You are on page 1of 173

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (AEROSPACE)

AEROSPACE VEHICLE DESIGN I


EAS3713-1

DESIGN REPORT

MANAGER : Mohammad Yazdi Bin Harmin

TEAM MEMBER :
Muhammad Akmal Aiman B. Alias (181051)
Nurul Huda Husna Bt Zainol Abidin (180809)
Norfara Aiza Hamzah (180046)
Muhammad Zulhilmi Bin Hasni@Mohd Zikri (180275)
Ahmad Dasuki Bin Mohamed Yusof (180612)
Wahiduddin Bin Rujhan (180040)
Mohammedu Bello Danbatta (177375)
Nur Alia Afifah Binti Azman (178937)
Muhammad Nor Asyraf Bin Mohd Isa (178765)
ABSTRACT

The issues of climate change is getting a “hot” attention from all people from any corners
around the world. This report is about a project of designing an electrical hybrid-typed aircraft,
titled Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft (HEEGA) for civil aviation operations of
General Aviation which is specifically for executives and companies private jet owner.

In order to keep track with the current trend as well as to identify the research and design gap,
several conceptual design sketches is developed from more than 10 types of references
aircrafts, with various design arrangements and configuration types for all relatives parts of
wings, fuselages, engines, tail surfaces, and landing gears as per the legal responsibilities
compliances for airworthiness authority of either FAA, EASA, and DCA. This electrical hybrid
aircraft is designed to provide energy storage for take-off, climb, go-around, and emergencies
using generated electrical motor by a fossil fuel-consuming generator, which definitely making
the aircraft to operate with less fuel burns, high fuel efficiency, less noise, and engine emissions
reduction.

Once the baseline design is choosen in selection matrix and properly justified, a “simple cruise”
of mission profile or flight planning is represented as the team expected flight operational
mission for the aircraft. Thus, the baseline design analysis (design for performance and cost
aspects) is performed to match the required mission or specified target for this project.

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ viii
INTRODUCTIONS .............................................................................................................. 1
OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 3
1) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP): HYBRID-ELECTRIC GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT (HEEGA)............................................................................................................ 4
1.1 General Requirement ............................................................................................... 4
1.2 Design Mission Requirements ................................................................................. 4
1.3 Certification Compliance Documents ..................................................................... 5
2) CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROCESS ......................................................... 19
2.1 Design Detailed Flowchart Process ....................................................................... 19
2.2 Reference Aircrafts ................................................................................................ 19
2.3 Configuration Options ........................................................................................... 20
2.4 Conceptual Design Sketches ................................................................................. 48
2.5 Design Selection Matrix ........................................................................................ 61
3) UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT WEIGHT ESTIMATION ......................................................... 66
3.1 Initial Weight Sizing Estimation ........................................................................... 66
3.2 First “Guesstimation” of Aircraft Weight (Hybrid & Non-hybrid Systems) ........ 72
3.3 Range & Payload Trade Studies ............................................................................ 77
3.4 Parametric Study Analysis on Gross Weight Estimation ...................................... 81
3.5 Initial Aircraft Component Weight Estimation ..................................................... 89
3.6 Aircraft Weight Breakdown .................................................................................. 95
4) UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS ................... 100
4.1 Initial Thrust-to-weight Ratio (T/W) Estimation ................................................. 100
4.2 Parametric Study Analysis on Thrust-to-weight Estimation ............................... 105
4.3 Initial Wing Loading (W/S) Estimation ............................................................... 106

ii
4.2 Parametric Study Analysis on Wing Loading Estimation ................................... 116
5) UNITY X6 CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) EVALUATION & AIRCRAFT GEOMETRY
SIZING ............................................................................................................................... 120
5.1 First Estimation of CG Location ......................................................................... 120
5.2 Fuselage Geometrical Sizing ............................................................................... 127
5.3 Wing Geometrical Sizing .................................................................................... 129
5.4 Tail Geometrical Sizing ....................................................................................... 135
5.5 Wing Placement ................................................................................................... 143
5.6 Weight and Balance Evaluation .......................................................................... 148
6) PRELIMINARY UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT DESIGN ..................................................... 154
6.1 Aircraft Designation ............................................................................................ 154
6.2 Aircraft Cabin Layout .......................................................................................... 155
6.3 Range Capability ................................................................................................. 156
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 157
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 158

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

FIG. 1: SIMPLE CRUISE MISSION PROFILE. ...................................................................... 5


FIG. 2: FLOWCHART OF CURRENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. ................................. 19
FIG. 3: CONCEPT DESIGN 1. ............................................................................................... 50
FIG. 4: CONCEPT DESIGN 2. ............................................................................................... 53
FIG. 5: CONCEPT DESIGN 3. ............................................................................................... 57
FIG. 6: CONCEPT DESIGN 4. ............................................................................................... 60
FIG. 7: HIGHLIGHTED RANGE OF ESTIMATED WETTED AREA RATIOS (RAYMER,
1992). ................................................................................................................................ 67
FIG. 8: THE RED ARROW SHOWING THE OBTAINED MAXIMUM (L/D) RATIO
BASED FROM ARWET (RAYMER, 1992). ..................................................................... 68
FIG. 9: PROGRAMMING FLOWCHART OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT ESTIMATION
(HYBRID & NON-HYBRID SYSTEMS). ...................................................................... 73
FIG. 10: INITIAL TOGW/MTOW (HYBRID PROPULSIVE ENGINE). ............................ 74
FIG. 11: INITIAL TOGW/MTOW (NON-HYBRID PROPULSIVE ENGINE). .................. 74
FIG. 12: AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MISSION PROFILE INCLUDING RESERVE FUEL
MISSION SEGMENT. ..................................................................................................... 75
FIG. 13: THREE STUDIED VALUES OF RANGE, R, DISTANCE IN NAUTICAL MILES
(NMI). ............................................................................................................................... 78
FIG. 14: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
VERSUS RANGE. ........................................................................................................... 79
FIG. 15: FOUR AMOUNTS OF PAYLOAD WEIGHTS THAT MAY INCURRED BY
UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT. .................................................................................................. 80
FIG. 16: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
VERSUS PAYLOAD WEIGHT. ..................................................................................... 81
FIG. 17: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
VERSUS NUMBER OF PASSENGER. .......................................................................... 83
FIG. 18: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
VERSUS RANGE. ........................................................................................................... 84

iv
FIG. 19: BAR CHART OF TYPE OF ENGINE VERSUS TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR
MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT. ............................................................................... 85
FIG. 20: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
VERSUS VELOCITY. ..................................................................................................... 86
FIG. 21: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
VERSUS MAX. LIFT-TO-DRAG RATIO...................................................................... 87
FIG. 22: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
VERSUS ENDURANCE (LOITER) TIME..................................................................... 88
FIG. 23: RAPID WEIGHT ESTIMATION OVER REFERENCE-BASED AIRCRAFT
CATEGORY OF SMALLER AIRCRAFT WEIGHT FRACTION (KUNDU, 2010). ... 90
FIG. 24: WEIGHT BREAKDOWN FOR UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT. ...................................... 96
FIG. 25: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE DISTRIBUTION OF PART OR
COMPONENT. ................................................................................................................ 97
FIG. 26: THE REFERENCE AIRCRAFT OF XTI TRIFAN 600 WITH (A) FUSELAGE AND
(B) TAPERED WING CONFIGURATIONS. ................................................................. 98
FIG. 27: THE CONFIGURATION OF (A) TRICYCLE LANDING GEAR AND (B) T-TAIL
FOR TAIL STRUCTURE. ............................................................................................... 98
FIG. 28: PW500 HIGH BYPASS RATIO TURBOFAN ENGINE. ....................................... 98
FIG. 29: PROGRAMMING FLOWCHART OF THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO
ESTIMATION. ............................................................................................................... 104
FIG. 30: RESULTING OUTPUT OF MATLAB COMMAND WINDOW IN THRUST-TO-
WEIGHT RATIO ESTIMATION. ................................................................................. 104
FIG. 31: GRAPH OF MAXIMUM CRUISE SPEED VS THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO.
........................................................................................................................................ 106
FIG. 32: DETERMINATION OF MAX. LIFT COEFFICIENT RETRIEVED FROM
TEXTBOOK CONTENT (RAYMER, 1992). ............................................................... 108
FIG. 33: TAKE-OFF PARAMETER ESTIMATION (RAYMER, 1992). ........................... 109
FIG. 34: RFP’S REQUIREMENT OVER TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DISTANCE
(HEEGA, 2017). ............................................................................................................. 109
FIG. 35: RFP’S REQUIREMENT OVER CLIMB RATE FOR SIX-SEAT VARIANT
MISSION (HEEGA, 2017)............................................................................................. 110
v
FIG. 36: OSWALD’S SPAN EFFICIENCY FACTOR RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK
CONTENT (RAYMER, 1992). ...................................................................................... 111
FIG. 37: OBSTACLE-CLEARANCE DISTANCE FOR GA-TYPE RETRIEVED FROM
TEXTBOOK CONTENT (RAYMER, 1992). ............................................................... 113
FIG. 38: PROGRAMMING FLOWCHART OF WING LOADING ESTIMATION. ......... 114
FIG. 39: RESULTING OUTPUT OF MATLAB COMMAND WINDOW IN WING
LOADING ESTIMATION............................................................................................. 115
FIG. 40: THE SELECTED AND CHOSEN RED-CIRCLED VALUES IN THRUST-TO-
WEIGHT RATIO AND WING LOADING ESTIMATION. ........................................ 116
FIG. 41: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF DISTANCE ANALYSIS. .............................................. 117
FIG. 42: GRAPH OF ASPECT RATIO ANALYSIS. .......................................................... 118
FIG. 43: GRAPH OF INITIAL CLIMB RATE ANALYSIS. ............................................... 118
FIG. 44: GRAPH OF CRUISE SPEED ANALYSIS. ........................................................... 119
FIG. 45: GRAPH OF MAXIMUM LIFT COEFFICIENT ANALYSIS. .............................. 120
FIG. 46: FUSELAGE FIRST ESTIMATION ON CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) LOCATION
ACCORDING TO THE AIRCRAFT LENGTH (SIDE VIEW).................................... 122
FIG. 47: FUSELAGE FIRST ESTIMATION ON CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) LOCATION
ACCORDING TO THE AIRCRAFT LENGTH (TOP VIEW). .................................... 123
FIG. 48: THE WEIGHT OF THE WING IS RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK CONTENT
(ANDERSON, 1999). ..................................................................................................... 125
FIG. 49: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR FIRST ESTIMATION OF
CG LOCATION. ............................................................................................................ 126
FIG. 50: DEFINITION OF GEOMETRIC FUSELAGE PARAMETERS (ROSKAM, 1985).
........................................................................................................................................ 128
FIG. 51: INITIAL FUSELAGE SIZING DESIGN. .............................................................. 129
FIG. 52: WING SIZING DIMENSIONAL ESTIMATION (GUDMUNDSSON, 2014). .... 131
FIG. 53: INITIAL WING SIZING DESIGN (0.25 MAC). ................................................... 133
FIG. 54: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR INITIAL WING SIZING.
........................................................................................................................................ 134
FIG. 55: EXAMPLE OF T-TAIL CONFIGURATION STRUCTURE. ............................... 135

vi
FIG. 56: HORIZONTAL TAIL ASPECT RATIO RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK
CONTENT (ANDERSON, 1999). ................................................................................. 136
FIG. 57: VERTICAL TAIL ASPECT RATIO RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK CONTENT
(ANDERSON, 1999). ..................................................................................................... 136
FIG. 58: HORIZONTAL TAIL DIMENSIONAL SIZES. .................................................... 138
FIG. 59: INITIAL HORIZONTAL TAIL SIZING DESIGN. ............................................... 139
FIG. 60: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR INITIAL HORIZONTAL
TAIL SIZING. ................................................................................................................ 140
FIG. 61: INITIAL VERTICAL TAIL SIZING DESIGN. ..................................................... 143
FIG. 62: THE LOCATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC CENTER OF THE WINGED BODY.
........................................................................................................................................ 145
FIG. 63: THE WING PLACEMENT FOLLOWING THE LOCATION OF AERODYNAMIC
CENTER ON THE WINGED BODY............................................................................ 146
FIG. 64: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR INITIAL VERTICAL
TAIL SIZING. ................................................................................................................ 147
FIG. 65: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR WEIGHT AND
BALANCE EVALUATION. ......................................................................................... 149
FIG. 66: WEIGHT & BALANCE DIAGRAM. .................................................................... 153
FIG. 67: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT PRELIMINARY DESIGN FROM SIDE VIEW [NOT TO
SCALE]. ......................................................................................................................... 154
FIG. 68: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT PRELIMINARY DESIGN FROM TOP VIEW [NOT TO
SCALE]. ......................................................................................................................... 154
FIG. 69: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT CABIN LAYOUT CONFIGURATIONS. ...................... 155
FIG. 70: UNITY X6 CRUISE RANGE OF 750 NAUTICAL MILES. ................................ 156

vii
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF THE


AIRCRAFT (CFR, 1984). .................................................................................................. 5
TABLE 2: TYPES OF ENGINE. ............................................................................................ 20
TABLE 3: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE TYPES. ................................................................ 22
TABLE 4: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS. ............ 22
TABLE 5: TYPES OF FUSELAGE SEATER........................................................................ 23
TABLE 6: PUGH MATRIX OF FUSELAGE SEATER TYPES. .......................................... 24
TABLE 7: PUGH MATRIX OF FUSELAGE SEATER TYPES CRITERIA
JUSTIFICATIONS. .......................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 8: LOCATION OF ENGINE. .................................................................................... 24
TABLE 9: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE LOCATIONS. ..................................................... 27
TABLE 10: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE LOCATIONS CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS. 27
TABLE 11: TYPES OF WING. .............................................................................................. 28
TABLE 12: PUGH MATRIX OF WING TYPES. .................................................................. 30
TABLE 13: PUGH MATRIX OF WING TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS. .............. 30
TABLE 14: POSITION OF WING. ........................................................................................ 31
TABLE 15: PUGH MATRIX OF WING POSITION. ............................................................ 33
TABLE 16: PUGH MATRIX OF WING POSITION CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS. ........ 33
TABLE 17: TYPES OF LANDING GEAR. ........................................................................... 34
TABLE 18: PUGH MATRIX OF LANDING GEAR TYPES. .............................................. 36
TABLE 19: PUGH MATRIX OF LANDING GEAR TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.
.......................................................................................................................................... 36
TABLE 20: TYPES OF TAIL. ................................................................................................ 37
TABLE 21: PUGH MATRIX OF TAIL TYPES. ................................................................... 38
TABLE 22: PUGH MATRIX OF TAIL TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS. ................ 39
TABLE 23: TYPES OF AIRFOIL SELECTION. ................................................................... 40
TABLE 24: PUGH MATRIX OF AIRFOIL SELECTION TYPES. ...................................... 42
viii
TABLE 25: PUGH MATRIX OF AIRFOIL SELECTION TYPES CRITERIA
JUSTIFICATIONS. .......................................................................................................... 42
TABLE 26: TYPES OF HIGH-LIFT DEVICES..................................................................... 43
TABLE 27: PUGH MATRIX OF HIGH-LIFT DEVICE TYPES. ......................................... 44
TABLE 28: PUGH MATRIX OF HIGH-LIFT DEVICE TYPES CRITERIA
JUSTIFICATIONS. .......................................................................................................... 45
TABLE 29: THE SELECTED AND CHOSEN CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTIONS. ...... 47
TABLE 30: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION. ............... 51
TABLE 31: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION. ............... 54
TABLE 32: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 3 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION. ............... 58
TABLE 33: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 4 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION. ............... 61
TABLE 34: CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN PUGH MATRIX SELECTION. .......... 64
TABLE 35: CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN MORPHOLOGICAL MATRIX
SELECTION. ................................................................................................................... 65
TABLE 36: MORPHOLOGICAL MATRIX OF CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN
CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTIONS. ........................................................................... 66
TABLE 37: MAXIMUM (L/D) RATIO VARIATIONS OVER AIRCRAFT PROPULSION
(RAYMER, 1992). ........................................................................................................... 69
TABLE 38: SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION (SFC) VARIATIONS OVER AIRCRAFT
JET ENGINE (RAYMER, 1992). .................................................................................... 69
TABLE 39: HISTORICAL MISSION SEGMENT WEIGHT FRACTIONS (RAYMER,
1992). ................................................................................................................................ 70
TABLE 40: EMPTY WEIGHT FRACTION VS W0 (RAYMER, 1992). ............................... 71
TABLE 41: THE COMPARISON OF HYBRID & NON-HYBRID PROPULSION SYSTEMS
OF UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT. ............................................................................................ 77
TABLE 42: BASELINE VARIATION PARAMETRIC INFLUENCES ON TOGW/MTOW.
.......................................................................................................................................... 82
TABLE 43: COMPARISON OF BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN WITH
REFERENCE AIRCRAFT............................................................................................... 89
TABLE 44: UNITY X6 COMPONENTS ESTIMATED WEIGHTS USING RAPID WEIGHT
ESTIMATION METHOD. ............................................................................................... 94
ix
TABLE 45: COMPARISON OF UNITY X6 INITIAL WEIGHT SIZING AND RAPID
WEIGHT ESTIMATIONS. .............................................................................................. 95
TABLE 46: DISTRIBUTIONS OF WEIGHT PERCENTAGE FOR EACH COMPONENT.
.......................................................................................................................................... 96
TABLE 47: TECHNICAL DATA OF PW500 TURBOFAN ENGINE (PRATT & WHITNEY
CANADA). ....................................................................................................................... 99
TABLE 48: (T/W0) VS. MMAX (RAYMER, 1992). ............................................................... 101
TABLE 49: THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO (T/W) (RAYMER, 1992). ............................. 101
TABLE 50: CRITICAL PERFORMANCE OF THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO
ESTIMATION. ............................................................................................................... 105
TABLE 51: BASELINE VARIATION PARAMETRIC INFLUENCES ON THRUST-TO-
WEIGHT RATIO. .......................................................................................................... 105
TABLE 52: EQUIVALENT SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENTS (RAYMER, 1992). ........ 110
TABLE 53: CRITICAL PERFORMANCE OF WING LOADING ESTIMATION. ........... 115
TABLE 54: BASELINE VARIATION PARAMETRIC INFLUENCES ON WING
LOADING. ..................................................................................................................... 117
TABLE 55: TOTAL MOMENT ARMS WITH CORRESPONDING WEIGHT
BREAKDOWN ESTIMATIONS................................................................................... 124
TABLE 56: FUSELAGE LENGTH VS W0 (RAYMER, 1992)............................................ 127
TABLE 57: CURRENTLY USED GEOMETRIC FUSELAGE PARAMETERS (ROSKAM,
1985). .............................................................................................................................. 128
TABLE 58: INITIAL WING SIZING DATA. ...................................................................... 132
TABLE 59: TAIL VOLUME RATIO (RAYMER, 1992). ................................................... 135
TABLE 60: JUSTIFICATION TABLE FOR PARAMETERS AND RESULT OF
HORIZONTAL TAIL. ................................................................................................... 139
TABLE 61: JUSTIFICATION TABLE FOR PARAMETERS AND RESULT OF VERTICAL
TAIL. .............................................................................................................................. 143
TABLE 62: AIRCRAFT’S CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) EVALUATION. ..................... 152

x
INTRODUCTIONS

In this report the aircraft design process of AvionX electrical hybrid aircraft is been
preliminary designed. These designs depend on many factors such as customer and
manufacturer demand, safety protocols, physical and economic constraints etc. For some types
of aircraft, the design process is regulated by national airworthiness authorities. AvionX first
design steps, involves sketching a variety of possible aircraft configurations that meet the
required design specifications. By drawing a set of configurations, designers seek to reach the
design configuration that satisfactorily meets all requirements as well as deal with factors such
as aerodynamics, propulsion, flight performance, structural and control systems. This is called
design optimization. Fundamental aspects such as fuselage shape, wing configuration and
location, engine size and type are all determined.

The conceptual layout of the AvionX aircraft configuration was retrieved from over 11
reference aircrafts which are from the category of Very Light Jet (VLJ). By definition, VLJ is
known for being a small business jet that is approved for single-pilot operation, seating four to
eight people, and often with a maximum takeoff weight of under 10000lbs (4540kg). AvionX
design selection, decided the configuration type for wing to be tapered mid-wing, T-tail for
tail, a retractable tri-cycle landing gear for the landing system, also accomplishing six-seat
variant mission requirements, with appropriate design parameter specs of Endurance, E, Range,
R, and Cruise Speed, Vc, and fuselage is mounted by a hybrid twin-engine. The design
configuration arrived at the conceptual design phase is then tweaked and remodeled to fit into
the design parameters. Aerodynamic flaws and structural instabilities were all corrected and
the final design is drawn and finalized.

AvionX is adopting the trend of More-Electric Aircraft (MEA), the future of aircraft
propulsive system. AvionX propulsion system is a combination of energy storage in fossil fuels
which is run from internal combustion or jet engine, with the electric motor that is powered up
by batteries or generated power (generator). MEA is anticipated to achieve numerous
advantages such as reducing weight, enhancing aircraft performance and diminishing the
operation and maintenance costs. Moreover, MEA reduces the emissions of air pollutant gases
from aircrafts, which can contribute in significantly solving some of the problems of climate
change. Thus, the design of this aircraft must always comply with the FAA regulations of

1
performance-based airworthiness standards entitled, Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR) Part 23 – Airworthiness Standards.

Furthermore, there are four design objectives that AvionX must be achieved for the
finalization of aircraft vehicle design. The design objectives for this project are by choosing
materials and manufacturing methods properly so that cost of production (annual rate) can be
minimized and supported the team’s potential market size, making the aircraft marketable with
features even for different missions, and making the aircraft reliability and maintenance
practices equal or better than others comparable aircraft. To validate such market, example can
be found from road transport where hybrid electric vehicles are gaining popularity. In this
general frame, aerospace applications have found that the progressive electrification of on-
board services is a way to reduce or to remove the dependence on hydraulic, mechanical, and
the bleed air/pneumatic systems, overall reducing the aircraft weight for not less than 10%.

2
OBJECTIVES

(1) Make a hybrid-electric aircraft which possess energy storage for takeoff, climb, go-
around, and emergencies via batteries and electric motors with additional engine(s)
providing additional power and/or direct propulsion for 2028 entry into service (EIS).

(2) Minimize production cost by choosing materials and manufacturing methods


appropriate for the annual production rate that is supported by the team’s assessment of
the potential market size.

(3) Make the aircraft visually appealing so it will be marketable and identify what features
are important to the operators for variant mission requirements.

(4) Make the aircraft reliability and maintenance equal or better than that of comparable
aircraft.

