DESIGN OF MULTIROLE SUPERSONIC FIGHTER

AIRCRAFT

AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT- I REPORT

Submitted by

KAVITHA RAVICHANDRAN (20101043)

SANTHOSH KUMAR R C (20101055)
VIJAYKUMAR BHARGAVI (20101058)

in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree

of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

IN

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
PADUR, CHENNAI – 603103
MAY 2023
 DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report "DESIGN OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT" is the

bonafide work of “KAVITHA RAVICHANDRAN (20101043), SANTHOSH
KUMAR R C (20101055) and VIJAYKUMAR BHARGAVI (20101058)”
who carried out the project work under my supervision. Certified further that to
the best of my knowledge the work reported here does not form part of any Other
project/research work on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on
an earlier occasion on this or any Other candidate.

Dr. DALBIR SINGH. L Dr. CHANDRASEKAR M

Professor & Head of the department Professor
School of Aeronautical Sciences School of Aeronautical Sciences
Hindustan Institute of Technology Hindustan Institute of Technology
and Science and Science
Chennai – 603103 Chennai – 603103

Submitted for the project viva voice Examination held on __________

Internal Examiner External Examiner

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to place on record our sincere thanks to all those who contributed
to the successful completion of our final year project work.

It’s a matter of pride and privilege for us to express our deep gratitude to the
management of Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science for providing us
with the necessary facilities and support.

We express our deep sense of gratitude to our respected Chairperson Dr.

Elizabeth Verghese and Chancellor Dr. Anand Jacob Verghese for giving us
an opportunity to do the project.

We would like to thank our Pro-Chancellor Dr. Ashok Verghese and Vice
Chancellor Dr. S. N. Sridhara for giving us moral support to complete this
project. We would like to express our grateful thanks to Dean (E&T) Dr.
Angelina Geetha and Registrar Dr.Muthukumar Subramanian for support and
encouragement.

We extend our sincere thanks to our Dean Dr. R Asokan and HOD Dr. Dalbir
Singh for inspiring and motivating us to complete this project.

We would like to thank our internal guide Dr .M. Chandrasekar , for

continually guiding and actively participating in our project, giving valuable
suggestion to complete our project.

We would like to thank all the faculty members of the School of Aeronautical
Sciences, who have directly or indirectly extended their support.

Last, but not least, we are deeply indebted to our parents who have been our
greatest support while we worked day and night for the project to
make it a success.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO

ABSTRACT I

LIST OF TABLES II

LIST OF FIGURES III

LIST OF GRAPHS VI

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS VII

1 INTRODUCTION TO DESIGN 1

2 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF

AIRPLANES 8

3 COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SPECIFICATIONS AND

PERFORMANCE 17

4 PREPARATION OF COMPARATIVE DATA SHEETS 21

5 COMPARATIVE GRAPHS PREPARATION AND SELECTION

OF MAIN PARAMETERS FOR THE DESIGN 32

6 WEIGHT ESTIMATION 46

7 POWERPLANT SELECTION 56

8 WING, AEROFOIL & TAIL SELECTION 61

9 FUSELAGE AND LANDING GEAR SELECTION 88

10 LIFT AND DRAG CALCULATION 96

11 PERFORMANCE CALCULATION 104

12 THREE VIEWS OF BUSINESS JET AIRCRAFT 110

13 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 112

14 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK 115

REFERENCE 117
 ABSTRACT

This Project focuses on developing a supersonic fighter aircraft with the ability
to perform multiple combat roles. Traditionally, fighter aircraft have been utilized
primarily for air-to-air combat, but a multirole fighter is designed to serve
additional functions, including air-to-surface attacks. The concept of a multirole
fighter involves utilizing a common airframe that can be modified to fit various
tasks, allowing for greater versatility and cost-effectiveness. The primary
motivation for pursuing multirole aircraft is to reduce expenses associated with
using distinct airframes for each function.

Keywords: Fighter aircraft, supersonic, airfoil, turbojet engine.

I
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE NO

4.1 Saab JAS 39 Gripen Specification 22

4.2 Sukhoi Su-35S 23

4.3 Eurofighter Typhoon 24

4.4 Dassault Rafale 25

4.5 Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2 26

4.6 Shenyang FC-31 27

4.7 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 28

4.8 Chengdu J-20 29

4.9 Sukhoi Su-57 30

4.10 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning 2 31

5.1 Comparison of Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Sukhoi Su-35S and Eurofighter 32

Typhhon

5.2 Comparison of Dassault Rafale, Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2 and Shenyang 33

FC-31

5.3 Comparison of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Chengudu J-20 and Sukhoi 34
Su-57

5.4 Specification of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting 2 35

5.5 Design Parameters From Graph 45

6.1 Suggested Fuel Fraction for Several Mission Phases 48

6.2 Suggested value for L/D, Cj, Cp, ηp for several 48

mission phases

6.3 Regression line constant A & B 49

6.4 Result of the weight estimation 55

7.1 From Chapter 5, Table.no-5.3 56

II
 7.2 Comparison of different engines 58

8.1 Wing design result 65

8.2 Comparison of different airfoil 67

8.3 Aerofoil selection for root, tip and mean chord 69

8.4 Maximum lift coefficient for serval aircraft 75

8.5 Lift coefficient increment by various types of high lift device 80

10.1 Result of lift and drag calculation 103

11.1 Result of Performance Calculation 109

13.1 Final Result of Weight Estimations 112

13.2 Final Result of Lift and Drag Calculation 113

13.3 Final Result of Performance Calculation 113

III
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE NO

1.1 Design Methodology 1

1.2 Design process 2

1.3 Conceptual design 6

1.4 Aircraft design configuration 7

2.1 Homebuilt aircraft 8

2.2 Single engine propeller aircraft 9

2.3 Twin engine propeller driven aircraft 10

2.4 Agricultural aircraft 10

2.5 Business Jet 11

2.6 Regional Turbo propeller driven aircraft 12

2.7 Commercial Transport Airplane 12

2.8 Military Trainer 13

2.9 Fighter Aircraft 14

2.10 Military transport aircraft or military cargo aircraft 14

2.11 Flying Boat 15

2.12 Super Cruise Aircraft 16

4.1 Saab JAS 39 Gripen 22

4.2 Sukhoi Su-35S 23

4.3 Eurofighter Typhoon 24

4.4 Dassault Rafale 25

4.5 Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2 26

4.6 Shenyang FC-31 27

IV
4.7 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 28

4.8 Chengdu J-20 29

4.9 Sukhoi Su-57 30

4.10 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning 2 31

6.1 Mission Profile 47

7.1 Kaveri Engine (k-9) 58

8.1 Wing types 61

8.2 wing planform 63

8.3 Aerofoil 66

8.4 Geometry of NACA SC (2)-0404 Airfoil 70

8.5 Geometry of NACA SC (2)-0714Airfoil 70

8.6 Geometry of NACA SC (2)-0710Airfoil 70

8.7 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0710 71
8.8 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0714 71
8.9 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0404 72
8.10 Example of pressure distribution 74

8.11 Typical effects of flaps 75

8.12 Various types of flaps 76

8.13 Flap parameters 81

8.14 Types of tail 85

8.15 Wing Design 87

9.1 The design of the fuselage 89

9.2 The length of the cockpit, fuselage nose, cabin at the rear and
the fuselage tail as a function of the fuselage diameter 90
9.3 Dimension of nose section 90
9.4 Fuselage design of c-wing and a blended wing 90

9.5 A Mooney M20J with a retractable tricycle landing gear 92

V
9.6 Polish 3Xtrim 3X55 Trener with a fixed tricycle landing gear taxing 93

9.7 Landing Gear 95

10.1 lift representation 96

10.2 Skin friction drags 99

10.3 form drag 100

10.4 wave drag 100

10.5 Typical streamlining effect 101

12.1 Side view of Fighter Aircraft 110

12.2 Top view of Fighter Aircraft 110

12.3 Front view of Fighter Aircraft 111

12.4 Isometric view of Fighter aircraft 111

VI
 LIST OF GRAPHS
G NO TITLE PAGE NO

5.1 Max Speed vs Aspect Ratio 37

5.2 Max Speed Vs Length 37

5.3 Max Speed Vs Height 38

5.4 Max Speed Vs Wing Area 38

5 .5 Max Speed Vs Wing Span 39

5.6 Max Speed Vs Wing Loading 39

5.7 Max Speed Vs Empty Weight 40

5.8 Max Speed Vs Max Take Off Weight 40

5.9 Max Speed Vs Payload Weight 41

5.10 Max Speed Vs Thrust to Weight Ratio 41

5.11 Max Speed Vs Range 42

5.12 Max Speed Vs Rate of Climb 42

5.13 Max Speed Vs Service Ceiling 43

5.14 Max Speed Vs Dry Thrust 43

5.15 Max Speed Vs Afterburner Thrust 44

VII
 LIST OF SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

A.R - Aspect Ratio

b - Wing span(m)

C - Chord of the Aerofoil (m)

- Chord at Root (m)

Croot
- Chord at Tip (m)
Ctip
- Drag Co-efficient
Cd
- Zero lift Drag co-efficient
Cdo
- Specific fuel consumption (lbs /
CP
hp / hr)
CL - Lift Co-efficient
D - Drag(N)

E - Endurance (hr)

e - Oswald efficiency factor

L - Lift (N)

- Lift-to-drag ratio at loiter

(L/D)Loiter
- Lift-to-drag ratio at cruise
(L/D)Cruise
M - Mach number of aircraft

Mff - Mission fuel fraction

R - Range (km)
Re - Reynolds number
s - Wing area (m2)
Sref - Reference surface area

Swet - Wetted surface area

Sa - Approach distance (m)

Sf - Flare distance (m)

Sfr - Freeroll distance (m)

S.C - Service ceiling

VIII
 A.C - Absolute ceiling
T - Thrust (N)
Tcruise - Thrust at cruise (N)

Ttake-off - Thrust at take-off

(N)
(T/W)Loiter - The thrust-to-weight ratio at Loiter

(T/W)Cruise - The thrust-to-weight ratio at cruise

(T/W)Take-off - The thrust-to-weight ratio at take-off

vCruise - velocity at cruise (m/s)

vStall - velocity at stall (m/s)

vt - Velocity at touch down (m/s)

WCrew - Crew weight (kg)

Wempty - Empty weight of the aircraft (kg)

WFuel - Weight of fuel (kg)

WPayload - Payload of the aircraft (kg)

W0 - Overall weight (kg)

W/S - Wing loading (kg/m2)

ρ - Density of air (kg/m3)

μ - Dynamic viscosity (Ns/m2)

λ - Tapered ratio

R/C - Rate of Climb

η - Kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

IX
 1. CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO DESIGN

1.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The process of designing aircraft involves engineering and takes
into account a multitude of factors such as demand from customers
and manufacturers, safety regulations, physical and financial
limitations, and more. Depending on the type of aircraft, national
airworthiness authorities may regulate the design process. To
create the best possible aircraft, designers must balance competing
factors and constraints while also considering existing designs and
market requirements.
The design process can generally be broken down into three
phases, which some organizations refer to as a feasibility study. At
the end of the preliminary design phase, a document is produced
that summarizes technical and geometric information about the
baseline design, and this document is later revised into a
comprehensive description of the aircraft, known as the Type
Specification.

Figure 1.1 Design Methodology

1
 1.2 DESIGN PROCESS

Figure 1.2 Design process

1.3 PHASES OF AIRPLANE DESIGN

The airplane design process typically involves three main phases:

• Conceptual design
• Preliminary design
• Detailed design

1.3.1 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Conceptual design is the first phase of aircraft design, in which the initial
concept and basic layout of the aircraft is developed. During this phase,
designers and engineers work to define the requirements, goals, and constraints
of the aircraft design project. They consider factors such as the intended use of

2
the aircraft, its performance requirements, operating conditions, and customer
needs.

The conceptual design process involves the creation of a preliminary design,

which includes the aircraft's overall shape, size, and layout. This design is
typically developed using computer-aided design (CAD) software, which
allows designers to create 3D models of the aircraft and evaluate its
performance. During this phase, designers also consider factors such as
materials, manufacturing methods, and cost.

In addition to the physical design of the aircraft, conceptual design also includes
the selection of key components such as engines, avionics, and landing gear.
The designers evaluate different options based on performance, reliability, and
cost.

The output of the conceptual design phase is typically a set of design

requirements and a preliminary design report. This report includes the initial
specifications for the aircraft, such as its weight, speed, range, and payload
capacity. It also includes an analysis of the aircraft's performance
characteristics, such as its lift and drag coefficients, stability, and control. The
preliminary design report serves as the basis for the subsequent phases of
aircraft design, including the preliminary design and detailed design phases.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

The preliminary design phase is the second phase of aircraft design, following
the conceptual design phase. During this phase, the basic layout and
configuration of the aircraft are refined and developed into a more detailed
design. The focus of this phase is on evaluating the technical feasibility and
practicality of the aircraft design.

The preliminary design phase involves creating a detailed 3D model of the

aircraft using computer-aided design (CAD) software. This model is used to
analyze the aerodynamics, structures, and systems of the aircraft. Engineers
evaluate factors such as the aircraft's lift and drag characteristics, stability and
control, structural strength, and fuel consumption.

3
In addition to the technical aspects of the design, the preliminary design phase
also includes evaluating the manufacturing process and cost. Designers consider
the materials and production methods that will be used to build the aircraft, as
well as the cost of production and maintenance.

One of the key outputs of the preliminary design phase is the creation of a
detailed design specification for the aircraft. This specification includes the
technical requirements and performance specifications for each component of
the aircraft, including the fuselage, wings, engines, and landing gear. It also
includes a bill of materials and an estimated cost for the production of the
aircraft.

Overall, the preliminary design phase serves as a critical step in the aircraft
design process, as it ensures that the design is technically feasible, practical, and
cost-effective before moving on to the final detailed design phase.

DETAIL DESIGN

The detailed design phase is the final phase of the aircraft design process,
following the conceptual and preliminary design phases. During this phase, the
design is finalized and detailed engineering drawings are created for all
components of the aircraft.

The detailed design phase involves developing detailed drawings and

specifications for all aspects of the aircraft, including the structure, propulsion
system, electrical and avionics systems, and all other components. The
engineering team works to ensure that all components of the aircraft meet the
technical requirements and performance specifications set out in the
preliminary design phase.

In addition to creating detailed drawings and specifications, the detailed design

phase also involves extensive testing and analysis to verify the design.
Engineers use computer simulations and physical testing to evaluate the
performance of the aircraft under a range of conditions, including takeoff,
landing, and in-flight maneuvers. This testing is used to refine the design and
identify any potential problems or issues that need to be addressed.

The detailed design phase also involves selecting and sourcing materials,
components, and subsystems required for the aircraft. This includes working

4
with suppliers to ensure that all materials and components meet the required
quality standards and can be manufactured and delivered on time.

The output of the detailed design phase is a complete set of engineering

drawings, specifications, and test data required for manufacturing and
assembling the aircraft. This information is used to build prototypes and
conduct additional testing before the aircraft is certified for production and
delivery.

Overall, the detailed design phase is a critical step in the aircraft design
process, as it ensures that the final design meets all technical, performance, and
safety requirements, and can be manufactured and delivered efficiently and
cost-effectively.

5
BLOCK ARRAY FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Figure 1.3 Conceptual design

6
Figure 1.4 Aircraft design configuration

7
 CHAPTER 2
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
AIRPLANES

The following types of aircraft are taken for the study

 HOMEBUILT PROPELLER DRIVEN

 SINGLE ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN
 TWIN ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN
 AGRICULTURAL AIRPLANES
 BUSINESS JETS
 REGIONAL TURBO PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRPLANE
 TRANSPORT JETS
 MILITARY TRAINERS
 FIGHTERS
 MILITARY PATROL BOMB AND TRANSPORT AIRPLANES
 FLYING BOATS, AMPHIBIANS AND FLOAT AIRPLANES
 SUPERSONIC CRUISE AIRPLANES
Among these one aircraft is chosen for the study on its specification
and performance

2.1 HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT

Figure 2.1 Homebuilt Aircraft

Homebuilt aircraft are aircraft that are built by individuals or small groups of
individuals for personal use. These aircraft are constructed using kits or plans,
and can range from simple single-seat ultralights to more complex, multi-engine
airplanes. Building a homebuilt aircraft requires a significant amount of
technical knowledge, time, and effort. Despite the challenges, building and

8
flying your own aircraft can be a rewarding and fulfilling experience. It allows
aviation enthusiasts to customize their aircraft to meet their specific needs and
preferences, and can be a more affordable alternative to purchasing a
commercially produced aircraft. However, it is important to note that building a
homebuilt aircraft requires compliance with safety regulations and thorough
inspections to ensure airworthiness.

2.2 SINGLE ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRCRAFT

Figure 2.2 Single engine propeller driven Aircraft

Single engine propeller driven aircraft are a type of aircraft that are powered by
a single piston engine and use a propeller for propulsion. These aircraft are
commonly used for general aviation purposes such as personal transportation,
flight training, and aerial photography. Due to their relatively low operating
costs, single engine propeller driven aircraft are popular among private pilots
and flight schools. They are also versatile and can operate from small airfields
with short runways. However, they are limited in range and speed compared to
other types of aircraft. Overall, single engine propeller driven aircraft are a
reliable and affordable option for those looking to engage in recreational
aviation or personal transportation.

9
2.3 TWIN ENGINE PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRCRAFT

Figure 2.3 Twin engine propeller driven Aircraft

Twin engine propeller driven aircraft are a type of aircraft that are powered by
two piston engines and use propellers for propulsion. These aircraft are
commonly used for commercial and general aviation purposes, including
regional transport, charter flights, and private transportation. Due to their
redundancy in engine systems, twin engine propeller driven aircraft are often
considered to be safer than their single engine counterparts. They can also
operate from larger airfields and have greater range and speed capabilities.
However, twin engine aircraft also come with higher operating costs and require
more maintenance. Overall, twin engine propeller driven aircraft are a popular
choice for those looking for greater reliability and versatility in their aviation
needs.

2.4 AGRICULTURAL AIRPLANES

Figure 2.4 Agricultural Aircraft

10
An agricultural airplane, also known as an agricultural aircraft or ag-plane, is a
type of aircraft used for agricultural purposes such as crop dusting, aerial
spraying, and seeding. These planes are designed to fly at low altitudes and
slow speeds to provide accurate and efficient delivery of chemicals or seeds.
Agricultural airplanes are typically small, single-engine propeller planes that are
modified with tanks and spray equipment. They are often used to spray
pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides on crops, and can cover large areas of
farmland in a short amount of time. These aircraft play a crucial role in modern
agriculture by helping farmers to protect and enhance crop yields, while
minimizing the need for manual labor and ground-based equipment.

2.5 BUSINESS JETS

Figure 2.5 Business Jet

Business jets, also known as corporate jets or executive jets, are designed for
transporting business executives and other high-profile individuals. They are
typically smaller than commercial airliners and can be configured to carry
between 4 and 19 passengers. Business jets can operate into smaller airports and
remote locations, providing flexibility and time savings for their users. They are
often equipped with luxurious amenities, such as comfortable seating,
entertainment systems, and private lavatories. The range of a business jet varies
depending on the model, but some can fly nonstop for up to 7,000 miles,
allowing for transoceanic travel.

11
2.6 REGIONAL TURBO PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRPLANE

Figure 2.6 Regional Turbo Propeller Driven Aircraft

A regional turbo propeller driven airplane is a type of aircraft designed for short
to medium-range flights, typically carrying between 30 to 90 passengers. These
aircraft are powered by turbo propeller engines and have a cruising speed of
around 500 to 600 km/h. Regional turbo propeller airplanes are widely used by
regional airlines for connecting smaller cities and towns to major transportation
hubs, as they offer a good balance of speed, efficiency, and operating costs.
These airplanes are also preferred for their ability to operate from shorter
runways, allowing them to access more remote airports with limited
infrastructure.

2.7 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT AIRPLANE

Figure 2.7 Commercial Transport Airplane

12
A commercial transport airplane is an aircraft designed to transport passengers
and cargo on scheduled flights. These aircraft are typically larger and have a
higher passenger capacity than regional aircraft. Commercial transport aircraft
are usually powered by jet engines, which provide faster cruising speeds and
greater range compared to turboprop engines. They also have advanced avionics
and flight systems, such as autopilots, flight management systems, and weather
radar. Commercial transport aircraft undergo rigorous safety and certification
processes before they are approved for use by airlines, ensuring they meet strict
standards for structural integrity, performance, and reliability. Some examples
of popular commercial transport aircraft include the Boeing 737, Airbus A320,
and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

2.8 MILITARY TRAINER

Figure 2.8 Military Trainer

A trainer is a class of aircraft designed specifically to facilitate flight

training of pilot and aircrews. The use of a dedicated trainer aircraft with
additional safety features—such as tandem flight controls, forgiving flight
characteristics and a simplified cockpit arrangement—allows pilots-in-training to
safely advance their real-time piloting, navigation and warfighting skills without
the danger of overextending their abilities alone in a fully featured aircraft.

13
2.9 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Figure 2.9 Fighter Aircraft

A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air

combat against other aircraft, as opposed to bombers and attack aircraft, whose
main mission is to attack ground targets. The hallmarks of a fighter are its speed,
manoeuvrability, and small size relative to other combat aircraft.

2.10 MILITARY PATROL BOMB AND TRANSPORT AIRPLANES

Figure 2.10 Military Patrol Bomb and Transport Airplanes

Military transport aircraft or military cargo aircraft are typically fixed wing
and rotary wing cargo aircraft which are used to airlift troops, weapons and other
military equipment by a variety of methods to any area of military operations
around the surface of the planet, usually outside the commercial flight routes in
uncontrolled airspace.

14
 Originally derived from bombers, military transport aircraft were used for
delivering airborne forces during World War II and towing military gliders. Some
military transport aircraft are tasked to perform multi-role duties such as aerial
refuelling and, rescue missions, tactical, operational and strategic airlifts onto
unprepared runways, or those constructed by engineers.

2.11 FLYING BOATS, AMPHIBIANS AND FLOAT AIRPLANES

Figure 2.11 Flying Boats, Amphibians and Float Airplanes

A flying boat is a fixed-winged seaplane with a hull, allowing it to land on

water, that usually has no type of landing gear to allow operation on land. It
differs from a floatplane as it uses a purpose-designed fuselage which can float,
granting the aircraft buoyancy. Flying boats may be stabilized by underwing
floats or by wing-like projections (called sponsors) from the fuselage. Their
advantage lay in using water instead of expensive land-based runways, making
them the basis for international airlines in the interwar period. They were also
commonly used for maritime patrol and air-sea rescue.

15
2.12 SUPER CRUISE AIRCRAFT

Figure 2.12 Super Cruise Aircraft

Super cruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a

useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently, which typically
precludes the use of highly inefficient afterburners or "reheat". Many well-known
supersonic military aircraft not capable of super cruise must maintain supersonic
flight in short bursts typically with afterburners. Aircraft such as the SR-71
Blackbird is designed to cruise at supersonic speed with afterburners enabled.

16
 CHAPTER 3
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SPECIFICATIONS AND
PERFORMANCE

CREW
Crew refers to a group of individuals who work together as a team to operate a
aircraft.

PASSENGERS

Passengers are individuals who travel on an aircraft for the purpose of reaching a
specific destination.

EMPTY WEIGHT

The empty weight of an aircraft refers to the total weight of the aircraft without
any fuel, passengers, or cargo onboard.

PAYLOAD

Payload of an aircraft refers to the weight of passengers, cargo, and any other
items carried on board the aircraft, excluding the weight of the aircraft itself.

TAKE OFF WEIGHT

Take-off weight of an aircraft is the maximum weight at which the aircraft can
safely take off.

LANDING WEIGHT

It is the maximum aircraft gross weight due to design or operational limitations

at which an aircraft is permitted to land.

WING AREA

It is the projected area of the wing planform and is bounded by the leading trailing
edges and the wing tips.

17
WING LOADING

It is the total weight of an aircraft divided by the area of its wing.

WING SPAN

The maximum distance between the two wing tips and id denoted by b.

THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO

It is a dimensionless ratio of thrust to weight or a vehicle propelled by such an

engine that indicates the performance of the engine or vehicle.

WINGSWEEP BACK ANGLE

The angle at which a wing is either swept backward or occasionally forward from
its root.

ASPECT RATIO

It is the ratio of wing span to its mean chord. It is also equal to the square of the
wing span divided by the wing area.
Aspect ratio = b2/s

THRUST

It is the force exerted by the engines on the airframe to overcome drag and is
measured in Newton (N).

POWER

It is the rate at which work is done.

WET THRUST

It is the augmented thrust with the usage of afterburners or liquid injection.

18
CRUISE SPEED

The speed at which combustion engines have an optimum efficiency level for fuel
consumption and power output.

RATE OF ASCENT (CLIMB)

The rate of positive altitude changes with respect to time or distance.

RATE OF DESCENT (SINK)

The rate of negative altitude changes with respect to time or distance.

ABSOLUTE CEILING

It is the altitude where maximum rate of climb is zero is the highest altitude
achievable in steady, level flight.

SERVICE CEILING

It is the altitude where the maximum rate of climb is 100 ft/min and it’s
represented the practical upper limit for steady, level flight.

RANGE

It is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly between take-off and landing, as
limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft.

ENDURANCE

It is the maximum length of time that an aircraft can spend in cruising flight as
long as the fuel is available.

STALLING VELOCITY

It is the velocity below which an aircraft will descend, or ‘stall’, regardless of its
angle of attack.

TAKEOFF DISTANCE

It consists of two parts, the ground run and the distance from where the vehicle
leaves the ground until it reaches 50 ft or 15 m. The sum of these two distances
is considered the take-off distance.

19
LANDING DISTANCE
It is the distance required to bring the aircraft to a stop under ideal conditions,
assuming the aircraft crosses the runway threshold at a height of 50 ft, at the
correct speed.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

20
 36. CHAPTER 4
PREPARATION OF COMPARATIVE DATA SHEETS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

It’s the collection of data of various aeroplanes to consolidate the data for the
aeroplane that I design. Around 20 aircraft with their design parameters are
compared.

