You are on page 1of 155

UNCLASSIFIED

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND

TECHNICAL REPORT
REPORT NO: NAWCADPAX/TR-2005/230

THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF MATURING TECHNOLOGY UPON FUTURE SEAPLANES
by Mr. August Bellanca Ms. Carey Matthews April 2005

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

UNCLASSIFIED

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND NAWCADPAX/TR-2005/230 April 2005

THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF MATURING TECHNOLOGY UPON FUTURE SEAPLANES by Mr. August Bellanca Ms. Carey Matthews

RELEASED BY:

__________________________________________ KEVIN M. MCCARTHY / CODE 4.10.2.2 / DATE Head, Advanced Airborne Systems Design Branch Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division

NAWCADPAX/TR-2005/230
Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE April 2005 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

2. REPORT TYPE Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

The Potential Effect of Maturing Technology Upon Future Seaplanes

6. AUTHOR(S) Mr. August Bellanca Ms. Carey Matthews

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division 22347 Cedar Point Road, Unit #6 Patuxent River, Maryland 20670-1161 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division West Bethesda, Maryland 20817-5700 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER NAWCADPAX/TR-2005/230

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

14. ABSTRACT This study identifies viable, existing technologies that would potentially improve seaplane performance and evaluate the impact of the technology on seaplane design. Three conceptual seaplanes were created as the baseline for comparison. Two technology areas for drag reduction were investigated. The first area investigated the effect that the seaplane step has during the cruise portion of the flight. This was done by calculating the drag and performance of a seaplane with a fixed step and with a retractable step. The second area focused on weight reduction and improved aerodynamic performance through the use of an all composite structure. Other areas of interest included the effects to takeoff gross weight if the design payload or the design range was increased or decreased. The results and conclusions of this study can be found in sections 4 and 5 in this report. A brief discussion of additional technologies to be studied can be found in section 6 of this report. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Seaplane; Cargo Seaplane; Drag; Lower Drag; Step; Planing; Retractable Step; Retractable Planing Step; Improvements; Weight Improvements; Composites; Design/Performance Trade-offs; Lower Drag; Higher Payload 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES Mr. August Bellanca a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified SAR 155 (301) 342-8313
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

i

1 2.1 2.2 2.2.1.1 Specification 2.1 2.2 2. Performance.2 BASE CASE LIFT CAPACITY Aerodynamic Analysis Weight Analysis 2.3 2. Airplane Preliminary Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes 1997) 20 22 22 22 23 23 30 30 33 34 34 2.7 Range vs.2 Three View 2.2.2.4.3 Weight Breakdown 2.5 1.4. Performance.4.1. Gross Take-off Weight Empty Weight vs.2.5 BACKGROUND Advantages/Uses of a Military Seaplane APPROACH Database Developement Useful Load versus Gross Take-off Weight Wing Span versus Gross Take-off Weight Fuselage Length vs.0 2.1.4.4.1. Seaplane Base Case 36 39 42 44 ii . 2.2. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at 20.4 Generalities of Flying Boat Design 0.4 2. Gross Take-off Weight 1 2 3 5 6 8 11 14 17 Regression Line List of Seaplane Weights versus Wetted Areas (Source: Jan Roskam.Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.2.4 Drag Breakdown 2.4. Payload 2.5 Speed.3 2.2.6 Speed.000 ft.3 M lb.2.2.1 2. Seaplane Base Case 2. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at Sea Level 2.1 Aircraft Sizing Spreadsheet 2.1.0 1.4.2.2.2.2.0 M lb.2.

2 Three View 2.3.2.2.3 Strength of Composites 2.2.6 2.5 Speed.2.3.6.2. Performance.7 Range versus Payload 2. Performance. Seaplane Improved 2.6. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at 30.2.4 Some US Military Aircraft Using Composites 2.5.3 0.000 ft.2 Three View 2.5.1 Decrease Step Drag 2.3.6 Speed.5.2.3.3.5.1 BASE CASE IMPROVED Lower Drag 62 65 68 70 70 70 75 75 76 76 78 79 79 80 81 2. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at Sea Level 2.5. 2. Seaplane Base Case 44 47 48 48 49 52 55 57 57 60 61 61 2. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at Sea Level 2.6.1 Specification 2.2.3.6.2.3.1 Weight Savings Through the Use of Composites 2.000 ft.1.5.2.1 Step Drag Calculation 2.2.3.6.2.2. Performance. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at 30.2.6.3. Performance.3.3.1.1 Specification 2.3.3 2.5 Speed.3 Weight Breakdown 2.6 Speed.3 M lb.3 Weight Breakdown 2.1 Drag Reduction 2.3.9 M lb.2 Reduce Overall Weight 2.6.2.4 Drag Breakdown 2.2.5.2. A Byproduct of Composites 2.2.2.7 Range versus Payload 2.4 Drag Breakdown 2.1.2 Laminar Flow (low drag). 2.2 CD with a Fixed Step B B iii .2.3.

3.1.1.4.1.1 Drag Reduction 2.4 Table .3.2 Weight Reduction – Aluminum to Composites 2.3. Seaplane Improved 102 105 105 105 106 107 107 96 97 101 95 2.5.3.2.4.5.5 Table – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.4.2 Weight Reduction – Aluminum to Composites 2.1.1 Step Drag Calculation 2.5.4.3 CD with a Fixed Step B B 2.3.4 CD with a Retracted Step B B 2.3.3.1.0 M lb.3.4.4 1.0 M lb.3.5 2.3.3. Payload for an All Aluminum and an All Composite Structure 2.3.1 1.5.3.3.1 Step Drag Calculation 2.1.5. Seaplane Improved 88 92 92 92 93 94 94 83 84 88 82 2.1.1.4.3 M lb.6 Range Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.5.1.3 CD with a Retracted Step B B 81 2.3.Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.3.3.4.1.4.3. Seaplane: Range vs.9 M lb.3.3 CD with a Fixed Step B B 2.3.7 Range vs.3.3.2 Drag Table 2.2.3.3.5 Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.4.4.3.1.3. Payload for an all Aluminum and an all Composite Structure 2.4 CD with a Retracted Step B B 2.1.2 Drag Table 2.3.3.2.1 0. Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.1.1.1.3.5 Table – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 108 iv . Seaplane: Range vs.1.1 Drag Reduction 2.6 Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.3.

3 6.3.1 3.0 6. Seaplane: Range vs. Payload for an all Aluminum and an all Composite Structure 3.5 6.5.1 6. Seaplane: Range vs. 1.0 8.0 Trade Study 1.0 M LB. Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.0 M lb.7 Range vs.9 M lb.6 7. GTOW Trade Study 2.2 Weight Reduction – Aluminum to Composites 2.0 6.5.0 TRADE STUDIES – 1.0 5.1.1.3.6 Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.3.0 M lb.5.4 6.1 2.3.2 4.5. GTOW RESULTS CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW ON Further Drag Reduction Retractable Tip Float Weight Savings: Active Aeroelastic Wing Short Take-off Upper Surface Blowing Laminar Flow Other Improvements REFERENCE LIST BIBLIOGRAPHY 118 118 122 126 131 132 132 132 132 133 138 138 139 140 114 109 110 114 v .2 6.2. 1. Seaplane: Payload vs. EFFECTS ON GROSS TAKE-OFF WEIGHT 3. SEAPLANE.2.

................................ SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – EMPTY WEIGHT VS.... 2...........0 M......... AND BFS 1.. 7 FIGURE 4......3 M LB.. SEAPLANE...................................... SEAPLANE..........0 M LB............. SEAPLANES.............9 M LB............. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – USEFUL LOAD VS......... 12 FIGURE 7.......... SEAPLANE.......... GTOW WITH BFS-1.....0 M LB... GTOW WITH 0..................................9 M LB............ GTOW WITH 0. 15 FIGURE 9.........3 M LB......9 M LB.. 2...9 M LB.....................9 M LB.............................................. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – WING SPAN VS... SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – FUSELAGE LENGTH VS.... GROSS TAKEOFF WITH BFS-1.0 M LB................ 2...................... GROSS TAKEOFF WEIGHT WITH 0..............List of Tables and Figures FIGURE 1... ........ SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – FUSELAGE LENGTH VS.....9 M LB.........0 M LB......................... SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – WING SPAN VS. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – USEFUL LOAD VS............ SEAPLANE IN FLIGHT ESCORTED BY TWO F-18C’S ...................................... 16 FIGURE 10.. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CHART – EMPTY WEIGHT VS...... ....... ................ 13 FIGURE 8........ SEAPLANE DATABASE FOR BFS 2..... SEAPLANE. 19 vi .... 4 FIGURE 3....... SEAPLANES................. BFS-2................ SEAPLANES .................9 M LB..... CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE BFS 2............ . PULLING INTO PORT TO TRANSPORT A DAMAGED F-18C TO A REPAIR FACILITY. SEAPLANES........ SEAPLANES................................... 2.... . GTOW WITH BFS-1......................... 9 FIGURE 5........ 18 FIGURE 11.....................................3 M LB...... 3 FIGURE 2..3 M LB.. 10 FIGURE 6... GTOW WITH BFS-1.......... GTOW WITH 0..................................

...........3 M LB............................ 50 vii ......................... SEAPLANE DRAG CALCULATIONS AT SEA LEVEL.......... 43 FIGURE 26....... BASE CASE – 0........ 34 FIGURE 18... 21 FIGURE 13............... SOURCE: ROSKAM............ JAN “AIRPLANE DESIGN PART I: PRELIMINARY SIZING OF AIRPLANES 1997 ................... 26 FIGURE 15......... SEAPLANE RANGE VS......... AND FLOAT PLANES WITH THE 3 SEAPLANES PLOTTED............................... SEAPLANE WEIGHT BREAKDOWN...... SEAPLANE PARASITE DRAG BREAKDOWN .................. FLYING FORCES ON TAKE-OFF...........3 M LB..... 0... 1. PARASITE DRAG ESTIMATION35 FIGURE 20........ VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 20................. REGRESSION LINE FOR FLYING BOATS.............0 M LB.. BASE CASE – 0................................... 37 FIGURE 21................. BASE CASE – 0....... 34 FIGURE 19......0 M LB. BASE CASE – 0... 47 FIGURE 27.........0 M LB..............3 M LB.... BASE CASE – 1... SEAPLANE WEIGHT BREAKDOWN ..... 48 FIGURE 29. A FLYING BOAT IN PLANING ATTITUDE................ BASE CASE – 0... BASE CASE – 1............... PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS ................... SEAPLANE THREE VIEW .. VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY AT SEA LEVEL...3 M LB SEAPLANE THREE VIEW ........3 M LB.................. THRUST REQUIRED VS...... 42 FIGURE 25...............FIGURE 12.. 33 FIGURE 17...... SEAPLANE THRUST AVAILABLE.0 M LB............. BASE CASE – 1... ... THRUST REQUIRED VS.............. 48 FIGURE 28............3 M LB..... 41 FIGURE 24.3 M LB. SEAPLANE DRAG CALCULATIONS AT SEA LEVEL. SEAPLANE DRAG CALCULATIONS FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 20. PAYLOAD....... 38 FIGURE 22......3 M LB. BASE CASE – 0...................... BASE CASE – 0.......... LOW SPEED AND HUMP DISPLACEMENT REGIMES..................... SEAPLANE THRUST AVAILABLE................................... SEAPLANE DRAG BREAKDOWN ......... . ...............3 M LB........000 FT........ AMPHIBIANS........ BASE CASE – 0..... 25 FIGURE 14.000 FT............................ 27 FIGURE 16. 40 FIGURE 23. EQUIVALENT FLAT PLATE AREA FOR BFS-0..... SEAPLANE RANGE VS..........3 M LB.......

..... SEAPLANE DRAG CALCULATIONS FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE 30. 64 FIGURE 40..... THRUST REQUIRED VS..........9 M LB... 61 FIGURE 37..... 66 FIGURE 41. BASE CASE – 1... SEAPLANE THRUST AVAILABLE. 60 FIGURE 36........... BASE CASE – 2.3 M LB. BASE CASE – 2... BASE CASE – 2... BASE CASE – 0........ 69 FIGURE 44...............................9 M LB.....0 M LB....... BASE CASE – 1....... SEAPLANE RANGE VS........................ SEAPLANE WEIGHT BREAKDOWN ........ SEAPLANE DRAG CALCULATIONS FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 30......... SEAPLANE PARASITE DRAG BREAKDOWN.. THRUST AVAILABLE VS................. PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS .. PAYLOAD.................... BASE CASE – 2............ .............................9 M LB..000 FT........ 53 FIGURE 32..9 M LB........... 55 FIGURE 34........... ..0 M LB.0 M LB........ 67 FIGURE 42.................. ...9 M LB.......... 63 FIGURE 39..... 2................. 81 viii ... SEAPLANE TOTAL DRAG........... 51 FIGURE 31.....FIGURE 30.. 75 FIGURE 45.. PAYLOAD ....... VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 30. 76 FIGURE 46...............000 FT. BASE CASE – 1.... TYPICAL WEIGHT SAVINGS USING COMPOSITES FOR VARIOUS AIRCRAFT... SEAPLANE DRAG CALCULATIONS AT SEA LEVEL........ BASE CASE – 2..... 56 FIGURE 35.000 FT.............. THRUST AVAILABLE VS........... SEAPLANE DRAG.9 M LB................ 61 FIGURE 38.. SEAPLANE RANGE VS............ SEAPLANE THRUST AVAILABLE. .. BASE CASE 1.. BASE CASE – 2.... VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY FOR SEA LEVEL... BASE CASE – 1.................. SEAPLANE RANGE VS..0 M LB... 68 FIGURE 43.............. .9 M LB.... 54 FIGURE 33... VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY AT SEA LEVEL ..... SEAPLANE RANGE VS.000 FT....... RATIO OF MATERIAL WEIGHT TO ALUMINUM ALLOY 24S-T WEIGHT.................................... SEAPLANE THRUST REQUIRED... THRUST REQUIRED VS.0 M LB........... PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS ................................ VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 30... .....9 M LB.... BASE CASE – 2......9 M LB SEAPLANE THREE VIEW . BASE CASE – 2......................

. SEAPLANE RANGE VS...3 M LB..... PAYLOAD WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP. IMPROVED CASE – 1.... MAX RANGE VELOCITY FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 20... SEAPLANE THRUST REQUIRED WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 20................ 93 FIGURE 57. 83 FIGURE 50.......... IMPROVED CASE – 0......................... IMPROVED CASE – 0............. ..... ... BASE CASE – 0....... IMPROVED CASE – 1..... SEAPLANE COMPARISON OF RANGE VS........3 M LB.....000 FT........................ .......................................... SEAPLANE TOTAL DRAG.... PAYLOAD WITH COMPOSITE STRUCTURE.. SEAPLANE RANGE VS... SEAPLANE TOTAL DRAG.......................... ......... 86 FIGURE 52.......... THRUST REQUIRED MAX RANGE VELOCITY WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP FOR A CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 20. IMPROVED CASE – 0.............. IMPROVED CASE – 0.................3 M LB. BASE CASE – 1..............................0 M LB.......... PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS. SEAPLANE DRAG. IMPROVED CASE – 0.................000 FT. SEAPLANE DRAG.0 M LB.... PAYLOAD FOR ALL ALUMINUM AND AN ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE SEAPLANE......... 82 FIGURE 49...................................... SEAPLANE PARASITE DRAG WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP .... SEAPLANE RANGE VS.......... 87 FIGURE 53...... 81 FIGURE 48..........3 M LB.................. 94 ix ................3 M LB............... 94 FIGURE 58.................................. 91 FIGURE 56.............3 M LB............... PAYLOAD WITH ALUMINUM STRUCTURE........ IMPROVED CASE – 0.........3 M LB.. .. SEAPLANE RANGE VS.....000 FT....... SEAPLANE TOTAL DRAG........ WITH A RETRACTED STEP. BASE CASE – 0..3 M LB.............................0 M LB............................................ ....... THRUST REQUIRED.......................... 85 FIGURE 51......... 90 FIGURE 55.......................... 89 FIGURE 54. ..FIGURE 47..................... IMPROVED CASE – 0...........3 M LB................ ...

........ BASE CASE – 2........0 M LB...................... WITH A RETRACTED STEP ........................ THRUST REQUIRED VS..... ....... ........ IMPROVED CASE – 1.0 M LB.. ........9 M LB..000 FT.... PAYLOAD FOR ALL ALUMINUM STRUCTURE .... 95 FIGURE 60.......9 M LB........ SEAPLANE TOTAL DRAG.................. 102 FIGURE 65......000 FT. SEAPLANE THRUST REQUIRED WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP AT A CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 30.............0 M LB....0 M LB..... IMPROVED CASE – 2............................ PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS...... SEAPLANE TOTAL DRAG.......... IMPROVED CASE – 2........ 107 FIGURE 70....... VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY FOR CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 30.... SEAPLANE RANGE VS...... IMPROVED CASE – 1. 106 FIGURE 68........ 103 FIGURE 66............... PAYLOAD FOR ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE ................ PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS.......................... SEAPLANE THRUST REQUIRED WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP AT A CRUISE ALTITUDE OF 30.................... ....... 108 x ............... BASE CASE – 1......... SEAPLANE PARASITE DRAG WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP.. IMPROVED CASE – 1............0 M LB.............0 M LB.. PAYLOAD WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP ............ SEAPLANE RANGE VS.. IMPROVED CASE – 1...0 M LB.......... BASE CASE – 1.....FIGURE 59. SEAPLANE THRUST AVAILABLE.............000 FT................... ................ PAYLOAD FOR AN ALL ALUMINUM AND ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE SEAPLANE.....9 M LB.... 100 FIGURE 64...... 104 FIGURE 67........ IMPROVED CASE – 2. 99 FIGURE 63............0 M LB..... SEAPLANE RANGE VS... 98 FIGURE 62................ IMPROVED CASE – 1.... 107 FIGURE 69...... SEAPLANE RANGE VS............................... 96 FIGURE 61.......9 M LB.... IMPROVED CASE – 1. SEAPLANE RANGE VS.... SEAPLANE RANGE VS......

............. PAYLOAD...... 124 xi . .................................9 M LB.................... 120 FIGURE 80.....FIGURE 71.................................................................... . 113 FIGURE 75...... 1...................9 M LB.................................. IMPROVED CASE – 2.......................... 1... PAYLOAD....0 M LB SEAPLANE WITH AN ALL ALUMINUM STRUCTURE PAYLOAD VS......... SEAPLANE RANGE VS. SEAPLANE THRUST REQUIRED............. 1...... SEAPLANE RANGE VS.... 1. 115 FIGURE 76............. BASE CASE – 2......0 M LB.... GTOW ................ PAYLOAD WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP.......... BASE CASE – 2........ PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS WITH ALUMINUM STRUCTURE..... . PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS WITH COMPOSITE STRUCTURE...... SEAPLANE RANGE VS................. 117 FIGURE 78...................9 M LB...... IMPROVED CASE – 2..9 M LB........... 119 FIGURE 79........9 M LB........ .............................................. 111 FIGURE 73.................... 112 FIGURE 74............ 109 FIGURE 72................ SEAPLANE RANGE VS..... 1................. SEAPLANE RANGE VS........ ........................ IMPROVED CASE – 2............................... IMPROVED CASE – 2......... GTOW..........................................................0 M LB SEAPLANE WITH AN ALL ALUMINUM STRUCTURE RANGE VS................................9 M LB.......9 M LB................... IMPROVED CASE – 2... GTOW ...... GTOW... THRUST AVAILABLE VS............0 M LB SEAPLANE WITH AN ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE RANGE VS............. 121 FIGURE 81..................................... ............ SEAPLANE WITH AN ALL ALUMINUM AND ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE: RANGE VS.... SEAPLANE RANGE VS... VELOCITY AND MAX RANGE VELOCITY WITH A FIXED STEP AND WITH A RETRACTED STEP.. GTOW ......... WITH A RETRACTED STEP..... PAYLOAD FOR AN ALL ALUMINUM AND ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE..... 123 FIGURE 82....0 M LB SEAPLANE WITH AN ALL ALUMINUM STRUCTURE PAYLOAD VS...... 116 FIGURE 77..............

......................... 125 FIGURE 84.. 134 FIGURE 85.... ........... ........ 1................................................................................. 137 xii .......................................... 135 FIGURE 86................................................FIGURE 83............................ QSRA – 2 VIEW............ QSRA LIFT IMPROVEMENT FROM UPPER SURFACE BLOWING .. GTOW...... QSRA UPPER SURFACE BLOWING (USB) FLAP......... QSRA DOUBLE SLOTTED FLAPS............. 135 FIGURE 87................................ QSRA DROOPED/BLOWN AILERONS ...... 136 FIGURE 88... .....0 M LB.......... SEAPLANE WITH AN ALL ALUMINUM AND ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE: PAYLOAD VS................................

This was done by calculating the drag and performance of a seaplane with a fixed step and with a retractable step. Two technology areas for drag reduction were investigated. existing technologies that would potentially improve seaplane performance and evaluate the impact of the technology on seaplane design. The second area focused on weight reduction and improved aerodynamic performance through the use of an all composite structure. Three conceptual seaplanes were created as the baseline for comparison. 1 . The first area investigated the effect that the seaplane step has during the cruise portion of the flight. Other areas of interest included the effects to takeoff gross weight if the design payload or the design range was increased or decreased. The results and conclusions of this study can be found in sections 4 and 5 in this report. A brief discussion of additional technologies to be studied can be found in section 6 of this report.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study identifies viable.

