American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1
SELECTING WING LOADING AND THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO
FOR MILITARY JET TRAINERS
K Ibrahim*
ABSTRACT
Configuration and performance data of jet trainers and
light attack airplanes has been analyzed. Correlations
have been evolved for selecting wing loading and thrust
to weight ratio for baseline design configuration of
military jet trainers and light attack airplanes for
compliance with a set of mission requirements in terms
of a) take-off distance, b) maximum rate of climb at sea
level, c) maximum level speed at any altitude below
tropopause, and d) landing distance.
NOMENCLATURE
a Average deceleration during ground run, m/s
C
Do
Zero-lift drag coefficient
C
Lmax.L
Maximum lift coefficient in landing
configuration with appropriate flaps
C
Lmax.TO
Max lift coefficient in take-off configuration
with appropriate flaps
D Airplane drag, kg
e Airplane efficiency factor
L Airplane lift, kg
L/D Aerodynamic efficiency
RoC Rate of climb, m/min
S Reference wing area, sqm
s
LA
Ground distance from passing the 15.24m
(50) obstacle to touchdown, m
s
LD
Landing distance from 15.24m (50) obstacle
to full stop, m
s
LG
Ground run from touchdown to full stop, m
s
TD
Take-off distance to clear 15.24m (50)
obstacle, m
s
TG
Take-off ground run from brakes release to
lift-off, m
T In-flight thrust, kg
T
o
Standard day sea level static thrust, kg
V
A
Approach speed (True), km/h
V
MAX
Maximum level speed (True), km/h
V
S
Power-off stall speed in clean configuration,
km/h
V
SL
Power-off stall speed in landing configuration,
km/h
V
TD
Touchdown speed, m/s
W Take-off weight of the airplane, kg
Deputy General Manager (Retd.),
Aircraft Research and Design Centre,
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore, India.
Mean value of flight path angle, rad
Ground and brake friction coefficient
Ambient air density ratio (/
o
)
Ambient air density, kgf.s/m
4

o
Standard day sea level density, kgf.s/m
4
INTRODUCTION
Principal role of military jet trainers is to bridge the gap
between primary trainers (inexpensive propeller
aircraft) and operational types through progressively
replicating precisely the characteristics of the latter in
terms of performance, handling qualities, cockpit
environment and level of sophistication. Design
features such as light weight and tactical and ordnance
capabilities confer on the military jet trainers two
additional roles as well; a) a secondary war role to
back-up the front line combat aircraft of the larger air
forces and b) defending the interests of smaller air
forces at an affordable price. These aircraft have been
treated as a separate category and design norms have
been evolved for selection of relative design parameters
viz., wing loading and thrust to weight ratio to comply
with a set of performance requirements.
Loftin
1
has developed simple methods for estimating
approximate size, weight and thrust/power of aircraft
intended to meet specified performance goals for both
jet powered and propeller-driven commercial aircraft
under varying design constraints. Mattingly, Heiser and
Daley
2
have dealt with computing wing loading and
thrust loading for cargo, passenger and fighter aircraft
under varying design constraints. Ibrahim
3
has dealt
with selection of wing loading and thrust to weight ratio
for advanced jet trainers and light attack airplanes for a
specified time to climb to altitude. Raymer
4
provides a
comprehensive exposition of aircraft conceptual design
with simplified but complete set of first order analytical
methods with special emphasis on aircraft configuration
layout. Statistical correlations for selecting baseline
design configuration for military jet trainers and light
attack airplanes have been evolved by Ibrahim
5
.
Roskam
6
presents methods for computing wing loading
and power loading/thrust to weight ratio and
preliminary sizing in terms of gross take-off weight,
empty weight, mission fuel weight, take-off
thrust/power, wing area and aspect ratio, for 12
categories of airplanes - from homebuilt airplanes to
20th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
24-26 June 2002, St. Louis, Missouri
AIAA 2002-3153
Copyright 2002 by the author(s). Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2
supersonic cruse vehicle, to a given mission
specification.
In this paper configuration and performance data
5
of 18
jet trainers and light attack airplanes (Table 1) are
analyzed. Figure of merit expressions
7
in terms of
relative design parameters for the performance
parameters constituting design drivers, are modified to
include nonstandard atmospheric conditions. For a class
of airplanes with a specified level of sophistication, it is
assumed that orders of magnitude of zero-lift drag
coefficient (C
Do
) and airplane efficiency factor (e)
remain same
1
. Where dispersion of data did not yield
meaningful results, support in the form of relevant
performance parameter has been drawn from aircraft of
similar class. Employing least square technique
correlations are evolved objectively for selecting
relative design parameters for baseline design
configuration of military jet trainers and light attack
airplanes for compliance with a set of performance
parameters viz., a) take-off distance, b) maximum rate
of climb at sea level, c) maximum level speed at any
altitude below tropopause, and d) landing distance
stipulated in mission requirements.
TAKE-OFF DISTANCE
Take-off distance is sum total of ground distances a)
from brakes release to lift off and b) from lift-off to
passing the 15.24m (50) obstacle.
Figure of merit expression for take-off ground run (Ref.
7) in terms of relative design parameters is reproduced
below.
[ ]
TO . max L
TG
C ) W / T (
) S / W (
s
o
o (1)
It is assumed that for a class of aircraft ground distance
from lift-off to passing the 15.24m obstacle is
proportional to take-off ground run
1
. During initial
phases of design, absence of detailed data on engine
performance precludes the knowledge of thrust in flight
at a specific condition. Besides it is an accepted practice
to use standard day sea level static thrust (T
o
) in the
definition of thrust to weight ratio. For turbojet and
turbofan engines thrust lapse rate with ambient air
density for altitudes within the tropopause (Ref. 7) is
T = T
o
o
0.8
. Upon substitution equation (1) renders itself
as below.
[ ]
TO . max L o
8 . 1
TD
C ) W / T (
) S / W (
s
o
o (2)
For a designated level of technology, it is assumed that
the order of magnitude of the maximum lift coefficient
in the take-off configuration for a category of aircraft
remains same. Accordingly,
[ ] ) W / T (
) S / W (
s
o
8 . 1
TD
o
o (3)
Take-off distance of military jet trainers and light attack
airplanes is correlated with their relative design
parameters in Fig. 1. Expression for the regressed line is
as below.
8 . 1
o
TD
) W / T (
) S / W (
029 . 1 167 m , s
o
+ = (4)
Upon simplification of the equation (4) expression for
thrust to weight ratio complying with specified take-off
distance at a given altitude emerge as
8 . 1 TD
o
029 . 1
167 s
) S / W (
W
T
o

