You are on page 1of 8

SchooI of Computing,

Science and Engineering






Aircraft Design Enterprise E2
PRO1ECT BRIEF 2011/2012

Design Project Description

Design calculations and three-view drawings are required Ior a medium haul (3000-9500 km
range) passenger transport, to carry up to 250 passengers. The design should be Iocused on
optimal payload Iraction using engine and Iuel weight reduction techniques, and should be
capable oI using runway lengths no greater than 2.5 km.

The aircraIt should have a minimum journey time and must meet all relevant JAR/FAR
requirements.

Route opportunities should be identiIied, either in competition on established routes or by
targeting emerging business opportunities.

In addition, the aircraIt should have at least one key Ieature (unique selling point, or USP)
such as multi-role Ireight/passenger capabilities, low operating costs, or interior
accommodation Ieatures. Evidence in support oI the USP should be drawn Irom market
survey data to conIirm credibility.


2

Programme Schedule

Semester 1

eek Stage Output Lecture
Project brieIing, Weight prediction
2 2 T/W and W/S determination
3 3 T/W and W/S determination
4 3 A Wing aerodynamics and design
5 4 Wing aerodynamics and design
6 4 High-liIt devices
7 5 Drag prediction
8 5 Report writing techniques
9 6 Centre oI gravity estimation
0 6 Longitudinal static stability estimates
7 Longitudinal static stability estimates
2 B, C, D None

Week begins on 26 September 20.

Output Key A Project Plan
B Group Project Report
C Personal PortIolio
D Personal Design Report

Semester 2

eek Stage Output Lecture
9 8 Engine selection
20 9 Directional stability estimates
2 9 AirIield perIormance
22 0 A AirIield perIormance, undercarriage design methods
23 Undercarriage design methods
24 Flight envelopes
25 2 AircraIt power systems
26 2 Design project report writing
27 3 Oral presentation techniques
3 3, 4 E None
32 3, 4 B, C, D, E None

Week 9 begins on 30 January 202.

Output Key A Project Plan
B Group Project Report
C Personal PortIolio,
D Personal Design Report
E Group Oral Presentation


3

Design Output

Semester 1

Stage Design Preview
i) Market survey opportunities Ior this type oI aircraIt, city and rural airport Iacilities
available, Operators, Ileet sizes, aircraIt types used, replacement demand, passenger travel
data. Possible USPs Ior a new design
ii) Operational data aircraIt role (passengers/baggage/Ireight), range capabilities, cruise
speeds, airIield requirements
iii) Summary oI technical speciIications oI existing aeroplanes likely to typiIy the project
aeroplane characteristics

Stage 2 Design Selection
i) Operational data target routes, aircraIt role (passengers/baggage/Ireight), range
capability, cruise speed, maximum speed, airIield requirements
ii) ConIiguration wing type and location, propulsion/engine type and location, empennage
type, Iuselage/cabin type and arrangements.
iii) Summary oI airworthiness regulations having inIluence
iv) Full cabin layout arrangements, including galley, toilets, emergency exits. Alternatives due
to USP, iI any.
v) Target sales in the Iirst year and over 5-0 years, and customer base

Stage 3 eight Prediction (use two independent methods and compare output with comparison
aeroplanes)
i) Payload passengers, baggage, Ireight, payload Iraction, W
p
/W
ii) Fuel weight maximum payload/range requirements, maximum Ierry range requirements,
tank volumes and possible locations, Iuel Iraction, W
I
/W
iii) All-up-weight, W; operational empty weight, OEW

Stage 4 ing-loading, /S, and Thrust- (or Power-) to-weight Ratio, T/ or P/
i) Choice oI initial parameter values, C
D0
, k, take-oII distance, cruise speed
ii) Graphical display oI P/W or T/W against W/S,
iii) First estimates oI wing area and thrust/power. Note the possible need Ior power bleed to
service on-board systems.

Stage 5 ing Design
i) Cruise liIt coeIIicient determination, high-liIt devices required
ii) AeroIoil selection wing root and tip
iii) Taper ratio, aspect ratio, plan-Iorm shape, aerodynamic mean chord

Stage 6 Drag Prediction
i) Determination oI C
D0
and k; whole aeroplane and component methods
ii) Drag due to high-liIt devices and undercarriage

Stage 7 Determination of Aeroplane Centre of Gravity Location
i) Prediction oI component weights and locations
ii) First estimate oI CG location adjustment Ior satisIactory balance
iii) Predicted CG variation due to passenger load and Iuel variations

4


Semester 2

Stage 8 Engine Selection
i) Second assessment oI power requirement and engine selection, including allowances Ior
any power bleeds; with Iull data, including thrust characteristics, speciIic Iuel
consumption, weight, size
ii) Review oI existing engines Iull parameter listing required

Stage 9 Empennage Design
i) ConIiguration details supporting arguments Ior design choices are needed
ii) Areas oI Iin and tail-plane, moment arm values, trailing-edge control details
iii) Weights check

Stage 0 Airfield Performance
i) Ground-run estimates
ii) All-engines take-oII calculations speed points, distances
iii) Engine Iailure eIIects re-calculation oI distances, balanced Iield length estimation

Stage Undercarriage Design / Power Systems
i) Undercarriage conIiguration details type, strut location
ii) Load calculations strut loads, wheel and tyre requirements, conIirmation oI saIety
margins
iii) SpeciIication oI hydraulic and electrical power system requirements; system components,
circuit arrangements and perIormance levels

Stage 2 Flight Envelopes
i) Manoeuvre load diagram
ii) Gust load diagram

Stage 3 Design Review
i) Harmonisation check main iterative loops completed, details oI design choices
ii) Summary oI aeroplane geometries three-view drawings with dimensions
iii) Summary oI perIormance checks
iv) Design evaluation

Stage 4 Group Oral Presentation

5

Assessment Schedule

At present, the project is organised as two separate modules (one per semester), each oI
which requires students to submit two pieces oI work as a group -- the project plan Ior that
semester, and a Iinal group report on the status oI the project to date -- and two individual
pieces oI work, detailing and documenting the work each student has done as part oI the
group. In addition, in semester 2, the group is required to give an oral presentation to 'sell
their design to a would-be investor.
The relative values oI each piece oI work are as Iollows
Semester 1. Semester 2.
Group work ark (") Group work ark (")
Project plan 20 Project plan 0
Project report 30 Group oral presentation 0
Project report 30
Individual work Individual work
Personal portIolio 20 Personal portIolio 20
Personal design report 30 Personal design report 30
Total 100 Total 100

eekly Progress Assessment
Individual tasks will be agreed each week Ior all group members, based on the group activity
and design stage oI the group work.

These tasks will be recorded by both the group members and the group supervisor, and in the
Iollowing week outcome reports will be given by group members.

Reports given orally will need to be supported by evidence recorded on paper.

Outcome reports will be graded in the Iollowing categories
2 Has addressed signiIicant objectives and produced substantive work output.
Has addressed a sub-set oI objectives and produced modest work output.
0 Has not addressed the objectives adequately and produced negligible work output.
These marks are awarded individually, so each student must ensure that s/he takes part in the
discussion at the progress meeting.

Scores awarded over the semester will be aggregated to Iorm a mark that will be used to
weight ,1 oI the group marks awarded, e, 25 per cent oI the total mark Ior each module.
Weighting will be linear, based on the Iraction oI the maximum weekly progress marks
available (22 in
st
semester, 20 in 2
nd
semester).


6

Assessment Guidelines

Group Report
The group report, as its name implies, is a description oI the work oI the group as a whole. It
should Iocus on the Iollowing aspects oI the group`s work
O A description oI the design in its current state at the time oI writing.
O A description oI the design process by which that state was reached, particularly the
design choices made and the reasons Ior the selection(s) that the group made.
O The Iinal (or most recent) calculations made to deIine the design in its present or Iinal
state, including comparisons oI any alternatives that were considered.
This report is a Iormal document that should have an appropriate structure, including
a) 3troducto3 design brieI, design objectives, group structure, group communication
method.
b) es3 output synthesis oI individual contributions to the work oI the group and to
group objectives.
c) scusso3 ,3d co3cuso3s critical review oI design output, Iurther work required,
achievement oI objectives.
Other sub-sections may also be used iI required.
The report should be written in proper English, be word-processed, and be presented to a
good standard oI accuracy and clarity. It must be selI-contained and complete and make no
reIerence to Personal Reports or PortIolios.
The report should contain strong evidence oI best use oI design method and process. Design
progress should also be evident. All Iigures, tables, graphs and diagrams should be properly
annotated and presented to a high standard oI clarity.
All inIormation Irom external sources should be cited properly, clearly indicating the origin
oI any data, text or Iigures that are quoted or reIerenced in the report.

