Laporan 1 - Kelompok HS3

REPORT 1
AE3230 LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE DESIGN

Aircraft C (Æ-6 eLena): 6-Seater Electric Aircraft
By
Group HS-3
Joseph Bernard 13619060
Mellisa Irawan 13619063
Rayhan Ekananto 13619113
Supervisor
Ir. Hendri Syamsudin, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Dr. Taufiq Mulyanto, S.T.
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF MECHANICAL AND
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2022
SCOPE OF WORK AND SIGNATURES OF THE GROUP MEMBERS
Student
Name Signature Work Scope Description
ID (NIM)
Chapter 3:
• 3.1. Structure of Existing
Similar Aircraft.
• 3.3. Wing Structure
Analysis.
Chapter 4:
• 4.3.1. Aerodynamic Forces
on the Aircraft (Schrenk’s
Joseph
13619060 Approximation).
Bernard
• 4.3.2. Wing Load
Diagrams (SF, BM, T).
• 4.3.3. HTP Load Diagrams
(SF, BM, T).
Free body diagrams
Chapter 5:
• 5.1 Wing Structural
Layout
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 4:
• 4.1. Flight Envelope
• 4.2. Maximum and
Mellisa
13619063 Minimum Weights
Irawan
• 4.3.4. Fuselage Load
Diagrams (SF, BM, T).
Chapter 6: Fuselage Structural
Layout
Chapter 2: Aircraft Data
Chapter 3:
Rayhan • 3.2. Fuselage Structure
13619113
Ekananto Analysis.
• 3.3. Wing Structure
Analysis.
i
• 3.4. Empennage Structure
Analysis
Free body diagrams
Chapter 5:
• 5.2. Empennage Structural
Layout
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF WORK AND SIGNATURES OF THE GROUP MEMBERS ............ i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... iii
FIGURES ............................................................................................................... vi
TABLES...................................................................................................................x
1. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .........................................................................1
1.1. Objective..................................................................................................1
1.2. Regulations ..............................................................................................1
1.3. Assumption ..............................................................................................8
1.4. Scope of Work .........................................................................................8
1.5. Work Division .........................................................................................9
2. CHAPTER II AIRCRAFT DATA ....................................................................10
3. CHAPTER III EVALUATION OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 13
3.1. Structure of Existing Similar Aircraft ...................................................13
3.1.1. Daher TBM-940 ........................................................................14
3.1.2. Piper PA-31T Cheyenne I .........................................................14
3.1.3. Piper PA-31T2 Cheyenne II XL ...............................................15
3.1.4. Piper PA-34 Seneca ..................................................................15
3.1.5. Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian ......................................16
3.1.6. Rockwell Commander 690B.....................................................16
3.1.7. Cessna 421C .............................................................................17
3.1.8. Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander .................................................17
3.1.9. Beechcraft 60 Duke ..................................................................18
3.2. Fuselage Structure Analysis ..................................................................18
3.2.1. Load Paths.................................................................................18
3.2.2. Fuselage Structural Concepts....................................................21
3.2.3. Fuselage Materials ....................................................................23
3.2.4. Fuselage Manufacturing and Maintenance Aspects .................24
3.3. Wing Structure Analysis ........................................................................26
3.3.1. Load Paths.................................................................................26
3.3.2. Wing Structural Concepts .........................................................30
iii
3.3.3. Wing Materials .........................................................................33
3.3.4. Wing Manufacturing and Maintenence Aspect ........................34
3.4. Empennage Structure Analysis..............................................................36
3.4.1. Empennage Load Paths .............................................................36
3.4.2. Empennage Structural Concepts ...............................................38
3.4.3. Empennage Materials ...............................................................40
3.4.4. Empennage Manufacturing and Maintenence Reports .............40
4. CHAPTER IV DESIGN LOAD ANALYSIS ...................................................41
4.1. Flight Envelope .....................................................................................41
4.2. Maximum And Minimum Weight .........................................................44
4.3. Shear Force, Bending Moment, and Torsion Diagram of the Structure 44
4.3.1. Aerodynamic Forces Acting on the Aircraft.............................45
4.3.2. Wing Load Diagrams ................................................................48
4.3.3. Horizontal Tail Plane Load Diagram ........................................58
4.3.4. Fuselage Load Diagram ............................................................67
5. CHAPTER V STRUCTURAL LAYOUT OF THE WING, TAIL, AND
FUSELAGE ...........................................................................................................74
5.1. Structural Layout of Wing .....................................................................74
5.1.1. Layout of the Wing Box ...........................................................74
5.1.2. Wing Skin-Panel .......................................................................75
5.1.3. Wing Spars................................................................................77
5.1.4. Wing Ribs .................................................................................78
5.1.5. Wing Root Joints ......................................................................82
5.2. Structural Layout of the Tail .................................................................83
5.2.1. Layout of Tail Box ....................................................................83
5.2.2. Empennage Skin-Panel .............................................................84
5.2.3. Empennage Spars ......................................................................84
5.2.4. Empennage Ribs .......................................................................84
5.2.5. Empennage Joints .....................................................................86
5.2.6. Empennage Stringers ................................................................86
5.3. Structural Layout of the Fuselage ..........................................................87
5.3.1. Layout of Fuselage....................................................................87
iv
5.3.2. Fuselage Skin-Panel ..................................................................88
5.3.3. Fuselage Frames and Bulkheads ...............................................89
5.3.4. Fuselage Joints ..........................................................................90
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................92
ENGINEERING DRAWING ................................................................................93
v
FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Load Factor ........................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.1. Three-view drawing of the Æ-6 eLena. .............................................. 12
Figure 3.1. Cutaway drawing of Daher TBM-940 ................................................ 14
Figure 3.2. Cutaway drawing of Piper PA-31T Cheyenne I. ................................ 14
Figure 3.3. Cutaway drawing of the Piper PA-31T2 Cheyenne II XL. ................ 15
Figure 3.4. Cutaway drawing of the Piper PA-34 Seneca..................................... 15
Figure 3.5. Cutaway drawing of Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian............... 16
Figure 3.6. Cutaway drawing of Rockwell Commander 690B. ............................ 16
Figure 3.7. Cutaway drawing of Cessna 421C. ..................................................... 17
Figure 3.8. Cutaway drawing of Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander. ........................ 17
Figure 3.9. Cutaway drawing of Beechcraft 60 Duke. .......................................... 18
Figure 3.10. Bending Moment in the Fuselage, causing tension and compression
forces. .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.11. Torsional Load in Fuselage .............................................................. 19
Figure 3.12. Shear Load in Fuselage ..................................................................... 20
Figure 3.13. Load Paths in Wing Box of Fuselage ............................................... 20
Figure 3.14. Pressurization of Fuselage ................................................................ 21
Figure 3.15. Sheet Metal Forming Process ........................................................... 24
Figure 3.16. Open-Die and Closed-Die Forging Process ...................................... 25
Figure 3.17. Superplastic Forming ........................................................................ 25
Figure 3.18. Force Distribution in a wing. ............................................................ 26
Figure 3.19. Beam model of the wing spar showing bending moments and shear
forces over an infinitesimal element. .................................................................... 27
Figure 3.20. Forces in the wing structure as a result of upward bending (Alderliesten,
2018). .................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3.21. Deformation related to the upward wing bending (Alderliesten, 2018).
............................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3.22. Resistance of a torsional movement by a cylinder (left) and the
structural elements of the torsional box (right) (Alderliesten, 2018). ................... 29
Figure 3.23. Metal Rolling .................................................................................... 34
vi
Figure 3.24. Compression Molding Method ......................................................... 35
Figure 3.25. Heading/Upset Forging Method ....................................................... 35
Figure 3.26. Empennage Structure ........................................................................ 36
Figure 3.27. Bending Moment in HTP and VTP .................................................. 37
Figure 3.28. Torsional Load in the Empennage. ................................................... 37
Figure 3.29. Deformation Happening in Empennage due to shear stress from torsion.
............................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3.30. Simulation of Shear Load on the Empennage spar (I-beam). ........... 38
Figure 4.1. Flight envelope of the Æ-6 eLena. ..................................................... 43
Figure 4.2. Stresses acting on an aircraft structure. .............................................. 44
Figure 4.3. Free body diagram of the Æ-6 eLena. Note that the dimensions are in
mm. ....................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.4. Definition of spanwise and chordwise lift distributions. .................... 49
Figure 4.5. Trapezoidal, elliptic, and Schrenk’s chord distribution. ..................... 49
Figure 4.6. Spanwise wing weight distribution for n = 1. ..................................... 50
Figure 4.7. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = 3.54. ............................................. 51
Figure 4.8. Free body diagram of the wing at n = 3.54. ........................................ 51
Figure 4.9. Spanwise shear force distribution along the half span of the wing for
load factor n = 3.54. .............................................................................................. 52
Figure 4.10. Free body diagram of a beam element.............................................. 53
Figure 4.11. Spanwise bending moment distribution along the half span of the wing
for load factor n = 3.54. ......................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.12. Free body diagram of the wing section using NACA 652-415 airfoil,
............................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.13. Spanwise torsion distribution along the half span of the wing for load
factor n = 3.54. ...................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.14. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = -1.42. ......................................... 55
Figure 4.15. Free body diagram of the wing at n = -1.42. .................................... 56
load factor of n = -1.42. ......................................................................................... 56
for n = -1.42. ......................................................................................................... 57
vii
factor n = -1.42. ..................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.19. Trapezoidal, elliptic, and Schrenk’s chord distribution for the HTP.58
Figure 4.20. Spanwise HTP weight distribution for n = 1. ................................... 59
Figure 4.21. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = 3.54. ........................................... 60
Figure 4.22. Free body diagram of the HTP at n = 3.54. ...................................... 60
Figure 4.23. Spanwise shear force distribution along the half span of the HTP for
load factor of n = 3.54. .......................................................................................... 61
for load factor of n = 3.54. .................................................................................... 62
Figure 4.25. Free body diagram of the wing section using NACA 0012 airfoil,
showing the aerodynamic center (a.c.) at 0.25c, the spars at 20% chord and 70%
chord, the approximate location of the shear center (s.c.), and the approximate
location of the centroid of each section (at ~42.11% chord). ............................... 62
Figure 4.26. Spanwise torsion distribution along the half span of the horizontal tail
for load factor n = 3.54. ......................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.27. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = -1.42. ......................................... 64
Figure 4.28. Free body diagram of the HTP at n = -1.42 ...................................... 64
load factor of n = -1.42. ......................................................................................... 65
Figure 4.30. Spanwise bending moment distribution along the half span of the HTP
for load factor of n = -1.42. ................................................................................... 66
for load factor n = -1.42. ....................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.32. Fuselage Load Diagram for n = 1. .................................................... 68
Figure 4.33. Fuselage Load Diagram for n = 3.54. ............................................... 69
Figure 4.34. Fuselage Load Diagram for n = -1.42............................................... 70
Figure 4.35. Fuselage Shear Diagrams for n = 1, positive maximum load factor (n
= 3.54) and negative maximum load factor (n = -1.42) ........................................ 71
Figure 4.36. Fuselage Bending Moment Diagram for n = 1, positive maximum load
factor (n = 3.54) and negative maximum load factor (n = -1.42) ......................... 72
Figure 4.37. Fuselage Torsion Diagram for Æ-6 eLena. ...................................... 73
viii
Figure 5.1. General layout of the (right) wing of Æ-6 eLena. .............................. 74
Figure 5.2. Chordwise view of the wing box of the Æ-6 eLena at the wing root,
showing the spars and the skin contour in the shape of the NACA 652-415 airfoil as
well as the approximate locations of the stringers (shown by the diamond shaped
markers)................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 5.3. Cross-section of the distributed flange wing box beam. .................... 75
Figure 5.4. The Z-shaped wing skin-stringer panel (Niu, 1988). .......................... 76
Figure 5.5. Illustration of rib function: stability against buckling and crushing,
showing that adequate rib spacing is required (Alderliesten, 2018). .................... 78
Figure 5.6. Plot of average rib spacing and MTOW for aircrafts similar to Æ-6
eLena and the linear regression. ............................................................................ 80
