Kelompok 1 Laporan 1 Dan 2

REPORT 1
AE3230 LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
By:
Group 1
DRO B (NFT-22)
Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany – 13620011 – Fuselage (mid-tail)

Arya Marully Fattah Sidauruk – 13620049 – Fuselage (nose-mid)
Elisabeth Filandow – 13620069 – Wing
Adrian Wafi Elhaq – 13620074 – Tail
Supervisor:
Ir. Hendri Syamsudin, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Dr. Taufiq Mulyanto, S.T.
Deadline: March 17th, 2023
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2023
VALIDITY SHEET
GROUP MEMBER
SHORT DESCRIPTION
NAME-NIM SIGNATURE
OF THE WORK
Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany

- 13620011 Fuselage (mid-tail)
Arya Marully Fattah

Sidauruk - 13620049 Fuselage (nose-mid)
Elisabeth Filandow –
13620069 Wing
Adrian Wafi Elhaq –

13620074 Tail
SUPERVISOR
NAME SIGNATURE

Detailed Description of the Divided Task
No. Name-NIM Work
1. 1. Made general
comparative aircraft
data table (Chapter 2)
2. Input aircraft’s data
for 3 view drawing
3. Input the
airworthiness
explanation (Chapter
1)
specification (Chapter
2)
Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany - 13620011 5. Input fuselage
configuration (Chapter
2)
6. Input load path
explanation (Chapter
3)
7. Input Fuselage
geometry (Chapter 2)
8. Input Fuselage
structural concept
(Chapter 3)
9. Input Fuselage
structure layout
(Chapter 5)
2. 1. Input aircraft’s data

for Flight Envelope
for 3 view drawing
Arya Marully Fattah Sidauruk - 13620049 3. Input explanation for
the comparative
aircraft
4. Input characteristic
parameter of
comparative aircraft
(Chapter 2)
3. 1. Made the whole

Chapter 1 content.
2. Input comparative
aircraft image (chapter
2)
3. Input data for wing
structure configuration
and wing geometry
(chapter 3)
4. Made Flight Envelope
[maneuver, gust and
combined load]
(chapter 4)
5. Made FBD and
internal loads for the
wing part.
6. Made the load path for
Elisabeth Filandow – 13620069 wing.
7. Made Wing lift
distribution for two
flight cases.
8. Calculate the Lift
Force of Wing and
Horizontal Tail Plane
9. Make the internal
forces of Wing
10. Make the Load path
for wing
11. Make the material
selection for wing and
comparison of wing
material from 4
reference aircraft
12. Made the structural
layout of wing.
4. Adrian Wafi Elhaq – 13620074 1. Input aircraft’s data

for 3 view drawing
2. Input data for tail
structure configuration
and tail geometry
(chapter 2)
3. Tail load paths,
structural concepts,
materials, and
manufacturing aspects
(Chapter 3)
4. Made FBD and
internal loads for the
tail part.
5. Made HTP forces
distributions (Chapter
4)
6. Input structural layout
of tail (Chapter 5)
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 15
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 15
1.1. Objective ........................................................................................................................... 15
1.2. Airworthiness .................................................................................................................... 15
1.3. Assumption ....................................................................................................................... 21
1.4. Scope of Work .................................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................ 22
AIRCRAFT DATA ...................................................................................................................... 22
2.1. General Data for Comparison Advanced Military Trainer Aircraft ................................... 22
2.1.1. TA-4J Skyhawk.......................................................................................................... 22
2.1.2. Yakovlev Yak-130 ..................................................................................................... 23
2.1.3. Aermacchi M346 Master ............................................................................................ 23
2.1.4. T-50 Golden Eagle ..................................................................................................... 24
2.2. Comparative Aircraft Study .............................................................................................. 25
2.3. Configuration Concepts..................................................................................................... 27
2.3.1. Wing configuration .................................................................................................... 27
2.3.2. Fuselage Configuration .............................................................................................. 29
2.3.3. Tail Configuration ...................................................................................................... 31
2.4. Reference Aircraft Configurations .................................................................................... 33
2.4.1. Aircraft Data Specifications ....................................................................................... 33
2.4.2. Wing Geometry and Configuration ............................................................................ 35
2.4.3. Fuselage Geometry ..................................................................................................... 37
2.4.4. Tail Geometry ............................................................................................................ 38
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................ 40
EVALUATION OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE ...................................................... 40
3.1. Wing ................................................................................................................................. 40
3.1.1. Load Paths .................................................................................................................. 40
3.1.2. Structural Concepts .................................................................................................... 43
3.1.3. Materials .................................................................................................................... 46
3.1.4. Manufacturing and Maintenance Aspects ................................................................... 54
3.2. Fuselage ............................................................................................................................ 63
3.2.1. Load Paths .................................................................................................................. 63
3.2.3. Materials .................................................................................................................... 65
3.3. Tail .................................................................................................................................... 69
3.3.1. Load Paths .................................................................................................................. 69
3.1.3. Materials .................................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................ 73
DESIGN LOAD ........................................................................................................................... 73
4.1. Flight Envelope ................................................................................................................. 73
4.1.1. Maneuver Envelope.................................................................................................... 73
4.1.2. Gust Envelope ............................................................................................................ 77
4.1.3. Combined Load .......................................................................................................... 80
4.2. Maximum and Minimum Load ......................................................................................... 82
4.2.1. Lift Force of Wing and Horizontal Tail Plane ............................................................ 82
4.2.2. Forces on Wing .......................................................................................................... 86
4.2.3. Forces on Fuselage ................................................................................................... 117
4.2.3. Forces on Tail........................................................................................................... 120
CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................. 128
STRUCTURAL LAYOUT ........................................................................................................ 128
5.1. Structural layout of wing and tail .................................................................................... 128
5.1.1. Wing......................................................................................................................... 128
5.1.2. Tail ........................................................................................................................... 139
5.2. Layout of Fuselage Structure .......................................................................................... 145
5.2.1. Layout of fuselage .................................................................................................... 145
5.2.2. Skin-panel ................................................................................................................ 146
5.2.3. Frames/Bulkhead...................................................................................................... 146
5.2.4. Joints ........................................................................................................................ 149
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 153
ENGINEERING DRAWING .................................................................................................... 155
Table of Figures
Figure 1 V-n diagram for symmetrical flight ............................................................................... 17

Figure 2 US Navy TA-4J Skyhawk.............................................................................................. 22
Figure 3 TA-4 Skyhawk Configuration ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 4 Russian Air Force Yak-130 ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 5 Yak-130 Configuration .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 6 Israel Air Force M346.................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7 M346 Configuration ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 8 Korean Air Force T-50 .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 9 T-50 Configuration ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10 Three View Drawing of NFT-22 Aircraft .................................................................... 35
Figure 11 NACA 64A-410 airfoil ................................................................................................ 35
Figure 12 Top View of NFT-22 “Manuk” Aircraft ...................................................................... 36
Figure 13 Front View of NFT-22 "Manuk" Aircraft .................................................................... 37
Figure 14 Side View of NFT-22 "Manuk" Aircraft ...................................................................... 38
Figure 15 VTP Geometry ............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 16 HTP Geometry ............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 17 Several Loads acting on the Wing. .............................................................................. 40
Figure 18 Section Bending Moments for Thick Skin Configuration ............................................ 40
Figure 19 Load Path Elements ..................................................................................................... 40
Figure 20 Loads acting on NFT-22 Aircraft ................................................................................. 41
Figure 21 Load Path Illustration on Wing .................................................................................... 41
Figure 22 Aermacchi M346 Aircraft ............................................................................................ 45
Figure 23 Air intakes on Aermacchi M346 wing ......................................................................... 45
Figure 24 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of Ti-6Al-4V[2]........................................ 46
Figure 25 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of Titanium [3] ....................................... 47
Figure 26 Properties of Carbon Fiber [3] ..................................................................................... 48
Figure 27 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of 2024-T3 Aluminum Alloy [2] ............ 49
Figure 28 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of 7075 Aluminum Alloys [2] ................ 49
Figure 29 Properties of common Aluminum Alloys [3] ............................................................... 50
Figure 30 Recommended Application of Common Aluminum Alloys [2] ................................... 50
Figure 31 Typical Applications of Aluminum Alloys in GA Aircraft [2] .................................... 50
Figure 32 Design mechanical and physical properties of low-alloy steels [2] .............................. 51
Figure 33 General comparison of current material properties and efficiencies [2] ....................... 52
Figure 34 Illustration of metal rolling manufacturing method ..................................................... 55
Figure 35 Rolling Spar Process .................................................................................................... 55
Figure 36 Illustration of compression molding manufacturing method ........................................ 56
Figure 37 Illustration of extrusion manufacturing method ........................................................... 56
Figure 38 Repair of bead skin on wavy surfaces .......................................................................... 57
Figure 39 Illustration of maintenance on stringer ......................................................................... 57
Figure 40 Stringer fix with patching ............................................................................................ 58
Figure 41 Stringer repair with insertion ....................................................................................... 58
Figure 42 Fixing stringer with insertion when only one stringer was damaged............................ 59
Figure 43 Fixing stringer with insertion when damage occurs to more than one stringer ............ 59
Figure 44 Spar Repair .................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 45 Spar Repair .................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 46 Wing rib repair............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 47 Leading Edge Repair ................................................................................................... 62
Figure 48 Trailing Edge Repair .................................................................................................... 63
Figure 49 Selected properties of Common Aluminum Alloys (A-Basis and Longitudinal
Direction) ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 50 Typical Application of Aluminum Alloys in GA Aircraft ........................................... 65
Figure 51 Recommended Application of Aluminum Alloys ........................................................ 66
Figure 52 Rolling method for skin. .............................................................................................. 66
Figure 53 Shape of Frame and Bulkhead ..................................................................................... 67
Figure 54 Schematics of Superplastic Forming ............................................................................ 67
Figure 55 Sheet Metal Forming ................................................................................................... 68
Figure 56 Longeron Shape ........................................................................................................... 68
Figure 57 Extrusion Method ........................................................................................................ 68
Figure 58 Upset Forging Method for Stringers ............................................................................ 71
Figure 59 Rolling Method for Spars............................................................................................. 72
Figure 60 Open Die Forging for Ribs .......................................................................................... 72
Figure 61 Maneuver Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) of NFT-22 according to Last Year’s Data ...... 76
Figure 62 Maneuver Envelope at SLS+20 based on V cruise assumption of NFT-22 ...................... 76
Figure 63 Maneuver Envelope at SLS+20 based on changing the C Lmin and CLmax of NFT-22 .... 77
Figure 64 Gust Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on Last Year’s data of NFT-22 ..................... 79
Figure 65 Gust Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) with Vcruise assumption of NFT-22 .......................... 79
Figure 66 Gust Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on changing the C Lmin and CLmax of NFT-22 .. 80
Figure 67 Flight Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on last year’s data of NFT-22...................... 80
Figure 68 Flight Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) with V cruise assumption of NFT-22 ........................ 81
Figure 69 Flight Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on changing the C Lmin and CLmax of NFT-22 81
Figure 70 Lift of Wing and Tail ................................................................................................... 82
Figure 71 Chord distribution along wingspan .............................................................................. 86
Figure 72 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Light Patrol.......................................................... 87
Figure 73 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Light Patrol ........................................................... 88
Figure 74 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Light Attack ........................................................ 88
Figure 75 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Light Attack .......................................................... 89
Figure 76 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Advanced Training .............................................. 89
Figure 77 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Advanced Training ............................................... 90
Figure 78 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Ferry flight .......................................................... 90
Figure 79 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Ferry flight ............................................................ 91
Figure 80 Wing weight distribution n = -3 ................................................................................... 93
Figure 81 Wing weight distribution n = 8 .................................................................................... 94
Figure 82 External Forces Distribution at n = -3 ........................................................................ 100
Figure 83 External Forces Distribution at n = 8 ......................................................................... 100
Figure 90 Shear Force when n = -3 (Light Patrol configuration) ............................................... 104
Figure 91 Shear Force when n = 8 (Light Patrol configuration) ................................................. 105
Figure 92 Shear Force when n = -3 (Light Attack configuration) .............................................. 105
Figure 93 Shear Force when n = 8 (Light Attack configuration) ................................................ 106
Figure 94 Shear Force when n = -3 (Advanced Training configuration) .................................... 106
Figure 95 Shear Force when n = 8 (Advanced Training configuration) ..................................... 107
Figure 96 Shear Force when n = -3 (Ferry flight configuration) ................................................ 107
Figure 97 Shear Force when n = 8 (Ferry flight configuration).................................................. 108
Figure 98 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Light Patrol Configuration) ........................... 109
Figure 99 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Light Patrol Configuration) ............................ 109
Figure 100 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Light Attack Configuration) ........................ 110
Figure 101 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Light Attack Configuration) ......................... 110
Figure 102 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Advanced Training Configuration).............. 111
Figure 103 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Advanced Training Configuration) ............... 111
Figure 104 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Ferry Flight Configuration) ......................... 112
Figure 105 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Ferry Flight Configuration) .......................... 112
Figure 106 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Light Patrol Configuration)...................................... 113
Figure 107 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Light Patrol Configuration) ....................................... 113
Figure 108 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Light Attack Configuration)..................................... 114
Figure 109 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Light Attack Configuration) ..................................... 114
Figure 110 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Advanced Training Configuration) .......................... 115
Figure 111 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Advanced Training Configuration) ........................... 115
Figure 112 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Ferry flight Configuration) ...................................... 116
Figure 113 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Ferry flight Configuration) ........................................ 116
Figure 114 External Load (n=1) ................................................................................................. 117
Figure 115 External Load (n=8) ................................................................................................. 118
Figure 116 External Load (n=-3) ............................................................................................... 118
Figure 117 Shear Distribution on Fuselage ................................................................................ 119
Figure 118 Bending Distribution on Fuselage ............................................................................ 119
Figure 119 HTP Chord Length Distribution............................................................................... 120
Figure 120 HTP Lift Distribution for n = 8 for Ferry Flight....................................................... 121
Figure 121 HTP Lift Distribution for n = -3 for Ferry Flight ..................................................... 121
Figure 122 Wing Weight Distribution on HTP at n = -3 for Ferry Flight................................... 122
Figure 123 Wing Weight Distribution on HTP at n = 8 for Ferry Flight .................................... 122
Figure 124 Total External Forces on HTP at n = -3 for Ferry Flight .......................................... 123
Figure 125 Total External Forces on HTP at n = 8 ..................................................................... 124
Figure 126 Shear Force Distribution when n = -3 ...................................................................... 124
Figure 127 Shear Force Distribution when n = 8 ....................................................................... 125
Figure 128 Bending Moment Distribution when n = -3 ............................................................. 125
Figure 129 Bending Moment Distribution when n = 8 ............................................................... 126
Figure 130 Torsional Distribution when n = -3 .......................................................................... 126
Figure 131 Torsional Distribution when n = 8 ........................................................................... 127
Figure 132 Semi monocoque wing structure .............................................................................. 128
Figure 133 General Configuration for Wing Cross Section ....................................................... 129
Figure 134 Top View of NFT-22 Wing Structure Layout .......................................................... 129
Figure 135 Zed stringer construction ......................................................................................... 130
Figure 136 Top View of Spar Location on Wing Structure ........................................................ 131
Figure 137 Top View of Placement of Ribs Structure on Wings ............................................... 133
Figure 138 Isometric View of Placement of Rib Structures on Wings ....................................... 134
Figure 139 Top View of Placement of Stringer Structures on Wings ........................................ 135
Figure 140 Top View of Placement of the Wing Structure ........................................................ 135
Figure 141 Isometric view of wing structure placement ............................................................ 136
Figure 142 Wing-Fuselage Joint Configuration with Link Type (Niu, 1988) ............................ 138
Figure 143 Wing-Fuselage Joint with Lug Type (Niu, 1988)..................................................... 138
Figure 144 Lug Type Joint ......................................................................................................... 138
Figure 145 Aircraft Tail Structural Layout................................................................................. 140
Figure 146 Sideview of Spar Placement in Aircraft VTP ........................................................... 141
Figure 147 Topview of Spar Placement in Aircraft HTP ........................................................... 141
Figure 148 Sideview of Ribs Placement in Aircraft VTP ........................................................... 142
Figure 149 Topview of Ribs Placement in Aircraft HTP ........................................................... 143
Figure 150 Isometric-View of Stringers Placement in Aircraft Tail ........................................... 144
Figure 151 Isometric-View of Aircraft Tail Internal Structural Layout ..................................... 144
Figure 152 Isometric-View of NFT-22 "Manuk" Aircraft Internal Structural Layout ................ 145
Figure 153 Fuselage Layout ....................................................................................................... 145
Figure 154 Side View of NFT-22 with the Bulkhead structure placement ................................. 147
Figure 155 Isometric View of NFT-22 with the Bulkhead structure placement ......................... 147
Figure 156 Side View of NFT-22 with the frame structure placement ....................................... 148
Figure 157 Isometric View of NFT-22 with the frame structure placement ............................... 149
Figure 158 Wing-Fuselage Configuration with Link Type ........................................................ 150
Figure 159 Wing-Fuselage Configuration with Lug Shape ........................................................ 150
Figure 160 Stabilizer-Fuselage Configuration Joint ................................................................... 151
List of Table
Table 1 Symmetrical Flight Parameters ....................................................................................... 16

Table 2 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 21
Table 3 Characteristic parameter main comparative aircraft ........................................................ 25
Table 4 General Comparative Aircraft Configuration .................................................................. 26
Table 5 Types of Wing Configuration, Its Advantages and Disadvantages.................................. 27
Table 6 Fuselage Configuration ................................................................................................... 29
Table 7 Tail Configuration ........................................................................................................... 31
Table 8 Design Requirement and Objectives Fighter Jet .............................................................. 33
Table 9 NFT-22 Aircraft Specifications ....................................................................................... 34
Table 10 Airfoil Parameter Values ............................................................................................... 35
Table 11 Design Wing Parameter Value ...................................................................................... 36
Table 12 General Fuselage Parameter Values .............................................................................. 37
Table 13 Tail Geometry ............................................................................................................... 38
Table 14 Structure and Loads ...................................................................................................... 42
Table 15 Wing Structure Configurations ..................................................................................... 43
Table 16 Materials Comparison for 4 Aircraft similar to NFT-22................................................ 46
Table 17 Material Properties of Several Types of Aluminum [1] ................................................ 53
Table 18 Materials Comparison for aircraft similar to NFT-22.................................................... 65
Table 19 Materials Comparison for aircraft similar to NFT-22.................................................... 70
Table 20 Aircraft Aerodynamic and Atmospheric Data based on Last Year’s Data ............ 74
Table 21 Designed Airspeed of NFT-22 .................................................................................... 74
Table 22 nmax and nmin Value ...................................................................................................... 75
Table 23 U_de for Specific Designed Speed ................................................................................ 78
Table 24 Maximum Gust Load .................................................................................................. 78
Table 25 Aircraft Data Required .................................................................................................. 83
Table 26 Lift Force on the Wing .................................................................................................. 84
Table 27 Lift Force on the HTP ................................................................................................... 85
Table 28 The summary of all lift forces at n = -3 and n = 8 for all flight configuration ............... 92
Table 29 Light Patrol Armament total mass and x-CG location values........................................ 94
Table 30 Weapons Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Patrol) . 95
Table 31 Light Attack Armament total mass and x-CG location values....................................... 95
Table 32 Weapons Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Attack) 96
Table 33 Advanced Training Armament total mass and x-CG location values ............................ 96
Table 34 Weapons Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Advanced
Training) ...................................................................................................................................... 97
Table 35 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Light Patrol ................................................ 97
Table 36 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Patrol) ......... 97
Table 37 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Light Attack ............................................... 98
Table 38 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Attack) ........ 98
Table 39 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Advanced training ...................................... 98
Table 40 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor ( Advanced Training)
..................................................................................................................................................... 99
Table 41 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Ferry Flight ................................................ 99
Table 42 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Ferry flight) .......... 99
Table 43 Summary of Maximum value of SF, BM and T value for each flight configuration .. 117
Table 44 Comparison Aircraft based on similar MTOW, Wingspan and Length of Aircraft with
NFT-22 ...................................................................................................................................... 128
Table 45 Buckling Efficiency Factors ........................................................................................ 130
Table 46 Comparison Aircraft for number of spars .................................................................... 131
Table 47 Comparison Aircraft for number of ribs ...................................................................... 132
Table 48 Ribs Location Relative to Datum ................................................................................ 132
Table 49 Comparison Aircraft in terms of number of stringers on wing structure ..................... 134
Table 50 Joint Type Characteristics on Wing Roots .................................................................. 139
Table 51 Bulkhead placement based of the datum. .................................................................... 146
Table 52 Frame placement based of the datum. ......................................................................... 147
Table 53 Characteristic of Type Joint and Wing Root ............................................................... 151
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objective
Nowadays, an advanced military trainer aircraft or usually called jet trainer is evolving as
training developed by different air forces uses jet trainers for different phases of training.
One of the most crucial parts of an advanced military aircraft is its structure to withstand
high load factor force and high-speed cruising speed. The structure of the aircraft must be
designed in such a way that the aircraft complies with all airworthiness regulations and is
safe to fly.
Therefore, the structural engineer must understand the structural design and consider the
trade-off between the strength of the structure and the load on the structure, which will be
studied through this aircraft design task.
The purpose of this report is to design the structure of an advanced military trainer aircraft
for attack aircraft and air patrol with a maximum payload of 2 passengers (pilot and
instructor). The scope of the structural design of the aircraft, named NFT-22, includes the
wing structure, fuselage, and tail. The purpose of calculating the load on this aircraft is as
follows:
1. To determine the load paths, structural concepts, materials, manufacturing and
maintenance aspects that can be done and withstand by the aircraft structure.
2. To determine the design load such as the flight envelope, maximum and minimum
load, SF, BM, and T diagrams for the aircraft structure.
3. To determine the structural layout of wing, fuselage, and tail structure such as skin-
panel, frames/bulkhead, joints, etc.
1.2. Airworthiness
The aircraft that we designed is an advanced military trainer aircraft so that the appropriate
airworthiness regulation to be used is USAF Military Specification (MIL-SPECS) and
JSSG.
MIL-A-8861B Airplane Strength and Rigidity Flight Loads

● Gross Weight: The design gross weights for the flight loads and loading conditions
specified herein shall be all gross weight from the minimum flying gross weight to
the maximum design gross weight. At higher weight, strength shall be provided for
by maintaining a constant mass times load factor (nzW) product. The load factor
shall be not less than that specified in Table 1 for the maximum design gross weight.
Table 1 Symmetrical Flight Parameters
○ Weight Distribution:
The weight distributions for the basic, high drag, dive recovery, landing
approach, and takeoff configuration shall be all those that are critical as a
result of all practicable symmetrical and asymmetrical distributions and
shall be determined by consideration of all possible, arrangements of
variable, disposable, and removable items, including external stores, for
which provision is required (including ballast required for structural
demonstration tests) within the airplane strength and aerodynamic
controllability limits.
○ Center of gravity positions:
The design center of gravity positions at each weight and each aerodynamic
configuration (position of variable geometry surfaces, size and location of
external stores) shall include a tolerance beyond the actual maximum-
forward and actual maximum-aft positions. Included shall be all weights
and aerodynamic configurations which are attainable as a result of all
practical symmetrical and asymmetrical distributions of useful load up to
the maximum design weight, airplane attitudes and accelerations, fuel
sequencing, and airplane flexibility. This tolerance shall be ~1.5 percent of
mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) or 15 percent of the distance between the
most forward and most aft actual values from the complete center of gravity
(CG) envelope, whichever is greater. This tolerance shall be applied so as
to move the design center of gravities forward of the actual most forward
position and aft of the actual most aft position. For airplanes with variable
sweep wings, the reference MAC shall be that for the wings landing or take-
off position.
● Symmetrical Flight Conditions:

○ Balanced Maneuver
The airplane shall be in the basic, high-drag, and dive-recovery configurations at
all points on and within the maneuvering envelope bounded by O, A, B, C, D, E,
and O of Figure 2 and further defined in Table I. The pitching velocity shall be the
finite pitching velocity associated with the load factor developed. It shall be
assumed that the elevator is deflected at a very slow rate so that the pitching
acceleration is zero.
○ Accelerated pitch maneuver and recovery.

The airplane shall be in the basic high-drag, and dive-recovery configurations. The
airplane initially shall be in steady unaccelerated flight at the airspeed specified for
the maneuver and trimmed for zero control forces at that airspeed. The airspeed
shall be constant until the specified load factor has been attained. The load factors
to be attained shall be all values on and within the envelope bounded by O, A, B,
C, D, and E of Figure 2.
Figure 1 V-n diagram for symmetrical flight

● Gust Loads: the airplane shall encounter loads caused by vertical and lateral gusts.
These loads shall be determined by the discrete gust and continuous turbulence
approach. The approach to be used shall be established by the acquiring activity for
individual airplanes.
○ Discrete Gust analysis: the airplane shall be considered in straight and level,
unyawed flight with the appropriate balancing horizontal tail load and trim
vertical tail load. It shall encounter discrete vertical and lateral gust of
design velocity at the specified speeds and critical weights. Design gust
velocities shall be:
○ Discrete gust formulas: Airplane loads derived from the discrete gust
approach shall not include possible benefits that may be derived from a
stability augmentation system. Loads on airplane components shall be
derived using the gust loads formulas specified in 3.5.1.1a, 3.5.1.1b and
3.5.1.1c below. These loads shall be balanced throughout the airplane by
linear and rotational inertia forces.
■ Vertical gusts on the wing and fuselage. Loads on the wing and
fuselage shall be derived from the load factor established from the
following formula:
■ Vertical gust on the fuselage and horizontal tail. The horizontal tail
shall be attacked by gust of design velocity the load on the tail shall
be calculated as follows:
mass ratio (p)
Where:
w= weight, lbs
P = density
g = gravity, assume 32.2 ft/sec.2
c = average chord, ft. (span area)
a = rate of change with angle of attack
s = wing area: ft2
W/s = wing loading, lbs/ft2
Gust factor (KW) = A dimensionless term which accounts for the alleviated motion of the
airplane and the time lag of the Build-up of aerodynamic lift. This parameter is based on
mass ratio as shown in Figure 4 and is expressed in terms of p. The curve marked subsonic
shall be used only for speeds below the critical Mach number. The curve marked supersonic
shall be used for speeds above the critical Mach number.
● Lateral gusts on the fuselage and vertical tail. Fuselage and vertical tail gust
loads shall be calculated using the pertinent gust velocities of 3.5.1 assumed
acting horizontally. The tail plane is considered to have an initial side slip
of zero degrees. The load shall be calculated without consideration of
unsteady lift phenomena in accordance with the formula:
MIL-A-8863 Airplane Strength and Rigidity Ground Loads for Navy Acquired
Airplanes
● Purpose: This specification defines the strength and rigidity requirements for
ground loading conditions applicable to Navy acquired airplanes.
● Requirements
○ Weight: The design weights shall be as specified in MIL-A-8860
○ Weight distribution and center of gravity positions: Weight distribution and
center of gravity positions shall be all those that are critical as defined by
all possible arrangements of variable and removable items for which
provisions are required and all combinations of partially and fully loaded
multiple bomb racks, internal fuel tanks, and external fuel tanks. In addition,
for all specified takeoff and landing conditions for all types of airplanes,
these arrangements shall include:
■ Maximum internal fuel loading that can be attained within the
applicable design weight with all store stations empty of pylons,
adapters, launchers, racks, and stores, and with other useful loadings
such as passengers, cargo, guns, and ammunition, etc, removed.
■ All asymmetrical store loading configuration which results in the
lesser of the following rolling moments:
● 1.2 times the max rolling movement attainable by loading
each store station, in turn, with all possible combinations of
pylons, adapters, launcher, racks, and stores specified to be
carried by that store station in the detail specification. As
each other station is loaded all other store station shall be
empty of adapters, launchers, racks, stores, etc.
○ Limit and ultimate loads: With the exception of barricade loads, all loads
specified herein are limit. The barricade loads are ultimate.
○ Balance of forces: For conditions for which parameters or values of
parameters are not completely specified to the extent necessary for the
airplanes and its components to be in complete translational and rotational
equilibrium, additional forces which are determined by a rational method or
which are approved by the contraction activity shall be assumed to act in a
manner such that the acceleration of the airplane’s component masses are
balanced by the externally applied forces.
○ Engine thrust: Unless specified otherwise herein, the values of engine thrust
and /or power shall vary from zero to the maximum available, as applicable.
1.3. Assumption
The assumptions used in this aircraft design task are as follows:
1. Air condition at sea level ISA+20
2. The fuselage structure is semi-monocoque with a. circular cross section.
3. Assumption of loading is based on KEAS.
4. All material selections are isotropic metals.
5. The flight condition is steady symmetric flight.
6. The center of gravity of the aircraft is reviewed at the Maximum Take-Off Weight
(MTOW) condition.
1.4. Scope of Work

The scope of the structural design study in this report is as follows:
1. Structural design is only carried out for NFT-22 aircraft fuselage structures.
2. Design data obtained from literature studies of similar reference aircraft.
3. Calculations and analysis performed on reports are not supported with carry out
simulations and hands-on experiments.
Table 2 Scope of Work
Name-NIM Task
Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany - 13620011 Fuselage (mid-tail)
Arya Marully Fattah Sidauruk - 13620049 Fuselage (nose-mid)
Elisabeth Filandow – 13620069 Wing
Adrian Wafi Elhaq – 13620074 Tail
CHAPTER 2
AIRCRAFT DATA
2.1. General Data for Comparison Advanced Military Trainer Aircraft

The literature study was carried by collecting data on other aircraft on the market
with similar specifications and capabilities. On the market that have similar specifications
and capabilities to the DR&O that has been determined. This is done to determine the basic
configuration of the aircraft and the advantages and disadvantages of the comparison
aircraft so that the design aircraft can have advantages over existing comparison aircraft.
From the results of the DR&O study that has been carried out, we get 16 aircraft data (will
be used as regression parameters) and as the main comparison aircraft, we will use 4
aircraft, namely TA-4J Skyhawk, Yakovlev Yak-130, Aermacchi M346 Master, T-50
Golden Eagle.
2.1.1. TA-4J Skyhawk

TA-4J is a trainer aircraft derived from the attack A-4 Skyhawk. TA-4J first
flight was on 17th December 1968 and retired on 15th December 2004.
Figure 2 US Navy TA-4J Skyhawk
Figure 3 TA-4 Skyhawk Configuration

2.1.2. Yakovlev Yak-130
Yak-130 is a trainer aircraft from Russian and Italian cooperation, the
Italian version is the M346 master. Yak 130 first flight on 25th April 1996. The
main operator of Yak-130 is the Russian Air Force.
Figure 4 Russian Air Force Yak-130
Figure 5 Yak-130 Configuration
2.1.3. Aermacchi M346 Master

M346 is the Italian variant of Yak-130 with some differences from Russian,
mainly in the number of hardpoints and engine choices. M346 first flight on 15th
July 2004. The main operator of M346 is the Italian and Israeli air forces.
Figure 6 Israel Air Force M346

Figure 7 M346 Configuration
2.1.4. T-50 Golden Eagle

T-50 Golden Eagle is a trainer aircraft developed by Korean Airspace
Industry and derived from F-16 Fighting Falcon. T-50 first flight on 20th August
2002. The main operators are the Korean, Indonesian, and Philippine Air Forces.
Figure 8 Korean Air Force T-50
Figure 9 T-50 Configuration

2.2. Comparative Aircraft Study
Characteristic parameter data of each comparison aircraft are summarized in the table
below:
Table 3 Characteristic parameter main comparative aircraft
Parameter TA-4J YAK-130 M346 T-50
Number of Passenger 2 2 2 2
Length (m) 13.3 11.49 11.49 13.144
Wingspan (m) 8.4 9.84 9.72 9.45
Wing area (m2) 24.2 23.52 23.52 23.69
MTOW (kg) 11300 10290 9600 13500
Empty Weight (kg) 4808 4600 4900 6454
Number of Hardpoint 5 9 7 7
Max. Fuel (kg) 2436 1700 2000 2690
Max. Payload (kg) 4490 3000 3000 5443
Mach 0.86 0.85 0.95

1.5
Max. Load Factor (g) 8/-3 8/-3 8/-3 8/-3
Service Ceiling (m) 11795 12500 13716 14630
T/O Distance (m) 230 400 320 400
Landing Distance (m) 300 650 470 520
Stall Speed (km/h) - 165 176 220

Ferry Range (nm) 1160 1133 1039 999
Max. ROC (m/s) 29.2 65 112 198
Engine Total Thrust (kN) 37.8 49 56 53
Wing Loading (kg/m2) 305 276.4 285 -
Price (Million USD) 0.86 15 25 22
Production Year 1969 1996 2004 2001
General Comparative Aircraft Configuration

Table 4 General Comparative Aircraft Configuration
Configuration TA-4J YAK-130 M346 T-50
Wing Location Low Wing, Low Mid Wing, Low Mid Wing, Low Mid Wing, Low
AR AR AR AR
Wing Geometry Delta Wing Tapered Swept Tapered Swept Delta Wing
Winglet - Wingtip - Wingtip

Armament Armament
Pilot Seat 2, Tandem 2, Tandem 2, Tandem 2, Tandem

Configuration
Empennage Cruciform/ Mid Conventional/ Conventional/ Conventional/

Configuration HTP Low HTP Low HTP Low HTP
HTP Control Fixed w/ control All moving All moving All moving
Surface surface control surface control surface control surface
Configuration
Landing Gear Retractable, Retractable, Retractable, Retractable,

Configuration Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle
Engine Single Engine Twin Engine Twin Engine Single Engine

Configuration
2.3. Configuration Concepts
2.3.1. Wing configuration
Table 5 Types of Wing Configuration, Its Advantages and Disadvantages
No. Wing Configuration Advantages Disadvantages
Wing Locations
Have lower stall speed

because of small ground
effect Producing induced drag that
is bigger than other
Facilitate the process of configuration
1.
installing weapons or
payload and cargo
Better Roll stability than

Maintenance is more difficult
other configurations
Have the lowest interference Room for cockpit and cargo

drag compared to other is reduced due to the joints
configuration between fuselage and wing
2.
The fuselage structure must
Able to roll with the clutch
be strong because a lot of the
effect of yaw to as minimum
wing load is transferred to the
as possible
wing-fuselage connection
Better maneuverability
The shorter cycle time is due
Stable at high speed to the high stress on the
3.
wings, especially during the
landing phase
Lower drag than other wing
configurations
Wing Aspect Ratio
Produces more lift than low

aspect ratio wing The structure of the aircraft
becomes heavier
Has lower induced drag
1.
Can be used for aircraft

Aircraft maneuverability is
requiring high endurance and
not good
long range
Can be used for gliders
requiring high lift to drag
ratio
The lift force distribution

will be close to the ideal
distribution
2. General-purpose wing
The aircraft structure will The resulting induced drag is

become lighter large
Aircraft maneuverability is
better because it has a higher
3.
roll rate
Has poor Aerodynamic
efficiency (L/D).
Can make sudden roll
movements making it
suitable for fighter aircraft
Wing Planform
Easy to manufacture Heavy wing structure
1.
Lots of internal fuel storage
High induced drag
in the wings
Easy to manufacture
Has a stealth feature or is

difficult to detect by radar
2. Poor maneuverability
wave drag tends to be lower
Has good performance when

flying transonic
It can inhibit the occurrence
of flow separation so that the Due to the wide wings,
critical Mach value can parasite drag will increase
increase
3.
Good longitudinal stability It's difficult to integrate high
so no elevator is needed to lifting devices on airplane
increase stability wings
Has good roll and pitch Low level of maneuverability

stability because it has good stability
More difficult to manufacture
Suitable for use on high-

4.
subsonic and early-
supersonic aircraft because
shockwaves can be slowed
down
Wing Dihedral Angle
Increase roll stability so that Tends to be Difficult to

1.
lateral stability is better maneuver
Easier to maneuver because Planes tend to be difficult to

2.
it induces roll instability stabilize
2.3.2. Fuselage Configuration
Table 6 Fuselage Configuration
No. Fuselage Configuration Advantages Disadvantages

Fuselage Structure
Difficult to form
High
1 Truss Structure fuselage
manufacturability,
streamlined
hence, it is easy to Need cover to
produce cover truss
structure
Reducing payload
volumes
so that the goods
brought
A little
Can't hold
pressurized cabin
Weight of cabin Not tolerant against
Monocoque structure becomes surface
lighter deformation
Low
manufacturability
2 compared to Truss
Volume of cabin structure hence, it
increase is more difficult to
produced
Manufacture fee is
expensive
Better structure Has the heaviest
Semi-Monocoque compared to structure compared
Monocoque to other
Difficult to produce
3
Cabin area is more Expensive
spacious compared manufacture fee
to Truss compared to
Monocoque
Have a similar Manufacture fee is

structural strength more expensive
Composite Semi-Monocoque
with Semi- than Semi-
Monocoque monocoque
4 Maintenance is
more frequent
Fuselage is lighter because several
load can damage
the structure
Pilot Seat Configuration

Have a better
weight and balance Poor visibility for
1 Tandem Seat
because the co-pilot the co-pilot
seat is near the CG
Aircraft becomes
Cabin volume is
skinnier and have
small
better aerodynamics
Cabin volume
Side-by-side Seat
increases
Aircraft becomes
wider and the
2 aerodynamics is not
Better visibility for
as good as Tandem
both pilots
Seat
2.3.3. Tail Configuration

Tail types can be classified based on two aspects, that is the placement and the shapes. For
the placement aspect, the Tail has two locations, namely the horizontal and vertical tail
planes.
As a general rule, the horizontal tail must not lie directly in the slipstream. This will cause
a tail buffet which causes structure-bone cabin noise. In addition, structural fatigue can also
occur earlier.
Table 7 Tail Configuration
No Tail Configuration Advantages Disadvantages

1 Conventional Relatively lighter Obtain disturbed air from
than other Tail wings and fuselage
configurations
2 Cruciform Avoids air Relatively heavier than
interference from conventional
wings and
propulsion systems
compared to
conventional
configurations.
No need to support
much of the vertical
tail plane (VTP)
Doesn't bother the
airflow rudder much
3 Canard Lift force will not be Aiming for an unstable
reduced due to the design (the CG is located
horizontal stabilizer further forward than
usual) in order to be able
to perform many more
sensitive maneuvers
4 V-Taiil The induced drag The appearance of the
and parasitic drag are adverse effect of roll-yaw
small due to the coupling
smaller wetted
Required longer rear
surface area
fuselage than aircraft with
conventional tail to
prevent unwanted yaw
5 H-Tail The tail's horizontal Relatively heavier

location has good
control at high angles
of attack
6 T-Tail This avoids Vulnerable to a

disturbing air behind dangerous deep stall,
the wings and the where a stalled wing at a
fuselage provides high angle of attack can
smoother airflow to empty the airflow over
the elevators the tailplane and elevator,
causing loss of pitch
control
2.4. Reference Aircraft Configurations
2.4.1. Aircraft Data Specifications
Based on the DPU report for NFT-22 Fighter Jet, the aircraft have Design Requirement
and Objectives as shown below:
Table 8 Design Requirement and Objectives Fighter Jet
General
Load Factor +8/-3
MTOW < 11000 kg
Flight Deck and Instrumentation
Crew 2/1
Weaponry and Payload
Weight of payload and fuel > 3500 kg
Hardpoints >7
Flight Performance
Training flight time > 2.5
Patrol Mission
Radius of action 600 nm
Loiter time 60 min
Maneuver time 5 min
Minimal weaponry 2 Missile air-to-air
Light Attack Mission
Radius of action 350 nm
Radius dash in and out 50 nm
Minimal weaponry 2800 kg ammunition air-to-air
Maximum cruising altitude > 42000 ft

Distance T/O-Screen Height < 4900 ft (MTOW, ISA+20)
Distance of Screen Height- < 4900 ft (85% MTOW, ISA +20)

Landing
Rate of Climb < 8500 ft (75% MTOW)
Certification Basis
USAF Military Specification (MIL-SPECS)
Not only that, NFT-22 also have specifications as shown below.
Table 9 NFT-22 Aircraft Specifications
General Information
Number of crew 2
Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) 9850 kg
Price 22 million USD
Design Cruise Altitude 3000 ft
Design Cruise 306.396 KEAS
Maximum Cruise Speed 966.744 km/h
Maximum Service Ceiling (MTOW) 64275 ft
Take-off Distance 3180 ft
Landing Distance 3956 ft
Rate of Climb 7572 fpm
Rate of Climb (Cruise) 196.85 fpm
Rate of Climb (Service) 98.425 fpm
Rate of Climb (Absolute) 0