4.2 AIRCRAFT FOR REFERENCE

1. Saab JAS 39 Gripen

2. Sukhoi Su-35S
3. Eurofighter Typhoon
4. Dassult rafale
5. Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2
6. Shenyang FC-31
7. Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
8. Chengdu J-20
9. Sukhoi Su-57
10.Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning 2

21
 Saab JAS 39 Gripen

Figure 4.1 Saab JAS 39 Gripen

Table 4.1 Saab JAS 39 Gripen Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES

Crew 1

Length (m) 14.9

Height (m) 4.5

Wing Area (m²) 30

Wing Span (m) 8.4

Aspect Ratio 2.352

Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 14000

Empty weight (Kg) 6800

Payload Weight (Kg) 5300

Thrust to Weight Ratio 1.04

Max Speed (Km/h) 2100

Service Ceiling (m) 15240

Range (Km) 3250

Rate of Climb (m/s) 254

Wing loading (Kg/m²) 283

Dry Thrust (KN) 54

Afterburner Thrust (KN) 80.5

Engine Type 1 x Volvo Aero RM-12 turbofan

22
 Sukhoi Su-35S

Figure 4.2 Sukhoi Su-35S

Table 4.2 Sukhoi Su-35S Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES

Crew 1

Length (m) 21.9

Height (m) 5.9

Wing Area (m²) 62

Wing Span (m) 15.3

Aspect Ratio 3.7756

Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 34500

Empty weight (Kg) 19000

Payload Weight (Kg) 8000

Thrust to Weight Ratio 1

Max Speed (Km/h) 2400

Service Ceiling (m) 18000

Range (Km) 1580

Rate of Climb (m/s) 280

Wing loading (Kg/m²) 411

Dry Thrust (KN) 2 x 86.3

Afterburner Thrust (KN) 142

Engine Type 2 x Saturn 117S (AL-41F1S)

23
 Eurofighter Typhoon

Figure 4.3 Eurofighter Typhoon

Table 4.3 Eurofighter Typhoon Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES
Crew 1 or 2
Length (m) 15.96
Height (m) 5.28
Wing Area (m²) 51.2
Wing Span (m) 10.95
Aspect Ratio 2.3418
Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 23500
Empty weight (Kg) 11000
Payload Weight (Kg) 21000
Thrust to Weight Ratio 1.15
Max Speed (Km/h) 2125
Service Ceiling (m) 19812
Range (Km) 3600
Rate of Climb (m/s) 315
Wing loading (Kg/m²) 344.4
Dry Thrust (KN) 60
Afterburner Thrust (KN) 90
Engine Type 2 × Eurojet EJ200 afterburning
turbofan engines,

24
 Dassault Rafale

Figure 4.4 Dassault Rafale

Table 4.4 Dassault Rafale Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES

Crew 1 or 2

Length (m) 15.27

Height (m) 5.34

Wing Area (m²) 45.7

Wing Span (m) 10.9

Aspect Ratio 2.6

Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 24500

Empty weight (Kg) 10300

Payload Weight (Kg) 8164

Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.988

Max Speed (Km/h) 1912

Service Ceiling (m) 15835

Range (Km) 3700

Rate of Climb (m/s) 304.8

Wing loading (Kg/m²) 423

Dry Thrust (KN) 50.04

Afterburner Thrust (KN) 75

Engine Type 2 × Snecma M88-4e turbofans, 50.04 kN

25
 Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2

Figure 4.5 Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2

Table 4.5 Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2 Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES
Crew 2
Length (m) 19.446
Height (m) 5.64
Wing Area (m²) 56.5
Wing Span (m) 13.045
Aspect Ratio 2
Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 36741
Empty weight (Kg) 14379
Payload Weight (Kg) 14000
Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.93
Max Speed (Km/h) 2656
Service Ceiling (m) 18000
Range (Km) 4445.008
Rate of Climb (m/s) 250
Wing loading (Kg/m²) 198
Dry Thrust (KN) 76.3
Afterburner Thrust (KN) 131.2
2 × GE-F110-129 afterburning turbofan
Engine Type

26
 Shenyang FC-31

Figure 4.6 Shenyang FC-31

Table 4.6 Shenyang FC-31 Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES
Crew 1

Length (m) 17.3

Height (m) 4.8

Wing Area (m²) 50

Wing Span (m) 11.5

Aspect Ratio 2.645

Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 28000

Empty weight (Kg) 617236.51

Payload Weight (Kg) 8000

Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.93

Max Speed (Km/h) 2200

Service Ceiling (m) 20000

Range (Km) 1200

Rate of Climb (m/s) 330.2

Wing loading (Kg/m²) 372

Dry Thrust (KN) 56.75

Afterburner Thrust (KN) 87.2

2 × WS-13 afterburning turbofans
Engine Type

27
 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Figure 4.7 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Table 4.7 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES
Crew 1
Length (m) 18.92
Height (m) 5.08
Wing Area (m²) 78.04
Wing Span (m) 13.56

Aspect Ratio 2.36

Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 38000
Empty weight (Kg) 19700
Payload Weight (Kg) 907
Thrust to Weight Ratio 1.08
Max Speed (Km/h) 2414
Service Ceiling (m) 20000
Range (Km) 3000
Rate of Climb (m/s) 350
Wing loading (Kg/m²) 377
Dry Thrust (KN) 116
Afterburner Thrust (KN) 156
Engine Type 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100
augmented turbofans

28
 Chengdu J-20

Figure 4.8 Chengdu J-20

Table4.8 Chengdu J-20 Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES
Crew 1
Length (m) 21.2
Height (m) 4.69
Wing Area (m²) 73
Wing Span (m) 13.01
Aspect Ratio 2.3186
Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 37000
Empty weight (Kg) 17000
Payload Weight (Kg) 25000
Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.92
Max Speed (Km/h) 2126
Service Ceiling (m) 20000
Range (Km) 5500
Rate of Climb (m/s) 304
Wing loading (Kg/m²) 340
Dry Thrust (KN) 82
Afterburner Thrust (KN) 147
2 × Shenyang WS-10Cafterburning turbofan
Engine Type

29
 Sukhoi Su-57

Figure 4.9 Sukhoi Su-57

Table 4.9 Sukhoi Su-57 Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES

Crew 1

Length (m) 20.1

Height (m) 4.6

Wing Area (m²) 78.8

Wing Span (m) 14.1

Aspect Ratio 2.523

Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 35000

Empty weight (Kg) 18000

Payload Weight (Kg) 25000

Thrust to Weight Ratio 1.16

Max Speed (Km/h) 2135

Service Ceiling (m) 20000

Range (Km) 3500

Rate of Climb (m/s) 330

Wing loading (Kg/m²) 371

Dry Thrust (KN) 88.3

Afterburner Thrust (KN) 142.2

Engine Type 2 × Saturn AL-41F1 afterburning turbofan

30
 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning 2

Figure 4.10 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning 2

Table 4.10 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning 2 Specifications

PARAMETER VALUES
Crew 1
Length (m) 15.7
Height (m) 4.4
Wing Area (m²) 43
Wing Span (m) 11
Aspect Ratio 2.66
Max Take Off Weight (Kg) 29900
Empty weight (Kg) 13290
Payload Weight (Kg) 1100
Thrust to Weight Ratio 0.87
Max Speed (Km/h) 1960
Service Ceiling (m) 15000
Range (Km) 2800
Rate of Climb (m/s) 230
Wing loading (Kg/m²) 107.7
Dry Thrust (KN) 125
Afterburner Thrust (KN) 191
1 × Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100
Engine Type
afterburning turbofan

31
 5. CHAPTER 5
6. COMPARATIVE GRAPHS PREPARATION AND SELECTION
OF MAIN PARAMETERS FOR THE DESIGN

5.1 CONSOLIDATION OF DATA

Consolidation of data is the comparison of collected data. We have made the

comparison of three aircrafts each with 10 selected aircraft in the following table

Table 5.1 Comparison of Saab JAS 39 Gripen, Sukhoi Su-35S and Eurofighter Typhoon
Saab JAS 39 Gripen Sukhoi Su-35S Eurofighter
PARAMETER
Typhoon
Crew 1 1 1 or 2

Length (m) 14.9 21.9 15.96

Height (m) 4.5 5.9 5.28

Wing Area (m²) 30 62 51.2

Wing Span (m) 8.4 15.3 10.95

Aspect Ratio 2.352 3.7756 2.3418

Max Take Off 14000 34500 23500

Weight (Kg)
Empty weight (Kg) 6800 19000 11000

Payload Weight 5300 8000 21000

(Kg)
Thrust to Weight 1.04 1 1.15
Ratio
Max Speed (Km/h) 2100 2400 2125

Service Ceiling (m) 15240 18000 19812

Range (km) 3250 1580 3600

Rate of Climb (m/s) 254 280 315

Wing loading 283 411 344.4

(Kg/m²)
54 2 x 86.3 60
Dry Thrust (KN)

32
Afterburner Thrust 80.5 142 90
(KN)
1 x Volvo Aero RM- 2 x Saturn 117S (AL- 2 × Eurojet EJ200
12 turbofan 41F1S)
Engine Type afterburning
turbofan engines,

Table 5.2 Comparison of Dassault Rafale, Boeing F-15EX Eagle 2 and Shenyang FC-31
Dassault Rafale Boeing F-15EX Shenyang FC-31
PARAMETER Eagle 2
1 or 2 2 1
Crew

15.27 19.446 17.3

Length (m)

5.34 5.64 4.8

Height (m)

45.7 56.5 50
Wing Area (m²)

10.9 13.045 11.5

Wing Span (m)

2.6 2 2.645
Aspect Ratio

Max Take Off 24500 36741 28000

Weight (Kg)
10300 14379 617236.51
Empty weight (Kg)

Payload Weight 8164 14000 8000

(Kg)
Thrust to Weight 0.93
0.988 0.93
Ratio
1912 2656 2200
Max Speed (Km/h)

15835 18000 20000

Service Ceiling (m)

3700 4445.008 1200

Range (Km)

304.8 250 330.2

Rate of Climb (m/s)

Wing loading 423 198 372

(Kg/m²)

33
 50.04 76.3 56.75
Dry Thrust (KN)

Afterburner Thrust 75 131.2 87.2

(KN)
2 × Snecma M88-4e 2 × GE-F110-129 2 × WS-13
Engine Type turbofans, 50.04 kN afterburning turbofan afterburning
turbofans

Table 5.3 Comparison of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Chengudu J-20 and Sukkhoi Su-57
Lockheed Martin F- Chengudu J-20 Sukhoi Su-57
PARAMETER 22Raptor
1 1 1
Crew

18.92 21.2 20.1

Length (m)

5.08 4.69 4.6

Height (m)

78.04 73 78.8
Wing Area (m²)

13.56 13.01 14.1

Wing Span (m)

2.36 2.3186 2.523

Aspect Ratio

Max Take Off 38000 37000 35000

Weight (Kg)
19700 17000 18000
Empty weight (Kg)

Payload Weight 907 25000 25000

(Kg)
Thrust to Weight 1.08 0.92 1.16
Ratio
2414 2126 2135
Max Speed (Km/h)

20000 20000 20000

Service Ceiling (m)

3000 5500 3500

Range (Km)

34
 350 304 330
Rate of Climb (m/s)

Wing loading 377 340 371

(Kg/m²)
116 82 88.3
Dry Thrust (KN)

Afterburner Thrust 156 147 142.2

(KN)
2 × Pratt & Whitney 2 × Shenyang WS- 2 × Saturn AL-41F1
Engine Type F119-PW-100 10Cafterburning afterburning turbofan
augmented turbofans turbofan

Table 5.4 Specifications of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting 2

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting 2
PARAMETER

1
Crew

15.7
Length (m)

4.4
Height (m)

43
Wing Area (m²)

11
Wing Span (m)

2.66
Aspect Ratio

Max Take Off 29900

Weight (Kg)
13290
Empty weight (Kg)

Payload Weight 1100

(Kg)
Thrust to Weight 0.87
Ratio
1960
Max Speed (Km/h)

15000
Service Ceiling (m)

35
 2800
Range (Km)

230
Rate of Climb (m/s)

Wing loading 107.7

(Kg/m²)
125
Dry Thrust (KN)

Afterburner Thrust 191

(KN)
1 × Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-
Engine Type 100 afterburning turbofan

36
 5.2 COMPARATIVE GRAPHS PREPARATION
5.2.1 MAX SPEED vs ASPECT RATIO

Graph 5.1 Max Speed Vs Aspect Ratio

Aspect ratio - 2.8

5.2.2 MAX SPEED vs LENGTH

Graph 5.2 Max Speed Vs Length

Length – 16 m

37
5.2.3 MAX SPEED vs HEIGHT

Graph 5.3 Max Speed Vs Height

Height – 4.8 m

5.2.4 MAX SPEED vs WING AREA

Graph 5.4 Max Speed Vs Wing Area

Wing Area – 72 m2

38
5.2.5 MAX SPEED vs WING SPAN

Graph 5.5 Max Speed Vs Wing Span

Wing span – 13 m

5.2.6 MAX SPEED vs WING LOADING

Graph 5.6 Max Speed Vs Wing Loading

Wing loading – 440 kg/m2

39
5.2.7 MAX SPEED vs EMPTY WEIGHT

Graph 5.7 Max Speed Vs Empty Weight

Empty Weight – 13000 kg

5.2.8 MAX SPEED vs TAKE-OFF WEIGHT

Graph 5.8 Max Speed Vs Max Take Off Weight

Max Take Off Weight –35000 kg

40
5.2.9 MAX SPEED vs PAYLOAD WEIGHT

Graph 5.9 Max Speed Vs Payload Weight

Payload Weight – 8000 kg

5.2.10 MAX SPEED vs THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO

Graph 5.10 Max Speed Vs Thrust to Weight Ratio

Thrust to Weight Ratio – 1.4

41
5.2.11 MAX SPEED vs RANGE

Graph 5.11 Max Speed Vs Range

Range – 2600 km
5.2.12 MAX SPEED vs RATE OF CLIMB

Graph 5.12 Max Speed Vs Rate of Climb

Rate of Climb – 310 m/s

42
5.2.13 MAX SPEED vs SERVICE CEILING

Graph 5.13 Max Speed Vs Service Ceiling

Service Ceiling – 15000 m

5.2.14 MAX SPEED vs DRY THRUST

Graph 5.14 Max Speed Vs Dry Thrust

Dry thrust – 110 KN

43
5.2.15 MAX SPEED vs AFTERBURN THRUST

Graph 5.15 Max Speed Vs Afterburner Thrust

Afterburner Thrust – 130 KN

44
5.3 DESIGN PARAMETERS FROM GRAPH

Table 5.5 Design Parameter from Graph

FLIGHT PARAMETERS SI UNIT VALUE IMPERIAL VALUE
UNIT

Length m 16 ft 52.49

Height m 4.8 ft 15.74

Wing Area m2 72 ft2 236.22

Wing Span m 13 ft 42.65

Aspect Ratio 2.8 2.8

Max Take Off Weight Kg 35000 lb 77161.79

Empty weight Kg 13000 lb 28660.09

Payload Weight Kg 8000 lb 17636.98

Thrust to Weight Ratio 1.4 1.4

Max Speed Km/hr 2150 Miles/hr 1335.9

Service Ceiling m 15000 Miles 9.32

Range Km 2600 Miles 1615.56

Rate of Climb m/s 310 Miles/hr 693.45

Wing loading Kg/m2 440 lb/ft2 90.12

Dry Thrust KN 110 lb ft 81131.84

Afterburner Thrust KN 130 lb ft 95883.08

45
 6. CHAPTER 6
WEIGHT ESTIMATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION
To find the weight of the following parameters of an aircraft.
• Takeoff Weight (WTO)
• Fuel Weight (WF)
• Empty Weight (WE)
The following are the data which is obtained from the graph to proceed for the
Weight estimation.
 Max Speed = 1335.9 miles/hr
 Takeoff weight = 77161.79 lbs
 Service ceiling (S.C) = 9.32 miles
 Range = 1615.56 miles
 Takeoff Distance (T.D) = 0.4970 miles
 Landing Distance (L.D) = 0.4658 miles
 Payload = 17636.98 lbs

RCR = R – [T.D + L.D + 2 x (S.C)]

Rcr = [1403 – (0.4319 + 0.4048 + (2 X 8.09))]

Where,
R – total range = 1403 nm
T.D – Take off distance = 0.4319 nm
L.D – Landing distance = 0.4048 nm
Service ceiling = 8.09 nm

Rcr = 1386 nm

46
6.2 MISSION PROFILE

Figure 6.1 Mission Profile

Description:
Mission profile is explaining the various stages and maneuver’s during flight
of the aircraft from start to shut down. The mission for our fighter aircraft is
shown in below
Phase 1 : engine start and warm up
Phase 2 : taxi
Phase 3 : take-off
Phase 4 : climb
Phase 5 : cruise-out
Phase 6 : loiter
Phase 7 : descend
Phase 8 : dash-out
Phase 9 : drop bombs
Phase 10 : strafe
Phase 11 : dash in
Phase 12 : climb to cruise
Phase 13 : cruise in
Phase 14 : descend
Phase 15 : landing

47
6.3 MISSION FUEL FRACTION:

The following tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 will be used for getting the values for the
specified aircraft types.

Table 6.1 Suggested Fuel Fraction for Several Mission Phases

Table 6.2 Suggested value for L/D, Cj, Cp, ηp for several mission phases

48
Table 6.3 Regression line constant A & B

49
 6.4 CALCULATION

The fuel weight ratio can be obtained from product of mission segment weight at the end of the
segment divided by the weight at the beginning of segment.

1. Engine start up :
start weight is WTO and end weight is W1
W1/WO=0.990
2. Taxing:
start weight is W1and end weight is W2
W2/W1=0.990
3. Take-off :
start weight is W2 and end weight is W3
W3/W2=0.990
4. Climb:
start weight is W3 and end weight is W4
W4/W3=0.971

The phase covered during climb phase needs to be calculated. It can be assumed, that the
climb is performed at an average speed of 500m/s and with an average climb rate of 100m/s.to
16870m this takes 2.8 min. The range covered is 2.8*500=1400km (For direct climb to
40000ft. at max.WO In 8 min is desired. Climb rate on one engine, at max. WTO should exceed
500fpm on a 950f day)

5. Cruise out :
start weight is W4 and end weight is W5
W5/W4=.954
The cruise phase is to be carried out at 16870 m and with a speed corresponding to
M=1.67(with external load), this means Vcruise=568.91m/s. fuel used during this part of the
mission can be estimated from Braguest range equation:
Rcr = (V/Cj)cr (L/D)cr ln (W4/W5)
The range is 3173.75-1400=1773.75km. Because this fighter carries its bomb load externally
and because it cruise at a rather cruise speed, the L/D value during cruise out likely to be very
high. A value of 7.0 seems reasonable. for Cj , 0.6 might be an optimistic choice with these
phase follows from range eqn
W5/W4=.928
6. Loiter:
start weight is W5 and end weight is W6
During loiter the lift-to-drag ratio will be significantly better than during high speed cruise-
out. A value of 9.0 for (L/D)ltr will be used. for Cj, indicates that 0.6 is o.k loiter is specified
at 30min. the fuel fraction for this phase follows from Brequest endurance equation
Eltr= (Vcr/Cj) (L/D) ln W5/W6
This yields W6/W5=0.967
50
7. Descend:
start weight is W6 and end weight is W7
W7/W6 =.99
8. Dash out:
start weight is W7 and end weight is W8
W8/W7=.951
9. Drop bombs:
start weight is W8 and end weight is W9
W9/W8=1
10. Strafe:
start weight is W9 and end weight is W10
W10/W9=0.986

11. Dash in:

start weight is W10 and end weight is W11
W11/W10=.966
12. Climb to Cruise:
start weight is W11 and end weight is W12
W12/W11=.969
13. Cruise in:
start weight is W12 and end weight is W13
W13/W12=.956
14. Descend:
start weight is W13 and end weight is W14
W14/W13=.99
15. Landing:
start weight is W14 and end weight is W15
W15/W14=.995

MISSION FUEL FRACTION (Mff)

Therefore the mission fuel fraction is given by

Mff = {( W15/W14)*( W14/W13)*( W13/W12)*( W12/W11)*( W11/W10)*( W10/W9)*(

W9/W8)*( W8/W7)*( W7/W6)*( W6/W5)*( W5/W4)*( W4/W3)*( W3/W2)*( W2/W1)*(
W1/WTO)}

Mff=0.693

51
 The weight of the fuel required for the mission is calculated using the formula

WF/W0 = (1-0.693)

Therefore WF = 0.307*W0

Where, W0-average Take-off value taken from the graph

W0 = 23966kg

WF = 0.307*23966

WF = 7357.562kg

EMPTY WEIGHT ESTIMATION (We):

The value of empty weight is calculated using the formula

WEtent=W0Etent-Wtfo-WCrew

Where, W0Etent=W0-Wf-WPayload ,

Wtfo=0.005*W0
WOEtent= 23966-7357.562-4000

WOEtent=12608.438kg

Therefore empty weight

WEtent=12608.438-(0.005*23966)-182

WEtent=12306.608kg

Where,

WOEtent -operating empty weight tentative (kg),

WTfo -Trapped fuel-0il weight (kg)

We/ W0=12306.608/23966

We/ W0 =0.513

52
 Wcrew + Wp
W0 = Wf
1−( )− (We/ W0)
W0

182 +4000
W0 =
1−0.307− 0.513

W0=23233.33kg

ITERATION PROCESS:

We/ W0=A(W0)CKVS

For fighter aircraft {A=2.34, C=-0.13, Kvs=1}

Iteration-1:

We/ W0 = 2.34*(23233.33)-0.13*1

= 0.633

Wo = 19441.71

Iteration-2:

We/ W0=2.34*(19441.71)-0.13*1

=0.648

Wo=18987.07

Iteration-3:

We/ W0=2.34*(18987.07)-0.13*1

=0.650

Wo=18929.75

Iteration-4:

We/ W0=2.34*(18929.75)-0.13*1

=0.650

Wo=18921.18

Iteration-5:

53
 We/ W0=2.34*(18921.18)-0.13*1

=0.650

=18920.2

Iteration-6:

We/ W0=2.34*(18920.20)-0.13*1

=0.650

Wo=18920.07

OVERALL WEIGHT ESTIMATION:

Take-off weight:

Wo =18920Kg

WEIGHT OF FUEL:

Wf = 0.307*18920

Wf =5808.44Kg

Empty weight:

WEtent=W0Etent-Wtfo-WCrew

Where, W0Etent=W0-Wf-WPayload , Wtfo=0.005*W0

WOEtent =18920-5808.44-4000

WOEtent = 9111.56kg

Therefore empty weight

WEtent = 9111.56-(0.005*18920)-182

WEtent = 8834.96kg

54
Weight of Crew:

𝑊𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑤 =182*(Number of crew)

𝑊𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑤 = 182 kg

Weight of Payload:

𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = Weight of Number of Passengers + Military loads

𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 8818.49lbs

RESULTS OF THE WEIGHT ESTIMATION:

Table 6.4 Result of the Weight Estimation

WEIGHTS SI UNIT(kg) IMPERIAL
UNIT (lbs)
Empty weight 8834.96 19477.752

Weight fuel 5808.44 12805.41

Maximum take-off weight 18920 41711.46

Weight of crew 182 401.24

Weight of pay load 4000 8818.49

55
 CHAPTER 7
POWERPLANT SELECTION

7.1 INTRODUCTION
There are various types of engines integrated into an aircraft, unlike automobile
engines. These engines are classified as air-breathing engines, utilizing
atmospheric air as the medium for flight. Aerodynamics, Structures, Propulsion,
control, and stability are the key elements contributing to the construction of an
aircraft in this multidisciplinary field.
7.2 TYPES OF ENGINES

1. Piston engine 2. Turbofan

3. Turboprop 4. Turbojet
5. Ramjet 6. Scramjet

7.3 THRUST REQUIRED CALCULATION

𝑇𝑅
=𝒂(𝑴𝒎𝒂𝒙)𝑪
𝑊𝑜

Table 7.1 From Chapter 5, Table.no-5.3

𝑻𝑹
=𝒂(𝑴𝒎𝒂𝒙)𝑪 𝑾𝟎 𝒂 𝒄
𝑾𝒐

Jet trainer 0.488 0.728

Jet fighter (dogfighter) 0.648 0.594

Jet fighter (other) 0.514 0.141

Military cargo/ 0.244 0.341

bomber
Jet transport 0.267 0.363
From above table for Jet Fighter,

a =0.514 ; c =0.141

From Result of Weight Estimation, W0 = 189.2𝐾𝑁

From Graph, umax = 310 m/s

T@16500m = 216 𝐾
56
W.K.T,
u
M

= 1.05

⇒ 𝑻𝑹
𝑾𝒐
= 0.514 × 1.050.141

𝐓𝐑 = 𝟗𝟔 𝐊𝐍

𝐓⁄W CALCULATION

TR = W𝑇0(𝑾𝑻 )

T TR
⇒ =
W W0

T 96×103
⇒ =
W 189200

𝐓
= 𝟎. 𝟓07
𝐖

The thrust produced should be 10% more than the required thrust.
Hence, Thrust required is TR= 105.6 KN
Therefore, Thrust required for single engine is 105.6 KN.

57
 7.4 SELECTION OF ENGINE
Choice of the engine is a Turbofan for obvious reasons such as higher
operating fuel economy & efficiency for high payloads.

A list of engines with weight and thrust matching our requirements are
chosen and are tabulated below

Table 7.2 Comparison of different engines

S. Engine name Dry thrust Wet thrust(after
NO (KN) burner)
(KN)
1 General electric F414 55.6 75

2 Kaveri engine(k-9) 45 75

3 M52-P2 64 95
4 M88-2 50 75

7.5 DETAILS ABOUT THE ENGINE

Figure 7.1 kaveri engine (k-9)

In 1896, the Indian Defence Ministry's Defence Research and Development

Organization (DRDO) initiated a program to develop an indigenous power plant for
the light combat aircraft (LCA). The DRDO assigned the lead development
responsibility to its Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), which had prior
experience in jet engine development. The GTRE embarked on various iterations,
starting with the GTX37-14U turbojet and later the GTX-35 turbojet, before settling
on a turbofan design called the GTX-35VS "KAVERI."
58
Full-scale development of the Kaveri engine began in April 1989 with a projected
cost of 3.82 billion (taller) and an expected completion date of December 1996.
However, the development faced political and technical challenges, including issues
with turbine blades and weight. As a result, the GTRE decided to procure the F404-
GE-IN20 engine from General Electric for the pre-production aircraft and appealed
for international collaboration to complete the Kaveri's development.

Despite ongoing efforts, the Kaveri engine faced setbacks and failed high-altitude
tests in Russia in 2004. The Indian Ministry of Defence ordered additional F404
engines and sought technical assistance from SNECMA to address the Kaveri's
problems. By 2008, the engine had undergone extensive testing and achieved some
milestones, but it still fell short of the desired performance specifications.

In subsequent years, the Kaveri engine development program continued, with test
flights and integration efforts. The GTRE divided the program into two separate
initiatives: the K9+ Program to gain hands-on experience and the K10 Program for
joint venture partnerships with foreign engine manufacturers. Despite progress, the
Kaveri engine was not ready in time for the Tejas aircraft, and an in-production
power plant had to be selected.

As of the current status, the DRDO aims to have the Kaveri engine ready for use on
the Tejas in the latter half of the 2010s decade. The engine has shown promising
thrust capabilities but still falls short of the desired power requirements. Efforts are
ongoing to improve reliability, safety, and airworthiness through further testing and
integration.

In addition to its potential application in the Tejas, the Kaveri engine has been
considered for integration with other aircraft, such as the HAL Advanced Medium
Combat Aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles. Derivatives of the Kaveri engine,
including a non-afterburning version for an advanced jet trainer and a high-bypass-
ratio turbofan named Kabini, have also been planned. The Indian government
envisions adapting the Kaveri engine technology for armoured fighting vehicles,
marine gas turbines, and even locomotives.

59
7.6 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

Type : After burning Turbofan

Length : 3490 mm
Diameter : 910 mm
Dry weight: 45kN (of their 900Kg weight)
Afterburner (Wet thrust) : 70KN (of their 900Kg weight)
T/W Ratio : 7.25:1(wet thrust)
Blade : DS blades
Manufacturer: gas turbine research establishment
National origin: INDIA
First run: 1996

Major application: originally designed for HAL Tejas

Stage :
1. Six stage core high pressure compressor with variable inlet guide
vanes
2. There stage low pressure compressor with transonic blading

Combustion chamber: annular combustion chamber

Fan pressure ratio: 4:1
Overall pressure ratio: 27:1

7.7 CONCLUSION

The preferable choice of engine, from the above, would be Kaveri engine K-19
since the engine dry thrust is 75KN. It is a Single afterburning turbojet engine
equipped and also it meets our thrust required calculation 91.25 KN which also
suits our demand of weight and power.

60
 CHAPTER 8
WING, AEROFOIL & TAIL SELECTION

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter explain the selection of wing, types of wing and calculation
of wing design parameter

WING SELECTION

Once the aircraft's final weight is determined, the wing takes precedence
as the key element to be designed. The weight of the wing and its ability to
generate lift primarily depend on the chosen thickness of the aerofoil section
integrated into the wing structure. The initial stage in wing design involves
estimating the appropriate thickness, which is influenced by the critical Mach
number of the aerofoil or, more specifically, the drag divergence Mach number
associated with the wing section.

TYPES OF WING
Wings are differentiated from there wing configuration by the following
• Swept back wing
• Delta wing
• Tapered wing
• Based on the aspect ratio
• Based upon position

Figure 8.1 Wing types

61
 THE POSITION OF WING

The positioning of the wing within the fuselage, considering the vertical
axis, holds great significance. Each configuration (Low, High, and Mid)
possesses its own advantages. However, in this particular design, the
Low-wing configuration offers notable benefits, including:
• Uninterrupted passenger cabin space.
• Integration of landing gear within the wing structure itself.
• Convenient engine overhaul due to the engine's placement on
the low-wing.
• Enables utilization of a wing carries-through structure, capable of
accommodating the desired fuel capacity.
• Higher ground clearance and reduced fuselage upsweep due to the
typically elevated position of landing gear in such wing
configurations.
• Minimal impact on the flow over the horizontal tail by adopting a
low-wing configuration.
• Lateral stability necessitates some degree of dihedral angle.
Currently, a dihedral angle of 5 degrees is assumed, although it may
be subject to change during stability analysis.

WING GEOMETRY DESIGN

• The geometry of the wing is a function of four parameters, namely

the Wing loading (W/S), Aspect Ratio (b2/S), Taper ratio (λ) and the
Sweepback angle at quarter chord (Λqc).

• The Take-off Weight that was estimated in the previous analysis is

used to find the Wing Area S (from W/S). The value of S also enables
us to calculate the Wingspan b (using the Aspect ratio). The root
chord can now be found using the equation.
S
Croot

The tip chord is given by,

𝐂𝐭𝐢𝐩 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭
62
 • Wing planform

Figure 8.2 wing planform

The wing's shape, when observed from a top-down perspective, plays a crucial
role in comprehending the airflow in three dimensions and holds significant
importance in determining both wing performance and airplane flight
characteristics. Planform design factors such as aspect ratio, taper ratio, and
sweepback profoundly influence the overall aerodynamic characteristics of the
wing.

8.2 WING DESIGN CALCULATION

WING AREA (S)
Area, S = 𝑊𝑇𝑂 = 41711.46
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 90.12

= 462.8𝑓𝑡2
S = 43 𝒎𝟐
Where,
𝑊𝑇𝑂 = 41711.46 lbs (From Chapter 6 Weight estimation)
Wing loading = 440 kg/m2 = 90.12 lb/ft2 (From Graph 5.6)

63
 ASPECT RATIO (A.R)

A.R = Wing 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛^2 = 2.8 (From Graph 5.1)

𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

b=

b = 11 m
Where,
Wing Area, S = 43 m2

ROOT CHORD (CR)

𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 11
CR = = 2.8
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜

CR=3.928m
TAPER RATIO (𝝀)

𝑇𝑖𝑝 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑑 (𝐶𝑡)

𝜆 =
𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑑 (𝐶𝑅)

Where,
Taper ratio, 𝜆 = 0.25 (For SAAB 39 Gripen)
Ct
0.25 =
3.928

Ct=0.982

MEAN AERODYNAMIC CHORD – MAC (𝑪̂)

MAC, 𝐶̂ = x CR x ( 1+1+𝜆
𝜆 + 𝜆2 )

Where,
CR = 3.928 m
𝜆 = 0.25

MAC, 𝑪̂ = 2.7496 m

64
 VOLUME OF FUEL WEIGHT

Volume of fuel weight = 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 5808.44

𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
801
Volume of fuel weight = 7.25 m3
Where,
Weight of fuel = 12805.41 lbs = 5808.44 kg
Density of fuel = 801 kg/m3
THICKNESS OF ROOT CHORD (CR) AND TIP CHORD (Ct)

𝑡
20 % of Volume of fuel weight = x 𝐶̂2 x 0.375 x b
𝑐

Where,
20 % of Volume of fuel weight = 1.45 m3
𝐶̂ = 2.7496 m
b = 11 m 𝑡
= 0.127
𝑐

Thickness of Root chord (TR): TR = 0.127 x CR

= 0.127 x 3.928
TR = 0.4988 m

Thickness of Tip chord (Tt): Tt = 0.127 x Ct

= 0.127 x 0.982
Tt = 0.1247 m

Table 8.1 Wing design result

S.NO DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS VALUES
1 Wing loading (kg/m2) 440
2 Wing Area S (m2) 43
3 Aspect Ratio 2.8
4 Span b (m) 11
5 Taper ratio (λ) 0.25
6 Root Chord (m) 3.928
7 Tip chord (m) 0.982
8 Mean chord (m) 2.7496

65
8.3 AIRFOIL SELECTION

AIRFOIL NOMENCLATURE

Figure 8.3 Airfoil Nomenclature

The aerofoil serves as the essential component and core element of an airplane,
exerting a significant influence on various flight aspects. It directly impacts the
aircraft's cruise speed, landing and takeoff distances, stall speed, handling
qualities, and overall aerodynamic efficiency throughout all flight phases.
Aerofoil selection is based on several factors, including geometry, definitions,
design and selection methodologies, different families or types of aerofoils,
design lift coefficient, thickness-to-chord ratio, lift curve slope, and
characteristic curves.

The following are the key geometry and definition aspects of an aerofoil:
- Chord line: A straight line connecting the leading edge (LE) and trailing edge
(TE) of the aerofoil.
- Chord (c): The length of the chord line.
- Thickness (t): Measured perpendicular to the chord line, typically expressed as
a percentage of the chord length (typically around 12% for subsonic aerofoils).
- Camber (d): The curvature of the aerofoil section, represented as the
perpendicular distance of section mid-points from the chord line, usually
expressed as a percentage of the chord length (around 3% for subsonic
aerofoils).
- Angle of attack (α): The angular difference between the chord line and the
direction of airflow.

66
The aerofoil categories are as follows:
1. Initially, aerofoil design was based on trial and error methods.
2. The introduction of NACA 4-digit aerofoil series occurred during the 1930s.
3. NACA 5-digit aerofoils aimed at shifting the position of maximum camber
forward to increase the maximum lift coefficient (CLmax).
4. NACA 6-digit aerofoils were designed to achieve lower drag by increasing the
region of laminar flow.
5. Modern aerofoil designs primarily focus on improving aerodynamic
characteristics at speeds slightly below the speed of sound.

The provided format has been maintained while incorporating the necessary
changes.
Table 8.2 Comparison of different airfoil
Lift
Lift-to- Stall TE LE
S. Thickness Camber Coeffi
Name Drag Angle Angle Radius
No (%) (%) cient
(L/D) (deg) (deg) (%)
(CL)
GOE 546
1 10.4 3.5 1.326 60.2 3 12.9 2.6
AIRFOIL
GOE 490
2 8.8 3.8 1.358 72.9 8 15.7 2.5
AIRFOIL
NACA
3 64(1)-212 12 2.4 1.302 49.9 -0.5 6.7 3
MOD A
CLARK
4 X 11.7 3.3 1.308 57 8 18.2 3
AIRFOIL

5 S2027 14.5 2.7 1.303 46.4 12 7.2 2.6

67
NACA 4 Digit

 1st digit: maximum camber (as % of chord).

 2nd digit (x10): location of maximum camber (as % of chord from leading
edge (LE)).

 3rd & 4th digits: maximum section thickness (as % of chord).

NACA 5 Digit

 1st digit (x0.15): design lift coefficient.

 2nd & 3rd digits (x0.5): location of maximum camber (as % of chord from LE).
 4th & 5th digits: maximum section thickness (as % of chord).

NACA 6 Digit

 1st digit: identifies the series type.

 2nd digit (x10): location of minimum pressure (as % of chord from leading
edge (LE)).

 3rd digit: indicates an acceptable range of CL above/below design value for

satisfactory low drag performance (as tenths of CL).

 4th digit (x0.1): design CL.

 5th & 6th digits: maximum section thickness (%c)

Among the aforementioned aerofoil options, the selected one for the current
design is the GOE 490 AIRFOIL, which offers the desired lift coefficient that
aligns with the design requirements.

To achieve an improved distribution of lift along the span and ensure

favourable stalling characteristics, it is commonly necessary to implement a
68
lower thickness-to-chord ratio (t/c) for the tip section and a higher t/c for the
root section. This design approach allows the root section to stall before the tip,
enabling the pilot to sense the resulting vibrations on the control stick and take
corrective action to prevent a stall.
Hence,
Section used at the mean aerodynamic chord - GOE 490 AIRFOIL
The section used at the tip - CLARK X
The section used at the root - S2027

Table 8.3 Aerofoil selection for root, tip and mean chord

CHORD AIRFOIL CL

ROOT NACA SC (2)-0404 0.7868

MEAN NACA SC (2)-0714 0.7734

TIP NACA SC (2)-0710 0.7868

CLmax = (0.7868+0.7734+0.7868) / 3= 0.7823

CLmaxAvailable 0.7041

69
 AEROFOIL GEOMETRY SELECTION

8.3.2.1 NACA SC (2)-0404

Figure 8.4 Geometry of NACA SC (2)-0404 Airfoil

8.3.2.2 NACA SC (2)-0714

Figure 8.5 Geometry of NACA SC (2)-0714Airfoil

8.3.2.3 NACA SC (2)-0710

Figure 8.6 Geometry of NACA SC (2)-0710 Airfoil

70
 PERFORMANCE CURVES

8.3.3.1 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0710

Figure 8.7 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0710

8.3.3.2 Performance curves for the chosen NACA SC (2)-0714

Figure 8.8 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0714

71
8.3.3.3 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0404

Figure 8.9 Performance curves for the chosen aerofoil NACA SC (2)-0404

8.4 HIGH LIFTING DEVICES

One of the design goals in wing design is to maximize the capability of the
wing in the generation of the lift. This design objective is technically shown as
maximum lift coefficient (CLmax). In a trimmed cruising flight, the lift is equal
to weight. When the aircraft generates its maximum lift coefficient, the airspeed
is referred to as stall speed.

CLmax =2W/((Vstall)2 *⍴*S)

Two design objectives among the list of objectives are: 1. maximizing the
payload weight, 2. minimizing the stall speed (Vs). As the equation 5.36
indicates, increasing the CLmax tends to increase the payload weight (W) and
decrease the stall speed. The lower stall speed is desirable since a safe take-off
and landing requires a lower stall speed. On the other hand, the higher payload
72
weight will increase the efficiency of the aircraft and reduce the cost of flight. A
higher CLmax allows the aircraft to have a smaller wing area that results in a
lighter wing. Hence, in a wing design, the designer must find way to maximize
the CLmax. In order to increase the lift coefficient, the only in-flight method is
to temporarily vary (increase) the wing camber. This will happen only when the
high lift device is deflected downward. In 1970’s the maximum lift coefficient at
take-off was 2.8; while the record currently belongs to Airbus A-320 with a
magnitude of 3.2.

