Kisyan Light Jet THESIS (University of Brighton)

K I S Y A N P E K A S A R O U F 1 | P a g e
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics

Division of Engineering and Product Design

DESIGN OF LIGHT JET
KISYAN PEKASAROUF
XE337 GROUP PROJECT
DR.NICHOLAS MICHE
DR.STEVEN BEGG
9
th
May 2014

Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

I hereby certify that the attached is my own work except where otherwise indicated.
I have identified my sources of information; in particular I have put in quotation
marks any passages that have been quoted word-for-word, and identified their
origins.
DISCLAIMER
Signed

Date....

ABSTRACT
The project describes the major features of Skysonic jet designed with a
tadpole-like configuration that has performance requirements for light business jet purposes.
It is therefore desirable to be able to effectively investigate and analyse solutions from a
variety point of logical view, weighing together the results and conclusions. Solidworks
Computer Aided Drawing system and Foil SIM (III) software were used throughout the
analysis process to reflect a great extent of output considering the design parameters. The
experimental engine DGEN 390 specifications were used throughout the project to set the
limitations in designing Skysonic jet. The preliminary results which were adapted from the
Maverick Smartjet such as maximum cruising altitudes and cruising speeds were optimized
with a proper engineering approach in order to show the correct process sequence. Each
member was delegated with specific task and the output of the team effort on designing,
optimizing and finalising the process has been clearly shown with chronological order. The
project also discussed on pending further works to be done in future in order to improve the
quality of results outcome. Skysonic jet has produced a creative design where it has
successfully met all the conditions applied corresponding to vast resources and references.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 6
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 7
NOMENCLATURE ............................................................................................................................... 8
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 9
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 10
THEORY .............................................................................................................................................. 11
1.1 Aerofoil Decision Matrix ................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Liebeck LNV109A Aerofoil ............................................................................................. 14
1.3 Aspect ratio ........................................................................................................................ 15
1.4 Induced Drag ...................................................................................................................... 17
STRUCTURES ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Wing Component Mass Distribution ................................................................................. 18
2.2 Calculation of the mass using the Solidworks software .................................................... 18
TOOLS .................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.1 Foil SIM (III) version outlooks tested at 12,000 feet (3658m) with 250 knots (463kph) . 21
3.2 Foil SIM (III) version outlooks tested at 22,000 feet(6706m) and 300knots (555.6kph) .. 21
3.3 Solidworks Stress Analysis ................................................................................................ 23
3.4 Process flow ....................................................................................................................... 24
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Distribution of data at 12,000 feet cruise with 250knots. .................................................. 27
4.2 Distribution of data at 22,000 feet cruise with 300knots. .................................................. 27
4.3 Accuracy of Foil Sim (III) software and manual calculations ........................................... 28
4.4 Induced drag corresponding to Aspect ratio ...................................................................... 29
4.5 Stress Analysis Results and Discussion ............................................................................. 30
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 32
FUTURE TASKS ................................................................................................................................. 33
CONTEXT REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 34
FIGURES REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX E & F ................................................................................................................................ 44
APPENDIX G ....................................................................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX H ....................................................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX I ........................................................................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX J ........................................................................................................................................ 51
APPENDIX K ....................................................................................................................................... 55
APPENDIX L ....................................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX M ...................................................................................................................................... 57


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1a & 1b : Angle of Attack ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 1c & 1d : Pressure distribution around aerofoil............................................................ 11
Figure 1e : Lift, Drag and Moment of Typical Aerofoil .......................................................... 12
Figure 1f : Chamber and Symmetrical Aerofoil ...................................................................... 12
Figure 1.1a : LNV109A Lift and Drag graphs ......................................................................... 14
Figure 1.3 : Vortex flow on the wing ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 1.3a : Type of wings ..................................................................................................... 15
Figure 1.3b : Typical aspect ratio graphs ................................................................................. 15
Figure 2a : Internal and External Wing structure..................................................................... 17
Figure 2b : Solidworks software drawing of wing ................................................................... 18
Figure 2c : 3D prototype of Skysonic wing ............................................................................. 18
Figure 2.2a : Drawing of Half wing ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.2b : Material properties ............................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.2c & 2.2d : Mass properties ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 3a & 3b & 3c : Foil SIM setup ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.1a & 3.1b & 3.1c & 3.1d : Foil SIM outlook at 12000 feet (3658m). ....................... 21
Figure 3.2a & 3.2b & 3.2c & 3.2d : Foil SIM outlook at 22000 feet (6706m) ....................... 21
Figure 3.4a : Whole wing drawing using Solidworks.............................................................. 24
Figure 3.4b & 3.4c : Fixture application .................................................................................. 25
Figure 3.4d :Load application. ................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3.4e: Material selection. ............................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.4f : Meshing selection ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.4g & 3.4h & 3.4i : Stress analysis diagrams ............................................................. 26
Figure 4.5a : Von Mises Stress versus Altitude graph ............................................................. 31


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1a : Aerofoil Selection decision matrix ...................................................................... 13
Table 1.3a : Aspect ratio of various aircraft ............................................................................ 16
Table 1.3b : Advantages and Disadvantages of different aspect ratio range ........................... 16
Table 2.1a : Weight distribution of Skysonic wing ................................................................. 18
Table 3.3a : Advantage and Disadvantage of Solidworks software ........................................ 23
Table 4.1a : 12000 feet (3658m) parameters breakdown ........................................................ 27
Table 4.2a : 22000 feet (6706m) parameters breakdown ........................................................ 27
Table 4.3a & 4.3b :Accuracy of Foil SIM ............................................................................... 28
Table 4.4a : Data distribution of Induced drag ........................................................................ 29
Table 4.5a : Mission of Stress Analysis ................................................................................... 30
Table 4.5b : Results of Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 test .......................................................... 30
Table 4.5c : Result of Graphite test ......................................................................................... 30
Table 4.5d : Justification of Stress Analysis Done .................................................................. 31


NOMENCLATURE

3D
AOA
L
D

Re

Millimetre
Meter
Nautical Miles
Kilometre per hour
Kilometre
Kilogram
Square meter
Pi
Newton
Velocity
Mega Pascal
Density
Wingspan
Chord length
Kinematic viscosity
Wing area
Aspect ratio
Average aspect ratio
Three dimension
Angle of Attack
Lift
Drag
Lift Coefficient
Maximum Lift Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Minimum Drag Coefficient

Lift and Drag ratio
Reynolds Number
INTRODUCTION

The Aero Group 2 which consist of myself, Kisyan Pekasarouf and members Konstantinos
Karvelis, Prevind Jagadesan, Rajendra Kumar and Ali Syed have designed a 1 pilot business jet,
capable of transporting 3 passengers and their baggage with the range of 800 nm (1481.6 km) ,
cruise speed of 250knots (463kph) and 300knots (555.6kph) for 12,000 feet(3658m) and 22,000
feet(6706m) altitude respectively. We have planned for specific situations by analysing the
performances of the certain parts of the aircraft relating to DGEN 390 specifications [1]. Since the
DGEN 390 is an experimental engine, never used in any aircraft before, the aim to design a
business jet with logical parameters and computer drawings were carefully handled. Each part and
dimensions of the Skysonic jet have been designed using the correct tools so that it fulfils the
objective of our project. Plus, our aircraft uses specific material for each individual part in an effort
both to keep the weight down and to help examine the feasibility of designing future aircraft in a
similar manner. The task which was delegated to me in this project is research on wing section.
Below table shows all my findings on Skysonic jet wing plus the general specification of our
aircraft.
GENERAL Aircraft purpose Light business jet
GENERAL Crew 1 Pilot
GENERAL Capacity 1 Pilot + 3 Passengers
GENERAL Empty Weight 850kg
GENERAL Useful Weight 934kg
GENERAL Maximum Take-off Weight 1784kg
GENERAL Power plant
2 x DGEN 390 Engine (330daN
max thrust each)
GENERAL Range 800 nm
WING Wingspan 8.24m
WING Aerofoil LNV109A
WING Wing tip and root 0.45m
WING Taper ratio 1 to 1
WING Wing Area 3.708