NSWCCD required a study that will forecast the potential effect of maturing technology upon future seaplanes. 3. During a flight test. seaplanes were envisioned in 1993 when Congress had mandated the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to investigate ”very large ground effect aircraft”. killing the pilots. and obtain efficiencies from the interaction of the cushion of air between the wing and sea surface. This situation prompted the Conceptual Design Branch to propose and design a seaplane to fill this capability and still be able to fly at a high altitude over mountainous terrain. about 50 ft. although the idea of being able to transport a large group of soldiers and equipment from one destination to another quickly is still an important issue.923.0 M lb.9 M lb.3 M lb.e. Patuxent River MD. The seaplane designs to be used as a base of study were designed by the Aircraft Conceptual Design Branch in 1994 and at the Advanced Airborne Systems Design. See Figure 1 for a conceptual drawing of the BFS-2.000 lbs..000 lbs. were designed for the Office of Naval Research and the 0. Carderock.0 BACKGROUND The Naval Surface Warfare Center. Warminster PA.0 M lb. the BFS 2.9 M lb. in 2004. seaplane designed in 2004 with a gross take-off weight of 260. 2 . The 2.9 M lb. MD. seaplane in flight escorted by two F-18C’s. seaplane designed in 1994 with a gross take-off weight of 2. To assess the future viability of seaplanes.1. were created. The Wingship was a flying boat designed to carry troops across oceans at a speed of 400 mph.000 lbs. i.000.0 M lb. and the BFS 1. Battleforce Seaplane (BFS)-1.0 M lb. and the BFS-2. The two seaplane designs. The Wingship concept was actually a flying winged ship to attempt to replace the slow ships that travel about 30 mph. The Naval Aviation Warfare Center – Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) internally funded a counterpoint study to compare improved and advanced state of the art seaplane designs with the “revolutionary” Wingship. seaplane was designed for the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Carderock Division (NSWCCD) has tasked the NAVAIR Advanced Airborne Systems Design (AASD). A wingin-ground effect aircraft proved to be impractical. The BFS-1.3 M lb. The Wingship was to fly in ground effect. The designs were as follows: 1.9 M lb.9 M lb. above the ocean surface. seaplane and 1. seaplane designed in 1994 with a gross take-off weight of 1. to study the potential applications for future seaplane designs to fulfill the cargo transport role within the emerging Sea Base Concept of Operations. formerly the Aircraft Conceptual Design Branch. 2. the prototype crashed and was sunk in the Caspian Sea. Battleforce Seaplane (BFS)-2. This was in reaction to the Russian “Wingship” project. Battleforce Seaplane (BFS)-0.

use design concept technology that already were successfully in use. landing is condition dependent only. except expanded to carry more payload. Mission requirements can define optimal size 3 . Rent free 2. For low risk assumption. Figure 1. Aircraft size is not limited by airport constraints a. The BFS seaplane proportions were very similar to these aircraft.9 M lb. Water covers approximately 75% of the world surface area. low risk technology to the designs 2. seaplane in flight escorted by two F-18C’s 1. military application of seaplanes has the following advantages: 1. Apply all the applicable current.1 ADVANTAGES/USES OF A MILITARY SEAPLANE In the 1940’s the reliability of propulsion increased to a point that the favor of seaplanes declined from a military standpoint. b. Examples include the Russian Albatross (circa 1990’s) seaplane for rescue and the Navy Martin P6-M Seamaster bomber type seaplane. a. Direct support to littoral operation 4. No basing rights issues 3. Water runways are maintenance free and bombproof.The design philosophy applied to these aircraft were as follows: 1. BFS-2. However.

Civilian applications a. Quick response amphibious assault ship 7. except distances from obstacles with rivers and lakes c. Seaplane design has expanded through the use of more powerful jet engines instead of reciprocating engines. Offload support aircraft from the carrier deck. 5. Transport d. Rescue b. Concept of Operations for the BFS 2. This required elevation for reciprocating engines increases the hull depth and also increases the drag. Reciprocating engines require more water clearance because of the prop radius. Fire suppression c. Leisure Figure 2. Runway length is not important.9 M lb.b. see Figure 2 6. pulling into port to transport a damaged F-18C to a repair facility. 4 .

000 lb. Even though these two seaplanes were designed for a different mission. 5 . was designed to the sea-basing concept. The report is divided into two cases.2. By considering the extremes of the step and the retracted step conditions. Used latest turbofan engines in the 90. They were designed for a different mission. a complete aerodynamic analysis. thrust class 6. without the landing gear. The hull design was referenced to the existing and very successful Beriev A-46 seaplane and the Martin P6-M Seamaster 5. the designs can be modified to include amphibious landing gear.0 APPROACH The intent of this study. Naval Surface Warfare Center. The other improvement possibility is in the weight. design bounds can be drawn for step improvements. seaplane. capable of landing on water and taxing up on a submerged ramp with landing gear. BFS 0. Data was obtained relative to large transport aircraft 3. 2. is to determine “application of future seaplane designs to fulfill the cargo transport role within the emerging Sea Base concept of Operations”. and initial performance estimation were performed for each seaplane. This seaplane was designed as an amphibian. seaplane were not designed for sea basing. This effect was studied through comparison of the drag and resulting performance for a seaplane with a fixed step design and with a retractable step. and Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. the seaplane was to carry several M60 tanks or 3000 troops 4. Here it was decided to study the most effective way to reduce weight through the use of advanced composites. taxi to the beach where the soldiers and tanks would embark to the beach rapidly through a door ramp in the nose. The improved case shows the overlay of the base case performance with the improvement. Mission requirements were studied The seaplane mission was for a transatlantic beachable assault aircraft. Traditional construction was used for low risk and availability of information. The mission of these aircraft was to carry large numbers of troops directly from CONUS to the littoral war zone.0 M lb. 7. It considers aerodynamic improvement and weight improvement. the base case and the improved case. weight sizing. The two large seaplanes were still deemed adequate models for this application of sea basing. Naval Technical Intelligence Center. as stated in the statement of work. This paper studies potential improvements in the design of the seaplane.9 M lb. The BFS -1. seaplane were designed as follows: 1. Three view drawing. seaplane and the 2. NASA. Data and reports were obtained from a variety of sources such as Martin Aircraft Company. The aerodynamic improvement focused on the effect of the step drag on the seaplane on performance.9 M lb. the Stevens Institute of Technology. The seaplane hull is naturally heavy because of having to be seaworthy.0 M lb.000 – 100. The latest design. seaplane and the BFS -2.3 M lb. The designs for the BFS 1. Specifically the seaplanes were to land in the water. Sought out weight fraction data for past and current seaplanes.

etc. 6 . and graphs to make the findings ‘transparent”. The drag calculation was estimated from a factor of flat plate equivalent parasite area (ft2) versus wetted area for classes of aircraft similar to the aircraft being studied.The approach to the design of the smaller 0. range. seaplanes in 1994.9 M lb. Information to be used includes wing loading. P P 2.0 M lb. The time constraints did not allow a thorough drag calculation. seaplane was simpler. see Figure 19. and BFS 1. cruising speed.1 DATABASE DEVELOPEMENT A database is an orderly assembly of reference information relative to the design being studied as comparative data to aid in a new project design.3 M lb. tables. the Conceptual Design Branch with a minimal amount of time and work can extend the data for further studies and iteration. It is also the intent as part of this report to supply NSWC with calculations. In this way. power to weight ratios. Figure 3 shows part of the database that was developed for the BFS 2. page 34 [6].

000 .4 61.07 84.06 Max T/O Thrust (lbs/engineengines) 15.872 374.64 ? 431.70 ? 119.11 ? 510.2 Wing Loading (lb/ft2) 117.Transport/Seaplane Partial Database Transport Jets: Boeing 737-200 Boeing 747-200B McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Lockheed C-5A Antonov AN-124 Ilysushin Il-76M Takeoff Gross Weight (lbs) 115.00 132.19 107.2684 0.80 149.75 466.3062 0.455 .8 1.Stall (Knots) (Knots) 509.0 6.000 .2793 0.590 .000 602.785 Wing Area (ft2) 980.760.2823 Velocity-Cruise Velocity .135.900.22 ? 523.000 400.0 162.8 90.88 ? Transport Jets in Development: McDonnell Douglas MD-12 949.846.85 ? Seaplanes: Beriev A-40 Martin XP6M-1 Hughes Flying Boat NAWC-AD-WAR Seaplane 189.648.00 165.500 .2698 M = 0.000 .3250 0.152.076 2.8 0.4 0.200.2311 0.2 13.2561 0.0 3.16 ? ? M = 0.4 T/W Ratio 0.0 24.455 . and BFS 1.229.3 41.500 728.00 116.2000 0.0 88.11 26.0 3.000 892.4 10.2253 0.00 95.000 .21 35. Seaplane Database for BFS 2. Seaplanes 7 .0 11.9 M lb.3136 410.500 820.000 .00 117.0 M lb.30 64.0 5.4 51.595 160.2 52.500 .4 26.96 ? 496.500.430.923.92 ? ? Figure 3.500 .000 5.0 6.000 2.

Carderock Division. There is a parametric trend line associated with the payload of a seaplane and its gross take-off weight. and the 2. seaplanes are approaching the trend line.1 Useful Load versus Gross Take-off Weight The following figures illustrate parametric data that was taken from a seaplane database developed by Jesse Odedra and Geoff Hope.0 M lb. working for the Naval Surface Warfare Center.1. 8 . seaplane approaches that trend line.9 M lb.3 M lb. Figure 5 shows how closely the 1.2. Figure 4 shows how closely the designed 0.

3 M lb. Seaplane 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 GTOW (x1000 lbs) Figure 4. Gross Takeoff Weight with 0. Useful Load 0. Seaplane parametric chart – Useful Load vs.3M lb. Seaplane.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Useful Load vs.3M lb.434x 250 300 350 400 9 . GTOW 180 Useful Load (GTOW .Empty Weight ) (x1000 lbs) 160 140 0. Seaplane Trendline* *The equation for the trendline is: y = 0.

000 2.9M lb. Seaplane 400 800 600 *The equation for the trendline is: y = 0. Seaplane parametric chart – Useful Load vs. Seaplanes.000 Useful Load 1M lbs 2.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Useful Load vs.0 M lb.000 3. 2.9M lbs Trendline* 1M lb.9 M lb.434x 200 0 0 500 1. Seaplane 1.500 GTOW (x1000 lbs) Figure 5.600 Useful Load (GTOW .000 1.500 3.Empty Weight) (x1000 lbs) 2.400 1.500 2. GTOW 1. Gross Takeoff with BFS-1. 10 .200 1.

and BFS-2. the wing span increases about half as fast as the weight.0 M lb. seaplane plotted in relation to the data and Figure 7 with the BFS-1. The data suggests a power curve trend line. seaplanes plotted in relation to the data.000 lb. As the weight grows to 50.9 M lb.3 M lb.1. All three seaplanes follow the trend line within a reasonable amount of variance. The resulting parametric curve is shown in Figure 6 with the 0. 11 .000 lbs.2 Wing Span versus Gross Take-off Weight Data for the wing span versus gross take-off weight parametric chart was provided by the NSWC Carderock Division.2.. For a gross take-off weight (GTOW) of 25. the wing span is roughly proportional to the weight.

3 M lb. GTOW 250 200 0. Seaplane Wing Span (ft) 150 Wing Span 0. 12 . Seaplane parametric chart – Wing span vs. GTOW with 0. Seaplane Power Trendline* 100 *The equation for the Power Trendline is: y = 24.999x0. Seaplane.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Wing Span vs.3638 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 GTOW (x1000 lbs) Figure 6.3M lb.3M lb.

3638 200 100 0 0 500 1.9 M lb.9M lbs Power Trendline* *The equation for the Power Trendline is: y = 24.9M lb.000 1.500 3. 13 .000 3. 2.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Wing Span vs. seaplanes. GTOW with BFS-1.0 M.999x0. GTOW 600 2.000 2.500 GTOW (x1000 lbs) Figure 7. Seaplane 300 Wing Span 1M lbs 2. Seaplane 500 400 Wing Span (ft) 1M lb.500 2. Seaplane parametric chart – Wing Span vs.

Figure 8 shows the 0.3 M lb. and 2.0 M lb and 2. as is the 0. up to about 250. At a weight of 1. Gross Take-off Weight Figures 8 and 9 show fuselage length versus gross take-off weight.1. the length is increasing faster than the weight. the length is 180 ft..9 M lb.. seaplanes plotted in relation to the seaplane data. Figure 9 shows the BFS-1..500.0 M lb. It can be seen that BFS 1..2. The basic information for the figure was generated from seaplane data provided by NSWC.000 lbs.3 M lb.3 Fuselage Length vs.000 lbs. the length is 140 ft. or 1785 lb/ft At a weight of 500. After 500. 14 . it shows an apparent power series trend line. the length is 300 ft. the weight is increasing faster than the length.. Looking at the trend for various points below gives the following: At a weight of 250.. More importantly. seaplane.. At the beginning of the curve.000 lbs.9 M lb.000 lbs. Carderock Division.000 lbs. or 5000 lb/ft. seaplanes are in close agreement with the trend line. or 2777 lb/ft. seaplane plotted in relation to the seaplane data.

Length 0. Seaplane Power Trendline* *The equation for the Power Trendline is: y =18. GTOW 180 160 140 0.3 M lb. GTOW with 0.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Fuselage Length vs. Seaplane parametric chart – Fuselage length vs. seaplane.3791 15 . Seaplane Fuselage Length (ft) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 GTOW (x1000 lbs) Figure 8.133x0.3M lb.3M lb.

9M lb. GTOW 450 2. Seaplane Power Trendline* *The equation for the Power Trendline is: y = 18.0 M lb.500 2. seaplanes. 2.3791 16 .9M lb. Seaplane 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1. Seaplane Length 1M lb.000 2.133x0. Fuselage Length (ft) 1M lb.500 3.000 1.9 M lb. Seaplane 2.500 GTOW (x1000 lbs) Figure 9.000 3.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Fuselage Length vs. Seaplane parametric chart – Fuselage length vs. GTOW with BFS-1.

The three seaplanes designed by the Advanced Airborne Systems Design branch fell below the parametric curve of the supplied data. seaplanes showed a ratio of empty weight over GTOW equal to 0. seaplanes plotted in relation to the seaplane data.9 M lb.4 Empty Weight vs. The empty weight to gross take-off weight ratio for the 0.3 M lb. seaplane plotted in relation to the seaplane data.3 M lb. The AASD design data for the BFS 1.0 M lb. Gross Take-off Weight Figures 10 and 11 were created from information supplied by Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division. MD. Figure 11 shows the BFS-1.49. West Bethesda.1. Figure 10 shows the 0.0 M and 2. seaplane was 0.6.53.2.9 M lb. The data shows a linear ratio of empty weight to GTOW of 0. and the BFS 2. 17 .

GTOW 200 180 160 Empty Weight (x1000 lbs) 140 120 100 80 *The equation for the trendline is: y = 0.3M lb. Seaplane Empty Wt.3M lb.566 0. Seaplane parametric chart – Empty weight vs.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Empty Weight vs. 18 . GTOW with 0. 0. Seaplane Trendline* 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 GTOW (x1000 lbs) Figure 10.3 M lb. seaplane.

000 800 600 400 200 0 0 500 1. 2. Seaplane parametric chart – Empty weight vs.566x 2.500 3.0 M lb.9 M lb. seaplanes. GTOW with BFS-1.500 2.800 1. GTOW 2.9M lb.600 Empty Weight (x1000 lbs) 1.Seaplane Parametric Chart: Empty Weight vs. 19 . Seaplane Empty Wt. Seaplane Trendline* Figure 11. Seaplane 2.9M lb.000 1. 1M lb.500 GTOW (x1000 lbs) 1M lb.000 1.000 3.400 1. Seaplane *The equation for the trendline is: y = 0..200 1.000 2.

This corresponds to a weight per wetted area ratio of 35 lb/ft2. This corresponds to a weight per wetted area ratio of 20.. BFS 1.000.500. Airplane Preliminary Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes 1997) The BFS 2. Above the GTOW of 1.000 lbs. as seen in Figure 12.2. This can be shown by the following: Starting at 500. the wetted area is 48.000 ft2.9 M lb. where the weight increases faster than the wetted area. 20 .0 M lb. P P P P At a weight of 1. P P P P This shows that the weight is increasing faster than the wetted area. the GTOW increases linearly.3 M lb.000 lbs the weight increases faster than the wetted area.1. the wetted area is 100.000.8 lb/ft2.000 lbs. and the 0..000 ft2. P P P P At a weight of 3. This corresponds to a weight per wetted area ratio of 16..6 lb/ft2. the wetted area is 30..5 Regression Line List of Seaplane Weights versus Wetted Areas (Source: Jan Roskam. At a weight of 500.000 ft2. On a logarithm plot the exponential curve trend appears as a straight line.000 lbs.. seaplane designs are very close to the trend line of the other aircraft.000 lbs.

Amphibians. 100.9M lb. Seaplane 1.000 Log10Swet = c+dlog10WTO 2.000 Wetted Area (ft2) 1.000 100. 0.000 Figure 12.000.3M lb.000 10.0M lb. Flying Boats.Regression Line for Flying Boats. Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes 1997) 1. Seaplane 2.10% Offset Seaplane 0. Regression Line for Flying Boats.000 10..9M lb.000 1. Source: Roskam.000 GTOW (lbs) 1. +/.000. and Float Planes (Data taken from Jan Roskam. and Float Planes with the 3 seaplanes plotted.000. Jan “Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes 1997 21 .000 1. 10.0M lb. Amph.3M lb.

2. The details of the aerodynamics were recorded in the following reports. etc. and BFS-2.3 M lb. seaplanes were originally performed without computer codes. seaplane for the unimproved design condition. Calculate the wing loading and bounded it within a lower range to ensure low landing speeds necessary for sea worthiness. All range calculations are for a ferry mission for ease of comparison. wing loading.2.2. Seaplane Design and Performance” [3] and “BFS 2. Seaplane due to time constraints and a lower speed requirement. Compile configuration data from Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft.2 Weight Analysis The weights analysis for the 1. etc.4] the analysis was performed as follows: 1. Therefore. 6. Generate parametric charts.9 M lb.. including sweepback angle.0 M lb. Battleforce Seaplane (BFS) 1. David Taylor Model Basin. standard aircraft characteristics (SAC) charts. Iteration until convergence.9 M lb.1 Aerodynamic Analysis The aerodynamics analysis of the two early designs.0 M lb. The drag analysis of the seaplane hull and step was performed using NACA reports. 2. BFS-1. “BFS 1. 5. Martin P6M data from Defense Technical Information Center.2. Warminster [3. 22 . (see section 2.1.9 M lb. This is the benchmark for comparison against the improvements of the seaplane design to be shown later in this report. 3. and other forces acting on the wing through semi-empirical charts to determine the wing weight. and Air Force Stability and Control Data Compendium (DATCOM) equations. The process used to calculate the 0.0 M lb. All characteristics were calculated. the calculations included Reynolds numbers effects for drag in the area of compressibility. was performed using standard textbook aerodynamic equations. In the 1993-1994 timeframe the speed of the aircraft was approximately M = 0. Design and Performance” [4] A lower fidelity aerodynamic analysis was performed on the 0.2 BASE CASE LIFT CAPACITY The base case is design data for the BFS-0. including wetted area versus maximum take-off weight of large aircraft. Compile a database including transport and seaplane information.3. In 1994 at NAWC.0 M lb.3 M lb. etc.9 M lb. Standard Aircraft Characteristics Charts. Office of Naval Research.1). shear forces.3 M lb. Compile manuals from manufacturers detailing methods used for estimating weights..82. seaplane was simplified due to time constraints and the reduced flight velocity as compared to the first two aircraft. An example method would be to use the bending moments. and the 2. and 2. 2. power to weight ratios. 4.

out of the water. The bottom is fairly flat allowing the aircraft to skim/plane on the top of the water at low hydrodynamic resistance and high speed. This buoyant hull has to be fairly deep to support its weight and to keep the fuselage with the windows. With jet engines. 2. Engine installation factors were applied to get the correct specific fuel consumption at the cruise altitude. therefore the fuselage need not be as deep. a great deal of reference information must be accumulated. The hull has to have buoyancy for itself as a boat.2. the weights portion of the spreadsheet was calibrated to each base case seaplane. The various weight fractions along with payload and crew weights and an estimate of the GTOW are used to calculate the actual GTOW of the conceptual airplane. U 23 . A step breaks the suction on the afterbody. For this study. Figure 13 on page 25 shows a flying boat in planing attitude. The characteristics of a seaplane with propellers and a seaplane with jet engines are very different.3 Generalities of Flying Boat Design To understand how to improve a design.2. These figures are referenced during the following discussion on seaplane operation during take-off. and Figure 14 on page 26 shows flying forces on take-off [1]. It is possible to have a hydroplaning boat without a step. The initial estimated GTOW is then iteratively recalculated until it matches the calculated GTOW for a given design and mission. The lift to drag ratio (L/D) was corrected from conceptual performance data to obtain the correct fuel fractions. This is the principle behind the hydroplaning speed boat. The hull of a flying boat and the pontoon of a floatplane are based on the planing hull concept. This fuselage must be designed to perform double duty. The seaplane using jet engines is much more aerodynamically and structurally efficient. engines and atmosphere. In order to understand how to make improvements in seaplane design. Simple performance equations were used to determine the fuel fraction required to perform a given mission based on the most important design characteristics of the aircraft shape. doors etc.2. A flying boat is basically an aircraft with a boat hull. With propellers the engines must be mounted high to keep the propellers out of the water spray. This means more weighty structure and more drag.2. and it also must be large enough for the added weight of the wings and engines. thus saving weight and drag. but that requires significantly more power. the height necessary to keep the engine out of the water spray is minimized.1 Aircraft Sizing Spreadsheet The Aircraft Sizing Spreadsheet was built from the Raymer empirical equations for conceptual aircraft design. it is helpful to review the mechanics of take-off and hull design aspects.

and wave making drag. U U At this point the aerodynamic unloading is about 15% of the gross weight. The forebody wake has separated from the afterbody. and the hull trim angle decreases to maintain equilibrium between the forebody hydrodynamic load and the weight on the water. The forebody and afterbody support the weight of the airplane by buoyant forces. Figure 15 part c) is the second phase of take-off. U 2. Figure 15 parts a) and b) illustrates the situation. which are dependent on the immersed volume of each section. U U Since the forebody is in a planing regime. VG 3. 24 . form drag. The hydrodynamic load is now between 80% and 30% of the gross weight and is supported by the forebody. Planing Speed Regime The planing speed regime exists between 40% and 80% of the take-off speed. The forebody load decreases with increasing speed. the aerodynamic forces on the horizontal stabilizer must be sufficient to provide manual trim control of the aircraft so that an optimum take-off trim track can be selected. This occurs at approximately 30-40% of the take-off speed and is associated with the transition between the displacement and the planing speed regimes. The associated reduction in afterbody hydrodynamic load and bow down moment enables the forebody force (applied forward of the LCG) to increase the hull trim and thus increase its drag. It is essential that the buttock lines in this regime be straight and convex surfaces be avoided.Seaplane Take-off U The method in which a seaplane takes off illustrates the function of the seaplane hull design. at a take-off V speed of 35%. Low Speed Displacement Regime As power is applied. In this regime. the hull behavior is primarily determined by the after half of the forebody geometry. The trim is determined by the step and afterbody design. the hull is essentially a displacement vessel moving at low speed and low trim angle. There is flow separation from the forebody step and the afterbody intersecting at mid length and reduces its immersed volume. the chines and step must be shaped in order to assure separation of flow from the forebody bottom. The take-off can be divided into four hydrodynamically significant phases as discussed below: 1. = 35% . The hydrodynamic resistance is composed of friction forces on the wetted surfaces of the hull. Hump Speed Regime The hump speed regime. In this speed regime.

A flying boat in planing attitude.Figure 13. 25 .

Flying forces on take-off. 26 .Planing Lift Figure 14.

Low speed and hump displacement regimes. 27 .Figure 15.

