Chapter 1

AIRCRAFT
PERFORMANCE
AND SIZING,
VOLUME I
AIRCRAFT
PERFORMANCE
AND SIZING,
VOLUME I
Fundamentals of Aircraft
Performance
TIMOTHY TAKAHASHI
Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume I: Fundamentals of Aircraft

Performance
Copyright Momentum Press, LLC, 2016.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any otherexcept for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published in 2016 by
Momentum Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net
ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-683-7 (print)
ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-684-4 (e-book)
Momentum Press Aerospace Engineering Collection
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.,
Chennai, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
Abstract
This book is a concise practical treatise for the student or experienced
professional aircraft designer. This volume comprises key fundamental
subjects for aerodynamic performance analysis: the basics of flight mechanics bridging both engineering and piloting perspectives, propulsion
system performance attributes, practical drag prediction methods, aircraft
up and away flight performance and aircraft mission performance. This
book may serve as a textbook for an undergraduate aircraft performance
course or as a reference for the classically trained practicing engineer.
KEYWORDS
Aerodynamics, Aircraft Design, Aircraft Performance, Aircraft Sizing,
Drag, Lift, Aircraft Stability, Aircraft Control, Aviation
Contents
List of Figures
ix
List of Tables
xvii
Acknowledgments
xix
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
Defining a Clean-Sheet Design

Aircraft PurposeThe Explicit Requirements
CertificationThe Implied Requirements
1
4
6
19
Chapter 2 Flight Mechanics Basics
53
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
53
56
60
69
Reference Units
Coordinate Frames
Standard Atmosphere
How Pilots Actually Fly Airplanes
Chapter 3 Propulsion System Design Drivers

and Performance
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
77
Gas Turbine Fundamentals

77
Calculating Thrust and Fuel Flow
88
Propulsion System Components and Design
Drivers91
Example Engine Performance Data
96
Chapter 4 Aerodynamic Analysis FundamentalsLift

and Drag
101
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
102
104
114
119
122
Full Configuration Drag Estimation

Zero-Lift Drag at Incompressible Speeds
Zero-Lift Drag due to Compressibility
Drag Due to Lift at Incompressible Speeds
Drag Due to Lift Arising from Compressibility
viiiContents
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
Crud DragThe Drag of Real versus Idealized

Aerostructures124
Maximum Lift Coefficient/Buffet Boundary
129
Angle of Attack
130
Take-off, Approach, and Landing Aerodynamics
131
Chapter 5 Kinematic Point-Performance Principles
143
5.1
5.2
5.3
Standard Atmosphere Revisited

144
Computing Stall Speed
145
Minimum and Maximum Permissible
Flight Speeds
148
5.4
The Energy-Maneuverability SkyMap Plot
149
5.5
Inferring Lift and Drag in an E-M Plot
150
5.6
Aerodynamic Efficiency (L/D) and Performance
Efficiency (M(L/D))155
5.7
Dimensionalizing Drag
157
5.8
Propulsive Performance
158
5.9
Specific Excess Thrust and Linear Acceleration
Capability164
5.10
Specific Excess Power, Rate of Climb (R.O.C.), and
Ceiling
164
5.11
Specific Range
177
5.12 Loiter
183
5.13
Induced Drag Fraction of Total Drag for Level
Flight Limited by Aerodynamics and Propulsion
185
5.14
Maximum Load Factor, Instantaneous
Turn Rate and Stall Speed Ratio
187
5.15
Combat AgilityMaximum Sustained Turn Rate
189
Chapter 6 Mission Performance Principles
193
6.1
6.2
6.3
193
198
6.4
6.5
6.6
Index
Breguet Range Equation

Time-Step Integrating Simulations
Creating Missions Using a Mission
Simulation Code
Observations Examining the Output
of a Mission Simulation Code
Creating Trade Studies Using a Mission
Simulation Code
Creating Payload/Range Charts Using
a Mission Simulation Code
206
213
215
217
219
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Three Boeing aircraft (B777, B757, and B737) with
similar overall configurations but widely differing
payload, range, and runway capacities.
Figure 1.2. Manufacturers published payload-versus-range

diagram (MD-81 airliner).
Figure 1.3. McDonnell Douglas MD-81 airliner (a workhorse with

trans world airlines (TWA): It flew all domestic
routes out of their St. Louis hub).
Figure 1.4. FAA guidelines for passenger weights.
Figure 1.5. Payload as a function of number of passengers

(AC 120-27C and 14 CFR 121.391).
10
Figure 1.6. Nominal flight time as a function of cruise speed

(no climb or descent credit).
11
Figure 1.7. Equivalent still air distances (ESAD) between

U.S. cities.
12
Figure 1.8. Equivalent still air distances (ESAD) for one-stop U.S.
domestic transcontinental flights.
13
Figure 1.9. Equivalent still air distances (ESAD) between select

global cities.
13
Figure 1.10. Runways at major U.S. hub airports.
14
Figure 1.11. Secondary runways at major U.S. hub airports

and metroplex (regional) airport runways.
15
Figure 1.12. Challenging airports (due to elevation and/or short

runways). 16
Figure 1.13. World metropolitan airports.
17
Figure 1.14. Takeoff runway length requirement for MD-81 airliner. 17
x List of Figures
Figure 1.15. Weight and balance chart for MD-81 airliner. 0%

MACreferenced to FS 885.5 in; MAC is 158.5 in.
(see Chapter 2 for clarifications).
21
Figure 1.16. Weight limitations for MD-81 airliner.
22
Figure 1.17. Minimum interior width.
24
Figure 1.18. Airbus 320 after emergency water landing.
25
Figure 1.19. Nzmax as a function of design maximum

takeoff weight.
29
Figure 1.20. Stick forces corresponding to positive static

longitudinal stability per AC 25-7B.
31
Figure 1.21. Force balance with an inoperative engine.
31
Figure 1.22. Minimum crosswind capability for certification.
33
Figure 1.23. Crosswind.
34
Figure 1.24. Implied sideslip (crabangle).
34
Figure 1.25. Placard speeds for strength and environments.
40
Figure 1.26. Indicated airspeed gage.
40
Figure 1.27. Bird strike damage.
41
Figure 1.28. Uncontained rotor burst of the engine turbine.
42
Figure 1.29. Wing damage from an uncontained rotor burst.
43
Figure 1.30. Fuselage damage from an uncontained rotor burst.
43
Figure 1.31. Rotor burst zone.
44
Figure 1.32. Differential cabin pressure.
46
Figure 2.1. National weather service report for a typical

domestic U.S. airport.
54
Figure 2.2. Runway layout for a typical domestic airport in the

United States.
55
Figure 2.3. Aircraft Lofting coordinates (FS,BL,WL) in

contrast with aeromechanics body axis
coordinates (x,y,z).
56
Figure 2.4. Body versus stability axis.
57
Figure 2.5. Aerodynamic force nomenclature.
58
Figure 2.6. Aerodynamic moment nomenclature.
58
Figure 2.7. Mean and one-standard deviation temperature

spreads for various global locations in comparison
with the 1962 standard atmosphere.
61
List of Figures xi
Figure 2.8. Pitot-static probe.
62
Figure 2.9. Flight test boom comprising pitot/static probe

and vane type angle-of-attack and side-slip angle
instruments. 63
Figure 2.10. Equivalent airspeed (KEAS) as a function of Mach
number and pressure altitude (ft).
63
Figure 2.11. Aircraft altimeter (calibration set to 28.47 in Hg).
66
Figure 2.12. True airspeed (KTAS) as a function of Mach number

and pressure altitude (ft).
68
Figure 2.13. Unit Reynolds number as a function of Mach

number and pressure altitude (ft).
69
Figure 2.14. Dynamic pressure as a function of Mach number

and pressure altitude (ft).
70
Figure 2.15. Aircraft instruments: (a) Compass (b) Heading

indicator. 71
Figure 2.16. Bank angle/load factor relationship.
73
Figure 2.17. Turn radius as a function of load factor and

flight speed.
73
Figure 2.18. Aircraft artificial horizon.
74
Figure 2.19. Aircraft turn coordinator (inclinometer).
74
Figure 3.1. Station nomenclature schematic for a two-spool

turbofan engine. LPC, low-pressure compressor;
HPC, high-pressure compressor; HPT, high-pressure
turbine; LPT, low-pressure turbine.
78
Figure 3.2. Brayton cycle pressure-volume diagram (engine

nomenclature). 79
Figure 3.3. Nozzle configurations. (a) A321: separate core
and bypass flow versus (b) A320: mixed core
and bypassflow.
80
Figure 3.4. Pressure recovery from an idealized three oblique

shock inlet.
83
Figure 3.5. Theoretical (upper bound) to the mechanical

efficiency of a Brayton cycle engine.
85
Figure 3.6. Theoretical (upper bound) to the propulsive

efficiency of a Brayton cycle engine.
87
Figure 3.7. Power Hook at sea level for a generic turbofan

engine. 90
xii List of Figures
Figure 3.8. (a) Airbus 319 versus (b) B737 inlet designs. These two
essentially similar aircraft utilize CFM-56 Turbofan
engines with rather different inlet geometry.
92
Figure 3.9. Pictures of deployed thrust reversers. (a) Target

type; (b) Pivoting door, (c) Cold stream cascade.
95
Figure 3.10. Cruise altitude performance of different turbofan

engines. Effect of bypass ratio.
98

engines. Effect of OPR. OPR, operating pressure
ratio. 99
engines. Effect of FPR. FPR, fan pressure ratio.
Figure 4.1. Overall flat plate drag coefficient from experiments
(after Hoerner).
99
105
Figure 4.2. Typical Reynolds number correction table. CD0

(M, ALT). 106
Figure 4.3. Body form factor after Feagin & Morrison.
110
Figure 4.4. Computation of the equivalent diameter of the

fuselage and the nacelle.
112
Figure 4.5. Base drag.
113
Figure 4.6. Base pressure coefficients from X-15 flight test

data. 114
Figure 4.7. Integration of the axial projection of surface
pressures. This is pressure drag. 115
Figure 4.8. Body compressibility drag chart (after
Feagin & Morrison).
116
Figure 4.9. Wing Zero-Lift compressibility chart.
118
Figure 4.10. Ideal lift distribution for minimum drag-due-to-lift

(Elliptical: free flight; non-elliptical: in ground
effect). 121
Figure 4.11. CDpressure offset charts after Feagin & Morrison. 123
Figure 4.12. Correlation between flight test zero-lift drag and
basic semi-empirical zero lift drag from Feagin &
Morrison. 127
Figure 4.13. Correlation between flight test and wind tunnel test
friction datafrom George-Falvy.
128
Figure 4.14. Buffet boundary table.
129
List of Figures xiii
Figure 4.15. Low speed lift slope dCl/d as a function of

sweep and AR. 130
Figure 4.16. Transonic lift slope dCl/d as a function
of sweep and AR at Mach 0.8 freestream flow.
131
Figure 4.17. Change in lift characteristics.
132
Figure 4.18. Deployable variable area/variable camber

Fowler flap.
133
Figure 4.19. CLmax sensitivity to the location of the leading edge

of the deployed fowler flap. After Weick.
134
Figure 4.20. Wing with leading and trailing edge flaps.
134
Figure 4.21. System level performance of various flap systems

after Brune.
135
Figure 4.22. Finite wing performance with various flap systems

after Brune.
135
Figure 5.1. Aerodynamic factors that determine CLmax.
147
Figure 5.2. CLmax envelope as limited by both low speed stall

and high speed Mach buffet.
148
Figure 5.3. GeometryAerodynamic force balance.
152
Figure 5.4. CL as a function of Mach # and Altitude for given

aerodynamic data at a reference weight. Flight
envelope limited as to not extrapolate aero or
propulsion data.
153
Figure 5.5. Angle-of-attack () as a function of Mach # and

Altitude for given aerodynamic data at a reference
weight. Flight envelope limited as to not extrapolate
aero or propulsion data.
154
Figure 5.6. CD as a function of Mach # and Altitude for given

aerodynamic data at a reference weight.
154
Figure 5.7. L/D as a function of Mach # and Altitude for given

156
Figure 5.8. M(L/D) as a function of Mach # and Altitude for

given aerodynamic data at a reference weight.
157
Figure 5.9. Dimensional drag, D, in units lbf as a function of

Mach # and Altitude for given aerodynamic data at
a reference weight.
158
xiv List of Figures
Figure 5.10. Dimensional maximum thrust, Tmax, in units lbf as

a function of Mach # and Altitude for given
160
Figure 5.11. Dimensional fuel flow at maximum thrust, FFmax,

in units lbm/hr as a function of Mach # and Altitude
for given aerodynamic data at a reference weight.
161
Figure 5.12. Specific excess thrust in excess of 1 permits the

design of vertical take-off aircraft like the lockheed
pogo. 165
Figure 5.13. Specific excess power, Ps , as a function of Mach #
and Altitude for given aerodynamic data at a
reference weight.
166
Figure 5.14. Unaccelerated Rate of Climb (R.O.C.) in ft/min

as a function of Mach # and Altitude for given
aerodynamic and propulsion data at a reference
weight. 167
Figure 5.15. Constant KIAS Rate of Climb (R.O.C.) in ft/min
weight. 169
Figure 5.16. Constant Mach # Rate of Climb (R.O.C.) in ft/min
weight. 169
Figure 5.17. Absolute, service and ATC ceiling envelopes
graphically depicted on a Rate of Climb (R.O.C.)
skymap chart. ALL ENGINES OPERATING.
173
Figure 5.18. Absolute, Service and ATC Ceiling Envelopes

graphically depicted on a Rate of Climb (R.O.C.)
skymap chart. ONE ENGINE INOP.
174
Figure 5.19. Unaccelerated Rate of Climb Sky-maps at

(a) W/S = 125 lbf/ft2, (b) W/S = 75 lbf-ft2. Best
rate-of-climb profile is superimposed for each
weight condition.
175
Figure 5.20. Simplified best rate of climb schedule

superimposed upon a rate-of-climb skymap.
177
Figure 5.21. Specific Range skymap for reference aircraft with

all engines operating. (a) flight at W/S = 125 lbf/ft2;
(b) flight at 75 lbf/ft2. 178
List of Figures xv
Figure 5.22. Specific range skymap for reference aircraft with

one engine inoperative. W/S = 125 lbf/ft2. 180
Figure 5.23. Specific range at part power thrust, SR, nM/lbm
in light of substantial horsepower and bleed-air
extraction. 182
Figure 5.24. Endurance fuel flow at part power thrust, FF, in
units lbm/hr as a function of Mach # and Altitude
ALL ENGINES OPERATING.
184
Figure 5.25. Endurance fuel flow at part power thrust, FF, in

units lbm/hr as a function of Mach # and Altitude
ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE.
185
Figure 5.26. CDi fraction as a function of Mach # and Altitude for

given aerodynamic data at a reference weight.
(0.5 = flight at 50% induced drag/50% zero-lift-drag;
0.1 = 10% induced drag/90% zero-lift drag).
186
Figure 5.27. Maximum instantaneous aerodynamic load factor

(Nzmaxi) as a function of Mach # and Altitude for
given aerodynamic and propulsion data at a
reference weight.
187
Figure 5.28. Maximum sustained aerodynamic load factor

(Nzmaxs) as a function of Mach # and Altitude for
given aerodynamic and propulsion data at a
reference weight.
188
Figure 5.29. Airbus A400 at the 2014 Farnborough Airshow.

2.5 gee sustained turns are dramatic!
189
Figure 6.1. Breguet studyrange as a function of fuel on board.
195
Figure 6.2. Breguet studyrange as a function of takeoff weight.
195
Figure 6.3. Breguet studyused to construct a mission planning

payload-versus-range chart.
197
Figure 6.4. Weight versus distance flown based on numerical

flight simulation. Narrow body airliner. Simple
mission. 208
Figure 6.5. Altitude versus distance flown based upon numerical
simulation. Narrow body airliner. Simple mission.
208
Figure 6.6. Altitude versus distance flown based on numerical

simulation. Narrow body airliner. IFR mission with
45 min loiter IFR, instrument flight rules.
209
xvi List of Figures

simulation. Narrow body airliner. IFR mission with
100 nM divert PLUS 45 min loiter. IFR, instrument
flight rules.
210

simulation. Narrow body airliner. Overseas IFR
mission with 110% design range, airport, plus
100 nM divert PLUS 30 min loiter @ 1,500 ft.
IFR, instrument flight rules.
212

mission with engine failure mid flight, return to
home airport, plus 100 nM divert PLUS 30 min
loiter @ 1,500 ft. IFR, instrument flight rules.
213
Figure 6.10. Lift coefficient (CL) versus distance flown based

on numerical simulation. Narrow body airliner.
Basic mission.
213
Figure 6.11. Aerodynamic performance efficiency (M(L/D))

versus distance flown based on numerical
mission with engine failure mid flight. IFR,
instrument flight rules.
214
Figure 6.12. Fuel flow versus distance flown based on

numerical simulation. Narrow body airliner.
Overseas IFR mission with engine failure mid
flight. IFR, instrument flight rules.
214
Figure 6.13. Flight speed in KTAS versus distance flown based

flight. KTAS, knots true airspeed; IFR, instrument
flight rules.
215
Figure 6.14. Flight speed in KIAS versus distance flown based

flight. KIAS, knots indicated air speed; IFR,
instrument flight rules.
215
Figure 6.15. Cruise speed/cruise altitude trade study. Narrow

body airliner. Basic mission.
216
Figure 6.16. Climb speed trade study. Narrow body airliner.