The three-view drawing of NFT-22 Aircraft is as shown below:
Figure 10 Three View Drawing of NFT-22 Aircraft
2.4.2. Wing Geometry and Configuration

The geometry for airfoil NACA 64A-204 that is used for NFT-22 fighter jet aircraft and
the parameter value as shown below:
Figure 11 NACA 64A-410 airfoil
Table 10 Airfoil Parameter Values
Airfoil Parameter Description
Maximum Thickness (t/c) 4%
Lift Coefficient Design 0.2

Location tmax(xt/c) 40%
A-Modification 1
Table 11 Design Wing Parameter Value
Wing Parameter Description
Surface Area 23.2 m2
Aspect Ratio 5
Wingspan 10.77m
Taper Ratio 0.256
MAC 2.41m
Sweep LE 28 degrees
Dihedral 0
Chord Root 3.43 m
Airfoil NACA 64A-410
HLD Flap
Flap and aileron configuration are as shown below:
Figure 12 Top View of NFT-22 “Manuk” Aircraft

2.4.3. Fuselage Geometry
Following are the dimensional parameters of the design aircraft fuselage.
Table 12 General Fuselage Parameter Values
General Fuselage Parameters

MTOW 9850 kg
Fuselage length 11.41 m
Average Diameter 1.4 m
Maximum Fuselage’s Width 2.4 m
Nose Length 1.7 m
Cockpit Length 3.5 m
Maximum Cockpit’s Width 1.21 m
Maximum Cockpit’s Height 1.79 m
Tail Length 4.21 m
Upsweep Angle 12 degrees
The following is the front and side view of the fuselage and its dimensions.
Figure 13 Front View of NFT-22 "Manuk" Aircraft

Figure 14 Side View of NFT-22 "Manuk" Aircraft
2.4.4. Tail Geometry

The tail geometry of NFT-22 fighter jet aircraft and the parameter value as shown below:
Table 13 Tail Geometry
Parameter HTP VTP

Surface Area 5.05 m2 4.81 m2
Aspect Ratio 4.7 1.6
Span 4.88 2.77 (semi-span)
Taper Ratio 0.362 0.324
MAC 1.11 m 1.89 m
Sweep LE 27 degrees 37 degrees
Dihedral 0 -
Chord Root 1.52 m 2.62 m
Volume Fraction 0.57 0.1
Airfoil NACA 0010 NACA 0010
Figure 15 VTP Geometry
Figure 16 HTP Geometry

CHAPTER 3
EVALUATION OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE
3.1. Wing
3.1.1. Load Paths
There are several loads that wing structure carries in form of tension, compression,
shear stress, bending stress and torsion. On the wing, torsion is carried by a closed box
comprising skins and spar webs. Shear is carried primarily by spar webs and bending is
carried primarily by skins (with stringers).
Figure 17 Several Loads acting on the Wing.
For Wing/Stabilizer, there are two main types of wing primary structure which are thin
skin (many stringers and ribs) and thick skin (many spars, few ribs). For fighter aircraft, the wings
are usually thin sections, unstiffened skins, skin, and spar chords carry bending moments.
Figure 18 Section Bending Moments for Thick Skin Configuration
Figure 19 Load Path Elements

Figure 20 Loads acting on NFT-22 Aircraft
The figure 20 above shows that there are several external forces on the wing. These loads
include wing fuel and weight distribution, weapon (armament) weight distribution and
wing lift distribution which are indicated by blue, yellow, gray, orange arrows,
respectively. The resultant of all external forces and loads will cause the wing to lift and
cause bending of the wing. Not only that, the connection between the skin with spars and
ribs causes a load from the skin that flows towards the nearest spar and ribs. The loading
will then flow towards the fuselage. The same thing happened to the loading due to the
armament. The load from the armament will flow to the ribs, spars, and then to the wing
joints with the fuselage.
Figure 21 Load Path Illustration on Wing

The loadings that occur on the wing structure include:
1. Load due to bending.
The loading due to bending is caused by the lift force, the weight of the
wing, and the weight of the fuel stored in the wing structure. Bending can cause
axial stress. The axial stress will be resisted by the skin and stringer because of its
position at the top and bottom of the wing. Another structure that can withstand
bending loads is the spar. The skin and stringer are the main structures for resisting
bending loads, while the spars are the secondary structures for resisting bending
loads.
2. Load due to lift and weight.
Lift and gravity can cause shear stress in a structure. To withstand shear
stress, the structure of the web can be used because the shear stress will be centered
on the centroid of a web. Web can be found in spars and ribs, so that both structures
are optimal for resisting shear stress due to lifting and gravity.
3. Load due to torque.
Torque can arise due to the moment in the aerodynamic center. Torque can
also cause shear stress. Shear stress by torque has the greatest value at the farthest
from the centroid (at the ends of the structure). In the wing structure, the farthest
part of the centroid is occupied by the skin and stringer, so that both structures are
optimal to withstand torsional loads.
The following table shows the structure on the wings and the types of loads
that are supported by each structure.
Table 14 Structure and Loads
Structure Loads that are supported by structure
Spar Shear stress due to shear force and shear stress due to
torque, axial load due to bending
Ribs Buckling, static deformation and elastic.
Skin and Stringer Shear stress due to torque, axial stress due to bending.
3.1.2. Structural Concepts
3.1.2.1. Configuration
Wings are part of an airplane that functions as the main lifting surface to
generate lift. There are several wing configurations that have their own
characteristics. The following is a table of considerations in choosing an aircraft
configuration.
Table 15 Wing Structure Configurations
Wing Structure
Parts Types Configuration Advantages Disadvantages
Relatively heavy,
Withstands bending
especially on the
loads well, there is
Shear Web inside of the ribs
space that can be
where the column
filled with fuel
must be thick
Has more room on Inflexible loading,

Ribs Type
the wings so the ribs The wing structure
Truss web
don't need to be will fail if one part
perforated fails
Ribs Not easy to

Has good two-way
Sine-wave web manufacture and
rigidity
install
Rib length is
Perpendicular to rear Has relatively poor
relatively shorter,
spar aerodynamics
easy to install
Ribs Installation
Has a relatively Using many
Parallel with flight smooth aerodynamic materials, the shear
path shape between the load on the joint is
spars relatively high
Has a low strength

Shear resistant (non-
Relatively light to weight ratio, the
buckling)
loading is not varied
Spar Type Large loading range,

Has a bad effect on
has a high strength to
Diagonal tension aerodynamics
Spar weight ratio, can still
field (buckling type) because it can cause
accept loads when
permanent wrinkling
the structure fails
Shear center is
Cross section I-beam located at the
centroid
The inertia on the z-
C-beam axis of the body is Easy to deform
relatively large
If a crack occurs, it
Reduced weight,
can propagate to all
optimal distribution
skins and stringers
Integral of area and
directly,
thickness, relatively
manufacturing costs
smooth wing skin
are relatively high
Skin-stringer type If a crack occurs, it

does not propagate
to other components
Relatively heavier,
because it is not
Built-up wing skin is
integrally connected,
relatively rough
the manufacturing
costs are relatively
low
Easy to integrate
with other
components, has
high structural
Z-stringer
efficiency, high
26
maintenance
accessibility
Commonly used to
attach skin on the
wings to the
Requires a higher
fuselage, has good
J-stringer number of fasteners
fail-safe
than Z-stringers
characteristics. High
maintenance
Stringer Cross section
accessibility
Difficult to integrate
with other
Has the highest components, there
Y-stringer
structural efficiency are areas that cannot
be inspected, prone
to corrosion
Difficult to integrate
High maintenance
I-stringer with other
accessibility
components
There are areas that

Has a relatively high
Hat-stringer cannot be inspected,
structural efficiency
prone to corrosion
To gain a deeper understanding of the wing structure of the aircraft, a literature study will
be conducted on the wing structure of the comparison aircraft. Some of the comparison
aircraft reviewed are the Aermacchi M346. The results of the study conducted are as
follows:
Figure 22 Aermacchi M346 Aircraft
We can see from the figure above that the wings have a swept leading edge, but a straight
trailing edge. The leading edges have extensions until the front seat. Where they connect
to the wings the M346 has small fins, pointing up like winglets.
Figure 23 Air intakes on Aermacchi M346 wing
Like on the Kawasaki T-4 the air intakes are rectangular and at a slight angle with regard
to the air flow. Note the typical fin at the junction of the wing leading edge extension and
wings themselves. The air flow channels are directly attached to the wings, without space
in between. The exhausts are placed below the tall vertical stabilizer with a hooked
tran-si-tion. They are without externally visible pipes. For reference, we use the fact that
Aermacchi M346 have hardpoints at each wing tip for armament.
3.1.3. Materials
Material for wing:
Materials Comparison for 4 Aircraft similar to NFT-22
Table 16 Materials Comparison for 4 Aircraft similar to NFT-22
Configuration Part TA-4J YAK-130 M346 T-50
Wing Skin Aluminum 7075 carbon fiber composite Aluminum
Ribs Aluminum 7075 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum 7075
Spar Aluminum 7175 Aluminum Aluminum 7175 solid extruded

aluminum
Stringer Aluminum 7075 Aluminum 7075 Aluminum Aluminum 7075
List of Material that can be an option:

1) Titanium
The use of titanium as a commercial material goes back only to about 1950. The most
common used back then was a type of titanium alloy which is Ti-6Al-4V. Titanium is a suitable
alternative to light alloys (i.e. aluminum alloys) when prolonged operating temperatures are greater
than the 150℃ or so that can be withstood by aluminum without excessive deformation due to
creep, or when somewhat greater strength is required without significant weight increases.
Figure 24 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of Ti-6Al-4V[2]
Due to the very high cost of machining of titanium parts, the economic production of
titanium components therefore depends to some extent on forming them as nearly as possible to
the required size, usually by forging, or by the newer precision forging so that as little as possible
is machined where the cost of metal removal is paramount. Titanium alloys may comprise up to
25% on the newer military aircraft. Nevertheless, there is no prospect that it will displace aluminum
and its alloys because strength is not the only criterion. Rigidity is frequently essential, particularly
where thin members act in compression, and a reasonable bulk such as that provided by low-density
light alloys is necessary to resist buckling.
● Advantages [2][3]:
○ Used for applications above 1150℉ (Higher melting point than steel)
○ When there is very little airframe space for aluminum.
○ Better ratios of fatigue properties to strength than do either the aluminum or steels.
○ High strength and lightweight
○ Low coefficient of thermal expansion, good toughness, and good oxidation
resistance.
○ Suitable for wing skin of a high-speed military aircraft.
● Disadvantages:
○ Lack of strength/density
○ High price for production.
Figure 25 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of Titanium [3]
2) Composite Material (Carbon Fiber)

Composite or advanced composite materials will be defined as a material consisting
of tiny diameter, high strength, high modulus (stiffness) fibers embedded in an essentially
homogeneous matrix. The result is a material that is anisotropic having mechanical and
physical properties that vary with direction and heterogeneously. There are two types of
basic classes for matrices which are organic matrix and metal matrix materials.
● Advantages:
○ For a given weight, composites give higher performance and increase fuel
savings. Stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight are key metrics in
aerospace manufacturing, and composite materials can help boost them.
○ Part count gets reduced.
○ Minimized production costs since composites production is done through a
broad array of processes.
○ Composite materials don’t rust or corrode readily. Metal fatigue doesn’t
cause them to crack, and they can last for long periods in structural flexing
environments. This way, stakeholders can use them to control repair and
maintenance costs.
○ Composites make it easy to meet smooth aerodynamic profiles needed to
reduce drag. You can build highly sophisticated double-curvature parts via
a smooth surface finish in a single operation.
○ Usually, composite materials are poor conductors of electricity and heat,
making them excellent insulators for parts where insulation is a prerequisite.
If you need to produce thermally conductive components, you can get
advanced composites that constitute thermally conductive materials.
Therefore, you can take advantage of ample flexibility while working with
composite materials.
● Disadvantages:
○ more brittle than wrought metals.
○ more easily damaged
○ some issues with their repair. For instance, materials need refrigerated
transport and storage. Similarly, special equipment is required for hot curing
in many cases.
○ Since the aluminum bends and dents easily, it is easy to determine whether
the aircraft requires maintenance. Still, it is not easily visible when
composites are used to build the interior structure.
○ Composites use resins that are vulnerable at 150 degrees Fahrenheit,
making it important to take precautions for fires. Burning advanced
composites release toxic micro-particles and fumes into the air, causing
serious health risks. Structural failure is also a possibility at 300 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Figure 26 Properties of Carbon Fiber [3]

3) Aluminum Alloy
In commercial aviation and military transport aircraft, aluminum material counts for about
80% of the structural material used. Back in 1920, aircraft usually used aluminum 2014
(aluminum-copper-magnesium alloy), but due to the lack of tensile strength it is no longer
used. Due to demand for more tensile strength, led to the production of the 7000 series
alloys (Al-Zn-Mg-Cu), but then the problem of stress corrosion cracking and low fatigue
resistance appeared. Not only that, because the problems of fatigue became prominent in
the 1950s, it created the Al 2024-T3 for a good fatigue resistance material.
● Advantages:
○ high resistance to corrosion
○ good weight to strength to cost ratio
○ relatively soft, durable, lightweight, ductile, and malleable metal.
● Disadvantages:
○ expensive compared to steel of the same strength.
Figure 27 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of 2024-T3 Aluminum Alloy [2]
Figure 28 Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of 7075 Aluminum Alloys [2]
Figure 29 Properties of common Aluminum Alloys [3]
The use of types of aluminum can be seen in the table below.
Figure 30 Recommended Application of Common Aluminum Alloys [2]
Figure 31 Typical Applications of Aluminum Alloys in GA Aircraft [2]

4) Steel Alloys
Steel alloys are an excellent choice when tensile strengths are required because the
high strength of steels is still superior compared to titanium alloys. Steels are usually used
in critical areas such as landing gear units, but it is rarely used in other parts due to the lack
of space available in some areas. Based on experience, it shows that steel heat treated near
the upper limits exhibit a tendency to fracture without appreciable deformation.
● Advantages:
○ High tensile to yield ratios.
● Disadvantages:
○ Fracture without appreciable deformation
○ Cause failure in brittle steel
○ Tempered to lower tensile strength
○ Low corrosion resistance
There are several types of stainless steels that were used in aircraft parts, for
example ferritic stainless steels and austenitic stainless steels (piping and vessels in
refineries and chemical plants); precipitation hardened stainless steels (airframe
applications where high strength and excellent corrosion resistance are required, in
elevated temperature locations), high strength low alloy steels (airframe and landing gear
components).
Figure 32 Design mechanical and physical properties of low-alloy steels [2]

In general, the comparison and the general ranking for all material options above can be
summarized in the table below.
Figure 33 General comparison of current material properties and efficiencies [2]
For choosing a material, there are several material selection criteria that we must fulfill are
as follows:
● Static strength efficiency
● Fatigue
● Fracture toughness and crack growth
● Corrosion and embrittlement
● Environmental Stability
○ Availability and productibility
○ Material cost
○ Fabrication characteristics
Based on the information from several material above and the criteria, my choice for the
material selection for each wing structure is as follows:
For wing material selection, I choose to use Aluminum as the material because
aluminum is a lightweight and corrosion-resistant structural material that can be
strengthened further by chemical and mechanical means. One of the most important
properties that I feel is important in choosing Aluminum because it is mostly an isotropic
material compared to other selections of materials such as titanium and composite, even
though composite and titanium can be much stronger in strength compared to Aluminum.
Isotropic materials offer strength and stiffness regardless of the orientation of the force
being applied which is very crucial for the wing materials. Not only that, if we see from
the manufacturing and repair side, it is quite easy to manufacture aluminum sheets that are
used for aircraft construction and quite easy and practical to repair aluminum. The method
that is used to make the aluminum sheets are by first-casting molten aluminum into a thick
sheet, which is then hot rolled (at 500℉ to 650℉) until a specific thickness is achieved.
Then the hot-rolled sheet is annealed and cold rolled until a desired “retail-ready” thickness
is produced. This process gives the sheet bi-directional properties, although the structure
featuring it is analyzed as if it were isotropic.
Table 17 Material Properties of Several Types of Aluminum [1]
Material Properties Al-2024-T3 Al-7075-T6
Fatigue strength 138 MPa 159 MPa
Fracture toughness 26 MPa √𝑚 20 MPa √𝑚
Ultimate Tensile Strength 469 MPa 572 MPa
Tensile yield strength 324 MPa 503 MPa
Shear Strength 283 MPa 331 MPa
PI (normal / shear) 115.71 164.41
PI (bending/torsion) 16.85 21.27
Price (/kg) 3.5 4.5
Index/Price (normal/shear) 33.06 36.54
Index/Price (bending/torsion) 4.81 4.73
Based on the table above, the material used in the wing structure varies, depending on the
type of load it receives will be explained in detail down below.
1) Lower skin
The aircraft with the longest duration is in the cruise flight phase. During aircraft
cruising, the wing will generally tend to bend upwards with the wing tip being higher than
the wing root. When the wing receives an upward bending load, the skin beneath the wing
will receive a tensile load.
To withstand tensile loads, it is necessary to use materials that have a large tensile
load resistance and are resistant to fatigue because the tensile load that occurs in the skin
under the wing is a repeated loading. Therefore, the suitable material for use in the lower
skin is Al-2024-T3 because it has a high fracture toughness. Al-7075-T6 is not suitable for
use on lower skin because it has low fracture toughness and is relatively more brittle so it
is not suitable to withstand fatigue (repeated tensile loads).
2) Upper skins
The aircraft with the longest duration in the cruise flight phase. During aircraft
cruising, the wing will generally tend to bend upwards with the wing tip being higher than
the wing root. When the wing receives an upward bending load, the upper skin of the wing
will receive a compressive load.
To be able to withstand compressive loads, it is necessary to use materials that have
resistance to high compressive loads and are resistant to buckling. Therefore, the material
suitable for use in the upper skin of the wing is Al-7075-T6 because it has the ultimate
tensile strength and high tensile yield strength. Al-7075-T6 is relatively more brittle, but
this is not a problem because the brittle material can withstand compressive loads well and
optimally.
3) Stringers
Stringer is a structure that is attached to the ribs which serves to increase the rigidity
and attachment of the wing skin. The load received by the stringer is in the form of bending
and axial load. The stringer divides the skin into small panels and together with the skin
resists the axial load caused by pressurization. Therefore, the suitable material for use in
stringers is Al-2024-T3.
4) Ribs
Ribs are an auxiliary structure that is used to form the airfoil on the wing while
increasing the stiffness at several points of the wing. The load received by the ribs is in the
form of compressive and shear forces. Ribs also function to maintain the shape of the wing
section and help distribute the load to the wing skin. Therefore, ribs should use materials
that have high resistance to compressive and shear forces, namely Al-7075-T6.
5) Spar
The spar is the main supporting structure of the wing that bears the greatest load
and connects the wing to the fuselage. The load received by the spar is in the form of tensile
load and compressive load caused by bending, so the material used to make the spar must
have a high fracture toughness. Therefore, the suitable material for spar is Al-2024-T3.
3.1.4. Manufacturing and Maintenance Aspects

3.1.4.1. Manufacturing
The wing structure consists of several parts such as skin, stringers, ribs, and spars. Each of
these parts is manufactured in different ways and processes to produce optimal durability
or strength according to the function of each part. The manufacturing process of each wing
part is as follows.
1. Skin
The manufacturing method used to make the wing skins is metal rolling. The
workpiece in the form of the material selected in the previous section is placed
between two rollers. Then the workpiece will move along with the rotation of the
roller. The workpiece will be compressed so that a slimmer shape is obtained,
making it suitable for skin manufacturing that requires a relatively thin thickness.
Figure 34 Illustration of metal rolling manufacturing method
2. Spar
The spars on the wings are thin plates so that the manufacturing method used is the
same as the skin manufacturing method, namely by metal rolling.
Figure 35 Rolling Spar Process
3. Ribs
The manufacturing method used to make the ribs on the wings is compression
molding. Compression molding begins by placing a liquid metal material in the
mold, then pressure is applied so that the liquid metal follows the shape of the mold.
Then the molten metal is cooled so that it is solid and then released from the mold.
Ribs are manufactured using the compression molding method because their
structure is relatively small and must be shaped according to the mold in order to
conform to the shape of the airfoil of an airplane wing.
Figure 36 Illustration of compression molding manufacturing method
4. Stringer
The manufacturing method used to make stringers on the wings is extrusion. Metal
is formed by pressing it through the mold cavity. The extrusion manufacturing
method can be used to fabricate cylindrical rods or specific profiles with a fixed
cross-sectional shape. Stringer manufacturing uses the extrusion method because
of its long structure and has a certain structure with a cross-sectional area and cross-
sectional shape that is constant or the same throughout the structure.
Figure 37 Illustration of extrusion manufacturing method
3.4.1.2. Maintenance
Maintenance activities on aircraft wings need to be carried out to ensure the wing
structure is always in a safe condition and airworthy according to the applicable
airworthiness regulations. Several types of repair and maintenance activities carried out on
the wing are as follows.
1. Corrugated skin repair

Some flight controls from airplanes have beads on the skin panel. Beads function to add
rigidity to thin skin panels. Repair of beads can be done with a rotary former or press brake.
Figure 38 Repair of bead skin on wavy surfaces
2. Stringer repair
Damage to the stringer can be caused by vibration, corrosion, or by impact.
Stringers are made of various shapes, so the maintenance procedures are different.
Maintenance can require preformed or extruded repair material, or it can use material
molded by an airframe technician. In performing maintenance on the stringer, we first need
to determine the extent of the damage and remove the rivet from the surrounding area.
Then remove the damaged area using a hacksaw, keyhole saw, or drill. In most cases,
stringer repair requires inserts and splice angles.
Figure 39 Illustration of maintenance on stringer
Extrusion and preformed materials are the most common methods used to repair
angles and insertions or fillers. If repair angles and fillers must be formed from flat sheet
stock, use brakes. Bend allowances and sight lines may be required when making layouts
and bends for these parts. To repair curved stringers, form new parts with contours that
follow the contours of the old (damaged) curved stringers.
Figure 39 shows improvements to the stringer with patching. Repair by this method
is permitted if the defect or damage is not more than 2/3 the length of one leg and no longer
than 12 inches.
Figure 40 Stringer fix with patching
Figure 40 shows a stringer repair with insertion where the damage is more than 2/3 the
length of one leg.
Figure 41 Stringer repair with insertion
Figure 41 shows repair of a stringer with insertion when only one ringer is damaged, and
its length exceeds 12 inches.
Figure 42 Fixing stringer with insertion when only one stringer was damaged
Figure 43 Fixing stringer with insertion when damage occurs to more than one stringer
3. Longeron repair
Longerons have almost the same function as stringers, so maintenance for
longerons is more or less the same as maintenance for stringers. Longerons require greater
strength than stringers, so longeron repairs require heavy rivets. Sometimes bolts are also
used to fix longerons if high accuracy is required, but using bolts to repair longerons takes
a relatively longer time than using rivets.
If the longeron consists of a formed section and an extruded angle section, each section is
worked out separately. If longerons are fixed with rivets, space the rivet pitch between 4
and 6 rivet diameters. If the longeron is fixed with bolts, drill holes in the bolt for a light
drive fit.
4. Spar repair
In general, spar repair consists of 2 classes, namely web repair and cap strip repair.
Figure 44 and Figure 45 are examples of improvements to the spar. Damage to the spar can
be repaired with a round or rectangular doubler. Damage that is less than 1-inch is usually
repaired with a round doubler, while larger damage is repaired with a rectangular doubler.
The steps for repairing the spar are as follows.
1) Eliminates damage and radius all corners up to 0.5-inch
2) Doubler production uses the same material and thickness. Doubler size depends on
edge distance (minimum 2D) and distance between rivets (4-6D)
3) Drill the doubler and original skin, then secure the doubler with Clecos.
4) Install rivets
Figure 44 Spar Repair

Figure 45 Spar Repair
5. Rib and web repair

Improvements to the web can be classified into 2 types:
1. Critical if used on wings
2. Not critical when used on elevators, rudders and flaps.
The web must be improved in such a way that it gets its original strength. The web
is bounded by an aluminum alloy extrusion known as a cap strip. The extrusion accepts the
load caused by bending and also provides a foundation for attachment of the wing skins.
The web can be hardened using stamped beads, formed angles, or extruded sections which
are nailed at equal intervals along the web.
Most of the damage involves two or more members, but if only 1 member is
damaged, repairs are still needed. In general, if there is any damage to the web, repair the
damaged area and attach a patch plate. The size of the patch plate must be sufficient to
ensure there is sufficient space for a minimum of 2 rows of rivets around the damaged area,
including proper edge distance, pitch, and transverse pitch for the rivets. The patch plate
must use a material that has the same thickness and composition as the original member.
If forming is required when making patch plates, such as contour fitting of a
lightening hole, apply the material at “0” condition and heat treat after forming. Damage
to ribs and webs that requires greater repair than simple plates, may require patch plates,
splice plates, or angles and insertions.
Figure 46 Wing rib repair

6. Leading edge repair
The leading edge has a thermal anti-icing system which consists of 2 layers of skin
separated by a thin layer of air. Damage to the inner skin can be caused by contact with
other objects, such as gravel, birds, and ice. However, major damage was caused by
carelessness when the aircraft was not flying (on the ground).
Damage to the leading edge usually involves several structural parts. FOD may
involve nose skin, nose ribs, stringers, and cap strips. Damage involving these parts can
only be reached through the access door. First, the damaged part must be removed. Repair
requires insertion and splice piece. If the damage is severe, repair of the cap strip and
stringer, new nose ribs, and skin panels may be required. When repairing a leading edge,
follow the procedures in the repair manual for that type of repair.
Figure 47 Leading Edge Repair
7. Trailing edge repair

Damage to the trailing edge can occur at a single point or spread along two or more
sections of the ribs. Damage to the trailing edge can occur due to impact, careless handling,
and corrosion. The trailing edge is susceptible to corrosion because a lot of moisture is
trapped in it.
Before carrying out trailing edge repairs, thoroughly inspect the damaged area and
determine the extent of the damage, the type of repair required, and how repairs can be
made. The repaired area must have the same contour, material, composition and temper as
the original part. Repairs made must also maintain the design characteristics of the airfoil.
Figure 48 Trailing Edge Repair
3.2. Fuselage
3.2.1. Load Paths
Based on the data that has been given from the design of the aircraft NFT-22
component and the aircraft system which will be placed in the aircraft’s body by
considering the airplane’s geometry hence, we are able to pinpoint the center of mass from
the aircraft mission configuration by the nose of the aircraft as the datum reference for x-
axis. From the documents provided the loads are listed that acts on the fuselage including
the location against the datum at the x-axis of the aircraft.
The load distribution on the aircraft’s fuselage is in several aircraft’s system such
as electronics, flight control and actuator system. Other than that, the weight distribution
that is on the fuselage there is a load from the fuselage itself and paint from the fuselage.
We assume that the fuselage is a simple cylindrical shape which we can say that all the
distributed loads will be hold by the frame that exist on the fuselage and it is assume that
the load is evenly distributed along the x-axis. The aircraft’s skin is responsible for holding
the distributed load acting on it which will be then distributed to the other structural parts
of the fuselage like the bulkhead, frame and longeron.
For the concentrated load on the aircraft’s fuselage are various, from landing gear,
fuel, system, wing, and the tail of the aircraft. The placement of theses loads is different
along the x-axis. For the NFT-22 aircraft the concentrated load is located mainly on the
wing, landing gear, fuel system fuselage, fuel fuselage including the fuel and fuel system
from the wing. The concentrated load on this aircraft will be attached to the bulkhead or
frame structure in the fuselage by using a joint so the load can be distributed through the
joint.
1. Shear load on fuselage
Shear loads happens when there is a transversal load acting on the frame and
skin of the fuselage caused by the inertial load contained in the fuselage. This
load will be distributed from the skin of the fuselage and the bulkhead to the
frame of the fuselage. Frame will be the one to distribute the shear load
experienced by the aircraft.
2. Bending moment load on fuselage

Bending moment exist because of the inertial load on the aircraft. Bending
moment usually is in the bulkhead of the fuselage, however bulkhead and frame
are not effective in distributing bending moment hence, we use a longeron and
stringer on the fuselage to help distribute the bending moment throughout the
fuselage of the aircraft.
3. Torsion load on fuselage

Torsional load happens because of external load caused by flight control
components like rudder, elevator, and aileron. When there is a deflection in the
flight control components there will be the force acting on the plane to produce
rotational motion, this force cause torsion on the fuselage. The torsion load will
be experienced by the skin and longeron of the fuselage. The frame and
bulkhead of the fuselage will hold the torsion load and maintains the shape of
the fuselage when it is twisted.

The aircraft of NFT-22 uses a semi-monocoque design for its fuselage. The bending
moment acting on the structure is going to act mainly on the longeron of the aircraft. The
longeron in the aircraft will be completed by another longitudinal structure like stringers.
There is also the vertical structure in the fuselage like the bulkhead, and frames. The heavy
vertical structure will be placed where the load experienced by the aircraft is the biggest
such as when the wing is attached to the fuselage it will be attached to the bulkhead.
Stringers are smaller and lighter than longerons and function as fillers. This
structure has some rigidity but is usually used to give shape and to attach the skin. Strong
and heavy Longerons serve to contain bulkheads and formers that hold the stringers in
place. All this joins together to form the fuselage frame. Stringers and longerons prevent
tension and stress pressure due to bending of the fuselage.
Skins are attached to longerons, frames, and other structural members and receive
some load. The thickness of the skin on the fuselage varies with the load received and
pressure at a specific location. Several advantages in using a plane with the semi-
monocoque design of bulkheads, frames, stringers, and longerons helps creating a
streamlined fuselage construction. The structure adds strength and structural rigidity. The
main advantage of the semi-monocoque design is strength and its stiffness depends on the
number of structural members. Because of the stressed- skin, the semi-monocoque fuselage
can withstand damage and is still strong enough to survive with other structures.
3.2.3. Materials
Table 18 Materials Comparison for aircraft similar to NFT-22
Configuration Part TA-4J YAK-130 M346 T-50
Skin Aluminium carbon composite Aluminium

alloy 7075 fibre
Frame/Bulkhead Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium

Fuselage
7075 7075
Longeron Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium solid extruded

7175 7175 aluminium
Material Considerations: Aluminium Alloy
Figure 49 Selected properties of Common Aluminum Alloys (A-Basis and Longitudinal Direction)
Figure 50 Typical Application of Aluminum Alloys in GA Aircraft

Figure 51 Recommended Application of Aluminum Alloys
Chosen Material
1. Skin
Aluminium 2024 T3 for nose skin and Aluminium 7075 T6 for other fuselage
skins. Al 2024 T3 chosen for nose skin because it has better fracture toughness for
withstanding impact (e.g., bird strike).
2. Frame/Bulkhead
For frames and bulkheads, Al 2024 T3 because better properties in fracture
toughness and slow crack growth.
3. Longeron
Al 7150 T6 because better tension and compression strength than 2024 and better
fatigue and toughness from 7075 T6.
1. Skin
I. Rolling
Figure 52 Rolling method for skin.

Rolling is method to manufacture a sheet of material, typically ductile material. For
skin of an aircraft, which is also a sheet aluminum, the sheet is manufactured by
reducing the thickness of an aluminum slabs and also increase it length without
increasing its width. The method can be done in cold or hot material.
2. Frame/Bulkhead
Figure 53 Shape of Frame and Bulkhead
From the shape of frame/bulkhead of an aircraft, the manufacturing method suitable

is rolling to make the sheet of the aluminum and forming (super plastic/sheet metal)
to form the shape of the frame/bulkhead.
Figure 54 Schematics of Superplastic Forming

Figure 55 Sheet Metal Forming
3. Longeron
Figure 56 Longeron Shape
From the shape and the length of longeron. Longeron can be manufactured with
rolling to form a sheet then forming to form the shape of the longeron, or with
extrusion method. Extrusion length can be up to 12 m per production.
Figure 57 Extrusion Method

3.3. Tail
3.3.1. Load Paths
The tail of conventional aircraft consists of horizontal tail plane (HTP) and
vertical tail plane (VTP) that can withstand several types of loads distributed on the
aircraft. Here are the types loading that will occur on the tail structure. Type of load
felt by horizontal tail plane similar to that felt by the wing that is bending moment,
shear force, and torque.
1. Bending Moment
The bending moment at the tail occurs in the horizontal tail plane as a result
of the presence lift and gravity of the horizontal tail plane. Skins and
stringers became the main component in holding the load due to the bending
moment that occurs in horizontal tailplane.
2. Shear Force
The load that occurs next is the shear force due to the aerodynamic force in
the form of lift from HTP and side force from VTP. Shear will work on the
internal components of the aircraft which has a vertical cross-sectional
orientation. Tail components that can withstand this shear force that is spar.
3. Torque
Then, the tail also experiences torque due to bending moment, deflection
that occurs on the control surface (elevator and rudder). The torque occurs
can cause shear loading to be received by the component skins, stringers,
and ribs.

The tail structure to consider when evaluating the structure including skins, stringers,
spars, ribs, elevators, and rudders. This evaluation is carried out by reviewing the
various tail configurations normally used by aircraft.
1. Skin
Consisting of two namely upper and lower skin. The main function of the
skin is to give the geometric shape of the aerodynamics of the horizontal
tail plane. The skin experiences load caused by torsion and bending and
these loads will be distributed towards the ribs.
2. Stringer
Stringers have the function of holding bending loads, especially
compression. Stringers will be installed on the upper skin as well as the
lower skin.
3. Ribs
Ribs have the main function as a hard point that maintains shape tail. Ribs
also provide structural support for spars, skins, stringers.
against buckling.
4. Spar
The spar will experience both torsional, bending and shear loads. The spars
will also provide structural support against all distributed and concentrated
loads.
Tail configuration that is used by NFT-22 is conventional tail which is most used in
aircraft. The advantages of using the conventional configuration are relatively more
light weight compared to other configurations and has good stall recovery. However,
this configuration has the disadvantage of tail airflow disturbed by the fuselage and
wings.
3.1.3. Materials
Materials Comparison for 4 Aircraft similar to NFT-22
Table 19 Materials Comparison for aircraft similar to NFT-22
Part TA-4J YAK-130 M346 T-50
Skin Aluminum carbon fiber composite Aluminum

alloy 7075
Ribs Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum

7075 7075
Spar Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum solid extruded

7175 7175 aluminum
Stringer Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum

7075 7075 7075
The materials in the tail vary based on the part of the tail. Several
considerations such as type of load and geometry of components are pretty much
the same with the wing, so the selection of material will also be the same with the
wing.
For the skin and stringer of the NFT-22 aircraft, Al 2024 T3 material is used
for the lower horizontal tail plane, Al 7075 T6 material for the upper horizontal tail
plane, and Al 2024 T3 for the vertical tail plane. For the horizontal and vertical
spars of the tail plane of the NFT-22 aircraft, Al 7075 T6 is used. Then for the ribs
horizontal and vertical tail plane the NFT-22 uses Al 7075 T6.
The manufacturing and maintenance aspects of the tail are the same as the wings
due to materials used by tail and wing are the same. Manufacturing and
maintenance on each The parts on the tail are described below.
1. Stringers
Figure 58 Upset Forging Method for Stringers
The stringer material used is Al 2024 T3 for the lower horizontal tail plane,
Al 7075 T6 material on the upper horizontal tail plane, and Al 2024 T3 for
the vertical tail plane with the type of stringer used is the Z-stringer. The
suitable manufacturing method for making stringers is the upset forging
method. This manufacturing process is done by placing the material that has
been pre-heated inside a mold of a certain shape.
2. Skins
The skin material used is Al 2024 T3. The manufacturing process that is
suitable for use in making skins is rolling because skins are in the form of
sheets. The rolling process is carried out with metal material between the
rollers. The number of rollers that can be used ranges from one pair to more
than one pair to produce results with even thickness.
3. Spars
Figure 59 Rolling Method for Spars
Spars on the NFT-22 aircraft use Al 7075 T6 material. Spar has a shape that
is like I beam. The manufacturing process that is suitable for making this
part is rolling.
4. Ribs
Figure 60 Open Die Forging for Ribs
The ribs have a shape that follows the airfoil of the horizontal tail plane and
the vertical tail plane. The manufacturing process that is suitable for making
ribs is open die forging.
CHAPTER 4
DESIGN LOAD
4.1. Flight Envelope

Flight envelopes is a V-n diagram consisting of maneuver envelopes and gust
envelopes. The flight envelope is regulated where there must be no failure in aircraft
structure when the aircraft fly within the flight envelope. The V-n diagram is the diagram
that shows the relationship between the flight load factor of the aircraft with respect to
airspeed of the aircraft. Flight load factors represent the ratio of the aerodynamic force
component (acting normal to the assumed longitudinal axis of the aircraft). A positive flight
load factor is one in which the aerodynamic force acts upward, with respect to the aircraft.
4.1.1. Maneuver Envelope

Maneuvering envelopes is the set of boundaries in the V-n diagram of the aircraft
that shows the limit of the aircraft load factor and airspeed due to its maneuvers during the
flight.
The advanced military trainer aircraft is designed to withstand minimum load factor
equals to -3 and maximum load factor equals to 8.
𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛 = −3 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 8
Besides being limited by DR&O above, the maneuver envelope is also limited by
the aircraft performance: stall, cruising speed, diving speed, etc. The designed airspeed of
the aircraft, such as cruising speed, the designer of the aircraft already determines diving
speed, from the Lightweight Structure Analysis Lecture.
For preliminary study, we will use three kinds of experiments due to the unusual
flight envelope result if we use last year’s data. This is due to the result that if we are using
last year’s data, we will get maximum velocity at maximum load factor will be bigger than
cruise velocity. The first experiment is by using pure data from last year’s data. Second, by
using 𝑉𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 assumption which equals to 210 m/s. The third experiment is by changing the
𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 to the maximum range around -1 to 1.8 with 𝑉𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒 data from last year’s
data. We will be using MTOW for Maneuver Envelope because this is the maximum
configuration that will be the critical load for determining the maximum speed when load
factor is maximum and minimum value. The graph will be calculated by using the
following data, as shown below.
Table 20 Aircraft Aerodynamic and Atmospheric Data based on Last Year’s Data
Values
Parameters (According to (changing the 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒊𝒏 and Unit

(using 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆
Last Year’s 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 with 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆 data
assumption)
Data) from Last Year’s)
MTOW 9850 [kg]
g acceleration 9.81 [m/s2]
W 96628.5 [N]
S 23.2 [m2]
Cl max 1.8 1.8 1.8 -
Cl min -0.7 -0.7 -1 -
Cl alpha 4.4694 -
SL+20
Density kg/m3
1.14549
The designed airspeed of the aircraft are shown by the following table.
Table 21 Designed Airspeed of NFT-22
Values
(changing the
Parameters (According to 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒊𝒏 and 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 Unit
(using 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆
Last Year’s with 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆 data
assumption)
Data) from Last
Year’s)
VA 179.78 [m/s]
VB 187.30 190 185 [m/s]
VC 168.92 210 168.92 [m/s]
VD 211.14 262.5 211.14 [m/s]

For calculating the boundary on maneuver envelope due to stall, we will use the aircraft
aerodynamic data and atmosphere property as shown by the following tables.
Based on the definition of the load factor

𝐿
𝑛 =
𝑊
Where n is load factor, L is lift, and W is weight of the aircraft. The lift of the aircraft can
be calculated by using the following equation.
1
𝐿 = 𝜌𝑉 2 𝑆𝐶𝐿
2
Substituting the lift equation to the definition of load factor, we can find the relation
between load factor with respect to the airspeed. The above equation is valid when the
aircraft is at Positive High Angle of Attack (PHAA) for 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑉 2 ). At negative High Angle
of Attack (NHAA), we must change the 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 to 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 to get 𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑉 2 ) value.
Table 22 nmax and nmin Value
At SLS+20
Parameter (changing the

(According to Last (using 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒊𝒏 and 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 with
Year’s Data) assumption) 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆 data from Last
Year’s)
𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑉 2 ) 0.000247524 0.000247524 0.000247524
𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑉 2 ) -0.0000962592 -0.0000962592 -0.000137513
By varying the value of airspeed from 0 m/s to some value where the load factor is at
maximum/minimum load factor mentioned by the regulation, we get the boundary of stall
condition.
The minimum speed due the stall can be obtained by finding the stall speed at load factor
equals to 1 for PHAA condition and -1 for NHAA condition. By substituting 𝑛=1 to
equation above, we will get
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙,+1𝑔 = 63.56115 𝑚/𝑠
And by substituting 𝑛=−1 to the equation above, we will get for the calculation based on
last year’s data and changing the Vcruise data as shown below
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙,−1𝑔 = 101.9245853 𝑚/𝑠

As for changing the 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒊𝒏 , we will get the following result
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙,−1𝑔 = 85.27623 𝑚/𝑠
Combining the boundary that we get from the calculation of above, we can get the
following maneuvering envelopes.
Figure 61 Maneuver Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) of NFT-22 according to Last Year’s Data
Because of the abnormal data for EAS based on last year data, we will try to assume that
the Vcruise is equal to 210 m/s for this flight envelope. So the 𝑉𝐷 = 262.5 𝑚/𝑠.
`
Figure 62 Maneuver Envelope at SLS+20 based on Vcruise assumption of NFT-22
Figure 63 Maneuver Envelope at SLS+20 based on changing the C Lmin and CLmax of NFT-22
Based on the result from Figure 61 until Figure 63, we can conclude that the best
result to approximate the maneuver envelope is by changing the Vcruise because we can see
that the location of Vcruise will be behind the maximum velocity on maximum load. On the
other hand, if we change the 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 , we will get a similar result to the original
data.
4.1.2. Gust Envelope

Gust envelopes is the set of boundaries in the V-n diagram of the aircraft that shows
the limit of the aircraft load factor and airspeed due to gust condition. The regulation about
gust envelopes states that the aircraft must be designed to withstand loads on each lifting
surface resulting from gust. For the gust envelope, we will be using the empty weight of
the aircraft which is equal to 4792 kg.
The formula to calculate the load factor due to gust, is
𝑘𝑔 𝜌0 𝑈𝑑𝑒 𝑉𝑎
𝑛 = 1±
𝑊
2( 𝑆 )
Where
0.88𝜇𝑔
𝑘𝑔 =
5.3 + 𝜇𝑔
𝑊
2( 𝑆 )
𝜇𝑔 =
𝜌𝐶𝑎𝑔
The value of 𝑈𝑑𝑒 is varying based on the value of airspeed. The table below shows the
value of 𝑈𝑑𝑒 for specific designed speed.
Table 23 U_de for Specific Designed Speed
Velocity 𝑼𝒅𝒆 (m/s)
𝑉𝐵 20.1168
𝑉𝐶 7.62
𝑉𝐷 15.24
By substituting the known parameter to the equation above, we get the following data for
the load factor due to gust.
Table 24 Maximum Gust Load
Value
Parameter (changing the 𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒊𝒏 and

(According to Last Year’s (using 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆
𝑪𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 with 𝑽𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒊𝒔𝒆 data
Data) assumption)
from Last Year’s)
𝜇𝑔 120.458
𝑘𝑔 0.842913
𝑛 𝑉𝐵+ 5.358817
𝑛 𝑉𝐵− -3.358817
𝑛 𝑉𝐶+ 3.935681934 4.649727046 3.935681934
𝑛 𝑉𝐶− -1.935681934 -2.649727046 -1.935681934
𝑛 𝑉𝐷+ 2.467840967 2.824863523 2.467840967
𝑛 𝑉𝐷− -0.467840967 -0.824863523 -0.467840967

Based on the value from the table above, we can plot the boundary curve for the gust
envelope as shown by the following figure.
Figure 64 Gust Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on Last Year’s data of NFT-22
Figure 65 Gust Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) with Vcruise assumption of NFT-22

Figure 66 Gust Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on changing the C Lmin and CLmax of NFT-22
As we can see from Figure 64 until Figure 66, we will see that by changing the
𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 , it won’t change the gust envelope because there are no effect of changing
the 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 towards the gust envelope. Not only that, as we can see from Figure
65, by changing the Vcruise, we will be able to get a wider gust envelope compared to the
other two graphs.
4.1.3. Combined Load

To obtain the extreme value of load factor that could occur during flight, we must
combine the load factor due to aircraft’s maneuvers and gusts. The combining process is
quite simple, we just take the extreme value between the load factor due to maneuver and
gust. The result of combined load is shown by the following figure.
Figure 67 Flight Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on last year’s data of NFT-22
Figure 68 Flight Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) with Vcruise assumption of NFT-22
Figure 69 Flight Envelope at SLS+20 (EAS) based on changing the CLmin and CLmax of NFT-22
From the combined load envelope above we can see that,

𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 8 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛 = −3
4.2. Maximum and Minimum Load
4.2.1. Lift Force of Wing and Horizontal Tail Plane
There are 2 aircraft components that generate lift force: wing and horizontal
tail plane (HTP). To obtain the value of lift generated by the wing and horizontal
tail plane for a specific load factor, we must analyze the force equilibrium during
steady flight conditions.
First, we must draw the free-body diagram of the aircraft. The free body
diagram of the aircraft is shown in the following figure.
Figure 70 Lift of Wing and Tail
Then we analyze the y-direction forces. Assume the aircraft is in steady flight, thus
the resultant is zero.
𝛴 𝐹𝑍 = 0
𝐿𝑤 − 𝑛𝑊 + 𝐿𝑡 = 0
𝐿𝑡 = 𝑛𝑊 − 𝐿𝑤
Equation above shows the relationship between lift produced by wing, inertial
force, and lift produced by tail.
First we have to calculate the local chord distribution, with taper ratio = 0.25, root
chord 𝐶𝑟 = 3.43 m.
2(1 − 𝜆)𝑦
𝑐(𝑦) = 𝐶𝑟 (1 − )
𝑏
2(1 − 0.25)𝑦
𝑐(𝑦) = 3.43 (1 − )
10.77
𝑐(𝑦) = 3.43 − 0.477𝑦
Then we analyze the resultant moment about the aerodynamic center of the tail.
𝑏/2
2
𝑀𝑎𝑐 = 𝜌𝑉 ∫ 𝑐 2 𝐶𝑚,0.25 𝑑𝑦
𝑦 𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒
Table 25 Aircraft Data Required
Parameter Value Unit
Density 1.14549 kg/m3
n = -3 176.539 m/s
Velocity
n=8 179.778 m/s
y fuselage 1.2 m
Span (b) 10.77 m
𝐶𝑚,0.25 -0.045 -
𝑥𝑎𝑐 (from Nose) 6.163 m
Light Patrol 6.13 m
Light Attack 6.286 m

𝑥𝑐𝑔
Advanced
6.1 m
Training
Ferry 5.974 m
Light Patrol 4.538 m
Light Attack 4.382 m

𝑥𝑐𝑔−𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙
Advanced
4.568 m
Training
Ferry 4.694 m
For load factor (n = -3),
10.77/2
2
𝑀𝑎𝑐 = 1.14549 × 176.539 ∫ (3.43 − 0.477𝑦)2 (−0.045) 𝑑𝑦
1.2
𝑀𝑎𝑐 = −25479.44 𝑁𝑚
For load factor (n = 8),
10.77/2
2
𝑀𝑎𝑐 = 1.14549 × 179.778 ∫ (3.43 − 0.477𝑦)2 (−0.045) 𝑑𝑦
1.2
𝑀𝑎𝑐 = −26422.97 𝑁𝑚
After obtaining the 𝑀𝑎𝑐 value, we can calculate the Lift force at Wing and HTP.
=0 𝛴 𝐹𝑦
𝐿𝑤 (𝑥𝑎𝑐 − 𝑥𝑐𝑔 ) − 𝑀𝑎𝑐
−𝑛𝑊 + 𝐿𝑤 − =0
𝑀𝑎𝑐
𝑛𝑊 −
𝐿𝑊 = 𝑥𝑎𝑐 − 𝑥𝑐𝑔
1− 𝑥
𝑐𝑔−𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙
We will get the following result,
Table 26 Lift Force on the Wing
Value
Parameter Unit
Advanced
Light Patrol Light Attack Ferry
Training
𝐿𝑤 when n = -3 297842.048 287803.838 299772.473 307880.259 N
𝐿𝑤 when n = 8 784260.570 757492.009 789408.370 811029.131 N
After that, we will calculate the Lift force on the HTP (tail)
=0 𝛴𝑀𝑐𝑔
𝐿𝑇 𝑥𝑐𝑔−𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙 + 𝑀𝑎𝑐 − 𝐿𝑤 (𝑥𝑎𝑐 − 𝑥𝑐𝑔 ) = 0
𝐿𝑊 (𝑥𝑎𝑐 − 𝑥𝑐𝑔 ) − 𝑀𝑎𝑐
𝐿𝑇 =
Table 27 Lift Force on the HTP
Value
Parameter Unit
Advanced
Light Patrol Light Attack Ferry
Training
𝐿 𝑇 when n = -3 7956.548 2081.662 9886.973 17994.759 N
𝐿 𝑇 when n = 8 11232.570 15535.991 16380.370 38001.131 N

4.2.2. Forces on Wing
There are several forces acting on the wing, which are aerodynamic loads, external
loading and internal loads as shown below. For calculating the external loading and internal
loads, we will be using MTOW equals to 9850 kg considering there are fuel weight and
armaments weight.
4.2.2.1. Aerodynamic Loads on Wing

The Schrenk method can be formulated as follows:
𝑳𝒘
𝑳(𝒚) = 𝒄
𝑺 𝒔𝒄𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒌
Where 𝒄𝒔𝒄𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒌 is the Schrenk chord, which is obtained from the average between
elliptical chord distribution and chord of the wing planform.
1
𝑐𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑘 = (𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝑐𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 )
2
4𝑆 2𝑦 2
𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑐 = √1 − ( )
𝛱𝑏 𝑏
For the trapezoidal wing, the local chord length varies along the span as follows:
2𝑦
𝑐(𝑦) = 𝑐𝑟 [1 − (1 − 𝜆)]
𝑏
By using the three equations above, the chord distribution is obtained as follows.
Figure 71 Chord distribution along wingspan

The chord distribution for all configuration (light attack, light patrol, advanced training and
ferry) are the same.
Then the distribution of lift and weight from the aircraft wing can be calculated by the
following equation:
𝐿𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝐿𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑦) = 𝑐𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚
𝑆
The aircraft fuel distribution is assumed to be evenly distributed in a rectangular shape that
stretches from -5.385 and 5.385 m span. The equation used is as follows
𝑛 × 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑛 × 𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑊𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (𝑦) = =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 25
● Maximum load factor condition

From the results of the previous calculation, the maximum load factor has been
obtained of 8. In this condition, the lift force acts on the wing based on the table
above for each configuration (Table 26). By substituting the lift force into the
equation obtained above, we can get the lift force distribution as follows.
1) Light Patrol
Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3
Figure 72 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Light Patrol

Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8
Figure 73 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Light Patrol
2) Light Attack
Figure 74 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Light Attack

Figure 75 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Light Attack
3) Advanced Training
Figure 76 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Advanced Training

Figure 77 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Advanced Training
4) Ferry Flight
Figure 78 Wing Lift Distribution at n = -3 for Ferry flight

Figure 79 Wing Lift Distribution at n = 8 for Ferry flight
As we can see from all of the wing lift distribution graph above, we can get the optimum
wing lift distribution if the NFT-22 aircraft is on a ferry flight configuration (maximum
fuel without armaments).
4.2.2.2. External Loading on The Wing
There are 4 external forces acting on the wing such as Fuel Weight, Weapons
Weight, Wing Weight and Lift Forces.
1) Lift Forces
For the lift forces, we will be using the schrenk method as we already did previously
on part 4.2.2.1. The summary of all wing lift distribution for all flight configurations
will be presented in a table as shown below.
Table 28 The summary of all lift forces at n = -3 and n = 8 for all flight configuration
Flight Configuration Lift forces at n = -3 Lift forces at n = 8
Light Patrol
Light Attack
Advanced Training
Ferry flight
2) Wing Weight
For the wing weight, we will be using an approximation of a triangle force
distribution by using the following equations.
1 𝑏
𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 2 ( 𝑊𝑟 )
2 2
2𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑊𝑟 =
𝑏
𝑦 𝑊𝑟
=
𝑥 𝑏/2
2𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑦 2 𝑏
=
𝑥 𝑏
4𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑥
𝑦 =
𝑏2
For all flight configurations, all of the wing weights (empty wing) only are all the
same.
The graph for 2 flight cases (n = -3 and n = 8)
Figure 80 Wing weight distribution n = -3

Figure 81 Wing weight distribution n = 8
For NFT-22, based on the DPU paper, there are 4 configurations which are Light Patrol,
Light Attack, Advanced training, and Ferry (without any weapon).
3) Weapons Weight
a) Light Patrol configuration
For Light Patrol, there are 4 weapons (AIM-9L @1 + Pylon Connector), Gunpod System,
and Gunpod Ammunition. The configuration is as shown below:
Table 29 Light Patrol Armament total mass and x-CG location values
Flight Configuration (Light Patrol)
Weapon Data Total Mass x-CG location
Gunpod System (SNPU-130) 200 kg 5.959
Gunpod Ammunition (SNPU-130) 21 kg 5.959
AIM-9L @1 + Pylon Connector (3) @ 93.83 kg 6.869 and 7.229 (each one on the
→ 281.49 kg left and right side of the wing)
The graph for 2 flight cases (n = -3 and n = 8) are as shown in the table below:
Table 30 Weapons Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Patrol)
b) Light Attack
For Light Attack, there are 6 weapons in total for the whole wing. The weight of the weapon
will only be at each point where the weapons are located.
Table 31 Light Attack Armament total mass and x-CG location values
GBU-16 @1 + Pylon Connector (6) @467.208 kg 6.519, 6.869 and 7.229 (each one on
→ 2803.248 kg the left and right side of the wing)
Brimstone System 150 kg 5.959

The graph for 2 flight cases (n = -3 and n = 8) are as shown in the table below:
Table 32 Weapons Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Attack)
c) Advanced Training
For Advanced Training, there are 2 weapons in total for the whole wing. The weight
of the weapon will only be at each point where the weapons are located.
Table 33 Advanced Training Armament total mass and x-CG location values
GBU-16 @1 + Pylon Connector (2) @467.208 kg 6.519 (each one on the left and right
→ 934.416 kg side of the wing)
Gunpod System (SNPU-130) 200 kg 5.959
Gunpod Ammunition (SNPU-130) 21 kg 5.959

Table 34 Weapons Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Advanced Training)
4) Fuel Weight on the Wing

a) Light Patrol
The specification of fuel weight for light patrol needs, can be seen as shown below.
Table 35 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Light Patrol
Fuel Data Capacity (L) Density (kg/m3) Fuel Weight (kg) x-CG location
Wing (2) @ 716.5 790.8516 @566.6451714 6.549 (on each left

→ 1433 →1133.29034 and right wing)
Table 36 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Patrol)
b) Light Attack
The specification of fuel weight for light attack needs can be seen as shown below.
Table 37 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Light Attack
Flight Configuration (Light Attack)
Wing (2) @ 550 790.8516 @434.96838 6.549 (on each left

→ 1100 → 869.93676 and right wing)
Table 38 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Light Attack)
c) Advanced Training
The specification of fuel weight for advance training needs can be seen as shown below.
Table 39 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Advanced training
Wing (2) @ 470 790.8516 @371.700252 6.549 (on each left

→ 940 → 743.400504 and right wing)
Table 40 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor ( Advanced Training)
d) Ferry Flight
The specification of fuel weight for Ferry flight needs can be seen as shown below.
Table 41 Fuel Weight and x-CG location values for Ferry Flight
Wing (2) @ 716.5 790.8516 @566.6451714 6.549 (on each left

→ 1433 → 1133.2903428 and right wing)
Table 42 Fuel Weight Distribution for minimum and maximum load factor (Ferry flight)
The Total External Force Distribution Graph are as shown below for two flight cases
(n = -3 and n = 8)
LIGHT PATROL
Figure 82 External Forces Distribution at n = -3
Figure 83 External Forces Distribution at n = 8

LIGHT ATTACK

ADVANCED TRAINING

FERRY FLIGHT

4.2.2.3. Internal Load on Wing
For calculating the internal loads, we will be using the weight of wing, fuel and armament
when the condition is light attack since it contains the heaviest armament and fuel so that
we will get the maximum range of internal load on the wing.
1. Shear Forces
In order to calculate the shear forces on the wing, we will need to use the following
equations:
𝑥
𝑉 = ∫ −𝑤 𝑑𝑥
𝑥0
- When there is a weapon
𝑉𝑖 = (𝛴𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖 − 𝑊𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ) × 0.2154 + 𝑉𝑖−1 − 𝑊𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑛 )
- When there is no weapon
𝑉𝑖 = (𝛴𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖 ) × 0.2154 + 𝑉𝑖−1
After applying both equations, we will get the following graph for shear forces when n = -
3 and n = 8. Each graph will be based on each 4 configurations of NFT-22 aircraft as shown
below.
1) Light Patrol condition
Figure 90 Shear Force when n = -3 (Light Patrol configuration)

Figure 91 Shear Force when n = 8 (Light Patrol configuration)
2) Light Attack condition
Figure 92 Shear Force when n = -3 (Light Attack configuration)

Figure 93 Shear Force when n = 8 (Light Attack configuration)
Figure 94 Shear Force when n = -3 (Advanced Training configuration)

Figure 95 Shear Force when n = 8 (Advanced Training configuration)
4) Ferry flight
Figure 96 Shear Force when n = -3 (Ferry flight configuration)

Figure 97 Shear Force when n = 8 (Ferry flight configuration)
2. Bending Moment
In order to calculate the bending moment when two flight cases (n = -3 and n =8), we will
need the following equations.
𝑥
𝑀 = ∫ 𝑉 𝑑𝑥
𝑥0
𝑀𝑖 = 𝑉 × 0.2154 + 𝑀𝑖−1
After applying both equations, we will get the following graph for bending moment
distribution when n = -3 and n = 8.
1) Light Patrol
Figure 98 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Light Patrol Configuration)
Figure 99 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Light Patrol Configuration)

2) Light Attack
Figure 100 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Light Attack Configuration)
Figure 101 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Light Attack Configuration)

Figure 102 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Advanced Training Configuration)
Figure 103 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Advanced Training Configuration)

4) Ferry flight
Figure 104 Bending Moment Graph when n = -3 (Ferry Flight Configuration)
Figure 105 Bending Moment Graph when n = 8 (Ferry Flight Configuration)

3. Torsional
In order to calculate the torsional when two flight cases (n = -3 and n =8), we will need the
following equations.
𝜏𝑖 = 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑘 × 𝐶𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑘 × 0.2154 + 𝜏𝑖−1
After applying both equations, we will get the following graph for torsional distribution
when n = -3 and n = 8.
1) Light Patrol
Figure 106 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Light Patrol Configuration)
Figure 107 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Light Patrol Configuration)

2) Light Attack
Figure 108 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Light Attack Configuration)
Figure 109 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Light Attack Configuration)

Figure 110 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Advanced Training Configuration)
Figure 111 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Advanced Training Configuration)

4) Ferry flight
Figure 112 Torsional Graph when n = -3 (Ferry flight Configuration)
Figure 113 Torsional Graph when n = 8 (Ferry flight Configuration)

Summary:
Table 43 Summary of Maximum value of SF, BM and T value for each flight configuration
Bending Moment
Flight Shear Forces (N) Torsional (N)
(Nm)
Configuration
n = -3 n=8 n = -3 n=8 n = -3 n=8
Light Patrol 110417.8 302959.4194 256905.7 -676012.9 -30207.43 79540.46
Light Attack 78293.66 -212923.2606 123595.2 -319576.6 -29189.34 76825.57
Advanced
111674.6 -306310.9064 273059.6 -719090 -30403.21 80062.56
Training
Ferry flight 130329.4 -342448.9326 303680.1 -797813.6 -31225.51 82255.35
Based on the data above, we can see that the maximum configuration is when the aircraft
is conducting a ferry flight. Therefore, we can decide that the most optimum design is by
using the ferry flight data value. The maximum Shear Forces, Bending Moments, and
Torsional Forces can be the reference that the material that we choose must fit the criteria
that it can withstand the maximum forces acting on the wing.
4.2.3. Forces on Fuselage

Some of the loads that exist on the fuselage include the load from the nose landing gear,
main landing gear, engines, wings, vertical tail, horizontal tail, and distributed loads from
the fuselage itself.
4.2.2.3. External Load on Fuselage
External Load n=1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-5000
Load (N)
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
x (m)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12
Figure 114 External Load (n=1)

External Load n=8
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-50000
Load (N)
-100000
-150000
-200000
x (m)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12
Figure 115 External Load (n=8)
External Load n=-3

80000
70000
60000
Load (N)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x (m)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12
Figure 116 External Load (n=-3)

4.2.3.2. Internal Load on Fuselage
Figure 117 Shear Distribution on Fuselage
Figure 118 Bending Distribution on Fuselage

4.2.3. Forces on Tail
There are several forces acting on the wing, which are aerodynamic loads, external loading
and internal loads as shown below.
4.2.3.1 Aerodynamic Loads on Tail

The procedure in calculating aerodynamics load distribution on HTP using Schrenk
Method is the same with the one for Wing. The aircraft fuel distribution is assumed to be
evenly distributed in a rectangular shape that stretches from -2.44 and 2.44 m span.
The chord length distribution for Horizontal Tail Plane is as follow.
Chordwise Distribution
1.600
1.400
1.200
Chord (m)
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
-3.000 -2.000 -1.000 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000
Semispan (m)
Figure 119 HTP Chord Length Distribution
● Maximum load factor condition

From the results of the previous calculation, the maximum load factor has been
obtained of 8. In ferry flight configuration, the lift force acting on the HTP is
38001.131 N. By substituting the lift force into the equation obtained above, we
can get the lift force distribution as follows.
HTP Lift Distribution at n = 8
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-2000
Lift Distribution (N/m)

-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
span (m)
Figure 120 HTP Lift Distribution for n = 8 for Ferry Flight
● Minimum load factor condition

From the results of the previous calculation, the minimum load factor has been
obtained of -3. In ferry flight configuration, the lift force acting on the wing is
17994.759 N. By substituting the lift force into the equation obtained above, we
can get the lift force distribution as follows
HTP Lift Distribution at n = -3

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
span (m)
Figure 121 HTP Lift Distribution for n = -3 for Ferry Flight

4.2.3.2 External Loads on Tail
There are 2 external forces acting on the wing such as HTP Weight and Lift Forces.
1) HTP Weight
We will use triangle approximation for weight distribution.
HTP Weight Distribution n = -3

1200.000
Wing Weight (N/m)
1000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000
200.000
0.000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Span (m)
Series1
Figure 122 Wing Weight Distribution on HTP at n = -3 for Ferry Flight
Wing Weight Distribution n = 8

0.000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-500.000
Wing Weight (N/m)
-1000.000
-1500.000
-2000.000
-2500.000
-3000.000
Span (m)
Figure 123 Wing Weight Distribution on HTP at n = 8 for Ferry Flight

2) Lift Forces
Lift forces distribution is as shown in chapter 4.3.1.
The Total External Force Distribution Graph are as shown below for two flight
cases.
External Forces Distribution at n = -3

7000
6000
External Forces (N/m)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
span (m)
Lift Distribution at n = -3 HTP Weight Distribution

Total External Force
Figure 124 Total External Forces on HTP at n = -3 for Ferry Flight

HTP External Force Distribution at n = 8
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-2000

-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
Semispan (m)
Figure 125 Total External Forces on HTP at n = 8
4.2.3.3 Internal Loads on Tail

● Shear Forces
Shear Force when n = -3

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-5000
Shear Force (N)
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
span (m)
Figure 126 Shear Force Distribution when n = -3

Shear Force when n = 8
60000
50000
Shear Force (N)

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
span (m)
Figure 127 Shear Force Distribution when n = 8
● Bending Moment
Bending Moment when n = -3

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-10000
Bending Moment (Nm)
-20000
-30000
-40000
-50000
-60000
Span (m)
Figure 128 Bending Moment Distribution when n = -3

Bending Moment when n = 8
60000
Bending Moment (Nm)

50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Span (m)
Figure 129 Bending Moment Distribution when n = 8
● Torsional
Torsional when n = -3
2000
1800
1600
Torsional (Nm)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Span (m)
Figure 130 Torsional Distribution when n = -3

Torsional when n = 8
0
-3 -2 -1 -500 0 1 2 3
-1000
Torsional (Nm)
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
-4500
Span (m)
Figure 131 Torsional Distribution when n = 8

CHAPTER 5
STRUCTURAL LAYOUT
5.1. Structural layout of wing and tail

5.1.1. Wing
Aircraft wing is an aircraft component that functions in production lift on the plane. NT/F-
22 "Manuk" wing structure concept using a semi-monocoque configuration where the
structure consists of components skin, stringers, ribs, and spars to withstand the loads due
to the forces acting on the wings.
In order to create the structural layout, we will be using several aircraft that is quite similar
to our aircraft (NFT-22) based on the MTOW, Wingspan and also wing’s length values.
The list of comparison can be seen in the table shown below.
Table 44 Comparison Aircraft based on similar MTOW, Wingspan and Length of Aircraft with NFT-22
Comparison Aircraft MTOW (kg) Crew Wingspan (m) Length (m)

Yakovlev Yak-130 10290 2 9.84 11.49
BAE Systems Hawk 9100 2 9.94 12.43
Aermacchi M-346 9600 2 9.72 11.49
KAI T-50 Golden Eagle 12300 2 9.45 13.144
5.1.1.1. Layout of wing box

NFT-22 wings have configurations such as mid wing, delta wing, low aspect ratio,
flat, and armed wingtip. After knowing the load path that the wing will experience and
evaluating it based on the comparison of other similar jet trainers, we can see the structure
of the wing box will be shown below.
Figure 132 Semi monocoque wing structure
In the center of the wing there is a wing-box which is limited by the placement of
spars and airplane wings. Wing-box serves as a place for aircraft wing components and
locations of the fuel tank. The following is a general configuration of the wing cross section
aircraft:
Figure 133 General Configuration for Wing Cross Section
The wing of the NT/F-22 "Manuk" aircraft is designed to meet the main loading
bending loads due to differences in loads on the upper and lower surfaces of the wings and
shear load due to the load of the wing components along with the payload of the weapons
to be brought so that the wing structure must have high strength, with rigidity low and light.
Therefore, the aircraft structure will use the configuration skin-stringer with ribs as a
reinforcing structure to withstand bending loads and prevent buckling failure. The wing
spar structure will use a combination of concepts a and b in the picture above (multi spar).
Figure 134 Top View of NFT-22 Wing Structure Layout
5.1.1.2. Skin-panel
The structure of the skin panels on the wings serves to withstand the resulting
bending loading of aircraft aerodynamics. The skin will also experience load and stress
transfer to ribs and spars. Skin panels are designed as thin as possible to reduce the entire
weight of the wing, but the thin skin panels would be particularly vulnerable to buckling
failure during compressive and shear loading. Therefore, the skin components will be
strengthened using a ribs and stringer structure to prevent buckling failure. The aircraft
wing skin panels design use predominantly materials by Al-2024 T3 with fiberglass and
carbon composite materials in critical areas to strengthen the structure as well as increase
the stealth capabilities of the aircraft design.
Not only that, in a wing structure, we will find a lot of stringers inside of it. The
stringer serves to withstand the buckling load on the upper skin and lower skin. Based on
data from the book Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout by Denis Howe, buckling
efficiency factor are obtained from various types of stringer construction are as follows:
Table 45 Buckling Efficiency Factors
Based on the data from the table above, a stringer with a Zed stringer configuration was
chosen because it has a high buckling efficiency factor.
Figure 135 Zed stringer construction
5.1.1.3. Spars
The spar structure on the wing functions as a barrier to the shear and torque loads
that occur on the wing due to aerodynamic forces and hardpoint loading of the payload
carried by plane. The NT/F-22 "Manuk" aircraft wing uses a triple configuration spar,
where the front and rear spars function as the main load restraint due to the aerodynamic
forces of the aircraft, while the middle spar serves to hold 65 loading of components and
hardpoint payload carried by the aircraft.
Laying the front and rear spars of the wings takes into consideration the
recommendations from Roskam (1985) with the location of the front spar at 15-30% chord
and rear spar at 65-75% chord. The aircraft design is designed by placing the front spar at
15% chord (0.5145 m of the LE root chord) and a rear spar at 78.42% of the chord (2.69 m
of the LE root chord) which considering the existence of a connection to the high lift device
and integral tank capacity maximum fuel capacity. Place the mid spar at 50% chord (1,715
m of the LE root chord) taking into consideration the hardpoint mount point payload
located at 50% chord. The Spar aircraft design locations are also designated to connect
with the bulkhead fuselage structure (Bulkheads 3, 4, and 5). The aircraft spars design is
designed using carbon composite materials with several parts using Steel Alloy 4130.
Not only from Roskam (1985), we also take account 4 aircraft reference data to be
able to estimate how many spars that NFT-22 aircraft wing will need. The 4 aircraft
comparison can be seen in the table down below.
Table 46 Comparison Aircraft for number of spars
Comparison Aircraft MTOW (kg) Number of Spars

Yakovlev Yak-130 10290 3
BAE Systems Hawk 9100 3
Aermacchi M-346 9600 3
KAI T-50 Golden Eagle 12300 4
Based on the table above, if we take the average for number of spars usually used for fighter
jet that is similar to NFT-22, we can conclude that the number of spars that is needed for
NFT-22 is equal to 3 spars.
The following is an illustration of the top view of an airplane with a wing spar structure.
Figure 136 Top View of Spar Location on Wing Structure

5.1.1.4. Ribs
The rib structure on the wing functions as a stiffener is needed to help balance
torque box skins and to provide and maintain the shape of the airfoil and wing box from
the cross section of the wing. Ribs also serve as a hardpoint which will be the place where
the payload pylon is placed to be installed and withstand bending loads and prevent failure
buckling of the wing skins.
On the plane design, the ribs are arranged in the direction of the longitudinal axis
of the plane (direction fly) to give structural strength to better aerodynamic forces than
following the swept angle of the wing. Placement spacing of plane ribs considers the
recommendations from the reference Roskam (1985) where spacing varies. Therefore, the
selection of the spacing of the design plane ribs will be considering the location of the
ailerons, flan8ps and armament pylons.
Table 47 Comparison Aircraft for number of ribs
Comparison Aircraft MTOW (kg) Number of Ribs Rib spacing (m)

Yakovlev Yak-130 10290 13 0.7569
BAE Systems Hawk 9100 14 0.71
Aermacchi M-346 9600 13 0.74769
KAI T-50 Golden Eagle 12300 4 2.3625
Based on the table above, if we take the average for number of ribs usually used for
fighter jet that is similar to NFT-22, we can conclude that the number of spars that is needed
for NFT-22 is equal to 21 ribs because in general usually the maximum ribs for each wing
is 20 ribs.
The aircraft ribs design is designed using Al 7075-T6 material with Hardpoint Ribs
will use Steel Alloy 4130. Ribs have a total of 21 half spans with a thickness of 15 mm.
Here are the locations where the ribs are placed (relative to longitudinal axis datum
reference) in the table below.
Table 48 Ribs Location Relative to Datum
Ribs Number Buttock Lines (mm)
1 1218
2 1406
3 1645
4 1831
5 2050
6 2268
7 (hardpoint) 2386
8 2705
9 2923
10 3142
11 3360
12 3578
13 (hardpoint) 3797
14 4049
15 4268
16 4471
17 4705
18 4923
19 5141
20 5265
21 (hardpoint) 5385
Below is an illustration of the top view and isometry of the plane with the ribs structure.
Figure 137 Top View of Placement of Ribs Structure on Wings

Figure 138 Isometric View of Placement of Rib Structures on Wings
5.1.1.5. Stringer
The stringer structure on the wing acts as a stiffener skin panel to provide strength
to bending loads and resistance to buckling failure prone to occur in skin panels. Stringers
come in various forms (same as in the longeron/stringer fuselage section). In the design of
aircraft wing stringers, I-shaped stringers will be used integrated directly into the skin panel
due to its resistance to compression and high bending.
Table 49 Comparison Aircraft in terms of number of stringers on wing structure
Comparison Aircraft MTOW (kg) Number of Stringer

Yakovlev Yak-130 10290 15
BAE Systems Hawk 9100 10
Aermacchi M-346 9600 7
KAI T-50 Golden Eagle 12300 6
Based on the comparison, we can see that the average is around 10 stringers for jet
trainer aircraft. But for NFT-22 due to the high compression resistance of AL 7075 T6 for
the stringer material, we will need stringers with a number of 18 divided evenly along the
wing chords (spacing 5.8% chord).
The following is an illustration of the top view of an airplane with a stringer structure.
Figure 139 Top View of Placement of Stringer Structures on Wings
The following is an illustration of the top view and isometry of the aircraft overall
internal wing structure.
Figure 140 Top View of Placement of the Wing Structure

Figure 141 Isometric view of wing structure placement
5.1.1.6. Joints
The structure of an aircraft consists of various parts with various forms
manufactured by various methods such as sheet, casting, extruded, machined, tubes, or
forgings. The parts of the plane must be connected in order to form a complete aircraft
structure. Besides being able to be connected, these parts must also be separable to facilitate
the inspection process, repair, delivery, or replacement.
Apart from functioning as a connector between parts of the aircraft, the joint is also
a frequent source of aircraft failure, especially in structures due to secondary stress caused
by various factors such as eccentricities, stress concentrations, connector slippage, and
excessive deflection. these resulting factors in static stress and fatigue in the joint, thus
affecting aircraft structure.
According to Niu (1988) there are several things that must be considered in the use of joints
on the plane:
1. Insufficient rigidity will cause excessive deflection.
2. Mixed Fasteners: it is not good to use two or more types of joint in one place (using
rivets and bolts in the same joint).
3. Consideration of fatigue.
4. Do not use spot welds on both sides of the existing components joggled. Use rivets
on areas that are joggled or will swing.
5. Eccentricities and their influence on joint structures.
a. Joints on the truss structure will produce eccentricities.
b. If eccentricities appear at the joint, the resulting moment must be overcome
by the structure that is next to the joint.
6. Efficiency: both sides of the joint must be able to withstand the load that occurs
because of mounted components.
7. The distance between the fasteners is about four times or more the diameter of the
fasteners.
5.1.1.6.1. Rivet (permanent fastener)

Rivets are a type of permanent fastener that are inexpensive and come with
automatic pairing operation. The initial cost of rivets is very low compared to fasteners
threaded because the rivets are made in large quantities using a high-speed heading
machine which has a small scrap failure. For the NT/F-22 planes “Manuk" design will use
rivets on the skin-stringer rib, spar-rib, frame-longeron-skin joints on the entire structural
surface of the wing, fuselage, and tail (VTP and HTP) and control surface.
According to Niu (1988) the use of rivets on joints has several advantages and lacks. The
advantages of using rivets include:
1. Has various finishes such as plating, parkerizing, or paint.
2. Can strengthen components.
3. Can act as fasteners, pivot shafts, spacers, electronic contacts, stops, or inserts.
4. Dissimilar material, metal or nonmetal in various thicknesses can be connected.
Meanwhile, the weakness in the use of rivets on the plane joints among others:
1. During aircraft maintenance, rivet components cannot be disassembled without
damage or destroy the rivet itself. This is due to the rivets permanent fastener type.
2. Has low precision due to mass production.
3. Rivets have lower tensile and fatigue stresses than bolts or screws.
In its use, rivets have a variety of models to choose from as a connection between parts of
the aircraft. Several models of rivets are available today among others:
1. Conventional/solid rivets
2. Blind Rivets
3. Huck-Comp Fastener
4. Huck-TITE interference fit fastener
5. HI-Shear fasteners
6. HI-Lok Fastener & Tapered Fastener
7. Semi-Tubular Rivets
On the NT/F-22 "Manuk" design the rivet model will be used are conventional
rivets and Hi-Lok Fasteners. Conventional rivets are used on connection of parts that do
not have a high load. Meanwhile, Hi-Lok Fastener will be used on joints that receive very
high loads.
5.1.1.6.2. Wing-Fuselage Joint
To connect the wing with the fuselage, there are several types of joints which can be used
including pressure seals, lugs, and links where the wing box will be connected to the
bulkhead on the fuselage. Multiple connection configurations between wings with fuselage
include:
1) Link Type
Figure 142 Wing-Fuselage Joint Configuration with Link Type (Niu, 1988)
2) Lug Shape
Figure 143 Wing-Fuselage Joint with Lug Type (Niu, 1988)
Figure 144 Lug Type Joint
Several types of joint configurations on the wing root have the following characteristics:
The advantages and disadvantages can be seen in the table below.
Table 50 Joint Type Characteristics on Wing Roots
Joint Type Advantages Disadvantages
Tension Bolts Less manufactural fitness Heavy weight penalty

required, easy to assemble
or remove. More economic
for military fighter with thin
airfoil
Lug (Shear Type) (same as above) (same as above)
Combination of spliced Reliable and inherent fail- (same as above)

plates and tension bolts safe feature and less
manufactural fitness
required.
Spliced plates Widely used due to its Slightly higher cost,

lightweight, more reliable, manufactural fitness
and inherent fail-safe
feature
On the NT/F-22 "Manuk" design aircraft, the type of wing fuselage joint will be used is the
lug type. The use of lug joints was chosen for several reasons. This configuration was
chosen due to the arrangement of the lugs are simple and easy to manufacture so the price
will be cheaper. Besides that, lug joints also have advantages in terms of maintenance
convenience and simplicity.
5.1.2. Tail
Tail configurations (VTP and HTP) are similar to wing configurations with smaller size
and aspect ratio. This causes the load received by the tail is not as big as the wings.
Therefore, the strength consideration factor of the tail structure is not as high as the design
considerations for the wing structure. The tail configuration will use a semi-monocoque
structure which has the same properties as the wing configuration.
Figure 145 Aircraft Tail Structural Layout
The NT/F-22 “Manuk” design aircraft empenage configuration is a conventional tail

configuration in which the root chord of the VTP structure is embedded in the fuselage
structure. However, this aircraft has a type of control surface on the HTP that is all moving,
so that the front spar of the HTP will be connected to a rotating shaft which is driven by an
actuator to move the HTP while the control surface on the VTP is a conventional rudder.
5.1.2.1. Skin-panel
The structure of the skin panels on the tail has the same function as the wing skin panels,
namely to withstand bending loads due to aircraft aerodynamic forces. Skin panels are
designed to be as thin as possible to reduce the overall weight of the wing, but thin skin
panels will be very susceptible to buckling failure under compression and shear loading.
Therefore, the skin component will be strengthened using a ribs and stringer structure to
prevent buckling failure. The design aircraft tail skin panels (VTP and HTP) use Al-2024
T3 material.
5.1.2.2. Spars
The spar structure on the wing functions as a barrier to shear and torque loads that occur
on the wing due to the aerodynamic forces of the aircraft. Spare placement of the tail is the
main consideration in determining the strength of the empenage structure. The VTP Spar
location of the design aircraft is also designed to be connected to the bulkhead fuselage
(Bulkhead 7) while the HTP Rotating Shaft location is connected to the Frame Fuselage
(Frame 19) (as a support for the actuator system). The design aircraft spars are designed
using carbon composite materials with some parts using Al-7075 T6.
The VTP design aircraft uses a double spar configuration where the placement of the front
and rear spar from the VTP takes into consideration recommendations from Roskam (1985)
with the location of the front spar at 15-25% of the chord and the rear spar at 70-75% of
the chord. The design aircraft VTP is designed by placing the front spar at 21.13% chord
(0.565 m from the LE root chord) and the rear spar at 79% chord (2119 m from the LE root
chord) considering the existence of a connection to the rudder. The following is an
illustration of the side view of an aircraft tail with a spar structure.
Figure 146 Sideview of Spar Placement in Aircraft VTP
The HTP design aircraft has one main rotating shaft which is connected to the fuselage
which functions to drive the HTP. The location of this shaft is designed as close as possible
to the aerodynamic center point on the surface of the HTP airfoil root attached to the
fuselage surface to facilitate the movement mechanism of the HTP. Therefore, assuming
the aerodynamic center of the HTP is at 0.25Chord, the location of the rotating shaft will
be at 40% of the HTP root chord. Furthermore, the HTP reinforcing spar structure will be
located at 72% of the HTP airfoil root chord attached to the surface of the fuselage. The
following is an illustration of the side view of an aircraft tail with a spar structure.
Figure 147 Topview of Spar Placement in Aircraft HTP