Figure 5.7. Wing configuration of Æ-6 eLena. The ribs are shown in blue. Ribs that
act as hardpoints are shown with thicker lines. ..................................................... 80
Figure 5.8. Spar carry-through configuration. ...................................................... 82
Figure 5.9. Spar carry-through with bolted splices on a similar low-wing aircraft
(the Piper Cherokee). ............................................................................................ 83
Figure 5.10. Empennage, Conventional Tail Configuration ................................. 84
Figure 5.11. Empennage, Vertical Tail Plane ....................................................... 85
Figure 5.12. Empennage, Horizontal Tail Plane ................................................... 86
Figure 5.13. Æ-6 eLena fuselage structural layout. .............................................. 87
Figure 5.14. Longeron and Stringer of fuselage ................................................... 88
Figure 5.15. Æ-6 eLena fuselage section and water line. ..................................... 88
Figure 5.16. Æ-6 eLena fuselage cross-setion ...................................................... 89
ix
TABLES
Table 1.1. Scope of work and work division among the group’s members. ........... 9
Table 2.1. Specification of Æ-6 eLena.................................................................. 10
Table 3.1. Structural Concepts of a Fuselage. ....................................................... 21
Table 3.2. Structural Concepts of Wing. ............................................................... 30
Table 3.3. Structural Concepts of a Empennage. .................................................. 38
Table 4.1. Parameters used in determining the flight envelope. ........................... 41
Table 4.2. Maximum positive and maximum negative load factor for Æ-6 eLena
............................................................................................................................... 42
Table 4.3. Variables used in creating flight maneuvering diagram ...................... 42
Table 4.4. Variables used in gust loading calculation ........................................... 42
Table 4.5. Æ-6 eLena maximum and minimum weight........................................ 44
Table 4.6. Parameters to determine the lift of the wing and empennage. ............. 46
Table 4.7. Aircraft Components considered in constructing the load diagram. .... 67
Table 5.1. Buckling efficiency factors, FB of various stringer constructions. ...... 76
Table 5.2. Comparison of Al 2024-T3 and Al 7075-T6 material properties. ....... 77
Table 5.3. Comparison of similar aircraft to determine rib spacing. .................... 79
Table 5.4. Wing Rib placement details. ................................................................ 81
x
1. CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objective
This report is written to give understanding about lightweight structure
design for aircraft. The aircraft that will be analyzed in this report is an electric 6-
seater aircraft, Æ-6 eLena (Aini, Prastawa, Permana, Dara, & Ummah, 2021). This
report will only analyze fuselage, wing, and empennage of Æ-6 eLena. The
objective of this report is:
1. To determine loads that the aircraft structure (fuselage, wing, and
empennage) should be able to carry.
2. To determine the load distribution in fuselage, wing, and empennage
3. To determine maximum load value and position in each of the structural
components of the aircraft.
4. To determine the structural layout of each of the aircraft’s structural
components.
5. To determine the size and specification of the structural elements of each of
the aircraft’s structural components.
6. To determine whether the structure elements is safe and airworthy for flight
operations.
1.2. Regulations
Æ-6 eLena is categorized as commuter aircraft as it has a capacity of under
19 person and has weight under 19,000 pounds (8618 kg). Therefore, the applicable
aviation regulation for AeLena-6 is CASR 23.
Here are some regulations stated in CASR 23 that is being used for this
report:
1. 23.301 Loads
(a) Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum
loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied
by prescribed factors of safety). Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads
are limit loads.
1
(b) Unless otherwise provided, the air, ground, and water loads must be placed
in equilibrium with inertia forces, considering each item of mass in the
airplane. These loads must be distributed to conservatively approximate or
closely represent actual conditions. Methods used to determine load
intensities and distribution on canard and tandem wing configurations must
be validated by flight test measurement unless the methods used for
determining those loading conditions are shown to be reliable or
conservative on the configuration under consideration.
(c) If deflections under load would significantly change the distribution of
external or internal loads, this redistribution must be taken into account.
(d) Simplified structural design criteria may be used if they result in design loads
not less than those prescribed in secs. 23.331 through 23.521. For airplane
configurations described in appendix A, 23.1, the design criteria of appendix
A of this part are an approved equivalent of secs.23.321 through 23.459. If
appendix A of this part is used, the entire appendix must be substituted for
the corresponding parts of this part.
2. 23.303 Factor of Safety
Unless otherwise provided, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be used
3. 23.305 Strength and Deformation
(a) The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental,
permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may
not interfere with safe operation.
(b) The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at
least three seconds, except local failures or structural instabilities between
limit and ultimate load are acceptable only if the structure can sustain the
required ultimate load for at least three seconds. However, when proof of
strength is shown by dynamic tests simulating actual load conditions, the
three second limit does not apply.
4. 23.321 General
(a) Flight load factors represent the ratio of the aerodynamic force component
(acting normal to the assumed longitudinal axis of the airplane) to the weight
2
of the airplane. A positive flight load factor is one in which the aerodynamic
force acts upward, with respect to the airplane.
(b) Compliance with the flight load requirements of this subpart must be shown
–
(1) At each critical altitude within the range in which the airplane may be
expected to operate;
(2) At each weight from the design minimum weight to the design maximum
weight; and
(3) For each required altitude and weight, for any practicable distribution of
disposable load within the operating limitations specified in secs.23.1583
through 23.1589.
(c) When significant, the effects of compressibility must be taken into account.
5. 23.333 Flight Envelope
(a) General. Compliance with the strength requirements of this subpart must be
shown at any combination of airspeed and load factor on and within the
boundaries of a flight envelope (similar to the one in paragraph (d) of this part)
that represents the envelope of the flight loading conditions specified by the
maneuvering and gust criteria of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this part
respectively.
(b) Maneuvering envelope. Except where limited by maximum (static) lift
coefficients, the airplane is assumed to be subjected to symmetrical
maneuvers resulting in the following limit load factors:
(1) The positive maneuvering load factor specified in sec. 23.337 at speeds
up to VD;
(2) The negative maneuvering load factor specified in sec. 23.337 at VC; and
(3) Factors varying linearly with speed from the specified value at VC to 0.0
at VD for the normal and commuter category, and -1.0 at VD for the acrobatic
and utility categories.
(c) Gust envelope.
(1) The airplane is assumed to be subjected to symmetrical vertical gusts in
level flight. The resulting limit load factors must correspond to the
conditions determined as follows:
3
(i) Positive (up) and negative (down) gusts of 50 fps at VC must be
considered at altitudes between sea level and 20,000 feet. The gust
velocity may be reduced linearly from 50 fps at 20,000 feet to 25 fps at
50,000 feet.
(ii) Positive and negative gusts of 25 fps at VD must be considered at
altitudes between sea level and 20,000 feet. The gust velocity may be
reduced linearly from 25 fps at 20,000 feet to 12.5 fps at 50,000 feet.
(iii) In addition, for commuter category airplanes, positive (up) and
negative (down) rough air gusts of 66 fps at VB must be considered at
altitudes between sea level and 20,000 feet. The gust velocity may be
reduced linearly from 66 fps at 20,000 feet to 38 fps at 50,000 feet.
(2) The following assumptions must be made:
(i) The shape of the gust is –
Where –
s = Distance penetrated into gust (ft);
C = Mean geometric chord of wing (ft); and
U(de) = Derived gust velocity referred to in subparagraph (1) of this
part.
(ii) Gust load factors vary linearly with speed between VC and VD.
(d) Flight envelope.
Figure 1.1. Load Factor
4
6. 23.335 Design Airspeeds
Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this part, the selected design airspeeds
are equivalent airspeeds (EAS).
(a) Design cruising speed, VC. For VC the following apply:
(1) Where W/S'= wing loading at the design maximum takeoff weight, VC
(in knots) may not be less than –
(i) 33√(W/S) (for normal, utility, and commuter category airplanes);
(ii) 36√(W/S) (for acrobatic category airplanes).
(2) For values of W/S more than 20, the multiplying factors may be decreased
linearly with W/S to a value of 28.6 where W/S = 100.
(3) VC need not be more than 0.9 VH at sea level.
(4) At altitudes where an MD is established, a cruising speed MC limited by
compressibility may be selected.
(b) Design dive speed VD. For VD, the following apply:
(1) VD/MD may not be less than 1.25 VC/MC; and
(2) With VC min, the required minimum design cruising speed, VD (in knots)
may not be less than –
(i) 1.40 VC min (for normal and commuter category airplanes);
(ii) 1.50 VC min (for utility category airplanes); and
(iii) 1.55 VC min (for acrobatic category airplanes).
(3) For values of W/S more than 20, the multiplying factors in paragraph (b)(2)
of this part may be decreased linearly with W/S to a value of 1.35 where
W/S = 100.
(4) Compliance with paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this part need not be shown
if VD/MD is selected so that the minimum speed margin between
VC/MC and VD/MD is the greater of the following:
(i) The speed increase resulting when, from the initial condition of
stabilized flight at VC/MC, the airplane is assumed to be upset, flown
for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5° below the initial path, and then
pulled up with a load factor of 1.5 (0.5 g acceleration increment). At
least 75 percent maximum continuous power for reciprocating engines,
and maximum cruising power for turbines, or, if less, the power
5
required for VC/MC for both kinds of engines, must be assumed until
the pullup is initiated, at which point power reduction and pilot
controlled drag devices may be used; and either –
(ii) Mach 0.05 for normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes (at
altitudes where MD is established); or
(iii) Mach 0.07 for commuter category airplanes (at altitudes where MD
is established) unless a rational analysis, including the effects of
automatic systems, is used to determine a lower margin. If a rational
analysis is used, the minimum speed margin must be enough to
provide for atmospheric variations (such as horizontal gusts), and the
penetration of jet streams or cold fronts), instrument errors, airframe
production variations, and must not be less than Mach 0.05.
(c) Design maneuvering speed VA. For VA, the following applies:
(1) VA may not be less than VS√n where –
(i) VS is a computed stalling speed with flaps retracted at the design
weight, normally based on the maximum airplane normal force
coefficients, C(na); and
(ii) n is the limit maneuvering load factor used in design
(2) The value of VA need not exceed the value of VC used in design.
(d) Design speed for maximum gust intensity, VB. For VB, the following apply:
(1) VB may not be less than the speed determined by the interpart of the line
representing the maximum positive lift, Cn max, and the line
representing the rough air gust velocity on the gust V-n diagram, or
VS1√ng , whichever is less, where:
(i) n(g) the positive airplane gust load factor due to gust, at speed VC
(in accordance with sec. 23.341), and at the particular weight under
consideration; and
(ii) VS1 is the stalling speed with the flaps retracted at the particular
weight under consideration.
(2) VB need not be greater than VC.
7. 23.337 Limit maneuvering load factors.
(a) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n may not be less than –
6
(1) for normal and commuter category airplanes, where W =
design maximum takeoff weight, except that n need not be more than 3.8;
(2) 4.4 for utility category airplanes; or
(3) 6.0 for acrobatic category airplanes.
(b) The negative limit maneuvering load factor may not be less than –
(1) 0.4 times the positive load factor for the normal utility and commuter
categories; or
(2) 0.5 times the positive load factor for the acrobatic category.
(c) Maneuvering load factors lower than those specified in this part may be used
if the airplane has design features that make it impossible to exceed these
values in flight.
8. 23.341 Gust Loads Factors
(a) Each airplane must be designed to withstand loads on each lifting surface
resulting from gusts specified in sec. 23.333(c).
(b) The gust load for a canard or tandem wing configuration must be computed
using a rational analysis or may be computed in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this part, provided that the resulting net loads are shown to be
conservative with respect to the gust criteria of sec. 23.333(c).
(c) In the absence of a more rational analysis, the gust load factors must be
computed as follows –
Where –
Kg = 0.88 μg/5.3 + μg = gust alleviation factor;
μg = 2 (W/S)/ρCαg = airplane mass ratio;
Ude = Derived gust velocities referred to in sec. 23.333(c) (fps);
𝜌 = Density of air (slugs/cu ft);
W/S = Wing loading (p.s.f.) due to the applicable weight of the airplane in the
particular load case.
C = Mean geometric chord (ft);
G = Acceleration due to gravity (ft/sec2)
V = Airplane equivalent speed (knots); and
7
α = Slope of the airplane normal force coefficient curve C(na) per radian if the
gust loads are applied to the wings and horizontal tail surfaces
simultaneously by a rational method. The wing lift curve slope C(l) per
radian may be used when the gust load is applied to the wings only and the
horizontal tail gust loads are treated as a separate condition.
1.3. Assumption
1. Material used is isotropic metal.
2. Sea level conditions in accordance with International Standard Atmosphere
(ISA)+15.
3. Fuselage structure is semi-monocoque.
4. Wing configuration is low-wing monoplane.
5. Empennage configuration is conventional.
6. Electrical engine is considered the same as typical aircraft engines.
7. Maximum negative lift coefficient is assumed -0.8
𝑑𝐶𝐿
8. Lift slope angle is assumed 5 radian-1.
𝑑𝛼
9. Aircraft components weights except fuselage, wing, furnishings, and

lavatories are assumed to be concentrated in one point.
10. The loads considered are only during the cruise flight condition. Loads
during take-off, landing, taxiing, parking, etc. is not considered.
11. The loads considered are only static loads. The dynamic loads such as
effects of aeroelasticity, impact, etc. are not considered.
1.4. Scope of Work

The scope of work of this report is stated below.
1. The aircraft used is based on the design of Institut Teknologi Bandung
Aerospace Engineering students for AE4040 Aircraft Design course design
project.
2. Structure design is only limited to fuselage, wing, and empennage of the
aircraft.
3. Analysis is done fully by empirical calculation and not supported by
simulations and experiments.
8
1.5. Work Division
Work division for each of the group’s members is stated in table as shown
below.
Table 1.1. Scope of work and work division among the group’s members.
Name Student ID (NIM) Work
Chapter 3: 3.1, 3.3.
Chapter 4: 4.3.1-4.3.3
Joseph Bernard 13619060
Free body diagram
Chapter 5: 5.1 (Wing Structural Layout)
Chapter 1
Mellisa Irawan 13619063 Chapter 4: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.4
Chapter 6 (Fuselage Structural Layout)
Chapter 2
Chapter 3: 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
Rayhan Ekananto 13619113
Free body diagram
Chapter 5: 5.2 (Tail Structural Layout)
9
2. CHAPTER II
AIRCRAFT DATA
Based on the aircraft data provided for this assignment, the specifications of
the Æ-6 eLena is as follows.
Table 2.1. Specification of Æ-6 eLena.

