Concept aircraft design exercise

Alan Clark Gutierrez / 220059203

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................2
2. Market Analysis ..........................................................................................................2
3. Design point principles summary .................................................................................3
4. MTOW estimate ..........................................................................................................5
5. Cabin Layout ...............................................................................................................6
6. Wing planform design .................................................................................................7
7. Scissors diagram ..........................................................................................................8
8. Engine choice ..............................................................................................................9
9. General Arrangement ..................................................................................................9
10. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 10
11. References ............................................................................................................. 11
12. Appendices ............................................................................................................ 12
 1. Introduction

The objective of this report is to explain the process of designing a concept aircraft, given a mission
requirement and following a set of steps (parts). The mission requirement given was as follows:

3700nm Range, 165 Passenger capacity, 0/20/80 class configuration, 2700m Take-off field length.

Previous stages of the conceptual design have focused on the following areas:

Part 1: a comparison of the Operating Empty Weight (OWE) and Maximum Take-Off Weight
(MTOW) of a series of aircraft selected from a set of 70 models (“the market data”). Provides a point
of comparison to use in the future.

Part 2: a Macros-enabled Excel workbook was used to create a series of curves for different stages of
flight and for a range of design wing loading. The curves were created by using ISA data, the mission
specification, a series of assumptions about cruise altitude/speed and some other information.

Finally, in Part 3 a design point was chosen based on the payload and predicted performance of the
aircraft. This gave a set of targets/requirements in order to carry the payload (span, wing area, thrust)

Payload (kg) 19920 Take-off field length (m) 2700

Range (nm) 3700 Wing area (m2)
141.63
MTOW (kg) 88329 Wing spam (m) 35.90
Cruise Mach 0.78 Total thrust (kN) 235.1

Part 4 produced a cabin layout based on dimensions given by seat spacing and CS25 EASA
requirements, which informed the diameter and length of the fuselage, and its parts.

2. Market Analysis

25 aircraft were within ±50% of the specified range and pax. capacity: 3700nm and 165 pax.

Several models were removed, starting with those which were too far from the reference to accurately
model what the desired aircraft should compare to (<2500nm range OR <130 passengers). Lastly, the
the B767-200 was removed as it was significantly heavier, as well as the DC10, a trijet with an
outdated configuration that presented an outlier compared to more modern configurations. This left 14
aircraft.

Considering the class configuration of 20/80 in my mission specification, an airline was chosen which
regularly flies with a similar configuration, using aircraft in the market data. Icelandair was a suitable
match, as it often flies the 737 Max 8 and 9, as well as the 757-200. They also have around 10-
13%/87-90% business/economy ratio, which is close to the mission specification.1

From this an estimate for the combined average passenger + luggage weight was found at 112.5kg/pax,
with a generous 23kg economy and 64kg business luggage allowance. This leaves an average freight
capacity of 1354.4kg for the studied aircraft, used as the expected freight capacity for the concept.

1
Icelandair (2024). Icelandair fleet.
 3. Design point principles summary

Starting from the drag equation, the formulation for the relation between Thrust loading T/W and
Wing loading W/Sref for each part of the flight is found. Constants are given based on atmospheric
conditions (ISA), technological capability, simplifications of flight profiles and mission variations.

In general, several assumptions are being used to simplify the process of design. Therefore, for each
stage of flight many of the requirements are based on safety standards coming from civil aviation
regulators (eg: EASA’s CS-25) or simplifications, which establish the safe performance expected of
commercial aircraft of this size.

Each curve is explained briefly, describing where information is obtained from, and what it provides.
In each case, curves are a variation of the equation relating:

𝑇!"! 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊
∝
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 𝑆#$%

1. Cruise at Mach 0.78

Here performance during regular cruise conditions is observed. By convention speed is given as mach
0.78 and the altitude is 37000ft. Flight plans such as a stepped or continuous climb are ignored, and an
assumption is made about the fuel consumed climbing to cruise altitude/taxiing. See EQ1 for all of the
inputs affecting T/W given by cruise condition.

2. Cruise at Mmo 0.82

The same curve is repeated for a faster Mach 0.82, lower altitude and fuel consumption. Both curves
are plotted with their corresponding variant of the equation. See EQ1, albeit with changed conditions

3. Hold/Turn at 1500 ft

Hold is the condition where an aircraft is waiting for a landing slot, turning at constant speed and
altitude. When in level flight at a much lower altitude, airspeed is defined in knots true airspeed rather
than by Mach number, with a load factor n>1.

The constants imputed this time are also assumptions on the hold altitude 1500ft, the hold TAS 250kts,
the turn rate, the remaining fuel (weight) and throttle setting. In combination with a new function
incorporating the load factor. See EQ3 for inputs, which include load factor 𝑛.

4. 2ng Segment climb

Given the safety constraints, designs are prepared for one-engine inoperative (OEI) conditions, so it
can be guaranteed that the aircraft can safely return to the runway in case of emergency. Regulation
establishes the minimum climb gradient 2.4% & safe climb airspeed 20% higher than stalling speed.

Lift-augmenting devices (flaps) are used to achieve this. It is also assumed that weight and
atmospheric conditions remain at sea-level conditions. See EQ4 for formulation.

5. Take-Off
 Using the take-off field length (limited by runway length) and maximum throttle during the phase. See
EQ5.

6. Landing

Landing is similar but thrust loading is not required in the calculations (there is no throttle setting
specified, etc). 𝐶& ()*,&),- is maximised during landing to achieve a shorter landing field (benefiting
airport finances and the environment alike). See EQ6

Design point:

The design point chosen stems from the maximum span. Compared to the market data, it stood out that
the 737 Max family has a span of 35.9m, made to fit just within the 36m of standard gate sizes. Given
the 737 family was half the sample, it made sense to work back from this value using the aspect ratio
𝐴𝑅, then 𝑊/𝑆#$% , and from there using the curves which restricted the design point (2nd Segment
climb/Take-off).

Design Point
W/S (Pa) 6,116 Pa
T/W 0.271

The result: the red dot on the graph, with a 3% margin away from the line.

0.6
Thrust Loading

Cruise at Mach 0.78 0.33

Cruise at Mmo 0.82

0.5 Hold/Turn at 1500 ft

0.32
2nd Segment Climb
Take-Off
Thrust Loading T/W

0.4 Landing 0.31

Design Point

0.30
0.3
0.29
0.2
0.28
0.1
0.27

0.0
0.26
4000 6000 8000 10000 5400.0 5900.0 6400.0 6900.0 7400.0 7900.0

Wing Loading (Pa) Wing Loading (W/S) Pa

Figure 2: Thrust Loading vs Wing Loading chart. Figure 3: Comparison of market vs concept (orange diamond)

Compared to the competitor’s aircraft, the concept aircraft (orange diamond) seems to fit closely with
the A320-200 in terms of payload, passengers, and cargo. The concept has lower thrust loading and
wing loading, being closer to the A319-100 in these terms. However, it has a greater range than the
A320-200 or the A320neo. See appendix table 1 for plotted aircraft.

However, it also has significantly higher weight, more akin to the B737 MAX 9.
 4. MTOW estimate

To produce accurate estimates, decisions were based on the constrains given for the exercise, or the
closest available data where there were none.

Based off the Icelandair luggage allocations, avg. cargo capacity of similar aircraft on the market and
passenger weight surveys, the overall payload is 19,920kg:2

Pax Pax weight Baggage allocation (kg) 85% Subtotal weight

Business ("Saga") 33 86.00 Kg 64.00 Kg 54.40 Kg 4,633 kg
Economy 132 86.00 Kg 23.00 Kg 19.55 Kg 13,933 kg
112.52 kg/pax
Pax + Baggage 18,566 kg
Avg cargo 1,354 kg
TOTAL 19,920 kg
Figure 4: Passenger, Baggage and Cargo weight

For the 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 estimate, the formulas and input data are closely followed (from the analysis described
in section D2.4 [slides 18-25] of Lecture 12.

Weight Estimation
C_MTOW 0.4657 70,000 kg OWE (kg)
C_OWE 5502.1
65,000 kg
Payload (kg) 19920 kg
sfc lb/(lbf.h) 0.52 60,000 kg y = 5502.1 + 0.4657x

55,000 kg
MTOW (kg) 88329 kg
50,000 kg
OWE (kg) 46638 kg
Wfuel (kg) 21772 kg 45,000 kg

40,000 kg
Figure 5: Weight estimation
35,000 kg
MTOW (kg)
30,000 kg
60,000 kg 80,000 kg 100,000 kg 120,000 kg

Figure 6: MTOW estimate equation. Figure 7: OWE vs MTOW of market data aircraft vs concept.

Once 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑊 is found from the derived formula, the fuel fraction constant 𝐶%.$" can be used to find
the mass of fuel 𝑊%.$" . The remaining weight which is neither payload nor fuel is the weight of the
aircraft itself.

The OWE vs MTOW chart shown above (concept aircraft in an orange diamond) matches similar
aircraft closely, which means that the results are as expected, and that the group of aircraft that it’s
being compared with are similar enough to make evaluations without extrapolating.

2
Icelandair (2024). Baggage allowance on international flights.
 5. Cabin Layout

When designing the cabin the main issue was the disproportionate number of business seats,
which took up over a third of the cabin space and made it unusually long.