WING Wing aspect ratio 18.31
GENERAL
Minimum cruising speed with
altitude
250 knots with 12,000 feet [1]
GENERAL
Maximum cruising speed with
altitude
300 knots with 22,000 feet
GENERAL Fuel Capacity 650 litres
GENERAL Centre of Gravity position 3.66m from nose

BACKGROUND

MAVERICK SMART JET SPECIFICATIONS SKYSONIC JET
Light business jet Aircraft purpose Light business jet
2 Pilot Crew 1 Pilot
2 Pilot + 3 Passengers Capacity 1 Pilot + 3 Passengers
975kg Empty Weight 850kg
912kg Useful Load 934kg
1887kg
Maximum Take-off
Weight
1784kg
2 X Pratt Witney JT-15 -5
( 6595N max thrust each) [4]
Power plant
2 x DGEN 390 Engine
(330daN max thrust each)
1250nm Range 800 nm
10.30m Wingspan 8.24m
NACA 65(2) 215 [26] Aerofoil LNV109A
Wing tip = 0.9m , Wing root =
2.2m, Average = 0.65m
Wing tip and root 0.45m
1 to 2 Taper ratio 1 to 1
6.695
Wing Area 3.708

15.85 Wing aspect ratio 18.31
290 knots at 22,000 feet [2]
Maximum cruising speed
with altitude
300 knots at 22,000 feet
957 litres [2] Fuel Capacity 650 litres

We considered Maverick Smart Jet as a basis for our design .Below shown
the optimization of Skysonic jet from Maverick Smartjet [2][3] :
Both aircrafts are designed for light business jet and having maximum cruising altitude
of 22,000 feet (6706m).All the wing dimensions (wingspan, wing tip and root, wing area and
wing aspect ratio) matches each other however they are reduced by 20% since DGEN 390
engine could only provide half of the Pratt Witney thrust. At the initial stage of the design, all
the members were allocated with specific tasks. During the whole process of designing,
optimizing and finalizing, the tasks allocations slightly changes for each member as we have
re-evaluated the Gantt chart due to the time limits and lack of resources. Hence for further
detailed view of Gantt chart, refer Appendix M.
THEORY
Any section of the wing cut by a plane parallel to the aircraft xz plane is called an
airfoil[6].An aerofoil-shaped body moved through the air will vary the static pressure on top
surface and on bottom surface of the aerofoil [6]. If the mean chamber line in a straight, the
aerofoil is referred to as symmetric aerofoil, otherwise it is called cambered aerofoil[6].The
camber aerofoil is positive,upper surface static pressure is less than ambient pressure,while
the lower surface static pressure is higher than ambient pressure[6].This is due to higher
speed at upper surface and lower speed at lower surface of the aerofoil[6].Refer Figure 1.1
and 1.2 below.For this aerofoil terms definition, refer Appendix B.
As the aerofoil angle of attack increases, the pressure difference between upper and
lower surface will be higher.[Figure 1a]
As the aerofoil angle of attack decreases, the pressure difference between upper and
lower surface will be lower.[Figure 1b]

Figure 1c and 1d showing the pressure distribution around the aerofoil.Blue indicates the positive lift
on the upper surface of aerofoil and red indicates negative lift on the bottom surface of aerofoil.
The lift due to the angle of attack normally acts 25% of the chord line of an aerofoil.It is
called quarter chord point[6].Since the lift acting at this point, hence we will call this as
aerodynamic centre (ac)[6].The aerodynamic force from this point is divided into two
components :
Lift is equals to aerodynamic force perpendicular to relative wind[6].
Drag is equals to aerodynamic force parallel to relative wind[6].
Figure 1a Figure 1b
Figure 1c
Figure 1d

Figure 1e showing the lift,drag moment of a typical aerofoil.
The aerofoil section lift,drag and pitching moment are defined in non-dimensional form in
below equations [5]:
Section Lift Coefficient :
[5]
Section Drag Coefficient :
[5]
Section Moment Coefficient :
[5]

Figure 1f showing the plot of lift coefficient and drag coefficient of
typical chamber and symmetrical aerofoil.
This section explains the relationship between positive camber, symmetric and negative
chamber aerofoils. Above theory diagram shows that the typical positive chamber aerofoils
having the highest lift coefficient corresponding to the angle of attack. However, positive
chamber aerofoil stalls early and produces more drag than symmetric aerofoils. Hence, the
drag coefficient of cambered aerofoil produced will be also high since its coefficient of lift is
much higher than symmetric.
Figure 1e
Figure 1f
1.1 Aerofoil Decision Matrix

After a simple analysis done for the aerofoil selection, above aerofoils parameters were
gathered and placed on Table 1.1a [7].On this table (1.1a) aerofoils are simply scored by
numbers 1,2, and 3.Then total is entered at the bottom of the table as shown above.There are
two NACA aerofoils of 6 digits and 4 digits,one aerofoil of Lockheed and another one from
Liebeck aerofoil.The (2)thickness ratio of NACA 65(2)-215 is leading the factor because it
has much great thickness to allow the smooth airflow around the curve while LNV109a and
Lockheed L-188 comes next to it since the it is not a symmetric aerofoil.The least score goes
to NACA 0006 and this aerofoil will experience less airflow to generate lift on top of it.The
best aerofoil for (3)lift coefficients (when angle of attack is zero) factor was rated based on
the highest value that an aerofoil can achieve.In this case , LNV109a stays the top, followed
by others.Since the value is higher, it produces more lift (broad curvature) along the both x
and y axis.Aerofoil with (4)maximum chamber contributes more in lift generation because
of the curvature shape,which has the maximum chamber at 25% of the chordline of the
aerofoil.However,aerofoil 1 and 3 could not score well despite of its symmetrical shape(less
curvature at 25% of the chordline of the aerofoil).NACA 0006 scores the least since the
thickness of the aerofoil is thinner.There will be no lift produced if the lift coefficient is zero
even though it has a specific angle of attack(5).Larger negative values have the advantage of
Number Parameters Aerofoil 1 Aerofoil 2 Aerofoil 3 Aerofoil 4 SCORE
1 Name of aerofoil
Lockheed
L-188 [8]
LNV109a [9]
NACA 65(2)-
215 [10]
NACA 0006
[11]
Aerofoil
1
Aerofoil
2
Aerofoil
3
Aerofoil
4
2 Thickness ratio 12% 13% 15% 6% 2 2 3 1
3
Coefficient Lift when
AOA = 0
0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 1 3 2 1
4 Maximum Chamber (%) 2.7 6.0 1.1 0.0 1 3 1 1
5
AOA when Coefficient
lift =0
negative
2.5
negative 4 negative 1 0 2 3 1 1
6
Maximum coefficient of
lift
1.262 1.505 1.098 0.616 2 3 2 1
7
Angle of Attack at Cl
max
9 15 15 7 1 3 3 2
8 Stall characteristics

