AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY

ASSIGNMENT
“Piaggio P-180 Avanti”

María Asensio Medina

Marcos Bleda Miranda
Ferran de Andrés Vert
Francisco Ángel Jaime Sánchez

Aerospace Engineering
Groups 821 and 823
3-DIC-2018
ABSTRACT

This report contains a thorough analysis of the Piaggio P.180 Avanti, a twin turboprop
engine private jet, focused on performance rather than cargo capabilities, which makes it
perfect for business, military applications or even medical air rescue. Developed by Italian
engineers it is an aerodynamic masterpiece, combined with an outstanding design.

The first part of the report is focused on the design characteristics of the aircraft, such
as its design specifications, the configuration, highlighting the pusher engines, the analysis of its
semi-monocoque structure, and the explanation of how the landing gear works.

In the second part of the report we analyse the operations and focus on its performance
specially on the aerodynamics, calculating the polar curve and the thrust requirements, also the
range of the plane is calculated taking into account all the different conditions.

This project shows how complicated is to design an aircraft, and the wide variety of fields
combined on it, personally this project has encouraged us to keep on studying and expanding
our knowledge about aviation.

1
INDEX
0. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
1. AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................................... 6
1.1. WEIGHTS ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.2. CRUISE SPEED ................................................................................................................ 7
1.3. CRUISE ALTITUDE .......................................................................................................... 8
1.4. RANGE ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.5. POWERPLANT ................................................................................................................ 9
2. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 10
3. AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION ................................................................................................ 11
3.1 ENGINES ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.2. WINGS ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.3 EMPENNAGE............................................................................................................... 12
3.4 LANDING GEAR ........................................................................................................... 13
4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE PIAGGIO P180 AVANTI I ................................................... 13
4.1. STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF THE PLANE........................................................... 13
4.2. STRUCTURE MATERIALS .............................................................................................. 15
5. VIEW DRAWINGS AND PARAMETERS OF THE AIRCRAFT .................................................... 16
5.1. VIEW DRAWINGS ......................................................................................................... 16
6. ANALYSIS OF A SYSTEM: LANDING GEAR ............................................................................ 17
7. CALCULUS OF THE AIRCRAFT’S CRUISE DRAG POLAR ......................................................... 19
7.1. 𝐶𝐷𝑜 estimation ........................................................................................................... 19
7.2. 𝐶𝐷𝑖 estimation ............................................................................................................ 23
8. ESTIMATION OF THE THRUST REQUIREMENTS................................................................... 29
9. BREGUET EQUATION AND AIRCRAFT’S RANGE ................................................................... 31
9.1. Typical range (making assumptions) ........................................................................... 31
9.2. Range estimation for each case of section 7............................................................... 31
10. INFLUENCE OF WEIGHT LOSES ON THE AIRCRAFT’S RANGE........................................... 32
11. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 33
12. APPENDIXES .................................................................................................................... 35
13. REFERENCES (BIBLIOGRAPHY) ......................................................................................... 52

2
Nomenclature

Air’s viscosity 𝜇
Aspect ratio 𝐴𝑅
Atmospheric pressure 𝑝0
Chord at the root 𝑐𝑟
Chord at the tip 𝑐𝑡
Crew weight 𝑊𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑤
Cutoff Reynolds number 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡
Density 𝜌
Dihedral angle (if applied) β
Drag coefficient 𝐶𝐷
Empty weight 𝑊𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦
Final weight 𝑊f
Form factor 𝐹𝐹
Friction coefficient 𝐶𝑓
Fuel weight 𝑊𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙
Fuselage diameter 𝐹∅
Fuselage length 𝐹𝐿
Geometric chord 𝑐̅
Gravity constant 𝑔
Ideal gases constant 𝑅
Induced drag coefficient 𝐶𝐷𝑖
Initial weight 𝑊i
Interference factor 𝐹𝐼
Inviscid part of the flow of the induced drag 𝑄
Length 𝐿
Lift coefficient 𝐶𝑙
Maximum Landing Weight 𝑀𝐿𝑊
Maximum Take-Off Weight 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊
Mean aerodynamic chord 𝑀𝐴𝐶
Oswald factor 𝑒
Parasitic drag coefficient 𝐶𝐷𝑜
Payload weight 𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
Power 𝑃
Pressure 𝑝
Propeller efficiency ƞp
Reynolds number 𝑅𝑒
Shaft Horse Power shp
Specific fuel consumption 𝑆𝑃𝐶
Specific fuel consumption 𝐶sp
Sutherland’s constant 𝐶1
Sutherland’s temperature 𝑆
Sweep angle at a quarter chord 𝜆1
4
Sweep angle at a half of the chord 𝜆1
2

3
 Taper ratio 𝑇𝑅
Temperature 𝑇
Velocity 𝑣
Viscous part of the flow 𝑃1
Wetted surface 𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡
Wing surface 𝑆𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔
Wingspan 𝑏
Zero-Fuel Weight 𝑍𝐹𝑊

4
 0. INTRODUCTION

The Piaggio P.180 Avanti is an Italian executive transport aircraft with twin-turboprop
engines mounted in a pusher configuration. It seats up to nine people in a pressurized cabin and
may be flown by one or two pilots. The design is of three-surface configuration, having both a
small forward wing and a conventional tail plane as well as its main wing, with the wing spars
passing outside of the passenger cabin area.

The mission of the Piaggio is executive private transportation, so it was designed

focused on achieving jet-like speeds with turbo-prop fuel efficiency and a very long range,
putting in second place it’s cargo and passenger capacities.

The Avanti was designed by Alessandro Mazzoni (Italian aerospace engineer). Gates
Learjet partnered with Piaggio to develop a fuselage for the new aircraft: Learjet's financial
problems ended their collaboration in January 1986, but Piaggio continued the project, and the
first prototype flew on 23 September 1986. The P.180 Avanti received Italian certification on 7
March 1990 and American certification was obtained on 2 October 1990.

Nowadays, 236 units have been produced, at a unit cost of 5.3 million euros.

5
 1. AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS

1.1. WEIGHTS
TABLE 1.1
Weights (KG) LB
MTOW 5,489 12,100
MLW 5,216 11,500
ZFW 4,445 9,800
Empty Weight 3,561 7,850
Max Fuel Capacity 1,271 2,802
Fuel with Max Net
1,066 2,350
Payload
Max Net Payload 794 1,750
Net Payload with Max
589 1,298
Fuel
Max Fuel Capacity
1,451 3,200
(Increased range Config.)

The role of the Piaggio P.180 Avanti is executive transport with capacity for 8 passengers
and 2 pilots, once we have that information we can analyse the weight of the aircraft.

As a business jet the most important weight is the Max Net Payload, 794 Kg as shown in
the table 1.1, in this case the payload corresponds to the passengers and their luggage.

Related to the mission the Max Fuel Capacity is also important as it determines the max
range of the aircraft.

𝑊𝑇𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑂𝑓𝑓 = 𝑊𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 + 𝑊𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑤 + 𝑊𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 + 𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑

FORMULA 1.1
As we can see from the data, it’s impossible to load the aircraft with the Max Fuel
Capacity and also the Max Net Payload, so depending on the customer preferences they would
have to choose between more range or more passengers.

𝑊𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 + 𝑊𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑤 + 𝑊𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 + 𝑊 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 > 𝑊𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑇𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑂𝑓𝑓

3,561 + 1,271 + 794 > 5489 Kg

5626 > 5489 Kg

6
 Payload (Kg)

4964
Maximum Landing Weight
7047

5238
Maximum Take Off Weight
7322

3538
Operational Weight
4544

352
Useful Payload
926

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Piaggio P.180 Avanti Average Medium Turbo-Prop

TABLE 1.2
As we can see in the table 1.2 in terms of payload the Piaggio P.180 Avanti is below its
turboprop competitors, this is mainly because the main objective of the Piaggio is not taking
more passengers, instead it is focused on being fast and luxurious.

1.2. CRUISE SPEED

The Piaggio is the world’s fastest production turboprop with a cruise speed of 589 km/h
(318 KTS), but the most impressive figure is the 741 km/h (402 KTS) of maximum speed (at
31,000ft).

Speed (km/h)

552
Long Range Cruise
408

638
Average Cruise
479

741
Maximum Cruise
479

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Piaggio P.180 Avanti Average Medium Turbo-prop

TABLE 1.3

7
 FIGURE 1.1- TABLE SHOWING DATA RELATED TO THE P180 AVANTI’S SPEED

1.3. CRUISE ALTITUDE

Service ceiling is the maximum altitude the jet can fly. The higher the altitude, the
thinner the air which allows the jet to fly faster and more efficiently since the thinner air
produces less friction.

The Piaggio P.180 is capable of flying at 12.497 m (41.000ft).

Altitude (m)

12496

Service Ceiling

8978

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Piaggio P.180 Avanti Average Medium Turbo-Prop

TABLE 1.5

8
 1.4. RANGE

The range of the Piaggio P.180 Avanti is 3.350 Km (1.809 Nm) making it one of the
longest ranges in the market for a turboprop.

FIGURE 1.2- TABLE OF P180 AVANTI’S RANGE

FIGURE 1.3- SOME OF THE POSSIBLE ROUTES OF THE P180 AVANTI

1.5. POWERPLANT

The Piaggio P.180 Avanti is equipped with two Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-66B
turboprop engines mounted in the Push configuration.

The engine is rated at 850 SHP (Shaft horse power) and it’s equipped with autofeather
system, fire protection, and ability to operate in two different regimes, the recommended Cruise
at 1.800 RPM and Maximum Cruise at 2.000RPM.

Each engine weights 207 Kg (456lb) the diameter is 48 cm and the length of the engine
1,8 m, the relationship weight/power is 0,38 Kg/hp (0,62 lb/hp).

9
 In the following figures we can see a sketch of the engine core, as well as an outside
view during maintenance:

FIGURE 1.4- PT6A-66 FIGURE 1.5.- PT6A-66

2. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS

In this second section, several flight cases are going to be analyzed in terms of the
relevant atmospheric conditions. In table 2.1 are the typical cruise flight conditions, while in
table 2.2 different landing and take-off environments have been studied.

The ISA conditions of the Piaggio P180 Avanti are founded at the ISO 2533 from 1985
[R.7.1], in which air is modelled as an ideal gas. All the calculations following the ISO 2533 are
detailed in the Appendix 1.

