VISIT THE JOURNAL ONLINE AT WWW.AIRFRAMER.

COM

Issue 26 November 2007

Inside this issue

A parametric geometry and
PiperJet finalises a cost- grid generation tool for
effective single engine
design to give pilots a
‘multi-engine safety
aircraft configurations
feeling’ 4 By GL Oliveira, LCC Santos, AL Martins, GG Becker
of Embraer, Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica, Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil.

New energy efficient ‘flying RSC Ataides, RFAF Silva, N Spogis, MVF Reis
of ESSS (Engineering Simulation and Scientific Software), Florianopolis, SC, Brazil.
wing’ could help reduce
CO2 emissions 8

Marshall and CAV extend

stringer contract 9

New aircraft factory

planned for Georgia 9

Contributions
If you would like
to write for Airframer,
please email
david@airframer.com

134 South Street,

Bishop’s Stortford, Embraer judiciously introduces new technology which has benefited aircraft including the
Herts CM23 3BQ, ERJ 145 pictured on the assembly line.
United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 1279 714524
This article is edited from a paper presented at a conference hosted by ANSYS. ANSYS designs and
Fax: +44 1279 714519
develops simulation software and technologies that optimise product development processes for
email: david@airframer.com
designers and engineers in computer-aided engineering by delivering functionality including advanced
http://www.airframer.com
analysis, meshing, optimisation, multiphysics and multibody dynamics.

Publisher: ........................ David Wright
Journalists: ......................... Rod Smith
......................................Claire Morrison
Advertising sales: ........... Mark Ranger
Subscriptions/Circulation: ..... Jenny Hill
.............................................. Janet Bell
Design/Production.................Chris Carr
............................................... Lee Fone
.......................................... Kate Woods
During the early stages of the design
process of a new aircraft there is a need to
verify the influence of a large number of
geometric parameters on its overall
configuration. High fidelity engineering
analyses at this stage are often extremely
time consuming due to the frequently
changing configuration, under a high level
of interdependence among the disciplines.
Moreover, the processes involved are
hardly automated due to difficulties in
the interface between computer-aided
design (CAD) and computer-aided
engineering (CAE) tools.
In order to achieve efficient design cycles in
that context, an integrated working
environment is desired, where geometrical
changes can be easily introduced and computa-
tional meshes automatically generated,
Continued on page 2
2 NOVEMBER 2007
New concepts feed through to jets that keep workers on Embraer's assembly lines busy.
providing support for the engineering
analysis. This text briefly describes a tool
that accomplishes those goals through the
integration of CATIA V5 and the ANSYS
ICEM CFD family of grid generators,
Hexa/Tetra/Prism. This is part of a larger
multi-disciplinary optimisation
environment created at Embraer where
CAD geometries are directly integrated to
grid generators providing support to high
fidelity CAE analysis.
GMA: automatic geometry and
mesh generator
Despite tremendous progress in geometric
modelling and grid generation in the past
few decades, such processes are still the
most labour-intensive phases in high
fidelity computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) and computational structural
mechanics (CSM) analyses, usually forming
a narrow bottleneck between engineering
concept and engineering data. In some
cases, the pre-processing process for full
aircraft configuration can take up to 60 per
cent of total CFD analysis cycle time.
Most geometric modelling CAD systems
use either a boundary representation or a
constructive solid geometry method to
represent physical objects. Based on mathe-
matical and logical definitions it is possible
to represent the geometry of a complete
aircraft. However, conventional CAD
modelling processes based on direct
human-machine interaction have their
setbacks regarding the subsequent engin-
eering analysis. For example, very often the
models produced directly by designers and
engineers have small, unseen imperfec-
tions, such as gaps, wiggles, free edges and
others. Although such numerical “defects”
might eventually be irrelevant for the
adequate representation of geometry, they
generally cause a myriad of problems for
the mesh generation process. Those kinds
of problems underscore the general interest
for an automated, parametric geometry
generation process, under which those
small imperfections would not proliferate.
To elaborate, developing a parame-
terised CAD model good enough to allow
seamless, automatic grid generation is not
an easy task. The parameterisation must be
robust, consistent and general enough to
represent a wide range of geometries of
interest, yet yielding a compact and
effective set of design variables so that the
solution time remains feasible.
On the other hand, the grid generation
process is not yet a “push button” business:
it is still one of the most complex aspects of
applied computational engineering. Also,
the mesh quality plays an important role
on the accuracy of the analysis, regardless
of the flow solver used. It generally takes
many man-hours and availability of
ISSUE 26
previous knowledge. Those characteristics
make the use of high-fidelity analysis more
difficult in the preliminary design optimi-
sation process.
Structured and unstructured grid
generation techniques are usually focused
on the issues of geometry-to-grid topology
creation, surface grid generation and
volume grid generation. With hexahedral,
structured grid methods comes the problem
of block topology creation, a process
difficult to adequately automate because it
usually requires the direct application of
user knowledge and experience. In the
unstructured tetrahedral/hybrid grid
methods, the geometry topology is
obtained through the solid boundary repre-
sentation model. Once the topologies are
created most grid generation techniques
can be fully automated. Robustness and
grid quality are as important as the
automation of the grid generation process.
Given the scenario detailed above,
Embraer and ESSS have joined forces to
develop GMA, a set of pre-processing tools
and methods capable of automating the
whole geometry and grid generation
process for a range of aircraft and
component configurations of interest for
the aerospace industry, based on a limited
number of user defined parameters.
The methods available resort to previ-
ously resolved knowledge-based heuristics
NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE 26
(such as required for structured block
topology), as well as to automatic gener-
ation algorithms (as available to generate
unstructured tetrahedral meshes),
according to the case at hand.
Parameterisation schemes are flexible
enough to allow geometry and mesh
creation of fully detailed aircraft surfaces,
or “loftings”. More than 3,000 parameters
were implemented in CATIA V5 and
ANSYS ICEM CFD, bringing in high flexi-
bility to geometry and mesh creation. Both
software packages were used to incorporate
and aggregate knowledge from several
design disciplines, such as aerodynamics,
propulsion systems, environment systems
and others.
Aircraft configuration elements may be
modelled not only within the full aircraft
context, but also in isolated form, as
convenient for specific analyses. GMA also
incorporates modelling and meshing
capabilities for localised elements of special
interest, such as auxiliary air inlets, thrust
reversers and icing formations. Aircraft
wings may be represented either in
high speed, cruise configuration (single
airfoils) or in low speed, high lift configu-
ration (multiple cascading airfoils). Two-
dimensional airfoil geometries and meshes,
extensively used during preliminary
design, may be generated as well.
Both structured (hexahedral) and
Lessons learned from Dreamliner delay could affect future manufacturing approach
Boeing could build its next aircraft differently
and concentrate major partner factories at a
single manufacturing site, according to the
former head of the Dreamliner program.
In a speech to the Snohomish County
Economic Development Council, Mike Bair
suggested that Boeing might consider a
supersite concept where supplier factories
are located alongside final assembly.
According to an article in Flight
International, costly delays in the delivery of
the Dreamliner resulted from the production
unstructured (hybrid tetra/prism) mesh
configurations have been implemented,
with total control over number of nodes,
mesh spacing and growing ratios. These
methods can reproduce meshes with
different refinement levels, ensuring high
productivity when mesh convergence
studies are performed.
After application in a number of actual
aerospace product development programs,
the GMA methodology has shown the
ability to drastically reduce the geometry
and grid generation cycle, unifying and
disseminating geometry and mesh
knowledge through an organised database
than can be made available to the entire
organisation. The result has been an actual
system in Everett being overwhelmed
with parts work that should have been done
by suppliers.
Bair told delegates that some suppliers
had performed poorly and would therefore
probably not be used again.
“The right way to do this would be to
have all those big parts across the street
so you could just roll them in,” Bair said.
“We’ll see on the next airplane program
whether we can accomplish something
like that.”
3
reduction of the gaps between the several
engineering design phases, as well as
between the disciplinary areas involved in
the product development process.
Pooled expertise facilitates
ground-breaking research
Embraer and ESSS have combined their
different areas of manufacturing and
research specialties to good effect in the
development of GMA. Embraer has become
one of the largest aircraft manufacturers in
the world by focusing on specific market
segments with high growth potential in
commercial, defence and executive aviation.
It develops and adapts successful aircraft
platforms and judiciously introduces new
technology “whenever it creates value” by
lowering acquisition price, reducing direct
operating costs, or delivering higher relia-
bility, comfort and safety. Embraer’s goal is
to develop high performance, reliable
aircraft that are economic to acquire and
cost-effective to operate and maintain – and
new technology is key. Targeting sectors has
paid dividends: Embraer was Brazil’s largest
exporter from 1999 to 2001 and the second
largest in 2002, 2003 and 2004. It currently
employs more than 23,770 people, 88.6 per
cent based in Brazil, and it contributes to
the creation of more than 5,000 indirect
jobs. ESSS, an ANSYS South America
distributor, specialises in the numerical
simulation of engineering problems and
scientific software development. The
focus is on working to turn the results of
technological research into immediate
industrial applications.
Areas of focus include computational
fluid dynamics, structural analysis,
scientific visualisation, particle simulation,
multi-objective optimisation, micro-
structural characterisation, geology and
reservoir engineering. I
Bair hinted that the company could return
to its earlier practice of supplying complete
designs to some of its major suppliers.
This could see US states competing to
build the 737 jet replacement.
Selection of the manufacturing site for
the 737, which is expected to fly in 2015,
would most likely be made five years earlier.
Should Boeing decide to create such a
supersite, the next aircraft assembly
operation would make an even bigger prize
than the 787 plant.
4 NOVEMBER 2007
PiperJet finalises a cost-effective
single engine design to give pilots
a ‘multi-engine safety feeling’
The PiperJet incorporates new and
specifically adapted technology designed
to reassure pilots and passengers that they
can be just as safe in a single engine jet as
they are in a multi-engine aircraft – and
enjoy the cost savings. Further
design innovations are being integrated as
the PiperJet moves towards the
production phase. Rod Smith reports.
The PiperJet is the latest in a roll call
of over 160 Piper models that have
rolled off the production line of the
Florida headquartered Piper Aircraft
over some 70 years. But James K. Bass,
president and ceo of Piper Aircraft,
enthuses: “Building the PiperJet will
be Piper’s most exciting and complex
addition to its model line-up to date.
Several new systems will be added to
the aircraft as a result of the latest
jet technology.”
Gary Kelley, Garmin’s vp of marketing,
says the entry-level business jet, scheduled
for delivery from 2010, will include
innovations made possible by the state-of-
the-art avionics developed by Garmin
International. Advances include two
primary flight displays (PFDs) that digitally
integrate flight information on large format
displays for easy interpretation by the pilot.
The PFDs interface with Garmin’s Attitude
and Heading Reference System, which
features rapid, in-motion alignment –
and can reliably align, even while the
aircraft is in flight.
Kelley says: “A multifunction display
(MFD) will put all aircraft systems and
monitoring and flight-planning functions at
the pilot’s fingertips. The MFD depicts a
composite view of the aircraft’s
environment, enhancing situational
awareness to provide the pilot with key
information to make safe decisions during
each phase of flight. Engine performance
and situational data such as location,
terrain, traffic, weather and airport infor-
mation are all digitally depicted and
can be easily interpreted at a glance on
the large-format display.”
ISSUE 26
“The seamless integration of Garmin’s
Automatic Flight Control System, an
attitude-based, three-axis autopilot, makes
it possible for pilots to maintain airspeed
references and optimise performance over
the entire airspeed envelope,” he adds.
For its expansion into the jet market,
Piper has chosen a “clean sheet” design that
incorporates the Williams FJ44-3AP
turbofan engine to power the PiperJet. The
six-passenger aircraft – with an option for
either a seventh seat or enclosable lavatory
– “breaks the mould”, says Bass. “In
designing this revolutionary aircraft, we
have assembled the finest team of
engineers and designers and conducted an
extensive consumer research effort to
ensure that the PiperJet will be second to
none. In effect, every measure has been
taken to make sure that the PiperJet
answers what our customers have told
us they want and need in a jet, because
at the end of the day, it’s not about being
first to market, it’s about getting it right in
the first place.”
NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE 26
Proof-of-concept aircraft
The PiperJet proof-of-concept aircraft
continues to advance through various
stages of assembly, with its fuselage
currently in Piper’s flight test hangar. In the
meantime, construction continues on the
primary and secondary airframe structures
as completion of the proof-of-concept
draws near. “We’re building the first
prototype in Vero Beach right now, as well
as production tooling,” Bass says, adding
that “a 1/5-scale model of the PiperJet with
remotely controlled flight surfaces recently
completed weeks of testing at the Kirsten
Wind Tunnel at the University of
Washington Aeronautical Laboratory
in Seattle. In all, our PiperJet testing
focused on 973 individual data runs that
provided Piper engineers with essential
data for further aerodynamic analysis and
product development.”
John Becker, Piper’s vp of engineering,
says that there is a major focus on user-
friendliness and safety – from Flight Into
Known Icing to FADEC – for a configu-
ration that will be flown by a single pilot.
“The PiperJet will be certified to a
maximum operating altitude well above
the weather while combining performance
with the latest safety technologies and
features,” he adds. “We’re making great
progress with engineering evaluation
and development, first flight and
eventual certification.”
Wind tunnel tests identified some
potential areas for improvement. But
Becker says the construction of the proof-
of-concept aircraft is on schedule, with the
most significant finding in the wind tunnel
being an opportunity to increase tail effec-
tiveness by sweeping the horizontal tail 30
degrees. Simply stated, this horizontal tail
design will increase overall aircraft
performance and stability and dramatically
improve the airplane’s aesthetics, he added.
In all, Piper made five aerodynamic
modifications to the PiperJet model during
wind tunnel testing. First off, Piper
engineers reduced the engine nacelle
diameter after careful analysis of engine
size and installation showed that additional
space around the engine was not required.
As a result, a smaller, more aerodynami-
cally efficient nacelle has been incorpo-
rated, which will improve overall aircraft
drag estimates. In addition, engineers
added a dorsal fairing at the top of the
nacelle to optimise the aircraft’s directional
stability as well as wing fairings, or inboard
leading edge extensions, to the wing near
the intersection of the wing and fuselage to
reduce drag and increase lift.
Piper engineers also redesigned the
winglets for increased wing efficiency. The
new winglets will extend from the rear half
of the wing instead of the entire wing
chord line, and while final sculpting of the
winglets is still in process, the first proof-of-
concept aircraft will probably fly with the
new winglets.
One of the innovations engineers have
introduced is a new bonding technique for
the wing. This technique, proprietary to
Piper, is known as Foaming Adhesive
Bonding (FAB). The FAB technique uses
foaming adhesive to fill every gap between
the wing’s metal layers, creating a glass-
smooth exterior finish. Additionally, this
technique offers the strength of aluminum
and heat-cured bonds and is said to be
equal or superior to anything available in
general aviation.
The end product, Piper engineers
say, is consequently stronger than riveted
wings and provides an aerodynamically
pure surface important for retaining
natural laminar flow and aero-
dynamic characteristics.”
The fuselage is currently in Piper’s flight
test hangar. In the meantime, construction
continues on the primary and secondary
airframe structures as completion of the
proof-of-concept draws near. “We’ve
fulfilled a brief that will make the PiperJet
5
Extensive consumer research has been conducted to
ensure the PiperJet will be “second to none.”
one of the safest and best performing light
jets to enter the market,” Bass adds. “A
number of people have asked us why we
went with a single engine jet and not a
multi-engine. The reason is simple: it
makes sense. The public perception of
single engine aircraft has dramatically
improved over the last 20 years.”
While some pilots have remained
somewhat reluctant to operate single
engine piston aircraft in heavy IFR condi-
tions or over inhospitable terrain, Bass cites
a comprehensive research study Piper
conducted that indicates perceptions are
changing dramatically. “With technology
advancements resulting in improved relia-
bility,” he says, “this stigma is pretty much
a thing of the past. More and more aircraft
operators have opted for a single engine
aircraft, primarily because of turboprop and
turbojet/fan development for lighter
aircraft, as well as significant improvement
in piston-engine reliability.”
Bob Kromer, Piper’s vp of sales, points
out that a single engine turbofan aircraft
has many advantages over a twin engine
aircraft. “Acquisition costs are lower for
single engine jets, simply because the
engine is the single most expensive part.
Engine maintenance costs for two engines
are almost twice as expensive as a single.
Fuel burn is less for one larger engine than
for two smaller engines, reducing cost per
mile and total fuel required for a mission.
And, as we all know, less fuel needed for a
mission equals more available payload.”
Moreover, Kromer says: “Aircraft
insurance is more readily available for
single-engine aircraft, not to mention less
expensive. And a single engine aircraft also
means easier operation for the pilot, a
6 NOVEMBER 2007
The construction of the proof-of-concept aircraft is
reported to be on schedule.
primary goal for Piper designs.”
The PiperJet design brief was to enable
the production of an aircraft that took
advantage of all the single engine pluses
but ticked all the safety and comfort boxes.
“The fact is that safety has always been the
prime concern for any pilot or aircraft user.
With advancements in efficiency, reliability
and safety systems, even the major airliners
of today are twin engine models while in
the 1960s and 1970s three or even four
engines were the norm,” says Kromer. “It is
the public’s acceptance of ‘fewer’ engines
that allows the airline industry to do this.
In the same way, general aviation pilots
now feel single engine aircraft can safely
transport their passengers and families.”
From 1962 to 1987, multi-engine
aircraft accounted for 16 per cent of all
piston aircraft (mostly general aviation)
manufactured in the U.S. The percentage of
multi-engine aircraft manufactured in the
U.S. has declined steadily to 3.5 per cent in
2006. Turboprop aircraft have followed a
similar, less dramatic pattern. In 1995, 41
per cent of manufactured turboprops were
single engine. In 2006, 62 per cent were
singles. In the same time frame, personal
single-engine turboprops went from 0.5 per
cent in 1995 to almost 50 per cent of all
turboprops today.
Rotor burst protection
One key challenge for the PiperJet
designers was to reassure pilots and owners
that there was protection against engine
rotor burst. “When a piston engine lets go
in flight, it’s a problem; when a turbine
comes apart, a lot more destruction can
occur,” says Becker. “That is why jets are
designed with added protection from fan
explosion or disintegration. Obviously,
when blades detach themselves while
spinning at up to 41,200 rpm, they can
destroy all airplane and engine structure in
their path. Aircraft structure, systems, and
especially the engine location have a
significant impact on survivability of the
airplane and its occupants following an
uncontained engine failure.”
Section 23.903 (b)(1) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations requires that aircraft
designs minimise these hazards. The FAA’s
advisory circular AC20-128A gives guide-
lines but the manufacturer is responsible
for a design that acceptably minimises
these risks.
The areas within the zone include the
tail cone, vertical stabiliser and rudder
control, horizontal stabiliser and elevator
control. Piper engineers are focusing
attention on three fragment sizes: the full
blade fragment, the partial blade fragments
that take a 5 degree departure path
(contained using shielding) and the 1/3
rotor disc fragment – a worst case scenario
because of its huge energy capable of
destroying anything in its path. Piper says:
“A 3-degree departure path is used for this
type of rotor burst. While we protect
against rotor burst in all directions, the
PiperJet’s design primarily addresses the
possibility of both an upward (to the
vertical stabiliser) and downward (through
the tail cone) rotor burst.”
Piper’s design philosophy of redun-
dancy and strategic placement of critical
items locates most critical equipment and
systems out of any possible rotor burst
path. “Where this is not practical, we incor-
porate a secondary or back-up system.
ISSUE 26
With this in mind, we located the PiperJet’s
engine in the tail,” says Becker. This keeps
the cockpit, cabin, oxygen, pitot/static,
landing gear, hydraulics, brakes, fuel
firewall shutoff valve and fuel tank systems
outside potential zones. Check valves are
incorporated in the bleed air lines to
prevent cabin de-pressurisation in the
event that these lines are compromised.
Piper’s design ensures that wherever small
rotor disk fragments could damage the
airframe, there is added shielding.
The tail cone of the PiperJet uses
redundant structures. For example, two
keel webs, one on each side of the aircraft,
support the tail cone’s primary structure.
Only one of the keel webs can possibly be
within any given rotor burst zone; and
either one of the keel web structures is
sufficient to maintain the structural
integrity of the tail cone.
The elevator control cables incorporate
a dual design. These controls are actually
two separate cable systems in the fuselage.
Each individual elevator cable runs
outboard of the keel web, eliminating
the possibility of loss of elevator control in
the event of a single rotor burst. The
vertical stabiliser is protected from rotor
burst through both redundancy and
strategic placement.
Piper designed the spar structure of
the vertical stabiliser with multiple spars,
so that an uncontained rotor burst cannot
completely destroy the vertical stabiliser.
The remaining spars are strategically
located to retain the structure of the
PiperJet’s tail.
The rudder control cables unavoidably
pass through a rotor burst zone, and so are
backed up by the rudder trim mechanism,
creating a redundant yaw control system.
NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE 26
The rudder trim mechanism itself does not
pass through a rotor burst zone. That said,
electrical control of the rudder trim does
pass through a rotor burst zone. Becker
explains: “As a result, the PiperJet design
calls for placement of the wiring harness
away from the primary rudder control
cables, making this separation of redundant
systems a highly effective means of
protecting the airframe.”
The engine support pylon and rear
pressure bulkhead are protected from
potential rotor burst damage by strategic
placement – outside of the zone. Since
neither of these major structures lies inside
a rotor burst area, no damage would occur
if an extremely rare rotor burst should
occur. Even the sleek sweptback horizontal
stabiliser contributes to inherent design
safety, by naturally locating essential flight
surfaces out of the path. Piper confirms that
only a very small area of non-critical
structure for the horizontal stabiliser
remains in the rotor burst path.
Design trade-offs
There are tradeoffs to any design, and one
of these results from having the thrust line
high above the centre of gravity. Left
unaddressed, this can result in unwanted
pitch changes whenever power settings are
changed. Pilot-commanded pitch trim
changes would increase pilot load and
decrease the passengers’ comfort; they may
also reduce the efficiency of the flight, as the
pilot zeroes in on the perfect trim setting.
PiperJet designers and engineers have
worked on an automatic pitch trim system.
“Extensive work is necessary to successfully
incorporate the principle into a VLJ,” Becker
adds. This has been carried out and the
result is the Piper Automatic Trim System
(PATS). The PATS automatically adjusts the
horizontal stabiliser for changing thrust
settings, keeping the PiperJet aerody-
namically balanced. Left uncorrected,
when power would be added, the
aircraft would pitch nose down; and
when reduced, a nose-up pitching
moment would naturally result.
In order to overcome this pitching
moment, the PATS reacts by changing
the horizontal stabiliser’s angle of
incidence either upward or down-
ward, producing an appropriate
balance force on the tail. Though the
pilot could accomplish this manually, the
PATS system does this automatically and
immediately. PATS is operational at all
times, regardless of autopilot or other
system status, and does not require any
pilot interaction for operation.
The system continuously monitors
parameters necessary to determine engine
thrust, aerodynamic affectivity of the
horizontal stabiliser (which can change with
angle of attack, airspeed and other factors)
and flap position. Using these inputs, the
computer controls an electrically-driven
actuator that immediately and automatically
moves the horizontal stabiliser to the
required position. The PiperJet’s PATS incor-
porates a redundant channel controller with
one control channel and one monitoring
channel. One channel performs the
necessary calculations and outputs to the
horizontal stabiliser actuator while the
second channel simply performs the calcula-
tions and compares the results to the control
channel. Redundant position sensors
monitor the position of the horizontal
stabiliser and send the results back to the
control and monitor channels for
comparison. Should a mis-compare (or
fault) be detected, the system deactivates
the actuator, preventing further movement
of the horizontal stabiliser.
Becker says: “This protection mode has
no effect on the pilot controlled elevator or
elevator trim control. However, in the case
of such an event, the pilot
7
would have to manually trim the aircraft for
thrust variations for the remainder of that
flight.”
The design precursors of the PATS have
been in use in large, transport category
aeroplanes for many years. Piper, claims
though, that it is the first to succeed in
bringing this technology to light aircraft.
Battery power
PiperJet designers have also decided that
batteries have a role to play. “A main
concern for pilots is cabin decompression at
high altitudes,” Becker points out. “In the
event that an engine fails at 35,000 feet,
we’ve ensured that the cabin will not
experience a rapid decompression. Instead,
pressure will leak out of the cabin at a
much slower rate. If the cabin were to
reach an altitude of 15,000 feet, an
automatic emergency oxygen system will
deploy oxygen masks to the pilot and
passengers with enough oxygen for the
entire emergency descent profile.”
He says the batteries will supply
enough electricity to power the PiperJet for
a minimum of 30 minutes, with only
essential equipment operating. Automatic
load shedding will ensure that navigation,
communication and other essential systems
remain operational during the descent.
Electrically operated flaps and landing gear
will also remain operational without the
engine operating.
“Even in the event of an extremely rare
engine failure, the PiperJet will provide
unprecedented levels of redundancy and
glide performance to assure the safety of all
on board,” Becker says. I
8 NOVEMBER 2007
The University of Salford is working to make a full-sized flying wing a reality.
New energy efficient ‘flying wing’
could help reduce CO2 emissions
Students at the University of Salford
in the UK, plan to flight test a scale
model flying wing aircraft next June if
they can successfully resolve flight
control issues.
They are working on designs for
a new aeroplane which they say
has the potential to become one of
the most energy efficient forms of
air travel because it has no fuselage
and therefore a smaller area
exposed to drag.
In competitions the earlier model,
which is remote-controlled, has
beaten conventionally designed “tube
and wing” aircraft on a number of
occasions where speed and endurance
are the deciding factors, and the
engineers based in the University of
Salford’s School of Computing, Science
and Engineering are now working to
make a full-sized version a reality.
While flying wing aircraft are
nothing new they have never entered
commercial service for safety reasons.
Project supervisor Thurai Rahulan
explains why designers should revisit
this layout for a new airliner.
Since a relentless increase is projected
for passenger air traffic over the next few
decades, a revolutionary change in airliner
design ought to be considered at this stage
regardless of the potentially high risks
(technical, financial and organisational)
associated with new designs. Incredible as it
may seem, within the space of four human
generations, the passenger air transport
industry has progressed from flimsy
airships to the current fleet dominated by
relaxed stability jetliners equipped with
high bypass turbofans in the 50+ seat
aircraft sector. All this has been achieved
with ever decreasing accident rates proving
the inherent safety features of the “tube and
wing” configuration. However, the time
has come to address a step change in our
thinking as we enter a new era filled with
radical demands to significantly improve
the fuel-burn figures and noise pollution. It
is clear that, barring a world economic
collapse of gigantic proportions, the rise in
commercial air traffic throughout the world
must be matched by an appropriate devel-
opment programme which can support
sustainable business growth in all sectors of
the air transport industry.
The most successful airliners in history
have shared three basic characteristics:
• high fatigue strength airframe with low
weight penalty and layout which
ISSUE 26
facilitates rapid re-engining
• low drag propulsion integration
maximising range, endurance, loitering
and persistence capabilities
• a large interior volume facilitating quick
retrofits of onboard systems hardware
and cabin furniture layouts.
Perhaps the best example is the Boeing
747 which has appeared in a bewildering
variety of civil and military guises since
service inauguration in 1970.
The ‘pusher type’ open-rotor
(sometimes referred to as either unducted
or unshrouded) propfan units with swept
blades that were tested in the 1980s did
demonstrate a good compromise between
fuel consumption and cruise speed but
were defeated by blade tip generated noise
problems. Also, lack of a blade containment
cowl forced their location to the tail end of
the fuselage which worsened airframe
weight problems caused by the loss of the
tail moment arm and other factors.
In the 37-100 seat regional aircraft
sector, turboprops exhibit far superior
take-off and landing performance capabil-
ities; according to Bombardier, about
2,500 airfields are served worldwide by
scheduled airlines of which 934 are out of
bounds to jets.
NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE 26
The conventional fuselage has proved
to be a superb passenger container (facili-
tating rapid cabin evacuation while
minimising ride discomfort in roll) and a
formidable lever arm enabling small
stabilisers to exercise extensive flight
control in no uncertain terms.
Unfortunately, the fuselage is effectively a
zero-lift skin friction generator which
almost doubles the total aircraft drag.
If the fuselage is squashed into
the wing box area to form a blended/
integrated/flying wing type airliner, the loss
of stability margins will need to be compen-
sated for with active dampers to the extent
where it becomes highly safety-critical. This
is especially the case if good take-off
performance is required. Recoveries from
flight upsets will be much more difficult.
The existing wing tip fences will need major
redesign with lateral stability in mind
possibly requiring active rudders or all-
moving wing-tip fences. And due to the
very large number of abreast seating plan,
passengers seated at the side walls in a
flying wing airliner without windows will
be subjected to oscillatory amplitudes
consisting of simultaneous translational and
rotational motions. Provision of adequate
emergency egress routes will be difficult but
possible solutions have been proposed by
the ‘pro blended wing/body’ lobby.
The one big advantage is a dramatic
reduction of the aircraft wetted area/wing
area ratio which will reduce to just over
two from the current values in the range of
four to seven. The whole aircraft lift/drag
ratio even at Mach 0.85 (including wave
Marshall and CAV extend
stringer contract
Marshall Aerospace has signed a further
agreement with CAV Aerospace to
manufacture aircraft stringers for a further five
years at its facility in Cambridge, England.
It is hoped that the new £13.5m contract will
safeguard existing jobs and could create
new ones.
Since the initial contract was signed in 2006,
Marshall has produced 13,600 stringers for CAV
Aerospace. The stringers are ultimately
destined for a range of Airbus models including
the A318, A330 and A380.
Stringers, which reach from the aircraft
fuselage towards the wing tip, sit directly on
the inner surface of the wing skin and help
strengthen and support the wing.
As a result of this further agreement, a
second phase of investment has now begun in
the manufacturing facility. The facility at
Thurai Rahulan: “The future can be made greener
but not safer or quieter.”
drag components) can be virtually
guaranteed to exceed 20. All resulting drag
polars and true air speed versus the fuel-
flow rate diagrams will be magical.
As for the type of powerplants, it boils
down to a debate between shrouded props
and unducted fans, either single stage or
contra-rotating. Unducted prop fans will be
the ultimate choice despite the acousticians
not yet having managed to clobber the
noise problem. Pusher props will avoid
generation of wing supervelocity compo-
nents unlike the tractor units and it is likely
that new materials will reduce the
problems of the engine exhaust being
directed onto the propeller blade section
adjacent to the spinner. Lack of a cowl to
condition the blade tip flow will reduce
the cruise Mach number to 0.66 which
means that the range under consideration
will be limited to about 4,500 km. Since
this effectively rules out transoceanic
routes, a twin-engine layout with either
counter or contra-rotating fans will be the
one to aim for.
Marshall has produced 13,600 stringers for CAV
Aerospace so far.
Cambridge currently houses a 40 metre
Alumax long bed gantry mill which enables the
division to carry out preparation machining
operations on stringers up to 22 metres long.
The second twin spindle bridge on this
machine is now fully commissioned and will be
used initially for machining stringers complete.
Marshall confirmed that further upgrades to
additional machines are under way, including
the procurement of a second swarf compactor,
to be used alongside the long bed machine.
9
An added benefit of the reduced cruise
altitude due to the ‘lower than jet’ cruise
speeds is that the exhaust emissions and the
vapour condensation trails are more likely
to dissipate quicker in the atmosphere
which will reduce greenhouse effects.
Climatologists claim that the jet emissions
which generate contrails at about 11 km
altitude treble the environmental damage
factor as they persist for such long periods
before mixing with the rest of the weather
system. The downside is that icing problems
(especially over the oceanic tropics) will be
at their worst at the optimum cruise
altitude of about 7km.
It must be appreciated that a power-
plant failure in a fuselage-less aircraft
(especially at take-off) is fraught with much
greater levels of flight upset due to reduced
directional control power. Hence the two
engines will need to be shepherded towards
the centre line of the aircraft as much as is
possible despite the possibly detrimental
effects on the spanwise loading pattern
(worsening the wake vortex problem) and
their use as auxiliary mass dampers to
reduce airframe vibrations.
The refinement of conventional aircraft
layouts cannot continue forever. It is not
too early to consider the replacement of
(aerodynamically speaking) non-productive
skin areas with a seamless lifting surface.
With existing technical know-how, the
future can be made greener but not
necessarily safer or quieter.
Thurai Rahulan is chairman of the Association
of Aerospace Universities and a lecturer in
aeronautics at the University of Salford, UK. I
New aircraft factory planned
for Georgia
Georgia-based True Flight Aerospace has
announced plans to open a 60,000 square-foot
manufacturing facility in Valdosta to build
Tiger aircraft.
The Atlanta Business Chronicle reported
that True Flight Holdings, which recently
bought Tiger Aircraft and the rights to
the original Grumman designs, will open
the facility and a corporate headquarters
in the state.
It is hoped that the move will create in the
region of 150 jobs.
True Flight’s chief executive Kevin
Lancaster, commented: “Locating in
Valdosta will allow us to produce new
state-of-the-art aircraft based on the
Grumman Tiger at competitive costs
while maintaining the quality that our
customers prize.”