3
1) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP): HYBRID-ELECTRIC GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT (HEEGA)

1.1 General Requirement

The general requirement of HEEGA RFP can be listed as below;


a) Capable of taking off and landing from runways of dirt, grass, metal mat, gravel, asphalt,
and concrete
b) Minimum cruise speed: Vc = 174 knots
c) Target cruise speed: Vc ≥ 200 knots
d) Capable of VFR and IFR flight with an autopilot
e) Capable of flight in known icing conditions
f) Meets applicable certification rules in FAA 14 CFR Part 23
g) Engine/propulsion system assumptions documented
h) Use of electric motor(s) that will be in service by 2028 and document battery energy and
power density assumptions based on reasonable technology trends.
i) Show airframe and propulsion system commonality of at least 75% between the 4-seater
and 6-seater by weight.
j) Show the emergency range to get to an alternate airport at the maximum feasible weight
from an engine failure at 5000 ft AGL (ISA + 18 deg F) with electric power from batteries
alone for both the 4- and 6-seat variants.
k) Provide systems and avionics architecture that could enable autonomous flight

1.2 Design Mission Requirements

This air vehicle design mission requires for a “simple cruise” of mission plan/profile or flight
planning. From the baseline concept design, the parameters of Range, R, and Endurance, E,
during loiter are dictated in the mission plan, as depicted in FIG. 1 below. Based from the
mission profile, the fraction of fuel at each “dot” can be calculated using the general take-off
weight equation, Wo.

4
FIG. 1: SIMPLE CRUISE MISSION PROFILE.

1.3 Certification Compliance Documents

The certification process is based on design activities like drawings, modeling, specifications,
etc., but consist mostly of engineering tasks; for instance, analysis, testing, and assessment,
whereby it will be used to show, through certification documents, how the design meets the
airworthiness standards and requirements. Plus, these documents below in TABLE 1 are
referred from The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) of the United States of America book,
which provide examples of how an aircraft design can be assessed and shown to meet the
requirements of airworthiness authority.

5
TABLE 1: COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF THE AIRCRAFT (CFR, 1984).
Compliance Document
Num. REG. Subject MOC
Statement References
• §23.1 — Applicability.
(a)This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of
type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for airplanes
in the normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter categories.

• §23.3 — Airplane categories. • Aircraft comply


(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a to commuter
The Code of Federal
seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a • Calculations category.
Regulations (CFR)
Subpart A: maximum certificated take-off weight of 12,500 pounds or and Analysis • Seating
1. of the United States
General less, and intended for non-acrobatic operation. Non-acrobatic • Drawings and configurations
of America. 1949-
operation includes: Descriptions comply to six
1984.
(1) Any manoeuvre incident to normal flying; passenger seat
(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and aircraft.
(3) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the
angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.
(e) Except for commuter category, airplanes may be type
certificated in more than one category if the requirements of
each requested category are met.

5
• §23.21 — Proof of compliance.
(a) Each requirement of this subpart must be met at each
appropriate combination of weight and centre of gravity within
the range of loading conditions for which certification is
requested. This must be shown—
(1) By tests upon an airplane of the type for which
certification is requested, or by calculations based on,
and equal in accuracy to, the results of testing;

The Code of Federal


• §23.23 — Load distribution limits • Complies with
Regulations (CFR)
Subpart B: (a) Ranges of weights and centres of gravity within which the performance and
2. • Calculations of the United States
Flight airplane may be safely operated must be established. If a data of the
and Analysis of America. 1949-
weight and centre of gravity combination is allowable only aircraft
1984.
within certain lateral load distribution limits that could be calculations.
inadvertently exceeded, these limits must be established for the
corresponding weight and centre of gravity combinations.
(b) The load distribution limits may not exceed any of the
following;
(1) The selected limits;
(2) The limits at which the structure is proven; or
(3) The limits at which compliance with each applicable
flight requirement of this subpart is shown.

6
• §23.25 — Weight limits
(a) Maximum weight. The maximum weight is the highest
weight at which compliance with each applicable requirement
of this part (other than those complied with at the design
landing weight) is shown. The maximum weight must be
established so that it is—
(1) Not more than the least of—
(iii) The highest weight at which compliance with each
applicable flight requirement is shown, and
(2) Not less than the weight with—
(i) Each seat occupied, assuming a weight of 170
pounds for each occupant for normal and commuter
category airplanes, and 190 pounds for utility and
acrobatic category airplanes, except that seats other than
pilot seats may be placarded for a lesser weight; and
(b) Minimum weight. The minimum weight (the lowest weight
at which compliance with each applicable requirement of this
part is shown) must be established so that it is not more than
the sum of—
(1) The empty weight determined under

7
• §23.29 — Empty weight and corresponding centre of
gravity
• §23.45 — General performance
• §23.49 — Stalling speed
• §23.51 — Take-off speeds
• §23.53 — Take-off performance.
• §23.63 — Climb: General
• §23.65 — Climb: All engines operating
• §23.75 — Landing distance
• §23.141 — General of Flight Characteristics
• §23.301 — Loads
(a) Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads
(the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate • Drawings and
loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety). Descriptions
The Code of Federal
Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads. • Calculations
• Complies with Regulations (CFR)
Subpart C: (d) Simplified structural design criteria may be used if they and Analysis
3. the conceptual of the United States
Structure result in design loads not less than those prescribed in §§23.331 • Functional
aircraft design. of America. 1949-
through 23.521. For airplane configurations described in Hazard
1984.
appendix A, §23.1, the design criteria of appendix A of this part Assessment
are an approved equivalent of §§23.321 through 23.459. If
appendix A of this part is used, the entire appendix must be
substituted for the corresponding sections of this part.

8
• §23.303 — Factor of safety
Unless otherwise provided, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be
used.

• §23.321 — General of flight loads


(a) Flight load factors represent the ratio of the aerodynamic
force component (acting normal to the assumed longitudinal
axis of the airplane) to the weight of the airplane. A positive
flight load factor is one in which the aerodynamic force acts
upward, with respect to the airplane.
(b) Compliance with the flight load requirements of this
subpart must be shown—
(1) At each critical altitude within the range in which the
airplane may be expected to operate;
(2) At each weight from the design minimum weight to the
design maximum weight; and
(3) For each required altitude and weight, for any
practicable distribution of disposable load within the
operating limitations specified in §§23.1583 through
23.1589.

9
• §23.333 — Flight envelope
(a) General. Compliance with the strength requirements of this
subpart must be shown at any combination of airspeed and load
factor on and within the boundaries of a flight envelope
(similar to the one in paragraph (d) of this section) that
represents the envelope of the flight loading conditions
specified by the manoeuvring and gust criteria of paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section respectively.

• §23.335 — Design airspeeds


Except as provided in paragraph (a) (4) of this section, the
selected design airspeeds are equivalent airspeeds (EAS).
(a) Design cruising speed, Vc. For Vc the following apply:
(1) Where W/S′ = wing loading at the design maximum
take-off weight, Vc (in knots) may not be less than—
(i) 33 √(W/S) (for normal, utility, and commuter
category airplanes);
(ii) 36 √(W/S) (for acrobatic category airplanes).
(2) For values of W/S more than 20, the multiplying
factors may be decreased linearly with W/S to a value
of 28.6 where W/S = 100.
(3) Vc need not be more than 0.9 VH at sea level

10
• §23.337 — Limit manoeuvring load factors
(a) The positive limit manoeuvring load factor n may not be
less than—
(1) 2.1 + (24,000 ÷ (W + 10,000)) for normal and
commuter category airplanes, where W = design
maximum take-off weight, except that n need not be
more than 3.8;
(b) The negative limit manoeuvring load factor may not be less
than—
(1) 0.4 times the positive load factor for the normal utility
and commuter categories; or

• §23.455 — Ailerons
(a) The ailerons must be designed for the loads to which they
are subjected—
(1) In the neutral position during symmetrical flight
conditions; and
(2) By the following deflections (except as limited by pilot
effort), during unsymmetrical flight conditions:

11
(i) Sudden maximum displacement of the aileron
control at VA. Suitable allowance may be made for
control system deflections.
(b) [Reserved]

• §23.471 — Generals of ground loads


The limit ground loads specified in this subpart are considered
to be external loads and inertia forces that act upon an airplane
structure. In each specified ground load condition, the external
reactions must be placed in equilibrium with the linear and
angular inertia forces in a rational or conservative manner.

• §23.477 — Landing gear arrangement


Sections 23.479 through 23.483, or the conditions in appendix
C, apply to airplanes with conventional arrangements of main
and nose gear, or main and tail gear.

• §23.523 — Design weights and centre of gravity


positions.
(a) Design weights. The water load requirements must be met
at each operating weight up to the design landing weight except
that, for the take-off condition prescribed in §23.531, the

12
design water take-off weight (the maximum weight for water
taxi and take-off run) must be used.
(b) Centre of gravity positions. The critical centres of gravity
within the limits for which certification is requested must be
considered to reach maximum design loads for each part of the
seaplane structure.
• §23.963 — Fuel tanks: General.
(a) Each fuel tank must be able to withstand, without failure,
the vibration, inertia, fluid, and structural loads that it may be
subjected to in operation.
(b) Each flexible fuel tank liner must be shown to be suitable
• Drawings and
for the particular application.
Descriptions The Code of Federal
(c) Each integral fuel tank must have adequate facilities for
• Calculations • Complies with Regulations (CFR)
Subpart E: interior inspection and repair.
4. and Analysis the conceptual of the United States
Powerplant (d) The total usable capacity of the fuel tanks must be enough
• Safety aircraft design. of America. 1949-
for at least one-half hour of operation at maximum continuous
Assessment 1984.
power.
(e) Each fuel quantity indicator must be adjusted, as specified
in §23.1337(b), to account for the unusable fuel supply
determined under §23.959(a).

• §23.1141 — Powerplant controls: General.

13
(a) Powerplant controls must be located and arranged under
§23.777 and marked under §23.1555(a).
(b) Each flexible control must be shown to be suitable for the
particular application.
(c) Each control must be able to maintain any necessary
position without—
(1) Constant attention by flight crew members; or
(2) Tendency to creep due to control loads or vibration.
(d) Each control must be able to withstand operating loads
without failure or excessive deflection.

• §23.1201 — Fire extinguishing systems materials.


For commuter category airplanes, the following apply:
(a) No material in any fire extinguishing system may react
chemically with any extinguishing agent so as to create a
hazard.
(b) Each system component in an engine compartment must be
fireproof.

• §23.1203 — Fire detector system.


(a) There must be means that ensure the prompt detection of a
fire in—

14
(1) An engine compartment of—
(iii) Airplanes with engine(s) located where they are
not readily visible from the cockpit; and
(iv) All commuter category airplanes.
(b) Each fire detector must be constructed and installed to
withstand the vibration, inertia, and other loads to which it may
be subjected in operation.
(c) No fire detector may be affected by any oil, water, other
fluids, or fumes that might be present.
(d) There must be means to allow the crew to check, in flight,
the functioning of each fire detector electric circuit.
(e) Wiring and other components of each fire detector system
in a designated fire zone must be at least fire resistant.
• §23.1501 — Generals of Operating Limitations and • Calculations
Information and Analysis
Subpart G: (a) Each operating limitation specified in §§23.1505 through • Functional The Code of Federal
• Complies with
Operating 23.1527 and other limitations and information necessary for Hazard Regulations (CFR)
the conceptual
5. Limitations safe operation must be established. • Assessment of the United States
aircraft design.
and (b) The operating limitations and other information necessary • Safety of America. 1949-
Information for safe operation must be made available to the crewmembers Assessment 1984.
as prescribed in §§23.1541 through 23.1589.

15
• §23.1505 — Airspeed limitations.
(a) The never-exceed speed VNE must be established so that it
is—
(2) Not more than the lesser of—
(ii) 0.9 times the maximum speed shown under §23.251.
(b) The maximum structural cruising speed VNO must be
established so that it is—
(2) Not more than the lesser of—
(ii) 0.89 VNE established under paragraph (a) of this
section.

• §23.1507 — Operating manoeuvring speed.


The maximum operating manoeuvring speed, VO, must be
established as an operating limitation. VO is a selected speed
that is not greater than VS√n established in §23.335(c).

• §23.1519 — Weight and centre of gravity.


The weight and centre of gravity limitations determined under
§23.23 must be established as operating limitations.

• §23.1523 — Minimum flight crew.

16
The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is
sufficient for safe operation considering—
(a) The workload on individual crewmembers and, in addition
for commuter category airplanes, each crewmember workload
determination must consider the following:
(1) Flight path control,
(2) Collision avoidance,
(3) Navigation,
(4) Communications,
(5) Operation and monitoring of all essential airplane
systems,
(6) Command decisions, and
(7) The accessibility and ease of operation of necessary
controls by the appropriate crewmember during all normal
and emergency operations when at the crewmember flight
station;
(b) The accessibility and ease of operation of necessary
controls by the appropriate crewmember; and
(c) The kinds of operation authorized under §23.1525. (Kinds
of operation)

• §23.1524 — Maximum passenger seating configuration.

17
The maximum passenger seating configuration must be
established.

• §23.1525 — Kinds of operation


The kinds of operation authorized (e.g. VFR, IFR, day or night)
and the meteorological conditions (e.g. icing) to which the
operation of the airplane is limited or from which it is
prohibited, must be established appropriate to the installed
equipment.

• §23.1527 — Maximum operating altitude.


(a) The maximum altitude up to which operation is allowed, as
limited by flight, structural, power plant, functional or
equipment characteristics, must be established.

• §23.1561 — Safety equipment.


(a) Safety equipment must be plainly marked as to method of
operation.
(b) Stowage provisions for required safety equipment must be
marked for the benefit of occupants.

18
2) CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROCESS

2.1 Design Detailed Flowchart Process

FIG. 2: FLOWCHART OF CURRENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.

2.2 Reference Aircrafts

There are 11 types of aircrafts as the team’s references in developing and sketching the
conceptual designs. The 11 aircrafts are listed as below;

i. Diamond DA-62
ii. Piper Seneca
iii. Pipistrel Panthera
iv. Beechcraft Baron G58
v. Eclipse Aerospace EA500 (Eclipse 500)
vi. Bombardier Learjet 75

19
vii. Cirrus Vision SF50
viii. Bombardier Global 7000
ix. Synergy Aircraft
x. XTI TriFan 600
xi. Airbus E-Fan 4.0

From these 11 aircrafts, all essential part of configurations; for example, all relatives parts of
wings, fuselages, engines, tail surfaces, and landing gears are modified and altered with
justifications to fit and suit with the design RFP of HEEGA.

2.3 Configuration Options

The configuration options advantages and disadvantages that are pointed out by the team can
be tabulated appropriately, whilst, the configurations’ criteria are analyzed to perform the
selection matrix of each types, positions, and locations in Pugh Matrix from TABLE 2 until 28
as follows.

TABLE 2: TYPES OF ENGINE.


Turboprop Turbojet Turbofan Electric Motor

Design

1) Propeller 1) Higher and 1) Higher thrust at 1) Low initial cost.


efficiency drops faster than any low airspeeds. 2) Long life.
off as airspeed other engine. 2) Quieter exhaust. 3) Low
and altitude 2) Lightest specific 3) Better fuel/engine maintenance
increase. weight. speed control requirements.
Advantages
2) Only best suited 4) Lower TSFC 4) High efficiency.
for airspeeds 5) Shorter take-off 5) Automated
under 400knots distance. control.
and altitude 6) No fossil fuels.
below 31000ft.

20
3) Lightweight and 7) Safe the
provide better environment
performance (Emitting only
during take-off. little noise).
1) Develops very 1) Low propulsive 1) Expensive to 1) Not easily
high thrust at low efficiency at low operate and also portable.
speed. forward speeds. expensive to 2) Using high-
2) Excellent take- 2) Long take-off manufacture. horsepower
off slow speed roll required. 2) Higher specific motors in
Dis-
and low altitude 3) Relative high weight. applications.
advantages
characteristics. TSFC at low 3) Cannot handle 3) Expansive line
altitude and low sudden extensions.
airspeed. fluctuating load. 4) Expensive speed
controlled
motors.

Thus, the criteria for the engine types consist of three, whereas each having its own weightage
value as follows;

1. Noise: It is the sound pollution produced by an aircraft’s engine. Thus, having greater
low noise is better because it produces less emission to environment which making a
significant criterion at weightage value of 4.
2. Thrust/Power: A weightage value of 4 also apply for this criterion as it is a force that
generated by the engine to move an aircraft through the air. Greater thrust/power is
better to overcome the drag of an aircraft and the weight of an aircraft.
3. Efficiency: Having a higher efficiency criterion is better because it will function
efficiently especially in terms of fuel consumption rate. Thus, the weightage value is
also 4.
4. Maintenance: Aircraft engines need to be in great shape most of the time. Higher engine
maintenance will ensure the engine works the way it should, so a high weightage value
similar with previous criteria is required at 4.

21
5. Weight: Having moderate weight is better because higher weight will affect the location
of the centre of gravity and reduce the possible payload. Therefore, the weightage value
is set at 2 only.

TABLE 3: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE TYPES.


Electric
Criteria Weightage Turboprop Turbojet Turbofan
Motor
Noise 4 1 2 4 4
Thrust/Power 4 2 3 4 3
Efficiency 4 3 1 3 4
Maintenance 4 4 3 2 2
Weight 2 1 1 1 2
Total 18 42 38 54 56
Ranking 3 4 2 1
Remarks: 1 – Poor; 2 – Moderate; 3 – Good; 4 – Best

TABLE 4: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
Design of Turbofan and Electric Motor engines
has the most quieter exhaust thus it produced
Noise 4
less noise compared to design of Turboprop and
Turbojet engines.
Design of Turbofan engine produces more thrust
with less energy and can go faster than design of
Thrust/Power 4
Turboprop, Turbojet, and Electric Motor
engines.
Design of Electric Motor engine is incredibly
efficient as it has a huge fan on the front and the
Efficiency 4
fan acts like a propeller and a compression fan
thus it will produce more thrust compared to

22
design of Turboprop, Turbojet, and Turbofan
engines.
Design of Turbofan and Electric Motor engines
are the least aircraft that need to be maintain
Maintenance 4
compared to design of Turboprop and Turbojet
engines.
Design of Electric Motor engine is the lightest
Weight 2 compared to design of Turboprop, Turbojet, and
Turbofan in terms of weight.

TABLE 5: TYPES OF FUSELAGE SEATER.


4-Seater 6-Seater
1) Less fuel consumption due to less 1) Movable seated.
Advantages weight. 2) More comfortable due to unrestricted
area.
Dis- 1) Restriction is space. 1) More fuel consumption due to more
advantages 2) Unmovable seated. weight.

Thus, the criteria for the fuselage seater types consist of three, whereas each having its own
weightage value as follows;

1. Comfortable: Cabin comfortability solely depends on the amount of seater in an aircraft,


thus, a good number arrangement choice of seaters may have affected the comfortability
of passengers which dictate the weightage value of 3.
2. Adjustable: The good adjustable seats are demanded for most of fuselage seater.
Therefore, the weightage value is apparently at 3.
3. Fuel Usage: The fuel consumption of an aircraft is mostly being dependent on its
weight, whilst the number of fuselage seaters can also vary the weight of the aircraft.
Thus, a high weightage value of 4 is used.

23
TABLE 6: PUGH MATRIX OF FUSELAGE SEATER TYPES.

Criteria Weightage 4-Seater 6-Seater

Comfortable 3 2 4

Adjustable 3 1 4

Fuel Usage 4 5 2

Total 10 29 32

Ranking 2 1

Remarks: 1 – Very Poor; 2 – Poor; 3 – Moderate; 4 – Good;


5 – Very Good

TABLE 7: PUGH MATRIX OF FUSELAGE SEATER TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
The fuselage with 6-Seater is more comfortable
Comfortable 3
due to its wide space.
Both of 4 and 6 fuselage seater configurations
Adjustable 3 have seaters which are adjustable and not fixed
only in a position.
As the 6-Seater aircraft will bring more
passengers, the weight of the aircraft will be
Fuel Usage 4
increased. Hence, more fuel is needed to be used
during take-off.

TABLE 8: LOCATION OF ENGINE.


Types of
Engine Types of
Advantages Disadvantages
Placement Aircraft
Location

24
1) The wing is clean, having low 1) No bending relief for the
drag and optimum conditions for wing; heavier wing spar
lift creation. needed.

2) The engines are easy to access. 2) No help in flutter.

3) Smaller vertical tail needed for 3) Possible interference with


asymmetric thrust conditions. wing wake at high angle of
attack.
4) Shorter, lighter landing gear
Rear-fuselage Cessna
possible. 4) Forces the tail to be a T-tail
Mounted Citation X
configuration.
5) Low roll inertia.
5) More structure needed to
carry the thrust forces
forward.

6) Intake noise is more audible,


especially for passengers in
the rear seats.

1) Interferences drag is minimized 1) Higher yawing movement


with engine failure.
2) Intake efficiency is rarely
compromised. 2) Roll freedom on the ground
is limited.
3) Engines provide wing bending
relief reducing wing structure 3) Low thrust line can have an

Low-wing weight. adverse effect on


Airbus 320
Mounted longitudinal control.
4) Wing profile is not
compromised. 4) FOD ingestion.

5) Pylons tend to control span wise


flow.

6) Less acoustic damage to


airframe.

25
7) Reverse thrust design
uninhibited.

8) Good accessibility.

9) Good for a gear up landing.

1) Aerodynamic stability of centre 1) Harder to control when


of lift higher in high wing. landing.

High-wing 2) Ground clearance or debris 2) Less stable.


An-72
Mounted protection.
3) Hard to refuel.
3) Visibility clearer on below the
wing.

1) Reduce noise within cabin. 1) Increasing in drag.

2) Ease of access to maintenance. 2) Extra amount of weight not


near the centre of gravity.
Tail-Mounted 3) High stability and control. Piper PA-47
3) Unable to use gravity to fuel
4) Less likely to critically damage
the engines in case of fuel
the aircraft engine.
pump failure.

Thus, the criteria for the engine location consist of four, whereas each having its own weightage
value as follows;

1. Ease of Visibility (Downward/Ground): Engine placement or location is determined


adequately for the best visibility of passenger views for downward or ground. Thus, the
weightage value confirmed is 5.
2. Ease of Visibility (Side/During Turn): Side or during turn vision is muchly appreciated
for the passenger to view the panoramic sights while flying on the air. Thus, the
weightage value is also 5 as previous criterion.
3. Control/Stability: A moderate controllability/stabilization is acquired for a general
aviation aircraft performance when locating or mounting the engine, so, it is weighted
at weightage value of 3.

26
4. Ease in Landing: The weightage value is 4 as if location of the engine is chosen to
compensate the stabilization issue when landing.
5. Lift Force: The lift of an aircraft is an important criterion to achieve a successful flight
operation. A good engine placement will contribute so much in terms of lift-forcing the
aircraft especially for take-off and climb scenario. Thus, the weightage value is 4.

TABLE 9: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE LOCATIONS.


Rear-
Low-wing High-wing Tail-
Criteria Weightage fuselage
Mounted Mounted mounted
Mounted
Ease of Visibility
5 5 3 4 5
(Downward/Ground)
Ease of Visibility
5 5 4 3 5
(Side/During Turn)
Control/Stability 3 3 4 3 3
Ease in Landing 4 4 5 3 3
Lift Force 4 4 3 4 4
Total 21 91 79 72 87
Ranking 1 3 4 2
Remarks: 1 – Very Poor; 2 – Poor; 3 – Moderate; 4 – Good; 5 – Very Good

TABLE 10: PUGH MATRIX OF ENGINE LOCATIONS CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
Since no engine is attached to the wing in Rear-
fuselage Mounted engine location, the vision is
Ease of Visibility
5 clear for passenger to view the ground compare
(Downward/Ground)
to other engine mounted placement but same as
Tail-mounted engine.
Since no engine is attached to the wing in Rear-
Ease of Visibility
5 fuselage Mounted engine location, the vision is
(Side/During Turn)
clear for passenger to view the side compare to

27
other engine mounted placement but same as
Tail-mounted engine.
Rear-fuselage Mounted engine possess
moderate control/stability which is suitable for
Control/Stability 3 a general aviation aircraft, and only military
aircrafts have high control or stability
requirements.
Since the Rear-fuselage Mounted engine has
Ease in Landing 4 good speed and lift, the aircraft are easy to
balanced and have good glide ratio.
A Rear-fuselage Mounted engine possessed
Lift Force 4 better lift-to-drag ratio for better fuel economy
and maximum range.

TABLE 11: TYPES OF WING.


Types of Types of
Advantages Disadvantages
Wing Aircraft
1) Modification from the 1) Not as efficient as elliptical
rectangular wing where the wing lift distribution.
chord is varied across the span North America
Tapered Wing
to approximate the elliptical lift P-51 Mustang
distribution.
2) Ease in manufacturability.
1) Leading edge of the wing is 1) Due to the flow
swept back. characteristics, the ailerons
Swept Back Boeing 787
2) Reduce drag in transonic speed stall before the flaps.
Wing Dreamliner
(determined by the velocity 2) Lead to controllably issues.
normal to the wing).
Swept 1) Easy in controllably issue. 1) It produces wing twisting as
Sukoi SU-74
Forward it bends under load.
Berkut
Wing

28
2) Resulting in greater stress
on the wing root than for a
similar straight or swept
back wing.
1) Ease in manufacturability. 1) Aerodynamically
2) Simplest wing planform. inefficient.
3) Provides a stall that begins at
Rectangular the root and progresses to the
Piper PA 38
Wing tip.
4) Preserves aileron effectiveness
during the stall and gives better
handling characteristics.
1) Aerodynamically, the elliptical 1) Poor in manufacturability.
planform is the most efficient as
Elliptical elliptical spanwise lift Supermarine
Wing distribution has the lowest Spitfire
possible induced drag (as given
by thin airfoil theory).

Thus, the criteria for the wing types consist of four, whereas each having its own weightage
value as follows;

1. High Lift/Thrust: The weightage value is 4 because it is important to know the high lift
or thrust that can be generated from the wings.
2. Manufacturability: The availability of the wing in aircraft manufacture industry. the
availability of the wing would lead to the cost of aircraft itself. The higher number in
the weightage, the more availability of the wing in the industry. Thus, the weightage
value is 3.
3. Surface Area/Drag Reduce: The weightage value surface area or drag reduce must be
in 4 because to make sure that the drag is not high value and will make it more efficient
in the power usage.

29
4. Control/Stability: The weightage value is 5 because the control/stability of wing is
compromised as the aircraft will depend on the control or stability while performing
the flight mission.

TABLE 12: PUGH MATRIX OF WING TYPES.


Swept Swept
Tapered Rectangular Elliptical
Criteria Weightage Back Forward
Wing Wing Wing
Wing Wing

High Lift/Thrust 4 3 3 3 2 4

Manufacturability 3 4 4 1 4 1

Surface Area/
4 4 3 3 3 4
Drag Reduce

Control/ Stability 5 4 2 3 1 3

Total 16 60 46 42 40 50

Ranking 1 3 4 5 2

Remarks: 1 – Very Poor; 2 – Poor; 3 – Moderate; 4 – Good; 5 – Very Good

TABLE 13: PUGH MATRIX OF WING TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
The Tapered Wing has value slightly below to
the Elliptical Wing due to the less efficient of
High Lift/ Thrust 4
having lift distribution, but it is good enough to
produce lift distribution needed.
The Tapered and Rectangular Wings have the
Manufacturability 3 easiest to manufacture compared to the other
wings.
The Tapered Wing has the highest numbers in
Control/ Stability 4 terms of the control/stability compared to the
other wings.

30
The Tapered Wing has the highest drag reduce
as it is practically to same with the Elliptical
Surface Area/ Drag Surface 5
Wing. This is because of the finite-wing effect
that offered by the wing.

TABLE 14: POSITION OF WING.


Types of
Wing Types of
Advantages Disadvantages
Placement Aircraft
Position
1) Provide superior visibility above 1) Lack of downward visibility
and to the sides of the aircraft. (difficult to see the what is
2) Easier to land in a crosswind below the aircraft).
(factor of landing gear 2) Can be dangerous in the
placement rather than approach to the field and the
aerodynamics). landing pattern.
3) Easier to fuel a low wing plane 3) Easier for a bump in the field
Low-wing Eclipse 500
(most aircraft carry fuel in the or a wind gust to cause a
wing, fuel port is easier to wing tip to dip and catch the
reach). ground.
4) Lack of space for movement
on ground for ground staff at
the time of aircraft
maintenance.
1) Has much more streamlined and 1) Rarely found in commercial
has less interference drag aircraft due to it structural
compared to high and low wing. design.
2) Has neutral roll stability; good 2) The wing will have to either Piaggio
Mid-wing
from the perspective of combat pass through the fuselage, Avanti
and aerobatic aircraft as it allows taking too much usable
for the performance of rapid roll volume or the structure has
to be strengthened around

31
manoeuvres with minimum yaw the fuselage to carry the
coupling. loads.
3) Allows carrying weapons such 3) Mid wings are generally
as Missiles & Bombs. attached at the rear side of
fuselage causing shifting of
centre of mass at rear side of
fuselage.
1) Safer in term of landing in a soft 1) The view in the direction of
or on prepared field, safer in turn will be blocked.
descent especially on approach 2) May require a lift or
to the airfield or in the traffic climbing up on the plane to
pattern. gas up the fuel (if the fuel is
2) Lots of space available for carried in the wing).
ground staff to do maintenance
High-wing Cessna 172
of the aircraft.
3) Provide the best visibility below
the aircraft, ease in navigation by
ground reference.
4) Easy in entrance (in and out from
the aircraft) because there is no
wing to climb.

Thus, the criteria for the wing position consist of four, whereas each having its own weightage
value as follows;
1. Ease of Visibility (Downward/Ground): The weightage value is 4 as it is an important
criterion for the placement of wing of the passenger’s visibility while seeking for the
ground.
2. Ease of Visibility (Side/During Turn): Side or during turn vision is muchly appreciated
for the passenger to view the panoramic sights while flying on the air. Thus, the
weightage value is 3.

32
3. Control/Stability: A good control/stability of wing placement is required by any aircraft
to achieve a successful flight operation. This conventional type of wing placements
controllability/stabilization is weighted at high weightage value of 4.
4. Ease in Landing: The weightage value is 5 because the ease in landing is mostly
preferred to any flight operation, even when there is a need for an emergency landing.
Thus, the highest weightage value is required to obtain this criterion.

TABLE 15: PUGH MATRIX OF WING POSITION.

Criteria Weightage Low-wing Mid-wing High-wing

Ease of Visibility
4 3 4 4
(Downward/Ground)
Ease of Visibility
4 4 3 4
(Side/During Turn)

Control/Stability 3 4 4 3

Ease in Landing 5 4 5 3

Total 16 60 65 56

Ranking 3 1 2

Remarks: 1 – Very Poor; 2 – Poor; 3 – Moderate; 4 – Good; 5 – Very Good

TABLE 16: PUGH MATRIX OF WING POSITION CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
Since wing located at the middle, the vision is
Ease of Visibility clear for passenger to view the ground compare to
4
(Downward/Ground) Low-wing but cannot view as much as High
Wing.
The vision is less clear for passenger to view the
Ease of Visibility
4 side but others placement of wing is almost the
(Side/During Turn)
same.

33
Good control on the Mid-wing suitable for
Control/Stability 3
conventional aircraft compare to high wing.
Mid-wing is safer in term of landing in a soft or
on prepared field and safer in descent especially
Ease in Landing 5
on approach to the airfield or in the traffic pattern
due to low in drag.

TABLE 17: TYPES OF LANDING GEAR.

Types of Types of
Advantages Disadvantages
Landing Gear Aircraft

1) Located forward of the centre of 1) Generally, suffer from


gravity, causing the tail to poorer forward visibility on
require support from a third the ground.
wheel assembly. 2) Propeller powered more
Maule MX-7-
2) Increased clearance of the adversely affected by P-
Tail-wheel 235 Super
forward fuselage when operating factor.
Rocket
in and out of non-paved 3) Easily influenced to the
runways. ground looping.
3) Weight saving with relatively
light tail-wheel assembly.
1) This type of landing gear has the 1) Consists numbers of the
main gear and tail gear aligned wheels that lead to
on the longitudinal axis of the increasing of the weight.
aircraft. 2) It needs land and flat take-
Tandem off runways. B52
3) It takes more precaution to
have touchdown altitude to
avoid overstraining the low
ground.
1) Allows more forceful 1) Nosewheel has a large
Tricycle-type Cessna 172
application of the brakes without weight, it takes 20-30% of W

34
nosing over when braking, under steady braked
which enables higher landing condition.
speeds. 2) It needs special structural
2) Provides better visibility from provision to assist the
the flight deck, especially during landing gear.
landing and ground 3) For the small aircraft, it finds
manoeuvring. difficulty of space.
3) Prevents ground-looping of the
aircraft. Since the aircraft centre
of gravity is forward of the main
gear, forces acting on the centre
of gravity tend to keep the
aircraft moving forward rather
than looping, such as with a tail
wheel-type landing gear.

Thus, the criteria for the landing gear types consist of four, whereas each having its own
weightage value as follows;

1. Maintenance: The weightage value is 3 because it must not be maintained frequently.


It does not need frequent repair and has high durability.
2. Manufacturability: The availability in the aircraft manufacture industry. It has not to be
a complex system of landing gear. Thus, the weightage value is 4.
3. Weight: The weight of landing gear is not meant to be in high value. This is because,
increasing of weight of landing gear will affect the increasing weight of aircraft.
Therefore, the value of weightage is 3.
4. Control/Stability: The weightage value is 5 because the control/stability of landing gear
is important to the aircraft during the flight condition specifically on the take-off and
landing.

35
TABLE 18: PUGH MATRIX OF LANDING GEAR TYPES.

Criteria Weightage Tail-wheel Tandem Tri-cycle

Maintenance 3 3 3 3

Manufacturability 4 4 4 4

Weight 3 4 5 5

Control/Stability 5 3 3 5

Total 15 52 55 65

Ranking 3 2 1

Remarks: 1 – Very Poor; 2 – Poor; 3 – Moderate; 4 – Good; 5 – Very


Good

TABLE 19: PUGH MATRIX OF LANDING GEAR TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
The Tri-cycle has second highest value in terms
of maintenance due to the complexity in the
Maintenance 3
structure, thus it needs to have maintenance
regularly.
The Tri-cycle has the highest manufacturability
Manufacturability 4
due to its common type in the market.
The Tri-cycle has the highest weight provided
Weight 3 because of its structure but it provides more
stabilized when performing landing.
The Tri-cycle has the highest in control and
stability compared to others landing gear because
Control/ Stability 5
it is providing more surface area that can be
covered from the aircraft.

36
TABLE 20: TYPES OF TAIL.
V-tail T-tail Cruciform Tail Pelican Tail

Design

1) Lighter and has 1) Has better 1) Has lesser weight 1) Lighter and has
less wetted aspect ratio (thus reducing less wetted
surface area (better lift weight surface area thus
thus produce slope). distribution). produce less
less induce and 2) Less interaction 2) The airflow is induce and
parasitic drag. drags. undisturbed (can parasitic drag.
Advantages 2) Avoid placing 3) Give smoother recovery form 2) Avoid placing
the vertical and faster spins). the vertical
stabilizer in the airflow over the stabilizer in the
exhaust of elevators. exhaust of engine
engine that can that can disrupt
disrupt the flow the flow of
of exhaust. exhaust.
1) Fatal mid-air 1) Cause 1) Two tails have
breakups when maintenance lower radar
exceeding concerns signature than
stress. 2) Controls runs to four.
Dis- 2) Complex flight elevators are 2) Two larger
advantages control system. more complex control surfaces
3) Creates 3) Can cause make aircraft
relatively large dangerous deep heavier.
roll moment stall condition.
when yawing.

37
Thus, the criteria for the tail types consist of six, whereas each having its own weightage
value as follows;
1. Wetted Surface Area: It is the area of the aircraft that in contact with the oncoming
airflow. The greater the surface area the better because it produces more lift. So, the
weightage value is quite high at 4.
2. Stress Limit: High stress limit gives the structure more stress can endure before failure,
which weighing the sufficient value of weightage only at 3.
3. Aspect Ratio: Having moderate aspect ratio of is enough for the tail because the lift
produce from tail is enough to support itself and counter balance the lift from wing.
Thus, the weightage value is at 2.
4. Flight Control System: Having moderate flight control system is enough because the
control surface only helps to balance the small attitude movement. Then, making the
weightage value is also at 2.
5. Weight: Having moderate weight is enough because the tail weight is less significant.
Similar weightage value with previous criteria, whereas it is 2.
6. Disturbed Airflow Disturbance: The important ability of 4 weightage value to minimize
the airflow disturbance is of the priority because having a disturbance airflow passing
the control surface will render the control surface inoperable.

TABLE 21: PUGH MATRIX OF TAIL TYPES.

Cruciform Pelican
Criteria Weightage V-tail T-tail
Tail Tail

Wetted Surface
4 3 4 4 4
Area

Stress Limit 3 2 3 4 2

Aspect Ratio 2 3 4 3 3

Flight Control
2 2 2 3 3
System

Weight 2 3 3 3 2

38
Disturbed Airflow
4 3 4 3 3
Disturbance

Total 17 46 59 58 50

Ranking 4 1 2 3

Remarks: 1 – Poor; 2 – Moderate; 3 – Good; 4 – Best

TABLE 22: PUGH MATRIX OF TAIL TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
Design T-tail, Cruciform Tail, and Pelican Tail
Wetted Surface Area 4 have the most wetted surface area due to its
large surface than design V-tail.
For design T-tail and Cruciform Tail it superior
to design V-tail and Pelican Tail because the
horizontal tail only deals with frontal gust while
vertical tail only deals with side gust. Design
Cruciform Tail has the highest stress limit
because it horizontal control surface located at
Stress Limit 3
the middle of the vertical tail, design T-tail is the
second highest limit because the horizontal tail
is at the furthest point of the aircraft. For design
V-tail and Pelican Tail both its horizontal and
vertical tail deal with frontal gust and side gust
simultaneously.
Design T-tail has the highest aspect ratio due to
it has the most area than V-tail, Cruciform Tail,
and Pelican Tail. While design V-tail and
Aspect Ratio 2 Pelican Tail it cannot have a high aspect ratio
due to it have to keep the tail area at maximum
of which it can endure high stress due to its
slanted design. Cruciform Tail design is second

39
to T-tail due to it wing area is separated to half
with some area is not accounted for.
Design V-tail has difficult in establish the flight
control system due to it slanted design. T-tail
has difficult in establish the flight control
system due to its design at the further point of
the vertical tail. Cruciform Tail has good flight
Flight Control System 2 control system due to its design is like a wing
only that it is separated in the middle which
make it has two sections of horizontal tail.
Pelican Tail is almost like V-tail only that it is
superior due to its tail area is bigger and the
control surface is also bigger.
Pelican Tail is the heavier due to it has a big
control surface. While V-tail, T-tail and
Weight 2
Cruciform Tail is almost equal in term of
weight.
Literally V-tail, Cruciform Tail and Pelican Tail
design area adequate to avoid the disturbance
Disturbed Airflow airflow created by the engine. But, T-tail is
4
Disturbance superior due to it will never encounter the
disturbance airflow because the distance with
the engine is far.

TABLE 23: TYPES OF AIRFOIL SELECTION.


Types of
Types of
Airfoil Advantages Disadvantages
Aircraft
Selection
1) Superb speed. 1) Less lift forces.
2) Very well positive and negative 2) Less relatively undesirable
Symmetrical Boeing 747
G manoeuvre. stall.
3) Good control surface.

40
4) Simplicity.

Semi- 1) Good lift-to-drag ratio. 1) Less than speed of sound


Cessna 182
symmetrical 2) Moderate lift and speed. 2) Cannot fly at high altitude.
1) Sensitivity over speed. 1) Need more power to
2) When power and speed is added overcome drag.
Flat Bottom Aquila
it produces great lift. 2) Faster landing and hard to
control.
1) Provide higher lift. 1) Produce more drag.
2) Suitable for light and small 2) Cannot fly faster. UAV or
Under-camber
aircraft to control. 3) Hard to land due to ground Glider
effect.

Thus, the criteria for the airfoil selection consist of five, whereas each having its own
weightage value as follows;
1. Lift Force: A moderate value of 3 is pointed out for the weightage value in lift forces.
This is because a balanced lift is sufficient enough for a general aviation-typed of
aircraft to lift up.
2. Speed: The airfoil selection may have determined the speed of an aircraft due to its
shape and the dynamic interaction between airflow. Thus, the weightage value is quite
high at 4.
3. Ease in Landing: Overall, all aircraft demanded a smooth and easy landing operation,
thus, the airfoil is an important configuration which affect the landing operation.
Therefore, this criterion is rated at weightage value of 5.
4. Stability/Manoeuvrability: The weightage value of 5 is required in aircraft stability or
manoeuvrability influenced by a very good airfoil configuration. The airfoil shape eases
the aerodynamic control of the flying aircraft.
5. Drag Force: Drag force impacted on a flying aircraft is also a crucial concern in
selecting the airfoil configuration. Therefore, this criterion weightage value is the
highest at 5.

41
TABLE 24: PUGH MATRIX OF AIRFOIL SELECTION TYPES.

Semi- Flat Under-


Criteria Weightage Symmetrical
symmetrical Bottom camber

Lift Force 3 2 3 4 5

Speed 4 5 4 3 2

Ease in landing 5 4 5 2 3

Stability/Manoeuvrability 5 4 4 3 5

Drag Force 4 4 4 2 2

Total 21 82 86 57 71

Ranking 2 1 4 3

Remarks: 1 – Very Poor; 2 – Poor; 3 – Moderate; 4 – Good; 5 – Very Good

TABLE 25: PUGH MATRIX OF AIRFOIL SELECTION TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
A Semi-symmetrical airfoil possessed good lift-
Lift Force 3
to-drag ratio for better fuel economy.
A Semi-symmetrical airfoil have quite excellent
Speed 4 speed due to aerodynamic force and match well
with small aircraft.
Since Semi-symmetrical airfoil has good speed
Ease in landing 5 and lift, the aircraft are easy to balanced and
have good glide ratio.
Excellent stability control since most of Semi-
Stability/Manoeuvrability 5 symmetrical airfoil is designed for subsonic
aircraft.
A good low drag ratio is possessed by Semi-
Drag Force 4 symmetrical airfoil in order to obtain better
streamline flow during flight.

42
TABLE 26: TYPES OF HIGH-LIFT DEVICES.
Power-controlled Double-slotted
Fixed Slats Fowler Flaps
Slats Fowler Flaps

Design

1) Increase 1) Increase 1) Greater delay the 1) Delay airflow


chamber of chamber of airflow separation.
wing. wing. separation. 2) Increase the area
2) Increase 2) Increase 2) Greater increase of wing.
maximum lift maximum lift the area of wing. 3) Reduced the
Advantages coefficient. coefficient. 3) Greater reduced increment of
3) Increase the 3) Increase the the increment of induced drag.
critical angle of critical angle of induced drag. 4) Increase the
attack. attack. 4) Greater increase chord of wing.
the chord of
wing.
1) Increase induced 3) Create high stall 1) Heavier than 1) Heavy.
drag angle and Fowler Flaps. 2) Complex
significantly decrease 2) Complex manufacturing.
during high visibility during manufacturing.
speed cruise. landing.
Dis- 2) Create high stall 4) Heavier than
advantages angle and Fixed Slats.
decrease 5) More complex
visibility during installation than
landing. Fixed Slats.
6) Costly than
Fixed Slats.

43
Thus, the criteria for the high-lift device (HLD) types consist of seven, whereas each having
its own weightage value as follows;
1. Attachment: 3 weightage values is needed to have an automatic control by sensor to
deploy the HLD, which is enough to make sure the HLD meet the mission requirement.
2. Simplicity: Even a moderate HLD design is adequate in achieving the short take-off
and landing distance, making a weightage value only at 2.
3. Operation: Having an electric-hydraulic for the HLD is enough to facilitate the take-off
and landing of aircraft. Thus, the weightage value is 3.
4. Lift-to-Drag Ratio Increment (L/D): It is important for HLD to have a high (L/D) so
that it can reduced the velocity needed for aircraft to take-off and land, so 4 values of
weightage are required.
5. Induced Drag Increment: High 4 values of weightage is needed in this important
criterion for HLD is to have a greatest minimum induced drag increment so that the
thrust needed for aircraft mission can be greatly reduces.
6. Wing Area Increment: Having good wing area increment can helps to reduce the wing
loading hence reduce the take-off distance required for aircraft. Therefore, the
weightage value is 3.
7. Chord Increment: Having good chord increment can helps to increase the lift of the
wing and reduce wing loading which can decrease the thrust and take-off distance
needed for aircraft. So, it is weighing at weightage value of 3 as criterion above.

TABLE 27: PUGH MATRIX OF HIGH-LIFT DEVICE TYPES.


Double-
Power-
slotted Fowler
Criteria Weightage Fixed Slats controlled
Fowler Flaps
Slats
Flaps
1 4 4 4
Attachment 3
(Fixed) (Controlled) (Controlled) (Controlled)

Simplicity 2 4 3 2 3

44
2 3
4 4
(Angle of (Electric-
Operation (Electric (Electric
3 Attack hydraulic
Actuator) Actuator)
Increment) Actuator)
Lift-to-Drag Ratio
4 2 3 4 3
Increment (L/D)
Induced Drag
4 1 2 4 3
Increment
Wing Area
3 1 3 4 3
Increment

Chord Increment 3 2 3 4 3

Total 22 38 65 84 72

Ranking 4 3 1 2

Remarks: 1 – Poor; 2 – Moderate; 3 – Good; 4 – Best

TABLE 28: PUGH MATRIX OF HIGH-LIFT DEVICE TYPES CRITERIA JUSTIFICATIONS.


Criteria Weightage Justification
The Power-controlled Slats, Double-slotted
Fowler Flaps, and Fowler Flaps ways of attach
Attachment 3 to the wing enable the pilot to control it
according to the need of use and get the best
performance out of it.
The design of Double-slotted Fowler Flaps is
the most complex because it has multiple and
longer hinge which can affect the strength of the
design structure rather than the design of Fowler
Simplicity 2
Flaps and Power-controlled Slats which has less
and shorter hinge. The design Fixed Slats is the
simplest which give it more strength to endure
stress rather than design of Power-controlled

45
Slats, Double-slotted Fowler Flaps, and Fowler
Flaps.
How the design of Double-slotted Fowler Flaps
and Fowler Flaps work are effectively
smoothening the mission flexibility rather than
Operation 3
design of Fixed Slats which is rigidly need the
aircraft to meet it operating requirement in order
for it to work.
Design of Double-slotted Fowler Flaps has the
best lift-to-drag ratio due to the gap in space
between the wing and flap which slow the flow
separation. And it has twice the gap that design
of Fowler Flaps has. Design of Fixed Slats has
Lift-to-Drag Ratio
4 the lowest lift-to-drag ratio increment due to its
Increment (L/D)
fixed to the wing. When the aircraft at take-off
and the angle of attack increase, the design
works well but at cruise and loiter it just become
a burden and create and increase the induced
drag.
Design of Fixed Slats has the worst induced
drag increment due to it is fixed to the wing and
cannot be hide when not needed. In contrast
with design of Double-slotted Fowler Flaps and
Induced Drag Increment 4 Fowler Flaps which can be stored when not in
used and even when in it operation, it creates
minimal induced drag increment with design of
Double-slotted Fowler Flaps is the most
minimal induced drag increment.
A great wing area increment give the aircraft the
ability to take-off shortly, hence it is what
Wing Area Increment 3
design of Double-slotted Fowler Flaps and
Fowler Flaps are catered for. While design of

46
Fixed Slats and Power-controlled Slats do not
give any wing area increment.
With chord increment it also increase the lift
force, because technically it increases the wing
area. Hence the design that have this
performance are design of Double-slotted
Fowler Flaps and Fowler Flaps with Double-
Chord Increment 3
slotted Fowler Flaps is more superior. This is
due to the design of flap of Double-slotted
Fowler Flaps and Fowler Flaps can extrude out
significantly further than the design Power-
controlled Slats and Fixed Slats.

Therefore, in overall, the chosen and selected configurations of all types of parts, components,
systems, and devices correlations that are mentioned previously from TABLE 2 until 28 have
been signified by us appropriately in tabulated form, TABLE 29 below. In addition, all of these
selected configurations have also dictated AvionX aircraft’s concept generation to morph into
the desired conceptual design for this project.

TABLE 29: THE SELECTED AND CHOSEN CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTIONS.


Configuration Descriptions
Types of Electric Motor, which having zero emission and no fossil fuel
Engine consumption at all.
Types of 6-Seater Fuselage, which having a wide space of interior cabin with
Fuselage Seater much comfortability.
Rear-fuselage Mounted, which making the wings to be clean, low
Location of
drag, and optimum conditions for lift creation and suitable for small
Engine
aircraft.
Types of Tapered Wing, which having an increase in aspect ratio of the wing
Wing (length to chord width) to improve lift.

47
Position of Mid-wing position, which having less interference drag in the wetted
Wing area compared to High- and Low-wing.
Tri-cycle, which enabling higher landing speeds and preventing
Types of
ground-looping of the aircraft due to its forward centre of gravity
Landing Gear
(nose-wheel main gear).
Types of T-tail, which having a smoother and faster airflow over the elevators
Tail and a better aspect ratio for better lift slope.
Types of Semi-symmetrical airfoil, which having a balanced lift and speed
Airfoil Selection suitable for civil transport aircraft.
Types of
Double-slotted Fowler Flaps,
High-Lift Device

2.4 Conceptual Design Sketches

After the process of matrix selecting the configurations of all parts mentioned previously, four
conceptual design sketches have been created and designed for this project. All four sketches
of FIG. 3 to 6 are practically hand-drawn with all the modifications and alterations are justified
in TABLE 30 till 33 as follows.

2.4.1 Conceptual Design 1

48
49
FIG. 3: CONCEPT DESIGN 1.

50
TABLE 30: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION.

Modifications Descriptions

Fuselage ● For 6 seaters.


(Piper Seneca)
Wing ● Moderate aspect ratio and
(Diamond DA62) aerodynamically.
Tail – (T-tail) ● For smoother flow.
(Diamond DA62)
● Improved manoeuvrability due to
greater torque from electric motors.
Electric Motor ● Less noise.
● Improve environment.
● Don’t need air to produce power.
● Quick swap/recharge capability.
● Run in three modes; only electric
on batteries, generator only, hybrid
Hybrid-electric Powertrain mode combining both power
sources.
● Decrease fuel consumption and
operating cost.
TKS Ice Protection ● Anti-ice or de-icing aircraft.

2.4.2 Conceptual Design 2

51
52
FIG. 4: CONCEPT DESIGN 2.

53
TABLE 31: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION.

Modifications Descriptions

● It features a full-airframe parachute


rescue system.
● The cabin has been engineered as a
Fuselage
safety cell/roll bar.
(Pipistrel Panthera)
● It gives excellent handling at low
speeds and superior to stall/post stall
characteristics.
● Tapered-wing.
● Large enough to stabilize the whole
aircraft during the mission.
● Attached at the fuselage at the centre
of gravity.
Wings
● Provide superior visibility above and
(Eclipse 500)
to the sides of the aircraft.
● Considered to be easier to land in a
crosswind.
● Easier to fuel the plane.
● More vulnerable to turbulence.
● Cruciform-shaped.
● Gives smoother and faster airflow
over the elevator.
Tail ● Light weight.
● Horizontal tail does not increase the
effective aspect ratio of the vertical
tail.
Propulsion System
● Electric engine motor (Hybrid).
(Beechcraft Baron G58)
Anti-icing Condition
● Pneumatic system.
(Pipistrel Panthera)

54
● Available. At high altitude, the
possibility of ice forming is high.
● Shock-absorbing sport-trailing link
electric landing gear (3 landing
Landing Gear gears)
(Pipistrel Panthera) ● Made from: titanium and aluminium
alloy.
● Retractable.
Autopilot
● Available.
(Pipistrel Panthera)
Seaters
● 4 seaters; 1 pilot seat, 3 crew seats.
(Pipistrel Panthera)
● 2 large Dynon Skyview screens.
● Garmin 750 multifunction navigator
Avionic System
(Touchscreen).
(Pipistrel Panthera)
● Garmin 635 for communications
(Touchscreen).
Safety Issues ● Equipped with a 26G safety cage.
(Pipistrel Panthera) ● A ballistic parachute system.

2.4.3 Conceptual Design 3

55
56
FIG. 5: CONCEPT DESIGN 3.

57
TABLE 32: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 3 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION.

Modifications Descriptions

Wing • Reduction in structural weight.


(Bombardier Global 7000 & • To increase lift.
Synergy Aircraft)
V-tail Shape • For high stabilizer.
(Cirrus Vision SF50) • To avoid airstream wake from wing.
• To generate more power for take-off.
1 Ducted Fan Engine
• Reduced noise.
(Bombardier Global 7000)
• They look like a fancy engine.
• Attached 2 Medium sized at the
centre of upper wing.
• Attached 4 Small sized at the upper
Propeller tip of wing;
o Used as electric generator.
o It generates 50% of
compressor.

2.4.4 Conceptual Design 4

58
59
FIG. 6: CONCEPT DESIGN 4.

60
TABLE 33: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 4 MODIFICATION & JUSTIFICATION.

Modifications Descriptions

Fuselage • Good aesthetic value and


(XTI Trifan 600) aerodynamic prowess.
Hybrid Engine • 2 generator powered electric motors
(XTI Trifan 600) in the fuselage.
Tricycle Landing Gear • Easier to handle on the ground and it
(XTI Trifan 600) also makes landings much safer.
Mid-Wing
• Reduced induced drag.
(XTI Trifan 600)
• Moderate aspect ratio and
Tapered Wing
aerodynamically and structurally
(Airbus E-Fan 4.0)
more efficient.
Mounted Engine • Better performance throughout flight
(Airbus E-Fan 4.0) envelope.

2.5 Design Selection Matrix

Design selection matrix is a process for establishing design requirements and selecting
alternative configurations for the conceptual phase of an aircraft design. Moreover, in order to
perform a logical selection of alternative aircraft configurations, it uses advanced decision-
making methods such as Pugh matrix and morphological matrix in terms of the aircraft design
criteria, features, and configurations, as in TABLE 34 and 35, respectively.

2.5.1 Pugh Matrix

Based from TABLE 34 below, 20 types of criterion are initialized for all four (4) conceptual
designs in one selection matrix called Pugh Matrix. The concept generation is being facilitated
to determine the best, desired conceptual design that is going to be the chosen one for this

61
project. Those weightages (W) of criteria are generalized as Design Secondary Features which
shall be described thoroughly as follows;
1. Range & Duration (W: 4): Total range is a total distance an aircraft can fly between
take-off and landing which limited by fuel capacity (load and consumption rate), whilst
duration is likely referred to as endurance which is a total length of time that an aircraft
can spend in one total flight operation. These two criteria are considerably required.
2. Cruise Speed (W: 4): Cruise speed is a required criterion which used to show the speed
or velocity compliance with gust intensity loading.
3. Thrust (W: 4): Thrust is a required criterion which is a mechanical force generated by
engine(s) to move an aircraft through the air and technically used to overcome drag
force.
4. Manoeuvrability (W: 3): Manoeuvrability is a quality demanded criterion in an
aircraft’s flight operation which determines the rate at which its attitude and direction
of flight can be changed.
5. Stability (W: 4): Stability is a quality required criterion refers to an aircraft's tendency
to remain straight and level in flight and its tendency to return to the attitude if
disturbed.
6. Wing Design (W: 4): Wing design of suitable and sufficient structure is required which
have streamlined cross-sections that are subject to aerodynamic forces and act as an
airfoil to produces lift force, while moving through air.
7. Fuselage Size (W: 4): Fuselage is a main body section of an aircraft that holds crew,
passengers, and cargo which also contributes a significant portion of the overall
aircraft’s weight. The required criterion of the fuselage size may also influence an
economic profitability and passenger comfortability.
8. Tail Design (W: 4): Tail also referred to as empennage is a required design criterion
structure at the rear of an aircraft that provides stability during flight which
incorporating vertical and horizontal stabilizing surfaces which stabilize the flight
dynamics of yaw and pitch, as well as housing control surfaces.
9. Noise (W: 5): Aircraft noise is a highly required criterion in evaluating noise pollution
produced by any aircraft or its components, during various phases of a flight operation
and it is originates from three main sources; aerodynamic noise, engine with other
mechanical noise, and noise from aircraft systems.

62
10. Fuel Efficiency (W: 5): Fuel efficiency is a highly quality required criterion to
determine fuel economy which is a measure of how much fuel an aircraft needs to
operate, and can be expressed in several ways; for example, by the liters of fuel
consumed per passenger per kilometer.
11. Exhaust Gas Emission (W: 5): Exhaust gas emission produced from an aircraft engine
is actually similar to other emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion. However,
aircraft emissions are unusual in that a significant proportion is emitted at certain
altitude of mostly upper troposphere and lower stratosphere which suddenly give rise
to important environmental concerns regarding their global impact and their effect on
local air quality at ground level.
12. Life Cycle (W: 4): Life cycle or lifespan of an aircraft is determined from its
pressurization cycles of take-off and landing and a short-haul aircraft may suffered from
this high frequency of flight operation cycle.
13. Durable (W: 4): Durable is a quantitative measure of an airframe’s resistance to fatigue
cracking under specified service conditions and durability is important in order to
maximize operational readiness and minimize maintenance and repair costs.
14. Maintenance Period (W: 3): Maintenance period is the periodic inspection that has to
be done on all civil aircraft after a certain amount of time or usage.
15. Maintenance (W: 4): Maintenance is the overhaul, repair, inspection, or modification
of an aircraft or aircraft component and it may include such tasks as ensuring
compliance with Airworthiness Directives (AD) or Service Bulletins (SB).
16. Aesthetic Value (W: 4): Aesthetic value is far more important in the world of private
and business aviation and this value shall reflects on both of exterior and interior design
of an aircraft.
17. Production Cost (W: 3): Production cost of an aircraft is concern with the costing and
pricing of any particular part, component, system, etc. of the aircraft.
18. Ease of Manufacturing (W: 5): Ease of manufacture will have a profound impact on the
engineering of an aircraft and its cost to the customer.
19. Avionics (W: 4): Avionics are all of the electronic devices and systems which perform
individualized functions, used on any aircraft which includes communications,
navigation, the display, and management of multiple to hundreds of systems.

63
20. Safety Features (W: 5): Safety features in an aircraft are built into the design itself and
the best safety features are the systems, training, and maintenance that prevent problems
in the first place.

TABLE 34: CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN PUGH MATRIX SELECTION.


Design Primary
Design Secondary Features W C1 C2 C3 C4
Criteria
Range & Duration 4 3 4 4 5
Cruise Speed 4 3 4 4 4
Performance Thrust 4 4 3 4 3
Manoeuvrability 3 3 3 4 4
Stability 4 4 2 4 5
Wing Design 4 4 2 4 4
Structure Fuselage Size 4 3 3 3 5
Tail Design 4 4 3 3 4
Noise 5 2 3 4 4
Environmental
Fuel Efficiency 5 3 4 4 4
Effect
Exhaust Gas Emission 5 3 4 4 5
Life Cycle 4 3 4 3 4
Reliability Durable 4 3 4 4 3
Maintenance Period 3 4 3 1 5
Maintenance 4 5 2 2 3
Marketability Aesthetic Value 4 1 5 4 5
Production Cost 3 3 5 1 5
Manufacturability Ease of Manufacturing 5 4 2 2 5
Avionics 4 2 4 4 5
Technology
Safety Features 5 2 4 4 5
Total 82 271 270 257 357
Rank 2 3 4 1
Remarks: 1 – Very Poor; 2 – Poor; 3 – Moderate; 4 – Good; 5 – Very Good

64
Therefore, as a result, the Conceptual Design 4 is selected and chosen to be the desired concept
aircraft design for this vary project of Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft (HEEGA).
Furthermore, the Conceptual Design 4 as illustrated in FIG. 6 above, is evaluated thoroughly
in TABLE 34 above and acquired the first (1st) rank with total remarks of 357 of all others
conceptual designs. Plus, this aircraft is given a name, called UNITY X6.

2.5.2 Morphological Matrix

The design support tool provides dynamic guidance with the use of morphological design
matrices during the conceptual design stages. This matrix is a sufficient tool to evaluate the
configurations involved and selected in all references aircrafts to form another desired
conceptual design, as in this case, for Conceptual Design 1 until 4 as shown in TABLE 35
below.

TABLE 35: CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN MORPHOLOGICAL MATRIX SELECTION.


Concept 1 2 3 4
Position of Wing Low-Wing Low-Wing Low-Wing Mid-Wing
Turbofan and
Types of Engine Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
Electric Motor
Types of Tail T-Tail Cruciform V-Tail T-Tail
Number of
2 2 3 2
Engine
Types of Wing Tapered Wing Tapered Wing Joint-Wing Tapered Wing
Location of Fuselage Fuselage After Tail and Rear-fuselage
Engine Mounted Mounted Below Wing Mounted
Types of
Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle
Landing Gear
Number of Wing Monoplane Monoplane Monoplane Monoplane
Mechanisms of
Retractable Retractable Retractable Retractable
Landing Gear
Number of Seat 6 4 6 6

65
TABLE 36: MORPHOLOGICAL MATRIX OF CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN CONFIGURATION
DESCRIPTIONS.
Configuration Descriptions
The position of wing in variable geometry whether its high, mid. or low
Position of Wing
and each has its pros and cons.
A type of engine of the aircraft used, since the task given need hybrid or
Types of Engine
electrical engine for requirement so it is given.
The empennage or tail assembly which comprising horizontal and vertical
Types of Tail
stabilizers.
Number of
How many engines install in the aircraft.
Engine
Types of Wing The shape of a wing.
Location of
The place where engine is installed.
Engine
Types of Landing
The landing gear type, some use three wheels and some use buoyant.
Gear
Number of Wing Number of wings attach to the fuselage.
Mechanisms of
Whether it fixed or not.
Landing Gear
Number of Seat How many people can fit in which include a pilot.

3) UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT WEIGHT ESTIMATION

3.1 Initial Weight Sizing Estimation

Following from the objectives listed in the initial weight sizing task, the primary components
of aircraft gross weight, and may be referred as take-off gross weight (TOGW) or even
maximum take-off weight (MTOW). In addtion to that, this “guesstimation” simulate the
UNITY X6 aircraft take-off weight from a conceptual sketch of especially Conceptual Design
4. AvionX’s conceptual design sketch is particularly selected after going through several

66
processes iteratively. Prior to the calculations of the weight sizing, the initial parameters that
are crucial in estimating the aircraft take-off gross weight, W0, can be identified as below. Most
of the parameters are obtained from the references aircrafts and the historical trends data for
initial sizing as shown in FIG. 7 below which is provided in Raymer’s Aircraft Design: A
Conceptual Approach book. Given for the UNITY X6 aircraft;

• Wing span, 𝑏 = 37.99𝑓𝑡


• Wing chord, 𝑐̅ = 6.3𝑓𝑡
• Wing area, 𝑆 = 72.946𝑓𝑡 2
• Aspect ratio, 𝐴𝑅 = 6
• Wetted area ratio, (𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 ⁄𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) = 4.5

FIG. 7: HIGHLIGHTED RANGE OF ESTIMATED WETTED AREA RATIOS (RAYMER, 1992).

Then, using the formula stated below, the wetted aspect ratio, ARwet, of the UNITY X6 aircraft
shall be obtained. As explained in Raymer’s, any two aircrafts which have about the same wing

67
span, b, and have about the same wetted areas, Swet, so both would have about the same (L/D)
by crossing the same curve in the graph of FIG. 8 below;

• Wetted aspect ratio, 𝐴𝑅𝑤𝑒𝑡 = 𝑏2 /Swet = A/(Swet /Sref ) = 1.34

1.34

FIG. 8: THE RED ARROW SHOWING THE OBTAINED MAXIMUM (L/D) RATIO BASED FROM ARWET
(RAYMER, 1992).

• Lift-to-drag ratio, (𝐿⁄𝐷 ) ≈ 16


𝑚𝑎𝑥

“Design take-off gross weight” is the total weight of an aircraft at the starting point of a
designed mission profile or flight planning. This total weight can be divided into weight of
crew, payload (or passenger), fuel, and remaining “empty” weight. Thus, the empty weight
also comprises the structure, engines, landing gear, fixed equipment, avionics, et cetera. Based

68
from RFP of this project, for six-seat variant mission requirements, the weight of crew, Wcrew,
and payload, Wpayload, are determined for one crew (pilot) plus five passengers with approximate
weight of 190lb (86.2kg) per person and 30lb (13.6kg) per baggage (applied to crew and
passenger). The take-off gross weight, W0, can be easily determined using equations below;
nevertheless, the fuel fraction, (Wf/W0), and empty weight, (We/W0), fraction shall be
determined prior to the W0.

𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 + 𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑊0 =
1 − (𝑊𝑓 ⁄𝑊0 ) − (𝑊𝑒 ⁄𝑊0 )

As a first approximation, the fuel used can be considered to be proportional to the aircraft
weight, so the fuel fraction, (Wf/W0), is approximately independent of aircraft weight. Thus, in
fuel fraction the flow of the equations can be sequentially calculated as follows with the usage
of sensitive parametric variables of range, R, endurance (loiter) time, E, cruise velocity, V, with
engine type of specific fuel consumption, SFC or C, lift-to-drag ratio, (L/D), in cruise and loiter
segment, and its weight fractions, (Wi/Wi-1).

TABLE 37: MAXIMUM (L/D) RATIO VARIATIONS OVER AIRCRAFT PROPULSION


(RAYMER, 1992).
Propulsion Types Cruise Loiter
Jet 0.866 (L/D)max (L/D)max
Propeller (L/D)max 0.866(L/D)max

TABLE 38: SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION (SFC) VARIATIONS OVER AIRCRAFT JET ENGINE
(RAYMER, 1992).
Typical Jet (SFC)’s Cruise Loiter
Pure Turbojet 0.9 0.8
Low-bypass Turbofan 0.8 0.7
High-bypass Turbofan 0.5 0.4

In order to find the total mission weight fraction, (Wx/W0), the equation below is derived only
for the weight fraction at segments of cruise and loiter. Hence, the others mission segments

69
like warmup and take-off, climb, and landing is input with the historical data as shown in
TABLE 39 below.

TABLE 39: HISTORICAL MISSION SEGMENT WEIGHT FRACTIONS (RAYMER,


1992).
Fractions (Wi/Wi-1)
Warmup and Take-off 0.970
Climb 0.985
Landing 0.995

Thus, the weight fraction during cruise segment shall be obtained using the derivation of
Breguet range, R, equation as below;

𝑉 𝐿 𝑊𝑖−1
𝑅= ln
𝐶𝐷 𝑊𝑖

OR

𝑊𝑖 −𝑅𝐶
( ) = 𝑒 ⁄𝐷 )
𝑉(𝐿
𝑊𝑖−1 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒

Whilst, the weight fraction during loiter is obtained solely from the endurance, E, equation as
below;

𝐿⁄𝐷 𝑊𝑖−1
𝐸= ln
𝐶 𝑊𝑖

OR

𝑊𝑖 −𝐸𝐶
( ) = 𝑒 𝐿 ⁄𝐷
𝑊𝑖−1 𝑙𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟

Whereas;

R = Range
C = Specific fuel consumption
V = Velocity
(L/D) = Lift-to-drag ratio

70
E = Endurance

Then, after total mission weight fraction, (Wx/W0), is obtained from the multiplication of all
weight fraction of each segment, the fuel fraction, (Wf/W0), can be found using the below
equation. In addition to that, this fuel fraction equation provided in Raymer’s is considering
about 6% of reserved or “trapped” fuel, commonly for a non-hybrid typed of aircraft
propulsion.

𝑊𝑓 𝑊𝑥
( ) = 1.06 (1 − )
𝑊0 𝑊0

Then, the empty-weight fraction, (We/W0), can be estimated statistically from references-based
aircraft data as shown in TABLE 40 below. The corresponding values of A, C, and variable
sweep constant, Kvs, is obtained and plug in to the equation.

TABLE 40: EMPTY WEIGHT FRACTION VS W0 (RAYMER, 1992).


References-based Aircraft Data A C
Sailplane–unpowered 0.86 - 0.05
Sailplane–powered 0.91 - 0.05
Homebuilt–metal/wood 1.19 - 0.09
Homebuilt–composite 0.99 - 0.09
General aviation–single engine 2.36 - 0.18
General aviation–twin engine 1.51 - 0.10
Agricultural aircraft 0.74 - 0.03
Twin turboprop 0.96 - 0.05
Flying boat 1.09 - 0.05
Jet trainer 1.59 - 0.10
Jet fighter 2.34 - 0.13
Military cargo/bomber 0.93 - 0.07
Jet transport 1.02 - 0.06
1.04 if variable sweep
Kvs = variable sweep constant
1.00 if fixed sweep

71
Empty-weight fraction vary from about 0.3 to 0.7, and diminish with increasing total aircraft
weight. The initial guesstimate weight, W0,guess, is input here in this equation as below.

