1

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Selecting Principal Parameters of Baseline Design
Configuration for Twin Turboprop Transport Aircraft
K Ibrahim*
Bangalore 560 094, Karnataka State, India
Figure of merit expressions for principal design parameters in terms of performance and other design
parameters have been derived or extracted from where available. Where analytical expressions were
found to be infeasible heuristic approach has been adopted. Design and performance data of twin
turboprop transport aircraft have been analyzed. Simple and effective correlations have been evolved for
selecting principal parameters - take-off weight, operating empty weight, fuel weight fraction, wing area
and span, flap and aileron area, fuselage length and equivalent diameter, area of horizontal and vertical
tailplanes, elevator and rudder, engine power and propeller diameter - of baseline design configuration
for twin turboprop transport aircraft.
Nomenclature
A Wing aspect ratio, b
2
/S
b Wingspan, m
C Mean aerodynamic chord, m
C
Do
Zero-lift drag coefficient
C
Lmax
.
TO
Take-off lift coefficient
D Drag, kg
Di Induced drag, kg
d
P
Propeller diameter, m
e Airplane efficiency factor
h
f
Maximum depth of fuselage, m
K
1
& K
2
Constants
l Overall lenth, m
l
c
Passenger cabin length, m
l
f
Fuselage length, m
L Lift, kg
N Propeller rotation speed, rpm
N
B
Number of propeller blades
Pax Number of passengers
P Engine power, kW
P
O
Standard day sea level static power, kW
R Still air range, km
S Wing reference area, m
2
S
ail
Aileron area (aft of hinge line), m
2
S
ele
Elevator area (aft of hinge line), m
2
S
f
Trailing edge flap area, m
2
sfc Specific fuel consumption, kg/kW.h
s
G
Take-off ground run, m
s
TO
Take-off distance, m
S
ht
Horizontal tailplane area, m
2
S
r
Rudder area (aft of hinge line), m
2
S
vt
Vertical tailplane area, m
2
V Airplane speed, m/s or km/h
w
f
Maximum width of fuselage, m
W
F
Internal fuel weight, kg
W
OE
Operating empty weight, kg
W
TO
Take-off weight, kg
Propulsive efficiency
Taper ratio
Ratio of ambient air density to standard
day sea level air density
I. Introduction
Compliance of airworthiness requirements with one engine inoperative (OEI) dictates the choice of many
design parameters in the case of twin turboprop transport aircraft. These aircraft offer speed advantage over
pistonprops and fuel economy over turbofans. It is, therefore, considered appropriate to treat these aircraft as a
separate class and evolve design norms.
Comprehensive exposition of aircraft conceptual design with simplified but complete set of first order
analytical methods with special emphasis on aircraft configuration layout is provided by Raymer
1
. Roskam
2
presents a rapid method for preliminary sizing in terms of take-off weight, empty weight, mission fuel weight,
take-off power, wing area and aspect ratio of regional turboprop airplanes to given mission specification.
Roskam
3
provides configuration data for the same airplanes and suggests a range for each parameter.
In this paper figure of merit expressions for principal design parameters in terms of performance and other
design parameters have been derived or extracted from where available. Where analytical expressions were
found to be infeasible heuristic approach has been adopted. Design and performance data
4-9
of twin turboprop
transport aircraft, some basic parameters of which are listed in Table 1, has been analyzed. It is assumed that
for a category of airplanes, orders of magnitude of zero-lift drag coefficient, airplane efficiency factor, propeller
efficiency, specific fuel consumption of engines at cruise altitude, levels of static stability about longitudinal and
directional axes, remain same. Simple and effective correlations have been evolved for selecting principal
parameters - take-off and operating empty weights, fuel weight fraction, wing area and span, flap and aileron
area, fuselage length and equivalent diameter, area of horizontal and vertical tailplanes, elevator and rudder,
engine power and propeller diameter - of baseline design configuration for twin turboprop transport aircraft.
* Dy. General Manager (Retd.), Aircraft Research & Design Centre, HAL, Bangalore, India.
22nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit
16 - 19 August 2004, Providence, Rhode Island
AIAA 2004-5069
Copyright 2004 by Ibrahim K. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Full payload still air range (R), km
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
e
i
g
h
t
,

W
T
O
/
P
a
x
.
k
m
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Specific weight, kg/Pax.km = 0.0601 + 321.3571/R
Fig. 1 Aircraft specific weight
Standard day sea level static power (P
O
), kW/100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

f
u
e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
s
f
c
)
,

k
g
/
k
W
/
h
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Fig. 2 Turboprop engine performance
Take-off weight (W
TO
), kg
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

