AER 814 Interim Report Assignment-Capstone

Interim Report Assignment (IRA)

Quazi Faisal (500359984)

Group B

AER 814 Aircraft Design Project

Supervised by: Dr. Zouheir Fawaz & Dr.

Joon Chung

DATE: February 23, 2015

By

| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

1

CONTENTS

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Progress Results ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Market Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Price ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Market Forecast ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Center of Gravity ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Landing Gear ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Need and Function for Landing Gear .................................................................................................... 9

Three types of loads experienced by landing gear ................................................................................. 9

Trade off analysis .................................................................................................................................. 9

Number of wheels per strut .................................................................................................................. 10

Static Loading ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Dynamic Loading ................................................................................................................................ 10

Ground Clearance and Landing Gear Height (from the ground to fuselage)....................................... 10

Overturn Angle .................................................................................................................................... 11

Tip back Angle .................................................................................................................................... 11

Tire selection ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Shock Absorber ................................................................................................................................... 12

Discussion Problems encountered ............................................................................................................ 13

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 14

References ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix A: Group Members ................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix B: Competitor Price Leverage ................................................................................................ 16


2

Appendix C: Operating empty weight ..................................................................................................... 17

Appendix D: Landing Gear Tradeoff Analysis ....................................................................................... 22

Figure 1: Preliminary Sketch (side view) ..................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Annual Industry net orders for the past years (3) .......................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Business jet Fleet Forecast (3) ....................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4: World GDP Growth (3) ................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 5: Number of billionaires growth (3) ............................................................................................... 7

Table 1: Group Member names .................................................................................................................. 16

Table 2: Competitor's sale price offering as leverage ................................................................................. 16

Table 3: Initial calculation for CG (Incorrect calculation due to wrong placement of components) (4) .... 19

Table 4: Latest center of gravity calculation with a correct static margin of 9.094331 (4) ........................ 22

Table 5: Pros and Cons of Tricycle Landing Gear ...................................................................................... 23

Table 6: Decision making Matrix (Pugh Matrix) for Tricycle vs Tailcycle vs. Bicycle ............................. 23

Table 7: Decision making Matrix (Pugh Matrix) for fixed vs. retractable Landing Gear .......................... 24


3

ABSTRACT

The project itself is very comprehensive and tests knowledge of an aerospace engineer in multiple

discipline. The amount of research involved may be overwhelming but it results in the development of

multi-tasking skill along with communication skills and problem solving skills. But what is learned from

it is an invaluable asset for future. The purpose of the project is to design a long range business aircraft

with given MR&O. The challenge is not designing an aircraft. The challenge is to design an aircraft with

such high requirements and objectives. My teams (Group B) main goal is to develop a luxurious aircraft

that has a range of 8000+ nmi. As a result the passenger capacity will be compromised and will be

occupied by bigger fuel volume. The work load is divided between 12 group members of the team. I

started with market analysis and did some research on pricing and forecast. Later, I started managing

more technical aspects of the project. I briefly worked on the fuselage and guided Mehmet to determine

the tail angle because that is related to the ground clearance calculations. The next portion encompassed

the stability of aircraft. I calculated the center of gravity (both aft and forward). And then, I moved to

landing gear calculations. This is a major aircraft component and requires a lot of other aircraft

parameters such as weight and center of gravity locations. There were many barriers involved throughout

the project but was resolved either by troubleshooting with a group member or a supervisor. Overall, this

project covered a lot of topics studied over the past 4 years that helped me develop all the key skills as an

engineer.


4

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to show project progression and discuss future planning and key

decisions that shall be made till the project completion. This interim report cover all the work performed

between the dates January 8 February 22, 2015.

To summarize the main scope of the project is to design a long range Business Jet Aircraft

targeted for domestic and international market. The design shall consider manufacturability and customer

demand (VOC voice of customer). The complete project description and MR & O can be found in the

blackboard (1). The length of the project is about three months and the deadline is set at April 2, 2015.

The project is being collaboratively worked upon by 12 group and the group member names can be found

in Group B (See names in Appendix A). Even though the work load is distributed by topic, circumstances

has led a person to work in multiple discipline. Thus, making Group B highly functional and the and

multi-disciplinary in all aspects.

As an OEM manufacturer Vogel Inc.

main aim is to design a luxurious business aircraft

with a range of 8000+ nmi at cruise speed and

fulfilling other customer requirements and

objectives as specified in the project description.

