Aircraft Design Report

NECMETTİN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Aviation and Space Sciences
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

Instructor: Assoc. Prof. Mustafa Kaya
14030021028 Mustafa Tuğberk Çakır
14030021030 Kadri Koçer
14030021022 Emre Balta
REPORT
Fall, 2019
The Business Jet Design

NEU Faculty of Aviation and Space Sciences
Abstract
A business jet, private jet, or bizjet is a jet aircraft designed for transporting small groups of people.
Business jets may be adapted for other roles, such as the evacuation of casualties or express parcel
deliveries, and some are used by public bodies, government officials or the armed forces.
The aircraft design start from the weight assumption. Because the weight effect almost all variables
of the aircraft. After the weight estimation the design process proceed step by step.
This report was written for the weight estimate of the business jet with a capacity of 8 passengers, 2
crew members and having baggage right for each person . The flight lines of the jet plane are
respectively, take-off, climb, cruise, loiter, descent, landing. The jet has 3500 km in cruise envelope
and 30 minutes in loiter envelope. Weight Estimate will be carried out using aircraft design book and
the values are validated using the trial-error.
Keywords: Aircraft design, wieght estimation, business jet.
Nomenclature
AR : Aspect Ratio
b:Span
C : Specific Fuel Consumption
c : Mean Aerodynamic Chord
cHT,T:Tip Chord of Horizontal Tail
cHT,R:Root Chord of Horizontal Tail
cT:Tip Chord of Wing
cR: Root Chord of Wing
cVT,R: Root Chord of Vertical Tail
cVT,T: Root Chord of Vertical Tail
cw :Mean Aerodynamic Chord
CD:Drag Coefficient
c.g:Center of Gravity
e:Oswald Efiiciency
E : Endurance
LF=Length of Fusulega
1
LHT=Hotizontal Tail Arm
LVT=Vertical Tail Arm
L/D : Lift to Drag Ratio
Kvs : Variable Sweept Constant
R : Range
S:Wing Area
SHT:Horizontal Tail Area
SVT:Vertical Tail Area
T/W:Thrust to Weight Ratio
V:Velocity
W/S:Wing Loading
We/W0 : Empty Weight Fraction
Wf/W0 : Fuel Weight Fraction
y:Spanwise Location of Mean Aerodynamic Center of Horizontal Tail
zVT : Spanwise Location of Mean Aerodynamic Center of Vertical Tail
λ:Taper Ratip
∞:Free Stream
Λ : Sweep Angle
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Aircraft Design Requirement
1.3 Mission Profile
2. Weight Estimation
2.1 Take off – Weight Buildup

2.2 Fuel Fraction Estiamtion
2.3 Mission Segment Weight Fraction
2.4 Empty Weight Fraction
2.5 Result
2.6 Conclusion
3. Weight Estiamation – Tradeoff

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Development
3.2.1 Range Change ( 5%, 10%, 15% )
3.2.2 Loiter Time Change ( 10% )
3.2.3 Number of Passenger Change ( 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 )
3.2.4 Change Take-off Fuel Consumption ( 5%, 10% )
3.2.5 Change Climb Fuel Consumption ( 5% 10% )
3.3 Result
References
3
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The target of this project is weight estimation a business jet. The task of the business jet is to safely
carry passengers. This business jet satisties all of the requirements given by the customer with
optimum performance characteristic. All of the research and calculate were done to reach the
optimum weight estimate for the customer and the designer.
1.2 Aircraft Design Requirements
The requirements given by the customer are listed below:
1. Cruise Speed - 850 km/h

2. Rate of Climb - 3500 ft/min
3. Take off run - 1000 km
4. Service Ceiling - 45000 ft
5. Jet-driven aircraft
6. 8 passengers and 2 crews ( each person is considered to be 80 kg )
7. Payload ( 20 kg baggage allowance per person )
8. Range for (2-3) - 3500 km
9. Endurance for (4-5) – 30 min
1.3 Mission Profile
0-1 Take off