Table 2.1
Service Ceiling Speed Temperature Pressure
41000 feet/ 12496 m 397 miles/hour ISA – 71ºC 0.18 bar

Table 2.2
Conditions Temperature Pressure Air density
Take off
from Valencia ISA + 4oC 1.01 bar 1.21 kg/m3
(October 18th)
Landing in
Madrid ISA - 2oC 1.01 bar 1.22 kg/m3
(October 18th)
Take off
from Valencia ISA + 14oC 1.16 bar 1.17 kg/m3
(August 3rd)

Landing in ANC Airport

ISA - 18oC 0.98 bar 1.31 kg/m3
(November 29tgh)

10
 First, as the flight from Valencia to Madrid it is a short distance flight and aircraft don’t
reach its service ceiling. The average altitude the aircraft usually reach is an altitude of 22000
feet (7000m). The air density at this height is lower (0.69) than at the service ceiling (0.18)
[R.2.1], so the speed will be lower.

The difference between both airports’ conditions is not considerable, so performance

of the aircraft and engines will be similar in the two cases.

In the third case, Valencia at August, temperature is higher than in ISA conditions and
the air density is lower. Consequently, the aircraft and engines performance decreases, plane
has lower lift and the engines reduce their power. That means that the aircraft will need a higher
speed to take off and in order to obtain that desired speed the plane will need a larger runaway.

Finally, in the ANC airport we have reversed conditions regarding to the Valencian
airport in summer, low temperatures and higher air density. In terms of operations, the
conditions also opposite: higher lift and more engine’s power. So, the needs will also change,
the runaway to land can be shorter.

3. AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION

Now we are going to analyse this jet’s configuration, i. e. we are going to study the
architecture and we are going to see separately several important parts related with that, such
as the engines and their position, the wings and the empennage group as well as the landing
gear.

3.1 ENGINES
The Piaggio P180 Avanti has two Pratt & Whitney of Canada PT6A-66 turboprop engines
[R.3.1], which we can see in figure 3.1.

These engines, with a surface of 1809.56 cm2 (without considering the 2 meters of the
propellers) and a length of 1.84m, have a dry weight of 207kg each, which makes them a very
heavy weight to have in account when designing the aircraft. That is why these two engines are
located very close to the fuselage although they are on the wings.

In addition, with this configuration so close to the fuselage, in case of failure of one of
the engines, the moment of rotation that would 'overturn' the aircraft would be reduced, so the
situation would be easier to control by the pilot [R.3.2]. Additionally, if the engines were more
separated, they would create very high blending tensions, since the wings (which we will see
below) have a very high aspect ratio.

As we have already said, the engines are

located on the wings, at half height, but they are
79.7 cm over the ground. It is quite high considering
that the highest point of the plane with respect to
the ground is 3.98m. This is due to two factors:

FIGURE 3.1: PT6A-66

11
 - Firstly, since it is a jet destined to travel not extremely far, but fast, the shorter the
length of the runway, the better.

- This fact, together with the 'pusher' configuration of the turboprop, makes it have quite
high ascent and grounding angles, which dangerously bring the propellers closer to the ground.
[R.3.3]

3.2. WINGS
The first thing to emphasize in the Avanti
is that it has a three-lifting-surface design, which
have (apart from the tail stabilizer) a front wing
(20% of the lift) and the main wing attached to
the fuselage.

The wings have a ratio aspect of 12.73

(quite high, as we can see in figure 3.2), with a
dihedral of 2.5 degrees. This high aspect ratio has
a great advantage: it reduces the induced drag.
This is one of the reasons that make Avanti the
most efficient and competitive ship in its market.
[R.3.4] FIGURE 3.2.- AVANTI’S TOP VIEW

The trapezoidal shaped wing is very similar to the rectangular one, but it has certain
advantages. Among them is its greater rigidity and that allows greater speed and better
manoeuvrability of the aircraft.

It is also a mid-wing. A priori this might seem counter-productive, since it is a plane with
few seats, so the middle wing would prevent the maximum use of space and the number of
seats. This alar configuration is due to what we have said at the beginning: the three-lifting-
surface design allows the main wing being far behind the fuselage, so that the main bean does
not pass through the useful part of the interior of the fuselage.

On the other hand, the fact that the maximum speed of this aircraft is relatively low in
terms of design parameters, makes it possible to have an alar configuration with a very low
sweep angle.

3.3 EMPENNAGE

As we have seen in the views of the plane, the Piaggio P180 Avanti has a T-shaped tail
stabilizer, so the horizontal surfaces of the empennage are joined in the upper part of the
vertical stabilizer.

This tail contributes to the reduction of the consumption, since it accepts a high
aerodynamic performance, and an excellent ratio of sliding, since the horizontal surfaces are not
affected by the wake of the wing in normal conditions, giving more smoothness and a greater
control over the flow.

12
 Those are very important features for jets like the Avanti, where clean air flow is
important in the control of stability, and aerodynamic efficiency makes it the most efficient
private jet.

3.4 LANDING GEAR

The Avanti has a tricycle-type landing gear (one-
wheel structure (with 2 wheels) in the nose, and two
behind). This configuration gives greater visibility to the
pilot, has more stability in cross-wind landings and
eliminates the danger of rollover.

The landing gear works hydraulically and is fully

retractable. The impact absorption is related on all three
wheels with an air-oil system.
FIGURE 3.3- LANDING GEAR RETRACT

The nose double-wheel retracts forward, while the two remaining wheels retract backward
in the aft fuselage (the mechanism is detailed in figure 3.3). When this happens, some gates
completely cover the retracted gear, increasing the aerodynamic efficiency (this is a shared
purpose of several systems of the aircraft).

4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE PIAGGIO P180

AVANTI I
4.1. STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF THE PLANE

The Piaggio P180 Avanti I is a business aircraft built in the last years of the XX century
and like most of the aircraft built at that time, is formed by a semi-monocoque structure.

As this aircraft has the purpose of carrying people at an altitude of 12,000 meters, where
the pressure is 0.2 bar [R.4.1], it must be pressurized. It is for this reason that the fuselage must
be rounded in order to support in a better way the differences in pressure between the inside
and the outside of the cabin. That it is because if we were using a rectangular shape fuselage,
the stresses will concentrate in the corners and the structure will break. In the case of the Piaggio
P180 Avanti I, although its fuselage is rounded, it has not the same diameter throughout the
whole structure. This variation in the cross section helps to prolong the laminar flow along the
fuselage

The semi monocoque structure is a type of fuselage structure, where the skin is the
structural part bearing most of tensile, compression and torsion stresses. In order to reduce
these stresses in the skin, the structure is reinforced with some elements, allowing it to be
thinner, what is traduced in less weight. The reinforcement elements used are the followings:

-Frames: They are vertical rings used to shape the skin and give transversal stiffness to
the structure, helping to prevent buckling.

13
 -Stringers: They are small longitudinal beams that support the skin and as the frames,
prevent it from buckling. They bear tensile, compression and even bending stresses.

-Longerons: Larger longitudinal beams that bear bending stresses and distribute axial
loads.

-Flat bulkheads: Structural components used to divide the cabin in different parts, at
the same time that they give more structural resistance to support stresses. In the case
of the P180 Avanti we can find three flat bulkheads: one at the front dividing the
passengers from the pilots’ cabin. The second one is located at the end of the passenger
cabin, separating it from the bathroom. And the third flat bulkhead is located between
the wing/fuselage intersection and the baggage compartment. We can appreciate
better this this in the Figure 4.1.

-Pressure bulkhead: They close the cylinder at forward and aft sections to ensure the
proper pressurization of the cabin. We can find them in the P180 Avanti at the front, the
forward one. The aft pressure bulkhead is located before the wing/fuselage intersection.

All these reinforcement elements can be appreciated in the Figure 4.1.

FIGURE 4.1- PIAGGIO P180 AVANTI I CUTAWAY DRAWING

As we have seen in the previous section, the Piaggio P180 Avanti I an innovative three
liftin surfaces design, having a forward wing, the main wing and the horizontal stabilizer. All
three using monocoque structures with some reinforcement elements.

Those elements provide the necessary lift to the aircraft to bear the loads, but at the
same time they have to suffer stresses as torsion or bending. In order to support and distribute
all these stresses along the wing some stiffening elements are added:

-Skin: it is the main part, giving the aerodynamic shape to the wing. At the same time, it
also holds up with tensile and compression stresses.

-Spars: They form the main support component and they extend along the wing. They
have to support bending and torsion stresses.

-Ribs/Stiffeners: They are stiffening elements used to give shape to the airfoil and
transmit the loads on the skin to the spars.

-Fittings: Are the elements used to join the different components of the wings. It also
bears stresses and vibrations.

14
 In the Piaggio P180 Avanti I we have the following distribution of those elements:

-Forward wing: It is formed by the panels that form the skin, two spars and the stiffeners.

-Main wing: Apart from the skin, it consists in two main

spars and a third one that goes from the nacelle of the
engine to the fuselage to give more resistance to the
structure. As the forward wing, also has stiffeners.

-Horizontal stabilizer: Ass the forward wing, it is formed by

the skin and two spars.

All three are attached to the fuselage by the fittings.

FIGURE 4.2- MAIN WING OF THE

PIAGGIO P180 AVANTI I CUTAWAY

4.2. STRUCTURE MATERIALS

We didn´t find the specific materials used in the P180 Avanti, but the aircraft should be
built with the same or very similar materials to the ones used in the rest of the aircraft of the XX
century. Between the most important materials we can find the followings:

-Aluminum light alloys: characteristic material uses because of their low density and
their good resistance, that make them the proper materials to use in the structural
elements as the skin or the reinforcement. They also have very good mechanical
properties even at low temperatures, allowing the aircraft to achieve higher altitudes.
In the case of the P180 Avanti we can find aluminum alloys in many parts as the three
lift surfaces, the fuselage or the engines.

-Stainless steel: It has very good mechanical and resistance properties, but as it has a
higher density than aluminum alloys, it is only used where is essentially needed, as at
the landing gears.

-Titan alloys: It has better mechanical properties than other materials when performing
at high temperatures. But its high price makes that it is only used in parts that are going
to be submitted to high temperatures as the blades of the engine.

-Composite materials: As the aircraft analyzed is from the last years of the XX century,
probably not many elements will be built with composite materials. This type of
materials has very good mechanical properties and are very light, what makes them a
very interesting option in the aerospace industry. In the future versions of the aircraft
we can find more variety of these materials.

15
 5. VIEW DRAWINGS AND PARAMETERS OF THE
AIRCRAFT
5.1. VIEW DRAWINGS

The three view drawings of the Piaggio P-180 Avanti are the following:

The drawings are presented on a scale of 1: 200 .

FIGURE 5.1- TOP VIEW

FIGURE 5.1- TOP VIEW

FIGURE 5.2- PROFILE VIEW FIGURE 5.2- FRONT VIEW

Below we present a table with the characteristic parameters of the aircraft. The fuselage
length, fuselage diameter, wing surface and wingspan have been obtained from references
[A.5.1] and [A.5.2]. On the other hand, the rest of the parameters have been calculated on the
Appendix 5.

