You are on page 1of 84

1.

Introduction
1.1 Overview:
Three major types of airplane designs are
1. Conceptual design
2. Preliminary design
3. Detailed design

1. Conceptual design:
It depends on what are the major factors for designing the aircraft.
(a) Power plant Location:
The Power plant must be located in the wings.
(b) Selection of Engine:
The engine should be selected according to the power required i.e.,
thrust required.
(c) Wing selection:
The selection of wing depends upon the selection of
(1) Low wing
(2) Mid wing
(3) High wing
- For a bomber the wing is mostly high wing configuration and
anhedral.
- Sweep may be required in order to reduce wave drag.
2. Preliminary design:
Preliminary is based upon number of factors like Loitering.

1

3. Detailed design:
In the detailed design considers each & every rivets, bolts, paints etc. In
this design the connection & allocations are made.
1.1 Bomber:
A bomber is a military aircraft designed to attack ground and sea targets,
by dropping bombs on them, or – in recent years – by launching cruise missiles
at them.
Strategic bombers are primarily designed for long-range bombing
missions against strategic targets such as supply bases, bridges, factories,
shipyards, and cities themselves, in order to damage an enemy's war effort.
Tactical bombing, aimed at enemy's military units and installations, is
typically assigned to smaller aircraft operating at shorter ranges, typically along
the troops on the ground or sea. This role is filled by various aircraft classes, as
different as light bombers, medium bombers, dive bombers, fighter-bombers,
ground-attack aircraft and multirole combat aircraft among others.

1.1.2 Origin of Bombers:
Bombers evolved at the same time as the fighter aircraft at the start of
World War I. The first use of an air-dropped bomb however, was carried out by
the Italians in their 1911 war for Libya.
Later several number of improvements were made.

2

1.3 Project requirement
1.

To design a bomber aircraft

2.

Range of 20,000 km with refueling support & must carry 75,000+ kg of

bombs & missiles (possibly nuclear warheads)
3.

To operate at subsonic and transonic regimes

4.

To operate at regional bases with low cost of operation & maintenance

5.

The aircraft must also be capable of single pilot operation scenario.

6.

Due to long range pilot work load must be reduced

7.

The aircraft must be all weather, all terrain operation capable including

the airbase.
8.

To take up a load factor +7.5g to -3.5g.

1.4. Preferred Configuration:

Figure 1.1 High wing Configuration with T tail

3

2. Comparative study of various bomber aircrafts
The first step in the design of aircraft is to collect data of existing aircraft of
similar purpose i.e., bomber. This step is vital in aircraft design as it gives the
designer an insight into the conventional trend in aircraft design.
The designer may, with the help of the data thus acquired, get an idea of the
basic factors that affect the aircraft’s performance viz. Weight, Cruise velocity,
Range, Wing area, Wingspan & Engine thrust. This database will also serve,
during the design process, as a guide for validation of the design parameters that
will be calculated, so that the designer does not deviate unduly from the
conventional design.
The performance data of various bomber aircraft with payload capacity
between 5000 and 56600 kg was collected from the appropriate resources.

4

2.1 Comparative configuration study of bomber airplanes:

Collection of Comparative Data -Dimension
Name of Payload
the
Capacity Length
S.No aircraft
(kg)
(m)

Height
(m)

Wing
span
(m)2

No of Loaded
Power Weight
Plant
(kg)

Maximum
Takeoff
Weight
(kg)

Empty
weight
(kg)

Mirage
1 IIIE

5000

15

4.5

8.22

1

12200

13500

7050

Mirage
2 IVA
3 F-111F

7264
14300

23.49
22.4

5.4
5.22

11.85
19.2

2
2

31600
37600

33475
45300

14500
21400

F-111F
Swept
Tu-22R
Tu-85/1
YB-60
B-2A

14300
9000
18000
33000
23000

22.4
41.6
39.306
52.1
21

5.22
10.13
11.358
18.4
5.18

9.75
23.17
55.96
62.8
52.4

2
2
4
8
4

37600
85000
76000
73000
152200

45300
92000
107292
140000
170600

21400

Tu9 142M3
10 Tu-95MS
11 B-1B

15000
15000
56600

49.5
46.2
44.5

12.12
12.12
10.4

51.1
50.1
41.8

4
4
4

170000
171000
148000

185000
188000
216400

90000
90000
87100

B-1B
12 Swept
13 B-52H
14 Tu-160

56600
31500
40000

44.5
48.5
54.1

10.4
12.4
13.1

24.1
56.4
55.7

4
8
4

148000
120000
267600

216400
220000
275000

87100
83250
110000

Tu-160
15 Swept

40000

54.1

13.1

35.6

4

267600

275000

110000

4
5
6
7
8

54711
69407
71700

Table 2.1 Collection of Comparative Data -Dimension

5

Collection of Comparative Data -Performance parameters
S.No

Thrust
Name of to
the
weight
aircraft
ratio

Wing
loading
(N/m2 )

Mirage
1 IIIE

0.50

3796.47

Mirage
2 IVA

0.60

5949.29

3 F-111F

0.61

6035.11

F-111F
4 Swept

0.61

7563.51

5 Tu-22R

0.38

5150.25

6 Tu-85/1
7 YB-60

0.44
0.44

2717.37
1471.50

8 B-2A

0.21

3227.49

Tu9 142M3

0.29

9112.02

10 Tu-95MS

0.40

5944.86

11 B-1B

0.38

8004.96

B-1B
12 Swept

0.38

8004.96

13 B-52H

0.31

5836.95

14 Tu-160

0.37

7269.21

Tu-160
15 Swept

0.37

7279.02

Aspect
ratio

Power Plant

1.939 SNECMA Atar 09C turbojet
SNECMA Atar 9K-50[13] turbojets Dry thrust:
49.03 kN (11,023 lbf) each Thrust with
1.8 afterburner: 70.61 kN (15,873 lbf) each
Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 turbofans Thrust
with afterburner: 25,100 lbf (112 kN) each Dry
7.56 thrust: 17,900 lbf (79.6 kN) each
Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 turbofans Thrust
with afterburner: 25,100 lbf (112 kN) each Dry
1.95 thrust: 17,900 lbf (79.6 kN) each
Dobrynin RD-7M-2 turbojets Dry thrust: rated
107.9 kN (24,250 lbf) each Thrust with
3.314 afterburner: 161.9 kN (36,376 lbf) each
Dobrynin VD-4K turbo-compound radial
11.45 engines, 3,200 kW (4,300 hp) each
8.1 Pratt & Whitney J57-P-3 turbojets, (38 kN) each
General Electric F118-GE-100 non-afterburning
5.74 turbofans, 17,300 lbf (77 kN) each
Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprops, 11,033 kW
8.394 (14,795 shp) each
Kuznetsov NK-12M turboprops, 11,000 kW
8.097 (14,800 shp)[23] each
General Electric F101-GE-102 augmented
turbofans Dry thrust: 14,600 lbf (64.9 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 30,780 lbf (136.92 kN)
9.65 each
General Electric F101-GE-102 augmented
turbofans Dry thrust: 14,600 lbf (64.9 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 30,780 lbf (136.92 kN)
9.65 each
Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofans, (76
8.56 kN) each
Samara NK-321 turbofans Dry thrust: 137.3 kN
(30,865 lbf) each Thrust with afterburner: 245
7.757 kN (55,115 lbf) each
Samara NK-321 turbofans Dry thrust: 137.3 kN
(30,865 lbf) each Thrust with afterburner: 245
3.52 kN (55,115 lbf) each

