International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering

e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

AVIA
Original Article

Conceptual Design of Military Advanced Jet Trainer

Aircraft AT-165 Otus
R Nuralamsyah 1, S E Harlan 1, J Bernard 1,*, M G Wafi 1, M Kusni 1
1 Aerospace of Engineering, Bandung Insititute of Technology, Jalan Ganesha No. 10 Bandung 40132,
Indonesia
* Correspondence: josephbernard@students.itb.ac.id; Tel.: +62-857-5202-4880

Received: date; Accepted: date; Published: date

To increase the technological development independence and maintain its sovereignty, an advanced
jet trainer with MTOW of 8500 kg and able to perform air patrol and light attack missions is needed.
The development starts with conceptual design and continues with preliminary analysis and
iterations on the design to fulfill the design requirements. The result of conceptual design was an
aircraft capable of performing air patrol mission with a combat radius of 590 nmi with two air-to-
air missiles, light attack mission with a combat radius of 489 nmi with 2210 kg of air-to-ground
ordnance, and up to 4.3 hours of advanced training sessions by having adequate aerodynamic
efficiency, controllability, and exceptional performance, with competitive development, acquisition,
and operational costs. Thus, the AT-165 Otus may increase the Indonesian defense capability.
However, further analysis is required to ensure the capability of the AT-165 Otus to perform the
required mission.

Keywords: aircraft design; advanced trainer; air patrol; light attack

1. Introduction
Every country needs an adequate defense and military system to maintain its sovereignty. This
task is particularly challenging for Indonesia which has a 1.9 million km² territorial area. Defense
equipment (‘alutsista’, alat utama sistem senjata) is essential to maintain Indonesian territorial integrity
and sovereignty. Independence of national defense industry ensures the availability of these defense
equipment. Indonesia will also be able to make and integrate defense equipment; freely choose
materials, systems, or technology; and detachment of external parties [1]. One of these defense
equipment is an advanced jet trainer which can prepare air force pilots for modern aerial warfare on
4.5-generation or even fifth-generation fighter jets. This advanced jet trainer can also be a cost-
effective alternative to the more expensive fighter jets to defend Indonesian territorial sovereignty.
This paper discusses the conceptual design of an indigenous Indonesian medium-sized
advanced jet trainer with potential cooperation with other countries. The aircraft is planned to be
available by 2030 using the latest proven technology with an MTOW of 8500 kg and cruising speed
of at least Mach 0.85 at 30000 ft. The aircraft is to be used as a transitional trainer for student pilots
before flying larger fighter jets such as the Sukhoi Su-27, Dassault Rafale, Boeing F-15EX, and KF-21
Boramae. It can also be used to perform air patrol missions to safeguard the Indonesian airspace and
light ground attack mission to support troops on the ground.

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year, page 1-5 doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 2
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

2. Materials and Methods

The aircraft design process is performed to fulfill a given design requirements and objectives
(DRO). In general, the design process follows the workflow as illustrated in Figure 1, which can be
divided into 2 stages, i.e., conceptual design and preliminary analysis stage. Several existing aircraft
with similar weights and operation concepts are studied in the former stage as initial guidance to
accelerate the process. The initial sizing of the aircraft is then synthesized once the aircraft concept
has been established. In the latter stage, several analyses and sizing iterations are performed to ensure
the designed aircraft meets the DRO. Some design methods used in these stages are explained briefly
in the following section.

Figure 2. Mission profile for air

Figure 1. Aircraft design process flowchart. patrol and light attack mission.

The aircraft conceptual design was established by studying various aircraft configuration
thoroughly, i.e., wing planform and position, fuselage section shape, landing gear configuration, and
number of engines. Various alternatives of configuration were then compared and selected by
considering the designed aircraft’s mission profile derived from the DRO mission, as shown in Figure
2. Matching chart, as shown in Figure 3, was used to map the possible design area in terms of wing
and thrust loading based on DRO. A design point was chosen from the matching chart as the most
optimum point that fulfills all requirements. The selected configuration sizing was done based on the
design point and several additional considerations. The matching chart and design point parameters
are shown in Figure 3 and Table 1, respectively. From these parameters, with additional weight
estimation method as proposed by Roskam [2], aircraft sizing can be conducted. On the other hand,
the additional considerations include more technical aspects, e.g., high subsonic phenomenon,
aircraft components interaction, general stability, etc. These considerations were mainly derived from
Roskam [2] [3], Raymer [4], and Sadraey [5], and also from the existing similar aircrafts.

Table 1. Aircraft Design Point Parameters

Parameter Value
Wing Loading 3580 N/m²
Thrust Loading 0.425 N/N
1.5 (Cruise),
Target 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 1.7 (Take-off),
1.9 (Landing)

Target (𝐶𝐿 /𝐶𝐷 )𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 9.5

Figure 3. Matching chart of AT-165 Otus.

