Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2018), xxx(xx): xxx–xxx

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design

optimization methodology based on fuzzy
preference function
Ali Reza BABAEI *, Mohammad Reza SETAYANDEH, Hamid FARROKHFAL

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Malek-Ashtar University of Technology, Isfahan, Shahinshahr
115/83145, Iran

Received 6 November 2017; revised 3 January 2018; accepted 5 February 2018

KEYWORDS Abstract This paper presents a Fuzzy Preference Function-based Robust Multidisciplinary Design
Fuzzy logic; Optimization (FPF-RMDO) methodology. This method is an effective approach to multidisci-
Multidisciplinary design plinary systems, which can be used to designer experiences during the design optimization process
optimization; by fuzzy preference functions. In this study, two optimizations are done for Predator MQ-1
Preference function; Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV): (A) deterministic optimization and (B) robust optimization. In
Robust design; both problems, minimization of takeoff weight and drag is considered as objective functions, which
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle have been optimized using Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA). In the robust
(UAV) design optimization, cruise altitude and velocity are considered as uncertainties that are modeled
by the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) method. Aerodynamics, stability and control, mass proper-
ties, performance, and center of gravity are used for multidisciplinary analysis. Robust design opti-
mization results show 46% and 42% robustness improvement for takeoff weight and cruise drag
relative to optimal design respectively.
Ó 2018 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction conceptual design, preliminary design, and detailed design.1

The design of these systems is a multidisciplinary phenomenon
The design of aerospace systems is a complex, time-consuming so that disciplines are strongly coupled to each other (input of
and expensive problem, which consists of three phases: one subsystem is an output of another subsystem and vice
versa).2 The classical design methods usually include many
* Corresponding author.
design loops, and therefore, these methods are time-
consuming due to high iterations and the results from these
E-mail address: arbabaei@aut.ac.ir (A.R. BABAEI).
methods are not optimum almost.3,4 The mentioned problems
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.
of classical design methods, multidisciplinary nature of com-
plex systems and the recent trends in development, and imple-
mentation of accurate and rapid analysis tools for seeking an
Production and hosting by Elsevier optimal solution led to the emergence of the Multidisciplinary
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
1000-9361 Ó 2018 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
2 A.R. BABAEI et al.
Design Optimization (MDO) method.5,6 Furthermore, increas-
ing computational capabilities and development of optimiza-
tion techniques for solving complex problems had an
important influence upon the appearance of this concept.
MDO is a design approach to engineering systems, which uses
multidisciplinary analysis to identify more appropriate solu-
tions during optimization and design process of complex sys-
tems. Monolithic and multilevel formulations are two
categories of this approach. The main advantages of this
approach which has been proposed as a useful method of
design in the aerospace industry are as follows3,4,7:
(1) High speed in the analysis and design (reducing design
time and cost).
(2) Achieving optimal solutions.
(3) Deleting different connections among involved disci-
plines in design (considering all disciplines at once).
(4) Increasing flexibility versus changes in each subsystem.
Hu and Yu8 proposed an optimization strategy for multi-
disciplinary design optimization of the unmanned combat air
vehicle. Simultaneous use of surrogate modeling and multi-
level optimization are the advantages of the presented strategy.
The aims of optimization are minimizing aerodynamic drag
coefficient under the constraint of stealth and minimizing the
structural weight. Leifsson et al.9 discussed multidisciplinary
design optimization of Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) transport
aircraft with distributed propulsion. The main ideas of this
study are distributed propulsion (with the aim of reducing air-
craft noise) and using the advantages of MDO. The conceptual
design of aircraft is obtained through MDO. Nguyen et al.10
studied the multidisciplinary design optimization of the
unmanned air vehicle. The most important advantage of their
study is the use of Multi-Fidelity Model (MFM) to improve
the accuracy of the design. Low-fidelity codes are developed
for conceptual design and then high-fidelity codes are used
to improve the accuracy of the analysis.
Complex engineering systems have an uncertain nature (in
analysis, design, production and operational phases) as well
as multidisciplinary essence. Studies show that about 40% of
failures are due to lack of attention to uncertainties in the
design phase and rest of failures depend upon other factors
such as production phase, operational condition, etc.6,11 So
considering that uncertainties are unavoidable in the analysis
and design of these systems, classical design methods use a
safety factor to consider the uncertainty. This method has
the following problems12: (A) determination of the safety fac-
tor is difficult for new systems and material because there is
not any past experience, (B) reliability (robustness) measure-
ment is difficult for the design process, and (C) using this
method may limit the feasible design space in the optimization
problems. Using optimization methods for the design process
(such as MDO) had been limited to deterministic problems
because these methods do not consider the uncertainty.3
Robust Design Optimization (RDO) is one of the main algo-
rithms that is developed for considering uncertainties in the
design optimization problems. The aim of this method is
achieving an optimal design with lower sensitivity to uncertain-
ties (minimizing the variance of objective functions).1
Daskilewicz et al.13 discussed the effects of uncertainty in
the multi-objective design optimization. The decision maker
can evaluate system performance and robustness by analyzing
Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
the Pareto frontier variations due to uncertainties. And the
designer can distinguish the favorable or high-risk regions of
design space. The robust design of structures is formulated
as a multi-criterion optimization problem wherein both mean
value and the standard deviation of the objective function
are minimized.14 In this reference, the two-criterion optimiza-
tion problem is converted into single optimization problem
and is solved by a gradient-based optimization algorithm. Jae-
ger et al.2 proposed a procedure for robust optimization of an
aircraft at the conceptual design phase. The main advantage of
this approach is that it permits designers to update uncertain-
ties from the historical database at each step of optimization.
To reduce the computational cost, response surface approxi-
mations are constructed by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS).
Messac and Ismail-Yahaya 15 developed a Physical
Programming-based Robust Design Optimization (PP-RDO)
method. This technique is based on physical programming
and robust design optimization methods. The main advantage
of their method is that it allows the designer to say robustness
wishes in physical meaningful terms. Nguyen et al.5 applied
Possibility-Based Design Optimization (PBDO) for an
electric-powered Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to obtain
reliable design. For this purpose, an in-house integrated
UAV analyzer is developed at first, and then, PBDO solver
is used for uncertainty modeling. Design speed, density correc-
tion, design altitude, payload, battery weight, battery capacity,
battery amperage and propeller efficiency are considered as
uncertainties. Nguyen et al.16 discussed a multidisciplinary
robust optimization framework for UAV conceptual design.
A new objective function which consists of adjusted mean
and variance function is generated in the robust design pro-
cess. The flight altitude and speed are considered as uncertain-
ties in this study. Zaman and Mahadevan17 presented a
methodology for reliability-based design optimization under
both aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Four-parameter flex-
ible Johnson family of distributions is used for uncertainty
modeling. The main advantage of the proposed method is that
it does not use a separate expression for aleatory and epistemic
uncertainties and both of uncertainties are treated with a uni-
fied probabilistic format. So this topic reduces the computa-
tional effort and simplifies the optimization.
Fuzzy logic is a methodology based on the experience of
humanity and is developed to deal with vague and uncertain
systems. Fuzzy theory is a systematic process to convert the
experience of human into nonlinear mapping and it is an
important aspect of this methodology. This technique is used
as a modeling method for complex systems. The main core
of a fuzzy system is a set of ‘‘if-then” rules that are created
from the experience of experts. Some of the advantages of this
theory (as an efficient technique in engineering applications)
are proper simplicity and speed, no need for any complex cal-
culations, finding acceptable answers in a short period of time,
and using the experience of experts.18
Azizi et al.19 proposed a method based on artificial intelli-
gence (fuzzy logic and neural network) which can effectively
be used to select the suitable combination of engine thrust,
wing area, and aircraft weight. Reducing the aircraft design
cycle time is the main benefit from this method. On the other
hand, the main design outputs (such as engine thrust, wing
area, and aircraft weight) can be achieved without long calcu-
lations. Huang et al.20 developed a fuzzy interactive multi-
objective optimization model based on Pareto solutions. The
Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function 3

