Propulsion and Performance

Brendan Wheeler - 07156539
Propulsion and performance
Propulsion and Performance Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Design Philosophy ................................................................................................................................... 2 Engine investigation ................................................................................................................................ 3 Engine selection ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Positioning .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Drag Calculation ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Thrust .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Take-Off ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Climb ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Cruise .................................................................................................................................................... 18 Descent ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Landing .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Range and fuel burn .............................................................................................................................. 20 Future Modifications............................................................................................................................. 22 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 23 References ............................................................................................................................................ 24
March 25, 2011
Group 10
Page |1
Introduction
This report aims to simulate the process used in industry when a new aircraft if designed from concept to just before prototype building and testing by going through step by step, the design of a hypothetical aircraft which is to fulfil a theoretical criterion. This part of the report is focused on the design, analysis, evaluation and final selection of the propulsive system, as well as the theoretical performance of the aircraft during take-off, climb and decent, cruise and landing over various operational conditions.
Design Philosophy
The general design philosophy the design group decided on for this aircraft was to be as economical in as many areas as possible. That is, financially inexpensive to purchase initially as well as inexpensive to run, maintain and operate. However, to make the aircraft economical over time, it is generally more expensive to purchase initially so a compromise was made in the different sections of the aircraft that would produce the most favourable combination of both of the financial aspects.
As this aircraft is to be a regional feeder liner, it was assumed that the majority of the missions flow by this aircraft would be short range, shuttle type flights from large hub airports to smaller local
FIG.1(1) March 25, 2011 Group 10 Page |2
airports. This lends itself to an aircraft around the 40 tonnes range, and as such, the group decided on an 80-seater weight of 34 tonnes and a 120-seater target weight of 37 tonnes. This was selected using a graph FIG.1(1) which shows the trend lines of current aircraft of certain weight, passenger number and approximate max range.
Engine investigation
FIG.2(1) Research into similar size aircraft reveals a spread of planes with engines varying between turboprops and high bypass turbofans. From FIG.2(1), it is shown that for our desired speeds of around mach 0.7 and altitudes of approximately 7500 meters or 25000 feet that either turboprops or turbofans could be used. These values were chosen as turboprops were already being considered for their lower fuel consumption which makes them cheaper to operate, and these flight parameters are better for the fuel efficiency of these engines. Also, as the journeys likely to be made by this aircraft are going to be short, a high speed is less important than fuel efficiency. FIG.3(1) are graphs of fuel efficiency and fuel consumption which support the turboprop choice for the flight parameters, however a conventional turboprop would suffer raised fuel consumption at the higher cruising speeds so an advanced propeller will have to be used. This will increase the initial cost, however the ability to travel faster and therefore less time in the air at a much lower fuel
March 25, 2011
Group 10
Page |3
consumption which will bring down operating cost and work out cheaper overall. FIG.4(1) shows typical engine efficiency values of different types of engines. As the plane is to be optimised for the regional feeder liner role, the ability to use small airports is important and the turboprops better performance at low speeds gives it an advantage over the
FIG.3(1) turbofan, also the prop wash provides an improved lift, especially at takeoff, which can assist in short take missions. A conventional turboprop would suffer at the higher speeds required for long distance flight, an advanced propeller, however, would allow it to be used as a long range liner which could operate with other aircraft but with lower fuel consumption than a turbofan. As this plane is expected to be in service for around 4 decades, the ability to upgrade the engines is very important. The next generation of engines are likely to be propfans which are similar to turboprops so the conversion would be relatively easy and inexpensive.
March 25, 2011
FIG.4(1) Group 10
Page |4
Engine selection
At the preliminary stage, the engines chosen for investigation were the hypothetical KTP6 as smaller aircraft such as the bombardier q-400 dash used engines of around 5000HP and so a 6000HP engine was selected for our heavier aircraft. Some data, such as the matching propeller diameter was not available for these hypothetical engines so quick investigation into other engines showed trends which could be used to create more reasonable hypothetical data. Existing engines were investigated and considered but there were no engines that were very suitable for this size of aircraft as well as the lack of useful information for the performance of the engines, but they did provide useful comparative data to check that the hypothetical data would be reasonably accurate to potential real world developments. Assumptions made about the KTP6 were mainly about the propeller, and it was decided that a hypothetical propeller would be used instead of using a real one as in reality the propeller would be matched to the engine and as this is a hypothetical engine an ideal hypothetical propeller would be matched. The engine and propeller specifications are shown below
KTP6 engine Weight Length Diameter ISO-SL static power
1001.524 kg 2.634 m 0.947 m 6000 HP
KTP6 propeller Diameter Propeller efficiency
4.5 m 0.85 FIG.5(3)
It was calculated later however that the KTP6 engine did not develop enough cruise thrust and so the KTP9 engine was selected using the same propeller, as this could provide enough thrust at cruise altitude.
Positioning
For the first few design iterations an arbitrary positioning of the engines was set to provide a start to the design process. This was set as laterally 0.33 time the semi wing span and longitudinally 0.75 times the wing chord length. These values were chosen so as to minimise interference drag and to keep the load of the engine weight close to the fuselage centre line to reduce the bending moment on the wing but far enough away from the fuselage skin to minimise the pressure pulses from the propeller tips as the pass the fuselage and to conform to the CS-25 regulations that state At least 25 March 25, 2011 Group 10 Page |5
mm (10 inch) radial clearance between the blade tips and the aeroplane structure, plus any additional radial clearance necessary to prevent harmful vibration(2). This placed the engines longitudinally at 4.6m from the fuselage centre line giving a little under half a propeller diameter distance from the fuselage skin. Laterally the engines were 2.7m forward of the wings leading edge. A downward facing angle of 3.5 relative to the wing reference plane was also included to improve the stability of the aircraft and to keep the thrust line essentially parallel with the fuselage centre line.
Drag Calculation
To calculate the drag, the parasitic drag coefficient of each component can be calculated individually and added to the induced drag coefficient to produce a drag polar. Using the N.A.C.A. 23012(6) data for the aerofoil section, drag graphs were produced showing Cd0 as parasite drag and Cdi as induced drag. FIG.6(6) and FIG.7 are at sea level and FIG.8(6) and FIG.9 are at cruise altitude.
March 25, 2011
Group 10
Page |6
FIG.6(6)
0.2500
Cd against at ISO-SL
0.2000
0.1500 Cd Cd Cd0 0.0500 Cdi
0.1000
0.0000 -5 0 5 (degrees) 10 15 20
FIG.7
March 25, 2011
Group 10
Page |7
FIG.8(5) FIG.8(6)
0.2500
Cd against at cruise
0.2000
0.1500
Cd
Cd 0.1000 Cd0 Cdi 0.0500
0.0000 -5 0 5 (degrees) 10 15 20
March 25, 2011
FIG.9 Group 10
Page |8
Using a semi-empirical method given in Aircraft Design by Ajoy Kundu, the minimum parasite drag can be estimated for the various other parts of the aircraft. Cf basic is calculated using FIG.10(1). The total Cf is then multiplied by the surface area, then divided by the wing reference area.
Nacelle
Length Max diameter Average diameter Re 2 x wetted area Cf basic Cf wrapping Cf intake Cf boat tail Cf excrescence Cf rough Flat-plate equivalent drag Cd0 min
ISO-SL 4m 1.26 m 1.18 m 28.657 m2
Cruise 4m 1.26 m 1.18 m 28.657 m2
0.1314
0.1179
FIG.10(1)
March 25, 2011
Group 10
Page |9
Using the same method as the nacelles, the Cd0 can be calculated for the fuselage
Fuselage
Length Height Width Re wetted area Cf basic Cf wrapping Cf supervelocity Cf pressure Cf Canopy Cf pressurisation Cf non-optimum shape Cf closure Cf excrescence Cf fairings Cf rough Flat-plate equivalent drag Cd0 min
ISO-SL 27.99 m 3.07 m 3.74 m 223.822 m2
Cruise 27.99 m 3.07 m 3.74 m 223.822 m2
As the values for the empennage are unavailable some theoretical values were put in place to finish the calculations. A Cd0 of 0.0015 for the horizontal tail and 0.001 for the vertical tail were estimated from other examples(1). From all of these values a drag polar can be calculated.