e
m
p
t
y

w
e
i
g
h
t

(
W
O
E
)
,

k
g
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
W
OE
= 0.6185 W
TO
Fig. 3 Operating Empty weight
II. Take-Off Weight
During the conceptual design stage of a new aircraft,
before the first 3-view drawing is created, knowledge of the
maximum take-off weight is essential. The weight
estimation method dealt herein emphasizes simplicity to
provide a fast but reasonably accurate tool for computing the
initial take-off weight of an aircraft when only the basic
mission requirements, typical passenger capacity and range
are known.
It is assumed that maximum take-off weight is primarily
influenced by number of passengers corresponding to full
payload at a typical seating density and distance (still air
range) over which they are transported
10
. Accordingly,
specific weight viz., take-off weight per passenger seat per
kilometer of still air range with full payload, is correlated
with full payload still air range in Fig. 1. It is seen that
specific weight decreases with increase in range. Long range
is associated with large aircraft equipped with powerful
engines. A survey of turboprop engine performance
9
reveals
that specific fuel consumption decreases with increase in
power (Fig. 2). This is primarily due to Reynolds number
effect. Large aircraft structures can be designed more
efficiently from the point of view of weight. These two
reasons contribute to reduction in specific weight with
increase in range. Equation of the regressed line upon modification yields the following expression for take-off
weight.
R . Pax 0601 . 0 Pax 357 . 321 W
TO
+ = (1)
III. Operating Empty Weight
Operating empty weight has been declining over the
years due to a) availability of more advanced and powerful
methods of structural analysis enabling the design to be
more efficient from weight point of view and b) maximum
use of composites in the primary structure of fuselage and
wing
10
.
Operating empty weight also depends on useful load
and range. Accordingly operating empty weight is correlated
with maximum take-off weight (Fig. 3). Equation of the
regressed line is as under.
TO OE
W 6185 . 0 W = (2)
IV. Fuel Weight Fraction
Mission requirements specify range on internal fuel. Knowing airplane aerodynamics and engine
performance internal fuel can be computed by analytically flying the flight profile. However, during conceptual
design phase lack of aerodynamic details and engine performance precludes from carrying out such an exercise.
A correlation, therefore, is evolved to compute fuel weight fraction based on the requirement of still air range on
internal fuel.
The Breguet range equation for propeller driven aircraft is given below.

n
=
) W / W ( 1
1
ln
sfc
) D / L (
K R
TO F
1
(3)
Approximating

) W / W ( 1
1
ln
TO F
by
|
|
.
|

\
|
TO
F
W
W
, substituting for
Do max
C
e A
2
1
D
L t
= |
.
|

\
|
and assuming that the orders of magnitude of n, e, C
Do
, and specific fuel consumption at cruise altitude remain
same for turboprop transport airplanes, expression for fuel weight fraction turns out to be as under.
A
R
W
W
TO
F
o
|
|
.
|

\
|
(4)
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Range parameter, (R/Sqrt A)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
F
u
e
l

w
e
i
g
h
t

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

(
W
f
/
W
T
O
)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
W
f
/W
TO
= 0.1546 + 0.1119 (R /1000 Sqrt A)
Fig. 4 Fuel weight fraction
Take-off weight (W
TO
), kg
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
W
i
n
g

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

(
W
T
O
/
S
)
,

k
g
/
m
2
100
200
300
400
500
C
o
n
ve
n
tio
n
a
l ta
k
e
-o
ff a
n
d
la
n
d
in
g
S
hort take-off and landing
Avanti
CBA-123 Q300 ATR 72
ATR 42
N250
W/S = 3.4123 W
TO
0.4787
W/S = 3.3084 W
TO
0.4503
Fig. 5 Wing loading
Accordingly fuel fractions of twin turboprop
transport aircraft have been correlated with their
corresponding values of range and aspect ratio in Fig.
4. All the points stand regressed along a straight line.
Expression for the regressed line is given below.

+ =
|
|
.
|

\
|
A 1000
R
1119 . 0 1546 . 0
W
W
TO
F
(5)
V. Wing Loading
Large wing area leads to increased weight and drag to the detriment of aircraft performance. Flight segments
where profile drag is prominent such as high-speed cruise and maximum Mach number at altitude favour a small
wing. Whereas, short take-off and landing, cruise for maximum range and endurance and loiter considerations
demand a large wing area. Influence of wing area on rate of climb and time to climb to altitude is relatively
weak. Wing loading is thus determined from field performance and cruise considerations. However, industry
design practices suggest that the wing area is more or less defined by field performance requirements.
Take-off distance is sum total of ground distances
a) from brakes release to lift-off and b) from lift-off to
passing the 15.24m (50) obstacle. Figure of merit
expression for take-off ground run in terms of relative
design parameters is given below.
( )
5 . 1
TO . max . L
TO
5 . 1
TO
G
C
) S / W ( ) P / W (
s

no
o (6)
It is assumed that for a class of airplanes ground
distance from lift-off to passing over the 15.24m
obstacle is proportional to take-off ground run. Hence
( )
5 . 1
TO . max . L
TO
5 . 1
TO
TO
C
) S / W ( ) P / W (
s

no
o (7)
For the twin turboprop transport aircraft, types of high lift devices employed are single and double slotted
and fowler flaps excepting one with split flap. Take-off lift coefficient, which is a fraction of maximum lift
coefficient that can be achieved deploying these devices for achieving desired take-off distance, has almost
reached a plateau. Therefore for a specified power loading, reduction in take-off distance can be achieved
through appropriate choice of wing loading.
Data of twin turboprop transport aircraft plotted in Fig. 5 broadly segregates into two groups. Data points of
short take-off and landing (STOL) aircraft (upright triangles) numbering 8 are aligned with one group. Though,
other aircraft in this group have not been identified as short take-off and landing, it can be inferred that they have
the capability in terms of wing area. This group, therefore, can be identified as short take-off and landing
category. The other group belongs to conventional take-off and landing (CTOL).
Piaggio P.180 Avanti and EMB/FMA CBA-123 aircraft are high-speed designs. Their wing loading chosen
from the max speed criterion, therefore, is higher than the rest. Data points of Canadian DHC-8 Dash 8 Q300,
Indonesian ITPN N-250, and Aerospatiale/Alenia ATR 42 and ATR 72 lie between these regressed lines
suggesting that their designs cater for short take-off and landing to a limited extent. Equations of the regressed
lines for the above two categories of aircraft are as under.
4787 . 0
TO TO
W 4123 . 3 S / W = for CTOL and
4503 . 0
TO TO
W 3084 . 3 S / W = for STOL (8)
VI. Span Loading
Airplane induced drag can be expressed as below.

