Understanding Design

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia explains “design” as: “…creating an object's form and function. Design can involve making products, machines, and structures that serve their intended purpose and are pleasing to the eye as well.” Encyclopedia Britannica’s Dictionary provides numerous meanings of “design” as a noun as well as a verb. Most of them are given as under:        As a noun a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group deliberate purposive planning a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down a deliberate undercover project or scheme a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be executed an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (as a scientific experiment); also the process of preparing this the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs intention, plan     As a verb to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan to conceive and plan out in the mind to have as a purpose to devise for a specific function or end

 

In the light of the above description, we can now understand design as an activity involving the setting out of a strategy that ends up as a solution to the given problem which at the same time remains within the existing constraints. In engineering, the design process is of fundamental importance which determines the manufacturing scheme of a product. Any shortcoming or defect in a product’s field service is finally attributed to its designer.


RESTRICTED 1.2 Initiation of a New Design Process

Innovation and creativity are continuously required in the technological dynamics of any dimension of applied knowledge. The reasons for the initiation of a new design process are listed as follows:    Customer requirement New requirement based on future market trends or research New technology or innovation


Aircraft Design

“Aircraft design is both an art and a science.” John D. Anderson, Jr. Aircraft Performance and Design McGraw–Hill, 1999, pp. 381 An aircraft is a very diverse system whose production demands input from the various subfields of aeronautics and avionics. Raymer declares aircraft design a separate discipline of aeronautical engineering, apart from aerodynamics, structures, propulsion and controls. An aircraft’s design is the outcome of an iterative process that is accomplished through the optimization of various candidate configurations and combinations. The following chart shows the methodology of the conceptual design process of an aircraft. Design Requirements / Specifications



Sizing and Trade Studies

Optimized Result


Also. 5. compatible with the existing airports’ infrastructure and fuel efficiency.8 M Maximum Operating Altitude: 43. is a proposal made by a commercial organization inviting bids from possible suppliers of a product or service. I started the design process. it constrained the use of turboprops. 7. 2008 – 2009. The RFP given to me was for the AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competition.RESTRICTED Chapter 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND MISSION PROFILE RFP. The RFP required the aircraft to be environmentally friendly.1 Mission Profile With the specifications at hand. Airbus A320 and Boeing 737–600 were declared as the existing comparables. Other technical specifications that RFP had asked for are listed as follows: 1. or Request for Proposal. MTOW: 7000 ft 2. or by a government or other funding agency inviting bids from possible research bodies. 2. The RFP demanded for conceptual design of a new commercial transport aircraft design with a capacity for 150 passengers in a dual class configuration. A mission profile based on the designer’s choice was carved out. displayed as follows: RESTRICTED . 4. 6. 3.000 ft (Absolute Ceiling) Maximum landing speed (at Maximum Landing Weight): 135 knots Takeoff Field Length (TOFL). Passenger weight: 185 lbf Baggage: 60 lbf/paxx Maximum Range: 2800 n mi Cruise: 0.

000 Descent Loiter: 20 min Landing The mission profile ensures that its accomplishment would mean the satisfaction of most of the requirements. 0.000 ft.8 M Descent Loiter: 20 min Attempt to Land Divert (climb) Cruise: 200 n mi @ 20.RESTRICTED The mission profile is stationed as follows: 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6–7 7–8 8–9 9 – 10 10 – 11 11 – 12 Taxi and TO Climb Cruise: 2600 n mi @ 36. RESTRICTED .

the following layout was made for the as–drawn aircraft: Fig. of Fuselages Wing Configuration Wing Sweep Tail Type No. 3. 3.1 Top View RESTRICTED . of Engines Wing Twist Sweep Type Wing Position Conventional 1 High Wing Forward Conventional 1 2 Span Loaded 2 Mid Wing Backward T–Tail 2 3 Multi Fuselage Flatbed Aerodynamic Geometric Fixed Variable Anhedral Dihedral Double Triple Based on the selections of this morphological matrix.RESTRICTED Chapter 3 CONCEPT SELECTION An artistic sketch of the aircraft was made. of Tails No.1 Morphological Matrix The morphological matrix was formed as shown: Choices Flying Tandem Wing Wing 3 Low Wing H–Tail 3 4 V–Tail 5 6 Aircraft Configuration No. after selection of the choices from a morphological matrix.

