Aircraft Design Projects Episode 12 ppt

“chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 311 — #2 Project study: a general aviation amphibian aircraft 311 10.1 Introduction Many early aircraft designs were developed for take-off and landing on water. With the absence of readily available level and mowed fields, lakes and even the ocean were looked upon as ideal choices for a place to land or take-off. This allowed operation in a wide range of headings to accommodate wind direction. It also did not require any preparation for landing or take-off other than a quick look to make sure that boats or debris were not in the fight path. This provided a decided advantage over land-based operations where real estate had to be purchased or rented, obstacles (tree stumps and rocks) cleared, and grass cut to a reasonable height or a hardened earth or macadam surface prepared. In emergencies, a lake was also more likely to be clear of obstacles than a farmer’s field that might be filled with cattle or bisected by a fence. Hence, many early airplane designers opted for a seaplane configuration. In the event that land operation was sought, an amphibian design offered the capability of water or land operation. In fact, due to the public’s lack of confidence in airplane engine reliability, it was not until almost the mid-twentieth century that long, overwater passenger flights (transatlantic, transpacific, Caribbean, etc.) were routinely attempted in anything other than seaplanes or amphibians. With extensive use of land-based aircraft to transport military personnel during World War II and with improvement in engine reliability, the flying public gained the confidence needed for such aircraft to replace their water-based counterparts. This allowed inland airports to replace coastal sites as ports of entry and exit for overseas flights and the large amphibians and seaplanes of the 1930s and 1940s were retired from service. In the general aviation (GA) field, seaplanes and amphibians have always occupied a small but important niche in the marketplace, used primarily for operations into andout of remote areas where lakes were more plentiful than airports. Today, most such aircraft tend to be ‘floatplanes’, aircraft originally designed for land operation to which have been added rather large floats to replace the conventional wheeled undercarriage. Such aircraft are usually considerably slower in flight and more limited in performance than their original designs due to the added weight and drag of the floats. In attempts to get better overall performance, a few specialty aircraft have been designed as amphibians with a hull fuselage. However, the compromises required to allow both land and water operations have still resulted in added weight and complexity, and a lower cruise speed than conventional land-based aircraft designs. In the following summary of the design process, emphasis will be placed on the factors unique to amphibian aircraft. Consideration of aspects of the process that are common to all aircraft designs will be given more cursory coverage. 10.2 Project brief The design of a modern, general aviation airplane for operation on both land and water proved an interesting challenge for a group of aerospace engineering students. They wanted to enter their design in the National General Aviation Design Competition sponsored by NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States in the late 1990s. In this case, the ‘customers’ for the aircraft being designed consisted of a group of judges in a design competition and the original ‘specifications’ for the design were the competition guidelines. Some of these guidelines were rather broad. They included “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 312 — #3 312 Aircraft Design Projects basic goals of promoting the development of designs for aircraft or related systems that would result in the modernization of general aviation programs in the United States. 10.2.1 Aircraft requirements Specific design guidelines included: • a payload of four to six passengers/crew, • single engine (propeller) propulsion, • a minimum range of 800 to 1000 statute miles (1300 to 1600 km), • a cruise speed of between 150 and 300 kt (77 to 154 m/s). The design team set additional general goals which included matching or exceeding the performance capabilities (range, speed, climb rate, take-off and landing distances, etc.) of current, conventional, general aviation aircraft. 