advances on material construction and computer-aided fly-by-wire, are its huge gains in aerodynamic efficiency realistically achievable.

Figure 5 - Blended Wing Body.

It is highly fuel efficient due to the body extra lift. Aerodynamics of the overall shape offer much lower drag, in part because it has no vertical tail. It is complicated to control this concept due to the absence of tailfin. This issue can only be addressed by a sophisticated computer flight-control system.

11

Aerospace Project
Another concern about this concept is the passengers acceptance, many would be travelling far from windows. Besides that, it is hard to evacuate so many people from deep interior cabin in an emergency.
Advantages Higher produced lift Disadvantages Controllability

Lower fuel burn/emissions Passengers Acceptance Lower Drag Difficulty in evacuation Production Costs
Table 7 - Advantages and Disadvantages of BWB.

2.3.5. C-Wing Configuration

A concept using a C-Wing is visualized in Figure 6. The C-Wing design was proposed as one way of addressing airport and manufacturing constraints. It would also address the ineffective location of the outboard engine and the excessive height of the vertical tail on a typical configuration. And possibly improve the performance of the aircraft.

Figure 6 - C-wing Configuration.

In a C-Wing configuration the span can be reduced or the vortex drag can be abridged at fixed span. The removal of the horizontal tail makes the use of aft-

12

Aerospace Project
fuselage-mounted engines a possibility, eliminating some of the severe problems with the original outboard engine location. Therefore, C-Wing is used as a primary pitch control surface. The vertical and horizontal tip extensions offer an efficient mean of fulfilling stability and control constraints. The horizontal C-Wing surfaces provide more stability for a given area as they are not affected by the act fuselage flow field and are less affected by the wing downwash. A C-Wing can be included in a three-surface configuration, providing a large allowable range, with a relatively lightly loaded wing to simplify high-lift system requirements and to accommodate passengers cabins in the wing.
Advantages Reduced Span Reduced vertical tail height Reduced wetted area Disadvantages Emergency Aeroelastics control Unconventional design

Table 8 - Advantages and disadvantages of C-wing configuration.

In spite of some pleasant features, the performance rewards for this design are not significant, and probably not worth the risk associated with an unconventional design.

2.3.6. Morphing Wing

The design of fixed wing aircraft is constrained by the conflicting requirements of several purposes. Devices such as flaps provide the present standard of adaptive airfoil geometry, even though this solution conditions manoeuvrability and efficiency, creating a design that is non-optimal in many flight regimes. Being able to change the shape of the wings to reduce drag and power, which vary with flight speed, would optimize fuel consumption so that commercial airplanes could fly more efficiently. Morphing wings for flight control bring new challenges to the design of control laws for flight. Because configuration changes move the aerodynamic centre, control of the aircraft during planform morphing requires attention. Morphing structure is a challenge. A proper material for a morphing wing will have to be elastic, flexible, resistant to different weather conditions, abrasions and chemicals, have high recovery rates and a hardness number high enough to handle the aircraft aerodynamic loads while in flight. With current technology, these mechanisms are not practical because wings weights would increase considerably as well as the cost-effectiveness. Smart materials instead, could be useful in the design of these new flight control devices.

13

Aerospace Project
Shape Memory Alloys such as Nitinol are able to expand and contract with changes in temperature. Piezoelectrics and magnetostrictive materials such as Terfenol-D are capable to do the same with the change in electric current or magnetic field respectively. These smart materials would eliminate the weight problem and could make the morphing mechanisms more practical. Studies are underway to investigate the availability of smart materials usage in a wing that is able to adapt itself to any flight condition, gain maximum lift efficiency and optimize its aerodynamic performance automatically. In Figure 7 can be visualized an example of a morphing wing adaptable to different flight conditions.

Figure 7 - Flying efficiently at high speed requires small wings. Flying at slow speed for long periods requires long wings. And with an asymmetric extension, morphing wings can provide roll control.

Advantages Improves aircraft performance Improve performance of conventional control surfaces Reduced drag Improve Range Reduce vibration

Challenges Integrity of structures Materials Control systems

Table 9 - Advantages and Challenges of morphing wing.

While many questions remain unanswered regarding the utility of morphing air vehicles, there is enough evidence to continue researching for performance improvements with such mechanisms.

14

Aerospace Project

3.

Concept generation

Conceptual Design is regarded as the first step in designing a product. It is based on the ideas or concepts that first emerged from the requirements and what the product is intended for. The result is an outline or model that will be used later in the development of the design.

3.1. Concept (1)

The first concept highlights a V-tail mounted in the engine nozzle, winglets in the wing tips and the engines mounting on the back of the fuselage, like what is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 - Concept (1) with different engine inlets.

The advantages and disadvantages of the concepts main features are studied bellow. V-tail allows for a reduction in weight, it has less wetted area and thus produces less drag. Although, a larger area is required for the same performance and stability, so, structural reinforcement is needed. Engine disposition on the fuselage allows for a reduction in noise. Also, there is no tail interaction with engine wake. Engine gets fuselage boundary

15

Aerospace Project
layer (BL). Moreover, the engine displacement implies internal noise amplification. Engine mounting place accounts for a heavier tail. Blended Winglets allow improvements in stability due to their passive control system which reduces the intensity of vortex. Winglets are environmentally friendly. The noise is reduced in 6,5% 2 because of degrading in needed thrust for take-off and landing. Blended Winglets can save fuel cutting CO2 and NOx emissions by 3 to 6%3. Conventional design is an advantage in terms of design development and post aircraft production.
Advantages Winglets Engine mounting V-tail Others stability and environmentally friendly Noise reduction Less drag and weight Conventional design Disadvantages Extra weight Internal noise amplification Structural reinforcement

Table 10 - Summary of advantages and disadvantages of concept 1.

3.2. Concept (2)

The main difference between this concept and the previous one is the engine mounting on top of the wings. Therefore, similar advantages and disadvantages can be referred to the previous design concept for all characteristics except for the engines.

2From 3

[5] From [7]

16

Aerospace Project

Figure 9 - Concept (2) with turbofan engines mounted on the top of the wings.

Figure 10 - Concept (2) with open rotor engines mounted on the top of the wings.

The main advantage of having the engine above the wing is to increase the laminar flow, giving the wing a better efficiency. Also, engines on top of the wings create an effect of noise shielding to ground observers. The difference between the concepts 2 in Figure 9 and Figure 10 resides in the engine, in Figure 9 the engine is a turbofan and in Figure 10 is an open rotor. The big advantage of open rotors over the turbofan engines is fuel saving. On the other hand, open rotor produces more noise due to lack of physical encapsulation nozzle which is also dangerous to the fuselage if one of the propellers cuts loose.

17

Aerospace Project
Advantages Winglets Stability and environmentally friendly Increases laminar flow Noise shielding Open rotor is more efficient Less drag and weight Conventional design Disadvantages Extra weight Open rotor produces more noise and does not have physical protection Structural reinforcement

Engine V-tail Others

Table 11 - Summary of advantages and disadvantages of concept 2.

3.3. Concept (3)

The next concept is known as a Blended Wing Body (BWB). Blended wing body is an alternative airframe design which incorporates new design features. This concept produces a large increase in L/D due to fuselage contribution on lift and a better load distribution. Also, BWB allows for less fuel burn, a higher passenger and payload volume. However, BWB is more difficult to control due to small moment arms to centre of gravity, therefore it is only controllable with winglets or coupling with ailerons. Also, there is less structural stability for internal pressurization. This is due to the sectional shape along the longitudinal length of the BWB not being axisymmetric, which leads to difficulties in maintaining homogenous pressurization inside the aircraft. Variations in pressure along cabin can lead to spots with big differential pressure with the exterior, which in longterm usage can lead to material and structural failure during the course of time trough fatigue. One of the biggest concerns with this concept is the emergency exits. A possibility would be to include an emergency capsule to act in case of an emergency in order to give passengers more time to flee.

18

Aerospace Project

Figure 11 - Concept (3), Blended Wing Body.

19

Aerospace Project
Advantages Winglets Engine stability and environmentally friendly Increases laminar flow Noise shielding Larger payload Efficient high-lift wings Increase of lift Less fuel consumption (10 to 25%) New design Less stability Less structural suitability for internal pressurization Unconventional design associated costs Disadvantages extra weight

Blended Wing Body

Others

Table 12 - Summary of advantages and disadvantages of concept 3.

3.4. Concept (4)

Concept 4 highlights the canard configuration, the mounting of the engines on top of the wings, the usage of winglets and usage (Figure 13) or not (Figure 12) of a vertical tail. As in concept (2), two concepts are presented, one with a turbofan propulsion system (Figure 12) and another with an open rotor propulsion system (Figure 13).

Figure 12 Concept (4) with turbofan engines without vertical tail

20

Aerospace Project

Figure 13 Concept (4) with open rotor engines and a vertical tail

As referred in Concept (1 the introduction of blended winglets allows for an increase in stability and a reduction in fuel consumption. In relation to engines, advantages and disadvantages are already described in Concept (2), and may be referred to that concept. Canard configuration allows for an improvement of stall characteristics, and has a big contribution towards improving stability of the overall aircraft. Nevertheless it also introduces flow disturbances into the engine inlet thus reducing its efficiency. Moreover, canards are known for their complex sizing. Tail omission accounts for less weight and structural stress on the structure, but also a less manoeuvre capability. Although tail represents more weight for the structure it also means an improvement in lateral stability. The disadvantages of not having a vertical tail (Figure 12) are taken in consideration, so actuators will be present in the blended winglets, to account for the loss of manoeuvre capability and lateral stability. Conventional design as referred in Concept (1) will be advantageous in terms of costs.

21

Aerospace Project
Advantages Winglets Engine noise shielding Canard Stability and environmentally friendly Noise reduction Open rotor as referred Improvement of stall characteristics Improves stability A less weight B improve lateral stability Conventional design Disadvantages Extra weight Internal noise amplification Open rotor as referred Complex sizing Inlet engine flow disturbances A Less manoeuvre capability B more weight

Tail Others

Table 13 - Summary of advantages and disadvantages of concept 4.

3.5. Concept (5)

Concept 5 appears as bolder design. The main characteristics are the canard and the engine mounting which have both already been described. The key of this design is morphing wings. This kind of wing has better overall flying performance and drag reduction. This comes from the fact that the wing adapts to the present flight condition. In the present situation the aim of the morphing wing is to change the wings aspect ratio providing better overall flight performance. However, a morphing wing adds weight and structural complexity, as it requires a more complex system to make the wing dynamic to the flight condition. A possible solution to run the morphing wing system could be a truss system or a system which uses smart materials (Smart Materials) as actuators. The truss system would allow for the extension and retraction of the outer wing from inside the inner wing. It would avoid the loss of interior space in the aircraft when the wing is retracted by avoiding the need to have the same interior space as the extended wings dimensions.

22

Aerospace Project

Figure 14- Sketch of concept 5.

The type of fuselage allows the transportation of more payloads. However, this comes with evacuation problems. Remembering the solutions showed for this problem in the blended wing section, it can be solved with an emergency capsule.
Advantages Canard Improvement of stall characteristics Improves stability Noise reduction due to encapsulated engine Better overall flying performance Drag reduction Larger Payload Disadvantages Complex sizing Inlet engine flow disturbances Internal noise amplification Added weight Structural complexity Additional loading and evacuation problems

Engine Mounting

Morphing wings Others

Table 14 - Summary of advantages and disadvantages of concept 5.

3.6. Concept (6)

The concept 6 is even bolder than the previous one. It has a lifting fuselage which is a simpler structure that reduces wing overloading and makes it possible for an easier accommodation. Round corners are a waste of space, but very useful from structural point of view which help when dealing with cabin pressurization which is the main problem with this design.

23

Aerospace Project
Like it was seen previously, the engine mounting retards separation and it has a noise shielding effect. The winglets produce lateral stability and improve wing efficiency. The influence of the stream coming from the canard, on the wing, will be reduced due to their relative position. The wing is a low wing, and the stream comes from a high canard, therefore the stream does not interfere as much as it would if the canard was in line with the wing. This design is also the safest amongst all other designs because lift distributes itself more evenly throughout the airplane body reducing stresses and moments. It is also known for its high lift over drag ratio and the ability to fly with one wing only (if sized correctly).

