You are on page 1of 157

DESIGN OF MULTIROLE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT–I REPORT

Submitted by

RANGAN SRINIVASAN (15101019)

in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree

of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

IN

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES


HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
PADUR, CHENNAI - 603103

MAY 2018
HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
CHENNAI 603103

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “DESIGN OF MULTIROLE FIGHTER


AIRCRAFT” is the bonafide work of “RANGAN SRINIVASAN (15101019)” who
carried out the project work under my supervision. Certified further that to the best of
my knowledge the work reported here does not form part of any other project/research
work on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on
this or any other candidate.

Dr. DILIP A SHAH MR T. P. PREM ANAND


Senior Professor & Head of the department Assistant Professor
School of Aeronautical Sciences School of Aeronautical Sciences
Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
Chennai – 603103 Chennai – 603103

Submitted for the project viva voice Examination held on __________

Internal Examiner External Examiner


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It’s my extreme pleasure to thank our chairperson Dr Elizabeth Verghese, Hindustan


Institute of Technology & Science, for providing me with a good, pleasing and safe
environment in our college which helped me a lot to carry on with my project.

I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr Kuncheria P. Issac, Vice- Chancellor,


Hindustan Institute of Technology & Science for providing me with an excellent study
environment.

I am thankful to Dr N. Vasudevan, Dean Academics & Dr Dilip A Shah, Senior


Professor & Head of the Department, School of Aeronautical Sciences for much of his
valuable support, encouragement in carrying out this work.

I would like to thank my internal guide Mr T. P. Prem Anand, for continuously guiding
and actively participating in my project, giving valuable suggestions to complete the
project work.

I would like to thank all the technical and teaching staff of Aeronautical Department,
who extended their support directly or indirectly.

Last, but not the least, I am deeply indebted to my parents who have been the greatest
support while I worked day and night for the project to make it a success.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO

ABSTRACT i

LIST OF TABLES ii

LIST OF FIGURES AND GRAPHS iii

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION v

1 INTRODUCTION TO DESIGN 1

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TYPES


2 9
OF AIRPLANES

INTRODUCTIONS TO MULTIROLE FIGHTER


3 30
AIRCRAFT

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SPECIFICATION


4 32
AND PERFORMANCE

PREPARATION OF COMPARATIVE DATA


5 36
SHEETS

COMPARATIVE GRAPHS PREPARATION AND


6 SELECTION OF MAIN PARAMETERS FOR THE 67
DESIGN

7 WEIGHT ESTIMATION 90

8 POWERPLANT SELECTION 100

9 WING AEROFOIL AND TAIL SELECTION 102

10 FUSELAGE AND LANDING GEAR SELECTION 118

11 LIFT AND DRAG ESTIMATION 127

12 PERFORMANCE CALCULATION 135

13 THREE VIEW DIAGRAMS 142

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK 144

REFERENCE 146
ABSTRACT

My project is about the design of a multirole fighter aircraft. A multirole


fighter aircraft is designed to perform different roles in combat. The air-to-air
combat role has been normally performed by fighter aircraft. In addition, a
multirole fighter has secondary roles such as air-to-surface attack. The term
multirole has been reserved for aircraft designed with the aim of using a common
airframe for multiple tasks where the same basic airframe is adapted to a number
of differing roles. The main motivation for developing multirole aircraft is a cost
reduction in using a common airframe.

The project report comprises of a literature survey of about 30 fighter


aircraft Based on it a number of graphs were drawn to get a rough idea of the
specifications of the aircraft. Weight estimation has done to estimate Empty
weight, fuel weight and overall Takeoff weight. Then the wing selection is done.
After this, an appropriate aerofoil is selected and its important parameters are
calculated. Thrust is calculated in order to select an appropriate engine. Finally,
performance graphs are drawn and a 3-view diagram of the aircraft is drawn. My
multirole fighter is a single seater powered by a Single turbofan engine, Cruising
at Mach 1.3 with a range of 3000 km.

i
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO TITLE Page No

6.1 Consolidation of data 72


6.2.1 Cruise speed vs aspect ratio 73
6.2.2 Cruise speed vs empty weight 74
6.2.3 Cruise speed vs gross weight 75
6.2.4 Cruise speed vs thrust-weight ratio 76
6.2.5 Cruise speed vs wing loading 77
6.2.6 Cruise speed vs thrust produced 78
6.2.7 Cruise speed vs max speed 79
6.2.8 Cruise speed vs service ceiling 80
6.2.9 Cruise speed vs absolute ceiling 81
6.2.10 Cruise speed vs rate of climb 82
6.2.11 Cruise speed vs stall velocity 83
6.2.12 Cruise speed vs range 84
6.2.13 Cruise speed vs endurance 85
6.2.14 Cruise speed vs takeoff distance 86
6.2.15 Cruise speed vs landing distance 87
6.2.16 Cruise speed vs fineness ratio 88
6.3 Selection of main parameters for design 89

7.3.1 Suggested Fuel Fraction for Several Mission Phases 91


7.3.2 Suggested value for L/D, Cj, Cp, ηp for several mission phases 92
7.3.3 Regression line constant A & B 93

8.2 Engine parameters 100

9.1.5 Wing design characteristics 105


9.2.1 Aerofoil having t/c ratio of 0.09 107
9.2.11 Aerofoil selection for root, tip and mean chord 109
9.2.3 Flap Selection 113

ii
LIST OF FIGURES AND GRAPHS
FIGURE NO: TITLE PAGE NO

1.1 Design Methodology 1


1.3 Design process 3
1.3.2 Conceptual design 7
1.3.3 Aircraft design configuration 8
2.1 Homebuilt propeller driven 10
2.2 Single engine propeller driven 11
2.3 Twin engine propeller driven 12
2.4 Agricultural airplanes 14
2.5 Business jets 16
2.6 Regional turbo propeller driven airplane 17
2.7 Transport jets 19
2.8 Military trainers 21
2.9 Fighters 24
2.10 Military patrol bomb and transport airplanes 26
2.11 Flying boats, amphibians and float airplanes 27
2.12 Supersonic cruise airplanes 28

3.1 Multirole fighter aircraft 31

6.2.1 Cruise speed vs aspect ratio 73


6.2.2 Cruise speed vs empty weight 74
6.2.3 Cruise speed vs gross weight 75
6.2.4 Cruise speed vs thrust-weight ratio 76
6.2.5 Cruise speed vs wing loading 77
6.2.6 Cruise speed vs thrust produced 78
6.2.7 Cruise speed vs max speed 79
6.2.8 Cruise speed vs service ceiling 80
6.2.9 Cruise speed vs absolute ceiling 81
6.2.10 Cruise speed vs rate of climb 82
6.2.11 Cruise speed vs stall velocity 83
6.2.12 Cruise speed vs range 84
6.2.13 Cruise speed vs endurance 85
6.2.14 Cruise speed vs takeoff distance 86

iii
6.2.15 Cruise speed vs landing distance 87
6.2.16 Cruise speed vs fineness ratio 88
7.2 Mission profile 90
8.3 Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-220 101
9.1.2 Wing types 102
9.1.4 Wing planform 104
9.2 Aerofoil 106
9.2.2 HQ 2.5/9 B 110
EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009 110
NACA-0009 110
9.2.2.1 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009 111
9.2.2.2 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil HQ 2.5/9 B 111
9.2.2.3 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA-0009 112
9.2.3 Types of flaps 113
9.3.1 Types of tail 116

10.1.1 Principal structural units on F-14 aircraft 118


10.1.2 Semi-monocoque fuselage construction 120
10.2.1 F-22 Raptor landing gear 121
10.2.2 Landing gear sketch of a fighter 122
10.2.3 Landing gear schematic diagram 125
11.1.1 Lift representation 127
11.1.2 Lift distribution 128
11.1.3 Lift corresponding to the angle of attack 129
11.1.4 Lift Curves of Cambered and Symmetrical aerofoils 129
11.2.1 Skin friction drag 131
11.2.2 Form drags 132
11.2.3 Wave drags 132
11.2.4 Typical streamlining effect 133
11.2.5 Lift-induced (or) trailing vortex drag 133
12.4.1 Climbing Hodograph 139
12.5.1 Gliding Hodograph 141
13.1 Three view diagram of Lockheed Martin F-35 lighting II 142
13.2 Isometric view of Lockheed Martin F-35 lighting II 143

iv
LIST OF SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

A.R. - Aspect Ratio


B - Wing Span (m)
C - Chord of the Aerofoil (m)
Croot - Chord at Root (m)
Ctip - Chord at Tip (m)
Cd - Drag Coefficient
Cd,0 - Zero Lift Drag Co-efficient
Cp - Specific fuel consumption (lbs/hp/hr)
CL - Lift Co-efficient
D - Drag (N)
E - Endurance (hr)
E - Oswald efficiency
L - Lift (N)
(L/D) Loiter - Lift-to-drag ratio at loiter
(L/D) Cruise - Lift-to-drag ratio at cruise
M - Mach number of aircraft
Mff - Mission fuel fraction
R - Range (km)
Re - Reynolds Number
S - Wing Area (m²)
Sref - Reference surface area
Swet - Wetted surface area
Sa - Approach distance (m)
Sf - Flare Distance (m)
Sfr - Freeroll Distance (m)
S.C - Service Ceiling
A.C - Absolute Ceiling

v
T - Thrust (N)
TCruise - Thrust at cruise (N)
TTake-off - Thrust at take-off (N)
(T/W) Loiter - The thrust-to-weight ratio at loiter
(T/W) Cruise - Thrust-to-weight ratio at cruise
(T/W) Take-off - The thrust-to-weight ratio at take-off
VCruise - Velocity at cruise (m/s)
VStall - Velocity at stall (m/s)
Vt - Velocity at touch down (m/s)
WCrew - Crew weight (kg)
Wempty - Empty weight of aircraft (kg)
WFuel - Weight of fuel (kg)
WPayload - Payload of aircraft (kg)
W0 - Overall weight of aircraft (kg)
W/S - Wing loading (kg/m²)
 - Density of air (kg/m³)
 - Dynamic viscosity (Ns/m²)
 - Tapered ratio
R/C - Rate of Climb

vi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO DESIGN
1.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The design method to be followed from the start of the project to the
nominal end can be considered to fall into three main phases. These phases are
illustrated in Figure. The preliminary phase (sometimes called the conceptual
design stage) starts with the project brief and ends when the designers have found
and refined a feasible baseline design layout. In some industrial organizations,
this phase is referred to as the ‘feasibility study’. At the end of the preliminary
design phase, a document is produced which contains a summary of the technical
and geometric details known about the baseline design. This forms the initial draft
of a document that will be subsequently revised to contain a thorough description
of the aircraft. This is known as the aircraft ‘Type Specification’.

The next phase (project design) takes the aircraft configuration defined
towards the end of the preliminary design phase and involves conducting detailed
analysis to improve the technical confidence in the design. Wind tunnel tests and
computational fluid dynamic analysis are used to refine the aerodynamic shape of
the aircraft. Finite element analysis is used to understand the structural integrity.
Stability and control analysis and simulations will be used to appreciate the flying
characteristics. Mass and balance estimations will be performed in increasingly
fine detail. Operational factors (cost, maintenance and marketing) and
manufacturing processes will be investigated to determine what effects these may
have on the final design layout.

Fig 1.1 Design Methodology

1
1.2 DEFINING A NEW DESIGN

The preliminary design also involves a more detailed analysis of the


aerodynamic loads and component weights. Based on this, the structural design
is further refined. Aeroelastic motion, fatigue and flutter are considered at this
stage. Additional confirmation of estimates may require building and test some
of the proposed structural components. At the completion of this stage, the
manufacturing of the aircraft is given serious consideration and the cost estimates
are further refined. At the end of this step, the decision is made whether to build
the aircraft. With the decision to build the aircraft, the design is “frozen.”

The detailed design involves generating the detailed structural design of


the aircraft. This involves every detail needed to build the aircraft. Sometimes
component mock-ups are built to aid in the interior layout. However, the present
use of computer-aided design (CAD) software can substantially minimize the
need for mock-ups by providing realistic 3-D views.

1.2.1 AIRCRAFT PURPOSE

The starting point of any new aircraft is to clearly identify its purpose. With
this, it is often possible to place a design into a general category. Such categories
include combat aircraft, passenger or cargo transports, and general aviation
aircraft. These may also be further refined into subcategories based on particular
design objectives such as range (short or long), take-off or landing distances,
maximum speed, etc. The process of categorizing is useful in identifying any
existing aircraft that might be used in making comparisons to a proposed design.

With modern military aircraft, the purpose for a new aircraft generally
comes from a military program office. For example, the mission specifications
for the X-29 pictured in figure 1.1 came from a 1977 request for proposals from
the U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory in which they were seeking a
research aircraft that would explore the forward swept wing concept and validate
studies that indicated such a design could provide better control and lift qualities
in extreme manoeuvres.

With modern commercial aircraft, a proposal for a new design usually


comes as the response to internal studies that aim to project future market needs.
For example, the specifications for the most recent Boeing commercial aircraft
(B-777) were based on the interest of commercial airlines to have a twin-engine
aircraft with a payload and range in between those of the existing B-767 and B-
747 aircraft.

2
1.3 DESIGN PROCESS

Research, Development and Market Analysis

Mission Requirements

Conceptual Design

Requirements
No satisfied?

Yes

Preliminary Design

Stop
Final Evaluation

Go

Detailed Design

Test Article Fabrication

Flight Test

Fig 1.3 Design Process

3
1.3.1 DESIGN OF AN AIRPLANE:

Aeroplane design is both an art and a science. It’s the intellectual


engineering process of creating on paper (or on a computer screen) a flying
machine to
➢ meet certain specifications and requirements established by potential users
(or as perceived by the manufacturer) and
➢ pioneer innovative, new ideas and technology.

The design process is indeed an intellectual activity that is rather specified


one that is tempered by good intuition developed via by attention paid to
successful aeroplane designs that have been used in the past, and by (generally
proprietary) design procedure and databases (handbooks etc) that are a part of
every aeroplane manufacturer.

1.3.2 PHASES OF AIRPLANE DESIGN:


The complete design process has gone through three distinct phases that
are carried out in sequence. They are
• Conceptual design
• Preliminary design
• Detailed design

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN:

The design process starts with a set of specifications (requirements)for a


new aeroplane, or much less frequently as the response to the desire to implement
some pioneering, innovative new ideas and technology. In either case, there is a
rather concrete good towards which the designers are aiming. The first steps
towards achieving that goal constitute the conceptual design phase. Here, within
a certain somewhat fuzzy latitude, the overall shape, size, weight and
performance of the new design are determined.

The product of the conceptual design phase is a layout on a paper or on a


computer screen) of the aeroplane configuration. But one has to visualize this
drawing as one with flexible lines, capable of being slightly changed during the
preliminary design phase. However, the conceptual design phase determines such
fundamental aspects as the shape of the wings (swept back, swept forward or
straight), the location of the wings related to the fuselage, the shape and location
of the horizontal and vertical tail, the use of an engine size and placement etc, the

4
major drivers during the conceptual design process are aerodynamics, propulsion
and flight performance.
Structural and context system considerations are not dealt with in any
detail. However, they are not totally absent. During the conceptual design phase,
the designer is influenced by such qualitative as the increased structural loads
imposed by a high horizontal tail location through the fuselage, and the
difficulties associated with cut-outs in the wing structure if the landing gear are
to be retracted into the wing rather than the fuselage or engine nacelle. No part of
the design is ever carried out in a total vacuum unrelated to the other parts.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN:

In the preliminary design phase, only minor changes are made to the
configuration layout (indeed, if major changes were demanded during this phase,
the conceptual design process have been actually flawed, to begin with. It is in
the preliminary design phase that serious structural and control system analysis
and design take place.

During the phase also, substantial wind tunnel testing will be carried out
and major computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

Calculations of the computer flow fluid over the aeroplane configurations

It’s possible that the wind tunnel tests the CFD calculations will in cover
some undesirable aerodynamic interference or some unexpected stability
problems which will promote change to the configuration layout

At the end of the preliminary design phase, the aeroplane configuration is


frozen and previously defined. The drawing process called lofting is carried out
which mathematically models the precise shape of the outside skin of the
aeroplane making certain that all sections of the aircraft property fit together

The end of the preliminary design phase brings a major concept to commit
the manufacture of the aeroplane or not. The importance of this decision point for
modern aircraft manufacturers cannot be understated, considering the
tremendous costs involved in the design and manufacture of a new aeroplane.
This is no better illustrated.

DETAIL DESIGN:
The detail design phase is literally the nuts and bolts phase of aeroplane
design. The aerodynamic, propulsion, structures performance and flight control
analysis have all been finished with the preliminary design phase. For detail

5
design. The aeroplane is now simply a machine to be fabricated. The pressure
design of each. Individual rib, spar and section of skin now take place. The size

of number and location of fastness are determined. At this stage, flight simulators
for the aeroplane are developed. And these are just a few of the many detailed
requirements during the detail design phase. At the end of this phase, the aircraft
is ready to be fabricated.

THE SEVEN INTELLECTUAL PIVOT POINTS FOR CONCEPTUAL


DESIGN:

The design process is an art of creativity and like all creative creatures,
there is no one correct and absolute method to carry it out. However conceptual
design can be imagined at an array of the seven points at strategic locations in
some kind of intellectual space, and these pivot points are connected by a verb of
detailed approaches. The web constructed by different people would be different,
although the pivot points should be the same, due to their fundamental
significance.

6
BLOCK ARRAY FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

LITERATURE SURVEY

PRELIMINARY DATA ACQUISITION

CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS


• MAX LIFT CO-EFFICIENT(CL)max

• LIFT TO DRAG RATIO, L/D

• WING LOADING, W/S

• THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO

CONFIGURATION LAYOUT-SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE AIRPLANE


ON A DRAWING (OR COMPUTER SCREEN)

BETTER WEIGHT ESTIMATE

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS- DOES THE DESIGN MEET EXCEED


REQUIREMENTS?

YES

OPTIMIZATION –IS IT THE BEST DESIGN?

Fig 1.3.2 Conceptual design

7
Aircraft Design Requirements
(Mission, Performance, Stability, Control, cost, Operational, Time, Manufacturing)

Identify major components that the aircraft requires to satisfy the design requirements

Wing Tail Engine Landing Gear Structural


Configuration Configuration Configuration Configuration Configuration

Configuration Optimization

AIRCRAFT OPTIMUM CONFIGURATION

Fig 1.3.3 Aircraft design configuration

8
CHAPTER 2
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIRPLANES
The following types of aircraft are taken for the study
➢ HOMEBUILT PROPELLER DRIVEN
➢ SINGLE ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN
➢ TWIN ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN
➢ AGRICULTURAL AIRPLANES
➢ BUSINESS JETS
➢ REGIONAL TURBO PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRPLANE
➢ TRANSPORT JETS
➢ MILITARY TRAINERS
➢ FIGHTERS
➢ MILITARY PATROL BOMB AND TRANSPORT AIRPLANES
➢ FLYING BOATS, AMPHIBIANS AND FLOAT AIRPLANES
➢ SUPERSONIC CRUISE AIRPLANES
Among these one aircraft is chosen for the study on its specification and
performance

2.1 HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT


Homebuilt aircraft, also known as amateur-built aircraft or kit planes, are
constructed by persons for whom this is not a professional activity. These aircraft
may be constructed from "scratch," from plans, or from assembly kits.

In the United States, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa,
homebuilt aircraft may be licensed Experimental under FAA or similar local
regulations. With some limitations, the builders of the aircraft must have done it
for their own education and recreation rather than for profit. In the US, the
primary builder can also apply for a repairman's certificate for that
airframe.[4] The repairman's certificate allows the holder to perform and sign off
on most of the maintenance, repairs, and inspections themselves.

