THE

PAVN-JET
3000
SETTING NEW
STANDARDS IN
COMFORT AND
PERFORMANCE IN
THE REGIONAL
JET MARKET

THE ONLY
CHOICE FOR
TODAYS
DISCERNING LOW
COST AIRLINE

CAPACITY: 80 PAX
RANGE: 1000 NM
ENGINES: CF34-8
LENGTH: 31.7 M
DIAMETER: 2.8 M
UNIT COST: $25 M

HITTING THE
SKIES OF THE
WORLD THIS
OCTOBER
SECTION 1: THE PAVN-JET 3000 ......................................................................................................... 1
1. DESIGN OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Concept .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Performance .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Performance table ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2.2 Typical Mission Profile ...................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Safety ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Table of specifications ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4 3-View .................................................................................................................................... 3
2. DESIGN METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 1
3. COMPARISON TO OTHER AIRCRAFT...................................................................................................... 2
4. LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS (ASSUMED CONSTANTS) ..................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2: DESIGN ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 4
5. INITIAL WEIGHT ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 4
5.1 Finding the Fuel Weight Fraction .......................................................................................... 4
5.2 Calculating maximum takeoff weight ....................................................................................... 5
6. PRELIMINARY WING DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 7
7. CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS (J) .............................................................................................................. 11
8. OPTIMISATION.............................................................................................................................. 15
9. FUSELAGE LAYOUT (V: REARENGINE A: POSITIONING, FLOOR PLANS, SIGHTLINES, ETC) ............................. 20
9.1 Configuration ....................................................................................................................... 20
9.2 Layout .................................................................................................................................. 20
9.3 Cabin .................................................................................................................................... 21
9.4 Nose/Cockpit ....................................................................................................................... 22
9.5 Rear ..................................................................................................................................... 22
9.6 Cargo ................................................................................................................................... 23
9.7 Safety ................................................................................................................................... 23
9.8 Pressurization ...................................................................................................................... 23
9.9 Fuel Tank Sizing ................................................................................................................... 23
10. REFINED WEIGHT ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................ 26
11. REFINED DRAG ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................... 28
12. FINAL WING DESIGN...................................................................................................................... 29
13.2 Ailerons ........................................................................................................................... 31
13.3 High Lift Devices.............................................................................................................. 31
13.3.1 Leading Edge .............................................................................................................. 32
13.3.2 Trailing Edge .............................................................................................................. 32
13. ENGINE SELECTION ........................................................................................................................ 34
14. EMPENNAGE (VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL TAIL) (INC. CONTROL SURFACES) .............................................. 36
14.1 Horizontal Tail................................................................................................................. 36
14.2 Vertical Tail ..................................................................................................................... 37
14.3 Stall safety ...................................................................................................................... 37
15. CG CALCULATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 39
15.1 CG calculation (fully loaded) ................................................................................................. 39
15.2 CG movement ................................................................................................................. 40
16. LANDING GEAR DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 42
16.1 Landing gear positioning ................................................................................................ 42
16.2 Wheel & Tire Sizing ......................................................................................................... 44
16.3 Shock absorber design .................................................................................................... 47
Oleo Diameter ............................................................................................................................... 48
16.4 Gear Retraction Geometry .............................................................................................. 48
17. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION .......................................................................................................... 50
18. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 55
Section 1: The PAVN-Jet 3000
1. Design Overview
1.1 Concept
The PAVN-Jet 3000 has been designed to meet and exceed the demanding requirements of todays
low cost regional airlines.
In the current economic climate, airlines need smaller aircraft to serve on routes typically served by
short range variants of the 737 and A32- in order to increase load factors.
The PAVN-Jet 3000 couples similar comfort, speed, safety and seat-mile costs to typical legacy aircraft
with smaller capacity to allow todays airlines to increase load factors and provide greater numbers of
services.
The PAVN-Jet 3000 will also bring jet comfort and speed to smaller regional routes typically served by
turboprop aircraft in a similar size class.
It should be stated from the outset that the design methodology employed in this report is far from
comprehensive and that more detailed design processes need to be employed for various critical
components such as the wing and empennage. However for a preliminary rough up of the newly
proposed aircraft, this report is a fairly accurate presentation.

1.2 Performance

1.2.1 Performance table

The PAVN-Jet has been designed to meet and/or exceed the following design brief

PAVN-Jet3000 Notes
Payload 80 passengers 80 kg and 20kg
luggage each
Crew 2 pilots and 2 80 kg and 15 kg
Range 800 nautical miles 1482 km
Reserve Fuel 100 nm, 45 minutes 185 km diversion
Cruise Speed Mach 0.80
Cruise Altitude 35,000 feet P = 23842.7 Pa
Take-off Field Length 4500 ft At Sea Level, MTOW,
Initial Climb Min Gradient 0.024 One Engine
Minimum Rate of 300 ft / sec At cruise conditions
Powerplants 2 Turbofans
Pressurisation 5000 ft cabin altitude P = 84308.8 Pa
Certification JAR 25

1
 1.2.2 Typical Mission Profile
The diagram below outlines the mission profile requirements of the PAVN-Jet
PAVN Jet 3000:

1.2.3 Safety
Designed satisfies key safety requirements including

reserve fuel for 100 nm redirection and 45 minute loiter

JAR-25 one-engine
engine inoperative takeoff margins
JAR-25
25 safety exit requirements.

1.2.1 Table of specifications

Basic Dimensions Units Wings Units

Length 31.7 kg 79
Diameter 2.8 kg 27.37
MTOW 34054.59 kg AR 9.5
OEW 20086.23 kg 24.23037
Payload 8380.00 kg 4229
Engines Units 0.4
Type 2 x GE CF34-8 2.8
SLST Tail
Each 62 kN Type T
Total 124 kN 0.8
3.22
4
8.44
Performance
Top speed M=0.85
Minimum TOFL 1150 m
Wet Dry
Minimum Landing FL 1340 m 1118 m
Service Absolute
Maximum Ceiling 13400 m 13800 m

2
1.4 3-View

3
 2. Design Methodology
In order to complete the preliminary design of the PAVN-Jet 3000 an iterative design process was used
based on methods laid out in aeronautics texts including Raymer, Jenkinson, Roskam and Shevell,
amongst others.

1) Decide on an aircraft layout and 2) Initial Weight Estimate

] generate necessary assumptions from generate estimates of initial fuel
historical data. weight.

4) Formulate the requirements in

3) Preliminary Wing Design based on the weight, terms of constraints for a
size the wing and establish aero. Parameters. constraint analysis.

Should the design point be out of the feasible

region identified, iterate from stage 2.

5) Based on information so far, generate a 6) Based on the information so far,

revised drag estimate of the aircraft. generate a revised weight estimate.

7) Perform an optimization analysis

based on aerodynamic parameters. 8) Size the control
surfaces
(empennage).

Repeat stages 2 to 4 using revised

parameters.

9) Size the high lift devices from the info. gotten 10) Estimate the position of the CG and
from the optimization and constraint analysis. decide on the location of the wing in
light of the analysis.

11) Size the landing gear using the analysis 12) Verify the performance of the aircraft
found from the CG section. against the requirements specified.
1
3. Comparison to other aircraft
In order to accurately develop the PAVN-Jet 3000, data was compiled from existing and in-development aircraft competing in the sector.

Fairchild Embraer Sukhoi ACAC

Bombardier Fokker Mitsubishi Antonov An-
Aircraft Dornier ERJ170- BAeRJ70
CRJ900 F70
Superjet ARJ21-
RJ90 148-100A
Average
728-100 100 100 700
Year 2003 2006 1985 2004 1990 2009 2012 2008 2009 2003
Wing span (m) 27.13 26.00 26.34 24.84 28.08 27.80 27.28 30.88 28.91 27.47
Aspect Ratio 9.81 8.78 9.54 9.00 10.24 10.04 9.66 12.38 9.57 9.89
Dimensions
Length (m) 27.04 29.90 26.16 36.17 30.91 29.80 33.46 32.74 29.13 30.59
Height (m) 9.05 9.67 8.61 7.49 8.50 10.30 8.44 10.00 8.19 8.92
Empty Weight (kg) 19380 21140 24100 21432 22673 27150 24955 24900 22490 23136
Max Fuel weight (kg) 10100 9335 12901 8822 7744 9550 10386 12100 10117
Max Take off Weight (kg) 37990 35990 38102 36514 36740 42500 40500 39600 38550 38498
Weights and Loads
Total Thrust (kN) 120.74 124.60 124.80 126.80 123.20 138.91 136.40 154.32 131.45 131.25
Max Wing loading (Pa) 4869 4585 4854 4652 4681 5415 5160 5045 4332 4844
Max Thrust Loading (kN/kN) 0.50 0.49 0.42 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.46 0.63 0.47 0.49
Service Ceiling (m) 11280 12500 10668 12500 10668 12500 11900 12200 11777
Range (km) 2074 3334 2500 2500 2010 2950 2200 1610 2100 2364
Capability Take Off Field Length (m) 1465 2044 1395 1779 1390 1530 1700 1460 1600 1596
Landing Field Length (m) 1420 1180 1596 1165 1550 1450 1394
Max speed Mach No. 0.82 0.82 0.72 0.83 0.77 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.71 0.79
Seating Cap 80.00 80.00 82.00 90.00 79.00 95.00 90.00 90.00 85.00 85.67
Economics
Unit Cost ($mil) 29.50 24.80 30 (CAD) 12.7 (GBP) 27.15

2
4. List of Assumptions (assumed constants)
The table below summarizes some critical assumptions made in the design of the aircraft. While many
assumptions were made throughout, there is a distinction between those that were made based on
the aircraft specifications and those that were made based on historical data. It is the latter type of
assumptions that are listed here.

