Ur.

1500 seated passenger aircraft Preliminary Design

S.Ramanathan 110401135005

Abstract
In this report we give detailed description about Ur an 1500 seated passenger aircraft preliminary design. Considering its mach number M= 0.8, at 14 km altitude with range of 14000 km. The name Ur name of an ancient place of Sumerian civilization which has population about 1500. The name is derived from the ancient language Tamil which was first spoken by a civilized man in worlds history

For preliminary design we follow the following steps Data collection Preliminary weight estimation Optimization of wing and thrust loading Wing design Fuselage design Centre of gravity calculation Control surfaces design Features of design airplane Details of performance Estimation

1. Data Collection
1.1The Design Philosophy
The conceptual design forms the initial stage of the design process. In spite of the fact that there are numerous aircrafts, each having its own special features, one can find common features underlying most of them. For example, the following aspects would dominate the conceptual design of a commercial transport jet.

1.1.1Type of Aircraft and Market

The Civil Transport Jets could be classified in the following way:

CLASS AIRBUS A-380 800 ANTONOV AN 225 HERCULES HUGHES

No. Of SEATS 650 Cargo Military Vehicle

RANGE kms 15400 13000 6000

PROPULSION Jet Engine Jet engine Turbo prop

Our aim is to design an aircraft that satisfies the following requirements. Gross Still Air Range = 14,000 km No. of passengers = 1500 Flight Cruise Mach No. = 0.80 Altitude =14,000 m

1.1.3 Standards
Some of the major demands on the design arise from the various mandatory and operational regulations. All commercial aircrafts must satisfy the Airworthiness requirements of various countries. Typically, each country has its own Aviation Authority (e.g., DGCA in India, CAA in UKand FAA in USA). Airworthiness requirements would cover the following aspects of the aircraft 1. Flight

This includes performance items like stall, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, landing, response to rough air etc. Also included are requirements of stability, controllability and maneuverability. 2. Structural Flight loads, ground loads, emergency landing conditions, fatigue, evaluation etc 3. Other Materials quality regulations, bird strike.

1.2 Preliminary Design

1.2.1Preliminary Weight Estimate
Given the number of passengers, we can estimate the payload in the following way: 1. Include one cabin crew member for 50 passengers. In our case, this gives 30 crew members 2. Include flight crew of pilot and co-Pilot. Thus the total of passenger + crew is 1500+30+2 = 1532. 3. Allow 110 kg for each passenger (82 kg weight per passenger with carryon baggage + 28 kg of check in baggage We thus obtain a payload Wpay of 1532 110 = 168520 kgf. We now estimate the gross weight of the aircraft (Wg). From the following data we observe CLASS AIRBUS A-380 800 ANTONOV AN 225 HERCULES HUGHES No. Of SEATS 650 Cargo Military Vehicle RANGE kms 15400 13000 6000 WT O (kgf) 590000 640000 480000

Based on the collection we choose initial weight 650000 kgf

1.2.2 Wing parameters

To estimate the wing parameters, we need to choose a value for wing loading (W/S). This is one of the most important parameters that not only decides the wing parameters but also plays an important role in the performance of the airplane. We observe similar airplanes and choose an initial estimate for (W/S) to be 5500 N/m2.Once the (W/S) has been decided, the other parameters of the wing are chosen based on similar aircraft. Aerodynamically, it is desirable to have a large aspect ratio (A). However, structural

considerations force us to settle for an optimal value. As the structural design improves, the value of A also keeps increasing. We choose a value of 9.3. Most modern aircrafts (see data base in Table A) have values close to 9.

S = Wg S/W = 107.02 m2 The wing span (b) can be calculated from A and S b =SA = 31.55 m The root chord(cr ) and tip chord(ct) can now be found using the following Cr =2s / b (1 + ) = 5.47 m Ct = cr = 1.31 m

1.2.3 Empennage
As explained earlier, we have chosen the conventional rear-tail configuration. The geometric parameters of the horizontal and vertical tails are obtained here. The values of Sh/S and Sv /S are obtained from the data set of similar airplanes. Sh/S=0.31 Sv/S=0.21 Hence, Sh = 33.18 m2 Sv = 22.47 m2 We choose suitable aspect ratios (Ah, Av) from the data set. Our choices are Ah = 5 and Av = 1.7. Using eq.(2), we get the spans(bh, bv ) as bh = AhSh = 12.88 m bv =AvSv = 6.18 m
The chosen values for the taper ratios (h, v) from the data set are h =0.26 v = 0.3. We can now compute the root chord (crh, crv) and tip chord (cth, ctv ) of tails as Crh= 2Sh /bh(1 + h) = 4.09 m Cth = hcrh = 1.06 m Ctv = vcrv = 1.68 m

1.2.4 Control Surfaces

A number of aircraft and their 3-view drawings as well as design data have been studied and the following parameter values are chosen. Sflap/S = 0.17

Sslat/S = 0.10 bflap/b =0.74 Sele/Sht = 0.22 Srud/Svt = 0.25 Trailing edge flaps type: Fowler flaps Leading edge high liftsdevices: slats hence, Sele = 7.53 m2 Srud = 5.8 m2 Area of T.E flaps = 18.98 m2 Area of L.E slats = 11.60 m2 bflap = 23.7 m 1.2.5 Fuselage Aerodynamic considerations would demand a slender fuselage.But, passenger comfort and structural constraints would limit the slenderness. We obtain the length lf and diameter df by choosing lf /b = 1.05 and lf /df = 8.86 from data collection. lf= 33.6 m df= 3.79 m

1.2.6 Engines
Observing the thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) of similar airplanes, we arrive at a T/W of 0.3.This implies a thrust requirement of

T = 0.3Wg =1950 kN or 650kN per engine

1.2.7 Landing Gear

We choose a retractable tricycle type landing gear. It is the most commonly found type of landing gear. It is favored for two reasons: 1. During take-off and landing the weight of the plane is taken entirely by the rear wheels. 2. It has better lateral stability on ground than bicycle type landing gear. We choose to have a total of 10 wheels - 2 below the nose and two pairs each on the sides(near the wing fuselage junction). The location of the wheels was chosen from three-view drawings of similar aircraft.

1.3 Overall height

Based on dimensions of Antonov 225, Airbus A380 and Hughes, the overall height is taken as 25 m.

2. Revised Weight Estimation

In the previous section, an initial estimate for the aircraft parameters has been done. The weight estimate is being revised using refined estimates of fuel weight and empty weight. The fuel fractions for various phases are worked out in the following steps. The fuel fractions for warm-up, take-off, climb and landing are taken from Raymer.

2.1 Fuel fraction estimation

The fuel weight depends on the mission profile and the fuel required as reserve. The mission profile for a civil jet transport aircraft involves Take off Climb Cruise Loiter before landing Descent Landing

2.1.1 Warm up and Take off

The value for this stage is taken by following the standards given in Raymer W1 /W0 = 0.97 W0 is the weight at take-off and W1 is the weight at the end of the take-off phase

2.1.2 Climb
The weight-ratio for this stage is chosen by following the standards given in Raymer W2 /W1 = 0.985

2.1.3 Cruise

The weight ratio for the cruise phase of flight is calculated using the following Expression from Raymer. W3 /W2= exp-RC/V(L/D) Cruise safe range = GSAR / 1.5 = 14000 / 1.5 = 9333.33kms Approximate to9300 kms (L/D)max is taken as 18 , This corresponds to the average value for civil jets as prescribed by Raymer (L/D)cruise= 0.866(L/D)max (L/D)cruise = 0.866 18 = 15.54 To account for allowances due to head wind during cruise and provision for diversion to another airport we proceed as follows. Head wind is taken as 15 m/s. The time to cover the cruise safe range of 2667 km at Vcr of 849.6 km/hr is Time = 9333.33/849.6 = 10.9855 hours Additional distance = 54 10.9855 = 593.22 kms The total extra distance that has to be accounted for in the calculations is 593.22 + 400 = 993.22 kms. The total distance during cruise = 9300 + 993 = 10293 km. Substituting the appropriate values in eq. W3/W2 = 0.655189

2.1.4 Loiter
The weight ratio for Loiter phase of flight is calculated using the following expression from Raymer W4/W3 = exp (E T SF C)/(L/D) During Loiter, the airplane usually operates at (L/D)max and hence the appropriate value should be used in. Also, we design for a loiter time of 30 minutes. Therefore we get, W4/W3 = exp (0.5 0.6)/ (18) = 0.98437

2.1.5 Landing
Following the standards specified by Raymer, we take this ratio W5/W4 = 0.995 W5 / Wg = W5 / W0 = 0.97 0.985 0.655189 0.984371 0.995 = 0.612575

Allowing for a reserve fuel of 6% we obtain the fuel fraction Wf / Wg = 1.06{1 (W5 / W0) = 0.4106

2.2 Empty Weight Fraction

To determine the empty weight ratio, we follow the method in Raymer[4], chapter 3 which gives a relation between We/Wg and Wg as follows. We/Wg = 1.02(2.202Wg) 0.06 Wg = Wpay/ (1 Wf/Wg We/Wg) Wg = 168520/ (1 0.4106 1.02(2.202Wg) 0.06) We solve this by iteration method Wg(guess) We/Wg 650000 634085.3807 618169.2801 602261.5524 586372.2963 570511.8425 0.435769 0.436418 0.437084 0.437768 0.438471 0.439193

Wg 634085.4 618169.3 602261.6 586372.3 570511.8 554690.7

Hence, the gross weight Wg is obtained as Wg = 602261.6 kgf The critical weight ratios are We/Wg = 0.4377 Wf / Wg = 0.4106 Wpay/ Wg = 0.2798

3. Wing Loading and Thrust Loading

The thrust-to-weight ratio (T /W ) and the wing loading(W/S) are the two most important parameters affecting aircraft performance. Optimization of these parameters forms a major part of the design activities conducted after initial weight estimation. For example, if the wing loading used for the initial layout is low, then the area would be large and there would be enough space for the landing gear and fuel tanks. However it results in a heavier wing. Wing loading and thrustto-weight ratio are interconnected for a number of critical performance items, such as take-off distance, maximum speed etc. These are often the design drivers. A requirement for short takeoff can be met by using a large wing (low W/S) with a relatively low T /W . On the other hand, the same takeoff distance could be met with a high W/S along with a higher T /W .In this section, we use different criteria and optimize the wing loading and thrust loading. Wing loading affects stalling speed, climb rate, takeoff and landing distances, minimum fuel required and turn performance.

Similarly, a higher thrust loading would result in more cost which is undesirable. However it would also lead to enhanced climb performance. Hence a trade-off is needed while choosing W/S and T /W . Optimization of W/S and T /W based on various considerations is carried out in the following subsections.

3.1 Landing Distance Consideration

To decide the wing loading from landing distance consideration we need to choose the landing field length. Based on data collection of similar aircraft(Table A) the landing field length is chosen to be 1425 m. sLand = 3000 m Next, we choose the CL max of the airplane. The Maximum lift coefficient depends upon the wing geometry, airfoil shape, flap geometry and span, leading edge slot or slat geometry,Reynolds number,surface texture and interferencefrom other parts of the aircraft such as the fuselage,nacelles or pylons. Raymer provides a chart for CLmax as a function of c/4 for different types of high lift devices. For our airplanewe decided to use Fowler flap and slat as the high lift devices. This gives us a CLmax of 2.5 for a c/4 = 250. CLmax = 2.5 To calculate W/S based on landing considerations,we use the formula W/S = Va2CLmax Va = sLand/0.3 Va=100 knots (W/S)land = 15312.5 Nm2 Since WLand = 0.85Wt.o the W/S at take-off is, (W/S)to = (1/0.85) (W/S)land =18014.705 Allowing a 10 % variation in Vs we get a range of wing loading as 13781.3< p <16213.23

3.2 Maximum Speed(Vmax) Consideration

Generally the Mmax is determined as follows Mmax =Mcr + 0.04 Hence,for our airplane, Mmax = 0.80 + 0.04 = 0.84 The drag polar is generally expressed as CD = CD0 + KCL2 Swet/S = 6.33

3.2.1 Estimation of K
We estimate e from Roskam ewing = 0.84 for unswept wing of A = 9.3 and = 0.25 ewing = 0.84 cos(25 5) = 0.7893 1/e fuse = 0.1 1/e = 1/ ewing+ 1/ e fuse+ 0.05 = 1.417 e = 0.707 K = 1/ A e =0.0482 (L/D)max =1/2CD0K 0.0161 CD0 = Cfe * Swet/s =0.00254 CD0 = 0.0161 + 0.0482CL2

3.3 (R/C)max consideration

3.4 Based on Minimum Fuel for Range (Wf min)

3.5 Based on Absolute Ceiling

In the absence of a prescribed velocity at Hmax, the velocity corresponding to flight at (L/D)max is taken to calculate qmax. CL value corresponding to flight at (L/D)max is given by

3.6 3.7

Summary of Constraints

We now tabulate the various constraints on the choice of W/S

The weight of the wing depends on its area. According to Raymer[4], chapter 15, for passenger airplanes, the weight of the wing is proportional to S0.649. Thus a wing with lower area will be lighter and for lower wing area, the W/S must be higher. Hence we examine the advantage of choosing a higher wing loading than that indicated by minimum fuel requirement. It may be pointed out that the weight of wing structure is

Consideration of Wing Weight (Ww )

about 12% of Wg The optimum W/S from range consideration is 3906 N/m2 whereas with a 5% increase in Wf , the wing loading could go up to 5700 N/m2. If the wing loading of 5700 N/m2 is chosen, instead of 3906 N/m2, the weight of the wing would decrease by a factor of Taking weight of the wing as 12% of Wg , the saving in the wing weight will be 2.6%. However this higher wing loading will result in an increase in the fuel by 5% of Wg . In the present case, Wf would be around 20% and hence 5% of Wf means an increase in the weight by 0.05 0.2 = 1%. Wg would be around 2.6 - 1 = 1.6%. Thus it is advantageous to have higher W/S. Thus by increasing W/S from 3906 to 5700 N/m2, the saving in the

3.8

Choosing a W/S

We see from the Table 5 that a wide range of p is permissible which will still satisfy various requirement with permissible deviations from the optimum. To arrive at the final choice we consider the take-off requirement and choose highest wing loading which would permit take-off within permissible distance without excessive (T/W) requirement. From data collection, the take-off distance, balanced field length, is assumed to be 2150 m. From figure 5.4 of Raymer(Reference 1.11) the take-off parameter {(W/S)/CLt.o (T /W )} for this field length is 180. With (W/S) in lb/ft2. We take = 1 (take-off at sea level),CLt.o = 0.8 CLmax = 0.8 2.5 = 2. Generally these types of aircraft have (T/W) of 0.3.Substituting these values we get,
pfinal = 108.2 lb/ft2 = 5195 Nm2

It is reassuring that this value of p lies within the permissible values summarized in Table 5.

3.9

After selecting the W/S for the aircraft, the thrust needed for various design requirements is obtained. These requirements decide the choice of engine.

Thrust Requirements

4 Wing Design
4.1 Introduction
These give wing area as 111.63 m2 . The wing design involves choosing the following parameters. 1. Airfoil selection 2. Aspect ratio 3. Sweep 4. Taper ratio 5. Twist 6. Incidence 7. Dihedral 8. Vertical location In the following subsections, the factors affecting the choice of parameters are mentioned and then the choices are effected.

4.2 Airfoil Selection

The airfoil shape influences CLmax , CDmin, CLopt , Cmac and stall pattern. These in turn influence stalling speed, fuel consumption during cruise, turning performance and weight of the airplane. For high subsonic airplanes, the drag divergence Mach number(MDD) is an important consideration. It may be recalled that (MDD) is the Mach number at which the increase in the drag coefficient is 0.002 above the value at low subsonic Mach numbers. A supercritical airfoil is designed to increase MDD. NASA has carried out tests on several supercritical airfoils and recommends the use of NASA-SC(2) series airfoil with appropriate thickness ratio and camber.

4.4 Cranked Wing Design

If we observe the design of current high subsonic airplanes, we see that the trailing edge is straight for a part of the span, in the inboard region. A larger chord in the inboard region has the following advantages 1. more space for fuel and landing gear 2. The lift distribution is changed such that more lift is produced in the inboard section which reduce the bending moment in the root. This type of design is called a wing with cranked trailing edge. The value of the span upto which the trailing edge is straight has to be obtained by optimization. However at the present stage of design, based on the current trends, the trailing edge is made unswept till 35% of semi span. Root chord of the cranked wing is crcranked = 7.44 m Span of wing portion with unswept trailing edge = 0.35 32.22 = 11.28 m

4.5 Wing Incidence(iw)

The wing incidence angle is the angle between wing reference chord and fuselage reference line. Wing incidence angle is chosen to minimize drag at some operating conditions,usually cruise.The incidence angle is chosen such that when the wing is at the correct angle of attack for the selected design condition,the fuselage is at the angle of attack for minimum drag(usually at zero angle of attack). Usually wing incidence is ultimately set using wind tunnel data.However, for an initial estimate for our preliminary design we proceed as follows CLcruise = CL (iw 0L)

In the present case, CLcruise = 0.512 CL is computed using the following formula in Raymer CL = 6.276 rad1

4.6 Vertical Location of Wing

The wing vertical location for the designed airplane has been chosen to be a low wing configuration which is typical of similar airplanes. These areas are chosen based on the initial data collection of similar aircraft. 1. Trailing edge : Fowler flaps. 2. Leading edge : full span slats. We choose Sflap/S = 0.17 Sslat/S = 0.1 Sail/S = 0.0.3

5 Fuselage and Tail Layout

5.1 Introduction
The fuselage layout is important in the design process as the length of the airplane depends on this.The length and diameter of the fuselage are related to the seating arrangement. The Fuselage of a passenger airplane can be divided into four basic sections viz. nose, cockpit, payload compartment and tail fuselage. In this section, the fuselage design is carried out by choosing the various parameters.

5.2 Initial Estimate of Fuselage Length

By observing the lf /b of similar airplanes, we get the first estimate of lf for the present case. The lf /b value chosen is 1.05. Using b = 32.22m as obtained from wing design, the Fuselage length is 33.83 m. Raymer[4], chapter 6 provides a relation between gross weight and length of fuselage as follows.