You are on page 1of 238
_ Modern Aircrart by Martin Hollmann ey Vor Me. Ulaises Sa /jeces Ee lg Fat’ wutwe MODERN AIRCRAFT ESIGN by Martin Hollmann a Published by Martin Hollmann Printed in the United States of America Cupertino, California Copyright 1983, 1985 by M. Hollmann. This book or parts must not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the author. AIRCRAFT DESIGNS, In el 11082 Bel Aire Court Cupertino, California 95014 — a ae es = TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE cinerea a ae 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION aes CHAPTER 2. KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT - ~~ ----7-~ 5 CHAPTER 3, DESIGNING YOUR AIRCRAFT - 13 3.1 Gross Weight Calculation - ~ - 13 3.2 Wing Sizing - - - - -14 33 Stability in Pitch - - 18 3.4 Engine Selection - - - -19 35 Aircraft Performance - 21 3.6 Selecting Airfoils - - - 24 37 Vertical Tail Sizing 3.8 Horizontal Tail Trim 3.9 Specification Sheet andLayout - CHAPTER 4. LOADS ACCORDING TOFAR PART 23. ---- 35 CHAPTER 5. MATERIALS AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES - 49 5.1 Properties of Metallic Materials Per Mil-Hdbk-5 - 50 5.2 Composite Laminate Properties ----------~ 5.3 Composite Sandwich Materials 5.4 Mechanical Fasteners CHAPTER 6. STRUCTURAL SIZING OF WING SPAR ---- 59 CHAPTER 7. DESIGNING AND ANALYZING JOINTS ---- 75 CHAPTER 8. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS, FEA = == ~~~ 85 8.1 System Description - 85 8.2 Curved Plate FEA - - 8.3 Program Validation - 8.4 System Summary - - 85 Setting Up an ANSYS FEA Model 8.6 Running the FEA Program - - ~ 8.7 FEA for the Wing of EXAMPLE 8.8 Rules for Setting Up FEA Models ~~ 88 a1 93 94 98 107 - 126 Table of Contents Continued CHAPTER 9. BUILDING - - ~~ - wrote eects 129 CHAPTER 10. FLIGHT TEST -- 133 CHAPTER 11. WING STRUCTURAL TESTING - ~~~ ~~ - 137 APPENDIX A. COMPUTER PROGRAMS - 1, AIRCRAFT DESIGN - - CENTER OF GRAVITY - AEROCENTER - - - SPAR oe AIRLOAD AIRFOIL PLOT - - ITE ITE WING - os APPENDIX B. SECTION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ~~ ~~ - 225 NLF(1)-0215F AIRFOIL APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS - - - - - 229 APPENDIX E, DESIGN PROCI SUMMARY ~/=—-== === 233 EF RCE i — The purpose of this book is to provide a combination of basic design technology and advanced engineering methods to aircraft designers so that they can design and build the next generation of composite material, three ‘surface or three wing and conventional aircraft as shown on the cover. The three wing aircraft promises to have specific advantages over Conventional and canard aircraft. These aircraft are not new. However the Current interest in these aircraft can be largely credited to the efforts and foresight of my good friends Rick and Suse McWilliams without whose kind help this book, as it is written, would not have been possible. Although all calculations are performed by hand, computer programs designed to help ease the design task, are listed in Appendix A. These Programs are written in BASIC for the Macintosh and IBM PC Ur, XT or AT Personal Computer. This entire book was written on the Mac and the finite element analysis described in Chapter 8 was performed on a MacWorkstation. The Mac with its Motorola 68000 chip, its bit mapped high resolution screen, its superior graphics, its ease of use, its unsurpassed word processing, its double precision computing in BASIC or FORTRAN, Is rapidly becoming the standard PC for the engineering and Scientific community. | could not have written this book without the Mac. | am also grateful to Bruce Carmichael for proof reading and many useful ‘Suggestions and Chick Shank and Dennis Lee for illustrations. These are extremely exciting times and it Is the homebullder/aircraft designer who is at the forefront of technological achievement. The homebuilder is unhampered by rules and regulations. It is therefore, the homebutlt aircraft movement that will continue to advance this technology and set the standards for general aviation aircraft of the future. After all, that's the way it was from the beginning when Otto Lilienthal and the Wright brothers, the original homebuilders, made their first flights. Martin Hollmann, pias CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Designing, building, and flying an aircraft Is certainly no easy task. But those who are not afraid to learn and work hard to complete their dream will experience a personal satisfaction that is hard to explain in words ‘and thoughts. When you climb a mountain, the climb and challenge is one of the most satisfying tasks and designing and building an aircraft is Comparable. Designing and building 1s fun if you see that you are making good headway with your design and you know that you have a good chance of completing your goals. It is therefore important to realistically lay out Your goals and schedule ahead of time so that you will not become dlscouraged along the path which can be long, tedious, expensive, and Sometimes hopeless and even discouraging. It 1s important not to become Sidetracked with trivial issues which May be interesting but do not point towards that one goal of Successfully designing and building and flying your aircraft. You must concentrate on your goals and try to collect and Concentrate your resources on this one objective, This book is designed to help you with the basics of aircraft design that are often overlooked by the amateur and, surprisingly often, by the professional designer AS a designer, you must know something about materials, fabrication Brocesses, engines, propellers, wheels, aerodynamics, human engineering, structures, dynamics, physics, styling, and so on. Obviously you cannot be an expert nor do you need to be an expert in all of these fields. But you ‘must know enough about each topic to make a wise decision about how you're going to build your aircraft. You should be skilled with your hands So that you can build your aircraft to meet the strength predictions which you have made and keep the weight at a minimum. In the industry, the aircraft designer seldom flies his own design. However in the homebuilt movement, the designer often has no choice, After having designed several aircraft myself and test flown them myself and having them test flown by test pilots, | must admit that there are many advantages to test flying your own aircraft and we will discuss those advantages in the last part of this book. However, there is one advantage of test flying your own aircraft that | must mention now. There are very few things that you can do in this world that are as satisfying as flying your aircraft for the first time and lifting those wheels off the ground with a vehicle that you have created with your own hands and mind. Suddenly all those hard hours of work that you put into your creation are forgotten and you know that you have done something. You have built a vehicle that files. 3 If you have done a halfway decent job, you will continue to experience the thrill of flying your aircraft and you will share that thrill with the few ‘other people who have also designed and built their own aircraft. If you have built a two place aircraft, you will be able to share your thrill of flying with friends who you can give aride. There is no other sport that fosters such a strong tie of comradeship between people as aviation. | feel that | can say that with some authority after having been an avid skier, surfer, swimmer, and athlete. Before we go too far astray, let's get back to the task at hand of designing, building, and flying our dreamship The origins of this book started as a pamphlet with a collection of six computer programs which were written for the the Commodore 64 and published in the Ist edition and as a one day seminar called “Practical Aircraft Design Utilizing Composite Materials" which has been presented around the country and attended by a large number of people including Linden Blue, airline pilot extraordinaire and past president of Lear Fan and Beechcraft; Hal Macmasters, retired chief engineer at Beechcraft; Lance Neibauer, designer and developer of the Lancair 200; and Charley Morgan, famous yacht designer. Composite material options and engineering mechanics of materials are not discussed in detail in this book since they are well covered in my previous book titled "Composite Aircraft Design’ It fs assumed that the reader has this book and is familiar with its contents, We will discuss and use the minimum equations necessary to design the configuration of an aircraft and evaluate various other configurations. Calculations for structural loads per Appendix A of the Federal Aviation Regulations, FARs, Part 23, “Airworthiness Standards Normal, Utility and Aerobatic Category Airplanes" will be made. The structural sizing of wing spars, skins, ribs, and wing attachments made of composite sandwich materials will be made using a low cost Macintosh computer workstation and an ANSYS finite element analysis, FEA, code and simple hand calculations. To help understand the use of these techniques, we will go through the calculations of an example aircraft which | am presently designing and which is being built by Richard Trickel at High Tech Composites, Inc. We will go through the design of this aircraft ina step by step approach, starting at the conceptual level, all the way to fight testing. Tips and recommendations on building and test flying the finished proof of concept aircraft are made. | hope that this book will be a useful tool in helping you get your aircraft off the ground and that it will be entertaining and stimulating for you to read just as it has been fun and educational for me to write CRAPTER 2 KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT One of the most Important tasks Is to define what you want and know why you want it. You must formulate the specifications for your aircraft based upon your requirements. In most cases, at the start, these requirements May not be well defined. For example, | have run across a large number of People who like canard aircraft and when | ask them why, the reply is, “I do not know". Sometimes they answer, “Canard aircraft look nice with their swept back wing and they do not stall”. | must agree that canards do look nice but the wings on a canard can stall. We must be very careful not to let the main wing stall when we design a canard aircraft since the aircraft would pitch up and flip over backwards if this were to occur. If insufficient altitude is available for recovery, this would most likely end in a fatal accident. We have a choice of many aircraft configurations, but three wings, conventional, and canard Configurations are the most common to choose from. In this Chapter we will make a Compartson of these three types One of the most important performance parameters is stall ‘speed since it 1s the stall speed that most often dictates the size of the wing we will use, The ability to achieve a high lift coefficient and hence a low stall Speed means that we can use a small wing which in turns means less drag and less weight than a configuration with a low lift coefficient. To see what I mean, lets calculate the stall speed for our three aircraft Configurations. We will look at a three wing aircraft with a small canard in the front and a tail in the back, a conventional wing aircraft with a tail in the back, and a canard wing aircraft with a Mfting tail in the front. All aircraft will carry two people and have a gross weight of 1100 Ibs, a length of 18 feet, a main wing area of 60 sq. ft., and a total tail area of is Sa. ft. In this manner we are comparing apples with apples. We will calculate the stall speed for the three wing aircraft first. Arule of thumb to follow for a three wing aircraft is to make each tail surface about 10% of the wing area. Hence, we arbitrarily pick a canard area of 6 sq ft. anda tail area of 9 sq.ft. and arrange the three wings as shown in Figure 2.1. By definition, the wing area 1s 60 sq. ft. From the basic lift equation, Eq 2.1, we can rearrange the terms to give Eq 2.2 and calculate the approximate stall speed for our three wing aircraft. L= 12x pK Ve? xS KC, (2.1) ‘Where, L = Lift, pounds Density of air, at sea level = 0.00238 slugs/cubic feet Stall speed, feet per second «Ke = Area, square feet Lift coefficient q —Forwerd 2 ul 1100 Ibs Figure 2.1. Side View of the Three Wing Aircraft [2x pxsxqyl/2 (2.2) Ve = [2 x 1100/(0.00238 x 66 x | g)!/2 = 88.2 ft./sec. or 60 mph Notice that the canard and wing are lifting together and that a maximum lift coefficient of 1.8 is achieved. The total area of the canard and wing is 66 sqft. We can now calculate the pitching moment for our wing with deflected flaps by substituting into Equation 2.3 a wing pitching moment Coefficient, Crp, of -0.3 common for flapped wings, and using a mean aerodynamic chord, C, of 3 feet. The wing pitching moment in foot pounds is given as, M=1/2K PX V—2XSKCX Cp (2.3) M=1/2x 00238 x 88.22 x 60 x 3 x (-.3) = -500 ft Ibs. 7 6 We now sum moments about the 1/4 chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of the main wing and set the moments equal to zero. We also sum the lifting forces and weight, F, and set equal to zero and solve these two equations to determine the lifting forces LI and L3 acting on the canard and tail. From Eq 2.1, the lifting force of the wing Is, 12 = 1/2 x 00238 x 88.2? x 60 x 1.8 = 1000 Ibs Nose up pitching moments are + and nose down moments are - 2M 5¢=(7-92--5) 1-(7.92-7.45)x1 100-500-(16.3-7.92)x1 3-0 (2.4) OFF -1100+L1 + 1000+13=0 (25) Solving Eqs 2.4 and 2.5 we have L1 = 117.4 Ibs andL3 = -17.4 lbs It should be noted that we have placed the center of gravity, c.g, of the aircraft at the aerodynamic center, ac. In Chapter 3, we will calculated the ac. for any aircraft configuration. To simplify our calculations and because of the very small effect on our answers, we have and will Continue to neglect the pitching attitude geometry changes. It is Important to check the lift coefficlent of the canard and tail. Rearranging Eq 2.1 and substituting, the lift coefficient of the canard is, C) canard = 2x117/(.00238x88.22 x6) = 2.1 Since the maximum lift coefficient that we can achieve for the canard is 2.0, we can assume that the canard has stalled Just prior to reaching 60 Mph. The wing lift coefficient is 1.8. Hence, our aircraft will nose down without stalling the main wing just slightly above 60 mph and we have a relatively stall proof aircraft. The lift coefficient on the tail just prior to stalling the canard is, C) tail = 2x(-17.4)/(.002378x88.22 x9) = -.21 For design purposes a maximum tail lift coefficient of 0.8 is acceptable and we see that the tail Is safe and far from stalling. Let us now look at a conventional aircraft with the same gross weight, identical wing, and same tail area. With a conventional flapped wing we Can develop a maximum wing lift coefficient of 1.8. For our conventional Configuration which is shown in Figure 2.2, an ac. position of 7.46 is 7 calculated per Chapter 3. — L1=1100-L2 2 Tail 1 FS.0 1100 Ibs Figure 2.2. Side View of the Conventional Aircraft. Let's assume that the stall speed of the conventional aircraft is the same as for the three wing aircraft. Then the wing pitching moment, M, is -500 ft.lbs. We now sum moments about the 1/4 chord of the mean aerodynamic Chord of the wing as shown below and determine L1 and L2, the wing and tail load. 2M 5c = (7.46-6.5) «1100 - 500 - (16.5-6.5) x L2 = 0 (2.6) Therefore, L2 = 55.6 Ibs and L! = 10444 Ibs. Substituting into Eq 2.2 we can now calculate the stall speed, = [2 x1044/0.00238 x 60x1.8)]!