Table 2.2 Collection of Comparative Data -Performance parameters

6

Collection of Comparative Data -Performance parameters

S.No

Name of the
aircraft

Maximum
Speed
Range
(m/s)
(km)

Service
ceiling (m)

Rate of Combat
Climb
Radius
(m/s)
(km)

Payload
Capacity
(kg)2

1 Mirage IIIE

652.8

2400

17000

83.3

1200

5000

2 Mirage IVA

650.0

4000

20000

43.13

1240

7264

3 F-111F

737.5

6760

20100

131.5

2140

14300

F-111F
4 Swept

737.5

6760

20100

131.5

2140

14300

5 Tu-22R

419.4

4900

13300

2450

9000

6 Tu-85/1

177.2

12000

11700

17

5850

18000

7 YB-60

227.2

13000

16200

5.38

4700

33000

8 B-2A

270.0

11100

15200

5550

23000

9 Tu-142M3

256.9

12000

6500

15000

7500

15000

10 Tu-95MS

255.6

15000

13716

10

11 B-1B

372.2

11998

18000

5543

56600

12 B-1B Swept

372.2

11998

18000

5543

56600

13 B-52H

277.8

16232

15000

31.85

7210

31500

14 Tu-160

616.7

12300

15000

70

7300

40000

Tu-160
15 Swept

616.7

12300

15000

70

7300

40000

Table 2.3 Collection of Comparative Data -Performance parameters (Cont.)

7

Collection of Comparative Data -Performance parameters
S.No

Name of the
aircraft

Airfoil

Span to Span to
length
height
ratio
ratio

Retiremen
Introduction t
Remarks

1 Mirage IIIE

0.30

1.83

1961 In service

2 Mirage IVA

0.23

2.19

1959

2005 Good

0.23

3.68

1967

2010 Good

0.23
0.24

1.87
2.29

1967
1962

2010 Good
1990 Good

6 Tu-85/1

0.29

4.93 Prototype

Good

7 YB-60

0.35

3.41

1954 In service

Good

8 B-2A

0.25

10.12

1997 In service

Good

9 Tu-142M3

0.24

4.22

1953 In service

Awesome

0.26

4.13

1956 In service

Awesome

NACA 64-210.68
root, NACA 64209.80 tip
3 F-111F
NACA 64-210.68
root, NACA 644 F-111F Swept 209.80 tip
5 Tu-22R

10 Tu-95MS

Good

11 B-1B

NA69-190-1

0.23

4.02

1986 In service

Good

12 B-1B Swept

NA69-190-2
NACA 63A219.3
mod root, NACA
65A209.5 tip

0.23

2.32

1986 In service

Good

0.26

4.55

1961 In service

Awesome

14 Tu-160

0.24

4.25

2005 In service

Good

15 Tu-160 Swept

0.24

2.72

2005 In service

Good

13 B-52H

Table 2.4 Collection of Comparative Data -Performance parameters (Cont.)

8

2.2 Comparative graphs for determining optimum value:
S.No

Name of the aircraft

Wing loading (N/m2 )

Maximum Speed (m/s)

1 Mirage IIIE

3796.47

652.8

2 Mirage IVA

5949.29

650.0

3 F-111F

6035.11

737.5

4 F-111F Swept

7563.51

737.5

5 Tu-22R

5150.25

419.4

6 Tu-85/1

2717.37

177.2

7 YB-60

1471.50

227.2

8 B-2A

3227.49

270.0

9 Tu-142M3

9112.02

256.9

10 Tu-95MS

5944.86

255.6

11 B-1B

8004.96

372.2

12 B-1B Swept

8004.96

372.2

13 B-52H

5836.95

277.8

14 Tu-160

7269.21

616.7

7279.02

616.7

15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.5 Wing loading vs. Maximum Speed

Wing Loading (N/sq.m) Vs Maximum Speed
(m/s)
10000.00
9000.00

Wing Loading (N/sq.m)

8000.00
7000.00
6000.00
5000.00

Wing loading (N/m2)

4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
0.0

100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0

Maximum Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.1 Wing loading vs. Maximum S peed

9

S.No

Name of the aircraft

Span to length ratio

Maximum Speed (m/s)

1 Mirage IIIE

0.30

652.8

2 Mirage IVA

0.23

650.0

3 F-111F

0.23

737.5

4 F-111F Swept

0.23

737.5

5 Tu-22R

0.00

419.4

6 Tu-85/1

0.29

177.2

7 YB-60

0.35

227.2

8 B-2A

0.25

270.0

9 Tu-142M3

0.24

256.9

10 Tu-95MS

0.26

255.6

11 B-1B

0.23

372.2

12 B-1B Swept

0.23

372.2

13 B-52H

0.26

277.8

14 Tu-160

0.24

616.7

0.24

616.7

15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.6 Span to length Ratio vs. Maximum Speed

Span to length ratio Vs Maximum Speed (m/s)
3.00

Span to length Ratio

2.50

2.00

Span to
length ratio

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

Maximum Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.2 S pan to length Ratio vs. Maximum S peed

10

S.No

Name of the aircraft

Aspect ratio

Maximum Speed (m/s)

1 Mirage IIIE

1.94

652.8

2 Mirage IVA

1.80

650.0

3 F-111F

7.56

737.5

4 F-111F Swept

1.95

737.5

5 Tu-22R

3.31

419.4

6 Tu-85/1

11.45

177.2

7 YB-60

8.10

227.2

8 B-2A

5.74

270.0

9 Tu-142M3

8.39

256.9

10 Tu-95MS

8.10

255.6

11 B-1B

9.65

372.2

12 B-1B Swept

9.65

372.2

13 B-52H

8.56

277.8

14 Tu-160

7.76

616.7

3.52

616.7

15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.7 Aspect Ratio vs. Maximum Speed

Aspect ratio Vs Maximum Speed (m/s)
14
12

Aspect Ratio

10
8
6

Aspect ratio

4

2
0
0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

Maximum Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.3 Aspect Ratio vs. Maximum S peed

11

Maximum
Name of the aircraft Wing Area (m2 )
(m/s)
34.85
1 Mirage IIIE
78
2 Mirage IVA
61.07
3 F-111F
48.77
4 F-111F Swept
162
5 Tu-22R
273.6
6 Tu-85/1
486.7
7 YB-60
478
8 B-2A
311.1
9 Tu-142M3
310
10 Tu-95MS
180.2
11 B-1B
181.2
12 B-1B Swept
370
13 B-52H
400
14 Tu-160
360
15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.8 Wing Area vs. Maximum Speed

Speed

S.No

652.8
650.0
737.5
737.5
419.4
177.2
227.2
270.0
256.9
255.6
372.2
372.2
277.8
616.7
616.7

Wing Area (sq.m) Vs Maximum Speed (m/s)
600

Wing Area (sq.m)

500

400

300
Wing Area (m2)
200

100

0
0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

Maximum Speed (m/s)
Figure 2.4 Wing area vs. Maximum S peed

12

S.No

Name of the aircraft

Combat Radius (km)