Several preliminary analyses were conducted to evaluate the compliance of the designed aircraft
to the given requirements and objectives. These analyses are: (1) aerodynamic analysis, (2) weight

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 3
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

and balance analysis, (3) stability and control analysis, (4) performance analysis, and (5) cost analysis.
The first analysis was performed by estimating the aerodynamic characteristics of the designed
aircraft using United States Air Force (USAF) DATCOM and NASA’s OpenVSP softwares, with some
adjustments using empirical methods proposed by Raymer [4] for the additional drag estimation due
to the presence of external payloads. The estimated characteristics were then compared to the value
associated with the design point parameters.
Weight and balance analysis was done by breaking down the aircraft’s gross take-off weight into
the operational empty, payload, and fuel weight. For initial guess of the empty weight, the fuel
fraction method and some statistical study was used, in which the MTOW and empty weight
obtained are 8500 kg and 4128 kg, respectively. The author used some statistical equations based
upon existing aircrafts as proposed by Raymer [4], Roskam [6], and Sadraey [5] to obtain the
approximate weight of each component and system of the aircraft. The fuel and payload weights
were based upon numerical approximation of the fuel capacity and mission payload definition,
respectively. The centroid of aircraft’s components was approximated by their geometries or using
the assumptions proposed by Roskam [6]. Thus, the center of gravity of the aircraft can be obtained.
Furthermore, using various loading cases plotted into the so-called ‘Center of Gravity Excursion
Diagram’, the most forward and most aft location of the aircraft’s center of gravity was obtained.
Based on the obtained aircraft’s CG range, stability and control analysis is conducted to ensure
both stability and controllability of the designed configuration. In the conducted analysis, the
aircraft’s stability was evaluated based on its static margin and aerodynamic derivative coefficients,
which were derived based on reference [4] and [7], and using DATCOM and OpenVSP software for
estimating the aerodynamic coefficients. For the control analysis, the author analyzed the capability
of horizontal tailplane (HTP) on controlling the aircraft longitudinally, which is mainly based on the
method in [7], and the needed trim configuration by evaluating its aerodynamic coefficients.
For the performance analysis, the installed engine thrust was initially estimated using an
approximate equation suggested from reference [8]. Engine and specific fuel consumption (SFC)
charts were then constructed, where the tracing and scale-up data method from reference [9] was
used for constructing the engine chart. For the specific fuel consumption (SFC) chart, an approximate
equation from reference [9] and [10] was used. The chart of available thrust versus required thrust
could then be plotted. The available thrust and the required thrust were obtained from engine chart
data and by computing flight path angle data, respectively. By calculating the drag term based on the
required thrust, performance analysis was performed using equations from reference [11].
Maximum rate of climb was obtained from the maximum excess power value for a given
condition and divided it with its weight. Service ceiling was calculated when maximum rate of climb
value is equal to 0.508 m/s. Cruise analysis was performed by calculating range and endurance of air
patrol and light attack mission. To simplify analysis, only the range and endurance for flight phases
with significant effect on fuel consumption, i.e., cruise, dash in/dash out, loiter, and maneuver was
computed. Stall performance was computed by assuming for landing configuration. Finally, the flight
envelope was made from reference [12] and MIL-A-8861B. From reference [12], on military aircraft
with limit load larger than three, the gust envelope is not critical and will not be drawn.
Cost analysis is performed based on the method and formulas proposed by Roskam [13], with
which the acquisition cost and estimated aircraft price is obtained. Furthermore, calculations are also
done to determine the Research, Development, Test, and Engineering (RDTE) cost and
manufacturing cost. All those aspects as well as the projected profit affect the final aircraft price
estimate. Thus, the required budget to develop and manufacture the AT-165 Otus can be estimated.

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 4
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

3. Results

3.1. Aircraft Configuration

3.1.1. General Configuration

The general design of AT-165 Otus is shown in Figure 4, with some detailed parameters for wing
and tail given in Table 2. The shown configuration illustrates the loaded configuration, where
external payloads/store and pylons are installed. The pylons can be uninstalled for different operation
purposes. AT-165 Otus uses one turbofan engine which lies inside the fuselage.

Figure 4. General configuration of AT-165 Otus. Dimensions are in millimeters unless stated
otherwise.