5.1.2.3. Ribs
The ribbed structure of the wing acts as a stiffener to provide and maintain the airfoil shape
of the cross-section tail. Ribs also function to withstand bending loading and prevent
buckling failure from wing skin. As with the ribs on wings, the ribs are arranged in the
direction of the plane's longitudinal axis (direction of flight). The spacing of the plane ribs
took into account the recommendations from Roskam (1985) where the spacing varies.
Therefore, the selection of the spacing of the design plane ribs will consider the positional
location of the control surface and the number of ribs tail of the reference plane.
The designed aircraft VTP ribs were designed using Al 7075-T6 material with a total of 17
pieces with an average spacing of 173,125 mm with a thickness of 10 mm. The following
is a side view illustration of an aircraft VTP with a ribs structure.
Figure 148 Sideview of Ribs Placement in Aircraft VTP
The design aircraft HTP ribs are designed using the same material as VTP ribs with a total
of 16 pieces with an average spacing of 143.33 mm and a thickness of 10 mm. The
following is an illustration of a plane HTP with ribs structure.
Figure 149 Topview of Ribs Placement in Aircraft HTP
5.1.2.4. Stringers
The stringer structure in the tail functions as a skin panel stiffener to provide strength
against bending loads and resistance to bucking failures which are prone to occur in skin
panels. Stringers come in a variety of shapes (same as in the longeron/stringer fuselage
section).
In the design of aircraft wing stringers, Z-shaped stringers will be used which are integrated
directly into the skin panel. The design aircraft stringer tail is designed using Al-7075 T6
material with 15 VTP and HTP stringers which are evenly distributed along the wing
chords (average spacing 7.14% chord). The following is an illustration of the isometry of
VTP and HTP planes with a stringer structure.
Figure 150 Isometric-View of Stringers Placement in Aircraft Tail
The following is an illustration of the isometry of the VTP and HTP planes with the overall
internal structure.
Figure 151 Isometric-View of Aircraft Tail Internal Structural Layout
The following is an illustration of the isometric view of the plane with the overall internal
structure.
Figure 152 Isometric-View of NFT-22 "Manuk" Aircraft Internal Structural Layout
5.2. Layout of Fuselage Structure

5.2.1. Layout of fuselage
Figure 153 Fuselage Layout
Based on the load analysis that occurs on the fuselage, a line diagram or fuselage
structure layout like the picture above. Laying of bulkheads and frames based on the hard
points on the fuselage, including nose landing gear, doors, battery in nose, lavatories. From
Roskam, J. (2002). Airplane Design Part III: Layout Design of Cockpit Fuselage, Wing,
And Empennage (3rd ed) we can obtain the data needed for designing a fuselage.
• Frame depth:
For fighters and trainers: 2.0 inch
• Frame spacings:
For fighters and trainers: 15-20 inch
• Longeron spacings:
For fighters and trainers: 8-12 inch
5.2.2. Skin-panel
The structure of the skin panel on the fuselage serves to withstand loading due to
shear loads from external transverse forces and torsional forces. Sheet skin panels are very
effective in resisting loads and shear stresses. The dimensions of the thickness of the skin
of the aircraft will be relatively thinner than the skin of the wing because the fuselage holds
a smaller external load (there is a lift force on the wing). However, with this configuration,
skin thin panels will be very susceptible to buckling failure under compressive and shear
loads. Therefore, the skin component will be strengthened using a stringer and longeron
structure to prevent buckling failure. In addition, the designed aircraft skin panels use
materials dominated by Al-2024 T3 and fiberglass and carbon composite materials to
strengthen and enhance the stealth capabilities of the designed aircraft.
5.2.3. Frames/Bulkhead
The designed aircraft has a bulkhead structure that functions as a shaper of the
shape of the aircraft fuselage as well as the main load bearing on the fuselage structure,
especially when the load is concentrated on the wing and empennage joints. The frame is
a structure that also functions to maintain the shape of the fuselage and support
compression/shear loads on the aircraft shell (skin-stringer panels) structure as well as tear-
strips for fail-safe crack propagation. The number of aircraft bulkheads will be determined
based on changes in aircraft contours, placement of the cockpit, landing gear openings and
the location of the joints on the wings and empennage, wherein the design aircraft will use
a total of 9 pieces with a thickness of 30 mm. The design aircraft bulkhead is designed
using Steel Alloy 4130 material. The following is the location of the bulkhead placement
(relative to the nose tip datum reference)
Table 51 Bulkhead placement based of the datum.
Bulkhead Numbers Fuselage Station (mm)

1 1200
2 1800
3 (Wing Joint) 5100
4 (Wing Joint) 6080
5 (Wing Joint) 7095
6 8200
7 (Empennage Joint) 9550
8 10050
9 11410
The following is the side view and isometric view illustration of the aircraft with
the bulkhead structure.
Figure 154 Side View of NFT-22 with the Bulkhead structure placement
Figure 155 Isometric View of NFT-22 with the Bulkhead structure placement
The number of aircraft frames is determined using the recommendations from the
Roskam reference (1985) for fighter and training aircraft having a spacing range of 15-20
inches (381-508 mm). On the NT/F-22 "Manuk" aircraft, the spacing varies according to
the reference depending on the number of frames between the bulkhead sections with a
total of 21 pieces with a thickness of 20mm. Design aircraft frame designed using Al 7075-
T6 material. The following is the location of the frame placement (relative to the datum
nose tip reference).
Table 52 Frame placement based of the datum.
Frame Number Fuselage Station (mm)

1 400
2 800
3 1480
4 2250
5 2700
6 3150
7 3600
8 4050
9 4500
10 5300
11 5750
12 6550
13 6900
14 7550
15 7900
16 8650
17 9100
18 9800
19 (HTP Actuator system) 10360
20 10710
21 11060
The following is the side view and isometric view illustration of the aircraft with
the frame structure.
Figure 156 Side View of NFT-22 with the frame structure placement
Figure 157 Isometric View of NFT-22 with the frame structure placement
5.2.4. Joints
5.2.4.1. Rivet (permanent fastener)
Rivets are a cheap type of permanent fastener equipped with an automatic
installation operation. The initial cost of rivets is very low compared to threaded
fasteners because the rivets are made in large quantities using high-speed heading
machines which have little scrap failure. For the NT/F-22 "Manuk" design aircraft,
rivets will be used on the skin-stringer-rib, spar-rib, frame-longeron-skin joints on
the entire structural surface of the wing, fuselage and empennage (VTP and HTP)
and control surface.
According to Niu (1988) the use of rivets in joints has several advantages and
disadvantages. The advantages of using rivets include:
o Has various finishes such as plating, Parkerizing, or paint.
o Can strengthen components.
o Can act as fasteners, pivot shafts, spacers, electronic contacts, stops, or
inserts.
o Dissimilar materials, metal or nonmetal in various thicknesses that can be
connected.
Meanwhile, the disadvantages of using rivets on aircraft joints include:
o During aircraft maintenance, the rivet components cannot be disassembled
without damaging or destroying the rivets themselves. This is because the
rivet is a permanent fastener type.
o Has low precision due to mass production.
o Rivets have lower tensile and fatigue stresses than bolts or screws.
In its use, rivets have various models that can be selected as a connection
between parts of the aircraft. Some of the rivet models available today include:
o Conventional/solid rivets
o Blind Rivets
o Huck-Comp Fastener
o Huck-TITE interference fit fastener
o HI-Shear fasteners.
o HI-Lok Fastener & Tapered Fastener
o Semi-Tubular Rivets
On the NT/F-22 "Manuk" design, the rivet models to be used are conventional
rivets and Hi-Lok Fasteners. Conventional rivets are used for parts that do not have
a high load. Meanwhile, Hi-Lok Fastener will be used on connections that receive
very high loads.
5.2.4.2. Wing-Fuselage Joint

To connect the wing to the fuselage, there are several types of joints that can be
used, including pressure seals, lugs, and links where the wing box will be connected
to the bulkhead on the fuselage. Some connection configurations between the wings
and the fuselage include:
o Link Type
Figure 158 Wing-Fuselage Configuration with Link Type
o Lug shape
Figure 159 Wing-Fuselage Configuration with Lug Shape

Several types of joint configurations on the wing root have characteristics
in the form of advantages and disadvantages which can be seen in the table below:
Table 53 Characteristic of Type Joint and Wing Root
Types of Joint Advantages Disadvantages

Less manufactural
fitness required, easy in
assemble or remove.
Tension Bolt Heavy weight penalty
More economic for
military fighter with thin
airfoil
Lug (Shear Type) (Same as above) (Same as above)
Reliable and inherent
Combination of spliced fail-safe feature and less
(Same as above)
plates and Tension Bolts manufactural fitness
required
Widely used due to its
light weight, more Slightly higher cost,
Spliced Plates
reliable, and inherent manufactural fitnes
fail-safe feature.
On the NT/F-22 "Manuk" design aircraft, the type of wing-fuse fuselage

joint that will be used is the lug type. This configuration was chosen because the
lug arrangement is simple and relatively easy to manufacture, so the price is
cheaper. With this configuration, aircraft maintenance will not be a problem for
consumers/users.
5.2.4.3. Stabilizer-Fuselage Joint

The connection between the stabilizer (VTP) and the fuselage has various
configurations with their respective advantages. Two examples of the stabilizer-
fuselage joint configuration can be seen in the following figure.
Figure 160 Stabilizer-Fuselage Configuration Joint

For the NT/F-22 "Manuk" design aircraft, the connection to be used is the
configuration in case II. In that case, the vertical stabilizer does not penetrate the
fuselage, but only sticks to the fuselage.
REFERENCES
Maintenance on wing. UUDS AERO. (2023, March 6). Retrieved March 10, 2023, from
https://www.aero.uuds.com/en/aircraft-maintenance
Guide, A. (2023, January 4). Typical repairs for aircraft structures (part 1). Aircraft
Systems. Retrieved March 5, 2023, from
https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/2017/06/typical-repairs-for-aircraft-
structures.html
Guide, A. (2023, January 4). Typical repairs for Aircraft Structures (part 2). Aircraft
Systems. Retrieved March 6, 2023, from
https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/2017/06/typical-repairs-for-aircraft-
structures_12.html
Daniel, A. D. (2017, November 16). The path to enlightenment. Ultralight Design.

Retrieved March 10, 2023, from
https://ultralightdesign.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/the-path-to-enlightenment/
Desain Struktur Rangka Pesawat Terbang. Aeroengineering.co.id. (n.d.). Retrieved March

6, 2023, from https://www.aeroengineering.co.id/2016/11/desain-struktur-rangka-
pesawat-terbang/
FUNCTION OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. Aerospace, Mechanical & Mechatronic

Engineering. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2023, from
https://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/structures/acs1-p7.html
Metal Forming. Metal forming. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2023, from

https://www.thelibraryofmanufacturing.com/forming_basics.html
Rubber moulding process comparisons. Dp Seals. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2023, from
https://dpseals.com/2019/07/rubber-moulding-process/
Hot Extrusion. Hot extrusion. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2023, from

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/engineering-
technology/manupedia/hot-extrusion
Bab 4. Ekstrusi - UNY. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from

http://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/132161225/pendidikan/Bab+4.+PROSES+EKSTR
USI.pdf
How wings are attached to the planes ? HavKar. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2023, from
http://havkar.com/en/blog/view/how-wings-are-attached-to-the-planes-/84
Ed decision 2003/ 14/RM 14/11/2003 European Aviation Safety Agency - EASA. (n.d.).
Retrieved February 26, 2023, from
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/decision_ED_2003_14_RM.pdf
Solid model memories. Model Airplane News - Beechcraft Bonanza - Solid Model
Memories. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2023, from
http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=3550
Atalay, M., & Mehmet AtalayMehmet is an Aeronautical Engineer who has previously
worked for Airbus and Turkish airlines. He fell in love with aviation when he was
just 5 years old. During his university years. (2021, December 7). Piper M350 Guide
and specs : Is it easy to fly? Aviator Insider. Retrieved February 15, 2023, from
https://aviatorinsider.com/airplane-brands/piper-m350/
Piper M350. Piper M350 vector drawing. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from
https://www.the-blueprints.com/vectordrawings/show/14637/piper_m350/
Roskam, J. (2017). Airplane Design Part III: Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing
and Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard Profiles (Volume 3) (Revised ed.).
DARcorporation
[1] Aluminum 2024-T4; 2024-T351. ASM material data sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved March 6,
2023, from
https://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ma2024t4
[2] Niu, C. (2011). Airframe structural design: Practical design information and data on
Aircraft Structures. Conmilit Press Ltd.
[3] Gudmundsson, S. (2013) General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and
Procedures. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
ENGINEERING DRAWING
1092.4
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS PARAMETER UNIT WING HTP VTP
MTOW [kg] 9850 Area [m^2] 23.2 5.05 4.81

Span [m] 10.77 4.88 2.77 3300
Design Range [m] 4435.6
Number of [pax] 2
Aspect
Ratio - 5 4.7 1.6
2157.4
Pax Swept
Angle (c/4) [deg] 25 26 38
Take-Off Field [m] 969.264
Length Dihedral [deg] 0 0 0
Landing Field Angle
[m] 1,205.79 Incidence [deg]
Length 0 0 0
Angle
PROPULSION CHARACTERISTICS
10770
4880
Twist Angle [deg] 0 0 0
Engine Name - Honeywell-
- NACA64 NACA NACA
2349.72
F124-GA-100 Airfoil Type
A410 0010 0010
-
3879.72
Engine Type Turbofan mean aero [m] 2.41 1.11 1.89
chord
5329.72
Engine Rated [SHP] 3590.145
Power apex [m] 5.56 10.39 0.54
Propeller location
[m] 9.144
Diameter aero center [m] 0.538 0.259 0.433
location
880
10770
4880
2400
820
1795.3
2737.3
3520
1740.1
1100
370 544
424
60 298
72 1500
1100
6500
11410
PROYEKSI SKALA: 1:150 DIGAMBAR: KELOMPOK 1 PERINGATAN:

SATUAN: mm NIM: 13620011/13620049/13620069/13620074
TANGGAL: 2/02/2023 DILIHAT: Dr.Taufiq Mulyanto, S.T.
ITB THREE VIEW DRAWING AE3230 A4

REPORT 2
AE3230 LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
By:
Group 1
DRO B (NFT-22)
Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany – 13620011 – Fuselage (mid-tail)

Arya Marully Fattah Sidauruk – 13620049 – Fuselage (nose-mid)
Elisabeth Filandow – 13620069 – Wing
Adrian Wafi Elhaq – 13620074 – Tail
Supervisor:

Deadline: May 12th, 2023
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2023
VALIDITY SHEET
GROUP MEMBER
SHORT DESCRIPTION
NAME-NIM SIGNATURE
OF THE WORK
Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany

- 13620011 Fuselage (mid-tail)
Arya Marully Fattah

Sidauruk - 13620049 Fuselage (nose-mid)
Elisabeth Filandow –
13620069 Wing
Adrian Wafi Elhaq –

13620074 Tail
SUPERVISOR
NAME SIGNATURE

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................................................. 10
INITIAL SIZING ............................................................................................................................. 10
6.1. Wing Structure Initial Sizing ............................................................................................... 10
6.1.1. Skin and Stringer .......................................................................................................... 10
6.1.2. Spars ............................................................................................................................. 15
6.1.3. Typical Ribs .................................................................................................................. 19
6.2. Fuselage Structure Initial Sizing .......................................................................................... 23
6.2.1. Skin ............................................................................................................................... 23
6.2.2. Frame and Bulkhead ..................................................................................................... 24
6.2.3. Stringers and Longeron................................................................................................. 25
6.3. Tail Structure Initial Sizing ................................................................................................. 29
6.3.1. Skin and Stringer .......................................................................................................... 29
6.3.2. Spars ............................................................................................................................. 32
6.3.3. Typical Ribs .................................................................................................................. 33
CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................. 35
STRESS CHECKING ................................................................................................................... 35
7.1. Wing Stress Checking .......................................................................................................... 35
7.1.1. Material Failure ............................................................................................................ 35
7.1.2. Buckling Failure ............................................................................................................ 39
7.1.3. Iteration of Wing Structure ........................................................................................... 44
7.1.4. Material Failure Second Iteration ................................................................................. 45
7.1.5. Buckling Failure Second Iteration ................................................................................. 49
7.1.6. Mass Calculation and Summary of The Final Dimension of Wing Structure ................ 54
7.2. Fuselage Stress Checking ..................................................................................................... 56
7.2.3. Mass Calculation ........................................................................................................... 89
7.3. Tail Stress Checking ............................................................................................................ 90
7.3.3. Iteration of Tail Structure ........................................................................................... 100
CHAPTER 8 ................................................................................................................................ 104
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 104
8.1. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 104
8.1.1. Wing Final Structural Design ...................................................................................... 104
8.1.2 Fuselage Final Structural Design.................................................................................. 106
8.1.3. Tail Final Structural Design ........................................................................................ 109
8.2. Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 110
8.2.1. Wing ........................................................................................................................... 110
8.2.2 Fuselage ....................................................................................................................... 110
8.2.3. Tail .............................................................................................................................. 110
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 111
Table of Figure
Figure 1 Spar Location on Wing Root .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 2 Wingbox structure on wing root approximation with haverage = 0.243 m ......................... 13
Figure 3 Stringer cross-sectional geometry on wing root ............................................................ 14
Figure 4 Corrected Stringer Geometry ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 5 Spar Flange Design ........................................................................................................ 18
Figure 6 Theoretical buckling curves for rectangular flat panel in pure shear ............................. 20
Figure 7 Material Properties of Al 7075-T6 .................................................................................. 21
Figure 8 Stringer shape for Toray at Nose ................................................................................... 26
Figure 9 Stringer shape for Al-7075-T6 at Nose .......................................................................... 26
Figure 10 Stringer shape for Toray at Centre .............................................................................. 27
Figure 11 Stringer shape for Al-7075-T6 at Centre ...................................................................... 27
Figure 12 Stringer shape for Toray at Tail ................................................................................... 28
Figure 13 Stringer shape for Al-7075-T6 at Tail ........................................................................... 28
Figure 14 HTP Tail Box Configuration.......................................................................................... 29
Figure 15 HTP Geometry Configuration ....................................................................................... 30
Figure 16 Value of shear buckling coefficient to geometry .......................................................... 33
Figure 17 36 Stringer Location Illustration on Wingbox at Wing Root ......................................... 35
Figure 18 ESDU 71014 FIGURE 8 ............................................................................................... 40
Figure 19 Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (fb)e/fn ratio ......................................... 41
Figure 20 Graph of K values against skin geometry (ESDU 71005) ........................................... 42
Figure 21 Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (qb)e/fn ratio ........................................ 43
Figure 22 36 Stringer Location Illustration on Wingbox at Wing Root ......................................... 45
Figure 23 ESDU 71014 FIGURE 8 ............................................................................................... 50
Figure 24 Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (fb)e/fn ratio ......................................... 51
Figure 25 Graph of K values against skin geometry (ESDU 71005) ........................................... 52
Figure 26 Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (qb)e/fn ratio ........................................ 53
Figure 27 ESDU 71014 Chart for Determining K and η ............................................................... 77
Figure 28 Graph to determine K and η ......................................................................................... 80
Figure 29 Close section ilustration to find shear flow value ......................................................... 93
Figure 30 Determination of the stiffened panel coefficient value based on ESDU 71014 .......... 97
Figure 31 Determination of the value of the stiffness panel coefficient based on ESDU 71005 98
Figure 32 Wing Ribs Layout ....................................................................................................... 105
Figure 33 Wing Stringer Layout .................................................................................................. 105
Figure 34 Wing Spar Layout ....................................................................................................... 105
Figure 34 Fuselage Bulkhead Layout 2D and 3D………………………………………………….106
Figure 35 Fuselage Frames Layout 2D and 3D…………………………………………………....107
List of Table
Table 1 Shear, Bending and Torsional Force Data ...................................................................... 10

Table 2 Buckling Efficiency Factors, (FB) ..................................................................................... 11
Table 3 Overall Buckling and Compression data (FB) = 1.0 approximately ................................ 11
Table 4 Wingbox dimensions by following the airfoil shape ........................................................ 12
Table 5 Wingbox dimensions by approximation of a box ............................................................ 13
Table 6 Effective Load and Initial Dimensions of the Skin ........................................................... 13
Table 7 Stringer Dimensions ........................................................................................................ 14
Table 8 Stringer Dimension Correction ........................................................................................ 15
Table 9 Spar Thickness Data ....................................................................................................... 19
Table 10 Ribs Thickness Calculation ........................................................................................... 21
Table 11 Wing Dimensions from Initial Sizing at x = 1.218 m ..................................................... 22
Table 12 Data of Maximum Moment and Maximum Shear ......................................................... 23
Table 13 Data for Skin Thickness................................................................................................. 23
Table 14 Data for Frame and Bulkhead Thickness...................................................................... 24
Table 15 Data of the Stringers Thickness .................................................................................... 25
Table 16 Ultimate Loading on HTP .............................................................................................. 29
Table 17 Size of HTP Wing Taol Box ........................................................................................... 30
Table 18 HTP Skin and Stringer Initial Sizing .............................................................................. 31
Table 19 HTP Spar Initial Sizing................................................................................................... 32
Table 20 HTP Ribs Initial Sizing ................................................................................................... 34
Table 21 First Iteration of Normal Stresses .................................................................................. 36
Table 22 First Iteration of Flexural Shear Stress on the Wing ..................................................... 37
Table 23 First Iteration Margin of Safety on Wingbox .................................................................. 38
Table 24 Margin of Safety for Compression and Shear Buckling Strength First Iteration........... 44
Table 25 The changes for second iteration data .......................................................................... 44
Table 26 Second Iteration of Normal Stresses ............................................................................ 46
Table 27 Second Iteration of Flexural Shear Stress on the Wing................................................ 47
Table 28 Second Iteration Margin of Safety on Wingbox ............................................................ 48
Table 29 Margin of Safety for Compression and Shear Buckling Strength Second Iteration ..... 54
Table 30 Material Density ............................................................................................................. 54
Table 31 Summary of the Final Dimension of The Wing Structure ............................................. 55
Table 32 Data of Maximum Moment and Maximum Shear ......................................................... 56
Table 33 Bending Stress Checking for n= +8 (Nose) .................................................................. 57
Table 34 Bending Stress Checking for n= -3 (Nose) ................................................................... 58
Table 35 Bending Stress Checking for n= +8 (Centre) ................................................................ 58
Table 36 Bending Stress Checking for n= -3 (Centre) ................................................................. 60
Table 37 Bending Stress Checking for n= +8 (Tail) ..................................................................... 61
Table 38 Bending Stress Checking for n= -3 (Tail) ...................................................................... 62
Table 39 Shear Stress Checking for n= +8 (Nose) ...................................................................... 65
Table 40 Shear Stress Checking for n= -3 (Nose) ....................................................................... 65
Table 41 Shear Stress Checking for n= +8 (Centre).................................................................... 66
Table 42 Shear Stress Checking for n= -3 (Centre)..................................................................... 67
Table 43 Shear Stress Checking for n= +8 (Tail) ......................................................................... 68
Table 44 Shear Stress Checking for n= -3 (Tail) .......................................................................... 69
Table 45 Pressurized Load for Nose ............................................................................................ 70
Table 46 Pressurized Load for Centre ......................................................................................... 70
Table 47 Pressurized Load for Tail .............................................................................................. 71
Table 48 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= +8 (Nose).......................................................... 71
Table 49 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= -3 (Nose)........................................................... 72
Table 50 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= +8 (Centre) ....................................................... 73
Table 51 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= -3 (Centre) ........................................................ 74
Table 52 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= +8 (Tail) ............................................................ 75
Table 53 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= -3 (Tail) ............................................................. 75
Table 54 Stringer Data .................................................................................................................. 77
Table 55 Material Properties Data ................................................................................................ 78
Table 56 Compressive Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Nose) ............................................. 78
Table 57 Compressive Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Centre) ........................................... 78
Table 58 Shear Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Nose) ......................................................... 80
Table 59 Shear Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Centre) ...................................................... 80
Table 60 Shear Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Tail) ........................................................... 81
Table 61 Compressive Buckling Failure Checking (Nose) .......................................................... 81
Table 62 Compressive Buckling Failure Checking (Centre) ........................................................ 82
Table 63 Compressive Buckling Failure Checking (Tail) ............................................................. 83
Table 64 Shear Buckling Failure Checking (Nose) ...................................................................... 84
Table 65 Shear Buckling Failure Checking (Centre).................................................................... 86
Table 66 Shear Buckling Failure Checking (Tail) ......................................................................... 87
Table 67 Data for the Mass of each part of fuselage ................................................................... 89
Table 68 HTP Component Idealization ........................................................................................ 90
Table 69 Moment Inertia Calculation of Tailbox ........................................................................... 91
Table 70 Flexural bending stress calculation of HTP tailbox ....................................................... 92
Table 71 Rrequired data to find flexural shear stress value on HTP ........................................... 93
Table 72 Results of flexural shear stress due to shear flow on HTP ........................................... 94
Table 73 Results of flexural shear stress due to torque and shear flow on HTP ........................ 94
Table 74 Calculation of von-mises and margin of safety on HTP................................................ 95
Table 75 results of the calculation of buckling and the margin of safety from the HTP structure 99
Table 76 HTP mass based on initial sizing structure configuration ........................................... 100
Table 77 HTP mass based on the iteration structure configuration........................................... 101
Table 78 Calculation of von-mises and margin of safety for HTP after interation ..................... 101
Table 79 results of the calculation of buckling and the margin of safety from the HTP structure
after iteration ............................................................................................................................... 102
Table 80 Final Dimension of The Wing Structure at x = 1.218 .................................................. 104
Table 81 Material Selection for the Wing Structure ................................................................... 104
Table 82 Final Wing Dimension and Mass ................................................................................. 106
Table 83 Final Fuselage Mass ................................................................................................... 108
Table 84 Final Fuselage Mass ................................................................................................... 108
Table 83 HTP Structure Configuration ....................................................................................... 109
CHAPTER 6
INITIAL SIZING
6.1. Wing Structure Initial Sizing

The data that will be used in this section is obtained from the ultimate load that has been
calculated in report 1. The ultimate load value obtained can be tabulated as follows:
Table 1 Shear, Bending and Torsional Force Data

𝑽𝒖𝒍𝒕 (𝑵) 𝑴𝒖𝒍𝒕 (𝑵𝒎) 𝑻𝒖𝒍𝒕 (𝑵𝒎)
x (m)
n=8 n=8 n=8
1.218 -204762.628 -396536 49843.72
1.406 -189514.632 -357873 45774.07
1.645 -170555.320 -312772 40834.58
1.831 -156158.727 -280868 37181.68
2.050 -139614.836 -246699 33090.9
2.268 -123607.971 -216283 29249.28
2.386 -117926.440 -200983 27246.28
2.705 -129659.993 -161303 22247.82
2.923 -115169.037 -133054 19106.77
3.142 -101169.147 -107854 16188.22
3.360 -87816.964 -85813.9 13519.61
3.578 -75078.366 -66683.3 11087.32
3.797 -62934.214 -50258.4 8881.75
4.049 -49798.944 -34558.4 6631.06
4.268 -39206.408 -23660.4 4937.156
4.471 -30128.143 -15677.9 3584.089
4.705 -20568.224 -8670.75 2267.149
4.923 -12691.904 -4190.39 1289.057
5.141 -5947.231 -1426.43 548.822
5.265 -2832.216 -610.06 254.111
5.385 0 0 0
6.1.1. Skin and Stringer

Wings and stringers are the main structure for resisting bending moment loads. The
effective load of the bending moment can be calculated as follows:
𝑀
𝑃=
ℎ
Where:
P = Effective load
M = Maximum bending moment
h = Average height of the wing box
The allowable stress of the skin and stringer structures are as follows:
1
𝑃 2
𝜎𝑏 = 𝐴̅𝐹𝑏 ( )
𝑤𝐿
Where:
𝜎𝑏 = Allowable stress
A = Function of material
𝐹𝑏 = Buckling efficiency factor, form of construction
P = Effective end load
w = width of the box
L = Local rib or frame spacing
Based on data from the book Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout by Denis Howe, the
values of Fb and A are obtained as follows:
Table 2 Buckling Efficiency Factors, (FB)
Table 3 Overall Buckling and Compression data (FB) = 1.0 approximately
NFT-22 aircraft uses a built-up Z stringer construction on the wing structure, so from Table
2 the value of FB = 0.96 is obtained. The material used in the wing structure is conventional
light alloy with Z stringer, so from Table 3, we get the value of A = 138. Assuming the
effective thickness of the wing box is evenly distributed along the width w, the effective
thickness can be formulated as follows:
𝑀
𝑡𝑒 =
ℎ𝑤𝜎𝑏
Where:
𝑡𝑒 = Effective thickness
M = Bending Moment
h = Average height of the wing box
w = Wing box width
𝜎𝑏 = Allowable stress
The thickness of the skin can be approximated based on the effective thickness as follows:
𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 = 0.65 𝑡𝑒
Initial Sizing of the skin and stringer will be carried out on the four positions of the wing
according to Error! Reference source not found., that is at x = 1.218 m, x = 2.05 m, x = 3.36 m,
and x = 4.471 m. as shown in the table below, where x represents the distance from a certain
position on the wing to the plane's axis of symmetry. Based on report 1 and the aircraft data
provided, the following data were obtained:
• Wingbox dimensions at some positions on the wing:
Table 4 Wingbox dimensions by following the airfoil shape

𝒙 (𝒎) 𝒉𝟏 (𝒎) 𝒉𝟐 (𝒎) 𝒉𝟑 (𝒎) 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 (𝒎) 𝒘 (𝒎) 𝑨𝟏 (𝒎𝟐) 𝑨𝟐 (𝒎𝟐) 𝑨𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 (𝒎𝟐 )
1.218 0.201 0.239 0.123 0.188 1.68 0.264 0.177 0.442
2.050 0.161 0.192 0.099 0.150 1.347 0.211 0.142 0.353
3.360 0.097 0.116 0.060 0.091 0.818 0.128 0.086 0.214
4.471 0.044 0.052 0.027 0.041 0.369 0.058 0.038 0.096
NACA 64A-410
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-0.1
-0.2
Figure 1 Spar Location on Wing Root

Multispar (2 cell)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 2 Wingbox structure on wing root approximation with haverage = 0.243 m
Table 5 Wingbox dimensions by approximation of a box

𝒙 (𝒎) 𝒉𝟏 (𝒎) 𝒉𝟐 (𝒎) 𝒉𝟑 (𝒎) 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 (𝒎) 𝒘 (𝒎) 𝑨𝟏 (𝒎𝟐) 𝑨𝟐 (𝒎𝟐) 𝑨𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 (𝒎𝟐)
1.218 0.188 0.188 0.188 0.188 1.683 0.226 0.183 0.409
2.050 0.151 0.151 0.151 0.151 1.347 0.180 0.146 0.327
3.360 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.818 0.109 0.089 0.199
4.471 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.369 0.049 0.040 0.089
• There are 36 stringers in each wing box (𝑛𝑠𝑡 = 36).

• The average distance between the ribs is 0.108 m.
• The exposed semi wingspan value is 4.185 m.
Based on the data and equations that have been described previously, the effective load and initial
dimensions of the skin are obtained as follows:
Table 6 Effective Load and Initial Dimensions of the Skin

𝒙 (𝒎) 𝑷 (𝑵) 𝝈𝒃 (𝒌𝑷𝒂) 𝒕𝒆 (𝒎𝒎) 𝒕𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒏 (𝒎𝒎)
1.218 2105926.335 324.635 3.853 2.504
2.050 1637028.047 319.938 3.798 2.468
3.360 937813.460 310.765 3.689 2.397
4.471 379598.755 294.29 3.493 2.271
Next, we can calculate the dimensions of the stringer. Howe in his book, Aircraft Loading and
Structural Layout, states that the stringer pitch is often between 1.5 and 5 times the stringer height.
However, for initial work we can assume a value of 3.5. In the case of separate Zed-section
stringers the width of the shorter flanges is often about 40% of each stringer height, giving a total
cross-section area of (1.8hsts) where hs and ts are the stringer height and thickness. The assumption
that the total stringer area is 35% of the cover effective leads to:
0.35𝑡𝑒 × 3.5ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 = 1.8ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟
So that approximately:
𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 = 0.68𝑡𝑒
The width to thickness ratio of the free flange is typically about 16 to match the local and overall
buckling. Thus,
0.4ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 = 16𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟
ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 = 40𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟
Once the stringer’s heigh and thickness are set, we can find the cross-section area of the stringer
by:
2
𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 = 1.8ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 = 72𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟
Furthermore, the flange width can be approximated by 0.4 stringer height, or can be written as:
𝑤𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 = 0.4ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟
Using the above equations, the dimensions of the stringer can be determined as follows:
Table 7 Stringer Dimensions

𝒙 (𝒎) 𝒕𝒆 (mm) 𝒕𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (𝐦𝐦) 𝒉𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (𝐦𝐦) 𝒘𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (𝐦𝐦) 𝑨𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (𝐦𝐦𝟐 )
1.218 3.853 2.620 104.823 41.929 494.456
2.050 3.798 2.582 103.306 41.322 480.251
3.360 3.689 2.508 100.344 40.137 453.106
4.471 3.493 2.375 95.024 38.009 406.337
The stringer shape based on table 7 can be illustrated by the figure below:
Stringer Shape (in mm)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 3 Stringer cross-sectional geometry on wing root
Based on the figure above, it is seen that the height and the width of the stringer is very large. So,
we will check the stringer area and compare it with the effective skin area. This calculation is
carried out in the wing root area because that area receives the greatest load.
The calculation for correcting the stringer dimension, we will be using the following formula:
The stringer area below is the total stringer area. For the initial sizing, we have 18 stringers. So,
the area of each stringer at x = 1.218 m.
𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 0.35 × 𝐴𝑒 0.35 × 3.853798 × 1683.287
𝐴1𝑠𝑡𝑟 = = = = 126.137 𝑚𝑚2
18 18 18
By using 18 stringers, the distance between each stringer will be:
1683.287
𝑤= = 93.515 𝑚𝑚
18
The stringer dimension after being corrected is as follows:
Table 8 Stringer Dimension Correction

𝒙 (𝒎) 𝒕𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒏 (𝒎𝒎) 𝒕𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (𝒎𝒎) 𝒉𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (𝒎𝒎) 𝒘𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (mm) 𝑨𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 (mm2)
1.218 2.504 2.621 26.740 10.696 126.137
2.05 2.468 2.582 21.715 8.686 100.952
3.36 2.397 2.508 13.574 5.429 61.297
4.471 2.270 2.375 6.470 2.588 27.667
Then the geometry of the stringer after being corrected is as follows:
Stringer Shape (in mm)

30
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4 Corrected Stringer Geometry
6.1.2. Spars
Spar is a primary structure that functions to withstand shear loads due to transverse and
torsional forces. There are two parts of spar which are spar web and spar flange. The
calculation for the thickness of spar web and spar flange can be seen below.
6.1.2.1. Spar Web
• Torsion moment
𝑇
𝑄𝑇 =
2𝐴
𝑇
𝑡𝑞 =
2𝐴𝜏𝑎𝑙𝑙
QT = shear flow in the covers and webs
A = enclosed area of box cross section
𝑡𝑞 = thickness
Since for NFT-22 Wing, we will be using 3 spar, so it will resulted for 2 cell shear flow calculation
as shown down below,
𝑞12 = 𝑞1 − 𝑞2
𝑇 = 2𝐴1 𝑞1 + 2𝐴2 𝑞2
1 𝑞 𝑑𝑠
𝜃1 = ∮
2𝐴1 𝐺 𝑡
1 𝑞 𝑑𝑠
𝜃2 = ∮
2𝐴2 𝐺 𝑡
𝜃1 = 𝜃2 = 𝜃
Based on the above equations, we will get the following result at x = 1.218 m:
𝑇 = 2𝐴1 𝑞1 + 2𝐴2 𝑞2
49843.7208 = 2(0.226048465)𝑞1 + 2(0.183551354)𝑞2
First,
𝜃1 = 𝜃2 = 𝜃
1 𝑞 𝑑𝑠 1 𝑞 𝑑𝑠
∮ = ∮
2𝐴1 𝐺 𝑡 2𝐴2 𝐺 𝑡
1 𝑞1 (2 × 0.928966 + 0.188295265) + (𝑞1 − 𝑞2 ) × 0.188295265
2(0.226048465)𝐺 0.002504969
1 (𝑞2 ) × (2 × 0.754321 + 0.188295265) + (𝑞2 − 𝑞1 ) × 0.188295265
=
2(0.183551354)𝐺 0.002504969
𝑞2 = 0.982631 𝑞1
𝑇 = 2𝐴1 𝑞1 + 2𝐴2 𝑞2
49843.7208 = 2(0.226048465)𝑞1 + 2(0.183551354)𝑞2
49843.7208 = 2(0.174919954)( 𝑞1) + 2(0.183551354)( 0.982631 𝑞1 )
49843.7208 = 0.710566409064748 𝑞1
𝑞1 = 70146.463 𝑁/𝑚
𝑞2 = 68928.089 𝑁/𝑚
For the thickness, because for Spar we are using Al2024-T3, the allowable shear stress of the
material is, 𝜏𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 283 𝑀𝑃𝑎.
𝑇
𝑡𝑞 =
2𝐴𝜏𝑎𝑙𝑙
49843.7208
𝑡𝑞1 =
2(0.226048465)(283)
𝑡𝑞1 = 0.389 𝑚𝑚
49843.7208
𝑡𝑞2 =
2(0.183551354)(283)
𝑡𝑞2 = 0.479 𝑚𝑚
• Shear Loads
𝑉
𝑞𝑉 =
ℎ
Where:
𝑞𝑣 = shear flow due to shear load
𝑡𝑤 = web thickness
𝜏𝑎𝑙𝑙 = allowable shear stress
o Distributed to Front, Mid and Rear Spar:

𝑉 ℎ12
𝑞𝐹𝑉 =
ℎ (ℎ12 + ℎ22 + ℎ32 )
0.1882952652
𝑞𝐹𝑉 = 1087455.005
(0.1882952652 + 0.1882952652 + 0.1882952652 )
𝑞𝐹𝑉 = 362485.002 𝑁/𝑚
𝑉 ℎ22
𝑞𝑀𝑉 =
ℎ (ℎ12 + ℎ22 + ℎ32 )
0.1882952652
𝑞𝑀𝑉 = 1087455.005
(0.1882952652 + 0.1882952652 + 0.1882952652 )
𝑞𝑀𝑉 = 362485.002 𝑁/𝑚
𝑉 ℎ32
𝑞𝑅𝑉 =
ℎ (ℎ12 + ℎ22 + ℎ32 )
0.1882952652
𝑞𝑅𝑉 = 1087455.005
(0.1882952652 + 0.1882952652 + 0.1882952652 )
𝑞𝑅𝑉 = 362485.002 𝑁/𝑚
o Net shear flow due to torsion and shear load:

𝑞𝑤 = 𝑞𝑣 + 𝑞𝑇
𝑞𝑤𝐹 = 𝑞𝐹𝑉 + 𝑞1
𝑞𝑤𝐹 = 362485.0016 + 70146.46367
𝑞𝑤 𝐹 = 432631.465 𝑁/𝑚
𝑞𝑤𝑀 = 𝑞𝑀𝑉 + 𝑞12

𝑞𝑤𝑀 = 362485.0016 + 1218.37397
𝑞𝑤𝑀 = 363703.375 𝑁/𝑚
𝑞𝑤𝑅 = 𝑞𝑅𝑉 + 𝑞2
𝑞𝑤𝑅 = 362485.0016 + 68928.0897
𝑞𝑤𝑅 = 431413.091 𝑁/𝑚
𝑞𝑤𝐹 432631.4652
𝑡𝑤,𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 = =
𝜏𝑎𝑙𝑙 283
𝑡𝑤,𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 = 1.528 𝑚𝑚
𝑞𝑤𝑀 363703.3755
𝑡𝑤,𝑚𝑖𝑑 = =
𝑡𝑤,𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 1.285 𝑚𝑚
𝑞𝑤𝑅 431413.0913
𝑡𝑤,𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 = =
𝑡𝑤,𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 1.524 𝑚𝑚
Because 𝑡𝑤 > 𝑡𝑞 , it means that the spar can withstand the load that it will experience.
6.1.2.2. Spar Flange

• Thickness
Figure 5 Spar Flange Design
𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒,𝑤 = 2𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒,𝑤 = 5.009 𝑚𝑚
𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒,ℎ = 2𝑡𝑤
For the front spar,
𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒,ℎ = 2𝑡𝑤,𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 = 3.329 𝑚𝑚
For the mid spar,
𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒,ℎ = 2𝑡𝑤,𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 3.966 𝑚𝑚
For the rear spar,
𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒,ℎ = 2𝑡𝑤,𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 1.559 𝑚𝑚
Using the above equations, the following results are obtained at 4 points only:
Table 9 Spar Thickness Data

