Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Flight Performance
Part II
SOLO HERMELIN
Table of Content
Introduction to Fixed Wing Aircraft Performance F
Earth Atmosphere i
x
Aerodynamics e
Mach Number d
W
Shock & Expansion Waves
i
Reynolds Number and Boundary Layer n
g
Knudsen Number
P
Flight Instruments a
Aerodynamic Forces r
Lift and Drag Forces t
Aerodynamic Drag I
Wing Parameters
Specific Stabilizer/Tail Configurations
2
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Table of Content (continue – 1)
Aircraft Propulsion Systems F
i
Aircraft Propellers
x
Aircraft Turbo Engines e
Afterburner d
W
Thrust Reversal Operation i
Aircraft Propulsion Summary n
g
Vertical Take off and Landing - VTOL P
Engine Control System a
Aircraft Flight Control r
t
Aircraft Equations of Motion I
Aerodynamic Forces (Vectorial)
Specific Energy
Three Degrees of Freedom Model in Earth Atmosphere
3
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
References
5
SOLO Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
7
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Assumptions:
xB yW
• Air density that varies with altitude ρ=ρ(h) V D
xW
• Drag that varies with altitude, Mach
number and control effort D = D(h,M,n) zB
and is given by a Parabolic Polar. zW
8
Return to Table of Content
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff
Assume no Vertical Takeoff
Capability.
The Takeoff distance sTO
is divided as the sum of the Transition
following distances: R
hobs
sg – Ground Run Ground Run V TO
Rotation
θ CL
V=0
sr – Rotation Distance htr
during rolling.
- Additional drag due to the landing gear
fully extended.
- Additional Lift Coefficient due to extended
flaps. Transition Climb
- Ground Effect due to proximity of the wings Ground run sg distance st distance sc
VMCG VCR
γc
The Aircraft can leave the ground when the velocity VS VT
dx T
V D
μR
dt V
T DR
W
dV
V
dt W /g
R W L Ground Reaction
Transition Climb
Average Coefficient of Friction Values μ Ground run sg distance st distance sc
Stall safety
hc
VMCG VCR
VS VT γc
dt W/g
dV T D W L 11
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff (continue – 3)
Ground Run (continue -1) R L
V W
T D R
T
D
μR
g V
R W L Ground Reaction
Transition Climb
T (Prop) Ground run sg distance st distance sc
Lift, Drag, Thrust, Resistance – lb
VS VT
Texcess(Jet)=T(Jet) -(D+μ R)
Acceleration at Take-off possible
full power with one engine
D +μ R Stop take-off if Continue take-off
engine fails before if engine fails
this point after this point
approximated by
Transition Climb
Ground run sg distance st distance sc
T T0 B V C V 2
Stall safety
1
hc
D V 2
S CD VMCG VCR
2 VS VT γc
L 1 V 2 S C
full power with one engine
d s sx gS
V a : C D C L C g
dV a V 2 bV c 2W W
Bg
dt 1 where b :
2W
dV a V 2 bV c
T
c : g 0
W 13
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff (continue – 5) T T0 B V C V 2
ds sx V D
μR
V
dV a V 2 bV c W
dt 1
Transition Climb
a V 2 bV c
Ground run sg distance st distance sc
dV
Stall safety
Integrating those equations between two hc
VMCG VCR
velocities V1 and V2 gives VS VT γc
a V22 b V2 c
Acceleration at Take-off possible
1
sg
full power with one engine
ln
a V12 b V1 c Stop take-off if Continue take-off
2a engine fails before if engine fails
this point after this point
b 1 a2 1 a1
ln
1 a 1 a
Total take-off if distance
2a b 4ac
2
1 2 2 a V1 b
a1 :
where b2 4 a c
1 1 a1 1 a2 2 a V2 b
tg ln a2 :
1 a 1 a b2 4 a c
b 4ac
2
2 1
14
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff (continue – 6)
R L
V1 0 T T0 B 0, C 0 W
then
Transition Climb
1 a V22 c Ground run sg distance st distance sc
sg ln
2a c
Stall safety
VCR
hc
W /S 1 VMCG
VS VT γc
ln
g C D C L CD CL
Acceleration at Take-off possible
1 full power with one engine
T0 / W C LT
Stop take-off if
engine fails before
Continue take-off
if engine fails
2W / S
C LT : & VT : V2
VT2
1 Z 1
A further simplification, using ln Z , gives
1 Z
W /S
sg T0 W /S
g C LT 0
T
W g C LT s g 15
W
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
R L
Takeoff (continue – 7) D
μR
T
Rotation Distance W
At the ground roll and just prior to going into transition phase, most aircraft are
Rotated to achieve an Angle of Attack to obtain the desired Takeoff Lift Coefficient
CL. Since the rotation consumes a finite amount of time (1 – 4 seconds), the distance
traveled during rotation sr, must be accounted for by using
sr Vt t
Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
Ground Run V TO θ CL
V=0
htr
sg sr str sCL
sTO
16
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff (continue – 8)
Transition Distance
In the Transition Phase the Aircraft is in the Air (μ = 0) and turn to the Climb Angle.
The Equation of Motion are:
d s sx V W / g
dV T D Transition
R
dt W/g hobs
Rotation
Ground Run V TO θ CL
T D
V=0
htr
dV sg sr str sCL
sTO
W Va2 VT2
st
2g T D
Va VT
t W Va VT
t
2g T D
17
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff (continue – 9)
Climb Distance
The Climb Distance is evaluated from the following (see Figure):
c 1
hc hc
sc
tan c c
C k C L ,c
2 htr
T D T
c c D0 sg sr str sCL
W Lc W C L ,c sTO
We have
hc
sc
T / W CD 0 / CL ,c k CL ,c
18
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Takeoff (continue – 10)
Takeoff Summary
sTO s g sr st sc Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
Ground Run V TO θ CL
hc
sc Climb Phase 19
T / W CD 0 / CL ,c k CL ,c
Summary of takeoff requirements
In order to establish the allowable
takeoff weight for a transport
category airplane, at any airfield,
the following must be considered:
• Airfield pressure altitude
• Temperature
• Headwind component
• Runway length
• Runway gradient or slope
• Obstacles in the flight path
4. The Ground Run after the Touchdown the Aircraft must reduce the speed to reach a
sufficient low one to be able to turn off the runway. For this it can use Thrust Reverse (if
available), spoilers or drag parachutes (like F-15 or MIG-21) and brakes are applied.
21
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Landing (continue – 1)
Descending Phase
The Aircraft is aligned with the landing runaway at an altitude hg and a gliding angle γ.
The Aircraft Glides toward the runway at a steady speed and rate of descent, until it reaches
The altitude ht at which it goes to Transition Phase, turning with a Radius of Turn R. The
Descending Range on the ground is :
hg ht hg R cos 1 hg R
sg
tan tan
Transition
hg Touchdown
hf
Float
Glide sg Flare st sf Ground Run sgr
Airborne Phase
22
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Landing (continue – 2)
Transition Phase γ
Float Phase
In this phase the Pilot brings the nose wheel to the ground at the touchdown velocity Vt:
s f Vt t
Transition
hg Touchdown
hf
Float
Glide sg Flare st sf Ground Run sgr
Airborne Phase
24
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Landing (continue – 4)
γ
Transition
Ground Run Phase hg Touchdown
hf
are:
gS
T T0 B V C V 2 a : C D , gr C L , gr
Cg
2W W
d s sx V
where b :
Bg
dV a V 2 bV c 2W
dt 1 T
c : g 0
dV a V 2 bV c W
1 a V22 b V2 c b 1 a2 1 a1 2 a V1 b
sg ln ln a1 :
2 a a V12 b V1 c 2 a b 2 4 a c 1 a1 1 a2 b2 4 a c
where 2 a V2 b
1 a1 1 a2 a2 :
1 b2 4 a c
tg ln
b 2 4 a c 1 a2 1 a1
1 a V12 c
sg ln gS
2 a a V22 c
where
a : C D , gr C L , gr a1 :
2 a V1
2W 4ac
1 a1 1 a2 T a2 :
2 a Vtouchdown
tg
1
ln c : g 0 b 4ac
4 a c 1 a2 1 a1 W
For the Landing Ground Run Phase the following must included:
• if Thrust Reversal exists we must change T0 to – T0_reversal .
• The Drag Coefficient CD0,gr must consider:
- the landing gear fully extended.