Table 2. Wing and Tail of AT-165 Otus Geometry Parameters

Value
Geometry Parameter Unit
Wing HTP VTP
Area [m ]
2 23.29 6.75 4.80
Aspect Ratio - 5.0 3.5 1.3
Span [m] 10.79 4.86 2.5
Swept Angle [deg] 28.5 33.5 40
Taper Ratio - 0.43 0.36 0.38
MAC [m] 2.27 1.49 2.05
Root Chord [m] 3.02 2.04 2.78
Tip Chord [m] 1.30 0.73 1.06
Incidence Angle [deg] 2 0 0
Twist Angle [deg] 0 0 0
Dihedral Angle [deg] 0 0 0
Airfoil (Root to Tip) - NACA 64A-406 NACA 0006 NACA 0009

3.1.2. Power Plant

AT-165 Otus will use the low-bypass turbofan engine Turbo-Union RB199-34R-04 Mk.105, which
fulfil thrust required from the design point. Furthermore, the engine has better performance both in
low and high altitude compared to the other engine. As the required thrust can be obtained without

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 5
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

afterburner, a non-afterburning version of the engine will be used. The weight of this non-
afterburning version was approximated from other engines’ data with both afterburning and non-
afterburning versions. Table 3 shows the general data for the engine.

3.1.3. Aircraft Systems and Internal Layout

AT-165 flight control system uses conventional flight control surfaces, namely the aileron, and
rudder. all-moving horizontal tailplane (HTP) was used for longitudinal control. fly-by-wire control
system is employed to enhance the controllability and maneuverability of the AT-165 Otus. RB199-
34R-04 Mk.105 employs FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) so that the engine can
perform most efficiently under various circumstances.

Table 3. General Data of RB199-34R-

04 Mk.105 Engine

Parameter Value
Manufacturer Turbo-Union
Type Low Bypass Turbofan
Length 1970 mm
Diameter 890 mm
Dry Weight 780 kg (approx.)
Maximum Dry
42.95 kN
Thrust Figure 5. Illustration of the internal layout of
Bypass Ratio 1.1 systems of the AT-165 Otus.
SFC 1.75 × 10-5 (kg/s)/N

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Internal fuel tank

geometry: (a) integral wing tank; (b) Figure 7. Summary of the weapons pylons of AT-165
fuselage bladder tank. Otus.

The fuel system of the AT-165 Otus consists of pumps, valves, measurement systems, as well as
the fuel tanks itself. The AT-165 Otus has four internal fuel tanks, with options of adding external
fuel tanks (“drop tanks”) on its pylons. An integral fuel tank (“wet-wing”) is placed inside each wing
of the aircraft, and two bladder tanks inside the fuselage: upper and lower fuselage tanks, as
illustrated in Figure 6. The upper fuselage tank is trapezoidal-prismoid shaped and the lower
fuselage tank is a triangular prism shaped.

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 6
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

The electronics system or avionics employed are of the latest generation to prepare the student
pilots for modern aerial warfare with the avionics data bus based on MIL-STD-1553B standard. This
enables the aircraft to use a variety of armaments, including guided and unguided weapons (bombs,
rockets, etc.), air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, a gun pod, and a targeting pod. Targeting pod
enables the AT-165 to perform night-time close air support. The AT-165 Otus offers to integrate
various weapons system, including those from NATO, Russia, China, or other countries.
The AT-165 Otus has a two-crew cockpit for the student pilot and instructor with a tandem
configuration, equipped with Martin-Baker Mk.16 ejection seats. The cockpit itself uses the glass-
cockpit configuration with HOTAS (hand-on-throttle-and-stick). Some of the avionics equipment
used are shown in Table 4.
The AT-165 Otus is equipped with five hardpoints/pylons for external storage. These hardpoints
can be used to carry various armaments and external fuel tanks with a total capacity of up to 3100 kg,
which are summarized in Figure 7.

Table 4. Avionics Equipment of AT-165 Otus

Item Type Item Type

Embedded GPS/INS Honeywell H-764 Display and Controls Elbit eLAD
FMS Collins MFMS-1000 Head-Up Display BAE LiteHUD
Rockwell Collins BAE Systems
ADF IFF/SSR
AN/ARN-149(V) AN/APX-118(V)
Rockwell Collins
TACAN L3Harris TACAN+ VOR/ILS
AN/ARN-147(V)
R&S®M3AR
TCAS L3Harris TCAS A/T VHF/UHF Radio
MR6000R/L
LPI Radar Altimeter Honeywell HG9550 Link 16 TACR-16DL TacNet™

3.1.4. Structural Layout

The major structural components of the aircraft are the wing, fuselage, the vertical and
horizontal tails, as well as their structural joints. Each of the structural layout is shown in Figure 8
and the structural joints are illustrated in Figure 9. The fuselage uses semi-monocoque construction
made of aluminum alloys. The longitudinal elements include frames and bulkheads at certain
hardpoints such as joints to the lifting surfaces, landing gear, and engine. The traversal elements
include 20 longerons with Zed-shaped cross-section for most part of the fuselage.

