S.

NO: TITLE PAGE NO

i LIST OF FIGURES:
08
1) Mission Profile 09
2) Empty weight fraction trends 11
3) Specific Fuel Consumption Trends 12
4) Wetted Area Ratio’s 12
5) Maximum Lift to Drag Ratio Trends 22
6) Olympus MK 101 23
7) Schematic diagram of Olympus MK 101 24
8) Airfoil geometry 25
9) NACA 4 series 26
10) NACA 63412 airfoil 27
11) Swept back wing 28
12) 3D model of aircraft
28
13) Front view
28
14) Isometric view
29
15) Side view
29
16) Top view
41
17) Position of ¼ of root chord Vs KF
44
18) Typical pitching moment derivative values
48
19) V-n Diagram

ii LIST OF GRAPHS:

1) Determination of Maximum Velocity 04

2) Maximum Velocity vs Wing Span
3) Maximum Velocity vs Wing Area 04
4) Maximum Velocity vs Aspect ratio
05

1
 5) Maximum Velocity vs Length
6) Maximum Velocity vs Height 05
7) Maximum Velocity vs Empty Weight
05
8) Maximum Velocity vs Range
9) Maximum Velocity vs Take-off Weight 06
For sea level
06
10) Velocity Vs L/D
06
11) Velocity Vs Power Available
12) Velocity Vs Drag ,Thrust 07
13) Velocity Vs R/C
14) Velocity Vs Dynamic pressure
15) Cd vs Cl 32
16) Velocity vs Cl
33
For cruse
17)Velocity vs L/D 33
18)Velocity vs Power available
34
19)Velocity vs Cl
20)velocity vs R/C 34
21)Velocity vs Power required
21)Velocity vs Dynamic pressure 34
22)Velocity vs Cd
Aerofoil 35
23)Cl vs Cd
24)Cl vs alpha 37

38

38

39

39

39

40

46

46

2
 iii LIST OF TABLES
03
1) Aircraft Specifications – 1
2) Aircraft Specifications - 2 03
3) Aircraft Specifications – 3
4) Design Specifications 03
5) Empty Weight Fraction vs W0
07
6) Fuel Fraction for several mission phases
7) Iteration of W0 09
8) Weight Estimation
9) Clmax for Landing distance 10
10) Equivalent skin friction coefficient values for different aircraft
categories 14
11) List of wing loadings obtained
15
12) Thrust loading
13) Thrust to weight ratio 17
14) Performance at sealevel
15) Performance at cruise altitude 18
16) Design limit load factors or military airplanes
19

20

20

31
iv ABBREVATIONS
36

47

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
v

CHAPTER NO TITLE PAGE NO

1 INTRODUCTION 01

3
 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TYPE OF AIRCRAFT: 02
04
1.1 Data Collection
04
1.2 Determination of Maximum Velocity 05
1.3 Determination of Wing Span 05
1.4 Determination of Wing Area 05
2 1.5 Determination of aspect ratio 06
1.6 Determination of Length 06
1.7 Determination of Height 06
1.8 Determination of Empty weight 07
1.9 Determination of range 07
2.10 Determination of take off weight.
2.11Design specifications

08
WEIGHT ESTIMATION: 09
3.1 Take-off Gross Weight 10
3.2 Empty Weight Estimation 10
3.3 Fuel Fraction Estimation
3.3.1 Weight fractions for various segments of 11
mission 13
3 3.3.2 SFC Determination 14
3.3.3Loiter weight fraction 14
3.3.4 fuel fraction
3.3.5 calcuation of take-off weight

WING LOADING
4.1 Wing Loading due to landing distance 17
4.2 Wing Loading due to Takeoff Weight 17
4 4.3 Wing Loading due to Cruising Velocity 17
4.4 Wing Loading due to Absolute Ceiling 19
4.5 Wing Loading due to Range 19

THRUST LOADING
5 5.1 Thrust loading at take off 20
5.2 Engine selection 22

6 WING DESIGN
6.1 Introduction 24
6.2 airfoil selection 24
6.2.1 Calculation of Thickness to Chord ratio 25

4
 6.2.2 NACA 6 Series 25
6.3 Wing design parameters 27

3D VIEW
7.1 Top View 28
7.2 Front View 28
7
7.3 Side View 29
7.4 Isometric View 29

AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS

8.1 Introduction 30
8.2 Performance at Sea Level 31
8
8.3 Performance at Cruise 36
8.4 Range and Endurance 40

STABILITY ESTIMATION
9.1 Introduction 41
9.2 Calculation of 41
41
9 9.2.1 Contribution of Fuselage
42
9.2.2 Contribution of Wing
42
9.2.3 Contribution of Power
42
9.2.4 Contribution of Horizontal Tail
44
9.3 Graphical Verification

V-n DIAGRAM
10.1 Introduction 45
10.2 V-n diagram calculations 45
10 10.2.1 Stall Speed 46
10.2.2 Design Maneuvering Speed 47
10.2.3 Design Cruising Speed 47
10.2.4 Design Driving Speed 47

11 CONCLUSION 49

12 REFERENCE  50

5
Abbreviations:-

R/C – Rate of Climb

R – Range
SFC - Specific Fuel Consumption
V – Velocity
Vc - Cruise speed
Vs – Stall Speed
Va – Approach Speed
L/D - Lift to drag ratio
A – Aspect Ratio
Wf – Weight of fuel
We - Empty Weight
W0 - Take-off gross weight
S - Area
b - Wing Span
c - Mean chord
Sw – Sweep
Sland – landing distance
H - Height
L - Length
E - Endurance

6
 Acknowledgement:

I would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to my sir as well as our HOD who gave us the golden
opportunity to do this wonderful project on AIRCRAFT DESIGN .

