See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/38173687

Aerodynamic, dynamic and conceptual design of a fire-fighting aircraft

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · March 2001
DOI: 10.1243/0954410011533121 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

2 3,714

5 authors, including:

Zdobyslaw Goraj Paul Wagstaff

Warsaw University of Technology Kingston University London
72 PUBLICATIONS   520 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   56 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AFLoNext aims to provethe engineering feasibility ofthe hybrid laminar flow controlHLFC technology for dragreduction on fin in flight testand on wing by meansof large
scale testing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Wagstaff on 08 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 125

Aerodynamic, dynamic and conceptual design of a

fire-fighting aircraft

Z Goraj1 , A Frydrychewicz2 , E C P Ransom 3 ¤ , A Self 3 and P Wagstaff 3

1
Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
2
PZL-WSK-Okecie, Poland
3
Faculty of Technology, School of Engineering, Kingston University, London, UK

Abstract: This paper presents an evaluation of available aircraft types and demonstrates the lack of a low
cost aircraft optimized for fighting forest fires, spreading viscous liquids for land reclamation and spraying
pesticides over forest areas. It shows that among critical areas demanding special consideration are (a) the
development of mathematical models for the water bomb–aircraft separation and the aircraft transient
dynamics following separation, (b) the identification of parameters influencing the coherence of the water
column and effectiveness of water delivery for fire fighting, (c) choice of aircraft configuration and (d)
hopper configuration. Design and numerical analysis have led to the selection of the biplane as the best
aircraft. The main aerodynamic characteristics for the selected aircraft have been computed by means of
panel methods, the so-called modified Hess method for thick wings and bodies and/or the vortex lattice
method for thin lifting surfaces. Different gaps and staggers and their influence on aerodynamic
characteristics have been analysed. It has been found that shifting the lower wing rearwards (positive
stagger) while keeping the angle of attack constant results in a small increase of induced drag and an
almost constant value of the lift curve slope as well as an increase in the pitching moment curve slope. The
increase of drag is disadvantageous, whereas the increase of the pitching moment curve slope means that
the neutral point of stability is moved forward (a disadvantage from the stability point of view). The
influence of the biplane configuration on downwash in the vicinity of the horizontal plane and aircraft
dynamic stability is also discussed. Another important concept — developed at PZL-Okecie and presented
in this paper — consists in using parts from existing aircraft. The pilot’s cabin, the rear part of the fuselage
with control surfaces and wings originate from the PZL-106 ‘Kruk’. This diminishes the cost of design and
prototype construction as well as of the cost of aircraft production. It has been shown that an important cost
factor in the operation of such a fire-fighting aircraft is the weight of the agent which may be carried for
the same fuel consumption. This cost factor, representing the economical efficiency of a fire-fighting
aircraft, has been computed and compared for a number of fire-fighting aircraft. The design under
consideration (called the PZL-240 ‘Pelikan’) has the above-mentioned factor equal to 14, whereas the
average value for other aircraft is about 8.

Keywords: aircraft design, biplane, panel method, flight dynamics, aerodynamics

NOTATION cm pitching moment coefficient, around the

mean quarter-chord point A
Ae equivalent monoplane aspect ratio Ca MAC
Aef effective aspect ratio Ck , Cl, Cn aerodynamic influence coefficients
b wing span Cp pressure coefficient ˆ ( p ¡ p1 )=q
c wing chord Di induced drag
cD drag coefficient D, L, M lift, drag and pitching moment for whole
cL lift coefficient aircraft
H gap
Jy moment of inertia about y axis
The MS was received on 14 August 2000 and was accepted after revision K Munk’s span factor
for publication on 25 April 2001. L lift force
¤ Correspondin g author: Faculty of Technology, School of Engineering,
Kingston University, Friars Avenue, Roehampton Vale, London SW15 MAC mean aerodynamic chord
3DW, UK. n load coefficient
G03200 # IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
126 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF

N number of panels and access may be difficult. For this reason aircraft have
q dynamic pressure ˆ 0:5rV 2 proved to be a powerful means of dealing with this
Q pitch rate continuing problem. The potential market for specialized
S wing area fire-fighting aircraft is small by comparison with other
U, W speed components types and with few exceptions existing aircraft used to
x stagger control fires are conversions. These may be small agricul-
x0 , z0 coordinates of aircraft position in the tural aircraft that are adapted for fire control duties or very
ground-fixed axis system large aircraft, such as the Hercules C130, that are capable
xA, xC , zC , xN coordinates of points A, C, N with respect to of delivering many tonnes of water to the fire zone. In the
nose of MAC former case the aircraft are often too small to be effective
y coordinate along wing span and in the latter while often very effective they are
á angle of attack expensive in initial capital cost and operational costs and
ä1 , ä2 influence coefficient of sweep angle and require base facilities which are costly to provide and
taper ratio respectively operate. Such expenditure is beyond the resources of many
å downwash countries. Current dedicated agricultural aircraft are very
õ pitch angle different from the original crop-dusters which were often
í shorter span to longer span ratio; doublet converted war-surplus aircraft. A good example of a very
strength efficient agricultural aircraft today is the Gippsland GA-
ê coordinate along wing chord 200. By making use of advanced computer-aided design
ó Prandtl’s interference factor; source strength analysis, the designers have achieved a remarkable per-
j disturbance velocity potential formance for this category of aircraft. The GA-200 is able
¼ velocity potential to carry 760 l in its hopper despite the aircraft being
powered by no more than one 240 h.p. engine [1]. There is
a tendency for the heavier multi-engined agricultural
Subscripts aircraft to be replaced by smaller, more economical single
A mean quarter-chord point turbine engined aircraft. Typical examples of agricultural
C mass centre of the whole aircraft aircraft, their significant technical data and some economic
e equivalent factors are compared in Table 1 [2].
E empty aircraft The last three columns of Table 1 give (a) hopper
H hopper capacity (l) divided by the maximum take-off mass (kg),
i induced (b) hopper capacity (l) divided by the empty mass (kg) and
l lower (c) hopper capacity (l) divided by the available engine
N neutral point of static stability power (kW). The most economically efficient aircraft have
u upper the highest values in these columns. Some features which
are desirable for agricultural aircraft are not desirable for
fire fighting. A typical example is the wing span (or aspect
ratio if the aircraft weight is assumed to be the same). One
1 INTRODUCTION of the main tasks of agricultural aircraft is to spread
fertilizing granulates or to spray protective, anti-pest
Forest fires are a major problem in many parts of the world. liquids. The larger the span the more effective is the
Fire areas are often very far from centres of communication distribution of fertilizer or liquid spray. A large span can be

Table 1 Technical data and economical factors of different 14 aircraft, mostly agricultural, used in fire fighting
Empty mass Maximum take- Hopper capacity
Aircraft Power P (kW) m (kg) off mass M (kg) H (l) H/M (l/kg) H/m (l/kg) H/P (l/kW)
Ag-Cat SuperB 448 1 656 3 184 1 514 0.47 0.91 3.37
Air Tractor AT-502B 507 1 996 4 300 1 892 0.44 0.95 3.73
An-2 745 1 996 5 500 1 960 0.35 0.98 2.63
Ayres 660 Turbo Thrush 788 2 700 5 682 2 508 0.44 0.92 3.18
Cessna A188B AG Husky 224 982 1 905 1 060 0.56 1.08 4.73
Cresco 600 447 1 270 3 175 1 847 0.58 1.45 4.13
Embraer 201A Ipanema 224 1 011 1 550 950 0.61 0.94 4.24
Gippsland GA-200 Fatman 194 770 1 315 776 0.59 1.0 4.0
Let Z-37A Cmelak 235 1 043 1 850 650 0.35 0.62 2.76
Piper PA-36 213 987 1 769 852 0.48 0.86 4.0
M-18B Dromader 721 2 800 5 300 2 500 0.47 0.89 3.47
PZL-106BT ‘Kruk’ 544 1 750 3 500 1 500 0.43 0.86 2.76
Weatherley 620B 338 1 288 1 814 1 268 0.70 0.98 3.75
Canadair CL-215T 2 3 1 720 12 400 21 000 7 000 0.3 0.57 2.03

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT
dangerous during fire fighting operations because of the
presence of high thermal gradients and vertical gusts. Some
aircraft such as the Cessna AG Husky, Cresco 600 and
Gippsland GA-200, which appear to be the most efficient
aircraft by the criteria of Table 1, have smaller capacity
hoppers. Thus they cannot be very effective in the fire-
fighting role.
Aircraft safety during hazardous operations is of para-
mount importance. The configuration has to be such that
the aircraft is stable and controllable in the fire zone,
particularly at the moment of water release, and immedi-
ately afterwards, that is under transient conditions. The
aircraft should be agile, very stable with respect to roll and
yaw and not very sensitive to temperature gradient. It is
recognized that the hopper is the key component of the
aircraft since it is the principal load-bearing structure of the
aircraft. It is attached between the front and rear fuselage
and supports both the wings and the undercarriage. In
addition it transports and delivers the cargo. The higher the
hopper is, the greater the initial water speed of outflow,
owing to the greater hydrostatic pressure. Also, the section
ratio of the hopper may have an influence on the character-
istics of the water-dropping process. Two interrelated
effects are apparent. The cohesion of the water column can
be destroyed if the air speed is too great and a decrease in
lateral section decreases the drag force. Figure 1 shows a
light agricultural aircraft, the PZLM-18, releasing water. It
is clearly seen that the water bomb structure, at a cruise
speed of 47 m=s, is destroyed. The air flow velocity seems
to be too large and has a decisive effect on the coherence of
the liquid column, which is dispersed into fine droplets.
Fig. 1 PZLM-18 agricultural aircraft (hopper of 1850 kg capa-
city)
G03200 # IMechE 2001
127
In this case the quenching effect on the fire is negligible.
This aircraft usually drops water on a fire at V ˆ 40 m=s.
An adjustment of the shape of the discharge orifice to give
the column a reduced dimension transverse to the flow and
an increased length parallel to the flow would reduce the
tendency for the column to disperse by reducing drag.
Another factor which accelerates the dispersion of water
column is too small a water pressure at the hopper outlet,
which results in too small a velocity at water outflow. The
only way to increase the pressure at the bottom of the
hopper is to construct it as tall as possible. However,
because the hopper height is limited by the fuselage vertical
dimension, considerable compromise is inevitable in the
overall design.
A number of tests were conducted by the US Forest
Service [3] in California during 1993. It was found that
effectiveness of fire fighting, measured in coverage level
by number of litres per square metre, depends on various
parameters, including the amount of agent, flowrate, type
of agent (its density and viscosity), wind speed and its
direction, aircraft speed and drop height. For example, the
Air Tractor AT-802F is endowed with a computerized pilot
interference system, allowing the pilot to select an average
coverage level ranging from 0.2 to 2.5 l/m2 on salvo drops.
These factors aid the selection of the preferred aircraft
and hopper configuration. The biplane is considered as a
possible design configuration for fire-fighting applications.
Widely used at the beginning of heavier than air flight, it
was rapidly superseded by cantilevered monoplane designs,
owing to strong interference effects especially at high
speeds.
A number of papers [4–11] have been published which
provide comparisons between different two- and three-
surface configurations. The biplane may be considered a
three-surface arrangement and the monoplane as a two-
surface arrangement. References [4] to [7] focus on
minimum aircraft induced drag versus gap and stagger.
These analyses are based on Munk’s stagger theorem [12]
and Prandtl’s relation for the induced drag [13]. Because of
the limitation of Prandtl’s formula to elliptically loaded
wings, Laitone [7, 8] generalized it to include more
realistic distributions and to describe the wing mutual
downwash which rotates the lifting force vectors. Butler [9]
showed that the maximum ‘induced thrust’ can be reached
for zero gap with a canard configuration. Kroo [10] found
that interference terms can be beneficial and that the
induced drag is lower than if the two wings are infinitely
far apart. However, he wrote that ‘in the context of
preliminary design optimisation, model panel codes may
prove prohibitively time-consuming and expensive’.
Kendall [11] considered longitudinal trim and static
stability in addition to an analysis of induced drag. He
analysed a number of three-surface configurations for a
range of gaps and concluded that such a design can attain
minimum induced drag without compromising the condi-
tions for longitudinal trim and static stability over a useful
range of locations for the centre of gravity.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
128 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF
2 FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT —
CHARACTERISTICS REQUIRED
The most important, general characteristics of fire-fighting
aircraft are listed below:
(a) a hopper capacity of at least 4 t of water is the
minimum for effective action;
(b) the fire-extinguishing agent should be discharged at a
controlled rate, including the possibility of releasing a
coherent column of fluid in the form of a water bomb;
(c) three hopper filling systems are required, i.e. a ground-
based system, an onboard system and an in-flight
system to refill from a water surface;
(d) good cockpit visibility, particularly forward and down-
wards;
(e) a minimal wing span to reduce the effects of vertical
turbulent gusts over the fire zone;
(f) ability to operate from uneven or unprepared landing
fields, leading to the need for aircraft to have a high
lift coefficient, a strong undercarriage and large
diameter, low pressure tyres;
(g) mild stall characteristics—when at critical angles of
attack, the aircraft should lose altitude without stalling
(this feature is relevant for agricultural aircraft too);
(h) small turn radius.
The above-mentioned characteristics lead to a number of
specific design requirements:
(a) a tall hopper in order to maximize the hydrostatic
pressure at the base of the tank, which allows faster
water release and encourages the formation of a
coherent column of fluid;
(b) a moderate wing span for a relatively large wing area,
for which the biplane configuration is a possible
option;
(c) long span slots or flaps, to maintain high lift in turns.
The second of these requirements is directly opposite to
the desired features for agricultural aircraft. Most have a
relatively high aspect ratio wing in order to facilitate the
spread of granulates or liquid spray over a wide area.
The weaknesses of the biplane configuration are its poor
cockpit visibility and difficulties in arranging for the rapid
loading of the hopper. Both drawbacks may be minimized
by using wing stagger.
3 BIPLANES—BACKGROUND AND
ADVANTAGES
Many papers [12– 14] and project descriptions [15,16],
related to biplanes, have been published. A paper of
particular interest is one by Nenadovitch, published in 1936
in Saint-Cyr [17], in which two-dimensional characteristics
of a biplane versus gap, stagger and decalage can be found.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
It is also worth mentioning that Norton [18], as early as in
1918, noticed that ‘. . .possible stagger greatly restricts the
centre of pressure travel’, thus making the stability problem
simpler.
Biplanes can be very attractive at lower speeds, for the
following reasons [19]:
1. A relatively big wing area with a high effective wing
aspect ratio can be obtained for a moderate wing span.
2. A relatively stiff wing structure can be built for a large
wing area and moderate structure mass.
3. A relatively small longitudinal moment of inertia at
rather high mass of structure can be attained.
4. Smaller overall span makes the biplane more manoeuvr-
able.
5. Take-off and landing distance can be shorter than that
for a monoplane of the same weight.
6. For the same wing area, the biplane can be aerodynami-
cally more efficient than the equivalent monoplane, i.e.
lower drag at the same lift or at the same equivalent
wing aspect ratio.
All of the above factors show that the biplane configura-
tion for certain special cases may have superior character-
istics.
4 INITIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS—AREAS
WHICH NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED PRIOR
TO DESIGN
The above analysis suggests that a biplane configuration
would provide many desirable characteristics needed for a
fire-fighting aircraft. However, a number of design deci-
sions have to be taken and it is necessary to specify some
basic parameters. The areas which need to be investigated
before design decisions can be taken are listed below:
1. Selection of specific mathematical models. As usual,
this is a compromise between simple models which
operate more rapidly or more sophisticated models
which yield more credible results but take longer to run.
For example, gap and stagger can be obtained from
Prandtl–Munk’s stagger theorem, from panel or from
field methods [20]. Similarly, investigation of dynamic
response after the water drop can be performed either by
including the fact that water outflow from the hopper
changes lift and pitching moment (unsteady aerody-
namic model) or under the assumption that the water
outflow does not change the aerodynamic characteristics
(quasi-steady aerodynamic model). Another problem of
that type which has to be solved is the modelling of the
shape of the water column. This can be done either
using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the
simulation of two-phase flow (water and air) or by
experimental methods, for example wind tunnel tests or
in-flight measurements.
G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT 129

2. Choice of specific values of the important design L21 2ó L1 L2 L22

Di ˆ ‡ ‡ (2)
parameters, based on the results of the above analyses. ðqb21 ðqb1 b2 ðqb22
Among them are gap, stagger, decalage, tailplane
volume ratio and position of the centre of mass. If it is assumed that the lift coefficient is the same for both
3. The hopper design. This key component has a multi- wings (there is no decalage) and the symbols c1 , c2 are
function role which needs careful analysis. The factors introduced for the chords of both wings, the induced drag
to be considered include structural design, material, coefficient, obtained from equation (2), is
particularly with reference to corrosion aspects, con-
struction method, filling techniques for fluid or granu-
C 2L 2
lates and release modes. C Di ˆ (c ‡ 2ó c1 c2 ‡ c22 ) (3)
ðS 1

where the expression

5 AERODYNAMIC CONSIDERATIONS S
Aˆ (4)
c21 ‡ 2ó c1 c2 ‡ c22
Most of the published design data related to the biplane are
based on classical lifting-line theory and Munk’s stagger
is called the equivalent monoplane aspect ratio and
theorem [4,13]. For a biplane with elliptic planform wings
the added induced drag on one wing due to the proximity
S ˆ c1 b1 ‡ c2 b2 (5)
of the other is given by

ó L1 L2 is the total wing area.

¢Di ˆ (1)
ðqb1 b2 The equivalent monoplane span for the special case of
equal wing spans (í ˆ 1) can be computed [21] from the
where L1 , L2 and b1 , b2 are the lifts and spans respectively, relation
q is the dynamic pressure and ó is the Prandtl interference
factor (shown in Fig. 2), which depends on the ratio of gap be ˆ Kb (6)
to average span and on the ratio of the shorter to longer
span [21,22]. In practical configurations the ratio of gap to where Munk’s span factor is equal to
mean span ( H/b) is never less than 0.05 and never greater
than 0.25. r






2
The total added drag has twice the value of that for Kˆ (7)
single wing, so the total induced drag of a biplane is 1‡ó

Fig. 2 Prandtl’s interference factor over a limited range of the gap to mean span ratio [21]
G03200 # IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
130 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF

…S ³ ´
With all the approximations of the classical lifting-line 1 @ 1
Ck ˆ dS k (15a)
theory and Munk’s stagger theorem, which is the basis of 4ð 1234 @ n r k
the above considerations, its application is simple. The
results obtained can be compared with more accurate
…S
results generated by panel methods and in this sense 1 1
provide a check for accuracy, especially for higher aspect Bk ˆ ¡ dS k (15b)
4ð 1234 rk
ratio wings.
In this paper all design decisions and recommendations
have been based on results obtained from the application of and
panel methods for thick surfaces. Panel methods originate
N ˆ number of panels over the whole aircraft
from Laplace’s equation, ¢¼ ˆ 0, for the velocity potential
N w ˆ number of panels over the wake
¼ and disturbance velocity potential j [23, 24].
S1234 ˆ area of the kth panel
The solution of Laplace’s equation for the full velocity
potential has the following form: To investigate the effect of configuration changes, i.e.
… body ³ ´ … gap, stagger and tailplane position, a number of calcula-
1 @ 1 1 body 1 tions have been carried out to determine lift, induced drag,
¼(x, y, z) ˆ í dS ¡ ó dS ‡ ¼1
4ð wake @ n r 4ð r pitching moment and downwash. These results assisted in
(8) arriving at the preliminary configuration.
For these calculations it was assumed that both wings
were of the same geometry (constant section NACA 4409,
The boundary conditions are as follows: untwisted with an aspect ratio of 6, zero sweep, parallel
chord). The variables investigated were gap and stagger.
1. The inner Dirichlet condition on the surface of the body The decalage angle was initially assumed to be zero,
is although reference [25] suggests that a negative decalage
… body ³ ´ … of about ¡68 gives the best aerodynamic efficiency. In Figs
1 @ 1 1 body 1 3 and 4 the horizontal axis shows the dimensionless
í dS ¡ ó dS ˆ 0 (9)
4ð wake @ n r 4ð r coordinate ê/c, measured parallel to the wing chord, and
the vertical axis denotes the dimensionless pressure coeffi-
cient C p ˆ ( p ¡ p1 )/0.5 r1 V 21. The upper graphs of
where
Figs 3 and 4 show the pressure distribution over the upper
and lower surfaces of the top wing; the lower part of figure
Doublet strength: í ˆ ¡(¼ ¡ ¼i ) (10)
shows the same over the lower wing. Curves in Fig. 3,
Source strength: ó ˆ @ í=@ n (11) obtained at the root of wing (2 y=b ˆ 0) and at angle of
attack á ˆ 08, correspond to different gaps, H=b ˆ
2. The Kutta–Zhukovsky condition at the trailing edge is f0:0415, 0.083, 0.166}, and are compared with the curves
obtained for a single wing. It is seen that the negative
¢ p(x, y)TE ˆ 0 (12) pressure coefficient distribution over the upper surface
of the top wing and the positive pressure coefficient distri-
3. The condition on the wake is bution over the lower surface of bottom wing do not depend
on gap H/b since they are the same as for a single wing.
However, the positive pressure coefficient distribution over
@j(x, y) the lower surface of the top wing decreases and for the case
ˆ0 (13)
@x when the gap is equal to H =b ˆ 0:0415 the pressure
coefficient becomes negative. Overpressure occurs also at
If it is assumed that the inner velocity potential ¼i is equal H =b ˆ 0:083 and 0.116. This phenomenon may be
to the potential at infinity, ¼1 , then from equation (8) it is explained by the interference effect that one wing has on
possible to obtain an integral equation in the form of the other. For the largest gap ( H=b ˆ 0:166) there is little
equation (9). Equation (9) can be approximated by a set of difference from the isolated wing. However, as the gap is
linear equations with unknown strength of doublets í reduced, a strong outflow develops, which causes a de-
(being constant over each panel), i.e. crease in pressure. The effect on the upper surface of the
lower wing is negligible, particularly at the larger gaps.
N
X Nw
X N
X Only at the smallest gap ( H =b ˆ 0:0415) is the effect
C k ík ‡ C l íl ‡ Bkó k ˆ 0 (14) noticeable and then over the centre chord region.
kˆ1 lˆ1 kˆ1
Stagger strongly influences the pressure distribution over
the lower and upper surfaces of the top wing and the upper
where C k , Cl and B k are aerodynamic influence coeffi- surface of the bottom wing (see Fig. 4). Shifting the lower
cients: wing rearwards with respect to the top wing (x . 0)
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT
Fig. 3 Pressure distribution over the biplane (at the root of wing)
versus wing gap, á ˆ 08, x=c ˆ 0
involves a simultaneous increase in negative pressure
coefficient (over the upper surface) and of positive pressure
coefficient over the lower surface. The corresponding effect
on the lower wing is a decrease in upper surface negative
pressure coefficient, with little change to the positive
pressure coefficient on the lower surface. The overall effect
is an increase of lift on the top wing and a decrease of lift
on the bottom wing.
Figures 5 and 6 show spanwise lift distributions,
obtained after the integration of local pressures. For
unstaggered wings it is seen that the upper wing generates
slightly more lift than the lower wing. Stagger, positive or
negative, significantly affects the pressure distribution, and
hence lift, on the upper wing with respect to the
unstaggered arrangement.
The effect of stagger on the lower wing is to modify the
pressure distributions on the upper and lower surfaces.
However, as indicated in the lower part of Fig. 5 the
changes are less significant than for the upper wing. Figure
6 shows the effect of stagger on the total lift generated by
both wings acting together. Positive stagger (upper wing
ahead of lower wing) shows a significant but not large
increase in lift. The integration of the incremental lift
against span yields ¢CL ˆ 0:025. Stagger may be em-
ployed to improve visibility on landing, to aid stability or
for aesthetic reasons [21].
G03200 # IMechE 2001
131
Fig. 4 Pressure distribution over the biplane (at the root of the
wing) for three different staggers, á ˆ 08, H=b ˆ 0:083
Some general characteristics for aircraft having a biplane
configuration are shown in Figs 7 to 10. For simplicity an
uncambered, symmetrical wing section has been chosen
(NACA 0012). Figure 7 illustrates the effect of gap on the
pitching and drag coefficients, when the lift coefficient CL
is equal to 0.5. Two wing designs are examined, one
rectangular and one tapered with a taper ratio of 0.38. Both
are unswept, untwisted and have an aspect ratio AR ˆ 12.
The pitching moment and drag coefficients decrease
monotonically with relative gap, H/b. The single isolated
points at the edge of the figure denote the boundary values
where the gap goes to infinity. It is also clear from Fig. 7
that the pitching moment coefficient for a biplane, when
the relative gap is greater than 0.5, is approximately equal
to the corresponding value for the equivalent single wing.
This applies to both rectangular and tapered wing config-
urations.
The induced drag coefficient for a rectangular winged
biplane with a relative gap H =b ˆ 0:84 is very close to the
value for the equivalent single wing. However, for tapered
wings, the induced drag coefficient differs from the
corresponding value for the equivalent monoplane by
approximately 12 per cent. For small relative gaps
( H =b , 0:08) the induced drag coefficient of a biplane at
equilibrium (for CL ˆ 0:5) is almost twice the correspond-
ing value for a monoplane.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
132 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF
Fig. 5 Spanwise lift distribution, for top and bottom wings acting separately. Two different angles of attack
(á ˆ 58 for upper curves and á ˆ 08 for lower curves) and three different staggers, x=c ˆ ¡0:5, 0, 0.5;
H=b ˆ 0:083
The induced drag coefficients for biplanes with tapered
and rectangular wings are compared with those computed
on the basis of Prandtl– Munk’s biplane theory [equations
(2) and (3)] and are shown in Fig. 8 for a limited range of
relative gap. From this figure (corresponding to a wing
aspect ratio Am ˆ 12) it can be concluded that Prandtl–
Munk’s theory gives results consistent with those obtained
from panel methods. In particular there is good correlation
for tapered wings. Unswept, tapered wings have a spanwise
lift distribution very close to the ideal elliptic case and that
is the reason why the induced drag of tapered wings is
closer to that obtained from Prandtl–Munk’s theory. How-
ever, even for rectangular wings, the difference between
results obtained from panel methods and the Prandtl–Munk
theory is small, the largest difference being less than 2 per
cent.
Figures 9 and 10 compare the lift, drag, pitching moment
coefficients and the position of the centre of pressure for a
biplane of zero stagger (full curve) and for a monoplane
(single, isolated points), for both tapered (Fig. 9) and
rectangular (Fig. 10) wings. These have been computed
using the Hess panel method for thick wings [equations (8)
to (15)] with corresponding coefficients for thin wings
(broken curves), computed by use of a vortex lattice
method (VLM) [26]. Consistency of lift is satisfactory. To
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
explain why the induced drag (Figs 9 and 10) first increases
and then decreases, it is necessary to consider the graph of
lift against gap and how the aspect ratio of the equivalent
wing (see Section 6) varies with gap (see Table 2). The
graph of lift against gap (Figs 9 and 10) increases strongly
at small gaps and less steeply for gaps greater than 0.2.
Equivalent wing aspect ratios increase with gap uniformly.
At small gaps the induced drag increases because lift
increases and then decreases because of an increase in the
equivalent wing aspect ratio.
Downwash for thick wings has been computed by means
of panel methods (Figs 11 and 12). Firstly, the distribution
of doublets and sources was found. Then the velocities in
the vicinity of the horizontal tail (dimensionless tail arm
lH/c was assumed to be 5), induced by the distribution of
doublets and sources over the whole configuration, were
computed. Components of velocities, normal to the un-
disturbed flow velocity vector and divided by its value, give
the local downwash. Isolines of downwash (positive value
means that flow streams are deflected down, i.e. that they
decrease the angles of attack) are shown in Figs 11 and 12
and correspond to an angle of attack á ˆ 58.
Figure 11 shows the downwash behind a monoplane.
Isolines corresponding to the edge vortices as well as an
increase of local angle of attack, outside of the wing, are
G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT 133

Fig. 6 Spanwise lift distribution for biplane, for top and bottom wings acting together. Two different angles of
attack (á ˆ 58 for upper curves and á ˆ 08 for lower curves) and three different staggers (x=c ˆ ¡0:5, 0.0,
0.5); H=b ˆ 0:083

Fig. 7 Pitching moment and induced drag coefficients versus gap for fixed lift coefficient and changeable angle of
attack, x=c ˆ 0
G03200 # IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
134 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF

Fig. 8 Comparison of the induced drag coefficients between the results of panel methods and Prandtl –Munk’s
theory based on lifting line theory, x=c ˆ 0

Fig. 9 Lift, induced drag, pitching moment coefficients and centre of pressure location versus gap for fixed angle
of attack (tapered wings), x=c ˆ 0

seen very clearly. An increase of wing gap increases the
average downwash (Fig. 12).
6 EQUIVALENT WING
The aerodynamic characteristics of a biplane are related
to the area and chord of an equivalent wing. It is
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
usually assumed that the area of the equivalent wing is
equal to the whole area of both wings. However, the
equivalent chord may be computed by different meth-
ods. The classical mean aerodynamic chord (MAC)
definition, based on the assumption regarding the
equivalence of lifts and pitching moments between an
original wing of an arbitrary geometry and the equiva-
lent, rectangular wing, may be calculated according to
the formula
G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT 135

Fig. 10 Lift, induced drag, pitching moment coefficients and centre of pressure location versus gap for fixed angle
of attack (rectangular wings), x=c ˆ 0

Table 2 Biplane aspect ratio computed according to different models

H/b 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
r







4H
be ˆ 1 ‡ Equation (19a) 12.37 12.74 13.09 13.44 14.11
ð b
Ae ˆ b2e /Se Equation (19b) 6.38 6.76 7.14 7.53 8.30
ó Figure 2 0.78 0.655 0.561 0.485 0.370
2
Ae ˆp2b


e/S

e (1 ‡ ó )
 Equations (20), (5), (7) 6.74 7.25 7.69 8.08 8.76
be ˆ Ae Se Equation (21) 12.72 13.19 13.58 13.93 14.50
CL Panel method; Figure 10 0.6514 0.7476 0.7924 0.8183 0.8412
CD,ind Figure 10 0.019 98 0.024 25 0.025 67 0.025 97 0.025 62
Aef ˆ C2L /ðCD,ind Equations (22) 6.76 7.34 7.79 8.16 8.79
ä From Engineering Sciences Data Unit [27] 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.116
Ae ˆpAef