Basic mission.
217
List of Tables
Table 2.1.
Table 3.1.
Table 5.1.
1976 Standard day atmospheric properties

65
NPSS simulated engine performance
97
Minimum permissible flight speeds for jet-propelled
aircraft149
Acknowledgments
Life is an adventure. As a small boy, I watched the moon landings on
television and dreamed of a career in aerospace. Through many twists and
turns, I had never imagined that one day I would work at the Skunk Works,
own a mansion in Kansas, or teach in Arizona. Along this circuitous journey, I learned aircraft design by doing it not by studying itthrough
many collaborations with work colleagues, mentors, and students.
For this work, I would like to specially call out a few names from my
industrial past: Luis Miranda, Bob Coopersmith, and the late Bill Evans
for otherwise unwritten insight into aerodynamic design as well as Wayne
Cosgrove and Fred Keable for showing me the proper way to analyze flight
performance.
While I never had the chance to formally study under Professor
Emeritus W.H. (Bill) Mason from Virginia Tech, he has been an inspiration and role model for me. He is a unique academic who addresses deeply
practical issues in aircraft design, otherwise overlooked by the scholarly
community.
Id also like to thank my many AIAA conference paper collaborators,
especially these former students of mine: Shane Donovan, Christopher
Gedeon, Nicholas Heitzman, Shane Huffer, James Jensen, Christopher
Kady, Jeffrey Kirkman, Tyler Knight, Cameron Langley, Tyler Lemonds,
Michael Merrell, Nicholas Mora, Matthew Swann, and Donald Wood. Our
papers together formed the foundation of these books.
Finally, I would like to thank my reviewers: Lance Bays, Josh Cohn, and
Ruben Perez, for all of their help during the formative stages of this project.
To the reader, please enjoy my unusual treatise on aircraft performance and sizing.
Timothy T. Takahashi
Tempe, AZ
January 2016
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Aircraft Design describes an undertaking where a team of engineers and
leaders transform a set of requirements, first, into mathematical models,
then into blueprint drawings and specifications, and, finally, into physical
hardware. Aircraft Design comprises a broad set of technical engineering
disciplines including Applied Mathematics (computer programming and
numerical analysis), Aerodynamics (for external and internal flows), Acoustics, Thermodynamics, Materials Science, Chemical Engineering, Electrical E
ngineering (power generation, radio frequency (RF) applications, and
control theory), Structural Mechanics (statics and dynamics), Mechanism
Design, Optical Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, and finally Operations Research. Aircraft Design also requires interactions with a broad set of non-engineering disciplines including Law,
Finance, Marketing, Accounting, Meteorology, Supply Chain, Industrial
Design, and even diverse professions such as Fashion Merchandising and
Interior Design. Consequently, leadership must create a seamless team from
people with widely varied backgrounds.
Once upon a time, both the United States and Great Britain maintained a vibrant privatepublic partnership for aerospace science. In the
United States, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)
published fundamental work in aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, and
materials. In Great Britain, the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) had
a similarly active technical staff. The respective governments designed,
built, and operated large wind tunnels and other facilities at Moffett Field
(NASA-Ames) in California, Lewis Field (NASA-Glenn) in Ohio, Wright
Field (Air Force Research Laboratory, AFRL) in Ohio, Hampton, Virginia
(NASA-Langley) and at Farnborough, United Kingdom (RAE). The civil
service research staff at these facilities collaborated closely with industry.
These reports, documenting this open exchange of ideas of government,
industrial, and governmentindustry partners, were published and presented in forums such as the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics
2 AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND SIZING
and Astronautics) and AGARD (NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace

Research & Development).
By the end of the 1960s, as the Breton Woods gold-standard network of
fixed currency exchange rates between First World nations reached its breaking point, Great Britain cut back government funding of new military aircraft. During this period of extreme consolidation, many British engineers
immigrated to America. Reestablishing themselves in the United States,
these scientists continued their great work at firms such as Lockheed,
Grumman, and Boeing. Not only were these Anglo-American engineering teams instrumental in designing the Lockheed C-5 and the Grumman
X-29 but their members continued to publish their work in professional
forums.
Since the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, the volume of openly published
papers describing nuances of commercial or military aircraft design has
decreased. An unintended by-product of the peace dividend has been the
rise of a line of thinking that considers most attributes of aircraft architecture and aircraft integration as a trade secret. When the threat of a Sovietled invasion was palpable, Western aircraft companies shared technical
data openly for the sake of the Free World. Sadly, despite the prevalence
of these scientific publications, common textbooks from the Cold War
period tended to be either very theoretical (Anderson,1 Ashley,2 Ashley, &
Landhal3) or extremely empirical (Raymer,4 Roskam5) in their approach
to engineering design. No middle ground physics-based, yet industrially
focused, text seemed to arise from this great body of work.
As the old guard of engineers with a direct connection to clean-sheet
product design retired in the late 1990s, a new paradigm took flight. Without personal knowledge of aircraft science, engineers and managers became more reliant on the information found in textbooks. With the rise
of the Internet came the demise of the technical library. Why do you need
books when you have Google? Consequently, many aircraft companies
either scaled back or disbanded their libraries and their associated internal technical report collections. As a result, when working as an engineer in industry at a legacy company, the reports written by the employee
who once sat at your desk can no longer be accessed. Some companies
destroyed old reports to prevent their trade secret contents from being
disseminated. Others donated their collections to universities or used
bookshops. For example, I acquired a copy of Schlichtings Aerodynamics
of the Airplane from a used bookshop.6 Upon closer inspection, I discovered that it was withdrawn from the Lockheed-Burbank corporate library.
Similarly, my first edition copy of Raymers Aircraft Design acquired at another bookshop was a discard from the Northrop library.4 When I worked at
Lockheed-Georgia, the corporation wholesale discarded, rather than donated,
Introduction 3
its entire library collection. Many employees went dumpster diving to augment personal collections. The end result is disturbing: Few private industrial
aerospace library collections remain.
In the aftermath of an epoch of wholesale knowledge destruction, we
live in times where far too many engineers and managers believe in a
popular science version of aerospace design thoroughly disconnected
from the real science of their fathers generation. On one hand, a theoretical approach to the flight sciences easily leads the engineer to ignore
important design attributes that are needed for certification. Alternatively, reliance on design handbooks based on empirical fits of production
aircraft data may produce unrealistic results when applied to a new design. For example, wing structure designed around high-speed machined
parts requires a very different detail design layout than a wing designed
to use formed and riveted sheet metal. Each construction topology has
a distinctly different weight trend with respect to wing size, and planform. Because most empirical weight prediction methods do not differentiate such a nuance, engineers often apply broad technology factors
to consider advanced construction. In practice, despite a promise of a
10 percent weight reduction through technology, a production wing designed with high-speed machined parts might weigh more than an equivalent old-fashioned sheet metal wing!
We live in a time where new generations of aircraft are designed to
utilize boutique technology for the sake of using such technology; the misuse of winglets, in particular, is my pet peeve. Readers of this text will
learn a more nuanced view of induced drag than is commonly taught today; consequently, they may adopt my point of view. They may understand
that a winglet is one of many tricks an engineer may employ to alter the
transverse lift distribution and, hence, drag of an aircraft. However, the
reader will also see that a winglet is best used as a remedial device for an
existing wing that was engineered (accidentally or intentionally) to have a
suboptimal transverse lift distribution. When designing a new airplane, a
winglet makes little sense as a prophylactic technology.
In my 20-plus years in the aerospace business, I worked on a variety
of military and commercial projects. Sadly, most of these undertakings
never resulted in series production. Instead, they prematurely concluded
with an abrupt cancellation. While there are many lessons to be learned
from a successful commercial undertaking, even more lessons can be
found in the wreckage of failed projects.
While a profitable business undertaking may have its share of technical and managerial rough edges, the common thread stitching canceled
programs together is one where the team failed to achieve its (overpromised) goals. In aerospace and other manufacturing fields, it is easy to make
promises that are physically unattainable. For example, management may

promise an aircraft of a given total size and payload capacity that implies
a thermodynamic propulsive efficiency in excess of 100 percent to implement! It is also easy to promise the development of capability on an
unrealistic budget and timeline. When schedule and budgets are overrun,
the project financiers lose faith in the technical team. Finally, it is possible
to engineer a flyable aircraft that cannot be sold in commerce because it
does not conform to established legal certification requirements.
In this text, comprising two volumes, I will attempt to lead the student
through the steps to build a suite of physics-based (but computationally
lean) methods that will help define what an efficient aircraft that meets or
exceeds all customer requirements should look like. Aligned with present-
day standard nomenclature used in the United States aviation industry, this
book will use English as opposed to SI units where appropriate.
This text will do the following:
Help the reader understand current federal regulations
Examine statistically derived data in the face of changing regulations
Assume that the reader can access and use certain public domain
legacy tools
Help the reader develop new tools
Coach the reader to look at design in a statistical sense; in other
words, modeling and simulation helps the engineer select the best
design from an evaluation of thousands of candidates, rather than
merely analyze a cartoon baseline design
1.1 DEFINING A CLEAN-SHEET DESIGN

Despite the old joke that the easiest way to make a small fortune in aerospace is to start with a large fortune, clean-sheet Aircraft Design is supposed to lead to a successful business outcome. The finished product is
expected to serve its intended commercial or military purpose. The manufacturers who developed and built the product are expected to be paid
by the end users; in turn, they pay their suppliers and personnel, and so
on down the supply chain. In turn, the manufacturers have an obligation
(to provide a safe and reliable product, and to support that product with
service and spare parts over the considerable lifespan (typically more than
20 years) of a modern aircraft.
This text will focus on developing tools and processes needed to engineer a subsonic commercial aircraft. While many of the methods are
equally applicable to designing a military flying machine, the reader can
Introduction 5
explore most of the germane technical problems in the context of

commercial aircraft design.
There are two competing and
disparate processes that occur in
clean-sheet design: aircraft sizing
as opposed to aircraft synthesis.
Sizing refers to the general scaling
of vehicles to reflect payload and
range requirements. Synthesis refers to the process of combining
subsystem characteristics into a
vehicle system.
When an engineer sizes an airplane, he scales up (or down) the
overall maximum takeoff weight
(MTOW), wing area and engine size
of a reference aircraft in order to
fly a specified mission. Figure 1.1
represents three twin-engine Boeing aircraft, the B737, B757, and
B777. Sizing refers to the reduction in the design process to the
steps that would produce a next- Figure 1.1. Three Boeing aircraft
generation B737 competitor by (B777, B757, and B737) with similar
merely photographically scaling overall configurations but widely
differing payload, range, and runway
elements of B777.
When an engineering team capacities.
synthesizes an airframe, they undertake a process whereby the more nuanced attributes of aircraft design
are decided upon. This process defines the external shape of the fuselage,
wings, and tails; the specification, number, and disposition of the engines;
as well as the internal arrangement of structures, interiors, primary systems, and subsystems. Synthesis often requires the engineering team to
make hard choices because design requirements are often in conflict with
one another.
In the end, to develop a clean-sheet aircraft, the engineering team
must determine:
The MTOW so that vehicle can fly the mission with the prescribed
payload and fuel reserves
The certification ceiling
The wing area

The wing sweep
The wing taper ratio
The Yehudi (extra area) on the trailing edge of the planform, if
needed
The spanwise distribution of thickness and camber of the wing (i.e.,
airfoil section)
The appropriate wing twist
The type of (high-lift) flap system necessary to meet takeoff and
landing requirements
The size and weight of the primary structure comprising the torque
box of the wing
The nuanced geometry (the loft) of the fuselage
The internal layout of passengers and cargo, including main doors
and emergency exits
The placement of principal subsystems (landing gear, tires, radar,
air-conditioning, actuators, auxiliary power unit (APU), etc.)
The size, placement, and configuration of the tail surfaces
The number, size, placement, and thermodynamic cycle of the
engines
1.2 AIRCRAFT PURPOSETHE EXPLICIT

REQUIREMENTS
In order to engineer an aircraft (as opposed to cobble together a flying
machine), the program should define a series of clear goals. These goals
should include technical requirements for performance, as well as certification, scheduling, staffing, and financial requirements for program
execution. Certification requirements play an especially important role in
aircraft design. The commercial certification process in the United States
and the European Union requires compliance with hundreds of design
and operating rules. Thus, the certifying agency imposes many technical
requirements upon the engineering team design above and beyond those
requirements derived from marketing.
Commercial aircraft design begins with a marketing analysis. Marketing must identify the key performance goals of an aircraft: they include
mission payload attributes that the aircraft must carry, the minimum (and
potentially maximum) cruise speed the aircraft must fly at, the distance
and endurance that the aircraft must be able to fly, the spectrum of runways that the aircraft is expected to operate from, its rate of fuel consumption that impacts its direct operating cost, and its production cost.
Introduction 7
Commercial aircraft are designed to take a mix of passengers, their

luggage, and cargo over a prescribed distance. These requirements are not
necessarily as simple as they seem at first. Most commercial transport
aircraft are conceived so that they can trade payload carried for range;
in other words, they are designed to a MTOW that can be achieved with
either a full payload or a full fuel load, but not both simultaneously.
Figure 1.27 shows an official payload-versus-range diagram for the
MD-81 airliner (see Figure 1.3). The diagram has a performance envelope
bounded by three distinct straight lines: (1) a region for flights under 800
nM where the aircraft is limited by its design maximum payload of 40,203
lbm; (2) a region for flights between 800 and 2,150 nM where the aircraft is
limited by its MTOW of 140,000 lbm (and thus trades fuel weight for payload
weight); and (3) a region for flights beyond 2,150 nM where the fuel tanks are
completely full, but the aircraft attains slightly better efficiency (and hence
overall range) when flown with full tanks, but progressively lighter payloads.
The newcomer to aircraft performance may find Figure 1.2 confusing
to read. To use this chart, one may first estimate a payload value. You enter
the chart on the Y axis and read across to intersect your candidate takeoff weight, and then drop down below to read off your unrefueled range.
For example, following the 27,500 lbm (i.e., 137 passengers and baggage)
line, we see that this aircraft can fly up to 375 nM at a 120,000 lbm takeoff
weight, up to 1050 nM at a 130,000 lbm takeoff weight, or up to 1750 nM
at the maximum rated 140,000 lbm takeoff weight.
Figure 1.2. Manufacturers published payload-versus-range diagram (MD-81

airliner).
Figure 1.3. McDonnell Douglas MD-81 airliner (a workhorse with trans world
airlines (TWA): It flew all domestic routes out of their St. Louis hub).
1.2.1PAYLOAD
As aircraft can trade payload for distance, the aircrafts long-range design
mission may be specified at a payload weight considerably beneath its
maximum payload capacity. Refer again to Figure 1.2; the design mission
of this MD-81 appears to be for a payload of 137 passengers (27,500 lbm).
With this payload, the aircraft can fly approximately 1,750 nM in still air.
Referring to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved type certificate for the MD-81, we discover that this design is actually certified to
seat up to 172 passengers.8 However, typical airlines operated the MD-81
with a mix of first class (4 abreast) and coach class (5 abreast) seating comprising 135 to 140 seats in total. Thus, an all-coach class interior becomes
practical for this aircraft only when it is flown for short distances.
In order to estimate the design payload of an aircraft, the designer
must first understand what comprises payload. According to FAA guidelines,9 while the empty weight of a 14 CFR 25 certified aircraft includes
the nominal weight of the two required pilots (175 lbm per pilot), it excludes the weight of the cabin crew, potable and lavatory service water,
crew baggage, removable passenger service equipment (food, beverages,
magazines, service carts, dishes, and cutlery), and removable emergency
equipment. Thus, the weight of these items, along with revenue and nonrevenue generating passengers, baggage, and cargo must be accounted for.
Introduction 9
FAA guideline AC120-27C9 (see Figure 1.4) recommends that the

aircraft operator plan for the flight using the following weight estimation
method: First, the average passenger weight including carry-on baggage
is determined by gender and season (a value of 185 lbm per available seat
is reasonable for a larger aircraft, with carry-on baggage space; a slightly
lower value of 175 lbm per available seat is used on commuter aircraft,
with limited carry-on space). On average, each piece of checked baggage
weighs 25 lbm for domestic operations and 30 lbm for international flights.
Regulation 14 CFR 121.39110 specifies the minimum number of cabin
crew on each flight. For 121 operations, an aircraft having a seating capacity of 50 or fewer passengers requires a minimum of one flight attendant;
for aircraft having a seating capacity of more than 50, each flight attendant
must be responsible for no more than 50 passengers. In other words, both
a 151- and a 199-seat aircraft will require four flight attendants. The FAA
allots each flight attendant a weight of only 140 lbm because the FAA
found the typical flight attendant to be a petite female.9
These guidelines may be formulated to predict approximate payload
weights as a function of the number passengers carried (see Figure 1.5).
Returning to the example of the MD-81 airliner, where Boeing estimates the effective payload weight of a 137-passenger MD-81 flight to
be ~27,000 lbm. Because this narrow-body aircraft is too small to accept
cargo containers, no weight needs to be allotted to them. Using the FAA
guidelines, 137 passengers with only carry-on bags will weigh 25,345 lbm.
Figure 1.4. FAA guidelines for passenger weights.
Figure 1.5. Payload as a function of number of passengers

(AC 120-27C and 14 CFR 121.391).
The same guidelines as applied to the three required flight attendants will
add an additional 420 lbm. Thus, the payload includes an allotment of
~1,000 lbm for incidentals (potable water, service water, catering items,
and carts) but not for an appreciable amount of passenger baggage.
1.2.2 MINIMUM CRUISE SPEED
Because air traffic control (ATC) prevents accidental collisions, they enforce speed limits. In 1960, a tragic accident over the New York harbor led
the FAA to establish a 250 KIAS (knots-indicated air speed) speed limit
for flights at less than 10,000 ft altitude (14 CFR 91.117).11Aircraft must
also be able to fly safely and climb reasonably efficiently when limited to
air speeds of less than 250 KIAS.
Today, the slowest aircraft in common operation in the United States
that have altitude capability above 30,000 ft (FL300) are older Boeing
737 and McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 series airliners, which typically fly
at Mach 0.74. Newer aircraft, such as the Boeing 737 NG and the Airbus
320 family, cruise efficiently at Mach 0.78 through 0.80. Straight wing executive aircraft, such as early Cessna Citation jets, are slower yet. Consequently, in congested airspace, ATC may not have sufficient room to allow
faster aircraft to overtake slower aircraft. While any practical commercial
Introduction 11
Figure 1.6. Nominal flight time as a function of cruise speed

(no climb or descent credit).
aircraft must be able to safely fly at Mach 0.74; the speed of best efficiency can be considerably faster.
The ability to efficiently cruise at near-sonic speeds results in a considerable time savings on long-distance flights (see Figure 1.6). Over a
500 nM regional flight, the difference between a Mach 0.74 cruise and a
Mach 0.82 cruise amounts to only a 7 minute time savings. Even cruising
at Mach 0.95 would save an additional 15 minutes. As distances increase,
high cruise speeds gain significant marketing advantage. Over a 2500 nM
transcontinental flight, a Mach 0.82 aircraft will arrive a half hour before
the Mach 0.74 flight; a Mach 0.95 aircraft would shave an hour of flight
time. Longer flights, such as a morning departure to Europe from North
America (3500+ nM) become possible.
1.2.3 STILL AIR RANGE
Flight operations people like to simplify the planning procedure by defining
an equivalent still air distance (ESAD) between specific destinations. These
distances account for seasonally adjusted statistical worst-case winds aloft.
When aircraft fly they move relative to the wind. For example, an aircraft flying at 100 KTAS (knots true airspeed) into a 50 KTAS headwind
will have a ground speed of only 50 KTAS. An aircraft flying at 100 KTAS
into a 50 KTAS tailwind will have a ground speed of 150 KTAS. Thus, the
ground speed of an aircraft (as measured by a GPS unit) may have little to
do with the actual conditions it experiences aloft.
Winds aloft may be substantial. At typical cruise altitudes, prevailing
winds in excess of 100 KTAS are common. Thus, an aircraft flying from the
west coast of the United States to the east coast may find a prevailing tailwind throughout its entire flight. Because an aircrafts flight is predicated
upon its relative motion to local winds, tail winds push the aircraft along.
In order to cover a ground track distance of 2,500 nM, an aircraft may feel
like it only flew 2,100 nM. Conversely, when this aircraft flies its return leg,
it experiences the winds aloft as a prevailing headwind. Thus, to cover a
ground track distance of 2,500 nM, it may feel like it flew 2,900 nM.
Figure 1.7 shows distances between common city pairs in the continental United States. The most demanding domestic mission is Miami to
Seattle (flying into prevailing headwinds, with an equivalent still air distance of 2,960 nM). Generally speaking, an equivalent still air range of at
least 2,500 nM is required for an aircraft that flies typical nonstop transcontinental flights. For some regional city pairs, for example, Washington, DC

U.S. cities.
Introduction 13
to Rochester, New York, there are no net winds; thus, the ESAD is identical whether flying an outbound or inbound segment.
Figure 1.8 shows distances for common one-stop transcontinental
flights: Boston to Kansas City to San Diego; Seattle to St. Louis to Miami.
An equivalent still air range of 1,750 nM is desirable to provide single-stop
transcontinental service with a stopover at a major Midwestern city.
Figure 1.9 shows distances between select global city pairs. The
most stressing mission likely to be flown in regular service is that from
Singapore to Washington/Dulles airport with prevailing headwinds; this
requires a nonstop range in excess of 9,000 nM. Flights from the east coast
of Australia to the west coast of the United States require a nonstop range
in excess of 7,000 nM. In contrast, San Francisco to Tokyo requires only
5,000 nM range. Toronto to Munich requires 4,000 nM range. New York
Figure 1.8. Equivalent still air distances (ESAD) for one-stop

U.S. domestic transcontinental flights.

select global cities.
to London requires only 3,300 nM range; this operational distance is only

marginally farther than needed to fly from Miami to Seattle.
Thus, commercial aircraft designs tend to clump around certain range
points. Ultralong-range aircraft that fly boutique international routes require 7000+ nM capability with a reasonable payload; a Boeing 777-200LR
with 9,000 nM range at 75,000 lbm payload represents this sort of aircraft.
Long-haul aircraft for the North Atlantic routes need only 4,000 nM range;
this capability is the realm of a Boeing 767-200 with 4,000 nM range at
45,000 lbm payload. Successful medium-haul (one-stop domestic transcontinental) aircraft have strong payload capabilities at 1,750 nM range.
The McDonnell-Douglas MD-81, with 1,750 nM range and a 27,500 lbm
payload, has this capability as does the slightly smaller Boeing 737-300,
which flies 1,750 nM with a 25,000 lbm payload. Short-haul regional and
commuter aircraft find commercial success with more limited capability.
However, an aircraft limited to flights <500 nM will be operationally restricted with greater flight frequency than one designed for 1,000 nM range.
1.2.4 RUNWAY REQUIREMENTS
Aircraft must be able to operate into and out of practical airports. In the
twenty-first century, major metropolitan areas have at least one airport
with a very long runway suitable to take a heavily loaded, underpowered
aircraft. Figure 1.10 documents the airport elevation and longest runway
of 12 major U.S. domestic hub airports. With the exception of Denver
International Airport, located at 5,433 ft elevation, other airports are located at very modest elevations. All of these airports have runways at least
Figure 1.10. Runways at major U.S. hub airports.
Introduction 15
10,000 ft long; with the long runway at Denver (runway 16R/34L) spanning 16,000 ft (more than three statute miles).
The United States has many regional airports (see Figure 1.11). Some
of these are older facilities found in major metropolitan areas (such as
Dallas TXs Love Field or San Diego CAs Lindbergh Field). Some older
secondary airports are landlocked and have shorter runways than the largest metropolitan airports. The five most significant metroplex airports
with shorter runways (<7,200 ft long) that see scheduled airline traffic
comprise: (1) Southern Californias Burbank Airport (BUR), (2) Chicagolands Midway Airport (MDW), (3) New Yorks LaGuardia (LGA) and
Westchester County (HPN) airports; as well as (4) the Ronald Reagan
Washington/National Airport (DCA). Other regional airports (such as
Rochester, New York or San Luis Obispo, California) do not support longhaul flights, and thus have little need for very long runways. Some relatively unused metroplex airports are ripe for future expansion for regional
Figure 1.11. Secondary runways at major U.S. hub airports

and metroplex (regional) airport runways.
and medium-haul flights. Some, such as Fort Worth TXs Meacham Field
(FTW) or Rockford, Illinois (RFD) have relatively long runways. Others,
like Atlantas DeKalb/Peachtree Airport (PDK) or Southern Californias
Carlsbad Airport (CRQ) have relatively short runways.
Figure 1.12 lists a worldwide collection of airports with famously
challenging runways. Juneau, Alaska is, essentially, at sea level. It has a
reasonable-length runway, but is nestled in a mountainous coastal region.
Dutch Harbor, Alaska is also at sea level, but is a treacherously short strip.
Vail/Eagle, Aspen, Colorado and Gunnison, Colorado all see significant
wintertime snowfall. They are located high in the Rocky Mountains. Even
more extreme is the airport at La Paz, Bolivia; it is located high in the
Andes at altitude more than 13,000 ft above sea level.
Figure 1.13 lists both primary and secondary airports for many FirstWorld metropolitan areas. The London megalopolis is serviced by no less
than five airports: Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, and London City. Of
these, only London City (located in the financial district) has a famously short
runway (4,948 ft) and a steep approach path (needed for noise abatement).
Most scheduled service into Toronto, Canada arrives at Pearson International
Airport (YYZ) an Malton. Toronto also has a small Island Airport (YTZ)
with a 3,988 ft runway that is a convenient short ferry ride from its financial
district. Stockholm, Sweden has a downtown airport, Bromma (BMA) with a
5,472 ft runway, as well as Arlanda airport (ARN) with long runways.
Turning now to Figure 1.14,7 the reader can see that a real airliner has
the ability to trade takeoff gross weight for runway length. Generally speaking, the heavier you load an aircraft the more runway length you need for
safe takeoff and landing. For the example of the MD-81, this aircraft takeoff at its 140,000 lbm maximum weight from any airport with a 7,000ft
or longer runway provided that the airport is located near sea level and
the weather represents dry, standard day conditions. For an airport like
Figure 1.12. Challenging airports (due to elevation and/or

short runways).
Introduction 17
Figure 1.13. World metropolitan airports.
Figure 1.14. Takeoff runway length requirement for MD-81 airliner.
Stockholm-Bromma, this aircraft would be restricted to operations below

~125,000 lbm. Returning to Figure 1.2, the payload-range chart of the
MD-81, the reader can see that this aircraft (when restricted to 125,000 lbm
takeoff weight) would only be able to fly ~750nM with a full load of 137
passengers and baggage. Thus, an aircraft like an MD-81 that is sized
for 1,750 nM flights into and out of long runways is e ntirely usable for
shorter, regional flights into and out of airports like Stockholm-Bromma
or Carlsbad, California.
Looking at this collection of airports in the context of airplane performance, there is little compelling reason to design modern commercial
airliners to operate at MTOW from runways significantly shorter than
5,000 ft. Nonetheless, designers should pay attention to ensure that their
aircraft can operate out of shorter (<7,000 ft) runways in bad weather (wet
or snow-covered runways) as well as on sunny, but hot, summer days.
1.2.5 DIRECT OPERATING COST

Aircraft are expensive to operate. For tax and accounting reasons, operators
like to differentiate between direct and indirect operating costs. The direct
operating costs comprise expenses directly tied to the operation of the airplane: the cost of fuel, the cost of regularly scheduled maintenance, and the
cost of the pilots. Indirect operating costs are other expenses that play an important role in the operation. Indirect costs include flight attendant salaries,
the costs of catering and other in-flight amenities, other aircraft servicing,
ATC and landing fees, ramp agent salaries, baggage handler salaries, and
back office (administration, reservations, sales, and advertising) services
that are directly applicable to passenger or cargo revenue generation.
The contributors to direct operating cost: fuel costs, maintenance
costs, and pilot costs vary depending on the economic climate. The popularity of two-engine aircraft (as opposed to three- or four-engine aircraft)
can be traced to a desire to reduce direct operating costs. Because engines
must be serviced on a per-hour run basis, a four-engine aircraft requires
nominally twice the engine maintenance of a twin-engine aircraft. When
fuel costs are relatively inexpensive, the potential performance reduction
implied by a twin-engine aircraft outweighs the increase in maintenance.
This accounts for the popularity of the essentially similar Boeing 777
(with two engines) over the Airbus 340 (with four engines). If fuel were to
become extremely expensive, then efficient four-engine aircraft would become economically compelling to design and build. Similarly, the recent
popularity of regional jet service for relatively long flights within the continental United States arises from a desire to engage lower wage commuter
aircraft pilots instead of higher paid mainline aircraft pilots.
Indirect operating costs are generally independent of the specifics of
the aircraft type operated. Federal regulations specify the number of cabin
crew. The national ATC system assesses administrative fees for ATC based
on the type of flight (scheduled commercial versus general aviation). Landing fees may be assessed on a per-flight and a nominal aircraft weight basis
(i.e., $4.00 per 1,000 lbm). Ramp and gate fees are typically controlled by
long-term leases, independent of the number of aircraft operated.
Introduction 19
1.2.6 PRODUCTION COSTS

Production costs of an aircraft are related to basic materials costs as well
as mechanical complexity. Historically, many texts cost an aircraft by the
pound. In my experience, cost estimation is more of an art than a science.
To provide counterpoint to the argument that heavier aircraft always cost
more to build than lighter weight aircraft, consider the following thought
puzzles. An aircraft made from simple easy-to-machine aluminum will
cost much less than an aircraft (of identical weight) made from expensive
titanium. As a consequence of these observations, this text will shy away
from any attempt to provide quantitative cost estimation.
1.3 CERTIFICATIONTHE IMPLIED

REQUIREMENTS
Both sizing and synthesis begin with some form of weight estimation as
well as a mission analysis. The maximum flight weight of an aircraft must
equal or exceed the weight of the empty airframe, its payload, and the fuel
load required to fly the design reference mission. At the same time, the vehicle must actually have fuel tanks large enough to envelope the necessary
amount of fuel in tanks. I have worked more than one cancelled program
where the fuel volume implied in the group weight statement vastly exceeded the fuel volume available in the actual design. Clearly, the aircraft
could not fly its promised range if it could not actually carry the amount
of fuel it was engineered to carry!
Beginning in 1926 and still in place today, the federal government
established a framework to ensure that production aircraft featured comprehensive airworthiness. Smaller, general aviation and commuter aircraft (under 19,000 lbm MTOW) are designed to conform to 14 CFR 2312
standards. Larger, transport category aircraft are designed to conform to
14 CFR 2513 standards. While 14 CFR 23 has upper bounds to certification weight, there is no lower weight limit for a 14 CFR 25 certified
design. Aircraft pilots must fly following the rules of the road articulated
in 14 CFR 7114 and 14 CFR 91.15 Commercial common carriers must
operate aircraft following regulations set forth in 14 CFR 121.16
These regulations provide a foundation of guidelines to assist the
designer when configuring an aircraft. Government certifies the basic
engineering for a specific design when it issues an approved type certificate. The burden of proof for airworthy design is placed on the engineers;
the design team supplies significant engineering detail to the government
(the FAA) in the form of specifications, descriptions, and drawings.
The designer must prove that he has engineered a flying machine of satisfactory strength, featuring demonstrably competent design of instruments, control systems and power plants. The government requires more
than drawings, and will only issue a type certificate upon the successful completion of a supervised flight test program. The government regulates more than just the design; the government grants manufacturers
a production certificate only when they can prove that they can build
quality aircraft that conforms to the type certificate. Upon comprehensive
inspection, the government may certify the airworthiness of any specific
airplane with an airworthiness certificate.
Unlike cars, where the engineering regulation runs on the date of manufacture, aircraft type certificates run on the date of design. Thus, aircraft
are constructed in accordance with the law that was in effect on the date
that the designer applied for certification. Engineers must understand that
older aircraft are designed, certified, and flown under obsolete law. For example, a current production Beechcraft Bonanza is mostly certified under
~1945 law.17 A new Boeing 7879 is mostly certified under 2005 law.18
For a derivative aircraft design, the Changed Product Rule, 14 CFR
21.91 through 21.101,19 states that the applicant for an amended type
certificate must show that the changed product complies with an earlier amendment of a regulation ... and of any other regulation the FAA
finds is directly related [so long as] the earlier amended regulation [is not]
related to the change20 For example, the MD-81 described above was
produced from 1980 through 1994; the FAA granted McDonnell-Douglas
its type certificate on August 25, 1980. However, the MD-81 is a heavily
stretched and modified version of the Douglas DC9-10; an airliner built
from 1965 through 1968 and designed in accordance with the law that was
in place in 1962. In other words, the basic regulatory framework of certification remains unchanged for the undisturbed systems common between
the original (DC9-10) and new design (MD-81). According to the FAA,
the Changed Product Rule is flexible enough to permit design changes
over the operational life of the product. Douglas is not alone in using the
Changed Product Rule to its fullest extent; the new Boeing 747-8 shares a
common type certificate with the original Boeing 747100 of 1969.
Throughout the rest of this text, we will examine key certification
regulations and discuss how they shape the engineers design process.
1.3.1 BASIC WEIGHTS AND FLIGHT ENVELOPE

Federal Regulation 14 CFR 25.2121 Proof of compliance expressly states that
the aircraft must conform to all applicable regulations at each appropriate
Introduction 21
combination of weight and center of gravity within the range of loading conditions for which certification is requested. Moreover, 14 CFR 25.2322 requires the manufacturer to establish ranges of weights and centers of gravity
within which the airplane may be safely operated. Thus, manufacturers provide such a chart as part of the pilots operating handbook (see Figure 1.15).
As often happens in aviation, the unit nomenclature used in this chart
is inconsistent. The x axis, which describes the allowable range of aircraft
center of gravity locations, is rendered not in terms of fuselage station but
in terms of distance rendered in terms of percent MAC aft of a specified reference point. The MAC represents the mean aerodynamic chord,
a value different from the mean geometric chord ( c ) that we will discuss
elsewhere in this book.
Federal Regulation 14 CFR 25.25 requires the manufacturer to define weights corresponding to the airplane operating conditions (such as
ramp, ground or water taxi, takeoff, en route, and landing).23 Such data
is provided as part of the airplane flight manual (AFM) (see Figure 1.16).
Working through this table, we may note the following values.
MTW/MRP 5 Maximum taxi weight/maximum ramp weight.
This is the ramp weight maximum weight of the airplane that it
is designed to support while being stationary or moving slowly on
Figure 1.15. Weight and balance chart for MD-81 airliner. 0% MAC referenced
to FS 885.5 in; MAC is 158.5 in. (see Chapter 2 for clarifications).
Figure 1.16. Weight limitations for MD-81 airliner.
the ground. This weight is often set a few hundred pounds heavier
than the MTOW to allow an airplane to run its engines and burn
fuel while taxiing and holding for takeoff clearance. This allows the
airplane to begin its takeoff roll at MTOW.
MTOW 5 Maximum takeoff weight. This is the maximum weight of
the airplane authorized by government regulation for takeoff brake
release. This is the maximum weight that the airplane may encounter
when in flight; MTOW does not include taxi and run-up fuel. The
limit loads of the V-n diagram (see Section 1.3.6) will be applied
with the airplane flying at this weight. On many airliners, MTOW is
exceeded when the airplane is simultaneously loaded to its maximum
payload capacity and fueled to the limit of its tanks. Thus, the fuel
load an airplane can carry at MTOW may be governed by the payload
that it is carrying.
MLW 5 Maximum landing weight. This is the maximum weight
authorized at touchdown by applicable regulations. This weight determines the loads that the landing gear assembly will need to support
under a hard landing event.
MZFW 5 Maximum zero fuel weight. This is the weight attained by
the airplane with nominally empty fuel tanks but with the maximum payload loaded. This weight is important because it helps the
engineering team determine the distribution of loads along the fuselage. This loading pattern indirectly helps size the fuselage structure
to withstand a hard landing event without damage. It also indirectly
defines the loading condition with maximum fuselage payload and
minimum wing-borne fuel that may determine the critical size of
wing structure. MZFW should be the summation of the maximum
structural payload and the operating empty weight (OEW).
Introduction 23
OEW 5 Operational empty weight. This is the wet weight of the

airplane without payload or fuel (includes nominal weight of the two
pilots that are required by law (14 CFR 25.152324 and 14 CFR 91.125).
It is what a scale should read if you drain an aircraft of all fuel and
potable water, disembark all passengers, remove their baggage and
other cargo, but keep the pilots onboard at their seats. OEW represents the sum of aircraft structural weight, propulsion weight, fixed
equipment weight (electronics, cockpit, including fixed items in the
interior like the seats, lavatories, and entertainment system), standard items and operational items (like a portable fire extinguisher,
the medical kit, and emergency exit slides and rafts).
Maximum Payload. This is the difference between OEW and MZFW.
The payload includes passengers, baggage, flight attendants,
food, and catering items as well as the weight of removable cargo
containers.
TOW 5 Takeoff weight. This is the actual weight of the aircraft at
takeoff. Aircraft are not legally allowed to take off when loaded
above the MTOW (see 14 CFR 121.171 through 121.207)26
ZFW 5 Zero fuel weight. This is the actual weight of the aircraft with
nominally empty fuel tanks. Aircraft are not legally allowed to be
loaded with more payload than they are certified to carry; ZFW may
not exceed MZFW.
LGW 5 Landing weight. This is the intended weight of the aircraft
after performing its planned flight. This weight includes the OEW,
the weight of the payload, and the weight of planned reserve fuel
necessary for weather-related holds or diversions to alternative airports. Aircraft are not legally allowed to fly if they are planning to
land at a landing weight that exceeds the certified maximum landing
weight (see 14 CFR 121.171 through 121.207).26
PYLD 5 Actual flight ayload. This is the weight of the actual payload
on board an aircraft; it includes passengers, baggage, flight attendants, food, and catering items as well as the weight of removable
cargo containers. To be legally allowed to fly, the actual payload
must not exceed the design maximum payload, MZFW OEW.
MFW 5 Maximum fuel weight. This is the weight of the fuel that can
be loaded into the aircraft by completely filling the fuel tanks.
FOB 5 Dispatch fuel on board. This is the actual of weight on board
the aircraft at the time that the aircraft leaves the ramp. This value
often includes an allowance for fuel to be burned during engine
warm-up and taxi to the end of the runway, plus extra fuel necessary to fly to an alternate destination airport, as well as reserve fuel
required by regulation (see Section 1.3.14 discussion on Extended
Twin Operating Procedures (ETOPS).
BURN 5 Estimated fuel burn. This is the estimated weight of fuel

expected to be consumed when an aircraft operates its nominal
flight. The actual dispatch fuel on board must always equal the estimated fuel burn plus extras.
1.3.2 SEATING CONFIGURATIONS AND CABIN

AISLE WIDTHS
Commercial aircraft fuselage dimensions are selected on the basis of a
planned interior configuration. The number of seats across and the aisle
widths are controlled by a series of government regulations. Regulation
14 CFR 25.817 states that for an airplane having only one passenger
aisle, no more than three seats abreast may be placed on each side of the
aisle in any one row.27 This regulation effectively limits single-aisle aircraft to six seats abreast interior. Regulation 14 CFR 25.815 controls the
width of the aisle(s), holding a minimum aisle width of 20 in. necessary
for aircraft that seat 20 or more passengers.28
Aircraft seat widths are a function of market pressure. For shorthaul and commuter flights, very narrow seats may be fitted. First
class seats may be considerably wider. In light of federal regulations,
the minimum interior width may be computed (see Figure 1.17). Canadair Regional Jets, De Havilland Dash-8 family turboprops, Embraer 145
family jets employ 17 in. wide economy seats. These narrow seats may be
found on Boeing 737 (6 abreast), 757 (6 abreast), 747 (10 abreast), 777
(10 abreast) and some Boeing 787
(9 abreast) jets.
Embraer 170/190
family jets, Airbus 319/320/321
family jets, Boeing 767 (7across),
777 (9 across) and some Boeing
787 (8 across) jets have wider
18 in. wide economy seats. Regi
onal jets typically employ 19 in.
wide first class seats. Conversely,
larger airliners utilize 21 in. wide
first class seats or even larger and
wider sleeping berths.
From the interior width, we
may infer the exterior width. Typical
aircraft structure (the ring frames)
are ~4 in. thick on a narrow-body
airliner; ~6 in. thick on a wide-body
Figure 1.17. Minimum interior width.
Introduction 25
airliner.29 Thus, the fuselage exterior diameter is likely to be 8 to 12 in.

greater than the interior width.
1.3.3 EMERGENCY EXIT DOORS AND SLIDES
Ingress and egress from an FAA-certified aircraft are controlled by a series
of interdependent regulations. 14 CFR 25.80130 requires that the airplane,
when ditched in a water landing, must be able to float long enough (and
on an even enough keel) for the pilots and passengers to leave the aircraft
and, if required by 14 CFR 25.1415,31 board the life rafts (see Figure 1.18).
Regulation 14 CFR 25.803 requires each crew and passenger area to
have some form of emergency exit provision that functions under a typical
landing; it must also remain usable after a wheels-up crash landing.32 For
airplanes having more than 44 passengers, the manufacturer must prove by
test that the aircraft can be evacuated within 90 seconds.
Regulation 14 CFR 25.807 describes the types of doors permissible
on a transport category aircraft.33 The main access doors on an aircraft
are typically Type A or Type B floor-level doors; 42 or 32 in. wide, respectively, by 72 in. tall. Occasionally, aircraft will be fitted with smaller
TypeC floor-level doors; these are 30 in. wide by 48 in. tall.
Typical emergency exit hatches are not at floor level; they have a sill
that a passenger must step over to escape the aircraft.
A Type I hatch is at least 24 in. wide by 48 in. tall.
A Type II hatch is at least 20 in. wide and 44 in. high (if mounted
over the wing, they cannot have more than 10 in. of step-up inside
Figure 1.18. Airbus 320 after emergency water landing.
the aircraft (if mounted over the wing, they cannot have more than
17 in. of step-down height).
A Type III hatch is at least 20 in. wide and 36 in. high and cannot have
more than 20 in. of step-up inside the aircraft (if mounted over the
wing, they cannot have more than 27 in. of step-down height).
A Type IV hatch is at least 19 in. wide and 26 in. high and cannot have
more than 29 in. of step-up inside the aircraft (if mounted over the
wing, they cannot have more than 36 in. of step-down height).
While doors and hatches need not be symmetrically sized or located
along the fuselage, at least one door or hatch must be mounted near each
end of the cabin (i.e., a pair of doors at the front, a pair of hatches near
the rear). Doors and hatches may not be clustered in a manner leaving a
door or hatch further than 60 ft from its nearest neighbor. Moreover, the
evacuation capacity of doors is strictly limited: a Type A door handles 110
passengers, a Type B door handles 75 passengers, a Type C door handles
55 passengers, each Type I hatch handles 45 passengers, each Type II hatch
handles 40 passengers, each Type III hatch handles 35 passengers, and
each Type IV hatch handles only 9 passengers. Each non-over-wing door
or hatch that is more than 6 ft off the ground must incorporate some form
of escape assistance method, either integral stairs or an inflatable slide.
In addition, regulation 14 CFR 25.807 requires the designer of an
aircraft that seats from 41 to 110 passengers to include at least two exits,
one of which must be a Type I or larger exit, in each side of the fuselage.
However, an aircraft that seats more than 110 passengers requires at least
two Type I or larger exits. Newly certified aircraft must have at least four
doors because there must be at least two Type C or larger exits in each
side of the fuselage.
To comply with these regulations, an aircraft like an MD-81 (certified
to seat up to 172 passengers) is fitted with a total of seven doors: a main
door at the front (a large Type B door measuring 34 by 72 in. on the pilots
side front fuselage, 75 passengers), a service door at the front (a 27 48
inch Type I opening) (45 passengers), a service door at the rear (27 60
inch Type I, 45 passengers) and four (20 36 inch Type III) overwing exit
hatches (140 passengers). The nominal exit door capacity of this aircraft
is, thus, 305 persons. The excess capacity of the doors arises from the long
and slender fuselage of this aircraft; the distance between the front doors
and the forward overwing exit hatches is nearly 60 ft! The MD-81 has
short landing gear. Thus, the engineering team decided to use additional
overwing exit doors as opposed to regular aft cabin doors because the
wing is close enough to the ground (with flaps deployed) as to not require
an inflatable slide.
Introduction 27
1.3.4 SELECTION OF STRUCTURAL MATERIALS

The choice of aircraft structural materials is critical to aircraft design. If an
aircraft is too heavy, it cannot fly. Overweight aircraft carry unnecessary
drag (drag due to lift); this reduces fuel economy and climb performance.
Structural strength concerns dictate structural element sizing because aircraft must not collapse, buckle, or disintegrate under expected
loading conditions. Thicker beams and skins make the structure stronger.
Structural stiffness requirements may also drive sizing because strong but
floppy structures are undesirable.
Most aircraft are constructed out of conventional alloys: aluminum,
steel, and titanium. A few recent aircraft, the Beechcraft Starship, Beechcraft
Premier, Hawker 4000, and Boeing 787, are constructed primarily of carbonfiber and graphite-reinforced epoxy composites. Some parts on aircraft,
particularly parts within engines, are built from high-temperature metallic
alloys and ceramics including stainless steel, Inconel, and Carbon-Si-C.
Regulation 14 CFR 25.601 controls the overall design of aircraft structure.34 Aircraft may not be designed in a manner, including material selection and assembly techniques, that experience has shown to be hazardous
or unreliable. 14 CFR 25.603 requires extensive characterization of all materials used in aircraft construction: the suitability and durability of materials used for parts, the failure of which could adversely affect safety ...
[should] conform to approved specifications (such as industry or military
specifications) that ensure their having the strength and other properties
assumed in the design data.35 14 CFR 25.613 insists that engineers choose
material design values to minimize the probability of structural failures
due to material variability.36 For critical structure, where failure would result in loss of structural integrity of the component, engineers need to use
the 99 percent probability with 95 percent confidence rated value of the
material (what is known as A-basis materials rating in MIL HDBK-537).
1.3.5 DESIGN FACTOR OF SAFETY

Regulation 14 CFR 25.301 states that FAA-mandated strength requirements are usually specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads
to be expected in service).38 Ultimate loads are limit loads multiplied by
prescribed factors of safety. Aerodynamic loads must always be placed
in equilibrium with inertia forces, considering each item of mass in the
airplane. When modeling loads, they must be distributed to ... closely
represent actual conditions. Linear finite-element models are permissible for design, so long as the structure is relatively rigid. If the aircraft is
flexible enough that deflections under load would significantly change

the distribution of external or internal loads, this redistribution must be
taken into account; the engineer must validate the design with full-scale
testing or nonlinear finite-element modeling.
Regulation 14 CFR 25.303 holds that a basic factor of safety of 1.5
must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure.39
Regulation 14 CFR 25.305 requires aircraft structures to support
limit loads without detrimental permanent deformation.40 Elastic deformation may not interfere with safe operation; thus, flaps and ailerons
must not bind when the wing flexes during flight. Moreover, structure
must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least 3 seconds. Proof of compliance is often obtained through test to destruction.
1.3.6 DESIGN MANEUVERING LOADS
Regulation 14 CFR 25.321 defines the flight load factors, Nz, to represent the ratio of the aerodynamic force component (acting normal to the
assumed longitudinal axis of the airplane) to the weight of the airplane.41
Our sign convention holds that a positive load factor is one in which the
aerodynamic force acts upward with respect to the airplane.41
Nz =
L
W
(1.1)
The maximum maneuvering load factor to which an airplane is

designed depends on its intended usage. Fighters, which are expected to
execute violent maneuvers, are designed to withstand loads commensurate with the accelerations a pilot can physically withstand; typically +6
to +9gees. Long-range, heavily loaded bombers, on the other hand, are
designed to significantly lower load factors and must be handled accordingly; they can be certified for load factors as low as +2.25 gees.
Regulation 14 CFR 25.321 requires the design team to ensure structural integrity considering compressibility effects at each [flight] speed.
That means that aircraft must be structurally sound across its entire flight
envelope. The flight envelope is defined as the locus of attainable flight
conditions in MachvsAltitude space limited by the maximum lift that
the wing can produce at any given speed and altitude as well as by engine
thrust being equal to or greater than aerodynamic drag. Loads must be
computed with flaps stowed and with flaps deployed. Loads must be computed with the landing gear stowed and deployed.
Introduction 29
The design loads describe the worst loading conditions that are expected to be encountered in an aircraft during its lifetime. They include
loads from a hard landing with a heavy wing-borne fuel load as well as
flight loads. The structural design must be safe (1) at each critical altitude
within the range of altitudes ... and (2) at each weight from the design
minimum weight to the design maximum weight appropriate to each particular flight load condition; and (3) for each required altitude and weight,
for any practicable distribution of disposable load within the operating
limitations recorded in the Airplane Flight Manual.39 In order to analyze a
design, aerodynamic and inertial forces must be placed in equilibrium. In
other words, the aircraft must be structurally sound to aggressively maneuver with a full fuselage payload and a light fuel load in the wings as well as
with an empty fuselage and a heavy fuel load in the wings.
Regulation 14 CFR 25.337 provides a formula to compute the design
certification loads. It states: the positive limit maneuvering load factor
[Nzmax] ... may not be less than 2.1 + 24,000/ (W +10,000) except that
[Nzmax] may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8where
W is the design maximum takeoff weight.42 It also calls out that the negative limit maneuvering load factor (1) May not be less than 1.0. Thus,
by regulation Nzmax is a function of maximum takeoff weight. Figure 1.19
plots the results of the formula given in the regulation. Conversely, the
regulation states that Nzmin is always 1 gee.
Figure 1.19. Nzmax as a function of design maximum takeoff weight.
Regulation 14 CFR 25.345 gives the designer some structural relief

during approach and landing. It restricts the aircraft to maneuvering to a
positive limit load factor of 2.0; and positive and negative gusts of 25 ft/sec
acting normal to the flight path in level flight when the flaps are deployed.43
1.3.7 LONGITUDINAL TRIM, STABILITY, AND CONTROL

Federal regulations 14 CFR 25.143,44 25.145,45 25.171,46 and 25.17547 introduce specific requirements that transport category aircraft must meet in
order to guarantee safe flight in adverse weather conditions. Broadly speaking, weight and payload restrictions limiting the center-of-gravity range
(referring back to Figure 1.31a) must be determined so that the aircraft
is always safely controllable and maneuverable during (1) takeoff;
(2)climb; (3) level flight; (4) descent; and (5) landing by ordinary pilots.
Longitudinal trim (pitch) must be attained under all flight conditions
including the cruise condition (flaps stowed) and in any takeoff, approach,
or landing configuration (drag brakes, flaps, or gear deployed). Pitch trim
(setting the aggregate nose up moments to zero) must be easily attained
under all engine power settings from maximum thrust to engines at flight
idle. Pitch trim must also be attainable when one or more engines are shut
down; that is, if your airliner runs out of fuel and turns into a glider, it must
remain controllable.
Aircraft must be safely controllable and maneuverable with the critical ice accretion appropriate to the phase of flight subject to the design
of an anti-ice or de-ice system. For aircraft with anti-ice systems, that is,
heated leading edges on wings, tail surfaces, and inlets, this means demonstrating safe flight with engine performance degraded by the bleed air and/
or electrical power draw used to run the anti-ice system. For aircraft with
de-ice systems, that is, inflatable rubber boots, this means that safe flight
is possible when the aircraft carries a significant amount of built-up ice.
Under icing conditions, the aircraft must be able to attain +1.5 gees of
pitch up and +0.5 gees of pitch over load factor without loss of control.
FAA policy document AC 25-7B clarifies these regulations. It states
that there must be adequate longitudinal control to promptly pitch the
airplane nose down from, at, or near the stall to return to the original trim
speed. The intent is to ensure sufficient pitch control for a prompt recovery
if inadvertently slowed to the point of stall ... [both] with power off and at
maximum continuous thrust.48
Positive static longitudinal stability (Figure 1.20) must be demonstrated across the flight envelope from heavy weight to light weight, from
forward center-of-gravity (CG) limit to aft center-of-gravity limit, from low
Introduction 31
Figure 1.20. Stick forces corresponding to positive static

longitudinal stability per AC 25-7B.
speed to high speed, from low altitude to high altitude, with flaps extended
or retracted. The FAAs definition of static stability is defined in terms of
the feel that the pilot experiences. Positive stability means that as the
aircraft slows down (in terms of indicated airspeed), the pilot must apply
progressively more force pulling back (toward the pilot) to maintain lift
equal to weight. Aircraft are free to incorporate electronic feedback control
systems that operate directly upon the control surfaces (rudder, aileron, and
elevator), so long as the traditional pilot feel is maintained.
Referring again to FAA policy document AC 25-7B, the FAA is solely
interested in stick forces (Figure 1.21) and provides no guidance to the engineering team as to how to select a desirable static margin. Thus, an aircraft
designer has but two choices: (1) to design the aircraft entirely to stick force
gradients (these forces are determined as a consequence of detail-design
nuances) or (2) to seek guidance from an appropriate Military Standard (see
Chapter 3 in Volume II and the discussion related to MIL STD 8785C).49
Figure 1.21. Force balance with an inoperative engine.
1.3.8 LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL TRIM,

STABILITY, AND CONTROL
Federal Regulations 14 CFR 25.143, 25.147,50 25.171, and 25.17751 introduce additional requirements that transport category aircraft must meet in
order to guarantee safe flight in adverse weather conditions.
Lateral and directional trim must be attained under all flight conditions, including the cruise condition (flaps stowed) and in any takeoff,
approach, or landing configuration (drag brakes, flaps, or gear deployed)
including flight in turbulent air. Lateral and directional control must be
maintained in clear weather and under icing conditions.
Aircraft are expected to have large enough rudders and ailerons to recover from upsets produced by gusts and ... evasive maneuvers. Control
must be maintained to compensate for yawed flight (in sideslip) that are
expected in normal operation.
Most importantly, aircraft are engineered to fly so that they will not spiral
out of control in the event of a sudden failure of [a] critical engine. Moreover, for aircraft with three or more engines, the rudder and ailerons must be
powerful enough to compensate for the failure of the second critical engine
when the airplane is in the en-route, approach, or landing configuration.
Aircraft are expected to be controllable with one or more inoperative
engines, with the remaining engines running. On aircraft with laterally distributed engines, engine failure produces an uncommanded yawing moment
as well as a reduction in thrust and an increase in airframe drag. When the
pilot counters the yawing moment by application of rudder, the rudder creates an unintentional side force and rolling moment that must be countered
with a combination of bank angle () and aileron command (Figure 1.21).
The faster an aircraft flies (in terms of KIAS), the greater the aerodynamic forces and moments the pilot has to command. This relationship
leads to formation of the concept of a minimum controllable airspeed:
one where the aerodynamic forces are just large enough to trim out the
moments caused by an inoperative engine (see Section 4.1.4 in Volume II).52
VMCG is the minimum control ground speed. VMCA is the minimum control airspeed in the takeoff or cruise configuration. VMCL is the minimum
control airspeed in the landing configuration.
Aircraft are required to be directionally and laterally stable in flight.
This is also a matter of pilot feel. Referring again to FAA policy document
AC 25-7B, positive directional stability is the tendency to recover from
a skid with the rudder free.48 Positive lateral stability is defined as the
tendency to raise the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free.
As with the longitudinal stability regulation, the FAA provides no guidance
to the engineering team as to how to select the proper vertical tail size and
Introduction 33
wing dihedral angle; certification is governed entirely by the subjective piloting experience, what is known as stick feel. The designer has the choice:
(1) to design the aircraft entirely around stick force gradients (that are a
consequence of detail-design nuance) or (2) to seek guidance from an appropriate Military Standard.
Pressure on the rudder pedals must monotonically increase with increasing rudder deflection; increased rudder pedal force should result in
increasing yawing moments. Pressure on the rudder pedals command
predictable amounts of sideslip and not provoke a spin out. Similarly,
forces on the aileron yoke or wheel should monotonically increase with
increasing aileron deflection; increasing aileron force should result
in increasing rolling moments and, hence, roll rates. Some degree of
aerodynamic cross-talk is inevitable; application of the rudder may result
insomeuncommanded roll. Similarly, application of aileron may result in
some uncommanded yawing action. So long as the level of cross-talk is
small, aircraft are safely pilotable. In Chapter 3 (Volume II), will learn how
aileron-rudder interconnect can improve the piloting experience.
1.3.9 CROSSWIND CAPABILITY
Aircraft are expected to safely negotiate strong crosswinds. Regulation
14 CFR 25.341 states that aircraft must be structurally sound to fly in
wind gusts as strong as 56 ft/sec (33 nm/hr) at low altitudes.53 While on the
ground, aircraft are expected to be able to take off in a steady crosswind
of at least 20 nm/hr. Regulation 14 CFR 25.237 provides a sliding scale
for minimum crosswind capability based upon the aircrafts stall speed;
aircraft with stall speeds in excess of 125 KIAS are expected to operate in
25 nm/hr crosswinds (Figure 1.22).54
Figure 1.22. Minimum crosswind capability for certification.
Because airfield winds may blow from any compass heading, the
pilot must factor the total wind magnitude and heading into headwind
and crosswind components (see Figure 1.23). Thus a 20 knot crosswind
limit will restrict flight with a pure 21 knot crosswind, but enable flight
into 40 knot headwinds arising 20o to either left or right from the runway.
Crosswinds and gusts have the potential to produce large aerodynamic
forces on an aircraft. Figure 1.24 plots the sideslip angle implied by flight
in various crosswind scenarios. In this scenario, we assume that the aircraft
Figure 1.23.Crosswind.
Figure 1.24. Implied sideslip (crabangle).
Introduction 35
crabs, that is, it does not roll. The angles implied by a 66 ft/sec gust reach
approach 25o of momentary sideslip for an aircraft flying at 75 KTAS. If
the aircraft were travelling at 425 KTAS, it would only experience a momentary sideslip of 4.4o. Thus, the slower an aircraft is scheduled to fly, the
more likely that that gusty winds will force it to fly so cockeyed into the
wind that the vertical tail may stall. Such an event could lead to a spin or
other loss of positive control.
1.3.10 STALL SPEED
The stall speed represents the minimum airspeed whereby the aircraft
can maintain steady-level flight. This is governed by regulation 14 CFR
25.10355 in conjunction with FAA policy document AC 25-7B.48 The FAA
considers stall to occur when (1) the pilot reaches the full aft stop of the
pitch control stick in steady, level flight; (2) the aircraft begins an uncommanded, distinctive and easily recognizable nose-down pitch despite the
pilot attempting to provide nose-up pitch through the control stick; (3) the
airplane demonstrates an unmistakable, inherent warning (stick shaking
and/or aerodynamic buffeting) that indicates that the aircraft is about to
lose its ability to maintain steady speed and altitude.
The FAA will not certify an aircraft that exhibits an uncommanded
stall-related roll more than 20o from wings level (14 CFR 25.203).56 While
some aircraft have inherently benign roll characteristics at aerodynamic
stall, others do not. Because the FAA allows aircraft to incorporate electronic feedback control systems (see 14 CFR 25. 20757), a stick-shaker or
stick-pusher mechanism that prevents the aircraft from attaining aerodynamic stall may be fitted. Instead of aerodynamics, computers will force
an unmistakable buffet or uncommanded nose-down pitch to occur in
a manner that avoids any sort of lateral-directional upset.
The angle of attack () where aerodynamic stall begins is a function
of wing geometry. Similarly, the lateral-directional behavior after aerodynamic stall is influenced by nuances of wing shape; both are functions of
wing flap settings. Consequently, a designer may configure the stick pusher
to limit airframe attitude to <13o with the flaps retracted but <15o with
the flaps extended. In addition, the maximum angle of attack may be limited to prevent the pilot from inadvertently dragging the tail on the runway
during takeoff or landing; this is known as an overrotation event.
1.3.11 TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE
Aircraft performance for takeoff is governed by a series of interlocking
regulations (14 CFR 25.105,58 25.107,59 25.109,60 25.111,61 25.113,62
25.115,63 25.121,64 and 25.14952). Aircraft are expected to safely operate

within the available runway conditions when all systems function normally
as well as under circumstances where a critical engine fails at some point
during the takeoff procedure). Aircraft will not operate from runways too
short for the aircraft to be able to (1) accelerate from rest to a ground speed
above the minimum controllable ground speed (VMCG), have an engine
fail, and then safely finish takeoff with one engine inoperative or (2) accelerate from rest to a ground speed at or below VMCG, have an engine fail,
and then safely stop using wheel and aerodynamic braking alone (with no
credit for reverse thrust capabilities of the remaining operating engines).
If the engine fails late enough that the pilot is committed to takeoff, the
aircraft must always fly at or above its minimum controllable airspeed
(VMCA) and must always demonstrate a significant positive R.O.C. that
enables the aircraft to overfly any mountainous terrain proximate to the
runway (see Chapter 4 in Volume II for more details).
1.3.12 LANDING PERFORMANCE

Aircraft performance for landing is governed by a series of interlocking
regulations (14 CFR 25.125,65 25.119,66 and 25.12164). Aircraft are expected to safely operate within the available runway conditions when all
systems function normally as well as under circumstances where a critical
engine fails at some point during the landing approach. The aircraft flight
manual (AFM) must document aircraft performance, including planned
final-approach speeds (VREF) and runway utilization (total landing distance required, including both air-phase, touchdown, and ground roll) as
a function of airport altitude and temperature as well as aircraft weight.
To be cleared to land on a given runway, the aircraft must be able to
(1) fly a standard approach, touchdown with the nose elevated, smoothly
derotate to place the nose wheel on the ground, and then brake to a stop
without the need for reverse thrust, (2) balk a landing moments before
touchdown and have significant climb performance so as to avoid a collision with an obstacle that suddenly presents itself on the runway, and (3)
discontinue an approach with one-engine inoperative and the aircraft in
an approach configuration (partial flaps, and landing gear stowed) and
have significant climb performance in the event that airfield winds shift
shortly before touchdown. Because aircraft are expected not to lose controllability in the event of a sudden engine failure, pilots must plan to fly
at or above the minimum controllable airspeed appropriate for the flap
setting (VMCL for full landing flaps, VMCA for approach flaps).
Introduction 37
1.3.13 EN ROUTE MISSION PERFORMANCE

Most commercial flights within the continental United States fall under
domestic operations regulations and must comply with Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR). Air carrier flights that fly internationally or outside the 48
contiguous states of the United States and the District of Columbia, flights
are governed by flag and supplemental operations regulations.
Regulation 14 CFR 119.3 defines domestic operations as any scheduled operation with a jet aircraft with more than 9 passenger seats that operates within the 48 contiguous U.S. or the District of Columbia.67 Flag
operations apply to the same type of airplane but with flight plans that
originate or terminate anywhere outside the 48 contiguous United States or
the District of Columbia. Lastly, supplemental operations include all other
commercial flights (air cargo, fractional ownership, and air taxi operations fall under these rules).
Regulation 14 CFR 121.91 requires that domestic operations utilize
weather reports prepared by the U.S. National Weather Service; these include forecasts for weather at the time of arrival at a destination airport.68
Regulation 14 CFR 91.117 governs allowable aircraft speed; it
limits aircraft operations to a top speed of 250 KIAS while flying below 10,000 ft.69 This regulation does not apply to flights outside of the
United States (e.g., in the European Union, aircraft routinely fly faster
than 250 KIAS at low altitudes).
Aircraft must be able to safely fly in the event that one engine suddenly fails. Even with no signs of engine trouble, the pilot must always
operate the aircraft safely above its stall speed and above its critical engine
inoperative minimum controllable airspeed (VMCA).
The pilots operating the handbook must document the climb performance (consequently, the usable flight ceiling) of the airplane as well as
its fuel consumption with all engines functioning normally and with one
engine inoperative.
Dispatch control for commercial flights should never release an aircraft for flight unless it has sufficient fuel to achieve its destination airport
plus some amount of reserve fuel in the event of a weather hold or missed
approach. Dispatch must also be able to estimate the aircraft weight at the
time of landing. Regulation 14 CFR 121.195 requires dispatch control to
estimate the aircraft flight weight on initial approach into the destination
airport.70 The aircraft weight on approach should be less than the maximum certified landing weight (MLW), and light enough so that the aircraft
can safely land, balk a landing, or discontinue an approach on the intended
runway.
1.3.14 RESERVE FUEL REQUIREMENTS (IFR VERSUS

DOMESTIC VERSUS FLAG)
Regulation 14 CFR 91.16771 outlines fuel requirements for IFR flights.
It specifies additional fuel reserve requirements (along with 14 CFR
121.63972) that are needed for nearly all commercial flights. The regulation requires enough fuel to complete the flight to the intended airport,
then fly to the alternate airport, then fly after that for 45 min. For aircraft
that meet the 123 rule, no alternate airport needs to be filed, resulting
in lower fuel reserves required (just a 45-min holdroughly 200 nM of
extra range for a typical transport aircraft). The 123 rule requires a flight
plan involving a diversion to an alternate airport if weather reports and
forecasts show that 1 hr before and after the estimated time of arrival,
the ceiling will be lower than 2,000 ft above the airport elevation and the
visibility will be less than 3 mi. Under IFR rules, a flight between C
hicago
OHare and sunny Los Angeles will not require an alternate arrival airport, whereas a flight between Los Angeles and snowy Chicago OHare
will require a plan involving a flight to Chicago followed by a hold and
a diversion to another airport (e.g., Milwaukee, WI or Indianapolis, IN).
When flying overseas under flag operations rules, an aircraft must
follow 14 CFR 121.645.73 If an alternate airport is not specified, the pilots
must plan for 2 hr of normal cruise fuel consumption in addition to the
basic fuel load. Thus, dispatch will specify an alternate for most overseas flights. When flying from Los Angeles to Honolulu, they will specify
Kona, HI as an alternate. When flying from London to New York, they will
specify Bangor, ME or Washington/Dulles as an alternate. In addition, the
aircraft must have fuel on board for a 30 min hold at 1,500 ft AGL above
the alternate airport. Regulation 14 CFR 121.645(b)(2) also requires the
aircraft to load extra reserve fuel to fly for a period of 10 percent of
the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at,
the airport to which it was released. Basically, dispatch must multiply the
scheduled distance by 1.1 when planning the fuel load for such a flight.
ETOPS are controlled by 14 CFR 121.161,74 121.624,75 and 121
Appendix P.76 Without ETOPS certification, 14 CFR 121.161 would require
a two-engine aircraft to remain within 60 min of an adequate airport (precluding a twin-jet to fly from the continental United States to Hawaii). With
basic ETOPS certification, two-engine aircraft may fly 90 or more min away
from the nearest airport. With more advanced certification, two-engine aircraft are allowed to roam as many as 330 min away from the nearest airport.
Because fuel consumption and cruise speed tend to suffer with an inoperative engine, overseas flights must account for the extra fuel load required in
the event that an engine fails at an inopportune moment, mid-flight. When
Introduction 39
flying the North Atlantic from the United States to Europe, there are a host
of possible diversion airports along the way (Keflavik, Iceland; Shannon,
Ireland; Halifax, Nova Scotia); this requirement does not severely impact
the required fuel load. Alternatively, when flying between Los Angeles and
Honolulu, there are precious few places to stop and refuel along the way;
aircraft must dispatch with significant additional fuel reserves.
1.3.15 CERTIFICATION TEMPERATURE, ALTITUDE,

AND SPEED LIMITS
Aircraft are designed and certified to specific ambient air temperature,
altitude, and speed requirements (see 14 CFR 25.1527,77 25.1503,78
25.1505,79 25.1507,80 25.1511,81 25.1513,82 25.1515,83 25.151784).
Typical aircraft expect to operate from desert and tropical and arctic
runways; thus, they should be able to operate under near sea-level conditions from 20oC to +55oC (ISA 40oC to ISA +40oC). As the aircraft
climbs to cruise altitudes, temperatures lapse considerably; expect an aircraft with a 40,000+ feet cruise ceiling to experience in-flight operating
temperatures as cold as 80oC (ISA 25oC).
Aircraft are certified to fly over a range of pressure altitudes, typically from 1000 ft (representing operation on a very cold day under
high-barometric pressure conditions near sea level) through a maximum
certification ceiling. The selection of maximum certification ceiling governs the size of the engines required, the factor of safety imposed on the
structural design, the complexity of the cabin pressurization system, and
the sort of emergency equipment that needs to be on board.
Regulation 14 CFR 25.33585 requires the aircraft designer to establish
(and post) maximum speeds (in terms of KIAS and, where applicable,
Mach number. These speeds include (1) the aforementioned design cruising speed, VC and MC; (2) the maximum Mach number, Mm0, which is
the highest value of MC on an aircraft with a complex, altitude-dependent
high-speed limit; (3) the design dive speed, VD and/or MD, which is the
maximum overspeed condition predicted in an upset at Mm0; (4) the d
esign
maneuvering speed, VA, the speed at which the aircraft will simultaneously achieve its maximum instantaneous turn rate at stall; as well as
speeds like VF, the design flap extension speed. For the example shown
in Figure 1.25, the maximum speed for flight with flaps extended varies
from 185 to 220 KIAS. The landing gear may be operated at speeds as
high as280 KIAS or Mach 0.83 provided that the aircraft is flying above
30,000 ft. For the airspeed gauge found in Figure 1.26, this aircraft should
not be flown faster than 350 KIAS.
Figure 1.25. Placard speeds for strength and environments.
Figure 1.26. Indicated airspeed gage.

Note: warning stripe affixed at 350 KIAS.
The most stressing high-speed condition is the design dive speed implied by 14 CFR 25.335(b). The design dive speed ... must be selected
so that . . . VD [or] MD is the greater of the following values: . . . [the
speed attained] from an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC [or] MC,
the airplane is upset [and] flown for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5
below the initial path or MD >= MC + 0.07 for aircraft with simple engine controls or MD >= MC + 0.05 for aircraft with an automatic control
system that limits dive speed. Thus, for the aircraft shown in Figure 1.26
Introduction 41
(which lacks a complex autothrottle system), controllability and structural

integrity must be demonstrated at MD ~ 0.95 at altitude and MD~0.92 at
altitudes around 25,000 ft (which corresponds to ~370 KIAS (both values
are in excess of the placard speeds).
1.3.16 DAMAGE TOLERANCE FROM TIRE EXPLOSIONS,

BIRD STRIKES, AND CATASTROPHIC ENGINE FAILURE
Tire explosions, bird strikes, and major engine failures are foreseeable,
rather than extremely improbable, events. In order to certify a design
for commercial operations, the engineers must plan for these events.
(Figures 1.27 and 1.28) Damage tolerance requirements are sprinkled
across many disparate regulations:
14 CFR 25.571. The airplane must not crash when structural damage occurs as a result of (1) Impact with a 4-pound bird ... (2)
Uncontained fan blade impact; ... (3) Uncontained engine failure;
or ... (4) Uncontained high energy rotating machinery failure.86
14 CFR 25.903 Design precautions must be taken to minimize the
hazards to the airplane in the event of an engine rotor failure or of
a fire 87
14 CFR 25.1185. No tank or reservoir ... may be in a designated
fire zone88
Figure 1.27. Bird strike damage.
Figure 1.28. Uncontained rotor burst of the engine turbine.
14 CFR 25.863 Flammable fluid fire protection. Where fuel, lubricants or vapors might leak, there must be means to minimize the
probability of ignition of the fluids and vapors, and the resultant
hazards if ignition does occur.89
14 CFR 25.365 Pressurized compartment loads. Structures must be
designed to withstand the effects of a sudden release of pressure ...
[from] the penetration of the compartment by a portion of an engine
following an engine disintegration.90
14 CFR 25.841 Pressurized cabins. (see below)91
A catastrophic fragmentation of the major moving parts of the engine,
an event known as rotor burst, has, and continues, to plague high-speed
rotating machinery. Because there is no single, applicable federal regulation which specifically calls out rotor burst, it is difficult to provide general design compliance advice.
Turbine engines spin at 10,000+ rpm imparting considerable kinetic
energy to any moving part. Because fragments shed from the engine may
travel long distances: they may destroy nacelles (Figure 1.28), puncture
the wing (Figure 1.29), or hole the fuselage (Figure 1.30). These fragments
have directly injured passengers; for example, a rotor burst on a Delta
Airlines MD-88 killed two passengers and severely injured two others.92 If
this event occurred at altitude, the cabin would rapidly depressurize.
Introduction 43
Figure 1.29. Wing damage from an uncontained rotor burst.
Figure 1.30. Fuselage damage from an uncontained rotor burst.
The most germane regulation controlling the design of aircraft to

withstand rotor burst may be found in 14 CFR 25.903. Engines must be
arranged and isolated from each other ... so that the failure or malfunction
of any engine ... will not ... prevent the continued safe operation of the
remaining engines; or ... require immediate action by any crewmember
for continued safe operation. Engineers must take care to minimize the
hazards to the airplane in the event of an engine rotor failure (and automatically suppress any associated fire).
Regulation 14 CFR 25.903 is extraordinarily vague. To comply, the FAA

must be satisfied that the design team has taken reasonable precaution. To
clarify this, the FAA issued AC 20-128A which specifies a variety of spread
angles (typically +/ 15o ahead and behind any rotor) (Figure 1.31) where
energetic debris emanating from an uncontained rotor failure may travel.93
AC 20-128A recommends that designers to minimize the damage
that can be caused by uncontained engine and APU rotor fragments.93 Designers should be aware of rotor-burst-induced damage to the following:
The installation of other engine(s) or an APU that provides an essential function
The design of pressurized sections of the fuselage in the rotor burst
cone
The size of other primary structure of the fuselage, wings and empennage in the rotor burst cone
The presence of pilot compartment areas in rotor burst
The location of fuel system components, piping and tanks in rotor
burst
The disposition of control systems, such as primary and secondary
flight controls, electrical power cables, wiring, hydraulic systems,
engine control systems, flammable fluid shut-off valves, and the associated actuation wiring or cables.
Thus, aircraft designers should ensure the following:
Make it so that a debris-punctured fuel tank does not leak directly
onto a hot engine
If possible, locate critical components or systems outside the
likely debris impact areas
Figure 1.31. Rotor burst zone.
Introduction 45
Provide redundancy, by duplicating and separating critical components or systems

Position some redundant systems behind significant structures
Position other redundant systems a distance equal to the 1/2 blade
fragment dimension
Protect critical systems and components by using supplemental
shielding
These are essential elements for designers to consider when making
a good-faith effort to minimize secondary failures brought on by catastrophic uncontained engine failure.
1.3.17 CABIN PRESSURIZATION REGULATIONS

Aircraft cabins are pressurized for passenger safety and comfort. Regulation 14 CFR 25.841 requires that aircraft must be equipped to provide a cabin pressure altitude of not more than 8,000 ft at the maximum
operating altitude of the airplane under normal operating conditions. To
ensure against accidental depressurization, implosion or overpressurization, aircraft must be fitted with at least two pressure relief valves to
automatically limit the positive pressure differential to a predetermined
value at the maximum rate of flow delivered by the pressure source. In
the event that one overpressure valve fails, the remaining valves must have
sufficient flow to prevent any appreciable rise in the [cabin] pressure
differential above specification. In addition, aircraft must have reverse
pressure differential relief valves ... to automatically prevent a negative
pressure differential that would damage the structure. Redundancy is not
required if a single valve is fitted whose design reasonably precludes its
malfunctioning. The cockpit must be fitted with instruments that show
the pressure differential, the cabin pressure altitude, and the rate of change
of the cabin pressure altitude. In addition, there must be a cockpit warning system to indicate when the safe or preset pressure differential and
cabin pressure altitude limits are exceeded. . . . [or] the cabin pressure
altitude exceeds 10,000 feet.
Figure 1.32 plots the basic cabin differential pressure experienced
during high-altitude flight. If an aircraft flies at a pressure altitude of
40,000 ft and maintains its cabin at an 8,000 ft equivalent static pressure,
the fuselage will experience an 8 psi differential pressure. Niu recommends best practices for design of the cabin pressure relief system.29 He
suggests that engineers ensure that the overpressure relief valves are fully
open when the cabin pressure rises to 0.25 psi above the design pressure.
Figure 1.32. Differential cabin pressure.
He also suggests that the underpressure relief valves open if the cabin differential pressure drops below zero; and that they are fully open to prevent
the differential cabin pressure from ever exceeding 0.50 psi.
The 1996 amendments to 14 CFR 25.841 codified and consolidated
the different high-altitude criteria that were previously made and applied
on a case-by-case basis as special conditions.94 It establishes objective
standards for high-altitude operations and acknowledges a human physiological limit of 34,000 ft, above which persons not using supplementary
oxygen are in serious peril. The FAA explains that cabin pressurization
regulations provide airworthiness standards that would allow subsonic
airplanes to operate at . . . the highest altitude for which an applicant
chooses to demonstrate that, after decompression caused by a single failure or combination of failures that are not shown to be extremely improbable (i.e. for improbable or probable failures): (1) The flight crew will
remain alert and be able to fly the airplane; (2) the cabin occupants will
be protected from the effects of hypoxia; and (3) in the event that some
occupants do not receive oxygen, they ... will be protected against permanent physiological damage.95 Existing supplemental oxygen protected
the passengers during a 2009 Southwest Airlines B737 incident where the
aircraft structural failed and the cabin depressurized at 35,000 ft.96
To determine the certification ceiling, the FAA requires the manufacturer to consider foreseeable improbable failure modes from tire burst,
wheel failure, engine rotor burst, engine . . . failure, and loss of antennas95 Aircraft structure in the region of the cabin must be designed for
Introduction 47
an additional factor of safety above the 1.5x factor specified by 14 CFR

25.303. For aircraft certified for flight at or below 45,000 ft, the airplane
structure must be designed to be able to withstand the pressure differential
loads corresponding to the maximum relief valve setting multiplied by a factor of 1.33.95 For aircraft certified for flight above 45,000 ft, the structure
must be designed to withstand the pressure differential loads correspond to
the maximum relief valve setting multiplied by a factor of 1.67.95
The cabin pressurization system itself must have significant redundancy. If the aircraft is certified for flight above 25,000 ft, the airplane
must be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to cabin pressure
altitudes in excess of 15,000 feet after any probable failure condition in the
pressurization system. Under the current regulation, the airplane must
be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to a cabin pressure
altitude that exceeds the following after decompression from any failure
condition not shown to be extremely improbable: . . . 25,000 feet for
more than 2 minutes; or . . . 40,000 feet for any duration. Rotor burst
is not an extremely improbable event; in 1988, a Piedmont Airlines F28
depressurized after an engine rotor burst at 31,000 ft.97
The current FAA policy resulting from the 1996 amendment to 14 CFR
25.841 [69] limits the maximum operating altitude of new type designs
with wing-mounted engines to 40,000 feet. In addition, it functionally limits new turboprop designs with limited descent capability to a certification
ceiling not substantially greater than 25,000 ft.
Aircraft like the Gulfstream V comply with the present regulation.
They are certified to fly at altitudes as high as 51,000 ft. These aircraft feature tail mounted engines and a primary (or secondary) aft pressure bulkhead located far forward in the fuselage (refer back to Figure 1.31). In the
event of an uncontained engine rotor burst, it is not foreseeable that debris
could ever puncture the main pressurized cabin. Under the 1996 amendment, the FAA would not certify a clean-sheet Airbus 320-type design to
fly much above 40,000 ft. Because it has a wing-mounted engine configuration, it is foreseeable that an uncontained rotor burst could compromise
the integrity of the pressurized cabin. Moreover, even tail-mounted engine
aircraft like an MD-80 cannot be certified under the current rule because
its pressurized cabin extends far aft, and has windows and seats in close
proximity to the engines.
Oddly, because it is also FAA policy that procedural regulations permit design changes over the operational life of the product, the Changed
Product Rule, 14 CFR 21.19, in no way prohibits the continued manufacture
or revision of products certified prior 1996.98 Thus, the FAA grandfathers
production, development, and operation of the existing 747 design; the FAA
allows current, future, and legacy 747s to fly as high as 45,100 ft.99
Clearly, this revised regulation is troubling! In 2006, the FAA backtracked on enforcing this regulation and issued a policy document (FAA
ANM 03-112-16)100 that states:
Permitting airplanes to fly above 40,000 feet does offer real and
tangible benefits to the aerospace industry, the traveling public
and the U.S. economy by lowering congestion, improving fuel
economy, and lowering pollution. If compliance with [14 CFR]
25.841 at Amendment 25-87 limited airplanes operations to a
maximum altitude of 40,000 feet, this would impose a significant
disadvantage on newly designed airplanes that have many safety
advantages over older airplanes currently allowed to operate at
higher altitudes. This would delay the introduction of these airplanes and the benefits of their more advanced technology.
The legal docket reveals the following statistic: if the engines are on
the tail, the FAA has never granted an exemption to the 1996 version of
14 CFR 25.841. Indeed, the Hawker 4000 has secondary pressure bulkhead b ecause its primary bulkhead was in the rotor burst zone. If the
engines are on the wing, as is the case for Boeings 787101 and Airbus
A380, uponpetition, the FAA waived compliance with 14 CFR 25.841 and
granted certification altitudes above 43,000 ft.
We will see later in this book that it is essential for aircraft to be certified to fly over 40,000 ft in order to attain competitive or superior fuel
consumption. The laws of physics do not favor aircraft that can only fly at
low altitudes.
ENDNOTES
1. Anderson, J.D., Aircraft Performance and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1999.
2. Ashley, H., Engineering Analysis of Flight Vehicles, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1974.
3. Ashley, H., and Landahl, M., Aerodynamics of Wings & Bodies, Addison Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1965.
4. Raymer, D., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA, Washington,
D.C., 1989.
5. Roskam, J., Airplane Design: Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, DAR
Corp., Lawrence, KS, 2003.
6. Schlichting, H., and Truckenbrodt, P., Aerodynamics of the Airplane, McGraw
Hill, New York, 1978.
7. Anon., MD-80 Series Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning, McDonnell
Douglas, Long Beach, CA, 1990, p. 2-2, 3-2.
Introduction 49
8. Federal Aviation Administration, Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A6E (rev
March 25, 2014).
9. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, AC 12027C, Aircraft
Weight and Balance Control, October 25, 1990.
10. 14 C.F.R. 121.391 (2015) Flight Attendants.
11. 14 C.F.R. 91.117 (2015) Aircraft Speed.
12. 14 C.F.R. 23, et. seq. (2015) Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes.
13. 14 C.F.R. 25, et. seq. (2015) Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category
Airplanes.
14. 14 C.F.R. 71, et. seq. (2015) Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points.
15. 14 C.F.R. 71, et. seq. (2015) General Operating and Flight Rules.
16. 14 C.F.R. 121, et. seq. (2015) Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag,
and Supplemental Operations.
17. Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Specification No. A-777 (rev April
15, 1996).
18. Federal Aviation Administration, Type Certificate Data Sheet No. T00021SE
A6E (rev May 20, 2015).
19. 14 C.F.R. 21 Subpart D (2015) Changes to Type Certificates.
20. 14 C.F.R. 21.101 (2015) Designation of Applicable Regulations.
21. 14 C.F.R. 25.21 (2015) Proof of Compliance.
22. 14 C.F.R. 25.23 (2015) Load Distribution Limits.
23. 14 C.F.R. 25.25 (2015) Weight Limits.
24. 14 C.F.R. 25.1523 (2015) Minimum Flight Crew.
25. 14 C.F.R. 91.1 (2015) General Operating and Flight Rules: Applicability.
26. 14 C.F.R. Subpart I (2015) Airplane Performance Operating Limitations.
27. 14 C.F.R. 25.817 (2015) Maximum Number of Seats Abreast.
28. 14 C.F.R. 25.815 (2015) Width of Aisle.
29. Niu, M.C.Y., Airframe Structural Design, Second Edition, ConMilit Press,
Hong Kong, 2002.
30. 14 C.F.R. 25.801 (2015) Ditching.
31. 14 C.F.R. 25.1415 (2015) Ditching Equipment.
32. 14 C.F.R. 25.803 (2015) Emergency Evacuation.
33. 14 C.F.R. 25.807 (2015) Emergency Exits.
34. 14 C.F.R. 25.601 (2015) Design and Construction: General.
35. 14 C.F.R. 25.603 (2015) Materials.
36. 14 C.F.R. 25.613 (2015) Material Strength Properties and Material Design
Values.
37. MIL HDBK-5J.
38. 14 C.F.R. 25.301 (2015) Structure: Loads.
39. 14 C.F.R. 25.303 (2015) Factor of Safety.
40. 14 C.F.R. 25.305 (2015) Strength and Deformation.
41. 14 C.F.R. 25.321 (2015) Flight Loads: General.
42. 14 C.F.R. 25.337 (2015) Limit Maneuvering Load Factors.

43. 14 C.F.R. 25.345 (2015) High Lift Devices.
44. 14 C.F.R. 25.143 (2015) Controllability and Maneuverability: General.
45. 14 C.F.R. 25.145 (2015) Longitudinal Control.
46. 14 C.F.R. 25.171 (2015) Stability: General.
47. 14 C.F.R. 25.175 (2015) Demonstration of Static Longitudinal Stability.
48. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, AC 25-7B, Flight Test
Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, March 29, 2011.
49. MIL STD 8785C.
50. 14 C.F.R. 25.147 (2015) Directional and Lateral Control.
51. 14 C.F.R. 25.177 (2015) Static Lateral-Directional Stability.
52. 14 C.F.R. 25.149 (2015) Minimum Control Speed.
53. 14 C.F.R. 25.341 (2015) Gust and Turbulence Loads.
54. 14 C.F.R. 25.237 (2015) Wind Velocities.
55. 14 C.F.R. 25.103 (2015) Stall Speed.
56. 14 C.F.R. 25.203 (2015) Stall Characteristics.
57. 14 C.F.R. 25.207 (2015) Stall Warning.
58. 14 C.F.R. 25.105 (2015) Takeoff.
59. 14 C.F.R. 25.107 (2015) Takeoff Speeds.
60. 14 C.F.R. 25.109 (2015) Accelerate Stop Distance.
61. 14 C.F.R. 25.111 (2015) Takeoff Path.
62. 14 C.F.R. 25.113 (2015) Takeoff Distance and Takeoff Run.
63. 14 C.F.R. 25.115 (2015) Takeoff Flight Path.
64. 14 C.F.R. 25.121 (2015) Climb: One Engine Inoperative.
65. 14 C.F.R. 25.125 (2015) Landing.
66. 14 C.F.R. 25.119 (2015) Landing Climb: All Engines Operating.
67. 14 C.F.R. 119.3 (2015) Definitions.
68. 14 C.F.R. 121.91 (2015) Approval of Routes: Domestic and Flag Operations - Applicability.
69. 14 C.F.R. 91.117 (2015) Aircraft Speed.
70. 14 C.F.R. 121.195 (2015) Airplanes: Turbine Engine Powered: Landing
Limitations: Destination Airports.
71. 14 C.F.R. 91.167 (2015) Fuel Requirements for Flight in IFR Conditions.
72. 14 C.F.R. 121.639 (2015) Fuel Supply: All Domestic Operations.
73. 14 C.F.R. 121.645 (2015) Fuel Supply: Turbine-Engine Powered Airplanes,
Other than Turbo Propeller: Flag and Supplemental Operations.
74. 14 C.F.R. 121.161 (2015) Airplane Limitations: Type of Route.
75. 14 C.F.R. 121 624 (2015) ETOPS Alternate Airports.
76. 14 C.F.R. 121 Appendix P (2015) Requirements for ETOPS and Polar
Operations.
77. 14 C.F.R. 25.1527 (2015) Ambient Air Temperature and Operating Altitude.
78. 14 C.F.R. 25.1503 (2015) Airspeed Limitations: General.
79. 14 C.F.R. 25.1505 (2015) Maximum Operating Limit Speed.
80. 14 C.F.R. 25.1507 (2015) Maneuvering Speed.
81. 14 C.F.R. 25.1511 (2015) Flap Extended Speed.
82. 14 C.F.R. 25.1513 (2015) Minimum Control Speed.
Introduction 51
83. 14 C.F.R. 25.1515 (2015) Landing Gear Speeds.
84. 14 C.F.R. 25.1517 (2015) Rough Air Speed, VRA.
85. 14 C.F.R. 25.335 (2015) Design Airspeeds.
86. 14 C.F.R. 25.571 (2015) DamageTolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of
Structure.
87. 14 C.F.R. 25.903 (2015) Engines.
88. 14 C.F.R. 25.1185 (2015) Flammable Fluids.
89. 14 C.F.R. 25.863 (2015) Flammable Fluid Fire Protection.
90. 14 C.F.R. 25.365 (2015) Pressurized Compartment Loads.
91. 14 C.F.R. 25.841 (2015) Pressurized Cabins.
92. National Transportation Safety Board Accident Investigation Report. Docket
DCA96MA068. (On July 6, 1996, Delta Airlines flight 1288, an MD-88,
N927DA, experienced an uncontained failure of the left engine during the
beginning of the takeoff roll. The flightcrew stopped the airplane about 1400
feet down the takeoff runway. On board the airplane were 142 passengers, 2
flightcrew members, 3 cabincrew, and 2 non-revenue Delta employees occupying the cockpit and aft jumpseats. Engine parts entered the left side of the
aft cabin resulting in 2 passengers sustaining fatal injuries and 2 sustained
major injuries. Three other passengers received minor injuries during the
evacuation. The captain stopped the evacuation from the emergency exits,
and an airstair was brought to the airplane to evacuate the remaining passengers and the crew. The fan hub for the left engine was found fractured.)
93. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, AC 128A, Design Considerations for Minimizing Hazards Caused by Uncontained Turbine Engine
and Auxiliary Power Unit Rotor Failure, 1997.
94. Government Printing Office, Standards for Approval for High Altitude Operation of Subsonic Transport Airplanes, Federal Register, Volume 61, No.
109, 1996, pp. 28684-28696.
95. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, AC 25-20, Pressurization, Ventilation and Oxygen Systems Assessment for Subsonic Flight Including High Altitude Operation, 1996.
96. National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Factual Report, NTSB ID
DCA09FA065, July 13, 2009.
97. National Transportation Safety Board Brief of Accident, NTSB ID
BFO88FA036.
98. 14 C.F.R. 21.19 (2015) Changes Requiring a New Type Certificate.
99. Federal Aviation Administration, Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A20WE.
100. Federal Aviation Administration, ANM 03-112-16, Interim Policy on High
Altitude Cabin Decompression (Reference Amendment 25-87), March 24,
2006.
101. Federal Aviation Administration, Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A58NM.
Index
A
Above ground level (AGL), 53
Absolute ceiling, 171173
AC 20-128A, 44
AC 25-7B, 30, 31
Actual flight payload (PYLD), 23
Aerial navigation coordinate
system, 56
Aerodynamic analysis
angle of attack, 130131
drag
crud, 124128
due to lift arising from
compressibility, 122124
due to lift at incompressible
speeds, 119122
full configuration drag
estimation, 102104
maximum lift coefficient/buffet
boundary, 129130
take-off, approach, and landing,
131141
zero-lift drag
due to compressibility, 114119
at incompressible speeds,
104114
Aerodynamic drag, 77
Aerodynamic efficiency, 138
and performance efficiency,
155157, 183
skymap plot for, 156
Aerodynamic fineness, 143
Aerodynamic performance
efficiency
aerodynamic efficiency and,

155157, 183
vs. distance flown, 214
Aerodynamics of the Airplane, 2
Aeromechanics coordinate
systems, 57
Afterburner, 80
Aileron-rudder interconnect, 33
Airbus 320, 10, 207
Aircraft
aerodynamic analysis. See Drag;
Lift
with anti-ice systems, 30
assembly and shape, 5657
back side flying of, 138
basic weights and envelope,
2024
cabin pressurization regulations,
4548
certification
implied requirements for,
1948
temperature, altitude, and speed
limits, 3941
commercial. See Commercial
aircraft
control, 138
crosswind capability, 3335
damage tolerance, 4145
design factor of safety, 2728
design maneuvering loads,
2830
direct operating cost, 18
drawings, 56
220 INDEX
Aircraft (Continued)
emergency exit doors and slides,
2526
FAA-certified, 25
lateral-directional trim, stability,
and control, 3233
long-haul, 14
longitudinal trim, stability, and
control, 3031
mechanics
coordinate frames, 5660
pilot flying airplanes, 6475
reference units, 5356
Standard Atmosphere, 6064
minimum cruise speed, 1011
new generations of, 3
payload, 810
performance, 7
of en route mission, 37
kinematic point-performance.
See Kinematic point-
performance principles
for landing, 36
mission. See Mission
performance principles
for takeoff, 3536
production costs, 19
propulsion system. See
Propulsion system
purpose of, 68
reserve fuel requirements, 3839
runway requirements, 1418
seating configurations and cabin
aisle widths, 2425
short-haul regional and
commuter, 14
sizing, 5
of fuel system, 160162
mission with 100 nm divert
andIFR reserves, 209210
mission with simple IFR
reserves, 208209
spoiler system, 139
stability
axis, 59
lateral-directional trim and

control, 3233
longitudinal trim and control,
3031
pendulum, 72
positive, 31
positive lateral, 32
stall speed, 35, 145148
still air range, 1114
structural materials, choice of, 27
synthesis, 5
transport category, 19
twin-engine Boeing, 5
ultralong-range, 14
Aircraft Design
choice of aircraft structural
materials, 27
clean sheet. See Clean sheet
Aircraft Design
commercial, 67, 14
description of, 1
disciplines in, 1
Aircraft Design, 2
Airfoil section drag, 107
Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL), 1
Air inlet, design of, 9193
Airmans Information Manual, 172
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM),
29, 36
Air traffic control (ATC), 66, 145
accidental collisions and, 10
ceiling, 171173, 174
maintaining aircraft, 206
national system, 18
Airworthiness certificate, 20
Altimeter, 64, 6667
Altitude, 53, 7071
cruise speed and, 216
American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics (AIAA),
12, 126
Angle of attack, 35, 59, 130131
maximum, 129, 132
skymap plot for, 153154
INDEX 221
Anti-ice systems, aircraft with, 30

Artificial horizon, 74
Atlantas DeKalb/Peachtree
Airport (PDK), 16
Attached flow, 129
Automatic power reserve
(APR), 162
Automatic takeoff thrust control
system (ATTCS), 162, 163
Aviation
general, 19, 177
temperature measurement in, 54
Axial compressor, 93
B
B737-100 flight test program, 127
Bank to turn, 72
Barometric pressure, 54
Base drag
coefficient, 113
stemming, 126
Base pressure drag, 113114
Beechcraft Premier, 27
Beechcraft Starship, 27
Bird strikes, aircraft damage,
4145
Bleed air offtake, effect of, 181183
Boeing 737, 10, 27, 207
Boyd, John, 150
Brayton cycle
gas turbine engine, 79, 8485
two-spool turbofan engine
combustor, 9394
compressor, 93
turbine, 94
Breguet, Louis, 143
Breguet range equation, 143,
193198
application of, 195196
to build mission planning
payload/range curve, 196197
limitations of, 197198
in modern form, 144
Breton Woods gold-standard
network, 2
Buffet boundary, 129130

Bypass duct, 79
Bypass ratio (BPR), 78, 81, 98
C
Cabin pressurization regulations,
4548
Calibrated airspeed (CAS), 62, 64
Canadair Regional Jets, 24
Cascade-type cold stream
system, 95
Catastrophic engine failure,
aircraft damage, 4145
Ceiling, 164168
absolute, 171173
air traffic control, 171173, 174
certification, 46
combat, 172
critical engine inoperative,
173174
cruise, 172
service, 171173
weight effects on, 174176
Centrifugal compressor, 93
Certification ceiling, 46
Certification requirements, aircraft
and, 1948
basic weights and envelope,
2024
cabin pressurization regulations,
4548
temperature, altitude, and speed
limits, 3941
crosswind capability, 3335
damage tolerance, 4145
design factor of safety, 2728
design maneuvering loads, 2830
emergency exit doors and
slides, 2526
lateral-directional trim, stability,
and control, 3233
longitudinal trim, stability,
and control, 3031
performance for landing, 36
performance for takeoff, 3536
222 INDEX
Certification requirements
(Continued)
performance of en route
mission, 37
reserve fuel requirements, 3839
seating configurations and cabin
aisle widths, 2425
stall speed, 35
structural materials, choice of, 27
CFM-56 Turbofan Engines, 92
Changed Product Rule, 20, 47
Chicagolands Midway Airport
(MDW), 15
Christie, Thomas, 150
Clean sheet Aircraft Design, 46
definition of, 46
development of, 56
Climb
at constant Mach number and
knots indicated airspeed,
168170
finding optimum speed for
minimum time to, 176177
gradient, 167
maximum thrust, 89
rate of, 164168
speed
choice of, 216217
en route, 202204
weight effects on, 174176
Cockpit warning system, 45
Combat ceiling, 172
Combustor, design of, 80, 9394
Commercial aircraft
design, 67, 14
dispatch control for, 37
fuselage diameters, 24
loiter and, 183
scenarios for, 159
twin-engine, 174
Commercial certification process, 6
Commuter aircraft, 14, 19
Compressibility, 115
drag due to lift arising from,
122124
effects of, 63
zero-lift drag, 114119

due to, 114119
effects of, 108
of fuselage, 115117
of wing, 117119
Compressor
design of, 93
high-pressure, 78
low-pressure, 78
and power turbines, 86
surge, 93
Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD), 101, 121, 125
Congestion of air below, 119
Coordinate systems, of
aeromechanics, 57
Critical engine inoperative ceiling,
173174
Crosswind capability, 3335
Crud drag, 124128
Crud factor, 108
Cruise, 204205
ceiling, 172
speed, 39
and altitude, 216
D
Damage tolerance, 4145
Deceleration, to approach
speed, 205
De Havilland Dash-8 family
turboprops, 24
De-ice systems, aircraft with, 30
Denver International Airport, 14
Deployed flaps
drag impact of, 136137
maximum lift coefficient impact
of, 132136
Descent speed
approach and landing, 205206
final, 205206
initial, 205
Design certification loads, 29
Design dive speed, 39
Design lift coefficient, 117
Design loads, 29
INDEX 223
Detached flow, 129

Dimensional drag, 157158
Direct operating costs, 18
Dispatch fuel on board (FOB), 23
Domestic operations, 37
Downwash, 119
Drag. See also specific drags
crud, 124128
deployed flaps, 136137
deployed speed brakes
AFT fuselage, 138139
wing-mounted lift-dump
spoilers, 139140
dimensional, 157158
extended landing gear, 137138
inoperative engine, 140141
lift arising from compressibility,
122124
lift at incompressible speeds,
119122
and lift in energy-maneuverability
plot, 150155
polars, 103
of real vs. idealized aerostructures,
124128
total, induced drag fraction of,
185187
Trinitarian view of, 119
Drag-due-to-lift model, 124
E
Earth, magnetic field of, 71
Embraer 145 family jets, 24
Emergency exit doors, 2526
Empirical Drag Estimation
Technique (EDET), 102103,
122, 124, 127, 129
Empirical flat-plate drag model, 106
Endurance
determination of, 144
fuel flow, 183184
for engine inoperative,
184185
Energy, conservation of, 84
Energy-maneuverability, 70,
143, 149150
Engine-mounting pylons,
drag of, 111
Engine pressure ratio (EPR), 82
En route climb speed
acceleration to, 202
at constant KIAS and Mach
number, 203204
En route mission performance, 37
Entropy, formation of, 84
Equivalent airspeed (EAS), 62, 63
Equivalent flat-plate area method,
108113
Equivalent still air distance
(ESAD), 1113
Estimated fuel burn (BURN), 24
Euler equation, 101
Excrescence drag, 102, 126
Explicit simulation system, 198
basic modes in, 199
Extended landing gear, drag
impact of, 137138
Extended Twin Operating
Procedures (ETOPS), 38
F
Factor of safety, 2728
Fan pressure ratio (FPR), 87,
99100
Feather propeller, 184
Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), 8
cabin pressurization
regulations, 46
certified aircraft, 25
guidelines
AC120-27C, 9
for passenger weights, 9
mandated strength
requirements, 27
stall speed, 35
Federal Regulation
14 CFR 21.19, 47
14 CFR 23, 19
14 CFR 25, 19, 163, 171
14 CFR 25.21, 20
14 CFR 25.23, 21
224 INDEX
Federal regulations (Continued)

14 CFR 25.25, 21
14 CFR 25.103, 145
14 CFR 25.103(d), 147
14 CFR 25.105, 36
14 CFR 25.107, 35
14 CFR 25.109, 35
14 CFR 25.111, 35
14 CFR 25.113, 35
14 CFR 25.115, 36
14 CFR 25.121, 36
14 CFR 25.125, 96
14 CFR 25.143, 30, 32
14 CFR 25.145, 30
14 CFR 25.147, 32
14 CFR 25.149, 36
14 CFR 25.171, 30, 32
14 CFR 25.175, 30
14 CFR 25.177, 32
14 CFR 25.237, 33
14 CFR 25.301, 27
14 CFR 25.303, 28
14 CFR 25.305, 28
14 CFR 25.321, 28
14 CFR 25.335, 39
14 CFR 25.335(b), 40
14 CFR 25.337, 29
14 CFR 25.341, 33
14 CFR 25.345, 30
14 CFR 25.365, 42
14 CFR 25.571, 41
14 CFR 25.601, 27
14 CFR 25.603, 27
14 CFR 25.613, 27
14 CFR 25.801, 25
14 CFR 25.803, 25
14 CFR 25.807, 25, 26
14 CFR 25.815, 24
14 CFR 25.817, 24
14 CFR 25.841, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48
14 CFR 25.863, 42
14 CFR 25.903, 41, 4344
14 CFR 25.1185, 41
14 CFR 25.1415, 25
14 CFR 71, 19
14 CFR 91, 19, 208, 209

14 CFR 91.117, 37, 201,
202, 205
14 CFR 91.167, 38, 206
14 CFR 119.3, 37
14 CFR 121, 19
14 CFR 121.91, 37
14 CFR 121.161, 38
14 CFR 121.195, 37
14 CFR 121.391, 9
14 CFR 121.639, 198, 206
14 CFR 121.645, 38, 206, 210
14 CFR 121.645(b)(2), 38
14 CFR 121.646, 211
Finite-element models, 27
Five-column data, 96
Flag operations, 37
overseas mission, 210213
Flap extension speed, 39
Flat-plate skin friction coefficient,
109, 111, 112
Flight. See Aircraft
Flight envelope, 28, 70
Form drag, 115
Form factors, 106107, 110
Fort Worth TXs Meacham Field
(FTW) Airport, 16
Fowler flaps, 133, 136
Fowler, Harlan, 133
Front side flying, of aircraft, 138
Fuel flow
calculation of, 8891
vs. distance flown, 214
Fuel on board (FOB), 23, 196
Fuel, reserve, 206
Fuel system, sizing of, 160161
Full configuration drag estimation,
102104
Full-scale testing, 28
Fuselage
AFT, 138139
zero-lift compressibility drag of,
115117
Fusiform body, form factor
for, 111
INDEX 225
G
Gas turbine engine, 7788
Brayton cycle, 79
cycle thermodynamics, 8486
momentum efficiency, 8688
parameters, 8183
thrust and fuel flow, calculation
of, 8891
General aviation, 19, 177
Geometric height, 64
Good-faith effort, 44
Gross thrust, 81
Ground run-up/takeoff model,
200201
Ground speed, 64
Ground track distances, 53
Grumman X-29, 2
Gulfstream V, 47
H
Harris Wave Drag program, 115
Hawker 4000, 27, 48
Headings, 53
changes, 7275
compass, 7172
indicator, 71
Height above ground (HAG), 53, 64
Height above mean sea level
(MSL), 53
High and the Mighty, The, 179
High-pressure compressor
(HPC), 78
High-pressure turbine (HPT), 78
Hot Day model, 61
I
Implicit flight path, 198
Incompressible zero-lift drag,
108113
Indicated airspeed (IAS), 62, 145
gauge, 54
schedule, 70
system, 5354
Indirect operating costs, 18
Induced drag, 104, 120, 185187
Inlet pressure recovery, 82, 83

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), 37,
208209
overseas flag operation
mission with 100-nm divert
and, 210213
rule 121, 209, 210
sizing mission
with 100-nm divert and,
209210
with simple, 208209
International Standard
Atmospheric (ISA), 66
K
KEAS. See Equivalent airspeed
(EAS)
Kinematic point-performance
principles
aerodynamic efficiency and performance efficiency, 155157
drag, dimensionalizing, 157158
energy-maneuverability skymap
plot, 149150
induced drag fraction of total
drag, 185187
lift and drag in energymaneuverability plot,
150155
loiter, 183185
maximum load factor, instantaneous turn rate and stall
speed ratio, 187189
maximum sustained turn rate,
189190
permissible speeds, minimum
and maximum, 145146
propulsive performance. See
Propulsive performance
specific excess power, rate of
climb, and ceiling, 164177
specific excess thrust and linear
acceleration capability, 164
specific range, 177183
Standard Atmosphere, 144145
226 INDEX
Knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS),

53, 54, 6263
Knots indicated airspeed (KIAS),
10, 54, 145
Mach number vs., 168170
Knots true airspeed (KTAS), 53,
54, 145
as function of Mach number
and pressure altitude, 68
L
Landing performance, of aircraft,
36
Landing weight (LGW), 23
Lateral-directional trim, 32
Laws of thermodynamics, 8486
Leading-edge devices, 136
Level cruise, 204205
Lift
coefficient, 213. See also
Maximum lift coefficient
impact of deployed flaps,
132136
drag
due to, arising from compressibility, 122124
due to, at incompressible
speeds, 119122
and drag in energymaneuverability plot,
150155
impact of deployed speed brakes,
139140
Lift-to-drag ratio, 155
Linear acceleration capability, 164
Load factor, 72, 73
Lockheed C-5, 2
Lockheed P-3 Orion antisubmarine
aircraft, 184
Lofting, 56
Loiter, 206
endurance fuel flow, 183184
for engine inoperative,
184185
Long-haul aircraft, 14
Longitudinal trim, 30
Low-pressure compressor (LPC), 78
Low-pressure turbine (LPT), 78
M
Mach meter, 54
Mach number, 39, 205
vs. knots indicated airspeed,
168170
Magnetic compass, 71
Magnetic field, of Earth, 71
Magnetic north, 53
Maneuvering load factor, 2830
Maneuvering speed, 39
Maximum climb thrust, 89
Maximum continuous thrust, 88
Maximum cruise thrust, 89
Maximum fuel weight (MFW), 23
Maximum instantaneous
aerodynamic load factor,
187189
Maximum instantaneous turn rate,
187189
Maximum landing weight
(MLW), 22
Maximum lift coefficient,
146147
buffet boundary, 129130
impact of deployed flaps,
132136
Maximum payload, 23
Maximum ramp weight (MRP),
2122
Maximum sustained aerodynamic
load factor, 188, 189
Maximum sustained turn rate,
189190
Maximum takeoff power, 88
Maximum takeoff weight
(MTOW), 5, 22, 197
Maximum taxi weight (MTW),
2122
Maximum zero fuel weight
(MZFW), 22
MD-81, 2122, 26
INDEX 227
MD-88, 42
Mean aerodynamic chord
(MAC), 21
Mean geometric chord, 21
Minimum control airspeed
in landing configuration
(VMCL), 32, 148
in takeoff configuration
(VMCA), 32, 148, 163
Minimum control ground speed
(VMCG), 32, 163
Minimum cruise speed, 1011
Mission performance principles
Breguet range equation, 193198
application of, 195196
to build mission planning
payload/range curve, 196197
limitations of, 197198
mission simulation code
creating payload/range charts
using, 217218
creating trade studies using,
215217
mission creating using,
206213
observations examining output
of, 213215
time-step integrating simulations,
198206
acceleration to en route climb
speed, 202
cutback, initial descent at
constant Mach, 205
deceleration to approach
speed, 205
en route climb at constant
KIAS and Mach number,
203204
final descent, approach and
landing, 205206
ground run-up/takeoff,
200201
initial climb to 10,000 ft, 201202
level cruise, 204205
reserve fuel, loiter, 206
Mission planning chart, 196

Mission simulation code
explicit, 198199
implicit, 198
mission creating using, 206213
observations examining output
of, 213215
payload/range charts using,
217218
trade studies using, 215217
Moment coefficients, of
aeromechanics, 58
Moment reference point (MRP), 59
Momentum efficiency, 8688
Multidimensional reverse
interpolation, 163, 172
N
Nacelle, form factors of, 112
National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics (NACA), 1
National Weather Service, 54,
64, 67
Nautical mile, 53
NavierStokes equation, 101
Net thrust, 81, 88, 96
Newtons laws, in aircraft, 77
New Yorks LaGuardia (LGA)
Airport, 15
No-bleed takeoff, 89
Nozzle, design of, 9496
Numerical propulsion system
simulation (NPSS), 91, 9697
O
123 rule, 38
Operating pressure ratio
(OPR), 82, 99
Operational empty weight
(OEW), 23
Overall flat plate drag
coefficient, 105
Overrotation event, 35
Overseas flag operation mission,
210213
228 INDEX
P
Parasite drag. See Zero-lift drag
Part power fuel flow, 163164, 178
Part power thrust, 163
Part-span flaps, 136
Payload, 810, 23
Breguet range equation and,
196197
maximum, 23
range chart, using mission
simulation code, 217218
-range-weight diagram, 193
Pearson International Airport
(YYZ), 16
Pendulum stability, 72
Performance efficiency. See
Aerodynamic performance
efficiency
Piccolo tubes, 181
Piedmont Airlines F28, 47
Pilot
flying of airplanes, 6475
talk, 53, 199
Pitch trim. See Longitudinal trim
Pivoting door, 95
Point mass, 193
Positive lateral stability, 32
Positive limit maneuvering load
factor, 29
Positive stability, 31
Power
effect of, 181183
hook, 89
specific excess, 164168
Power-off stall speed, 145148
PrandtlGlauert effect, 131
Pressure altitude (PA), 53, 64
for certification, 3941
Pressure drag, 107
Production certificate, 20
Production costs, 19
Proof of compliance, 20
Propulsion system
gas turbine engine, 7788
laws of thermodynamics, 8486
momentum efficiency, 8688
parameters, 8183
thrust and fuel flow, calculation
of, 8891
overall efficiency of, 84
performance data, 96100
two-spool turbofan engine, 9196
air inlet, 9193
combustor, 9394
compressor, 93
nozzle, 9496
turbine, 94
Propulsive performance
maximum thrust
162163
engines operating, 159160
fuel flow associated with,
160162
minimum thrust, all engines
operating, 162
part power fuel flow, 163164
Propulsive thrust, 77
Pushback ramp weight, 199
Q
QFE calibration, 66
QNH calibration, 66
R
Ram drag, 82, 160
Range versus fuel load trend, 196
Rate of climb (ROC), 164168
Redundancy, 45
Reserve fuel requirements, 38
Reverse interpolate tables, of lift
coefficient, 152
Reynolds number, 104105
effects as function of flight
altitude, 106
effects on flat-plate drag, 156
Rocket thrust, 82
Rockford, Illinois (RFD) Airport, 16
Ronald Reagan Washington/
National Airport (DCA), 15
Rotor burst, 42, 44
damage from, 43
INDEX 229
Royal Aeronautical Society, 143

Royal Aircraft Establishment
(RAE), 1
Runway dimensions, airport,
5556
Runway requirements, of aircraft,
1418
Rutowski tradition, of airplane
fly, 70
S
Safety, factor of, 2728
Service ceiling, 171173
Shaft power extraction, 181183
Short-haul aircraft, 14
Skin-friction drag, 107
Skymap plot, 143
for aerodynamic efficiency, 156
of aerodynamic performance
efficiency, 156157
for angle of attack, 153, 154
of dimensional drag, 157158
for drag coefficient, 153, 154
endurance fuel flow, 183
energy-maneuverability, 149150
lift coefficient in, 152153
specific range, 178, 180
Slides, 2526
Southern Californias Burbank
Airport (BUR), 15
Southern Californias Carlsbad
Airport (CRQ), 16
Southwest Airlines B737, 46
Sovietled invasion, 2
Specific excess power, 164168
Specific excess thrust, 164
Specific range, 177179
179180
power and bleed air offtake,
effect of, 181183
weight effects, need for cruise
climb, 180181
Speed brakes, deployed, 138140
Speed requirements, for
certification, 3941
Split flap, 139

Spoilers, 139140
Stall speed ratio (SSR), 35, 188
Standard Atmosphere,
6064, 200
definition of, 69
implications of, 6769
kinematic point-performance
principles, 144145
Standard day, 60
Static stability, 31
Stick feel, 32
Stick force, 31
Stick-pusher mechanism, 35
Stick-shaker mechanism, 35
Still air range, 1114
Supersonic aircraft, 95
Supervelocity, 107
Supplemental operations, 37
Sustained turn capability, 189
T
Takeoff performance, of aircraft,
3536
Takeoff-weight (TOW), 23, 196
Target reversers, 95
Taxi mission simulation, 200
Temperature
measurement in aviation, 54
requirements for certification,
3941
Thrust
and fuel flow, calculation of,
8891
gross, 81
maximum. See Propulsive
performance, maximum
thrust
minimum, 162
net, 81, 88, 96
part power, 163
propulsive, 77
reversers, 95
types of, 95
rocket, 82
specific excess, 164
230 INDEX
Thrust-specific fuel consumption

(TSFC), 89, 96
Time-step integrating simulations,
198206
acceleration to en route climb
speed, 202
cutback, initial descent at
constant Mach, 205
deceleration to approach
speed, 205
en route climb at constant KIAS
and Mach number, 203204
final descent, approach and
landing, 205206
ground run-up/takeoff,
200201
initial climb to 10,000 ft,
201202
level cruise, 204205
reserve fuel, loiter, 206
Tire explosions, on aircraft,
4145
Total aircraft drag, 108
Total drag, induced drag fraction
of, 185187
Trade secret, 2
Trade studies, using mission
simulation code, 215217
Transonic drag, 186
Transport category aircraft, 19
Tropical reference atmospheric
model, 61
True airspeed (TAS), 64
Turbine, design of, 94
Turbine inlet temperature (TIT),
80, 88
Turbofan engine model, 181
Turn coordinator, 74
Two-spool turbofan engine, 78,
9196
air inlet, 9193
combustor, 9394
compressor, 93
nozzle, 9496
turbine, 94
Type certificate, 19
U
Ultralong-range aircraft, 14
Uncommanded nose-down
pitch, 35
Unit Reynolds number, 68, 69
Unmistakable buffet, 35
U.S. National Weather Service, 37
V
Variable geometry nozzle, 81
Variation, 71
W
Washington DCs Reagan National
Airport, 54
Wave drag, 107
Westchester County (HPN)
Airport, 15
Wind tunnel test models, 101102
Winglets
drag of, 111
misuse of, 3
Wing-mounted lift-dump spoilers,
139140
Wing, zero-lift compressibility
drag of, 117119
Work-energy theorem, 165, 170
Worst loading conditions, 29
Z
Zero fuel weight (ZFW), 23, 196
Zero-lift drag, 104
due to compressibility, 114119
of fuselage, 115117
of wing, 117119
at incompressible speeds,
104114
base pressure drag, 113114
form factors, 106107, 110
Reynolds number effects as
function of flight
altitude, 106
using equivalent flat-plate area
method, 108113
skin-friction, 110
wave, 115
FORTHCOMING TITLES IN OUR AEROSPACE

ENGINEERING COLLECTION
Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume II: Applied Aerodynamic Design by Timothy
Takahashi
Momentum Press is one of the leading book publishers in the field of engineering,
mathematics, health, and applied sciences. Momentum Press offers over 30 collections,
including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil, Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical,
and many others.
Momentum Press is actively seeking collection editors as well as authors. For more
information about becoming an MP author or collection editor, please visit
http://www.momentumpress.net/contact
Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering
topics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers, faculty,
and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content in sensors
and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and materials science.
Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

perpetual access for a one-time fee

no subscriptions or access fees required
unlimited concurrent usage permitted
downloadable PDFs provided
free MARC records included
free trials
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future
years.
For more information, please visit www.momentumpress.net/library or to set up a trial in the
US, please contact [email protected].

Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

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

Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIRCRAFT

Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume I: Fundamentals of Aircraft

Defining a Clean-Sheet Design

Chapter 2 Flight Mechanics Basics

Chapter 3 Propulsion System Design Drivers

Gas Turbine Fundamentals

Chapter 4 Aerodynamic Analysis FundamentalsLift

Full Configuration Drag Estimation

Crud DragThe Drag of Real versus Idealized

Chapter 5 Kinematic Point-Performance Principles

Standard Atmosphere Revisited

Breguet Range Equation

Figure 1.2. Manufacturers published payload-versus-range

Figure 1.3. McDonnell Douglas MD-81 airliner (a workhorse with

Figure 1.4. FAA guidelines for passenger weights.

Figure 1.5. Payload as a function of number of passengers

Figure 1.6. Nominal flight time as a function of cruise speed

Figure 1.7. Equivalent still air distances (ESAD) between

Figure 1.9. Equivalent still air distances (ESAD) between select

Figure 1.10. Runways at major U.S. hub airports.

Figure 1.11. Secondary runways at major U.S. hub airports

Figure 1.12. Challenging airports (due to elevation and/or short

Figure 1.14. Takeoff runway length requirement for MD-81 airliner. 17

Figure 1.15. Weight and balance chart for MD-81 airliner. 0%

Figure 1.16. Weight limitations for MD-81 airliner.

Figure 1.17. Minimum interior width.

Figure 1.18. Airbus 320 after emergency water landing.

Figure 1.19. Nzmax as a function of design maximum

Figure 1.20. Stick forces corresponding to positive static

Figure 1.21. Force balance with an inoperative engine.

Figure 1.22. Minimum crosswind capability for certification.

Figure 1.23. Crosswind.

Figure 1.24. Implied sideslip (crabangle).

Figure 1.25. Placard speeds for strength and environments.

Figure 1.26. Indicated airspeed gage.

Figure 1.27. Bird strike damage.

Figure 1.28. Uncontained rotor burst of the engine turbine.

Figure 1.29. Wing damage from an uncontained rotor burst.

Figure 1.30. Fuselage damage from an uncontained rotor burst.

Figure 1.31. Rotor burst zone.

Figure 1.32. Differential cabin pressure.

Figure 2.1. National weather service report for a typical

Figure 2.2. Runway layout for a typical domestic airport in the

Figure 2.3. Aircraft Lofting coordinates (FS,BL,WL) in

Figure 2.4. Body versus stability axis.

Figure 2.5. Aerodynamic force nomenclature.

Figure 2.6. Aerodynamic moment nomenclature.

Figure 2.7. Mean and one-standard deviation temperature

Figure 2.8. Pitot-static probe.

Figure 2.9. Flight test boom comprising pitot/static probe

Figure 2.11. Aircraft altimeter (calibration set to 28.47 in Hg).

Figure 2.12. True airspeed (KTAS) as a function of Mach number

Figure 2.13. Unit Reynolds number as a function of Mach

Figure 2.14. Dynamic pressure as a function of Mach number

Figure 2.15. Aircraft instruments: (a) Compass (b) Heading

Figure 2.17. Turn radius as a function of load factor and

Figure 2.18. Aircraft artificial horizon.

Figure 2.19. Aircraft turn coordinator (inclinometer).

Figure 3.1. Station nomenclature schematic for a two-spool

Figure 3.2. Brayton cycle pressure-volume diagram (engine

Defining a Clean-Sheet Design

Chapter 2 Flight Mechanics Basics

Gas Turbine Fundamentals

Full Configuration Drag Estimation

Chapter 5 Kinematic Point-Performance Principles

Standard Atmosphere Revisited

Breguet Range Equation

1976 Standard day atmospheric properties