- spoilers or drag parachutes (if exist)
• μ – the friction coefficient must be increased to describe the brakes effect.
26
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Landing (continue – 6)
Summary γ
Transition
hg Touchdown
Descent Phase hf
hg Vt 2 / nt 1
Float
hg h f hg R cos
Glide sg Flare st sf Ground Run sgr
sg Airborne Phase
Transition Phase
Vt
2
Vt
st R tt
nt 1 g Vt / R nt 1 g
Float Phase
s f Vt t
Ground Run Phase
1 a V12 c
sg ln gS
2 a a V22 c
where
a : C D , gr C L , gr a1 :
2 a V1
2W 4ac
1 a1 1 a2 T a2 :
2 a Vtouchdown
tg
1
ln c : g 0 b 4ac
4 a c 1 a2 1 a1 W
27
Return to Table of Content
28
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
The forces acting on an airplane in Level Flight are
Lift
shown in Figure
Equations of motion:
L W 0
Quasi-Static
T D0 Thrust Drag
x V
h 0 Weight
2W
L
1
V 2 S CL W CL
2 SV 2
1 1
D V 2 S CD V 2 S CD0 k CL T
2 2
2
1 2 4kW 2 1 2kW 2
D V S CD 0 2 4 2 V S CD 0
2
2
2 V S 2 V S
29
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
1 2kW 2
D V S CD 0
2
2 V 2 S
Thrust Drag
ParasiteDrag Induced Drag Weight
2kW 2
The velocity of minimum Total
V* V 2S
Drag is
2W k
V 4 V*
S CD 0
30
We see that the velocity of minimum Total Drag is equal to the Reference Velocity.
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
1 2kW 2
D V S CD 0
2
2 V 2 S
Thrust Drag
ParasiteDrag Induced Drag Weight
and
2kW 2
V 2S
V*
31
Comparison of Takeoff Weight and Empty Weight of different Aircraft
2 VS
Weight
2W 3 CD 0
CL,mp 3 CL
*
S Vmp
2
k
8 kW 2 W Vmp
emp
CL ,mp
3 CD 0 / k
3 1
0.866 e* PR ,min 33
CD 0 k CL ,mp
2
C D 0 k 3 CD 0 / k 4 k CD 0 3 Vmp S 0.866 e*
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Power
Available Aircraft Power and Thrust
Pa, propeller
• Propeller Lift
Weight
Lift
Thrust
TA, jet small variation with airspeed
Ta, jet
• Throttle Effect
T TA 0 1
V
Level Flight
A
Pa, propeller B
To have a Level Flight the requirement must be satisfied by
the available propulsion performance. ηaPa, propeller
• For a Propeller Aircraft, the available power Pa,propeller , at
a given altitude h, is almost insensitive with changes in Pmin PR
velocity. The Velocity in Level Flight is steady when the
graph of Required Power PR intersects the graph of
Pa,propeller at points A and B. We get two velocities Vmin (h) Vmin Vmax
at A and Vmax (h) at B. By controlling the Propeller Power
ηa Pa,propeller (0< ηa <1) we can reach any velocity between Propeller Aircraft
Vmin (h) and Vmax (h).
Jet Aircraft 35
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Lift
We have
Weight
1
2
2 2 1
2
2
T D V S CD 0 k CL V S CD 0
2kW 2
V 2S
Define V 2W k
u : , V * : 4
V* S CD 0
A
* Ta, jet B
C CD0
e : L * , C L *
*
, CD * 2 CD 0
CD k η Ta, jet
Dmin
T e* T 2
z : TR
W W k CD 0
Vmin Vmax
2W k
Jet Aircraft
2 V2 S CD 0
T
W k CD 0
2W k V2
u4 2 z u2 1 0
2z S CD 0 1/ u 2
36
2
u
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
u4 2 z u2 1 0 Weight
Solving we obtain
umin z z 2 1
A
Ta, jet B
umax z z 1 2
η Ta, jet
Dmin
2W k
Vmin uminV * umin 4 TR
S CD 0
2W k
Vmax umax V * umax 4 Vmin Vmax
S CD 0
Jet Aircraft
V 2W k
u : , V * : 4
V* S CD 0
*
CL CD0
e* : *
, CL * , CD * 2 CD 0
CD k
T e* T 2 37
z :
W W k CD 0
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Weight
umin z z 2 1
umax z z 2 1 umax z z 2 1
V 2W k
u : , V * : 4
V* S CD 0
C
*
CD0 umin z z 2 1
e : L * , C L *
*
, CD * 2 CD 0
CD k
T e* T 2
z :
W W k CD 0
At the absolute Ceiling (when is only one possible velocity) we have umax = umin, therefore
z = 1.
Vstall
2W 38
S CL ,max
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Drag Characteristics
39
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Aircraft Range in Level Flight
Range in Level Flight of Jet Aircraft Lift
Equations of motion:
L W 0 Thrust Drag
T D0
Weight
x V
h 0
We add the equation of fuel consumption
W c T
c – specific fuel consumption
We assume that fuel consumption is constant for a given altitude.
d x d x dW
V
d t dW d t
dx V V T D V
40
d W W cT cD
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Aircraft Range in Level Flight
Range in Level Flight of Jet Aircraft Lift
dx V
Thrust Drag
dW cD
The quantity dx/dW is called the “Instantaneous Range” Weight
41
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Aircraft Range in Level Flight
Range in Level Flight of Jet Aircraft Lift
Wf C 1 dW
R : x f xi L V
Wi
CD c W Thrust Drag
The velocity changes (decreases) since the weight W decreases due to fuel
consumption.
Wf C 1
R
Wi C
L
2 d W 2 CL
S W c CD
W f Wi
D c
42
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Aircraft Range in Level Flight
a. Range at Constant Altitude of Jet Aircraft Lift
Wf C 1
R
Wi C
L
2 d W 2 CL
S W c CD
W f Wi
D c
Thrust Drag
Rmax
2 CL
c CD
W f Wi
max
CL CL
CD CD 0 k CL
2
max max
1 CD 0 k CL2
2 CL k CL
d CL 2 CL
0 CD 0 3 k CL2 0
d CL CD 0 k CL2
C D0 kC L
2 2
1 CD 0 1
CL
*
The maximum range is obtained when CL
3 k 3
2W t 2W t 4
The Velocity at maximum range is V t 4 3 3 V * t
S CL / 3
*
S CL *
43
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Aircraft Range in Level Flight
b. Range at Constant Velocity of Jet Aircraft Lift
Wf C 1 d W V C L Wi
R L V ln
Thrust Drag
Wi
D
C c W c D Wf
C
Weight
2Wi 2Wi k
V* 4
S CL *
S CD 0
To keep Velocity V constant when weight W decreases, the air density ρ must
also decrease, hence the Aircraft will gain (qvasistatic) altitude
d h d h dW
0 e h / h0 c p P 44
dt dt dt
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
W cP P Weight
cp – specific fuel consumption (consumed per unit power developed by the engine per
unit time
We assume that fuel consumption is constant for a given altitude.
d x d x dW
V
d t dW d t
dx V V
d W W cp P
PR D V - Required Power
D V
PR PA P
PA p P - Available Power p
45
ηp – propulsive efficiency
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
dx V p LW L p C p
L Weight
dW cp P cp D D cp W CD c p W
Wf C p d W
Integration gives R : x f x f L
Wi
CD c p W
We assume
• Angle of Attack is kept constant throughout cruise, therefore e = CL/CD is
constant
• ηp is independent on flight velocity
p Wi
R e ln Bréguet Range Equation
cp Wf
The maximum range of Propeller Aircraft in Level Flight is
p Wi p 1 W 46
Rmax e* ln ln i
cp W f c p 2 k CD 0 W f
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
The Bréguet Range Equation
The Bréguet range equation determines the maximum flight
distance. The key assumptions are that SFC, L/D, and flight speed,
V are constant, and therefore take-off, climb, and descend portions
of flights are not well modeled (McCormick, 1979; Houghton,
1982).
V L / D Winitial
Range ln
g SFC W
final
where
where SFC, L/D, and Wstructure are technology parameters while Wfuel, Wpayload, and Wreserve
are operability parameters.
47
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
2W t
V t V *
k
4
S CD 0
We have W c T
Thrust Drag
dt
cT cD cD W c W
Wf e dW
Integrating we obtain t
Wi c W
Assuming that the Angle of Attack is held constant throughout the flight, e =C L/CD is constant
e Wi e* Wi
t ln tmax ln
1 W
ln i
c Wf c W f 2 c k CD 0 W f
49
The Maximum Endurance for Jet Aircraft occurs for e = e*, CL = CL*, V = V*, D = Dmin.
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Aircraft Endurance in Level Flight
The Endurance of an Airplane remains in the air and is
usually expressed in hours. Lift
We have
cp – specific fuel consumption (consumed per unit power Weight
p dW L W p L 1 dW p 1 dW
dt e
c p D V cp D V W cp V W
Integrating we obtain
Wf p 1 dW
t e
Wi cp V W
Assuming that the Angle of Attack is held constant throughout the flight, e =C L/CD is constant
The Endurance of Propeller Aircraft depends on Velocity, therefore we will assume two cases
1. Flight at Constant Altitude
2. Flight with Constant Velocity
50
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Endurance of Propeller Aircraft in Level Flight
Wf p 1 dW CL
t e e Lift
Wi cp V W CD
The velocity will change to compensate for the decrease in weight Weight
1 2W
We have W L S V 2C L V
2 S CL
2 p CL 3 / 2
S 1 1
t
c p CD 2 W f Wi
For Maximum Endurance Propeller Aircraft has to fly at that Angle of Attack such that
(CL3/2/CD) is maximum, which occurs when CL=√3 CL* and V = 0.76 V*.
2 p 1
27
S 1 1
t max
c p 4 k 3CD 0
2 W f Wi
51
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
Endurance of Propeller Aircraft in Level Flight
Wf p 1 dW CL
t e e Lift
Wi cp V W CD
Thrust Drag
2. Propeller Aircraft Flight with Constant Velocity
Weight
p 1 Wi
t e ln
cp V Wf
For Maximum Endurance Propeller Aircraft has to fly at a velocity such that e=(CL/CD) is
maximum, which occurs when CL=CL* and V = V*, which is based on initial weight Wi
1
V*
2Wi
2Wi
4
k e*
S CL *
S CD 0 2 k CD 0
p 1 Wi p 1 2Wi k W p Wi 1 W
t max e* ln 4 ln i 4 ln i
cp V *
W f c p 2 k CD 0 S CD 0 W f c p 2 S k CD 0
3
Wf
52
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Graphical Finding of Maximum Range and
Endurance of Jet Aircraft in Level Flight Lift
Maximum Range
V
R d x
Thrust Drag
d
W
c D 0
Weight
V D
Rmax max min
V
D V
V
From Figure we can see that min (D/V) is D=TR
1
t max max min D Velocities for Maximum Range and Maximum
V
D V Endurance of Propeller Aircraft
From Figure we can see that min (PR) is 53
obtained by taking the PR and V for (PR)min.
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Graphical Finding of Maximum Range and
Lift
Endurance of Propeller Aircraft in Level Flight
Maximum Range
V p V p V Thrust Drag
R d x W
d W
d dW
c p P 0 c p PR 0 c p D V 0 Weight
V P
Rmax max min R min D
V
PR V
V V
55
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00-80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
56
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00-80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
57
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00-80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Jet Aircraft Flight Envelope Determined by Available Thrust
Flight Envelope: Encompasses all Altitudes
and Airspeeds at which Aircraft can Fly Lift
Thrust Drag
Weight
Required
Thrust Excess Thrust
Flight Ceiling by the provides the ability
Available
available Climb Rate Thrust Thrust
- Absolute 0 ft/min E to accelerate or climb
- Service 100 ft/min
- Performance 200 ft/min
True Airspeed
Required
Absolute Ceiling AvailableThrust
Service Ceiling E C Thrust D
Altitude Performance Ceiling Thrust
C D True Airspeed
Available Changes in Jet Aircraft
Thrust Thrust with Altitude
A B A B
Required
Thrust Thrust
True Airspeed
True Airspeed
h0
Pa, propeller Thrust Drag
h1 Weight
h2
A hcruise
VC
Return to Table of Content
To find graphically the maximum Flight Altitude (Ceiling) for a Propeller Aircraft we use
the PR (Power Required) versus V (Velocity) graph. The maximum Flight Altitude
corresponds to maximum Range Rmax.
We have shown that to find Rmax we draw the Tangent Line to PR Graph, passing trough
the origin.
The intersection point A with PR Graph defines the Ceiling Velocity VC, and the Pa 59
(Available Power – function of Altitude) with this point defines the Ceiling Altitude.
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Gliding Flight
A Glider is an unpowered airplane.
Equations of motion:
Quasi-Steady L W cos 0 L W
1
Flight D W sin 0 D W 0
x V cos
x V
h V sin
h V
W 0
W const .
Lift and Drag Forces:
1 2W
L V 2 S CL W V
2 S CL
1 1
D V 2 S C D V 2 S C D 0 k C L W
2 2
2
D W L D C 1
D
W L CL e
60
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Gliding Flight
We found
D W L D C 1
V
2W D
W L CL e
S CL
Dmin 1
min 2 k C L 2 k C D 0
*
W emax CL * CL
The flight velocity for the Flattest Glide is equal to the reference velocity V* or 61u = 1.
The Flattest Glide is conducted at constant dynamic pressure.
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Gliding Flight
LIFT to DRAG
RATIO (L/D)max CLEAR CONFIGURATION
L/D
LANDING CONFIGURATION
LIFT COEFFICIENT, CL
LANDING CONFIGURATION
RATE OF
(L/D)max CLEAR CONFIGURATION
SINK
VELOCITY
Gliding Performance
62
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Gliding Flight
Distance Covered with respect to Ground
We have:
dx
V
dt dx V 1 L
e
dh
V dh V D
dt
Assuming a constant Angle of Attack during Glide, e is constant and the Ground
Range R, to descend from altitude hi to altitude hf is given by:
e d h e hi h f e h
hf
R : x f xi e
hi 1
and h
2 k CL *
Rmax emax h
2 k CD 0
CL * CL
CL/CD as a function of CL
The maximum Ground Range is covered for the Flattest Glide at the reference
63
*
velocity V or u = 1.
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Gliding Flight
Rate of Sink
Rate of sink is defined as:
D D
dh D V W L 2W CD 2W CD
hs V
S CL CL S C 3/ 2
dt W V
2W
S CL
L
The term DV = PR represents the Power Required to sustain the Gliding Flight.
Therefore the Rate of Sink is minimum when the Power Required is minimum, or
(CD/CL3/2) is minimum
d CD d CD 0 k CL 2 2 k CL CL
3/ 2
3 1/ 2
CL CD 0 k CL
2
4 k CL 3 CD 0 k CL
2
2
k CL 3 CD 0
2
3/ 2 2 0
d CL CL d CL C 3/ 2 3 5/ 2 5/ 2
L CL 2 CL 2 CL
Denote by CL,m the value of Lift Coefficient CL for which (CD/CL3/2) is minimum
3 CD 0
CD 0 CD CD 0 k 3
3 CD 0
C L*
k 3/ 2 k 4 k CD 0
CL ,m
* C 3/ 2
3 CL L min 3 CD 0 27
k 64
k
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Gliding Flight
Rate of Sink
We found:
CL 3/ 2
CD 0
C L*
1 27
C 4 k 3C
3 CD 0 k
*
CL ,m 3 CL
k D max D0
3/2
CL
The velocity Vm for glide with minimum e
CL CD
sink rate is given by: CD
2W 2W k
Vm 4
S C L ,m S 3 CD 0
1 2 W k
0 . 76 V *
3 S C D 0
4
4
~ 0.76
V*
*
CL * CL
The minimum sink rate is given by: 3 CL
2W CD 2 W k 3C D 0
hs , min
S C 3/ 2 27 S 65
L min
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Gliding Flight
Endurance
The Endurance is the total time the glider remains in the
air.