U Deadrise –Forebody For otherwise identical initial landing condition – the maximum impact acceleration is approximately proportional to cot(β). the afterbody limits the hump trim angle and consequently limits the hump drag.0 to 12. U U Deadrise – Afterbody The afterbody deadrise immediately aft of the step should be larger than the forebody deadrise in order to provide a clear opening at the chines to the atmosphere and this assures ventilation of the step and a clean separation of flow form the forebody bottom. the impact force on a region of zero deadrise hull is infinite and approaches a value of zero when the deadrise is 90°. U Notes on Seaplane Design The following was taken from “A Summary of Hydrodynamic Technology Related to Large Seaplanes” [5]. The afterbody configuration and the after length of the forebody have a direct influence on the hull behavior in this regime. Take-off Speed Regime The take-off speed regime is between 80% and 100% of the take-off speed.” “…there is 20% reduction in hull drag coefficient associated with an increase in length to beam ratio from 6. Thus. β). In this speed range it is essential for a designer to provide an afterbody configuration. The pilot adjusts the horizontal stabilizer to increase the aircraft trim angle to obtain optimum wing lift at take-off.4. In the hump speed region. (deadrise angle.” “Increasing the length to beam ratio from 6 to 12 has resulted in nearly an 8% reduction in structural weight of hull for equal performance” Forebody Design Notes Most successful seaplane designs have a forebody length that varies between 58% to 60% of the total length of the hull. U U “Increases in length to beam ratio result in reduction in aerodynamic drag. The hydrodynamic forces are concentrated on a small triangular area just forward of the step. which is clear of the water surface and forebody wake. U The steady state planing efficiency (expressed as lift to drag ratio) increases with decreasing deadrise and has a maximum value at zero deadrise. As an acceptable compromise between low impact loads and high planing efficiency. 28 . U Afterbody Design Notes The function of the afterbody is to provide adequate aft buoyancy and level trim when the seaplane is at rest.

Length of Afterbody– La = 1210 in. Hull Design Parameters used on BFS 1. = 2736 in. U L/b = 10. / 2740 in.0 to 12 Sauvitsky [5] – 53% to 60% of L Sauvitsky [5] – 40% to 50% of L From the previous explanation. The hull design uses a hydroplane design method to obtain high speed with the least power by causing a major portion of the hull to lift out of the water for low water drag on the step. Beam– B = 21 ft. Lf/L = 1525 in. Once it rotates on the step the afterbody of the hull must be clear of the water.8 Lf = Length of Forebody = 1525 in. the operation and function of the seaplane hull is an integral part of the seaplane design.556 La/L = 1210 in. but the seaplane. has to achieve a high angle of attack to take-off. This behavior is similar to a land plane. Alternatively. = 0. This power addition and/or extra equipment will add additional weight to the seaplane. /2740 in. et al.0 M lb.typical seaplane forebodies have approximately 20° deadrise at the step. This is why a hull needs a sternpost angle of approximately 7°.44 Sources Sauvitsky [5] – 6. = 0. With a seaplane. The forebody deadrise increases toward the bow in order to reduce bow impact forces and resistance when operating in waves. Length of Hull – L = 228 ft. a stepless hull requires a large amount of power or blowing to break the suction in order to liftoff. in contrast to a hydroplane boat. [5] and configuration parameters of the following aircraft: Beriev A-40 Martin XP6M-1 Hughes Flying Boat NAWC-AD-WAR Seaplane For the BFS 1. the afterbody (sternpost) bottom has to angle away from the step so that it allows rotation. 29 .0 M lb. Seaplane U The three seaplane hulls were designed using design configuration relationships found in Sauvitsky. = 252 in. Seaplane Length of Forebody – Lf = 1525 in.

08 0 DEGREE 155 FT. 2 IN. Carderock Md.000 lb.3 M lbs. 25 FT. SLATS OUTBOARD.4C TRIPLE SLOTTED FOLWER FLAPS.1 Specification SEAPLANE . SEAPLANE PERSONNEL or 8FTx8FTx20FT CARGO CONTAINERS DIMENSIONS EXTERNAL: WING SPAN WING SWEEP WING ASPECT RATIO DIHEDRAL LENGTH OVERALL LENGTH OF HULL BEAM HULL LENGTH / BEAM FOREBODY LENGTH / HULL LENGTH = = = = = = = = = 162. STRINGERS. 11. The weights analysis method is in Section 2. 0 DEGREES 10. T/C=12% MAX T/C ≥ 0.0.2.2. “Conceptual Design for Battleforce Seaplane Concept 3” [7].3 M lb. 144 FT. KRUEGER FLAPS INBOARD.3 0. seaplane design for NSWC. 9 IN. (TRIMMED CL MAX .1 Aircraft Sizing Spreadsheet.2 Weight Analysis and 2.3 M lb. Seaplane Base Case Background This design is the 0.2.2.4. 2.2.2.3M LB. The report includes a 3-view design and analysis.49 = = 180 Troops 4 MAX 30 . FAIL SAFE STRUCTURE OF SKIN.8) CONVENTIONAL SEMIMONOCOUQE. Type: 60.2.4 U 0. Payload Airlift Seaplane CONSTRUCTION: WINGS: ALL ALUMINUM AIRFOIL. & RING FRAMES FUSELAGE: TAILS: HORIZONTAL TAIL AIRFOIL VERTICAL TAIL AIRFOIL POWERPLANT: SIX ALLISON AE2100 TURBOPROP ENGINES EACH RATED AT 4.8 FT.591 SHP NACA 0009 NACA 0009 ACOMODATION: 0. 1 IN.

2 = = = 2.759 LBS. LBS.2 567 FT.650 FT.3 = 2 760 FT. LBS.2.1 Specification cont.244 60./FT. LBS.000 99.3 0.4.280 LBS.003 127.2 = 20.2.030 FT. FLOOR AREA: CARGO FLOOR VOLUME: PRESSURIZED SECTION AREAS: WING HORIZONTAL TAIL VERTICAL TAIL WEIGTS AND LOADINGS GROSS TAKEOFF WEIGHT EMPTY WEIGHT DESIGN PAYLOAD WING LOADING (MAX) POWER LOADING T/W (MAX) MAX FUEL LOAD CAPACITY = = = = = = 260.2 620 FT. 31 . 71.

0./HR./HR. = = = = = = = = = = = = 380.555 LBS.468 1/HR. 1.89 2. (0. 0.000 LBS.2.58M) (. 356.575 NM. 0.62M) = 6./HR. WITH 1 HR.O. 13. PAYLOAD AT BEST RANGE SPEED OF 356 KTS.671 LBS.000 FEET (ESTIMATED AT MAX T. 1. RESERVE FERRY RANGE AT BEST RANGE SPEED OF 356 KTS.384 1/HR.1 Specification cont.4. RESERVE SEA LEVEL PERFORMANCE STALL SPEED = 97 KTS. 32 .2. WIEGHT EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED) MAXIMUM CRUISE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC BEST RANGE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC L/D BEST ENDURANCE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC L/D RANGE WITH 60.95 278 KTS. WITH 1 HR.812 NM.453M) (0. 15. PERFORMANCE AT 20.50 1/HR.32 KTS.77 KTS. 1.642 LBS.

2. 0.2 Three View 0.3 M lb Seaplane Three View 33 . Seaplane Figure 16.3 M lb.2.4.

Base Case – 0. Figure 17. Corrections were made for the increased weight associated with a seaplane hull.3 M lb. and the equivalent skin friction [6].271 24.3 M lb. lbs.1.3 M lb.023 0. Seaplane Weight Breakdown 2. parasite drag and induced drag.0297 0.5 0.3 M lb. The induced drag was developed from the following relationship CDi = CL2/(πAe).0369 0.8 0. Seaplane .3 0.6 0. was 60 ft2. Base Case – 0. lbs. Seaplane @ 20.1073 0.2 0. seaplane base case.0569 0.244 260. where f is the equivalent flat plate area and S is the wing reference area.4.0139 0.2.003 lbs. equivalent flat plate area.0021 0.023 0. P P B B B B B PB P 0.3 M lb.0067 0.1303 0.0251 Figure 18. The equivalent flat plate area for the BFS-0. The results are shown below in Figure 18.7 0.969 127.023 0. lbs. 0. The parasite drag portion for the 0. lbs.2. see Figure 19.4 0.023 0.000 ft.023 0.023 0.0266 0. seaplane was developed using Raymer empirical weight equations.3 M lb. Seaplane Drag Breakdown 34 .2.3M Lb.3 Weight Breakdown The weight derived for the 0.5431 0.0339 0.-STEP CDtotal Mach CDi CDo 0. seaplane was estimated using parametric relationships between wetted area. A detailed discussion of the drag breakdown method is explained in section 2.2.3 M lb.4.023 0. The weights for the base seaplane were developed using calibration factors based on a C130 model.4 Drag Breakdown Drag is broken into two main categories. Figure 17 shows the weight breakdown for the 0. Using the relations and the expression: CDo = f / S.5661 0.0036 0.004 25.Base Case Weight Breakdown Structure Group Propulsion Group Equipment Group Empty Weight Gross Take-off Weight 77.

0040 .ft 100 Equivalent Parasite Area - B24 G B25 J C47 B24D B29A CN23 SF340 10 757F28-1000 Propell or Fighter C62 P8 1 100 P5 1000 Wetted Area .0050 .0020 2 . parasite drag estimation 35 .3 M lb.0030 . 120 1000 Cf = .Swet .ft2 10000 100000 Figure 19. Equivalent flat plate area for BFS-0.Effect of Equivalent Skin Friction on Parasite and Wetted Areas Source: Jan Roskam "Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes" c2003 pg.

seaplane at sea level is M=0.4. The maximum difference between the thrust required and thrust available gives the excess thrust.2.486. The resulting performance curves for sea level are shown in Figure 21. Performance.3 M lb. The drag analysis equations and results are shown in Figure 20. The maximum range for the 0.38.5 Speed. seaplane at sea level is Mach 0. 36 .2. The maximum speed for the 0. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at Sea Level The details are in “Conceptual Design for Battleforce Seaplane Concept 3” [7].3 M lb. The intersection of the thrust available and thrust required is the maximum cruise speed. The maximum range cruise velocity is found at the tangent point from a line drawn from the origin to the thrust required curve. which will give the maximum rate of climb at sea level.

7422 0.0072 0.0004 2 0. Base Case – 0.00421949 0.06751178 6.12 0.92 0.7360 0.31 0.1 111.002377 14.5417 0.023 0.0008 0.0259 25453 0.002377 533.6560 2.00750131 0.25 0.80 0.023 0.023 0.4140 0.0014 0.2 223.56 0.1714 0.24 0. Seaplane drag calculations at sea level.8589 72965 0. Seaplane @ Sea Level Mach V ρ q ft/sec lbm/ft3 lbf/ft2 0.0029 0.8 893.1035 0.31 0.002377 133.023 0.81 0.00270047 0.00 0.6239 43.98 CL 1/q CL CDi CDo 2 2 CL /(pi*AR*e) (W/(S*q)) ft2/lbf W/(S*q) 0.8757 1.00187533 0.00137779 0.002377 237.48 0.2650 0.64 0.023 0.1147 0.5 558.023 CDtot Thrust Req.1352 0.0302 18949 0.7 781.00105487 0.3 334.0107 0. CDo+CDi CDtot*q*S 1.0234 58906 Thrust _ Re quired = CDTOTAL ⋅ q ⋅ S CDTOTAL = Cd o + Cd i CL (π ⋅ AR ⋅ E ) W CL = (S ⋅ q) Cd i = 2 Figure 20.DRAG TABLE: 0.002377 947.6 669.4 446.84 0.1377 21627 0.023 0.002377 59.0339 0.3 M Lb.2 0.0244 34503 0.002377 370.0457 16132 0.28 0.0702 0.0238 45708 0.0183 0.002377 725.1840 0.023 0.01687794 1.3 M lb. 37 .8359 0.0227 0.

800 1.3 M lb.Base Case Max Range Velocity Base Case Tangent Line 40. Seaplane thrust available.600 0. velocity and max range velocity at sea level.000 0.200 0. 38 .000 10.3 M lb.433 20. thrust required vs. Seaplane .39 T=18.000 Drag . Base Case – 0. 80.000 M=0.000 Figure 21.400 Mach 0.000 Thrust Available Thrust Available.000 70.0.Thrust Available.000 60. Thrust Required (lbs) 50.000 0 0. Thrust Required versus Velocity and the Maximum Range Velocity at Sea Level.000 30.

is M=0. are shown in Figure 23. The maximum difference between the thrust required and thrust available gives the excess thrust.000 ft.000 ft. M = 0.000 ft.000 ft. The maximum speed for the 0. seaplane at an altitude of 20. The maximum range cruise velocity is found at the tangent point of a line drawn from the origin to the thrust required curve. The intersection of the thrust available and thrust required is the maximum cruise speed. The drag analysis equations and results are shown in Figure 22. Performance. The cruise L/D for maximum range was found to be 13.000 ft. which will give the maximum rate of climb at 20.58.95. 39 . seaplane at 20.58.2. The maximum range cruise velocity for the 0.2. is M=0.6 Speed.3 M lb. The resulting performance curves for the cruise altitude of 20. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at 20. The cruise lift to drag ratio (L/D) point for this study was taken as the maximum range point.3 M lb.619.4.

2 0.8 V ft/sec ρ lbm/ft3 207.00126643 311.60 0.1603 0.5 0.0139 0.0036 0.09 0.1073 0.0251 Thrust Req.9007 0.00126643 725.000 ft.8113 0.00918024 170.5661 0.52 0.2941 0.023 CDtot CDo+CDi 0.38 0.023 0.0266 0.4 0.03672096 61.0297 0.45 0.023 0.14 0.0507 Thrust _ Re quired = CDTOTAL ⋅ q ⋅ S CDTOTAL = Cd o + Cd i Cd i = CL (π ⋅ AR ⋅ E ) W CL = (S ⋅ q) 2 Figure 22.07 0. Mach 0. Seaplane drag calculations for cruise altitude of 20.01632043 108.27 0.72 0. CDtot*q*S 40856 21155 16438 16645 19293 23532 29007 12.0067 0.0865 0.00126643 q lbf/ft2 1/q ft2/lbf 27.20 0. Base Case – 0.5641 0. Seaplane @ 20.9805 2.7 0.0569 0.023 0.00126643 829.3 0.023 0.00299763 435.6 0.23 0.00126643 622.00408011 333.00587535 245.000 ft.5765 0.2252 CL 2 2 (W/(S*q)) CDi 2 CL /(pi*AR*e) 0.DRAG TABLE: 0.0369 0.3 M lb.0339 0.83 0.0021 CDo 0.76 0.3323 0.93 0.1303 0. 40 .023 0.5431 0.00126643 518.00126643 414.00229506 CL W/(S*q) 3.6013 0.4003 0.023 0.6029 1.3 M Lb.

000 15.000 Drag with Step 25.000 5.3 M lb.80 1.58 T=18.610 Max Range Point with Step Tangent Line 0.000 20.3M lb.000 40.20 0.0.60 0.000 ft. 41 .000 0 0. Velocity at an Altitude of 20.40 Mach 0. Thrust Required (lbf) 30.000 Thrust Available Thrust Available.000 35.00 Figure 23. and the Maximum Range Point vs. Seaplane thrust available. 45. Base Case – 0.000 ft. Seaplane .00 M=0. Thrust Required. velocity and max range velocity for cruise altitude of 20.000 10. thrust required vs.Thrust Available.

2.2.4.7

Range vs. Payload

⎛V ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛W ⎞ Range is calculated using the Brequet equation: Rcr = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ln⎜ i −1 ⎟ . From ⎟ ⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎜ Wi ⎠ ⎝ the previous section, the velocity at the maximum range and the lift to drag ratio are known. The specific fuel consumption is known through performance curves taken from the engine manufacturer. The change in weight from the beginning segment to the end segment is found from the calibrated Raymer based weight sizing spreadsheet. The results of the Brequet range equation calculations are shown in Figure 24. The tabulated results show that the maximum range for a ferry mission is 6,576 nm. A graphic plot of the results is given in Figure 25.
0.3M lb. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE - Range vs. Payload for Aluminum Structure - Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW 260,003 Empty 127,244 Useful 132,759 Crew 1,000 5% Reserve 6,274 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW - Gross Takeoff Weight Empty - Empty weight Useful - The difference between GTOW and Empty

lbf. lbf. lbf. lbf. lbf.

356.32 kts. 0.468 lbf./hr/lbf. 0.0307 lbf. 0.4277 lbf. 13.95 253,971 lbf. 136,781 lbf.

V - Velocity in knots (M=0.58) at 20,000 ft. C - Total Specific Fuel Consumption

W i-1 - Initial weight for segment. W i - Final weight for segment.

Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 6575.6 nm.

Range vs. Payload Range Payload 0 131,759 1,336 90,000 2,812 60,000 4,526 30,000 6,576 0

Altitude

20,000 ft

C

0.4679

a M V=M*a V

1036.9 FT/SEC 0.58 601.402 FT/SEC 356.32 KTS

Figure 24. Base Case – 0.3 M lb. Seaplane Range vs. Payload Calculations

42

0.3 M lb. Seaplane Parametric Curve (Base Case) Range vs. Payload
140,000

120,000

100,000

Payload (lbs)

80,000

60,000

0.3M lb. Seaplane Base Case

40,000

20,000

0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Range (nm) 5,000 6,000 7,000

Figure 25. Base Case – 0.3 M lb. Seaplane Range vs. Payload.

43

2.2.5 2.2.5.1

1.0 M LB. SEAPLANE BASE CASE Specification
BATTLE FORCE SEAPLANE - 1.0 M lbs. Type: 360,000 lb. Payload Airlift Seaplane

CONSTRUCTION: WINGS:

ALL ALUMINUM AIRFOIL, T/C=12% MAX T/C ≥ 0.4C TRIPLE SLOTTED FOLWER FLAPS, SLATS OUTBOARD, KRUEGER FLAPS INBOARD, (TRIMMED CL MAX - 2.8) CONVENTIONAL SEMIMONOCOUQE, FAIL SAFE STRUCTURE OF SKIN, STRINGERS, & RING FRAMES

FUSELAGE:

TAILS: HORIZONTAL TAIL AIRFOIL VERTICAL TAIL AIRFOIL POWERPLANT: FOUR PRATT & WHITNEY 4088 TURBOFAN ENGINES EACH RATED AT 90300 LB. TAKE-OFF THRUST ACOMODATION: BFS 1.0M LB. SEAPLANE Upper Deck Forward Upper Deck Aft Lower Deck - w/o Ramp or M60A3 Main Battle Tanks DIMENSIONS EXTERNAL: WING SPAN = WING SWEEP = WING ASPECT RATIO = DIHEDRAL = LENGTH OVERALL = LENGTH OF HULL = BEAM = HULL LENGTH / BEAM = FOREBODY LENGTH / HULL LENGTH = 315 FT. 28 DEGREES 8.74 0 DEGREE 270 FT. 9 IN. 228 FT. 4 IN. 21 FT. 6 IN. 10.6 0.556 = = = = 201 166 445 3 Troops Troops Troops Max NACA 0009 NACA 0009

44

2 = = 0. LBS.2 1. VERTICAL TAIL VOLUME COEF. X 17 FT.079 FT. X 17 FT.053 = = = 11. X 18 FT.2.3 38.379 LBS. 45 .2 2.896 FT. X 8 FT.2 1.524 FT. LBS.3 8. = 158 FT.2 = = = 10.876 FT.360 FT. WITHOUT RAMP VOLUME: UPPER DECK FORWARD UPPER DECK AFT LOWER DECK.362 FT.2 = 79 FT.600 470.7 0. WEIGTS AND LOADINGS GROSS TAKEOFF WEIGHT EMPTY WEIGHT DESIGN PAYLOAD WING LOADING (MAX) POWER LOADING T/W (MAX) MAX FUEL LOAD CAPACITY 950.1 Specification cont.5.526 0. DIMENSIONS INTERNAL: UPPER DECK FOREWARD ( L X W X H ) UPPER DECK AFT ( L X W X H ) LOWER CARGO DECK ( L X W X H ) FLOOR AREA: UPPER DECK FORWARD UPPER DECK AFT LOWER DECK./FT. X 13 FT.432 360. = 65 FT. 478.368 LBS. X 8 FT.311 FT. WITHOUT RAMP AREAS: WING HORIZONTAL TAIL VERTICAL TAIL STABILITY COEFFICIENTS: HORIZONTAL TAIL VOLUME COEF.3 = = = 1.970 FT.528 FT.2.000 83.2 1. LBS.

103 FT.82M) = 8.245 FT. 18.220 NM. WITH 1 HR.769 LBS.2.99 484 KTS. 0. PAYLOAD AT BEST RANGE SPEED OF 416 KTS.000 LBS. = 3.5.539 1/HR. PERFORMANCE AT 30.929 NM. 0. 11.705M) (0.964 LBS. 416 KTS. RESERVE RANGE w/225. 11.1 Specification cont.56115 1/HR. RESERVE FERRY RANGE AT BEST RANGE SPEED OF 416 KTS./HR. PAYLOAD (2 TANKS + 100 TROOPS) SEA LEVEL PERFORMANCE TAKE-OFF DISTANCE GROUND RUN STALL SPEED TOUCH DOWN SPEED = = = 3. (0. 0.60 1.000 FEET (ESTIMATED AT MAX T.769 LBS./HR. WIEGHT EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED) MAXIMUM CRUISE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC BEST RANGE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC L/D BEST ENDURANCE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC L/D RANGE WITH 360.822M) (0.O. 10.652 NM. WITH 1 HR.576 1/HR. = = = = = = = = = = = = 484 KTS.2.000 LBS. 94 KTS./HR. 21. 46 .