10.3 Initial design considerations The need for waterborne operation places demands on the design of an amphibian aircraft far beyond those encountered in conventional planes. These include the need for a watertight ‘hull’ (or lower fuselage) and the consideration of buoyancy and center of gravity relationships. These must allow efficient waterborne take-off and landing and provide balance for the craft in low- and zero-speed operations in water. Wing and engine placement are important decisions in this design process. It is essential to avoid water spray during landing and take-off interfering with the engine. A decision was necessary on the placement of the propulsion unit. Two options are possible, the propeller and engine are either positioned in front of the aircraft and its spray, as is common in floatplanes, or above the wing where the wing and fuselage act as spray barriers. Most modern amphibians have the engine and propeller placed above the wing/fuselage, with some actually mounting the engine in the vertical tail. With this option, attention must be given to the resulting pitching moments caused by engine thrust changes. Placement of the engine above and behind the wing may also result in some interesting weight and balance problems. For both configurations, it is important to be aware of the influence of the propeller wake on aircraft components behind the engine (e.g. vertical fin, rudder, horizontal stabilizer, and the wing). If a tractor configuration is adopted, whereby the propeller is ahead of the wing, the prop- wash has both adverse and beneficial effects on the aerodynamics of the wing. This is especially critical on take-off. 10.4 Design concepts Comparing existing aircraft, with emphasis on modern amphibian designs, resulted in the selection of a configuration similar to that shown in Figure 10.1. A sleek and relatively simple layout, with both wing and engine mounted on a single strut above the fuselage, was selected. The engine is configured as a pusher propeller. The cruciform tail placed the horizontal stabilizer in the propeller wake, enhancing pitch control during take-off, which is an important factor in take-off from water. Small span sponsons were placed slightly forward of the main wing at the base of the fuselage. This gave the aircraft a ‘stagger-wing’ appearance. The sponsons provide roll stability in water, “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 313 — #4 Project study: a general aviation amphibian aircraft 313 Fig. 10.1 Initial aircraft layout sketch house the retractable landing gear for use on land, and provide some additional lift. Figure 10.1 shows the initial design layout with all components in their chosen position. This allowed the weight/mass and balance of the aircraft to be calculated. 10.5 Initial layout and sizing Initial sizing was performed using published methods 1 with data inputs from a com- parative study of existing amphibian and conventional single-engine four-place general aviation aircraft. The sizing procedure was tested against existing aircraft and found to be reasonably accurate. This gave the team confidence in the resulting estimate of 1402 kg (3092 lb) take-off gross mass (weight). This is heavier than conventional GA aircraft but is not out of line with current high performance floatplanes carrying four or more people. 10.5.1 Wing selection The requirements of the General Aviation Design Competition demanded a cruise speed of at least 150 knots and a range of 800–1000 miles. Few current general avia- tion amphibian aircraft can match these requirements and meeting these criteria would be difficult. It was felt that an excellent engine and a modern, clean-wing design was needed. The Zoche diesel engine was selected to satisfy the first of these requirements. For the second, the NASA LS(1)-0413 airfoil, sometimes known as the GA(W)-2 sec- tion, was chosen because of its high lift to drag ratio, reasonable stall, and good pitching moment behavior. NACA 0009 section was selected for the vertical and horizontal tail and the NACA 0009-65 section was used for the sponson. The engine pylon also used a 9 percent thick section. Based on an assumed design cruise speed of about 90 m/s (175 kt), at an altitude of 2286 m (7500 ft), a wing area of 16.3 m 2 (175 ft 2 ) was selected. A mean chord of 1.2 m (5 ft) and span of 10.7 m (35.1 ft) gave an aspect ratio of about 7. The use of a wing taper was evaluated but it was determined to be an unnecessary manufacturing complexity. A wing twist (washout angle) of 2 ◦ gave near minimum induced drag performance while not making the construction too complex. Flaps and ailerons were sized using methods based on comparable aircraft designs. 1 However, the desire to avoid deflection of the flow through the pusher propeller led to the study of flaperons (flap/aileron combinations). It was expected that this would allow larger flap spans and improved flap effectiveness at lower angles of deflection “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 314 — #5 314 Aircraft Design Projects than would be required by a more complex and heavier flap. The calculated 2.78 percent reduction in landing speed did not justify this extra complexity. Hence a conventional flap and aileron system was selected with each flap having a 2.95 m (9.66 ft) span and a 0.46 m (18 in) chord. The ailerons have the same chord but 1.3 m (4.25 ft) spans. The 2-D basic airfoil section is known to have a stall lift coefficient in excess of 2.0. The maximum 3-D wing lift coefficients are estimated as 1.7 with no flap deflection, 2.07 with 15 ◦ flap deflection, and 2.44 with 30 ◦ flap deflection. The 30 ◦ flap deflection gives a landing speed of 25.2 m/s (49 kt). 10.5.2 Engine selection The choice of an engine for this aircraft was influenced by the need for sufficient power to provide performance comparable toconventional GA aircraft, reasonable cost, and low maintenance requirements. More unique requirements included the desire to operate on fuels other than conventional GA fuels (to allow operation in remote locations) and the desire to meet modern emissions requirements. A dozen or more commercially available conventional aircraft piston engines along with several turboprop and turbo- shaft designs from several manufacturers were evaluated. Most of the turboprop and turbo-shaft engines provided superb power to weight ratios and the promise of low cost maintenance and relatively low fuel cost; however, their initial price was several times that of their piston counterparts. The piston engines provided a proven product for efficient operation at lower cruise speeds but were comparatively heavy and most required fuel which is not universally available. The engine selected was a modern diesel engine designed by the Zoche Aero-Diesel Company of Germany. The ZO-02A radial diesel engine promised operation at up to 300 horsepower with a mass (weight) of 123 kg (271 lb). The engine accepts a wide range of fuels including diesel, JP-4, JP-5, JetA, and even ordinary kerosene, with lower pollutant emission than comparable piston engines. The manufacturer also promised a 30 percent reduction in specific fuel consumption compared to conventional piston engines. The engine also promised a number of advanced features which would pro- vide much easier starting and lower vibration than typically found with diesel engines. The selection of a diesel engine for this design may appear somewhat unconventional but diesels have been used in aircraft applications since the 1920s and today several advanced diesel designs are being evaluated for use in new general aviation applications. The Hartzell Propeller Company was asked to recommend a propeller which would match the desired performance characteristics of the aircraft to the power output of the Zoche engine. Hartzell recommended a 1.78 meter (70 inch) diameter, three blade, composite, variable pitch, reversing propeller design based on the Hartzell HC-C2YR- 1RLF/FL6890. 10.5.3 Hull design The unique requirement for an amphibian aircraft is its need to take off and land on water. This operation must also include the ability to maneuver on water at low speed and to be both statically and dynamically stable. Developing a hull for an amphibian requires the aircraft designer to become acquainted with somewhat different terminology than that usually associated with modern airplanes. The fuselage width becomes the ‘beam’ and the ‘waterline’ com- monly used as a reference in aircraft design drawings takes on a more realistic meaning. Relevant hull (fuselage underside) dimensions now include the ‘maximum beam’, the ‘step height’, the forebody and afterbody ‘keel angles’, and the ‘sternpost angle’. These and other terms are illustrated in the Figure 10.2. “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 315 — #6 Project study: a general aviation amphibian aircraft 315 Water line Bow Trim angle Chine Keel Deadrise CG Fore-body Flat Fore-body After-body Planing bottom Beam Deadrise angle 10° After-body angle Stern Water line Rearstep heel Step Sternpost angle Fig. 10.2 Seaplane hull geometry (reference 2) Because of the relative rarity of amphibious aircraft in today’s marketplace, coverage of the design requirements for this type of aircraft in modern design texts is often omitted. Two exceptions are the texts of Darroll Stinton 2 and the slightly older work of David Thurston. 3 The reader is referred to these excellent references for a complete coverage of this subject. Using these texts, along with NACA TN 2503, 4 and a 1989 Dornier report, 5 a hull shape appropriate to the proposed four person amphibian aircraft was designed. The amphibian aircraft must meet five water-related criteria: • it must be buoyant, • it must be statically stable when sitting in water, • it must be dynamically stable when moving through water, • it should be shaped to minimize water spray impingement on the aircraft during waterborne operation, and • it must be shaped to allow hydrodynamic lift during take-off, and in so doing, to counter the suction force between the water and the hull. In addition to these criteria, it must have sufficient power to overcome the high drag of a waterborne take-off and have enough pitch control force to counter the moments imposed by the hydrodynamic forces. Many plots and equations have been developed in references 3, 4, and 5 to aid the designer in selecting appropriate hull shapes and dimensions and in determining the location of the waterline under various loading conditions. The process began by estimating the MTOM (TOGW) and the ‘beam’ of the aircraft. The selected beam width of 1.3 m (4.25 ft) was based on cabin ergonomic requirements. “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 316 — #7 316 Aircraft Design Projects The aircraft forebody length (step to bow), at 4.75 m (15.6 ft), was determined using the equation below and a graph relating the hull forebody length to beam ratio, to the gross load coefficient (C 0 ) from published criteria 3 : C 0 =  0 /(wb 3 ) where b is the maximum beam of the chine, w is the specific mass (weight) of water, and  0 is the displacement of the aircraft. C 0 was determined to be 0.626 Using the same criteria 3 and the equation below, the spray coefficient, K,was calculated: K =  0 /(wbL 2 f ) = 0.0465 L f is the length of the forebody. The magnitudes of both C 0 and K point to a light spray design which will have stable landings. Based on published recommendations, the afterbody length was determined 5 to be 114 percent of the forebody. A step is needed in the hull profile to introduce a layer of air between the water and the hull. This breaks the inherent suction force during take-off. The dimensions of this and the sternpost angle, σ (the angle between the forebody and afterbody), were found from Thurston. 3 A simple transverse step was sized to be 10 percent of the maximum beam (0.155 m or 6 in). This should provide adequate hull ventilation and quick transition from the displacement to the planing modes on the take-off run. The aft 1.9 m (6.24 ft) of the 4.76 m (15.6 ft) forebody is referred to as the ‘forebody flat’ and is designed to reduce porpoising. The keel line of the flat is inclined at 2 ◦ to improve planing effects. The ‘deadrise’ angle, the angle between the vee-shaped hull bottom and the horizontal, was selected at 20 ◦ . This is a compromise between the need for efficient planing and to reduce impact forces on landing. The afterbody keel angle was determined to be 6.6 ◦ , giving a sternpost angle of 8 ◦ . The dead-rise warping of the afterbody increases linearly from 20 ◦ at the step to 40 ◦ at the stern. The resulting lengths and angles, along with the calculated static waterlines, are presented in Figure 10.3. The waterlines are those for the static aircraft in fresh water for both the empty and fully loaded cases. 10.5.4 Sponson design For static stability, and to a lesser degree dynamic stability, there is a need for additional surfaces to provide balance in roll when the aircraft is afloat. The static roll stability depends on the relative locations of the center of gravity and the center of buoyancy of the aircraft. The relatively high center of gravity location on an aircraft necessitates devices such as widely spaced floats or sponsons to maintain positive stability in low- speed water operation. Having made the decision not to design a floatplane, the choice was between sponsons or floats placed somewhere on the wings. Sponsons offered the promise of lower drag and added lift in flight when compared to wing mounted floats unless a heavy and complex retractable float system was designed. Wing tip floats, used on many amphibians, would have required long struts (about 6 feet) and would have resulted in high drag and high in-flight twist moments on the wings unless they were retractable. The choice of sponsons rather than floats was also based on an ability to “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 317 — #8 Project study: a general aviation amphibian aircraft 317 Water lines Empty loading (4.3°) Fully loaded (1.6°) 0.13 m (0.425 ft) 8° 23.78° 4.75 m (15.6 ft) 5.03 m (16.5 ft) Fig. 10.3 Hull dimensions and static waterlines Front view 0.38 m (1.24ft) 0.152 m (0.5ft) 0.305 m (1ft) Top view Side view 1.98 m (6.5ft) 2.31 m (7.59ft) 1.08 m (3.52ft) Fig. 10.4 Sponson geometry provide a location for the main landing gear with sufficient lateral spacing to ensure stability in conventional land operations. The sponson dimensions, shown in Figure 10.4, resulted from buoyancy and stability calculations and from the desire to use them for passenger egress, for the main gear location, and for spray suppression in take-off. The sponsons used an NACA 0009-65 section, a modified 0009 with the maximum thickness moved aft to accommodate the landing gear and tire. A ‘Finch’ wing tip was employed to increase the displacement and to provide a slight aerodynamic performance boost. The sponson leading edge was swept 16.7 ◦ . The sponson section profile is mounted at an angle to give a slight positive angle of attack in the take-off run for any loading situation and a near zero lift at cruise incidence. 10.5.5 Other water operation considerations To aid in control at low speeds in water, a small, retractable water rudder is designed to be deployed from the aircraft afterbody. This is not extended during take-off or landing but, when deployed, is coupled to the control cable system to operate in co-ordination with the aircraft rudder. “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 318 — #9 318 Aircraft Design Projects To meet FAR requirements for water operations mooring hooks must be provided. These were designed to be temporarily mounted to the fuselage for water-based use. Seat cushions which are approved flotation devices and an anchor must also be provided, and oars must also be available for use in case of engine failure while in water. Operation in conditions above ‘sea state two’ is not recommended. If the craft is to be parked or docked for prolonged time it should be taxied onto land. 10.5.6 Other design factors Due to the nature of the design competition for which this aircraft was being developed, considerable attention was given in the design process to cockpit layout, pilot and passenger ergonomics, ice detection and elimination systems, and manufacturing requirements. Indeed, the unique structure of the aircraft was designed with a strong emphasis on ease of manufacturing. Extensive use of composite materials was employed with carbon fiber used with aluminum for all structurally critical areas. Inexpensive to fabricate, blown chopped fiberglass is used in low stress areas of the hull and fuselage. A complete plan for a manufacturing plant, assembly procedures, tooling requirements, quality assurance inspection procedures, and even a full analysis of production times and personnel requirements, was included in the final design report. 9 10.6 Initial estimates Once the amphibious features of the aircraft were developed it was possible to per- form a relatively conventional analysis of the vehicle’s aerodynamic behavior and flight performance and to design a satisfactory structural layout. 10.6.1 Aerodynamic estimates Based on calculations of wetted areas and using average skin friction coefficients, the C D0 for the entire aircraft, referenced to the gross wing planform area, was estimated to be 0.0227. A well-known vortex lattice code developed at NASA 6,7 was used to calculate the wing and sponson aerodynamics. This was also used to determine the wing spanwise loading, under various flight conditions, for structural analysis. The Oswald efficiency factor for the wing was calculated to be 0.88. The drag polar based on these calculations is: C D = 0.0227 + 0.05154C 2 L 10.6.2 Mass and balance Using the initial sizing provided a starting point and some guesses for aircraft geometry. A statistical group weights method 1 for general aviation aircraft was used to more accurately determine component masses. The aircraft was designed with a constant 1.53 m (60.2 in) chord wing and its quarter chord is located 4.425 m (174.22 in) from the nose of the aircraft. The final mass statement showed a preliminary design estimate for MTOM (TOGW) of 1311 kg (2890 lb). This was slightly less than the initialestimate. Much of this improvement was due to the selection of a lightweight, diesel engine to power the aircraft. Table 10.1 lists the determined component masses (weights) and their positions (fuselage station and waterline) are quoted relative to the nose of the aircraft and the nominal ground plane. The fuel weight is based on 80 US gallons capacity. The component mass locations are shown in Figure 10.5. “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 319 — #10 Project study: a general aviation amphibian aircraft 319 Table 10.1 Component masses (weights) and locations Item Description Mass weight (lb) kg Fuselage stn. m (in) Waterline m (in) Structures group 1 Wing 117.9 (260) 4.65 (183.0) 2.94 (116.0) 2 Sponsons 20.0 (44) 3.64 (143.4) 0.77 (30.5) 3 Horizontal tail 9.5 (21) 9.56 (376.4) 2.95 (116.0) 4 Vertical tail 10.9 (24) 9.40 (370.0) 2.61 (103.0) 5 Fuselage 132.0 (291) 4.40 (173.3) 1.65 (65.0) 6 Nacelle 17.7 (39) 5.09 (200.4) 2.95 (116.0) 7 Main landing gear 47.6 (105) 7.07 (278.2) 0.77 (30.5) 8 Nose landing gear 19.5 (43) 0.76 (30.0) 1.02 (40.0) Total structures 375.1 (827) Propulsion group 9 Engine 122.9 (271) 5.77 (227.0) 2.95 (116.0) 10 Propeller 22.7 (50) 6.27 (247.0) 2.95 (116.0) 11 Fuel system 15.0 (33) 4.78 (188.3) 2.41 (94.7) Total propulsion 160.6 (354) Fixed equipment 12 Avionics, electronics 35.8 (79) 1.48 (58.4) 1.48 (58.4) 13 Electrical system 21.3 (47) 4.34 (170.8) 1.72 (67.7) 14 Battery 11.3 (25) 5.49 (216.0) 1.48 (58.4) 15 Hydraulic system 1.4 (3) 4.34 (170.8) 1.48 (58.4) 16 Flight controls 13.2 (29) 5.08 (200.0) 1.65 (65.0) 17 Furnishings 84.4 (186) 2.84 (112.0) 1.31 (51.4) 18 Anchor, mooring lines 13.6 (30) 3.92 (154.4) 1.20 (47.4) Total fixed equipment 181.0 (399) Useful load 19 Passengers 308.4 (680) 2.84 (112.0) 1.31 (51.4) 20 Baggage 68.0 (150) 3.91 (154.0) 1.20 (47.4) 21 Fuel (usable and reserve) 217.7 (480) 4.11 (162.0) 1.78 (70.0) Total useful load 594.2 (1310) MTOM (TOGW) 1310.9 (2890) 3.99 (157.1) 1.82 (71.7) 0 1 12345678910 400 Inches Meter s 3002001000 Fuselage station 2 3 100 Meters Inches Waterline station CG range 12 8 17,19 18,20 13,15 21 5 16 14 11 6 10 9 12 7 3 4 Fig. 10.5 Location of component masses “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 320 — #11 320 Aircraft Design Projects A weight and balance analysis based on the above information yielded the in-flight CG excursion diagram shown in Figure 10.6. This figure shows the envelope of possible loading configurations of the design. In this figure, the empty mass (weight) is defined as the aircraft equipped but empty. The operating masses (weights) includes the weight of the pilot and unusable fuel. This represents the minimum mass (weight) at which the airplane can fly. For this design, this represents the aft limit of CG placement. The forward-most position of the center of gravity occurs with a pilot, three passengers, baggage, and with minimal fuel. Figure 10.6 also shows the calculated control limits of the aircraft. The positive static limit allows 5 percent positive static stability. The take-off rotation limit defines the extreme position allowed for rotation at take-off with full horizontal stabilizer deflection. The aircraft moments of inertia are needed for determination of the vehicle stabil- ity derivatives. These were calculated 1 using the component masses (weights) shown previously and summarized in Table 10.2. Weight (lb) Mass (kg) 3000 2500 2000 1500 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 50% 40% 30% Static margin (%MAC) 20% 10% 0% MTOM (TOGW) Empty mass Positive static limit Take-off rotation limit –Front passenger operating mass –Rear passengers –Fuel +Fuel +Rear passengers +Front passenger +Baggage –Baggage Fig. 10.6 Aircraft center of gravity diagram Table 10.2 Aircraft moments of inertia Mass (weight) I xx I yy I zz Loading kg (lb) kg-m 2 (sl-ft 2 ) kg-m 2 (sl-ft 2 ) kg-m 2 (sl-ft 2 ) Operating mass 796.1 (1755) 1726.7 (1273.23) 2534.3 (1868.78) 3216.6 (2371.85) (weight) MTOM (TOGW) 1310.9 (2890) 1902.8 (1403.24) 3143.9 (2318.25) 3725.7 (2747.28) [...]... interpersonal skills As such, ‘teaming’ places unique demands on the design process Nevertheless, most experts agree that, despite the added difficulties, “chap11” — 2003/3/10 — page 333 — #3 333 334 Aircraft Design Projects Problem definition Project brief Information retrieval Aircraft datafile Specific design issues Aircraft requirements Design concept(s) Candidate concept(s) Project group formation Initial... #9 339 340 Aircraft Design Projects It is important that the minutes are prepared in advance of the next meeting As design meetings on academic courses may be frequent (e.g weekly) a deadline no later than 72 hours following the end of the meeting is reasonable The format of minutes is standardised as shown below: Aircraft Preliminary Design Group Project MINUTES of the regular aircraft design group... thrust against aircraft forward speed (SL) Power versus velocity 300 000 400 kw 250 000 Power available 300 kw Power required Power (ft lb)/s 200 000 150 000 200 kw 100 000 100 kw 50 000 50 m/s 100 m/s Velocity (ft/s) Fig 10.8 Power against aircraft forward speed (SL) “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 321 — #12 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 321 322 Aircraft Design Projects the... configuration, or to review the aircraft specification It would be necessary then to recalculate the constraint diagram to see if the design lies in a feasible design region Checklists are only a means of logically triggering your thoughts about a problem to be solved They are not designed, or intended, to be a replacement for your own careful consideration of the problem Many design projects involve significant... industry The entire structure is designed to meet FAR 23 requirements The aircraft V -n diagram is presented in Figure 10.10 10.7 Baseline layout The resulting design, shown in Figure 10.11, was selected as a finalist in the 1997 NASA/FAA General Aviation Design Competition and was awarded third prize This sleek design attracted considerable attention when the student design team presented it at a NASA... current land-based and amphibious designs If, as this study indicates, such a vehicle could be built and sold for a price comparable to single-engine, land-based aircraft, there seems little reason why such a design could not live up to the title given by its student designers, of ‘general aviation’s sport utility vehicle’ References 1 Raymer, Daniel, P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American... VenTure, a design report submitted to the NASA/FAA General Aviation Design Competition’, Dept of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, May 1997 “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 330 — #21 11 Design organisation and presentation The early chapters described how the preliminary design phase is organised The case studies have illustrated several different ways that the design process... the problem, will lead to weak and shallow work To help you to concentrate on the fundamental design problem a checklist has been compiled This is described in section 11.1 below In many academic design courses, aircraft projects are undertaken by groups of students This is intentionally arranged by the course designers to provide experience in ‘team working’ For most of the studying that you have done... that you are aware of at this point in the design process.) 5 With the preceding knowledge, can you write a complete aircraft operational requirement? (If not, more work will be needed on questions 1 to 4!) 6 What aircraft concepts might be considered for the design solution? (This requires a freethinking (brainstorming) period in which all your dreams (about aircraft! ) can be considered Do not worry... experience as part of the design exercise as well as a satisfying ‘closure’ to the process, even if the test results do not fully confirm the predicted airplane performance An added benefit is having a model of the design which can be painted for later display and used to make photographs like the one in Figure 10.14 “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 327 — #18 327 328 Aircraft Design Projects 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 CL . broad. They included “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 312 — #3 312 Aircraft Design Projects basic goals of promoting the development of designs for aircraft or related systems that would result in. ‘beam’ of the aircraft. The selected beam width of 1.3 m (4.25 ft) was based on cabin ergonomic requirements. “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 316 — #7 316 Aircraft Design Projects The aircraft forebody. co-ordination with the aircraft rudder. “chap10” — 2003/3/10 — page 318 — #9 318 Aircraft Design Projects To meet FAR requirements for water operations mooring hooks must be provided. These were designed to