Table 5. Materials of Structural Elements of AT-165 Otus

Wing Fuselage Vertical Tail Horizontal Tail

Al 7075-T6 Skin-
Skin Al 2024-T3 CFRP Skin CFRP
(upper) stringers
Skin
Al 2024-T3 Aluminum
Longerons Al 7075-T6 Spars Al 7075-T6 Core
(lower) honeycomb
Spars Al 7050-T74 Frames Al 7175-T73 Ribs Al 7075-T6 Ribs Al 7075-T6
Ribs Al 7075-T6 Bulkheads Al 7075-T6 Spar Al 7075-T6

The wing uses multi-spar construction due to the wing’s airfoil being relatively thin. Based upon
simple statistical studies on aircrafts with similar wing construction and considering the position of
hardpoints and trailing-edge devices, the wing structure consists of six spars at a constant pitch of
277 mm and 14 ribs with the maximum rib pitch of 585 mm. The multi-spar construction does not
require stiffeners on the wing. The wing is attached to the fuselage using four tension fittings.

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 7
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

The vertical tail uses the conventional distributed flange construction with two spars at 25% and
65% chord. Its eight ribs are spaced at 403 mm intervals and the skin is stiffened by two blade-type
integrally-molded stringers across the tail box. The vertical tail is attached to the fuselage by lugs.
The horizontal tail uses sandwich-composite construction with ribs at the root and the tip of its
moving part, as well as a single spar at 40% chord to sustain torsional loads. The sandwich face-sheets
are made of carbon-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) to sustain bending loads and the core is made
of aluminum honeycomb to sustain traverse shear loads. The loads are transferred to the fuselage
using a trunnion protruding from the tailplane into the fuselage through a bearing on the bulkhead.

(b)

(a) (c)

(d)

Figure 8. Structural layout of the AT-165 Otus: (a) wing; (b) horizontal tail; (c) vertical tail; (d) fuselage.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9. Sketches of the structural joints of the AT-165 Otus: (a) wing-fuselage; (b) horizontal tail-
fuselage; and (c) vertical tail-fuselage joints. Note: Own work.

3.1.5. Landing Gear

The landing gear of the AT-165 Otus configuration is retractable tricycle as illustrated in Figure
10. For the chosen position of the main and nose landing gears at FS 2100 and FS 8600 respectively as
shown in Figure 4, the static load on the main gears is at most 91% of the aircraft gross weight on the
nose gear is at least 9% of the aircraft gross weight. The current wheel disposition fulfills the ground
stability criteria as shown in Figure 11. Thus, the shock absorber stroke length required is 66.8 mm

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 8
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

and 79.4 mm for the nose gear and main gear respectively and the size of the tires is summarized in
Table 6.

Table 6. Tire Size Data of the

AT-165 Otus

Main
Nose Gear
Gear
Aircraft Aircraft
Type Rib Rib 461B-
185P4HG1 2506-TL
Goodyear Aviation (a) (b)
OEM
Tires
Figure 10. Layout of the landing gear of the AT-165
Size
18x5.5 24x8.0-13 Otus: (a) extended; (b) retracted.
(inches)

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Ground stability criteria of the AT-165 Otus: (a) lateral; (b) longitudinal.

3.2. Aerodynamic Analysis

Some aerodynamic characteristics of AT-165 Otus in clean (without external payloads and
pylons) and loaded (with external payloads and pylons) configuration are presented in Figure 12 and
Figure 13, respectively, for 3 phases of flight: cruise, take-off, and landing. Some values of these
aerodynamic characteristics are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Aerodynamic Characteristics of AT-165 Otus in Various Configuration

Loading Configuration
Characteristics
Clean Loaded
Cruise 1.82 1.81
𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥 Take-off 1.79 1.75
Landing 1.90 1.90
(𝐶𝐿 /𝐶𝐷 )𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒
14.63 10.23
@100% MTOW
(𝐶𝐿 /𝐶𝐷 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 @𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 15.96 12.32
𝛼𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 0.3° 0.3°

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 9
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

2 0.6 20
0.5 16
1.5
0.4 12

CL/CD
1

CD
0.3 8
CL

0.5 0.2 4
0.1
0
0
0 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
-10 0 10 20 -4
-10 0 10 20 CL
-0.5
α [°] α [°] Cruise (Clean)

Cruise (Clean) Cruise (Clean) Take-Off (Clean, Flap 20 deg)

Take-Off (Clean, Flap 20 deg) Take-Off (Clean, Flap 20 deg) Landing (Clean, Flap 50 deg)

Landing (Clean, Flap 50 deg) Landing (Clean, Flap 50 deg) Cruise Design Point (100% MTOW)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 12. Aerodynamic characteristics of AT-165 Otus in clean configuration: (a) Lift coefficient; (b)
Drag coefficient; (c) Lift-to-drag coefficient ratio.

2 0.6 16

0.5 12
1.5
0.4
8
CL/CD
1
CD

0.3
CL

4
0.5 0.2
0.1 0
0 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
0 -4
-10 0 10 20 CL
-0.5 -10 0 10 20
α [°] Cruise (Loaded)
α [°]
Cruise (Loaded) Cruise (Loaded) Take-Off (Loaded, Flap 20 deg)

Take-Off (Loaded, Flap 20 deg) Take-Off (Loaded, Flap 20 deg) Landing (Loaded, Flap 50 deg)

Landing (Loaded, Flap 50 deg) Landing (Loaded, Flap 50 deg) Cruise Design Point (100% MTOW)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 13. Aerodynamic characteristics of AT-165 Otus in loaded configuration: (a) Lift coefficient; (b)
Drag coefficient; (c) Lift-to-drag coefficient ratio.

3.3. Weight and Balance Analysis

Figure 14. Illustration of the component placement of AT-165 Otus for weight and balance analysis.

Weight and balance analysis is required to determine the center of gravity (CG) of the aircraft
and the placement of systems as shown in Figure 14. As mentioned before, weight of each component
and system is estimated using statistical relations from various references. Noteworthy that for
military aircrafts, the basis of the aircraft’s weight is the flight design gross weight (FDGW or Wdg ),

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 10
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

defined as the operational empty weight added with the fuel weight at 50% capacity. For this analysis,
the value of the FDGW is 4746 kg. Furthermore, the author used some ‘fudge factor’ multipliers on
some of components’ weight, taking account of the usage of advanced composites on the airframe
structure as proposed by Raymer [4]. Thus, the empty weight of AT-165 Otus is 3961 kg.
The CG of the aircraft may shift due to the different payload and fuel configuration based on
each mission and loading scenario. The author set the sequence of refueling to fill the wing tanks first,
then lower fuselage tank, and finally the upper fuselage tank, which gives three fuel tank
combinations. As there are five pylons, there are seven payload combinations, assuming that the
payload on the left and right wings are symmetric, giving a total of 21 scenarios.
Among those scenarios, the most forward CG is obtained if all tanks are full but only with
inboard ordnance and the most aft CG if only the wing tanks are full but only with outboard
ordnance. The author also set two loading sequences: (1) pylon, fuel, ordnance; and (2) pylon,
ordnance, fuel. Those scenarios using the two aforementioned loading sequences are plotted in the
CG Excursion Diagram or “potato diagram” as shown in Figure 15, which gives the most extreme
center of gravity position as summarized in Table 8.
9000 9000

7000
Weight [kg]

Weight [kg]

7000

5000 5000

3000 3000
15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
CG Location [%MAC] CG Location [%MAC]
Full Fuel, Payload In-In Full Fuel, Payload In-In Full Fuel, Payload In-In Full Fuel, Payload In-In
Fuel Wing, Out-Out MTOW Fuel Wing, Out-Out MTOW
Empty Weight OEW Empty Weight OEW
Most Fwd. CG Most Aft Basic EW Most Fwd. CG Most Aft Basic EW
Most Aft Operational Weight Fuel Wing+Low Fuse, Payload Full Most Aft Operational Weight Fuel Wing+Low Fuse, Payload Full
Fuel Wing+Low Fuse, Payload Full Fuel Wing+Low Fuse, Payload Full Fuel Wing+Low Fuse, Payload Full Fuel Wing+Low Fuse, Payload Full

(a) (b)

Figure 15. CG excursion diagram of the AT-165 Otus: (a) landing gear down; (b) landing gear up.

Table 8. Center of Gravity Variations of the AT-165 Otus in the X-direction from Aircraft Nose

LG Down LG Up
Case
X (mm) MAC X (mm) MAC
Most Fwd. 7637 15.87% 7625 15.28%
Most Aft Empty Wt.CG 7995 31.46% 7970 30.36%
Most Aft Operational Wt. 7948 29.42% 7932 28.73%
MTOW 7781 22.13% 7770 21.58%
Light Attack Mission 7731 19.95% 7720 19.45%
Air Patrol Mission 7767 21.50% 7751 20.81%

3.4. Stability and Control Analysis

3.4.1. Static Stability

The degree of longitudinal static stability of AT-165 Otus can be described by its static margin
(SM) value analyzed with respect to the extreme positions of its center of gravity (CG), as summarized
in Table 9. In terms of aerodynamic derivative coefficients, static stability of AT-165 Otus can also be

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 11
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

deduced for both flight modes: longitudinal and lateral-directional. These coefficients are presented
in Table 10 along with the corresponding criteria to fulfill static stability.