dh 2W CD
V
S C 3/ 2
dt L
dh S C L 3 / 2
dt
V 2W
CD
Assuming that the Angle of Attack is held constant during
the glide and ignoring the variation in density as function
of altitude, we have
S C L 3 / 2 S C L 3 / 2
hi h f
hf
t dh
hi 2W
CD 2W
C D
S 27 hi h f 66
t max 4
3
2W k CD 0 4 Return to Table of Content
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Start with
T sin L
n': Total Load Number
W
L
n : Load Factor
W
L q S CL CL
e : Lift to Drag Ratio
D q S CD CD 0 k CL 2
We assume a Parabolic Drag Polar:
CD CD0 k CL
2
k
CL/CD as a function of CL
C D * C D 0 k C L * C D 0 k
CD0 67
2 CD0
2
k
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
L q S CL CL e
e : 1
D q S CD CD 0 k CL 2 2 k CL *
C D * C D 0 k C L * C D 0 k
CD0
2 CD0
2
k
CD 0
C * k 1 1 1
e* L
CD * 2 CD 0 2 k CD 0 2 k 2 C L *2 2 k CL *
1
We have L q S CL V 2 S C L nW
2
W 2W k
V * : 1 4
S CL * S CD 0
2
Let define for n = 1
V
u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V *
2
68
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
1
q*
V 2 * 1
n 2 2
q 1 u
V 2
q* C *
CL n CL * n L2
q u
2 CL *
2
D q S C D 0 k C L q * S u C D 0 k n
2 2
4 CD0 1
u q * S CD0 q * S CL * W
CL * 2e*
k C L *2 C D 0
2 2 CD 0 2 n2
q * S u CD0 n 4
q * S C D 0 u 2
u u
Therefore
W 2 n2
D
u u2
69
2e* Return to Table of Content
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Aircraft Drag
W 2 n2
We obtained D
u u2
2e*
D W n2 W u 4 n2
2 u 2 3 0 - - - - 0 + + + + +
u 2e* u e * u 3 D
u
u n
2
D ↓ min ↑
nW
Dmin D u 2 n
e* 2W k
V * :
S CD 0
V
u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V * 70
2
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Aircraft Drag
Maximum Load Factor 2W k
V * :
Lh,V S CD 0
n nMAX V
W u :
V*
W 2 nMAX
2
u 2
1
q* : 2 V *
2
D nn
MAX
2 e * u
W 2 C L _ MAX 2
2
1 C L _ MAX n
2
1 u2
DC u u 2 C L
1 n2
L C L _ MAX
2e* C *
D
e* u 2 2
L W 2 u
W C L _ MAX 2
2
1 u
2 e * C L *
u
u nMAX u u MAX
CL *
uCORNER nMAX
C L _ MAX
W T 1 2 n 2
e * u 2 u V *
We obtain ps
T DV
e * W 2 u
V * 1 2 n 2
u z u 2
W W e * 2 u
or
ps
V * u 4 2z u 2 n2
2e* u
u z z 2 n 2
1
ps nconst 0 u 4 2z u 2 n2 0 zn
u2 z z 2 n 2
ps
V * 4u 3 4 z u u u 4 2 z u 2 n 2 V * 3 u 4 2 z u 2 n 2
zn
u n const
e* u2 e* u2
u1 u 2
ps z z 2 3 n2 u MAX 72
u2
0 u MAX 2
u n const
3
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Energy per unit mass E
ps
V * u 4 2z u 2 n2 ps as a function of u
ps
e* u
n 1
n
nMAX
u1 u1 u 2 u MAX u2 u
2
2W k
ps
V * u 4 2z u 2 n2 V * :
S CD 0
2e* u V
u :
2 e * ps 2 e * ps V*
u u 4 2 z u 2 n 2 n 2 u 4 2 z u 2 u 1
q* : 2 V *
2
V* V*
2 e * ps
From which n u 4 2z u 2 u
V*
n2
4 u 3 4 z u
2 e * ps
u ps const
V*
2 n2
12 u 2 4 z 0 u
z 73
u2 ps const
3
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Load Factor n
2 n2
12 u 2 4 z 0 u
z
2 n2
u2
u2 ps const
3
z
u
3
2W k
V * :
S CD 0
Integrating once
n2
V
u u :
ps 0 V*
ps 0
1
n2 q* : 2 V *
2
2 e * ps
4 u 3 4 z u
u V*
ps 0
u
p s const
z z
3
n2 ps 0
Integrating twice ps 0
ps 0
u
2 e * ps
n u 2z u 4
u 2
z z 2z
V* 3
2 n2 n2 2
, ,n as a function of u 74
u2 u
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
2W k
V * :
Load Factor n S CD 0
V
For ps = 0 we have u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V *
2
n u 4 2z u 2 0u 2z
nMAX
z ps 0
n as a function of u ps 0
u
CL * z 2z
nMAX
CL_MAX
75
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Energy per unit mass E
V2
E : h
2g
Energy Height versus True Airspeed Energy Height versus Mach Number
V
TAS : Vsound h M
T T M :
T0
V
T0 Vsound h
h V sin
V T D Pa PR
Define the Rate of Climb: hC V sin ps
W W
Lift
where
Pa = V T - available power Thrust
PR = V D - required power
ps - excess power per unit weight
Drag
Weight
77
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Steady Climb (V, γ = constant)
1
W cos C V 2 S CL
2
1
T V V 3 S CD 0 k CL
2
1
1 W 2 cos 2 C
hC 2 T V V S CD 0 k
3
ps
W W 2 1
V S Lift
2
Thrust
1 1 W 2 cos 2 C Drag
hC , Prop Pa V S CD 0 2 k
3
ps
W 2 V S Weight
Let find the velocity V for which the Rate of Climb is maximum, for the Propeller Aircraft:
d hC,Prop d ps 1 3 2 k W 2 cos 2 C
V S CD 0
2
0
dt d t W 2 V 2 S
or 1 2W k 1
VClimb.Prop 4 4 V * 0.76 V *
4
3 S CD 0 3
We can see that the velocity at which the Rate of Climb of Propeller Aircraft is maximum
is the same as the velocity at which the Required Power in Level Flight is maximum.78
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Steady Climb (V, γ = constant)
1
W cos C V 2 S CL
2
1
T V V 3 S CD 0 k CL
2
1
1 W 2 cos 2 C
hC 2 T V V S CD 0 k
3
W W 2 1
V S
2
Let find the velocity V for which the Rate of Climb is maximum, for the Jet Aircraft:
d hC 1 3 2 k W 2 cos 2 C
T V S CD 0
2
0
d t W 2 V 2 S
*
Define V 2W k C CD 0 T e* T 2
u : , V * : 4 e : L * , CL *
*
, CD * 2 CD 0 z :
V* S CD 0 CD k W W k CD 0
2W k
S
2 z u 2 cos 2 C 0
2
2 V CD 0 4
T 3 2
cos 2 C 0 3 u
W k CD 0 2W k V
2z S CD 0 1/ u 2
79
u z z 2 3 cos 2 C
u2
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Steady Climb (V, γ = constant)
W dV
T D W sin 0
g dt
Define
*
V 2W k C
u : , V * : 4 e : L * ,
*
V* S CD 0 CD
CD 0 T e* T 2
CL * , CD * 2 CD 0 z :
k W W k CD 0
ps versus the nondimensional velocity u
W 2 n2
D u 2
2e* u n1
T D ps 1 2 1
sin * 2 z u u 2
W V 2e
u max 1 V max V *
2W
4
k
S CD 0
ps versus the velocity V
ps , max
V * u 2z u n
4 2 2
V*
z 1 sin max
ps , max
z 1
2e* u n 1 e* V max e* 80
u 1
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Specific Excess Power contours ps
VV V T cos D T cos D V T D V
ps : E h V sin g sin
g g W W W
Construction of the Specific Excess Power contours ps in the
Altitude-Mach Number map for a Subsonic Aircraft below the
Drag-divergence Mach Number.
These contour are constructed for a fixed load factor W/S and
Thrust factor T/S, if the load or thrust factor change, the ps
contours will shift.
In Figure (a) is a graph of Specific Excess Power contours ps
versus Mach Number. Each curve is for a specific altitude h.
In Figure (b) each curve is for a given Specific Excess Power ps
in Altitude versus Mach Number coordinates.
The points a, b, c, d, e, f for ps = 0 in Figure (a) are plotted on
the curve for ps = 0 in Figure (b).
Similarly all points ps = 200 ft/sec in Figure (a) on the line AB
are projected on the curve ps = 200 ft/sec in Figure (b).
V2
We defined the Energy per unit mass E (Specific Energy): E : h
2g
Differentiate this equation:
d E VV V T cos D T cos D V T D V
ps : h V sin g sin
dt g g W W W
Minimum Time-to-Climb
The time to reach a given Energy Height Ef is computed as follows
dE Ef dE
dt tf
E E0 E
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E
max
at each level.
Ef dE
t f ,max
E0 E max
83
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
VV V T cos D T cos D V T D V
ps : E h V sin g sin
g g W W W
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E max
at
each level.