3 Side View Fig.4 Isometric View The sketches and the 3D model were created having no idea about the dimensions. 3. 3. 3.2 Front View Fig. RESTRICTED .RESTRICTED Fig. These were drafted using a pure artistic approach. or any type of geometric detail. The next section explains the reasons for going for this unconventional layout.

require smaller engines as that of a comparable single– fuselage design (Ref. 3) 6. 3) 3. 1) 4. Better fuel efficiency.2 Reasons for Triple Hull Layout A key motive for the decision of this configuration was differentiation. (Ref. Allows high aspect ratios to be used (Ref. RESTRICTED . I opted for this layout and froze my concept.RESTRICTED 3. Disliking of twin–fuselage arrangement by the pilots (Ref. 1) Having these augmented benefits. Separation of a large central mass into distributed outboard masses substantially alleviates wing bending loads (Ref. 3) 5. About 8% reduction in aircraft empty weight (Ref. 2) 2. and especially for a layman’s eye. Other important reasons for the ruling are stated as under: 1. Application of multi–fuselage aircrafts can improve the situation. The theory of similarity predicts reduction of the payload capability when the dimensions of an aircraft are increased.

993 W7/W 5 = 0.1. For complete steps of calculation.995 So. 4.983 W10/W 9 = 1 W11/W 10 = 0. The subsequent sections explain the procedure. the weight fraction of the whole mission equals: W12/W o = 0.993 W12/W 11 = 0.000 lbf We/W o = 0.000 lbf WTO)B737 = 174. Only the results are presented here. it is assumed that fuel fraction for the descent segment equals unity.1 Empty Weight Estimation The average of the take off weights of the reference aircrafts were taken as the sized TO weight.496 From Table 3.1: 8% empty weight saving due to triple fuselage layout results in: We/W o = 0.753 RESTRICTED .456 4.RESTRICTED Chapter 4 AS DRAWN CONFIGURATION 4. Sized W TO = 168.985 W3/W 2 = 0.970 W2/W 1 = 0.834 W4/W 3 = 1 W5/W 4 = 0.1 Initial Weight Sizing Initial Weight Sizing was carried out following the 3rd Chapter of the textbook.985 W9/W 8 = 0. see Appendix A. In the initial weight sizing.995 W8/W 7 = 0.200 lbf Therefore.1. WTO)A320 = 162.2 Fuel Weight The weight fractions of the mission segments are presented as: W1/W o = 0.

High Cl. 2. 4. as it is effective in reducing wave drag.493 (estimated design CL of the aircraft) Sufficient thickness to cater for the fuel weight The aerofoil thus selected was NASA SC(2)–0610 (Mcr ≈ 0. the total takeoff weight of the aircraft came out after iterating the following equation for W e/W o and W o.max High Mcr to avoid transonic drag close to 0. along with the weight of crew and payload. with W e/W o = 0.1.06(1 – W 12/W o) = 0. 3.5 Calculation of Total TO Weight After determining the fuel weight and empty weight fractions.461 4.2 Airfoil and Geometry Selection Following considerations were kept in mind while selecting the aerofoil: 1.1. Wo  WPayload  WCrew W W 1  e  Fuel Wo Wo The results were: Wo = 139369.907 lbf.5 with the desired thickness.262 4.RESTRICTED With 6% reserves: Wfuel/W o = 1.3 Payload Wpassengers = 27750 lbf WBaggage = 9000 lbf Therefore.1. which would be there in the transonic regime.4 Crew WCrew = 1850 lbf 4. RESTRICTED . The supercritical aerofoil was selected. No supercritical aerofoil was available for design Cl of 0.81). WPayload = 36750 lbf 4.

7 4. 4. The T/W was selected by the Thrust Matching Technique.278 (greater than that obtained from Table 5.9 LE Sweep 35o 40o 4. For the selected T/W. The design point for the aircraft was selected based on the study of 5th Chapter of the textbook.3 Design Point Selection Design point means the selection of T/W and W/S for the aircraft.2.3) The wing loading was calculated for each mission requirement. Symmetric Higher Cl.RESTRICTED 4.2.2 Tail Geometry T–Tail was selected for its added effectiveness and efficiency over the other configurations.412 30o 1o 3o 0. 3.max than wing Higher Mcr than the wing 10% less thicker than the wing’s aerofoil The airfoil thus selected was NACA SC(2)–0010.5 0.2 Taper Ratio 0.1 Wing Geometry AR LE Sweep Incidence Twist Taper Ratio Mid wing was selected with a dihedral of 1o.3 Tail Airfoil Following considerations were taken into account while selecting the tail aerofoil: 1. 9. 4. There was no thinner airfoil available in the category.2. 2. AR Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail 4.5 1. and the detailed calculations are available in Appendix A. as T/W = 0. the wing loadings for the various requirements were obtained as: RESTRICTED .

5. as there was more information available.991 W5/W 4 = 0.995 W8/W 7 = 0.042 179.849 W4/W 3 = 0.RESTRICTED Requirement Stall Speed Takeoff Distance Landing Distance Cruise Loiter Absolute Ceiling W/S (lbf/ft2) 108. and incorporating the benefit of empty weight reduction for the multi fuselage design gives: We/W o = 0. the selected W/S is the one determined by the absolute ceiling.2 Fuel Weight The fuel weight fractions for the mission segments were obtained as: W1/W o = 0.4. 4.1). Keeping in view the 3rd Para of Article 5. T refers to the uninstalled. W e/W o = 0.475 4. the weight calculations were refined. 4. static and maximum thrust of the engine.4.984 W10/W 9 = 0. was dropped.254 106.005 lbf/ft2 (about 5% less than 120 lbf/ft2) In T/W and W/S.000 lbf.005 From Table 5.1 Empty Weight Fraction With guessed W o = 168.4 Revised Weight Sizing This section follows the calculation practices of the 6 th Chapter of the textbook.242 92. that obtained for cruise was significantly less than 120 lbf/ft2.993 W7/W 5 = 0. W refers to the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft.488 114.986 W9/W 8 = 0. and S refers to the reference area of the wing. the value should be 120 lbf/ft2. and were more accurate than those determined in the initial sizing phase. Here.050 21.995 RESTRICTED .e.98 W2/W 1 = 0. The value obtained for loiter. W/S = 114. Also. the least important and also very low.4 (P 110).516 (from Table 6. i.979 W3/W 2 = 0.

002 ft 342.995 As there is no payload drop and combat phase in the mission profile.961 ft 9.3 reduces to Eq.993 W12/W 11 = 0.1 when W Payload drop = 0.914 ft 12.4. The numbers here are based on the revised aircraft weight and the design point. Eq. Fuselage Length per fuselage Max.614 ft 9.21 ft 390.A. W12/W o = 0.253 4.27 ft 17.353 ft2 108. Diameter Sref Span croot ctip M.692 ft 41.195 ft 1260.1 is used to perform iterations to find WTO.4.55 lbf.915 ft 13. 6. The details can be seen in Appendix A.C. 6.478 4.761 With 5% reserves and 1% trapped fuel: WFuel/W o = 0.5 Geometric Sizing This section deals with the dimensions of the aircraft. fuel weight can be estimated as a fuel fraction. Span croot ctip S Span croot ctip S 68.4 Final Results Eq.3 Payload and Crew Weight WPayload = 36750 lbf WCrew = 1850 lbf 4. 6.389 ft2 20.377 ft2 Wing Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail RESTRICTED .419 ft 6.RESTRICTED W11/W 10 = 0.53 ft 11. Therefore.78 ft 16. with W e/W o = 0. and the result is: Revised W TO = 143686. The configuration contained two tails and three fuselages.

RESTRICTED 4. RESTRICTED . i. which will be followed by the various analyses of that aircraft in the subsequent chapters of this report. after the selection of a suitable power plant unit.7 Conclusion With control surface sizing done.e. Now. and prepared for the next step of the conceptual design process: the Analysis.105 ft 1. the selection of the optimized aircraft is presented in the next chapter.6 Control Surface Sizing The dimensions of the aircraft’s control surfaces were determined similar to those obtained above.69 ft 5. engine. Aileron Elevator Rudder croot ctip croot ctip croot ctip 2.121 ft 4.715 ft 3.45 ft 1. the geometric configuration of the aircraft was ready. The engine specifications and the data are presented in the 7th Chapter.552 ft 5.

45).25 to Eq. 15. lift and drag coefficients. The computations for those analyses were done in the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets.1 Background The analyses of the as drawn configuration were carried out after deciding the design point. the empty weight of the aircraft was found out using the more accurate methods of its evaluation. etc. All the parameters in the analyses kept on changing. The aircraft was then converged for the empty weight obtained. A flowchart summarizing the scheme of work is shown as: Selection of Design Point Analysis  Aerodynamics  Propulsion  Structure Converged Aircraft Stability + Performance Comparison of the required values with the achieved values RESTRICTED . The performance of this converged aircraft (now no more as–drawn) was then evaluated. presented in the textbook (Eq. The performance results show that whether the requirements/specifications have met or not. and the one got earlier in the revised weight sizing.RESTRICTED Chapter 5 OPTIMIZATION 5. After having the analyses (aerodynamic. the weights. This design point is the prime parameter in the aircraft performance. areas. except the design point of the aircraft. 15. propulsive and structural) done.

STO and SLanding in ft.4 WTO = 124904.38 WTO = 125310. The design point was varied by +10% of the initial values of T/W and W/S.278 0.77 STO = 7535.306 114. 5.005 Ps @ 43k ft = -1. by varying the design point.2502 0.864 SLanding = 7217.32 SLanding = 6682.814 SLanding = 6930.80 STO = 6479.83 WTO = 125551 Ps @ 43k ft = 10.026 STO = 7846. A 3 X 3 matrix is thus obtained as: T/W W/S (lbf/ft2) 0.406 Ps @ 43k ft = -7. Requirements Ps @ 43k ft = 0 STO < 7000 ft SLanding < 7000 ft The WTO values are the converged ones. and W TO in lbf.95 WTO = 125684.1 Ps @ 43k ft = 5.RESTRICTED This iteration was carried out for each aircraft configuration.503 STO = 6870.8 102.54 STO = 8338.6 WTO = 125210.6045 Ps @ 43k ft = 3.15 STO = 9175.6 Ps @ 43k ft = -3.053 WTO = 125619.461 STO = 7163. thus reducing the empty weight of the aircraft by 23% than the comparables (8% due to multi hull layout).5 Ps @ 43k ft = 0.94 WTO = 125996.847 Ps @ 43k ft = -9.45 SLanding = 6515.07 WTO = 126345. to get eight more design points.3 The Ps values are in ft/s.6 125.66 SLanding = 6292. the design space was enlarged to 10% on both the sides of the original design point.77 WTO = 125964.95 STO = 8353.16 SLanding = 7656. after the 15% usage of composites in the aircraft’s structure.2 Sizing Matrix For preparing the sizing matrix.114 STO = 7603.44 SLanding = 7069.57 SLanding = 7342. A sizing matrix was made to get an overview of the results. RESTRICTED .279 Ps @ 43k ft = -14.45 SLanding = 6773.

The following chapters are based on this optimized aircraft.3 0. All the computations and procedures that have led to the convergence and optimization.27 0. which is the best possible configuration for the given specifications.26 0. are available as spreadsheets with the author. RESTRICTED .29 T/W 0.RESTRICTED The computations of these results are available with the author in the form of MS Excel Spreadsheets. After making the sizing matrix.278 W/S = 108 lbf/ft2 This was the point in the available design space where the T/W was maximum.7 M 0. 0. 0. and wing loading was minimum.24 90 100 110 120 130 TO Distance Landing Distance W/S (lbf/ft2) The available design space is the area of the graph enclosed within the three lines.28 Ps @ 43k ft.3 Constraints Diagram and Selection of Optimized Aircraft Three constraints of the absolute ceiling. all the requirements have met. 5.4 Conclusion With the optimization done.31 0. 5. quite marginally. meeting the given requirements marginally. the constraints diagram was finalized to select the best possible aircraft. The final designed point chosen for the optimized aircraft was: T/W = 0. The rest of the area is constrained by the lines. At this design point. we now have the final aircraft at hand.25 0. TO distance and landing distance were included in the constraints diagram.

707 per radian. Here.2. 12. 6.4 0. The results are presented here. Triple slotted flaps and LE slats have been employed as the HLDs.1 Lift curve slope versus Mach No.2 Maximum Lift Coefficient The maximum lift coefficient of the aircraft in the clean configuration comes out to be 1.153. This is also supported by the Fig. it boosts up to 2. RESTRICTED .RESTRICTED Chapter 6 AERODYNAMICS 6.3 0. The lift curve slope in the incompressible regime is equal to 3.7 0.5 of the textbook.1 0. With the usage of High Lift Devices.8 0.2 Lift The lifting characteristics of the aircraft were evaluated using the analytical methods given in the textbook.6 0.9 Mach No. the lift and drag estimates have been made. 6 5 4 dCL / dα (per rad) 3 2 1 0 0 0. 6.1 Introduction This chapter deals with the aerodynamic analysis of the optimized aircraft.2 0.374. 6. The plot is shown on the next page.2.5 0.

which was calculated after getting the exposed areas of the aircraft components from the CAD model and summing them up. The variation of stall angle with Mach number is shown in the following graph.168 degrees. the stall angle decreases to about 16.23 ft2.2.3 Drag Both the parasite and induced drags were calculated for the aircraft. while at the maximum lift coefficient.RESTRICTED 2.8 1 Mach No.4 0.5 1 0. Clean With HLDs 6.5 0 0 0.2 0.2 0. the wave drag has also been calculated and included in the parasite drag coefficient. 20 18 16 Stall AoA (deg) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.7 o. The wetted area of the aircraft comes out to be 10265.5 2 Max CL 1.4 0.3 Stall Angle In incompressible regime. These estimates depend upon the wetted area of the aircraft. RESTRICTED .6 0.8 1 Clean With HLDs Mach No. At transonic speeds.6 0. the aircraft stalls at 18. 6.

03 0. the zero lift drag coefficient of the aircraft equals 0.6 0.035 0.98 0. RESTRICTED .2 0.6 0.14 0.1.12 0.8 1 43.000 ft 0.44 CL=1.RESTRICTED 6. Mach = 0. 6.8 1 CL=1.4 0.2 Lift due to Drag Factor (K) 0.2 0.51 CL=0.000 ft Mach No.04 0.02 0 0 0. As shown in the above graph.0217 at sea level.02 CDo SL 15.06 0.01 0.37 K Mach No.1 0.9 CL=Clmax=2.3.015 0.3.025 0.000 ft 35.005 0 0 0.4 0.1 Parasite Drag Coefficient 0.08 Uptill CL=0.

6 0.25 0.4 Mach No.2 0.1 0.2 0.3.RESTRICTED 6.3 0% and 100% K 0.05 0 0 0.8 1 K Ko 100% K The increase in the 100% K value in the transonic regime can be seen.15 0. RESTRICTED .3 0. 0.

1 Introduction From the design point information for the T/W and W TO. The specifications of this engine are: Thrust at sea level Bypass ratio Inlet mass flow Weight Length Fan diameter 15. each engine should produce 17485.69 lbf. there are two engines.04 ft RESTRICTED . the scaling factor of 1.64 lbf 8. The specifications of the rubber engine hence become: Thrust at sea level Bypass ratio Inlet mass flow Weight Length Fan diameter 17. 7.22 lbf 7.673 lbm/s 3465.38 ft 4.9 ft 3. the engine of the aircraft should be capable of producing uninstalled thrust of 34971. As mentioned earlier in the morphological matrix. So.07 422 lbm/s 2949. The engine selected is Rolls Royce Tay 650 (installed on Fokker 100).158 was used to scale the rubber engine.2 Engine Selection Rubber engine sizing was done.38 lbf at sea level.100 lbf 3.69 lbf 3.75 ft Based on the thrust required and the engine data available.07 488.485.RESTRICTED Chapter 7 PROPULSIVE ANALYSIS 7.

2 0.000 ft 0. 1 (Chapter 9).4 0. RESTRICTED .4 0.000 ft 0 0 0. 16000 14000 12000 Thrust (lbf) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.000 ft 45.000 ft 30.8 1 Mach No.2 45.000 ft 40.4 0.000 ft 30.3 Engine Data The data for the Rolls Royce Tay 650 engine was obtained from Ref.8 1 SL 10.RESTRICTED 7.6 0. 1.000 ft Mach No.6 0.6 0.8 SL 10. The variation of thrust and TSFC with Mach number and altitude is given below.2 1 TSFC (lbm lbf-1 hr-1) 0.000 ft 20.000 ft 20. TSFC VS Mach No.2 0.000 ft 40. Thrust VS Mach No.

Installed Engine Thrust VS Mach No.4 0.2 0.4 Rubber Engine Data This was obtained after incorporating the scaling factor in the original engine’s data.000 ft 20. Catering this into the uninstalled engine data.8 1 Thrust (lbf) SL 10.000 ft Mach No.5 Thrust Corrections A 6% loss in the thrust resulted from the bleed losses. The TSFC curves remain the same. RESTRICTED .000 ft 45.4 0.6 0.000 ft 20.RESTRICTED 7.8 1 Thrust (lbf) SL 10.000 ft 40.000 ft 30.000 ft 45. (Rubber Engine) 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0. 7. This data was used further for the performance and stability calculations.6 0.000 ft 30.000 ft Mach No.000 ft 40. Uninstalled Thrust VS Mach No.2 0. (Rubber Engine) 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0. the net propulsive force was obtained as shown below.

the Capture Area comes out to be 12. and the design Mach number as 0. 10. the capture area comes out to be 11.217 ft2. 7. This value is more accurate than that shown above. The total fuel volume comes out to be 4680.281 ft2.16 and 10. 10.36 ft3. From Eq. With the engine mass flow known. RESTRICTED .8. The fuel is stored in the wing and the fuselages.7 Fuel System The fuel used is JP–5.RESTRICTED 7.6 Capture Area Calculations The capture area of the engine was calculated using the Fig.16 of the textbook.17.

4383 1812.81227 2467. with W e/W o = 0.1 Empty weight estimation from the component weights Up till now.70448 2625.59268 37. The multihull configuration along with the use of composite materials reduce the empty weight of the aircraft by 23%.1688 140.87298 888. All the computation were performed in the MS Excel Spreadsheets. this is the weight of the aircraft when converged: The total weight of the aircraft is 125796.94429 1320.852 3861.992903 205.830709 686.512 Hence. All readings are in lbf.738902 71029. the empty weight was calculated from the empirical and statistical equations. the empty weight of the aircraft comes out to be 55414.16771 2200 417.34 lbf.512 lbf.59761 34742.4405.4102 1237. Wing Horizontal Tails Vertical Tails Fuselages Main Landing Gear Nose Landing Gear Nacelles Engine Controls Pneumatic Starter Fuel System Flight Controls APU Instruments Hydraulics Electrical Avionics Furnishings Air Conditioning Anti Ice Handling Gear Total Empty Weight 8% Reduction due to Multi Fuselage Layout 15% Reduction due to the use of Composites 13670.202864 1404.28224 251.142738 1689. RESTRICTED . the empty weight was computed from the summation of the individual weights of the aircraft components.67627 65347. the equations for which have been provided in the 15th Chapter of the textbook.83839 1303.30217 55414.08612 65. This gives the aircraft a huge competitive advantage. The following table shows the weights of the aircraft components. This has resulted in the use of smaller engines. thus reduced drag and low fuel consumption. Furthermore. This time.RESTRICTED Chapter 8 STRUCTURE AND COMPONENT WEIGHTS 8.

25 1.2 V–n Diagram The plot between the load factor and equivalent air speed at sea level was made to see the structural limits of the aircraft.5 V-n Diagram @ SL 6 5 4 Load Factor 3 2 V-n Diagram 1 0 -1 -2 -3 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Negative Gust Load EAS (ft/s) RESTRICTED .5 5.5 –1. The load factor limits were taken as: Posiive nmax Negative nmax Positive Ultimate Load Factor Negative Ultimate Load Factor Factor of Safety 3.25 –2. Cruise weight was considered for the calculations.RESTRICTED 8.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful