Understanding Design

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia explains “design” as: “…creating an object's form and function. Design can involve making products, machin es, and structures that serve their intended purpose and are pleasing to the eye as well.” Encyclopedia Britannica’s Dictionary provides numerous meanings of “design” as a noun as well as a verb. Most of them are given as under: As a noun As a verb • a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group • deliberate purposive planning • a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down • a deliberate undercover project or scheme • a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be exe cuted • an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding • a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (as a scientific experiment); also the process of preparing this • the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art • the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs intention, plan • to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan • to conceive and plan out in the mind • to have as a purpose • to devise for a specific function or end

In the light of the above description, we can now understand design as an activi ty involving the setting out of a strategy that ends up as a solution to the giv en problem which at the same time remains within the existing constraints. In en gineering, the design process is of fundamental importance which determines the manufacturing scheme of a product. Any shortcoming or defect in a product’s field service is finally attributed to its designer.


Initiation of a New Design Process

Innovation and creativity are continuously required in the technological dynamic s of any dimension of applied knowledge. The reasons for the initiation of a new design process are listed as follows: • • • Customer requirement New requirement based on future market trends or research New technology or innovation


Aircraft Design

000 ft (Absolute Ceiling) Maximum landing speed (at Maximum Landing Weight): 135 knots . Passenger weight: 185 lbf Baggage: 60 lbf/paxx Maximum Range: 2800 n mi Cruise: 0. 1999.“Aircraft design is both an art and a science. 4. An aircraft’s design is the outcome of an iterative p rocess that is accomplished through the optimization of various candidate config urations and combinations. The RFP giv en to me was for the AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competit ion. or Request for Proposal. Jr. structur es. Anderson. Airbus A3 20 and Boeing 737–600 were declared as the existing comparables. it constrained the use of turboprops . Raymer declares aircraft design a se parate discipline of aeronautical engineering. 381 An aircraft is a very diverse system whose production demands input from the var ious subfields of aeronautics and avionics. 2. 3. The RFP demanded for conceptual design of a new commercial transport aircraft de sign with a capacity for 150 passengers in a dual class configuration. 6. compatible with the existing airpor ts’ infrastructure and fuel efficiency. Other technical specifications that RFP had asked for are listed as follows: 1. pp. Aircraft Performance and Design McGraw–Hill. The following chart shows the methodology of the conc eptual design process of an aircraft. propulsion and controls. 2008 – 2009. is a proposal made by a commercial organization in viting bids from possible suppliers of a product or service. 5. Also. or by a government or other funding agency inviting bids from possible research bodies.8 M Maximum Operating Altitude: 43. Chapter 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND MISSION PROFILE RFP. The RFP required the aircraft to be environmentally friendly.” John D. apart from aerodynamics.

0.7. displayed as follows: The mission profile is stationed as follows: 0 – 1 1 – 2 2 – 3 3 – 4 4 – 5 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 8 – 9 9 – 10 10 – 11 11 – 12 Taxi and TO Climb Cruise: 2600 n mi @ 36. . MTOW: 7000 ft 2.000 7 Descent Loiter: 20 min Landing The mission profile ensures that its accomplishment would mean the satisfaction of most of the requirements. Takeoff Field Length (TOFL).1 Mission Profile With the specifications at hand.000 ft. A mission profile based on the designer’s choice was carved out.8 M Descent Loiter: 20 min Attempt to Land Divert (climb) Cruise: 200 n mi @ 20. I started the design process.

of Tails 1 2 3 No. the following layout was m ade for the as–drawn aircraft: Fig.Chapter 3 CONCEPT SELECTION An artistic sketch of the aircraft was made.3 Side View Fig.1 Top View Fig. 3. or any type of geometric detail. These were drafted using a pure artistic approa ch. after selection of the choices from a morphological matrix. of Fuselages 1 2 3 Wing Configuration High Wing Mid Wing Low Wing Wing Sweep Forward Backward Tail Type Conventional T–Tail H–Tail V–Tail No.2 Front View Fig.1 Morphological Matrix The morphological matrix was formed as shown: Choices Aircraft Configuration Conventional Span Loaded Flying Wing ing Multi Fuselage Flatbed No. 3. of Engines 2 3 4 5 6 Wing Twist Aerodynamic Geometric Sweep Type Fixed Variable Double Triple Wing Position Anhedral Dihedral Tandem W Based on the selections of this morphological matrix. 3. 3. The next section explains the reasons for going for this unconventional layo ut.4 Isometric View The sketches and the 3D model were created having no idea about the dimensions. 3. .