3 1 2 3
9
Drag coefficient
minimum
0.015 0.030 0.017 0.015 3 1 2 3
10 CL/CD max 48.062 21.635 38.478 21.415 3 2 2 2
18 21 18 15
Table 1.1a
producing the lift in a very long range such as from -4 to 16 rather than 0 to 7.In this factor
,LNV109a scores the highest.The maximum coefficient of lift (6) is the final limit of an aerofoil to
produce lift and the stall will initiate at this point.Referring to this factor Aerofoil 2 scores the
maximum because it delays stall (at 15) unlike other aerofoils which stall early. Aerofoil 4
experiencing the most earliest stall (7) with maximum lift coefficient of 0.6 since there's no curvature
(flat) around the shape and this aerofoil mostly applicable in supersonic aircrafts.The stall
characteristics(8) usually splitted into three; gentle,abrupt or medium and based on the above table,
Aerofoil 2 having a abrupt flow since its large angle of attack ,compare to other aerofoils which have
a small angle of attack.Since Aerofoil 4 do not produce a larger tilt as Aerofoil 2, a smooth separation
flow will be generated there.Next on the drag coefficient(9), the least value will be preferable and in
this case, Aerofoil 1 and 4 scores the highest.However,in real situation we cannot expect the lift to be
inversely proportional to drag because when the lift increases the drag increases too.Since Aerofoil 1
and 4 obtained the least drag and it produces less lift, we still cannot conclude both these aerofoils are
the suitable one.The ratio of coefficient lift and coefficient of drag are called as lift drag ratio(10).In
this category , Aerofoil 1 score the highest and these aerofoils are often used in high lift aircraft with
large payloads and long range travelling distance .However I still considering the remaining aerofoils
since my target is for the subsonic speed aerofoils with small number of passengers and short range of
travelling distance.Since Aerofoil 2, LNV109A obtained the highest score, hence I will conclude this
will be my final aerofoil.
1.2 Liebeck LNV109A Aerofoil
The unconventional shaped aerofoil shown in diagram is named after Dr.Robert Liebeck,who was
the first to try and find out what sort aerofoil-shaped geometry would yield the highest possible
Cl max[12].By using the lift coefficent at zero degree angle of attack(cruising position)[13] ,I
have tested LNV109A aerofoil in the Foil SIM (III) student package of NASA[14] to obtain
lift,drag, and necessary graph parameters.Diagram 1 and 2 shows the graph curve of aerofoil at
6% chamber and 13% thickness. Plus, parameters of altitude,speed, and reynolds number are
obtained from the FoilSIM(III) Software .

Angle of Attack

L
i
f
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
C
l
)

D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
C
d
)

Angle of Attack

Figure 1.1a
Figure 1.1a shows the airfoiltools generated lift coefficient and
drag coefficient graph with 6% chamber and 13% thickness

All the lift generating components on aircraft such as engine and wing will contribute their
forces to fly the aircraft.Hence,the mission of our wing is how much of lift is needed to carry
the 17840 N aircraft at least in crusing position (12000 feet(3658m) and 22000 feet( 6706m)
)where the angle of attack of the aerofoil stays 0[13].Since the DGEN 390 engine producing
1400N(Refer Appendix A) of thrust, hence our Skysonic wing should give lift at least 92.2%
of 17840 N ( Refer Appendix C) to balance the aircraft weight .This will be my mission to be
achieve.
1.3 Aspect ratio
The aspect ratio is defined as the ratio between wingspan and area of the Skysonic aircraft
wing.Below shown the equation to find the aspect ratio.
[15]
When a wing is generating lift, it has a reduced pressure on the upper surface and an
increased pressure on the lower surface[16].The air would like to escape from the bottom
of the wing,moving to the top as shown in the diagram below[16].Therefore , air will escape
around the wing tip[16].Air escaping around the wing tip lowers the pressure difference
between the upper and lower surfaces.This certainly reduces the lift near the tip.Plus, the air
flowing around the tip flows in a circular path when seen from the front, and in effect pushes
down on the wing[16].This circular or vortex flow pattern continues downstream behind
the wing[16].Hence, the amount of the wing affected by the tip vortex is less for a high
aspect ratio wing than for a low aspect ratio wing .

Figure 1.3a shows the the vortex flow when airflow passes the upper and lower surface of the wing

Upper surface flow
Lower surface flow
Tip vortex
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3a
Figure 1.3b

Table 1.3b shows the advantages and disadvantages of aspect ratio with given ranges.

The aspect ratio of Skysonic jet is 18.31 as calculated (Refer Appendix C) and it falls on fourth
category as a glider wing. Next, I will relate the aspect ratio to the induced drag to justify my
selection.
Aspect ratio Type of aircraft Average value
3 to 4 Military fighters 3.5
5 to 12 GA Aircraft 8.5
7 to 10 Commercial Jetliners 8.5
10 to 51 Sailplane (Glider) 30.5
Aspect
Ratio
Advantages Disadvantages
3 to 4
This range will have high stall angle of attack causing the
lift generation very low. This range aircrafts are very low
structural weight and produces high flutter speed. This is
very suitable for military aircrafts since they only target
for speed, not lift.
This is inefficient because of the high
induced drag produced because
aspect ratio is always inversely
proportional to induced drag.
Generation of shallow lift coefficient
and low maximum lift coefficient
will the other minuses.
5 to 12
This range has a good roll response because of slight long
shape and also produces high flutter speed .The GA
aircraft will have a limited yaw since this aircraft still
aiming for lift unlike the military, aiming for speed.
This range aircrafts also inefficient
for long range design because of low
range speeds .Besides, it relatively
produces a high induced drag since it
is aiming for good lift generation.
7 to 10
The commercial jetliners have a good balance between low
induce drag and roll response and a smooth glide
characteristics since it travels for long ranges and target
for high lift.
It has a slight steep maximum lift
coefficient (larger change in Cl with
small changes of angle of attack).
10 to 51
This category mostly applicable to sailplane or gliders
which owns a low induced drag values because of huge
wingspan and a great glide characteristics since these
aircrafts are very light in weight. Next, producing a steep
Cl and maximum coefficient lift will be the plus points
because of large change in Cl with small changes in angle
of attack.
Since it has a very steep Cl, these
range aircraft wings could not able to
adjust the angle of attack in a large
range. High roll damping and higher
adverse yaw will be also the minuses
of this category.
There are two typical different lengths of wings which are shown in Figure 1.3a above. The longer
wingspan (glider) produces a high maximum lift coefficient (steep) while the shortest one (normal
wing) produces low maximum lift coefficient (shallow) (shown in Figure 1.3b). The longer the
wing, the slower the air moves from bottom surface of the wing to upper surface of the wing,
hence induced drag produced will be lower. On the right graph shown, the stalling angle of glider
wing is much earlier than the normal wing.

