Review of Aircraft design of

AE461
AE462 : Aircraft Design - II

Group 10

- Bharti Jain (190230)

- CS Naga Pavan (190243)
- Debanjan Manna (190255)
- Vishrant Dave (190982)
 General Aviation

Primary Reference Aircrafts:

- DA62
: Mission Requirements :
Secondary Reference Aircrafts:
Endurance = 500 min = 8 hr 20 min
1. Cessna 425
Additional range = 25 km
2. Mitsubishi MU-2
7 seater aircraft = 2 crew + 5 passenger
3. Piper PA-31T Cheyenne

4. Cessna 441 Conquest II

5. Beechcraft King Air

1. Weight
Estimation

WTO = 4158 Kg

WE = 2522 Kg

Wf = 901 Kg
- Altitude = 12000 feet
Wp = 735 Kg - Design Reynolds no. Redes= (98.889*1)/(2*10-5) ≈
4.9 * 106
- Density of Air @ ~12000 feet = 0.849kg/m3
- Kinematic Viscosity of Air @ ~12000 feet = 2*10-5
m2/s
2. Wing
Design - Wing Loading ~ 190 Kg/m2 = (⍴V2CL)/2

- W = WTO = 4158 Kg (have taken average

weight )

1. Wing Therefore , S = 21.8842

Area, m2

2. b = 14.96
Wing Span, m
3. Aspect ratio AR = 9.2/0.9 = 10.22 For Twin
turboprop equivalent AR = 9.2
4. Taper ratio, λ = 0.4 (No sweep
assumed)
● Root Chord Length, = 2.08978m
● Tip Chord = 0.8359m
Length,
 5. Mean aerodynamic
chord (MAC)

=
1.55241m
= 6.2832m

Leading Edge Wing Sweep

6. Wing
sweep Quarter Chord Wing
sweep
- Λc/4 = 0°
(assumed)

- So, ΛLE =
7. Wing dihedral
2.4013° In our case , 𝜑 =
angle (φ) 5.5 deg
8.
Twist
- wing twist of 3° to ensure wing tip stall is delayed in case the critical angle of angle is
approached
Wing Tip
Designs

● We will be using the upswept blended

winglet
Blended
Winglet
 Final Design of the
Wing

Wing Geometry
(Top View)

Wing Geometry (Iso

View)

Wing Geometry
(Front View)
3. Airfoil Selection For
Wing

Airfoil of our
Model
 4. Fuselage
Design
After comparing the fuselage design of
the 5 aircrafts

Frontal part length ~ 15% of Lf

Cockpit Length ~ 5% of Lf

Cabin Length ~ 40% of Lf

Rear part length ~ 40% of Lf

King Air
Lf length of fuselage
260
Our Design :

Length of Fuselage, Lf= 11m

Frontal Part length ~ 1.87m

[17%]

Cockpit Length ~ 0.88m [8%]

Cabin Length ~ 4.84 m [44%]

Rear Part length ~3.41m

[31%]

Top View
 Width (in m) Height (in m)

Ellipse 1 1.14 0.90

Ellipse 2 1.54 1.25

Ellipse 3 1.60 1.75

Ellipse 4 1.60 1.75

Ellipse 5 1.31 1.34

Ellipse 6 0.89 1

Ellipse 7 0.64 0.7

Fusela
ge
 Fuselage Top
View

Fuselage
Left Iso
5. Empennage
Design

We will put
Conventional Tail

DA6
2
Horizontal Tail Front
Design View

● Aspect Ratio , ARht = 5

● Taper Ratio, 𝞴ht = 0.5

● LE sweep of the Horizontal Tail is usually set 5 deg more than the wing sweep
○ ΛLE = 5°

● lht = 5.5m

○ Sht = (VhtSwCw)/lht = 5.5592 m2 Top

View
■ bht = \sqrt(ARht Sht) = 4.7156 m

● Dihedral Angle = 5.5° (generally between 4-6° )

Left Iso
Vertical Tail
Design
● Aspect Ratio , ARvt = 1.6

● Taper Ratio, 𝞴vt = 0.5

● Vertical Tail sweep varies between about 35-55 deg.

○ For a low speed aircraft there is little reason why vertical tail sweep should be
beyond 20 deg other than the aesthetics
■ Λc/4 = 30°
Side
● lvt = 5.5m View
Left
○ Svt = (VvtSwbw)/lvt =4.762 m2 Iso

■ bvt = \sqrt(ARvt Svt) = 2.7603m

 : Engine
Selection :
Propellor efficiency 𝜂p 0.8

Density ⍴ 0.849 Kg/m3

Max speed Vmax 98.889 m/sec

Drag polar Cd0(From table) 0.018

Aspect ratio AR 10.22

Maximum lift coefficient C_Lmax 1.3

1. Stall Velocity,
Vs W/S = ½ ⍴Vs2Cl

2. Maximum
Speed Vmax
3. Take off run

4. Service Ceiling

5. Rate
of Climb
Finding the Feasible set

Will plot the five equation :

red → Stall Speed

blue → Maximum Speed
Green → Take Off Run
Violet → Service Ceiling
Black → Rate of Climb

1. Region left of the stall speed curve

2. Region above the maximum speed

curve

3. Region below the take-off distance

curve

4. Region above the service ceiling

curve

5. Region below the ROC curve

After recognising the acceptable
region (W/P)min = 0.025 Pmin ≈ 163 Kw

(W/P)max = 0.88 Pmax ≈ 463 Kw

KW

Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6- Honeywell TPE331-25B

114 [Max power 620 shp ≡
[ Max power 600 shp ≡ 456.009Kw]
Final
Model
Left
Iso

Front View

Bottom
View
● (L/D)max for our aircraft is 27 @ 3.5 deg of angle of attack
 CM𝜶 and CM𝛽 for our entire
aircraft

● As both of them have negative

slope it has stability along both
pitch and yaw axes
Final
Model
 :
References
:
1. Ranjan, Rajesh & Prasanna, G & Phand, Abhijat & Kuchana, Vinayender & Chandra,
Arunesh. (2006). Conceptual design of a twin-engine turboprop passenger aircraft.
10.13140/RG.2.1.3319.5763.

2. Aircraft Design: A conceptual approach - Daniel P Raymer; Chapter 4

3. MH Sadraey : Chapter 4 Preliminary Design

4. *BIPOL_1_handout_8A (pw.edu.pl)

5. Airfoil Tools

6. https://aerotoolbox.com/
● Software used: openVSP,
VSPAero
Thank
You !