 
‡ ä)
/(1
 Equations (22) 6.06 6.58 6.98 7.31 7.88
be ˆ Ae Se Equation (23) 12.06 12.57 12.94 13.24 13.75

Fig. 11 Downwashes behind the monoplane in the vicinity of horizontal tail (l H =c ˆ 5, H =b ˆ 0:0415, x=c ˆ 0,
á ˆ 58)
G03200 # IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
136 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF
Fig. 12 Downwashes behind the biplane in the vicinity of horizontal tail (lH =c ˆ 5, H=b ˆ 0:083, x=c ˆ 0, á ˆ 58)
… b=2
c2 d y
MAC ˆ Ca ˆ … 0b=2
c dy
0
but cannot be applied directly to the biplane because this
formula does not include any dependence of pitching
moment on induced drag and lift on gap value.
Therefore, a different way to find the MAC needs to be
established. The vertical location of the MAC between both
wings (based on the equivalence of pitching moment) could
be found from the assumption that the induced drag forces
(generated on component wings) are proportional to both
wing areas. Lengths d1, d2 and h1 ¡ d 1, h2 ¡ d 2 can be
computed on the assumption that the moment of the drag
forces about a point at equivalent chord is equal to zero
(Fig. 13). The length of the MAC may be found according
to the formula [21]
rC au Su ‡ Cal S l
Ca ˆ
rSu ‡ Sl
where r is the relative efficiency of the upper wing (loading
of upper wing to loading of lower wing) and could be
Fig. 13
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
approximated from experimental data as a function of gap
and stagger. Cau and Cal denote the MACs separately
(16) computed for the upper and lower wings, from equation
(16). In this model the vertical and horizontal distances of
the leading edge of the MAC are found from the formulae
³ ´
eSu x(h1 ¡ d 1 )
d 1 ˆ h1 1 ¡ , xl ˆ (18)
eS u ‡ S i h1
where x denotes stagger, x1 the horizontal location of the
MAC leading edge in front of the lower wing leading edge
and other parameters are shown in Fig. 13.
To analyse performance it is necessary to know how drag
varies with lift. The induced drag component can be
computed by means of panel methods. Engineers very often
estimate this component from the aspect ratio of an
equivalent wing. Below two different ‘engineering ap-
proaches’ (models) and an approach based on a panel
method are reviewed. Numerical results obtained from all
three models are compared:
(17)
1. Prandtl’s model, based on the lifting line theory of
Prandtl and Glauert. Two horseshoe vortices, represent-
ing both circulations of the real wings of a biplane,
make it possible to compute the induced drag and
MAC location
G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT 137

pitching moment. The set of two horseshoe vortices can symbol of the parameter calculated and the second contains
be replaced by one, equivalent vortex, such that the the source equation or reference. The remaining columns
pitching moment of the biplane and that of the equiva- contain the calculated data for different gaps.
lent single wing are the same. An effective algorithm Assuming that the model based on the panel method
consists of computing the span of the equivalent wing, gives the most accurate results it is seen that both
MAC and aspect ratio according to the following simplified models (Prandtl’s and Prandtl– Munk’s) over-
formulae: estimate the aspect ratio of the equivalent monoplane wing.
s







 

 The relative error in the worst case is 11 per cent.
4 bl H
be ˆ bu 1 ‡ (19a)
ð b2u
7 RESULTS OF AERODYNAMIC AND DYNAMIC
b2e INVESTIGATIONS
Ae ˆ (19b)
Se
The following models have been selected for discussion.
where Ae and be are the aspect ratio and span of an
equivalent monoplane wing and Se is the whole biplane
wing area (Se ˆ Su ‡ Sl ). 7.1 Classical panel technique

2. The Prandtl–Munk model, based on lifting line theory Equations (8) to (15) have been used to find the steady
[12, 13, 21]. To compute the aspect ratio of the single, state aerodynamic characteristics. A three-surface model
equivalent wing, the Prandtl interference factor ó has to (biplane ‡ tailplane) has been established to compute lift,
be known. The aspect ratio can be found from the pitching moment, induced drag and downwash. Firstly, the
following formula: total weight, lifting area and wing span have been estab-
lished from statistical relations and the consideration of
2b2 bu ‡ bl similar aircraft. Then the wing chord and equivalent aspect
Ae ˆ , where b ˆ (20) ratio have been established. Selection of the gap and
Se (1 ‡ ó) 2
stagger has been carried out using panel methods (see Figs
Formula (20) is equivalent to equations (4) to (7), giving 14 to 17). From Fig. 14 it follows that increasing gap
the aspect ratio of the equivalent monoplane for the best increases the lift curve slope, especially in the range
lift distribution case. An equivalent aspect ratio Ae having 0:0415 , H =b , 0:166. Stagger has no influence on the lift
been found, the equivalent span can be computed as curve slope (Fig. 15).
The influence of gap and stagger on the pitching moment
p




be ˆ Ae Se (21) curve slope is shown in Figs 16 and 17. Pitching moment is
computed around point A, which is the mean quarter-chord
point. Figure 16 shows the relation between pitching
3. The model based on pressure distribution, obtained from moment around point A and point N (which is the neutral
panel methods. From the pressure distribution, the point of stability). Dynamic equations of motion, used in
induced drag and then the equivalent effective aspect Section 7.3 for the simulation of transient processes, relate
ratio can be found from the following formulae: to point A. It is important to ensure the mass centre
position, xC , after the water release does not go back
C 2L C 2L Aef beyond neutral point N (such a case is possible if the
C D,ind ˆ ! Aef ˆ ! Ae ˆ (22)
ðAef ðCD,ind 1‡ä

where the coefficient ä ˆ ä1 ä2 includes the influence of

sweep and taper ratio of an equivalent wing [24, 27]. The
span of the equivalent wing may be computed from the
following formula:
p




be ˆ Ae Se (23)

Aspect ratios of an equivalent monoplane wing which

replaces the wings of the corresponding biplane have been
computed according to the above three models. Table 2
gives the results for a biplane having the following
dimensions and angle of attack: cRu ˆ cTu ˆ cRl ˆ
cTl ˆ 1 m; bu ˆ bl ˆ 12 m; Se ˆ 2 3 12 m2 ˆ 24 m2 ;
Au ˆ Al ˆ 12; á ˆ 108. The first column contains the Fig. 14 Influence of gap on lift curve slope, x=c ˆ 0
G03200 # IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
138 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF

hopper centre of gravity position is far in front of the

aircraft centre of gravity position). The curves in Figs 16
and 17 indicate that as wing gap increases there is an
improvement of static longitudinal stability (the slope dCm /
dCL changes its value from positive to negative which
means that the neutral point of stability is shifted back).
Any change of stagger from the zero position, either
positive or negative, results in a shifting of the neutral point
of stability forward, thus reducing the margin of static
stability.
The general conclusion from Figs 14 and 16 is that, the
bigger the gap (in the range 0:0415 , H =b , 0:166), the
better the lift capacity and longitudinal stability. From Figs
Fig. 15 Influence of stagger on the lift curve slope, 15 and 17 it follows that the best choice is zero stagger.
H =b ˆ 0:083 However, non-zero stagger has no influence on lift capacity
and only a slight effect on stability margin. Factors other
than aerodynamic strongly influence the aircraft geometry.
For example, the need to have a tall hopper with provision
for rapid filling and the need to provide good cockpit
visibility. This has led to the selection of a gap of
H =b ˆ 0:083 and a stagger of x=c ˆ 0:44.
Figures 18 to 20 show average downwash curve slopes.
It is seen that these slopes decrease monotonically with
respect to tail arm lH /c (Fig. 18) and positive stagger
(x=c . 0) (Fig. 20). However, there exists a maximum with
respect to the gap H/b (Fig. 19). Longitudinal stability is
improved if the downwash is reduced and the tailplane is
stiff. For a compact design the tail arm must not be
overlong. As a compromise the tail arm length, lh /c, is
taken as 3.8.