p t
=
2 2
2
i
b V e
W 2
D
It is seen from the above equation that the most powerful design parameter for reducing induced drag is span
loading (W
TO
/b). It is span loading that determines how efficiently the wing performs its lifting function.
Induced drag during second segment climb and maximum lift to drag ratio during cruise for range and endurance
form the criteria for selecting span loading. Span loading of twin turboprop transport aircraft is correlated with
take-off weight in Fig. 6. Like in the case of wing loading, span loading also segregates into two groups;
conventional take-off and landing and short take-off and landing. Equations of the regressed lines are as under.
6352 . 0
TO TO
W 5112 . 1 b / W = for CTOL and
6935 . 0
TO TO
W 7475 . 0 b / W = for STOL (9)
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Take-off weight (W
TO
), kg
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
S
p
a
n

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

(
W
T
O
/
b
)
,

k
g
/
m
100
300
500
700
900
1100
W
TO
/b = 1.5112 W
TO
0.6352
W
TO
/b = 0.7475 W
TO
0.6935
C
o
n
v
e
n
tio
n
a
l ta
k
e
-o
ff a
n
d
la
n
d
in
g
S
h
o
rt ta
k
e
-o
ff a
n
d
la
n
d
in
g
Fig. 6 Span loading
Aspect Ratio
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
T
a
p
e
r

R
a
t
i
o
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 7 Wing taper ratio
VII. Thickness Ratio
A study of the thickness ratios employed on twin
turboprop transport aircraft suggests that the choice of
thickness ratio is influenced by considerations other
than aerodynamic. Thickness ratios so chosen, however,
would satisfy the aerodynamic requirements too. The
study did not yield a meaningful correlation. It,
however, suggested a broad band with 18% at root as
the upper bound and 12% at the tip as the lower bound,
excepting Fokker 27 and Fokker 50 with a thickness
ratio of 21% at the root.
VIII. Sweep
A small sweep of less than 10 deg is employed
more for suitably locating the airplane centre of gravity
rather than to reduce the adverse effects of transonic
and supersonic flow.
IX. Taper Ratio
At moderate to high lift coefficients corresponding to subsonic cruise induced drag forms significant (>50%)
part of airplane total drag. Incorporation of appropriate taper results in near elliptical loading along the span and
consequently minimum induced drag Rectangular-tapered and double-tapered wings approximate almost the
elliptical lift distribution along the span
11
. Rectangular-tapered wing planforms are quite popular with twin
turboprop transport aircraft wherein engines are installed on the wings. Added advantage with rectangular-
tapered wing planforms is that they provide adequate space and strength for the installation of engines. Embraer
EMB-120 Brasilia has double tapered wing planform.
Twin turboprop transport aircraft have straight or
nearly straight wings. Taper ratio recommended
12
for
subsonic aircraft with straight wings is about 0.46.
However a survey of the taper ratios employed for
twin turboprop transport aircraft suggests that taper
ratio is related to wing aspect ratio. Accordingly
Fig. 7 depicts variation of taper ratio with aspect
ratio. Dispersion of data points did not permit a
meaningful correlation. It, however, suggests a
decrease in taper ratio with increasing aspect ratio for
effectively reducing the root bending moment.
X. Wing Tip Shape
Wingtip shape affects lift dependent drag through lateral spacing of tip vortices. The larger the spacing
between the tip vortices, the lower is the induced drag. The tip vortex tends to be located approximately at the
trailing edge of the wing tip. An aft swept wing tip (Dornier 228 and 328, CASA/ITPN CN-235 and CASA C-
212 and C-295) with a larger trailing edge span, therefore, has lower induced drag. Experimental investigations
13
on several tip shapes reveal that swept wing tips promise a benefit of about 15 per cent in lift dependent drag.
XI. Ailerons
The ailerons provide roll control to the airplane. Aileron power must be adequate to a) provide desired roll
rate to the airplane, b) overcome the rolling moments arising during cross wind take-off and landing, and c)
effect required bank angle for a coordinated turn under specific conditions of flight. Requirement at a) generally
forms the design criterion.
While providing a steady roll rate, ailerons must overcome wing damping due to roll. Accordingly,
correlation (Fig. 8) of aileron area, excluding those with spoilers, with wing area results in a broad band. The
following regression lines define the upper and lower bounds.
S 0727 . 0 2540 . 0 S
ail
+ = (Upper bound) (10)
S 0559 . 0 0097 . 0 S
ail
+ = (Lower bound) (11)
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Wing area (S), m
2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
A
i
l
e
r
o
n

a
r
e
a

(
S
a
il )
,

m
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Aileron area (S
ail
) = 0.254 + 0.0727 S
Aileron area (S
ail
) = 0.0097 + 0.0559 S
Q100+
spoilers
Q400+
spoilers
G222+
spoilers
M-28+
spoilers
Q300+
spoilers
Arava+
spoilers
Fig. 8 Aileron area
Wing area (S), m
2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
T
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

e
d
g
e

f
l
a
p

a
r
e
a

(
S
f )
,

m
2
0
4
8
12
16
20
Trailing edge flap area (S
f
) = -2.491 + 0.244 S
C-212
EMB-120
DHC-6
Fig. 9 Trailing edge flap area
Pax
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F
u
s
e
l
a
g
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