Table 10. Result of Aerodynamic Derivative Coefficients Analysis

Criteria
Stability Criteria Value [per deg]
Fulfilment
Table 9. Static Margin Values at
Longitudinal
Extreme CG Locations
𝐶𝐿𝛼 > 0 0.0766 ✓
CG Static Margin Most forward CG: -0.0233
Location [% MAC] 𝐶𝑀𝛼 < 0 Design CG: -0.0186 ✓
Most Most aft CG: -0.0126
20.85
Forward Lateral-Directional
𝐶𝑌𝛽 < 0 -0.0155 ✓
Most Aft 6.73
𝐶ℓ𝛽 < 0 -0.0034 ✓
Most forward CG: 0.0027
𝐶𝑁𝛽 > 0 Design CG: 0.0026 ✓
Most aft CG: 0.0023

3.4.2. Longitudinal Control Capacity and Trim Configuration

Aircraft’s longitudinal control capacity was investigated to evaluate the capability of HTP as
control authority in longitudinal mode. Figure 16 shows several limits for various longitudinal
maneuver constructed using procedures provided in [7]. In particular, the all-moving elevator
deflection required to trim the aircraft can also be derived. The trim configuration during cruise for
several cases of CG location are given in Table 11.

Table 11. Required Longitudinal Trim

Configuration

Angle
Elevator
of
CG Location Deflection
Attack
(𝜹𝒆𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒎 )
(𝜶𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒎 )
Most
-1.46° 1.00°
forward CG
Design CG
-1.31° 0.90°
@MTOW
Most aft CG -1.08° 0.78°
Figure 16. Longitudinal control capacity limits.

3.5. Performance Analysis

From section 3.1.2, the value of uninstalled thrust of RB199-34R-04 Mk.105 engine is 42.952 kN
or 9656 lb. By using the approximate equation, the author obtained the installed thrust value to be
41.936 kN or 9427.65 lb. The specific fuel consumption or SFC was obtained with a value of 1.75 × 10-
5 (kg/s)/N or about 0.62 (lbm/h)/lbf. Then, from the installed thrust and SFC value, engine chart and

SFC chart was made and is shown in Figure 17. Based on engine chart and drag data, the thrust curve
can be obtained for every Mach number for a given altitude and configuration. Figure 18 is the thrust
curve at 30000 ft and sea level. As seen in Figure 18, for maximum thrust condition and altitude at
30000 ft, possible maximum speed for clean configuration is equal to Mach 1.21 and for loaded
configuration is Mach 1.06.

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 12
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

(a) (b)
Figure 17. (a) Engine chart and (b) SFC chart of RB199-34R-04 Mk.105 engine.

(a) (b)
Figure 18. The thrust curve at various altitudes: (a) 30000 ft; and (b) sea level.

The calculation of the flight performance analysis is limited just to take-off performance, landing
performance, service ceiling, climb performance, cruise performance (include range and endurance),
ferry range, and stall performance. Table 16 shows the summarized results of the performance
analysis calculation. The structural flight envelope (the “V-n diagram”) was constructed based on
reference [12] and MIL-A-8861B [14], shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Structural flight envelope for AT-165 Otus advance trainer aircraft

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 13
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

3.6. Cost Analysis

In this section, all calculations use several assumptions such as avionics component price due to
lack of exact data of it and authors uses general price data of it. These assumptions are grouped into:
(1) aircraft data, (2) powerplant data, (3) design and production factors, (4) cost factors, and (5) range
of production quantity for which cost is calculated of at least 100 aircraft produced with 20 production
increase intervals. One parameter of the aircraft data not yet mentioned before is the aeronautical
manufacturer planning report weight of 3000 lbs. After all assumptions defined, with several
consideration authors chooses method from Roskam [13].

Table 12. Some Assumptions Used in Cost Calculation

Design and Production Factors Cost Factors

Number of flying prototypes FTA 4 Eng. man hour rate (RDTE phase) RE $ 151.60
Number of prototypes
Nrdte 7 Manufacturing man hour rate RM $ 128.52
(RDTE phase)
Difficulty factor Fdiff 1.5 Tooling hour rate RT $ 155.72
Factor for use of CAD FCAD 0.9 Quality Control man hour rate RQ $ 142.12
Material factor Fmat 1.2 Percentage of Profit Fpro 20%
Monthly rate of production Nrm 1.0 Finance cost factors Ffin 7%
NRR 0.3 Cost of engines (per unit) Ceng $4,000,000
Cost of avionics & system (per unit) Csystem $1,000,000
Flight test hours for production A/C tpft 20
Aircraft Operating cost per hour Cops/h 6,500
Overhead factor Fftoh 4
Base year Ybase 2022
Cost Escalation Factor at base year CEFBase 7.5
Design year Ydesign 2030
Cost Escalation Factor at design year CEFdes 8.5