The primary applications of high lift devices are during take-off and landing
operations. Since the airspeed is very low compared with the cruising speed, the
wing must produce a bigger lift coefficient. The aircraft speed during take-off
and landing is slightly greater than the stall speed. Airworthiness standards
specify the relationship between take-off speed and landing speed with stall
speed. As a general rule, we have,
VTO=K.VS
where k is about 1.1 for fighter aircraft, and about 1.2 for jet transports and GA
aircraft.

The application of the high lift device tends to change the airfoil section’s and
wing’s camber (in fact the camber will be positively increased). This in turn will
change the pressure distribution along the wing chord as sketched in figure 5.52.
In this figure, CP denotes the pressure coefficient.

In contrast, the leading edge high lift device tends to improve the boundary layer
energy of the wing. Some type of high lift device has been used on almost every
aircraft designed since the early 1930s. High lift devices are the means to obtain
the sufficient increase in CLmax.

At the airfoil level, a high lift device deflection tends to cause the following six
changes in the airfoil features:
1. Lift coefficient (Cl) is increased,
2. Maximum lift coefficient (CLmax) is increased,
3. Zero-lift angle of attack ( o) in changed,
4. Stall angle ( s) is changed,
5. Pitching moment coefficient is changed.
6. Drag coefficient is increased.
7. Lift curve slope is increased.
73
 Pressure distribution of the wing when HLD deflected

CP

Pressure distribution of original wing

f
x/C

Figure 8.10 Example of pressure distribution with the application of a high lift device

These effects are illustrated in figure 8.10. Along with three desirable
advantages (first two items) to the application of high lift devices; there are a
few negative side-effects (the last five items) as well. A plain flap tends to
decrease stall angle, while a slotted flap and leading edge slat tend to increase
the stall angle. In addition, among all types of flaps, the Fowler flap and leading
edge slat tend to increase the lift curve slope (CL ). On the other hand, leading
edge flap tend to increase (shift to the right) the zero-lift angle of attack ( o).

A reduction in stall angle is undesirable, since the wing may stall at a lower
angle of attack. During the take-off and landing operation, a high angle of
attack is required to successfully take-off and land. The high angle of attack
will also tend to reduce the take-off run and landing run that is desirable in the
airport at which have a limited runway length. An increase in pitching
moment coefficient requires higher horizontal tail area to balance the
aircraft. An increase in drag coefficient decreases the acceleration during take-
off and landing. Although the application of high lift device generates three
undesirable side effects, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
74
If the natural value of CLmax for an aircraft is not high enough for safe take-off
and landing, it can be temporarily increased by mechanical high lift devices.
Thus, employing the same airfoil section; one is able to increase CLmax
temporarily as needed without actually pitching the aircraft. Two flight
operations at which the CLmax needs to be increased are take-off and landing.
Table
8.4 shows the maximum lift coefficient for several aircraft at take-off and
landing
configurations.

In a cruising flight, there is no need to utilize the maximum lift coefficient since
the speed is high. These mechanical devices are referred to as High Lift Devices
(HLD). High Lift Devices are parts of wings to increase the lift when deflected
down. They are located at inboard section of the wing and usually employed
during take-off and landing.

75
8.4.1 High Lift Device Classification
Two main groups of high lift devices are:

1. Leading edge high lift device (LEHLD), and

2. Trailing edge high lift devices (TEHLD or flap).

There are many types of wing trailing edge flaps that the most common of them
are split flap, plain flap, single-slotted flap, double-slotted flap, triple-slotted
flap, and fowler flap as illustrated in figure 5.54a. They are all deflected
downward to increase the camber of the wing, so CLmax will be increased. The
most common of leading edge devices are leading edge flap, leading edge slat,
and Kruger flap as shown by in figure 5.54b.

A common problem with the application of high lift devices is how to deal with
the gap between high lift device and the main wing. This gap can be either
sealed or left untouched. In both cases, there are undesirable side effects. If the
gap left open, the airflow from downside escapes to the upper surface which in
turn degrades the pressure distribution. On the other hand, if the gap is sealed by
a means such diaphragm, it may be blocked by ice during flight into colder
humid air. In both cases, it needs special attention as an operational problem. In
the following, the technical features of various high lift devices are discussed.

1. The plain flap (figure 8.12-a) is the simplest and earliest type of high lift
device. It is an airfoil shape that is hinged at the wing trailing edge such that
it can be rotated downward and upward. However, the downward deflection
76
 is considered only. A plain flap increases the lift simply by mechanically
increasing the effective camber of the wing section. In terms of cost, a plain
flap is the cheapest high lift device. In terms of manufacturing, the plain flap
is the easiest one to build. Most home build aircraft and many General
Aviation aircraft are employing the plain flap. The increment in lift
coefficient for a plain flap at 60 degrees of deflection (full extension) is
about 0.9. If it is deflected at a lower rate, the CL increment will be lower.
Some old GA aircraft such as Piper 23 Aztec D has a plain flap. It is
interesting to know that the modern fighters such aircraft F-15E Eagle and
MIG-29 also employ plain flaps.

2. In the split flap (figure 8.12-b), only the bottom surface of the flap is hinged
so that it can be rotated downward. The split flap performs almost the same
function as a plain flap. However, the split flap produces more drag and less
change in the pitching moment compared to a plain flap. The split flap was
invented by Orville Wright in 1920, and it was employed, because of its
simplicity, on many of the 1930s and 1950s aircraft. However, because of
the higher drag associated with split flap, they are rarely used on modern
aircraft.

3. The single slotted flap (figure 8.12-c) is very similar to a plain flap, except it
has two modifications. First, the leading edges of these two trailing edge
flaps are different as shown in figure 8.12. The leading edge of a single
slotted flap is carefully designed such that it modifies and stabilizes the
boundary layer over the top surface of the wing. A low pressure is created on
the leading edge that allows a new boundary layer to form over the flap
which in turn causes the flow to remain attached to very high flap deflection.
The second modification is to allow the flap move rearward during the
deflection (i.e. the slot). The aft movement of single slotted flap actually
increases the effective chord of the wing which in turn increases the effective
wing planform area. The larger wing planform area naturally generated more
lift.

Thus a single slotted flap generates considerably higher lift than a plain and
split flap. The main disadvantage is the higher cost and the higher degree of
complexity in the manufacturing process associated with the single slotted
flap. Single slotted flap are in common use on modern light, general aviation
aircraft. In general, the stall angle is increased by the application of the
77
 slotted flap. Several modern GA light aircraft such as Beech Bonanza F33A
and several turboprop transport aircraft such as Beech 1900D and Saab 2000
has deployed single slotted flap.

4. The double slotted flap is similar to a single slotted flap, except it has two
slots; i.e., the flap is divided into two segments, each with a slot as sketched
in figure 8.12-d. A flap with two slots almost doubles the advantages of a
single slotted flap. This benefit is achieved at the cost of increased
mechanical complexity and higher cost. Most modern turboprop transport
aircraft such as ATR-42; and several jet aircraft such as and jet trainer
Kawasaki T-4 employ the double slotted flap. The jet transport aircraft
Boeing 767 has single slotted outboard flap and double slotted inboard flap.
It is a common practice to deflect the first segment (slot) of the flap during a
take-off operation, but employs full deflection (both segments) during
landing. The reason is that more lift coefficient is needed during a landing
that a take-off.

5. A triple slotted flap (figure 8.12-e) is an extension to a double slotted flap;

i.e. has three slots. This flap is mechanically the most complex; and costly
most expensive flap in design and operation. However, a triple slotted flap
produces the highest increment in lift coefficient. It is mainly used in heavy
weight transport aircraft which have high wing loading. The jet transport
aircraft Boeing 747 has employed the triple slotted flap.

6. A Fowler flap (figure 8.12-f) has a special mechanism such that when
deployed, not only deflects downward, but also translates or tracks to the
trailing edge of the wing. The second feature increases the exposed wing
area; which means a further increase in lift. Because of this benefit, the
concept of the Fowler flap may be combined with the double slotted and
triple slotted flaps. For instance jet transport aircraft Boeing B-747 has
utilized triple slotted Fowler flap. In general, the wing lift curve slope
is slightly increased by the application of the Fowler flap. Maritime patrol
aircraft Lockheed Orion P-3 with 4 turboprop engines has a Fowler engine.

7. A leading edge flap (or droop) is illustrated in figure 8.12-g. This flap is
similar to trailing edge plain flap, except it is installed at the leading edge of
the wing. Hence, the leading edge pivots downward, increasing the effective
78
 camber. A feature of the leading edge flap is that the gap between the flap
and main wing body is sealed with no slot. In general, the wing zero-lift
angle of attack is shifted to the right by the application of leading edge flap.
Since the leading edge flap has a lower chord compared with the trailing
edge flaps, it generates a lower increment in l
0.3).

8. The leading edge slat (see figure 8.12-h) is a small, highly cambered section,
located slightly forward of the leading edge the wing body. When deflected,
a slat is basically a flap at the leading edge, but with an unsealed gap
between the flap and the leading edge. In addition to the primary airflow
over the wing, there is a secondary flow that takes place through the gap

between the slat and the wing leading edge. The function of a leading edge
slat is primarily to modify the pressure distribution over the top surface of
the wing. The slat itself, being highly cambered, experiences a much lower
pressure over its top surface; but the flow interaction results in a higher
pressure over the top surface of the main wing body. Thus it delays flow
separation over the wing and mitigates to some extent the otherwise strong
adverse pressure gradient that would exist over the main wing section.

By such process, the lift coefficient is increased with no significant increase

in drag. Since the leading edge slat has a lower chord compared with the

about 0.2). Several modern jet aircraft such as two seat fighter aircraft
Dassault Rafale (Figure 6.8), Eurofighter 2000 (Figure 3.7), Bombardier
BD 701 Global Express, McDonnell Douglas MD-88 (Figure 9.4), and
Airbus A-330 (Figures 5.51 and 9.14) have leading edge slat. In general, the
wing lift curve slope is slightly increased by the application of leading edge
slat.

79
9. A Kruger flap is demonstrated in figure 8.12-i. This leading edge high
lift device is essentially a leading edge slat which is thinner, and which lies
flush with the bottom surface of the wing when not deflected. Therefore, it is
suitable for use with thinner wing sections. The most effective method used
on all large transport aircraft is the leading edge slat. A variant on the leading
edge slat is a variable camber slotted Kruger flap used on the Boeing747.
Aerodynamically, this is a slat, but mechanically it is aKruger flap.

As a general comparison, table 8.5shows the typical values of maximum

wing lift coefficient for various types of high lift devices. In this table, the
symbol Cf/C denotes the ratio between the chord of high lift device to the
chord of the main wing body. Table 8.5demonstrates various features for
high lift devices of several aircraft.

8.4.2. Design Technique

In designing the high lift device for a wing, the following items must be
determined:

1. High lift device location along the span

2. The type of high lift device (among the list in figure 8.12)
3. High lift device chord (Cf)
4. High lift device span (bf)
5. High lift device maximum deflection (down) ( fmax)

The last three parameters are sketched in figure 8.13. The first and second item
must be selected through an evaluation and analysis technique considering all
advantages and disadvantages of each option regarding design requirements.
However, the last three parameters must be determined through a series of

80
calculations. In the following, the design technique for high lift device to
determine the above five items will be presented.

a. HLD Location

The best location for high lift device is the inboard portion of both left and right
of the wing sections. When high lift device is applied symmetrically on the left
and right wing sections, it will prevent any rolling moment; hence the aircraft
will remain laterally trimmed. The deflection of high lift device will increase the
lift on both inboard sections, but since they are generated symmetrically, both
lift increments will cancel each other’s rolling moments.

There are two reasons for the selection of inboard section. First of all, it produces
a lower bending moment on the wing root. This makes the wing structure lighter
and causes less fatigue on the wing in the long run. The second reason is that it
allows the aileron to have a large arm, which is employed on the outboard wing
trailing edge. The larger arm for the aileron, when installed on the outboard
panels, means the higher lateral control and a faster roll. The design of the
aileron will be discussed.

81
b. Type of High Lift Device

The options for the high lift device are introduced. Several design requirements
will affect the decision on the type of high lift device. They include, but not
limited to: 1. Performance requirements (i.e. the required lift coefficient ( CL)
increment during take-off and landing); 2. Cost considerations; 3.
Manufacturing limitations; 4. Operational requirements; 5. Safety
considerations; and 6. Control requirements. The following guideline will help
the designer to make the right decision.

The final decision is the outcome of a compromise among all options using a
table including the weighted design requirements. For a homebuilt aircraft
designer, the low cost is the number one priority, while for a fighter aircraft
designer the performance is the first priority. A large transport passenger aircraft
designer, believe that the airworthiness must be on the top of the list of
priorities.

The following are several guidelines that relate the high lift device options to the
design requirements:

1. A more powerful high lift device (higher ) is usually more expensive.

For instance, a double slotted flap is more expensive than a split flap.
2. A more powerful high lift device (higher CL) is usually more complex to
build. For example, a triple slotted flap is more complex in manufacturing
than a single slotted flap.
3. A more powerful high lift device (higher CL) is usually heavier. For
instance, a double slotted flap is heavier than a single slotted flap.
4. The more powerful high lift device (higher CL), results in a smaller wing
area.
5. The more powerful high lift device (higher CL), results in a slower stall
speed, which consequently means a safer flight.
6. A heavier aircraft requires a more powerful high lift device (higher CL).
7. A more powerful high lift device results in a shorter runway length during
take-off
and landing.
8. A more powerful high lift device (higher CL) allows a more powerful
aileron.

82
9. A simple high lift device requires a simpler mechanism to operate (deflect or
retract) compared with a more complex high lift device such as a triple
slotted flap
.

SELECTED HIGH LIFT DEVICE : IS DOUBBLE SLOTTED

CL = 1.6(cf/c)

CL = 0.48

Therefore, Cl max = 2.2 – 0.48

83
8.5 TAIL SELECTION

INTRODUCTION

The rear section of an airplane is referred to by various terms, such as

"empennage" and "stabilizer," with the preferred term being "stabilizer" due to
its partial description of the component's function. However, the stabilizer serves
not only to provide stability but also contributes to the control of the airplane.
The purpose of the airplane's tail is to ensure both stability and control in pitch
and yaw. There are numerous tail configurations available that fulfil these dual
requirements of stability and control.

Most tail designs incorporate a horizontal wing-like structure along with one or
more vertical or near-vertical structures. Whenever possible, these components
are referred to as the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, although certain designs
may not neatly align with this description. The range of airplane tail designs
encompasses various types, including but not limited to the conventional, T-tail,
cruciform-tail, dual-tail, triple-tail, V-tail, inverted V-tail, inverted Y-tail, twin-
tail, boom-tail, high boom-tail, and multiple-plane tail designs.

CONVENTIONAL TAIL DESIGN

The most widely used tail design is the conventional configuration, which
features a single vertical stabilizer positioned at the tapered tail section of the
fuselage. Additionally, it incorporates a horizontal stabilizer that is divided into
two parts, one on each side of the vertical stabilizer. In numerous airplanes, this
conventional arrangement offers sufficient stability and control while
maintaining a comparatively lower structural weight.

T-TAIL DESIGN

In the T-tail design, which is a common variation of the conventional tail, the
horizontal stabilizer is situated at the top of the vertical stabilizer. This
placement allows the horizontal stabilizer to be positioned above the propeller
flow, known as prop wash, as well as the wake generated by the wings. As a
result, the horizontal stabilizer can be made smaller and lighter while
maintaining its efficiency. Additionally, positioning the horizontal stabilizer on

84
top of the vertical stabilizer enhances the aerodynamic efficiency of the vertical
stabilizer, enabling its size to be reduced.

However, the T-tail layout introduces bending and twisting loads on the vertical
stabilizer, necessitating a stronger and consequently heavier structure compared
to the conventional design, where such loads are avoided. Another potential
drawback of the T-tail design is the possibility that during landing, when the
aircraft is typically at a high pitch angle, the horizontal stabilizer may be
immersed in the slower and more turbulent airflow created by the wing wake.

DUAL-TAIL DESIGN

The dual-tail design, which features two vertical stabilizers positioned at the
ends of the horizontal stabilizers, was previously quite common in large flying
boats and twin-engine propeller-driven bombers like the North American-25.
This arrangement proves advantageous in certain cases as it places the vertical
stabilizers within the prop wash of wing-mounted propellers, ensuring effective
directional control during low-speed operations. By situating the two vertical
stabilizers at the ends of the horizontal stabilizers, a smaller, lighter, and more
aerodynamically efficient horizontal stabilizer can be achieved.
However, it should be noted that the overall weight of an aircraft equipped with
a dual-tail design is greater than that of an aircraft with a single conventional-tail
configuration. The dual tail design is incorporated in the Republic Fairchild A-
10 ground-attack aircraft, which features two rear-mounted jet engines. When
observing this aircraft from the rear and slightly to either side, the vertical
stabilizer obstructs the view of the engine exhausts, making them less visible.

Figure 8.14 types of tail

85
 TRIPLE-TAIL DESIGN

The triple-tail design, incorporating two vertical stabilizers located at the ends of
the horizontal stabilizers and one mounted on the fuselage, becomes appealing
when restrictions on the height of the vertical stabilizer need to be met, such as
in cases involving hangar-door height limitations. This consideration played a
significant role in the design of the Lockheed Constellation, a highly notable
passenger aircraft from the late 1940s. Another well-known example featuring
the triple-tail design is the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.

V-TAIL DESIGN

The V-Tail, also known as the "butterfly" tail, has seen limited application in
aircraft design, with one of the most notable implementations being by the
Beech Company in the Beechcraft Bonanza V-35. Traditional definitions of
horizontal and vertical stabilizers do not apply to the V-tail design. The
intended advantage of the V-tail configuration is to combine the functions of
two surfaces, effectively reducing drag and weight in the tail region compared
to the conventional tail and its variations. However, wind tunnel studies
conducted by the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) have
revealed that for the V-tail to achieve the same level of stability as a
conventional tail, the area of the V-tail must be approximately the same size as
that of the conventional tail.

BOOM-TAIL DESIGN

Boom tails are utilized when the fuselage of an aircraft does not extend all the
way back to the horizontal stabilizer. This design can be observed in both the
Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter of World War II and the Fairchild C-119 cargo
plane, where engines were mounted on the booms. In the case of the C-119, the
twin boom configuration allowed for convenient access to the rear of the
fuselage for cargo loading and unloading. Twin booms have also been employed
in aircraft with fuselage-mounted engines, featuring a "tractor" engine in the
nose and a "pusher" engine in the rear. This arrangement, with both engines'
thrust along the centerline of the aircraft, offers easier compensation in the event
of one engine failure compared to wing-mounted engine installations. Examples
of aircraft employing this design include the Cessna Skymaster and the new

86
Adam 309, with the Adam 309 featuring a raised horizontal stabilizer to avoid
propeller wake from the rear-mounted engine

8.6 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the aerofoil chosen for the root, mean, and tip chords maintains a
consistent thickness to chord ratio of 9%. To enhance the fighter's
manoeuvrability, double slotted flaps have been incorporated as high-lift
devices. As part of my Design Project, the fighters are equipped with the Triple
Tail Design. As highlighted earlier, this design offers improved stability
performance to the aircraft.

Figure 8.15 Wing Design

Root thickness = 3.928
Tip thickness = 0.982
t/c = 2.8
Aerofoil of Root: NASA SC (2)-0714 airfoil (NASA TP-2969)
Aerofoil of Tip: NASA SC (2)-0710 airfoil (NASA TP-2969)
Tail Configuration: Conventional Tail due its simplicity in build-up and
higher operational functions at high speed

9.
87
 10. CHAPTER 9
FUSELAGE AND LANDING GEAR SELECTION

9.1 FUSELAGE DESIGN:

The fuselage (/ˈfjuːzəlɑːʒ/; from the French fuselé "spindle-shaped") is an

aircraft's main body section that holds crew and passengers or cargo. In single-
engine aircraft it will usually contain an engine, although in some amphibious
aircraft the single engine is mounted on a pylon attached to the fuselage which in
turn is used as a floating hull. The fuselage also serves to position control and
stabilization surfaces in specific relationships to lifting surfaces, required for
aircraft stability and maneuverability

Mono coque shell

In this method, the exterior surface of the fuselage is also the primary structure.
A typical early form of this (see the Lockheed Vega) was built using molded
plywood, where the layers of plywood are formed over a "plug" or within a
mold. A later form of this structure uses fiberglass cloth impregnated with
polyester or epoxy resin, instead of plywood, as the skin. A simple form of this
used in some amateur-built aircraft uses rigid expanded foam plastic as the core,
with a fiberglass covering, eliminating the necessity of fabricating molds, but
requiring more effort in finishing (see the Rutan VariEze). An example of a
larger molded plywood aircraft is the de Havilland Mosquito fighter/light
bomber of World War II. No plywood-skin fuselage is truly monocoque, since
stiffening elements are incorporated into the structure to carry concentrated
loads that would otherwise buckle the thin skin. The use of molded fiberglass
using negative ("female") molds (which give a nearly finished product) is
prevalent in the series production of many modern sailplanes. The use of molded
composites for fuselage structures is being extended to large passenger aircraft
such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (using pressure-molding on female molds).

Semi-monocoque
This is the preferred method of constructing an all-aluminium fuselage. First, a
series of frames in the shape of the fuselage cross sections are held in position
on a rigid fixture. These frames are then joined with lightweight longitudinal
elements called stringers. These are in turn covered with a skin of sheet
aluminum, attached by riveting or by bonding with special adhesives. The

88
fixture is then disassembled and removed from the completed fuselage shell,
which is then fitted out with wiring, controls, and interior equipment such as
seats and luggage bins. Most modern large aircraft are built using this technique,
but use several large sections constructed in this fashion which are then joined
with fasteners to form the complete fuselage. As the accuracy of the final
product is determined largely by the costly fixture, this form is suitable for series
production, where a large number of identical aircraft are to be produced. Early
examples of this type include the Douglas Aircraft DC-2 and DC-3 civil aircraft
and the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Most metal light aircraft are constructed
using this process.

Both monocoque and semi-monocoque are referred to as "stressed skin"

structures as all or a portion of the external load (i.e. from wings and
empennage, and from discrete masses such as the engine) is taken by the surface
covering. In addition, all the load from internal pressurization is carried (as skin
tension) by the external skin.

The proportioning of loads between the components is a design choice dictated

largely by the dimensions, strength, and elasticity of the components available
for construction and whether or not a design is intended to be "self-jigging", not
requiring a complete fixture for alignment.

Figure 9.1 the design of the fuselage

89
 Figure 9.2 the length of the cockpit, fuselage nose, cabin at the rear and the fuselage tail as a function of the
fuselage diameter

Figure 9.3 Dimension of nose section

Figure 9.4 Fuselage design of C-wing and a blended wing body aircraft

90
Design calculation:
Nsa=0.45√ 1
=0.45

Width of the seat – 21 inch

Internal fuselage diameter =dfi

Dfi= 21in+0+2in

Gap between seat and side wall

2inch+2inch=4inch

Dfi=width of the seat + gap between seat and side wall

=21 inch+4inch
=25 inches
=25*0.0254m
=0.635m

Fuselage wall thickness(left and right )

∆d= dfouter-dfinner
= 0.084m+(0.045*0.635)
=0.1126m Outer fuselage diameter df=dfi+∆d
=0.635+0.1126
=0.7476

In fighter aircrafts there will be no cabins

Fuselage length:
lf= lcockpit+l tail
=3.5+(1.6*0.7476)
=4.69616
=4.7m

91
9.2 LANDING GEAR
The landing gear supports the aircraft when it is not flying, allowing it to take
off, land and usually to taxi without damage. Landing gear placement is
essential for ground stability and controllability. A good landing gear position
must provide superior handling characteristics and must not allow
overbalancing during take-off or landing.

9.2.1 Landing gear arrangement:

Landing gears normally come in two types: conventional or "taildragger"
landing gear, where there are two main wheels towards the front of the aircraft
and a single, much smaller, wheel or skid at the rear; or tricycle landing gear,
where there are two main wheels (or wheel assemblies) under the wings and a
third smaller wheel in the nose.
To decrease drag in flight some undercarriages retract into the wings and/or
fuselage with wheels flush against the surface or concealed behind doors; this
is called retractable gear. With a tricycle landing gear, the c.g is ahead of the
main wheels, so the aircraft is stable on the ground. It improves forward
visibility on the ground and permits a flat cabin floor for passengers and cargo
loading.

Tricycle gear is a type of aircraft undercarriage, or landing gear, arranged in a

tricycle fashion. The tricycle arrangement has a single nose wheel in the front,
and two or more main wheels slightly aft of the center of gravity. Tricycle gear
aircraft are the easiest to take-off, land and taxi, and consequently the
configuration is the most widely used on aircraft.
Several early aircraft had primitive tricycle gear, notably very early Antoinette
planes and the Curtiss Pushers of the pre-World War I Pioneer Era of aviation.
Waldo Waterman's 1929 tailless Whatsit was one of the first to have a steerable
nose wheel

Figure 9.5 A Mooney M20J with a retractable tricycle landing gear

92
 Figure 9.6 Polish 3Xtrim 3X55 Trener with a fixed tricycle landing gear taxing.

Tricycle gear and taildraggers compared

Tricycle gear is essentially the reverse of conventional landing gear or

taildragger. On the ground, tricycle aircraft have a visibility advantage for the
pilot as the nose of the aircraft is level, whereas the high nose of the taildragger
can block the view ahead. Tricycle gear aircraft are much less liable to 'nose
over' as can happen if a taildragger hits a bump or has the brakes heavily
applied. In a nose-over, the aircraft's tail rises and the propeller strikes the
ground, causing damage. The tricycle layout reduces the possibility of a ground
loop, because the main gear lies behind the center of mass. However, tricycle
aircraft can be susceptible to wheel-barrowing. The nosewheel equipped
aircraft also is easier to handle on the ground in high winds due to its wing
negative angle of attack. Student pilots are able to safely master nosewheel
equipped aircraft more quickly.[2]
Tricycle gear aircraft are easier to land because the attitude required to land on
the main gear is the same as that required in the flare, and they are less
vulnerable to crosswinds. As a result, the majority of modern aircraft are fitted
with tricycle gear. Almost all jet-powered aircraft have been fitted with tricycle
landing gear, to avoid the blast of hot, high-speed gases causing damage to the
ground surface, in particular runways and taxiways. The few exceptions have
included the Yakovlev Yak-15, the Supermarine Attacker, and prototypes such
as the Heinkel He 178, the first four prototypes (V1 through V4) of the
Messerschmitt Me 262, and the Nene powered version of the Vickers VC.1
Viking. Outside of the United States — where the tricycle undercarriage had
solidly begun to take root with its aircraft firms before that nation's World War
II involvement at the end of 1941 — the Heinkel firm in World War II

93
Germany began building airframe designs meant to use tricycle undercarriage
systems from their beginnings, as early as late 1939 with the Heinkel He 280
pioneering jet fighter demonstrator series, and the unexpectedly successful
Heinkel He 219 twin-engined night fighter of 1942 origin.[4]

94
9.2.2 Conclusion
A Cessna 150 taildragger:
The taildragger configuration has its own advantages, and is arguably more
suited to rougher landing strips. The tailwheel makes the plane sit naturally in a
nose-up attitude when on the ground, which is useful for operations on unpaved
gravel surfaces where debris could damage the propeller. The tailwheel also
transmits loads to the airframe in a way much less likely to cause airframe
damage when operating on rough fields. The small tailwheel is much lighter
and much less vulnerable than a nosewheel. Also, a fixed-gear taildragger
exhibits less interference drag and form drag in flight than a fixed-gear tricycle
aircraft whose nosewheel may sit directly in the propeller's slipstream.
Tailwheels are smaller and cheaper to buy and to maintain, and manhandling a
tailwheel aircraft on the ground is easier. Most tailwheel aircraft are lower in
overall height and thus may fit in lower hangars. Tailwheel aircraft are also
more suitable for fitting with skis in wintertime.

Figure 9.7 landing gear

95
 CHAPTER 10
LIFT AND DRAG CALCULATION

10.1 LIFT ESTIMATION

Component of aerodynamic force generated on aircraft perpendicular

to the flight direction.

Figure 10.1 lift representation

LIFT COEFFICIENT (CL)

• Amount of lift generated depends on:

– Planform area (S), air density (𝜌), flight speed (V), lift
coefficient(CL)

𝐿= 𝜌𝑉𝑠2𝑆𝐶𝐿

• CL is a measure of lifting effectiveness and mainly depends upon:

– Section shape, planform geometry, the angle of attack (𝛼),
compressibility effects
(Mach number), viscous effects (Reynolds’ number).

96
 GENERATION OF LIFT

• Aerodynamic force arises from two natural sources:

– Variable pressure distribution.
– Shear stress distribution.
• Shear stress primarily contributes to overall drag force on aircraft.
• Lift mainly due to pressure distribution, especially on main lifting
surfaces, i.e. wing.
• Require (relatively) low pressure on upper surface and higher pressure on
the lower surface.
• Any shape can be made to produce lift if either cambered or inclined to
flow direction.
• Classical aerofoil section is optimum for high subsonic lift/drag ratio.

LIFT AT TAKE-OFF

𝐿= 𝜌𝑉𝑠2𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥

ρ = Density at sea level = 1.225 Kg/m3 Vstall

Vstall = stalling speed = 61.51 m/s
s = 61 m2

𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.7868
Therefore, V = 0.7*1.2*61.51 = 51.66 m/s

𝐿 = X 1.225 X (59.154)2 X 61X 0.7868

L = 78452.914 N
L = 78.45KN

97
 LIFT AT CRUISE

𝐿= 𝜌𝑉𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒2 𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥

ρ = Density at 15000 m = 0.88 Kg/m3

V = Vcruise = cruising speed = 638.89 m/s

𝐿 = X 0.1216 X (638.89)2 X 61 X 14
L = 8775.86KN

LIFT AT LANDING

𝐿 = 𝜌𝑉𝑠2𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥
ρ = Density at sea level = 1.225 Kg/m3
Vstall = stalling speed = 70.422 m/s
S = 61 m2 CLmax = 0.65
V = 0.7*1.3*Vstall = 64.082 m/s

L = 26657221.54N
L = 26657.221 KN

98
10.2 DRAG ESTIMATION

DRAG:

• Drag is the resolved component of the complete aerodynamic force which

is parallel to the flight direction (or relative oncoming airflow).
• It always acts to oppose the direction of motion.
• It is the undesirable component of the aerodynamic force while the lift is
the desired component.

DRAG COEFFICIENT (CD)

• Amount of drag generated depends on:
1. Planform area (S), air density (𝜌), flight speed (V), drag coefficient
(CD)
2. CD is a measure of aerodynamic efficiency and mainly depends
upon:
I. Section shape, planform geometry, the angle of attack,
compressibility effects
(Mach number), viscous effects (Reynolds’ number).

DRAG COMPONENTS • SKIN FRICTION

1. Due to shear stresses produced in the boundary layer.

2. Significantly more for turbulent than laminar types of boundary
layers.

Figure 10.2 skin friction drags

99
• FORM (PRESSURE) DRAG
1. Due to static pressure distribution around the body -
component resolved in direction of motion.

2. Sometimes considered separately as forebody and rear

(base) drag components.

Figure 10.3 form drag

WAVE DRAG
1. Due to the presence of shock waves at transonic and
supersonic speeds.

2. The result of both direct shock losses and the influence of

shock waves on the boundary layer.

Figure 10.4 wave drag

100
Figure 10.5 Typical streamlining effect

101
CALCULATION:

DRAG AT TAKE-OFF

102
 DRAG AT CRUISE

DRAG AT LANDING

RESULT

Table 10.1 Result of Lift and Drag Calculation

CONDITION LIFT (KN) DRAG (KN)

TAKE OFF 78.45 90.706

CRUISE 8775.86 68.586

LANDING 26657.22 115.911

103
 CHAPTER 11
PERFORMANCE CALCULATION

INTRODUCTION

Our study of static performance (no acceleration) answered a number of questions

about the capabilities of a given airplane-how fast it can fly, how far it can go, etc.
However, there are more questions to be asked: How fast can it turn? How high
can it "zoom"? What ground distances are covered during takeoff and landing?
The answers to these questions ,involve accelerated flight, the subject of this
chapter.

11.1 CRUISING FLIGHT PERFORMANCE

11.1.1 Calculation of velocity at minimum thrust required

11.1.2 Calculation of Max. Lift to Drag ratio (L/D)max:

104
11.1.3 Calculation of velocity at Max Lift to Drag ratio V(L/D)max:

11.1.4 Thrust required minimum Trmin:

11.1.5 Power required minimum (Pr):

11.1.6 Thrust available:

11.1.7 Power available:

105
11.1.8 Max Rate of climb (R/C)max:

11.1.9 Velocity at max.rate of climb:

11.1.10 Level turn:

106
11.1.11 Turn Rate (ɷ):

11.2 TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE:

11.2.1 Takeoff distance:

11.2.2 Flight path radius:

11.2.3 Flight path angle:

11.2.4 Airborne Distance:

107
11.2.5 Total takeoff distance:

11.3 LANDING PERFORMANCE

11.3.1 Flare Velocity:

11.3.2 Flare Height:

11.3.3 Approach Distance:

108
11.3.4 Flare Distance:

11.4 GROUND ROLL

Table 11.1 Result of Performance Calculation

PARAMETER VALUE
Thrust required 196KN
Power required 20.34MNm/s
Power available 120.43MNm/s
Rate of climb 190.38m/s
Rate of sink 2.2m/s
Take-off distance 720.9m
Landing distance 1231.1m

12.
13.
14.

109
15. CHAPTER 12

THREE VIEWS OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Figure12.1 Side view of Fighter Aircraft

Figure 12.2 Top view of Fighter Aircraft

110
Figure 12.3 Front view of Fighter Aircraft

Figure 12.4 Isometric view of Fighter aircraft

111
 16. CHAPTER 13
17. RESULT AND CONCLUSION

WEIGHT
Table 13.1 Final result of Weight Estimations

PARAMETERS SI UNIT (Kg) IMPERIAL UNIT (Lbs)

35000 77161.79
Take-off Weight (WTO )
5808.44 12805.41
Fuel Weight (WF )
13000 28660.09
Empty Weight (WE )
8000 17636.98
Payload Weight (Wpayload )

ENGINE TYPE

• Kaveri engine (K-9) since the engine thrust is 196 KN. It is a afterburning
turbofan engine equipped
• Thrust required calculation 91.25 KN
WING TYPE

Delta wing with active close-coupled canard to maximize manoeuvrability.

AIRFOIL CHOSEN

• The section used at the tip – NACA SC (2)-0710

• The section used at the root – NACA SC (2)-0714

FUSELAGE TYPE

A semi-monocoque fuselage has been constructed.

EMPENNAGE TYPE

Twin tail plane configuration with vertical stabilizers is mounted.

112
LANDING GEAR

Retractable Tri-cyclic landing gears is constructed.

LIFT AND DRAG CALCULATION

Table 13.2 Final result of Lift and Drag Calculation

CONDITION LIFT (KN) DRAG (KN)

TAKE OFF 78.45 90.706

CRUISE 8775.86 68.586

LANDING 26657.22 115.911

PERFORMANCE CALCULATION

Table 13.3 Final Result of Performance Calculation

PARAMETER VALUE

THRUST REQUIRED 91.25KN

THRUST AVAILABLE 196KN

POWER REQUIRED 20.34 MNm/s

POWER AVAILABLE 120.43MNm/s

RATE OF CLIMB 190.38m/s

RATE OF SINK 2.2m/s

TAKE – OFF DISTANCE 720.9m

LANDING DISTANCE 1231.1 m

113
DISCUSSION
The Takeoff Weight estimated as 35000 Kg which most efficient for
Fighter Jet aircraft Delta wing with active close-coupled canard to maximize
manoeuvrability was selected. A semi-monocoque fuselage has been
constructed. Twin tail plane configuration with vertical stabilizers is mounted.
Retractable Tri-cyclic landing gears is constructed. Kaveri engine (K-9) since
the engine thrust is 196 KN. It is a afterburning turbofan engine equipped.
Thrust required calculation 91.25 KN.
The lift at takeoff was evaluated as 78.45 KN which is most required for takeoff
among other conditions such as cruise and landing. Drag at takeoff was
evaluated as 90.706 KN which should be less than landing condition. The
performance of aircraft was evaluated and compared with the optimum value
found. The takeoff distance was 720.9m and landing distance was 1231.1m.

114
 CHAPTER 14
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

CONCLUSION

The preliminary design of a Multirole Fighter aircraft has been completed, and
the necessary design considerations and performance parameters have been
calculated and determined. The obtained design values do not necessarily fully
reflect the aircraft's actual conceptual design, but they provide a basic
framework for development.

The final design remains faithful to the desired characteristics of a long-range

aircraft with high fuel efficiency. There is no definitive ideal design, as
continuous changes, improvements, and innovations are incorporated to
approach the optimal performance.

The design represents a harmonious blend of science, creativity, presence of

mind, and their application at the appropriate times. Designing anything requires
experience and a forward-looking approach toward achieving the ideal system.
The scientific community always strives for the best product design, which
demands a strong foundation in science and mathematics, along with their
skillful application—a challenging task assigned to the designer.

We have devoted considerable hard work to this design project. Designing is a

continuous process that takes us one step closer to the ideal system, rather than
being completed hastily. Throughout the aircraft design process, we have gained
valuable knowledge about aeronautics and its implications.

The challenges encountered during various phases of the project have

emphasized the vital role of experience in successfully designing an aircraft or
its components. We have dedicated significant effort to this project, and through
our work, we have acquired valuable learning experiences.

115
FUTURE WORK

The aforementioned work will further enrich our knowledge as a continuation of the
design presented in Aircraft Design Project-I.

In Design Project-II, we will delve into studying the design considering gust and
maneuverability envelopes. This includes analyzing the performance of critical
loading and conducting the final calculation of the V-n graph. Additionally, we will
adopt a theoretical approach to explore the study of structural design. This entails
estimating the loads on the wings and fuselage, as well as balancing and maneuvering
loads on the tailplane, aileron, and rudder. We will also be involved in designing the
structural layout of the aeroplane, including components such as wings and the
fuselage. Ultimately, a comprehensive design report will be prepared, accompanied
by sketches or drawings.

116
 References
1. Aircraft performance and design, “John D. Anderson, Jr. University
of Maryland”

2. Aircraft design – A conceptual approach, “Daniel P. Raymer

president Conceptual Research Cooperation, Sylmar California”

3. An example of airplane preliminary design procedure – Jet

Transport, “E.

G. Tulapurkara, A. Venkattraman, V. Ganesh”

4. Aircraft Design A Systems Engineering Approach, “Mohammad H.

Satrapy, Daniel Webster College, New Hampshire, USA

5. Design of Aircraft, “Thomas C. Corke, University of

6. Notre Dame”

NPTEL Airplane Design (Aerodynamic), professor E.G.

Tulapurkara. REFRENCES

7. Prof. Dieter Shoclz notes on Aircraft Design

8. http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data
9. https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/aircraft_char_databa se/
10. http://airfoiltools.com/
11. http://www.combataircraft.com/
12. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/air
craft/a mt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch13.pdf
13. https://www.military.com/equipment/fighter-aircraft
14. http://www.airfoildb.com/
15. https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/
16. https://www.militaryfactory.com/

117
17. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/
18. https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/engines
19. https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-
services/civilhttps://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/civil
aerospace.aspxaerospace.aspx
20. http://getdrawings.com/aircraft-drawing
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593

118
2
5.