To make better use of this situation, a novel idea of including spaces for passengers using a
wheelchair or other mobility device was included, to address the issue of poor travel options
for disabled passengers on transatlantic and medium distance flights. Both of these were
placed at the front, so no widening of the aisle is required.

This could in future also help airlines, should regulations be introduced for accessibility in
commercial passenger aircraft, as they are already in some train networks and in most public
buildings.

The increase in amenity space required for a wheelchair accessible toilet (which is put
significant constraints on the layout) was also used to increase the space for galleys in the
front, to serve the numerous business passengers.

The consequence is a compact, but not uncomfortable economy layout, with the overwing
emergency exits in the first and second rows of economy class, and some more spacious seats
in the back where the unusually long fuselage tapers at the tail.

Another length-saving measure was for the rear exits to be for emergencies only, i.e. only just
meeting the EASA requirements. This allowed about 0.3-0.4m shortening of the fuselage, and
only the front doors are enlarged beyond the emergency requirements for boarding/
deboarding. Again, there was a limit on the min. width of the doors to ensure wheelchair
access.

The full drawing can be found in appendix C, with seat pitch/width for each class.
 6. Wing planform design

The following inputs were used to create the wing planform design, find the mean
aerodynamic chord (MAC) and the point at 25% MAC.

Where Mshock is the local mach number where the shock wave is located (in the mid chord
region)

lu is the taper ratio, the ratio between the chord at the root and the tip of the wing. Here it’s
set to the recommended 0.2

hc is the crank span, the distance (proportion) from the root to the crank chord. A standard
value of 0.35 is taken, which given the wingspan is a length of 6.28m

Lastly, the crank sweep angle Lc is also set to the standard value of 5º.

Given this is the first time performing the exercise, it seemed best to stick to standard values
that would reduce the chance of accidental errors, i.e. less guess work.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Input

0.00
M shock 0.71
0.10 lu 0.2
hc 0.35
0.20
Lc (deg) 5.0 °
0.30

Output
0.40
s = (b/2) 17.95
0.50 MAC/s 0.2630
0.60 hMAC 0.3172
MAC 4.72
0.70

Figure 8: Wing planform with

0.80 key coordinates (blue), MAC
(orange), 25% MAC (red dot).
0.90

1.00

The resulting wing planform provides coordinates, which can be used based on the ratio of 1 = 17.95m
(half the winspan) and inputted into SolidWorks for modelling and the GA drawing.
 7. Scissors diagram

The objective is to find the horizontal tailplane area which will satisfy the following
conditions:

- Static stability: represented by the static margin line, it shows the distance between the
CG and a margin of the neutral point. The margin for stability is 7% of MAC (forward
of the aerodynamic centre). The neutral line is also represented.

- Control during take-off Rotation and landing Flare: the HTP has to be large enough for
landing/take-off manoeuvres to be performed. Each case has a line representing the
required HTP size for Rotation/Flare.

In each case HTP size is expressed as a ratio of wing size, a bigger wing requires a bigger tail
to keep the moment balance.

The criteria is that any point of HTP size below the three solid lines would be too small. The
points for which the HTP must be big enough are the range ( -0.1 < h < 0.18), the typically
range of allowable CG positions.

The resulting HTP size is 0.1672 fraction of the wing area, and the tail volume coefficient is
0.81. The VTP volume coefficient 0.089 was given directly from the excel sheet, so there isn’t
much to discuss. The VTP was sized according to the taper and aspect ratio, which were
found by comparison with the market data.

ST/SREF Scissors Diagram

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

Neutral Pt
Stat Marg 0.10

Take-off
Landing 0.05
Min HTP area

0.00 h
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Figure 9: Scissors Diagram.

 8. Engine choice

The chosen engine is the CFM International LEAP – 1A26, as it closely matches the thrust
requirement, while being a very modern version with advertised good serviceability. They
have been proven on the A320neo, a leading aircraft in new orders of narrow body jets.

The match was close enough that no scaling of the powerplant would be required:
120.64 𝑘𝑁 𝑥 2 = 241.28 𝑘𝑁 > 235.1 𝑘𝑁

The LEAP – 1A26 also benefits from lower noise and GHG emissions, meaning the concept
aircraft would be less likely impacted by future regulations in these areas.

LEAP-1A26
Sea level thrust (kN) 120.64
Continuous thrust
(kN) 118.68
Aircraft in use A319, A320
Weight (kg) 2,990
Height (m) 2.368
Width (m) 2.543
Length (m) 3.328
Tsfc (g/kN/s) 14.4

9. General Arrangement

The general arrangement drawing is shown in appendix D.

 10. Conclusion

When observing the work as a whole, it appeared there wasn’t much to be changed in the inputs,
which is probably a good thing, minimizing the number of interdependent variables to produce a
useful concept.

This is because there are lots of constraints from the very start. The main ones are the mission
allocation and the safety standards, but there are many:

- Mission allocation: 165 pax, 3700nm range, 20/80 class config, 2700 𝑇𝑂𝐹𝐿.
- Safety assumptions: mostly from CS-25, regarding the curves on stages of flight
- Industry standards: mostly relating to existing technology & expected improvements, flight
speeds, airport constraints (wingspan), passenger/baggage/cargo weight.
- Atmospheric conditions: significantly simplified, i.e. altitudes remain constant.
- Current market: the only way of checking if the aircraft is a reasonable fit to the mission is by
comparing it to existing aircraft which already have a similar mission.

Given these how few options there were for innovation, it appears that aircraft design at the concept
stage is very iterative, with small (although not insignificant) changes made to accommodate changes
in demands from airlines.

To create bolder concept, it would be hard to find data such as technological assumptions, as these
would be created by testing the concept itself! This leads to a bit of circular reasoning which cannot be
addressed at this stage.

In practice, smaller changes will be made later in the design, as more accurate ways of modelling the
requirements and performance are worked out. Some examples would be assumptions made about the
flight profile, the airline’s requirements (seating, baggage, range) and the choice of engines.

At the next stage, more detail will be added, comparing the changes to current results. As the
complexity increases, several versions of the calculations might be created, to test how each potential
change will affect the aircraft. E.g.: if a few options for the powerplant are given, a separate set of
calculations could be done for each version, comparing results from changes in thrust or weight.

For the UAV, however:

What will be particularly interesting is whether any of this actually holds for different kinds of aircraft.
Throughout the exercise examples were given for small private aircraft, experimental models, and
military aircraft.

When designing and building the UAV in stage 4, it’s possible that few of these assumptions will
make sense, as it is unmanned, carries no fuel, has fewer control surfaces (no flaps), a simpler wing
profile, lower speed, etc…
11. References

• Dr Jagadeesh, C. (Unk). AE2400.12 Design 2 - Payload, Fuel, MTOW. City, University of

London.
• Dr Jagadeesh, C. (2023). AE2400 Design Templates 2023-2024. City, University of London.
• Dr Jagadeesh, C. (2022). AE2400 Assignment 2 - Sizing Diagram 2022-23. City, University
of London.
• Icelandair (2024). Baggage allowance on international flights.
<https://www.icelandair.com/en-gb/support/baggage/allowance/>. (Last access 12/02/2024)
• Icelandair (2024). Icelandair fleet. <https://www.icelandair.com/about/our-fleet/>.
(Last access 12/02/2024)
• Chris Brady (1999). Boeing 737 Detailed Technical Data. The 737 Information Site
<http://www.b737.org.uk/techspecsdetailed.htm>. (Last access 12/02/2024)
• European Aviation Safety Agency (2003). Decision no. 2003/2/rm of the executive director
of the agency of 17 October 2003 on certification specifications, including airworthiness
codes and acceptable means of compliance, for large aeroplanes.
 12. Appendices

Appendix A:

Market data table of all evaluated market aircraft, with the concept aircraft for comparison.

Appendix B:

The following flight curve equations have been directly converted from Excel Workbook
Unicode format, and tested with feedback quizzes.

- EQ1: Cruise equation (curve 1 & 2):

𝑇/# 𝑅𝑅𝐶 𝑊/# 23 𝐾 𝑊/#

=0 2 + 𝐶01 ∗ 𝑞/# ∗ 0 2 + ∗0 2
𝑊/# 𝑉/# 𝑆 𝑞/# 𝑆

- EQ3: Hold/turn (curve 3):

𝑇4 𝑊4 23 𝐾 ∗ 𝑛5 𝑊4
= 𝐶01,4 ∗ 𝑞4 ∗ 0 2 + ∗0 2
𝑊4 𝑆 𝑞4 𝑆

- EQ4: 2nd Segment Climb (curve 4):

𝑇/" 𝐷6"7(8
= 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑎/" ∗
𝑊/" 𝐿6"7(8

- EQ5: Take-off field length (curve 5):

𝑇9: 𝐶 𝑊9:
= ∗0 2
𝑊9: 𝑇𝑂𝐹𝐿 ∗ 𝜎 ∗ 𝐶& ()*,9: 𝑆

- EQ6: Landing (curve 6):

 𝑊&),- 𝜎 ∗ 𝐶& ()*,&),-
= (𝐿𝐹𝐿 − 𝐴) ∗
𝑆 𝐵

Appendix C:

Image cropped from the D4 stage, showing cabin layout

Appendix D:

GA Drawings (FOLLOWING PAGE)