Maximum Speed (m/s)

1 Mirage IIIE

1200

652.8

2 Mirage IVA

1240

650.0

3 F-111F

2140

737.5

4 F-111F Swept

2140

737.5

5 Tu-22R

2450

419.4

6 Tu-85/1

5850

177.2

7 YB-60

4700

227.2

8 B-2A

5550

270.0

9 Tu-142M3

6500

256.9

10 Tu-95MS

7500

255.6

11 B-1B

5543

372.2

12 B-1B Swept

5543

372.2

13 B-52H

7210

277.8

14 Tu-160

7300

616.7

7300

616.7

15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.9 Span to length Ratio vs. Maximum Speed

Combat Radius (km) Vs Maximum Speed (m/s)
8000
7000

Combat radius (km)

6000
5000
4000
Combat Radius (km)

3000
2000
1000

0
0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

Maximum Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.5 Combat radius vs. Maximum S peed

13

S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Name of the aircraft
Mirage IIIE
Mirage IVA
F-111F
F-111F Swept
Tu-22R
Tu-85/1
YB-60
B-2A
Tu-142M3
Tu-95MS
B-1B
B-1B Swept
B-52H
Tu-160
Tu-160 Swept

Payload Capacity Maximum
(kg)2
(m/s)
5000
7264
14300
14300
9000
18000
33000
23000
15000
15000
56600
56600
31500
40000
40000

Speed
652.8
650.0
737.5
737.5
419.4
177.2
227.2
270.0
256.9
255.6
372.2
372.2
277.8
616.7
616.7

Table 2.10 Payload capacity vs. Maximum Speed

Payload Capacity (kg) Vs Maximum Speed (m/s)
60000

Payload Capacity (kg)

50000

40000

30000
Payload Capacity (kg)

20000

10000

0
0.0

100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0
Maximum Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.6 Payload Capacity vs. Maximum S peed

14

Thrust to weight Maximum
Name of the aircraft ratio
(m/s)
0.5
1 Mirage IIIE
0.6
2 Mirage IVA
0.61
3 F-111F
0.61
4 F-111F Swept
0.38
5 Tu-22R
0.44
6 Tu-85/1
0.44
7 YB-60
0.205
8 B-2A
0.29
9 Tu-142M3
0.4
10 Tu-95MS
0.38
11 B-1B
0.38
12 B-1B Swept
0.31
13 B-52H
0.37
14 Tu-160
0.37
15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.11 Thrust to weight Ratio vs. Maximum Speed

Speed

S.No

652.8
650.0
737.5
737.5
419.4
177.2
227.2
270.0
256.9
255.6
372.2
372.2
277.8
616.7
616.7

Thrust to Weight Ratio Vs Maximum Speed
(m/s)
0.70

Thrust to weight ratio

0.60
0.50

0.40
0.30

Thrust to weight ratio

0.20

0.10
0.00
0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

Maximum Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.7 Thrust to weight Ratio vs. Maximum S peed

15

S.No

Name of the aircraft

Span to height ratio

Maximum Speed (m/s)

1

Mirage IIIE

1.826666667

652.8

2

Mirage IVA

2.194444444

650.0

3

F-111F

3.67816092

737.5

4

F-111F Swept

1.867816092

737.5

5

Tu-22R

2.287265548

419.4

6

Tu-85/1

4.926923754

177.2

7

YB-60

3.413043478

227.2

8

B-2A

10.11583012

270.0

9

Tu-142M3

4.216171617

256.9

10

Tu-95MS

4.133663366

255.6

11

B-1B

4.019230769

372.2

12

B-1B Swept

2.317307692

372.2

13

B-52H

4.548387097

277.8

14

Tu-160

4.251908397

616.7

2.717557252
15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.12 Span to height Ratio vs. Maximum Speed

616.7

Span to Height Ratio Vs Maximum Speed (m/s)
12.00

Span to Height Ratio

10.00

8.00

6.00
Span to height ratio
4.00

2.00

0.00
0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

Maximum Speed (m/s)

Figure 2.8 S pan to height Ratio vs. Maximum S peed

16

S.No

Name of the aircraft

Maximum
Weight (kg)

Takeoff
Maximum Speed (m/s)

1

Mirage IIIE

13500

652.8

2

Mirage IVA

33475

650.0

3

F-111F

45300

737.5

4

F-111F Swept

45300

737.5

5

Tu-22R

92000

419.4

6

Tu-85/1

107292

177.2

7

YB-60

140000

227.2

8

B-2A

170600

270.0

9

Tu-142M3

185000

256.9

10

Tu-95MS

188000

255.6

11

B-1B

216400

372.2

12

B-1B Swept

216400

372.2

13

B-52H

220000

277.8

14

Tu-160

275000

616.7

275000
15 Tu-160 Swept
Table 2.13 Maximum takeoff weight vs. Maximum Speed

616.7

Maximum Takeoff Weight (kg) Vs Maximum
Speed (m/s)
300000

Maximum Takeoff Weight (kg)

250000

200000
Maximum Takeoff
Weight (kg)

150000

100000

50000

0

0.0

200.0

400.0
600.0
Maximum Speed (m/s)

800.0

Figure 2.9 Maximum takeoff weight vs. Maximum S peed

17

2.2 Parameter Selection:

From Comparison (Assumed and extrapolated values from graph)
Maximum takeoff weight (kg)
Thrust to weight ratio
Aspect ratio
Wing loading (N/sq.m)
Span to height ratio
Span to length ratio
Combat radius (km)
Pay load capacity (kg)
Maximum speed (kmph)
Service ceiling (m)
Maximum speed (m/s)
Table 2.14 Parameter Selection

500000
0.28
8.4
7848
5
1.5
5000
75000
1000
15000
277.777

18

3. Rough Weight Estimate
Optimal values of mass fraction for bombers
Parameter
Range of values
Empty Mass Ratio
0.37-0.32
Total Fuel Mass Ratio
0.40-0.62
Payload Ratio
0.14-0.19
Wing Loading
4385-7848 N/m2
Thrust to Weight Ratio
0.26-0.40
Table 3.1 Mass Fraction Parameters for bomber

Notation
ME/MTO
MF/MTO
MPay /MTO
Wo/S
T/Wo

3.1 General rough weight estimate:

MPay/MTo Vs Maximum Takeoff weight (kg)
0.4

0.35
0.3

MPay/MTo

0.25

0.2
MPay/MTo

0.15
0.1
0.05

0
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Maximum Takeoff weight (kg)
Figure 3.1 Payload mass Fraction vs. Maximum Takeoff weight

19

= 75000 kg

ME/MTo Vs Maximum Takeoff weight (kg)
0.6

0.5

ME/MTo

0.4

0.3
ME/Mto
0.2

0.1

0
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Maximum Takeoff weight (kg)
Figure3.2 Empty mass Fraction vs. Maximum Takeoff weight

20

Final Values from rough weight estimate:
Mass Fraction
Payload
0.15
Fuel
0.45
Structure
0.32
Power plant
0.07
Fixed equipments
0.01
Total
1.00
Table 3.2 Values from rough weight estimate

21

4. Redefined Mass Estimation
4.1 Mission profile analysis
Profile 1: Strategic bombing mission

h
6’ 9000 km
2 10000 km

1000 km

2’

8’

R

1/2 hr

1000 km

3’
0

7’

3

4’

5’
9’

1

10’

Figure 4.1 Mission profile for S trategic bombing

Analysis of Mission Profile:
Warmup and takeoff
Climb or descend
Landing

(

(

)

)

22

Figure 4.2 Empty mass fraction vs takeoff mass -- taken from "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel
P.Raymer

Analysis of Mission Profile
Cruise
0.5

TSFC values for Bomber
Loiter
0.4

Table 4.1 TSFC values in lb/lbf-hr for bomber
Where A & c are constants from the historic data for bomber
c = -0.07; A = 0.93 (taken from Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach by
Daniel P.Raymer)

23

(

( )

(

)

)
( )

4.2: Before Refueling
Part 1: Before refueling:

h
10000 km

2

3
R

0

1

Figure 4.3 Mission profile before refueling

Warm-up and Take-off: (0-1)

Climb: (1-2)

Cruise at 60% of maximum speed: (2-3)
For analysis (L/D)

optimal

= 17

Thrust Specific fuel Consumption C = 0.0001389 (kg / N-s)
24

Range R2-3 = 10000 km

Descend: (3-R)

Total Mass fraction for first part of mission profile:

Fuel Mass fraction for first half of mission profile:

(

)

Thus the range of 10000 km can be interpreted as a combat radius of 5000 km.

4.3. Refueling:
Operation:
The tanker aircraft flies straight and level and extends the hose/drogue
which is allowed to trail out behind and below the tanker under normal
aerodynamic forces. The pilot of the receiver aircraft extends his probe (if
required) and uses normal flight controls to fly the refueling probe directly into
the basket. This requires a closure rate of approximately two knots (walking
25

speed) in order to establish solid probe/drogue couple and pushing the hose
several feet into the HDU. Too little closure will cause an incomplete
connection and no fuel flow (or occasionally leaking fuel). Too much closure is
dangerous because it can trigger a strong transverse oscillation in the hose,
severing the probe tip. Another significant danger is that the drogue may hit the
recipient aircraft and damage it—instances have occurred in which the drogue
has shattered the canopy of a fighter aircraft, causing great danger to its pilot.

Figure 4.4 A Tu-95MS simulating aerial refueling with an Ilyushin Il -78

The optimal approach is from behind and below (not level with) the
drogue. Because the drogue is relatively light (typically soft canvas webbing)
and subject to aerodynamic forces, it can be pushed around by the bow wave of
approaching aircraft, exacerbating engagement even in smooth air. After initial
contact, the hose and drogue is pushed forward by the receiver a certain distance
(typically, a few feet), and the hose is reeled slowly back onto its drum in the
HDU. This opens the tanker's main refueling valve allowing fuel to flow to the
drogue under the appropriate pressure (assuming the tanker crew has energized
the pump). Tension on the hose is aerodynamically balanced by a motor in the
HDU so that as the receiver aircraft moves fore and aft, the hose retracts and
extends, thus preventing bends in the hose that would cause undue side loads on
the probe. Fuel flow is typically indicated by illumination of a green light near
the HDU. If the hose is pushed in too far or not far enough, a cutoff switch will
inhibit fuel flow, which is typically accompanied by amber light.
Disengagement is commanded by the tanker pilot with a red light.

26

4.4. After Refueling:
Part 2: After refueling:

h

6’
1000 km

2’

R
3’

9000 km

1000 km
4’

7’

5’

8’

9’

10’

Figure 4.5 After refueling mission profile

Cruise at 60% of maximum speed: (R-2)

Descend: (2’-3’)

Cruise: (3’-4’)

Bombing (4’)
Climb: (4’-5’)

27

Cruise: (5’-6’)

Loiter: (6’-7’)
Loiter time = ½ hr

Descend: (7’-8’)

Landing: (8’-9’)

Total Mass fraction for second part of mission profile:

28

Total fuel mass fraction after refueling:

(

(
(
Hence (

)

)

)

)
(

)

is taken since the value turns out to be ( )

29

Replacing

as X in excel to solve the implicit function

X ranges from 500000 to 520000 since initial mass estimate is 500000 kg
X

f(x)
500000 -9458.077
510000 2308.6163
520000 14026.793

X

f(x)
501000 -8279.156
502000 -7100.742
503000 -5922.833
504000 -4745.425
505000 -3568.517
506000 -2392.106
507000 -1216.19
508000 -40.76524
509000 1134.1693

X

X

f(x)
508000 -40.76524
508100 76.750211

X
508000
508010
508020
508030
508040

f(x)
-40.76524
-29.01347
-17.26176
-5.51009
6.2415284

X

f(x)
508030 -5.51009
508031 -4.334926
508032 -3.159763
508033 -1.984599
508034 -0.809437
508035 0.3657252

X

f(x)
508034.6 -0.10434
508034.7 0.0131767

f(x)
508034.67 -0.022078
508034.68 -0.010327
508034.69 0.001425
508034.7 0.0131767
508034.71 0.0249283

Thus mass of the aircraft is 508034.68 kg

30

Take-off Weight of the aircraft:

4.5.Thrust Estimation

T=0.28×4983820.113
=1395469.632N
T=1395.469 KN

31

TA = 1395.469 KN
T=
T=348.86725 KN/Engine

32

5. Power Plant Selection
5.1. Comparative data of engines
Thrust Estimation:

( ) ( )
( ⁄ )
( (

)

)

For the chosen parameters:

T=0.28×4983820.113
=1395469.632N
T=1395.469 KN

TA = 1395.469 KN
T=
T=348.86725 KN/Engine
33

The performance data of various turbofan engines with thrust of range 330 kN
to 500 kN were collected from the following resources
 www.jet-engine.net
 www.wikipedia.org

S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Name of
the Engine
Trent-900
GP-7000
GE 90-76B
GE 90-92B
GP 7270
GE90110B1
GP 7277
PW 40477
GE 90-85B
GE 90-94B
GE 90-90B
GE 90-115B

Manufacturer
Rolls Royce
Engine Alliance
GE
GE
Engine Alliance

Type
Turbofan 3 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft

GE
Engine Alliance
Pratt & Whitney
GE
GE
GE
GE

Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft
Turbofan 2 Shaft

Wet
Dry
Length Diameter weight
Weight
(m)
(m)
(kg)
(kg)
4.55
2.94
6271
4.74
3.16
6800
6712
4.90
3.40
7540
7074
4.90
3.40
7648
7074
4.75
3.15
6800
6712
4.90
4.75
4.87
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90

3.40
3.15
3.01
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40

8253
6482
6986
7474
8253
7548
8283

7550
6033
6598
7074
7550
7074
7550

Table 5.1. Collection of Engine Comparative Data

S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Name of the
Engine
Trent-900
GP-7000
GE 90-76B
GE 90-92B
GP 7270
GE90-110B1
GP 7277
PW 40477
GE 90-85B
GE 90-94B
GE 90-90B
GE 90-115B

Overall
Fan
Maximum
Pressure
Thrust
to Diameter
Thrust (kN)
Ratio
Weight Ratio (m)
360
38
5.15
363
43.9
4.73
2.95
340
41.9
5.4
3.12
409
41.8
5.7
3.12
311
43.9
4.73
2.95
489
42.5
6.2
3.12
343
43
5.2
2.95
343
40
2.84
377
42
3.12
417
42
5.6
3.12
400
42
5.4
3.12
512
42
6.3
3.12

Table 5.2. Collection of Engine Comparative Data (Cont.)
34

5.2. Engine Selection:
From this we select Engine Alliance GP 7000
Specification of Engine
Name of the Engine
Manufacturer
Type
Length (m)
Diameter (m)
Wet weight (kg)
Dry Weight (kg)
Maximum Thrust (kN)
Overall Pressure Ratio
Thrust to Weight Ratio
Fan Diameter (m)

GP-7000
Engine Alliance
Turbofan 2 Shaft
4.74
3.16
6800
6712
363
43.9
4.73
2.95

Table 5.3. Selected Engine Datas

5.3. Redefined Thrust to weight ratio:

Closer to initial value assumed value of 0.28
TSFC ≈ 0.8
TSFC = 0.7913 N/N - hr
= 0.7913
= 0.080662 kg/N- hr
TSFC = 0.02240627 kg/N -s
Service ceiling evaluation:
By taking service ceiling as h=15 km

35

Number of Engines = 4

36

6. Airfoil selection and Wing Geometry estimates
6.1. Main Parameter Selection:
Wing Loading:

̂
̂
̂
̂

6.2 Fuel volume consideration:

ρF can vary from 600 kg/m3 to 800 kg/m3.
For ρ F = 800 kg/m3
37

Volume of fuel accommodated in wing:
(

( )

(( )

(

̂ ))

(
̂

))

( )
Selecting NACA 653-418 airfoil of fineness ratio (t/c ratio) as 0.18
( )
( )
( )

38

6.3 Takeoff Analysis:

Figure 6.1 Runway length survey for military installations

SR = 2000 m for around 68% of airbase in the world.

Assuming take off at 60% of runway length and accelerating at 20% the
gravitational attraction, where vi is initial velocity during takeoff.

39

( )

( )
̂

̂
Where
value

̂ can be denoted as t also since we use MAC to obtain the thickness

Thickness based Reynolds Number:
̂

40

Figure 6.2 Cl vs Angle of attack curve for NACA653418 at angle of attack 0.5 deg

41

Symbol

Re

x/c

5.9×106
0.266
6
8.9×10
0.267
Table 6.1 Airfoil data at various Re.

y/c
-0.052
-0.047

Angle of CL max
attack
18°
1.42
18°
1.51

At Re = 6.3×106 by interpolating we get
Location of aerodynamic center x/c = 0.2668
y/c = -0.0491
CL max = 1.48
α = 18°

6.4 Flap selection:

Flap Chosen is Triple slotted flap
Wing setting angle or incidence angle iw= 3 degree
Required Flap Deflection = 60°
Change in CL due to flap deflection:

42

Figure 6.3 Drag polar curve forNACA653418 at angle of attack 0.5 deg

43

6.5. Wing geometry:
Sweep Analysis:
For airfoil NACA 653- 418
At x/c = 0.46
(

)

Figure 6.4 Variation of local velocity with the free stream velocity

44


Hence by comparing v and aM SL and aalt it is clear that the shock wave is
formed.
In order to avoid this unwanted phenomenon we need to sweep the wing.
Critical Mach number:

(

)

If the maximum velocity reached on the upper surface is equal to the lowest
possible value of speed of sound then the velocity V∞ will be critical velocity
which corresponds to critical Mach number
Or simply M x/c= 0.46 =1
(

)

(

)

45

Critical Mach number for the airfoil:

Figure 6.5 S wept back wing

By using a trapezoidal and sweepback we may get

46

For 1000 km/hr or 277.77 m/s speed we get the sweep to avoid shock on upper
surface as

Where

is due to taper property

(

)

Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) ( ̂) for swept back wing:
̂

(

)

Span wise location of MAC

On simplifying we get :

̂

(

)

47

Where λ is taper ratio: λ can vary from 0 to 1.
By evaluating the above four equations we get :
λ

cr (m)

ct (m)

(deg)

(rad)

1

8.695

8.695

0.000

0.000

0.9

9.153

8.237

0.025

1.435

0.8

9.661

7.729

0.053

3.028

0.7

10.229

7.161

0.084

4.802

0.6

10.869

6.521

0.118

6.786

0.5

11.593

5.797

0.157

9.015

0.4

12.421

4.969

0.201

11.529

0.3

13.377

4.013

0.251

14.372

0.2

14.492

2.898

0.307

17.595

0.1

15.809

1.581

0.371

21.251

0

17.390

0.000

0.443

25.384

Table 6.2 Angle of taper for various taper ratios
Taking the value
λ = 0.5
cr = 11.593 m
ct = 5.797 m

Span wise location of MAC:

Hence:

48

Figure 6.6 Effect of aspect ratio on lift curve slope


a= 0.1213507 /degree for a’ = 0.15/ degree

49

7. Landing gear design
7.1. Tyre selection:
7.1.1. Load Distribution:
Typical load of aircraft while landing
Possibility of aborting mission would lead to
And during static condition

Typically main landing gear takes around 90 % of load and the Nose landing
gear takes around 10% of total load.
Load taken by wheels in nose landing gear = 0.1× 4983820.113
= 498.382 kN
Load taken by wheels in main landing gear = 0.9× 4983820.113
= 4485.438 kN
Nose Landing Main Landing
Gear
Gear
4
20

Number of wheels
Total load supported
(kN)
498.382
Load taken by each
wheel (kN)
124.5955
Tyre Pressure (psi)
200
Tyre Pressure (bar)
14.28
Table 7.1 Load Distribution

4485.438
224.2719
200
14.28

The load is taken by the tyre due to internal pressure,

50

Figure 7.1 Typical tyre pressures - taken from Aircraft design: Conceptual Approach by Daniel P. Raymer

7.1.2.Tyre Selection For Nose wheel:
Wheel diameter = AWwB (A=1.63, B=0.315)
dw =1.63 (27876.30)0.315
dw = 40.96 in ( 1.0403 m)
Wheel width = AWwB (A=0.1043, B=0.480)
ww =0.1043 (27876.30)0.480
ww = 14.190 in (0.3604m)

Figure 7.2 Emprical relations and constants for tyre selection - taken from Aircraft design: Conceptual Approach by
Daniel P. Raymer

51

Contact area:

Figure 7.3 Tyre contact area

From figure the contact area will be neither rectangular nor elliptic but a
combination of both.
(


(
(


)
)
)

Hence Rt rolling radius for nose landing gear assembly has reduced by 6.667%
of the wheel radius

52

7.1.3. Tyre Selection for Main landing gear:
Wheel diameter = AWwB (A=1.63, B=0.315)
dw =1.63 (50357.2)0.315
dw = 49.36 in ( 1.253 m)
Wheel width = AWwB (A=0.1043, B=0.480)
ww =0.1043 (50357.2)0.480
ww = 18.848 in (0.4787m)

Contact area:
(


(
(


)
)
)

7.2. Runway Loading:
Runway loading estimates for both Main and nose landing wheel:

53

For a rigid runway:
Nominal working stress on Concrete pavement: 400 psi or 2.75 MN/m2
Concrete Elastic modulus E= 27.5 GPa

54

8. Dimensional estimates
8.1. Basic Dimensions:
Span to height ratio

Span to length ratio:

Where length is the length of the fuselage
Total length

m

55

8.2. Configuration of tail:

Figure 8.1 T tail configuration

8.2.1. Horizontal stabilizer:
Airfoil used: NACA 0012
Horizontal stabilizer sizing: 15% of wing area

A.Rh =4.5

56

̂
̂
Sweep analysis for the horizontal tail:
Tail will not be affected by downwash since we use T tail
Horizontal tail geometry:
Sweep Analysis:
For airfoil NACA 0012

Figure 8.2 Local velocity vs free stream velocity for NACA 0012 airfoil

57

Figure 8.3 CL vs angle of attack curve for NACA 0012

58

Figure 8.4 Drag polar curve for NACA 0012

59

At x/c = 0.125
(

)

M x/c= 0.125 =1
(

)

Critical Mach number for the airfoil:

By using a trapezoidal and sweepback we may get

60

For 1000 km/hr or 277.77 m/s speed we get the sweep to avoid shock on upper
surface as

Where

is due to taper property

(

)

For horizontal tail:
By evaluating for λ which varies from 0 to 1 we get:
λh

c rh

c th

h

(rad)

1
4.60
4.60
0.9
4.84
4.36
0.8
5.11
4.09
0.7
5.41
3.79
0.6
5.75
3.45
0.5
6.13
3.07
0.4
6.57
2.63
0.3
7.08
2.12
0.2
7.67
1.53
0.1
8.37
0.84
0
9.20
0.00
Table 8.1 Variation of taper angle of horizontal tail

h

0.00
0.00
0.01
0.76
0.03
1.60
0.04
2.55
0.06
3.60
0.08
4.80
0.11
6.16
0.13
7.72
0.17
9.53
0.20
11.64
0.25
14.13
for various taper ratio

Taking λh as 0.4
crh = 6.5729 m
cth = 5.797 m

Span wise location of MAC:

61

Hence:

8.2.2. Vertical Stabilizer Geometry:
Vertical stabilizer sizing: 9% of wing area
Airfoil used: NACA 0012

A.Rv =0.9

̂
̂

62

λv

crv
ctv
1 7.981454716 7.981454716
0.9 8.40153128 7.561378152
0.8 8.868283017 7.094626414
0.7 9.389946724 6.572962707
0.6 9.976818394 5.986091037
0.5 10.64193962 5.32096981
0.4 11.40207817 4.560831266
0.3 12.2791611 3.68374833
0.2 13.30242453 2.660484905
0.1 14.51173585 1.451173585
0 15.96290943
0
Table 8.2 Variation of taper angle of vertical

v

(rad)

v

0
0
0.02299242
1.317407458
0.048510003
2.779500429
0.076953376
4.40923372
0.108800855
6.23401364
0.144623174
8.286541884
0.185098527
10.60567718
0.231024637
13.23712703
0.283320456
16.23354517
0.343001791
19.6531346
0.411098972
23.55493075
tail for various taper ratio

Taking λt as 0.7
crt = 9.389 m
ctt = 6.5729 m = c hr

Span wise location of MAC:

Hence:

63

9. Preparation of Layout
Configuration: Anhedral high wing, T-Tail configuration.
Nose radius rn= 3m

9.1. Wing Location and CG Estimation:
Reference is taken from nose:

Where X is the location of wing root L.E. from the nose fuselage and Xfinal is the
location of cg from L.E at root.
Xfinal = 0.35 (Xc r -Xc t )
Xfinal =11.59 m
Substituting the values from condition 1 in the above equation:

Fence the wing root L.E. has to be fixed at 14.645 m from nose.
That is from nose cg lies at 14.645 +11.69 = 26.223 m
̅

64

Figure 9.1 Wing Details for cg estimates

65

Condition 1

S.No

Full Payload and Full Fuel
Fuselage alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
3.043
270
2648.7
8059.9941

Components
1 Crew
Nose landing
2 gear
3 Payload bay 1

6.086
12.172

3600
37500

35316
367875

214933.176
4477774.5

18.641
22.641
22.641
22.641

1149.19
21600
43200
95280.42

11273.5539
211896
423792
934700.9202

210150.3182
4797537.336
9595074.672
21162563.53

22.641

10800

105948

2398768.668

30.3211
30.321

7200
37500

70632
367875

2141639.935
11154337.88

Horizontal
11 stabilizer

45.367

6400

62784

2848321.728

Vertical
12 Stabilizer

48.501

3200
267699.61

Fixed
equipments
Excess mass
Fuselage mass
Fuel in fuselage
Main landing
gear assembly
8 1
Main landing
gear assembly
9 2
10 Payload bay 2
4
5
6
7

Total
Cg from Nose

31392
1522543.392
2626133.174
60531705.13
23.04974695

Wing alone analysis
from
line
Components
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
Wing structure
16.35
64000
627840
10265184
Wing fuel 1
11.85
74567.285
731505.0659
8668335.03
Wing fuel 2
18.428
74567.285
731505.0659
13480175.35
Power plant 1
9.57
13600
133416
1276791.12
Power plant 2
15
13600
133416
2001240
Total
240334.57
2357682.132
35691725.5
Cg from L.E
15.13848072
Entire aircraft
Distance
reference
(m)

S.No
1
2
3
4
5

cg from
L.E.
Root

11.60343233 Grand total

508034.18

4983815.306

96223430.63

Table 9.1 Cg estimate for fully loaded condition
Similarly for different cases i.e. conditions of loading must be evaluated by fixing the wing at
the location x. For this case 1 the cg lies at 27.085 m
66

9.2. Three views of Aircraft:

Figure 9.2 Top View

67

Figure 9.3 Front View

68

Figure 9.4 S ide view

69

Condition 2

S.No

Full Payload and Reserve Fuel
Fuselage alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
3.043
270
2648.7
8059.9941

Components
1 Crew
Nose landing
2 gear
3 Payload bay 1
Fixed
4 equipments
5 Excess mass
6 Fuselage mass
7 Fuel in fuselage
Main landing
gear assembly
8 1
Main landing
gear assembly
9 2
10 Payload bay 2
Horizontal
11 stabilizer

6.086
12.172

3600
0

35316
0

214933.176
0

18.641
22.641
22.641
22.641

1149.19
21600
43200
19056.084

11273.5539
211896
423792
186940.184

210150.3182
4797537.336
9595074.672
4232512.707

22.641

10800

105948

2398768.668

30.3211
30.321

7200
0

70632
0

2141639.935
0

45.367

6400

62784

2848321.728

48.501

3200
116475.274

Vertical
12 Stabilizer
Total
Cg from Nose

31392
1522543.392
1142622.438
27969541.93
24.47837623

Wing alone analysis
from
line
Components
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
Wing structure
16.35
64000
627840
10265184
Wing fuel 1
11.85
14913.457
146301.0132
1733667.006
Wing fuel 2
18.428
14913.457
146301.0132
2696035.071
Power plant 1
9.57
13600
133416
1276791.12
Power plant 2
15
13600
133416
2001240
Total
121026.914
1187274.026
17972917.2
Cg from L.E
15.13796882
Entire aircraft
Distance
reference
(m)

