Twin Fuselage Amphibian Aircraft.

A
Project Report
on
“CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF MULTIPURPOSE AMPHIBIAN VEHICLE”
(Subject Code: 10AE85)
Submitted to
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

Belgaum-590018
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for award
of the degree of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
Carried out for
AeSI-MUMBAI
(JUNE-2018)
Submitted by
NANDAKUMAR ABBIGERI [1MJ14AE055]
SRI RAM R [1MJ14AE066]
RADHA KRISHNA R [1MJ14AE067]
SHRIKRISHNA E S [IMJ14AE089]
Under Guidance of
Internal Guide External Guide Name
Prof. S C Gupta Prof. Rajkumar S Pant
Air commodore (retd), Vice Chairman, Mumbai Branch
HOD, Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering Aeronautical Society of India
MVJ College of Engineering, Bangalore-67
Department of Aeronautical Engineering

MVJ College of Engineering, Bangalore-560067
i
DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled “CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF
MULTIPURPOSE AMPHIBIAN VEHICLE” is a bonafide work carried out by,
NANDA KUMAR ABBIGERI (1MJ14AE055)

SRI RAM R (1MJ14AE066)
RADHA KRISHNA R (1MJ14AE067)
SHRIKRISHNA E S (1MJ14AE089)
In partial fulfillment for the award of degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Aeronautical
Engineering of the Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum, during 2017-2018.It is
certified that all the corrections / suggestions indicated for internal assessment have been
incorporated in the report & the project report has been approved as it satisfies the academic
requirements.
Prof. S C Gupta Prof. S C Gupta Dr. Gunasekaran V

HOD HOD PRINCIPAL
Department of Aeronautical Department of Aeronautical MVJ College of
Engineering, Engineering, Engineering.
MVJ College of Engineering MVJ College of Engineering Bangalore
Bangalore Bangalore
Name of Examiners: Signature with date:
1.
2.
ii
DECLARATION
We, Nandakumar Abbigeri, Radha Krishna R, Sri Ram R and Shrikrishna E S, hereby
declare that the entire work titled “Conceptual Design of Multipurpose Amphibian Vehicle”
embodied in this report has been carried out by us during 8th semester of BE degree at MVJCE
Bangalore under the esteemed guidance of Prof. S C Gupta (HOD, Department of Aeronautical
Engineering, MVJ College of Engineering) affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University,
BELGAUM. The work embodied in this dissertation is original & it has as not been submitted in
part of full for any other degree in any University.
Signature
NANDAKUMAR ABBIGERI (1MJ14AE055)
SRI RAM R (1MJ14AE066)
RADHA KRISHNA R (1MJ14AE067)
SHRIKRISHNA E S (1MJ14AE089)
Date:
Place: Bangalore-67
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We express our deep sense of gratitude to our internal guide Prof. S C Gupta Head of the
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJ College of Engineering for his valuable guidance
at each and every step of my report.
In addition, we want to thank, Prof. Srinivasan D, Department of Aeronautical Engineering,

MVJ College of Engineering for his valuable support and guidance. We are deeply touched by
his transparent approach and whole-hearted cooperation for execution of our report.
We would like to thank all the Professors at the Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJ
College of Engineering, Bangalore for kind permission to carry out my project work and for
support and guidance during project work.
We are extremely thankful to the principal Dr. Gunashekaran N for sharing Knowledge and
assistance throughout our college period at MVJ College of Engineering, Bangalore.
This report certainly would not have been possible without the love and encouragement extended
by my friends to take the opportunity to thank for their collective love and support.
iv
ABSTRACT
World without engineers, is like a bird without wings', as the quote says it's impossible to
imagine innovation and invention without engineers. The project proposes a solution for the
problem statement of the ‘NATIONAL AEROSPACE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
COMPETITION-AeSI MUMBAI'. The competition task is to develop an amphibian aircraft with
capability of carrying out Air sea rescue missions and can also be used for general transportation.
The proposed design is twin fuselage-based concept which meets all proposal requirements and
the model is the best possible solution for the problem statement and also is best suited for
amphibious operation.
v
Conceptual Design of Multipurpose Amphibian Vehicle 2017-18
Table of Contents:
List of figures: ........................................................................................................................ ix
List of tables: ......................................................................................................................... xii
List of symbols: ..................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter: 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction: ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction: ................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Problem Statement:...................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Study of similar aircraft: .............................................................................................. 4
1.2.1 Performance Parameters ........................................................................................... 5
1.2.2Twin fuselage aircraft: ............................................................................................... 6
1.3 Literature Survey: ........................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Federal Aviation Regulations -23(FAR-23): ............................................................. 10
1.5 Intial layout:(not as per dimensions) ......................................................................... 11
1.6 Rationale: ................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter: 2 ................................................................................................................................ 14
Initial sizing: ...................................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Mission profile:.......................................................................................................... 15
2.1.1 PAX Mission Profile; ............................................................................................. 15
2.1.2 ASR Mission Profile:.............................................................................................. 19
2.2 Trade studies: Range payload diagrams: ................................................................... 21
2.3 Range-Payload-Loiter Diagrams: .............................................................................. 25
Chapter:3 ................................................................................................................................. 28
Airfoil and Wing Planform Selection: ............................................................................. 28
3.1 Airfoil Selection: ....................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Estimation of Wing Parameters: ................................................................................ 33
3.2.1 Wing Sweep(Λ): ..................................................................................................... 33
3.2.2 Taper Ratio(λ): ....................................................................................................... 33
3.2.3 Twist angle(αt): ....................................................................................................... 34
3.2.4 Wing Incidence(iw): ................................................................................................ 34
3.2.5 Dihedral Angle: ...................................................................................................... 34
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. vi

Chapter: 4 ................................................................................................................................ 35
Design parameters: ........................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Calculation of thrust to weight ratio: ......................................................................... 36
4.2 Calculation of wing loading: ..................................................................................... 37
4.3 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................ 39
Chapter: 5 ................................................................................................................................ 40
Detail sizing:....................................................................................................................... 40
5.1 Passenger mission: ..................................................................................................... 41
5.2 ASR mission: ............................................................................................................. 44
Chapter: 6 ................................................................................................................................ 47
Geometry sizing and configuration: ................................................................................ 47
6.1 Fuselage Dimensions: ................................................................................................ 48
6.2 Engine Dimension and Weight: ................................................................................. 48
6.3 Wing Sizing and Planform Shape:............................................................................. 49
6.4 Tail sizing and planform shape:................................................................................. 51
6.5 Spin recovery: ............................................................................................................ 56
Chapter: 7 ................................................................................................................................ 58
Refined Geometrical Sizing:............................................................................................. 58
7.1 Fuselage: .................................................................................................................... 59
7.2 Engine Dimension and Sizing: .................................................................................. 62
7.3 Engine Placement: ..................................................................................................... 63
7.4 Propeller Sizing: ........................................................................................................ 64
7.5 Undercarriage Design: ............................................................................................... 66
7.5.1 Landing Gear: ......................................................................................................... 66
7.5.2 Hull Design: ............................................................................................................ 68
Chapter: 8 ................................................................................................................................ 71
Aerodynamics: ................................................................................................................... 71
8.1 Lift Curve Slope: ....................................................................................................... 72
8.2 Maximum Lift Coefficient Calculation: .................................................................... 73
8.3 Drag Divergence Mach Number: .............................................................................. 75
8.4 Total Parasite Drag: ................................................................................................... 75
8.5 Calculation of Induced Drag Factor: ......................................................................... 81
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. vii

8.6 Aerodynamic Analysis: ............................................................................................. 81

8.6.1 Analysis of Wing: ................................................................................................... 81
8.6.2 Analysis of wing with Rotors: ................................................................................ 83
8.6.3 Analysis of Empennage: ......................................................................................... 85
8.6.4 Analysis of Empennage with Rotors: ..................................................................... 87
8.6.5 Analysis of Aircraft: ............................................................................................... 89
8.6.6 Analysis of Aircraft with Rotors: ........................................................................... 91
Chapter: 9 ................................................................................................................................ 93
Thrust Curves:................................................................................................................... 93
9.1 Introduction: .............................................................................................................. 94
9.2 Uninstalled thrust:...................................................................................................... 94
9.3 Thrust related losses: ................................................................................................. 95
9.4 Installed Thrust: ......................................................................................................... 96
9.5 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................ 97
Chapter: 10 .............................................................................................................................. 98
Weights Loads and CG Estimation: ................................................................................ 98
10.1 Decision for location of fuel: ................................................................................... 99
10.2 Fuselage Parameters from Sizing: ........................................................................... 99
10.3 Estimation of weight of major components ............................................................. 99
10.4 Initial Estimation of Center of Gravity: ................................................................. 101
Chapter:11 ............................................................................................................................. 104
Aircraft Performance: .................................................................................................... 104
11.1 Take-off and landing performance: ....................................................................... 105
11.2 Landing Performance: ........................................................................................... 107
11.3 Range and Endurance: ........................................................................................... 110
11.4 Climb Performance: ............................................................................................... 111
11.6 V- n Diagram: ........................................................................................................ 116
Chapter:12 ............................................................................................................................. 118
Aircraft Stability and Control: ...................................................................................... 118
12.1 Static Stability........................................................................................................ 119
12.2 Directional stability: .............................................................................................. 125
12.3 Lateral stability: ..................................................................................................... 126
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. viii

Chapter: 13 ............................................................................................................................ 133

Sizing Matrix and Carpet Plot: ...................................................................................... 133
13.1 Sizing matrix method............................................................................................. 134
Chapter:14 ............................................................................................................................. 138
Geometric Layout: .......................................................................................................... 138
14.1 Line Diagrams From openVSP.............................................................................. 139
14.2 Spline Diagrams: ................................................................................................... 141
14.3 Design Summary and other Aspects:..................................................................... 143
14.2 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................ 145
RFP Requirements and Design Results: ........................................................................ 145
Reference: ........................................................................................................................ 146
List of figures:
1.1 Line diagram of Amphibian aircraft from openVSP-------------------------------------------2
1.2 Trimaran boat hull 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.3 Trimaran boat hull 2--------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.4 Multi mission Amphibian -------------------------------------------------------------------------8
1.5 Tadpole Amphibian---------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
1.6 Sea duct Amphibian---------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
1.7 Sea duct Amphibian---------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
1.8 KR-1 Amphibian------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
1.9 Iso View----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
1.10 Side view-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
2.1 PAX Mission profile -------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
2.2 ASR mission ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
2.3 PAX Mission: Range all up-weight trade -------------------------------------------------------23
2.4 PAX Mission: Payload all up trade --------------------------------------------------------------23
2.5 ASR Mission: Payload All up Weight trade ----------------------------------------------------25
2.6 PAX Mission: Range all up-weight trade -------------------------------------------------------26
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. ix

2.7 Loiter time payload plot----------------------------------------------------------------------------27

3.1 Airfoil geometry of NACA 652-415--------------------------------------------------------------32
3.2 Airfoil geometry of NACA 0010------------------------------------------------------------------33
6.1 Planform of wing -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------51
6.2 Iso view of wing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------51
6.3 Spin recovery ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------56
7.1 Seating arrangement top view ---------------------------------------------------------------------61
7.2 Seating arrangement iso view ---------------------------------------------------------------------61
7.3 Example of sliding door ---------------------------------------------------------------------------62
7.4 Example of sliding door ---------------------------------------------------------------------------62
7.5 PT6A-67F Engine ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------63
7.6 PT6A-67F Engine ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------63
7.7 Engine placement representation -----------------------------------------------------------------64
7.8 Six bladed propeller model ------------------------------------------------------------------------65
7.9 Propeller parameters representation --------------------------------------------------------------66
7.10 landing gear model --------------------------------------------------------------------------------67
7.11 side view of amphibian plane with landing gear ----------------------------------------------67
7.12 Schematic diagram of Ackermann steering mechanism -------------------------------------68
7.13 Bottom view of Hull ------------------------------------------------------------------------------70
8.1 Mach no Vs. CLα graph -----------------------------------------------------------------------------72
8.2 Mach no Vs. CLMax graph---------------------------------------------------------------------------74
8.3 Drag contribution -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------78
8.4 CD vs CL @ Sea-level ------------------------------------------------------------------------------79
8.5 CD vs CL @ 10,000 ft -------------------------------------------------------------------------------80
8.6 CD vs CL @ 15,000 ft -------------------------------------------------------------------------------80
8.7 CL distribution of wing along spanwise-----------------------------------------------------------82
8.8 Pressure distribution over wing--------------------------------------------------------------------82
8.9 Vorticity over wing---------------------------------------------------------------------------------83
8.10 CL distribution of wing along spanwise with rotor 1000rpm---------------------------------84
8.11 Pressure distribution over wing with rotor 1000rpm------------------------------------------84
8.12 vorticity over wing with rotor 1000rpm---------------------------------------------------------85
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. x

8.13 CL distribution over empennage along span----------------------------------------------------86

8.14 Pressure Distribution over empennage----------------------------------------------------------86
8.15 Vorticity over empennage------------------------------------------------------------------------87
8.16 CL distribution over empennage along span with 1000 rpm----------------------------------87
8.17 Pressure Distribution over empennage with rotor 1000 rpm---------------------------------88
8.18 Vorticity over empennage with rotor 1000 rpm------------------------------------------------88
8.19 CL distribution over aircraft along span---------------------------------------------------------89
8.20 Pressure Distribution over aircraft---------------------------------------------------------------90
8.21 Vorticity over aircraft-----------------------------------------------------------------------------90
8.22 CL distribution over aircraft along span with rotor 1000 rpm--------------------------------91
8.23 Pressure Distribution over aircraft with rotor 1000 rpm--------------------------------------91
8.24 Vorticity over aircraft with rotor 1000 rpm-----------------------------------------------------92
9.1 Uninstalled Thrust Vs. Mach number ------------------------------------------------------------95
9.2 Installed thrust Vs. Mach number -----------------------------------------------------------------97
10.1 Fuel Distribution in wing ------------------------------------------------------------------------99
11.1 Take-off distance Vs. frictional coefficient ---------------------------------------------------107
11.2 Landing distance Vs. frictional coefficient (without thrust reversal) ---------------------109
11.3 Landing distance Vs. frictional coefficient (with 25% thrust reversal) -------------------110
11.4 power required Vs. velocity plot ---------------------------------------------------------------111
11.5 power required Vs. velocity @10,000 ft ------------------------------------------------------112
11.6 Aircraft bank diagram ---------------------------------------------------------------------------114
11.7 Radius of turn Vs. velocity (n=1.5) ------------------------------------------------------------115
11.8 Radius of turn Vs. velocity (n=2) --------------------------------------------------------------115
11.9 V-n Diagram--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------117
12.1 Aircraft axis representation ---------------------------------------------------------------------119
12.2 Cmy vs alpha---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------121
12.3 Cm vs CL-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------123
12.4 Cmy vs alpha---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------124
12.5 Cmz vs 𝛽--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------125
12.6 Cmz vs 𝛽--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------126
12.7 Cmx vs 𝛽--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------127
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xi

12.8 Cmx vs 𝛽--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------127

12.9 Horizontal tail top view--------------------------------------------------------------------------129
12.10 Horizontal tail iso view-------------------------------------------------------------------------130
12.11 Vertical tail iso view----------------------------------------------------------------------------130
12.12 Vertical tail side view--------------------------------------------------------------------------130
12.13 Tail effectiveness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------131
13.1 Gross weight Vs. wing area (engine power = 2440.6hp) -----------------------------------135
13.2 Gross weight Vs. wing area (engine power = 3400.83hp) ----------------------------------135
13.3 Gross weight Vs. wing area (engine power = 3998083hp) ---------------------------------136
13.4 Sizing matrix and carpet plots ------------------------------------------------------------------136
14.1 Front view-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------139
14.2 side view-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------140
14.3 Top view-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------140
14.4 Front view-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------141
14.5 side view-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------141
14.6 Wire frame view----------------------------------------------------------------------------------142
14.7 Iso view of amphibian plane--------------------------------------------------------------------142
List of tables:
1.1 Problem Statement---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.2 Study of Similar Aircraft ---------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.3 Performance Parameters Similar Aircraft --------------------------------------------------------5
1.4 Performance Parameters Similar Aircraft --------------------------------------------------------6
1.5 Trimaram Boat hull----------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
1.6 Multi Mission Amphibian---------------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.7 Tadpole Amphibian----------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
1.8 Sea duct Amphibian----------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
1.9 KR-1 Amphibian------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
2.1 Mission Segment Weight Fraction ---------------------------------------------------------------15
2.2 All Up-Weight Estimation for Different Range Values ---------------------------------------22
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xii

