i

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________

Christopher K. Droney Dan Salluce Christopher J. Atkinson
Team Lead, Configurator, Structures Stability & Control, Low Aerodynamics, Performance,
AIAA# 202948 Observables, Simulation Simulation
AIAA# 213516 AIAA# 211912

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________

Kolby Keiser Christopher T. Maglio Nathan Schnaible
Propulsion Configuration, Weapons, Materials, Mass Properties, Manufacturing, Cost
AIAA# 180424 Structure AIAA# 214808
AIAA# 204248

_______________________________ _______________________________
David W. Hall Dustin S. Okada
Faculty Advisor Project Advisor
AIAA# 006827 AIAA# 190849

ii
Abstract

The High Rollers from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo proudly present Vendetta, a

supersonic interdictor designed to meet the criteria specified by the AIAA 2001/2002 Undergraduate Team Aircraft

Design Request for Proposal (RFP). The Vendetta is designed to replace the stealthy F-117 Nighthawk and B-2 Spirit as

well as the supersonic F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1B Lancer. The RFP mission to be flown by the Vendetta consists of a

1,750 nautical mile radius flown at Mach 1.6 at or above 50,000 feet. The aircraft must have balanced observables,

including low frontal radar cross-section (RCS) and be capable of dropping a 9,000-pound weapons payload. Vendetta

meets or exceeds every requirement outlined by the RFP. It has a takeoff gross weight (TOGW) of 125,000 lb and an

empty weight of 57,000 lb. The configuration was created utilizing a 3-D solid model throughout the design process.

Vendetta meets the frontal aspect RCS requirement which was quantitatively evaluated using RadBase 2 software

provided by Surface Optics. The aircraft was configured and validated using a nonlinear flight simulation model in the

Cal Poly Flight Simulator.

iii
Table of Contents

Abstract ______________________________________________________________________________________ iii

Table of Contents ________________________________________________________________________________iv
List of Figures___________________________________________________________________________________ v
List of Tables __________________________________________________________________________________ vii
Nomenclature _________________________________________________________________________________ viii
1 Introduction________________________________________________________________________________ 1
2 Defining the Design Domain __________________________________________________________________ 5
3 Configuration ______________________________________________________________________________ 8
4 Stealth Considerations_______________________________________________________________________ 13
5 Aerodynamics _____________________________________________________________________________ 17
5.1 Wing Planform _______________________________________________________________________ 17
5.2 Wing Sweep__________________________________________________________________________ 18
5.3 Wing Thickness _______________________________________________________________________ 20
5.4 Airfoil ______________________________________________________________________________ 21
5.5 Lift Curve ___________________________________________________________________________ 22
5.6 Drag ________________________________________________________________________________ 24
6 Propulsion ________________________________________________________________________________ 26
6.1 Engine Selection ______________________________________________________________________ 26
6.2 Inlets _______________________________________________________________________________ 31
6.3 S-Duct ______________________________________________________________________________ 34
6.4 Nozzle ______________________________________________________________________________ 35
7 Structural Layout & Material Selection _________________________________________________________ 36
8 Landing Gear _____________________________________________________________________________ 40
9 Weight & Balance__________________________________________________________________________ 42
10 Stability and Control ________________________________________________________________________ 47
10.1 Simulation ___________________________________________________________________________ 55
11 Performance ______________________________________________________________________________ 59
11.1 Specific Excess Power Requirements ______________________________________________________ 59
11.2 Turn Rate Requirement _________________________________________________________________ 62
11.3 Mission Requirements __________________________________________________________________ 63
11.4 Takeoff & Landing ____________________________________________________________________ 65
12 Payload __________________________________________________________________________________ 67
12.1 Alternate Missions_____________________________________________________________________ 68
13 Cockpit __________________________________________________________________________________ 71
14 Systems __________________________________________________________________________________ 74
14.1 Auxiliary Power Generation System _______________________________________________________ 74
14.2 Vehicle Management System ____________________________________________________________ 75
14.3 Fuel System __________________________________________________________________________ 75
14.4 Government Furnished Equipment ________________________________________________________ 77
14.5 Maintenance and Servicing Plan __________________________________________________________ 77
15 Manufacturing_____________________________________________________________________________ 78
16 Cost Analysis _____________________________________________________________________________ 80
17 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________________ 82
Appendix A – Engine Deck _______________________________________________________________________ 84
Appendix B – Design Tools _______________________________________________________________________ 87
References ____________________________________________________________________________________ 88

iv
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 - Design Mission Profile......................................................................................................................................1

Figure 2.1 - Historical Weight Fractions & Weight Fraction Estimates...............................................................................5
Figure 2.2 - Constraint Plot ..................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 3.1 - Nergal ...............................................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3.2 - Jackhammer ......................................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3.3 - Interdictor .........................................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3.4 - Big Paulie .........................................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3.5 - Initial Configuration..........................................................................................................................................9
Figure 3.6 - Second Configuration .....................................................................................................................................10
Figure 4.1 - Stealth Considerations.....................................................................................................................................13
Figure 5.1 - Optimization of Wing Area and Aspect Ratio ................................................................................................17
Figure 5.2 - Effect of Wing Leading and Trailing Edge Sweep on RCS............................................................................19
Figure 5.3 - Wing Planform................................................................................................................................................19
Figure 5.4 - Effect of Root Thickness-to-Chord Ratio on Wing Weight and Cross-Sectional Area ..................................20
Figure 5.5 - Effect of Root Thickness-to-Chord Ratio on Fuel Consumption....................................................................21
Figure 5.6 - Airfoil Section at MAC...................................................................................................................................21
Figure 5.7 - Airfoil Section at Tip of Trailing Edge Flap ...................................................................................................22
Figure 5.8 - Lift Distribution of Wing with and without Twist ..........................................................................................23
Figure 5.9 - Subsonic Wing Lift Curve (Mach 0.2)............................................................................................................23
Figure 5.10 - Transonic Area Distribution (Mach 1.0) .......................................................................................................24
Figure 5.11 - Supersonic Area Distribution (Mach 1.6) .....................................................................................................25
Figure 5.12 - Drag Build-Up at 50,000 ft, Maneuver Weight, and 5% Static Margin........................................................25
Figure 6.1 - VAATE Goals.................................................................................................................................................29
Figure 6.2 - Thrust Curves for Altitudes from Sea Level to 70,000 ft................................................................................30
Figure 6.3 - Military TSFC Curves for Altitudes from Sea Level to 70,000 ft...................................................................30
Figure 6.4 - Shock Angles for Design Mach Number - ......................................................................................................31
Figure 6.5 - Optimum Deflection Angle for Mach 1.6 Flow ..............................................................................................32
Figure 6.6 - Pressure Recovery for a Two Shock versus Three Shock Inlet.......................................................................32
Figure 6.7 - Off Design Area Required for Engine Mass Flow ..........................................................................................33
Figure 6.8 - Vendetta S-Duct Side View ............................................................................................................................34
Figure 6.9 - S-Duct Front View..........................................................................................................................................34
Figure 6.10 - Diffuser Angle to the Engine Face................................................................................................................34
Figure 6.11 - S-Duct Efficiency..........................................................................................................................................34
Figure 6.12 - Low-Signature...............................................................................................................................................35
Figure 7.1 - Structure Buildup for Vendetta .......................................................................................................................36
Figure 7.2 - Wing Attachment Detail .................................................................................................................................37
Figure 7.3 - Empennage Structural Layout.........................................................................................................................38
Figure 7.4 - V-n Diagram for Vendetta...............................................................................................................................38
Figure 8.1 - Landing Gear Configuration Trade Study.......................................................................................................40
Figure 8.2 - Main Gear Retraction Sequence......................................................................................................................41
Figure 8.3 - Nose Gear and Main Gear Retraction Schemes ..............................................................................................41
Figure 9.1- Principle Axes..................................................................................................................................................43
Figure 9.2 - Center-of-Gravity Excursion...........................................................................................................................45
Figure 10.1 - Horizontal Area Required for Static Stability with Cant Angle....................................................................49
Figure 10.2 - Vertical Area Required for Static Stability with Cant Angle ........................................................................50
Figure 10.3 - Radar Cross Section Impact of 20° vs. 30° Vertical Cant Angle ..................................................................51
Figure 10.4 - OEI Forces and Moments .............................................................................................................................52
Figure 10.5 - Vendetta Empennage Configuration .............................................................................................................53
Figure 10.6 - Mach Tuck Illustrated ...................................................................................................................................53
Figure 10.7 - Pitch Break Characteristics ...........................................................................................................................54
Figure 10.8 - Pheagle Simulator .........................................................................................................................................56
Figure 10.9 - Flight Cab and Instruments ...........................................................................................................................56
Figure 10.10 - Graphics and Environment..........................................................................................................................57
Figure 10.11 - Heads up Display ........................................................................................................................................57
v
Figure 11.1 - 1-g Military Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight ............................................................59
Figure 11.2 - 1-g Maximum Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight.........................................................60
Figure 11.3 - 2-g Maximum Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight.........................................................60
Figure 11.4 - 5-g Maximum Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight.........................................................61
Figure 11.5 - Maximum Sustained Load Factor Envelope at Maneuver Weight................................................................61
Figure 11.6 - Maneuverability Diagram at 15,000 ft and Maneuver Weight......................................................................62
Figure 11.7 - Maneuverability Diagram at Sea-Level and Maneuver Weight....................................................................62
Figure 11.8 - Fuel Consumption Envelope at Average Climb Weight ...............................................................................63
Figure 11.9 - Fuel Consumption over Mission ...................................................................................................................64
Figure 11.10 - Takeoff Profile ............................................................................................................................................65
Figure 11.11 - Landing Profile ...........................................................................................................................................65
Figure 12.1 - L to R configurations 1, 2, 3 .........................................................................................................................67
Figure 12.2 - 180 inch MPRL.............................................................................................................................................67
Figure 12.3 - Ballute and Sabot ..........................................................................................................................................67
Figure 12.4 - 30in Ejector Rack..........................................................................................................................................68
Figure 12.5 - LAU-142A Ejection Sequence......................................................................................................................68
Figure 12.6 - MPRL with 8 × 2,000 lb JDAMs ..................................................................................................................69
Figure 12.7 – MPRL with 8 × AGM-158A (JASSM) ........................................................................................................69
Figure 13.1 - Cockpit Width Trade Study ..........................................................................................................................71
Figure 13.2 – Fuselage Comparison ...................................................................................................................................71
Figure 13.3 - Virtual Cockpit Model ..................................................................................................................................72
Figure 13.4 - Rectilinear Vision Plot of Forward Cockpit Position....................................................................................72
Figure 13.5 - Cockpit Displays...........................................................................................................................................72
Figure 13.6 - Advanced Fighter Crew Protection System ..................................................................................................73
Figure 13.7 - K-36D Performance Envelope ......................................................................................................................73
Figure 14.1 - APU Placement.............................................................................................................................................74
Figure 15.1 - Routing Tunnel .............................................................................................................................................78
Figure 15.2 - Manufacturing Breaks...................................................................................................................................78
Figure 15.3 - Assembly Line ..............................................................................................................................................79
Figure 16.1 - Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................................80
Figure 16.2 - Operating Cost ..............................................................................................................................................81
Figure 16.3 - Lifecycle Cost ...............................................................................................................................................81

vi
List of Tables

Table 1.I - Required Weapons Loadout................................................................................................................................1

Table 1.II - Summary of Design Requirements ....................................................................................................................2
Table 1.III - Comparison of the F-111, F-117, B-2, B-1B, and F-15E .................................................................................4
Table 2.I - Weight Fractions & Weights...............................................................................................................................5
Table 2.II - Weight Fraction Assumptions ...........................................................................................................................6
Table 2.III - Constraint Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................6
Table 2.IV - Initial and Current Sizing .................................................................................................................................7
Table 5.I - Wing Measurements .........................................................................................................................................19
Table 5.II - Parasite Drag Component Buildup (50,000 ft, Mach 0.5) ...............................................................................25
Table 6.I - Engine Specifications of RFP Supplied Engine................................................................................................26
Table 6.II - RFP Dimensions Compared to the SNECMA Olympus .................................................................................27
Table 6.III - IHPTET Goals................................................................................................................................................28
Table 9.I - Initial Component Weight Buildup...................................................................................................................42
Table 9.II - Final Component Weight Buildup...................................................................................................................43
Table 9.III - Inertia Estimation ...........................................................................................................................................44
Table 9.IV – SAWE Inertia Validation ..............................................................................................................................44
Table 10.I - Historical Aircraft Tail Volume Coefficients..................................................................................................47
Table 10.II - Pitching Moment Coupling with....................................................................................................................51
Table 10.III - Rudder Control Power Results for OEI Condition .......................................................................................52
Table 10.IV - Longitudinal and Lateral Dynamic Mode Conformity with MIL-8785C ....................................................55
Table 10.V – Empennage Surfaces.....................................................................................................................................55
Table 11.I - Design Mission ...............................................................................................................................................64
Table 11.II - Mission Results..............................................................................................................................................64
Table 11.III - Takeoff Results ............................................................................................................................................66
Table 11.IV - Landing Results............................................................................................................................................66
Table 12.I – Alternate Mission Results ..............................................................................................................................69
Table 13.I - Military Vision Specifications ........................................................................................................................72
Table 14.I – APU Selection Table ......................................................................................................................................74
Table 14.II - Fuel System Sizing Requirements .................................................................................................................76
Table 14.III - List of Government Furnished Equipment ...................................................................................................77
Table 17.I - RFP Compliance Checklist .............................................................................................................................83

vii
 Nomenclature

6DOF Six Degrees of Freedom L/H Inlet Length to Height Ratio

A0i Freestream Capture Area, ft2 LANTIRN Low-Altitude Navigation and Targeting
A1 Inlet Capture Area, ft2 InfraRed for Night
AB Afterburner LBR-TF Low-Bypass-Ratio Turbo Fan
Ae Area of Inlet Exit, ft2 LE Leading Edge
AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and LHT Horizontal Tail Arm, ft
Astronautics LVT Vertical Tail Arm, ft
AOA, α Angle-of-Attack, deg M Mach Number
APU Auxiliary Power Unit M Actual Mass Flow Rate
AR Aspect Ratio MAC, cW Mean Aerodynamic Chord, ft
As Area at Shock, ft2 me Estimated Mass Flow Rate, slug/s
bW Wing Span, ft MFD Multifunction Display
CAS Control Augmentation System MPRL Multipurpose Rotary Launcher
CD Drag Coefficient N Load Factor
Cf Friction Coefficient NACA National Advisory Committee for
CG Center-of-Gravity Aeronautics
CL Wing Lift Coefficient NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
CLα Lift Curve Slope NPF Net Propulsive Force
Clδr Roll Moment due to Rudder Deflection NPFc Corrected Net Propulsive Force
Cm Pitch Moment Coefficient OBIGGS On Board Inert Gas Generation System
Cmα Pitch Moment due to AOA OBOGS On Board Oxygen Generation System
Cmδr Rudder Pitch Moment Coupling OEI One Engine Inoperable
Cnδr Yaw Moment due to Rudder Deflection P Pressure, psf
Side Force due to Rudder Deflection Ps Specific Excess Power, ft/s
Cyδr
PSL Sea-Level Pressure, psf
DATCOM Air Force Data Compendium
q Dynamic Pressure, psf
DC Direct Current
QF Interference Factor
DFSC Digital Flight Control System
QT Ratio of local temperature to sea-level
dT Ratio of local pressure to sea-level pressure
static temperature
e Span Efficiency Factor
r Turn Radius, ft
FF Form Factor
RAM Radar Absorbent Materials
GFE Government Furnished Equipment
RAT Ram Air Turbine
GPS/INS Global Positioning System/Inertial
RCS Radar Cross Section
Navigation System
Re Reynolds Number
h Altitude
RFP Request for Proposal
HUD Heads-up-Display
RTD&E Research, Test, Development, and
ICNIA Integrated Communication, Navigation, and
Engineering
Identification Avionics
Rx Non-Dimensional Radius of Gyration
IHPTET Integrated High Performance Turbine
about the x-axis
Engine Technology
Ry Non-Dimensional Radius of Gyration
IR Infrared
about the y-axis
IRSTS Infrared Search and Track System with
Rz Non-Dimensional Radius of Gyration
Laser Ranging
about the z-axis
Ix Moment of Inertia about the x-axis, slug-ft2
SAM Surface to Air Missile
Ixy Moment of Inertia in the xy plane, slug-ft2
SAWE Society of Allied Weight Engineers
Ixz Moment of Inertia in the xz plane, slug-ft2
SES Self-Contained Energy Storage System
Iy Moment of Inertia about the y-axis, slug-ft2
SFC, Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption,
Iyz Moment of Inertia in the yz plane, slug-ft2
TSCF lbm/lbf-hr
Iz Moment of Inertia about the z-axis, slug-ft2
SHT Horizontal Tail Planform Area, ft2
k1 Induced Drag Factor
Sref, SW Wing Reference Area, ft2
KSM Static Margin
SVT Vertical Tail Planform Area, ft2
L/D Lift-to-Drag ratio
T Thrust, lbf
viii
T Temperature, °R VV Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient
TE Trailing Edge We Empty Weight, lb
TJ Turbojet Wf Fuel Weight, lb
TOGW, Takeoff Gross Weight, lb WF Fuel Flow
W WFc Corrected Fuel Flow
TSL Sea-Level Temperature, °R X x-axis
V Velocity, ft/s Y y-axis
V50 Velocity over a 50 ft Obstacle, ft/s Z z-axis
VAATE Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbofan β Yaw Angle, deg
Engine η Actual Inlet Efficiency
VH Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient ηrSpec Mil Spec Inlet Efficency
VMS Vehicle Management System µbrake Braking Coefficient of Friction
Vstall Stall Speed, ft/s µroll Rolling Coefficient of Friction
VTD Velocity at Touchdown ρ Density, slug/ft3
VTO Takeoff Velocity

ix
1 Introduction

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) sponsors annual collegiate design competitions.

The request for proposal (RFP) for the 2001-2002 Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competition outlines

specifications for a stealth supersonic interdictor for the US Air Force. The aircraft should be capable of flying a design

mission as shown in Figure 1.1. The payload specified for this design mission is shown in Table 1.I. Because multiple

weapon loadouts are specified, it is clear that this aircraft, as with any modern aircraft, must have multi-role capabilities.

The RFP lists additional requirements for the aircraft including operating constraints and performance

requirements which are summarized in Table 1.II. External tanks may be used but must be retained for the duration of

the flight. External weapons pylons may also be used suggesting the possibility of a non-stealth configuration. Another

important factor is that the aircraft must have a flyaway cost less than 150 million dollars; a challenging price tag for an

aircraft of this size and complexity.

Figure 1.1 - Design Mission Profile

Table 1.I - Required Weapons Loadout

Loading # (Quantity) Weapon
1 - Design (4) 2000 lb JDAM + (2) AIM-120
2 (4) Mk-84 LDGP + (2) AIM-120
3 (4) GBU-27 + (2) AIM-120
4 (4) AGM-154 JSOW + (2) AIM-120
5 (16) 250 lb Small Smart Bomb

1
 Table 1.II - Summary of Design Requirements
Area Design Requirement Value (if applicable)

Misc. Crew 500 lb, 2 pilots, single pilot operation

Structure Positive g’s 7 (50% Internal Fuel)

Negative g’s 3 (50% Internal Fuel)
Dynamic Pressure 2,133 psf
Factor Of Safety 1.5

Fuel JP-8
Self Sealing

Stability Static Margin 10% to – 30%

Active Flight Controls for Unstable Aircraft

Observables RCS (Front Aspect) 0.05 m2, frequency range 1 – 10 GHz

Balanced IR, Visual, Acoustical, RCS
Internal Stores

Operation Runway Length 8,000 ft (2,438 m)

Operate from NATO Airports
All Weather Weapons Delivery

Cost Max Cost $150 Million, 2000 dollars

Minimize Life Cycle Costs

Performance Supercruise Mission Radius 1,750 nm

Specific Excess Power
1-g, Mach 1.6, 50,000 ft, Dry 0 ft/sec
1-g, Mach 1.6, 50,000 ft, Wet 200 ft/sec
2-g, Mach 1.6, 50,000 ft, Wet 0 ft/sec
Instantaneous Turn Rate, Mach 0.9, 15,000 ft 8 deg/sec
The RFP also lists several aircraft that currently fulfill the mission of the proposed interdictor. These aircraft

include the F-111A Aardvark, the F-15E Strike Eagle, the F-117 Nighthawk, the B-1B Lancer, the B-2 Spirit.

F-111 - “Aardvark”

The F-111A (Table 1.III) is specifically mentioned as the predecessor to the aircraft requested in the RFP. The F-

111A officially entered service in 1967 and was retired in 1996 with no current replacement in the inventory. Its

capabilities has been partially replaced by several aircraft, each outlined in detail in the sections to follow. The F-111A

is a very large aircraft capable of carrying a 31,000 lb payload over 2,000 nm. Both the payload and combat radius are

large thus yielding a 91,000 lb aircraft. Though the F-111A is capable of Mach 2.2, it does not cruise supersonically.

The F-111A was designed to cruise subsonically to the target area, dash in supersonically at low level, drop its payload,

2
and fly out of the threat area quickly. After retiring the aircraft in 1996, the Air Force decided a new aircraft was needed

to drop precision weapons from remote airfields with minimal support.

F-15E - “Strike Eagle”

The F-15E Strike Eagle (Table 1.III) partially filled the role of the F-111A after it was retired. Although the F-

15E airframe was designed for fighter type payloads, it is capable of both air superiority and ground attack missions.

Superior maneuverability was achieved with the F-15E due to its high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading.

F-117 – “Nighthawk”

The F-117 Nighthawk (Table 1.III) also aided in the replacement of the F-111A. However, it has a much lower

payload capacity and a limited range. The F-117 is also not capable of supersonic speeds and is thus more vulnerable if

it were detected. If a supersonic aircraft were detected, the window of opportunity for an attack is relatively small.

Thus, faster aircraft have a tendency to be less vulnerable. Due to the small payload and high maintenance of the first

generation stealth technology, the F-117 is a poor replacement for the F-111A.

B-1B – “Lancer”

The B-1A was designed as a replacement for the B-52. It could carry large nuclear payloads supersonically with

an intercontinental range. The SALT treaty limited the B-1 to subsonic speeds and led to the creation of the B-1B. The

mission of the B-1A was not unlike that of the RFP proposed mission; however it was performed with the aide of an

afterburner in supersonic flight. More information is provided in Table 1.III.

B-2 – “Spirit”

The B-2 (Table 1.III) is very new to the U.S. inventory. It has intercontinental range unrefuled and carries large

conventional and nuclear payloads. The B-2 is a large aircraft that is very costly to operate.

3
 Table 1.III - Comparison of the F-111A, F-117, B-2, B-1B, and F-15E
General
Manufacturer Lockheed Boeing Northrop Rockwell
Dynamics
Designation F-117 FB-111A F-15E B-2 B-1B
Span - ft 43.6 32.0 42.8 172.0 78.2
Aspect Ratio – – 3 – –
Length – ft 66.6 73.5 63.7 69.0 147.0
Height – ft 12.5 17.1 18.5 17.0 34.0
Wing Area - ft2 913 – 608 5274 1950
Empty Weight – lb 29,500 46,171 32,000 153,700 192,001
Payload Weight – lb 5,000 31,500 24,500 40,001 133,999
Fuel Weight – lb – – 13,122 200,003 194,999
Gross Takeoff Weight – lb 52,501 91,492 81,000 375,998 477,003
Max power loading – – 1.73 4.86 –
Max Mach # 0.9 2.2 2.5 0 1.25
Max combat radius 570 2,750 686 6,300 6,479
Service Ceiling - ft – 50,853 – 50,000 –

The solution to the RFP is not a trivial design problem. The aircraft will have to be well area-ruled in order to

minimize wave drag and have a low frontal radar cross-section. The goal of this design is to meet or exceed RFP

requirements while minimizing manufacturing and operating costs.

4
2 Defining the Design Domain

An initial takeoff weight estimate was made using historical aircraft data. First, a database of aircraft similar in

mission was compiled. Next, an iterative weight fraction method outlined in Roskam. This method calculates the weight

fraction for each mission segment. Using the resulting weight fractions, the aircraft gross takeoff and empty weights

were iterated until a weight fraction consistent with the historical trends was reached. Figure 2.1 shows the historical

trend in aircraft weight fractions and the initial estimate of Vendetta’s empty and takeoff gross weights. The results of

the weight fraction method are shown in Table 2.I.