(
l
f
)
,

m
5
10
15
20
25
30
l
f
= 4.1961 Pax
0.4388
Fig. 10 Fuselage length
Fuselage length (l
f
), m
10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5
F
u
s
e
l
a
g
e

e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(
d
e
)
,

m
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.0
d
e
= 0.8117 + 0.0905 l
f
d
e
= 0.6249 + 0.0877 l
f
N
a
rro
w
b
o
d
ie
s
R
e
la
tiv
e
ly
w
id
e
r b
o
d
ie
s
Fig. 11 Fuselage equivalent diameter
XII. Trailing Edge Flap Area
Trailing edge flaps employed on twin turboprop
transport aircraft are single and double slotted and
fowler type. The mission requirement of stall speed
with flaps deployed forms the design driver for sizing
the flap area and selecting the deflection angle.
However, a survey of the flap areas for twin turboprop
transport aircraft suggests that flap area is related to
gross wing area. Regarding deflection angle, with a
view to derive full benefit, designer prefers to employ
angles (35 to 50 deg.) corresponding to the largest
increment in maximum lift coefficient. Correlation of
flap area (excluding three data points) with wing area
(Fig. 9) yields the following expression.
S 244 . 0 491 . 2 S
f
+ = (12)
XIII. Fuselage
Fuselage geometry is primarily defined in terms of its
length and maximum width and depth. Number of
passengers, seating layout, and space provision for
baggage and freight dictate the length of passenger cabin.
Passenger cabin length (l
c
) in turn influences overall
length of the fuselage (l
f
). It can thus be inferred that
overall length of fuselage is dependent on number of
passengers. Accordingly fuselage length is correlated with
number of passengers in Fig. 10. Expression for the
regressed line is as under.
4388 . 0
f
Pax 1961 . 4 l = (13)
Fuselage equivalent diameter is obtained from
another correlation (Fig. 11) applicable to narrow and
relatively wider bodies depending upon seat layout, using
the following expressions.
f e
l 0877 . 0 6249 . 0 d + = (Narrow bodies) (14)
f e
l 0905 . 0 8117 . 0 d + = (Wider bodies) (15)
The above values are used to make a layout and arrive
at refined dimensions. These two correlations together
suggest number of seats abreast. With a view to avoid
adverse pressure gradients and associated increase in drag,
suggested slenderness ratio is not less than 1.5 for nose
cone and is close to 2.0 for tail cone.
XIV. Horizontal Tailplane Area
Major contributions to airplane longitudinal static
stability come from fuselage and horizontal tailplane.
While providing the required level of longitudinal static
stability to the airplane, the horizontal tailplane
overcomes the destabilising contribution of the fuselage.
Therefore, airplane longitudinal static stability can be
broadly expressed as
( ) ( )
fus m ht m m
C C C
o o o
+ = (16)
Assuming that the order of magnitude of longitudinal
static stability for twin turboprop transport aircraft
remains same and substituting for contributions of
horizontal tailplane and fuselage in the equation (18)
yield the following expression.

+ =

C S
l w
t tan Cons
C S
l S
f
2
f ht ht
(17)
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Fuselage volume coefficient (w
f
2
l
f
/SC)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

t
a
i
l

v
o
l
u
m
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
S
h
t l
f /
S
C
)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
S
ht
l
f
/SC = 0.4133 + 1.2306 w
f
2
l
f
/SC
S
ht
l
f
/SC = 0.9126 + 1.3190 w
f
2
l
f
/SC
H
ig
h ta
il co
nfigu
rations
L
o
w
a
n
d
m
id
ta
il co
n
fig
u
ra
tio
n
s
Fig. 12 Horizontal tailplane area
Wing aspect Ratio, A
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

t
a
i
l
p
l
a
n
e

a
s
p
e
c
t

r
a
t
i
o
,

A
h
t
2
4
6
8
10
Cheyenne III
G222
C212 340B
HS748
Skyvan
Twin fins
Arava
Twin boom
M-28
Twin fins
BN2T
AP68TP
T420
Twin boom
Fig. 13 Horizontal tailplane aspect ratio
Horizontal tailplane area (S
ht
), m
2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
E
l
e
v
a
t
o
r

a
r
e
a

(
S
e
le
)
,

m
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
CN235
F50
G222
Y-12
S
ele
= 0.3888 + 0.2979 S
ht
EMB110
Y7-100
L610
BN2T
Fig. 14 Elevator area
It is further assumed that horizontal tailplane arm is
proportional fuselage length. Correlation (Fig. 12) of
horizontal tailplane area with wing and fuselage
parameters segregates broadly into two groups; one
belongs to high tail configuration and the other to mid
and low tail configurations. A few points from each
group cross over. Some of the high wing and high tail
configurations seem to require a larger horizontal
tailplane. Equations of the regressed lines after
modification yield the following expressions for
horizontal tailplane area.
2
f
f
ht
w 319 . 1
l
C S
9126 . 0 S +
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (18)
for low and cruciform tail configurations and
2
f
f
ht
w 2306 . 1
l
C S
4133 . 0 S +
|
|
.
|