Alberto Santos-Dumont was the first to offer for free construction plans,
publishing drawings of its Demoiselle in the June 1910 edition of Popular
Mechanics. The first aircraft to be offered for sale as plans, rather than a
completed airframe, was the Baby Ace in the late 1920s. Homebuilt aircraft
gained in popularity in the US in 1924 with the start of the National Air Races,
held in Dayton, Ohio.

9
These races required aircraft with useful loads of 150 lb (68 kg) and
engines of 80 cubic inches or less and as a consequence of the class limitations
most was amateur-built. The years after Charles Lindbergh's transatlantic flight
brought a peak of interest between 1929 and 1933. During this period many
aircraft designers, builders and pilots were self-taught and the high accident rate
brought public condemnation and increasing regulation to amateur-building.

The resulting federal standards on design, engineering, stress analysis, use


of aircraft-quality hardware and testing of aircraft brought an end to the amateur-
building except in some specialized areas, such as racing. In
1946 Goodyear restarted the National Air Races, including a class for aircraft
powered by 200 cubic inch and smaller engines. The midget racer class spread
nationally in the US and this led to calls for acceptable standards to allow
recreational use of amateur-built aircraft. By the mid-1950s both the US and
Canada once again allowed amateur-built aircraft to specified standards and
limitations.
Building materials
• Wood and fabric
• Wood/composite mixture
• Metal
• Composite

Fig 2.1 Homebuilt aircraft


10
2.2 SINGLE ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN
The Cessna 205, 206, and 207, known primarily as the Station air (and
marketed variously as the Super Sky wagon, Sky wagon and Super Skyline) are
a family of single-engine propeller-driven aircraft, general aviation aircraft with
fixed landing gear, used in commercial air service and also for personal use. The
family was originally developed by the popular retractable-gear Cessna 210 and
is produced by Cessna.

Fig 2.2 Cessna 207


The line's combination of a powerful engine, rugged construction and a
large cabin has made these aircraft popular bush planes. Cessna describes the 206
as "the sport-utility vehicle of the air." These aeroplanes are also used for aerial
photography, skydiving and other utility purposes. They can also be equipped
with floats, amphibious floats and skis. Alternatively, they can be fitted with
luxury appointments for use as a personal air transport.

The Model 207 was a seven- and later eight-seat development of the 206,
achieved by stretching the design further by 45 to 114 cm to allow space for more
seats. The nose section was extended 46 cm by adding a constant-section nose
baggage compartment between the passenger compartment and the engine
firewall; the aft section was extended by 27 inches by inserting a constant-area
section in the fuselage area just aft of the aft wing attach point. The move gave
that aeroplane a larger turning radius since the distance between mainwheels and
nosewheel increased by 46 cm but the nosewheel's maximum allowed deflection
was not increased.

11
2.3 TWIN ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN
Causal observation of twin-engine propeller aircraft reveals that most
configurations consist of a forward wing with nacelle-mounted engines on each
side and a single tail empennage. However, about a third of the aircraft are of
various engine and airframe arrangements. The purpose of this article is to review
the alternative ways in which a twin-engine propeller-driven aircraft can be put
together (excluding bi-planes and helicopters.). Aircraft are arranged in nine
categories, as much as possible, with similar configuration traits. Each
configuration category is identified with a sample aircraft.

A few aircraft do not fit perfectly a single category and thus span multiple
categories. Additional configurations have been proposed, but all of the ones
shown here were actually built and flown. Baseline twin-engine configurations
have been around for years; however, the design alternatives provide the most
interest. Several of the alternate configurations are morphological extensions of
the baseline. Lengthening the nacelles and shortening the baseline central
fuselage results in a twin boom configuration. Carry this further with the
elimination of the centre fuselage and a twin fuselage configuration emerges.

Developers have moved engines closer together resulting in a reduced


spacing configuration. The final movement of the engines to the centreline
produces the centreline thrust configurations as a limiting condition. Moving the
engines (or at least the propellers) outward results in the wing tip configurations.

Fig 2.3 Cessna twin-engine aircraft

12
Aerodynamic advantages can be obtained by switching the wing and tail,
resulting in a canard configuration. Flying wing configurations, on the other hand,
dispense with the tail (and sometimes most of the fuselage) altogether.

Sketches that are straddling the regional dividing lines incorporate the
features of both groups. Of the 25 configurations identified, A review of 292
aircraft: British, Canadian, French, German, international, Israeli, Italian,
Japanese, Russian, and US origin provides the breakdown This list is arranged in
the order of decreasing popularity. For each of the identified aircraft, a sample
aircraft name is given along with the configuration type. For example, the
Lockheed P-38 is a twin-boom arrangement with tractor propellers. (It shares
these configuration traits with the Fairchild C-82, C-119, XC-120, IAI Aravia,
and others).

2.4 AGRICULTURAL AIRPLANES


An agricultural aircraft is an aircraft that was built for agricultural use
usually the aerial application of pesticides (crop-dusting) or fertilizer in these
roles they are referred to as "crop dusters" or "top dressers". Agricultural aircraft
are also used for hydroseeding.
The most common agricultural aircraft are fixed-wing, such as the Air
Tractor, Cessna Ag-wagon, Gippsland GA200, Grumman Ag Cat, PZL-106
KRUK, M-18 Dromader, PAC Fletcher, Piper PA-36 Pawnee Brave, Embraer
EMB 202 Ipanema, and Rockwell Thrush Commander but helicopters are also
used. Generally, agricultural aircraft have a piston or turboprop engines. The only
known exception is the Polish PZL M-15 Belphegor which has a jet engine.
Crop dusting with insecticides began in the 1920s in the United States. The
first widely used agricultural aircraft were converted war-surplus biplanes. After
more effective insecticides and fungicides were developed in the 1940s,
and aerial topdressing was developed by government research in New Zealand,
purpose-built agricultural fixed-wing aircraft became common.

To reduce drift of the sprayed materials, agricultural pilots attempt to fly


just above the crops being treated. Fields are often surrounded by obstacles such
as trees, telephone lines, and farm buildings. Purpose-built agricultural
aeroplanes have strengthened cockpits to protect the pilot if an accident occurs.

13
Fig 2.4 Air Tractor
In the US and Europe, agricultural aircraft are typically small, simple, and
rugged. Most have spraying systems attached to the trailing edges of their wings,
and pumps are usually driven by wind turbines. In places where farms are larger,
such as New Zealand, Australia, the former Warsaw pact nations and parts of the
developing world, larger and more powerful aircraft have been used, including
turboprop-powered aircraft such as the PAC Cresco, twin-engine types such as
the Lockheed Lodestar and the WSK-Mielec M-15 Belphegor - a turbofan-
powered biplane. All tend to be of simple, rugged STOL design. Sometimes
a Ram air turbine is used as an auxiliary power source for the pumping machinery
instead of taking power directly from the engine (because this can be installed
without any modifications of the aeroplane's mechanical systems). In places
where dedicated use as an agricultural aircraft is uneconomic, utility types such
as the Antonov An-2 biplane and De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver have been
used.
In the case of helicopters, tanks are placed on or outside the body of the
aircraft, while a spray rig, extending outward to the sides, is attached well below
the main rotor blades. Hydroseeding is often done by helicopters using tanks and
drop systems much like those used for aerial firefighting.

14
2.5 BUSINESS JETS
The Embraer Legacy 600 is a business jet derivative of the Embraer ERJ
145 family of commercial jet aircraft.
The Legacy 600 (market designation adopted after 2005) is based on the
ERJ-135 model. It was launched in 2000 at the Farnborough Airshow as the
"Legacy 2000". The Legacy carries 13 passengers in three partitioned sections
for 3,050 nautical miles (5,650 km) or 8 passengers for 3,450 nautical miles
(6,390 km). It features added range via extra tanks in the tail of the baggage
compartment and forwards of the wing, winglets, and an extensive drag reduction
program. It is certified to 41,000 feet (12,000 m) altitude versus 37,000 feet
(11,000 m) for the airline configuration. The Legacy Shuttle can seat 19 to 37 in
airline-style seats but without the range.
The first flight was made in June 2000, with the prototype of the ERJ-135
(PT-ZJA). This same aircraft was once the prototype of the first ERJ-145.
New winglets and new wing-to-fuselage fairing were added, but no additional
fuel tanks were available. The new fuselage fuel tanks were ready for the second
prototype (PT-XJO), along with engine and avionics, that flew only in March
31st, 2001. It was the second Embraer model to feature winglets, as the first was
installed on the EMB-145SA military model. Embraer winglet models differed in
shape and structure, due to their optimum design speed.

The Legacy 600 competes on the upper end of the small to a mid-sized
range of business jets and is considered a "Super Midsize" aircraft. It has nearly
the opposite design progression as the rival Canadair Challenger. The Legacy 600
was derived from the established ERJ family of regional jets, while the Canadair
Regional Jet was developed by Bombardier from the Challenger business jet.
Both lines of aircraft are competitors. Embraer has since launched an extensive
line-up of business aircraft, from the entry-level Phenom 100 to the Lineage
1000, a bizliner version of the company's 100-seat E-190. With the updated Mark
I cockpit of the EMB-145, the Legacy includes a Honeywell Primus Elite
avionics suite glass cockpit.
On 29 September 2006, an ExcelAire Legacy (N600XL) collided with Gol
Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 Boeing 737 while cruising over the northern state
of Mato Grosso, Brazil. The Boeing crashed to the ground and all 154 passengers
and crew were killed, while the Embraer jet, despite serious damage to the left
horizontal stabilizer and left winglet, was able to continue flying and managed to
land at a Brazilian military airfield (Cachimbo Air Force Base). The plane was

15
reported to be on sale in March 2011, even though repairs to the left wingtip and
stabilizer were still being completed in August 2011. The plane was then sold to
a private owner in 2013 and registered in Mexico as XA-MHA.
Metallic and composite materials excellence are both priorities for
Embraer. The Phenom jets were the company’s first aircraft to have primary parts
in the composite material, such as carbon fibre. Composites are cured in
autoclaves, which deliver the highest quality results and provide weight reduction
and greater resistance to corrosion and fatigue. About 16% of the Phenom 300’s
structural weight is comprised of a composite material, including the nose and
vertical stabilizer.

Embraer is also renowned for its expertise in aluminium super forming.


For example, the rear fuselage of the Phenom 300 curvature favours the flow of
air around its engines. Although this part could also be manufactured with
composite material, Embraer opted for aluminium to maximize aircraft
performance as well as maintainability.
Embraer’s Centres of Excellence in Metallic and Composite Materials are
located in Évora, Portugal, where research and development of these materials
have led to enhancements in aircraft design.

Fig 2.5 Embraer Legacy 600

16
2.6 REGIONAL TURBO PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRPLANE

Fig 2.6 Feederliner


A regional airliner or a feederliner is a small airliner that is designed to fly
up to 100 passengers on short-haul flights, usually feeding larger carriers' airline
hubs from small markets. This class of airliners are typically flown by
the regional airlines that are either contracted by or subsidiaries of the larger
airlines. Regional airliners are used for short trips between smaller towns or from
a larger city to a smaller city. Feederline, commuter, and local service are all
alternative terms for the same class of flight operations.
By the mid-1950s, demand for even more economical designs led to the
production of the first custom feederliners. These were almost always turboprops,
which had fuel economy on par with piston engine designs but had far lower
maintenance costs. Often the time between engine overhaul periods was five
times that of the best piston engines. Early examples of these designs include
the Fokker F27 Friendship, Avro 748, and Handley Page Dart Herald.
These designs were so successful that it was to be many years before newer
designs bettered them enough to make it worthwhile in terms of capital
investment to develop. Among the first purpose-built airliners developed for
the CAB sanctioned local-service airlines in the US, the predecessors of the
modern regional airliner industry; was the interim and custom built Fairchild F-
27/FH-227’s for the needs of these smaller but expanding airlines of the late
1960s.

17
There were a few other exceptions, generally tailored to more specific
roles. For instance, the Handley Page Jetstream (first flight in 1968) was intended
for fewer passengers at much higher speeds, displacing smaller designs like
the Beechcraft Queen Air. The Fairchild/Swearingen Metro (developed from the
original Queen Air through a number of stages) filled a similar niche.

By the 1970s the first-generation regional airliners were starting to wear


out, but there had been little effort in producing new designs for this market. A
varied list of light transport aircraft supplanted by newer and more modern 30
seat designs by Shorts with their Shorts 330 and 360 as well as other aircraft
manufacturers, replaced and sometimes provided growth to established
commuter markets. The additional development came to the regional airline
industry with the arrival of some of the earlier De Havilland Canada types such
as the Dash 7 delivered in 1978, but this was tailored more to the short-range
and STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) role than as a regional airliner.
Feedback from the airlines was fairly consistent, and De Havilland responded
with the Dash 8 in 1984, which had economic benefits over the earlier generation
machines, and was faster and quieter as well.

In the early 1980s, the Dash 8's success sparked off development of a
number of similar designs, including the ATR 42/72, Saab 340, Embraer Brasilia
and Fokker 50. Consequently, there were a relatively large number of aircraft
offered by manufacturers in this sector of the market, pushing older 1950s designs
from Fokker, Vickers and others into retirement. Due to the high level of
competition, production of a number of these types ceased. Saab AB exited the
civil aviation market and wrote its debts off, Daimler-Benz Aerospace "pulled the
plug" on Dornier, and British Aerospace ended production of their BAe
Jetstream 41 after 100 delivered. By 2006 only the ATR 42/72 models and the
Dash 8 remained in production.

Turboprop airliner deliveries are correlated with oil prices with a lag of a
few years.

18
2.7 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT AIRPLANE

Fig 2.7 Airbus A380


Airbus is a leading aircraft manufacturer whose customer focus,
commercial know-how, technological leadership and manufacturing efficiency
have propelled it to the forefront of the aviation and air transport
industries. The company’s mission is to provide jetliners that are best-suited
to the market's needs and to support them with the highest quality of service.

Airbus’ modern and comprehensive product line – for which the


company has received more than 17,000 orders globally – comprises highly-
successful families of aircraft ranging from 100 to more than 600 seats.

Airbus applies cutting-edge technology and advanced science to support


its global customer base with a wide range of flexible service options. The
company understands the importance of providing customers with the best
possible solutions and constantly strives to innovate and implement
increasingly efficient methods.

19
Passenger comfort is a major design consideration for Airbus, which is
why the company’s product line of modern jetliners has built a reputation for
delivering the most enjoyable experiences aloft today. Airbus cabins are
designed to meet diverse passenger expectations, delivering comfort and
efficiency, and ensuring that airlines have a versatile space to meet changing
market needs.

The high level of comfort is provided through a wide range of


technological advancements, including environmental control systems,
ambient lighting, in-flight entertainment and more.

The double-deck A380 is the largest commercial aircraft flying today.


With air traffic continuing to double every 15 years, the A380 is the perfect
aircraft to meet the needs of the passengers of today and tomorrow while also
delivering the level of efficiency necessary to protect the environment for
future generations.

It has two full-length decks with widebody dimensions, meaning its two
passenger levels offer an entire deck’s worth of additional space compared to
the next largest twin-engine jetliner. With more seats than any other aircraft,
the A380 offers solutions to overcrowding; needing fewer journeys to carry 60
percent more passengers, making it the perfect solution to airport congestion,
fleet plan optimization and traffic growth. Protecting our planet and ensuring
we will continue to have a world full of beautiful places to visit in the future.

New winglets that extend both above and below the wingtips, along with
other wing refinements, improve aerodynamics and reduce drag – resulting in
up to a 4 percent fuel burn savings while still allowing the aircraft to fit within
the 80 x 80-meter envelope developed from the start for the jetliner’s
compatibility with airport infrastructure.

The A380plus will have an increased maximum take-off weight


(MTOW) of 578 tonnes, providing the flexibility of carrying the increased
passenger capacity over the aircraft’s current range (8,200 nm) or flying 300
nm further.

20
2.8 MILITARY TRAINER

A trainer is a class of aircraft designed specifically to facilitate flight


training of pilots and aircrews. The use of a dedicated trainer aircraft with
additional safety features—such as tandem flight controls, forgiving flight
characteristics and a simplified cockpit arrangement—allows pilots-in-training to
safely advance their real-time piloting, navigation and warfighting skills without
the danger of overextending their abilities alone in a fully featured aircraft.

Civilian pilots are normally trained in a light aircraft, with two or more
seats to allow for a student and instructor. The aircraft may be modified to
withstand the flight conditions imposed by training flights.

Fig 2.8 Military trainer


Basic Training
After the ab-initio phase, a candidate may progress to basic, or primary,
trainers. These are usually turboprop trainers, like the Pilatus PC-9 and Embraer
Tucano. Modern turbo-prop trainers can replicate the handling characteristics of
jet aircraft as well as having sufficient performance to assess a candidate's
technical ability at an aircraft's controls, reaction speed and the ability to
anticipate events. Prior to the availability of high-performance turboprops, basic
training was conducted with jet aircraft such as the BAC Jet Provost, T-37 Tweet,
and Fouga Magister.

21
Advanced Training
Those that progress to training for fast jet flying will then progress to an
advanced trainer, typically capable of high subsonic speeds, high-energy
manoeuvres, and equipped with systems that simulate modern weapons and
surveillance.

Effective combat aircraft is a function now of electronics as much as, if not


more so than, the aerobatic ability or speed of an aircraft. It is at this stage that a
pilot begins to learn to operate radar systems and electronics. Modernly advanced
trainers feature programmable multi-function displays which can be programmed
to simulate different electronic systems and scenarios. Most advanced trainers do
not have radar systems of their own, but onboard systems can be programmed to
simulate radar contacts. With datalinks and GPS, virtual radar systems can be
created with similarly equipped aircraft relaying to each other their positions in
real time and onboard computers creating a radar display based on this
information. The aim of programmable displays is to speed pilot training by
replicating as far as possible the systems a pilot will find in an operational aircraft.

Future trends:

As the capabilities of front-line aircraft have increased, this has been


reflected in increasingly sophisticated advanced trainers. As the costs of
developing new aircraft have risen in real terms, it has become more likely that
fewer aircraft will be designed specifically for the training role. The advanced
trainer was often seen as a stepping stone by most nations in developing a fast jet
design and manufacturing capability. With increasing costs, even major air forces
will have difficulty reaching the economies of scale to justify development of
new advanced trainers. Nations will be required to continue to push the
modernisation of existing aircraft (some such as the Hawk dating from the 1970s)
or co-operate in the development and procurement of advanced training aircraft.
Furthermore, they must better utilise funding available by developing aircraft
with an enhanced combat capability by producing operational single-seat
variants, and better utilise aircraft on inventory incorporating operational systems
either within the aircraft or as external pods.

Training is now also carried out on ground-based simulators.

22
2.9 FIGHTERS
A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air
combat against other aircraft, as opposed to bombers and attack aircraft, whose
main mission is to attack ground targets. The hallmarks of a fighter are its
speed, manoeuvrability, and small size relative to other combat aircraft.

Many fighters have secondary ground-attack capabilities, and some are


designed as dual-purpose fighter-bombers; often aircraft that do not fulfil the
standard definition are called fighters. This may be for political or national
security reasons, for advertising purposes, or other reasons.

A fighter's main purpose is to establish air superiority over a battlefield.


Since World War I, achieving and maintaining air superiority has been
considered essential for victory in conventional warfare. The success or failure of
a belligerent's efforts to gain air supremacy hinges on several factors including
the skill of its pilots, the tactical soundness of its doctrine for deploying its
fighters, and the numbers and performance of those fighters. Because of the
importance of air superiority, since the early days of aerial combat armed forces
have constantly competed to develop technologically superior fighters and to
deploy these fighters in greater numbers and fielding a viable fighter fleet
consumes a substantial proportion of the defence budgets of modern armed
forces.
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-
engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United
States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical
Fighter program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter,
The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and
weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the
wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally
entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. After a protracted development
and despite operational issues, the USAF considers the F-22 critical to its tactical
air power and says that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected
fighter. The Raptor's combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and
situational awareness gives the aircraft unprecedented air combat capabilities.