Assumed Values and Constants

Category and variable Value Remarks
Initial Weight

 (mg/Ns) 15-19 Based on engine selected

Take off/Climb/Landing 
0.97, 0.985,
Historical data
0.995
Wing

variation See section Typical for wing structural requirement
 0.2 Typical for type of aircraft
Supercritical section drag increment 0.06 Typical
Constraint parameters
Landing  1.3
Climb safety 
Standard values
1.2
Control Surfaces

 0.09


Historical data
1
See section
 See section Raymer's correlations for the type of aircraft
See section
CG
 ,  of each component See section Accurate judgement based on layout
Fuselage
Seat dimensions See section
Ammenities spacing See section Hugh Blackburn
Fuel (Jet A-1) density / 807.5
Landing Gear
Tip over criterion 15 Standard requirement
Roll back angle 10 Typical value taken from Boeing data
Touch down vertical speed (m/s) 3
Gear load factor 
Raymer typical value
3
Refined Weight
Ultimate load factor,  3.75 Shevell typical value

3
Section 2: Design Analysis
5. Initial Weight Estimate
The initial weight estimate was built up using historical data for aircraft in this size and range class.

5.1 Finding the Fuel Weight Fraction

The process begins with a breakdown of the mission profile of the aircraft in question. It is determined
from the requirements that the breakdown consists of at least 9 segments:

Based on these mission n segments weight fractions can be found using the relevant performance
equations
ons (Breguet type equations) which when taken together allow a calculation of the empty mass
fraction of the aircraft. Table xx summarizes the mission profile segments with parameters and the
corresponding calculated weight fractions.

Segment Mission Parameter

wparameter
Take-off
off 0.970
Climb 0.985
Cruise (km) 1482 0.934
Loiter (min) 30 0.986
Land 0.995
Climb 0.985
Cruise (km) 185 0.991
Loiter (min) 15 0.993122
Land 0.995
The following describes the calculations done to calculate
calculate the mission segment weight fractions.
Take off: A typical weight fraction value for this segment was applied, appropriate to the jet transport
class of aircraft.
Climb: Again, a typical value was used. .
Cruise: The breguet equation for range was applied:

4
 #$%
"
    ! &'/()

where the cruise velocity is 237/-, the thrust specific fuel consumption,
 is 19/-
(corresponding to the GE CF34-8A, an engine typical for this aircraft) and an 0/123 of 19.19 was
used. This approach of course assumed that the optimal flight condition uses 0123 . However once
the wing had been designed, an updated value of 0/1 was used. The weight fraction was thus found
as 0.934 for the first cruise segment.
Loiter: This segment necessitates the aircraft to fly at the condition which allows it to stay in the air for
as long as possible. Thus the Breguet equation for endurance was used:
8$
7   !
" %
' (

Landing: Due to this segment being quite small, a historical value of 0.995 was adopted.
Final fuel weight fraction:
Once all the weight fractions have been calculated, the product of those values will yield the empty
mass fraction of the aircraft.
:;< =  &; ;"? )  0.833

From this, the fuel mass fraction is readily calculated:

1 A :;< =  :B =  0.1673

fuel mass we arrive at the final fuel fraction of :B =  0.1773.

Allowing for reserve fuel which is a portion of 6% (5% safety requirement + 1% unusable) of the total

5.2 Calculating maximum takeoff weight

A formulation involving the total weight of the aircraft and payload with respect to the fuel fraction is
given below:
 D
= 
1 A E:B = F A EB2 D = F

iteratively converge on the value of = which corresponds to the value of B = as found by the
The procedure to find the total weight is then to find an estimation of the empty weight fraction and

correlation.
To this end, it was recommended in lectures to use a correlation given by Raymer. However Raymers
correlation was found to provide weight estimates in the order of 8 10 tons lighter than other similar
low capacity short haul jet aircraft. Given that Raymers correlation was designed based on historical
data, it was decided that its failure to match similar aircraft suggested that the correlation was not
accurate at the extreme small end of jet liners.
As such, Raymers method was eschewed in favour of a custom correlation developed by our team
(see Appendix) that specifically used data from approximately 30 aircraft in a similar range and size
class.

5
 Empty Weight Fraction Correlation
0

-0.1
Data

-0.2 Design

-0.3 Data
ln(we/w0) = -0.04655 ln(w0) - 0.03909 Trendline
ln(we/w0)

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8
9.4 9.6 9.8 10 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11 11.2
ln(w0)

The new correlation resulted in a logarithmic linear fit in terms of = :

ln&B = )  A0.047 ln = A 0.039
This equation was solved simultaneously with the expression for = as stated earlier. This resulted in a
maximum takeoff weight of 36033  and an empty weight fraction of B =  0.59. Substituting
the values into the expression for total weight, = ,
&8380 I 9.81)
=   353484   36012 
1 A 0.1773 A 0.59
which is the initial weight that was found (accounting for rounding errors) in the weight fractions.
In light of this analysis the final weight estimations can be summarized below:

Summary

Item kg force kN J/JK

Payload 8380 82.21 0.2326

Fuel 6390 62.69 0.1773

Empty 21263 208.59 0.5901

Landing 34027 333.80 0.9443

MTOW 36033 353.49 1.0000

6
 6. Preliminary Wing Design

The following details the procedure to estimate the wing geometry and performance. These are initial
estimates that were calculated to permit iteration; refined wing design is in section 12.

wetted area ratio, LMB /LNB: and using a correlation given by Raymer along with an estimated aspect
We begin with estimating the maximum lift to drag ratio of the wing. This was done by gauging the

ratio, that is typical for this genre of aircraft. The correlation draws on a relationship between
and typical values for &01)23 found for this parameter.
O
PQR% PSRT

U  8.5
LMB LNB:  6.5V W X(Y23  17
'

Subsequently, a correlation given by

Loftin based on jet transports was

of the zero lift drag coefficient,

(,= .
employed in order to find an estimate

This correlation required the &01)[

and the wetted area ratio.

(,= was
estimate of the previous correlation

0.016 according to this.

The induced drag coefficient, \ can
readily be calculated from the now
available information from,

&01)[  1]4
(,= \
W \  1^
(,= &2&01)[ )_ `
 1a0.016 I &2 I &17)[ )_ b
 0.054

We also have
'[  ]
(,= \ which gives
'[  0.544.

Considering the cross sectional and span wise geometry of the wing, it was determined that a typical
thickness to chord ratio variation and a taper ratio for jet transports according to Schaufeles method
would be used.
These parameters are summarised below:



Wing Profile

&
)N
0.12
Supercritical
&
)
0.155
typical wing


profile 0.105

&
)c
0.2
0.146667

7
While the taper ratio is on the lower end of the spectrum according to the information given by
Jenkinson et al., it was chosen for the express purpose of reducing the root bending moment on the
wing. For a low taper ratio the centre of lift is closer to the wing root in addition to the fact that the
outboard sections of the wing are lighter.
Of course the drawback is that the tip sections are operating at higher Reynolds numbers which will
increase the tendency to stall this will be countered by adequate washout angle being added to the
wing.
The average thickness to chord ration is calculated using the relationship,
# d e #
# d e
#


# d
e 1 d
e
#
Where,
e
#  e
e I
e
#  e
e I 
Substituting the required values gives &
)c  0.147.

The remaining factor to be determined is the design lift coefficient,

',fBg . This coefficient will
effectively determine the wing area required since the cruising altitude (and hence density) and speed

sweep angle, , the aspect ratio and the design

' are used in a correlation of typical aircraft. A sweep
are already known. An iterative process was employed where a Jenkinson correlation involving the

angle must first be determined, however. This was done using Shevells correlations.

Given a
',fBg and a &
)c , the crest critical Mach number for zero sweep, h,ij= is found using
Shevell. Again using Shevell, the discount factor,  is found to calculate the h due to a certain
sweep angle, . Further, given that a typical supercritical airfoil has been chosen for the wing, this
calculated value of h is increased by 0.06. Finally the drag divergence Mach number, h(( is related
to the h via the relationship,
?
h,rj= 2
 arccos pq E1.02 d 0.08&1 A
s- )Ft u
h((

8
which was iterated until convergence was achieved on the value of . It was decided that the aircrafts
design cruise speed would be equal to the drag divergence Mach number as is commonly the case

to a minimum. Hence, h((  0.8 (requirement cruise speed).

since designers want their aircraft to be flying as fast as possible while keeping the wave drag penalty

The process was as follows:

Estimate a value for
',fBg .
Using Shevells correlations as described above, calculate the corresponding sweep angle, .
Using this value for , use Jenkinsons correlation between
',fBg =.7 / cos&v) and to find a
revised value for
',fBg .

Iterate from step 1.

This process was continued until both correlations of Shevell and Jenkinson were satisfied.
This resulted in the design lift coefficient of K. w and a sweep angle of xy. xz.
It is known that for optimum range, a
',fBg  0.577 I
'[ is desired. However due to the onset of
transonic drag rise near the drag divergence Mach number, it is then found that the
',fBg at which the
term {01in the range equation is maximised is closer to
'[ . Now the design
'[  0.54 and so
0.577
'[  0.311. Hence a
',fBg  0.4 is quite an efficient design lift coefficient for the aircraft.
Consequently this gives the wing area as,
L  =  &| I
',fBg )
Given that the initial weight estimate at this point is =  36033  and |  10663 }~ at cruise,
this gives a wing area, L  82.87 _. It was further analysed whether this estimate of the wing area
was a reasonable figure based on historical data.
Typical wing loadings for aircraft in this category are between 3800 and 5800 Pa. Given the =
this corresponds to a typical wing area range of  and y _ .

Typical design lift coefficients are between 0.3 and 0.45 to give a wing area range of y. and
K. _ .

Finally we can consider the maximum lift coefficient,

',23 which is typically between 1.8 and
3 not accounting for high lift devices. This gives a possible wing area range of zK.  and w. y

_ .

9
Thus since our wing area of 82.87 _ is within the possible ranges prescribed above, this is a
reasonable estimate.

aircraft. The crest critical Mach number determined for the aircraft was h  0.779 which is below
Shevell offers another correlation to estimate the effect of the sweep angle on the total drag of the

the drag divergence Mach number as we expect. Hence,

h= h  1.03 W
($  cos 0.002  0.0015
which is a minimal increase in the drag due to sweep. Additionally we are also able to calculate the
maximum lift coefficient de-rating factor due to sweep which is,

',<3,gMB 
',23  0.9 cos&v)  0.82

wing. It is decided that a dihedral angle of 4 will be sufficient in light of the historical data which
Additional design details include the wing dihedral angle and the twist profile across the span of the

suggests that high dihedrals of around 6 are generally employed for low wing aircraft with wing
mounted engines. As in section 9, the aircraft configuration will be of the rear mounted engine variant,

was found that a typical twist variation of 6 is employed with a wing root incidence angle of 4 and a
thus affording a lower dihedral. Estimation of the twist profile was done in a similar manner wherein it

tip section incidence angle of A2 (to prevent early stall of the tip). Due to the low taper ratio
employed, a twist of 7 was used (from 4 at the root to A3 at the tip).

devices for a supercritical airfoil section is

',23,$B<  1.5 while a typical
', for landing was
From the literature it has been identified that the typical maximum lift coefficient with no high lift

found to be 3 while that for takeoff was 2.8. Thus a contribution of

'  1.5 is required from the high
lift devices. Since the design of the high lift devices is not required for the constraint analysis, they will
be left until later when the wing and other aerodynamic parameters have been refined.

10
7. Constraint Analysis (J)
The given requirements identified five specific constraints on the design. These are listed as
follows:
1. Landing approach speed
2. Take-off field length
3. Cruise speed and altitude
4. One engine inoperative climb
5. Minimum climb at start of cruise

These constraints, coupled with the Fundamental Performance Equation, describe what the viable
combinations of wing and thrust loadings are. This is done by forming the Master Constraint Equation1:
=  |L  = }g

(,= d \ d
= = | L {
where  is the weight fraction, is the thrust de-rating, n is the load factor and q is the dynamic
pressure, with the remaining symbols as per convention. By specifying known values in the above
equation, most of the constraints form a minimal/maximal relationship between the thrust and wing
loadings.
Landing approach speed
The landing approach does not require excessive thrust, and as such, is the only constraint that
does not provide a strong relationship between thrust and wing loadings. It does, however, define the
minimum wing loading in order to approach at the required speed of 120 knots. Given that
2 

' 
{ _ L

function of approach speed and

',23 is
and a safety factor k of 1.3 to avoid landing the aircraft close to stall, the wing loading as a

= { _

',23

L 2 _
The density is evaluated at landing conditions of 40C at sea level, and the landing weight fraction
is taken from the initial weight estimate.
Take-off field length
It is difficult to approximate some aerodynamic parameters in take-off configuration at this early
stage that are critical for take-off. So in order to find a relationship between wing and thrust loadings
for take-off, an empirical relationship, which uses a dimensional take-off parameter and a correlation:
1 1
} 
L
',23,
0  857.4 d 28.43 } d 0.0185 }_
However, the correlation is based on imperial units, and so, requires conversion. After rearranging
and solving a quadratic, the following relationship was found:

11
 = = 0.020885

= L 
',23, &A768.378 d 27.027]808.265 A 0.074&857.4 A 0/0.3048))
In this equation, the units are now metric. It is assumed that take-off occurs with MTOW, and 
is evaluated at take-off conditions of 40C at sea level. The TOFL used here is the minimum of 1372m
(4500ft) as per requirements. The maximum lift coefficient is taken from the initial wing design.
Cruise speed and altitude
The cruise constraint works directly with the master constraint equation, since the weight fraction
can be determined from the initial weight estimation by averaging the take-off and landing fractions
and the thrust de-rating based on altitude can be calculated, assuming negligible variation with
velocity (around M = 0.8):
$ 0.5 =.77 "=.?7
where the bypass ratio is determined by the preliminary engine choice. This yields the following

= 2 | &= /L)
relationship:

 =.77 "=.?7
(,= d\
=  &= /L) |
where aerodynamic parameters are taken from the preliminary wing design.

One engine inoperative (OEI) climb

The second segment OEI climb requirement assumes a take-off configuration climb at a minimal
gradient m of 0.024 with only one engine producing thrust, with stall safety factor k = 1.2. The thrust
de-rating can be estimated using Torenbeeks correlation for take-off:

0.45&1 d ) { 0.11 { _
e 1A d 0.6 d
]&1 d 0.75) ~ ~
where the bypass ratio is chosen as before, a is the speed of sound at take-off conditions and G
is chosen as 1 (0.9 < G < 1.2), with the velocity evaluated as:

2 = 1.2_
{ 
L
',23,

The master constraint equation in this case becomes:

= 1 1.2_ &
(,= d 0.009)
',23,
 q d\ d t
=
',23, 1.2_
with aerodynamic parameters taken from the preliminary wing design as before. However
additional drag had to be assumed for the high lift devices. Based on Shaufele, a flap deflection of 30o
(typical) is of the order of 0.003, and leading edge slats carry a penalty of 0.006, so a total increment in
drag of 0.009 was used.
Minimum climb at start of cruise
It is required that the aircraft be able to climb at 1.52m/s (300ft/min) at the beginning of the
cruise at cruise altitude. In order to maximise climb rate, the lift coefficient (AOA), as well as speed,
have to be optimised. However this overly complicates the analysis, so it can be assumed without

12
significant loss of precision, that the wing be flown at the design lift coefficient
',fBg .This yields the
following form of the master constraint equation:
= 
(,= 1
 q d \
',fBg d t
= $
',fBg { 
where the weight fraction is determined as that after climb to cruise altitude from the initial
weight estimation, the thrust de-rating estimated as in the climb constraint and the velocity evaluated
as:

2 =
{

',fBg L

at cruise altitude conditions.

The constraint equations were evaluated simultaneously in a spreadsheet to allow simple
recalculation. In creating the constraint plot, we recognized that our initial assumptions give us an
implied design point on the plot. The MTOW from the initial weight estimation and the wing area
from the initial wing design were used to calculate the wing loading of the current design and the
engine selection allowed calculating the thrust loading of the current design:
= 36033 [ 9.81
  4265 }~
L 82.87
= 124
  0.3508
= 36033 [ 9.81/1000
This point, as well as the constraint curves, is plotted below. The implied design falls just outside
the feasible region. However, rather than choosing a higher (and hence more expensive) thrust
loading, it was decided to optimize aircraft parameters so that this design point could fit.
Of particular interest is the domination of the OEI constraint, but the wing loading, based on the
design CL, may also need to be adjusted for optimal performance. These issues are addressed in the
following sections.

13
14
8. Optimisation
The constraint analysis revealed not only that the current design is outside of the feasible region
of solutions, but also that the OEI climb constraint is the most important at this stage. This showed two
problems that needed to be solved.
Wing optimisation
It was decided that the wing parameters needed to be optimised first. This involved choosing the
best design lift coefficient and wing aspect ratio. A variable had to be chosen to optimise against in
order to be able to compare different designs. The outcome would be preferably the least expensive
design, both in terms of manufacture and running cost. For this reason, it was chosen to optimise
against minimum required thrust, thus allowing a smaller engine to be chosen, as well as reducing the
fuel consumption.
In order to proceed with the optimisation, some of the calculations needed to be automated in a
spreadsheet. In particular, Loftins correlation for (L/D)max and CD,0 was automated by fitting
expressions to the curves:

The fuselage dimensions were taken from the initial fuselage sizing of l = 31.7m, d = 2.8m (See
fuselage sizing section). The curve fits were found as:
_
 8.333 q t
4L
LMB 
  0.467 d 3
LNB: L

0 0.68 A 0.15

1 23 0.01 d 0.001
0.485
',fBg d 0.006

(,= 
&0/1)23
The data for the optimisation was calculated by varying design CL and aspect ratio one at a time
(Excel Data Table) and performing the initial weight estimation and initial wing calculations again

15
automatically using a spreadsheet. These provided a MTOW and minimum thrust loading respectively,
which were then multiplied to find the minimum SLST. The 3D plot below illustrates the results:

This plot shows how the aspect ratio needs to be maximised in order to achieve minimal thrust,
and the preliminary choice of 8.5 was too small, as evident in the design falling outside the feasible
region of the constraint plot. However it is also evident that the effect of increasing aspect ratio drops
above 9.0 and it is known (Jenkinson) that a larger aspect ratio is more costly to produce due to
structural issues. It was decided not to estimate the cost of increasing aspect ratio very high because
this would involve making assumption into the structure of the wing and fuselage design which could
not be made at this stage. In order to come to a decision, comparable aircraft were revised and an
average aspect ratio of 9.5 was found, and so, was chosen for the new design.
An optimal design CL also had to be chosen, however at an aspect ratio of 9.5, there is little
influence of design lift coefficient above 0.35 on minimal thrust, as seen in the plot, as long as it is
below that required by the landing approach speed constraint of approximately 0.44. The choice of
design CL was made based on the wing loading that would be implied by this from the cruise altitude
and speed condition:
= 1
 { _

L 2$ $ $ ',fBg
Too small a design CL would translate to a larger wing area, which would be costly to produce, so
CL should be maximised. However, to allow a future extension of the fuselage without tampering with
the wings, it was decided to allow up to 1000kg of extension without exceeding the landing approach
speed constraint:
' &= d 1000) {
_

',23

L 2 _

16
 ' &= d 9810)2 _ 0.888&&36300 d 1000) [ 9.81)&2)&1.3)&1.3)
L   79_
{
_

',23 1.225&61.73)_ &3.0)

2$ = 2 [ 0.973 [ 36300 [ 9.81

',fBg    0.4
$ {$_ L 0.3792 [ 237.14_ [ 79
where the weight fraction is taken from the refined weight estimate.
Take-off CL optimisation
The OEI constraint is strongly influenced by the take-off lift coefficient. Increasing this increases
the drag on the wing, and as such, increases the amount of thrust required to climb with one engine
inoperative. However, lowering this to ease the OEI constraint increases the amount of thrust required
to take-off the limited field length prescribed by the requirements. Hence, an optimal value must be
found. The take-off lift coefficient can be adjusted at will by varying the flap angle/extension, however
this cannot exceed the maximum value of 2.8 (as explained in the section for high lift devices) as
chosen for the wing.
The take-off lift coefficient was varied between 1.5 and 3.3 while the minimum thrust loading
from the constraint analysis was recorded for various wing loadings using the automated spreadsheet.
Varying the take-off lift coefficient has no influence on weight estimation or wing resizing, so these did
not have to be re-evaluated every time. The result is plotted below.

It is obvious from the above plot that the OEI constraint is no longer a strong factor since the wing
design has been optimised. However the take-off field length is now a significant factor, especially for
low lift coefficient. Since the cruise lift coefficient, and hence the wing loading, has been chosen, a
single slice of the above plot was considered.

17
 The minimum occurs at a value of 2.65, which is below the CL,max for the whole wing, so this value
is chosen for the design take off CLmax.
The new values were used to recalculate the constraint curves, giving the following plot. Note
that the design point is now well within the feasible region. The constraint curves also seem to meet at
one point, suggesting that the design parameters are indeed optimal for the given mission.

18
19
9. Fuselage Layout (V: RearEngine A: Positioning, Floor Plans,
Sightlines, etc)
9.1 Configuration

Three configurations were assessed for the PAVN-Jet 3000; wing-mounted engines and rear-fuselage-
mounted engines.
Contemporary aircraft in the 70-90 seat range are being developed with both types of configuration.
Wing mounted examples include the Sukhoi Superjet and the Embraer ERJ170, and rear mounted
examples include the Bombardier CRJ900 and the Farichild Dornier 728-100.
Ultimately a rear-fuselage-mounted configuration was chosen.

While there is potentially a small weight penalty from additional fuselage and wing strengthening, a
number of benefits were identified

Reduced concern over runway foreign object ingestion (of particular interest to open this
aircraft to more and more regional airports)
Quieter cabin environment as engines sit behind passengers (Jenkinson et al)
Better handling under one engine failure (shorter moment arm)
Shorter landing gear (reduced weight)
Ability to use entire wing for control surfaces and high lift devices

9.2 Layout
Trimetric view of PAVN-Jet 3000 Cabin:

20
The fuselage of most modern aircraft serves two primary purposes, to a) provide a light yet structurally
sound basis upon which the wing, vertical and horizontal stabilisers, and frequently engines can be
mounted, and b) to house the payload and/or passengers and crew. The PAVN-Jet comfortably
satisfies both of these necessities while maintaining reasonable drag profile and OEM.

9.3 Cabin
The PAVN-Jet 3000 seats 80 passengers in relative comfort for an economy class configuration.
Passengers are seated in twenty rows of four abreast, symmetrically about a central aisle. A lavatory
and attendant seating are provided both fore and aft, and overhead lockers run the length of the cabin
for stowage of hand luggage. A circular cross-section was chosen in order to assist the PAVN-Jet in
being cost-efficient to both design and manufacture. This greatly simplifies longitudinal and lateral
stress analysis and a circular section is simpler to manufacture than a variable radius section, thus
saving both man hours and manufacturing costs. The following figures summarise the dimensions of
the cabin.

PAVN-Jet 3000

Seat Pitch 86cm

Seat Width 45cm

Aisle Width 50cm

Aisle Height 185cm

Headroom 150cm

Passengers per cabin staff 40

Passengers per lavatory 40

Figure xx. Passenger Allowances

21
 9.4 Nose/Cockpit
The nose of the PAVN-Jet 3000 is sleekly aerodynamic yet provides excellent visibility and
comfort for both pilot and co-pilot. Nose dimensions were based roughly on values given in lecture
notes, and the following figures summarise the dimensions, sightlines and layout of the nose.

9.5 Rear
The fuselage of the PAVN-Jet 3000 tapers smoothly to a point 6.7m behind the cabin and .7m
above the fuselage centreline. This results in an upsweep angle of 6o, well within historical trends
given in lecture notes. The underside maintains a low adverse pressure gradient while allowing a
clearance angle of 15o for rollback at take-off and flare on landing.

22
 9.6 Cargo

The cabin of the PAVN-Jet 3000 is designed such that it allows up to .2m3 of luggage per person to be
stowed wholly within the cavity underneath the cabin floor, or distributed between this cavity and a
purpose-built cavity within the rear section.
~~!
~ ! 
~ 0! A  s 0!
 20.8 A 6.4
 14.4

~~!
~ 0!
s-- L!
s~ !~
~~!
~ {s! ! ~--!! 
80 }~--!!-
14.4 1.38_

80 ~--!!-
0.25 ! ~--!!
Assuming that 80% of this space is usable, this equates to 0.2m3 per passenger, or a 60x30x110cm
suitcase.

9.7 Safety

The PAVN-Jet satisfies FAR 25.807 Emergency Exit Requirements with a pair of Type A exits at the
forward end of the cabin for general entry and exit, and two pairs of Type III emergency exits
positioned over the wing. See figure xx. for emergency exit dimensions. Note: Type A exits are 1.55m
from floor level to the upper sill when closed however a further .3m in height is gained on opening via
a folding stair, thus FAR 25 requirements are still met.

9.8 Pressurization
The main cabin and cockpit of the PAVN-Jet 3000 are both held at a maximum pressure altitude of
5000ft up to an aircraft altitude of 35000ft. This is achieved while maintaining reasonable weight by
utilising an elliptical pressure bulkhead at the rear of the aircraft, and a flat pressure bulkhead
separating the cockpit from the nose cone containing the radar and other flight systems. The rear
bulkhead must be elliptical in order to be strong yet light, however the forward bulkhead will not incur
a much greater weight penalty in saving space by being flat and thicker. The circular cross section of
the cabin also decreases the amount of material necessary within the floor ties to keep the fuselage
from deforming.

9.9 Fuel Tank Sizing

h: 5623
The volume of fuel needed to satisfy the mission profile is calculated as;

{:  
: 807.5 

 6.960

&
N 42%)
We can approximate the fuel tank within each wing as a trapezoid with base length

  2.6
cos 27

23
And top length equals

E; F
Where

&)  A0.2 d 2.6
And this describes the linear variation of fuel tank chord (
) with span () as shown below:

Here we have assumed that each wing tank will occupy approximately 42% of the chord, leaving 18%
for LE devices, 30% for TE devices and 10% for the main wing spar. Also, the fuel tank will begin close
to the root of the wing and extend outward, in order to minimize the resulting lateral bending
moment.

Average chord is given by

E
N d
&)F

cB 
2
 A0.1 d 2.6


And thickness by

cB 
cB

cB
 0.1467 &A0.1 d 2.6)

24
 
Giving cross-sectional area


cB
cB

cB
 0.1467 &A0.1 d 2.6)_
And finally volume per wing
3.48 
 0.1467 &A0.1 d 2.6)_
From this it can be easily calculated that
 5.83
And so

E; F  1.43
So the fuel tank will extend 5.83m into the wing from its base, and has a top length of 1.43m.
Obviously this calculation is based on estimated values however the method lacks only a detailed
expression for thickness as a function of chord. This, as well as a subsequent detailed analysis
accounting for discrete internal wing dimensions would rectify this.

25
10. Refined Weight Estimate

The refined weight estimate is an iterative function of all of the detailed section design that takes place
in the following sections (which are designed based on the refined weight estimate!)
Using formulas provided by Jenkinson et al, estimates were calculated for each of twelve aircraft
components, individually, based on the design dimensions and preliminary MTOW estimate, such that
the new mass could be calculated as
hNB:;<Bf  h d he d h d h d h d hP d h# d h8 d h d h# d hO
d h & )
Wing weight:

10" E  ]= I <:B F

h  4.22L d 1.642 I
&
)c cos_ I L&1 d )

 7015 -
 3189 
With wing values iterated with the refined wing design in section 13
(note: Jenkinsons wing-weight estimate formula generated results inconsistent with Jenkinsons own
explanation, and hence an alternative formula from the Stanford Department of Aerospace and
Rocketry was used for the wing weight only. The above formula is for quantities in Imperial units.)
<http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/componentweight.html>
Tail surfaces:
he  h d h
 L  d L 
 25L d 28L
(Values for the tail areas, SH and SV are calculated in Section 14)
Fuselage weight:

  0.039^20: 1: I {$N;gB `
=.7 =.7

(fuselage properties from Section 9)

Nacelles:
6.8 I =
(thrust loading from optimization in section 11)
Undercarriage
h  0.0445 h
(All instances of the MTOW in these equations are iterated for the final value)
Surface Controls
hP  0.4 h =.
Propulsion
h#  1.43 hB

26
Where hB , the engine bare mass, is based on engine selection in Section 13
Fixed Equipment
h8  0.14 h (for short haul aircraft)
Operational Items
h   ggB<BNg &g ;Bg d MBN d g:BD )
Crew Mass
h#  $NBM & BNg< d B )
Payload Mass
hO   ggB<BNg & BNg< d B )

:B
Fuel Mass

hB  h
=
(the fuel fraction estimate was recalculated based on the iteration of the new take off weight using the
same methods as in section 5.)

The individual component masses are tabulated as follows:

Refined Weight Estimate - Jenkinson

Component Mass
Mass (kg) Fraction
Wing 3297.033 (%)
9.621676
Tail Group 834.8785 2.436412
Fuselage 4534.461 13.23284
Engine nacelles 843.2 2.460697
Undercarriage 1524.869 4.45
Surface Controls 505.7231 1.475843
Propulsion 3243.24 9.464694
Fixed Equip 4797.341 14
Operational 682.8 1.992604
Crew 380 1.108948
Payload 8000 23.34627
Fuel 5623 16.41002
Total 34266.72 kg 100
Figure x.x Refined Weight Estimate
Yielding a final h  34,267 .
The final figure is approximately 1,790 kilograms lighter than the original weight estimate.
All values for the aircraft that had previously been calculated were subsequently iterated with the new
mass estimate see final wing design in section 13 and Optimisation in Section 11.

27
11. Refined Drag Estimate
A refined zero-lift drag estimate for the aircraft was obtained by calculating the overall equivalent skin-
friction coefficient for the whole aircraft.
The wetted area of the aircraft was calculated by adding the wetted area for each component,
calculated from their geometry.
Component Swet &x )
Wings 143.25
Fuselage 182.97
Nose 12.33
Rear fuselage 19.65
T-Tail 86.67
Engines 26.6

Thus LMB  471.5 m2 in clean configuration.

PQR%
PSRT
Dividing by the wing reference area gives a total = 5.97

LMB
By Raymer, the zero-lift drag co-efficient can be found by

(,= 
:R
LNB:
Where
:R is the equivalent skin friction co-efficient and is given for Civil Transports as

:R  0.0030
Thus

(,=  0.0179

28
12. Final Wing Design
Post optimisation and refined weight and drag estimation, the wing and aerodynamic parameters of
the aircraft need to be recalculated.

= , (Aspect ratio),
(,= and
',fBg have been refined previously to those shown below.

Parameter Value
Take off mass 34,267 kg
Asepct ratio 9.5
Zero lift drag Coeff. 0.017
Design Cl 0.4
Swet/Sref 6.44

According to Loftin, the correlation between and

(,= gives a new estimate of &01 )23 of 19.2.
Also, the induced drag coefficient, \is changed due to the alteration in
(,= .
1 1
\ I  0.04

(,= 2 I &01)_23
As a result, the new
'[  0.651 and 0.577
'[  0.375.
Although
',fBg remained the same as before, the change in the total takeoff mass means that the
total wing area is changed.
L  = E
',fBg |F  34054.9&0.4 10663)  79.84 _
This changes the geometry of the wing accordingly. The length of the MAC then becomes,

= 1 d d _ 5.84 1 d 0.423 d 0.423_
2I 2  4.47 
3 1d 3 1 d 0.423

29
30
 13.2 Ailerons
Raymer provides a correlation for the sizing of ailerons as a function of aileron span and chord-wise
length.
In order to maximize the section of wing available for flaps, the minimum realistic aileron span was
chosen, at 35% of wing span.
Correspondingly, the aileron chord will extend for 30% of the wing chord.

Figure 1 (Raymer) Correlation for Aileron Sizing

13.3 High Lift Devices

Design CL,max for the clean wing configuration is 1.5. For landing, the aircraft was initially designed to
achieve a CL, max, landing of 3.0 in line with historical data.
After thrust and wing loading where chosen during constraint analysis it was noted that our aircraft
would be able to land safely with a CL,max, landing as low as 2.8.
In order to minimise the cost of the high lift system, it was decided that 2.8 would be adopted as the
target.
As such, a combination of leading edge and trailing edge high lift devices were designed to provide

' 
',23,<f;< A
',23,$B< = 1.3

The infinite wing

' for high lift devices is modified for application to a real finite wing, correcting for
both the sweep of the wing and the area to which it is applied.
L:

'  0.9
 q t
s- '
LNB:
Where,

s- ' is the hinge line sweep angle
PT
PSRT
is the percentage of wing area swept by the flaps

31

 is the finite wing lift increment from the particular high lift device

13.3.1 Leading Edge

The PAVN-Jet will utilise leading edge flaps on the entire leading edge of the wing, except for the
fuselage.
For leading edge flaps,
 = 0.3
PT
PSRT
For application to the entire leading edge, from geometry = 85%

Hinge line sweep angle is approximately ','8  27

Thus the increase lift co-efficient from the leading edge flaps is

',  0.22

13.3.2 Trailing Edge

In order to reach the design target of

',23,<f;<  2.8, the trailing edge high lift devices provide

',  1.28

PT
Trailing edge high lift devices will be applied to the inner 60% of the exposed wing trailing edge, which

PSRT
equates to an = 70%

approximately ','8  22
Hinge line sweep angle, assuming hinge at approximately 30% of chord from trailing edge, is

The necessary high lift device is found by inverting the finite wing reduction formula to yield the

L:
required infinite-wing co-efficient of lift increase

L
s- '

,  0.9
NB:

',
 2.05
Typical maximum chordwise extent of flaps on jet transport is approximately 30%. (Schaufele)
For double slotted flaps the infinite-wing co-efficient of lift increase is

  1.6
/

 1.6 1.3 (with 30% extention)
 2.08
As such, double slotted flaps were initially selected for the PAVN-Jet as the simplest high lift device
that will provide the necessary increase in maximum lift.

However, in order to position the main landing gear, it was discovered that they would need to be
placed further back on the wing than the 30% chordwise extent of the double-slotted flaps would
permit.
As such, the inner portion of flaps was replace with triple-slotted flaps, which could achieve a
comparable increase in co-efficient of lift with only 10% chordwise extension.
For triple slotted flaps infinite-wing co-efficient of lift increase

32

  1.9
/

 1.9 1.1 (with 10% extention)
 2.09
Thus, while more expensive, the application of triple slotted flaps to the inner wing section was
deemed necessary and hence selected.

33
13. Engine Selection
In order to select a suitable engine for the aircraft, regional jets of similar parameters were
researched at first. This yield a list of engines currently used in the industry. The engines
manufactures were then further considered to find any new/emerging engines for the category of
regional jets. Some information, in particular the thrust specific fuel consumption, was difficult, and in
some cases impossible, to obtain. The following summary provides an extensive list of possible choices
for regional jets:

Manufacturer Model Year SLST (kN) TSFC (im) BPR Mass (kg)
General Electric CF34-3 1992 41 0.69 6.2 750
CF34-8 2001 62 0.68 5 1135
CF34-10 2005 85 0.65 5 1680
PowerJet SaM146 2009 71 0.629 4.43 -
Pratt & Whitney PW6000 2005 102 - 4.9 2250
Progress D-346 1987 75 0.63 6.2 1360
Rolls-Royce BR710 1997 67 - 4.2 1635
BR715 1999 88 - 4.6 2795
BR725 2009 71 - 4.4 2230
Tay 611 1987 62 - 3.2 1480
Tay 620 1988 62 - 3.04 1500
Tay 650 1989 67 - 3.07 1600

It was preferable to choose a lighter, more economical and most powerful engine in order to
obtain best performance. However, using the initial weight estimate and the constraint analysis, the
minimal thrust required for a reasonable wing loading was of the order of 0.35*35/2 = 61 kN per
engine. This cuts out only one model, leaving all the others feasible. Excessive thrust of order 70 kN
and above would not be required, especially considering the extra weight carried by these engines, so
it was decided to select an engine by minimum weight, since comparing TSFC was impossible due to
lack of data. For this reason, the choice fell on the (initial) choice of the General Electric CF34-8.

General Electrics CF34-8

https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Research/Propulsion/Info/flow/jets/tjets/tjets/tfans/cf34
Engine performance needs to be modelled in order to proceed with the design. On as simple level,
this involves determining the thrust lapse in certain conditions from some de-rating factor :

34
  = where  &h, , ) (at least)
For specific engines, the thrust lapse may be modelled as:
 h"< (Mair & Birdsall)
for some constants A and n, however this requires access to engine specific data that is not freely
available, in order to fit such a correlation. For this reason, the thrust lapse will be modelled from
empirical data provided by textbooks for cruise and take-off separately:
$ 0.5 =.77 "=.?7 (Jenkinson ?)
 _
e  1 A d X0.6 d Y X Y
=.7&?)  =.??
]&?=.7)   
(Torenbeek)

35
14. Empennage (vertical and horizontal tail) (inc. control surfaces)
A T-tail configuration was chosen to align with rear-fuselage-mounted engines.

The sizing of the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces was done via a Raymer correlation using specific
values for jet transports in order to size the empennage for stability and sufficient control authority.

14.1 Horizontal Tail

e
L
The area of the horizontal tail is given by Raymers correlation, re-arranged to find Sht

Le 
0e
Where

e  1.0 (tail volume coefficient for jet transport)
L  79.3 _ (wing area)

M  4.38  (wing mean chord)
0e  13 m &moment arm, as sized for our fuselage)

While the design was initially

Note that a 5% correction factor is applied to the volume co-efficient as this is a T-Tail aircraft
(Raymer)

Le  25.3 
Thus

Using typical values for the geometry of the horizontal tail in a T-configuration, mean values were

e  0.4
selected

e  4
ve  30

e  10.06 
These yield the following dimensions for the horizontal tail

O,e  2.83 

B
From Raymer, Elevator dimensions are given as

 0.25


For efficient trim, we will use an all moving horizontal tail, typical in this class.

36
Figure 2 (Raymer) Typical aircraft tail surface dimensions

14.2 Vertical Tail

The area of the vertical tail is given by Raymers correlation, re-arranged
re arranged to find SVT

Where
(vertical tail volume coefficient for jet transport)

(moment
(wing area)
moment arm, as sized for our fuselage)
(wing span)
Note that a 5% correction factor
tor is applied to the volume coefficient
coefficient as this is a T-Tail
T aircraft (Raymer)
Thus,

Typical values for the geometry of the vertical tail in a T-configuration

T configuration were selected
(higher taper ratio selected for
f strength at T-joint)
joint)

These yield the following dimensions for the vertical tail

From Raymer, Rudder dimensions are given as

14.3 Stall safety

In order to avoid the possibility
bility of catastrophic control failure under stall conditions inherent in T-tail
T
designs, a stick-pusher
pusher will be installed to prevent
prev these scenarios
rios from occurring and to conform
confo to all
FAA safety requirements.

37
38
 15. CG calculations
15.1 CG calculation (fully loaded)
To generate an estimation of the relative position (horizontal and vertical) of the centre of gravity,

respect to the total weight, = . Further, estimations are required for the positioning of each
estimations were made on the relative weight of the individual components of the aircraft with

component in relation to the front of the aircraft (the nose). These estimations were done using the
general information presented in Raymer and Jenkinson and are presented below:

X (relative to tip of Moment Y (relative to

GROUP Fraction Weight (kg) Weight (N) Moment
nose) Contribution bottom)

Mw: Wing 0.117 3984.388 39086.842 18.6193 727769.782 0.56 21888.6315

Mt: Tail 0.020 681.092 6681.511 28.000 187082.321 4.4112604 29473.8867

Mb: Body 0.100 3405.459 33407.557 14.600 487750.336 1.4 46770.5802

Mn: Nacelles 0.018 612.983 6013.360 24.500 147327.328 1.96 11786.1862

Muc: U.Carriage 0.045 1515.429 14866.363 20.000 297327.260 -0.5 -7433.1815

Msc: Surface controls 0.015 510.819 5011.134 18.000 90200.405 0.56 2806.23481

Mp: Propulsion 0.173 5900.000 57879.000 24.500 1418035.500 1.96 113442.84

Mfe: Fixed equip. 0.082 2792.477 27394.197 14.600 399955.276 1.4 38351.8758

Mop: Op. Items 0.020 681.092 6681.511 11.000 73496.626 1.4 9354.11604

Mpay: Payload 0.246 8380.000 82207.800 14.000 1150909.200 1.4 115090.92

Mf: Total fuel 0.164 5588.365 54821.859 18.619 1020744.847 0.616 33770.2653

centre of gravity of the aircraft. Treating the absolute position of the wing, M as an unknown and
One of the expected outcomes of the CG analysis is the optimal positioning of the wing in relation the

given the relative position of the wing in relation to the CG,  A M we can determine M with an
appropriate moment balance.
We would like to place the centre of gravity close to the aerodynamic centre of the wing (position of

wing quarter chord line on the wings mean aerodynamic chord, h

. Additionally, the CG of the
the wing at which the lift force is taken to be acting).This position is typically accepted to be on the

wings mass itself is generally taken to be at 0.4 I h

behind the leading edge of the wing at the
h
, '8 . Using this information ,
  '8 d 0.25

M  '8 d 0.4

From a moment balance about the tip of the aircraft nose,
M ('8 d 0.4
) d ; ;  = ('8 d 0.25
)
where
is the length of the h
. Substituting the values from table x noting that from the Wing
Design section that
 4.38 , we solve for '8 which comes out to be 17.59  aft of the tip of the
nose of the aircraft. Thus, $ is 18.69  from the nose tip.

39
It should be noted that the above consideration is for the cruise condition i.e. fully loaded aircraft with
fuel and passengers since the positioning of the wing relative to the CG is most important in this
condition.
Finally we calculated the vertical position of the CG by balancing moments about the point of contact
of the aircraft on the ground.
  ; ; =  1.3 

15.2 CG movement

scenario, we remove the moment contributions from the payload and fuel,  D  D and :B :B .
We now consider the limits of the movement of the CG as the aircraft is unloaded. In the unloaded

Now that M is known,  is readily calculated from,

; ; =  
 is found to be 19.43. Thus due to the removal of the payload which was ahead of the fully-loaded
CG and the removal of the fuel the CG has moved significantly aft. This has implications on the
placement of the landing gear so that static stability on the ground is met.

fully loaded position. We do this by successively calculating the  as the weight of the passengers is
Now we are in a position to consider the movement of the CG from its aircraft empty position to the

added from front to rear or from rear to front. A plot of the CG with the loading is done below:

CG movement while loading payload

330000

320000
Loading from front
310000
Loading from Rear
Aircraft Weight (N)

300000

290000

280000

270000

260000

250000
18.6 18.7 18.8 18.9 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4
Distance aft of nose tip

position at 19.33 . The most forward position of the CG is in the fully loaded case i.e. when the
From diagram xxx we see that from the fully fuelled state, the CG of the aircraft moves to its most aft

luggage is also loaded. Since the fuels CG is almost at the  fully loaded, the depletion of the fuel
changes the position of the CG negligibly.

40
A figure is provided below illustrating the CG position of each component identified in the fully loaded case:

CG position of each component

5

4 Tail
Distance from groun d (m)

Nacelles
2
Op. Items Fixed Equipment
Body Propulsion
1 Payload
Surface controls

Wing Total fuel

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Under Carriage
-1
Distance from nose tip (m)

41
16. Landing
g Gear Design
The PAVN-Jet
Jet 3000 will use tricycle landing gear, typical for jet transports, with two wheels on each
bogey.

Three key parameters are specified in the preliminary design; and the lateral and vertical positioning of
the gear, the tyre and wheel sizing, and the shock absorber design.

16.1 Landing gear positioning

Longitudinal Clearance & Tipover

The lengths of the main landing gear can be determined by exploring the longitudinal clearance
requirements of the aircraft. These are centred around
around avoiding tail strike on rollback during takeoff
and landing. Typical values are 8~10 degrees at takeoff and 10~15 degrees at landing (Boeing)
Ground clearance was selected as 1.8 m, which clearly exceeded the longitudinal clearance
requirement, as can
n be seen in the diagram below.

15

Figure 3 Longitudinal Clearance for PAVN-Jet,

PAVN displaying rearmost centre of gravity location

Given a 4 degree dihedral on the main wings and rear mounted engines, the 5 degree lateral clearance
clearanc
limit is not a dominant criterion.
Longitudinal tipover criterion require the aircraft to be stable at a rollback angle of 15 degrees (i.e. for
the centre of gravity not to pass over the wheels when the centre of gravity is at its rear most
position.)
From Section 15,
Lm,rearCG
(from nose)
(above fuselage floor)
From before,
(below fuselage floor) yCG +yLG

Solving geometrically gives the horizontal distance between the

main gear and the centre of gravity as
15
42
 02,NBN  &$ d  )-15
 &1.8 d 1.29)-15
 0.83 m
Thus placing the landing gear at a distance from the nose of
'  20.36 
With the centre of gravity under normal conditions, this gives the location of the main wheels from the
CG as
02  1.73 
For ease of retraction (discussed later) the nose gear were placed at a distance of
 4.74 
Which yields a distance from the loaded centre of gravity of
0<  13.9 
By use of simple statics this placement gives the following weight distribution across the landing gear:
2;<  = [ '  30,452 
'
'

02
<gB  = [  3,783 
0< d 02
This placement gives 11% of the total weight over the front gear, providing sufficient weight
distribution for steering authority.
Lateral Tipover
Lateral tipover criteria require that the aircraft will have an overturn angle, 55 for the forward
most location of the centre of gravity, which is given in section 15 as
$,2g:NMNf  18.2 

43
Solving geometrically,

xLG-xng
xCG-xng

]x d ( A )x

~
By similar triangles,


 A <
_ d E' A < F
_

And a is related to the tipover angle such that

 d '
yCG + yLG

~ 
~

a
Substituting into the previous equation and rearranging yields the final equation

y d y
~ 
w (x, A x )

w _ d Ex A x F
_

Solving for w such that 55

2.2 
The final placement width was chosen for ease of retraction, discussed later, as
BN  2.23 

16.2 Wheel & Tire Sizing

Tyres and wheels were sized using manufacturers specifications and typical values for aircraft in this
size and weight class.
The aircraft was designed to have twin landing gear on each side and twin at the nose pylon to protect
against flat tyre failure.
Raymer provides a correlation for wheel sizing for jet transport aircraft as follows (results in cm and
WW is the static load per wheel in kg):
 5.3 M=.?7
 0.39 M=.
Using landing gear geometry from section 16.1, individual wheel weights are:

44
 M,2;<    7,613 
=,7_
2BN : MBBg 

M,<gB    1,892 
R , 
2BN : MBBg _

Substituting these values into Raymers equation yields:

Main Gear:
2  5.3 M,2;<
=.?7
 89
  35
!-
2  0.39 M,2;<
=.
 28
  11.2
!-
Selecting based on standard wheel sizes given by Raymer, the smallest size that satisfies both width
and diameter requirements is the 40 x 14 inch Type VII tyre and wheel (Figure X)
Nose Gear:
<  5.3 M,<gB
=.?7
 57
  22.5
!-
<  0.39 M,<gB
=.
 14
  5.5
!-
Selecting based on standard wheel sizes given by Raymer, the smallest size that satisfies both width
and diameter requirements is the 24 x 5.5 inch Type VII tyre and wheel.

Figure 4 (Raymer) Wheel and Tire Detail

To check the validity of this calculation, selected wheel sizes were compared against examples
provided by Schaufele in Fig X.X. For aircraft in the same size class as the PAVN-Jet 3000 (with an
MTOW of 75,000 lbs), it can be seen that 40 x 14 inch main gear is typical, and 24 inch nose gear
likewise. The width of the nose tires given in Schaufeles examples is slightly larger, but it is
considered that this is probably a function of access to different tyre manufacturer catalogues
(Schaufeles examples do not have any smaller width high diameter tires.)

45
Figure 5 (Schaufele) Typical Landing Gear Wheel and Tire Data relevant weight class highlighted

46
 16.3 Shock absorber design

Figure 6 Dimensioned view of PAVN-Jet main landing gear showing Oleo extension

The length and diameter of the main gear oleo shock absorbers are designed with reference to the
kinetic energy absorbed at landing.
Typical values are assumed as follows:

cBN  3 - "?
Landing velocity

BN  3
Typical gear load factor for commercial jet

 0.75
Shock absorber efficiency (for fixed orifice oleopneumatic system)

e  0.47
Tire absorbent efficiency

BN  .5055 
For 40 x 14 inch Type VII tyres selected in 16.2,

N  .4445 

Le  BN A N  0.06096 

And thus tyre stroke,

Analysis of kinetic energy absorbed by shock and tyre on landing yields the following formula for

{cBN;$ e
stroke length, S (Raymer)
_
L A Le
2BN

47
 3_ 0.47
L A
2 9.81 0.75 3 0.75
L  0.1657 

L  0.191 
Adding a 0.025 m safety margin, we arrive at a design Oleo stroke of

Oleo Diameter
The Oleo Diameter is given by Raymer is

40B
1B  1.3
}

0B  2 M,2;< &)

Typical internal pressures are 12.5 GPa, and the load per oleo is

Thus the outer diameter of the Oleos will be

4 149,368
1B  1.3
12.5 10

1B  0.165 

16.4 Gear Retraction Geometry

The front gear will retract comfortably into the under-side of the nose.

48
49
17. Performance Verification
Aircraft top speed
We use the cruise constraint equation to evaluate the maximum speed of the aircraft with the

= 
(,=
specified thrust and wing loadings without violating the constraint. The cruise constraint is,

 d \
'
=
'
However at speeds greater than the cruise speed of the aircraft, we encounter transonic drag rise.
Experimental data to account for this was gathered by Whitcomb (1956) in a NACA report. The
relevant data is presented below for the shape of the PAVN-Jet:

Cd0 Increment vs Speed

0.014

0.012 y = 0.0003x - 0.07

0.01
Cd0 Increment

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
240 250 260 270 280 290 300
-0.002
Speed (m/s)

Using this in the constraint equation,

= 
(,= &3 10" { A 0.07)
 d \
' d
=
'
'
Solving this equation for { gives a top speed of {  264.42 - W  K. z (at the cruising
altitude).
Take-off field length
The design has evolved enough to make an improved estimation to the take-off field length,
compared to that of the constraint analysis. This involves estimating the distance covered in the
segments of the take-off, namely the ground roll, the pitch up, and the climb over an obstacle
(typically 15m tall):
0  L d L# d L
Before proceeding, it was necessary to find the additional drag in take-off/landing configuration.
The increment due to high lift devices was estimated in the constraint analysis section as 0.009. The
increment due to landing gear can be estimated by calculating their equivalent flat plat area. These are
estimated by Raymer as:

50
 Streamlined wheel and tyre : 0.18 ft2
Round strut or wire : 0.30 ft2
Irregular fitting : 1.20 ft2
The landing gear used in the current design feature 5 wheels and tyres, 4 struts and 2 irregular
fittings (sway struts on the main gear). This sums the equivalent flat plate area to:
 5 [ .18 d 4 [ .30 d 2 [ 1.2  4.5  _  0.418 _
The drag increment is now estimated by:
0.418

(,=    0.005
LNB: 79
The total drag increment for take-off/landing configuration is thus 0.014.
The ground roll can be calculated from:
1 2  1. 2_
L  ln q1 d t
2 L
',23

where  A and  _ E
' A
(,= A \
'_ F, evaluating the thrust lapse at 0.707 VTO.
e P

Using the current design values and Torenbeeks thrust lapse at 40o sea level and a maximum
friction coefficient of 0.05 (Raymer):
0.819 [ 124
 A 0.05  0.2536
34267 [ 9.81/1000
101325 79
 &0.05 [ 2.65 A &0.017 d 0.014) A 0.400 [ 2.65_ )
2 [ 287 [ &273 d 40) 34267 [ 9.81
 A2.18 [ 10"7
1 A2.18 [ 10"7 2 336960 1. 2_
L  ln q1 d t  928.1 
2 [ 9.81 [ A2.18 [ 10"7 0.2536 1.128 79 2.65
The roll to climb takes at most 3 seconds (Raymer), so this occurs over a distance of:

2 [ 336960 [ 1. 2_
L#  3 [ {e  3 [  3 [ 66.9  201.2 
1.128 [ 2.65

The climb over the obstacle occurs at VTO, with landing gear stowed away but with high lift
devices still employed. This covers a distance of:
{e {e
L  
{
/L /_ 3
3
X Y 1 A 6 A
_
0 _
2 X Y X1 Y
(,=

where

51
 1
_
q2 {e _ E
(,= d 0.009 d \
'_ Ft
1_
 1 d 1 d 3  1 d 1d3
_ &= )_

E0.5 [ 1.128 [ 66.9_ &0.017 d 0.009 d 0.0400 [ 2.65_ )F

_
 1 d 1 d 3  2.00
&0.782 [ 124000)_

so
66.9 [ 15
L   21.13 
4265 [ 2 2 3
&0.369)/_ 1 A A
3 [ 1.128 [ &0.017 d 0.009) 6 2&0.369)_ &19.19)_ 2
and finally
0  L d L# d L  928.1 d 201.2 d 21.1  1150 
This is well below the required 1371 m from the requirements and confirms the validity of the
constraint analysis.
Landing field length
The approach to calculating the landing field length is similar to that of the take-off, in that the
field is separated into segments, namely approach, pitch-up, and breaking.
00  LO d L d L
It is also necessary to identify that the landing may be occurring in both wet and dry conditions.
Based on Raymer, the average friction coefficients for these conditions are 0.20 and 0.40 respectively.
It is also necessary to assume some typical approach angle. It is typical to have an approach angle of up
to 4.5o, so this is chosen as the required for a short landing, although a steeper one may still be
employed without significant control/safety problems.
Landing velocities (approach and touch-down) are calculated as follows:

2   1.2_ 2 [ 4265 [ 0.888 [ 1.44

{O    61 /-
L
' 1.128 [ 2.8

2   1.15_ 2 [ 4265 [ 0.888 [ 1.3225

{e(    54 /-
L
' 1.128 [ 2.8

The approach has to clear an obstacle of 15m height:

15
LO   190.6 
tan&4.5 )
The pitch-up should not exceed 3 seconds:
L  3 [ {e(  3 [ 54  162 
The breaking distance depends on the surface conditions (wet or dry), so these are calculated
separately:
1 2  1.15_
L  ln q1 d t
2 L
'

52
 where  and  E
(,= d \
'_ A
' F. Evaluating these with different :
P
_

MB  0.20, MB  &0.017 d 0.014 d 0.0400&2.8_ ) A 0.20&2.8))  A3.096 [ 10"7

?.?_
_[_7

fND  0.40, fND  &0.017 d 0.014 d 0.0400&2.8_ ) A 0.40&2.8))  A1.115 [ 10"

?.?_
_[_7

So the breaking distance for these is:

1 A3.096 [ 10"7 2 1.15_
L,MB  ln q1 d 4265 t  987.7 
2&9.81)&A3.096 [ 10"7 ) 0.2 1.128 2.8

1 A1.115 [ 10" 2 1.15_

L,fND  ln q1 d 4265 t  765.7 
2&9.81)&A1.115 [ 10" ) 0.4 1.128 2.8
Now the total LFL for the conditions are:
00MB  190.6 d 162 d 987.7  1340 
00fND  190.6 d 162 d 765.7  1118 

These values are both below the required filed length of 1371m, and so, verify the landing
performance of the aircraft.
Service and Absolute Ceilings
It is necessary to know what ceilings are approachable by the aircraft. The service ceiling is defined by
the altitude at which the climb rate falls to 0.508 m/s (100 ft/min), while at the absolute ceiling, this
falls to 0. Using the following to calculate the climb rate (Anderson):

/L /_ 3
{  1 A A
3
(,=  6 _
0 _
2 X Y X1 Y

with z defined as previously, this was evaluated on a spreadsheet at different altitudes by varying the
density and using the altitude dependent thrust de-rating:

$ 0.5 =.77 "=.?7

The following plot shows the climb rate as a function of density ratio:

53
The climb rate approaches 0.508 m/s at a density ratio of 0.204, which corresponds to a stadard
atmosphere altitude of 13400 m. The climb rate drops to 0 m/s at a density ratio of 0.191, which
corresponds to a standard atmosphere altitude of 13800 m.

54
18. References

Jenkinson, l. R., Simpkin, P., & Rhodes, D. (1999). Civil Jet Aircraft Design. London, UK: Arnold.
Raymer, D. P. (1992). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Washington, DC: AIAA.
Roskam, J., & Lan, C.-T. E. (1997). Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance. Lawrence, Kansas USA:
DARcorporation.
Schaufele, R. D. (2002). The Elements of Aircraft Preliminary Design. Santa Ana, CA: Aries Publications.
Shevell, R. S. (1988). Fundamentals of Flight 2nd editions. City Unknown: Prentice Hall.
Whitcomb, R. T. (1956). A Study of the Zero Lift Drag Rise Characteristics of Wing-Body Combinations
Near the Speed of Sound. NACA Report 1273 .

55