2.3 All Up-Weight Estimation for Different Payloads(PAX) -------------------------------------22

2.4 All Up-Weight Estimation for Different Payloads(ASR) -------------------------------------24
2.5 Total Payload----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26
2.6 Total Payload Endurance --------------------------------------------------------------------------27
3.1 Airfoil Characteristics------------------------------------------------------------------------------32
3.2 Score analysis of airfoil-----------------------------------------------------------------------------32
4.1 Wing Loading Parameters and Their Values ----------------------------------------------------37
5.1 Tabulation of Data for Empty Weight Fraction Calculation ----------------------------------41
6.1 Engine Properties Tabulation (First Approximation) ------------------------------------------48
6.2 Wing Dimension Tabulation ----------------------------------------------------------------------50
6.3 Tail Dimension Tabulation ------------------------------------------------------------------------57
7.1 Passenger Compartment Data ---------------------------------------------------------------------59
7.2 Engine Dimension and Properties ----------------------------------------------------------------63
7.3 Data for Propeller Diameter Calculation ---------------------------------------------------------65
7.4 Basic Hull Parameters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------68
7.5 Basic Hull Parameters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------69
8.1 Mach no vs ∆𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------73
8.2 Mach no vs 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------74
8.3 Properties with respect to altitude-----------------------------------------------------------------76
8.4 𝐶𝐷𝑜 equations----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------77
8.5 Parameters for CDo calculations-------------------------------------------------------------------78
8.6 CDo values at different altitudes-------------------------------------------------------------------78
8.7 CDo Contribution of Main Components ---------------------------------------------------------79
10.1 Fuselage Parameters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------99
10.2 Exposed Planform Area of Various Components Aircraft ----------------------------------100
10.3 Weight of Major Components by Group Approximation -----------------------------------100
10.4 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Longitudinal Axis (ASR Mission) -----101
10.5 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Longitudinal Axis (PAX Mission) -----102
10.6 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Vertical Axis (ASR Mission) -----------102
10.7 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Vertical Axis (PAX Mission) -----------103
11.1 Estimation of Take-Off Distance (Rolling Friction with Brakes Off) ---------------------105
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xiii

11.2 Estimation of Take-Off Distance (Rolling Friction with Brakes On) ---------------------105
11.3 Landing Distances with Breaks-Off Condition (With and Without Thrust Reversal) ---108
11.4 Landing Distances with Breaks-On Condition (With and Without Thrust Reversal) ---109
11.5 Rate of Climb at various altitudes--------------------------------------------------------------113
12.1 Cg Location and Static Margin Tabulation ---------------------------------------------------124
12.2 Plan-Form Area of Control Surface with Stabilizer -----------------------------------------129
12.3 Power of Control Surfaces----------------------------------------------------------------------131
13.1 Tabulation of Engine Power Along Side Wing Area ----------------------------------------134
14.1 Design Summary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------142
14.2 RFP Requirements and Design Results -------------------------------------------------------145
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xiv

List of symbols
Symbol Description Unit
Wi Weight m
R Range km
𝑉∞ Free Stream Velocity ft/s and m/s
L Lift N
D Drag N
𝜂𝑝 Propeller Efficiency -
E Endurance h
𝜌∞ Density slug/ft3 or kg/m3
Re Reynolds Number -
𝑐̅ Wing Chord m
𝑏̅ Wing Span m
AR Aspect Ratio -
𝐶𝐿 Lift Coefficient -
𝐶𝑀𝑜 Moment Coefficient -
𝜎 Density Ratio -
𝐶𝐿𝑇𝑂 Take-off Lift Coefficient -
e Oswald Efficiency Factor -
𝐶𝐷𝑜 Zero Lift Drag Coefficient -
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 Wet Area 𝑚2
S Area 𝑚2
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xv

Chapter: 1
Introduction
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. 1

1.1 Introduction:
The project is based on the conceptual design of an amphibian aircraft that is initially designed
as a solution to the problem statement of NACDeC competition held by AeSI-Mumbai.
Throughout the project the major reference of consideration is the book written by ‘Daniel P.
Raymer: ‘Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach’’. Many statistical data are taken from the
book to do calculations to determine conceptual parameters of the aircraft.
The aircraft being developed is completely a new concept in amphibian category of

aircraft. The airplane may seem a bit odd but according to us its best suited to accomplish all
the tasks as an amphibian aircraft of the problem statement given in NACDeC notification
document. The concept of twin fuselage is obviously a high drag aspect for an aircraft that is
not in amphibian category, but compared to conventional amphibian planes with large floats,
which yield drag almost equivalent to an extra fuselage. This twin fuselage concept can also
be used for inherent floatation and stability of the amphibian in water.
The design calculation for the aircraft are all calculated referring various resources, the
design estimations may differ from that calculated by referring other references. The overall
design process includes utilization of open source software’s like openVSP and XFLR for
design and analysis of geometric and aerodynamic aspects of the aircraft.
Fig:1.1 Line diagram of Amphibian aircraft from openVSP

1.2 Problem Statement:

The theme of the project is to design an amphibian aircraft of below specifications for both
the PAX and ASR mission (dual operational aircraft)
Table:1.1 Problem Statement
Requirements PAX Mission ASR Mission

VAJJ to Pavan lake and VAJJ to DCS & Panna-Bassien Block
Typical Mission back of Bombay high and back
60 mins @ optimum VAJJ to DCS & Panna-Bassien Block
Reserve fuel loiter speed of Bombay high and back
02 @ 65 kg + 20 kg
Cockpit crew baggage 02 @ 65 kg + 20 kg baggage
01 @ 65 kg + 10 kg
cabin crew baggage 04 @ 65 kg + 10 kg baggage
10 @ 90 kg +10 kg
PAX Capicity baggage 04 @ 90 kg with no baggage
500 ml of bottled water 400 kg rescue &
pax. Amenities per occupant life support equipment +04 stretchers
operational limits WMO sea state 03 WMO sea State 04
less than or equal to 30
flight duration mins more than 180 mins
Indian reference
atmosphere atmosphere Indian reference atmosphere
service ceiling FL100 FL100
FAR 23 commuter FAR 23 commuters

certification category category

1.2 Study of similar aircraft:

Design and geometric-data (summary) (All units are in SI unless state
Table:1.2 Study of Similar Aircraft

1.2.1 Performance Parameters

Table:1.3 Performance Parameters Similar Aircraft

1.2.2Twin fuselage aircraft:

Table:1.4 Twin fuselage aircraft
Characteristics P-82\F-82 TWIN MUSTANG.
Max-Speed (kmph) 742

Cruise Speed (kmph) 460
Range(km) 3605
Service ceiling(m) 11856
Wingspan(m) 15
Wing area(sqm) 38
Empty weight(kg) 7256
1.3 Literature Survey:
Table:1.5 Trimaram Boat hull
Title “Advanced Seaplane Conceptual Design Adapting Trimaran Boat Hull

Concept” ICAS
Year 2012
Type Fuselage with Trimaran Boat Hull and Retracting Floats.
Technology MATLAB, SOLIDWORKS
Conclusion There is an increase in flight performance when the floats are retracted.
Design gives more hydrostatic stability. The Flight Performance of the
seaplane increases the rate of climb, range and endurance.

Fig:1.2 Trimaran boat hull
Fig:1.3 Trimaran boat hull
Table:1.6 A Multi-Mission Amphibian
Title “The Cormorant – A Multi-Mission Amphibian “AIAA
Year 2017
Type Single Fuselage Boat Hull with no Floats, trailing-edge swept forward wing
and Landing gears are retractable and goes into the fuselage.
Technology MATLAB, SOLIDWORKS
Issues Climb Performance is low.
Conclusion Inverted Delta wing which is especially made to counter ground effect
eliminates pitch-up tendency i.e., it remains naturally stable in pitch as well
as in height thus improving safety in addition it increases aerodynamic
efficiency due reduction in induced drag, this allows smaller, stubbier, more
highly-loaded wings.

Fig:1.3 Multi mission Amphibian
Table:1.7 TADPOLE Multi-Mission Amphibian
Title “Conceptual Design of TADPOLE Multi-Mission Amphibian” AIAA
Year 2017
Type Single Fuselage Boat Hull with floats attached near wing tips, T-Tail,
Landing gears are retractable and goes into to the fuselage.
Technology XFLR5, OpenVSP Program.
Issues Floats attached near wing tips make the wing heavy.
Conclusion Increase in Hydrostatic stability due to T-Tail empennage configuration.
Fig: 1.4 Tadpole Amphibian

Table:1.8 Sea Duck Multi-Mission Amphibian aircraft
Title “SCS-527 Sea Duck Multi-Mission Amphibian aircraft” AIAA
Year 2017
Type Single Fuselage Boat Hull attached with Hydrofoil and floats in the wing
tips. Four turboprop engines, Retractable landing gears.
Technology CFD, CATIA V5, SOLIDWORKS.
Issues Wing carry more weight due to four turboprop engines and the floats in the
wing tips.
Conclusion The Hydrofoil attached with the fuselage increases the hydrostatic stability.
Aerodynamic efficiency is increased due to upswept wing tips.
Fig:1.5 Sea duct Amphibian
Fig:1.6 Sea duct Amphibian

Table:1.9 KR-1 Multi-Mission Amphibian
Title “KR-1 Multi-Mission Amphibian” AIAA
Year 2017
Type Single Fuselage Boat with two step Hull design. Floats in the wing tips,
Dorsal fin, Retractable Landing gears are attached to the fuselage.
Technology Open VSP and VSPAERO
Issues Floats are designed in the wing tips which makes the wing heavy.
Conclusion Wing Tip Vortices has been reduced due to the winglet design.
Fig:1.7 KR-1 Amphibian
1.4 Federal Aviation Regulations -23(Far-23):

These are the regulation which we need to keep in mind while designing the Amphibian
Aircraft.
Below mentioned points are to be considered to calculate all up weight.

The proposed Amphibian aircraft model falls under the COMMUTER category.
• The Commuter category is limited to propeller-driven, multiengine airplanes that has

19 or less crew+pax capacity, and a maximum certificated take-off weight of 19,000
pounds or less. (8626 kg).
• The commuter category operation is limited to any manoeuvres incident to normal
flying, stalls (except whip stalls), and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not
more than 60 degrees.
Load distribution limits:
• Range of weights and Centre of gravity within which the airplane may be safely
operated must be established.
• These must not exceed the selected limits, Limits at which the structure is proven.
Weight limits:
Maximum weight:
• It is the highest weight at which compliance with each applicable requirement of
this part. The maximum weight must be established so that it is-
• Not more than the least of the highest weight selected by the applicant;
• The design maximum weight, which is the highest weight at which compliance with
each applicable structure loading condition.
Minimum weight:
• The minimum weight is the lowest weight at which compliance with each applicable
requirements of this part. Must be established so that it is not more than the sum of-
• The empty weight of airplane, the weight of the minimum crew (190 pounds each),
the fuel necessary for one-half hour of operation at maximum continuous power.
1.5 Intial layout:(not as per dimensions)
Fig:1.8 Iso view

Fig:1.9 Side view
1.6 Rationale:
Why twin fuselage:
• Twin fuselage is basically chosen to combine the characteristics of conventional

double float structure with typical fuselage.
• It inherently gives the required lateral stability in water.
• It reduces the water-line like conventional dual hull boats.
• This also reduces the overall height of the aircraft which will ease the rescue mission
process.
Why twin engine:
• The twin engine is employed to provide asymmetric thrust to ensure proper and quick
maneuvering of aircraft in water at low speeds.
• Twin engines increase reliability and safety.
Position of engine:
• The engine configuration selected is Pod type twin engine.

• The engine is placed in this position to get proper water clearance.
• It also accelerates the flow of air above the wing which increase the lift produced.

• The thrust-line above the aircraft will ensure mitigation of bouncing of aircraft in
water, as the thrust–line gives the downward pitching moment.
Why high wing configuration:
• To get ground and water clearance.

• It eases the ground operations in both PAX and ASR missions.
• It contributes positively to lateral stability in air.
• Tapering of the wing is done to get near elliptical distribution of lift.
• The wing will have upswept winglet to increase virtual aspect ratio and uniform wing
loading.
Empennage configuration:
• Type: Boom mounted tail.

• The twin engine position will mask the vertical stabilizer, to compensate this effect
End-plating of horizontal stabilizer is done.
• End-plating of horizontal tail also cater for improved directional and lateral stability.
Under-carriage:
• Four-wheel undercarriage with retraction.

• Two wheels inline on each fuselage.

Chapter: 2
Initial sizing:

This unit deals with initial estimation of take-off gross weight for both PAX and ASR missions.
The estimation is done by using empirical equations and statistical trends and historical data
given in ref [1].
2.1 Mission profile:

2.1.1 PAX Mission Profile;
Fig:2.1 PAX Mission profile
(Note: location-9 is same as location-0)
The crew and payload data are taken as prescribed in the problem statement or NACDeC
notification manual. The mission segment weight fractions for calculation of all up weight is
taken accordingly as Table:2.1
Table:2.1 Mission Segment Weight Fraction
SEGMENT SEGMENT
NAME WEIGHT
FRACTION
Warm-up/takeoff 0.97
Climb 0.985
landing 0.995

The overall mission segment weight fraction is then calculated by using equation
𝑤9 𝑤1 𝑤2 𝑤3 𝑤4 𝑤5 𝑤6 𝑤7 𝑤8 𝑤9
= × × × × × × × × …… (1)
𝑤0 𝑤0 𝑤1 𝑤2 𝑤𝐴 𝑤4 𝑤5 𝑤6 𝑤7 𝑤8
The warm-up and takeoff weight fractions are substituted accordingly as per table-1, where
weight fractions for cruise and loiter are calculated from the following equations (Ref [1]).
Cruise Weight fraction:

−𝑅×𝐶
𝑤3 𝐿
𝑣×( )
=𝑒 𝐷 …….. (2)
𝑤2
𝐶 𝑏ℎ𝑝 ×𝑣𝑐
𝐶= ……… (3)
550×𝜂𝑝
Loiter Weight Fractions:

−𝐸×𝐶
𝑤4 𝐿
( )
=𝑒 𝐷 𝑙𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 … (4)
𝑤3
𝐶 𝑏ℎ𝑝 ×𝑣𝑙
𝐶= ……… (5)
550×𝜂𝑝
The calculation of specific fuel consumption ‘C’ is done by assuming loiter and cruise velocity
of ‘240 km/h’ and ‘340 km/h’ respectively based on survey analysis. From the historical data
the maximum lift to drag ratio was found to 14 and subsequent calculation are done by using
above equation. The historical statistical data was referred assuming flying boat and turboprop
configuration and coefficients are taken as per the Ref [1].
For calculation of cruise segment weight fraction, a range of ‘150 km’, that is distance
from Juhu-airport to pavana lake is taken and the same range of ‘150 km’ for the reverse
direction as well and an extra range of ‘173 km’ per direction is given so that an overall range
of ‘646 km’ is achieved before next refuel is done, and this is done in order to make the design
feasible for both PAX and ASR mission and also to account for ‘-10%’ tolerance on total
weight according to FAR-23. A standard loiter time of ‘5 min’ is taken for each loiter segment

in mission profile and aircraft is assumed to loiter an extra ‘60 min’ at loiter speed to account
for extended flight duration depicted in the problem statement as ‘reserve fuel’.
The calculation can be represented based on above equations as
Cruise:
0.5×310
𝐶= = 0.3522 /hr …. (Note ‘340 km/h’ = ‘310 f/s’)
550×0.8
−646×0.3522
𝑤3
=𝑒 340×14 = 0.953325
𝑤2
Loiter: (Entire loiter consideration of ‘70 min’)
0.6×218.7
𝐶= = 0.29822 /hr …. (Note ‘240 km/h’ = ‘218.7 f/s’)
550×0.8
−1.16666×0.29822
𝑤3
=𝑒 0.866×14 = 0.971710…. (Note E = 70 min = 1.16666 hr)
𝑤2
The above calculated values are then substituted in equation (1) to get overall weight fraction
𝑤9
= 0.8372
𝑤0
The fuel weight fraction with ‘2%’ tolerance for inaccessible fuel the fuel fraction can be
calculated as
𝑤𝑓 𝑤9
= 1.02 (1 − ) = 0.166056
𝑤0 𝑤0
The all up weight is then calculated by using the equation
𝑤𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 +𝑤𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑊0 = 𝑤𝑓 𝑤 …. (6)
1− − 𝑒
𝑤0 𝑤0
From statistical data given in Ref[1] the empty weight fraction is given as