0 M lb.2. 1.5.2 Three View Figure 26. Seaplane Three View 47 .2.

00115 0.2.00117 0.00153 0.01443 M = 0. lbs.00090 0. Seaplane Parasite Drag Breakdown 48 .1 0. The parasitic breakdown is shown below in Figure 28.00290 0.00090 0.00017 0. The first analysis was completed at the Naval Warfare Center.4 Drag Breakdown The basic drag analysis was performed as explained in section 2.00090 0. Tail H.00115 0.00090 0. Seaplane M = 0.00530 0.00277 0.00111 0.01444 M = 0.00015 0.695 53.00140 0.3 Weight Breakdown The weight analysis methods that were used are explained in section 2.00320 0.00143 0.7 Cdo 0.9 Cdo 0.00015 0.432 950.2. The drag of the step is shown in section 2.01540 X 1. Seaplane .03830 0.00277 0.01269 X 1.00277 0.00090 0.01694 M = 0.00590 0.1 0.4 Cdo 0.1 0.00019 0.8 Cdo 0.05724 X 1.00017 0.6 Cdo 0.00017 0.405 470.2.00108 0.06296 Figure 28.0 M lb.0 M lb.600 lbs. it was reproduced using the Raymer based empirical and parametric equations.01313 X 1.00543 0.2.2.1 0.00124 0.332 91.00115 0.01312 X 1. Warminster in 1994 [3]. Tail Wing Pontoons Engines Engine Mts.00017 0.1 0. The results of this analysis are shown below in Figure 27.5.00710 0. Figure 27.00560 0.00015 0.2.01396 M = 0. Cdo Protuberances Total Cdo Cdo 0.00123 0. 2.00114 0.00131 0. Base Case – 1.1.1. The analysis was performed using parametric equations developed from industry and conceptual design groups.00090 0.00670 0. Base Case – 1.00017 0.00277 0. Seaplane weight breakdown.5.2 Component Body Step V.00115 0. lbs.01579 M = 0. For this report.1 0.COMPONENT METHOD 1.00015 0.00730 0.Base Case Weight Breakdown Structure Group Propulsion Group Equipment Group Empty Weight Gross Take-off Weight 325. The analysis was developed using the USAF Stability and Control Data Compendium (DATCOM) information and other aerodynamic texts. lbs.0 M lb. lbs.0M lb.00023 0.00120 0.3.00121 0. DRAG BREAKDOWN .1. 1.01435 X 1.00020 0.

0 M lb. The maximum range cruise velocity for the 1. Seaplane Design and Performance” 1994 [3]. Performance.5. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at Sea Level For detail of the analysis methods used for speed. This data is the basis for the performance curves at sea level and is shown in Figure 30. The drag and thrust data for sea level are shown in Figure 29.43. seaplane at sea level is M=0.762.2. The maximum range cruise velocity is found at the tangent point of a line drawn from the origin with the thrust required curve. 49 . The maximum cruise speed can be seen as M=0.2.5 Speed. and thrust required versus thrust available at sea level. refer to “BFS 1. The maximum rate of climb can be found at the maximum difference between the thrust required and the thrust available curves. performance. at the intersection of the thrust required and thrust available curves.0 M lb. The distance between the two curves is called excess thrust. The results from this report are summarized below.

0149 123.4 446.888 0.64 0.01396 0.56 0.0042 0.1246 0.0697 0.943 0.48 0.0149 90.25 0.0934 62.0193 51.0011 0.9 1004. ft/sec slug/ft3 lbf/ft2 ft2/lbf W/(S*q) (W/(S*q))2 CL2/(pi*AR*e) CDo+CDi Cdtot*q*S 0.002377 533. Base Case – 1.28 0.002377 947.01444 0.01443 0.0632 860.79 0.9940 0.0010 0.98 0.4121 1.0005 0.002377 14. 50 .0M Lb.002377 59.1153 0.7 781.0776 0.0 M lb.2421 0.0172 185.8 893.06296 0.84 0.914 Thrust _ Re quired = CDTOTAL ⋅ q ⋅ S CDTOTAL = Cd o + Cd i CL Cd i = (π ⋅ AR ⋅ E ) W CL = (S ⋅ q) 2 Figure 29.80 0.002377 237.01579 0.0014 0.732 0.3530 0.2 223.0008 0.6484 31.0002 0.0049 0.6 669.002377 1199.383 0.DRAG TABLE W/STEP: 1.0675 5.0169 1.0049 0.0078 0.0246 0.002377 725.1569 0.9040 1.844 0.0019 0.81 0.76 0.1 111.01694 0.2588 211.24 0. Seaplane @ Sealevel Mach V ρ q 1/q CL CL2 CDi CDo CDtot Thrust Req.01663 1. Seaplane drag calculations at sea level.12 0.0003 0.0883 0.00 0.0133 0.284 0.

000 Thrust Available.70 0.0M lb.1.10 0.000 100.000 250. Thrust Required (lbs) 200.20 0. Thrust Required. 300.Thrust Available.40 0.60 0. and Maximum Range Points vs.30 0. Velocity at Sea level.563 50.00 0.80 0. velocity and max range velocity at sea level 51 .90 Mach Figure 30.43 T=55. Base Case – 1.000 Max Range Point with Step Tangent Line M=0.000 Thrust Available Drag with Step 150.000 0 0. thrust required vs.0 M lb. Seaplane .50 0. Seaplane thrust available.

99. and thrust required versus thrust available at 30. M = 0.000 ft.6 Speed. Seaplane Design and Performance” [3].705.0 M lb. The cruise lift to drag ratio (L/D) point for this study was taken as the maximum range point. For detail on the analysis used for speed. performance. The maximum range cruise velocity is found from the tangency of a line from the origin and the thrust required curve.5.000 ft is M=0. The data from the drag and thrust calculations created Figure 32.000 ft. The drag and thrust calculations are shown in Figure 31.000 ft.705. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at 30. The rate of climb can be found as the distance between the thrust required and thrust available curves. which is the intersection of the thrust required and thrust available curves. Performance. The maximum range cruise velocity for the 1. which are the performance curves for the seaplane at 30. refer to the 1994 report entitled “BFS 1. The cruise L/D for maximum range was found to be 18. 52 .2. The maximum cruising speed for the seaplane is M=0. The following is a summary of the report findings. The distance between the two curves is also called excess thrust.0 M lbs. seaplane at 30.2.821.

0046 0.066 Thrust _ Re quired = CDTOTAL ⋅ q ⋅ S CDTOTAL = Cd o + Cd i Cd i = CL (π ⋅ AR ⋅ E ) W CL = (S ⋅ q) 2 Figure 31.8927 178.01396 0.9 895.1501 0.88 0.0058 0.66 0.3874 0.2 198.2966 0.32 0.36 0.99 0.01694 0.751 0.92 0.803 0. ft/sec slug/ft3 lbf/ft2 ft2/lbf W/(S*q) (W/(S*q))2 CL2/(pi*AR*e) CDo+CDi Cdtot*q*S 0.7458 22.0203 49.0692 55.06296 0.0549 0.000891 70.0248 44.4077 0.5273 0.0021 0.DRAG TABLE W/STEP: 1.6 596.7 696.07 0.63 0.000891 282.0063 0.0880 0.0 M lb.478 0.0108 0.1865 1.0548 0.8769 0.0142 1.0034 0.0035 0.52 0.000891 17.01444 0.0567 4.01443 0.2781 0.8 795.01579 0.96 0.000891 215.681 0.269 0.0204 65. Seaplane @ 30. Mach V ρ q 1/q CL CL2 CDi CDo CDtot Thrust Req.96 0. Seaplane drag calculations for cruise altitude of 30. 53 .84 0.0028 0.000 ft.0651 264.5227 0.0M Lb.4 397.2344 0.000891 356.000 ft.000891 158. Base Case 1.

705 T=50.30 0.60 0. thrust required vs.Base Case 120. Thrust Required (lbs) Drag .00 Figure 32.000 160. 54 . 200.00 M=0.000 100.1. Seaplane .000 20. Thrust Required versus Velocity and Maximum Range Velocity at an Altitude of 30.50 Mach 0.000 Thrust Available.Base Case Tangent Line 0. Seaplane thrust available.000 ft. velocity and max range velocity for cruise altitude of 30.0M lb.000 80.10 0. Base Case – 1.0 M lb.40 0.000 40.000 ft.80 0.Thrust Available.90 1.000 0 0.20 0.000 180.000 60.058 Max Range Velocity .70 0.000 Thrust Available 140.

) W i .53 KTS Figure 33. A graphic plot of the results is given in Figure 34.334 FT/SEC 415.432 480.0 M lb.5.0 M lb.168 1. lbs.Velocity in knots (M=0.0M lb. lbs.000 8.8 FT/SEC 0.0 M lb.779 lbs. Payload Calculations 55 .418 6. and land without any fuel penalty./hr/lbs.2 nm. 0. climb.705) C . The results of the Brequet range equation calculations are shown below in Figure 33.600 470. From the previous section.0201 0.220 360. Range vs. seaplane is calculated using the Brequet equation: ⎛V ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛W ⎞ Rcr = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ln⎜ i −1 ⎟ .Initial weight for segment (ignoring Climb&Accl.000 ft C 0.Start.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .7 Range versus Payload The range of the 1.936.2.539 lbs.652 225.800 22. 503. The tabulated results show that the maximum range for the 1. The change in weight from the beginning segment to the end segment is found from the calibrated Raymer based weight sizing spreadsheet.368 1.936 nm. lbs. Payload Range Payload 0 478.725 lbs.000 3. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE . 0.2.Empty weight Useful .351 100.Total Specific Fuel Consumption 415.Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW Empty Useful Crew 5% Reserve V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi 950. Definitions Ferry Mission .705 701. The specific fuel consumption is known through performance curves taken from the engine manufacturer.53 kts.Range vs. Seaplane Range vs.The difference between GTOW and Empty V . cruise at best range cruise speed. GTOW .5388 a M V=M*a V 994. seaplane for a ferry mission is 8. lbs. the velocity at the ⎟ ⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎜ Wi ⎠ ⎝ maximum range and the lift to drag ratio are known. 1.01 925.936 0 Altitude 30.3825 19. Base Case – 1. W i-1 .226 lbs.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 8. loiter at sealevel for 30 minutes at optimum speed. Payload for Aluminum Structure .

000 1.000 Payload (lbs) 300. 56 . Payload for all Aluminum Structure with a Step 600.000 400.0 M lb.0M lb Seaplane Aluminum Structure w/Step 200.000 4.000 0 0 2.1. Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs. Payload.0M lb.000 6.000 500.000 8.000 Range (nm) Figure 34. Base Case – 1. Seaplane Range vs.000 100.000 10.

9M LB.6. 363 FT.74 1 DEGREE 403 FT.8) CONVENTIONAL SEMIMONOCOUQE. 4 IN. 4 IN. T/C=12% MAX T/C @ 0. 28 DEGREES 8. SLATS OUTBOARD.2. & RING FRAMES FUSELAGE: TAILS: HORIZONTAL TAIL AIRFOIL VERTICAL TAIL AIRFOIL POWERPLANT: TEN PRATT & WHITNEY 4088 TURBOFAN ENGINES EACH RATED AT 90300 LB.000. TAKE-OFF THRUST ACOMODATION: FOR BFS 2. 4 IN. FAIL SAFE STRUCTURE OF SKIN. KRUEGER FLAPS INBOARD.000 lb. Payload Airlift Seaplane CONSTRUCTION: WINGS: ALL ALUMINUM AIRFOIL.4C TRIPLE SLOTTED FOLWER FLAPS. Type: 1. SEAPLANE TROOPS OR M-60A3 MAIN BATTLE TANKS = = 1950 8 MAX MAX NACA 0009 NACA 0009 DIMENSIONS EXTERNAL: WING SPAN = WING SWEEP = WING ASPECT RATIO = DIHEDRAL = LENGTH OVERALL = LENGTH OF HULL = BEAM = HULL LENGTH / BEAM = FOREBODY LENGTH / HULL LENGTH = 464 FT. STRINGERS. (TRIMMED CL MAX .2.553 57 . 33 FT.6 2.2.1 2. Seaplane Base Case Specification BATTLE FORCE SEAPLANE .2.9 M lb.2.9 M lbs. 10.9 0. 2 IN.

2 = = = 19. X 25 FT.152 FT. = 85 FT. WEIGTS AND LOADINGS GROSS TAKEOFF WEIGHT EMPTY WEIGHT DESIGN PAYLOAD WING LOADING (MAX) POWER LOADING T/W (MAX) MAX FUEL LOAD WEIGHT 2.057 FT. LBS. 2 4.715 FT.125 FT.240 FT. 2.309 LBS. 58 . WITHOUT RAMP VOLUME: UPPER DECK FORWARD UPPER DECK AFT LOWER CARGO DECK AREAS: WING HORIZONTAL TAIL VERTICAL TAIL STABILITY COEFFICIENTS: HORIZONTAL TAIL VOLUME COEF.076 1.600 FT.430.073 = = = 24.135 FT. 2 3.325 FT.076 1. VERTICAL TAIL VOLUME COEF. 2 = 133 FT. DIMENSIONS INTERNAL: UPPER DECK FOREWARD ( L X W X H ) UPPER DECK AFT ( L X W X H ) LOWER CARGO DECK ( L X W X H ) FLOOR AREA: UPPER DECK FORWARD UPPER DECK AFT LOWER DECK. X 9 FT. = = = 3.2. 2 LBS. X 9 FT.000.2./FT. X 25 FT. X 20 FT.200 LBS.923.000 118.95 0.491. X 30 FT. = 241 FT.230 FT. 3 144. LBS.2 2 7. 3 1.630 0. 3 12.6. = = 0.1 Specification cont.

2.2.6.1

Specification cont.

PERFORMANCE AT 30,000 FEET (ESTIMATED AT MAX T.O. WIEGHT EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED) MAXIMUM CRUISE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC BEST RANGE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC L/D BEST ENDURANCE SPEED FUEL FLOW TSFC L/D = = = = = = = = = = = 458 KTS. 11,471 LBS./HR. 0.562 KTS. 411 KTS. 10,909 LBS./HR. 0.536 1/HR. 22.21 387 KTS. 10,369 LBS./HR. 0.521 1/HR. 22.96 (0.657M) (.6975M) (0.778M)

RANGE WITH 1,000,000 LBS. PAYLOAD AT BEST RANGE SPEED OF 411 KTS. WITH 1 HR. RESERVE FERRY RANGE AT BEST RANGE SPEED OF 411 KTS. WITH 1 HR. RESERVE

=

2,246 NM.

=

10,609 NM.

SEA LEVEL PERFORMANCE TAKE-OFF DISTANCE GROUND RUN STALL SPEED TOUCH DOWN SPEED = = = 5,887 FT. 112 KTS. 123 KTS.

59

2.2.6.2

Three View
DIMENSIONS INTERNAL: UPPER DECK FOREWARD ( L X W X H ) UPPER DECK AFT ( L X W X H ) = LOWER CARGO DECK ( L X W X H ) =

BATTLE FORCE SEAPLANE - 2.9 M lbs. Type: 1,000,000 lb. Payload Airlift Seaplane CONSTRUCTION: ALL ALUMINUM WINGS: AIRFOIL, T/C=12% MAX T/C @ 0.4C TRIPLE SLOTTED FOLWER FLAPS, SLATS OUTBOARD, KRUEGER FLAPS INBOARD, (TRIMMED CL MAX - 2.8) FUSELAGE: CONVENTIONAL SEMIMONOCOUQE, FAIL SAFE STRUCTURE OF SKIN, STRINGERS, & RING FRAMES TAILS: HORIZONTAL TAIL AIRFOIL - NACA 0009 VERTICAL TAIL AIRFOIL NACA 0009 POWERPLANT: TEN TURBOFAN ENGINES EACH RATED AT 90,000+ LB. TAKE-OFF THRUST ACOMODATION: FOR BFS 2.9M LB. SEAPLANE TROOPS = 1950 MAX OR M-60A3 MAIN BATTLE TANKS= 8MAX DIMENSIONS EXTERNAL: WING SPAN = 464 FT. 2 IN. WING SWEEP = 28 DEGREES WING ASPECT RATIO = 8.74 DIHEDRAL = 1 DEGREE LENGTH OVERALL = 403 FT. 4 IN. LENGTH OF HULL = 363 FT. 4 IN. BEAM = 33 FT. 4 IN. HULL LENGTH / BEAM = 10.9 FOREBODY LENGTH / HULL LENGTH = 0.553

= 133 FT. X 25 FT. X 9 FT. 85 FT. X 25 FT. X 9 FT. 241 FT. X 30 FT. X 20 FT.

FLOOR AREA: UPPER DECK FORWARD = 3,325 FT.2 UPPER DECK AFT = 2,125 FT.2 LOWER DECK, WITHOUT RAMP = 7,230 FT.2 VOLUME: UPPER DECK FORWARD = 19,152 FT.3 UPPER DECK AFT = 12,240 FT.3 LOWER CARGO DECK = 144,600 FT.3 AREAS: WING = 24,135 FT.2 HORIZONTAL TAIL = 4,715 FT.2 VERTICAL TAIL = 3,057 FT.2

. STABILITY COEFFICIENTS: HORIZONTAL TAIL VOLUME COEF. = 0.630 VERTICAL TAIL VOLUME COEF. = 0.073 WEIGTS AND LOADINGS GROSS TAKEOFF WEIGHT=2,923,076 LBS DESIGN PAYLOAD=1,000,000 LBS WING LOADING (MAX)=118.95 LBS./FT.2 POWER LOADING T/W (MAX)= 0.309 MAX FUEL LOAD WEIGHT=1,491,200LBS

EMPTY WEIGHT=1,430,076 LBS

Figure 35. 2.9 M lb Seaplane Three View

60

2.2.6.3

Weight Breakdown

The weight analysis methods that were used are explained in section 2.2.2. The first analysis was completed at the Naval Warfare Center, Warminster in 1994. The analysis was performed using parametric equations developed from industry and conceptual design groups. For a detailed analysis of the weight breakdown for the 2.9 M lb seaplane, refer to the Naval Air Warfare Center report 1994 “BFS 2.9 M lb. Seaplane Design and Performance” [3]. For this report, the analysis was reproduced using the Raymer based empirical and parametric equations. The results of this analysis are shown below in Figure 36.

2.9M lb. Seaplane - Base Case Weight Breakdown
Structure Group Propulsion Group Equipment Group Empty Weight Gross Take-off Weight 1,111,491 224,440 94,145 1,430,076 2,923,076 lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

Figure 36. Base Case – 2.9 M lb. Seaplane weight breakdown

2.2.6.4

Drag Breakdown

For detail on the analysis methods used for the drag breakdown, refer to [3]. The drag breakdown was refined for this report. The calculation of the step drag was performed using National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) reports and is shown in section 2.3.1.1. A summary of the results is given below in Figure 37.
DRAG BREAKDOWN - COMPONENT METHOD 2.9 M lb. Seaplane M = 0.2 Component Body Step V. Tail H. Tail Wing Pontoons Engines Engine Mts. Cdo Protuberances Total Cdo Cdo 0.004150 0.000739 0.000760 0.001250 0.005490 0.000473 0.001500 0.000540 0.014902 X 1.1 0.0163922 M = 0.4 Cdo 0.003840 0.000739 0.000677 0.001150 0.005080 0.000440 0.001300 0.000520 0.013746 X 1.1 0.0151206 M = 0.6 Cdo 0.003820 0.000739 0.000682 0.001080 0.004990 0.000400 0.001200 0.000490 0.013401 X 1.1 0.0147411 M = 0.7 Cdo 0.003540 0.000739 0.000682 0.001080 0.004980 0.000380 0.001200 0.000490 0.013091 X 1.1 0.0144001 M = 0.8 Cdo 0.003510 0.000739 0.000700 0.001080 0.017930 0.000370 0.001200 0.000506 0.026035 X 1.1 0.0286385 M = 0.9 Cdo 0.003460 0.000739 0.000730 0.003840 0.044930 0.000370 0.001200 0.000520 0.055789 X 1.1 0.0613679

Figure 37. Base Case – 2.9 M lb. Seaplane Parasite Drag Breakdown.

61

The maximum rate of climb can be found at the maximum difference between the thrust required and the thrust available curves. performance. The maximum range cruise velocity is found at the tangent point of a line drawn form the origin with the thrust required curve.2. The maximum cruise speed is M=0. The drag and thrust data for sea level are shown in Figure 38.5 Speed. seaplane at sea level is M=0.6. A detailed discussion of the conceptual aircraft sizing spreadsheet is presented in section 2. Performance.2. see [3].746. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at Sea Level For detail of the analysis methods used for speed. 62 . The distance between the two curves is also called excess thrust. The maximum range cruise velocity for the 2. and thrust required versus thrust available at sea level.2. The maximum cruise speed is shown as the intersection between the thrust available and the thrust required performance curves.2.9 M lb. The results from the report were reproduced using our conceptual weight sizing and performance parametric and empirical equations. This data was used to create the performance curves at sea level shown in Figure 39.405.1.

819.0003 0.0042 0.6 669.0617 1.0075 4.0011 0.1639 0.9 M lb.002377 947.815 0.06137 0.80 0.0014 0.0675 8.4 446.0238 138.24 0.663 0.430 0.002377 1199.0991 0.0292 679.01440 0.0165 215.362 0.7 781.0498 0. Base Case – 2.002377 59.1 111.1555 226.0302 64.00 0.5019 0.0153 273.01512 0.9M Lb.84 0.393 Thrust _ Re quired = CDTOTAL ⋅ q ⋅ S CDTOTAL = Cd o + Cd i CL Cd i = (π ⋅ AR ⋅ E ) W CL = (S ⋅ q) 2 Figure 38.0005 0.002377 14. Seaplane drag calculations at sea level.12 0.98 0.0009 0.9 1004.2256 0.DRAG TABLE W/STEP: 2.1255 0. 63 .1391 0.01639 0.64 0.0087 0.56 0.48 0.2519 0.2231 0. W/(S*q) (W/S*q)^2 CL^2/(pi*AR*e) CDo+CDi Cdtot*q*S ft/sec lbm/ft3 lbf/ft2 ft2/lbf 0.002377 725.76 0.79 0.404 0.693 0.4840 2.81 0.0303 0.0269 0.0019 0.2429 816. Seaplane @ Sea Level 2 CL Mach V ρ q 1/q CL CDi CDo CDtot Thrust Req.002377 533.0157 0.0098 0.0169 2.2 223.01725 2.0017 0.25 0.01474 0.0008 0.002377 237.8 893.28 0.02864 0.

872 200.000 Tangent Line 100. Seaplane thrust required. Velocity at Sea level. Seaplane .000 700.40 0.00 0.80 0. velocity and max range velocity for sea level.Thrust Available. thrust available vs.30 0.60 0.9 M lb.000 M=0. 800.70 0.000 Max Range Point with Step 300. Thrust Required (lbs) 500. Thrust Required.000 600.2.10 0. Base Case – 2. 64 .000 0 0.20 0.50 Mach 0.9M lb. and Maximum Range Points vs.000 Thrust Available Thrust Available.90 Figure 39.000 Drag with Step 400.405 T=139.

6.9. which is a graph of the performance curves for the seaplane at 30. The following is a summary of our findings.698.0 M lb. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at 30. M = 0. The distance between the two curves is also called excess thrust.698.2. The maximum cruising speed for the 2.000 ft. Performance. The drag and thrust calculations are shown in Figure 40. 65 .9 M lb. which is the intersection of the thrust required and thrust available curves.000 ft is M=0. seaplane at 30. performance. The cruise L/D for maximum range was found to be 20. and thrust required versus thrust available at 30. .778.6 Speed. see [3].000 ft.000 ft. The rate of climb can be found from the distance between the thrust required and thrust available curves at the maximum range point. For a detailed analysis of the speed. The cruise lift to drag ratio (L/D) point for this study was taken at the maximum range point.2. The maximum range cruise velocity is found from the tangency of a line from the origin and the thrust required curve. seaplane is M=0. The data from the drag and thrust calculations was used to create Figure 41. The maximum range cruise velocity for the 1.