This project helped me in doing a lot of Research and i came to know about so many new things.

I am highly indebted to my for his guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary
information regarding the project and his support in completing the project.

7
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A bomber is a military aircraft designed to attack ground and sea targets, by dropping bombs on them, firing
torpedoes at them, or, more recently, by launching cruise missiles at them.
There are classified in to two types:
Strategic and Tactical
Strategic bombing is done by heavy bombers primarily designed for long-range bombing missions
against strategic targets such as supply bases, bridges, factories, shipyards, and cities themselves, in order to
diminish the enemy's ability to wage war by limiting access to resources through crippling infrastructure or
reducing industrial output.
Tactical bombing, aimed at countering enemy military activity and in supporting offensive operations, is
typically assigned to smaller aircraft operating at shorter ranges, typically near the troops on the ground or
against enemy shipping.
Our aircraft is strategic bomber according to the specifications calculated.
Total crew: 10 members
Crew members (with all in ejection seats)
1) Aircraft commander
2) Pilot
3) Radar navigator
4) Navigator
5) Electronic warfare officer
6) Former gunner position
Additional crew members: (with no ejection seats)
1) Instructor pilot
2) Instructor navigator
3) Electronic warfare officer
4) Instructor gunner

8
 BOMBS USED
1) Dumb bombs – MK84 (Total -8 , each of 925kg)
2) Guided bombs – BLU -3pineapple (Total -100, each of 0.8kg)
3) Browning machine gun with tripod (Total 58 kg)

CHAPTER 2

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TYPE OF AIRCRAFT

2.1) Data Collection:-

This is done by gathering information about similar aircrafts which are already in operation. It helps us to get
an idea of the required parameters. We can estimate new data from the data of the other aircrafts by plotting
the data of the aircrafts already designed.
The first step is to keep one parameter, either velocity or range, constant. By doing so,
we can get graphs by plotting all the other known parameters of aircrafts against velocity. Then, we can
approximate the values required by choosing a value that is close to the chosen velocity. The data we have
collected has been tabulated below.
2.1.2 NAME OF THE DIFFERENT BOMBER AIRCRAFT
AVRO 698 Vulcan
Rockwell B-1 Lancer
B-2A Spirit
B-29 Superfortress
B-52H
B-57 Canberra
B-58A Hustler
Vampire FB6
Canberra
english electric lightning
H-6 badger
handley page victor
Ra-5C vigilante

9
2.1.2 DATA COLLECTION:
Table 2.1: Aircraft Specifications - 1

Table 2: Aircraft Specifications - 2

Table 3: Aircraft Specifications - 3

10
SPECIFICATION GRAPHS:
First, the velocity for the new aircraft is found by plotting the velocities of the aircrafts listed above.

GRAPH :2.1 Determination of Maximum Velocity:

The velocity is found to be 1000 km/hr.
Then, keeping Velocity constant on the X-axis, the other parameters are plotted.

11
 GRAPH : 2.2 Determination of Wing span:
The Wing span is found to be 30 m.

GRAPH : 2.3 Determination of Wing area

The Wing area is found to be 175 m2.

12
 GRAPH : 2.4 Determination of Aspect Ratio
The Aspect ratio is found to be 5.

GRAPH : 2.5 Determination of Length

The Length of the Aircraft is found to be 27m.

GRAPH : 2.6 Determination of Height

The Height of the Aircraft is found to be 9.5 m.

13
 GRAPH : 2.7 Determination of empty weight
The empty weight is found to be 21000 kgf.

GRAPH : 2.8 Determination of range

The range is found to be 6000 km.

GRAPH : 2.9 Determination of Takeoff weight

The takeoff is found to be 50,000 kgf.

Table 4: Design Specifications

Based on the data collected from the graphs, the specifications for our aircraft are displayed below:

S. No Parameter Value

1 Max Velocity (km/hr) 1000 kmph.

14
 2 Wing Span (m) 30 m.

3 Wing Aera (m) 175 m2 .

4 Aspect Ratio 5.0

5 Weight of the power plant 80 kN.

6 Length (m) 27 m.

7 Empty Weight (kg) 21000 kgf.

8 Height (m) 9.5 m

9 Range 6000 km

10 Take-off Weight (kg) 50,000 kgf

CHAPTER 3
WEIGHT ESTIMATION
MISSION PROFILE :

Fig 1 : Mission profile

3.1 Take-off gross weight:-
It is the total weight of the aircraft as it begins the mission for which it was designed. The design
take-off weight includes the weight of the crew, payload, fuel, avionics and all other components involved. It
is denoted by W0.

W0= Wcrew + Wpayload + Wfuel + Wempty.

The fuel weight and empty weight can be expressed in fractions of take-off weight.

15
Where and are the empty weight and fuel weight ratios respectively.

Wcrew + Wpayload :
Number Of Crew=10
Total Weight Of Crew ( Wcrew=100*8) = 800 kg.
BOMBS USED
Dumb bombs – MK84 (Total -8 , each of 925kg)
Guided bombs – BLU -3pineapple (Total -100, each of 0.8kg)

Browning machine gun with tripod (Total 58 kg).

Total bombs weight – 7580 kg.
Total Weight = 8380 kg.
3.2 Empty Weight Estimation:-
The empty weight ratio lies within 0.3 and 0.7. It can be found from the
following graphical representation.
Table 5: Empty Weight fraction Vs Wo

16
 Fig 2: Empty weight fraction trends.

3.2 Empty Weight Fraction vs W0

The values of A and C (constants) can be obtained from the table. Since our aircraft is a jet, we take the
values of A and C as 0.93 and –0.07.
From the graph, the value of the empty weight fraction is estimated as 0.4125
3.3 Fuel Fraction Estimation:-
The aircraft’s fuel supply can be divided into two types:
 Mission fuel.
 Trapped fuel.
Mission fuel is the fuel required to complete the given mission. It is independent of the aircraft
weight.Trapped fuel is the fuel that cannot be pumped out of the tanks.
3.3.1 Weight fractions for various segments of mission
The fuel required in a particular phase of the mission depends on (a) the weight of the aircraft
at the start of that phase and (b) the distance covered or the duration of time for the phase. Keeping these in
view, the approach to estimate fuel fraction for chosen mission profile is, as follows.
i) Let the mission consist of ‘n’ phases.
ii) The fuel fractions for the phase ‘i’ is denoted as Wi/Wi-1.

17
iii) Let W0 be the weight at the start of the flight (say warm up) and W n be the weight at the end of last phase
(say landing). Then, Wn/Wo is expressed as:

= × ×…. ×

iv) The fuel fractions (Wi/Wi-1) for all phases are estimated and (Wn/Wo) is calculated from Eq. (3.5).

Subsequently, the fuel fraction is deduced as:

where is factor allowing for trapped fuel.

Table 6: Fuel-Fractions for Several Mission Phases

Fuel fraction for warm up, taxing and take-off (W1/W0)

Fuel fraction for climb (W2/W1)

Fuel fraction for Landing (W7/W6)

CRUISING WEIGHT FRACTION :

Calculating using Bregnet range equation:

3.3.2 SFC Determination:-

18
 Figure 3: Specific Fuel Consumption Trends
The velocity of the aircraft is 0.82 mach. From the above graph, the SFC can be found to be 1.

Wetted Area Ratio’s

19
 Figure 4 Wetted Area Ratio’s

For the velocity of the aircraft and the aspect ratio, we have = 4.2.

The wetted aspect ratio is given by,

Awet = = 5/4.2 =1.190.

Maximum Lift to Drag Ratio Trends

Figure 5: Maximum Lift to Drag Ratio Trends

From the graph, for the wetted aspect ratio of 1.190
(L/D)max=15.55
Therefore, (L/D) for Turbo Jet aircraft is given be
(L/D) = 0.866× (L/D)max.
(L/D) = 15.5*0.866 = 13.423
R= 2500 km
C= 1 (from the graph)
Snet/Sref = 4.2
(L/D)max=15.5

2500=

20
3.3.3 LOITER WEIGHT FRACTION :
Calculating by using endurance equation:

Loiter time = 30 mins = 0.5 hr (in comparison with other cargo flights)

Mission Endurance:

E= 6min = 0.1 hrs

(W4/W3)= 0.9935
3.3.4 FUEL FRACTION:

3.3.5 EMPTY WEIGHT RATIO:

Calculation of Take-off weight

Recalling eq.(3.2) and eq.(3.4) for takeoff weight estimation we have,

W0 = and

Now by iterating the above equation we can get the value of W0 and We/W0.

21
Table 7 : ITERATION:

W0 We/W0

50,000 kg 0.436080

48778.67 kg 0.438343

48993.917 kg 0.4379546

48955.389 kg 0.430213

48962.26 kg 0.4380099

48961.03 kg 0.43801187

48961.21 kg 0.43801153

Therefore by Iteration we have the values as follows:

= 48961.21 Kg

= 0.4367

& = 0.3921

From the fuel and empty weight ratios, we obtain

Wf = 19199.35 kg
We = 21381.85kg

The weights at various points in the mission profile are found from the ratios which were
obtained.

22
Table 8: Weight Estimation

Fuel weight 19199.35 kg

Empty Weight 21381.85kg
Max Take Off Weight (W0) 48961.21 kg
Take Off Weight (W1) 47492.37 kg
Climb Weight (W2) 46779.98 kg
Cruise Weight (W3) 38830.19 kg
Descent Weight (W4) 38636.04 kg
Landing Weight (W5) 38636.04 kg

CHAPTER 4
WING LOADING

Introduction

23
 Wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. The faster an
aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same
weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading.
From historical data collected and the corresponding graph obtained, we know:

4.0 WING LOADING IS –

1. Based on Landing distance
2. Based on Takeoff weight
3. Based on maximum speed
4. Based on absolute celing
5. Based On range .

4.1 Based on Landing distance

Landing distance of our aircraft, Sland= 500 m
Sland = 0.3 (Va)2

Va=

Va=

Va= 74.53 m/s.

stalling speed:
Va = 1.3Vs

Vs =

Vs =

Vs= 57.33 m/s.

24
Based on Landing distance
Vs =2xWland/ ρ Sσ Clmax
57.332 =( 2xWland/1.225x1xSx2.4)
(W/S)land = ((57.33)2x1.225x2.4/2)
= 4831.49 N
Pland=(W/S)land=492.50kg/m2
Table 9 : CLmax For landing distance.

4.2 Based on take off weight

W/S = PlandX(WTo/ Wland)
Wland/Wo=1-(0.5x0.392134)-0.1496
=0.9535
(W/S )land = 0.9535 Wto
W/S = 492.50X(1/0.9535)
W/S = 516.52 kg/m2 .

4.3 Based on maximum speed

CDo= CFe (Swet/Sref)
CDo = (0.0030)(4.2)
From the table we found CFe=0.0030
CDo= 0.0126

25
 Table 10 :Equivalent skin friction coefficient valuesfor different aircrafts.

CD = CDo+ K CL2
CD=CDo+kCl2, where

, AR – Aspect Ratio=5 , e – Oswald Efficiency Factor

e=4.61(1-0.045A0.68)(cos^LE)0.15-3.1
e=4.61(1-0.045(5)0.68)(cos(30))0.15-3.1
e=0.8050
K=0.07907
CL/ CD = L/D
CL = (L/D) CD
CL = (13.3) CD
CD = CDo + [(L/D) CD]2 K
CD = 0.0126+[13.3CD]2(0.07907)
13.98CD2-CD + 0.0126=0
CD = 0.055204

W/S = (1/2)X 0.266 X 241.952 X13.3X0.0552

W/S = 582.70 Kg/m2
4.4 Based on absolute celing
(CL)(L/D)max=(CDo/K)1/2
=(0.0126/0.07907)1/2

26
 =0.39918
(CD)L/Dmax=2CDo
=2x0.0126
=0.0252
W/S = (1/2) ρ(√CDo/K)(VHmax)2
W/S = (1/2)(0.266)( √(0.055204/0.07907)(241.95)2
W/S = 6505.52 N/m2
W/S = 663.152 Kg/m2.
4.5 Based On range :

R =6000 ρ =1.225

Sfc = 1 σ = 0.21714

q = 6145.065

(W/S) = R/3.6 x (√(ρ /2) x Sfc) x (√σq) x C x (Wmean/Wf)

o D

Wmean =(48961.21+21381.85)/2

Wf = 19199.35512

(W/S)=4818.481205 KN

(W/S)=491.1805 kg/m2

Table 11 : List of wing loadings obtained:

Based on Landing distance (W/S) 492.50 kg/m2

Based on Take off weight (W/S) 516.52 kg/m2

Based on Maximum speed (W/S) 582.70 Kg/m2

Based on Absolute celing (W/S) 663.152 Kg/m2

Based on Range (W/S) 491.1805 kg/m2

27
 CHAPTER 5
THRUST LOADING
THRUST LOADING
 (T/W)=aMmaxC
For Bomber, a=0.244
C=0.341
(T/W)=(0.244(0.82)0.341
=0.23
T = 11261.0783 kgf
T =110.471KN
Table 12: Thrust loading values.

Table 13 : Thrust to Weight ratio

for our aircraft ,T/W =0.23

(T/W)cruise=1/(L/D)cruise
=1/13.3
(T/W)cruise =0.07518
Tcruise = 0.07518*48961.21*9.81
Tcruise = 36113.49 N
Tcruise = 36.113 KN.

28
5.1 Thrust loading at take off

(T/W)take off =.0.07518*.9700.985*1/0.55

=0.13060

Ttake off = 0.13060*48961.21*9.81

Ttake off = 62728.41 N
Ttake off = 62.728 KN.

29
5.2 ENGINE SELECTION
Selection is based on engine weight and total thrust produced by the engine.
In our search for a suitable engine with thrust and values close to our engine, Olympus MK -101 is the
suitable engine.
Specifications of Olympus MK -101.

