Design of a Light Business Jet Family David C. Alman Andrew R. M. Hoeft Terry H. Ma AIAA : 498858 AIAA : 494351 AIAA : 820228 Cameron B. McMillan Jagadeesh Movva Christopher L. Rolince AIAA : 486025 AIAA : 738175 AIAA : 808866 I. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mr. Carl Johnson, Dr. Neil Weston, and the numerous Georgia Tech faculty and students who have assisted in our personal and aerospace education, and this project specifically. In addition, the authors would like to individually thank the following: David C. Alman: My entire family, but in particular LCDR Allen E. Alman, USNR (BSAE Purdue ’49) and father James D. Alman (BSAE Boston University ’87) for instilling in me a love for aircraft, and Karrin B. Alman for being a wonderful mother and reading to me as a child. I’d also like to thank my friends, including brother Mark T. Alman, who have provided advice, laughs, and made life more fun. Also, I am forever indebted to Roe and Penny Stamps and the Stamps President’s Scholarship Program for allowing me to attend Georgia Tech and to the Georgia Tech Research Institute for providing me with incredible opportunities to learn and grow as an engineer. Lastly, I’d like to thank the countless mentors who have believed in me, helped me learn, and Page i provided the advice that has helped form who I am today. Andrew R. M. Hoeft: As with every undertaking in my life, my involvement on this project would not have been possible without the tireless support of my family and friends. I thank my mother, Sue Ellen, for leading me through 23 years of life’s great challenges with enthusiasm, and my stepfather, Martice, for helping me realize that I cannot know everything - and that’s okay. I am especially grateful for my sister and brother-in-law, Maria and Cory: without them, I would not have the privilege of attending Georgia Tech. And finally, I thank my longtime mentor and friend, Dr. Kevin Eveker, for validating my interest in aerospace engineering as a profession and providing uncountable hours of advice. Terry H. Ma: I would like to thank my parents for teaching me early on the work ethics and determination required to face and overcome the most daunting obstacles. Their endless support for me has allowed me to attend Georgia Tech to further my education and passion for aviation and engineering. In addition, I would like to thank the the faculty at Georgia Tech who has equipped me with the skills needed to become successful, as well as the numerous talented students whom I have had the pleasure of working along side. In particular, my close friend and colleague, Kayla W. has been there for me personally and professionally throughout my 5 year career as an undergraduate student at Georgia Tech. Cameron B. McMillan My parents, Steve and Briggs McMillan, who have supported me on every step of my educational journey. My brother, Andrew McMillan, for always grounding me. I would especially like to thank Dr. Brian German and the many researchers of the Aerospace Systems Design Lab at Georgia Tech for mentoring me throughout my undergraduate career. Jagadeesh Movva My caring family, including my parents Ramesh and Kavitha Movva as well as my brother Vikash Movva. Without their support to help me pursue my dreams, I would not be where I am today. I am thankful for the numerous mentors I have had including Mr. Richard Sims and Mr. Jason Weinberger. I would also like to thank my advisor, Prof. Marilyn Smith on her guidance and mentorship. Christopher L. Rolince: My incredibly supporting family, specifically my grandfather, Wayne Page ii L. Dolan, and father, Daniel J. Rolince for fostering a love and passion for aviation, and mother Christine M. Rolince for supporting me throughout the rigors of Georgia Tech. Additionally, thanks to the United States Navy for giving me the opportunity to both study at Georgia Tech and continue my passion for flying. Additionally, Alyssa Bushhouse (Virginia Tech), Natalie Larkins (Georgia Tech) and Alex Carroll (Georgia Tech) for their assistance with our team logo design and model renderings. Page iii II. Executive Summary The demand for light business jets fell significantly during and after the 2009 recession. Man- ufacturers operating in this market have remained understandably cautious about introducing new aircraft or technology. However, new investments in infrastructure coupled with global economic growth in recent years present a high-return opportunity for new entries into the light business jet market segment. This technical proposal outlines the design and development of a two-member light business jet aircraft family with capacities of six and eight passengers. The goal of this project was to introduce new technology and increased capability with a low operating cost in order to meet current and future demands. The eight-passenger variant was used as the primary design driver given its higher payload and resulting performance impact. Multiple Class I concepts were considered; these included conventional and unconventional component configurations across a variety of weight classes. Ultimately, a canard-equipped aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of roughly 17,000 lbs was selected. Rigorous technical analysis was performed to validate this design choice using several commercial software packages for computational fluid dynamics, finite element analysis, trade-study-guided optimization, and computer-aided design and simulation. In addition, several custom software applications were developed in order to optimize the wing and canard size, loca- tion, and stability characteristics. Due to the highly-coupled nature of the design, all analyses were extensively iterated. To guarantee the creation of a feasible light business jet family, both the six- and eight-passenger variants were expected to share at least 70% parts commonality. Consequently, the six-passenger aircraft demanded extensive design consideration to meet this requirement effectively. Ultimately, a simple fuselage plug, six feet in length, was chosen as main differentiating element between the two aircraft. While this choice complicated the center of gravity and stability characteristics to achieve the desired performance, it significantly reduced the overall design complexity and created a net reduction in development and acquisition costs. Since the wing and canard were sized to meet the eight-person requirements, they are non-optimal for the six-person design mission. This Page iv does, however, allow the six-person to have a greater range and reduced cost due to increased parts commonality and shared tooling. Performance and cost analyses validated this decision. Financially, these clean-sheet aircraft represent a unique and lucrative opportunity for a new or existing manufacturer in the light business jet market. Based on extensive cost modeling and analysis, the current-year sale price of the eight-passenger aircraft was found to be US $7.5 million while the current-year sale price of the six-person variant was found to be US $6.5 million. These prices include a 15% profit margin for the manufacturer at a production rate of 6 aircraft per month. The emphasis on feasibility and technology readiness throughout the design process results in high confidence that these aircraft would meet a target entry-into-service date of 2020 and 2022 for the six- and eight-passenger aircraft, respectively. In light of the growing market potential and high financial upside, this light business jet aircraft family shows substantial promise and constitutes a worthy business venture. Through the strategic use of advanced yet proven technologies, commercial-off-the-shelf subsystems, and modern manu- facturing practices, the HAMMMR Designs family of aircraft successfully delivers a sophisticated aesthetic while accomplishing an impressive performance envelope and guaranteeing maximum value for both customers and shareholders. Page v Figure 1: Scaled Three-View Image of the HAMMMR Designs H-800 Page vi Contents I Acknowledgements i II Executive Summary iv III Requirements 1 IV Business Jet Market Analysis 2 V Class I Configuration Selections 4 A Fuselage Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B Wing Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C Landing Gear Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D Engine Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E Engine Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 F Engine Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 G Tail Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 H Configuration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 VI Aircraft Weight and Sizing 11 A Mission Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B Constraint Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 C Weight Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 D Aircraft Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 VII Wing and Canard Design 20 A Process Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B Center of Gravity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C Wing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 D Canard Design and Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 E Configuration Optimizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 VIII Stability and Control System Design 40 A Longitudinal Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 B Lateral Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 IX Materials Selection and Structural Configuration 45 A Fuselage Design and Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 B Wing Structural Design and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 C Design of Vertical Tail and Canard Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 D Maneuvering Envelop and V-N Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 X Landing Gear Placement and Design 58 XI Cabin Design 61 Page vii XII Range 66 XIII Subsystem Selections 69 A Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 B Avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 C Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 XIV Alternative Variants 76 A Cargo Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 B Electronic/Signals Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 XV Cost Estimation 77 A Development and Production Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 B Operating Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 XVI Conclusion 82 XVII Appendix 84 List of Figures 1 Scaled Three-View Image of the HAMMMR Designs H-800 . . . . . . . . . . . vi 2 FAA Data on Market Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Standard T-Tail, Cruciform Tail, and V-Tail Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 Selected Component Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 NBAA IFR Range Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Energy based constraint sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 Historical Aircraft Weight Regression (pictures not to scale) . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8 Trade Study of Cruise Conditions Effect on Gross Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9 Trade Study of Cruise Conditions Effect on Design Mission Block Time . . . . . 17 10 FLOPS Output Drag Polar at Mach 0.8, 43k ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11 H-800 Payload Range Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12 H-600 Payload Range Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13 Location of Aircraft Datum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 14 Component Weight Layout of 6 Passenger Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 15 Component Weight Layout of 8 Passenger Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16 Center of Gravity Excursion Diagram for 8 Passenger Variant . . . . . . . . . . . 24 17 Center of Gravity Excursion Diagram for 8 Passenger Variant . . . . . . . . . . . 24 18 Section Lift Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 19 Section Drag Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 Surface Growth Rate of Wing Meshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 21 Boundary Layer Mesh Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 22 Relative Mach Number of Canard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 23 Relative Mach Number of Main Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 24 Planforms of Wing Surfaces. Controls are scaled correctly relative to surface, but surfaces are not to scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Page viii 25 Locations Considered for Wing and Canard Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 26 Canard Moment Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 27 Depiction of Aerodynamic Coupling with Canard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 28 Aerodynamic Benefit of Canard and Wing Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 29 Stall Strip for Canard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 30 Configuration Optimizer Execution Process Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 31 Potential 6 and 8 Person Static Margin Shifts with Maximum Parts Commonality 38 32 Short-period Flying Qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 33 Longitudinal SCAS Block Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 34 Block diagram of Lateral SCAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 35 Overview of Aircraft Structural Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 36 Structural Configuration and Material Selection for Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 37 Fuselage Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 38 Fuselage Panel Layup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 39 Simplified Fuselage Structural Model and Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 40 IRF Plot for Pressurized Composite Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 41 Wing-Fuselage Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 42 Wing Spar to Fuselage Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 43 Wing Structural Model and Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 44 Wing Internal Structure Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 45 Pressure Load Application on Bottom Surface of Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 46 Shape of Pressure Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 47 Wing Deformation under Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 48 Tail Structural Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 49 Tail Attachment to Empennage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 50 Canard Articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 51 V-N Diagram for 6 Passenger Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 52 V-N Diagram for 8 Passenger Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 53 Longitudinal Tip-over Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 54 Lateral Tip-over Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 55 Main Gear Retraction Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 56 Nose Gear Retraction Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 57 Operating Empty Weight versus Cabin Height for Selected FAR 23 Certified Business Jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 58 Maximum Range versus Cabin Length for Selected FAR 23 Certified Business Jets 63 59 H-600 and H-800 Cabin Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 60 Cabin Interior Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 61 Cabin Interior Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 62 H-600 Cabin Top View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 63 H-800 Cabin Top View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 64 2,500 Nautical Mile Range Centered On New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 65 2,500 Nautical Mile Range Centered On London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 66 Yearly Global Business Jet Flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 67 Williams FJ-44 Jet Turbine Engine [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 68 Fuel System Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Page ix