March 25, 2011
Group 10
P a g e | 10

100000.00 90000.00 80000.00 70000.00 60000.00 Drag (N) 50000.00 40000.00
Sea level takeoff drag
Drag (N) 30000.00 Induced drag 20000.00 Parasite drag 10000.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Forward speed ms-1
FIG.11
50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 Drag (N) 25,000 Drag (N) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Induced drag Parasite drag
Cruise Drag
Forward Speed (ms-1)
FIG.12
March 25, 2011
Group 10
P a g e | 11
Thrust
The engines selected for this aircraft are to be the KTP family of engines. The specifications for these are shown below. Kens PowerTO Turboprops (kW) KTP6 KTP7 KTP8 KTP9 4474.199 5219.899 5965.599 6711.299 PowerTO (hp) 6000 7000 8000 9000 Diameter Diameter Length (m) (in) (m) 0.947 0.993 0.103 1.072 37.3 39.1 4.07 42.2 Prop power (kW) 2.634 2.675 2.710 2.741 Prop power (hp) Length (in) 103.7 105.3 106.7 107.9 Weight (lb) 2206 2516 2819 3116
Weight (kg) 1001.524 1142.264 1279.826 1414.664
SFCTO lb/HP.hr KTP6 KTP7 KTP8 KTP9 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
SFCCR lb/hp.hr 0.430 0.430 0.430 0.430
p 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Prop diameter Static ISA (m) SL thrust 82600.592 91540.726 100063.491 108237.395
3803.069 5100.000 4.5 4436.914 5950.000 4.5 5070.759 6800.000 4.5 5704.604 7650.000 4.5
The static seal level thrust was calculated us the equation .
The thrust at a given speed is equated by , However this isnt accurate at low speeds and at 0 forward velocities, cannot be calculated which is why there is a need for a separate static thrust calculation. This formulas start to work at around 50ms-1 which makes it very useful for calculating cruise thrusts. March 25, 2011 Group 10 P a g e | 12

120,000.00
KTP9 max thrust Sea level
100,000.00
80,000.00 Thrust (N)
60,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50
SL TO thrust 2000m SL TO thrust 60 70 80
1000m 3000m 1000m 90 100
Forward speed (ms-1)
FIG.13
50,000.00 45,000.00 40,000.00 35,000.00 30,000.00 Thrust (N) 25,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 8000m 7000m
KTP9 at cruise
Forward speed (ms-1)
FIG.14 March 25, 2011 Group 10 P a g e | 13
Take-Off
With the aircraft in takeoff configuration, high lift devices will be deployed to increase the CLmax to allow the aircraft to take off in a shorter distance than would otherwise be achievable. The CS-25 regulations require a set of speeds to be defined for certification. Where Vs is the stall speed in takeoff configuration, Vmcg is the minimum control speed, V1 is the critical engine failure speed, VR is the rotation speed, Vmu is the minimum unstick speed, VLOF is the lift off speed and V2 is the take-off climb speed(4). The total distance covered by the aircraft whilst on the ground is referred to as SG and distance covered while airborne is referred to as SA. CLmax at takeoff is achieved at VR and a wing of 16.9, however lift will occur before CLmax and the minimum take off angle is calculated at 9.25. This is with extra flaps providing a 1.09 CL increase. Vs is calculated, , and at ISO-SL was calculated at 55.99ms-1. At higher altitudes the stall
speed rises as the density decreases and at an altitude of 3000m the takeoff stall speed was calculated at 65.00 ms-1. Vmcg was calculated using the thrust moment of one engine about the center of gravity and the corrective force of the rudder. The exact details of the rudder for this aircraft were not available so a hypothetical rudder was generated from averages and trends of other aircraft for the purposes of calculating Vmcg. V1 is calculated along with the balanced field
FIG.15 (4) length. Using the formula
The breaking distance can be calculated, and using a spread sheet can be calculated over the range of takeoff speeds. Three different methods were used to calculate the distance to VLO, the first being a approximation equation at static thrust and VLOF, of ,
March 25, 2011
Group 10
P a g e | 14
the second using a spreadsheet and using the average values of acceleration between the velocity segments(1) and the third calculating, at a number of set intervals of 5ms-1 , the different values required to work out distance travelled. Method Equation Velocity segments 5ms-1 intervals Distance to VLOF 706.025 m 635.666 m 676.642 m Distance to V1 499.318 m 494.294 m 481.912 m
The 3rd method is the most comprehensive and makes fewer assumptions than the other two methods, and uses more realistic data over time than the other two and so is therefore more likely to be accurate; however the other two vindicate this value as they are within reasonable margins of error. Using the distance to VLOF and the distance to stop a balanced field length graph could be generated and V1 calculated. V1 was calculated at 57.717, however to allow for pilot reaction time and brake application speed, this was reduced to be equal to VR.
800
Balanced Field Length
TO distance Breaking dist
700
600
500 Distance m
y = -0.0006x3 - 0.1139x2 - 0.0112x + 689.53
400
300
200
100 y = 0.0654x2 - 0.4121x 0 0 10 20 30 speed m/s 40 50 60 70
FIG.16 VR was calculated to be above the takeoff stall speed, and the minimum control speed, with a little extra to account for possible early rotation and at ISO-SL was calculated at 57.11ms-1. Vmu was calculated at that was considered safe to takeoff at. It was calculated at 58.83ms-1. VLOF has to be a minimum of 1.18 times greater than the stall speed, as specified by CS-25(2). Using this value VLOF March 25, 2011 Group 10 P a g e | 15
with a little extra contingency, was calculated at 66.63ms-1. During OEI the VLOF is reduced to 1.05 times the stall speed and is 61.77ms-1. V2min, as per CS-25, must be at least 1.13 times Vstall and so V2min is 63.27ms-1. V2 has got to be at least 1.2 times the stall speed and at 1.1 times Vmcg. As Vmcg is much less than the Vstall, V2 is 67.19ms-1. The airborne distance is given by
With (T-D)average being calculated from the thrust and drag at V2 and VLOF, the ground covered while airborne equates to 96.42m. So in total the ground distance required for takeoff is 773.06m. This takes 43.17s from V0 to V2 with a maximum acceleration of 4.269ms-2. The distance to VLOF with one engine inoperative is 886.22m and to V2 is 1194.05m. With a constant takeoff specific fuel consumption of 0.48 lb/HP.hr per engine, the takeoff fuel consumption for 43.17s is 80.59 lbs of fuel, which is 36.55 kg. If the engine were to run for its full 5 minutes at takeoff power then the engines would consume 560lbs or 254.01 kg of fuel. All these values are calculated at ISO sea level conditions. At higher altitude runways, it was calculated that the velocity values rise by approximately 1.05 times the velocity segment per 1000m of altitude.
Takeoff performance at max flap setting Vstall at 37,000 kg Vmcg V1, decision speed VR Vmu VLOF VLOF OEI V2 BFL (m), total requirement (1194m)
ms-1 55.99 54.83 57.11 57.11 58.83 66.63 61.77 67.19
Knot 108.85 106.59 111.03 111.03 114.36 129.53 120.08 130.62 445.4
March 25, 2011
Group 10
P a g e | 16
Climb
The climb during takeoff is regulated in three segments, the first segment between V2 and when the landing gear is retracted. The climb gradient for this segment for a twin engine aircraft must be at least positive. For this segment the aircraft is in takeoff configuration, landing gear extended, one engine inoperative and developing full takeoff thrust. . The second segment is at V2 and between the gear retraction point and 400ft above ground level. This segment must have at least a 2.4% minimum climb gradient. The aircraft configuration for this setting is still takeoff but now the landing gear is retracted, with one engine inoperative and delivering takeoff thrust, provided that it does not go over the 5 minuet limit for takeoff thrust. The final segment is between 400ft above ground level and 1500ft above ground level. In this segment the aircrafts flaps would have been retracted and one engine inoperative producing maximum continuous thrust. The climb angle is given by
The climb speed is calculated at 1.25 Vs which is calculated at 69.99ms-1. However as the aircraft starts to climb the flaps will be retracted and the CL will drop. Also the density of the air will drop as the aircraft rises so the aircraft will need to accelerate throughout the climb phase of flight. At 3000m which is just under half the cruise altitude the aircraft will need to be traveling at 99.64ms-1, and at cruise height the aircraft will be flying at 121.48ms-1, this is factoring that the aircraft may not be flying at CL max. These speeds give the maximum rate of climb, so the aircraft would reach its desired height in its fastest time, however some vertical acceleration is likely to be sacrificed for horizontal acceleration to get to cruise speed at cruise height and to fit with air traffic controls proposed flight plan, as well as other mission specifications. As the aircraft climbs and burns fuel then the weight of the aircraft decreases and the density decreases, this gives a non-linear relation between Vc and the height. The rate of climb is calculated from
Time to height from sea level to cruise altitude is calculated by calculating several altitudes and calculating the straight line changing in height of all the segments, this is calculated by March 25, 2011 Group 10 P a g e | 17
Cruise
Our cruise height and speed are 7500m, which is approximately 24000ft, and mach 0.7, which is 217.126ms-1, respectively. These were selected to give the best possible performance for the turboprop engines which would mean a lower operating cost for the aircraft. An excess of thrust was designed for to allow for maneuvering during cruise. The cruise thrust was calculated from an a percentage of the equivalent takeoff thrust using FIG.17(3)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
Max cruise power with altitude and forward speed
Power/Static SL power ISA %
5000ft
10000ft
15000ft
20000ft
25000ft
30000ft
50
100
150
200 250 300 Forward speed (knots)
350
400
450
500
FIG.17(3) This equates the max cruise thrust of each engine to 23.166kN of thrust per engine. For twin engines this is 46.332kN of thrust. The drag at cruise is 43.624kN. The aircraft will not fly at max cruise during straight and level flight so the excess allows for turns, climbs and other maneuvers that could be required. The values given in Aero Group Design Project Aircraft Propulsion by Dr Ken Hart only March 25, 2011 Group 10 P a g e | 18
showed up to 300 knots, and as this is not enough to cover the speed of the aircraft, a linear interpolation was added onto the data to increase its range up to 500 knots. The fuel burn in this phase is highly dependent on its mission. If it was performing a long range mission its fuel burn would be much higher but the payload it could carry would decrease. If it was
0.550
Cruise SFC with altitude and forward speed
0.500
0.450
SFC (lb/HP.hr)
0.400
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200 0
5000ft 100
10000ft 200
15000ft 300
20000ft 400
25000ft 500
30000ft 600
Forward speed (knots)
FIG.18(3) performing a short range flight the aircraft could carry more payload at the expense of fuel carried. Therefore the fuel burn calculated here is in terms of fuel consumed per unit time to account for the variation in the times of the cruise phase. FIG.18(3) gives the fuel burn over a range of speeds and altitudes for the KTP engines. From this graph is can be seen that the fuel consumption at cruise is 0.430 lb/HP.hr. Using FIG.17(3), the fuel burn can be calculated to 3040.1 lb/hr at max cruise power.
Descent
March 25, 2011
Group 10
P a g e | 19
The descent phase is calculated from 4% idle power. This means that the engines are producing an uninstalled power of 280 HP per engine. Assuming that there is one hour of reserve fuel, the aircraft weight will be 25.134 tonnes if the mission were a 3 and a half hour flight which is approximately the flight time for a 1500nm mission. Using the same calculations as the climb phase, the descent can be calculated, however these calculations are assuming that the thrust in almost instantly reduced when in reality the thrust would be reduced slowly and run at partial throttle to give descent paths given to the aircraft by the air traffic control of the airport and comfort of the passengers(1).
Landing
During landing, three stages are to be calculated, approach, flaring and touchdown. Approach is considered from a 50ft screen height and at a speed of Vappr which is at least 1.3 Vstall in landing configuration(1). This is calculated at 67.38ms-1 where Vstall@landing is 51.83ms-1. Flaring is the nearly circular intermediary path between approach and touchdown. Touchdown is considered from when the wheels touch the ground to stop, VTD is at least 1.15 Vstall in landing configuration which is 59.61ms-1.
This is assuming a breaking runway coefficient of 0.6 and that the wing spoilers are reducing the lift from the wing to 0. The total landing distance then without thrust reversers is 415.48m.
Range and fuel burn

The conceptual maximum range for this aircraft is to be 1500 nautical miles, which is the distance to places such as Morocco, Turkey, Russia and the edge of Greenland from Heathrow airport in London. Therefore without an extended range conversion, this aircraft will be primarily flying over or close to land. At take off the fuel burn for 5 minutes of takeoff thrust equates to 254.01 kg of fuel. During cruise which takes into account the extra time for the takeoff thrust, the fuel burn maximum continuous output for 1497s is 2118.92 lb of fuel which is 961.13 kg. Then descent and landing takes about 4% of the fuel burn as the engines are running at idle power and for 30 minutes(1). This means a fuel March 25, 2011 Group 10 P a g e | 20
burn of 109.2 lb or 49.53 kg of fuel for the final stages of flight. This means a minimum total fuel burn of 2788.12 lb or 1264.67 kg of fuel.
Cruise fuel burn is 3040.1 lb/hr or 1378.97 kg/hr. At mach 0.7 it would take approximately 3 hours and 26 minutes to get to Moscows Domodedovo international airport from Londons Heathrow airport, a distance of 1378 nm(8). This is one of the longest trips that would be expected of our aircraft and the cruise fuel burn is 10437.68 lb or 4734.45 kg of fuel. For this journey then, without reserves the fuel burn is 13225.80 lb or 5999.12 kg of fuel. FIG.19(8) shows the distance around Londons Heathrow airport that this aircraft could theoretically fly.
March 25, 2011
FIG.19(8) Group 10
P a g e | 21
For the desired range of this aircraft, it was considered not necessary to get ETOPS certification as even if the aircraft were to try and cross large bodies of water or desert, such as the Atlantic Ocean then the aircraft would run out of fuel before it reached land regardless of whether it suffered an engine failure or not. However, on a long range configuration of this aircraft where the range could be sufficient to make such long journeys then ETOPS certification would be required. ETOPS certification is not a problem if the aircraft were to fly at a slower speed so that the drag is then equal to the maximum continuous output of the one engine. The reserve fuel for the aircraft would be dependent on the mission and calculated at either maintaining a 5000ft altitude at Mach 0.35 to Mach 0.4 or using 60 of the maximum thrust for 45 minutes, or to make a 100 nm diversion at 25000ft at Mach 0.5 plus 20 minutes(1). For the 45 minute holding pattern the fuel burn at a cruise speed of 125ms-1, using 60% maximum thrust, and a specific fuel consumption of 0.48 lb/HP.hr would be 3024 lb or 1371.66 kg of fuel For the 100nm diversion at a cruise speed of 155.09ms-1 and a SFC of 0.475 lb/HP.hr would be an approximate time of 45 minutes. This yields a fuel consumption of 2137.5 lb of fuel or 969.55 kg. Fuel burn Takeoff 43 s Takeoff 5 minutes Climb 1497s Cruise per hour Cruise per 100nm Descent and Landing 45 minute reserve, holding pattern 45 minute reserve, diversion Max total Max total kg 36.55 254.01 961.13 1378.97 326.72 49.53 1371.66 969.55 2636.33 + 326.72 per 100nm 2636.33 + 1378.97 per hour lb 80.59 559.10 2118.92 3040.10 720.30 109.2 3024.00 2137.50 5811.22 + 720.30 per 100nm 5811.22 + 3040.1 per hour
Future Modifications
As part of the specifications, the aircraft must be able to support a stretch capability, so that the seating can be increased from around 80 seats to around 120. This would mean an increase in weight and length of the aircraft. In terms of drag, this would not affect the parasite drag too drastically as neither the wing nor empennage would need to be modified, as using plugs either side of the center of gravity would keep the center of gravity the same, and the wing has been designed to accommodate the extra weight already. The induced drag would increase with the added weight, March 25, 2011 Group 10 P a g e | 22
however it is not required for a major change to the aircrafts engines which would be costly in terms of the nacelle redesign and potential systems redesign to accommodate the new engines. A new engine in the KTP9 range could be used. A new KTP9 engine that could produce an improved fuel burn at the expense of a little power could be installed in place of the KTP9 for the 80-seater and would have the same mountings and layout as the original KTP9 but the manufacturer has improved the performance to give efficiency. Another modification that could be made is an extended range model which would sacrifice payload to have increased fuel storage. This model could use the existing engines but would have to be ETOPS certified to get widespread usage.
Conclusion
In this report, an analysis of various flight phases were performed for different conditions, although not all of them are shown here. The takeoff performance was considered at ISA sea level and temperature, but during hot weather and higher altitudes the takeoff run increases. Also with a positive gradient of the runway the takeoff run increase. Climb performance was calculated at max possible so as to give the limits of the aircraft, but in reality the aircraft would fly in a path dictated by air traffic control. Cruise was calculated using a constant weight, but in reality as the aircraft uses fuel the aircrafts weight will decrease and therefore so will the drag, so during long range cruise, power could be lowered throughout the cruise which will increase fuel burn and hence range Descent and landing were calculated using the same methods as climb and takeoff but using the weight as if the aircraft if it had just used all the fuel for takeoff climb and cruise. The decent path was not calculated as this is always determined by air traffic control. The landing run was considered at a breaking coefficient of 0.6, but for different runway conditions such as rain or slush this could be lower resulting in a longer landing field length Range and fuel burn were calculated in terms of power needed for each phase of flight and given in a format so any range journey could be calculated.
March 25, 2011
Group 10
P a g e | 23
References
(1) KUNDU, AJOY. Aircraft Design. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. Cambridge University Press, (2010). (2) EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFTY AGENCY. Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes.
Brussels, Belgium. (2003)

(3) HART, KENNETH. Aero Group Design Project Aircraft Propulsion. Lecture notes and slides. University of Hertfordshire. (4) HART, KENNETH. Aircraft Take-Off Performance. Lecture notes and slides. University of Hertfordshire. (2010) (5) HART, KENNETH. Aircraft Propeller Design and Performance. Lecture notes and slides. University of Hertfordshire. (2010) (6) JACOBS, EASTMAN and CLAY, WILLIAM. Report No. 530. Characteristics of the N.A.C.A. 23012 Airfoil from Tests in the Full-Scale and Variable-Density Tunnels. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. (7) HART, KENNETH. Aircraft Climbing Flight Performance. Lecture notes and slides. University of Hertfordshire. (2010) (8) Great Circle Mapper.[online] http://www.gcmap.com/ (accessed 20/03/2011) (9) GPS Visualiser. [online] http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/calculators (accessed 20/03/2011)
March 25, 2011
Group 10
P a g e | 24

Propulsion and Performance

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

Propulsion and Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brendan Wheeler - 07156539