/2 = 90 rt./sec. or 61.3 mph This ts very close to our assumed stall speed so that we will not go back to recalculate the new wing pitching moment. The canard configuration is of prime interest because of its recent Popularity at the time of this writing It is imperative that the canard be Stalled first and that the wing does not stall. To assure that this happens, we design the aircraft so that the wing's maximum lift coefficient is 1.0 at the time that the canard's maximum lift coefficient is 2.0 or at stall When the canard stalls, the nose pitches down and the wing is prevented from stalling. This is best visualized in Figure 2.3. It should be noted that the lift coefficients that we are using are the three dimensional lift maximum coefficients which are much lower than the two dimensional maximum lift coefficients which are normally established from wind tunnel data and published for all airfoils. Ss eS ee ee Substituting the minimum speed into Eq 2.1, we determine that the lift of the canard, L!, 1S 367 Ibs and that the lift of the main wing, L2, is 733 lbs Summing moments about the 1/4 chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing and setting equal to 0, the center of gravity, cg, location, X, is determined as follows 2M 25¢ = (15.0-.5)367 - (15.0-X)x1 100 = 0; Therefore, X = 10.16 ft It Is seen that x is located well ahead of the aerodynamic center, a c., and the canard will fly very stable. The foregoing results and the data used in the calculations are summarized in Table 2.1 Table 2.1. Summary of the Configuration Stall Speed Study. Three Wing Conventional Canard Canerd Wing Tell Wing Teil Canard Wing SurfesArea 6a 60 9 60 18 15 60 Aspect Retio 8 667 5? 400 ie) ? Momentarm O5f 792 163 65 165 OS 15 ae, 245 ft 7.46 11.64 cg 2.45 ft 7.46 10.17 Yetent 60 mph 613 69 Wing Ares for 46 sq.ft a 60 © Ygtq11=69 mph Drag Reduction 8% 1728 0% Table 2.1 also shows that if we designed the three wing or conventional wing aircraft to stall at the minimum flight speed of the canard aircraft we would only need 46 saft of wing area. This will result in a 8% drag reduction at cruise speed and also a weight and building material ‘saving for the smaller wing. For the three wing aircraft, it is important to use a usher configuration so that the canard is not in the slip stream of the Propeller. With the canard in the slip stream of the Propeller, the stall of the canard could be delayed and thus degrade the stall proof Characteristics that we designed into the aircraft. Figure 2.5 shows the Dlanforms of the three aircraft Configurations which we have just compared. It will be up to the reader to evaluate other aircraft configurations and determine which configuration best meets his needs 10 AF =|= Osa eos Conard Three Wing Figure 2.5. Planform View of the Three Configurations Compared Although the aircraft configuration 1s one of the most important parameters, the designer must also evaluate other requirements such as. D Purpose of aircraft: fun, sport, utility, acrobatic, rescue, surveillance, patrol, travel, agriculture, racer, set records, make money. D Type of aircraft: fixed wing, land plane, sea plane, ultralight, single engine, twin, glider, powered glider, antique, side by side seating Number of seats: one, two, three, four. Endurance: 0.5 hours, | hours, 2 hours, 3 hours, etc Take off and landing: VTOL, STOL, short field, long paved, water/land Climb angle: fixed wing = 3° - 30°, helicopter = c, gyroplane = 3° - 6°. Speed: 100 mph, 150 mph, 200 mph, etc ooooo These parameters should be well established before you start on your design by making a list of the requirements to which you will design your aircraft. You should also make a realistic evaluation of your resources and capabilities. If your aircraft is going to be bullt out of composite materials, do you have a heated garage so that you can work in the winter? It is essential that when you work with epoxy resins that the air temperature is at least 65 °F. It will cost from $20,000 to $200,000 to bufld the prototype of your small aircraft. If you do not have this kind of money, be an optimist and start anyway. You will learn much by going thru the design on paper and by the time you start building, you may inherit a large amount of money from a rich uncle who you did not know about. a | THINK HE DESIGNED IT FOR HIMSELF Fr ale CHAPTER 3 DESIGNING YOUR AIRCRAFT There are several ways in which to start your design. The following method seems to be the most used and in my opinion the easiest. From Chapter 2 we know what we want our aircraft to do and what it should look like. Now we will design our aircraft to meet those expectations or specifications. We should also keep an open mind and realize that we may not be able to meet all of our goals and that we may most likely have to compromise those goals to design an aircraft that is reasonable to build and operate. In Table 3.1 we list the requirements for our three wing aircraft which we have, for rather obvious reasons, named EXAMPLE. Table 3.1. Design Requirements for the EXAMPLE. Type Three Wing Purpose Travel/Sport Flying No. of People Two Top Speed 190 mph Stall Speed 60 mph Flaps Yes Climb Rate at S.L. 600 fpm Range 600 miles 3.1 GROSS WEIGHT CALCULATION We calculate the useful load of the EXAMPLE by summing the people weight and fuel weight as follows Two Persons, 2x1701bs = 340 Ibs Baggage . 8 Fuel, 16 gal x 6 Ibs/gal 96 Useful load = 444 Ibs From statistical data, we know that the ratio of useful load to gross weight is 0.4 for just about all aircraft. Some ultralight aircraft such as my Bumble Bee gyroplane which has a ratio of 0.5, are an exception to this rule. We can therefore approximate the gross weight by dividing the useful load by 0.4. For the EXAMPLE, the gross weight, GW, 1s, GW = 444/0.4= 1110 Ibs. We round off this value to 1100 Ibs. The empty weight is simply the gross weight less the useful load. For the 13 EXAMPLE, the empty weight is, 1100 - 444 = 656 Ibs. 3.2 WING SIZING We now calculate the wing area from our desired stall speed. Convert the stall speed in mph to feet per second by multiplying by 1.47. The stall speed Is V, = 1.47 x 60 = 88 fps. Rearrange Eq 2.1 as follows to calculate the wing area, S. S = 2xGW/(pxV,2 *C,) (3.1) Now substitute the maximum lift coefficient, C,, of 1.8 for our EXAMPLE which has flaps and the proper values into Eq 3.1 to determine the wing area, S = 2x 1100/(0.00238 x 882 x 1.8)* 66 safe. The maximum lift coefficients that we may reasonably expect for other configurations are listed in Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Maximum Aircraft Lift Coefficients C= 1.35 for a Conventional Aircraft without Flaps C, = 1.8 for a Conventional Aircraft with Flaps Ci = 1.1 for a Canard Aircraft, Cannot use Flaps C= 0.85 for a Flying Wing, Cannot use Flaps It must be pointed out that for an aircraft with a canard, the total wing area, S, includes the area of the canard. For the conventional aircraft and the flying wing, S, represents only the area of the wing. Our EXAMPLE aircraft uses a small canard so the total area of 66 sq. ft. includes the area of the canard. For a three wing aircraft, the tail area and canard area are each selected 2s approximately 10 of the total lifting area Therefore the canard area 1s, 60 x 10K = 6 sq ft.. If only @ canard ts used, a canard area of about 20% of the total lifting area 1s normally used. For the tail area of our EXAMPLE, we arbitrarily select an area a little bit larger, 9 sqft. We select an aspect ratio, AR, for each of our lifting surfaces by looking 14 RT| at Figure 3.1 which shows us how the drag of a lifting surface varies with airspeed and aspect ratio. The aspect ratio, by the way, Is defined as the span, B, of the air surface divided by the average chord, C, and Equations 3.2 can be derived from this relation. B=(ARx9)!/2 (3.2) C=S/B The total drag of the aircraft is made up of form drag and induced drag. Form drag is caused by the friction of the air Passing over the wetted area of the total surface and induced drag is caused by the generation of lift. The lower the flight speed, the higher the induced drag and the lower the friction drag. The higher the flight speed, the lower the induced drag and the higher the friction drag. The upper curves in Figure 3.1 are the combined drags, friction and induced drag, and the small numbers of 4, 8, and 12 are the aspect ratios. From the Figure 3.1 we see that at low Speeds such as at 50 mph, the higher aspect ratio has a significant effect on drag. Whereas at high speeds, 180 mph, the aspect ratio has very little effect on drag. Therefore, if we are designing a high performance Sallplane, we will select a high aspect ratio which may be as high as 30. If we are designing a small cross country aircraft which cruises at 180 mph, we will pick an aspect ratio of 6 or 7 for the main wing. It also turns out that the aspect ratio influences the maximum lift coefficient of the wing and the climb performance as we will mention later. tote! dreg ie De qd. = = pV 3P W = 1000 EE aa 5 = 100 4050607080 100° 120 140 160 180 200 Coe 025 eirspeed (mph) Are 48120 Figure 3.1. Aspect Ratio Influence on Drag of a Small Airplane 1S A tapered wing has lower roll control stick forces and Is aerodynamically more efficient than a nontapered wing. Since we are bullding a composite aircraft for which tapering a wing presents no extra work if we use the hot wire cutting technique, we have chosen a tapered wing. We will also twist the wing tip nose down, wash out, by two degrees so that the root of the wing will stall first. If we had a nontapered wing, we would not need to twist the wing. The aspect ratio also affects the C, max. The higher the aspect ratio, the higher the maximum lift coefficient. For a canard aircraft the canard is normally operating at twice the lift coefficient of the wing. Hence, we need a high lift airfoil and a high aspect ratio for the canard and we select a nontapered canard with an aspect ratio of 8 which makes the canard reasonable to build. If the aspect ratio is too large, wing tip twisting and bending become a problem with fiberglass wings The fiberglass has f low shear modulus of 0.6 x 10° psi compared to aluminum, 6.0 x 10° psi. This means that the elastic twisting will be 10 times as great for the fiberglass wing. Since the canard has a high lift airfoil section which usually has a high nose down pitching moment which will twist the canard, we do not want an aspect ratio higher than 8. For our tail we pick a low aspect ratio of 5 since the tail’s induced drag is very small at cruise speed and a low aspect ratio tail is easy to build We now substitute the proper values into Eq 3.2 and determine the dimensions of our lifting surfaces. For the EXAMPLE aircraft we have selected an aspect ratio of 6.67 for the wing. Substituting into Eq 3.2, the wing span is, B= (6.67*60)!/2 = 201 We also select a taper ratio,T.R, of 2 which means that the wing root chord, C,, at the fuselage centerline is twice that of the tip chord, Cy. Therefore , C.= 2x Cy. The length of the root chord is given by Eq 3.3 as follows, Cy = TRC, = 2xS*T.R/IB(I + T.R.)I (G3) where, S_ = wing area, sq ft. TR. = taper ratio B = wing span, ft. C,. = root chord, ft. Cy = tip chord, ft. c ec Substituting into Eq 3.3 we calculate the wing chords, C= 2x 60x 2/[20(1 + 2)]= 400 ft. and C, = 4/2 = 2.00 ft. The mean aerodynamic chord, MA.C., is calculated from Figure 3.2 and Eq3.4 Fuselage Center Line Figure 3.2. Mean Aerodynamic Chord MAC. = 2/3IC, + Cy - CrxCL(C, + Cy] (3.4) For the EXAMPLE the MAC. = 3.11 ft. We perform the same calculations for the canard and tail. We want to build a short aircraft so we arbitrarily pick a fuselage length of 18 feet and a fuselage width of 42 inches for side by side seating. If we had chosen a tandem seating arrangement, we would have selected a fuselage width of 24 inches. For our first design iteration we also arbitrarily select the location of the wing. We select the distance that the leading edge of the wing is located from the nose and datum plane of the aircraft. We pick 6.82 feet for the EXAMPLE. Next, we make a small sketch on a normal size sheet of paper showing the planform view of our design. Select a scale of 1/40 or 1/50 and work in inches and make the ‘sketch to scale. The tail is located aft as far as possible and the canard is located as far forward as possible. Figure 3.3 shows the planform view of iy the EXAMPLE. We usually want a straight main spar for the wing so we must select the location of the spar before we can draw the wing planform. The spar ts normally located between the 25 to 35 percent chord line of the wing. For the EXAMPLE, we pick the 35% chord line as the centerline of the spar since we are placing the fuel in the leading edge of the wing and we want the area between the leading edge and the spar as large as possible. The center line for the spar is therefore located 6.82 x 12+ 35x 4x 12= 98.6 inches from the nose Figure 3.3. Planform View of the EXAMPLE. If we design a canard aircraft, we should sweep the wing back so that we can mount winglets at the tips of the wing and use these winglets for rudders. The sweep helps locate the winglets aft of the aerodynamic center, The leading edge of the swept wing should not be swept back more than 23 degrees to prevent stalling of the outboard section of the wing, Ample wing wash out, about 4 degrees, should also be used. For a flying wing, the wing should also be swept back not more than 23 degrees and normally 8 degrees of wash out is used. For the flying wing, the flaps are used as elevators for pitch trim and the ailerons are used for roll control. 