\
|
= for high tail configurations. (19)
The correlation conforms to the well-established design feature that high tail configurations, because of
reduced influence of wing downwash, require a smaller area. However, high tail configurations with rear
mounted engines, consequent to their centre of gravity shifting aft, result in reduced tail arm length and therefore
require a relatively larger horizontal tailplane.
XV. Horizontal Tailplane Aspect Ratio
Horizontal tailplane with a relatively large geometric aspect ratio enhances longitudinal static stability by
virtue of its high lift curve slope. Besides, large aspect ratio reduces the area exposed to the fuselage wake
thereby improving horizontal tailplane effectiveness.
Both these effects cause a reduction in horizontal
tailplane area. Increase in structural weight due to
increase in aspect ratio may balance out with that
caused by reduction in area. However, in order to
retain control of the airplane throughout the flight
envelope, horizontal tailplane ought to stall at angles of
attack greater than those at which the wing stalls. This
is accomplished through choosing a tailplane of aspect
ratio smaller than that of the wing. Accordingly aspect
ratios of the horizontal tailplane are correlated with
those of wing in Fig. 13. Horizontal tailplane aspect
ratios of most of the airplanes lie between 4 and 6.
Four of the data points that lie below 4 belong to twin boom or twin fin configurations. Two of the data point
that lie above 6, belong to airplanes with rear loading facility.
XVI. Elevator
In a classical design, elevator is sized to provide
adequate control at the most forward C.G. locations at
high angles of attack. Yet another design standard
14
suggests that during take-off and landing flight phases
elevator control power from trimmed condition should
be adequate to cause a pitch acceleration of 0.18 rad/s
2
(nose down), and 0.13 rad/s
2
(nose up). These methods,
however, demand detailed knowledge of aerodynamic,
mass and inertia characteristics of the configuration.
The higher the level of stability, the larger will be
the control power required to execute a manoeuvre.
Accordingly correlation (Fig. 14) of elevator area with
horizontal tailplane area reveals that barring four aircraft
rest of the data points stand regressed along a straight line. Of the four points that stand out Alenia G222 and
Airtech (CASA/ITPN) CN235 have broad (in plan view) rear fuselages to facilitate incorporation of rear loading
ramp, which contribute significantly to the aircraft instability. Fokker 50 engine nacelles extend well ahead and
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Fuselage volume coefficient (h
f
2
l
f
/Sb)
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
V
e
r
t
ic
a
l
t
a
il
v
o
lu
m
e

c
o
e
f
f
ic
ie
n
t

(
S
v
t l f /
S
b
)
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Saab2000
C212
S
vt
l
f
/Sb = 0.0044 + 1.5257 h
f
2
l
f
/Sb
S
vt
l
f
/Sb = 0.0715 + 1.3955 h
f
2
l
f
/Sb
Fig. 15 Vertical tailplane area
Vertical tailplane area (S
vt
), m
2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
R
u
d
d
e
r

a
r
e
a

(
S
r )
,

m
2
0
2
4
6
8
L610
Y-12
S
r
= 0.198 + 0.33 S
vt
F50
Fig. 16 Rudder area
far behind the wing chord causing large instability. Overcoming this large instability and giving desired level
stability to the aircraft demand a large horizontal tailplane. However, in all the three cases, since the level of
aircraft stability is about same as that of other aircraft, elevator area need not be commensurate with the
horizontal tailplane area. In the case of Chinese HAMC Y-12 aircraft with large elevator area nothing can be said
with certainty. Expression for the regressed line is as under.
ht ele
S 2979 . 0 3888 . 0 S + = (20)
XVII. Vertical Tailplane Area
Contribution to airplane directional static stability from wing and its relative location are negligibly small
and major contributions come from fuselage and vertical tailplane. While providing the desired level of
directional static stability to airplane, vertical tailplane overcomes the destabilising contribution of fuselage.
Therefore, airplane directional static stability can be broadly expressed as
( ) ( )
vt
n
fus
n n
C C C
| | |
+ = (21)
Assuming that the order of magnitude of directional
static stability for twin turboprop transport aircraft
remains same and substituting for the contributions of
fuselage and vertical tailplane yields the following
expression.

+ =

Sb
l h
t tan Cons
Sb
l S
f
2
f vt vt
(22)
It is further assumed that vertical tail arm is
proportional to fuselage length. Correlation (Fig. 15) of
vertical tailplane area, excluding a couple of data points,
with wing and fuselage parameters segregates broadly
into two groups. Such segregation can be attributed to
the design practice of incorporating large vertical
tailplane to enable the airplane to continue a climbout
after take-off, rudder free, with one engine failed. Following are the expressions for the regressed lines.
2
f
f
vt
h 3955 . 1
l
Sb
0715 . 0 S +
|
|
.
|

\
|
= for the upper line and (23)
2
f
f
vt
h 5257 . 1
l
Sb
0044 . 0 S +
|
|
.
|

\
|
= for the lower line. (24)
XVIII. Rudder Area
Classical design norm is to size rudder powerful enough to a) overcome adverse yaw to enable the airplane
to execute a coordinated turn at low speeds, b) trim the airplane to maintain alignment with the runway during
crosswind take-off and landing and c) counteract the yawing moment arising from one engine inoperative
condition during take-off. Another design standard
14
prefers to size the rudder to provide a yaw acceleration of
not less than 0.2 rad/s
2
at low speeds (1.2Vs). These practices demand detailed knowledge of aerodynamic, mass
and inertia characteristics of the configuration.
Like in the case of elevator, rudder size is also
found to be primarily influenced by the vertical
tailplane area. Accordingly rudder area is correlated
with vertical tailplane area in Fig. 16. Barring three
data points, rest of the data points stand regressed
along a straight line. Following is the expression for
the regressed line.
vt r
S 33 . 0 198 . 0 S + = (25)
XIX. Engine
Optimum combination of wing loading and power loading is conventionally chosen through compliance of
point performance specified in the mission requirements. Take-off weight is derived from the range
considerations, which when used in conjunction with power loading, engine power can be deduced.
It is, however, noted that in the case of twin turboprop transport aircraft, compliance of second segment
climb gradient requirement with one engine inoperative constitutes an additional criterion arising from
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Take-off weight (W
TO
), kg
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

d
a
y

s
e
a

l
e
v
e
l

s
t
a
t
i
c

p
o
w
e
r

(
P
0
)
,

k
W

-

B
o
t
h

e
n
g
i
n
e
s
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
P
0
= 174.8 + 0.172 W
TO
Fig. 17 Engine power
airworthiness standards. It has been found that, climb
gradient requirement with one engine inoperative forms
the more stringent criterion than the point performance
stipulated in mission requirements for the choice of
power requirements.
Climb gradient =
( )

TO
W
DV P
(26)
Replacing weight by lift and reorganizing the terms in
equation (27) yields
|
|
.
|