S.No
1
2
3
4
5

cg from
L.E.
Root

12.54876323 Grand total

237502.188

2329896.464

45942459.12

Table 9.2 Cg estimate for full payload and reserve fuel

70

Condition 3

S.No

Half Payload and Full Fuel
Fuselage alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
3.043
270
2648.7
8059.9941

Components
1 Crew
Nose landing
2 gear
3 Payload bay 1
Fixed
equipments
Excess mass
Fuselage mass
Fuel in fuselage
Main landing
gear assembly
8 1
Main landing
gear assembly
9 2
10 Payload bay 2

6.086
12.172

3600
18750

35316
183937.5

214933.176
2238887.25

18.641
22.641
22.641
22.641

1149.19
21600
43200
95280.42

11273.5539
211896
423792
934700.9202

210150.3182
4797537.336
9595074.672
21162563.53

22.641

10800

105948

2398768.668

30.3211
30.321

7200
18750

70632
183937.5

2141639.935
5577168.938

45.367

6400

62784

2848321.728

48.501

3200
230199.61

4
5
6
7

Horizontal
11 stabilizer
Vertical
12 Stabilizer
Total
Cg from Nose

S.No
1
2
3
4
5

cg from
L.E.
Root

31392
1522543.392
2258258.174
52715648.94
23.34349967

Wing alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
Components
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
Wing structure
16.35
64000
627840
10265184
Wing fuel 1
11.85
74567.285
731505.0659
8668335.03
Wing fuel 2
18.428
74567.285
731505.0659
13480175.35
Power plant 1
9.57
13600
133416
1276791.12
Power plant 2
15
13600
133416
2001240
Total
240334.57
2357682.132
35691725.5
Cg from L.E
15.13848072
Entire aircraft

12.00007718 Grand total

470534.18

4615940.306

88407374.45

Table 9.3 Cg estimate for half payload and full fuel

71

Condition 4

S.No

Half Payload and Reserve Fuel
Fuselage alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
3.043
270
2648.7
8059.9941

Components
1 Crew
Nose landing
2 gear
3 Payload bay 1
Fixed
equipments
Excess mass
Fuselage mass
Fuel in fuselage
Main landing
gear assembly
8 1
Main landing
gear assembly
9 2
10 Payload bay 2

6.086
12.172

3600
18750

35316
183937.5

214933.176
2238887.25

18.641
22.641
22.641
22.641

1149.19
21600
43200
19056.084

11273.5539
211896
423792
186940.184

210150.3182
4797537.336
9595074.672
4232512.707

22.641

10800

105948

2398768.668

30.3211
30.321

7200
18750

70632
183937.5

2141639.935
5577168.938

45.367

6400

62784

2848321.728

48.501

3200
153975.274

4
5
6
7

Horizontal
11 stabilizer
Vertical
12 Stabilizer
Total
Cg from Nose

S.No
1
2
3
4
5

cg from
L.E.
Root

31392
1522543.392
1510497.438
35785598.11
23.69126701

Wing alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
Components
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
Wing structure
16.35
64000
627840
10265184
Wing fuel 1
11.85
14913.457
146301.0132
1733667.006
Wing fuel 2
18.428
14913.457
146301.0132
2696035.071
Power plant 1
9.57
13600
133416
1276791.12
Power plant 2
15
13600
133416
2001240
Total
121026.914
1187274.026
17972917.2
Cg from L.E
15.13796882
Entire aircraft

11.74118831 Grand total

275002.188

2697771.464

53758515.31

Table 9.4 Cg estimate for half payload and reserve fuel

72

Condition 5

S.No

No Payload and Reserve Fuel
Fuselage alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
3.043
270
2648.7
8059.9941

Components
1 Crew
Nose landing
2 gear
3 Payload bay 1
Fixed
equipments
Excess mass
Fuselage mass
Fuel in fuselage
Main landing
gear assembly
8 1
Main landing
gear assembly
9 2
10 Payload bay 2

6.086
12.172

3600
0

35316
0

214933.176
0

18.641
22.641
22.641
22.641

1149.19
21600
43200
19056.084

11273.5539
211896
423792
186940.184

210150.3182
4797537.336
9595074.672
4232512.707

22.641

10800

105948

2398768.668

30.3211
30.321

7200
0

70632
0

2141639.935
0

45.367

6400

62784

2848321.728

48.501

3200
116475.274

4
5
6
7

Horizontal
11 stabilizer
Vertical
12 Stabilizer
Total
Cg from Nose

S.No
1
2
3
4
5

cg from
L.E.
Root

31392
1522543.392
1142622.438
27969541.93
24.47837623

Wing alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
Components
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
Wing structure
16.35
64000
627840
10265184
Wing fuel 1
11.85
14913.457
146301.0132
1733667.006
Wing fuel 2
18.428
14913.457
146301.0132
2696035.071
Power plant 1
9.57
13600
133416
1276791.12
Power plant 2
15
13600
133416
2001240
Total
121026.914
1187274.026
17972917.2
Cg from L.E
15.13796882
Entire aircraft

12.54876323 Grand total

237502.188

2329896.464

45942459.12

Table 9.5 Cg estimate for No payload and reserve fuel

73

Condition 6

S.No

Full Payload and Half Fuel
Fuselage alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
3.043
270
2648.7
8059.9941

Components
1 Crew
Nose landing
2 gear
3 Payload bay 1
Fixed
equipments
Excess mass
Fuselage mass
Fuel in fuselage
Main landing
gear assembly
8 1
Main landing
gear assembly
9 2
10 Payload bay 2

6.086
12.172

3600
37500

35316
367875

214933.176
4477774.5

18.641
22.641
22.641
22.641

1149.19
21600
43200
47640.21

11273.5539
211896
423792
467350.4601

210150.3182
4797537.336
9595074.672
10581281.77

22.641

10800

105948

2398768.668

30.3211
30.321

7200
37500

70632
367875

2141639.935
11154337.88

45.367

6400

62784

2848321.728

48.501

3200
220059.4

4
5
6
7

Horizontal
11 stabilizer
Vertical
12 Stabilizer
Total
Cg from Nose

S.No
1
2
3
4
5

cg from
L.E.
Root

31392
1522543.392
2158782.714
49950423.36
23.13823575

Wing alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
Components
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
Wing structure
16.35
64000
627840
10265184
Wing fuel 1
11.85
37283.6425
365752.5329
4334167.515
Wing fuel 2
18.428
37283.6425
365752.5329
6740087.677
Power plant 1
9.57
13600
133416
1276791.12
Power plant 2
15
13600
133416
2001240
Total
165767.285
1626177.066
24617470.31
Cg from L.E
15.13824714
Entire aircraft

11.36246959 Grand total

385826.685

3784959.78

74567893.67

Table 9.6 Cg estimate for full payload and half fuel

74

Condition 7

S.No

Half Payload and Half Fuel
Fuselage alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
3.043
270
2648.7
8059.9941