𝒙 (𝒎) 1.218 2.050 3.360 4.471
𝑨𝟏 (𝒎𝟐 ) 0.226 0.181 0.109 0.049
𝑨𝟐 (𝒎𝟐 ) 0.183 0.146 0.089 0.040
𝒒𝑻𝟏 (𝑵/𝒎) 70146.463 50867.456 34226.806 20102.95
𝒒𝑻𝟏𝟐 (𝑵/𝒎) 1218.373 883.498 594.473 349.161
𝒒𝑻𝟐 (𝑵/𝒎) 68928.089 49983.957 33632.333 19753.79
𝒕𝒒𝟏 (𝒎𝒎) 0.389 0.323 0.217 0.127
𝒕𝒒𝟐 (𝒎𝒎) 0.479 0.397 0.267 0.157
V (N) 204762.6 139614.8 87816.96 30128.14
𝒒𝑭𝑽 (𝑵/𝒎) 362485.001 308815.138 319901.472 243158.3
𝒒𝑴𝑽 (𝑵/𝒎) 362485.001 308815.138 319901.472 243158.3
𝒒𝑹𝑽 (𝑵/𝒎) 362485.001 308815.138 319901.472 243158.3
𝑸𝒘𝑭 (𝑵/𝒎) 432631.465 359682.594 354128.279 263261.2
𝑸𝒘𝑴 (𝑵/𝒎) 363703.375 309698.636 320495.946 243507.4
𝑸𝒘𝑹 (𝑵/𝒎) 431413.091 358799.095 353533.806 262912
𝒕𝒘𝑭 (𝒎𝒎) 1.528 1.270 1.251 0.930
𝒕𝒘𝑴 (𝒎𝒎) 1.285 1.094 1.132 0.860
𝒕𝒘𝑹 (𝒎𝒎) 1.524 1.267 1.249 0.929
𝒕𝒇𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝑭 (𝒎𝒎) 3.057 2.542 2.502 1.860
𝒕𝒇𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝑴 (𝒎𝒎) 2.570 2.188 2.264 1.720
𝒕𝒇𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝑹 (𝒎𝒎) 3.048 2.535 2.498 1.858
6.1.3. Typical Ribs

Ribs are structures that are used to withstand shear loads and form the wing profile. The load
received by the ribs is in the form of shear force and tension from the skin (crushing load). Based
on the journal Wing Rib Stress Analysis and Design Optimization written by Ramin Sedaghati,
the ribs thickness for initial sizing can be calculated by this following equation:
3 12(1 − 𝑣 2 ) ℎ2 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑠 = √ ×
𝜂𝑠 𝜋 2 𝐸 𝐶
Where:
v = Poisson ratio
𝜂𝑠 = plasticity coefficient
E = elastic modulus
h = ribs height
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Maximum shear flow
C = shear buckling coefficient
The shear buckling coefficient can be approximated by observing the figure below.
Figure 6 Theoretical buckling curves for rectangular flat panel in pure shear
The values of maximum shear flow can be calculated as follows:

𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑄
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝐼
where
1 1
𝑄 = 𝑦 ′𝐴′ = ( ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 ) ( ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 𝑐)
4 2
And
1 1
𝐼= 𝑏ℎ3 = 𝑐ℎ3
12 12 𝑤𝑒𝑏
So that the maximum shear flow equation becomes
1 1
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 (4 ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 ) (2 ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 𝑐) 3𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = =
1 3 2ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏
𝑐ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏
12
2
By assuming ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 = 3 ℎ,
9𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
4ℎ
Next, it is assumed that the material is perfectly elastic so that 𝜂𝑠 = 1. Based on report 1, the
material used for ribs is Al 7075-T6. The material mechanical properties of Al 7075-T6 is taken
from ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc.
Figure 77 Material Properties of Al 7075-T6
By using the equations that have been described previously, the calculation of the thickness of the
ribs is obtained as follows:
Table 10 Ribs Thickness Calculation
𝒙 (𝒎) 1.218 2.05 3.36 4.471
𝑽𝒎𝒂𝒙 (𝑵) 204762.6 139614.8 87816.96 30128.14
𝒉 (𝒎) 0.188 0.150 0.092 0.041
𝒒𝒎𝒂𝒙 (𝑵/𝒎) 2446773.76 2084502.183 2159334.941 1641318.225
𝒗 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
𝜼𝒔 1 1 1 1
𝑬 (𝑮𝑷𝒂) 71.7 71.7 71.7 71.7
𝒂/𝒃 8.939 8.939 8.939 8.939
𝑪 8.98 8.98 8.98 8.98
𝒕𝒘𝑴 (𝒎) 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.001
𝒕𝒘𝑹 (𝒎𝒎) 5.265 4.302 3.122 1.676
Based on the calculations that have been carried out in sub-chapter 6.1.1., 6.1.2., and 6.1.3., it can
be concluded that the greatest stress occurs at the connection between the wing and the fuselage
(wing root), so the size of the skin, stringer, ribs, and spar components is the largest at that location
in order to withstand the load without failing. Based on the reasons explained above, the initial
sizing will follow the size of the components (skin, stringer, spars, ribs) on the wing root. The
dimensions of the wing structure on initial sizing are as follows:
Table 11 Wing Dimensions from Initial Sizing at x = 1.218 m

Components Initial Sizing
Skin
Effective Thickness (mm) 3.853
Skin Thickness (mm) 2.504
Stringer
Number of stringers 36
Stringer thickness (mm) 2.620
Stringer height (mm) 26.740
Stringer width (mm) 10.696
Stringer area (mm2) 126.137
Stringer Spacing (mm) 93.515
Spar
Front Spar Web Thickness (mm) 1.528
Front Spar Flange Thickness (mm) 3.057
Mid Spar Web Thickness (mm) 1.285
Mid Spar Flange Thickness (mm) 2.570
Rear Spar Web Thickness (mm) 1.524
Rear Spar Flange Thickness (mm) 3.048
Ribs
Ribs Thickness (mm) 5.265
Number of ribs 21
Ribs spacing (mm) 108.765
6.2. Fuselage Structure Initial Sizing
To start identifying the sizing for the different parts of the fuselage we need to identify
the maximum moment and shear that acts on the fuselage when n = +8 and n = -3, and from
previous calculations we can get the following.
Table 12 Data of Maximum Moment and Maximum Shear
Max Max Max

Max Shear
Moment Shear Moment
-
Light 206.322422 169.7468 279.594033
745.584090
Attack 6 3 9
3
-
Light n=+8 237.495778 n=-3 284.855055
759.613480 158.0374
Patrol 8 1
3
-
237.495778 169.7468 284.855055
MAX 759.613480
8 3 1
3
6.2.1. Skin
For the skin we decide to separate it into three parts which are the nose, center, and tail of
the fuselage. So, the size of the skin for each part will be different to maximize the lightweight
structure of the aircraft. We calculated the skin thickness by identifying the number of longeron
at each part of the fuselage. For the nose the number of longeron in 22, for the center of the
fuselage is 33 and for the tail the number of longeron is 24. Then from our calculations we can
get the value of skin thickness as follows.
Table 13 Data for Skin Thickness
Nose Centre Tail

Tora Tora Al-7075- Tora
Al-7075-T6 Al-7075-T6
y y T6 y
Skin Thickness
1.6 2.1 1.1 1.5 0.2 0.3 (old) 0.6 (new)
(mm)
From the data above we can see that for the tail part of the fuselage there are two values
of skin thickness for the material Al-7075-T6. This is because when we use the previous
thickness which is the 0.3 mm during stress checking the result for margin of safety failed, so we
decide to recalculate the skin thickness for the tail part of the fuselage, and we can find the new
skin thickness that will pass the margin of safety during stress checking which is 0.6 mm.
To calculate the skin thickness for the fuselage we need to calculate the te (SF: 1.5) and
the 𝑓𝑏 . To calculate 𝑓𝑏 we can see the following formula below.
𝑀𝑎𝑥. 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑓𝑏 = 𝐴̅ × 𝐹𝑏 × √
𝐹𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 𝐿
𝐴̅: Material function
Fb: Buckling efficiency factor
L: Frame spacing
In this case we use the material Al-7075-T6 so the 𝐴̅ = 138, 𝐹𝑏 = 1.02, and 𝐿 = 0.4 so
we can calculate the 𝑓𝑏 and obtain a value of 112324.484 Pa.
After obtaining the value of 𝑓𝑏 we can now calculate the value of te (SF: 1.5) by using the
formula below.
𝑀𝑎𝑥. 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑡𝑒 (𝑆𝐹: 1.5) =
𝑓𝑏 × 𝐹𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
From the calculation above we can obtain the value of te (SF: 1.5) to be 2.267649388.
Then to get the skin thickness value we use the roundup function in excel to get the final
measurement of the skin thickness for the center of the fuselage. For the calculation of the other
two parts of the fuselage is like the ones above.
6.2.2. Frame and Bulkhead

To obtain the thickness value of frame and buckling we can use the skin thickness data
which we already obtained from the previous data. To get the frame thickness we use the
assumption that the thickness of frame is twice of that the skin thickness and for bulkhead we
assume that the thickness is triple the thickness of the frame. Hence, we can obtain the value of
frame and bulkhead thickness as follows.
Table 14 Data for Frame and Bulkhead Thickness
Al-7075-
Material Toray
T6
t_frame 3.2 4.2
Nose
t_bulkhead 9.6 12.6
t_frame 2.2 3.0
Centre
t_bulkhead 6.6 9
t_frame 0.4 1.2
Tail
t_bulkhead 1.2 3.6
6.2.3. Stringers and Longeron
To get the size of the stringers we can calculate it by dividing the calculation into
stringer’s thickness, length of longeron, height of longeron, and longeron length.
To calculate the stringer’s thickness, we must find the total and each area of the longeron
and 𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓(𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛) and to do that can be seen as follows.
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓(𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛) = 0.35 × 𝑡𝑒(𝑆𝐹: 1.5)
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛 = 𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓(𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛) × 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟(𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒/𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒/𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙)
To calculate the area of each longeron we can use the function in excel. So, we roundup
the result of total area of longeron divided by the number of longeron (may be different for
different parts of the fuselage). But we need to calculate the longeron length by calculating the
length of longeron and height of longeron which can be as follows:
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛 = 16 × 𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛 = 40 × 𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
𝐿𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛 + 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛
After we can obtain the longeron length then we can use the excel function by rounding
up the result of each area of longeron divided by longeron length. The calculations above are
used for the three parts of the fuselage. Hence, we can get the stringer data of the three parts of
the fuselage as follows:
Table 15 Data of the Stringers Thickness
Stringers (Z Type)
t stringers, minimum 2.4 2.5
2 l' (x length of longeron) 25.6 33.6
Nose
h (height of longeron) 64 84
Longeron length 89.6 117.6
t stringers, minimum 2 1.9
2 l' (x length of longeron) 17.6 24
Centre
Longeron length 61.6 84
t stringers, minimum 1.1 1
2 l' (x length of longeron) 3.2 4.8
Tail
Longeron length 11.2 16.8
From the data above we can create the shape of the stringers for the nose, center, and tail
of the fuselage in excel which can be seen below.
Toray
40
30
20
10
0
-65 -45 -25 -5 15 35 55
-10
-20
-30
-40
Figure 8 8 Stringer shape for Toray at Nose
Al-7075
50
40
30
20
10
0
-85 -65 -45 -25 -5 15 35 55 75
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Figure 9 9 Stringer shape for Al-7075-T6 at Nose

Toray
25
20
15
10
5
0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Figure 1010 Stringer shape for Toray at Centre
Al-7075
58
38
18
-2
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
-22
-42
-62
Figure 11 11 Stringer shape for Al-7075-T6 at Centre

Toray
10
8
6
4
2
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Figure 1212 Stringer shape for Toray at Tail
Al-7075
8
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-2
-4
-6
-8
Figure 13 13 Stringer shape for Al-7075-T6 at Tail

6.3. Tail Structure Initial Sizing
The initial sizing to be carried out in the empennage structure is the tail because this
location is a hardpoint on the empennage. The tail box is formed from a front spar and a rear spar
which are then connected. For the position of the front spar and rear spar based on the Lightweight
Structure Design Report 1, the NFT-22 aircraft is positioned at 40% chord measured from the
leading edge of the empennage and 72% chord measured from the leading edge of the empennage.
Based on the configuration that has been done using empennage geometry data, the cross-sectional
shape shown in the following figure is obtained.
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
-0.05
-0.1 Airfoil Front Spar Rear Spar
Figure 1414 HTP Tail Box Configuration
Then, based on the internal force diagram data in Report 1, the shear force, bending
moment, and torsion values for the root section have been obtained. Then for the loading
conditions used, namely the load factor of 8. For the maximum value of each loading multiplied
by a value of 1.5 as a safety factor. The values for shear force, bending moment, and torsion are
shown in the following table.
Table 16 Ultimate Loading on HTP
Load (N=8) Root (X=0m) Mid (X=1.22m) Tip (X=2.44m)

𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 75975.07611 29889.14 1200.764
𝑀𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 53656.15827 17610.34 117.1946
𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 6018.728862 1959.307 46.48284
6.3.1. Skin and Stringer

To find out the initial sizing of the skin and stringers, the first step that must be taken is to
find the average height (h) and width of the tail box (w) with the explanation shown in the
following figure.
Figure 15 15 HTP Geometry Configuration
Based on the tail box that has been selected, the following information is obtained.
HTP
Table 16 Size of HTP Wing Taol Box
Root (X=0m) Mid (X=1.22m) Tip (X=2.44m)

ℎ1 0.14572071 0.089939 0.052728
ℎ2 0.085516956 0.052787 0.030944
ℎ̅ 0.115618833 0.07136303 0.041835762
𝑤 0.4864 0.300206 0.176
The next step is to find the effective load and allowable stress that occurs in the root section
which can be obtained using the following equation.
𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑃 0.5
𝑃= ̅ 𝜎𝑏 = 𝐴̅𝐹𝑏 (𝑤𝐿)
ℎ
with
𝑃 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
ℎ̅ = ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝐴̅ = 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑏 = 𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑤 = 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑏𝑜𝑥 𝑒𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ
𝐿 = 𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔
Based on Report 1, the configuration of the skin-stringer used is build-up zed stringer. The
materials used in the HTP are Al 7075 T6 for the upper and Al 2024 T3 for the lower which
materials are included in the aluminum alloy so that the construction/material used is conventional
light alloy zed or integral blade stringer. So that the Fb and A values used are 0.96 and 138. The
ribs distance used for HTP is 0.21378 m.
For effective thickness
𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑡𝑒,𝐻𝑇𝑃 = ̅
ℎ𝑤𝜎𝑏
For skin thickness
𝑡𝑠𝑘 = 0.65𝑡𝑒,𝐻𝑇𝑃
The skin thickness value that has been obtained is used to find the thickness of the stringer by
reviewing the type of stringer, the number of stringers, the width of the tail box, and the cross-
sectional area ratio of the skin and the stringers used. The area of each stringer is obtained using
the following equation.
1 𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝐴′𝑠𝑡 = ( ) (𝑡 × 2𝑤)
𝑁 𝐴𝑠𝑘
The number of stringers used is 10 pieces with details of each upper and lower skin as many as 5
pieces. Then the comparison of the area of the skin and stringer used is Ask = 2Ast.
Based on the book Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout by Denis Howe, if the stringer
configuration used is zed stringer, there is a rule where the width is 40% of the height of the stringer,
𝑤𝑠 = 0.4ℎ𝑠 so that the resulting total cross-sectional area is 1.8ℎ𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑠𝑡 . Then for the assumption
that the total stringer area is 35% of the effective cover area. The cross-sectional area of the stringer
based on the above geometry is
1.8ℎ𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑠𝑡 = 0.35𝑡𝑒 × 3.5ℎ𝑠
𝑡𝑠𝑡 = 0.68𝑡𝑒
𝐴′𝑠𝑡 = (ℎ𝑠 + 2𝑤𝑠 )𝑡𝑠𝑘 = 1.8ℎ𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑠𝑡
𝑤𝑠𝑡 = 0.4ℎ𝑠 = 0.4 × 31.863
The results of the calculations are below

Table 17 HTP Skin and Stringer Initial Sizing
Parameter Root (X=0m) Mid (X=1.22m) Tip (X=2.44m) Dimension

P 696117.0177 246771.1 2801.302 Pa
te 4.175183886 1.883973 0.027931 mm
tsk 2.713869526 1.224583 0.018155 mm
A'st 88.00174249 24.50848 0.213024 mm2
hst 17.22004357 10.62821 6.230937 mm
tst 2.839125042 1.281102 0.018993 mm
wst 6.888017429 4.251284 2.492375 mm
6.3.2. Spars
The web spars will be subjected to both shear and torque loads. These two loads produce
shear flow on the spar web. The value of shear flow due to shear stress can be obtained using the
following equation.
𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑄𝑉 =
ℎ𝑡
With ht being the effective depth of the spar, namely the sum of h1 and h3 and Vult being
the ultimate shear stress received by the front and rear spar. The value of V on the front and rear
spar can be obtained using the following equation.
ℎ12
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 → 𝑉𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 = 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 2
ℎ1 + ℎ32
ℎ32
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑟 → 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒
ℎ12 + ℎ32
Then, the shear flow value due to torque can be obtained using the following equation
𝑇 𝑇
𝑄𝑇 = =
2𝐴 2𝑤ℎ̅
After getting the shear flow value due to shear stress and torque, the next step is to find the
shear flow value due to shear net. This value can be obtained by using the following equation.
2𝑥𝑄𝑇
𝑄𝑤 = 𝑄𝑉 +
𝑤
The next step after obtaining the Qw value is to find the thickness of the web spar. The
thickness of the spar web can be obtained using the following equation.
𝑄𝑤
𝑡𝑤 =
𝜎𝑠
Table 18 HTP Spar Initial Sizing

𝑄𝑉,𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 488781.0645 N/m
207680 14232.81
𝑄𝑉,𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 168335.7215 71541.52 4901.766 N/m
𝑄𝑇 53512.17889 30485.15 2104.317 N/m
𝜎𝑠 331 Mpa
𝑄𝑤,𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 542293.2434 238165.2 16337.13 N/m
𝑄𝑤,𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟
221847.9004 102026.7 7006.082 N/m
𝑡𝑤,𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 1.638348167 0.719532 0.049357 mm
𝑡𝑤,𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 0.670235349 0.308238 0.021166 mm
6.3.3. Typical Ribs
The thickness of the ribs can be calculated using the following equation.
2
3 12(1 − 𝑣 2 ) ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑠 = √ 2 ( )
𝜂𝑠 𝜋 𝐸 𝐶
With
𝑣 = 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (0.33 for Al 7075 T6)
𝜂𝑠 = 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 1)
𝐸 = 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (71.7 GPa for Al 7075 T6)
2
ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 = 𝑤𝑒𝑏 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (assumed ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 = 3 ℎ̅)
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤

𝐶 = 𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
Maximum shear flow obtained by
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑄
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝐼
For the value of Q and I can be obtained by the following calculation.
1 1 1 1 3
𝑄 = 𝑦 ′𝐴′ = ( ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 ) ( ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 𝑐) , 𝐼= 𝑏ℎ3 = 𝑐ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏
4 2 12 12
1 1
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 (4 ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 ) (2 ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 𝑐) 3𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 9𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = =
1
𝑐ℎ 3 2ℎ𝑤𝑒𝑏 4ℎ̅
12 𝑤𝑒𝑏
The value of the shear buckling coefficient (C) can be determined using the following
figure.
Figure 1716 Value of shear buckling coefficient to geometry

The way to determine the value of the shear buckling coefficient is to find the ratio of the
width and height of the ribs, namely the comparison of the w and h values. Then the next step is
to determine the configuration of the ribs used. In the picture above there are 2 types of buckling,
namely all sides clamped and all sides simply-supported. The conditions used in the ribs
configuration on the NFT-22 aircraft are all sides clamped so that the shear buckling coefficient
used is 8.98. The following is the data obtained from calculations using the equation above.
Table 19 HTP Ribs Initial Sizing

h_avg 0.115618833 0.071363 0.04183576 mm
h_web 0.077079222 0.047575 0.02789051 mm
q_max 1478512.768 942372.7 64579.1914 N/m
t ribs 2.454166703 1.531087 0.43887344 mm
CHAPTER 7
STRESS CHECKING
7.1. Wing Stress Checking

In this sub-chapter, structural checks will be carried out so that the structure of the wing does
not fail due to material failure and buckling failure. Then iteration will be carried out to get
the most optimal weight of the wing structure. The load used in stress checking is the biggest
load, from the wing root. The loading data to be used are as follows:
• 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑡 = −204762.628 𝑁
• 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = −396536 𝑁𝑚
• 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 49843.72 𝑁𝑚
The reference direction used is positive shear force upward and positive moment
counterclockwise. Positive normal stress indicates tension load and negative normal stress
indicates compression load.
7.1.1. Material Failure

The process of examining the failure of the structure begins with the idealization of the
structure to make the stress analysis easier. The idealization is done by distributing the cross-
sectional area of the skin to the nearest stringer or spar cap. The area of the idealized result
can be expressed as follows:
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑖𝑑 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 + 𝑠𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
1 1
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟,𝑖𝑑 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 + 𝑠𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 + ℎ𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟 𝑡𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟 + 𝐴𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
2 2
Where 𝑠𝑠𝑡 is the stringer spacing, t is skin thickness, and h is the spar height. By doing
idealization, we will get the following stringer on wingbox structure as shown below:
STRINGER ON WINGBOX
0.3
0.25
0.2
z (m)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
y (m)
Figure 1717 36 Stringer Location Illustration on Wingbox at Wing Root

Bending Stress
Wingbox can experience bending moment caused by the forces acting on the wing. The bending
moment results in the emergence of normal stresses in the stringer. The normal stress equation that
occurs in the stringer (flexural load) due to bending moment is as follows:
𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝑀𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑦 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝑀𝑧
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 2
𝑦+ 2
𝑧
𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧
By assuming that the normal force only acts on the y-axis and neglecting the drag force so that
there is no moment on the z-axis (𝑀𝑧=0), the equation above can be simplified to:
𝑀𝑦
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦
𝐼𝑦𝑦
By using the above equation, the normal stresses on each stringer and spar cap are obtained as
follows:
Table 20 First Iteration of Normal Stresses
𝝈𝒙𝒙 (𝑴𝑷𝒂)
Location x (m)
y = 1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y = 4.471
Front spar 0.515 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
1 0.623 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
2 0.732 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
3 0.841 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
4 0.950 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
5 1.058 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
6 1.167 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
7 1.276 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
8 1.385 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
9 1.493 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
Mid spar 1.602 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
10 1.711 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
11 1.820 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
12 1.928 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
13 2.037 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
14 2.146 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
15 2.255 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
16 2.364 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
17 2.472 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
18 2.581 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
Rear spar 2.690 574.074 663.939 95.323 108.742
Flexural Shear Stress

Besides receiving bending moment, wingbox will also receive shear loads caused by the loads
acting on the wing. The shear force will produce flexural shear flow in the skin and spar. The
analysis in this section will be carried out using the close section method to calculate the flexural
shear flow in the wingbox. The close section method uses the superposition principle of the open
section method plus a constant shear flow value along the skin. Open section cuts are made on the
front spar and it is assumed that the shear flow rotates clockwise. The equations used to calculate
the shear flow are as follows:
𝑞 = 𝑞′ + 𝑞0
𝑉𝑍 𝑧𝑖 𝐴𝑖
𝑞𝑖′ = −
𝐼𝑦𝑦
′ ′ 𝑉𝑧 𝑧𝑖 𝐴𝑖
𝑞𝑖+1 = 𝑞𝑖−1 −
𝐼𝑦𝑦
𝑉𝑧 𝑑 = 2𝐴𝑞0 + ∑ 𝑞′ 𝑠𝑙
𝑉𝑧 𝑑 − ∑ 𝑞′ 𝑠𝑙
𝑞0 =
2𝐴
𝑞
𝜏=
𝑡
Where:
′
𝑞𝑖+1 is the shear flow from stringer i to stringer i+1
′
𝑞𝑖−1 is the shear flow from stringer i-1 to stringer i
𝑉𝑧 is the ultimate shear force
𝐴𝑖 is the stringer / spar cap area
𝐴 is the wingbox area
𝑑 is the range between shear force to the reference
𝑙 is the range between stringer spacing to the reference
𝑡 is the spar or stringer thickness
Based on the equations above, we can get the value of flexural shear stress that acts on the skin
and spar web.
Table 21 First Iteration of Flexural Shear Stress on the Wing
𝝉 (𝑴𝑷𝒂)
Location x (m)
y = 1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y = 4.471
Front spar 0.515 151.622 145.143 147.885 139.550
1 0.623 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
2 0.732 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
3 0.841 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
4 0.950 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
5 1.058 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
6 1.167 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
7 1.276 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
8 1.385 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
9 1.493 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
Mid spar 1.602 163.735 146.565 140.862 109.079
10 1.711 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
11 1.820 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
12 1.928 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
13 2.037 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
14 2.146 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
15 2.255 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
16 2.364 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
17 2.472 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
18 2.581 106.042 91.267 97.417 78.454
Rear spar 2.690 152.165 145.606 148.221 139.805
Previously it was assumed that the shear flow rotates clockwise. The positive sign on the shear
flow indicates the clockwise rotation, while the negative sign indicates the counter-clockwise
rotation.
Margin of Safety
Using the principal stress above, the margin of safety can be obtained. The failure criterion used
is the von-Mises criterion. The von-Mises equation is as follows:
(𝜎1 − 𝜎2 )2 + 𝜎12 + 𝜎22
𝜎𝑉 = √ = √𝜎 2 + 3𝜏 2
2
𝜎𝑌
𝑀. 𝑆. = −1
𝜎𝑉
The material used for the upper wing is Al 7075-T6 with a yield stress of 503 MPa, while the
material used for the lower wing is Al 2024-T3 with a yield stress of 345 MPa. Based on these
data, the margin of safety for material failure is obtained as follows:
Table 22 First Iteration Margin of Safety on Wingbox

Von Von
Von Mises M.S. Von Mises
Mises M.S. (%) M.S. (%) Mises M.S. (%)
Location X (MPa) (%) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
y=1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y= 4.471
Front
spar 0.515 631.291 -20.322 709.939 -29.149 273.306 84.043 265.043 89.781
upper
1 0.623 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
2 0.732 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
3 0.841 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
4 0.950 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
5 1.058 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
6 1.167 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
7 1.276 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
8 1.385 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
9 1.493 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
Mid spar 1.602 640.303 -21.443 710.816 -29.236 261.940 92.029 217.990 130.745
10 1.711 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
11 1.820 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
12 1.928 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
13 2.037 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
14 2.146 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
15 2.255 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
16 2.364 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
17 2.472 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
18 2.581 603.666 -16.676 682.498 -26.300 193.796 159.552 174.040 189.015
Rear
spar 2.690 631.683 -20.371 710.224 -29.177 273.852 83.676 265.445 89.493
upper
Front
spar 0.515 631.291 -45.350 709.939 -51.404 273.306 26.232 265.043 30.168
lower
1 0.623 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
2 0.732 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
3 0.841 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
4 0.950 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
5 1.058 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
6 1.167 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
7 1.276 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
8 1.385 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
9 1.493 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
Mid spar 1.602 640.303 -46.119 710.816 -51.464 261.940 31.710 217.990 58.264
10 1.711 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
11 1.820 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
12 1.928 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
13 2.037 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
14 2.146 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
15 2.255 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
16 2.364 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
17 2.472 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
18 2.581 603.666 -42.849 682.498 -49.450 193.796 78.022 174.040 98.231
Rear
spar 2.690 631.683 -45.384 710.224 -51.424 273.852 25.980 265.445 29.971
lower
From the table above, it can be seen that the upper and lower wing structure is safe from failure
because the margin of safety yields negative value for section 1 and 2, but it yields positive value
for section 3 and 4. The value of the margin of safety is still too large for section 3 and 4. This will
result in the wing structure being too heavy. As for section 1 and 2, the structure is too light. Later,
we will try to balance the margin of safety value so that the wing structure is not too heavy, but
without compromising the safety aspect.
7.1.2. Buckling Failure

Compression Local Buckling Strength
The calculations in this section refer to ESDU 71014 entitled LOCAL BUCKLING OF
COMPRESSION PANELS WITH FLANGED STRINGERS. Based on this reference,
the compression local buckling strength calculation procedure is as follows.
𝑓𝑐 = 𝜂(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒
0.91 𝑡 2
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
Where:
b = stringer pitch
E = Young’s modulus of panel and stringer material
K = Elastic buckling stress coefficient
t = thickness of the skin
𝜂 = plasticity reduction factor
𝑣 = Poisson’s ratio for panel material
From the initial sizing, we have the value of stringer flange width, d = 10.696264 mm and the
depth of stringer, h = 26.74066 mm. So, the value of
𝑑 10.696264
= = 0.4
ℎ 26.74066
Based on the value above, we can use Figure 8 from ESDU 71014.
Figure18 ESDU 71014 FIGURE 8
ℎ 26.74066 𝑡𝑠 2.620583
Based on the figure above, for the value of = = 0.286 and = = 1.046, we get
𝑏 93.516 𝑡 2.504969
the value of K = 4.84.
The material used in the upper wing skin is Al 7075-T6. From the ASM Aerospace Specification
Metals Inc., we get the values v = 0.33 and E = 71.7 GPa. So that the calculation is obtained as
follows:
0.91 𝑡 2
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
0.91 9
2.504969 2
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = × 4.84 × (71.7 × 10 ) × ( ) × 10−6
1 − 0.332 93.516
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = 254.280 𝑀𝑃𝑎
From ESDU 76016, we get the value of 𝑓𝑛 = 416 𝑀𝑃𝑎 and m= 14.2.
Figure 19Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (fb)e/fn ratio
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 254.280
Based on the figure above, for = = 0.611 and m = 14.2, we get the value of 𝜂 = 1.
𝑓𝑛 416
Then, we can calculate the value of 𝑓𝑐 as follows:
𝑓𝑐 = 1 × 254.280 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑓𝑐 = 254.280 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Shear Buckling Strength
Meanwhile, for critical shear stress values that can reach shear buckling is calculated by the
following formula:
𝑞𝑏 = 𝜂(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒
0.91 𝑡 2
𝑞𝑏 = 𝜂(𝑞𝑏𝑒 ) = 𝜂 ( 𝐾𝐸) ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
Where:
b = width of plate
E = Young’s modulus of plate material
K = elastic buckling stress coefficient
𝑞𝑏 = shear stress at which plate buckles
𝑞𝑏𝑒 = elastic shear stress at which elastic plate would buckle
t = plate thickness
v = Poisson’s ratio of plate material
Figure20 Graph of K values against skin geometry (ESDU 71005)
From the figure above, b represents the stringer spacing and a represents the ribs spacing. So, we
can calculate the value of b/a as follows:
𝑏 93.516
= = 1.111
𝑎 84.164
The boundary condition used are simply support boundary conditions. Referring to the figure
above, we get the value of K = 8.3.
Based on the ASM Aerospace Specification Metal Inc., we get the values of E = 73.1 GPa for Al
2024-T3 and E = 71.7 GPa for Al 7075-T6 material. We also get the Poisson’s ratio, 𝑣=0.33 for
both materials. Next, we can calculate the values of elastic shear stress at which elastic plate would
buckle as follows:
0.91 𝑡 2
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
• Upper wing
0.91 9
2.505 2
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = × 8.3 × 71.7 × 10 × ( ) × 10−6
1 − 0.332 93.516
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 436.059 𝑀𝑃𝑎
• Lower wing
2
0.91 9 ×(
2.505 −6
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = × 8.3 × 73.1 × 10 ) × 10
1 − 0.332 93.516
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 444.573 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Figure 2121 Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (qb)e/fn ratio
The value of 𝑓𝑛 and m can be obtained from ESDU 76016. For the upper wing, 𝑓𝑛=416 MPa and
𝑚=14.2. For the lower wing, 𝑓𝑛=224 MPa and 𝑚=11.9. Next, we can obtain the value of 𝜂 by
taking a look at the figure above.
• Upper Wing
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 436.059
= = 1.048
𝑓𝑛 416
𝜂 = 0.57
• Lower Wing
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 444.573
= = 1.985
𝑓𝑛 224
𝜂 = 0.35
Next, we can calculate the value of shear stress at which plate buckles.
• Upper wing
𝑞𝑏 = 0.57 × 436.059 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑞𝑏 = 248.553 𝑀𝑃𝑎
• Lower wing
𝑞𝑏 = 0.35 × 444.573 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑞𝑏 = 155.601 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Margin of Safety
The margin of safety of compression local buckling strength can be obtained using the following
equation:
𝑓𝑐
𝑀. 𝑆. = −1
𝜎𝑥𝑥
Margin of safety of shear buckling strength can be calculated using the following equation:
𝑞𝑏
𝑀. 𝑆. = −1
𝜏
Using the equations above, we can calculate the margin of safety data as follows:
Table 23 Margin of Safety for Compression and Shear Buckling Strength First Iteration
𝒒𝒃𝒆 (MPa) M.O.S. shear
x (m) 𝝈𝒎𝒂𝒙 (𝑴𝑷𝒂) 𝒇𝒄 (𝑴𝑷𝒂) 𝐌. 𝐎. 𝐒 𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙 (𝑴𝑷𝒂) Upper Lower Upper Lower
skin skin Skin Skin
1.218 574.074 254.280 -0.557 163.735 248.553 177.829 0.518 0.086
2.05 663.939 362.440 -0.454 145.606 271.097 168.530 0.861 0.157
3.36 95.323 651.216 5.832 148.221 203.046 172.509 0.369 0.163
4.471 108.742 43.434 -0.601 139.805 372.416 379.687 1.663 1.715
Can be seen all over the stiffened panels on the wings, at x = 1.218 m, x = 2.05, and x = 4.471 are
potentially subjected to buckling in compression. The resulting M.O.S value also relatively small,
so it can be done iterations to increase the thickness of the airplane wings.
7.1.3. Iteration of Wing Structure

Subsequent iterations will be carried out to reduce the margin of safety that is too large, so that the
aircraft (especially the wing) is not too heavy. The working procedure in this section is the same
as the previous procedures, as described in 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. The results of the calculations are as
follows.
Second Iteration
The changes made to the wing components are as follows:
Table 24 The changes for second iteration data
Components Second Iteration (in mm)
Location y=1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y= 4.471
Stringer
Stringer spacing (mm) 84.164 67.360 40.901 18.461
Spar
Front spar web
8.700 7.494 1.000 0.930
thickness (mm)
Middle spar web
7.800 7.000 0.500 0.400
thickness (mm)
Rear spar web
8.313 7.826 0.800 0.700
thickness (mm)
Front spar flange
17.400 14.989 2.000 1.860
thickness (mm)
Middle spar flange
15.600 14.000 1.000 0.800
thickness (mm)
Rear spar flange
16.626 15.652 1.600 1.400
thickness (mm)
7.1.4. Material Failure Second Iteration

The process of examining the failure of the structure begins with the idealization of the
structure to make the stress analysis easier. The idealization is done by distributing the cross-
sectional area of the skin to the nearest stringer or spar cap. The area of the idealized result
can be expressed as follows:
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑖𝑑 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 + 𝑠𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
1 1
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟,𝑖𝑑 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 + 𝑠𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 + ℎ𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟 𝑡𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟 + 𝐴𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
2 2
Where 𝑠𝑠𝑡 is the stringer spacing, t is skin thickness, and h is the spar height. By doing
idealization, we will get the following stringer on wingbox structure as shown below:
STRINGER ON WINGBOX
0.3
0.25
0.2
z (m)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
y (m)
Figure22 36 Stringer Location Illustration on Wingbox at Wing Root

Bending Stress
Wingbox can experience bending moment caused by the forces acting on the wing. The bending
moment results in the emergence of normal stresses in the stringer. The normal stress equation that
occurs in the stringer (flexural load) due to bending moment is as follows:
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 2
𝑦+ 2
𝑧
𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧
By assuming that the normal force only acts on the y-axis and neglecting the drag force so that
there is no moment on the z-axis (𝑀𝑧=0), the equation above can be simplified to:
𝑀𝑦
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 𝑦
𝐼𝑦𝑦
By using the above equation, the normal stresses on each stringer and spar cap are obtained as
follows:
Table 25 Second Iteration of Normal Stresses
𝝈𝒙𝒙 (𝑴𝑷𝒂)
Location x (m)
y = 1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y = 4.471
Front spar 0.515 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
1 0.623 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
2 0.732 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
3 0.841 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
4 0.950 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
5 1.058 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
6 1.167 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
7 1.276 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
8 1.385 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
9 1.493 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
Mid spar 1.602 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
10 1.711 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
11 1.820 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
12 1.928 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
13 2.037 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
14 2.146 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
15 2.255 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
16 2.364 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
17 2.472 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
18 2.581 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
Rear spar 2.690 289.713 304.658 106.032 142.109
Flexural Shear Stress

Besides receiving bending moment, wingbox will also receive shear loads caused by the loads
acting on the wing. The shear force will produce flexural shear flow in the skin and spar. The
analysis in this section will be carried out using the close section method to calculate the flexural
shear flow in the wingbox. The close section method uses the superposition principle of the open
section method plus a constant shear flow value along the skin. Open section cuts are made on the
front spar and it is assumed that the shear flow rotates clockwise. The equations used to calculate
the shear flow are as follows:
𝑞 = 𝑞′ + 𝑞0
𝑉𝑍 𝑧𝑖 𝐴𝑖
𝑞𝑖′ = −
𝐼𝑦𝑦
′ ′ 𝑉𝑧 𝑧𝑖 𝐴𝑖
𝑞𝑖+1 = 𝑞𝑖−1 −
𝐼𝑦𝑦
𝑉𝑧 𝑑 = 2𝐴𝑞0 + ∑ 𝑞′ 𝑠𝑙
𝑞0 =
2𝐴
𝑞
𝜏=
𝑡
Where:
′
𝑞𝑖+1 is the shear flow from stringer i to stringer i+1
′
𝑞𝑖−1 is the shear flow from stringer i-1 to stringer i
𝑉𝑧 is the ultimate shear force
𝐴𝑖 is the stringer / spar cap area
𝐴 is the wingbox area
𝑑 is the range between shear force to the reference
𝑙 is the range between stringer spacing to the reference
𝑡 is the spar or stringer thickness
Based on the equations above, we can get the value of flexural shear stress that acts on the skin
and spar web.
Table 26 Second Iteration of Flexural Shear Stress on the Wing
𝝉 (𝑴𝑷𝒂)
Location x (m)
y = 1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y = 4.471
Front spar 0.515 12.282 11.263 194.397 163.367
1 0.623 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
2 0.732 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
3 0.841 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
4 0.950 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
5 1.058 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
6 1.167 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
7 1.276 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
8 1.385 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
9 1.493 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
Mid spar 1.602 14.856 11.863 380.307 375.116
10 1.711 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
11 1.820 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
12 1.928 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
13 2.037 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
14 2.146 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
15 2.255 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
16 2.364 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
17 2.472 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
18 2.581 108.153 93.467 99.175 79.582
Rear spar 2.690 14.135 9.648 255.878 227.593
Previously it was assumed that the shear flow rotates clockwise. The positive sign on the shear
flow indicates the clockwise rotation, while the negative sign indicates the counter-clockwise
rotation.
Margin of Safety
Using the principal stress above, the margin of safety can be obtained. The failure criterion used
is the von-Mises criterion. The von-Mises equation is as follows:
(𝜎1 − 𝜎2 )2 + 𝜎12 + 𝜎22
𝜎𝑉 = √ = √𝜎 2 + 3𝜏 2
2
𝜎𝑌
𝑀. 𝑆. = −1
𝜎𝑉
The material used for the upper wing is Al 7075-T6 with a yield stress of 503 MPa, while the
material used for the lower wing is Al 2024-T3 with a yield stress of 345 MPa. Based on these
data, the margin of safety for material failure is obtained as follows:
Table 27 Second Iteration Margin of Safety on Wingbox

Von
Von Mises M.S. Von Mises Von Mises
Mises M.S. (%) M.S. (%) M.S. (%)
Location X (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
y=1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y= 4.471
Front
spar 0.515 290.493 73.154 305.282 64.766 353.006 42.491 316.641 58.855
upper
1 0.623 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
2 0.732 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
3 0.841 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
4 0.950 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
5 1.058 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
6 1.167 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
7 1.276 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
8 1.385 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
9 1.493 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
Mid spar 1.602 290.854 72.939 305.351 64.729 667.191 -24.609 665.080 -24.370
10 1.711 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
11 1.820 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
12 1.928 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
13 2.037 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
14 2.146 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
15 2.255 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
16 2.364 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
17 2.472 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
18 2.581 345.000 45.797 345.000 45.797 201.866 149.176 197.977 154.070
Rear
spar 2.690 290.746 73.003 305.116 64.855 455.701 10.379 419.035 20.038
upper
Front
spar 0.515 290.493 18.763 305.282 13.010 353.006 -2.268 316.641 8.956
lower
1 0.623 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
2 0.732 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
3 0.841 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
4 0.950 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
5 1.058 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
6 1.167 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
7 1.276 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
8 1.385 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
9 1.493 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
Mid spar 1.602 290.854 18.616 305.351 12.985 667.191 -48.291 665.080 -48.127
10 1.711 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
11 1.820 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
12 1.928 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
13 2.037 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
14 2.146 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
15 2.255 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
16 2.364 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
17 2.472 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
18 2.581 345.000 0.000 345.000 0.000 201.866 70.906 197.977 74.263
Rear
spar 2.690 290.746 18.660 305.116 13.072 455.701 -24.293 419.035 -17.668
lower
From the table above, it can be seen that the upper and lower wing structure is safe from failure
because the margin of safety yields positive value except for some points. But, the value of the
margin of safety is still too large for section 3 and 4. This will result in the wing structure being
too heavy. To lower the margin of safety value, we have to do more iterations in order to make the
wing structure lighter without compromising the safety aspect.
7.1.5. Buckling Failure Second Iteration