\
|
TO
W
P
= Climb gradient +
|
|
.
|

\
|
) D / L (
V
(27)
It is assumed that orders of magnitude of climb
gradients with one engine inoperative, lift to drag ratios,
and climb speed (V
2
) during second segment remain
same for the category of aircraft under investigation.
Thus the engine power is directly related to aircraft
weight. Accordingly engine power is correlated with
aircraft weight in Fig.17.
Excepting one data point the rest stand regressed along a straight line. Equation of the regressed line is as
under.
O TO O
P W 172 . 0 8 . 174 P A + + = (28)
Last term in the above equation (AP
O
= 475 kW) accounts for the difference between the mean and the
maximum.
XX. Propeller Diameter
Choice of propeller plays an important role in efficiently converting the engine shaft power into thrust.
Current design practice is to employ constant speed (N) propellers, which ensure optimum propeller efficiency
throughout the operating flight envelope.
Salient design features of the propeller are its diameter, number of blades, blade activity factor which is
a measure of power absorbing capacity, integrated design lift coefficient which represents the weighted average
of the blade section design lift coefficients, and rotational speed.
Expression for power absorbed by the propeller can be modified to render the following figure of merit
expression for the diameter of the propeller.
( )
4
1
B
2 P
VN
N / P
K d

o
= (29)
The above expression suggests that propeller chosen for operation at high speed cruise will have smaller
diameter compared to that chosen for operation at take-off and speeds corresponding to maximum range and
endurance. Likewise diameter of propeller chosen for higher rotational speed will be smaller than that operating
at lower rotational speed.
Many of the twin turboprop transport aircraft employ P&W C PT6A series engines. Their shaft rpm ranges
from 1700 to 2300. A few of these are powered by Garrett/AlliedSignal TPE331 series engines with a shaft rpm
of 2000. Some are powered by Allison 250-B17 series engines with a shaft rpm of 2030. PW100 series engines
with shaft rpm of 1020-1300 power high-speed regional transport aircraft and those with higher take-off weight.
Allison/Rolls Royce AE2100 series advanced turboprop engines in combination with Dowty Aerospace slow
turning (take-off rpm 1100 and cruise rpm 950) propellers power Indonesian ITPN-N-250 and Swedish Saab
2000. General Electric GE CT7 series engines power Czech Let L610, Spanish/Indonesian C-235 and Swedish
Saab 340B. Dart series engines power Fokker 27 and HS 748. Besides, Russian engines also power a few of
these.
Furthermore, propellers are normally selected to absorb the maximum power likely to be developed in flight
at the most favourable atmospheric conditions (ISA). Consequently the above equation suggests that the
propeller diameter is proportional to one-fourth power of the engine power absorbed per blade. Accordingly,
propeller diameters have been correlated with power absorbed and number of blades in Fig.18.
Data segregates into two groups. Data points of propellers with varying rotational speeds discussed before,
more or less, are equally distributed between the two groups. Dispersion of data points suggests that influence of
rotational speed is small and lies within the scatter. The segregation, therefore, is attributable to airplane speed.
As stated earlier, the upper regression line corresponds to propellers operating at speeds for take-off, long range
and high endurance and the lower line corresponds to those operating at high speed cruise.
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Power absorbed per blade (P
O
/N
B
), kW
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
P
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(
d
P
)
,

m
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
d
P
= 0.3401 (P
0
/N
B
)
0.3894
d
P
= 0.2320 (P
0
/N
B
)
0.4850
L
o
w
S
p
e
e
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
io
n
H
ig
h
S
p
e
e
d
O
p
e
ra
tio
n
N250
IL114
Fig. 18 Propeller diameter
Equations of the logarithmic regression lines are
as under.
4850 . 0
B
o
p
N
P
2320 . 0 d

= (30)
applies to propellers operating at low forward speed
and at mean rotational speed of 2000 rpm applicable to
PT6A series as well as 1200 rpm applicable to PW100
series.
3894 . 0
B
o
p
N
P
3401 . 0 d

