Interim Report

Assignment
(IRA)

By

Quazi Faisal (500359984)

Group B
AER 814 Aircraft Design Project
Supervised by: Dr. Zouheir Fawaz & Dr.
Joon Chung
DATE: February 23, 2015

CONTENTS
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Progress Results ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Market Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Price ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Market Forecast ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Center of Gravity ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Landing Gear ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Need and Function for Landing Gear .................................................................................................... 9
Three types of loads experienced by landing gear ................................................................................. 9
Trade off analysis .................................................................................................................................. 9
Number of wheels per strut.................................................................................................................. 10
Static Loading ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Dynamic Loading ................................................................................................................................ 10
Ground Clearance and Landing Gear Height (from the ground to fuselage)....................................... 10
Overturn Angle .................................................................................................................................... 11
Tip back Angle .................................................................................................................................... 11
Tire selection ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Shock Absorber ................................................................................................................................... 12
Discussion Problems encountered ............................................................................................................ 13
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 14
References ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 16
Appendix A: Group Members ................................................................................................................. 16
Appendix B: Competitor Price Leverage ................................................................................................ 16

1
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

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

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

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

Figure 2: Annual Industry net orders for the past years (3) .......................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Business jet Fleet Forecast (3) ....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: World GDP Growth (3) ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 5: Number of billionaires growth (3) ............................................................................................... 7

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

Table 2: Competitor's sale price offering as leverage ................................................................................. 16
Table 3: Initial calculation for CG (Incorrect calculation due to wrong placement of components) (4) .... 19
Table 4: Latest center of gravity calculation with a correct static margin of 9.094331 (4) ........................ 22
Table 5: Pros and Cons of Tricycle Landing Gear...................................................................................... 23
Table 6: Decision making Matrix (Pugh Matrix) for Tricycle vs Tailcycle vs. Bicycle ............................. 23
Table 7: Decision making Matrix (Pugh Matrix) for fixed vs. retractable Landing Gear .......................... 24

2
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

ABSTRACT
The project itself is very comprehensive and tests knowledge of an aerospace engineer in multiple
discipline. The amount of research involved may be overwhelming but it results in the development of
multi-tasking skill along with communication skills and problem solving skills. But what is learned from
it is an invaluable asset for future. The purpose of the project is to design a long range business aircraft
with given MR&O. The challenge is not designing an aircraft. The challenge is to design an aircraft with
such high requirements and objectives. My teams (Group B) main goal is to develop a luxurious aircraft
that has a range of 8000+ nmi. As a result the passenger capacity will be compromised and will be
occupied by bigger fuel volume. The work load is divided between 12 group members of the team. I
started with market analysis and did some research on pricing and forecast. Later, I started managing
more technical aspects of the project. I briefly worked on the fuselage and guided Mehmet to determine
the tail angle because that is related to the ground clearance calculations. The next portion encompassed
the stability of aircraft. I calculated the center of gravity (both aft and forward). And then, I moved to
landing gear calculations. This is a major aircraft component and requires a lot of other aircraft
parameters such as weight and center of gravity locations. There were many barriers involved throughout
the project but was resolved either by troubleshooting with a group member or a supervisor. Overall, this
project covered a lot of topics studied over the past 4 years that helped me develop all the key skills as an
engineer.

3
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to show project progression and discuss future planning and key
decisions that shall be made till the project completion. This interim report cover all the work performed
between the dates January 8 February 22, 2015.
To summarize the main scope of the project is to design a long range Business Jet Aircraft
targeted for domestic and international market. The design shall consider manufacturability and customer
demand (VOC voice of customer). The complete project description and MR & O can be found in the
blackboard (1). The length of the project is about three months and the deadline is set at April 2, 2015.
The project is being collaboratively worked upon by 12 group and the group member names can be found
in Group B (See names in Appendix A). Even though the work load is distributed by topic, circumstances
has led a person to work in multiple discipline. Thus, making Group B highly functional and the and
multi-disciplinary in all aspects.
As an OEM manufacturer Vogel Inc.
main aim is to design a luxurious business aircraft
with a range of 8000+ nmi at cruise speed and
fulfilling other customer requirements and
objectives as specified in the project description.
The preliminary design of the aircraft is shown in
Figure 1.
At an initial phase of the project, the group
brainstormed and research on different topics. The
topics were divided among the individuals. I
researched on Market in my first week. Deepinderal
Figure 1: Preliminary Sketch (side view)

Singh, another group member added some value to the market research as well. Two other team members
worked closely with a similar topic but their main focus was on prospective customers around the world.
On my second week I was assigned to work on the landing gear design. The remaining of the
weeks of January for me was spent on initial selection criteria and tradeoff analysis and understand the
core design, parts and materials that comprised of a landing gear. Researching on 5-6 different books plus
online on landing gear helped in understand great detail about landing gear and center of gravity
calculation of the aircraft. Landing gear calculations entirely depend on the weight of the aircraft and the
center of gravity. As a result, the landing gear calculated results changed as well. The value kept changing
several times a week. In the meantime, I started to work on the center of gravity.
After a week of research and calculations in February, I developed the aft and the forward center
of gravity and calculated the static margin. These parameters were crucial for landing gear calculations
including the location of the landing gears. As the weight and center of gravity became more stable, it
was possible to derive more detailed design and perform rigorous calculations. The remaining sections
will provide Progress Results, Problems encountered and changes in requirements (discussion) followed
by a conclusion section would provide a detail status of the project.

4
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

PROGRESS RESULTS
This section of the report consists of all the work done in detail, work in progress and the work
that shall be done in the following weeks.
MARKET ANALYSIS
At an initial phase of the project (first week), I was responsible for marketing research and
discussed results in the following weeks meeting. Marketing is to create value added products or services
and align them with customer needs by communication and building and maintaining customer
relationship. Marketing is more than just advertisement. It encompasses all aspects of the business
including but not limited to:

price
presentation or exhibition
distribution of product or service
company motto/slogan, vision and mission
promotion/advertisement (creating poster)
specials
naming product
market forecast1
prospective customers2

Moreover, a proper marketing campaign is crucial for sales success and sustenance of business in the
market today.
First, I outlined for all key aspects required for a successful marketing of the aircraft in design. Then, I
followed the key aspects mentioned in the bullet points above.
PRICE
The price of the aircraft will depend on 5 factors. They are listed as (2):
1. Cover Minimum Cost - Covers all the production cost including, manufacturing, labor burden
cost, materials and software costs. This is still work in progress and will be finalized towards the
end of the project. I have asked each individual to list the price along with the component they
select for the aircraft. E.g. Engine price is readily available.
2. Charge for the value brought to customers How important is a certain criteria to customers. The
most important factor for our pricing is very high range. The calculated range of the aircraft is
8000+ nmi.

1
2

Zehan Sadiq will be working on the portion

Zehan Sadiq and Gianni Monardo work on this portion

5
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

3. Leverage what competitors are charging Compare what the competitors are charging for their
business aircraft with similar specifications. Comparison with competitors in pricing is shown in
Appendix B: Price Comparison.
4. Consider the economic signal Setting the price too low can actually decrease the demand of the
product. This is because of the economic signal. Meaning the credibility and reputation of
company is undervalued.
5. Make the price relatable - At the end of the day, the sales process comes down to convincing a
customer that your product is worth the price youre asking. Sometimes all you have to do is put
the price in terms the customer will understand.
MARKET FORECAST

The research is ongoing and some of the interesting data found through research. The past years have
shown great demand for the business aircrafts in the market as shown below. The business was at its peak
before the recession period. 2009 shows big drop in the order

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

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

Figure 3: Business jet Fleet Forecast (3)

6
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

The next two graph complements the forecast above by representing the world GDP growth and the
number of billionaires.

Figure 4: World GDP Growth (3)

Figure 5: Number of billionaires growth (3)

The other key points such as presentation of the product, distribution, company slogan,
promotion, specials and naming the product are work in progress. Some points can only be worked on at
the end of the project.

7
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

CENTER OF GRAVITY

The calculating center of gravity of the aircraft is one of the most difficult aspects as is required a
lot of research to understand about how the center of gravity of the aircraft is placed in preliminary
design. After the whole group was divided into sub teams I was assigned to work in the structures team. I
worked with Zehan and Mehmet on the fuselage initially but Mehmet chose to work on the fuselage
design. Then, we worked together to develop component weights of the aircrafts. I used the weight value
to build an automated template that took account of all the changes in weight and design and
automatically showed the most updated CG values and static margin. The detail calculations with tables
are shown in the Appendix C Table 3 and 4. Table 3 was preliminary estimated calculation with incorrect
results and a static margin of -18%. The correct values are summarized below:

Forward center of gravity

Aft center of gravity
Static Margin

x (distance from the fuselage nose)

12.03 m
14.18 m
9.09 %

In general, the most aft center of gravity of an aircraft in between 5 10%. (4) & (5). The most forward
CG is the aircraft is fully loaded with fuel at MTOW. It is assumed to be 30% of MAC for now (4). It
will slightly change when actual fuel tanks are added with the fuel in the wings. But the change will not
make a big impacts on other results based on this.
In the following weeks, I will be working closely with the interior team determining the center of
gravity of each internal components, i.e. passenger seat, lavatory, kitchen and miscellaneous. This will
validate the forward CG location of the aircraft. So far, I have discussed only about the CG in the
longitudinal axis. The center of gravity of the aircraft is laterally is at symmetrical for the operating empty
aircraft but will change after the interior is added to the aircraft. This will be part of what I will be
working on the next few weeks. Additionally, the vertical center of gravity will shift down as I calculate
the sum of the components and will be the first thing to work on in the following week.

8
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

LANDING GEAR
Aircraft landing gear supports the entire weight of an aircraft during landing and ground
operations. They are attached to primary structural members of the aircraft. The type of gear depends on
the aircraft design and its intended use. Most landing gear have wheels to facilitate operation to and from
hard surfaces, such as airport runways. Regardless of the type of landing gear utilized, shock absorbing
equipment, brakes, retraction mechanisms, controls, warning devices, cowling, fairings, and structural
members necessary to attach the gear to the aircraft are considered parts of the landing gear system (6).
NEED AND FUNCTION FOR LANDING GEAR
Five reasons for incorporating landing gear in airplanes (7):
1. To absorb landing and taxiing shock
2. To provide ability for ground maneuver
3. To provide for braking capability
4. To allow for airplane towing
5. To protect the ground surface

THREE TYPES OF LOADS EXPERIENCED BY LANDING GEAR

1. Vertical loads: touch down rates and taxiing over rough surface
2. Longitudinal loads: due spin up loads, braking loads
3. Lateral loads: crabbed landings and cross-wind taxiing and ground turing

TRADE OFF ANALYSIS

Decision Matrix chart and trade off analysis was performed to determine the type of landing gear A
thorough tradeoff analysis is provided in Appendix D: Table 5, 6 & 7. Tradeoff analysis in Appendix D:
Table 5 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Tricycle landing gear. Table 6 shows comparison
between different landing gear types (tricycle, tail wheel and bicycle). Table 7 shows the consideration
taken into account to decide between a retractable and fixed landing gear.

9
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

NUMBER OF WHEELS PER STRUT

Number of main wheels/ strut

1
2
4-6

Weight (lbs.)
About 50,000
50,000 250,000
200,000 400,000

The chart above shows there can be 1 or 2 wheels per strut. Later, when performing tire calculations and
tire pressure, it was determined to use 2 wheels per strut. Having one tire doesnt let the OEM select tires
off the shelf. Also, the pressure per tire will be high and having additional wheel increases safety. If one
of the tires burst the other tire may still be functional in an incident. (4)

STATIC LOADING

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

F_NLG (min) 30705

32854

static load (8)

F_NLG (max) 117590

125821

static load (8)

F_MLG (max) 452404

484072

static load (8)

F_MLG (min) 365519

391106

static load (8)

DYNAMIC LOADING

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

F_NLG 130709.8396

139859.5284

F_NLG 156803

167779

F_MLG 504688

540016

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

H_c

0.3 m

20.884 m

14.94221627 m

minimum clearance between the fuselage and the ground

Length of fuselage minus tail = length of cockpit plus cabin
Length of MLG from fuselage nose

10
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

AB

5.942 m

alpha_TO
H_f_partial

difference between A & B

12 deg maximum takeoff/landing angle

1.26305706 m

H_f_clearance 0.3067021785 m

without considering clearance height at takeoff/landing

additional landing gear length due to clearance height

H_f

1.569759238 m

alpha_c

14.79781863 deg Clearance angle is not = tipback angle

MLG Height

The main results from the table above shows the Main Landing gear height is 1.57 m tall and the
Clearance angle during takeoff or landing is required to be a minimum of 14. 8 degrees.

OVERTURN ANGLE

d_fuselage
CG location zaxis
H_cg

3 m
0.103 m
3.172759238 m

(l_t)/(2l_wb)

0.203 -

fuselage diameter
distance of CG in vertical axis above centreline obtained from catia
height from landing gear from the ground to the aircraft CG
average ratio of wheel track over wheel base for commercial
operational aircrafts

l_t

4.853231846 m

phi_OT

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

Wheel track length

The main results from the table above shows the wheel track distance to be 4.8 m wide and overturn angle
is 37.4 degrees.

Additionally the wheel base (distance between the nose gear and main gear longitudinally) is
calculated to be 11.95 m. The detail is shown in the table below.

x_NLG

2.988443255 m distance from fuselage nose to the nose gear

x_MLG

14.94221627 m distance from fuselage nose to the main gear

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

TIP BACK ANGLE

Tip back angle = 13.46 degrees.

11
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

The value above is incorrect and must be between 15 25 degrees for general aircraft according to FAR
Regulations (5). I will be working to fix this in the following week. But there is a compromise when
fixing the tib back angle. Either the height of the landing gear has to be reduced that may result in ground
clearance objections or the distance between the main landing gear and the aft CG has to be reduced. This
will compromise the stability performance as a result of reduced static margin.

TIRE SELECTION
MLG
Diameter 42.69067951
Width

12.62859355

NLG
Diameter 37.88493483
Width

11.39517099

This was the initial calculation for the tires. Then Zehan assisted me to rectify the calculation and find the
tire off the shelf from GOODYEAR Tire Catalogue.
The final tires to be used in the design is:
GOODYEAR LANDING GEAR
MLG

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

NLG

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

It meets our requirement for max rated load and also satisfies our max loaded speed. Also, type VII is the
ideal type of tire used on jets due to its tolerance for extra high pressure.
SHOCK ABSORBER
Shock absorber current calculations are done by Zehan Sadiq (a group member) as placed in Appendix E.
The values for shock absorber is only at preliminary stage and I look forward to work with Zehan and
assist her completing the calculations for shock absorber of the aircraft. For a complete landing gear
design the list of things that are done and needed to be done in the following weeks are shown below:

All geometric clearance and tip-over criteria are satisfied

The proper tire size
shock absorber stroke and strut diameter are work in progress
The need for drag and side braces have been satisfied
The drag and side braces layout and design to be approached once the shock absorber and strut
diameter is calculated
Any spray caused by the tires (particularly the nose gear) must not enter the engine inlets. The
spray (=FOD). The angle of spray shall be calculated after the final design

12
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

The gear can retract without interfering with other components of the airplane. The tire clearance
must be met. This is work in progress with Gianni (a group member)
The retraction kinematics is feasible and does not require excessive actuator forces to retract. The
actuator is yet to be selected.

From the task list above, about 50% of the work is left including CAD design for landing gears, which is
to be approached in the following weeks by me. Zehan (group member) will be assisting me occasionally
if required.

DISCUSSION PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

Throughout the project there were many barriers and roadblocks that slowed down the work
progress at certain times i.e. waiting for a value that has to be obtained from team members in other subteam. Sometimes the pressure involved pushing each other to obtain a certain value. This being said, a lot
was accomplished in a short period of time. In the first portion of my task, I was involved in marketing
and sections such as pricing, promotion, advertising (poster) are to be done at the end. Some portion,
company motto, vision, mission, aircraft are some of the things that will be approached over the next few
weeks. The reason for delaying the latter part is because of deep involvement in other aspects of the
project such as landing gear and center of gravity calculations.
The center of gravity calculation required the weight of each and every component that goes on
the aircraft requires a lot of patience and speculations in the preliminary calculations. Even when the
weight was obtained, the location of the components is critical to center of gravity and have caused delays
for a few days.
The landing gear calculations depend highly on the center of gravity. As center of gravity
calculations are converging and becoming more stable, the landing gear parameters are becoming more
comprehensible. The most recent obstacle in the landing gear design till today is the tip back angle. The
tip back angle results in 13.46 degrees, which is not between 15 < tib-back angle < 25 degrees as given
for general aircrafts (8) & (4). To fix this issue, I have to either reduce the distance between the aft-CG
and MLG or height of the MLG. Reducing the first one will result in reduction of static margin reducing
the stability and the latter will violate the ground clearance of the aircraft. In the following week, I will
seek advice from the supervisors (Dr. Fawaz & Dr. Chung) for a resolution.

13
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

CONCLUSION
This project is utilizes all the knowledge obtained in the in the past 4 years of engineering.
Through this project and my past IIP experience, I have developed great deal of multitasking and multidisciplinary functionality. This results shown in the previous sections great progress in the aspects
covered in this report. At times, there were many roadblocks that might have slowed down the project but
the time is compensated through working overtime and attaining results on time as other group members
highly depend on the results. Moreover, the future of landing gear design will be completed ahead of time
and I hope to take part in other areas of the overall project utilizing and expanding my ever-growing
knowledge.

14
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

REFERENCES
1. Dr. Zouheir Fawaz, Dr. Joon Chung. AER-814-Aircraft Design Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
Ryerson Portal, Course Organization, AER 8114-Aircraft Design Project. [Online] 2 22, 2015.
2. Brody, Hartley. The 5 Essential Factors to Determine Your Product's Price. Hartley Brody. [Online]
[Cited: 2 22, 2015.] https://blog.hartleybrody.com/the-5-essential-factors-to-determine-your-productsprice/.
3. BOMBARDIER.com. BBA Market Forecast 2014-2033. Market Forecast. [Online] Bombardier
Aerospace, 7 16, 2014. [Cited: 2 22, 2015.]
http://businessaircraft.bombardier.com/content/dam/bombardier/en/ownership/whitepapers/BBA%20Mar
ketForecast%202014.pdf.
4. Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A conceptual Approach. Second Edition. Washington, DC :
AIAA, 1992. p. 417.
5. Sforza, Pasquale. Commercial Airplane Design Principles. [ed.] Pasquale, Heinemann, Butterworth
Sforza. 1st Edition. Boston : ELSEVIER, 2014. p. 229. ISBN 9780124199538.
6. Federal Aviation Administration. Landing Gear FAR Regulations. Federal Aviation Regulations.
[Online] [Cited: 2 23, 2015.]
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/am
a_Ch13.pdf.
7. Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design. Third Edition. Lawrence : DARcorportation, 2000. pp. 3-123. Vol. IV.
8. Sadraey, Mohammad H. Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach. First Edition. s.l. : John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2013.
9. Florida Center of Instrumental Technology. Center of Gravity. ClipArt ETC. [Online] 2 22, 2015.
http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/36300/36326/centergrav_36326.htm.
10. GANZODA.COM. Ganzoda 3D Models. [Online] 2 22, 2015. http://www.gandoza.com/3daircraft/3d-military-models/landing-gear-3d-model.html.

15
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: GROUP MEMBERS
GROUP B
Name
Derek Stanley
Alton Chi-Hin Yeung
Gianni Monardo
Mahamudar Kalam
Ryan Langrana
Zehan Sadiq
Mehmet Tekin
Vibhor Chhabra
Ajandan Bagawan
Quazi Faisal
Issac Junming Ip
Deepinderal Singh Ujial

Position
Team Lead
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member

Table 1: Group Member names

APPENDIX B: COMPETITOR PRICE LEVERAGE

Aircraft Name
Bombardier Global 8000
Gulfstream G650
Sukhoi Superjet 100
Gulfstream G550
Falcon 8X
Embraer Lineage 1000

Sale Price in million ($)

65
64.5
36.3
53.5
57
49.25

Table 2: Competitor's sale price offering as leverage

16
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

APPENDIX C: OPERATING EMPTY WEIGHT

lb

W_wing

W_horizontal_tail

W_vertical_tail

NOTES

10347.78

535.17

1114.28

Metric
(kg)

x
(distanc
e from
fuselage Sum of
nose)
Moment
(m)
s (kg.m)

4693.67 12.393

58166.65
441

242.75

32.108

7794.100
056

29.281

14799.20
462
67089.64
884

505.43

W_fuselage

11318.29

5133.89 13.068

W_mainlandinggear

Calculation verified(MLG weight is

3596.42 based on MTOW)

17.64078 28777.50
1631.31 053
373

W_noselandinggear

689.66

W_nacellegroup

2349.76

23.90754 25481.41
1065.83 604
811

W_enginecontrols

88.44

40.11

23.90754 959.0330
604
423

W_starter(pneumatic)

145.26

65.89

23.90754 1575.185
604
009

W_fuelsystem

924.84

W_flightcontrols

W_APUinstalled

Calculation verified(NLG weight is

based on MTOW)

CHECK B60

1450.74

231.00

2.2*W_APUuninstalled

17
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

312.82

419.50

3.239472 1013.384
488
777

658.04

14.34452 9439.309
762
031

104.78

26.89598 2818.155
929
088

W_instruments

235.06

106.62

2.988443 318.6374
255
872

W_hydraulics

276.76

125.54

26.89598 3376.408
929
828

W_electrical

1507.63 missing B29

683.85

2.988443 2043.639
255
933

W_avionics

does not include cargo handling gear

2141.36 or seats

971.30

2.988443 2902.688
255
032

W_furnishings

0.00

0.00

W_airconditioning

883.85

400.91

W_anti-ice group

217.14

98.49

W_handlinggear

32.57

14.77

0.00

cargo=0

W_militarycargohandli
ngsystem
0.00

cargo=0

W_engine

9024.10

23.90754 97859.82
4093.26 604
098

Total OE Weight

47110.10 Total

21368.7
6

Furnishings

Overall total

Flight deck seats

109.98

PAX seats

384.36

Flight attend seats

32.03

Lavatories and water

provis

106.26

Food Provis

91.84

O2 system

46.85

#Passengers

12.00

Int. Pressure

10.90

18
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

Cabin Windows

130.88

2.407245
Baggage handling prov 659
Luxury Factor

Total Furnishing

1809.220
392
lb

OVERALL TOTAL

820.65
22189.4
1

15.18172 324414.7
961
92

Aircraft Overall CG

STATIC MARGIN

18.89157
784
%

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

19
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

lb

NOTES

Metric
(kg)

x
(distanc
e from
fuselage Sum of
nose)
Moment
(m)
s (kg.m)

W_wing

10347.78

4693.67 12.750

59841.93
49

W_horizontal_tail

535.17

242.75

31.572

7664.053
72

W_vertical_tail

1114.28

505.43

28.745

14528.43
709

W_fuselage

11318.29

5133.89 13.068

67089.64
884

W_mainlandinggear

Calculation verified(MLG weight is

3596.42 based on MTOW)

14.94221 24375.32
1631.31 627
079

W_noselandinggear

689.66

W_nacellegroup

2349.76

W_enginecontrols

Calculation verified(NLG weight is

based on MTOW)

145.26

W_fuelsystem

924.84

W_flightcontrols

1450.74

W_APUinstalled

231.00

W_instruments

235.06

2.988443 934.8568
255
055

20.91910 22296.24
1065.83 278
085

88.44

W_starter(pneumatic)

312.82

CHECK B60

2.2*W_APUuninstalled

20
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

40.11

20.91910 839.1539
278
12

65.89

20.91910 1378.286
278
883

419.50

0
7027.063
147

658.04

10.679

104.78

26.89598 2818.155
929
088

106.62

2.988443 318.6374
255
872

W_hydraulics

276.76

125.54

26.89598 3376.408
929
828

W_electrical

1507.63 missing B29

683.85

2.988443 2043.639
255
933

W_avionics

does not include cargo handling gear

2141.36 or seats

971.30

2.988443 2902.688
255
032

W_furnishings

0.00

0.00

W_airconditioning

883.85

400.91

W_anti-ice group

217.14

98.49

W_handlinggear

32.57

14.77

0.00

cargo=0

W_militarycargohandli
ngsystem
0.00

W_engine

cargo=0

20.91910 85627.34
4093.26 278
336

9024.10

Total
Furnishings

Overall total

Flight deck seats

109.98

PAX seats

384.36

Flight attend seats

32.03

Lavatories and water

provis

106.26

Food Provis

91.84

O2 system

46.85

#Passengers

12.00

Int. Pressure

10.90

Cabin Windows

130.88

21
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

21368.7
6

2.407245
Baggage handling prov 659
Luxury Factor

Total Furnishing

1809.220
392
lb

820.65
22189.4
1

OVERALL TOTAL

14.18247 303061.8
697
095

Aircraft Overall CG

STATIC MARGIN

9.094331
%
364

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

APPENDIX D: LANDING GEAR TRADEOFF ANALYSIS

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

ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Dynamically stable on ground so it it easy to manuever
Good ground control in crosswinds
Floor Deck Angle on the ground is closer to being
horizontal making entry passenger entry and exit easier
Propeller better projected from ground strike
Hard braking on the plane cannot cause the airplane to
nose over
Airplane pitches nose-down upon main gear touch
down, reducing lift
Less bounce after touch down
Good acceleration during T-O due to lower AOA

Shorter wheelbase permits light turning radius

Easier to land, thus, more forgiving for inexperienced
pilots

Requires a minimum airsopeed before the

airplane can rotate for takeoff
Higher strucutralweight due to three highly
loaded landing gear legs
More costly for the same reason
Higher cruise drag for the same reason
Three landing legs make ground ride worse
in uneven surface
Subject to nose wheel shimmy that can be
very damaging
Nosewheel shimmy more likely a design
problem than on tail wheel
Higher dynamic ground loads due to
heavier load on nose gear than on a tail
wheel
More complex streering mechanism
Nose wheel retracting can be often
challenging due to often limited space

22
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

Low aero-drag due to low AOA attitude

during landing requires more braking effort
Heavier braking unloads main wheels and
may cause skidding

Quadricycle

Multibogey

3
4
5
8
5
4
3
3
5
10

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

+
+
+
S
+
+
+
+
+
+

S
+
S
+
+
+
-

+
+
-

+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+
+

0
0
10
0
0

9
0
1
42
0

4
4
2
16
26

2
8
0
11
39

3
7
0
17
33

6
4
0
29
21

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

23
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

Concept 6

Tailwheel

Sum of Positives ( + )
Sum of Negatives ( - )
Sum of Sames ( S )
Weighted Sum of Positives
Weighted Sum of Negatives

Tricycle
(Vogel)
Bicycle

Ground Loop
Visibility over nose
Floor attitude on the ground
Weight
Streering after touchdown
Streering while taxiing
Take-off rotation
Take-off procedure
Conventional businessjet design
Overall stability and safety and comfort

Baseline-0

Tricycle vs. Bicycle vs. Tailwheel

Importance
/ Weights

Table 5: Pros and Cons of Tricycle Landing Gear

0
0
0
0
0

Sum of Positives ( + )
Sum of Negatives ( - )
Sum of Sames ( S )
Weighted Sum of Positives
Weighted Sum of Negatives

10
5
3
3
2
2
1

S
S
S
S
S
S
S

+
+
+

+
-

+
+

0
0
7
0
0

3
3
0
11
13

3
3
0
13
11

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

24
| Aircraft Design Project | Quazi Faisal |

Retractable

Baseline
(V0gel)
Fixed

Aerodynamic Drag
Weight
Complexity & Cost
Maintenance Cost
Design Process complexity
Weather wear and tear
Aesthetic

Importance
/ Weights

Fixed vs Retractable Landing Gears