1-2 Climb
2-3 Cruise
3-4 Descent
4-5 Loiter
5-6 Landing
Aaircraft design is a long process. Conceptual design of an aircraft is also a long process, too. To
design an aircraft conceptually, one can go steps in sequence strictly. This is due to the design
parameters are related to each other.
4
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Before starting a design, the design engineers should look at the products, which have been already
designed, in the same category. This procedure is done for the estimation of the design that will be
done. The dimensions, performance, etc. criteria should be compared with the requirements of the
wanted design. After such a competitor study the design estimations will be based on the compared
designs.
2.2 Development
According to the given requirements five aircraft were selected and compared in the Table 2.1 below.
Conclusion
As mentioned, the six aircraft have been selected and compared. Note that the aspet ratio of all aircraft
are close. İt can be easily seen that different characteristics are seen for different dimensions and weight.
In conclusion, the importance of competitor study is to observe the characteristic experiences of the
aircraft in use.
5
2. Weight Estimation
2.1 Introduction
In this section, the first guess sizing is performed. The steps of this section are begun with the
mission profile determination. According to the missions wanted the mission profile is sketched and
numbered in the first item of the development part. In the second part the takeoff gross weight is
estimated according to the simplest mission of an aircraft, which is the union of takeoff, cruise and
landing. This approach gives an estimation of the maximum takeoff gross weight. After this
approach the take off weight estimation was .Such an approach is done to estimate the optimum
weight for a mission aircraft. This item also checks whether the take off gross weight is sufficient or
not for the wanted mission. This study is helpful for the take off gross weight estimation.
2.1 Take off – Weight Buildup
Design takeoff gross weight can be broken into crew weight, payload, passenger, fuel weight, and
the remaining (or ‘ empty’) weight.
W 0=Wcrew+Wpayload +Wpassenger +Wfuel +Wempty (eq 2.1)
The crew and payload weights are both know. They are given in design requirements.But fuel and
empty weights are unkown.
Fuel and empty weights can be expressed as fraction of total weight, that is, (W f/W0) and (We/W0).
W 0=Wcrew+Wpayload +Wpassenger + ( WWf0 )W 0+( WWe0 ) W 0 (eq 2.2)
Wcrew +Wpassenger +Wpayload

W 0= (eq 2.3)
1−( Wf /W 0 )−( We/W 0 )
( ( 2× 80 ) + ( 20 ×10 ) +(8 ×80)×9.81 )

W 0=
1−( Wf /W 0 )−( We/W 0 )
2.2 Fuel Fraction Estimation
Mission fuel depends on mission to be flown, the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and the fuel
consumption rate of the engine(s).
( WWf0 )=1.06 ×(1− WW 60 ) (eq 2.4, allowing for 6% reserve or trapped fuel )
Each segment of the mission profile is associated with a weight fraction; airplane weight at the end
of the segment divided by the weight at the beginning of the segment.
6
Wi
Mission segment weight fraction :
Wi−1
W6 W6 W5 W4 W3 W2 W1
= (eq 2.5)
W0 W5 W4 W3 W2 W1 W0
2.3 Mission Segment Weight Fraction
Table 2.1 Historical Mission- Segment Weight Fraction
0-1 : Engine start, warmup, taxi and takeoff. (historical mission)
W 1/W 0=0.97 (from table 2.1)
1-2 : Climb ( historical trend )
W 2/W 1=0.985 ( from table 2.2)
2-3 : Cruise ( Breguet Range Equation )
( )
RC
( )
−
V∞ L W2 L
R= ln ( eq 2.6) or W3 V ∞(
D
)
( eq 2.7)
C D W3 =e
W2
C = C( V∞, h, W ) : specific fuel consumption

L/D = L/D ( V∞, h, W ) : lift to drag ratio
Table 2.3 Specific Fuel Consumption , C
7
The Gulfstream were considered. (L/D)max 15 accepted. C is 0.9 for cruise flight.
W 3 −( ( 850× 15× 0.866) ) ,

( 3500× 0.9 )
W3
=e =0.75179
W2 W2
3-4: Descent
W4
There is no SFC. =1
W3
4-5: Loiter ( Endurance Equation)
( D)
L
max
ln (
W 5 −(
( 0.5 ×0.8 )
)
W3)
W4 (eq 2.8) or =e 15
(eq 2.9)
E= W4
C
W5
=0.97368
W4
5-6: Descent and landing ( historical trend )
W6
=0.995 from table 2.1
W5
W6
From eq 2.5 =¿)
W0
W6
=0.69589
W0
Wf
From eq 2.4 =1.06 ( 1−0.69589 )
W0
Wf
=0.3223
W0
2.4 Empty – Weight Fraction
General aviation-twin engine type aircraft was

selected. There is no swept angle so K vs is 1.
( WWe0 )=A W 0 K vs C
(eq 2.4)
( WWe0 )=1.4 ×W 0 −0.1
8
W0
2.5 Result
( ( 2 ×80 ) + ( 20 ×10 ) + ( 8 ×80 ))×9.81