16
 Table 5.1

AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS
Fuselage length 14.45 𝑚
Fuselage diameter 1.85 𝑚
Wing surface 16.0 𝑚2
Wingspan 14.27 𝑚
Geometric chord 1.12 𝑚
Mean aerodynamic chord 1.1188 𝑚
Aspect ratio 12.727
Taper ratio 0.329
Sweep angle at a quarter of the chord 2.4º
Sweep angle at a half of the chord 5.1º
Dihedral angle (if applied) 2.5º
Total 142.95 𝑚2
Wings 31.96 𝑚2
Fuselage 64.75 𝑚2
Wetted surface Engines 28.16 𝑚2
Vertical stabilizer 9 𝑚2
Horizontal stabilizers 6.23 𝑚2

6. ANALYSIS OF A SYSTEM: LANDING GEAR

The landing gear of the Piaggio P-180 Avanti

has a tricycle configuration (main gear and a nose gear
at the front, as we can see in figure [6.1]). This
configuration makes it easier to land and take-off (and,
as we commented on aircraft configuration (section 3),
gives stability and visibility), but this also leads to
higher dynamic loads during landing, resulting in
possible impacts [R.6.2].
FIGURE 6.1- ARRANGEMENT OF THE
To make maneuvers on ground, this aircraft
AIRCRAFT’S LANDING GEAR.
applies brakes and a steering system (to rotate the nose
gear).

The landing gear is also prepared for emergency situations, making use of
independent emergency lines.

The following data has been extracted from the aircraft’s handbook [R.6.1].

The landing gear is hydraulically actuated, as well as fully retractable: the double-wheel
nose gear retracting forward into the nose section and the main gear retracting rearward into

17
the fuselage (see figure 3.3, aircraft configuration). Doors completely cover the retracted gear
which, as we have commented before on this assignment, increases the aerodynamic efficiency.
The rear door of the nose gear well and the forward doors of the main gear strut wells are
mechanically operated by the gear through connecting linkages and remain open when the gear
is extended. The wheel well doors of the nose gear and of the main gear, open during gear
extension and close when the gears are fully extended. All the three landing gear shock
absorbers are of the air-oil type.

The nose gear is steerable through 50 degrees left and right when on taxiing and 20
degrees left and right when on takeoff.

To guard against the retraction of the landing gear when the airplane is on the ground
or when the nose wheel is not centered, two squat switches (one on the nose gear and one on
the right main gear shock absorber) are provided: they inhibit the hydraulic power package from
supplying pressure fluid to the “up section” of the gear actuators.

All the nose and main gear actuators are fully extended when the landing gear is down
and retracted when the landing gear is up. Each
actuating cylinder is provided with internal up
and down locks. Each lock directly actuates the
switches controlling the landing gear position
indicating lights. The locks are normally closed
type and can be opened only by applying positive
pressure. An internal shuttle valve in each
actuating cylinder allows operating the landing
gear extension either on the main or on the
emergency hydraulic lines.
FIGURE 6.2- PIAGGIO P-180 AVANTI’S LANDING
We can see a detail of the extended
GEAR.
landing gear on figure 6.2.

BRAKES
The main wheels brakes are hydraulically actuated: each carbon brake receives pressure
from the corresponding valve which delivers fluid pressure to the brake actuating pistons.

STEERING SYSTEM
The electro-hydraulically operated nose gear steering is controlled by means of the
rudder pedals. The system consists of a solenoid operated steering select valve, a servovalve, a
hydraulic steering actuator and an electrical circuitry for controlling and monitoring the system
in a close loop. On figure 6.3, we can see the pilot’s control panel.

18
EMERGENCIES
For the emergency extension of the landing
gear, in the event of a hydraulic system failure due to a
line breakage or a power package malfunction, a
hydraulic hand pump and an emergency selector valve
are provided with independent emergency lines from
the fluid reservoir to the gear actuators.

On the brakes, an integral automatic diverter

allows the brake valve to operate as a master cylinder FIGURE 6.3- LANDING GEAR CONTROLS
when the pressure drops too much. In this event the
action of the pedals results in a fluid pressure directly applied to each brake unit through a
separate emergency line.

7. CALCULUS OF THE AIRCRAFT’S CRUISE DRAG POLAR

The polar curve represents the relation between the lift and drag coefficients, two
dimensionless values which highly characterize the behaviour of aircraft during flights. First, in
order to clearly develop the necessary calculations, we are going to compute de drag coefficient,
which can be calculated as the sum of the parasitic and the induced drag as we can see in the
formula 7.1.

𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷𝑖 + 𝐶𝐷𝑜

FORMULA 7.1

7.1. 𝐶𝐷𝑜 ESTIMATION

To estimate the parasitic drag coefficient, the flat plate analogy has been applied. Then,
we have calculated the friction coefficient of a flat plate with the same wetted surface as each
part of our plane. After that, we have included the corresponding corrections due to 3D effects
and interferences, following the expression detailed at the formula 7.2. The meaning of all the
abbreviations we use can be found on page 3.
∑ 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓
𝐶𝐷𝑜
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓

FORMULA 7.2
In order to compute the friction coefficient, Cf, we have to calculate the Reynolds
number in each part of the aircraft. The flight and atmospheric conditions have been computed
according to the ISA MODEL [R.7.1], as it can be seen in Appendix 3. The results of these
calculations are listed in table 7.1.

On the other hand, the air viscosity has been calculated using the Sutherland formula
(formula 7.3), in which C1 and T are the Sutherland constants, while the geometric values that
are needed have been extracted from the point 5 of this assignment.

19
 𝐶1+𝑇 3/2
𝜇=
𝑇+𝑆
FORMULA 7.3

Table 7.1
Cruise altitude (m) 12496
Cruise speed (m/s) 177.22
Air density (kg/m3) 0.299
Air viscosity
1.37·10-5
(kg/ms)
Speed of sound (m/s) 288.418
Mach number 0.614
Flat plate viscosity (mm) 0.00635
Fuselage 14.45
Wing 11.188
Engines 4.49
Characteristic Front wing 0.62
length (m) Vertical
1.97
Stabilizer
Horizontal
0.86
Stabilizer

Formula 7.4 is the expression for the Reynolds number while formula 7.5 represents the
Reynolds number from which the friction coefficient stops decreasing. We have used this
formula because the Piaggio P180 Avanti always flies in subsonic regime.
𝐿∙𝑣∙𝜌
𝑅𝑒 = 𝜇
FORMULA 7.4

𝐿
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡 = 38.25( )1.053
𝑘
FORMULA 7.5
The results of this calculations have been listed in table 7.2:

Table 7.2

Reynolds number
Element Reynolds number
(subsonic cut off)

Wings 4.3376·106 1.2783·107

Fuselage 5.6024·107 1.8908·108
Engines 1.7408·107 5.5224·107
Front Wings 2.4038·106 6.8659·107
Vertical stabilizer 7.6378·106 2.3194·107
Horizontal stabilizer 3.3343·106 9.6903·106

20
 As it can be seen, the subsonic cut off Reynolds number is (in our case) higher than
normal. Then, we will use these lower values in the turbulent friction coefficient calculation.

With all these values, we were able to compute the friction coefficients (formula 7.6 for
laminar flow and 7.7 for turbulent). We had to take into account that in most of aircraft, about
90% is exposed to a turbulent flow, meanwhile 10% is exposed to laminar flow. In the handbook
of the Piaggio P180 is detailed that laminar flow over 50% of the wing can be achieved.
Nevertheless, as we are considering normal cruise conditions, we assumed a 35% of laminar
flow in the wings and stabilizers (formula 7.8) and a 25% in the engines and fuselage (formula
7.9).

1.328
𝐶𝑓 =
√𝑅𝑒𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠
FORMULA 7.6

0.445
𝐶𝑓 = (𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑅𝑒𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠))2.58 ∙(1+1.144𝑀2 )0.65

FORMULA 7.7

𝐶𝑓 = 0.35𝐶𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 + 0.65𝐶𝑓𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡

FORMULA 7.8
𝐶𝑓 = 0.25𝐶𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 + 0.75𝐶𝑓𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
FORMULA 7.9

In the following table (table 7.3) we can see the results of these calculations, which are
detailed in appendix 3:

Table 7.3
Element Cf laminar Cf turbulent Cf
Wings 0.000638 0.00326 0.00234
Fuselage 0.000177 0.00218 0.00168
Engines 0.000318 0.00260 0.00203
Front wings 0.000857 0.00360 0.00264
Vertical stabilizer 0.000481 0.00296 0.00209
Horizontal stabilizer 0.000727 0.00341 0.00247

The first correction for this flat plate analogy that we are computing is the form factor.
We have considered the following values (table 7.4). It must be taken into account that we only
have found information about the main wing airfoil, so we have assumed the same airfoil for
the front wing and the stabilizers (it is obvious that the vertical stabilizer has a symmetric airfoil,
but it does not affect the parameters that we need).

21
 Table 7.4
Fuselage 2.26
Maximum diameter (m)
Engines 0.445

Characteristic length (m) (Table 7.1)

Maximum 0.145
relative thickness [R.6.1]
Maximum relative
0.4 [R.6.1]
thickness position
Wing 2.4°
Front wing 2.4°
Sweep angle
Vertical stabilizer 45°
Horizontal stabilizer 37,5°

With these values, and attending to the appendix 3, form factors have been calculated,
as we can see in table 7.5.

Table 7.5
Element Form factor
Wing 1.55 (1.35)
Fuselage 1.24
Engines 1.03
Front wings 1.54 (1.35)
Vertical stabilizer 1.40 (1.35)
Horizontal stabilizer 1.45 (1.35)

Since the form factor is usually a value between 1 and 1.35, we have saturated the form
factors higher than 1.35 to this value.

The interference factor is a correction that is due to the mutual interference between
different elements of the aircraft. It is usually a value between 1 and 1.5. For our plane we have
taken some approximate values from a study by the University of Hamburg (HAW Hamburg)
[R.7.2], as it can be seen in table 7.6:

Table 7.6
Interference
Element
Factor
Engines 1.5
Wings 1.1
Stabilizers 1.04

It is also necessary to compute the translation to drag coefficient: the friction coefficient
is multiplied by the wetted surface and divided by the reference surface (our reference is the
wing surface, Sref=16m2) to obtain CDo. The wetted surfaces have been calculated in the fifth part
(table 5.1).