Figure 15 - Sketch of concept 6 configuration A.

24

Aerospace Project

Figure 16 - Sketch of concept 6 configuration B.

Advantages Canard Improvement of stall characteristics Improves stability Noise reduction due to encapsulated engine latter separation Reduces wing overload Simpler structure Easy Accommodation New design

Disadvantages Complex sizing Inlet engine flow disturbances Internal noise amplification

Engine Mounting

Lifting Fuselage Others

Difficult Pressurization Evacuation problems

Figure 17 - Summary of advantages and disadvantages of concept 6.

3.7. Choice of Concept

For the choice of concept a trade-off table was used. The idea of the following table is to establish a standard trade-off to be used during the evaluation of design concepts. The criteria used to evaluate the concepts were stability, structural complexity, environmental impact & sustainability and aerodynamic efficiency. Weight factors were attributed to each one of the criteria according to their importance. The values for the options range from 1 to 5, being the best option according to the evaluation criteria 5 and 1 the worst case.

25

Aerospace Project
Having established our criteria, the trade-off table illustrated bellow was built.
Options: Criteria: Stability Structural Complexity Environmental Impact & Sustainability Aerodynamical efficiency Total scores Weight factor 10 25 40 25 100 4 3 2 2 245 4 4 2 3 295 2 2 4 5 355 3 5 3 4 375 3 1 5 5 380 5 4 5 5 475

Table 15 - Trade-off table.

Looking upon the trade-off table, it comes to attention that concepts 4 and 6 are the best choices. The concept 4 is a secure choice like it was said before, while the concept 6 is bolder one and further research is needed therefore Concept 4 will be our choice and Concept 6 might be studied later if we arent able to meet the mission requirements.

26

Aerospace Project

4.

Maximum Take-Off Weight

The Maximum Take-Off Weight calculation described in [1] allows us to estimate the fuel burn per seat ratio on the 500 NM mission, which has been identified as a very important design driver requirement. We also test the maximum take-off weights sensitivity to several parameters. The calculations required input data is listed in Table 16 and a brief description of each piece of data follows.
Input Data Cruise Altitude [ft] Cruise Mach Cruise velocity Range Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption Aspect Ratio Structure Factor Payload mass [lbs] Loiter Time Base Drag Fuel Reserves + Fuel trapped [%] Value 35 000 0,8 788 ft/s 2800 0,38 9,45 0,5 42 750 30 0,008 6 Source Requirements Requirements [1] Requirement 5 Table Data4 Airbus A3205 Guess Requirements Mission Segments overview Guess Requirements

Table 16 - MTOW input data

Cruise Altitude Initial cruise altitude is taken from requirement number 9; Cruise Mach This is the objective Mach Number also listed in requirement number 8; Cruise Velocity This value is taken from the following equation which defines the cruise speed as a function of the Mach number and the cruise height . Range Maximum aircrafts range according to requirements; Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption Typical values for TSFC on a high BPR turbofan range from 0,05 on older equipment to 0,03 on new experimental engines. For this first draft, the PWG turbofan engine data was used.
4 http://www.jet-engine.net/civtfspec.html and also from http://www.pw.utc.com/Products/Commercial/PurePower+PW1000G 5 From [2]

27

Aerospace Project
Aspect Ratio For the first estimate, the Airbus A320 wing Aspect Ratio was considered; Structure Factor The first estimate was taken from Figure 2.5 in [1] which provides the structure factor based on historical data; Payload Mass Passenger mass is 225 lbs (requirement 5) and passenger cargo has, at most, 7,5 ft3 volume weighting 8 lbs per foot (requirement 4), resulting in a total weight of 225+7,5x8 = 285 lbs per passenger. Considering full dual class with 150 passengers the maximum payload is 150x285=42750 lbs; Loiter Time This parameter is taken directly from the mission segment description; Parasitic Drag Equation 2.11 in [1] indicates that the parasitic drag coefficient should be between 0,01 and 0,02. However we expect new technology to reduce this parameter therefore was considered; Fuel reserves The fuel reserves are indicated in the Mission Segment Overview and should be 5% of flight fuel; Trapped fuel 1% of flight fuel is considered to be trapped in the fuel tanks (this value is taken from FAR Part 25 regulations). With these assumptions and following the method described in [1] we get the results listed in Table 17.
Maximum Take-Off Weight [lbs] Fuel Weight (2800 NM mission) [lbs] Fuel Burn on a 500 NM mission [lbs/seat]
Table 17 -1st iteration results

147 270 30 886 59,5

After the first iteration, the fuel burn is still far from our very demanding requirement of 38 lbs per seat. However this wasnt unexpected because the input data was based on historical values. The identification of the maximum take-off weight sensitivity on the input parameters provides us meaningful and useful information which may allow us to specify some second level requirements.

28

Aerospace Project

Figure 18 - MTOW vs Structure factor

Figure 19 - MTOW vs Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption.

29

Aerospace Project

Figure 20 - MTOW vs Aspect Ratio.

In the previous set of figures we study the maximum take-off weight sensitivity to a 10% deviation in the parameters from the value considered in Table 16. The structure factor is by far the parameter which provides the highest change in the calculations and it could be the key to a more efficient design.
A320-200 0,55 9,48 Boeing 737-700 0,49 9,45 A320-300ER 0,43 9,8

Structure Factor Aspect Ratio

Table 18 - Other airplanes design parameters

The trend is obvious. The structure factor of 0,5 considered before deviates from current designs. One shall be able to achieve a lower structure factor. Also, our wing design should have a higher aspect ratio in order to increase Lift over Drag ratio with respect to current designs, but other solutions shall be explored. We consider new input values and recalculate the maximum take-off weight.
New Input Data Aspect Ratio Structure Factor Value 12 0,42

Table 19 - New input values

30

Aerospace Project
Mission Segment Engine Start-up and Takeoff Climb and acceleration Cruise to destination Loiter Landing ( Initial Weight ) ( Final Weight ) Weight Loss ( ) 0,970 0,968 Source

111 650 108 300

108 300 104 840

[1]

104 840

94 510

0,902

94 510 93 700

93 700 90 890

0,991 0,970 111 650 22 008 37,9 [1]

Table 20 - Weight per mission segment summary

Maximum Take-Off Weight [lbs] Fuel Weight (2800 NM mission) [lbs] Fuel Burn on a 500 NM mission [lbs/seat]
Table 21 - 2nd iteration results

These new input values allow us to comply with mission requirement of 38 pounds of fuel consumption per seat and should be considered as 2nd level requirements during the remaining aircraft design.

5.

Wing Loading

The Wing Loading estimation requires the new input data which is presented in Table 22 Summary of data input on wing loading estimation. and whose values are explained below.
Input Data Oswalds efficiency coefficient ( ) Air density at sea level ( ) Value 0,8 1,225 Source Guess Table Data Table Data 0,3099 0,9711 Aspect Ratio (A) 12 Table Data Table Data Guess

31

Aerospace Project
Input Data Runway length ( ) Stall Speed ( ) Friction coefficient at Takeoff ( ) Friction coefficient at Landing ( ) Climb angle ( ) Obstacle height (h) Glide angle ( ) Maximum load factor (n) Maximum Lift Coefficient ( ) Value 7000 ft 100 knot 0,06 0,4 0,03 rad 35 ft 4 deg 2,5 1,9 Source Requirement Requirements Guess Guess Requirement Requirement Guess Requirement Design driver

Table 22 Summary of data input on wing loading estimation.

Oswalds efficiency The guessed value is a common assumption when tapered wings are used as stated in [1]; Air density at sea level, and These values were taken from table data in [12]; Aspect ratio This value was chosen in order to be close the competitors aircrafts; Runway length Comes directly from requirement number 12; Stall Speed According to the course notes, the landing speed should be 30% higher than the Stall Speed which means that it shall be 130 knot. This landing speed value is compliant with requirement number 11; Friction coefficient at landing and take-off mean values in the admissible ranges provided in the course notes; Climb angle and obstacle height These are provided in FAR part 25, section 111; Glide angle - mean value in the admissible range provided in the course notes; Maximum Lift Coefficient This should be a design driver for the rest of the design process. The airplane we are currently designing will spend most of its flight in Cruise condition; therefore we should dimension the wing loading to maximize its range. This is accomplished with the following relations6.

From [4]

32

Aerospace Project

Where

is the dynamic pressure at the beginning of cruise.

From the MTOW calculation we also have the weight at the beginning of cruise, resulting in a wing area of: This wing area achieves maximum range value as long as the assumptions are met. One of the aircraft design constraints is the Take-Off Field Length because it is limited to as stated in mission requirements. From this constraint and taking into account the previously calculated wing area, were able to compute the minimum Thrust required for take-off can be known by using the equations from [1], which consider an historical based Take-Off Parameter TOP.

We get

but we apply a safety factor of 2 because the aircraft must be

able to perform the take-off with one engine inoperative, therefore we get the following result:

The pair

is the so called Design Point which has to fit the set of constraints

imposed during each flight section, from take-off to landing. The set of constraints was taken from [4] and then checked for design compliance with our design point.
Requirement Stall Speed Take-Off Cruise Speed Landing Formula

33

Aerospace Project
Sustained Turn

Climb angle Max Ceiling

Table 23 - Set of constraints from [4].

Figure 21 - Design Point and constraints.

Figure 21 shows that the design point verifies all the constraints. Furthermore, with all the available data we are able to calculate the expected instantaneous turn rate, from the formula in [4] considering cruise conditions.

34

Aerospace Project

6.

Flight Envelope

For a first structural analysis, a VN diagram on the point of view of project design was made and for the calculations, some assumptions were made without knowing yet the wing configuration. So, for the positive and negative stall curves, we choose typical values for CLmax and CLmin, meanwhile for CL we looked into linear airfoil theory and assumed a 2-D infinite aspect ratio airfoil section with limits, we looked in FAR-25.
Input Data CL CLmax CLmin nlimit Vdive Value 2 1,9 -1,4 +2,5 and -1 1,5xVcruise Source Linear airfoil theory Design driver Design driver FAR-25 [1]

. For the positive and negative n

Table 24 - Assumptions for Flight Envelope section.

Figure 22 - V-n Diagram.

Then, looking for gust loads in the normal direction in two different flight conditions, we calculated the new load factors: -Level flight: Statistical gust load: Response coefficient:

35

Aerospace Project
Gust load velocity: Lift before Gust: Angle of attack before gust: Angle of attack after load: Load factor after gust: -Dive Condition: Statistical gust load: Response coefficient: Gust load velocity: Lift before Gust: Angle of attack before gust: Angle of attack after load: Load factor after gust: For the calculations, we used statistical gust velocity values from [1], and also equations (10.11), (10.12) and (10.17a). A summary is shown on Table 25.
Flight condition Altitude [ft] [ft/s] Level flight Dive Condition 35000 35000 37,5 18,75 n 0,9559 0,7168

Table 25 - Summary table of calculations.

Figure 23 V-n Diagram with new load factors.

36

Aerospace Project
Assuming a construction safety factor of 1.5 for the limits on load factors and a quality factor of 1.15 to account with manufacturing defects, holes, connections, etc, we got for the flight envelope in Figure 24

Figure 24 - V-n Diagram with safety and quality factor

Finally accounting for maximum gust loads, and assuring that the airplane stays in the yield/elastic limit between the load factors n=-1 and n=3.5(gust loads - Figure 23), the flight envelope is depicted in the following figure.

Figure 25 Real flight envelope of the Project.

37

Aerospace Project

7.

Wing design

The most important goal during the wing design is requirements compliance. As a result, our main driver was efficiency improvement in cruise. Wing characteristics choice was focused on higher cruise performance, but with reasonable performance on all other flight phases.

7.1.1. Wing Planform

During the design process, some assumptions were drawn regarding the wing which are listed in Table 26.
Input Data Aspect Ratio (A) Parasitic Drag ( ) Oswalds efficiency coefficient (e) Planform area (S) Dive speed (Vdive) Value 12 0,008 0,8 165 1,5Vcruise Source Wing loading Wing loading Wing loading Wing loading [1]

Table 26 Wing Assumptions.

From the wing loading calculations, in order to maximize range, we achieve a required planform area of: The high aspect ratios value decreases the induced drag. For the wing design several parameters need to be taken into account, and one of the most important was the Cruise Mach velocity, M=0,8. With this value, we looked for some historical data on [1], for , tapper ratio, and leading edge sweep angle, . Below, from historical data, weve got the following values: Parameters Value Source [1] Tapper ration, Leading edge sweep angle, [1] [1]

Table 27 - Geometrical Parameters from historical data.

With all of these geometrical parameters, the wing planform, should be similar to Figure 26.

38

Aerospace Project

Figure 26 - Dimensions of wing Planform [m].

7.1.2. Wing Airfoil

The lift coefficient for cruise was calculated assuming it is constant during the whole cruise phase. With this assumption, the maximum ceiling at the cruise end was approximately , that is less than the maximum ceiling of 43000ft from requirements.

Looking for all the constrains, and doing some analysis on available airfoils, the airfoil NACA 23012 is a good choice, designed for 0,3 lift coefficient, a little bit larger than the expected design cruise lift coefficient.

Figure 27 NACA 23012 airfoil.

Pursuing cruise efficiency, drag needs to be reduced as much as possible. The transonic airfoil design problem arises because we wish to limit or vanquish the shock drag losses at a given transonic speed imposed by the requirements.

39

Aerospace Project
Looking more carefully into the problem, we need to avoid the transonic wave drag rise, characteristic of a drag divergence mach number. From Korn equation applied to drag prediction on swept wings we verified the drag divergence mach number, ,
7

Where, is an airfoil technology factor that can be assumed as 0,9 for this type of airfoil. With previous assumptions, the obtained value was 0,89. In order to avoid high mach numbers and shock waves for the present case, the imposition of a leading edge sweep angle, , of changes the effective mach velocity allowing shock waves to disappear. From a compressible analysis for a time-marching Euler solver based on a multidimensional upwind residual distribution method, Figure 28, we compare the cruise conditions for with and without for an angle of attack ( ).

Figure 28 - Leading edge sweep angle illustration

We observe that the strong shock wave vanishes in the second condition.

Figure 29 - Mach distribution (=0 and Mn=0.8).

Figure 30 - Mach distribution (=0 and Mn=0.655).

From [8]

40

Aerospace Project

Figure 31 - Grid illustration.

Running a batch analysis on[13] for different Reynolds, we got for the NACA 23012 a value of 0,0867/ , Figure 32.

CL vs
2,0 1,5 1,0 Re=60000 Re=110000 Re=160000 Re=210000 Re=260000 0,0 -20,0 -10,0 -0,5 -1,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 Re=310000 Re=360000 Re=410000 Re=460000 Figure 32 CL Vs plot.

Cl

0,5

From the Drag polar in Figure 33 it is possible observe that the minimum Cd is around the design Cl cruise of 0,25:

41

Aerospace Project
Drag Polar
2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 -0,5 -1,0 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 Cl Re=60000 Re=110000 Re=160000 Re=210000 Re=310000 Re=360000 Re=410000 Cd Figure 33 - Drag Polar. Re=460000

In order to test the finite wing, we defined a wing with the previously geometric details:
Root Chord[m] Tip Chord[m] Span[m] Area [m^2] Leading edge sweep [] Aspect Ratio Mean Aerodynamic Chord[m] Mean Geometric Chord[m] t/c[%] Volume[m^3] Efficiency, e 6 0,9 44,5 165 35 12 4,1 3,45 12 12,6 0,89

Figure 34 -Finite Wing.

Table 28 - Previous geometric assumptions.

Searching for the momentum reference location, we found a value for 0,016 that coincides with the intersection point on Figure 35 and obtained for the situation where .

that is

42

Aerospace Project
Cm vs
0,1

Cm

-10,0

-5,0 -0,1 0,0 -0,3 -0,5

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

Figure 35 - Cm Vs plot.

43

Aerospace Project

7.2. High Lift Devices

The High lift devices can be divided into two categories, the passive and active devices. Depending on where they are positioned this devices are flaps (at the trailing edge of the wing) or slats (at the leading edge of the wing). Both perform in a way to achieve the necessary values for critical flight phases as take-off and landing.

7.2.1. Passive Lift Enhancement

Trailing-edge devices: Since the concept being followed is of a 150 seat passenger aircraft, and considering similar aircrafts on the market, the most feasible flap to use is the single slotted flap. Considering the airfoil used for the wing, the same airfoil NACA-23012 will also be used for the flaps. The considered airfoil will have a chord of 20% of the wing chord. The following table exposes the flaps characteristics: Parameters Flaps deflection, Flaps cord ratio, Flaps area, m2
Table 29 - Flaps Characteristics.

Value

Source [1] [1] [1]

The flaps area

was calculated as follows:

Where, 0.8 is the ratio of flaps along the wing span. When designing flaps the important solution that needs to be reached is the increment in the maximum Lift Coefficient due to flaps introduction.

Where

is the increment in the maximum lift for a flapped 2-D wing,

is

the ratio of flapped wing platform area to wing area, and is an empirical correction that accounts for wing sweep. Another solution due to the introduction of flaps is the increment in the coefficient of base drag of the wing.

44

Aerospace Project
Where the coefficient is function of the ratio of the flap wing chords and the coefficient is a function of the flap deflection. Leading-edge devices: For the slats the choice was the slotted leading-edge flap or more commonly named Slat. This type of device is the equivalent to the trailing-edge flap. It works by extending the leading-edge forward and downward, opening a slot and increasing the wing section camber and area. This devices also generates an increment in .

The final value for the is given by the sum of all increments due to high lift devices and the of the wing without any high lift devices. It is as follows:

The value reached is x above the design value of 1.9 decided in the beginning of the project. There is margin then to reduce the take-off distance.

7.2.2. Active Lift Enhancement

Active lift devices were not considered in this project due to its consequences in terms of weight increment, complexity increment and for some cases, loss of efficiency for the engines. The increment in would not suffice for the cost that comes along with it. The trade-off was negative for these devices.

45

Aerospace Project

8.

Fuselage Design

The fuselage design has a major role in any commercial airplane design because it has to efficiently accommodate all the passengers and their cargo. According to requirements listed in section 2.1: The fuselage shall accommodate 12 first class seats and 138 second class seats; First class seats shall have a pitch of 36 inches; Second class seats shall have a pitch of 32 inches; Each passengers cargo shall have a volume of 7,5 cubic feet. These sets of requirements provide the first design guidelines and all the fuselage characteristics must not conflict with these constraints. Other dimensions are taken out from historical data in [1] and are listed in inches for consistency with the requirements. Parameters 1st class seat width 1st class aisle width 2nd class seat width 2nd class aisle width Aisle Height Headroom Value [in] 22,5 24 17 20 80 65

Table 30 Summary of parameters took out from historical data in [1].

It is also necessary accommodate emergency exits and WCs, that are described by FAR. Parameters Emergency Exits WC Value 2-type I + 2-typeIII Source FAR FAR

Table 31 - Emergency Exits and WC parameters according to FAR.

Two fuselage sections are provided in the following drawings:

46

Aerospace Project

Figure 36- Fuselage top section.

Figure 37 - Fuselage cross section.

The fuselage empty volume must be enough to accommodate the cargo and fuel. Some simple calculations are performed to assess this issue in Section 10.

47

Aerospace Project

8.1. Landing Gear

The fuselage will accommodate all the parts of the landing gear. It will be a retractable tricycle type landing gear, with two-wheel bogeys at three points. This is the optimal configuration to operate on paved runways, as it allows for ground rotation both on landing and take-off without adding too much extra weight. The main landing gear will be placed under the junction of the wing and the fuselage, carrying approximately 90% of the weight while the other 10% will be carried by the nose gear. From ([1] eq 5.4) we estimate the main wheel dimensions:

From ([1], table5.10)

Main Wheel Diameter A=1,510 B=0,349 Diameter Main Wheel Width Nose Wheel Diameter Nose Wheel Width A=0,715 A=1,510 A=0,715 B=0,312 B=0,349 B=0,312 Width Diameter Width 51,8 in 16,9 in 30,7 in 10.6 in

Table 32 - Main Wheel Diameter and Witdh ([1], table 5.10)

According to the results, the nose wheels can be modelled as 40% smaller than the main wheels. With these dimensions, the volume needed for the landing gear without accounting for all the hydraulics, is approximately:

Using the method explained in section 11.1.5 of [1], it is possible to calculate an approximate weight for both front and main landing gears. Firstly, lets summarize input date and then present the results.
Parameter Kcb Value 1 Justification Not a cross beam gear gear Main

48

Aerospace Project
Kmp Ktpg Main landing gear length Load factor Number of main wheels Number of main gear shock struts Stall velocity Landing design gross weight Knp Front landing gear length Number of front wheels 1 1 69.62 in 2.5 4 2 100 kts 100646 lbs 1 35.44 in 2 Fixed gear Not a tripod gear Aircraft CAD model Flight Envelope Calculations Estimation based on current landing gear designs for similar aircraft Flight Envelope Landing with no more than half fuel weight Fixed gear Aircraft CAD model Calculations Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Front Front Front

Table 33 - Input data for landing gear weight estimation

As a result of calculations with this input data, landing gear weights where derived:
Total weight 1844 kg Main gear Nose gear 3714 kg 159 kg

Table 34 - Landing gear weights

Formulas for these previous calculations are omitted as they are length but simple. They are simply comprised of several statistical coefficient times or powered to input data provided and are easily obtained by referring to pages 261-262 of [1].

9.

Engine Selection

9.1. Requirements and resulting tasks:

49

Aerospace Project
Requirement Approach Engine Type (Turbofan L-BP, Turbofan HEfficiency BP, Prop-Fan) Bypass Ratio Number of Engines Supply of sufficient Power (Trust): Static trust Speed range Engine weight Noise Reduction Environmental requirements: CO2 Emissions Recycling ability Residues due to maintenance Maintenance costs Reliability Purchase price Engine Size Number of Engines Engine Type Engine Trust/Weight ratio Placement Insulation Engine Type Engine Efficiency Used Materials Long Service intervals Simple Design (small number of parts) Long Service Intervals Simple Design (small number of parts) Simple Design (small number of parts) Common model/new developed

Table 35 Requirements and resulting tasks.

It is easy to see, that Requirements and Approaches are overlapping each other, therefore a compromise must be found.

9.2. State of the art:

Accomplished propulsions, focusing on currently used types of aircraft which have similar characteristics to our project. Exclusively Turbo-fan engines are in use for these aircraft types.

50

Aerospace Project
Airplane Airbus A319 (124-159 seats) Boeing 737-300/-400/700 (123-162 seats) Bombardier CS 300 (120 145 seats) Douglas DC 9 (all models, 90 - 172 seats) Engine Type CFM International CFM56 International Aero Engines IAE V2500 CFM International CFM56 Pratt & Whitney PW1000G CFM International CFM56 Rolls-Royce BR700 Pratt & Whitney JT8D Trust [kN] 82 - 151 98 - 147 82 - 151 76 - 102 82 - 151 63 - 93 96,5 Bypass ratio Up to 6,5 4,5 5,4 Up to 6,5 >> Up to 6,5 4 4,4 1,74

Table 36 - Comparison of aircraft engines.

Comparable Engines: Engine Pratt & Whitney PW6000 PowerJet SaM146 Iwtschenko Progress D-436 Rolls-Royce Tay Trust [kN] 98 - 106 62 78 67 - 118 62 - 67 Bypass ratio 4,8 - 5 4,43 ~5 3,1

Table 37 - Comparable engines.

9.3. Fuel Efficiency

9.3.1. Number of Engines
Due to a high Efficiency the number of Engines should be as low as possible. Needs: Sufficient amount of trust must be generated The FAA requirements of minimum 2 engines must be fulfilled One Engine must be enough for operating the aircraft The minimum number of engines brings some more advantages: lightest solution cheapest solution less maintaining costs and time For our requirements, most probably 2 engines will be the optimum.

9.3.2. Engine Type

Due to the useful flight Mach number, the focus is on Prop-fan engines and on High-Bypass Turbo-fan engines.