From eq 2.3 W 0= with trial-error,
1−( 0.3223 )− ( 1.4 ×W 0−0.1 )
W0 , guess We / W0 We W0 , calculated
40000 0.4852 19408.1 50961.407
44000 0.4806 21146.4 49771.41
49000 0.47545 23297.2 48505.26
48000 0.47644 22868.9 48741.77
48600 0.47584 23126 48598.95
Table 2.5
As a result of calculation, weight estimation is 48600 N .
2.6. Discussion and Conclusion
The approaches done in development section give an estimation of the take off gross weight of the a
business jet that will be designed. In the first section, a sketch of the mission profile is worked on.
For this work the old profiles were read and range and time of the each mission part were estimated
according to them. In the second part the take off gross weight was estimated for a single cruise, take
off and landing missions. This approach shows us an estimate for the take off gross weight for the
simplest flight of the aircraft
9
3. Weight Estimation Trade-off

3.1 Introduction
In previous chapter, the weight was estimated. In this chapter the weight was re-estimated according
to changing several parameters. These parameters are range, endurance, number of passenger, take-
off fuel consumption, climb fuel consumption. Calculations were done with the matlap program.
Tables and graphs were created according to the changing parameters.
3.2 Development
3.2.1 Range Change ( 5%, 10%, 15% )
Default Range %+5 CoR %-5 CoR %+10 CoR %-10 CoR %+15 CoR %-15 CoR
W0 48607 N 50724 N 46619 N 52981 N 44749 N 55392 N 42989 N
CoR = Change of Range
60000
50000
40000
30000
W0
20000
10000
0
2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200
Range
3.2.2 Loiter Time Change ( 10% )
Default Loiter Time %+10 CoLT %-10 CoLT

W0 48607 N 48992 N 48225 N
CoLT = Change of Loiter Time
10
49200
49000
48800
48600
W0
48400
48200
48000
47800
0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 0.52 0.54 0.56
Loiter Time
3.2.3 Number of Passenger Change ( 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 )
Default NoP 6 NoP 7 Nop 9 NoP 10 NoP

W0 48607 N 40620 N 44625 N 52514 N 56373 N
60000
50000
40000
30000
W0
20000
10000
0
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5
Number of Passenger
3.2.4 Change Take-off Fuel Consumption ( 5%, 10% )
Default TFC %+5 CoTFC %-5 CoTFC %+10 CoTFC %-10 CoTFC
W0 48607 N 48830 N 48385 N 49055 N 48166 N
11
CoTFC = Change of Take-off Fuel Consumption

49200
49000
48800
48600
48400
W0
48200
48000
47800
47600
0.966 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.97 0.971 0.972 0.973 0.974
Take-off Fuel Consuption
3.2.5 Change Climb Fuel Consumption ( 5% 10% )
Default CFC %+5 CoCFC %-5 CoCFC %+10 CoCFC %-10 CoCFC
W0 48607 N 48716 N 48497 N 48826 N 48389 N
48900
48800
48700
48600
W0
48500
48400
48300
48200
48100
0.9830.98350.9840.98450.9850.98550.9860.98650.987
Climb Fuel Consumption
3.3 Discussion And Conclusion
In the third section the same estimation was done for increased ranges. This item gives the
information that the take off gross weight increases as range increases.This can be explained by,
as the range that will be gone increases; the engine needs more fuel which means more weight. In
the fourth section, the take off gross weight is estimated for the mission sketched in the first
section. One can easily infer that the take off gross weight increases as payload weight increases.
Also, from that approach, it should be noted that these payload weight values give an extended
value of the take off gross weight value of the wanted maximum value. Lastly, it can be said that
12
these values are only the first estimations. The closer or accurate estimations will be done in the
next steps of the design process.
Introduction
In this study the airfoil selection according to stall characteristics, Reynolds number and weight
issues is done at first. We choose airfoil.The parasite drag coefficient, wing loading, lift to drag
ratio, and thrust to weight ratio parameters are following estimations. And, from the thrust to weight
ratio, with estimated take off weight, thrust available value is found. This yields to the selection of
the engine. At last, summary of the critical performance parameters are listed.
1.) Selection of the Airfoil and Discussion
In this section, the airfoil of the wing will be selected. To begin such a process, the
required characteristics of the airfoil are given as:
1-) The wing should be selected as thick as possible for a subsonic aircraft. This is mainly because of
manufacturing with less material, which will be gained in the weight of the wing. Such a selection
will also yield more fuel storage in the wings. On the contrary, such a wing will yield more drag.
Another advantage of using a high t/c airfoil is a light wing structure. Although these advantages, not
a high t/c airfoil should be selected. This is because less drag is more important than a light structure.
In addition, t/c affects the nose shape. And, it is known that high aspect ratio and swept wing with a
large nose radius provides a higher stall angle with a higher Cl max value.
Therefore, the selected thickness ratio should not be a too high or a too low value.
2-) For better stall characteristics, sharp changes after Cl max, sharp change is not preferred. Gradual
loss of lift and small changes in pitching moment are desired.
13
3-) Attached flow, low bubble formation and longer laminar flow region over the airfoil are desired
specifications of the selected airfoil
Note that, the chord length range is taken from historical data for training aircrafts. And the Re
values are the values at 45000 ft service ceiling at maximum cruise speed.
These airfoils are selected because, first of all, NACA airfoils are most widely used(historical trend)
NACA 2412
Max thickness 12% at 30% chord.
Max camber 2% at 40% chord
Reynolds Chord
Number (Re) Lengt (m)
3x106 0.758
4.5x106 1.137
6x106 1.516
7.5x106 1.895
9x106 2.27
14
NACA 23012
Max thickness 12% at 29.8% chord.
Max camber 1.8% at 12.7% chord
15
NACA 4412
Max thickness 12% at 30% chord.
Max camber 4% at 40% chord
16
In the following list, the properties of these airfoils are discussed and one of them will be
selected:
All have similar Re. All of them have better laminar flow and low bubble formation characteristics
between these ranges. As discussed before, the thickness ratio should not be selected a high or a low
value. All have similar thickness ratio. All have same clmax and cl/cd therefore we need ɑ for clmax
NACA 2412 ɑ= 17° deg

NACA 23012 ɑ= 18° deg
NACA 4412 ɑ= 14° deg
We choose NACA 23012 because they have similar properties but we need high angle of attack
because it decreases the stall speed.
2. Thrust Loading And Wing Loading
2.1 Thrust Loading
T/W0=AMmaxC
a=1062 km/h( 45000 ft ),V=850 km/h → Mmax=0.8
(T/W0)takeoff=0,267*0,80,363 = 0,246
(T/W0)cruise= 1/(L/D) =1/15 = 0,0622
3. Estimation of Wing Loading (W/S)
17
From data of selected airfoil (NACA 23012 – 12 %)
Clmax = 1.8
W0 = 48600 N = 4954.128 kg
(L/D)max =15
As a result, AR was taken 8.
taper ratio = 0.25
Summary of the Critical Parameters
Maximum Lift Coefficient, CLmax 1.8

İnitial( from historical trend) Wing Loading, W/S 127 kg/m2
Takeoff Gross Weight, W0 48600 N
Maximum Lift to Drag Ratio, (L/D)max 15
İnitial( from historical trend) Thrust to Weight Ratio, T/W 0.26
Zero Lift Drag Coefficient, Cd,0 0.02
Conclusion
For the airfoil selection 6 candidate airfoil is determined according to cruise lift coefficient and
maximum lift coefficient. This candidate airfoil aerodynamic parameters is obtained for reynolds
number between 3x106-9x106 . 23012 airfoil was chosen from among the most suitable situations.
When selecting Airfoil, the characteristics of Clmax, L / D, thickness, stall angle, Cm were
examined. This variables have very high impact on the selection criteria. Because this parameters are
very important for general aviation aircraft.
Its can select which engines
18
Company Model Engine Type Take-off Thrust Country

Honeywell TFE731-2 Turbofan 15568 N USA
Pratt & Whitney PW500 Turbofan 13344 N USA
GE CJ610-2B Turbojet 11000 N USA
1. Introduction
In last study, the Clmax,Cd0 was determined. In this report, the accuracy of T / W and W / S ratios
will be shown in the relevant formulas. Then again with the T/W and W/S values of the weight
estimation will be made. This yields to the selection of the engine. At last, summary of the critical
performance parameters are listed.
2. Development
Our Selection:
19
[ ]
1/ 2
z
W
( )
[ ]
S z 3
RC ¿ max= ( T /W )3 /2 1− −
( )( )
3 ρ∞ C d 0 6 T
2
L
2
2 z
W D max
√ ( )( )
3
z=1+ 1+ 2 2
T L
W D max
s g=1.21
( WS )
g ρ∞ Cl max ( WT )
Case 1 for T/W=0.26 , W/S=127 kg/m2
z=2.094
(R/C)max1 = 15.08 m/s
So , (R/C)max 17,78 m/s > 15.08 m/s2
Sg1 = 268 m 1000<Sg1
Results from our first assumption is different from the flight requirements. Therefore we
reestimate T/W and W/S again .
2
Case 2 for T/W=0.27 , W/S 200 kg/m
z=2.0876
(R/C)max2 =20.144 m/s
So ,(R/C)max 20.144 m/s > 17,78 m/s
Sg2 = 406.48 m 1000<Sg2
Results from our second assumption is different from the flight requirements. Therefore we
reestimate T/W again .
Case 3 for T/W=0.29 , W/S=235 kg/m2
z=2.0763
20
(R/C)max3 = 22.0458 m/s
So, (R/C)max 17,78 m/s > 22.0458
Sg3 = 406.48 m 1000<Sg3
Thirth selected values are more apporopriate in terms of closing datas.We chose them.
T/W=0.29 and W/S 235 kg/m2
The weight should be calculated again according to these values. The result of the
calculations is the thrust value from the T / W ratio.
The empirical formula in the table was used to find the empty weight fraction. Jet transport
was selected.
We /W 0=( 0.32+ 0.66 48600−0.13 × 80.3 × ( 0.29 )0.06 × ( 2305.35 )−0.05 ×0.680.05 )
We /W 0=0.507
We=0.507 × 48600=24640.2 N
21
Mission fuel depends on mission to be flown, the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and the fuel
consumption rate of the engine(s). Each segment of the mission profile is associated with a weight
fraction; airplane weight at the end of the segment divided by the weight at the beginning of the
segment.
0-1 : Engine start, warmup, taxi and takeoff. (historical mission)
W 1/W 0=0.98 (from historical data)
1-2 : Climb ( historical trend )
W 2/W 1=0.985 ( from table 2.2)
W2
=1.0065−0.0325∗0.68
W1
W2
=0.9844
W1
2-3 : Cruise ( Breguet Range Equation )
22
( )
RC
( )
−
V∞ L W2 L
R= ln ( eq 2.6) or W3 V ∞(
D
)
C D W3 =e
W2
L 1
= =13.43
D (0.5× 0.2371× 236.112 )0.02 W
+
W/S 2
S (0.5 ×0.2371 × 236.11 )× π ×8 × 0.81
W3
=0.7271
W2
3-4: Descent
W4
There is no SFC. =¿ 1
W3
4-5: Loiter ( Endurance Equation)
( D)
L
max
ln (
W4
W5)
W4 =0.9706
E= W5
C
5-6: Descent and landing ( historical trend )
23
W6
=0.995
W5
W6
=¿)
W0
W6
=0.677 2
W0
Wf
=0.342
W0
As a result of the calculations, the new weight can now be calculated.
W0 = 64966.88 N
After that point, the engine can be selected according to the thrust value. Required thrust value is
18840.372 N. But Business jet have 2 engine. So required minimum thrust is 9420.186 N.
From this calculation General Electric CJ610-2B Turbofan Engine is selected. The specifications of
the engine are given below. This engine is selected mainly because its thrust value is slightly above
than the calculated, in order to be on the safe side.
Engine Type Turbojet
24
Length 1.30 m
Diameter 0.45 Thrust 11000 N
Dry Weight 191 kg
P/W 7.4
Conclusion
The wing loading and power loading is determined according to different aspect. Farklı koşullar
arasından en mantıklı olanı seçildi. This engine is preferred to be in the safe zone in the engine
selection. The required thrust is actually 9420.6 N. But it's not on the market.
FUSELAGE,HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TAIL SIZING
25
INTRODUCTION
After drawing the first estimated aircraft, it is time to size and configure the tail surfaces. The
horizontal and vertical configuration will be discussed in this section. The planform areas, aspect
ratios, spans, chords and taper ratios of the horizontal and vertical tails will be calculated. In
addition to decision of the tail configuration, the landing gear configuration will be decided.
DEVELOPMENT
The configuration is decided as conventional tail. A low structural weight and reasonable stability
and control are provided by this configuration. However, it will be considered that the location of the
tail will be back sufficiently. By the way, another most important advantage of this configuration is
its cheap manufacturing comparing with others. The size analysis can be shown as:
Fuselage
Initially, according to the historical data ,the fuselage was designed. It is decided to put the engine
at the rear part of the airplane, as usual for business jets.The length of the fuselage is calculated using
the empirical formula a*W0C.
Length of Fuselage (LF)=a×W0C=0.86×54630.42=13.59 m
Width of the fuselage is decided as 2.591 m considering the width of the cockpit.
Wing:
S = 28.349 m2 , b = 15.06 m , cR = 3.012 m , cT = 0.753 m
bsemi = (15.06/2) – (2.591/2) = 6.235 m ,
Fuselage width = 2.591 m
26
Wing incidence:2o
Airfoil Selection for Tail
Unlike the wings, aerodynamic forces generated by the tail surfaces are small, they only need to be
large enough to maintain stability and control,so no need to use a cambered airfoil, use. Therefore,
according to these considerations NACA 0012 airfoil is selected
Tail Sizing
Horizontal Tail Sizing:
27
To begin with, according to the historical data the distance between the center of gravity of the
aircraft and the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail is formulated as:
LHT = 0.45×LF
Then for the fuselage length of 13.59 m
LHT = 0.45 × 13.59 = 6.116 m and the horizontal tail area ratio is SHT ;
SHT= cw ×cHT×Sw/ LVHT
cw =rc x 2/3 x ((1 + λ + λ 2) ÷ ( 1 + λ))= 3.012x2/3x ((1 + 0.25 + 0.252) ÷ (1 + 0.25))=2.108 m
SHT=0.8*2.108*28.349/6.116=7.817 m2
Vertical Tail Sizing:
From historical data, the distance between aircraft center of gravity and vertical tail aerodynamic
center of the vertical tail is recommended as:
LVT = 0.45×LF
And this distance is found as:
LVT = 6.116 m
The vertical tail volume ratio is similarly defined as:
SVT=cHT×bw×Sw/ LVT
The unknown is the planform area and found as:
SVT = 4.886 m2
28
Therefore, the tail is sized as above
Planview Calculations of Tails
For Horizontal Tail:
ARHT and λ are selected 3 and 0.3 respectively.
bHT=( SHT×ARHT) ^1/2=4.843 m
cHT,Root=2×SHT/((1+ λVT) ×bVT=2.481 m
cHT,Tip= λ× cHT,Root=0.744 m
Mean Aerodynamic Chord:
c = 2/3× cHT,Root×(1 + λVT + λ VT2) ÷ ( 1 + λVT)=1.769 m
Spanwise Location of Mean Aerodynamic Center of Horizontal Tail:
y = bHT/6× ( 1 + 2×λVT)/( 1 + λVT)=0.993 m
Lift Curve Slope:
Low AR wings stall at higher angles of attack compared to those with high AR. If the tail has a lower
AR compared to the wings, even when the wings stall, horizontal tail still has somecontrol authority.
ARHT=3 <ARwing=8
Vertical Tail:
29
For vertical tail sizing analyses mostly depend on historical data obtained from references.
ARHT and λ are selected 1.3 and 0.3 respectively.
bVT=( SVT×ARVT) ^1/2=2.52 m
cVT,Root=2×SVT/((1+ λVT) ×bVT)=2.983 m
cVT,Tip= λVT× cVT,Root=0.895 m
Mean Aerodynamic Chord:
c = 2/3× cVT,Root×(1 + λVT + λ VT2) ÷ ( 1 + λVT)=1.796 m
Spanwise Location of Mean Aerodynamic Center of Vertical Tail:
zVT = bVT/6× ( 1 + 2×λVT)/( 1 + λVT)=0.516 m
Specified The Place of Engines
Aft Mounted Engines=0.45-0.5×LF=-6.345 m
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this study the tail configuration was selected and sized. Unfortunately, tail sizing is an empirical
and historical data dependent process. Because of that, it can be said that the sizing above is less
precise. For the conceptual design case, as here, the best approach is the above applications
supported by the historical data reached from references of tail sizing subject. In the analyses
mentioned above, it was observed that the end of the horizontal and vertical tails are a little behind
the exit of the nozzle. At first glance, such a condition may appear as a fault; however, if the modern
designs are looked at, such a condition will be seen easily for small aircrafts such as jet trainers and
fighters. So, it can be concluded that the development above are not very less precise. In addition to
tail sizing process, the fusulega and placement of engines configuration was decided.
FUSULEGA GEOMETRY width = 2.591 m
Length=13.59 m
WING Aspect Ratio=8
Span:15.06 m
Area:28.349 m2
Taper Ratio:0.25
Root Chord:3.012 m
Tip Chord:0.753 m
30
Mean Chord:2.108 m
Airfoil:NACA 0012
Aspect Ratio=3
Span:4.843 m
Area:7.817 m2
HORİZOTAL TAIL GEOMETRY Taper Ratio:0.3
Root Chord:2.481m
Tip Chord:0.744 m
Mean Chord:1.796 m
Vertical Distance of Mean Chord:0.993 m
ΛHT:32o
Airfoil:NACA 0012
Aspect Ratio=1.3
Span:2.52 m
Area:4.886 m2
VERTİCAL TAIL GEOMETRY Taper Ratio:0.3 m
Root Chord:2.998 m
Tip Chord:0.895 m
Mean Chord:1.796 m
Vertical Distance of Mean Chord:0.516 m
ΛVT:41.330
31
32
33
Son Chapter Başlık YAZ