3.3: STABILITY IN PITCH Pitch stability requires that the center of gravity, c.g, is located ahead of the aerodynamic center, ac. If the c.g is located behind the ac., the aircraft is unstable and extremely difficult and maybe even dangerous to fly. For example, if the aircraft is unstable in pitch and the nose pitches 18 UZ VnEnenenec Renee a Pt rt a ae i a a up, it will continue to pitch up and the pilot must push the stick down to assure that the nose pitches down. If not, the aircraft will flip over in flight. The aft c.g. location is determined by the location of the a.c. Usually we want the most aft c.g. at least a half an inch ahead of the ac. It is therefore important to calculate the location of the ac. Six Simplifted equations for calculating the a.c. are presented in Figure 3.4 for three aircraft configurations and a computer program written in BASIC for the Macintosh and called AEROCENTER is listed in Appendix A AEROCENTER can determine the a.c. for any aircraft configuration with up to three wings. It should be noted that these ac. calculations do not include the effect of the fuselage or propeller. For most designs, the fuselage has a very small effect on the ac. location. For the EXAMPLE, we used the AEROCENTER Program and determined that the a.c. is located 89.4 Inches from the nose of the aircraft and we locate the removable payloads such as fuel and the passenger as close to the ac. as possible to minimize the c.g. shift. The maximum aft c.g. position must never be located aft of the ac. If we do not like the design and a.c. position of our aircraft, we must redesign and start over until we are happy with our configuration and planform 3.4 ENGINE SELECTION Let us assume that we are content with our planform so that we can Continue our design. We now assume a power loading, PL, which is defined as the gross weight of the aircraft divided by the maximum horsepower, HP. Table 3.2 summarizes typical power loadings. For our EXAMPLE we pick @ power loading of 17 Ibs/np. If we divide the gross weight by the power loading, we have the engine size in horsepower. For the EXAMPLE, the engine size is, GW/PL = 1100/17 = 65 hp. Rotax makes anice little 65 hp engine called the Rotax 532 which fs a two cylinder, two cycle, water Cooled engine that sells for about $1600 new with a 2.58:1 reduction drive and weighs about 90 lbs complete with muffler. Propeller speed is about 2800 rpm for this and most other aircraft engines. We pick this engine for our EXAMPLE. Table 3.2. Typical Power Loadings for Aircraft. Power Loading, Lbs/hp Conventional/Canard Fixed Wing 8-18 Powered Glider and Ultralights 13 - 30. Helicopter and Gyroplane 7-10 19 Table 3.3 lists aircraft engines from which we may choose our engine. In previous tables, | have included Volkswagen engine conversions, but | have eliminated them from this table because these engines, as modified CONVENTIONAL 5 AR= 6 Cla e/4e— Koc = SK +045 petym x i SHALL CANARD AR =6 cla nay Xac=$X+ 1.155% SSneee Cie Conard AR= 12 ; Wing Kec=Sk+125s'x' Datum s+ 1255 TANDEM WING AR = 6 c/a c/4 Kec=O5SX+1ISS'x a Fa 055+ 1155" SS AE AR = 12 i Xoc 7SX+1.25S'x Detum O7S+1255° Figure 3.4, Aerodynamic Center Equations in the United States, and other automotive engine conversions at the time 20 il | | ] J of this writing are unreliable and not intended for aircraft use. | had a a Revmaster engine conversion in my Condor. The engine head studs needed ] tightening and torqueing, and the valves needed adjusting every 5 hours. Only one magneto drive was used which had problems and eventually caused an aborted takeoff which resulted in a bad accident. Needless to say, | am not enthusiastic about nor do | recommend automobile engine conversions ” Table 3.3. Engines Which Can Be Used In Aircraft a F Engine Power & Speed ** Dry Weight, Lb Fuel, Gal/hr* Cost,$ a : ROTAX 227 28hp 3000rpm 50 25 1000. 7 ROTAX 447, 40 = 3000 60 3 1200. - ROTAXS32 65 = 2800 90 4 1600. i Cont.C-75. 75 2750 190 ie 5000. Cont.0-200 100 2750 210 6 7000. i : Lyc.0-235 115 2800 218 35: 7000. 7 Lyc.0-320 150 2700 258 WW 9000. - Lyc.0-360 180 2700 265 15 10000. I * Approximate fuel consumption at 85% power ** Propeller speed — 3.5 AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE Let us now see if the engine that we have tentatively selected meets our performance expectations by calculating the climb angle and maximum 2 speed. The climb angle, do, in radians 1s determined from Eq 35. This equation 1s used by Dr. RT. Jones and It gives good results. = bor 50 xu vp 72 Cp - 1/ ("x AR) (3.5) i GW / HP x VeW/s where, 8 = Climb angle in radians, should be greater than 3° To convert radians to degrees, multiply by 180/s Ji = propeller efficiency, average is 0.55 Coo = total aircraft drag coefficient, 0.02 to 0.04 AR = wing aspect ratio p = density of air, 0.00238 slugs/ft> at sea level 2 Knowing the climb angle, the climb rate ts readily determined from Eq 36. Eq 3.5 assumes that the aircraft is climbing at a lift coefficient of 1.0. Therefore, calculate the airspeed of your aircraft at a lift coefficient of 1.0 by substituting into Eq 2.2. For the EXAMPLE, V= [2x1 100 / (.00236x66*1)}!/2 = 118.3 fps or 80.5 mph Substituting into Eq 3.5 we have, 8, = 950x0.55(0,00238/2)'/2 - 0.02 - 1/(3.14x6.67) = 0.084 radians 1100/65 x(1100/66)!/2 0.084 radians x 180/3.141 = 4.8 degrees. Climb rate in feet per minute = ROC = 60 x Vx &¢. (3.6) Substituting into Eq 3.6 for the EXAMPLE we have, ROC=60x118.3x0.085=593 fpm. This climb rate is not fantastic but for an inexpensive two place aircraft it will do. After all, a Cessna 152 climbs at the same speed. Calculating the maximum speed is a little more cumbersome. First we calculate the propeller thrust as follows. DIA = 360[HP/(N2xV;n,)1!/4 (3.7) ‘Where, DIA = propeller diameter in feet HP = horsepower N ropeller speed, rpm Vmaxz estimated maximum speed of aircraft in ft/sec ‘Tne propeller diameter is estimated by substituting into Eq 3.7. We assume a maximum speed. For the EXAMPLE aircraft a maximum speed of 170 mph ts estimated, Multiplying 170 by 1.47 we have 250 ft/sec Substituting the appropriate values Into Eq 37 forthe EXAMPLE we have, DIA = 360{ 65/(28002x250)]!/4 = 49 feet or 58 inches. The static thrust, To, 1s calculated from Eq 3.8. 22 PaPLPL PL -_ = 7.36%( HPXDIA )2/3 x( p/p, 173 (38) Where, P/ Po = alr density ratio, equal to | at sea level For the EXAMPLE, Ty = 7.38 x (65 x 49)/3 x (1) = 345 Ibs. The dynamic thrust,T, 1s calculated from Eq 3.9, T= To *{1.0 - 0.106xV [(N x DIA? x p/pg)/HPx107))!/2) (3.9) Substituting into Eq 3.9 for the EXAMPLE, we have, T = 345x{ 1.0-0. 106x250[(2800x4.95x11/(65x107)]!/2}=139 Ibs at 170 mon During the preliminary design phase we do not sum up the individual drags to determine the total drag of our aircraft. It will suffice to look at existing aircraft flat plate drag areas, D/q, and pick one that we think we can match with our aircraft. Table 3.4 lists various flat plate drag areas for typical aircraft. By the way, the flat plate drag area is the area in Square feet of a flat plate that is turned 90 degrees to the airstream that has the same profile drag as the entire aircraft. This assumes that 90% of a flat plate area has a Cp = 1.0. Since the induced drag is very small at the maximum speed, we will ignore it for determining the maximum speed of our aircraft. D represent the total drag in pounds and q is the dynamic Pressure as given by Eq 3.10 a= 1/2x px v2 (3.10) Where, p = density of air in slugs/cuft, 0.00238 slugs/cuft at SL. V= velocity In ft/sec. The total drag, D, of our aircraft 1s simply D/q x q. For the EXAMPLE we know that we are going to build a very clean composite aircraft and we think that we can achieve a D/q of 1.8. From Eq 3.10, the dynamic pressure at 170 mph or 170 x1.47 = 250 fps is 1/2 x.00238x 2502 =743 slugs/sec2 The total drag Is 1.8 x 74.3 = 134 Ibs. 23 Table 3.4. D/q Values for Various Aircraft. as a a Ercoupe, Cessna 150 44 Lear Fan a1 Cherokee 180 a9 Varieze 21 a2 13 Lancair200 159 cha ee tS ae Since the thrust at thts speed is 139 Ibs, we can expect the EXAMPLE to fly a little faster and we go through the above calculations again until the drag equals the thrust. Obviously this can become tedious quickly and a computer with the appropriate computer program can perform these calculations with more ease. Appendix A includes a listing of a program called AIRCRAFT DESIGN which can do these calculations for us. If you have a Macintosh and Microsoft Basic 20 you can perform these calculations in minutes. The maximum airspeed for the EXAMPLE Is 172 mph and we will pick a cruise speed of about 85% of the maximum speed. The cruise speed selected is 0.85 x 172 = 146 mph or 215 fps. If this speed is not fast enough we will have to select a larger engine. From Table 3.3, the next larger engine with any substantial Increase in power would be a Continental 0-200 with 100 hp. This engine, however, does not meet our criteria for a low cost aircraft since the price of anew Continental 0-200 is substantially higher at $7000 than the ROTAX 532 which only costs $1600 new. 3.6 SELECTING AIRFOILS Knowing our cruise speed we proceed by determining the cruise lift coefficient of the main wing by rearranging the terms of Eq 2.1 and substituting the proper values. Cy = 2xGW / (p x V2 xS) = 2#1 100/(.00238x2152x66) = 0.303 The angle of attack, o, of the wing from the zero lift line ts determined from Eq 3.11 and the airfotl camber ts determined from Eq 3.12. 24 eee ee oe Ln _ a u jo. 7 i ox = (AR * 2) Cy cruise / (2xmAR) G1) Where, « = angle of attack in radians AR = aspect ratio of wing Ccruise = wing lift coefficient at cruise speed nT =3.141 Camber = «x 100 / 2 (3.12) ‘Substituting into Eqs 3.11 and 3.12 for the EXAMPLE, we have, o& = (6.67 + 2)x.303/(2x3.14x6.67) = 0.0627 and camber = 0.0627x100/2 = 314%. Both the NACA 63 and 65 series airfoils are excellent for wings. For the root chord we pick an airfoil with a 4% camber and for the tip we pick an airfoil with a 2 % camber which gives us an average camber of 3%. The third number in the NACA airfoil series indicates the C, for which the airfoil is designed. C, 1s approximately equal to the camber. From Table 3.5 we pick a NACA65418 airfoil for the root and a NACA65212 airfoil for the tip. The last two digits of the airfoil name indicate the maximum airfoil thickness as a percent of chord. The 18 percent thick airfoil is selected for the root since we want a deep airfotl to minimize the size and weight of the spar and to house fuel. For the tip a thinner airfotl with a lower wing camber ts selected since we do not need a deep spar at the tip and we want the tip to stall last. The lower camber will give the wing a built in twist if the chords of all airfoil sections are parallel. If we are given an airfoil and if we want to determine the angle of the zero lift line from the chord, we simply plot a line half way between the top and bottom surface of the airfoil and make a mark at the SO% chord on the line. A line connecting this point to the trailing edge will represent the zero lift line of the airfoil. In other words, if the airfoil Is set at this angle, a in Figure 3.5, zero lift is produced. If we want our aircraft to fly with the fuselage horizontal at cruise speed, we will set the angle of incidence of the wing horizontal or parallel to the fuselage centerline. Flap hinge lines are normally located at the 75% wing chord line and aileron hinge lines are normally located at the 85% wing chord line. Do not make the aileron chords too large since the lateral stick forces may become large and the aircraft will be unpleasant to fly. 2 Table 3.5. Common Airfoil Sections. NACA 6309 Tail surfaces NACA 63012* Tail surfaces NACA 23012 modified* Flying wings, helicopter blades NACA 4412 Wing, Canard, Propeller NACA 63415* Wing NACA 659215* Wing NACA 65415* wing NACA 65418* Wing** NACA 8-H-12* Helicopter and gyroplane** blades Wortmann FX67-K-170/17* Powered gliders GAW-1 or LS 0417* Canard u25* No good NACA 101 Canard Goettingen 387 Excellent for Canard NLF- 0215* Excellent for wing** * = laminar. Reference 2. ** coordinates are included in the AIRFOIL PLOT program in Appendix A and full size, to scale, plots for any chord length can be made using a Macintosh Personal Computer and the Imagewriter. NACA CODE: NACA 63415 6 = series, 3 = position of minimum. Pressure and maximum thickness, 4=C, in tenth, 1S maximum thickness in % of chord, It is desired to have the lateral stick forces match the elevator stick forces. The appeal for using flaperons Is very high for the amateur. However, during landing, when the flaperons are deflected to achieve a high lift coefficient, the need for lateral control !s paramount and you wil! find that you have run out of aileron contro! since your ailerons are being used as flaps. Separate the flaps from the allerons. 26 7 el ial al ea eee! leat tm rm! Leal | Flea eu Zero Lift Line Meen Chord Line Figure 3.5. Zero Lift Line of an Airfoil 3.7 VERTICAL TAIL SIZING From Reference 10 the vertical tail statistics show that a vertical tafl volume coefficient, Vy, of 0.034 can be used. The vertical tail area, Sy can be calculated from Eq 3.13. Sy = 0.03 xS*xB/ly (3.13) Where, S = wing area, sqft. B = wing span, ft 1, = distance from the c.g. to the 1/4 chord of the vertical tall, ft. The tail planform {s designed for aesthetics. So make it look nice and make it as large as possible. It seems that most airplanes just do not have enough vertical tail area, For a canard configured aircraft, winglets are mounted at the tips of the wings The rudders on each winglet deflect outward only so that the drag generated by the winglet helps to yaw the aircraft into the direction of the turn. If the aircraft is to turn left, only the left winglet rudder is deflected outward. For the EXAMPLE we have located the single rudder as far aft as possible and the moment arm, ly, 1s 6.0 ft. Substituting into Eq 3.13 we calculate a vertical tail area of, Sy = 0.034 x 66 x 20/ 6.0= 75 saft. The rudder hing is normally located at the 70% chord line. 3.8 HORIZONTAL TAIL TRIM AS we mentioned earlier, it is very important not to stall the rear lifting 27 surface of our canard or conventional aircraft. To assure that this does Rot happen we limit the maximum lift coefficient of the canard wing to 1.0 and for the conventional aircraft, the horizontal tall lift coefficient to 0.8. The maximum lift coefficients are obtained at slow speed when we land the aircraft. Therefore we must calculate the stall speed of our aircraft first by using Eq 2.2. For our aircraft EXAMPLE, the stall speed Is, Vg = [2 x 1100/(.00238x66x1,8)]!