Mach 0.6868 0.9 V ft/sec 198.0008907 0.999 (W/S*q)^2 45.562008 0.0008907 0.5508 0.32 ρ lbm/ft3 0.0249 0.4 0. Seaplane drag calculations for cruise altitude 30.9M Lb. Base Case – 2.303358 0.3332 CL 2 CDi CL^2/(pi*AR*e) 1.84 895.177823 0.0567 0.6 0.2 0.006137 0.0652 Thrust Req.0341 0.0063 0.991 241.0046 0.99 1/q ft2/lbf 0.63 70. Cdtot*q*S 687.92 596.8 0.06137 CDtot CDo+CDi 1.5876 0.0142 0.377 133.0008907 q lbf/ft2 17.36 795.845163 0.7 0.010470 0.01474 0.DRAG TABLE W/STEP: 2.66 215.88 696.798 196.111 131.4217 0.0008907 0. Seaplane @ 30.7497 0.571183 0.1133 0.019397 0.02864 0.0028 CL W/(S*q) 6.0008907 0.000 ft.098199 0.52 158.96 397.01639 0.96 282.000 ft.01440 0.003832 CDo 0. 66 .01512 0.522611 2.111014 Thrust _ Re quired = CDTOTAL ⋅ q ⋅ S CDTOTAL = Cd o + Cd i CL Cd i = (π ⋅ AR ⋅ E ) W CL = (S ⋅ q) 2 Figure 40.0008907 0.060 571.0348 0.7470 1.9 M lb.0035 0.07 356.

90 1. velocity and max range velocity for cruise altitude of 30. Seaplane drag.9 M lb. Thrust Required (lbs) 500.000 ft. and Maximum Range Points vs. 67 .2. 800.70 0.00 0 0.80 0.9M lb.40 0.50 Mach 0.10 0.000 Drag with Step 400.000 700.000 Tangent Line 200. Seaplane .698 T=131.000 ft.000 600. Velocity at an Altitude of 30. thrust available vs.20 0.60 0.000 Thrust Available Thrust Available.000 M=0. Thrust Required.000 100. Base Case – 2.696 0.000 Max Range Point with Step 300.Thrust Available.30 0.00 Figure 41.

430. 2. lbs.5364 a M V=M*a V 994.076 Empty 1. Payload for Aluminum Structure .9 M lb.600./hr/lbs.000 5. The change in weight from the beginning segment to the end segment is found from the calibrated Raymer based weight sizing spreadsheet. Range vs. From the previous section entitled “Speed.912 500.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .Empty weight Useful .923.7 Range versus Payload The range of the 2.9 M lb seaplane is calculated using the Brequet equation: ⎛V ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛W ⎞ Rcr = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ln⎜ i −1 ⎟ .The difference between GTOW and Empty Payload .601 0 Altitude 30.524.000.11 KTS Figure 42. Base Case – 2.6.200 2. ⎟ ⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎜ Wi ⎠ ⎝ Performance.554 22. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .Initial weight for segment W i .6975 693.Range vs.6975) C .842.87 FT/SEC 411. A graphic plot of the results is given in Figure 43.2.783 lbs.493.54 lbs. 411 kts.010 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW .092 250. lbs. 0. The results of the Brequet range equation calculations are shown below in Figure 42.000 ft” the velocity at the maximum range and the lift to drag ratio are known.076 Useful 1. The tabulated results show that the maximum range for the 2. 1.21 2.9M lb. Payload Range Payload 0 1.9 nm.9 M lb.2.Velocity in knots (M=0. 0. The specific fuel consumption is known through performance curves taken from the engine manufacturer. Thrust Required versus Thrust Available at 30.8 FT/SEC 0.246 1.491. lbs.609 nm. W i-1 .Specific Fuel Consumption lbs. Seaplane range vs.Crew and 5% fuel reserve subtracted from the useful load V .800 5% Reserve 71.000 ft C 0. seaplane for a ferry mission is 10.025 0. payload calculations 68 .000 10.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 10. lbs.687 lbs.Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW 2.000 8.000 Crew 1.

Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs.000 600.000 10. payload 8.600.200. Base Case – 2.9M lb Seaplane Aluminum S 400.000 0 0 2. Seaplane range vs.000 200.000 12.000 69 .000 4. Payload for all Aluminum Structure with a Step 1.2.000 2.000 Range (nm) Figure 43.000 1.000 1.000 Payload (lbs) 800.000.400.9 M lb.000 1.9M lb.000 6.

: Raymer.1 Decrease Step Drag Tests of seaplane hull designs have been conducted dating as far back as the 1920’s.705 − 0. 20 in. (see refs. 1999. Best Range and Speed: M = 0.9 ft 2 ⎛ D⎞ 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 0. Some results are shown as follows: Drag of Seaplane Step – Method 1 BFS-1.139 + 0. Daniel P.1 Lower Drag 2.139 + 0.161) ⋅ Abase ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base [ ] SW = 11.362 ft 2 M = 0.1.419(0. U U Ref.2.5 kts.3.9 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0. Third Edition.705 A = 2 ⋅ ( 20 ⋅ 140 ) A = 5600in 2 140 in.161) ⋅ 38..705.9 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0. A = 38 . These results have been studied for the purposes of this report. Inc. f = D q ∆C D = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw f = C Dπ ⋅ Sπ ⎛ D⎞ 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 0. 350 [8]. Reston.3. 140 in.419(M − 0.263] ⋅ 38. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Everything from full-scale flight tests to model tests of various hull designs have been performed. with varying test results. 9.23 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base [ ] 70 .0 M lb.139 + 0.3 BASE CASE IMPROVED 2. pg. Va: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.124] ⋅ 38. and 12).9 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 10. 11. 415.

0009004 As a percentage of drag for the total aircraft. April 1935 [9].014418 ⎠ %C D = 6.362 ft 2 ∆C DStep = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw ∆C DStep 10.24% Drag of Seaplane Step – Method 2 BFS-1. “The Aerodynamic Drag of a Flying-Boat Hull Model as Measured in the NACA 20-Foot Wind Tunnel 1” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA).0009004 ⎞ %C D = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ 100 ⎝ 0.362 ft 2 ∆C DStep = 0. U U ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 10.Drag of Seaplane Step cont.014418 ∆C DStep = 0. U U Ref: Hartman.0 M lb.23 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base f = D q f = C Dπ ⋅ Sπ SW = 11.23 ft 2 = 11. From TN 525 pg.0009004 ⎛ 0.0 M lb. Technical Note 525.21…” Step Area of Full Size Hull Depth of Step – 5% of the Beam U 71 . Edwin P. 7: “Step when expressed as a coefficient based on the area of the step gives a value which does not vary greatly and averages about 0. the step drag is as follows: C D = 0. BFS-1.

000413 ⎞ %C D = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ 100 ⎝ 0.5in.362 ft 2 ∆C Do = C DΠModel ⋅ AΠFull _ Scale Sw ∆C Do = 0.05 ⋅ 230in.36 ft 2 140 in.362 ft 2 As a percentage of drag for the total aircraft.220in. Step _ Area = 11.2 Step _ Area = 22.21) ⋅ (22.5in.Beam ≅ 230in. the step drag is as follows: ⎛ 0.0143 ⎠ %C D = 2.000413 ∆C Do (0. ⋅ 280in. Depth = 0. Depth = 11. 20 in. 140 in. Step _ Area = 3. CDo Step Based on Step Area U UB UB S w = 11.88% 72 .36 ft 2 ) = 11.

U U Ref.000714 ⎞ %C D = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ 100 ⎝ 0.014) ⋅ (580 ft 2 ) 11.362 ft 2 C DStep = 0. S B = AΠBody Relating to Full Scale Wing Area: S w = 11.078 4th Model – With step C Do = 0. Fluid-Dynamic Drag. 1992 pg.078 ∆C Do = 0.: Hoerner. 3rd Model – Retracted step P P P P C Do = 0.Drag of Seaplane Step – Method 3 BFS-1.000714 As a percentage of drag for the total aircraft. 13-9 Fig. Sighard F.092 ∆C Do = 0.362 ft 2 AΠBody = 580 ft 2 C DStep = C DΠ ⋅ AΠ SW C DStep = (0.0143 ⎠ %C D = 5% 73 .0 M lb. 23 [10].014 Based on Hull. the step drag is as follows: ⎛ 0.092 − 0.

Drag of Seaplane Step – Method 4 BFS-1. As a percentage of drag for the total aircraft to the increment drag.24% %C D = 2. Wind-Tunnel Tests of Four FullScale Seaplane Floats.00036704 Drag of Complete Aircraft is 0.” We will investigate the step only at Mach 0. U U Ref.00036704 0. Robert N and Maynard. Comparison with NACA Advance Restricted Report (ARR) No.55% Comparison of Method Results of Step Drag U 1.0009004 Total _ Hull _ Drag = 0.10 ⋅ 0. 3. 2. CDstep. 3615 “Wind Tunnel Testing on Four Full Scale Seaplane Floats” which gives the following: “A step fairing which might conceivably be made retractable reduced the drag of the Edo 68F Float more than 10 percent and a four foot tail extension on the blunt-stern Edo 62-6560 float reduced the drag 8 percent.: Conway.55% C Do = 0.88% %C D = 5 % %C D = 2.000714 %C D = 6.7. Julian D. Raymer Equation NACA TN 525 Hoerner NACA ARR 3G15 C DStep = 0.00036704 74 .0036704 Step 10% of Hull Drag C DStep = 0. ARR 3G15 Langley Field.000413 C DStep = 0.014388 %C D = 2.0036704 Step _ 10% _ of _ Hull _ Drag = 0.00277 Step = 0. 1943 [11]. of the step drag is as follows: B B %C D = 0. July.0009004 C DStep = 0. Body _ drag = 0.014388.0 M lb. 4.

43] In recent talks with NAVAIR engineers in the Mass Properties department.3.2. the following general weight savings from using composites for various structural components are given below: Wing Weight = 10% of Structure Tail Surfaces = 10% Fuselage = 9% 75 .3. or advanced composites such as epoxy-graphite fiber laminates.1 Reduce Overall Weight Weight Savings Through the Use of Composites Weight savings through alternate use of material is a subject of great scope.” [7. have a much higher strength to weight ratio than aluminum. It depends on the type of aircraft. Typical weight savings for various aircraft are listed below in Figure 44: Figure 44. and have proven to be better in salt water than aluminum or graphite epoxy. such as “Aircraft Design a Conceptual Approach” states” The greatest revolution in aircraft structures…. has been the on going adoption of composites materials for primary structure in a typical aircraft part. but it is the writer’s opinion that there is general agreement that composites are superior to aluminum. There are differences of opinion as to the exact magnitude of the weight savings. Typical weight savings using composites for various aircraft. the well know aircraft designer and writer of many text books. In general. composites. the direct substitution of graphite – epoxy composites for aluminum yields a weight saving of 25%. Dan Raymer. etc. the mission for the aircraft.2 2. pg. Epoxy glass fiber composites are stronger and lighter than aluminum.2.

015.There are differences of opinion in providing a concrete value as to the weight savings in using composite materials in place of aluminum. it has been possible to manufacture very large structural components in one seamless piece without rivets.025.2. The author of this paper shows the effect in aircraft performance for a range in weight savings. etc. is an analysis from the book. A Byproduct of Composites There are many examples of the ability to achieve laminar flow through the use of composites. without waves in the skin surfaces.3 Strength of Composites Shown in Figure 45. It is a summary of the ratio of a material weight to the weight of 24S-T aluminum alloy (to withstand the same load).2 Laminar Flow (low drag). that of 15% and 25% 2. where its counterpart in aluminum might have a coefficient of 0. This is a tremendous advantage.2. 2.3. With such surfaces it is possible to manufacture an airplane that has a drag coefficient of 0. Ratio of material weight to aluminum alloy 24S-T weight. giving the aircraft more speed and range. Because of composites. 76 .3. Figure 45. “Aircraft Structures” by Peery [2].

= 0 .100 lb ⎜ in 3 ⎝ lb ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ ⎜ 66. FTUalum . Walum . Wcomp. Walum. = 0. The following calculations compare graphite epoxy composite to aluminum alloy 24S-T in tension. = ⋅ ρ alum .The strength of advanced composites depends on the type of fiber and resin matrix.100 lb ⎜ in 3 ⎝ lb ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ ⎜ 66. ρ comp . Material Properties of Graphite Epoxy and Aluminum 24S-T U U ρ comp . bending.000 lb in 2 lb in 2 Fiber Orientation . FTUalum .200 lb ⎟ ⎜ in 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ Wcomp . The composite types for aircraft are mostly graphite fiber epoxy laminate fabricated under heat and pressure. = ⋅ ρ alum .0° The ratio of graphite epoxy composite weight to aluminum 24S-T weight to carry the same tensile load is illustrated below. Walum. lb ⎛ ⎜ 0.59 Notice that the graphite epoxy composite is weaker than aluminum in shear.056 3 in =⎜ ⎜ 0.000 2 in ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 23. and compression. but composites are designed to orient the fibers along the known load paths.056 3 in =⎜ ⎜ 0.2 Orienting the fibers at 45° to the direction of the applied load. = 1. TENSION – Strength to Weight Relationship of Graphite Epoxy Composite Relative to Aluminum Alloy 24S-T U U Wcomp . 77 . Walum . Walum . FTUcomp .200 lb in 2 Wcomp .100 3 in FTUcomp . ρ comp . testing the shear strength of the graphite epoxy composite is given below.000 lb ⎟ ⎜ in 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ Wcomp .056 ρ alum . lb in 3 lb = 0. Walum . Wcomp. FTUcomp . In the shear direction the ultimate stress is: FTUcomp = 23.000 FTUalum . = 66. lb ⎛ ⎜ 0. ( L ) = 180.000 2 in ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 180.

000 2 in in 0.4 Some US Military Aircraft Using Composites Horizontal and Vertical Stabilizers Horizontal Stabilizer Longeron External Wing Structure Wing Airframe. FTUcomp . ⋅3 ρ comp . Ecomp .2. Wcomp. Walum .100 3 180. Walum . Walum.3.056 Wcomp.000.000 2 3 in ⋅ in = 3 lb lb 0. lb lb 21.500.P P Optimum Fiber Direction In-Plane Shear In-Plane Tension 45° q (shear flow) lb/in BENDING – Strength to Weight Relationship of Graphite Epoxy Composite Relative to Aluminum Alloy 24S-T U U Wcomp . ⋅ ρ comp . = alum . lb lb 66.100 3 10. Ealum . propellers. = ρ alum . Walum.45 2.000 2 in in 0. Walum.000 2 3 in ⋅ in = lb lb 0. and rotors F-15 Eagle F-14 Tomcat B-1B Lancer X-29 AV-8B Harrier V-22 Osprey 78 . Walum . Wcomp.34 COMPRESSION/BUCKLING – Strength to Weight Relationship of Graphite Epoxy Composite Relative to Aluminum Alloy 24S-T U U Wcomp .056 Wcomp . = 0. = 0. ρ FTUalum .

where f is the S equivalent flat plate area and S is the wing area. The total drag.3. a simplified analysis method was performed to obtain the drag. P P B B The item of drag most productive for drag reduction was the step in the bottom of the seaplane hull. seaplane and the resulting equivalent flat plate area f of 60 ft2.3 2.1.2. The step drag was subtracted from the parasite drag portion and the results were plotted along with the base case thrust required curve.1.3 M lb. The equivalent flat plate area is found from Figure 19. The analysis to decrease the step drag was calculated by reference to NACA reports. This value was used in the following formula: CDo = .3 M lb. The parasite drag was estimated using the equivalent flat plate method found in Roskam’s “Airplane Design. Seaplane Improved Drag Reduction Due to the short time frame for the study. Part I” [6].3. The step drag calculation is shown in section 2. The thrust required curves are generated for the base case seaplane configuration with a step. This airplane includes induced drag was calculated as: CD = CDo + π ⋅ e ⋅ AR gave the drag polar.3. It is to be understood that without a step means a retractable step in the retracted position. and from this drag polar the thrust required curve was obtained. of the 2 CL . CD.3. 79 . Overlaid on the figure are the wetted area for the 0.1 0.

3.419(0.53 ft 2 2.2.1 “Decrease Step Drag”.139 + 0. A sample step drag calculation is shown in section 2.53 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠base ⎛D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0.59 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0.1.139 + 0. The following step drag calculations use this method.213]⋅ 16.58 2 A = 2 ⋅ (92 .9 in.1 Step Drag Calculation The item of drag most productive for decreased drag was the step in the bottom of the seaplane hull.3 M lb.58 − 0.3.650 ft 2 ∆C DStep = 0.9) A = 2388in 2 92.419(M − 0.59 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 3.3.139 + 0. Of the four methods looked at the Raymer base drag equation was easiest to apply to the three seaplanes.161) ⋅16.00133 80 .1.58 in.58.59 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠base [ A = 16. 356 kts. 92. 650 ft M = 0. Drag of Seaplane Step – Method 1 BFS-0.53 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 3. ⎛ D⎞ 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 0. U U Best Range and Speed: M = 0.59 ft 2 ] f = D q f = C Dπ ⋅ S π SW = 2.58 ⋅ 12 .650 ft 2 ∆C DStep = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw ∆C DStep = 3.161) ⋅ Abase ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠base [ ] S W = 2 . 12.0736]⋅ 16. f = D q ∆C D = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw f = C Dπ ⋅ S π ⎛ D⎞ 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 0.58 in.

Seaplane total drag. seaplane without a step at cruise altitude for various mach numbers is shown below in Figure 47.3 M lb.0253 0.3.5 0. 81 .4 0. 0.6 0.3 M lb.3 0. seaplane with a step at cruise altitude for various mach numbers is shown below in Figure 46.8 0.0036 0.5431 0.02167 0.023 0.0339 0. Base Case – 0.02167 0.3M Lb.02167 0.0139 0.023 0.0284 0.000 is Mach 0.0251 Figure 46.2 CD with a Fixed Step B B The total drag for the BFS-0.2 0.023 0.1290 0.1073 0.1.0356 0.1303 0.5 0.0067 0. 0.6 0.3 M lb.5661 0.000 ft.02167 0.3.0266 0.3. The cruise velocity without a step at an altitude of 20.000 ft.0036 0. Seaplane total drag.1073 0.3 CD with a Retracted Step B B The total drag for the BFS-0.0021 0.0556 0.4 0.023 0.0369 0. Seaplane @ 20.0297 0.1.023 0.58.2 0.0238 Figure 47. Improved Case – 0. 2.-STEP CDtotal Mach CDi CDo 0.000 is Mach 0.58.0067 0.02167 0.8 0.023 0.3.02167 0.NO STEP CDtotal Mach CDi CDo 0.5431 0. The cruise velocity at an altitude of 20.7 0.02167 0.0021 0.0139 0.0569 0.0339 0.5648 0.2.023 0.3 M lb.7 0.3 0. Seaplane @ 20. .3M Lb.

02167 0.000 ft. see Figure 48 below.023 CDtot CDo+CDi 0.8 V ft/sec ρ lbm/ft3 207.6013 0.0507 DRAG TABLE W/O STEP: 0.23 0.4003 0.4 0.1. The maximum range cruise velocity for the seaplane without as step was M=0.27 0.00126643 725.023 0.0139 0.02167 0.03672096 61.3 M lb.5661 0.023 0.1290 0. increased from M=0.00299763 435.23 0.0036 0.0251 Thrust Req.6029 1.3m Lb.03672096 61.93 0.00126643 622.09 0.00126643 829.38 0.00587535 245.0021 CDo 0.72 0.5431 0. Improved Case – 0.1073 0.0339 0.3323 0.20 0.Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step For the drag calculations for the BFS-0.02167 0.60 0. seaplane with and without a step.83 0.3 0.8113 0. CDtot*q*S 40856 21155 16438 16645 19293 23532 29007 12.0369 0.2252 CL 2 2 (W/(S*q)) CDi 2 CL /(pi*AR*e) 0.45 0.76 0. Mach 0.1073 0.023 0.6013 0. Seaplane thrust required with a fixed step and with a retracted step for cruise altitude of 20.00126643 518. Seaplane @ 20. The L/D ratio for the seaplane without the step at the maximum range point is 14.023 0.634 or 657 knots.60 0.4 0.45 0.0036 0.5 0.1603 0.83 0.0865 0.2941 0.52 0.9007 0.00918024 170.2941 0.9805 2. the same as with the step.00126643 829.3.1603 0.7 0.3 M lb.8 V ft/sec ρ lbm/ft3 207.3 M lb.5641 0.000 ft. To illustrate the effect that the step has on performance is shown in Figure 49.9007 0.6 0.023 0.000 ft.1303 0. 82 .0021 CDo 0.6 0.6029 1.95.00299763 435.93 0.00126643 311.00126643 311.0266 0.0139 0.3.2252 CL 2 2 (W/(S*q)) CDi 2 CL /(pi*AR*e) 0.02167 0.00126643 q lbf/ft2 1/q ft2/lbf 27.5431 0.0284 0.3m Lb.3 0.5641 0.5765 0.8113 0.00587535 245. Mach 0.00126643 725.00126643 414.9805 2.0067 0.023 0.02167 0.00126643 q lbf/ft2 1/q ft2/lbf 27. Seaplane @ 20.5 0.14 0.00408011 333.00126643 414.5765 0. seaplane without a step is M=0.38 0.0297 0.0253 0.5648 0. The maximum cruise speed attainable increased 15 knots by removing the step.72 0. CDtot*q*S 40760 20939 16054 16045 18430 22357 27471 12.00126643 518. which is an increase from the step L/D of 13.02167 0.07 0.01632043 108.7 0. The maximum cruising speed for the 0.07 0.0865 0.2.52 0.59.0569 0.20 0.0556 0.00229506 CL W/(S*q) 3.3323 0.00918024 170.00126643 622.00229506 CL W/(S*q) 3.27 0.76 0.01632043 108.4003 0.619 or 643 knots.0507 Figure 48.0339 0.4 Table .00408011 333.0356 0.2 0. DRAG TABLE: 0.0238 Thrust Req.58.09 0.2 0.0067 0.14 0.02167 CDtot CDo+CDi 0.