Table 1.3a shows the aspect ratio and average values of different type of aircraft
Table 1.3a [17]
Table 1.3b [17]
1.4 Induced Drag
Since the wing tip vortices produce a swirling airflow behind the wing, this component also
produces some drag, also named as induced drag. Normally, the vortices are always starts
strongest at tip, then weaker to the root and this will cause the effective of angle of attack to
be reduced. Most importantly, it also called as drag due to lift because it only occurs on
finite, lifting wings and the magnitude of the drag depends on the lift of the wing [18]. By
relating the aspect ratio with induced drag, I can justify and conclude my selection. (Refer
Results and Discussion)
STRUCTURES

Rear
spar
Trailing edge
assembly
Rib
Stringers
Middle spar
Wing root rib
Front spar
Leading edge
assembly
Lightening
holes
Figure 2a shows the internal and external components of wing structure
Figure 2a
This section explains in detail on the internal structures included in Skysonics wing. All internal
and external parts are constructed using the Solidworks software. The dimensions and functions
[19] of each part is explained briefly Appendix D and E respectively. When the position of rear
spar is being decided, I had conversation with Konstantinos to determine the percentage of wing
chord needed for the aileron system. We decided to give 40% of the wing chord to satisfy the
space required for aileron mechanism and aileron .Hence, we decided to provide 20% of the wing
chord for the placement of aileron mechanism and 20% for the aileron chord.


Figures 2a and 2b above show the Solidworks software drawing and 3D
prototype printing of Skysonic cross section wing respectively.
2.1 Wing Component Mass Distribution

Table 2.1a shows the weight distribution of Skysonic wing

Quantity Parts
Mass (kg)
Single unit (kg) Total (kg)
1 Front I beam spar 6.69
6.69
1 Rear I beam spar 4.00
4.00
1 Middle I- beam spar 10.77
10.77
2 Wing root and tip rib 1.39
2.78
6 Wing ribs 1.48
8.88
1 Leading edge assembly 10.47
10.47
1 Trailing edge assembly 20.03
20.03
4 Stringers on top rib surface 1.29
5.16
4 Stringers on below rib surface 0.89
3.56
1 Wing skin 91.55
91.55

Subtotal =
163.89
The total weight of wing on port and starboard side is :

163.89kg X 2 = 327.80kg
2.2 Calculation of the mass using the Solidworks software

i) The part of half wing is drawn as shown in Figure 2.2a

Figure 2b
Figure 2c
Table 2.1a
Figure 2.2a
ii) The Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 is choosen and its material properties is shown in the
circle below.(Figure 2.2b)

iii) The mass properties tab at the top left of the Solidworks software is selected (Figure 2.2c)

iv) Next, mass properties box will appear and the required details will be shown here(Figure
2.2d).

In Solidworks we will not able to calculate all the masses in one flow. However, I have to calculate it
separately for each part and compare the masses with the whole model wing. For example, in whole
wing model it shows 327.80 kg while when calculated separately obtained 326.6kg.Hence, this will be
the error of mass calculation observed in Solidworks software.
Mass of wing shown:
163.30 kg
163.30 X 2 = 326.6 kg
Figure 2.2b
Figure 2.2c
Figure 2.2d
Figure 3c

TOOLS

Foil Sim is a simulation software which is available in NASA website.It give guidance for
students to determine the lift,drag, angle of attack and other parameters with the software
calculations.Since it is a software calculation based parameters, there will be some errors in
values obtained.In order to rectify and reconfirm these values, I have done the manual
calculation below, and compared the differences or accuracy between manual and software
calculation.Hence, I have shown few steps how to set up the simulation process.
There are few tabs available on the top right of the programme .However
tabs which is necessasry for this experiment to use includes shape of
aerofoil, flight,select data(which provides graph parameters),and size of
wing.

Setting up the software in Metric units (Figure 3a)

Setting the aerofoils angle of attack,camber and thickness ratio(Figure 3b)

Setting the chord length, wing span and area of the wing(Figure 3c)

Figure 3a
Figure 3b
3.1 Foil SIM (III) version outlooks tested at 12,000 feet (3658m) with 250 knots (463kph)

3.2 Foil SIM (III) version outlooks tested at 22,000 feet(6706m) and 300knots (555.6kph)

Velocity of 200kph (55.56 )

Velocity of 300kph (83.33 ) Velocity of 400kph (111.11 )
Velocity of 100kph (27.78 )

Figure 3.1a [14]
Figure 3.1b [14]
Figure 3.1c [14]
Figure 3.1d [14]
Figure 3.2a [14] Figure 3.2b [14]
0.73

Figure 3.2c [14] Figure 3.2d [14]

3.3 Solidworks Stress Analysis

Stress analysis is a process to test a computer drawing model with mechanical stresses,
strains and deformations. I have conducted the stress analysis process using Solidworks
Simulation based on the following flow chart below [20]. Plus I have also list down the
advantages and disadvantages of Solidworks software (Table 3.3a).

Advantages Disadvantages
It can give an accurate result of displacement,
Von Misses stress and strain on any
dimensions of shape and object constructed
In Solidworks we will not able to calculate all the
masses in one flow. However, I have to calculate it
separately for each part and compare the masses. For
example, for whole wing model it shows 327.80 kg
while when calculated separately we have got
326.6kg.This shows slight error of 1.2kg between
both weights.
It provides a proper step to do stress analysis
so that the sequence is not missed out starting
from, fixture, load, material, and run
simulation
It does not show any proper equations on how the
stress, displacements are calculated.
It does provide a good understanding of
maximum and minimum value with colour
coding. For example, red for maximum value
and blue for minimum value
Some materials does not show all the properties
which causes the stress analysis in failure such as
Carbon fibre materials
Start
Determine the lift force
Meshing
Apply fixture, force and specific material
Solidworks Simulation Analysis
Results and Discussion
Design the wing
Table 3.3a

3.4 Process flow

1) a) The lift force which was calculated at 12,000 feet(3658m) with 250knots(463kph)
is 18990N

b) The lift force which was calculated at 22,000 feet (6706m) with 300 knots (555.6kph)
is 19631N

2) The model is constructed in Solidworks software with below dimensions (Figure 3.4a).

Length of half wing span = 3.44m
Width of fuselage = 1.37m
3) The fixture was applied with following steps :

The Simulation Xpress Analysis wizard on the top right of the Solidworks programme is
been clicked and a sequence step feature will appear. The fixtures option which is bolded
will be first task to be completed. All the future steps will be bolded once each task has
been completed (Figure 3.4b)
Figure 3.4a
Figure 3.4b

[30]


4) Next the force is applied on both port (left) and starboard(right) of the wing.

5) The material selection is done as shown below.

The outlook of fixed geometry is shown in circle (Figure 3.4c)
The load amount was typed in the column provided on the next step is triggered as
shown in the circle (Figure 3.4d). Once the arrow is shown (circled) towards
upward direction from beneath the wing, we moved on to next step
The next step is triggered (materials) and Aluminium Alloy 7075 T-6 is
selected. The material properties is shown in circle (Figure 3.4e)
Figure 3.4c
Figure 3.4d
Figure 3.4e

6) The meshing is created.

7) The outlook of Solidworks Simulation Xpress is shown below.