Assessme3t Crter,
a) Evidence oI proper structure, and high standard oI presentation -- word-processing, style
and syntax, clarity and accuracy.
b) Evidence oI group understanding oI the design brieI, and design process.
c) Evidence oI proper integration oI all individual contributions to the work oI the group, in
such a way as to conIirm group consensus and integration.
d) Evidence oI work output appropriate to the standard and duration oI the module.
e) Overall scope and depth oI the work presented, as appropriate to the group objectives.

Each criterion will carry equal weighting, and constitute 20 of the mark for the
report.

7

Personal Report
In contrast to the Group Report, the Personal Report should present the work that each
student has done as his or her contribution to the overall project. This will include everything
that is in the group report plus a lot oI work that did not make it into the group report because
it was rejected in Iavour oI a better alternative; nonetheless, that work is important because it
Iormed the basis on which one or more design choices were made, and it should be Iully
documented and presented as evidence oI the student`s contributions to the group eIIort.
As with the Group Report, this is a Iormal document that should have an appropriate
structure, including
a) 3troducto3 design brieI, personal objectives, group structure, group communication
methods.
b) es3 output presentation oI individual student work over the duration oI the module.
c) scusso3 ,3d co3cuso3s critical review oI design output, Iurther work required,
achievement oI objectives.
The report should be written in proper English, be word-processed, and be presented to a
good standard oI accuracy and clarity. It must be selI-contained and complete and make no
reIerence to the Design PortIolio or to the Group Report.
The report should contain strong evidence oI best use oI design method and process. Design
progress should also be evident. All Iigures, tables, graphs and diagrams should be properly
annotated and presented to a high standard oI clarity.
All inIormation Irom external sources should be cited properly, clearly indicating the origin
oI any data, text or Iigures that are quoted or reIerenced in the report.

Assessme3t Crter,
a) Evidence oI proper report structure and high standard oI presentation word-processing,
style and syntax, clarity and accuracy.
b) Evidence oI understanding oI the design brieI, and design process.
c) Evidence oI contribution to group work through data exchange, communication, and
general support.
d) Evidence oI work output appropriate to the standard and duration oI the module.
e) Overall breadth and depth oI the work presented, as appropriate to the group and personal
objectives.
Each criterion will carry equal weighting, and constitute 20 of the mark for the
report.

8

Personal Portfolio
This is an inIormal document with no prescribed structure. It is intended to be a collection oI
the papers used to pursue the design objectives, including hand-written notes, design process
work and survey material. It should, however, be organised in such a way that it is easy to
reIer to, so that speciIic documents, calculations, sketches, etc., are easy to Iind.
It is expected that the proportion oI own-work will exceed that oI the work-oI-others (copies
oI articles Irom magazines and web-sites, Ior example).
The contents should provide evidence that the student has assimilated the design brieI, and
has applied Iormal design methods to provide design process and progress.
The scope oI the portIolio should be suIIicient to accurately demonstrate the work oI the
student over the duration oI the module. The scope must be suIIicient to be used in the
writing oI a good personal report without substantially more material being required.
It is expected that some work in the portIolio will be embryonic and may include mistakes
and misconceptions. Most work, however, will be accurate enough to Iorm the basis oI a
Iormal report.
All tables, Iigures, graphs and diagrams used in a Iormal report (either group or personal)
would be expected to be Iound in the portIolio, possibly in embryonic Iorm.

Assessme3t Crter,
a) Evidence oI understanding oI the project brieI, design method, design process, and
evidence oI design progress.
b) Evidence oI the ability oI working in a group, and oI satisIactory contributions to group
communication.
c) Evidence oI work appropriate to the module level and duration, suIIicient to produce a
satisIactory Iormal report.
d) Evidence oI survey material related to the role and operation oI the design aircraIt.
e) Organisation oI notes, calculations and copied material so that work related to a speciIic
topic can be traced quickly and simply.
Criteria (a) to (d) will carry equal weighting, and be marked out of 20. Criterion (e) will
carry double weight and be marked out of 40. The overall mark for the portfolio will be
the sum of the five components converted to a percentage.