𝑊𝑒 𝐶
( ) = 𝐴𝑊0,𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝑣𝑠
𝑊0

The value of iterated W0,guess will then converged to a near or equal values with the initial
calculated take-off gross weight or maximum take-off weight, W0, which then will be assumed
as the baseline aircraft weight estimation.

3.2 First “Guesstimation” of Aircraft Weight (Hybrid & Non-hybrid Systems)

The general solution of the take-off gross weight (TOGW) or maximum take-off weight
(MTOW) is obtained specifically based on the history, references aircraft and using several
formulae equations numerically flowed as in the programming flowchart which are shown in
FIG. 9 as below. Thus, by considering both type of hybrid and non-hybrid engine systems, the
formulae equation of fuel fraction, (Wf/W0), mentioned previously should be altered as 0% for
aircraft with hybrid propulsion, whilst maintaining 6% for non-hybrid aircraft propulsion types.

72
FIG. 9: PROGRAMMING FLOWCHART OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT ESTIMATION (HYBRID &
NON-HYBRID SYSTEMS).

The resulting output of Command Window in FIG. 10 and 11 below are showing the gross
weight, W0, or relevantly denoting as TOGW or MTOW obtained from MATLab programming
Command Window outputs. Therefore;

• Hybrid propulsive engine system, W0 = 5783lb


• Non-hybrid propulsive engine system, W0 = 5950lb

73
FIG. 10: INITIAL TOGW/MTOW (HYBRID PROPULSIVE ENGINE).

FIG. 11: INITIAL TOGW/MTOW (NON-HYBRID PROPULSIVE ENGINE).

The initial weight sizing is crucial in determining the first assumption of how much weight of
the UNITY X6 aircraft incurred in this mission profile for every segment. The differences in
the W0 is independent over several parameters sensitivity, especially the fuel weight. Weight
of fuel is used more in non-hybrid propulsive engine powered aircraft as for the sake of 6%
reserved or “trapped” fuel allowance. Thus, the amount of fuel weight, Wf(H/NH), for both types
of propulsion systems can be explained mathematically as below.

• For UNITY X6 hybrid propulsive engine powered aircraft;

𝑊𝑓(𝐻)
( ⁄𝑊 ) × 𝑊0 = 0.1368 × 5782.950lb
0

𝑊𝑓(𝐻) = 791.108lb

• For UNITY X6 non-hybrid propulsive engine powered aircraft;

74
𝑊𝑓(𝑁𝐻 )
( ⁄𝑊 ) × 𝑊0 = 0.1450 × 5949.793lb
0

𝑊𝑓(𝑁𝐻 ) = 862.720lb

Moreover, the maximum possible cruise range, R, for both types of aircraft propulsion systems
may also vary accordingly at the reserved or “trapped” fuel segment. If the hybrid propulsive
engine powered aircraft could fly for a limit of cruise range, R = 750nmi, the addition of 6%
reserved fuel shall lengthen the cruise range for certain nautical miles as depicted in the flight
mission profile of FIG. 12 below.

FIG. 12: AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MISSION PROFILE INCLUDING RESERVE FUEL MISSION SEGMENT.

The total amount of initial TOGW or MTOW for the UNITY X6 baseline conceptual aircraft
design is W0 = 5783lb with a capability of usable fuel for cruise range, Rusable = 750nmi
(4557087ft). This TOGW or MTOW is obtained without the 6% reserved or “trapped” fuel
mission segment allowance. So, in order to determine the additional cruise range, Rreserved, of
the reserved fuel mission segment, firstly, let’s define the 100% usable amount of fuel in terms
of weight, Wfuel usable, as below;

• 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 = 791.108lb (usable)

Thus, the 6% (0.06) of reserved or “trapped” fuel weight, Wfuel reserved, can be acquired in terms
of percentage (%) from the 100% (1.00) of usable fuel weight, Wfuel usable, as below;

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 6%
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 0.06 × 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒

75
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 0.06 × 791.108lb
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 47.466lb (reserved)

So, the total amount of fuel weight, Wfuel, for the mission profile in FIG. 12 above which
includes the additional 6% of reserved or “trapped” fuel mission segment can be obtained as
follows;

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 106% = 1.06


𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 + 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 791.108 + 47.466 = 838.574lb

Thus, let’s assume unknowns of Q and R, to find the total cruise range, Rtotal, in foot (ft) of
overall cruise segment that includes the additional reserved range, Rreserved, acquired from the
6% allowance of fuel reserved, Wfuel reserved, hence;

791.108Q = 4557087
838.574Q = Rtotal
Rtotal = 4830509.455ft ≈ 4830510ft (795nmi)

Therefore, the maximum possible cruise range, Rreserved, at the reserved or “trapped” fuel
mission segment alone, shall be obtained in nautical miles (nmi) as below;

Rreserved = Rtotal – Rusable


Rreserved = 795 – 750
Rreserved = 45nmi (273425ft)

TABLE 41 below is tabulating the comparison between the aircraft hybrid and non-hybrid
systems. Based from that table, there is around ±3% of TOGW/MTOW, W0, reduction by a
hybrid propulsive engine powered aircraft which is reasonable due to the ±72lb decreasing
amount of fuel weight, Wf, used in its flight mission profile. Plus, the fuel weight also
contributes to the extended cruise range, R, of around 45nmi.

76
TABLE 41: THE COMPARISON OF HYBRID & NON-HYBRID PROPULSION SYSTEMS OF
UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT.
Hybrid Propulsive Engine Non-hybrid Propulsive
Notions
Aircraft Engine Aircraft
TOGW/MTOW, W0
5783 5950
(lb)
Fuel Weight, Wf
791 863
(lb)
Cruise Range, R
750 795
(nmi)

3.3 Range & Payload Trade Studies

Trade studies have been conducted in order to observe the increasing in design initial
TOGW/MTOW of the UNITY X6 baseline conceptual design aircraft, whenever any amount
of mission requiring range distance, R, and/or payload weight, Wpayload, to be increased.
TOGW/MTOW is crucially considered in trade study because the increase in aircraft’s weight
is significant, and it may have affected the aircraft’s structural integrity from higher loads, the
fuel consumption, and its field performance; for example, take-off and landing field length.
Besides that, the trade study is performed in accordance with the RFP’s requirement of hybrid
system of propulsion, thus, the focus is on the hybrid propulsive engine powered UNITY X6
aircraft which eliminating the 6% allowance of reserved or “trapped” fuel.

77
FIG. 13: THREE STUDIED VALUES OF RANGE, R, DISTANCE IN NAUTICAL MILES (NMI).

78
Range Trade
7000
6800
6831.765
TOGW/MTOW, W0 (lb)
6600
6400
6200
6334.072
6000
5800
5782.95
5600
5400
5200
5000
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Range, R (nmi)
FIG. 14: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT VERSUS
RANGE.

By referring to FIG. 13 and 14 of range trade study above, the values of Range, R = 750nmi,
1000nmi, and 1200nmi, are directly proportional to the design initial TOGW/MTOW whereas,
as the R intended to keep increasing, so does the TOGW/MTOW. This is because as for any
range of UNITY X6 aircraft’s mission profile to be successful, the longer the maximum R, the
more fuel amounts must be prepared and filled in the tanks, which then building up the weight
too. The fuel amounts contributed to fuel weight, Wfuel, which for all three data can be obtained
as below. Therefore, the longer the range distance, the higher weight of fuel which then build
up to a higher TOGW/MTOW, as shown below;

• For, R = 750nmi (Baseline);

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊0 × ( 𝑊0
) = 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 5782.950lb × 0.1368 = 791.108lb

• For, R = 1000nmi;

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊0 × ( ) = 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 6334.072lb × 0.1624 = 1028.653lb
𝑊0

• For, R = 1200nmi;

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊0 × ( ) = 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 6831.765lb × 0.1823 = 1245.431lb
𝑊0

79
(Payload Weight, Wpayload = 1100lb)

(Payload Weight, Wpayload = 2200lb)

(Payload Weight, Wpayload = 3300lb)

(Payload Weight, Wpayload = 4400lb)

FIG. 15: FOUR AMOUNTS OF PAYLOAD WEIGHTS THAT MAY INCURRED BY UNITY X6
AIRCRAFT.

80
Payload Trade
17000
TOGW/MTOW, W0 (lb)

15000
15956.912

13000

12734.594
11000

9000
9373.761
7000
5782.95
5000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Payload Weight, Wpayload (lb)


FIG. 16: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT VERSUS
PAYLOAD WEIGHT.

The same case in payload trade study, by observing FIG. 15 and 16, the linear trendline
indicated that a direct proportional value of between design initial TOGW/MTOW and weight
of payload, Wpayload (lb) is acquired. The design requirement for Wpayload is given at 1100lb (five
passengers with baggage each), but by assuming arbitrary numbers for payload weights, the
TOGW/MTOW of the UNITY X6 aircraft may also increase independently with the increasing
Wpayload. This also indicated that in order to bring up higher, more payloads (weight) in terms
of profit-making; for, the system, fuel, and airframe structure weights must be reduced to lessen
the TOGW/MTOW.

3.4 Parametric Study Analysis on Gross Weight Estimation

Parametric study is the analysis for the sensitivity variable parameters which can have the
effects to the equation and manipulate the output results characteristics. This study is conducted
by the rapid means of MATLab source code on the initial take-off gross weight or maximum
take-off weight estimation (sizing) programming, which is to investigate and observe the
relationship of several sensitive parameters, which are, the baseline configuration
characteristics of the UNITY X6 aircraft conceptual design’s speed or velocity, V, passenger

81
capacity, specific fuel consumption (SFC), range distance, R, maximum lift-to-drag ratio,
(L/D)max, and endurance (loiter) time, E. The necessity of the dependable variables with its
magnitude of effect can be used as the benchmark and/or guideline in obtaining the most
effective, desired design configuration characteristics for the mission profile.

TABLE 42: BASELINE VARIATION PARAMETRIC INFLUENCES ON TOGW/MTOW.


Parameters Baseline
Passenger Capacity, N 5
Range, R
750
(nmi)
High-bypass Turbofan
Specific Fuel Consumption, SFC
Cruise Loiter
(/hr)
0.5 0.4
Speed/Velocity, V
505.796
(ft/s)
Max. Lift-to-drag Ratio,
16
(L/D)max
Endurance (Loiter) Time, E
900
(s)

The initial weight sizing is performed as per Raymer’s Aircraft Design book on the conceptual
design to acquire the aircraft’s take-off gross weight or maximum take-off weight
(TOGW/MTOW). Using all information and parameters from the design, mission requirements
and the historical trends of references-based aircrafts, the initial calculated TOGW/MTOW =
5782.950lb, thus, using arbitrary number of certain increments for only three data, the analyses
can be done with mostly represented in graphical manners as below in graphs of FIG. 17 until
22.

82
Passenger Capacity Analysis
7000

TOGW/MTOW, W0 (lb) 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Number of Passenger, N
FIG. 17: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT VERSUS
NUMBER OF PASSENGER.

At first, graph of FIG. 17 above showing the variant number of passengers that will boarding
the mission flight. It can be observed that the trendline is increasing linearly as the capacity of
passenger build up. So, in other words, the capacity or number of passengers for the conceptual
design’s mission profile is five (5), but, if the number of passenger can be reduced, it should
also reduce the TOGW/MTOW from 5782.950lb to 4229.928lb for three (3) passengers only.
Hence, the lighter TOGW/MTOW could be much useful in terms of profit as UNITY X6
aircraft can load up more useful payloads other than passenger for others mission.

Range Analysis
1400

1200
TOGW/MTOW, W0 (lb)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Range, R (nmi)

83
FIG. 18: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT VERSUS
RANGE.

Then, FIG. 18’s graph above is presenting the trendline of linear increasing for the conceptual
aircraft design characteristics of increasing maximum range distance it can fly between take-
off and landing. As the distance for longer maximal range, R, is demanded, the higher the
TOGW/MTOW of UNITY X6 aircraft. This is necessarily because the weight is directly
proportional to the R distance, as the longer aircraft’s range is designed, the more amounts of
fuel is needed in the tanks to fulfil the flight operation objectives. The fuel amount contributed
to fuel weight, Wfuel, for all three data can be obtained as below, which is similar in range trade
study worked out previously. Therefore, the longer the R distance, the higher Wfuel which then
build up to a higher TOGW.

• For, R = 750nmi (Baseline);

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊0 × ( ) = 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 5782.950lb × 0.1368 = 791.108lb
𝑊0

• For, R = 1000nmi;

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊0 × ( ) = 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 6334.072lb × 0.1624 = 1028.653lb
𝑊0

• For, R = 1200nmi;

𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊0 × ( ) = 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 6831.765lb × 0.1823 = 1245.431lb
𝑊0

84
Engine Type for Fuel Efficiency Analysis
Type of
Engine

High-bypass
Turbofan

Low-bypass
Turbofan

Pure
Turbojet

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

FIG. 19: BAR CHART OF TYPE OF ENGINE VERSUS TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM
TAKE-OFF WEIGHT.

In FIG. 19 above, the bar chart representing comparison of engine sizing over its fuel
efficiency. The specific fuel consumption (SFC) is the total ratio of fuel burn or consumed in
pounds or kilogram per hour (1/hr). This ratio can be used to dictate the best engine design for
its fuel efficiency and size. As observed, the reduction of SFC means the reduction of
TOGW/MTOW too. Therefore, the analysis concluded that, the lower TOGW/MTOW
incurred, the lesser power needed to fly so, the lesser fuel burns or consumed at the engine as
the function of time. TABLE 38 mentioned previously is presenting the historical trends data
of the specified engine’s SFC.

85
Speed or Velocity Analysis
8000
7000
TOGW/MTOW, W0 (lb)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
323.527 373.527 423.527 473.527 523.527 573.527 623.527 673.527

Velocity, V (ft/s)
FIG. 20: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT VERSUS
VELOCITY.

After that, graph of FIG. 20 above is showing the speed or velocity, V, analysis for the
parametric sensitivity study in the initial TOGW/MTOW estimation. The trendline of the graph
is linearly and gradually decreasing as the values of V is increasing. That is because, in order
to achieve the higher required maximum speed or V from the customer, the lower the
TOGW/MTOW of UNITY X6 aircraft should be attained. This inverse proportional trend is
based form Bernoulli’s principle, whereas airflow pressure and force exerted on the aircraft is
decreases (force of weight), as the speed or V of the airflow over the wings and airframe
structure increases (force of lift). Thus, the force of lift counteracts the force of weight by flying
much faster, whereby in this case, the TOGW/MTOW is reduced to 5394.255lb at speed of
688ft/s (0.6 Mach) from the baseline TOGW/MTOW of 5782.950lb at lower 506ft/s (0.45
Mach) speed.

86
(L/D)max Analysis
6050
6000
TOGE/MTOW, W0 (lb) 5950
5900
5850
5800
5750
5700
5650
5600
5550
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
Max. Lift-to-Drag Ratio, (L/D)max
FIG. 21: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT VERSUS MAX.
LIFT-TO-DRAG RATIO.

Next, graph in FIG. 21 above is presenting the similar trendline of inversely proportional as
the speed or velocity analysis previously. In this case, the maximum (L/D) ratio, (L/D)max, is
the measure of the aerodynamic cruising and loitering efficiency of the conceptual aircraft
design and the parametric ratio may has influence over TOGW/MTOW of UNITY X6 aircraft
as depicted in the graph. The baseline aircraft has attained a maximum ratio of 16, because the
higher (L/D) ratio is much favourable as it will be resulting in a large amount of lift with small
amount of drag. Hence, lower drag situation requires lower thrust and low thrust aircraft
requires small amounts of fuel to be burned. Thus, the condition explains that the higher force
of lift generated will compensate the force of weight and resulting in a lower TOGW/MTOW
of 5603.717lb at maximal (L/D) ratio of 18, rather than 5782.950lb of the baseline (L/D)max at
16.

87
Endurance (Loiter) Time
6050

TOGW/MTOW, W0 (lb) 6000

5950

5900

5850

5800

5750
900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700

Endurance Time, E (s)


FIG. 22: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT OR MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT VERSUS
ENDURANCE (LOITER) TIME.

Finally, graph depicted in FIG. 22 above is plotting a directly proportional linear trendline for
Endurance, E, of the loiter or hold time. The typical loitering or holding time for a general
aviation jetliner is dictated when waiting for the clearance to land on the ground. The similar
action of UNITY X6 conceptual aircraft design in its mission profile takes around 15 to 45
minutes of loitering or holding time, and as the endurance for the loiter is increases, the
TOGW/MTOW also increases from 5782.950lb to 6002.667lb, respectively. This is technically
because, the longer the aircraft need to loiter or hold in the airspace (flying in circles motion),
the higher requirement of fuel is needed which then building up to higher TOGW/MTOW of
the UNITY X6.

Therefore, in conclusion, this task is performed and analysed in order to fulfil the objectives of
identifying the primary components of the UNITY X6 baseline aircraft design initial gross
weight and estimating the aircraft gross weight or TOGW/MTOW, W0, from a conceptual
sketch. On the other hand, after the initial weight sizing is performed, one crucial step is to
compare the TOGW/MTOW of the conceptual aircraft design of UNITY X6 with the main
reference aircraft of XTI Aircraft (XTI-Trifan 600) as in TABLE 43 below.

88
TABLE 43: COMPARISON OF BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN WITH REFERENCE
AIRCRAFT.
Aircrafts Baseline Aircraft (UNITY X6) Reference Aircraft (XTI-Trifan 600)
TOGW/MTOW 5783lb 6300lb

3.5 Initial Aircraft Component Weight Estimation

Weight estimation at the conceptual aircraft design stage must be predicted well in advance of
detailed drawings of the parts being prepared. Statistical, logical data from the historical trend
designs is the means to predict component mass at the conceptual design stage. This estimation
is the starting point, as the new UNITY X6 conceptual aircraft design will be constantly
updated for improvement over and over again. Plus, during the conceptual design stage,
iterations are necessary when the configuration changes. So, there are two ways that are
selected to be the methods in estimating the weight or mass for each aircraft component aboard.

89
FIG. 23: RAPID WEIGHT ESTIMATION OVER REFERENCE-BASED AIRCRAFT CATEGORY OF
SMALLER AIRCRAFT WEIGHT FRACTION (KUNDU, 2010).

Thus, the first method is called rapid weight estimation method which is a summary of weight
fraction of maximum take-off weight for smaller aircraft. “Maximum take-off mass (MTOM)”
term is recognized by Kundu’s Aircraft Design (Cambridge Aerospace Design) book to be
actually identical with maximum take-off weight (MTOW) or even take-off gross weight
(TOGW), and is equivalent to 5782.950lb at this stage of conceptual design. Moreover, this
method relies on the statistical average of weight one level below major aircraft components.
The weight is expressed in terms of percentage as a fraction of (Wi/MTOW), whereby the
subscript i represents the ith component, which then concludes that all items should total up

90
until 100% of the MTOW. This rapid method is accomplished at the price of considerable
approximation with the unit of Newton, N.

• TOGW/MTOW = 5782.950lb = 2623.1kg


• TOGW/MTOW = 25723.822N

So, by following the order of a table illustrated in FIG. 23 above, the calculation is performed
subsequently as follows;

• Fuselage component weight, WFU;

𝑊𝐹𝑈 11
𝐹𝑓𝑢 = → 𝑊𝐹𝑈 = × 25723.822 = 2828.620𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Wing component weight, WW;

𝑊𝑊 10
𝐹𝑤 = → 𝑊𝑊 = × 25723.822 = 2572.382𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Pylon component weight, WPY;

𝑊𝑃𝑌 0.7
𝐹𝑝𝑦 = → 𝑊𝑃𝑌 = × 25723.822 = 180.067𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Nacelle component weight, WN;

𝑊𝑁 1.5
𝐹𝑛 = → 𝑊𝑁 = × 25723.822 = 385.857𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Undercarriage component weight, WUC;

𝑊𝑈𝐶 4.0
𝐹𝑢𝑐 = → 𝑊𝑈𝐶 = × 25723.822 = 1028.953𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Engine component weight, WE;

𝑊𝐸 7.0
𝐹𝑒 = → 𝑊𝐸 = × 25723.822 = 1800.668𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Engine control component weight, WEC;

𝑊𝐸𝐶 1.9
𝐹𝑒𝑐 = → 𝑊𝐸𝐶 = × 25723.822 = 488.752𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Fuel system component weight, WFS;

91
𝑊𝐹𝑆 1.3
𝐹𝑓𝑠 = → 𝑊𝐹𝑆 = × 25723.822 = 334.410𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Oil system component weight, WOS;

𝑊𝑂𝑆 0.3
𝐹𝑜𝑠 = → 𝑊𝑂𝑆 = × 25723.822 = 77.171𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Flight control component weight, WFC;

𝑊𝐹𝐶 1.7
𝐹𝑓𝑐 = → 𝑊𝐹𝐶 = × 25723.822 = 437.305𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Electrical component weight, WELEC;

𝑊𝐸𝐿𝐸𝐶 4.0
𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑐 = → 𝑊𝐸𝐿𝐶 = × 25723.822 = 1028.953𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Instrument component weight, WINS;

𝑊𝐼𝑁𝑆 1.3
𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑠 = → 𝑊𝐼𝑁𝑆 = × 25723.822 = 334.41𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Avionics component weight, WAV;

𝑊𝐴𝑉 0.5
𝐹𝑎𝑣 = → 𝑊𝐴𝑉 = × 25723.822 = 128.619𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Environment Control System (ECS) weight, WECS;

𝑊𝐸𝐶𝑆 2.0
𝐹𝑒𝑐𝑠 = → 𝑊𝐸𝐶𝑆 = × 25723.822 = 514.476𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Oxygen component weight, WOX;

𝑊𝑂𝑋 0.3
𝐹𝑜𝑥 = → 𝑊𝑂𝑋 = × 25723.822 = 77.171𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Furnishing component weight, WFUR;

𝑊𝐹𝑈𝑅 8
𝐹𝑓𝑢𝑟 = → 𝑊𝐹𝑈𝑅 = × 25723.822 = 2057.906𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Miscellaneous component weight, WMSC;

𝑊𝑀𝑆𝐶 0.3
𝐹𝑚𝑠𝑐 = → 𝑊𝑀𝑆𝐶 = × 25723.822 = 77.171𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

92
• Paint component weight, WPN;

𝑊𝑃𝑁 0.01
𝐹𝑝𝑛 = → 𝑊𝑃𝑁 = × 25723.822 = 2.572𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Contingency component weight, WCON;

𝑊𝐶𝑂𝑁 0.75
𝐹𝑐𝑜𝑛 = → 𝑊𝐶𝑂𝑁 = × 25723.822 = 192.929𝑁
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 100

• Manufacturer’s Empty Weight (MEW);

58
𝑀𝐸𝑊 = × 25723.822 = 14919.817𝑁
100

• Crew weight WCREW;

1
𝑊𝐶𝑅𝐸𝑊 = × 25723.822 = 257.238𝑁
100

• Consumable weight, WCONSUME;

1
𝑊𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑆𝑈𝑀𝐸 = × 25723.822 = 257.238𝑁
100

• Operator’s Empty Weight (OEW);

61
𝑂𝐸𝑊 = × 25723.822 = 15691.531𝑁
100

• Payload weight, WPAYLOAD;

18
𝑊𝑃𝐴𝑌𝐿𝑂𝐴𝐷 = × 25723.822 = 4630.288𝑁
100

• Fuel weight, Wf;

23
𝑊𝑓 = × 25723.822 = 5916.479𝑁
100

93
TABLE 44: UNITY X6 COMPONENTS ESTIMATED WEIGHTS USING RAPID WEIGHT
ESTIMATION METHOD.
Group Weights, Wi Weight Estimation, Wi (N)
Fuselage Component 2829.620
Wing Component 2572.382
Nacelle Component 180.067
Undercarriage Component 385.875
Engine Component 1028.953
Thrust Reverser Component 1800.668
Engine Control Component 488.752
Fuel System Component 334.410
Oil System Component 77.171
Flight Control Component 437.305
Electrical Component 1028.953
Instrument Component 334.410
Avionics Component 128.619
Environment Control System (ECS) 514.476
Oxygen Component 77.171
Furnishing Component 2057.906
Miscellaneous Component 77.171
Paint Component 2.572
Contingency Component 192.929
Manufacturer’s Empty Weight (MEW) 14919.817
Crew 257.238
Consumable 257.238
Operator’s Empty Weight (OEW) 15691.531
Payload 4630.288
Fuel 5916.479
Total 56222.001

94
This crude, initial estimation of each weight of UNITY X6 aircraft component has been
statistically calculated using the above equations stated in the table of FIG. 23 above. But,
nevertheless, although the table categorized a range of variation among aircraft category,
Kundu claimed that the tables in this section are not accurate and serve only as an estimate for
a starting point of the initial configuration, which is relevant in this vary stage of preliminary
design. As a result, the total load obtained for overall rapid group weight estimation is
56222.001N as shown in above TABLE 44, so;

• TOGW/MTOW = 56222.001N = 5731.091kg


• TOGW/MTOW = 12634.893lb

Which then approximate the error, e, in percentage (%) of around 54.2% of error from the
baseline TOGW/MTOW as tabulated in TABLE 45 below.

TABLE 45: COMPARISON OF UNITY X6 INITIAL WEIGHT SIZING AND RAPID WEIGHT
ESTIMATIONS.
Baseline Initial Weight Estimation, Rapid Weight Estimation,
TOGW/MTOW (lb) TOGW/MTOW (lb)
5782.950 12634.893
Error (%) = 54.2%

3.6 Aircraft Weight Breakdown

For the designed UNITY X6 aircraft, a weight breakdown had been analyzed by calculating
the weight of components of the aircraft. The weight breakdown is divided into five sections;
structure, payload, fuel, propulsion system, and avionic system. The weight breakdown can be
simplified into TABLE 46 and pie chart shown in FIG. 24 as below.

95
TABLE 46: DISTRIBUTIONS OF WEIGHT PERCENTAGE FOR EACH COMPONENT.
Components Weight, Wi (lb) Percentage (%)
Structure 1785.93 30.9
Propulsion 1648.00 28.5
Payload 1309.40 22.6
Fuel 791.000 13.7
Avionic 248.670 4.3
Total 5782.60 100

Weight Breakdown
Avionic
4%
Fuel
14% Structure
31%

Propulsion
28%

Payload
23%

Structure Payload Propulsion Fuel Avionic

FIG. 24: WEIGHT BREAKDOWN FOR UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT.

In FIG. 24 above, it can be seen that the structure of the UNITY X6 aircraft has the highest
percentage at 30.9% to be compared with others components. This is because, the weight for
structure component consists of weight of the wing, WW, landing gear, WUC, tail, WT, and
fuselage, WFU. The second highest weight percentage is propulsion system with 28.5%. For the
propulsion system, two turbofan engines were used for the aircraft. The turbofan used is
PW500 from Pratt-Whitney with the weight, WE, of 824lb each.

For payload, WPAYLOAD, percentage with 22.6% from the total weight of the UNITY X6 aircraft,
consist of one crew which is the pilot, occupied with 5 seaters for passengers and 2 baggage

96
compartments. The weight of fuel, Wf, in percentage is analyzed in the weight estimation
calculation, and it is calculated to be 791lb for hybrid electric aircraft which is about 13.7% of
the total gross weight, W0, of the UNITY X6 aircraft. The least component that contribute to
the weight breakdown is avionic system with only 4.3% from the total weight, WAV, of the
aircraft. Avionic system consists of the electrical system in the cockpit including
communications and navigation, the display system such as in-flight entertainment,
management of multiple systems, and the hundreds of systems that are fitted to UNITY X6
aircraft to perform individual functions.

4.6.1 Aircraft Weight Distribution Component

• Structure

Structure

Landing
Fuselage Wing Tail
gear

FIG. 25: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE DISTRIBUTION OF PART OR COMPONENT.

FIG. 25 above presenting the chart of the weight distribution for UNITY X6, the weight
for the structure consist of fuselage, wing, tail, and landing gear. For the fuselage
structure, it is referred from the body of Trifan 600, from XTI Aircraft Company. For
the wing structure, the type of wing used is tapered wing. For the tail structure, T-tail
configuration is used. Landing gear that are used is tricycle landing gear. These
configurations can be illustrated graphically from the references aircrafts both in FIG.
26 and 27 as below.

97
FIG. 26: THE REFERENCE AIRCRAFT OF XTI TRIFAN 600 WITH (A) FUSELAGE AND (B)
TAPERED WING CONFIGURATIONS.

FIG. 27: THE CONFIGURATION OF (A) TRICYCLE LANDING GEAR AND (B) T-TAIL FOR
TAIL STRUCTURE.

• Propulsion

FIG. 28: PW500 HIGH BYPASS RATIO TURBOFAN ENGINE.

98
FIG. 28 above shows the PW500 Turbofan engine used in this analysis. The technical
data of the engine is shown in the TABLE 47 below. PW500 engine family for medium-
sized business jets. Engines of the PW500 family are two-shaft turbofans. It has single-
stage fan with integral blades, three-stage high-pressure compressor with two axial
stages (blisks) and one radial stage with reverse-flow annular combustion chamber.
There are many applications of PW500 turbofan such as on Cessna Citation Bravo,
Cessna Citation Excel, and Cessna Citation XLS.

TABLE 47: TECHNICAL DATA OF PW500 TURBOFAN


ENGINE (PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA).
Specification Data

Max. thrust (Start) 4500lbf

Bypass ratio 4.12:1

Pressure ratio 15.49:1

Length 67in

Fan diameter 27in

Weight 824lb

• Payload

Payload can be categorized into pilot, passengers and baggage. For pilot, the maximum
weight is 190lb and same for each passenger. So, for the total maximum weight of the
pilot and passengers are 190lb x 6 = 1140lb. Baggage weight distribution is divided
into two, which is for hand carry and cargo checked-in. For the hand carry baggage, the
maximum weight is 39.6lb, with each carry weight of 6.6lb, while for baggage of cargo
checked-in, the maximum weight is 129.8lb with each carry weight of 21.6lb.

• Fuel

For the weight of fuel, it is calculated to be 791lb for hybrid electric aircraft and 834lb
for non-hybrid electric aircraft. Weight of fuel is calculated before in the previous
calculation in weight estimation analysis.

99
• Avionic

For the weight of avionic system, it is calculated to be 248.67lb.

4) UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

4.1 Initial Thrust-to-weight Ratio (T/W) Estimation

The thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) is one of the important parameter in terms performance of the
aircraft. It is an analytical approach as in finding the value that can explain more on the
acceleration, climb rate, turn rate, and maximum speed of the aircraft. The choosing of higher
engine size will have more consumption of the fuel which can make take-off gross weight or
maximum take-off weight (TOGW/MTOW) increase gradually. The value of (T/W) is not
constant as the weight of the aircraft keep changing during flight time. Thrust-to-weight ratio
in designer’s aspects refer to the (T/W) during the sea-level static (zero-velocity) on the
standard day conditions at design take-off weight and maximum throttle setting.

In order to perform the calculation, thrust-to-weight in statistical estimation form; the data must
be retrieved from the chosen reference aircraft which is XTI-Trifan 600, as shown below;

• Max. cruise speed, V = 505.796ft/s


• Altitude Ceiling, h = 29000ft
• Max. Mach number, Mmax = 0.45

Next, the thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) for statistical estimation can be calculated using equation
presented below;

𝑇 𝐶
( ) = 𝑎𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑊0

For a and C, the value is referred from the reference-based aircraft categories in TABLE 48
particularly for Jet Transport.

100
TABLE 48: (T/W0) VS. MMAX (RAYMER, 1992).
Reference-based Aircrafts a C
Jet Trainer 0.488 0.728
Jet Fighter (Dogfighter) 0.648 0.594
Jet Fighter (Other) 0.514 0.141
Military Cargo/Bomber 0.244 0.341
Jet Transport 0.267 0.363

Thus, the value a = 0.267, while C = 0.363, and the Mmax = 0.45. Then;

𝑇
(𝑊 ) = (0.267)(0.525)0.363
0

𝑇
(𝑊 ) ≈ 0.2
0

The value of maximum Mach number is 0.7 as the most common light jet aircraft provided.
Therefore, (T/W0) value is approaching to the typical installed (T/W) for Jet Transport category
which is 2.5 as tabulated in TABLE 49 shown below.

TABLE 49: THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO (T/W) (RAYMER, 1992).


Aircraft Type Typical Installed (T/W)
Jet Trainer 0.4
Jet Fighter (Dogfighter) 0.9
Jet Fighter (Other) 0.6
Military Cargo/Bomber 0.25
Jet Transport 0.25

Then, using several crucial parameter of the UNITY X6 conceptual aircraft design selected
sizing as listed below;

• Initial TOGW/MTOW, W0 = 5782.950lb


• Max. lift-to-drag ratio, (L/D)max = 16
𝑊𝑖
• Weight fraction during take-off, (𝑊 ) = 0.97
𝑖−1 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓

101
𝑊𝑖
• Weight fraction during climb, ( ) = 0.985
𝑊𝑖−1 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏

𝑊𝑖
• Weight fraction during cruise, (𝑊 ) = 0.9229
𝑖−1 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒

Solving for take-off thrust-to-weight ratio, (T/W)take-off, whereas the calculation have been
performed using the equations that has been provided in Raymer’s Aircraft Design: A
Conceptual Approach book, as below;

𝑇 𝑇 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓
( ) =( ) ( )( )
𝑊 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑇𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒

For;

𝑇 1 𝑇 1
( ) =( )=( ) ( )
𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 0.866 × (𝐿⁄𝐷 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 0.866 × 16
𝑇 1
( ) =( ) = 0.072
𝑊 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 13.9

Then;

𝑊 𝑊 𝑊
𝑊0 × (𝑊 𝑖 ) × (𝑊 𝑖 ) × (𝑊 𝑖 )
𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑖−1 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑖−1 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 𝑖−1 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
( )=
𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊
𝑊0 × (𝑊 𝑖 )
[ 𝑖−1 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 ]
𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 5782.950 × 0.97 × 0.985 × 0.9229 5099.317
( )=( )=( )
𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 5782.950 × 0.97 5609.462

For the take-off thrust, Ttake-off, the percentage is in 100% and while the cruise thrust, Tcruise, of
the High-bypass Turbofan ratio is 20 – 25% of the take-off maximum value. Thus, using only
25% of the Tcruise in this conceptual aircraft design, the calculation can be shown as below;

• Ttake-off = 100% = 1.00


• Tcruise = 25% = 0.25

Thus;

𝑇 1 5099.317 1.00
( ) =( )( )( )
𝑊 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 13.9 5609.462 0.25
𝑇
(𝑊) = 0.262 ≈ 0.26
𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓

102
After that, climb thrust-to-weight ratio, (T/W)climb, could be acquired specifically by applying
the derived equation as listed below;

𝑇 𝑇 𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑇𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏
( ) =( ) ( )( )
𝑊 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 𝑊 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓

Hence, using the obtained and assumed values of;

𝑇
• Thrust-to-weight ratio during take-off, (𝑊) = 0.262
𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓

𝑇𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏
• Thrust ratio between climb and take-off, (𝑇 )=1
𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓

Then;

𝑊𝑖
𝑊0 × ( )
𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑖−1 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓
( )=
𝑊𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 𝑊 𝑊
𝑊0 × ( 𝑖 ) ×( 𝑖 )
[ 𝑊𝑖−1 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑊 𝑖−1 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 ]

𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 5782.950 × 0.97 5609.462


( )=( )=( )
𝑊𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 5782.950 × 0.97 × 0.985 5525.320

Thus;

𝑇 5609.462
( ) = (0.262) ( ) (1)
𝑊 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 5525.320
𝑇
( ) = 0.266 ≈ 0.27
𝑊 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏

Furthermore, FIG. 29 below is depicting the flowchart of overall flow of calculations in (T/W)
whereas, MATLab programming is implemented to search for this ratio. This resulted an output
as shown in its Command Window of FIG. 30 below, which is having identical values with the
calculation done previously. Therefore, the statistical and thrust-matching values acquired for
the initial sizing of thrust-to-weight (T/W) performance parameters can be tabulated as in
TABLE 50 below. Hence, the thrust-matching is stressed for major critical mission segment in
the profile, especially at take-off and climb, whereby UNITY X6 aircraft uses the highest thrust
and power in operation rather than during cruise condition.

103
FIG. 29: PROGRAMMING FLOWCHART OF THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO ESTIMATION.

FIG. 30: RESULTING OUTPUT OF MATLAB COMMAND WINDOW IN THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO


ESTIMATION.

104
TABLE 50: CRITICAL PERFORMANCE OF THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO ESTIMATION.
Statistical Estimation
Thrust-to-weight Ratio, (T/W) 0.20
Thrust-matching
Mission Segments Thrust-to-weight Ratio, (T/W)
Take-off 0.26
Climb 0.27
Cruise 0.072

4.2 Parametric Study Analysis on Thrust-to-weight Estimation

As in Section 3.4, parametric study is the analysis on the variables of UNITY X6 aircraft’s
parameter, whereas it can be tabulated in TABLE 51 as below. The only varied parameter is
the maximum cruise speed or velocity, V, of the baseline aircraft. By conducting this analysis,
a preferable trade-off will be observed and evaluated using a graphical aid of trendline. This
trade-off is important to tackle the market of customer various demands on the aircraft mission.

TABLE 51: BASELINE VARIATION PARAMETRIC Influences ON THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO.


Parameter Baseline
Maximum Cruise Speed, V 500km/h
Speed of Sound, a 1095.8km/h
Mach Number, M 0.4566
TOGW/MTOW, W0 5782.95lb

105
Max Cruise Speed Vs (T/W0)
0.22
0.215
0.21
0.205
T/W0

0.2
0.195
0.19
0.185
0.18
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Max Cruise Speed, V

FIG. 31: GRAPH OF MAXIMUM CRUISE SPEED VS THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO.

From the graph of FIG. 31 above, it can be seen that when the maximum cruise speed, V, is
increasing for UNITY X6 aircraft, it will affect the thrust-to-weight ratio, (T/W). It is analyzed
by using the formula for statistical estimation for thrust to weight ratio.

Statistical estimation for (T/W0);

𝑇 𝐶
= 𝑎𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑊0

The thrust to weight ratio increases as the maximum cruise speed increases. In the graph, the
parametric studies that are being vary is the maximum cruise speed, and by changing it will
somehow affect the performance of the UNITY X6 aircraft in terms of it Mach number, M, and
thus will eventually affecting the thrust to weight ratio. The higher the speed, the higher the
Mach number, thus the higher the (T/W) ratio. The higher the thrust to weight ratio means that
the thrust is increases and thus the weight is decreases.

4.3 Initial Wing Loading (W/S) Estimation

Wing loading (W/S) can be generally defined as the weight of the aircraft divided by the area
of the reference wing. Wing loading is one of the important parameter that is need to determine
the maneuvering performance of an aircraft especially its stall speed, climb rate, take-off, cruise

106
condition, landing distances, and turn performance in loitering. Wing loading of an aircraft also
is depending on high-lift devices (HLD) and flaps that being used for the aircraft. However,
the decision of choosing the HLD and flaps for the aircraft need to be considered by designer
due to its additional weight. Besides, the six (6) critical performances that must be acknowledge
in overall conditions of UNITY X6 aircraft flight operation can be described in the calculations
starting as below. The first wing loading for stall condition, (W/S)stall, is found out as it was
mentioned earlier, wing loading is needed to determine the stall speed of the aircraft and its
maximum lift coefficient, CL,max. The wing loading calculation for stall region can be obtained
by referring to Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach by D. P. Raymer book as below;

1 2
(W/S)stall = ( )ρ𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 CL,max
2

It is need to know the velocity at the stall, Vstall, to calculate the wing loading at this region.
The Vstall can be calculated by using the formula given;

2(𝑊0 )
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 = √
𝜌𝑆𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥

Then, by listing all the parameters and constants that shall be applied in the calculation, some
of it are retrieved from the book as the reference-based aircraft category constants like the max.
lift coefficient, CL,max, for a regular transport aircraft with flaps and slats as quoted by Raymer
in FIG. 32, whilst some are acquired from the previous sizing; in example, gross weight, W0.
The lists goes on as follows;

• Wing aspect ratio, A = AR = 6


• Wing area, S = 239.32ft2
• Gross weight, W0 = 5782.950lb
• Max. lift coefficient, CL,max = 2.4
• Density at sea-level condition, ρ = 0.00238slug/ft3

107
FIG. 32: DETERMINATION OF MAX. LIFT COEFFICIENT RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK CONTENT
(RAYMER, 1992).

Therefore, the velocity at stall condition, Vstall, and its wing loading, (W/S)stall, could be obtained
as below;

2(5782.950)
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 = √(0.00238)(239.32)(2.4) = 91.983ft/s

𝑊 1
(𝑆) = (2)(0.00238)(91.983)2(2.4) = 24.164lb/ft2
𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙

Next, for the take-off wing loading, (W/S)take-off, calculation, the equation is gained from the
Raymer’s book. All the assumptions are also taken from this book. Thus, the formula for take-
off wing loading, (W/S)take-off, is as below;

(W/S)take-off = TOPσCLTO(T/W)take-off

By looking at the take-off wing loading, (W/S)take-off, equation above, the TOP or take-off
parameter can be obtained from the Raymer’s graphical representation in FIG. 33 below in
corresponds to the RFP’s requirement of 1800ft take-off distance with over a 50ft obstacle as
retrieved in FIG. 34 below from HEEGA’s. Plus, the thrust-to-weight ratio is selected during
take-off, (T/W)take-off. The listing parameters and constants used in this calculations can be
prepared and assumed as follows;

𝜌 0.00238
• Density ratio at take-off condition, σ = ( ) =( )=1
𝜌 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓 0.00238

• Take-off distance, Stake-off = 1800ft


• Take-off Parameter, TOP at 1800ft = 98
𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 2.4
• Take-off lift coefficient, CL,TO = ( ) = (1.21)
1.21

• Thrust-to-weight ratio during take-off, (T/W)take-off = 0.26

108
98

FIG. 33: TAKE-OFF PARAMETER ESTIMATION (RAYMER, 1992).

FIG. 34: RFP’S REQUIREMENT OVER TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DISTANCE (HEEGA, 2017).

Therefore, the wing loading at take-off condition, (W/S)take-off, shall be calculated as below;

𝑊 2.4
(𝑆) = (98)(1)(1.21)(0.26) = 50.928lb/ft2
𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒−𝑜𝑓𝑓

After that, to calculate wing loading at climb, (W/S)climb, it is mathematically presented in the
equation below;

2 4𝐶
𝑇 𝑇
[( ) − 𝐺] ± √[( ) − 𝐺] − ( 𝐷,0 )
𝑊 𝑊 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 𝑊 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 𝜋𝐴𝑒
( ) =
𝑆 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏 2
(𝑞𝜋𝐴𝑒)

109
As usual, list all the parameters like the initial climb rate (ft/s) as per RFP’s requirement in
FIG. 35 below and the constant values of equivalent skin friction coefficient, Cfe, of reference-
based aircraft categories as shown in TABLE 52 below. Plus, the Oswald’s factor of span
efficiency, e, is also obtained from Raymer’s book as in FIG. 36 below. So;

• Wetted area ratio, (Swet/Sref) = 4.5


• Thrust-to-weight ratio during climb, (T/W)climb = 0.27
• Initial climb rate = 21.67ft/s (vertical distance/s)
• Cruise speed, V = 505.796ft/s (horizontal distance/s)
• Equivalent skin friction coefficient, Cfe = 0.0045
• Oswald’s span efficiency factor, e = 0.8

FIG. 35: RFP’S REQUIREMENT OVER CLIMB RATE FOR SIX-SEAT VARIANT MISSION (HEEGA,
2017).

TABLE 52: EQUIVALENT SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENTS (RAYMER, 1992).


Reference-based Aircrafts Cfe-Subsonic
Bomber and Civil Transport 0.0030
Military Cargo (High upsweep fuselage) 0.0035
Air Force Fighter 0.0035
Navy Fighter 0.0040
Clean Supersonic Cruise Aircraft 0.0025
Light Aircraft–Single engine 0.0055
Light Aircraft–Twin engine 0.0045
Prop Seaplane 0.0065
Jet Seaplane 0.0040

110
FIG. 36: OSWALD’S SPAN EFFICIENCY FACTOR RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK CONTENT
(RAYMER, 1992).

Before the equation of the climb wing loading, (W/S)climb, can be applied and proceeded, the
zero lift drag coefficient, CD,0, climb gradient, G, and its constant dynamic pressure, q, can be
found firstly as below;

CD,0 = Cfe(Swet/Sref) = 0.0045(4.5) = 0.02025


𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒/𝑠 21.67
G = (ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒/𝑠) = (505.796) = 0.0428
1 1
q = ( )ρV2 = ( )[(0.00238)(505.796)2] = 304.437lbf/ft2
2 2

Then, let’s assume the denotation of A1 and A2 for both types of operation of addition (+) and
subtraction (-), rerspectively, at the numerators, whilst B1 is denoted for its denominator, in
regards to the climb wing loading equation, (W/S)climb, as shown previously.

4(0.02025)
𝐴1 = [(0.27) − (0.0428)] + √[(0.27) − (0.0428)]2 − ( ) = 0.44217
𝜋(6)(0.8)

4(0.02025)
𝐴2 = [(0.27) − (0.0428)] − √[(0.27) − (0.0428)]2 − ( ) = 0.01215
𝜋(6)(0.8)

2
𝐵1 = = 4.3565 × 10−4
(304.437)(𝜋)(6)(0.8)

Thus, when A1/B1;

𝑊 0.44217
(𝑆) = 4.3565 𝑥 10−4 = 1014.947lb/ft2
𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏

Whereas, when A2/B1;

𝑊 0.01215
(𝑆) = 4.3565 𝑥 10−4 = 27.885lb/ft2
𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏

Next, for cruise mission segment, the equation for wing loading, (W/S)cruise, is based on
Raymer’s as below;

111
(W/S)cruise = q√𝜋𝐴𝑒 𝐶𝐷,0 ⁄3

Then, as the equation above is observed, most of the regarded parameters and constants are
have been listed and provided in the previous operation of wing loading calculations, except
for the dynamic pressure, q, loaded on the wing area, S, would be different in this state of higher
cruising level altitude, which is in this case, h = 30000ft, above sea-level. So;

• Density at 30000ft above sea-level condition, ρ = 0.0008907slug/ft3

Hence;

1 1
q = (2)ρV2 = (2)[(0.0008907)(505.796)2] = 113.934lbf/ft2

Thus, by substituting all the information gained into the equation, the wing loading for cruising
state, (W/S)cruise, shall be obtained as below;

𝑊
( ) = (113.934)√𝜋(6)(0.8) 0.02025⁄3 = 36.35lb/ft2
𝑆 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒

Proceed to another mission segment of loiter or hold, whereas the equation below shows how
to obtain the wing loading during loiter, (W/S)loiter, equated as below;

(W/S)loiter = q√𝜋𝐴𝑒𝐶𝐷,0

Identically, the loiter flight operation is also performed commonly after cruising for certain
mission range, R, and before starting to descent, which would be likely on the same altitude as
cruise at, h = 30000ft, above sea-level. Thus, with similar level altitude, it goes the same with
its dynamic pressure, q, as well. Thus;

𝑊
( ) = (113.934)√𝜋(6)(0.8)(0.02025) = 62.95lb/ft2
𝑆 𝑙𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟

Finally, the last mission segment of the flight planning is landing. Now, the equation for the
wing loading during landing, (W/S)landing, can be described mathematically, as below;

Slanding = 80(W/S)landing(1/σCL,max) + Sa

Based from the FIG. 34 mentioned previously, the parameters of landing distance, Slanding, is
acquired in accordance with the RFP’s requirement with the constants of density ratio, σ, at the
assumption condition of sea-level. However, the obstacle-clearance distance, Sa, is conformed

112
with Raymer’s rules of landing wing loading, (W/S)landing, formulae, which is shown in FIG. 37
below based from reference aircraft categories. Hence;

𝜌 0.00238
• Density ratio at landing condition, σ = (𝜌) = (0.00238) = 1
𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

• Landing distance, Slanding = 1800ft


• Obstacle-clearance distance, Sa = 600

FIG. 37: OBSTACLE-CLEARANCE DISTANCE FOR GA-TYPE RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK


CONTENT (RAYMER, 1992).

After a simple, direct mathematical operation, the landing wing loading, (W/S)landing, can be
calculated as below;

𝑊 1
1800 = 80( 𝑆 ) (1(2.4)) + 600
𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑊
(𝑆) = 36lb/ft2
𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

In addition to that, all of these calculations flowed through a flowchart which guided the
subsequent steps in determining the wing loading, (W/S), over all segments in mission profile.
Thus, that flowchart in FIG. 38 also represented the programming flow of MATLab in order to
perform the calculation operation, which then output the resulting data in the Command
Window as shown in FIG. 39 that is identical in overall values with all the calculation presented
above.

113
FIG. 38: PROGRAMMING FLOWCHART OF WING LOADING ESTIMATION.

114
FIG. 39: RESULTING OUTPUT OF MATLAB COMMAND WINDOW IN WING LOADING
ESTIMATION.

Therefore, in conclusion, TABLE 53 below is tabulating appropriately the data of each mission
segment’s wing loading, (W/S). As observed from all the resulting data, the best, lowest
calculated wing loading is chosen at the critical performance of UNITY X6 aircraft flight
segment, especially at take-off, climb, or stall conditions. Thus, the lowest selected wing
loading is also determined to be having a larger wing area, S, relative to its gross weight, W0.

TABLE 53: CRITICAL PERFORMANCE OF WING LOADING ESTIMATION.


Mission Segments Wing Loading, (W/S) (lb/ft2)
Stall 24.164
Take-off 50.928
1014.947
Climb
27.885
Cruise 36.350
Loiter 62.960
Landing 36.000

115
As a result, the selected ratios and loadings are graphically represented in the form of the flight
planning or mission profile shown in FIG. 40. Plus, the highest ratios and lowest loadings of
(T/W) and (W/S), respectively, are chosen as in the red-circled values from the same figure
below.

FIG. 40: THE SELECTED AND CHOSEN RED-CIRCLED VALUES IN THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO
AND WING LOADING ESTIMATION.

4.2 Parametric Study Analysis on Wing Loading Estimation

Parametric study is the analysis and examination of relationship between different parameters
that can effects and manipulate the final results similar as in Section 3.4 and 4.2 above.
Particularly, this study is conducted to find the wing loading at every mission profile and
investigate the relationship of several parameters such as take-off distance, aspect ratio, initial
climb rate, cruise speed, and maximum lift coefficient. These parameters listed in TABLE 54
can be used to find the desired wing loading for the UNITY X6 aircraft.

116
TABLE 54: BASELINE VARIATION PARAMETRIC INFLUENCES ON WING LOADING.
Parameter Baseline
Take-off distance 1800ft
Aspect ratio 6
Initial climb rate 21.67ft/s
Cruise speed 505.796 ft/s
Maximum lift coefficient 2.4

The wing loading calculation is performed by using these parameters at every mission profile.

a) The value of take-off distance plays an important part to find wing loading at take-off.

Take-off Distance Analysis


80
Wing loading (lb/ft2)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1800 1900 2000 2100 2200

Take-off distance (ft)


FIG. 41: GRAPH OF TAKE-OFF DISTANCE ANALYSIS.

The graph above in FIG. 41 showing the variant value of take-off distance for UNITY X6 the
aircraft to take-off. Based on the observation, the trendline is increasing linearly as the distance
of take-off distance increasing. The take-off distance for the conceptual design aircraft is
1800ft, but increasing the distance would cause an increase in wing loading value from
56.50lb/ft2 to 69.34lb/ft2 at 2200ft. Thus, the higher wing loading will decrease the
maneuverability of an aircraft and not be able to take-off with greater load.

117
b) The value of aspect ratio plays an important part to find wing loading at loiter.

Aspect Ratio Analysis


120
100
Wing loading (lb/ft2)

80
60
40
20
0
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

Aspect Ratio
FIG. 42: GRAPH OF ASPECT RATIO ANALYSIS.

Based on the graph of FIG. 42 above, the trendline is increasing linearly as the number of
aspect ratio increases. Therefore, the higher wing loading will be produced when the higher
aspect ratio being used to find wing loading at loiter. When the value of aspect ratio is 6, the
wing loading for loiter is 74.01lb/ft2 while when the value of aspect ratio is 10, we got wing
loading for loiter is 95.55lb/ft2.

c) The value of initial climb rate plays an important part to find wing loading at climb.

Initial Climb Rate Analysis


30.2
wing loading (lb/ft2)

30
29.8
29.6
29.4
29.2
29
28.8
28.6
21.67 22.17 22.67 23.17 23.67 24.17 24.67 25.17 25.67

Initial Climb Rate (ft/s)


FIG. 43: GRAPH OF INITIAL CLIMB RATE ANALYSIS.

118
From the graph above in FIG. 43, the graph is observed to be directly proportional to one
another. The value of wing loading keep increasing as the initial climb rate value increasing.
As observed, the increasing of initial climb rate value means the higher wing loading that had
been produced. Therefore, the analysis concluded that, to get lower wing loading at climb, use
lower initial climb rate because the higher the climb rate, the higher the wing loading value.

d) The value of cruise speed plays an important part to find wing loading at cruise.

Cruise Speed Analysis


100
Wing Loading (lb/ft2)

80

60

40

20

0
255.796 355.796 455.796 555.796 655.796 755.796

Cruise Speed (ft/s)


FIG. 44: GRAPH OF CRUISE SPEED ANALYSIS.

The baseline or the cruise speed at cruise segment is 505.796ft/s and this cruise speed is varied
by ±250ft/s. Based on the graph in FIG. 44 above, the value of wing loading increased as the
cruise speed increase. When the speed cruise is at 755.796ft/s the wing loading value is
81.16lb/ft2 while at 255.796ft/s of cruise speed, the resulting value for wing loading is
9.29lb/ft2. Thus, the increment speed will affect the value of wing loading.

119
e) Maximum lift coefficient also important parameter in order to find wing loading at
Take-off and Landing.

Maximum Lift Coefficicent Analysis


60
Wing Loading (lb/ft2)

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Maximum Lift Coefficient (CL,max)


FIG. 45: GRAPH OF MAXIMUM LIFT COEFFICIENT ANALYSIS.

The value for maximum lift coefficient is varied from 1.0 to 3.8 with and increment of 1.4 as
presented in a graph of FIG. 45 above. From the graph, the wing loading is directly proportional
to the CL,max coefficient. As the value for CL,max coefficient is increased, the wing loading value
also increased. The wing loading at CL,max is 1 is 15lb/ft2 while when the value for CL,max is
2.4, the wing loading is 36lb/ft2 and when the CL,max is at 3.8, the wing loading is 57lb/ft2.

5) UNITY X6 CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) EVALUATION & AIRCRAFT GEOMETRY


SIZING

5.1 First Estimation of CG Location

The pie chart illustrated in FIG. 24 of Section 3.6 above, dictating the analyzed overall weight
breakdown for UNITY X6 aircraft. But nevertheless, regarding the initial estimation of centre
of gravity (CG) location, there are two major components which shall contribute to the most
of the overall aircraft gross weight, W0, viz. a fuselage and wing. In this preliminary design
stage, fuselage weighing component merely contained pilot, passengers, and baggage, whilst
the weight of wing and the fuel within it are taken into consideration when estimating the CG

120
location. However, this initial estimation also consider the existing of tail contribution, which
is still do not confirmed on its sizing yet, thus, only the wing and fuselage is taken into account.

121
FIG. 46: FUSELAGE FIRST ESTIMATION ON CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) LOCATION ACCORDING TO THE AIRCRAFT LENGTH (SIDE VIEW).

122
FIG. 47: FUSELAGE FIRST ESTIMATION ON CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) LOCATION ACCORDING TO THE AIRCRAFT LENGTH (TOP VIEW).

123
The weight of all the components is shown in FIG. 46 and 47 above, along with the locations
of their respective individual CG locations measured relative to the nose of UNITY X6 aircraft
illustration. The first calculation operations involve in the centre of gravity (CG) for fuselage
only, without wing. Moreover, TABLE 55 below is presenting the acquired data used for the
moment arms of each corresponding weight components used in the UNITY X6 aircraft layout
configuration.

TABLE 55: TOTAL MOMENT ARMS WITH CORRESPONDING WEIGHT BREAKDOWN ESTIMATIONS.
Weight Distance, l Weight, Cumulative Total Moment,
Components m ft W (lb) Weight, W (lb) M (lb.ft)
Pilot 0.9997 3.28 190 190 623.2
Baggage 1.4999 4.921 39.6 229.6 194.8716
Passenger 3.9989 13.12 950 1179.6 12464.00
Fuselage 4.8881 16.037 1048.499 2228.099 16814.77846
Avionic 5.3370 17.51 248.67 2476.769 4354.2117
**Wing 5.9170 19.9514 598.3 3075.069 11614.68
**Fuel 5.9170 19.9514 791 3866.069 15355.52
Baggage 7.0013 22.97 129.8 3995.869 2981.506
Engine 7.7511 25.43 1648 5643.869 41908.64
Tail 9.2873 30.47 139.13 5782.999 4239.2911
Total 5782.999 110550.7019
*This table is estimated with two parts of data combined together.
**Only for CG of fuselage with wing.

Thus, the calculation may go as follows;

𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) =
(190 × 3.28) + (39.60 × 4.921) + (950.0 × 13.12) + (108.499 × 16.037)
+(248.67 × 17.51) + (129.80 × 22.97) + 1648.00 × 25.43) + (139.13 × 30.47)
190.00 + 39.60 + 950.0 + 1048.499 + 248.67 + 129.80 + 1648.00 + 139.13
83580.49886
𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) = = 19.0228ft
4393.699

124
Therefore, CG of the fuselage without taking consideration of wing, 𝑥̅𝐶𝐺 = 19.0228ft. Next,
proceed to the latter operation of calculation in this first estimation of CG location, which
account for the wing contribution of weight. At first, 598.3lb weight of the wing, WW, shall be
calculated using the equation retrieved from Anderson’s Aircraft Performance & Design book
as shown in FIG. 48 below.

FIG. 48: THE WEIGHT OF THE WING IS RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK CONTENT (ANDERSON,
1999).

Whereas, the planform area of the wing is found to be S = 239.32ft2. Then, the calculation
proceeds to the CG of the fuselage with updated wing, which considered the 791lb amount of
fuel weight, Wf, stored in the wing as well, thus;

83580.49886 + (598.3 × 19.9514) + (791.00 × 19.9514)


𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) =
26970.20304 + 598.3 + 791.00
110550.7019
𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) = = 19.251𝑓𝑡
5782.999

From the calculation above, the measured locations of CG that includes the wing, is assumed
to be UNITY X6 aircraft initial centre of gravity estimation at about 𝑥̅𝐶𝐺 = 19.251ft from the
nose. FIG. 49 below is presenting the flowchart of the calculation operations in first estimation
of CG location.

125
FIG. 49: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR FIRST ESTIMATION OF CG LOCATION.

126
5.2 Fuselage Geometrical Sizing

In geometrical sizing, once the TOGW has been estimated, the fuselage, wing, and tails can be
sized. In fuselage sizing, many methods exist to initially estimate the required fuselage size.
For certain types of aircraft, the fuselage size is determined strictly by "real-world constraints."
For example, a large passenger aircraft devotes most of its length to the passenger
compartment. Once the number of passengers is known and the number of seats across is
selected, the fuselage length and diameter are essentially determined. For initial guidance
during fuselage geometrical layout sizing, TABLE 56 below provides statistical equations for
fuselage length. These are based solely upon TOGW, and give remarkably good correlations
to most existing references aircrafts using the formula given below;

a𝑊0𝐶

TABLE 56: FUSELAGE LENGTH VS W0 (RAYMER, 1992).


References Aircrafts a C
Sailplane–unpowered 0.86 0.48
Sailplane–powered 0.71 0.48
Homebuilt–metal/wood 3.68 0.23
Homebuilt–composite 3.50 0.23
General Aviation–single
4.37 0.23
engine
General Aviation–twin
0.86 0.42
engine
Agricultural Aircraft 4.04 0.23
Twin Turboprop 0.37 0.51
Flying Boat 1.05 0.40
Jet Trainer 0.79 0.41
Jet Fighter 0.93 0.39
Military Cargo/Bomber 0.23 0.50
Jet Transport 0.67 0.43

127
FIG. 50: DEFINITION OF GEOMETRIC FUSELAGE PARAMETERS (ROSKAM, 1985).

Furthermore, FIG. 50 above is illustrating the fuselage fineness ratio, 𝜆f, is the ratio between
the fuselage length, lf, and its maximum diameter, df;

𝑙𝑓
𝜆𝑓 =
𝑑𝑓

If the fuselage cross section is not a circle, an equivalent diameter is calculated from the cross-
sectional area. Theoretically, for a fixed internal volume the subsonic drag is minimized by a
fineness ratio of about 3.0, whilst supersonic drag is minimized by a fineness ratio of about 14.
Most aircraft fall between these values. A historically-derived fuselage fineness ratio can be
used, along with the length estimate, to develop the initial fuselage layout. However, "real
world constraints" such as payload envelope must take priority. For most design efforts the
realities of packaging the internal components will establish the fuselage length and diameter.

TABLE 57: CURRENTLY USED GEOMETRIC FUSELAGE PARAMETERS (ROSKAM, 1985).


References Aircrafts 𝜆f
Homebuilt 4–8
General Aviation–single engine 5–8
General Aviation–twin engine 3.6 – 8
Agricultural 5–8
Business jets 7 – 9.5
Regionals 5.6 – 10
Jet Transports 6.8 – 11.5
Military Trainers 5.4 – 7.5

128
Fighters 7 – 11
Military Transports, Bombers, and Patrol
6 – 13
Airplanes
Flying Boats 6 – 11
Supersonics 12 – 25

As the fuselage fit/fine/slenderness ratio (different book, different terms), 𝜆f = 7, is selected


and assumed for General Aviation–Twin Engine 3.6 – 8 as in TABLE 57 above, thus;

• Fuselage length, lf = 32.074ft

So, the diameter of fuselage can be determined at about, df = 4.582ft. Therefore, FIG. 51 below
is depicting the dimensional sizing of the fuselage body part of UNITY X6 aircraft, whereas
the measurements in the picture is not to scale.

FIG. 51: INITIAL FUSELAGE SIZING DESIGN.

5.3 Wing Geometrical Sizing

Based from the first estimation of the CG location, usually the design procedure calls for
locating the wing relative to the fuselage such that the mean aerodynamic centre (MAC) of the
wing is close to the CG of an aircraft. By pointing out the value of the wing loading, (W/S),
calculated previously in TABLE 53 above in Section 4.3, the lowest wing loading is chosen at

129
stall condition which is at, (W/S)stall = 24.164lb/ft2, and it is thus used in determining the
calculation for the initial wing sizing like below with the gross weight of UNITY X6 aircraft
is, W0 = 5782.950lb.

𝑊
( ) = 24.164𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡 2
𝑆 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙

Hence, the wing area, S, of the aircraft is expressed as below;

𝑊
𝑆𝑤 =
24.164
5782.950
𝑆𝑤 =
24.164
𝑆𝑤 = 239.321𝑓𝑡 2

Based on Raymer’s textbook to find the wing span, 𝑏𝑤 , is found as;

𝑏𝑤 = √(𝐴𝑅)(𝑆)

𝑏𝑤 = √6 × 221.027
𝑏𝑤 = 37.89𝑓𝑡 = 11.549𝑚

Hence, the estimation of the wing size must be using several crucial parameters as stated in the
picture of FIG. 52 below. This geometrical sizing is crucial in order to determine its mean
aerodynamic chord, 𝑐̅, mean aerodynamic centre (MAC), and the wing CG location, CGwith
wing, respective to the fuselage size.

130
FIG. 52: WING SIZING DIMENSIONAL ESTIMATION (GUDMUNDSSON, 2014).

The size of the wing root chord, cr, is obtained from this equation;

2𝑆
𝑐𝑟 =
𝑏(1 + 𝜆)

Given that the tapered ratio, 𝜆, of the wing is fixed at;

𝑐𝑡
𝜆= = 0.5
𝑐𝑟

Hence, the 𝑐𝑟 is found as below;

2(239.321)
𝑐𝑟 =
37.89 (1 + 0.5)
𝑐𝑟 = 8.42𝑓𝑡 = 2.566𝑚

Knowing that the tip chord of the wing, 𝑐𝑡 is the multiplication of tapered ratio and its root
chord, 𝑐𝑟 , hence;

𝑐𝑡 = 𝜆𝑐𝑟
𝑐𝑡 = 0.5(8.42)
𝑐𝑡 = 4.21𝑓𝑡 = 1.283𝑚

Thus, the mean aerodynamic chord, 𝑐̅, can be obtained as follows;

2 1 + 𝜆 + 𝜆2
𝑐̅ = ( ) 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 ( )
3 1+𝜆

131
2 1 + 0.5 + 0.52
𝑐̅ = ( ) 8.42 ( )
3 1 + 0.5
𝑐̅ = 6.549𝑓𝑡 = 1.996𝑚

Now, for the spanwise location, 𝑦̅, of the wing;

𝑏 1 + 2𝜆
𝑦̅ = ( ) ( )
6 1+𝜆
37.89 1 + 2(0.5)
𝑦̅ = ( )( )
6 1 + (0.5)
𝑦̅ = 8.42𝑓𝑡 = 2.566𝑚

Then, find the point of mean aerodynamic centre (MAC) on the chord line of the wing;

𝑀𝐴𝐶 = 0.25𝑐̅
𝑀𝐴𝐶 = 0.25(6.549)
𝑀𝐴𝐶 = 1.637𝑓𝑡 = 0.499𝑚

Therefore, the centre of gravity (CG) location on the wing, CGwing, is found at;

𝐶𝐺𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.4𝑐̅


𝐶𝐺𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.4(6.549)
𝐶𝐺𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 2.6196𝑓𝑡 = 0.798𝑚

Therefore, in conclusion, TABLE 58 below is tabulating appropriately the data of initial wing
sizing estimations obtained for UNITY X6 conceptual design aircraft.

TABLE 58: INITIAL WING SIZING DATA.


Sizing Dimension
Wing Span, bw 37.890ft
Wing Root Chord, 𝑐𝑟 8.420ft
Wing Tip Chord, 𝑐𝑡 4.210ft
Wing Mean Aerodynamic Chord, 𝑐 6.549ft
Wing Spanwise Location, 𝑦 8.420ft
Wing Point of Mean Aerodynamics Centre, MAC 1.637ft
Wing Centre of Gravity, CGwing 2.6196ft

132
In brief, the geometrical sizing of the mean aerodynamic chord, 𝑐̅, the mean aerodynamic centre
(MAC), and the wing CG location, CGwith wing, is shown in FIG. 53 below as the illustration of
the initial dimensional design of wing sizing for the UNITY X6 aircraft. Plus, in FIG. 54, the
flowchart of the calculation operation for the initial wing sizing estimation is constructed.

FIG. 53: INITIAL WING SIZING DESIGN (0.25 MAC).

133
Flowchart wing sizing

FIG. 54: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR INITIAL WING SIZING.

134
5.4 Tail Geometrical Sizing

The next is one of the most empirical and least precise aspects of the aircraft preliminary design
process, which is the tail sizing. The tail sizing can be categorized for two sets; that are,
horizontal and vertical tails. Both of the tails sizing must be sufficient enough to function in
providing the stability and control in both longitudinal and directional axes. The selected
configuration of tail used for UNITY X6 aircraft is T-tail whereas the horizontal tail is mounted
at the top of the vertical tail as shown in example of FIG. 55 below. Besides that, there are
several parameters that should be assumed and retrieved directly from the book of Raymer and
Anderson, which are tabulated in TABLE 59 below for the volume ratio, V, of each tail set of
sizing based form the reference-based aircrafts, whilst shown in FIG. 56 and 57 below for the
values of assumed aspect ratio, AR, for both tail sizing.

FIG. 55: EXAMPLE OF T-TAIL CONFIGURATION STRUCTURE.

TABLE 59: TAIL VOLUME RATIO (RAYMER, 1992).


References Aircrafts Horizontal VHT Vertical VVT
Sailplane 0.50 0.02
Homebuilt 0.50 0.04
General Aviation–single
0.70 0.04
engine
General Aviation–twin
0.80 0.07
engine
Agricultural 0.50 0.04
Twin Turboprop 0.90 0.08

135
Flying Boat 0.70 0.06
Jet Trainer 0.70 0.06
Jet Fighter 0.40 0.07
Military Cargo/Bomber 1.00 0.08
Jet Transport 1.00 0.09

FIG. 56: HORIZONTAL TAIL ASPECT RATIO RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK CONTENT
(ANDERSON, 1999).

FIG. 57: VERTICAL TAIL ASPECT RATIO RETRIEVED FROM TEXTBOOK CONTENT (ANDERSON,
1999).

Thus, for the first part of tail sizing, which is the horizontal tail sizing, it can be shown based
from the calculations performed as below. Given as previously from the acquired wing sizing
parameters;

• Wing span, bw = 37.895ft


• Wing planform area, Sw = 239.32ft2
• Wing chord, 𝑐̅𝑤 = 6.3ft
• Fuselage span length, bf = 32.074ft
• Fuselage CG with wing, CGwith wing = 19.251ft

There are certain typical assumptions have been made in order to performed this sizing of
horizontal tail, such as;

• Horizontal tail volume ratio, VHT = 0.80


• Horizontal tail taper ratio; λHT = 1
• Horizontal tail aspect ratio, ARHT = 4

136
Then, before proceeding to the overall calculations operations, the distance or precisely the
moment arm from the centre of gravity (CG) to the aerodynamic centre (MAC) of the
horizontal tail must be determined at first, as below;

𝑙𝐻𝑇 = 32.074 − 19.251


𝑙𝐻𝑇 = 12.823𝑓𝑡

The calculation adapted from Raymer’s book goes from the area of the horizontal tail, SHT,
derived from the equation below;

𝑙𝐻𝑇 𝑆𝐻𝑇 𝑉𝐻𝑇 𝑐̅𝑤 𝑆𝑤


𝑉𝐻𝑇 = ≡ 𝑆𝐻𝑇 =
𝑐̅𝑤 𝑆𝑤 𝑙𝐻𝑇
(0.8)(6.3)(239.32)
𝑆𝐻𝑇 =
12.823
𝑆𝐻𝑇 = 94.06𝑓𝑡 2

Knowing from the aspect ratio, AR, equation, horizontal tail span, bHT, is obtained as follows,
using the lesser assumption values of horizontal tail aspect ratio, ARHT = 4. This is because
whenever the wing is stalls, the tail will have some control authority, whereby with lower AR,
it will stall at higher angles of attack (AOA) rather than the wing. So;

𝑏𝐻𝑇 = √𝑆𝐻𝑇 𝐴𝑅𝐻𝑇

𝑏𝐻𝑇 = √(94.06)(4)
𝑏𝐻𝑇 = 19.397𝑓𝑡

After the span of the horizontal tail, bt, is obtained, the dimensional sizing may start from its
root, 𝑐𝑟,𝐻𝑇 , and tip chords, 𝑐𝑡,𝐻𝑇 , like below. Nevertheless, knowing that the horizontal tail taper
ratio, λHT, is equivalent to 1, thus, 𝑐𝑟,𝐻𝑇 = 𝑐𝑡,𝐻𝑇 ;

2𝑆𝐻𝑇
𝑐𝑟,𝐻𝑇 =
(𝜆𝐻𝑇 + 1)𝑏𝐻𝑇
2( 94.06)
𝑐𝑟,𝐻𝑇 =
(1 + 1)(19.397)
𝑐𝑟,𝐻𝑇 = 4.85𝑓𝑡 = 𝑐𝑡,𝐻𝑇

Then, the horizontal tail spanwise location, 𝑦̅𝐻𝑇 , of mean aerodynamic chord, 𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 , is obtained
as;

137
𝑏𝐻𝑇 1 + 2𝜆𝐻𝑇
𝑦̅𝐻𝑇 = ( )
6 1 + 𝜆𝐻𝑇
19.397 1 + 2(1)
𝑦̅𝐻𝑇 = ( )
6 1+1
𝑦̅𝐻𝑇 = 4.85𝑓𝑡

Thus, the horizontal tail mean aerodynamic chord, 𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 , is observed on the tail from the
following equation;

2 1 + 𝜆𝐻𝑇 + 𝜆𝐻𝑇 2
𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 = 𝑐𝑟,𝐻𝑇 ( )
3 1 + 𝜆𝐻𝑇
2 1 + 1 + 12
𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 = (4.85) ( )
3 1+1
𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 = 4.85𝑓𝑡

Therefore, the mean aerodynamic centre (MAC) or simply aerodynamic centre (AC) with the
CG point location on the mean aerodynamic chord, 𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 , line is assumed as per Anderson’s
book, whereas, 25% for MAC point and 40% for CGHT location.

𝑀𝐴𝐶 = 0.75(4.85) = 3.64𝑓𝑡


𝐶𝐺 = 0.6 (4.85) = 2.91𝑓𝑡

As a result, a graphic dimensional representation of horizontal tail sizing is designed as in FIG.


58 and 59 below. The shape of the horizontal tail surface below in the picture is determined
using the similar logic (percentage out of chord length, 𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 ) as previously determined the shape
of the wing, because Raymer once quoted that “tails are little wings.” Thus, TABLE 60 below
is presenting the output results of the horizontal tail sizing for UNITY X6 aircraft with the
flowchart of the calculation operations performed depicted in FIG. 60 below.

FIG. 58: HORIZONTAL TAIL DIMENSIONAL SIZES.

138
FIG. 59: INITIAL HORIZONTAL TAIL SIZING DESIGN.

TABLE 60: JUSTIFICATION TABLE FOR PARAMETERS AND RESULT OF HORIZONTAL TAIL.
Parameters Descriptions Values
SHT Horizontal Tail Area 94.06ft2
lHT Horizontal Tail Distance Between CG and Aerodynamic Centre 12.823ft
VHT Horizontal Tail Volume Ratio 0.8
𝑏𝐻𝑇 Horizontal Tail Span 19.397ft
𝑐𝑟,𝐻𝑇 Horizontal Tail Root Chord
4.85ft
𝑐𝑡,𝐻𝑇 Horizontal Tail Tip Chord
𝑦̅𝐻𝑇 Horizontal Tail Spanwise Length 4.85ft

139
𝑐̅𝐻𝑇 Horizontal Tail Mean Aerodynamic Chord 4.85ft
MAC Horizontal Tail Point of Mean Aerodynamic Centre 3.64ft
CGHT Horizontal Tail Centre of Gravity 2.91ft

FIG. 60: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR INITIAL HORIZONTAL TAIL SIZING.

140
Next, another critical part of the T-tail is the vertical tail. The vertical tail is one of the important
structure in T-tail, whereby it must be strengthened enough to support the aerodynamic load
and weight of the horizontal tail. For the vertical tail sizing, the identical values are used
regarding the wing geometry sizing parameters, which is also used in the horizontal tail sizing
previously; for instance, wing span, bw, wing planform area, Sw, wing chord, 𝑐̅𝑤 , fuselage span
length, bf, and the fuselage CG with wing, CGwith wing. Besides that, like in horizontal tail sizing,
there is certain parameters which must be assumed as to comply the Anderson’s guide on sizing
the vertical tail logically, from Table 59 and FIG. 57 mentioned previously, such as;

• Vertical tail volume ratio, VVT = 0.07


• Vertical tail taper ratio; λVT = 1
• Vertical tail aspect ratio, ARVT = 1.5

Similarly, at first, the moment arm from the centre of gravity (CG) to the aerodynamic centre
(MAC) of the vertical tail must be indicated in order to proceed with all the calculation
operations. But nevertheless, the tail moment arm is assumed to be 1.123ft forward of
horizontal tail moment arm, there is around 11.7ft along the span length of fuselage, lf, from
the MAC of the wing to the MAC of the tail. Thus, when lVT = 11.7ft, using the equation of
vertical tail volume ratio, VVT, the area of the vertical tail can be determined as below;

𝑙𝑉𝑇 𝑆𝑉𝑇 𝑉𝑉𝑇 𝑏𝑤 S𝑤


𝑉𝑉𝑇 = ≡ 𝑆𝑉𝑇 =
𝑏 𝑤 S𝑤 𝑙𝑉𝑇
(0.07)(37.89)(239.32)
𝑆𝑉𝑇 =
11.7
𝑆𝑉𝑇 = 54.252𝑓𝑡 2

The, using the assumed value of ARVT as stated before to find the vertical tail span, bVT;

ℎ𝑉𝑇 2
𝐴𝑅𝑉𝑇 =
𝑆𝑉𝑇
ℎ𝑉𝑇 = √𝐴𝑅𝑉𝑇 𝑆𝑉𝑇

ℎ𝑉𝑇 = √(1.5)(54.252)
ℎ𝑉𝑇 = 9.021𝑓𝑡

141
Thus, it provides the solution to both of the similar chord from the root, 𝑐̅𝑟,𝑉𝑇 , to the tip, 𝑐̅𝑡,𝑉𝑇 ,
because of the amount of 1 from the vertical tail taper ratio, λHT. So;

2𝑆𝑉𝑇
𝑐𝑟,𝑉𝑇 =
(𝜆𝑉𝑇 + 1)ℎ𝑉𝑇
2(54.252)
𝑐𝑟,𝑉𝑇 =
(1 + 1)9.021
𝑐𝑟,𝑉𝑇 = 6.014𝑓𝑡 = 𝑐𝑡,𝑉𝑇

After that, the vertical tail spanwise location, 𝑧̅𝑉𝑇 , is obtained as from the vertical location of
the mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical tail, c̅ 𝑉𝑇 , referenced to the root chord, 𝑐𝑟,𝑉𝑇 , as
follows;

2ℎ𝑉𝑇 1 + 2𝜆𝑉𝑇
𝑧̅𝑉𝑇 = ( )
6 1 + 𝜆𝑉𝑇
2(9.021) 1 + 2(1)
𝑧̅𝑉𝑇 = ( )
6 1+1
𝑧̅𝑉𝑇 = 4.511𝑓𝑡

Therefore, the vertical tail mean aerodynamic chord length is acquired as from the equation
below;

2 1 + 𝜆𝑉𝑇 + 𝜆𝑉𝑇 2
c̅ 𝑉𝑇 = 𝑐𝑟,𝑉𝑇 ( )
3 1 + 𝜆𝑉𝑇
2 1 + 1 + 12
c̅ 𝑉𝑇 = (6.014) ( )
3 1+ 1
c̅𝑉𝑇 = 6.014𝑓𝑡

In conclusion, the design of the vertical tail for UNITY X6 aircraft is depicted in FIG. 61,
which is sized from all the corresponding dimensions and sizing estimations data as presented
in TABLE 61 as below. In addition to that, the flow of the calculation operations is also
presented in FIG. 62 below.

142
FIG. 61: INITIAL VERTICAL TAIL SIZING DESIGN.

TABLE 61: JUSTIFICATION TABLE FOR PARAMETERS AND RESULT OF VERTICAL TAIL.
Parameters Descriptions Values
𝑆𝑉𝑇 Vertical Tail Area 54.252ft2
𝑙𝑉𝑇 Vertical Tail Distance Between CG and Aerodynamic Centre 11.7ft
VVT Vertical Tail Volume Ratio 0.07
ℎ𝑉𝑇 Vertical Tail Span 9.021ft
𝑐𝑟,𝑉𝑇 Vertical Tail Root Chord
6.014ft
𝑐𝑡,𝑉𝑇 Vertical Tail Tip Chord
𝑧̅𝑉𝑇 Vertical Tail Spanwise Length 4.511ft
c̅ 𝑉𝑇 Vertical Tail Mean Aerodynamic Chord 6.014ft

5.5 Wing Placement

Note that, the above calculation operations of Section 5.1, are the first estimation to know
where to place the wing on the fuselage. For actual placement of the wing, where it will affect
the longitudinal stability of the aircraft, the men aerodynamic centre (MAC) of wing should be
behind the center of gravity (CG) of aircraft. The point of the aerodynamic center of MAC is
called the neutral point for the aircraft. This is due to that location will exhibit pitching moment
about the CG, independently of angle of attack (AOA).

143
To find the neutral point denote by 𝑥𝑛 , a static margin is defined as below;

𝑥𝑛 −𝑥
Static margin ≡ 𝑐

The 𝑥 is the point of CG of UNION X6 aircraft and 𝑐 is the chord of the wing mean
aerodynamic. For conventional general aviation aircraft, the static margin is commonly range
from 5% – 10%. Assume that static margin for this aircraft is 10% which is 0.1. Thus;

𝑥𝑛 −𝑥
Static margin ≡ = 0.1
𝑐

By taking the 𝑥 and 𝑐 of this aircraft, it should be;

𝑥𝑛 = 0.1𝑐 + 𝑥 = 0.1(6.549) + 19.251 = 19.9059ft

Now, the neutral point is known, the aerodynamic center of the winged body can also be known
by;
𝑎𝑡
𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑤𝑏 = 𝑥𝑛 − 𝑣𝐻𝑇 𝑎

𝑉𝐻𝑇 is the horizontal tail volume ratio, whilst 𝑎𝑡 and 𝑎 are the lift slopes for the horizontal tail
and the overall complete aircraft, respectively. Assuming both of the lift slopes essentially the
same, 𝑎𝑡 = 𝑎, for simplification to find the aerodynamic center of the winged body as;
𝑎𝑡
𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑤𝑏 = 𝑥𝑛 − 𝑣𝐻𝑇 = 19.9059 − 0.7(1) = 19.2059ft
𝑎

In FIG. 62 below shows the location of the aerodynamic center of the winged body on UNITY
X6 aircraft. Along with FIG. 63 that shows the placement of wing according to the aerodynamic
center of the winged body for UNITY X6 aircraft. Therefore, the wing will be located and
placed such that its MAC is 19.2059ft behind the nose of the aircraft. Since the landing gear
will retract into the wing, the establishment of the wing placement relative to the aircraft’s CG
location shall address the next consideration of landing gear size and location.

144
19.2059ft

FIG. 62: THE LOCATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC CENTER OF THE WINGED BODY.

145
19.2059ft

FIG. 63: THE WING PLACEMENT FOLLOWING THE LOCATION OF AERODYNAMIC CENTER ON THE
WINGED BODY.

146
Flowchart

Start

Identify the parameters bwing,


bfuselage, S, 𝑐̅, and c.o.g fuselage
with wing

Make an assumption
to λ, VVT and
fuselage of wing

Find 𝑙𝑉𝑇 and 𝑆𝑉𝑇

Calculate ℎ𝑉𝑇 , 𝑐𝑟𝑣𝑡 ,


and 𝑐𝑡𝑣𝑡 ,
𝑧̅𝑉𝑇 ,and c̅ 𝑉𝑇

Make a layout sizing on vertical


tail

End

FIG. 64: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR INITIAL VERTICAL TAIL SIZING.

147
5.6 Weight and Balance Evaluation

For weight and balance, the comparison between maximum take-off weight (MTOW) which
has centre of gravity (CG) location to the maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW), operators empty
weight (OEW), maximum take-off weight (MTOWone pilot) with only one pilot, and maximum
zero fuel weight (MZFW) with only one pilot. The comparison is to be made as to identify the
effect of the fuel weight, Wf, weight without passenger and pilot, and weight with only one
pilot. These effects will make change to the CG values. Therefore, the deduction could be made
from the obtained values. In order to complete this evaluation, a flowchart as in FIG. 63 below
is needed as to show the process and steps of the calculation operations to achieve the results.

148
FIG. 65: OPERATION OF CALCULATION FLOWCHART FOR WEIGHT AND BALANCE EVALUATION.

Based on the FIG. 63’s flowchart above, the calculation has to be performed according to the
flow. As the value of calculated moment from every type of weight is related, which can obtain
the value of CG. The comparison of CG locations for every type of weight is based on the table
that shown after completing of the calculation. Thus, the calculation step is shown below.
Based on the calculation that has been made from the initial weight estimation, it is to be found

149
that the value of take-off gross weight (TOGW) or in other words, maximum take-off weight
(MTOW) is equivalent to 5783lb. While the value of CG is located at 19.251ft all the way from
the nose of UNITY X6 aircraft. Therefore;

• Tolerances range for aircraft CG locations (Upper limit and Lower Limit).
Lower limit;

𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 𝐶𝐺𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 − (0.125 × 32.074)


𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 19.2514 − (0.125 × 32.074)
𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 15.2422𝑓𝑡

Upper limit;

𝑈𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 𝐶𝐺𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 + (0.125 × 32.074)


𝑈𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 19.2514 + (0.125 × 32.074)
𝑈𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 23.2607𝑓𝑡

Thus, tolerances range imposed upon the CG locations for UNITY X6 aircraft is;

23.2607𝑓𝑡 ≥ 𝑥̅𝐶𝐺 ≥ 15.2422𝑓𝑡

• Maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW);

𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊 = 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 − 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡


𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊 = 5783 − 791
𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊 = 4992𝑙𝑏

𝜇 = 111331.2868 − 791(19.0228 + (2.6196 − 1.637))


𝜇 = 95507.0154𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡

95507.0154
𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊) = = 19.132𝑓𝑡
4992

150
• Operators empty weight (OEW);

𝑂𝐸𝑊 = 𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊 − 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 − 𝑙𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒


𝑂𝐸𝑊 = 4992 − 1140 − 169.4
𝑂𝐸𝑊 = 3682.6𝑙𝑏

𝜇 = 95507.0154 − 950(13.12) − 190(3.28) − 39.6(4.921) − 129.8(22.97)


𝜇 = 79243.4378𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡

79243.4378
𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑂𝐸𝑊) = = 21.5183𝑓𝑡
3682.6

• Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) – with only pilot;

𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = 𝑂𝐸𝑀 + 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡 + 𝑙𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒 + 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙


𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = 3912.2 + 190 + 39.6 + 791
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = 4932.8𝑙𝑏

𝜇 = 79243.4378 + 190(3.28) + 39.6(4.921)


+791(19.0228 + (2.6196 − 1.637))
𝜇 = 95885.7808𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡

95885.7808
𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊,𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = = 19.438𝑓𝑡
4932.8

• Maximum zero fuel weight – with only pilot;

𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) − 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙


𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = 4932.8 − 791
𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = 4141.8𝑙𝑏

𝜇 = 95885.7808 − 791(19.0228 + (2.6196 − 1.637))


𝜇 = 80061.51𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡

151
80061.51
𝑥̅𝐶𝐺(𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑊,𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑡) = = 19.3301𝑓𝑡
4141.8

TABLE 62: AIRCRAFT’S CENTRE OF GRAVITY (CG) EVALUATION.

Variants Weight, W (lb) CG Location, 𝑥̅𝐶𝐺 (ft)

MTOW 5783 19.2514

MZFW 4992 19.1320

OEW 3682.6 21.5183

MTOW (only pilot) 4932.8 19.4380


MZFW (only pilot) 4141.8 19.3301

Based on data from Table 62 above, it shows the variation in the weight and balance which
could affect to the location of CG. The variation of weight according to the change of fuel
weight, Wf, particularly for operators empty weight (OEW), maximum take-off weight
(MTOW), and maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) that consists a pilot. From the result, it
shows that the effect of CG is changed significantly in OEW, which has 3682.6lb that can
produce the location of CG in 21.5183ft. This is because UNITY X6 aircraft is designed to
have distribution weight more at the end of the aircraft. On top of that, the aircraft’s engine
placement configuration also influenced the CG location results as it is mounted at the back
(aft) after wing structure placement. In MTOW for only a pilot, it is found that the UNITY X6
aircraft has 4932.8lb in weight and produced location of CG at 19.4380ft as it is a little bit
further compared to the MTOW for a whole aircraft. Therefore, it can be concluded that any
variation on the weight is still in the range of balanced CG that can be placed, which is around
the location tolerances of, 23.2607𝑓𝑡 ≥ 𝑥̅𝐶𝐺 ≥ 15.2422𝑓𝑡.

152
Weight and Balance Diagram
7000

6000
MTOM
Fwd. CG MTOM (Pilot only)
5000 limit MZFM
Weight Distribution, W (lb)

4000 MZFM(Pilot only)


OEM
3000

2000

1000
Aft.CG limit

0
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CG Location, 𝑥 ̅ (ft)

FIG. 66: WEIGHT & BALANCE DIAGRAM.

Based on the FIG. 64 above, it shows on weight and balance diagram for CG of UNITY X6
aircraft. The diagram is obtained after calculating the CG value for MZFW, OEW, MTOW
with only one pilot, and MZFW with only one pilot based on the initial TGOW/MTOW which
has been calculated from Section 3.2 of presented results in FIG. 10. The value for MZFW has
located on the front from all of the calculated CG. This is because MZFW has given an effect
to the weight as well as the distance of the stored fuel which is located in the wing. Meanwhile,
the farthest location of CG is OEW. OEW can be understand as a weight that possess the
condition when the weight of an aircraft that includes the crew, oil and operator items, along
with equipment. Based on the weight components distribution in TABLE 46 of Section 3.6,
the weight for OEW is mainly on the structure of UNITY X6 aircraft, specifically categorized
on the fuselage weight, WFU. It is to make the calculation process easier as to eliminate the need
to calculate for every specific part of the system. Apart from that, the variation of CG values is
lying in the range of CG limits and tolerances. Thus, it dictates that the CG values is
considerably reliable and logical.

153
6) PRELIMINARY UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT DESIGN

6.1 Aircraft Designation

FIG. 67: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT PRELIMINARY DESIGN FROM SIDE VIEW [NOT TO SCALE].

FIG. 68: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT PRELIMINARY DESIGN FROM TOP VIEW [NOT TO SCALE].

154
6.2 Aircraft Cabin Layout

FIG. 69: UNITY X6 AIRCRAFT CABIN LAYOUT CONFIGURATIONS.

155
6.3 Range Capability

FIG. 70: UNITY X6 CRUISE RANGE OF 750 NAUTICAL MILES.

156
REFERENCES

(1) Rajashekara, K. (2014). More Electric Aircraft Trends [Technology Leaders]. IEEE
Electrification Magazine, 2(4), 4-39.
(2) Boglietti, A., Cavagnino, A., Tenconi, A., Vaschetto, S., & di Torino, P. (2009,
November). The safety critical electric machines and drives in the more electric aircraft:
A survey. In Industrial Electronics, 2009. IECON'09. 35th Annual Conference of
IEEE (pp. 2587-2594). IEEE.
(3) Quigley, R. E. J. (1993, March). More electric aircraft. In Applied Power Electronics
Conference and Exposition, 1993. APEC'93. Conference Proceedings 1993., Eighth
Annual (pp. 906-911). IEEE.
(4) Wilson, P. (2015). Electric aircraft–the future of aviation or just wishful thinking?. The
Conversation.
(5) Emadi, K., & Ehsani, M. (2000). Aircraft power systems: technology, state of the art,
and future trends. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 15(1), 28-32.
(6) Olcott, D. D. (2016). Tri-Fan VTOL Conceptual Design. In 16th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (p. 3610).
(7) Torenbeek, E. (2013). Synthesis of subsonic airplane design: an introduction to the
preliminary design of subsonic general aviation and transport aircraft, with emphasis
on layout, aerodynamic design, propulsion and performance. Springer Science &
Business Media.
(8) Roskam, J. (1997). Airplane design, part i: Preliminary sizing of airplanes,
design. Analysis and Research Corporation, Lawrence, Kansas.
(9) Brody, D. E., & Olcott, D. D. (2017). U.S. Patent No. 9676479B2. Washington, DC:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
(10) Raymer, D. P. (1992). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Washington, DC:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
(11) Anderson, J. D. (1999). Aircraft performance and design. McGraw-Hill Science/
Engineering/Math.
(12) Kundu, A. K. (2010). Aircraft design (Vol. 27). Cambridge University Press.
(13) Gudmundsson, S. (2014). General aviation aircraft design: Applied Methods and
Procedures. Butterworth-Heinemann.

157
APPENDICES

158
159
160
161