Table 13. Acquisition Cost and Final Cost of Aircraft in Year 2022 and 2030

2022 2030
Production Quantity 100 100
Acquisition cost $2,389,137,000 $2,612,681,500
Airplane estimated price $23,891,500 $26,127,000

Based on the need for at least 100 aircrafts, estimated aircraft price will be around 24 million
USD in 2022. However, the aircraft is set to be ready for the market in 2030 and the economy runs
with inflation that will affect pricing. Adjusting to inflation rate, the aircraft per unit price will be
about 26 million USD in 2030. With that price, funding for Research, Development, Test, and
Engineering (RDTE) cost and manufacturing cost should be budgeted, with details shown in Table
14 and Table 15. In total, about 700 million USD and 1.7 billion USD is required to fund RDTE and
manufacturing phases, respectively, in 2022. However, the cost in 2030 may increase due to inflation.

Table 14. Table of RDTE Cost Table 15. Table of Manufacturing Phase Cost

RDTE $708,271,000 Total Manufacturing Cost $1,680,866,500

Airframe engineering and design Airframe engineering and design
$85,758,000 $33,990,500
cost cost
Development support and testing Airplane program production cost $1,237,527,000
$25,211,000
cost

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 14
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

Flight test airplanes cost $440,602,000 - Cost of engines and avionics $500,000,000
- Cost of engines and avionics $20,000,000 - Manufacturing labor cost $537,766,000
- Manufacturing labor cost $169,421,500 - Manufacturing material cost $18,186,500
- Manufacturing material cost $3,805,350 - Tooling cost $111,665,500
- Tooling cost $149,253,200 - Quality control cost $69,910,000
- Quality control cost $98,122,000 Production flight test operation cost $52,000,000
Flight test operation cost $6,123,200 Cost of finance the manufacturing
$92,646,500
RDTE profit $111,540,00 program

Finance cost $39,040,000

4. Discussion
Comparing with the given design requirements and objectives, the preliminary design of the
AT-165 Otus exhibits exceptional performance, which is summarized in Table 16.

Table 16. Comparison of the DRO to the Specification of AT-165 Otus

AT-165 Otus
Design Aspect DRO
Clean Loaded
General
nmax/nmin +8/-3 +8/-3
MTOW ≤ 8500 kg (18740 lb) 8500 kg
Flight Deck and Instrumentation
Flight deck 2 crew, option for 1-seater variant
Instrumentation latest avionics, supports air-to-air and air-to-surface ordnance
Armament and Payload
Payload Capacity ≥ 2800 kg 3100 kg
Hardpoints ≥5 5
Performance
4.34 hours (Air patrol)
Mission Endurance ≥ 2.5 hours
3.29 hours (Light Attack)
Service ceiling
≥ 42000 ft 66453.57 ft 54055.57 ft
(@75% MTOW)
Take-off distance
≤ 4600 ft 3357.4 ft 3444.34 ft
(@MTOW, SL ISA+20)
Landing distance
≤ 4600 ft 3001.92 ft
(@85% MTOW, SL ISA+20)
Maximum rate of climb
≥ 8000 ft/min 8372.07 ft/min
(@75% MTOW, SL ISA+20)
Mission
Radius of action ≥ 550 nmi 590 nmi
Loiter ≥ 60 minutes 90 minutes
Air Patrol
Maneuvering ≥ 5 minutes 30 minutes
Armament ≥ 2 air-to-air missiles 2 × AIM-9L Sidewinder
Radius of action ≥ 350 nmi 489 nmi
Light
Dash-in/Dash-out ≥ 50 nmi 56 nmi
Attack
Armament air-to-surface ordnance ≥ 2200 kg 2210 kg
Objectives
Stall speed
@70% MTOW, SL ISA+20, full 100 knots 93.28 knots
flaps
competitive with contemporary $23,891,500 (2022)
Cost
aircraft $26,127,000 (2030)
Maximum cruise speed
≥ Mach 0.85 Mach 1.21 Mach 1.06
@30000 ft
Ferry range ≥ 2000 km 2725.89 km

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 15
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

Based on the resulted aerodynamics performance, AT-165 Otus design fulfills all targeted
aerodynamic parameters as stated in Table 7 for both loading configurations. However, this
preliminary analysis result needs to be verified by further comprehensive analysis, including the
experimental result of the design prototype model.
The empty weight obtained is smaller than the initial guess due to the earlier assumptions did
not include the weight of the weapon pylons. Although the net payload weight is about the same,
“gross” payload system weight increases as the pylons are not considered part of the empty weight
of the aircraft. Meanwhile, the results in Table 8 shows the most forward CG is at 15.25% MAC and
the most aft is at 31.46% MAC at the basic empty weight. However, in the context of flight stability,
the most aft CG is taken at 29.42% as it is impossible for the aircraft to fly with no crew or fuel. The
basic empty weight CG is thus used for landing gear design. The CG range of the AT-165 Otus is
16.21% MAC. These values agree with the typical values for subsonic fighter jets as given in [5].
From the stability perspective, positive value of static margin indicates that the location of
aircraft’s CG is in front of its neutral point, hence the aircraft is stable [4]. Noting that the presented
SM does not consider the engine’s thrust effect, SM for jet-powered aircrafts is typically reduced by
about 1–3% when the thrust effect is accounted [4]. Therefore, AT-165 Otus has static margin of about
3–6% at most aft CG location which is similar to earlier generation of fighters according to [4]. By
further analysis on the aerodynamic derivative coefficients, AT-165 Otus is proven to be statically
stable in both flight modes since all coefficients satisfy the longitudinal and lateral-directional
stability criteria. On the other hand, the designed HTP configuration enables enough capability to
control the aircraft as indicated by the range of CG location that lies inside the region bounded by the
control limits in Figure 16. Furthermore, the aircraft can be trimmed longitudinally in positive low
angle of attack by deflecting elevator upward for a relatively low angle.
From the aircraft performance, as shown in Table 16, all of requirements and objective has
already fulfilled, although some of them have far greater value than a given DRO. It is possible
because the design point is exceeded far enough from the thrust needed to fulfill some of
requirements. For example, to fulfill climb requirements, the design point was forced to has a greater
value than the thrust needed to fulfill service ceiling requirements as shown in Figure 3. As a result,
the service ceiling has a value far greater than a given DRO.

5. Conclusion
The AT-165 Otus is a medium sized advanced jet trainer with MTOW of 8500 kg. Its general
configuration is shown in Figure 4. An advanced jet trainer prepares pilots to fly faster and more
advanced fighter jets and can also be used as a multirole fighter jet on its own. The AT-165 Otus thus
can improve the Indonesian defense capability. As shown in Table 16, the preliminary design of the
AT-165 Otus is capable of fulfilling the design requirements and objectives provided.
Further analysis and iterations are required for the AT-165 Otus due to the limitation of the
analysis methods and tools used in this research paper. This may be accomplished using higher
fidelity computer-aided engineering software to obtain more accurate results. A future development
of the AT-165 Otus is also possible with larger MTOW, a single crew variant, a variant with aerial
refueling capabilities, etc., to support a wider range of missions.

Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper would like to extend their most sincere gratitude to Ir. Muhammad
Kusni, M.T. as the group supervisor for sharing his knowledge and supporting every step of the
group’s progress as well as to Dr. Taufiq Mulyanto, S.T. as the lecturer and Mr. Muhammad Fikri
Zulkarnain, S.T., M.T. as the teaching assistant of the AE4040 Aircraft Design course.

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx

International Journal of Aviation Science and Engineering 16
e-ISSN: 2715-6958 p-ISSN: 2721-5342

References

1. E. Bangun, "Peran Kebudayaan dalam Mewujudkan Kemandirian Industri Pertahanan," WIRA -

Media Informasi Kementerian Pertahanan, pp. 32-37, October - November - December 2020.
2. J. Roskam, Airplane Design Part II: Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration of the
Propulsion System, Kansas: Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corp., 1985.
3. J. Roskam, Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, Kansas: Roskam Aviation and
Engineering Corp., 1985.
4. D. P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach – Sixth Edition, Virginia: AIAA, 2018.
5. M. H. Sadraey, Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach, 1st ed., Chichester: John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd, 2012.
6. J. Roskam, Aircraft Design Part IV: Layout Design of Landing Gear and Systems, Ottawa, Kansas:
Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corp., 1985.
7. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media
Dordrecht, 1982.
8. J. Roskam, Airplane Design Part VI: Preliminary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust and Power
Characteristics, Ottawa: Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, 1987.
9. M. Saarlas, Aircraft Performance, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.
10. M. H. Sadraey, Aircraft Performance: An Engineering Approach, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2017.
11. G. Ruijgrok, Elements of Airplane Performance, Delft: Delft University Press, 1990.
12. J. Roskam, Airplane Design Part V: Component Weight Estimation, Ottawa: Roskam Aviation and
Engineering Corporation, 1985.
13. J. Roskam, Airplane Design Part VIII: Airplane Cost Estimation - Design, Development,
Manufacturing and Operating, Kansas: Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, 1990.
14. US Military, Military Specification MIL-A-8861B: Airplane Strength and Rigidity Flight Loads, 1986.
15. J. Roskam, Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Kansas: Roskam Aviation and
Engineering Corporation, 1990.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited.

Volume x, Issue x, Month Year doi: 10.47355/AVIA.VxIx.xx