You are on page 1of 51



Applied Aerodynamic Design


Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume II: Applied Aerodynamic Design

Copyright Momentum Press, LLC, 2016.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any otherexcept for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published in 2016 by
Momentum Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-945-6 (print)
ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-946-3 (e-book)
Momentum Press Aerospace Engineering Collection
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.,
Chennai, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America

This book is a concise practical treatise for the student or experienced professional aircraft designer. This volume comprises key applied subjects for
performance based aircraft design: systems engineering principles; aircraft
mass properties estimation; the aerodynamic design of transonic wings;
aircraft stability and control; takeoff and landing runway performance.
This book may serve as a textbook for an undergraduate aircraft design
course or as a reference for the classically trained practicing engineer.

Aerodynamics, Aircraft Design, Aircraft Performance, Aircraft Sizing,
Drag, Lift, Aircraft Stability, Aircraft Control, Aviation

List of Figures


List of Tables


Chapter 1 Systems Engineering andthe Design Process

The Systems Engineering Veea Plan for Success

Conceptual Design 
Multidisciplinary Trade Studies
Model Fidelity
Detail Design
Risk Reduction and Mitigation

Chapter 2 Weight and Volume Estimation



A Self Referential Problem: How Much

an Aircraft Weighs at Takeoff is a
Function of How Much it Weighs Empty
Approaches to Aircraft Sizing
Empirical Methods to Estimate Empty Weight
Modeling and Simulation Methods to Estimate
Empty Weight 
Estimating Mass Moments of Inertia



Chapter 3 Stability and Controllability





Aerodynamic Database Generation

Aerodynamic Database Presentation
Empirical Methods to Size theVertical
and Horizontal Tail
Modeling and Simulation Approach
toStability and Control




Longitudinal Trim
Longitudinal Stability 
CG Placement, Horizontal Tail,
andElevator Sizing
Lateral-Directional Trim
Lateral-Directional Stability
Lateral-Directional Control

Chapter 4 Field Performance Principles



Takeoff in a Nutshell
Simplified Statistical Method for Takeoff
Computing Takeoff Cue Speeds
Modeling and Simulation Methods for Takeoff
Takeoff NoiseCertification and Abatement
Approach and Landing in a Nutshell
Computing Landing Cue Speeds
Simplified Statistical Model for Landing
Modeling and Simulation Methods for Landing

Chapter 5 The Aerodynamic Design of Wings



Planform Geometry
Three-Dimensional Flow Effects
Transonic Flow Over Two-Dimensional
Selecting an Appropriate Airfoil
for Transonic Flight
Sweep Effects
5.6 Nonplanarity
Designing a Wing for Optimal Performance
Chapter 6 Aircraft Sizing andSynthesisPutting
ItAll Together



Aircraft Sizing in a Nutshell

Simple Sizing Using Breguets Equation
Sizing Using a Multidisciplinary Optimization
Systems Design Examples
6.5 Afterword


List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Systems engineering Vee. FRR, flight readiness review;
SRR, systems requirement review; PDR, preliminary
design review; CDR, critical readiness review.
Figure 1.2. Example functional decomposition tree.

Figure 1.3. Example integrated master plan (IMP). WBS, work

breakdown structure; SOW, statement of work; PDR,
preliminary design review; CDR, critical design review.  6
Figure 1.4. MIL STD 1374 weight reporting form.

Figure 1.5. Trade study process.

Figure 1.6. NASA/DoD risk chart.


Figure 1.7. Risk reduction waterfall.


Figure 2.1. The self-referential nature of weight estimation.

Everything influences everything.


Figure 2.2. Empirical regression of large aircraft weightOEW

and MTOW. OEW, operational empty weight; MTOW,
maximum takeoff weight.


Figure 2.3. MIL STD 1374 weight reporting form.


Figure 2.4. Wing bending moment relief.


Figure 2.5. Uninstalled engine weight as a function

of static thrust.


Figure 2.6. One gear landing.


Figure 2.7. Landing gear (a) nose wheel with in-line oleo strut and
steering link, (b) six-wheel main gear with vertical oleo
Figure 2.8. Sketch of the trapezoidal basis for wing spar locations
superimposed upon an arbitrary cranked planform.
The arbitrary planform is shown in green, the fundamental

x List of Figures

trapezoidal geometry is shown in black, the spar locations

are shown in red.
Figure 2.9. Sketch of spanwise variation in wing thickness to chord
ratio (t/c).
Figure 2.10. Sketch of the mid-chord sweep-aligned structural
coordinate system (x y) as opposed to the global
lofting coordinate system (x y). 


Figure 2.11. Sketch of the shear and bending moment arising from
wingstructural and nonstructural mass under flight
and hard-landing loading conditions.


Figure 2.12. Sketch of a lumped mass model comprising wing

structural and nonstructural mass under a nominal 1 gee
loading. MLG, main landing gear.
Figure 2.13. Sketch describing envelope loading situations
(+Nz flight vs Nz ground).


Figure 2.14. Sketch resolving wing bending moment into forces

along the upper and lower wing covers (comprising
the spar caps, skin, and any stiffeners).


Figure 2.15. Sketch resolving the torque box into spar caps, skin,
and any stiffeners.


Figure 2.16. Wing chord, thickness ratio, distance between spars

and the maximum thickness a wing for a B737
sized aircraft. 


Figure 2.17. Example of aerodynamic less net inertial loads.


Figure 2.18. Shear force and bending moments at Nz = +1

(flight load) and 1 (landing gear load) as a function
ofglobal BL location. Overall wing bending torque
at Nz = +2.5 and Nz = 3 gee.


Figure 2.19. Minimum cover area for tension loading criteria vs

actual cover area needed to satisfy tension, compression,
stiffened panel buckling and local panel buckling criteria
while resisting critical envelope loads. 
Figure 2.20. Von Mises stress contours of wing structure designed
using the equations in this text. (a) Internal structure
stress contours; (b) wing upper surface skin stress
Figure 2.21. Impact of changes in MTOW on torque box weight.
(a) Regional jet, (b) narrow body, (c) wide body.
Holding Sref , AR, TR, L, t/c, Nzmax constant.


List of Figures xi

Figure 3.1. Wind tunnel testing.


Figure 3.2. Typical aerodynamic coefficient sign convention.

LE, leading edge; TE, trailing edge; L.H wing,
left-hand wing; R.H. wing, right-hand wing.


Figure 3.3. Typical plots made from a simple aerodynamic database.


Figure 3.4. Longitudinal stability and control screening plots

made from a simple aerodynamic database.


Figure 3.5. Lateral-directional stability and control screening

plots made from a simple aerodynamic database.


Figure 3.6. Longitudinal pitch trim. (a,c,e) nominal CG; (b,d,f)

forwards CG, (a,b) controls fixed moments; (c,d) control
power, (e,f) deflection for trim.


Figure 3.7. Pitching moment vs angle-of-attack for fixed

elevator deflection.


Figure 3.8. Aerodynamic center location as function of mach

and angle of attack for a notional aircraft.


Figure 3.9. Simplified one-degree of freedom short-period

frequency model.


Figure 3.10. MIL STD-8785C Category A chart.


Figure 3.11. Skymap short-period frequency (radians per

second) as a function of speed and altitude. Notional
narrow-body transport aircraft.


Figure 3.12. Picture of airliner w/all-moving horizontal tail

for trim PLUS elevator to pitch control authority.


Figure 3.13. Skymap of elevator deflection needed for trim.


Figure 3.14. Aerodynamic contributors to dutch roll stability.

(a) Directional stability; (b) lateral stability;
(c) Cndynamic (where Izz/Ixx ~ 2).


Figure 3.15. Skymap of dutch roll frequencies for a notional

narrow-body transport aircraft.


Figure 3.16. Lateral directional stability of a highly swept

combat aircraft (a) directional stability;
(b) lateral stability.


Figure 3.17. Stick-fixed open-loop dutch roll stability of a highly swept

combat aircraft. (a) Oscillatory frequency (Hz),
(b) Time-to-double (sec).

xii List of Figures

Figure 3.18. Lateral directional characteristics of the North

American X-15 configuration with and without
ventral fin. (a) Lateral stability, (b) directional stability.
After day.
Figure 3.19. Bihrle-Weissman chart.


Figure 3.20. Bihrle-Weissman chart with total flight envelope

characteristics of a narrow-body airliner.


Figure 3.21. Bihrle-Weissman chart with total flight envelope

Characteristics of a narrow-body airliner.


Figure 4.1. Runway information for San Jose International

Airport (SJC). Courtesy


Figure 4.2. Runway condition ratings and associated coefficients

of friction (m).97
Figure 4.3. FAA wet braking coefficient of friction schedule.
(a) Equations, (b) Coefficients.


Figure 4.4. Roskam T/O equation applied to an aircraft

with Sref = 1,000 ft2, CLmax = 2, T = 30,000 lbf
(2 15,000 lbf engines).


Figure 4.5. Force balance for simplified VMCG computation.


Figure 4.6.

VMCG trade study. Narrow-Body airliner.


Figure 4.7.

Force and Yawing moment balance for simplified

VMCA computation.


Figure 4.8. Side force balance for simplified VMCA computation.


Figure 4.9. Rolling moment balance for simplified VMCA

Figure 4.10. VMCA trade study. Narrow-Body airliner.


Figure 4.11. Vmu schematic.


Figure 4.12. Lift slope (dCL/da) multiplier in-ground-effect.


Figure 4.13. Vmu effect of wing height. Notional transport

Figure 4.14. Force balance to rotate nose wheel.


Figure 4.15. Minimum distance between the main landing

gear and the aircraft Center-of-Gravity to prevent
unintentional Tip-Back.


Figure 4.16. Schematic of takeoff procedure (AEO Accel-Go

Vs OEI Accel-Go Vs RTO).109
Figure 4.17. Balanced field length terminology chart.


List of Figures xiii

Figure 4.18. Critical field length trade study. Accel-Stop (RTO),

Accel-Go (OEI), Accel-Go (AEO) and Critical Field
Length as a function of takeoff weight. V1 may be
limited either by VMCG or VR. 


Figure 4.19. Noise abatement takeoff profile.


Figure 4.20. Roskam landing equation applied to an aircraft with

Sref = 1,152 ft2, CLmax = 2.6, VMCL = 110 KIAS.


Figure 4.21. Schematic of aircraft approach, flare, touchdown

and landing roll out. AGL, above ground level


Figure 5.1. Schematic representation of thin-airfoil-theory.


Figure 5.2. Schematic representation of the superposition of

pressures. Upper Surface (Cpu); Lower Surface (Cpl);
Mean Pressures (produced by the thickness); Net
Pressures (from incidence & camber). 


Figure 5.3. Wing planform.


Figure 5.4. Profile vs. Spanwise view of flow (after Munk).


Figure 5.5. Finite wing effects. Applicable range of 2D theory

(after Kchemann).


Figure 5.6. Planforms examined for thickness, and incidence

trade studies.


Figure 5.7. Wing surface peak underpressure distribution at zero

lift. (a) Hershey Bar Planform, (b) Swept & Tapered
Planform with constant t/c, no twist, zero incidence.


Figure 5.8. Section lift distribution per unit incidence. (a) Hershey
bar planform, (b) Swept & tapered planform.


Figure 5.9. Critical Mach number peak suction pressure

coefficient relationship for 2D flow.


Figure 5.10. Critical Mach number envelope of classic NACA

sections (from NACA 824).


Figure 5.11. Critical Mach number envelope of classic NACA

sections (from NACA 824).


Figure 5.12. Decomposition of forces into lift and drag.


Figure 5.13. Midspan airfoilBoeing 747100.


Figure 5.14. Airfoil pressure distributions of the B747100

midspan airfoil.


Figure 5.15. Section CL vs. Mach number for the Boeing

747100 airfoil.


xiv List of Figures

Figure 5.16. Section CD vs. Mach number for the Boeing 747100
Figure 5.17. Section M(L/D) vs. Mach number for the Boeing
747100 airfoil.


Figure 5.18. Korn Equationbi-linear correlation between

Drag Divergence Mach number (MDD), design lift
coefficient (CLdes), and section thickness (t/c). 


Figure 5.19. Pearcey & Osborne correlation between drag

divergence mach number (MDD), design lift
coefficient (CLdes), and section thickness. 


Figure 5.20. Airfoil pressure distributions. Symmetric NACA.

(a) t/c = 10%, 0% camber, = 0o; (b) t/c = 10%,
0% camber, = 5o (c) t/c = 10%, 1% camber,
= 4o.155
Figure 5.21. Full factorial sampling of incidence and camber for
NACA 64-series thickness forms critical Mach
number (Mcr) vs. low-speed lift coefficient (CLinc).
(a) (t/c) = 8%; (b) (t/c) = 18%. 


Figure 5.22. Transonic design guidelines for NACA type airfoils.

(a) allocation of low-speed-thickness (t/c) as a function
of low-speed lift-coefficient (CLLS) and desired Mcr.
(b) recommended camber.
Figure 5.23. Critical Mach number allocation strategies using
the Kady & Takahashi reduced-order method.


Figure 5.24. Geometry of a swept wings. (a) Freestream vs leading

edge reference, (b) yawed, (c) sheared.
Figure 5.25. Pressure distributions on an oblique R4009 airfoil.
(t/c)LE = 9%; aLE = 2o. b = leading edge sweep
back angle.


Figure 5.26. Comparison of analytical and computational

estimates of lift for swept wings.


Figure 5.27. Pressure distributions (CP vs % chord ) on an oblique

NACA 64009 Airfoil. CPs referenced to the dynamic
pressure in leading edge reference frame, q. 


Figure 5.28. Critical Mach number peak suction pressure

coefficient relationship for swept wing flow.


Figure 5.29. Relative weight impacts of reduced bending

moment lift distributions on a large, long range
transport aircraft (after Takahashi). 


List of Figures xv

Figure 5.30. Non planar wing geometry options.


Figure 5.31. Span efficiency factor for nonplanar wing

Figure 5.32. Transverse span load associated with a h/b = 0.2
Figure 5.33. Tall retrofit winglet on a Boeing 737-NG.


Figure 5.34. Block diagram of wing synthesis procedure.


Figure 5.35. Five control point wing-body model (fuselage plus

four wing control points).


Figure 5.36. Example, spanwise distribution of lift (running load,

Figure 5.37. Example, spanwise distribution of chord; tapered
wing with Yehudi c(y).175
Figure 5.38. Example, cruise spanwise distribution of section
lift coefficient for notional tapered wing with
Yehudi cl(y).176
Figure 5.39. Example, Korn equation suggested thickness
distribution, t/c(y). k = 0.82.


Figure 5.40. Wing synthesis procedure rendered wing.


Figure 5.41. Example, low-speed spanwise distribution of section

lift coefficient, cl(y).177
Figure 5.42. Spanwise location of stall impacts pitch up and roll
off characteristics.


Figure 5.43. Spanwise section lift coefficient distribution.

(a) TR = 0.15 no yehdui, (b) TR = 0.45 no Yehudi.


Figure 5.44. Twist perturbation and lift response functions for

a given wing planform.


Figure 5.45. Example twist distribution. (a) Wing with no camber,

(b) wing with spanwise camber.


Figure 5.46. Actual vs. ideal transverse lift distribution for a five
control point wing/body.


Figure 5.47. Upper surface isobars contoursnominal

elliptically loaded wingKorn equation based
thickness allocation.


Figure 6.1. Data flow associated with a simple sizing problem.

S&C, stability and control.


Figure 6.2. Simple spreadsheet sizing of 100 seat regional jet.


xvi List of Figures

Figure 6.3. Aerisan almost conventionally configured

green 70-seat regional jet.


Figure 6.4. Aeris interior layout.


Figure 6.5. Initial wing design flowchart.


Figure 6.6. Detail wing design flowchart.


Figure 6.7. Wing section twist, camber and thickness distribution. 197
Figure 6.8. Wing upper surface isobar plot.


Figure 6.9. Spanwise wing lift distribution.


Figure 6.10. Bypass ratio/engine scale factor trade study.


Figure 6.11. Staggered engine installation for rotor burst

Figure 6.12. Specific range skymap.


Figure 6.13. Horizontal tail/elevator placementLanding gear

configuration and ground stance to mitigate tip-back
and ground-handling issues.


Figure 6.14. Engine sizing.


Figure 6.15. Second segment climb at maximum takeoff weight

with FADEC scheduled thrust derate.


Figure 6.16. Aeris optimum flight profiles. (a) 1500 nM mission,

(b) 500 nM mission.


Figure 6.17. Comparable aircraft benchmark.


Figure 6.18. Payload vs. Range Plot.


Figure 6.19. Cessna citation X fuel burn.


Figure 6.20. MDO model comprising a linked collection of codes,

developed using Model Center.209
Figure 6.21. Noble Knight configuration layout.


Figure 6.22. Noble Knight basic aircraft specifications.


Figure 6.23. High lift system and elevon arrangement.


Figure 6.24. Aerodynamic stability and control data from



Figure 6.25. Dynamic stability screening criteria. (a) BihrleWiessman Chart. (b) MIL 8785C short period
frequency chart.


Figure 6.26. Weight breakdown statement.


Figure 6.27. Aerodynamic performance (L/D) predicitons

from EDET


List of Figures xvii

Figure 6.28. Specific range skymap (a) for flight at W = 22,500 lbm
(near MTOW) (b) flight at end of cruise.
Figure 6.29. Comparable aircraft benchmark.


Figure 6.30. Latin-hypercube sampling and sorting for wing

Figure 6.31. Dependent variable vs dependent variable plot used
to select wing planform.


Figure 6.32. Pareto sensitivity study for system performance.


Figure 6.33. Conventionally configured N + 1 B737 replacement

Figure 6.34. Conventionally configured N + 1 B737 replacement
Figure 6.35. Weight estimates of conventionally configured
N + 1 B737 replacement aircraft.


Figure 6.36. Benchmark comparison.


Figure 6.37. Benchmark comparison.


Figure 6.38. Transport category regulations applicable to the

conceptual design process.


Figure 6.39. Fuselage trade studies.


Figure 6.40. Multivariate designeffect of AR on design lift

coefficinent, zero-lift drag and empty weight.


Figure 6.41. Wing refinement study(a) Mdes (t/c, sweep),

(b) OEW (t/c, swepp), (c) fuel burn (Sref), (d) fuel
burn (t/c).229
Figure 6.42. Required section lift distribution for elliptical
transverse span loads.


Figure 6.43. Spanwise distribution of wing thickness for drag

divergence and elliptical span loading. (a) t/c,
(b)dimensional thickness.


Figure 6.44. Induced drag benefit of adding winglets to HATT.231

Figure 6.45. Engine trades. 


Figure 6.46. Mission performance trades(a) low altitude climb

speed, (b) cruise altitude.


Figure 6.47. Mission performance trades(a) cruise altitude,

(b) low altitude climb-speed.


List of Tables
Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.

Minimum Climb Capability for Certified Takeoff of

Transport Category Aircraft


Minimum Climb Capability for Certified Landing of

Transport Category Aircraft


Life is an adventure. As a small boy, I watched the moon landings on television and dreamed of a career in aerospace. Through many twists and turns,
I had never imagined that one day I would work at the Skunk Works, own
a mansion in Kansas, or teach in Arizona. Along this circuitous journey,
I learned aircraft design by doing it not by studying itthrough many
collaborations with work colleagues, mentors, and students.
For this work, I would like to specially call out a few names from my
industrial past: Luis Miranda, Bob Coopersmith, and the late Bill Evans
for otherwise unwritten insight into aerodynamic design as well as Wayne
Cosgrove and Fred Keable for showing me the proper way to analyze flight
While I never had the chance to formally study under Professor Emeritus W.H. (Bill) Mason from Virginia Tech, he has been an inspiration
and role model for me. He is a unique academic who addresses deeply
practical issues in aircraft design, otherwise overlooked by the scholarly
Id also like to thank my many AIAA conference paper collaborators,
especially these former students of mine: Shane Donovan, Christopher
Gedeon, Nicholas Heitzman, Shane Huffer, James Jensen, Christopher
Kady, Jeffrey Kirkman, Tyler Knight, Cameron Langley, Tyler Lemonds,
Michael Merrell, Nicholas Mora, Matthew Swann, and Donald Wood.
Our papers together formed the foundation of these books.
Finally, I would like to thank my reviewers: Lance Bays, Josh Cohn,
and Ruben Perez, for all of their help during the formative stages of this
To the reader, please enjoy my unusual treatise on aircraft performance and sizing.
Timothy T. Takahashi
Tempe, AZ
January 2016


Systems Engineering
andthe Design Process
Aircraft are complex systems. It takes a team of experts, not an individual,
to design an aircraft. Thus, considerable attention needs to be paid when
assembling, managing, and leading a technical team. The U.S. government, led by the military, has identified many best practices and established clear project management guidelines for aerospace systems design.
These are documented in MIL STD-881C.1
Typically, a pressing business or military need defines the top-level
concept. A very small number of engineers, business executives, or military leaders conceive both the basic vehicle configuration and its overall
concept of operations. By the nature of this conceptualization process,
a vehicle configuration developed at program inception lacks stringent
technical rigor. The design is either cartooned with no numerical analysis,
or, at best, is supported by some back-of-the-envelope calculations. The
decisions made or implied during this phase of the program have significant future consequences because they define so many key attributes: for
example, the choice of principal business partners, the choice of materials, the number of engines, or the use or disuse of specific technologies.


The systems engineering process uses an interdisciplinary approach to conceptualize and build complex products.2 As practitioners of systems engineering, systems engineers focus on defining customer needs, [and]
documenting requirements.3 The systems engineering process should coordinate design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem. The role of systems engineering should be to integrate all the
disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation.4


Systems engineering uses a

formal decision-making review
process to provide external visibility to the design activity, manage
project scope, and establish basic
requirements. Basically, systems
engineers force other engineers,
who prefer to be hermits, to share
their incomplete designs with one
another at regularly scheduled
Figure 1.1. Systems engineering Vee.
meetings. The idea behind these
FRR, flight readiness review; SRR,
formal gate review meetings is
systems requirement review; PDR,
to encourage stakeholder involvepreliminary design review; CDR,
critical readiness review.
ment, dialog, and participation. A
schematic of the design steps and the gate review meetings may be seen in
Figure 1.1.4
Traditional systems engineering, as articulated by Defense Acquisition Order DoD5000.023 and MIL-STD 499A,5 breaks down the aircraft
design process into several phases from inception through first flight:
1. A Systems Requirements Definition (SRD) phase, leading to a
Systems Requirements Review (SRR);
2. A Preliminary Design (PD) phase, leading to a Preliminary
Design Review (PDR);
3. A Detail Design phase, leading to a Critical Design Review
(CDR), and
4. An assembly and ground test phase that supports a Flight Readiness Review (FRR).
Technical reviews allow the government an overview of the evolving system design and an opportunity to evaluate its capability to satisfy
performance requirements. The objective of these reviews is to search out
design weaknesses, faulty designs that preclude certification (on a commercial program), or designs which may be cost drivers (on a military program). Engineers write technical status reports to support design reviews.
Managers then use these reports to identify, clarify, and mitigate potential
items of concern before the formal design review meeting.
It is essential that customer representatives participate in formal design reviews. Typically, the technical review will proceed as a series of
formal presentations by the contractors design team. Presentations should
begin with a brief overview of the overall program (scope, deliverables,
and milestone schedules) to set the stage for the design briefs. Presentations should contain an overall systems perspective reflecting the major
subsystems and how they interface to comprise the total system.

Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 3

The symmetrical Systems Engineering Vee (see Figure 1.1) ties the
system specification, generated by tasks found on the left-hand side of
the diagram to the system verification results, performed by tasks found
on the right-hand side of the vee. Ideally, requirements developed in the
early phase of the program drive the validation process performed in later
phases. In this structure, parts design is performed at the bottom of the
vee. The steps preceding detail design level serve to decompose requirements; steps after detail design serve to verify performance. SRR and PDR
occur on the left-hand side, and the bottom of the systems engineering vee
comprises the development time between PDR and CDR.
It is widely believed that engineering design determines 80 percent of
a products cost.6 Unit costs are materially impacted by poor conceptual design that requires revision and change during detail design or development
(delaying product delivery or producing a product that does not meet requirements). Poor concept design gives us products that fundamentally do not
meet expectations. Poor detail design results in products where required parts
tolerances are too tight for economical construction, assembly techniques are
needlessly expensive or unreliable, or products where parts fail needlessly in
service. To build a successful product requires more than serendipity or unharnessed technical expertise; it requires a structured process to ensure that
small technical missteps do not grow into program-threatening problems.


During the conceptual design phase, the technical team should be small
and nimble. In practice, supply chain considerations have a driving influence at this phase of design because the industry is not vertically integrated.
A new aircraft design is the product of a partnership between airframe prime
(e.g., a Boeing), a propulsion house (e.g., a Pratt & Whitney), and principal subsystems contractors (e.g., a Honeywellfor the landing gear and
brakes). Often, a large team is required to formalize requirements between
the primary integrator and its major subcontractors. This is necessary because the technical team cannot acquire necessary data without negotiating
formal contracts that establish joint fiduciary responsibilities and establish
intellectual property rights. If a company like Boeing is going to build a
new airframe around Pratt & Whitneys new engine, neither technical team
can operate in a vacuum without access to the others trade secret data.
The roles and responsibilities of the various members of the program team
are defined by the work breakdown structure (WBS).1 When you express
the WBS in graphical form, you can see the functional decomposition of the
project (see Figure 1.2). Each item on the WBS (box element on the functional decomposition tree) may have a different lead vendor. For example, a
Boeing military aircraft (system integrator) might have a Raytheon fire-control


system. In turn, differing Raytheon

divisions might have leadership on
the detection radar system and the
missile guidance system. Raytheon
might further subcontract the tracking optics to a sub-subcontractor.
Unfortunately, this subcontracting process limits flexibility
Figure 1.2. Example functional
to implement significant changes
decomposition tree.
in the overall design configuration; the result is that key aircraft design decisions, such as the number of
engines and basic engine size, are typically frozen prior to SRR.
At the SRR level, systems engineering seeks to formalize concrete,
verifiable requirements that define what the final product will be able to
do but not how the system will do it. Thus, the purpose of an SRR is to balance customer desires and stakeholder needs against public policy (e.g.,
regulatory compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA))
and/or military standards as well as practical constraints.
Once you pass SRR, you transcribe the agreed upon requirements
into a System Requirements Document (SRD). In addition, you publish
documents like a System Verification Plan (SVP) and System Acceptance Plan (SAP). These procedural guides describe the steps required to
demonstrate compliance with these requirements.
Requirements define what, how well, and under what conditions a
product will achieve a given purpose.7 The baseline SRD should describe
the system in both a qualitative/conceptual and a quantitative/detailed
manner. The systems engineering team should encourage input from all
stakeholders, including managers, technical staff, and operational staff,
and the requirements plan should consider and reflect the complete life
cycle (system development, deployment, training, transition, operations
and maintenance, upgrades, and retirement) of the proposed system.
An SRR briefing3 should address:
System requirements and capabilities: Demonstrate that the system specification is complete; that the nonnegotiable design requirements have been identified; and that the design team understands
the product from an operational, system and technical perspective.
{{ Explicit requirements: These are technical requirements derived from the stated mission requirements: How much payload?
How far? How fast? How economical? Out of what runway?
{{ Implicit requirements: These are engineering requirements
inherent to the vehicle class (e.g., the regulations found within
14 CFR 25).

Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 5

Test, evaluation, and certification of product: Identify the role

of modeling and simulation (M&S) in testing; demonstrate that
airworthiness criteria are understood and reflected in the specification; document the requirement verification methodology with the
type of analyses, tests, inspection, or demonstrations planned; define the roles of all certifying agencies in the forward project plan
Engineering processes, control, and analysis: Establish measures of
effectiveness (MOEs) (these are the numbers that define the value of
the productfor example: per-seat-fuel-consumption over a mission
plan); measures of performance (MOPs) (these are the numbers that
define compliance with the key constraintsfor example, takeoff runway length); key performance parameters (KPPs) (these are other
useful numbers, but those that only indirectly, rather than directly, impact the requirement or constraintsfor example, stall speed).
Program Master Schedule, earned value and cost: The review
should include an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated
Master Schedule (IMS) (see Figure 1.3). The audit teams should be
convinced that the program plan is complete and staffed at reasonable levels with realistic performance expectations.
Program execution risk and performance risk: The SRR should
identify program technical risks and program execution (cost and
schedule) risks. The risk management plan must also address who
is responsible for carrying out the risk mitigation strategies.
The objective of this phase of the design project is to determine the specifications of a new aircraft which meets specific requirements. In other words,
conceptual design of an aircraft requires the technical team to understand:
How large does the fuselage need to be to meet mission performance requirements?
How large does the wing need to be to meet mission performance
How large does the tail need to be to meet mission performance
How large does the engine need to be to meet mission performance
Once an initial concept gains support and attracts funding, a larger design
team forms; this team develops the preliminary design of the final product.
On a commercial program, this phase begins with an official program launch.


On a military program, this phase

begins with a contract award that
funds development toward something that the government calls
out as Milestone A.
To prepare for PDR, the engineering team must first engage
in high-level design studies:
In principle, the SRR phase
permits the engineering team to
define only general design speciFigure 1.3. Example integrated master
fications needed to meet specific
plan (IMP). WBS, work breakdown
performance goals. Between
structure; SOW, statement of work; PDR,
SRR and PDR, the engineering
preliminary design review; CDR, critical
team must flesh out the design.
design review.
In practice, budget, schedule
(IMP/IMS), and other programmatic constraints often restrict the design space to consider only limited variations on an initial conceptual
idea oftentimes established before SRR.
Ideally, if the outcome of any specific feasibility study is negative,
the results should be used to revise the bounds of permissible technology, size, or performance.
The first element to define is the aircrafts overall size and configuration. This includes its external shape (including a near-final wing
aerodynamic design) and internal arrangement, and definition of the principal subsystems (propulsion, landing gear, avionics and other mission
electronics, and basic details about the interior or weapons bay). Locking
down the external loft (the wing aerodynamic thickness, twist, and camber; the fuselage shape; and the tail geometry) allows wind tunnel testing
to commence. A nuanced external geometry allows the team to understand
the available internal volume in the wing that must accommodate fuel,
structure and the landing gear. These technical details must be defined
prior to a successful PDR. Once these design details are established, unexpected test results can cause ripple effects that can doom a program.
Current practice encourages the development of many different models to represent the entire system simultaneously. By PDR, the design team
needs to have the following:
Physical representation of the system that includes:
{{ a CAD solid model,
{{ integration drawings, and a
{{ bill of materials.

Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 7

Numerical performance representation of the aircraft that includes:

{{ Six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF)
aerodynamic data (CL, CD,
Cm, dCY/d, dCn/d, dCl/d,
Cm/elevator, etc.) (see Volume II, Chapter 3)
{{ Propulsion
tables (see Volume I, Chapter 3)
{{ Essential mass properties (see
Volume II, Chapter 2).
Mass properties representation
of the aircraft, which comprises
a formal group weight statement
(see MIL STD 1374 reporting
forms8Figure 1.4)
Maintenance functional representation, which includes block diagrams of steps necessary to repair
systems and subsystems.
The goal of the PDR is to assesses
the allocated design captured in subsystem and component product specifications.3 It ensures that the physical
properties of the system (i.e., weight,
power, cooling, etc.) have been properly allocated to subsystems and components in accordance with acceptable
design growth margins and analysis.
When you get to PDR, the technical
team should have defined the baseline design well enough that they can
show that the basic design is compliant with system-level attributes such
as safety, interoperability, and security. Figure 1.4. MIL STD 1374
The mission performance and mass weight reporting form.
properties stated at PDR should substantiate a design compliance with
Preliminary sketches and not-yet-built drawings should support
system-level (overall aircraft) analysis. These need to be detailed enough
to support quantitative analysis of the allocated physical attributes, interactions with loads and environment, and system-level properties.


During the PDR, the technical review team should be able to discern
whether the proposed subsystem designs are likely to satisfy the overall
system requirements. The audit team should ferret out any incorrect interface requirements or conflicting interpretations by design groups between
subsystems (i.e., weapon bays in the middle of fuel tanks).
A successful review is predicated on the (reviewers) determination
that the subsystem requirements, subsystem preliminary design, results of
peer reviews, and plans for development and testing form a satisfactory
basis for proceeding into detailed design.


In order to move a project from SRR to PDR, the technical team needs to
first establish the high-level design.
How does a team define a complex design where everything affects everything else? Conventional systems engineering thinking understates the
engineering rigor necessary to perform the feasibility study and other concept exploration tasks in the early-phase design process. Many concept exploration decisions are typically made on the basis of rational relationships
substantiated only by textbook equations or even by subjective opinion.
It is human nature to support decisions when commonly known engineering equations support program interests. For example, a decision
to incorporate a propulsion technology that reduces thrust-specific fuel
consumption would be expected to produce an aircraft with higher overall
efficiency. Looking more deeply into the problem, we must understand
that this decision-making process relies on a belief that cause-and-effect
relationships apply broadly across the design space; all design decisions
are supported by simple back-of-the-envelope trends.
Such an approach neglects potentially crucial coupling between disciplinary metrics. In the presence of substantial nonlinear and unforeseen
cross-disciplinary effects, a decision-making process that is informed by
rational relationship arguments may fail. In such a situation, unexpected,
emergent system behavior develops. If the designer cannot identify the
source of the cross-coupling, he cannot find solutions to remedy the problem. When this occurs, programs begin to unravel.
In order to mitigate this, the engineering team needs to perform all basic
trade studies with, what I call, heightened scrutiny analysis. At the PDR
phase, the team needs to make sure that it can fully substantiate the design.
Using detailed analytical and computational models, the team must evaluate
the design while considering the many physical, logistical, and operational
constraints that could have been easily neglected. If we link a collection of
engineering tools, we can perform multidisciplinary optimization (MDO).

Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 9

Systems engineering practice encourages

formal trade studies (see Figure 1.5).4 In order to
succeed, disciplinary engineers need to work with
systems engineers. Complex systems design projects require a we are all brothers mentality. Formal trade studies include the following steps:
1. State the problem: The trade study must
define evaluation criteria, dependent and
independent variables, and constraints that
limit the range of acceptable alternatives. To
eliminate confirmation bias, engineers must
establish evaluation criteria before they actually study alternative concepts. Engineering
analysis tools should be developed prior to
embarking on the design project. Disaster
awaits those who make their engineering tools
as they go along. I cannot reiterate how important it is to have quality engineering analysis
tools in place early in the design process.
Figure 1.5.Trade
2. Generate ideas: The design space should study process.
comprise a broad range of variation in independent continuous variables (i.e., wingspan) as well as differing
design topologies (i.e., engines under the wing versus engines buried in the tail). Systems engineering best practices discourage the
premature selection of alternatives. Although engineers should keep
an open mind and seriously evaluate all viable options, they should
remember that proposals made through open brainstorming sessions
rarely survive expert technical scrutiny.
3. Analyze candidate solutions: After the design space has been formalized, the team should perform a systematic analysis of the alternatives. The evaluation should measure the technical benefit as well
as the feasibility of each alternative.
4. Select practicable solutions: The process should segregate the
candidate designs into feasible and infeasible categories.
5. Evaluate candidates: The feasible candidate designs should be
evaluated by a broad team of stakeholders and technical experts.
6. Decide upon an optimum solution: The team then documents the
feasibility study to show what feasible solutions exist and recommend a solution which should be established as a formal baseline.
The requirements definition, documentation, validation, and trade
study processes of the conventional systems engineering paradigm are


steps that formalize and document a compliant design. The engineering

team should not forget that its task is to establish a point design baseline
configuration as rapidly as possible. Once the baseline high-level design
has been established, the technical team then fleshes out the design by
releasing part drawings and final supplier specifications.
Once the baseline has been established and detail design begins in
earnest, a broad engineering team applies very strict, detailed disciplinary
scrutiny to all aspects of the proposed design. In my industrial experience,
at this point, confirmation bias vanishes. Management tends to question
any expert technical judgment that does not support the baseline: leadership adopts a fix-it-but-dont-change-anything mentality. The system
design will rapidly unravel as more and more elements become noncompliant with specification during detail design.


Following conventional systems engineering rules, it is easy to omit
cross-disciplinary and nonlinear couplings and rely upon simple, hand
calculations. Insufficiently detailed high-level design is the root cause of
many of the downstream programmatic shortfalls. Troubled programs fall
into this trap because they suffer from an inflexible reliance on baseline
designs in the face of evidence of noncompliance, or are tied to a timetable
devised by leaders who made key decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate technical data. Either way, a baseline design that cannot withstand
strict technical scrutiny places the program at risk.
Programmatic leadership is understandably increasingly resistant to consider large-scale changes to the baseline configuration after more detailed
design has begun. In the short term, a management approach of maintaining
the established baseline will permit the program to remain on-schedule and
on-budget; moving forward with an inadequate configuration will likely result in failure at system validation. Conversely, if the leadership accepts an
error in the baseline and attempts to reconceptualize the design before the
next milestone, the program will deviate markedly from schedule and budget.
Several common circumstances degrade the quality of information
prepared during conceptual and preliminary design:
Germane basis data may not exist because necessary research for
technologies required in the design has yet to provide useful results,
(e.g., the natural laminar flow wing profile intended for the Consolidated B-24 did not bear fruit in actual flight test).
The basis data in any one discipline may contain either systematic
or random error that skews the overall systems solution, (e.g., the

Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 11

systematic underprediction of transonic drag on the Convair XF-102

The basis data in each discipline may be of fine quality, but the
error may be one of integration between the disciplines.
In each case, when the resultant system was built, the end product underperformed its initial expectations.
Successful functional decomposition will identify the appropriate geometric fidelity necessary for analysis. Some managers think that if too little fidelity is bad, overkill must be good. However, we MDO practitioners long ago
found that an all high-fidelity-coupled analysis is intractable. If you try to automate a CAD model of a production airframe to somehow go automatically
generate and run CFD, FEM, and propulsion simulations, you have implicitly
tried to perform high-level design in terms of a model containing millions,
rather than dozens, of independent variables. Moreover, experience has shown
that CFD cannot accurately predict airframe drag and FEM cannot accurately
predict airframe weight. Complexity alone does not produce accuracy.
In order to develop an MDO model of an aircraft for comprehensive trade studies to establish the high-level-design, the engineering team
needs the following:
A basic CAD system that renders 3D surface geometry for visualization
A Wing Shape Synthesis Toolkit that help specify the nuanced
thickness, camber, and twist of the wing
A Weight Estimation Toolkit that accurately predict overall system
weights from a superficial geometric model of the aircraft
A Zero-Lift-Drag Estimation Toolkit that accurately predicts zero-lift
drag of a production aircraft as a function of Mach number and altitude
A general Aerodynamic Force and Moment Estimation Toolkit that
accurately predicts lift, drag-due-to-lift, pitching, rolling, and yawing moments for arbitrary configurations
A general Propulsion System Performance Model that includes
both the thermodynamics and aerodynamics of propulsion, to produce five-column-data of thrust and fuel flow for an arbitrary engine as a function of speed, altitude, and power-lever-angle setting.
A Propulsion System Weights and Geometry Toolkit that describes
the bulk size and weight of the integrated propulsion system including engine, inlet, nozzle, engine-mounted accessories, as well as
the detailed nacelle geometry
A general Stability and Control Toolkit to decide how stable and
controllable the aircraft is at its intended CG location. This toolkit
can be used in two ways:


a. to help size the tail of the candidate aircraft to make the aerodynamics fit the CG,
b. to help understand how to locate principle subsystems inside
the aircraft to make the CG fit the aerodynamics of the design
A Mission Performance Toolkit that computes the fuel consumed
by an aircraft as it flies a mission.
A Point-Performance Toolkit that computes performance parameters like rate-of-climb or specific range of an aircraft as a function
of speed, altitude and weight (see Volume I, Chapter 5).
A Take-Off and Landing Toolkit that computes runway utilization
requirements for operation under FAA rules, including computation of climb gradients for engine inoperative takeoff, discontinued
approach and balked landing. This toolkit can be used in two ways:
(1) to understand how heavy the aircraft can be to operate out of an
existing runway and (2) to understand the requirements for the flap
system. This tool is used to build a runway utilization chart like that
shown in Volume I Figure 1.15.
Subsequent chapters of this book introduce students to the mathematical
fundamentals needed to create these toolkits.


Upon successful completion of the PDR, the engineering team will continue on to CDR. At CDR,3 the following is ensured:
Most mechanical parts will have been designed.
A significant number of parts for the first flight article will have
been fabricated.
The aerodynamics team will have completed all wind-tunnel tests.
Some subsystem bench-test data will be in hand.
Embedded software development will be in progress.
CDR should occur long before final assembly begins on the first flight
The CDR is a technical assessment whose goal is to establish the build
baseline. The CDR will ensure that the system under review has a reasonable expectation of being judged operationally effective and suitable. This
review assesses the final design as captured in product specifications
and ensures that item has been captured in detailed documentation.4
At CDR, build baseline includes hardware, software, support equipment,
training systems, system integration laboratory, and technical data.
Once the reviewers determine that the subsystem requirements, subsystem detail design, results of peer reviews, and plans for testing form a

Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 13

satisfactory basis for proceeding into system fabrication, demonstration

and test, the CDR is successful.
If the team has performed a superior conceptual and preliminary design, there should be smooth sailing from PDR to CDR. Although minor
technical glitches may arise, the system will meet or exceed all explicit
and implicit requirements. Hopefully, the prototype will delight the customer. Remember, a satisfied customer is a repeat customer!


Risk is the potential for variation in the cost, schedule, or performance
or its products.9 While such variation can include positive opportunities,
risk is more generally considered to be the potential for a negative future
reality. Risk management is the process where risk is identified, assessed,
and prioritized. To ensure program success, leadership must minimize,
monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events.
On an aircraft design project, it is common for engineering group leads to
supply risk management data on a weekly basis.
Program risk arises in many different forms.
System risks occur when the product does not meet minimum performance requirements or the manufacturer becomes subject to legal injunction due to patent/trademark/copyright/trade secret infringement.
Performance risk occurs when the product fails to perform as
promised. This can be the result of a problem in conceptual design,
preliminary design, detail design, assembly, compliance verification, or even from oversights in Operational Test.
Schedule risks occur when key milestones are not met (SRR, PDR,
Cost risks can occur in many different ways. Both recurring
(unit-production) and nonrecurring (development) costs can exceed
planned expenditures. This could be either due to labor overruns
or materials or subcontracting overruns. Cost risks also arise from
central banking (interest rates), as well as national and global (inflation, labor markets) economic factors.
A risk analysis and remediation plan increases probability of program
success. The idea is that prudent upfront planning will help reduce program schedule and cost by: (1) delivering a better basic program plan and
(2) having a policy in place to guide resource allocation (labor and money)
when a problem arises.
Risk assessments are not to be confused with program performance
assessments. If a risk is described in the past tense, the likelihood of


occurrence is 100 percent, it has happened, and it is an issue. The important difference between an issue and a risk is that issue management is
focused toward mitigating current effects, while risk management seeks
to mitigate future effects and root causes. Risk assessment involves identifying sources of potential harm, assessing the likelihood that harm will
occur, and the consequences if harm does occur.
Risk management evaluates which risks identified in the risk assessment process require management and selects and implements the plans
or actions that are required to ensure that those risks are controlled. Risk
management is basically comprised of four process elements:

Risk identification: What can go wrong?

Risk analysis: How big is the risk?
Risk mitigation planning: How can the risk be reduced?
Risk mitigation plan implementation: How can the mitigation
plan be implemented?

Suppose we conduct a test and discover that a subsystem does not

meet a key requirement? Now it is no longer uncertain that the subsystem
was the crap we suspected it to be, it is crap. Yet, consider whether we have
eliminated program risk? In this case, project risk increases because the
subsystem did not meet a key requirement. We must now address the project risk by implementing an action plan: either fix the subsystem design or
design around it by changing other parts of the design
In order to track emergent risks, the risk identification process identifies theoretical risks upfront (before the SRR), assigns each risk a numerical value upfront, and then tracks the risk as a function of time as the
program executes. Because fear of some harm ought to be proportional
not only to the magnitude of the harm, but also to the probability of the
event,10 program risks are characterized in terms of two values: the severity of the consequence (typically on a scale of 15) and the likelihood of
occurrence (also on a scale of 15). As these numbers are subjective (see
Figure 1.6 for the NASA/DoD chart and guidelines), systems engineers
are interested in whether they are increasing or decreasing with time.
If the reported risk suddenly spikes, management should divert additional
resources to that portion of the project.
Upfront, mangers identify an initial set of risks based on general project management experience (costs, hiring, schedule, or planning). Risks for
meeting each MOE and MOP should be identified. If minimum threshold
target values for various KPPs are known in advance (i.e., subsystem weights,
or drag levels), they should be tracked as part of the risk management plan.
Risk mitigation planning is a key part of the SRR planning process.
After the team identifies initial areas of risk, they should plan analyses,

Systems Engineering andthe Design Process 15

Figure 1.6.NASA/DoD risk chart.

simulations, and ground tests that trace the planned path to reduce uncertainty (see Figure 1.7) for each high-risk item. These activities must be consistent with schedule; they should be conducted as soon as possible. After
each milestone, management should reassess program risk based on test
results. The goal of this process is to make sure that engineers uncover and
fix any design problems prior to the scheduled CDR. The arrival of any new
KPP data within specification (such as weights, drag numbers, or thrust
levels) should help overall program confidence. If things start to unravel,
the systems engineer should keep management and customer informed.
An overly ambitious program promotes another type of risk. Engineers should be cognizant of a form of risk management known as risk
transfer and risk sharing. These contractual mechanisms can often hinder
a technical solution to a technical problem. When management outsources
a task; somebody else becomes responsible for the task.11 Because that

Figure 1.7. Risk reduction waterfall.


subcontract is governed by a legal contract; the agreement may specify

financial damages as a consequence of the outsourcer breaching the terms
of the contract. Management can use outsourcing as an insurance policy
to define and/or manage cash flow. If the supplier underperforms, the lead
manufacturer can claw back some expenses. Risk sharing is another popular approach where two firms collaborate together in a legal joint venture. Another form of risk sharing is found in incentive pay plans, where
engineers are paid below normal wages in return for a promise of some
fraction of the profit of their deliverable.
These strategies incentivize a mistaken belief that you can reduce, as
opposed to shift, program risks through legal means. What happens when
your supplier comes in so far off target that your customer cancels your
program? What happens when you have to delay product launch by months
or years? It is small consolation to the enterprise that develops cash flow
problems and places its employees at layoff risk. These problems can and
will continue to occur: consider how Boeing, during the development of
the 787, found themselves in a quagmire as an elaborate network of subcontractors unraveled after a prototype wing failed initial structural test.12

1. Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items, MIL STD-881C,
U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1993.
2. The Defense Acquisition System, Department of Defense Directive No.
5000.01, May 12, 2003.
3. Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, Department of Defense
Instruction No. 5000.02, January 7, 2015.
4. Anon., Systems Engineering for Intelligent Transportation Systems: An Introduction for Transportation Professionals, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007.
5. Engineering Management, MIL-STD-499A, U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, D.C., May 1, 1974.
6. Forsberg, K., Mooz, H., Cotterman, H., Visualizing Project Management:
Models and Frameworks for Mastering Complex Systems, Third Edition,
Wiley, New York, 2005.
7. Anon., Processes for Engineering a System, Electronics Industry Association
Standard, EIA-632, issued Sept. 2003.
8. Weight and Balance Data Reporting Forms for Aircraft (Including Rotorcraft),
MIL STD-1374, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., September
30, 1977.
9. NASA Risk Review Template, T2006, Rev C, Effective March 25, 2009.
10. Arnauld, A., Logic, or the Art of Thinking, Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridege, UK, 1996.
11. Denning, S., The Boeing Debacle: Seven Lessons Every CEO Must Learn,
Forbes Magazine, January 17, 2013.
12. Denning, S., What Went Wrong at Boeing, Forbes Magazine, January 21, 2013.

A-12 stealth Navy attack aircraft
program, 18
ABAQUS nonlinear finite-element
analysis, 35
Accelerate-go distance, 114116
Accelerate-stop-distance available
(ASDA), 9596, 100, 112114
BPR 12 engines, 199
design of, 194204
development of, 194
engine sizing, 201
features, 200201
interior layout, 195
optimum flight profiles, 203
Aerodynamic center, 6869
Aerodynamic database
elements of, 5557
generation, 5357
presentation, 5760
lateral-directional, 5960
longitudinal, 5859
Aerodynamic efficiency, 21, 58
as function of angle of attack, 216
Aerodynamic Force and Moment
Estimation Toolkit, 11
Aerodynamic Lift at Supersonic
Speeds, 158
Aerodynamic load distribution,
Aerodynamic performance
efficiency, 151, 234

aerodynamic center and, 69
lateral-directional, 5960
longitudinal, 5859
model for efficiency, 21
of wings. See Wings, aerodynamic
design of
Aerostructures, idealized and
actual, 3334
Aft-swept wing, 178
Aileronrudder interconnect
(ARI), 89
Airbus A319, 169, 193
Airbus A320, 169, 218, 219
Airbus A321, 169, 219, 225
Airbus A350XWB, 193
Airbus A380, 200, 205
Airbus A380-800, 20
aileron size and configuration, 64
arrangement, and propulsion
characteristics of, 17
conventionally configured narrow body airliner, 218225
empennage, 234
engine cycle selection and scaling, 232233
fuel fraction approach to, 21
high lift system, 233234
high-speed business jet, 205218
interior layout and fuselage
length, 227228


Aircraft (Continued)
Mach 0.95 sonic cruiser
aircraft, 225235
mission optimization, 234235
mission simulation approach
to, 2122
regional jet, 193204
empty weight
empirical methods. See Empirical
empirical regression of, 20
modeling and simulation methods. See Modeling and simulation methods, empty weight
self-referential nature of
estimation, 19
weighs at takeoff and, 1921
field performance principles
landing. See Landing
takeoff. See Takeoff
horizontal tail
and elevator size, 63
empirical methods to size,
mass moments of inertia, 5051
numerical performance representation of, 7
politics of acquisition, 18
procedure requires to, 122123
seating arrangements, 2324
sizing, 17
fuel fraction approach, 21
mission simulation approach,
in nutshell, 187190
simple spreadsheet, 192
specifications needed for,
using Breguets equation, 191
using multidisciplinary
optimization approach,
stability and controllability
aerodynamic database. See
Aerodynamic database

central gravity placement,

horizontal tail, and elevator
sizing, 7276
lateral-directional control,
lateral-directional stability, 7885
lateral-directional trim, 7678
longitudinal stability, 6771
longitudinal trim, 6467
modeling and simulation
approach to, 6264
systems engineering, 13
conceptual design, 38
detail design, 1213
model fidelity, 1012
multidisciplinary trade
studies, 810
risk reduction and mitigation,
vertical tail
empirical methods to size,
and rudder size, 63
weight and balance report, 18
wings, aerodynamic design
of. See Wings, aerodynamic
design of
Boeing 747, transonic characteristics of, 148151
critical Mach number, 145148
innermost, 196
pressure distributions, 154155,
selecting appropriate for transonic flight, 152158
transonic design guidelines for, 157
transonic flow over twodimensional, 144151
Airframe Structural Design, 23
Air phase, of landing, 129131
Airplane Flight Dynamics, 62
Angle of attack, 80, 155
aerodynamic efficiency and, 58
lift-generating, 165


pitching moment
neutral, as function of, 66
stick-fixed, 67
Aspect ratio (AR), 228
Assumed Temperature Method,
123, 124
Asymmetric thrust, 201
fuel, 205
history of, 225
Axial forces, 147

Braking effect, 132

Breguets equation, 21
aircraft sizing using, 191192
British Aerospace 146, 204
Build baseline, 12
Built-in optimizer (Solver), 191
Busemanns theory, 159
Business & Commercial Aviation
Business Aircraft Buyers
Guide, 207
Bypass ratio (BPR), 198, 199, 232

B747-8I, 20
B777 aircraft, 169
B787 aircraft, 169, 205
BaE Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, 199
Balanced field length, 118120
Balked landing climb, 128129
Bell X-2 rocket plane, 85
Bending moment, 25, 3840, 47
Bending torque, 3840
Bernoullis principle, 135
BihrleWeissman Chart, 8687,
214, 215
Blade element theory, 140
Bob Hope Burbank Airport
(BUR), 218
Body-heavy aircraft, 51, 84
Boeing 707, 197
Boeing 717s, 24
Boeing 727, 197
Boeing 737, 218, 219
Classic Flight Crew Training
manual, 123, 124
Boeing 737-300, 24, 45
Boeing 737-800, 109, 126, 219
Boeing 737-900ER, 225
Boeing B737-700, 208
Boeing 747100, 148151
Boeing 787, 193, 199
Bombardier CRJ-700, 24, 203
Bombardier Q400, 203
Brake-energy limits, 119
Braking coefficient of friction, 96

C11, 187
CAD model, 11, 18
lines, 180
physics-based method to,
selection of, 180
on two-dimensional sectional
flow properties, 137
CATIA solid modeling, 35
Center-of-gravity (CG), 50,
54, 7276
Certification flight path, 122123
Certified performance manual, 94
Cessna Citation X, 205218
Chordwise flow effect, 139
spanwise distribution of, 175
Classical pulley-and-bellcrank
reversible control systems, 65
Climb capability
minimum, 121, 128
weight limits due to inadequate,
Climb speed, 234235
Closed-loop feedback control
system, 71
Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) rules. See also Federal
for airworthiness, 53
high-altitude transonic transport
and, 225


Coefficient, definition of, 96

Compressive yield strength, 36
Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD), 54
Euler flow, 148
Conceptual design phase
of aircraft, 38
program execution, SRR to
PDR, 58
Control coupling, 79
Conventionally configured narrow
body airliner, 218225
Cost risk, 13
Coupled engine scale factor, 198,
Critical Design Review (CDR),
2, 3, 12
Critical field length (CFL), 94,
99, 188
definition of, 112
pilots convenience, 119
Critical Mach number, 136, 145148
CRJ-200, 20
Cross-disciplinary effects, 22
Cross-sectional area, of wing
covers, 4041
drag, 190
weight, 3334
Cruise altitude, 234235
Cue speeds, 190
landing, 125127
takeoff, 100111
Curse of dimensionality, 222
Defense Acquisition Order, 2
Density, 36
Derated thrust, 123124
Design lift coefficient, 146,
153154, 228, 230
high-speed, 190
impact of, 158
Detail design, phase of aircraft,
2, 1213

Developed wing span, 170

Dihedral angle, 63
Dihedral effect, 172, 214
Discontinued approach, 128129
Drag, 5557
coefficient, 58
crud drag, 190
decomposition of forces into, 147
dimensional-induced, 170
elevator deflection on, 66
induced, 68, 171172, 231
Munk elliptical span load
solution for, 167
pressure, 148
transonic, 150, 156
of wing, 6869
zero-lift, 190
Drake, Hubert, 85
Dutch roll, 79
in aerodynamic database, 80
coupling, 85
frequency, 80, 89
model, 234
Dynamic stability, 67, 214
Elastic modulus, 36
deflection, 65
effect on lift and drag, 67
positive, definition of, 66
sizing, 7276
Embraer 135, 193
Embraer 170, 24, 203
Embraer 175, 24
Embraer 190, 24
Emirates Airlines A340-500, 123
Empennage, 234
structural weight, 2627
Empirical Drag Estimation
Technique (EDET), 194,
209, 221
Empirical methods
for empennage structural weight,


for fuselage structural weight,

for landing gear weight, 2930
for mass moments of inertia,
for non-structural weight
elements, 3032
for payload weight and volume,
for propulsion system weight, 28
to size vertical and horizontal
tail, 6062
for wing structural weight, 2426
Empty weight
empirical methods for. See
Empirical methods
modeling and simulation
methods. See Modeling
and simulation methods,
empty weight
operational. See Operational
empty weight (OEW)
Engine cycle selection, 232233
Engine failure speed (VEF), 100
Engine size, measurement of, 232
ERJ-135ER, 20
Euler buckling equation, 43
Euler flow computational fluid
dynamics, 148
European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) CS-25 standards, 91
EXCEL. See Microsoft EXCEL
Explicit requirements, 4
Explicit sizing algorithm, 22
Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), 4, 33, 91
-certified braking friction, 96
and MIL standards, 132
regulations for certification, 208
Transport Category Airworthiness Regulations, 219
wet braking coefficient of friction schedule, 97

Federal Regulation
14 CFR 4b, 94
14 CFR 23, 91
14 CFR 25, 91, 94, 98, 127, 205,
206, 220, 225
14 CFR 25.105, 93
14 CFR 25.105(d), 97
14 CFR 25.107, 93
14 CFR 25.109, 112
14 CFR 25.109(i), 93, 96, 114
14 CFR 25.111, 93, 114
14 CFR 25.113, 93, 111, 116
14 CFR 25.119, 128
14 CFR 25.121, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.121(a), 121
14 CFR 25.121(b), 121
14 CFR 25.121(b)(1), 93, 220
14 CFR 25.121(c), 121
14 CFR 25.121(d), 128
14 CFR 25.125, 126, 129, 131, 132
14 CFR 25.149, 94
14 CFR 25.173, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.177, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.237, 109
14 CFR 25.473, 29
14 CFR 25.733, 202
14 CFR 25.783, 220
14 CFR 25.793, 220
14 CFR 25.807, 195, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.809, 208, 220
14 CFR 25.817, 220
14 CFR 25.841, 200, 205, 208,
224, 226
14 CFR 25.903, 199
14 CFR 25.904, 94
14 CFR 25.951, 33
14 CFR 25.957, 33
14 CFR 25.969, 33
14 CFR 33, 206
14 CFR 36, 206
14 CFR 36 Appendix A, 121
14 CFR 36 Appendix B36.7, 122
14 CFR 91, 94, 206
14 CFR 91.117, 235
14 CFR 121, 94, 206


Federal Regulation (Continued)

14 CFR 121.189, 93, 94, 111
14 CFR 121.195, 125, 127
14 CFR 121.195(e), 125
14 CFR 125(b)(5), 130
Field performance principles
computing cue speeds, 125127
modeling and simulation
methods for, 128133
in nutshell, 124125
simplified statistical model
for, 127128
computing cue speeds, 100111
modeling and simulation
methods for, 111121
noisecertification and abatement procedures, 121124
in nutshell, 9398
simplified statistical method
for, 9899
Finite-element program, 3334, 35
Finite wing effects, 140
Five-column-data, 7
Five control point wing-body
model, 173174
Flap settings, in transport category
aircraft, 126
Flaps-up safety speed, 101
Flight Dynamics Principles, 62
Flight Optimization System
(FLOPS), 17
Flight Readiness Review (FRR), 2
FORTRAN, 187, 221
Free rolling resistance, 96
burn, 229, 234235
fraction approach, 21
weight and volume for, 33
Full Authority Digital Engine
Controller (FADEC), 123,
124, 201
Functional decomposition tree, 3
Fuselage length, 227228

Fuselage-mounted horizontal
tail, 234
Fuselage structural weight, 2728
Gate review meetings, 2
Great Recession, 205
Ground effect, 105106
aerodynamics model, 116
Handling qualities, 53
Heightened scrutiny analysis, 8
Hershey bar planform, 140142
High-altitude transonic
transport (HATT), 225226,
231, 232
High-level design, 7
High lift system, 233234
High-speed business jet, 205218
High-speed design lift
coefficient, 190
High Speed Wing Theory,
Hondajet, 205
Horizontal tail, 7276
sizing, 6162
volume coefficient, 61, 188, 190
Implicit requirements, 4
spanwise influence of, 143144
on two-dimensional sectional
flow properties, 137
Independent design variables, 188
Inertial roll coupling, 79, 82
Inerting process, 33
In-plane bending moments, 40
Integrated Master Plan (IMP), 5, 6
Integrated Master Schedule
(IMS), 5
Intended cruise speed, 189
International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), 96


JAR (JAR 25), 91
Jet-A, 33
Joint venture, 16
JP-7 fuel, 33
JP-8 military grade fuel, 33
KarmanTsien equation, 145,
149, 166
Key performance parameters
(KPP), 5, 188
Knots equivalent airspeed
(KEAS), 219
Knots indicated airspeed (KIAS),
100, 109, 125126
Korn equation, 152153, 175176
Korn factor, 210, 213
La Guardia airport (LGA),
92, 218
air phase, 129131
computation of, 190
cue speeds, 125127
gear configuration, 202
gear weight, 2930
modeling and simulation
methods for, 128133
in nutshell, 124125
simplified statistical model
for, 127128
Landing distance available
(LDA), 125
Landing distance required (LDR),
125, 188
Landing ground roll (LGR),
125, 131132
Lateral control departure
parameter (LCDP), 8586
Lateral-directional control, 8590
Lateral-directional stability,
60, 7885
Lateral-directional trim, 7678

Lift, 5557
actual vs. ideal transverse
distribution, 183
analytical and computational
estimates of, 163
coefficient, 58, 157
design. See Design lift
vs. drag coefficient, 58
maximum, 76, 212
pitching moment vs., 65, 68
section. See Section lift
spanwise distribution of,
transonic effects into, 149, 150
cruise spanwise distribution
of, 176
decomposition of forces into, 147
distribution of arbitrary twist, 182
effect of incidence on, 143
elevator deflection on, 66
elliptical or triangular,
distribution as system
optimum, 167169
spanwise distribution of, 175
Lift-induced-drag model, 190
Lift-off speed (VLOF), 101
Linear aerodynamics theory, 182
Lockheed C-5, 34
Lockheed C-130J, 124
Lockheed L-1011, 197
Longitudinal stability, 6771
Longitudinal trim, of aircraft,
64, 6567
Lower cover, sizing of, 42
Lower critical Mach number, 162
Lumped mass approach, 38
Mach 0.95 sonic cruiser aircraft,
Mach buffet effect, 76
Mach number, 66
Mason, W. H., 152


Mass moments of inertia, 5051

direct methods to, 5051
empirical methods to, 51
Mass properties engineer, 17
MATLAB, 187, 194, 221
Maximum crosswind capability,
Maximum lift coefficient, 76, 212
Maximum takeoff weight
(MTOW), 19, 189
operational empty weight and, 20
on torque box weight, 49
Measure of effectiveness (MOE),
5, 188, 210
Measure of performance (MOP),
5, 188, 210
Microsoft EXCEL, 187, 191,
194, 221
Mid-chord sweep, 37
MIL-5011A, 91
MIL 8785C, 83, 89
Milestone A, 6
MIL-STD-3013, 91, 96
MIL-STD 8785C, 53, 7273, 81
Minimum climb capability, 121, 128
Minimum control airspeed
(VMCA), 100, 103105
force and yawing moment
balance for, 103
rolling moment balance for, 104
side force balance for, 104
Minimum control ground speed
(VMCG), 100, 102103
Minimum control landing
airspeed, 127
Minimum unstick speed (Vmu),
100101, 105109
effect of wing height, 107
Mission Code, 194, 210
Mission Performance Toolkit, 12
Mission simulation approach, 2122
ModelCenter, 194, 209210, 219,
221222, 226, 228, 231
Modeling and simulation methods
empty weight

basic loads into shear, bending

moment, and bending torque,
minimum cross-sectional area
of upper and lower covers,
sizes of upper and lower cover,
spar webs and rib web structure, 4145
weight estimation of wing primary structure, 3538
wing torque box design, 4550
for landing, 121124
for takeoff, 111121
Modern control theory, 90
Moment coefficient, 77
Moment reference point (MRP), 54
Multidisciplinary optimization
(MDO), 8, 11, 195, 209
aircraft sizing using, 192193
Multidisciplinary trade studies, 810
Multispar wing, 44
Munk elliptical span load, 167
National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA), 207, 216
National Weather Service, 97
Net bending torques, 47
Neumarks wing theory, 162
Neutral longitudinal stability, 68
Noble Knight, 206, 210, 212213
performance of, 217218
Noise abatement takeoff profile,
Non-physics statistical-based
models, 33
Nonplanarity, 169172
Non-structural weight elements,
Normal forces, 147
Nose gear weight, 29
Numerical Propulsion System
Simulation (NPSS), 194,
209210, 232


One-degree-of-freedom model,
70, 80
Operational empty weight (OEW),
19, 189, 229
effect of aspect ratio on, 228
maximum takeoff weight
and, 20
Optimum nonplanar planform,
Oswald efficiency, 221
Peakey leading-edge approach,
148, 151, 198
Pareto sensitivity analysis, 222
Payload (PYLD), 21, 189, 204
weight, 2324
Pearcey style, 196
Performance risk, 13
Phoenix Integration, 194, 219
Piaggio P-180 Avanti II, 208
Pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), 72
Pitch control power, 66
Pitching moment, 54, 5657
Pitch-plane model, 62
Pitch responsiveness, 73, 74
Planform geometry, of wings,
Point-Performance Toolkit, 12
PrandtlGlauert effect, 66,
149150, 163
Preliminary Design (PD), 2, 5
Preliminary Design Review
(PDR), 2, 3
goal of, 7
Pressure coefficient, 166167
Pressure drag, 148
Programmatic leadership, 10
Program risk, 13
Proper wing taper ratio, 177179
Propulsion System Performance
Model, 11
Propulsion System Weights and
Geometry Toolkit, 11

Raytheon fire-control system, 34
Regional jet, 193204
Requirements, definition of, 4
Reverse thrust, 132133
Rib web structure, 4145
analysis, 14
assessments, 1314
definition of, 13
identification, 14
management, 1314
mitigation planning, 1415
implementation, 14
sharing, 1516
transfer, 15
Rolling moment, 54, 5557, 60
balance for simplified VMCA
computation, 104
neutral derivative, 59
Rolls Royce Trent XWB
engines, 206
Roll stability. See Dihedral effect
Roll-yaw-plane model, 62
Roskam landing equation,
Royal Air Force of United
Kingdom (RAF), 92
Royal Australian Air Force
(RAAF), 92
nomenclature, 9498
short-field performance, 119
surface condition, effect of, 99
Runway Condition Reading
(RCR), 96, 97
Safety of flight, 53
San Jose International Airport
(SJC), 95, 124
Scaling, 232233
Schedule risk, 13
Seating arrangements, 2324
Second-segment climb speed, 101


Section lift coefficient, 38

axis, 174175
design, 173
local, 174
section thickness and, 153
spanwise distribution of, 176,
177, 179
Shear, 3840
force, 4445, 47
Shock wave, 145
Short-period frequency, 70
Side force, 5557
balance for simplified VMCA
computation, 104
neutral derivative, 59
Simple cruise model, 21
Simplified quasi-static moment
balance approach, 127
Simplified statistical method
for landing, 127128
for takeoff, 9899
Singapore Airlines Airbus 380, 24
Six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF)
aerodynamic data, 7
problem, 62
Smooth touchdown, 130
Society of Allied Weight
Engineers/Military Standard
1374) form, 22
SolidWorks CAD package, 220
Solver, 191
Span efficiency factor, 170
Spanwise flow effect, 139
of incidence, 143144
of thickness, 140142
Spar caps, 42
Spar web structure, 4145
Specific range skymap, 216, 217
Spin-prone, 178
Spreadsheet Methods for Aircraft
Design, 21
Spreadsheet type sizing
methods, 187
Squared-cube law, 20

SR-71 aircraft, 33
Stability and controllability
database generation, 5357
database presentation, 5760
center of gravity placement,
horizontal tail, and elevator
sizing, 7276
empirical methods to size
vertical and horizontal
tail, 6062
lateral-directional control, 8590
lateral-directional stability,
lateral-directional trim, 7678
longitudinal stability, 6771
longitudinal trim, 6467
modeling and simulation
approach to, 6264
Stability and Control Toolkit, 1112
Stability augmentation systems, 71
Stall characteristics, of aircraft,
Static margin, 69
Static stability, 67
Steady-state forces, 5556
Stick-fixed lateral-directional
trim, 77
Stick-fixed longitudinal trim, 65
Stick-fixed short-period frequency,
70, 74, 75
Stick-fixed time to double, 70
Stick-free lateral-directional
trim, 77
Stick-free longitudinal trim, 65
Stiffened panel buckling
equation, 43
Streamwise geometry, of wing, 173
Strip theory, 175
Structural weight
empennage, 2627
fuselage, 2728
wing, 2426
Subsonic Fixed Wing Project, 218
Supervelocities, 141


Sweep effects, 158169

Sweep theory
introduction, 159161
in practice, 161164
Swept wing pressure
transformations, 164167
Synthesis of Subsonic Aircraft
Design, 23, 215
System Acceptance Plan (SAP), 4
System risk, 13
Systems engineering process, 13
conventional, 8
role of, 1
traditional, 2
uses, 2
Systems Requirements Definition
(SRD), 2, 4
Systems Requirements Review
(SRR), 2, 3
addressing, 45
purpose of, 4
System Verification Plan (SVP), 4
Tail strike, 105
computation of, 190
cue speeds, 100111
decision speed, 100
distance, 116118
modeling and simulation
methods for, 111121
noisecertification and abatement
procedures, 121124
in nutshell, 9398
reference speed, 122
simplified statistical method
for, 9899
weight limits due to inadequate
climb capability, 120121
Take-Off and Landing Toolkit, 12
Takeoff distance available
(TODA), 95
Takeoff ground run distance
(TORA), 95

Takeoff rotation speed (VR), 101

Taper ratio (TR), 230
Tensile yield strength, 36
Thickness, of wings
physics-based method for, 153158
spanwise influence of, 140142
on two-dimensional sectional
flow properties, 137
Thickness-to-chord ratio, 190, 230
Thin airfoil theory, 135136, 144
asymmetric, 201
derated, 123124
reverse, 132133
Thrust-specific fuel consumption
(TSFC), 21
Torenbeek weights tool, 194,
Touchdown speed (VTD), 127
Traditional systems engineering, 2
Transonic characteristics
of Boeing 747 airfoil, 148151
of wing, 144151
Transport category aircraft, 126
minimum climb capability for
certified landing of, 121, 128
Transverse lift distribution, relative
weight impacts of, 168
Transverse span load, 170171
Trapezoidal taper ratio
definition of, 36
planform, 179
Turbofan engine, weight of, 28
TWA Flight 800, 33
Two dimensional theory, 139140
Ullage, 33
Ultimate shear strength, 36
Underpressure, 140
Unstable buffet, effects of, 178
Unstable Dutch roll, 79
Upper cover, 42
Upper critical Mach number, 162
US military, 92


VBA, 187
Vertical tail
sizing, 61
volume coefficient, 61, 188, 190
Von Mises stress, 48
VORLAX tool, 194, 209210,
221, 231
Washingtons Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport
(DCA), 218
Wash-in twist, 181
Wash-out twist, 181
Weathercock stability, 214, 234
Weight breakdown, 224
Weight Estimation Toolkit, 11
Weight group, 17
Weight limits, due to inadequate
takeoff climb capability,
Weight prediction, 19. See also
Empty weight
Wet braking coefficient of friction, 97
Wind tunnel testing, 54
Winglets, 169, 172, 231232
aerodynamic design of, 195196
block diagram of synthesis
procedure, 173
designing for optimal
performance, 172184
nonplanarity, 169172
physics-based method to
determine thickness and
camber, 153158
planform geometry, 137138
searching for optimum nonplanar
planform, 171172
selecting appropriate airfoil
for transonic flight, 152158
sweep effects, 158169
three-dimensional flow effects,

transonic flow over twodimensional airfoils, 144151

chord, 45
minimum cross-sectional area
of, 4041
sizes of, 4145
designing, 228231
dihedral angle, 63
drag of, 6869
geometry, definition of, 35
heavy aircraft, 51
integrated load of, 38
loft, 196
multispar, 44
structural weight, 2426
structure, design of, 3538
torque box, 39, 41, 4550
twist, 231232
camber and thickness
distribution, 197
Wing Shape Synthesis Toolkit, 11
Wing Thickness tool, 209
Work breakdown structure
(WBS), 3
X-15 configuration, 85
Yaw damper, 82
Yawed wing geometry, 159
Yawing moment, 54, 5557, 60
balance for simplified VMCA
computation, 103
neutral derivative, 59
Yehudi, 176177
Yehudis, 36
Zero-lift drag, 58, 190, 228
Zero-Lift-Drag Estimation
Toolkit, 11
Zero-lift model, 190


Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume I: Fundamentals of Aircraft Performance
by Timothy Takahashi

Momentum Press is one of the leading book publishers in the field of engineering,
mathematics, health, and applied sciences. Momentum Press offers over 30 collections,
including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil, Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical,
and many others.
Momentum Press is actively seeking collection editors as well as authors. For more
information about becoming an MP author or collection editor, please visit

Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering
topics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers, faculty,
and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content in sensors
and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and materials science.
Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

perpetual access for a one-time fee

no subscriptions or access fees required
unlimited concurrent usage permitted
downloadable PDFs provided
free MARC records included
free trials

The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future
For more information, please visit or to set up a trial in the
US, please contact