Calculating C.G.
The major components affecting the center of gravity are the engine, the wing
and the crew with their seats and the instruments in the fuselage. Looking at the
fuselage sketch we estimate the locations of the wing and the engine. The weight
of the fuselage assumed to be 60330 N. This seems a bit heavy, but for flights
approaching Mach 1 at sea level heavy and complex fuselage is required for
safety of the crew as proposed
Theweight of the engine is calculated as follows: Dry weight of the engine 185kg(1814.85 N)
Installed weight of the engine 1.4 Dry weightof the engine
----Wengine,installed = 1.3*1814.85 = 2359.305 N
The distance of the engine from the aft is estimated as 6.345 m
Before placing the wing, we calculate an initial location of the center of gravity:
Ẍ=(60330*6.795+3629.7*6.345)/( 60330+ 3629.7)=6.769 m
To account for the weight of the wing at this stage of our calculation, we assume that the mean
aerodynamic center of the wing is placed at the c.g location calculated above.
It is assumed that the weight of the wing can be estimated by multiplying the
planform area by 35.5. Hence,
Wwing = 35.5*28.349 =1006.389 N
34
We also assume that the wing aerodynamic center is 25% of the mean
aerodynamic chord from the leading edge, and that the wing center of gravity is at
40% of the mean aerodynamic chord.
These points are located in the figure below. With this, a new center of gravity
location for the airplane, including the weight of the wing can be estimated by
adding to the earlier calculation the weight of the wing acting through the moment
arm 5.925
Ẍ=(432972.8+1006.389*6.116/( 63959.7 + 1006.389)=6.759 m (aft)
Component Distance from the aft (m) Weight (N)

Fuselage 6.795 60330
Engine(x2) 6.345 3629.7
Wing 6.116 1006.389
Landing Gear Configuration Decision
It is observed that, nearly all the nowadays modern aircrafts are installed withtricycle landing
gear configuration. This is mainly because of satisfying a good forward visibility. Moreover,
the stability of the aircraft during ground roll is improved. Another advantage of such a
configuration is the horizontal situation of the cabin when the aircraft is on the
ground.Because the aircraft here does not have these situations, tricycle configuration is the
best choice.
FM = 64966*5.331/6.331=54704.429 N this value is the total weight carried by the two main
landing gears
FN = 64966*1/6.331 =10261.57 N
35
Now, the size formula of the landing gears is given as:

Wheel diameter(or width)=A*WBW. . Here we will insert the values of FM and FN calculated
above
The constans A and B are given for fighter and trainer aircraft as follows:
A B
wheel diameter 8.3 0.251
wheel width 3.5 0.216
Main landing gear:
wheel diameter: 8.3(54704.429/2)^0.251 = 107.835 cm

wheel width: 3.5(54704.429/2)^0.216 = 31.802 cm
Here, FM is divided with 2 because it was calculated for two main landing gears.
Nose landing gear:
wheel diameter: 8.3(10261.57)^0.251 = 84.312 cm
wheel width: 3.5(10261.57)^0.216 = 25.732 cm
It was selected Main landing gear size 46*16, nose
landing gear size 36*11.
36

Aircraft Design Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Aircraft Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NECMETTİN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Aviation and Space Sciences

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

The Business Jet Design

Keywords: Aircraft design, wieght estimation, business jet.

C : Specific Fuel Consumption

c : Mean Aerodynamic Chord

cHT,T:Tip Chord of Horizontal Tail

cHT,R:Root Chord of Horizontal Tail

cT:Tip Chord of Wing

cR: Root Chord of Wing

cVT,R: Root Chord of Vertical Tail

cVT,T: Root Chord of Vertical Tail

cw :Mean Aerodynamic Chord

LHT=Hotizontal Tail Arm

LVT=Vertical Tail Arm

L/D : Lift to Drag Ratio

Kvs : Variable Sweept Constant

SHT:Horizontal Tail Area

SVT:Vertical Tail Area

T/W:Thrust to Weight Ratio

We/W0 : Empty Weight Fraction

Wf/W0 : Fuel Weight Fraction

y:Spanwise Location of Mean Aerodynamic Center of Horizontal Tail

zVT : Spanwise Location of Mean Aerodynamic Center of Vertical Tail

2.1 Take off – Weight Buildup

3. Weight Estiamation – Tradeoff

1.2 Aircraft Design Requirements

The requirements given by the customer are listed below:

1. Cruise Speed - 850 km/h

1.3 Mission Profile

0-1 Take off

2.1 Take off – Weight Buildup

W 0=Wcrew+Wpayload +Wpassenger +Wfuel +Wempty (eq 2.1)

W 0=Wcrew+Wpayload +Wpassenger + ( WWf0 )W 0+( WWe0 ) W 0 (eq 2.2)

Wcrew +Wpassenger +Wpayload

( ( 2× 80 ) + ( 20 ×10 ) +(8 ×80)×9.81 )

2.2 Fuel Fraction Estimation

2.3 Mission Segment Weight Fraction

Table 2.1 Historical Mission- Segment Weight Fraction

0-1 : Engine start, warmup, taxi and takeoff. (historical mission)

W 1/W 0=0.97 (from table 2.1)

1-2 : Climb ( historical trend )

W 2/W 1=0.985 ( from table 2.2)

2-3 : Cruise ( Breguet Range Equation )

C = C( V∞, h, W ) : specific fuel consumption

Table 2.3 Specific Fuel Consumption , C

W 3 −( ( 850× 15× 0.866) ) ,

4-5: Loiter ( Endurance Equation)

5-6: Descent and landing ( historical trend )

2.4 Empty – Weight Fraction

General aviation-twin engine type aircraft was

( WWe0 )=1.4 ×W 0 −0.1

( ( 2 ×80 ) + ( 20 ×10 ) + ( 8 ×80 ))×9.81

As a result of calculation, weight estimation is 48600 N .

2.6. Discussion and Conclusion

3. Weight Estimation Trade-off

CoR = Change of Range

3.2.2 Loiter Time Change ( 10% )

Default Loiter Time %+10 CoLT %-10 CoLT

CoLT = Change of Loiter Time

3.2.3 Number of Passenger Change ( 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 )

Default NoP 6 NoP 7 Nop 9 NoP 10 NoP

3.2.4 Change Take-off Fuel Consumption ( 5%, 10% )