SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by
SUDHAN.U (62205101043)
SYED MUSTHAFA.H (62205101047)
THIRUMALVALAVAN.M (62205101048)
THIRUMURUGAN.M (62205101049)
In partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
Of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
V.S.B. ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KARUR.

SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT
A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by
SUDHAN.U (62205101043)
SYED MUSTHAFA.H (62205101047)
THIRUMALVALAVAN.M (62205101048)
THIRUMURUGAN.M (62205101049)
In partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
Of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
V.S.B. ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KARUR.
ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certified that the project report of
SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT
is the bonafide work of
SUDHAN.U (62205101043)
who carried out the project work under my supervision.
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Mr. K. VELMURUGARAJAN , Mr. J.BRUCE RALPHIN ROSE,
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, SUPERVISOR,
Dept. of Aeronautical Engg, Lecturer,
V. S. B. Engineering College. Dept. of Aeronautical Engg.
V. S. B. Engineering College.
Date:
Submitted this project for viva voice on..
External Examiner Internal Examiner
ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certified that the project report of
SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT
is the bonafide work of
SYED MUSTHAFA.H (62205101047)
who carried out the project work under my supervision.
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Mr. K. VELMURUGARAJAN , Mr. J.BRUCE RALPHIN ROSE,
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, SUPERVISOR,
Dept. of Aeronautical Engg, Lecturer,
V. S. B. Engineering College. Dept. of Aeronautical Engg.
V. S. B. Engineering College.
Date:
Submitted this project for viva voice on..
External Examiner Internal Examiner
ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certified that the project report of
SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT
is the bonafide work of
THIRUMALVALAVAN.M (62205101048)
who carried out the project work under my supervision.
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Mr. K. VELMURUGARAJAN , Mr. J.BRUCE RALPHIN ROSE,
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, SUPERVISOR,
Dept. of Aeronautical Engg, Lecturer,
V. S. B. Engineering College. Dept. of Aeronautical Engg.
V. S. B. Engineering College.
Date:
Submitted this project for viva voice on..
External Examiner Internal Examiner
ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certified that the project report of
SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT
is the bonafide work of
THIRUMURUGAN.M (62205101049)
who carried out the project work under my supervision.
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Mr. K. VELMURUGARAJAN , Mr. J.BRUCE RALPHIN ROSE,
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, SUPERVISOR,
Dept. of Aeronautical Engg, Lecturer,
V. S. B. Engineering College. Dept. of Aeronautical Engg.
V. S. B. Engineering College.
Date:
Submitted this project for viva voice on..
External Examiner Internal Examiner
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, we wish to acknowledge our debt to the `HARD WORK IS
THE KEY TO SUCCESS` who has given us knowledge and good health.
We would like to express to the chairman of our college,
Mr. V.S.BALUSAMY and the principal Mr. JOHN ORAL BASKAR, for
providing better working environments and educational facilities.
We are much grateful Mr. K.VELMURUGARAJAN Head of the department
of the Aeronautical engineering for this encouragement discussion, valuable
comments and many innovative ideas in carrying out this project. Without his
timely help it would have been impossible for us to complete this work.
We acknowledge in no less terms the qualified and excellent assistance rendered
by Mr. J.BRUCE RALPHIN ROSE, Lecturer, Department of Aeronautical
Engineering. We owe a debt of gratitude for his valuable suggestions, kind
inspiration and encouragement.
We most sincerely acknowledge the staff members of Department of
Aeronautical Engineering for their constant inspiration and suggestions.
We owe a debt gratitude to our parents and friends for their advice and to keep
our spirits high to complete this project.
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER.NO TITLE
ABSTRACT
LIST OF SYMBOLS
INTRODUCTION
1.COMPARITIVE STUDY OF SUBSONIC BOMBER
1.1 DIMENSIONS
1.2 WEIGHT CONFIGURATION
1.3 PERFORMANCE
1.4 ENGINE CONFIGURATION
1.5 ARMAMENTS
2.SELECTION OF MAIN PARAMETERS
2.1 AIRFOIL SELECTION
2.2 CO-EFFICIENT OF LIFT V
S
ANGLE OF ATTACK
2.3 CO-EFFICIENT OF LIFT V
S
DRAG
2.4 MAX.L/D V
S
VELOCITY
2.5 RANGE V
S
VELOCITY
2.6 ALTITUDE V
S
VELOCITY
2.7 ASPECT RATIO V
S
VELOCITY
2.8 WING LOADING V
S
VELOCITY
2.9 SFC V
S
MACH NUMBER
2.10 T/W V
S
VELOCITY
3.WEIGHT ESTIMATION
3.1 WEIGHT CALCULATION
3.2 MISSION PROFILE
3.3 APPROXIMATE WEIGHT ESTIMATION
3.4 ACTUAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION
3.4.1 ITERATION
4.ENGINE SELECTION
4.1 ENGINE LOCATION
4.2 THRUST CALCULATION
4.2.1THRUST V
S
SFC
4.3 ENGINE CONFIGURATION
4.3.1 ENGINE DIMENSION
4.4 CONFIGURATION
4.4.1 ADVANTAGES OF POTTED ENGINE
4.4.2 DISADVANTAGE OF POTTED ENGINE
4.5 THRUST MATCHING
5.AIRFOIL SELECTION
5.1 CALCULATION OF C
L
5.2 REYNOLDS NUMBER
5.3 MAXIMUM C
L
5.4 SKIN FRICTION DRAG FOR TURBULENT FLOW
5.5 REQUIRED C
L(MAX)
5.6 NACA-63A010
5.7 THIN AIRFOIL THEORY
6.WING SELECTION
6.1 EQUIVALENT ASPECT RATIO
6.2 STRUCTURAL WEIGHT FOR VARYING
THICKNESS OF AIRFOIL
6.3 LOCATION OF CENTER OF GRAVITY
7.WETTED SURFACE AREA AND DRAG ESTIMATION
7.1 CALCULATION OF WETTED SURFACE AREA
7.1.1 FUSELAGE
7.1.2 WING AREA
7.1.3 HORIZONTAL TAIL
7.1.4 VERTICAL TAIL
7.1.5 ENGINE
7.1.6 UNDERCARRIAGE OR LANDING GEAR
7.1.7 1/4
th
OF FLAP
7.1.8 FULL FLAP
7.2 DRAG CALCULATION
7.2.1 DRAG POLAR
7.2.2 CRUISE
7.2.3 TAKEOFF
7.2.4 LANDING
7.3 DRAG FOR EACH ALTITUDE
7.3.1 AT SEA LEVEL
7.3.2 AT h=500m
7.3.3 AT h=1000m
7.3.4 AT h=1500m
7.3.5 AT h=2000m
8.ESTIMATION OF RATE OF CLIMB
8.1 CALCULATION OF RATE OF CLIMB
8.1.1 AT SEA LEVEL
8.1.2 AT h=500m
8.1.3 AT h=1000m
8.1.4 AT h=1500m
8.1.5AT h=2000m
8.2 TIME REQUIRED FOR REACHING THE SERVICE CEILING
9.CALCULATION OF TAKEOFF & LANDING DISTANCE
9.1 LENGTH OF TAKEOFF RUN
9.1.1 GROUND RUN
9.1.2 TRANSITION RUN
9.1.3 CLIMBING
9.2 LENGTH OF LANDING RUN
9.2.1 DESCENDING
9.2.2 TRANSITION RUN
9.2.3 GROUND RUN
10.THREE VIEW OF SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT
10.1 FRONT VIEW
10.2 TOP VIEW
10.3 SIDE VIEW
11.BIBLIOGRAPHY
SYMBOLS USED
W-Weight of airgraft
W
o
-Overall weight
W
f
-weight of fuel
W
e
-Empty weight
L
f
fuselage length
D
f
diameter of fuselage
S
w
- wing area
T
w
- wing thickness
b
w
,b wing span
S
ht
horizontal tail area
t
ht
horizontal tail thickness
b
ht
- horizontal tail span
AR aspect ratio
S Surface area
S
vt
vertical tail area
t
vt
- vertical tail thickness
b
vt
vertical tail span
Cd
o
drag polar
Cd coefficient of drag
C
L
- coefficient of lift
F, T thrust
T/W-Thrust loading
W/S-Wing loading
A.R-Aspect ratio
C
r,
C
t
-Chord length of root, tip
T
r
,T
t
-Thickness of root, tip
S
p
-Wetted surface area
C
Dp
-Coefficient of drag of wetted surface area
a-Angle of attack
C.G-Center of gravity

-Dihedral angle
R-Range
E-Endurance

-Ground friction
V-Free stream velocity
C-Chord
Lf-Length of fuselage
VT-Vertical tail
HT-Horizontal tail

-Density(kg/m
3
)
g-Gravity
s-Distance
H-Height
h-altitude
ROC rate of climb
V, u velocity
D Drag
L Lift
g Acceleration of gravity
W
o
optimum weight
- sweep angle
C
r
root chord
ABSTRACT
First we start with design and development. Lets take the military as an example.
Suppose the military wants to design new weapons systems that will be more
accurate than the system they currently have. The first thing they have to do is get
a team of scientists and whatever other personnel are needed to design the system.
Then, after they come up with a design they are pleased with they have to get the
engineers to develop it. All these people either have to be hired or contracted.
Some of the work may be sub contracted.
Then there is the acquisition of the materials needed. Some of the materials may
already be on the hand while others have to be purchased domestically and others
will need to be purchased from overseas. In many cases bids will be put in to
various companies to see who can supply the material at the cheapest cost.
After the materials are acquired theres the matter of storage. in many cases the
material is either of so large in size that the storage facilities need to be specially
built in order to adequately provide the needed space. this of course has to be
figured into the equation.
Then theres the matter of movement and distribution to may be the various
military base around the country even overseas. Trucks or planes need to be
acquired in order to distribute the materials if there arent enough read made
transportation vehicles. Transportation costs alone can be astronomical.
INTRODUCTION
Airplane Design-Introduction
Three major types of airplane designs are
1. Conceptual design,
2. Preliminary design,
3. Detailed design.
1 .CONCEPTUAL DESIGN:
It depends on what are the major factors for the designing of aircraft.
Power plant location:
The power plant location is either padded or buried type engines are
more preferred. Rear location is preferred for low drag, reduced shock and to
use whole thrust.
Selection of engine:
The engine to be used is selected according to the power required.
Wing selection:
The selection of wing depends upon the selection of
Low wing
Mid wing
High wing
2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN:
Preliminary design is based on loitering. U is the mathematical
method of skinning the aircraft after skinning the aircraft looks like a masked
body.
Preliminary design is done with the help of FORTRAN software.
3. DETALIED DESIGN:
In the detailed design considers each and every rivets, nuts, bolts, paints, etc. In
this design the connection and allocation
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF VARIOUS AIRCRAFTS
EX.NO:1 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SUBSONIC BOMBER
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the specification and performance of various type of subsonic
bomber aircraft.
COMPARISION OF DIMENSION:
NAME LENGTH
(m)
HEIGHT
(m)
WING SPAN
(m)
WING AREA
(m
2
)
Kawasaki Ki-
32
11.65 2.09 15.0 34
Mitsubishi
B1M
9.77 3.50 14.77 59
Mitsubishi
B2M
10.27 3.71 15.22 55
Yokosuka
B4Y
10.15 4.36 15 50
Nakajima
B5N2
10.30 3.7 15.52 37.7
Aichi D1A 9.3 3.41 11.4 34.7
Aichi D3A 10.2 3.85 14.37 34.9
Mitsubishi
G3M2
16.45 3.68 25 75.0
Kyushu Q1W 12.09 4.12 16 38.2
Nakajima
G5N
31.02 -- 42.12 201.8
Mitsubishi
G4M2
19.6 6 24.9 --
Radugha Kh- 8.09 -- 3.1 --
55
WEIGHT CONFIGURATION:
NAME MAX.TAKEOFF
WEIGHT (Kg)
EMPTY
WEIGHT(Kg)
LOADED
WEIGHT(Kg)
WING
LOADING
(Kg/m
2
)
Kawasaki Ki-
32
3760 5181 -- --
Mitsubishi
B1M
2697 1442 -- 45.7
Mitsubishi
B2M
-- 2260 3600 --
Yokosuka
B4Y
3600 2000 -- 72
Nakajima
B5N2
4100 2279 3800 101
Aichi D1A 2610 1516 2610 752.161
Aichi D3A 3650 2408 8000 --
Mitsubishi
G3M2
-- 4965 -- --
Kyushu Q1W 5318 3102 4800 126
Nakajima
G5N
32000 20100 -- --
Mitsubishi
G4M2
12500 8160 -- --
Radugha Kh-
55
-- -- -- --
PERFORMANCE DETAIL:
NAME MAX.SPEED
(Km/h)
SERVICE
CEILING (m)
RANGE
(Km
)
RATE OF
CLIMB (m/s)
Kawasaki Ki-
32
423 8920 1965 --
Mitsubishi
B1M
210 4500 -- --
Mitsubishi
B2M
213 4500 1779 --
Yokosuka
B4Y
278 6000 1580 3.6
Nakajima
B5N2
367 8260 1935 6.5
Aichi D1A 309 6980 927 6.37
Aichi D3A 389 9300 1472 --
Mitsubishi
G3M2
375 9200 4400 6
Kyushu Q1W 322 4490 1342
3.81
Nakajima
G5N
420 7450 4260 --
Mitsubishi
G4M2
437 8950 4725 --
Radugha Kh-
55
571 -- 2500 --
SELECTION OF MAIN PARAMETERS
EX.NO:2 SELECTION OF MAIN PARAMETERS

C
L
Vs C
D
The C
L
Vs C
D
was drawn in general. It is also called as drag polar. It has the major
impact on endurance of the aircraft, performance and aerodynamic properties.
C
L
Vs

The general curve was drawn in C

L
Vs

. It gives the information of

variation of lift with angle of attack and the stalling region. Reduce the curve
slope without any change of lift angle of incidence is seen in C
L
Vs

characteristics. Increase of stalling angle without appreciable change in
maximum lift coefficient is also seen in C
L
Vs

graph.
C
L
VS C
D
:
The C
L
vs C
D
was drawn in general. It is also called as drag polar. It
has the major impact on endurance of the aircraft performance and aerodynamic
forces.
C
L
VS

:
The general curve was drawn in C
L
vs

, it gives the information of

variation of lift with angle of attack and the stalling region.
VELOCITY VS ALTITUDE:
The values from the comparative study was used to drawn graphs, the
velocity vs altitude graph was drawn and approximate or optimized value of
maximum altitude at velocity 350 KM/hr was found to be 7000m.
VELOCITY VS RANGE:
The values from the comparative study were used to plot the points in
the graph velocity vs range. The approximate value of range of the aircraft at
maximum speed of 350 km/hr was 6000m.
VELOCITY VS WING LOADING:
The graph plotted between velocity vs wing loading (w/s) was drawn
from the values obtained from the comparative study of aircraft. The main
parameters(w/s) was optimized using the graph by drawing a circle of constant
radius.
The value of wing loading is optimally 350 kg/m
2
.
VELOCITY VS LOADED WEIGHT:
The graph plot between velocity vs loaded weight from the
comparative study was drawn. the optimum value of loaded weight was found to
the 60kg at max speed of 350 km/hr.
VELOCITY VS THRUST-WEIGHT RATIO:
The graph plot between velocity vs thrust-weight ratio value from the
comparative study was drawn velocity vs (T/W) from the graph, the main
parameter (T/W) was optimized using the graph by drawing a circle of constant
radius.
The values of thrust-weight ratio is optimally is 0.35N/kg.
The values from the comparative study done were used to draw graphs. The
velocity Vs altitude graph was drawn and approximate or optimized values of
maximum altitude at velocity 300km/hr was found to be 2000m.
The values from the comparative study were used to plot the points in the graph,
velocity Vs range. The approximate values of range of the aircraft at max speed
300km/hr was 2000km.
The values of velocity and maximum takeoff weight (W
o
) from the comparative
study were used to draw the graph velocity Vs maximum takeoff weight. From the
graph the optimum values of (W
O
) was found to be 5000kg at maximum speed of
300km\hr.
The plot velocity Vs wing loading (W/S) was drawn from the values
obtained from the comparative study of the aircraft. The main parameters (W/S)
was optimized sing the graph by drawing a circle of constant radius.
The value of wing loading is optimally 140Kg/m
2
.
The above graph was drawn between velocity and power plant from the
historical data. From the above graph for velocity 300km/hr was optimized to
680Kw.

WEIGHT ESTIMATION
EX.NO:3 WEIGHT ESTIMATION
GROSS WEIGHT:
W
0
= W
Crew
+ W
payload
+ W
fuel
+ W
empty
Empty weight includes structure, landing gear, lift equipment and
avionic instruments.
To simply fuel weight and empty weight calculation take fraction of
them based on total weight.
W
0
= W
Crew
+ W
pl
+ [(W
f
/ W
0
) + (W
e
/W
0
)] W
0
W
Crew
+ W
pl
= W
0
- [(W
f
/ W
0
) + (W
e
/W
0
)] W
0
W
0
= [W
Crew
+ W
pl
] / [1-(W
f
/ W
0
)+(W
e
/W
0
)]
STEP 1: W
PL
Weight of payload includes bombs, missiles, pods. The payload
weight that has to carried is about
W
PL
=11450kg
STEP 2: W
TO
GUESS
The arbitrary takeoff weight is calculated from the previous
experiment. (i.e) from the graph taken to be
W
TO
GUESS = 20000kg
STEP 3: W
F
The fuel weight includes mission fuel and fuel reserved for emergency
operation.
W
F
= W
F mission
+ W
F reserved
Mission fuel weight can be calculated from the fuel fraction for various mission
segments.


MISSION PROFILE
0-1 Engine start and warm up
1-2 Taxing
2-3 Take off
3-4 Climb and acceleration
4-5 Cruise out
5-6 Loiter
6-7 Descent
7-8 Combat
8-9 Climb
9-10 Cruise in
10-11 Loiter
11-12 Descent
12-13 Landing, Taxing, and Shutoff
MISSION 0-1:
The mission 0-1 is engine start and warm up. From the historical data
it is found to be 0.99
W
1
W
0
=0.99
MISSION 1- 2:
The mission 1-2 is taxing, the fuel fraction from historical data was
0.99

W
2
W
1
= 0.99
MISSION 2-3:
The mission 2-3 is takeoff and the fuel fraction is found to be 0.995
W
3
W
2
= 0.995
MISSION 3-4:
The mission 3-4 is climb and acceleration. The fuel fraction for this
segment is found to be 0.980
W
4
W
3
= 0.980
MISSION 4-5:
The mission 4-5 is cruise. The fuel fraction for this mission was found
from the range equation (i.e) Brequet equation
R=
j
V
C
1
1
1
]
L
D
1
1
]
ln
W
4
W
5
1
1
1
]

W
5
W
4
1
1
]
= e
-[R/

j
V
C
1
1
1
]
L
D
1
1
]
Range, R is approximated from the graph of previous experiments
R = 755.06nm
cruise velocity, v = 176.29knots,88.88m/s
L/D = 14
C
j
=0.6
The SFC, C
j
is approximately to 0.6 since the armaments are placed
externally
Substitute the value in Brequet equation

5
4
W
W
=
(755.06)(0.6)
(172.69)(1.4)

5
4
W
W
= 0.829
MISSION 5-6: [LOITER]
The fraction for this mission is found from the endurance equation
E=
5
6
1
ln
j
W L
C D W
_
_

,
,
Let us assume the endurance to be 20 i.e: 0.33 hr. C
j
=0.5;
L
D
_

,
= 15
Substitute the value in endurance equation

6
5
W
W
=0.988
MISSION 6-7: (DECENT)
The fraction of fuel for this mission was found from historical data
and to be 0.99.
MISSION 7-8: (COMBAT)
During combat, no fuel penalty or no range credit could be
encouraged if the weapons arent dropped. So the fraction is assumed to be
8
7
W
W
=1.0
The fuel fraction up to this stage is calculated by the consideration the
procedure up to this mission so
M
ff
= 0.99*0.99*0.995*0.98*0.829*0.988*.99*1
M
ff
=0.74
Lets calculate the weight M the bomb is dropped.
Weight prior to bomb drop = 0.774 W
TO
= 15480
Let us consider bomb is dropped weight
Immediately after bomb dropped = 15480-11250
= 4230
MISSION 8-9: (CLIMB)
The climb weight fraction is 0.980.
This ratio has to be corrected for weight change during bomb drop.
The bomb weight ratio =
4230
15480
=0.27
The corrected weight
9
8
W
W
= [1-(1-0.98)0.27]

9
8
W
W
= 0.9945
MISSION 9-10: (CRUISE)
The fraction is found using Brequets equation
L
D
=14.5, since the
bomb are dropped and profile drag would less.
C=0.6is
So
10
9
W
W
is found to be 0.834
MISSION 10-11: (LOITER)
The fuel fraction for this mission is found using endurance equation.
Endurance is assumed to be 0.333hr.therefore,0.333
11
10
W
W
= (0.333) (0.6)/14.5
=0.986
MISSION 11-12: (DESCENT)
The fraction is found to be from historical data to be 0.99
12
11
W
W
=0.99
MISSION 12-13: (LANDING, TAXING & SHUTOFF)
The fuel fraction of this mission was found to be

13
12
W
W
=0.992
The fuel fraction is found from the products of every value
M
ff
=0.99*0.99*0.995*0.98*0.829*0.988*0.99*0.9945
*0.834*0.986*0.99*0.992
M
ff
= 0.622
W
f
= (1-0.622) W
TO
W
f
= 7560
STEP 4:
Tentative W
OE
is found from following formula
W
OE
Tent = W
TO GUESS
W
f
W
PL
= 2000-760-250
=990kg
STEP 5:
Tentative weight empty W
E
is found from the following formula,
W
E tent
= W
OE Tent
W
Reserved fuel
W
crew
The weight of reserved fuel is 0.5% of gross weight
W
reserved fuel
= 0.005*W
TO
=0.005*20000
=100
W
E Tent
= W
E Tent
W
Reserved tent
- W
crew
= 990-100-200
=690
CALCULATION OF GROSS WEIGHT:
From equation 4
W
0
=
0 0
1
crew PL
F E
W w
W W
W W
+

=
11450
7560 690
1
20000 20000

W
0
=19489.36kg
PERCENTAGE OF ERROR:
The percentage of error between assumed gross weight and actual
gross weight is calculated
% of error = (assumed actual)*100/assumed
= (20000 19489.36)*100/20000
% of error = 2.55%
ENGINE SELECTION
EX.NO:4 ENGINE SELECTION
PROCEDURE:
To calculate the maximum thrust required for takeoff
we have
(h
p
/w)=0.08 as reference for subsonic bomber aircraft.
The thrust required by analytical approach
(T/W)=
550
*
p
P
h
V W

=
550*0.8
*0.08
83.33
=0. 8442
(T/W)=0.8442*780.71
(T/W)=659.07 Kg
The engine must be selected such that the thrust required must equal thrust
produced by the engine.
The following engine matches the purpose.
Lycoming produced a thrust of 396 KW
Lycoming produced a thrust of 395 KW
Vedeneyer produced a thrust of 420 KW
The wet aspect ratio can be calculated using the formula
A
R(WET)
=
/
R
WET REP
A
S S
A
R(WET)
=5.05/3
=1.68
The ratio S
WET
/S
REF
was found to be3.
THRUST MATCHING:
For a propeller driven aircraft the required takeoff (h
p
/w) can be found using
( )
( )
1
* * *
550 ( / )
p takeoff
cruise cruise
P cruise Takeoff p cruise
h
V W
L D W h
=(h
p
/w)
takeoff
(L/D)
CRUISE
=14
lim
3 3 2
1 2 1
*
* *
0.7922
cr
c b cruise
To
cr
To
cr
To
W
W W
W
W W W W
W W W W
W
W

Piston engine with supercharger cruise at 75% of takeoff power.

( )
1/ 0.75 1.33
( )
p takeoff
p cruise
h
h

(h
p
/W)
Takeoff
=
320 1
* *0.7922*1.33
550*0.8 14
(h
p
/W)
Takeoff
=0.0513
Since, the reference (h
p
/W) and calculated (h
p
/W)are correct.
MODEL TYPE COMBUSTION
TYPE
MAX.POWER
AT SEA
LEVEL
SFC AT
MAX
POWER
OVER ALL
PRESSURE
RATIO AT
MAX
POWER
250-
B17C
AC-P Ca 420 SHP 0.66 7.2
250-
B17D
AC-P Ca 420 SHP 0.66 7.2
250-
B17E
AC-P Ca 420 SHP 0.66 7.2
TRS 18-1 C-J An 360 lb-t 1.26 4.7
MODEL MAX.ENVELOP
E DIA (in)
MAX.ENVELOP
E LENGTH (in)
DRY WEIGHT
LESS TAIL
PIPE (L
B
)
250-B17C 22.6 45 198
250-B17D 22.5 45 202
250-B17E 22.5 45 202
TRS 18-1 12 40.7 97
SFC(lb/hp/hr)
0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76
T
H
R
U
S
T
(
S
H
P
)
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
THRUST Vs SFC
ADVANTAGE:
Light weight starter,
Electronic igniter,
Remote oil filter,
Air condition provision,
Optical magnets,
Fixed pitch and chard propeller.
DISADVANTAGE:
Slip stream component induces drag,
Slip stream may disturb the free air flow over the wing.

AIRFOIL SELECTION
EX.NO:5 AIRFOIL SELECTION

The airfoil can be selected from the
max
L
C
which we can determined from the
calculation.
The
max
L
C
for the airfoil has to be selected for choosing the specified airfoil.
Blade Element Theory for Airfoil:
In the previous section, we looked at momentum theory. This theory gave us
four useful pieces of information:
(1) Induced velocity far downstream in the rotor wake, called downwash, is twice
that at the rotor disk, called inflow.
(2) The ideal power coefficient C
p
in hover equals
C
T
3 2
2
/
(3) The induced power is minimized for a given thrust coefficient, if the induced
velocity in the far wake is uniform.
(4) The induced velocity at the rotor disk is related to the thrust coefficient in hover
by

i
T
v
R
C

2
Momentum theory cannot help us analyze specific rotor blades, or distinguish
between the number of blades and their other physical characteristics such as twist,
r
d
taper, camber etc. In order to do these, we turn to a theory called blade element
theory.
Blade element theory is similar to the strip theory in fixed wing
aerodynamics. The blade is assumed to be made of several infinitesimal strips of
width dr. The lift and drag are estimated at the strip using 2-D airfoil
characteristics of the airfoil at that strip, and what we know about the local flow
magnitude, such as the angular velocity, climb speed V, and inflow v. The lift L ,
and drag D multiplied by the in-plane velocity of the rotor are integrated with
respect to r, from root to tip to obtain the thrust T and the power P consumed by a
single rotor blade. For multi-bladed rotors, this integrated expression is multiplied
by the number of blades, b.
Note: Wayne Johnson uses the symbol N for number of blades.
Consider a typical element or strip shown below. The blade sees an in-
plane velocity U
T
, that is tangential to the plane of rotation. The magnitude of U
T
is, of course, r, where r is the radial position of the strip. This element has a pitch
angle equal to . That is, the angle between the plane of rotation and the line of
zero lift is . If there were no climb velocity V, or induced inflow v, this would be
the section angle of attack.
These two components of velocity V and v change the flow direction by
amounts, as shown in the figure above. Here,

,
_

r
v V
arctan
Thus, the effective angle of attack is . The airfoil lift and drag
coefficients C
l
and C
d
at this effective angle of attack may be looked up from a
table of airfoil characteristics. The lift and drag forces will be perpendicular to, and
along the apparent stream direction.

,
_

r
V v
arctan
r
V+v
Line of Zero Lift

effective
=
These forces are given by
( )
( )
d P T
l P T
cC U U D
cC U U L

2
1

2
1
2 2
2 2
+
+

The L and D have units of force per unit span. They must be rotated in directions
normal to, and tangential to the rotor disk, respectively, and multiplied by the strip
width dr to get the thrust and drag components, as shown below.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
X x T
l d P T x
d l P T
rdF dF U dP
dr C C c U U dr L D dF
dr C C c U U dr D L dT

+ + +
+


sin cos
2
1
sin cos
sin cos
2
1
sin cos
2 2
2 2
Finally, the thrust and power T and P may be found by integrating dT and dP
above from root to tip (r=0 to r=R), and multiplying the results by the total number
of blades, b.
The above integration can, in general, be only numerically done since the chord
c, the sectional lift and drag coefficients may vary along the span. Finally, the
inflow velocity v depends on T. Thus, an iterative process will be needed to find
the quantity v.
Approximate expressions for thrust and power may, however, be found if we are
willing to make a number of approximations:
a) The chord c is constant,
b) The inflow velocity v and climb velocity V are small. Thus, <<
1 , and << 1. We can approximate cos( ) by unity, and
approximate sin( ) by ( ).
c) The lift coefficient is a linear function of the effective angle of attack,
that is, . Thus,
( ) a C
l
where a is the lift curve slope. For low speeds, a may be set equal to 5.7 per
radian.
d) C
d
is small. So, C
d
sin() may be neglected.
e) The in-plane velocity U
T
is much larger than the normal component U
P
over must of the rotor, except near the hub.
With these assumptions, thrust T may be expressed as
r R
2 2
r 0
r R
3 3
d
r 0
1 V v
T cba r dr
2 r r
1 V v V v
P cba C r dr
2 r r r r

_



,
1
_ _
+ +

1

, ,
]

To perform the integration, we need to know how the pitch angle varies
with r. Many rotor blades are twisted, and it is not reasonable to assume that the
pitch angle is constant. Two choices are common.
Linearly Twisted Blade:
Here, we assume that the pitch angle varies as
+ E Fr
where E and F are constants. Using this definition, and performing the
integration (check!), we get:
( ) T
b
ca E FR
V v
R
R
b
ca R R
C
abc
R
a
where
bc R
V v
R
T
+

_
,

+

1
]
1

1
]
1

1
]
1

1
]
1


+
2
1
3
3
4 2 2 3
2
2 3
2
2 3
2
2 3
2 75
75 75

.
. .
/
/ /
/ solidity BladeArea / DiskArea
Inflow Ratio
Notice that the thrust coefficient is linearly proportional to the pitch angle at the
75% Radius. This is why the pitch angle is usually defined at the 75% R in
industry.
The expression for power may be integrated in a similar manner, if the drag
coefficient C
d
is assumed to be a constant, equal to C
d0
. The final expression is
(check):
C C
C
P T
d
+

0
8
The above expressions are true only for a linearly twisted rotor.
Ideally Twisted Rotor:
Here, the twist angle is inversely proportional to the radial location r. Such rotors
are hard to manufacture, but turn out to have the lowest power consumption.

t
R
r
Here
t
is the pitch angle at the blade tip.
Using this in the expression for thrust given in equation (6) we get
( ) T abc
R
r
V v
r
r dr abc R
t t
r
r

+

_
,

1
2
1
4
2 2 3
0

Or,
( ) C
a
T t

4
The expression for the coefficient for power, for an ideally twisted rotor turns out
to be identical to that for a linearly twisted rotor.
In summary, according to the blade element theory, the following
expressions are obtained.
For a linearly twisted rotor in hover or climb,
.75 T
C a
2 3 2

_


,
For an ideally twisted rotor in hover or climb,
( )
T t
a
C
4

For both types of twist, the power coefficient is given by
d0
P T
C
C C
8

+
The first term in the power coefficient is identical to momentum theory, and is
called the induced power. The second term is due to power required to turn the
rotor in a viscous flow, and is called the profile power. The Figure of Merit M is
given by
T
T d0
C
M
C C / 8

+
PROCEDURE:
The airfoil can be selected from the (C
L
)
max
value which can be determined
from calculation.
The (C
L
)
max
value for the airfoil has to be selected for choosing the specified
airfoil.
DESIGN (C
L
)
max
:
The design (C
L
)
max
value for the airfoil can be calculated from the basic lift
equation
W=
2
1
2

SC
L
at steady state.
Therefore, C
L=
(2WS)/
2

The value of wing loading is calculated from the experiment 2.

The density is taken from the International Standard Atmosphere(ISA) for
an altitude 4000m is to be 0.76Kg/m
3
.
The velocity at cruise is 320Km/hr (88.88m/s). Hence the C
L
value for the
airfoil to be
C
L
=(2*314)/.76*(88.88)
2
C
L
=0.104
AIRFOIL SELECTION:
The airfoil in many respects, is the heat of the airplane. The airfoil affects
the cruise speed, takeoff and landing distance, stall speed, handling qualities
(especially near the stall),overall aerodynamic efficiency during all phases of
flight.
AIRFOIL GEOMETRY:
The front of the airfoil is designed by a leading edge radius which is
tangent to the upper and lower surfaces.
An airfoil is designed to operate in supersonic flow will have a sharp
or nearly sharp leading edge to prevent a drag producing bow shock.
The chord of the airfoil is the straight line from the leading edge to the
trailing edge. It is very difficult to build a perfectly sharp trailing edge, so most
airfoils have a blunt trailing edge with some small finite thickness.
EFFECT OF THICKNESS:
The thickness distribution of the airfoil is the distance from the upper
surface to the lower surface measured perpendicular to the mean chamber line and
is a function of the distance from the leading edge.
The airfoil thickness ratio(t/c) refers to the maximum thickness of the
airfoil described by its chord.
Due to the fuselage effects, the root airfoil of a subsonic aircraft can
be as much as 20-60% thicker than tip airfoil without greatly affecting the drag.
This is very beneficial resulting in a structural weight reduction as
well as maximum volume for fuel and landing gear. this thicker root of the airfoil
should extend to not more than about 30% of the span.
For the above condition are satisfied on the suitable airfoil is NACA
63010.
The X and Y coordinates for the selected airfoil are drawn by using
the excel software.
LOWER SURFACE UPPER SURFACE
X Y X Y
1.0 0.0 0.0 0
.95 -0.002140 0.005 0.008290
0.9 -0.006040 0.0075 0.010040
0.85 -0.010880 0.0025 0.017560
0.8 -0.016180 0.05 0.0.24400
0.75 -0.021660 0.075 0.029500
0.7 -0.027120 0.1 0.033620
0.65 -0.032340 0.15 0.039940
0.6 -0.037150 0.20 0.044450
0.55 -0.041400 0.25 0.047530
0.5 -0.044960 0.30 0.049380
0.45 -0.047660 0.35 0.05
0.4 -0.049380 0.40 0.049380
0.35 -0.05 0.45 0.047660
0.3 -0.049380 0.50 0.044960
0.25 -0.047530 0.55 0.041400
0.2 -0.044450 0.60 0.037150
0.15 -0.039940 0.65 0.032340
0.1 -0.033620 0.70 0.027120
0.075 -0.029500 0.75 0.021660
0.05 -0.024400 0.80 0.016180
0.025 -0.017560 0.85 0.010880
0.0075 -0.010040 0.90 0.006040
0.0050 -0.008290 1.0 0
NACA63A010
ANGLE OF ATTACK VS C
L
ANGLE OF ATTACK
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
C
L
0
1
2
ANGLE OF ATTACK VS C
L

The above graph was drawn between the angle of attack and the co-
efficient of lift without flap. When the plain flap is deflected, the increase in lift
is due to an effective increase in camber and a virtual increase in angle of
attack.
C
L
VS C
d
C
L
-2 -1 0 1 2
C
d
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.012
C
L
vs C
d

The above graph was drawn between co-efficient of lift and co-efficient of
drag.
1. Negative values of C
L
pertain to negative lift, which occurs when the
angle of attack of the airplane is less than
L
0
.
2. This situation is not encountered frequently in the analysis of airplane
performance, hence only that portion of the drag polar associated with
positive C
L
.
ANGLE OF ATTACK VS C
L
ANGLE OF ATTACK
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
C
L
-2
-1
0
1
2
ANGLE OF ATTACK VS C
L
X/C VS Y/C
U/V
0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16
Y
/
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
X/C VS Y/C
X/C VS Y/C
U/V
0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16
Y
/
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
X/C VS Y/C
X/C VS U/V
X/C
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
U
/
V
0
1
2
X/C VS U/V
WING DESIGN
EX.NO:6 WING DESIGN
WING DESIGN AND CALCULATION:
To design the wing we have to find out length of the fuselage
LENGTH:
Length= aw
0
c
From historical data a= 0.23; c=0.5
Length =.23(19489.36)
.5
Length =105.3ft
SURFACE AREA:
From the historical data W/S=113.5
s=w/113.5 =19489.36/113.5=171.71m
2
For our aircraft
Aspect ratio =AR=10.3=b
2
/s
b
2
=10.3*171.71
b =42.5
ROOT CHORD:
The design the aerodynamic center
C
root
= (2*S
W
)/ [b (1+ )]
= (2*171.71)/42.5(1+0.4)
C
root
=5.83ft
TIP CHORD:
C
tip
= C
root
=0.4*5.83
C
tip
=2.33ft
AERODYNAMIC CENTRE:
To design the aerodynamic centre
c = (2/3)*c
root
*(1+ +
2
/1+ )
= (2/3)*5.833*(1+.4+.4
2
/1+.4)
c =4.33ft
Y
= (b/6) (1+2 /1+ )
=42.5/6(1+.8/1+.4)

Y
=9.0107ft
The vertical and horizontal surface of the tail can be find out through the
equation
C
VT
=L
VT
.S
VT
/B
W.
S
W
C
HT
=L
HT.
S
HT
/C
W.
S
W
From the historical data the value of C
VT
& C
HT
for the subsonic bomber
aircraft is
C
VT=
.08& C
HT
=1.00
LENGTH OF THE VERTICAL TAIL:
The length of the vertical tail is the 50-60% of the fuselage length
L
VT
=.5*32.1
=16.05ft
S
VT
=C
VT
*B
W
.S
W
/L
VT

= .08*42.05*171.71/16.05
S
VT
=35.98ft
2
The length of the horizontal tail is the 25% of the fuselage length
B
W
=.25*32.1=8.025ft
S
HT
=C
HT
B
W
S
W
/L
HT

= 1*8.025*171.71/16.05
S
HT
=85.855ft
2
FUEL TANK:
The volume of fuel tank required
Volume of fuel =weight of fuel/density of fuel
=7560/800=9.45m
3
Now we assume 50% of the fuel stored in the wing
0.5*9.45= [(t/c)* c *(.5c )*(.5*b*.72*2)]
c = 3.78
t/c = 0.0127
t =0.0127* C
r

t=0.012*5.833
t=0.069m
t/c
t
= 0.0127
t=0.0127*2.33
t=0.029m


ESTIMATION OF WETTED SURFACE AREA
EX.NO:7 ESTIMATION OF WETTED SURFACE AREA
WETTED SURFACE AREA:
Aircraft wetted area (S
wet
), the total exposed surface area, can be visualized as the
area of the external parts of the aircraft that would get wet if it were dipped into
water. The wetted area must be calculated for drag estimation, as it is the major
contributor to friction drag.
The wetted area is estimated by multiplying the true- view exposed as plan form
area (S
exposed
) times a factor based upon the wing or tail thickness ratio.
If a wing or tail were papper-thin, the wetted area would be exactly twice the true
plan form area (i.e. top and bottom). The effect of finite thickness is to increase the
wetted area, as approximated. Note that the true exposed plan form area is the
projected(top-view) area divided by the cosine of the dihedral angle.
If t/c<0.05,
S
wet
=2.003S
exposed
If t/c>0.05,
S
wet
=S
exposed
(1.977+0.52(t/c))
The wetted area of the fuselage can be initially estimated using just the side and
top views of the aircraft by the method. The side and top views projected areas of
the fuselage are measured from the diagram, and the values are average.
S
wet
=3.4(A
top
+A
side
)/2
A more accurate estimation of wetted area can be obtained by graphical integration
using a number of fuselage cross section. If the perimeters of the cross sections are
measured and plotted Vs longitudinal location, using the same units on the graph,
then the integrated area under the resulting curve gives the wetted area.
The cross sectional perimeters measurements should not include the portions
where components join, such as at the wing-fuselage intersection. This areas are
not wetted.
DRAG POLAR FOR CRUISE CONDITION:
Fuselage length = a
0
C
W
a = 0.23, c = 0.5
Fuselage length = 0.23(19490)
0.5
= 32.1m
f
f
L
d
= 9
d
f
= 3.56
Fuselage S

= ( d
f
2
)/4
= 9.98 m
2
S
w
= T
w
* b
w
=0.0518 * 42.05
S
w
= 2.180
From the historical tail area was 37.2m
2
AR = b
2
/S
AR = 10.3
b
2
= (10.3*37.2)/3
b = 11.3m
t
ht
= 10% of wing thickness
S
ht
= t
ht
*b
ht
= 0.00518 * 11.3
S
ht
=0.058594m
2
S
vt
=t
vt
*b
vt
= 0.00518 * 5.65
S
vt
=0.029267m
2
Engine area = d
2
/4
=3.14*(1.8)
2
/4
=2.5434
flap S

=
2
10 * *(0.2*4.33)
360

o
o

=0.0654
Under carriage = 1.1*S
engine
= 1.1 * 2.5434
= 2.8
full flap S

=
2
30 * *(0.2*4.33)
360

o
o
= 0.1962
TABULATION:
COMPONENTS C
d
S

C*S
Fuselage 0.03 9.98 0.2994
Wing 0.008 2.18 0.01744
Horizontal Tail 0.008 0.059 0.000472
Vertical Tail 0.008 0.029 0.000232
Engine 0.01 2.54 0.0254
Under carriage 0.04 2.8 0.112
1/4flap 0.0504 0.0654 0.0033
full flap 0.035 0.1962 0.00687
5
1
*
others
cruise
i
d
do
i W
C S
C
S

E =
0.2994 0.1744 0.000472 0.0254 0.000232
515.13
+ + + +
=9.70*10
-4

7
1
*
others
takeoff
i
d
do
i W
C S
C
S

=
0.2994 0.1744 0.000472 0.0254 0.000232 0.112 0.0033
515.13
+ + + + + +
=1.1943*10
-3
6
1 1
* *
others
landing
i
d d
do
i i W W
C S C S
C
S S

+

=
0.2994 0.1744 0.000472 0.0254 0.000232 0.112 0.00687
515.13
+ + + + + +
= 1.2*10
-3
C
d0
= C
d0 cruise
+ C
do takeoff
+ C
do landing
=9.7*10
-4
+1.1943*10
-3
+1.20*10
-3
=3.36*10
-3
C
D0
=C
fe
*
wet
ref
S
S
= 0.0030*3
= 0.009
K=
1
AR l
= 1/(3.14*0.79*10.3)
=0.039
Where l =0.79 for subsonic
AT h=0, a=340 m/s
V Cl M C
dto
C
dw
C
d0
C
dt
D(kN)
20 14 0.05 0.0012 0.024 0.025 8.04 109.8
40 3.5 0.117 0.0012 0.006 0.007 0.511 27.9
60 1.56 0176 0.0012 0.0026 0.003 0.12 14.715
83.3 0.8 0.2345 0.0012 0.0014 0.002 0.04 8.83
AT h = 500m, a=338m/s
V C
l
M C
dto
C
dw
C
do
C
dt
D(KN)
20 14.7 0.06 0.0012 0.0025 0.026 8.85 11.7
40 3.68 0.118 0.0012 0.006 0.007 0.56 2.96
60 1.63 0.177 0.0012 0.0027 0.003 0.118 1.41
83.3 0.85 0.246 0.0012 0.0014 0.002 0.04 0.9
AT h=1000, a=336m/s
V C
l
M C
dto
C
dw
C
d0
C
dt
D(KN)
20 15.4 0.06 0.0012 0.0026 0.027 9.72 12.3
40 3.86 0.119 0.0012 0.007 0.008 0.62 3.13
60 1.71 0.178 0.0012 0.0029 0.004 0.13 1.48
83.3 0.89 0.247 0.0012 0.0015 0.003 0.04 0.875
AT h=1500, a=334m/s
V C
l
M C
dto
C
dw
C
d0
C
dt
D(KN)
20 16.22 0.06 0.0012 0.027 0.028 10.78 12.9
40 4.06 0.119 0.0012 0.007 0.008 0.68 3.26
60 1.8 0.179 0.0012 0.003 0.004 0.14 1.515
83.3 0.93 0.249 0.0012 0.0015 0.003 0.05 1.047
AT h =2000, a=332m/s
V Cl M C
dto
C
dw
C
d0
C
dt
D(KN)
20 17.05 0.06 0.0012 0.028 0.029 11.19 12.8
40 4.26 0.12 0.0012 0.007 0.008 0.75 3.43
60 1.89 0.18 0.0012 0.003 0.004 0.16 1.65
83.3 0.983 0.25 0.0012 0.0016 0.003 0.05 .991
Cl C
dt cruise
C
dt take off
C
dt landing
0 1.0185*10
-3
1.19*10
-3
1.2*10
-3
1 0.0419 0.04214 0.04215
2 0.1648 0.16499 0.165
3 0.369 0.369 0.369
3.9 0.624 0.624 0.624
C
L
vs C
dt
C
dt
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
C
L
0
1
2
3
4
5
C
dt cruise
vs C
L
C
dt takeoff
vs C
L
C
dt landing
vs C
L
The above graph is drawn in between C
L
Vs C
dt
. From the above graph we
should understand that the drag is low for takeoff. The drag value is maximum
for the landing and drag value for landing. The drag value for the cruise is in
between the drag value of take-off and landing.
DRAG VS VELOCITY
VELOCITY
0 20 40 60 80 100
D
R
A
G
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
h=0(sea level)
h=500m
h=1000m
h=1500m
h=2000m

The above graph is drawn between velocity and drag. From the above graph we
should understand that as velocity increases the also increases relatively up to
certain velocity and then the drag value decreases.
ESTIMATION OF RATE OF CLIMB
EX.NO:8 ESTIMATION OF RATE OF CLIMB
RATE OF CLIMB:
At steady state condition of flight for increase in power of engine there will have a
corresponding increase of lift, if the elevators are operated suitably this increase in
power can be used for the climbing flight with the nose up.
For such a flight L=W sin. The vertical velocity component Vsin is called rate of
climb. In a climbing flight power is required for both of the following
1. To pull the aircraft weight up
2. To overcome the drag force,
( ) Rate of climb = T - W / W V 1
]
=Excess power/W
This relation is true for small angles of climb.(say <20
0
)
Therefore, From the engine selection.
Thrust required at altitude = F*^1.15
Where
= [(20-h)/(20+h)]
At sea level h=0,
F=3*[(20-0)/ (20+0)]
1.15
F=300KN
At h=500m
F=3*[(20-0.5)/ (20+0.5)]
1.15
F=283KN
At h=1000m
F=3*[(20-1)/ (20+1)]
1.15
F=267KN
At h=1500m
F=3*[(20-1.5)/ (20+1.5)]
1.15
F=252KN
At h=2000m
F=3*[(20-2)/ (20+2)]
1.15
F=238KN
At h=0,
V D T R/C=[(T-D)*60]/
(W
0
*9.81)
20 11.19 3 -2.56
40 2.845 3 0.04
60 1.5 3 0.470
83.3 0.9 3 0.66
At h=500m
V D T R/C
20 11.7 2.83 -2.78
40 2.96 2.83 -0.04
60 1.41 2.83 0.44
83.3 0.9 2.83 0.6
At h=1000m
V D T R/C
20 12.3 2.67 -3.02
40 3.13 2.67 -0.14
60 1.48 2.67 0.37
83.3 0.875 2.67 0.56
At h=1500m
V D T R/C
20 12.9 2.52 -3.25
40 3.26 2.52 -0.25
60 1.515 2.52 0.31
83.3 1.047 2.52 0.46
At h=2000m
V D T R/C
20 12.8 2.38 -3.27
40 3.43 2.38 -0.33
60 1.65 2.38 0.23
83.3 0.991 2.38 0.435
ALTITUDE VS R/C
R/C
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3
A
L
T
I
T
U
D
E
0
1
2
3
ALTITUDE VS R/C
1. The service ceiling can be defined as the altitude at which the rate of
climb is 100 units/units time.
2. The maximum rate of climb will not occur at maximum angle of climb.
The above graph is drawn in between altitude and rate of climb from this
above graph we should understand that rate of climb decreases with increase in
altitude.
3. Absolute ceiling is termed as generally used to indicate the maximum
height to which airplane can reach. At that altitude the power available
and power required will be equal
VELOCITY VS R/C
VELOCITY
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
R
/
C
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
at h=0(sea level)
at h=500m
at h=1000m
at h=1500m
at h=2000m
The above graph is drawn in between velocity and rate of climb. From the above
graph we understand that
1. For steady climbing flight, lift and coefficient of lift are smaller than that
in a steady level flight. Hence induced drag also smaller.
2. Consequently total drag for climbing flight becomes smaller than total
drag for level flight at same velocity.
Hence a plot of drag power (i.e., drag x velocity) against velocity of flight for
climbing flight will be totally different from same plot for level flight, as the drag
is smaller during climbing than level flight at same flight velocity.
ALTITUDE VS 1/(R/C)
ALTITUDE
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1
/
(
R
/
C
)
-4
-3
-2
-1
ALTITUDE VS 1/(R/C)
The above graph is drawn in between the 1/ROC and altitude. From this above
graph we should understand that as altitude increases the 1/ROC value increases up
to 4000m and after this altitude the value of 1/ROC value starts to decreases.

TAKE OFF AND LANDING DISTANCE
EX.NO:9 TAKE OFF AND LANDING DISTANCE
LENGTH OF TAKEOFF RUNWAY:
(a)Ground run(S
1
):

( ) ( / )( / ) T D W L W g dv dt +

( ) ( ) ( / )( / ) T D W L W g vdv ds

1
1
0
s
S ds

1
0
( / )
( ) ( )
v
W g
vdv
T D W L

2
1
( / )
( ) ( )
W V g
T D W L

V
1
=1.2*V
Stall
S
1

19489.36(83.88/ 2)
(3 8.83) 0.4(191.19 307.93)

S
1
= 1.657 km

(b)TRANSITION RUN (S
2
):
(W-L)=0,(W/L)is assumption
(T-D) = (W/g)(v dv/ds)
ds = (W/g)(v dv/(T-W))
2 2
1
2
0
( )
S V
V
W
S ds vdv
g T D

2 2
2 1
( )
2 ( )
W V V
g T D

Where
V
1
=20 m/s
V
2
=40 m/s
D = 3.43KN
2 2
2
191.19 (40 20 )
*
(3 3.43) 2
S

2
292.39 S m
(c)CLIMBING(S
3
):

3
3
( ) ( ) 0
sin ( ) /
T D WSin
T D W
H
Tan
S
S HCot
Cos
Cot
Sin

2
1 Sin
Sin

2
( )
1
(( ) / )
T D
W
T D W

2 2
3
( )
( )
W T D
S H
T D

First segment:

2 2
3
(191.19) (3 12.9)
2000
(3 12.9)
S

3
1.732 S km
Finally
1 2 3
3.681
S S S S
S km
+ +

TAKEOFF PROFILE
FOR LANDING:
(a)Descend(S
1
):
2 2
1
( )
( )
W T D
S H
T D

2 2
1
(191.19) (395.76 8.83)
2000
(395.76 8.83)
S

1
1.738 S km
(b)Transition(S
2
):

2 2
2 1
2
2 2
2
2
( )
2 ( )
19489.36(40 20 )
2(395.76 11.7)
30.477
W V V
S
g T D
S
S m

(c): Ground run (S

3
):

2
1
3
2
3
3
( )
2
( ) ( )
19489.36(83.33 / 2)
(395.76 109.8) 0.4(191.19 307.935)
203.41
V
W
g
S
T D W L
S
S m

Finally,
1 2 3
2.245
S S S S
S km
+ +

LANDING PROFILE

THREE VIEW OF SUBSONIC BOMBER AIRCRAFT
FRONT VIEW
TOP VIEW
SIDE VIEW
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Daniel p. Ramer, Aircraft conceptual design, seventh edition.
2. L.M. Milne-Thomson, Theoretical Aerodynamics, second edition.
3. J.D. Anderson, Aircraft Performance.
4. Thomas cork, Preliminary Aircraft Design.
5. John F. Fielding, Airplane Design.
6. Jan Roshkam, Airplane Design, All seven edition.
7. Ira. H. Abbot, Theory of wing selections.
8. Taylor J. Janes, All the World Aircraft, Janess, London, England, UK,
1976.
9. Courtland D. Perkins & Robert E. Hage, Airplane Performance and
Stability control.
10.Aviation weeks- January 2008 edition.
Few websites:
www.NASA.org
www.ZAP16.com
www.Propulsion.org
www.BOMBERAIRCRAFT.com
www.ADL.GETCH.edu