00 M=0. Thrust Required (lbf) 30. Improved Case – 0.3.3.802 10.000 15.000 Thrust Available Thrust Available.58 T=17. thrust required max range velocity with a fixed step and with a retracted step for a cruise altitude of 20. 45.000 40.80 1.2. Thrust Required.00 Figure 49.40 Mach 0. Seaplane .3 M lb.000 0 0.5 Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 0.000 M=0.1.000 ft.000 ft. Velocity at an Altitude of 20.000 35.60 0.Thrust Available. 83 . and the Maximum Range Point vs.58 T=18. Seaplane drag.3M lb.610 Drag with Step Drag w/o Step Max Range Point with Step Max Range Point w/o Step Tangent Line 0.20 0.000 5.000 20.000 25.

seaplane with and without the step.3 M lb..3. 189 nm. 84 . if it had a retractable step installed. 6.2. A summary of the range results is given below 0.3 M lb. The results of the Brequet range equation calculations are shown in Figures 50 and 51. U The BFS-0. The range was calculated using the Brequet ⎛V ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛W ⎞ equation: Rcr = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ln⎜ i −1 ⎟ . From the previous section entitled “Chart – ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠ Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” the velocity at the maximum range and the lift to drag ratio were known. Seaplane Range without step: Range with step: Difference U U 6. The change in weight from the beginning segment to the end segment is found from the calibrated Raymer based weight sizing spreadsheet.576 nm.1.3.6 Range Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step The following is a comparison of the range versus payload for the 0. Figure 52 shows this difference graphically. seaplane can extend its range by 189 nm.3 M lb. The specific fuel consumption is known through performance curves taken from the engine manufacturer.765 nm.

SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW 260.812 60.000 5% Reserve 6.Total Specific Fuel Consumption W i-1 . 136.The difference between GTOW and Empty lbf. Base Case – 0.000 2.402 FT/SEC 356. W i . Payload Range Payload 0 131. Payload for Aluminum Structure .Empty weight Useful . lbf.3 M lb.Range vs.000 6.000 4.000 ft.58 601.58) at 20.3M lb.576 0 Altitude 20. Seaplane drag.003 Empty 127. 85 .000 ft C 0.9 FT/SEC 0.95 253. lbf.759 Crew 1.4679 a M V=M*a V 1036.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .468 lbf.32 KTS Figure 50.0307 lbf. Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 6575. max range velocity for cruise altitude of 20. 13. Range vs. C . V .32 kts./hr/lbf. lbf.4277 lbf.Final weight for segment.759 1.274 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW . 0.000 ft. lbf. 0.336 90.244 Useful 132. 0.Initial weight for segment.0.526 30.781 lbf.6 nm. thrust required.971 lbf.Velocity in knots (M=0. 356.

0.3M lb. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE - Range vs. Payload for Aluminum Structure w/o Step Ferry Mission GTOW 260,003 Empty 127,244 Useful 132,759 Crew 1,000 5% Reserve 6,274 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW - Gross Takeoff Weight Empty - Empty weight Useful - The difference between GTOW and Empty

lbf. lbf. lbf. lbf. lbf.

356.32 kts. 0.468 lbf./hr/lbf. 0.0298 lbf. 0.4277 lbf. 14.36 253,971 lbf. 136,781 lbf.

V - Velocity in knots (M=0.58) at 20,000 ft. C - Total Specific Fuel Consumption

W i-1 - Initial weight for segment. W i - Final weight for segment.

Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 6765.3 nm.

Range vs. Payload Range Payload 0 131,759 1,375 90,000 2,893 60,000 4,657 30,000 6,765 0

Altitude

20,000 ft

C

0.4679

a M V=M*a V

1036.9 FT/SEC 0.58 601.402 FT/SEC 356.32 KTS

Figure 51. Improved Case – 0.3 M lb. Seaplane range vs. payload calculations, with a retracted step.

86

0.3M lb. Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs. Payload for all Aluminum Sturcture with and without a Step
140,000

120,000

100,000
0.3M lb. Seaplane Aluminum Structure w/Step 0.3M lb. Seaplane Aluminum Structure w/o Step

Payload (lbs)

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Range (nm) 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

Figure 52. Improved Case – 0.3 M lb. Seaplane comparison of range vs. payload with a fixed step and with a retracted step.

87

2.3.3.2 2.3.3.2.1

Weight Reduction – Aluminum to Composites 0.3 M lb. Seaplane: Range vs. Payload for an All Aluminum and an All Composite Structure

The second performance improvement that was investigated was empty weight reduction through the use of composite materials. The savings were put back into payload to attain the same gross take-off weight (GTOW) as the all aluminum structure seaplane and the two aircraft were compared. For information on the weight saving potential in using composite materials, see Strength of Composites, section 2.3.2.2. Figure 53 shows the calculations for the base aluminum structure seaplane. Figure 54 shows the composite structure with the saved empty weight put toward the useful load. Figure 55 graphically shows the results of the change in structure. The extended range from the all composite structure comes from the ability to translate the empty weight savings into payload, cargo/passengers and fuel. A summary of the results is given below. 0.3 M lb. Seaplane – Range vs. Payload All Composite Structure: Range = 8,138 nm. All Aluminum Structure: Range = 6,576 nm. Difference 1,562 nm.
U U U U

88

lbf.000 4. payload with aluminum structure.Final weight for segment.Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW 260.6 nm.4277 lbf.759 1. Payload for Aluminum Structure . Range vs.Range vs. 89 . C .781 lbf.000 ft. 0.003 Empty 127.000 2.3M lb.58 601. Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 6575.95 253. 0. Payload Range Payload 0 131.000 5% Reserve 6.Velocity in knots (M=0.274 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW . 356.Empty weight Useful . Base Case – 0.526 30.576 0 Altitude 20. V . lbf.The difference between GTOW and Empty lbf. lbf.000 6.402 FT/SEC 356.3 M lb.336 90.Initial weight for segment.32 KTS Figure 53.468 lbf.971 lbf.0307 lbf.32 kts.58) at 20. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .244 Useful 132.000 ft C 0. W i .9 FT/SEC 0.759 Crew 1. 136. lbf.4679 a M V=M*a V 1036. 13. 0.812 60./hr/lbf. Seaplane range vs.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .0.Total Specific Fuel Consumption W i-1 .

/hr/lbf.402 FT/SEC 356.Empty weight Useful . 0. V . lbf. Seaplane range vs.32 KTS Figure 54.468 lbf.Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW 260. 0. lbf.Range vs. lbf.4277 lbf.95 253.000 ft C 0.972 lbf.0. W i .138 0 Altitude 20. C .000 3. 90 . Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 8138.000 8.000 ft.263 90.003 Empty 107.3M lb. payload with composite structure.074 lbf.58) at 20.077 2. 0.3 M lb.883 60.1 nm.9 FT/SEC 0.3 kts.The difference between GTOW and Empty lbf. Range vs. 356.Initial weight for segment.000 5.Total Specific Fuel Consumption W i-1 . 118.000 5% Reserve 7. Payload Range Payload 0 151. Payload for Composite Structure .077 Crew 1.Final weight for segment. lbf. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .0306 lbf.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .Velocity in knots (M=0. 13.926 Useful 152.194 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW .58 601. Improved Case – 0.4679 a M V=M*a V 1036.797 30.

000 6. Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs.3M lb.000 7.000 100.000 5. Seaplane Aluminum Structure 0.000 Payload (lbs) 0.000 8.000 120.000 3.000 4.000 Range (nm) Figure 55.000 2.000 0.000 0 0 1.000 40. 91 . Payload for all Aluminum Structure with Step and an all Composite Structure with Step 140.000 20. Seaplane range vs. Seaplane Composite Structure 80.000 60.3 M lb.3M lb.160. payload for all aluminum and an all composite structure seaplane. Improved Case – 0.3M lb.000 9.

4. pg. The drag breakdown has been calculated for M=0.419(M − 0.362 ft 2 M = 0.7..5 kts.23 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0.3.2.2 to M=0.1 Drag Reduction The baseline BFS-1.3. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach.124] ⋅ 38.9 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 10. seaplane has been analyzed for drag.0 M lb.5 through section 2. Daniel P.2.9 ft 2 140 in. The drag will include a step and a hull without a step (retractable).1.3.161) ⋅ Abase ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base [ ] SW = 11. Best Range and Speed: M = 0.2. 20 in.4 1.139 + 0.5 shows drag tables from M=0. Third Edition. Inc. Seaplane Improved 2. 2.0 M lb.3.5.161) ⋅ 38.705 − 0.4.1.3. The analysis includes the drag breakdown.9 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base 92 .0 M lb. 415.705 A = 2 ⋅ ( 20 ⋅ 140 ) A = 5600in 2 A = 38 .705. 140 in. see section 2. speed. Ref. 350 [8].419(0.9 ft 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base [ ] ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0. Section 2.9 with and without a step. f = D q ∆C D = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw f = C Dπ ⋅ S π ⎛ D⎞ 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 0. Reston.139 + 0.263] ⋅ 38. and range. Va: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.2 to M=0. The seaplane will again be analyzed for the drag reduction by the use of a retractable step. This drag includes the step in the hull. The drag of the step is calculated in section 2.: Raymer. 1999.1 U Step Drag Calculation U Drag of Seaplane Step – Method 1 BFS-1.9 to take into consideration drag rise.4.1. ⎛ D⎞ 2 = 0.1.139 + 0.

00710 0.9 Cdo 0.01540 X 1.00140 0.00015 0.00670 0.00543 0.00320 0.00115 0. Figure 56 below shows the effect of the step on the parasite drag.1.0 M lb.00017 0. Tail H. To reduce the drag a retractable step was used during the cruise segment of the mission.0139594 0.00015 0.00121 0.00019 0.05724 X 1.00290 0.00017 0.00115 0.00017 0.362 ft 2 ∆C DStep = 0.00090 0. Cdo Pertinences Total Cdo Total Cdo w/o Step Cdo 0.00023 0.00115 0. Seaplane parasite drag with a fixed step and with a retracted step 93 .1 0.00143 0.00108 0.4 Cdo 0.03830 0. Seaplane M = 0.01480 M = 0.00120 0.00017 0.00560 0.00131 0.01345 M = 0. Tail Wing Pontoons Engines Engine Mts.1 0.00124 0.8 Cdo 0.23 ft 2 11.3.01269 X 1.0157854 0.23 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base f = D q f = C Dπ ⋅ Sπ SW = 11.2.01435 X 1.00017 0.00090 0.1 0.7 Cdo 0.00020 0.0169404 0.00277 0.2 Component Body Step V. etc.06197 Figure 56.00123 0. DRAG BREAKDOWN .1 0. and the reduction of drag during the cruise segment using the retractable step.01313 X 1.0 M lb.00090 0.0144324 0.⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 10.00015 0.00590 0.0629644 0. seaplane was analyzed in section 2. Improved Case – 1.00115 0.2 Drag Table The base case BFS-1.362 ft 2 ∆C DStep = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw ∆C DStep = 10.00015 0.01312 X 1.00277 0.00730 0.01344 M = 0.00111 0.5 for drag.00090 0.00277 0.00117 0.4.00090 0.00277 0. performance.01595 M = 0.00153 0.1 0.COMPONENT METHOD 1.00114 0.1 0.01297 M = 0.014438 0.0009004 2.0 M lb.00090 0.00530 0.6 Cdo 0.

705.0 M lb.8769 0.000 is Mach 0.000 is Mach 0.01595 0. 94 .01345 0.01938 0.0021 0.8 0. seaplane without a step at cruise altitude for various mach numbers is shown below in Figure 58 The cruise velocity without a step at an altitude of 30.9 0. Base Case – 1.0 M lb.0108 0.89167 0.01929 0.8769 0.4.3 CD with a Fixed Step B B The total drag for the BFS-1.9 0.8 0.02028 0.0548 0.0 M lb.000 ft.4.0034 0.06825 0.02479 0.06296 0.0M Lb.2.0M Lb.02379 0. The cruise velocity at an altitude of 30.01297 0.000 ft.6 0.06924 0.01694 0. seaplane with a step at cruise altitude for various mach numbers is shown below in 57.-STEP CDtotal Mach CDi CDo 0.02037 0.4 0.06411 Figure 58. Improved Case – 1.705 1.0058 0.01480 0.0 M lb. 1. Seaplane @ 30.4 0.0548 0.01396 0.0108 0.01444 0.3.01579 0.3.06197 0.6 0.89266 0. 2. Seaplane total drag.0034 0. Seaplane @ 30.01344 0.06510 Figure 57.1.1.7 0.2 0.-NO STEP CDtotal Mach CDi CDo 0.01443 0.7 0.4 CD with a Retracted Step B B The total drag for the BFS-1. Seaplane total drag.0021 0.0058 0.2 0.

seaplane with and without a step.0046 0.0880 0.0142 1.000891 282.5273 0.8 795.0 M lb.01444 0.2.0142 1.000891 70.0248 44.84 0.066 DRAG TABLE W/O STEP: 1. The maximum range cruise velocity for the seaplane without as step was M=0.3.000891 158.01595 0.0641 260.01345 0. Seaplane thrust required with a fixed step and with a retracted step at a cruise altitude of 30.5273 0.0651 264.96 0.478 0.0M Lb.63 0.7 696.821 or 817 knots.0108 0.92 0.0567 4.99 0.7458 22.0034 0.000 ft.0548 0.0021 0.01344 0.8 795. seaplane without a step is M=0. Figure 60 illustrates this effect graphically. Seaplane @ 30. Improved Case – 1. DRAG TABLE W/STEP: 1.8769 0.0 M lb. 95 .0058 0.5227 0.0567 4.000891 356.824 or 820 knots.36 0.4.01443 0.0046 0.000891 17.321 0.01579 0.84 0.9 895.0692 55.5227 0.96 0. Seaplane @ 30.000891 158.0M Lb.5 Table – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step For the drag calculations for the BFS-1.8917 178.269 0.2344 0.07 0.01396 0.681 0.0683 54.0548 0.2966 0.0108 0.0 M lb. Mach V ρ q 1/q CL CL2 CDi CDo CDtot Thrust Req.99 to 19.7 696. increased from M=0.2781 0.1.96 0.705. ft/sec lbm/ft3 lbf/ft2 ft2/lbf W/(S*q) (W/(S*q))2 CL2/(pi*AR*e) CDo+CDi Cdtot*q*S 0.0035 0.99 0. Thus.1865 1.01297 0.63 0.0028 0.605 0.751 0.9 895.52 0.0549 0.32 0.0238 42.0193 47.0063 0.4077 0.2344 0.6 596.4 397.1865 1.803 0.07 0.0063 0.36 0.000891 356.32 0.0204 65.0058 0.8927 178.6 596.895 0.3874 0.88 0.2 198.000891 215.1501 0.0880 0.685 0.1501 0.88 0.7458 22. The L/D ratio for the seaplane increases from 18.06197 0.0203 49.92 0.000891 17. see Figure 59 below.2781 0.0194 62.000891 282. Mach V ρ q 1/q CL CL2 CDi CDo CDtot Thrust Req.049 Figure 59.06296 0.01480 0.66 0.0549 0. ft/sec slug/ft3 lbf/ft2 ft2/lbf W/(S*q) (W/(S*q))2 CL2/(pi*AR*e) CDo+CDi Cdtot*q*S 0.4 397.0028 0.66 0.3874 0.095 0.0021 0. The maximum cruising speed for the 1.52 0. the same as with the step.2966 0.0035 0.000891 215.000891 70. the maximum cruise speed attainable increased 3 knots by removing the step.2 198.01694 0.4077 0.97.96 0.000 ft.0034 0.000 ft.8769 0.

Seaplane thrust available.000 Drag w/o Step 100.00 M=0.80 0.10 0.90 1.Thrust Available.000 20.50 Mach 0. Thrust Required versus Velocity and Maximum Range Velocity at an Altitude of 30.1.30 0.000 60.000 140.058 Max Range Point w/o Step Tangent Line 0. thrust required vs.2. Thrust Required (lbs) 120.000 Thrust Available Drag with Step Thrust Available. 200. velocity and max range velocity for cruise altitude of 30.70 0.000 160. 96 .20 0.60 0.6 Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 1.000 80.000 180. Improved Case – 1.000 40.705 T=47.0 M lb.000 ft. Seaplane .4.3.000 0 0.705 T=50.00 Figure 60.000 ft.40 0.0M lb.594 Max Range Point with Step M=0.

8. 97 . 463 nm. Figure 63 shows this difference graphically. the BFS-1.936 nm. From the previous section entitled “Chart – ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠ Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” the velocity at the maximum range and the lift to drag ratio are known.2. Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step The following is a comparison of the range versus payload for the BFS-1. U Thus. Seaplane Range without step: Range with step: Difference U U 9.399 nm. seaplane could extend its range by 463 nm.0 M lb. if it had a retractable step installed. The range was calculated using the Brequet ⎛V ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛W ⎞ equation: Rcr = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ln⎜ i −1 ⎟ .1. seaplane with and without the step. The results of the Brequet range equation calculations are shown in Figures 61 and 62.3. The specific fuel consumption is known through performance curves taken from the engine manufacturer.0 M lb.0 M lb.4. The change in weight from the beginning segment to the end segment is found from the calibrated Raymer-based weight sizing spreadsheet. A summary of the range results is given below 1.7 Range vs.

Initial weight for segment (ignoring Climb&Accl. Payload for Aluminum Structure .539 lbs. W i-1 . lbs. 0. Definitions Ferry Mission .705) C .936 0 Altitude 30.705 701. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE . lbs.418 6. loiter at sealevel for 30 minutes at optimum speed.Start.5388 a M V=M*a V 994.) W i . Range vs./hr/lbs.432 480.Velocity in knots (M=0.0201 0. 0.000 3.800 22.Empty weight Useful .8 FT/SEC 0.168 1.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 8. payload calculations. GTOW .53 KTS Figure 61. cruise at best range cruise speed.Range vs.Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW Empty Useful Crew 5% Reserve V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi 950. lbs.3825 19.0M lb.600 470.000 8.779 lbs.652 225.000 ft C 0.The difference between GTOW and Empty V .0 M lb. 98 . and land without any fuel penalty.226 lbs.2 nm.351 100.368 1. climb.936. Payload Range Payload 0 478.725 lbs.01 925. Base Case – 1. lbs.53 kts. 503.220 360.1.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .Total Specific Fuel Consumption 415. Seaplane range vs.334 FT/SEC 415.

000 ft C 0./hr/lbs.The difference between GTOW and Empty V .398.5388 a M V=M*a V 994. 0. loiter at sealevel for 30 minutes at optimum speed.00 925.283 360.779 lbs.3825 20. 0.Total Specific Fuel Consumption 415.539 lbs.53 kts. Range vs.53 KTS Figure 62.680 100.Start.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 9.705 701.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty . Seaplane range vs.800 22. lbs.418 6. with a retracted step 99 . 503.334 FT/SEC 415.168 1. climb.368 1. cruise at best range cruise speed. Payload for Aluminum Structure w/o Step Ferry Mission GTOW Empty Useful Crew 5% Reserve V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi 950. lbs. and land without any fuel penalty. payload calculations. lbs.725 lbs. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .0191 0.1. Definitions Ferry Mission . lbs.Initial weight for segment (ignoring Climb&Accl.0M lb. Improved Case – 1. GTOW .Range vs.0 M lb. W i-1 .841 225. Payload Range Payload 0 478.) W i .000 3.705) C .Velocity in knots (M=0.8 FT/SEC 0.Empty weight Useful .399 0 Altitude 30.8 nm.000 9.226 lbs.432 480.600 470.

000 500.0M lb.Aluminum Structure w/Step 1. Improved Case – 1.0M lb. Seaplane range vs.000 6.000 1.000 8.000 0 0 2.000 4.0M lb Seaplane Aluminum Structure w/o Step 200. Seaplane . payload with a fixed step and with a retracted step 100 .000 Payload (lbf) 300.000 100.000 Range (nm) Figure 63.000 400.000 10. Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs.0 M lb. Payload for all Aluminum Structure with and without a Step 600.1.

For information on the weight saving potential in using composite materials. Seaplane – Range vs.431 nm.2. Difference 2. Figure 64 shows the calculations for the base aluminum structure seaplane.2. Figure 65 shows the composite structure with the saved empty weight put toward the useful load.936 nm. Figure 66 shows the results of the change in structure graphically. The extended range from the all composite structure comes from the ability to translate the empty weight savings into payload. 1. The savings were put back into payload to attain the same gross take-off weight (GTOW) as the all aluminum structure seaplane. Payload All Composite Structure: Range = 11.4.3. see Strength of Composites.2 Weight Reduction – Aluminum to Composites The second improvement that was investigated was the use of composite materials would save the seaplane structural weight. A summary of the results is given below. U U U U 101 . All Aluminum Structure: Range = 8. section 2.0 M lb.2.495 nm.3. cargo/passengers and fuel.

Payload for Aluminum Structure .418 6. lbs. payload for all aluminum structure 102 . Definitions Ferry Mission . lbs. Seaplane range vs. and land without any fuel penalty.652 225.Velocity in knots (M=0. GTOW .000 8. Payload for an all Aluminum and an all Composite Structure 1.5388 a M V=M*a V 994. Base Case – 1.600 470.0M lb.705) C .0 M lb.2.936.1 1.Start.Range vs. lbs.368 1.800 22.Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW Empty Useful Crew 5% Reserve V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi 950.432 480.Empty weight Useful . 0.000 3.334 FT/SEC 415.0 M lb.725 lbs.168 1.53 KTS Figure 64.Initial weight for segment (ignoring Climb&Accl. cruise at best range cruise speed.3. Range vs.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 8.4. climb. lbs.2 nm.53 kts.Total Specific Fuel Consumption 415.779 lbs. Payload Range Payload 0 478.0201 0.539 lbs.01 925.) W i .351 100. Seaplane: Range vs. 0.The difference between GTOW and Empty V .Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .000 ft C 0.226 lbs.705 701.8 FT/SEC 0. 503.220 360./hr/lbs. W i-1 . SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .2. loiter at sealevel for 30 minutes at optimum speed.936 0 Altitude 30.3825 19.

53 KTS Figure 65. climb.Range vs.5388 a M V=M*a V 994. Payload Range Payload 0 559.3825 19.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 11. lbs. Seaplane range vs.705) C .0201 0. GTOW .600 389.Start.0M lb./hr/lbs.701 2.334 FT/SEC 415.1. lbs. 0.Total Specific Fuel Consumption W i-1 . Improved Case – 1.The difference between GTOW and Empty V .418 8.412 100.000 11.481 lbs. lbs. 415.000 ft C 0.539 lbs.345 225. Range vs.431.Initial weight for segment (ignoring Climb&Accl.0 nm.705 701.641 360. loiter at sealevel for 30 minutes at optimum speed. payload for all composite structure 103 . 424.5 kts. and land without any fuel penalty.800 26. 0. cruise at best range cruise speed.01 925.501 1.0 M lb.000 5.) W i .431 0 Altitude 30.099 561. lbs.Empty weight Useful .725 lbs. Payload for Composite Structure w/Step Ferry Mission GTOW Empty Useful Crew 5% Reserve V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi 950. Definitions Ferry Mission .Velocity in knots (M=0. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .652 lbs.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .8 FT/SEC 0.

104 .000 4.000 6.000 14.0M lb Seaplane Composite Structure w/Step 200. Seaplane range vs.000 100.000 10.000 400.0M lb Seaplane Aluminum Structure w/Step 1. payload for an all aluminum and all composite structure seaplane.000 0 0 2.000 Range (nm) Figure 66.000 Payload (lbs) 300.0M lb. Improved Case – 1.000 1.600.0 M lb.000 1.000 12. Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs. Payload for all Aluminum Structure with a Step and an all Composite Structure with a Step 500.000 8.

2 to M=0.3.2 to M=0.5.5 2. Seaplane Improved Drag Reduction The base case BFS-2.61 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base [ ] 105 . Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. 1999. 350 [8].3. Ref.2.5 shows drag tables from M=0.61 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0.9 to take into consideration drag rise.61 ft 2 190 in. The drag will include a step and a hull without a step (retractable). Daniel P.2. The analysis includes the drag breakdown.139 + 0. 26 in.7.161) ⋅ Abase ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base S W = 24. Section 2.1. The drag of the step is calculated in section 2.1 2. and range. Inc.9 M lb.6 through section 2.1.3. seaplane has been analyzed for drag.135 ft 2 M = 0.1. Reston.5.698 − 0.61 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 17.5. Best Range and Speed: M = 0.139 + 0.9 with and without a step. 2.698. f = D q ∆C D = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw f = C Dπ ⋅ Sπ ⎛ D⎞ 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 0. speed.419(M − 0.1 U Step Drag Calculation U Drag of Seaplane Step – Method 1 BFS-2.3.2. The seaplane will again be analyzed for the drag reduction by the use of a retractable step. ⎛ D⎞ 2 Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 0.698 [ ] A = 2 ⋅ ( 26 ⋅ 190 ) A = 9880in 2 A = 68 . 694 kts.9 M lb. see section 2.6. pg. Va: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.1. Third Edition.9 M lb.121] ⋅ 68.139 + 0.84 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base ⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = [0. 190 in.260] ⋅ 68.161) ⋅ 68. The drag breakdown has been calculated for M=0..419(0.: Raymer.3. This drag includes the sep in the hull.

005080 0.000739 0.1.000473 0.001200 0.000370 0.000520 0.2 Drag Table The base case BFS-2.013401 X 1.014902 X 1. Seaplane M = 0. and the reduction of drag during the cruise segment using the retractable step.0151206 0. Tail Wing Pontoons Engines Engine Mts.8 Cdo 0.001200 0.1 0.060555 Figure 67. Seaplane parasite drag with a fixed step and with a retracted step. Figure 67 below shows the effect of the step on the parasite drag.9 M lb.013746 X 1.000520 0.044930 0.1 0. etc.001200 0. DRAG BREAKDOWN .2.0144001 0.000700 0.000440 0.001080 0.017930 0.000490 0.000739 0.013091 X 1.000739 0.0163922 0.000739 0.003460 0. seaplane was analyzed in section 2.000739 0.003510 0.4 Cdo 0.0155793 M = 0.003540 0.9 M lb.000540 0.001250 0.2 Component Body Step V.1 0.9 Cdo 0.000370 0.1 0.135 ft 2 ∆C DStep = C Dπ ⋅ S π Sw ∆C DStep = 17.⎛ D⎞ Subsonic⎜ ⎟ = 17.000730 0.000739 0.000760 0.000682 0. Cdo Pertinences Total Cdo Total Cdo w/o Step Cdo 0.1 0.000677 0.0613679 0.3.84 ft 2 ⎜q⎟ ⎝ ⎠ base f = D q f = C Dπ ⋅ Sπ S W = 24. 106 . Improved Case – 2.COMPONENT METHOD 2.0143077 M = 0.004980 0.003820 0.003840 0.7 Cdo 0.001300 0.001080 0.9 M lb.5.0278256 M = 0.0135872 M = 0.0147411 0. Tail H.135 ft 2 ∆C DStep = 0.6 for drag.000739 2.000682 0.001200 0.001080 0.026035 X 1.004990 0.055789 X 1.1 0.001150 0.84 ft 2 24.000400 0.0286385 0.000380 0.005490 0. performance.0139282 M = 0.004150 0.003840 0. To reduce the drag a retractable step was used during the cruise segment of the mission.000506 0.6 Cdo 0.001500 0.000490 0.

58758 0.02864 0.03396 0.03478 0.0038 0.01558 0.0061 0.-STEP CDtotal Mach CDi CDo 0.9 1.01639 0.01474 0.01440 0.06056 1.2.0105 0.5712 0.03333 0.000 is Mach 0.5712 0. seaplane without a step at cruise altitude for various mach numbers is shown below in Figure 69 The cruise velocity without a step at an altitude of 30.698.3.02406 0.06439 Figure 69.3.0194 0. 2.7 0.0194 0.6 0.4 0.000 ft.58676 0.3 CD with a Fixed Step B B The total drag for the BFS-2.9M Lb.03414 0. Base Case – 2. Seaplane total drag.02783 0.11251 0.5.8 0.7 0.6 0.1.8 0.9 M lb.06137 1.1.000 is Mach 0.01512 0.5.9M Lb.01431 0. 2.4 0.0105 0.9 1.2 0. 107 . Seaplane @ 30.2 0.0061 0.4 CD with a Retracted Step B B The total drag for the BFS-2.0038 0. seaplane with a step at cruise altitude for various mach numbers is shown below in Figure 68.-NO STEP CDtotal Mach CDi CDo 0.02487 0.01359 0.11332 0.06520 Figure 68. The cruise velocity at an altitude of 30.9 M lb. Seaplane @ 30. Seaplane total drag.0982 0.698.01393 0.000 ft. 2. Improved Case – 2.0982 0.9 M lb.9 M lb.

0035 0.677 235.111014 Figure 70.778 or 774 knots.006137 0. The maximum range cruise velocity for the seaplane without as step was M=0. Cdtot*q*S 687.6868 0.99 1/q ft2/lbf 0.0142 0.52 158.303358 0.000 ft. DRAG TABLE W/STEP: 2.5508 0.9M Lb.0063 0. Seaplane @ 30. 108 .0008907 0.52 158.0008907 0.88 696.06056 CDtot CDo+CDi 1.845163 0.999 (W/S*q)^2 45. the maximum cruising speed attainable increased 4 knots with the removal of the step.0644 Thrust Req.92 596.7 0.36 795.2.446 194.9 V ft/sec 198.6 0.3332 CL 2 CDi CL^2/(pi*AR*e) 1.0063 0.08.0008907 0.0028 CL W/(S*q) 6.868 (W/S*q)^2 45. the same as with the step.4217 0.177823 0.969 129.0008907 0. Figure 71 illustrates this effect graphically.5868 0.3332 CL 2 CDi CL^2/(pi*AR*e) 1. The L/D ratio for the seaplane increases from 22.782 or 778 knots.6868 0.111 131.098199 0.32 ρ lbm/ft3 0.07 356.019397 0.9M Lb.2 0.9 V ft/sec 198.4217 0.84 895.4 0.99 1/q ft2/lbf 0. seaplane without a step is M=0.7 0.425 564.63 70. seaplane with and without a step.02783 0.5.0142 0.0035 0.0008907 0.96 397.01558 0.1125 0.1.562008 0.1133 0.0241 0.562008 0.0249 0. The maximum cruising speed for the 2.32 ρ lbm/ft3 0.0028 CL W/(S*q) 6. Improved Case – 2. Thus.571183 0.7470 1.07 356.0341 0.019397 0.003832 CDo 0.303358 0.0340 0.7497 0.0008907 q lbf/ft2 17.060 571.0008907 0.01440 0.01393 0.5876 0.9 M lb. Mach 0.32 to 23.177823 0.845163 0.010470 0.2 0.5 Table – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step For the drag calculations for the BFS-2.6 0.66 215.66 215.941 127. see Figure 70 below.88 696.522611 2.4 0.9 M lb.010470 0.0008907 q lbf/ft2 17.003832 CDo 0.377 133.5508 0.991 241.96 282.3.111014 DRAG TABLE W/O STEP: 2.000 ft.0008907 0.96 282. Seaplane @ 30.098199 0.698. Cdtot*q*S 687.01474 0. Mach 0.0008907 0.0008907 0.0348 0.0046 0.571183 0.798 196.8 0. which increased from M=0.01359 0.7497 0.02864 0.522611 2.0567 0.0333 0.36 795.84 895.96 397.9 M lb.0008907 0.63 70.0046 0.0567 0.01431 0.92 596.01512 0.06137 CDtot CDo+CDi 1. Seaplane thrust required with a fixed step and with a retracted step at a cruise altitude of 30.01639 0.006137 0.000 ft.7470 1.0652 Thrust Req.8 0.

000 Drag .Thrust Available.60 0.20 0.000 Thrust Available Thrust Available. 109 .3.000 600.80 0. thrust available vs.Base Case Max Range Point w/o Step 300.000 0 0.10 0.696 M=0.000 M=0. velocity and max range velocity with a fixed step and with a retracted step.50 Mach 0.70 0.1.000 200.00 Tangent Line 100.00 Figure 71.Base Case Drag w/o Step 400.698 T=127.698 T=131.000 ft. Thrust Required (lbs) 500. Seaplane thrust required.40 0. Improved Case – 2.90 1. Seaplane . 800.9M lb.2.000 Max Range Velocity .5.000 700.30 0.413 0.6 Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step 2.9 M lb. Thrust Required versus Velocity and Maximum Range Velocity at an Altitude of 30.

Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step The following is a comparison of the range versus payload for the 2. Seaplane Range without step: Range with step: Difference U U 11. The change in weight from the beginning segment to the end segment is found from the calibrated Raymer-based weight sizing spreadsheet.3.2. 2. if it had a retractable step installed. 110 .9 M lb. the BFS-2. The results of the Brequet range equation calculations are shown in Figures 72 and 73.018 nm.1. seaplane with and without the step.5. A summary of the range results is given below. U Thus. The range was calculated using the Brequet ⎛V ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛W ⎞ equation: Rcr = ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ln⎜ i −1 ⎟ .7 Range vs. seaplane could extend its range by 417 nm. Figure 74 shows this difference graphically.601 nm. The specific fuel consumption is known through performance curves taken from the engine manufacturer. 417 nm.9 M lb. From the previous section entitled “Chart – ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠ Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” the velocity at the maximum range and the lift to drag ratio are known.9 M lb. 10.

2.9M lb. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE - Range vs. Payload for Aluminum Structure - Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW 2,923,076 Empty 1,430,076 Useful 1,493,000 Crew 1,800 5% Reserve 71,010 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW - Gross Takeoff Weight Empty - Empty weight Useful - The difference between GTOW and Empty Payload - Crew and 5% fuel reserve subtracted from the useful load V - Velocity in knots (M=0.6975) C - Specific Fuel Consumption

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

411 kts. 0.54 lbs./hr/lbs. 0.025 0.554 22.21 2,842,687 lbs. 1,524,783 lbs.

W i-1 - Initial weight for segment W i - Final weight for segment

Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 10,600.9 nm.

Range vs. Payload Range Payload 0 1,491,200 2,246 1,000,000 5,912 500,000 8,092 250,000 10,601 0

Altitude

30,000 ft

C

0.5364

a M V=M*a V

994.8 FT/SEC 0.6975 693.87 FT/SEC 411.11 KTS

Figure 72. Base Case – 2.9 M lb. Seaplane range vs. payload.

111

2.9M lb. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE - Range vs. Payload for Aluminum Structure w/oStep Ferry Mission GTOW 2,923,076 Empty 1,430,076 Useful 1,493,000 Crew 1,800 5% Reserve 71,010 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW - Gross Takeoff Weight Empty - Empty weight Useful - The difference between GTOW and Empty Payload - Crew and 5% fuel reserve subtracted from the useful load V - Velocity in knots (M=0.6975) C - Specific Fuel Consumption

lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

411 kts. 0.54 lbf./hr/lbf. 0.024 0.554 23.080 2,842,687 lbs. 1,524,783 lbs.

W i-1 - Initial weight for segment W i - Final weight for segment

Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 11,018.5 nm.

Range vs. Payload Range Payload 0 1,491,200 2,334 1,000,000 6,145 500,000 8,411 250,000 11,018 0

Altitude

30,000 ft

C

0.5364

a M V=M*a V

994.8 FT/SEC 0.6975 693.87 FT/SEC 411.11 KTS

Figure 73. Improved Case – 2.9 M lb. Seaplane range vs. payload, with a retracted step.

112

2.9M lb. Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs. Payload for all Aluminum Structure with a Step and without a Step
1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000
2.9M lb Seaplane - Aluminum Structure w/Step

1,000,000 Payload (lbs)

800,000
2.9M lb Seaplane - Aluminum Structure w/o Step

600,000

400,000

200,000

0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Range (nm) 8,000 10,000 12,000

Figure 74. Improved Case – 2.9 M lb. Seaplane range vs. payload with a fixed step and with a retracted step.

113

Difference 3.2. Figure 75 shows the calculations for the base aluminum structure seaplane. U U U U 114 .2.2. cargo/passengers and fuel.3.9 M lb.897 nm.5. Figure 77 shows the results of the change in structure graphically.2 2. section 2.296 nm. The extended range from the all composite structure comes from the ability to translate the empty weight savings into payload. see Strength of Composites. Seaplane – Range vs. For information on the weight saving potential in using composite materials.9 M lb.5.601 nm.3. The savings were put back into payload to attain the same gross take-off weight (GTOW) as the all aluminum structure seaplane. A summary of the results is given below. Payload for an all Aluminum and an all Composite Structure The second improvement that was investigated was the use of composite materials to reduce the seaplane structural weight. Seaplane: Range vs. Payload All Composite Structure: Range = 13.1 Weight Reduction – Aluminum to Composites 2. Figure 76 shows the composite structure with the saved empty weight put toward the useful load. All Aluminum Structure: Range = 10.2. 2.3.

87 FT/SEC 411.554 22. 411 kts.Initial weight for segment W i .524.Specific Fuel Consumption lbs.000.9 nm.600.54 lbs.601 0 Altitude 30. lbs. lbs.842. lbs.9 M lb. Payload for Aluminum Structure .000 ft C 0.6975 693.493.783 lbs.Crew and 5% fuel reserve subtracted from the useful load V .000 Crew 1. Base Case – 2. Payload Range Payload 0 1.687 lbs. 1. payload calculations with aluminum structure.2.000 5.092 250.076 Useful 1.Base Case Ferry Mission GTOW 2. lbs.923.Range vs.491.11 KTS Figure 75.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .076 Empty 1.6975) C . Seaplane range vs.8 FT/SEC 0. W i-1 .430.Velocity in knots (M=0. 0. 0./hr/lbs.Empty weight Useful . Range vs.5364 a M V=M*a V 994.010 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW .246 1.912 500. 115 .9M lb. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .000 10.000 8.200 2.21 2.The difference between GTOW and Empty Payload .800 5% Reserve 71.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 10.025 0.

87 FT/SEC 411. lbs.770.5364 a M V=M*a V 994.353 500.152.Crew and 5% fuel reserve subtracted from the useful load W i-1 .896 250.Final weight for segment Brequet Range Equation Rcr = (V/C)*(L/D)*ln(W i-1/W i) Rcr = 13.800 5% Reserve 84.5543 22. Seaplane range vs. Pay.54 lbf.072 4.2. 411 kts.The difference between GTOW and Empty lbs.842.9M lb.242 V C CD CL L/D W i-1 Wi Definitions GTOW .872 Crew 1.769. lbs./hr/lbf.Range vs. payload calculations with composite structure.3 nm.Gross Takeoff Weight Empty .Velocity in knots (M=0.923.) W i .Initial weight for segment (ignoring Climb&Accl. lbs.6975 693.000 10.693) C . SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .897. 116 .287 lbs. 1. 0.Empty weight Useful . Improved Case – 2.687 lbs. 0. w/Composite Struct.11 KTS Figure 76. lbs.0250 0. Range vs.000 8.21 2.8 FT/SEC 0.000. Range Payload 0 1.204 Useful 1.256. V .Specific Fuel Consumption Payload .185 1.000 13.897 0 Altitude 30.076 Empty 1. Payload for Composite Structure w/Step Ferry Mission GTOW 2.000 ft C 0.9 M lb.

Payload for an all Aluminum Structure with a Step and an all Composite Structure with a Step 2.000 400.9 M lb.Aluminum Structure w/Step 2.400.000 14.000.9M lb. Seaplane range vs.2.000 8. payload for an all aluminum and all composite structure. Improved Case – 2.000 4.9M lb Seaplane .000 6.000 200.000 1.000 2.000 12.800.000 Payload (lbs) 1.600.9 M lb Seaplane .000.000 0 0 2.000 800.000 1.000 Range (nm) 10. 117 . Seaplane Parametric Curve Range vs.Composite Structure w/Step Figure 77.000 600.000 16.200.000 1.000 1.

EFFECTS ON GROSS TAKE-OFF WEIGHT Up to this point. As expected.2. seaplane. SEAPLANE: RANGE VS. This trade study was done for the all aluminum structure seaplane and the all composite structure seaplane. The second study investigated the effect of design payload on gross take-off weight if the base designed range was fixed. 3.2. the GTOW decreases. with the basic data contained in this report for a fairly fixed design.87 lbs.000 lb./nm. This study used a constant payload of 360.0 TRADE STUDIES – 1.3. added to the gross take-off weight for each additional nautical mile that is traveled beyond the base range. The trade study is important for military planners and other customers who may not be satisfied with a specific range proposed and would want to see what would happen to the design if a larger range or payload was specified. and when the range is increased from the base range of 1. This ratio shows that approximately 63 lbs.0 M LB. a trade study can be performed. 118 .0 M lb.60 lbs.1 for details. SEAPLANE. The trade studies were performed using the aircraft sizing spreadsheet. A graphical view of the results is given in Figure 80. The average change in gross take-off weight per nautical mile for the composite structure seaplane is 62. seaplane. see section 2. GTOW The effect on gross take-off weight when increasing or decreasing the range was studied first using the BFS-1.0 M LB. The first study investigated the effect of range variation on gross take-off weight (GTOW) with the base design payload held constant. The average change in gross take-off weight per nautical mile from the base case is 67.222 nm.0 M lb. However./nm. 1. the GTOW increases. two trade studies were performed.1 TRADE STUDY 1. This equates to approximately 68 lbs. A summary of the results is given in Figures 78 and 79. must be added to the gross take-off weight for each additional nautical mile traveled beyond the base range. when the range is decreased from the base range of 1. Using the calibrated base case for the 1. the three basic seaplanes have been discussed along with how the various improvements affect each seaplane’s performance.222 nm.

3.226 lbs.0M lb. unuseable fuel. 5. 1.783 Figure 78. GTOW 119 . survival equipment for the air crew. 903. and pallet nets.Aluminum Structure Designed Seaplane GTOW 950.293.0 M lb Seaplane with an all aluminum structure range vs. 1.214.000 1. cargo.000 lbs Range 1. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .140 lbs.783 lbs. which will alter the gross takeoff weight (GTOW). tiedown devices.220 nm Case 1 GTOW Range Case 2 GTOW Range Case 3 GTOW Range Case 4 GTOW Range Case 5 GTOW Range Case 5 GTOW Range Comments All cases have the same payload weight of 360.002.214.922 lbs. 500 nm 1.000 1.233 lbs. restraint gates.226 1.Range vs. 2.684 lbs.000 nm 1.1.002. 6. GTOW for Base Case .000 nm Payload includes passengers. 936.220 950.000 nm Aluminum Structure RANGE VS.140 5.600 lbs. Payload 360.000 1.000 nm 1.000 lbs.000 nm The results of the GTOW growth and shrink are shown on the chart.000 936.600 2.070. Each case transports the payload at a different range.684 1. GTOW SUMMARY Range (nm) GTOW (lbs) 500 903.922 6. pallets. oil.293.233 3.070. 1.000 1.

0 M lb Seaplane with an all composite structure range vs.520 lbs.000 nm 1. Payload 360.220 862. 6.413 lbs.176.587 lbs.413 3. and pallet nets.220 nm Case 1 GTOW Range Case 2 GTOW Range Case 3 GTOW Range Case 4 GTOW Range Case 5 GTOW Range Case 5 GTOW Range Comments All cases have the same payload weight of 360.000 nm The results of the GTOW growth and shrink are shown on the chart. Each case transports the payload at a different range.587 Figure 79. 1.786 lbs. cargo.000 973.662 6.000 nm 1.000 1. 500 nm 910.449 lbs. 2. 848.037 lbs. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .000 lbs. oil.176.000 848. tiedown devices.000 910.103.000 lbs.786 1. 3. which will alter the gross takeoff weight (GTOW). survival equipment for the air crew. GTOW SUMMARY Range (nm) GTOW (lbs) 500 817. 5. unuseable fuel. Range 1.449 5.000 nm Composite Structure RANGE VS. GTOW 120 . GTOW for Composite Structure Designed Seaplane GTOW 862.520 1.000 nm Payload includes passengers.103.0M lb. pallets.662 lbs. 817. 973.1.037 2.000 1.Range vs. 1. restraint gates.

000 400.000 3. Seaplane with an all aluminum and all composite structure: Range vs.000 2.000 4.000 1.000 5.200. GTOW 121 .0 M lb. GTOW for a 360.000 0 0 1.000 Range (nm) Figure 80.400. Payload 1.000 7. 1.0M lbs Composite Structure Baseline 1.0M lbs Alumunium Structure Baseline1.000 200. Seaplane Parametric Study Range vs.000 lbs.000 6.000.0M lbs Composite Structure 800.000 GTOW (lbs) 1.000 600.0M lb.1.0M lbs Aluminum Structure 1.000 1.

This trade study was done for the all aluminum structure seaplane and the all composite structure seaplane. The range is fixed at the base range of 1. 122 .220 nm.000 lbs.222 nm. to 700. SEAPLANE: PAYLOAD VS. The output is a new gross take-off weight. A summary of the results is given in Figures 81 and 82.0 M lb. This equates to approximately 1. the GTOW decreases.000 lbs. the GTOW increases.09 lbs.2 TRADE STUDY 2. The base case specifications for the BFS-1. when the payload is decreased from the base weight of 360.3. Range: 1.0 M LB.000 lbs./lbs.000 lbs. The average change in gross take-off weight per pound of payload for the composite structure seaplane is 1. Payloads ranged from 100. Payload: 360.0 M lb. seaplane.10 lbs. GTOW The effect on gross take-off weight when increasing or decreasing the payload was studied second for the BFS-1. added to the gross take-off weight for each additional pound of payload that is carried beyond the base payload. seaplane are as follows: BFS-1. U Six different payload cases were investigated. This ratio shows that approximately 1.0 M lb./lbs. A graphical view of the results is given in Figure 83.000 lbs. 1.000 lbs.09 lbs.1 lbs. The average change in gross take-off weight per pound of payload from the base case is 1. and when the payload is increased from the base weight of 360. As expected. must be added to the gross take-off weight for each additional pound of payload that is carried beyond the base payload. Seaplane – Base Case GTOW: 950.