Figure 2.1 - Historical Weight Fractions & Weight Fraction Estimates

Table 2.I - Weight Fractions & Weights

Mission Segment Weights

Weights
Fractions
Start/Takeoff 6% Takeoff 108,400 lb
Warm -up
Misc.
Climb To Cruise 11% Empty 51,600 lb Reserve Initial Climb

Cruise-Out 25% Fuel 47,600 lb Cruise Back

Dash-Out 17% Payload 9,054 lb

Cruise Out
Dash-Back 14% Fuel Weight Fraction 47.6% Dash Back

Cruise-Back 16% Dash Out

30 Minute Reserve 6%
Misc. 5%
Total 100%

5
 The weight fraction method provides a rough starting point for aircraft takeoff gross weight. The assumptions

used in the weight fraction method are listed in Table 2.II. Inaccuracies of up to 10% are possible depending on the

quality of the initial assumptions, and 20% is not uncommon for unusual missions such as the one outlined in the RFP.

Another source of inaccuracy is the historical aircraft used to define weight fraction trends. Because no supercruising

stealth bombers currently exist, many subsonic aircraft or non-stealthy aircraft were used in the historical aircraft

database.

Once a starting TOGW is known, the physical dimensions can be estimated using a constraint plot. The

constraint plot examines the relationship between two variables based on given requirements. Generally for initial sizing

of an aircraft, the two variables used are sea-level takeoff wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio. The RFP provides

many performance requirements that can be written as functions of these design parameters. Equations for range,

specific excess power, takeoff and landing distance, and others from in Roskam, Nicolai, and Raymer were used to

define the constraints produced by these requirements. Additional assumptions were made to create the constraint plot as

shown in Table 2.III.

Table 2.II - Weight Fraction Assumptions Table 2.III - Constraint Assumptions

SFC_Cruise 1.11 lbm/lbf-hr CLmax_TO 1.8

SFC _Dash 1.11 lbm/lbf-hr CLmax_CR 1.2
SFC _Turn 1.11 lbm/lbf-hr CLCruise 0.2
SFC_Loiter 0.8 lbm/lbf-hr AR 3
L/DCruise 10 e 0.8
L/DDash 10
L/DTurn 10
L/DLoiter 12

The constraint plot in Figure 2.2 shows how thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading relate to a specific

performance constraint. This allows an acceptable thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading to be found. Note that any

design points on the hatched side of a constraint would not meet the specific design requirement that that constraint

represents. The constraint plot clearly identifies a design domain in which any combination of thrust-to-weight ratio and

wing loading would satisfy all of the design requirements.

The combination of the weight fraction method and the constraint plot provided an initial estimate the physical

size and weight of the airplane. From the acceptable wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio values determined from the

constraint plot, a single point must be chosen. A design with a higher wing loading will result in a smaller aircraft,

which will be less expensive and easier to maintain. High thrust to weight ratios will require larger, more expensive and

less efficient engines. Many assumptions were used to create the individual constraints, so the true effect of the

6
performance requirements on the aircraft is not well defined. Because of this, the initial design point was also chosen in

the center of the design domain in order to allow for aircraft growth. However, more accurate analytical techniques have

allowed the current design point to move closer to the minimum wing loadings and thrust-to-weight ratios. The initial

size and weight estimates are shown in Table 2.IV along with the current values for comparision.

1.0

0.9 Current Design

Instant Turn Rate > 8°/sec

Point
0.8 Range > 3500 nm

Landing< 8000 ft
0.7
Initial Design
0.6 Point
Thrust to Weight Ratio

0.5

0.4 1-g Ps > 200 fps

2-g Ps > 0 fps
0.3

0.2 1-g Ps > 0 fps

0.1
Takeoff < 8000 ft

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Wing Loading, (psf)

Figure 2.2 - Constraint Plot

Table 2.IV - Initial and Current Sizing

Initial Design Point Current Design Point

TOGW 108,400 lb 125,051 lb
We 51,600 lb 56,797 lb
Wf 47,600 lb 58,974 lb
Wf/W 0.43 0.47
T/W 0.54 0.48
W/S 100 lb/ft2 83.3 lb/ft2
TSL 58,000 60,000 lb
Sref 1,084 ft2 1,500 ft2

7
3 Configuration

The current configuration of the aircraft is the result of several major iterations. The first iterations were

individual designs developed by each of the six team members at the beginning of the project. Four of the individual

designs were considered for the configuration the Vendetta.

The Nergal (Figure 3.1) and the Jackhammer (Figure 3.2) were both tailless aircraft utilizing thrust vectoring for

stability in the yaw axis. Each aircraft utilized Pratt and Whitney F119 engines found in the F-22. The Nergal was far

smaller than the Jackhammer due to its single engine and fuel volume usage. Both aircraft incorporated rotary weapons

launchers capable of carrying every weapon mentioned by the RFP in a single weapons bay. The cockpit layout was

side-by-side to minimize the redundant cockpit displays and maximize crew communication.

The Interdictor (Figure 3.3) and Big Paulie (Figure 3.4) were both based on the RFP engines. The Interdictor

used straight inlet ducts with an inlet screen similar to what is used on the F-117. Big Paulie attempted to make use of

the axisymetric translating center body inlets of the RFP engine in a stealth design by using a prismatic translating inlet

spike to better control radar energy. Both aircraft were deemed impractical due to the large cross-sectional areas

produced by the excessive size of the RFP engines. The cockpit arrangement of these aircraft was side-by-side similar to

the Nergal and Jackhammer.

Analysis performed during this early work clearly showed that the engine provided by the RFP was far too large

for the thrust it provided. The two aircraft designed for the F119 were both smaller and more space efficient. This

narrowed the design options to the Nergal and Jackhammer. Both of these aircraft were tailless and it was determined

that the weight and drag benefits associated with the lack of a vertical tail would be outweighed by the costs associated

with the thrust vectoring system. It was also determined that the aircraft were too unstable laterally to be controlled by

an inexpensive, low bandwidth, thrust vectoring system. It was decided to begin with a new design incorporating the

strong points of each aircraft.

The first iteration of the aircraft is shown in Figure 3.5; it is a large aircraft that has many design flaws. The first

Figure 3.1 - Nergal Figure 3.2 - Jackhammer Figure 3.3 - Interdictor Figure 3.4 - Big Paulie
8
and most obvious is the above-chine mounted inlet, easily seen in the front view. The chine causes a vortex roll-up that

would be directly ingested by the inlet at moderately high angles-of-attack (AOA). A low bypass ratio engine might

tolerate these flow disturbances without problems; however, the design utilizes a new engine with a bypass ratio of

approximately 1.5. This type of engine will not tolerate swallowed vortices.

Another problem with the initial configuration was weight distribution. The fuel center-of-mass was not near the

empty weight center-of-mass. This caused the aircraft to take off very stable and land very unstable. This could not be

remedied due to the small volume available for fuel in the aft portion of the fuselage. The majority of the fuel volume in

the aft portion of the aircraft was located around the engines. This is undesirable due to the possibility of a catastrophic

failure of the engine fan disk or afterburner.

Another problem arises from the 20° facet on the bottom of the fuselage. This created a large radar footprint

underneath the aircraft, as shown on the right side of Figure 3.5. The vertical stabilizer also created poor low observable

characteristics. The final flaw that drives the aircraft to the new configuration is the pitching moment characteristics of

the fuselage. The side-by-side seating arrangement of the first iteration caused the fuselage to be excessively large in the

areas forward of the aircraft’s center-of-gravity. The pitch up tendencies of the aircraft grew very large with only small

AOA. The control power of the horizontal surfaces was found to be incapable of combating the problem.

The second configuration shown in Figure 3.6, shows significant design evolution from the previous

configuration. This configuration features many changes that aid in solving the previously discussed problems. The

cockpit was changed to a tandem arrangement the single vertical tail was replaced by twin canted surfaces. The engines

were moved to the top of the fuselage to avoid detection from infrared sensors. The takeoff gross weight decreased to

114,000 lb due to improved engine and aerodynamics estimates.

• Span = 50 ft
• m.a.c. = 23 ft
• Sref = 965 sq. ft
• TOGW = 121,600 lb
• Empty Weight = 62,000 lb

60
dBm2
40
20

50’ 105’
19’

23’
RFP
Requirement
Figure 3.5 - Initial Configuration

9
 2
40 dBm
35°
30
• Span = 53 ft 20
• m.a.c. = 32 ft
• Sref = 1500 sq. ft
• TOGW = 114,000 lb
• Empty Weight = 55,000 lb

53’ 98’
19’ RFP
Requirement

18’
13°

Figure 3.6 - Second Configuration

The design approach for the second configuration was differed significantly from that the first. The center-of-

gravity was decided on before the first part was placed on the aircraft and every effort was utilized to keep it in the

appropriate place. The weight and balance issues, though still present, were dramatically improved. The fuel load and

payload compartment reside directly on the desired center-of-gravity; however, the empty weight center-of-gravity was

too far aft. The low mounted wing proved to be a structural challenge when incorporating a landing gear well. Another

issue dealt with the cruise AOA. It was shown that the aircraft would cruise at approximately 4 degrees. The forward

chine on the fuselage would be shedding a vortex throughout the cruise portion of the mission resulting in higher drag.

The chine angle should meet the onset flow angle. The maximum radar signature of the aircraft decreased dramatically

(by 10dB) from the previous configuration however, the radar return in the frontal aspect increased substantially from

-12dB to 0dB. The frontal aspect is an important design requirement thus another revision to the aircraft was created

paying more attention to frontal RCS.

The final configuration of Vendetta is shown in Foldout 1. The configuration was generated with the same

methodology as the second iteration; however, greater attention was given to load paths and landing gear placement.

The 4° cruise AOA was incorporated into the forward chine. The Vendetta has grown a small amount and currently

weighs 125,000 lb. The aircraft has a tandem cockpit supported by a very long nose. The long nose offsets the mass of

the large engines and the massive structure required for the full flying horizontal stabilizers. The engines can be

removed through the bottom of the aircraft, as there are no primary load paths obstructing access. This makes

maintenance easier for the ground crew. The APU is located in the engine compartment keeping the fuel and fire

retardant systems as redundant as possible. The inlets are under-wing mounted to keep them in clean flow throughout

the flight envelope. The Vendetta has a 1500 ft2 wing area with a leading edge sweep of 40 degrees. The design drivers

will be discussed in detail throughout following sections. The inboard layout can be seen in Foldout 2.

10
Weight Buildup Geometric Data
Component Weight Fuselage Butt Plane Water Wx Wy Wz Item Units Wing Horizontal Vertical
Areas
Station (ft) Line (ft) (lb-ft) (lb-ft) (lb-ft)
Reference sq. ft 1500 270 165
(ft) Exposed sq. ft 900 265 160
Structures Wetted sq. ft 1714 528 330
Wing Group 8,779 66.0 0.0 -3.0 579,319 0 -26,511 Span ft 54.8 35.1 9.2 Projected Vertical Planform
Horizontal Tail 1,262 94.3 0.0 -3.0 119,073 0 -3,812 Aspect Ratio - 2.0 4.6 2.1
Vertical Tail 1,279 86.2 0.0 -7.1 110,176 0 -9,117 Taper Ratio - 0.17 0.23 0.17
Fuselage 10,540 44.2 0.0 -2.1 465,770 0 -22,345 Sweeps
Main Gear 2,289 68.9 0.0 -1.9 157,648 0 -4,371 LE ° 40 40 40
c/4 ° 21 24 21
Nose Gear 400 17.3 0.0 4.7 6,915 0 1,875 c/2 ° 5 9 5
24,548 58.6 0.0 -2.6 1,438,902 0 -64,282 TE ° -30 -30 -30
Propulsion Chords Aft Fuselage
Engines 11,034 84.9 0.0 -2.7 937,198 0 -29,791 Mean Aerodynamic ft 32.0 14.9 10.7 Break Point
Engine Mounts 138 84.9 0.0 -2.7 11,752 0 -374 Root ft 46.8 15.0 16.0
Tip ft 8.0 3.5 2.8 Forward Fuselage
Firewall 102 84.9 0.0 -2.7 8,638 0 -275 Break Point 368.4" MAC @ BP 125
Nozzle 140 84.9 0.0 -2.7 11,892 0 -378 178.0" MAC
Oil Cooling 77 84.9 0.0 -2.7 6,528 0 -208 @ BP 111
Starter 185 84.9 0.0 -2.7 15,679 0 -498
11,675 84.9 0.0 -2.7 991,687 0 -31,523
Systems
Pressurization 372 17.3 0.0 -4.0 6,433 0 -9,395 BP 0.0
Air Induction 2,325 64.4 0.0 -3.2 149,738 0 -788
Anti-Ice 248 17.3 0.0 -4.0 4,289 0 -1,414
APU 350 80.9 0.0 -4.3 28,326 0 -2,509
Auxillary Gear 578 17.3 0.0 -4.0 10,005 0 -4,531 Wing Break Point
Total Fuselage Volume: 5000.8 cubic feet
Avionics 1,122 17.3 0.0 -4.0 19,416 0 -1,923
C.G. Control System 476 44.2 0.0 -2.1 21,037 0 -2,917
Electrical 1,376 44.2 0.0 -2.1 60,811 0 -137
53°
Engine Controls 65 84.9 0.0 -2.7 5,507 0 -10,130
Flight Controls 3,752 17.3 0.0 -4.0 64,945 0 -2,492
Fuel System 5,101 58.3 0.0 -2.1 297,236 0 -10,934
Furnishings/Equipment 617 17.3 0.0 -4.0 10,675 0 -10,100
Launchers & Weapons 2,500 55.3 0.0 -1.8 138,300 0 -1,965
Hydraulic System 1,110 44.2 0.0 -2.1 49,052 0 -60
Oxygen System 28 17.3 0.0 -4.0 486 0 -2,242
Paint 555 44.2 0.0 -2.1 24,526 0 -43,618 FS
20,574 43.3 0.0 -5.1 890,782 0 -105,155 295.6

EMPTY 56,797 58.5 0.0 -3.5 3,321,371 0 -200,959 FS FS FS FS FS

54.8' (657.3") 275.6 362.8 688.9 964.5 1102.3
Payload
GBU-27 2,000 55.3 0.0 -1.8 110,640 0 -3,540 35.1' (421.8") FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS
GBU-27 2,000 55.3 0.0 -1.8 110,640 0 -3,540 122.7 226.2 303.4 413.3 551.1 631.5 729.4 826.7 940.0 1051.3 1175.8
GBU-27 2,000 55.3 0.0 -1.8 110,640 0 -3,540 13.5' (161.6" ) 20
°C
GBU-27 2,000 55.3 0.0 -1.8 110,640 0 -3,540 an 103.3' (1240.0")
AM-120 390 55.3 0.0 -1.8 21,575 0 -690 t
AM-120 390 55.3 0.0 -1.8 21,575 0 -690
Crew & Cargo 500 55.3 0.0 -1.8 27,660 0 -885
9,280 55.3 0.0 -1.8 513,370 0 -16,426 14° 128.3" MAC @ WL 101
20.6'
ZERO FUEL 66,077 58.0 0.0 -3.3 3,834,740 0 -217,385 (247.5")

Fuel
F.R.L @ WL 0
Fwd. Fuselage 23,034 41.6 0.0
0 -1.9 958,460 0 -43,996
Left Wing 6,366 67.0 12.9 -3.0 426,331 82,249 -19,162 5.3'

13°
Right Wing 6,366 67.0 -12.9 -3.0 426,331 -82,249 -19,162 135v° (63.4")
fo
Aft Fuselage 23,208 70.0 0.0 -1.9 1,625,233 0 -44,095
58,974 58.3 0.0 -2.1 3,436,355 0 -126,414

TAKEOFF GROSS 125,051 58.1 0.0 -2.7 7,271,096 0 -323,799

15.6' (187.0")
Vendetta
Chris Droney Kolby Keiser
Foldout 1
Aircraft Overview
Chris Atkinson
Nate Schnaible Chris Maglio Dan Salluce
Rev. 3 Scale 1:150 High Rollers 5/23/02
 Vendetta
Chris Droney Kolby Keiser
Foldout 2
Inboards and Sections
Chris Atkinson
Nate Schnaible Chris Maglio Dan Salluce
Rev. 3 Scale 1:150 High Rollers 5/23/02
Retracted Main Gear
Full Flying Stab
Radar and Nose
Accessories
Engine

Retracted Nose Gear

BP 30.0
BP 0.0
Aft Fuselage Tank
23,208 lb JP-8
Forward Fuselage Tank
23,034 lb JP-8
Left Wing Tank
6,366 lb JP-8
Total Fuel
58,974 lb JP-8
Tandem Cockpit Weapons Bay Inlet APU
Partial Section - BP 30.0

FS
295.6
FS FS FS FS FS
275.6 362.8 688.9 964.5 1102.3
FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS
30°

Engine Accessories
28°

122.7 226.2 303.4 413.3 551.1 631.5 729.4 826.7 940.0 1051.3 1175.8
Radar and Nose Retracted Main Gear
5°
Accessories

FS FS FS FS FS
122.7 226.2 275.6 295.6 362.8 11° APU
F.R.L No Fuel Around Engine
FS Wing Tank X 2 or Near Fan Face
303.4 IRST MPRL 6,366 lb each
AN/APG-77 Weapons Bay
AAR Port Flow Deflector 70% Volume Usage

BP 0.0
Forward Fuselage Tank
23,034 lb JP-8
Right Wing Tank Left Wing Tank
6,366 lb JP-8 6,366 lb JP-8
Fuel Tank Contained
Within Section Breaks
Aft Fuselage Tank
FS FS FS 10° Fall Angle 23,208 lb JP-8
FS FS
413.3 551.1 631.5 FS 729.4 826.7 Aft Fuselage Tank
688.9
23,208 lb
80% Volume Usage
Forward Fuselage Tank
23,034 lb
80% Volume Usage
Total Fuel
58,974 lb JP-8

FS FS FS FS FS
940.0 964.5 1051.3 1102.3 1175.8
4 Stealth Considerations

Radar cross-section (RCS) is an important low observability consideration for the Vendetta. The geometric

shaping of an aircraft is the main contributor to its radar return. When radar energy interacts with the surface of an

aircraft many phenomenon affect the resulting disturbance to the electromagnetic energy. Radio waves that strike a

surface may reflect off of that surface or begin to travel along the surface. When edges are encountered, energy is either

radiated outward in planes perpendicular to the edge or reflected back along the surface. To achieve low radar cross-

section in any particular aspect of an aircraft, the surfaces of the aircraft must be shaped so that the electromagnetic

energy is either absorbed, or reflected away from the receiving station. After shaping, radar absorbing materials (RAM)

can be utilized to minimize the spikes created by problem areas such as inlets, wing tips, and control surfaces.

The design features described below and illustrated in Figure 4.1 are used to control the radar returns in specific

aspects. The fuselage is constructed from flat sides and constant radius curves to produce radar returns in a single

direction away from the source of the radar energy. The sides are kept at a 60° angle from the horizontal and the bottom

is kept flat to minimize the radar footprint that is created below the aircraft. The vertical tails are canted to avoid

creating perpendicular surfaces which would return radar energy directly back to its source. The leading edge sweep is

40° creating spikes well off of the frontal aspect of the aircraft. All other leading edges are kept swept at this same angle

to concentrate radar energy into the same regions. An analysis of radar threats, as shown in Foldout 3, indicates that

most Vendetta will require low signatures from frontal aspect required by the RFP to a 15° look up angle.

The RFP specifies that the aircraft incorporate balanced observables. Infrared (IR) sensors present another

observability threat. Emissivity matching will be employed to minimize the infrared energy radiated from hot surfaces

on the aircraft. Specially designed paints and surface treatments will be used to match the emissivity of the aircraft to

surroundings, aiding in the disappearance of the aircraft to any IR sensors. As will be shown in the propulsion section, a

Hidden Canted
Verticals
40° LE Sweep
All other Surfaces
Matched

60° Facet
Figure 4.1 - Stealth Considerations

13
low signature axisymmetric advanced nozzle will be used that has been developed for use on low observable aircraft.

Visual observability will be addressed through the use of mission planning and contrail avoidance. No practical visual

stealth technology currently exists that could be incorporated into the design aside from color selection.

To quantitatively analyze the radar cross-section of the Vendetta, Radbase2 software by Surface Optics was

utilized. First, a faceted model was generated from the 3D model. Faceting was limited to only those necessary because

of the demanding processing requirements. Facets were limited to 10 degree tolerances at roughly 0.017 feet minimums.

The facetted model is presented in Foldout 3. It can be seen that heavy facet optimization was needed to make sure that

all facets met tangency requirements to leave smoothly curved and splined surfaces. The spline arc on the top of the

fuselage is modeled with facets every 10°. For the flat surfaces like the wings and empennage 10° angular spacing is

more than adequate to represent the surface.

The Radbase2 RCS code calculates radar returns based on Physical Optics and Chu-Stratton integral methods

which are computationally intensive. Because of this, bounces off surfaces were limited to two after the initial bounce.

Vertical-vertical return and transmission polarization were analyzed as it is the most relevant to how radar stations

operate. Horizontal-horizontal as well as mixed HV and VH returns did not yield significant returns. Monostatic radars

which both broadcast and receive radar waves were used in the analysis. Although Radbase2 can calculate bistatic

returns, there are literally an infinite number of threat situations possible and the RFP does not specifically call out a

requirement.

The code was allowed to iterate on the model with 1° azimuth increments and for 0° and 15° lookup angles. It

was also run for 1, 5, 10, and 12 GHz radar frequencies. Most fast track and search radar runs at the higher frequencies

while long range threat radars utilize the lower frequencies. The 1 to 10 GHz range covers most of the radars that are

expected for the role of this aircraft and are specifically required by the RFP. A table of common ground and surface

radars with their respective frequencies is presented as in Foldout 3.

Although the information for common radars is available for those currently used by the United States, radar

energy and the principles of their propagation through air are similar regardless of application. Looking at the radars

used by the Navy shows that lower frequency radars are better suited to traveling longer distances with larger

wavelengths. Fast track radars are more suited for higher resolutions and fast, short range surface to air missiles (SAMs).

Data are not readily available for radars made by foreign manufacturers.

The 1 to 12 GHz range covers FM and XM radar bands which are the most common threats. The RFP specifically

requires that the Vendetta have a frontal RCS of 0.05 m2 in the 1-10 GHz range. As the threat chart shown in Foldout 3

14
shows, most threats will be from below and at shallow angles of about 15° while at 50,000 ft during ingress. Because of

this, the 0° and 15° lookup angles were analyzed. The results of the Radbase2 software are illustrated first in Foldout 3.

which depicts the radar cross-section of the aircraft from a frontal, or 0° lookup angle.

The figure shows that the vehicle does clearly meet the frontal RCS requirement of 0.05 m2 (-13 dBm2) set forth

in the RFP. It also shows that the iterative measures taken to shape the aircraft worked. The leading edge and trailing

edge of the wing come together closely. There is a large return directly from the side of the aircraft due to the wingtip

and fuselage side. It can also be seen that, although there are slight variations in the returns due to the different

frequencies, they do not vary much due to the fact that the Vendetta is a rather large vehicle; hence none of the surfaces

are small enough to interfere at the radar wavelengths. The weakest azimuth angle for the Vendetta is the 40° angle

where the leading edge sends a large spike forward. However, the Vendetta meets the RFP requirement for a full 77° of

azimuth.

Looking at the equally crucial 15° lookup angle cross-section in Foldout 3 reveals a slightly different picture. It

shows that the Vendetta meets and exceeds the 0° lookup angle returns. This is highly advantageous. The shape of the

bottom of the aircraft is effective in keeping spikes at a minimum. As mentioned earlier, this is a crucial area for the

Vendetta. As most of its threats are from the ground, it is important that the aircraft has a limited return in this

orientation.

The threat chart shows that the Vendetta would remain in range of the Soviet SA-12 and SA-6 SAMs for 160

seconds and 60 seconds, respectively. This means that the returns from the bottom of the Vendetta are crucial for threat

assessment. The software was used to generate an RCS butterfly plot in a sweep around the vehicle to determine the

footprint that it will leave as it flies above its threats. Foldout 3 shows this sweep.

It can be seen that the 60° facets on the bottom of the fuselage are deflecting radar away from the vulnerable

lookup orientation. The aircraft is still producing a large return of almost +40 dBm2 in this position, however. Once

again, there is little variation in the returns for various frequencies. Mission planning would become crucial to be sure

the Vendetta avoids flying directly over only these long-range, high flying threats such as the SA-12.

It is important to note that the addition of radar absorbing material (RAM) would further reduce some of the

returns on the aircraft. Note that all plots shown reflect the fact that software is assuming fully reflective metal on all

surfaces. No cavities are being modeled besides the inlets. This is a conservative approach. RAM could be applied in

actuality to reduce some of the returns on the bottom and front of the aircraft.

15
 Threat Frequency Analysis:

0° Lookup Radar Manufacturer Frequency Image

77° Radial Sweep
50 60
2.9 to 3.1
40 AN/TPS -43E Mobile Radar Westinghouse
GHz 50
30
20 40
10
30
0
-10 AN/TPS -70 2.9 to 3.1 20
Northrop Grumman
-20 Fixed Ground Radar GHz
10
-30
0
-40

AN/SPS -49
850 to 942
Typical Long Range Naval Navy Research Labs
MHz
Radar

1 GHz 1 GHz
5 GHz 5 GHz
10 GHz 10 GHz
12 GHz 12 GHz
RFP Requirement
Region of RFP AN/SPS -55
2 9.05 to
Compliance -13 dBm Long Range Surface Search ISC Cardion
10.0 GHz
Radar

15° Lookup Threat Envelope Analysis:

63°
100,000 ft
30 SA-12

20
75,000 ft SA-6
10
SA-11
0 50,000 ft

15 °
-10 SA-8/15

8°
-20
25,000 ft SA-9/13
-30

-40

1,000 ft

500 ft
1 GHz
5 GHz 300 ft
10 GHz
12 GHz 200 ft
RFP Requirement 30 20 nm

Vendetta
Region of RFP 40
Compliance -13 dBm
2 45 Foldout 3
50 40 30 20 sm 10
Low Observables
60 Time In Range SA-9
70 SA-13 SA-6
SA-12 -- 160 s SA-12 Chris Droney Kolby Keiser Chris Atkinson
SA-6 -- 60 s SA-8 Nate Schnaible Dan Salluce
SA-11 Chris Maglio
SA-11 -- 55 s
SA-13 Rev. 3 High Rollers 5/23/02
5 Aerodynamics

5.1 Wing Planform

The first aerodynamic parameters that were considered were the wing planform area and aspect ratio. To select

the optimum wing planform area and aspect ratio, the effect of these two parameters on the specific excess power (Ps)

and fuel consumption over the design mission were studied. The 1-g military specific excess power at an altitude of

50,000 ft and Mach number of 1.6 was estimated using engine data coupled with drag estimation based on component

skin friction drag and area ruling. Fuel consumption was estimated by numerically integrating engine fuel flow over the

design mission. The additional weight and maximum cross-sectional area of larger wing areas were considered in

calculations; however, the mission profile and fuel weight at takeoff were kept constant. The results shown in Figure 5.1

indicate that a wing planform area of approximately 1,500 ft2 and aspect ratio of 2.0 would maximize specific excess

power and minimize fuel consumption.

96
2 Design Point
1,600 ft 2
1,400 ft
Mach 1.6, 50,000 ft, and Maneuver Weight

94
2
1,800 ft
Specific Excess Power (ft/s)

2
1,200 ft
92
Wing Area
2
2,000 ft
90
2.52.25 2.0
1.75 1,000 ft
2
88
2 Aspect Ratio 1.5
2,200 ft

86

84
2
2,400 ft

82
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
Fuel Burn over Mission (1,000 lb)
Figure 5.1 - Optimization of Wing Area and Aspect Ratio

17
5.2 Wing Sweep

The next wing parameters considered were the leading and trailing edge sweep angles. Because any edges on an

aircraft reflect radar energy, the sweep angles of the wing were chosen to minimize radar energy reflected back to the

source, especially in the frontal aspect of the aircraft where a specific RCS requirement is given by the RFP. To avoid

reflecting radar toward the front of the aircraft, the leading and trailing edges of the wing had to be highly swept. In

addition, 45º sweep angles could not be used because a corner reflector would be created reflecting radar energy back to

its source from any direction. These requirements led to a diamond shaped wing planform with a leading edge wing

sweep of approximately 40º. Two initial designs were considered one having a 40º swept leading edge and a 30º forward

swept trailing edge and the other having matched 35.3º leading edge and trailing edge sweeps. A trade study was

performed to select between these two wing configurations by studying the effect of the two configurations on RCS and

aerodynamics. Figure 5.2 shows a comparison of radial sweeps of the aircraft with both configurations using RadBase2.

The return from the 40º and 35.3º leading edge sweeps can be clearly seen in the plot. The leading edge spike on the

matched leading and trailing edge configuration is approximately 15 dBm2 lower than the other configuration, however,

it is 5º closer to the frontal aspect of the aircraft. The aerodynamic study of the two wing configurations indicated that

approximately 1,500 lb of additional fuel would be required due to the additional wave drag from the lower leading edge

sweep angle. Because of the aerodynamic benefits of a higher leading edge sweep angle, and because the RFP only

gives frontal aspect RCS requirements, the 40º leading edge and 30º trailing edge configuration was chosen.

Once the optimum wing area, aspect ratio, and sweep angles were identified, the tip chord was kept at 8 ft to

avoid overly small tip chords that could interact unpredictably with radar wavelengths. This resulted in the wing

planform shown in Figure 5.3, with the measurements given in Table 5.I. Leading edge flaps, trailing edge flaps, and

ailerons were added to the wing. The chords of the high lift devices and control surfaces were kept at a constant

percentage of the mean aerodynamic chord so that hinge lines would parallel the wing edges and would not create

additional RCS spikes. The trailing edge flap chord is 20% of the mean aerodynamic chord and the aileron and leading

edge flap are each 10% of the mean aerodynamic chord. The trailing edge flap extends from the fuselage to 65% of the

semi-span, the leading edge flap extends from the fuselage to 90% of the semi-span, and the aileron extends from the

edge of the flap to 90% of the semi-span. No moveable surfaces were added to the last 10% of the semi-span so that

radar absorbing materials could be added in the wing tip to minimize any returns from that edge.

18
 50 dB
40 dB 35.3º LE Sweep
30 dB
20 dB
40º LE Sweep
10 dB
0 dB
-10 dB
-20 dB
-30 dB
-40 dB
-50 dB

1 GHz. 40º LE Sweep

10 GHz. 40º LE Sweep
1 GHz. 35.3º LE Sweep
10 GHz. 35.3º LE Sweep
RFP Requirement (-13 dB)

Figure 5.2 - Effect of Wing Leading and Trailing Edge Sweep on RCS

Table 5.I - Wing Measurements

Planform Area 1,500 ft2
Span 54.8 ft
Root Chord 46.8 ft
Tip Chord 8.0 ft
MAC 32.0 ft
y Location of MAC 10.5 ft
Aspect Ratio 2.0
Leading Edge Sweep 40.0º
Sweep at Quarter Chord 20.5º
Sweep at Half Chord 4.7º
Trailing Edge Sweep -30.0º
Taper Ratio 0.17
Leading Edge Flap Area 112 ft2
Trailing Edge Flap Area 137 ft2
Aileron Area 44 ft2
Figure 5.3 - Wing Planform Flapped Wing Area 624 ft2

19
5.3 Wing Thickness

The effect of wing thickness-to-chord ratio (t/c) on performance was studied so that the optimum t/c could be

chosen. Initially, a wing thickness of 3% of the chord was chosen based on existing supercruise aircraft. Increasing the

root thickness of the wing was considered to reduce the weight of the wing and to increase fuel volume in the wing. The

effects of wing root thickness on wing weight, cross-sectional area, fuel consumption, and fuel volume were studied.

The weight of the wing was estimated using the method presented in Raymer, and the additional cross-sectional area was

calculated numerically. The resulting wing weights and cross-sectional areas for wing root t/c from 3% to 6% are shown

in Figure 5.4. The effects of the resulting weights and cross-sectional areas on the fuel consumption during the mission

were estimated using the same method used for the wing sizing. The results in Figure 5.5 show that the additional fuel

consumption over the mission due to the wave drag of a thicker wing greatly exceeds the additional fuel capacity of the

wing. A constant wing t/c of 3% was chosen because it minimizes both wave drag and fuel consumption over the

mission.

9,000
t root = 3%

8,500
Weight of Wing (lb)

8,000
t root = 4%

7,500
t root = 5%

7,000

t root = 6%

6,500
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2
Maximum Frontal Cross Sectional Area of Wing (ft )

Figure 5.4 - Effect of Root Thickness-to-Chord Ratio on Wing Weight and Cross-Sectional Area

20
 80,000

Fuel Consumption over Mission (lb) 75,000

70,000

65,000
Fuel Onboard

60,000

55,000

50,000
3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0%
Wing Root Thickness
Figure 5.5 - Effect of Root Thickness-to-Chord Ratio on Fuel Consumption

5.4 Airfoil

The NACA 65A-003 airfoil section was chosen because a symmetrical airfoil is optimum for supersonic flight.

The airfoil ordinates given in Theory of Wing Sections for an NACA 65A-006 were scaled and interpolated using

Lagrangian polynomials to define the geometry of the wing. The leading edge radius of the airfoil is 0.1% of the chord,

which is approximately 0.375 inch at the mean aerodynamic chord and 0.100 inch at the tip. The airfoil sections at the

mean aerodynamic chord and tip of the trailing edge flap are shown in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7, respectively. Because

the chords of the flaps remain constant as the wing chord changes, each airfoil section has a different relative flap sizes.

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 5.6 - Airfoil Section at MAC

21
 0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 5.7 - Airfoil Section at Tip of Trailing Edge Flap

5.5 Lift Curve

The lift curve slope of the wing was first estimated using standard subsonic theory, compressibility corrections,

and linear supersonic theory. Next, the stall angle-of-attack of the wing was estimated under takeoff and landing

conditions by calculating the lift distribution of the wing using LinAir. The section lift coefficient was calculated as a

function of the spanwise location of the section for different wing angles-of-attack. The wing was assumed to stall when

one of the section lift coefficients exceeded the maximum lift coefficient given in Theory of Wing Sections. The wing

stall angle-of-attack was determined to approximately 14º. Because the wingtip was shown to stall at a much lower

angle-of-attack than the rest of the wing, adding a –3º angle of incidence to the wingtip was considered. The resulting

twist extends the stall angle-of-attack to approximately 16º; however, the twist decreased the lift coefficient at a given

angle-of-attack and could impact RCS and supersonic aerodynamics. Ultimately, the non-twisted wing was chosen,

because with the use of a leading edge flap, the additional angle-of-attack range was not needed. The lift distributions of

the wing with and without twist are shown in Figure 5.8. The lift curve slope and lift distributions were also investigated

with PanAir (Boeing Code A502i). LinAir only models the vortex lattice produced by a given planform, whereas PanAir

models wing shape and thickness using sources and doublets. Because wing thickness was modeled, PanAir predicted

the wing lift curve slope to be slightly higher than LinAir.

The effects of the trailing edge flap were estimated using the stall angle-of-attack and lift coefficient increments

given in Nicolai. The effect of the leading edge flap was estimated by assuming that a 10º leading edge flap deflection

would increase the stall angle-of-attack by approximately 10º, and the decrease in lift coefficient was estimated based on

the change in effective angle-of-attack of the airfoil sections. The resulting subsonic lift curve at Mach 0.2 is shown in

Figure 5.9 along with the lift curve slopes predicted by LinAir and PanAir.

22
 1

0.9
Max. Section Lift Coefficient
0.8

0.7 0º Tip Incidence

Section Lift Coefficient

AOA 16º
15º
16º 14º
0.6 15º 13º
14º
13º 12º
12º
0.5 AOA
-3º Tip Incidence
0.4
Calculated Using LinAir
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Spanwise Distance (percent semi-span)

Figure 5.8 - Lift Distribution of Wing with and without Twist

C L = 1.51
1.5 C L = 1.16
C L = 1.15 10º LE Flap
Deflection
30º TE Flap
1
Deflection PanAir
Lift Coefficient

LinAir
C L = 0.53
0.5
Clean
C L α = 2.33 1/rad
0

Tail Strike Angle (13º)

-0.5

-1
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Angle-of-Attack (degrees)

Figure 5.9 - Subsonic Wing Lift Curve (Mach 0.2)

23
5.6 Drag

Drag was divided into four parts: parasite drag, wave drag, induced drag, and trim drag. The parasite drag

coefficient was estimated using a component buildup method with form and interference factors as shown in Table 5.II.

The wave drag was calculated using the formula presented in Brandt & Stiles. The wave drag efficiency factor was

calculated from cross-sectional area distributions using the de Kármán integral and the theoretical wave drag of a perfect

Sears-Haack body. The cross-sectional area distributions were measured at transonic (Mach 1.0) and supersonic (Mach

1.6) conditions. The transonic area distribution was measured by passing vertical planes through a solid model of the

aircraft and measuring the intersecting area. The supersonic area distribution was measured by passing Mach cones

through the model, measuring the intersecting area, and projecting that area onto the vertical plane. For both cases, the

engine capture area was subtracted from sections containing the inlet, engine, and nozzle. The resulting area

distributions shown in Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11 both match reasonably well with that of a perfect Sears-Haack body.

Both distributions yield a wave drag efficiency factor of approximately 2.14 (based on 80 ft2 max. area and 100 ft

length).

90

80 Wing

70
Cross Sectional Area (ft )

Sears-Haack
2

60

50 Vertical Tail

40
Fuselage Horizontal Tail
30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Fuselage Station (inches aft datum)

Figure 5.10 - Transonic Area Distribution (Mach 1.0)

Induced drag was estimated using standard subsonic theory and the supersonic equation presented in Brandt &

Stiles to calculate the induced drag term (k1). Trim drag was calculated as induced drag generated by the horizontal tail

at the lift coefficient required to trim the aircraft with a given static margin and zero lift moment coefficient. The

resulting drag build-up at an altitude of 50,000 ft, maneuver weight, and 5% static margin is shown in Figure 5.12.

24
 90

80
Wing
70
Cross Sectional Area (ft )
2 Sears-Haack
60 Vertical Tail

50 Horizontal Tail

40
Fuselage
30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Fuselage Station (inches aft datum)
Figure 5.11 - Supersonic Area Distribution (Mach 1.6)

Table 5.II - Parasite Drag Component Buildup (50,000 ft, Mach 0.5)
Component Wetted Area Length Re FF QF Cf CD
Fuselage 2,500 ft2 100.0 ft 59,060,935 1.09 1.10 0.00224 0.00446
Wing 1,714 ft2 32.0 ft 18,878,786 1.22 1.00 0.00266 0.00370
Horizontal Tail 528 ft2 15.0 ft 8,859,140 1.22 1.08 0.00299 0.00139
Vertical Tail 330 ft2 10.7 ft 6,319,520 1.22 1.08 0.00316 0.00092
Σ 0.01047

0.06

0.05

0.04
Drag Coefficient

0.03 Induced Drag

0.0230
0.02 Trim Drag

0.01 Wave Drag

Parasite Drag
0
0 0.5 1 1.51.6 2 2.5 3
Mach
Figure 5.12 - Drag Build-Up at 50,000 ft, Maneuver Weight, and 5% Static Margin

25
6 Propulsion

In developing the propulsion system for the Vendetta, the RFP specifications of supersonic cruise and stealth are

the driving factors. Due to the frontal RCS requirement, the fan blades of the engine must remain hidden which drives

the engine placement well inside the aircraft.

6.1 Engine Selection

The RFP specifies a Low-Bypass-Ratio Turbofan (LBR-TF) or a Turbojet (TJ) engine may be used to perform the

mission. Both sizing equations and a candidate engine deck, an axisymmetric center body inlet and a mixed flow ejector

nozzle, were supplied with the RFP, with an option to use either or neither. Since it included physical dimensions and

fuel flow values the RFP engine deck was used instead of the equations provided by the RFP. The RFP engine

specifications are shown in Table 6.I.

Table 6.I - Engine Specifications of RFP Supplied Engine

Engine and Nozzle Length 310 in
Propulsion System Length 425 in
Fan Face Diameter 50 in
Maximum Diameter 65 in
Weight with Nozzle 7200 lb
The engine supplied by the RFP includes fuel flow and thrust data for part power, idle power, and military power.

All engine data supplied by the RFP are corrected to sea level and a Mach number of zero. Therefore, every value for

thrust and fuel flow at each altitude and Mach number is given in corrected net propulsive force (NPFc) and corrected

fuel flow (WFc). To find the actual thrust (NPF) and fuel flow (WF) the following equations were used:

NPF = NPFc ⋅ dT

0.6
WF = WF c ⋅ QT ⋅ dT

P
dT = (1 + .2M 2 )3.5 ( )
PSL

T
QT = 1 + 0.2M 2 ( )
TSL

Once the data were uncorrected the military thrust was found. The RFP supplied equations that could be used to scale the

engine based on a desired thrust. The scaling equations are as follows:

26
 NPF exp onent
NewMeasurement = OldMeasurement ( )
NPFbase

Axial length scaling exponent = 0.4

Diameter scaling exponent = 0.5

Weight scaling exponent = 1.0

The RFP engine produced a military thrust of 26,350 pounds and had a cruise thrust specific fuel consumption

(TSFC) of 1.19 1/hr for Mach 1.6 flow at 50,000 ft. TSFC is calculated using the following equation:

WF
TSFC =
NPF
The Vendetta will require two engines to perform the desired mission. The size, weight, and location of the

engines have great effect on the size of the airplane. The larger the engines the wider the aft portion of the fuselage and

the longer the airplane. For the size and weight of the RFP engine, it produced too little thrust and burned too much fuel

compared to modern turbofan engines.

Other engines were analyzed in an attempt to find a better performing engine that was smaller and lighter than

that supplied. Through this research the Concorde Rolls-Royce SNECMA Olympus engine was found to be comparable

to the RFP engine; however, the engine was first manufactured and flown in the Concorde in the mid ‘60’s through mid

‘70’s. Table 6.II compares the RFP engine to that of the SNECMA Olympus. As can be seen, the SNECMA Olympus is

very close in size and weight to that of the RFP; however, it produces even more thrust than that of the RFP. Also the

weight of the SNECMA Olympus includes that of an afterburner whereas the RFP engine is without an afterburner.

Table 6.II - RFP Dimensions Compared to the SNECMA Olympus

RFP SNECMA
Olympus
Fan Face Diameter 50 in 47.5 in
Length 310 in 280 in
Weight 7200 lbs 7000 lbs
Max Dry Thrust 26,356 lbs 31,350 lbs
Based on these data the RFP engine resembled outdated technology; a more efficient and modern engine will be

needed for the design of the Vendetta. The RFP engine deck was used as a baseline for designing a newer, better engine,

as it was the only full engine deck available. It was determined that an F119 engine would be the initial design engine for

the airplane. This engine is currently used in the F-22 and a derivation of the engine (the F135) is to be used in the F-35.

Engine performance data for the F119 are classified except that it is in a 35,000 lbs thrust class. Several methods

were utilized to narrow in on the thrust produced by the F119. Through the use of The Integrated High Performance
27
Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program, a program through the Air Force Research Laboratories in collaboration

with aerospace companies, F119 characteristics were estimated. IHPTET, which began in 1988 and should culminate in

2005, consists of a three-phase plan, utilizing the most current advancements in industry. IHPTET’s goal is to produce

revolutionary advancements in turbine engine technologies by combining advanced material developments, innovative

structural designs and improved aerothermodynamics. The three-phases of the program are shown in Table 6.III.

Table 6.III - IHPTET Goals

+100% Thrust/Weight
Phase III (2005)
-40% Fuel Burn
+60% Thrust/Weight
Phase II (1997)
-30% Fuel Burn
+30% Thrust/Weight
Phase I (Completed)
-20% Fuel Burn

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) states that Phase I of the program has been completed and that the

technology has been applied to existing engines including the F100, F110, F404, and the F119. Based on these data

Phase I of IHPTET was applied to the RFP engine deck to yield an F119 engine, both the RFP engine and the F119 are

low bypass turbofan engines. The 20% decrease in fuel burn was applied and then the weight was decreased by 22.5%

and the thrust increased half of a percent to account for the 30% change in thrust-to-weight ratio. The resulting

uninstalled thrust produced by the F119 is 26,500 lbs, has an uninstalled cruise TSFC of 0.95 lbm/lbf-hr and a dry weight

of 5,500 lbs.

The RFP recommends that future advancements and technologies be taken into account. The remaining phases of

the IHPTET program have yet to be accomplished; therefore, other advancements in turbofan engines were sought out.

The Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbofan Engine (VAATE) is an industry projection to 2020. Even though it

builds upon IHPTET it uses the F119 as a base engine for its future goals. Figure 6.1 illustrates the goals for turbofan

engines through 2020 and Phase I goals of a 25% decrease in TSFC and a 45% decrease in cost by 2010.

28
 Figure 6.1 - VAATE Goals
Department of Defense Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Mr. Paul F. Piscopo

It is likely that this program will face similar problems in achieving its goal by 2010, in which case a decrease of

15% in TSFC was taken and an estimated 25% decrease in cost over the F119. The 15% change in TSFC was achieved

by increasing the uninstalled thrust by 13% and decreasing the fuel flow 4%. The new VAATE technology engine has a

sea level uninstalled thrust of 30,000 lbs and an uninstalled cruise TSFC of 0.80 lbm/lbf-hr, however once inlet and

ducting losses are accounted for the cruise TSFC is 0.90 lbm/lbf-hr. The resulting uninstalled engine deck for Vendetta is

supplied in Appendix A. The engine deck is correct to static sea level conditions similar to the engine deck provided by

the RFP.

The uninstalled military thrust and TSFC of the engine at various altitudes can be seen in Figure 6.2 and Figure

6.3, respectively. The afterburner model was created based on information given in a presentation on the Lockheed

Martin JSF test program. The approximate afterburner thrust was given as 40,000 lbs, and the dry thrust at 27,000 lbs.

This resulted in a maximum thrust 1.5 times military. A maximum TSFC of 2 lbm/lbf-hr was used as most modern

engines produce a value around 2 for maximum TSFC.

29
 35,000
1.5K 25K 30K
Sea Level 5K 20K 36,089
30,000 10K
25,000
43K

Thrust (lbF)
20,000
50K
15,000
55K
10,000 60K
65K
5,000 70K

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Mach Number

Figure 6.2 - Thrust Curves for Altitudes from Sea Level to 70,000 ft

1.2

10K
1 20K
25K 30K 70K
65K
0.8 5K 60K
TSFC (1/hr)

1.5K 55K
Sea Level 50K
0.6 43K
36089
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Mach Number

Figure 6.3 - Military TSFC Curves for Altitudes from Sea Level to 70,000 ft
Once the engine deck had been generated the engine dimensions were once again considered. The fan face

diameter of the new engine was assumed to be that of the current General Electric F136 engines that are being tested.

They are currently using a fan face diameter of 48 inches (even though production engines will use a 43 inch diameter

fan face). Low bypass turbofans typically have smaller fan face diameters; however, as the bypass ratio increases the fan

face diameter would increase as well. Since future technology is being taken into account it is likely that the engine that

would produce this thrust would have a larger bypass ratio but a smaller core keeping the fan face diameter comparable

to current sizes. The length of the engine was estimated based on lengths of recent engines. Engines used for comparison

include the F100, F101, F110, and F404. Engine lengths varied from about 150 to 200 inches. The engine length was

determined to be 192 inches as this engine is a more advanced engine requiring higher thrust production.

30
6.2 Inlets

Inlet sizing for supercruise at Mach 1.6 restricted inlet choices to a one, two or three shock inlet. Figure 6.4

demonstrates shock relationship to Mach number. A pitot inlet is good up until about 1.6 Mach and it is by far the

cheapest inlet possible. However, the performance of the inlet above Mach 1.6 is very poor. The pressure recovery of a

two shock inlet (one oblique and one normal shock) and a three shock inlet were analyzed.

Figure 6.4 - Shock Angles for Design Mach Number -

Mattingly, Heiser and Daley Aircraft Engine Design

As can be seen, there is a lower cost associated with a two shock inlet. More shocks drive the inlet to be larger,

longer, and send multiple radar returns. The above traits do not show enough of a benefit to go with a three shock inlet

therefore a two shock inlet was chosen.

The optimum deflection angle for Mach 1.6 flow was found for a two shock inlet by finding the stagnation

pressure loss across the oblique and normal shock for different deflection angles. The results were graphed in Figure 6.5

and the resulting deflection angle for the greatest pressure recovery was found to be 10.75 degrees yielding a pressure

recovery of 97.65%.

31
 0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96
Pressure Recovery

Deflection Angle = 10.75

0.95
Pressure Recovery = 0.9765
0.94

0.93

0.92

0.91

0.9

0.89
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Flow Deflection Angle

Figure 6.5 - Optimum Deflection Angle for Mach 1.6 Flow

Finding the optimum deflection angle for a three shock inlet is more involved; therefore, a rough estimate of a six

degree deflection angle followed by another 6 degree deflection angle was used to compare against the two shock inlet.

The difference in on design pressure recovery is about 1%; however, the larger the deflection angles become the better

the pressure recovery will become and the longer the inlet. The pressure recovery comparison can be seen in Figure 6.6.

The military specification for inlets is given below and is represented in the graph.

Mil Spec MIL-E-5008B

 1 M0 ≤1
η rSpec = 
1 − 0.075( M 0 − 1) 1< M0 < 5
1.35

0.99

0.97 Mil-E-5008B
Total Pressure Recovery

0.95
Design Point
0.93

0.91

0.89

0.87

0.85
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Mach Number

2 Shock 3 Shock angles 6 and 6 Mil Spec Mach 1.6

Figure 6.6 - Pressure Recovery for a Two Shock versus Three Shock Inlet

32
 Figure 6.7 shows the off-design inlet area ratio that is required for the Vendetta. The equations used to find the

data are shown below. The actual inlet capture area is depicted by A1, with the area at the shock being As, and the actual

flow area being captured by the inlet as A0i. As the Vendetta climbs, the engine requires a greater amount of inlet area for

a constant mass flow rate.

Mass Flow Ratio Area Ratio

A0i A0i As A0i ρ sVs

= =
A1 As A1 As ρ0V0

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
Inlet Area Ratio

0.8
0.7
Design Point
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Mach Number

Figure 6.7 - Off Design Area Required for Engine Mass Flow
The inlet capture area was found by first estimating the mass flow rate required by the engine at the design point.

The mass flow of the engine could be estimated using the following equation.

•
me = 26 ⋅ ( FrontFaceDiameter )
2
Mass Flow Estimation

The front face diameter of 4 ft was used; this yielded a mass flow rate of approximately 415 slugs/sec. Now using

the mass flow equation shown below, the area of the inlet could be found for the design mission.

•
Mass Flow Equation me = ρ AV

Once this was done the mass flow equation was used to calculate the area at different altitudes based on

conservation of energy. For the desired design point of 1.6 Mach and an altitude of 55,000 ft it was found to be about 6

ft2. Since different parts of the mission take place at several different altitudes above 50,000 ft, the inlet area was sized to

6.5 ft2. By sizing the engine to 6.5 ft2 air could be bypassed from the inlet to the air cooled fuel cooler. The inlet has a

33
boundary layer diverter for high speeds and auxiliary doors for low speed flight, since the required inlet area at take off

will be twice what it is at cruise. The final inlet sizing for Mach 1.6 is:

Inlet capture area = 6.5 ft2

Inlet compression angle 10.75 degrees
Inlet Pressure Recovery is 97.6%
Speed after Normal Shock, M=0.82
Figure 6.8 - Vendetta S-Duct Side View
The inlet is located on a boundary layer diverter on the lower side of the wing. This keeps any vortices produced

off of the wing or side of fuselage from being ingested by the inlet, as well as aid in inlet capture at high angles of attack.

6.3 S-Duct

S-ducts were used to move the flow from the inlets to the engine faces to

hide the compressor face of the engine so it could not be seen. An S-duct frontal

view is shown in Figure 6.9. The red parallelogram outlines the inlet while the

dotted circle outlines the engine face, as can be seen the engine face cannot be

seen thru the inlet. Stealth is a requirement for the mission and the compressor

face is a large contributor to radar return. Figure 6.9 - S-Duct Front View

The S-duct goes from a minimum area just aft of the inlet to a maximum area

at the compressor face as can be seen in Figure 6.8. The S-duct shape progressively

goes from a square at the inlet to an oval and then a circle at the engine face. The

portion of the S-duct closest to the fan face is used to straighten and slow the flow

before it hits the compressor. This is done by having that portion of the duct be fairly

long and gradually diffuse up to the compressor face through an upper and lower
Figure 6.10 - Diffuser Angle
to the Engine Face
deflection angle of 3 degrees as shown in Figure 6.10.

The S-duct is 24 feet in length with an average

height of 2.7 feet. The efficiency of the S-duct is found

using the S-duct geometry and Figure 6.11. This yielded a

length over diameter of just over 10 and an engine area to

inlet area of 2 which yielded a duct efficiency of 91.5%.

The resulting overall inlet and ducting efficiency is 89%.

Figure 6.11 - S-Duct Efficiency

34
6.4 Nozzle

The nozzle of the Vendetta incorporates an afterburner and thrust

reversers. It utilizes a low signature axisymmetric advanced nozzle, developed

under the IHPTET program, similar to that in Figure 6.12 - Low-Signature

Axisymmetric Advanced Nozzle
Figure 6.12. The advanced nozzle is being used because it has comparable

signature to that of a 2-D nozzle, however it weights 50% less, costs 60% less and requires 300 fewer parts. Thrust

vectoring is will not be incorporated as the Vendetta is not required to maneuver like a fighter.

The nozzle will have thrust reversing capabilities to enable the aircraft to land on an icy runway and stop within

the required 8,000 ft specified by the RFP. Clam shell style thrust reversers, which reverse 25% of the thrust through a

15 degree angle, will be used. The thrust reversers will depart from the upper and lower fuselage just prior to the nozzle,

translate back and come together behind the nozzle.

35
7 Structural Layout & Material Selection

The overall layout of the Vendetta’s structure is shown in Figure 7.1 and Foldout 2. The wing structure is similar

to that of an F-15 and the material selection is similar to an F-22. The main load path is in the form of a central keel that

runs from between the nozzles and engines to the nose gear attachment point. The weapons bay splits the keel in the

center of the aircraft. The load is shifted from the keel to the aft weapons bay wall and back into the keel at the forward

end of the weapons bay. A close-up of the weapons bay is also shown in Figure 7.1.

Main Wing
Spars

Weapons Bay
Stiffeners

Figure 7.1 - Structure Buildup for Vendetta

The layout of Vendetta’s inlets and landing gear allow for a continuous structural member, in the form of a

bulkhead, to carry the aerodynamic loads from each wing directly to the central keel. This approach changes as the

bulkheads move away from the main wing load paths. The weapons bay splits the forward wing attachment bulkheads.

This occurs well in front of the aerodynamic center of the wing. Just forward of the aerodynamic center is the main

forward load path for the wing. The aft load paths are a ring structure around the engines and inlets. The important

thing to note is that where the primary loads are being distributed, between 25 to 50 percent of the mean aerodynamic

chord, the bulkheads are continuous. Because of the thin root selection for the Vendetta, care was taken to ensure that

the wing could withstand the tremendous loads produced by the 7-g load requirement with a factor of safety of 1.5. It

36
was determined that each wing would have to withstand 660,000 lb. Though each individual spar was not sized, it was

determined that if the main wing spars were 3 in thick (simple beam cross-section) the wing would be able to withstand

the 7-g maneuver.

It is also important to note that the landing gear attach to a bulkhead just forward of the aft closure to the weapons

bay. This locates the airborne and ground laden load paths on top of each other, allowing for some redundancy in the

structure and resulting in a lighter aircraft. Another redundant feature is the aft wing main load path. This bulkhead acts

as the main forward engine attachment point. Again, this allows for a minimum of large structural bulkheads and thus

creates a lighter aircraft. The wing attachment points are shown in Figure 7.2.

The empennage structure follows the same methodology as the wing attachment structure. The vertical tails

attach to the aft primary carry through of the wing. The aft vertical attach point is the same as the primary load path for

the horizontal tails. The horizontal tail is an area of concern for the Vendetta. The horizontal surfaces are capable of

producing tremendous forces on the aircraft. At full deflection, the horizontal stabilizers could produce a 10,000 pound

force which would be transmitted through the pivot. It was determined that a 4 inch diameter pivot would be capable of

taking the shear and bending stress produced by this force however the structural rigidity be compromised. The root of

the horizontal was widened to allow for a 10 inch diameter pivot shaft and increased structural rigidity. The loads taken

by the pivot must be transmitted to the keel of the aircraft. There is a ring carry through structure that distributes the load

from the pivot point to the central keel. Two secondary bulkheads back up this main bulkhead. The empennage

structure is shown in Figure 7.3.

Aft Primary
Bulkhead &
Main Engine
Forward Attachment
Forward Primary
Secondary Aft Secondary
Bulkhead
Bulkheads Bulkheads
Main Gear
Attachment

Figure 7.2 - Wing Attachment Detail

37
 Vertical Attachment
Points

Horizontal Pivot
10” Diameter Shaft

Horizontal Structural
Load Paths

Figure 7.3 - Empennage Structural Layout

The structure of Vendetta was created to adhere to RFP load requirements. A V-n Diagram shown in Figure 7.4 was

created using the required maximum and minimum g’ limits, and knowing the maximum dynamic pressure the aircraft

should withstand. This diagram shows the load envelope the aircraft can operate in. The diagram also shows the

standard gust lines for 1-g flight. The materials selection for Vendetta was a challenge. Vendetta takes advantage of the

benefits of modern composites while relying on the proven durability of more conventional materials. The materials

selection for different components is shown in Foldout 4.

8
Max g Limit

6 Max q

4 Max Lift
Gust Lines 60 ft/sec
g's

0 ft/sec
0

-2 -60 ft/sec

Min g Limit
-4
0 300
500 600
1000 900
1500 1200
2000
Equivlent Velocity
Knots Equivalent (ft/sec)
Airspeed

Figure 7.4 - V-n Diagram for Vendetta

38
Hydraulic System (Orange) Electrical System (Blue) Fuel System (Red) Materials Selection

ID Actuator Number ID Component Number ID Component Number ID Component Material

1 Nose Retract 1 15 RADAR 1 27 AAR Port 1 36 Radome Composite
2 Flow
Nose Deflector
Steering 1 16 Avionics 28 Flow
SingleDeflector
Point Refueling 1 37 Canopy Polycarbonate
3 Flow Deflector 2 17 Systems 1 29 Flow Deflector
Forward Fuselage 1 38 Flow Deflector
Forward Skin & Chine Flow Deflector
Composite & Titanium
Tank & Pump 36
4 LE Flap 6 18 DeIcing Boot 2 39 Bulkheads / Frames Resin transfer, Molded Composite
5 Main Retract 2 15 19 PTO driven Generator 2 30 ACFC 2 Aluminum, Titanium
6 Brakes 4 20 APU driven Generator 1 31 Wing Tank & Pump 2 40 Fuel Tank Resin Transfer, Molded Composite
21
7 MPRL Rotate 2 32 Aft Fuselage 1 41 Wing Ribs Resin Transfer, Molded Composite
Tank & Pump
8 TE Flap 4 42 Inlet Duct Composite
9 Aileron 4 33 Primary Fuel Pump 2
43 Weapons Bay Doors Thermoplastic Skin, Resin Transfer
10 Engine Driven Pump 4 34 Engine 2 Molded Composite Stiffners
37
11 APU Driven Pump 2 35 APU 1
1,2 Pneumatic System (Green) 44 Control Surface Skin Composite
12 Horizontal 2 45 Landing Gear Titanium, Steel Alloy
ID Pneumatic System Number
13 Rudder 4 22 38 46 Wing Spars Titanium, Resin Transfer
16 21 Avionics Cooling 1
14 Thrust Reverser 4 Molded Composite
22 OBIGGS 1 23 27 28 39
23 Flow Deflector
Pressurization 1 47 High Temperature Structure Titanium
17 48 Horizontal Pivot Shaft Carbon Composite
24 LAU-142A 2
25 PHX 1 49 Horizontal Internal Structure Aluminum
26 Engine Bleed 2 Forward Fuselage Tank
29 40
23,034 # JP-8

41

4 24 Right Wing Tank 43 42

6,366 # JP-8
5,6 30 44
4 18

7 31
4
40 45
32
9 40 46
9 8
33
8 25
10 11 44

44
19 34
26 Aft Fuselage Tank
20 35
23,208 # JP-8
13
12 47 48

Total Fuel
14 59,000 # JP-8
44
49

Foldout 4
Vendetta Systems and
Material Selection
Chris Droney Kolby Keiser Chris Atkinson
Nate Schnaible Chris Maglio Dan Salluce
Rev. 3 Scale 1:150 High Rollers 5/23/02
8 Landing Gear

Landing Gear design for the Vendetta has eight significant design drivers.

1) Tire selection to permit a high 150 knot takeoff and landing speed
2) 120,000 lb gross weight
3) Ease of loading and reloading weapons
4) Tail Strike Angle
5) Ground Handling Characteristics
6) Structural Location
7) Minimal Internal Volume Usage
8) Low Weight

Suitable structural attachment points dictated the main gear be positioned near the subsonic center of pressure on

the main wing (near the main spar) shown in Figure 7.2. This placement, as well as limited internal volume, good

ground handling characteristics, minimal frontal area, and ease of unloading and loading weapons led to the adoption of

a tricycle landing gear configuration. The main gear configuration was then approximated as a 737 type main gear, (near

the Vendetta’s TOGW) for volume purposes.

Initial sizing began with tire selection. The main gear of the Vendetta should carry 92% of the TOGW and the

nose gear should carry 8%. Starting with a database of tires and wheels the initial listing was narrowed to the choice of

36in x 11in tires for the main gear and 24in x 7.7in for the nose gear. The tires selected allowed a 1.5 factor of safety

(RFP imposed) over the dynamic landing load of the aircraf.

Knowing the approximate volume of the 737 landing gear configuration with usable tires a solid model of the

fuselage and internal components was produced to

determine the exact gear location. The initial design

considered the smallest internal volume as well as

smallest frontal area for a given load (Figure 8.1). After

analyzing both the internal position the gear would have

to fold into, behind and under the main inlet ducts, the

tandem configuration was chosen. The main gear was then

designed to fold into the allotted space; the retraction

scheme can be seen in Figure 8.2

The next challenge presented was obtaining the

necessary gear height for easy loading and unloading as

Figure 8.1 - Landing Gear Configuration Trade Study

40
well as a tip back angle which did not exceed the tail strike angle, and having that gear fit into the limited internal

volume available. The gear retraction scheme adopted produced a landing gear similar but smaller to an XB-70. The

complexity was necessary due to overall configuration drive of low supersonic maximum cross sectional area.

Figure 8.2 - Main Gear Retraction Sequence

The forward fuselage has ample volume to accommodate the nose gear thus no complex folding arrangements

were utilized. This facilitated the use a standard side-by-side tire configuration. The complete retraction schemes and

nose wheel configuration can be seen in Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.3 - Nose Gear and Main Gear Retraction Schemes

The braking system for both the nose gear and main gear configuration will use a standard rotor disk braking

mechanism. The rotors as well a pad material will be made of carbon rather than steel. Carbon offers superior thermal

conductivity, upper temperature limit, and lower thermal expansion. The superceding benefit is that carbon offers a

higher service life and has lower maintenance requirements than steel brakes.

The sizing of the shock absorption system was designed around a hydraulic fluid pressure limit of 1,500 psi. The

maximum load acting on each strut was then calculated and the corresponding piston area required to support this load

was then calculated to be approximately 7 inches. Vendetta’s landing gear allows for drive up loading utilizing either a

MJ-1 or MHU-83 lift truck. Landing gear sizing took account maximum lift truck reach to place weapons on the

Multipurpose Rotary Launcher (MPRL) within the Vendetta’s main weapons bay.

41
9 Weight & Balance

Weight and balance has proven to be a challenge in designing the Vendetta for both subsonic and supersonic

flight conditions. After having sized the aircraft using a weight fraction method, and after having developed an initial

configuration, the next step was to develop a more accurate, class II weight buildup of the aircraft. The class II method

used in the design of the Vendetta was developed from those methods found in the Nicolai, Raymer, and Roskam texts in

order to obtain a collaborative and unbiased perspective. These methods involved defining several physical and

geometric parameters of the aircraft. These parameters were inputs into a series of equations developed from historical

weight trends. The weight estimations for various components as well as the level of agreement between authors are

shown below in Table 9.I.

Table 9.I - Initial Component Weight Buildup

Weight (lb) Accuracy

Component Roskam Nicolai Raymer Average Roskam Nicolai Raymer
Structures
Wing Group 9,687 11,466 7,870 9,674 0% -31% 26%
Horizontal Tail 1,135 1,694 958 1,262 14% -62% 32%
Vertical Tail 801 1,538 1,497 1,279 47% -34% -28%
Fuselage 10,681 16,031 10,398 12,370 19% -52% 22%
Main Landing Gear 2,742 2,969 1,156 2,289 -33% -52% 60%
Nose Landing Gear 387 405 408 400 5% -2% -3%
Propulsions 10,636 10,878 11,199 11,209 4% 0% -4%
Systems 18,649 14,506 14,350 20,574 -29% 12% 13%
Payload 9,280 9,280 9,280 9,280 0% 0% 0%
Fuel 58,974 58,974 58,974 58,974 0% 0% 0%
TOGW 123,433 128,215 128,215 127,778 4% -2% -2%

The detailed weight buildup of the structures, control surfaces, systems, payload, and fuel groups has been

compacted in order to save space and can be viewed in its entirety in Foldout 1. The table indicates that all three authors

tend to disagree to some extent in their weight estimates of certain components, and for other components, one author

may have no way of estimating that components weight at all. A more accurate and detailed component weight buildup

was developed by considering all three methods and taking the average shared between them. One author’s estimation

was discarded if it did not agree to within ±30% of the average of the other authors’ estimations. The remaining weights

were averaged in order to develop a weight buildup for the entire aircraft. The class II weight buildup for the Vendetta

after the elimination process is shown in Table 9.II

42
 Table 9.II - Final Component Weight Buildup

Weight (lb)
Component Roskam Nicolai Raymer Average
Structures
Wing Group 9,687 XXXXXX 7,870 8,779
Horizontal Tail 1,135 1,694 958 1,262
Vertical Tail 801 1,538 1,497 1,279
Fuselage 10,681 XXXXXX 10,398 10,540
Main Landing Gear 2,742 2,969 1,156 2,289
Nose Landing Gear 387 405 408 400
Propulsions 11,098 11,352 11,662 11,675
Systems 18,649 14,506 14,350 20,574
Payload 9,280 9,280 9,280 9,280
Fuel 58,974 58,974 58,974 58,974
TOGW 125,051

Inertias were calculated using guidelines outlined by the Society of Allied Weight Engineers (SAWE). Each

component mass and location in reference to the aircraft center-of-gravity was used to calculate that components inertia.

The sums of these inertias were then used to calculate the total moments

of inertia about the Vendetta’s principal axes shown in Figure 9.1. In

order to determine whether or not these values were accurate, the

moments of inertia were transformed into non-dimensional radii of

gyration coefficients. These coefficients were then compared to typical

values for a jet bomber provided by SAWE. The inertias are shown in
Figure 9.1- Principle Axes
Table 9.IV and the non-dimensional radii of gyration coefficients as

compared to the SAWE predicted coefficients are shown in Table 9.III.

Table 9.III indicates that the inertias are well within the typical values for a jet bomber except about the roll axis.

This is because the Vendetta is similar to a typical jet bomber in length; however, it has a much shorter wingspan. This

would constitute a smaller moment of inertia about the roll axis.

After having developed an initial configuration and a more detailed class II weight buildup, the next step was to

balance the aircraft. This was done for two types of payload, the first being fixed equipment and the second being non-

fixed equipment, fuel, and payload.

43
 Vendetta’s configuration was Table 9.III - Inertia Estimation

created by placing components about Inertias (slug ft2)

Ix Iy Iz Ixy Ixz Iyz
a predetermined CG location. The 69,547 1,165,870 1,228,330 0 -6,478 0

components were arranged to create

Table 9.IV – SAWE Inertia Validation
the smallest airframe possible while
Non-dimensional Radii of Gyration
leaving room for the fuel and Rx Ry Rz
Vendetta 0.16 0.35 0.46
payload. The heaviest fixed SAWE 0.31 0.33 0.47
Accuracy 49% 5% 1%
equipment items were placed first

followed by the smaller and lighter systems. Once the aircraft balanced empty, the payload was placed. This caused a

slight rearrangement of items until the aircraft balanced both empty and with the payload. This process was repeated for

the fuel loadout.

In order to minimize the trim drag on the aircraft, it was opted that the aircraft’s center-of-gravity location stay as

close to the aerodynamic center as possible. This was a difficult task because of the dramatic shift in the location of the

aerodynamic center when transitioning from subsonic to supersonic flight conditions. A trim tank was considered in

order to allow the center-of-gravity to follow the aerodynamic center during this dramatic shift in order to maintain a

neutrally stable condition at both subsonic and supersonic flight conditions; however, this idea was discarded because the

trim tank would require additional fuel volume in an already congested aircraft. To minimize trim drag without the use

of a trim tank, the aircraft would have to fly with an unstable static margin, subsonically, and with a stable static margin,

supersonically until enough fuel could be consumed to trim the aircraft.

A center-of-gravity monitor makes use of fuel burn control in order to keep the aircraft as close as possible to a

neutrally stable flight condition. Furthermore at both TOGW and empty weight the aircraft is balanced such that it

provides for a 5% unstable static margin. With an aerodynamic shift of 12%, the aircraft transition to a 7% stable static

margin as it accelerates to supersonic flight. The center-of-gravity monitor then controls the fuel burn in such that the

Vendettas center-of-gravity follows the aerodynamic center and thus maintains neutral stability.

A computer code was developed in order to simulate the center-of-gravity monitor. The first step in developing

this code was to obtain the best solution to balance the fuel and payload throughout the mission. The code required four

inputs including; the locations and weights of Vendetta’s fixed equipment, the location and weight of the fuel at any

given time, the amount of fuel burned at intervals throughout the mission profile, and the desired center-of-gravity

location at that interval. With these inputs, the code can then determine which tank to burn fuel from in order to obtain

44
the center-of-gravity location closest to that corresponding to the desired static margin. The code then outputs the

center-of-gravity location and the remaining fuel payload. This is done at 10-second intervals throughout the 5-hour

mission. Using this data, the center-of-gravity path can then be plotted against corresponding to the desired static

margin.

The next step was to balance the weapons payload. Because the weapons payload was placed in a rotary

launcher, the center-of-gravity of the payload was concentrated in one location. If it had been placed in a more

conventional arrangement spread across the belly of the aircraft, the center-of-gravity of the weapons would have also

been spread across the belly of the aircraft. By concentrating the center-of-gravity of the weapons payload in one

location and placing the weapons payload on top of the aircraft’s empty weight center-of-gravity location, deployment of

the weapons payload did not generate any problems in balancing the aircraft or in disturbing the static margin. The

center-of-gravity is shown tracking along the path of the desired static margin by means of fuel monitoring and pumping

in Figure 9.2.

Figure 9.2 - Center-of-Gravity Excursion

The figure indicates that the center-of-gravity location at takeoff gross weight is slightly aft of the neutral point;

however, the center-of-gravity tracks the desired static margin shortly after the aircraft has transitioned to supercruise.

Notice the path of the aerodynamic center as it shifts during the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight. It is clear

that the aircraft flies supersonically shortly after takeoff, or when the aircraft’s gross weight is just below takeoff gross

45
weight. Furthermore, near the zero fuel weight, the aircraft flies subsonic for the remainder of the flight. The figure also

indicates that with the current fuel tank arrangement, the desired static margin cannot be tracked during the final portion

of the supercruise because there is not enough fuel available to properly trim the aircraft. At this point, the center-of-

gravity is influenced by only the fixed weight of the aircraft and again the aircraft remains at a 5% unstable static margin

during landing. This plot indicates that the center-of-gravity monitor works together with the control system in order to

minimize trim drag while at the same time maintaining the aircraft’s controllability.

46
10 Stability and Control

To initially size the horizontal tail, tail volume coefficients from historical aircraft were analyzed. This was done

in an attempt to determine the rough size of the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces prior to addressing stability and

control issues. The tail volume coefficients are unitless parameters defined by geometric values relating the size of the

empennage surface to the aircraft. The horizontal and vertical tail volume coefficients are defined in the following

equations.

S HT LHT SVT LVT

VH = VV =
cW SW bW SW

Because the demands for most supersonic cruising aircraft are considered similar to a certain extent, the historical

values of tail volume coefficients are used to back out the planform areas for the horizontal and vertical surfaces.

Similar aircraft and their tail volume coefficients are presented in Table 10.I.

Table 10.I - Historical Aircraft Tail Volume Coefficients

Tail Volume Coefficients
Aircraft
VH VV
Boeing SST (2707-300) 0.36 0.049
Concorde n/a 0.080
GD F-111A 1.28 0.064
Rockwell B-1B 0.80 0.039
TU-22M 1.11 0.087
TU-144 n/a 0.081
Average 0.58 0.067
Using the average tail volume coefficient for these similar aircraft yielded a horizontal stabilizer area of 386 ft2.

This is rather large and may be attributed to the fact that these vehicles require large robustness in CG travel without the

use of a flight control augmentation system (CAS). Likewise, the vertical tail would require 196 ft2 of area. This

number is driven slightly larger due to the fact that some of the larger historical tail volumes are inflated because these

aircrafts’ verticals are mounted on booms which extend aft. These booms allow for greater moment arms and make the

vertical more effective.

The effects of horizontal tail area on longitudinal static stability were looked at in an attempt to determine what

the driving factors for horizontal tail area are. A Roskam class II method was used to see how the increased weight of a

bigger horizontal affects the longitudinal static margin. It became apparent that as the tail grows, the CG of the entire

configuration shifts aft. This also shifts the effective neutral point (center of pressure) of the aircraft aft at a faster rate

than the CG shifts aft. At approximately 108 ft2 of horizontal area the Vendetta has a neutrally stable static margin at

47
Mach 0.3. A horizontal that is bigger than 108 ft2 yields a stable aircraft but will pay the price in trim drag if the aircraft

is too stable. This size will certainly increase due to other constraints.

A stable static margin is necessary in flight without the use of a digital flight control system. The RFP mandates

an unaugmented static margin between -30% and 10% as well as adherence to MIL-8785C, the military specification for

handling qualities of aircraft. A statically unstable aircraft would have a tendency to pitch up in a static level condition.

The purpose of the horizontal tail is to apply a force which counteracts this offending moment. This comes at the price

of trim drag, however. As the elevator is deflected, drag is created and this hurts the overall aircraft performance in

cruise. It is because of this drag that a neutrally stable or marginally stable (1-3%) aircraft is desired in cruise where the

aircraft does not need to maneuver much.

The aerodynamic center (center of pressure) on the wing and most surfaces propagates aft as the Mach number

passes the transonic regime. This shift effectively leaves the difference in neutral point and center-of-gravity greater.

The difference means the aircraft is actually more stable in a supersonic cruise. The fact that the center-of-gravity is so

far forward in relation to the neutral point causes the aircraft to pitch down. More trim is required which causes more

drag. This phenomenon is known as Mach tuck. It is because of this that the weight and balance of the aircraft must be

closely in synch with the control system. Trim drag will be minimized and controllability will be enhanced with

completely integrated systems.

The trim drag created could be avoided by shifting the CG, by altering the neutral point, or designing the aircraft

to be unstable subsonic and stable supersonic. The use of a trim tank was investigated to pump fuel aft and shift the CG

closer to the neutral point in supersonic cruise. This notion was dismissed because the tank would be a waste of space

and would complicate ground procedures where refueling would have to leave the tank partially empty. A canard could

be used to destabilize the aircraft by moving the neutral point forward and closer to the CG but it would make the

Vendetta less controllable in the subsonic landing and takeoff conditions. This extra control surface would add to the

cost and complexity. A fuel management system could be used to burn fuel from certain tanks to keep the CG travel in

check. After analyzing the abrupt shift in the neutral point when the Vendetta climbs to its cruise condition, it was

decided that the fuel management system could not pump fuel fast enough to trim the aircraft (Section 7), with the same

being true when decelerating. Use of a digital flight control system (DFCS) which is provided as Government Furnished

Equipment (GFE) would allow the aircraft to fly unstable subsonic. The DFCS could easily allow a 0% - 7% unstable

aircraft takeoff and land. The wing was placed and the empennage sized for the Vendetta to be 5% unstable in the

subsonic regime and 7% stable in the supersonic regime without CG modification due to the 12% shift. The fuel

48
management system could then be used to enhance cruise performance by pumping fuel in a way which results in neutral

or marginal static stability. Canting the horizontals in a V-tail configuration was investigated in an attempt to shape the

empennage in a stealthy manner. The effective area of the vertical and horizontal are functions of the square of the

cosine of the cant angle. These effects are reflected in Figure 10.1.

Figure 10.1 - Horizontal Area Required for Static Stability with Cant Angle
It can be seen from the plot that as cant angle increases, total planform area of the horizontal must increase to

maintain the nominally desired static stability of 5%. Five percent was chosen because at this stage in the sizing it was

uncertain what the dynamic characteristics of the aircraft would be. Attempting to maintain a minimally statically stable

aircraft eases the job of control system design. Angles up to 30° were looked at because it would be unwise from an

RCS point of view to approach a 90° angle created by larger cants near 45°. Beyond 45° the trend would be the same;

however the horizontal would drive the area instead of the vertical.

This plot shows that only 118 ft2 of horizontal area is required to maintain the desired static margin. This is far

off from the historical class I method and by initial inspection appears small. The area required maintaining static

stability is not the driving factor in the size of the horizontal. Control power required to rotate the aircraft, dynamic

considerations, and high angle-of-attack recovery will most likely drive this size.

A similar study was conducted on the vertical stabilizer to see what area would required for varying cant angles to

maintain 0.001 (1/degree) lateral weathercock stability. This is illustrated in Figure 10.2.

49
 Figure 10.2 - Vertical Area Required for Static Stability with Cant Angle
From Figure 6.3 it can be seen that at 30°, 165 ft2 of vertical area is required to maintain 0.001 (1/degree) of

lateral weathercock stability. Although the 30° cant angle on the verticals was initially selected to match the bottom

fuselage facets for RCS considerations, lowering that angle to 20° would allow other advantages. Shallower cant angles

are easier to manufacture, require less structure, weigh less, and have less coupling with pitch modes. For these reasons,

the impact on RCS was investigated for the 20° cant angle as well as the pitch coupling term for rudder deflection, Cmδ r .

The RCS code was run on two aircraft configurations. The same wing, fuselage, and horizontal were modeled

with the vertical planforms mounted at both 20° and 30°. The results of that study are shown as Figure 10.3 for 5 GHz

monostatic radar sweeping a full 360° azimuth.

50
 40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50

20° Canted Vertical

30° Canted Vertical

Figure 10.3 - Radar Cross Section Impact of 20° vs. 30° Vertical Cant Angle

Figure 10.3 clearly shows that there is an impact on the RCS for changing the cant angle. The RFP required -13

dBm2 return is shown in red for those azimuth angles it is fulfilled. As mentioned in the RCS section, this requirement is

only mandated for the frontal 0° azimuth angle. Going to a 20° cant does not violate this requirement and yields the

aforementioned benefits.

The effective area of a rudder sized to 27% mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical was calculated in the

horizontal plane of the aircraft. In normal non-canted configurations, Cmδ r is nonexistent. Table 10.II shows the values

for this coupling term and various cants.

Table 10.II - Pitching Moment Coupling with

Rudder Deflection for Various Vertical Cant Angles

Vertical Cant Angle Cmδ r

(165 ft2 27% m.a.c. Rudder)
0° 0.0000
10° 0.0004
20° 0.0009
30° 0.0021
The extra 10° cant resulted in a substantially larger pitch coupling term. In addition to the complications of

canting more, a 30° angle would mean that a more complex mixer and control system would be required. This would

add to the cost and is avoided.

51
 It is important to note that the previous static methods do not take into account the dynamic characteristics or

modes of this aircraft. With such a large amount of the fuselage in front of the center of pressure, the Vendetta may

require a complex yaw damper or larger vertical to compensate. Use of flight simulation and dynamic analysis tools are

utilized for these concerns.

The size of the vertical could potentially be driven by the one

engine inoperative (OEI) control power requirements. Because the

engine nozzle centerlines are mounted considerably offset from the

centerline at 3 feet, a large yawing moment will be created if the 135,000 ft-lbs

Vendetta loses an engine during takeoff. The engines produce roughly

45,000 pounds of thrust and would generate a 135,000 foot-pound

moment. Table 10.III shows the results of the rudder control power

analysis for this critical OEI condition at a takeoff speed of 1.2 times 45,000 lbs off
center
the stall speed at sea level. In this configuration the Vendetta can

maintain a 953 fpm climb at military power and 3,435 fpm at

maximum afterburning thrust. This performance is overkill, but is Figure 10.4 - OEI Forces and Moments

driven by the RFP requirement for zero foot per second specific excess power at a load factor of two.

Table 10.III - Rudder Control Power Results for OEI Condition

Parameter Notation Value
Side Force due to Rudder Cyδr 0.0105
Rolling Moment due to Rudder Clδr 0.0072
Rudder Effectiveness Cnδr -0.0070
OEI Critical Yawing Moment 135,000 ft lb
Rudder Deflection Required in OEI Condition at Takeoff 13.6°

With a rudder effectiveness of -0.0070 (1/deg), a 13.6° rudder deflection is required to keep the aircraft flying

straight in the OEI condition on takeoff. This is not too large, and would suffice by allowing approximately another 10°

of rudder deflection for the pilot to yaw the aircraft beyond the straight condition for controllability. In this condition,

the aircraft would be susceptible to large amounts of sideslip, β.

This rudder deflection would be substantially higher if a higher cant angle were used. In these critical situations

where the aircraft is in danger, the added drag created by the mixing is desired to be as little as possible.

A separate 4-surface empennage was now made necessary because V-tail was shown to be ill-advised. If a pure

v-tail was chosen, it would have to be full-flying due to the demand placed on the surface and hinge lines in supersonic

52
flight. This would require a large actuator and large structural members in the aft portion of the aircraft. This would

considerably drive the configuration away from initial RCS-friendly layouts as well as increasing complexity and cost.

The Vendetta configuration utilizes a 20° cant on the

verticals and a separate full-flying horizontal as seen in Figure

10.5. It was mentioned earlier that one of the reasons the

horizontal tail volume coefficient was larger in the historical

aircraft was because those aircraft did not utilize control

augmentation systems or digital fly-by-wire control systems.

Not only did they have to account for wide shifts in CG, they
Figure 10.5 - Vendetta Empennage Configuration
also had to combat the muck tuck problem associated with

breaking the sound barrier.

Figure 10.6 shows that as the aircraft

Mach trim
exceeds the critical Mach number, the center

of pressure of the wing and other control

surfaces travels aft. In the case of the

Vendetta, this leaves the CG an extra 12%

m.a.c. in front of the neutral point; this

mg 12% m.a.c.
makes it 12% more stable. This 12% shift
Figure 10.6 - Mach Tuck Illustrated
was calculated with the Air Force’s Data Compendium (DATCOM) methods. The Vendetta cannot maintain trimmed

flight with the CG any further forward than 9% stable configuration. The aircraft would not have enough control power.

The use of a fuel monitor and a DFCS will be used to control the Vendetta throughout the flight envelope.

A DFCS will not impact the design too much because complex navigation and autopilot systems will already

have to be incorporated into the design. In addition to this, the DCFS will be used to enhance the dynamic modes of the

aircraft. This is required due to the large fore body and unstable pitch break exhibited by the Vendetta. Also, the 2010

delivery date will mean that next generation control laws and hardware could be implemented. All modern advanced

fighters being designed today utilize such systems. The DFCS along with the fuel management system would maintain

the static and dynamic stability.

DATCOM and the compiled Digital DATCOM Fortran code proved to be useful tools in calculating many of the

aerodynamic stability and control derivatives for the Vendetta. This was done in an attempt to identify problematic

53
behaviors and to adhere to MIL-8785C. It was calculated that the Vendetta’s fuselage forebody will destabilize the

aircraft an additional 3.1% in subsonic cruise and 5.0% in supersonic cruise. The wing was placed to account for this.

This is much improved over previous configurations where the fuselage destabilized the aircraft up to 16%. This is due

to the fact that so fuselage with a large mean width was in front of the CG and NP. Figure 10.7 shows the Vendetta’s

pitch break characteristics in the subsonic low speed and supercruise regimes given a CG location that would yield a

statically stable aircraft.

-0.6

-0.4
UNSTABLE NEUTRAL
Lift Coefficient (CL)

-0.2
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0

0.2
M = 0.2
M = 1.6
0.4

0.6

0.8
Moment Coefficient (Cm)

Figure 10.7 - Pitch Break Characteristics

This figure shows that as the Vendetta rotates and has some angle-of-attack in the low speed subsonic (Mach 0.2)

regime, it will want to continue to rotate and break away. In the supercruise, the aircraft behaves much more linearly.

The subsonic characteristics are of some concern, but even simple feedback schemes in the DFCS solve this problem.

The supersonic characteristics are actually more desirable because the maneuvering required is very light and the control

system will not be oscillating or fluttering the control surfaces, which creates unnecessary drag, to keep the aircraft

flying straight.

A full state-space based model for the aircraft driven by a Taylor expansion and fit into equations of motion was

developed for flight simulator validation. These forms are too complex for simple dynamic analysis, so the literal factor

forms of the dynamics modes were used to determine conformity with MIL-8785C.

The literal factors are nothing more than simplifications of the transfer function forms for longitudinal and lateral

modes of interest. These forms omit insensitive stability derivatives. The conformity with the military specifications for

handling quality is shown in Table 10.IV.

54
 Table 10.IV - Longitudinal and Lateral Dynamic Mode Conformity with MIL-8785C

Damping ratio (ζ) Natural Frequency (ωn)

Mode Vendetta MIL-8785C Vendetta MIL-8785C MIL-8785C Level
Phugoid 0.094 > 0.04 0.091 - I
Short Period 0.921 0.35 – 1.3 4.721 - I
Dutch Roll 0.103 > 0.08 1.960 > 0.4 I

Table 10.IV shows that the Vendetta satisfies all of the military specifications for these three important modes

while in a subsonic cruise with the CG monitor. The only thing of concern regarding these results is high value for

undamped natural frequency in the Dutch Roll mode. It is not uncommon for aircraft of this size and type to incorporate

fairly simple yaw dampers operating on the yaw rate. With the use of the DFCS, the Vendetta has no problem keeping

that mode in control. Because there is a large amount of robustness available with CG excursion and the DFCS, the

longitudinal modes are well within the Type I military specifications and remain there in the supercruise.

From inertia computations illustrated in the weights and balance section (Section 7), it became apparent that the

Vendetta has a very small inertia that would need to be overcome to roll. This is due to the wings being the only

significant structure located off the centerline. This makes for very favorable roll damping and allows for the flaperon

and aileron configurations to be driven by the sizes required for high lift augmentation as presented in the aerodynamics

section. The final sizes and parameters for the empennage and roll control are presented in Table 10.V.

Table 10.V – Empennage Surfaces

Surface Area (ft2) Control Surface
Horizontal
270.0 Full-Flying
Stabilator

Vertical Rudder
165.0
Stabilizer @ 27% m.a.c.

10.1 Simulation

Validation of a large supersonic aircraft like Vendetta is difficult due to limitations in experimental tools.

Subsonic wind tunnel models would be limited to testing takeoff and landing aerodynamics and would be inaccurate due

to Reynolds number discrepancies. Because of this, flight simulation was utilized to test the design of the aircraft. The

Cal Poly Flight Simulator was used to evaluate handling qualities, ground handling, up-and-away tasks, and low speed

performance. The flight simulator consists of a flight cab and instrument panel as shown in Figure 10.8 and Figure 10.9.

55
 Figure 10.8 - Pheagle Simulator Figure 10.9 - Flight Cab and Instruments

Desktop computers running a Windows operating system and two analog computers control the instrumentation,

force- feedback, and control inputs. The simulation architecture is built using Simulink, though most of the

computationally intensive components such as the six-degrees-of-freedom (6DOF) model are written in C++ as S-

Functions. The equations of motion used in the 6DOF are based on NASA Dryden equations of motion.

A non-linear aerodynamics model was created for Vendetta and implemented in the simulator using a table

lookup system. This system allows aerodynamic force and moment coefficients to be looked up using a series of user

defined tables. The force coefficients for each of Vendetta’s flying surfaces were defined as functions of Mach number,

relative airflow angle, and control surface deflections. Moment coefficients were calculated based on the forces and

moment arms of each surface. The longitudinal moment arms varied with CG and neutral point locations. Drag build up

data was used to accurately model the variation of zero-lift drag coefficient with Mach number and altitude (due to

Reynolds number variation). Additional fuselage force and moment contributions as well as linear dynamic stability

derivatives and downwash at the horizontal tail were calculated using DATCOM and incorporated into the model. A

total of 10 control surfaces were modeled in the simulation: left and right elevator, rudder, aileron, leading edge flaps,

and trailing edge flaps. Center-of-gravity location and landing gear extension were also modeled using control inputs.

The simulation model was built from an aerodynamic point of view to avoid building predefined stability and

control performance into the simulation. For example, rather than defining a stick-fixed neutral point location for the

configuration, the aerodynamic forces and moments that define the neutral point were modeled. The resulting simulation

is only limited by the accuracy of the aerodynamic data. Because no experimental methods could be used to obtain data,

the data is most likely inaccurate in extreme conditions such as high angles-of-attack or sideslip angles or under highly

dynamic flight conditions.

56
 Additional components were integrated into the simulation model or modified from existing components to meet

Vendetta’s exact specifications. The engine deck included in this report was integrated into the flight simulator by

implementing code to lookup, uncorrect, and output the thrust and fuel flow values for the current flying condition and

throttle setting. Fuel flow was integrated during the simulation to accurately model the consumption of fuel during a

flight and its effect on the weight and moment of inertias of the aircraft. The landing gear model calculates the external

forces produced by each landing gear leg based on its position and properties. Friction, braking, and steering are

modeled allowing the ground handling qualities of Vendetta to be simulated and evaluated. Additional systems such as a

thrust reverser model, crash detector, and nonlinear actuators were utilized in the simulator. The simulator uses 3DLinx,

an OpenGL based graphics package as shown in Figure 10.10. It provides pilot feedback and situational awareness by

modeling of terrain, runways, and other aircraft in addition to a heads-up-display (HUD) (Figure 10.11).

Figure 10.10 - Graphics and Environment Figure 10.11 - Heads up Display

The results of the flight simulation indicate that the unaugmented Vendetta is a difficult aircraft to fly. The

aerodynamic model shows that the aircraft is statically unstable in subsonic conditions, however due to the high

moments of inertia, the time to double is large enough that it can be controlled by an experienced pilot. The addition of

simple pitch and yaw rate feedback greatly improved the handling qualities and reduced the workload on the pilot while

the control surfaces remained unsaturated. Clearly, sophisticated outer loop controls including an altitude hold, heading

hold, and a waypoint navigator would be required to complete the design mission. This result confirms the need to

include a DFCS on Vendetta. The results of simulated takeoffs and landings indicate that Vendetta can easily meet the

required RFP takeoff and landing runway lengths. The thrust reversers provide enough stopping power to bring the

aircraft to a stop without the use of wheel brakes on the NATO 8,000 ft runway modeled in the simulator at 3,000 ft

above sea-level. Takeoff is best achieved with only partial trailing edge flaps (15°), because the higher takeoff speed

57
allows Vendetta to remain on the front-side of the power curve. The additional angle-of-attack provided by the leading

edge flaps provides a margin for error during takeoff and landing, and is useful during slow speed turns.

Ground handling tasks performed with the second revision made it apparent that the loading on the nose gear was

too small. Because of this, the nose gear on the final Vendetta configuration was moved back 8.5 ft to take 8% of the

weight. This enhanced the ground handling qualities substantially.

Initial sizing of the vertical stabilizer for static stability yielded a rather small area. After flying this

configuration, it became very apparent that the lateral stability was inadequate. The vertical area was increased a 35 ft2.

This greatly increased lateral stability. As shown in Table 10.IV, Vendetta’s high frequency Dutch roll mode still

required attention. The addition of a rate-feedback yaw damper in the form of a washout compensator added damping

and made the Vendetta receive higher pilot ratings from the test pilots who flew the simulator.

58
11 Performance

11.1 Specific Excess Power Requirements

Compliance with RFP specific excess power requirements is best shown using specific excess power envelopes

including those required as measures of merit. Figure 11.1 shows the 1-g military specific excess power envelope. The

RFP requirement of 0 ft/s at Mach 1.6 and 50,000 ft is met with 33.7 ft/s specific excess power. The 1-g maximum

(afterburner) specific excess power envelope, in Figure 11.2, shows that the RFP requirement of 200 ft/s is met with a

value of 212.5 ft/s. This envelope also shows that the maximum Mach number at 36,000 ft measure of merit is 2.18.

The 2-g maximum specific excess power envelope, in Figure 11.3, shows that the RFP requirement of 0 ft/s is met with a

value of 8.0 ft/s. This requirement is design driver for the thrust produced by the propulsion system. The 5-g maximum

specific excess power envelope and maximum sustained load factor envelope required as measures of merit are shown in

Figure 11.4 and Figure 11.5 respectively.

70,000

60,000 RFP Requirement 0

50,000 P s = 0 ft/s

Stall Limit
Altitude (ft)

40,000 50 150

100 200
30,000
150
200
20,000
Flaps
300 q Limit
10,000
400

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Mach
Figure 11.1 - 1-g Military Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight

59
 70,000
RFP Requirement P s = 0 ft/s
200 ft/s
60,000 100
Stall Limit
200
50,000
Altitude (ft)

40,000
600

30,000 700
Flaps 300
400 36,000 ft
20,000
500 Mach 2.18
600 q Limit
10,000 700

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Mach
Figure 11.2 - 1-g Maximum Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight

70,000

60,000
RFP Requirement 0 ft/s
P s = 0 ft/s
50,000
Stall Limit
Altitude (ft)

40,000
100
30,000 200 600

300
20,000 400
500 q Limit
600
10,000
700

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Mach
Figure 11.3 - 2-g Maximum Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight

60
 70,000

60,000

50,000
Altitude (ft)

40,000

P s = 0 ft/s
30,000 100
Stall Limit
200
20,000 200
300 q Limit
10,000 400
500

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Mach
Figure 11.4 - 5-g Maximum Specific Excess Power Envelope at Maneuver Weight

70,000
n =1

60,000
2
50,000 Stall Limits
3
Altitude (ft)

40,000 4

5
30,000
6
20,000
q Limit
7
10,000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Mach
Figure 11.5 - Maximum Sustained Load Factor Envelope at Maneuver Weight

61
11.2 Turn Rate Requirement

The maximum instantaneous turn rate requirement of 8.0 deg/s at 15,000 ft and Mach 0.9 is shown in the

maneuverability diagram in Figure 11.6. The maneuverability diagram shows that the required turn rate can be sustained

with military power. The maximum sustainable turn rate using afterburner is 11.8 deg/s. The maneuverability diagram

at sea-level required as a measure of merit is shown in Figure 11.7.

n 2 3 4 5 6 7
30
r = 2,000 ft

25 4,000 ft

20
Turn Rate (deg/s)

6,000 ft
RFP Requirement
8 deg/s
15 8,000 ft
Stall Limit 10,000 ft
AB P s = 0
10
Mil. P s = 0

5
q Limit
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mach
Figure 11.6 - Maneuverability Diagram at 15,000 ft and Maneuver Weight

n 2 3 4 5 6 7
30
r = 2,000 ft

25 4,000 ft

20 Stall Limit
Turn Rate (deg/s)

AB P s = 0 6,000 ft

Mil. P s = 0 8,000 ft
15
10,000 ft

10

5 q Limit

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mach
Figure 11.7 - Maneuverability Diagram at Sea-Level and Maneuver Weight

62
11.3 Mission Requirements

The RFP design mission explicitly defines some aspects of the required mission, while other aspects of the

mission such as cruise altitudes and loiter speed are arbitrary. Within the constraints of the design mission, a detailed

mission was created and optimized to minimize fuel consumption. The main aspects of the mission that were optimized

were the initial climb sequence, the cruise and dash altitudes (dash altitude must be greater than 50,000 ft), and the loiter

speed. The optimum climb sequence was found by creating a flight envelope with lines of constant climb rate to fuel

flow ratio (dh/dWF) at the average climb weight of the aircraft. The climb profile that minimizes the fuel required to

climb the aircraft to a given initial cruise condition is then found by drawing a flight path to the initial cruise conditions

that follows the maximum climb rate to fuel flow ratio. The resulting flight path and fuel consumption envelope are

shown in Figure 11.8.

55,000
Initial Cruise Condition dh/dW F = 0 ft/lb
50,000
10
45,000
20
40,000 Stall Limit

35,000 30
30
Altitude (ft)

40 20
30,000
25,000
50
20,000
15,000
10,000 q Limit
5,000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Mach
Figure 11.8 - Fuel Consumption Envelope at Average Climb Weight

The optimum cruise and dash altitudes were found by running a series of missions at different altitudes and

finding the mission with the lowest fuel consumption. Because the aircraft weight decreases as fuel is burned, the

optimum cruise altitude increases over the mission profile. It was found that the optimum sequence of cruise altitudes

began at 49,000 ft for the initial cruise and increased by 3,000 ft for each successive cruise or dash segment resulting in a

final cruise altitude of 58,000 ft. The two dash segments occur at 52,000 ft and 55,000 ft both meeting the RFP

requirement to dash above 50,000 ft. The optimum loiter speed for maximum endurance was determined to be Mach

63
0.35 or 390 ft/s by finding the minimum total drag on the aircraft at sea-level and loiter weight. The resulting mission is

listed in Table 11.I including the fuel consumption by mission segment and the corresponding RFP mission segments.

By completing the design mission, the requirements for a supercruise Mach number of 1.6 and mission radius of

1,750 nm are met. To determine the fuel capacity required to perform the design mission, the mission was simulated by

numerically integrating the fuel burn rates over the mission profile. The mission simulation was also used to optimize

certain aspects of the mission such as cruise altitudes. Table 11.II lists the results of the mission simulation and Figure

11.9 shows a breakdown of fuel consumption by mission segment

Table 11.I - Design Mission

RFP Mission
Detailed Mission Segment Fuel Segment
Warm-up 2 min at idle thrust 89 lb 1a 89 lb
Takeoff – Accelerate to takeoff speed 270 ft/s 170 lb
1b 779 lb
Accelerate to Mach 0.80 at maximum military thrust 609 lb
Climb to 17,500 ft and accelerate to Mach 0.88 807 lb
Climb to 32,000 ft and accelerate to Mach 1.59 3,715 lb
Climb to 37,500 ft and accelerate to Mach 1.66 626 lb 2 6,128 lb
Climb to 47,000 ft at Mach 1.66 948 lb
Climb to 49,000 ft and decelerate to Mach 1.6 32 lb
Cruise 1,000 nm at 49,000 ft and Mach 1.6 16,139 lb 3 16,139 lb
Climb to 52,000 ft at Mach 1.6 774 lb 4 774 lb
Dash 750 nm at 52,000 ft at Mach 1.6 10,613 lb 5 10,613 lb
Descend to 50,000 ft at Mach 1.6 39 lb
Turn 180º at n = 1.25 867 lb
6 1,425 lb
Drop 4 × 2,000 lb JDAMs 0 lb
Climb to 55,000 ft at Mach 1.6 519 lb
Dash 750 nm at 55,000 ft and Mach 1.6 8,814 lb 7 8,814 lb
Climb to 58,000 ft at Mach 1.6 401 lb
9 10,669 lb
Cruise 1,000 nm at 58,000 ft and Mach 1.6 10,268 lb
Descend to Sea-Level and decelerate to loiter speed 391 ft/s 885 lb 10 0 lb*
Loiter 30 min at Sea-level and 390 ft/s 2,453 lb 11 2,453 lb
Decelerate to landing speed 270 ft/s 174 lb – –
Land – Decelerate to zero speed 27 lb – –
Unload non-fixed equipment (2 × AMRAAMs and crew 1,280lb) 0 lb – –
*
The RFP specifies no fuel used in descent 58,968 lb 57,882 lb

Misc. Accelerate
Table 11.II - Mission Results & Climb
Total fuel consumption 58,968 lb Reserve 7%
4% 11%
Mission radius 1,750 nm
Total distance traveled over mission 4,100 nm
Total mission duration 5 hr. 6 min. Cruise Back
17% Cruise Out
Takeoff weight 125,051 lb
28%
Empty weight 56,797 lb
Fuel weight (total fuel onboard) 58,974 lb Dash Back
Maneuver weight 95,624 lb 15% Dash Out
Landing weight 58,077 lb 18%
Average cruise lift to drag ratio 6.55
Figure 11.9 - Fuel Consumption over Mission

64
11.4 Takeoff & Landing

The RFP requires that the aircraft be able to takeoff and land on an icy standard NATO runway 8,000 ft long.

Takeoff and landing calculations were done according to MIL-C5011A. Takeoff and landing were simulated by

numerically integrating velocity and rate of climb to determine distances and altitudes over a standard flight profile.

Additional drag due to flaps and landing gear was taken into account for takeoff and landing as well as -25% military

thrust from the thrust reverser during landing. The takeoff and landing profiles used in the simulation are shown in

Figure 11.10 and Figure 11.11.

60
V stall = 146 knots V 50 = 196 knots
50 Climb
Max. Tire Speed = 210 knots V 50 > 175 knots
Altitude (ft)

40
30 Pull-up
n = 1.15
20
Rotate 3 sec.
10
µ roll = 0.025 Roll V TO = 160 knots
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Distance (ft)
Figure 11.10 - Takeoff Profile

60
V 50 = 177 knots V stall = 146 knots
50
Approach V 50 > 175 knots Max. Tire Speed = 210 knots
Altitude (ft)

40
30
Flare µ brake = 0.3 Dry
20 n = 1.15 V = 160 knots
TD µ brake = 0.1 Ice
10
Roll 3 sec. Brake - 25% Mil. Thrust
0
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
Distance (ft)
Figure 11.11 - Landing Profile

MIL-C5011A defines field length to be the distance required to takeoff and clear a 50 ft obstacle or the distance

to land from a 50 ft obstacle. Takeoff and touchdown speed are defined as 1.1 times the aircraft’s stall speed, and the

speed over the 50 ft obstacle must be greater or equal to 1.2 times the stall speed for both takeoff and landing. The

takeoff gross weight for the design mission of 125,051 lb was used for the aircraft weight for both takeoff and landing

calculations. This allows the aircraft to land immediately after takeoff without the need to jettison fuel or weapons.

Takeoff and touchdown speeds were always greater than the required 1.1 times the stall speed because of the

acceleration during the 3 second rotation and roll periods. During takeoff, due to the high speeds of the aircraft, the 50 ft

obstacle was cleared before the climb angle was reached, so the climb segment of the profile was ignored. Also, to

65
simplify the calculations, the landing simulation was run backward so that the touchdown point could be found without

having to calculate the altitude and speed at the beginning of the flare necessary to have the touchdown occur at the

correct altitude and speed. The results of the takeoff and landing simulations listed in Table 11.III and Table 11.IV show

that the RFP requirements for takeoff and landing on an icy 8,000 ft runway are met.

Table 11.III - Takeoff Results Table 11.IV - Landing Results

Weight 125,100 lb Weight 125,100 lb
Maximum lift coefficient 1.16 Maximum lift coefficient 1.16
Stall speed 246 ft/s Stall speed 246 ft/s
Takeoff speed 271 ft/s Takeoff speed 271 ft/s
50 ft obstacle speed ≥ 290 ft/s 395 ft/s 50 ft obstacle speed ≥ 290 ft/s 395 ft/s
Rolling friction coefficient 0.025 Dry braking friction coefficient 0.3
Runway length 4,000 ft Icy braking friction coefficient 0.1
Field length over 50 ft obstacle 5,460 ft Thrust reverser effectiveness 25% Mil.
Dry runway length 4,030 ft
Dry field length over 50 ft obstacle 5,450 ft
Icy runway length 5,890 ft
Icy field length over 50 ft obstacle 7,310 ft

66
12 Payload

Weapon internal layout was a design

driver for the Vendetta. For small CG excursion

due to weapons deployment all stores were

initially positioned as close to the CG as

possible. As shown in Figure 12.1, three

configurations were produced. Configuration

one utilizes a standard weapons bay

configuration. The large weapons bay drove the

configuration to over 120 ft in length after room

Figure 12.1 - L to R configurations 1, 2, 3
for landing gear and weapons targeting systems were integrated. In an effort to decrease overall size a small rotary

launcher was designed and integrated into a second configuration. This revision increased the maximum cross sectional

area by 5ft2 and shortened the length of the aircraft to 95ft.

The next iteration of the design utilized the existing 180in MPRL out of the B-1B and shown in Figure 12.2. This

caused the final configuration to grow to 103ft in length and maximum cross sectional area of 88ft2 utilizing the proven

rotary launcher would decrease development costs and time. It also allows Vendetta to perform several alternate

missions outlined in the next section.

In an effort to ascertain the feasibility of RFP

delineated weapons as supersonic deployment candidates,

each weapon system was analyzed. Foldout 5 shows that only

one of the weapons has been wind tunnel tested for supersonic
Figure 12.2 - 180 inch MPRL
deployment. Retrofitting the weapon systems with a ballute and sabot, shown in Figure 12.3, would aide in supersonic

stability. The use of a weapons bay supersonic flow deflector, an acoustical

resonance damping system, and a flow modification system may be needed to aid

in weapons deployment.

Figure 12.3 - Ballute and Sabot

67
 Standard ten degree fall clearance is maintained for all weapons. The weapons bay doors were designed to rotate

into the bomb bay and not into the free stream. This is illustrated in Foldout 2 – FS 688.9. Rotating the bomb bay doors

into the fuselage has no detrimental effects on lateral stability, allows for the usage of lighter bomb bay doors, and

lowers the radar cross-section of the aircraft when the bomb bay is open.

In an effort to minimize undesirable underbody flow the entire underside of

the aircraft was kept as flat as possible. The MPRL chosen allows the use of 30in

ejector racks illustrated in Figure 12.4. The rack has electrically fired impulse

cartridges, a gas operated mechanism, and is designed to forcibly eject

conventional or nuclear weapons in the 4000 lb weight class. The LAU-142A

Figure 12.4 - 30in Ejector Rack
ejector is used with the AIM-120C shown in Figure 12.5.

Weapons guidance is accomplished with

the RFP GFE ICNIA providing GPS/INS

guidance data (all weapons), an AN/APG-77

RADAR system (for the AIM-120), as well as

an on-board second generation Tessa Infrared

Search and Track System (IRSTS) system (for

the GBU-27). The IRSTS can only be utilized in

Figure 12.5 - LAU-142A Ejection Sequence
alternate subsonic mission due to line of sight

and range limitations. More detailed information on weapons can be found in Folodout 5.

12.1 Alternate Missions

In addition to the design mission, the Vendetta can perform alternate missions. The MPRL, shown in Figure 12.6,

carried by the Vendetta allows it to carry a total of 8 × 2,000 lb bombs (Figure 12.6) compared to the 4 required for the

design mission (no AMRAAMs can be carried in this configuration.) The weapons bay designed for the MPRL is only

4 inches greater in diameter than a previous custom design that carried only the RFP loadout. The extra cross-sectional

area of to the MPRL results in an extra 1,300 lb of fuel consumption over the design mission; however, the added

weapons capability and the fact that the MPRL is proven equipment, justify its use. The performance of the Vendetta

over four alternate missions was calculated. Fully loaded missions and subsonic missions flown at Mach 0.85 and an

altitude of approximately 30,000 ft were considered. The results shown in Table 12.I indicate that only a small loss of

68
range occurs due to the additional weight of 8 × 2,000 lb bomb loadout, and the range of the aircraft can be greatly

extended by flying subsonic (although it extends the mission duration to 11 hours.) A subsonic ferry mission was also

considered using the storage space in the MPRL for additional fuel capacity. If 16,000 lb of additional fuel are carried in

the weapons bay, the total ferry range of the Vendetta can be extended to 6,200 nm allowing it to be quickly and easily

transported anywhere in the world without the need for tanker aircraft or multiple refueling stops.

The use of the RFP unspecified AGM-158A (JASSM), which would require no modification of the MPRL, offers

an extension of combat mission radius by over 100nm. This low observable weapon is seen as the future of ALCM’s

(Figure 12.7)

Table 12.I – Alternate Mission Results

Design Mission
Mission Radius 1,750 nm
Takeoff Weight 125,100 lb
Mission Time 5 hr. 6 min.
8 × 2,000 lb bombs – Supersonic
Mission Radius 1,590 nm
Takeoff Weight 133,100 lb
Mission Time 4 hr. 47 min.
4 × 2,000 lb bombs – Subsonic
Mission Radius 2,500 nm
Takeoff Weight 125,100 lb
Mission Time 11 hr. 13 min.
8 × 2,000 lb bombs – Subsonic
Mission Radius 2,400 nm
Takeoff Weight 133,100 lb
Mission Time 10 hr. 52 min.
Subsonic Ferry – 16,000 lb additional fuel
Total Range 6,200 nm
Figure 12.6 - MPRL with 8 × 2,000 lb JDAMs
Takeoff Weight 133,100 lb
Mission Time 13 hr. 40 min.

Figure 12.7 – MPRL with 8 × AGM-158A (JASSM)

69
 (4) Mk-84 LDGP + (2) AIM-120 (4) GBU-27 + (2) AIM-120 (4) 2000lb JDAM +(2) AIM-120 (4) AGM-154 JSOW + (2) AIM-120 (16) 250 lb Small Smart Bomb AIM-120 C AMRAAM

Weapon Weight 1967 lb Weapon Weight 2165 lb Weapon Weight 2100 lb Weapon Weight 1064 lb Weapon Weight 250 lb Weapon Weight 327 lb
Installed Configuration Weight 10222 lb Installed Configuration Weight 11014 lb Installed Configuration Weight 10754 lb Installed Configuration Weight 6610 lb Installed Configuration Weight 5500 lb Installed Configuration Weight 5500 lb

Weapon Length 13.9 ft Weapon Length 13.2 ft Weapon Length 14 ft Weapon Length 8.2 ft Weapon Length 12 ft
Weapon Length 12.6 ft
Weapon Diameter 14.6 in Weapon Diameter 18 in Weapon Diameter 21 in Weapon Diameter 6 in Weapon Diameter 7 in
Weapon Diameter 18 in
Tail Span 2 ft Tail Span 2 ft Tail Span 24 in Max Drop Height Unlimited Fin Span 1 ft 6 in
Tail Span 2 ft
Max Drop Height Unlimited Max Drop Height Unlimited Max Drop Height Unlimited Max Drop Velocity Unknown Max Drop Height Unlimited
Max Drop Height Unlimited
Max Tested Drop Velocity Unknown Max Drop Velocity M=1.3 tested Max Drop Velocity Subsonic Guidance GPS / INS Max Drop Velocity Supersonic
Max Tested Drop Velocity M=1.3
Guidance GPS / INS Guidance GPS / INS Guidance Command
Guidance Ballistic Guidance Semi-Active from Launch
Laser Aircraft
Weapon Information: Weapon Information: INS
Weapon Information: Weapon Information: Weapon Information:
In the late 1980's the US Navy began a review of conventional The Small Smart Bomb is a 250 lb (113 kg) weapon that has the Monopulse
Development of the Mk 84 Low Drag General Purpose Bomb The GBU-27 is a modified GBU-24 Paveway III designed for A parallel program to the AGM-154 JSOW the GBU-31 JDAM weapons with the intention of reducing the number of weapon same penetration capabilities as a 2000lb (905 kg) BLU-109, but Radar Seeker
for use by the United States armed forces began in the 1950's. internal carriage in the F-117A. This LGB carries the program began in the late 1980's. The goal of the program was to types. New systems were selected for future development: with only 50 lbs (22.6 kg) of explosive. With the INS/GPS
The Mk 84 bomb, which is fitted with 30 in (0.762m) spaced designation GBU-27 /B and uses a BLU-109 /B penetrator bomb produce a low cost guided munition. Interesting to note is the JDAM, TSSAM, JASSM, and the advanced interdiction weapon guidance in conjunction with differential GPS (using all 12
suspension lugs, is packed with 942 lb (426 kg) of Tritonal or for its warhead. The main modifications made to the GBU-24 GBU-31 is soon to be replaced by the GBU-32/35. This new system to be later named Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). channel receivers, instead of only 5) corrections provided by Weapon Information:
H-6. The known inventory of Mk 81, 82, and 84 bombs is 1.13 were to have shorter adaptor rings and to use the GBU-10's rear weapon, will utilize a I-1000 (1000lb)(452.5kg) penetrator GPS SPO Accuracy Improvement Initiative (AII) and improved
million. wing unit to decrease the bomb's length, and to clip the canards warhead and is intended for future use in the F-22 raptor. This The JSOW program is intended to replace six existing weapons: Target Location Error (TLE), it can achieve a 5-8m (16.4 to 26.3 The Advanced Medium-Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM)
in order to make the weapon fit into the small F-117A Bomb weapon, the GBU-32/35 is being used to size the raptor's bomb the AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-123 Skipper, AGM-62A Walleye, ft) CEP. The submunition, with a smart fuze, has been AIM-120 development program was started in 1975. It was
Bay. The other major difference was the use of radar absorbing bay's. Rockeye and APAM (Anti-Personnel/Anti-Material) extensively tested against multi-layered targets by Wright designed to follow on and better the performance of the Aim-7
materials in order to prevent the bombs from being picked up by submunition dispensers, and laser- and TV- guided bombs. Laboratory under the Hard Target Ordnance Program and Sparrow and be carried on the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18
enemy radar once the aircraft's bomb doors were opened. As a The GBU-31 utilizes both the Mk 84 and BLU-109 warheads. Miniature Munitions Technology Program. The length to aircraft. In the late 90's a modified(smaller) version of the
result of these modifications, the GBU-27 has a shorter range Due to the Mk 84's low cost, and commonality, it was chosen for Of particular attention on the previous list is: diameter ratio and nose shape are designed to optimize missile, the AIM-120C was developed to be fitted to the F-22
than the GBU-24, which can also be launched at lower altitudes. the solid model seen above. The GBU-31 consists of three major 1) All weapons are air to ground. penetration for a 50lb (22.6 kg) charge. This weapon is also a Raptor. This newer version also incorporates a dual mode active
subassemblies. The warhead (Mk 84), Saddleback stub wing 2) This weapon is designed to replace the GBU-27, potential payload for standoff carrier vehicles such as and passive radar seeker. The AIM-120C is deigned to be rail,
Guidance is by semi-active laser, the scanning detector assembly assembly (attaches at hardpoints, three components), and a bolt one of the weapons on the RFP attachment 3 list. Tomahawk, JSOW, JASSM, Conventional ICBM, etc. The ejector or trapeze launched. On the F-22 the AIM-120C is
and laser energy receiver being mounted in the front of the on tail cone guidance kit. Swing Wing Adapter Kit (SWAK) is added to give the SSB launched using an EDO corp. LAU-142/A hydraulic / pneumatic
canister behind the glass dome. After the bomb is released the The JSOW is an aerodynamically shaped, unpowered glide standoff of greater than 25 nm (48.6 km) from high altitude ejector.
laser error detector measures the angle between the bomb's The guidance kit, contained within the replacement bolt-on tail dispenser with a rectangular cross-section body shape. It is made release. The wing kit is jettisoned at a midcourse way point if
velocity vector and the line between the bomb and target. cone consists of the following key elements: combined inertial up of three major sections: a streamlined nose fairing that houses penetration is required so that velocity can be increased after In a typical engagement the missile is launched and first guided
Steering corrections are made by moving the nose mounted measuring unit and GPS receiver; flight control computer; the guidance and control system, a rectangular center section wing release. For soft targets the wing kit continues to extend by on-missile inertial navigation, with command guidance
canard control fins to adjust the bomb's trajectory to line up with battery and power distribution unit; tail actuators and four payload container for holding the bomblets (this is fitted with the glide range until small arms threat altitude is reached. At this updates from the launch aircraft. The missile then goes into the
the target. The tail fins/wings are for stabilization purposes only. movable clipped delta fins in a cruciform configuration. In two folding high aspect ratio wings on its upper surface, and two point the wings are released. With INS/GPS guidance, coupled mid-course autonomous mode and continues to guide by by
Target illumination for the system may be either by an keeping with other GPS guided weapons, the unit is believed to standard 30 in (0.762 m) spaced suspension lugs); and the tail with AII, a 6-8 m (19.7 to 26.3 ft) CEP can be achieved. This inertial navigation only. Finally, the terminal mode is
aircraft-mounted laser marker (not necessarily the parent be fitted with two GPS antennas, one on top of the unit for initial section which has six fixed, sweptback rectangular fins wing kit allows the SSB to be directly attached to the aircraft at automatically initiated by the missile itself when the target is
aircraft) or a ground-based laser transmitter. flight and one in the tail for good reception during terminal positioned radially on the boat tail and contains the flight control any 300 lb (135.75 kg) store station. The major advantage to the within rage of the missile's active monopulse radar seeker, which
maneuvering. system. 250 lb (113.125 kg) small smart bomb is an improved number of then guides the missile onto the target aircraft.
targets per pass capability.
Prior to bomb release the guidance unit will be fed with aircraft
position, velocity and target coordinates through the aircraft to
bomb interface. After release the bomb will guide itself to the

Vendetta
target by means of rear fin deflection which are driven by Foldout 5
commands from an onboard computer that is constantly being
updated by the GPS. The combination of the INS/GPS is
Weapon Systems
expected to allow the bombs to hit within 10m (32.8ft) to 15m Chris Droney Kolby Keiser Chris Atkinson
(49.2ft) of their targets. Wind tunnel tests in 1996 are reported to Nate Schnaible Chris Maglio Dan Salluce
have cleared JDAM for release at up to M 1.3.
Rev. 3 High Rollers 5/23/02
13 Cockpit

Cockpit design began with the RFP requirement for a crew of two. A comparison of tandem versus side-by-side

seating arrangement, and its affect on cross sectional area, was conducted. A solid model was constructed with room

provided for instrumentation, controls, circuit breakers and military aft pilot vision requirements (MIL-STD-850B)

allowing the frontal cross-sectional area of each configuration to be determined. The results are shown in Figure 13.1.

Figure 13.1 - Cockpit Width Trade Study

The results show that the configuration has very little effect on frontal area of

the cockpit. For this reason, other factors were taken into account before a

final decision on pilot configuration was made. The use of the 180 in MPRL,

favored the side-by-side seating arrangement because the width of the

fuselage was already driven to be large. This arrangement allowed greater

pilot communication as well as the elimination of many redundant circuit

Figure 13.2 – Fuselage Comparison breakers and instruments; however, preliminary stability and control analysis

revealed a need to narrow the forward fuselage due to the undesirable Cmα characteristics of a wide nose section.

Therefore the decision was made to utilize a tandem seating configuration. This configuration offered a better

field of vision for the primary pilot and decreased the width of the forward fuselage as shown in Figure 13.2. Utilizing

this information the detailed virtual cockpit model, shown in Figure 13.3, was generated. The solid model also took into

account the use of an ejection seat, room for instrumentation, controls, switch placement as well as the military vision

specifications outlined in Table 13.I.

71
 Table 13.I - Military Vision Specifications 5°
5.1.1 Forward Pilot Vision 11°
azimuth (°) up (°) down (°)
0 10 11
20 20
30 25
90 40
135 20

5.1.2 Aft Pilot Position

0 5

Figure 13.3 - Virtual Cockpit Model

Further vision refinement produced a rectilinear vision plot shown in Figure 13.4. Canopy reinforcing structure

was placed such that the view angles between 25 and 40 degrees up were unobstructed thus allowing vision for in-flight

refueling. Every effort was made to increase downward vision to aid in ground handling, takeoff, and landing.

Takeoff and Landing

vision is inherently limited

in supersonic aircraft due

the required low forward

fuselage angles. In an effort

to reduce pilot workload,

multifunction displays

(MFD) can be used to

enhance pilot vision. The

Figure 13.4 - Rectilinear Vision Plot of Forward Cockpit Position
vendetta display layout is

illustrated in Figure 13.5. MFD 1 incorporated into the glare shield and upper instrument panel will be used in takeoff

and landing to increase downward vision, meshing seamlessly with the actual cockpit over nose view. It would also

utilize infrared or night vision to enhance visibility during night and poor weather

operation, thus increasing the all weather capability of the Vendetta. MFD’s 2, 3,

and 4 display moving map imagery, flight critical data, and mission critical

information. The standard dash mounted HUD was replaced by a current helmet

mounted HUD system thus increasing the pilot’s situational awareness.

Figure 13.5 - Cockpit Displays

72
 Due to RFP requirements the majority of the Vendetta’s mission will occur above the military specified ceiling

for flight without a full pressure suit (50,000ft). Further research revealed the reasoning behind the specification. NASA

studies have shown that and human life functions become critically affected by the lower pressure and oxygen content of

the upper atmosphere. These studies outline how physiological effects such as

the bends and hypoxia are accelerated by the extremely low temperatures of

high altitudes. These effects will render a human unconscious in seconds, and

dead in minutes. Balancing these effects against the economics and long

preparation and turn around times associated with full pressure suits, the

decision was made to utilize a partial pressure suit. The advanced fighter

crew protection system shown in Figure 13.6 was specifically developed for

missions in this altitude range. It offers low unit cost in comparison to full

pressure suits in addition to low turn around time by alleviating the necessity
Figure 13.6 - Advanced Fighter
for a suiting procedure similar that used in the U-2. Pilot oxygen is provided
Crew Protection System
by the RFP GFE OBOGS.

The K-36D ejection seat was chosen because its ejection

envelope (Figure 13.7) encompasses that of the Vendetta. The seat

is manufactured by Boeing North American who subcontracts

Zvezda, the seats original designer, for further development. A

shaped charge cutting system was chosen over a canopy ejection

for high safety throughout the RFP mission.

Figure 13.7 - K-36D Performance Envelope

73
14 Systems

The systems of the Vendetta will closely follow the design architecture of the F-22; however, technology

advances by 2020 will render most of the electronics aboard the F-22 antiquated, thus the next generation of this system

should be implemented. Design trades on communications, processor I/O (such as unified vs. federated), system

redundancy, and actuation will have to be performed on the new system.

14.1 Auxiliary Power Generation System

The auxiliary power generation

Table 14.I – APU Selection Table
system consists of two components: an Startup Dry
Company Model Ceiling Weight Rating Power/Weight
auxiliary power unit (APU) and a self- ft lb Hp Hp/lb
Honeywell 131-9A 41000 350 460 1.31
contained energy storage system (SES). The
Honeywell 36-300 35000 300 390 1.3
RFP lists a GFE APU but the cost, volume, Honeywell 331-200 43000 500 579 1.16
Pratt and
and weight listed suggests that it is actually a Whitney PW901 25000 835 1535 1.84
Sundstrand APS2100 37000 270 504 1.87
Ram Air Turbine (RAT). The RAT was Sundstrand APS3200 39000 305 603 1.98

eliminated due to the need for ground power (RFP specifies the aircraft must operate with minimal ground support) and

previous service experience showing the unreliability of RATs in supersonic aircraft. APU selection involved examining

a number of mid-sized gas turbine generators with output exceeding the estimated minimum 350 Hp required by the

Vendetta. A shortened list of APU candidates appears in Table 14.I.

Due to common unreliability of in-flight APU startup, startup ceiling was not seen as a major driver in APU

selection. Overall high power to weight ratio as well as a rating above 350 Hp and small size was seen as the main APU

selection criteria. With this in mind the Sundstrand APS

3200 was selected. By the RFP 2010 cutoff data a new

APU may become available; therefore the Sundstrand is

mainly used for sizing considerations rather than a

definite APU for the vendetta. Placement of the APU

can be seen in Figure 14.1 and Foldout 4.

Modern designs utilize a SES for power backup

Figure 14.1 - APU Placement due to its high reliability, invulnerability to aircraft

attitude and airspeed. The SES is a design point to be focused on in the next level of design. Current hypergolically

74
fuelled systems offer high power to weigh ratio but fuels are hazardous and expensive. Next generation systems should

be available by 2010.

14.2 Vehicle Management System

The vehicle management system (VMS) manages following systems: control stick, throttle lever, rudder pedals,

air data probes, accelerometers, and actuators.

Four separate actuator systems were initially considered.

1) Electrohydrostatic
2) Electric
3) Pneumatic
4) Hydraulic

Pneumatic systems were eliminated due to low power-to-weight ratios, large comparative size, and low power

transmission efficiencies. Electrohydrostatic actuators offer many benefits such as a line replaceable units, optimized per

service dynamic impedance shaping, and optimized K factor; Electrohydrostatic actuators create low observability and

weight problems as a consequence of the need for electric power transmission and the loss of the heat sink capabilities of

hydraulic lines. An all electric actuator system has the same low observability problems as the electrohydrostatic system

as well as a comparatively large and heavy actuator.

Thus the decision was made to utilize an all hydraulic system with digital fly-by-wire control. The F119 engine

utilized in the F-22 has a PTO driving two 72 gpm pumps for a total of four pumps that supply two independent 4000 psi

systems. The high pressure system was chosen because of weight and volume considerations. Peak hydraulic system

demand will be satisfied via an air pressurized hydraulic reservoir allowing for a constant energy bleed from the engines.

A schematic of the hydraulic system is shown in Foldout 4.

The Smiths Industries 270 volt, direct current (DC) electrical system was chosen identical to that used in the F-22.

It uses two PTO driven 65 kilowatt generators as shown in Foldout 4. Next level design trade studies need to be

completed on the redundancy level of the electrical and flight control systems. Flight control system design should be

aimed at a Fail Op/Fail Op/Fail Safe or better level of redundancy. GPS/INS and other navigational systems should be

examined and a proper redundancy levels chosen.

14.3 Fuel System

Initial fuel system design began with the placement of fuel tanks symmetrically about the CG. The final

configuration provides 58,974 lb of fuel capacity. 80% of the fuselage tank volume and 70% of wing tank volume was

75
utilized for fuel capacity. The remaining fuel tank volume was left for self sealing linings, structure, and fuel expansion

(See Foldout 2). All tanks in the aircraft are pressurized with nitrogen gas from the onboard inert gas generating system

(OBIGGS). Pressurization is minimal due to structural constraints and the low vapor pressure of JP-8. Nitrogen reduces

the concentration of fuel vapor and thus the chance of an explosion. All tanks on the aircraft are self sealing and feature

flame resistant overflow and exhaust venting.

Single point fueling and de-fueling can be performed from a port on the starboard side of the forward fuselage

(Foldout 4). This fueling point shares common lines with the AAR retractable fueling boom port located on the upper

portion of the forward fuselage. Both ports offer fueling rates as high as 1,100 gpm, which is the maximum KC-10 fuel

probe refueling rate (Table 14.II). Fuel is directed to the forward fuselage tank and then power transferred to the

remaining three tanks. A gravity feed system can be utilized in flight in case of a failure of the power feed system. All

major thermal transfer within the aircraft is performed by the fuel system. The air cooled fuel cooler utilizes inlet duct

boundary layer and flow control diversion air to dissipate all kinetic heating experienced by the airframe as well as heat

generated by onboard systems. Dual heat exchangers are utilized for combat survivability. Fuel flow rate requirements

(Table 14.II) will be used to size fuel lines and pumps. All fuel lines are redundant to provide for fuel circulation and

system combat survivability. Vendetta is fitted with a halon fire suppression system.

Table 14.II - Fuel System Sizing Requirements

Fuel System Sizing Requirement Fuel Flow Rate

GPM
CG Shift Requirement Between #3 and #4 Fuel Tanks 100
KC-10 Probe Maximum Refueling Rate 1100
(2) F-119 Turbofan @ Max Thrust With Reheat 294
Air Cooled Fuel Cooler (ACFC) 400

76
14.4 Government Furnished Equipment

Table 14.IIIprovides a list of GFE and identifies weither or not the equipment was utilized. Some GFE was not

used because it was not applicable to the design. A brief description of the reasoning is also provided

Table 14.III - List of Government Furnished Equipment

Government Furnished Equipment Application Utilized
ICNIA INS/GPS guidance and weapons targeting YES
3 x MFD Crew situation awareness enhancement YES
Heads-Up Display Replaced by Helmet Mounted Display NO
Data Bus New System Architecture Replaces Data Bus with VMS NO
Vehicle Management System Manages Aircraft Systems YES
IRSTS (Tessa Derivative) Low Speed and Altitude Targeting for GBU-27 YES
Active Array Radar Use the AN/APG-77 LPI System Due to LO Requirement NO
LANTIRN Navigation System Not a Low Altitude Night Aircraft NO
LANTIRN Targeting System Not a Low Altitude Night Aircraft NO
HARM Targeting System Does Not Carry HARM Missiles Because of LO Design NO
Electrical System Engine Control YES
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Description in RFP is of a Ram Air Turbine NO
Ejection Seat Standard Seat Will Not Cover Flight Envelope. Use K-36D NO
OBOGS Oxygen Generation for Pilot YES
OBIGGS Nitrogen Generation for Fuel System YES
AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile YES
M61A1 20 mm Cannon Supercruise Mission Eliminates Viability of Cannon NO

14.5 Maintenance and Servicing Plan

Vendetta is optimized for lowest possible integrated combat turnaround times focusing on open maintenance

access for all major components and fast weapon, fuel, and crew refurbishment. Maintenance panels are located

regularly across the bottom and top sides of main fuselage sections for easy open access to all serviceable equipment.

RCS considerations are taken into account for placement and geometry of access paneling. Major component placement

allows field servicing without major overhaul equipment jigs and specialized oversized tooling.

Utilizing a hydrant pressurized fueling rate of 1100 gallons per minute fueling time is only 7.9 minutes. More

common fueling rates of 100 gallons per minute drive fueling time to 87 minutes. Combat weapon refurbishment takes

approximately 10 minutes per weapon or one hour for the RFP mission loading. Therefore with RFP weapons loadout,

turnaround times between 60 and 87 minutes, depending upon the available refueling rate, are possible. Due to the

choice of partial pressure suit, crew suiting and preparation is far below this time.

77
15 Manufacturing

Ease of manufacturing was a design criterion for the

Vendetta. Part commonality will reduce the total number of

separate parts that must be manufactured, thereby lowering

manufacturing costs. The Vendetta is symmetrical in that

both left and right wings, landing gear, horizontal and vertical

stabilizers, etc. will be manufactured almost exactly the same.

Furthermore, all control surfaces are symmetrical and would

provide an additional improvement in manufacturing costs.

The design has also taken into consideration the

Figure 15.1 - Routing Tunnel
routing of electrical lines, hydraulic lines, etc. These systems

would be interconnected through two separate routing tunnels in the fuselage of the aircraft. This would reduce

installation complexity and system redundancy and therefore reduce the amount of labor involved in the installation

process. The routing tunnel is shown in Figure 15.1.

Manufacturing breaks include the wings,

empennage, forward, center, and aft portions of the

fuselage, as well as the landing gear itself. These

breaks are shown in Figure 15.2 and Foldout 1.

The entire propulsion system is capable of

being dropped out the bottom of the aircraft which

provides for easy installation and maintenance.

Computer-aided manufacturing will enable more

Figure 15.2 - Manufacturing Breaks
complex parts to be machined by computer-

numerically-controlled machining tools. Large items such as bulkheads can be machined from a single piece of metal.

Inspection and maintenance panels will be placed wherever possible throughout the aircraft without compromising the

low observability requirements. Furthermore, access panels will be built as structural doors able to carry through the

skin loads that will be required to meet the stringent structural load limits. These access panels will ease maintenance

and reduce maintenance hours required per flight hour.

78
 The assembly line would allow for major components, such as the wing, fuselage, and empennage to be pre-

fabricated at other site locations and brought in to a central assembly line as shown below in Figure 15.3.

Figure 15.3 - Assembly Line

79
16 Cost Analysis

The final and most important issue in the purposed development of the Vendetta is the cost analysis. Before any

aircraft can win a contract it must be reasonably priced. The methodologies used in developing this analysis were found

in the Raymer and Nicolai texts. Despite the fact that the Nicolai text was written in 1974, when adjusted for inflation,

the method was accurate to within 5% of that method found in the 1999 Raymer text. Both of these analyses are

adjusted for inflation to 2000 dollars. The methods used in the cost analysis were based on the DAPCA IV model

developed by the RAND Corporation. This model provided a means of calculating the operating cost, life cycle cost,

flyaway cost, and the cost required for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The RDT&E cost was

predicted to be approximately $6.5 billion; whereas, the flyaway cost for a 200 unit buy was calculated to be $128.5

million. This cost approximately 15% under that cost required by the AIAA RFP set at $150 million dollars per 200 unit

buy. The cost per aircraft based on the number of aircraft purchased is shown below in Figure 16.1.

Figure 16.1 - Cost Analysis

The figure indicates that the cost per aircraft at a 600 unit buy is significantly less at $80.5 million. Note the cost

of engineering, development, manufacturing, and materials in the cost breakdown per unit at a 600 unit buy in

comparison to the cost breakdown per unit at a 200 unit buy; the percentages associated with development and

engineering decreases while the manufacturing and materials percentages increase. This is due to the fact that at a 600

unit buy, there are more aircraft available to help pay the $6.5 billion cost associated with RDT&E. Furthermore, there
80
is a learning curve associated with the development of a large quantity of aircraft and the airplane become even less

costly to produce.

Four factors were considered when determining the operating cost of the

Vendetta. These factors included the cost of the fuel and pilots, as well as the

cost of parts and maintenance personal. Raymer estimates that a bomber flies

approximately 400 hours per year and requires 40 maintenance man hours per

flight hour. In addition, because the Vendetta is designed to fly very fast at high

altitudes, the fuel cost is a large percentage of the total operating cost. The

operating cost of the Vendetta is calculated to be $13,000 per flight hour. This

cost breakdown is shown below in Figure 16.2

Figure 16.2 - Operating Cost
One final cost that must be considered beyond the cost of

RDT&E, flyaway, and operations is the lifecycle cost. This cost

considers the cost of RDT&E, flyaway, and operations over a 30 year

period at 400 flight hours per year, as well as the cost of disposal.

This cost is totaled at $293 million per aircraft at a 200 unit buy. A

breakdown of the lifecycle cost is shown in Figure 16.3 - Lifecycle

Cost.

Figure 16.3 - Lifecycle Cost

81
17 Conclusion

The Vendetta presented by The High Rollers from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo is the

optimum solution to the AIAA 2001/2002 Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Request for Proposal. The Vendetta is

designed to replace the stealthy F-117 Nighthawk and B-2 Spirit as well as the supersonic F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1

Lancer as a supersonic stealth interdictor. The configuration of Vendetta was created through the use of design

philosophies such as simple low observable shaping, weight and balance centered design, detailed mission and

performance simulation, and realistic systems integration. Vendetta utilizes current and future technologies to provide

the best possible performance with at minimum cost. The use of RadBase 2 software throughout the design process

allowed the creation of a stealth frontal aspect. The use of a solid modeling program throughout the design process

allowed for faster design iterations to be performed while evaluating the RCS. The use of the Cal Poly Flight Simulator

aided in the design process allowing for problem areas to be quickly identified and fixed. As shown in Table 17.I, it

meets or exceeds all the design requirements.

82
 Table 17.I - RFP Compliance Checklist
RFP Requirement Met Page# RFP Requirement Met Page#
Crew Performance Requirements
• Two pilot cockpit design 9 71 • 0 ft/sec specific excess power at 1-g mil. Thrust (1.6 M/50,000 ft) 9 59
Maintenance • 200 ft/sec specific excess power at 1-g max. thrust (1.6 M/50,000 ft) 9 60
• Easy access to and removal of major systems 9 78,79 • 0 ft/sec specific excess power at 2-g max. Thrust (1.6 M/50,000 ft) 9 60
Structure • 8.0 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (0.9 M/15,000 ft) 9 62
• +7, -3 vertical g’s (clean, 50% fuel) 9 38 Weapons Carriage
• 2,133 psf max. dynamic pressure (Mach 0.2, sea-level) 9 38 • (4) Mk-84 LDGB 9 67,FO5
• 1.5 factor of safety on all design ultimate loads 9 36 • (4) GBU-27 + (2) AIM-120 9 67,FO5
• 12,000 hour service life 9 80-81 • (4) 2,000 lb JDAM + (2) AIM-120 9 67,FO5
Fuel/Fuel Tanks • (4) AGM-154 JSOW + (2) AIM-120 9 67,FO5
• Design fuel is JP-8 (6.8 lb/gal) 9 FO2,75 Measures of Merit
• All fuel tanks self-sealing and retained throughout mission 9 75 • Weight Summary (TOGW, We, Wf, W/S, T/W, Wf/W) 9 7
Stability • Aircraft Geometry
• Closed loop static/dynamic stability meets MIL-F-8785B 9 47-57 ◦ Wing/control surface area 9 19
• Static margin within +10% and -30% limits 9 42-45 ◦ Fuselage size and volume 9 FO1
• Digital control system for longitudinally unstable designs 9 47-57 ◦ Frontal cross sectional area distribution 9 24-25
Balanced Observables ◦ Wetted area 9 25
• Balanced radar, IR, visual, acoustical, and electromagnetic signatures 9 13, FO3 ◦ Inlet and diffuser 9 31-34
• Front aspect RCS less than 0.05 m2 against 1-10 GHz radar 9 13, FO3 • Systems integration
• All stores carried internally 9 67,FO5 ◦ Landing gear 9 40-41
Operation ◦ Weapons carriage 9 67-69,FO5
• All weather operations and weapons delivery from NATO runways, ◦ Sensor and avionics locations 9 FO1, FO2
9 65,72
shelters, facilities ◦ Cockpit 9 71-73
Cost • Mission duration, radius, fuel burn by mission segment 9 64
• Flyaway cost less than 150 million (200 unit buy) 9 80 • Takeoff and landing distance (standard and icy conditions) 9 65
• Minimize life cycle costs 9 80 • Performance at 50% internal fuel
Engine Deck ◦ Max. Mach at 36,000 ft 9 60
• Include an engine data package 9 26-35, 84 ◦ 1-g max. thrust specific excess power envelope 9 60
Mission Performance ◦ 2-g max. thrust specific excess power envelope 9 60
• Weapons Load – (2) AIM-120 + (4) 2,000 lb JDAM 9 67-69,FO5 ◦ 5-g max. thrust specific excess power envelope 9 61
• Takeoff fuel for warm-up and acceleration (sea level, 59°F) 9 64 ◦ Max. thrust sustained load factor envelope 9 61
• Climb from sea level to optimum supercruise altitude 9 64 ◦ Max. thrust maneuvering performance diagrams at sea-level 9 62
• Supercruise out 1,000 nm at M=1.6 and optimum altitude 9 64 ◦ Max. thrust maneuvering performance diagrams at 15,000 ft 9 62
• Climb and Dash out 750 nm above 50,000 ft at M=1.6 9 64 • Fly away and life cycle costs (cost trades 100 to 1,000 units) 9 80-81
• Drop (4) 2,000 lb JDAM’s, turn 180° at M=1.6 at 50,000 ft 9 64 • Design Drawings
• Dash back 750 nm above 50,000 ft at M=1.6 9 64 ◦ Detailed three view 9 FO1
• Supercruise back 1000 nm at M=1.6 and optimum altitude 9 64 ◦ 3-D perspective 9 FO1
• Descend to sea level (no distance or fuel credit) 9 64 ◦ Internal layouts 9 FO2
• Reserve fuel for 30 min. at sea level and maximum endurance speed 9 64 ◦ Materials selection 9 FO4

83
Appendix A – Engine Deck
Part Power Data Idle Maximum Military
Altitude Mach -5,691 -2,846 0 2,846 5,691 8,537 11,383 14,228 17,074 19,920 22,765 25,611 28,457 31,302 Thrust Fuel Flow Thrust Fuel Flow
0 0 -1,460 -327 806 1,939 3,072 4,216 5,386 6,590 7,854 9,216 10,674 12,203 13,936 16,006 1,312 1,329 30,000 15,008
0 0.2 -1,888 -520 847 2,214 3,581 4,838 6,062 7,358 8,736 10,244 11,835 13,457 15,353 16,698 1,792 1,707 28,925 15,634
0 0.32 -1,723 -323 1,078 2,478 3,879 5,168 6,442 7,803 9,267 10,867 12,502 14,249 16,360 18,473 1,529 1,830 27,334 15,554
0 0.45 -1,350 31 1,411 2,790 4,170 5,503 6,872 8,333 9,909 11,585 13,287 15,232 17,508 19,783 1,274 2,029 25,938 15,495
0 0.6 -567 694 2,013 3,215 4,475 5,812 7,200 8,762 10,825 12,666 14,681 17,026 19,371 21,716 354 2,165 22,563 14,528
0 0.75 216 1,357 2,616 3,640 4,781 6,121 7,528 9,192 11,742 13,747 16,074 18,819 21,234 23,650 -566 2,302 19,188 13,561
0 0.9 999 2,020 3,219 4,065 5,086 6,430 7,856 9,621 12,658 14,829 17,468 20,613 23,097 25,583 -1,485 2,438 15,813 12,593
0 1.1 2,042 2,903 4,022 4,632 5,493 6,842 8,293 10,194 13,880 16,270 19,327 23,005 25,581 28,161 -2,712 2,620 11,313 11,303
0 1.3 3,086 3,787 4,826 5,198 5,900 7,254 8,731 10,767 15,101 17,711 21,185 25,396 28,066 30,738 -3,938 2,803 6,813 10,013
1,500 0 -1,454 -322 811 1,944 3,078 4,221 5,390 6,594 7,858 9,220 10,678 12,206 13,939 16,009 1,285 1,323 29,990 15,003
1,500 0.2 -1,817 -455 907 2,269 3,631 4,883 6,102 7,393 8,765 10,268 11,855 13,470 15,362 16,702 868 1,323 28,919 15,638
1,500 0.32 -1,640 -246 1,148 2,542 3,936 5,219 6,486 7,840 9,297 10,891 12,519 14,259 16,366 18,472 357 1,323 27,323 15,553
1,500 0.45 -1,286 89 1,464 2,839 4,214 5,541 6,904 8,360 9,931 11,602 13,299 15,239 17,510 19,781 -293 1,323 25,926 15,492
1,500 0.6 -552 708 2,026 3,227 4,487 5,823 7,209 8,771 10,833 12,672 14,686 17,030 19,374 21,719 -1,526 1,323 22,553 14,526
1,500 0.75 -378 879 2,194 3,392 4,648 5,980 7,356 8,921 10,986 12,804 14,851 17,207 19,562 21,917 -1,890 1,323 23,460 15,409
1,500 0.9 -204 1,050 2,362 3,557 4,809 6,137 7,504 9,071 11,138 12,935 15,015 17,383 19,749 22,115 -2,253 1,323 19,181 16,292
1,500 1.1 28 1,278 2,586 3,777 5,023 6,347 7,700 9,272 11,342 13,110 15,235 17,618 20,000 22,380 -2,737 1,323 13,476 17,469
1,500 1.3 260 1,506 2,810 3,996 5,238 6,556 7,896 9,472 11,545 13,285 15,455 17,853 20,250 22,644 -3,221 1,323 7,771 18,646
5,000 0 -1,447 -314 820 1,954 3,087 4,231 5,400 6,605 7,870 9,232 10,690 12,219 13,952 16,022 1,310 1,342 29,969 15,002
5,000 0.2 -1,873 -505 861 2,229 3,596 4,853 6,078 7,374 8,752 10,260 11,852 13,473 15,369 16,715 1,789 1,721 28,895 15,633
5,000 0.32 -1,714 -313 1,089 2,491 3,893 5,183 6,458 7,819 9,285 10,886 12,522 14,271 16,384 18,497 1,526 1,840 27,299 15,550
5,000 0.45 -1,344 37 1,419 2,801 4,183 5,518 6,888 8,351 9,930 11,607 13,311 15,259 17,536 19,814 1,273 2,037 25,902 15,493
5,000 0.6 -562 697 2,022 3,217 4,477 5,812 7,199 8,760 10,822 12,662 14,675 17,019 19,363 21,708 351 2,173 22,494 14,471
5,000 0.75 216 1,416 2,680 3,817 5,016 6,293 7,612 9,121 11,129 12,891 14,882 17,181 19,481 21,780 -1,323 2,097 23,438 15,409
5,000 0.9 887 2,137 3,472 4,636 5,887 7,226 8,640 10,209 11,977 13,768 15,763 18,105 20,448 22,790 -3,127 2,006 22,303 15,419
5,000 1.1 1,782 3,098 4,528 5,729 7,048 8,470 10,012 11,660 13,109 14,938 16,938 19,337 21,736 24,137 -5,532 2,150 20,790 15,432
5,000 1.3 2,678 4,060 5,584 6,821 8,208 9,714 11,383 13,110 14,240 16,108 18,113 20,569 23,025 25,483 -7,938 2,294 19,277 15,445
5,000 1.5 3,573 5,021 6,640 7,914 9,369 10,958 12,754 14,561 15,371 17,278 19,288 21,801 24,314 26,830 -10,343 2,438 17,764 15,459
10,000 0.2 -2,046 -622 800 2,222 3,645 4,902 6,105 7,395 8,758 10,272 11,844 13,438 15,424 17,412 1,132 1,624 31,603 17,702
10,000 0.32 -1,702 -299 1,104 2,506 3,909 5,203 6,483 7,848 9,315 10,913 12,555 14,326 16,457 18,589 1,524 1,855 27,269 15,547
10,000 0.45 -1,330 51 1,433 2,814 4,195 5,530 6,892 8,340 9,918 11,608 13,325 15,289 17,577 19,865 1,271 2,050 25,870 15,488
10,000 0.6 -546 714 2,034 3,236 4,496 5,831 7,206 8,762 10,852 12,692 14,697 17,004 19,310 21,616 348 2,184 22,464 14,473
10,000 0.75 60 1,387 2,714 3,873 5,115 6,448 7,867 9,429 11,188 12,962 14,894 17,151 19,408 21,664 -1,327 2,106 23,361 15,350
10,000 0.9 1,046 2,118 3,190 4,366 5,644 7,017 8,487 10,083 11,810 13,654 15,802 17,950 20,098 22,246 -3,127 2,014 22,267 15,417
10,000 1.1 2,535 3,626 4,710 5,882 7,158 8,550 10,044 11,763 13,696 15,677 17,658 19,639 21,620 23,602 -7,450 1,817 18,845 14,927
10,000 1.3 2,766 3,831 4,883 6,001 7,239 8,616 10,103 11,865 13,919 16,030 18,141 20,253 22,133 23,898 -8,735 1,518 15,159 12,516
10,000 1.5 2,489 3,620 4,729 5,884 7,173 8,629 10,197 12,093 14,359 16,690 19,022 21,355 23,687 26,019 -8,413 1,323 10,943 9,938
20,000 0.32 -1,653 -252 1,148 2,548 3,948 5,241 6,521 7,886 9,348 10,931 12,572 14,362 16,512 18,661 1,521 1,897 27,195 15,537
20,000 0.45 -1,280 98 1,475 2,853 4,231 5,563 6,927 8,376 9,943 11,620 13,349 15,334 17,632 19,930 1,267 2,088 25,793 15,475
20,000 0.6 -511 748 2,071 3,268 4,527 5,863 7,240 8,800 10,883 12,719 14,744 17,075 19,405 21,735 346 2,219 22,399 14,468
20,000 0.75 180 1,422 2,748 3,905 5,146 6,477 7,887 9,446 11,214 13,001 14,945 17,204 19,463 21,722 -1,328 2,128 23,293 15,350
84
20,000 0.9 581 2,164 3,231 4,407 5,682 7,042 8,502 10,114 11,850 13,696 15,828 17,961 20,094 22,226 -3,130 2,039 22,153 15,359
20,000 1.1 2,644 3,960 5,277 6,593 7,758 9,033 10,426 12,025 13,826 15,730 17,635 19,540 21,444 23,348 -7,399 1,855 19,459 15,419
20,000 1.3 2,819 4,052 5,285 6,518 7,612 8,840 10,206 11,824 13,708 15,721 17,735 19,748 21,242 22,476 -8,456 1,622 18,502 14,710
20,000 1.5 2,406 3,485 4,552 5,666 6,890 8,271 9,811 11,649 13,815 16,138 18,460 20,783 23,106 25,429 -8,158 1,415 14,426 11,790
20,000 1.6 1,585 2,730 3,875 5,020 6,393 7,718 9,284 11,166 13,297 15,745 18,193 20,641 23,089 25,536 -6,624 1,209 14,060 11,047
20,000 1.8 878 2,133 3,389 4,644 6,036 7,415 8,984 10,967 13,170 15,615 18,060 20,504 22,949 25,394 -4,683 1,323 11,658 9,161
25,000 0.32 -1,540 -146 1,247 2,641 4,034 5,320 6,593 7,951 9,406 10,982 12,616 14,401 16,542 18,684 156 1,323 27,157 15,542
25,000 0.45 -1,190 183 1,556 2,928 4,301 5,629 6,987 8,431 9,993 11,664 13,388 15,368 17,661 19,954 -483 1,323 25,754 15,479
25,000 0.6 -473 785 2,106 3,302 4,560 5,895 7,270 8,829 10,910 12,746 14,770 17,098 19,427 21,756 -1,694 1,323 22,353 14,460
25,000 0.75 241 1,386 2,683 3,851 5,105 6,448 7,868 9,440 11,219 13,017 14,974 17,245 19,516 21,787 -2,988 1,323 23,247 15,344
25,000 0.9 960 2,173 3,242 4,421 5,698 7,061 8,523 10,137 11,876 13,724 15,858 17,993 20,097 22,264 -4,907 1,323 22,111 15,357
25,000 1.1 417 1,936 3,456 4,976 6,419 7,972 9,650 11,523 13,594 15,795 17,997 20,199 22,401 24,602 -3,994 1,323 19,358 15,357
25,000 1.3 1,097 2,485 3,873 5,260 6,580 8,028 9,630 11,472 13,566 15,826 18,086 20,346 22,607 24,867 -5,229 1,323 19,052 15,129
25,000 1.5 2,312 3,386 4,453 5,566 6,779 8,142 9,688 11,516 13,654 15,992 18,330 20,669 23,007 25,345 -8,190 1,323 16,036 12,845
25,000 1.6 1,958 3,014 4,071 5,128 6,377 7,616 9,089 10,876 12,911 15,253 17,596 19,938 22,281 24,623 -7,402 1,323 16,032 12,133
25,000 1.8 1,012 2,210 3,408 4,607 5,923 7,245 8,755 10,678 12,821 15,200 17,579 19,958 22,337 24,715 -4,953 1,323 13,327 10,036
25,000 2 72 1,448 2,746 4,082 5,463 6,864 8,408 10,465 12,712 15,125 17,702 20,280 22,858 25,436 -3,115 1,323 11,048 8,207
30,000 0.45 -1,224 156 1,536 2,915 4,295 5,630 6,995 8,447 10,015 11,694 13,425 15,411 17,712 20,012 1,265 2,148 25,708 15,485
30,000 0.6 -452 808 2,128 3,326 4,586 5,921 7,298 8,859 10,931 12,747 14,818 17,242 19,667 22,092 340 2,274 22,309 14,465
30,000 0.75 230 1,472 2,801 3,956 5,198 6,529 7,935 9,491 11,246 13,044 15,013 17,273 20,220 21,793 -1,333 2,184 23,193 15,341
30,000 0.9 627 2,207 3,271 4,440 5,711 7,071 8,527 10,127 11,870 13,728 15,868 17,445 19,021 20,597 -3,134 2,081 22,061 15,358
30,000 1.1 2,642 3,845 5,068 6,292 7,515 8,846 10,308 11,957 13,797 15,796 17,795 19,794 21,793 23,792 -7,402 1,887 19,303 15,357
30,000 1.3 2,763 3,918 5,072 6,227 7,381 8,662 10,112 11,788 13,705 15,824 17,943 20,062 22,180 24,298 -8,405 1,662 18,993 15,124
30,000 1.5 2,359 3,412 4,464 5,561 6,747 8,080 9,616 11,421 13,515 15,854 18,194 20,532 22,871 25,211 -7,863 1,525 17,744 14,053
30,000 1.6 2,312 3,284 4,256 5,228 6,358 7,513 8,897 10,593 12,538 14,780 17,020 19,262 21,503 23,743 6,345 6,614 18,078 13,311
30,000 1.8 1,065 2,213 3,362 4,510 5,759 7,030 8,488 10,360 12,450 14,771 17,091 19,411 21,732 24,052 5,165 5,524 15,171 11,027
30,000 2 -64 1,287 2,561 3,873 5,229 6,606 8,124 10,161 12,384 14,771 17,323 19,875 22,427 24,979 4,032 4,434 12,796 9,091
30,000 2.2 -1,764 -27 1,709 3,445 5,193 6,564 7,650 9,878 12,181 14,453 16,726 18,999 21,272 23,544 2,682 3,344 10,313 7,184
36,089 0.6 -211 988 2,187 3,386 4,643 5,977 7,355 8,921 10,987 12,807 14,855 17,213 19,569 21,927 336 2,327 22,250 14,464
36,089 0.75 443 1,608 2,775 3,941 5,192 6,532 7,948 9,515 11,281 13,072 15,065 17,400 19,734 22,069 -1,334 2,229 23,132 15,353
36,089 0.9 952 2,232 3,298 4,471 5,745 7,107 8,563 10,157 11,894 13,771 15,925 17,524 19,124 20,723 -3,131 2,119 21,983 15,353
36,089 1.1 2,620 3,790 4,958 6,127 7,389 8,756 10,264 11,946 13,812 15,871 17,930 19,989 22,047 24,107 -7,401 1,918 19,228 15,363
36,089 1.3 2,740 3,847 4,953 6,059 7,249 8,562 10,062 11,773 13,709 15,891 18,073 20,255 22,437 24,619 -8,407 1,685 18,867 15,070
36,089 1.5 2,365 3,419 4,479 5,585 6,765 8,086 9,638 11,440 13,508 15,875 18,241 20,608 22,974 25,341 -7,821 1,554 18,134 14,370
36,089 1.6 2,563 3,512 4,461 5,410 6,476 7,610 8,965 10,630 12,545 14,743 16,940 19,138 21,336 23,534 7,799 7,301 19,642 14,524
36,089 1.8 1,602 2,634 3,667 4,699 5,811 6,968 8,305 10,060 12,032 14,226 16,419 18,613 20,808 23,003 6,531 6,142 17,495 12,347
36,089 2 388 1,613 2,763 3,950 5,180 6,432 7,823 9,737 11,838 14,101 16,525 18,950 21,375 23,799 5,416 5,060 14,759 10,116
36,089 2.2 -1,785 -155 1,475 3,104 4,755 6,191 7,523 9,762 12,112 14,495 16,878 19,261 21,644 24,027 4,578 4,121 12,280 8,168
36,089 2.4 -2,612 -803 1,006 2,814 4,620 5,976 6,987 9,287 11,622 13,862 15,903 17,945 19,987 22,028 3,405 3,183 9,958 6,422
43,000 0.75 517 1,682 2,848 4,014 5,265 6,605 8,022 9,592 11,361 13,154 15,150 17,493 19,837 22,181 -1,345 2,297 23,115 15,425
43,000 0.9 1,022 2,300 3,365 4,537 5,810 7,172 8,630 10,224 11,963 13,844 16,004 18,166 20,326 22,488 -3,151 2,178 21,970 15,420
43,000 1.1 2,676 3,845 5,014 6,184 7,446 8,813 10,323 12,008 13,877 15,939 18,002 20,065 22,127 24,189 -7,432 1,961 19,209 15,417
43,000 1.3 2,789 3,896 5,002 6,107 7,298 8,612 10,114 11,828 13,769 15,954 18,137 20,322 22,506 24,691 -845 9,348 18,843 15,114
43,000 1.5 2,402 3,456 4,515 5,621 6,802 8,123 9,679 11,485 13,559 15,927 18,295 20,663 23,032 25,400 -7,859 1,578 18,092 14,387
43,000 1.6 2,576 3,539 4,502 5,465 6,496 7,645 9,009 10,679 12,599 14,788 16,975 19,164 21,352 23,540 7,770 7,319 19,608 14,542
43,000 1.8 1,624 2,663 3,702 4,740 5,835 6,998 8,338 10,096 12,071 14,259 16,449 18,637 20,826 23,016 6,505 6,155 17,463 12,363
85
43,000 2 393 1,622 2,776 3,967 5,202 6,456 7,850 9,773 11,879 14,146 16,572 18,678 21,425 23,852 5,398 5,073 14,738 10,137
43,000 2.2 -887 500 1,889 3,277 4,694 6,083 7,575 9,705 11,987 14,375 16,762 19,150 21,537 23,925 4,562 4,131 12,259 8,186
43,000 2.4 -1,743 -237 1,268 2,773 4,295 5,740 7,250 9,511 11,888 14,318 16,748 19,178 21,608 24,038 3,796 3,284 9,934 6,431
50,000 0.75 589 1,759 2,927 4,096 5,351 6,695 8,115 9,688 11,461 13,257 15,256 17,603 19,950 22,298 -1,355 2,370 23,098 15,519
50,000 0.9 1,132 2,406 3,484 4,660 5,929 7,278 8,736 10,329 12,065 13,937 16,108 18,280 20,451 22,623 -3,153 2,283 21,954 15,511
50,000 1.1 1,080 2,449 3,819 5,190 6,627 8,186 9,891 11,769 13,831 16,076 18,320 20,566 22,811 25,056 -7,433 241 19,192 15,495
50,000 1.3 1,688 2,940 4,192 5,444 6,738 8,195 9,836 11,687 13,764 16,071 18,377 20,684 22,990 25,298 -8,469 465 18,829 15,174
50,000 1.5 2,571 3,612 4,657 5,763 6,886 8,211 9,760 11,555 13,619 15,959 18,299 20,639 22,980 25,320 -7,854 1,749 18,046 14,402
50,000 1.6 2,161 3,187 4,212 5,238 6,284 7,496 8,916 10,639 12,614 14,841 17,069 19,295 21,523 23,750 7,740 7,137 19,575 14,566
50,000 1.8 1,339 2,422 3,506 4,588 5,704 6,911 8,292 10,091 12,108 14,329 16,550 18,771 20,993 23,215 6,488 6,029 17,437 12,384
50,000 2 401 1,633 2,791 3,986 5,223 6,480 7,876 9,806 11,918 14,188 16,615 18,726 21,470 23,898 5,383 5,087 14,714 10,154
50,000 2.2 5 1,151 2,295 3,440 4,623 5,967 7,622 9,644 11,859 14,252 16,647 19,041 21,435 23,829 4,553 4,137 12,239 8,199
50,000 2.4 -443 681 1,804 2,928 4,086 5,546 7,487 9,632 11,977 14,524 17,272 19,617 22,768 25,517 3,787 3,294 9,919 6,445
55,000 0.9 1,180 2,460 3,527 4,701 5,976 7,340 8,801 10,404 12,148 14,022 16,200 18,378 20,556 22,733 -3,155 2,337 21,942 15,594
55,000 1.1 2,804 3,976 5,148 6,320 7,584 8,956 10,471 12,164 14,042 16,102 18,163 20,223 22,282 24,343 -7,434 2,087 19,185 15,562
55,000 1.3 2,888 3,997 5,106 6,215 7,407 8,725 10,231 11,955 13,905 16,089 18,273 20,457 22,642 22,480 -8,463 1,808 18,821 15,225
55,000 1.5 2,477 3,532 4,594 5,701 6,882 8,206 9,766 11,579 13,662 16,032 18,401 20,770 23,139 25,509 -7,872 1,645 18,037 14,446
55,000 1.6 2,636 3,600 4,565 5,529 6,562 7,713 9,078 10,755 12,685 14,878 17,071 19,263 21,456 23,649 7,730 7,368 19,547 14,585
55,000 1.8 1,666 2,708 3,748 4,790 5,885 7,050 8,390 10,157 12,142 14,343 16,544 18,745 20,946 23,146 6,465 6,191 17,407 12,393
55,000 2 409 1,643 2,805 4,003 5,242 6,500 7,895 9,831 11,952 14,242 16,698 19,154 21,610 24,067 5,371 5,101 14,697 10,168
55,000 2.2 22 1,170 2,316 3,464 4,642 5,983 7,638 9,686 11,949 14,419 16,888 19,358 21,827 24,297 4,539 4,153 12,224 8,211
55,000 2.4 -471 665 1,801 2,937 4,097 5,560 7,514 9,715 12,160 14,850 17,785 20,720 23,655 26,590 3,781 3,302 9,906 6,454
60,000 1.1 1,234 2,589 3,942 5,296 6,768 8,333 10,036 11,924 13,998 16,253 18,508 20,763 23,019 25,274 -7,433 406 19,173 15,654
60,000 1.3 1,826 3,056 4,286 5,516 6,873 8,315 9,951 11,811 13,898 16,224 18,550 20,876 22,245 23,135 -8,469 626 18,806 15,300
60,000 1.5 2,544 3,600 4,660 5,766 6,948 8,271 9,830 11,642 13,725 16,093 18,462 20,831 23,199 25,568 -7,873 1,713 18,028 14,500
60,000 1.6 2,274 3,285 4,297 5,308 6,388 7,585 8,998 10,722 12,699 14,939 17,179 19,418 21,658 23,898 7,729 7,227 19,539 14,634
60,000 1.8 1,414 2,492 3,569 4,646 5,779 6,979 8,355 10,158 12,180 14,417 16,653 18,890 21,127 23,364 6,460 6,091 17,394 12,424
60,000 2 449 1,682 2,842 4,038 5,276 6,532 7,925 9,859 11,980 14,267 16,722 19,177 21,632 24,087 5,362 5,132 14,671 10,178
60,000 2.2 1 1,155 2,309 3,463 4,649 5,997 7,658 9,714 11,984 14,460 16,937 19,413 21,890 24,366 4,527 4,152 12,208 8,221
60,000 2.4 -521 627 1,776 2,924 4,096 5,572 7,539 9,751 12,666 14,911 17,858 20,806 23,753 26,701 3,771 3,290 9,895 6,464
65,000 1.3 3,005 4,098 5,190 6,283 7,545 8,855 10,363 12,100 14,066 16,277 18,488 20,698 22,908 25,119 -8,470 1,939 18,803 15,396
65,000 1.5 2,576 3,637 4,700 5,808 6,989 8,312 9,876 11,700 13,796 16,164 18,533 20,901 23,269 25,636 -7,874 1,738 18,022 14,568
65,000 1.6 2,738 3,701 4,664 5,627 6,656 7,803 9,169 10,854 12,798 15,001 17,203 19,405 21,608 23,810 7,723 7,456 19,533 14,695
65,000 1.8 1,740 2,779 3,819 4,857 5,950 7,111 8,451 10,223 12,229 14,467 16,705 18,942 21,180 23,418 6,453 6,250 17,387 12,468
65,000 2 449 1,685 2,850 4,050 5,293 6,553 7,951 9,894 12,048 14,406 16,969 19,531 22,094 24,657 5,352 5,143 14,670 10,214
65,000 2.2 8 1,171 2,334 3,497 4,683 6,032 7,690 9,718 11,948 14,375 16,803 19,231 21,659 24,088 4,515 4,181 12,190 8,235
65,000 2.4 -510 648 1,805 2,963 4,125 5,595 7,545 9,691 12,029 14,558 17,281 20,003 22,725 25,446 3,761 3,321 9,876 6,470
70,000 1.6 2,801 3,764 4,726 5,688 6,718 7,864 9,229 10,910 12,846 15,066 17,284 19,504 21,722 23,942 7,571 7,455 19,436 14,680
70,000 1.8 1,749 2,797 3,846 4,894 5,995 7,161 8,506 10,283 12,281 14,575 16,870 19,164 21,459 23,753 6,378 6,267 17,338 12,485
70,000 2 443 1,687 2,866 4,078 5,327 6,589 7,990 9,940 12,076 14,523 17,172 19,820 22,469 25,118 5,348 5,174 14,669 10,255
70,000 2.2 24 1,189 2,355 3,522 4,707 6,052 7,714 9,775 12,051 14,608 17,165 19,721 22,278 24,834 4,515 4,205 12,191 8,266

86
Appendix B – Design Tools

Company Software Description Utilization

Parametric, Feature Based Two and
Solidworks Solidworks Three Dimensional Modeling and Aircraft Solid Model Generation
Computer Aided Drafting

Two Dimensional Computer Aided Three View and Inboard Drawing

Nemetschek VectorWorks
Drafting Generation

Spreadsheet Utilizing Visual Basic for Table Generation, Numerically

Microsoft Excel/Visual Basic
Complex Numerical Analysis Integrated Simulated Flight Missions

Main Report Body and Layout,

Microsoft Word English Written Language Editing Automated Table of Figures and
Tables

Figure, Picture, and Table Touch-up

Adobe Photoshop Image Editing
and Editing

Six Degree of Freedom Simulation

Mathematical Package with Built In
The Mathworks Matlab/Simulink Utilizing Non-Linear Aerodynamic
Graphical Simulation Tools
Models

Programing Language, C++ Compiler Creation of Simulation Customized

The Mathworks Simulink/C++
via Simulink Aerodynamic and Control Code

2D and 3D Graphics Application

Creation of Simulated Environment
Global Majic 3DLinx/OpenGL Programming Interface, OpenGL
Graphics for Pilot Feedback
Programming via 3dLinx

Calculates Static Stability, High Lift

Calculation of Aerodynamic and
PDAS Digital Datcom and Control, and Dynamic Derivative
Stability Characteristics for Simulator
Characteristics

Desktop Aerodynamic Characteristics of Multi-

Linair Aerodynamic Lift Analysis
Aerodynamics Element, Nonplanar Lifting Surfaces

Subsonic/Supersonic Panel Method

PDAS Panair Aerodynamic Lift Analysis
Based on Linear Aerodynamic Theory

Radar Cross Section (RCS) and

Amplitude and Phase Data for Both Radar Cross Section Analysis, Spyder
Surface Optics RadBase 2
Complex Targets and Cultural Plot Generation
Features
Character Animation, Next
Solid Model Mesh Optimization for
Discreet 3D Studio Max Generation Game Development, and
RCS Anaylsis
Visual Effects Production

87
References
1. “Ejection Systems,” www.bfg-aerospace.com, BF Goodrich Corporation, 2001.

2. “Military Standard – Aircrew Station Controls and Dispalys: Location, Arrangement, and Actuaion of, for
Fixed Wing Aircraft,” United States Department of Defense, 1991.

3. “Military Standard – Aircrew Station Geometry for Military Aircraft,” United States Department of Defense,
1976.

4. Abbott, I. H., Von Doenhoff, A. E. Theory of Wing Sections, Dover Publications, INC. New York 1959.

5. Bechdolt, R. W. Introduction to Aircraft Weight Engineering, SAWE Inc, Los Angeles, CA, 1996

6. Cummings D. Boeing Long Beach, Advanced Aircraft Design

7. Currey, N. S. Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles and Practices, AIAA, Washington DC, 1988.

8. Dillenius, M. F. E. Perkins, S. C., Nixon, D., “Pylon Carriage and Separation of Stores,” Tactical Missile
Aerodynamics: General Topics, Edited by Michael J. Hemsch, Vol. 141, Progress in Aeronautics and
Astronautics, AIAA, New York, 1992, pp. 575-666.

9. Goodall, J. C. Americas Stealth Fighters and Bombers, Motorbooks International Publishers and Wholesalers,
Osceola, WI, 1992

10. Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft 2000-2001, Janes Information Group Inc. Alexandria, Virginia, 2000

11. Jane’s Avionics 2001-2002. Janes Information Group Inc. Alexandria, Virginia, 2001

12. Lennox D. Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons Issue 35. Janes Information Group Inc. Alexandria, Virginia, 2000

13. Mattingly, Jack D., Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion, McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY, 1996.

14. MIL-A-8860B

15. MIL-A-8861B

16. MIL-E-5008B

17. MIL-STD-850B

18. NACA-TN-3182, “Manual of the ICAO Standard Atmosphere Calculations by the NACA”, NASA, 1976

19. Nicolai, L. M. Fundamentals of Aircraft Design, METS Inc., California, 1984.

20. Oates, G. C. Aircraft Propulsion Systems Technology and Design, AIAA, Washington DC, 1989.

21. Raymer, D. P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach – Third Edition, AIAA, Washington DC, 1999.

22. Roskam, J. Airplane Design, Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, DARcorporation, Kansas, 1997.

23. Roskam, J. Airplane Design, Part II: Preliminary Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration of the
Propulsion System, DARcorporation, Kansas, 1997.

24. Roskam, J. Airplane Design: Part III, Roskam Aviation And Engineering Corporation, Ottawa, KS, 1989, pp 1-
34.

88
25. Roskam, J. Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, DARcorporation, Kansas, 1979.

26. Wilcox, F. J., Baysal, O., Stallings, R. L., “Tangential, Semisubmerged, and Internal Store Carriage and
Separation,” Tactical Missile Aerodynamics: General Topics, Edited by Michael J. Hemsch, Vol. 141, Progress
in Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA, New York, 1992, pp. 667-721.

27. www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/f22/diagram05.jpg

28. www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/f22/diagram06.jpg

29. www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/f22/systems.htm

30. www.af.mil/news/efreedom/bombs.html

31. www.af.mil/news/factsheets/KC_10A_Extender.html

32. www.af.mil/news/factsheets/KC_135_stratotanker.html

33. www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/Mason_f/M96SC.html

34. www.arfl.afr.mil

35. www.batnet.com/mfwright/spacesuit.html

36. www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/HTML/FS-061-DFRC.html

37. www.eureka.findlay.co.uk/archive_features/Arch_Automotive/n-push/n-push.html

38. www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/lau-142.htm

39. www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/lau-142.htm

40. www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missle/amraam-5.jpg

41. www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-154.htm

42. www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/mast/annex_f/part06.htm

43. www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-fcas.htm

44. www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/vacuum.html

45. www.skf-linear.co.il

89