= (5)
Fig. 1 Correlation of take-off distance
RATE OF CLIMB
Assuming that thrust remains constant over the speed
range in which maximum rate climb occurs and
assigning computed average values for zero-lift drag
coefficient (C
DO
), airplane efficiency factor (e) and in-
flight thrust to weight ratio (T/W), figure of merit
expression (Ref. 5) for sea level maximum rate of climb
of jet airplanes is
(W/S)/[(T
O
/W)o
1.8
]
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
T
a
k
e
-
o
f
f

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

m
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
I-22
IAR-93
Skyfox
G-4
Hawk
L-39
MB.339
T-46A
IAR.99
Aviojet
Pampa
T-4
AT-3
Alphajet
Jetsqualus
K-8
S.211
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
3
2 / 1
) S / W (
3
) W / T (
RoC

o
o (6)
Upon substitution for T in terms of standard day sea
level static thrust and ambient air density ratio, the
equation (6) renders itself as below.
2 / 1
4 . 1
3
o
S
W
W
T
RoC

o |
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
o (7)
Sea level maximum rates of climb of military jet
trainers and light attack airplanes are correlated with
corresponding relative design parameters in Fig. 2.
Additional data points in respect of some aircraft
correspond to different weight cases and variants with
different levels of thrust. Expression for the regressed
line is as below.
2 / 1
4 . 1
3
o
S
W
W
T
78 . 460 403 RoC

o |
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = (8)
Transposing of terms and further simplification yields
an expression for the thrust to weight ratio in terms of
specified rate of climb at sea level, wing loading and
ambient air density ratio as below.
3 / 1
4 . 1
2
o
) S / W (
1
78 . 460
403 RoC
W
T

|
|
.
|

\
|
o
|
.
|

\
| +
= |
.
|

\
|
(9)
Fig. 2 Correlation of sea level rate of climb
MAXIMUM LEVEL SPEED
During the flight condition corresponding to maximum
level speed lift dependent drag coefficient is negligibly
small compared to zero-lift drag coefficient.
Accordingly, figure of merit expression for maximum
level speed of jet airplanes (Ref. 7) is given below.
2 / 1
max
) S / W ( ) W / T (
V