General characteristics:
Type: Axial flow two-spool turbojet
Length: 152.2 in (12.68 ft; 3.87 m)
Diameter: 40 in (3.3 ft; 1.0 m)
Dry weight: 3,615 lb (1,640 kg)
Components:
Compressor: Axial 6 LP pressure stages, 8 HP stages
Combustors: Cannular 10 flame tubes
Turbine: HP single stage, LP single stage
Fuel type: AVTUR or AVTAG
Performance:
Maximum thrust:  60 kN
Specific fuel consumption: .817 lb/(lbf·h) (23.1 g/(kN·s))
Power-to-weight ratio: 3.04:1

Figure 6: Olympus MK 101

30
Figure 7:Schematic diagram of Olympus MK 101.

31
 CHAPTER 6
WING DESIGN
6.1 Introduction:
After the final weight estimation of the aircraft, the primary component of the aircraft to be
designed is the wing. The wing weight and its lifting capabilities are in general, a function of the thickness of
the airfoil section that is used in the wing structure. The first step towards designing the wing is the
thickness estimation. The thickness of the wing, in turn depends on the critical Mach number of the airfoil or
rather, the drag divergence Mach number corresponding to the wing section. The critical Mach number can
well be delayed by the use of an appropriate Sweep- back angle to the wing structure.
6.2 AEROFOIL GEOMETRY SECLECTION
An airfoil or section is a streamlined body which, when set at a suitable angle of attack produces
more lift than drag while also producing a manageable pitching moment. It is in many respects, the heart of
the airplane. The airfoil affects the cruise speed, takeoff and landing distances, stall speed, handling qualities
(especially near stall) and overall aerodynamic efficiency during all phases of flight. The NACA has
developed and tested many series of airfoils many of which are still used today.
A systematic listing of geometric and aerodynamic data for most important NACA airfoils is given below:

Fig 8: Definition of Airfoil

6.2.1 Calculation Of Thickness to Chord Ratio (t/c)

 M*=1.05-0.25CL(cruise)
CL(cruise)=(2*Lcruise/ρ*VCruise2*S)
=2*W/ ρ*V2Cruise**S

32
 =2*582.70/0.266*(241.95)2
=0.0748 *9.81
CL(cruise)=0.352
M*=1.05-0.25(0.352)=0.961
(T/C)=(0.3/0.8)((1/0.8Cos(30))-0.8Cos(30))1/3(1-(5+((0.8)Cos30)2/(5+(0.961)2)3.5)2/3)
T/C=0.12 (12%)

WE HAVE SELECTED TWO AEROFOILS

NACA 4 - DIGIT AND 6 - DIGIT
NACA 4 SERIES

Fig 9 : NACA 1412

GRAPHS: 6.1 CL VS CD GRAPHS: 6.2 CL VS alpha

Maximum coefficient of lift, Clmax is found to be around 1.5 for this airfoil from the above graph
when high lift devices are not used.
Clmax = 1.50 CDmax = 1.5
Cl min = -1.4 CDmin = -1.4

33
NACA 6 SERIES

This series in an improvement over the 1-series airfoils and are designed with the emphasis on maximizing
laminar flow. The airfoil is described using six digits in the following sequence:

1. The number "6" indicating the series.

2. One digit describing the distance of the minimum pressure area in tens of percent of chord.
3. The subscript digit gives the range of lift coefficient in tenths above and below the design lift
coefficient in which favorable pressure gradients exist on both surfaces
4. A hyphen.
5. One digit describing the design lift coefficient in tenths.
6. Two digits describing the maximum thickness as percent of chord.

Our airfoil NACA 643-418 has maximum thickness 17.9% at 34.8% chord and maximum camber 2.2% at
50% chord and maintains laminar flow.

NACA 63412 AIRFOIL

Fig 10 : NACA 63412

34
GRAPHS: 6.3 CL VS CD GRAPHS: 6.4 CL VS alpha
Maximum coefficient of lift, Clmax is found to be around 1.5 for this airfoil from the above graph
when high lift devices are not used.
Clmax = 1.50 CDmax = 1.5
Cl min = -1.1 CDmin = -1.1

Therefore by optimizing Naca 6 digit series aerofoil is found to be more efficient by comparing the graphs.
SWEPT BACK WING

Figure 11: swept back wing

6.3 Wing design parameters
Aspect ratio (AR): 5
Wing area(S)=175 m2
Sweep Angle ( ): 30o

Wing Span (b): AR= b2/S => b2 = AR X S

 B = 29.5m

Chord (C): b/AR

 C= 5.91 m

Root chord (Cr) =

= 0.35 (from preliminary design of airplanes by: Jan Roskam pg:146 chapter – 6 table: 6.7)

Cr = 8.64 m
= Ct/Cr

 Ct = = 3.024 m

35
Mean chord = = 8.74 m

Where Cr = Root Chord

= Taper ratio

CHAPTER 7
3D MODEL OF AIRCRAFT:
7.1 FRONT VIEW:

7.2 ISOMETRIC VIEW:

36
7.3 SIDE VIEW:

7.4 TOP VIEW:

37
 CHAPTER 8
AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS
8.1) INTRODUCTION
The most important requirement for a new aircraft design is that it fulfills its mission F. This is assured
through performance calculations at the design stage F As these calculations are carried out, important
aircraft parameters are chosen:
– Size of wing
– Engine
Performance calculations are crucial at several flight points::
– Cruise
– Take off
– Climb
– Landing
In order to choose parameters such as engine and wing size, the aircraft’ s weight and drag must be known. F
Then the amount of lift and thrust required can be determined.
At cruise, the flight speed is constant. Therefore, T=D. This can be written as:

Where,
ρ is the cruise air density

38
V is the cruise airspeed
S is the wing area.
The drag coefficient is obtained from the drag polar, using the fact that L=W, i.e.

GRAPHICAL METHOD
Graphical method involves the plotting of graph for the different performance parameters with respect to
different velocities at cruise level and at sea level of the aircraft.

Table 14 : Performance at Sea Level:

Density 1.225 kg/m3
Wing Area 175 m2
K 0.07907

Dynamic Drag,D in
Velocity (m/s) Cl cdo cd
pressure N=Thrust
80 3920.00 0.700 0.0126 0.051 35234
90 4961.25 0.553 0.0126 0.037 31949
100 6125.00 0.448 0.0126 0.028 30524
110 7411.25 0.370 0.0126 0.023 30406
120 8820.00 0.311 0.0126 0.020 31266
130 10351.25 0.265 0.0126 0.018 32894
140 12005.00 0.229 0.0126 0.017 35154
150 13781.25 0.199 0.0126 0.016 37951
160 15680.00 0.175 0.0126 0.015 41222
170 17701.25 0.155 0.0126 0.015 44920
180 19845.00 0.138 0.0126 0.014 49011
190 22111.25 0.124 0.0126 0.014 53469
200 24500.00 0.112 0.0126 0.014 58277

39
 210 27011.25 0.102 0.0126 0.013 63419
220 29645.00 0.093 0.0126 0.013 68883
230 32401.25 0.085 0.0126 0.013 74662
240 35280.00 0.078 0.0126 0.013 80747
250 38281.25 0.072 0.0126 0.013 87133
260 41405.00 0.066 0.0126 0.013 93815
270 44651.25 0.061 0.0126 0.013 100790
280 48020.00 0.057 0.0126 0.013 108055
290 51511.25 0.053 0.0126 0.013 115606
300 55125.00 0.050 0.0126 0.013 123442
310 58861.25 0.047 0.0126 0.013 131560
320 62720.00 0.044 0.0126 0.013 139960
330 66701.25 0.041 0.0126 0.013 148639
340 70805.00 0.039 0.0126 0.013 157597

Power req. Velocity

Lift L/D Power ava. (kN) R/C
(kN) (m/s)
480309 13.6319 8800 2818.744744 12.4529 80
480309 15.0334 9900 2875.454946 14.6251 90
480309 15.7356 11000 3052.367895 16.5469 100
480309 15.7964 12100 3344.694501 18.2285 110
480309 15.3619 13200 3751.943163 19.6708 120
480309 14.6016 14300 4276.266886 20.8693 130
480309 13.6631 15400 4921.518782 21.8161 140
480309 12.6560 16500 5692.685368 22.5008 150
480309 11.6518 17600 6595.532372 22.9112 160
480309 10.6926 18700 7636.37556 23.0344 170
480309 9.8001 19800 8821.927942 22.8563 180
480309 8.9829 20900 10159.19524 22.3623 190
480309 8.2418 22000 11655.4027 21.5374 200
480309 7.5736 23100 13317.94283 20.3662 210
480309 6.9728 24200 15154.33741 18.8330 220
480309 6.4331 25300 17172.20933 16.9220 230
480309 5.9483 26400 19379.26158 14.6171 240

40
 480309 5.5124 27500 21783.26122 11.9022 250
480309 5.1197 28600 24392.02704 8.7610 260
480309 4.7654 29700 27213.41998 5.1770 270
480309 4.4451 30800 30255.33564 1.1340 280
480309 4.1547 31900 33525.69826 -3.3847 290
480309 3.8910 33000 37032.45597 -8.3955 300
480309 3.6509 34100 40783.57692 -13.9152 310
480309 3.4318 35200 44787.04619 -19.9602 320
480309 3.2314 36300 49050.86317 -26.5472 330
480309 3.0477 37400 53583.0395 -33.6930 340

GRAPH 8.1 L/D vs VELOCITY

From the gragh (L/D)max is found to be 15.79

41
 GRAPH : 8.2 POWER V/S VELOCITY GRAPH
Power Excess = 20000 - 9000
=11000 KN

GRAPH : 8.3 DRAG, THRUST vs VELOCITY

42
 GRAPH : 8.4 RATE OF CLIMB GRAPH

GRAPH : 8.5 DYNAMIC PRESSURE GRAPH

GRAPH : 8.6 Cd vs Cl

43
 GRAPH : 8.7 Cl vs Velocity

Table 15 : Performance at Cruise Altitude:

Density 0.266 kg/m2
Wing Area 175 m2
K 0.07909

Dynamic Drag,D in
Velocity (m/s) Cl cdo cd
pressure N=Thrust
80 851.20 3.224 0.0126 0.835 124334
90 1077.30 2.548 0.0126 0.526 99132
100 1330.00 2.064 0.0126 0.349 81305