Minimum Time Climb Profiles for Subsonic Speed Stengel, MAE331, Lecture 7, Gliding,
Climbing and Turning Performance
Energy can be converted from potential to kinetic or vice versa along lines of constant
energy in zero time with zero fuel expended. This is physically not possible so the 84
method gives only an approximation of real paths.
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
VV V T cos D T cos D V T D V
ps : E h V sin g sin
g g W W W
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using
each level.
E max
at
The optimum flight profile for the fastest time to altitude or time to speed involves climbing to
maximal altitude at subsonic speed, then diving in order to get through the transonic speed
range as quickly as possible, and than climbing at supersonic speeds again using E max .
85
Minimum Time Climb Profiles for Supersonic Speed
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E
max
at
each level .
A.E. Bryson, Course “Performance Analysis of Flight Vehicles”, AA200, Stanford University, Winter 1977-1978
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “Energy-State Approximation in Performance Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.6,
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
87
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
The minimum time to reach the given Energy Height Ef is obtained by using E max
at
each level.
Comparison between
“Exact” and Approximate
(ESA) Solutions.
Implicit to ESA
Approximation is the
possibility of instantaneous
A C jump between kinetic to
potential energy (from
B A to B , and from C to D).
This non physical situation
is called a “zoom climb”
or “zoom dive”. We can see
the “exact” solution in
those cases.
A.E. Bryson, Course “Performance Analysis of Flight Vehicles”, AA200, Stanford University, Winter 1977-1978
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “Energy-State Approximation in Performance Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.6,
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
88
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
F-15 Streak Eagle Time to Climb Records, which follow the ideal path to reach set altitudes in a
minimal amount of time. The Streak Eagle could break the sound barrier in a vertical climb, so
the ideal flightpath to 30000m involved a large Immelmann.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLka4GoUbLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7YAN9--3MA
F-15 Streak Eagle Record Flights part 1 F-15 Streak Eagle Record Flights part 2
http://msflights.net/forum/showthread.php?1184-Supersonic-Level-Flight-Envelopes-in-FSX 89
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
F-15 Streak Eagle Time to Climb Records, which follow the ideal path to reach set altitudes in a
minimal amount of time. The Streak Eagle could break the sound barrier in a vertical climb, so
the ideal flightpath to 30000m involved a large Immelmann.
How to climb as fast as possible Return to Table of Content
Takeoff and pull up: You want to build energy (kinetic or potential) as quickly as you
can. Peak acceleration is at mach 0.9, which is the speed that energy is gained the
fastest. You should first accelerate to near that speed. Avoid bleeding off energy in a
high-g pull up. Start a smooth pull up before at mach 0.7-0.8 and accelerate to mach
0.9 during the pull.
Climb: Adjust your climb angle to maintain mach 0.9. In a modern fighter, the climb angle
may be 45-60 degrees. If you need a heading change, during the pull and climb is a good time
to make it.
Level off: between 25000 and 36000ft by rolling inverted. Maximum speed is reached at
36000, but remember the engines produce more thrust at higher KIAS, so slightly denser air
may not hurt acceleration through the sound barrier.
Break the mach barrier: Accelerate to mach 1.25 with minimal wing loading (don't turn, try to
set 0AoA)
Climb again: to 36000ft for maximum speed, or higher as to not exceed design limits or
to save fuel for a longer run 90
http://msflights.net/forum/showthread.php?1184-Supersonic-Level-Flight-Envelopes-in-FSX
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
tf cT W
f f ,min arg min
M
0 V 1 D / Tmax
dE
A.E. Bryson, Course “Performance Analysis of Flight Vehicles”, AA200, Stanford University, Winter 1977-1978 92
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “Energy-State Approximation in Performance Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.6,
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Climbing Aircraft Performance
Optimum Climbing Trajectories using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
Maximum Range during Glide using Energy State Approximation (ESA)
Equations of motion
W d
V L W cos 0
g dt
W T D V
V T D W sin sin
g W g d h h h T D V 1
x V cos
d x x V cos W
g cos
h V sin T D V
h V
W g
1
E : h V 2
2 d E T D 1
ps : E
T D V
dx W V cos
W
dh D V
During Glide we have: T = 0, W = constant, dE≤0, |γ| <<1, therefore
dx W g
dE D E V D E V
L E
L E
dt W
dx W L E W
R d x d E dE
D E D E D E D E
dx
V dE
dt
93
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “Energy-State Approximation in Performance Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.6,
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Climbing Aircraft Performance Return to Table of Content
W L E
We found R d E dE
D E D E
Using the first integral we see that to maximize R we must choose the path that
minimizes the drag D (E). The approximate optimal trajectory can be divided in:
1. If the initial conditions are not on the maximum range glide path the Aircraft
shall either “zoom dive” or “zoom climb” at constant E0, A to B path in Figure .
2. The Aircraft will dive on the min D (E)
until it reaches the altitude h = 0 at a
velocity V and Specific Energy E1=V2/2,
B to C in the Figure.
3. Since h=0 no optimization is possible and
to stay airborne one must keep the drag
such that L = W, by increasing the Angle of
Attack and decreasing velocity until it
reaches Vstall and Es=Vstall2/2, C to D in Figure
Since h=0, d E=V dV.
E0 W E1 W Es WV
Rmax d E d E dV
E0 D E E0 D E E1 D V
min h 0
0 on path1
94
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “Energy-State Approximation in Performance Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.6,
No. 5, Nov-Dec 1969, pp. 481-488
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
g
r sin cos
W
V
qW T sin L g cos cos
mV V
T sin L L
n' : n
W W
Therefore
g
W V sin cos
r
q g n' cos cos
W V
g
rW 2 qW 2 sin 2 cos 2 n'2 2 n' cos cos cos 2 cos 2
V
or
g
n'2 2 n' cos cos cos 2
V
V2V 1
R
g n'2 2 n' cos cos cos 2 95
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
T sin L cos g cos
g
n' cos cos
mV V V
T sin L sin g sin
cos V cos
1. Vertical Plan Trajectory (σ = 0)
0
g
n' cos
V
V2 1
R
g n' cos
2. Horizontal Plan Trajectory 0, 0
g
n' cos 1 0 n' 1
V cos
2
g g 1 g
n' sin n' 1 n'2 1
V V n' V
V2 1
R
g n'2 1 96
97
SOLO
Vertical Plan Trajectory (σ = 0)
Prof. Earll Murman, “Introduction to Aircraft Performance and Static Stability”, September 18, 2003
98
SOLO Horizontal Plan Trajectory
g
n'2 1 :
V
V R
V
:
g R
n'2 1
V
nMAX
CL _ MAX n2 nMAX
C L2 C CL CL *
L1 n1 u2
CL1
n u2 u
CL * u
CL * CL * CL CL *
ucorner nMAX nMAX n1 ucorner nMAX
