95 views

Uploaded by noor_mujahid

- Wing Design Level3
- complete ppt.ppsx
- Asm Presentations Drag Reduction Status (1)
- Aerodynamics
- Airfoil Shape Optimization
- Lift
- NACA 4412 - Fluent
- WJEC 2013 Pre-released extra reading
- Aerodynamics 1
- Typical Experimental Results
- Computional Investigation of the Low Speed S1223 Airfoil With and Without a Gurney Flap
- Report Aerodynamics Begginer
- SAMPLEQUESTIONS-COMPREXAM(ObjType)
- Experimental Investigation of Effect of Multiple wings
- Aerodynamics 1
- CEI Extraction of Boundary Layer Characteristics From Fluent Results
- Komponen Dan Struktur Pesbang
- Stack 1933 Naca 463
- Bousman TM
- 15AS204J-aero-ug-reg-2015-lp

You are on page 1of 107

Supervised By: Mr. Izhar Kazmi Asst. Professor Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad

Dedication

I dedicate this report to my Parents who supported me in every bad and good situation of my Life and always loved me when I am encircled with difficulties. And To my friends who have been with me for so long and changed my every Sorrow into a smile And To all of those who are working for the betterment of Islam and Pakistan!!!

A-18 Ababeel

Acknowledgements

First of all I am thankful to ALLAH (s.w.t.) who gave me strength to complete this project. Secondly this project would not have been completed without my parents. They always supported me. And then I would like to thank my seniors specially Mr. Ahmed Ali Ansari, Mr.Ubaid and Mr. Omair Rabbani, who guided me at every stage. Finally I would like to thank Mr. Izhar Kazmi whose guidance was always helpful.

A-18 Ababeel

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1Design Proposal for A-18 Ababeel ................................................................................. 8 1.2Mission Requirements ................................................................................................... 8 1.3Performance Requirements 9 1.4 Stability Requirements 9 2. Selection of Reference Aircraft .......................................................................................... 10 3. Design Procedure ............................................................................................................... 12

4. Sizing From a Conceptual Sketch ....................................................................................... 14 4.1 Takeoff Weight Buildup .............................................................................................. 14 4.2 Empty Weight Estimation We ................................................................................. 14 4.3 Fuel Fraction Estimation Wf/W0 ............................................................................. 16 4.4 Takeoff Weight Calculations: ...................................................................................... 19 4.5 Graphical Sizing: .......................................................................................................... 20 4.6 Trade Studies: ............................................................................................................ 20 5. Airfoil and Geometry Selection ......................................................................................... 22 5.1 Airfoil Selection: .......................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Design Lift Coefficient: ................................................................................................ 22 5.3 Design Renold Number: ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.4Airfoil Thickness Ratio: .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.5 Wing Geometry: ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.6 Aspect Ratio: ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.7 Wing Sweep: ................................................................................................................ 29 5.8 Taper Ratio: ................................................................................................................. 30 5.9 Twist: ........................................................................................................................... 31 5.10 Wing Incidence: ......................................................................................................... 31 5.11 Wing Vertical Location: ............................................................................................. 32 5.12 Dihedral: .................................................................................................................... 33

A-18 Ababeel

5.13 Wing Tips: .................................................................................................................... 34 5.14 Tail Geometry& Arrangement: .................................................................................... 34 5.15 Tail Arrangement:........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6. Thrust-to-Weight Ratio & Wing Loading ........................................................................... 36 6.1 Thrust-to-Weight Ratio (T/W): ...................................................................................... 36 6.2 Wing Loading (W/S):...................................................................................................... 38 6.3 Selection of W/S: ........................................................................................................... 42 6.4 Rechecking of T/W using W/S: ...................................................................................... 42 7.Initial Sizing.......................................................................................................................... 44 7.1 Rubber-Engine Sizing: .................................................................................................... 43 7.2 Geometry Sizing: ........................................................................................................... 49 8. Configuration Layout.......................................................................................................... 54 9. Crew Station and Payload .................................................................................................. 55 9.1 Crew Station:............................................................................................................... 55 9.2 Weapons Carriage: ...................................................................................................... 56 10. Propulsion & Fuel System Integration ............................................................................. 57 10.1 Propulsion Selection: ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.2 Engine Dimensions: ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.3 Inlet Geometry: ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.4 Inlet Location: ............................................................................................................ 60 10.5 Capture Area Calculation:.......................................................................................... 60 10.6 Boundary-Layer Diverter: .......................................................................................... 61 10.7 Nozzle Integration: .................................................................................................... 62 10.8 Fuel System: .............................................................................................................. 62 11. Landing Gear & Subsystems ............................................................................................ 64 11.1 Landing Gear Arrangement: ..................................................................................... 64 11.2 Tire Sizing: ................................................................................................................. 65 11.3 Shock Absorber Type: ............................................................................................... 66 11.4 Stroke Determination: .............................................................................................. 67 11.5 Oleo sizing: ................................................................................................................ 69 11.6 Gear Retraction Assembly:........................................................................................ 69

A-18 Ababeel

12. Aerodynamics ................................................................................................................... 71 12.1 Lift Curve Slope: ........................................................................................................ 71 12.2 Maximum Lift (Clean):............................................................................................... 73 12.3 Maximum Lift with High-Lift Devices: ....................................................................... 75 12.4 Drag Calculation: ...................................................................................................... 75 12.5 Drag Polar: ................................................................................................................ 81 12.6 RDS Analysis: ............................................................................................................ 81 13. Propulsion......................................................................................................................... 83 13.1 Thrust Variation with Altitude: ................................................................................. 83 13.2 Installed Thrust Correction: ...................................................................................... 83 14. Structure & Loads ............................................................................................................. 85 14.1 Maneuver Loads: ...................................................................................................... 85

14.2 Gust Loads: ................................................................................................................ 85

15. Weights ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 16. Performance Analysis....................................................................................................... 88 16.1 Thrust Required: ....................................................................................................... 88 16.2 Power Required: ....................................................................................................... 89 16.3 Rate of Climb: ........................................................................................................... 89 16.4 Absolute Ceiling: ....................................................................................................... 90 16.5 Gliding Performance: ................................................................................................ 91 16.6 Range: ....................................................................................................................... 91 16.7 Endurance: ................................................................................................................ 92 16.8 Level Turn:................................................................................................................. 92 16.9 Takeoff Distance: ...................................................................................................... 92 16. 9 Landing Distance: ..................................................................................................... 93 16.10 Energy maneuverability methods ........................................................................... 93 16.11 Comparison of Mission and Designed Parameter: ................................................. 95 17. Stability & Control ............................................................................................................ 96

17.1 C.G. Location .............................................................................................................. 96

A-18 Ababeel

17.2 DATCOM Output File: ............................................................................................... 99 17.3 Longitudinal Equation of Motions: . 99 17.4 Lateral Equation of Motions: .................................................................................... 99 18. Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................... 101 References ........................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 104 Appendix B............................................................................................................................ 106 Appendix C............................................................................................................................ 107

A-18 Ababeel

1. INTRODUCTION

Ground-attack aircraft are military aircraft designed to attack targets on the ground and are often deployed as close air support for, and in proximity to, their own ground forces. The proximity to friendly forces requires precision strikes from these aircraft that are not possible with typical bomber aircraft. The resultant proximity to enemy targets also requires aircraft that are more robust than other types of military aircraft. Examples include the American A-10 Thunderbolt II and the Russian Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot. They are typically deployed as close air support to ground forces; their role is tactical rather than strategic, operating at the front of the battle rather than against targets deeper in the enemy's rear. A more general category is an attack aircraft which, in addition to ground-attack types, includes aircraft for naval air-to-surface missions. Attack aircraft are not necessarily intended for air-to-air combat. However, they are often equipped with air-to-air missiles for self-defense.

It is proposed to design a Supersonic Ground Attack aircraft. It is intended to have a range of 1,800 nautical miles and service ceiling of 50,000 feet with cruise Mach 1.1. The aircraft will be capable of carrying minimum 4,000 lbs. of armament. Main feature of the aircraft is Vertical Takeoff & Landing (VTOL) capability.

The proposed mission profile is shown in Fig 1.1.

A-18 Ababeel

The performance parameters required to be achieved are given in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Required Performance Parameters

Performance Parameters

Design Mach Range Rate of Climb Service Ceiling Takeoff Distance (S TO) Landing Distance (S L)

Details

1.1 1,800 nmi 15,000 ft./min 50,000 ft. 1,200 ft. 1,800 ft.

The aircraft requires a high maneuverability as it will be deployed as close air support for the ground forces and it may also be engaged in air-to-air combat. This high maneuverability requires lower static stability.

A-18 Ababeel

Ground-attack aircrafts are military aircraft with primary role of attacking targets on the ground with greater precision than bombers and prepared to face stronger low-level air defense. This class of aircraft is ideal for close air support on the battlefield, but they are also employed in other missions, for example air interdiction or offensive counter air. The purpose of selecting a reference aircraft is to estimate initial values and to compare the designed aircraft with existing aircrafts. Following three Ground Attack Aircraft are selected for nomination of Reference Aircraft. Table 2.1 Comparison of Existing Aircraft

When compared with the given requirements, Harrier GR-3 suits the best. And hence it is selected as a reference aircraft. Detail of other features/specifications is given below: General characteristics

Crew: One Length: 46 ft. 10 in (14.27 m) Wingspan: 25 ft. 3 in (7.70 m) Height: 11 ft. 11 in (3.63 m) Wing area: 201.1 ft (18.68 m) Empty weight: 13,535 lb. (6,140 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 25,200 lb. (11,430 kg) Power plant: 1 Rolls-Royce Pegasus 103 turbofan with four swiveling nozzles, 21,500 lb (95.6kN). Four vertical flight puffer jets use engine bleed air, mounted in the nose, wingtips, and tail. Performance

Maximum speed: 730 mph (635 knots, 1,176 km/h) at sea level Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb. (2,000 kg) payload Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km) Endurance: 1 hr. 30 min (combat air patrol 115 mi (185 km) from base) Service ceiling: 51,200 ft. (15,600 m)

A-18 Ababeel

10

A-18 Ababeel

11

3. Design Procedure

Following hierarchy was followed during the design phase.

A-18 Ababeel

12

After this, analysis was done on the designed aircraft using different set of equations and software. Analysis part includes: Aerodynamics Analysis Propulsion Analysis Structure and Loads (V-n diagram) Weight of each component Performance Analysis Stability and Control Cost Analysis

A-18 Ababeel

13

4.1 Takeoff Weight Buildup:

Design takeoff gross weight is the total weight of the aircraft as it begins the mission for which it was designed. Many military aircraft can be overloaded beyond design weight but will suffer a reduced maneuverability or reduced range. The design takeoff gross weight is the sum of crew weight, payload weight, fuel weight and empty weight. Empty weight includes the structure, engines, landing gear, fixed equipment and avionics. The gross weight is expressed as:

Fuel weight and the empty weight are the unknowns. Both of these can be expressed in terms of the fractions of the total takeoff weight.

Rearranging,

In above equation the payload weight is set such that the gross weight does not exceed the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) limit. And the gross weight can be determined if fuel weight and empty weight fractions can be estimated.

The empty weight fraction (We/W0) can be estimated statistically from historical trends as shown in figure 4.1 and table 4.1.

A-18 Ababeel

14

A-18 Ababeel

15

For a Jet fighter with a fixed sweep, A= 2.34 C= -0.13 We/W0 = AWcoKvs We/W0= 2.34W0-0.13 Kvs= 1

Only part of the aircrafts fuel supply is available for performing the mission. The other fuel includes reserve fuel and also includes traped fuel. The reqired amount of mission fuel depends upon the mission to be flown, the aerodynamics of the aircraft, and the engines fuel consumption. 4.3.1 Mission Profile: Atypical mission profile of a ground attack aircraft is given below.

Fig 4.2 Mission Profile 4.3.2 Mission Segment Fractions: The various mission segments, or legs, are numbered for analysis, with zero denoting the start of the mission. Leg one, for first order estimation, is usually engine warm-up and takeoff. We assume that there is no payload drop in our initial estimation, so the aircraft loses weight only by burning fuel.

A-18 Ababeel

16

a. Warmup & Takeoff: b. Climb: c. Cruise Out: Using Range equation, W1/W0= 0.97 W2/W1=0.985 (Table 4.2) (Table 4.2)

Range (R) = 900 nmi = 5468490 ft. At Mach= 1.1, SFC (c) = 0.8 /hr= 0.000222 /sec (Fig. 4.3)

A-18 Ababeel

17

V= Ma= 1.1*968.1= 1064.91 ft./sec L/D = 0.866 L/D)max =0.866*14 = 12.124 d. Loiter (Attack): Using endurance equation,

W3/W2=0.910256

E= 40 min= 2400 sec SFC (c) = 0.7/hr. = 0.000194/sec e. Cruise Back: Same as c. f. Loiter (before landing): W4/W3=0.96729 W5/W4=0.910256

g. Land:

4.3.3 Fuel Fraction Estimation:

By multiplying the above weight fractions, the total mission weight fraction W 7/W0 can be determined.

0.752487

So the total fuel fraction using a 6% allowance for reserve fuel comes out to be:

A-18 Ababeel

18

4.4 Takeoff Weight Calculations: Using the above values of fuel fraction and empty weight fraction, we can estimate the takeoff gross weight using the following equation.

Using above formula and considering 30000 lbs(MTOW) as a guess value and doing iteration we have calculated the Design Takeoff Gross Weight. Calculated Design Takeoff Gross Weight = 31931.10157 lbs.

A-18 Ababeel

19

Table 4.4

An important part of conceptual design is the evaluation and refinement of the design requirement. The

A-18 Ababeel

20

best way to do this is the Trade Study which describes the effect on overall weight due to the variation of payload and range. Table 4.5

A-18 Ababeel

21

5.1 Airfoil Selection:

The airfoil, in many respects, is the heart of the airplane. The airfoils affects the cruise speed, takeoff and landing distances, stall speed, handling qualities and overall aerodynamic efficiency during all phases of flight. As the intended aircraft has a cruise Mach number of 1.1 (Mmax is 1.5), the aircraft will mostly fly at transonic speeds depending upon the mission. The best suited airfoil for this purpose will be a supercritical airfoil. A supercritical airfoil is an airfoil designed, primarily, to delay the onset of wave drag in the transonic speed range. Supercritical airfoils feature four main benefits: they have a higher drag divergence Mach number, they develop shock waves farther aft than traditional airfoils, they greatly reduce shock-induced boundary layer separation, and their geometry allows for more efficient wing design. To select a specific airfoil certain parameters are evaluated as follows:

As a first approximation, it is assumed that the wing lift coefficient, CL, equals to the airfoil lift coefficient, Cl, such that,

W= 31931.1057 lbs. (Estimated Weight) S (reference Area) = 230 ft2 (Reference Aircraft) For V= 1064.91 ft./s (Mcruise = 1.1) at 3700 ft. q= 384.437 psi Therefore, Cl= 0.3611

= 0.2969 x 10-6 = 0.6780 x 10-3 C = 8.32 ft. (at 37000 ft.) (at 37000 ft.) (Reference Aircraft)

A-18 Ababeel

22

Airfoil thickness ratio has a direct effect on drag, maximum lift, stall characteristics and structural weight. From historical trend given in figure 5.1,

Fig 5.1 Thickness ratio Historical Trends t/c is found to be 4.5 % at M= 1.1. Mach critical Mcric can also be found from figure 5.2, using t/c = 4.5% for Supercritical airfoil.

A-18 Ababeel

23

Fig 5.2 Effect of t/c on Critical Mach number Mcric = 0.87 Based on the above calculated parameters i.e., Cl and t/c, NASA SC(2)-0404 is selected.

Fig 5.3

A-18 Ababeel

24

A-18 Ababeel

25

A-18 Ababeel

26

Table 5.1

A-18 Ababeel

27

The reference wing is the basic wing geometry used to begin with the layout. Figure 5.7 and 5.8 show the key geometric parameters of the reference wing.

A-18 Ababeel

28

Note that the reference wing is fictitious, and extends through the fuselage to the aircraft centerline. Thus the reference wing area includes the part of the reference wing that sticks into the fuselage.

Aspect ratio is defined as the square of the wing span, b, divided by the wing reference area, S AR= b2/S For initial wing layout, the values and equations provided in table 5.2 can be used. Table 5.2 Aspect Ratio

Using formula for Aspect Ratio= aMCmax For jet fighter (other), a= 4.110 Therefore, AR= 3.194 C= -0.622 Mmax= 1.5

Wing sweep is used primarily to reduce the adverse effects of transonic and supersonic flow. Theoretically, shock formation on a swept wing is determined not by the actual velocity but rather by the air velocity in a direction perpendicular to leading edge of the wing. In addition to this effect, wing sweep adds to the dihedral effect of wing which in turn increases the lateral stability of aircraft.

A-18 Ababeel

29

For initial layout, LE and can be determined from historical trends given in figure 5.9 respectively.

Fig 5.9 Wing Sweep Historical Trend From above to figure, LE = 490 And c/4can be calculated from following formula,

Wing taper ratio, , is the ratio between the tip chord and the centerline root chord. Taper affects the distribution of the lift along the span of the wing. As the taper increases the wing planform becomes more close to that of elliptical planform and hence induced drag is reduced. Figure 5.10 shows a graph between c/4 and .

A-18 Ababeel

30

Fig 5.10 Effect of Sweep on Desired Taper Ratio Using this historical trend taper ratio is determined as, = 0.2

5.9 Twist:

Wing twist is used to prevent tip stall and to revise the lift distribution to approximate an ellipse. For initial design process, historical data suggests that 3 degrees of twist provide adequate stall characteristics.

Wing incidence is the pitch angle of the wing with resects to fuselage. For most initial design process wing incidence of military aircraft is approximately zero. Other important parameters of wings are, Wing span: b = (AR*S) 1/2 = 27.10 ft. Root chord: Croot= = 14.76 ft.

Tip chord: Ctip= *Croot = 1.476 ft. Mean Aerodynamic chord (MAC): C = (2/3)*Croot*( ) = 10.03 ft.

A-18 Ababeel

31

Location of MAC: Y= (b/6)*( The summarized geometric data of wing is given in table 5.3.

) = 5.106 ft.

Table 5.3 Summary of Wing Geometry Aspect Ratio Leading Edge Sweep LE Quarter chord Sweep c/4 Taper Ratio Wing Twist Wing Incidence Wing span b Root chord Croot Tip chord Ctip Mean Aerodynamic chord (MAC) C Location of MAC Y 3.194 490 42.60 0.15 30 00 27.10 ft 14.76 ft 2.214 ft 10.03 ft 5.106 ft

As the intended aircraft is to be designed with a short takeoff and landing distance, a high wing is suitable for the current design. The high position allows room for very large wing flaps needed for a high lift coefficient.

A-18 Ababeel

32

Advantages: 1. Jet engines and armaments will have sufficient ground clearance without excessive landing gear length. 2. The wing tips of a swept high wing are not as likely to strike the ground when in a nose high, rolled attitude. 3. With the high wing aircraft you actually have more of wing area (The portion of the wing generally covered by the fuselage in a low wing installation) to contribute to the lift going around a turn. Disadvantages: 1. Fuselage weight is usually increased. 2. For small aircraft, the high wing arrangement can block the pilots visibility in a turn, obscuring the direction toward which the airplane is turning.

5.12 Dihedral:

Wing dihedral is the angle of the wing with respect to horizontal when seen from front. The dihedral angle is taken from the table 5.4. Table 5.4 Dihedral Guidelines

The above table predicts that dihedral for supersonic swept wing with High wing position is between -5 to 0. As the high wing configuration is selected for the design along with sweep, the lateral stability will increase and hence the aircraft will be less controllable. To maintain adequate control dihedral of -50 is selected.

A-18 Ababeel

33

Fig 5.12 In the initial configuration selection, cut off, forward swept tip is used because the aircraft is supersonic fighter. The tip is cut off at an angle equal to supersonic mach cone angle to reduce the drag and torsional load supplied to the wing.

Tail often in a conventional aircraft has two components of horizontal tail and vertical tail and carries two primary functions: 1. Trim (longitudinal, lateral and directional) 2. Stability (longitudinal and directional) 3. Control (longitudinal and directional)

Fig 5.13 To give enough controlibility and manuevaribility to the aircraft, H-tail is selected. The advantages of H-tail include: 1. At high angle of attack, the vertical tail is not influence by the tubulent flow coming from fuselage.

A-18 Ababeel

34

2. The vertical tail end-plate effect improves the aerodynamic performance of the horizontal tail. 3. In military/attack aircraft, the engine very hot exhast gases could be hidden from radars or infrared missiles. 4. The H-tail allows the twin vertical tail span to be shorter. 5. The lateral control of the aircraft will be improved due to the shorter vertical tail span. 6. The structural design of the H-tail is more tedious than conventional tail.

The surface areas required for all types of tail are directly proportional to the aircrafts wing area, so the tail areas cannot be selected until the initial estimate of aircraft takeoff gross weight has been made. Other geometric parameters for the tails can be selected at this time. Table 4 provides guidance for selection of tail aspect ratio and tapper ratio. Table 5.5 Tail Aspect Ratio and Taper Ratio

For the fighter aircraft following data is selected. Table 5.6 Horizontal Tail Aspect Ratio 3 Taper Ratio 0.4 Vertical Tail Aspect Ratio 1.4 Taper Ratio 0.4

Leading-edge sweep of the horizontal tail is usually set to 5 deg more than the wing sweep. This tends to make the tail stall after the wing, and also provides the tail with a higher critical Mach number than the wing. Vertical tail sweep varies between about 35 and 55 deg. For a high-speed aircraft, vertical tail sweep is used primarily to ensure the tails critical Mach number is higher than the wings.

A-18 Ababeel

35

The thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) and the wing loading (W/S) are fundamental parameters for airplane performance, rather than just the thrust by itself and weight by itself. Thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading are interconnected for number of performance calculations, such as takeoff distance. A short takeoff distance can be achieved by using a large wing (low W/S) with a relatively small engine (low T/W) or using small wing (high W/S) with a large engine (high T/W).

T/W directly affects the performance of the aircraft. An aircraft with a higher T/W will accelerate more quickly, climb more rapidly, reach a higher maximum speed and sustain higher altitude. On the other hand, the larger engine will consume more fuel throughout the mission, which will increase the aircrafts takeoff gross weight to perform the design mission. 6.1.1 Statistical Estimation of T/W:

Table 6.1 provides curve-fit equation based upon maximum Mach number for different classes of aircraft. Table 6.1 T/W vs. Mmax

M max = 1.5 For Jet fighter (other) a= 0.514 Therefore, 6.1.2 Thrust Matching: T/W0 = 0.544 C= 0.141

Thrust-to-weight ratio at sea level, static conditions can also be determined by calculating thrust-toweight at takeoff (T/W) takeoff.

In above formula, we need (T/W) cruise, this is calculated consudering level, unaccelerated flight and hence thrust must be equal to drag likewise lift must be equal to weight. Thus,

A-18 Ababeel

36

Fig 6.1 (L/D) cruise = 0.866(L/D) max = 0.866(12.2) = 10.565 Therefore, (T/W) cruise = 0.095

A-18 Ababeel

37

For low BPR engine and cruising altitude of 37,000 ft., we have T takeoff / T cruise = 5.556. Also Wcruise/Wtakeoff = 0.956 (from historical data). Hence, 6.1.3 Climb T/W: (Design Requirement) (T/W) takeoff = 0.5046

Rate of climb at cruising altitude (37,000 ft.) = 15000 ft./min= 250 ft./sec (T/W) climb = 1/ (L/D) climb + V vertical/ V (T/W) climb = 1/ (0.75x12.2) + 250/1064.91 (T/W) climb = 0.344 Converting it to takeoff conditions i.e., dividing by W2/W0 = 0.95545 T/W = 0.3600

Comparing T/W calculated from statistical data, thrust matching and climb, the higher value among them is selected, T/W = 0.544

Wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. Wing loading affects stall speed, climb rate, takeoff and landing distances, and turn performance. The wing loading determines the design lift coefficient, and impacts drag through its effect upon wetted area and wing span. 6.2.1 Statistical Estimation of W/S: Table 6.2 provides representative wing loadings. Table 6.2 Wing Loadings

6.2.2 Stall Speed: The stall speed of an aircraft is directly determined by wing loading and the maximum lift coefficient.

A-18 Ababeel

38

Wing speed at stall speed can be calculated assuming level flight and sea level conditions, W/S = (1/2) V2 stall S C Lmax C Lmax can be estimated from historical data. Figure 6.3 provides C Lmax vs. sweep at quarter chord.

Fig 6.3 Maximum Lift Coefficient For slotted flap and c/4 = 42.6 0: C Lmax = 1.8 V stall = 171 ft./sec So, 6.2.3 Takeoff Distance: The W/S at takeoff can be calculated from the formula, W/S = 67.248 lb./ft.2 (Reference Aircraft: Harrier GR-3)

Where = Density ratio = 1 (Sea Level) Takeoff parameter (TOP) can be found from figure 6.4

A-18 Ababeel

39

Fig 6.4 Takeoff Distance Estimation As, Takeoff Ground Roll is given in requirements, Sg = 1200 ft. So TOP = 90 Also, Therefore, Hence, 6.2.4 Landing Distance: (W/S) landing = C Lmax x (S landing - Sa)/80 Where Sa (Obstacle Clearance Distance) = 450 ft. Also, Landing Ground Roll is given in requirements, Sg = 1800 ft. Therefore, (W/S) landing = 1.5 x (1800-4500)/80 (W/S) landing = 25.3125 lb./ft.2 The landing wing loading must be converted to takeoff conditions by dividing bt the ratio of landing weight to takeoff weight, W7/W0 = 0.752487 W/S = 33.638 lb./ft.2 6.2.5 Wing Loading for Cruise: For maximum range, W/S at cruise can be calculated from given formula, (W/S) cruise = q (AeC D0 / 3)1/2 V TO = 1.1 V stall C LTO = C Lmax / 1.21 = 1.24 W/S = 60.69 lb./ft.2

A-18 Ababeel

40

Converting it to takeoff conditions i.e. dividing by W2/W0 = 0.95545 W/S = 77.827 lb./ft.2 6.2.6 Wing Loading for Loiter: For maximum endurance, W/S is given by, (W/S) loiter = q (AeC D0)1/2 With loiter velocity of 200 knots (337.562 ft./sec) (W/S) loiter = 13 lb./ft.2 Converting it to takeoff conditions, i.e. dividing by W3/W0 = 0.8713 W/S = 14.919 lb./ft.2 (NOTE: Too small for a fighter aircraft, so it will be ignored) 6.2.7 Instantaneous Turn: (W/S) combat = qC Lmax / n Where n is Load Factor = 7g (Reference aircraft: Harrier GR-3)

At corner speed = 350 knots (590.7334 ft./sec) and combat altitude of 30,000 ft. And C Lmax = 0.7 during combat. (W/S) combat = 11.8299 lb./ft.2 Again the instantaneous turn wing loading must be converted to takeoff conditions by dividing by the ratio of combat weight to takeoff weight which is taken as 0.85.

A-18 Ababeel

41

W/S = 13.917 lb./ft.2 6.2.8 Sustained Turn: At Mach 1.1 and 37,000 ft. and a load factor of n = 4g. W/S can be calculated using following equation,

As,

(T/W) combat = (T/W) takeoff (W0/W4) (T combat/T takeoff) (T/W) combat = (0.50490) (1/0.85)(18000/29000) = 0.3685

Flight Segments Stall Speed Takeoff Landing Cruise Loiter Instantaneous Turn Sustained Turn Table 6.3 W/S Summary W/S (segment) W/S (corrected) 67.248 60.69 25.3125 74.36 13 11.8299 50.425 67.248 60.69 33.638 77.827 14.919 13.917 59.32 Ignored Ignored Smallest. Hence Selected Ignored Remarks

Rearranging the equation used in 6.2.8,

A-18 Ababeel

42

T/W = 0.546 The rechecked value is very close to the calculated value in 6.1.3.

A-18 Ababeel

43

7. Initial Sizing

7.1 Rubber-Engine Sizing:

Aircraft sizing is the process of determining the takeoff gross weight and fuel weight required for an aircraft concept to perform its design mission. Sizing was introduced in the previous chapter of Gross takeoff Weight, in which a quick method based upon minimal information about the aircraft design was used to estimate the sizing parameters. That sizing method was limited to fairly simple design missions but now a more refined method of sizing is followed. Following equation will be used for the determination of Gross-Takeoff Weight:

7.1.1

The empty-weight fraction is estimated using improved statistical equation. Table 1, provides the relation between empty-weight fraction and the major design variables. Table 7.1

For Jet Fighter different constants are selected. Whereas other design parameters include, Mmax = 1.5 Therefore, We/W0 = 0.02 1.826W0-0.1 A= 3.194 T/W = 0.546 W/S= 59.32 Kvs = 1

A-18 Ababeel

44

A more detailed mission profile is selected including acceleration and dash for 50nmi.

Figure 7.1 a. Takeoff: W1/W0 = 0.980 b. Climb: W2/W1 = 0.991 0.007M 0.01M2 = 0.991 0.007(1.1) 0.01(1.1)2 W2/W1 = 0.9712 c. Cruise Out:

W3/W2 =

= 0.799

CD0 = 0.014

At M=1.1, 37000ft and A= 3.194, (W/S)cruise = 74.36 So, Range (R) = 900 nmi = 5468490ft At Mach= 1.1, SFC (c) = 0.8 /hr = 0.000222 /sec Hence, d. Attack: W3/W2 = 0.8958 = 10.36

A-18 Ababeel

45

W4/W3 =

With a loiter velocity of 200 knots (337.562 ft/s) and loiter altitude of 37,000 ft. also A= 3.194, (W/S)loiter = 13

E= 40 min= 2400 sec SFC (c) = 0.7/hr = 0.000194/sec Hence, e. Acceleration: W5/W4 = W5/W4 = 0.9901 f. Dash: W4/W3 = 0.9618

W6/W5 = =

A-18 Ababeel

46

Where,

K=

490)

At M=1.1, 37,000ft and A= 3.194, (W/S)cruise = 74.36 So, Range (R) = 50 nmi = 303805 ft. At Mach= 1.4, SFC (c) = 1.06 /hr. = 0.0002944 /sec W6/W5 = 0.9908 g. Cruise Back: = 7.136

W7/W6 = = 10.36 Range (R) = 850 nmi = 5164685 ft. At Mach= 1.1, SFC (c) = 0.8 /hr. = 0.000222 /sec Hence, h. Loiter: W7/W6 = 0.9013 (Calculated in c)

W8/W7 = (Calculated in d) E= 15 min= 900 sec SFC (c) = 0.7/hr = 0.000194/sec Hence, W8/W7 = 0.9855

A-18 Ababeel

47

Now, for each mission segment, the fuel burned is equal to:

The total mission fuel, Wf, using a 6% allowance for reserve fuel comes out to be:

Putting values in above formulae and solving, Wfuel =0.31202W0 7.1.3 Takeoff Weight Calculations: Using the above values of fuel weight and empty weight fraction, we can estimate the refined takeoff gross weight using the following equation.

Table 7.2 Crew (Pilot) Average Crew weight Payload (Dropped + Fixed) 1 150 lbs. 4000 lbs.

Using above formula and considering 48000 lbs. (MTOW) as a guess value and doing iteration we have calculated the Design Takeoff Gross Weight.

A-18 Ababeel

48

7.2.1 Fuselage:

Table 7.4 provides statistical equations for fuselage length. These are based solely upon takeoff gross weight, and give remarkably god correlations to most existing aircraft.

A-18 Ababeel

49

Therefore,

The ratio between the fuselage length and its maximum diameter is the Fuselage fineness ratio. If the fuselage cross section is not a circle, an equivalent diameter is calculated from the cross-sectional area. Supersonic drag is typically minimized by a fineness ratio of about 14 but is very design dependent.

7.2.2 Wing: The actual wing size can now be determined simply as the takeoff gross weight divided by the takeoff wing loading. This would be the reference area of theoretical, trapezoidal wing, and includes the area extending into the aircraft centerline. = 808.55 ft2 Because of change in reference area, other geometric parameters for wing will also change, and they are calculated as follow: Wing span: b = (AR*S) 1/2 = 50.82 ft.

= 26.517 ft.

A-18 Ababeel

50

) = 18.267 ft.

) = 9.882 ft.

The primary purpose of a tail is to counter the moments produced by the wing. The force due to tail lift is proportional to the tail area. Thus, the tail effectiveness is proportional to the tail area time the tail moment arm. This parameter has unit of volume, which leads to the tail volume coefficient method for initial estimation of tail size. Following equation gives the relation between Tail area (vertical and horizontal) with tail volume coefficient: SVT = cVT bw Sw / LVT SHT = cHT Cw Sw / LHT Typical values of tail volume coefficients are given in table 5. Table 7.5 Tail Volume Coefficient

Moreover for H-tail horizontal tail volume coefficient can be reduced by about 5%. Hence from Table 5, cVT = 0.07

A-18 Ababeel

51

cHT = 0.38 Therefore, SVT = 88.462 ft2 SHT = 171.79 ft2 Summary of initial sizing is given in Table 7.6. Table 7.6 Summary (combined area of two vertical tails)

7.2.4 Control-Surface Sizing: The primary control surfaces are the ailerons, elevator and rudder. Final sizing of these surfaces is based upon dynamic analysis of control effectiveness, including structural bending and control systems effects. For initial design, historical guidelines are used. a. Ailerons: In, span ailerons typically extend from about 50% to 90% of the span and about 15% to 25% of wing chord. With 70% of span and 20% of chord. Span of Ailerons = 35.574 ft.

A-18 Ababeel

52

The above span includes 55% of flaps and 45% of ailerons. Chord= 3.6534 ft. b. Elevators: Elevators typically extend to the tip of the tail or to about 90% of the tail span and about 25% to 50% of the tail chord. Span of Elevators = 20.432 ft. Chord = 3.0114 ft. c. Rudders: Rudders show same trend with tail span and chord as by elevators. Span of Rudders = 7.065 ft. Chord = 2.2313 ft.

A-18 Ababeel

53

8. Configuration Layout

A-18 Ababeel

54

9.1 Crew Station:

The pilot must have adequate view to enable the aircraft to be controlled satisfactory at all times. Usually there is no difficulty in the cruise phase, the more critical aspects being ground maneuvering, landing and combat. The location of a suitable position for the eye of the pilot may be regarded as the starting point for cockpit layout. Figure 9.1 shows a typical pilot figure useful for conceptual design layout. The 95th percentile pilot includes allowances for boots and a helmet.

Fig 9.1 Average 95th Percentile Pilot Moreover, dimensions for a typical cockpit sized to fit the 95th percentile pilot are shown in figure 9.2.

Fig 9.2 Typical Fighter Aircraft Cockpit Higher seatback angles entails a substantial penalty in outside vision for the pilot, but can improve his ability to withstand high-g-turns and also can reduce drag because of a reduction in the cockpit height. Seatback Angle = 300 Overnose angle is of critical importance especially during landing and during air-to-air combat. military fighters the typical value for the overnose angle is between 11 and 15. For

A-18 Ababeel

55

Overnose Angle = 150 The single-piece, bubble canopy will provide 360 all-round visibility, with a 40 look-down angle over the side of the aircraft.

Carriage of weapons is the purpose of most military aircraft. Traditional weapons include guns, bombs and missiles. The weapons are a substantial portion of the aircrafts total weight. This requires that the weapons be located near the aircrafts center of gravity. Otherwise the aircraft would pitch up or down when the weapons are released. The external weapon carriage is selected for A-18 Ababeel since it is the simplest and flexibility for carrying wide range of weapons.

Fig 9.3 Details of weapons which can be carried are given below: Table 9.1 Weapon Name 1x GAU-8 Avenger 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-120 AMRAAM 4x AGM-65 Maverick or AGM45 Shrike 8x Hydra 70 or CRV7 2x BL755 or Mark 82 Type 30 mm Gun Air-to-Air Missile Weight of single Weapon 619 lbs. 376 lbs. / 510 lbs. / 335 lbs.

Air-to-Ground Missile

Rocket Bomb

A-18 Ababeel

56

10.

This section treats the integration and layout of the propulsion system into the overall vehicle design, not the calculation of installed propulsion performance.

The mission requirement suggests that a low bypass turbofan jet engine with afterburner is suitable for the aircraft. For the turbofan engine, the air is accelerated with a ducted fan of one or several stages. This accelerated air is then split, with part remaining in the engine for further compression and burning, and the remaining is bypassed around the engine to exit unburned. If fuel is injected into this largely un-combusted hot air, it will mix and burn. This will raise the thrust as much as a factor of two, and is known as afterburning.

Fig 10.1

If the aircraft is designed using an existing, off-the-shelf engine, the dimensions are obtained from the manufacturer. If a rubber engine is being used, the dimensions for the engine must be obtained by scaling from some nominal engine size by whatever scale factor is required to provide the desired thrust.

A-18 Ababeel

57

Fig 10.2 Engine Scaling Figure 10.2 illustrates the dimensions that must be scaled from the nominal engine. The scale factor SF is the ratio between the required thrust and the actual thrust of the nominal engine. Below are the parameters found for our aircrafts engine:

Required Thrust: W0 (T/W) = (47963.2027) (0.544) = 26091.98 lbf Actual Thrust = 23,800 lbf (Rolls-Royce Pegasus installed in Harrier GR-3) SF = 1.096 Following equations show how, length, diameter and weight vary with the scale for the typical jet engine.

A-18 Ababeel

58

Table 10.1 Length actual Diameter actual Weight actual So using the above formulae: Table 10.2 Length Diameter Weight 11.843 ft. 4.188 ft. 4380.13 lbs. 11.4166 ft. 4 ft. 3960 lbs.

Turbojet and turbofan engines are in capable of efficient operation unless the air entering them is slowed to a speed of about Mach 0.4-0.5. Slowing down the incoming air is the primary purpose of an inlet system. Maximum Mach for A-18 is 1.5, and hence Ramp inlet is selected.

Fig 10.3 Any inlet must slow the air to about half the speed of sound before it reaches the engine. The final transition from supersonic to subsonic speed always occurs through a normal shock. An oblique shock, however, does not reduce the air speed all the way to subsonic. To have better pressure recovery it is desired to have number of oblique shockwaves before normal shock. However the ramp length will increase as the numbers of oblique shocks are increased. So we

A-18 Ababeel

59

have to make compromise between number of shocks and ramp length. Keeping in mind maximum Mach i.e., 1.5, 2 shocks (external compression) is selected.

Fig 10.4

The inlet location can have almost as great an effect on engine performance as the inlet geometry. For A-18 Ababeel, side mounted inlet is selected. Side inlets provide short ducts and relatively clean air. As a side-mounted inlet is used with a single engine, a split duct will be use.

Fig 10.5

Figure 10.6 provides a quick method of estimating the required inlet capture area. This statistical method is based upon the designed Mach number and the engine mass flow.

A-18 Ababeel

60

Fig 10.6 Capture Area Sizing For the design Mach number of 1.1,

Now,

Capture Area = (mass flow) ( Where, And, mass flow = 26 (Front Face Diameter)2

Front Face Diameter = 80% of Maximum Diameter = 0.8 (4.188) = 3.3504 ft. mass flow = 26 (3.3504)2 = 291.855 Capture Area = (291.855) (3.60) = 1050.678 ft2

The aircrafts fore body builds up its own boundary layer. If this low energy, turbulent air is allowed to enter he engine, it can reduce engine performance subsonically and prevent proper inlet operation

A-18 Ababeel

61

supersonically. The channel diverter is selected for A-18. It provides the best performance and least weight in most cases. The inlet front face is located some distance away from the fuselage, with a splitter plate to ensure that the boundary-layer air does not get into the inlet.

Fig 10.7

The engine can be viewed as a producer of high-pressure subsonic gases. The nozzle accelerates the gases to the desired exit speed, which is controlled by the exit area. If the desired exit speed is supersonic, a converging-diverging nozzle is required. For current design Converging-Diverging Ejector type nozzle is selected. It allows varying the throat and exit areas separately for maximum engine performance throughout the flight envelop.

Fig 10.8

There are three types of fuel tanks: discrete, bladder and integral. And Bladder Tanks are selected for our design. Bladder tanks are made by stuffing a shaped rubber bag into a cavity in the structure. The rubber bag is thick, causing the loss of about 10% of the available fuel volume. However, bladders can be made selfsealing. If a bullet passes through a self-sealing tank, the rubber will fill in the hole preventing a large

A-18 Ababeel

62

fuel loss and fire hazard. The fuel volume is calculated below: As If JP-4 type fuel is used then: = 6.4 lbs./gal Hence, Volume of fuel = 14964.52/6.4 = 2338.20625 gal W fuel = 14964.52 lbs.

A-18 Ababeel

63

11.

The most commonly used arrangement today is the tricycle gear, with two main wheels aft of the c.g. and auxiliary wheel forward of the c.g.. It is selected for A-18 design.

Fig 11.1 With a tricycle landing gear, the c.g. is ahead of the main wheels so the aircraft is stable on the ground and can be landed at a fairly large crab angle (i.e., nose not aligned with the runway). Also, tricycle landing gear improves forward visibility on the ground. The layout of tricycle landing gear is shown in figure 11.2. The length of the landing gear must be set so that the tail doesnt hit the ground on landing. This is measured from the wheel in the static position assuming an aircraft angle of attack for landing which gives 90% of the maximum lift. The ranges are from about 10-15 deg for most types of aircraft.

A-18 Ababeel

64

11.2.1 Main Landing Gear: Using Statistical Data given in table 11.1, Diameter and width is calculated. Table 11.1 Statistical Tire Sizing

Assuming that main landing gear carry 90% of total weight. And as there are two main landing gears. So,

= 21583.44 lbs.

11.2.2 Nose Landing Gear: Generally nose tire can be assumed 60-100% the size of the main tires. Assuming 80% of size of main landing gear. Diameter = 25.9056 inches Width = 8.2864 inches Other parameters include:

A-18 Ababeel

65

And the recommended tire pressure is given in Table 4 which is, Table 11.2 Recommended Tire Pressure

The landing gear must absorb the shock of a bad landing and smooth out the ride when taxing. Hinge with Oleo-pneumatic struts in all units is selected from shock absorber types for main landing gear whereas nose landing gear will be simply oleo-pneumatic.

A-18 Ababeel

66

Where

And,

= Shock Absorber efficiency L = Average total Load S = Stroke From Table 11.3, Table 11.3 Shock Absorber Efficiency

And

A-18 Ababeel

67

L = (Wlanding) (Ngear) From Table 11.4 Table 11.4 Gear Load Factors

Ngear = 3.5 So, L = 134296.96 lbs Generally stoke approximately equals the vertical velocity at touch down:

Hence

Finally,

Where

and

Hence,

A-18 Ababeel

68

Length of Oleo including the stroke distance and fixed portion of oleo is approximately 2.5 times the stroke:

Main landing gear will retract into the fuselage while Nose wheel is located aft of intake, to reduce the risk of foreign objects being thrown into the engine during ground operation, and rotates 90 0 during retraction to lie horizontally under engine air intake duct.

Fig 11.4

From table 11.5 Table 11.5 Avionics Weight

Where

A-18 Ababeel

69

lbs. Finally

A-18 Ababeel

70

12.1 Lift Curve Slope:

12.1.1 Subsonic Lift Curve Slope:

Aerodynamics

d = 6.223

b = 50.82

F = 1.3481

max = 490 Sexposed/Sref = 0.836 F(Sexposed/Sref) = 1.127 > 1 Hence let, F(Sexposed/Sref) = 0.98

M = 0.6 = 0.64 CLalpha = 2.998/ rad 12.1.2 Supersonic Lift-Curve Slope: The chart in figure 12.1 is the best approximate method available for the estimation of supersonic lift curve slope. The chart actually estimates the slope of the normal force i.e. the lift-curve slope in a direction

A-18 Ababeel

71

perpendicular to the surface of wing. For low angles of attack, this is approximately equal to the liftcurve slope. The term divided by tangent of the leading edge sweep is calculated and found on horizontal axis of the chart. If this ratio is less than 1, which is our case, then left side of the chart must be used. Appropriate line is selected by calculating the wing aspect ratio times the tangent of the leading edge sweep and vertical axis value is read. This value is then divided by the tangent of leading edge sweep. At Mach 1.1, = 1.118 Also L.E.= 490

A-18 Ababeel

72

For low Aspect ratio maximum lift coefficient and angle of attack at maximum lift coefficient can be found using following formulae

Important parameters required are, Leading edge sharpness parameter (y) = 1.025 Taper ratio () = 0.2 Leading edge sweep (L.E. ) = 490

Fig 12.3 Airfoil Leading Edge Sharpness Parameter For calculating (CLmax)base and CLmax following values are estimated

A-18 Ababeel

73

Fig 12.6 CLmax = 0.05 Hence maximum lift coefficient is, Similarly for angle of attack, CLmax = 0.87

A-18 Ababeel

74

Increase in Lift coefficient can be given by

(From Geometry)

Fig 12.8 Flapped Wing Area Slotted flaps are selected for A-18 Ababeel. Table 12.1

CLmax = 0.4458 And the total maximum lift coefficient with high-lift device is CLmax = 0.87+0.4458 CLmax = 1.3258

In airplane performance and design, drag is perhaps the most important aerodynamic quantity. Minimizing drag has been one of the strongest drivers in historical development of applied aerodynamics.

A-18 Ababeel

75

12.4.1 Subsonic Parasite (Zero-Lift) Drag: Equivalent Skin-Method: In this method zero lift drag is approximated using skin friction drag.

Table 12.2

Swet/Sref = 1364.07/808.55 = 1.68705 Hence, Component buildup Method: The component buildup method estimates the subsonic parasite drag of each component of the aircraft using a calculated flat-plate skin-friction drag coefficient (Cf) and a component form factor (FF) that estimates the pressure drag due to viscous separation. Then the interference effects on the component drag are estimated as a factor Q and the total component drag is determined as the product of the wetted area, Cf, FF, Q. and the total subsonic parasite-drag buildup is shown in following equation, where subscript c indicates that those values are different for each component. CD0 = 0.006

A-18 Ababeel

76

Flat-Plate Skin Friction Coefficient: The flat-plate skin friction coefficient Cf depends upon the Reynolds number, Mach number and skin roughness. The most important factor affecting the skin friction drag is the extent to which the aircraft has the laminar flow over its surface, thats why there are following two formulas for different phases: Laminar:

Turbulent:

Component Form Factors: Form Factor for different components is given by,

Miscellaneous Drag: Following graphs and trends were used to calculate miscellaneous drag.

A-18 Ababeel

77

Fig 12.10 External Stores (Fuel Tanks) Drag A program was written in EXCEL to calculate subsonic Zero-Lift Drag

A-18 Ababeel

78

Fig 12.11 Contribution of different components in subsonic drag 12.4.2 Supersonic Parasite (Zero-Lift) Drag: Component buildup method is used with an addition of wave drag, which is given by,

Similarly an EXCEL program was written for calculating supersonic zero-lift drag.

A-18 Ababeel

79

A-18 Ababeel

80

Same results were checked using RDS. Results are shown below.

A-18 Ababeel

81

A-18 Ababeel

82

13.

13.1 Thrust Variation with Altitude:

Propulsion

For turbofan engine, thrust decreases with increasing altitude. Following equation is used for plotting thrust vs. altitude.

0 and T0 refers to density and thrust at sea level respectively. T0 = 26091.98 lbf. And assuming m = 0.95.

Supersonic military aircraft engines are usually defined using an inlet pressure recovery of 1 at subsonic speeds and the inlet recovery of following equation at supersonic speeds. Added to this is the pressure recovery loss due to internal flow in the inlet duct itself. Typically this adds 2-3% to the losses.

For various Mach numbers, this equation gives following graph between reference & available

A-18 Ababeel

83

Fig 13.2 Reducing inlet pressure recovery has a greater-than-proportional effect upon the engine thrust.

A-18 Ababeel

84

14.

An aircraft faces various structural loads during its flight which considerably affects the aircrafts flight. When one thinks of aircraft loads, the air loads due to high-g maneuvering come immediately to mind, while important, maneuvering loads are only a part of total load that must be withstood by the aircraft structure. Some of the important aircraft structural loads are described and analyzed below:

The greatest air loads on an aircraft usually come from the generation of lift during high-g maneuvers. Even the fuselage is almost always structurally sized by the lift of the wing rather than by the air pressures produced directly on the fuselage. The V-n diagram depicts the aircraft limit load factor as a function of airspeed. Maneuvering V-n diagram is given below.

When an aircraft experiences a gust, the effect is an increase (or decrease) in angle of attack. Following figure illustrates the geometry for an upward gust of velocity U.

A-18 Ababeel

85

Fig 14.2 The loads experienced when the aircraft encounters a strong gust can exceed the maneuver loads in some cases. The V-n diagram for gust loads is given below.

A-18 Ababeel

86

15.

Weights

The detail of all the weights of different components was computed using RDS. In total the gross takeoff weight is 47963.2027 lbs. The output window of RDS is shown below.

A-18 Ababeel

87

16.

16.1 Thrust Required:

Performance Analysis

If an aircraft is flying at certain altitude with certain velocity then to maintain these steady fight conditions enough thrust must be generated to overcome the drag- this is the thrust required to maintain these conditions. The condition for minimum thrust required is also the condition for maximum L/D.

Fig 16.1 Thrust Required and Thrust Available The point where thrust required and thrust available curves meets is the point of maximum velocity which is about 1450 ft./sec (Mach 1.5).

A-18 Ababeel

88

Power required can be calculated by simply multiplying thrust required with velocity. The plot of power required vs. velocity is qualitatively same as that of thrust required plot.

Fig 16.3 Power Required and Power Available Again the intersecting point gives the maximum velocity.

Rate of climb is aircrafts vertical velocity- the rate of change in altitude. It depends upon the ratio of excess power to weight.

A-18 Ababeel

89

ROC at Mach 1.1 (1064.5 ft./sec) is about 240 ft./sec (14,400 ft./min) The hodograph is a plot between aircrafts vertical velocity and horizontal velocity. It is shown below.

Fig 16.5

Rate of climb was plotted against velocity at different altitudes. The plot is given below:

Fig 16.6 Now the maximum ROC for each was plotted against altitude. And later the plot was extrapolated to ROC = 0 ft/min.

A-18 Ababeel

90

Fig 16.7 ROC vs. Altitude From above graph ROC was estimated as 50952.4818 ft.

Summary of Gliding Performance is given in table 16.1. Table 16.1

16.6 Range:

It is the total distance (measure with respect to ground) traversed by an airplane on one load of fuel. Table 16.2

A-18 Ababeel

91

16.7 Endurance:

It is the amount of time that an airplane can stay in the air on one load of fuel. Table 16.3

Table 16.4

Here we have only calculated ground roll as the only requirement mentioned in mission profile was ground roll. Summary of calculation is given in table below. Table 16.5

A-18 Ababeel

92

Similarly for landing distance only ground roll is calculated. Table 16.6

Jet-fighter dogfight maneuvers largely rely upon the exchange of potential and kinetic energy to attain a positional advantage. 16.9.1 Energy Heights:

Consider an airplane flying at some altitude h and with some velocity V then its energy height is:

Using this equation the graph of constant He lines at different altitudes can be drawn as follows:

A-18 Ababeel

93

Fig 16.8 16.9.2 Specific Excess Power: It is the rate of change in energy height or excess power per unit weight. Ps = V (T-D)/W

A-18 Ababeel

94

Performance Parameter ROC Absolute Ceiling Range Takeoff Distance Landing Distance

Mission Requirement 15,000 ft./min 50,000 ft. 1800 nmi 1200 ft. 1800 ft.

Designed Parameter 14,400 ft./min 50,952.4818 ft. 1807 nmi 1284.79 ft. 1431.06 ft.

A-18 Ababeel

95

17.

During early conceptual design, the requirements for good stability, control and handling qualities are addressed through the use of tail volume coefficients and through the location of aircraft center of gravity (c.g) at some percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). In larger aircraft companies, the aircraft is then analyzed by the control experts, probably using six degree of freedom (DOF) aircraft dynamics. Similar control and stability analysis is done in DATCOM software to get stability derivatives.

C.g. Location plays a vital role in the longitudinal stability of aircraft. As the aircraft flies through the mission it consumes fuel, moreover due to the drop payload c.g. shifts along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The designer must pay attention to this movement, and has to make sure that it does not cross the backward limit (Static margin) and the forward controllability limit. Below is given the C.g. envelope of A-18 Ababeel during complete payload drop mission.

Fig 17.1 a

Fig 17.1 b

A-18 Ababeel

96

Fig 17.1c

Fig 17.1d

Fig 17.1e

A-18 Ababeel

97

Fig 17.1 e

Fig 17.2

A-18 Ababeel

98

Fig 17.3

A-18 Ababeel

99

And from these calculations I have calculated the following transfer functions:

A-18 Ababeel

100

18.

Cost Analysis

When the aircraft manufacturers submit their proposals for new aircraft, the customer faces a problem. All of the proposed aircraft will meet the design requirements. Thats why customer must use some criteria other than aircraft performance to select the best proposal. Aircraft cost estimation occupies the fuzzy gray area between science, art and politics. Cost estimation is largely statistical and in final analysis we predict the cost of a new aircraft based on the actual costs of prior aircraft. Ive used RDS software for cost analysis of this aircraft and after entering the inputs for the production of 100 aircrafts I have got the following results:

A-18 Ababeel

101

A-18 Ababeel

102

References

Raymer, Daniel P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Fourth Edition Lang, James D., Aircraft Performance, Stability and Control, Vol. I Blakelock, John H., Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missiles Anderson, John D., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill 2007 Anderson, John D., Aircraft Performance and Design, McGraw-Hill 2007 Abbott, Theory of Wing Sections Users Manual, THE USAF STABILITY AND CONTROL DATCOM Charles D. Harris ,NASA Supercritical Airfoils (A matrix of family-Related Airfoils) Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model AV-8B Harrier, October 1986 Denis Howe, Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis, First Edition http://www.flightsimaviation.com http://library.propdesigner.co.uk www.wikipedia.org/

A-18 Ababeel

103

Appendix A

(DATCOM+ Data)

A-18 Ababeel

104

A-18 Ababeel

105

Appendix B

(Aerodynamic Sheets)

At 37,000 ft (Subsonic) 0.01046 CD0 K 0.12473 At 37,000 ft (Supersonic) 0.05441 CD0 K 0.21327

CL

CD CD 37,000 37,000 ft ft(Subsonic) (Supersonic) 0.011710206 0.056547101 0.015452106 0.062945201 0.021688606 0.073608701 0.030419706 0.088537601 0.041645406 0.107731901 0.055365706 0.131191601 0.071580606 0.158916701 0.090290106 0.190907201 0.111494206 0.227163101 0.135192906 0.267684401

A-18 Ababeel

106

Appendix C

(V-n Diagram Sheets)

At 37,000 ft T 390 (density) Mmax Vmax W/S CLmax (Unflapped) nmax (Positive) V* (Corner Velocity) nmax (Negative) V* - negative n slugs/ 0.000678 ft3 1.5 1451.932 ft/sec 59.32 0.87 8 1268.487 ft/sec -3.5 839.0254

Velocity 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 839 900 1000 1100 1200 1268 1300 1400 1450

nmax (Positive) 0 0.049718476 0.198873904 0.447466285 0.795495617 1.242961902 1.789865138 2.436205327 3.181982468 3.499787939 4.027196561 4.971847606 6.015935604 7.159460553 7.993855906 7.993855906 7.993855906 7.993855906

nmax (Negative) 0 -0.049718476 -0.198873904 -0.447466285 -0.795495617 -1.242961902 -1.789865138 -2.436205327 -3.181982468 -3.499787939 -3.499787939 -3.499787939 -3.499787939 -3.499787939 -3.499787939 -3.499787939 -3.499787939 -3.499787939

A-18 Ababeel

107

- Wing Design Level3Uploaded byseventhhemanth
- complete ppt.ppsxUploaded byMahesh J Rao
- Asm Presentations Drag Reduction Status (1)Uploaded byFang Chyn
- AerodynamicsUploaded byMurugan Mech
- Airfoil Shape OptimizationUploaded byCris Roppa
- LiftUploaded byJaisurya Sharma
- NACA 4412 - FluentUploaded byLei Tu
- WJEC 2013 Pre-released extra readingUploaded byDulwich Physics
- Aerodynamics 1Uploaded byHawk Gatus
- Typical Experimental ResultsUploaded byKang Qin
- Computional Investigation of the Low Speed S1223 Airfoil With and Without a Gurney FlapUploaded bymahzadkh
- Report Aerodynamics BegginerUploaded byJose Pardellas
- SAMPLEQUESTIONS-COMPREXAM(ObjType)Uploaded byഹരി നീലാംബരി
- Experimental Investigation of Effect of Multiple wingsUploaded byIJSRP ORG
- Aerodynamics 1Uploaded bybitchwhorecunt
- CEI Extraction of Boundary Layer Characteristics From Fluent ResultsUploaded bypopoda
- Komponen Dan Struktur PesbangUploaded byAziz Fahrur
- Stack 1933 Naca 463Uploaded bycordella_francesco
- Bousman TMUploaded byTarak Nath Nandi
- 15AS204J-aero-ug-reg-2015-lpUploaded byrajkumar r
- gujUploaded byjjp20697
- THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WINGS IN A FLOW OF INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUIDUploaded byJason Ross
- Aircraft Drag Reduction an OverviewUploaded byLuis Guillermo
- lec35Uploaded byAjit Parwani
- lec39Uploaded byTommyVercetti
- rotationallyAugmentedFlow_NREL_Guntur_Schreck.pdfUploaded byAthreya

- B-747 EspecificacionesUploaded byAlexander Hernandez
- PrattWhitney BrochureUploaded byjasem
- Center of Aviation Module 15 Gas TurbinesUploaded byAbdul Qadeer Khan
- F100-Key_Facts_(v3-07)Uploaded byZbor Zbor
- Aeropropulsion Environmental Test FacilityUploaded byfighterjake
- Formulario-Grajeda2 actualizandoUploaded byAngelSnchz
- EASA Module 15Uploaded byKushlan Sanka Fernando
- Mirage2000C ManualUploaded byEnes Omeragic
- 1Sectioned Jumo 004 Exhaust NozzleUploaded byPokemon Go
- TurboJet ECU.pdfUploaded bypen2trinity3200
- B2 14.pdfUploaded byNeels Beck
- Types of Jet EnginesUploaded byKim Bautista
- Application of Multiple Handle Gas Path Analysis.pdfUploaded byVenu Madhav
- Cassiopeia AKTF5 - SMAT Tengku Ampuan JemaahUploaded byLiey Azim II
- History & Prplsn Tech.Uploaded byShrikantThakare
- Simple Thermodynamics of Jet EnginesUploaded byKok Cheong
- A330Uploaded bycbler
- Turbo Charger Jet Engines Springers mUploaded byMolay Karmakar
- Chapter 1 - Introduction - Pages 1 to 45Uploaded byCarlos Araujo
- 4873Uploaded byamdeva
- 2010_-_SIANGSANUN_-_VorasiriUploaded bybouhafes
- Turboprop EnginesUploaded byMukesh Chaubey
- Cessna Sovereign s&dUploaded byPeter Victor
- A NASA Guide to EnginesUploaded byDorin Manolea
- CJ805_AFT_Fan_Engine_MaintenanceManual.pdfUploaded bydavidamadollavorsi
- vertical take off.docUploaded byPrashant
- Jet EngineUploaded byWira Sentanu
- Weight Estimation - Conceptual Design of AirplanesUploaded byewiontko
- Gas Turbine Technology Evolution_ A Designers Perspective_Koff 2004_Nocomments.pdfUploaded byArthur Dias
- Dynamic Modelling of Gas Turbines Identification Simulation Condition Monitoring and Optimal ControlUploaded byAnonymous rsGzBBiqk