44
110 1609.30 1.705 0.0126 0.243 68319
120 1915.20 1.433 0.0126 0.175 58648
130 2247.70 1.221 0.0126 0.130 51331
140 2606.80 1.053 0.0126 0.100 45734
150 2992.50 0.917 0.0126 0.079 41431
160 3404.80 0.806 0.0126 0.064 38122
170 3843.70 0.714 0.0126 0.053 35594
180 4309.20 0.637 0.0126 0.045 33691
190 4801.30 0.572 0.0126 0.038 32297
200 5320.00 0.516 0.0126 0.034 31324
210 5865.30 0.468 0.0126 0.030 30705
220 6437.20 0.426 0.0126 0.027 30387
230 7035.70 0.390 0.0126 0.025 30329
240 7660.80 0.358 0.0126 0.023 30498
250 8312.50 0.330 0.0126 0.021 30869
260 8990.80 0.305 0.0126 0.020 31418
270 9695.70 0.283 0.0126 0.019 32130
280 10427.20 0.263 0.0126 0.018 32988
290 11185.30 0.245 0.0126 0.017 33983
300 11970.00 0.229 0.0126 0.017 35102
310 12781.30 0.215 0.0126 0.016 36338
320 13619.20 0.202 0.0126 0.016 37684
330 14483.70 0.189 0.0126 0.015 39133
340 15374.80 0.179 0.0126 0.015 40681

Power req. Velocity

Lift L/D Power ava. (kN) R/C
(kN) (m/s)
480309 3.8631 8800 9946.728791 -2.3875 80
480309 4.8452 9900 8921.858728 2.0365 90
480309 5.9075 11000 8130.526689 5.9742 100
480309 7.0304 12100 7515.119069 9.5457 110
480309 8.1896 13200 7037.813328 12.8296 120
480309 9.3572 14300 6672.966043 15.8794 130
480309 10.5022 15400 6402.763224 18.7322 140
480309 11.5931 16500 6214.610501 21.4141 150

45
480309 12.5993 17600 6099.501996 23.9440 160
480309 13.4941 18700 6050.96488 26.3352 170
480309 14.2564 19800 6064.355752 28.5975 180
480309 14.8718 20900 6136.379208 30.7378 190
480309 15.3337 22000 6264.750845 32.7607 200
480309 15.6429 23100 6447.956541 34.6694 210
480309 15.8066 24200 6685.077397 36.4659 220
480309 15.8367 25300 6975.660337 38.1511 230
480309 15.7487 26400 7319.621064 39.7252 240
480309 15.5598 27500 7717.170301 41.1877 250
480309 15.2876 28600 8168.757059 42.5377 260
480309 14.9491 29700 8675.024509 43.7739 270
480309 14.5599 30800 9236.775312 44.8945 280
480309 14.1340 31900 9854.944116 45.8977 290
480309 13.6833 33000 10530.57556 46.7812 300
480309 13.2178 34100 11264.80655 47.5427 310
480309 12.7457 35200 12058.8518 48.1797 320
480309 12.2737 36300 12913.99209 48.6895 330
480309 11.8067 37400 13831.56453 49.0693 340

GRAPH : 8.8 L/D MAX GRAPH

46
From the gragh (L/D)max is found to be 15.83

GRAPH : 8.9 POWER AVG V/S VELOCITY GRAPH

GRAPH : 8.10 CL vs VELOCITY GRAPH

47
 GRAPH : 8.11 RATE OF CLIMB GRAPH

GRAPH : 8.12 POWER AVAILABLE, POWER REQD :

GRAPH : 8.13 DYNAMIC PRESSURE GRAPH:

48
 GRAPH : 8.14 POWER REQUIRED vs VELOCITY

GRAPH : 8.15 Cd vs velocity graph :

8.4 RANGE AND ENDURANCE

To calculate the range and endurance of the aircraft

R=

R =5847.47 Km
To calculate endurance of the aircraft, the following equation is used:

E=

49
=

E=5.847 Hrs.

CHAPTER 9
STABILITY OF THE AIRCRAFT
9.1 INTRODUCTION.
Longitudinal static stability of an aircraft in the longitudinal, or pitching, plane under steady-flight
conditions. This characteristic is important in determining whether a human pilot will be able to control the
aircraft in the longitudinal plane without requiring excessive attention to excessive strength.
Longitudinal stability refers to the aircraft’s stability in the pitching plane - the plane which describes the
position of the aircraft’s nose in relation to its tail and the horizon.
9.2 LONGITUDINAL STABILITY CALCULATION
50
For achieving the longitudinal static stability, the value of <0

9.2.1 CONTRIBUTION OF FUSELAGE

From “Aircraft Design – A conceptual approach – D.Raymer”, chapter 16, fig 16.14

Figure 17: Position of ¼ root chord

The length of the fuselage = 27m
Therefore, corresponding to the fuselage length in % we get the value of Kf

Kf = 0.01
Wf =1.76m
S = 175m
= Slope of the lift-curve of wing

c = 5.84m
Substituting the values

= = 0.173

9.2.2 CONTRIBUTION OF WING

51
The contribution of wing is taken as zero when the centre of gravity (c.g) is at the aerodynamic centre (a.c)
of the aircraft.
9.2.3CONTRIBUTION OF POWER
The contribution of power to the static longitudinal stability of the aircraft is given by the formula:

For the airplane under design, tp is estimated as 0.19m.

= 0.07518 at cruise (From the previous experiments)

Substituting the values

= = 0.00245

9.2.4 CONTRIBUTION OF HORIZONTAL TAIL

The contribution of the horizontal tail to the static longitudinal stability of the aircraft is given by the
formula:

Where,
at = slope of the lift-curve of horizontal tail
aw= slope of the lift-curve of wing
ηt = tail efficiency
VH = tail volume ratio
ε = down wash angle
τ = dCLT/ d e/ dCLT/ d
CLT = lift coefficient of tail
e = elevator deflection

t = angle of attack of horizontal tail

Ch = hinge moment coefficient

nt is assumed to be 0.95

can be estimated by the following equation:

Substituting the values in the above equation,

52
 = = 0.0342

To find the tail volume,

VH = = = 0.0205

Substituting the values in equation 11.4,

= = -0.582

9.2.5 CONTRIBUTION OF NACELLE

The contribution of nacelle is neglected in the longitudinal stability calculation of our aircraft.
9.2.6 OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
The contribution of the fuselage, the power and the horizontal tail constitute the static longitudinal stability
of the aircraft.
Substituting the values

= 0.173+0.0024-0.582 = -0.4

9.3 GRAPHICAL VERIFICATION

From– D.Raymer”, chapter 16, we get the value of Cmα for our aircraft.

Figure 18 : Typical Pitching moment derivatives

the value of Cmα for our aircraft is:
Cmα = -0.2

53
 CHAPTER 10
V-n DIAGRAM
10.1 Introduction:
Airplanes may be subjected to a variety of loading conditions in flight. The structural design of the aircraft
involves the estimation of the various loads on the aircraft structure and designing the airframe to carry all
these loads, providing enough safety factors, considering the fact that the aircraft under design is a
commercial transport airplane. As it is obviously impossible to investigate every loading condition that the
aircraft may encounter, it becomes necessary to select a few conditions such that each one of these
conditions will be critical for some structural member of the airplane.
10.2 V-n diagram Calculations:
The control of weight in aircraft design is of extreme importance. Increases in weight require stronger
structures to support them, which in turn lead to further increases in weight and so on. Excess of structural
weight mean lesser amounts of payload, thereby affecting the economic viability of the aircraft.
The aircraft designer is therefore constantly seeking to pare his aircraft’s weight to the minimum compatible
with safety. However, to ensure general minimum standards of strength and safety, airworthiness regulations
lay down several factors which the primary structure of the aircraft must satisfy.
The basic strength and fight performance limits for a particular aircraft are selected by the airworthiness
authorities and are contained in the flight envelope or V-n diagram.
There are four important speeds used in the V –  n diagram
1.1 – g stall speed Vs
2.Design maneuvering speed Va
3.Design cruise speed Vc
4.Design diving speed Vd

Figure 19:V-n Diagram

54
10.2.1 Stall Speed (Vs):-
The Stall speed may be calculated from the following equation:

Vs =

W = 108026 lbs
S = 1883.684 ft2
ρ = 0.07647 lb/f2
Cl max = 1.5 , Cl min = -1.1

GRAPH : 25

Vs =

CN =

CN max = ((1.5)2+(0.19050)2)0.5 = 1.512

CN min =1.1031
For Vs (n=positive)
VS max = 31.4958 m/s.
For Vs (n=negative)
VS min = 36.8741 m/s.
10.2.2 Design Manuvering Speed, VA
The Design Manoeuvring speed can be selected by the designer, but must satisfy the following
relationship:

55
 VA ≥ Vs

Where n is the load factor.

Therefore, from the table n= 2 and -1.
Table 16 : design limit load factors for military airplanes

VA max = S max *

= 44.54 m/s

VA min = VS min*

= 36.8741 m/s
10.2.3 Design Cruising Speed, Vc

Vc = K*

Where,
K = 36
Vc = 272.622 m/s.
10.2.4 Design Driving Speed, VD

VD = c = 340.77 m/s.

56
Figure 20 : V-n diagram.

57
 CHAPTER 11
CONCLUSION

The conceptual design of the Air Superiority Fighter is done by referring the other similar fighter aircrafts.
The Preliminary Weight Estimation for the Air Superiority Fighter is done and the Maximum Takeoff
Weight and Empty Weight for the new aircraft is calculated. The estimation of the parameters like Wing
Loading, Thrust Loading are done. As per the estimated data, the Engine is selected for the Air Superiority
Fighter, and the wing is designed. The 3-d model is drawn using reverse engineering method in Solid Works.
The longitudinal stability of the aircraft is estimated and the performance parameters like Rate of climb,
Range, Endurance are also calculated. At last, the flight envelope for the maneuverability and is drawn.

58
REFERENCES:

1. Dr .Jan Roskam (1997) “Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance”

2. Raymer, Daniel P (1992) “Airplane Design- A Conceptual Approach”
3. Mohammed. H (1998) “Airplane Design - A System Engineering Approach”
4. H. Abbot (1959) “Theory of Wing Sections”
5. John D Anderson (1999) “Aircraft Performance and Design”
6. John D Anderson (1978) “Introduction To Flight”
7. Jenkinson (2003) “Airplane Design Project For Engineering Students”
8. Robert T Jones and Doris Cohen (1998) “High speed wing theory”
9. www.google.com
10. www.wikipedia.com
11. www.airfoiltools.com
12. www.aerospaceweb.org

59