/2 = 88.2 ft/sec or 60 mph The canard and wing are lifting together and a maximum lift coefficient of 1.8 Is used. The nose down pitching moment of the wing is calculated per Eq 2.3 and It is -493 ft. Ibs. with flaps down. We now sum moments about fuselage station 0, determine the forces on the wing, canard, and tatl per Eqs 2.4 and 25 and calculate the lift coefficients of each surface and compare these coefficients to the maximum allowable coefficients that we can operate at. We must never allow the rear wing or tail to stall firs 3.9 SPECIFICATION SHEET AND LAYOUT If at any step along in the design of our aircraft, we do not like the values of performance or other parameters that we calculate, we must select New parameters and perform our calculations over ayain until we have achieved a happy compromise. We must also make layouts of our aircraft to see what the configuration looks like and perform c.g. calculations to see if we can manage to locate the c.g. ahead of the ac. Usually the c.g. is located about 1 to 6 inches ahead of the acc. for conventional aircraft. If we have arrived at a design that we are happy with, we fill in a new specification sheet, similar to the one in Table 3.1. The new spec sheet. for the EXAMPLE is shown in Table 3.6. The most important drawing of our aircraft is the inboard profile drawing showing the side view and the location of the pilot and passenger and engine and fuselage section. A scale of 1/10 is usually selected and the nose of the aircraft is always located to the left. 28 oe, I = ww Table 3.6. Specifications for the EXAMPLE Name of Aircraft EXAMPLE Type Fixed wing, 2 place Empty Weight 656 Ibs Useful Load 444 Ibs Gross Weight. 1100 Ibs Engine, Rotax 532 65 hp @ 6300 rpm Propeller, 2 bladed, wood ‘$8 inch diameter Area 60 sqft. Span 20 ft. Root Chord 4.00 ft. Tip Chord 2.00 ft. Mean Aerodynamic Chord 31 ft. Airfoil, Root NACA6S418 Tip NACA6S212 Canard Data Area 6 sqft, ‘Span 7 ft Chord 10.50 In. Airfoil NACA4412 Tail Data Area 9 sqft. Span 67ft Chord 16.00 In. Airfoil NACA63012 Nertical Tail Area 7.50 sqft. Performance at Gross Weight and at Sea Level, Stall Speed 60 mph Maximum Speed 172 mph Cruise Speed 146 mph Rate of Climb at 80 mph 593 fpm. Range, with 1/2 hr reserve 535 miles A datum line ts drawn at the front of the aircraft. You should locate this datum at the nose of the aircraft and all longitudinal c.g. locations are referenced from this datum. See Figure 3.6. The forward location is important since it is not desirable to have negative fuselage stations and that can happen if the length of your design increases past the nose. There eo is nothing that will confuse a person more than negative fuselage stations and | have seen a number of aircraft layouts that have just that. Make a ‘small and large person out of plexiglas as shown in Figure 3.7. Hinge his legs and other Joints with a small aluminum pop rivet so that you can Make him sit in different positions and use him as a template. Make Certain that the large and small person can sit in your aircraft and that he has plenty of head clearance. Allow for the curvature of the canopy for side by side seating arrangements. Full size engine installation drawings can usually be obtained free by calling up the engine manufacturer. These drawings are well detailed and show the engine mounting locations and dimensions, the c.g. location, and overall dimensions. The drawings are usually 1/4 and 1/2 scale and you will have to reduce them to 1/10 scale for your inboard profile drawing. Figure 3.7 shows the 1/10 scale side view of a Lycoming and Continental engine. The detail shown will suffice for your layouts. Purchase vellum paper which is semi transparent and underlay the engine sketches and trace them on your layout. Draw all the components into your inboard profile drawing and locate all corresponding c.gs into the drawing. Measure the location of these c.g from the datum reference and calculate the center of gravity for your aircraft from the datum reference. Table 3.7 shows the c.g. calculations for the EXAMPLE. This 1s a very tedious operation since you will have to perform it over and over again very time you make a change. A simple computer program called CENTER OF GRAVITY is listed in Appendix A. Again, this program is written in BASIC for the Macintosh and it calculates the empty weight g., the minimum operating weight cg. and the gross weight cg The empty weight c.g. is important in locating the main wheels. Constant Velocity Cg. fuselage Coupling Rotex 532 Figure 3.6. 1/10 Scale Inboard Profile View of the EXAMPLE 30 Lor rr ie ee ee Se eet 5° 5° Tall 5% Man ee ie tel Table 3.7. Weight and Balance Calculations for the EXAMPLE ITEM WEIGHT, LBS MOMENT ARM, IN. WEIGHT x MOMENT ARM. 1 Engine 10 105, 11550, 2 Wing 75 100 17500 3 Fuselage 192 78 14976 4 Hor, Tall 27 180 4860 S) Ver. Tail 20 160 3200 6 Canard 35. 12 420 7 Battery 7 22 374 8 Wheels 38 90 3420 9 Propeller 12 216 2592 10 Drive Shaft 17. 148 2516 EMPTY WT 643 61408 MINIMUM WEIGHT PAYLOAD 11 Pilot 100 70 7000 14 Fuel A 90 20: I MINIMUM WT 743 68408. GROSS WEIGHT PAYLOAD. 12 Pilot 170 70 11900 12 Passenger 170 70 11900 13 Baggage 8 5 360 14 Fuel 18 90 8640 GROSS WT 1087 94208 EMPTY WEIGHT C.6. = 61408/643 = 95.5 Inches MINIMUM WEIGHT C.6. = 68408/743 = 92.06 Inches GROSS WEIGHT C.G. = 94208/1087 = 86.7 Inches If you are designing a trigear aircraft, you will locate the aft wheels just behind the empty weight c.g. so that the aircraft will not sit on its tail when it is empty. You do not want to move the main wheels too far aft since this will increase the take off rotation speed and take off distance of your aircraft. For a tail dragger, don’t move the main wheels too far forward for the same reason. But don't move them back so far that when 1 your tail comes up on take off, the aircraft has a tendency to nose over at 32 maximum gross weight c.g. Make certain that the most aft cg, for all loading conditions does not go past the ac. of the aircraft. Also check the horizontal tail lift coefficient for the c.g. in the most forward location. Again, the lift coefficient should not exceed 0.8. The ac. is located at F.S. 7.45 x 12 = 89.4 Inches which ts aft of the gross weight c.g. However, with the minimum weight pilot the aircraft is unstable and will be very tricky to fly. We will have to add about 23 Ibs of hose weight if a 100 Ib pilot flys the EXAMPLE under stable conditions. During the building process, it is important to check the weights of all the Components to assure that they are within the budgeted weight and that the c.g. comes out where you want it. 33 CHAPT 4 os LA LOADS ACCORDING TO FAR PART 23 Prior to performing the structural sizing and stress analysis, we ; determine the loads acting on the aircraft during flight and landing as summarized in Figure 4.1. Determining the loads, such as for a helicopter rotor blade in forward flight, involves more intensive analysis than finding the stress distribution However Appendix A of the Federal Aviation Regulations, FARs, Part 23, “Airworthiness Standards. Normal, Utility, and Aerobatic Category Airplanes”, Reference 5, makes this task rather easy for aircraft weighing less than 6,000 Ibs and this method is described in the following pages 4 Lift Ds Benking Turn feet ley 4 Pull Up Lift THIN oust ’ Lending Figure 41. Loads Acting on an Aircraft Certain assumptions are made to help simplify the analysis, For example, if we look at the airflow passing over a wing as shown in Figure 42 a ” Pressure on the top and bottom of the wing as shown in Figure 43 is realized. The pressure distribution wil! vary somewhat depending on what angle of attack the wing fs operating at. To simplify the structural analysis we will assume a triangular load distribution over the chord of the wing as shown in the same figure. | eee oo) oe) oe oe ea ant ea Figure 42. Streamlines Showing Airflow Over a Wing. Spacing between the Streamlines shows the Velocity of the Air. The Closer the Spacing, the Higher the Velocity Pressure Distribution ot Upper Surface, Negative Pressure Distribution on Lower Surface, Positive Wing at an Angle of Attack of 10 degrees and Lift Coefficient of 1.26 Alrload Distribution at High Angle of Attack. Upper Surface Pressure is Negative and Bottom is Positive. The Bottom Distribution is Shown Upside Down, Figure 43 Chordwise Airload Distributions on Airfotls I 36 Pressure on Upper Surface es. ‘on Lower Surface Airload Pressure Distribution on 2 Wing at Low Angle of Attack = 2 degrees. Lift Coefficient =0.44 Assumed Chordwise Airload Distribution Used for Analysis and Rib Sizing 7 Figure 4.3 Chordwise Airload Distributions on Airfoils The maximum loads that an aircraft is subjected to in flight are called the “| limit loads. Most of the loads that we will talk about in this chapter are = limit loads. That ts, these are the loads that we will limit our aircraft to - in flight and FAR Part 23 specifies that no material yielding or permanent deformation will occur at these loads. The ultimate loads are defined as | the limit loads times a safety factor and it will be shown by analysis or | by testing that the structure will not fail at ultimate loads. Notice that a the structure fs allowed to yield or bend. Mil-Hdbk-5 specifies a safety | factor of 1.5 for all aluminum structures and a safety factor of 2.0 is accepted for composite materials. At the time of this writing, there is no v7 i ae cei ee calla ieee aaa aaa taae official document that specifies this value but this value is pretty much accepted by the aerospace industry. The majority of the structural analysis that we perform, will be to show that the structure does not fall at ultimate loads and we call this an ultimate loads analysis to distinguish it from a limit loads analysis. However, the majority of the loads that we calculate in this chapter are limit loads. We must make a decision as to what category loads our aircraft will be designed to and we have three categories to pick from. For the normal category, FARs Part 23 specifies that the maximum positive g limit load factor ts 3.8 gs. For the utility category 4.4 gs is specified and for acrobatic, 6.0 gs is required as summarized in Table 4.1. The positive limit flight load factor, Ny, IS defined as, perpendicular to the direction of flight and pushing the Pilot into the seat acceleration that the aircraft will be subjected to Aircraft in which no rolls or loops or otherwise nonstandard maneuvers are to be performed, can be designed for normal category. The Ercoupe and Cessna 150 are designed in this category. If we intend to perform mild Maneuvers such as loops and rolls at gross weight we should design to the utility category. Very seldom do we need to design an aircraft to acrobatic category. A large weight penalty is realized for this class for aircraft without struts and wires. Using a clean wing, very few aircraft are fully acrobatic. At a 60 degree banked turn an aircraft will realize 2 gs. In most loops, at least 3 gs will be realized. A good selection for a sport aircraft is the utility category and we pick this class for the EXAMPLE, Table 4.1 Aircraft Limit Load Factors per FAR Part 23 Normal Utility Acrobatic Category Category Category Flight Load ny 38 44 60 Factors, Ng -0.5xn; Flaps Up n3 From Figure 4.4 ng From Figure 45 Flight Load Ortap .5xn} Factors, Flaps Down 38 Where, Ny = airplane positive maneuver limit load factor No = alrplane negative maneuvering limit load factor Ng = airplane positive gust limit load factor at Vc Ng = airplane negative gust limit load factor at Vc riaps « airplane positive limit load factor, flaps fully extended at Vp Vc = maximum design cruise speed Ve = maximum flap speed V, = stall speed Vp = maximum design dive speed V4= maximum maneuvering flight speed For glider ny = nz = 4.67 and no = ng =-2.33 per Basic Glider Criteria Handbook. For helicopter and gyroplane rotors, nj = ny =35 and ng = ng = -05 as specified in FAR Part 27 #20 CHART FOR FINDING ny FACTOR AT SPEED Ve Figure 4.4 Chart for Finding ns at Speed Vc 39 CHART FOR FINDING 74 FACTOR AT SPEED We Figure 45 Chart for Finding ng at Speed V. FAR Part 23, Reference 5, gives us the following equations to calculate minimum design speeds for our aircraft. These equations are primarily a function of the design maneuvering wing load which is the gross weight, W, divided by the wing area, S, times the limit flight load factor, nj Since we are working in miles per hours and the equations in FAR Part 23 are in knots, we multiply each equation by 1.15 as follows. Vp min, = 1.15x24.0(nxw/s)!/2 put need not exceed (4.1) 1.15x1.4xVemin.x(n /3.8)!72 Ve min. = 1.15x17.0x(n xw/s)!/2 Vamin, = 1.15x15.0x(n,xW/S)!/2 but need not exceed Vc used in design Vg min, = 1.15x11.0x(n,xw/s)!/2 Using Eqs 4.1 we can now establish our V-N Diagram which is also known as the Flight Envelope as shown in Figure 46. The design load factors are 4 ee ee ee ee Oe ee ee plotted as a function of the design speeds. The design speeds that we use are higher than those determined by Eqs 4.1 even though the actual aircraft performance 1s not the same. In Figure 46, HAA stands for high angle of attack and LAA represents low angle of attack. The angle of attack is given as a Figure 4.6. Flight Envelope of a Fixed Wing Aircraft per FAR Part 23 41 For our EXAMPLE we calculate a limit flight load factor times wing loading of nyxW/S = 4.4x1 100/66 = 75.3 and the following design speeds per Eqs 41 Vp min, = 1.15x240x(73.3)!/2 = 236 mph Ve min, = 1.15x17.0x(73.3)!/2 = 167 mph Vq min. = 1.15x15.0x(73,3)!/2 = 147 mph Vp min, = 1.15x11.0x(73,3)!