General Information
Passenger 5 pax
Crew 1 pax
MTOW 3003 kg
Flight Performance
Design Range (Max Payload): 540.37 km
Range
Design Range (4 Pax): 611.33 km
Max Payload: 1.8 hours
Endurance
4 Pax: 2.1 hours
Take-off and Landing Take-Off (MTOW, Sea Level ISA+15): 560.67 m
Distances Landing (0.9 MTOW, Sea Level ISA+15): 787.31 m
Design Cruise Altitude 10000 ft (3048 m)
Design: 300 km/h
Cruise Speed
Maximum (0.95 MTOW at 10000 ft): 300 km/h
Maximum Service Ceiling at
13982.49 ft (4261.86 m)
MTOW
Maximum Initial Rate of Climb AEO: 3139.55 ft/min (7.62 m/s)
at MTOW, Sea Level ISA+15 OEI: 2053.58 ft/min (2.52 m/s)
Cabin Dimensions
Cabin Volume 5.5 m³
Baggage Volume 0.9 m³
Airframe Configuration
Low-wing monoplane, trapezoidal
Area: 21.125 m²
Span: 13 m
Aspect Ratio: 8
Wing
Taper Ratio: 0.46
Quarter Chord Sweep: 0°
Dihedral: 7°
Mean Aerodynamic Chord: 1.702 m
10
Conventional
Area: 4.943 m²
Span: 5.45 m
HTP (Horizontal Tail Plane) Aspect Ratio: 6
Taper Ratio: 0.511
Area: 3.3 m²
Span: 3 m
Aspect Ratio: 1.212
VTP (Vertical Tail Plane)
Taper Ratio: 0.5
Semi-monocoque
Length: 10.57 m
Fuselage
Height: 1.69 m
Width: 1.575 m
Airframe Structural Layout and Materials
Skin-Stringer: Al 2024-T3
Fuselage Stringer: Hat-Stringer
Frame and Bulkhead: Al 7075-T6
Stringer: Z-Stringer
Skin-Stringer: Al 7075-T6 (upper), Al 2024-T3 (lower)
Wing Spar: Al 7075-T6
Ribs: Al 7075-T6
Control Surface: CFRP
Skin-Stringer: Al 7075-T6 (upper), Al 2024-T3 (lower)
HTP Spar: Al 7075-T6
Ribs: Al 7075-T6
Skin-Stringer: Al 2024-T3
VTP Spar: Al 7075-T6
Ribs: Al 7075-T6
Tricycle, Non-Retractable
Landing Gear
Tire Type: BIAS TYPE III
11
Tire Size: 6.50-8
Cost
BEP 400 Unit
Price per Unit Cost (2026) $1,632,850
Furthermore, below is provided the three-view drawing of the Æ-6 eLena to

provide better understanding of the aircraft’s general configuration.
Figure 2.1. Three-view drawing of the Æ-6 eLena.
12
3. CHAPTER III
EVALUATION OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES
Generally, an aircraft consists of three main structures: wing(s), fuselage,

and empennage. A good aircraft will be able to distribute loads well enough that it
will not cause failure in any way, otherwise known as load paths. These load paths
will then determine which materials should be used for that particular structure.
Thus, with that in mind, this chapter will discuss the load paths, structural concepts,
materials, and manufacturing and maintenance reports that are being used in
existing aircraft structures.
3.1. Structure of Existing Similar Aircraft

As provided by (Prastawa, Indra, Aini, & Puspita, 2021a) the existing
aircraft of similar design, requirements, and objective to the Æ-6 eLena are Eviation
Alice, Bye Aerospace eFlyer 2, and Bye Aerospace eFlyer 4 for electric powered
aircraft; Piper PA-34 Seneca, Piper PA-31 Navajo, and Daher TBM-910 for non-
electric powered aircraft.
In terms of structural consideration, it is more convenient to study the
cutaway drawings or the technical drawings of other aircrafts. As the electric
powered aircraft mentioned before is relatively new and/or still concept, as well as
its use is not yet widespread, there are problems in obtaining the structural drawing
of those aircrafts. Instead, we will consider other, non-electric powered aircraft that
may or may not include the three non-electric aircraft mentioned before.
The aircrafts to be compared due to its similarity to the Æ-6 eLena,
especially from its MTOW, payload, configuration, layout, etc., are shown below.
13
3.1.1. Daher TBM-940
Figure 3.1. Cutaway drawing of Daher TBM-940
3.1.2. Piper PA-31T Cheyenne I
Figure 3.2. Cutaway drawing of Piper PA-31T Cheyenne I.
14
3.1.3. Piper PA-31T2 Cheyenne II XL
Figure 3.3. Cutaway drawing of the Piper PA-31T2 Cheyenne II XL.
3.1.4. Piper PA-34 Seneca
Figure 3.4. Cutaway drawing of the Piper PA-34 Seneca.
15
3.1.5. Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian
Figure 3.5. Cutaway drawing of Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian.
3.1.6. Rockwell Commander 690B
Figure 3.6. Cutaway drawing of Rockwell Commander 690B.
16
3.1.7. Cessna 421C
Figure 3.7. Cutaway drawing of Cessna 421C.
3.1.8. Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander
Figure 3.8. Cutaway drawing of Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander.
17
3.1.9. Beechcraft 60 Duke
Figure 3.9. Cutaway drawing of Beechcraft 60 Duke.
3.2. Fuselage Structure Analysis

Within this particular section of chapter 3, there will be a detailed and
comprehensive explanation in regard to the analysis of the fuselage structure. This
segment will explain in detail the load paths that are being applied to a fuselage, its
structural concepts by comparing to other types of configurations, the materials
being used, as well as the manufacturing and maintenance reports.
3.2.1. Load Paths

There are numerous load paths located throughout the fuselage as they are
the main component of the airplane which connects to other important parts such
as the wings, tail, engines, etc. This is also followed by the pressure distribution
which is unique to the fuselage of an aircraft.
3.2.1.1.Bending Moment in Fuselage

The bending moment in the fuselage is caused by the weights of the fuselage
itself, engines, wing, as well as connectors between fuselage and wing.
Compression stress will occur in the lower fuselage with tensile stress occurring in
the crown fuselage such as shown in the figure below.
18
Figure 3.10. Bending Moment in the Fuselage, causing tension and compression
forces.
3.2.1.2.Torsional Load in Fuselage

Torsional load in the fuselage usually occurs whenever maneuvers are made
which mainly affects the connection between the fuselage and the empennage.
Thus, the main component which withstands the torsional load is the skin.
Furthermore, the frame also acts as a stiffener in order to improve skin toughness.
Figure 3.11. Torsional Load in Fuselage
3.2.1.3.Shear Load in Fuselage

Transversal loading in the fuselage is the main player in how the shear load
is distributed. It mainly targets the hardpoints within the fuselage such as the
connections on the wing and fuselage, wing and tail, etc.
19
Figure 3.12. Shear Load in Fuselage
Furthermore, the connection between wing and fuselage is represented by

Figure 3.4 below. This connection is made in a way that normal forces are
introduced to both the upper and lower part of the fuselage and wing thus canceling
each other as compression and tension have a different direction. In the end, only
lift force is introduced to the structure.
Figure 3.13. Load Paths in Wing Box of Fuselage
3.2.1.4.Pressurization in Fuselage
Whatever altitude the aircraft is currently at, the cabin or fuselage must be
able to withstand that particular pressure, which may be extreme at some times. The
fuselage is designed in a way that may accommodate for passengers and cabin crew
to survive although in extreme atmospheric pressure. Following the difference in
pressure between inside and outside of the fuselage, we can calculate the
longitudinal and hoop stress using the pressure formula as well.
20
Figure 3.14. Pressurization of Fuselage
3.2.2. Fuselage Structural Concepts

The fuselage has several different types which range from truss,
monocoque, and semi-monocoque. For the purposes of this part of the report, there
will be comparisons of each configuration’s strengths and weaknesses.
Furthermore, doublers and connectors by the fuselage to other segments of the
airplane will also be evaluated in the table below.
Table 3.1. Structural Concepts of a Fuselage.
Fuselage Configuration Advantages Disadvantages

Component
Type of Truss Easy to manufacture and • Hard to make a

Fuselage inspect streamlined fuselage
• Needs a separate skin
• Small Payload Volume
• Unable to resist
fuselage pressurization
Monocoque 1. Reduce weight 1. Cannot tolerate surface

structure deformation
2. Increase volume 2. More expensive and
3. Easier to make a harder to manufacture
streamlined fuselage
21
Semi-Monocoque 1. Stronger structure 1. Heavier than Truss and
than a monocoque Monocoque
2. Wider volume 2. More expensive and
3. Easier to streamline harder to manufacture
than truss
Doubler Waffle Doubler Efficient in structure and Harder to implement as

a higher fail-safe factor well as heavier
Fail Strap Traditional and less Not as efficient in

weight withstanding cracks
Engine to Diagonal Truss Strong in handling engine Relatively too light

Fuselage weight
Connectors
Pod Mounting Strong in handling engine Relatively too heavy

weight
Wing to Link Truss Joint Able to withstand engine Crack distributed when
Fuselage weight occurred
Connectors
Link and Spigot Join Able to withstand engine Prone to fatigue

weight and traditional
bolt joint
22
Tail to Bolt (HTP) Able to withstand engine -
Fuselage weight and have a good
Connectors anti-fatigue
Terminated at aft More effective as stress Harder to manufacture

fuselage (VTP) has the same direction as
the frame
Terminated outside Easier to manufacture Less effective as stress has

aft fuselage (VTP) a different direction as the
frame
3.2.3. Fuselage Materials

1. Fuselage Skin
In the fuselage, skin plays a very important role in withstanding the
tensional load due to pressurization as well as bending moment and shear
load. Due to these characteristics, the skin needs material with a high tensile
and shear strength. Other than that, high resistance to corrosion and fatigue
is also needed, thus usually Al 2024-T3 is commonly used due to its high
fatigue resistance.
2. Fuselage Longeron
The longeron functions in withstanding most of the bending load for
the fuselage. It also receives a shear load due to the reaction between the
connectors of the fuselage to other components within the aircraft. Thus, it
needs material with high durability to fatigue and with a high toughness
23
level. Thus, the Al 7075-T6 keeps up to these criteria as it has a high
modulus elasticity as well as a low density.
3. Fuselage Frame and Bulkhead
The frame and bulkhead of the fuselage must be able to withstand
compressional load within the structure of the shell and fuselage. The
bulkhead also distributes concentrated loading such as to the landing gear
as well as maintaining tensional load due to differences in cabin pressure.
Thus, similar to the longeron, it needs material with a high modulus
elasticity level in order to maintain the fuselage shape. This is gained using
the Al 6061-T6 and Al 7075-T6 for the frame and bulkhead respectively.
3.2.4. Fuselage Manufacturing and Maintenance Aspects

3.2.4.1.Skin Manufacturing and Maintenance
Processes such as process solution heat treatment, cold working, and natural
ageing helps to increase the tensile strength of the skin. Meanwhile, the cladding
process helps to increase resistance against corrosion. This is done through increase
its fatigue resistance by combining different solutions. Furthermore, the skin itself
is made through sheet metal forming process which forms sheets of metal to the
wanted shape without changing its properties.
Figure 3.15. Sheet Metal Forming Process
3.2.4.2.Longeron Manufacturing and Maintenance

The materials of longeron use solution heat treatment as well as artificial
ageing process in order to maintain. It is done to increase the strength of the
material. Furthermore, in order to manufacture the needed aluminum for
24
longeron’s, a process of closed die forging is done which is a forging technique in
which dies move towards each other and partially or completely cover the
workpiece.
Figure 3.16. Open-Die and Closed-Die Forging Process
3.2.4.3.Frame and Bulkhead Manufacturing and Maintenance

As the frame and bulkhead of the fuselage uses the Al 6xxx series and Al
7xxx series respectively, the structure used must be able to withstand against fatigue.
Hence, solution heat treatment process and artificial ageing is used to increase its
toughness. Furthermore, the manufacturing process used is superplastic forming
which is a unique process as they use superplastic in which is processed at different
pressures and temperatures to reach the desired shape.
Figure 3.17. Superplastic Forming
25
3.2.4.4.Stringer Manufacturing and Maintenance
The stringer easily breaks due to vibration, corrosion, and many other
factors which may result in damages both reversible and irreversible. In order to
maintain, filler splice process is used. This is a process to fill in the empty spaces
due to corrosion and other damages. However, this object must be four times as
strong in order to accommodate the pressure and axial loading that are there. As
technology development continues to grow, new manufacturing process is being
applied to the stringer such as the usage of thermoplastic composites which are very
tough. This enables new stiffening and joining methods, without the use of fasteners.
3.3. Wing Structure Analysis

Within this section of chapter 3, there will be a detailed and comprehensive
explanation in regard to the analysis of the wing structure. This segment will explain
in detail the load paths that are being applied to a wing, its structural concepts by
comparing to other types of configurations, the materials being used, as well as the
manufacturing and maintenance reports.
3.3.1. Load Paths

In the wing, there are two main forces being detected which are mainly the
lift generated as well as the weight of the wing itself, followed by the engine’s
weight. These forces will eventually result in a bending moment that can be divided
into three. Beforehand, the figure below will simulate the force distribution within
a wing.
Figure 3.18. Force Distribution in a wing.
26
Furthermore, there is also the force that signifies the relation between the
wing and the fuselage such as bending moment. Eventually, the resultant external
forces must be translated to internal forces in order to satisfy the equation of load
paths. This results in bending moment, torsion, and shear which will be distributed
later on alongside the internal forces.
3.3.1.1.Shear Load on Wings

Lift and weight forces working throughout the wing may result in a
particular force otherwise known as (traverse) shear force. It is the force acting in a
direction that's parallel to a surface or cross-section of a body. Shear loads is carried
by the wing spar. As shear loads may not be distributed evenly along the wingspan,
i.e., if there is any hardpoints on the wing, ribs are used to redistribute this shear
load on the spar.
Figure 3.19. Beam model of the wing spar showing bending moments and shear
forces over an infinitesimal element.
3.3.1.2.Bending Load on Wings

Bending forces within the wings is caused by shear forces and resulting in
axial stress within the wing which affects the maximum value at the top and bottom
of the wing cross-section. Thus, the stinger and skin of the wing are the specific
parts that mainly withstand the axial bending stresses.
27
Figure 3.20. Forces in the wing structure as a result of upward bending
(Alderliesten, 2018).
If we examine closer, the wing elements will deform as in Figure 3.21. To

carry the bending loads and to resist against deformation, the diagonal elements
shown are very important. This diagonal function can be carried by a sheet material,
or web plates in this matter. For this reason, the spar also carries the bending load
of the wing, and the spar’s basic form is usually the I-beam, with the flanges/girders
carrying the normal (or axial forces) and the web plate carrying the shear force.
Figure 3.21. Deformation related to the upward wing bending (Alderliesten,

2018).
3.3.1.3.Torsion Load on Wings

The last force which coincidently is resulted by moment within a wing and
eventually results in the existence of shear force within a wing is torsion. A wing
with a single spar is unable to carry torsional moment due to the I-beam’s low
28
resistance against torsion. Thus, the concept of double spar with differential
bending can be used, or furthermore, by a closed box or cylinder. The main point is
that the cross section should remain closed.
Thus, in the wing, to resist torsional loads, we create a “box” from the
wing’s skin-stringer and the spars, the torsion box, or the wing box. The skins,
which may be reinforced by stringers, take up the aerodynamic forces and
contribute to the torsion box. They may partially take over the bending function of
spar caps, allowing smaller cross-sections on the spar caps. The (spar) web
contributes to the torsion box and adds bending resistance.
Figure 3.22. Resistance of a torsional movement by a cylinder (left) and the

structural elements of the torsional box (right) (Alderliesten, 2018).
In conclusion, there are four main components within the wing that have
their own specialties in staying put to their structures to prevent overload within the
wing. These components are:
1. Skin: Resists tensile, compressive, and shear load, torsion (as a part of the
wing box).
2. Stringer: Resists tensile and compressive load, torsion (as a part of the wing
box).
3. Spar: Resists bending, shear (on the spar webs), and axial loads (on the spar
caps), torsion (as a part of the wing box).
4. Ribs: Resists axial load, load redistribution, being the hardpoint holder.
29
3.3.2. Wing Structural Concepts
Within this sub-sub section, there will be a comparison between types of
wing configuration structures that have been used in current existing aircraft with
the Æ 6-eLena aircraft.
Table 3.2. Structural Concepts of Wing.

Wing Aspect Configuration Advantages Disadvantages
Component
Ribs Rib Types Truss Type Suitable for a wide
range of loads
Web Rib When nail-gluing is

applied, this helps to
avoid buckling and
obtain better rib/skin
junctions.
Continuous Gusset Provide extra support
Rib throughout the rib
without much
additional load
Rib Perpendicular Spar • Length needed for Less aerodynamic
Installation Web rib is decreased.
• Easy Assembly
Parallel to Flight Aerodynamic path is • High shear

Path smoother in spar loads in
connector
• Varying
materials need
to be used
30
Spar Spar Types Integrally Machined • Resistant to Much Heavier
Web Bending
• Provides more
space for fuel
Truss Web More space for wings • Distribution of

thus the creation of weight not
holes is not needed flexible
• Failure in one
part results in
total failure
Sine-Wave Web Division of stiffness Hard to
in two ways manufacture and
assembly
Cross I-Beam Shear Centre located

Section in centroid
C-Beam Inertia in Z-Body is Easier to deform

much higher
Skin- Types of Integral • Heavy Reduction • High

Stringer Skin- • Optimal area manufacturing
Stringers distribution and cost
thickness • Crack can
• Smoother skin spread easily
empennage
Built-up • Lower • Rough skin
manufacturing empennage
cost • Addition in
• Crack won’t weight
spread as easily
31
Stringer Stringer Z-Stringer • Structure
Cross efficiency
Sections • Easier
maintenance
accessibility
• Integrate with
other components
easily
J-Stringer • Good fail-safe Need more
characteristics fasteners
• Easier compared to Z-
maintenance Stringer
accessibility
• Used for
connection
between skin in
empennage and
fuselage
I-Stringer Easier maintenance Complicated
accessibility integration
procedures with
rib
Y-Stringer The configuration • Vulnerable to

with the highest Corrosion
efficiency • Segments hard
to evaluate
• Complicated
integration
procedures
with rib
Hat Stringer A configuration with • Vulnerable to
a high efficiency Corrosion
• Segments hard
to evaluate
32
3.3.3. Wing Materials
As discussed before, the wing has four main components which have
different objectives. These objectives need different material properties in order to
satisfy the design requirements.
1. Spar Material
A sufficient resistance to shear load and a high level of fracture toughness
is needed for the spar thus requiring these materials being used: Al 2014-T6, Al
2024-T4, Al 2024-T81, and Al 7075-T6.
2. Ribs Material
The ribs of the wing should withstand shear load and axial load as they
mainly function in a way to support bending and as a hardpoint holder. Furthermore,
a sufficient level of fracture toughness is needed thus material being used are Al
2324 or Al 2024.
3. Stringer Material
Stringer is divided into two, the upper skin part and lower skin which must
always withstand different loads. Particularly, the upper skin must be able to
withstand buckling thus made of mostly of Al 7075-T6 and lower skin must be able
to withstand fatigue, thus using these materials: Al 2014-T6, Al 2024-T4, and Al
2024-T81.
4. Skin Material
The surface of the aircraft has different properties depending on the situation.
For the upper skin, when the aircraft is in land, weight contributes a lot to the skin
thus resulting in a tensile load. This differs for when the aircraft is in the air,
compression loading affects the skin more rapidly following the lift forces being
applied to it. On the other hand, the lower skin has the reversed load with tensile
applied when it is in air and compression being applied when the aircraft is in the
ground. Due to this situation, the upper skin usually is made from Aluminum Series
7 material (Al 7075-T6, Al 7150-T6, or Al 7178-T6), and lower skin with
Aluminum Series 2 (Al 2024-T3 or Al 2324-T39).
33
3.3.4. Wing Manufacturing and Maintenence Aspect
Following the different materials required in each segment of the wing,
alongside the continuous usage of the wing in which may reduce its durability. This
is further pushed by the different loads acting upon the object. Thus, a
manufacturing and maintenance method is needed for the wing.
3.3.4.1.Spar Manufacture and Maintenance

Coincidently, the spar has the same manufacturing method as the skin which
is the metal rolling method. It is a process of metal being rolled repeatedly to reduce
thickness which is the properties needed for most wing skins. Maintenance method
is being done by evaluating the steel used within the spar and running scheduled
maintenance.
Figure 3.23. Metal Rolling
3.3.4.2.Ribs Manufacture and Maintenance

Compression molding method is usually used in the manufacturing of ribs,
but it depends on the structure whether it is wood or steel. Particularly for steel, the
method is similar to stringer manufacturing in which melted steel is being shaped
as a rib of a wing which is done by compression molding method.
34
Figure 3.24. Compression Molding Method
3.3.4.3.Stringer Manufacture and Maintenance

Heading/upset forging method is being used in manufacturing the stringer.
It is a process in which melted steel is molded into a frame shaped like a stringer.
Maintenance in the form of testing both static and dynamic is usually being done
then followed by the required processes.
Figure 3.25. Heading/Upset Forging Method
3.3.4.4.Skin Manufacture and Maintenance

For the skin of the wing, a manufacturing method of Metal Rolling is usually
applied. The manufacturing method is the same as spar, however usually for
maintenance it is being done by trouble shooting or detect rectification as the skin
is the most exposed part when evaluating the wing.
35
3.4. Empennage Structure Analysis
Within this particular section of chapter 3, there will be a detailed and
comprehensive explanation in regard to the analysis of the empennage structure.
This segment will explain in detail the load paths that are being applied to an
empennage, its structural concepts by comparing to other types of configurations,
the materials being used, as well as the manufacturing and maintenance reports.
Figure 3.26. Empennage Structure
3.4.1. Empennage Load Paths

Similar to the load paths within the wing, the empennage which consists of
the Horizontal and Vertical Tail Plane has to withstand different loads as well since
they are against different forces and has different usages. When analyzed, the
empennage has different internal forces acting within them which are coincidentally
the same as the wing, but with different affects.
3.4.1.1.Bending Moment on Empennage

Bending moment in an empennage happens specifically in the HTP in which
results in an axial stress. This is usually caused by lift and weight forces acting
36
within the HTP. The axial stress happens mainly in the surface of HTP thus making
the skin and spar the most important part to withstand the axial stresses. Same goes
for the VTP.
Figure 3.27. Bending Moment in HTP and VTP
3.4.1.2.Torsional Load on Empennage

Torsional load happens due to bending moment alongside deflection in the
control surfaces of the empennage (elevator and rudder).
Figure 3.28. Torsional Load in the Empennage.
Figure 3.29. Deformation Happening in Empennage due to shear stress from

torsion.
3.4.1.3.Shear Load on Empennage

Lift forces in the HTP and side force in the VTP results in shear load within
the empennage. The spar component is the main component which is responsible
37
for the shear load. As an example, the I-Beam is used to simulate shear load effects
within the empennage.
Figure 3.30. Simulation of Shear Load on the Empennage spar (I-beam).
3.4.2. Empennage Structural Concepts

The structural configuration of the empennage is fairly similar to the wing
such as skin, spar, rib, and stringer., However, this part of the aircraft has several
additions such as the different hardpoints within the HTP and VTP which
corresponds to the elevator and rudder respectively, otherwise known as control
surfaces. Furthermore, the structures of skin, spar, rib, and stringer is the same as
the wing in Table 3.2. However, for elevator and rudder it is mainly affected by ribs
and spar in which the detailed explanation for their structural configuration and
types can be seen in the graph below.
Table 3.3. Structural Concepts of a Empennage.

Wing Type Configuration Advantages Disadvantages
Component
Ribs Rib Types Trust Type Suitable for a wide
range of loads
Web Rib When nail-gluing is

applied, this helps to
avoid buckling and
obtain better
rib/skin junctions.
38
Continuous Gusset Provide extra
Rib support throughout
the rib without
much additional
load
Rib Perpendicular Spar • Length needed Not that
Installation Web for rib is aerodynamic
decreased
• Easy Assembly
Parallel to Flight Path Aerodynamic path • High shear

is smoother in spar loads in
connector
• Varying
materials need
to be used
Spar Spar Types Integrally Machined • Resistant to Much Heavier

Web Bending
• Provides more
space for fuel
Truss Web More space for • Distribution of

wings thus the weight not
creation of holes is flexible
not needed • Failure on one
section results
in total failure
Sine-Wave Web Division of stiffness Hard to
in two ways manufacture and
assembly
39
Cross I-Beam Shear Centre
Section located in centroid
C-Beam Inertia in Z-Body is Deforms more

much higher easily.
3.4.3. Empennage Materials

Same as the materials being used for the wing, the empennage focuses on
Aluminum within the 2xxx and 7xxx series. Furthermore, for more specific details
on which part of the empennage uses which material, it can be assumed that it’s
similar to the wing for skin, spar, rib, and stringers but does not require a stronger
structure as the load is not as large as the wing.
3.4.4. Empennage Manufacturing and Maintenence Reports

The stringer within the empennage is usually manufactured using the shape
rolling method which is the method of rolling specific materials to a rolling mill in
order to bend the structure to the desired shape while maintain its cross section.
Next, the skin uses a method of stretch forming in which a piece of metal is
stretched continuously over a die. Lastly, both ribs and spar are manufactured using
rolling operation which consists of profile rolling, controlled rolling, ring rolling,
etc. Other than that, maintenance is usually done regularly as per usual and similar
to the processes with the wing in order to inspect for damages such as holes or
cracks.
40
4. CHAPTER IV
DESIGN LOAD ANALYSIS
4.1. Flight Envelope

Flight envelope from an aircraft is a region in airspeed-altitude graph where
the aircraft is operating. In this region, aircraft is restricted in low velocity by stall
velocity and restricted in high velocity by available thrust. To create flight envelope
diagram, first we need to define variables as shown below.
Table 4.1. Parameters used in determining the flight envelope.

Variable Symbol Value Unit
Gravity g 9.81 m/s2
Gross weight m 3002.55 kg
Wing area S 21.125 m2
Wing aspect ratio AR 8 -
Sweep of max t/c line 0 deg
Max. positive lift coefficient 1.657 -
Max negative lift coefficient -0.8 -
Sea Level Density 𝜌𝑆𝐿 1.225 kg/m3
Cruise Mach M
Design cruise speed VC 83.3333 m/s
Design dive speed VD m/s
𝑑𝐶𝑙
Lift slope ( ) a 5 -
𝑑𝛼
Wingspan b 13 m
Wing mean geometric chord MAC 1.702 m
Next, load factor is defined. Load factor is the ratio between lift force to
aircraft gross weight.
There are two important load factor value that is maximum positive load
factor and maximum negative load factor. Based on FAR Part 23, load factor value
for Æ-6 eLena, a normal category aircraft, is defined by equations below.
41
Table 4.2. Maximum positive and maximum negative load factor for Æ-6 eLena
Variable Equation Value used
Max. positive load factor 3.54
Max. negative load factor -1.42
After load factor value is defined, the critical velocity points need to be
calculated. These velocities are positive stall velocity, negative stall velocity, cruise
velocity, positive maneuvering velocity, negative maneuvering velocity, positive
dive velocity and negative dive velocity.
Table 4.3. Variables used in creating flight maneuvering diagram
2W
Stall Velocity Vs = √
ρSL ⋅ S⋅ CL (max)
VS positive 37.065 m/s

VS negative 53.344 m/s
Cruise Velocity Design requirement
VC 83.333 m/s
Dive Velocity VD = 1.4VC
VD 116.667 m/s
Maneuvering Velocity VA = VS√n
VA positive 69.738 m/s
VA negative 63.566 m/s
Furthermore, gust load line will be created to complete flight envelope

diagram. This line represents aircraft velocity that is permitted due to gust loading.
To visualize this line, we need to define gust load factor.
Table 4.4. Variables used in gust loading calculation

Vehicle mass aspect ratio μg 28.560
Gust alleviation factor Kg 0.742
Gust Velocity
Derived gust velocity for VB (m/s) 20.116
42
Derived gust velocity for VC (m/s) 15.239
Derived gust velocity for VD (m/s) 7.620
Design Rough Speed
64.79
Gust load factor during design rough speed
n positive 3.129
n negative 1.129
Gust load factor during cruise speed
n positive 3.070
n negative -1.070
Gust load factor during dive speed
n positive 2.449
n negative -0.449
Figure 4.1. Flight envelope of the Æ-6 eLena.
43
4.2. Maximum And Minimum Weight
From Table 4.2, maximum load factor values for Æ-6 eLena have been
calculated as 3.54 for maximum positive case and -1.42 for maximum negative case.
Based on these load factor values, we can calculate maximum and minimum weight
that can be carried by Æ-6 eLena. Lift difference can also be calculated with
equations and results shown in table below.
Table 4.5. Æ-6 eLena maximum and minimum weight

W (kg) ∆L (kg)
Type n
Maximum 3.54 10,629.03 7,626.53

Minimum -1.42 -4,263.62 -7,266.12
4.3. Shear Force, Bending Moment, and Torsion Diagram of the Structure
On the aircraft, there can be five main types of stresses subjected on its
structure: tension, compression, shear, bending, and torsion. These stresses can be
caused by aerodynamic forces, inertia, ground reactions, and thrust. Among those
five stresses, the most critical are shear from shear force (SF), bending from
bending moment (BM), and torsion (T). Thus, we will calculate and generate the
distribution of those loads on each of the aircraft’s structure, i.e., the wing, the
empennage, and the fuselage.
Figure 4.2. Stresses acting on an aircraft structure.
44
4.3.1. Aerodynamic Forces Acting on the Aircraft
To determine the loads applied on to the aircraft, we will first construct the
free body diagram of the forces acting on the aircraft. It is assumed that the center
of gravity of the aircraft is located at 4372.05 mm from the nose, and the
aerodynamic forces on the wing are acting on the aerodynamic center of the wing
and empennage. This aerodynamic center is assumed to be located at 0.25c as it is
common for most subsonic wings and airfoils.
Figure 4.3. Free body diagram of the Æ-6 eLena. Note that the dimensions are in
mm.
To simplify our calculation, the drag from both the wing and the empennage
is neglected. The thrust provided by the engines are also neglected. First using the
equilibrium of moments with respect to the center of gravity,
Evaluating the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction,
45
Substituting equation for Lt into the equation above
Evaluating the wing’s pitching moment with respect to its aerodynamic center, Mac.
It is known that the wing is trapezoidal, with the function of chord length in y is
[m]
Thus,
[N.m]
Using the value of Mac, as well as the weight of the aircraft, we can
determine the lift produced by the wing, Lw. After obtaining Lw, we can determine
Lt from the equilibrium equation,
Here, the parameters that are needed for determining these forces are tabulated in
the following table.
Table 4.6. Parameters to determine the lift of the wing and empennage.
Parameter Value
MTOW 3003 kg
G 9.81 m/s²
46
ρ (sea level ISA) 1.225 kg/m³
VB 64.94762357 m/s (EAS)
(For NACA 652-415 airfoil at α = 0°) -0.083
We evaluate the lift for two extreme cases from the load factor, i.e., the
maximum positive load factor 3.54 and the maximum negative load factor -1.42.
4.3.1.1.Wing Lift and Tail Forces for n = 3.54

For n = 3.54, we can determine the value of Lw as follows.
Next, to determine the value of Lt for n = 3.54,
4.3.1.2.Wing Lift and Tail Forces for n = -1.42

For n = -1.42, we can determine the value of Lw as follows.
47
Next, to determine the value of Lt for n = -1.42,
4.3.2. Wing Load Diagrams

To determine the spanwise distribution of the lift produced by the wing, we
will use Schrenk’s approximation method. Schrenk’s approximation method to
determine the distribution of lift along the wing is formulated as follows.
with cSchrenk is the Schrenk chord, defined as
in which,
4S 2y 2
celliptic = √1 – ( )
πb b
Here, it is assumed that the spanwise lift distribution should be proportional
to the shape of the wing planform. Schrenk’s method averages the trapezoidal
distribution of the wing chord with the elliptic distribution of the wing, so that we
may determine the spanwise lift distribution in terms of the chord length
distribution spanwise.
Using the wing parameters, we determine the trapezoidal and elliptical
chord distribution (in meters) of Æ-6 eLena is as follows.
4y2
celliptic = 2.069014√1 –
169
48
Figure 4.4. Definition of spanwise and chordwise lift distributions.
Thus, we may compare the trapezoidal chord distribution, elliptic chord

distribution, and the average of the two as the Schrenk chord distribution, as follows.
Wing Chord Distribution

2.5
2 Ctrapezoidal
Wing chord [m]
1.5
Cellipt
Cschrenk
0.5
0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Wingspan [m]
Figure 4.5. Trapezoidal, elliptic, and Schrenk’s chord distribution.
Knowing the distribution of the Schrenk chord along the wingspan, we can
determine the lift distribution along the wingspan for each critical loading condition.
The lift distribution spanwise is then useful to determine the shear force distribution
along the wingspan.
Moreover, the shear force distribution along the wingspan is also affected
by the weight of the wing itself. Assuming constant density of the wing, we may
49
model the weight distribution of the wing in terms of its wing (trapezoidal) chord
distribution as follows.
The weight distribution of the wing also affected by the load factor. The
following illustration is the wing’s weight distribution for a load factor of 1.
Spanwise Wing Weight Distribution, n = 1

0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-50
Weight [N/m]
-100
-150
-200
-250
Wingspan [m]
Figure 4.6. Spanwise wing weight distribution for n = 1.
We will evaluate the spanwise lift distribution of the wing for the two
extreme cases for the load factor, i.e., the maximum positive load factor of 3.54 and
the maximum negative load factor of -1.42.
4.3.2.1.Wing Load Diagrams for n = 3.54

For n = 3.54, it is known that the lift produced by the wing is 104172.1338
N. Thus, substituting the value of Lw, we obtain the following spanwise lift
distribution.
50
Spanwise Wing Lift Distribution, n = 3.54
12000
Lift Distribution [N/m] 10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wing span [m]
Figure 4.7. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = 3.54.
From the spanwise lift distribution, we may construct the free body diagram
of the wing as follows, with We is the engine weight and Wb the battery weight.
Figure 4.8. Free body diagram of the wing at n = 3.54.
Next, we will determine the reaction force Ffw of wing-fuselage connection

using the equilibrium of forces from the free body diagram.
51
Considering all external forces and the reaction force on the wing as shown
in the free body diagram, we may construct the shear force distribution along the
wingspan as follows.
Spanwise Wing Shear Force Distribution,

n = 3.54
40000
30000
Shear Force [N]
20000
10000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-10000
Half span [m]
load factor n = 3.54.
As by definition, shear force and bending moment can be related as follows.
Thus, to obtain the moment distribution from shear force distribution
52
Figure 4.10. Free body diagram of a beam element.
From the shear force distribution, we may determine the bending moment
distribution along the wingspan by means of numerical integration, in this case by
using the trapezoidal rule, which results in the following diagram.
Spanwise Bending Moment Distribution, n =

3.54
120000
Bending Moment [Nm]
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Half span [m]
Figure 4.11. Spanwise bending moment distribution along the half span of the
wing for load factor n = 3.54.
As explained in section 3.3.1.3 above, torsional load is carried by the torsion

box or the wing box, which consist of the front and rear spar as well as the wing
skin. According to the engineering drawing provided for the wing, the front and
rear spars of the wing are located at 25% chord and 75% chord respectively.
Meanwhile, each wing section not only experience aerodynamic lift but also
53
aerodynamic moment as well as the wing’s weight. Thus, we may construct the free
body diagram for each wing section or partition as follows.
Figure 4.12. Free body diagram of the wing section using NACA 652-415 airfoil,
location of the centroid of each section (at ~42.34% chord).
Here, we approximate the location of the shear center of the wing box, which
is the main torsion-bearing structure, as the point between the two spars. In this
case, the shear center is located at 50% chord. The shear center itself is the point
through which a force can be applied which will cause a beam to bend and yet not
twist. If the lift acts at the aerodynamic center and the weight at the centroid, and
both those points are not coincidental with the shear center, then the wing will not
only bend but also twist. Thus, we may determine the torsion in each section as
with lw the section’s local lift, ea is the distance between the shear center and the
aerodynamic center (in this case is 0.25c), ww is the section’s local weight, eg is the
distance between the shear center and the centroid (in this case is about 0.0766c),
and mac is the section’s local aerodynamic moment (for NACA 652-415 is -0.083).
Thus, using the formula provided, we can plot the torsional load along the
wing’s half span as follows. Note that here, discontinuities due to other loads such
as the battery weight, engine weight, etc., is neglected.
54
Spanwise Torsion Distribution, n = 3.54
18000
15000
Torsion [Nm]
12000
9000
6000
3000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Half span [m]
factor n = 3.54.
4.3.2.2.Wing Load Diagrams for n = -1.42

For n = -1.42, it is known that the lift produced by the wing is -39622.58653
N. Thus, substituting the value of Lw, we obtain the spanwise lift distribution.
Spanwise Wing Lift Distribution, n = -1.42

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-1000
Lift Distribution [N/m]
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Wing span [m]
Figure 4.14. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = -1.42.
of the wing as follows, with We is the engine weight and Wb the battery weight.
55
Figure 4.15. Free body diagram of the wing at n = -1.42.
Next, we will determine the reaction force Ffw of wing-fuselage connection

using the equilibrium of forces from the free body diagram.
Spanwise Wing Shear Force Distribution,

n = -1.42
4000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Shear Force [N]
-4000
-8000
-12000
-16000
Half span [m]
load factor of n = -1.42.
56
Using the following integral,
we may determine the bending moment distribution along the wingspan by means
of numerical integration, in this case by using the trapezoidal rule, which results in
the following diagram.
Spanwise Bending Moment Distribution, n = -

1.42
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bending Moment [Nm]
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
Half span [m]
wing for n = -1.42.
Furthermore, based on the free body diagram in Figure 4.12, we may

determine the torsion in each section as
and mac is the section’s local aerodynamic moment (for NACA 652-415 is -0.083).
We can plot the torsional load along the wing’s half span for load factor of n = -
1.42 as follows. Note that here, discontinuities due to other loads such as the battery
weight, engine weight, etc., is neglected.
57
Spanwise Torsion Distribution, n = -1.42
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-2000
-4000
Torsion [Nm]
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
Half span [m]
factor n = -1.42.
4.3.3. Horizontal Tail Plane Load Diagram

Similar to determining the spanwise distribution of the lift produced by the
wing, we will use Schrenk’s approximation method to determine the spanwise
distribution of the lift produced by the HTP (horizontal tail plane).
HTP Chord Distribution

1.25
1 Ctrapezoidal
Wing chord [m]
0.75
Celliptical
0.5
Cschrenk
0.25
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Wingspan [m]
Figure 4.19. Trapezoidal, elliptic, and Schrenk’s chord distribution for the HTP.
Using the wing parameters, we determine the trapezoidal and elliptical
chord distribution of Æ-6 eLena as follows and represented in Figure 4.19.
58
1600y2
celliptic = 1.154092√1 –
11881
Assuming constant density of the HTP, we may model the weight

distribution of the HTP in terms of its trapezoidal chord distribution as follows.
The weight distribution of the wing also affected by the load factor. The following
illustration is the wing’s weight distribution for a load factor of 1.
Spanwise HTP Weight Distribution, n = 1

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-10
-20
Weight [N/m]
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Span [m]
Figure 4.20. Spanwise HTP weight distribution for n = 1.
We will evaluate the spanwise lift distribution of the HTP for the two
extreme cases for the load factor, i.e., the maximum positive load factor of 3.54 and
the maximum negative load factor of -1.42.
59
4.3.3.1.HTP Load Diagram for n = 3.54
For n = 3.54, it is known that the force produced by the HTP is 114.2483944
N. Thus, substituting the value of Lt, we obtain the following spanwise lift
distribution.
Spanwise HTP Lift Distribution, n = 3.54
30
20
10
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
span [m]
Figure 4.21. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = 3.54.
of the HTP as follows.
Figure 4.22. Free body diagram of the HTP at n = 3.54.
Considering all forces on the wing as shown in the HTP body diagram, we
may construct the shear force distribution along the HTP semi span as follows.
60
Spanwise HTP Shear Force Distribution,
n = 3.54
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-100
Shear Force [N]
-200
-300
-400
-500
Half span [m]
load factor of n = 3.54.
Using the shear force-bending moment relation,
61
Spanwise HTP Bending Moment Distribution,
n = 3.54
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Bending Moment [Nm] -100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Half span [m]
wing for load factor of n = 3.54.
Similar to the wing, torsional load is carried by the torsion box or the tail
box, which consist of the front and rear spar as well as the tail skin. According to
the engineering drawing provided for the tail, the front and rear spars of the wing
are located at 20% chord and 70% chord respectively. Meanwhile, each tail section
not only experience aerodynamic lift but also the tail’s weight. Thus, we may
construct the free body diagram for each wing section or partition as follows.
Figure 4.25. Free body diagram of the wing section using NACA 0012 airfoil,
location of the centroid of each section (at ~42.11% chord).
62
We may determine the torsion in each section as
and mac is the section’s local aerodynamic moment (for NACA 0012 is 0).
wing’s half span as follows.
Spanwise Torsion Distribution, n = 3.54

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-0.05
-0.1
Torsion [Nm]
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
Half span [m]
for load factor n = 3.54.
4.3.3.2.HTP Load Diagram for n = -1.42

For n = -1.42, it is known that the lift produced by the wing is -
2209.804065N. Thus, we obtain the following spanwise lift distribution.
63
Spanwise HTP Lift Distribution, n = -1.42
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-100

-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Half span [m]
Figure 4.27. Spanwise Lift Distribution for n = -1.42.
of the HTP as follows.
Figure 4.28. Free body diagram of the HTP at n = -1.42
64
Spanwise HTP Shear Force Distribution,
n = -1.42
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-200
Shear Force [N]
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Half span [m]
load factor of n = -1.42.
Using the following integral,
65
Spanwise Bending Moment Distribution,
n = -1.42
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Bending Moment [Nm] -200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Half span [m]
HTP for load factor of n = -1.42.
Furthermore, based on the free body diagram in Figure 4.25Figure 4.12, we

may determine the torsion in each section as
and mac is the section’s local aerodynamic moment (for NACA 0012 is 0).
wing’s half span as follows.
66
Spanwise Torsion Distribution, n = -1.42
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-0.5
-1
Torsion [Nm]
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
Half span [m]
for load factor n = -1.42.
4.3.4. Fuselage Load Diagram

Load diagram depicts load distribution of all components in aircraft. In
creating this diagram, one of important assumption is that some components
weights are assumed to be concentrated loads instead of distributed for
simplification. Table below lists all Æ-6 eLena components that is considered for
creating load diagram. From that table, load diagram of Æ-6 eLena is created and
illustrated, as shown in figures 4.32 through 4.34.
Table 4.7. Aircraft Components considered in constructing the load diagram.

Location
Location X Distributed Weight Weight Lokasi CG
Item Load Type X Start Mass (kg) Weight [N] Bending (Nm)
End (m) Weight (N/m) n(+)max (N) n(-)min (N) * massa
(m)
Fuselage Distributed 0.00 10.57 313.52 290.98 3075.63 10887.73 -4367.40 16254.71 1656.95
Nose Landing Gear Centered 0.65 0.65 49.24 483.04 483.04 1709.98 -685.92 313.98 32.01
Battery + Installation (Nose) Centered 0.65 0.65 337.55 3311.37 3311.37 11722.23 -4702.14 2152.39 219.41
Furnishings Distributed 2.62 7.61 145.12 285.64 1423.63 5039.64 -2021.55 7283.28 742.43
Flight Controls Centered 3.00 3.00 12.08 118.50 118.50 419.51 -168.28 355.51 36.24
Hydraulics Centered 3.00 3.00 13.01 127.63 127.63 451.80 -181.23 382.88 39.03
Electricals Centered 3.00 3.00 103.15 1011.90 1011.90 3582.13 -1436.90 3035.70 309.45
Avionics Centered 3.00 3.00 43.79 429.58 429.58 1520.71 -610.00 1288.74 131.37
Pilot and Co-Pilot Centered 3.00 3.00 180.00 1765.80 1765.80 6250.93 -2507.44 5297.40 540.00
Wing distributed 3.74 5.97 222.01 976.64 2177.92 7709.83 -3092.64 10562.90 1076.75
Passenger Row 1 Centered 4.00 4.00 180.00 1765.80 1765.80 6250.93 -2507.44 7063.20 720.00
Main Landing Gear Centered 4.66 4.66 135.49 1329.16 1329.16 4705.22 -1887.40 6193.87 631.38
Installed Engine Centered 4.66 4.66 153.32 1504.07 1504.07 5324.40 -2135.78 7008.96 714.47
Air Conditioning and Anti-Ice Centered 4.66 4.66 76.82 753.60 753.60 2667.76 -1070.12 3511.80 357.98
Battery (Wing) Centered 4.66 4.66 530.31 5202.34 5202.34 18416.29 -7387.32 24242.91 2471.24
Passenger Row 2 Centered 5.00 5.00 180.00 1765.80 1765.80 6250.93 -2507.44 8829.00 900.00
Lavatories distributed 6.28 7.50 15.04 120.94 147.54 522.30 -209.51 1016.57 103.63
Battery (Aft) Centered 6.89 6.89 109.20 1071.25 1071.25 3792.23 -1521.18 7380.93 752.39
Cargo distributed 7.50 7.90 170.00 4169.25 1667.70 5903.66 -2368.13 12841.29 1309.00
Horizontal Tail Centered 9.47 9.47 25.87 253.78 253.78 898.40 -360.37 2403.34 244.99
Vertical Tail Centered 10.02 10.02 30.04 294.69 294.69 1043.21 -418.46 2952.82 301.00
67
Figure 4.32. Fuselage Load Diagram for n = 1.
68
Figure 4.33. Fuselage Load Diagram for n = 3.54.
69
Figure 4.34. Fuselage Load Diagram for n = -1.42.
Next is constructing shear diagram by dividing fuselage from nose to tail

into several partitions. By adding forces from component weights, wing lift, and
tail lift, shear diagram for Æ-6 eLena is created. By the same method, we will add
every moment from components weights, wing lift, tail lift, and aerodynamic center
moments in each panel to create bending moment diagram. This moment will be
calculated with nose as the point of reference.
70
Fuselage Shear Force Distribution, n = 1
20000
15000
Shear Force 10000
5000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-5000
-10000
-15000
Fuselage Station [m]
Fuselage Shear Force Distribution, n = 3.54

80000
60000
Shear Force [N]
40000
20000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-20000
-40000
Fuselage Shear Force Distribution, n = -1.42

20000
10000
Shear Force [N]
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-10000
-20000
-30000
Figure 4.35. Fuselage Shear Diagrams for n = 1, positive maximum load factor (n
= 3.54) and negative maximum load factor (n = -1.42)
71
Fuselage Bending Moment Distribution, n = 1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-10000
Bending Moment [Nm]

-20000
-30000
-40000
-50000
-60000
-70000
-80000
Fuselage Bending Moment Distribution, n = 3.54

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Bending Moment [Nm]
-50000
-100000
-150000
-200000
-250000
Fuselage Bending Moment Distribution, n = -1.42

100000
Bending Moment [Nm]
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 4.36. Fuselage Bending Moment Diagram for n = 1, positive maximum

load factor (n = 3.54) and negative maximum load factor (n = -1.42)
72
Another important load diagram for fuselage is torsion diagram. From the
given data, it is known that the vertical tail plane side slip coefficient ( ) is -0.387
/radian. The calculation is done when Æ-6 eLena is operating at sea level (air
density equals to 1.225 kg/m³) and when Æ-6 eLena is flying at design speed for
maximum gust intensity (VB). With these variables, the force due to rudder
deflection is calculated to evaluate roll moment.
From geometry, vertical distance from vertical tail plane to fuselage is 2.69
m. Therefore, the roll moment due to rudder deflection can be calculated.
To stabilize Æ-6 eLena, the wing must produce a rolling moment of 2676.6
N·m in opposite direction from . Based on this calculation, the torsion
diagram is illustrated below. The torque is produced by wing; therefore, the
fuselage undergoes torsion from 3.74 m to 5.97 m (leading edge to trailing edge).
Torque Diagram
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
-500
Torque (Nm)
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
x (m)
Figure 4.37. Fuselage Torsion Diagram for Æ-6 eLena.
73
5. CHAPTER V
STRUCTURAL LAYOUT OF THE WING, TAIL, AND FUSELAGE
5.1. Structural Layout of Wing

The wing is the main lifting surface of an airplane. For a fixed wing aircraft,
the wing is very crucial so that the airplane can fly. The structural layout of the Æ-
6 eLena airplane’s wing consists of skin-panel (including stringers), spars, ribs, and
joints. This subsection will explain the structural layout of the aircraft’s wing.
5.1.1. Layout of the Wing Box

The wing of the Æ-6 eLena is in the configuration of a low-wing monoplane.
The wing is trapezoidal and straight tapered, with quarter-chord sweep angle of 0°,
dihedral angle of 7°, and no twist angle. The wing uses the NACA 652-415 airfoil.
General layout of the wing is as follows.
Figure 5.1. General layout of the (right) wing of Æ-6 eLena.
The wing box consists of the two spars, the upper skin, and lower skin. In
this case, the front spar is located at 0.25c and the rear spar at 0.75c. This gives us
a wing box with a trapezoidal planform. The upper and lower skin is shaped as such
to form the airfoil shape onto the wing box. The wing box is further partitioned in
the spanwise direction by ribs, in which their locations are determined by certain
hardpoints on the wing such as the control surfaces, high-lift devices, engines,
landing gear, and, especially for this electric aircraft’s case, batteries.
74
Figure 5.2. Chordwise view of the wing box of the Æ-6 eLena at the wing root,
showing the spars and the skin contour in the shape of the NACA 652-415 airfoil
as well as the approximate locations of the stringers (shown by the diamond
shaped markers).
5.1.2. Wing Skin-Panel

The skin panel covers the wing which gives the wing its aerodynamic shape.
As explained in section 3.3.1.2 above, the skin also carries axial loading caused by
bending moment, comprising of tension and compression. Thus, wing cross
sections typically distributes the bending material around the profile’s periphery,
consisting of stringers running in a spanwise direction. And since positive flight
design load factors are always higher than for negative flight, the wing upper
surface is usually critical for compression loads (Niu, 1988).
The most common wing covers for transport aircraft are the skin-stringer
panels. The wing skin is machined from a thick plate to obtain the required
thickness at different locations. The stringers can be integrally machined with the
skin or otherwise riveted or bounded on the basic skin around cutouts. These
machined skins and stiffeners are highly efficient as they are very lightweight.
The Æ-6 eLena wing skin-panel is of the skin-stringer panel type
(distributed flanges). The stringer acts as the stiffener for the skin against bending
loads, especially buckling loads due to compression. The wing-skin panel of the Æ-
6 eLena will be of the built-up type, i.e., the stringers will be riveted to the skin
panel. This method also provides some damage tolerance (Howe, 2004).
Figure 5.3. Cross-section of the distributed flange wing box beam.
75
The stringer type used for this aircraft’s skin panel is the Zed-section
stringer. This type of stringer is chosen because of its high buckling efficiency
factor compared to other stringer constructions of about 0.96. There will be 8
stringers installed on each side of the skin panel (upper and lower) at 124 mm
intervals.
Figure 5.4. The Z-shaped wing skin-stringer panel (Niu, 1988).
Table 5.1. Buckling efficiency factors, FB of various stringer constructions.

Construction FB
Zed stringer
Built-up 0.96
Machined 1.02
Blade stringer 0.81
Top hat stringer 0.96
Trapezoidal corrugated, semi-sandwich 0.83
Triangular corrugated, semi-sandwich 0.85
Truss core sandwich 0.78
(Howe, 2004)
The materials used for the wing skin panel is Al 7075-T6 for the upper skin and
Al 2024-T3 for the lower skin. Both of them are the most common types of aluminum
alloys used in aerospace structures. The skin panels carry tension and compression
loads due to bending moment. Moreover, that load is cyclic, which may cause metal
fatigue. Thus, the material chosen should have high ductility so that it will not fracture
suddenly. As the upper skin panel is critical in compression, Al 7075-T6 is chosen as
76
it is preferable for compression loads with higher yield strength. Likewise for the lower
skin panel, Al 2024-T3 is chosen for the tension-critical lower skin panel.
Table 5.2. Comparison of Al 2024-T3 and Al 7075-T6 material properties.

Material Property Al 2024-T3 Al 7075-T6
Density (kg/m³) 2780 2810
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 73.1 71.7
Fatigue Strength (MPa) 138 159
Yield Strength (MPa) 345 503
Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 483 572
Shear Modulus (MPa) 28 26.9
Shear Strength (GPa) 283 331
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33 0.33
Machinability 70% 70%
5.1.3. Wing Spars

As described in section 3.3.1, the wing spar resists mostly vertical shear and
torsion, as well as redistributing loads between the ribs. Generally, the front spar
should be as forward as possible, while considering the local wing depth and
adequate space for other systems on the leading edge (high-lift devices, anti-ice
system, etc.). The rear spar also should be as far aft as possible, considering room
for the high-lift devices and control surfaces and their mechanisms. This allows a
larger cross-sectional area covered by the wing box for higher torsional stiffness.
The spars of the Æ-6 eLena are located at constant percentages of the chord
from the root to the tip, in this case is 25% for the front spar and 75% for the rear
spar. This percentage is rather high if we refer to Howe (2004) or Niu (1988),
especially for the front spar, in which they recommend about 12-17% and 12-18%
respectively. However, attempts to reposition the front spar forward is unfeasible
as the spar is the point where the wing is attached on the fuselage bulkhead, to be
explained later. This may alter the fuselage structure and then the overall aircraft
layout such as the window layout.
The rear spar is located at 75% with considerations of the flaps and ailerons
being about 20% of the chord length as prescribed (Prastawa, Indra, Aini, & Puspita,
Progress Report 2 AE4040 Desain Pesawat Udara: 6-Seater Electric Propeller
77
Aircraft, 2021b). This leaves room of about 5% chord for flap and aileron
mechanisms as recommended by Niu (1988) to provide 5-10% chord for control
system elements.
The material to be used for the spar is Al 7075-T6. Al 7075-T6 is chosen
from its high shear strength, considering that the spar (especially the spar webs)
should carry the shear stresses from vertical shear and torsion. This material also
has a higher fatigue strength.
5.1.4. Wing Ribs

The wing ribs acts as the attachment points for the skin, high-lift devices,
control surfaces, landing gear, as well as to shape the skin and wing as it should be
according to the airfoil used. The ribs as demonstrated in also prevents buckling
and crushing associated with bending load from lift. Thus, ribs receive load from
the torsional and bending loads as well to distribute the load along the spar. As
illustrated in Figure 5.5 below, the rib spacing becomes a critical aspect to
determine. Roskam (2002) recommends that the rib spacing for a light airplane, in
which Æ-6 eLena is one of the examples, is 36 inches or about 914.4 mm.
Figure 5.5. Illustration of rib function: stability against buckling and crushing,
showing that adequate rib spacing is required (Alderliesten, 2018).
78
To determine our own take on the rib spacing for the wing, we will consider
other aircraft structures, especially of those that are similar to Æ-6 eLena in terms
of payload, MTOW, layout, configuration, etc. We may consider the following data
to determine the initial rib spacing approximation. Note that the MTOW and
exposed half-span of each aircraft is obtained from each aircraft’s specification,
meanwhile the number of ribs is counted manually through the cutaway drawing
provided in section 3.1.
Table 5.3. Comparison of similar aircraft to determine rib spacing.

Aircraft Type Pax MTOW Number of Exposed Half- Average rib
(kg) Ribs span (m) spacing (m)
Daher TBM-940 6 3354 20 5.8 0.3053
Piper PA-31T 6 4082 16 5.85 0.39
Cheyenne I
Piper PA-31T2 8 4297 17 5.85 0.3656
Cheyenne II XL
Piper PA-34 Seneca 6 2154.6 13 5.3277 0.4440
Piper PA-46-500TP 6 2309.7 12 5.9215 0.5383
Malibu Meridian
Rockwell Commander 7 4683 14 6.485 0.4988
690B
Cessna 421C 8 3288.6 12 5.5853 0.5068
Britten Norman BN- 10 2994 18 6.9 0.4059
2B Islander
Beechcraft 60 Duke 6 3073 14 5.351 0.4116
Plotting the data in Table 5.3 and performing linear regression, we have the
relation between the MTOW (x-axis) and average rib spacing (y-axis) is
79
MTOW vs Rib Spacing
Rockwell
0.6 Commander
Piper Meridian Cessna 421C 690B
0.5
Average Rib Spacing [m]

y = -2E-05x + 0.4973
Piper Seneca
0.4 Piper Cheyenne
Britten-Norman
Islander
0.3 Beechcraft Duke Piper Cheyenne
TBM-940 II XL
0.2
0.1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
MTOW [kg]
Figure 5.6. Plot of average rib spacing and MTOW for aircrafts similar to Æ-6
eLena and the linear regression.
Assuming that the Æ-6 eLena follows the same pattern, we can input the
MTOW of the aircraft into the linear regression equation above and obtain the
approximate initial average rib spacing of 437.24 mm. Meanwhile, the rib
placement direction does not need further consideration as the straight wing and
spar enables us to arrange the ribs perpendicular to the spar and in the direction of
flight. We rearrange the ribs to provide better wing stiffness while still considering
the hardpoints on the aircraft wing. We obtain the following rib arrangement.
Figure 5.7. Wing configuration of Æ-6 eLena. The ribs are shown in blue. Ribs
that act as hardpoints are shown with thicker lines.
80
Here is provided the details of the rib placement of the wing as shown in
Figure 5.7 above in the Table 5.4 below. Note that this rib placement is purely
approximate and thus whether it is actually effective or not is to be determined
further in later chapters.
Table 5.4. Wing Rib placement details.

No. Location (RWS, Space from previous Note
mm) rib (mm)
1 787.5 0 Wing-Fuselage joint, flaps start
2 1108 320.5
3 1429 321
4 1750 321 Landing gear attachment
5 2060 310 End of center-wing battery compartment
6 2310 250 No. 3 engine attachment
7 2560 250 Start of wing battery compartment
8 2930 370
9 3300 370
10 3668 368 End of right-wing battery compartment
11 4180 512 Flaps end
12 4310 130 No. 4 engine attachment
13 4440 130 Aileron start
14 4815 375
15 5190 375
16 5565 375
17 5940 375 Aileron end
Note that some ribs are spaced well over our predetermined rib spacing, i.e.,
between ribs 10 and 11. This is however because of if there to be another rib in
between them, it may not be as effective, in which it may add weight to the wing.
Furthermore, there is nothing located between those two ribs, so less dense rib
spacing may be plausible. However, to determine the true effectiveness of this rib
arrangement, further calculation should be done, which will be discussed further in
the next chapters.
81
5.1.5. Wing Root Joints
The wing joint design is one of the most critical areas in structural
consideration of an aircraft, especially fatigue considerations for long life structure.
The joint of the fuselage with the wing is subjected to heavy loads, causing some
potential for considerable distortion. However, this distortion is usually acceptable,
allowing the center wing box to be built completely into the fuselage. Considering
the types of wing joints, there are two types: fixed joint and rotary joint. Here we
are only considering fixed joints.
The wing of the Æ-6 eLena is attached to the fuselage with a spar carry-
through configuration. This configuration is chosen as it provides good stiffness to
resist bending moments applied on the wing.
Figure 5.8. Spar carry-through configuration.
As stated by Niu (1988), most lightly loaded wings for general aviation
aircrafts uses a single main spar and an auxiliary rear spar construction. Thus,
comparing with similarly configured aircrafts, the wing and fuselage is connected
using bolts. This bolted splice plate connection is widely used due to its light weight,
better reliability, and inherent fail-safe feature.
82
Figure 5.9. Spar carry-through with bolted splices on a similar low-wing aircraft
(the Piper Cherokee).
5.2. Structural Layout of the Tail

An empennage is a crucial part of the airplane as it has to be
aerodynamically optimal in order to be effective. This particular part of the airplane
is controlling how the aircraft moves vertically and horizontally by the Horizontal
Tail Plane (HTP) and Vertical Tail Plane (VTP) respectively. The Æ-6 eLena
airplane’s empennage consists of skin-panel, spars, ribs, and joints, and this
subsection of the chapter will explain in regard to the structural layout of the
empennage.
5.2.1. Layout of Tail Box

The layout of the tail box for this particular plane uses the Conventional Tail
configuration due to their advantages such as having a good stall recovery
mechanism. Furthermore, the conventional tail is light. However, the main
disadvantage of this configuration is that airflow interference by the wing and
83
fuselage of the aircraft may affect the aerodynamic performance. Ultimately, this
layout is chosen since it is relatively lighter than most configurations.
Figure 5.10. Empennage, Conventional Tail Configuration
5.2.2. Empennage Skin-Panel

Skin-Panel is mainly affected by the lift and drag forces, mainly for the HTP.
However, when compared to the wing it is relatively smaller since most forces are
already withstood by the wing and the empennage is located in the tail of the
airplane. Thus, there is no need for a tougher configuration, hence semi-monocoque
skin is enough for the empennage.
5.2.3. Empennage Spars

Within the empennage, the spar must be able to withstand tension and
compression loads that happen due to the lift and torsional forces. Both VTP and
HTP will gain significantly large loads due to the structural layout being
conventional and having a lift force. Furthermore, the aircraft will also use a double
spar configuration for their spars.
5.2.4. Empennage Ribs

The placing of ribs and their spacing in both HTP and VTP must take into
consideration the location of both elevator and rudder in order to be efficient. The
location of these will be determined using the calculation method in (Raymer, 2018)
and (Sadraey, 2012). Take note as well that both HTP and VTP use NACA 0012
84
Other than that, a high lift device in the form of a single slotted flap will be used
for the aileron control systems.
By using these calculation methods, we will gain the chord for the elevator
and rudder alongside 25-50% from the tail chord with a span of 90%. Thus, with
the previous knowledge, the locations of the elevator for cr and ct are as follows.
cr,elevator = 300 mm
ct,elevator = 153.5 mm
half span = 2425.5 mm
Figure 5.11. Empennage, Vertical Tail Plane
Same as the calculations for the elevator, the rudder uses 25% of the tail
chord as well as a span length of 90%. Thus, the cr and ct of the rudder is as follows.
cr,rudder = 300 mm
ct,rudder = 153.5 mm
half span = 2425.5 mm
85
Figure 5.12. Empennage, Horizontal Tail Plane
Furthermore, the AE-6 eLena airplane uses the parallel with flight path rib
since it has the advantages aerodynamics-wise since the airflow will flow through
in between the ribs directly. However, the main disadvantage of this configuration
is that it will experience a quite high shear loading on the joint as well as it uses up
more materials.
5.2.5. Empennage Joints

For both VTP and HTP of this plane, the fixed-horizontal and fixed-vertical
joint system will be used as the VTP needs a moving elevator and HTP needs a
moving rudder. Although it is not as expensive as the fixed tail and harder to design,
they are more usable in any situation and conditions. Furthermore, a vertical
stabilizer on the fuselage is also used in order to help the overall airplane stability.
5.2.6. Empennage Stringers

A Stringer’s main function is to add strength and stiffness to the skin. The
type of stringer being used for both HTP and VTP is the hat-stringer which has a
high structural efficiency value but is hard to maintain. Furthermore, in order to
determine the spacing between stringers, it is mainly based on rib spacing but with
a more simplified division such that it will be divided equally. This division is
86
usually 100-200 mm of each other but mainly depends on the aircraft in question.
The VTP has a division of 200 mm while the HTP has a division of 103.5 mm for
the stringers. The division can be seen in both Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12 for VTP
and HTP respectively.
5.3. Structural Layout of the Fuselage

5.3.1. Layout of Fuselage
The Æ-6 eLena fuselage structural layout is shown in Error! Reference s
ource not found..
Figure 5.13. Æ-6 eLena fuselage structural layout.
Fuselage stringers are depicted as blue lines, frames as green lines, and
bulkhead as red lines. In total, there are 7 x 2 stringers, 7 frames, and 9 bulkheads
in Æ-6 eLena fuselage. In this analysis, bulkheads are defined as the structure in
unpressurized nose and the tail, while also act as separator between the
unpressurized regions with the pressurized cabin. The pressurized pressure from
cabin is distributed to stringers by bulkheads. Meanwhile, frames are used as
fuselage structure mainly in the pressurized cabin region. Lastly, stringers and
longerons are described in Figure 6.2.
87
Figure 5.14. Longeron and Stringer of fuselage
Figure 5.15. Æ-6 eLena fuselage section and water line.
5.3.2. Fuselage Skin-Panel

This structure is a combination of skin and fuselage stringers spaced in regular
intervals which is used to withstand bending, shear, and torsion loads, also
pressurization loads from cabin. Therefore, in this section, the number of stringers
required for Æ-6 eLena fuselage is going to be defined. Referencing Airplane
Design Part III: Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing and Empennage:
Cutaways and Inboard Profiles by J. Roskam (1986), the arrangement for stringer
spacing and stringer depth are defined as follows:
As Æ-6 eLena is considered as small commercial airplanes, therefore the
stringer spacing value of 10 – 15 inches will be used. To determine the number of
stringers used in fuselage, first the cross-section of fuselage will be analyzed. Based
on Figure 6.3, it is known that the outer diameter of Æ-6 eLena fuselage is 1690
88
mm. Using this value, the number of stringers that must be used for Æ-6 eLena
fuselage can be calculated.
Figure 5.16. Æ-6 eLena fuselage cross-setion
In this calculation, minimum number of stringers is going to be used, that is

14 stringers with its spacing is 381 mm (15 inch). As shown in Figure 5.16, there
are 7 stringers in the XZ plane. Therefore, in total there are 7 x 2 stringers in Æ-6
eLena fuselage.
5.3.3. Fuselage Frames and Bulkheads

Frames and bulkheads are used to give the geometry of the fuselage while also
responsible for receiving shear, torsion, and bending loads of aircraft. Also
referencing Airplane Design Part III: Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing
and Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard Profiles by J. Roskam (1986), the
arrangement for frame spacing and depth are defined as follows:
89
Based on this literature, the frame spacing of 24 inches is chosen for Æ-6
eLena fuselage. Therefore, the number of frames required is:
5.3.4. Fuselage Joints

Table 5.5. Fuselage Joints
Joints Joints Argument Illustration
Position Configuration
Wing to Using bolts to Typical design of
Fuselage connect low- modern transport
joint wing wing-to-fuselage
configuration connection is to
with the bolt the main
fuselage frames to both
front and rear
spars of the wing
box. Bolting the
fuselage to wing
has been widely
used for modern
aircraft and is
proven to able
sustain fatigue
90
loads due to wing
bending.
Tail to The front and Permanent joint is
Fuselage rear spar of tail commonly used
joint are attached to for fixed tail with
aft fuselage fuselage joints.
bulkheads by
permanent
joint
Skin Skin panel Waffle doubler

panel with Waffle acts as a fail-safe
Doubler strap and a
bearing plate for
the rivets that
attach the
stringers
91
REFERENCES
Aini, F. H., Prastawa, H., Permana, J. I., Dara, K., & Ummah, K. (2021). Æ-6 eLena;
Conceptual Design of 6-Seater Electric Aircraft. AE4040 Aircraft Design
Course Design Project, Bandung Institute of Technology, Depatement of
Aerospace Engineering, Bandung, Indonesia.
Airfoil Tools. (n.d.). NACA 65(2)-415 (naca652415-il). Retrieved from
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca652415-il
Alderliesten, R. C. (2018). Introduction of Aerospace Structures and Materials. TU
Delft Open. doi:10.5074/t.2018.003
Chintapalli, S., Elsayed, M. S., Sedaghati, R., & Abdo, M. (2010). The development
of a preliminary structural design optimization method of an aircraft wing-
thbox skin-stringer panels. Aerospace Science and Technology, 14(3), 188-
198. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2009.12.007
Howe, D. (2004). Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout. London, United
Kingdom: Professional Engineering Publishing Limited.
JT. (2001). Wing Spanwise Lift Distribution: Schrenk Approximation. Brackley,
United Kingdom: P.F.A. Engineering.
Meriam, J. L., & Kraige, L. G. (2012). Engineering Mechanics Volume I: Statics
(7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Niu, M. C.-Y. (1988). Airframe Structural Design: Practical Design Information
and Data on Aircraft Structures. Hong Kong: Conmilit Press Ltd.
Prastawa, H., Indra, P. J., Aini, F. N., & Puspita, K. D. (2021a). Progress Report 1
AE4040 Desain Pesawat Udara: 6-Seater Electric Propeller Aircraft.
Course Design Project Progress Report, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Teknik
Dirgantara, Bandung, Indonesia.
Prastawa, H., Indra, P. J., Aini, F. N., & Puspita, K. D. (2021b). Progress Report 2
AE4040 Desain Pesawat Udara: 6-Seater Electric Propeller Aircraft.
Course Design Project Progress Report, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Teknik
Dirgantara, Bandung, Indonesia.
Raymer, D. P. (2018). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Reston, VA:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
92
Roskam, J. (2002). Airplane Design Part III: Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage,
Wing and Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard Profiles. Lawrence, KS:
Design, Analysis and Research Corporation.
Sadraey, M. H. (2012). Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach (1st ed.).
Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
93
ENGINEERING DRAWING

Laporan 1 - Kelompok HS3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laporan 1 - Kelompok HS3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT 1

AE3230 LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE DESIGN

SCOPE OF WORK AND SIGNATURES OF THE GROUP MEMBERS ............ i

Figure 1.1. Load Factor ........................................................................................... 4

Figure 1.1. Load Factor

9. Aircraft components weights except fuselage, wing, furnishings, and

1.4. Scope of Work

Table 2.1. Specification of Æ-6 eLena.

Furthermore, below is provided the three-view drawing of the Æ-6 eLena to

Figure 2.1. Three-view drawing of the Æ-6 eLena.

Generally, an aircraft consists of three main structures: wing(s), fuselage,

3.1. Structure of Existing Similar Aircraft

Figure 3.1. Cutaway drawing of Daher TBM-940

3.1.2. Piper PA-31T Cheyenne I

Figure 3.2. Cutaway drawing of Piper PA-31T Cheyenne I.

Figure 3.3. Cutaway drawing of the Piper PA-31T2 Cheyenne II XL.

3.1.4. Piper PA-34 Seneca

Figure 3.4. Cutaway drawing of the Piper PA-34 Seneca.

Figure 3.5. Cutaway drawing of Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian.

3.1.6. Rockwell Commander 690B

Figure 3.6. Cutaway drawing of Rockwell Commander 690B.

Figure 3.7. Cutaway drawing of Cessna 421C.

3.1.8. Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander

Figure 3.8. Cutaway drawing of Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander.

Figure 3.9. Cutaway drawing of Beechcraft 60 Duke.

3.2. Fuselage Structure Analysis

3.2.1. Load Paths

3.2.1.1.Bending Moment in Fuselage

3.2.1.2.Torsional Load in Fuselage

Figure 3.11. Torsional Load in Fuselage

3.2.1.3.Shear Load in Fuselage

Furthermore, the connection between wing and fuselage is represented by

Figure 3.13. Load Paths in Wing Box of Fuselage

3.2.2. Fuselage Structural Concepts

Table 3.1. Structural Concepts of a Fuselage.

Fuselage Configuration Advantages Disadvantages

Type of Truss Easy to manufacture and • Hard to make a

Monocoque 1. Reduce weight 1. Cannot tolerate surface

Doubler Waffle Doubler Efficient in structure and Harder to implement as

Fail Strap Traditional and less Not as efficient in

Engine to Diagonal Truss Strong in handling engine Relatively too light

Pod Mounting Strong in handling engine Relatively too heavy

Link and Spigot Join Able to withstand engine Prone to fatigue

Terminated at aft More effective as stress Harder to manufacture

Terminated outside Easier to manufacture Less effective as stress has

3.2.3. Fuselage Materials

3.2.4. Fuselage Manufacturing and Maintenance Aspects

Figure 3.15. Sheet Metal Forming Process

3.2.4.2.Longeron Manufacturing and Maintenance

Figure 3.16. Open-Die and Closed-Die Forging Process

3.2.4.3.Frame and Bulkhead Manufacturing and Maintenance

Figure 3.17. Superplastic Forming

3.3. Wing Structure Analysis

3.3.1. Load Paths

Figure 3.18. Force Distribution in a wing.

3.3.1.1.Shear Load on Wings

3.3.1.2.Bending Load on Wings

If we examine closer, the wing elements will deform as in Figure 3.21. To

Figure 3.21. Deformation related to the upward wing bending (Alderliesten,

3.3.1.3.Torsion Load on Wings

Figure 3.22. Resistance of a torsional movement by a cylinder (left) and the

Table 3.2. Structural Concepts of Wing.

Web Rib When nail-gluing is