Components
1 Crew
Nose landing
2 gear
3 Payload bay 1

6.086
12.172

3600
18750

35316
183937.5

214933.176
2238887.25

18.641
22.641
22.641
22.641

1149.19
21600
43200
47640.21

11273.5539
211896
423792
467350.4601

210150.3182
4797537.336
9595074.672
10581281.77

22.641

10800

105948

2398768.668

30.3211
30.321

7200
18750

70632
183937.5

2141639.935
5577168.938

Horizontal
11 stabilizer

45.367

6400

62784

2848321.728

Vertical
12 Stabilizer

48.501

3200
182559.4

Fixed
equipments
Excess mass
Fuselage mass
Fuel in fuselage
Main landing
gear assembly
8 1
Main landing
gear assembly
9 2
10 Payload bay 2
4
5
6
7

Total
Cg from Nose

S.No
1
2
3
4
5

cg from
L.E.
Root

31392
1522543.392
1790907.714
42134367.17
23.52682209

Wing alone analysis
Distance
from
reference
line
Components
(m)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Moment (Nm)
Wing structure
16.35
64000
627840
10265184
Wing fuel 1
11.85
37283.6425
365752.5329
4334167.515
Wing fuel 2
18.428
37283.6425
365752.5329
6740087.677
Power plant 1
9.57
13600
133416
1276791.12
Power plant 2
15
13600
133416
2001240
Total
165767.285
1626177.066
24617470.31
Cg from L.E
15.13824714
Entire aircraft

11.87233251 Grand total

348326.685

3417084.78

66751837.49

Table 9.7 Cg estimate for half payload and half fuel

75

9.3. The variation of cg location is shown below
S.No

Details

Variation
percentage

CG % of MAC

1 Full payload + Full fuel
2 No payload + Full fuel

in

0.3500
0.3794

0.0000
7.7421

0.3819
0.3652

8.3523
4.1671

0.3573

2.0531

No payload + Reserve
6 fuel
7 Full payload + Half fuel

0.3819
0.3819

8.3523
8.3523

8 Half payload + Half fuel

0.3613

3.1366

Full payload + Reserve
3 fuel
4 Half payload + Full fuel
Half payload + Reserve
5 fuel

Table 9.8 Cg estimate for various conditions

76

10. Drag Estimation
Drag Equation for Entire Aircraft:

Where

10.1. Component Drag Estimates:
Wetted surface area:
Fuselage:

Engine:

Horizontal Stablizer:

77

Vertical Stablizer:

Nose Landing Gear:

Main Landing Gear 1:

Main Landing Gear 2:

Flap:

78

10.2. Total Drag Estimate:
S.No

Components
1 Fuselage
2 Engine

Wetted
Surface
area
Permanent components
56
31.3706

3 Horizontal Stablizer
4 Vertical Stablizer

95.256
57.154

0.03
0.03

1.68
0.941118

0.0052
0.0052

0.495331
0.297201
3.41365

a

Temporary Components
Nose Landing Gear
1.4996

0.12

0.179952

b

Main Landing Gear 1

7.197

0.12

0.86364

c

Main Landing Gear 2
Landing Gear total
Flap at 45°
Flap at 60°

4.7984

0.12

0.575808
1.6194
1.21032
1.5129

i
ii

75.645
75.645

0.016
0.02

0.005375

0.00255
0.001906
0.002382

Table 10.1 Coefficient of Drag for different parts of aircraft
Takeoff Performance:

Landing Performance:

Cruise Performance:

79

10.3. Drag Polar
Drag Polar Analysis:
2

CL
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2

KCL
0.011841886
0.007578807
0.004263079
0.001894702
0.000473675
0
0.000473675
0.001894702
0.004263079
0.007578807
0.011841886
0.017052315
0.023210096
0.030315228
0.03836771
0.047367543
0.057314727
0.068209262

Takeoff
Landing
Cruise
CD Takeoff
CD Landing
CD Cruise
(L/D)cruise
0.027172886
0.027648886
0.022716886
-22.0100592
0.022909807
0.023385807
0.018453807
-21.6757443
0.019594079
0.020070079
0.015138079
-19.8175741
0.017225702
0.017701702
0.012769702
-15.662073
0.015804675
0.016280675
0.011348675
-8.81160102
0.015331
0.015807
0.010875
0
0.015804675
0.016280675
0.011348675
8.81160102
0.017225702
0.017701702
0.012769702
15.662073
0.019594079
0.020070079
0.015138079
19.8175741
0.022909807
0.023385807
0.018453807
21.6757443
0.027172886
0.027648886
0.022716886
22.0100592
0.032383315
0.032859315
0.027927315
21.4843421
0.038541096
0.039017096
0.034085096
20.5368352
0.045646228
0.046122228
0.041190228
19.4220826
0.05369871
0.05417471
0.04924271
18.2768171
0.062698543
0.063174543
0.058242543
17.16958
0.072645727
0.073121727
0.068189727
16.1314621
0.083540262
0.084016262
0.079084262
15.1736891

Table 10.2 Coefficient of Drag for different flying conditions

80

Drag Polar Curve:

Drag Polar
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
CL

Takeoff

0.4

Cruise

0.2

Landing

0
-0.2

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

-0.4
-0.6

CD

Figure 10.1 Drag Polar curve for Entire Aircraft during takeoff, cruise and Landing

10.4. Lift to Drag Ratio:

L/D
25

L/D

20
15
10

L/D

5
0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

CL
Figure 10.2 L/D vs. CL for Entire aircraft at cruise

(L/D)max= 22

81

11. Performance Calculations:
11.1. Thrust required and Thrust available analysis:
W1 = 25% of Fuel and 100 % of Payload
W1 = 3185533.292 N
W2 = 50% of Fuel and 100 % of Payload
W2 = 3784962.23 N
W3 = 75% of Fuel and 100 % of Payload
W3 = 4384391.173 N

Thrust in N

Thousands

Thrust values at sea level
2500

2000
1500

Thrust Available
Tr at w1

1000

Tr at w2

500

Tr at w3
0
0
-500

200

400

600

Velocity

Figure 11.1 Thrust scenarios at S ea level for different weights

82

Thousands

Thrust in N

Thrust values at 11 km
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Thrust avaliable
Tr at w1
tr at w2
Tr at w3

0

100

200

300

400

500

Velocity

Figure 11.2 Thrust scenarios at 11 km altitude for different weights

Thousands

Thrust in N

Thrust values at 25 km
3000

2500
2000

Thrust avaliable

1500

Tr at w1

1000

tr at w2

500

Tr at w3

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Velocity

Figure 11.3 Thrust scenarios at 25 km for different weights

83

Reference:

Websites:







www.airminded.org
www.aviationexplorers.com
www.flightglobal.com
www.jet-engine.net
www.wikipedia.org
www.worldaircraftsearch.com
www.worldofkrauss.com

Books:

Ajoy Kumar Kundu (2010) ―Aircraft Design – Cambridge Aerospace Series‖
Daniel. P. Raymer (1989) ―Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach‖
Lloyd Jekinson & Jim Marchman (2003) ―Aircraft Design Projects For Engineering Students‖
FAA ―Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook‖
Jan Roskam (1985) ―Airplane Design-Part 1: Preliminary Design and Sizing and Part 4:
Layout design of Landing Gear and system‖
6. Irs.H. Abbott & Albert E Von Doenhoff (1949) ―Theory of Wing Sections‖
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

84