/2 = 108 mph ny * 44 and ng = -05x44 = -22 From our specification sheet, see Table 3.6, the cruise speed for the EXAMPLE {s 146 mph. Therefore K in Figures 4.4 and 45 equals 146/167 = 087 and ns = ny = 44 and ng = Ny = -22 where ns and ng are the gust fight load factors at Ve. For aircraft that utilize large engines and that can fly at higher speeds, Vc is often much higher than Vc min. as determined by Eq 41. For these aircraft nz 1s higher than ny. ng is the gust limit flight load factor based upon the aircraft flying into a gust of 25 feet per second. The flight envelope for the EXAMPLE is shown in Figure 47 The engine mount is designed for a limit engine torque at takeoff power with 75 percent of the limit loads from flight condition A in Figure 46. Where the limit torque is defined as the mean torque for maximum continuous power multiplied by a factor of 2, or 3, or 4 for engines with 4, 3, and 2 cylinders respectively. The engine mount is also designed for a lateral limit load factor of 1.33 acting independent of other load conditions. The seat belt attachments and seats must be designed for the following pilot and passenger ultimate inertia load factors, These loads are applied independently of each other. Table 4.3 Occupant Ultimate Inertia Load Factors Normal and Utility Acrobatic Category Upward - = 3.095 4595 Forward- == 9.095 9.0 9s Sideward --- 1595 159s 42 on, l P| ee) |) eee ee oe oe be 108 ¥p=167 Vy=236 el Flight Limit Load Factor, n Velocity, mph Figure 4.7 Flight Envelope for the EXAMPLE The control surface forces and control system need not be designed to higher limit loads than those shown in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Pilot Limit Forces and Torques Control Maximum Force or Torque Aileron, Stick 67 Ibs Wheel 50xD in.Ibs Elevator: Stick 167 Ibs ‘Wheel 200 Ibs Rudder 200 Ibs Where D = diameter of the wheel in inches. The horizontal tail, vertical tail, and control surface loads are determined using the design maneuvering wing loading that we previously calculated Using Figures 4.8 and 4,9, the average surface loadings, w, are determined for the horizontal tafl, vertical tail, and control surfaces. The total force on each surface is the area of the surface in sqft. multiplied by the average loading, w, in Ibs/sqft. For the EXAMPLE, n)xW/S is 73,3 Ibs/sq.ft. From Table 48 the average surface loading is 43 Ibs/sqft. If we multiply the horizontal tail area of 9 sqft. by 43 Ibs/sqft. we have a 43 total limit load of 387 Ibs. We can also calculate the tail load for any point on the V-N diagram of Figure 4.6. To demonstrate these calculations, we will determine the horizontal tail load for the three aircraft configurations that we compared in Chapter 2. The first tail load calculation will be made for the conventional configured aircraft with the parameters as summarized in Table 2.1. We will assume the worst load condition with the c.g. ahead of the ac. by one foot so that the dimension of 7.46 ft in Figure 2.2 is 6.46 ft and we will assume that we are using the Eagle NLF-0215F airfoil which has a wing nose down pitching moment coefficient of -0.15 with zero flap deflection. With the flaps deflected up 10 degrees, the nose down pitching moment is -0.06. The maximum design dive speed is 245 mph or 359 ft/sec. per point D on Figure 46 and we are diving our aircraft and pulling up hard at 44 gs To find the forces on the tail, we first calculate the dynamic pressure, q, at 359 ft/sec from Eq 3.10. Therefore, q = 1/2 x 0.00238 x 3502 = 153.4 The wing nose down pitching moment ts calculated from Eq 2.5 as follows, M = 153.4 x 60 x 3 x (-0.15) = -4,142 ft. Ibs. (4.2) Now substituting into Eq 2.6, we have, 2M25c = (6.46-6.5)*4.41100 - 4,142 - (16.5-6.5)*L2 = 0 Solving this equation, the vertical force on the tail is L2 = 434 Ibs and by summing forces in the vertical direction, the lift on the main wing is Lt = 5,274 lbs for the conventional aircraft of Figure 2.2. We can now compare the L2 load per the load determined from FAR Part 23. From Figure 4.8, for a design maneuvering wing load of 80.7, we have a average surface loading of 48 psf. The total design load for the horizontal tail per FAR Part 23 is then 48 x 15 = 720 Ibs which is above our worst load case from the V-N diagram. We should design the tail to the 720 Ibs per FAR Part 23 We will now calculate the forces on the lifting surfaces of the canard aircraft of Figure 2.4. For the main wing we will use a NACA65416 airfoil which has a pitching moment coefficient of -0.05. Other parameters are summarized in Table 2.1. The same q as for the conventional aircraft is used. The wing nose down pitching moment, M, is determined by substituting into Eq 2.3 as follows, M = 153.4 x 60 x 3 x (-0.05) = -1,381 ft.lbs Summing moments about the 1/4 chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of 44 . Pe fol lt fo aed amsed ase Rasal tn 1 the wing as shown in Figure 2.4 we have, DM gsc =(15.0-.5)L1 - (15.0-9.17)*4.4 «1100 ~ 1,381=0 (4.3) ‘And summing forces in the vertical, we have L1 + L2=4.4*1100. Substituting into Eq. 43 we have, DMyg¢ = 14.5xL1 - 28,217 -1,381 = 0 Therefore the lift of the canard is L1 = 2.041 Ibs and the lift on the main wing ts L2 = 2,799 Ibs) We can see that a canard can be very highly loaded. However, this does reduce the load on the main wing at high load levels. It should be noted that the pitching moment of the canard or tail is not included because of its small effect on the results. For the three wing aircraft we set up three equations and solve for the lift on each wing. The aircraft is designed such that with the c.g. on the ac., the canard lift coefficient is about 1.2 times the lift coefficient of the main wing. Therefore, the lift of the canard, L1, is equal to, LI=12*S"*L2/5 (4.4) Where S” is the canard area, L2 is the lift of the main wing, and S fs the main wing area A NACA65418 airfoil is used with a pitching moment coefficient of -0.05 with flaps up. The maximum design dive speed is 236 mph or 346 ft/sec. and the q at this speed is 143. The wing pitching moment is, M = 143 x 60 x 3 x (-0.05) = 1,287 ft.Ibs Since we have designed the c.g. location such that the canard’s lift coefficient is operating at 1.2 times the lift coefficient of the wing, we can use Eq 4.4 and LI = 1.2*S"*L2/S = 1.2x6xL2/60 = 0.12xL2. Summing vertical forces we have, L1 + L2 + L3 = 4.4x1100 or L3 = 4840 - LI - L2. Substituting L1 = 0.12xL2 into this equation we have L3 = 4840 - 1.12eL2. Now we sum moments about the 1/4 chord of the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing @s shown in Figure 2.1 and move the c.g, forward by one foot for the maximum forward c.g. location. Then, 45 on 250 7 (7.92-.5)xL1 + (7.92-6.45)*4.4%1100 - 1,287 = (16.3-7.92)xL3 = 0 (4.5) Substituting the values of L1 and L3 into Eq 4.5 we have, SM ogc = (7.92-.5)x0.124L2 = 7,115 ~ 1,287 = (16.3-7.92)x(4,840-1.12xL2) = 0 Solving for the lift of the main wing, L2 = 4,764 Ibs. and the lift of the canard L1 = 572 Ibs, and the lift of the tail is L3 = -497 Ibs. The design tail load that we previously calculated per FAR Part 23 is 387 Ibs. For the tail we use -497 Ibs and for the canard we use 572 Ibs. Most aircraft land on the main two wheels and the limit landing load factor should be greater than 2.67 per FAR Part 23 and no more than 40. From my experience, both shock and rigid mounted Tanding gears should be designed to a limit landing load factor of 3.0. The vertical force for each of the two main wheels Is, Py = Wxn/2. (46) and the horizontal braking force, Pp, 1S Py = 1/4 Py Where, W = gross weight of the aircraft, Ibs 1 = limit ground load factor = 3.0 Nose wheel and tall wheel forces are calculated by summing moments about the main wheels with the aircraft sitting on the ground and multiplying by a factor of 2.0 to achieve a limit design load. Normally nose wheel and tail wheels loads are usually exceptionally high, 200 to 400 Ibs, for most small aircraft. 2 3 () #366 tt for mil <47 ond ARS2.0 534 (m4) for nif > 47 « 10°Sin/in/9F Poisson's ratio is the ratio of the material shrinkage in one direction when. the material is pulled at 90 degrees to the shrinkage. Therefore, Dyp = ~Ep/Ey and Voy = V1 pEd/E} (5.2) S2 Irmo eno eee ! L onl Table 5.4 Composite Material Properties Material €j¢ et 6 oy FU Ft FU FU FL p 1 23 2S $016 90120133" SSS 24e 245873). .0.076 2 AA Tel 2a OAT eon ten Oana Soe 6.2 0.076 3 TAT OLS 0.16 33° 300 - a 7 0.076 4 4.24.1 043 0:16 60° 7:2 30 ~12.7°6' 0.076 5 TA AAS 04 oui 0" = 60 23 2seee 1 0050. 6 10-97 Ob 2 7She 75. = - id 0.058 7 do weteurooe Gil 1500 715 wyomzon er 0.055 8 38° 1.9" == Se + ea 6 0.076 o 2.28 16 06 0.2 32 32 23 23 6 0.076 Material Code, 1 Hand Layed Up, Bidirectional, Style 7781 E-Fiberglass in Epoxy Resin, 50% by Volume Resin, 2 Hand Layed Up, Unidirectional, Style 1543 E-Fiberglass in Epoxy Resin, SOR by Volume Resin. RASI77 is similar. 3 Hand Layed Up, Bidirectional, Style 7781 E-Fiberglass in Polyester Resin, 50% by Volume Resin 4 Hand Layed Up, Unidirectional, Style 1543 E-Fiberglass in Polyester Resin, 50% by Volume Resin. 5S Vacuum Bagged, Bidirectional, Style 181 Kevlar in Epoxy resin. 40% by Volume Resin, 6 Vacuum Bagged, Bidirectional, HF 134/34 (T300) Graphite Fibers in Epoxy Resin. 45% by Volume Resin. 7 Vacuum Bagged, Unidirectional AS-4 or T300 Graphite Fibers in Epoxy Resin. 40% by Volume Resin. 8 Vacuum Bagged, Unidirectional S-2 Glass in Epoxy Resin. ORCON S-500. 9 Hand Layed Up, Bidirectional, Style 7725 E-Fiberglass in Epoxy Resin RAS277 ts similar. The average thickness per ply for most materials is 0.010 inches. However, specific material thicknesses will vary depending upon resin content and material styles. 5.3 COMPOSITE SANDWICH MATERIALS One of the most promising structures is the sandwich structure which Is 33 being used to fabricate fuselage shells, bulkheads, radomes, wing skins, fairings and most light weight, stiff aerodynamic structures. The great appeal of the sandwich structure comes from its high bending strength and stiffness and light weight. For a given bending moment a fiberglass/foam sandwich will weigh about 28% of the weight of a steel plate and about 38 % of the weight of an aluminum plate. This means that a sandwich skin needs less support structure to back it up than the aluminum skinned structure where a large number of ribs, stringers, and bulkheads are Needed. The simpler back up structure allows lower cost assemblies. Furthermore, the sandwich structures can be formed to complex shapes with relatively low cost tooling, Aluminum requires stretch forming, etc to give two dimensional curves. The outside surface of sandwich structures are also very smooth and stable to give low aerodynamic drag and we can expect better performance from sandwich structured aircraft than from aluminum skinned and riveted aircraft in which buckling of the skin is inevitable. Basic material costs are also very attractive. For example, the fiberglass/foam sandwich using a Rohacell core will cost $0.75 per panel compared to the aluminum sample material cost of $1.12 per panel for the previous stated example. Sandwich structures are superior to other structures for many aircraft applications and we will witness a revolution in the next 20 years in the utilization of this type of structure in major airframe components. Let us now look in detail at several types of sandwich structures and their relative costs. The outside skins or face sheets are made up of fiberglass, graphite, or Kevlar, fabrics or tapes impregnated with a resin matrix. These face sheets provide the bending strength and stiffness and surface hardness to the sandwich. The face sheets are separated by a low density core material which can be either foam or honeycomb. The face sheets must be adequately bonded to the core so that the shear stresses caused by bending loads can be transmitted to the core which is designed to carry the shear stresses. The shear strength of the core is the most important property and we select the weight of the the core for our application by its shear strength. Figure 5.2 shows typical foam and honeycomb core structures. A thin film adhesive is used to bond the honeycomb core to the prepreg fiberglass fabric. The prepreg, film adhesive, and honeycomb core are placed into a female mold and vacuum bag cured at 260° F in one operation. The honeycomb can be purchased from Hexcel as a hexagonal cell for flat surfaces and as an over expanded cell called Ox for highly single contoured surfaces. The OX core is used for highly contoured surfaces in one direction and mildly contoured surfaces in the orthogonal direction. The honeycomb core can also be purchased as FLEX-CORE which is used for very 54 ' = thas thaw i highly contoured surfaces in two dimensions. Honeycomb materials come in a variety of densities and materials. However, the FLEX-CORE is the most expensive, — 7781 -38-F 155 Fibergless Prepreg ‘= FM250, 5 Mil Film Adhesive -HPH 10-3/16-3.0 Nomex Core, AD 1/4 inch thick 7781 Style Fiberglass —& Epoxy Resin Foom Core = 7781 Style Fiberglass — Figure 5.2 Sandwich Structural Configurations Commonly Used in Aircraft Foam core materials also come ina variety of densities. The foam cores Can also be formed around complex curves by either buying diced or cut foam sheets, or by temperature forming. Most foams will readily bend and yield at 200° F. Rohacell will form at 350° F, The material costs for the foam core sandwich structure is very low since they can be and most often are wet layed up into a female mold and vacuum bagged. Adhesion of the face sheets to the foam core is accomplished by laminating resin which bleeds into the foam core. A material cost and weight comparison for various core sandwich structures is shown in Table 5.5. The core thickness for each sandwich is 0.25 inches and the face sheets are 0.01 Inches thick each. The honeycomb core ts slightly lighter than the foam core sandwiches but it is 5 times as costly. It is very important to recognize that material costs are only a small portion of the overall costs when making parts for resale and that the honeycomb/prepreg fiberglass laminate will require considerably less labor than the wet layup foam Sandwich, In production, the honeycomb sandwich may be considerably less expensive because of these labor savings. However, for the homebuilder, who donates his time freely in making parts and who cannot 5S afford a refrigerator to store the film adhesive or prepreg fiberglass, or an oven to cure the laminate, the foam sandwich is the most cost effective. It is also easier to sand and form the foam core material Table 5.5 Sandwich Cost Comparison CORE CLARK ROHACELL DIVINYCELL KLEGECELL HEXCEL 31 H30 45 HRHIO-3/16-3 Density 45pcf 19pcf 23pcf 30pcf — 3.0pef Core soszt2 sizo/t? ssost? sort? —$3.67/1t2 2Face 0.50 050 050 050 3.74 Sheets Adhesive/ 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 2.60 Resin Total go.gatt2 sreost? sitost? $i.iovtt? siooistt? Weight 0.39IDs/ft? O.33ibs/ft2 O3aibs/tt2 O.38Ibs/tt? O.31Ibs/tt? If we evaluate the foam core materials, we see that the Rohacell 31 is the lightest with only a minor increase in cost over the other sandwich structures. However, to get a good bond to the Rohacell, the core must be needled with a needle roller or board with nails in it. The Clark foam is the least expensive and the most commonly used foam on many present homebuilt aircraft. The maximum temperature at which the Clark foam should be used is 165° F. If we compare the relative strength of the foam cores as shown in Table 5.6, we also see that the Rohacell has the highest relative shear strength of all the foams. Furthermore, the Rohacell has a very small celled structure which does not absorb a thick layer of resin during laminating and it is my opinion that this ts one of the best core materials. For more details, contact the suppliers of these materials. They will be happy to give you more information. 