The meshing level is selected in between the coarse and fine
as shown in the circle and the final task is assigned (Figure 3.4f)
The first simulation was done on stress analysis (Figure 3.4g). The colour coding is applicable to
displacement (Figure 3.4h) and factor of safety (Figure 3.4i) as well. The red colour shows the most
critical part, green shows the average part and the blue shows safest part. The yield stress (circled)
will be shown on bottom section of the colour coding. In case a material fails, there will be a red
colour indication (circled) will be shown since that will be the most critical part.
Figure 3.4f
Figure 6.7
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.9
Figure 3.4g
Figure 3.4h
Figure 3.4i
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Distribution of data at 12,000 feet cruise with 250knots.

Table 4.1a and 4.2a shows the breakdown of parameters tested using Foil SIM (III) software.Bolded values
which tested in Foil SIM (III) is shown below.
Manual Calculation
At the 12,000feet (3658m) with 100kph is converted to 27.78 ()

SIM (III) software result.
Reynolds Number is a dimensionless number used in fluid mechanics to indicate wheter fluid
past a body or in a duct is steady or turbulent[31].It is normally affected by ,kinematic
viscosity, chord length ,
,fluid density, and fluid velocity,Reynolds number,Re always

directly proportional to aircraft speed.

)
4.2 Distribution of data at 22,000 feet cruise with 300knots.

Speed (kph) Lift (N) Drag (N)
Lift/Drag
Ratio
Lift
Coefficient
(Cl)
Drag Coefficient
(Cd)
Reynolds
Number
100 (Fig 3.1a) 890.00 43 20.258 0.73 0.045 655296
200 (Fig 3.1b) 3563.30 166 21.349 0.73 0.045 1310592
300 (Fig 3.1c) 8018.00 364 22.001 0.73 0.045 1965888
400 (Fig 3.1d) 14255.00 634 22.470 0.73 0.045 2621184
500 22139.60 1364.78 16.220 0.73 0.045 3276480
600 31881.84 1965.32 16.220 0.73 0.045 3931776
Speed (kph) Lift (N)
Drag
(N)
Lift/Drag
Ratio
Lift
Coefficient
(Cl)
Drag Coefficient
(Cd)
Reynolds
Number
100 (Fig 3.2a) 639 32 19.843 0.73 0.045 500986
200 (Fig 3.2b) 2559 122 20.922 0.73 0.045 1001972
300 (Fig 3.2c) 5759 267 21.568 0.73 0.045 1502958
400 (Fig 3.2d) 10238 464 22.06 0.73 0.045 2003946
500 15899.81 980.125 16.22 0.73 0.045 2504930
600 22896.27 1411.41 16.22 0.73 0.045 3005916

Table 4.1a
Table 4.2a
Manual Calculation
At the 22,000feet (6706m) with 100kph is converted to 27.78 ()

Sim (III) software result.
Reynolds Number

Above calculations for the speed of 100kph are done in order to prove that the Foil SIM (III) software
calculations matches with manual calculations.However,the actual speed of aircraft at 12,000 feet
(3658m) will be 250knots (463kph) and at 22,000 feet (6706m) will be 300knots (555.6kph).Hence
the lift generated at 12,000 feet (3658m) and 22,000 feet (6706m) are 18990N and 19631N
respectively.Hence, this successfully fulfill my mission of reaching the wing lift above 16448.48 N
to carry the aircraft at both cruising altitudes.(All the manual calculations from the speed of 200kph
to 600kph are stated in Appendix F and G.Plus, related parameter graphs with explanations are shown
in Appendix H).
4.3 Accuracy of Foil Sim (III) software and manual calculations
The results obtained through Foil SIM (III) and manual calculations are almost accurate except for a
few number of parameters which as shown below (Table 4.3a and Table 4.3b). The red indicates the
differences in values and the yellow indicates as not available since the software can only calculate
up to 400kph (Refer Appendix I)
Accuracy of Foil SIM (III) with manual calculation 12000 feet (3658m)
Speed
(kph)
Lift (N) Drag (N) Reynolds Number L/D ratio
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
100 890 890 43 43 655296 655296 20.258 20.258
200 3563 3563 166 166 1310592 1310592 21.349 21.349
300 8018 8018 364 364 1965888 1965888 22.001 22.001
400 14255 14255 634 634 2621184 2621184 22.470 22.470
500

22140

1365

3276480

16.220
600

31882

1965

3931776

16.220

[32]
Table 4.3a

Accuracy of Foil SIM (III) with manual calculation 22000 feet (6706m)
Speed (kph)
Lift (N) Drag (N) Reynolds Number L/D ratio
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
FOILSIM
(III)
Manual
100 639 639 32 32 500986 500986 19.843 19.843
200 2559 2559 122 122 1001973 1001972 20.922 20.922
300 5759 5759 267 267 1502959 1502958 21.568 21.568
400 10238 10238 464 464 2003946 2003946 22.032 22.060
500

15900

980

2504930

16.220
600

22900

1411

3005916

16.220

4.4 Induced drag corresponding to Aspect ratio
Below calculation is used to find Induced drag coefficient using aspect ratio values. Average aspect
ratio is taken since each type of aircraft in above Table 1.3a shows different range of values. The drag
is calculated overall in 12,000 feet (3658m) and 22,000 feet (6706m) cruise.
Induced Drag Coefficient =
[22]
= Lift coefficient when Liebeck LNV109A at zero degree angle of attack, 0.73 (Refer 3.1a where
the ORANGE arrow is showed)

= Average aspect ratios

Then, the lift coefficient is replaced by induced drag coefficient in lift formula (as shown in box)

[22]
Type of aircraft
Average aspect ratio (except
for SKYSONIC)
Induced drag
coefficient
Induced drag (N) at
12,000feet (3658m)
Induced drag (N) at
22,000feet (6706m)
Military fighters 3.5 0.048 1248.23 1290.33
GA Aircraft 8.5 0.020 520.10 537.64
Commercial
Jetliners
8.5 0.020 520.10 537.64
SKYSONIC
18.31 (real value, not
average)
0.009
234.04 241.94

Table 4.4a above shows the data tabulation of induced drag at cruising altitudes

Since , Skysonic is included in the category of sailplane , it is compared now with other types of aircrafts.GA
aircraft, Commercial Jetliners and Military fighters aspect ratios are taken as average since they have certain
range as shown in Table 1.3a. Hence, from above data, I can conclude that the induced drag produced by
Skysonic at 12,000 feet and 22,000 feet are lower compared to other aircrafts. Plus, the high aspect ratio of
Skysonic proves that it has a great capability to reduce tip vortices (causes induce drag) more efficiently.

Table 4.3b
Table 4.4a

4.5 Stress Analysis Results and Discussion

Mission of Stress Analysis for Skysonic wing Cruising Loads (Table 9.1)

Wing tested using Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 with yield stress of 505,000,000 MPa
(Refer Appendix J)

Wing tested with Graphite with yield stress of 120,594,000 MPa
(Refer Appendix J)
Criteria High Low
Von Mises Stress (MPa) *
Displacement (mm) *
Factor of safety *
Study
Von Mises stress (MPa) Resultant displacement (mm) Factor of
safety
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
12000feet(3658)
with the load of
18990 N
164,936,960 13,744,747 199.88

3.06
22000feet(6706m)
with the load of
19631 N
170,504,336 14,208,695 206.54

2.96
Study
Von Mises stress (MPa) Resultant displacement (mm) Factor of
safety
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
12000 feet(3658m)
with the load of
18990 N
165,900,528 13,825,044 3010.71

0.73
22000 feet(6706m)
with the load of
19631 N
171,500,464 14,291,705 3112.33

0.70
Table 4.5b
Table 4.5a
The results of the simulation analysis is based on the process flow which was done in ( flow chart Pg.23).All the
steps were followed in sequence order with both wings were tested with lift forces of 18990N and 19631N
obtained at 12000 feet (3658m) and 22000 feet (6706m) cruise respectively. Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 and
Graphite materials were selected for comparison based on the research done by the Mechanical Engineering
Department of Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq on light weight aircraft wing structure in the year of
2008[23].Hence, considering the similar research concept on light aircraft wing, I have chosen these two materials
to identify the maximum and minimum Von Mises stress, maximum and minimum displacements and factor of
safety. Below results are obtained from the analysis:

Table 4.5c

Aspects Justification
Effect on Von Mises Stress
(MPa)
The stress range of Aluminium Alloy is lower compared to Graphite
with same load (18990N and 19631N) applied in both conditions.
Aluminium Alloy is still far more safer compared to Graphite since the
safety factor of Aluminium Alloy is almost three times greater than
graphite even though Graphite's maximum stress exceed Aluminium
Alloy.
Effect on Displacement
(mm)
The resultant displacement of Aluminium Alloy is approximately 15
times lower than Graphite. It clearly shows the wing stays more stiffer
and stronger when Aluminium Alloy is used because smaller number of
displacement range induces low fatigue characteristics [24]
Effect on Factor of Safety
This actually proves all the justifications above where Aluminium Alloy
material dominates the Graphite in both aspects, on Von Mises stress and
displacement. The safety factor of Aluminium Alloy exceeds Graphite
by 3 times and since Graphite exceeds its yield strength of 120, 594, 00
MPa, it will not able to experience and accept such heavy loads imposed
on wing at both cruising positions. Meanwhile, Aluminium Alloy will
able to withstand these loads easily with less displacements since the
range to achieve its yield strength is still far. Referring to British Civil
Airworthiness Requirements CAP 482 under Sub-section C
Structure,S303,minimum factor of safety required for small light
aeroplane is 1.5[25].Hence, the result obtained also successfully
complied to the regulation.
A
B
The A and B dotted line (as shown in Figure 4.5a)having almost same length to each other .
Hence, the difference of maximum and minimum value at both A and B lines does not have much
variance unlike the displacement and the factor of safety (Refer Appendix J).
Table 4.5d
Table 4.5d shows the aspects and justification of the stress analysis done
Figure 4.5a
Figure 4.5a below shows the maximum Von Mises stresses at 12,000 feet (3658m)and 22,000 feet(6706m)
loads corresponding to Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 and Graphite materials

CONCLUSION

The study has examined the characteristics of Skysonic jet wing under certain conditions
set by the DGEN 390 Engine specifications such as altitudes and speeds .Returning to the
mission posed at the beginning of the study to achieve 16448.48 N to carry the aircraft ,it
is now possible to state that, Skysonic wings have successfully overcome it at both 12,000
feet and 22,000 feet cruising altitudes.Plus, this study also proves that Skysonic wings
were able to withstand the induced drag with appropriate material selection.Hence, the
decision of reducing the 20% of wing dimensions from preliminary aircraft at the initial
stage of the project is absolutely correct since all the parameters at the final stage are
within the limits corresponding to DGEN 390 engine specifications.The findings of this
study suggest that the DGEN 390 engine has a lower thrust and in order to carry a business
light jet in 12,000 feet (3658m) and 22,000 feet (6706m) altitudes, the wings have to play a
very big role in which in this study the Skysonic wing cruising lifts are almost 15 times
higher than engine thrust. The study has gone someway towards enhancing my
understanding of wings especially on detailed frame structures and vast material
applications using the appropriate computer tools such as Solidworks Computer Aided
Drawing (CAD) and Foil SIM(III) software.During the process of research, the study was
limited in several ways. First, the time consumption for in depth research and second lack
of resources since the information available were not converged to our requirement.
Further investigations and experimentations such as wind tunnel test , cost analysis and
utilization of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) are strongly recommended in our
Skysonic aircraft so that the analysis will give a full completion and in depth of
understanding.

FUTURE TASKS

i) Wind tunnel test
- Since all the results at 12,000 feet (3658m) and 22,000 feet (6706m) are
obtained from software and manual calculation, a realistic experiment has to
be done with a prototype design. The wind tunnel results might be same or
not with the software based calculation but for sure it will give a great
exposure in accuracy and precision comparing both outputs.
ii) Cost estimation
- The financial planning for Skysonic jet should be done especially in
materials and wing structures to fulfil the expectation and requirement of
customers. The cost of each wings of Skysonic jet might be higher or lower
than the preliminary aircraft wing , but cost estimation element is very
important since it will be covering the manufacturing cost, break-even
analysis and maintenance cost.
iii) Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
- The CFD programme should be used wisely for designing in depth
features and for the analysis methods since the software is more likely to be
used in most of the aircraft designing institutions and research centres.
Plus, I have to improve my designing skills in CFD since I only have
experience in Solidworks programme.
CONTEXT REFERENCES

1. Price-Induction. (2014). DGEN 380-390. Available: http://www.price-
induction.com/site_media/plaquettes/DGEN%20specifications%20sheet.pdf. Last accessed
4th May 2014.
2. Maverick Jets. (2006). Smart Jet. Available: http://www.maverickjets.com/jets/smartjet.php.
Last accessed 12th March 2014.
3. FindTheBest. (2014). Maverick Smart JET. Available:
http://planes.findthebest.co.uk/l/68/Maverick-SmartJET. Last accessed 12th March 2014.
4. XO Jet Incorporation. (2000). Hawker 400XP. Available:
http://www.xojet.com/Fleet/hawker-400xp/Hawker-400XP-Private-Jet.asp. Last accessed 01st
April 2014.
5. Daniel P.Raymer (1992). Aircraft Design : A Conceptual Approach. 2nd ed. California:
AIAA Education Series. p37.
6. Mohammad Sadraey (2013). Chapter 5 Wing Design. Daniel Webster College: Mohammad
Sadraey. p179-182.
7. Snorri Gudmundsson (2014). General Aviation Aircraft Design : Applied Methods and
Procedures. United States of America: Elsvier Incorporation. p293.
8. Airfoil Investigation Databese. (2013). LOCKHEED L-188 TIP AIRFOIL.Available:
http://www.airfoildb.com/foils/547. Last accessed 03rd March 2014.
9. Airfoil Investigation Databese. (2013). LNV109A. Available:
http://www.airfoildb.com/foils/541.
Last accessed 03rd March 2014.
10. Airfoil Investigation Databese. (2013). NACA 65(2)-215. Available:
11. Airfoil Investigation Databese. (2013). NACA 0006. Available:
13. John Dreese . (2007). Part 2: Basic Terms & Geometry . Available:
http://www.dreesecode.com/primer/airfoil2.html. Last accessed 21st Feb 2014.
14. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2014). FoilSim III Student Version
1.5a. Available: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/foil3.html. Last accessed
17th Apr 2014.
Sadraey. p207.
16. Daniel P.Raymer (1992). Aircraft Design : A Conceptual Approach. 2nd ed. California:
AIAA Education Series. p50.
Procedures. United States of America: Elsvier Incorporation. p309-310.
18. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2014). Induced Drag
Coefficient. Available: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/induced.html. Last
accessed 11th April 2014.
19. ANSYS. (2013). Wing modeling . Available:
http://www.structures.ethz.ch/education/master/analysis/FS2013PDFs/Ansys/ANSYS_ExII_-
_Problem_description.pdf. Last accessed 18th Apr 2014.
20. University of Science Malaysia. (2011). Sky Eye TM. Available:
http://aerospace.eng.usm.my/rcp/index.php/analysis/computational-fluid-dynamics-
cfd/skyeyetm. Last accessed 13th Mar 2014.
21. A.C.Kermode (2006). Mechanics of Flight. 11th ed. England: Pearson Education Limited.
p159-160.
22. A.C.Kermode (2006). Mechanics of Flight. 11th ed. England: Pearson Education Limited.
p104.
23. Professor Dr.Muhsin J.Jweeg (2008). Optimization of Light Weight Aircraft Wing Structure.
Iraq: Al-Nahrain University. p15.
24. AUTODESK. (2014). Small Deflection Stress analysis. Available:
http://help.autodesk.com/view/MFIWS/2014/ENU/?guid=GUID-1B128FF9-2E3A-4170-
8984-618E66FA4675. Last accessed 23rd Apr 2014.
25. Safety Regulation Group (1983). CAP 482 British Civil Airworthiness Requirements. 3rd ed.
United Kingdom: Civil Aviation Authority. Part 1 Sub-Section C Page 1.
26. X-Plane. (2012). Airfoils. Available: http://strategywiki.org/wiki/X-
Plane/Developing/PlaneMaker/Airfoils. Last accessed 18th Dec 2013.
27. Airfoil Tools. (2014). Airfoil Comparison. Available: http://airfoiltools.com/compare/index.
Last accessed 3rd Apr 2014.
Sadraey. p184-185.
29. Solidworks 2014 3D Mechanical Computer Aided Design (CAD) Programme
30. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2014). Lift to Drag ratio. Available:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ldrat.html. Last accessed 01st May 2014.
31. Oxford University Express. (2014). Reynolds Number. Available:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Reynolds-number. Last accessed 21st Apr 2014.
32. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2009). Reynolds Number. Available:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/reynolds.html. Last accessed 19th Mar 2014.
FIGURES REFERENCES

1. Figure 1a and 1b
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2014). FoilSim III Student
Version 1.5a. Available: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/foil3.html. Last
accessed 17th Apr 2014.
2. Figure 1c and 1d
Aerofoil Engineering. (2014). AeroFoil version 3.2. Available:
http://aerofoilengineering.com/. Last accessed 17th Apr 2014.
3. Figure 1e
Mohammad Sadraey (2013). Chapter 5 Wing Design. Daniel Webster College:
Mohammad Sadraey. p182.
4. Figure 1f
Snorri Gudmundsson (2014). General Aviation Aircraft Design : Applied Methods and
5. Figure 1.1a
Airfoil Tools. (2014). LNV109A (lnv109a-il). Available:
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=lnv109a-il. Last accessed 11th Jan 2014.
6. Figure 1.3
Glue-it.com. (1999). Model Aircraft Glossary. Available: http://www.glue-
it.com/aircraft/general-information/glossary/v_summ.htm#.U2egn_ldV8E. Last accessed
1st Apr 2014.
7. Figure 1.3a
X-Plane. (2011). What's With Winglets?. Available: http://forums.x-
plane.org/?showtopic=54184. Last accessed 17th Mar 2014.
8. Figure 1.3b
RC Groups. (2003). Aerodynamics Stall and Spin. Available:
http://adamone.rchomepage.com/index6.htm. Last accessed 17th Mar 2014.
9. Figure 2a , 2b
Solidworks 2014 3D Mechanical Computer Aided Design (CAD) Programme
10. Figure 2.2a , 2.2b , 2.2c , 2.2d
11. Figure 3a, 3b and 3c
12. Figure 3.1a, 3.1b, 3.1c, 3.1 d
13. Figure 3.2a , 3.2b, 3.2c, 3.2d
14. Figure 3.4a to Figure 3.4i

APPENDIX A

Altitude (m) Thrust (N)
3048 1500
3658 1400
5486 1150
6706 1100

Maximum Take - off Weight (N) 16500 N
Maximum speed at 12,000 feet (3658m) 250 knots (463kph)
Flight Envelope 25,000 feet (7620m)
Thrust at 10,000 feet (3048m) 1500 N
Thrust at 18,000 feet (5486m) 1150 N

Table above shows the DGEN-390 performance specifications [1]

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
T
h
r
u
s
t

(
N
)

Altitude (m)
Thrust versus Altitude

APPENDIX B

Aerofoil term definitions [19]
i) Chord
- The distance between leading edge and trailing edge of the aerofoil.
ii) Chord line
- The line which connect the leading edge and trailing edge along the aerofoil.
iii) Mean camber
- The line which is equidistant from upper and lower surfaces.
iv) Angle of attack
- The angle which forms between relative airflow and chord line.
v) Leading Edge
- The part of aerofoil where the air hits first.
vi) Trailing edge
- The part of aerofoil where the air hits last.
vii) Maximum thickness
- The maximum distance of the upper surface and lower surface.


Stall angle (28) is the angle of attack at which the aerofoil stalls
Maximum lift coefficient (28) is the maximum capability for the aerofoil in wing to lift
the aircraft weight.
Zero lift angle of attack (28) is the aerofoil angle of attack in which the lift coefficient is
zero.
The lift coefficient at zero angle of attack (28) is the lift coefficient when angle of
attack is zero. Mostly, during zero degree angle of attack, positive lift coefficient will be
produced.

AEROFOIL GRAPH CHARACTERISTICS [27]
Lift Coefficient vs Drag Coefficient
Pitch Coefficient vs Angle of Attack Drag Coefficient vs Angle of Attack
APPENDIX C

ESTIMATING THE LIFT MISSION BY PERCENTAGE [21]

The engine thrust will be 1400N where I have refer it
to the DGEN 390 specification [Refer Appendix A]
1400N + Wing force (N) = 17840 N
To calculate the percentage amount of force that produced by DGEN engine :

To calculate the percentage amount of force that need to produce by both straight wings
to lift the aicraft at cruising stage
100% - 7.8% = 92.2%

Hence, 92.2% of the lift is contributed by the straight wings at cruising stage

Conversion of percentage to lift force in N

92.2% = 16,448.48 N

Hence, 16,448.48 N is needed at least to lift the aircraft at 12,000 feet (3658m) at 250
knots (463kph and 22,000 feet (6706m) at 300knots (555.6kph) .So this will be my mission
to achieve in order to lift Skysonic at both altitude cruising stages.

ASPECT RATIO

= 8.24m
= 3.708

AR = 18.31

( Engine Thrust + Wing Force) at cruising position = Aircraft Gross weight or Maximum Take Off weight

APPENDIX D

Wing Parts Dimensions (mm) Mass (Kg)

Front Spar

Length : 18mm
Height : 51.07mm on right
44.88mm on left
Width : 3405mm

6.69

Rear Spar

Length : 18.44mm
28.57mm on left
Width : 3405 mm

4.00

Middle spar

Length : 28.78mm
57.90mm on left
Width : 3405 mm

10.77

Wing root and tip
rib (2 ribs in half wing)

Length : 450.0mm
Height : 58.17mm
Width : 35mm

2.78

Wing ribs (6 ribs in half wing)
Length : 450.0mm
Height : 58.17mm
Width : 40mm
Hole diameter : 25mm

8.88

Leading edge assembly

Length : 30.03mm
Height : 31.95mm on left
44.97mm on right
Width : 3405 mm

10.47

Trailing edge assembly

Length : 181.52mm
Height : 24.34mm on left
1.63mm on right
Width : 3405 mm

20.03

Stringers on top rib surface (4 stringers)

Diameter : 12mm
Width : 3405 mm

5.16

Stringers on bottom rib surface (4 stringers)

Diameter : 10mm
Width : 3405 mm

3.56

Wing Skin

Length : 450.0mm
Height : 58.17mm
Width : 3405 mm
Thickness : 7.0mm

91.55

APPENDIX E

Parts Function
Spar
Vertical structure running along the wingspan and it carries
shear loads
Ribs
Elements are located in the cross-section plane. It has main
function to distribute the load and maintaining the shape.
Root wing Part of the wing which attached to the fuselage
Tip wing Part of the wing which attached away from the fuselage
Leading edge
assembly
Front part of the wing which holds the support structure
Trailing edge
assembly
Back part of the wing which holds the support structure
Stringers
Part of the wing which carries the axial force and balancing
the bending moment .It also stabilises the wing skin from
buckling
Wing Skin The outer layer which covers the wing structure

APPENDIX F

(i) At the 12,000 feet (3658m) = applicable for 100kph, 200kph, 300kph and 400kph

Calculating the Reynolds Number

)

Calculating the Lift Drag ratio
Ratio =
[30]
(ii) At the 22,000 feet (6706m) = applicable for 100kph, 200kph, 300kph and 400kph


Ratio =
[30]

APPENDIX G

Manual Calculation of parameters exactly at 250knots (463kph) and 300knots (555.6kph)
At the 12,000 feet (3658m)


)

Ratio =

At the 22,000 feet (6706m)


Ratio =

Parameters Values
Speed (kph) 463
Lift (N) 18990
Drag (N) 1170
Reynolds Number 3030602
L/D ratio 16.22
Parameters Values
Speed (kph) 555.6
Lift (N) 19631
Drag (N) 1211
Reynolds Number 2779949
L/D ratio 16.22

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
L
i
f
t

(
N
)

Aircraft speed (kph)
Lift versus Aircraft speed
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
D
r
a
g

(
N
)

Aicraft speed (kph)
Drag versus Aircraft speed
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
L
i
f
t

D
r
a
g

r
a
t
i
o

Lift Drag ratio versus Aircraft speed
APPENDIX H

Skysonic wing graph parameters at 12,000feet(3658m) and 22,000(6706m) feet cruise.
Note : Red indicates parameters at 12,000 feet
Blueindicates parameters at 22,000feet
Yellow indicates equal parameters

0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s

N
u
m
b
e
r

Reynolds number versus Aircraft speed
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
L
i
f
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
C
L
)

Aircraft Speed (kph)
Lift Coefficient versus Aircraft speed


Lift or Drag versus Aircraft Speed
-The lift or drag and aircraft speed is directly proportional to each other
since the Cl and Cd at zero degree angle of attack remains 0.73 and 0.045
respectively throughout the cruising position. The curve of 12,000 feet
(3658m) is steeper than 22,000 feet (6706m) curve since the density at high
altitude is lower than low altitude for both lift and drag magnitudes.
Lift Drag Ratio versus Aircraft Speed
- The lift drag ratio at 12,000 feet(3658m) is much higher than 22,000
feet(6706m) .This show in 12,000 feet (3658m) the amount of drag
produced by the lift is much lower than 22,000feet (6706m).Thus this will
cause fuel consumption at 12,000 feet is much lower than 22,000 feet [30]
Reynolds number versus Aircraft Speed
- Reynolds number at 12,000 feet (3658m) is higher than 22,000 feet
(6706m) due to the velocity increment with different densities. Hence,
the ratio of inertial forces (resistant to change) to viscous forces
(heavy and gluey) is higher at 12,000feet(3658m) compared to
22,000 feet (6706m)[32]
Lift Coefficient versus Aircraft Speed
- The lift coefficients in both altitudes are remains equal due to the
zero angle of attack. The lift coefficient only varies if the angle of
attack changes.

APPENDIX I

ACCURACY PERCENTAGE

Based on the Table 4.3b,

Total number of values : 16 (values are taken up to 400kph since Foil SIMs ability
to calculate is only up to that speed)

Total number of errors : 3 (red boxes of Foil SIM (III) data, excluding manual )

Table 4.3a does not meet any errors however Table 4.3b meet 3 errors. Above calculation proves that,
the Foil SIM software calculation will differ with manual calculation up to 18.75 % in every
calculation from 100kph to 400kph.

APPENDIX J

12000 feet altitude (3658m) with 18990N of load using Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6

Elastic Modulus (MPa) 72000
Yield Strength (MPa) 505
Mass Density (
) 2810
Tensile Strength (MPa) 570
Possion Ratio 0.33
Von Mises Stress (MPa) Displacement (mm)
Factor of Safety
Standard Meshing
[29]

22000 feet (6706m) with 19631N of load using Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6

Von Mises Stress (MPa)
Displacement (mm)
Factor of Safety
Standard Meshing
12000 feet altitude (3658m) with 18990 N of load using Graphite

Elastic Modulus (MPa) 4800
Yield Strength (MPa) 120.59
Mass Density (
) 2240
Tensile Strength (MPa) 100.83
Possion Ratio 0.28
Displacement (mm)
Standard Meshing
Factor of Safety
[29]
22000 feet (6706m) with 19631 N of load using Graphite

Displacement (mm)
Factor of Safety
Standard Meshing
APPENDIX K

Both A and B dotted line are not having same length to each other, hence they have different
maximum and minimum ranges compared to each other. Graphite is having almost 15 times
greater displacement range compared to Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6.Since the Graphite
material wing have a large displacement[24], it will not be stiff and strong enough to absorb
the cruising loads of Skysonic. However for the Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 material, they
have very small gap of difference in displacement, which will able to withstand the loads
without any damage.

The A and B dotted lines are also not having the same length to each other in this case where
the wing safety factor range using Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 exceeds the Graphite. Hence,
this concludes that Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 is 3 times safer to use in Skysonic wing rather
than Graphite in order to carry the cruising loads.

A

B

A

B

APPENDIX L

APPENDIX M

G
a
n
t
t

C
h
a
r
t

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

O
n
e


G
a
n
t
t

C
h
a
r
t

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

T
w
o


G
a
n
t
t

C
h
a
r
t

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

T
h
r
e
e

(
F
i
n
a
l
)

Kisyan Light Jet THESIS (University of Brighton)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kisyan Light Jet THESIS (University of Brighton)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

K I S Y A N P E K A S A R O U F 1 | P a g e

School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics

Wing Area 3.708

,fluid density, and fluid velocity,Reynolds number,Re always

= Average aspect ratios

You might also like