22
 With all this data we calculate the parasitic drag, according to the formula 7.2. The
results are shown in table 7.7:

Table 7.7
Element CDo
Wing 0.00358
Fuselage 0.00869
Front wing 0.000722
Engines 0.00569
Horizontal
0.00139
stabilizer
Vertical
0.00170
stabilizer
TOTAL 0.02179

7.2. 𝐶𝐷𝑖 ESTIMATION

In this section we are going to calculate the induced drag in cruise conditions. We need
the value of several constants, e. g. the Oswald factor and the aspect ratio, that have been
calculated in appendix 3.4.

Attending to formula 7.10, we also need to compute a value for the weight of our
aircraft. As we are assuming cruise conditions, the weight that we will consider is that in which
half of the fuel has been consumed (appendix 3.5)
2∙𝑚𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 ∙𝑔
𝐶𝑙 =
𝜌∙𝑆∙𝑣 2
FORMULA 7.10

Then, in these conditions the value for the induced drag is computed using equation
7.11:

𝐶𝑙 2
𝐶𝐷𝑖 =
𝜋∙A∙e
FORMULA 7.11
0.635592
𝐶𝐷𝑖 = = 0.01343
𝜋 ∙ 12.73 ∙ 0.752
FORMULA 7.12
Finally, we can affirm that the value of the drag coefficient for cruise conditions is the
result of equation 7.1:

𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷𝑜 + 𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 0.02179 + 0.0134 = 0.03519

DRAG POLAR
The drag polar represents the relationship between the lift on an aircraft and its drag,
in terms of the drag coefficient as a function of the lift coefficient.

23
We have assumed that this relation between the drag and the lift coefficients is fully defined
whether the equations 7.1 and 7.11 are developed, and so is the drag polar (figure 7.1).

FIGURE 7.1- GRAPH FOR THE DRAG POLAR

It is important to emphasize that for the zero-lift generation, there is drag (the parasitic
drag). In addition, with the values we have
calculated previously, the point at which our plane
flies under standard cruise conditions has been
highlighted in the graph. The points above it
correspond to airplane behaviours such as
climbing or manoeuvres, in which the need for lift
is greater than the weight (since that which
overcomes the weight is a vectorial lift component,
see figure 7.2). On the other hand, the points
below the cruise point correspond to a decline,
probably to approach the runway on landing or
change the flight altitude for different reasons.

FIGURE 7.2- TURNING PLANE.

INFLUENCE OF THE FLIGHT CONDITIONS

It must be noted that, for every section, we have considered the velocity of sound to be
constant.

INFLUENCE OF THE ALTITUDE

A variation in the flight altitude has a huge amount of consequences on the conditions
in which the aircraft fly. First, since we have computed the air density through the ISA model, it

24
is clearly seen that a change in the altitude results in a variation in the air temperature and the
air density (as we can see in formulas 7.13 y 7.14).

𝑇 = 𝑇𝑜 − 6.5 ∙ 10−3 ℎ

FORMULA 7.13
6.5∙10−3
𝜌 = ρo(1 − 𝑇𝑜
ℎ) 𝐴
FORMULA 7.14

Where A has been calculated in appendix 3.1.

Then, considering this variation in the atmospheric conditions and with the nominal
cruise speed, we have recalculated the different coefficients in order to analyse the changes in
the behaviour of the aircraft’s flight.

First, the Reynolds number is a function of the air density and viscosity, so the new
values for each part of the aircraft are the following:

Table 7.8
Reynolds number Reynolds number Reynolds number
Element
(+2000m) (-2000m) (subsonic cut off)
6
Wings 3.4785·10 5.3413·106 1.2783·107
Fuselage 4.49276·107 6.8986·107 1.8908·108
7
Engines 1.3960·10 2.1436·107 5.5224·107
Front Wings 1.9277·106 2.9600·106 6.8659·107
Vertical stabilizer 6.1251·106 9.4051·106 2.3194·107
Horizontal stabilizer 2.4956·106 4.1058·106 9.6903·106

These values are very useful in order to understand the change in the 𝐶𝐷𝑜 . If the
calculation of this coefficient is re-computed (appendix 3.6), the results are the ones in table 7.9.
On the other hand, there is also a dependence of the induced drag coefficient with the air
density, as it has been defined in equations 7.10 and 7.11.

Table 7.9
Altitude CDo CDi

Cruise altitude
0.02269 0.01343
(12496m)

14496m 0.02329 0.02334

10496m 0.02157 0.007997

Then, we can define again the drag polar (as it has been done in the previous section)
and represent the drag polar in the three altitudes:

25
 Drag polar
2,8
2,4
2
1,6
CL

1,2
0,8 Cruise altitude
0,4 Cruise altitude +2000m
Cruise altitude -2000m
0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22
CD

FIGURE 7.3.- DRAG POLAR GRAPH.

Due to how unappreciable the variation is, it is useful to expand the graph for a better
analysis. It can be seen in figure 7.4.

In this comparation, we can see that the CD increases with the altitude. It makes sense,
since at a higher altitude the density of the air decreases (the viscosity variation can be assumed
as zero because its order is much lower than the one of the air density) reducing the Reynolds
numbers and increasing the coefficient of friction. Consequently, the CDO also increases.

Drag polar
0,25
Cruise altitude
Cruise altitude +2000m
0,2
Cruise altitude -2000m

0,15
CL

0,1

0,05

0
0,02 0,021 0,022 0,023 0,024 0,025
CD

FIGURE 7.4- GRAPH OF THE DRAG POLAR

INFLUENCE OF THE ISA MODEL

The variation in the ISA has similar consequences as the one in the flight altitude. There
is a change in the air density, temperature and viscosity, which are listed in table 7.10.

26
 Table 7.10
ISA +10 ISA -10
Temperature (K) 216.93 196.93
Air density
0.285 0.314
(kg/m3)
Air viscosity
1.42·10-5 1.31·10-5
(kg/ms)

We have neglected the change in the speed of sound. After that, we have followed the
same procedure as in the previous section, which can be seen in Appendix 3.6. The complete
calculations have been done using Wolfram Mathematica, and can be found in the references
section. Then, the new values for CDo and Cdi are the following ones:

Table 7.11
Conditions CDo CDi
ISA 0.02269 0.01343
ISA +10 0.02364 0.01475
ISA -10 0.02095 0.01216

Finally, we can plot again the drag polar for the different conditions. It is shown in figure
7.5. As expected, an expansion is needed in order to understand better this variation (figure 7.6).

In this comparation, we can see that the CD increases with ISA +10, and decreases in
ISA-10. It makes sense, since at a higher ISA model, the density of the air decreases, (the viscosity
variation can be assumed as zero compared with this variation) reducing the Reynolds numbers
and increasing the coefficient of friction. Consequently, the CDO also increases. The opposite
happens with ISA -10.

Drag polar
2,8

2,4

1,6
CL

1,2 ISA

0,8 ISA -10

ISA +10
0,4

0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22
CD

FIGURE 7.5- GRAPH OF THE DRAG POLAR

27
 Drag polar
0,25

0,2

0,15
CL

0,1
ISA
0,05 ISA -10
ISA +10
0
0,02 0,021 0,022 0,023 0,024 0,025 0,026
CD

FIGURE 7.6- GRAPH OF THE DRAG POLAR

INFLUENCE OF THE SPEED

A variation in the cruise speed (which means a variation in the mach number) causes a
variation in the form factor of the wings and stabilizers. Despite this is the main difference with
the previous variation, (it is not significant due to the saturation we have applied to 1.35 (see
table 7.5)), there is also a variation in the Reynolds number, with the consequent variation in
the friction coefficient. Then, since CDo is a function of this variables, there is also a significant
variation in the parasitic drag, which can be seen in appendix 3.7.

On the other hand, the induced drag depends on the lift coefficient, which directly
depends on the speed.

Just building over all the data that can be found in appendix 3.7, we can again compute
the drag polar (figure 7.7), with the corresponding expansion for an easier analysis of the
graphics (figure 7.8):

Drag polar
2,8

2,4

1,6
CL

1,2
Nominal cruise speed
0,8 +20m/s
0,4 -20m/s
0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22
CD

FIGURE 7.7- GRAPH OF THE DRAG POLAR

28
 Drag polar
0,25

0,2

0,15
CL

0,1

0,05 Nominal cruise speed

+20m/s
-20m/s
0
0,0205 0,021 0,0215 0,022 0,0225 0,023 0,0235 0,024
CD

FIGURE 7.8- GRAPH OF THE DRAG POLAR

It can be seen that CD increases when speed decreases. It makes sense due to the
increase in the friction coefficient when the speed decreases, with the consequent increase in
parasitic drag. It is important to say that the speed in which de drag is lower is not the most
optimized speed since there are a lot of other parameters to consider, such as the consumption
or the range, as we are going to analyse in the following sections.

8. ESTIMATION OF THE THRUST REQUIREMENTS

According to the cruise flight state, the speed of the aircraft must be constant. In order
to achieve that the Thrust must be equal to the Drag according to the first law of Newton.

Taking account this information and neglecting the weight and lift forces which are
cancelled during cruise in order to maintain the altitude, we get the following figure 8.1.

Watch appendix 8, where a dynamic analysis is performed and all the calculations are
made.

29
 FIGURE 8.1

1
𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 = ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝑣 2 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝐶𝐷 = 2743.57 𝑁
2
FORMULA 8.1
Due to the high efficiency aerodynamics of the Piaggio P.180 the Drag has a small value
compared to aircrafts of the same type, so the thrust needed to maintain cruise speed is
impressively low.

Conditions S v ρ Cd Thrust
Cruise 16 177.22 0.31 0.035224 2743.57
+2000m 16 177.22 0.227 0.04663 2659.54
-2000m 16 177.22 0.388 0.02957 2882.69
ISA+10 16 177.22 0.285 0.038384 2748.59
ISA-10 16 177.22 0.314 0.033108 2612.03
+20m/s 16 197.22 0.31 0.02942 2837.89
-20m/s 16 157.22 0.31 0.0434864 2665.76

TABLE 8.1

As we can see in table 8.1 the thrust values only have a fluctuation of +/- 100 N
compared to cruise, when increasing altitude or temperature the density decreases and the Cd
increases which mean an increase of the thrust to keep cruise speed, when the speed is varied
it implies a direct change of thrust. When the velocity increases we need an increase of the
thrust and when it decreases is just the opposite.

During the Take-off procedure the engines are set to their maximum thrust in order to
be air born using as little runway as possible.

In the Piaggio the figure is 18597.68 N when fully loaded (calculations shown in the
Appendix 4), as we can see the value differs a lot between taking off and cruising, this is as it is
mentioned because of the great aerodynamics.

30
 9. BREGUET EQUATION AND AIRCRAFT’S RANGE
9.1. TYPICAL RANGE (MAKING ASSUMPTIONS)

The Breguet equation is used for calculating the range of an aircraft by using some
characteristic parameters. In order to make calculations simpler and reduce complexity of the
equation, we have made some assumptions. But these assumptions are not always useful, for
example, at the first steps of the designing process of an aircraft, when more accurate data is
needed. [R.9.1]

We can see the development of the equation at the Appendix 5, where we have arrived
to the formula 9.1. This equation, unlike in the jet engines where the speed of the aircraft is
used, we have to use the propeller efficiency.
ƞp 𝐶L 𝑊i
𝑅≈ ∙ ∙ ln ( ) = 3671730𝑚 = 3671.73 𝑘𝑚
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊f
FORMULA 9.1

This result differs from the one given by the manufacturer (3350 Km). That it is because
as we previously said, we have made some assumptions. First, we supposed that the aircraft
does all the flight at cruise speed without considering the landing, the take-off, descent, etc. We
also have assumed that CL is constant, when it varies with the changes in mass, and the aircraft’s
weight is not constant. CD was also considered constant, being CL/CD in consequence also
constant. Moreover, the value of Csp has also been considered constant, neglecting that the
aircraft can change the altitude what implies changes in the air density that goes into the engine.

Another reason of the variation between the value obtained and the given by the
manufacturer, is the fact that the range calculated is not taking into account some percentage
of the fuel that is always saved for possible unforeseen expenses. This quantity depend on each
route, so could be the most possible cause of the variation.

9.2. RANGE ESTIMATION FOR EACH CASE OF SECTION 7

As seen in section 7, when changing parameters as the altitude, the speed or

atmospheric flight conditions, drag and lift coefficients will change too. With all these new data
and applying the Breguet equation (Formula 9.1) we will obtain new values for the range. All of
them are summarized at the table 9.1.

Table 9.1
CONDITIONS CDo CDi CD CL Range (Km)
+ 2000 m 0.02329 0.02339 0.04663 0.8378 3656.01
₋ 2000 m 0.02157 0.007997 0.02957 0.49038 3374.53
ISA +10 0.02364 0.01476 0.038384 0.6662 3531.72
ISA -10 0.02095 0.012163 0.033108 0.6048 3717.16
+20 m/s 0.02066 0.008759 0.02942 0.51322 3549.71
-20 m/s 0.021798 0.021689 0.043486 0.8076 3779.02

31
 Now, with all the calculations made we can appreciate that increasing the altitude, we
have a higher range than at lower altitudes. At higher altitudes, both lift and drag coefficients
decreases, but the change for the drag is greater than in the lift, so the aerodynamic efficiency
increases, producing a raise in the range. Something similar happens with the ISA -10 and
ISA+10, aerodynamic efficiency increases at lower temperatures where more lift is generated
due an increase in the air density. Looking at the speed cases, we see that when the aircraft
increases its speed, the range is decreased because the turbulent flow is increased and in
consequence the drag increments its value.

As the Breguet equation has been simplified, some effects are not considered at the
range calculation. As the altitude is higher, the air density is lower, so engines will need more
fuel, increasing the specific fuel consumption, and we have taken it as a constant value. Another
aspect concerning the range is that flying at higher speeds, the air around the upper surface of
the wing will reach the critical Mach number. That means the appearance of shock waves and
the increment of the aircraft resistance, what will induce to a higher fuel consumption and
decreasing the range.

10. INFLUENCE OF WEIGHT LOSES ON THE

AIRCRAFT’S RANGE

In the previous section we have used Breguet equation to estimate the range of the
Piaggio P.180 Avanti, but we have not taken many real considerations. We considered the
change in weight, but this weight loss produces changes at velocity and aircraft’s efficiency. In
this section we will try to minimize the errors.

In order to maintain the lift along the flight and compensate the weight losses we are
going to modify three parameters: CL, altitude and speed. We are going to make three cases and
in each one we are only modifying one of the values.

For doing those calculations we followed the calculations shown at the Annex 6, where
we have developed Breguet equation in its integral form and using the relation L=W to put the
parameters depending on the weight variation.

a) Constant speed and altitude and modifying CL.

In this case we are considering speed and altitude as constants and CL in function of the
weight. As the efficiency is variable, we must integrate the Breguet equation in deferential form.
All the process is shown at appendix 6, where finally is reached the following equation:

ƞp 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 2∙𝑊 𝑤o
𝑅= ∙√ ∙ 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑇𝑎𝑛 ( )| = 3651.98 𝐾𝑚
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶Do √𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝐶Do ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝑉 ∙ 𝜌 𝑤f
2

FORMULA 10.1

32
 b) Constant CL and altitude and modifying speed.

In this second step we have kept the lift coefficient and altitude constant and we varied
the speed along the speed to compensate the weight losses. In this case the process is very
similar to the one in section a and is shown at appendix 6, where we finally got the following
result:

𝐴𝑅 ∙ ƞp ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝐿𝑛(𝐶𝑠𝑝 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ (𝐶 L2 + 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝐶Do ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋)) 𝑤o

𝑅= | = 3671.46𝐾𝑚
CL ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 + 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝐶Do ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝜋 𝑤f

c) Constant CL and speed and modifying altitude.

This last section is quite different from the ones done before, we tried to do it
following the same process, but we weren’t able. That is because to perform the proper
calculations of the range varying the altitude, we will need more advance equations,
which we don’t know to solve at the moment. Consequently, we have followed the
process shown at appendix 6, which led us to the simplified Breguet equation used at
part 9.
ƞp 𝐶L 𝑊i
𝑅≈ ∙ ∙ ln ( ) = 3671.73 𝑘𝑚
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊f

FORMULA 10.2
In the table 10.1 we can see a summary of the three ranges calculated and the one the
manufacturer gives

Way of calculation Range (Km)

Manufacturer 3350
Cruise conditions (Section 9) 3671.73
Speed and altitude constant 3651.98
CL and altitude constant 3671.46
CL and speed constant 3671.73

Looking to the values obtained we can determine that the best method to calculate the
range for the Piaggio P.180 Avanti is the one where speed and altitude are kept constants and
only varies the lift coefficient, because this is the one that better fits to the manufacture value.
We have considered that case for a best strategy when calculating the range because if the
weight changes it affect directly to the lift, which also changes. Therefore, taking CL constant
will be an assumption that will carry higher errors.

11. CONCLUSION

By carrying out this assignment, we have realized about how wide the role of aerospace
engineers is. We had the preconceived idea of aerospace engineering in which it was one of the
most specialized ones, thus we thought that the range of work would be very limited. However,
we have seen that, for an engineer to manage well in every field, they must control many sectors
perfectly.

33
 We have found this assignment to be very interesting from the point of view of the
application of theoretical concepts shown in class. We think that it has been the best way of
consolidating the semester’s didactic objectives. It must also be noted that we have been aware
of out limitations, due to the fact that, although we have made use of calculus softwares like
Wolfram Mathematica 11, as well as Adobe Photoshop for measuring angles and distances
graphically, we had to make plenty of assumptions to make the calculations easier, and thus
arriving to valid conclusions.

Aside from academic improvement, it has been a great form of developing our
transversal skills, since it has been an assignment where we had to collaborate a lot with out
teammates, discuss, search, and arrive to conclusions.

We consider that we have learnt much about the studied aircraft, the Piaggio Avanti P-
180 (technical aspects and aerodynamic calculations). We also believe that, knowing our
limitations, we have arrived at good conclusions. It has been, therefore, a key experience in our
formation as aeronautic engineers.

34
 12. APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1: AIR’S DENSITY CALCULATIONS
Considering these constant values [ R.3.1 ], and the ISA MODEL: ISO 2533:1975 :

𝑝0 = 1 𝑎𝑡𝑚

𝑚3 · 𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝑅 = 8.205746 · 10−5
𝐾 · 𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑝
Air is modelled as an idea gas: 𝜌 =
𝑅·𝑇
Then:
𝑝 1 𝑘𝑔
𝜌(𝑣𝑙𝑐) = = −5
= 40.33 𝑚𝑜𝑙⁄𝑚3 = 1.17 ⁄𝑚3
𝑅 · 𝑇(𝑣𝑙𝑐) 8.205746 · 10 · (273.15 + 18)

𝑝 1 𝑘𝑔
𝜌(𝑣𝑙𝑐2) = = −5
= 40.33 𝑚𝑜𝑙⁄𝑚3 = 1.17 ⁄𝑚3
𝑅 · 𝑇(𝑣𝑙𝑐) 8.205746 · 10 · (273.15 + 29)
𝑝 1
𝜌(𝐴𝑁𝐶) = = −5
= 45.11 𝑚𝑜𝑙⁄𝑚3
𝑅 · 𝑇(𝐴𝑁𝐶) 8.205746 · 10 · (273.15 − 3)
𝑘𝑔
= 1.31 ⁄𝑚3

Temperature data in the different dates has been taken from reference [A.1.1].

APPENDIX 2: CALCULUS OF THE AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS

• Fuselage length: [A.5.1]
• Fuselage diameter: [A.5.1]
• Wing Surface: [A.5.2]
• Wingspan: [A.5.1]
• Geometric chord: imaginary line which connects the leading and trailing edges of an
airfoil.
𝑆𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 16.0 𝑚2
𝑐̅ = = = 1.12 𝑚
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 14.27 𝑚
FORMULA A.5.1
• Mean aerodynamic chord (MAC):
𝑏
2 2 2 7.135 2
𝑀𝐴𝐶 = ∫ 𝑐̅2 𝑑𝑦 = ∫ 1.2544 𝑑𝑦 = · 1.2544 · 7.135 = 1.1188 𝑚
𝑆𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 0 16 0 16
FORMULA A.5.2
• Aspect ratio: ratio of the span to its mean chord.
𝑏2 (14.27 𝑚)2 203.63
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = = 2
= = 12.727
𝑆𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 16.0 𝑚 16
FORMULA A.5.3
Thus, the length of the aircraft’s wings is considerably bigger than their width.
• Taper ratio: ratio of tip chord to root chord.

35
 𝑐𝑡
𝑇𝑅 =
𝑐𝑟
FORMULA A.5.4
Using the OpenOffice Draw software, we measured the chord on the tip and the root of
the wing, obtaining that 𝑐𝑡 = 0.69 𝑚 and 𝑐𝑟 = 2.1 𝑚.
• Sweep angle at a quarter and a half of the chord: angle among the aircraft axis and a
wing axis; in this particular case, we are taking the axis at a quarter and a half of the
wing.
We calculated these parameters graphically (and
then checked it mathematically), obtaining the
values:
𝜆1 = 2.4º
4
𝜆1 = 5.1º
2

FIGURE A.5.1- GRAPHIC

CALCULATION OF THE SWEEP
ANGLES. • Dihedral angle: calculated by taking the front
view drawing and using the Adobe Photoshop
software.

THE ANGLE WITH RESPECT TO THE

HORIZONTAL IS THAT OF 2.5º

FIGURE A.5.2- GRAPHIC

CALCULATION OF THE DIHEDRAL
ANGLE

• Wetted surface of the different elements:

o Wings:
▪ Main wings: the formula for the wings’ wetted surface is
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = 2 · 𝑏 · 𝑐̅ = 2 · 14.27 · 1.12 = 31.96 𝑚2
FORMULA A.5.5
(We can check it by multiplying the wing surface by 2).
▪ Front wings: we approximated to a rectangle of sides 0.62 and 1.15
meters.
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = 4 · (0.62 · 1.15) = 2.85 𝑚2
FIGURE A.5.3-
APPROXIMATION FORMULA A.5.6
OF THE FRONT
Thus, the total area for the wings is 34.81 𝑚2.
WINGS TO A
RECTANGLE.

36
 o Fuselage: we approximate the fuselage and see it as two cones at the ends and
a cylinder on the center. The geometric values of the figures have been
calculated graphically and can be appreciated (in meters) on the image.

FIGURE A.5.4- APPROXIMATION AND MEASURES USED FOR THE FUSELAGE’S WETTED SURFACE.

▪ Cone 1: applying the formula for the lateral area of a cone,

2.26
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = 𝜋 · 𝑟 · 𝑔 = 𝜋 · · 5.37 = 19.06 𝑚2
2
FORMULA A.5.7
▪ Cone 2:
2.26
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = 𝜋 · 𝑟 · 𝑔 = 𝜋 · · 5.53 = 19.63 𝑚2
2
FORMULA A.5.8
▪ Cylinder: it will be the height multiplied by the perimeter,
2.26
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = ℎ · 2𝜋 · 𝑟 = 3.67 · 2𝜋 · = 26.06 𝑚2
2
FORMULA A.5.9
Adding the three obtained values:
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 (𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒) = 19.06 + 19.63 + 26.06 = 64.75 𝑚2
FORMULA A.5.10
o Engines: we approximated them to a cylinder and a cone:

▪ Cylinder: of 4.49 meters long and a

radius of 0.445 meters from which we
also need one of its bases,

FIGURE A.5.5.- APPROXIMATION OF THE

ENGINES TO A CONE AND A CYLINDER.

𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = ℎ · 2𝜋 · 𝑟 + 𝜋 · 𝑟 2 = 4.49 · 2𝜋 · 0.445 + 𝜋 · 0.4452

= 13.17 𝑚2
FORMULA A.5.11
▪ Cone: with a generatrix of 1 meter and a radius of 0.29 meters:
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = 𝜋 · 𝑟 · 𝑔 = 𝜋 · 0.29 · 1 = 0.911 𝑚2
FORMULA A.5.12
So, knowing that there are two engines, the total wetted surface for both of
them will be:

37
 𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 (𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠) = 2 · (13.17 + 0.911) = 28.16 𝑚2
FORMULA A.5.13
o Stabilizers:
▪ Vertical stabilizer: approximated to a trapezoid of sides 2.58, 2.36, 2.34
and 1.86 meters,
2.36 · 2.01 1.86 · 2.29
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = 2 · ( + ) = 9 𝑚2
2 2
FIGURE A.5.6.- FORMULA A.5.14
APPROXIMATION AND
MEASURES OF THE
VERTICAL STABILIZER, ▪ Horizontal stabilizers: we approximated to a trapezium of bases 1.05
GRAPHICALLY and 0.67 meters and 1.81 high.
MEASURED.
1.05 + 0.67
𝑆𝑊𝑒𝑡 = 4 · (1.81 · ( )) = 6.23 𝑚2
2

FORMULA A.5.15
FIGURE A.5.7.-
APPROXIMATION OF
THE HORIZONTAL
STABILIZERS.

APPENDIX 3: CALCULUS OF THE DRAG POLAR

APPENDIX 3.1: ISA MODEL VALUES

In order to calculate the atmospheric conditions that we have taken into account in
sections 7 and 8, we have considered the ISA model ISO 2533:1975 [R.7.1] and the following
constant values at sea level:
𝑘𝑔⁄
𝜌𝑜 = 1.225
𝑚3
𝑇𝑜 = 288.15 𝐾
𝑃𝑜 = 101325 𝑃𝑎

𝑅 = 287 𝐽⁄𝑘𝑔𝐾

𝑔𝑜 = 9.807 𝑚⁄ 2
𝑠
𝑔𝑜 9.807
𝐴= (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴. 3.1) → 𝐴 = = 5.424
6.5 ∙ 10−3 𝑅 6.5 ∙ 10−3 ∙ 287
𝑇 = 𝑇𝑜 − 6.5 ∙ 10−3 ℎ (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴. 3.2) → 𝑇 = 288.15 − 6.5 ∙ 10−3 ∙ 12496 = 206.926𝐾

6.5 ∙ 10−3 ℎ 𝐴 6.5 ∙ 10−3 · 12496 5.424

𝑃 = 𝑃𝑜(1 − ) (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴. 3.3) → 𝑃 = 101325(1 − )
𝑇𝑜 288.15
= 16816.13 𝑃𝑎
𝐴−1
6.5 ∙ 10−3 ℎ
𝜌 = 𝜌𝑜 (1 − ) (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴. 3.4) → 𝜌
𝑇𝑜
5.424−1
6.5 ∙ 10−3 · 12496 𝑘𝑔⁄
= 1.225 (1 − ) = 0.299
288.15 𝑚3

38
 The air viscosity has been calculated using the Sutherland formula (formula 7.3), where
S and C1 are constants with these values:
𝑘𝑔
𝐶1 = 1.458 · 10−6 ⁄
𝑚𝑠√𝐾
𝑆 = 110.4 𝐾
3
𝐶1 · 𝑇 ⁄2 1.458 · 10−6 · 206.9261.5 𝑘𝑔
𝜇= = = 1.37 · 10−5 ⁄𝑚𝑠
𝑇+𝑆 110.4 + 206.926

APPENDIX 3.2: FORM FACTORS

The form factor is a coefficient that depends on the shape of each part of the aircraft
and has a typical value of 1 to 1.35. It is calculated with the following equations:
60 𝑓 𝐿
𝐹𝐹 𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 1 + + (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴3.5) 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑓 = (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴. 3.6)
𝑓3 400 𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥

0.35
𝐹𝐹 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 = 1 + (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴. 3.7)
𝑓
𝐹𝐹 (𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑠) =
0.6 𝑡 𝑡 4
= (1 + 𝑥 · + 100 · ( ) ) · (1.34𝑀0.18 · cos(𝛬)0.28 ) (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐴. 3.8)
( ⁄𝑐) 𝑐 𝑐

60 14.45⁄
𝐹𝐹 𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 1 + + 2.26 = 1.25
(14.45⁄2.26)3 400

60 4.49⁄
𝐹𝐹 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 = 1 + + 0.445 = 1.03
(4.49⁄0.445)3 400

0.6
𝐹𝐹 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = (1 + · 0.145 + 100 · (0.145)4 ) · (1.34 · 0.6140.18 · cos(2.4°)0.28 ) = 1.55
(0.4)
𝐹𝐹 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 =
0.6
= (1 + · 0.145 + 100 · (0.145)4 ) · (1.34 · 0.6140.18 · cos(45°)0.28 ) =
(0.4)
= 1.40
𝐹𝐹 ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 =
0.6
= (1 + · 0.145 + 100 · (0.145)4 ) · (1.34 · 0.6140.18 · cos(37.5°)0.28 ) =
(0.4)
= 1.45

APPENDIX 3.3: 𝐶𝐷𝑜 ESTIMATION

Considering the formula 7.2, and all the data from section 7, we are able to estimate the
value of de parasitic drag coefficient:

∑ 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓
𝐶𝐷𝑜 = (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 7.2)
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓

39
 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓 64.75 · 1.25 · 1 · 0.00168
𝐶𝐷𝑜(𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒) = = = 0.00358
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 16
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓 31.96 · 1.35 · 1.1 · 0.00234
𝐶𝐷𝑜(𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) = = = 0.00869
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 16
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓 2.85 · 1.35 · 1.1 · 0.00264
𝐶𝐷𝑜(𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) = = = 0.000722
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 16
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓 28.16 · 1.03 · 1.5 · 0.00203
𝐶𝐷𝑜(𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠) = = = 0.00569
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 16
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓 9 · 1.35 · 1.04 · 0.00209
𝐶𝐷𝑜(𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟) = = = 0.00139
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 16
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓 6.23 · 1.35 · 1.04 · 0.00247
𝐶𝐷𝑜(ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟) = = = 0.00170
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 16

𝐶𝐷𝑜 = 𝐶𝐷𝑜 (𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒) + 𝐶𝐷𝑜 (𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) + 𝐶𝐷𝑜 (𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔) + 𝐶𝐷𝑜 (𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠) + 𝐶𝐷𝑜 (𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟)
+ 𝐶𝐷𝑜 (ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟) = 0.02179

APPENDIX 3.4: OSWALD FACTOR

The Equation to calculate the Oswald Factor is the following:

FORMULA A.3.9
1
𝑂𝑠𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 → 𝑒 =
𝑄 + 𝑃1 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅
Where:

𝑄 (Inviscid part of the flow of the induced drag) = 1.05

𝑃1 (Viscous part of the flow) = 0.007

𝐴𝑅 (Aspect Ratio) = 12.73

Substituting:

1
𝑒= = 0.752
1.05 + 0.007 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 12.73

The Oswald Factor for the Piaggio is 0.752 which a great value compared with 1 achieved
for elliptical wings (optimal case).

40
APPENDIX 3.5: CALCULATION OF WEIGHT DURING FLIGHT
𝑊𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 = + 𝑊𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 + 𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
2
FORMULA A.3.10
In order to apply the formula, we must make some assumptions:

• The 𝑊𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 is the average between max fuel and Fuel with max payload
• We assume Cruise conditions when we have consumed half of the fuel

Taking the values:

𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 = 5489 𝐾𝑔
𝑊𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 = 3561 𝐾𝑔
794 + 589
𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝐾𝑔
2
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 − 𝑊𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 − 𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐾𝑔

Substituting:
1236.5
𝑊𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 = + 3561 + 691.5 = 4870.75 𝐾𝑔
2

APPENDIX 3.6: VARIATION IN ALTITUDE CONSIDERATIONS

The variation in the atmospheric conditions has been calculated in the same way as in
appendix 3.1. The full calculations can be found in the section of references [R.7.3]. These are
the results:

Table A.3.1
14496m 10496m
Temperature (K) 193.926 219.926
Air density (kg/m3) 0.227 0.388
Air viscosity (kg/ms) 1.29·10-5 1.44·10-5

With all the assumptions that we have taken in the seventh section, and the data from
table 7.8, we can re-calculate the parasitic drag coefficient. The results are listed on table A3.2:
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ 𝐶𝑓
𝐶𝐷𝑜 =
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓

1.328 0.445
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡∙ 𝐹𝐹 ∙ 𝐹𝐼 ∙ (0.35 · + 0.65 0.65 )
√𝑅𝑒𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠 (𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑅𝑒𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠))
2.58
∙ (1 + 1.144𝑀2 )
=
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓

41
 Table A.3.2
CDo CDo
Element
(+2000m) (-2000m)
Wing 0.00385 0.00375
Fuselage 0.00919 0.00888
Front wing 0.000781 0.000681
Engines 0.00605 0.00511
Horizontal
0.00150 0.00143
stabilizer
Vertical
0.00190 0.00147
stabilizer
TOTAL 0.02329 0.02157

Then, considering the weight calculated in the appendix 3.5, and the formulas 7.10 and
7.11, we can compute the induced drag coefficient:
2
2 ∙ 𝑚𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 ∙ 𝑔
( )
𝐶𝑙 2 𝜌 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝑣2
𝐶𝐷𝑖(+2000𝑚) = = = 0.02334
𝜋∙A∙e 𝜋∙A∙e
2
2 ∙ 𝑚𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 ∙ 𝑔
( )
𝐶𝑙 2 𝜌 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝑣2
𝐶𝐷𝑖(−2000𝑚) = = = 0.007997
𝜋∙A∙e 𝜋∙A∙e

APPENDIX 3.7
As has been said in section 7, a change in the speed provokes a variation in the Mach
number, with the following values:

Table A.3.3
Speed (m/s) Mach number
177.22 0.614
157.22 0.545
197.22 0.683

Then, this variation provokes also a variation in all the variables that depends on the
velocity, such as the Reynolds number (and the consequent friction coefficient that depends on
it), the form factor of the wings and stabilizers, and the induced drag coefficient.

We have followed the same procedure as in the previous section, using the Wolfram
Mathematica software in order to get de calculations [R.7.3]. The results are listed in the
following tables:

42
 Table A.3.4
Reynolds number
Element Reynolds number (+20m/s)
(-20m/s)
Wings 5.0015·106 3.9871·106
Fuselage 6.4597·107 5.1496·107
Engines 2.0072·107 1.6001·107
Front Wings 2.7716·106 2.2095·106
Vertical stabilizer 8.8066·106 7.0205·106
Horizontal stabilizer 3.84451·106 3.0648·106

In table A.3.5 we can see the values for the friction coefficient increasing the speed while
in the table A.3.6, is the friction coefficient decreasing the speed.

Table A.3.5
Element Cflaminar Cfturbulent Cf
Wings 0.000594 0.00315 0.002245
Fuselage 0.000165 0.00212 0.00163
Engines 0.000296 0.00252 0.00196
Front wings 0.000797 0.00348 0.00253
Vertical stabilizer 0.0004475 0.00287 0.002015
Horizontal stabilizer 0.0006773 0.00329 0.00236

Table A.3.6
Element Cflaminar Cfturbulent Cf
Wings 0.000737 0.00347 0.00251
Fuselage 0.000205 0.00231 0.00179
Engines 0.000368 0.00276 0.00216
Front wings 0.000990 0.00385 0.00285
Vertical stabilizer 0.000555 0.00315 0.00225
Horizontal stabilizer 0.000841 0.00363 0.00266

It is clearly seen that the variation in the Mach number provokes a variation in the form
factor of the wings and stabilizers. However, since we have saturated these values to 1.35, the
variation is not significant. Then, the new values for the drag coefficient are listed in table A.3.7:

Table A.3.7
Conditions CDo CDi

Cruise speed 0.02179 0.013434

+20m/s 0.02066 0.008759

-20m/s 0.021898 0.021689

43
APPENDIX 4: DEVELOPMENT AND CALCULATIONS OF THE THRUST DURING CRUISE FLIGHT ACCORDING TO THE
CONDITIONS AND MAKING A DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

In order to keep the speed constant, we need to take into account the first law of
Newton, which states:

“In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a
constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.” [A.8.1]

We can only apply this law to a particle, but aircrafts are considered rigid bodies so we
have moments of forces, not only forces.

Due to this condition we need to use the Newton-Euler equations, in an aircraft we can
assume that the movement is uniform and straight, but the real case is that the plane doesn´t
have linear velocity instead is a constant angular velocity as it is travelling around the Earth, but
in order to facilitate the calculations we are assuming that the radius of the earth is so big that
we can consider rectilinear motion.

Going back to the equations, the theorem of conservation of rectilinear and angular
motion:

𝐹⃗ =
𝑑
(𝑃⃗⃗) → 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 → ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑃2 = 𝑃⃗⃗⃗⃗1 + ∫𝑡2 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝐹 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑡 𝑡1 𝑁

FORMULA A.8.1

If the net force on the plane is zero,

⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑃2 = 𝑃⃗⃗⃗⃗1

FORMULA A.8.2
We are considering that the mass of the plane remains constant during cruise flight,
which is not real, but we can dismiss the effects.

𝑚 ∙ ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑣2 = 𝑚 ∙ 𝑣
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗1 → ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑣2 = 𝑣⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗1

FORMULA A.8.3
If we consider the only forces acting on the airplane Lift, Drag, Thrust and Weight we
have the following sketch of forces:

FIGURE A.8.1

44
 Now, in the vertical axis the Weight must be equal to the lift in order to maintain the
cruise altitude, so both forces are cancelled.

We are focusing on studying the forces on the horizontal axis, in the previous point we
calculated the 𝐶𝐷 during cruise flight, so to get the total drag:
1
𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 = ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝑣 2 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝐶𝐷
2
FORMULA 8.1

With Cruise conditions:

𝐶𝐷 = 0.035224

𝜌= 0,31 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

V = 177.22 m/s

S= 16 𝑚2

1
𝐷= ∙ 0.31 ∙ 177.222 ∙ 16 ∙ 0.035224 = 2743.57 𝑁
2

With cruise conditions, but 2000m higher in altitude:

𝐶𝐷 = 0.04663

𝜌= 0,227 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

V = 177.22 m/s

S= 16 𝑚2

1
𝐷= ∙ 0.227 ∙ 177.222 ∙ 16 ∙ 0.04663 = 2659.54 𝑁
2

With cruise conditions, but 2000m lower in altitude:

𝐶𝐷 = 0.02957

𝜌= 0,388 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

V = 177.22 m/s

S= 16 𝑚2
1
𝐷= ∙ 0.388 ∙ 177.222 ∙ 16 ∙ 0.02957 = 2882.69 𝑁
2

45
Cruise flight with ISA +10 conditions:

𝐶𝐷 = 0.038384

𝜌= 0,285 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

V = 177.22 m/s

S= 16 𝑚2
1
𝐷= ∙ 0.285 ∙ 177.222 ∙ 16 ∙ 0.038384 = 2748.59 𝑁
2

Cruise flight with ISA -10 conditions:

𝐶𝐷 = 0.033108

𝜌= 0,314 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

V = 177.22 m/s

S= 16 𝑚2

1
𝐷= ∙ 0.314 ∙ 177.222 ∙ 16 ∙ 0.033108 = 2612.03 𝑁
2

Cruise flight with +20m/s:

𝐶𝐷 = 0.02942

𝜌= 0,31 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

V = 197.22 m/s

S= 16 𝑚2

1
𝐷= ∙ 0.31 ∙ 197.222 ∙ 16 ∙ 0.02942 = 2837.89 𝑁
2

Cruise flight with -20m/s:

𝐶𝐷 = 0.0434864

𝜌= 0,31 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

V = 157.22 m/s

S= 16 𝑚2

46
 1
𝐷= ∙ 0.31 ∙ 157.222 ∙ 16 ∙ 0.0434864 = 2665.76 𝑁
2

APPENDIX 4.1: CALCULATION OF THRUST DURING TAKE-OFF

Turboprop engine manufacturers doesn’t provide information about the thrust of their
engines, this is mainly because the thrust generated depends on the ability of the propeller to
transform the shaft horse power into thrust.

This ability is called Propulsive performance, in the propellers of the Piaggio P.180 this
coefficient is equal to 0.8.

So according to the provided formula:

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
= 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
FORMULA A.8.4

Take-Off Conditions:

The speed is equal to Vr which is the speed for starting the rotation to take-off which
can be consulted in the aircraft’s manual for different take-off weights

We are taking the average for our calculations:

Speed= 54.53m/s

Power= 1700 shp or 1267.69 kW

Propulsive performance= 0.8

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 ∙ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = = 18597.68 𝑁
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑

APPENDIX 5: CALCULUS OF THE RANGE

As we have explained in section 9, we have made some assumptions in the Breguet
equation for turboprop engines (Formula A.9.1) to make simpler the calculations. The

47
 ƞp 𝐶L 𝑊i
𝑅≈ ∙ ∙ ln ( )
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊f

FORMULA A.9.1
Simplifications made are the followings:

1) The value of CL/CD has been taken as constant during all the flight. The values used are
the ones calculated for cruise conditions at section 7:
𝐶L = 0.63559
𝐶D = 0.035224

2) The final weight is obtained by subtracting the consumed fuel weight to the initial one.
Also, the maximum fuel capacity is supposed, and Wi is equal to WTOW (took from section
1)

𝑊f = 𝑊i − 𝑊fuel = 5489 − 1271 = 4218 𝐾𝑔

3) Specific fuel consumption (Csp) will vary depending on the altitude, because the air
density going into the engine will change, but we also have taken it as constant:
𝐾𝑔 𝐾𝑔
𝐶sp = 0.38 = 1.05553 ∙ 10−7
𝐾𝑤 ∙ ℎ 𝑁∙𝑚

4) The Breguet formula for turboprop engines depends directly from the propeller
performance(ƞp). However, no values were found about the propeller performance(ƞp)
of our aircraft and as in section 8 we took a standard performance of 0.8.

Finally, substituting those values at the Breguet equation we get the value for the typical
range of the Piaggio P.180 Avanti:

ƞp 𝐶L 𝑊i 0.8 0.63559 5489

𝑅≈ ∙ ∙ ln ( ) = −7
∙ ∙ ln ( ) = 3671.73𝑘𝑚
𝐶sp · 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊f 9.81 ∙ 1.05553 ∙ 10 0.036124 4218

APPENDIX 6: VARIATIONS OF THE RANGE

We start form the Csp equation:
𝑑𝑚f 1
𝐶sp = − ∙
𝑑𝑡 𝑃
FORMULA A.10.1
In order to be able to quantify the variations we may relate formula A10.1 to the weight
and the drag. After that relations, they appear some new terms as the speed of the aircraft(V∞)
or the propeller performance( ƞp).
𝑑𝑊 𝑑𝑚f 𝐷 ∙ 𝑉∞
= 𝑔∙ = −𝑔 ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑃 = −𝑔 ∙ 𝐶sp ∙
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 ƞp
48
 Isolating the time differential (dt):
ƞp ƞp ∙ 𝑊 𝑑𝑤 ƞp 𝐿 𝑑𝑤
𝑑𝑡 = 𝑑𝑤 = − ∙ =− ∙ ∙
𝑔 ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝐷 ∙ 𝑉∞ 𝑔 ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝐷 ∙ 𝑉∞ 𝑊 𝑔 ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑉∞ 𝐷 𝑊
Once we have dt isolated, we have to multiply it by the speed and integrate to obtain
the range.
𝑡𝑓 𝑊𝑓
ƞp 𝐶L 𝑑𝑤
𝑅 = ∫ 𝑉∞ ∙ 𝑑𝑡 → 𝑅 = ∫ − ∙ ∙
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊
𝑡0 𝑊0

We also have to use the lift and drag coefficients and the efficiency equations:

2∙𝑊 𝐶 L2
𝐶L = 𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶Do + 𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 𝐶Do +
𝜌 ∙ 𝑉∞2 ∙ 𝑆 𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒

2∙𝑊
𝐿 𝐶L 𝜌 ∙ 𝑉∞2 ∙ 𝑆
𝐸= = =
𝐷 𝐶𝐷 𝐶𝐿2
𝐶Do + 𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒

FORMULA A.10.2

Substituting at formula A10.3 the formula A10.2 we get the equation for the range that
we will use in the

𝑊0 𝑊0 2∙𝑊
ƞp 𝐶L 𝑑𝑤 ƞp 𝑑𝑤 𝜌 ∙ 𝑉 ∞2 ∙ 𝑆
𝑅= ∫ ∙ ∙ = ∫ ∙ ∙
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝑊 𝐶𝐿2
𝑊𝑓 𝑊𝑓 𝐶Do + 𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒

FORMULA A.10.3

a) Constant speed and altitude and modifying CL

As CL is not constant and is dependent on the mass, we will use the lift equation
to put CL in function of the weight:
1 2∙𝑊
𝐿 = 𝑊 = ∙ 𝐶L ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝑉 2 ∙ 𝑆 → 𝐶L =
2 𝜌 ∙ 𝑉2 ∙ 𝑆
FORMULA A.10.4

Then, substituting at formula A10.1 we get the differential equation we have to

integrate in this case:
𝑊0 2∙𝑊
ƞp 𝑑𝑤 𝜌 ∙ 𝑉∞2 ∙ 𝑆
𝑅= ∫ ∙ ∙
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝑊 4𝑊 2
𝑊f 𝐶Do + 2 4 2
𝜌 ∙ 𝑉 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒

Once reached the previous integral we have made use of Mathematica software
in order to obtain the expression for the range:

49
 ƞp 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 2∙𝑊 𝑤o
𝑅= ∙√ ∙ 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑇𝑎𝑛( )|
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶Do √𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝐶Do ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝑉 2 ∙ 𝜌 𝑤f
FORMULA A.10.5

The values used are the shown at the Table A.10.1, that are the values for cruise
conditions:
Table A10.1
W0 5489·9.81 N e 0.751909
Wf 4218·9.81 N S (wet surface) 16 m2
Csp 1.05553·10-7 𝝆 0.299 Kg/m3
2
g 9.81 m/s CDo 0.022698
V∞ 177.22 m/s AR 12.727

Substituting the data at formula A10.4 we get the following:

ƞp 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 2∙𝑊 𝑤o
𝑅= ∙√ ∙ 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑇𝑎𝑛( )| 3651.98 𝐾𝑚
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶Do √𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝐶Do ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝑉 2 ∙ 𝜌 𝑤f

b) Constant CL and altitude and modifying speed

In the previous case we put CL in function of the weight, but now CL is constant, and we
are varying speed. Therefore, we are putting speed in function of weight using formula A10.4.

1 2∙𝑊
𝐿=𝑊= ∙ 𝐶L ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝑉 2 ∙ 𝑆 → 𝑉 = √
2 𝜌 ∙ 𝐶L ∙ 𝑆

The next step is to replace at formula A10.3 by the relation made in the previous step.

2∙𝑊
𝑊0 𝑊0 2 ∙𝑊
ƞp 𝐶L 𝑑𝑤 ƞp 𝑑𝑤 𝜌∙𝜌∙𝐶 ∙𝑆∙𝑆
L
𝑅= ∫ ∙ ∙ = ∫ ∙ ∙
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝑊 4 ∙ 𝑊2
𝑊𝑓 𝑊𝑓
𝜌2 ∙ 𝐶 L 2 ∙ 𝑆 2
𝐶Do + 𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅 ∙𝑒
In this second point we used the same data as shown at table A10.1, we only have to
add the value of CL. We took the value at cruise conditions (CL= 0.63559). Making use of
Mathematica we got the following result for the range in this second case.

𝐴𝑅 ∙ ƞp ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 𝐿𝑛(𝐶𝑠𝑝 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ (𝐶 L2 + 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝐶Do ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝜋)) 𝑤o

𝑅= | = 3671.46𝐾𝑚
CL ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 + 𝐴𝑅 ∙ 𝐶Do ∙ 𝐶sp ∙ 𝑒 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝜋 𝑤f

50
 c) Constant CL and speed and modifying altitude.

As the calculations for non-constant altitude have a lot of complexities and the formulas
needed are very advanced for us. In order to perform the range’s calculation in this case we will
use formula A10.6 got from class slides[A10.1] to have density in function of the height.
𝐴−1
6.5 ∙ 10−3 𝑔𝑜
𝜌(ℎ) = 1.225 ∙ (1 − ) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴 =
288.15 6.5 ∙ 10−3 ∙ 𝑅

FORMULA A.10.6

Having density in function of the height we can substitute it in the formula A10.4 and
then solve the height from it.
𝐴−1
1 6.5 ∙ 10−3 ∙ ℎ
𝐿=𝑊= ∙ 𝐶L ∙ 1.225 ∙ (1 − ) ∙ 𝑉2 ∙ 𝑆
2 288.15

288.15 𝐴−1 2∙𝑊

ℎ=− −3
( √ 2 − 1)
6.5 ∙ 10 𝑉 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝐶L ∙ 1.225

Then, we can substitute the weight in function of height in the formula A10.3.

𝑊𝑓
ƞp 𝐶L 𝑑𝑤
𝑅= ∫ − ∙ ∙ 𝐴−1
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 1 6.5 ∙ 10−3 ∙ ℎ
𝑊0
2 ∙ 𝐶 L ∙ 1.225 ∙ (1 − ) ∙ 𝑉2 ∙ 𝑆
288.15
Finally, if we substitute the height and simplify the equation, we arrive to the Breguet
equation used in part 9.
ƞp 𝐶L 𝑊i
𝑅≈ ∙ ∙ ln ( ) = 3671.73 𝑘𝑚
𝐶sp ∙ 𝑔 𝐶D 𝑊f

51
 13. REFERENCES (BIBLIOGRAPHY)

AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS
• Table [1.1]: http://www.avantievo.piaggioaerospace.it/
• Tables [1.2], [1.3], [1.5]: https://prijet.com/performance/Piaggio%20Avanti%20P180
• Tables [1.4], [1.6]: http://www.piaggioaerospace.it/yep-
content/media/180307_Piaggio_Aerospace_Brochure_Avanti_Evo_printable_version_
(singles).pdf
• Figures [1.2], [1.3]: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/22151/how-does-
the-pratt-whitney-canada-pt6-differ-from-other-turboprop-engines
• [A.1.1]: www.eltiempo.es

ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
• [R.2.1]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/

AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION
• [R.3.1]:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120401063811/http://www.easa.eu.int/certification/t
ype-certificates/docs/aircrafts/EASA-TCDS-A.059_Piaggio_Aero_Industies_Spa_P.180-
06-18022011.pdf
• [R.3.2]:
http://www.neam.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit&id
=1121
• [R.3.3]: http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/P180_Avanti-
Specification_and_Description.pdf
• [R.3.4]: http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aircraft-systems/how-does-aspect-
ratio-affect-a-wing/
• Figure [3.1]: http://aviationweek.com/bca/pratt-whitney-canada-provides-details-
new-pt6
• Figure [3.2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/2010-04-
11_14_28_33_Switzerland
• Figure [3.3]: http://www.fsd-international.com/images/Avanti/Avanti.png

AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE
• [R.4.1]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pressure+at+12000+meters
• Figures [4.1], [4.2]: https://conceptbunny.com/piaggio-p-180-avanti/

VIEW DRAWINGS AND PARAMETERS OF THE AIRCRAFT

• [A.2.1]: https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-sale/Specifications?specid=727
• [A.2.2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti)

52
 • Formulas [A.5.1], [A.5.3], [A.5.4]:
https://poliformat.upv.es/access/content/group/GRA_11888_2018/English/Slides/2.4
%20Fundamentals%20of%20atmospheric%20flight.pdf
• Formula [A.5.2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(aeronautics)
• Figures [A.5.1], [A.5.2], [A.5.3]: https://www.the-
blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-
op/74029/view/piaggio_p180_avanti/

ANALYSIS OF THE LANDING GEAR

• [R.6.1] (AVANTI’S HANDBOOK): http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-
documentviewer.php?id=2274
• [R.6.2]:
https://poliformat.upv.es/access/content/group/GRA_11888_2018/English/Slides/2.5
%20Aircraft%20Systems.pdf

CRUISE DRAG POLAR

• [R.7.1]: http://fisicaatmo.at.fcen.uba.ar/practicas/ISAweb.pdf
• [R.7.2]: http://www.fzt.haw-
hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_13_Drag.pdf
• [R.7.3]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18sj3RU-EtZr9b6JvTUx_KkYQ_siHeu51/view

DETERMINATION OF THRUST
• [A.8.1]: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton1g.html

DETERMINATION OF THE RANGE

• [R.9.1]:
https://poliformat.upv.es/access/content/group/GRA_11888_2018/English/Additional
%20materials/breguet_eng.pdf

VARIATIONS OF THE RANGE

• [A.10.1]:
https://poliformat.upv.es/access/content/group/GRA_11888_2018/English/Slides/2.1
%20The%20Atmospheric%20Flight%20Environment.pdf

53