56 Lm my Ler a eee eel eel Table 5.6 Sandwich Core Material Properties* Material Density ‘Shear Compressive Shear Strength Strength Modulus CLARK 45 pef 75 psi 80 psi ~ ROHACELL 31 19 S7 7 : DIVINYCELL H30 2.3 36 fs a KLEGECELL 45 3.0 78 110 1785 psi Dow STYRO- 20 22 40 1000 FOAM URETHANE 20 36 20 = EXP. BEAD FOAM 3.0 7S 58 a HEXCEL HRHIO- 3.0 95 . ir 3/16-3.0 * Manufacturer's Data 5.4 MECHANICAL FASTENERS. The majority of the fasteners used on a small general aviation aircraft are AN, Air Force/Navy, bolts, These fasteners are made out of A-286 which has a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 125,000 psi and the strength as listed In Table 5.7. Although rivets can carry tensile loads, all efforts should be made not to load rivets in tension. The B rivets are soft and are commonly used for riveting composite materials together when a large washer is placed under the set head. Table 5.8 lists the shear strength of standard rivets. The AD rivets are used for riveting 2024-T3 aluminum parts together. It should be pointed out that in most cases, the shear strength of the rivet is not the limiting factor in the Joint. It 1s the ability of the material to take the bearing loads, and a stress check must be made for this condition. Table 5.7 The Ultimate Strength of AN Bolts Diameter, AN Ultimate Single Ultimate —_Ultimate Bending inches Number ‘Shear, Ibs Tension,lbs Strength, in.lbs 0.190 ANS 2,126 2,210 121 4 ANA 3,680 4,080 276 S/16 ANS 5,750 6,500 539 3/8 ANG 8,280 10,100. 932 W/N6 AN7 11,250 13,600 1,480 v2 ANS 14,700 18,500 2,210 9/16 AND 18,700 23,600 3,140 5/8 ANIO 23,000 30,100 4,320 34 ANI2 33,150 44,000 7,450 7/8 ANIG 45,050 60,000 11,850 ANIO 58,900 80,700 17,670 Table S.8 Shear Strength of Aluminum Rivets, Pounds Diameter, 1/16 3/32 1/8 5/32 3/16 Inches Material Designation S056 B 99 203 363 S56 802 2117-13 AD 106 217 388 596 862 Rivet Drill Size * Si 41 (300 ot VW 58 Ww! pha @ 1 zt haa ms ieee rr as er h PET Le YP) DOE lr elhlUcrlhCUr “ pe CHAPTER STRUCTURAL SIZING OF A COMPOSITE WING One of the most important structural items on your aircraft 1s the wing spar. The size and thicknesses for a spar are readily calculable by either hand or computer calculations. We will show you both methods and make a Comparison to show you the accuracy of each method and point out the “conservative” assumptions made. We will need to know some basic Principles of engineering mechanics. The wing spar must transfer wing bending moments and corresponding shear loads along its length to the Place where it attaches to the fuselage and across the center of the aircraft to the other side of Lift. = Lift Dray Dra: 9 pord at © Air Flow Air Flow Figure 6.1 Summary of Loads Acting on a Wing For smal! aircraft, usually one main spar is used carry all bending loads. A small rear spar is usually used in conjunction with the main spar to carry wing twisting loads and in-plane drag or forward loads generated by the lift vector at high angles of attack as shown in Figure 6.1 A. The forward component of lift is larger than the wing drag and the resultant force tends to pull the wing forward. The high angle of attack condition occurs close to stall speed. At high forward speeds the wing is operating at low angles of attack and the wing is pulled back by the wing drag as shown in Figure 6.1 B, Figure 6.1 shows all the loads acting on a wing in flight. ‘The spar is the the most important element of a wing and we will spend some time discussing it. The most common spar is a box beam. The box beam is especially attractive since both sides of the spar cap are 59 supported by shear webs and hence the caps have good resistance to crippling when subjected to compression loads. Caps can cripple at very low stress levels if they are not supported normal to the cap plane, Normal cap support can be provided by a sandwich wing skin. However, in the area where the spar caps are not supported by a sandwich skin, such as at the center of the fuselage, the caps should be supported by boxing them in. With a well supported cap it is possible to achieve the full compressive strength of the cap material. For the EXAMPLE we will use aC Section spar in which the spar caps are stabilized by the spar shear web ‘on one side and the wing skins on the other. The shear web, as its name implies, is sized to carry the aero shear loads. The shear loads, at any specific wing station, are simply the total airloads outboard of that wing station. Although the spar caps also carry some of the shear loads, for preliminary sizing we will make a “conservative” assumption by saying that all the aero shear loads are carried by the shear webs. For the first design iteration we will also assume that all the bending loads are carried by the spar caps. These are “conservative” assumptions which will cause us to oversize the spar. The spar will actually support a larger load than the load we are designing to and we will make a comparison to exact solutions. The word “conservative” means “cautious, protective, and safe", and that is just what we want to be. It is tmportant not to be too conservative However the main reason for these conservative assumptions is, that they greatly simplify our initial calculations without excessively penalizing our structural weight. Extensive use of the word “conservative” is made thoughout this book. If we make the “conservative” assumption that the airload pressure along the length of the wing is constant, we can easily derive closed form solutions that allow us to easily and quickly calculate the shear loads and wing bending moments as a function of wing station. If we assume a constant airload pressure, the airload will be proportional to the chord length and we can define the atrload, w, in lbs/ft. as, W = 2xWuN( C, # 2xCXK/B ~ 2xCpxX/BI/IBIC, + Cy} 61) Where, W = gross weight of the aircraft less wing weight, Ibs n= limit flight load factor per Chapter 5 B_ = wing span, ft C, = wing chord at the fuselage center line, ft Cy = wing chord at the tip, ft X = wing station as defined in Figure 6.2, ft. 60 Since the shear load Is defined as fav = {wdx, we can integrate both sides togive, V = 2xWxn( CxX ~ CpxX2/B + CyxX2/B)/IB(C, + Cp) - Wxn/2 (6.2) The bending moment along the span of the wing is M = {VaX. Integrating Eq 6.2 with respect to X we can show that the bending moment is, M= 2xwxnlC,X2/2 - C,X3/(3B) + C_x3/(SBII/IB(C, * Cy)) ~ Wanxx/2 ~ WxnxBx(2C, + Cy)/LT2¢C, + Cy)] + WxnXB/4 (63) Center.af Fuselage Wing Stetion Numbers 0 1 2 3 4es sw 6 9 10 Wing 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Stations — Wing for EXAMPLE in Feet Figure 6.2 View Looking Aft Showing Wing Stat ions We usually divide our wing into 10 segments as shown in Figure 6.2 and Substitute the proper values for X into Eqs 6.1, 6.2, and 63 for our EXAMPLE aircraft and determine the airload, shear load, and bending moment along the wing span as shown in Table 6.1. We can also use the SPAR program to acquire the same data in a matter of minutes instead of hours, SPAR is written in BASIC for the Macintosh computer and Microsoft Basic Version 2.0. A listing of SPAR is included in Appendix A A more exact Weissinger discrete vortex method for determining the spanwise airload can also be used. This program 1s called AIRLOAD and it 15 also listed in Appendix A The program was written in BASIC by {lan Kroo. It calculates the product of C, *C as a function of wing span. Using AIRLOAD, the actual wing load is determined by first summing the products, C,*C, then multiplying C,*C at each wing station by one half the load for the total wing, and dividing by the sum of C,*C as shown in Eq 23. w= (CLC) xWxN/ (2x S (C,*C)] (6.4) Where, C, = section lift coeffictent C = chord length, inches W = gross welght of aircraft less wing weight, Ibs n = limit flight load factor per Chapter 5 1 = wing station number In Table 6.1 a comparison of the exact Weissinger method for the EXAMPLE 1s made to the data generated by SPAR which uses Eqs 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 The results show that the bending moments and shear loads vary by only a small amount. To use SPAR the following data is summarized for the EXAMPLE: The gross weight of the aircraft less the wing and fuel weight, W, is 1100 - 175 - 96 = 829 Ibs. The flight limit load factor, n, is 4.4; the wing span, B, is 20 ft; the root chord is 4.00 ft.; and the tip chord is 2.00 ft. For AIRLOAD the following data 1s used for the EXAMPLE aircraft: The sweep is 5; the taper 1s 0.5; the aspect ratio, Ar, 1s 6.67; wash out, WSH, is 2 degrees; the angle of attack, ALPHA, is 6 degrees, n = 10; and the Mach number ts 03, Table 6.1 A Comparison of Load Distributions on the EXAMPLE Wing Meg 0 Pt eT gm ge gt g eget ee meg Station 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 1 ' ' i i a a a TT] per SPAR, Ibs: Airlood 245 240 290217202185 St Heissinger Sheor 1823 158513611148 HG HOSES AIDS?SCIZ?SC per ‘SPAR, Ibs/ft Sheor 1823 1573 1396 «1105 887 GES SOD 34st HO Meissinger Moment 8105 6401 4928 2673 2825 1773 «1102 601 20 62 0 Moment 7606 S005 4449 3228 2232 1445 8334517238 The data of Table 6.1 1s more readily visualized in graph form. Figure 6.4 shows the airload distribution from Table 6.1. Figure 6.5 shows the shear load and Figure 6.6 shows the wing bending moments plotted to scale. These figures show that Eqs 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 give good agreement to the more exact Weissinger vortex lift distribution 62 4 5 6 WING STATION, FT Figure 6.5 Wing Shear Load Distribution Comparison for the EXAMPLE 63 BENDING FT.LB oBRESSEE EE one a6 WING STATION, FT Figure 6.6 Wing Bending Moment Comparison for the EXAMPLE Knowing the shear load and bending moment distribution we can now determine the spar cap thicknesses and spar shear web thicknesses along the wing span. The compressive strength of most composite materials 1s lower than the tensile strength. Therefore the upper cap, which is in compression, is usually thicker than the bottom spar cap which 1s in tension. See Figure 6.7 ES Jel |e _Jaecemel Figure 6.7 Cross Section of the Wing Spar From engineering mechanics, the tensile stress, fy, or compressive stress, fc, Is given by, TeMxc/isF/2 (6.5) Where, M-= wing bending moment, in.Ibs ¢ = distance from the neutral axis to the outer fibers, in, 1 = section moment of inertia, in.4 F = material strength, psi 2 = safety factor common for composite materials Before we can determine the section moment of inertia, we must estimate the location of the neutral axis,z ,from the bottom of the section by using Eq66 ZeHXTI/T) +o) (66) Where T,, Ta, and H are the dimensions shown in Figure 6.7 Using Steiner's Rule, we can approximate the section moment of inertia, I, using Eq. 6.7. Eq. 67 Is a conservative approximation since the moments of 65 Inertia of the shear webs and the moments of inertia of the caps about their own centroidal axis are not included. But for our initial design purposes tt will suffice. A detailed stress check will be made to verify that we have not strayed too far from the traditional | eax xT92* Tox TMT + To)? 67) Where a, H, Ty, Ta, are dimensions per Figure 67, Substituting ¢ = Hx To/(T, * Tp) for the top cap into Eq 6.5 we have, fe MXTQx(Ty * Tyla xHx(T X12? #127420] (68) and substituting ¢ = HxT)/(T) * Ta) for the bottom cap into Eq 65 we have, fee MxT X(T # Tyla xHx (Ty x12? + 12x72] 69) Since Ty = Tox Ft/Fe and substituting f show that, Fo/2 and fy = Fy/2, we can T,)=2xMMaXHXFe) and Tp = 2xMMaxHxFy) (6.10) and fee MMaxHxT,) and fy =M/axHXxT2) ‘Where, M = wing bending moment, in.Ibs Fy = ultimate tensile strength of the cap material per Chapter 5, ps! F, = ultimate compressive strength per Chapter 5, psi a = width of the spar cap, In. Eqs 6.10 are now used to estimate our spar cap thicknesses for the EXAMPLE. The maximum bending moment occurs at the wing to fuselage juncture at W.S.2, Wing Station 2, and not, as shown in Figure 65, at the center of the fuselage. Figure 6.5 assumes a point load at the center of the fuselage. In reality, the wing loads are reacted at the wing-to-fuselage juncture which is about 2 feet outboard of the fuselage centerline for the EXAMPLE. for the EXAMPLE, the maximum bending moment is 4,928 ft.lbs at W.S.2 per Table 6.1. The height of the spar caps at the fuselage juncture 1s H = 6.5 inches and the spar width, a, 5 3.00 inches. All unidirectional graphite fibers are used for the spar caps and 66 from Chapter 5 the ultimate tensile strength for the graphite 1s, Fy = 130,000 psi and the ultimate compressive strength is, F, = 72,000 psi. We should keep in mind that this is the first estimate for the spar cap size. Substituting these values into Eqs 6.10, we have an upper spar cap thickness, T Ty = 2x4,928x12/(2.3x4.6x72,000) = 0.084 inches And a lower spar cap thickness of. 9 = 2x4,928x 12/(2.3x4.6x1 30,000) = 0.047 inches The actual thicknesses were increased to allow for increase in weight and Speed obtained by a future 115 hp aircraft engine. Therefore the final thicknesses selected for the analysis are, T! =.0.12 inches anda 12 = 0.07 inches The spar shear web can be estimated in a similar manner. The shear stress, fg ,in the wing shear web is, f= V/(HXT3) ee (6.11) Where, V = the wing shear load from Table 6.1, Ibs H= the height of the shear web, inches T3 = the shear web thickness, foam not included, inches Fg = shear strength from Chapter 5, pst 2 = safety factor Rearranging terms, we can show that the shear web thickness is, T3=2x W/(F XH) (6.12) Substituting into Eq 6.12 for the EXAMPLE, T = 2x1,361/(7,300x6.5) T3 = 0.057 inches. In the final design we selected 0.10 inches, To see how close our approximate equations are to the more exact solution we will calculate by hand the stresses in the spar caps. In Chapter 8 we 67 and divide the section into rectangular elements as shown in Figure 6.8 The neutral axis of this composite wing Is found by summing the products of the moduli of elasticity , distance from a reference plane to the centroid of each element, and cross section area divided by the sum of the product of the moduli times the cross section areas. The reference plane 1s usually the bottom of the wing. See Figure 6.8. ee ee ee will compare our hand calculations to a finite element analysis. Final sizing should be made using the more exact equations as presented herein or by performing a finite element analysis. We start by drawing a scaled section of the wing at wing station 2, W.S.2, 2= DExK «AMD EX A) (6.13) - Where, E = modulus of elasticity, pst L X = distance from reference line to centroid of an element, inches E A= cross section area of an element, in? > = summation sign z is the distance from the reference axis to the neutral axis of the entire wing. We calculate the moment of inertia about this neutral axis. The distance from this neutral axis to the bottom outside surface of the wing is, Cy = Z * Tp/2 and the distance from the neutral axis to the outside surface of the top of the wing is, cp= H-2+T1)/2 We will need to calculate cy and co to determine the maximum stress at the outside fibers, We proceed by determining the exact stiffness, El, of the wing L from Eq 6.14 = El= SEK (02 «A+ ax he/12) (6.14) = , 7 where, L E = modulus of elasticity, pst d= distance from the wing neutral axis to the neutral axis of the element, inches ‘A= cross section area of the element, in? ) a= width of the element, inches . h= height of the element, inches i bo—4 h ‘Fbimenstons for element Zero Stress Maximum Sheer Stress= 104 psi Inplane Shear Stress in the Top Skin Maximum Sheer Stress= 1.49 psi Core Shear Stress in the X - Z Plane Figure 8.4. ANSYS FEA Plots of a Sandwich Panel Subjected to Air Loads 90 LL. 7. Sateteatacacal 7 = hid Meximum Deflection = 0.0187 in Figure 8.5. Deflected ‘Shape of Sandwich Panel Subjected to Air Loads 8.3 PROGRAM VALIDATION To verify the accuracy of the FEA model and Program it 1s important to perform a hand calculation. Such ‘tems as boundary conditions and the Number of nodes can have a large influence on the answer. Since a hand calculated stress check on a curved panel is extremely difficult, a flat and Square sandwich panel 1s selected and the stresses as a function of node Aumbers are recorded in Table 8.1. The hand calculations are also shown at the bottom of Table 8,1 Sy represents the tensile stress and Sy Is the Compressive stress. Syy 1s the inplane shear stress, or Table 8.1. FEA Validation and Nodal Sensitivity Study ie 2 0.02 GI/ED pressure =0.75 ps! a#30 fixed [Eazeg 0.25 Core 0.02 GIVEp { fixed Section Stress in Outer Surface Total No. 9 25 64 100 196 of Nodes Sy psi 0 2681 267027652846 -S, psi 0 2139 «3513. = 4049-4709 Sy Pst 0 624 798 914 975 SyyiCore 16.9 27 28.7 301 31.8 d,inches 0.253 711 0.701 0721 074 Hand calculation per Roark “Formulas for Stress and Strain” as follows. Compressive stress at center of edge, 570.308 x p x a2/t2= 0,308 x 0.75 x 30/.292 = 3326 psi Core shear stress, Syy = 1.41 x 675/(.25x30x4) = 31.7 pst Deflection at center is equal to, d, Section moment of inertia = | =.1252x.02x2 = 3/12 Therefore, t> = 0.0075 d= 0.0138 x p x a4/(Ext3) = .0138x.75x304/(2.2x 106x7.5x1075)=,508 in The data of Table 8.1 is plotted in Figure 8.6 and it is seen that above 25 nodes, the skin tensile stress and shear stress and the core shear stress varies little. However, the inplane skin compressive stress continues to increase with increasing node numbers. At 64 nodes the compressive stress agrees well with the hand calculated stress of 3326 psi 92 Compressive Stress, -Sx 3 p Tensile Stress, Sx 2 o~ Shear Stress, Sxy Core Shear Stress, Sxy STRESS, KSI 0 20 40 60 80 400 196 NUMBER OF NODES Figure 8.6. Stress as a Function of Node Numbers. 8.4 SYSTEM SUMMARY The unique high resolution graphics of the Macintosh computer, together with the Tektronix terminal simulation software and modem, allows the designer to perform FEA necessary for the design of lightweight composite aircraft structures using ANSYS which Is recognized in the industry as one Of the most comprehensive engineering tools. Timeshare hookup costs no More than $10 per hour and a complete aircraft structural analysis, wing and fuselage, can be performed for $500 to $1500 in timeshare costs which include the ANSYS lease paid for by the service company, hookup time, and CP time. Now for the first time, full scale FEA fs not limited to ‘only large corporations. FEA can be performed by an engineer in the comfort of his home at an attractive low price. 93 8.5 SETTING UP AN ANSYS FEA MODEL An example of a curved plate will now be used to help demonstrate how to set up, write, and run a typical FEA model. This curved plate, just as the previous curved plate, is representative of a composite sandwich wing panel and it will be subjected to a negative airload, suction, typical for the top of a wing. The airload will vary chordwise over the panel, The sandwich panel is made up of two plies of style 7781 fiberglass fabric impregnated with epoxy resin on the outside, one 0.25 inch thick core made of 45 Ibs/cuft dense Clark foam, and one ply of style 7781 fiberglass fabric impregnated epoxy on the inside. The bidirectional fiberglass skins are oriented at + 45° to the longitudinal axis of the wing At + 45°, the wing skins provide the maximum torsional stiffness and strength to the wing. From Chapter 5, we select the material properties Tor our skin and core. The material properties for the skin are given in the natural axis system of the fiberglass, they are given parallel to the warp direction and parallel to the fill direction, and the skins are oriented at + 45° to the global axis system in which our FEA model is set up. Therefore, we must find out what the properties of the fiberglass are at + 45° to the warp direction. My book titled “Composite Aircraft Design’, Reference 7, ‘shows us how this can be done by hand. However, in Appendix A of this book a computer program called COMP, which is set up in BASIC for the Macintosh, is listed and we will use this program. We use COMP to find the modulus of elasticity for our material. From Chapter 5, the modulus of elasticity for style 7781 fiberglass/epoxy is 2.3 msi in the warp and fill direction. Using COMP we find that at + 459, the modulus of elasticity is 2.0 msi To start building the FEA model we make a scaled sketch of the panel as shown in figure 8.7 and locate a total number of 25 nodes to form the mid point surface of the upper layers of fiberglass. Five nodes are located along each side of the plate. These node points will be duplicated by translating them down 0.25 inches to form the neutral axis of the lower layer of fiberglass. Mesh generation can be employed in ANSYS. However in this book, we will define the end nodes and generate the remaining nodes of our plate from the previously defined nodes. The sandwich core will be located between the nodes. We will locate nodes explicitly to generate the shape of our model and we will connect these nodes with various elements made up of the specified materials. Each node has six degrees of freedom. That is, each node has the potential of translating in direction x, direction y, and direction z, and rotating about each of these axis, Around the border of the plate we will restrict all translations of 94 the nodes to represent a clamped Figure 8.7 Scaled Drawing of the Plate Model Showing End Node Locations ‘The panel is located on the leading edge at the center semi span of a small aircraft wing. Gross weight, W, is 1100 Ibs and a wing area, S, of 60 sqft. and a design limit load factor, nj, of 4.4 is used to represent the EXAMPLE Using the Oshkosh Airfoil Program, see Figure 4.3, we determine that ‘about 67 percent of the total lift is generated on the top surface in the form of suction and 33 percent is generated on the bottom surface as Pressure acting upward, For structural analysis, we assume a triangular Pressure distribution as shown in Figure 8.8. The average pressure, P, acting on the wing is calculated as, P=0.66 x W x nj /(144 x S) = 0.66 x 1100 x 4.4/(144 x 60) = 0.37 psi Our example plate has the dimensions of ¢ = 36 in. and vs = 18 in. as shown ‘in Figure 8.8. Using the equation of Figure 8.8, the airload pressure, Wi along the chord is calculated as follows. Wy = 2x 0.37 = 0.74 psi W = 2x 0.3711 - 18/(4 x 36)] = 0.65 psi W3 = 2x 0.37[1 - 18 x 2/(4 x 36)] = 0.56 psi Wa* 2X 0.37[1 - 18 x 3/(4 x 36)] = 0.46 psi Ws = 2x 0.3711 - 18 x 4/(4 x 36)] = 0.37 psi The input data file for the plate is listed in Table 8.2. We will write this file using the previously defined plate geometry and material data. It 95 should be noted that the line numbers and explanations in Table 8.2 are not typed into the input data file. They are used here only for reference. Wy = 2xP(1 - ¥4/c) c Figure 8.8 Airload Distribution on Wing Panel Table 8.2 Plate Program Listing and Line Description Data Command Description Eine | 7 PREP A= === Line 2 /TITLE, Plate Line 3 /NOLIST - - - Line 4 KANO - Lies “ET 0 GaP Line 6 EX,1,1.SE3---- Line 7 DENS, 1,6.7E-6 - - Line 8 GXY,1,1E3 - Line 9 ET,2,48 - Line 10 EX,2,266 - Line 11 EY,2,266 - Line 12 NUXY,2,.2 - Line 13. DENS,2,2E-4- - - Line 14 N,1,-18,0,0 - command requests the ANSYS input data Preprocessor command asks for problem title don't list input file during output dump do a static analysis element type 1 is a STIF45 element with KEYOPT(6) set at 1 such that the transverse stress are printed. Element type | 1s a 3-D ‘soparametric solid used for the core material the modulus of elasticity for material is 15 x 105 psi mass density of material = weight density in Ibs/cu.in. divided by 386 in/sec? ‘shear modulus of material 1 select a STIF48(Triangular Shell) as ET=2 elastic modulus of material 2 in direction x elastic modulus of material 2 in direction y Poisson's ratio for material 2 mass density of material 2 locate node | at x=-18,y=0,z=0 96 nur = Par ot ie he ' - J ] | Line 15, Line 16 Line 17 Line 18 Line 19 Line 20 Line 21 Line 22 Line 23 Line 24 Line 25 Line 26 Line 27 Line 28 Line 29 Line 30 Line 31 Line 32 Line 33 Line 34 Line 35 Line 36 Line 37 Line 38 Line 39 12,-13.5,1.8,0 locate node 2 at x=-13.5,y=1.8,2=0 13,79,3.04,0 - locate node 3 at x=-9,y=3.04,2=0 14,-45,3.76,0 locate node 4 at 19,0,4,0 - ~ ~ _ locate node S at x=0,y=4,2=0 NGEN,5,10,1,5,1,0,0,7.5 generate a total set of 5 nodes, incrementing each set by 10 and starting with set I nodes of | thru 5. Displace the second set of nodes in increments of 7.5 inches in the z direction NGEN,2,100,1,45,1,0,-.25 generate a total of two sets, incrementing the first set by 100 and starting with set 1 nodes of 1 thru 45, Displace the second set of nodes -.25 in direction z REAL,1------- switch to REAL set 1 Type, 1 - - - use element type MAT, 1 - -- use material 1 E,112,111,101,102,12,11,1,2 generate element 1 between nodes listed EGEN,4,1,-1 ---- generate a total of 4 elements, including previous element EGEN,4,10,-4 --- duplicate element pattern a total of 4 times P,12,11,-.65,,42,10,1,2 apply a pressure of -.65 psi to face of 4 elements, for elements starting at node 12 and ending at node 42 RP4,1,1,.09,,1,,1,1 repeat previous command 4 times, incrementing each number as shown REAL,2 - - switch to REAL set 2 TYPE,2 - - use element type 2 MAT,2 - ~ use material 2 R,2,.02 - - Set material 2 thickness to 0.02 inches £,1,2,11 ta generate the next number element between nodes shown EGEN,4,10,-1 - - generate a total of 4 elements EGEN,4,1,-4- - - generate 4 element patterns from previous set Beet ij2- ~~ generate the next number element EGEN, 4, 10, - generate a total of 4 elements EGEN,4,1,-4-- - generate 4 element patterns from previous set REAL,3~----=- ‘switch to REAL set 3 97 Line 40 TYPE,2 - Line 41 MAT,2 - Line 42 R,3,.01 - Line 43 €,101,102,111 Line 44 EGEN,4,10,-1 Line 45 EGEN,4,1,-4 Line 46 £,112,111,102 Line 47 EGEN,4,10,-1 Line 48 EGEN,4,1,-4---- Line 49 ITER,1,1,1----- Line 50. PRST, Line 51 Line 52 Line 53_D,1,ALL,0,,5,1 Line 54 ,41,ALL,0,,45,1 Line SS ,11,ALL,0,,31,10 Line 56 ,15,ALL,0,,35,10 Line 57 ,101,ALL,0,,105,1 Line 58 ,141,ALL,0,,145,1 Line 59. ,111,ALL,0,,131,10 Line 60 ,115,ALL,0,,135,10 Line 61 Line 62 Line 63 Line 64 Line 65 Line 66 Line 67 use element type 2 select material 2 set material 2 thickness to 0.01 inches generate element between nodes shown generate 4 more elements including the Previous one generate a total of 4 element sets generate element between nodes shown generate 4 more elements generate a total of 4 element sets ‘set number iterations within a load step control the print out for element type 1 loads are step changed calculate nodal forces, print only reaction forces restrain all edges from node 1 to node 5 restrain all edges from node4! to node 45 restrain all edges from node 11 to node 31 in increments of 10 restrain all edges from node 15 to node 35 in increments of 10 restrain all edges from node 101 to node 105 restrain all edges from node 141 to node 145, restrain all edges from node 111 to node 131 in increments of 10 restrain all edges from node 115 to node 135 in inerements of 10 erase previous starting wave lists start wave list at node 1 initiate wave reordering reactivate printout of previously suppressed data writes file27 leave PREP7 end of file 8.6 RUNNING THE FEA PROGRAM Assuming that our FEA model ts correct, we now submit the program for a 98 Model generation run to assure that all the nodes are in the correct location and that the boundary conditions and pressures are applied properly. We turn on the Macintosh with a modem connected and insert the Tekalike disk. We click on the Tekalike Icon and generate a terminal file with the correct phone number and Communications settings. These settings are saved as a Tekalike file for future use. Under the “pull down file” Phone, we click Dial and the modem dials the host computer. Within Seconds, we are connected to the host computer which asks us to jdentify ourselves by sending the message /og/n: We respond by typing our name or any other Identification code that we have arranged with the timeshare service company. Once logged in, a dollar sign, $, prompt appears to tell us that we are in the host computer operating system. We now make a directory by typing mkdir John, The last word will be our directory fame. Behind the $ prompt, we type ex p/ate to tell the computer that we are going to enter a data file called plate. We get a colon prompt (.) and type a small letter a, 2, for add. No prompt tells us that we are in the add mode and we type in our input data as sown in Table 8.2. To get out of the add mode, we type a period (.) and type wto write our file and quit. we Can edit the program by typing ex p/ate. Any line number which we want to edit can be entered and that line will appear. To see the first line, we type: / Line 1 will b displayed and we can delete this line by typing: for delete. To add new data we simply type: @ for add , hit return, and type 2 period (.) to get out of the add mode. After editing, we type: weto Save our new data and quit the edit mode. To submit our file as a batch fun, we type batch bansys plate out. "Out" is the name of our output file. We can check the status of our run by typing batch -//st a//. When our Job Is finished, a message Yohn comp/ete will be displayed. ANSYS will generate a number of files including the file “out”. We can look at a directory of all the files by typing //, We look at the tall end of “out” by typing ta// -50 ou¢. If no errors are in the program, the output listing will note “no errors found”. A binary file called file16 1s also generated and we access this file interactively by typing /ansys John and the ANSYS commands shown in Table 8.3 under VIEW MODEL OF FILEI6 The Model of our problem showing the node number and elements will appear. If the node numbers are improperly located, we can interactively relocate these nodes or we can get out of the interactive ANSYS mode and return to the host computer operating system and edit our input file called “plate” If we are happy with our model, that is all nodes, elements, loads,and Constraints are in the correct location, we submit the job for analysis by typing batch bansys 1/e27 out.f27. Notice the we submitted a "file27" for the analysis. During the model generation run, ANSYS generated this binary file. We have named the 99 Output file “out.{27" to distinguish it from “out” generated during the Model run. The file “out” contains a complete diagnosis of our input data while “out.f27" will contain the solution made of displacements of all the Nodes, stresses in all the elements, reaction forces, and other output data. After noting the status of our Job by typing da¢ch -//s¢ a//and noting its completion, we can view the output data in “file!2° by typing the ANSYS commands shown in Table 8.3 under VIEW ANSYS OUTPUT. Stress contour Plots and the deflected shape of the plate are shown in Figure 8.10. These plots can be saved as Macpaint documents and text and shading can be added as desired. We can also print the data in file “out.127" by ejecting the Tekalike disk, Inserting the Macterminal disk into our Macintosh, and opening a MacTerminal file. We do not need to logout of interactive ANSYS or the host computer to do this. Once the MacTerminal file 1s open, we type cat out./27 and the output data of file “out.f27" scrolls past the Screen, We can stop the scroll and restart the scroll at any time by depressing the control key and “s key for stop, or the control key, , and “q" key for continue. We can save and print a hardcopy of this file on our Imagewriter. We can also scroll, print, and save the data input file “plate and the file “out” in the same manner. The stress data 1s now compared to the mechanical values presented in Chapter 5 and a Positive margin of Safety should be determined for the maximum stress areas. The margin of safety, MS., is calculated from Eq 8.1 as follows, MS. =FA2xf)-1 (8.1) Where, F = the ultimate strength of the material, psi f = the actual limit load stress from ANSYS, psi 2 = safety factor used for composite materials Table 8.3 Commands for Running ANSYS: TO WRITE PROGRAM login: John $ mkdir John $ex plate - - a---- /PREP7 - - - /TITLE, PLATE directory name file name - add mode - type mode 100 ~ out of add mode “wq - e 77 write and quit file $ MIT JOB Fi ATION $ batch bansys plate out -- submit job. Out {s output file, generates Tile 16, file27, out / E $ tansysJonn ~ - - interactive ANSYS system oar ~~~ selects interactive run mode (PREPT preprocessing ANSYS RESUME - causes file16 to be read ‘VIEW, 1,1,1 defines viewing direction for the plot /SHOW ~~ causes plots to be displayed at time of generation RSET,2 --- --~ select REAL 2 elements only NNUM,1 - turn node numbers on GLINE,1 ~ plot elements as dashed lines EPLOT - produce element plot FIN, ~ leave PREP7 /EOF - --- terminate interactive run SUBMIT JOB FOR ANALYSIS. $ batch bansys file27 out.127 submit Job. Out.127 1s output file Generates file12, out.f27 status of Job execution see file outf27 scroll on screen after completion of run $ batch -list all Scat out.27 - Res - stop scroll a+q - continue scroll ® +Backspace - return to operating system VIEW OUTPUT PLOTS MINT ~~~ = - select interactive run mode /SHOW - - - display plots at time of generation /POST1 picks fle12 SET,1,1 defines data set to be read /TYPE,,2. - - turn on hidden line plots /CLAB,,1 - - stress contour labels on JEDGE,,1 - - plot outer contour of structure only /NIEW,-1,1,1 -- defines viewing direction of plot TOP --------- plot stresses at middle of elements ERSEL,REAL,2 -~-- Picks REAL 2 elements only 101 \ | — PLNS,SX - - plot nodal stresses in direction x L FINI ~~ leave POST | - /EOF terminate interactive run L $ildiee 32 logout $8ed quit system } HIDDEN LINE DEFLECTED PLOTS ‘Same as VIEW OUTPI a S above, except after SET, 1,1 type: /VIEW,,-1,1,1 defines viewing direction of plot /NOPR suppress printout on screen PLDISP plot displaced shape /NOER no erase of previous plot PLEL Bi plot none deformed elements FRR z leave POST! /EOF = terminate interactive run : L I fa a ts os 3 Upper Skin Node and Element Numbers, Nodes are Circled Figure 8.9 FEA Model of Curved Plate 102 x Global 2 Coordinate System Lower Skin Node and Element Numbers, Nodes are Circled Figure 8.9 FEA Model of Curved Plate = Top Skin Max Stress in X Direction=632 psi Bnet ne Figure 8.10 ANSYS Output for Wing Panel 103 Top Skin i Sheor Stress: ~ -153 psi Figure 8.10 ANSYS Output for Wing Panel oe eS oe ror ef) rere ier x Soros Core Mex Shear Stress on X Face= 2.44 psi Core Max Shear Stress on Y Face= 1.54 psi Figure 8.10 ANSYS Output for Wing Panel 105, Bottom Skin Max Stress in ¥ Direction = 136 psi Bottom Skin 3 Mex Shear Stress = is ~153 psi Figure 8.10 ANSYS Output for Wing Panel 106 Figure 8.10 ANSYS Output for Wing Panel It is recognized that the stress contours are not even or symmetric. This is caused by the few number of nodes and the triangular shell elements used. Although rectangular elements could have been used for this plate, the rectangular elements cannot be used for a wing because of the twisted shape that 1s required to define a wing. To make this plate problem identical to the wing model, triangular shells were used to model the skins. The analysis of a complete wing is performed in a similar manner and a listing of the input file for this wing which is a model for our EXAMPLE. The input file is shown in Table 8.4. The a FEA model of the wing and stress contour plots for the wing of the EXAMPLE are shown in Figures 8.11 and Figures 8.12. 8.7 FEAFOR THE WING OF THE EXAMPLE Each wing for the EXAMPLE 1s 10 feet long from the fuselage center line to the wing tip and it 1s subjected to a total limit load of 4.4x(1100-175-96)/2 = 1,823.8 Ibs acting over a wing area of 60/2 = 30 ‘Sqft. The section of the wing that is buried in the fuselage does not see the airload Only the section protruding outside of the fuselage is ‘Subjected to the air pressure so that the total actual pressure load acting on the wing is about 0.8x1823.8=1,459 Ibs. The wing 1s designed to fail at twice this load. Later we will verify the FEA loads by comparing the total reaction forces at the wing root to this value. The majority of the wing 1s made of solid 2 pound density Styrofoam and it is hotwire cut to shape. The inboard leading edge section is hollow to allow for fuel and it is made 107 of 1/4 inch thick 45 pound Clark foam with a single ply of style 7781 fiberglass fabric on the inside. Two 0.03 inch thick fiberglass ribs are used to close off the fuel cell. The spar caps are made of unidirectional 1300 graphite and both sides of the wing are covered with two plies of style 7781 fiberglass plies oriented + 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis. We have sized the wing as demonstrated in Chapter 6. We set up our wing Model and write a program as shown in Table 8.4 Table 8.4 The Input Listing for the EXAMPLE Wing (rer? 7TITLE, WING. 10 kev8,1 KRY, 6,1 8 r a 28 Bb. a NuXY, DENS; 2, 1.664 EX,3, 1. 5E9*STYROFOR MUY,3, .25 DENS, 3, 1.26-5 EX,4,363 #CLARK FOR NO, 4, .25 DENS, 4,2.46-5 H,1,,,16.8 2201, 120, ,8.4 FILL, ,,9,21,20 N,2,,2.5, 12.6 202, 120, 1.4,6.3 FILL, ,,9,22,20 N,3,,3.6,8.4 203, 120,2,4.2 FILL, , ,9,23,20 Hy4, (4.2/4.2 204, 120,2.3,2.1 FILL, ,9,24,20 4,5, 2205, Fi, 4,6, 208, Fi, 4,2, 220?, Fi, 4,8, , 208, 108 ee d FILL, ,,9,29,20 N,10,,71.4,"19.2 4210, 120,~.2,-9.6 FILL, ,,0,90,20 N11, ,71.8,-13.8 2211, 120,-.4,-2.4 FILL, ,9,31,20 N,12,,-2,-8 1212, 120,-.5,-5.2 FILL, 9,82, N13, ,-2, 4213, 120,-.5,-3 FILL, ,,9,33,20 N14, (22 1214, 120,-.5 FILL, , 8,34, N15, ,-2,4.2 1215, 120,-.5,2.1 FILL, ,,9,95,20 MN, 16,521 1216, 120,-.6,4.2 FILL; 996,20 1,12, ,71.6, 12.6 4217, 120,~.5,6.3 Fi, 8,900, 42, 122,20, ,-.28 1 2 38136, seseube4 BA 2 Qo> ete BB B a 351,952,942, 41,61,62,42 362,363,343, 42,62,63,49 20-1 a RiBgBe se 3 ms a3: & z t pe) Ref 132, 121, 121, 142, 157, 141, 141 109 —— dis io = = 8 E 8 gig eet ty 2 SEER geeks & py Br erase << eo 8787 ene 2. Sesenassae Soar elzs Zane oeegegekeee na theeenaunes 2 8888d cota seaks.a2 ob ob Boece Seatagosun8 9-80 ge Sgrageszeageag — rh = a bel ls bes ls los lee belles ase E r ae% 8s az eas BBBSELN aE eats gocelrg stEStees, of aseauagaasese basse Seqegal gcoka tag hess ga SRSRSES 12 (PS) Feet feet Ke Le LL) fed i We submit the input file shown in Table 8.4 by typing behind the $ que, batch bansys wing out. Wing \s the input file name and out will be the output file name. If the model generation run has run successfully, the end of file out will read, ALL CURRENT PREP? DATA HRITTEN TO FILE16 FOR POSSIBLE RESUME FROM THIS POINT ‘ete+ ROUTINE COMPLETED See" CP = 84.362 (EOF ENCOUNTERED ON FILE 18 Ge IER ee Ate 1 Figure 8.11 General Configuration of Wing WZ To find the cost of our model generation run, we multiply the CP time by the current rate of $0.075/CP second for a cost of $6.33. To make certain that all the nodes are in the correct place and connected we view the Model in file16 from any angle we wish. Figure 8.12 shows some of the plots that are obtained. Element Coordinate System. x Skin Stress Contours in this System Te i Upper Wing Surface Planform of Wing Showing Node Numbers Zoomed Area of Upper Wing Skin with Node Numbers Figure 8.12 FEA Model of the Wing Obtained from Model Generation Run, Filel6 14 wim ~ io 5 Leading Edge Fuel Cell, Outer Skin Wing Sper Nodes Figure 8.12 FEA Model of Wing Obtained from Model Generation Run, Filel6é ce re pe 7 oe es ee a ee ee It is necessory to include et least two layers of elements tn ell shear webs. Elements not shown here for clarity The Foam Core 1s made up of STIF4S Elements Figure Filel6 12 FEA Model of Wing Obtained from Model Generation Run, After we are satisfied that the model looks like what we have in mind, we suomit the model for the analysis run by typing, batch bansys file2+ out.f27. Anew output file called out. £27 will be created. This file will contain the stresses, displacements, reaction forces and time of run. If the run completed without a problem, the tail of out. /27will read, * STORAGE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY HROIMUR MEMORY USED = 70266 MAINLY MEMORY AURILABLE = 250000 r+ PROBLEM STATISTICS er ANSYS BINRY FILE STATISTICS BUFFER SIZE USED= 1160 POST DATA WRITTEN OM FILE12 RESTART DATA URITTEN ON FILE 3 ¢ 1008878 WORDS) TRIANGULARIZED MATRIX HRITTEN ON FILE! 428371 WORDS) END OF INPUT ENCOUNTERED ON FILE 18 ipcee PUN CRPLETED Losec CPs = 670 04M Rag S000 Again, we can determine the cost of our run by multiplying the CP time in seconds by the current rate of $0.075/CP second for $50.31. Now that's not bad for a FEA run. We can now plot the stress contours of our wing as shown in Figures 8.13 We can also list all the nodal stresses from /POST! with the command PRNS,COMP. The reaction forces as shown in Table 8.6 are listed by typing 116 1 PRRF,ALL. The total forces in the vertical direction should equal the lift force that we previously determined to be about 1,459 Ibs, The listing ‘shows us -1,436 Ibs which agrees with our hand estimate. The equations to perform a rough and quick estimate for the wing deflections can be derived by assuming that the spar caps carry all the load, that the stress fs constant for the length of the spar and equal for the top and bottom spar Cap, and that the height of the spar ts constant. From engineering mechanics we know that second derivative of the deflection, y, of a beam with respect to the distance, x, along the beam is, o?y/ax? = MME!) (82) ‘Where, M = bending moment, in.Ibs E = modulus of elasticity of the spar cap material, psi |= section moment of inertia of the spar, in.4 We also know that the stress, f, in the spar caps is approximately equal to, f=Mxc/l (8.3) Where, C = spar height, H, divided by 2 Substituting Eq 8.3 into Eq 6.2 and integrating twice, we can show that the deflection of the wing, y, at any wing station, x, 1s, y= txx22xExH) (8.4) To find the deflection at the tip, Ytip» We Substitute the length of the wing semispan, B/2, for X into Eq 8.4 to yield, Ytip = 1 XB2/(8 XE xH) (85) For the EXAMPLE spar we have the following average values. The average stress, f, in the spar cap is about 30,000 psi. The average spar height, H, is 47 inches. The modulus of elasticity, E, of the graphite spar caps is 15x10° psi. The wing span, B, is 240 inches. Substituting these values into Eq 8.5, the following tip deflection ts W7