51

Aerospace Project
High Bypass Turbo-fan:
A high bypass ratio gives a lower (actual) exhaust speed. This reduces the specific fuel consumption, but reduces the top speed and gives a heavier engine. A lower bypass ratio gives a higher exhaust speed, which is needed to sustain higher, usually supersonic, airspeeds. This increases the specific fuel consumption. Bypass ratios of modern engines are range between 5 and 11 (Rolls Royce Trent 1000). Advantages: Quieter around 10 to 20 percent more than the turbojet engine due to greater mass flow and lower total exhaust speed. More efficient for a useful range of subsonic airspeeds for same reason, cooler exhaust temperature. Less noisy and exhibit much better efficiency than low bypass turbofans. Disadvantages: Greater complexity (additional ducting, usually multiple shafts) and the need to contain heavy blades. Fan diameter can be extremely large, especially in high bypass turbofans such as the GE90. More subject to FOD (Foreign object damage) and ice damage. Top speed is limited due to the potential for shockwaves to damage engine. Thrust lapse at higher speeds, which necessitates huge diameters and introduces additional drag. More Space is required: More ground clearance at under wing assembly, no possibility of integration into the fuselage (noise reduction).

Geared Turbofan
As bypass ratio increases, the mean radius ratio of the fan and LP turbine increases. Consequently, if the fan is to rotate at its optimum blade speed the LP turbine blading will spin slowly, so additional LPT stages will be required, to extract sufficient energy to drive the fan. Introducing a (planetary) reduction gearbox, with a suitable gear ratio, between the LP shaft and the fan, enables both the fan and LP turbine to operate at their optimum speeds. Typical of this configuration are the long-established Honeywell TFE731 (already introduced in 1972), and the recent Pratt & Whitney PW1000G.

Prop Fan/Unducted Fan

An Unducted Fan or Prop-Fan is a modified turbofan engine, with the fan placed outside of the engine nacelle on the same axis as the compressor blades. The bypass ratio of prop fan engines are around 20:1. Advantages: Higher fuel efficiency

52

Aerospace Project
Potentially less noisy than turbofans. Could lead to higher-speed commercial aircraft, popular in the 1980s during fuel shortages Disadvantages: typically more noisy than turbofans complexity cruising speed limited because of blade tip speed Regarding the terms of fuel efficiency, a Prop Fan engine seems to be a possible solution. A further approximation between Turbo Fan and Prop Fan is conceivable. According to our requirements regarding to cruise speed and noise reduction, most probably a high bypass turbo fan engine will be used.

9.4. Noise Reduction

The noise, produced by the engine(s) depends on the following factors: Engine Type Insulation Placement The engine type is rather defined by other considerations like efficiency and cruise speed requirements. In theory, prop fans could be more silent than turbo fans, especially during the approach. The approach is after the take off, the second most important part of the flight mission in regards to noise emissions. Actually existing prop fans in the past (1980s) produced higher noise emissions than turbo fan engines, especially inside the cabin. For a given engine type, different approaches for noise reduction can be found: Fan blade geometry Exhaust duct covers whose edges are serrated in a toothed pattern to allow a quieter mixing of exhaust and outside air (chevron/serrated nozzles) Insulation: Insulation in case of pylon mounted engines is barely possible. As mentioned a possibility is to place sound absorbing materials inside of the air inlet and the fan air-ducting. Placement: A much more effective way for noise reduction is provided by the engine placement. The problem with the actual fuselage designs is, that the commonly used turbofan engines are too large in diameter to be integrated in the fuselage. Possible solutions: additional air-ducting with sound absorbing materials at the pylons partly integrated into fuselage over wing position: The wing can reflect a certain amount of the noise mounting above the tail new fuselage design with completely integrated engines

53

Aerospace Project

9.5. Choice of engines

From our Design Point: T/W = 0,22 T = 109 KN Number of engines = 2 Tmin = 54,5 KN/Engine We can consider two approaches Use of an already existing engine or development of a completely new engine. To use an existing engine has following advantages: - No development costs - Availability, no developing period - Proved concept. Experiences about reliability, operating costs etc. But this solution has the disadvantage that it is difficult to meet all requirements as thrust, fuel consumption etc. Available Engines which meet approximately our requirements:
Weig ht [kg] ~ 1750 ~ 2450 ~ 1120 1400 1600 2240 2540 Power/ Weight Ratio [Nt/Nw] ~ 4,4 ~ 5,5 ~ 4,4 5,8 ~ 4,3 5,7 Spec. Fuel Consumption lb/(h*lbf) 0,63 0,68 0,63 -

Thrust [kN] CFM Leap X PW1000G PowerJet SaM146 PW6000 GE CF34-8 Rolls Royce BR700 Progress D-436 IAE V2500 81 - 157 62 - 104 62 - 78 82 - 109 62 63 - 95 62 - 92 98 - 146

1st run 2012 2007 2006 2000 1999 1994 1993 1988

Comment Very high BP-ratio, high efficiency Geared fan, very high BP-R, high efficiency Low maintenance costs, silent, efficient Simple design, low maintenance costs, low fuel consumption High BP-R, well fieldtested Well field-tested, low noise and pollutant emissions Efficient, high power to weight ratio. High BP-R, high Power to Weight ratio

54

Aerospace Project
Rolls Royce Tay CFM 56 62 - 69 82 - 151 1940 4000 4,2 ~ 3,7 4,2 ~ 0,55 0,65 1984 1974 Low BP-R, low Power to Weight ratio High BP-Ratio, well field-tested

From the listed engines following engines are most suitable: CFM International CFM Leap X The CFM Leap X is still in development. It is supposed to achieve its fist run in 2012. The Leap X is an evolution of the very well established engine family CFM 56. Compared to the current CFM 56 models it should have 16% lower fuel consumption. The Bypass Ratio is very high, around 10:1. Pratt & Whitney PW1000G The PW1000G is a geared fan engine. This means that the fan and the turbine, connected with a gear (ratio ~ 3:1), can work at their optimal speed. This increases the efficiency of both modules and decreases as well noise emissions and fuel consumption. The PW1000G is designed to have lower manufacturing costs as current engines.

Figure 38 - Manufacturer's data.

Additional Data which is not available from the manufacturer. These values are estimations, based on comparison of engines with similar thrust range, BP-ratio, etc. Property Weight Overall Length Overall diameter TSFC Value 2750 3000 2000 0,38 Unit kg mm mm Source Estimation Estimation Estimation Estimation

55

Aerospace Project
The PW 1000G successfully completed test runs in 2007 and is supposed to be in service in 2013. The availability of the engine and all the auspicious testing results make it most suitable for our future aircraft concept. Also the thrust range is closer to our requirement than that of the Leap X engine. Engine of choice: PW1000G in the version with lower rated thrust of 62 kN.

56

Aerospace Project

10. Aircraft CAD Model

Having defined important aircraft geometry such as the wing and fuselage, we are able to draw a CAD model which includes also lifting surfaces included in the concept generation process such as the canard and the winglets. This aircraft model allows for improved geometry visualization which helps the definition of important relations between the several elements that build the aircraft. These relations include: Wing root placement along the fuselage; Canard placement with respect to the wing; Landing gear placement; Payload placement. The CAD aircraft model geometry is controlled by means of a Design Table (in Microsoft Office Excel) which easily handles changes in the design. This feature allowed a very close interaction with the stability calculations which ultimately led to the aircraft model in Figure 39.

Figure 39 - Aircraft CAD Model

10.1. Component Volume Estimation

The aircrafts CAD model is used for empty volume estimation so as to comply with storage space requirements. Firstly we compute fuel and cargo required volume and those results are cross-checked with CAD geometry output.

57

Aerospace Project
Input Data Jet fuel density ( Jet fuel mass ( Cargo Volume Value ) Source Table Data [2] MTOW calculation Requirement

Table 38 - Occupied volume calculation input data

From the input data one may easily compute the fuel volume. From the geometric data we are able to compute the empty volumes. The fuel is stored in the wings whilst the cargo is stored in the fuselage aft section.

Figure 40 - Cargo (red) and Fuel (blue) placement

Output Data Cargo empty volume Fuel empty volume

Value

Table 39 - Fuselage empty volumes

From the data in Table 39 we conclude theres enough empty volume to accommodate cargo, fuel and other airplane equipment.

10.2. Component Weight estimation

The component weight estimation which led to the inertia properties calculation within the Solidworks software was performed according to the following procedure: 1. Draw airplane geometry; 2. Insert dummy components within the fuselage compartments which simulate the passengers and cargo weights; 3. Insert fuel within the wing shell; 4. Assign density properties to the components materials in order to be compliant with the calculations performed in section 4 The results obtained with this estimation method are listed in Table 40.

58

Aerospace Project
Component Wing Fuselage Canard Winglet Nose Back Engines Landing gear Fuel Passengers Cargo Weight 4934 kg 10 107 kg 143 kg 77 kg 113 kg 78 kg 3500 kg 1844 kg 9983 kg 15 309 kg 4082 kg
Table 40 - Component weights

Source Estimation Estimation Estimation Estimation Estimation Estimation Estimation8 Section 8.1 of this report Section 10.1 Requirement 5 Requirement 1,3 and 4

The winglets weight might seem too high when compared to other surfaces weights but this high estimate is expected to account for additional structural reinforcement to hold the winglets and the rudder mechanism in place. On the other hand the canard has a low weight value because it is mainly a trim and control surface which does not have high loads. In addition, besides the method described above, the results where compared to those obtained using the method described in chapter 11.1 of [1]. Although this method stands on statistical data as well as a number of parameters that depend on the type of system used, its accuracy is limited due to the non-inclusion of the most state-of-the-art technological innovations as well as the lack of consideration for interior furbishing, seating, galleys, cargo holding structures and so on. Therefore, systems like fuselage or lifting surfaces are calculated weighing less than with SolidWorks. The components weights obtained with [1] are presented on Table 41 - Alternate component weights
Component Wing Fuselage Canard Landing gear9 Weight 5445 kg 5438 kg 102 kg 1844 kg

Table 41 - Alternate component weights

The cargo location can be adjusted during the design process if any change in the centre of gravity should be necessary.

There is little information on this subject other than some P&W marketing articles or speculation found on the internet. As a result these values are a rough estimation. 9 Landing gear weights only source is the Corke method, thats why the value is the same in the two tables
8

59

Aerospace Project

10.3. Centre of Gravity

The aircrafts centre of gravity (CG) is easily computed using the CAD software and is depicted in Figure 41.

Figure 41 - Aircraft centre of mass

In order to compute the aircraft stability characteristics the CG distance to the leading edge is of great importance and we are able to determine it from data in the CAD software. The orthogonal reference frame depicted on the CG in Figure 41 is the Principal Axis of Inertia and has the axis along the aircrafts length and the to the zenith with a slight angular displacement. The axis is normal to the symmetry plane. The principal inertia moments are listed below.

The full geometry design process which ultimately led to these values is explained in the next section.

60

Aerospace Project

11. Aircraft Stability

Stability describes a systems response to any perturbation on its equilibrium state. The system is stable if it returns to the given equilibrium point and is unstable otherwise. In order to prove the aircrafts stability the nomenclature and formulas described in [3] are used. A longitudinal stability study is presented followed by a lateral stability assessment.

11.1. Longitudinal Stability

Input Data Distance between canard a.c. and wings a.c. ( ) Wings mean chord ( ) Wings area (S) Value 20 m 4,272 m 164,74 m2 4,97 rad-1 4,97 rad-1 -0,016 496 813,599 N 0,8359 53,4226 Source Guess Wing Design Design Point Wing Design Wing Design Wing Design MTOW calculation Table Date Requirements

Table 42 Input data for longitudinal stability section.

We study the stability of a canard/wing configuration and first of all some important coefficients and formulas are introduced.

is the airplane neutral point, i.e. the center of gravity location (with respect to wings leading edge) which provides neutral stability and is the horizontal volume coefficient. As a preliminary analysis weve neglected the downwash contribution as well as the propulsive systems influence.

61

Aerospace Project
These are the dimensionless moment equations, where the coefficient of lift is given by the following equation whose coefficients were already defined except which is the wings angle of attack and which is the canard incidence angle ( ):

In order to have a stable aircraft the following conditions need to be met:

The positive is easily achieved with a canard, provided it has enough incidence angle. Having the center of gravity before the airplanes neutral point provides negative . is an unknown variable but it must be within an acceptable range. must lie within a prescribed range as stated in [1]:

The longitudinal stability analysis provides the canard dimensioning. During the whole analysis we shall consider: The canard and the wing are identical (same aerodynamic coefficients but different surface values); The canard is a stabilator, i.e. it changes its incidence angle in order to trim the airplane, requiring no flap mechanism; The take-off is performed at 6000 ft which is above the highest airport runway on the USA; The canard is near stall during take-off (i.e. ); At take-off the airplanes speed must be 20% higher than the stall speed, thus were able to compute the target :

The trimmed angle of attack is found solving the equation

62

Aerospace Project

Figure 42 -Representative diagram of iterative method to find the canard area

With the iterative method described in Figure 42, we are able to find the canard area and incidence angle during take-off for any valid CG location which is given with CAD software. The coupling between the aircrafts geometry and the longitudinal stability algorithm requires another iterative process which is described in Figure 43. The process stops whenever the difference between two iterations is below a certain tolerance. After four iterations the process converges and the obtained values are listed in

Update design table

Run stability algorithm

Update geometry

Calculate CG location
Figure 43 - Stability design process

63

Aerospace Project

0 1 2 3

29,7 22,9 22,9 22,9

0,709 0,712 0,712 0,712

-1,2 -1,19 -1,19

5,66 5,66 5,66

0,302 0,302 0,302

14,4 14,5 14,5

0,21 0,21 0,21

Table 43 - Iteration results

Regarding the stability characteristics we notice that the pitch stiffness is within the acceptable value range leaning towards the lower end, which means increased stability. The trimming is accomplished at but this is not the geometric
angle of attack and corrections are made in order to account for the airfoil curvature.

Having the canard near stall is, despite what it seems a safe solution because the canard loses lift before the wing and therefore reduces the angle of attack, preventing it from ever entering stall.

11.2. Lateral Stability

Lateral stability is assessed mainly by two coefficients: - rolling moment coefficient; yawing moment coefficient. More precisely, were interested in their derivatives with respect to the sidesl ip angle . According to [1] and its formalism, the lateral stability criterion is specified below.

This data is hard to determine, requiring most of the times wind tunnel measurements. As a first approximation we consider as suggested in [1] and is determined from empirical expressions.

Because our design doesnt have a vertical stabilizer we consider the winglets acting as vertical stabilizers, but first we estimate the fuselage contribution to . The input data in Table 44 is used.
Input Data Fuselage volume ( ) Fuselage height ( ) Fuselage width ( ) Wing sweep angle ( Value 333,8 m3 3,55 m 3,55 m 35 deg Source Fuselage Design Fuselage Design Fuselage Design Wing Design

64

Aerospace Project
Aircrafts Neutral Point ( Aircrafts CG ( ) Wings Neutral Point ( ) Winglets neutral point ( ) Winglets chord ( ) 0,922 0,712 1,52 0,25 0,9 m 4,97
Table 44 - Input data for lateral stability.

Longitudinal stability Longitudinal stability Wing Design NACA0012 data Wing Design Wing Design

We may notice the fuselages destabilizing influence on lateral dynamics. Next we calculate the wings contribution to using the cruise conditions and the static margin calculated in the previous section. The wings yawing moment comes from its sweep and dihedral, a formula is provided in [1] for the former and [3] helps the derivation for the latter.

0,0030

Where was chosen because it allows winglet size reduction and barely affects the lift produced in the wing because of the dependence with The wing contributes positively to lateral stability but its influence is smaller than the fuselages contribution so the winglets must provide the remaining yawing moment. Using the winglets as vertical stabilizers isnt common practice therefore [1] doesnt provide any help, but an approximation is given by the following formula which is explained carefully in [3].

Where is the winglets aerodynamic center distance to the center of gravity and is its area.

65

Aerospace Project

Figure 44 - Winglet geometry representation

In order to have a

which is the minimum in the range provided by [1] a is required.

Considering

the results in Table 45 are obtained.

Winglet Area Winglet Span

Table 45 - Lateral stability results

11.3. Control Surfaces Design

The main longitudinal control surface is a canard which is a stabilator as previously defined. The rudder design is performed using the standard approach defined in [1] and the aileron design was performed in order to achieve compliance with FAR Part 25 Section 147.

11.3.1. Rudder Design

The rudder design requires the worst-case scenario determination which is one of the following: 1) An asymmetrical power condition caused by having one engine out, at a velocity 44% higher than the stall speed; 2) Landing and take-off with a cross-wind 76% lower than the stall speed and This design process requires new input data listed in Table 46.
Input Data Engine drag coefficient ( ) Value 2 0,8359 Maximum rudder deflection 20 deg Source [1] Table Data [1]

66

Aerospace Project
53,4226 Thrust at Take-off Wing span ( ) 54 426 N 44,47 m 0,08
Table 46 - Rudder design input data

Requirements Design Point (maximum thrust of 1 engine) Wing Design Design Driver

The worst case scenario is the one which requires the highest yawing moment for the same rudder deflection (which is quantified in terms of the coefficient because it requires larger rudders. Case 1: Case 2: Clearly the worst-case scenario is in the presence of cross-winds, therefore the value of is going to be considered in the remaining calculations. The determination of the rudder effectiveness 11.51 in [1]. is performed with equation

Which according to Figure 11.9 in [1] the rudder is 30% of the winglet chord:

11.3.2. Aileron Design

The aileron design is performed assuming that the aircraft should bank 7,5 degrees in 1 second. We also assume that Bang-Bang control is used to perform such manoeuvre which is time optimal (refer to Appendix B -for further information on this control technique). The aileron design process is defined by the following procedure: 1) Angular acceleration calculation; 2) Roll moment calculation ; 3) Solve the following set of equations in order to obtain the aileron centre of pressure distance to the aircrafts symmetry plane ( , the aileron span ( ), the aileron area ( ) and :

67

Aerospace Project

The equation which defines

is taken from Section 9 in reference [1] and

allows the calculation of the control effectiveness following a similar methodology to the flaps dimensioning. The variable is the aileron centroid, is the wings chord as a function of the distance to the symmetry plane. The other relations describe aileron geometric properties being designed which are depicted in Figure 45.

Figure 45 - Aileron geometry

Input Data Angular Acceleration ( Wing span (b) Wing area(S) Quarter-chord sweep ( Taper ration ( ) )

Value 15 44,47 m 165 32,7 deg 0,15

Source Appendix B CG calculation Wing design Wing design Wing design Wing design

68

Aerospace Project
0,51 53,4226 0,8359 2D lift coefficient ( )
Table 47 - Aileron design input data

Assuming aileron takes 25% of the wings chord (reference [1]) Requirements Table Data Thin airfoil theory

The aileron dimensioning is considered during take-off, which is a worst-case scenario because manoeuvrability is low due to the low speed (which is as in previous calculations). The results are listed in Table 48.
Quantity L 0,515 8,53 15,3 m 13,7 m Value

h l

Table 48 - Aileron dimensioning results

69

Aerospace Project

12. Structure Design

12.1. Idealization
First and foremost, it is necessary to simplify the actual plane structure into an idealization that allows simple, yet important, calculations to be performed. The decision was taken to split the aircraft into three sub-systems: wing, fuselage and canard. The canard has a short span and therefore was not analyzed. Focus was given to the other two.

12.2. 1st Iteration

12.2.1. Assumptions
Before we could proceed, a series of assumptions had to be made in order to allow realistic calculations to be made with proper input data. The following table summarizes the assumptions and data for the first iteration:
Parameters Wing Lift in % of Total Lift Canard Lift in % of Total Lift Wing Weight in % of Empty Weight Fuselage Weight in % of Empty Weight Engine Weight lc lengine lwing Value 71,25 28,75 0,3 0,7 2400 Kg 2m 14 m 20,48 m
Table 49 First Iteration Assumptions

Source Wing Design Wing Design Guess Guess A320 Guess A320 Wing Design

Lift distribution between surfaces has been done for the worst case scenario. The wing length is not the half span of the full airplane as the fuselage diameter has to be considered. In addition, fuel weight was assumed to be carried and supported only by the wing. Also the payload is stored in the fuselage, thus contributing only to the fuselage weight. It is possible to distribute the wing weight and lift in such ways that better approximate reality, but for this first iteration, simplicity is the main drive. Although distances between aerodynamic centers are constraints due to stability, position of both lifting surfaces on the fuselage isnt, partially due to the need of further fuselage development. As a result lc is a rough estimate. Engine

70

Aerospace Project
weight was taken from the approximate weight of the CFM engines that equip the Airbus A320 because engines for our plane are not yet fully developed. Other measures are also taken from the A320 as an example. On further iterations these will be corrected to the current design. With all these approximations it was possible to come up with the following data to start calculations:
Parameters Total Wing Lift per wing Total Canard Lift (both) Total Wing Weight Total Fuselage Weight Total Canard Weight Value 176810 N 142690 N 80182 N 335940 N Neglected Source Calculations Calculations Calculations Calculations Based on Composite Construction Hypothesis

Table 50 - Further assumptions based on calculations.

12.2.2. Sketch
A cantilever beam was used with a point load to represent the engine and distributed loads to simulate wings weight and lift. Loads at the wing root were then applied to its location in the fuselage together with canard lift and fuselages self weight so as to have more accurate data.

71

Aerospace Project

Figure 46 - Forces acting on the wing

Figure 47 - Forces acting on the fuselage

Before presenting the mathematical expressions and diagrams, conventions must be established:

Figure 48 - Positive directions for bending moments and shear strength

12.2.3. Bending Moment

Having all the dimension and parameters defined, further work was done and bending moments were derived using the section cutting method. Then for both the wing and fuselage:

72

Aerospace Project

After a Matlab calculation, the bending moment diagrams are as follows:

Figure 49 - Wing bending moment diagram.

Figure 50 - Fuselage bending moment diagram.

By looking at the graphic representation of the bending moment one can easily identify the places were forces are applied. One can also notice that there arent

73

Aerospace Project
any outside moments applied as there are no discontinuities in the lines depicting the bending moment. By comparing the engine weight with the lift and weight figures for the wing and fuselage, we can understand why its influence is dim but noticeable when distance to wing tip equals 14m. As the weight of the wing is much smaller than the lift provided, the bending moment is positive and the engines influence is to counter that tendency. When looking at the fuselage, one can identify the canards and wings locations. It is also possible to observe the influence of the fuselages weight.

12.2.4. Shear Strength

Moving on to the strength over both fuselage and wing, downwards are their expressions and graphical representations:

74

Aerospace Project

Figure 51 - Wing shear strength diagram.

Figure 52 - Fuselage shear strength diagram.

By analyzing the pictures above, it is easily noted that the force magnitude due to engine weight has nothing to do with the ones due to lifting surfaces. They are approximately ten times higher. It is also noticeable that the values at the wing root and at the aft arent null. This is due to the type and position of supports used in our simplifications. Lift forces magnitude is also visible. If we look at the sign

75

Aerospace Project
norm adopted, weights sign is positive and lifts is negative, exactly what is noticeable on the representation above. It is of the utmost importance to emphasize that the weight and lift, albeit shown above as single values, are applied as distributed loads and its numerical value is the result of the division of the total force over the length where applied.

12.3. 2nd Iteration

12.3.1. Assumptions10
After a little bit more development of the aircraft design, some more input data is available. As a result the bending moment and shear strength analysis is more accurate. First and foremost, the lift distribution is no longer constant over the wing. Instead, according to [1], based on the Schrenks approximation, the spanwise lift distribution was calculated using an average between the lift distribution of an elliptic wing and that of a trapezoidal wing. Secondly, geometric relations between the several components are taken from the CAD model of the aircraft, so they correspond to the actual measures. Engine data is also corrected to mirror the engine choice. On the other hand, assumptions about fuel and payload storage were correct and as a result, payload only affects the fuselage and fuel is full stored in the wings. Albeit fuel location is correct, it is distribution was estimated based on the area which fuel occupies. For the wing structure load distribution, similar behaviour is considered. For this analysis, passenger, winglet, landing gear and canard weight were taken into account as well as the lift enhancement due to the presence of high lift devices on the wing. One may notice the absence of sharp variation in all the charts presented below. For simplicitys sake, the wing was divided into twenty elements. The problem with such small number of divisions is that changes in slope or tendency of the charts arent sharp enough and sometimes may induce the reader into thinking that there all loads are distributed, hence the smooth transitions. Some of the loads to be presented are indeed point loads as shown by the following tables11.

As in other sections of this report, certain parameters whose source or calculation has been explained previously will be omitted. 11 Sources for all the data on these tables are the previous sections of these report which focus on high lift devices and Aircraft CAD Model
10

76

Aerospace Project
Load Type Magnitude (lbs) x/L_start x/L_end Passengers 33750.57 0.05 0.85 Payload 8999.27 0.35 0.85 Structure 22282.12 0 1 Engine 7716.179 0.55 0.55 Wing Struct. 10877.61 0.45 0.65 Canard Struct. 143 0.05 0.15 Tail Lift 1836.096 0.1 0.1
Table 51 Loads acting on the fuselage.

Load Type Magnitude y/(b/2)_start y/(b/2)_end L (unflaped) 164486.89 0 1 38259.02 0 0.8 L (flap) Fuel 22008.75 0 1 Engine 7716.179 0.1 0.1 Winglet 169.7559 1 1 Structure 10877.61 0 1
Table 52 - Loads acting on the wing.

12.3.2. Sketch
Again the section cutting method was used in order to obtain both bending moments and shear strength. For the graphical representation of the moments and forces, all figures are plotted on a 0 to 1 gap. This is because both wing span and fuselage length subject to non-dimentionalization in order to simplify it is presentation. The following illustrations represent the distributed loads applied on the wing and on the fuselage. Point load locations are clearly explained above.

77

Aerospace Project
1500 500 -500 0,00 -1500 -2500 Passengers Wing Struture Payload Canard Lift Structure Canard Weight 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00

Figure 53 - Distributed loads along the fuselage.

3000

2000

1000

-1000

-2000 0,00 0,10 0,20 Lift 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 Fuel 0,90 1,00

delta Lift (flaps)

Wing Weight

Figure 54 - Distributed loads along the wing.

12.3.3. Bending Moment

Having all the data required, the calculation was done using both Matlab and an Excel spreadsheet. Mathematical expressions for such calculations arent copied

78

Aerospace Project
in this section because of their complexity and length. For such equations please refer to the supplementary software files12. Fuselage Bending Moment
800 600 400
lbs.ft/1000

200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00

Wing Bending Moments

1.200 1.000 800
lbs.ft/1000

600 400 200 0 -200 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00

Figure 55 - Bending Moments along fuselage and wing.

As easily observed in the figure above, the location where the bending moment of the fuselage crosses the x-axis, corresponds to where the aircrafts centre of mass is. This is the reason why bending moments signal change. The loads acting in such position are the wing structure, engine weight distributed loads assigned to passengers, payload and the fuselages self weight. Moving on to the bending moment graph of the wing, one can observe, by comparison with the convention, that lift forces are greater than weight effects and due to that, bending moment is positive throughout most of the wing with the
12

mf_e_ef.m and cargas.xls

79

Aerospace Project
exception of the near tip region where the lift produced is very small compared to winglets weight. Another effect that contributes to this change in behaviour is the presence of flaps and slats, changing the amount of lift produced. Another remark is that bending moments are obtained considering the distance from the centroid of the force distribution to the wing root.

12.3.4. Shear Strength

Fuselage Shear Strength
60 50 40 30
lbs/1000

20 10 0 -10 0,00 -20 -30 -40 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00

Wing Shear Strength

35 30 25
lbs/1000

20 15 10 5 0 -5 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00

Figure 56 - Shear strength along fuselage and wing.

By observing the above shear strength representations, one tends to notice the drop in the fuselage x/L=0.65 region. This is due to fuselage-wing interaction,

80

Aerospace Project
acting as a support. As a result, shear strengths sign is inverted. Its worth mentioning that there is no lift generation at the rear of the fuselage. Lift generation if at the front due to the presence of the canard. Such influence is dim and because canards self weight, is barely noticeable in the chart. Looking now at the wing, engine location is clearly identifiable near . Another easily spottable characteristic is the change in slope near the wing tip (y=1). Near the tip, lift production is limited due to the smaller area and both winglets and wings self weight have a greater magnitude. Near y=0.8, the lift enhancement due to flaps increases the wing CL and there is a change in the slope.

81

Aerospace Project

13. Materials Selection

13.1. Innovative typology
If one takes a look at the typology of the current aircraft offer, the first thing that comes to mind is: they look all the same, just the size and some details change. The typical structure configuration is always present and this has many reasons to be, first because aeronautic industry is very conservative with respect to drastic changes, this results in a mind barrier for innovative designs. The structure it probably one of the less developed part of todays passenger aircrafts. Theres still a lot of room for innovation on this matter, the structure shall no longer be seen as a passive static subsystem, which just function as a backbone for other subsystems. A structure can be made smart to take over functions of other subsystems. Likewise, functions of the structure can be transferred to other subsystems if they have a better way of meeting a system demand. Nowadays, passenger transport aircraft split payload containment and lift generation from each other. Todays aircraft are drag raising tubes kept in the air with a set of wings. Other important design decision is the segregation of the propulsion system from all other aircraft systems. The current under wing mounted, pylon supported engines pods are considered optimal for their performance, but its not clear that it serves the overall system performance best, especially considering the upcoming demands on noise and pollution. Materials are the big word to say in this matter, like in the nineteen thirties, when the successful replacement of wood by aluminium was made, now the time of polymers and fibres was arrived, its probably just a matter of time until the jump to this new era is made. In this project great effort was made to keep clear mind from pre-established ideas, and look forward towards innovation.

13.2. Composite Materials

Composite materials have been used in the aerospace industry since mid 60s, but it was only during the 80s that they were first used for structural purposes. By that decade composite materials represented about 8-12% of the materials used in aircrafts. With the debut of the A380 and B787, both Airbus and Boeing respectively created a new threshold in percentage of composites used in aircraft. With 30-50% of composite materials nowadays being used in the most recent aircrafts, the aim for the next decade is to reach a new threshold of 50-70% on composite materials in aircrafts.

82

Aerospace Project
What makes composite materials differ from other already in use materials like aluminium alloys are its particular characteristics: Key factors for using composite materials in Civil Aircraft Structural Performance Cost Safety Regulation Compliance Ease of Maintenance Comfort Characteristics High Specific Strenght & Stiffness Directional tailoring capabilities Manageable for advanced manufacturing processes Superior fatigue properties Reduced Cost of Ownership

Figure 57 Representative schematic of composites materials characteristics.

A composite material can be seen as the material to be used in the present and also for the future. With that in mind, the current project aims to reach 50-70% of composite materials. Composites will be used throughout the structure, critical components and even for cabin interiors. In terms of structure and critical components the composite materials to be used are man-made and are widely used in the aerospace industry, they are the carbon-fibre-reinforced-plastic and the glass-fibre-reinforced-plastic (CFRP and GFRP respectively). These consist of carbon and glass fibres which are stiff and strong, but brittle, in a polymer matrix, which is tough but is not stiff or strong. It is this combination of materials with complementary properties that provides composite materials with most if not all benefits (high strength, stiffness, toughness and low density) and few or none of the weaknesses of each of its components. For cabin interiors the aim is to use renewable composite biomaterials.

13.3. Natural Composites

Natural fibres, (as a substitute for glass fibres) have gained renewed interest the last decade, especially in automotive industries. Compared to glass, fibres such as flax, hemp and jute are cheaper and have better stiffness per unit weight. The production of natural fibres uses CO2 instead of emitting it, and their resource is renewable. This means the environmental impact is smaller than in case of glass fibres. The vegetable nature is full of examples where cells or group of cells are designed for strength and stiffness. Cellulose is a natural polymer with high strength and stiffness per weight, and it is the building material of long fibrous cells. These cells can be found in the stem, the leaves or the seeds of plants.

83

Aerospace Project
Some examples of natural fibres that suitable for composite use are: Flax, hemp, jute, kenaf, ramie - Bast fibers Sisal, abaca (banana), Palm - Leaf fibers Cotton, coir (coconut), kapok - Seed fibers This natural material has multiple advantages and off course some drawbacks, still they are becoming more and more important in the fibres panorama. The advantages and disadvantages are the following: Advantages: Low specific weight, which results in a higher specific strength and stiffness than glass. This is a benefit especially in parts designed for bending stiffness. It is a renewable resource, the production requires little energy, CO2 is used while oxygen is given back to the environment. Producible with low investment at low cost, which makes the material an interesting product for low-wage countries. Friendly processing, no wear of tooling, no skin irritation Thermal recycling is possible, where glass causes problems in combustion furnaces. Good thermal and acoustic insulating properties Disadvantages: Lower strength properties, particularly its impact strength Variable quality, depending on unpredictable influences such as weather. Moisture absorption, which causes swelling of the fibres Restricted maximum processing temperature. Lower durability but fibre treatments can improve this considerably. Price can fluctuate by harvest results or agricultural policies;

13.3.1. Sandwich Technology

Sandwich materials are extensively used in aerospace and aeronautic environment; they provide thermal insulation and can fulfil a primary structural function. The most common materials been used nowadays are based on: aluminium, Kevlar and glass fibre.

84

Aerospace Project

Figure 58 - Structural sandwich panel made of bamboo.

Small scale prototyping has proven that a replacement of glass by natural fibres is well feasible. A bit less insulating, but still very well appropriate for wall and roof construction are sandwiches made of natural fibre composite skins and bamboo pillars as the sandwich core (see Figure 58).

13.3.2. Cost comparison

An economical comparison has been made between traditional glass-SMC13 and flax SMC. With the volume contents of resin, additives, fillers and fibres as shown on Figure 59, mechanical (strength and stiffness) and flow properties are the same. The flax-SMC product however, will then be 20% lighter and 7% cheaper [10].

Figure 59 - Comparison between glass SMC and flax SMC.

The usage of natural materials allows simultaneous cost reduction and improved sustainability.

13.4. Smart Materials

Smart-materials make up a branch of materials that use controlled inputs to alter their atomic distribution in order to reshape their structure, change their light refraction and other characteristics. For these changes to be possible the materials

13

Sheet moulding compound

85

Aerospace Project
are stimulated trough different processes, such as stress, temperature, moisture, pH, electric or magnetic fields. One possible application of these materials properties would be to implement chromism to the fuselage, enabling the passenger to decide whether they want to have a window or not next to their seat. This would imply the removal of strain and stress accounted by windows implementation on fuselage. Furthermore, it would give the opportunity to the passenger, to create a panoramic window, or no window at all. The structural and aerodynamic implications would be substantial. With the previous in mind and acknowledging the great potential of composite materials, a substantial reduction in fuel consumption can be achieved, making the aircraft more efficient and more environmentally friendly. The other application would be to implement a shape memory mechanism. This mechanism would enable changes in shape that could go from complete change in wing shape to small changes in the hyper-lift mechanisms of an aircraft. Accounting to the fact that this technology is still being researched, the more pragmatic approach to its possible applications in the next 20 years would be in the case of hyper-lift mechanisms. With this technology the need for hydraulic mechanisms that control the hyper-lift mechanisms would be reduced, thus reducing weight and consequently operating costs, and again making the aircraft more environmentally friendly. This is only possible because this particular type of mechanism is only needed during certain phases of flight and usually for a period longer than the time they take to deploy or retract.

86

Aerospace Project

14. Features airplane

of

the

designed

14.1. Take-Off and Landing distances

The take-off and landing study conducted during the preliminary design stage is, by its own preliminary definition, a very faint estimation without taking into account several important parameters such as wing geometry, engine characteristics or even air properties at runway altitude. Due to the high number of parameters and formulas involved in the calculations, we chose to use the spreadsheet. Based on [1]and on [16] it is possible to layout the required input parameters14. The following table is a summary of such needed values:
Parameters Runway altitude CLmax Total wing planform area Rolling friction coefficient due to runway surface Added base drag due to claps Landing Gear frontal area Obstacle Height Climb Angle Rollin friction coefficient with brakes applied Available Engine negative thrust Descent angle Max Landing Weight Value 6000 ft 1.9 2004.13 ft^2 0.05 0.05 14.42 ft^2 35ft 3% 0.4 40-50% max thrust -3%
100646 lbs

Source higher than all major airports in USA From high lift devices section Wing planform area + flapped area Table 8.2 of [1] Table 8.3 of [1] based on our flap configuration Landing gear dimensioning FAR requirements FAR requirements Table 8.5 of [1] p.170 of [1] FAR requirements Eq 8.32 of [1]

Table 53 - TOFL input data summary.

Due to the growing length of this report, all parameters used in this calculation that have already been calculated or whose sources have been referred to, will be omitted.
14

87

Aerospace Project
Landing and takeoff operations are each composed of 4 phases to which of them correspond four distances whose final sum is the runway length required. The images below intend to illustrate such various stages.

Figure 60 - Schematic illustration of the take-off phases.

Figure 61 - Schematic illustration of the landing phases.

After a few calculations it is possible to achieve the final takeoff field length, being the biggest between both landing and takeoff runway lengths.
Take-off Breakdown Landing Breakdown

4 30% 1 44% 3 8% 2 18% 4 59%

1 21%

2 6% 3 14%

Figure 62 - Distribution of takeoff and landing distances between the varius phases.

88

Aerospace Project
Phase 1 TAKEOFF 2 3 4 Description Ground roll Rotation Transition Climb Total runway length required Value (ft)
1513.59

Description Approach LANDING Transition Free-roll braking Total runway length required

Value (ft)
833.2 241.89 556.98 2316.42 6317.58

607.61 254.68 1039.36 3415.24

Table 54 - Caption for charts on Figure 62 - Distribution of takeoff and landing distances between the varius phases. .

Firstly, one can immediately observe that the runway length required for landing is greater than that for takeoff. This is due to security reasons as the minimal landing length is in fact 3948.49 ft, but its multiplied by a factor of 1.6 in order to account for pilot differences. In addition, Its easily noticeable that ground roll, during both of aircraft operations, accounts for a big percentage of the total field length than all of the other phases. One can also state that takeoff transition is done in a very short time which can be explained by the low stall speed of the airplane as well as a high aspect ratio which makes it possible for a low speed at this stage and therefore, low distance covered before climb is initiated. On the other hand, the landing split percentages are in order with what was expected with CLmax having great influence on such distances as well as negative thrust provided by the engines.

14.2. Inputs analysis

All the aim of the project was to fulfil a list of design requirements. For that several assumptions were made and is desirable to confirm their veracity. Base drag estimation: The initial guess for this parameter was in section 4. Now will take in consideration the contributions from the wing (W) and body fuselage (B): - Wing contribution: According to [1], in order to estimate the 3-D base drag coefficient for a smooth wing, the friction coefficient, is estimated, assuming that the flow behaves in the same manner as over a flat plate. However to account for imperfections in the simple 2-D wing behaviour, the friction coefficient should be multiplied by two factors corresponding to a form factor: (eq. 4.21 [1])

89

Aerospace Project
to account with the increase in the friction coefficient, due to flow separations and an interference factor, Q (Table 4.2 [1]) which intend to estimate the increase in the base drag due to interference effects caused by the fuselage or wings attachments. Following step by step the calculation for the base drag coefficient described in [1] the final result comes:
Input Data Value 0. 3 4,272 m 164,74 m2 Source Wing Design Wing Design Design Point Wing Design Leading edge sweep angle,
Table 55 - Input summary (wing)

Chord wise location of the maximum thickness point

Wings mean chord ( ) Wings area (S)

Wing Design

Body fuselage contribution:

For the fuselage base drag estimation, the same procedure is made. In this case the form factor comes: (eq. 5.20 [1]) where f corresponds to the fuselage inverse fineness ratio factor can be neglected.
Input Data Value 33.724 m 3.55 m 360.13 m2
Table 56 - Input summary (body)

and the interference

Source CAD Model CAD Model CAD Model

l
d Wetted area (Swet)

90

Aerospace Project

Taking both contributions:

Which comparing with the initial guess we can conclude that we underestimated this value. This will imply losses in performance. : During the Wing Loading calculation and Flight Envelope it was necessary consider a value for . An initial guess based in some airfoils research was 1.9. As can be seen in the Wing Design, Figure 32, a value of is attainable for a relatively low Reynolds number and angle of attack. Due to software limitations, it wasnt possible run with bigger Reynolds numbers, however for a higher Reynolds number it is expected to achieve a . [14] Considering also the inclusion of the high lift devices it is expected a final which is clearly above the provided value of 1.9. This difference would bring several changes specially in the V-N diagram calculations. Wing Loading: The wing loading was defined during the Wing Loading calculation and was performed to maximize range in order to reduce consumption and increase performance. Reviewing the formulas presented in section 5:

It is possible to see the influence of some parameters in the wing loading calculation, as , MTOW and aspect ratio. As we saw, the initial guess was underestimated, affecting directly the wing loading estimation. This difference could lead to a smaller wing bringing another design constrains. T/W: The value of T/W was constrained by the Take-Off Field Length, as mention in section 5. According with this constrains the calculated was where a safety factor of 2 was considered to meet safety requirements. This lead to a necessary thrust of , requiring from each engine a minimum thrust of

91

Aerospace Project
. The chosen engine, PW1000G is capable to provide a lower rated thrust of 62kN as mention in section 9 fulfilling thus the engine power needs. Lift/Drag: In any aircraft is desired performance at low cost. This is a main goal in cruise conditions, once the major part of the time operation of an airplane is spent in that situation. This means that the drag should be reduced as maximum as possible during cruise. Looking back to section 7 in Figure 33, it is possible to see that the lowest value for drag coefficient is achieved for a value close to . Also in section 7 we saw that the assumption of constant during the whole cruise phase is compliant with the maximum ceiling flight requirement. Now, making use of the polar equation for cruise situation, we get the following result:

Drag Polar
2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 CL 0,5 0,0 -0,5 0,00 -1,0 -1,5 CD 0,05 0,10 0,15 Polar CL cruise

Figure 63- Drag polar.

The obtained value of which is below of our input value, section 4. To overcome this difference, winglets were used in order to reduce lift induced drag and provide some extra lift. However accounting just with base drag we found a maximum wich means that even with winglets our objective of is not possible. For our objective it would be necessary decrease the drag base coefficient, reducing for example the wetted surface area of the fuselage.

14.3. Innovation
92

Aerospace Project
Details matter, small design options may play a big role in passenger comfort and at the same time reducing operation and maintenance cost. Aviation industry is very conservative, new technologies take ages to be implemented. This paradox is changing slowly, although theres light in the end of the horizon. In the design of our airplane, multiple technologies were chosen always with comfort, sustainability and cost efficiency in sight. The following examples show some of our breakthroughs:
LED (light-emitting diode) illumination All interior illumination is done using LEDs which main characteristics are: Low power consumption, higher efficiency means lower operation costs. Long expected lifespan, longer time between failures, reducing maintenance costs. Color, using multiple color LEDs one can recreate any color, inducing different moods in the cabin. Focus, LEDs can be designed to focus its light, this it useful for the passengers reading lights

Figure 64 - LEDs by Philips.

Flexible OLED interiors Organic, more sustainable Low power consumption, low operation costs.

Figure 65 - Flexible OLED.

Headphones with noise cancelation Active noise cancelation, improved passenger comfort making up for the increased noise coming from the motors Music, television, movies and radio offers made easy.

93

Aerospace Project

Figure 66 - BOSE Headphones.

Aluminium cables Lower weight than copper, up to 3 times lighter (for the same capacity) Lower cost, copper prices have been rising since the 60s, aluminium is much cheaper and offers similar performance. Higher flexibility then copper, tendency to break is much lower, increasing the cable's reliability and reducing the chance of disruptions due to cable damage by bending. Higher reliability. Biofuel Use biofuels reduce the ecological impact. Green marketing helps sells nowadays Reuters An Airbus A380, the world's largest airliner, became the first
commercial jet aircraft to use alternative fuel on Friday, marking a milestone on the road to biofuels

Gas to Fuel (GTF) or Gas to Liquid (LTL) Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) Integrated Modular Avionics Commercial off-the-shelf approach Reduced part count Less single-purpose computers Increased flexibility Advanced airframe design and materials Extensive use of carbon fiber use for structural purposes. Glare Laser beam welding Natural fiber for interiors and non-structural parts

14.4. Sustainability
Safety and security are airlines main concern; environmental responsibility has now become a priority as well. In our design great effort has been made in other to create an environment friendly aircraft. Reduce and eventually eliminate the carbon footprint of aviation is the milestone pointed by IATA, to achieve this, four major areas are considered:

94

Aerospace Project
Technology: enhancements to the existing fleet, new aircraft and engines, development of new technologies, designs and fuels. Operations: Continuous increase on fuel efficiency, flight operations, planning and fleet renewal Infrastructure: NextGen Air transport System, globally harmonized airspace management system. Economics measures: promote real incentives for emissions reductions. These are important guide lines for the aviation world, as a part it, our design has several key improvements and innovations that lead to a better, safer and more sustainable production, operation and decommission. The following graph represents the aircraft life cycle,

Figure 67 - Life cycle diagram.

There are several aspects that deserve to be noticed in the chart above; blue arrows represent the main cycle phases, green ones represent an increased value action and red ones are the part that goes out of the cycle (CO2 emissions in-flight and the non-recyclable materials after decommission) Carbon foot print of each aircraft is partially reduced by the use of natural fibers, these plants used CO2 while growing, compensating in part the emissions during aircraft operation.

95

Aerospace Project

15. Cost Estimation

15.1. Production Costs
The cost estimation for building a new aircraft, based on a conceptual design, is grouped into two parts: - research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E); - Acquisition (A). RDT&E includes all the technology research, development, engineering, fabrication and flight testing of Nd prototype aircraft prior to committing to full production. RDT&E is divided in several elements: - airframe engineering; - development support; - flight test aircraft, which is further broken down into: a) engines and avionic; b) manufacturing labour; c) manufacturing materials; d) tooling; e) quality control; - flight test operation; - profit, a value of 10% is typical; The Acquisition refers to the fabrication of Np production Aircraft and includes the same elements as RDT&E. The sum of these is the purchase price for the new aircraft. The basis for the cost estimate is the Cost Estimate Relationships (CERs). The equations are based on data from a large group of aircraft built in the past. The primary characteristics which drive the costs of an aircraft are:
Characteristic Value

the structure weight, Ws (pounds) 46892 lbs the maximum speed at best altitude Vmax 778 ft/s the quantity of aircraft produced Nd and Np Nd = 2, Np = 250 the production rate Rd and Rp Rd = 0,08, Rp = 4 aircraft/month
Table 57 cost driving characteristics

As mentioned, these CERs are based on date from the years 1970 and 1986 respectively. Costs of labour have changed from these times on, so the estimation

96

Aerospace Project
has to be extrapolated to the current year. Therefore the consumer price index (CPI) is used: - CPI $70/$98 = 3,95 - CPI $86/$98 = 1,49 - CPI $98/$10 = 1,33 With the data from our concept aircraft we obtain the following CERs Based on 1970 Based on 1986 In Million $ In Million $ airframe engineering C_E ($) development support cost C_D ($) manufacturing labour cost C_ML ($) manufacturing materials cost C_MM ($) tooling cost C_T ($) quality control cost C_QC ($) engine and avionics cost C_EN ($) Profit C_P ($)
Table 58 CERs.

$1.604 $128 $4.348 $828 $1.703 $625 $1.003 $1.026

$3.410 $452 $4.643 $2.295 $1.850 $667 $381 $1.374

Figure 68 Breakdown of Production costs based on different CER models.

For a production of 250 units, extrapolated to the year 2010 by using the CPI, our aircraft would have a purchase price of 60,8 Million Dollar. The overall costs per aircraft decrease for a higher production number and the fraction of the RDT&E costs reduce significantly.

97

Aerospace Project

Figure 69 Unit cost over number of units

Conclusion and comparison of Production costs: Aircraft Type Purchase Price Boeing 737 - 700 57 68 million $ Airbus 320 - 200 73 81 million $ Concept 4 (250 units) 60,8 million $ Concept 4 (500 units) 30,9 million $ Concept 4 (1000 units) 41,7 million $
Table 59 Purchase Price Comparison.

To have the ability to compete against current aircraft in our market segment we need to offer a lower or at least equal purchase price to our customers. As easy to see, the number of produced aircraft is the main factor for the purchase price. For offering a price lower than the cheapest Boeing 737-700 with 57 million $, a number of approximately 300 aircraft must be produced. The Boeing 737 was produced over 6000 times since it entered into service in the year 1968 and the Airbus A320 more than 4000 times since 1988. Considering these numbers, 300 units seem to be a low value for underbidding the competitors. But it has to be mentioned, that the 737 family as well as the A320 family consists not from one single model. Both of these types were developed further several times and different models for a wide range of missions are offered. The production cost estimation points out an optimistic result and it can be expected as accurate because of the conventional design of our concept.

98

Aerospace Project

15.2. Operating Costs

Aircraft operating costs are a main concern of the airlines business environment because it affects directly the airlines cash flow. An operating cost falls into four main categories: crew, fuel, maintenance and fees.

15.2.1. Crew
The crew are dependent of the flight and the cabin crew. The minimum crew on the airplane are two pilots and one cabin attendant for 50 passengers. To make this calculation it is assumed that minimum guaranteed flight time per month must be 250 block hours. The result can be visualized in Table 60.
Typically Crew Salaries15 [] Number Cost Captain 122500 1 122500 First Officer 61500 1 61500 Senior Flight Attendant 37500 1 37500 Flight Attendant 25000 3 75000 Total Crew Cost [$/BH] 135
Table 60 - Crew Costs.

15.2.2. Fuel
Fuel costs are one of the major drivers in the operating costs requirements. Guiding by the main driver of the 41 lbs/seat of fuel burn, at 500 nm and the cost of $2,5/gallon, the fuel costs were calculated and presented in Table 61.
A320 B737-70016 Our Design Typical Fuel Consumption [US gallon/BH] Fuel Price [$/US gallon] Total Fuel Costs [$/BH] 886 2,5 2215 690 2,5 1725 625 2,5 1563

Table 61 - Fuel Costs.

15.2.3. Maintenance
A considerable part of Operating Costs are related to airplane maintenance. Although these costs will vary with some factors such as the airframe of the aircraft, the selected engines, the materials used and with the airplanes age. The maintenance and repairs costs for the Airbus A320-200 are presented in Table 62.
Source: Innovative Cooperative Actions of Research & Development in EUROCONTROL Programme CARE INO III, Dynamic Cost Index, October 2008
15

Source: ICAO, Summer 2000

16

Operating

Costs,

www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/allpirg/allpirg4/wp28app.pdf,

99

Aerospace Project
Labour Cost [$/year] Downtime Cost [$/year] Total Cost [$/BH] A320-200 887286 364297 417

Table 62 - Maintenance & Repairs Cost 17.

Our design uses composites materials, which produce a lightweight aircraft, and new generation engines, which should reduce fuel consumptions as well as save on maintenance costs. Our design promise to burn less 30% fuel than the currently jetliners of a similar size and the use of composite materials produces a lightweight aircraft. Then we have chosen to use maintenance cost smaller in twenty percent than the A320. Therefore, the maintenance cost of our design is:
Maintenance & Repairs Costs [$/BH] 334
Table 63 - Maintenance & Repairs Costs of our Design.

15.2.4. Fees
In order to calculate the airport fees, it is used the cost per enplaned passenger. Taking in consideration the Figure 70, it is observed that the Seattle airport has fees in the average.

Figure 70 - Landing Fees for Airbus A320, North America, US$, 2008 18.

Therefore, we will use the fees cost of the Seattle airport, which can be selected from the Figure 71.

Source: http://www.sh-e.com/presentations/swearingin_mar07.pdf, March 2007 Source: Air traffic Research Society, http://www.atrsworld.org/docs/Benchmarking2009.pdf, 2008;
17 18

100

Aerospace Project

Figure 71 - Cost per Enplaned Passenger, US $, 2008. 19

In Table 64 it can be visualized the Total Fees Cost.

A320 B737-700 Our Design Seattle Fees [$/Passenger] Number of Passengers Total Fees Cost [$] 17 150 2550 17 126 2142 17 150 2550

Table 64 - Fees Cost.

15.2.5. Total Operating Costs

Taking all of these costs in consideration the overall operating costs are presented in the Table 65.
Costs Crew [$] Fuel [$] Maintenance & Repairs [$] Fees [$] Total Operating [$] Total Operating Cost [$/Seat] A320 135 2215 417 2550 5317,596 35 B 737-700 135 1725 n.a. 2142 400220 32 Our 135 1563 334 2550 4582,238 31

Table 65 - Total Operating Costs.

Therefore, the objective would be accomplished with a margin of 16% better operating costs than current, comparably sized commercial transports. Aircraft operating costs are a main concern of the airlines business environment because it affects directly the airlines cash flow. An operating cost falls into four main categories: crew, fuel, maintenance and fees.

Source: FAA Compliance Activity Tracking System (CATS), US DOT T100 Database, Official Statements, Rating Agencies, Airport Annual Reports, Airport Records. Compiled by Jacobs Consultancy, 2008; 20 This cost does not take in consideration the maintenance cost. If it was taken in consideration this will increase the total operating cost.
19

101

Aerospace Project

16. Conclusion
This report is nothing but a summary of this challenging endeavour which is aircraft design. We have analyzed our competitors aircraft in order to identify their strategies and solutions for the future before going any further in the design process. During this analysis we found room for innovation and improvements which led to new concepts and strategies. After some preliminary analysis, between concept 6 and concept 4 weve chosen concept 4, for its simplicity and technological availability. Through the calculations it was necessary several inputs in order to advance in the design process. All input values were based in historical data, empirical formulas or were result from previous calculations. The process was conducted to meet the initial requirements and it is our goal to make a final balance about which ones we could achieve or not. After the first complete iteration, a subsequent iteration would be necessary for optimization. So, did we meet the project requirements or not? The structural/dimensioning requirements, are met since we projected the aircraft dimensions for both, like capacity and class configuration. Maximum Payload capability, maximum range and maximum landing weight were implied in the MTOW calculation in order to fulfil the requirements. The cruise speed taken in consideration was the objective requirement of 0,8 mach. The initial cruise altitude capability at MTOW was also considered in wing design. The maximum operating altitude was verified and it was below the imposed maximum ceiling of 43000ft. Takeoff and landing, requirements were also fulfilled, with a maximum landing speed of 135 knots and a takeoff field length of 6317,58 ft. The engines were carefully positioned above wing to reduced community noise. Some studies showed good results with this construction solution [15]. According with the manufacturer's data, Figure 38 - Manufacturer's data., the Pratt and Whitney 1000G engine also provides a substantial reduction in noise comparing with the nowadays engines. This will make possible accomplishing the noise reduction requirement. In the MTOW section we conclude that to meet objective of 38 lbs/seat fuel consumption we would need a Lift/Drag of 22. After performing Lift/Drag calculations we got a lower value and conclude that even with winglets, to increase performance, we couldnt meet the objective. It would be necessary perform structural changes in fuselage and wings to reduce the drag base coefficient. Taking into account just the base drag coefficient, we could reach a fuel burn of 38,7lbs/seat and considering the actual it would be possible reach a consumption of 40.7lbs/seat. With these results, the

102

Aerospace Project
objective of 38 lbs/seat wasnt doable but the requirement of 41 lbs/seat is accomplished. To our knowledge all the FAR restrictions in construction are met according with the assumptions made during the design, however, the regulations should be periodically reviewed in order to respect all of them. The cost analysis revealed a reduction of 16% in the overall operating costs. To summarize we present the following check table:
ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Capacity Class Configuration Cargo capacity (bulk loaded) Maximum payload capability Maximum Range Value 150 passengers Dual Class: (12 seats @ 36 pitch first class and 138 seats @ 32 pitch economy class) >7,5 ft3/passenger Full single class 30 pitch passenger capacity (185 lbs/passenger) + full cargo hold (8 lbs/ft3) 2800 nm with typical mission reserves with full dual class passenger load, assuming 225 lbs/passenger. Maximum Zero Fuel Weight + Reserves for Maximum Range Mission 500 nm (50%), 1000 nm (40%), 2000 nm (10%) 0,78 Mach for Long Range Cruise (LRC) Objective: 0,80 Mach (LRC) > 35,000 ISA + 15 C 43,000 ft 135 knots 7000 ft (sea level), 86 F ICAO Chapter 4 20 dB (cumulative) 500 nm mission shall be requirement: < 41 lbs/seat. Objective: < 38 lbs/seat 2018 8% or better (reduction); objective 10%/seat or better operating cost Requirement Satisfied ?

Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) Typical mission 7 (average) Ranges Cruise speed 8 Requirement Initial Cruise 9 Altitude Capability at MTOW: Maximum operating 10 altitude: Maximum landing 11 speed (at Maximum Landing Weight): Takeoff Field Length 12 (TOFL), MTOW: 13 14 Community Noise Fuel Burn airplane shall be certifiable to appropriate FARs and entry into service Operating costs

15

16

103

Aerospace Project
economics (Crew, Maintenance, Fees and Fuel at $2.50/US gal) than current, comparably sized commercial transports in typical US major airline type operation.
Table 66 - Requirements Review.

104

Aerospace Project

17. References
[1] Design of Aircraft, Prentice Hall, 2003, Corke, 2003, Prentice Hall; [2] Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.org/; [3] Bernad Etkin, Lloyd Duff Reid, Dynamics of Flight - Stability and Control, 3rd edition. John Wiley & sons Inc.; [4] Aerospace Project course notes; [5] Boeing, http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/ articles/qtr_03_09/article_03_1.html [6] Boeing Advanced Blended Winglets, http://www.b737.org.uk/winglets.htm [7] IATA Technology Roadmap Report, http://www.iata.org/NR/rdonlyres/8FC59023-919D-4719-8CEEF20FF1BAB181/0/Technology_Roadmap_May2009.pdf; [8] Transonics Aerodynamics of Airfoils and Wings http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroTransonics.pdf; [9] J, C C. Henriques, L. M. C. Gato, "Use of a residual distribution Euler solver to study the occurrence of transonic flow in Wells turbine rotor blades", Computacional Mechanics 29, 2002, Springer-Verlag [10] Adriaan Beukers, Natural Fibre Composites - Saving Weight and Cost with Renewable Materials. [11] TSFC, http://www.jet-engine.net/civtfspec.html [12] Engineering ToolBox, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ [13] XFLR5 4.17 http://xflr5.sourceforge.net/xflr5.htm [14] R.Wallch, B.S.Mattos, R.S. Girardi, M. Curvo - Aerodynamic Coefficient Prediction of a General Transport Aircraft Using Neutral network [15] http://mdao.grc.nasa.gov/topstoryarchive002.html [16] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations

105

Aerospace Project

Appendix A - derivation
The is not immediately available in any of the listed references, but its estimate is required in order to account for its stabilizing contribution to the aircrafts lateral motion. The wings dihedral angle produces roll and yaw stabilization which is taken into account in the coefficients and . We calculate the relation and in the end is considered as a valid approximation.

Figure 72 - Wing dihedral

Due to the wings dihedral there is a bias in the lift produced at each wings panel due to sideslip. The lift L is proportional to the normal velocity squared at a given panel . The sign ambiguity is resolved when we choose any given panel and while the right (R) panel increases its lift when in sideslip, the left panel decreases its lift creating a stabilizing yawing moment due to induced drag disequilibrium. The angle of attack change is given by: The described phenomena produces a negative rolling moment described by the coefficient which is: Where is the trapezoidal wings centroid and centre of pressure (assuming linear lift distribution) which is given in terms of the wings taper ratio .

106

Aerospace Project

Taking the derivative of

in respect to :

107

Aerospace Project

Appendix B - Bang-Bang control

Bang-Bang control leads the actuators to their saturation state, and provide time optimal trajectories. The angular acceleration is constant for each saturation state because the produced moment is constant. These trajectories are described below assuming each manoeuvre must be performed in the time interval T. Acceleration

Figure 73 - Angular acceleration

Velocity

108

Aerospace Project

Figure 74 - Angular velocity

Position

Figure 75 - Angular Position

Using these trajectories and the assumption made in the report which considered 7,5 degree manoeuvres in 1 second one is able to compute the required angular acceleration:

109