232 Figure 81.876 lbs 225. 1.000 lbs 1. and pallet nets.000 669.000 1.327.447 600.000 1. GTOW for Base Case . pallets.000 lbs Range 1. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .215. restraint gates.341 lbs 400. 796.447 lbs 500.600 lbs Payload 360.Payload vs.265 700.418 796.327.1. which will alter the gross takeoff weight (GTOW).0M lb.174 lbs 100.174 225.000 lbs Payload includes passengers. unuseable fuel.000 950. GTOW SUMMARY Payload (lbf) GTOW (lbs.232 lbs 700. oil.104.418 lbs The results of the GTOW growth and shrink are shown on the chart.600 400.5g that the C-5B would typically carry.000 lbs Aluminum Structure PAYLOAD VS.Aluminum Structure Designed Seaplane GTOW 950.215. cargo. 1.341 500. 994.104.0 M lb Seaplane with an all aluminum structure Payload vs. Case 2 represents the max cargo load at 2.000 1. GTOW 123 .) 100.000 lbs Comments All cases have the same range of 1. survival equipment for the air crew.876 360.265 lbs 600.220 nm Case 1 GTOW Payload Case 2 GTOW Payload Case 3 GTOW Payload Case 4 GTOW Payload Case 5 GTOW Payload Case 6 GTOW Payload 669.000 994. tiedown devices. Each case transports a different payload weight at the designed range.222 nm.000 lbs 1.

and pallet nets.236.000 lbs 1.175 lbs 100. survival equipment for the air crew.948 lbs 600.065 lbs 700.0 M lb Seaplane with an all aluminum structure Payload vs.124. Each case transports a different payload weight at the designed range. SEAPLANE PARAMETRIC CURVE .000 1.220 nm Case 1 GTOW Payload Case 2 GTOW Payload Case 3 GTOW Payload Case 4 GTOW Payload Case 5 GTOW Payload Case 6 GTOW Payload 582.418 716.527 lbs 400. 905.0M lb.527 500.418 lbs The results of the GTOW growth and shrink are shown on the chart. restraint gates. unuseable fuel.801 600.065 Figure 82. GTOW for Composite Structure Designed Seaplane GTOW 862.948 700. Case 2 represents the max cargo load at 2.014. pallets.000 lbs Comments All cases have the same range of 1222 nm. 716.014.000 582.175 225.1.045 400.000 1.000 lbs Composite Structure PAYLOAD VS. cargo.Payload vs.000 862.801 lbs 500.000 lbs Range 1. which will alter the gross takeoff weight (GTOW). GTOW SUMMARY Payload (lbf) GTOW (lbf) 100.000 905. 1.614 lbs 225.045 lbs Payload 360.614 360. 1.5g that the C-5B would typically carry.000 1. oil.000 lbs 1.124.000 lbs Payload includes passengers. tiedown devices. GTOW 124 .236.

000 500. 1.0M lb Seaplane Parametric Study .0M lbs Aluminum Seaplane 600.000.000 Payload (lbs) Figure 83.000 Baseline 1.000 1.000 800.000 700.000 300.000 0 0 100.000 Composite Structure Seaplane 400.222 nm.1.Payload vs.0M lbs Composite Structure Seaplane 200.000 1.200. GTOW for a Design Range of 1.000 600.400.000 Baseline 1.000 400. GTOW 125 .000 200.0 M lb. Seaplane with an all aluminum and all composite structure: Payload vs.000 Aluminum Structure Seaplane GTOW (lbs) 800. 1.

Seaplane Effect of a Step Section 2. Base Case Lift Capacity The methods of analysis for aerodynamics. etc. These curves show the basic parameters of the BFS 0. sizing. The structural efficiencies from the use of composites were translated into the reduction in structural airframe weight.0 RESULTS The results of the parametric comparisons are shown in Database 2. This is usually done with a sacrificial layer of material. and flying boat design proportions have shown good agreement for the following rational mathematic analysis.000 ft for a seaplane with a fixed step and with a retracted step.3.9 M lb. equipment.3 M lb. Aluminum alloys must be coated in some fashion to eliminate and/or slow the process of corrosion.1 through 2. BFS 1. one of the coating failure points is at the rivet holes. systems. The reduction in empty weight did not include propulsion. This weight savings was applied to the empty weight. seaplanes all fall in line with the comparative data.. and max range points at a cruise altitude of 20. Payload Case 1: 0.2. in the Base Case Lift Capacity.4. it was decided that a 25% reduction in structural empty weight was reasonable. eventually the slight movement of the metal skin relative to the rivet results in the holes expanding and letting in the salt water. section 2.. These protective barriers will need to be reapplied when the barrier is compromised.2. PAYLOAD The range versus payload trade studies for each aircraft featured two situations. U RANGE VS. molded composite shell doesn’t have this problem. The first situation was the increase in range using a retractable step.1.0 M lb. The results are as follows: U 126 .3 M lb. For aluminum alloys. rather than aluminum.4. A one piece. flight controls.1. U U Improvement by Structural Weight Reduction As explained in section 2. Based on weight studies. and the BFS 2. landing gear. seaplane shows the thrust required. thrust available. called “no step” in this report. such as paint or anodized coating.5.3 M lb.6 entitled “Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” for the 0. U U Range vs. weights. Aluminum’s resistance to salt water corrosion is very poor. Even though sealants are used. The second situation used the weight savings for an all composite structure for increased payload capacity.2 Strength of Composites.1.3. it is believed that improved aircraft can be fabricated using composite structure.

5. The difference in Cdo = 0.0 M lb. Thrust Required = 17.4. Range = 9.58 Cdo = 0.576 nm. seaplane shows the effect of the step on the range of the seaplane.0010. Seaplane With a Fixed Step: With a Retracted Step: Difference: U Range = 6. Thrust Required = 50.7 With Retracted Step: M = 0.7 entitled ”Range Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” for the 1. CDtotal = 0. Maximum Cruise Speed Increase The drag improvement from the no step condition will cause a change in the maximum cruise speed possible.7 U B B CDtotal = 0. Seaplane With a Fixed Step: With Retracted Step: Difference: U Range = 8. This is shown in Figure 52.0 M lb. Seaplane Effect of a Step Section 2.0 M lb.00 count of drag. or 1. The resulting speed increase from the fixed step condition to the retracted step condition is 15 knots.0 M lb.3 M lb. U B B B B B B Section 2.3 M lb.936 nm. U U 127 .399 nm. Section 2. and maximum range points at a cruise altitude of 30. seaplane shows the thrust required. The effect of the step on range is as follows: 0.3.0203.058 lb. The effect of the step on range is as follows: 1. thrust available.610 lb.1. Range = 6. Thrust Required = 47. B B B B The difference in Cdo = 0.000 ft.0 M lb. Seaplane With a Fixed Step: M = 0.3 M lb. Payload Case 1: 1.0193.5. or 1.802 lb. for the seaplane with a fixed step and with a retracted step.0. 463 nm. With Retracted Step: M = 0. The results for thrust required are as follows: U 1.7 entitled ”Range Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” for the 0. page 88.3 entitled “Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” for the 1.1. Seaplane With a Fixed Step: M = 0. U Range vs. 189 nm.594 lb.33 counts of drag.02167. U U The seaplane with a retracted step in cruise flight can extend its range 189 nm. Thrust Required = 18.023000.58 Cdo=0.1. seaplane shows the effect of the step on the range of the seaplane.3.3.765 nm.00133.

601 nm.413 lb. Payload Case 1: 2.5. seaplane shows the effect of the step on the range of the seaplane.3.0008. The effect of the step on range is as follows: 2. Seaplane With a Fixed Step: With Retracted Step: Difference: U Range = 10. thrust available. page 101. The results for thrust required are as follows: U 2. Range = 11.7 With Retracted Step: M = 0.1. Maximum Cruise Speed Increase The drag improvement from the step condition will cause a change in the maximum cruise speed possible. and maximum range points at a cruise altitude of 30. seaplane shows the thrust required. seaplane with a retracted step in cruise flight can extend its range 463 nm. The resulting speed increase from the fixed step condition to the retracted step condition is 3 knots. Section 2.018 nm. U 128 . B B B B The difference in Cdo = 0. The resulting speed increase from the step condition to the retracted step condition is 4 knots.696 lb. Thrust Required = 127.The 1.5. Seaplane With a Fixed Step: M = 0. seaplane with a retracted step in cruise flight can extend its range 417 nm. This is shown in Figure 74.80 count of drag.9 M lb. for the seaplane with a fixed step and with a retracted step.9 M lb. U Range vs.3.9 M lb. Seaplane Effect of a Step Section 2.6 entitled “Chart – Thrust Required with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” for the 2.0 M lb. or 0. 417 nm.9 M lb. page 114.9 M lb.9 M lb.7 U B B CDtotal = 0.0241.0249. CDtotal = 0. U U The 2.000 ft. Thrust Required = 131. This is shown in Figure 63. Maximum Cruise Speed Increase The drag improvement from the step condition will cause a change in the maximum cruise speed possible.7 entitled ”Range Payload with a Fixed Step and with a Retracted Step” for the 2.1.

318 lb. 260. All Composite Structure: Range = 6. Figure 55 also illustrates the weight savings from using an all composite structure versus an all aluminum structure.4. which was used as added payload.318 lb. All Composite Structure – 1.3 M lb. 19.2.0 M lb.318 lb. the BFS -1. The vertical distance at the zero range point is the weight savings from using an all composite structure. seaplane is 19. Empty = 127. or to carry the same payload over a larger range. 0 lb. the useful load can be divided into payload or fuel for range.3 M lb. 19. U U The weight savings as applied to the 0. This can be seen in Figure 66 as the vertical distance between the two curves at the zero range point. 129 .003 lb. All Aluminum Structure: Range = 8. The result is the ability to carry more payload for the same distance. Seaplane U Figure 55 entitled “0.003 lb.495 nm. In this case.431 nm. 152.3 M lb.139 nm. or 19.759 lb.3 M lb.1. All Composite Structure – 0. and BFS – 2.0 M lb.9 M lb are as follows: Range vs. Useful = 132. seaplane are as follows: Aluminum Composite Difference GTOW = 260. Seaplane Parametric Curve – Range versus Payload for all Aluminum Structure with a Step and an all Composite Structure with a Step” illustrates the following results: U U 1.0 M lb. Seaplane – All Aluminum Structure: Range = 8.333 lb. U U The weight savings in using an all composite structure instead of an all aluminum structure is 81. Figure 66 entitled “1.244 lb. Seaplane Parametric Curve – Range Payload for an all Aluminum Structure with Step and an all Composite Structure with Step” gave the following range results: 0.576 nm.936 nm. It can be seen that the useful load is increased by the same amount as the empty weight is decreased. 107.3 M lb. Seaplane – All Composite Structure: Range = 11.0 M lb.318 lb. Seaplane Section 2. Difference = 2.3. seaplane. Payload Case 2: All Aluminum vs.3 M lb.Range vs.077 lb.926 lb.563 nm. Difference = 1. The weight savings for the 0. Payload Case 2: All Aluminum vs. U U U U U In a similar fashion as the 0.

495 nm.601 nm. the composite aircraft can fly 3. seaplane: Aluminum GTOW = 2.9 M lb Seaplane – Range versus Payload for all Aluminum Structure with a Step and an all Composite Structure with a Step” illustrates the following results: U U 2.600 lb.923. 277.1 with Figure 77 entitled “2.333 lb.9 M lb. U Thus. Payload Case 2: All Aluminum vs. 561. or for the same range the composite aircraft can carry 81.296 nm. U U Thus. more payload than the all aluminum seaplane.9 M lb.9 M lb.2. All Composite Structure – 2.152. U U Difference 0 227.493. 1.165 lb.872 lb.000 lb.897 nm.076 lb. U U Composite 2.000 lb. Empty = 470. more payload than the all aluminum seaplane.872 lb.872 lb.430.872 lb.333 lb.501 lb.The weight savings as applied to the 1.099 lb. Useful = 480. Useful = 1. U U Difference 0 81.872 lb.204 lb. U U U Composite 950. 389.600 lb. Seaplane Section 2. seaplane: Aluminum GTOW = 950. more than the aluminum aircraft.923. 130 .076 lb. Seaplane – All Composite Structure: Range = 13. The weight savings as applied to the 2. or over the same range the composite aircraft can carry 277. 81. Empty = 1.770.3. The weight savings in using an all composite structure instead of an all aluminum structure is 277.5. This can be seen in Figure 77 as the vertical distance between the two curves at the zero range point. All Aluminum Structure: Range = 10.0 M lb.432 lb. the composite aircraft can fly 2. Range vs. 1. more than the aluminum aircraft.333 lb.

In this report one generic seaplane step was used. and Dan Raymer’s Aircraft Design book.0 CONCLUSIONS Any one improvement in seaplane design may not produce a large increment in perfomrance.00036704 .3.55% of the total seaplane zero lift drag coefficient.3. Composites can also reduce drag because of the possibility of achieving laminar flow.5. Based on various studies in the literature. Another of the improvements that is worth consideration is the use of composites. 131 . There have been many studies of different design steps with lower air drag. Such increments will come through an accumulation of small improvements.1. The improvement in the maximum cruising speed was slight. consultation with the US Navy materials engineers and structural engineers. The improvements in performance for the seaplanes appeared mostly in range.1. Analysis of the drag methods shows that drag coefficients for the step can vary from C Dstep = 0. Based on the studies here of early NACA reports from the 1940’s and other works it was seen that one of the larger improvements (section 2.1) can come from drag reduction at the step. so as not to have too many variables in the study (see section 2.0009004 to C Dstep = 0. it is estimated that the use of composites can obtain an approximate 15% weight savings. The Raymer drag method was used to calculate the drag for the step. Increases in the maximum cruising speed ranged from a maximum of 15 knots to a minimum of 3 knots.1 Decrease Step Drag). This is between 6. the simplest and easiest to analyze. military handbooks.24% and 2. but this topic is beyond the scope of this report.

A flexible wing may lead to flutter possibilities and control reversal.0 6. but there may be difficulties in implementing this technology on large aircraft.9 M lb.00047 (0. The drag was included in the overall drag coefficient. 6.aviationnow. In the past. and BFS 1M lb. An article from http://www. This is included in the overall drag coefficient.2 RETRACTABLE TIP FLOAT This design is already incorporated in the BFS 2. The F-18A preproduction aircraft had a supple wing at high speeds. For the 2.00023 (0. Flutter is an unwanted rapid oscillation of the surface caused by air loads. and Boeing Phantom Works. The wing has consequently been stiffened for the production phase. This research has been done by a joint project of NASA. seaplane the drag of the wing tip floats is C d = 0. decrease in other protuberances. instead of the use of ailerons. The demonstrator will use servo tabs to twist the entire wing for roll control. The indicated gross take-off reduction due to advanced aeroelastic wing is approximately 13%. When the ailerons were applied at high speeds. Now. seaplanes.6.9 M lb. The author thinks that this topic is worth studying. 6. engineers have been concerned about wing flexibility.1 FOLLOW ON FURTHER DRAG REDUCTION Further investigation into drag reduction would include the following areas: chine reduction.47 drag counts) in the retracted position at the wing tip. For the 1. seaplane the drag of the wing tip floats is C d = 0.23 drag counts) in the retracted position at the wing tip. the US Air Force Research Laboratory. 132 .3 WEIGHT SAVINGS: ACTIVE AEROELASTIC WING It is possible that weight savings and maneuvering capability can be gained by using an active aeroelastic wing. TU UT This technology decreases the gross take-off weight over the entire design space studied.com/awst gives an interesting account of creating an aeroelastic wing demonstrator from the preproduction McDonnell Douglas F-18A flight demonstrator in 1980. it appears that a wing may be a better wing if it is more elastic. This improvement occurs by methods to allow the wing to twist in a controlled way. drag reduction through the use of smooth composite surfaces.0 M lb. laminar flow over the wing. the forces on the control surfaces would twist the flexible wing in the opposite direction and negate the roll control action.

000 ft. a technique to develop high levels of lift at low noise levels. It can be seen that lift coefficients as high as 11 can be achieved at an angle of attack of 25°. and drooped/blown ailerons. double slotted flaps (DSF). This would make the seaplane much more versatile. a T-tail elevator. This program became a Boeing/NASA effort. Some results of this test are shown in Figure 88. a program was initiated to develop a proof of concept aircraft to fill the future need for an aircraft to operate at airports in congested areas with short runways (2. The engines were located over the wing to provide upper surface blowing (USB). This led to the concept of the quiet. enabling the seaplane to get in and out of lakes and rivers. For this work a DeHavilland C-8A Buffalo airframe.000 ft. 133 . such as a two-segment rudder. spoilers.– 3.). modified with a propulsive-lift wing was chosen. USB flaps. It is believed by the author that this ability would help enormously in short take-off on the water. short-haul research aircraft (QSRA).4 SHORT TAKE-OFF UPPER SURFACE BLOWING In 1978. Figures 84-87 show the features of the QSRA.6. The QSRA is powered by four Lycoming TF102 turbofan engines. see Figure 84.

134 .Figure 84. QSRA – 2 view.

Figure 85. QSRA double slotted flaps. Figure 86. 135 . QSRA upper surface blowing (USB) flap.

Figure 87. QSRA Drooped/Blown Ailerons 136 .

QSRA lift improvement from upper surface blowing 137 .Figure 88.

6 U OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Tiltwing With four turbofans and upper surface blowing. This low resistance to the flow allows the air steam to flow like layers above the surface. tilting the wing with the engines at about 30° may assist in a shorter take-off. and tides. More studies should be done as to the potential of achieving laminar flow.6. at a Mach number of 0. ρ ⋅V ⋅ L This type of flow is dependent on the Reynolds number.) laminar flow would be expected on the wing. In the BFS 2. The surface must be free of protuberances. Rn = . the flow may become turbulent. Seaplane pilots will need to be consulted. The aerodynamics department at NAVAIR states that their studies show laminar flow should be achievable if the RN per foot is less than 1. After a µ certain point. Factors that should be considered are wind velocity and direction. U 138 . The wing transition point was assumed at the leading edge.4 (250 kts at 30.000 ft.000.5 LAMINAR FLOW Laminar flow is a condition on a surface where the skin friction is low. it is possible to obtain laminar flow up to 30% of the wing chord. 6. such as rivet holes and structural seams in the surface. wave size and direction. This point between fully laminar flow and fully turbulent flow is called the transition point. In order to load and unload cargo. If so. so all the OML surfaces were assumed turbulent with a corresponding higher skin friction coefficient. For the present study laminar flow was not assumed. the seaplane will need some means to climb the ramp. To obtain laminar flow. B B To achieve laminar flow the surface must be smooth.9 M lb. Improvements in speed and range will be achieved. the surface must be aerodynamically smooth. This can be achieved with composite bonded OML surfaces.000. Consideration of night operations with landing and take-off will also need to be investigated. Maneuverability of Seaplanes to a Sea Base dock A number of factors are involved in trying to dock a seaplane.

3G15. PA. Sylmar. REFERENCE LIST Domasch. NACA Wartime Report. 3. August. Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory.0 M lb. S. CA. David Taylor Model Basin of the Stevens Institute of Technology Laboratory Report.. John K. 7. “BFS-1.. Peery. SIT. Third Edition. 1956. Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory. Sydney. DL. MD 2004 8. “Tank Tests of a Flying Boat Model Equipped with Several Types of Fairing Designed to Reduce the Air Drag of the Main Step”. a Conceptual Approach”. 1992 pg. “Airplane Aerodynamics”. Kansas 1985. Third Edition. 1994 4. Robert N. Ottawa. “A Summary of Hydrodynamic Technology Related to Large Seaplanes and Methods for Estimating Their Performance”. Donolly. 1994 5. Edwin P. 1961 2. Roskam. Part I Preliminary Analysis. Hartman. “Wind Tunnel Tests of Four Full Scale Seaplane Floats”. Fluid-Dynamic Drag. Seaplane Design and Performance”. New York.. Scherby. McGraw Hill Book Company. 13-9 11. Julian p. Thomas. Benson.. ARR No. “The Aerodynamic Drag of a Flying-Boat Hull Model as Measured in the NACA 20-Foot Wind Tunnel 1” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). 12.. Langley Field Va. Langley Field Va.7. Raymer. “BFS-2. Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation. ”Aircraft Structures”. L5C 09b. “Conceptual Design for Battleforce Seaplane Concept 3”. David J. April 1945 139 . NAS Patuxent River. “Airplane Design”. Albert F. Hoerner. Conway. Warminster. and Maynard. Pitman Publishing Company. April 1935 10. Daniel. Daniel. Bellanca. NACA ARK No. Pennsylvania State University. August. James M. August. PA. Seaplane Design and Performance”. J. Sighard F.0 1. Warminster. Technical Note 525.9 M lb.. “Aircraft Design. and Havens. 90 _ 2647 6. Bellanca. Daniel and Roper.. Bellanca. Sauvitsky. 1997 9.

J. Ohio State University.. Report No. Gerald M. Colen. 1982. Maine. Holmes. John J. J. Karl. Component Weight Estimation. Oxford London. 194 140 .. “Use of Seaplanes and Integration within a Sea Base” NSWCCD-20-TR-2004/08. Eugene and Luomarvo. Ohio State University. Third Edition. Parkison. “Technical Aerodynamic”. New York. Roland E. Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory. Wood. Praley. Part II. Darrol. J. Bellanca Aircraft Engineering SAE Report 830717 – “Flight Investigation of Natural Laminar Flow on the Bellanca SkyRocket II Airplane” by Bruce J. NACA No. Langley Va. Hope. Stinton. “Airplane” Design. Roskam. J.” Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design”. “Airplane Design. Gregork and M.8. “Materials Usage. “The Design of the Airplane”. “Airplane Design. Fruehler. Hoffman. BSP. Payne and J. Harris. “Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Test of a Family of Models of Flying Boat Hulls Derived from a Streamlined Body”. Kluwar Boston Inc. Obara. D.. and Olson. Jessaji. Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration of the Propulsion System”. Design And Analysis”_ Joint Effort by the Department of Defense and Federal Aviation Administration (and ASTM). Michael J. “The Use of a Retractable Planning Flap Composites Handbook MIL 17.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Instead of a Fixed Step on a Seaplane”. M.. Part III Layout Design of Cockpit. Odedra.J.. Lindsay. 3E31. and Kennel.P. and Rick J. Part V. NACA 1943. Hoffman. SAE Report 770472 – “Drag Evaluation of the Bellanca SkyRocket II” by G. and H. Bensen. Professional Books. Wing and Empennage”. 1983 Torenbek.. 766. Fuselage . Volume 3. Clifford J. Geoff. James M. May 1943. NACA Model Series.. Roskam. Boston. McGraw Hill Book Company Inc.. Lina. Roskam. Gregorek.

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED .