AircrafDESIGN by S

Preliminary design and sizing of a
large civilian aircraft

(based on the mission profile of Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner)
By Sergejs Svircenkovs
DEN6305 Aircraft Design
2014/15
Abstract
Design of the aircraft is a very complicated process involving several
different areas such as aerodynamics, propulsion, stability, structural analysis
etc, put together in order to achieve intended design goal and be sellable and
attractive to customers in future.
Needless to say that, the developing aircraft must satisfy all Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), which is a list of defined performance characteristics and are
primary constraints in the preliminary sizing. Based on the FAR 25
(Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airlines) regulation, the following
work aims to show the preliminary sizing of the recently developed Boeing
787-8 Dream Liner. As that is a preliminary sizing, the analysis required a
number of estimation, which were based on the given tables of same category
aircraft, and are included in the appendix.
Upon the completed preliminary analysis and sensitivity analysis, collected
data and results were summarised in the result section. The discussion section
briefly states further related work and latter stages of the design process.
Contents
Preliminary design and sizing of a large civilian aircraft ...........................1
Abstract .......................................................................................................2
Contents .....................................................................................................3
List of Tables ...............................................................................................5
List of Figures .............................................................................................6
List of symbols ............................................................................................7
1.Preliminary Sizing .................................................................................8
1.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................8
1.1. Report Structure .......................................................................................8
1.2. Mission overview.....................................................................................8
1.3. Initial Calculations ...................................................................................9
1.4. Empty Weight Estimation ......................................................................10
1.5. Landing Weight Estimation ...................................................................10
1.6. Fuel Weight Fractions ............................................................................11
2. Sensitivity Analysis ...........................................................................13

2.1. Sensitivity to empty weight ...................................................................13
2.2. Sensitivity to payload ............................................................................13
2.3. Sensitivity to range ................................................................................13
2.4. Sensitivity to endurance .........................................................................13
2.5. Sensitivity to speed ................................................................................13
2.6. Sensitivity to specific fuel consumption ................................................13
2.7. Sensitivity to lift to drag ratio ................................................................14
3. Estimation of Wing Parameters ......................................................15

3.1. Take-off Distance Requirements ..........................................................15
3.2. Landing Distance Requirements ..........................................................16
3.3. Drag Polar and FAR 25 requirements ....................................................16
3.4. Stall Speed Sizing .................................................................................17
3.5. Wing sweep ...........................................................................................18
3.7. Wing width.............................................................................................18
2
4. Climb Sizing ......................................................................................19

4.1. Take - off Climb Sizing .........................................................................19
4.2. Normal Climb .......................................................................................20
4.3. Landing Climb Sizing ............................................................................20
4.4. Direct Climb Sizing ...............................................................................21
5. Cruise Speed Sizing ..........................................................................22

6. Discussion ..........................................................................................23
6.1. Limitations and Further Work ................................................................23
7.
REFERENCES ................................................................................24
8. Appendix ...........................................................................................25
Preliminary sizing
Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner
List of Tables
1. Table 1.3.1 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Climb
2. Table 1.3.2 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Level Flight
3. Table 1.3.3 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Descent
4. Table 1.3.4 Detailed Climb and Descent Profile
5. Table 1.6.1 Suggested and Estimated Mission Fuel Ratios
6. Table 2.1 summary of parameters used in sensitivity analysis
7. Table 3.1.1 Summary of maximum lift coefficients
8. Table 3.1.2 Take-off parameters
9. Table 3.2.1 Landing Wing Loading
10. Table 3.3.1 Landing Wing Loading
11. Table 3.3.2 Drag Coefficient Constants
12. Table 3.4.1 Take-off Stall Speed / kts sigma = 1
13. Table 3.4.2 Cruise Stall Speed / kts sigma = 0.735 (35,000ft)
14. Table 3.4.3 Landing Stall Speed / kts sigma = 1
15. Table 4.1.1 Initial Take - off Climb Power to Weight Ratios
16. Table 4.1.2 Take - off Climb Power to Weight Ratios
17. Table 4.2.1 Normal Climb Power to Weight Ratios
18. Table 4.3.1 Approach Climb Power to Weight Ratios
19. Table 4.3.2 Balked Landing Climb Power to Weight Ratios
20. Table 5.1 Thrust to Weight Ratios for Cruise
21. Table 8.01 Standar Atmosphere
22. Table 8.02 Preliminary Weight Characteristics
23. Table 8.03 Preliminary Fuel System
24. Table 8.04 Suggested Mission Fuel Fractions
25. Table 8.05 Suggested Coefficient of Lift and Drag
26. Table 8.06 Suggested Cruise Performance Chart
27. Table 8.07 Suggested Loiter Data Performance Chart
28. Table 8.08 Equivalent skin friction coefficient values for different aircraft categories
29. Table 8.09 Drag Correction Coefficients
Preliminary sizing
List of Figures
1. Figure 1.2.1 Mission Profile
2. Figure 3.1.1 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading for Take-off
3. Figure 3.1.2 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading for Landing
4. Figure 3.2.1 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading
5. Figure 4.1.1 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading for Initial Climb
6. Figure 4.1.2 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading for Climb
7. Figure 4.2.1 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading for Normal Climb
8. Figure 4.3.1 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading for Approach
9. Figure 4.3.2 Thrust to Weight Ratio versus Wing Loading for Balked Landing
Preliminary sizing
List of symbols
-
WTO - Take-off weight

Empty weight - WE
Weight of all trapped, unusable fuel - WFTO
Manufacturers empty weight - WME
Weight of the crew - WCREW
Fixed equipment weight such as: avionics, airconditioning, radars, etc - WFIXED
Mission fuel weight - WF
Reserve fuel weight - WFres
Specific fuel consumption - cj
Fuel fractions
- Taxi - w1
- Take-off -w2
- Climb to 1500 ft -w3
- Climb to 10000 ft - w4
- Climb to cruise (35000 ft) - w5
- Descent to loiter (10000 ft) - w10
- Reserve Climb to 20000 ft - w11
- Reserve Descent to 10000 ft - w12
- Descent - w13,14,15
- Landing, Taxi and Shut down - w16
Endurance - E
Range - R
Cruise speed - Vcruise
Lift-drag ratio - L/D
Fuel mass flow rate - f
Climb speed - Vclimb
Stall speed - Vs
- Clean configuration - (Vs)CLEAN
- Climb configuration - (Vs)CLIMB
- Descent configuration - (Vs)D
- Landing configuration - (Vs)L
Take-off field length - SFL
Landing field length - SL
Climb rate - RC
Centre of gravity (CG)
Lift coefficient - CL
Clean configuration - (CL)CLEAN

Climb configuration - (CL)CLIMB
Descent configuration - (CL)DESCENT
Landing configuration - (CL)LANDING
Bank angle -
Wing area - SWING
Climb gradient - CGR
Climb gradient parameter - CGRP
Time to
- Climb to 1500 ft - tCLIMB1500
- Climb to 10000 ft - tCLIMB10000
- Climb to cruise (35000 ft) - tCLIMBCRUISE
- Descent to loiter (10000 ft) - tCLIMBLOITER
- Reserve Climb to 20000 ft - tCLIMBRES
- Reserve Descent to 10000 ft - tDESCENTRES
- Descent - tDESCENT
Oswalds efficiency - e
Drag coefficient - CD
- Clean configuration - (CD)CLEAN
- Climb configuration - (CD)CLIMB
- Descent configuration - (CD)DECSENT
- Landing configuration - (CD)LANDING
Atmospheric Parameters
- Temperature - T
- Pressure - P
- Density -
Angle of attack -
Engine thrust - T
Wing loading - W/S
- Take-off - (W/S)TO
- Climb - (W/S)CLIMB
- Cruise - (W/S)CRUISE
- Descent - (W/S)DESCENT
- Landing - (W/S)L
Load Factor - N
Preliminary sizing

For that reason, a clear margin should be drawn, to
minimise unexpected aspects in all design areas.
Therefore it common to observe, that the new aircraft in
a category is very similar to a previous one.
1.Preliminary Sizing
1.1. Report Structure

To proceed with the first stages of the aircraft design,
it is important to establish initial constraint envelope for
the proposed aircraft, based on the typical mission
profile, Flight Aviation Regulation (FAR), available
material, capacity etc. Ideally, after all requirements are
meet, the design should offer an advantage in some of
the parameters, comparing to alternative aircraft designs
in order to be attractive for potential buyers.
In the following work only the mission layout and
FAR regulations were two major constraints in the
numerically evaluations. The analysis stages included
weight sizing, sensitivity analysis, landing and take-off
estimations and some of the manoeuvring margin
estimations.
To avoid ambiguity, all values which were required
for calculations were given along the analysis, however
should the reader be interested in original sources, the
additional information about the tables and charts used
was provided in the appendix section.
Apart from that an overview table of all collected
results was added in the beginning of the discussion
section. The discussion on the other hand, featured
limitations of the represented methods and and suggested
their applicability with respect to the further related
work.
1.1. Introduction
In general to arrive at the aircraft preliminary
parameters two approaches could be used.
Firstly, the bottom up methodology is based on some
initially known information of the proposed aircraft
which may concern power plant, available materials, or
other specific part of an airplane, which will be used in
its final appearance. In such way the subsequent design
process is directly related to this predefined part and is
hugely dependant on it. However it is not always the
case, when specific engine or a wing geometry is
initially supplied, instead it is far more common to
observe when some existing part is shaped or adjust to a
required set of parameters, which could be established
by a reverse design process.[2][3]
In contrast, the top down method implies that
initially there is a given set of requirements, which the
aircraft must meet, wherein all the other aircraft parts
are left to be chosen based on the estimated aircraft
design target, mission specification, an aircraft layout,
etc. Although the method does not restrict an aircraft
designer in a conceptual point of view, its drawback is
an uprising tendency for relatively wide spread in the
required component parameters, making the selection of
a particular wing shape and/or power plant type and/or
its arrangement an open question. [2][4]
Consequently, along the design process both
methods are usually implemented at the same time. In
real life, among the aircraft intrinsic characteristics, the
aspects of its development and manufacturing costs turn
to be of the same importance. For an aircraft
manufacturer the former type of the cost features much
higher degree of uncertainty, as it is unknown how
much of the budget will it take. More importantly, it
should be noted, that during the preliminary estimations
of the aircrafts design, one could expect an advances in
both materials and technology, which may completely
reshape calculated design envelope or even the whole
aircraft concept.[6]
1.2. Mission overview

The mission layout used for the following analysis
comprised several typical flight phases, represented by
the stage list and figure 1.0 below. The mission profile of
commercial flight offered some room for an emergency
and subsequent diversion to an alternate aerodrome.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
Engine start up
Taxi
Take off and initial climb out to 35 ft
Climb to 1500 ft.
Climb to 10000 ft.
Climb to 35000 ft.
Cruise at 35000 ft. and mach number 0.85
Descent to 10000 ft.
30 min loiter at 10000 ft.
Ascent back to 20000 ft.
200 nm to alternate aerodrome
Descent to 10000 ft.
Descent to 1500 ft.
Descent to 50 ft.
Landing phase
Taxi and engine shut down
Preliminary sizing
Figure 1.2.1
Table 1.3.2 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Level Flight

Altitude / ft
Speed
/kts
Mach number
Specific fuel
consumption /
lb/hr/lbf
Lift to drag
ratio
S.L.
120
(take-off)
0.18
0.699
14.15
10,000
230 (loiter)
0.36
0.630
19.48
20,000
340
(alternate)
0.55
0.579
18.84
35,000
490 (cruise)
0.85
0.527
20.83
Table 1.3.3 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Descent
Table 1.3.1 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Climb

Specific fuel
consumption / lb/hr/lbf
Specific fuel
consumption /
lb/hr/lbf
Lift to drag
ratio
35,000 - 20,000
480
0.81
0.527
18.84
20,000 - 10,000
320
0.51
0.579
19.48
10,000 - 1,500
290
0.45
0.577
7.92
1,500 - S.L.
190
0.29
0.633
6.96
Here values for the sound speed at a corresponding

height were taken from the standard atmosphere table.
On the other hand, values for different speeds were
estimated based on the aircrafts of the same category.[2]
It is important to pay attention to s.f.c. and L/D ratio
values. Obtained from the table 8.08 their variations
interpret strong dependence on both altitude and
configuration.[1][2]
Referring to the performance and procedures of
similar category aircrafts it was estimated that the
vertical ascend and descent speeds from S.L. to 20,000 ft
is 1,800 feet per minute and that from 20,000 to 35,000
is 1,000 fpm, which means that for a represented flight
velocities, total distance covered during the ascent and
descent stages excluding stages 10 and 12 is about 340
nm. Total distance for the reserve climb and descent is
59.2 nm. A more detailed overview of the vertical profile
is given in the table 1.3.
As the mission profile includes operations at various

altitudes, appropriate corrections were made to the
aircraft velocities, lift to drag ratios, mach number and
specific fuel consumption ( s.f.c. ). Following set of
tables for climb, cruise and descent parameters was
achieved, based on the standard atmosphere parameters
and tables 8.02, 8.04 and 8.05 in the Appendix section.
Note that the speed values are average for that category.
Further analysis will determine more accurate speeds.
Mach number
Mach number
RT
1.3. Initial Calculations
Speed
/kts
Speed
/kts
Mach number values other than a given cruise mach

number were calculated using the following formula:
! 1.3.01 [3]
!M = V
Take-off and landing aerodromes were suggested

both to be at the sea level (S.L.) and required take-off
and landing distances were required to be 9,255 ft. and
4,986 ft. respectively. Cruise range during stage 7 is
8345 nm. An aircraft configuration should involve two
turbofan engines, 40% composite structure, certification
FAR25, 224 passengers, 2 pilots, 6 cabin attendants. It
was also suggested to add additional 20 lbs per
passenger to account for a baggage.[1]
An additional alternate flight including stages 10 and
12 was considered to be a reserve fuel.
Altitude / ft
Altitude / ft
Table 1.3.4 Detailed Climb and Descent Profile

L/D
35 - 1,500
170
0.26
0.705
16.58
1,500 - 10,000
255
0.40
0.626
21.52
10,000 - 20,000
320
0.51
0.605
21.19
20,000 - 35,000
475
0.80
0.557
21.37
Altitude / ft
Delta in
height / ft
S.L. - 1,500
1,500
1,500 - 10,000
8,500
10,000 - 20,000
10,000
20,000 - 35,000
15,000
Vertical
climb/descent
rate / fpm
1,800
1,000
Total trip and reserve climb/descent distance /

nm
Horizontal
distance /
nm
Weight
Fraction
for Climb
Weight
Fraction
for
Descent
2.4
0.999
0.999
20.0
0.998
0.995
29.6
0.997
0.997
118.0
0.994
0.993
0.988
0.984
399.2
Preliminary sizing
Corresponding horizontal distances were substituted

into the transformed range equation:
1.3.02 [1]
winitial
=e
w final
Taking the aluminium and composite densities as

2810 and 1820 kgm-3 respectively, the new weight figure
is then 239,200 lb.
Rc j
V L
D
1.5. Landing Weight Estimation

As the aircraft landing weight strongly depends on
the specific mission and fuel burn, before the actual
landing weight calculation, it was suggested to state the
limiting values for the mission fuel fraction and rough
estimations for trip fuel. These were obtained using table
8.04 and next equation:
1.5.01 [1]
This gave a perspective of the mission fuel fractions.

Surprisingly, the fraction for the descent indicates a
higher amount of burned fuel. This is caused by the
relatively low lift to drag ratio at approach phases.
Comparing total fractions to the table 8.04 one could
spot a notable overall fuel savings, which are explained
by the fact, that the table was based on the older
aircrafts.
To finish initial estimations it was suggested to
calculate combined fuel fraction for both taxi and takeoff. In order to do this, it was found that on average
time spent on the taxi and ground operations is about 20
minutes, hence using an endurance equation:
1.3.03 [1]
! WTO M ff
Substituting maximum take-off and landing weights

from the table, leads to:
1.5.02
380,000
! M ff =
= 0.756
502,500
Now if we use equation:
! E = 1 L ln w8
c j D w9
w final
=e
winitial
Ec j
L
D
WE
Where, payload and crew weights are given from

initial requirements. Referring to the table 8.03 unusable/
trapped fuel weight could estimated that, leading to:
1.5.05
! WF = WTO 239,200 + 224 *(175 + 20) + 8 *175 = 221,020lbs
1.4. Empty Weight Estimation
!
#"#
$ !##"##$ !"$
It could be argued that among the other input

parameters the empty weight of the aircraft is one of the
most important, as it portrays aircraft size and capacity
and performance. The initial empty weight value was
suggested to be around 280,000 lbs. It was also assumed
that this value represents weight of an aircraft, which is
made entirely out of aluminium. To account for 40%
composite structure it was suggested to convert this
fraction off aluminium into carbon fibre composite
material as it is a suitable candidate. Hence the simple
relationship could be derived based on the fractional
amount of material and density ratio between
aluminium and composite:
1.4.01
NEW
It could be derived that the maximum fuel, which can

be taken aboard is about 125,000 lbs provided that the
aircraft is fully loaded. Alternatively, with an empty
weight value of 239,200 lbs, using a more detailed
equation:
1.5.04 [1]
! WTO = WME + WFEQ + Wtfo + Wcrew + WFused + WFres + WPL
!##
#"###
$
It could be calculated that the corresponding fuel

fraction is 0.984, which is slightly more than 0.985
given in the table 8.04, again which could be explained
by increased air traffic intensity since the release date of
the table.
! (WE )
1.5.03 [1]
! WFused = 1 M ff WTO
1.3.04
= WL
WE
Passangers
Crew
Consequently, in order to meet payload requirements

and not exceed suggested maximum weight of 502,500
lbs, mission fuel weight should be less than 221,020 lbs.
Now comparing it to the suggested value of the
specific fuel consumption in litres per 100 km of flight
and passenger, additional limits could be established on
the fuel required to achieve total range of 8545 nm
( including reserve ). Converting suggested value of 2.67
litres/100km per passenger into lbs/nm:
1.5.06 [4]
litres
lbs
! P = 2.67
= 19.64
100kmpassenger
nm
= (WE )OLD 0.6 + 0.4 * composite

alu minium
10
Preliminary sizing
Hence for the full required range the weight of the

fuel should be at least:
1.5.07
! P * Rtotal = 19.64 * 8,545 = 167,823.8lbs
Table 1.6.1 Suggested and Estimated Mission Fuel Ratios

Stage name
Should the new value be found, it must satisfy those

two boundary limits. [5]
1.6. Fuel Weight Fractions

In the previous section there were already given
some examples of fuel weight fractions, which were
based on the altitude profile table. However for the
further analysis it is essential to obtain all remaining
fractions, as it will allow to estimate take-off weight and
will be used in the further analysis. The equation which
will be used for that purpose, is transformed equation
1.5.04 and has the view:
1.12
! WTO =
WE + WPL + WCrew
= WTO
1 1 M ff (1+ M Fres ) M tfo
Where reserved fuel fraction and unusable fuel

fraction are:
1.13 [1]
! M res =
WFres
WFused
1.14 [1]
Wtfo
! M tfo =
WTO
Suggested Weight Fractions
Engine Start up
0.990
Taxi
Take off and initial

climb out to 35 ft
Climb to 1,500 ft
0.999
0.980
Climb to 10,000 ft
0.998
0.980
Climb to 35,000 ft
0.991
0.980
Cruise at 35,000
0.662
Descent to 10,000 ft
0.990
0.990
30 min loiter
0.984
10
Ascent to 20,000 ft
0.997
0.980
11
200 nm flight to
alternate
0.987
12 Descent to 10,000 ft
0.997
0.990
13
Descent to 1,500 ft
0.995
0.990
14
Descent to S.L.
0.999
0.990
15
Landing, Taxi and

Shutdown
0.992
16
Trip Fuel Fraction
0.618
0.984
0.990
0.995
Reserve fuel fraction*
0.982
In terms of the analysis it was thought to use

calculated fractions whenever possible, although for the
landing & taxi stage fuel fraction suggested value was
used.
To estimate first cruise fuel fraction at 35,000 ft
marked with red in the table, equation 1.02 was used.
An example of calculation:
1.6.01
On other hand mission fuel fraction may be written

in a following format:
1.14 [1]
! M ff =
Calculated
Weight
Fraction
w1 15 wi+1
w16 i=1 wi
Where i represents particular stage. For example

number 4 corresponds to the climb from S.L. to 1,500
ft, whereas number 16 is a landing weight. The
following table shows two sets of fuel fractions for each
stage.[1]
! w7 = e
Rc j
V L
D
w6
( 8345 340 ) * 0.527

= exp
= 0.662
490 * 20.83
The reason for subtraction in the range term is

explained by the horizontal distances travelled during
both climb and descent stages. Similarly, an example of
fuel fraction for diversion at 20,000 ft to looks like:
1.6.02
! w11 = e
w10
11
Rc j
V L
D
( 200 59.2 ) * 0.579

= exp
= 0.987
340 *18.84
Preliminary sizing
Based on the requirements, loiter activity is 30

minutes. So the weight fraction is then:
1.6.03
weights are 190,132 lbs and 8,708 lbs, which again is

acceptable as it is in the range derived earlier.
With respect to the following section the next set of
equations should be satisfied:
1.6.10 [1]
E
*
c
0.5 * 0.630
j
! w9 = exp
= exp
= 0.984
L
w8
19.48
log10 (WTO ) = B log10 (WE ) + A
! log10 (WTO ) = B log10 ( CWTO D ) + A
C = 1 (1 M ff ) (1+ M res ) M tfo
D = W payload + Wcrew
Since all the weight fractions are now estimated it is

possible to find mission fuel fraction and hence verify
whether it satisfies limiting values, imposed earlier.
1.6.04
Here the values A and B were suggested to be 0.0833

and 1.0383 respectively. However it is important to
verify wether these are appropriate. Moreover, should
there be a mismatch caused by selected values, it will
indicate reliability of further resutls. Hence it could be
written that:
1.6.11
! log10 ( 483,800 ) 0.0833 + 1.0383log10 ( 239,200 )
5.685 5.67
Which implies that for values selected the expression
shows an average accuracy.
M ff = 0.984 * 0.999 * 0.998 * 0.991* 0.662
! *0.990 * 0.984 * 0.997 * 0.987 * 0.997 * 0.995

0.999 = 0.607
Fortunately, the mission fuel fraction did not

exceeded the limit. Next equation could be used to
determine how relationship between take-off weight and
the total fuel burned.
1.6.05 [1]
! WFused = 1 M ff WTO = 0.393WTO

Considering a reserve fuel weight, one should look
for the product of fuel fraction representing the accent
from 10,000 ft to 20,000 ft, 200 nm flight to alternate
and descent back to 10,000ft. Hence it could be shown
that the fuel fraction illustrating how much fuel should
be burned during the reserve stage is:
1.6.06
*
! WFres = 1 M FRES
WTO
1.6.07
! WFres = 0.018WTO
Combining it with previous equation and comparing
it to expression 1.6.05 it could written that:
1.6.08
! M = WFres = (1 M FRES )WTO = 0.018 = 0.0458
res
*
WFused
(1 M )W
ff
TO
0.393
On the other hand, the value for unusable fuel to

take-off weight ratio was evaluated to be 0.00139 based
on the table 8.03.
Finally, returning back to the equation 1.5.04 and
substituting the values for empty and payload weights it
could be shown that:
1.6.09
! W = 239,200 + 45,080 = 483,800lbs
TO
0.5876
!"#
C
Which means that for the mission profile selected,

take-off weight is below maximum preliminary weight.
Using equation 1.6.06 and 1.6.07 trip and reserve fuel
12
Sensitivity Analysis
2.2. Sensitivity to payload
2. Sensitivity Analysis
Could be calculated as:

2.2.01 [1]
BWTO
! WTO =
= 8.956
WPl
C (1 B )WTO D
2.3. Sensitivity to range

2.3.01 [1]
cj
! WTO = BW (1+ M Fres ) M ff *
R
C(1 B)WTO D
L
!###
#"####
$ Vcruise
D
F
2
TO
!
The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to
determine, how the take-off weight is correlated with
regards to the variations in other parameters such as:
payload, empty weight, range, endurance etc. These
estimations will explore the parameters, which have the
highest influence on the take-off weight characteristics.
To begin, the expression 1.6.10 is a good starting
point. By differentiating it with respect to some variable
y (to be selected arbitrary) gives:
2.01 [1]
! WTO =
y
C
D
BWTO
y
y
C(1 B)WTO D
2
BW TO
Should y be replaced with some other parameter it is

possible to arrive at the following relationships for the
take-off mass sensitivity.
However before that, it was suggested to summarise
all relevant parameters, which will be used further in
the sensitivity calculations.
For cruise at 35,000 ft:

2.3.01
! WTO
= 144.9lbs / nm
Range
V =490 kts
2.4. Sensitivity to endurance

2.4.01 [1]
! WTO = F * c j
E
L

D
2.4.02
! WTO = 71,000.0lbs / h
E
2.5. Sensitivity to speed

2.5.01 [1]
Table 2.1 summary of parameters used in sensitivity analysis

A
0.083
WTO
484,800 lbs
1.0383
WE
239,200 lbs
0.599
Mff
0.618
45,080 lbs
2,806,289 lbf
8,345 nm
L/D
20.83
VCruise 35,000 ft
490
cj
0.527
MFres
0.0458
2.1. Sensitivity to empty weight

! WTO = F *
Vcruise
Rc j
L
2
Vcruise

D
2.5.02
! WTO = 2, 467.7lbs / kts
Vcruise
2.6. Sensitivity to specific fuel

consumption
2.1.01 [1]
! WTO = BWTO = 2.104
WE
WE
Hence for every 1 lbs increase in empty weight, the
take-off weight will be increase by about 2.1 lbs.
2.6.01 [1]
! WTO
c j
= F*
R
L
Vcruise
D
2.6.02
! WTO = 2,294, 422lbf hr
c j
Sensitivity Analysis
2.7. Sensitivity to lift to drag ratio

2.7.01 [1]
! WTO = F *
L

D
Rc j
L
Vcruise
D
2.7.02
! WTO
L

D
= 58,048.99lbs
By completing such exercise, it could be seen that

among the other parameters only lift to drag ratio and
speed magnifications may result in the decrease of the
total weight. In contrast any adjustments to the specific
fuel consumption will lead to the significant changes in
take-off weight. [2]
Estimation of Wing Parameters
3. Estimation of Wing
Parameters
Based on the mission requirements and atmosphere

characteristics at sea level:
3.1.02 [1]
=
=1
sea
!
=
Tsea
* = 1
Tact
Hence, the take-off equation:

3.1.03
W

S TO
! 9225 37.5
T
C Lmax
TO W
TO
3.1.04
W
!
Since the initial weight estimations were made, it is
possible to determine preliminary wing parameters and
take-off characteristics. To begin it is essential to pay
attention to FAR and mission requirement for take-off.

! T 0.004052 S TO

Table 3.1.2 Take-off parameters

!
!
For example, the total take-off distance includes
both ground run and initial climbing to 50 ft. Taking
into account correlation represented on Figure 8.06
given in the Appendix the take-off distance could be
correlated to the wing loading and power ratio in a
following way:
3.1.01 [1]
= 37.5
C
T Lmax
T

TO W
TO
= 37.5TOP25
Apart from that, referring to the table 3.1.1 gives a

clue on what could be the maximum lift coefficients
depending on a particular configuration.

S TO
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
40
0.1013
0.0900
0.0810
0.0737
60
0.1520
0.1351
0.1216
0.1105
80
0.2026
0.1801
0.1621
0.1473
100
0.2533
0.2251
0.2026
0.1842
120
0.3039
0.2701
0.2431
0.2210
The following graph represents obtained T/W ratios
Figure 3.1.2
0.4
0.3
(T/W) take-off
TOFL
Cl = 1.6
Cl = 1.8
Cl = 2.0
Cl = 2.2
0.2
0.1
Table 3.1.1 Summary of maximum lift coefficients

Take-off Configuration
Met
Not met
1.6 - 2.2
0
Clean configuration
1.2 - 1.8
Landing configuration
1.8 - 2.8
(C )
Lmax TO
!W
The figure 3.1.1 shows how the take-off distances

are classified.
Figure 3.1.1
!S
Lmax TO
By making wing loading an arbitrary number from

40 to 120, one can arrive at the following model.
3.1. Take-off Distance

Requirements
W

S TO
(C )
W TO
30
60
90
(W/S) take-off / lbs/ft^2
120
3.2. Landing Distance

Requirements
Figure 3.2.1
0.2
Met
Wing loading could be related to the stall speed in

this way:
3.2.04 [1]
W
0.701165
L L
Combination of two equations together with the

landing airport length requirements gives the next
equation:
3.2.05 [1]
W
0.701165
L L 4986
! ! SFL =
0.507 S.L. C Lmax

0.507
Not met
0
40
W
! 33.34 C Lmax
L L
The drag estimations are based on the next two

relationships:
3.3.01 [1]
C L2
! C D = C D0 +
+ C D0
Ae
Where:
3.3.02 [2]
! ! C D0
By substituting several values for lift coefficient it is

possible to achieve following table.
Table 3.2.1 Landing Wing Loading
(C )
W

S L
W

S TO
1.8
60.01
97.11
2.2
73.35
118.69
2.4
80.02
129.48
2.6
86.68
140.27
2.8
93.35
151.06
Lmax L
160
3.3. Drag Polar and FAR 25

requirements
3.3.06
120

Note that the wing loadings calculated for landing
were transformed into take-off wing loading via trip fuel
ratio given in the table 1.4.
On the power to weight ratio versus wing loading
diagram these values could be represented as vertical
lines. Note that in order to met landing requirements the
wing loading should be not more than 97.11 lbd/ft2.
Hence, it could be derived that:
80
! SFL = 0.3VA
S.L. C Lmax
0.1
0.05
The correlation between landing field length and

approach speed may be written as:
3.2.03 [1]
! VSL2 =
Cl = 1.8, W/S 97.11

Cl = 2.2, W/S 118.69
Cl = 2.4, W/S 129.48
Cl = 2.6, W/S 140.27
Cl = 2.8, W/S 151.06
0.15
(T/W) take-off
Figure 3.1.1 illustrates how the landing distances are

defined. Relationship between two distances and
speeds:
3.2.01 [1]
1
! SFL =
SL
0.6
3.2.02 [1]
! VA = 1.3VSL
S
f
= C fe wet =
S
S
Furthermore the relationship between these two

values was achieved after statistical analysis and may be
written as:
3.3.03 [1]
log ( f ) = a + b log10 ( Swet )
! 10
log10 ( Swet ) = c + d log10 (WTO )
From the table 8.07 it found that for transport
category aircrafts value for c.f.e is 0.0030, consequently
based on the tables 4.2 and 4.3 the values for a, b, c, d
constants are -2.5229, 1, 0.0199 and 0.7531. Using, the
values obtained it can be estimated that:
3.3.04
( a+b( c+d log10 (WTO )))
! f = 10
On the other hand values for wing surface area can

be obtained referring to the arbitrary wing loading
values as shown:
3.3.05
W
! TO = 100 S = 4,838 ft 2 ! C D0
S
Now if returning back to the equation 3.3.03 for a
range of wing loadings one could arrive at the following
table.
Table 3.3.2 Drag Coefficient Constants

Wing Loading
Config.
60
A1
Take-off
Gear
Down
Wing
Surface /ft2 ! C D0
S L
A2
Take-off
Up
60
8,063.3
0.00744
80
6,047.5
0.00992
100
4,838.0
0.01240
120
4,031.7
0.01488
140
3,455.7
0.01736
160
3,023.8
0.01984
180
2,687.8
0.02232
Take-off
Landing
Landing gear
A4
A5
Landing
Gear
Down
From data represented in the table 3.3 it could be

seen, that the maximum wing loading established by the
stalling speed, landing and take-off requirements leads
to the surface area of 4,982 ft2.
So the drag coefficient as a function of lift
coefficient could be represented as set of equation for
several flight configurations as follows:
3.3.07
2
(C )
D TAKE-OFF, GEAR DOWN = 0.047 + 0.0411C L
! C
( D )TAKE-OFF, GEAR UP = 0.027 + 0.0411CL2
(CD )CLEAN = 0.012 + 0.0386CL2
2
( C D )LANDING, GEAR UP = 0.077 + 0.0439C L
2
( C D )LANDING GEAR DOWN = 0.097 + 0.0439C L
180
0.0411
No Effect
0.0411
0.0074 0.0099 0.0124 0.0149 0.0174 0.0198 0.0223

No Effect
0.0386
0.0774 0.0799 0.0824 0.0849 0.0874 0.0898 0.0923

No Effect
0.0439
0.0974 0.0999 0.1024 0.1049 0.1074 0.1098 0.1123
B5
No Effect
0.0439
3.4. Stall Speed Sizing

For that type of sizing it is common to have some
initial stall speed requirements, otherwise it is difficult to
establish additional limits on wing loading value. For
this reason it was suggested to use following equation to
arrive at stall speeds given in table
3.4.01 [1]
1
= A1 + B1C L2
2
(C )
D TAKE-OFF, GEAR UP = A2 + B2 C L
2
(CD )CLEAN = A3 + B3CL
2
( C D )LANDING, GEAR UP = A4 + B4 C L
2
( C D )LANDING GEAR DOWN = A5 + B5C L
160
0.0224 0.0249 0.0274 0.0299 0.0324 0.0348 0.0373
B4
0.010 -0.020 0.055 - 0.075 0.015 - 0.025
D TAKE-OFF, GEAR DOWN
140
Clean
Landing
Gear Up
0
120
No Effect
B3
Note that three columns on the right represent

correction terms for zero drag coefficients, depending
on a configuration. Now if we recall values for
Oswalds efficiency from table 8.10 and assuming that
the aspect ratio is about 10, which is true for that type of
category, resulting drag coefficients depending on the
parameters stated a priori could be written as:
3.3.06 [1]
! (C )
A3
100
0.0424 0.0449 0.0474 0.0499 0.0524 0.0548 0.0573
B2
Zero Drag Coefficient correction term

Clean
80
B1
Table 3.3.1 Landing Wing Loading

!W
1/
Ae
Const.
!
VStall
W
2
S Pa
=
S.L C Lmax
Here it should be noted that value of stall speed

strongly depends on the aircraft configuration and wing
loading. Hence for a range of wing loading and
maximum lift coefficients it is possible to derive
following three tables for take-off, cruise and landing
configurations.
Table 3.4.1 Take-off Stall Speed / kts sigma = 1
!
!W
S TO
(C )
Lmax TO
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
60
86
80
74
70
80
99
92
86
81
100
111
103
96
91
120
122
113
105
99
140
131
122
114
107
160
140
130
122
115
Table 3.4.2 Cruise Stall Speed / kts sigma = 0.735 (35,000ft)

!
! W
(C )
Lmax TO
S TO
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
60
100
93
87
82
80
115
107
100
94
100
129
120
112
105
120
141
131
122
115
140
153
141
132
125
160
163
151
141
133
! M cos ( ) M crit
Rearranging for sweep angle gives:

3.5.02 [5]
1
! cos crit
M
Substituting appropriate value for critical mach
number and cruise mach number gives:
3.5.03 [6]
Table 3.4.3 Landing Stall Speed / kts sigma = 1

! W
coefficient is about 1.5 and zero drag coefficient is

around 0.009. The information regrind critical mach
number give a limit for minimum sweep angle in terms
of the following equation:
3.5.01 [5]
(C )
Lmax TO

S TO
1.8
2.2
2.5
2.8
60
70
63
60
56
80
81
73
69
65
100
91
82
77
73
120
99
90
84
80
140
107
97
91
86
160
115
104
97
92
From the table it could be seen that the take-off

speed lies some where between 80 and 100 kts,
however it is preferred to chose higher wing loadings
and and lift coefficient as they are more realistic with
relatively high take-off weight.
From the cruise data it could be argued that it is
more reasonable to maintain moderate wing loading,
but select low lift coefficient, to allow considerable few
savings.
Finally, for the landing stage significant reductions
in corresponding stall speed could be achieved if the lift
coefficient would be maximised.
The reason why it was suggested to stick to one
value of wing loading throughout all three stages, as in
other case changes in wing loading would result in
induced fatigue stress of the wings during the flight.
Such stress is dangerous as it produces structural cracks
on the micro level, which are often hidden from visual
inspection. [2][4]
3.5. Wing sweep

Earlier during the analysis of the drag polar, it was
assumed that the aspect ratio is about 10. Such value
was chosen based on the aircrafts category.
In this chapter the focus was placed primarily on the
selection of a wing profile, flaps configuration and as
the result determination of required sweep angle, in
order to promote transition free flight at mach number
of 0.85.
As the starting point it was suggested to use one of
the NACA supercritical profiles such as SC(2)-0612. Its
critical mach number is about 0.78. Maximum lift
! 28.1
Hence to provide 5% margin for cruise mach number,
the sweep angle is therefore:
3.5.04 [5]
!
! = cos
0.75
!
32
1.05 * 0.85
With respect to the flap configuration, as the variation

of lift coefficient was estimated to lie between 1.2 and
2.8, this requires a minimum of 40 - 50 % increase in the
lift coefficient. However as it was derived above the
transonic flight condition requires a sweep angle to be
about 32 degrees. Hence it could be written that:
3.5.05[1]
! ( C L )max( ) = ( C L )max( =0 ) cos ( )
Substituting required number of 2.8 for lift

coefficient will require a wing, which is capable of
producing 3.3 as the maximum lift coefficient. The way
it could be achieve is to use Fowler type of flaps, as they
are able to increase the lift coefficient up to 60 - 70%.
3.7. Wing width

As it was discovered earlier, higher wing loadings
allow to use lower wing surface areas, however it is only
true when the wings maximum lift coefficient is
sufficient to allow such wing loading with respect to the
landing and take-off requirements.
For the wing width estimations it was proposed to
stick to the wing loading value of 120 lbf/ft2 and use 10
for the Aspect ratio, gives surface area of 4031 ft2 and
around 200 ft as the wing span. Assuming the wing has a
trapezium planform it could be derived that:
3.7.01
!b =
1
h
2h
h tan ( ) +
b
; !a =
4
AR
AR
So the central (b) and edge lengths are about 29.5 and
10.8 ft.
Climb Sizing

For the range of take - off maximum coefficients of
lift, one could arrive at the following table.
4. Climb Sizing
Table 4.1.1 Initial Take - off Climb Power to Weight Ratios

!
(C )
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Lmax TO
2
1.3223
1.4876
1.6529
1.8182
! CD
0.1189
0.1380
0.1593
0.1829
! T

W TO, GEAR DOWN
0.1798
0.1855
0.1927
0.2012
Lmax TO
(C )
On the power to weight ratio versus lift loading

diagram, results obtained could be represented as the
series of horizontal lines.
Figure 4.1.1
!
In order to do sizing for climb it is essential to refer
to FAR 25.111, 25.121, 25.119 and 25.121 regulations
to establish values for climb gradient (CGR)
requirements, which will be used in the next equation:
4.01 [1]
T
N L
=
1/
+ CGR
! W N 1 D
CGR =
(T/W) take-off
0.21
35
70
105
140

Following the same method the values for similar
terms could be found for climb rate after the landing
gears are retracted, typically this occurs shortly after
take-off as the speed reaches 1.2 of stall speed rather
quickly. Hence the table of values obtained and
corresponding take - off trust to weight ratio versus wing
loading graph both are represented below. Now the value
for CGR is 0.012 and B is 1.2.
Table 4.1.2 Take - off Climb Power to Weight Ratios
!
(C )
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
(C )
Lmax TO
2
1.1111
1.2500
1.3889
1.5278
!C
0.0777
0.0912
0.1063
0.1229
0.1398
0.1458
0.1529
0.1608
Lmax TO
T

W TO, GEAR UP
Figure 4.1.2
0.17
(T/W) take-off
C Lmax
TO
2 1 / 2
+ ( CGR 0 )

W TO, GEAR DOWN
( C D )TO, GEAR DOWN
! ! T
Cl = 2.2, W/T 0.2012

Cl = 2.0, W/T 0.1927
Cl = 1.8, W/T 0.1855
Cl = 1.6, W/T 0.1798
0.173
4.1. Take - off Climb Sizing

It was suggested to first perform take - off climbing
at take - off flaps settings and gear down, since that is
the first type of the climbing an aircraft performs after
its rotation. For that type of climb the CGR value
should be just above zero, also the speed should be
between 1.2 of stall speed and lift off speed, hence
parameter B is about 1.1.
On the other hand as sophisticated expression of
drag coefficient was derived earlier, the expression 4.01
could be transformed into:
4.1.01 [1]
0.185
0.16
1 dh
V dt
Note that in this case term N showing the number of

engines is equal to two.
In practise there are two stages for take - off climb.
One which occurs as soon as the aircraft lifts off and the
other, when the aircraft establishes positive rate of
climb and retracts landing gears. However, it should be
kept in mind that as well as initial take - off climb the
second one is also transient. Should be there given an
air traffic control clearance to proceed for intended
flight level, the aircraft configuration is altered to the
clean one and the subsequent vertical distances are
covered in this particular configuration.
0.198
0.158
0.145
0.12
Cl = 2.2, W/T 0.1608

Cl = 2.0, W/T 0.1529
Cl = 1.8, W/T 0.1458
Cl = 1.6, W/T 0.1398
0.133
0
35
70
105
140
Climb Sizing
4.2. Normal Climb

After climb out and returning to clean configuration,
the aircraft climb is said to be normal. On the other
hand estimations of power to weight ratio could be still
performed in a similar manner. It was however
suggested to recall modified 4.1.01 equation appropriate
for such purpose:
4.2.01
! ! T

W CLEAN
2 ( C D )CLEAN
! T
+ 0.012
! W
C Lmax
CLEAN
CGR
CLEAN
Where B was selected to be 1.25 and v is 0.9 a

continuous power correction. Hence the subsequent
table and graph representing achieved power to weight
ratios.
Table 4.2.1 Normal Climb Power to Weight Ratios
(C )
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
(C )
0.7680
0.8960
1.0240
1.1520
!C
0.0348
0.0430
0.0525
0.0632
0.1145
0.1200
0.1265
0.1338
Lmax CLEAN
Lmax CLEAN
2
T

W CLEAN
Figure 4.2.1
winds the go - around procedure may be executed, if an

aircraft misses intended landing path.[7][8]
Consequently, after the go - around is initiated, the
aircraft continues to fly and climb in its previous
configuration for a brief moment, and similarly to usual
take - off procedure, landings gears are raised and flaps
are changes to take - off setting, only after stable positive
climb is reached.
From the calculation point of view there should be
made some adjustments to aircraft approach lift
coefficient and decreased aircraft weight.
Firstly, as there is some difference between approach
and landing lift coefficient, this could be represented as:
4.3.01 [1]
! (CL ) = (CL )
max
Hence dividing it by B, to account for aircraft speed

it gives:
4.3.02 [1]
! (C
(T/W) take-off
!
! ( C
0.12
Cl max = 1.8, W/T 0.1338
Cl max = 1.6, W/T 0.1265
Cl max = 1.4, W/T 0.1200
Cl max = 1.2, W/T 0.1145
35
70
(C ) = (C )
Lmax A
Lmax
D0 APPROACH
( C )
D0 TAKEOFF
+ C D0
LANDING
Recalling corresponding values from table 8.06, it

can be found that:
4.3.04 [1]
0.015 + 0.065
! ( C )
=
= 0.04
0.13
0.1
Lmax APPROACH
On the other hand drag coefficient for approach stage

could be thought as the average between landing and
take - off gear-less configuration. Hence for the drag
coefficient correction term it could be written that:
4.3.03 [1]
0.14
0.11
max
D0 APPROACH
Hence adding this term together with the landing gear

correction in to clean drag coefficient leads to:
4.08
105
(CL
! (C )
D APPROACH = 0.072 + 0.0386
140
max
4.3. Landing Climb Sizing

With respect to the following passage, the climb is
used for any vertical movement, the magnitude of
which depends on the context.
As far as the landing climb sizing is concerned there
are two main stages of climb at the landing flaps setting
with landing gears deployed and a balked landing
configuration. The last second is only different from the
full landing configuration (i.e. gears and flaps) as now
there is a full take - off thrust. With respect to the above,
these stages typically occur before and during final
approaches of the aircraft, when both gliding slope and
localiser contact are established. However, if there are
bad weather conditions or a heavy gusts and/or cross
Where B in this case if 1.5. Also for the approach

climb the CGR value is required to be more than 0.021.
On the other hand to account for decreased weight as
the result of burned trip fuel, it was suggested to use
value of trip fuel fraction from the table 8.01
So modifying expression 3.19 to make it accountable
for approach climb gives:
4.09
!
T

W APPROACH

0.072 + 0.0386 C Lmax

2M ff
+
0.021
!
C Lmax
CGR
APPROACH
Climb Sizing
In order to perform calculations it was suggested that

the value for alpha and beta are 0.2 CL and 1.5. Hence
the following table and graph could be achieved.
!
(C )
Lmax CLEAN
! (CL
max
) 0.2 (C )
Lmax
!C
! T

W APPROACH
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.8
0.6400
0.7822
0.8533
0.9956
0.0878
0.0956
0.1001
0.1103
0.1955
0.1770
0.1710
0.1628
Figure 4.3.1
(T/W) take-off
0.13
0.12
Cl max = 1.8, W/T 0.1955
Cl max = 2.2, W/T 0.1770
Cl max = 2.4, W/T 0.1710
Cl max = 2.8, W/T 0.1628
0.11
35
70
105
140

In contrast to previous graphs, in case of approach
phase an increase in maximum lift coefficient positively
effects thrust to weight ratio.
Now for the balked landing, several parameters
should be adjusted.
Firstly, the speed for that stage was assumed to be
1.3 stall speed.
Secondly, as now the thrust is set to take - off a
correction for that should be added into final equation.
Thirdly, it was suggested to use 0.012 for the CGR
value.
And finally, the thrust ratio should be corrected for
landing weight. Taking into account all of the above it
could be shown that:
4.10 [1]
! T

W BALKED LANDING
C Lmax
0.097
+
0.439
1.32
= 2M ff
+ 0.034
C Lmax
1.3
Using following expression another pair of figures

could be obtained.
Table 4.3.2 Balked Landing Climb Power to Weight Ratios
(C )
Lmax LANDING
(C )
Lmax LANDING, GEAR DOWN

2
!C
! T
1.2
0.8
Cl max = 2.8, W/T 1.0109

Cl max = 2.4, W/T 0.8945
Cl max = 2.2, W/T 0.8380
Cl max = 1.8, W/T 0.7300
0.4
0
35
70
105
140
4.4. Direct Climb Sizing
1.6
0.14
0.1
(T/W) take-off
Table 4.3.1 Approach Climb Power to Weight Ratios
Figure 4.3.2

W BALKED LANDING
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.8
1.0651
1.3018
1.4201
1.6568
0.5950
0.8409
0.9823
1.3021
0.7300
0.8380
0.8945
1.0109
This method is an alternative way of estimating thrust

ratios required to perform various types of climb. The
main idea here is to proceed with further calculations
from some given climb values, rather than to look for
specific CGR value. [7][8]
Related climb rates (RC) were already used in the
first chapter, when it was essential to point out that the
horizontal distances covered during both descend and
ascend stages contribute to the final range. So, it was
suggested to stick to the same values, which were 1,800
fpm before 20,000 ft. and 1,000 fpm after 20,000 ft.
By writing rate of climb in a following manner:
4.4.01 [1]
T
L
! RC = V 1 /
W
D
Hence rearranging for thrust to weight ratio gives:
4.4.02 [1]
RC C D
T
=
+
W requried V
CL
By using two values for climb rate as 1800 fpm and

1000 fpm between S.L.-20,000 ft and 20,000 ft-35,000ft
respectively, the required take-off ratio is then 0.471
Note, that the velocities which were used to calculate
these power ratios in the equation 4.4.02 were derived in
the next section. Similar applies to the thrust to weight
ratios as those are a function of wing loading.
Cruise Speed Sizing
5. Cruise Speed Sizing
Table 5.1 Thrust to Weight Ratios for Cruise

! W
! T

S TO

W required
T

W TO
60
0.08027
0.32368
80
0.06541
0.24796
100
0.05768
0.20373
120
0.05352
0.17523
140
0.05140
0.15572
160
0.05056
0.14184
Figure 5.1
(T/W) take-off
0.4
!
In order to estimate cruise speed values it is
suggested to use following set of equations:
5.01
(C )
D CLEAN = 0.012 + 0.0386C
M = 0.85
!
AR = 10
e = 0.85
2
L
Also the thrust to weight ratio could be written as:

5.02 [1]
W
1
V 2

T
S

= C D0 2
+
!
W
W required
1
A Re V 2
2
S
Taking into account the compressibility effects it
could be shown that correction for drag coefficient of
0.0005 should be used, also the cruise speed is may
related as:
5.03 [1]
!
1
1
V 2 = PM 2 = 251.84 psf
2
2
Hence one could arrive at the following table of

thrust to weight ratios
0.32
0.24
0.16
T/W required
T/W take-off
0.08
50
77.5
105
132.5
160
Discussion
6. Discussion
To conclude conducted evaluation it was suggested
to export final results in term of the following set of
tables.
6.1. Limitations and Further Work

The values were based on the assumptions, reasoned
throughout the discussion. However with respect to the
further work, those should be again corrected as in a
more detailed further stages, the range of required
values shrinks to a specific value. This is especially
imprint in terms of the engine thrust to weight ratio
parameters. The scatter of the engine thrust ratio should
be minimised with an aid of further constraints.
Mainly, this include a more detailed design of the
aircraft structure, in terms of the fuselage, wings,
tailplanes, etc. From the analysis of each individual
section it is possible to arrive at relationships linking
them together in a more tailed way. In particular, the
height and allocation of the passenger seats determine
the height of the fuselage and hence establish its
minimum size.
On the other hand a detailed surrey of structural
material may establish the upper boundary of the
fuselage size. Same could be done to all other aircraft
parts.
However in case of the power plant, it is suggested
to use bottom up approach as the engine cost accounts
for a major portion of total aircrafts development costs.
As well it should be noted that applying composite
materials allowed to arrive at decreased value for empty
weight, however its stress properties were ignored. In
practise, greater weight saving could be achieved, if the
composite materials are smartly implemented into the
aircrafts structure.
In terms of the preliminary sizing, the sequence of
assumptions made it possible to determine some
important aircrafts characteristics, however before the
second chapter it was stated that the values based on the
tables given in appendix showed a relatively poor
accuracy. In case of the sensitivity analysis it is
especially important as all subsequent calculations were
dependent on the suggested A and B values.
Therefore, it is concluded that to arrive at more
accurate results, it is essential to updated used statistical
data.
Apart from that the whole mission profile could be
changed to explore subsequent changes, which shell be
applied to the aircraft.
References
7.
REFERENCES
[1] DEN6445 PRELIMINARY SIZING HANDOUT

FOR JET DRIVEN AIRCRAFT
[2] Boeing 787 -8 (Dreamliner) sample analysis,
(2005), web page: http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/
samp1/index.html
[3] Daniel P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach, (July 28, 2006) Fourth Edition (AIAA
Education), ISBN-13: 978-1563478291
[4] David J. Peery (November 16, 2011)Aircraft
Structures (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering)
ISBN-13: 000-0486485803
[5] Richard Von Mises (June 1, 1959), Theory of
Flight (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering),
ISBN-13: 978-0486605418
[6] John P. Fielding, (October 14, 1999),
Introduction to Aircraft Design (Cambridge Aerospace
Series), ISBN-13: 978-0521657228
[7] Gib Vogel (October 1, 2013), Flying the Boeing
787
[8] Federal Aviation Administration, (March 6,
2015), Boeing 787-8 Design, Certification, and
Manufacturing Systems Review: Boeing 787-8 Critical
System Review
Appendix
Data and formulae for

aircraft
preliminary
Boeing
787-8
Dream Liner
weight estimation and sizing
8. Appendix
Typical
fuel fractions
for non-fuel intensive
mission
segments
Table
8.04 Suggested
Mission
Fuel
Fractions
Information given in the appendix was collected

from similar works, dedicated to the sizing and
preliminary design.
Table 8.01 Standar Atmosphere
engine
start
and
warm-up
taxi
landing,
taxi
Climb and
and
take- acceleration
shutoff
to cruise descent down
homebuilts
single engine piston
props
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.995
0.997
0.998
0.992
0.993
0.993
twin engine props
0.992
0.996
0.996
0.990
0.992
0.992
agricultural
0.996
0.995
0.996
0.998
0.999
0.998
business jets
0.990
0.995
0.995
0.980
0.990
0.992
regional turboprops
0.990
0.995
0.995
0.985
0.985
0.995
transport jets
0.990
0.990
0.995
0.980
0.990
0.992
military trainers
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.980
0.990
0.995
fighters
military patrol, bombers
and transport
flying boats,
amphibians and float
planes
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.96 - 0.9
0.990
0.995
0.990
0.990
0.995
0.980
0.990
0.992
0.992
0.990
0.996
0.985
0.990
0.990
supersonic aircraft
0.990
0.995
0.995
0.92 - 0.87
0.985
0.992
aircraft type
!
Maximum
lift coefficient values for different a/c categories (clean configuration
take
off and
landing
high-lift (E):
devices)
Breguet
formulas
for with
rangedeployed
(R) and
endurance
Table
8.05
Suggested
Coefficient
of Lift and Drag
CLmax clean
p
Wstart
L
.
lnmin
max
g.c
p cruise D cruise Wend
CLmax take-off
homebuilts
V piston
L
single
R engine
.props
=
j cruise
twin engine
props
g.c
jet
Max Design Takeoff Weight

Max Design Landing Weight
Max Design Zero Fuel Weight
TCDS No.: EASA.IM.A.115

Fuel Capacity
Issue:Maximum
07
!
9.
787-8
787-9
787-10
LB
503,500
555,000
555,000
KG
228,384
251,744
251,744
LB
502,500
553,000
553,000
KG
227,930
250,837
250,837
LG
380,000
425,000
445,000
KG
172,365
192,777
201,848
LB
355,000
400,000
425,000
KG Boeing 787
161,025
181,437
US
GALLON
33,528
Page192,777
13 of 18
Date: 07 November 2013
33,384
33,384
LITER
126,917
126,372
Drainable
Trapped
Total
U.S. Gallons
5,570
22,200
33,340
1.3
1.9
1.3
1.9
1.6
2.2
1.6
2.6
regional turboprops
1.5
1.9
1.7
2.1
1.9
3.3
transport jets
1.2
1.8
1.6
2.2
1.8
2.8
military trainers
1.2
1.8
1.4
2.0
1.6
2.2
fighters
military patrol, bombers and
transport
flying boats, amphibians and
float planes
1.2
1.8
1.4
2.0
1.6
2.6
1.2
1.8
1.6
2.2
1.8
3.0
1.2
1.8
1.6
2.2
1.8
3.4
aircraft
! supersonic
Version1
1.2
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.8
2.2
Reference data for Breguet formulas:
Table 8.06 Suggested Cruise Performance Chart
U.S. Gallons
32.4
72.4
104.8
W
aircraft type
Cp
single engine piston props
8-10
0.5 - 0.7
0.8
twin engine props
8-10
0.5 - 0.7
0.82
Agricultural
5-7
0.5 - 0.7
0.82
Statistical
and-stall speed business jetsrelationship between
10-12 landing
0.5 -distance
0.9
regional turboprops
2
sL = 0.5915 * Vsland CS2311-13
0.4 - 0.6
0.5 - 0.9
0.5 - 0.9
0.4 - 0.6
0.82
0.6 - 1.4
0.5 - 0.7
0.82
preliminary
polar
13-15
0.5 - drag
0.9 estimation
0.4 - 0.7
0.82
transport jets
13-15
fighters
Kilograms*
98
219
317
Cj
1 1 [lbs/hr/lbs] [lbs/hr/hp]
1 1
W
W Wp
L/D
TOPjet = . .
.
TOPprop = . .
.
S
T
C
S
P
C
homebuilt
0.6 - 0.8 TO 0.7 TO
TO TO 8-10
L max
Lmax
s = 0.5847 * Vs2land CS258-10
Unusable Fuel
Pounds*
Liters
217
122.6
485
274.1
702
396.7

Data
and formula for
and transport
4-7
0.85
flying boats, amphibians

Parasite
drag definition
and floatplanes
as function
skin
friction coefficient
and the
10-12 of the
0.5 equivalent
- 0.9
0.5
- 0.7
0.82
wetted
area/reference
lifting
surface
area
ratio:
supersonic aircraft
4-6
0.7 - 1.5
-
S wet
CD 0 = C
fe
Loiter
data
S
aircraft type
L/D
Cj
Cp
[lbs/hr/lbs] [lbs/hr/hp]
* Fuel Density is 6.7 Pounds / U.S. Gallon and 0.8 Kilograms / Liter
homebuilt
10-12
0.5 - 0.7
See appropriate Weights and Balance Manual

(See Section IV Note 3)
10-12
0.5 - 0.7
0.7
twin engine props
9-11
0.5 - 0.7
0.72
0.72
10. Airspeed Limits
0.6
Agricultural
8-10
0.5 - 0.7
VMO/MMO = 350KEAS / 0.90M.
Version1
business jets
12-14
0.4 - 0.6
For other airspeed limits, see the appropriate EASA approved Airplane Flight Manual
(See Section IV Note 1)
regional turboprops
14-16
0.5 - 0.7
0.77
transport jets
14-18
0.4 - 0.6
military trainers
10-14
0.4 - 0.6
0.5 - 0.7
0.77
6-9
0.6 - 0.8
0.5 - 0.7
0.77
11. Flight Envelope

Maximum Operating Altitude: 43,100 feet
Cruise data
Takeoff
parameter definition for jet and propeller a/c
L
military
trainers
Kilograms*
16,868
67,229
100,965
p 1.6 L 2.3 Wstart

.
ln
=1.9
2.0
1.6 D loiter
2.5 Wfinish
Vg.c j loiter
1.8
126,372
Usable Fuel
Liters
37,319
21,085
148,740
84,036
223,378
126,206
Pounds*
PRELIMINARY
prop
1.4
Table 8.03 Preliminary Fuel System
Tanks
Main L or R
Center
Total
1.4
1.8
business jets
Fluid Capacities
COPYRIGHT 2013 THE BOEING COMPANY
1.3E
1.9
Table 8.02 Preliminary Weight Characteristics

UNITS
1.2
1.3
CHARACTERISTICS
1.8
1.9
1.8
CLmax land
. max
ln start
min
D loiter Wfinish
loiter
1.2
2.0
agricultural
Airplane Characteristics
Max Design Taxi Weight
1.2
W
ln 1.3 start
D
Wend
cruise 1.2
1
g.c j
minE jet =max
R proptype
=
aircraft
fighters
regional turboprops
11-13
0.4 - 0.6
transport jets
13-15
0.5 - 0.9
0.85
-
military trainers
8-10
0.5 - 0.9
0.4 - 0.6
0.82
fighters
4-7
0.6 - 1.4
0.5 - 0.7
0.82

and transport
13-15
0.5 - 0.9
0.4 - 0.7
0.82

and floatplanes
10-12
0.5 - 0.9
0.5 - 0.7
0.82
4-6
0.7 - 1.5
Appendix
supersonic aircraft

Table 8.10
Table 8.07 Suggested Loiter Data Performance Chart
Loiter data
aircraft type
homebuilt
10-12
0.5 - 0.7
10-12
0.5 - 0.7
0.7
twin engine props
9-11
0.5 - 0.7
0.72
0.6
0.72
Agricultural
8-10
0.5 - 0.7
business jets
12-14
0.4 - 0.6
regional turboprops
14-16
0.5 - 0.7
0.77
transport jets
14-18
0.4 - 0.6
military trainers
10-14
0.4 - 0.6
0.5 - 0.7
0.77
fighters
Cj
Cp
[lbs/hr/lbs] [lbs/hr/hp]
L/D
6-9
0.6 - 0.8
0.5 - 0.7
0.77

and transport
14-18
0.4 - 0.6
0.5 - 0.7
0.77

and floatplanes
13-15
0.4 - 0.6
0.5 - 0.7
0.77
7-9
0.6 - 0.8
supersonic aircraft
Table 8.08 Equivalent skin friction coefficient values

Equivalent skin friction coefficient values for different aircraft categories
for different aircraft categories
Equivalent skin friction coefficient values for different aircraft categories
CD0=Cfe Swet/S
Cfe - subsonic
C
=C
/S
Cfe - subsonic
D0 transport
fe wet
Civil
Civil transport
0.0030
Bomber
Version1
0.0030
Bomber
0.0030
Airforce
fighter
Airforce fighter
0.0035
0.0035
Navy fighter
Navy
fighter
0.0040
0.0040
Clean supersonic cruise aircraft
Clean supersonic cruise aircraft
0.0025
0.0025
Light aircraft single engine
0.0055
Light aircraft twin engine
0.0045
Light
aircraft
twin engine
Propeller
seaplane
0.0065
0.0045
Jet seaplaneseaplane
Propeller
0.0040
0.0065
Light aircraft single engine
Jet seaplane
0.0030
2
0.0055
!
Figure 8.01
0.0040
Correction factors for CD0 and Oswald factor at take off and landing
Table 8.09 Drag Correction Coefficients

CD0
Correction factors for CD0 and Oswald factor at take off and landing
Clean configuration
Take-off flaps
0.010 - 0.020C
0.05
Landing flaps
0.055 - 0.075
0.10
Undercarriage*
0.015 - 0.025
D0
Clean configuration
! Take-off flaps
0.010 - 0.020
Landing flaps
Climb rate formulas
Undercarriage*
Climb rate
0.05
0.055 - 0.075
0.10
0.015 - 0.025
: c = V(T-D)/W = Pa-Pr/W
For jet aircraft:
For propeller aircraft:
Climb rate W
formulas
. 2
T C W2 1
p .Pbr
c = D .
S
c
=
ClimbWrate C3 / 2 : c = V(T-D)/W = Pa-Pr/W

W CL S C L
L
.
CD
For jet aircraft:!
For3 / 2propeller aircraft:
CL
CD = 4CD0
maximum for CL = 3CD0 Ae and
CD
c=
p .Pbr
CL3 / 2
W
. 2
3S/ 2
CL
.
CD
maximum for
T C W2 1
c = D .
W CL S C L
C =
3C Ae
and
C = 4C
Appendix

Figure 8.02
!
Figure 8.03
!
Figure 8.05
!
Figure 8.04
!

AircrafDESIGN by S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AircrafDESIGN by S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary design and sizing of a

large civilian aircraft

2. Sensitivity Analysis ...........................................................................13

3. Estimation of Wing Parameters ......................................................15

4. Climb Sizing ......................................................................................19

5. Cruise Speed Sizing ..........................................................................22

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

WTO - Take-off weight

Clean configuration - (CL)CLEAN

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

1.1. Report Structure

1.2. Mission overview

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

Table 1.3.2 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Level Flight

Table 1.3.3 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Descent

Table 1.3.1 Atmosphere Dependant Parameters for Climb

Here values for the sound speed at a corresponding

As the mission profile includes operations at various

1.3. Initial Calculations

Mach number values other than a given cruise mach

Take-off and landing aerodromes were suggested

Table 1.3.4 Detailed Climb and Descent Profile

Total trip and reserve climb/descent distance /

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

Corresponding horizontal distances were substituted

Taking the aluminium and composite densities as

1.5. Landing Weight Estimation

This gave a perspective of the mission fuel fractions.

Substituting maximum take-off and landing weights

Where, payload and crew weights are given from

1.4. Empty Weight Estimation

It could be argued that among the other input

It could be derived that the maximum fuel, which can

It could be calculated that the corresponding fuel

Consequently, in order to meet payload requirements

= (WE )OLD 0.6 + 0.4 * composite

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

Hence for the full required range the weight of the

Table 1.6.1 Suggested and Estimated Mission Fuel Ratios

Should the new value be found, it must satisfy those

1.6. Fuel Weight Fractions

Where reserved fuel fraction and unusable fuel

Suggested Weight Fractions

Take off and initial

Landing, Taxi and

Trip Fuel Fraction

Reserve fuel fraction*

In terms of the analysis it was thought to use

On other hand mission fuel fraction may be written

Where i represents particular stage. For example

( 8345 340 ) * 0.527

The reason for subtraction in the range term is

( 200 59.2 ) * 0.579

Boeing 787-8 Dream Liner

Based on the requirements, loiter activity is 30

weights are 190,132 lbs and 8,708 lbs, which again is

log10 (WTO ) = B log10 (WE ) + A

! log10 (WTO ) = B log10 ( CWTO D ) + A

C = 1 (1 M ff ) (1+ M res ) M tfo

Since all the weight fractions are now estimated it is

Here the values A and B were suggested to be 0.0833

M ff = 0.984 * 0.999 * 0.998 * 0.991* 0.662

! 0.990 0.984 * 0.997 * 0.987 * 0.997 * 0.995