CL_MAX CL1 C L _ MAX C L _ MAX
102
n, CL as a function of u
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
2. Horizontal Plan Trajectory 0, 0
V C
We defined u : & n L u2
V* CL *
2
g g g CL 2 1
n2 1 n2 1 u 2
We found V uV * V * CL * u
C L2
nMAX
C L1
n2
n1 u
u MAX
g CL * g CL *
u1 ucorner nMAX
V* CL_MAX V* CL_MAX
103
Horizontal Turn Rate
as function of u, with n and CL as parameters
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
2. Horizontal Plan Trajectory 0, 0
2
From g g g CL 2 1
n 2 1 n 2 1 u 2
V uV * V* L
C * u
V V *2 u2 V *2 1
R :
g n2 1 g CL
2
1
4
CL * u 2W k
Therefore V * :
S CD 0
V
RC
V *2 1
u1
CL *
u
CL *
nMAX ucorner u :
V*
L _ MAX
g C L _ MAX
2 C L _ MAX C L _ MAX
1 1
4 q* : 2 V *
2
CL * u
V *2 u2 CL *
Rn u nMAX ucorner
g nMAX 1 C L _ MAX
MAX 2
V *2 1 CL * CL *
RC u1 u nMAX
L
g CL
2 CL CL
1
4
CL * u
V *2 u2 CL *
Rn u n 104
g n2 1 C L _ MAX
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
2. Horizontal Plan Trajectory 0, 0
C L2 C L1 n2
2W k
C L _ MAX n1 V * :
S CD 0
nMAX V
u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V *
2
V *2 C L * nMAX
u
g C L _ MAX nMAX 1
2
g CL * g CL *
u1 ucorner nMAX
V* CL_MAX V* CL_MAX
1
4 105
CL * u Return to Table of Content
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of ps, n
V * u 2 z u n
4 2 2
p s
2e* u
2e*
n 2 u 4 2 z u 2 ps u
V*
2e*
u 4 2z u 2 ps u 1
g n 1 2
g V*
2
V* u V* u2
2W k
V * :
2e* 2 2e* S CD 0
4 u 4z u ps u 2 u u 4 2 z u 2 p s u 1
3
V* V* V
g u 4 u :
V*
u V * 2e* 1
u 4 2z u 2 ps u 1 q* : 2 V *
2
2 V *
u2
Therefore e*
u4 ps u 1
g V*
u V * 2e*
u 4 u 4 2z u 2 p s u 1
V*
For ps = 0
g u 4 2z u 2 1
ps 0
u1 z z 2 1 u z z 2 1 u 2
V* u2
g u4 1 106
u1 z z 2 1 u z z 2 1 u 2
u ps 0
V*
u 4 u 4 2z u 2 1
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of ps, n
For ps = 0
g u 4 2z u 2 1
ps 0
u1 z z 2 1 u z z 2 1 u 2
V* u2
g u4 1
u1 z z 2 1 u z z 2 1 u 2
u ps 0
V* 4
u u 2z u 1
4 2
2W k
V * :
S CD 0
Let find the maximum of as a function of u V
u :
V*
1
g u4 1 q* : V *2
2
u ps 0
V* u 4 u 4 2z u 2 1
u 0 u1 1 (u1+u2)/2 u2
u
u 1 p 0 2 z 1
g
MAX
ps 0 s
V* ∞ + + 0 - - - - - - -∞
From ↑ Max ↓
e*
u4 ps u 1
g V*
u 4 2z u 2
2e*
ps u 1
g V* u V * 2e*
u 4 u 4 2z u 2 ps u 1
V* u2 V*
107
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of ps, n
e*
Because u0 ,we have
V*
ps 0
p 0 p 0
s s
0
u u 1 u u 1 u u 1
ps 0 ps 0 ps 0 2W k
V * :
S CD 0
u V
u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V *
2
ps 0 u
ps 0 ps 0
e*
u4 ps u 1
g V*
u V * 2e*
u 4 u 4 2z u 2 ps u 1
ps 0 V*
ps 0 2e*
g
2 z 1 u 4 2z u 2 ps u 1
g V*
V*
V* u2
ps 0
, as a function of u with ps as
u u
parameter
u1 u 1 108
u2
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of ps, n
u 4 2z u 2
2e*
ps u 1
g C L _ MAX 2
n MAX 1
g V* 2W k
V* * V* u2 V * :
S CD 0
C L n MAX
C L _ MAX g 2
nMAX 1 V
ps 0
V *u u :
LIMIT nMAX
V*
LIMIT
1
q* : 2 V *
2
2 z 1
g
V* ps 0 Instantaneous
Turn
C L _ MAX
2
2 2e*
u 4 2z u 2 ps u 1
g 1
u 2
V* CL
*
u
Sustained g V*
ps 0 Turn
V* u2
u
CL*
u1 u1 u 2 a function of u, with ps
CL _ MAX CL*
nMAX
as parameter
CL_MAX
109
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
2W k
V V *2
R
u4
u1 p s u u 2 p s V * :
g 2e* S CD 0
u 2z u
4 2
ps u 1
V* V
u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V *
2
2e* 2e*
4 u 3 u 4 2z u 2 p s u 1 u 4 4 u 3 4 z u ps
V* V*
2
4 2e*
u 2z u p s u 1
2
R V * 2
V*
u g u4
2
2e*
u 4 2z u 2 ps u 1
V*
3e *
2 u 3 2z u 2 ps u 2
2
V* V*
g 3
2 2e*
2 u u 2z u
4 2
p s u 1
V* 110
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of ps, n
or
3e *
u 2z u 2 ps u 2
R V * 2
V*
u g 4 2e*
3
u 2z u p s u 1
2
2W k
V* V * :
S CD 0
We have V
u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V *
2
3e * e*
2
ps u 9 p s 16 z
V* V *
u R1 0
u 0 u1 uR2 u2
R 4z
0
u R ∞ - - -0 + +∞
2
3e * e*
ps u 9 p s 16 z
u V * V * u
0
R2
4z
R ↓ min ↑
V *2 u4
R p 0 u1 z z 2 1 u z z 2 1 u 2
s
g u 4 2z u 2 1
R
2V *2
u z u 2 1 u1 z z 2 1 u z z 2 1 u 2
u ps 0
g u 4
2z u 2 1
3
111
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
Horizontal Turn Rate as Function of ps, n
Minimum Radius of Turn R is obtained for u 1/ z
2
V* 1
R p 0
s
g z 2 1
e* R R u Rmin u Rmin
Because u0 ,we have R ps 0 ps 0 ps 0
u Rmin
ps 0 ps 0 ps 0
V*
V *2 u4 2W k
R V * :
g u 4 2z u 2
2e*
ps u 1 S CD 0
R V* V
u :
V*
1
q* : 2 V *
2
V* 1
g CL *
2
14 nMAX
C u ps 0
L _ MAX LIMIT
ps 0 V V *2 u4
R
C L _ MAX
ps 0 g u 4 2z u 2
2e*
ps u 1
V* 1 LIMIT V*
z 2 1
u1 ps u u 2 ps
g
V *2 u2
g nMAX 1
2
V * CL * nMAX
g C L _ MAX nMAX 1
2
V
u 4 2 z e * u 2 1
from which
g g
2
V* u
defined for
2 2
V V V V
u1 : z e *
z e * 1 u z e * z e * 1 : u 2
g g g g
113
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
g u4 1
u V * V u 0 u1 1 (u1+u2)/2 u2
u 4 u 4 2 z e * u 2 1
g ∞ + + 0 - - - - - - -∞
u
↑ Max ↓
g V
MAX 2 z e * 1
V* g
114
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
Aircraft Turn Performance
V
u 4 2 z e * u 2 1
g CL_ MAX nMAX 1
2
g g
V * CL * nMAX V* u2
g
nMAX 1
2
C L _ MAX V 0 2W k
V *u V * :
LIMIT n MAX S CD 0
V 0
2 z 1
g V
LIMIT u :
V* V*
V 0
1
q* : 2 V *
2
2
CL _ MAX 2 1
g
u 2
V* L
C * u
as function of u
u and V as parameter
u1 u 1 u2
CL *
CL *
C L _ MAX nMAX Return to Table of Content
CL _ MAX
115
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Example of Horizontal Turn, versus Mach, Performance of an Aircraft
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?69698-Canards-and-the-4-Gen-aircraft/page11 116
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98497
Mirage 2000 at 15000ft.
9G Vc (Max instant.
Rate) is around
0.65M/320KCAS
looking at 23.5 deg
sec
117
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Example of Horizontal Turn, versus Mach, Performance of MiG-21
http://n631s.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/book-review-boyd-fighter-pilot-who.html 118
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
120
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
F-4
http://combatace.com/topic/71161-beating-a-dead-horse-us-fighter-turn-performance/ 121
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
F-4
F-15
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/62863-comparing-fighter-performance-same- 122
generations-important-factor-war-2.html
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
n Structural
Load Limit
Maneuvering Envelope:
Corner Speed Structural
Limits on Normal Load Factor and
Limit
Maximum Allowable Equivalent Airspeed
Operational
Positive Load Limit - Structural Factor
Capability Area of - Maximum and Minimum
(CL) max Structural allowable Lift Coefficient
Load Factor - n
Limit Damage of
Airspeed
- Maximum and Minimum
Failure
Airspeeds
Vmin - Corner Velocity: Intersection of
V Maximum Lift Coefficient and
Operational
Maximum Load Limit
Maximum Load Factor
Negative Structural
Capability Limit
(CL) min Structural
Load Limit
124
SOLO Performance of an Aircraft with Parabolic Polar
125
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
R.W. Pratt, Ed., “Flight Control Systems, Practical issues in design and implementation”,
126
AIAA Publication, 2000 Return to Table of Content
SOLO Air-to-Air Combat
See S. Hermelin, “Air Combat”, Presentation, http://www.solohermelin.com
Destroy Enemy Aircraft to achieve Air Supremacy in order to prevent the enemy
to perform their missions and enable to achieve tactical goals.
127
Air-to-Air Combat
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/110779-taktik-ve-manevralar-
hakk%C4%B1ndaki-e%C4%9Fitim-g%C3%B6rselleri-oz/page-2
Before the introduction of all-aspect Air-to-Air Missiles destroying an Enemy Aircraft was
effective only from the tail zone of the Enemy Aircraft, so the pilots had to maneuver to reach
this position, for the minimum time necessary to activate the guns or launch a Missile. 128
Return to Table of Content
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Energy–Maneuverability Theory
MiG-21
MiG-21
132
F4 _Phantom versus MIG 21
Aircraft Flight Performance
133
134
135
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Energy Management
In combat, a pilot is faced with a variety of limiting factors. Some limitations are
constant, such as gravity, drag, and thrust-to-weight ratio. Other limitations vary
with speed and altitude, such as turn radius, turn rate, and the specific energy of
the aircraft. The fighter pilot uses Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) to turn these
limitations into tactical advantages. A faster, heavier aircraft may not be able to
evade a more maneuverable aircraft in a turning battle, but can often choose to
break off the fight and escape by diving or using its thrust to provide a speed
advantage. A lighter, more maneuverable aircraft can not usually choose to
escape, but must use its smaller turning radius at higher speeds to evade the
attacker's guns, and to try to circle around behind the attacker.[13]
BFM are a constant series of trade-offs between these limitations to conserve
the specific energy state of the aircraft. Even if there is no great difference
between the energy states of combating aircraft, there will be as soon as the
attacker accelerates to catch up with the defender. Instead of applying thrust, a
pilot may use gravity to provide a sudden increase in kinetic energy (speed), by
diving, at a cost in the potential energy that was stored in the form of altitude.
Similarly, by climbing the pilot can use gravity to provide a decrease in speed,
conserving the aircraft's kinetic energy by changing it into altitude. This can help
an attacker to prevent an overshoot, while keeping the energy available in case
136
one does occur
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Energy Management
Colonel J. R. Boyd:
In an air-to-air battle offensive maneuvering advantage will belong to the pilot who
can enter an engagement at a higher energy level and maintain more energy than his
opponent while locked into a maneuver and counter-maneuver duel. Maneuvering
advantage will also belong to the pilot who enters an air-to-air battle at a lower energy
level, but can gain more energy than his opponent during the course of the battle, From a
performance standpoint, such an advantage is clear because the pilot with the most energy
has a better opportunity to engage or disengage at his own choosing. On the other hand,
energy-loss maneuvers can be employed defensively to nullify an attack or to gain a
temporary offensive maneuvering position.
F-16
http://www.alr-aerospace.ch/Performance_Mission_Analysis.php
138
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
139
Comparative Ps Diagram for Aircraft A and Aircraft B. Two Multi-Role Jet Fighters
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Comparison of Turn Performance of two WWII Fighter Aircraft:
Russian Lavockin La5 vs German Messershmitt Bf 109
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5 140
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Comparison of Turn Performance of two WWII Fighter Aircraft:
Russian Lavockin La5 vs German Messershmitt Bf 109
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html
141
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
North American
F-86 Sabre
MiG-15
142
F-86F Sabre and MiG-15 performance comparison
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?47529-MiG-29-kontra-F-16-(aerodynamics-)
F-16 FulcrumMiG-29
F-16
FulcrumMiG-29
http://www.evac-fr.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t984.html 144
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_012a.html
Comparison of Turn Performance of two Modern Fighter Aircraft:
Russian MiG-29 vs USA F-16
F-16
FulcrumMiG-29
http://www.evac-fr.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t984.html
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_012a.html 145
Comparison of Turn Performance of two Modern Fighter Aircraft:
Russian MiG-29 vs USA F-16
F-16
Fulcrum MiG-29
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_012a.html
146
http://www.evac-fr.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t984.html
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Comparison of Turn Performance of two Modern Fighter Aircraft:
Russian MiG-29 vs USA F-16
F-16
MiG-29
While the turn radius of both aircraft is very similar, the MiG-29
has gained a significant angular advantage.
147
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117e.html
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Comparison of Turn Performance of two Modern Fighter Aircraft:
Russian MiG-29 vs USA F-16
F-16
MiG-29
With afterburner, fuel reserves 50%
Without afterburner, fuel reserves 50%
http://www.evac-fr.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t984.html
148
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=30263
149
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
151
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
152
Typical Ps Plot for Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
153
F-104 Flight Envelope
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
http://defence.pk/threads/design-characteristics-of-canard-non-canard-fighters.178592/
155
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
http://defence.pk/threads/design-characteristics-of-canard-non-canard-fighters.178592/
156
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4146/image4u.jpg
157
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rbi-blogs/wp-content/uploads/mt/flightglobalweb/blogs/the-
dewline/assets_c/2011/05/chart%20combat%20radius-thumb-500x375-125731.jpg
158
Return to Table of Content
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Supermaneuverability
160
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
161
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Herbst Maneuver
The Herbst maneuver or "J-Turn" named after Wolfgang Herbst is the only thrust
vector post stall maneuver that can be used in actual combat but very few air frames
can sustain the stress of this violent maneuver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbst_maneuver 162
Return to Table of Content
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
define
T h hT h 0 TSL TSL – Sea Level Thrust
W WTO 0 1 WTO – Take-off Weight
T D p TSL D ps
s
W W V WTO W V
L q S CL
n : Load Factor
W W
n n
CL W WTO
qS qS 164
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
165
General Mission Description of a Typical Fighter Aircraft
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
n n
CL W WTO
qS qS
D R q S CD q S CR Total Drag
q S q S
TSL q S n W 2 n WTO p
K1 TO
K 2 C D 0 C DR s
WTO WTO q S q S V
166
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
Case 1: Constant Altitude/Speed Cruise (ps = 0)
Given:
dh
0,
dV
0, n 1, L W Lift
dt dt
We obtain: Thrust Drag
TSL WTO CD 0 CDR
Weight
1
K K
WTO q S
2
WTO
q S
WTO q CD 0 CDR
S min T /W K1
TSL
2 CD 0 CDR K1 K 2
TO min
W 167
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
Case 1: Constant Altitude/Speed Cruise (ps = 0)
Given:
dh
0, n 1, L W
dt
We obtain:
TSL WTO CD 0 CDR 1 d h
K1 K2
WTO q S WTO V d t
q S
We can see that TSL/WTO → ∞ for WTO/S → 0 and WTO/S→∞, therefore
a minimum exist. By differentiating TSL/WTO with respect to WTO/S and
setting the result equal to zero, we obtain:
WTO q CD 0 CDR
S min T /W K1
TSL d h
2 CD 0 CDR K1 K 2 1
TO min
W V dt 169
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis L nW
1n
cos1
dV dh
Given: 0, 0, n 1,
dt V , h given
d t V ,h given
We obtain:
TSL 2 WTO CD 0 CDR 1 d h
1
K n K n
WTO q S
2
WTO V d t
q S
We can see that TSL/WTO → ∞ for WTO/S → 0 and WTO/S→∞, therefore
a minimum exist. By differentiating TSL/WTO with respect to WTO/S and
setting the result equal to zero, we obtain:
WTO q CD 0 CDR
S min T /W n K1
TSL
n
2 CD0 CDR K1 K 2
TO min
W
2 2
V V2
n 1 1 170
g0 g 0 Rc
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
Drag
TSL
1
K K
WTO q S
2
WTO g 0 d t
Weight
q S
1 d V TSL
WTO CD 0 CDR
K1 K2
g 0 d t WTO q S W
TO
q S
171
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
Case 4: Horizontal Acceleration (ps = (V/g0) (dV/dt) ) (continue – 1)
Given: dh
0, n 1, L W
d t h given Lift
We obtain:
CD 0 CDR
Thrust Drag
1 d V TSL WTO
K1 K2
g 0 d t WTO q S WTO Weight
q S
This equation can be integrated from initial velocity V0 to final velocity Vf,
from initial t0 to final tf times.
1 Vf V d V
g 0 V0 ps V
t f t0
where
T W C D 0 C DR
ps V SL
K1 TO K2
WTO q S WTO
q S
The solutions of TSL/WTO for different WTO/S are obtained iteratively. 172
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html 173
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
Case 5: Takeoff (sg given and TSL >> (D+R) )
dh
Given: 0
dt h given Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
Ground Run V TO θ CL
V=0
htr
Start from: sg sr str sCL
sTO
TS L
TSL D R V
d V d V d s g 0 TSL
d h V d V
ps dt ds
dt WTO
dt g dt
WTO
1/ V
0
Integration from:
WTO
V dV WTO VTO2
ds sg
g 0 TSL g0
s = 0 to s = sg SL 2
T
V = 0 to V = VTO
sg – Ground Run
The take-off velocity VTO is
VTO = kTO Vstall
Where Vstall is the minimum velocity at at which Lift equals weight and
kTO ≈ 1.1 to 1.2:
1 1 V
2
VTO
2
2 Vstall kTO
2 2
WTO
WTO Lstall 0 Vstall S CL,max 0 TO 2 S CL,max
2
kTO
2 2 kTO 2 2 0 CL,max S 174
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
Case 5: Takeoff (sg given and TSL >> (D+R) ) (continue – 1)
We obtained:
WTO VTO2
sg
g0 TSL 2 Transition
R
hobs
Rotation
k
θ CL
WTO
2 2 2 Ground Run V TO
VTO 2 Vstall
V=0
kTO TO
htr
sTO
from which:
WTO kTO2
WTO
sg
g0 SL 0 CL,max
T S
TSL 2 kTO2
WTO
WTO s g 0 g 0C L ,max S
175
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
Case 6: Landing γ
Transition
hg Touchdown
We found hf
Float
Glide sg Flare st sf Ground Run sgr
Airborne Phase
1 a V12 c
sg ln
2 a a V22 c g a1 :
2 a V1
where a : C C L , gr 4ac
2 WTO / S
D , gr
2 a Vtouchdown
1 1 a1 1 a2 T a2 :
tg ln c : g 0 b 4ac
4 a c 1 a2 1 a1 W
T T0 B V C V 2
For a given value of sg , there is only one value of WTO/S that satisfies this equation.
WTO / S f s g
This constraint is represented in the TSL/WTO versus WTO/S plane as a vertical line, at
WTO/S corresponding to the required sg.
176
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
TSL
WTO C CDR
K1 K 2 D0
WTO q S WTO
q S
WTO / S f s g
TSL C CDR 1 d h
2 WTO
K1 n K 2n D0
WTO q S WTO V d t
q S
TSL 2 kTO2
WTO
WTO s g 0 g 0C L ,max S
178
SOLO
Comparison of Fighter Aircraft Propulsion Systems
179
SOLO Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
180
Composite Thrust Loading versus Wing Loading – for different Aircraft
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Constraint Analysis
W.C. Hoffman, A.E. Bryson, Jr., “A Study of Techniques for Real-Time, On-Line Optimum
Flight Path Control”, Aerospace System Inc., ASI-TR-73-21, January 1973, AD 758799
A.E. Bryson, Jr., “A Study of Techniques for Real-Time, On-Line Optimum Flight Path
Control. Algorithms for Three-Dimensional Minimum-Time Flight Paths with Two State
Variables”, AD-A008 985, December 1974
186
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
References (continue – 4)
• Aerodynamics Folder
• Aircraft Systems Folder
• Propulsion Folder
Technion
Israeli Institute of Technology
1964 – 1968 BSc EE
1968 – 1971 MSc EE
RAFAEL
Israeli Armament Development Authority
1974 –
Stanford University
1983 – 1986 PhD AA
188
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
OODA loop
The OODA loop (for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) is a concept originally applied
to the combat operations process, often at the strategic level in military operations. The
concept was developed by military strategist and USAF Colonel John Boyd.
193
SOLO
Aircraft Avionics
194
R.W. Pratt, Ed., “Flight Control Systems, Practical issues in design and implementation”,
AIAA Publication, 2000
196
SOLO
SOLO
Ray Whitford, “Design for Air Combat” The rear fuselage presented a
ghter
problem, however, since the F-5
is, along with other twin-engined
aircraft, characterised by a wide,
very flat belly. This also
T
contributes favourably to high-
N
AOA performance. The question
S
of how to reconcile this with a
1
single engine basically circular in
e
section was solved by adding
t
shelves, not unlike those on the F-
1
16, aft of the wing trailing edge to
2
flatten the aft underbody. The
g
increased skin friction drag was a
r
small price to pay to lessen the
3
risks of the radical change
s
represented by the switch from a
a
twin to a single-engined layout.
p
The shelves house the horizontal
a
tail control runs.
s
The Northrop F-20 Tigershark (initially F-5G) was a a
•F-5 Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J85-GE-21B turbojet p
privately financed light fighter, designed and built by
• Dry thrust: 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) each
Northrop. Its development began in 1975 as a further s
• Thrust with afterburner: 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) each
evolution of Northrop's F-5E Tiger II, featuring a new
F-20 Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-100 engine that greatly improved overall performance, and a
turbofan, 17,000 lbf (76 kN) modern avionics suite including a powerful and flexible
radar. Compared with the F-5E, the F-20 was much 199 faster,
F-16
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117c.html 200
F-16
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117c.html 201
The three most important (but far from the only) things to consider about an aircraft's turning
performance are shown and explained in relation to the P-51's EM (energy/maneuverability)
diagram below;
202
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/174942-wing-loading-and-turning/
F-15
F-15 Flight
203
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis/page2
F-15 Drag
F-15
204
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis/page2
205
206
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
207
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
208
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
209
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
210
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
211
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
212
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
213
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
214
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
215
H.H. Hurt, Jr., “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators “,NAVAIR 00=80T-80 1-1-1965, pg. 35
SOLO
Fixed Wing Fighter Aircraft Flight Performance
Level Flight
216
Stengel, MAE331, Lecture 7, Gliding, Climbing and Turning Performance
217
Stengel, MAE331, Lecture 7, Gliding, Climbing and Turning Performance
218
219
Stengel, MAE331, Lecture 7, Gliding, Climbing and Turning Performance
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Typical Maneuvering Envelope
V – n Diagram n Structural
Load Limit
Load Factor - n
Limit Damage of
Airspeed
• Corner Velocity
Failure
Vmin V
Operational
Maximum Load Limit
2 nmax W Negative
Structural
Vcorner Capability Limit
C Lmax S
(CL) min Structural
Load Limit
sin
Tmax D
corner
g nmax cos 2
2
W V cos
• Turning Radius • Time to Complete a Full Circle
0 V 2 cos 2
Rmax
2
cos 2 V cos
n' cos
g g nmax t 2
g nmax cos 2
2
V
V2 1 220
g n' cos
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/62863-comparing-fighter-performance-same- 221
generations-important-factor-war-2.html
http://www.zweefportaal.nl/main/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=2537&rowstart=0
http://www.iitk.ac.in/aero/fltlab/cruise.html
222
Maximum Range at L/Dmax
224
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Drag
225
226
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
Drag
227
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html
228
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html 229
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html
230
Comparison of Climb Performance of F-16 and F-$
F-16
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5487 231
F-15
http://indiandefence.com/threads/comparing-modern-western-fighters.41124/page-16
232
http://indiandefence.com/threads/comparing-modern-western-fighters.41124/page-16
233
Split S
Cobra Turn
Roller
Scissors
Immelmann turn
234
http://defence.pk/threads/supermaneuverability.39916/
F-22
F-15
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13114
235
F-15 versus F-22
F-22
F-15
236
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?72673-Boyd-s-E-M-Theory 237
238
http://defence.pk/threads/cope-india-how-the-iaf-rewrote-the-rules-of-air-combat.300282/page-3
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5487
239
F-16
240
F-16
241
F-16
242
F-16
243
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
244
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
245
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
246
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/training/aerodynamics/range_jet.htm
247
Air-to-Air Combat
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/110779-taktik-ve-manevralar-
hakk%C4%B1ndaki-e%C4%9Fitim-g%C3%B6rselleri-oz/page-2
248
Air-to-Air Combat
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/110779-taktik-ve-manevralar-
hakk%C4%B1ndaki-e%C4%9Fitim-g%C3%B6rselleri-oz/page-2
249
Air-to-Air Combat
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/110779-taktik-ve-manevralar-
hakk%C4%B1ndaki-e%C4%9Fitim-g%C3%B6rselleri-oz/page-2
250
Configurations Evolution 251
North American P-51 Mustang
252
Ps Diagram for a Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft at n = 1 253
Ps Diagram for a Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft at n = 5 254
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
255
SOLO
Aircraft Flight Performance
256
257
Generic E/M Diagram