7.2 Unsteady panel technique

In order to obtain an initial understanding of aircraft
behaviour under transient conditions, i.e. during water
bomb release, unsteady panel methods may be used to
Fig. 16 Pitching moment curve slope versus gap, x=c ˆ 0 compute the change in aerodynamic forces, moments and
downwash [28]. These forces and moments are functions of

Fig. 17 Pitching moment curve slope versus stagger, Fig. 18 Downwash curve slope versus tail arm, H =b ˆ 0:083,
H =b ˆ 0:083 x=c ˆ 0
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT
Fig. 19 Downwash curve slope versus gap, x=c ˆ 0,
lH =c ˆ 3:75
Fig. 20 Downwash curve slope versus stagger, H=b ˆ 0,
lH =c ˆ 3:75
various flight parameters, i.e. angle of attack, pitch angle,
trim parameters and time history.
It would be difficult to present such forces in a graphical
form as multivariable functions of all independent para-
meters, so these functions are shown as functions of time
(only) under the assumption that other variables (e.g. angle
of attack, pitch rate, flight speed, etc.) are fixed and equal
to that of the steady state flight condition. Figure 21 shows
the lifting force and pitching moment coefficients for the
wing and body configuration (excluding horizontal tail)
over a time interval equal to 1 s, that is the time for the
contents of the hopper to be released. During this time the
water column emerging from the aircraft extends to about
5 m in length.
7.3 Flight dynamics investigation
Initial work has shown that aircraft dynamic response is
strongly influenced by the change of total mass of the
aircraft and the position of its centre of gravity. For this
fire-fighting aircraft, the change of weight can be as high
as 60 per cent of the total all-up weight. All further
dynamic simulations have been computed under the
G03200 # IMechE 2001
139
assumption that the water bomb is dropped in a period of
1 s and that the aircraft is not controlled during the
following 20 s (i.e. elevator deflection and the power unit
thrust are the same as before water release). Unbalanced
pitching moment can rapidly change aircraft pitch angle
and angle of attack. In some cases this phenomenon may
lead to stall. The aircraft response depends on two opposing
phenomena: (a) after water release the aircraft goes up, so
there is an additional downward component of velocity
which decreases the angle of attack; (b) pitching moment
due to the empty hopper acts either nose up (under the
assumption that the hopper centre gravity position is placed
forward of the mass centre), which means that the angle of
attack increases, or nose down (under the assumption that
the hopper centre gravity position is behind of the mass
centre), which means that angle of attack decreases.
Theoretically the angle of attack can increase or decrease,
depending on the relationship between these two, above-
mentioned effects. In practice the first effect (i.e. decreas-
ing angle of attack due to vertical motion of aircraft) is
greater than the second effect corresponding to change in
pitching moment. For illustrative purposes, calculations
have been carried out on a concept aircraft having a biplane
configuration. Apart from the hopper system with its
release mechanism and strengthened undercarriage, all
remaining structural components have been taken from an
existing PZL agricultural aircraft, the PZL-106 ‘Kruk’. The
fire-fighting aircraft has been given the designation PZL-
240 ‘Pelikan’. To compute a dynamic response for this
aircraft, a set of dynamic equations of motion has been
written in the body axis system. The origin of the axis
system coincides with the mean quarter-chord point A: the
AxA axis is directed forward of the aircraft along the MAC
and the AzA axis is perpendicular to AxA and is directed
downward. Equations of motion, together with kinematic
relations, have the following form:
_ ‡ m(xc ¡ xA )Q2 ˆ X ¡ mg sin õ
m( U_ ‡ QW ) ¡ mzc Q
m( W _ ‡ mzc Q2 ˆ Z ‡ mg cos õ
_ ‡ QU ) ‡ m(xc ¡ xA ) Q
_ ‡ m(xc ¡ xA ) W
J yQ _ ¡ m(xc ¡ xA )UQ ¡ mzc U_ ¡ mzc QW
ˆ M ‡ mgzc sin õ ‡ mg(xc ¡ xA ) cos õ
x_ 0 ˆ U cos õ ‡ W sin õ
z_ 0 ˆ ¡U sin õ ‡ W cos õ
(24)
where õ denotes pitch angle, Q the pitch rate, U, W are the
velocity components along x, z axes, xC , zC the coordinates
of mass centre in the design system of axes (fixed to the
mass centre, axis xC directed back of the aircraft parallel to
MAC, axis zC directed up perpendicularly to MAC), X, Z,
M the lift, drag and pitching moment and x0 , z0 the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
140 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF

Fig. 21 Lift and pitching moment coefficient versus time (á ˆ 58, wing ‡ body only)

Fig. 22 Influence of the hopper centre of gravity position on transient angle of attack after water release

coordinates of aircraft position in the ground fixed axis
system (x0 axis is parallel to the ground, directed along the
aircraft speed; z0 is vertical downwards).
Figures 22 to 25 show results of the simulation
determined from equations (24). Figure 22 shows the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
variation of angle of attack after water release in four cases,
corresponding to four positions of the centre of gravity, i.e.
15, 23, 27 and 32 per cent, measured with respect to MAC
nose. From this figure it can be concluded that the
smoothest transient response occurs when the aircraft
G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT 141

Fig. 23 Influence of the hopper centre of gravity position on transient pitch rate after water release

Fig. 24 Influence of the hopper centre of gravity position on transient speed after water release

centre of gravity is close to the centre of gravity of the
hopper (i.e. 23 and 27 per cent). Moving the hopper centre
of gravity back to the 32 per cent position changes trim
conditions (á decreases from 7.38 to 78). After water is
released from the hopper, the angle of attack decreases by
G03200 # IMechE 2001
about 7o , practically independently of hopper position.
Pitch rate (Fig. 23) changes very rapidly, but its maximum
value is moderate (¹ 0:15 rad=s) and it quickly returns to
zero. Because it has a relatively high moment of inertia, J y,
the aircraft is much more liable to displace vertically than
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
142 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF
Fig. 25 Influence of the hopper centre of gravity position on aircraft trajectory after water release
to rotate about the C y axis. This aircraft is very stable in
pitch which is advantageous for fire-fighting manoeuvres.
On release of the load, the aircraft speed surges and then
decreases. The surge is most severe when the hopper is
located well forward. This effect occurs because, following
release from the hopper in the forward position, there is a
large shift of the centre of gravity to the rear. The equation
mH‡E xH‡E ˆ mH xH ‡ mE xE
clearly indicates the effect. The symbols xH xE denote mass
centre positions, m denotes the mass value and suffixes
E,H refer to the empty aircraft and to the hopper
respectively. The further back the empty aircraft mass
centre position is located, the smaller the stability margin
and the less stable the aircraft is after water release.
Figure 25 shows flight altitude after water release. It is
clearly seen that altitude increases, independently of the
hopper position. On the basis of the above analysis (Figs 22
to 25) it can be concluded that hopper position does not
strongly influence the aircraft’s flight dynamics (under the
assumption that the hopper is placed in the vicinity of the
aircraft’s centre of mass). Shifting the hopper away from
the aircraft’s centre of mass reduces longitudinal stability
and increases the time response after water release.
7.4 Coherence of the liquid column
To find the conditions for water column coherence, giving
a bomb effect, it is necessary to develop a CFD model or to
perform a number of experimental tests. Because both the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
experiments and the CFD analysis are far beyond the scope
of this paper, experience gained by PZL and designers of
other fire-fighting aircraft has been used to design the
hopper. Its dimensions were assumed to be 1:2 m 3
2:0 m 3 2:5 m. A relatively high aspect ratio (2.08) ensures
a high hydrostatic pressure at its base and allows water
discharge in a short time. However, to optimize the water
release a suitable CFD model needs to be developed [20].
(25)
8 SPECIFIC DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED
AIRCRAFT
The concept aircraft, the PZL-240 ‘Pelikan’ referred to in
Section 7.3, has been configured as a specialized forest-
fire-fighting aircraft although it has become apparent that
other roles are possible. Consideration has been given to
some of the design details required. The basic requirement
has been for an aircraft with a capability of delivering 4 t of
fire-extinguishing agent, normally water with additives, in
a release time of 1 s. Other less demanding release modes
may be employed depending on requirements. For example,
division of the hopper into four compartments separated by
vertical baffles to prevent sloshing has made it possible for
separate release of the contents of each compartment. A
novel design philosophy not available in aircraft of similar
capacity used by forestry services allows the aircraft to be
used for agricultural tasks, such as pest control, fertilizing,
land reclamation and aerial application of specialist treat-
ments. This may be achieved by modification of the outlet
G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT 143

system to accommodate granulates or liquid sprays. For

example, the design of the base of the hopper and the gate
allows for a controlled output of viscous liquids for land
reclamation. A change of outlet system allows the aircraft
to spread granulates, at a range of dosage rates, including
very high rates, or to spray liquids.
The aircraft may operate in a number of different fire-
fighting roles. For example, it may operate for fire
detection and location, carrying the maximum load of 4 t
of fire-extinguishing agent having a flight duration of
1.5 h. Alternatively, with a payload of 3 t operating in the
surveillance role it has a duration of 5 h.
The aircraft has been fitted with a control system which
allows additive liquid to be introduced to the hopper in
flight. It may be a frothing or wetting agent as required,
supplied from a separate tank or from the original
commercial packing. The loading of the extinguishing
agent may be performed by outboard systems, by use of the
aircraft’s own pump and piping system or in flight from a
suitable water surface using a retractable probe.
In this design concept, the hopper with reinforced
structure and landing gear make up the central and main
assembly of the aircraft structure. All other assemblies have
been attached to this. These include the wings, the power
plant with engine mounting, the rear fuselage with pilot’s
cockpit and tail unit as well as the landing gear including
nose wheel. Composites have been suggested for hopper
construction. Four loading ports on the upper hopper
surface allow rapid loading of fire-fighting agent on the
ground. The lower part of the hopper contains four gates,
which may be opened in any configuration and to any
degree, as required. Jacks controlling the gate opening have
been located in the cockpit. Fig. 26 Configuration of the Pelikan PZL-240
A biplane configuration has been selected (Fig. 26). The
pilot’s cabin, rear part of fuselage with control surfaces and
the wings originate from the PZL-106 ‘Kruk’ aircraft (Fig.
27). The hermetically sealed cabin has high strength and
the design has been proven over many years of operation. unprepared landing fields. In order to ensure quick ground
The cabin may take a load factor of 40 g in the flight handling the nose wheel has been made steerable. These
direction. The operation of the ‘Kruk’ aircraft has demon- features, together with high static thrust and the reversing
strated that this has contributed to pilot survival, even capabilities of the propeller, shorten the take-off and
during very serious plane crashes. The air-tight cabin has landing distances, thus allowing it to operate from landing
been designed to provide the pilot with clean air delivered fields localized within forest areas.
to the cabin through an exchangeable chemical filter A Pratt and Whitney type PW-120 turboprop engine has
cartridge. The cabin has been configured ergonomically been selected as the power plant. It has a take-off rating of
giving good ground visibility while allowing the pilot to 2000 hp. A constant speed Hamilton STD propeller with a
operate all fire-fighting systems and to maintain ‘hands- diameter of 3.8 m has been selected. This minimizes the
on’ operation of the flying controls. landing run and enables operation from small landing
The high maximum lift coefficient of the wings makes it strips. The engine air inlet channel has been fitted with a
possible for the aircraft to perform tight turns—an filtration system, which includes an anti-dust inertial filter.
important characteristic for fire-fighting manoeuvres. They A container in the form of an oblong, tapered box has
have very mild stall characteristics and have been well been provided under the rear part of the fuselage. It has
proven in operation. All these components have been in been fitted with appropriate fastenings and clamps,
production and have proven reliability. enabling it to be used for transporting specialized auxiliary
The landing gear has been configured with a high- equipment, e.g. refilling hoses (Fig. 28).
amplitude shock absorber and large-diameter, low-pressure Significant dimensions and performance data have been
tyres enabling the aircraft to operate from uneven or computed for the aircraft at sea level, I SA [29, 30]:
G03200 # IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
144 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF

Fig. 27 PZL-240 and its main elements. Assemblies originating from PZL-106 aircraft have ‘hatched’ surfaces

Span 15.5 m water which may be maintained in the hopper for 1 h when
Wing chord 2m consuming 1 l of fuel.
Length 11 m The high lift wing originating from the PZL-104 allows
Wheel track 3.6 m the aircraft to perform tight turns. The full turn time (t) is
Wheel base 3.2 m given by
Lifting area 65 m2
Tailplane area 10 m2 2ðV
t ˆ p





 (26)
Vertical tail unit area 4.5 m2 g n2 ¡ 1
Tailplane volume ratio 0.57
Hopper for extinguishing agent 6000 l where n is the load coefficient. The higher the maximum
Hopper for additives 100 l lift coefficient CLmax , the higher the load coefficient n and
Capacity of fuel tanks 1150 l the shorter the turn time t. Calculations indicate that the
Empty mass 3000 kg Pelikan PZL-240 has a shortest full turn time of 30 s. By
Maximum take-off mass (restricted category) 7500 kg comparison, the Ayres Thrush has a more efficient wing
Maximum speed 230 km/h
Operational speed 170 km/h
Stalling speed 80 km/h
Rate of climb 4.5 m/s
Take-off run (grass) 270 m
Landing run with reverse 250 m
Range 1000 km
Endurance (with 4000 kg of agent) 1.5 h
Patrol endurance (with 3000 kg of agent) 5h

9 COMPARISON WITH COMPETITORS

Some performance characteristics of other fire-fighting

aircraft have been analysed and included in Table 3. The
last two columns provide parameters which identify opera-
Fig. 28
tional cost: (a) mass of agent divided by the fuel
consumption and (b) cost. Both represent the economical
efficiency of the fire control aircraft. Mass of agent to the
fuel consumption expresses the number of kilograms of
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
Fire-extinguishing system layout: 1, four-chamber hop-
per of 6 m 3 volume; 2, hopper for additives; 3, electric
pump; 4, water gauge; 5, self-refilling unit; 6, valve; 7,
refilling hose; 8, probe for in-flight refilling in retracted
position; 9, probe for in-flight refilling in refilling
position
G03200 # IMechE 2001
 AERODYNAMIC, DYNAMIC AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A FIRE-FIGHTING AIRCRAFT 145