o
o (10)
Upon substitution for T in terms of standard day sea
level static thrust and ambient air density ratio, equation
16 renders itself as below.
2 / 1
2 . 0
o
max
) S / W ( ) W / T (
V

o
o (11)
Maximum level speeds of military jet trainers and light
attack airplanes are correlated with their relative design
parameters in Fig. 3. Additional data points in respect
of some aircraft correspond to different altitudes and
variants with different levels of thrust. Equation of the
regressed line is as under.
2 / 1
2 . 0
o
max
) S / W ( ) W / T (
48 . 86 71 . 98 V

o
+ = (12)
Transposing of terms and further simplification yields
an expression for the thrust to weight ratio in terms of
wing loading and ambient air density ratio as below.
|
|
.
|

\
|
o

+
= |
.
|

\
|
) S / W ( 48 . 86
71 . 98 V
W
T
2 . 0
2
max o
(13)
Fig. 3 Correlation of max level speed [(T
o
/W)
3
(W/S)o
1.4
]
1/2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
R
a
t
e

o
f

c
l
i
m
b
,

m
/
m
i
n
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Alphajet
Alphajet
T-4
AMX
AT-3
Hawk
Alphajet
Skyfox
Jetsqualus
T-46A
Aviojet
L-39
S.211
Aviojet
K-8
Pampa
Aviojet
G-4
[(T
o
/W) (W/S) /o
0.2
]
1/2
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
M
a
x

le
v
e
l

s
p
e
e
d
,

k
m
/
h

(
T
A
S
)
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
AMX
Hawk
Alphajet
Aviojet
Hawk
T-45
Skyfox
Jetsqualus
Aviojet
L-39
T-46A
S.211
Pampa
L-39
Aviojet
Aviojet
K-8
Aviojet
Aviojet
Pampa
AT-3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
4
LANDING DISTANCE
In accordance with the accepted practice, landing
distance is sum total of ground distances, a) from
passing the 15.24m (50ft) obstacle to touchdown and b)
from touch down to full stop. Expression for ground
distance from passing the 15.24m (50ft) obstacle to
touchdown derived from conservation of total energy is

I
= 24 . 15
g 2
V V 1
s
2
TD
2
A
LA
(14)
where I is the mean flight path angle represented by

W
T D
. Similarly expression for the ground run from
touchdown to full stop is
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
a 2
V
s
2
TD
LG
(15)
where a is the mean deceleration represented by

) g / W (
) L W ( D T
.
For a category of airplanes the orders of magnitude of
I and a are assumed to remain same. Accordingly,
landing field length becomes a function of approach
and touchdown speeds. However, from the viewpoint of
aircraft safety, Military Specifications (Ref. 8) stipulate
that approach and touchdown speeds shall be directly
related to power-off stall speed in landing
configuration. It is, therefore, considered reasonable to
establish a correlation between the landing distance and
square of stall speed in landing configuration (V
SL
).
Subsequently stalling speed in landing configuration
and wing loading parameter ( o S / W ) are correlated.
Accordingly landing distance and square of stall speed
are correlated in Fig. 4.
Expression for the regressed line is
LD
2
SL
s 18 . 0 90
10
V
+ = |
.
|

\
|
(16)
A large part of the scatter around the regressed line may
be attributed to varying pilot techniques adopted by the
individual pilots.
Finally wing loading parameter (W/So) is correlated
with stall speed in landing configuration in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4 Correlation of landing distance
Expression for the regressed line is given below.
2
SL
V 6 . 0 71
S
W
+ =
o
(17)
For a specified landing distance optimum wing loading
can thus be computed. In case the power-off stall speed
in the landing configuration is specified in the mission
requirements, optimum wing loading can be directly
computed using equation (17).
Fig. 5 Correlation of stall speed
CONCLUSIONS
Correlations evolved herein between relative design
parameters and mission requirements in terms of a)
take-off distance, b) maximum rate of climb at sea
level, c) maximum level speed at any altitude below
tropopause, and d) landing distance can be effectively
utilized for construction of constraint diagram (wing
Landing distance, m
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
S
q
u
a
r
e

o
f

s
t
a
l
l

s
p
e
e
d
,

(
V
S
/
1
0
)
2
,

(
k
m
/
h
)
2
150
200
250
300
350
Hawk
Alphajet
T-4
L-39
AT-3
Aviojet
K-8
K-8
Pampa
T-46A
G-4
MB.339
S.211
Jetsqualus
Aviojet
V
S
2
/100
150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
W
i
n
g