The preliminary design of the aircraft is shown in

Figure 1.

At an initial phase of the project, the group

brainstormed and research on different topics. The

topics were divided among the individuals. I

researched on Market in my first week. Deepinderal

Figure 1: Preliminary Sketch (side view)

Singh, another group member added some value to the market research as well. Two other team members

worked closely with a similar topic but their main focus was on prospective customers around the world.

On my second week I was assigned to work on the landing gear design. The remaining of the

weeks of January for me was spent on initial selection criteria and tradeoff analysis and understand the

core design, parts and materials that comprised of a landing gear. Researching on 5-6 different books plus

online on landing gear helped in understand great detail about landing gear and center of gravity

calculation of the aircraft. Landing gear calculations entirely depend on the weight of the aircraft and the

center of gravity. As a result, the landing gear calculated results changed as well. The value kept changing

several times a week. In the meantime, I started to work on the center of gravity.

After a week of research and calculations in February, I developed the aft and the forward center

of gravity and calculated the static margin. These parameters were crucial for landing gear calculations

including the location of the landing gears. As the weight and center of gravity became more stable, it

was possible to derive more detailed design and perform rigorous calculations. The remaining sections

will provide Progress Results, Problems encountered and changes in requirements (discussion) followed

by a conclusion section would provide a detail status of the project.


5

PROGRESS RESULTS

This section of the report consists of all the work done in detail, work in progress and the work

that shall be done in the following weeks.

MARKET ANALYSIS

At an initial phase of the project (first week), I was responsible for marketing research and

discussed results in the following weeks meeting. Marketing is to create value added products or services

and align them with customer needs by communication and building and maintaining customer

relationship. Marketing is more than just advertisement. It encompasses all aspects of the business

including but not limited to:

price

presentation or exhibition

distribution of product or service

company motto/slogan, vision and mission

promotion/advertisement (creating poster)

specials

naming product

market forecast1

prospective customers2

Moreover, a proper marketing campaign is crucial for sales success and sustenance of business in the

market today.

First, I outlined for all key aspects required for a successful marketing of the aircraft in design. Then, I

followed the key aspects mentioned in the bullet points above.

PRICE

The price of the aircraft will depend on 5 factors. They are listed as (2):

1. Cover Minimum Cost - Covers all the production cost including, manufacturing, labor burden

cost, materials and software costs. This is still work in progress and will be finalized towards the

end of the project. I have asked each individual to list the price along with the component they

select for the aircraft. E.g. Engine price is readily available.

2. Charge for the value brought to customers How important is a certain criteria to customers. The

most important factor for our pricing is very high range. The calculated range of the aircraft is

8000+ nmi.

1 Zehan Sadiq will be working on the portion 2 Zehan Sadiq and Gianni Monardo work on this portion


6

3. Leverage what competitors are charging Compare what the competitors are charging for their

business aircraft with similar specifications. Comparison with competitors in pricing is shown in

Appendix B: Price Comparison.

4. Consider the economic signal Setting the price too low can actually decrease the demand of the

product. This is because of the economic signal. Meaning the credibility and reputation of

company is undervalued.

5. Make the price relatable - At the end of the day, the sales process comes down to convincing a

customer that your product is worth the price youre asking. Sometimes all you have to do is put

the price in terms the customer will understand.

MARKET FORECAST

The research is ongoing and some of the interesting data found through research. The past years have

shown great demand for the business aircrafts in the market as shown below. The business was at its peak

before the recession period. 2009 shows big drop in the order

Figure 2: Annual Industry net orders for the past years (3)

The future of business aircraft is prosperous as shown in the graph below.

Figure 3: Business jet Fleet Forecast (3)


7

The next two graph complements the forecast above by representing the world GDP growth and the

number of billionaires.

Figure 4: World GDP Growth (3)

Figure 5: Number of billionaires growth (3)

The other key points such as presentation of the product, distribution, company slogan,

promotion, specials and naming the product are work in progress. Some points can only be worked on at

the end of the project.


8

CENTER OF GRAVITY

The calculating center of gravity of the aircraft is one of the most difficult aspects as is required a

lot of research to understand about how the center of gravity of the aircraft is placed in preliminary

design. After the whole group was divided into sub teams I was assigned to work in the structures team. I

worked with Zehan and Mehmet on the fuselage initially but Mehmet chose to work on the fuselage

design. Then, we worked together to develop component weights of the aircrafts. I used the weight value

to build an automated template that took account of all the changes in weight and design and

automatically showed the most updated CG values and static margin. The detail calculations with tables

are shown in the Appendix C Table 3 and 4. Table 3 was preliminary estimated calculation with incorrect

results and a static margin of -18%. The correct values are summarized below:

x (distance from the fuselage nose)

Forward center of gravity 12.03 m

Aft center of gravity 14.18 m

Static Margin 9.09 %

In general, the most aft center of gravity of an aircraft in between 5 10%. (4) & (5). The most forward

CG is the aircraft is fully loaded with fuel at MTOW. It is assumed to be 30% of MAC for now (4). It

will slightly change when actual fuel tanks are added with the fuel in the wings. But the change will not

make a big impacts on other results based on this.

In the following weeks, I will be working closely with the interior team determining the center of

gravity of each internal components, i.e. passenger seat, lavatory, kitchen and miscellaneous. This will

validate the forward CG location of the aircraft. So far, I have discussed only about the CG in the

longitudinal axis. The center of gravity of the aircraft is laterally is at symmetrical for the operating empty

aircraft but will change after the interior is added to the aircraft. This will be part of what I will be

working on the next few weeks. Additionally, the vertical center of gravity will shift down as I calculate

the sum of the components and will be the first thing to work on in the following week.


9

LANDING GEAR

Aircraft landing gear supports the entire weight of an aircraft during landing and ground

operations. They are attached to primary structural members of the aircraft. The type of gear depends on

the aircraft design and its intended use. Most landing gear have wheels to facilitate operation to and from

hard surfaces, such as airport runways. Regardless of the type of landing gear utilized, shock absorbing

equipment, brakes, retraction mechanisms, controls, warning devices, cowling, fairings, and structural

members necessary to attach the gear to the aircraft are considered parts of the landing gear system (6).

NEED AND FUNCTION FOR LANDING GEAR

Five reasons for incorporating landing gear in airplanes (7):

1. To absorb landing and taxiing shock

2. To provide ability for ground maneuver

3. To provide for braking capability

4. To allow for airplane towing

5. To protect the ground surface

THREE TYPES OF LOADS EXPERIENCED BY LANDING GEAR

1. Vertical loads: touch down rates and taxiing over rough surface

2. Longitudinal loads: due spin up loads, braking loads

3. Lateral loads: crabbed landings and cross-wind taxiing and ground turing

TRADE OFF ANALYSIS

Decision Matrix chart and trade off analysis was performed to determine the type of landing gear A

thorough tradeoff analysis is provided in Appendix D: Table 5, 6 & 7. Tradeoff analysis in Appendix D:

Table 5 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Tricycle landing gear. Table 6 shows comparison

between different landing gear types (tricycle, tail wheel and bicycle). Table 7 shows the consideration

taken into account to decide between a retractable and fixed landing gear.


10

NUMBER OF WHEELS PER STRUT

Number of main wheels/ strut Weight (lbs.)

1 About 50,000

2 50,000 250,000

4-6 200,000 400,000

The chart above shows there can be 1 or 2 wheels per strut. Later, when performing tire calculations and

tire pressure, it was determined to use 2 wheels per strut. Having one tire doesnt let the OEM select tires

off the shelf. Also, the pressure per tire will be high and having additional wheel increases safety. If one

of the tires burst the other tire may still be functional in an incident. (4)

STATIC LOADING

Weight (N) Weight (N) FAR 25 (Add 7% margin)

F_NLG (min) 30705 32854 static load (8)

F_NLG (max) 117590 125821 static load (8)

F_MLG (max) 452404 484072 static load (8)

F_MLG (min) 365519 391106 static load (8)

DYNAMIC LOADING

Weight (N) (8) Weight (N) FAR 25 (Add 7% margin) (4)

F_NLG 130709.8396 139859.5284

F_NLG 156803 167779

F_MLG 504688 540016

GROUND CLEARANCE AND LANDING GEAR HEIGHT (FROM THE GROUND TO FUSELAGE)

H_c 0.3 m minimum clearance between the fuselage and the ground

B 20.884 m Length of fuselage minus tail = length of cockpit plus cabin

A 14.94221627 m Length of MLG from fuselage nose


11

AB 5.942 m difference between A & B

alpha_TO 12 deg maximum takeoff/landing angle

H_f_partial 1.26305706 m without considering clearance height at takeoff/landing

H_f_clearance 0.3067021785 m additional landing gear length due to clearance height

H_f 1.569759238 m MLG Height

alpha_c 14.79781863 deg Clearance angle is not = tipback angle

The main results from the table above shows the Main Landing gear height is 1.57 m tall and the

Clearance angle during takeoff or landing is required to be a minimum of 14. 8 degrees.

OVERTURN ANGLE

d_fuselage 3 m fuselage diameter

CG location z-axis 0.103 m distance of CG in vertical axis above centreline obtained from catia

H_cg 3.172759238 m height from landing gear from the ground to the aircraft CG

(l_t)/(2l_wb) 0.203 - average ratio of wheel track over wheel base for commercial operational aircrafts

l_t 4.853231846 m Wheel track length

phi_OT 37.40978074 deg overturn angle (25 < phi_ot < 40 deg)

The main results from the table above shows the wheel track distance to be 4.8 m wide and overturn angle

is 37.4 degrees.

Additionally the wheel base (distance between the nose gear and main gear longitudinally) is

calculated to be 11.95 m. The detail is shown in the table below.

x_NLG 2.988443255 m distance from fuselage nose to the nose gear

x_MLG 14.94221627 m distance from fuselage nose to the main gear

l_wb (wheelbase) 11.95377302 m distance between the nose gear and main gear

TIP BACK ANGLE

Tip back angle = 13.46 degrees.


12

The value above is incorrect and must be between 15 25 degrees for general aircraft according to FAR

Regulations (5). I will be working to fix this in the following week. But there is a compromise when

fixing the tib back angle. Either the height of the landing gear has to be reduced that may result in ground

clearance objections or the distance between the main landing gear and the aft CG has to be reduced. This

will compromise the stability performance as a result of reduced static margin.

TIRE SELECTION

MLG

Diameter 42.69067951

Width 12.62859355

NLG

Diameter 37.88493483

Width 11.39517099

This was the initial calculation for the tires. Then Zehan assisted me to rectify the calculation and find the

tire off the shelf from GOODYEAR Tire Catalogue.

The final tires to be used in the design is:

GOODYEAR LANDING GEAR

MLG 39x13 24 (P/N 393F53-1)

NLG 30x8.8 16 (P/N 309F62G1)

It meets our requirement for max rated load and also satisfies our max loaded speed. Also, type VII is the

ideal type of tire used on jets due to its tolerance for extra high pressure.

SHOCK ABSORBER

Shock absorber current calculations are done by Zehan Sadiq (a group member) as placed in Appendix E.

The values for shock absorber is only at preliminary stage and I look forward to work with Zehan and

assist her completing the calculations for shock absorber of the aircraft. For a complete landing gear

design the list of things that are done and needed to be done in the following weeks are shown below:

All geometric clearance and tip-over criteria are satisfied

The proper tire size

shock absorber stroke and strut diameter are work in progress

The need for drag and side braces have been satisfied

The drag and side braces layout and design to be approached once the shock absorber and strut

diameter is calculated

Any spray caused by the tires (particularly the nose gear) must not enter the engine inlets. The

spray (=FOD). The angle of spray shall be calculated after the final design


13

The gear can retract without interfering with other components of the airplane. The tire clearance

must be met. This is work in progress with Gianni (a group member)

The retraction kinematics is feasible and does not require excessive actuator forces to retract. The

actuator is yet to be selected.

From the task list above, about 50% of the work is left including CAD design for landing gears, which is

to be approached in the following weeks by me. Zehan (group member) will be assisting me occasionally

if required.

DISCUSSION PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

Throughout the project there were many barriers and roadblocks that slowed down the work

progress at certain times i.e. waiting for a value that has to be obtained from team members in other sub-

team. Sometimes the pressure involved pushing each other to obtain a certain value. This being said, a lot

was accomplished in a short period of time. In the first portion of my task, I was involved in marketing

and sections such as pricing, promotion, advertising (poster) are to be done at the end. Some portion,

company motto, vision, mission, aircraft are some of the things that will be approached over the next few

weeks. The reason for delaying the latter part is because of deep involvement in other aspects of the

project such as landing gear and center of gravity calculations.

The center of gravity calculation required the weight of each and every component that goes on

the aircraft requires a lot of patience and speculations in the preliminary calculations. Even when the

weight was obtained, the location of the components is critical to center of gravity and have caused delays

for a few days.

The landing gear calculations depend highly on the center of gravity. As center of gravity

calculations are converging and becoming more stable, the landing gear parameters are becoming more

comprehensible. The most recent obstacle in the landing gear design till today is the tip back angle. The

tip back angle results in 13.46 degrees, which is not between 15 < tib-back angle < 25 degrees as given

for general aircrafts (8) & (4). To fix this issue, I have to either reduce the distance between the aft-CG

and MLG or height of the MLG. Reducing the first one will result in reduction of static margin reducing

the stability and the latter will violate the ground clearance of the aircraft. In the following week, I will

seek advice from the supervisors (Dr. Fawaz & Dr. Chung) for a resolution.


14

CONCLUSION

This project is utilizes all the knowledge obtained in the in the past 4 years of engineering.

Through this project and my past IIP experience, I have developed great deal of multitasking and multi-

disciplinary functionality. This results shown in the previous sections great progress in the aspects

covered in this report. At times, there were many roadblocks that might have slowed down the project but

the time is compensated through working overtime and attaining results on time as other group members

highly depend on the results. Moreover, the future of landing gear design will be completed ahead of time

and I hope to take part in other areas of the overall project utilizing and expanding my ever-growing

knowledge.


15

REFERENCES

1. Dr. Zouheir Fawaz, Dr. Joon Chung. AER-814-Aircraft Design Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION.

Ryerson Portal, Course Organization, AER 8114-Aircraft Design Project. [Online] 2 22, 2015.

2. Brody, Hartley. The 5 Essential Factors to Determine Your Product's Price. Hartley Brody. [Online]

[Cited: 2 22, 2015.] https://blog.hartleybrody.com/the-5-essential-factors-to-determine-your-products-

price/.

3. BOMBARDIER.com. BBA Market Forecast 2014-2033. Market Forecast. [Online] Bombardier

Aerospace, 7 16, 2014. [Cited: 2 22, 2015.]

http://businessaircraft.bombardier.com/content/dam/bombardier/en/ownership/whitepapers/BBA%20Mar

ketForecast%202014.pdf.

4. Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A conceptual Approach. Second Edition. Washington, DC :

AIAA, 1992. p. 417.

5. Sforza, Pasquale. Commercial Airplane Design Principles. [ed.] Pasquale, Heinemann, Butterworth

Sforza. 1st Edition. Boston : ELSEVIER, 2014. p. 229. ISBN 9780124199538.

6. Federal Aviation Administration. Landing Gear FAR Regulations. Federal Aviation Regulations.

[Online] [Cited: 2 23, 2015.]

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/am

a_Ch13.pdf.

7. Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design. Third Edition. Lawrence : DARcorportation, 2000. pp. 3-123. Vol. IV.

8. Sadraey, Mohammad H. Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach. First Edition. s.l. : John

Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2013.

9. Florida Center of Instrumental Technology. Center of Gravity. ClipArt ETC. [Online] 2 22, 2015.

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/36300/36326/centergrav_36326.htm.

10. GANZODA.COM. Ganzoda 3D Models. [Online] 2 22, 2015. http://www.gandoza.com/3d-

aircraft/3d-military-models/landing-gear-3d-model.html.


16

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GROUP MEMBERS

GROUP B

Name Position

Derek Stanley Team Lead

Alton Chi-Hin Yeung Member

Gianni Monardo Member

Mahamudar Kalam Member

Ryan Langrana Member

Zehan Sadiq Member

Mehmet Tekin Member

Vibhor Chhabra Member

Ajandan Bagawan Member

Quazi Faisal Member

Issac Junming Ip Member

Deepinderal Singh Ujial Member Table 1: Group Member names

APPENDIX B: COMPETITOR PRICE LEVERAGE

Aircraft Name Sale Price in million ($)

Bombardier Global 8000 65

Gulfstream G650 64.5

Sukhoi Superjet 100 36.3

Gulfstream G550 53.5

Falcon 8X 57

Embraer Lineage 1000 49.25 Table 2: Competitor's sale price offering as leverage


17

APPENDIX C: OPERATING EMPTY WEIGHT

lb NOTES

Metric

(kg)

x

(distanc

e from

fuselage

nose)

(m)

Sum of

Moment

s (kg.m)

W_wing 10347.78 4693.67 12.393

58166.65

441

W_horizontal_tail 535.17 242.75 32.108

7794.100

056

W_vertical_tail 1114.28 505.43 29.281

14799.20

462

W_fuselage 11318.29

5133.89 13.068

67089.64

884

W_mainlandinggear 3596.42

Calculation verified(MLG weight is

based on MTOW) 1631.31

17.64078

053

28777.50

373

W_noselandinggear 689.66

Calculation verified(NLG weight is


3.239472

488

1013.384

777

W_nacellegroup 2349.76 1065.83

23.90754

604

25481.41

811

W_enginecontrols 88.44 40.11

23.90754

604

959.0330

423

W_starter(pneumatic) 145.26 65.89

23.90754

604

1575.185

009

W_fuelsystem 924.84 CHECK B60 419.50 0

W_flightcontrols 1450.74 658.04

14.34452

762

9439.309

031

W_APUinstalled 231.00 2.2*W_APUuninstalled 104.78

26.89598

929

2818.155

088


18

W_instruments 235.06 106.62

2.988443

255

318.6374

872

W_hydraulics 276.76 125.54

26.89598

929

3376.408

828

W_electrical 1507.63 missing B29 683.85

2.988443

255

2043.639

933

W_avionics 2141.36

does not include cargo handling gear

or seats 971.30

2.988443

255

2902.688

032

W_furnishings 0.00 cargo=0 0.00 0

W_airconditioning 883.85 400.91 0

W_anti-ice group 217.14 98.49 0

W_handlinggear 32.57 14.77 0

W_militarycargohandli

ngsystem 0.00 cargo=0 0.00

0

W_engine 9024.10 4093.26

23.90754

604

97859.82

098

Total OE Weight 47110.10 Total

21368.7

6

Furnishings Overall total

Flight deck seats 109.98

PAX seats 384.36

Flight attend seats 32.03

Lavatories and water

provis 106.26

Food Provis 91.84

O2 system 46.85

#Passengers 12.00

Int. Pressure 10.90


19

Cabin Windows 130.88

Baggage handling prov

2.407245

659

Luxury Factor 2

Total Furnishing

1809.220

392 lb 820.65

OVERALL TOTAL

22189.4

1

Aircraft Overall CG

15.18172

961

324414.7

92

STATIC MARGIN

-

18.89157

784 %

Table 3: Initial calculation for CG (Incorrect calculation due to wrong placement of components) (4)


20

lb NOTES

Metric

(kg)

x

(distanc

e from

fuselage

nose)

(m)

Sum of

Moment

s (kg.m)

W_wing 10347.78 4693.67 12.750

59841.93

49

W_horizontal_tail 535.17 242.75 31.572

7664.053

72

W_vertical_tail 1114.28 505.43 28.745

14528.43

709

W_fuselage 11318.29

5133.89 13.068

67089.64

884

W_mainlandinggear 3596.42

Calculation verified(MLG weight is


14.94221

627

24375.32

079

W_noselandinggear 689.66

Calculation verified(NLG weight is


2.988443

255

934.8568

055

W_nacellegroup 2349.76 1065.83

20.91910

278

22296.24

085

W_enginecontrols 88.44 40.11

20.91910

278

839.1539

12

W_starter(pneumatic) 145.26 65.89

20.91910

278

1378.286

883

W_fuelsystem 924.84 CHECK B60 419.50 0

W_flightcontrols 1450.74 658.04 10.679

7027.063

147

W_APUinstalled 231.00 2.2*W_APUuninstalled 104.78

26.89598

929

2818.155

088

W_instruments 235.06 106.62

2.988443

255

318.6374

872


21

W_hydraulics 276.76 125.54

26.89598

929

3376.408

828

W_electrical 1507.63 missing B29 683.85

2.988443

255

2043.639

933

W_avionics 2141.36

does not include cargo handling gear

or seats 971.30

2.988443

255

2902.688

032

W_furnishings 0.00 cargo=0 0.00 0

W_airconditioning 883.85 400.91 0

W_anti-ice group 217.14 98.49 0

W_handlinggear 32.57 14.77 0

W_militarycargohandli

ngsystem 0.00 cargo=0 0.00

0

W_engine 9024.10 4093.26

20.91910

278

85627.34

336

Total

21368.7

6

Furnishings Overall total

Flight deck seats 109.98

PAX seats 384.36

Flight attend seats 32.03

Lavatories and water

provis 106.26

Food Provis 91.84

O2 system 46.85

#Passengers 12.00

Int. Pressure 10.90

Cabin Windows 130.88


22

Baggage handling prov

2.407245

659

Luxury Factor 2

Total Furnishing

1809.220

392 lb 820.65

OVERALL TOTAL

22189.4

1

Aircraft Overall CG

14.18247

095

303061.8

697

STATIC MARGIN

9.094331

364 %

Table 4: Latest center of gravity calculation with a correct static margin of 9.094331 (4)

APPENDIX D: LANDING GEAR TRADEOFF ANALYSIS

TRADE OFF ANALYSIS (Pros and Cons of Tricycle Landing Gear)

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Dynamically stable on ground so it it easy to manuever Requires a minimum airsopeed before the

airplane can rotate for takeoff

Good ground control in crosswinds Higher strucutralweight due to three highly

loaded landing gear legs

Floor Deck Angle on the ground is closer to being

horizontal making entry passenger entry and exit easier

More costly for the same reason

Propeller better projected from ground strike Higher cruise drag for the same reason

Hard braking on the plane cannot cause the airplane to

nose over

Three landing legs make ground ride worse

in uneven surface

Airplane pitches nose-down upon main gear touch

down, reducing lift

Subject to nose wheel shimmy that can be

very damaging

Less bounce after touch down Nosewheel shimmy more likely a design

problem than on tail wheel

Good acceleration during T-O due to lower AOA Higher dynamic ground loads due to

heavier load on nose gear than on a tail

wheel

Shorter wheelbase permits light turning radius More complex streering mechanism

Easier to land, thus, more forgiving for inexperienced

pilots

Nose wheel retracting can be often

challenging due to often limited space


23

Low aero-drag due to low AOA attitude

during landing requires more braking effort

Heavier braking unloads main wheels and

may cause skidding Table 5: Pros and Cons of Tricycle Landing Gear

Tricycle vs. Bicycle vs. Tailwheel

Imp

ort

ance

/ W

eig

hts

Bas

elin

e-0

Tri

cycl

e

(Vo

gel

) B

icy

cle

Tai

lwhee

l

Qu

adri

cycl

e

Mu

ltib

og

ey

Co

nce

pt

6

Ground Loop 3 S + S - + +

Visibility over nose 4 S + + - + +

Floor attitude on the ground 5 S + S - - -

Weight 8 S S - + - -

Streering after touchdown 5 S + + - - +

Streering while taxiing 4 S + + - - +

Take-off rotation 3 S + - + - +

Take-off procedure 3 S + + - - -

Conventional businessjet design 5 S + - - - -

Overall stability and safety and comfort 10 S + - - + +

Sum of Positives ( + ) 0 9 4 2 3 6 0

Sum of Negatives ( - ) 0 0 4 8 7 4 0

Sum of Sames ( S ) 10 1 2 0 0 0 0

Weighted Sum of Positives 0 42 16 11 17 29 0

Weighted Sum of Negatives 0 0 26 39 33 21 0 Table 6: Decision making Matrix (Pugh Matrix) for Tricycle vs Tailcycle vs. Bicycle


24

Fixed vs Retractable Landing Gears

Imp

ort

ance

/ W

eig

hts

Bas

elin

e

(V0

gel

) F

ixed

Ret

ract

able

Aerodynamic Drag 10 S - +

Weight 5 S + -

Complexity & Cost 3 S + -

Maintenance Cost 3 S + -

Design Process complexity 2 S

Weather wear and tear 2 S - +

Aesthetic 1 S - +

Sum of Positives ( + ) 0 3 3

Sum of Negatives ( - ) 0 3 3

Sum of Sames ( S ) 7 0 0

Weighted Sum of Positives 0 11 13

Weighted Sum of Negatives 0 13 11 Table 7: Decision making Matrix (Pugh Matrix) for fixed vs. retractable Landing Gear

Date post:	16-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	naveed-faisal
View:	219 times
Download:	6 times

AER 814 Interim Report Assignment-Capstone

Documents