_ Modern Aircrart
by
Martin Hollmanney 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 MilHdbk5  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
 126Table 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 ~/=—== === 233EF 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.
3If 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 writeCRAPTER 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¢=(7925) 1(7.927.45)x1 100500(16.37.92)x1 30 (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
7calculated per Chapter 3.
— L1=1100L2
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 = (7.466.5) «1100  500  (16.56.5) 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 eeSubstituting 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  (15.0X)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 eosConard
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 HIMSELFFr 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
13EXAMPLE, 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
RTat 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
1SA 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
ecSubstituting 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
iythe 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
18UZ 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 $1600 new with a 2.58:1 reduction drive
and weighs about 90 lbs complete with muffler. Propeller speed is about
2800 rpm for this and most other aircraft engines. We pick this engine for
our EXAMPLE.
Table 3.2. Typical Power Loadings for Aircraft.
Power Loading, Lbs/hp
Conventional/Canard Fixed Wing 818
Powered Glider and Ultralights 13  30.
Helicopter and Gyroplane 710
19Table 3.3 lists aircraft engines from which we may choose our engine.
In previous tables,  have included Volkswagen engine conversions, but 
have eliminated them from this table because these engines, as modified
CONVENTIONAL 5
AR= 6 Cla
e/4e—
Koc = SK +045 petym
x
i
SHALL CANARD
AR =6 cla nay
Xac=$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.C75. 75 2750 190 ie 5000.
Cont.0200 100 2750 210 6 7000.
i : Lyc.0235 115 2800 218 35: 7000.
7 Lyc.0320 150 2700 258 WW 9000.
 Lyc.0360 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
2Knowing 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.
22PaPLPL 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{ 1.00. 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.
23Table 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 0200 with 100 hp. This engine, however, does not meet our
criteria for a low cost aircraft since the price of anew Continental 0200
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 oeLn _
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.
2Table 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 8H12* Helicopter and gyroplane**
blades
Wortmann FX67K170/17* Powered gliders
GAW1 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
27surface 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
eois 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 eet5° 5° Tall 5% Man
ee ie telTable 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
32maximum 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.
33CHAPT
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 oeea 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
36Pressure 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. MilHdbk5 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 taaeofficial 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
38Where,
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
39CHART 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 VN 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
eeplotted 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
41For 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,
lP 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
43total limit load of 387 Ibs. We can also calculate the tail load for any
point on the VN 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 NLF0215F 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 = (6.466.5)*4.41100  4,142  (16.56.5)*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 VN
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  (15.09.17)*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,
45on 250 7 (7.92.5)xL1 + (7.926.45)*4.4%1100  1,287
= (16.37.92)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
= (16.37.92)x(4,8401.12xL2) = 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
onlTable 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 1097 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 EFiberglass in Epoxy Resin,
50% by Volume Resin,
2 Hand Layed Up, Unidirectional, Style 1543 EFiberglass in Epoxy Resin,
SOR by Volume Resin. RASI77 is similar.
3 Hand Layed Up, Bidirectional, Style 7781 EFiberglass in Polyester
Resin, 50% by Volume Resin
4 Hand Layed Up, Unidirectional, Style 1543 EFiberglass 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 AS4 or T300 Graphite Fibers in Epoxy
Resin. 40% by Volume Resin.
8 Vacuum Bagged, Unidirectional S2 Glass in Epoxy Resin. ORCON S500.
9 Hand Layed Up, Bidirectional, Style 7725 EFiberglass 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
33being 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 FLEXCORE 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 FLEXCORE is the
most expensive,
— 7781 38F 155 Fibergless Prepreg
‘= FM250, 5 Mil Film Adhesive
HPH 103/163.0 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
5Safford 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 HRHIO3/163
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 eelTable 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
3/163.0
* 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 A286 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 2024T3 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
211713 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
hPET 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 inplane 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
59supported 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.
60Since 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
624 5 6
WING STATION, FT
Figure 6.5 Wing Shear Load Distribution Comparison for the EXAMPLE
63BENDING 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 6.7ES
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
65Inertia 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
wingtofuselage 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
66from 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
67and 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= H2+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 ibo—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 =
hidMeximum 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,
orTable 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. = 40494709
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
92Compressive 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.
938.5 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
94the 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
95should 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, 1,6.7E6  
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,2,2E4  
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 3D
‘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
97Line 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
98Model 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
99Output 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
102x
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
103Top Skin i
Sheor Stress: ~
153 psi
Figure 8.10 ANSYS Output for Wing Panel
oe eS oe ror ef)
rere ierx
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
106Figure 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(110017596)/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
107of 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, 1.265
EX,4,363 #CLARK FOR
NO, 4, .25
DENS, 4,2.465
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
dFILL, ,,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
201
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 980 ge Sgrageszeageag— rh = a
bel ls bes ls los lee belles
aseE 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
WZTo 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 ~ io5
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 eeIt 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
1PRRF,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
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.