Compression Local Buckling Strength
The calculations in this section refer to ESDU 71014 entitled LOCAL BUCKLING OF
COMPRESSION PANELS WITH FLANGED STRINGERS. Based on this reference,
the compression local buckling strength calculation procedure is as follows.
0.91 𝑡 2
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 )
(
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
Where:
b = stringer pitch
E = Young’s modulus of panel and stringer material
K = Elastic buckling stress coefficient
t = thickness of the skin
𝑣 = Poisson’s ratio for panel material
From the initial sizing, we have the value of stringer flange width, d = 10.696264 mm and the
depth of stringer, h = 26.74066 mm. So, the value of
𝑑 10.696264
= = 0.4
ℎ 26.74066
Based on the value above, we can use Figure 8 from ESDU 71014.
Figure23 ESDU 71014 FIGURE 8
ℎ 26.74066 𝑡𝑠 2.620583
Based on the figure above, for the value of = = 0.317 and = 2.504969 = 1.046, we
𝑏 84.164 𝑡
get the value of K = 4.82.
The material used in the upper wing skin is Al 7075-T6. From the ASM Aerospace Specification
Metals Inc., we get the values v = 0.33 and E = 71.7 GPa. So that the calculation is obtained as
follows:
0.91 𝑡 2
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
0.91 9)
2.504969 2
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = × 4.82 × ( 71.7 × 10 × ( ) × 10−6
1 − 0.332 84.164
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = 312.632 𝑀𝑃𝑎
From ESDU 76016, we get the value of 𝑓𝑛 = 416 𝑀𝑃𝑎 and m= 14.2.
Figure Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (fb)e/fn ratio
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 312.632
Based on the figure above, for 𝑓𝑛
= 416
= 0.752 and m = 14.2, we get the value of 𝜂 = 0.98.
Then, we can calculate the value of 𝑓𝑐 as follows:
𝑓𝑐 = 0.98 × 312.632 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑓𝑐 = 306.379 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Shear Buckling Strength

Meanwhile, for critical shear stress values that can reach shear buckling is calculated by the
following formula:
0.91 𝑡 2
𝑞𝑏 = 𝜂(𝑞𝑏𝑒 ) = 𝜂 ( 𝐾𝐸) ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
Where
b = width of plate
E = Young’s modulus of plate material
K = elastic buckling stress coefficient
𝑞𝑏 = shear stress at which plate buckles
𝑞𝑏𝑒 = elastic shear stress at which elastic plate would buckle
t = plate thickness
v = Poisson’s ratio of plate material
Figure24 Graph of K values against skin geometry (ESDU 71005)
From the figure above, b represents the stringer spacing and a represents the ribs spacing. So, we
can calculate the value of b/a as follows:
𝑏 108.7653
= =1
𝑎 108.7653
The boundary condition used are simply support boundary conditions. Referring to the figure
above, we get the value of K = 8.4.
Based on the ASM Aerospace Specification Metal Inc., we get the values of E = 73.1 GPa for Al
2024-T3 and E = 71.7 GPa for Al 7075-T6 material. We also get the Poisson’s ratio, 𝑣=0.33 for
both materials. Next, we can calculate the values of elastic shear stress at which elastic plate would
buckle as follows:
0.91 𝑡 2
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
• Upper wing
0.91 9
2.504969 2
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = × 8.4 × 71.7 × 10 × ( ) × 10−6
1 − 0.332 84.164
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 544.831 𝑀𝑃𝑎
• Lower wing
0.91 9
2.504969 2
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 2
× 8.4 × 73.1 × 10 × ( ) × 10−6
1 − 0.33 84.164
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 555.469 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Figure 25 Graph of the plasticity correction value to the (qb)e/fn ratio
The value of 𝑓𝑛 and m can be obtained from ESDU 76016. For the upper wing, 𝑓𝑛=416 MPa and
𝑚=14.2. For the lower wing, 𝑓𝑛=224 MPa and 𝑚=11.9. Next, we can obtain the value of 𝜂 by
taking a look at the figure above.
• Upper Wing
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 544.831
= = 1.309
𝑓𝑛 416
𝜂 = 0.49
• Lower Wing
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 555.469
= = 2.48
𝑓𝑛 224
𝜂 = 0.23
Next, we can calculate the value of shear stress at which plate buckles.
• Upper wing
𝑞𝑏 = 0.49 × 544.831 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑞𝑏 = 266.967 𝑀𝑃𝑎
• Lower wing
𝑞𝑏 = 0.23 × 391.011 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑞𝑏 = 127.757 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Margin of Safety
The margin of safety of compression local buckling strength can be obtained using the following
equation:
𝑓𝑐
𝑀. 𝑆. = −1
𝜎𝑥𝑥
Margin of safety of shear buckling strength can be calculated using the following equation:
𝑞𝑏
𝑀. 𝑆. = −1
𝜏
Using the equations above, we can calculate the margin of safety data as follows:
Table 28 Margin of Safety for Compression and Shear Buckling Strength Second Iteration
𝒒𝒃𝒆 (MPa) M.O.S. shear
x (m) 𝝈𝒎𝒂𝒙 (𝑴𝑷𝒂) 𝒇𝒄 (𝑴𝑷𝒂) 𝐌. 𝐎. 𝐒 𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙 (𝑴𝑷𝒂) Upper Lower Upper Lower
skin skin skin skin
1.218 289.713 306.379 0.058 108.153 266.967 127.758 1.468 0.181
2.05 286.949 411.584 0.434 93.467 272.629 126.342 1.917 0.352
3.36 95.323 241.614 1.535 380.307 422.825 431.081 0.112 0.134
4.471 108.742 265.339 1.440 375.116 930.626 948.797 1.481 1.529
As we can see, from the second iteration data, almost all sections are safe from buckling. Even
though, there can still be some optimization to make the Margin of Safety even closer to zero.
7.1.6. Mass Calculation and Summary of The Final Dimension of Wing Structure
Mass calculation is from volume of the part times the density of the material used for that part.
Overall, there are 2 materials that we used for wing part. There are Al 7075 T-6 and Al 2024 T-3.
The density for each material is as shown down below:
Table 29 Material Density

Material Al7075 T-6 Al2024-T3
Density (g/mm3) 0.00281 0.00278
Based on all the calculation from the second iteration, we will get the final dimension of the wing’s
part dimension and mass are as follows:
Table 30 Summary of the Final Dimension of The Wing Structure
Components First Iteration (in mm) Second Iteration (in mm)
Location y=1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y= 4.471 y=1.218 y = 2.05 y = 3.36 y= 4.471
Skin
Effective
3.854 3.798 3.689 3.494 3.854 3.798 3.689 3.494
thickness (mm)
Skin thickness
2.505 2.469 2.398 2.271 2.505 2.469 2.398 2.271
(mm)
Upper Skin
160.605 160.605
mass (kg)
Lower skin
158.891 158.891
mass (kg)
Stringer
Number of
36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
stringers
Stringer
2.621 2.583 2.509 2.376 2.621 2.583 2.509 2.376
thickness (mm)
Stringer height
26.741 41.323 40.137 38.009 26.741 41.323 40.137 38.009
(mm)
Stringer width
10.696 8.686 5.429 2.588 10.696 8.686 5.429 2.588
(mm)
Stringer area
126.137 100.952 61.297 27.667 126.137 100.952 61.297 27.667
(mm^2)
Stringer
93.516 74.844 45.445 20.512 108.765 108.765 108.765 108.765
spacing (mm)
Stringer mass
135.958 135.958
(kg)
Spar
Front spar web
1.528 1.271 1.251 0.930 8.7 7.494 1 0.929
thickness (mm)
Front spar web
188.295 150.699 91.504 41.301 188.295 150.699 91.504 41.301
height (mm)
Front Spar
Flange 3.057 2.542 2.503 1.861 17.4 14.988 2 1.859
thickness (mm)
Middle spar
web thickness 1.285 1.094 1.133 0.860 7.8 7 0.5 0.4
(mm)
Middle spar
web height 188.295 150.699 91.504 41.301 188.295 150.699 91.504 41.301
(mm)
Middle spar
flange 2.570 2.189 2.265 1.721 15.6 14 1 0.8
thickness (mm)
Rear spar web
1.524 1.268 1.249 0.929 8.313 7.826 0.8 0.7
thickness (mm)
Rear spar web
188.295 150.699 91.504 41.301 188.295 150.699 91.504 41.301
height (mm)
Rear spar
flange 3.049 2.536 2.498 1.858 16.626 15.652 1.6 1.4
thickness (mm)
Upper Spar Mass (kg) from Second Iteration Data
Front Spar Middle Spar Rear Spar
6.125 5.281 6.110
Lower Spar Mass (kg) from Second Iteration Data
Front Spar Middle Spar Rear Spar
6.059 5.225 6.045
Ribs
Ribs thickness
5.265 4.303 3.122 1.676 5.265 4.303 3.122 1.676
(mm)
Number of ribs 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Ribs spacing
84.164 67.360 40.901 18.461 84.164 67.360 40.901 18.461
(mm)
Ribs Mass (kg) 22.554 22.554
Total Mass (kg)
Design Mass (kg) Total Mass from Second Iteration Data (kg) Percentage (%)
662.04 512.854 22.534
7.2. Fuselage Stress Checking

To start analyzing for the stress checking for the different parts of the fuselage we need to
identify the maximum moment and shear that acts on the fuselage when n = +8 and n = -3, and
from previous calculations we can get the following.
Table 31 Data of Maximum Moment and Maximum Shear
Max Max
Max Shear Max Moment
Shear Moment
Light 206.322422 169.7468 279.594033
-745.5840903
Attack 6 3 9
Light n=+8 237.495778 n=-3 284.855055
-759.6134803 158.0374
Patrol 8 1
237.495778 169.7468 284.855055
MAX -759.6134803
8 3 1

In material failure, the Von-Mises Failure Criterion will be used. with three types of
loading, namely bending stress, shear stress, and pressurization load.
7.2.1.1. Bending Stress Checking

The maximum bending moment value received by the fuselage structure of NFT-22
Aircraft at load factor n = +8 is -759.61 kNm and for n = -3 is 284.86 kNm. The positive sign
indicates the top of the fuselage will receive a tensile load and the bottom will receive a
compressive load. and the lower part receives the compressive load. The bending stress value can
be determined through the following equation.
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 2
𝑦+ 2
𝑧
𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑥𝑥 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧
Since the bending moment acting only in the y-direction and the cross section of the
fuselage is considered symmetric, so the above equation becomes.
𝑀𝑦
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = − 𝑧
𝐼𝑦𝑦
The bending stress values for both factors are obtained as shown by:
Nose part of the fuselage

Table 32 Bending Stress Checking for n= +8 (Nose)
Stringer Moment Bending

Y (m) Z (m) (Z^2)A
ke- Inertia (m^4) stress (MPa)
1 0 0.5859 0.00011667 286.2584408
2 0.2243 0.5859 0.00011667 286.2584408
3 0.4563 0.5675 0.00010946 277.268587
4 0.6038 0.4145 5.8395E-05 202.5159988
5 0.782 0.283 2.7221E-05 138.2678593
6 0.9295 0.0979 3.2576E-06 47.83188488

7 0.8327 -0.0826 2.3189E-06 0
8 0.633 -0.1361 6.2957E-06 -66.49560299
9 0.5592 -0.3426 3.9894E-05 -167.3871681
10 0.4286 -0.5323 9.6303E-05 -260.070606
11 0.2212 -0.6272 0.0001337 -306.4367538
12 0 -0.6287 0.00013434 0.00155474 -307.1696223
13 -0.2212 -0.6272 0.0001337 -306.4367538
14 -0.4286 -0.5323 9.6303E-05 -260.070606
15 -0.5592 -0.3426 3.9894E-05 -167.3871681
16 -0.633 -0.1361 6.2957E-06 -66.49560299
17 -0.8327 -0.0826 2.3189E-06 -40.35662606
18 -0.9295 0.0979 3.2576E-06 47.83188488
19 -0.782 0.283 2.7221E-05 0
20 -0.6038 0.4145 5.8395E-05 202.5159988
21 -0.4563 0.5675 0.00010946 277.268587
22 -0.2243 0.5859 0.00011667 286.2584408
23 0 0.5859 0.00011667 286.2584408
0 0 0 0 0
Table 33 Bending Stress Checking for n= -3 (Nose)

Y (m) Z (m) (Z^2)A
1 0 0.5859 0.00011667 -107.3469153
2 0.2243 0.5859 0.00011667 -107.3469153
3 0.4563 0.5675 0.00010946 -103.9757201
4 0.6038 0.4145 5.8395E-05 -75.94349955
5 0.782 0.283 2.7221E-05 -51.85044722
6 0.9295 0.0979 3.2576E-06 -17.93695683

7 0.8327 -0.0826 2.3189E-06 0
8 0.633 -0.1361 6.2957E-06 24.93585112
9 0.5592 -0.3426 3.9894E-05 62.77018805
10 0.4286 -0.5323 9.6303E-05 97.52647723
11 0.2212 -0.6272 0.0001337 114.9137827
12 0 -0.6287 0.00013434 0.00155474 115.1886084
13 -0.2212 -0.6272 0.0001337 114.9137827
14 -0.4286 -0.5323 9.6303E-05 97.52647723
15 -0.5592 -0.3426 3.9894E-05 62.77018805
16 -0.633 -0.1361 6.2957E-06 24.93585112
17 -0.8327 -0.0826 2.3189E-06 15.13373477
18 -0.9295 0.0979 3.2576E-06 -17.93695683
19 -0.782 0.283 2.7221E-05 0
20 -0.6038 0.4145 5.8395E-05 -75.94349955
21 -0.4563 0.5675 0.00010946 -103.9757201
22 -0.2243 0.5859 0.00011667 -107.3469153
23 0 0.5859 0.00011667 -107.3469153
0 0 0 0 0
Centre part of the fuselage
Table 34 Bending Stress Checking for n= +8 (Centre)

Y (m) Z (m) (Z^2)A
1 0 1.0230769 0.00021746 315.2929243
2 0.191653 0.9666667 0.00019414 297.908369
3 0.332198 0.8564103 0.00015238 0.002464829 263.9294347
4 0.482964 0.725641 0.0001094 223.6288131
5 0.620954 0.5923077 7.2887E-05 182.5380153
6 0.761499 4.85E-01 4.8792E-05 149.349288
7 0.922487 0.4025641 3.3669E-05 124.0626314
8 1.086031 0.3 1.8698E-05 92.45431824
9 1.162692 0.0871795 1.579E-06 26.86707079
-
10 1.139693 -0.1025641 2.1855E-06
31.60831314
-
11 1.091141 -0.2974359 1.838E-05
91.66411118
12 9.94E-01 -0.4820513 4.8277E-05 -148.559081
-
13 0.83816 -0.6 7.4793E-05
184.9086365
-
14 0.643952 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05
203.8736367
-
15 0.462521 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05
203.8736367
-
16 0.273424 -0.6358974 8.401E-05
195.9715353
-
17 0.094549 -0.6307692 8.266E-05
194.3911212
-
18 -0.09455 -6.31E-01 8.266E-05
194.3911212
-
19 -0.27342 -0.6358974 8.401E-05
195.9715353
-
20 -0.46252 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05
203.8736367
-
21 -0.64395 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05
203.8736367
-
22 -0.83816 -0.6 7.4793E-05
184.9086365
23 -0.99404 -0.4820513 4.8277E-05 -148.559081
-
24 -1.09114 -0.2974359 1.838E-05
91.66411118
-
25 -1.13969 -0.1025641 2.1855E-06
31.60831314
26 -1.16269 0.0871795 1.579E-06 26.86707079
27 -1.08603 0.3 1.8698E-05 92.45431824
28 -0.92249 0.4025641 3.3669E-05 124.0626314
29 -0.7615 0.4846154 4.8792E-05 149.349288
30 -0.62095 0.5923077 7.2887E-05 182.5380153
31 -0.48296 0.725641 0.0001094 223.6288131
32 -0.3322 0.8564103 0.00015238 263.9294347
33 -0.19165 0.9666667 0.00019414 297.908369
Table 35 Bending Stress Checking for n= -3 (Centre)
Moment
Stringer Bending
Y (m) Z (m) (Z^2)A Inertia
ke- stress (MPa)
(m^4)
-
1 0 1.0230769 0.00021746
118.2348466
-
2 0.191653 0.9666667 0.00019414
111.7156384
-
3 0.332198 0.8564103 0.00015238
98.97353802
-
4 0.482964 0.725641 0.0001094
83.86080492
-
5 0.620954 0.5923077 7.2887E-05
68.45175574
-
6 0.761499 4.85E-01 4.8792E-05
56.00598302
-
7 0.922487 0.4025641 3.3669E-05
46.52348677
-
8 1.086031 0.3 1.8698E-05
34.67036934
0.002464829
-
9 1.162692 0.0871795 1.579E-06
10.07515155
10 1.139693 -0.1025641 2.1855E-06 11.85311743
11 1.091141 -0.2974359 1.838E-05 34.37404169
12 9.94E-01 -0.4820513 4.8277E-05 55.70965537
13 0.83816 -0.6 7.4793E-05 69.34073868
14 0.643952 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05 76.45261376
15 0.462521 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05 76.45261376
16 0.273424 -0.6358974 8.401E-05 73.48932573
17 0.094549 -0.6307692 8.266E-05 72.89667044
18 -0.09455 -6.31E-01 8.266E-05 72.89667044
19 -0.27342 -0.6358974 8.401E-05 73.48932573
20 -0.46252 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05 76.45261376
21 -0.64395 -0.6615385 9.0922E-05 76.45261376
22 -0.83816 -0.6 7.4793E-05 69.34073868
23 -0.99404 -0.4820513 4.8277E-05 55.70965537
24 -1.09114 -0.2974359 1.838E-05 34.37404169
25 -1.13969 -0.1025641 2.1855E-06 11.85311743
-
26 -1.16269 0.0871795 1.579E-06
10.07515155
-
27 -1.08603 0.3 1.8698E-05
34.67036934
-
28 -0.92249 0.4025641 3.3669E-05
46.52348677
-
29 -0.7615 0.4846154 4.8792E-05
56.00598302
-
30 -0.62095 0.5923077 7.2887E-05
68.45175574
-
31 -0.48296 0.725641 0.0001094
83.86080492
-
32 -0.3322 0.8564103 0.00015238
98.97353802
-
33 -0.19165 0.9666667 0.00019414
111.7156384
Tail part of the fuselage
Table 36 Bending Stress Checking for n= +8 (Tail)
Moment
Stringer Bending
ke- stress (MPa)
(m^4)
2.30321E-
1 0 0.7245 199.1208412
05
2.14892E-
2 0.1875144 0.699813261 192.3359631
05
1.72741E-
3 0.36225 0.627435405 172.4437069
05
1.1516E-
4 0.51229886 0.512298863 0.000276 140.7996971
05
5.75802E-
5 0.62743541 0.36225 99.5604206
06
1.54286E-
6 0.69981326 0.187514398 51.53626598
06
8.64272E-
7 0.7245 4.44E-17 1.21976E-14
38
1.54286E- -
8 0.69981326 -0.1875144
06 51.53626598
5.75802E-
9 0.62743541 -0.36225 -99.5604206
06
1.1516E- -
10 0.51229886 -0.51229886
05 140.7996971
1.72741E- -
11 0.36225 -0.62743541
05 172.4437069
2.14892E- -
12 0.1875144 -0.69981326
05 192.3359631
2.30321E- -
13 8.88E-17 -0.7245
05 199.1208412
2.14892E- -
14 -0.1875144 -0.69981326
05 192.3359631
1.72741E- -
15 -0.36225 -0.62743541
05 172.4437069
1.1516E- -
16 -0.5122989 -0.51229886
05 140.7996971
5.75802E-
17 -0.6274354 -0.36225 -99.5604206
06
1.54286E- -
18 -0.6998133 -0.1875144
06 51.53626598
7.77845E- -3.65929E-
19 -0.7245 -1.33E-16
37 14
1.54286E-
20 -0.6998133 0.187514398 51.53626598
06
5.75802E-
21 -0.6274354 0.36225 99.5604206
06
1.1516E-
22 -0.5122989 0.512298863 140.7996971
05
1.72741E-
23 -0.36225 0.627435405 172.4437069
05
2.14892E-
24 -0.1875144 0.699813261 192.3359631
05
Table 37 Bending Stress Checking for n= -3 (Tail)
Moment
Stringer Bending
ke- stress (MPa)
(m^4)
2.30321E- -
1 0 0.7245
05 74.67031545
2.14892E- -
2 0.1875144 0.699813261
05 72.12598615
1.72741E- -
3 0.36225 0.627435405
05 64.66639009
1.1516E- -
4 0.51229886 0.512298863
05 52.79988641
5.75802E- -
5 0.62743541 0.36225
06 37.33515773
1.54286E- -
6 0.69981326 0.187514398
06 19.32609974
8.64272E- -4.57411E-
7 0.7245 4.44E-17
38 15
1.54286E-
8 0.69981326 -0.1875144 19.32609974
06
5.75802E-
9 0.62743541 -0.36225 37.33515773
06
1.1516E-
10 0.51229886 -0.51229886 52.79988641
05
0.000276
1.72741E-
11 0.36225 -0.62743541 64.66639009
05
2.14892E-
12 0.1875144 -0.69981326 72.12598615
05
2.30321E-
13 8.88E-17 -0.7245 74.67031545
05
2.14892E-
14 -0.1875144 -0.69981326 72.12598615
05
1.72741E-
15 -0.36225 -0.62743541 64.66639009
05
1.1516E-
16 -0.5122989 -0.51229886 52.79988641
05
5.75802E-
17 -0.6274354 -0.36225 37.33515773
06
1.54286E-
18 -0.6998133 -0.1875144 19.32609974
06
7.77845E-
19 -0.7245 -1.33E-16 1.37223E-14
37
1.54286E- -
20 -0.6998133 0.187514398
06 19.32609974
5.75802E- -
21 -0.6274354 0.36225
06 37.33515773
1.1516E- -
22 -0.5122989 0.512298863
05 52.79988641
1.72741E- -
23 -0.36225 0.627435405
05 64.66639009
2.14892E- -
24 -0.1875144 0.699813261
05 72.12598615
7.2.1.2. Shear Stress Analysis

The fuselage structure will also receive shear loads from the fuselage connection with the
wing and tail. wing and tail joints that are forwarded from the wing and tail joints to the skin,
then to the stringer, resulting in shear flow in both components.
Shear flow, 𝑞𝑠 is the sum of two variables as follows.

𝑞𝑠 = 𝑞𝑠′ + 𝑞0
with the value of 𝑞𝑠′ is as follows.
′ ′ 𝑉𝑄
𝑞𝑠,𝑖 = 𝑞𝑠,𝑖−1 −
𝐼
𝑄 = 𝑦𝑖 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑖
Furthermore, the relationship between the variables can be written based on the equation
equilibrium torque moment as follows.
𝐾
𝑉𝑑 = 𝑅𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑒 𝑞𝑠′ + 2𝐴𝑒𝑛𝑐 𝑞0
𝑛
Where K and n are the cross-sectional perimeter of the fuselage and the number of
stringers, respectively. As it has been assumed, the shear force on the fuselage cross section does
not produce a torsional moment, hence.
𝐾
0 = 𝑅𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑞𝑠′ + 2𝐴𝑒𝑛𝑐 𝑞0
𝑛
𝐾
𝑅𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑞𝑠′
𝑞0 = 𝑛
2𝐴𝑒𝑛𝑐
After obtaining the 𝑞𝑠 value between each stringer, the shear stress can be calculated
through the following equation.
𝑞𝑠
𝜏=
𝑡
Using the above equations, the shear stress values are obtained for both load factors as shown by:

Table 38 Shear Stress Checking for n= +8 (Nose)
Moment Tau
Y (m) Z (m) qs' qs'*Aenclosed q0 qs q Absolute Shear (N)
(Nm) (MPa)
1 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 39.21 39.21 0.00 0.00 0.03
2 0.22 0.59 -30419.38 -3.60 -30380.17 30380.17 -3.60 559.00 -20.25
3 0.46 0.57 -60838.76 -7.20 -60799.55 60799.55 -7.20 9302.33 -40.53
4 0.60 0.41 -90302.82 -10.69 -90263.62 90263.62 -10.69 11869.67 -60.18
5 0.78 0.28 -111823.28 -13.24 -111784.07 111784.07 -13.24 20691.23 -74.52
6 0.93 0.10 -126516.37 -14.98 -126477.16 126477.16 -14.98 22829.13 -84.32
7 0.83 -0.08 -131599.25 -15.58 -131560.04 131560.04 -15.58 7038.46 -87.71
8 0.63 -0.14 -127310.73 -15.08 -127271.52 127271.52 -15.07 26281.57 -84.85
9 0.56 -0.34 -120244.55 -14.24 -120205.34 120205.34 -14.23 22802.95 -80.14
10 0.43 -0.53 -102457.08 -12.13 -102417.87 102417.87 -12.13 9719.46 -68.28
11 0.22 -0.63 -74820.56 -8.86 -74781.35 74781.35 -8.86 112.17 -49.85
12 0.00 -0.63 -42256.92 -5.00 -42217.72 42217.72 -5.00 63.33 -28.15

39.21
13 -0.22 -0.63 -9615.41 -1.14 -9576.20 9576.20 -1.13 908.78 -6.38
14 -0.43 -0.53 22948.23 2.72 22987.43 22987.43 2.72 4360.72 15.32
15 -0.56 -0.34 50584.74 5.99 50623.95 50623.95 5.99 10453.85 33.75
16 -0.63 -0.14 68372.21 8.10 68411.42 68411.42 8.10 3660.01 45.61
17 -0.83 -0.08 75438.40 8.93 75477.61 75477.61 8.94 13623.71 50.32
18 -0.93 0.10 79726.91 9.44 79766.12 79766.12 9.45 14764.71 53.18
19 -0.78 0.28 74644.04 8.84 74683.24 74683.24 8.84 9820.85 49.79
20 -0.60 0.41 59950.94 7.10 59990.15 59990.15 7.10 9178.49 39.99
21 -0.46 0.57 38430.49 4.55 38469.70 38469.70 4.56 707.84 25.65
22 -0.22 0.59 8966.42 1.06 9005.63 9005.63 1.07 0.00 6.00
23 0.00 0.59 -21452.96 -2.54 -21413.75 21413.75 -2.54 12546.31 -14.28
0 0.00 0.00 -51872.34 -6.14 -51833.13 51833.13 -6.14 0.00 -34.56
-73.71 -73.60 211294.56
Table 39 Shear Stress Checking for n= -3 (Nose)
Moment Tau
Y (m) Z (m) qs' qs'*Aenclosed q0 qs q Absolute Shear (N)
(Nm) (MPa)
1 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 28.02 28.02 0.00 0.00 0.02
2 0.22 0.59 -21741.83 -2.57 -21713.81 21713.81 -2.57 399.53 -14.48
3 0.46 0.57 -43483.66 -5.15 -43455.64 43455.64 -5.15 6648.71 -28.97
4 0.60 0.41 -64542.70 -7.64 28.02 -64514.68 64514.68 -7.64 8483.68 -43.01
5 0.78 0.28 -79924.15 -9.46 -79896.12 79896.12 -9.46 14788.77 -53.26
6 0.93 0.10 -90425.83 -10.71 -90397.81 90397.81 -10.70 16316.80 -60.27

7 0.83 -0.08 -94058.75 -11.14 -94030.72 94030.72 -11.14 5030.64 -62.69
8 0.63 -0.14 -90993.59 -10.78 -90965.57 90965.57 -10.77 18784.39 -60.64
9 0.56 -0.34 -85943.13 -10.18 -85915.11 85915.11 -10.17 16298.10 -57.28
10 0.43 -0.53 -73229.78 -8.67 -73201.76 73201.76 -8.67 6946.85 -48.80
11 0.22 -0.63 -53476.96 -6.33 -53448.94 53448.94 -6.33 80.17 -35.63
12 0.00 -0.63 -30202.55 -3.58 -30174.53 30174.53 -3.57 45.26 -20.12
13 -0.22 -0.63 -6872.48 -0.81 -6844.46 6844.46 -0.81 649.54 -4.56
14 -0.43 -0.53 16401.93 1.94 16429.95 16429.95 1.95 3116.76 10.95
15 -0.56 -0.34 36154.75 4.28 36182.77 36182.77 4.28 7471.74 24.12
16 -0.63 -0.14 48868.10 5.79 48896.12 48896.12 5.79 2615.94 32.60
17 -0.83 -0.08 53918.55 6.39 53946.58 53946.58 6.39 9737.36 35.96
18 -0.93 0.10 56983.71 6.75 57011.74 57011.74 6.75 10552.87 38.01
19 -0.78 0.28 53350.80 6.32 53378.82 53378.82 6.32 7019.31 35.59
20 -0.60 0.41 42849.11 5.07 42877.13 42877.13 5.08 6560.20 28.58

21 -0.46 0.57 27467.66 3.25 27495.69 27495.69 3.26 505.92 18.33
22 -0.22 0.59 6408.63 0.76 6436.65 6436.65 0.76 0.00 4.29
23 0.00 0.59 -15333.20 -1.82 -15305.18 15305.18 -1.81 8967.31 -10.20
0 0.00 0.00 -37075.04 -4.39 -37047.01 37047.01 -4.39 0.00 -24.70
-52.69 -52.61 151019.872
Table 40 Shear Stress Checking for n= +8 (Centre)
Y (m) Z (m) qs' qs'*Aenclosed q0 qs q Absolute Momen (Nm) Shear (N) Tau (MPa)
1 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 28239.45 28239.45 5476.10 1592.99 18.83

2 0.19 0.97 -20480.21 -3971.46 7759.24 7759.24 1504.65 855.51 5.17
3 0.33 0.86 -39831.18 -7723.93 -11591.73 11591.73 -2247.83 1515.84 -7.73
4 0.48 0.73 -56975.01 -11048.41 -28735.56 28735.56 -5572.31 3831.41 -19.16
5 0.62 0.59 -71501.07 -13865.26 -43261.62 43261.62 -8389.16 4658.94 -28.84
6 0.76 0.48 -83358.03 -16164.52 -55118.58 55118.58 -10688.42 4522.55 -36.75
7 0.92 0.40 -93059.19 -18045.74 -64819.73 64819.73 -12569.64 6648.18 -43.21
8 1.09 0.30 -101117.81 -19608.44 -72878.36 72878.36 -14132.34 15510.01 -48.59
9 1.16 0.09 -107123.29 -20773.00 -78883.84 78883.84 -15296.90 14967.70 -52.59
28239.45
10 1.14 -0.10 -108868.47 -21111.42 -80629.02 80629.02 -15635.32 15712.32 -53.75
11 1.09 -0.30 -106815.31 -20713.28 -78575.86 78575.86 -15237.18 14506.31 -52.38
12 0.99 -0.48 -100861.17 -19558.67 -72621.72 72621.72 -14082.57 8565.64 -48.41
13 0.84 -0.60 -91211.35 -17687.41 -62971.90 62971.90 -12211.31 3875.20 -41.98
14 0.64 -0.66 -79200.40 -15358.29 -50960.95 50960.95 -9882.18 0.00 -33.97
15 0.46 -0.66 -65957.56 -12790.28 -37718.11 37718.11 -7314.17 967.13 -25.15
16 0.27 -0.64 -52714.72 -10222.27 -24475.27 24475.27 -4746.17 125.51 -16.32
17 0.09 -0.63 -39985.17 -7753.80 -11745.71 11745.71 -2277.69 0.00 -7.83
18 -0.09 -0.63 -27358.27 -5305.23 881.18 881.18 170.88 4.52 0.59
19 -0.27 -0.64 -14731.38 -2856.66 13508.07 13508.07 2619.44 346.36 9.01
20 -0.46 -0.66 -2001.83 -388.19 26237.62 26237.62 5087.92 0.00 17.49
21 -0.64 -0.66 11241.01 2179.82 39480.47 39480.47 7655.93 2429.57 26.32
22 -0.84 -0.60 24483.86 4747.83 52723.31 52723.31 10223.93 6218.65 35.15
23 -0.99 -0.48 36494.80 7076.96 64734.26 64734.26 12553.06 11950.94 43.16
24 -1.09 -0.30 46144.63 8948.22 74384.08 74384.08 14424.32 14495.36 49.59
25 -1.14 -0.10 52098.77 10102.83 80338.22 80338.22 15578.93 15243.66 53.56
26 -1.16 0.09 54151.92 10500.97 82391.38 82391.38 15977.07 17534.57 54.93
27 -1.09 0.30 52406.74 10162.55 80646.20 80646.20 15638.65 8271.40 53.76
28 -0.92 0.40 46401.27 8997.99 74640.72 74640.72 14474.09 6124.37 49.76
29 -0.76 0.48 38342.64 7435.28 66582.09 66582.09 12911.39 7170.38 44.39
30 -0.62 0.59 28641.49 5554.07 56880.94 56880.94 11030.17 7584.12 37.92
31 -0.48 0.73 16784.53 3254.80 45023.98 45023.98 8730.91 5887.75 30.02
32 -0.33 0.86 2258.47 437.96 30497.92 30497.92 5914.06 3362.59 20.33
33 -0.19 0.97 -14885.36 -2886.52 13354.09 13354.09 2589.58 12908.95 8.90
-168433.5376 12277.89 217388.4545
Table 41 Shear Stress Checking for n= -3 (Centre)
1 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 28239.45 28239.45 5476.10 1592.99 18.83

2 0.19 0.97 -14637.95 -2838.54 13601.51 13601.51 2637.56 1499.65 9.07
3 0.33 0.86 -28468.79 -5520.58 -229.34 229.34 -44.47 29.99 -0.15
4 0.48 0.73 -40722.10 -7896.70 -12482.65 12482.65 -2420.60 1664.35 -8.32
5 0.62 0.59 -51104.41 -9910.00 -22864.96 22864.96 -4433.90 2462.38 -15.24
6 0.76 0.48 -59579.01 -11553.37 -31339.56 31339.56 -6077.27 2571.45 -20.89
7 0.92 0.40 -66512.77 -12897.94 -38273.32 38273.32 -7421.84 3925.47 -25.52
8 1.09 0.30 -72272.56 -14014.86 -44033.11 44033.11 -8538.76 9371.15 -29.36
9 1.16 0.09 -76564.89 -14847.22 -48325.44 48325.44 -9371.11 9169.44 -32.22
10 1.14 -0.10 -77812.24 -15089.10 -49572.79 49572.79 -9613.00 9660.34 -33.05
11 1.09 -0.30 -76344.77 -14804.53 -48105.32 48105.32 -9328.43 8880.98 -32.07
12 0.99 -0.48 -72089.13 -13979.29 20183.76 -43849.68 43849.68 -8503.19 5172.01 -29.23
13 0.84 -0.60 -65192.05 -12641.83 -36952.60 36952.60 -7165.73 2274.01 -24.64
14 0.64 -0.66 -56607.39 -10977.12 -28367.94 28367.94 -5501.02 0.00 -18.91
15 0.46 -0.66 -47142.26 -9141.68 -18902.80 18902.80 -3665.57 484.69 -12.60
16 0.27 -0.64 -37677.12 -7306.23 -9437.67 9437.67 -1830.12 48.40 -6.29
17 0.09 -0.63 -28578.85 -5541.92 -339.39 339.39 -65.81 0.00 -0.23
18 -0.09 -0.63 -19553.95 -3791.84 8685.50 8685.50 1684.27 44.54 5.79
19 -0.27 -0.64 -10529.05 -2041.76 17710.40 17710.40 3434.34 454.11 11.81
20 -0.46 -0.66 -1430.78 -277.45 26808.67 26808.67 5198.65 0.00 17.87
21 -0.64 -0.66 8034.36 1558.00 36273.81 36273.81 7034.10 2232.24 24.18
22 -0.84 -0.60 17499.50 3393.45 45738.95 45738.95 8869.55 5394.85 30.49
23 -0.99 -0.48 26084.16 5058.16 54323.61 54323.61 10534.26 10028.97 36.22
24 -1.09 -0.30 32981.24 6395.62 61220.69 61220.69 11871.72 11930.19 40.81
25 -1.14 -0.10 37236.88 7220.86 65476.33 65476.33 12696.96 12423.71 43.65
26 -1.16 0.09 38704.34 7505.42 66943.79 66943.79 12981.53 14247.01 44.63
27 -1.09 0.30 37457.00 7263.54 65696.45 65696.45 12739.64 6738.10 43.80
28 -0.92 0.40 33164.67 6431.19 61404.12 61404.12 11907.29 5038.29 40.94
29 -0.76 0.48 27404.88 5314.27 55644.33 55644.33 10790.37 5992.47 37.10
30 -0.62 0.59 20471.11 3969.69 48710.56 48710.56 9445.80 6494.74 32.47
31 -0.48 0.73 11996.51 2326.33 40235.96 40235.96 7802.43 5261.63 26.82
32 -0.33 0.86 1614.21 313.02 29853.66 29853.66 5789.13 3291.56 19.90
33 -0.19 0.97 -10639.11 -2063.10 17600.34 17600.34 3413.00 17013.66 11.73
-120385.5494 60325.88 165393.3779
Table 42 Shear Stress Checking for n= +8 (Tail)
1 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 14229.42 14229.42 583.88 351.28 23.72
2 0.19 0.70 -27317.20 -1120.91 -13087.79 13087.79 -537.03 947.27 -21.81
3 0.36 0.63 -53703.60 -2203.64 -39474.18 39474.18 -1619.76 4544.92 -65.79
4 0.51 0.51 -77360.99 -3174.38 -63131.57 63131.57 -2590.50 9472.82 -105.22
5 0.63 0.36 -96677.17 -3966.98 -82447.75 82447.75 -3383.10 14406.56 -137.41
6 0.70 0.19 -110335.78 -4527.44 -96106.36 96106.36 -3943.56 18021.33 -160.18
7 0.72 0.00 -117405.99 -4817.55 -103176.57 103176.57 -4233.67 19347.09 -171.96
8 0.70 -0.19 -117405.99 -4817.55 -103176.57 103176.57 -4233.67 18028.62 -171.96
9 0.63 -0.36 -110335.78 -4527.44 -96106.36 96106.36 -3943.56 14420.65 -160.18
10 0.51 -0.51 -96677.17 -3966.98 -82447.75 82447.75 -3383.10 9492.75 -137.41
11 0.36 -0.63 -77360.99 -3174.38 14229.42 -63131.57 63131.57 -2590.50 4569.33 -105.22
12 0.19 -0.70 -53703.60 -2203.64 -39474.18 39474.18 -1619.76 974.49 -65.79
13 0.00 -0.72 -27317.20 -1120.91 -13087.79 13087.79 -537.03 323.09 -21.81
14 -0.19 -0.70 0.00 0.00 14229.42 14229.42 583.88 1029.89 23.72
15 -0.36 -0.63 26386.39 1082.72 40615.81 40615.81 1666.60 4676.36 67.69
16 -0.51 -0.51 50043.79 2053.46 64273.21 64273.21 2637.34 9644.12 107.12
17 -0.63 -0.36 69359.97 2846.07 83589.39 83589.39 3429.95 14606.04 139.32
18 -0.70 -0.19 83018.57 3406.52 97247.99 97247.99 3990.40 18235.40 162.08
19 -0.72 0.00 90088.78 3696.64 104318.20 104318.20 4280.52 19561.16 173.86
20 -0.70 0.19 90088.78 3696.64 104318.20 104318.20 4280.52 18228.10 173.86
21 -0.63 0.36 83018.57 3406.52 97247.99 97247.99 3990.40 14591.95 162.08

22 -0.51 0.51 69359.97 2846.07 83589.39 83589.39 3429.95 9624.19 139.32
23 -0.36 0.63 50043.79 2053.46 64273.21 64273.21 2637.34 4651.96 107.12
24 -0.19 0.70 26386.39 1082.72 40615.81 40615.81 1666.60 28423.48 67.69
-13450.98 562.14 258172.9
Table 43 Shear Stress Checking for n= -3 (Tail)
1 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 13068.09 13068.09 536.23 322.61 21.78

2 0.19 0.70 -25087.73 -1029.43 -12019.63 12019.63 -493.21 869.96 -20.03
3 0.36 0.63 -49320.61 -2023.79 -36252.52 36252.52 -1487.56 4173.99 -60.42
4 0.51 0.51 -71047.22 -2915.30 -57979.13 57979.13 -2379.07 8699.70 -96.63
5 0.63 0.36 -88786.92 -3643.22 -75718.83 75718.83 -3106.99 13230.77 -126.20
6 0.70 0.19 -101330.78 -4157.93 -88262.69 88262.69 -3621.71 16550.53 -147.10
7 0.72 0.00 -107823.97 -4424.37 -94755.87 94755.87 -3888.14 17768.09 -157.93
8 0.70 -0.19 -107823.97 -4424.37 -94755.87 94755.87 -3888.14 16557.22 -157.93
9 0.63 -0.36 -101330.78 -4157.93 -88262.69 88262.69 -3621.71 13243.72 -147.10
10 0.51 -0.51 -88786.92 -3643.22 -75718.83 75718.83 -3106.99 8718.00 -126.20
11 0.36 -0.63 -71047.22 -2915.30 -57979.13 57979.13 -2379.07 4196.40 -96.63
12 0.19 -0.70 -49320.61 -2023.79 -36252.52 36252.52 -1487.56 894.96 -60.42
13068.09
13 0.00 -0.72 -25087.73 -1029.43 -12019.63 12019.63 -493.21 296.73 -20.03
14 -0.19 -0.70 0.00 0.00 13068.09 13068.09 536.23 945.84 21.78
15 -0.36 -0.63 24232.88 994.35 37300.98 37300.98 1530.58 4294.71 62.17
16 -0.51 -0.51 45959.49 1885.87 59027.59 59027.59 2422.10 8857.02 98.38
17 -0.63 -0.36 63699.19 2613.79 76767.29 76767.29 3150.01 13413.98 127.95
18 -0.70 -0.19 76243.06 3128.50 89311.15 89311.15 3664.73 16747.13 148.85
19 -0.72 0.00 82736.24 3394.94 95804.33 95804.33 3931.17 17964.69 159.67
20 -0.70 0.19 82736.24 3394.94 95804.33 95804.33 3931.17 16740.43 159.67
21 -0.63 0.36 76243.06 3128.50 89311.15 89311.15 3664.73 13401.04 148.85
22 -0.51 0.51 63699.19 2613.79 76767.29 76767.29 3150.01 8838.72 127.95
23 -0.36 0.63 45959.49 1885.87 59027.59 59027.59 2422.10 4272.29 98.38
24 -0.19 0.70 24232.88 994.35 37300.98 37300.98 1530.58 26103.72 62.17
-12353.18 516.26 237102.2
7.2.1.3. Pressurized Load

As stated in FAR 23 subpart D §23.841 regarding pressurized cabins, the pressure inside
the fuselage is regulated so that passengers are not exposed to cabin pressure equivalent to
altitudes above 15000 ft or equivalent to 57182 Pa at the maximum operating altitude of the
aircraft under normal flying conditions. The pressure difference value will be calculated by
comparing this value with the pressure at the maximum service ceiling of NFT-22 Aircraft,
which is 64275 ft or equivalent to 101325 Pa. Furthermore, the amount of stress experienced by
the structure can be calculated through the following equation.
𝑣(𝑡𝜑 − 𝑡)𝑝𝑅
𝑡𝑥 𝑝𝑅 +
𝜎ℎ = 2
2 2
(1 − 𝑣 )𝑡𝜑 𝑡𝑥 + 𝑣 𝑡(𝑡𝜑 + 𝑡𝑥 − 𝑡)
𝑡𝜑 𝑝𝑅
( )
𝜎𝑙 = 2 + 𝑣 𝑡𝑥 − 𝑡 𝑝𝑅
(1 − 𝑣 2 )𝑡𝜑 𝑡𝑥 + 𝑣 2 𝑡(𝑡𝜑 + 𝑡𝑥 − 𝑡)
With the variables 𝑡𝑥 and 𝑡𝜑 being the effective thickness which can be calculated
through the following equation.
𝐴𝑠
𝑡𝑥 = 𝑡 +
𝑙𝑠
𝐴𝑓
𝑡𝜑 = 𝑡 +
𝑙𝑓
Where 𝐴𝑠 is the cross-sectional area of the stringer, 𝑙𝑠 is the stringer pitch, 𝐴𝑓 is the
cross-sectional area of the frame, and 𝑙𝑓 is the frame pitch. In this calculation, bulkheads-heavy
frames are frames. By using Microsoft Excel software, the calculation results shown by:
Table 44 Pressurized Load for Nose
Effective thickness, t_x 2.751712102 mm

Effective thickness, t_phi 1.57166544 mm
Poisson ratio Toray 0.23 [-]
Poisson ratio Al 7075-T6 0.33 [-]
Frame thickness 3 mm
Cabin length 3.3 m
Jumlah frame 23 [-]
Luas frame 0.010282433 m^2
Frame pitch 0.143478261 m
Hoop Stress 12.07704686 MPa
Longitudinal stress 5.239352464 MPa
Table 45 Pressurized Load for Centre

Frame thickness 3 mm
Cabin length 3.3 m
No. of Frame 21 [-]
Frame Area 0.018336997 m^2
Table 46 Pressurized Load for Tail

Frame thickness 1.2 mm
Cabin length 3.3 m
No. of Frame 21 [-]
Frame Area 0.00292 m^2
After doing the calculations above, the material failure will be checked using the Von-
Mises Failure Criterion through the following equation.
1 2
𝜎𝑉 = √ [(𝜎𝑥𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦𝑦 ) + 𝜎𝑥𝑥
2 + 𝜎2 + 𝜏2
𝑦𝑦 𝑥𝑦
2
Next, the margin of safety value will be calculated through the following equation.
𝜎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤
𝑀𝑜𝑆 = −1
𝜎𝑉 × 1.5
By using Microsoft Excel software, the following results were obtained for each load
factor shown by:
Table 47 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= +8 (Nose)
Sigma Von mises Allowable

Stringer Sigma XX Sigma XX total Tau Margin FAIL /
Circumferential stress stress
ke- (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) of safety SAFE
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 286.26 291.50 12.08 0.03 285.65 503 0.17 SAFE
2 286.26 291.50 12.08 -20.25 287.80 503 0.17 SAFE
3 277.27 282.51 12.08 -40.53 285.44 503 0.17 SAFE
4 202.52 207.76 12.08 -60.18 227.29 503 0.48 SAFE
5 138.27 143.51 12.08 -74.52 188.86 503 0.78 SAFE
6 47.83 53.07 12.08 -84.32 153.79 503 1.18 SAFE
7 0.00 5.24 12.08 -87.71 152.27 503 1.20 SAFE
8 -66.50 -61.26 12.08 -84.85 161.97 503 1.07 SAFE
9 -167.39 -162.15 12.08 -80.14 218.32 503 0.54 SAFE
10 -260.07 -254.83 12.08 -68.28 286.62 503 0.17 SAFE
11 -306.44 -301.20 12.08 -49.85 319.31 503 0.05 SAFE
12 -307.17 -301.93 12.08 -28.15 311.98 503 0.07 SAFE
13 -306.44 -301.20 12.08 -6.38 307.61 503 0.09 SAFE
14 -260.07 -254.83 12.08 15.32 262.43 503 0.28 SAFE
15 -167.39 -162.15 12.08 33.75 178.36 503 0.88 SAFE
16 -66.50 -61.26 12.08 45.61 104.30 503 2.22 SAFE
17 -40.36 -35.12 12.08 50.32 96.95 503 2.46 SAFE
18 47.83 53.07 12.08 53.18 103.95 503 2.23 SAFE
19 0.00 5.24 12.08 49.79 86.87 503 2.86 SAFE
20 202.52 207.76 12.08 39.99 213.54 503 0.57 SAFE
21 277.27 282.51 12.08 25.65 280.21 503 0.20 SAFE
22 286.26 291.50 12.08 6.00 285.84 503 0.17 SAFE
23 286.26 291.50 12.08 -14.28 286.72 503 0.17 SAFE
24 0.00 5.24 12.08 -34.56 60.76 503 4.52 SAFE
Table 48 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= -3 (Nose)
Sigma Von mises Allowable

Stringer Sigma XX Sigma XX total Tau Margin FAIL /
Circumferential stress stress
ke- (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) of safety SAFE
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 -107.35 -102.11 12.08 0.02 108.65 503 2.09 SAFE
2 -107.35 -102.11 12.08 -14.48 111.51 503 2.01 SAFE
3 -103.98 -98.74 12.08 -28.97 116.64 503 1.87 SAFE
4 -75.94 -70.70 12.08 -43.01 107.46 503 2.12 SAFE
5 -51.85 -46.61 12.08 -53.26 106.74 503 2.14 SAFE
6 -17.94 -12.70 12.08 -60.27 106.57 503 2.15 SAFE
7 0.00 5.24 12.08 -62.69 109.08 503 2.07 SAFE
8 24.94 30.18 12.08 -60.64 108.28 503 2.10 SAFE
9 62.77 68.01 12.08 -57.28 117.44 503 1.86 SAFE
10 97.53 102.77 12.08 -48.80 128.88 503 1.60 SAFE
11 114.91 120.15 12.08 -35.63 130.16 503 1.58 SAFE
12 115.19 120.43 12.08 -20.12 120.03 503 1.79 SAFE

13 114.91 120.15 12.08 -4.56 114.87 503 1.92 SAFE
14 97.53 102.77 12.08 10.95 99.12 503 2.38 SAFE
15 62.77 68.01 12.08 24.12 75.47 503 3.44 SAFE
16 24.94 30.18 12.08 32.60 62.29 503 4.38 SAFE
17 15.13 20.37 12.08 35.96 64.77 503 4.18 SAFE
18 -17.94 -12.70 12.08 38.01 69.24 503 3.84 SAFE
19 0.00 5.24 12.08 35.59 62.52 503 4.36 SAFE
20 -75.94 -70.70 12.08 28.58 91.92 503 2.65 SAFE
21 -103.98 -98.74 12.08 18.33 109.98 503 2.05 SAFE
22 -107.35 -102.11 12.08 4.29 108.90 503 2.08 SAFE
23 -107.35 -102.11 12.08 -10.20 110.08 503 2.05 SAFE
24 0.00 5.24 12.08 -24.70 44.05 503 6.61 SAFE
Table 49 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= +8 (Centre)
Sigma Sigma Allowable

Stringer Sigma XX Von mises stress Margin of FAIL /
XX Circumferential Tau (MPa) stress
ke- total (MPa) (MPa) safety SAFE
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 315.2929 325.01 18.83 320.44 503 0.046 SAFE
2 297.9084 307.63 5.17 307.76 503 0.090 SAFE
3 263.9294 273.65 -7.73 273.98 503 0.224 SAFE
4 223.6288 233.35 -19.16 235.70 503 0.423 SAFE
5 182.538 192.26 -28.84 198.64 503 0.688 SAFE
6 149.3493 159.07 -36.75 171.33 503 0.957 SAFE
7 124.0626 133.78 -43.21 153.30 503 1.187 SAFE
8 92.45432 102.17 -48.59 132.37 503 1.533 SAFE
9 26.86707 36.59 -52.59 98.16 503 2.416 SAFE
10 -31.6083 -21.89 -53.75 95.64 503 2.506 SAFE
11 -91.6641 -81.94 12.86 -52.38 122.26 503 1.743 SAFE
12 -148.559 -138.84 -48.41 162.20 503 1.067 SAFE
13 -184.909 -175.19 -41.98 189.68 503 0.768 SAFE
14 -203.874 -194.15 -33.97 202.87 503 0.653 SAFE
15 -203.874 -194.15 -25.15 198.98 503 0.685 SAFE
16 -195.972 -186.25 -16.32 188.38 503 0.780 SAFE
17 -194.391 -184.67 -7.83 185.17 503 0.811 SAFE
18 -194.391 -184.67 0.59 184.67 503 0.816 SAFE
19 -195.972 -186.25 9.01 186.90 503 0.794 SAFE
20 -203.874 -194.15 17.49 196.50 503 0.707 SAFE
21 -203.874 -194.15 26.32 199.43 503 0.681 SAFE
22 -184.909 -175.19 35.15 185.46 503 0.808 SAFE

23 -148.559 -138.84 43.16 157.68 503 1.127 SAFE
24 -91.6641 -81.94 49.59 118.71 503 1.825 SAFE
25 -31.6083 -21.89 53.56 95.31 503 2.518 SAFE
26 26.86707 36.59 54.93 101.93 503 2.290 SAFE
27 92.45432 102.17 53.76 138.24 503 1.426 SAFE
28 124.0626 133.78 49.76 159.14 503 1.107 SAFE
29 149.3493 159.07 44.39 176.68 503 0.898 SAFE
30 182.538 192.26 37.92 203.17 503 0.651 SAFE
31 223.6288 233.35 30.02 239.07 503 0.403 SAFE
32 263.9294 273.65 20.33 275.91 503 0.215 SAFE
33 297.9084 307.63 8.90 308.02 503 0.089 SAFE
Table 50 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= -3 (Centre)
Sigma Sigma Allowable

Stringer Sigma XX Von mises stress Margin of FAIL /
XX Circumferential Tau (MPa) stress
ke- total (MPa) (MPa) safety SAFE
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 -118.235 -108.51 18.83 120.00 503 1.79 SAFE
2 -111.716 -102.00 9.07 103.20 503 2.25 SAFE
3 -98.9735 -89.25 -0.15 89.25 503 2.76 SAFE
4 -83.8608 -74.14 -8.32 75.53 503 3.44 SAFE
5 -68.4518 -58.73 -15.24 64.39 503 4.21 SAFE
6 -56.006 -46.29 -20.89 58.75 503 4.71 SAFE
7 -46.5235 -36.80 -25.52 57.51 503 4.83 SAFE
8 -34.6704 -24.95 -29.36 56.64 503 4.92 SAFE
9 -10.0752 -0.35 -32.22 55.80 503 5.01 SAFE
10 11.85312 21.57 -33.05 61.17 503 4.48 SAFE
11 34.37404 44.09 -32.07 70.92 503 3.73 SAFE
12 55.70966 65.43 -29.23 82.73 503 3.05 SAFE
13 69.34074 79.06 -24.64 89.84 503 2.73 SAFE
14 76.45261 86.17 12.86 -18.91 92.19 503 2.64 SAFE
15 76.45261 86.17 -12.60 88.89 503 2.77 SAFE
16 73.48933 83.21 -6.29 83.92 503 3.00 SAFE
17 72.89667 82.62 -0.23 82.62 503 3.06 SAFE
18 72.89667 82.62 5.79 83.22 503 3.03 SAFE
19 73.48933 83.21 11.81 85.69 503 2.91 SAFE
20 76.45261 86.17 17.87 91.56 503 2.66 SAFE
21 76.45261 86.17 24.18 95.81 503 2.50 SAFE
22 69.34074 79.06 30.49 95.08 503 2.53 SAFE
23 55.70966 65.43 36.22 90.64 503 2.70 SAFE
24 34.37404 44.09 40.81 83.32 503 3.02 SAFE
25 11.85312 21.57 43.65 78.62 503 3.27 SAFE
26 -10.0752 -0.35 44.63 77.30 503 3.34 SAFE
27 -34.6704 -24.95 43.80 79.86 503 3.20 SAFE

28 -46.5235 -36.80 40.94 79.89 503 3.20 SAFE
29 -56.006 -46.29 37.10 79.19 503 3.23 SAFE
30 -68.4518 -58.73 32.47 81.32 503 3.12 SAFE
31 -83.8608 -74.14 26.82 87.49 503 2.83 SAFE
32 -98.9735 -89.25 19.90 95.68 503 2.50 SAFE
33 -111.716 -102.00 11.73 104.00 503 2.22 SAFE
Table 51 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= +8 (Tail)
Sigma Allowable
Stringer Sigma XX Sigma XX Tau Von mises Margin FAIL /
Circumferential stress
ke- (MPa) total (MPa) (MPa) stress (MPa) of safety SAFE
(MPa) (MPa)
23.72 201.24 503 0.67 SAFE

1 199.12 205.48
2 192.34 198.70 -21.81 202.26 503 0.66 SAFE
3 172.44 178.80 -65.79 212.03 503 0.58 SAFE
4 140.80 147.16 -105.22 234.24 503 0.43 SAFE
5 99.56 105.92 -137.41 260.51 503 0.29 SAFE
6 51.54 57.90 -160.18 283.41 503 0.18 SAFE
7 0.00 6.36 -171.96 297.91 503 0.13 SAFE
8 -51.54 -45.18 -171.96 301.25 503 0.11 SAFE
9 -99.56 -93.20 -160.18 292.67 503 0.15 SAFE
10 -140.80 -134.44 -137.41 273.35 503 0.23 SAFE
11 -172.44 -166.08 -105.22 246.57 503 0.36 SAFE
12 -192.34 -185.98 -65.79 218.11 503 0.54 SAFE
-21.81 196.43 503 0.71 SAFE

13 -199.12 -192.76
18.23
23.72 190.46 503 0.76 SAFE
14 -192.34 -185.98
67.69 203.30 503 0.65 SAFE
15 -172.44 -166.08
107.12 229.13 503 0.46 SAFE
16 -140.80 -134.44
139.32 258.67 503 0.30 SAFE
17 -99.56 -93.20
162.08 284.34 503 0.18 SAFE
18 -51.54 -45.18
173.86 301.21 503 0.11 SAFE
19 0.00 6.36
173.86 306.66 503 0.09 SAFE
20 51.54 57.90
162.08 300.05 503 0.12 SAFE
21 99.56 105.92
139.32 282.64 503 0.19 SAFE
22 140.80 147.16
107.12 257.68 503 0.30 SAFE
23 172.44 178.80
67.69 230.71 503 0.45 SAFE
24 192.34 198.70
Table 52 Calculation of Margin of Safety for n= -3 (Tail)

Sigma Allowable
Stringer Sigma XX Sigma XX Von mises Margin FAIL /
Circumferential Tau (MPa) stress
ke- (MPa) total (MPa) stress (MPa) of safety SAFE
(MPa) (MPa)
1 -74.67 -64.30 21.78 84.57 503 2.97 SAFE
2 -72.13 -61.75 -20.03 70.83 504 3.74 SAFE
3 -64.67 -54.29 -60.42 117.90 505 1.86 SAFE
4 -52.80 -42.43 -96.63 172.67 506 0.95 SAFE
5 -37.34 -26.96 -126.20 220.24 507 0.53 SAFE
6 -19.33 -8.95 -147.10 254.95 508 0.33 SAFE
7 0.00 10.37 -157.93 273.73 509 0.24 SAFE
8 19.33 29.70 -157.93 275.14 510 0.24 SAFE
9 37.34 47.71 -147.10 259.22 511 0.31 SAFE
10 52.80 63.17 -126.20 227.53 512 0.50 SAFE
11 64.67 75.04 -96.63 183.42 513 0.86 SAFE
12 72.13 82.50 -60.42 133.26 514 1.57 SAFE

19.12
13 74.67 85.04 -20.03 91.85 515 2.74 SAFE
14 72.13 82.50 21.78 90.71 516 2.79 SAFE
15 64.67 75.04 62.17 131.25 517 1.63 SAFE
16 52.80 63.17 98.38 181.73 518 0.90 SAFE
17 37.34 47.71 127.95 226.69 519 0.53 SAFE
18 19.33 29.70 148.85 259.52 520 0.34 SAFE
19 0.00 10.37 159.67 276.76 521 0.26 SAFE
20 -19.33 -8.95 159.67 276.71 522 0.26 SAFE
21 -37.34 -26.96 148.85 259.23 523 0.35 SAFE
22 -52.80 -42.43 127.95 225.63 524 0.55 SAFE
23 -64.67 -54.29 98.38 178.84 525 0.96 SAFE
24 -72.13 -61.75 62.17 124.13 526 1.83 SAFE
Based on the above results, it can be concluded that the fuselage structure does not
experience material failure at both load factors. This is indicated by the margin of safety values
that are positive for all stringers.

Next, buckling failure will be checked. The types of buckling failure that will be analyzed
are local compression buckling and shear buckling.
7.2.2.1. Local Compression Buckling

The critical buckling load values in the elastic and plastic regions can be determined by
the following the following equation.
0.91
𝑓𝑏 = 𝜂 ( ) (𝑓 )
(1 − 𝑣 2 ) 𝑏 𝑒
𝑡 2
(𝑓𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
𝑏
With K is elastic buckling coefficient, E is Young's Modulus, ν is Poisson's Ratio, t is
skin thickness, b is stringer pitch, η is plasticity reduction factor, (fb)e is compressive stress for
elastic local buckling, and fb is compressive stress for local buckling. The values of K and η can
be determined through the ESDU 71014 method on Local Buckling of Compression Panels with
Flanged Stringers. The graph on the ESDU document is shown below.
Figure 26 ESDU 71014 Chart for Determining K and η
The stringer dimensions used can be seen below.
Table 53 Stringer Data
Stringer pitch, b 0.22633 m

Stringer thickness, ts 2.4 mm
Skin thickness, t 1.6 mm
Stringer height, h 64 mm
Nilai d 25.6 mm
d/h 0.4 [-]
h/b 0.282772942 [-]
ts/t 1.5 [-]
Then we need the material properties which can be seen from the data below.
Table 54 Material Properties Data
fn Toray 224 MPa

fn Al 7075-T6 416 Mpa
m Toray 11.9 [-]
m Al 7075-T6 14.2 [-]

Modulus Young Toray 73100 MPa
Modulus Young Al 7075-T6 71700 MPa
By using Microsoft Excel software, the calculation of the buckling force buckling strength as
shown by:
Table 55 Compressive Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Nose)
Toray Al 7075-T6
K 5.85
v 0.33
fn 224 416
m 11.9 14.2
E 73100 71700
(fb)e 21.3712026 20.9619046
(fb)e
21.82448027 21.40650117
correction
(fb)e/fn 0.095407154 0.050389194
Eta 1 1
fb 182.3507066 136.024
Table 56 Compressive Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Centre)
Al 2024-T3 Al 7075-T6
K 4.7
v 0.33
fn 224 416
m 11.9 14.2
E 73100 71700
(fb)e 19.51458611 19.14084574
(fb)e
19.92848542 19.54681812
correction
(fb)e/fn 0.087118688 0.046011648
Eta 1 1
fb 150.5799242 150.5799242
7.2.2.2. Shear Buckling

Next, the shear critical buckling value will be calculated by using equation that is identical to the
compression buckling case only in the case of shear buckling refers to the ESDU 71005
document as follows.
0.91
𝑞𝑏 = 𝜂 ( ) (𝑞𝑏 )𝑒
(1 − 𝑣 2 )
𝑡 2
(𝑞𝑏 )𝑒 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
𝑏
Figure 27 Graph to determine K and η
By using Microsoft Excel software, the calculation of the buckling force buckling strength as
shown by:
Table 57 Shear Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Nose)
Toray Al 7075-T6
K 17
v 0.33
a/b Infinite
b^2/rt 33.61238117
fn 224 416
m 11.9 14.2
E 73100 71700
(qb)e 62.10434944 60.91493646
(qb)e
63.42156659 62.20692647
correction
(qb)e/fn 0.27725156 0.146430136
Eta 1 1
fb 136.024 182.3507066
Table 58 Shear Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Centre)

Toray Al 7075-T6
K 15
v 0.33
a/b Infinite
b^2/rt 8.903812435
fn 224 416
m 11.9 14.2
E 73100 71700
(qb)e 62.28059395 61.08780556
(qb)e
63.6015492 62.38346208
correction
(qb)e/fn 0.278038366 0.146845686
Eta 1 1
fb 150.5799242 150.5799242
Table 59 Shear Critical Buckling Value Calculation (Tail)
Toray Al 7075-T6
K 15
v 0.33
a/b Infinite
b^2/rt 3.773243246
fn 224 416
m 11.9 14.2
E 73100 71700
(qb)e 97.97667254 96.10023832
(qb)e
100.0547324 98.13849946
correction
(qb)e/fn 0.43739586 0.231010188
Eta 1 1
fb 182.351 136.02
After performing the above calculations, failure checks will be performed for both load factors
for both buckling cases as shown by:
Table 60 Compressive Buckling Failure Checking (Nose)
n=8
Compressive
Bending
Buckling Load Margin of
Stringer ke- stress FAIL/SAFE
for Al 7075-T6 Safety
(MPa)
(Mpa)
8 5.2520 16.2662 SAFE
9 10.1461 7.9377 SAFE

10 14.3488 5.3199 SAFE
11 17.5736 4.1602 SAFE

12 19.6008 3.6265 SAFE
136.0240
13 20.2923 3.4688 SAFE
14 19.6008 3.6265 SAFE
15 17.5736 4.1602 SAFE
16 14.3488 5.3199 SAFE
17 10.1461 7.9377 SAFE
18 5.2520 16.2662 SAFE
19 0.0000 Neutral Axis
n = -3
Compressive
Bending
(MPa)
(Mpa)
-
1 3.029 SAFE
30.17520358
-
2 0.788 SAFE
68.00954052
-
3 0.183 SAFE
102.7658297
-
4 0.012 SAFE
120.1531351
5 120.4279608 0.009 SAFE
-
6 0.012 SAFE
120.1531351
182.351
7 0 Neutral Axis
-
20 0.183 SAFE
102.7658297
-
21 0.788 SAFE
68.00954052
-
22 3.029 SAFE
30.17520358
-
23 4.967 SAFE
20.37308724
-
24 8.574 SAFE
12.69760437
Table 61 Compressive Buckling Failure Checking (Centre)

n=8
Compressive
Bending
(MPa)
(Mpa)
8 27.0763 2.7075 SAFE
9 52.3075 0.9192 SAFE
10 73.9739 0.3571 SAFE
11 90.5992 0.1080 SAFE
12 101.0503 -0.0066 FAIL
13 104.6150 -0.0404 FAIL
150.5799
14 101.0503 -0.0066 FAIL
15 90.5992 0.1080 SAFE
16 73.9739 0.3571 SAFE
17 52.3075 0.9192 SAFE
18 27.0763 2.7075 SAFE
19 0.0000 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
n = -3
Compressive
Bending
(MPa)
(Mpa)
1 -118.235 -0.151 FAIL
2 -111.716 -0.101 FAIL
3 -98.974 0.014 SAFE
4 -83.861 0.197 SAFE
5 -68.452 0.467 SAFE
6 -56.006 0.792 SAFE
7 -46.523 150.580 1.158 SAFE
-
20 1.895 SAFE
34.67036934
-
21 8.964 SAFE
10.07515155
22 11.85311743 7.469 SAFE
23 34.37404169 1.920 SAFE
24 55.70965537 0.802 SAFE
Table 62 Compressive Buckling Failure Checking (Tail)
n=8
Compressive
Bending Buckling Load
Stringer ke- Margin of Safety FAIL/SAFE
stress (MPa) for Al 7075-T6
(Mpa)
8 199.12 -0.5446 FAIL
9 192.34 -0.5285 FAIL
10 172.44 -0.4741 FAIL
11 140.80 -0.3560 FAIL
12 99.56 -0.0892 FAIL
13 51.54 0.7595 SAFE
136.0200
14 0.00 7434231351919700.0000 SAFE
15 -51.54 0.7595 SAFE
16 -99.56 -0.0892 FAIL
17 -140.80 -0.3560 FAIL
18 -172.44 -0.4741 FAIL
19 -192.34 -0.5285 FAIL
n = --3
Compressive
Bending
Buckling Load
Stringer ke- stress Margin of Safety FAIL/SAFE
for Al 2024-T3
(MPa)
(Mpa)
-
1 0.628 SAFE
74.67031545
-
2 0.685 SAFE
72.12598615
-
3 0.880 SAFE
64.66639009
-
4 1.302 SAFE
52.79988641
-
5 2.256 SAFE
37.33515773 182.351
-
6 5.290 SAFE
19.32609974
-4.57411E-
7 26577258663018300 SAFE
15
20 19.32609974 5.290 SAFE
21 37.33515773 2.256 SAFE
22 52.79988641 1.302 SAFE
23 64.66639009 0.880 SAFE
24 72.12598615 0.685 SAFE
Table 63 Shear Buckling Failure Checking (Nose)

n=8
Stringer
Tau (MPa) Shear Buckling Load (MPa) Margin of Safety FAIL/SAFE
ke-
1 2.478835979 136.024 35.58276201 SAFE
2 -2.478835979 136.024 35.58276201 SAFE
3 -7.267579361 136.024 11.47769885 SAFE
4 -11.56104922 136.024 6.84380941 SAFE
5 -15.06665268 136.024 5.018766649 SAFE
6 -17.54548866 136.024 4.168432093 SAFE
7 -18.82862858 136.024 3.816211987 SAFE
8 -18.82862858 182.3507066 5.456505166 SAFE
9 -17.54548866 182.3507066 5.928683497 SAFE
10 -15.06665268 182.3507066 7.068622825 SAFE
11 -11.56104922 182.3507066 9.515233989 SAFE
12 -7.267579361 182.3507066 15.72732167 SAFE
13 -2.478835979 182.3507066 48.04202567 SAFE
14 2.478835979 182.3507066 48.04202567 SAFE
15 7.267579361 182.3507066 15.72732167 SAFE
16 11.56104922 182.3507066 9.515233989 SAFE
17 15.06665268 182.3507066 7.068622825 SAFE
18 17.54548866 182.3507066 5.928683497 SAFE
19 18.82862858 136.024 3.816211987 SAFE
20 18.82862858 136.024 3.816211987 SAFE
21 17.54548866 136.024 4.168432093 SAFE
22 15.06665268 136.024 5.018766649 SAFE
23 11.56104922 136.024 6.84380941 SAFE
24 7.267579361 136.024 11.47769885 SAFE
n = -3
Stringer
ke-
1 0.018682773 136.024 4852.811823 SAFE
2 -14.47587158 136.024 5.264401158 SAFE
3 -28.97042593 136.024 2.13018065 SAFE
4 -43.00978348 136.024 1.108419511 SAFE
5 -53.26408077 136.024 0.702510686 SAFE
6 -60.26520533 136.024 0.504726752 SAFE
7 -62.68714913 136.024 0.446591015 SAFE
8 -60.64371136 182.3507066 1.004612432 SAFE
9 -57.27673944 182.3507066 1.122452132 SAFE
10 -48.80117309 182.3507066 1.491069989 SAFE
11 -35.63262679 182.3507066 2.411680492 SAFE
12 -20.11635356 182.3507066 5.043199498 SAFE
13 -4.562971887 182.3507066 25.64209658 SAFE
14 10.95330135 182.3507066 10.09867554 SAFE
15 24.12184765 182.3507066 4.039710866 SAFE
16 32.597414 182.3507066 2.729349136 SAFE
17 35.96438591 182.3507066 2.38020891 SAFE
18 38.00782368 182.3507066 2.19847668 SAFE
19 35.58587989 136.024 1.548276647 SAFE
20 28.58475532 136.024 2.172413604 SAFE
21 18.33045804 136.024 3.947103147 SAFE
22 4.291100483 136.024 20.13272971 SAFE
23 -10.20345387 136.024 7.887448099 SAFE
24 -24.69800822 136.024 2.671659102 SAFE
Table 64 Shear Buckling Failure Checking (Centre)
n=8
Stringer
ke-
1 -10.41205892 150.5799242 8.641379951 SAFE
2 10.41205892 150.5799242 8.641379951 SAFE
3 30.52661215 150.5799242 2.288495154 SAFE
4 48.56082721 150.5799242 1.067234474 SAFE
5 63.28570215 150.5799242 0.586244803 SAFE
6 73.69776107 150.5799242 0.362139292 SAFE
7 79.08743936 150.5799242 0.269311751 SAFE
8 79.08743936 150.5799242 0.269311751 SAFE
9 73.69776107 150.5799242 0.362139292 SAFE
10 63.28570215 150.5799242 0.586244803 SAFE
11 48.56082721 150.5799242 1.067234474 SAFE
12 30.52661215 150.5799242 2.288495154 SAFE
13 10.41205892 150.5799242 8.641379951 SAFE
14 -10.41205892 150.5799242 8.641379951 SAFE
15 -30.52661215 150.5799242 2.288495154 SAFE
16 -48.56082721 150.5799242 1.067234474 SAFE
17 -63.28570215 150.5799242 0.586244803 SAFE
18 -73.69776107 150.5799242 0.362139292 SAFE
19 -79.08743936 150.5799242 0.269311751 SAFE
20 -79.08743936 150.5799242 0.269311751 SAFE
21 -73.69776107 150.5799242 0.362139292 SAFE
22 -63.28570215 150.5799242 0.586244803 SAFE
23 -48.56082721 150.5799242 1.067234474 SAFE
24 -30.52661215 150.5799242 2.288495154 SAFE
n = -3
Stringer
ke-
1 18.82630071 150.5799242 4.332253937 SAFE
2 9.067670641 150.5799242 10.07082735 SAFE
3 -0.15289013 150.5799242 655.5931775 SAFE
4 -8.321769037 150.5799242 11.06313413 SAFE
5 -15.24330356 150.5799242 5.585620742 SAFE
6 -20.89303696 150.5799242 3.804788135 SAFE
7 -25.5155462 150.5799242 2.93433146 SAFE
8 -29.35540822 150.5799242 2.419697501 SAFE
9 -32.21696146 150.5799242 2.115955433 SAFE
10 -33.04852406 150.5799242 2.037552174 SAFE
11 -32.07021529 150.5799242 2.130213353 SAFE
12 -29.23311974 150.5799242 2.434002837 SAFE
13 -24.6350682 150.5799242 3.074947765 SAFE
14 -18.91196171 150.5799242 4.308101699 SAFE
15 -12.60186958 150.5799242 6.966009765 SAFE
16 -6.291777443 150.5799242 14.95520773 SAFE
17 -0.226263217 150.5799242 442.6718335 SAFE
18 5.790335618 150.5799242 16.33692531 SAFE
19 11.80693445 150.5799242 7.502343814 SAFE
20 17.87244868 150.5799242 4.616836166 SAFE
21 24.18254081 150.5799242 3.151202178 SAFE
22 30.49263295 150.5799242 2.29215966 SAFE
23 36.21573944 150.5799242 1.771905742 SAFE
24 40.81379098 150.5799242 1.459624889 SAFE
Table 65 Shear Buckling Failure Checking (Tail)
n=8
Stringer
ke-
1 23.72 182.351 4.12602802 SAFE
2 -21.81 182.351 4.573165727 SAFE
3 -65.79 182.351 0.847800278 SAFE
4 -105.22 182.351 0.155371181 SAFE
5 -137.41 182.351 -0.115313678 FAIL
6 -160.18 182.351 -0.241044995 FAIL
7 -171.96 182.351 -0.29305267 FAIL
8 -171.96 136.02 -0.47267097 FAIL
9 -160.18 136.02 -0.433877194 FAIL
10 -137.41 136.02 -0.340091178 FAIL
11 -105.22 136.02 -0.138180827 FAIL
12 -65.79 136.02 0.378318703 SAFE
13 -21.81 136.02 3.157158459 SAFE
14 23.72 136.02 2.823627681 SAFE
15 67.69 136.02 0.339576795 SAFE
16 107.12 136.02 -0.153488623 FAIL
17 139.32 136.02 -0.349103969 FAIL
18 162.08 136.02 -0.440523136 FAIL
19 173.86 182.351 -0.300789329 FAIL
20 173.86 182.351 -0.300789329 FAIL
21 162.08 182.351 -0.249954671 FAIL
22 139.32 182.351 -0.127396397 FAIL
23 107.12 182.351 0.134849258 SAFE
24 67.69 182.351 0.795862139 SAFE
n = -3
Stringer
ke-
1 21.78015518 182.351 4.581564149 SAFE
2 -20.03272309 182.351 5.068437765 SAFE
3 -60.42086209 182.351 1.012009249 SAFE
4 -96.63187688 182.351 0.258045867 SAFE
5 -126.1980466 182.351 -0.036694017 FAIL
6 -147.1044858 182.351 -0.173598734 FAIL
7 -157.926455 182.351 -0.230228189 FAIL
8 -157.926455 136.02 -0.425808678 FAIL
9 -147.1044858 136.02 -0.383567404 FAIL
10 -126.1980466 136.02 -0.281446881 FAIL
11 -96.63187688 136.02 -0.061593307 FAIL
12 -60.42086209 136.02 0.500806127 SAFE
13 -20.03272309 136.02 3.526593793 SAFE
14 21.78015518 136.02 3.163423045 SAFE
15 62.16829418 136.02 0.458621331 SAFE
16 98.37930897 136.02 -0.078261466 FAIL
17 127.9454787 136.02 -0.291260614 FAIL
18 148.8519179 136.02 -0.390803953 FAIL
19 159.6738871 182.351 -0.238652384 FAIL
20 159.6738871 182.351 -0.238652384 FAIL
21 148.8519179 182.351 -0.183300188 FAIL
22 127.9454787 182.351 -0.049850495 FAIL
23 98.37930897 182.351 0.235700216 SAFE
24 62.16829418 182.351 0.955455509 SAFE
Based on the four tables above, it can be concluded that the overall fuselage structure can
be said to experience compressive buckling failure at both load factors, but the structure safely
accepts shear buckling loads at the maximum negative load factor condition. Therefore, it is
necessary to perform sizing iterations so that the NFT-22 Aircraft fuselage structure can safely
accept buckling loads.
The stress checking process also needs to review the nose and end fuselage of the NFT-
22 Aircraft. The calculations (attached in the Appendix) show that the tail of the fuselage
experienced compressive and shear buckling failure at both load factors. This can be predicted
from the lower skin thickness values with a fixed number of stringers even though the tail of the
fuselage received lower bending and shear loads. loads. Note that in this calculation, the tail of
the fuselage is assumed not to receive pressurization loads.
7.2.3. Mass Calculation

Here we calculate the total mass of the fuselage that includes stringer, longeron, frame, bulkhead,
and skin. We can get all the value and can be seen from the table below.
Table 66 Data for the Mass of each part of fuselage
Nose 0.042348606
Centre 0.05477712
Tail 0.002742066
0.099867792
Skin Mass (Skin only) 280.6284964
Stringer Mass
Nose 0.000732954
Centre 0.000437976
Tail 6.76444E-05
0.001238574
Longeron Mass 3.480393325
Bulkhead dan Frame Mass

Frame 0.183618088
Bulkhead 0.236080398
Jumlah volume 0.419698486
Massa Bulkhead dan Frame 914.9426989
berat total 1199.051589
7.3. Tail Stress Checking

Stress checking is a mandatory step in designing the structure of the aircraft. At this stage,
the size of each component on the aircraft is tested based on the applicable tests. Then after testing
the structure that has been formed, it is analyzed whether this structure is safe to use or has a failure.
This stage is also the most important stage because this is the final stage in designing the structure
of the aircraft. Structural testing was carried out by applying flexural bending stress, flexural shear
stress (due to shear flow and torsion), and von-mises stress. Then, based on the results from von-
Mises, the margin of safety (MOS) of the structure will be measured to determine whether the
structure is safe or has failed.
Based on the results of the previous HTP initial sizing conducted on subchapter 6.3, it is
observed that the root section always requires a thicker dimension due to the maximum loading
occurring at the root. To simplify future analysis, the sizing results at the root will be used to
represent the calculations in stress checking.

The first structural failure inspection process is to idealize the structure first. The process
of idealizing this structure is carried out by distributing the cross-sectional area from the skin to
the nearest stringer or spar cap. The idealized area for each stringer and spar cap is expressed in
the following formula.
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑖𝑑 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 + 𝑠𝑡
1 1
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟,𝑖𝑑 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 + 𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 + ℎ𝑡𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟
2 2
2
1 ℎ + ℎ𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟
𝑠= √( 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟 ) + 𝑤2
𝑁+1 2
Where t is the thickness of the skin, s is the distance between each stringer, and h is the
height of the spars. The data used and obtained after idealizing the empennage structure are shown
in the following table.
Table 6867 HTP Component Idealization
Idealisation
Component
Upper Lower
w 486.4 486.4
data
t_skin 2.713869526 2.71386953
N_Stringer 7 7
s 30.4 30.4
Stringer
A_stringer 88.00174249 88.0017425
A_stringer,id 170.5033761 170.503376
h_front 145.7207102 145.72071
h_rear 85.51695631 85.5169563
t_front 1.638348167 1.63834817
spar
t_rear 0.670235349 0.67023535
A_front, id 248.6231885 248.623189
A_rear,id 157.9108028 157.910803
The initial stage in checking failure is to provide flexural loading conditions or due to
bending loads. This stress occurs due to the axial stress which is expressed in the following
equation.
𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝑀𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑦 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝑀𝑧 𝑀𝑦
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 2
𝑦 + 2
𝑧 = 𝑧
𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝐼𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝐼𝑦𝑧 𝐼𝑦𝑦
In order to obtain the value of the axial stress, we must first find the moment of inertia of
the tail box. The formula used to find the value of the moment of inertia of the tail box is shown
in the following table.
𝐼𝑦𝑦 = ∑ 𝐴𝑖 𝑧𝑖2
By using the above equation, the calculation results are shown in the following table.
Table 6968 Moment Inertia Calculation of Tailbox
Inertia Tailbox
Stringer x(m) z(m) A(m^2) Az^2
FS Upper -0.2432 0.072865 0.000248623 1.32E-06
1 -0.2128 0.070983 0.000170503 8.591E-07
2 -0.1824 0.069101 0.000170503 8.1415E-07
3 -0.152 0.06722 0.000170503 7.7041E-07
4 -0.1216 0.065338 0.000170503 7.2788E-07
5 -0.0912 0.063456 0.000170503 6.8656E-07
6 -0.0608 0.061574 0.000170503 6.4644E-07
7 -0.0304 0.059692 0.000170503 6.0754E-07
8 -1.04083E-16 0.057811 0.000170503 5.6984E-07
9 0.0304 0.055929 0.000170503 5.3334E-07
10 0.0608 0.054047 0.000170503 4.9806E-07
11 0.0912 0.052165 0.000170503 4.6398E-07
12 0.1216 0.050284 0.000170503 4.3111E-07
13 0.152 0.048402 0.000170503 3.9945E-07
14 0.1824 0.04652 0.000170503 3.6899E-07
15 0.2128 0.044638 0.000170503 3.3974E-07
RS Upper 0.2432 0.042757 0.000157911 2.8868E-07
FS Lower -0.2432 -0.07286 0.000248623 1.32E-06
1 -0.2128 -0.07098 0.000170503 8.591E-07
2 -0.1824 -0.0691 0.000170503 8.1415E-07
3 -0.152 -0.06722 0.000170503 7.7041E-07
4 -0.1216 -0.06534 0.000170503 7.2788E-07
5 -0.0912 -0.06346 0.000170503 6.8656E-07
6 -0.0608 -0.06157 0.000170503 6.4644E-07
7 -0.0304 -0.05969 0.000170503 6.0754E-07
8 -1.04083E-16 -0.05781 0.000170503 5.6984E-07
9 0.0304 -0.05593 0.000170503 5.3334E-07
10 0.0608 -0.05405 0.000170503 4.9806E-07
11 0.0912 -0.05217 0.000170503 4.6398E-07
12 0.1216 -0.05028 0.000170503 4.3111E-07
13 0.152 -0.0484 0.000170503 3.9945E-07
14 0.1824 -0.04652 0.000170503 3.6899E-07
15 0.2128 -0.04464 0.000170503 3.3974E-07
RS Lower 0.2432 -0.04276 0.000157911 2.8868E-07
Iyy (m^4) 2.0651E-05
The bending moment value used is the ultimate moment value of the HTP structure, which
is 𝑀𝑦 = 80484.2374𝑁𝑚. After doing the calculations, the flexural bending stress of each HTP
component is obtained as shown in the following table.
Table 7069 Flexural bending stress calculation of HTP tailbox
Flextural Bending Stress

Stringer x(m) z(m) Iyy (m^4) σxx (Pa) σxx (MPa)
FS Upper -0.2432 0.0728648 2.065E-05 283985892.5 283.9858925
1 -0.2128 0.07098304 2.065E-05 276651853.4 276.6518534
2 -0.1824 0.06910128 2.065E-05 269317814.3 269.3178143
3 -0.152 0.06721952 2.065E-05 261983775.2 261.9837752
4 -0.1216 0.06533776 2.065E-05 254649736.1 254.6497361
5 -0.0912 0.063456 2.065E-05 247315697 247.315697
6 -0.0608 0.06157424 2.065E-05 239981657.8 239.9816578
7 -0.0304 0.05969248 2.065E-05 232647618.7 232.6476187
8 -1.04083E-16 0.05781072 2.065E-05 225313579.6 225.3135796
9 0.0304 0.05592896 2.065E-05 217979540.5 217.9795405
10 0.0608 0.0540472 2.065E-05 210645501.4 210.6455014
11 0.0912 0.05216544 2.065E-05 203311462.3 203.3114623
12 0.1216 0.05028368 2.065E-05 195977423.2 195.9774232
13 0.152 0.04840192 2.065E-05 188643384.1 188.6433841
14 0.1824 0.04652016 2.065E-05 181309344.9 181.3093449
15 0.2128 0.0446384 2.065E-05 173975305.8 173.9753058
RS Upper 0.2432 0.04275664 2.065E-05 166641266.7 166.6412667
Based on these calculations, the greatest bending stress occurs in the front spar of the HTP.
The next step to check for structural failure is by applying flexural shear stress to the HTP
structure. This loading analysis is necessary because the HTP structure also receives shear loads
due to the lifting force and weight of the structure. This loading occurs in the skin and spars and
produces a flexural shear flow. The method used to find the flexural shear flow is by using the
close section method so that the value 𝑞 = 𝑞 ′ + 𝑞0 , where the value of 𝑞0 is a constant shear flow.
The following is an illustration of the equations used.
Figure 28 Close section ilustration to find shear flow value
Then the value of the constant shear flow can be found by using the moment balance in the
structure with the equation shown below.
𝑉𝑧 𝑑 = 2𝐴𝑞0 + ∑ 𝑞′𝑠𝑙 → 𝑞0 =
2𝐴
𝑑 = (0.25 − 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑖 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟)𝑐
𝑙 (lengan momen) = ℎ𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟 cos 𝜃
ℎ𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟 + ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟
𝜃 = tan−1 ( )
2𝑤
By using the equation above, the value of the flexural shear stress in the tail box can be obtained
as shown in the following table.
Table 7170 Rrequired data to find flexural shear stress value on HTP
Required data
V_max 50650.051 N
V_ult 75975.076 N
h_front 0.1457 m
h_rear 0.0855 m
w 0.4864 m
root chord 1.52 m
t_skin 0.0027 m
θ 0.233 rad
13.371 deg
Lengan moment (l) 0.142 m
A_tailbox 0.056 m^2
d -0.228 m
s 0.0304 m
T_max 4012.486 Nm
T_ult 6018.729 Nm
q0 -154011.75 N/m
𝑞𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝜏=
𝑡
Table 7271 Results of flexural shear stress due to shear flow on HTP
Flextural Shear Stress

Stringer x(m) z(m) A(m^2) q' q'sl q total τ (Pa) τ (MPa)
FS Upper -0.2432 0.0728648 0.000249 -66649.778 -287.2488 -220661.52 -81308818.6 -81.309
1 -0.2128 0.07098304 0.000171 -44527.353 -191.9051 -198539.10 -73157201.4 -73.157
2 -0.1824 0.06910128 0.000171 -43346.933 -186.8177 -197358.68 -72722243.2 -72.722
3 -0.152 0.06721952 0.000171 -42166.513 -181.7303 -196178.26 -72287285.0 -72.287
4 -0.1216 0.06533776 0.000171 -40986.093 -176.6428 -194997.84 -71852326.8 -71.852
5 -0.0912 0.063456 0.000171 -39805.673 -171.5554 -193817.42 -71417368.5 -71.417
6 -0.0608 0.06157424 0.000171 -38625.253 -166.468 -192637.00 -70982410.3 -70.982
7 -0.0304 0.05969248 0.000171 -37444.834 -161.3806 -191456.58 -70547452.1 -70.547
8 -1.0408E-16 0.05781072 0.000171 -36264.414 -156.2932 -190276.16 -70112493.8 -70.112
9 0.0304 0.05592896 0.000171 -35083.994 -151.2058 -189095.74 -69677535.6 -69.678
10 0.0608 0.0540472 0.000171 -33903.574 -146.1184 -187915.32 -69242577.4 -69.243
11 0.0912 0.05216544 0.000171 -32723.154 -141.031 -186734.90 -68807619.2 -68.808
12 0.1216 0.05028368 0.000171 -31542.734 -135.9436 -185554.48 -68372660.9 -68.373
13 0.152 0.04840192 0.000171 -30362.314 -130.8562 -184374.06 -67937702.7 -67.938
14 0.1824 0.04652016 0.000171 -29181.894 -125.7688 -183193.64 -67502744.5 -67.503
15 0.2128 0.0446384 0.000171 -28001.475 -120.6814 -182013.22 -67067786.2 -67.068
RS Upper 0.2432 0.04275664 0.000158 -24840.178 -107.0568 -178851.93 -65902919.6 -65.903
sigma q'sl 0.000
In addition to finding the flexural shear stress due to shear flow, failure analysis is also
carried out by calculating the total shear stress by adding the previously calculated shear flow to
the torsional shear. The equation used to find shear flow due to torque is calculated using the
following equation.
𝑇 (𝑞 + 𝑞 𝑇 )
𝑞𝑇 = , 𝜏=
2𝐴 𝑡
Calculation of flexural shear stress due to shear flow and torsional shear on the tail box is
shown in the following table.
Table 7372 Results of flexural shear stress due to torque and shear flow on HTP
Flextural Shear Stress (Akibat torsi dan shear flow)

Stringer q qT τ (Pa) τ (Mpa)
FS Upper -220661.525 53512.17889 -61590781.89 -61.590782
1 -198539.1 53512.17889 -53439164.75 -53.439165
2 -197358.68 53512.17889 -53004206.52 -53.004207
3 -196178.26 53512.17889 -52569248.29 -52.569248
4 -194997.84 53512.17889 -52134290.06 -52.13429
5 -193817.42 53512.17889 -51699331.83 -51.699332
6 -192637 53512.17889 -51264373.61 -51.264374
7 -191456.58 53512.17889 -50829415.38 -50.829415
8 -190276.16 53512.17889 -50394457.15 -50.394457
9 -189095.741 53512.17889 -49959498.92 -49.959499
10 -187915.321 53512.17889 -49524540.7 -49.524541
11 -186734.901 53512.17889 -49089582.47 -49.089582
12 -185554.481 53512.17889 -48654624.24 -48.654624
13 -184374.061 53512.17889 -48219666.01 -48.219666
14 -183193.641 53512.17889 -47784707.78 -47.784708
15 -182013.221 53512.17889 -47349749.56 -47.34975
RS Upper -178851.925 53512.17889 -46184882.88 -46.184883
The final test was carried out to ensure the safety of the structure using the Von-Mises
stress criterion to provide assurance that the load experienced by the structure is still below the
yield load of the material used. The upper HTP structure uses Al-7075 T6 material with a yield
stress value of 517 MPa and for the lower HTP uses Al-2024 T3 material with a yield stress of 345
MPa. The value of the Von-Mises stress can be calculated using the following equation.
𝜎𝑣 = √𝜎 2 + 3𝜏 2
Then the value of the margin of safety (MOS) can be found using the following equation.
𝜎𝑦 − 𝜎𝑣
𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 = ( ) × 100%
𝜎𝑣
By using the equation above, the structure can be checked for safety with the following
safety criteria.
Table 7473 Calculation of von-mises and margin of safety on HTP
Von-misses dan Margin of Safety

margin of safety
Stringer σxx (MPa) τ (Mpa) σv (MPa)
(%)
FS Upper 283.9858925 -61.59078189 303.3616 65.80872461
1 276.6518534 -53.43916475 291.72501 72.4226529
2 269.3178143 -53.00420652 284.53545 76.7793779
3 261.9837752 -52.56924829 277.3555 81.35569378
4 254.6497361 -52.13429006 270.18594 86.16809045
5 247.315697 -51.69933183 263.0276 91.23468642
6 239.9816578 -51.26437361 255.88143 96.57542485
7 232.6476187 -50.82941538 248.74847 102.2122965
8 225.3135796 -50.39445715 241.62991 108.1695935
9 217.9795405 -49.95949892 234.52704 114.4741988
10 210.6455014 -49.5245407 227.44135 121.1559157
11 203.3114623 -49.08958247 220.37448 128.2478429
12 195.9774232 -48.65462424 213.32831 135.7868022
13 188.6433841 -48.21966601 206.30496 143.8138227
14 181.3093449 -47.78470778 199.30683 152.3746897
15 173.9753058 -47.34974956 192.33669 161.5205621
RS Upper 166.6412667 -46.18488288 184.84708 172.1168261
FS Lower -283.9858925 -12.47288762 284.80644 13.76147417
1 -276.6518534 -20.62450477 278.94867 16.15040286
2 -269.3178143 -21.05946299 271.77672 19.21550695
3 -261.9837752 -21.49442122 264.61581 22.4416619
4 -254.6497361 -21.92937945 257.46685 25.84144112
5 -247.315697 -22.36433768 250.33087 29.42870341
6 -239.9816578 -22.7992959 243.209 33.21875188
7 -232.6476187 -23.23425413 236.10253 37.22851491
8 -225.3135796 -23.66921236 229.01289 41.47675239
9 -217.9795405 -24.10417059 221.94169 45.98429067
10 -210.6455014 -24.53912882 214.89075 50.77428986
11 -203.3114623 -24.97408704 207.86213 55.87254757
12 -195.9774232 -25.40904527 200.85818 61.30784285
13 -188.6433841 -25.8440035 193.88157 67.11232374
14 -181.3093449 -26.27896173 186.93536 73.32194095
15 -173.9753058 -26.71391995 180.02308 79.97692778
RS Lower -166.6412667 -27.87878663 173.49637 86.74741804
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the greatest stress occurs in the lower front
spar with a minimum MOS value of 16.15%. This value is already close to 0%, but we can still
optimize other components with high MOS values. The optimization is carried out by reducing the
component size so that the structure can be lighter while still maintaining the MOS value above
0%.
The critical voltage value to achieve buckling at http can be calculated using ESDU criteria.
Buckling occurs due to compression loads and shear loads. The stringer configuration used is
flanged. The calculations carried out refer to ESDU 71014 to measure local buckling strength
(compression) and ESDU 71005 to measure shear local buckling strength. The local buckling
value can be calculated using the following equation.
0.91 𝑡 2
𝑓𝑏 = 𝜂 𝐾𝐸 ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
with
𝜂 = 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (assumed 1)
𝐾 = 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝐸 = 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑡 = 𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
𝑏 = 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑣 = 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
The value of the geometric coefficient can be determined by using a graph obtained from ESDU
𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 ℎ
71014 with the values 𝑡 = 1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 =0.5664488
𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
Figure 29 Determination of the stiffened panel coefficient value based on ESDU 71014
Based on the picture above, a K value of 4.65 is obtained. Then the value of local shear buckling
strength can be calculated using the following equation.
0.91 𝑡 2
𝑞𝑏 = 𝜂 𝐾𝐸 ( )
1 − 𝑣2 𝑏
With
𝜂 = 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (assumed 1)
𝐾 = 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝐸 = 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑡 = skin thickness
𝑏 = 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑣 = 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
The value of the geometric coefficient can be determined using a graph obtained from ESDU
𝑏
71005 with a value of = 0.1422 and assuming that all sides of the skin are simply supported
𝑎
panels.
Figure 30 Determination of the value of the stiffness panel coefficient based on ESDU 71005
Based on the picture above, a K value of 4.65 is obtained. Then do the calculations to find
the value of local buckling strength (compression), local shear buckling strength, and margin of
safety for each component with the values shown in the following table.
𝑓𝑏 − 𝜎𝑥𝑥
𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 (𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 ) = ( ) × 100%
𝜎𝑥𝑥
𝑞𝑏 − 𝜏
𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 (𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟) = ( ) × 100%
𝜏
Table 7574 results of the calculation of buckling and the margin of safety from the HTP structure
Buckling Failure
Stringer σxx (MPa) τ (Mpa) f_c MOS (%) q_b MOS(%)
FS Upper 283.9858925 -61.59078189 -2713.425 -4843.317704 7763.705501
1 276.6518534 -53.43916475 -2713.425 -4843.317704 8963.236162
2 269.3178143 -53.00420652 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9037.610054
3 261.9837752 -52.56924829 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9113.214686
4 254.6497361 -52.13429006 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9190.080862
5 247.315697 -51.69933183 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9268.240424
6 239.9816578 -51.26437361 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9347.726292
7 232.6476187 -50.82941538 -2713.425 Tidak -4843.317704 9428.572516
8 225.3135796 -50.39445715 -2713.425 Mengalami -4843.317704 9510.814319
9 217.9795405 -49.95949892 -2713.425 Kompresi -4843.317704 9594.488152
10 210.6455014 -49.5245407 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9679.631746
11 203.3114623 -49.08958247 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9766.284169
12 195.9774232 -48.65462424 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9854.485888
13 188.6433841 -48.21966601 -2713.425 -4843.317704 9944.278827
14 181.3093449 -47.78470778 -2713.425 -4843.317704 10035.70644
15 173.9753058 -47.34974956 -2713.425 -4843.317704 10128.81377
RS Upper 166.6412667 -46.18488288 -2713.425 -4843.317704 10386.80304
FS Lower -283.9858925 -12.47288762 -2713.425 855.4787932 -4843.317704 38730.76518
1 -276.6518534 -20.62450477 -2713.425 880.8085308 -4843.317704 23383.31637
2 -269.3178143 -21.05946299 -2713.425 907.5178227 -4843.317704 22898.29633
3 -261.9837752 -21.49442122 -2713.425 935.7225278 -4843.317704 22432.90588
4 -254.6497361 -21.92937945 -2713.425 965.551852 -4843.317704 21985.97701
5 -247.315697 -22.36433768 -2713.425 997.1503273 -4843.317704 21556.43255
6 -239.9816578 -22.7992959 -2713.425 1030.680154 -4843.317704 21143.27753
7 -232.6476187 -23.23425413 -2713.425 1066.323985 -4843.317704 20745.5915
8 -225.3135796 -23.66921236 -2713.425 1104.288256 -4843.317704 20362.52165
9 -217.9795405 -24.10417059 -2713.425 1144.807183 -4843.317704 19993.27675
10 -210.6455014 -24.53912882 -2713.425 1188.147604 -4843.317704 19637.12164
11 -203.3114623 -24.97408704 -2713.425 1234.614856 -4843.317704 19293.3724
12 -195.9774232 -25.40904527 -2713.425 1284.559984 -4843.317704 18961.39193
13 -188.6433841 -25.8440035 -2713.425 1338.388625 -4843.317704 18640.58601
14 -181.3093449 -26.27896173 -2713.425 1396.572049 -4843.317704 18330.39978
15 -173.9753058 -26.71391995 -2713.425 1459.660991 -4843.317704 18030.3145
RS Lower -166.6412667 -27.87878663 -2713.425 1528.30314 -4843.317704 17272.7708
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the greatest stress occurs in the lower rear spar
with a minimum MOS value of 17272.7708%. However, the very large MOS value can still be
optimized by reducing the dimensions or the number of components in the empennage structure
with the aim of obtaining a lighter weight and still achieving the same structural strength.
7.3.3. Iteration of Tail Structure

After carrying out the initial sizing process and stress checking process on the structure,
the results that have been obtained do not indicate any failure in the material or it can be said that
the structural configuration based on the initial sizing is safe to withstand the given limit loads.
The iteration of the structure on the empennage is carried out so that the size used in the empennage
structure has a fairly light mass but still does not cause failure in the material used. Iteration of this
structure must still show a margin of safety value of more than zero so that the empennage structure
is feasible to use. Then for the mass of the HTP structure with the dimensions of the initial sizing
results and the materials used, namely Al 7075 T6 for the upper skin and stringers, spars and ribs
and Al 2024 T3 for the lower skin and stringers are shown below.
Table76 75 HTP mass based on initial sizing structure configuration
Component Area volume mass mass (kg) Number total mass

(mm^2) (mm^3) (gram) of-
ribs 56237.0005 138014.9741 387.822 0.38782208 32 12.41030647
stringer upper 42.80929864 104454.6887 293.518 0.29351768 30 8.805530257
lower 42.80929864 104454.6887 290.384 0.29038403 30 8.711521037
skin upper 5050000 13705041.1 38511.166 38.5111655 1 38.5111655
lower 5050000 13705041.1 38100.014 38.1000143 1 38.10001427
spar front 104.8507482 255835.8256 718.899 0.71889867 2 1.43779734
rear 61.53220663 150138.5842 421.889 0.42188942 2 0.843778843
HTP total mass (kg) 108.8201137
Based on the table above, the HTP structure has a mass of 108.82 kg. However, the
estimation results using the initial sizing measure are still above the estimated mass of the NFT-
22 Aircraft Design group, which is 87.12kg. From the initial sizing, the value of the margin of
safety of the HTP structure is obtained which has a very high value. By considering the mass of
the HTP structure with the initial sizing dimension which is still larger than the estimated weight
of the NFT-22 DPU group, it is possible to iterate by reducing the size of the HTP structure but
still with a greater margin of safety of zero. Efforts were made in carrying out structural iterations
by changing the number of stringers and ribs, changing the distance between stringers and ribs,
changing the thickness of the spars and stringers, and changing the area of the stringers. Following
are the dimensions used in the first iteration.
In this first iteration, we will try to reduce the mass of the HTP by changing the skin size.
The skin thickness used is reduced from 2.7mm to 2mm. The following are the results of the mass
calculation after the skin thickness change.
Table 7776 HTP mass based on the iteration structure configuration
Komponen luas (mm^2) volume mass mass (kg) Number total mass
(mm^3) (gram) of-
ribs 56237.0005 138014.9741 387.822 0.38782208 32 12.41030647
stringer upper 42.80929864 104454.6887 293.518 0.29351768 30 8.805530257
lower 42.80929864 104454.6887 290.384 0.29038403 30 8.711521037
skin upper 5050000 10100000 28381.000 28.381 1 28.381
lower 5050000 10100000 28078.000 28.078 1 28.078
spar front 104.8507482 255835.8256 718.899 0.71889867 2 1.43779734
rear 61.53220663 150138.5842 421.889 0.42188942 2 0.843778843
HTP total mass (kg) 88.66793395
Table 7777 Calculation of von-mises and margin of safety for HTP after interation
Von-misses dan Margin of Safety

margin of safety
Stringer σxx (MPa) τ (Mpa) σv (MPa)
(%)
FS Upper 320.8699328 -86.25958546 353.94867 42.11100097
1 312.58335 -72.20330434 336.6724 49.40339813
2 304.2967671 -71.62131663 328.61126 53.06839976
3 296.0101842 -71.03932893 320.5648 56.91055524
4 287.7236013 -70.45734122 312.53413 60.94242324
5 279.4370184 -69.87535351 304.52051 65.17770721
6 271.1504355 -69.29336581 296.52533 69.63137783
7 262.8638526 -68.7113781 288.55011 74.31980933
8 254.5772697 -68.1293904 280.59656 79.26093087
9 246.2906869 -67.54740269 272.66657 84.47439444
10 238.004104 -66.96541499 264.76226 89.98176003
11 229.7175211 -66.38342728 256.886 95.80669914
12 221.4309382 -65.80143957 249.04046 101.9752164
13 213.1443553 -65.21945187 241.22862 108.5158887
14 204.8577724 -64.63746416 233.45388 115.4601194
15 196.5711895 -64.05547646 225.72006 122.8424021
RS Upper 188.2846066 -63.31870243 217.89646 130.8435849
FS Lower -320.8699328 -14.23998236 321.81648 0.67849933
1 -312.58335 -28.29626349 316.40225 2.401293302
2 -304.2967671 -28.87825119 308.38026 5.06509192
3 -296.0101842 -29.4602389 300.37601 7.864806575
4 -287.7236013 -30.0422266 292.39097 10.81053723
5 -279.4370184 -30.62421431 284.42675 13.91333716
6 -271.1504355 -31.20620201 276.48515 17.18531593
7 -262.8638526 -31.78818972 268.56819 20.63975315
8 -254.5772697 -32.37017743 260.6781 24.2912239
9 -246.2906869 -32.95216513 252.8174 28.15573587
10 -238.004104 -33.53415284 244.98892 32.25087806
11 -229.7175211 -34.11614054 237.19585 36.5959801
12 -221.4309382 -34.69812825 229.4418 41.21227979
13 -213.1443553 -35.28011595 221.73086 46.12309469
14 -204.8577724 -35.86210366 214.0677 51.35399057
15 -196.5711895 -36.44409137 206.45762 56.93293543
RS Lower -188.2846066 -37.18086539 198.99332 62.81953185
Table 7878 results of the calculation of buckling and the margin of safety from the HTP structure after iteration
Buckling Failure
Stringer σxx (MPa) τ (Mpa) f_c MOS (%) q_b MOS(%)
FS Upper 320.8699328 -86.25958546 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 2949.422877
1 312.58335 -72.20330434 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3543.073619
2 304.2967671 -71.62131663 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3572.676874
3 296.0101842 -71.03932893 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3602.765176
4 287.7236013 -70.45734122 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3633.350545
5 279.4370184 -69.87535351 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3664.445402
6 271.1504355 -69.29336581 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3696.062584
7 262.8638526 -68.7113781 -1473.6688 Tidak -2630.419533 3728.215363
8 254.5772697 -68.1293904 -1473.6688 Mengalami -2630.419533 3760.917465
9 246.2906869 -67.54740269 -1473.6688 Kompresi -2630.419533 3794.183089
10 238.004104 -66.96541499 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3828.026927
11 229.7175211 -66.38342728 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3862.464188
12 221.4309382 -65.80143957 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3897.510616
13 213.1443553 -65.21945187 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3933.18252
14 204.8577724 -64.63746416 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 3969.496795
15 196.5711895 -64.05547646 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 4006.47095
RS Upper 188.2846066 -63.31870243 -1473.6688 -2630.419533 4054.253691
FS Lower -320.8699328 -14.23998236 -1473.6688 359.2729401 -2630.419533 18372.07016
1 -312.58335 -28.29626349 -1473.6688 371.4482632 -2630.419533 9195.996039
2 -304.2967671 -28.87825119 -1473.6688 384.2867009 -2630.419533 9008.652443
3 -296.0101842 -29.4602389 -1473.6688 397.8439436 -2630.419533 8828.710802
4 -287.7236013 -30.0422266 -1473.6688 412.1820969 -2630.419533 8655.740936
5 -279.4370184 -30.62421431 -1473.6688 427.3706335 -2630.419533 8489.345366
6 -271.1504355 -31.20620201 -1473.6688 443.4875188 -2630.419533 8329.156267
7 -262.8638526 -31.78818972 -1473.6688 460.6205492 -2630.419533 8174.832747
8 -254.5772697 -32.37017743 -1473.6688 478.8689524 -2630.419533 8026.058434
9 -246.2906869 -32.95216513 -1473.6688 498.3453102 -2630.419533 7882.539303
10 -238.004104 -33.53415284 -1473.6688 519.1778838 -2630.419533 7744.001742
11 -229.7175211 -34.11614054 -1473.6688 541.5134411 -2630.419533 7610.190809
12 -221.4309382 -34.69812825 -1473.6688 565.5207201 -2630.419533 7480.868668
13 -213.1443553 -35.28011595 -1473.6688 591.3946993 -2630.419533 7355.813173
14 -204.8577724 -35.86210366 -1473.6688 619.3619051 -2630.419533 7234.816601
15 -196.5711895 -36.44409137 -1473.6688 649.6870614 -2630.419533 7117.684497
RS Lower -188.2846066 -37.18086539 -1473.6688 682.6814951 -2630.419533 6974.659251
The structure after the iteration appears to almost meet the HTP mass target, but upon
checking the MOS, it is observed that the Front Lower Spar is very close to a value of 0. Therefore,
for the next iteration, changes can be made to the dimensions of other components.
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
8.1. Conclusions
8.1.1. Wing Final Structural Design
The aircraft wing uses a rib configuration that is parallel to the flight path and the
type of stringer used is a built-up zed stringer. There are three pieces of spars used, which
located at 15% chord, 50% chord, and 78.42% chord from the leading edge. There are 21
ribs with the same spacing and 36 stringers used for each of the wingbox. After doing
several iterations, the final sizing data for the wing structure is obtained as follows:
Table 7979 Final Dimension of The Wing Structure at x = 1.218

Components Second Iteration (Final Dimension)
Skin
Effective thickness (mm) 3.854
Skin thickness (mm) 2.505
Stringer
Number of Stringers 36
Stringer thickness (mm) 2.621
Stringer height (mm) 26.741
Stringer width (mm) 10.696
Stringer area (mm2) 126.137
Stringer spacing (mm) 93.516
Spar
Front Spar web thickness (mm) 1.528
Front Spar web height (mm) 188.295
Front Spar Flange thickness (mm) 3.057
Mid Spar web thickness (mm) 1.285
Mid Spar web height (mm) 188.295
Mid Spar flange thickness (mm) 2.570
Rear spar web thickness (mm) 1.524
Rear spar web height (mm) 188.295
Rear spar flange thickness (mm) 3.049
Ribs
Ribs thickness (mm) 5.265
Number of ribs 18
Ribs spacing (mm) 84.164
The material used for the wing structure is as follows:

Table 8080 Material Selection for the Wing Structure
Wing Component Material
Upper skin, upper spar, and ribs Al 7075-T6
Lower skin, lower spar, stringer Al 2024-T3
The design for the wing layout structure can be seen in the figure below:
Figure31 Wing Ribs Layout
Figure Wiing Stringer Layout
Figure 32 Wing Spar Layout

The weight of the wing components can be summarized in the table below:
Table 8181 Final Wing Dimension and Mass
Components Material Density (g/mm3) Volume (m3) Mass (kg)
Upper skin Al 7075-T6 0.00281 0.057 160.605
Lower skin Al 2024-T3 0.00278 0.057 158.891
Stringer Al 2024-T3 0.00278 0.049 135.958
Upper Al 7075-T6 0.00281 0.00218 6.125
Front Spar
Lower Al 2024-T3 0.00278 0.00218 6.060
Upper Al 7075-T6 0.00281 0.001879 5.281
Middle Spar
Lower Al 2024-T3 0.00278 0.001879 5.225
Upper Al 7075-T6 0.00281 0.002174 6.110
Rear Spar
Lower Al 2024-T3 0.00278 0.002174 6.045
Ribs Al 7075-T6 0.00281 0.008 22.554
Total mass of the wing (kg) 512.854
Total mass from DRO (kg) 662.04
Reduced mass (kg) 149.186
Reduced mass (%) 22.534
8.1.2 Fuselage Final Structural Design

The fuselage of NFT-22 uses different numbers of stringer for different sections of the aircraft. For nose
section uses 22, center uses 33, and tail uses 24. NFT-22 uses 9 bulkheads and 21 frames. Fuselage of
NFT-22 using aluminum Al-7075-T6 for skin, bulkhead, and longeron.
Figure 35 Fuselage Bulkhead Layout 2D and 3D

Figure 36 Fuselage Frame Layout 2D and 3D
Table 82 82Final Fuselage Mass
Components Second Iteration (Final Dimension)

Skin
Nose Center Tail
Effective thickness (mm) 3.575682709 2.267649388 0.411915
Skin thickness (mm) 2.1 1.5000 0.6
Stringer
Number of Stringers 22 33 24
Stringer thickness (mm) 2.4 2 1.1
Height (mm) 84 60 12
Area(mm2) 283.3 158 15.3
Spacing(mm) 226.33 199.030303 230.8136
Length Longeron(mm) 117.6 84 16.8
Frame
Area (m2) 2.96603933
Thickness (mm) 2.199007028
Number of Frame 21
Bulkhead
Area (m2) 2.96603933
Thickness (mm) 8.843832613
Number of Bulkhead 9
Table 83 83Final Fuselage Mass
Massa Skin
Luas Skin Nose (m3) 0.042348606
Luas Skin Center (m3) 0.05477712
Luas Skin Tail (m3) 0.002742066
Jumlah Luas (m3) 0.099867792
Massa Skin (kg) 280.6284964
Massa Stringer
Luas Nose (m3) 0.000732954
Luas Mid(m3) 0.000437976
Luas Tail(m3) 6.76444E-05
0.001238574
Massa Longeron(kg) 3.480393325
Massa Bulkhead dan Frame

Frame(m3) 0.183618088
Bulkhead (m3) 0.236080398
Jumlah volume 0.419698486
Massa Bulkhead dan Frame 914.9426989
berat total (kg) 1199.051589
8.1.3. Tail Final Structural Design

The empennage on the NFT-22 aircraft uses a conventional tail design configuration with
ribs orientation parallel to the flight path with a shear web configuration, the type of stringer used
is Z-stringer, the type of skin-stringer used is built up, and the type of spar used is with I-beam
cross section.
The number of spars from the HTP and VTP structures is 2 which are located at 40% chord
and 72% chord, 16 ribs, and 15 stringers in the HTP structure. Then for the VTP structure it has
16 ribs. The details of the HTP structure configuration are shown in the following table.
Table 84 HTP Structure Configuration
Comfiguration Dimension
Skin thikness 2 mm
Number of stringers 15
Stringers spacing 30.4 𝑚𝑚
Stringer height 17.2 𝑚𝑚
Stringer width 6.9 𝑚𝑚
Stringer thickness 2.8 mm
Front spar thickness 1.6 mm
Front spar height 145.7 mm
Rear spar thickness 0.7 mm
Rear spar height 85.5 mm
Number of ribs 16
Ribs spacing 213.8 mm
Ribs thickness 2.5 mm
However, this size is not a common size provided by structural material manufacturers.
Further adjustments to the dimensions used are required by considering the availability of raw
materials for the structural components from manufacturers.
Materials used in HTP structural components:
a) Upper skin and stringer → Al 7075 T6
b) Lower skin and stringer → Al 2024 T3
c) Spar → Al 7075 T6
d) Ribs → Al 7075 T6
8.2. Recommendations
8.2.1. Wing
Recommendations that can be given by the author regarding the design process and analysis of
aircraft wing structures are as follows:
1. In the calculation and analysis of aircraft wing components, it is necessary to find
information about the minimum machinability thickness of each component so that the
production process becomes feasible.
2. The dimensions of each component are made in more detail with several significant figures
so that large errors do not propagate. However, at the end after obtaining the final
dimension, significant figures must be reduced and adjusted to the minimum machinability
thickness.
3. Try to use composite materials on several components in order to get a lighter wing
structure and in accordance with the DRO.
4. In carrying out calculations, the safety aspect of the structure must be prioritized and cannot
be compromised. The structure must be secure first then the weight affairs according to the
DRO are adjusted without compromising the safety of the structure.
8.2.2 Fuselage
1. Calculation of internal load of aircraft should be using every mission condition of aircraft.
2. The thickness of skin and stringer should be in the range of manufacturing.
3. Iterations of buckling for tail should be more than 2 times with change in thickness of skin and
stringer.
8.2.3. Tail
1. It will take 1-2 more iterations to obtain component dimensions that meet the DRO mass
requirements while still maintaining MOS above 0%.
2. It will take 2-3 more iterations to obtain the best overall strength-to-weight ratio for the
aircraft.
3. In addition to changing the dimensions of the components, changes can also be made to
the number of components, such as reducing the number of ribs and stringers and
increasing the spacing between components.
4. Adjust the dimensions of the components directly with the availability of raw materials
when conducting stress checking to make the work more efficient.
5. Consider the use of other materials, such as composite materials.
REFERENCES
1. Howe, Denis (2004). Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout. London: Professional
Engineering Publishing Limited.
2. https://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ma2024t3
3. Enrico Panettieri, Marco Montemurro, Daniele Fanteria, Francesco Coccia. Multi-Scale Least-
Weight Design of a Wing-Box via a Global/Local Approach. Journal of Optimization Theory
and Applications, 2020, 187, pp.776-799. ff10.1007/s10957-020-01693-yff. ffhal-02945365f
4. Sedaghati, Ramin. (2006). Multidisciplinary Optimization Standardization Approach for
Integration and Configurability MOSAIC Project, Task 6 Wingbox Structural Design
Optimization, Report 5 Wing Rib Stress Analysis and Design Optimization. Department of
Mechanical Industrial Engineering Concordia University.
5. https://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ma7075t6
1092.4
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS PARAMETER UNIT WING HTP VTP
MTOW [kg] 9850 Area [m^2] 23.2 5.05 4.81

Span [m] 10.77 4.88 2.77 3300
Design Range [m] 4435.6
Number of [pax] 2
Aspect
Ratio - 5 4.7 1.6
2157.4
Pax Swept
Angle (c/4) [deg] 25 26 38
Take-Off Field [m] 969.264
Length Dihedral [deg] 0 0 0
Landing Field Angle
[m] 1,205.79 Incidence [deg]
Length 0 0 0
Angle
PROPULSION CHARACTERISTICS
10770
4880
Twist Angle [deg] 0 0 0
Engine Name - Honeywell-
- NACA64 NACA NACA
2349.72
F124-GA-100 Airfoil Type
A410 0010 0010
-
3879.72
Engine Type Turbofan mean aero [m] 2.41 1.11 1.89
chord
5329.72
Engine Rated [SHP] 3590.145
Power apex [m] 5.56 10.39 0.54
Propeller location
[m] 9.144
Diameter aero center [m] 0.538 0.259 0.433
location
880
10770
4880
2400
820
1795.3
2737.3
3520
1740.1
1100
370 544
424
60 298
72 1500
1100
6500
11410
PROYEKSI SKALA: 1:150 DIGAMBAR: KELOMPOK 1 PERINGATAN:

SATUAN: mm NIM: 13620011/13620049/13620069/13620074
TANGGAL: 2/02/2023 DILIHAT: Dr.Taufiq Mulyanto, S.T.
ITB THREE VIEW DRAWING AE3230 A4

Kelompok 1 Laporan 1 Dan 2

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

Kelompok 1 Laporan 1 Dan 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT 1

AE3230 LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany – 13620011 – Fuselage (mid-tail)

Ir. Hendri Syamsudin, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Alifiano Melvin Rhamdany

Arya Marully Fattah

Adrian Wafi Elhaq –

Ir. Hendri Syamsudin, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Dr. Taufiq Mulyanto, S.T.

2. 1. Input aircraft’s data

3. 1. Made the whole

4. Adrian Wafi Elhaq – 13620074 1. Input aircraft’s data

Figure 1 V-n diagram for symmetrical flight ............................................................................... 17

Table 1 Symmetrical Flight Parameters ....................................................................................... 16

MIL-A-8861B Airplane Strength and Rigidity Flight Loads

● Symmetrical Flight Conditions:

○ Accelerated pitch maneuver and recovery.

Figure 1 V-n diagram for symmetrical flight

mass ratio (p)

1.4. Scope of Work

Table 2 Scope of Work

2.1. General Data for Comparison Advanced Military Trainer Aircraft

2.1.1. TA-4J Skyhawk

Figure 2 US Navy TA-4J Skyhawk

Figure 3 TA-4 Skyhawk Configuration

Figure 4 Russian Air Force Yak-130

Figure 5 Yak-130 Configuration

2.1.3. Aermacchi M346 Master

Figure 6 Israel Air Force M346

2.1.4. T-50 Golden Eagle

Figure 8 Korean Air Force T-50

Figure 9 T-50 Configuration

Parameter TA-4J YAK-130 M346 T-50

Length (m) 13.3 11.49 11.49 13.144

Wingspan (m) 8.4 9.84 9.72 9.45

Wing area (m2) 24.2 23.52 23.52 23.69

MTOW (kg) 11300 10290 9600 13500

Empty Weight (kg) 4808 4600 4900 6454

Max. Fuel (kg) 2436 1700 2000 2690

Max. Payload (kg) 4490 3000 3000 5443

Mach 0.86 0.85 0.95

Max. Load Factor (g) 8/-3 8/-3 8/-3 8/-3

Service Ceiling (m) 11795 12500 13716 14630

T/O Distance (m) 230 400 320 400

Landing Distance (m) 300 650 470 520

Stall Speed (km/h) - 165 176 220

Max. ROC (m/s) 29.2 65 112 198

Engine Total Thrust (kN) 37.8 49 56 53

Wing Loading (kg/m2) 305 276.4 285 -

Price (Million USD) 0.86 15 25 22

Production Year 1969 1996 2004 2001

General Comparative Aircraft Configuration

Configuration TA-4J YAK-130 M346 T-50

Winglet - Wingtip - Wingtip

Pilot Seat 2, Tandem 2, Tandem 2, Tandem 2, Tandem

Empennage Cruciform/ Mid Conventional/ Conventional/ Conventional/

Landing Gear Retractable, Retractable, Retractable, Retractable,

Engine Single Engine Twin Engine Twin Engine Single Engine

Table 5 Types of Wing Configuration, Its Advantages and Disadvantages

No. Wing Configuration Advantages Disadvantages

Have lower stall speed

Better Roll stability than

Have the lowest interference Room for cockpit and cargo