require smaller engines as that of a comparable single–fuselage design (Ref. and esp ecially for a layman’s eye. 3) 6.3. The theory of similarity predicts reduction of the payload capability wh en the dimensions of an aircraft are increased. (Ref. Other important reasons for the ruling are stated as u nder: 1.2 Reasons for Triple Hull Layout A key motive for the decision of this configuration was differentiation. 2) 2. Application of multi–fuselage airc rafts can improve the situation. Better fuel efficiency. 3) 3. 1) 4. I opted for this layout and froze my concept. 1) Having these augmented benefits. About 8% reduction in aircraft empty weight (Ref. Disliking of twin–fuselage arrangement by the pilots (Ref. Separation of a large central mass into distributed outboard masses subs tantially alleviates wing bending loads (Ref. Allows high aspect ratios to be used (Ref. Chapter 4 AS DRAWN CONFIGURATION . 3) 5.

4 Crew . it is assumed that fuel fraction for the descent segment equals unity.970 W2/W1 = 0.1 Initial Weight Sizing Initial Weight Sizing was carried out following the 3rd Chapter of the textbook.06(1 – W12/Wo) = 0. see Appendix A.983 W10/W9 = 1 W11/W10 = 0.985 W3/W2 = 0.995 So.000 lbf From Table 3.1. WTO)A320 = 162.1 Empty Weight Estimation The average of the take off weights of the reference aircrafts were taken as the sized TO weight.4. the weight fraction of the whole mission equals: W12/Wo = 0. In the initial weight si zing.993 W12/W11 = 0. Sized WTO = 168.456 4.262 4. The subsequent sections explain the procedure.3 Payload Wpassengers = 27750 lbf WBaggage = 9000 lbf Therefore. For complete steps of calculation. lbf Therefore.993 W7/W5 = 0. Only the results are presented h ere.834 W4/W3 = 1 W5/W4 = 0.995 W8/W7 = 0. WPayload = 36750 lbf 4.000 lbf WTO)B737 = 174.985 W9/W8 = 0.1: We/Wo = 0.1.753 With 6% reserves: Wfuel/Wo = 1.2 Fuel Weight The weight fractions of the mission segments are presented as: W1/Wo = 0.496 8% empty weight saving due to triple fuselage layout results in: We/Wo = 0.

max than wing . as it is effective in reducing wave drag. 2.2.9 4.907 lbf.max High Mcr to avoid transonic drag Cl. close to 0.5 Vertical Tail 1. High Cl. 2. The supercriti cal aerofoil was selected.2 Tail Geometry T–Tail was selected for its added effectiveness and efficiency over the other conf igurations.493 (estimated design CL of the aircraft) Sufficient thickness to cater for the fuel weight The aerofoil thus selected was NASA SC(2)–0610 (Mcr ≈ 0.461 4.3 Tail Airfoil LE Sweep 35o 40o Following considerations were taken into account while selecting the tail aerofo il: 1.WCrew = 1850 lbf 4.2 0. the total takeoff weight of the aircraft came out after iterating the following equation for We/Wo and Wo.2 Airfoil and Geometry Selection Following considerations were kept in mind while selecting the aerofoil: 1. along with the wei ght of crew and payload. 3.1 Wing Geometry 30o 1o 0. No supercritical aerofo il was available for design Cl of 0. 4. with We/Wo = 0.2.81).2.5 with the desired thickness. 4.5 0.7 AR 9.1.5 Calculation of Total TO Weight After determining the fuel weight and empty weight fractions. Symmetric Higher Cl.412 LE Sweep Incidence Twist 3o Taper Ratio Mid wing was selected with a dihedral of 1o. The results were: Wo = 139369. AR Taper Ratio Horizontal Tail 4. which would be there in the transonic regime.