𝑤𝑒
𝑤0
= −1.09 × 𝑤0−0.05 …….. (7)
On substituting the above values, the equation (6) becomes

1142
𝑊0 = ( )
0.833851 − 1.09𝑤0−0.05
The above equation can be iterated or can be solved graphically.
Graphical method of solving all up weight:
The equation can be modified as
0.833851 × 𝑤0 − 1.09 × 𝑤00.95 = 1142.
From the above results it is found that the all up weight was found to be
𝑊0 = 8200 𝑘𝑔

2.1.2 ASR Mission Profile:
Fig:2.2 ASR Mission
(Note: The location-9 is same as location-0)
The same calculations for ASR mission can be done, but for the ASR mission the following
points are considered for initial consideration of problem statement and gradually all the
mission requirements are met along with critical modern trends.
The mission profile design is done for most critical condition accordingly derived out from
the problem statement.
• A normal warm up and climb is done but aircraft will start loitering as soon as it
reaches ‘10000ft’ altitude and starts its rescue search.
• The same loiter speed of ‘240 km/h’ is maintained during search. And the design
considers ‘180min’ of loiter during this phase.
• The extra ‘60min’ reserve fuel is distributed across the remaining mission segment and
cruise range of ‘75km’ while travelling back is predicted for initial calculation. The
inference drawn from further detailed initial sizing will account for cruise range ‘125
km’ which will be shown in detailed initial sizing, and further the design ensures ‘+5%’
tolerance on total weight. (FAR-23).
• The mission profile assumes a ‘180min’ search before it lands for rescue and then
performs the rest of the mission. But at a loiter speed of ‘240 km/h’ the aircraft can go

up to ‘720 km’ which is not expected travel distance during search operation, the extra
fuel left during a search period less than the maximum duration of ‘180 min’ can be
utilized for more range during return phase.
• To implement safety on the aircraft operation it is recommended that pilot is expected
to complete the rescue search less than the max search duration of ‘180 min’.
• Further in case of extreme emergency the aircraft advantage of amphibian character
can be effectively utilized and pilot can land in off-shore regions so that the aircraft can
be refueled or can be pulled out of the sea by means of boats.
Based on the same equations used above the following weight fractions for loiter at 10000 ft
and cruise back of 75 km can be given as
𝑤3 𝑤7
𝑤2
= 0.9288644 , 𝑤6
= 0.9944659
The overall weight fraction was found out to be
𝑤9 𝑤 𝑤
𝑤0
= 0.833736, 𝑤𝑓 = 1.02 × (1 − 𝑤9 ) = 0.16958928
1260
0 0
𝑊0 =
1 − 0.16958928 − 1.09 × 𝑤0−0.05
The final iteration equation for calculation of total weight can be given by substituting the
values obtained in equation (6)
Which can be further reduced to
1260 = 0.830411𝑤0 − 1.09𝑤00.95 The iteration can be graphically solved as

The total weight for ASR mission was found to be ‘9050 kg’.
2.2 Trade studies: Range payload diagrams:

The conceptual design process should also include the design evaluation and refinement with
the customer point of view. The trade studies that are done for the PAX mission are on range
and payload-based studies. ASR trade study is more of payload based as we should provide
more payload capacity for the fixed search time and the major factor of concern is the
endurance and not the range.
Range Study for Pax Mission:
We know from the sizing equation that was used in ‘INITIAL SIZING’ chapter, that is:
𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 +𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤
𝑊0 = 𝑊𝑓 ……… [1]
1− −1.09×𝑊0−0.05
𝑊0

From the above equation the standard equation as deduced in the ‘INITIAL SIZING’ chapter
can be deduced as 1142
𝑊0 =
𝑊𝑓
1 − 𝑊 − 1.09 × 𝑊0−0.05
0
From the above equation the fuel fraction is calculated for various values of range the values
are substituted in above equation to get all up weight through iteration, the values are tabulated
in table 2.2.
Table:2.2 All Up-Weight Estimation for Different Range Values
Range(km) All up
weight(kg)
100 6796.78
200 7022.87
300 7261.26
400 7513.22
500 7779
600 8060.52
Graphically

Fig:2.3 PAX Mission: Range all up-weight trade

Similarly, by varying the numerator of the equation we can plot the payload-all up-weight trade
plots. The payload all up weight values by considering a range value 200 km are as follows
Table:2.3 All Up-Weight Estimation for Different Payloads(PAX)
Payload (Kg) All up weight (Kg)
1142 7022.87
1242 7525.95
1342 8023.52
1442 8516.08
1542 9004.09
Fig:2.4 PAX Mission: Payload all up trade

ASR Mission trade studies:
The ASR mission trade studies include payload-all up-weight trade studies and the range
studies is not a feasible or is not important because for ASR mission the point of interest is
endurance and not range. 1260
𝑊0 =
𝑊𝑓
1 −will
The ASR payload trade study 𝑊0 − 1.09
give × 𝑊0−0.05 at this stage if we consider a
× 0.95 solutions
feasible
composite trade of 95 percent on empty weight.
From the INITIAL SIZING studies, we have the sizing equation for ASR mission as:
𝑊
Here the fuel fraction is kept constant ((1 − 𝑊𝑓 ) = 0.830411) and then the numerator of
0
above equation is varied, the values can be tabulated as:
Table:2.4 All Up-Weight Estimation for Different Payloads(ASR)
Payload(Kg) All up weight(Kg)

1260 7515.36
1360 8010.88
1460 8501.69
1560 8988.21

Graphically
Fig:2.5 ASR Mission: Payload All up Weight trade
2.3 Range-Payload-Loiter Diagrams:
PAX MISSION: Range payload diagram:
The range-payload diagram is obtained by using the respective weight sizing

equation, for PAX mission the sizing equation is:
𝑊𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑊0 = …… [A]
𝑋−1.09𝑊0−0.05
𝑊
Note: Where X = 1 − 𝑊𝑓
0
Note: Total payload is the weight that includes crew as well as amenities.
By using above formula, the tabulation can be made as below:

Table:2.5 Total Payload
Total Payload X Range (Km)

(Kg)
0 0.695118 3427.35
500 0.757 2274.76
1000 0.818895 1212.58
1500 0.88 239.96
1621 0.895764 0
Graphically the range payload diagram can be represented as:
Fig:2.6 PAX Mission: Range all up-weight trade
ASR MISSION: Loiter search time payload diagram:
The loiter time-payload diagram is also obtained similarly by using the weight sizing
equation, but here the point of concern is the weight fraction of loiter segment of the mission.
In equation for ASR mission the only variable will be ‘X’ for different total payload. The value
of X can be used easily to get the endurance timings.

Table:2.6 Total Payload Endurance
Total Payload (Kg) X Endurance (hr)

0 0.6946 11.28
500 0.747152 8.3165
1000 0.802844 5.39
1500 0.858535 2.667
2000 0.914227 0.11215
2022 0.91675 0
Graphically the endurance payload diagram can be represented as:
Fig:2.7 Loiter time payload plot

Chapter:3
Airfoil and Wing Planform Selection:

Airfoil affects the cruise speed, take-off and landing distances, stall speed, handling qualities
especially near stall and also the overall aerodynamic efficiency during all phases of flight.
This Section covers selection of an airfoil and wing planform for the given design
requirements.
3.1 Airfoil Selection:

The three main parameters used in airfoil selection are
• Design lift coefficient used mostly in aircraft’s overall flight time.

• The environment conditions in which the airplane flies. i.e. Reynolds Number.
• Thickness to chord ratio. [t/c]
These Parameters are calculated and similar air foils were found to compare by looking
these data and the best airfoil type is chosen for both missions.
Design lift coefficient:
The Cruise Design lift condition is mostly used in aircraft’s most flight time. We assume that
cruise is a steady level flight condition i.e. L=W
WKT L = ½ ×  × S × CL ×V2 (Lift Equation)
𝑊 2
→ ×𝜌 2 ×9.81 = Cl -----(1)
𝑆 ∞ 𝑉∞
Where  = Density of the air at 10,000 ft. in Kg/m3, V = Cruise Speed in m/s, W/S = wing
loading in Kg/m2.
Reynolds Number:
𝜌∞ 𝑉𝐶
It is calculated by the equation Re = ------(2)
µ∞

Where  = Density of the air at 10,000 ft. in Kg/m3, Vstall = Stall Speed in m/s, µ∞ =
Dynamic Viscosity at 10,000ft in Ns/m2, 𝑐̅ = wing aerodynamic chord in m.
To calculate wing chord, firstly wing area is calculated by substituting the values of wing
loading at cruise (W/Scruise in kg/m2) and take-off gross weight (Wo in kg). Given by equation
S = Wo/(W/Scruise) where S is wing area in m2. And then wing span (b) is calculated by using
the equation b = √(S×AR) in m, where AR is aspect ratio. From wing span wing aerodynamic
chord 𝑐̅ is calculated by 𝑐̅ = b/AR.
Thickness to chord ratio:
Thickness to chord ratio is found out from the Graph of Design Mach no. vs t/c with
Historical trends curve from Table 4.14 of Ref[1]
For Pax Mission:
• Design Lift Coefficient:
=0.9047 kg/m3, V = 94.4m/s, W/S = 170.87 kg/m2.Substituting these values in the above
equation we get CL = 0.416 for Pax Mission.
• Reynolds number:
Taking W/Scruise from competitor aircraft as 35lb/ft2= 170.89kg/m2. Wo = 8200kg calculating

for wing area we get S=47. 98m2.Then taking aspect ratio as 8.5 from Table 4.1[1] and
competitor aircrafts, we get b =20.2m. then the wing chord is calculated as 𝑐̅ = 2.38m.
=0.9047 kg/m3, µ∞ = 1.69×10-5 Ns/m2, Vstall = 36.011 m/s (taking approximate value of
70knots referring competitor aircrafts). Now substituting the above values in eq (2) we get
Re = 4.6*106.
• Thickness to chord ratio:
Cruise speed = 340 km/hr = 94.4 m/s =0.286 Mach. From graph as mentioned above we get
t/c as 15%.

For ASR Mission:
• Design Lift Coefficient:
Wing Loading, density and cruise speed all values are same therefore the value of Cl = 0.416
ASR Mission.
• Reynolds number:
Taking W/Scruise from competitor aircraft as 35lb/ft2= 170.89kg/m2. Wo = 9050kg calculating

for wing area we get S=53m2.Then taking aspect ratio as 8.5 from Table 4.1 of Ref[1] and
competitor aircrafts we get b =21.22m. At last calculating for wing chord we get 𝑐̅ = 2.5m.
=0.9047 kg/m3, µ∞ = 1.69* 10-5 Ns/m2, Vstall = 36.011 m/s (taking approximate value of
70knots referring competitor aircrafts.) Now substituting the above values in eq (2) we get Re
= 5*106.
Thickness to chord ratio:

Cruise speed = 340 km/hr = 94.4 m/s =0.286 Mach. From graph as mentioned from Ref[1] we
get t/c as 15%.
To make airfoil selection easier for the wing, a number of NACA airfoils ranging 15% thick
were considered to come up with a group of best airfoils that would be scored with respect to
each other. Experimental results presented in Theory of Wing Section Ref[7] were used to
obtain airfoil parameters. Seven best airfoils were selected for scoring analysis. All airfoils are
with different drag bucket range. Table 3.1 shows airfoil scoring criteria and their
characteristics at Reynolds number of six million. Table 3.2 shows scoring results. The airfoils
that perform the best for the particular requirement get one point while others get zero. All
scores are added and the airfoil with the greatest amount of points is selected. The best airfoil
should have the closest lift coefficient at zero AOA to the cruise AOA, should stall gradually
at most possible AOA, should have the lowest minimum drag coefficient, closest to zero
pitching moment coefficient at cruise, and performance at cruise and climb should be within
the drag bucket for more aerodynamic efficiency.

Table:3.1 Airfoil Characteristics of Best Selected Airfoils at Re = 6*106.
Table:3.2 Scoring Analysis of the Airfoils.
NACA 65(2)-415 is selected because of highest score comparing to the competitors.
Fig:3.1 Airfoil Geometry of NACA 652-415

Tails are used for stability and control and it is unnecessary to have lift and induced drag.
Horizontal and vertical tails both feature symmetric airfoils to have symmetric change in lift
when an elevator or rudder is used. Symmetric Airfoil around 9-12% thickness is compared.
NACA0010 airfoil was chosen for the horizontal tail and vertical tail from Ref[7]
Fig:3.2 Airfoil Geometry of NACA 0010
3.2 Estimation of Wing Parameters:
3.2.1 Wing Sweep(Λ):

With Reference to the Wing Sweep Historical Trend (fig.4.19) from Ref[1] there is no need
for wing sweep at Mach no 0.286.
3.2.2 Taper Ratio(λ):

Taper Ratio affects the distribution of lift along the span of the wing. Minimum lift induced
drag occurs when the lift distribution is elliptical. Taper ratio also helps in reducing structural
weight, so taper ratio must be decreased as much as possible. But tip stall characteristics
become problem if the taper ratio is too low. Considering these effects taper ratio is selected
as 0.8 from fig.4.22 of Ref[1].
Since taper ratio is used it means that either leading-edge sweep or trailing-edge sweep or both
are not going to be zero. We decided to keep the trailing-edge sweep to be zero with some
leading-edge sweep, which is found in further chapters.

3.2.3 Twist angle(αt):

Twist is given to make sure that wing root stalls early than wing tip, for giving wing twist along
span (wash-out) requires wing optimization and this can be done in preliminary design stage.
3.2.4 Wing Incidence(iw):

Wing incidence is the Pitch angle of the wing with respect to the fuselage at which the drag
remains minimum at some operating conditions, usually cruise. For initial design work wing
incidence is selected as 20 from airfoil data of NACA 652-415 Ref[7]
3.2.5 Dihedral Angle:

Since lateral stability of our design is more, the Dihedral wing makes it even more stable. It is
difficult to control a highly stable aircraft, so we have taken dihedral angle as 0◦.

Chapter: 4
Design parameters:

The thrust to weight ratio and wing loading are the most important parameters affecting
the aircraft performance. These two parameters have their effects on selection of engine type,
take-off gross weight and determining how the aircraft performs all performance related
conditions. The designer must deduce at one of the parameter and use that value to calculate
the other parameter from the critical design requirements.
4.1 Calculation of thrust to weight ratio:
Since we are using propeller engines we can also call it as power to weight ratio. It is usually
defined as the ratio of power of all the engines at the maximum throttle setting at standard sea
level conditions to the design take-off weight of the aircraft.
ℎp
Initially we calculated as = a(Vmax)c……………………………………….table 5.4Ref[1]
𝑊𝑜
ℎp
= 0.099336 shp/lb.
𝑊𝑜
where a=0.029, c=0.23 for flying boat according to statistical approach, as the first
approximation. The thrust matching approach as the final approximation we got as
ℎp Vcruise 1 𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑝
𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓
( )takeoff = ( )( L )( )( ) ….table(5.4)Ref[1]
𝑊𝑜 550∗ᶯ𝑝 ( )cruise 𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 ℎ𝑝
D 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
ℎp
( )takeoff = 0.091766 shp/lb.
𝑊𝑜
𝑊𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
Where Vcruise =309.85 ft/s, ηp = 0.8, ( ) =0.956, (L/D) cruise =14 and
𝑊𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓
ℎ𝑝
( ) =1.908
ℎ𝑝
𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒

4.2 Calculation of wing loading:

The term wing loading is defined as the ratio of weight of aircraft to the reference area of the
wing. Wing loading will be calculated for each of the performance characteristics and one
should select the lowest of the estimated wing loading. i.e. smaller the wing loading larger the
wing. Such that wing is large enough for all flight conditions.
Wing loading for take-off condition:

The calculations are done for Maximum take-off distance of 2248 ft on land, based on the
survey, so the wing loading for take-off conditions is calculated by using equation 5.8 Ref[1].
𝑊 ℎp
( 𝑆
) = (TOP)σ CLTO*(
𝑊𝑜
)
𝑊
(𝑆) = 65.0199 lb/ft2
Where σ is density ratio and is approximately equal to 1 by taking ratio of densities at mean
sea level and Juhu airport altitude, TOP take-off of parameter that is determined for
corresponding take-off distance value by using fig 5.4 Ref[1] and it is equal to 330, CLTO is lift
Co-efficient for take-off and it is equal to 2.4 where flaps in take-off position. Then the wing
loading is calculated as 65.019 lbs/ft2 =317.42 Kg/m2.
Table:4.1 Wing Loading Parameters and Their Values
Parameters Values
ρ∞(slugs/ft3) 0.001754
µ∞ Dynamic viscosity(lb.s/ft2) 0.0000171150
AR 8.5
Swet/Sref 5
Cfe 0.0065
E 0.7967
Vcruise (ft/s) 309.85
CDo 0.0325
q∞ 84.24

Where  = Density of the air, Vcruise =cruise velocity and µ∞ = Dynamic Viscosity are at
10,000ft.
Wing loading for Cruise:
When loading for Cruise is calculated by using equation 5.14 Ref[1]. In which it should be
calculated for both the missions. Since Cruise speed is same for two missions in our case, its
value remains same.
𝑊
(𝑆) = 𝑞∞ √𝜋𝐴𝑅𝑒𝐶𝐷 𝑂
𝑊
(𝑆) =70.03 lb/ft2 = 341.89 Kg/m2
e=1.78(1-0.045AR0.68)-0.64………………….12.49 Ref[1].
Where e is Oswald efficiency factor for straight wing aircraft, CDo can be calculated as
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡
CDo = ( 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) × 𝐶𝑓𝑒 table 12.3 Ref[1]. where Cfe is skin friction drag for seaplane from table
12.3 Ref[1]. And the values are tabulated above.
Wing loading for loiter:
Wing loading for the loiter condition for both mission is calculated by using equation 5.16
Ref[1]. and it is given for the propeller engine aircraft.
𝑊
(𝑆) = 𝑞∞ √3𝜋𝐴𝑅𝑒𝐶𝐷 𝑂
𝑙𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑊
(𝑆) =60.04 lb/ft2= 293Kg/m2
𝑙𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟
The CDo, e and q∞ are same as cruise condition, and the values are tabulated above.

Wing loading for landing:
The calculations are made for the maximum landing distance of 2621ft based on the survey,
so the wing loading for the landing is calculated by taking equation 5.11 Ref[1].
𝑊 𝑆𝑙−𝑆𝑎
(𝑆) = 1
𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 0.66∗80×(𝜎∗𝐶 )
𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑊
(𝑆) = 68.9 lb/ft2 = 336.37Kg/m2.
𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
Sa=450(STOL) is obstacle clearance distance, the reason of multiplying ground portion of the
landing by 0.66 is that it may give an advantage for aircraft equipped with reversible pitch
propeller.
4.3 Conclusion:
Minimum value of wing loading should be selected to ensure the wing is large enough for all
flight condition. So the loiter wing loading 60.04 lb/ft2 or 293 Kg/m2 and it is our design wing
loading. Ref[1]

Chapter: 5
Detail sizing:

The detailed sizing or the refined sizing is done in order to take into consideration of more
number of parameters that influence the total weight of the aircraft. The refined sizing can be
done based on the consideration of flying boat and turboprop engine characteristics of the
airplane.
The refined equation for calculation of empty weight fraction for the aircraft is given
by
𝑤𝑒 𝑐 ℎ𝑝 𝑐3 𝑤 𝑐4 𝑐
𝑤0
= 𝑎 + 𝑏 × 𝑤0 1 × 𝐴𝑐2 × (𝑤 ) × ( 𝑠0 ) × 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥
5
…… (1)
0
The following tabulation 5.1 is done based on the various data given in Ref[1] and from the
previous calculation.
Table:5.1 Tabulation of Data for Empty Weight Fraction Calculation
CONSTANT a b c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
CONSTANT
VALUE 0 0.41 -0.01 0.1 0.05 -0.12 0.18
ℎ𝑝
Based on above constants and with values of A = 8.5 and (𝑤 ) = 0.091766 shp/lb and
0
𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 408 𝑘𝑚/ℎ as standard values for both the missions the empty weight fractions can be
estimated.
5.1 Passenger mission:

The empty weight fraction for the passenger mission with total weight 𝑤0 = 8200kg, and
lowest wing loading of 60.04 lbs/ft2 or 293.115 kg/m2 the empty weight fraction is calculated
as
𝑤𝑒
= 0.800164 × 𝑤0−.0.1…… (2)
𝑤0
Mission segment weight fractions:

Engine warm-up, taxi and takeoff weight fraction is taken as

𝑤1
= 0.97
𝑤0
Climb and accelerate segment weight fraction can be determined using the formula
𝑤𝑖
= 1.0065 − 0.0325 × 𝑀 ….. (3)
𝑤𝑖−1
(Note the equation represent the weight fraction for the acceleration of the aircraft from
Mach number of 0.1 to Mach number ‘M’)
Therefore, for PAX mission the aircraft is accelerating from a Mach number of ‘M = 0.126’
which is equivalent to (1.1× 𝑣𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) at sea level condition to a Mach number of ‘M = 0.2877’
which is equivalent to a free stream velocity ‘340 km/h’ at 10000ft taking into consideration
‘Indian Standard Atmosphere’.
The weight fraction can be calculated by using equation (3) and was found out to be
𝑤2
𝑤1
= 0.994757
CRUISE segment weight fractions can be calculated by using formula
−𝑅×𝐶𝑏ℎ𝑝
𝑤3 2 𝐿
( )×550×𝜑
(𝑤 ) = 𝑒 𝐷 …… (4)
2
(accounting for overall range in entire mission profile)
And detailed calculation of ‘L/D’ can be done by using the formula
𝐿 1
= 𝑤 ……. (5)
𝐷 𝑞×𝐶𝐷0 𝑠
( 𝑤 )+ 𝑞×3.142×𝐴𝑅×𝑒
𝑠
The ‘L/D’ calculated from the above equation with values of AR = 8.5, e = 0.8,
𝑤
𝐶𝐷0 = 0.0325, q = 84.24 lb/ft-s2 and = 70.03 lb/ft2.
𝑠

The value was found out to be
𝐿
= 12.82….. (This is the L/D ratio in cruise)
𝐷
From the above result the weight fraction was found to be
𝑤3 2
( ) = 0.9443472
𝑤2
(This is weight fraction that includes a total range of ‘646 km’ including range for return as
well)
LOITER segment weight fraction can also be calculated by using the formula
−𝐸×𝑣×𝐶𝑏ℎ𝑝
𝑤4 2 𝐿
( )×550×𝜂𝑝
(𝑤 ) = 𝑒 𝐷 …… (6)
3
(And L/D needs to be multiplied with 0.866 at loiter)
The value of the Loiter mission segment weight fraction was found to be
𝑤4 2
( ) = 0.969146
𝑤3
(This weight fraction includes a loiter equivalent of 70 min which also includes ’60 min’ of
reserve fuel).
The descent, landing and Taxi-Back weight fraction is taken as

𝑤𝐴
= 0.995 × 0.997 = 0.992
𝑤4
(With consideration of max critical condition of descent and landing procedure)
From the above data and by using the equation for estimation of overall weight fraction, the
overall weight fraction was found to be
𝑤9
= 0.838536
𝑤0

The fuel fraction with 2% tolerance is
𝑤𝑓 𝑤
𝑤0
= 1.02 × (1 − 𝑤9 ) = 0.16469328
0
The iteration equation can be further given as

1142
𝑤0 =
0.85353 − 0.800164 × 𝑤0−0.01
To include the usage of composite in design, a factor of 0.95 is multiplied to the empty
weight fraction based on composite trends. The iteration equation further becomes
1142
𝑤0 =
0.85353 − 0.955 × 0.800164 × 𝑤0−.0.01
By following iteration procedure, the total weight of the aircraft for PAX mission was found
to be
𝑤0 = 7391.53 𝑘𝑔
the ASR mission the remaining weight balances are shown in future chapters as TRADE STUDIES
and a final refined mission profile is the total weight for the PAX mission is far below the ‘-10%’
tolerance criteria of ‘FAR-23’ therefore the range in the mission profile is further extended till
the aircraft comes in the region of tolerance for ‘FAR-23’ certification. The total weight for
the PAX mission is considered to be ‘8079 kg’ where the remaining weight is added as fuel
for extended range. Since the aircraft’s preferential design is based on established.
5.2 ASR mission:

The same equation as stated above are used for computing empty weight fraction, cruise and
loiter weight fraction but the crew along with payload weight is taken as ‘1260 kg’
The empty weight fraction remains the same for both the PAX and ASR mission, that is
𝑤𝑒
= 0.800164 × 𝑤0−.0.1
𝑤0

𝑤1
ENGINE START: The weight fraction till take-off is taken as = 0.97 .
𝑤0
CLIMB from (1 to 2): With the same calculation as above the climb segment weight fraction
for acceleration from 162.75 km/h (1.1*𝑣𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) to ‘240 km/h’, that is from Mach number of
0.132 to 0.2030.
𝑤2
= 0.997697
𝑤1
CLIMB from (5 to 6): The second climb segment weight fraction for acceleration from
162.75 km/h (1.1× 𝑣𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) to ‘340 km/h’, that is from Mach number of 0.132 to 0.28762.
𝑤6
= 0.9949535
𝑤5
The descent landing and taxing back weight fraction based on the historical trends the weight
fraction for descent phase is taken as
𝑤4
= 0.99 × 0.997 = 0.992
𝑤3
LOITER at ‘10000ft’: Weight fraction for 180 min loiter at ‘10000ft’ can be given by the
same above equation for loiter, and weight fraction for this segment is found to be
𝑤3
= 0.922575
𝑤2
RETURN CRUISE WEIGHT FRACTION: The return cruise segment weight fraction can also
be calculated by using the same standard equation used for PAX mission, and the weight
fraction was found to be (for a cruise range of ’75 km’).
𝑤7
= 0.993374
𝑤6
From the above done calculation the overall mission weight fraction is found to be
𝑤9
𝑤0
= 0.842331

The Fuel weight fraction can be given by

𝑤𝑓 𝑤9
= 1.02 (1 − ) = 0.160822
𝑤0 𝑤0
The iteration equation for calculation of total weight can be given by
1260
𝑤0 =
0.839178−0.800164×𝑤0−.0.01
Including the composite trends, the empty weight fraction is multiplied by a factor of 0.955.
Then the iteration equation becomes
1260
𝑤0 =
0.839178 − 0.955 × 0.800164 × 𝑤0−.0.01
By following iteration procedure, the total weight of the aircraft for ASR mission was found
to be
𝑤0 = 8907.6 𝑘𝑔
The same extension in range is also provided simultaneously for effective exploitation of
FAR-23 rules and for further calculation a refined weight of ‘8978 kg’ is taken into
consideration.
The weights considered and the composite trend values inculcated in the calculations
are far low compared to the modern advancements, but with prevailing composite materials
the aircraft weight is highly expected to reduce than the calculated value.

Chapter: 6
Geometry sizing and configuration

6.1 Fuselage Dimensions:

As first approximation
Length = a WoC , (from the table 6.3 of Ref[1])
Where a = 1.05, C = 0.40, Wo =8908Kg = 19639lb. We get Length = 54.8ft = 16.7m Then
the maximum diameter of fuselage is calculated by using the fineness ratio. Ref[1]
fuselage length
Fineness ratio = =6
Maximum Diameter
For the fuselage length of 55ft, the maximum diameter:
Dmax = 9.167ft = 2.8m
Note: The above length and diameter are for the single fuselage, since ours is twin fuselage
model, the design of the fuselage is described in next chapter.
6.2 Engine Dimension and Weight:

Power to weight ratio requirement of the aircraft is 0.091766 shp/lb. using the maximum take-
off weight 8908 kg or 19639 lbs so aircraft needs 1802.19 shp (shaft horse power). Since it has
two engines, one engine should have 901shp. So as of now, we have chosen Pratt and Whitney
PT6B-37A engine with 1002shp. Engine properties are given below.
Table:6.1 Engine Properties Tabulation
Engine Power Weight Height Width RPM Length
Units [KW] [kg] [m] [m] [rotations [m]

per min]
PT6B-37A 747.2 122.47 0.904 0.4953 4313 1.575

6.3 Wing Sizing and Planform Shape:

Lift load of the aircraft is carried by the wing hence proper wing sizing has crucial part in
design.
• Wing area is calculated from take-off gross weight and wing loading
𝑊 8978
S= ( 𝑊𝑂𝑜 )= =30.63m2.
293.141
𝑆
Wing span b= √(AR*S) = 16.14 m (AR=8.5, S=30. 63sq.m)

• Width of single fuselage is 1.5m, since our design has two fuselage the portion of
wing going through fuselage is 3m and between two fuselage distances of 2m is
kept.
Note: To cater for the interference flows between two fuselages and to avoid wing
tips touching water during banking.
• So, the extent of wing till fuselage end is taken as rectangular and then it is tapered.
• Taper ratio is taken as 0.8, i.e., ƛ = 0.8
2×𝑆
• Root chord Cr= = 2.11m (ƛ=0.8)
𝑏∗(1+ƛ)
• Tip chord Ct= ƛ×Cr=1.68m

• Semi-Span of the tapered portion = 8.07-2.5 = 5.57m
2 1+ƛ+ƛ2
• Mean aerodynamic chord C = ( × 𝐶𝑟 × )=1.9m
3 1+ƛ
𝑏 1+2ƛ
• Y= × =2.68m from tapered section root chord.
6 1+ƛ
Where b=16.14-5 = 11.14m. From middle section of the wing mean aerodynamic
chord lies at a distance of 2.5+2.68 = 5.18m
(𝐶𝑟 −𝐶𝑡 )
• Sweep angle ˄=tan-1= ( ) = 4.41°
𝑏/2
• For Flaps, its span length may vary up to 70% of wing span, we have taken 48% of
wing span as flap span and 20% of mean aerodynamic chord is taken as flap chord.
Flap chord = 0.2 X 𝑐̅ = 0.382m
Flap Span = 0.48 X b = 7.8 m

• Length of Conventional aileron vary up to 30% wing span, we have taken 25% of
wing span and 20% of mean aerodynamic chord is taken as flap chord. Aileron
maximum negative deflection is taken as -25° and maximum positive deflection is
+20° on conventional basis.
Aileron chord = 0.2 X 𝑐̅ = 0.382 m
Aileron span = 0.25 X b = 4 m.
• Wing setting angle calculation:

The required cruise CL is 0.4. The lift curve slope of wing
𝐶𝑙∝
𝐶𝐿 ∝ =
𝐶𝑙 ∝
1 + ᴫ𝑒𝐴𝑅
𝐶𝐿 ∝ = 4.6128
Since aircraft flies most of the time in CLcruise hence to avoid fuselage pitching up to
give desired CL. Here wing is set to fuselage reference line with iw.
CLcruise = CL o + 𝐶𝐿 ∝ (iw) (𝐶𝐿 ∝ = 4.6128)
CLcruise = CL o + 4.6128 (iw)
CLo = 𝐶𝐿 ∝ X ∝𝐿=0 = 0.21737 (∝𝐿=0 = zero lift angle of attack, Ref[7].)
CL cruise= 0.4 = 0.2173 + 4.6128 (iw)
iw = 0.0396 rad
iw = 2.269 °
To have minimum drag at cruise wing is set at iw = 2.27° or 0.0396 rad.
• Winglet: Conventional Upswept winglets is selected in our design.
Table:6.2 Wing Dimension Tabulation
Wing Root Tip MAC- Span wise Taper Sweep Wing

Span-b Chord- Chord- 𝑐̅ location of Ratio- Angle setting
Cr Ct MAC-Y ƛ angle iw
Units [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] - Degree Degree
Values 16.14 2.11 1.68 1.9 5.18 0.8 4.410 2.269°

Fig:6.2 Iso-view of wing
Fig:6.1 Planform of wing
6.4 Tail sizing and planform shape:

Tail plays very important role in case of the aircraft stability. Hence tail design is vital in
aircraft design. Any minor fault in design of tail results in fatal accidents, so always tail design
should be done in cautious manner. All the formulae and data are referred from Ref[2]
Horizontal tail sizing
Features
• Tail configuration: modified H-tail.

• Tail location with respect to CG: Aft tail
• For flying boat horizontal tail volume co-efficient VH =0.7 …. Ref[2]

• Optimum tail moment arm: lt
As the tail moment arm increases, the aft fuselage increases hence the weight and wetted area
(drag) of aft section increases, but stabilizer area required will be less.
As the tail moment arm decreases the stabilizer size required will be more hence the weight
and wetted area (drag) of stabilizers increases but aft fuselage size will be less.
To optimize the tail moment arm the below calculations are made
Swet = 0.5 ×π×Df ×Lf aft + 2×Cmac×Sw×VH

Df : effective diameter of two fuselage.
Lf aft : converging portion length of aft fuselage
By differentiating equation (1) with respect to lt and substituting to zero.
(dSwet/dlt)= 0
4𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐 𝑆𝑤 𝑉𝐻
Gives 𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑡 = k√ 𝜋𝐷𝑓
k = correction factor for aft fuselage cone shape (fudge factor).
K = 1 for exactly aft cone fuselage.
For the designed aircraft k = 1.1 (depending upon aft fuselage cone shape)
lt = 4.71 m
• Horizontal tail plan-form area SH
VH CW SW
SH =
lt
SH = 8.681 m2
• Wing/fuselage aerodynamic pitching moment coefficient Cmo wf
Acos2 ᴧ
Cmo wf = Cmaf (A+ 2cosᴧ ) + 0.01αt

Where Cm af : wing aerofoil section pitching moment coefficient
ᴧ = 4.41o wing sweep angle
αt = 0 wing twist
A = aspect ratio of wing
Cmo wf= -0.051
• Cruise lift coefficient CL = 0.4

• Lift required from tail during cruise CLH
CLw (Xcg−Xac) CD Ze cg
Cmo wf + − ηh VH CLH − = 0
Cmac Cmac
Assuming during cruise Xcg=Xac

Zecg = 1.8722 m ⇒ vertical distance between engine thrust line and CG
From the above equation CLH = - 0.184
• Horizontal tail airfoil section NACA 0010
Symmetric airfoil is chosen since symmetric airfoil stall later than cambered for a
given CLH and tail should stall later than wing.
• Horizontal tail sweep ᴧht= 0
(Horizontal sweep is not given since two fuselages is attached through horizontal tail
along with wing.)
• Tail aspect ratio Ah = 4 ………………... Ref[1]
• Horizontal tail lift curve slope CLα_H
Clα
CLα = C Lift curve slope of horizontal tail.
1+( lα )
πeAt
Clα_H = 0.1/deg = 5.73/rad lift curve slope of airfoil………………Ref[2]

e: 0.7 for rectangle plan-form
Hence CLα H = 3.47/rad
• Downwash angle at tail ɛ

dɛ
ɛ = ɛ0 + dα 𝛼𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒

where ɛo : downwash angle at zero angle of attack of wing

(dɛ/dα) α: rate of change of downwash with angle of attack
2𝐶
ɛ0 = 𝜋𝑒𝐴𝐿0 =0.02065
𝑤
dɛ 2C
(dα) α𝑐 = πeALα 𝛼𝑐 = 0.01737
w
ɛ=0.038 rad = 2.1780

• Horizontal tail incidence iH
CLH = CLα H (αf + iH − ɛ )
αf = at cruise the fuselage angle of attack is assumed to be zero to minimize the drag.
And lift is generated by wing giving wing setting angle iw which will be calculated
from CL cruise
Since we are using modified H tail there will be negligible effect of downwash on
horizontal tail from wing so there will be two conditions of downwash on tail.
• When downwash is affecting the tail

η = 0.7 dynamic pressure is different at wing and tail due to downwash
ɛ = 0.038 rad
iH= - 0.8610
• When downwash is not affecting the tail
η=1
ɛ=0
iH = - 0.053 rad = - 3.0380
Tail span bH and chord CH
bH = AH × CH
bH = SH /CH
bH = 5.8927 m
CH= 1.473 m

Vertical tail sizing
• Configuration: Twin vertical tail.

• Vertical tail volume coefficient (vertical tail volume ratio)
Vv = .06 for flying boats
• Vertical tail moment arm is same as horizontal tail moment arm
lt=lt_h = lt_v = 4.71 m
• Vertical tail plan-form area Sv
Vv Sw bw
S’v = = 6.3 m2
lt
For twin tail the area of each vertical tail is half of the above area assuming linearity.
𝐒’𝐯
Sv = = 3.148 m2
𝟐
• Vertical tail airfoil is NACA 0010.

• Vertical tail aspect ratio Atv = 1.5.
• Vertical tail taper ratio λ = 0.6.
• Vertical tail setting angle iv is zero since the slipstream is symmetric about the twin
vertical tail because of twin turboprop engines nullify each other’s slipstream effect.
• Vertical tail sweep angle
Crv – Ctv
tan( ᴧ ) =
bv
ᴧ = 4.620
• Dihedral to vertical tail is not given.
• Vertical tail plan form.
• span of each vertical tail, bv = 2.025 m.
• Root chord of vertical tail Cv root, Cv root = 1.63667 m.
• Tip chord Cv tip.

Cv tip = Ch root= 1.473 m

• Mean aerodynamic chord
2
( )𝑏𝑣 (1+𝜆+𝜆2 )
3
𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐 = (1+𝜆)
𝑏 (1 + 2𝜆)
𝑌𝑣 = ( )
6 (1 + 𝜆)
Cv_mac= 1.5563 m ,
Yv = 0.5 m
6.5 Spin recovery:

since there is no wake disturbing the rudder from horizontal stabilizer there is a spin recovery
possible.
Fig:6.3 Spin recovery

Summary on all parameters of Empennage:
Table:6.3 Tail Dimension Tabulation
Tail Area- AR Taper Span- Root Tip MAC- Y Moment Sweep Tail
S Ratio- b Chord- Chord- 𝑐̅ arm- angle setting
ƛ Cr Ct angle
Unit [m2] - [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] degree degree
Horizontal 8.681 4 - 5.8927 1.473 1.473 1.473 2.17 4.71 - -3.038
Vertical 3.148 1.5 0.89 2.025 1.63667 1.473 1.5563 0.5 4.71 4.62 0
Note: since downwash from wing is not affecting the horizontal tail therefore it is
recommended that horizontal tail setting angle to be -3.0380 among -3.038 deg and -0.861 deg.

Chapter: 7
Refined Geometrical Sizing:

7.1 Fuselage:
After the wing and tail, the fuselage is the third most important aircraft component. The
primary function of the fuselage is to accommodate the payload. This chapter is devoted to
the design of the fuselage. It provides the fuselage design requirements, the primary function
of the fuselage
Identification of payload and operational

requirements
select fuselage configuration and

Internal arrangement
Determinaton of fuselage length.

Determinaton of mean diameter of
fuselage.
Design passenger cabin

Design nose section
Design of rear section
Passenger Compartment Data: From ref[1].
Table:7.1 Passenger Compartment Data
Seat Pitch 88.9 cm
Seat width 55.9 cm
Aisle width 50.8 cm
Aisle Height 152.4 cm

Fuselage Dimensions:
• Determine the number of crew members.

• Determine the number of ﬂight attendants (for passenger mission aircraft)
• Determine the number of technical personnel (for ASR aircraft).
• Establish human size and target passenger.
From the above points and table Fuselage Dimension are calculated below:
Length of the Cabin:
𝐿𝐹 = 𝜂𝑃 × 𝑃𝑠𝑖 , where 𝜂𝑃 is no of passengers, 𝑃𝑠𝑖 is pitch length.
𝐿𝐹 = 5.33 𝑚
Width of the Cabin:
𝑊𝑐 = 𝜂𝑐 × 𝑤𝑐 + 𝜂𝐴 × 𝑤𝐴 , where 𝜂𝑐 is no of seats, 𝑤𝑐 is width of each seat.
𝑊𝐶 = 1.068 𝑚
Width of Fuselage:
𝐷𝑓 = 𝑊𝑐 + 2 × 𝑇𝑊 (Thickness of fuselage is considered as 6 cm)
𝐷𝑓 = 1.2 𝑚
Length of Nose section:
𝐿𝑛 = 1.5𝐷𝑓 = 1.8 𝑚
Length of rear section:
The upswept of aft fuselage is taken as ∝=17° as per Ref[2]
𝐷𝑓
(2)
LR =
tan(∝)
LR = 1.96 m

Total length of Fuselage:
Lf = Lc + Lη +LR
Lf = 5.33 + 1.8 + 1.96 = 9.1m
Note: The above given length is for single fuselage.
Slenderness Ratio:
𝐿𝑓 9.1
It is given by = = 7.58
𝐷𝑓 1.2
Note: The above calculated values are for each fuselage.
Seating Arrangement:
For PAX Mission Single row seats have been designed for the passenger, for Flight Attender
seat have been included in the same row.
For the ASR Mission seats have to be removed and stretchers should be replaced.
Seating Arrangement representation:
Fig:7.1 Seating arrangement top view Fig:7.2 Seating arrangement iso view

Aircraft Door:
A unified door is suggested which acts passenger plane door type during normal PAX
operation.
In case of ASR mission, it acts as a slider type as shown below. (similar to HS-748 Door).
Main doors are employed outer side of both fuselage.
Emergency doors employed inner sides of the fuselages.
Example for sliding Doors:
Fig:7.3 Example of sliding door Fig:7.4 Example of sliding door
7.2 Engine Dimension and Sizing:

In the initial approximation, we have chosen a different engine configuration with the
lower power to weight ratio. But after the calculation of the drag coefficient, it needed a higher-
powered engine. After a decent study we have chosen Pratt and Whitney PT6A-67F Engine
with 1268shp, this series of engine has not encountered a single failure from twenty years and
it is EASA certified engine. All the properties of the engine are listed below.

Table:7.2 Engine Dimension and Properties

Engine Power Weight Overall Length RPM Power
Diameter
Units KW Kg m m [1/min] hp
PT6A-67F 1268 270 0.466 1.913 39,000 1700
Fig:7.5 PT6A-67F Engine
Fig:7.6 PT6A-67F Engine
7.3 Engine Placement:

• Placement of the engine was determined based on a number of considerations. First,
the position of the engine should be limited by the FAR Part 23 requirements: at least
one inch between the blade tip and the aircraft structure and 18 inches between the tip
and the water must be maintained.

• Second, danger zones of the propeller determine the position of it with respect to the
cabin doors. In addition, water spray and clearance above the water line as well as the
static stability must be taken into account while positioning the engine.
• Our Engine placement is 2.42m above from the aircraft nose, 0.15m between the
Propeller tip and the fuselage and 1.4m above waterline. Figure below shows the engine
layout and propeller diameter.
Fig:7.7 Engine placement representation
7.4 Propeller Sizing:

In order to determine variables such as engine location and landing gear height for the
prop driven aircrafts, the propeller diameter must be known. Thus, a prop driven aircraft
designer needs to have a rough estimation of the propeller diameter. EASA Ref[4] Certification
document of Pratt & Whitney engines were preferred with six-bladed propeller; hence a
ballpark estimation of the propeller is presented from Ref[2] in this section.
2𝑃𝜂𝑃 𝐴𝑅𝑃
𝐷𝑃 = 𝐾𝑛𝑝 √( 2 𝐶 𝑉 )
𝜌𝑉𝑎𝑣 𝐿𝑃 𝑐
𝐷𝑃 = 2.29 𝑚

Table:7.3 Data for Propeller Diameter Calculation
Properties Values
Correction factor Knp 0.72

power of single engine (P) 1268 Kw
propeller efficiency ηP 0.7
Aspect ratio of engine ARp 7
Density of air at cruising altitude ρ 0.904
Average airspeed Vav 189 m/s
Lift coefficient of propeller Clp 0.2
Cruise velocity Vc 94.45 m/s
Diameter of propeller DP 2.29 m
Fig:7.8 Six bladed propeller model

Fig:7.9 Propeller parameters representation
7.5 Undercarriage Design:
7.5.1 Landing Gear:

Landing gear required for the ASR must provide the aircraft successfully perform on
different runways and be as small and light as possible, that eventually satisfies PAX
mission.
Quadrilateral landing gear was chosen for the present design as one of the most suited type of
the landing gear for our aircraft.
Longitudinal and lateral positioning of the landing gear determines the ability of the aircraft to
rotate during take-off and maneuver on the ground. Nose landing gear should not carry more
than 20% of MTOW with the cg being at the forward limit, and no less than 10% when the cg
is at the aft limit.
The main landing gear should be located such that the aircraft can rotate up to maximum angle
of attack to prevent tail strikes. In addition, the main gear should be offset behind the most aft

cg such that the angle between the vertical line through the gear and the line crossing the gear
and the cg must be equal to the maximum possible rotation angle. Wheel track of the main
landing gear determines whether the aircraft is stable while turning and taxiing.
Fig:7.10 landing gear model
Fig;7.11 side view of amphibian plane with landing gear
Note: The Landing gear mechanism should be analogous to Ackermann steering mechanism.

Fig:7.12 Schematic diagram of Ackermann steering mechanism
7.5.2 Hull Design:

Design of a hull plays an important role in many aspects of the aircraft performance.
Hull must be designed such that it provides adequate buoyancy for the airplane in the water.
FAR Part 23 requires the hull to be able to withstand 1.8 gross weights of the airplane. In
addition, performance of the airplane during take-off and landing highly depends on the hull
geometry: lengths of the fore-body and aft-body; location, type, and height of the step required
for the airplane transition during take-off; deadrise angle; existence of flare etc. Details and
decision making regarding design of each component of the hull will be described in below.
Basic Hull design parameters:
The hull design parameters were calculated by using the formulas and statistical estimation
given Ref [1], the estimated parameters of hull are:
Table:7.4 Basic Hull Parameters
Hull parameter Value

Dead rise angle 34.73 (deg)
Dead rise angle (first step) 30 (deg)
Beam width 1.5 (m)
Ratio of Length to beam
width 6.06
Step height (5% of beam
width) 7.5 (cm)
Note: Formula for dead rise angle:

𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 −20
𝐴𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑒 = 2
According to FAR-23 the design was based on the consideration to cater for 1.8 times
the all up weight. By trial error method the hull volume was designed with below
specification keeping the mind of all the above hull parameters calculated from the Ref [1].
Based on design analysis the following are the hull design characteristics:
Table:7.5 Basic Hull Parameters
HULL
CHARACTERISTICS VALUE
8.1 (cubic
Hull volume (per fuselage) meters)
Water line 0.75 (m)
Hull spread length (per
fuselage) 5.965 (m)
Note:
1. The water line was estimated from the frontal area calculated from design data and the
hull spread length was setup through design for setting up the required volume per
fuselage.
2. The volume consideration according to design are only based on present calculations,
for accurate design of hull there is still a requirement of detailed study on
hydrodynamics of hull.
3. The hull equivalent frictional coefficient ranges from 𝜇 = 0.1 to 𝜇 = 0.15. These
values are taken from Ref[1] and are used for performance estimation in future chapters.

Fig:7.13 Bottom view of Hull

Chapter: 8
Aerodynamics

8.1 Lift Curve Slope:

Lift curve slope of the subsonic flight can be calculated from the equation:
2𝜋𝐴𝑅 𝑆𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑
𝐶𝐿𝛼 = 𝐴𝑅2 𝛽2
× 𝑆
×𝐹
2+√(4+( 2 )(1+(tan2 𝛬𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑡 /𝛽 2 )
𝜂
Where AR= 8.5, β2 =1-M2, 𝛈 is the airfoil efficiency and it is 0.95 for the most airfoils, Λmaxt
is the sweep of the wing at the chord location where the airfoil is thickest and F is fuselage lift
factor that can be calculated from equation:
F=1.07(1+d/b)2. (Since we have two fuselages we take ‘2d’ instead of ‘d’.)
Maximum thickness for NACA652-415 airfoil occurs at x/c =0.266 in the wing but since there
is tapered angle at leading edge in our wing, consider sweep angle (Λmaxt) at the tapered section
as 4.41◦. According to drawing exposed area and total area of the wing are found as 24.33m2
and 30.63m2 respectively. The fuselage lift factor is calculated as 1.406. Substituting the all
numerical values into 𝐶𝐿𝛼 equation for the Mach number between 0.2M and 0.8M following
values are plotted.
Fig:8.1 Mach no Vs. CLα graph

8.2 Maximum Lift Coefficient Calculation:

Maximum Lift Coefficient at Clean Configuration:
Firstly, it is checked whether the wing is a low AR wing or not, by using equation 12.18[1] and
it is found that the wing violates the low wing equation since our AR is equal to 8.5 while RHS
of the equation is 2.675.
3
𝐴𝑅 ≤
(𝐶1 + 1)(𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛬𝐿𝐸 )
Where C1 = 0.125 for λ =0.8 from fig.12.11[1] and ΛLE= 4.41◦
Maximum lift coefficient for high AR wings can be calculated from the equation 12.16 and
fig. 12.8-fig 12.9 Ref[1]
𝐶
𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) + ΔCLmax
𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥
From fig 12.8 Ref [1]( ) is found as 0.89 for the corresponding sweep angle. Also,
𝐶𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥
ΔCLmax is found from fig 12.9 Ref [1]

for the zero-sweep angle since we have not given any
sweep to our wing and corresponding the Mach numbers between 0.2M and 0.6M.
Table:8.1 Mach no vs ∆𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥
Mach 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

number
ΔCLmax 0 -0.2 -0.36 -0.45 -0.5
Then, ΔCLmax is found as 1.8 from XFLR for NACA 652-415 airfoil for the Reynolds number
that is calculated as 6.7 million for the M=0.2 then, CLmax is calculated by using these values
for the Mach number between 0.2Mand 0.6M that can be seen from below table
Table:8.2 Mach no vs 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥

Mach 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

number
CLmax 1.6 1.4 1.24 1.1 1
Then, CLmax values are corrected by using adjustment factor for high Mach number in the fig
12.14[1] and it is plotted:
Fig:8.2 Mach no Vs. CLMax graph
Maximum Lift Coefficient with High Lift Devices:
𝐶′ 𝐶′
We have considered Double slotted flaps for trailing edge, ΔCLmax =1.6 where = 1.
𝐶 𝐶
𝐶′
For leading edge, slat is used and it has, ΔCLmax= 0.4 according to
𝐶
Table 12.2 of [2] by assuming chord is increasing about 5% with devices for leading-edge.
Then
ΔCLmax= 1.6 for double slotted flaps and ΔCLmax= 0.42 for slat. Then, equation 12.21 [2] is
used

to calculate the maximum lift coefficient with high lift devices:
𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑑
∆CLmax = ∆Clmax ( ) 𝑐𝑜𝑠ᴧ𝐻𝐿
𝑆
So, substituting the numerical values yield at:
ΔCLmax for flapped = 0.821
ΔCLmax for slatted = 0.215
Then maximum lift coefficient can be calculated using lift coefficient of clean configuration
and contributions of the high lift devices:
CLmax = CLmax) clean + ΔCLmax) high lift. [CLmax)clean is at M=0.3, because our aircraft mostly
operate on this Mach no]
CLmax) landing = 2.436
This value corresponds to lift coefficient of the landing and lift coefficient for the take-off is
60-80% of landing value and by taking 80% of this value:
CLmax) take-off = 0.8 CLmax) landing = 1.95
8.3 Drag Divergence Mach Number:

Drag divergence Mach number is not applicable for our aircraft because our sweep angle is
equal to zero and aircraft cannot reach higher Mach number in reality when it is looked at Fig
12.26 Ref[1] to calculate.
8.4 Total Parasite Drag:

Total parasite drag is calculated for only subsonic region because aircraft cannot be in
supersonic region and it is calculated by using the equation 12.24 Ref[1] :

∑𝐶𝑓𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐 𝑄𝑐 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 ,𝑐

CDo )subsonic = + CD,misc + CD,L&P
𝑆
Where Cfc: Flat plate skin friction coefficient
FFc: Form Factor for each component.
Qc: Interference Factor for each component.
CD,misc: Drag of flaps, landing gears, upswept aft fuselage base area.
CD,L&P: Drag of leakages and protuberances
It is assumed as fully turbulent flow and skin friction coefficient can be calculated by using
equation 12.27 Ref[1] :
0.455
𝐶𝑓𝑐 =
((𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑅𝑒)2.58 (1 + 0.144𝑀2 )0.65 )
It is calculated for the altitudes as sea level, 10,000ft and 15,000ft, all air parameters are
found for these altitudes:
Table:8.3 Properties with respect to altitude
Properties Sea level 10,000 ft 24,000 ft

ρ 1.225 0.9047 0.1948
a∞ 94.4 94.4 94.4
μ∞ 1.789X10-5 1.69 X10-5 1.642X10-5
To take into account the shape of the hull and the step, fuselage skin friction drag coefficient
was multiplied by a factor of 2. Such estimation gives a conservative value that may be reduced
in deeper preliminary design stages. Also, cut-off Reynold number is calculated by using
following equation 12.28 Ref[1] for subsonic flow from assuming if the surface is rough and

smaller one of the Reynolds numbers is taken into account to calculate the skin friction
coefficient.
Recut-off = 38.21 (l/k)1.053
Where l: Length of component
K= 2.08×10-5 skin roughness value for smooth paint from Table Ref[1]
Component form factor is calculated by using equation 12.30, 12.31 and 12.33 [2] for wing,
tails, fuselage and nacelle.
Form Factor Calculation for each Component
Table:8.4 𝐶𝐷𝑜 equations
Where,
𝑙
f= , l = length, AR = aspect ratio.
4∗𝐴𝑅
√
ᴫ
Form Factors used for drag calculations were averaged using methods of Raymer, Hoerner,
Torenbeek, Shevell, and Jenkinson. Then, wetted areas are calculated from OpenVSP,
reference areas, thickness ratios of airfoils, interference factors and maximum thickness angles
are found and tabulated in below table for the components.

Table:8.5 Parameters for CDo calculations
Parameters Wing Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail Fuselage

Swet(m2) 60.55 17.26 11.24 77.8
S(m2) 30.63 8.681 6.3 41.2
t/c 0.15 0.1 0.1 -
x/c 0.5 0.3 0.3 -
Qc 1 1.05 1.05 1
ᴧmax,t(°) 4.41 - 4.62 -
CD,misc were considerd as 30% and CD,L&P as 10% of the calculated drag value.
Calculating and Substituting all the values in the equation 12.24Ref [1] we get
Table:8.6 CDo values at different altitudes
CDo @ sea level 0.0478

CDo @ 10000ft 0.0489
CDo @ 15000ft 0.0565
Drag Contribution of each component @ sea level is given below:
Fig:8.3 Drag contribution

Table:8.7 CDo Contribution of Main Components
Components CDo Contribution

Fuselage 0.0202 42.25
Wing 0.008116 17
Horizontal tail 0.00265 6.6
Vertical tail 0.00316 5.55
Miscellaneous 0.01024 21.4
Leakage and Protuberance 0.0033926 7.2
Total 0.0478 100
Graphs of CD vs CL @ various altitudes is given below:
CD vs CL @ Sea-level
Fig:8.4 CD vs CL @ Sea-level

Fig:8.5 CD vs CL @ 10,000 ft
CD vs CL @ 15,000ft
Fig:8.6 CD vs CL @ 15,000 ft
Supersonic wave drag and transonic parasite drag are not calculated for this aircraft since it
cannot fly at supersonic speed.

8.5 Calculation of Induced Drag Factor:

Induced drag factor can be found for subsonic flights from the equation 12.48[2]
1
K=
ᴫ×𝐴𝑅×𝑒
Where e = 1.78(1-0.045*AR0.68)-0.64 from the equation 12.49[2] for straight-wing aircrafts,
AR = 8.5 So, by substituting the numerical values,
1
K = ᴫ×8.5×0.797
K = 0.047
8.6 Aerodynamic Analysis:
8.6.1 Analysis of Wing:

The calculated dimensions of wing are modelled in OpenVSP and analyzed in VSPAERO.
OpenVSP analysis provides conventional results in the Preliminary stage of designing aircraft.
In VSPAERO Vortex-Lattice Method is used to calculate aerodynamic coefficients. Solution
neglects viscosity and thickness (infinitely thin aircraft surfaces).
Then analyzed at cruise conditions i.e. Mach no.0.286 with zero sideslip angle. Wing incidence
of 2.27° is also given.
The Lift Distribution of wing along span wise, Pressure Distribution and Vorticity Flow
analysis of the wing is given in below figures:

Fig:8.7 CL distribution of wing along spanwise
From the analysis we got CL = 0.435 at cruise conditions.
Fig:8.8 Pressure distribution over wing

Fig:8.9 Vorticity over wing
8.6.2 Analysis of wing with Rotors:
Our aircraft uses twin Turboprop Engine hence the flow analysis of wing with Rotors plays an
important role. The rotors are designed in OpenVSP as per our design and analysis is done in
VSPAERO. Analysis is done with 0° alpha (aircraft AOA), Mach no 0.286, zero side slip angle
and wing setting angle of 2.27°
Analysis of wing with rotors is done with 1000 rpm. Respective Lift distribution along span
wise, Pressure Distribution, and Vorticity distribution are shown in below figures.

Fig:8.10 CL distribution of wing along spanwise with rotor 1000rpm
From the above figure we can incur the lift distribution CL is increased to 0.45 as the
dynamic pressure is increased in the upper surface by the presence of rotors.
Fig:8.11 Pressure distribution over wing with rotor 1000rpm

Fig:8.12 Pressure distribution over wing with rotor 1000rpm
8.6.3 Analysis of Empennage:

Empennage is designed in OpenVSP as per our design and analyzed in VSPAERO with Vortex
Lattice Method. The analysis is done at cruise conditions i.e. at 0̊ alpha (aircraft AOA), 0.286
Mach no, zero sideslip angle, wing incidence angle of 2.27° and -3° for the Horizontal tail
setting angle.
The Lift Distribution along span wise, Pressure Distribution and Vorticity Distribution are
given in below figures.

Fig:8.13 CL distribution over empennage along span
Negative lift distribution is observed as wing incidence angle of -3° is given for Horizontal
tail.
Fig:8.14 Pressure Distribution over empennage

Fig:8.15 Vorticity over empennage
8.6.4 Analysis of Empennage with Rotors:

Our Empennage Design is in such a way that it gets in the way of downstream flow of Rotors,
hence the flow analysis of Empennage with rotors is important.
The rotors are designed in OpenVSP as per our design and analysis is done in VSPAERO.
Analysis of empennage with rotors is done with 1000 rpm along Horizontal tail incidence of -
3° and at cruise conditions. Respective Lift distribution along span wise, Pressure Distribution,
and Vorticity distribution are shown in below figures.
Fig:8.16 CL distribution over empennage along span with 1000 rpm

Due to the rotor flow interference the variation in lift distribution is shown in the above figure.
CL is increased to -0.4 for 1000 rpm.
Fig:8.17 Pressure Distribution over empennage with rotor 1000 rpm
Fig:8.18 Vorticity over empennage with rotor 1000 rpm

8.6.5 Analysis of Aircraft:

Entire aircraft is modelled in OpenVSP as per dimensions and analyzed through VSPAERO.
Analyzed at 0°alpha (aircraft AOA) , cruise Mach no.0.286 with zero sideslip angle. Wing
incidence with fuselage is given and Horizontal tail incidence is also given before analyzing
the flow.
The Lift Distribution along Span wise of Wing and Horizontal tail along with Flow distribution
of aircraft is given below:
Fig:8.19 CL distribution over aircraft along span

Fig:8.20 Pressure Distribution over aircraft
Fig:8.21 Vorticity over aircraft

8.6.6 Analysis of Aircraft with Rotors:

Rotors are designed in OpenVSP and are analyzed with VSPAERO. Respective Lift
Distributions along Span wise, Pressure Distribution and Vorticity Distribution are given in
below figures.
Fig:8.22 CL distribution over aircraft along span with rotor 1000 rpm
Fig:8.23 Pressure Distribution over aircraft with rotor 1000 rpm

Fig:8.24 Vorticity over aircraft with rotor 1000 rpm
Note:
• All analysis is done for clean configurations without the inclusion of Flaps and slats.
• Engine Propeller rotation direction (in analysis with rotor) of one is clockwise and the
other is counter clockwise to nullify the side wash of each other.
• The rotation of each propeller is towards the centerline of aircraft, Because the down
going propeller blade produces more thrust than the up going blade.
• This shifts the thrust line inwards, towards the longitudinal line, hence during
asymmetric thrust (if one engine fails) the moment arm of engine will be less therefore
rudder deflection required will be less.

Chapter: 9
Thrust Curves

9.1 Introduction:
The thrust values obtained by the manufacturers after some tests facilities is
called as the uninstalled thrust. Since these tests are conducted only with the engines and
without considering the losses due to installing it on the aircraft. Hence the real thrust values
during the flight operations are not same as uninstalled thrust. In order to calculate installed
thrust, below study were done.
9.2 Uninstalled thrust:

Uninstalled thrust values will be given by the manufacturers, but we did not find
any specifications in internet like the uninstalled thrust or power values with respect to Mach
number and altitude for PT6A-67F engine. Since the lack of information about uninstalled
thrust values, from ref[1] Appendix A.4[2] was used.
This Appendix A.4 gives typical turboprop engine characteristics.
Appendix A.4 gives the sea level static power of a sample engine as 6500 hp. Since one of
our engine has 1700 hp power, the static power values were scaled and this scale factor used
for the scaling uninstalled thrust chart.
2×1700
𝑆. 𝐹 = =0.523
6500
Uninstalled thrust is scaled and plotted for the different altitude in one chart. Note that these
values are not so accurate due to their mode of arrive, they are just approximated values
obtained by scaling a sample engine’s data.

Fig:9.1 Uninstalled Thrust Vs. Mach number
9.3 Thrust related losses:

Installed engine thrust correction:
These are the losses related to the core engine which is the same as core engine of a
turbofan or turbojet. There are three types of engine related losses.
Inlet Recovery losses:
These losses should be multiplied by 2 since aircraft uses two engines.
𝑃 𝑃
Percent of thrust loss =𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑚 [ ( 1 ) − ( 1) ] × 100
𝑃𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑃 𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑚 = 1.35 is approximated for subsonic flight.
Percent of thrust loss = 2.7 % for single engine

Bleed Air:
According to Appendix A.4 Bleed air mass flow rate is 0.8 lb/s and engine mass flow
rate is 42.3 lb/s. since both mass flow rate scaled by using S.F, equation can be written as
follow, where ‘bleed air correction factor’ is approximated as Cbleed = 2.0 for initial analysis.
𝐵𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤

Percent of bleed air loss =𝐶𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑑 ( ) ∗ 100
𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤
Total percent of bleed air loss for two engines = 7.563%
Power Extraction:
According to Appendix A.4 extracted power from engine is 54 KW for the 6500 hp
powered engine which is approximately 73.6 hp. To implement our engine. use S.F.
2×1700
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑡 = (𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑡 )6500ℎ𝑝 = 38.49 hp
6500
9.4 Installed Thrust:

𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 = 𝑇𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 − (𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 × 𝑇𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 ) −
Using the above sections, we approximated the Installed Thrust values for Mach numbers at
(𝐵𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑑
each altitude, considering major 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 × 𝑇𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 )
losses.

Fig:9.2 Installed thrust Vs. Mach number
9.5 Conclusion:
From calculations, above installed thrust values were obtained. There are significant
decreases in thrust values due to engine related losses; inlet recovery, bleed air and power
extension. Installed thrust values at flight altitudes seems like to be sufficient enough to meet
the requirements but to judge correctly that if this installed thrust values are sufficient or not,
the one should do performance analysis in a detailed manner with more accurate engine data.

Chapter: 10
Weights Loads and CG Estimation:

10.1 Decision for location of fuel:

Fuel distribution is done in a conventional manner inside the wing that is as shown in the
figure.
Fig:10.1 Fuel Distribution in wing
Note: Taking the specific gravity of fuel as 0.7, the fuel volume was calculated as 2.062 m3.
The fuel arrangements are as shown in above figure.
10.2 Fuselage Parameters from Sizing:

The fuselage parameters are basically designed through mission requirements and the
fuselage design done in openVSP program. The following are the fuselage parameters that
are derived
Each Fuselage Parameters
Table:10.1 Fuselage Parameters
PARAMETER MAGNITUDE
Length 9.1 m
MAX diameter 2m
Seat configuration 1
Seat width 0.558
Aisle width 0.508
10.3 Estimation of weight of major components

From the typical ref[1] data, Table 15.2. The values of typical geometric dimensions are taken
from openVSP program

Reference parameters
Table:10.2 Exposed Planform Area of Various Components Aircraft
EXPOSED PLANFORM
AREAS
Sexposed planform of Horizontal Tail 6.055 m2
Sexposed planform of Vertical Tail 1.54199 m2
Sexposed planform of Fuselage 39.4 m2
Sexposed planform of Wing 24.33 m2
Approximate group Weight method
From approximate group weight method given in the ref[1], the weights of major components
are calculated as follows
Table:10.3 Weight of Major Components by Group Approximation
COMPONENT PAX MISSION ASR MISSION PRIORITY

Wing - 1009.8 ASR
Horizontal Tail - 163 ASR
Vertical Tail - 82.81 ASR
Fuselage - 1924 ASR
Installed engine 540 540 -
Fuel 1217 1444 -
Landing gears - 386.054 ASR
Payload 1142 1260 -
All Else Empty - 1526.52 ASR
The weights are generally calculated from the design data and by utilizing the data given in
Ref[1] chapter 15, tabulation 15.2 and tabulation 15.4.
Note: The priority parameter is provided in order to support for both the missions in a single
airframe structure that is being developed.

10.4 Initial Estimation of Center of Gravity:

Estimation of center of gravity along longitudinal axis
The weight of the components is taken from above tabulation, and the respective
individual center of gravity for the various components is estimated with respect to Fuselage
reference line (FRL).
Note: Equivalent payload implies the payload equivalent of all weight sum of passengers,
amenities etc. And most of the measurements are taken from the openVSP program as well
along with initial predictions from Ref[1]
The tabulations for the estimation of center of gravity along longitudinal axis are as below:
FOR ASR MISSION
Table:10.4 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Longitudinal Axis
COMPONENTS OF WEIGHTS INDIVIDUAL CG

ASR (Kg) LOCATION (m)
Fuselage 1924 3.64
Wing 654.5 3
Horizontal Tail 163 6.22
Vertical Tail 82.81 6.1
Installed Engine 740 3.1
Fuel 1444 3
Equivalent payload 1260 3.64
Equivalent landing gear 386.054 4.1
All else Empty 1526.52 3.64
Note: Equivalent landing gear means the equivalent single landing gear positioned at
respective position which would give the same individual location if the landing gears were
dispersed.
Estimated CG-Position along longitudinal axis from fuselage nose = 3.53 m.

FOR PAX MISSION
Table:10.5 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Longitudinal Axis
COMPONENTS OF WEIGHTS INDIVIDUAL CG

PAX (Kg) LOCAION
Fuselage 1924 3.64
Wing 654.5 3
Fuel 1217 3
Equivalent payload 1142 3.64
Equivalent landing gear 386.054 4.1
All else Empty 1526.52 3.64
Estimated CG-Position along longitudinal axis from fuselage nose = 3.54 m.
The similar methodology can also be followed for vertical location of center of gravity
The tabulations for the estimation of center of gravity along vertical axis are as below:
FOR ASR MISSION
Table:10.6 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Vertical Axis
COMPONENTS OF INDIVIDUAL CG
ASR WEIGHTS (Kg) LOCAION (m)
Fuselage 1924 0.06
Wing 654.5 1
Fuel 1444 1
Equivalent payload 1260 0
Equivalent landing gear 386.054 -1
All else Empty 1526.52 0

Estimated CG-Position along vertical axis from fuselage reference line = 0.47m.
FOR PAX MISSION
Table:10.7 Individual Cg Location of Components Along Vertical Axis
COMPONENTS OF INDIVIDUAL CG
PAX WEIGHTS (Kg) LOCAION
Fuselage 1924 0.06
Wing 654.5 1
Fuel 1217 1
Equivalent payload 1142 0
Equivalent landing gear 851.3 -1
All else Empty 1526.52 0
Estimated CG-Position along vertical axis from fuselage reference line = 0.463m.
Note: The detailed weight estimation can also be done at this stage but since the design is
completely conceptual the weight estimation will be much erroneous and may be out valued.

Chapter:11
Aircraft Performance

11.1 Take-off and landing performance:

Take-off Performance: The take-off distance of aircraft is a function of wing loading, thrust
loading, altitude of runway, maximum take-off weight, CLmax etc., hence for a given design and
operational regime the values are obtained and ground take-off distance is calculated from
Ref[5]
Obstacle height: 50 ft
Ground take-off distance = Ground roll + Airborne distance
STO = Sg + Sa
𝑊 1 2 𝑊 1
𝑆𝑔 = 1.21 ( ) × +1.1√(𝜌 ) ( 𝑠 ) (𝐶 )
𝑆 𝑇 𝐷 𝐿 ∞ 𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑔𝜌∞ 𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥 [( )−( )−𝜇𝑟 (1−( )] )
𝑊 𝑊 𝑊 0.7𝑣
𝐿𝑂
ℎ𝑜𝑏
𝑆𝑎 = 𝑅 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃𝑂𝐵 𝜃𝑂𝐵 = cos −1 (1 − )
𝑅
2
6.96 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙
𝑉𝐿𝑂 = 1.2𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 R=
𝑔
Note: For calculation of ground roll in water during take-off, as per Ref[1] section 11.7
ground roll is estimated for equivalent friction coefficient range of μ = 0.10 to 0.15 and also
it is calculated for μ varying from 0.02 to 0.8.

Estimation of Take-off distance (Rolling Friction with Brakes off):
Table:11.1 Estimation of Take-Off Distance (Rolling Friction with Brakes Off)
Surface Rolling friction Sg (m) Sa (m) STO (m)

coefficient (μr)
Dry Concrete 0.04 428.37 227.8 656.17
Wet Concrete 0.05 431.18 227.8 658.98
Icy Concrete 0.02 422.86 227.8 650.65
Hard turf 0.05 431.18 227.8 658.98
Firm dirt 0.04 428.37 227.8 656.75
Soft turf 0.07 436.95 227.8 664.75
Wet grass 0.08 439.89 227.8 667.69
Estimation of Take-off distance (Rolling Friction with Brakes on):
Table:11.2 Estimation of Take-Off Distance (Rolling Friction with Brakes On)
Surface Rolling friction Sg (m) Sa (m) STO (m)

coefficient (μr)
Dry Concrete 0.4 565.96 227.8 793.76
Wet Concrete 0.15 461.86 227.8 689.66
Icy Concrete 0.06 434.04 227.8 661.84
Hard turf 0.4 565.96 227.8 793.96
Firm dirt 0.3 518.53 227.8 746.33
Soft turf 0.2 479.15 227.8 706.95
Wet grass 0.2 479.15 227.8 706.15

Fig:11.1 Take-off distance Vs. frictional coefficient
11.2 Landing Performance:

Landing Performance of the aircraft is obtained by utilizing standard equation from
Ref[5].
The Standard equation with usual notation are as below:
50−ℎ
𝑆𝑎 = 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝜃𝑓 (Approach distance)
𝑎
𝑆𝑓 = 𝑅 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃𝑎 (Flare distance)
𝑉𝑓2
𝑅 = 0.2𝑔 (Flare Radius in fts)
2
𝑊 𝑉𝑇𝐷 1
𝑆𝑏 = 𝑉𝑇𝐷 + [𝑇 ] (Breaking distance)
2𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑣 +𝐷+𝜇𝑟 (𝑊−𝐿) 0.7𝑉
𝑇𝐷

Landing Distances with breaks-off condition (with and without thrust reversal)
Table:11.3 Landing Distances with Breaks-Off Condition (With and Without Thrust
Reversal)
Rolling Sb (m) Sa (m) Sf (m) ST (m) Sb (m) ST (m)

friction (Without (Without (With25% (With25%
coefficient thrust thrust thrust thrust
(μr) reversal) reversal) reversal) reversal)
Dry 0.04 1248 254 72 1574 616 942
Concrete
Wet 0.05 1209 254 72 1535 607 933
Concrete
Icy 0.02 1336 254 72 1662 635 961
Concrete
Hard turf 0.05 1209 254 72 1535 607 933
Firm dirt 0.04 1248 254 72 1574 616 942
Soft turf 0.07 1137 254 72 1463 590 916
Wet grass 0.08 1105 254 72 1431 582 908
Note: For calculation of ground roll in water during landing, as per Ref[1] section 11.7 ground
roll is estimated for equivalent friction coefficient range of μ = 0.10 to 0.15 and also it is
calculated for μ varying from 0.02 to 0.8 [Ref Appendix].

Landing Distances with breaks-on condition (with and without thrust reversal):
Table:11.4 Landing Distances with Breaks-On Condition (With and Without Thrust Reversal)
Surface Rolling Sb (m) Sa (m) Sf (m) ST (m) Sb (m) ST (m)

friction (Without (Without (With25% (With25%
coefficient thrust thrust thrust thrust
(μr) reversal) reversal) reversal) reversal)
Dry 0.4 587 254 72 913 408 734
Concrete
Wet 0.15 921 254 72 1247 531 857
Concrete
Icy 0.06 1172 254 72 1498 599 925
Concrete
Hard turf 0.4 587 254 72 913 408 734
Firm dirt 0.3 685 254 72 1011 449 775
Soft turf 0.2 825 254 72 1151 500 826
Wet grass 0.2 825 254 72 1151 500 826
Fig:11.2 Landing distance Vs. frictional coefficient (without thrust reversal)

Fig:11.3 Landing distance Vs. frictional coefficient (with 25% thrust reversal)
11.3 Range and Endurance:

Range: For maximum range, the aircraft should fly at minimum drag condition which requires
minimum thrust. For turbo prop engine thrust required will be minimum when (C L/CD) is
maximum. D
Tmin =
C
(C L )
D max
C CD0
(C L ) is maximum at 𝐶𝐿 = √ 𝐾
D max
For given design CD0 = 0.00812, k = 0.04758
CL = 0.413
For maximum range aircraft should fly at CL= 0.413
Endurance: For maximum endurance the aircraft should fly in such a way that amount of fuel
consumed per unit time should be minimum which implies power required should me
minimum.

3
C2L
Power required will be min when (C )
D
max
3CD0
From above equation CL= √ = 0.7155
k
Graph of power required vs V at sea level
Fig:11.4 power required Vs. velocity plot
3
C2L
Point ‘a’ indicates(C ) at CL =0.7155 and the corresponding speed will be optimum for
D
max
maximum Endurance.
C
Point ‘b’ indicates(C L ) at CL =0.413 and the corresponding speed will be optimum for
D max
maximum range.
11.4 Climb Performance:

During various mission segments, aircraft should have the prescribed rate of climb as per the
FAR 23 commuters. At service ceiling altitude the rate of climb should be 100 ft/min
Pa – Pr excess power
Rate of climb = ROC = =
W W

From the above equation it is understood that maximum rate of climb can be achieved when
excess power is maximum and excess power is maximum when aircraft is flying at
3
C2L
(C ) and at corresponding speed.
D
max
As the altitude varies power required and power available changes, mainly aircraft’s rate of
climb is defined at sea level, cruise altitude, service ceiling.
Fig:11.5 power required Vs. velocity @10,000 ft
Power required is given by Pr = TV = DV = 0.5ρV3SCD
power available at sea level for chosen two engines is given as Pa=ηp*Ps = 0.7×2536000 =
1775 KW
Since variation of power at cruise and service ceiling altitudes was not available from engine
specification, therefore it is calculated using pressure, density and temperature ratios (δ, σ, ϴ).
𝑇
ϴ = (𝑇 ) : ratio of temperature at given altitude to temperature at reference (sea level) altitude.
0
𝑃
δ = (𝑃 ) = ϴ5.255 : ratio of pressure at given altitude to pressure at reference altitude.
0
𝜌
σ = (𝜌 ) = ϴ4.255 : ratio of density at given altitude to density at reference altitude
0

Pr0
Power required at given altitude is related to σ as Pr h =
√σ
Power available at given altitude is related to δ as Pa h = δP0
At service ceiling the rate of climb is 100 ft/min (0.508 m/s) according to FAR regulation
𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
Hence ROC = = 0.508 = (Pasc – Prsc)/W
𝑊
P
δP− r0
√σ
0.508 =
𝑊
from the above equation service ceiling temperature is found to be 255.5 k the corresponding
altitude is 5023.4 m (16480.97 ft)
The service ceiling of sea planes will be less compared to other commercial planes since the
drag from hull structure requires higher thrust so is in our designed aircraft too.
Maximum Rate of climb at operating altitudes at optimum CL= 0.7155 are
Table:11.5 Rate of Climb at various altitudes
Altitude Density Velocity Power Power Flight path Rate of climb

of air (m/s) required available angle γ (deg) (m/s)
(kg/m3) (KW) (KW)
Sea level 1.225 81 697.92 1775.2 10.75 15.11
10000 ft 0.9 94.5 814.24. 1221 2.80 4.618
Service ceiling 0.644 110.6 962.566 1007.3 0.263 0.508
=16480.97 ft

11.5 Turn performance:
• according to FAR 23 commuter category the bank angle should not be greater than
60.
• Limit load factor should be 3.8.
1
During steady coordinate turn the load factor is 𝑛 =
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝝓
• Radius of turn is related to velocity and load factor as

𝑅 = 𝑉 2 /(𝑔√(𝑛2 − 1) )
Diagram bank:
Fig:11.6 Aircraft bank diagram
Graph of velocity versus radius at n= 1.5 and 2 are:

Fig:11.7 Radius of turn Vs. velocity (n=1.5)
𝑉𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 (𝑛 = 1.5) = 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 √1.5 = 54.13 m/s
Fig:11.8 Radius of turn Vs. velocity (n=2)
𝑉𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 (𝑛 = 2) = 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 √2 = 62.5 m/s

1
Glide path angle: in case of engine 𝑡𝑎𝑛( 𝛾 )the=glide path angle should be optimum to travel
failure
𝐶
(𝐶 𝐿 )
as much distance as possible 𝐷 max
γ = 7.425 0
11.6 V- n Diagram:
To successfully design structure of the airplane, and perform required calculation, first, a V-n
diagram must be obtained. V-n diagram was developed using FAR -23 requirements.
Minimum ultimate positive load factor was estimated to be 2.9 but is decided to be increased
to 3.5 (FAR- 23 allows positive load factor up to 3.8), while negative load factor was found by
multiplying 0.4 times the positive load factor i.e. -1.4 as per FAR 23. Gust speeds of 50ft/s
were also considered using estimations from FAR 23 requirements.
A MAT-Lab file is created to draw the V-n diagram. And the expected V-n diagram obtained
from MAT-Lab file is shown in the below figure.
• At cruise speed with 60° bank angle with n=2 turn can be made without reaching
structural limit. (it can reach up to n=3.5)
• It can also be noted that at cruise speed gust load factor of -1.4 can be handled
• After design cruise speed is reached, positive load factor begins to decrease until it
reaches value of 2.8 at the dive speed. This decision was made to decrease maximum
possible loads developed by the structure and decrease structural weight.

Fig: 11.9 V-n Diagram
VC = 183.5 kts, or 94.4 m/s VS = 85.53 kts, or 44 m/s
VD = 1.5 x VC = 275.25 kts or 141.6 m/s (Dive Speed)

Chapter:12
Aircraft Stability and Control:

To ensure safe operation of aircraft in the given regime, aircraft must be statically as
well as dynamically stable. Generally, in conventional aircrafts the only stabilizing component
will be tail. The destabilizing contribution from wing, fuselage, engine etc.., has to be nullified
and sufficient stability has to be given by tail alone. Henceforth design of stabilizers plays vital
role in aircraft design.
Sign conventions are as followed in “Flight stability and automatic control” by Dr. Robert C
Nelson
12.1 Static Stability
• Longitudinal Stability: for positive stability the

dCm dCm
or of whole aircraft must
dCL dα
dCm dCm
be less than zero. dCL
, dα
<0
Fig:12.1 Aircraft axis representation

Assumptions
• During cruise CG is assumed to be at mean aerodynamic center of wing.

• Aircraft is designed to carry fuel in wing so during cruise the fuel consumption will
result negligible shift in CG.
• Mass of aircraft is assumed to be distributed uniformly.
• Vertical stabilizer contribution to longitudinal stability is negligible.
To find stability contribution of each component to longitudinal static stability
Wing: Initially it assumed that mean aerodynamic center lies at that point from which the
distance between mean aerodynamic center of wing and tail is equal to tail moment arm.
• For cruise
dC 𝑋𝑐𝑔 – 𝑋𝑚𝑎𝑐
( dCm)wing = 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐 𝑤
(during cruise Xcg = Xmac=3.75 m from nose)
L
dC
( dCm) =0
L wing
• For estimated cg
(during cruise Xcg = 3.5 m from nose)
L
dC
( dCm) = -0.13
L wing
• For forward most CG

…………. (Xcg = 3.4 m)
L
dC
( dCm) = -0.1842
L wing
• For rear most CG

………….{ (Xcg = 3.8m)
L

dC
( dCm) = 0.0263 destabilizing
L wing
Fuselage contribution: The stability contribution of fuselage to longitudinal stability is

negative and it is negligible. since our design consists of two fuselage there will be a
considerable contribution but due to inadequate data from historical and statistical approaches
hence Stability contribution of fuselage shall be calculated from analysis.
Fig:12.2 Cmy vs alpha
From VSP Q-stability analysis
• dC
From analysis we got ( dαm ) = 0.802 rad-1 = 0.014 deg-1
𝑓
dC dC dα
• ( dCm ) = ( dαm ) (dC ) = 0.1738
L f 𝑓 L a

Engine contribution: The stability contribution of engine is less when compared to tail and
wing.
Tail contribution: The only considerable stability contribution is by tail.
Hence to ensure overall stabilitydC

ofmaircraft, taildCshould
m dα
be designed with cautious manner.
( ) = ( )( )
dCL tail dα dCL wing
dC dɛ
( dαm ) = − ηVH CLα H (1 − (dα)) = - 1.376 rad-1
t
Where η = 1{ratio of dynamic pressure at tail to wing,}
dC dC
( dαL ) = ( dαL ) =4.6128 per rad
aircraft wing
Static margin for estimated CG: From chapter 10 the estimated CG is at 3.5 m from
aircraft nose. The stabilitydC (Xthis
ofmthe aircraft at cg −CG
Xacposition
) dCis dCm
m as follow
Hence ( ) = +( ) +( )
dCL aircraft Cmac dCL f dCL tail
(3.5−3.75)
= + 0.1738 − 0.3
1.9
= -0.257
Hence for the estimated CG the static margin is 0.257
To trim aircraft at CL =0.4, 𝐶𝑚𝑜 = 0.1028
Graph of Cm vs CL: for estimated CG

0.12
Cm 0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CL
Fig:12.3 Cm vs CL
Neutral point: Now to find neutral point of aircraft i.e., the CG location of aircraft at
which the aircraft will be neutrally stable.
dCm Xcg – Xmac dCm dɛ

( ) = CLα w +( ) − η VH CLα H (1 − ( )) = 0
dα Cmac w dα 𝑓 dα
4.6128(Np − 3.75)
= + 0.802 − 1.376
1,9
Here Xcg = Np = 3.99 m from nose of aircraft
Static margin: SM during 4 CG conditions are given by
dC (Xcg – Xnp )
SM = - ( dCm ) = −
L Cmac_w
• During cruise Xcg = 3.75 m

SM = 0.126
• During estimated CG Xcg = 3.5m
SM =0.258
• During forward most CG, Xcg = 3.4 m
SM = 0.31
• During rearmost CG, Xcg =3.8 m

SM = 0.1
Table :12.1 Cg Location and Static Margin Tabulation
CG Location XCG (m) Static Margin

Forward most 3.4 0.341
At estimated CG 3.5 0.258
At MAC 3.75 0.157
Rear most 3.8 0.1
At estimated CG the stability analysis from open VSP at M = 0.286, the

following result is obtained
Fig:12.4 Graph of Cm v/s α at M = 0.286
dCm
The average slope of above graph is = −1.146 rad−1
dα

dCm
dCm ( ) 1.146
dα
Hence (
dCL
)= CLα
=−
4.6128
= −0.248
dC
• Theoretically calculated ( dCm ) = −0.258
L
dC
• From open VSP ( dCm ) = −0.248
L
12.2 Directional stability:

dCn
For directional stability >0
dβ
• Wing, fuselage and engine contribution towards directional stability is negligible.

• Vertical tail : considerable contribution is only by vertical tail and it is given by
dCn dσ
• = −ηv Vv CYβ (1 + dβ)
dβ
𝑆
dσ ( 𝑣) 𝑍
• 𝑆𝑤
η (1 + dβ) = 0.724 + 3.06 (1+𝑐𝑜𝑠ᴧ ) + 0.4 ( 𝑑𝑤 ) + 0.009𝐴𝑤 = 1.3156
𝑤
• Vv = 0.06
• CYβ = -2.093 rad-1 ( lift curve slope of vertical stabilizer, negative because of sign conv)
dCn
= 0.1652
dβ
• Whole aircraft’s directional stability from Open VSP at M = 0.29
Fig:12.5 Cmz vs 𝛽
at M=0.29 and α = 00 Cn v/s β

Fig:12.6 Cmz vs 𝛽
M=0.29 α = 5 , Cn v/s β
From the above graph it is concluded that the aircraft is directionally stable
12.3 Lateral stability:

dCl
for lateral stability <0
dβ
dCl 𝑆𝑣 𝑍𝑣
Tail contribution: = −ηv Clαv = -0.0233 rad-1
dβ Sw bw
Whole aircraft lateral stability as from open VSP at M=0.29

Fig:12.7 Cmx vs 𝛽
Actual data plot at α = 0 , Cl v/s β
From the above graph it is clear that aircraft is experiencing proverse yaw from 0 < β < 2.5
due to which it is exhibiting negative stability laterally so this has to be nullified by adding
winglets.
Fig:12.8 Cmx vs 𝛽

Mean data plot at α = 0, Cl v/s β
dCl
from the above analysis the < 0 hence the aircraft is laterally statically stable.
dβ
12.2 Control Surface Sizing
Depending upon the stability of the aircraft various control surfaces are sized. A higher stable
aircraft need higher control power, meaning more control surface and more control
effectiveness. So, the higher stable aircraft is not always preferred due to problems encountered
for trimming from one flight condition to another. So, depending on the stability of aircraft,
forward and rearmost CG, the following control surfaces are sized.
Elevator
• Elevator chord to horizontal tail chord ratio
𝑪𝒆
= 𝟎. 𝟑 ⇒ Ce = 0.442 m.
𝑪𝒉
• Elevator span to horizontal tail span ratio
𝒃𝒆
= 1 ⇒ be = 5.8927 m
𝒃𝒉
• δe : elevator deflection in degrees

-25 < δe < +25
• elevator to horizontal tail area ratio
𝑆𝑒
= 0.3 ⇒ Se = 2.6 m2
𝑆ℎ
Rudder
• Rudder chord to vertical tail chord ratio
𝑪𝒓
𝑪𝒗
= 𝟎. 𝟑 ⇒ Cr =0.467 m

• Rudder span to vertical tail span ratio
br
= 1 ⇒ br = 2.025 m
bv
• δe : rudder deflection in degrees

-30 < δr < +30
• Rudder to vertical tail area ratio
𝑆𝑟
= 0.3 ⇒ Sr = 0.94464 m2
𝑆𝑣
(sizing of aileron is done in chapter 6)
Table :12.2 Plan-Form Area of Control Surface with Stabilizer
Control Chord (m) Span (m) Area (sq.m) Deflection Range

Surface
Elevator 0.442 5.8927 2.6 -25 to 25
Rudder 0.467 2.025 0.94464 -30 < δr <+30
Aileron 0.382 4 1.528 -25 to 20
Plan-form area of control surface with stabilizer:
Fig:12.9 Horizontal tail top view

Fig:12.10 Horizontal tail iso view
Fig:12.11 Vertical tail iso view Fig:12.12 Vertical tail side view
Control power of control surfaces:
For the selected airfoils the elevator effectiveness factor τ is found by below graph
𝐝𝛂𝐇
𝝉=( ) (rate of change of tail angle of attack w.r.t elevator deflection)
𝐝𝛅𝐞

Fig:12.13 Tail effectiveness
Elevator power: Cmδe = ηH 𝑉𝐻 𝐶𝐿𝛼 𝜏 = 1x0.7x3.47x0.5 = -1.2 rad-1
Rudder power: Cnδr = ηv 𝑉𝑣 𝐶𝑦β 𝜏𝑣 = 0.85x0.06x2.093x0.5 = −0.1067 rad-1
2
2CLα 𝑦2 (𝜆−1)𝑦 3
3
Aileron power: Clδa = 𝑆 τCr ( 2 + ) { 5.97 < y < 7.97 }
𝑤 𝑏𝑤 𝑏
Cl δa = - 0.0676 rad-1
Table: 12.3 Power of Control Surfaces
Longitudinal (rad-1) Directional (rad-1) Lateral (rad-1)

Control Cmδe = −1.2 Cnδr = −0.1067 Clδa = −0.0676
Asymmetric thrust condition: During any one engine failure the other engine has to produce
the required thrust. Due to lateral position of engines there will be a yawing moment during
asymmetric thrust hence to counter this yawing moment rudder has to be deflected to live
engine side. Maximum deflection should not exceed the rudder deflection limit (−30 < δr <
30).at sea level the thrust produced by engine is given by
T = 15000 N (from thrust curves)

Yt = 1.75 m (distance between engine center line and aircraft longitudinal center line)
V = 0.9VS = 39.6 m/s

TYt
δr = 𝑞𝑆 = 0.519 𝑟𝑎𝑑 = 29.76 deg
𝑤 𝑏𝑤 Cnδr
Since engine’s propeller are designed to rotate inside or towards center line of aircraft the
Yt will be less hence δr required will also be less.

Chapter: 13
Sizing Matrix and Carpet Plot:

13.1 Sizing matrix method

• The sizing procedure describes the curves that are as drawn, to know how
aircraft will meet the required mission range or other important performance
criteria.
• The configuration geometry was initially selected to meet the requirements
based on assumptions for lift, drag, thrust etc.,
• The aircraft sized using the method described will have different
characteristics and may no longer meet all requirements or may exceed all of
them.
• The aircraft is over designed and if it is not the lightest possible design.
• Thrust to weight ratio (T/W) and wing loading (W/S) are varied from the base
line values (typically -20% to +20%)
• Each combination of (T/W) and (W/S) produces different airplane with
different airframe with different weights. Size of each airplane is analyzed
separately to determine the takeoff weight of each and to perform the design
mission.
• Analyzing each combination separately for performance we got the following
data
Table:13.1 Tabulation of Engine Power Along Side Wing Area
Wing area 36.756 m2 30.63 m2 24.5 m2
Engine power (hp)

3998.93 W0 = 10960.2 kg W0 = 9272.6 kg W0 = 7584.99 kg
(PT6A- 67T)
3400.833 W0 = 10665.6 kg W0 = 8978 kg W0 = 7290.397 kg
(PT6A- 67F)
2400.66 W0 = 10607.4 kg W0 = 8919.8 kg W0 =7232.2kg
(PW120)

• optimization of (T/W) and (W/S) by cross-plotting the sizing matrix data in terms of
chosen performance. Characteristics and take-off weight.
Graphs: Gross weight vs. wing area plot
Fig:13.1 Gross weight Vs. wing area (engine power = 2440.6hp)
Fig:13.2 Gross weight Vs. wing area (engine power = 3400.83hp)

Fig:13.3 Gross weight Vs. wing area (engine power = 3998083hp)
Smooth curves are drawn connecting various points with identical gross weight to produce
lines of constant take-off gross weight.
From these curves, it is possible to determine the sized take-off weight for any possible
combinations.
Fig:13.4 Sizing matrix and carpet plots

• Marking and connecting with smooth constraint lines, the wing loading that
exactly meets requirements.
• The optimal airframe is the one corresponding to the lowest point on the curve
that meets all the constraints
• Hence the chosen engine points are below the near rated engines hence to
satisfy the mission requirement the chosen engine is optimum.

Chapter:14
Geometric Layout:

All dimensions mentioned below are in meters.
14.1 Line Diagrams From openVSP.

Front View:
Fig:14.1 Front view

Side View:
Fig:14.2 side view
Top View:
Fig:14.3 Top view

14.2 Spline Diagrams:

Front view:
Fig:14.4 Front view
Side View:
Fig:14.5 side view

Left-iso View:
Fig:14.6 Wire frame view
Fig:14.7 Iso view of amphibian plane

14.3 Design Summary and other Aspects:

The overall project can be summarized with the information that would give outline of the
total work done:
Table:14.1 Design Summary
AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE

Wing Span 16.14(m)
Wing area 30.63 (m2)
Cruise 340 Kmph
Fuselage length 9.1 m (per fuselage)
Max all up weight 8978 Kg
(L/D)max ratio 11 (From analysis)
Engine PT6A-67F
Application Both PAX and ASR
Mean aerodynamic chord of wing 1.9 m
Water line height from bottom 0.75 m
Major Applications
The aircraft is basically designed for the problem statement of NACDeC and it can
also be used for many other applications as well:
• The aircraft can be used for Para jumping, the design is also best suited for such
recreational applications
• It can be used for Maritime surveillance.
• By employing water retention mechanism inside hull, the aircraft can be used for
firefighting missions.
• By implementing radars over twin fuselage structure, the aircraft can be used for
better sea shore monitoring.
• With modification, the aircraft can also be used for agricultural applications.

Technical issues and probable solutions:
• Cockpit control: As the aircraft is twin fuselage-based design, the pilot seats are one on
both fuselage which is non-conventional. But this issue can be solved by having both the
pilots certified for flying. The communication between pilots is recommended to be wired
type for high data transfer rate. One of the pilot should be assigned as major for taking
decisions. During take-off and landing the major pilot is guided by another pilot for tip
clearance and runway alignment.
• Corrosion resistance of hull: Though corrosion is an important aspect of hull design, it’s
inevitable, but through proper design of hull, the corrosion can be minimized using
sacrificial method of avoiding corrosion through electrochemical method and also the
design can also be given allowance for hull replacement after service time.

14.2 Conclusion:
RFP Requirements and Design Results:
Table:14.2 RFP Requirements and Design Results
Mission PAX mission Result ASR mission Result

segments
Payload 1251.5 satisfied 1260 Satisfied
capacity (kg)
Rate of climb >15.11 satisfied 15.11 Satisfied
at Take-off
(m/s)
Range (km) >600 satisfied - -
Endurance - - >180 Satisfied
(minutes)
Cruise altitude 4.618 satisfied 4.618 Satisfied
ROC(m/s)
Service ceiling 5.023 satisfied 5.023 Satisfied
altitude(km)
WMO Sea 0.5– 1.25 m Satisfied 1.25-2.5 m Satisfied
State 03 & 04
Note: From Diagram 14.2 distance between Tip of the blade from waterline is 1.4m which is
in the range of WMO Sea State 04, hence required sea state is satisfied.

Reference:
[1] Daniel P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Published by American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Second edition.
[2] Mohammad. H. Sadraey: Aircraft Design A Systems Engineering Approach.
[3] Air properties from https://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
[4] EASA Type-Certificate Data Sheet, Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67 series.
[5] John. D. Anderson, Jr: Aircraft Performance and Design.
[6] Mathematical Search Engine: Wolfram Alpha.
[7] Ira H Abbott and Albert E. von Donehoff: Theory of wing sections.


Twin Fuselage Amphibian Aircraft.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Twin Fuselage Amphibian Aircraft.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

Department of Aeronautical Engineering

MULTIPURPOSE AMPHIBIAN VEHICLE” is a bonafide work carried out by,

NANDA KUMAR ABBIGERI (1MJ14AE055)

Prof. S C Gupta Prof. S C Gupta Dr. Gunasekaran V

Name of Examiners: Signature with date:

NANDAKUMAR ABBIGERI (1MJ14AE055)

SRI RAM R (1MJ14AE066)

RADHA KRISHNA R (1MJ14AE067)

In addition, we want to thank, Prof. Srinivasan D, Department of Aeronautical Engineering,

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. vi

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. vii

8.6 Aerodynamic Analysis: ............................................................................................. 81

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. viii

Chapter: 13 ............................................................................................................................ 133

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. ix

2.7 Loiter time payload plot----------------------------------------------------------------------------27

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. x

8.13 CL distribution over empennage along span----------------------------------------------------86

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xi

12.8 Cmx vs 𝛽--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------127

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xii

2.3 All Up-Weight Estimation for Different Payloads(PAX) -------------------------------------22

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xiii

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xiv

𝑉∞ Free Stream Velocity ft/s and m/s

𝜌∞ Density slug/ft3 or kg/m3

𝐶𝑀𝑜 Moment Coefficient -

𝐶𝐿𝑇𝑂 Take-off Lift Coefficient -

e Oswald Efficiency Factor -

𝐶𝐷𝑜 Zero Lift Drag Coefficient -

𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 Wet Area 𝑚2

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. xv

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. 1

The aircraft being developed is completely a new concept in amphibian category of

Fig:1.1 Line diagram of Amphibian aircraft from openVSP

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. 2

1.2 Problem Statement:

Table:1.1 Problem Statement

Requirements PAX Mission ASR Mission

FAR 23 commuter FAR 23 commuters

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. 3

1.2 Study of similar aircraft:

Table:1.2 Study of Similar Aircraft

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. 4

1.2.1 Performance Parameters

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. 5

1.2.2Twin fuselage aircraft:

Characteristics P-82\F-82 TWIN MUSTANG.

Max-Speed (kmph) 742

1.3 Literature Survey:

Table:1.5 Trimaram Boat hull

Title “Advanced Seaplane Conceptual Design Adapting Trimaran Boat Hull

Type Fuselage with Trimaran Boat Hull and Retracting Floats.

Technology MATLAB, SOLIDWORKS

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJCE, Bangalore. 6

Fig:1.2 Trimaran boat hull

Fig:1.3 Trimaran boat hull

Table:1.6 A Multi-Mission Amphibian

Title “The Cormorant – A Multi-Mission Amphibian “AIAA

Technology MATLAB, SOLIDWORKS

Issues Climb Performance is low.