Aircraft’s Configurations Selection

In order to design an aircraft, the initial step is to decide on the initial configuration and characteristics
which the aircraft will possess. The table below shows a wide range of choices available for each major
component of the aircraft;

Choices / 1 2 3 4 5
Parameters
Vehicle Type Wing Wing and tail Wing and
canard
Manufa- Material Metal Metal and Composite Wood and
cturing Composite Fabric
Number of Monoplane Biplane Triplane
wings
Wing Location High Mid Low
Wing type Rectangular Tapered Elliptical Sweep Sweep
back forward
Wing Sweep Fixed Variable No sweep
configuration
Shape Fixed Morphing
wing
Structural Cantilever Strut-braced
configuration
Type Tall Elliptical Fat Elliptical Circular Area ruled
Door Cabin-2 door Cockpit-2
Fuselage door
Seat Tandem side by side Low
Horizontal and Conventional V-Tail T-Tail H-Tail Canard
Tail Vertical
Attachment Fixed Moving Adjustable
Engine type Piston Prop Turbo Prop Jet Engine Electric Hybrid
Number of Single Double
engines
Propulsi- Engine In Front of One in front, aft fuselage On wings
on location nose one in back
of fuselage
Propeller type Tractor Pusher both
Landing Type Tricycle Tail dragger Bicycle Removable
Gear LG
Mechanism Retractable Non-
retractable
Location On fuselage On wing
Runway Land-based Sea-based Amphibian
Table: Range of choices for various aircraft’s components
Considering all of the above available choices, a weighted PUGH Matrix Method is utilized in order to
come up with the best aircraft’s configuration alternatives based on its missions and requirements. The
selections resulting from this analysis are shown below:

A. Wing Configuration Selection

Wing Configuration
weighting High Mid Low
Safety/Control 4 5 3 3
Maintainability 3.5 2 3 4
Structural benefits 3 2 3 4
Aerodynamics 4 4 2 3
Landing gear 3.5 1 3 4.5
passenger comfort 4 4 1 2.5
TOTAL 68.5 54 75.75
Table: PUGH matrix for selection of wing location

The table above compares the available choices for the location of wing on the fuselage, which are high,
mid and low wing. The figure below shows these configurations;

Figure: Types of Wing configurations

As it is can clearly be seen from the table, high and low wing are the most preferred choices for the
aircraft we are aiming to design, based on the weightings. High wing design provides effective stability in
the lateral mode as compare to mid or low wing design. Higher aircraft stability ensures safer flight for
the passengers which is a desired feature for an aircraft. Moreover, since the two parts of the wing are
attached together on the top of the fuselage, this results in more lift being produced. Also the
passengers view out of the window won’t be blocked in contrast to the other two wing configurations.
For a low wing configuration, installing the landing gears on the wing will be easier and less costly as
well as its maintenance is also far easier as compare to high or mid wing. Low wings have also proved to
provide less drag which is desired. The wing structure needs not to be as strong as high wing, therefore
decreasing the manufacturing cost.

Since the high and low wing configurations, each has benefits on their side, both of them were selected
for the aircraft as alternatives for its initial design.

B. Fuselage Configuration Selection

Fuselage Type
weighting Circular Elliptical Area ruled
Passenger comfort 4 3 4 1
weight savings 4 3 2.5 3.5
aerodynamics 3 2 3 4
manufacturability 2.5 4.5 3 2
TOTAL 41.25 42.5 35
Table: PUGH matrix for selection of fuselage type

In the above matrix, the three basic fuselage types are compared, which are circular, elliptical and area
ruled.

Circular fuselage is the most conventional type of fuselage which gives maximum amount of weight
savings and also ensures simple and less costly manufacturing. On the other hand, elliptical fuselage
design provides less parasite drag as compare to the circular fuselage hence preferred from the
aerodynamics point of view, and also takes care of the passengers comfort. Lastly, the Area ruled
fuselage design is most beneficial in high speed flights which is not required for this aircraft.

Since the total weight of the circular and elliptical fuselage design is close to each other, both of these
designs were chosen as alternatives for the initial design of this aircraft.

C. Tail Configuration Selection

Tail Configuration
weighting Conventional Cruciform T tail V tail Canard
Safety/Control 4 3 4 3.5 1 3.5
Maintainability 3 3 2 2 2 3
Structural 4 3.5 2 1 2.5 4
Aerodynamics 3 3 3 3 2 4
TOTAL 44 39 33 26 51
Table: PUGH matrix for selection of tail configuration
Different types of tail configurations, which includes conventional, cruciform, T tail, V tail and canard,
are compared in the above PUGH matrix. These configurations are shown in the figure below;

Figure: Types of Tail configurations

As it can be seen from the above table, conventional and canard types are the most preferred ones
based on their weightings. The basic purpose of tail is to fulfill the trim, stability and control
requirements. The conventional tail type is the most common one since it is lightweight, efficient and
performs under regular flight conditions. The T-Tail configuration, on the other hand, is more efficient in
controllability but is difficult to maintain and causes the vertical tail to be made stronger since horizontal
tail is directly attached to it. Moreover, it also increases the drag due to the increase in horizontal tail
wetted area. Cruciform is a tail midway in between conventional and T-tail, combing the benefits of
both. Although V-Tail decreases the tail structure requirement of being stronger since it is directly
connected to the fuselage, but the control system associated with V-Tail is much more complex and it is
also more difficult to maintain. On the other hand, since canard is known to stall before the main wings,
it is a safety feature for the aircraft. Moreover, it is more aerodynamically efficient since the incoming
air is smooth and undistorted. Canard is also known to produce positive lift which results in aircraft wing
structure to be made lighter since it now needs to produce lesser lift as compare to other tail
configurations. Although canard also results in some control and structural complexity, its benefits still
outweighs the short comings that it has.
Therefore, canard is chosen as the tail configuration for this aircraft. However, as an alternative,
conventional tail configuration is also chosen since initially since it has the second highest weightings in
the established PUGH matrix.

D. Engine Type Selection

There were several options available for the engine type. Since all of the competitor aircrafts were
utilizing either piston prop or turbo prop, only these two options were considered. This aircraft is being
designed for a low speed flight therefore other engine types such as Turbojet and Turbofan were
neglected since those are more efficient at high speed flights while propeller aircrafts are more efficient
at low speed flights. Electric engine type was also neglected since the overall weight of the engine
(including the batteries) will be more than that of piston prop resulting in more operating cost. Although
Electric engines has noise reduction feature better than all other types of aircrafts and also are highly
maintainable, but they are only capable of extremely low speed and extremely short range flights.

As explained in [1], Piston prop engine has reduced noise levels and vibrations as compare to a Turbo
prop, therefore ensuring passengers comfort. It is also less heavy than a Turbo prop and it costs less.
Moreover, the SFC of Turboprop is higher than that of Piston prop engine.

To conclude, Piston prop engines will prove to be most beneficial in order to provide the capability
desired by this aircraft, therefore Piston prop engine is chosen.

E. Number of Engines Selection

Number of Engines
weighting Single engine Dual engine
Safety 5 2 4
Maintenance cost benefits 4 4 2
Weight benefits 4 4 2
TOTAL 40 36
Table: PUGH matrix for selection of number of engines

The above PUGH matrix compares the number of engines. It can be seen that single engine will be the
more preferred engine configuration for our initial aircraft design since it ensures less overall weight of
the aircraft therefore decreasing the flight operating cost and also requires less maintenance cost as
compare to the dual engine. However, single engines are least reliable since there is no other alternative
for it in case it fails under a flight condition. Therefore, these aircrafts must carry a parachute system as
a substitute in order to land. Dual engines are hence preferred because in case of one engine failure, the
pilot can land to a closest safe place by the help of the other working engine. This proves to be more
reliable than the parachute system as in the latter case, pilot has no control over the place where to
land.

For the initial design, both of these engine configurations will be chosen, single and dual engines. This is
because both has its own benefits for this aircraft which is being designed.
 F. Engine Location Selection

Single Piston prop engine aircrafts in the competitor study had engines located in the nose of the
fuselage while the Turbo prop engine aircrafts had the engines located beneath the main wings.

As mentioned in [1], there are several advantages of burying the engines either in the nose of the
fuselage or in the rear end of the fuselage. Propulsion system is lighter than a potted engine
configuration, hence it decreases the operating costs. Additionally, potted engines asks the wing
structure to be stronger which will increase the aircraft’s overall weight and cost. Locating engines away
from the wing ensures less fire possibility since the fuel tanks (generally located in wings) are away from
the engines. Moreover, the overall wetted area of the aircraft decreases which in turn decreases the
overall drag hence making buried engines more aerodynamic efficient. Furthermore, potted engine
configuration usually beneath the wings creates more noise for the passengers hence disturbing their
comfort.

Since we want our aircraft to provide maximum comfort to the passengers along with the lowest
possible operating costs, it seems that using a buried engine, either within the fuselage nose or fuselage
rear, would be a good choice to opt for.

G. Landing Gear Configuration

Tricycle type landing gear was the most common type among all the aircrafts in competitor study. This
landing gear type provides good aircraft stability on ground and also is less costly than the other types
because of its lesser weight. As a result, this type of landing gear configuration was chosen for our
aircraft.

Retractable and non-retractable, both types of landing gear mechanisms will be employed in our
aircraft’s alternatives. This is due to the fact that they both have their pros and cons on each side.
Retractable landing gear ensures less aerodynamic drag during the flight but requires space within the
aircraft fuselage or wings during flight. On the other hand, for the non-retractable landing gear , it’s the
opposite.

H. Configuration Results

Based upon the above analysis, four types of alternative aircrafts can be designed which would fulfill the
missions and requirements, with the characteristics mentioned in the table below;

Alternatives / Aircraft 1 Aircraft 2 Aircraft 3 Aircraft 4

Characteristics
Vehicle Type Wing and tail Wing and canard Wing and tail Wing and canard
Material Metal and Metal and Metal and Metal and Composite
Composite Composite Composite
Number of wings Monoplane Monoplane Monoplane Monoplane
Wing Location Low Low High High
Wing type Tapered Tapered Tapered Tapered
 Sweep No sweep No sweep No sweep No sweep
configuration
Wing Shape Fixed wing Fixed wing Fixed wing Fixed wing
Structural Cantilever Cantilever Cantilever Cantilever
configuration
Fuselage type Circular Tall Elliptical Fat Elliptical Circular
Door Cabin-2 door Cabin-2 door Cabin-2 door Cabin-2 door
Seating Tandem Tandem Tandem and side Tandem and side by
arrangement by side side
Horizontal and Conventional Canard + VT Conventional Canard
Vertical Tail
Tail Attachment Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
Engine type Piston Prop Piston Prop Piston Prop Piston Prop
Number of engines Single Double Single Double
Engine location In Front of One in front, one in In Front of nose On wings
nose back of fuselage
Propeller type Tractor both Tractor Tractor
Landing Gear (LG) Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle Tricycle
Type
LG Mechanism Retractable Retractable Non retractable Non retractable
LG Location On wing On wing On fuselage On fuselage
LG Runway Land-based Land-based Land-based Land-based
Table: 4 alternative aircraft designs