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
,

(
W
/
S
o
)
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
L-59
Hawk L-139
T-4
Aplhajet
Aviojet
L-39
MB.339
AT-3
Pampa
K-8
T-46A
TG-10
G-4
MiG AT
S.211
Jetsqualus
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
5
loading versus thrust to weight ratio), identifying
solution zone and selecting optimum combination of
wing loading and thrust to weight ratio for baseline
design configuration of military jet trainers and light
attack airplanes.
Lift coefficients during take-off and landing achievable
with the current level of technology are implicitly
contained in the correlations for take-off and landing
distances. Thus these correlations serve as effective
design tools during initial phases of design when the
airplane configuration in terms of wing and flap
geometry is not fully defined.
In the above correlations dispersion of engine
dependent performance parameters did not exhibit
explicable variation with type of engine viz. straight jet
engine or turbofan engine having different bypass
ratios. The variation in performance due to type of
engine possibly lies within the scatter band.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author expresses his deep sense of gratitude to Prof
M R Ananthasayanam from Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore, India, for his continued inspiration,
constructive criticism and helpful suggestions during
preparation of this paper.
REFERENCES
1 Laurence K Loftin, Jr. "Subsonic Aircraft:
Evolution and the Matching of Size to
Performance", NASA RP 1060, 1980.
2 Jack D Mattingly, William H Heiser and Daniel H
Daley, Aircraft Engine Design, AIAA Education
Series.
3 K Ibrahim, "Wing Design for Advanced Jet
Trainers and Light Attack Airplanes - A Statistical
Approach", Third National Conference on
Aerodynamic, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, 3 November 1987.
4 Daniel P Raymer, "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach", AIAA Education Series, 1989.
5 K Ibrahim, "Selection of Base-line Design
Configuration for Advanced Jet Trainers and Light
Attack Airplanes", - Unpublished.
6 Jan Roskam, Airplane Design Part I:
Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, DARcorporation,
1997.
7 Francis J Hale, "Introduction to Aircraft
Performance, Selection and Design", John Wiley &
Sons Singapore, 1984.
8 Charts: Standard Aircraft Characteristics and
Performance, Piloted Aircraft (Fixed Wing),
Military Specification MIL-C-5011B (USAF), 21
June 1977.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
6
Table 1. Design and Performance Data of Military Jet Trainer and Light Attack Airplanes
Take-off Max level speed Landing
No. Country Airplane
Wing
area, m
2
SL, ISA
Thrust
kN
Weight
kg
Distance
m
SL Rate
of climb
m/min
km/h
(TAS)
Altitude
m
Stall
speed
km/h
Distance
m
1 Argentina Pampa 15.63 15.57 3700 740 1813 755
819
0
7000
152 850
2 Belgium Jet Squalus 13.58 5.92 2000 656 762 519 4267 124 427
3 Czech Aero L-39 18.80 16.87 4525 774 1260 700
750
0
5000
165 995
4 Italy/Brazil AMX 21.00 49.10 9600 - 3124 1160 305 - -
5 France/Germ Alpha Jet 17.50 26.48 5000 708 2550 1000
1038
0
0
167 1110
6 China/Pak K-8 17.02 16.01 3500 600 1620 800 0 154 816
7 Yugl/Romania IAR 93 26.00 35.58 8826 869 - - 0 - -
8 Italy MB.339A 19.30 17.80 4400 700 - - 0 149 700
9 Italy S.211 12.60 11.13 2750 512 1280 725 0 138 138
10 Japan T-4 21.00 32.74 5500 801 3050 1038 0 167 1072
11 Poland I-22 19.92 21.58 6082 1124 - - 0 - -
12 Romania IAR-99 18.71 17.79 4630 750 - - 0 - -
13 Spain Aviojet 20.00 16.46 4570 760 1152 691
797
0
7620
164 840
14 Taiwan AT-3 21.93 31.14 5216 671 3078 899 0 163 945
15 U.K Hawk 16.69 25.35 5150 803 2835 1037 0 177 1300
16 U.S.A Skyfox 22.22 32.92 7365 914 2285 935 0 - -
17 U.S.A T-46A 15.40 11.84 3357 687 1181 725 9144 152 730
18 Yugoslavia G-4 19.50 17.80 4760 850 2128 - 6000 150 750