= (31)
applies to propellers operating at high forward speed
and at mean rotational speed of 2000 rpm applicable to
PT6A series as well as 1200 rpm applicable to PW100
series.
Choice of number of blades is influenced by the
ground clearance requirement and size of the undercarriage. Propeller diameter, number of blades and
undercarriage length can be mutually traded for evolving an optimum weight configuration. Propeller with a
blade activity factor of around 140 and design lift coefficient of around 0.3 for high-speed operations and 0.5-0.7
for low speed operations is suggested.
Conclusions
Simple and effective correlations have been evolved for selecting principal parameters - take-off weight,
operating empty weight, fuel weight fraction, wing area and span, flap and aileron area, fuselage length and
equivalent diameter, area of horizontal and vertical tailplanes, elevator and rudder, engine power and propeller
diameter - of baseline design configuration for twin turboprop transport aircraft. These correlations further reveal
the following.
a) Airplane specific weight decreases with increasing range and
b) Turboprop engine specific fuel consumption decreases with increasing power,
Correlations further conform to the well-established design features that
c) Wing loading and span loading are smaller for STOL aircraft than those for CTOL aircraft and
d) High tail configuration requires a smaller horizontal tailplane area.
Acknowledgements
The author expresses his deep sense of gratitude to Prof M R Ananthasayanam from Indian Institute of
Science Bangalore, India, for being a source of inspiration for publication of this work. The author thanks,
Gopalakrishna Panda, Aerodynamics Group, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India for his
constructive criticism and helpful suggestions during the preparation of this paper.
References
1 Daniel P Raymer, "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach", AIAA Education Series, 1989.
2 Jan Roskam, Airplane Design Part II: Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration of the Propulsion System.
Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation.
3 Jan Roskam, Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, DARcorporation, 1997.
4 John W R Taylor, Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1977-78 and 1984-85.
5 Paul Jackson, Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1994-95 and 1999-2000.
6 Janes at Paris Airshow 2001 Aircraft Data.
7 Airliners.net.Aircraft info and history section.url
8 Raytheon Aircraft Web Site: Weight Statements of King Air C90B, B200 and 350 Aircraft.
9 Outlook/Specifications: Gas Turbine Engines Aviation Week and Space Technology, 11 January 1999.
10 Paul W Scott and Dennis Nguyen, The Initial Weight Estimate, SAWE Paper No. 2327, 1996.
11 F X Wortmann, Drag Reduction in Sailplanes. Soaring, June-July 1966.
12 Deyoung, John Harper and Charles W, Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading at Subsonic Speeds for Wings Having
Arbitrary Planform, NACA TR 921, 1948.
13 M S Narayana et al., Effect of Wing Tip Shapes /Devices on Subsonic Wing Span efficiency - Unpublished
14 Roger H. Hoh et al., Proposed MIL Standard and Handbook Flying Qualities of Air Vehicles, AFWAL-TR-82-3081
Volume II, Nov. 1982.
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
TABLE 1 - TWIN TURBOPROP TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
No. Country Aircraft b, m S, m
2
S
ail
S
f
l, m W
OE
W
F
W
TO
, Po, kW N
B
/dp,m Sht Sele Svt Sr
1 Australia GAF N24 16.51 30.10 12.57 2377 803 4268 626 3/2.29
2 Brazil EMB 110 15.33 29.10 2.16 4.90 15.10 3590 1343 5900 1120 3/2.36 9.82 4.31 3.81 1.69
3 Brazil EMB 120 19.78 39.43 2.88 3.23 20.07 7560 2660 11990 2684 4/3.20 10.00 3.90 8.33 2.59
4 Brazil EMB Xingu I 14.45 27.5 12.25 3620 1301 5670 1010 3/
5 Brazil EMB XinguII 14.83 27.90 1.84 4.90 13.44 3500 1845 6140 1270 4/2.36 5.84 2.17 4.00 1.30
6 Canada DHC-6 19.81 39.02 3.08 10.42 15.77 3363 1026 5670 920 3/2.59 9.29 3.25 7.62 3.16
7 Canada DHC8 Q100 25.91 54.35 1.12 22.25 10310 2676 15649 2982 4/3.96 13.94 4.97 14.12 4.31
8 Canada DHC8 Q200 25.91 54.35 22.25 10434 16465 3206 4/3.96*
9 Canada DHC8 Q300A 27.43 56.21 1.87 25.68 11709 4646 18642 3550 4/3.96*
10 Canada DHC8 Q300B 27.43 56.21 25.68 19505 3728 4/3.96*
11 Canada DHC8 Q400 28.42 63.08 1.87 32.84 16537 27329 7562 6/4.11s 16.72 14.12
12 China HAMC Y-12 17.24 34.27 2.88 6.00 14.86 3200 1230 5300 924 3/2.49 7.16 4.06 5.58 3.34
13 China XAC Y-7 29.67 75.26 5.48 14.81 24.22 14988 4790 21800 4160 4/3.90 17.30 5.14 13.38 5.11
14 Czech Let L-410 19.48 34.86 2.88 5.92 14.43 4150 1300 6600 1118 5/2.30 9.56 3.03 7.30 2.70
15 Czech Let L-610 25.60 56.00 3.27 11.29 21.72 9600 2750 15100 2610 4/3.35 13.50 5.43 15.30 6.84
16 France N-262 Fregate 22.60 55.00 19.28 6360 10800 1686 3/
17 France Reims F406 15.08 23.48 1.36 3.98 11.89 2283 4468 746 3/2.36 5.81 1.66 4.05 1.50
18 Germany Dornier 328 20.98 40.00 2.42 7.61 21.28 8920 3333 13990 3250 6/3.60 9.03 3.08 11.06 3.92
19 India Dornier 228 16.97 32.00 2.71 5.87 16.56 3687 5700 1066 4/2.69 8.33 4.50 1.50
20 Indonesia N-250-50 28.00 65.00 26.63 13665 4200 22000 4878 6/3.81 16.31 14.72
21 International CBA-123 17.72 27.20 18.09 6230 2178 9500 1938 6/2.59
22 International CN-235 25.81 59.10 3.07 10.87 21.40 9800 4230 15100 2610 4/3.35 25.40 4.25 11.38 3.32
23 International ATR 42 24.57 54.50 3.12 11.00 22.67 11250 4500 18600 3220 6/3.93 11.73 3.92 12.48 4.00
24 International ATR 72 27.05 61.00 3.72 12.28 27.17 12500 5000 21500 3222 4/3.93* 12.48
25 Israel IAI Arava 20.96 43.68 1.75 8.80 13.03 4000 6804 1119 3/2.59 9.36 2.79 8.30 3.44
26 Italy Alenia G222 28.70 82.00 3.65 18.40 22.70 15700 9400 28000 5070 3/4.88 19.09 4.61 19.21 7.02
27 Italy Piaggio P.180 14.03 32.00 0.66 2.18 14.41 3479 1279 5239 1268 5/2.16 3.83 1.24 4.73 1.05
28 Itaky Piaggio P.166 13.51 26.56 11.88 4300 895 3/2.36
29 Italy AP.68TP 12.00 18.60 1.76 2.42 11.27 1680 675 3000 489 3/2.03 5.06 4.54
30 Italy SF 600A 15.00 24.00 12.21 2120 800 3605 670 3/2.29 6.44 2.76 3.04 1.35
31 Japan MU-2 11.94 16.50 10.13 2522 4050 860 3/
32 Japan Marquise 11.94 16.50 12.01 5250 1070 4/
33 Japan NAMC YS11 32.00 94.80 26.30 15419 24500 4560 4/
34 Netherlands F-27 29.00 70.00 23.56 12648 4123 20410 3460 4/3.50
35 Netherland Fokker 50 29.00 70.00 5.20 17.15 25.25 12520 4123 19950 3728 6/3.66 16.00 3.17 17.6 3.17
36 Poland PZL M-28 22.06 39.72 4.33 7.99 13.10 3917 7000 1640 5/2.82 8.85 2.56 10.00 4.00
37 Russia T-620 13.66 20.00 11.89 2480 800 3200 626 3/-
38 Russia Be-32 17.00 32.00 2.6 5.8 15.70 4760 1700 7300 1640 3/- 9.00 2.72 5.57 2.43
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
TABLE 1 - TWIN TURBOPROP TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS (Contd.)
No. Country Aircraft b, m S, m
2
Sail Sf l, m W
OE
W
F
W, kg Po, kW N
B
/dp,m S
ht
S
ele
S
vt
S
r
39 Russia Il-114 30.00 81.90 26.88 15000 6500 23500 3678 6/3.6
40 Russia T-420 13.04 20.78 9.95 2000 700 3100 626 3/- 3.78 1.55 3.40 1.48
41 Spain C-212-300 20.28 41.00 14.92 16.15 4560 1600 7700 1342 4/2.79 9.01 3.56 6.27 2.05
42 Spain C-295 25.81 - 24.45 5975 21000 3944 6/3.89
43 Sweden Saab 340B 21.44 41.81 2.12 8.07 19.73 8225 2580 13155 2610 4/3.35 11.28 3.29 7.77 2.76
44 Sweden Saab 2000 24.76 55.74 27.28 13800 4250 22800 6192 6/3.81s 18.35 13.01
45 Ukraine An-26 29.20 74.98 23.80 14750 5500 23000 4148 4/3.90 19.83 15.85
46 Ukraine An-32 29.20 74.98 6.12 15.00 23.68 17405 5500 27000 7620 4/4.70 20.30
47 Ukraine An-38 22.06 - 15.67 8800 2236 5/2.85
48 UK BN2T 14.94 30.19 2.38 3.62 10.86 1832 689 3175 596 3/1.93 6.78 3.08 3.41 1.60
49 UK BN2T 4S 16.15 32.61 2.38 3.62 12.2 908 3855 596 3/1.93
50 UK Jetstream 31 15.85 25.20 1.52 3.25 14.37 4488 1372 6950 1402 4/2.69 7.80 7.72
51 UK Jetstream 41 18.29 32.59 1.94 5.28 19.25 6416 2580 10886 2460 5/2.90 8.58 2.43 7.72
52 UK Jetstream ATP 30.63 78.32 26.00 14242 5080 23678 4102 6/4.19s
53 UK HS-748 30.02 75.4 3.98 14.83 20.42 12159 21092 3400 4/3.66 17.55 5.03 9.81 3.66
54 UK Herald 28.88 82.30 23.01 11700 19505 3210 4/
55 UK Shorts Skyvan 19.79 35.10 3.00 5.86 12.21 3331 1040 5670 1066 3/2.59 11.15 3.62 7.62 2.41
56 UK Shorts 330-200 22.76 42.10 2.55 7.74 17.69 6697 10387 1786 4/2.82 7.77 2.55 8.65 2.24
57 UK Shorts 360 22.81 42.10 21.59 7350 11793 1980 5/2.82* 9.85
58 UK Shorts360-300 22.81 42.2 21.59 12292 2124 6/
59 USA Conquest I 13.45 20.90 1.32 2.14 10.93 2668 1115 3901 670 3/2.37 5.83 1.99 3.84 1.78
60 USA Conquest II 15.04 23.56 1.37 3.99 11.89 1444 4468 948 3/2.29 6.03 1.82 4.04 1.50
61 USA CV-640 32.12 85.50 24.84 25855 4510 4/
62 USA Merlin IIIC 14.10 25.80 12.85 1969 5670 1340 4/
63 USA Metro 23 17.37 28.71 1.31 3.78 18.09 4309 7484 1640 4/2.69 5.08 1.98 5.2 1.80
64 USA Gulfstream I 23.92 56.70 19.43 10102 15935 2970 4/
65 USA Jetprop 14.22 24.70 13.52 2850 4650 1040 3/2.69
66 USA Jetprop1000 15.89 26.00 13.10 5080 1460 -
67 USA Cheyenne IA 12.40 21.30 3.12 10.57 2580 1082 4082 746 3/2.36 6.55 2.63 2.57 1.20
68 USA Cheyenne XL 13.01 21.30 11.18 4335 1119 3/2.36*
69 USA Cheyenne III 14.53 27.22 1.25 3.98 13.23 1709 5125 1074 3/2.41 5.74 2.26 4.05 1.88
70 USA Cheyenne 400 14.53 27.20 13.23 5466 1492 4/2.69
71 USA Beech C90B 15.32 27.31 1.29 2.72 10.82 3154 1136 4581 820 4/2.29 4.39 1.66 3.5 1.3
72 USA Beech B200 16.61 28.15 1.67 4.17 13.36 3864 1653 5670 1268 4/2.39 4.52 1.79 3.46 1.40
73 USA Beech B350 17.65 28.80 1.67 4.17 14.22 4380 1638 6804 1566 4/2.67
74 USA Beech 1900D 17.67 28.80 1.67 4.17 17.63 4831 2022 7688 1908 4/2.78 6.32 1.79 4.86 1.40
75 USA Starship 2000 16.60 26.10 14.05 6531 1790 5/