3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 1

Wing and tail design

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 2

Elements of the Airfoil Lift Curve
c
l

c
l,max


c
l,

0
0
0

cl,max

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 3

Evolution of NACA
airfoil sections
The historical evolution of
airfoil sections, 1908 1944.
The last two shapes (N.A.C.A.
661 -212 and N.A.C.A. 74
7A315) are low-drag sections
designed to have laminar flow
over 60 to 70 percent of chord
on both the upper and the
lower surface.
Note that the laminar flow
sections are thickest near the
center of their chords.
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 4

Airfoil Configuration Characteristics
Chord line
Mean camber line
Leading edge
Trailing edge
Upper surface
Lower surface
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 5

Upper
surface,
c
l
=0.22
Lower
surface,
c
l
=0.22
(v/V)
2

x/c
Velocity ratio over upper and lower
surfaces
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 6

Typical Airfoil Data (NACA TR 824)
Split flap
F
=60
o

No flap
c
l

c
M,c/4

Drag
bucket
c
m,a.c.

Angle of attack Angle of attack
3 million<Re<9 million; std.roughness at Re=6 million
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 7

High Lift Devices: The Flap
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 8

0 20 40 60
f
(degrees)

C
l,max

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.6
Increase in C
L,max
: 2- Slot Flap
C
l,max
=1.6[1 + (
f
/45)]
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 9

Airfoil with Slat
slat
Separation is
delayed, thereby
increasing the
stall angle
slot
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 10

Effect of Slat on Lift
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 11

High Lift Devices for Maximum C
L

C
l,max

Flaps Slat
Plain airfoil
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 12

Supercritical Airfoils
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 13

Conventional & supercritical airfoils
Pressure distributions
Strong
shock wave
Weak
shock wave
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 14



Integral
supercritical
airfoil, t/c =11%
NACA 64
1
-212
airfoil, t/c =12%
Slotted
supercritical
airfoil, t/c 13.5%
.02


.01
2



0
0 .72 M .84
Supercritical Airfoil Drag Compared
to NACA Airfoil Drag
C
d

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 15

Supercritical
Airfoil, t/c=11%
NACA 64
1
-212
Airfoil, t/c=12%
1.4

1.0

C
n


.4

0
.64 .72 M .84
Normal Force Coefficient of
Supercritical Airfoil vs. NACA Airfoil
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 16

b
c
V
Lift on a Finite Wing
2-D Lift Distribution
3-D Lift Distribution
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 17

Wing Trailing Vortex System and
Associated Downwash Field
Bound Vortex
Trailing Wingtip Vortex
Trailing Wingtip Vortex
Downwash
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 18

Boeing 727 Trailing Vortex
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 19

centerline
root chord, c
r

tip chord, c
t

half-span, b/2
Wing with high-lift devices
leading-edge slats
trailing edge flaps
inboard aileron
outboard aileron
Wing area S is found in the engine selection process
A=b
2
/S is selected, thereby determining span b

le

mean
aerodynamic
chord, MAC
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 20

1/2
2 2 2
/2
2 2
2
tan
2 1 4
L
c
C
A
A

=
(
| |

+ + +
( |
\ .

Lift characteristics of the 3-D wing
2
1 M =
Lift curve slope of the wing
4 1
tan tan
1
LE nc
n
A

| |
= +
|
+
\ .
Taper ratio: =c
t
/ c
r
Prandtl-Meyer function
Sweepback angles:
Airfoil lift curve slope: = c
l,
/ 2
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 21

max max
max
max max max
max
max
0
L L
L
L L
L
C C
L
C
C c C
c
C
C

| |
= +
|
\ .
= + +

Untwisted, Constant-Section Wings

wing maximum lift
airfoil maximum lift
from Fig. 4.1.3.4-21a
Mach number
correction from
Fig. 4.1.3.4-22
(extrapolation to
M=0.8 required)
wing for
maximum lift
Wing lift curve slope
Mach number correction
from Fig. 4.1.3.4-21b
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 22

Condition Typical Flap Deflection (in degrees)
Take off 15<
TE
<25;
LE
<20
Landing 40<
TE
<50 or 60;
LE
<20
C
L,max in
Landing and Take-off Configurations
( )
max 1 2 3 max
base
c k k k c =

airfoil with trailing edge flaps
(c
lmax
)
base
is the section maximum lift increment for 25 percent-
chord flaps at the reference flap-deflection angle from Fig. 6.1.1.3-
12a,
k1 is a factor accounting for flap-chord-to-airfoil-chord ratios other
than 0.25 from Fig. 6.1.1.3-12b,
k2 is a factor accounting for flap deflections other than the
reference values from Fig. 6.1.1.3-13a, and
k3 is a factor accounting for flap motion as a function of flap
deflection from Fig. 6.1.1.3-13b.
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 23

,max ,max
Wf
L
S
C c K
S

=

C
L,max
for the Wing with Trailing Edge Flaps
( )
( )
0
2 3/4
/4 /4
,max ,max ,max
1 0.08cos cos
/ 2
f
f
c c
L L L
K
C C C
y
b

=
= +
| |
=
|
\ .
2
2
,max /4
/
1.28 cos
0.18
f
slat
L c
e
c c
b
C
b
| | | |
=
| |
\ .\ .
trailing
edge
flaps
leading
edge
slats
(Note that leading edge flaps are rarely used. See
p.251-258 in Torenbeek regarding high lift devices)
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 24

centerline
half-span, b/2
Wing with high-lift devices
leading-edge slat span ratio b
slat
/be =(b
1
+b
2
)/b
e

trailing edge flaps
mean
aerodynamic
chord, MAC
b
1

b
2

b
e

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 25

Airfoil Choice : NACA 64,-212 (ROOT)
NACA 64,-209 (TIP)
Aspect Ratio : A = 6.25
Taper Ratio : = .333
Flap Type (c
f
/c) : Fowler, (23%)
Spanwise Extent (
i
and
o
) : 16.4% and 76.0%
Rated Area (SWf /S) : 0.53
Summary of Design Lift Characteristics of the Wing
Configura-
tion
Flap
deflection
in degrees
Slat
deployment
C
L,max

Low
speed
M=0.2
C
L,max

cruise
M=0.8
Cruise 0 no 1.23 0.99
Take-off 25 yes 1.64 -
Landing 40 yes 1.92 -
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 26

Horizontal tail sizing
l
h

0.05MAC
S
h
, horizontal tail
planform area
V
h
=S
h
l
h
/S(MAC)
Volume coefficient
of the horizontal tail
L1011 V
h
=0.93
CMAC/4 point
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 27

l
v

V
v
=S
v
l
v
/S(MAC)
Volume
coefficient of the
vertical tail
L1011 V
v
=0.59
S
v
, vertical tail
planform area
Sizing the Vertical Tail
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 28

Tail Arrangement
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 29

T-Tail: DC 9
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 30

T-Tail: B 727
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 31

Cruciform Tail: B1-B
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 32

H Tail: T 46
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 33

H-Tail: A 10
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 34

H-Tail: E2-C
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 35

V-Tail
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 36

V-Tail: F117
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 37

Y-Tail
F-4
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 38

Y-Tail
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 39

Twin Tail: F-14
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 40

Twin Tail: F-15
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 41

Twin Tail: F-18
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 42

Twin Tail: F-22
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 43

Twin Tail: MiG-25
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 44

Boom Mounted Tail:
Cessna Skymaster
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 45

Boom Mounted Tail
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 46

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 47

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 48

Boom Mounted Tail:
JM-2 race plane
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 49

Canard
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 50

Canard:
EF2000
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 51

Canard: i42
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 52

Canard: JAS
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 53

Canard
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 54

Canard: SU-37
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 55

Tail Arrangement for Spin Recovery
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 56

05-09-2012
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 57

Tail Geometry
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 58

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 59

The Included Material
Refer to:


http://www.ae.utexas.edu/ASE261K
Chaput/Chapters/chapter20.ppt
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 60

20-1
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Lesson objective - to discuss
Air vehicle geometry
including

Fundamentals

Design drivers

Geometry models
Expectations - You will understand
how to define an air vehicle without
having to draw it
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 61

20-2
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Editorial comment
Not drawing a configuration is generally a bad idea
- Air vehicles are highly integrated machines and
good geometry is what makes them work
- Drawings bring multi-discipline teams together
But drawing and analyzing airplanes takes time
- Up front trade studies need to address a wide range
of concepts and time is always at a premium
And sometimes design teams (especially designers)
fall in love with their concepts
- Alternate concepts dont get much attention
Therefore we will develop simple analytical geometry
models for initial trade studies and concept screening
- Physically capture the important design variables but
minimize the time and effort required to assess them
- Use it to develop the best configuration concept
- Then we will draw the airplane
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 62

20-2a
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Notation and constraints
In this section, some notation could be confusing
- For geometry, L and D represent length and diameter.
- In previous sections, they represented lift and drag
- The differences should be obvious but be alert
L/D (Length/Diameter) vs. Lift/Drag could also be
confusing
- Both are primary parametrics, one for geometry, the other
for aerodynamics
Diameter (D) typically is an equivalent, not a true value
- It is calculated from cross sectional area (Ac) where
D = Deq = 2sqrt(Ac/)
Acceptable values of Lth/Deq vary with speed range
and application
- For low subsonic speeds, fuselage Lth/Deq 7, nacelles
and pods Lth/Deq 5
- For higher speeds, higher values are required
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 63

20-3
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Fundamentals
Air vehicle geometry is not just about aerodynamics,
structures and signature - it is also about packaging
Efficient arrangement of pieces, parts and systems to
maximize performance and minimize penalties (cost,
weight, drag, etc.)
Surface (wetted) area - the most powerful design driver
For any given volume nothing has less wetted area
(albeit at high drag) than a sphere where
V(sphere) = (4/3)**R^3 and Swet(sphere) = 4**R^2
Veff(max theoretical)* = V/Swet = R/3
Cylinders are reasonably efficient but not at high
fineness ratios. Flattened cylinders are inefficient
or
*Note - Volumetric efficiency (Veff) increases with size regardless of shape
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 64

20-4
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Parametric cylinder comparison
For purposes of comparison consider a family of
cylinders with hemispherical end domes so that


Vol = (4/3)(D/2)^3 + [(D/2)^2](L-D)
= (/12)(3L/D-1)D^3 = 100 cuft
Swet = 4(D/2)^2 + D(L-D) = (L/D)D^2

Sphere (Lth/D = 1) D = 5.76 ft; Swet = 104.2 sqft
Cylinder (Lth/D = 4) D = 3.26 ft; Swet = 133.7 sqft
Cylinder (Lth/D = 8) D = 2.55 ft; Swet = 163.6 sqft
Cylinder (Lth/D = 16) D = 2.01 ft; Swet = 203.2 sqft
or
Side
View
L
End
View
D
Study this carefully it is a generalized cylindrical tank geometry model.
The required inputs are Volume or D and Lth/Deq (or fineness ratio)
Later we will develop similar models for fuselages, wings and tails
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 65

- Minimize Swet, keep forward
and aft facing slopes < 5 -15
Provide optimum moment
arm for control surfaces
Length-to-span ratios range
from 0.5 to 2.5
- Slow vehicles have low Lth/b
20-5
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Overall geometry drivers
Speed and L/D drive what an air vehicle looks like
- Very high speeds require high fineness ratio while low
speed vehicles can be significantly blunter
- (L/D)max establishes the allowable span (b) and Swet
Aerodynamic rules focus on wings and tails
- E.g. maximize span (b) to minimize induced drag
Fuselage rules are subjective with few parametrics
Length to span ratio
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 300 600 900 1200
Vmax (Kts)
Raw data sources - Roskam and J anes All the Worlds Aircraft
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 66

20-6
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Fuselage and pods
For minimum drag, we want to minimize wetted
area and select shapes that match the design speed
regime

- Subsonic - ogive or elliptical forebodies with
tapered aftbodies (See RayAD 8.2) or shapes
based on symmetrical NACA-4 Digit series
- Transonic - Sears-Haack bodies of revolution
(See RayAD Fig 8.3)
- Supersonic - Modified Sears-Haack bodies per
RayAD Eq. 12.46

For minimum weight, minimize wetted area and use
simple geometry and load paths
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 67
20-7
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Payload volume
Varies widely with application
- People + baggage 5 lbm/ft^3 (ppcf)
- Typical cargo 10 ppcf
- Typical useable area / fuselage cross section 0.67
UAV payloads vary with type
- Density typically 25 ppcf (as is almost everything else!)
Payload density
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
Weight (Klbm)

Prop - pass
J et - pass
Cargo only
2.5 ppcf 5 ppcf
10 ppcf
Fuselage cross sectional area
10
40
70
100
10 40 70 100
Nominal external area (sqft)
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

a
r
e
a

(
s
q
f
t
)

Raw data sources - J anes All the Worlds Aircraft
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 68

20-8
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Wings and tails
During pre-concept design, the most critical design
issues are area and span
- Sweep, thickness and taper are also important but less
critical
- See RayAD 4.3 (Wing Geometry)
Wing design drivers
- Wing area establishes wing loading (W0/Sref)
- Slow flight or high flight (subsonic) means low W0/Sref
- The other parameters drive weight and drag
- Thin wings have lower profile drag, but higher weight
- Induced drag is driven by span, not aspect ratio
Di = (Cl^2)*q*S/(*e*AR) = (Cl^2)*q/(*e*b^2)
Horizontal and vertical tail geometry is another
consideration
- For pre-concept design, we only need to know tail type
(conventional, Vor tailless) and area
Parametrics provide inputs for initial sizing
What does this say
about big vs. small
vehicle efficiency?
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 69

20-9
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Wing parametrics
Wing loading parametric
(jet aircraft except as noted)
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
0 40 80 120 160 200
Wing loading (PSF)
Initial cruise
Final cruise
Global Hawk
Predator
Thickness ratio parametric
(jet aircraft except as noted)
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 3 5 7 9 11
Aspect ratio
Root
Tip
Root
Tip
Aspect ratio parametric
(jet aircraft except as noted)
2
6
10
14
18
1 3 5 7 9 11
Aspect ratio
Speed parametric
(jet aircraft except as noted)
2
6
10
14
18
200 600 1000 1400 1800
Maximum speed (Kts)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Reasonable tip t/c
upper limit =13%
(RosAD.2,pp 156)
Raw data sources - Roskam, J anes All the Worlds Aircraft and unbublished sources
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 70

20-10
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Wing and tail parametrics
Tail area parametric
0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
Average
Fighter
J et Transp
Biz J et
SE-prop
Exposed area/Sref
Vertical
Horizontal
Speed parametric
(jet aircraft except as noted)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
200 600 1000 1400 1800
Maximum speed (Kts)
t/c >10%
5 <t/c <10
t/c <5%
Sht/Sref Svt/Sref
Single engine - prop
0.20 0.14
Multi engine -prop
0.26 0.14
Business Jet
0.24 0.16
Regional Turbprop 0.25 0.19
Jet Transport 0.29 0.17
Military Trainer
0.23 0.13
Fighter
0.25 0.13
Average
0.246 0.151
(b)
See RayAD Figs
4.20 for Le vs.
Mmax and 4.24
for wing taper
ratio () vs. .25c
(a)

L
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)


Raw data sources - Roskam, J anes All the Worlds Aircraft and unbublished sources
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 71

20-11
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Geometry models why?

Drawing and analyzing airplanes takes time
- Up front trade studies need to address a wide range
of concepts and time is always at a premium
And sometimes design teams (especially designers)
fall in love with their concepts
- Alternate concepts dont get much attention
Therefore we will develop simple analytical geometry
models for initial trade studies and concept screening
- Physically capture the important design variables but
minimize the time and effort required to assess them
- Use them to develop the best configuration concept
- Then draw the airplane and analyze it to confirm the
geometry model estimates
From Chart 20-2
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 72

20-12
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Analytical geometry model
Objective - to capture key pre-concept design variables
(See RayAD 7.8-7.10)
1. Independent variables
- Wing reference area (Sref)
- Wing span (b) or aspect ratio (AR)
- Wing taper ratio ()
- Wing thickness ratio (t/c)
- Fuselage length (L,Lf or Lth) and diameter (D,Df or Deq)
- Horizontal tail exposed area ratio (Kht)
- Vertical tail exposed area ratio (Kvt)
- Engine length (Leng) and diameter (Deng)
2. Dependent variables
- Total and component and wetted areas (Swet-wing,
fuse, ht, vt)
- Component volumes (V-wing,fuse)
We will do this without making a configuration drawing
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 73

20-13
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Fuselage model
Geometry model Similar to cylindrical tank models
except we use elliptical fore and aft bodies
L
L1 L2
D
V-fuse = (/4)*[(L/D)*D^3]*[1-(k1+k2)/3] (20.1)
Swet-fuse = [(/2)*D^2]*{1+(L/D)*[k1*(fe1-2)+ k2*(fe2-2)+2]}
Where (20.2)
k1 = L1/L, fe1 = arcsin(1)/ 1, 1 = sqrt(1-(D/L)/(2*K1))^2)
k2 = L2/L, fe2 = arcsin(2)/ 2, 2 = sqrt(1-(D/L)/(2*K2))^2)
Note - arcsin() is expressed in radians
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 74

20-14
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Example - TBProp
Calculate Vfuse and Swet for example TBProp UAV
- If the 720 lbm payload has a density of 27.1 lbm/cuft
(calculation from Chapter 11 to be covered later) and is
installed in a constant area fuselage center section, the
required installation volume will be 26.55 cuft
- At an assumed center section packing efficiency (Pf) of
70% (30% not useable), volume required is 37.7 cuft
- If we assume (1) minimum overall fuselage Lth/Diam = 7,
(2) the forebody transitions to maximum diameter over a
length of one diameter and (3) the aftbody transitions in 2
diameters, then Lcyl/Dcyl = 4 and the diameter (Dcyl) of
the cylindrical section will be given by
Vcyl = (/4)*(Lcyl/Dcyl)*Dcyl^3 or Dcyl = 2.29 ft
2.29 ft 2.29 9.16 4.58
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 75

20-15
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Example contd
From the resulting dimensions, we calculate:
k1 = 1/7 = 0.143, k2 = 2/7 = 0.286
1 = sqrt(1-(0.143/(2*0.143))^2) = 0.866
fe1 = arcsin(0.866)/0.866 = 1.209
2 = sqrt(1-(0.143/(2*0.286))^2) = 0.968
fe2 = arcsin(0.968)/0.968 = 1.361
Swet = ((/2)*2.29^2)*(1+(0.143)*(0.143*(1.209-2) +
0.286*(1.361-2)+2) = 106.3 ft^2
Vol = (/4)*[(7)*D^3]*[1-(.143+.286)/3] = 56.5 cuft
Of the total fuselage volume available of 39.7 cuft
- 26.55 cuft is allocated to payload, leaving 13.1 cuft
available for fuel and systems
2.29 ft 2.29 9.16 4.58
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 76

20-16
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Fuselage/nacelle model
Combined Swet fuselage Swet+Kswet nacelle Swet (20.4)
Multi-engine prop
Front
L
D
Dnac
Top
Lnac
Combined Swet fuselage Swet + nengKswetnacelle Swet
Note - 0.0 < Kswet < 1.0
- Dnac 1.25Deng
- neng = Number of engines
(20.3)
L
D
Dnac
Side
Front
Single engine prop
Lnac
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 77

20-17
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Example nacelle (prop)
We estimate TBProp nacelle diameter from engine size
required using uninstalled parametric engine weight =
100.7 lbm (chart 19-27) and density = 22 pcf
- Engine volume = Wprop/density = 100.7/22 = 4.58 cuft
and nominal Leng/Deng = 2.5. Therefore,
- Deng = [4*Vol/(*Lth/Deng)]^1/3 1.33
- Dnac, therefore, 1.33*1.25 = 1.66 ft
We assume a minimum Lth/Dia = 5 for the pod
mounted nacelle (Lth = 8.29 ft), K1 = .2 and K2 = .4
- L1 and L2 are estimated at 1.66 and 3.32 ft and
Swet-nac = 38.6 sqft
We also assume that nacelle volume is allocated
entirely to the propulsion subsystem
- No other systems or fuel will be accommodated within
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 78

20-18
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Fuselage/nacelle model
Multi-engine jet
Single engine jet
L
D
Lnac
Dnac
Top
Front
Combined Swet fuselage Swet+nengKswetDnacLnac
Note - 0.0 < Kswet < 1.0
- Dnac 1.25Deng
- neng = Number of engines
(20.5)
Combined Swet fuselage Swet+nengKswetDnacLnac
(20.6)
Kswet0.5
D
Lnac
Dnac
Side
Front
L
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 79

20-19
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Fuselage/nacelle - contd
Combined area fuselage area + 5*Aeng
Note - Aeng = Engine area at front face (20.7)
Integrated jet
L
D
Dnac
Top Front
Deng
Swet-fuse = [(/2)*De^2]*{1+(L/De)*[k1*(fe1-2)+k2*(fe2-2)+2]}
*sqrt[h/w+w/h]/sqrt(2) (20.8)
De = sqrt(wh)
Non-circular cross section
h
Front
Top
w
L
L1 L2
where
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 80

20-19a
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Example nacelle (jet)
Jet engine nacelle diameters are also estimated
from engine size required but use engine airflow
(WdotA) to calculate diameter using Raymers
engine size parametric (chart 18-18)
- Deng(ft) = WdotA/26
Nacelle Lnac/Dnac is assumed to equal engine
Leng/Deng
- Leng/Deng is determined parametrically from BPR
- See the lower right hand plot in chart 18-17
Jet engine nacelle volume is also assumed to be
allocated entirely to the propulsion subsystem
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 81

20-20
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Pods, stores and multi-fuselages
with non-circular cross sections
h
Front
Top
w
L
L1 L2
Model as multiple
ellipse-cylinders per
Eqs. 20.1 and 20.2
Apply Eq. 20.8
as correction
factors
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 82

20-21
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Fuselage volume and area data not widely published
- RosA&P Table 5.1 has Swet-fuse data for some general
aviation (GA) aircraft and jet transports
- Data correlates reasonably well with Eqn 20.2 (+/- 10%)
- Eq 20.1 predicts Raymer Fig 7.3 fuselage volume (+/- 10%)
Data correlation
Fuselage wetted area
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Swet - Roskam (RosAP) Table 5.1
Total wetted area
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Swet Raymer Fig 7.3
S
w
e
t
-
f
u
s
e

f
r
o
m

E
q

2
0
.
2

S
w
e
t
-
f
u
s
e

f
r
o
m

E
q

2
0
.
2

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 83

20-22
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
WIngs and tails
During pre-concept design, the most critical design
issues are area and span
- Sweep, thickness and taper are important but are less
critical
- See RayAD 4.3 (Wing Geometry)
Wing design drivers
- Wing area establishes wing loading (W0/Sref)
- Slow flight or high flight (subsonic) means low W0/Sref
- Other parameters drive weight and drag
- Thin wings have lower profile drag, higher weight
- Induced drag is driven by span, not aspect ratio
Di = (Cl^2)*q*S/(*e*AR) = (Cl^2)*q/(*e*b^2)
Horizontal and vertical tail geometry is another
consideration
- For pre-concept design, we need to know tail type and
area
Parametrics provide inputs for initial sizing
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 84

20-23
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Wing model
Geometry model - Truncated pyramid for fuel volume
- Wing exposed area for Swet
V-fuel = (4/3)*{[(Kc*Pf*(t/c)*Sref^2]/[b*(1-)*(1+ )^2]}*
[(1-1*(1- ))^3 - ((1-2*(1- ))^3] (20.9)
Where Kc = Tank chord ratio
Pf = packing factor ( 0.8) 1 = 2*Y1/b
= taper ratio (Ct/Cr) 2 = 2*Y2/b

SrefExp = Sref*(1-(D/b)*(2-(D/b)*(1- ))/(1+ )) (20.10)

Cr
Ct
Y1
D/2
Y2
b/2
Kc*Cr
Cr = 2*Sref/b*(1+ )
Vpyrmd = A(base)hgt/3
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 85

20-24
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Example
1. Calculate SwetExp for the example TBProp UAV
- We select a nominal taper ratio ( = 0.5) and use starting
values of t/c = 0.13, AR = 20 and Sref = 82.1 sqft (2463/30)
- Fuselage diameter is 2.29 ft (chart 20-14)
- We calculate wing basic wing geometry
- b = sqrt (Sref*AR) = 40.5 ft
- Cr = 2Sref/[b(1+ )] = 2(82.1)/[40.5(1.5)] = 2.7 ft
- Ct = Cr = 1.35 ft
- From equation 20.10, we calculate SrefExp = 76 sqft
2. Calculate wing fuel volume
- Assume the tank extends from centerline to 80% span
(1 = Df/b = 0, 2 =0.8) and nominal packing factor (Pf =
0.8) and tank chord ratios (Kc = 0.5)
- From equation 20.10, Volume available for wing fuel =
(4/3){[KcPf(t/c)Sref^2]/[b(1-)(1+ )^2]}
[(1-1(1- ))^3 - ((1-2(1- ))^3] = 10.05 cuftPf
Vs. calculated
value of AR =
14.75 in 16-14
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 86

20-25
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Tails - Horizontal and vertical tail areas can be
expressed as nominal fractions of Sref
Sht = Kht*Sref (20.11)
Svt = Kvt*Sref (20.12)
Where for an average air vehicle (chart 20-10)
Kht .25
Kvt .15
Tail wetted area 2*planform area
For V-tails - Use projected areas or
KV-tail = 2*sqrt(Kht/2^2+Kvt^2) (20.13)
Tails
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 87

20-26
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Final example areas & aero
Using typical air vehicle horizontal and vertical tail
area ratios (Kht = 0.25 and Kvt = 0.15) we can estimate
tail areas for the example UAV:
- Sht = 0.25(82.1) =20.5 sqft, Svt = 0.15(82.1) =12.3 sqft
We can also calculate total wetted area (fuselage and
nacelle plus 2 times the exposed wing and tail areas)
Swet = 106.3+38.6+2*(76+20.5+12.3) = 362.6 sqft
With these areas and assuming nominal values of Cfe
= 0.0035 (RayAD Table 12.3) and e = 0.8 (chart 16-6) we
can make basic aero performance estimates:
- b^2/Swet = 4.53, Swet/Sref = 4.42 and
- (L/D)max = 28.5 (Eq 16.8)
We can also use calculated component areas and
wing-body-tail unit weights to estimate airframe weight
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 88

20-27
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Example airframe weights
Unfortunately, we have no data on UAV unit weights:
- All we have are RayAD Table 15.2 unit weights for
fighters, transports/bombers and general aviation where
from chart 19-31, for an aircraft at our estimated wing
loading (W0/Sref = 30), Waf/Sref should be 30%
greater than typical general aviation aircraft
- From this we can extrapolate from RayAD Table 15.2
unit weights:
- Wing: UWW 1.3*2.5 = 3.25 psf
- Tails: Uwht = Uwvt 1.3*2.0 = 2.6 psf
- Fuselage (+nacelle) 1.3*1.4 = 1.8 psf
Using these values we can estimate from geometry:
- Waf = (106.3+38.6)*1.8+75.8*3.25+32.8*2.6 = 593 lbm
or Waf/Sref = 7.23 psf
This value is 80% of the previous estimate (chart 19-
27) but it should be more accurate since it captures
geometry features not previously included
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 89

20-28
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
New weights and volume
Using on the area based Waf/Sref, the bottoms up weight
spreadsheet will converge to a new set of weights








Using typical densities for fuel (50 pcf) and 25 pcf for
remaining systems, fuselage volume required (Vreqd) for
payload, fuel (less wing fuel volume) and systems is:
Vreqd = [26.55 + 400/(50.8) -10.0 + 419/25] = 43.3 cuft
Which compares to fuselage useable volume available of
39.7 cuft (chart 20-15)
Converged TBP weights (lbm)
Waf 594 Wpay 720
Weng (instl) 131 WF 400
Wlg 123 Wmisc 23
Wspa 296 W0 2286
We 1143 EWF = 0.52
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 90

20-29
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Since the volume available exceeds volume required,
we need to resize the fuselage (and the rest of the air
vehicle) to eliminate the excess
- Since fuselage volume scales with the cube root of
diameter (Eq 20.1), new fuselage geometry would be
Df = 2.29(43.3/39.7)^1/3 = 2.36 ft
At Lf/Df = 7, Lf = 16.5
- Engine size would also change
Bhp0 = 0.0922286 lbm = 210.3 Bhp
Weng = 210.3/2.25 = 93.5 lbm, Vol eng = 93.5/22 =
4.3 cuft, Deng = [4Vol/(Lth/Deng)]^1/3 = 1.29 ft
and Dnac = 1.291.25 = 1.62 ft
- Which then changes the geometry model, the calculated
areas and weight and aero calculations ..
And the cycle continues until weight, aero, propulsion
and geometry converge
New size and airframe weights
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 91

20-30
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
After a number of iterations, the weight, volume and size
calculations will converge to a consistent set of values
- Volume available = Volume required = 50.6 cuft
Df = 2.34 ft, Lf = 2.34*7 = 16.4 ft
- Engine size = 198 Bhp, Weng(uninstalled) = 87.7 lbm
Vol eng = 4.0 cuft, Dnac = 1.6 ft
- Sref = 71.7 sqft, Swet = 336 sqft, b = 37.9 ft, Swet/Sref =
4.68, b^2/Swet = 4.27; LoDmax = 27.7, Waf/Sref = 7.71
Converged weight/volume/size
Converged TBP weights (lbm)
Waf 553 Wpay 720
Weng (instl) 114 WF 377
Wlg 108 Wmisc 22
Wspa 258 W0 2152
We 1033 EWF = 0.48
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 92

20-31
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Parametric comparison
Airframe Weight Comparisons -
Manned Aircraft (data from Roskam)
0
10
20
30
40
0 50 100 150
GTOW/Sref (psf)
Biz J et
SE Piston Prop
ME Piston Prop
Reg Turbo
J et Trans
J et fighters
Mil Train
UAV Fuel Fractions
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0 8 16 24 32 40 48
Max Endurance (hrs)
Piston
Turboprop
J et
J et
Piston
Global Hawk
Comparison shows the
airframe weights are
consistent with the
parametric data but that
fuel fraction continues
to be low for a TBProp
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 93
20-32
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Reference
For more information on geometry model
methodology see my paper

- Preliminary Sizing Methodology for
Hypersonic Vehicles, AIAA J ournal
of Aircraft, March 1992
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 94

3. Fuselage Design
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 95

Fuselage design factors
Optimal aerodynamics, reducing aerodynamic drag

Suppression of aerodynamic instability

Comfortable and attractive seat design, placement, and storage
space

Safety features to deal with emergencies such as fires, cabin
depressurization, etc.; proper placement of emergency exits,
oxygen systems, etc.

Easy handling for cargo loading and unloading, safe and robust
cargo hatches and doors

Structural support for wing and tail forces acting in flight, as well
as for landing and ground operation forces
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 96

Structurally optimized, saving weight while incorporating
protection against corrosion and fatigue

Optimized flight deck, reducing pilot workload and
protecting against crew fatigue and intrusion by passengers

Convenient size and placement of galleys, lavatories, and
coat racks

Suppressed noise and vibration, providing a comfortable,
secure environment

Control of cabin climate including air conditioning, heating,
and ventilation

Providing housing for different sub-systems, including
auxiliary power units, hydraulic system, air conditioning, etc.

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 97

L
NC

L
L
C
L
TC

TC

Major components of fuselage
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 98

A circle has the greatest cross-sectional area per unit
perimeter. The drag of a typical fuselage, which has a rather
large fineness ratio (l/d), is dominated by skin friction

A circle is strongest under internal pressure. At stratospheric
cruising altitudes the outside pressure is 0.2 to 0.3
atmospheres, while the internal pressure is maintained at that
at 8,000 feet, or about 0.7 atmospheres. Pressure difference
across the thin skin of the cabin ranges from 0.4 to 0.5
atmospheres, or 6 to 7 psi (40 to 50 kPa)

A circle more easily accommodates growth in Np in terms of
manufacturing since cylindrical sections, called plugs, can be
reasonably easily added to so-called stretched versions of a
given aircraft.

Circular fuselage cross-section
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 99

Limited space outside the passenger compartment for
auxiliary systems and cargo. The passenger compartment
must be located around a diameter of the circle for the
greatest width for seats and aisles.
Awkward circular sectors above and below the passenger
compartment to house other items.
Modern designs have expanded the lower portion of the
circular cabin into a more rectangular cross-section in the
vicinity of the wing root chord to accommodate more internal
carriage.
Cabin forward and aft of the wing root is maintained as a
circular cross-section, and stretching will require plugs to be
added in these regions.
Circular cross-section limitations
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 100

a a
Cargo
containers
Passenger seats

Passenger
compartment floor
Pressure
shell

Passenger
aisle
d
Overhead
storage bins
Layout of the cabin cross-section
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 101

Cabin cross-section
a a
Cargo
containers
Passenger seats

Passenger
compartment floor
Pressure shell

Passenger aisle
d
Overhead storage
bins
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 102

Cabin floor plan
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 103

L/d

=0.9(L
C
/d) +5
(L
TC
+L
NC
)/d =5 0.1(L
C
/ d)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
L
C
/d



10



5




0
Correlation of fineness ratio and
fuselage dimensions
L/d=0.9(L
c
/d+5)
(L
TC
+L
NC
)/d=5-0.1(L
C
/d)
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 104

4


3


2


1


0


L
NC
/d
L
TC
/d
Tail
cones
Nose
cones
0 2 4 6 8 10
L
C
/d
Nose and tail cone correlations
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 105

L
NC

L
L
C
L
TC

w

p
p
p
d

w

Fuselage drag breakdown
, , , , , , p NC f NC p C f C p TC f TC
D D D D D D D = + + + + +
D
0
Base drag
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 106

Nose cone pressure drag is
approximately zero
C
p
1.0

0
S
Underpressure
Overpressure
S
The overpressure is just about balanced by the underpressure
so that the pressure drag on the nose cone is approximately
zero, D
p,NC
~0

3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 107

( )
, , , ,
.
Re,
f NC f C f TC p BASE
p BASE
wetted
D f
D D D D D
D
S D
c c M
qS S qS
= + + +
= = +
General equation for fuselage drag
( )
,
3/ 2 3
1.5 7
4 Re, 1
D fuselage F
c kc M F
F F
| |
= + +
|
\ .
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 108

Variation of fuselage drag with
fineness ratio
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 5 10 15 20
Fineness ratio
C
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
o
n
t
a
l

a
r
e
a
M=0.85 at 35,000ft altitude
Re~3x10^8
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 109

Optimal fineness ratio
The minimum drag coefficient occurs for F~3 but this
would not be a practical fuselage design for safely and
efficiently packing passengers
For compressible flows where M~1 the slimmer fuselages
would have reduced wave drag due to compressibility and
they have the advantage of efficient use of space
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 110
20-33
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Group Discussion Problem Sets
1. Describe what you think is the best air vehicle type to
meet team requirements (make a sketch if needed)
Explain why you think it is a good starting point for your first
design cycle
2. Provide rationale for key configuration features (wing,
fuselage and tail type, engine location and installation
type, payload and landing gear location, etc.)
3. Make a copy of the geometry worksheet from your AE261
spreadsheet program and generate a list of inputs
required to calculate overall and component areas and
volumes for your proposed configuration
4. Verify by hand that fuselage and nacelle wetted area and
exposed wing area are correct. Sum all wetted areas and
check against spreadsheet Swet (row 109)
5. Select (and provide rationale for) representative airframe
unit weights for your concept and calculate the resulting
airframe weights. Compare your answers with the
spreadsheet result
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 111

3-View Drawing of the Preliminary Design
3/8/2013 NCKU, IAA 112
20-33
Design of UAV Systems
Air vehicle geometry c 2004 LM Corporation
Recommended reading
Raymer - Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach
Chapter 6 : Initial Sizing
6.4 Geometry sizing
6.5 Control Surface Sizing
Chapter 7 : Configuration Layout and Loft
7.8 Wing-Tail layout
7.9 Wetted area
Chapter 9 : Crew Station, Passengers and Payload
9.1 Introduction
9.5 Weapons Carriage
Chapter 11 : Landing Gear and Subsystems
11.1 - Introduction
11.2 - Landing Gear Arrangements