Regional Aircraft Design Project

(R831V)

Group 16
Wing Lon See 2111037
Josh Evens 2087805
Max Grewar 2088759
SeifAllah ElTayeb 2092091

Supervisor:
John McIntyre 2019777

April 24, 2015

Contents
I

Design Specification

1 Introduction

2 Market Research
2.1 Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 Competitor Market Outlook and Forecast Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2 Potential Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5
5
5
6

II

Aircraft Design

3 Fuselage and Empennage

3.1 Cabin Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Multiple Utility Interior . . . . . . .
3.3 Empennage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Empennage Specification

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

8
. 8
. 10
. 10
. 11

4 Aerodynamics
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Wing Configuration and Position
4.3 Tailplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Aerofoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 High Lift Devices . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Wing Dimensions . . . . . . . . . .
4.7 Future Technologies . . . . . . . .
4.8 Performance Specifications . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

12
12
12
14
15
16
16
17
18

5 Propulsion
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Propulsion System Comparison
5.2.1 Turboprop . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Turbojet . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Turbofan . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Number of Engines . . . . . . . .
5.4 Engine Placement . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Engine Specification . . . . . . .
5.6 Auxiliary Power Unit . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

20
20
20
20
21
22
23
23
24
25

6 Landing Gear
6.1 Introduction . . . .
6.2 Ground Operation .
6.3 Taxiing . . . . . . . .
6.4 Takeoff . . . . . . . .
6.5 Retraction . . . . . .
6.6 Deployment . . . .
6.7 Touchdown . . . . .
6.8 Braking . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

26
26
27
28
29
29
30
30
31

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

6.9 Final Design and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

7 Aircraft CAD

33

8 Appendix

35

9 References
41
9.1 Landing Gear and Market Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
......
Credits
Andrew McIntyre Supervisor
Wing Lon See, Fuselage and Empennage
Josh Evens, Aerodynamics, Weight and Range Estimation
Max Grewar, Propulsion
SeifAllah ElTayeb, Market Research, Landing Gear, Report Formatting(LaTeX)

Part I

Design Specification

Chapter 1

Introduction
Objective The objective of this project is to design a regional aircraft that can compete
with existent aircrafts through the improvement of some aspects which affects the performance, efficiency and economy of currently operational aircrafts.
Basic Design Requirements In order to meet the objectives the design must be able to
meet the following specifications:
Cabin
2 Pilots and 3 Flight Attendants
Maximum Payload: 12,000 kg
Stand-up Aisle Height: 2 m
Performance Parameters
Range: 2,500 km (IFR Reserves)
Full Fuel Payload: 10,000 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 0.75 at 35,000 ft
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft
Miscellaneous
Compliant with FAR Part 25 Certification requirements
Service Entry: 2018
Baseline Model Price: $14M
Operational Cost: $1 900 per hr
Average Fuel Price: $2.5 per gal (US)

Chapter 2

Market Research
2.1

Market Analysis

In order for the design to be competitive and appealing to customers, the market must
be properly analysed in order to identify a gap which the aircraft can fill. Alternatively,
existent models can be analysed to identify the aspects which can be improved, which aids
in prioritising the design of some elements which will form the aircrafts selling points.

2.1.1

Competitor Market Outlook and Forecast Reports

Given that the aerospace industry is particularly complex, a few manufacturers dominate
most of the market with big market shares. This is also due to the high cost of design
research and development. Below is a survey of the major manufacturers forecast and
outlook reports which give an insight into the markets present and future.
Airbus
Airbus forecasts an increase of a 107% in the number of passenger aircrafts a figure thats
almost the double of existent aircraft fleets, in addition to an increase of 65% increase in
dedicated freighters. Single-aisle aircrafts make up almost 70% of this forecasted increase
as the global middle class will almost double in size by 2033, stimulating the economy
and making air travel more affordable and subject to even more traffic. Moreover, most of
this traffic will come from the Asia-Pacific region which is currently undergoing fast paced
economic growth and increase in trade. It is also important to note that low maintenance
and fuel economy are becoming increasingly important for airlines as it increases their
profits by reducing the running costs.
Boeing
As Airbuss main competitor Boeing has a major share in the global airliner market. According to their report regional jets can be considered a niche market which comprises 6.77% of
the future demand. The report also highlights the resilience of passenger traffic to change
in relation to economic performance, growing annually. Cargo traffic on the other hand is
tied to economic performance as indicated by the slowdown in 2008 following the recession, yet cargo traffic has been recovering since and growing at an average rate of 5%
playing and increasingly important role in global supply chains.

Bombardier
Despite having a smaller share of the market, Bombardier still plays a major role in the regional jet and short-haul, single-aisle market. Bombardier expect a demand of 400 aircrafts
in the 20-59 seat category and a significantly higher figure of 5,600 aircraft in the 60 to
99 seat category. It is also important to note that one of the reports conclusions is that
emerging markets will be the main source of demand for new aircrafts in the coming 20
years.
Embraer
According to South Americas biggest aircraft manufacturer, 70 to 90 seater planes are the
future of and efficient hub and spoke air travel model. This is mainly due to the aircrafts
operating in emerging markets where population densities are low. The low number of
seats insures that the aircraft is constantly being used in an efficient manner where all
seats are usually occupied. Similar to the previous reports, Embraers report highlighted
the important factor of a growing urban middle class. Moreover, it is mentioned that the
Asia-Pacific regions economic growth and increasing liberalisation is creating a need for
more frequent transportation and thus creating a secondary market that remains yet to be
supplied with aircrafts.

2.1.2

Potential Routes

As a conclusion of the previously mentioned reports, Asia-Pacific is the region of potential

operation. In addition, population census and population density data confirm the suitability
of Asia-Pacific as the main marketing region for the aircraft. Potential routes were studied
in order to optimise the aircraft for operation on the Asia-Pacific region routes.
The region was surveyed for major airports in order to be able to calculate the maximum
desired range, as over-designing would result in decreasing the designs operational efficiency.
Using the Haversine Law, the distance between all the mapped major hubs and Bangkok
was measured, and all were within range. This means that not only is it suitable for hubspoke connections, but it can also serve hub-hub routes.

Figure 2.1: Map of major Asia-Pacific Hubs

Part II

Aircraft Design

Chapter 3

Fuselage and Empennage

3.1

Cabin Layout

The Boeing 737 design was used to obtain the initial dimensions

Figure 3.1: Cross Section of B737 Cabin

Seat Capacity
154

Number Of Rows
26

Seat Width (m)

0.43

Seat Abreast (m)

6

Seat Arrangement
3-3

Cabin Height (m)

2.2

Cabin Width (m)

3.53

Pitch (m)
0.81

Aisle Width (m)

0.47

Cabin Length (m)

30.2

Our aircraft was based on current the successful civil aircraft Boeing 737. We let the
seat capacity of our design decrease from 154 to 100.
With the 100 seat capacity of aircraft (Np =100), we can calculate the number of abreast
for the design by using:
N =

Np2

2
Where N is the number of seats abreast and Np is the number of passengers.
From equation3.2 N is 5.

(3.1)

Then using:
1

Nr = 2Np2
where Nr is the number of rows, we calculated Nr to be 20.
We also estimated the cabin width, Wc usin equation 3.3

(3.2)

Wc Ws N + W N

(3.3)

Here the the width of seat, width of aisle and number of aisle are denoted by Ws , W and N
respectively. Wc is estimated to be 2.97m.
Similarly, the length of cabin Lc is proportional to the product of the seat pitch P and the
number of rows, Nr .
Lc C3(PNr )1+

(3.4)

Torenbeek (1982) suggests = 0.052 and the average of C3 for five seats abreast is 1.08
(Sforza, 2014). This gave us an approximate cabin length, Lc of 19.88 m

Figure 3.2: Cross Section of our Cabin

Seat Capacity
100

Number Of Rows
20

Seat Width (m)

0.5

Seat Abreast (m)

5

Seat Arrangement
2-3

Cabin Height (m)

2.2

Cabin Width (m)

2.97

Pitch (m)
0.81

Aisle Width (m)

0.47

Cabin Length (m)

19.88

3.2

Multiple Utility Interior

Our aim of our design is to increase the market competitiveness of the aircraft. The Boeing
737 aircraft was designed for passenger. Therefore, this could be increased the use of the
aircraft and let the design fit the seasonal demand.
A Modifiable Interior
It is noticed that cargo transportation is also a crucial application of aircraft. The Boeing
737 variant can be exploited on both of passengers and cargo, it would not be restricted
from the seasonal requirement.
For the improvement of the upon design, firstly, the seats in the cabin we would select the
removable seats which can be used for the passenger aircraft and removed when it is for
the purpose of cargo. Then, the cargo module can be fitted into the cabin from the Aft
hatch. (pictured below)

3.3

Empennage

The tails are also a key element of stability, control and trim. The common tails are being
mostly used as conventional, t tail and cruciform tail.

Figure 3.3: Common Tail Sections

Cruciform Tail
The horizontal stabilisers are placed midway up the vertical stabiliser, giving the appearance of a cross when viewed from the front. The primary aim is to keep the horizontal
stabilisers out of the engine wake or to prevent complex interference drag.
T-Tail

aThe horizontal stabiliser is positioned at the top of the vertical stabiliser. The horizontal
stabiliser is then above the propeller flow, or prop wash, and the wing wake. Because the
horizontal stabiliser is more efficient, it can therefore be made both smaller and lighter.
The placement of the horizontal stabiliser on top of the vertical stabiliser can also make the
vertical stabiliser more aerodynamically efficient. By making the vertical stabiliser more
effective, its size may be reduced.
Conventional Tail
It has one vertical stabiliser placed at the tapered tail section of the fuselage and one
horizontal stabiliser divided into two parts, one on each side of the vertical stabiliser. and
the conventional (lower) location for the horizontal stabiliser puts less stress on the vertical

10

stabiliser. Therefore this arrangement provides adequate stability and the vertical stabiliser
can be lighter.

3.3.1

Empennage Specification

Figure 3.4: B737 Front View, Showing Empennage

Eventually, we know the arrangement of conventional tail provides an adequate stability
and lighter vertical stabiliser. In addition, most of the successful commercial aircrafts would
adopt conventional tail, for instance, Boeing commercial airplanes ,Airbus. From those
successful aircrafts, we think the answer is that sameness between the aircrafts is the
result of the typical design being the best compromise.

11

Chapter 4

Aerodynamics
4.1

Introduction

For aerodynamics, we looked at a range of commercial aircraft wing designs to give us a

brief idea of the qualities we would need for our wing. As with any aircraft design, it was
essential to do market research so we know what type of aircraft we are looking to design.
Since we had decided to create a relatively small commercial plane (100 passengers), we
then had to look at certain wing designs which benefit this role.
Wing design is crucial in the development of any aircraft, as there are so many parameters
that could change the whole performance of the plane. For our wing design, we looked at
current commercial aircraft as a starting point, and then researched in to why these designs
are so successful.

Figure 4.1: Boeing B737

Figure 4.2: Airbus A320

S
Comparing characteristics from the two most popular small commercial aircraft A
the

Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 AS

we could compare our design to ensure that our aircraft would do well in the market. As our plane was based around efficiency, it was vital
that we chose the most green and cost-effective wing.

4.2

Wing Configuration and Position

The chosen wing configuration was a low-wing configuration, as opposed to a high-wing

configuration which is typically used for cargo aircraft. High-wing is useful for cargo transport because it allows the fuselage ground clearance to be smaller, enabling easy access
for airport staff to add or remove the cargo from the aircraft. However, the high-wing configuration needs extra support because the wing bending moment is greater. This extra
weight from the strut supports would prove unnecessary when the low-wing provides much
more benefits.

S
Low wings are easier to maintain, favouring airline staff needs A
who have to check and
maintain the wings on a very regular basis. They also provide added landing stability when
the landing gear is stored in the wings. High-winged aircraft store their landing gear in their
fuselage, which gives less stability because the wheels are much closer to the centre of the
aircraft, as opposed to the low-wing aircraft where the wheels are far more separated. Also,
from a safety perspective, the low-wing is desirable. In the unlikely event that our aircraft
encounters a serious problem and is forced to land, assuming the pilot has successfully
managed to land on a body of water which surrounds our hub airport, then the low wing
will keep much of the fuselage above the water for longer. This will provide the passengers
and crew to exit the aircraft and use the wing as a temporary platform. Although it is highly
unlikely that such an event will happen, it is not impossible; therefore it is essential to make
our aircraft as safe as possible.

Figure 4.3: Wing Mounting Positions

Wing sweep depends on the role of the plane. For example, high-speed aircraft like fighter
jets have a high-sweep angle, which gives them a low aspect ratio. This low aspect ratio
provides the jet with better rolling moment and therefore better manoeuvrability - essential for fighter planes which engage in dogfights. However, our aircraft has a completely
different role, and a high aspect ratio was needed, and therefore a relatively small angle of
25 sweep was used.
High aspect ratio provides an aircraft with stability, which is essential in a plane carrying
lots of passengers. It also provides the aircraft with less induced drag, which in turn results
in less fuel consumption. Induced drag is created from different air pressures at the tips of
the wings, so a large, unswept wing with small a small tip chord produces less induced drag
than a swept wing with a large tip chord.
Winglets have also proved very successful in the fight for fuel-efficiency by also reducing
induced drag. This creates vortices much smaller than those produced by a wing tip with
no device on it. Previously, there have been different shapes of winglet experimented,
which could be added on to the ends of pre-existing wings; but some of these designs were
undesirable because they posed a threat of scraping along the ground from a low-wing
aircraft in a rolling movement. Aviationpartners then developed what is now known as a
"blended winglet". Blended winglets are now the most commonly used form of winglet as
they are they are the most effective, so our aircraft will have blended winglets. This will
result in a 3.5% fuel consumption decrease.

13

Figure 4.4: Conventional Winglet

4.3

Figure 4.5: Blended Winglet

Tailplane

The tailplane is a critical aspect of aircraft design because it highly influences the stability
and control. Roughly 70% use the "conventional" arrangement, but this is less efficient
than the "T-tail". Since our aircraft design was geared towards creating a highly efficient
plane, we went with the T-tail. The T-tail design raises the horizontal tail, which results
in the tail avoiding wing wake and propwash. This reduces buffet on the tail, ultimately
reducing fatigue on both the structure of the aircraft and the pilot, who has to work harder
to control the aircraft.

14

4.4

Aerofoil

Researching very successful aerofoils for current aircraft was difficult in some cases because they are kept secret due to the highly competitive nature of the aviation industry.
However, most typical commercial tend to use roughly the same aerofoil. We decided to
use the NACA 0015. The symmetrical design is used because a cambered design is inefficient in our specific role, which is transporting passengers in a low-speed cruising flight.

Figure 4.6: NACA0015

Figure 4.7: NACA0015 Aerofoil Characteristics at Various Reynolds Numbers

However, this aerofoil would not provide enough lift to allow the aircraft to take off and land
on shorter runways. In order to increase the lift of the wing, high-lift devices were added.
These devices alter the camber or chord of the wing in such a way that the lift produced by
the wing is significantly increased beyond the main aerofoils capabilities.

15

4.5

High Lift Devices

Slats will be installed on to the aircraft wings. They are used to redirect the airflow to the
wing, producing a laminar flow over the aerofoil. However, since they are only really effective at high angles of attack, the slats will be retractable.
Slotted flaps are used to increase the camber of the wing, resulting in an increase in lift.
Double slotted flaps are often used as they can create a smoother camber, further increasing the lift. Triple slotted flaps can be used, but due to the complexity of the mechanisms in
the flaps, they are hard to maintain and replace if necessary. Fowler flaps extend out from
the edges of the wing, increasing the wing area, thus increasing the lift. We decided to use
a double-slotted Fowler flap for our wings, in order to achieve the high lift that is needed
for take-off and landing.

Figure 4.8: Triple Slotted Fowler Flaps

Vortex generators will also be used on our wings. These are small vanes which stick out
from the wing, and are spread out along the span off the wing. As well as an increase in
the planes stability, vortex generators also provide the aircraft with a higher rate of climb.
This means that the plane has a shorter take-off run.

4.6

Wing Dimensions

As our plane was based on current successful commercial aircraft such as the Airbus A320
or the Boeing B737, we used figures from these planes to get a rough idea of what our
aircraft should look like.
With a fuselage diameter or 2.51m (1m less than B737), I decided on using a span of
34m (without winglets), and a reference wing area of 124m2 . From here, we were able to
calculate the aspect ratio using equation 4.1
A=

b2
S

(4.1)

Where A = aspect ratio

b = span (m)
S = reference wing area (m2 )
Which gave us A = 9.632.

16

Assuming a taper ratio of 0.25, it was then possible to calculate the chord lengths at both
the root and the tip of the wing.
2.5
Croot =
(4.2)
b(1 + )
Where Croot = chord at root m
= taper ration
Which gave Croot = 5.83 m
Then using equation 4.3

Ctp = Croot

(4.3)

Where Ctp is the chord at the tip of the wing (m), which worked out to be 1.46m.
Mean Aerodynamic Chord (m) was calculated using equation 4.4
MAC =

2Croot 1 + + 2
(
)
3
1+

(4.4)

This worked out to be 4.08m.

Plane

Span
[w/o winglets] (m)

Fuselage Width (m)

Aspect
Ratio

Taper
Ratio

Wing Area (m2 )

MAC (m)

R831V
B737
A320

34
34.32
35.8

2.51
3.76
3.7

9.34
9.45
9.39

0.25
0.159
0.24

124
124.58
122.4

4.08
3.96
4

Our plane will also have a 6 dihedral angle. Dihedrals are very useful for the rolling stability
of aircraft in the event of crosswinds, which cause sideslipping. The sideslip creates a rolling
movement in the aircraft, but the angle of the wing closest to the crosswind will create a
higher angle of attack, resulting in a counter-rolling movement, bring the aircraft back to
equilibrium. This will be essential for the passengers who want a safe, stable flight, and
Z
t need to manually counteract the sideslip.
also the pilot who doesnA

4.7

Future Technologies

As the battle for the most efficient aircraft continues, aviation companies will continue
to develop technology which will reduce the amount of fuel needed, thus saving airlines
money on fuel as well as saving the planet. Here are some proposed future design concepts
from leading companies in the industry.
Flexfoil
Boston-based company FlexSys have designed a wing that has all of the high-lift devices
merged in to it. This eliminates the need for complex mechanisms which are required for
flaps and slots, by using a wing that has a variable geometry. This is achieved by integrating
a series of sensors and actuators inside the structure of the wing, which then react and
deform the shape of the wing accordingly. FlexSys claim that their Flexfoil technology can
reduce fuel consumption by 4-5% if installed on an existing wing, but claim a 12% fuel
consumption decrease if the wing is built with Flexfoil. Aerodynamic testing is taking place
at NASAs Dryden Flight Research Centre, and with applications not limited to aeronautics the technology could be used for wind turbines or even boat rudders - this technology could
be implemented in just a couple of years.

17

Figure 4.9: Flexfoil

Hybrid Wing
The wings of these aircraft are "blended in" to the fuselage creating a whole body that can
be likened to a wing. Many developing technologies have been used in the design of this
aircraft, so much so that engineers have claimed that the aircraft uses half as much fuel as
the current aircraft of today. This 50% fuel consumption decrease is due to a new manufacturing technique which creates aircraft components 25% lighter than current components,
and also uses an ultra-high bypass ratio engine.
However, this aircraft is still in the development stage using smaller prototypes, and although new manufacturing processes will allow the full-size airframe to be much lighter, it
is still in question whether or not this airframe will still be light enough. Also, the flat shape
of the aircraft will mean that some parts of the fuselage are right-angled, causing many
problems if the cabin needs to be pressurised.
Advances in aircraft technology are more down materials, and the manufacturing processes
used to create new components. Composite materials are being researched and developed
to provide a material strong enough for the stress and pressures of flight, but to also be
light enough to provide a high efficiency. NASA have said that although the Hybrid-Wing
aircraft may take 20 years come to the market, the manufacturing technologies developed
could be used for future aircraft in as little as 8 years.

4.8

Performance Specifications

In order to execute the performance calculations, we had to firstly calculate the masses of
aircraft components. This was done by using the given design requirement weights, and
adding them, on to each separate component weight, so we can obtain our maximum takeoff weight (MTOW).
Maximum Payload:
Maximum Fuel:

(12,000kg)
(10,000kg)

Using the properties of Aluminium 2024, our MTOW was estimated from the following:
fuselage, two engines, wings and empennage, payload, fuel, landing gear, and avionics;
giving us 47,988kg. Our empty weight (oe) is therefore 25,988kg. In comparison, the
Boeing 737-300 has a MTOW of 49,900kg.

18

Assuming a certain amount of fuel had been burned during take-off, and given our design
requirements, we were able to work out the lift and drag coefficients.
Mach No. (M):0.75
Altitude (cruise):35,000ft
At 35,000ft the density is 0.011kg m3 , and local speed of sound (a) is 295.4m s1 .
Speed of our aircraft is given by

V = M

(4.5)

This gives us 221.55m s1 .

Then, rearranging the lift equation to find the lift coefficient gives us:
CL =

2L

(4.6)

V 2 S

Where L = lift 441,450N

= air density (0.011kg m3 )
V = aircraft speed (221.5m s1 )
S = wing area (124m2 )
Giving a CL of 13.18
From our engines cruise thrust, our drag is approximately equal to 23,887N
Using equation 4.7
CD =

2D

(4.7)

V 2 S

The drag coefficient, CD is calculated to be 0.714.

We can then work out the lift to drag ratio:
CL
CD

13.18
0.714

= 18.8

(4.8)

In comparison, a Boeing 747 has a lift to drag ratio of 17 in cruise.

To calculate the range of our aircraft, we used the Brequet Range Equation:
Rnge =
Where

V 1

g SFC D

MTOW
ln

ETW

(4.9)

V = flight speed (797.58km h1 )

g = gravitational acceleration (9.81m s2 )
SFC = specific fuel consumption (0.3 (estimated))
L = lift(N)
D = drag (N)
MTOW = Maximum Takeoff Weight (47,988kg)
ETW = Empty Weight (25,988kg)

This gave us a range of 3124.83km

19

Chapter 5

Propulsion
5.1

Introduction

pro-pellere (latin): before or forward drive.

Aircraft engines provide the thrust needed to keep the aircraft flying. This is done by the
engines propelling the aircraft through the air, this in turn creates airflow over the wings,
providing lift.
Selecting the most useful and relevant aircraft power plant is crucial to our aircraft being both cost effective and relevant to the job at hand. There were many choices that
needed to be made when selecting propulsion these being; type of engine, engine position,
number of engines and specific model chosen. There were three main different options
when it comes to selecting an engine for an aircraft, those being; Turboprop, Turbojet and
Turbofan.

5.2
5.2.1

Propulsion System Comparison

Turboprop

Turboprop engines are comprised of (in their simplest form) an intake, compressor, combustion, turbine and propelling/exhaust nozzle as shown in figure 5.1. Drawn in through
the intake, air is then compressed by the compressor before fuel is mixed in with the compressed air. This fuel and air mixture is then combusted in the combustion chamber, the
combustion gases then expand through the turbine. The majority of the power produced is
transmitted to the propeller. The gases then are released to atmospheric pressure through
the propelling nozzle.

Figure 5.1: Turboprop Engine Diagram

Turboprop engines are most often used for small commercial aircraft, they are also used
for bush aircraft in remote areas of Australia, Africa, Canada and Alaska to name a few.
There are several advantages to using a turboprop engine, one of which is that turboprop
engines consume two thirds less fuel per passenger than turbo fan aircraft when travelling
at the same speed. Turboprop aircraft are also far quieter than a turbojet or turbofan equivalent. Turboprop engined aircraft are also used in airports that require a short take off and
landing distance.
However there are many disadvantages of turboprop engines that needed to be considered. Whilst they are very fuel efficient, this is only at relatively low top speeds compared
to that of a turbofan or turbojet. The ceiling of operation is also far lower for a turboprop
than turbofan or turbojet, this would not be ideal as our international flights would be at
relatively high altitudes.
So when considering all of the points mentioned above, it was clear that turboprop was
not ideal for our needs. Whilst they are very efficient at low altitude regional flights, our
flights are international flights that are at the longest over three and a half hours long.
Although turboprops provide the ability to takeoff and land on short runways, this is not relevant to our needs as all airports we would be landing in are standard or large international
airports. This as well as the fact that turboprops only fly at relatively low speeds makes
them unsuitable for our needs. Thus it was decided not to use turboprop engines for our
aircraft.

5.2.2

Turbojet

The Turbojet engine as shown in figure 5.2 is comprised of an air intake, followed by a compressor and combustion chamber, then turbine and exhaust nozzle. The turbojet is an air
breathing engine, almost exclusively used in aircraft. Thrust is generated by the engine
by air being drawn in through the air intake before being compressed in the compressor.
This compressed air is then heated and burned with fuel in the combustion chamber before
being passed through the turbine and accelerated out the exhaust. This provides the thrust
needed for flight.

Figure 5.2: Turbojet Engine Diagram

Turbojets were originally used quite often in smaller slower aircraft before the were gradually phased out and replaced with the more efficient turboprop engines. However even
in higher speed aircraft turbojets have been replaced by turbo fan engines which are more
efficient at similar speeds. The turbojets are also much louder than comparable sized turbofans.

21

In terms of reasons why this particular type of engine was not chosen they were a few major down sides to choosing turbojets. As mentioned above they are unfavourable at both
low and high speeds, this is due to inferior fuel efficiency when compared to prop engines
at low speeds and fan engines at high speeds. The desired speed for our aircraft will be
relatively high, this means only turbofans or turbojets would be appropriate, however due
to the higher noise level and poorer fuel efficiency of the Turbojet it is not desirable for our
needs.

5.2.3

Turbofan

Turbofan engines are very similar in design to turbojets, except from the additional bypass
airflow, see figure 5.3 . This is achieved by placing a ducted fan in front of a turbojet engine,
this creates two separate thrust forces to the engine. These two thrust values being the
core (jet) thrust and bypass thrust, when the bypass thrust is greater than the jet thrust
this is referred to as a high bypass engine, when the converse is true this is called a low
bypass engine. Most commercial aircraft in use these days feature high bypass turbofan
engines. The ratio of mass flow of air in the bypass relative to the core is referred to as the
bypass ratio (equation 5.1)
bypss
m
(5.1)
=
core
m

Figure 5.3: Turbofan Engine Diagram

Turbofans in many ways are the ideal middle ground between turbojets and turboprops.
While turboprops are ideal for low speed and pure jets are most useful at high airspeeds,
turbofans are most effective and efficient in-between these two speeds. Around 5001000km h1 (310-620mph) is the ideal operation speed of a turbofan engine, this being the
speed range of most commercial aircrafts makes turbofans an ideal choice for our aircraft.
Figure 5.4 illustrates the ideal ranges for each engine in graph form in terms of propulsive
efficiency against airspeed.

Figure 5.4: Propulsive Efficiency against Speed

22

In terms of benefits and drawbacks of using turbofans over the other two options it was clear
that turbofan was to be our choice of engine type. As shown in the above graph, turbofans
are more efficient at our desired flight speeds. The 737 maximum speed is 544mph and
cruise speed is around 480-510mph depending on model variant. Figure 5.4 clearly shows
that ducted fan engines are more efficient in the range from 0-500mph, this being the
range of speeds our modified 737 will be operating in. Turbofans were also an attractive
option due to the lower noise than comparable types of turbojets, this, when coupled with
the greater fuel efficiency, confirmed the turbofan as our choice of engine.

5.3

Number of Engines

Another key choice when deciding on our propulsion system was the number of engines to
have on our aircraft. There were two main options to choose from, either a twin engine or
quad engine system. Four engine aircraft are mainly large commercial aircraft such as the
Boeing 747 and Airbus A380. Therefore it makes more economic sense to choose just two
engines for our aircraft considering the size. The choice of two engines means less money
spent on not just buying the engines but also fuel costs and repair costs. Modern twin
engine aircraft often use turbofans with increased power, this provides a very steep initial
climb during take-off. This is also so that if an engine fails during take off the undamaged
engine can provide sufficient thrust to take off steeply enough to avoid any obstacles in the
flightpath.

5.4

Engine Placement

When it came to selecting engine positioning there were only two reasonable choices. The
first of which is tail mounted engines, however these are only ever used for small business or private style aircraft. This meant that below wing engine placement was to be our
choice. Figure 5.5 shows an Airbus A320 (a similar sized aircraft to ours) with its twin engines mounted underneath the wings.
Placing the engines below the wings has long been the standard for modern airliners. It
allows for an uninterrupted airflow over the top of the wings which is one of the most crucial surfaces in terms of aerodynamics. This positioning also allows easy access for engine
maintenance whilst also reducing the noise heard by passengers in the cabin.
However the one major downside to under wing mounted engines is the increased chance
of foreign object damage or FOD. However instances like this are very rare. All engines
are also tested thoroughly to continue running and producing thrust after encountering a
foreign object in the engine. This risk is far outweighed by the many benefits of under wing
placement.

Figure 5.5: Airbus A320 with under wing engine placement

23

5.5

Engine Specification

Aircraft of similar size to our airliner such as the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 use engines
such as the CFM56 turbofan engine. The thrust force values produced by these similarly
sized aircraft will be sufficient to provide lift for our aircraft.
The further the different series of CFM56 turbofans were researched, it was found that they
all have relatively similar performance values, thus it seemed wise to go with the older and
therefore cheaper CFM56-3 series of engines
Model

Thrust

Bypass Ratio

Pressure Ratio

Dry Weight

CFM56-3C-1

23,500lbf
100kN

Alpha = 6

30.6

4301lbs
1950kg

Figure 5.6: CFM56-3 Turbofan Engine

The CFM56-3 was designed for Boeing 737 second-generation: 300/400/500 aircraft. It is
derived from the -2, the original CFM engine. This engine is in service all over the world with
over 4500 still in use today. The fact that this series was designed specifically for Boeing
737s makes it ideal for our airliners needs. The table below shows the key properties of the
specific model chosen, the CFM56-3C-1.
The CFM56-3C1 has a fan diameter of 60 inches (152cm), with the total length of the engine
being 93 inches (236cm).
Takeoff Conditions (at sea level)
Max Take-off (lb)

Airflow (lb/sec)

Bypass Ratio

23500

638-710

In-flight Performance at 35,000ft & Mach 0.8

Maximum Climb Thrust (lb)

Pressure Ratio at Maximum Climb

Maximum Cruise Thrust (lb)

5540

30.6

5370

24

5.6

Auxiliary Power Unit

Auxiliary Power Units (APU) are small devices which provide power for the aircraft whilst the
main engines are off. They are found on most commercial aircraft and are of great benefit.
The main purpose of an APU is to generate power to start up the main engines of the
aircraft. To do this the APU is first started usually by battery, once up to speed and running
this power generated is then used as an ignition for the aircraft engines (CFM56-3C1s in
our case). Once one engine has been started the APU is not needed as one engine can start
the other.
Model Specification
Model-APS 3200 APU
Basic Dry Weight-308 lbs (140 kg)
Altitude-Starts and Operates to 41,000 ft (12,500 m)
Noise-Meets ICAO Requirements
Key Feature -Lowest Weight APU Option for the
aA320 Family
The main benefit in our choice to have an APU installed is so that less ground assistance will
be needed in the various airports in which our aircraft will land and operate from. This will
mean less reliance on outside assistance and therefore faster flight turnaround. APUs are
also used to run accessories in cabin when the engines are shut down. In the hot and often
humid climate of south-east Asia where we operate, Air conditioning whilst waiting at the
gate will be a much needed feature for our passengers. The APU is also used for preflight
checks. During flight the APU is not needed as the main engines provide sufficient power
for all systems on board. This APU is also ideal as it meets the maximum noise standard
of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) of 305EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise
Level in Decibels).

25

Chapter 6

Landing Gear
6.1

Introduction

The landing gear otherwise known as the undercarriage is an important part of almost all
modern aircrafts as it provides support for the airframe during ground interactions. The
usage of the landing gear during each flight can be summarised into 7 steps during which
the landing gear must be able to perform as designed. These seven steps are: ground
operations, taxiing, takeoff, retraction, deployment, touchdown and braking.
The failure to perform any of the steps usually results in damage, financial losses and
sometimes even casualties. As a result, potential emergencies must be taken into account
during the design process.
Landing Gear Layouts The design process started with evaluating possible configurations and arrangements. Different arrangements have varying advantages and depend on
the intended utility of the aircraft. There are two main configurations used by aircrafts that
are intended to land on paved runways: tail dragger and tricycle.
Tail Dragger
Also referred to as the conventional configuration, the tail dragger usually has two main
wheels that are positioned ahead of the aircrafts center of gravity (along the fuselage) and
a small wheel at the back to support the tail. This arrangement was commonly used by
commercial, freight and combat aircrafts during the early years of aviation and until the
1960s. It is still used till today but only by smaller aircrafts. The conventional arrangement
was favoured as it kept parasitic drag to a minimum, provided more clearance for propeller
aircrafts in addition to being easily replaced by skis to land on ice or snow. On the other
hand, the numerous disadvantages of using a conventional layout include poor forward
visibility on ground, lack of manoeuvrability in high winds as a result of the aircrafts nose
up attitude and inherent instability as the rear small wheel is used for steering. In the
case of a regional jet, the conventional layout is far from suitable as it lacks the required
performance, safety and reliability.
Tricycle
Essentially a reverse taildragger layout, the tricycle arrangement uses a steerable front
wheel and two or more wheels behind the center of gravity (along the fuselage). Commonly
used by modern airliners, the tricycle arrangement proved to be the optimum landing gear
arrangement for numerous reasons. To begin with, because the fuselages central axis is
parallel to the ground, pilot visibility allows for spotting any ground obstacles and provides
a field of vision wide enough to aid in avoiding incidents. In addition, as the wings sit at
a negative angle of attack, manoeuvrability of the nose gear is enhanced and thus course

corrections are easier during takeoff and landing. The added control eases crosswind landings and is suitable for the flare stage that precedes landing. Disadvantages include heavy
weight, high maintenance cost, and manufacturing complexity.

6.2

Ground Operation

Static Support The first test the landing gear must pass is supporting the airframe and
all its payload when on the ground without collapsing or undergoing any significant or
damaging stresses. The sum of the forces on both the main and landing gear should support
the aircrafts weight with full payload (including fuel).
FNG + FMG = W

(6.1)

It is important to note that the nose gear is centered and that the main gears wheel are
symmetrically disposed relative to the fuselages centerline to insure that the port and
starboard force components are equal to avoid unbalance. The forces on the nose and
main gear are calculated given
FNG (c.o.goe NG ) = FMG (c.o.goe MG )

(6.2)

This equation can be used to ensure quasi-static stability and balance during ground operations to avoid the tail hitting the ground, or the plane tending to tip over. An additional
requirement is that loading of the aircraft be carried out in a manner that moves the center
of gravity forward of the main gear, again to avoid stability and balance issues.
The wheelbase is also an important factor as it affects the load distribution. It is favourable
to have most of the load on the main gear as it is structurally stronger and reliefs stress off
the fuselage. This is exhibited by the relationships
FNG = Woe
FMG = Woe

(MG oe )
b
(oe NG )
b

(6.3)
(6.4)

A survey of the most commonly used proportions for aircrafts that are either the same
size or bigger, revealed approximately similar positioning and dimensioning for the landing
gear. Since aircrafts come in different dimensions it would only make sense to describe the
positioning of the nose and landing gear proportional to some other dimension. The center
of gravity is situated at approximately 45% of the fuselage length, the nose gear at 10%,
and the main gear at approximately 50%. Bearing in mind that length of the wheelbase
b , is the difference between the positioning of the nose and main gear and therefore it
is approximately 40% of the fuselage length. Substituting these numbers in equations 5.3
and 5,4 showed that 10% of the force would be on the nose gear while the other 90% is
carried by the nose gear, which is ideal for the fuselage construction.

27

6.3

Taxiing

Given that the landing gear sustains the aircraft while static and was designed with a safety
factor that allows it to bear even more weight, taxiing is no different when it comes to loading. The only extra requirement for taxiing is steering, which can be done either through
the control surfaces of the aircraft or being able to control the nose gear. As a benchmark,
the circular turn radius is what can be used to compare the manoeuvrability of different
aircrafts. As a standard the landing gear track must not exceed half the runways width in
order to be able to execute a full 180turn.
In section 7.2.7 (Sforza) approximates the maximum achievable steering angle steer to
be 90 where = rctn 2t as shown in figure 6.1
b

Figure 6.1: Rotation path for aircraft with steerable nose gear
Although (Sforza) also cites that aircrafts like the B747, B777 and A380 use main gear
steering to limit the effects of tire scuffing during turns, it seemed unnecessary for this
design. All of the mentioned aircrafts are of significantly higher weight in comparison and
the addition of a main gear steering mechanism also means increased weight which is
undesirable for fuel economy. Hence, nose gear steering will be adequate in this particular
case. In order to further enhance steering and taxiing, an electric actuator motor 1 is
attached to the main gear to enable the aircraft to taxi at speeds of up to 30mph with
jet engines running at idle. Powered by the APU, the independent electric drive allows for
reduced fuel burning on the ground at the expense of extra weight. Major airport queuing
times contribute to unnecessary fuel burning. In this context an independent drive train is
more economic and eco-friendly.
1 refer

to EGTS

28

6.4

Takeoff

During takeoff rotation, the geometry and positioning of the landing gear are an essential element of the airframes safety. Moreover, ease of manoeuvrability is necessary for
making course adjustments in case of any crosswinds that might move the aircraft off the
runway.
As a result of limited runway distance, the aircraft must rotate as soon as the aircraft
reaches VR in order to increase the angle of attack and achieve the maximum CCL and lift
D
off the ground. This need for an increased angle of attack means that the tail must not
strike the ground to prevent damage to the airframe and friction that would increase the
time needed for takeoff. The takeoff geometry is shown in figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Takeoff geometry of an airliner

It was also considered while designing that there must be a safety margin to prevent any
incidents if the aircraft exceeds the desired angle of attack. The maximum compression of
the main gear shock absorbers must be taken into account as well as it reduces the engine
and tail clearances and thus an adequate safety margin must be taken into account,

6.5

Retraction

Smaller aircrafts with a fixed undercarriage like the Cessna 152 do not have to retract the
landing gear given its small size and the negligibility of the parasitic drag generated by
constant deployment. On the other hand, jet engine powered aircrafts can reach higher
speeds and reduce drag when the landing gear is retracted. This also increases the aerodynamic efficiency,but it also means sacrificing precious cargo space as it must be stowed
in the fuselage. The geometry was taking into account once again as it affects the safety
of the airframe.
Although almost all single-aisle, 70+ seats airliners have retracting landing gears, not all
have a stowage door otherwise known as a hubcap. Examples include the B737(shown in
figure 6.3, EMB-170 and some variants of Bomabrdiers CRJ family. The absence of a door
sheds weight, saves space and doesnt interfere with the aerodynamics as much. Despite of
the manufacturers choice to eliminate the door, the use of new light materials like carbon
fibre and kevlar can be used as an alternative as the hubcap doesnt serve the structure
as much as the aerodynamics. Carbon fibre and kevlar might be expensive material, but
they are probably the most suitable given their lightweight,ease of manufacturing and low
thickness.

29

Figure 6.3: B737 Retracted Undercarraige

Clearances were also taken into account, as ageing tyres increase in size. A newly
inflated tyre will have a smaller diameter than one that has been in service, and thus, the
wheel hub must be able to accommodate the maximum tyre diameter. Moreover, when
the landing gear is no longer in contact with the ground, the tyres deform by increasing in
diameter as the load is removed. This deformation was also taken into account when sizing
the wheel hub, so it fits with minimal clearance without getting caught or stuck.

6.6

Deployment

During final approach, pilots must deploy the landing gear to prepare for landing. The main
force that both the nose and the landing gear must overcome is drag, and that is one of the
few cases in which increased weight of the landing gear is favourable. Increased weight in
this case exerts a downward force that reduces the needs for an extra mechanical force to
deploy the landing gear into position.
Although not the norm, the landing gear must be able to deploy if any of the systems fail.
As a result it the deployment arm was fitted with a high pressure nitrogen filled capsule
that explodes just like in automotive air bags. The rapid expansion of gas exerts enough
force to help deploy the gear into position. After the capsule explodes a lock mechanism
insures that the landing gear remains in the right position perpendicular to the ground.

6.7

Touchdown

Upon making the final approach, the landing gear must be able to absorb the impact force
without collapsing in order to safely land the aircraft. Landing at angle is a factor that was
considered when determining the landing gears height to prevent a wing strike, as crosswinds can force pilots to yaw, resulting in undesired banking. This does not only increase
the chance of a wing strike, but it also increases the loading on the main gear as the load
is no more equally shared by the symmetrically disposed bogeys. Moreover, in order to
dissipate the impacts energy, cylinder filled with hydraulic fluid and nitrogen, commonly
known as shock absorbers, are fixed to the landing strut. There are many important parameters to consider when designing shock absorbers such as the cylinders internal diameter,
external diameter, stroke length, gas pressure and maximum strength. This makes the use
of tyres with high rated loads essential as it must be able to sustain the aircrafts weight.
The different states of a shock absorber are shown in figure 6.4.

30

Figure 6.4: A shock absorber in different states of compression

6.8

Braking

Tyre performance remains an important factor upon touching down as braking results in
immense friction which by return causes a rapid increase in temperature. There are many
risks associated with this rapid increase in temperature including tire explosion, brake failure or component damage. Another factor to take into consideration is the increased load
on the landing gear caused by the use of thrust reversers and a moment that is induced by
using spoilers and airbrakes.

6.9

Final Design and Specifications

The numbers listed in this sections are based on calculation methods used in (Sforza), and
are a result of the design methodology previously mentioned in this chapter. Using literature values and scaling was used where appropriate, as many of the dimensions depend on
ratios to function properly.The MATLAB Code that was used to calculate the final specifications is available in the appendix.
All the requirements set by the FAR, in the aircraft subchapter C, Part 25, clauses 471
to 519 and clauses 721 to 737 were checked against the design to make sure that it is
compliant and airworthy.

1 datum

is nose cone tip

31

Positioning and Dimensioning

c.o.goe

46%

NG

12%

MG

52%

19.88m

b /

0.40

7.95m

hoe
b

0.18
4.65m

t
hoe
t

0.45

t
2b

0.29

Loading (% Gross Weight)

FMG,st
FNG,st
FMG,m

85
15
127.5

FNG,m

27.5

Wheels & Tyres

dtyre,MG

46in.

dhee,MG

20in.

npys,MG
rated loadM G

32
20865 kg

dtyre,NG

30in.

dhee,NG

15in.

npys,NG
rated loadN G

16
6,504kg

Table 6.1: Landing Gear Specifications

32

Chapter 7

Aircraft CAD

34

Chapter 8

Appendix
Aircraft Data (Sforza)
Aircraft

hoe / b

b (m)

b /

to (kg)

t (m)

t / 2b

b ()

hoe / t

B737-700
B737-800
B737-900
B787-8
B787-9
A320
E175
CRJ700

0.21
0.18
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.23
0.21
0.17

12.50
17.37
17.07
22.86
25.91
12.80
11.28
13.72

32.0
38.1
40.5
55.8
62.2
37.5
31.1
29.6

0.39
0.46
0.42
0.41
0.42
0.34
0.36
0.46

60328
70534
74389
219539
245167
73500
37500
32999

5.71
5.71
5.71
9.80
9.80
7.60
4.11
5.72

0.227
0.164
0.166
0.215
0.190
0.300
0.182
0.209

12.8
9.3
9.4
12.2
10.8
16.7
10.3
11.8

0.463
0.549
0.481
0.441
0.500
0.383
0.577
0.406

Average

0.19

16.69

0.41

0.207

Table 8.1: Currently Operational Aircraft Specifications

0.475

Haversine MATLAB CODE

38

39

40

Chapter 9

References
9.1

Landing Gear and Market Research

42