proper feature of this method is that it can create the Pareto creation. The flowchart of this methodology has been shown
optimal set with the maximum satisfaction degree and the min- in Fig. 1, in which lJi , rJi and lCi , rCi are the mean and vari-
imum distance from the ideal solution. The final optimal solu- ance values of Ji and Ci. The details of this method are
tion can be selected by analyzing the trade-off matrix and described in the following manner.
collaborative sensitivity. Huang et al.21 proposed the use of
the fuzzy models for collaborative optimization in order to 2.1. Optimization problem definition
construct the sufficiency degree for constraints and the satis-
faction degree for objectives in each discipline. Achieving the An optimization problem definition involves the following
optimal solution and decision making is complex because some four steps: (A) Design variables definition, (B) Design param-
design variables or constraints contain vague (fuzzy) informa- eters calculation, (C) Cost functions definition, and (D) Con-
tion. To avoid such problems the fuzzy satisfaction degree and straints definition. Design variables are parameters that
fuzzy sufficiency degree models have been proposed. These explain the optimal design and are the interface between opti-
concepts are rational and practical approaches for decision mizer and multidisciplinary design analyzer. Design parame-
making in multidisciplinary design optimization. ters depend on design variables. For example, by
In this paper, an efficient robust design methodology is pre- determining design variables, some geometric properties are
sented in the title Fuzzy Preference Function-based Robust calculated. These parameters (along with the design variables)
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (FPF-RMDO). Using exchange information among different disciplines for multidis-
the designer experiences during optimization by the fuzzy pref- ciplinary design analysis. The cost functions are performance
erence functions and performing robust optimization with indicators that depend on design variables and/or design
variable degrees of robustness are the differences of this parameters and with regard to the optimization problem must
approach relative to previous works. In this method, the be minimum or maximum. Also, constraints depend on design
designer must determine the desirable and undesirable ranges variables and/or design parameters and determine the design
of mean and standard deviation values of the objective func- limitations. These factors should be determined in the first step
tions and constraints in the physical meaningful terms. The of optimization problems.
determination of these ranges is the first use of designer expe-
rience during design optimization. Then the fuzzy preference
function must be formed. Preference function is a function
which shows the satisfaction degree of the system response.
These functions are used for the optimization as new objective
functions and constraints and the aim of the optimization
algorithm is maximizing these functions (achieve the maximum
satisfaction degree). Creating fuzzy rules is the second use of
designer experience. Using the experienced people during mul-
tidisciplinary design optimization is one of the great advan-
tages of this method. The second major advantage of this
method is that the designer can easily change the degree of
robustness by changing the fuzzy rules. In other words, the
designer can do highly robust design (more focus on the stan-
dard deviation of the objective function), robust design (same
focus on the mean values and the standard deviation of the
objective function) and/or semi-robust design (more focus on
the mean values of objective functions). Customer’s need,
design requirements and/or designer experience determine the
type and the degree of robust design, which can be easily
implemented by changing the fuzzy rules of preference func-
tions. Finally, the proposed method is applied to robust mul-
tidisciplinary design optimization of an unmanned aerial
vehicle with 33 design variables and 23 practical constraints.
The organization of the paper is as follows. The FPF-
RMDO method has been introduced in Section 2. In Section 3,
the implementation of this methodology for Predator MQ-1
UAV is described. In Section 4, design optimization results
are expressed and a probability analysis has been done for
robustness investigation. Finally, conclusions are presented
in Section 5.

2. Fuzzy preference function-based robust multidisciplinary

design optimization methodology

The proposed methodology for robust design optimization is

based on the fuzzy logic concept and preference function Fig. 1 Flowchart of proposed FPF-RMDO method.

Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
4 A.R. BABAEI et al.
2.2. Mission definition
In this step, the aircraft flight profile (mission) is determined.
In addition to specifying the different parts of the profile, alti-
tude of each section is also determined. Other parameters such
as takeoff and/or landing distances, flight endurance, range,
etc. can be determined in this step. Often, every aerial vehicle
is designed for a specific mission with certain cruise altitude
and speed. It is very economical which one aircraft can be opti-
mum or near-optimum for a range of cruise altitude and speed.
In other words, instead of designing an aircraft for a certain
altitude and speed, it is designed for a range of cruise altitude
and speed (several cruise altitudes and speeds) and the aircraft
has optimal performance in those ranges. To achieve such a
goal, the concept of robust design must be used in aerospace
vehicle design.
2.3. Uncertainty modeling
In this step, uncertainties are created. Uncertainty modeling is
an important task because this process plays an important role
in the quality of the answers. There are many different tech-
niques to uncertainty modeling. To learn these techniques,
see Ref.11 written by Yao et al. MCS method is one of the most
widely used methods for uncertainty modeling. Although this
method is the most basic and simplest approach among all
probabilistic methods, it is a time-consuming technique.
Unlike many probability methods, this technique requires little
information about the statistic and probability. The results
from the MCS method are completely accurate if enough sim-
ulations to be used.6,11 Fig. 2 shows the flowchart of uncer-
tainty modeling. In Fig. 2, ui and fui are sample points and
uncertainty output respectively.
2.4. Multidisciplinary design analysis
Various disciplines in the design of an aircraft are modeled in
this step. Modeling of disciplines can be done by using low
fidelity models, high fidelity models or a combination of both
models. According to various applications, the number of dis-
ciplines can be different. With various analyses in this step, the
numerical values of the cost functions and the constraints are
calculated and finally, by uncertainties modeling through
MCS, their mean and variance values are calculated and sent
to the next step.
2.5. Fuzzy preference function
In this step, the preference functions corresponding to objec-
tive functions and constraints are generated by fuzzy logic.
Fig. 2 Flowchart of uncertainty modeling.
Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
These functions allow the use of the designer experiences dur-
ing system optimization. In this method, some satisfaction
degrees are defined for the objective functions (constraints)
by the designer (in the horizontal axis). In other words, the
designer classifies horizontal axis to different regions in terms
of satisfaction of the objective function (and constraint), and
each region is categorized using verbal variables from a quali-
tative point of view. Then the vertical axis, which indicates that
the preference function is divided into several regions same as
the horizontal axis and each region, like the horizontal axis, is
categorized using verbal variables from a qualitative point of
view. It is worth noting that the preference function value is
between zero and one and maximization of preference function
(the greatest satisfaction degree) is the purpose of optimiza-
tion. Fig. 3 shows an example of preference function. Then
the optimizer uses preference function instead of objective
functions during optimizations.22,23 Since the aim of the robust
design is the minimization of objective function variance due
to noise parameters, the logic of this method is as follows.
The variance and the mean values of the objective functions
(the constraints) should initially be calculated. Then, like the
above explanation, different satisfaction degrees are deter-
mined for the variance and the mean values and the preference
functions of the objective functions (the constraints) are pro-
duced with the fuzzy logic. This process is shown in Fig. 4.
Now, maximizing these preference functions is the aim of opti-
mization algorithms (the highest satisfaction degree). In other
words, objective functions of the optimization problem are the
set of preference functions all of which must be maximized.
2.6. Multi-objective optimization
During the last four decades, many algorithms have been
developed for solving different engineering optimization prob-
lems. Most of these algorithms are based on linear and nonlin-
ear programming methods that require gradient information.
These numerical optimization algorithms have created a useful
strategy for finding the local minimum in simple problems. But
many actual engineering optimization problems are very com-
plex and completely difficult to solve. In contrast, emersion of
evolutionary algorithms creates a new source for an optimiza-
tion problem. Evolutionary algorithms present a more efficient
and robust approach to solve complex problems. Because these
algorithms are stochastic, they have a less probability to be
caught in the local minimum. Among evolutionary algorithms,
Genetic Algorithm (GA) is most popular. This algorithm is a
global optimization algorithm based on the principle of sur-
vival of the fittest, natural selection mechanism and reproduc-
ing. One kind of GA is Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm (NSGA) that finds set of optimal solutions (Pareto
frontier) by adding an essential operator to general single-
objective GA. This operator determines a preference criterion
(rank) based on the non-dominated sorting of the popula-
tion.24 To learn more about this optimization algorithm, see
Ref.25 written by Kalyanmon et al.
2.7. Final selection
In the multi-objective optimization problems, the optimizer
creates a set of optimal solutions named Pareto frontier. Each
of these solutions has no absolute superiority to each other,
Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function
Fig. 3 An example of preference function for minimization problem.
Fig. 4 Process of fuzzy preference function generation.
and each of them can be selected as the optimal solution. But
this selection is not easy. There are various ways to select a
final solution such as design requirements, designer experience,
and fuzzy logic. In this research, another concept is presented
for the final selection. This concept is a distance between the
utopian point and Pareto points. In this method, the Pareto
frontiers are classified based on this criterion and finally, a Par-
eto point that has the lower distance (the nearest point to the
ideal points) is selected. Using this criterion, the best compro-
mise is created among multiple objective functions. This crite-
rion is calculated for each Pareto point as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X  2
n
fi  futi
dut ¼ ð1Þ
i¼1
futi
where i is the number of objective function, fi is the value of the
ith objective function, fut is an ideal optimum value that is
obtained from a single objective optimization process for each
objective function, and dut is utopian distance. The purpose of
this criterion is to find a Pareto point and the distance between
it and utopian values is minimal.
3. Aircraft design by using FPF-RMDO methodology
3.1. Aircraft optimization problem definition
In this study, two design optimizations are done for Predator
MQ-1 UAV. The first case is a deterministic optimization. This
case is a multidisciplinary design optimization and MultiDisci-
plinary Feasible (MDF) approach is used to implement. In this
optimization process, the problem can be formulated as