23
Fig 2.9 F22 Raptor
The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays
in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of
the more versatile F-35led to the end of F-22 production. A final procurement
tally of 187 operational production aircraft was established in 2009, and the last
F-22 was delivered to the USAF in 2012.

The F-22 had several design changes from the YF-22. The swept-back
angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical
stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot
visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes
moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing
edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics.
Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and
aerodynamic performance.

The first F-22, an engineering and manufacturing development (EMD)


aircraft named Raptor 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997,
and first flew on 7 September 1997. In 2006, the Raptor's development team,
composed of over 1,000 contractors and the USAF, won the Collier Trophy,
American aviation's most prestigious award. The F-22 was in production for 15
years, at a rate of roughly two per month during peak production.

24
2.10 MILITARY PATROL BOMB AND TRANSPORT AIRPLANES
Military transport aircraft or military cargo aircraft are typically fixed
wing and rotary wing cargo aircraft which are used to airlift troops, weapons and
other military equipment by a variety of methods to any area of military
operations around the surface of the planet, usually outside the commercial flight
routes in uncontrolled airspace.

Originally derived from bombers, military transport aircraft were used for
delivering airborne forces during World War II and towing military gliders.
Some military transport aircraft are tasked to perform multi-role duties such
as aerial refuelling and, rescue missions, tactical, operational and
strategic airlifts onto unprepared runways, or those constructed by engineers.

There are two types of military transport based on their wing configuration.

• Fixed Wing
• Rotary wing

The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is a large military transport aircraft. It


was developed for the United States Air Force (USAF) from the 1980s to the
early 1990s by McDonnell Douglas. The C-17 carries forward the name of two
previous piston-engine military cargo aircraft the Douglas C-74 Globemaster and
the Douglas C-124 Globemaster II.

The C-17 commonly performs tactical and strategic airlift missions,


transporting troops and cargo throughout the world; additional roles
include medical evacuation and airdrop duties. It was designed to replace
the Lockheed C-141 Star lifter, and also fulfil some of the duties of the Lockheed
C-5 Galaxy, freeing the C-5 fleet for outsize cargo.

Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, continued to


manufacture C-17s for export customers following the end of deliveries to the
U.S. Air Force. Aside from the United States, the C-17 is in service with the UK,
Australia, Canada, Qatar, UAE, NATO Heavy Airlift Wing, India, and Kuwait.
The final C-17 was completed at the Long Beach, California plant and flown on
29 November 2015.

25
Fig 2.10 Boeing C-7 Globe master

The C-17 is 174 feet (53 m) long and has a wingspan of about 170 feet
(52 m). It can airlift cargo fairly close to a battle area. The size and weight of U.S.
mechanized firepower and equipment have grown in recent decades from
increased air mobility requirements, particularly for large or heavy non-
palletized outsize cargo.

The C-17 is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-


100 turbofan engines, which are based on the commercial Pratt and Whitney
PW2040 used on the Boeing 757. Each engine is rated at 40,400 lbf (180 kN) of
thrust. The engine's thrust reversers direct engine exhaust air upwards and
forward, reducing the chances of foreign object damage by ingestion of runway
debris and providing enough reverse thrust to back the aircraft up on the ground
while taxiing. The thrust reversers can also be used in flight at idle-reverse for
added drag in maximum-rate descents. In vortex surfing tests performed by C-
17s, up to 10% fuel savings were reported.

26
2.11 FLYING BOATS, AMPHIBIANS AND FLOAT AIRPLANES

A flying boat is a fixed-winged seaplane with a hull, allowing it to land on


water, that usually has no type of landing gear to allow operation on land. It
differs from a floatplane as it uses a purpose-designed fuselage which can float,
granting the aircraft buoyancy. Flying boats may be stabilized by under-
wing floats or by wing-like projections (called sponsons) from the fuselage.
Flying boats were some of the largest aircraft of the first half of the 20th century,
exceeded in size only by bombers developed during World War II. Their
advantage lay in using water instead of expensive land-based runways, making
them the basis for international airlines in the interwar period. They were also
commonly used for maritime patrol and air-sea rescue.

Their use gradually trailed off after World War II, partially because of the
investments in airports during the war. In the 21st century, flying boats maintain
a few niches uses, such as dropping water on forest fires, air transport around
archipelagos, and access to undeveloped areas. Many modern seaplane variants,
whether float or flying boat types, are convertible amphibious aircraft where
either landing gear or flotation modes may be used to land and take off.

Fig 2.11 Airmax Sea Max


The shape of the Short Empire, a British flying boat of the 1930s was a
harbinger of the shape of 20th-century aircraft yet to come. Today, however, true
flying boats have largely been replaced by seaplanes with floats and amphibian
aircraft with wheels. There are also several experimental/kit amphibians such as
the Volmer Sportsman, Quikkit Glass Goose, Airmax Sea Max, Aeroprakt A-24,
and Seawind 300C.

27
2.12 SUPER CRUISE AIRCRAFT

Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a


useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently, which typically
precludes the use of highly inefficient afterburners or "reheat". Many well-known
supersonic military aircraft not capable of supercruise must maintain supersonic
flight in short bursts typically with afterburners. Aircraft such as the SR-71
Blackbird is designed to cruise at supersonic speed with afterburners enabled.
One of the most prominent and well-known examples of this type of
aircraft was Concorde. Due to its long service in commercial airlines, Concorde
has the record for the most time spent in supercruise; it has spent more time on
supercruise than all other aircraft combined.

Concorde is an ogival delta-winged aircraft with four Olympus engines


based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. It is one of
the few commercial aircraft to employ a tailless design (the Tupolev Tu-
144 being another). Concorde was the first airliner to have an (in this case,
analogue) fly-by-wire flight-control system; the avionics system Concorde used
was unique because it was the first commercial aircraft to employ hybrid circuits.

Fig 2.12 Concorde - Air France

28
Concorde pioneered the following technologies:
For high speed and optimisation of flight:

• Double delta (ogee/ogival) shaped wings


• Variable engine air intake ramp system controlled by digital computers
• Supercruise capability
• Thrust-by-wire engines, the predecessor of today's FADEC-controlled
engines
• Droop-nose section for better landing visibility
For weight-saving and enhanced performance:

• Mach 2.04 (~2,179 km/h or 1,354 mph) cruising speed for optimum fuel
consumption (supersonic drag minimum and turbojet engines are more
efficient at higher speed) Fuel consumption at Mach 2.0 and at an altitude of
60,000 feet (18,000 m) was 4,800 gallons per hour (22,000 l/h).
• Mainly aluminium construction using a high-temperature alloy similar to that
developed for aero-engine pistons. This material gave low weight and allowed
conventional manufacture (higher speeds would have ruled out aluminium).
• Full-regime autopilot and autothrottle allowing "hands off" control of the
aircraft from climb out to the landing
• Fully electrically controlled analogue fly-by-wire flight controls systems
High-pressure hydraulic system using 28 MPa (4,000 lbf/in²) for lighter
hydraulic components, tripled independent systems ("Blue", "Green", and
"Yellow") for redundancy, with an emergency ram air turbine (RAT) stored
in the port-inner elevon jack fairing supplying "Green" and "Yellow" as
backup.
• Complex Air data computer (ADC) for the automated monitoring and
transmission of aerodynamic measurements (total pressure, static
pressure, angle of attack, side-slip).
• Fully electrically controlled analogue brake-by-wire system
• Pitch trim by shifting fuel fore-and-aft for centre-of-gravity control at the
approach to Mach 1 and above with no drag penalty. Pitch trimming by fuel
transfer had been used since 1958 on the B-58 supersonic bomber.
• Parts made using "sculpture milling", reducing the part count while saving
weight and adding strength.
• No auxiliary power unit, as Concorde would only visit large airports
where ground air start carts are available.

29
CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION TO MULTIROLE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
Introduction:

A multirole combat aircraft is an aircraft designed to perform different roles


in combat. The air-to-air combat role has been normally performed by fighter
aircraft. So, a multirole combat aircraft with air combat role and another
secondary role such as air-to-surface attack are as often called a multirole
fighter. The term has been reserved for aircraft designed with the aim of using a
common airframe for multiple tasks where the same basic airframe is adapted to
a number of differing roles. Originally the term was used for a common
airframe built in a number of different variants for different roles. Multirole has
also been applied to one aircraft with both major roles, for example:

• a primary air-to-air combat role


• a secondary role like an air-to-surface attack.
More roles can be added, such as air reconnaissance, forward air control, and
electronic warfare. Attack missions include the subtypes air interdiction,
suppression of enemy air defence (SEAD), and close air support (CAS).

The main motivation for developing multirole aircraft is a cost reduction in


using a common airframe.

Although the term "multirole aircraft" may be relatively novel, certain


airframes in history have proven versatile to multiple roles. In particular,
the Junkers Ju 88 was renowned in Germany for being a "jack-of-all-trades",
capable of performing as a bomber, dive bomber, night fighter, and so on, much
as the British de Havilland Mosquito did as a fast bomber/strike aircraft,
reconnaissance, and night fighter.

The US joint forces F-4 Phantom built by McDonnell-Douglas also fits the
definition of a multi-role aircraft in its various configurations of the basic
airframe design. The various F-4 Phantom II configurations were used in air-to-
air, fighter-bomber, reconnaissance, and suppression of enemy air defences
(SEAD) mission roles to name a few.

The first use of the term was by the multinational European project
named Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which was formed in 1968 to produce an
aircraft capable of the tactical strike, aerial reconnaissance, air defence and
maritime roles.

30
The design was aimed to replace a multitude of different types in the
cooperating air forces. The project produced the Panavia Tornado, which used
the same basic design to undertake a variety of roles, the Tornado IDS
(Interdictor/Strike) variant and later the Panavia Tornado ADV (Air Defence
Variant). By contrast, the F-15 Eagle which was another fighter aircraft of that
era was designed for air superiority and interception, with the mantra "not a
pound for ground" (although the F-15C did have a rarely-used secondary ground
attack capability), but that program eventually evolved into the F-15E Strike
Eagle interdictor/strike derivative which retained the air-to-air combat lethality
of earlier F-15s.

The newest fighter jet that fits the definition of ‘multi-role' is the Lockheed
Martin F-35 Lightning II/Joint Strike Fighter, designed to perform stealth-based
ground/naval strike, fighter, reconnaissance and electronic warfare roles. Like a
modern-day F-4, 3 variants of this aircraft fulfil the various strike and air defence
roles among its joint service requirements: the standard variant is intended to
eventually replace the F-16 and A-10 in the USAF and other Western air forces,
a STOVL version intended to replace the Harrier in US Marine Corps, British
Royal Air Force and Royal Navy service.

Fig 3.1 Multirole Fighter Aircraft

31
CHAPTER 4
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SPECIFICATION AND PERFORMANCE
Crew:
The people who serve passenger on an aeroplane.
Length:
The distance between the nose tip to the tail section is called length of an
aeroplane.

Height:
Distance from the ground landing gear tyre to the topmost tip of the
aeroplane.

Wing Span (b):


The span of a wing is the distance between the two wing tips and is usually
denoted as b, the examples are. 50.5 m for the IL 76, 11.36 m for the MiG 29 etc.

Wing Area (S):


Area of the wing projected on a plane perpendicular to the normal axis e.g.
about 40 m2 for the Mirage 2000 and 23 m2 for the MiG 21 etc.

Aspect Ratio (AR):


𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐧𝟐
Aspect ratio =
𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚

Mean chord (c):


The distance between the leading and trailing edge measured along the
chord line. Mean chord is often used as a datum linear dimension in the same way
that the wing area (S) is used as a datum area e.g. for the LCA the chord is about
4.5 m and it is about 5.6 m for the MiG 29 etc.

Mean Line or Camber Line:


A line joining the leading and trailing edges of an aerofoil equidistant from
the upper and lower surfaces. Maximum camber is usually expressed as a ratio of
the maximum distance between the camber line and the chord line to chord length.
Where the camber line lies above the chord line, the aerofoil is said to have
positive camber.

32
Empty Weight:
The empty weight of an aircraft is the weight of the aircraft without
including passengers, baggage, or fuel. Standard empty weight usually includes
unusable fuel, full operating fluids, and full engine oil.

Maximum Takeoff Weight:


The maximum Takeoff weight (MTOW) of an aircraft is the maximum
weight at which the pilot is allowed to attempt to take off, due to structural or
other limits. MTOW is usually specified in units of kilograms or pounds.

Thickness / Chord Ratio (t/c):


Maximum thickness or depth of an aerofoil section expressed as a
percentage of chord length e.g. 5.5% for the SU 30 and 10% for the Hawk aircraft.

Trust/Weight ratio:
Thrust-to-weight ratio is a dimensionless ratio of thrust to weight of
a rocket, jet engine, propeller engine, or a vehicle propelled by such an engine
that indicates the performance of the engine or vehicle.

For aircraft, the quoted thrust-to-weight ratio is often the maximum static
thrust at sea-level divided by the maximum Takeoff weight.
𝑻 𝟏
( 𝐖) = 𝑳
𝑪𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆 ( )𝑪𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆
𝑫

Wing Loading:
𝐖𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭
The weight per unit area of the wing =
𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚

Mach number:

It is the ratio between the velocity of the object and speed of sound.
V
M=
A

Rate of Climb:

The rate of climb is an aircraft's vertical speed – the rate of positive altitude
changes with respect to time or distance. In most ICAO member countries, even
in otherwise metric countries, this is usually expressed in feet per minute (ft/min).

33
Dry and wet Thrust:
Dry thrust usually means the non-augmented thrust i.e. thrust without the
use of afterburners or liquid injection. The maximum thrust produced by jet
engines w/o afterburner is sometimes called military thrust.

The thrust of a jet engine can be increased by using methods like (water +
methanol) injection (mostly in older turbojet engines) or by using afterburners
(reheat). In such cases, the (higher) thrust produced is called wet thrust.

Cruise Speed:
A speed for a particular vehicle, an aircraft, usually somewhat below
maximum, that is comfortable and economical.

Service Ceiling:
Service ceiling is generally understood as the maximum altitude at which
the highest vertical speed drops below 0.5 m/s or 100 ft/min. This assumes a clean
aircraft flown at the best rate of climb airspeed.

Range:
The maximal total range is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly
between Takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft.
Ferry range means the maximum range the aircraft can fly. This usually means
maximum fuel load, optionally with extra fuel tanks and minimum equipment.

Specific Endurance:
Flying for endurance implies flying the aircraft for as long as possible on
the fuel available. In other words, it involves the factor of maximum time on a
given fuel. To be more precise:

𝐅𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝑡
Specific Endurance = =
𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐮𝐞𝐥 𝑀

Thrust:
Thrust is the force exerted by the engines on the airframe to overcome
drag and is measured in Newtons.
Stalling velocity:
The speed of an aeroplane in steady flight at its maximum lift coefficient
is known as stalling velocity.

34
Takeoff distance:
The takeoff distance consists of two parts, the ground run, and the distance
from where the vehicle leaves the ground to until it reaches 50 ft (or 15 m). The
sum of these two distances is considered the takeoff distance
Landing Distance
The opposite of the takeoff procedure is the landing procedure. Just as in
the takeoff, the landing manoeuvre consists of two parts: 1. The terminal glide
over a 50 ft obstacle to touchdown 2. The landing ground run
Work:
Work is said to be done when any force displaces a body and the amount
of work done is the product of the force exerted and the distance through which
the body is moved. In the case of an aircraft engine:
Work done = (Thrust)x(Distance)
Power:
Power is the rate at which work is done. In the case of an aircraft engine:
(𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭)𝐱(𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞)
Power required = = (Thrust)x(TAS)
𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞

Since in level flight Thrust = Drag

Power required = Drag x TAS.

35
CHAPTER 5
PREPARATION OF COMPARATIVE DATA SHEETS
INTRODUCTION:
It’s the collection of data of various aeroplanes to consolidate the data for the
aeroplane that I design. Around 30 aeroplanes with their design parameters are
compared.

AIRCRAFT FOR REFERENCE:

1. Lockheed Martin F16XL


2. Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
3. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
4. Lockheed Martin F-104 Starfighter
5. Lockheed Martin F-16A Fighting Falcon
6. Lockheed Martin F-16C Fighting Falcon
7. McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom
8. McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet
9. McDonnell Douglas FA-18E Super Hornet
10. MIG 29
11. Chengdu j7
12. Chengdu j10
13. Dassault Mirage 2000
14. Dassault Mirage F1
15. Dassault Rafale B
16. Eurofighter Typhoon
17. Hal-Tejas
18. Sea Harrier F/A.2
19. Shenyang SAC J-8 II
20. Saab JAS 39 Gripen
21. Sukhoi 27
22. Sukhoi PAKFA
23. Sukhoi-30
24. Sukhoi-33
25. Sukhoi-35
26. Aidc Ching-Kuo
27. Cheetah
28. Iai kfir c7
29. Iai Lavi
30. Hawk 200
36
LOCKHEED MARTIN F16XL

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 16.511
HEIGHT (m) 5.36
WINGSPAN (m) 10.44
WING AREA (m2) 60.0
ASPECT RATIO 1.81
MEAN CHORD 5.77
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 9,980
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 21,800
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 21,800
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.09
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 73.0
PAYLOAD (kg) 6800
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 76.3
DRY THRUST (kN) 76.3
WET THRUST (kN) 125.0
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2253
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 965
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 315
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16200
RANGE (km) 4590
ENDURANCE (min) 300
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 250
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 800
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 950

37
LOCKHEED MARTIN F-22 RAPTOR

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 18.92
HEIGHT (m) 5.08
WINGSPAN (m) 13.56
WING AREA (m2) 78.04
ASPECT RATIO 2.36
MEAN CHORD 5.75
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 19,700
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 29,410
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 38,000
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.08
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 376.92
PAYLOAD (kg) 2700
POWER PLANT TYPE Pratt &Whitney F119-PW-100
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 116
DRY THRUST (kN) 116
WET THRUST (kN) 156
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2410
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1960
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 330.2
SERVICE CEILING (m) 19,812
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 20000
RANGE (km) 2960
ENDURANCE (min) 110
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 220
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 900
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 1050

38
LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35 LIGHTNING II

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 15.67
HEIGHT (m) 4.33
WINGSPAN (m) 10.7
WING AREA (m2) 42.7
ASPECT RATIO 2.68
MEAN CHORD 3.99
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 13,154
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 22,426
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 31,800
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.87
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 524.9
PAYLOAD (kg) 8,700
POWER PLANT TYPE Pratt &Whitney F135
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 125
DRY THRUST (kN) 125
WET THRUST (kN) 191
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 1930
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1050
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 256.5
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15,240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16000
RANGE (km) 2200
ENDURANCE (min) 130
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 260
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 1000
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 800

39
LOCKHEED MARTIN F-104 STARFIGHTER

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 16.69
HEIGHT (m) 4.11
WINGSPAN (m) 6.68
WING AREA (m2) 18.22
ASPECT RATIO 2.45
MEAN CHORD 2.72
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 6,760
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 8,170
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 14,060
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.74
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 510
PAYLOAD (kg) 3400
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric J79-GE-19
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 52.8
DRY THRUST (kN) 52.8
WET THRUST (kN) 79.6
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2333
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 840
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 244
SERVICE CEILING (m) 17,680
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 19,750
RANGE (km) 1175
ENDURANCE (min) 100
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 150
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 1100
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 950

40
LOCKHEED MARTIN F-16A FIGHTING FALCON

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 15.1
HEIGHT (m) 5.08
WINGSPAN (m) 9.45
WING AREA (m2) 28.9
ASPECT RATIO 3.09
MEAN CHORD 3.05
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 7,390
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 11.000
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 17,000
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.90
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 356.4
PAYLOAD (kg) 8891
POWER PLANT TYPE Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 65.3
DRY THRUST (kN) 65.3
WET THRUST (kN) 106.0
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2125
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1200
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 254
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15,240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16000
RANGE (km) 4220
ENDURANCE (min) 230
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 180
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 750
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 960

41
LOCKHEED MARTIN F-16C FIGHTING FALCON

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 15.06
HEIGHT (m) 4.88
WINGSPAN (m) 9.96
WING AREA (m2) 27.87
ASPECT RATIO 3.55
MEAN CHORD 2.80
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 8,570
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 12,000
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 19,200
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.095
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 431.12
PAYLOAD (kg) 7700
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric F110-GE-129
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 76.3
DRY THRUST (kN) 76.3
WET THRUST (kN) 127
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2120
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1500
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 304.8
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16000
RANGE (km) 4220
ENDURANCE (min) 200
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 250
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 600
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 800

42
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS F-4 PHANTOM

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 2
LENGTH (m) 19.20
HEIGHT (m) 5.02
WINGSPAN (m) 11.77
WING AREA (m2) 49.2
ASPECT RATIO 2.81
MEAN CHORD 4.2
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 13,757
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 18,824
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 28,030
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.86
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 380
PAYLOAD (kg) 8480
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric J79-GE-17A
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 53
DRY THRUST (kN) 52.9
WET THRUST (kN) 79.8
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2390
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1400
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 311.9
SERVICE CEILING (m) 18970
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 20000
RANGE (km) 2699
ENDURANCE (min) 170
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 260
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 1120
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 1370

43
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS FA-18 HORNET

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 17.1
HEIGHT (m) 4.7
WINGSPAN (m) 12.3
WING AREA (m2) 38
ASPECT RATIO 3.98
MEAN CHORD 3.09
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 10,810
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 16,769
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 25,400
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.96
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 454
PAYLOAD (kg) 6220
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric F404-GE-400
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 48.9
DRY THRUST (kN) 49
WET THRUST (kN) 79
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 1915
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1062
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 254
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16200
RANGE (km) 2537
ENDURANCE (min) 155
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 240
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 800
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 900

44
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS FA-18E SUPER HORNET

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 18.31
HEIGHT (m) 4.88
WINGSPAN (m) 13.62
WING AREA (m2) 46.5
ASPECT RATIO 3.99
MEAN CHORD 3.41
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 14,552
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 21,320
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 29,937
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.93
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 459
PAYLOAD (kg) 8050
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric F414-GE-400
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 62.3
DRY THRUST (kN) 62.3
WET THRUST (kN) 97.9
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 1915
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1000
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 248.3
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16000
RANGE (km) 2346
ENDURANCE (min) 150
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 150
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 870
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 600

45
MIG 29

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 17.32
HEIGHT (m) 4.73
WINGSPAN (m) 11.36
WING AREA (m2) 38
ASPECT RATIO 3.39
MEAN CHORD 3.35
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 11,000
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 14,900
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 18,000
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.09
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 400.3
PAYLOAD (kg) 4500
POWER PLANT TYPE Klimov RD-33K
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 49.4
DRY THRUST (kN) 49.4
WET THRUST (kN) 81.59
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2445
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1200
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 330.2
SERVICE CEILING (m) 18014
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 19000
RANGE (km) 2000
ENDURANCE (min) 110
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 180
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 950
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 1010

46
CHENGDU J7

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 14.9
HEIGHT (m) 4.1
WINGSPAN (m) 8.32
WING AREA (m2) 24.88
ASPECT RATIO 2.8
MEAN CHORD 2.97
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 5292
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 7680
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 9100
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.49
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 365.8
PAYLOAD (kg) 2000
POWER PLANT TYPE Liyang Wopen-13F (R-13-300)
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 44.1
DRY THRUST (kN) 44.1
WET THRUST (kN) 64.7
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2495
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 2175
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 195
SERVICE CEILING (m) 18200
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 18700
RANGE (km) 2000
ENDURANCE (min) 90
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 210
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 750
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 800

47
CHENGDU J10

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 15.49
HEIGHT (m) 5.43
WINGSPAN (m) 9.75
WING AREA (m2) 33
ASPECT RATIO 2.9
MEAN CHORD 3.36
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 8850
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 12400
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 19277
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.15
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 381
PAYLOAD (kg) 4500
POWER PLANT TYPE Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 79.43
DRY THRUST (kN) 79.43
WET THRUST (kN) 125
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2716
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1390
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 220
SERVICE CEILING (m) 18000
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 18500
RANGE (km) 1850
ENDURANCE (min) 100
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 190
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 370
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 350

48
DASSAULT MIRAGE 2000

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1 or 2
LENGTH (m) 14.36
HEIGHT (m) 5.20
WINGSPAN (m) 9.13
WING AREA (m2) 41
ASPECT RATIO 2.03
MEAN CHORD 4.5
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 7500
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 13800
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 17460
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.7
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 337
PAYLOAD (kg) 6300
POWER PLANT TYPE SNECMA M53-P2
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 64.3
DRY THRUST (kN) 64.3
WET THRUST (kN) 98
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2530
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1400
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 284.48
SERVICE CEILING (m) 17060
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 18288
RANGE (km) 1550
ENDURANCE (min) 150
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 200
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 850
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 750

49
DASSAULT MIRAGE F1

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 15.3
HEIGHT (m) 4.50
WINGSPAN (m) 8.40
WING AREA (m2) 25
ASPECT RATIO 2.82
MEAN CHORD 2.97
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 7400
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 10900
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 16200
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.44
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 340
PAYLOAD (kg) 6300
POWER PLANT TYPE SNECMA Atar 9K-50
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 49
DRY THRUST (kN) 49.03
WET THRUST (kN) 70.6
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2338
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1110
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 243
SERVICE CEILING (m) 20000
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 21000
RANGE (km) 3300
ENDURANCE (min) 135
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 185
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 500
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 600

50
DASSAULT RAFALE B

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1-2
LENGTH (m) 15.27
HEIGHT (m) 5.34
WINGSPAN (m) 10.80
WING AREA (m2) 45.7
ASPECT RATIO 2.55
MEAN CHORD 4.23
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 10300
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 15000
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 24500
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.988
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 328
PAYLOAD (kg) 9500
POWER PLANT TYPE Snecma M88-2 turbofans
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 50
DRY THRUST (kN) 50
WET THRUST (kN) 75
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 1912
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1390
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 304.8
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16000
RANGE (km) 3500
ENDURANCE (min) 150
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 170
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 450
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 400

51
EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 15.96
HEIGHT (m) 5.28
WINGSPAN (m) 10.95
WING AREA (m2) 51.2
ASPECT RATIO 2.3
MEAN CHORD 4.7
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 11,000
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 16,000
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 23,500
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.15
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 312
PAYLOAD (kg) 9000
POWER PLANT TYPE Euro jet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 60
DRY THRUST (kN) 60
WET THRUST (kN) 90
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2495
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1600
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 318
SERVICE CEILING (m) 19812
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 20200
RANGE (km) 2900
ENDURANCE (min) 110
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 200
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 400
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 300

52
HAL-TEJAS

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 13.20 m
HEIGHT (m) 4.40 m
WINGSPAN (m) 8.20 m
WING AREA (m2) 38.4
ASPECT RATIO 1.8
MEAN CHORD 4.5
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 6,560
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 9,800
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 13,500
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.96
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 254
PAYLOAD (kg) 3500
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric’s F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 53.9
DRY THRUST (kN) 53.9
WET THRUST (kN) 89.8
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2205
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1350
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 251
SERVICE CEILING (m) 16000
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 17000
RANGE (km) 1500
ENDURANCE (min) 80
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 140
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 500
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 600

53
SEA HARRIER F/A.2

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 14.17
HEIGHT (m) 3.71
WINGSPAN (m) 7.70
WING AREA (m2) 18.7
ASPECT RATIO 3.17
MEAN CHORD 2.4
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 6,580
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 8500
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 11,884
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.97
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 330
PAYLOAD (kg) 3630
POWER PLANT TYPE Rolls-Royce Pegasus Mk 106 turbofan
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 95.6
DRY THRUST (kN) 95.6
WET THRUST (kN) No afterburner
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 1185
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 850
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 254
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15545
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16500
RANGE (km) 3600
ENDURANCE (min) 240
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 150
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 500
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 305

54
SHENYANG SAC J-8 II

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 21.59
HEIGHT (m) 5.41
WINGSPAN (m) 9.345
WING AREA (m2) 42.2
ASPECT RATIO 2.1
MEAN CHORD 4.45
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 9,820
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 15,300
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 18,879
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.91
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 447.4
PAYLOAD (kg) 4000
POWER PLANT TYPE WP-13B turbojets
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 47.1
DRY THRUST (kN) 47
WET THRUST (kN) 68.7
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2420
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1300
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 200
SERVICE CEILING (m) 18000
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 18700
RANGE (km) 1900
ENDURANCE (min) 100
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 190
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 1000
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 670

55
SAAB JAS 39 GRIPEN

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 14.10
HEIGHT (m) 4.50
WINGSPAN (m) 8.40
WING AREA (m2) 30
ASPECT RATIO 2.35
MEAN CHORD 3.57
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 6800
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 8500
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 14000
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.97
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 283.181
PAYLOAD (kg) 5300
POWER PLANT TYPE Volvo Fly motor RM12 turbofan
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 54
DRY THRUST (kN) 54
WET THRUST (kN) 80.5
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2204
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1400
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 270
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16400
RANGE (km) 1865
ENDURANCE (min) 90
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 250
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 800
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 800

56
SUKHOI 27

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 21.9
HEIGHT (m) 5.92
WINGSPAN (m) 14.7
WING AREA (m2) 62
ASPECT RATIO 3.48
MEAN CHORD 4.22
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 16,380
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 23,430
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 30,450
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.91
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 444.61
PAYLOAD (kg) 4430
POWER PLANT TYPE Saturn AL-31F turbofans
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 75.22
DRY THRUST (kN) 75.22
WET THRUST (kN) 122.6
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2500
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1350
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 300
SERVICE CEILING (m) 19,057
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 20500
RANGE (km) 3530
ENDURANCE (min) 160
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 220
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 750
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 800

57
SUKHOI PAKFA

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 19.8
HEIGHT (m) 4.74
WINGSPAN (m) 13.95
WING AREA (m2) 78.8
ASPECT RATIO 2.46
MEAN CHORD 5.67
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 18,000
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 25,000
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 35,000
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.02
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 444.3
PAYLOAD (kg) 6000
POWER PLANT TYPE Saturn AL-41 F1 turbofans
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 93.1
DRY THRUST (kN) 93.1
WET THRUST (kN) 147
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2140
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1498
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 289.5
SERVICE CEILING (m) 19,812
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 20600
RANGE (km) 3500
ENDURANCE (min) 140
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 200
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 800
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 900

58
SUKHOI 30

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 2
LENGTH (m) 21.935
HEIGHT (m) 6.36
WINGSPAN (m) 14.7
WING AREA (m2) 62
ASPECT RATIO 3.48
MEAN CHORD 4.22
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 17,700
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 24,900
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 34,500
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.86
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 468.3
PAYLOAD (kg) 8000
POWER PLANT TYPE Saturn AL-31FL turbofans
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 74.5
DRY THRUST (kN) 74.5
WET THRUST (kN) 122.6
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2120
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1380
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 230
SERVICE CEILING (m) 17,300
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 18000
RANGE (km) 3000
ENDURANCE (min) 130
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 220
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 850
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 950

59
SUKHOI 33

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 21.19
HEIGHT (m) 5.93
WINGSPAN (m) 14.7
WING AREA (m2) 67.84
ASPECT RATIO 3.18
MEAN CHORD 4.62
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 18,400
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 29,940
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 33,000
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.83
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 482.87
PAYLOAD (kg) 6500
POWER PLANT TYPE Saturn AL-31F3 turbofans
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 74.5
DRY THRUST (kN) 74.5
WET THRUST (kN) 125.5
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2300
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1500
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 246.38
SERVICE CEILING (m) 17,007
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 17500
RANGE (km) 3000
ENDURANCE (min) 120
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 240
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 900
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 750

60
SUKHOI 35

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW aa
LENGTH (m) 21.9
HEIGHT (m) 5.9
WINGSPAN (m) 15.3
WING AREA (m2) 62
ASPECT RATIO 3.77
MEAN CHORD 4.05
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 17,200
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 25,300
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 34,500
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.13
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 414.51
PAYLOAD (kg) 8000
POWER PLANT TYPE Saturn AL-41 F1S turbofans
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 86.3
DRY THRUST (kN) 86.3
WET THRUST (kN) 142
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2400
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1650
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 281.94
SERVICE CEILING (m) 18,013
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 18500
RANGE (km) 3600
ENDURANCE (min) 125
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 210
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 950
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 1050

61
AIDC CHING-KUO

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1-2
LENGTH (m) 14.5
HEIGHT (m) 4.42
WINGSPAN (m) 9.0
WING AREA (m2) 24.2
ASPECT RATIO 3.34
MEAN CHORD 2.7
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 6500
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 7500
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 9526
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.01
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 300
PAYLOAD (kg) 2500
POWER PLANT TYPE Honeywell/ITEC F125-70
NO. OF ENGINES 2
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 26.8
DRY THRUST (kN) 26.8
WET THRUST (kN) 42.1
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2250
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1000
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 254
SERVICE CEILING (m) 16795
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 17200
RANGE (km) 1100
ENDURANCE (min) 70
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 260
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 400
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 500

62
CHEETAH

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 16.18
HEIGHT (m) 4.50
WINGSPAN (m) 8.22
WING AREA (m2) 35
ASPECT RATIO 1.93
MEAN CHORD 4.26
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 8210
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 10500
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 16,200
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 1.01
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 250
PAYLOAD (kg) 5000
POWER PLANT TYPE Snecma Atar 9K50C-11 turbojet
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 46.7
DRY THRUST (kN) 46.7
WET THRUST (kN) 71
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2350
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1010
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 233.4
SERVICE CEILING (m) 17000
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 17500
RANGE (km) 2600
ENDURANCE (min) 160
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 195
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 1020
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 1100

63
IAI KFIR C7

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 15.65
HEIGHT (m) 4.55
WINGSPAN (m) 8.22
WING AREA (m2) 34.8
ASPECT RATIO 1.94
MEAN CHORD 4.23
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 7285
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 11,603
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 16,500
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.85
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 290
PAYLOAD (kg) 6085
POWER PLANT TYPE General Electric J-79-J1E turbojet
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 52.9
DRY THRUST (kN) 52.9
WET THRUST (kN) 79.62
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 2440
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 1050
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 233.426
SERVICE CEILING (m) 17678
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 22860
RANGE (km) 1744
ENDURANCE (min) 110
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 172
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 600
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 750

64
IAI LAVI

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 14.57
HEIGHT (m) 4.78
WINGSPAN (m) 8.78
WING AREA (m2) 33.0
ASPECT RATIO 2.33
MEAN CHORD 3.76
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 7030
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 9991
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 19,280
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.94
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 302
PAYLOAD (kg) 7260
POWER PLANT TYPE Pratt & Whitney PW1120
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 60.2
DRY THRUST (kN) 60.2
WET THRUST (kN) 91.6
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 1965
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 950
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 254
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15240
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 16000
RANGE (km) 3700
ENDURANCE (min) 200
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 205
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 405
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 305

65
HAWK 200

SPECIFICATIONS:

CREW 1
LENGTH (m) 11.34
HEIGHT (m) 4.13
WINGSPAN (m) 9.39
WING AREA (m2) 16.7
ASPECT RATIO 5.28
MEAN CHORD 1.77
EMPTY WEIGHT (kg) 4450
LOADED WEIGHT (kg) 7500
TAKE OFF WEIGHT (kg) 9100
THRUST AND WEIGHT RATIO 0.91
WING LOADING (kg/m2) 290
PAYLOAD (kg) 3000
POWER PLANT TYPE Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk 871
NO. OF ENGINES 1
THRUST PRODUCED (kN) 26.0
DRY THRUST (kN) 26.0
WET THRUST (kN) No afterburner
MAXIMUM SPEED (km/hr) 1037
CRUISE SPEED (km/hr) 796
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 58.4
SERVICE CEILING (m) 13716
ABSOLUTE CEILING (m) 14000
RANGE (km) 1950
ENDURANCE (min) 150
STALLING VELOCITY (km/hr) 197
LANDING DISTANCE (m) 854
TAKEOFF DISTANCE (m) 2134

66
CHAPTER 6
COMPARATIVE GRAPHS PREPARATION AND SELECTION
OF MAIN PARAMETERS FOR THE DESIGN
6.1 CONSOLIDATION OF DATA
AIRCRAFT Lockheed F-22 F-35 F-104 F-16A
SPECIFICATION Martin Raptor Lightning Starfighter Fighting
F16XL II Falcon
CREW 1 1 1 1 1
LENGTH (m) 16.511 18.92 15.67 16.69 15.1
HEIGHT (m) 5.36 5.08 4.33 4.11 5.08
WING SPAN (m) 10.44 13.56 10.7 6.68 9.45
WING AREA (m2) 60 78.04 42.7 18.22 28.9
ASPECT RATIO 1.81 2.36 2.68 2.45 3.09
MEAN CHORD 5.77 5.75 3.99 2.72 3.05
EMPTY WEIGHT (Kg) 9,980 19,700 13,154 6,760 7,390
LOADED WEIGHT 21,800 29,410 22,426 8,170 11.000
(Kg)
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 21,800 38,000 31,800 14,060 17,000
(Kg)
THRUST\WEIGHT 1.09 1.08 0.87 0.74 0.90
RATIO
WING LOADING 356.4 376.92 524.9 510 356.4
(kg/m2)
PAY LOAD (Kg) 6800 2700 8,700 3400 8891
POWER PLANT TYPE General Pratt & Pratt General Pratt &
Electric Whitney &Whitney Electric Whitney
F110-GE-100 F119-PW- F135 J79-GE-19 F100-PW-
100 100
NO. OF ENGINES 1 2 1 1 1
THRUST PRODUCED 76.3 116 125 52.8 65.3
(kN)
DRY THRUST (kN) 76.3 116 125 52.8 65.3
WET THRUST (kN) 125.0 156 191 79.6 106.0
MAXIMUM SPEED 2253 2410 1930 2333 2125
(km\h)
CRUISE SPEED (km\h) 965 1960 1050 840 1200
RATE OF CLIMB (m/s) 315 330.2 256.5 244 254
SERVICE CEILING (m) 15,240 19,812 15,240 17,680 15,240
ABSOLUTE CEILING 16200 20000 16000 19,750 16000
(m)
RANGE (km) 4590 2960 2200 1175 4220
ENDURANCE(min) 300 110 130 100 230
STALL VELOCITY 250 220 260 150 180
(km/h)
LANDING DISTANCE 800 900 1000 1100 750
(m)
TAKEOFF DISTANCE 950 1050 800 950 960
(m)
FINENESS RATIO 11 11.8 9.5 12.5 11.3

67
AIRCRAFT F-16C McDonnell McDonnel McDonnell MIG 29
SPECIFICATION Fighting Douglas F-4 l Douglas Douglas FA-
Falcon Phantom FA-18 18E Super
Hornet Hornet
CREW 1 2 1 1 1
LENGTH (m) 15.06 19.20 17.1 18.31 17.32
HEIGHT (m) 4.88 5.02 4.7 4.88 4.73
WING SPAN (m) 9.96 11.77 12.3 13.62 11.36
WING AREA (m2) 27.87 49.2 38 46.5 38
ASPECT RATIO 3.55 2.81 3.98 3.99 3.39
MEAN CHORD 2.80 4.2 3.09 3.41 3.35
EMPTY WEIGHT 8,570 13,757 10,810 14,552 11,000
(Kg)
LOADED WEIGHT 12,000 18,824 16,769 21,320 14,900
(Kg)
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 19,200 28,030 25,400 29,937 18,000
(Kg)
THRUST\WEIGHT 1.095 0.86 0.96 0.93 1.09
RATIO
WING LOADING 431.12 380 454 459 400.3
(kg/m2)
PAY LOAD (Kg) 7700 8480 6220 8050 4500
POWER PLANT General General General General Klimov
TYPE Electric Electric J79- Electric Electric F414- RD-33K
F110-GE-129 GE-17A F404-GE- GE-400
400
NO. OF ENGINES 1 2 2 2 2
THRUST PRODUCED 76.3 53 48.9 62.3 49.4
(kN)
DRY THRUST (kN) 76.3 52.9 49 62.3 49.4
WET THRUST (kN) 127 79.8 79 97.9 81.59
MAXIMUM SPEED 2120 2390 1915 1915 2445
(km\h)
CRUISE SPEED 1500 1400 1062 1000 1200
(km\h)
RATE OF CLIMB 304.8 311.9 254 248.3 330.2
(m/s)
SERVICE CEILING 15240 18970 15240 15240 18014
(ft)
ABSOLUTE CEILING 16000 20000 16200 16000 19000
(ft)
RANGE (km) 4220 2699 2537 2346 2000
ENDURANCE(min) 200 170 155 150 110
STALL 250 260 240 150 180
VELOCITY(km/h)
LANDING DISTANCE 600 1120 800 870 950
(m)
TAKEOFF DISTANCE 800 1370 900 600 1010
(m)
FINENESS RATIO 9.8 11.4 12 11.8 10.2

68
AIRCRAFT Chengdu j7 Chengdu j10 Dassault Dassault Dassault
SPECIFICATION Mirage 2000 Mirage F1 Rafale B
CREW 1 1 1 or 2 1 1-2
LENGTH (m) 14.9 15.49 14.36 15.3 15.27
HEIGHT (m) 4.1 5.43 5.20 4.50 5.34
WING SPAN (m) 8.32 9.75 9.13 8.40 10.80
WING AREA (m2) 24.88 33 41 25 45.7
ASPECT RATIO 2.8 2.9 2.03 2.82 2.55
MEAN CHORD 2.97 3.36 4.5 2.97 4.23
EMPTY WEIGHT 5292 8850 7500 7400 10300
(Kg)
LOADED WEIGHT 7680 12400 13800 10900 15000
(Kg)
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 9100 19277 17460 16200 24500
(Kg)
THRUST\WEIGHT 0.49 1.15 0.7 0.44 0.988
RATIO
WING LOADING 365.8 381 337 340 328
(kg/m2)
PAY LOAD (Kg) 2000 4500 6300 6300 9500
POWER PLANT Liyang Saturn- SNECMA SNECMA Snecma
TYPE Wopen-13F Lyulka AL- M53-P2 Atar 9K-50 M88-2
(R-13-300) 31FN
NO. OF ENGINES 1 1 1 1 2
THRUST PRODUCED 44.1 79.43 64.3 49 50
(kN)
DRY THRUST (kN) 44.1 79.43 64.3 49.03 50
WET THRUST (kN) 64.7 125 98 70.6 75
MAXIMUM SPEED 2495 2716 2530 2338 1912
(km\h)
CRUISE SPEED 2175 1390 1400 1110 1390
(km\h)
RATE OF CLIMB 195 220 284.48 243 304.8
(m/s)
SERVICE CEILING 18200 18000 17060 20000 15240
(m)
ABSOLUTE CEILING 18700 18500 18288 21000 16000
(m)
RANGE (km) 2000 1850 1550 3300 3500
ENDURANCE(min) 90 100 150 135 150
STALL VELOCITY 210 190 200 185 170
(km\h)
LANDING DISTANCE 750 370 850 500 450
(m)
TAKEOFF DISTANCE 800 350 750 600 400
(m)
FINENESS RATIO 10.1 10.9 9.5 11 11.3

69
AIRCRAFT Eurofighter Hal-Tejas sea Harrier Shenyang Saab JAS
SPECIFICATION Typhoon F/A.2 SAC J-8 II 39 Gripen
CREW 1 1 1 1 1
LENGTH (m) 15.96 13.20 m 14.17 21.59 14.10
HEIGHT (m) 5.28 4.40 m 3.71 5.41 4.50
WING SPAN (m) 10.95 8.20 m 7.70 9.345 8.40
WING AREA (m2) 51.2 38.4 18.7 42.2 30
ASPECT RATIO 2.3 1.8 3.17 2.1 2.35
MEAN CHORD 4.7 4.5 2.4 4.45 3.57
EMPTY WEIGHT 11,000 6,560 6,580 9,820 6800
(Kg)
LOADED WEIGHT 16,000 9,800 8500 15,300 8500
(Kg)
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 23,500 13,500 11,884 18,879 14000
(Kg)
THRUST\WEIGHT 1.15 0.96 0.97 0.91 0.97
RATIO
WING LOADING 312 254 330 447.4 283.181
(kg/m2)
PAY LOAD (Kg) 9000 3500 3630 4000 5300
POWER PLANT Euro jet GE’s F404- RR Pegasus WP-13B Volvo Fly
TYPE EJ200 GE-IN20 Mk 106 turbojets motor RM12
NO. OF ENGINES 2 1 1 2 1
THRUST PRODUCED 60 53.9 95.6 47.1 54
(kN)
DRY THRUST (kN) 60 53.9 95.6 47 54
WET THRUST (kN) 90 89.8 No after 68.7 80.5
burner
MAXIMUM SPEED 2495 2205 1185 2420 2204
(km\h)
CRUISE SPEED 1600 1350 850 1300 1400
(km\h)
RATE OF CLIMB 318 251 254 200 270
(m/s)
SERVICE CEILING 19812 16000 15545 18000 15240
(m)
ABSOLUTE CEILING 20200 17000 16500 18700 16400
(ft)
RANGE (km) 2900 1500 3600 1900 1865
ENDURANCE (min) 110 80 240 100 90
STALL VELOCITY 200 140 150 190 250
(km/h)
LANDING DISTANCE 400 500 500 1000 800
(m)
TAKEOFF DISTANCE 300 600 305 670 800
(m)
FINENESS RATIO 12.1 9.6 10.8 12.8 11.5

70
AIRCRAFT Sukhoi 27 Sukhoi Sukhoi-30 Sukhoi-33 Sukhoi-35
SPECIFICATION PAKFA
CREW 1 1 2 1 1
LENGTH (m) 21.9 19.8 21.935 21.19 21.9
HEIGHT (m) 5.92 4.74 6.36 5.93 5.9
WING SPAN (m) 14.7 13.95 14.7 14.7 15.3
WING AREA (m2) 62 78.8 62 67.84 62
ASPECT RATIO 3.48 2.46 3.48 3.18 3.77
MEAN CHORD 4.22 5.67 4.22 4.62 4.05
EMPTY WEIGHT 16,380 18,000 17,700 18,400 17,200
(Kg)
LOADED WEIGHT 23,430 25,000 24,900 29,940 25,300
(Kg)
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 30,450 35,000 34,500 33,000 34,500
(Kg)
THRUST\WEIGHT 0.91 1.02 0.86 0.83 1.13
RATIO
WING LOADING 444.61 444.3 468.3 482.87 414.51
(kg/m2)
PAY LOAD (Kg) 4430 6000 8000 6500 8000
POWER PLANT Saturn AL- Saturn AL- Saturn AL- Saturn AL- Saturn AL-
TYPE 31F 41 F1 31FL 31F3 41 F1S
NO. OF ENGINES 2 2 2 2 2
THRUST PRODUCED 75.22 93.1 74.5 74.5 86.3
DRY THRUST (kN) 75.22 93.1 74.5 74.5 86.3
WET THRUST (kN) 122.6 147 122.6 125.5 142
MAXIMUM SPEED 2500 2140 2120 2300 2400
(km\h)
CRUISE SPEED 1350 1498 1380 1500 1650
(km\h)
RATE OF CLIMB 300 289.5 230 246.38 281.94
(m/s)
SERVICE CEILING 19,057 19,812 17,300 17,007 18,013
(m)
ABSOLUTE CEILING 20500 20600 18000 17500 18500
(m)
RANGE (km) 3530 3500 3000 3000 3600
ENDURANCE(min) 160 140 130 120 125
STALL 220 200 220 240 210
VELOCITY(km/h)
LANDING DISTANCE 750 800 850 900 950
(m)
TAKEOFF DISTANCE 800 900 950 750 1050
(m)
FINENESS RATIO 12.5 12.3 12.8 12.6 12.2

71
AIRCRAFT AIDC CHEETAH IAI kfir c7 IAI LAVI HAWK 200
SPECIFICATION CHING-
KUO
CREW 1-2 1 1 1 1
LENGTH (m) 14.5 16.18 15.65 14.57 11.34
HEIGHT (m) 4.42 4.50 4.55 4.78 4.13
WING SPAN (m) 9.0 8.22 8.22 8.78 9.39
WING AREA (m2) 24.2 35 34.8 33.0 16.7
ASPECT RATIO 3.34 1.93 1.94 2.33 5.28
MEAN CHORD 2.7 4.26 4.23 3.76 1.77
EMPTY WEIGHT 6500 8210 7285 7030 4450
(Kg)
LOADED WEIGHT 7500 10500 11,603 9991 7500
(Kg)
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 9526 16,200 16,500 19,280 9100
(Kg)
THRUST\WEIGHT 1.01 1.01 0.85 0.94 0.91
RATIO
WING LOADING 300 250 290 302 290
(kg/m2)
PAY LOAD (Kg) 2500 5000 6085 7260 3000
POWER PLANT Honeywell/I Snecma Atar General Pratt & RR Turbomeca
TYPE TEC F125- 9K50C-11 Electric J- Whitney Adour Mk 871
70 turbojet 79-J1E PW1120
NO. OF ENGINES 2 1 1 1 1
THRUST PRODUCED 26.8 46.7 52.9 60.2 26.0
DRY THRUST (kN) 26.8 46.7 52.9 60.2 26.0
WET THRUST (kN) 42.1 71 79.62 91.6 No after burner
MAXIMUM SPEED 2250 2350 2440 1965 1037
(km\h)
CRUISE SPEED 1000 1010 1050 950 796
(km\h)
RATE OF CLIMB 254 233.4 233.426 254 58.4
(ft/min)
SERVICE CEILING 16795 17000 17678 15240 13716
(ft)
ABSOLUTE CEILING 17200 17500 22860 16000 14000
(ft)
RANGE (km) 1100 2600 1744 3700 1950
ENDURANCE 70 160 110 200 150
STALL VELOCITY 260 195 172 205 197
(km/h)
LANDING DISTANCE 400 1020 600 405 854
(m)
TAKEOFF DISTANCE 500 1100 750 305 2134
(m)
FINENESS RATIO 10.7 11.2 10.9 10.8 9.5
Table 6.1 Consolidation Of data

72
6.2 COMPARATIVE GRAPHS PREPARATION
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Aspect Ratio
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 1.81
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 2.36
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 2.68
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 2.45
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 3.09
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 3.55
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 2.81
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 3.98
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 3.99
10 MIG 29 1200 3.39
11 Chengdu J7 2175 2.8
12 Chengdu J10 1390 2.9
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 2.03
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 2.82
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 2.55
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 2.3
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 1.8
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 3.17
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 2.1
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 2.35
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 3.48
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 2.46
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 3.48
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 3.18
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 3.77
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 3.34
27 Cheetah 1010 1.93
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 1.94
29 IAI LAVI 950 2.33
30 Hawk 200 796 5.28
Table 6.2.1 Cruise Speed vs Aspect ratio

6.2.1 Cruise Speed vs Aspect ratio


6

5
Aspect ratio

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

73
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Empty Weight (kg)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 9,980
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 19,700
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 13,154
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 6,760
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 7,390
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 8,570
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 13,757
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 10,810
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 14,552
10 MIG 29 1200 11,000
11 Chengdu J7 2175 5292
12 Chengdu J10 1390 8850
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 7500
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 7400
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 10300
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 11,000
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 6,560
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 6,580
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 9,820
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 6800
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 16,380
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 18,000
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 17,700
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 18,400
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 17,200
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 6500
27 Cheetah 1010 8210
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 7285
29 IAI LAVI 950 7030
30 Hawk 200 796 4450
Table 6.2.2 Cruise speed vs Empty Weight

6.2.2 Cruise speed vs Empty Weight


25,000
Empty Weight (kg)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise speed (km/h)

74
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Gross Weight (kg)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 21,800
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 38,000
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 31,800
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 14,060
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 17,000
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 19,200
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 28,030
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 25,400
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 29,937
10 MIG 29 1200 18,000
11 Chengdu J7 2175 9100
12 Chengdu J10 1390 19277
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 17460
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 16200
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 24500
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 23,500
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 13,500
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 11,884
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 18,879
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 14000
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 30,450
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 35,000
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 34,500
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 33,000
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 34,500
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 9526
27 Cheetah 1010 16,200
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 16,500
29 IAI LAVI 950 19,280
30 Hawk 200 796 9100
Table 6.2.3 Cruise Speed Vs Gross Weight:

6.2.3 Cruise Speed Vs Gross Weight


40,000

35,000
Gross Weight (kg)

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

75
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Thrust/Weight Ratio
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 1.09
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 1.08
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 0.87
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 0.74
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 0.9
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 1.095
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 0.86
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 0.96
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 0.93
10 MIG 29 1200 1.09
11 Chengdu J7 2175 0.49
12 Chengdu J10 1390 1.15
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 0.7
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 0.44
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 0.988
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 1.15
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 0.96
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 0.97
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 0.91
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 0.97
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 0.91
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 1.02
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 0.86
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 83
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 1.13
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 1.01
27 Cheetah 1010 1.01
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 0.85
29 IAI LAVI 950 0.94
30 Hawk 200 796 0.91
Table 6.2.4 Cruise Speed Vs Thrust Weight Ratio

6.2.4 Cruise Speed Vs Thrust Weight Ratio


2
1.8
Thrust Weight Ratio

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

76
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Wing Loading (kg/m2)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 356.4
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 376.9
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 524.9
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 510
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 356.4
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 431.1
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 380
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 454
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 459
10 MIG 29 1200 400.3
11 Chengdu J7 2175 365.8
12 Chengdu J10 1390 381
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 337
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 340
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 328
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 312
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 254
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 330
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 447.4
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 283.2
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 444.6
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 444.3
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 468.3
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 482.8
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 414.5
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 300
27 Cheetah 1010 250
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 290
29 IAI LAVI 950 302
30 Hawk 200 796 292.8
Table 6.2.5 Cruise Speed Vs Wing Loading

6.2.5 Cruise Speed Vs Wing Loading


600
Wing Loading (kg/m2)

450

300

150

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

77
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Thrust Produced (kN)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 76.3
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 116
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 125
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 52.8
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 65.3
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 76.3
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 53
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 48.9
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 62.3
10 MIG 29 1200 49.4
11 Chengdu J7 2175 44.1
12 Chengdu J10 1390 79.43
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 64.3
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 49
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 50
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 60
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 53.9
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 95.6
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 47.1
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 54
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 75.2
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 93.1
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 74.5
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 74.5
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 86.3
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 26.8
27 Cheetah 1010 46.7
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 52.9
29 IAI LAVI 950 60.2
30 Hawk 200 796 26
Table 6.2.6 Cruise Speed Vs Thrust produced

6.2.6 Cruise Speed Vs Thrust produced


140

120
Thrust produced (kN)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

Cruise Speed (km/h)

78
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Max Speed (km/h)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 2253
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 2410
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 1930
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 2333
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 2125
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 2120
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 2390
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 1915
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 1915
10 MIG 29 1200 2445
11 Chengdu J7 2175 2495
12 Chengdu J10 1390 2716
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 2530
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 2338
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 1912
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 2495
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 2205
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 1185
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 2420
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 2204
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 2500
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 2140
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 2120
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 2300
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 2400
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 2250
27 Cheetah 1010 2350
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 2440
29 IAI LAVI 950 1965
30 Hawk 200 796 1037
Table 6.2.7 Cruise Speed Vs Max Speed

6.2.7 Cruise Speed Vs Maximum Speed


3000

2500
Maximum Speed (km/h)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

79
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Service Ceiling (m)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 15,240
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 19,812
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 15,240
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 17,680
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 15,240
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 15240
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 18970
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 15240
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 15240
10 MIG 29 1200 18014
11 Chengdu J7 2175 18200
12 Chengdu J10 1390 18000
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 17060
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 20000
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 15240
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 19812
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 16000
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 15545
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 18000
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 15240
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 19,057
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 19,812
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 17,300
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 17,007
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 18,013
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 16795
27 Cheetah 1010 17000
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 17678
29 IAI LAVI 950 15240
30 Hawk 200 796 13716
Table 6.2.8 Cruise Speed Vs Service Ceiling

6.2.8 Cruise Speed Vs Service Ceiling


25,000
Service Ceiling (m)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

80
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Absolute Ceiling (m)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 16200
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 20000
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 16000
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 19750
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 16000
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 16000
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 20000
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 16200
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 16000
10 MIG 29 1200 19000
11 Chengdu J7 2175 18700
12 Chengdu J10 1390 18500
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 18288
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 21000
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 16000
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 20200
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 17000
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 16500
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 18700
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 16400
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 20500
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 20600
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 18000
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 17500
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 18500
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 17200
27 Cheetah 1010 17500
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 19860
29 IAI LAVI 950 16000
30 Hawk 200 796 14000
Table 6.2.9 Cruise Speed Vs Absolute Ceiling

6.2.9 Cruise Speed Vs Absolute Ceiling


25000

20000
Absolute Ceiling (m)

15000

10000

5000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

81
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Rate of Climb (m/s)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 315
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 330.2
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 256.5
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 244
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 254
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 304.8
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 311.9
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 254
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 248.3
10 MIG 29 1200 330.2
11 Chengdu J7 2175 195
12 Chengdu J10 1390 220
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 284.5
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 243
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 304.8
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 318
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 251
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 254
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 200
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 270
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 300
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 289.5
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 230
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 246.4
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 281.9
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 254
27 Cheetah 1010 233.4
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 233.4
29 IAI LAVI 950 254
30 Hawk 200 796 58.4
Table 6.2.10 Cruise Speed Vs Rate of Climb

6.2.10 Cruise Speed Vs Rate Of Climb


350

300

250
Rate Of Climb (m/s)

200

150

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

82
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Stall Velocity (km/h)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 250
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 220
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 260
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 150
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 180
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 250
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 260
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 240
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 150
10 MIG 29 1200 180
11 Chengdu J7 2175 210
12 Chengdu J10 1390 190
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 200
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 185
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 170
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 200
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 140
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 150
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 190
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 250
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 220
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 200
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 220
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 240
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 210
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 260
27 Cheetah 1010 195
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 172
29 IAI LAVI 950 205
30 Hawk 200 796 197
Table 6.2.11 Cruise Speed Vs Stall Velocity

6.2.11 Cruise Speed Vs Stall Velocity


300

250
Stall Velocity (km/h)

200

150

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

Cruise Speed (km/h)

83
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Range (km)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 4590
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 2960
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 2200
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 1175
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 4220
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 4220
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 2699
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 2537
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 2346
10 MIG 29 1200 2000
11 Chengdu J7 2175 2000
12 Chengdu J10 1390 1850
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 1550
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 3300
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 3500
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 2900
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 1500
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 3600
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 1900
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 1865
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 3530
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 3500
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 3000
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 3000
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 3600
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 1100
27 Cheetah 1010 2600
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 1744
29 IAI LAVI 950 3700
30 Hawk 200 796 1950
Table 6.2.12 Cruise Speed Vs Range

6.2.12 Cruise Speed Vs Range


5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Range (km)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

84
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Endurance (min)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 300
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 110
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 130
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 100
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 230
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 200
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 170
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 155
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 150
10 MIG 29 1200 110
11 Chengdu J7 2175 90
12 Chengdu J10 1390 100
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 150
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 135
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 150
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 110
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 80
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 240
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 100
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 90
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 160
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 140
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 130
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 120
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 125
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 70
27 Cheetah 1010 160
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 110
29 IAI LAVI 950 200
30 Hawk 200 796 150
Table 6.2.13 Cruise Speed Vs Endurance

6.2.13 Cruise Speed Vs Endurance


350

300

250
Endurance (min)

200

150

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

85
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Takeoff Run (m)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 950
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 1050
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 800
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 950
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 960
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 800
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 1370
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 900
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 600
10 MIG 29 1200 1010
11 Chengdu J7 2175 800
12 Chengdu J10 1390 350
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 750
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 600
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 400
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 300
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 600
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 305
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 670
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 800
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 800
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 900
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 950
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 750
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 1050
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 500
27 Cheetah 1010 1100
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 750
29 IAI LAVI 950 305
30 Hawk 200 796 2134
Table 6.2.14 Cruise Speed Vs Takeoff Distance

6.2.14 Cruise Speed Vs Takeoff distance


2500

2000
Takeoff distance (m)

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

86
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Landing Run (m)
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 800
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 900
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 1000
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 1100
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 750
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 600
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 1120
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 800
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 870
10 MIG 29 1200 950
11 Chengdu J7 2175 750
12 Chengdu J10 1390 370
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 850
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 500
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 450
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 400
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 500
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 500
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 1000
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 800
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 750
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 800
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 850
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 900
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 95
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 400
27 Cheetah 1010 1020
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 600
29 IAI LAVI 950 405
30 Hawk 200 796 854
Table 6.2.15 Cruise Speed Vs Landing distance

6.2.15 Cruise Speed Vs Landing distance


1200

1000
Landing distance (m)

800

600

400

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

87
S. No Name of the aircraft Cruise Speed (km/h) Fineness ratio
1 Lockheed Martin F16XL 965 11
2 Lockheed Martin F22 Raptor 1960 11.8
3 F-35 Lightning-II 1050 9.5
4 F-104 Starfighter 840 12.5
5 F-16A Fighting Falcon 1200 11.3
6 F-16C Fighting Falcon 1500 9.8
7 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 1400 11.4
8 McDonnell Douglas FA-18 Hornet 1062 12
9 FA-18E Super Hornet 1000 11.8
10 MIG 29 1200 10.2
11 Chengdu J7 2175 10.1
12 Chengdu J10 1390 10.9
13 Dassault Mirage 2000 1400 9.5
14 Dassault Mirage F1 1110 11
15 Dassault Rafale B 1390 11.3
16 Eurofighter Typhoon 1600 12.1
17 HAL-Tejas 1350 9.6
18 Sea Harrier F/A.2 850 10.8
19 Shenyang SAC J-8 II 1300 12.8
20 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 1400 11.5
21 Sukhoi 27 1350 12.5
22 Sukhoi PAKFA 1498 12.3
23 Sukhoi 30 1380 12.8
24 Sukhoi 33 1500 12.6
25 Sukhoi 35 1650 12.2
26 AIDC CHING-KUO 1000 10.7
27 Cheetah 1010 11.2
28 IAI Kfir C7 1050 10.9
29 IAI LAVI 950 10.8
30 Hawk 200 796 9.5
Table 6.2.16 Cruise Speed Vs Fineness Ratio

6.2.16 Cruise Speed Vs Fineness Ratio


14

12

10
Fineness Ratio

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cruise Speed (km/h)

88
Results:

Flight Parameter SI Units Values American standard unit Values

Cruise Speed km/h 1400 Miles/hr 870

Aspect ratio 2.78 2.78

Empty Weight kilogram 10300 Pounds 22707.6

Gross Weight kilogram 28200 Pounds 62170

Thrust\Weight Ratio 0.97 0.97

Wing Loading (kg/m2) kg/ m2 392 Lb/ft2 80.3

Thrust Produced (kN) kN 68 lbf 15287

Maximum Speed (km/h) km/h 2290 Miles/hr 1423

Service Ceiling (m) metre 17000 miles 10.56331

Absolute Ceiling (m) metre 18100 miles 11.25

Rate of Climb (m/s) m/s 255 Feet/min 50197

Stall Velocity (km/h) Km/h 193 Miles/hour 120

Range km 2000 Miles 1240

Endurance min 120 min 120

Takeoff Distance metre 790 Miles 0.49

Landing Distance metre 730 Miles 0.45

Fineness Ratio 10.8 10.8

Payload Kg 3000 Lbs 6614

Table 6.3 selection of main parameters for the design

89
CHAPTER 7
WEIGHT ESTIMATION
7.1 INTRODUCTION:
To find the weight of the following parameters of an aircraft.
• Takeoff Weight (WTO)
• Fuel Weight (WF)
• Empty Weight(WE)

The following are the data which is obtained from the graph to proceed for the
Weight estimation.
• Cruise Speed = 870 miles/hr
• Gross weight = 62170 lbs
• Service ceiling = 10.56 miles
• Range = 1240 miles
• Takeoff Distance = 0.49
• Landing Distance = 0.45
• Payload = 6614 lbs.
7.2 MISSION PROFILE:

Fig 7.2 Mission Profile


PHASES:
1 - Engine Startup (warm-up) 7 - Loiter
2 - Taxing 8 - Climb
3 - Takeoff 9 - Cruise-in
4 - Climb 10 - Descent
5 - Cruise-out 11 - Landing & Shutdown
6 - Descent

90
7.3 MISSION FUEL FRACTION:

The following tables 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3 will be used for getting the values for
the specified aircraft types.

Table 7.3.1 Suggested Fuel Fraction for Several Mission Phases

91
Table 7.3.2 Suggested value for L/D, Cj, Cp, ηp for several mission phases

92
Table 7.3.3 Regression line constant A & B

93
7.4 CALCULATION:
PHASE 1: Engine Startup (warm-up)

𝐖𝟏
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗
𝐖𝟎

where W0 - Start Weight


W1 - End Weight

PHASE 2: Taxi

𝐖𝟐
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗
𝐖𝟏

where W1 - Start Weight


W2 - End Weight

PHASE 3: Take-Off

𝐖𝟑
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗
𝐖𝟐

where W2 - Start Weight


W3 - End Weight

PHASE 4: Climb

𝐖𝟒
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟔
𝐖𝟑

where W3 - Start Weight


W4 - End Weight

PHASE 5: Cruise out

RCR = R – [T.D + L.D + 2*(S.C)]


= 1240 – [0.49 + 0.45 + 2*10.56]
= 1217.94
= 1218.

94
V L W4
𝐑 𝐂𝐑 = [ ] [ ] ln ( ) --- 1.
Cj D W5

Where,
Cj = 1.4 from the Figure (7.3.2)
L
=7 from the Figure (7.3.2)
D

Substituting in the equation – 1

870 W4
1000 = [ ] [7]ln ( )
1.4 W5

W4
ln ( ) = 0.229
W5

𝐖𝟓
= 𝟎. 𝟖
𝐖𝟒

PHASE 6: Descent

𝐖𝟔
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗
𝐖𝟓

where W5 - Start Weight


W6 - End Weight

PHASE 7: Loiter

1 L W
ELOITER = ( ) ( ) ln ( 6 )
Cj
LOITER
D LOITER W7

Where,
Cj = 0.8 from Figure (7.3.2)
L
=9 from Figure (7.3.2)
D

95
1 W6
0.1 = ( ) (9) ln ( )
0.8 W7
W6
0.1 = 11.25 ln ( )
W7
𝐖𝟕
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗
𝐖𝟔

PHASE 8: Climb

𝐖𝟖
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟔
𝐖𝟕

where W7 - Start Weight


W8 - End Weight

PHASE 9: Cruise In

V L W4
𝐑 𝐂𝐑 = [ ] [ ] ln ( ) --- 2.
Cj D W5

Where,
Cj = 1.4 from Figure (7.3.2)
L
=7 from Figure (7.3.2)
D

Substituting in equation 2:
870 W8
218 = [ ] [7]ln ( )
1.4 W9

W8
ln ( ) = 0.05
W9

𝐖𝟗
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟓
𝐖𝟖

96
PHASE 10: Descent

𝐖𝟏𝟎
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗
𝐖𝟗

where W9 - Start Weight


W10 - End Weight

PHASE 10: Landing & shutdown

𝐖𝟏𝟏
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗5
𝐖𝟏𝟎

where W9 - Start Weight


W10 - End Weight

CALCULATION OF MISSION FUEL FRACTION (MFF):

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11
MFF = ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
W0 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10

MFF = 0.99 ∗ 0.95 ∗ 0.8 ∗ 0.99 ∗ 0.99 ∗ 0.99 ∗ 0.96 ∗ 0.96 ∗ 0.99 ∗ 0.9 ∗ 0.9

MFF = 0.652

WEIGHT CALCULATION:

WFUSED = (1 − MFF )WTO


= (1- 0.652) 62170
𝐖𝐅 𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐃 = 21635.16 lbs.
_______________________________
WF RES = 0.5% 𝑜𝑓 WFUSED

0.5
= ∗ 21635.16
100

𝐖𝐅 𝐑𝐄𝐒 = 𝟏𝟎𝟖. 𝟕𝟏𝟓𝟖 𝐥𝐛𝐬

97
WF EQU = 2 % of WTO
2
= ∗ 62170
100

𝐖𝐅 𝐄𝐐𝐔 = 𝟏𝟐𝟒𝟑. 𝟒 𝐥𝐛𝐬


_____________________________

WTFO = 0.5 % of WTO


0.5
= 100 ∗ 62170
𝐖𝐓𝐅𝐎 = 𝟑𝟏𝟎. 𝟖𝟓 𝐥𝐛𝐬
_____________________________

𝑊𝐹 = WFUSED + WF RES

= 21635.16 + 108.7158

𝐖𝐅 = 𝟐𝟏𝟕𝟒𝟑. 𝟑𝟑 𝐥𝐛𝐬
_____________________________

WOE tent = WTO − WF − WPL

= 62170 - 21743.33 - 6614

𝐖𝐎𝐄 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 = 𝟑𝟑𝟖𝟏𝟐. 𝟔𝟕 𝐥𝐛𝐬


__________________________

−1 (log WTO −A)


WE = log10 [ ] A = 0.5091, B = 0.9505
B

−1 (
= log10 4.5076) from Figure 7.3.3

𝐖𝐄 = 𝟑𝟐𝟏𝟖𝟐 𝐥𝐛𝐬

98
𝐖𝐄 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 = 𝐖𝐎𝐄 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 − 𝐖𝐓𝐅𝐎 − 𝐖𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐖 − 𝐖𝐅𝐄𝐐

= 33812.67 – 311 – 200 – 1243.4

𝐖𝐄 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 = 𝟑𝟐𝟎𝟓𝟖. 𝟐𝟕 𝐥𝐛𝐬


__________________________

𝐖𝐄 − 𝐖𝐄 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭
Error % = * 100
𝐖𝐄

123.73
= ∗ 100
32182

𝐄𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟖 %
________________________

Result:

WTO = 62170 lbs

WF = 21743 .33 lbs

WE = 32058.27 lbs

99
CHAPTER 8
POWERPLANT SELECTION

8.1 INTRODUCTION
An aeroplane, an object which is Airborne. It is the multidisciplinary area
where Aerodynamics, Structures, Propulsion, control & stability place a major
role in the formation of an aircraft. Unlike automobile engines, these engines are
Air-breathing engines which use atmospheric air as the medium for airborne.
There is a different kind of engines equipped with an aircraft,
• TYPES OF ENGINES
➢ Piston engine ➢ Turbofan
➢ Turboprop ➢ Turbojet
➢ Ramjet ➢ Scramjet

8.2 SELECTION OF ENGINE


Choice of the engine is a Turbofan for obvious reasons such as higher
operating fuel economy & efficiency for high payloads.
Engines can be used in combination of 2 or 3 engines. A list of engines
with weight and thrust matching our requirements are chosen and are tabulated
below

Engine Name Dry weight Max Thrust T/W ratio Bypass Ratio
(kg) (kN)
Pratt & Whitney pw1120 1292 61.18 7.23:1 0.36:1

Pratt & Whitney F100-220 1467 64.9 7.4:1 0.63:1

Euro jet EJ200 990 60 6.11:1 0.4:1

SnecmaM53-P2 1515 64 6.5 0.36:1

GE F414-400 1100 57.8 9:1 0.37:1

Table 8.2 Engine parameters

The preferable choice of engine, from the above, would be Pratt &
Whitney F100-220 engine which meets our demand of weight and power. This
type of engines is used in F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

8.3 DETAILS ABOUT THE ENGINE:


The Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-220 is an afterburning turbofan engine
manufactured by Pratt & Whitney which powers the F-15 Eagle and F-16
Fighting Falcon.

100
Figure 8.3 Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-220

The F100-PW-220U’s high-pressure-ratio compression system provides the


thrust required to conduct the demanding UCAS program. The engine is designed
to satisfy the aggressive packaging and integration needs that a highly embedded
propulsion system and survivable air vehicle require, delivering an exceptional
balance of performance, safety and reliability.

The proven -220U components and processes are common to today’s F100-PW-
229 and F119/F135 family of engine technologies that allow low-risk spiral
development for operational flexibility, increased fleet commonality, and reduced
life-cycle costs.
• Dependable, proven single-engine safety
• Excellent reliability
• Worldwide basing supportability.

8.4 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

• Type Afterburning turbofan


• Length 490 cm
• Dry weight 1,467 kg
• Compressor Dual Spool Axial compressor
• Bypass ratio 0.63:1
• Combustors Annular
• Maximum thrust 64.9 kN - military thrust.
• Thrust-to-weight ratio 7.4:1
8.5 CONCLUSION:
Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 is selected and it gives 64.9 KN of thrust with
two afterburning turbofan engines equipped.

101
CHAPTER 9
WING, AEROFOIL & TAIL SELECTION
9.1 WING SELECTION
9.1.1 INTRODUCTION:

After the final weight estimation of the aircraft, the primary component of
the aircraft to be designed is the wing. The wing weight and its lifting capabilities
are in general, a function of the thickness of the aerofoil section that is used in
the wing structure. The first step towards designing the wing is the thickness
estimation. The thickness of the wing, in turn, depends on the critical Mach
number of the aerofoil or rather, the drag divergence Mach number corresponding
to the wing section.

9.1.2 TYPES OF WING:


Wings are differentiated from there wing configuration by the following
➢ Swept back wing
➢ Delta wing
➢ Tapered wing
➢ Based on the aspect ratio
➢ Based upon position

Figure 9.1.2 Wing types

102
9.1.3 THE POSITION OF WING:

The location of the wing in the fuselage (along with the vertical axis) is
very important. Each configuration (Low, High and mid) has its own advantages
but in this design, the Low-wing offers significant advantages such as

• Uninterrupted Passenger’s cabin.



• Placement of Landing gear in the wing structure itself.

• Location of the engine on a low-wing makes Engine-overhaul easier.
• Permits usage of the Wing carries through the box which alone can admit
the amount of fuel that we require to carry.

• Landing gear usually becomes high in such wing configurations and
therefore, provides greater ground clearance and reduces the amount of
fuselage upsweep that is to be provided.

• Low wing affects the flow over the horizontal tail to a minimum extent.

• The low-wing requires that some amount of dihedral angle is provided for
lateral stability. As of now, the dihedral angle is assumed to be 5 degrees,
but it may be subject to change in the stability analysis.

9.1.4 WING GEOMETRY DESIGN

• The geometry of the wing is a function of four parameters, namely the


Wing loading (W/S), Aspect Ratio (b2/S), Taper ratio (λ) and the
Sweepback angle at quarter chord (Λqc).

• The Take-off Weight that was estimated in the previous analysis is used to
find the Wing Area S (from W/S). The value of S also enables us to
calculate the Wingspan b (using the Aspect ratio). The root chord can now
be found using the equation.

𝟐∗𝐒
𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭 =
𝐛∗(𝟏+𝛌)
The tip chord is given by,

𝐂𝐭𝐢𝐩 = 𝛌 ∗ 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭

103
➢ Wing planform

Figure 9.1.4 wing planform


the shape of the wing as viewed from directly above - deals with airflow in three
dimensions and is very important to understanding wing performance and
aeroplane flight characteristics. Aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweepback are
factors in planform design that are very important to the overall aerodynamic
characteristic of a wing

➢ Wing setting angle

The wing has to be set at an angle to the fuselage centre line such that
during the cruise, the fuselage is in a level condition (parallel to the direction of
the velocity vector). This requires that the wing setting angle corresponds to the
angle which will produce the desired CL for the cruise. The CL that will be
obtainable from an aerofoil section (for a given angle of attack) is given by:

𝐶𝐿 = 0.9 ∗ 𝐶𝑙 ∗ cos Λ

2∗𝑊
𝐶𝑙 =
ρ ∗ 𝑣2 ∗ 𝑆

104
9.1.5 WING DESIGN CALCULATION

Chord root:
2∗S
Croot =
b ∗ (1 + λ)
2 ∗ 61.73
Croot = = 𝟕. 𝟓𝟖 𝒎
13.03 ∗ (1 + 0.25)

Chord Tip:
CTip = λ ∗ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 = 0.25 ∗ 7.58 = 𝟏. 𝟖𝟗𝟓 𝒎

Mean Chord:
2 ( 1 + λ + λ2 )
Cmean = ∗ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 ∗ = 𝟓. 𝟑𝟎𝟔 𝒎
3 ( 1 + λ)

Section Lift Coefficient:


2∗𝑊
𝐶𝑙 =
ρ ∗ 𝑣2 ∗ 𝑆

𝑉 = 0.25 ∗ 𝑉𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 = 𝟑𝟓𝟎 𝒎⁄𝒔

2 ∗ 392 ∗ 9.81
𝐶𝑙 = = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒
0.141288 ∗ (350)2
Wing Lift Coefficient:
𝐶𝐿 = 0.9 ∗ 𝐶𝑙 ∗ cos Λ = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟎𝟔𝟒

S.no Design Characteristics Values


1 Wing loading (kg/m2) 392
2 Wing Area S (m2) 61.73
3 Aspect Ratio 4.59
4 Span b (m) 16.85
5 Taper ratio (λ) 0.25
6 Root Chord (m) 7.58
7 Tip chord (m) 1.895
8 Mean chord (m) 5.306
9 Sweep back angle ( Λ) 400
Table 9.1.5 Wing Design Characteristics

105
9.2 AIRFOIL SELECTION
9.2.1 AIRFOIL NOMENCLATURE:

The aerofoil is the main aspect and is the heart of the aeroplane. The
aerofoil affects the cruise speed, landing distance and take off distance, stall speed
and handling qualities and aerodynamic efficiency during all phases of flight.

Aerofoil Selection is based on the factors of Geometry & definitions,


design/selection, families/types, design lift coefficient, thickness/chord ratio, lift
curve slope, characteristic curves.

The following are the aerofoil


geometry and definition:

Chord line: It is the straight


line connecting leading edge
(LE) and trailing edge (TE).

Chord (c): It is the length of


chord line.

Figure 9 .2 Aerofoil

Thickness (t): measured perpendicular to chord line as a % of it (subsonic


typically 12%).

Camber (d): It is the curvature of the section, perpendicular distance of section


mid-points from chord line as a % of it (sub sonically typically 3%).

The angle of attack (α): It is the angular difference between the chord line and
airflow direction.

The following are aerofoil categories:

1. Early it was based on trial & error.


2. NACA 4 digit is introduced during 1930’s.
3. NACA 5-digit is aimed at pushing position of max camber forwards for
increased CLmax.
4. NACA 6-digit is designed for lower drag by increasing region of laminar
flow.
5. Modern it is mainly based on the need for improved aerodynamic
characteristics at speeds just below the speed of sound.

106
Table 9.2.1 Aerofoil having t/c ratio of 0.09

Name Thickness Camber Lift coeff. Lift to Stall angle TE Angle LE Radius
(%) (%) (CL) drag (L/D) (deg) (deg) (%)
NACA-0009 9.0 0.0 0.72 48.022 5.5 14.2 2.1

NACA 16009 9.0 0.0 0.537 23.318 3.0 26.4 1.6

YS-900 9.0 0.0 0.311 11.573 5.5 19.8 1.5

EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009 9.0 0.0 0.869 36.518 4.5 `4.8 2.3

HQ109 1.0/9 9.0 1.0 0.787 46.3 5.5 6.7 1.9

HQ 2.5/9 B 9.0 2.5 1.122 71.4 6.0 6.6 2.0

EH1090 1.0/9.0 9.0 1.0 0.709 41.3 5.5 7.2 2.2

GOE 117 9.0 4.6 1.175 69.5 4.0 11.3 2.1

SD2083 9.0 2.8 1.071 56.9 7.5 8.1 1.9

S9032 9.0 0.0 0.771 43.201 6.5 7.5 2.2

107
NACA 4 Digit

– 1st digit: maximum camber (as % of chord).

– 2nd digit (x10): location of maximum camber (as % of chord from


leading edge (LE)).

– 3rd & 4th digits: maximum section thickness (as % of chord).

NACA 5 Digit

– 1st digit (x0.15): design lift coefficient.

– 2nd & 3rd digits (x0.5): location of maximum camber (as % of chord
from LE).
– 4th & 5th digits: maximum section thickness (as % of chord).

NACA 6 Digit

– 1st digit: identifies the series type.

– 2nd digit (x10): location of minimum pressure (as % of chord from


leading edge (LE)).

– 3rd digit: indicates an acceptable range of CL above/below design


value for satisfactory low drag performance (as tenths of CL).

– 4th digit (x0.1): design CL.

– 5th & 6th digits: maximum section thickness (%c)


𝑻
= 𝟗%
𝑪
From the above list of aerofoils, the one chosen is the EPPLER EA 6(-
1)-009 which have the suitable lift coefficient for the current design.

In order to obtain better span-wise distribution of lift and to have better


stalling characteristics (the root should stall before the tip so that the pilot may
realize and avoid a stall by sensing the vibrations on his control stick), it is
usually necessary to provide a lower t/c to the tip section and a higher t/c to the
root section.

108
Hence,
Section used at the mean aerodynamic chord - EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009
The section used at the tip - NACA-0009
The section used at the root - HQ 2.5/9 B

CHORD AIRFOIL CLmax


ROOT HQ 2.5/9 B 1.122

MEAN EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009 0.869

TIP NACA-0009 0.72

Table 9.2.1.1 aerofoil selection for root, tip and mean chord

0.72 + 0.869 + 1.122


CLmax = = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟎𝟑𝟔𝟔
3

CLmax = 0.9 ∗ CLmax = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟏𝟑𝟑


Available

109
9.2.2 AEROFOIL GEOMETRY SELECTION

HQ 2.5/9 B

Fig 9.2.2 HQ 2.5/9 B

EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009

Fig 9.2.2 EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009

NACA-0009

Fig 9.2.2 NACA-0009

110
9.2.2.1 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil EPPLER EA 6(-1)-009

9.2.2.2 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil HQ 2.5/9 B

111
9.2.2.3 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA-0009

9.2.3 HIGH LIFTING DEVICES:

In aircraft design and aerospace engineering, a high-lift device is a


component or mechanism on an aircraft's wing that increases the amount
of lift produced by the wing. The device may be a fixed component or a movable
mechanism which is deployed when required. Common movable high-lift devices
include wing flaps and slats. Fixed devices include leading-edge root extensions
and boundary layer control systems, which are less commonly used.
Types of devices:

• Flaps
• Slots & Slats
• Boundary layer control and blown flaps
• Leading edge root extension.

112
For the current design, the double slotted flap is selected. ∆ of the double
slotted flap for different configurations is given in the table below:

FLAPS TAKEOFF LANDING


Double slotted flap 20o 40o
∆ 𝐂𝐋𝐦𝐚𝐱 1.825 2.5
𝐜𝐨𝐬 ∆
∆ 𝐂𝐋𝐦𝐚𝐱 1.5 2.05
Table 9.2.3 Flap Selection

CALCULATIONS:

CLmax (takeoff) = 0.8133 + 1.5 = 𝟐. 𝟑𝟏𝟑𝟑


Required

CLmax (landing) = 0.8133 + 2.05 = 𝟐. 𝟖𝟔𝟑𝟑


Required

Figure 9.2.3 types of flaps

113
9.3 TAIL SELECTION
Introduction:
The tail of an aeroplane is called by various names, such as “empennage”
and “stabilizer.” The preferred term is “stabilizer,” because it is at least partially
descriptive of the component’s function. However, the stabilizer provides not
only stability but also some of the aeroplane’s control. The tail of an aeroplane is
designed to provide both stability and control of the aeroplane in pitch and
yaw. There are many different forms an aircraft tail can take in meeting these dual
requirements of stability and control. Most tail designs have a horizontal wing-
like structure and one or more vertical or near-vertical structures. Whenever
practical, these structures are identified as the horizontal and vertical stabilizers,
although some designs do not conveniently fit such a description.
The many types of aeroplane tail design include, but are by no means limited to,
the conventional, T-tail, cruciform-tail, dual-tail, triple-tail, V-tail, inverted V-
tail, inverted Y-tail, twin-tail, boom-tail, high boom-tail, and multiple-plane tail
designs.

Conventional Tail Design

The conventional tail design is the most common form. It has one vertical
stabilizer placed at the tapered tail section of the fuselage and one horizontal
stabilizer divided into two parts, one on each side of the vertical stabilizer. For
many aeroplanes, the conventional arrangement provides adequate stability and
control with the lowest structural weight. About three-quarters of the aeroplanes
in operation today, including the Airbus A300, the Boeing 777 and 747, and the
Beech Bonanza A-36, use this arrangement.

T-Tail Design

In the T-tail design, a common variation of the conventional tail, the


horizontal stabilizer is positioned at the top of the vertical stabilizer. The
horizontal stabilizer is then above the propeller flow, or prop wash, and the wing
wake. Because the horizontal stabilizer is more efficient, it can, therefore, be
made both smaller and lighter. The placement of the horizontal stabilizer on top
of the vertical stabilizer can also make the vertical stabilizer more
aerodynamically efficient. By making the vertical stabilizer more effective, its
size may be reduced. However, the horizontal stabilizer in the T-tail layout
imposes a bending and twisting load on the vertical stabilizer, requiring a

114
stronger, and therefore, a heavier, structure. These loads are avoided in the
conventional design. There is also the possibility that at the high pitch angle
usually associated with landing the aeroplane, the horizontal stabilizer of the T-
tail will be immersed in the slower and more turbulent flow of the wing wake.

Dual-Tail Design

The dual-Tail design, in which the two vertical stabilizers are placed at the
ends of the horizontal stabilizers, was at one time fairly common on large flying
boats and twin-engine propeller-driven bombers such as the North American-25.
In some cases, this arrangement is attractive, because it places the vertical
stabilizers in the prop wash of wing-mounted propellers. The result is the
maintenance of good directional control during low-speed operations. The
positioning of the two vertical stabilizers at the ends of the horizontal stabilizers
allows for a smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamically efficient horizontal
stabilizer. However, the overall weight of a plane with a dual-tail design is greater
than that of a plane with the single conventional-tail design. The dual tail is part
of the design of the Republic Fairchild A-10 ground-attack aeroplane, in which
the plane’s two jet engines are mounted to the rear of the fuselage. When this
aeroplane is viewed from the rear and slightly to either side, the engine exhausts,
blocked by the vertical stabilizer, are not easily visible.

Triple-Tail Design
The triple-tail design, with two vertical stabilizers placed at the ends of the
horizontal stabilizers and one mounted on the fuselage, is attractive when the
height of the vertical stabilizer must meet certain restrictions, such as hangar-door
height. Certainly, this was the important consideration in the design of the
Lockheed Constellation, one of the most significant passenger aeroplanes of the
late 1940′s. Another well-known example of the triple-tail design is the Grumman
E-2 Hawkeye.

V-Tail Design

The V-Tail, sometimes called the “butterfly” tail, has had limited
application in aeroplane design, the most significant of which has been by the
Beech Company in the Beech-craft Bonanza V-35. Clearly, the usual definition
of horizontal and vertical stabilizers has no application to the V tail. The intended
advantage of the V-tail design is that two surfaces might serve the same function

115
as the three required in the conventional tail and its variants. Removal of one
surface then would reduce the drag of the tail surfaces as well as the weight of
the tail region. However, wind tunnel studies by the National Advisory
Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) have shown that for the V tail to achieve the
same degree of stability as a conventional tail, the area of the V tail would have
to be about the same size as that of the conventional tail.

Figure 9.3.1 types of tail

Inverted Y-Tail Design

The inverted Y tail is actually a conventional tail with a noticeable droop to the
horizontal stabilizers. In other words, the outer ends of the horizontal stabilizers
are lower than the ends attached to the fuselage. The F-4 Phantom, originally a
mainstay of the McDonnell Company, used the inverted Y tail to keep the
horizontal surfaces out of the wing wake at high angles of attack. It is interesting

116
to note that the tips of the horizontal stabilizers on the first McDonnell Navy
fighter, the F-2H Banshee, were bent decidedly upward.

Twin-Tail Design

The twin tail is a feature of various air superiority fighters used by both the U.S.
Navy (the F-14 Tomcat) and the U.S Marine Corps (the F/A-18 Hornet).
Although both the F-14 and F/A-18 designs have a superficial resemblance, they
also have important differences. The tilt angle of the vertical stabilizer of the F-
14 is more pronounced than that of the F-18, so much so that it approaches that
of the V tail on the Beech Model V-35 Bonanza. With two vertical stabilizers, the
twin tail is more effective than the conventional single tail of the same height.

Boom-Tail Design
Boom tails are used when an aircraft’s fuselage does not extend entirely back to
the horizontal stabilizer. In both the Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter of World
War II and the Fairchild C-119 cargo plane, engines were mounted on the booms.
In the case of the C-119, the twin boom allowed easy access to the rear of the
fuselage for loading and removing cargo. The twin boom has also been used for
an aeroplane with engines mounted in the fuselage, with one engine, known as
the tractor, in the nose of the aeroplane and one engine, known as the pusher, in
the rear of the aeroplane. Because the thrust of both engines is along the centreline
of the aeroplane, it is much easier in this arrangement to compensate for the loss
of one engine than it is in the wing-mounted engine installation. Both the Cessna
Sky master and the new Adam 309 have fuselage-mounted engines. In the case
of the Adam 309, the horizontal stabilizer is raised to avoid propeller wake from
the pusher, or rear-mounted, engine.

CONCLUSION:

The aerofoil which I have selected for root, mean, tip chords are all with
9% thickness to chord ratio. The Double slotted flaps taken for high lifting device,
will provide manoeuvrability for the fighter.
In my Design Project fighters are equipped with Twin Tail Design. As
mentioned above the twin tail design will give better stability performance to the
aircraft.

117
CHAPTER 10
FUSELAGE AND LANDING GEAR SELECTION
10.1 FUSELAGE SELECTION

The fuselage is the main structure, or body, of the aircraft. It provides space
for personnel, cargo, controls, and most of the accessories. The power plant,
wings, stabilizers, and landing gear are attached to it.

Figure 10.1.1 Principal structural units on F-14 aircraft


There are two general types of fuselage construction—welded steel truss
and monocoque designs. The welded steel truss was used in smaller Navy aircraft,
and it is still being used in some helicopters.

The monocoque design relies largely on the strength of the skin, or


covering, to carry various loads. The monocoque design may be divided into three
classes—monocoque, semi-monocoque, and reinforced shell.

➢ The true monocoque construction uses formers, frame assemblies, and


bulkheads to give shape to the fuselage. However, the skin carries the primary
stresses. Since no bracing members are present, the skin must be strong enough
to keep the fuselage rigid.

118
➢ Semi-monocoque design overcomes the strength-to-weight problem of
monocoque construction. In addition to having formers, frame assemblies, and
bulkheads, the semi-monocoque construction has the skin reinforced by
longitudinal members.

➢ The reinforced shell has the skin reinforced by a complete framework of


structural members. Different portions of the same fuselage may belong to any
one of the three classes. Most are considered to be of semi monocoque-type
construction.

The semi-monocoque fuselage is constructed primarily of aluminium


alloy, although steel and titanium are found in high-temperature areas. Primary
bending loads are taken by the longerons, which usually extend across several
points of support. The longerons are supplemented by other longitudinal members
known as stringers. Stringers are more numerous and lightweight than longerons.

The vertical structural members are referred to as bulkheads, frames, and


formers. The heavier vertical members are located at intervals to allow for
concentrated loads. These members are also found at points where fittings are
used to attach other units, such as the wings and stabilizers.

The stringers are smaller and lighter than longerons and serve as fill-ins.
They have some rigidity but are chiefly used for giving shape and for attachment
of skin. The strong, heavy longerons hold the bulkheads and formers. The
bulkheads and formers hold the stringers. All of these joins together to form a
rigid fuselage framework. Stringers and longerons prevent tension and
compression stresses from bending the fuselage.

There are a number of advantages in using the semi-monocoque fuselage.


➢ The bulkhead, frames, stringers, and longerons aid in the design and
construction of a streamlined fuselage. They add to the strength and rigidity of
the structure.

➢ The main advantage of the semi-monocoque construction is that it depends


on many structural members for strength and rigidity. Because of its stressed skin
construction, a semi-monocoque fuselage can withstand damage and still be
strong enough to hold together.

119
Figure 10.1.2 Semi monocoque fuselage construction
Points on the fuselage are located by station numbers. Station 0 is usually located
at or near the nose of the aircraft. The other stations are located at measured
distances (in inches) aft of station 0. A typical station diagram is shown. On this
particular aircraft, fuselage station (FS) 0 is located 93.0 inches forward of the
nose.

Figure 10.1.3 fuselage station diagram for F-14 aircraft

120
10.2 LANDING GEAR

In aviation, the undercarriage or landing gear is the structure (usually


wheels) that supports an aircraft and allows it to move across the surface of the
earth when it is not in flying. So, more importance is to be given as it carries the
entire load on the ground.

Figure 10.2.1 F-22 Raptor landing gear


OVERVIEW

The design and positioning of the landing gear are determined by the
unique characteristics associated with each aircraft, i.e., geometry, weight, and
mission requirements. Given the weight and CG range of the aircraft, suitable
configurations are identified and reviewed to determine how well they match the
airframe structure, flotation, and operational requirements.

The essential features, e.g., the number and size of tires and wheels, brakes,
and shock absorption mechanism, must be selected in accordance with industry
and federal standards discussed in the following chapters before an aircraft design
progresses past the concept formulation phase, after which it is often very
difficult and expensive to change the design.

121
The purpose of Landing Gears is to move the aircraft on the ground. After
take-off, the landing gear is retracted, before landing it is extended and locked
into position.

Liebherr provides a system architecture for gear actuation control, steering


control, wheel and brake integration and position and status control, as well as
system integration, series production and of course product support.

Figure 10.2.2 landing gear sketch of a fighter

122
Liebherr acquired knowledge and experience based on the realization of
different landing gear programs. The integration of various technologies and use
of new material for individual landing gear concepts lead to competitive products:

 • Landing Gear Systems


 • Nose Landing Gear Subsystem
 • Main Landing Gear Subsystem
• Brake and Brake Control Subsystem
• Research and Development Technology

Landing Gear Arrangements

Landing Gear Arrangement Three basic arrangements of the landing gear are
used:
➢ tail wheel type landing gear (also known as conventional gear)
➢ tandem landing gear
➢ tricycle-type landing gear.

Tail Wheel-Type Landing Gear:

Tail wheel-type landing gear is also known as conventional gear because


many early aircraft use this type of arrangement. The main gear is located forward
of the centre of gravity, causing the tail to require support from a third wheel
assembly. A few early aircraft designs use a skid rather than a tail wheel. This
helps slow the aircraft upon landing and provides directional stability. The
resulting angle of the aircraft fuselage, when fitted with conventional gear, allows
the use of a long propeller that compensates for older, underpowered engine
design. The increased clearance of the forward fuselage offered by tail wheel-
type landing gear is also advantageous when operating in and out of non-paved
runways. Today, aircraft are manufactured with conventional gear for this reason
and for the weight savings accompanying the relatively light tail wheel assembly.

Tandem Landing Gear:

Few aircraft are designed with tandem landing gear. As the name implies,
this type of landing gear has the main gear and tail gear aligned on the
longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Sailplanes commonly use tandem gear, although
many only have one actual gear forward on the fuselage with a skid under the tail.
A few military bombers, such as the B-47 and the B-52, have tandem gear, as

123
does the U2 spy plane. The VTOL Harrier has tandem gear but uses small
outrigger gear under the wings for support. Generally, placing the gear only under
the fuselage facilitates the use of very flexible wings.

Tricycle-Type Landing Gear:


The most commonly used landing gear arrangement is the tricycle-type
landing gear. It is comprised of the main gear and nose gear.

Tricycle-type landing gear is used on large and small aircraft with the following
benefits:
➢ Allows more forceful application of the brakes without nosing over when
braking, which enables higher landing speeds.
➢ Provides better visibility from the flight deck, especially during landing
and ground manoeuvring.
➢ 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
tailwheel-type landing gear.

Steering:
The steering mechanism used on the ground with wheeled landing gear
varies by aircraft, but there are several types of steering.
 • RUDDER STEERING
 • DIRECT STEERING
• TILLER STEERING
Configuration Selection:
The nose wheel tricycle undercarriage has long been the preferred
configuration for passenger transports. It leads to a nearly level fuselage and
consequently the cabin floor when the aircraft is on the ground. The most
attractive feature of this type of undercarriages is the improved stability during
braking and ground manoeuvres. Under normal landing attitude, the relative
location of the main assembly to the aircraft CG produces a nose-down pitching
moment upon touchdown.

124
Figure 10.2.3 Landing gear schematic diagram

This moment helps to reduce the angle of attack of the aircraft and thus the
lift generated by the wing. In addition, the braking forces, which act behind the
aircraft CG, have a stabilizing effect and thus enable the pilot to make full use of
the brakes. These factors all contribute to a shorter landing field length
requirement.
The primary drawback of the nose wheel tricycle configuration is the
restriction placed upon the location where the main landing gear can be attached.

125
With the steady increase in the aircraft Takeoff weight, the number of main
assembly struts has grown from two to four to accommodate the number of tires
required to distribute the weight over a greater area.

Landing Gear Disposition:


The positioning of the landing gear is based primarily on stability
considerations during taxiing, lift-off and touchdown, i.e., the aircraft should be
in no danger of turning over on its side once it is on the ground.

Compliance with this requirement can be determined by examining the


Takeoff/landing performance characteristics and the relationships between the
locations of the landing gear and the aircraft CG.

Stability at Touchdown and During Taxiing


Static stability of an aircraft at touchdown and during taxiing can be
determined by examining the location of the applied forces and the triangle
formed by connecting the attachment locations of the nose and main assemblies.
Whenever the resultant of air and mass forces intersects the ground at a
point outside this triangle, the ground will not be able to exert a reaction force
which prevents the aircraft from falling over. As a result, the aircraft will can’t
over about the side of the triangle that is closest to the resultant force/ground
intersect.

Braking and Steering Qualities


The nose assembly is located as far forward as possible to maximize the
flotation and stability characteristics of the aircraft. However, a proper balance in
terms of load distribution between the nose and main assembly must be
maintained.

When the load on the nose wheel is less than about eight percent of the
maximum Takeoff weight (MTOW), controllability on the ground will become
marginal, particularly in cross-wind 21 conditions. This value also allows for
fuselage length increase with aircraft growth.

Conclusion:

Semi-monocoque and Tri-cycle type landing gear has been selected for my
fighter aircraft.

126
CHAPTER 11
LIFT AND DRAG ESTIMATION

11.1 LIFT ESTIMATION

LIFT:
Component of aerodynamic force generated on aircraft perpendicular
to the flight direction.

Figure 11.1.1 lift representation

Lift Coefficient (CL)

• Amount of lift generated depends on:


– Planform area (S), air density (𝜌), flight speed (V), lift coefficient (CL)
𝟏
Lift = 𝝆𝑽𝟐 𝒔𝑪𝒍 = 𝒒𝑺𝑪𝒍
𝟐
• CL is a measure of lifting effectiveness and mainly depends upon:
– Section shape, planform geometry, the angle of attack (𝛼),
compressibility effects
(Mach number), viscous effects (Reynolds’ number).

Generation of Lift
• Aerodynamic force arises from two natural sources:
– Variable pressure distribution.
– Shear stress distribution.
• Shear stress primarily contributes to overall drag force on aircraft.

127
• Lift mainly due to pressure distribution, especially on main lifting
surfaces, i.e. wing.
• Require (relatively) low pressure on upper surface and higher pressure on
the lower surface.
• Any shape can be made to produce lift if either cambered or inclined to
flow direction.
• Classical aerofoil section is optimum for high subsonic lift/drag ratio.

Figure 11.1.2 Lift distribution


Pressure variations with the angle of attack

➢ Negative (nose-down) pitching moment at zero-lift (negative ).


➢ Positive lift at  = 0o.
➢ Highest pressure at LE stagnation point, lowest pressure at crest on upper
surface.
➢ Peak suction pressure on upper surface strengthens and moves forwards
with increasing .
➢ Most lift from near LE on the upper surface due to suction.

128
Figure 11.1.3 lift corresponding to the angle of attack

Figure 11.1.4 Lift Curves of Cambered and Symmetrical aerofoils

CALCULATIONS:
1
Lift = 𝜌𝑉 2 𝑠𝐶𝑙 = 𝑞𝑆𝐶𝑙 -- (1)
2

V = 0.25 ∗ 𝑉𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 = 0.25 ∗ 1400 = 𝟑𝟓𝟎

129
𝐶𝑙 = 0.444

𝑆 = 61.73 𝑚2

𝑏 = 16.85 𝑚

Substitute in --- (1)

𝟏
𝑳𝑪𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆 = ∗ 𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟏𝟐𝟖𝟖 ∗ 𝟑𝟓𝟎 ∗ 𝟔𝟏. 𝟕𝟑 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒 = 𝟐𝟑𝟕𝟏𝟖𝟔. 𝟖 𝑵
𝟐

2 𝑊 1
𝑉𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 = √ ∗ ∗ = 𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟗 𝒎⁄𝒔
𝜌∞ 𝑆 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥

Lift During Take-off:

ρ = 1.2256 kg⁄m3

V = 0.7 ∗ 𝑉𝐿𝑂 = 0.7 ∗ (1.2 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) = 𝟗𝟑. 𝟗 𝒎⁄𝒔

𝐶𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 = 2.3133

𝟏
𝑳𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒐𝒇𝒇 = ∗ 𝟏. 𝟐𝟐𝟓 ∗ 𝟗𝟑. 𝟗𝟐 ∗ 𝟔𝟏. 𝟕𝟑 ∗ 𝟐. 𝟑𝟏𝟑𝟑 = 𝟕𝟕𝟏𝟏𝟗𝟕. 𝟑 𝑵
𝟐

Lift During Landing:

ρ = 1.2256 kg⁄m3

V = 0.7 ∗ 𝑉𝑇𝑂 = 0.7 ∗ (1.3 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) = 101.73 𝒎⁄𝒔

𝐶𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 2.8633

𝟏
𝑳𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 = ∗ 𝟏. 𝟐𝟐𝟓 ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟏. 𝟕𝟑𝟐 ∗ 𝟔𝟏. 𝟕𝟑 ∗ 𝟐. 𝟖𝟔𝟑𝟑 = 𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟎𝟑𝟔𝟎. 𝟖 𝑵
𝟐

130
11.2 DRAG ESTIMATION

DRAG:

• Drag is the resolved component of the complete aerodynamic force


 which is parallel to the flight direction (or relative oncoming airflow).
• It always acts to oppose the direction of motion.

• It is the undesirable component of the aerodynamic force while the lift is the
desired component.

Drag Coefficient (CD)

• Amount of drag generated depends on:


1. Planform area (S), air density (), flight speed (V), drag coefficient
(CD)
2. CD is a measure of aerodynamic efficiency and mainly depends upon:
i. Section shape, planform geometry, the angle of attack (),
compressibility effects
(Mach number), viscous effects (Reynolds’ number).

Drag Components

• Skin Friction:
1. Due to shear stresses produced in the boundary layer.
2. Significantly more for turbulent than laminar types of boundary
layers.

Figure 11.2.1 skin friction drags

131
• Form (Pressure) Drag

1. Due to static pressure distribution around the body -


component resolved in direction of motion.

2. Sometimes considered separately as forebody and rear (base)


drag components.

Figure 11.2.2 form drag

 Wave Drag
1. Due to the presence of shock waves at transonic and supersonic
speeds.
2. The result of both direct shock losses and the influence of shock
waves on the boundary layer.

Figure 11.2.3 wave drag

132
Figure 11.2.4 Typical streamlining effect

Figure 11.2.5 Lift-induced (or) trailing vortex drag

133
CALCULATION:

1 ∅(𝐶𝑙 )2
Drag = 𝜌𝑉 2 𝑆 (𝐶𝐷𝑂 + ) --(1)
2 𝜋𝐴𝑒

16ℎ 2
( )
𝑏
∅= 16ℎ 2
= 𝟎. 𝟗𝟒𝟒𝟒
1+( )
𝑏

Substitute in --(1)

1 2
0.9444(0.444)2
D = ∗ 0.141288 ∗ 350 ∗ 61.73 (0.0030 + ) = 𝟏𝟎𝟐𝟎𝟓. 𝟗𝟕 𝑵
2 3.14 ∗ 4.6 ∗ 0.8

Drag During Take-off:

ρ = 1.2256 kg⁄m3

V = 0.7 ∗ 𝑉𝐿𝑂 = 0.7 ∗ (1.2 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) = 𝟗𝟑. 𝟗 𝒎⁄𝒔

𝐶𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 = 2.3133

1 2
0.9444(2.313)2
𝑫𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒐𝒇𝒇 = ∗ 1.2256 ∗ 94 ∗ 61.73 (0.0030 + ) = 𝟏𝟒𝟕𝟏𝟓𝟑. 𝟑𝟐 𝑵
2 3.14 ∗ 4.6 ∗ 0.8

Drag During Landing:

ρ = 1.2256 kg⁄m3

V = 0.7 ∗ 𝑉𝑇𝑂 = 0.7 ∗ (1.3 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) = 101.73 𝒎⁄𝒔

𝐶𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 2.8633

1 2
0.9444(2.8633)2
𝑫 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 = ∗ 1.2256 ∗ 101.7 ∗ 61.73 (0.0030 + ) = 𝟐𝟔𝟑𝟒𝟗𝟏 𝑵
2 3.14 ∗ 4.6 ∗ 0.8

Result:

Lift (N) Drag (N)


Takeoff 771197.3 147153.32
Cruise 237186.8 10205.97
Landing 1120360.8 263491

134
CHAPTER 12
PERFORMANCE CALCULATION

12.1 Rate of climb and Rate of Sink:

Thrust Available:

𝑇𝐴 = 𝟔𝟖𝑲𝑵
Thrust required:

𝑃 𝑚 0.5196 1.14
𝑇𝑅 = 𝑇𝐴 ∗ ( ) = 68 ∗ ( ) = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟓𝟔 𝑲𝑵
𝜌∞ 1.2256

Power Available:

𝑃𝐴 = 𝑇𝐴 ∗ 𝑉∞ = 68 ∗ 350 = 𝟐𝟑, 𝟖𝟎𝟎 𝑲𝑾


Power Required:

𝑃𝑅 = 𝑇𝑅 ∗ 𝑉∞ = 25.56 ∗ 350 = 𝟖𝟗𝟒𝟔 𝑲𝑾


Rate of Climb:

𝑅⁄ = (𝑃𝐴 ∗1000)−(𝑃𝑅 ∗1000)


𝐶 𝑊𝑇𝑂 ∗9.81

𝑅⁄ = 𝑃𝐴 −𝑃𝑅 = 23800000−8946000 = 𝟓𝟑. 𝟕 𝒎⁄𝒔


𝐶 𝑊𝑇𝑂 276547.5

Rate of Sink:
1 3
𝑅⁄ = 2𝑊 2 𝐶 2
𝑆 ( ) ∗ ( 𝐷)
𝜌∞ 𝐶𝐿

𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷𝑂 + 𝐾 (𝐶𝐿 )2 = 0.003 + 0.142 ∗ (0.9036)2 = 0.119


1 3
𝑅⁄ = 2∗28200 2 0.119 2
𝑆 ( ) ∗ ( ) = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 𝑚⁄𝑠
1.2256 0.9036

135
12.2 TAKE-OFF PERFORMANCE:

Distance from rest to clearance of obstacle in flight path and usually considered
in two parts:

• Ground roll - rest to lift-off (SLO)


• Airborne distance - lift-off to specified height (35 ft FAR, 50 ft others).

The aircraft will accelerate up to lift-off speed (Vlo = about 1.2 x VStall) when it
will then be rotated.
A first-order approximation for ground roll take-off distance may be made from:

1.44𝑊 2
𝑆𝐿𝑂 =
𝑔 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ 𝑇

This shows its sensitivity to W (W2) and 𝜌 (1/ 𝜌2 since T also varies with 𝜌). Slo
may reduce by increasing T, S or Cl, max (high lift devices relate to latter two).

An improved approximation for ground roll take-off distance may be made by


including drag, rolling resistance and ground effect terms.

1.44𝑊 2
𝑆𝐿𝑂 =
𝑔 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ {𝑇 − [𝐷 + 𝜇𝑟 (𝑊 − 𝐿)]}𝑎𝑣

The bracketed term will vary with speed but an approximation may be made by
using an instantaneous value for when V = 0.7 x Vlo
In the above equation:

1 2
∅𝐶𝐿 2
𝐷 = ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ (𝐶𝐷,0 + )
2 𝜋∗𝐴∗𝑒

Where ∅ accounts for drag reduction when in ground effect:

16ℎ 2
( )
∅= 𝑏
16ℎ 2
1+ ( )
𝑏
Where h = height above ground, b = wingspan.
𝜇𝑟 = 0.02 for smooth paved surface, 0.1 for grass.

136
CALCULATION:

1 2
∅𝐶𝐿 2
𝐷 = ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ (𝐶𝐷,0 + ) = 147153.3 𝑁
2 𝜋∗𝐴∗𝑒
1.44(28200 ∗ 9.81)2
𝑆𝐿𝑂 =
9.81 ∗ 1.2256 ∗ 61.73 ∗ 2.3133{68000 − [147153.3 + 0.02((276642) − 771197.3)]}𝑎𝑣
= 𝟗𝟐𝟔. 𝟕𝟒 𝒎

12.3 LANDING PERFORMANCE:

APPROACH & LANDING

➢ Consists of three phases:


• Airborne approach at constant glide angle (around 30) and constant speed.

• Flare - transitional manoeuvre with airspeed reduced from about 1.3 VStall
down to touch-down speed.

• Ground roll - from touch-down to rest.

➢ Ground roll landing distance (s3 or s1) estimated from:

1.69𝑊 2
𝑆𝐿𝑂 =
𝑔 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ {𝐷 + 𝜇𝑟 (𝑊 − 𝐿)}𝑎𝑣

➢ Where Vav may be taken as 0.7 x touch-down speed (Vt or V2) and Vt is
assumed as 1.3 x Vstall
➢ 𝜇𝑟 is higher than for take-off since brakes are applied - use 𝜇𝑟 = 0.4 for the
paved surface.
➢ If thrust reversers (Tr) are applied, use:

1.69𝑊 2
𝑆𝐿𝑂 =
𝑔 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ {𝑇 + [𝐷 + 𝜇𝑟 (𝑊 − 𝐿)]}𝑎𝑣

CALCULATION:

1 2
∅𝐶𝐿 2
𝐷 = ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ (𝐶𝐷,0 + ) = 263491N
2 𝜋∗𝐴∗𝑒

137
1.69𝑊 2
𝑆𝐿𝑂 = = 𝟒𝟔𝟐 𝒎
𝑔 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑆 ∗ 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ {𝑇 + [𝐷 + 𝜇𝑟 (𝑊 − 𝐿)]}𝑎𝑣

12.4 CLIMB HODOGRAPH:


From the diagram, it is observed that in a climb, the vertical velocity is the rate
of climb VC and the horizontal velocity is VH. From the discussion in the diagram
it is observed that for a chosen altitude, the vertical velocity VC and the horizontal
velocity VH change with the flight speed V. A plot of the values of VC and VH at
a particular altitude, in which VC is plotted on y-axis and VH is plotted on the x-
axis is called ‘Climb hodograph’. The diagram shows a hodograph, based on the
sea level climb performance of a jet aeroplane.

Figure 12.4.1 Climb Hodograph

In a hodograph the line, joining the origin to a point on the curve, has the length
proportional to the flight velocity (V) and the angle this line makes to the
horizontal axis (VH- axis) is the angle of climb (γ). This becomes evident when it
is noted that VC and VH are the components of the flight velocity (V).

A line from the origin which is tangent to the hodograph gives the value of γmax
and also the velocity corresponding to the diagram. Actually, a climb hodograph
gives complete information about the climb performance at the chosen altitude
especially γmax, Vγmax, (R/C) γmax, (R/C) max, V(R/C) max, γ(R/C) max and Vmax

138
Calculation:
1
2
2 𝐾 𝑊
𝑉(𝑅⁄𝐶 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ( ∗ √ ∗ )
𝜌 3𝐶𝐷𝑂 𝑆

1
𝑉(𝑅⁄𝐶 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (1.6318 ∗ 6.87 ∗ 392)2 = 𝟓𝟎. 𝟑𝟗 𝒎⁄𝒔
1
2
2 𝐾 𝑊
𝑉𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ( ∗ √ ∗ ) ∗ 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜌 𝐶𝐷𝑂 𝑆

1
𝑉𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (1.6318 ∗ 6.87 ∗ 392)2 ∗ 0.96 = 66.29 ∗ 0.96 = 𝟔𝟑. 𝟔𝑶

𝑉∞ = 0.25 ∗ 1400 = 𝟑𝟓𝟎 𝒎⁄𝒔

Performance graph for Climbing Hodograph:

Graph 12.4.1 Climbing Hodograph

139
12.5 Glide hodograph

In the section 12.1, the climb hodograph was discussed. Similarly, a glide
hodograph is obtained when horizontal velocity Vh is plotted on the x-axis and
the rate of sink Vd is plotted on the y-axis. A typical diagram is shown. Such a
the diagram gives complete information about glide performance at an altitude
especially, γmin, Vγmin, (R/S) min, V(R/S) min, γ(R/S) min

Figure 12.5.1 Glide Hodograph

Calculation:

(𝑅⁄𝑆) = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟐𝟓
𝑚𝑖𝑛

2 𝑊 1
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = √ ∗ ∗
𝜌 𝑆 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥

2 1
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = √ ∗ 392 ∗ = 𝟐𝟔. 𝟔𝟎
1.2256 0.9036

2 𝑊 1
𝑉𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 = √ ∗ ∗ --(1)
𝜌 𝑆 𝐶𝐿𝜃
𝑚𝑖𝑛

140
1 1
𝐶𝐷𝑂 2 0.003 2
𝐶𝐿𝜃 =( ) = ( ) = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟓
𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐾 0.142

from (1)

2 28200 1
𝑉𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 = √ ∗ ∗ = 𝟕𝟏. 𝟕𝑶
1.2256 61.73 0.145

Performance graph for Gliding Hodograph:

Graph 12.5.1 Gliding Hodograph

141
CHAPTER 13
THREE VIEW DIAGRAMS

Figure 13.1 three-view diagram of Lockheed Martin F-35 lighting II

142
Figure 13.2 Isometric view of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II.

143
CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORK

CONCLUSION:

The preliminary design of a Multirole Fighter aircraft is done and the


various design considerations and performance parameters required are
calculated and found out. The obtained design values are not necessarily a definite
reflection of the aeroplane's true and conceptualized design, but the basic outlay
of development has been obtained.

The final design stays true to the desired considerations of a long-range


aircraft that can provide high fuel efficiency as well. There is no ideal design as
such and continuous changes, improvements and innovations serve to make the
design as ideal as possible, while always looking to achieve optimum
performance.

The design is a fine blend of science, creativity, the presence of mind and
the application of each one of them at the appropriate time. Design of anything
needs experience and an optimistic progress towards the ideal system. The
scientific society always looks for the best product design. This involves the
strong fundamentals of science and mathematics and their skilful applications,
which is a tough job endowed upon the designer.

We have enough hard work for this design project. A design never gets
completed in a fluttering sense but it is one step further towards the ideal system.
But during the design of this aircraft, we learnt a lot about aeronautics and its
implications when applied to an aircraft design.

The challenges we faced at various phases of the project made clear the
fact that experience plays a vital role in the successful design of any aircraft or
aircraft component. A lot of effort has been put into this project and as much as
we have worked, we have learnt in turn.

144
FUTURE WORK:

The above work will enhance the knowledge in continuation of the design given
in Aircraft Design project-I

In Design Project – II will be studied for the design with Gust and
manoeuvrability envelopes. Performance of Critical loading and the final
calculation of V-n graph. A theoretical approach to Study of structural design will
be undertaken. To estimate loads of wings, to estimate loads of fuselage.
Balancing and manoeuvring loads on the tailplane, Aileron and Rudder load are
started. Designing the structural layout of the aeroplane. Even some of the
components like wings, the fuselage is designed. Finally, detailed design report
will be prepared with sketches or drawings.

145
REFERENCE

• Ajay Kumar Kundu (2010) “Aircraft Design”, Cambridge University Press,


ISBN - 9780511844652

• Daniel P. Raymer (1992) “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach”


American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 2nd Edition
ISBN 0-930403-51-7

• Egbert Torenbeek (1982) “Synthesis of subsonic Airplane design”, Delft


University Press, 1st Edition ISBN - 9789024727247, 90-247-2724-3

• George P. Sutton (2001) “Rocket Propulsion Elements”, John Wiley &Sons,


7th Edition, ISBN- 9780471326427.

• Gerard Frawley & Jim Thorn (1996) “International Directory of Military


Aircraft” Australian Aviation, ISBN – 187567120X, 9781875671205

• Ira H. Abbott & Albert E. von Doenhoff, (1959) “Theory of Wing Section –
Including summary of Airfoil data” Dover publications, ISBN - 0486605868
9780486605869

• Dr Jan Roskam (2009) “Airplane Design” Roskam aviation & engineering,


Vol. 8 ISBN - 127-126-125-1

• John D. Anderson Jr. (1999) “Aircraft Performance and Design”


WCB/McGraw-Hill, ISBN - 9780070019713, 0-07-001971-1

• John D. Anderson Jr. (2016) “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics” McGraw-Hill


Education, 6th Edition ISBN - 1259129918, 9781259129919

• John D. Anderson Jr. (2011) “Introduction to Flight” McGraw-Hill Education,


ISBN 0073380245, 9780073380247

• Lloyd R. Jenkinson & James F. Marchman III (2003) “Aircraft Design


Projects: for engineering students”, Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN - 0-7506-
5772-3

• Paul Jackson (Editor-in-Chief), (2004) “Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft”


Jane's Publishing, 95th Sub Edition, ISBN - 9780710626141, 0710626142

146
• William Green (1961) “The Observer’s World Aircraft Directory” Frederick
Warne & Co. Ltd, ISBN - 978-1125857120

• http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data
• https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/aircraft_char_database/
• http://airfoiltools.com/
• http://www.combataircraft.com/
• https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/a
mt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch13.pdf
• https://www.military.com/equipment/fighter-aircraft
• http://www.airfoildb.com/
• https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/
• https://www.militaryfactory.com/
• https://www.lockheedmartin.com/
• https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/engines
• https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/civil-aerospace.aspx

147