Table 3 Comparison between selected fire-fighting aircraft

Mass of agent
Maximum (kg) to the fuel
take-off Amount of Engine and Take-off consumption Cost (approximate)
Number Aircraft mass (kg) agent (kg) rating (h.p.) run (m) (kg h/l) (31000 US$)
1 Schweizer AG-CAT 3 200 1 300 Turbine PT6 A34AG, 210 1300=160 ˆ 8:1 500
Super-B-Turbine 750
2 PZL-106-BT Turbo- 3 500 1 500 Turbine M601D, 750 240 1500=180 ˆ 8:3 400
‘Kruk’
3 M-18 Dromader 4 700 1 800 Piston Asz-62, 1000 245 1800=210 ˆ 8:6 500
4 AN-2 5 500 1 200 Piston Asz-62, 1000 170 1200=240 ˆ 5:0 No longer in production
5 Canadair CL-215T 21 000 6 000 Turbine PW-123, 450 6000=600 ˆ 10:0 4.500
2 3 2300
6 PZL-240 Pelikan 7 500 4 000 Turbine PW-120, 2000 270 4000=280 ˆ 14:3 1.300

and a higher maximum speed but has the shortest full turn
time of 60 s.
10 CONCLUSIONS
A number of features relating to the design and operation
of a fire-fighting aircraft have been addressed. Areas
requiring further research have been identified. The latter
include an investigation of the interaction between the air
flowing around the aircraft and the water column as it
emerges from and leaves the hopper and the hopper design
optimization which has to be investigated to ensure that it
is capable of releasing a coherent column of water and that
it reaches the ground without excessive dissipation. It has
been found that shifting the hopper away from the aircraft
centre of mass worsens longitudinal stability and increases
time response after water release.
Design areas include the hopper as the main assembly of
the aircraft and its corresponding reinforcements. Special
attention has to be given to the hopper control systems and
nozzles. Comparison between selected fire-fighting aircraft
shows that Pelikan PZL-240 has significant advantages
over existing fire-fighting aircraft.
Three different codes of panel methods have been used,
namely (a) classical steady panel method for thick wings
and bodies, (b) the unsteady version applicable for change-
able configurations and (c) the VLM used for steady flow
analysis around thin wings. All these methods have been
used to compute pressure distributions and aerodynamic
characteristics. It has been found that increasing the gap
decreases the induced drag monotonically (under the
assumption that lifting force coefficient is constant).
Effects of stagger have been analysed and it has been found
that positive stagger increases the induced drag and
simultaneously shifts the neutral point of static stability
forward (which is undesirable). The important part of this
paper has been to compare some computational methods
using the equivalent monoplane and giving selected algo-
rithms for computing the equivalent wing. After simula-
tions it has been suggested that the best method for
G03200 # IMechE 2001
designing the equivalent wing is that based on pressure
distribution by means of the panel method. Although the
method of analysis (i.e. panel methods) is dated, and the
biplane configuration is regarded by many as obsolete, the
application of these methods to biplanes is, as far as the
authors are aware, original and innovatory. It seems that the
biplane configuration provides a good solution for long
endurance patrol with high capacity hopper and fire-
fighting flights, mainly because of its compact design
arrangement and short time, small turn radius.
REFERENCES
1 Taylor, B. Aerial applicators diversify. Air Int., August 1998,
55(2), 111–114.
2 Nicholls, M. Agricultural aircraft survey. Air Int., August
1998, 55(2), 115–118.
3 Air Tractor—the initial attack firefighter AT-802F. Technical
specification, booklet prepared for Paris Air Show, 1999.
4 Laitone, E. V. Ideal tail load for minimum aircraft drag.
J. Aircr., March 1978, 15(3), 190–192.
5 Shevell, R. S. Comment on ‘Ideal tail load for minimum
aircraft drag’. J. Aircr., September 1978, 15(9), 639.
6 Laitone, E. V. Reply. J. Aircr., September 1978, 15(9),
639 –640.
7 Laitone, E. V. Positive tail loads for minimum induced drag
of subsonic aircraft. J. Aircr., December 1978, 15(12),
837 –842.
8 Laitone, E. V. Prandtl’s biplane theory applied to canard and
tandem aircraft. J. Aircr., April 1980, 17(4), 233–237.
9 Butler, G. F. Effect of downwash on the induced drag of
canard–wing combinations. J. Aircr., May 1982, 19(5),
410 –411.
10 Kroo, I. M. Minimum induced drag of canard configurations.
J. Aircr., September 1982, 19(9), 792–794.
11 Kendall, E. R. The minimum induced drag, longitudinal trim
and static longitudinal stability of two-surface and three-
surface airplanes. In AIAA Second Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, Seattle, August 1984, paper AIAA-84-2164.
12 Durand, W. F. Aerodynamic Theory, Vol. 2, 1934, pp. 146–
151, 216–221 (Springer, Berlin).
13 Prandtl, L. Induced drag of multiplanes. NACA TN 182,
March 1924.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
146 Z GORAJ, A FRYDRYCHEWICZ, E C P RANSOM, A SELF AND P WAGSTAFF
14 Dupont, J. Premier vol de’lOutrider. Air Cosmos-Aviat. Int.,
28 March 1997, (1606), 20.
15 Wood, D. Jane’s World Aircraft Recognition Handbook, 4th
edition, 1989 (Butler and Tanner, London).
16 Bednarek, K., Danilecki, S., Frydrychewicz, A., Goraj, Z.,
et al. Conceptual design of high altitude reconnaissance
unmanned aerial vehicle—HARVE. Warsaw University of
Technology, Institute of Aeronautics and Applied Mechanics,
Warsaw, 1995 (unpublished).
17 Nenadovitch, M. Recherches sur les Cellules Biplane Rigides
d’Envergure Infine, 1936 (Publications Scientifiques et Tech-
niques du Ministere de L’Air, Institut Aerotechnique de Saint-
Cyr, Paris).
18 Norton, F. H. Effect of staggering a biplane. NACA TN 70,
1972.
19 Goraj, Z., Frydrychewicz, A. and Winiecki, J. Design
concept of a high altitude long endurance unmanned aerial
vehicle. Aircr. Des. Int. J., 1999, 2(1), 19 –44.
20 Anderson Jr, J. D. Computational Fluid Dynamics, 1995
(McGraw-Hill, New York).
21 Jones, B. Elements of Practical Aerodynamics, 1939 (John
Wiley, New York).
22 Glauert, H. The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew
Theory, 2nd edition, 1947 (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge).
23 Hess, J. L. and Smith, A. M. O. Calculation of potential flow
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part G
about arbitrary bodies. In Progress in Aeronautical Sciences,
Vol. 8 (Ed. D. Küchemann), 1967, pp. 1–138 (Pergamon,
Oxford).
24 Katz, J. and Plotkin, A. Low-Speed Aerodynamics—From
Wing Theory to Panel Methods, 1991 (McGraw-Hill, New
York).
25 Olson, E. C. and Selberg, B. P. Experimental determination
of improved aerodynamic characteristics utilising biplane
wing configurations. J. Aircr., 1976, 13(4), 256–261.
26 Bertin, J. J. and Smith, M. L. Aerodynamics for Engineers,
1989 (Prentice-Hall, London).
27 ESDU data sheets, sub-series Aerodynamics, No. 66031,
October 1996 (Engineering Sciences Data Unit, London).
28 Blaszczyk, P., Grabowski-Goetzendorf, T., Goraj, Z. and
Sznajder, J. Modelling of unsteady flow about a fire fighting
aircraft dropping the water bomb. In 36th Aerospace Meeting
and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 1998, AIAA paper 98-0763.
29 Frydrychewicz, A. PZL-240 ‘PELIKAN’—proposal of de-
sign. Report, PZL-Warszawa-Okecie, Warsaw, 1996 (unpub-
lished).
30 Frydrychewicz, A., Goraj, Z., Ransom, E. C. P. and Wagstaff,
P. Firefighting aircraft of medium capacity—from concept to
design layout. In Proceedings of the Third Seminar on Recent
Research and Design Progress in Aeronautical Engineering and
Its Influence on Education, Institute of Aeronautics and Applied
Mechanics Bulletin 9, 1999, pp. 181–194.
G03200 # IMechE 2001
View publication stats