min WTO &Dcr
Q ð2Þ
s:t: Gi ðXÞ P 0 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 23
where WTO, Dcr, and G are take-off weight, drag of cruise
phase, and constraints respectively.
Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
5
The second case is a robust multidisciplinary design opti-
mization so that the proposed method has been applied to
solve it. In this optimization, new objective functions and con-
straints are created by fuzzy logic. These new functions are
called preference functions. So in this optimization, the prob-
lem can be formulated as follows:

max FWTO &FDcr
Q ð3Þ
s:t: ðFGi Þ P 0 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 23
In the above equation, FWTO , FDcr and FGi are preference func-
tions of take-off weight, drag of cruise phase, and constraints
respectively.
Because the optimization problems are constrained, the
penalty function method has been used to apply constraints
in both problems. It is worth noting that the uncertainties in
the second design optimization are cruise altitude and velocity.
For both design optimizations, 33 design variables and 23 con-
straints are considered. Furthermore, other required parame-
ters are considered as design parameters for aircraft design
optimization. Design variables and design constraints with
their numerical ranges are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respec-
tively. For the better understanding of some design variables,
see Fig. 5. abA ; ayoutA ; abf and ayinf are the constants which are
multiplied in the wingspan and aileron span, outer distance
of aileron, flap span and inner distance of flap are obtained
respectively. l42 is considered to control fuselage length to
diameter ratio in a proper range. It is worth nothing that, it
is presented that ranges have been determined based on special
limitations, requirements, and similar aircraft database.
3.2. Aircraft mission definition
The considered mission has been shown in Fig. 6 for both
design optimizations. In both cases, the aim is the design of
UAV so that its endurance is 24 h, cruise altitude is 4500 m,
cruise velocity is 45 m/s, payload weight is 204 kg, and take-
off distance is 801 m.
3.3. Flight uncertainty modeling
As already mentioned, MCS method is used for uncertainty
modeling in this study and cruise altitude and its speed have
been considered as uncertainties. A normal distribution is used
6 A.R. BABAEI et al.

Table 1 Design variables. Table 2 Design constraints.

Design Description Lower Upper No. Constraint Description
variable limit limit 1 Cruise angle of attack (°) 5 6 acr 6 5
Sw (m2) Wing area 10 13 2 Cruise elevator deflection angle (°) 5 6 dEcr 6 5
KLE (°) Leading edge sweep angle 0 10 3 Cruise side slip angle (°) 2 6 bcr 6 2
AR Aspect ratio 18 21 4 Cruise aileron deflection angle (°) 2 6 dAcr 6 2
k Taper ratio 0.3 0.7 5 Cruise rudder deflection angle (°) 2 6 dRcr 6 2
Cf =C Flap mean chord to mean chord ratio 0.3 0.45 6 Turn angle of attack (°) 0 6 atu 6 10
C (°) Dihedral angle 0 10 7 Pull up angle of attack (°) 0 6 apu 6 10
CA =C Aileron mean chord to mean chord ratio 0.15 0.25 8 Pull down angle of attack (°) 0 6 apd 6 10
kf Flap taper ratio 0.5 1 9 Turn side slip angle (°) 2 6 btu 6 2
kA Aileron taper ratio 0.5 1 10 Turn elevator deflection angle (°) 15 6 dEtu 6 15
abA A constant for calculation of aileron span 0.15 0.22 11 Pull up elevator deflection angle (°) 15 6 dEpu 6 15
ayoutA A constant for calculation of aileron 0.45 0.5 12 Pull down elevator deflection angle 15 6 dEpd 6 15
outboard distance (°)
XAw Longitudinal position of the wing from 3 4 13 Turn aileron deflection angle (°) 3 6 dAtu 6 3
(m) the aircraft nose 14 Turn rudder deflection angle (°) 3 6 dRtu 6 3
abf A constant for calculation of flap span 0.2 0.25 15 Static margin 0:05 6 SM 6 0:15
ayinf A constant for calculation of flap inboard 0.02 0.03 16 Short period frequency (rad/s) minðxsp Þ P 1
distance 17 Short period damping coefficient 0:3 6 minðnsp Þ 6 0:6
e (°) Twist angle 0 5 18 Phugoid frequency (rad/s) 0:2 6 minðxph Þ 6 1
Sht Horizontal tail area 2 3.5 19 Phugoid damping coefficient 0:05 6 minðnph Þ 6 0:4
KLEht Horizontal tail leading edge sweep angle 0 10 20 Dutch roll frequency (rad/s) minðxDR Þ P 1
(°) 21 Dutch roll damping coefficient 0:08 6 minðnDR Þ 6 0:6
ARht Horizontal tail aspect ratio 6 8 22 Spiral time constant (s) maxðTspiral Þ P 1
kht Horizontal tail taper ratio 0.7 1 23 Rolling time constant (s) 0 6 maxðTroll Þ 6 1
CE =Cht Elevator mean chord to horizontal tail 0.3 0.5
mean chord ratio
kE Elevator taper ratio 0.7 1
iH (°) Horizontal tail incidence angle 3 0 CLmax is maximum lift coefficient, ðX; Y; ZÞCG is center of grav-
Cht (°) Horizontal tail dihedral angle 0 10 ity position, IXX ; IYY; IZZ are moment of inetia.
Svt (m2) Vertical tail area 1.5 3
KLEvt Vertical tail leading edge sweep angle 0 10 3.4.1. Input
(°)
In this module, the parameters that are fixed during design
kvt Vertical tail taper ratio 0.7 1
ARvt Vertical tail aspect ratio 0.7 1.5
optimization such as payload weight, type of engine (propeller
Cr =Cvt Rudder mean chord to vertical tail mean 0.3 0.4 or jet), airfoil parameters, etc. are determined. In other words,
chord ratio all parameters that need to be considered as input parameters
kr Rudder taper ratio 0.7 1 for the analysis of each discipline are determined in this
df (m) Fuselage diameter 0.7 0.9 section.
d1 (°) First angle of boat tail 0 3
d2 (°) Second angle of boat tail 4.5 25 3.4.2. Geometry
l42 (m) Second part of fuel tank 0.5 0.7
In this section with attention to considered design variables
and the outputs of the input module, all geometrical parame-
ters of the wing, fuselage, vertical and horizontal tails and
to generate uncertainties (X ¼ Xm þ ðDX=3Þ  randnð1; NÞ). In landing gears are determined by using available relationships.
this study, the values of hm ; Vm ; Dh; DV are 4500 m, 45 m/s, With considered design variables and calculated geometrical
3000 m, and 15 m/s respectively. parameters in this module, full configuration of design is
achieved.
3.4. Aircraft multidisciplinary design analysis
3.4.3. Performance
In this study, the multidisciplinary analysis section consists of In this module, the performance of each flight phase is calcu-
the following modules: input, geometry, performance, weight, lated by using available equations. Some of the input parame-
aerodynamics, center of gravity, trim, and dynamic stability. ters for this section are desirable take-off distance, the
Fig. 7 shows the relationship among these disciplines. maximum rate of climb or maximum climb angle, cruise veloc-
It is worth nothing that in Fig. 7, Wpay is payload weight, ity, range or endurance. Maximum required power or thrust,
qmat is density of material, SFC is specific fuel consumption, fuel weight, velocity profile and landing distance are some of
STO is take-off distance, SLA is landing distance, ROC is rate the important outputs of this module. The obtained results
of climb, R is range, E is endurance, Vstall is stall velocity, indicate the acceptable accuracy of this module.
WFuel is fuel weight, Wi is aircraft weight in each flight phase,
WE is empty weight, Ww is wing weight, WEMP is tails wight, 3.4.4. Weight
CD0 is zero-lift drag coefficient, CL is lift coefficient, CD is drag In this module, the UAV weight is divided into the following
coefficient, CLq and Clr are stability and control derivatives, main parts: wing, fuselage, vertical and horizontal tails,

Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function 7

Fig. 5 Definition of some variables of UAV configuration.

Fig. 6 Intended flight profile.

landing gears, engine, fuel system, fuel tank, and subsystem.
Experimental and quasi-experimental equations are used for
weight calculation. Good accuracy of weight estimation has
been shown in Fig. 8.
3.4.5. Aerodynamics
To develop aircraft design algorithms, aerodynamic specifica-
tions should reasonably be predicted with sufficient accuracy
and computation time. Since the outputs of this module are
sent to most other modules, this section is important.26–28 In
this study, the aerodynamic module is composed of three parts:
(A) lift estimation, (B) drag estimation, (C) stability and con-
trol derivative estimation. To estimate the aerodynamic char-
acteristics, this module has been prepared using empirical
relationships. It is worth noting that the evaluation of the sta-
tic stability of the aircraft is also done in this module. Boeing
747, Beach 100 king air and Navion aircraft are used for
validation of this module. Fig. 9 and Table 3 show the fine pre-
cision of this section.
3.4.6. Center of gravity
Determining the center of gravity is a critical step in the air-
craft design because the stability, control, and trim calcula-
tions depend on this step. Experimental equations are used
for estimation of this center in this study.
3.4.7. Trim and dynamic stability
Finding the angle of attack, sideslip angle, and control surface
deflection angles are the purposes of the trim module.
Dynamic stability characteristics are calculated in the last
module. The outputs of this module show the dynamic stabil-
ity of UAV in the flight profile. The outputs of these two mod-
ules, as mentioned before, generate the constraints of the
optimization problem.

Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
8 A.R. BABAEI et al.

Fig. 7 Aircraft multidisciplinary analysis flowchart.

3.5. Fuzzy preference function

In this study, preference functions are generated by using the

product inference engine, singleton fuzzifier, and center aver-
age defuzzifier. Membership functions of input and output
parameters are shown in Figs. 10 and 11 respectively. Nine
fuzzy rules are used for the preference function generation,
which are expressed in Table 4. In this module, FWTO ; FDcr
and FGi are created and sent to optimizer as new objective
functions and constraints.

4. Design optimization results

Fig. 8 Some results of weight and performance modules for
Predator MQ-1. As mentioned, two design optimizations are done in this study.
The first optimization is a deterministic optimization, and the
second is a robust optimization. The considered objective func-
tions and constraints are the same for both design
optimizations.
For deterministic design optimization, the multi-objective
genetic algorithm yielded four optimal designs (Pareto fron-
tier). Fig. 12 shows the Pareto frontier set. Utopian distance
concept is used for the final selection. Tables 5 and 6 show
the deterministic optimization results and the utopian dis-
tances for the Pareto frontier points respectively. It is obvious
that Pareto frontier 2 is final optimal design because this point
has a lower utopian distance.
Mentioned uncertainties are modeled by MCS for robust
multidisciplinary design optimization. For this optimization,
new objective functions (preference functions) are made by
Fig. 9 Validation of lift and drag coefficients. fuzzy logic. With the implementation of FPF-RMDO method,

Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function 9

Table 3 Validation of stability and control derivative (Navion aircraft).

Stability and control derivative CL a Cm a Cma_ Cmq Clb Cl p Cl r Cnp
DATCOM 5.5 1.24 6.58 13.3 0.1 0.3 0.13 0.03
Estimated 5.37 1.36 6.33 15.35 0.13 0.41 0.11 0.036

Fig. 10 Membership function of input parameters (mean or

Fig. 12 Pareto points for deterministic optimization.
variance values).

According to the obtained results, it is obvious that config-

urations of the base, optimal, and robust designs are different
to each other. A better comparison can be done using the span,
root chord and tip chord of the wing, horizontal tail, and ver-
tical tail. The results in Table 12 show that there are not signif-
icant differences in the wing root chord of base, optimal, and
robust designs. The robust design has the largest wingspan and
then wingspan of the optimal design is the largest. With atten-
tion to the values of root and mean chords and wing span, it
can be said that optimization algorithm has suggested the
longer wing for robust design. The horizontal tail of robust
design has the greatest span among three designs, although
there are not drastic differences among base, optimal, and
robust designs from the horizontal tail root chord viewpoint.
Fig. 11 Membership function of output parameter (preference So the results show that the optimization algorithm has sug-
function). gested the narrower horizontal tail for the robust design and
a chubby configuration for the optimal design. From the ver-
tical tail viewpoint, the optimal design has the greatest root
chord and the robust design is secondary. The robust and base
Table 4 Fuzzy rule set. designs have larger vertical tail span respectively. So the verti-
1. If (lA is high) and (rA is high) then (FA is very low) (0). cal tail configuration of the robust design is the largest.
2. If (lA is high) and (rA is medium) then (FA is very low) (0). Finally, although the robust design has larger length and diam-
3. If (lA is high) and (rA is low) then (FA is very low) (0). eter than the optimal design, the fuselage length to diameter is
4. If (lA is medium) and (rA is high) then (FA is very low) (0). close together. All in all, we can say that the configuration of
5. If (lA is medium) and (rA is medium) then (FA is low) (0.35). robust design is greater than two other designs.
6. If (lA is medium) and (rA is low) then (FA is medium) (0.70).
With attention to the optimal design results, it can be
7. If (lA is low) and (rA is high) then (FA is very low) (0).
understood that good suggestions have been offered. At first,
8. If (lA is low) and (rA is medium) then (FA is medium) (0.70).
9. If (lA is low) and (rA is low) then (FA is high) (1.00). it is discussed on drag force. Drag consists of two parts:
(A) configuration drag (zero-lift drag) and (B) drag due to lift.
All parts of the aircraft (such as wing, tails, fuselage, etc.) are
effective in configuration drag production. As already noted,
three Pareto frontiers have been obtained (see Fig. 13). The the fuselage length of optimal design is larger than base design.
values of the objective functions of these points are given in This leads to an increase in the Reynolds number of the
Table 7. Similar to deterministic optimization, utopian dis- fuselage and ultimately reduces the friction coefficient of the
tance is calculated for final selection (see Table 8). With atten- fuselage. Another parameter that affects the fuselage zero-lift
tion to the utopian distances, it is clear that Pareto frontier 1 is drag coefficient is the length to diameter ratio. The greater
the final selection. Specification of obtained designs is given in value of this ratio reduces the fuselage zero-lift drag coefficient.
Tables 9–11. The optimal design has the larger value relative to the base

Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
10 A.R. BABAEI et al.

Table 5 Deterministic optimization results. Table 9 Objective function minimum values.

Pareto frontier 1 2 3 4 Objective function WTO (kg) Drag (N)
Weight (kg) 971.1 971.9 978.4 1014.2 Base Design (BD) 1020 494
Drag (N) 431.4 403.1 389.5 381.7 Optimal Design (OD) 971.9 403.1
Robust Design (RD) 1165.6 747.2

Table 6 Utopian distance of Pareto frontiers for deterministic vertical tail portion in the zero-lift drag coefficient is exactly
optimization. the opposite of the cases expressed in the wing and horizontal
tail. About the drag due to lift, the first issue is the aspect ratio.
Pareto frontier 1 2 3 4 Larger aspect ratio reduces the drag due to lift
Utopian distance (dut) 0.15 0.14 0.157 0.162 (CDL ¼ kC2L ; k ¼ 1=ðp  AR  eÞ; e is Oswald efficiency factor).
The second issue is the lift coefficient. About the lift coefficient,
we should pay attention to the significant impact of less weight
of the optimal design. Because the optimal design has lower
weight, this design will require a lower lift coefficient in the
cruise phase.
In the case of weight, the results show that the wing weight
of the optimal design is similar to that of the base design, but
the horizontal tail weight of the optimal design has been
reduced relative to the base design but the vertical tail weight
of the optimal design has been increased. Although the fuse-
lage length of optimal design has increased, its diameter has
decreased and in total, the fuselage weight has decreased for
the optimal design. Another reason for weight reduction of
the optimal design is that the decrease in the drag reduces
the required fuel weight relative to the base design. Therefore,
it is understood that the optimization algorithm suggestions
Fig. 13 Pareto points for robust optimization. are suitable and have been able to well reduce the objective
functions.
About the robust design, it can be stated that this design
has greater dimensions, and this leads to greater take-off
Table 7 Robust optimization results. weight and drag relative to the optimal and base designs. In
Pareto frontier 1 2 3
the case of the fuselage length of the robust design, it should
be said that because take-off weight and fuel weight of this
Weight (kg) 1165.6 1163.5 1025.3 design are more than two other designs, the length of the fuel
Drag (N) 747.2 752.5 772.3
cabin and the length of other cabins have increased. This
causes that fuselage length to diameter ratio of the robust
design increases too (although the diameter of the robust
design has increased relative to that of the optimal design).
Although larger dimensions and more weight of the robust
Table 8 Utopian distance of Pareto frontiers for robust
design increase the drag of this design, in other words, the cost
design.
of achieving a robust design is increasing the objective func-
Pareto frontier 1 2 3 tions, it guarantees optimality in the range of altitude and
Utopian distance (dut) 0.23 0.25 0.28 speed. A probabilistic analysis is done for robustness analysis.
The target take-off weight and cruise drag are considered as
1020 kg and 490 N respectively. 2000 points as sampling points
design. In the case of the wing and horizontal tail, it should be are considered for flight velocity and altitude. Figs. 14, 15 and
said that their friction coefficients of the optimal design Table 13 show the results from this analysis.
increase because the mean chords of this design are smaller As the results show, the robust design has been able to
than base design, and this topic reduces the Reynolds numbers improve robustness by 46% and 27% for take-off weight
of optimal design. But since there is no significant difference and by 42% and 40% for cruise drag compared with the opti-
between the mean chords of two designs, no drastic effect is mal and base designs respectively. After the robust design, the
created. A parameter that has a greater effect on the wing base design has more robustness than the optimal design. In
and horizontal tail zero-lift drag coefficient is their wetted area. other words, the optimal design could optimize objective func-
Because the horizontal tail area of optimal design is smaller tions and satisfy the constraints in desired flight condition
than base design, its wetted area reduces, and this issue reduces (specified cruise height and velocity), but this design does not
the horizontal tail zero-lift drag coefficient. Although the wing have enough robustness. Instead, the robust design does not
area of the optimal design is larger than that of the base have a good situation in terms of optimality relative to the base
design, there is no significant difference between them. The and optimal designs, but guarantees the optimality of design in

Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function 11

Table 10 Design variables of base, optimal and robust Table 12 Some specifications of base, optimal, and robust
designs. designs.
Design method Base design Optimal design Robust design Design method Base design Optimal design Robust design
Sw (m2) 11.5 11.64 12.2 Cr (m) 1.1 1.08 1.05
KLE (°) 4 2.2 0.3 C (m) 0.82 0.81 0.82
AR 19.25 19.6 19.37 b (m) 14.88 15.1 15.4
k 0.4 0.43 0.51 Crht (m) 0.63 0.62 0.61
Cf =C 0.37 0.38 0.35 Cht (m) 0.63 0.54 0.57
C (°) 0 8 6.3 bht (m) 4.51 3.76 4.73
CA =C 0.2 0.22 0.16 Crvt (m) 1.4 1.78 1.59
kf 0.6 0.59 0.9 Cvt (m) 1.4 1.59 1.54
kA 0.6 0.56 0.82 bvt (m) 1.26 1.25 1.36
abA 0.22 0.17 0.19 lf (m) 8.13 8.65 9.27
ayoutA 0.5 0.48 0.45 lf =df 10.16 12 11.7
XAw (m) 3.71 3.19 3.73 WFuel (kg) 302 269.8 326.2
abf 0.25 0.21 0.22 Ww (kg) 44.27 44.9 45.4
ayinf 0.027 0.026 0.029 Wht (kg) 17.53 8.4 16.6
e (°) 0 2.3 3.7 Wvt (kg) 10.75 12.4 13.6
Sht 2.82 2 2.71 Wfus (kg) 106.09 99.8 108.2
KLEht (°) 0 3.4 2.7 P (hp) 115 116 153
ARht 7.21 7.06 8.2
kht 1 0.72 0.89
CE =Cht 0.395 0.33 0.49
kE 1 0.85 0.76
iH (°) 0 1.1 2.1
Cht (°) 0 6.9 8
Svt (m2) 1.76 1.98 2.1
KLEvt (°) 3 5.5 2.1
kvt 1 0.78 0.93
ARvt 0.91 0.79 0.88
Cr =Cvt 0.375 0.34 0.39
kR 1 0.82 0.88
df (m) 0.8 0.72 0.79
d1 (°) 0 2 2.5
d2 (°) 26.5 9.7 11.5
l42 (m) 0.61 0.58 0.58

Fig. 14 Probability Density Function (PDF) of take-off weight.

Table 11 Optimal and robust design constraints.

No. Constraint OD RD
1 Cruise angle of attack (°) 6 3.8
2 Cruise elevator deflection angle (°) 3.9 1.5
3 Turn angle of attack (°) 5.4 3.7
4 Pull up angle of attack (°) 10.5 9.2
5 Pull down angle of attack (°) 10.5 9.2
6 Turn side slip angle (°) 0.4 0.3
7 Turn elevator deflection angle (°) 2.6 1.4
8 Pull up elevator deflection angle (°) 5.7 0.4
9 Pull down elevator deflection angle (°) 7.4 1.4
10 Turn aileron deflection angle (°) 1.5 1.4
11 Turn rudder deflection angle (°) 1.4 1.1 Fig. 15 Probability density function of cruise drag.
12 Static margin 0.13 0.13
13 Minimum short period frequency (rad/s) 1 1
14 Minimum short period damping coefficient 0.55 0.57
15 Minimum phugoid frequency (rad/s) 0.21 0.22 Table 13 Results of probabilistic analysis.
16 Minimum phugoid damping coefficient 0.042 0.049
Statistics parameter rWTO ðkgÞ rDrag ðNÞ
17 Minimum dutch roll frequency (rad/s) 1.05 1.05
18 Minimum dutch roll damping coefficient 0.12 0.12 Base design (BD) 61.8 299.7
19 Maximum spiral time constant (s) 21 18.5 Optimal design (OD) 71.5 303.2
20 Maximum rolling time constant (s) 0.14 0.12 Robust design (RD) 48.7 212.6

Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
12
the range of cruise velocity and altitude. According to the
operational condition of UAV and the purpose of the mission,
both optimal and robust designs are worthwhile from the opti-
mality and the robustness viewpoint and selection of each
design (optimal design or robust design) is related to the mis-
sion and customer’s need.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a robust multidisciplinary design optimization
methodology is presented based on fuzzy preference function
definition. Some advantages of this method are: using designer
experience during design, performing design optimization with
different degrees of robustness, reducing design time, simplic-
ity and no need for complex calculations. In this research,
two optimizations (robust and deterministic) are done for
Predator MQ-1 UAV. Intended objective functions are take-
off weight and cruise drag and these functions are converted
into new objective functions (preference functions) using fuzzy
logic. The optimization algorithm is the Non-dominated Sort-
ing Genetic Algorithm (NSGA) that generates the set of opti-
mal solutions (Pareto frontier). Utopian distance is used for
final selection of the optimal design. Cruise altitude and veloc-
ity are considered as noise parameters (uncertainties) and the
MCS method is used for uncertainty modeling. The results
of deterministic and robust optimizations show drastic differ-
ences between the two designs, but each of them is worthwhile.
A probabilistic analysis is done for robustness validation. The
obtained results show that the robust design has a good resis-
tance relative to other designs.
References
1. Tyan M, Nguyen NV, Kim S, Lee JW. Database adaptive fuzzy
membership function generation for possibility-based aircraft
design optimization. J Aircraft 2016;54:114–24.
2. Jaeger L, Gogu C, Segonds S, Bes C. Aircraft multidisciplinary
design optimization under both model and design variables
uncertainty. J Aircraft 2013;50(2):528–38.
3. Jafarsalehi A, Fazeley HR, Mirshams M. Conceptual remote
sensing satellite design optimization under uncertainty. Aero Sci
Tech 2016;55:377–91.
4. Mirshams M, Naseh H, Fazeley HR. Multi-objective multidisci-
plinary design of space launch system using holistic concurrent
design. Aero Sci Tech 2014;33:40–54.
5. Nguyen N, Lee JW, Tyan M, Lee D. Possibility-based multidis-
ciplinary optimization for electric-powered unmanned aerial
vehicle design. Aeronaut J 2015;119(1221):1397–414.
6. Hwang H, Jung KJ, Kang IM, Kim MS, Park SI, Kim JH.
Multidisciplinary aircraft design and evaluation software integrat-
ing CAD, analysis, database, and optimization. Adv Eng Soft
2006;37:312–26.
7. Roshanian J, Ebrahimi E. Latin hypercube sampling applied to
reliability-based multidisciplinary design optimization of a launch
vehicle. Aero Sci Tech 2013;28:297–304.
8. Hu TY, Yu XQ. Aerodynamic/stealthy/structural multidisci-
plinary design optimization of unmanned combat air vehicle.
Chin J Aeronaut 2009;22:380–6.
Please cite this article in press as: BABAEI AR et al. Aircraft robust multidisciplinary design optimization methodology based on fuzzy preference function, Chin J
Aeronaut (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.018
A.R. BABAEI et al.
9. Leifsson L, Ko A, Mason WH, Schetz JA. Multidisciplinary
design optimization of blended-wing-body transport aircraft with
distributed propulsion. Aero Sci Tech 2013;25:16–28.
10. Nguyen N, Choi SM, Kim WS, Lee JW, Kim S, Neufeld D, et al.
Multidisciplinary unmanned combat air vehicle system design
using multi-fidelity model. Aero Sci Tech 2013;26:200–10.
11. Yao W, Chen X, Luo W, Tooren MV, Guo J. Review of
uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design optimization methods
for aerospace vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci 2011;47:450–79.
12. Roshanian J, Ebrahimi M, Batalebloo AA. Review of uncertainty
optimal design and its application in aerospace industry. J Space
Sci Technol 2012;4:23–34 [Persian].
13. Daskilewicz MJ, German BJ, Takahashi TT, Donovan S, Shaja-
nian A. Effects of disciplinary uncertainty on multi-objective
optimization in aircraft conceptual design. Struct Multidiscipl
Optim 2011;44:831–46.
14. Doltsinis I, Kang Z. Robust design of structures using optimiza-
tion methods. Comput Method Appl M 2004;193:2221–37.
15. Messac A, Ismail-Yahaya A. Multiobjective robust design using
physical programming. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 2002;23:357–71.
16. Nguyen NV, Maxim T, Park H, Kim S, Lee J. A multidisciplinary
robust optimization framework for UAV conceptual design.
Aeronaut J 2014;118:123–42.
17. Zaman K, Mahadevan S. Reliability-based design optimization of
multidisciplinary system under aleatory and epistemic uncertainty.
Struct Multidiscipl Optim 2016;55:681–99.
18. Wang LX. A course in fuzzy systems and control. Hong Kong: Pren-
tice Hall International Inc; 1997. p. 1–168.
19. Azizi MA, Malaek SMB, Ashrafizaadeh M, Taheri SM. Aircraft
design cycle time reduction using artificial intelligence. Aero Sci
Tech 2013;26:244–58.
20. Huang H, Gu Y, Du X. An interactive fuzzy multi-objective
optimization method for engineering design. Eng Appl Artif Intel
2006;19:451–60.
21. Huang H, Tao Y, Liu Y. Multidisciplinary collaborative opti-
mization using fuzzy satisfaction degree and fuzzy sufficiency
degree model. Soft Comput 2008;12:995–1005.
22. Patel M, Lewis KE, Maria A, Messac A. System design through
subsystem selection using physical programming. AIAA J
2003;41:1089–96.
23. Zhang N. Physical programming based multidisciplinary opti-
mization for aircraft conceptual parameter design. Chinese control
and decision conference; 2011 May 23-25; Mianyang, China.
Piscataway: IEEE Press; 2011.p.2387–92.
24. Babaei AR, Setayandeh MR. Constrained optimization of a
commercial aircraft wing using non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm. Int J Adv Des Manuf Tech 2015;8(4):51–61.
25. Kalyanmoy D, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A fast and
elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans
Evol Comput 2002;6(2):182–97.
26. Roskam J. Airplane design, Part 6. Lawrence: Roskam Aviation
and Engineering Corporation; 1987. p. 21–437.
27. Schemensky R. Development of an empirical based computer
program to predict the aerodynamic characteristics of aircraft.
Fort Worth: Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, National
Technical Information Service; 1973. Report No.: AD-780100.
28. Schemensky R, Howell R. Aerodynamic accounting tech-
niques. Fort Worth: Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory,
National Technical Information Service; 1978. Report No.:
ADA064135.