e. We/Wo = 0.278 (greater than that obtained from Table 5. For the selected T/W. and the detailed c alculations are available in Appendix A.005 lbf/ft2 (about 5% less than 120 lbf/ft2) In T/W and W/S. the least important and also very low. as T/W = 0. i.4 Revised Weight Sizing This section follows the calculation practices of the 6th Chapter of the textboo k.5. The design poi nt for the aircraft was selected based on the study of 5th Chapter of the textbo ok.3. the wing loadings for the various requirements were obtained as: Requirement W/S (lbf/ft2) Stall Speed 108. static and maximum thrust of the en gine.4 (P 110).1 Empty Weight Fraction With guessed Wo = 168. as there was more information available .254 Landing Distance 106. 4.3) The wing loading was calculated for each mission requirement. and were more accurate than those determined in the initial sizing phase. was dropped.1). 4.4. the value should be 120 lbf/ft2. There was no thinner airfoil availa ble in the category. W/S = 114. and S refers to th e reference area of the wing. Keeping in view the 3rd Para of Arti cle 5. The value obtained for loiter. and incorporating the benefit of empty weight reduction for the multi fuselage design gives: We/Wo = 0. Here.475 . Also. W refers to the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft.000 lbf.242 Cruise 92. 4.042 Takeoff Distance 179. 4. T refers to the uninstalled. the weight calculations were refined.516 (from Table 6.050 Loiter 21. that obtained for crui se was significantly less than 120 lbf/ft2. The T/W was selected by the Thrust Matching Technique.3 Design Point Selection Design point means the selection of T/W and W/S for the aircraft.005 From Table 5.488 Absolute Ceiling 114. the selected W/S is the one determined by the absolute ceiling. Higher Mcr than the wing 10% less thicker than the wing’s aerofoil The airfoil thus selected was NACA SC(2)–0010.

The details can be seen in Appendix A.98 W2/W1 = 0. Eq.2 Fuel Weight The fuel weight fractions for the mission segments were obtained as: W1/Wo = 0.915 ft 13.353 ft2 108.253 Eq.849 W4/W3 = 0.4 Final Results WFuel/Wo = 0. The configuration contained two tails and three fuselages.761 With 5% reserves and 1% trapped fuel: 4. 6.984 W10/W9 = 0.C.389 ft2 68. Fuselage Length per fuselage Max. Diameter 9. with We/Wo = 0.4.995 As there is no payload drop and combat phase in the mission profile.991 W5/W4 = 0. fuel weight can be estimated as a fuel fraction.478 4.195 ft Wing Sref Span croot ctip M.993 W7/W5 = 0.993 W12/W11 = 0.4. and the result is: Revised WTO = 143686. 1260. The numbers here are bas ed on the revised aircraft weight and the design point.961 ft Horizontal Tail croot ctip S . Therefore.4.614 ft 9. 6.4. 6.1 when WPayload drop = 0.995 W11/W10 = 0.1 is used to perform iterations to find WTO.5 Geometric Sizing This section deals with the dimensions of the aircraft.21 ft 390.A.53 ft 11.419 ft 6. W12/Wo = 0.986 W9/W8 = 0.692 ft Span 41.3 Payload and Crew Weight WPayload = 36750 lbf WCrew = 1850 lbf 4.3 reduces to Eq.979 W3/W2 = 0.914 ft 12.995 W8/W7 = 0.55 lbf.

121 ft 4.78 ft 16.105 ft 1.69 ft 5. Now.45 ft 1.Vertical Tail croot ctip S Span 20. engine.6 Control Surface Sizing The dimensions of the aircraft’s control surfaces were determined similar to those obtained above. the geometric configuration of the aircraft wa s ready. after the selection of a suitable power plant unit. Aileron croot ctip Elevator ctip Rudder croot ctip 2.e. which will be f ollowed by the various analyses of that aircraft in the subsequent chapters of t his report.27 ft 17. i.002 ft 342.552 ft 5. and prepared for the next step of the conceptual design process: the An alysis.7 Conclusion With control surface sizing done. The eng ine specifications and the data are presented in the 7th Chapter. the selec tion of the optimized aircraft is presented in the next chapter.377 ft2 4.715 ft croot 3. Chapter 5 .

After having the analyses (aerodynamic.45).OPTIMIZATION 5. presented in the textbook (Eq.25 to Eq. 5. by varying the d esign point. A 3 X 3 m atrix is thus obtained as: T/W W/S (lbf/ft2) . 15. The performance results show that whethe r the requirements/specifications have met or not. All the parameters in the analyses kept on changing. the design space was enlarged to 10% on both th e sides of the original design point.1 Background The analyses of the as drawn configuration were carried out after deciding the d esign point. the empty weight of the aircraft was found out using the more accurate methods of its evaluation. 15. A sizing matrix was made to get an overview of the results. etc. The design point was varied by +10% of the initial values of T/W an d W/S. T he aircraft was then converged for the empty weight obtained. and the one got ea rlier in the revised weight sizing. The computations for those analyses were done in the Microsoft Exce l Spreadsheets.2 Sizing Matrix For preparing the sizing matrix. propulsive and structura l) done. to get eight more design points. areas. the weights. The performance of this converged aircraft ( now no more as–drawn) was then evaluated. This design p oint is the prime parameter in the aircraft performance. A flowchart summarizing the scheme of work is shown as: This iteration was carried out for each aircraft configuration. except the design point of the aircraft. lift an d drag coefficients.

95 WTO = 125684.503 STO = 6870.15 SLanding = 7342.6 Ps @ 43k ft = -3.44 SLanding = 7069.0.306 114.6 Ps @ 43k ft = -9.4 Ps @ 43k ft = -14.864 WTO = 125619.54 STO = 9175.847 STO = 7603.45 SLanding = 6515.053 WTO = 125210.026 STO = 7846.3 The Ps values are in ft/s.95 SLanding = 6930.77 WTO = 125964.80 STO = 6479. STO and SLanding in ft.66 SLanding = 6292.77 STO = 7535.279 STO = 8338.1 Ps @ 43k ft = 5.814 SLanding = 7217.94 WTO = 125996.16 WTO = 125310.461 STO = 7163.38 WTO = 124904.32 SLanding = 6682.8 102.114 STO = 8353.005 Ps @ 43k ft = -1.6045 Ps @ 43k ft = 3.5 Ps @ 43k ft = 0. .07 WTO = 126345.45 SLanding = 6773. and WTO in lbf.2502 0.83 WTO = 125551 Ps @ 43k ft = 10.6 125.406 Ps @ 43k ft = -7.278 0.57 SLanding = 7656.

The following chapter s are based on this optimized aircraft. The final designed point chosen for the optimized aircraft was: This was the point in the available design space where the T/W was maximum. we now have the final aircraft at hand. after the 15% usage of composites in the aircraft’s structure.4 Conclusion With the optimization done.1 Introduction This chapter deals with the aerodynamic analysis of the optimized aircraft. all the requirements have met. thus reducing the empty weight of the aircraft by 23% than t he comparables (8% due to multi hull layout). All the computations and procedures that have led to the convergence and optimization. 5. which is the best possible configuration for the given specifications. 6. TO distance and landing distance were included in the constraints diagram. and wing loading was minimum. are available as spreadsheets wit h the author. At this design point. The computations of these results are available with the author in the form of M S Excel Spreadsheets. the lift and drag estimates have been made. The rest of the area is constrained by the lines. The available design space is the area of the graph enclosed within the three li nes. the constraints diagram wa s finalized to select the best possible aircraft.3 Constraints Diagram and Selection of Optimized Aircraft Three constraints of the absolute ceiling.Requirements Ps @ 43k ft = 0 STO < 7000 ft SLanding < 7000 ft The WTO values are the converged ones. 5. Here .2 Lift . Chapter 6 AERODYNAMICS 6. After making the sizing matrix. q uite marginally. meeting the given requirements marginally.

The lifting characteristics of the aircraft were evaluated using the analytical methods given in the textbook. With the usage of High Lift Devices. while at the ma ximum lift coefficient. The plot is shown o n the next page.2. The lift curve slope in the incompressible regime is equal to 3. At tran sonic speeds. 12.23 ft2.2 Lift due to Drag Factor (K) 6.2. the zero lift drag coefficient of the aircraft equa ls 0.153.3 Drag Both the parasite and induced drags were calculated for the aircraft. Tripl e slotted flaps and LE slats have been employed as the HLDs. the stall angle decreases to about 16. This is also supported by the Fig. 6.707 per radian.3.374.3 0% and 100% K .2.1 Parasite Drag Coefficient As shown in the above graph. The wetted area of the aircraft comes out to be 10265. 6. the wave drag has also been calculated and included in the parasit e drag coefficient. Mach = 0.168 degrees. 6.1 Lift curve slope versus Mach No. the aircraft stalls at 18. which was calculated after ge tting the exposed areas of the aircraft components from the CAD model and summin g them up. 6.7o.3. These esti mates depend upon the wetted area of the aircraft.2 Maximum Lift Coefficient The maximum lift coefficient of the aircraft in the clean configuration comes ou t to be 1.3 Stall Angle In incompressible regime. 6.0217 at sea level. The results are presented here. 6.1.5 of the textbook. it boosts up to 2. The variation of stall angle with Mach number is shown in the following graph.3.

The engine selected is Rolls Royce Tay 650 (insta lled on Fokker 100). So.1 Introduction From the design point information for the T/W and WTO.38 lbf at sea level .The increase in the 100% K value in the transonic regime can be seen. As mentioned earlier in the morphological matrix. Chapter 7 PROPULSIVE ANALYSIS 7. there are two engines. 7. e ach engine should produce 17485.100 lbf 3. the engine of the aircraf t should be capable of producing uninstalled thrust of 34971.75 ft .22 lbf 7. The specifications of this engine are: Thrust at sea level Bypass ratio Inlet mass flow Weight Length Fan diameter 15.2 Engine Selection Rubber engine sizing was done.07 422 lbm/s 2949.69 lbf.9 ft 3.

04 ft 7. 7.673 lbm/s 3465.5 Thrust Corrections A 6% loss in the thrust resulted from the bleed losses.Based on the thrust required and the engine data available. Th is data was used further for the performance and stability calculations. This valu e is more accurate than that shown above. The variation of thrust and TSFC with Mach number and altitude is given below. . The TSFC curves remain the same.16 of the textbo ok.17.16 and 10. With the engine mass flow known. 10.38 ft 4. From Eq.6 Capture Area Calculations The capture area of the engine was calculated using the Fig. 7. the Capt ure Area comes out to be 12.36 ft3. 7.64 lbf 8.3 The data for the Rolls Royce Tay 650 engine was obtained from Ref. 7.158 was used to scale the rubber engine. The total fuel volume comes out to be 4680. The fuel is stored in the wing and the fuselages.69 lbf 3. 1 (Chapter 9) . the scaling factor o f 1. 10.217 ft2. the capture area comes out to be 11.07 488.7 Fuel System The fuel used is JP–5.4 Rubber Engine Data This was obtained after incorporating the scaling factor in the original engine’s data. Catering this into the u ninstalled engine data. The specifications of the rubber en gine hence become: Thrust at sea level Bypass ratio Inlet mass flow Weight Length Fan diameter Engine Data 17.281 ft2.485.8. and the design Mach number as 0. the net propulsive force was obtained as shown below.

142738 Avionics 1689. Wing 13670.94429 Flight Controls 1320. All readings are in lbf.87298 Nose Landing Gear 888. the empty weight was calculated from the empirical and statistical equations. This time.Chapter 8 STRUCTURE AND COMPONENT WEIGHTS 8.830709 Electrical 686.992903 Hydraulics 205.70448 Vertical Tails 2625. the empty weight was computed from the summation of the in dividual weights of the aircraft components.1688 Pneumatic Starter 140.852 Horizontal Tails 3861. The following table shows the weigh ts of the aircraft components.81227 Air Conditioning 2467.1 Empty weight estimation from the component weights Up till now.28224 .16771 APU 2200 Instruments 417.202864 Fuel System 1404. the equations for which have been p rovided in the 15th Chapter of the textbook.4102 Furnishings 1237.83839 Nacelles 1303.4383 Main Landing Gear 1812.08612 Engine Controls 65.59761 Fuselages 34742.

30217 55414.512 Hence.5 Negative nmax –1. 8. The multihull configuration along with the use of composite materials reduce the empty weight of the aircraft by 23%.Anti Ice 251. with We/Wo = 0.4405. All the computation were performed in the MS Excel Spre adsheets.67627 8% Reduction due to Multi Fuselage Layout 15% Reduction due to the use of Composites 65347. Furthermo re.25 –2. This gives the aircraft a huge competitive advantage. the empty weight of the aircraft comes out to be 55414.34 lbf. thus reduced drag a nd low fuel consumption. PASSENGERS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS . The load factor limits were taken as: Posiive nmax 3.5 Positive Ultimate Load Factor Negative Ultimate Load Factor Factor of Safety 1.2 V–n Diagram The plot between the load factor and equivalent air speed at sea level was made to see the structural limits of the aircraft.512 lbf.59268 Handling Gear 37.738902 Total Empty Weight 71029.25 Chapter 9 CREW STATION.5 5. This has resulted in the use of smaller engines. this is the weight of the aircraft when converged: The total weight of the a ircraft is 125796. Cruise weight was considered for t he calculations.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful