CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

MSc in Aerospace Vehicle Design Thesis

Academic Year 2006/2007

Simon Dingwall

The Conceptual Design of an Aerobatic Biplane

Supervisor: Prof. John Fielding

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of MSc in Aerospace Vehicle Design

© Cranfield University, 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication

may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder.
 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

MSc in Aerospace Vehicle Design Thesis

Academic Year 2006/2007

Simon Dingwall

The Conceptual Design of an Aerobatic Biplane

Supervisor: Prof. John Fielding

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of MSc in Aerospace Vehicle Design

© Cranfield University, 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication

may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder.

WARNING

1
This thesis has been assessed as of satisfactory standard for the award of a
Master of Science degree in Aerospace Vehicle Design. This thesis covers
the part of the assessment concerned with the Individual Research Project.
Readers must be aware that the work contained is not necessarily 100%
correct, and caution should be exercised if the thesis or the data it contains is
being used for future work. If in doubt, please refer to the supervisor named in
the thesis, or the Department of Aerospace Engineering

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Author would like to express his appreciation to:

Prof. Fielding, for his encouragement, support and great help.

Richard Rogers of Bonus Aviation; the initial idea and vision was his and he
was a great help in this partial realisation of that vision.

All the students of the Aerospace Vehicle Design Course 2007 for their eager
interest and helpful encouragement.

The Kings Norton Library Staff for their enthusiasm and help in finding the
various reports and books used in the project – in particular for the help
generously provided in the location of various sources that were ‘difficult’ to
find.

3
 ABSTRACT
This document is a report on an Individual Research Project, undertaken as
part of the Aerospace Vehicle Design course at Cranfield University.

The project described within is a conceptual design of a tandem aerobatic

biplane – suitable for both training and competition flying. The aircraft’s name
is the Cranfield C1.

The motivation for this project arose from a conversation with the course flying
instructor – an informative and passionate proponent of all things to do with
flying.

Through this work the Author was able to gain a much deeper appreciation of
the steps that must be taken to achieve any work of a reasonable accuracy. It
has also enabled the Author to see quite clearly how the various aspects of
aircraft design affect one another.

The design as presented here is only a first iteration. More work would be
required on all aspects of the design; both in terms of theoretical relationships
and sizing calculations.

The design was aimed to be easier to fly than current designs and also to be
much safer as light aircraft have a much poorer safety record than other
classes of air transport.

4
Notation/Abbreviations

This section lists all shorthand, abbreviations and symbols used in the text.
A aspect ratio
3/2
(CL /CD)MAX parameter for minimum required power
(L/D) lift to drag ratio
(L/D)MAX maximum lift to drag ratio

(x/c)MAX percentage chord where airfoil is thickest

‡ gap ÷ average span
A ratio of smaller wing area to larger wing area
a speed of sound
1
A Howe C1 factor
Af frontal area
AHT horizontal tail aspect ratio
AR area ratio
AVT vertical tail aspect ratio
b wing span
b’ mean biplane wing span
1
B Howe C1 factor
bE equivalent monoplane span
bHT horizontal tail span
C piston engine fuel consumption
c’ mean chord
C1 Howe W LS factor
C2 Howe W FUSE factor
C3 Howe W ENGINE factor
C4 Howe W SYSTEMS factor
C5 Howe W WING factor
cc cubic centimeters
CD coefficient of drag
CD0 zero lift drag coefficient

CDmisc coefficient of drag of miscallaneous items

Cf coefficient of skin friction drag

CfE equivalent friction drag

CG centre of gravity
CHT horizontal tail volume coefficient
CL coefficient of lift
3/2
CLc coefficient of lift corresponding to (CL /CD)MAX
CLm coefficient of lift corresponding to (L/D)MAX

5
CLmax maximum coefficient of lift

CLmin power coefficient of lift corresponding to minimum power speed

CLmin thrust coefficient of lift corresponding to minimum thrust speed

CLto coefficient of lift corresponding to TO conditions
CM0 zero lift pitching moment coefficient
cR root chord
cT tip chord
CVT vertical tail volume coefficient
D/q Cdmisc factor

DminP drag at minimum power speed

e Oswald’s span efficiency factor
E Endurance
E.A.S equivalent airspeed
f FF factor
f1 Stinton W WING factor
f2 Stinton W WING factor
f3 Stinton W FUSE factor
f4 Stinton W CANOPY factor
f6 Stinton W SYSTEMS factor
f7 Stinton W EQUIP factor
FB maximum fuselage breadth (width)
FD maximum depth (height) of the fuselage – not including the canopy
FF final fuel fraction
FF form factor drag coefficient
FL length of the fuselage
FLAB length of fuselage aft of engine bulkhead
ft Feet
ft/min feet per minute
FV fuel tank volume
h0 wing aerodynamic centre
hp Horsepower
hVT vertical tail height
in Inches
IP power index
k monoplane span factor
kg Kilograms

kg gust alleviation factor

kg/kW kilograms per kilowatt
2
kg/m kilograms per square meter

6
 3
kg/m kilograms per cubic meter
Ki slope of Figure 6.4 Pg.327 in ref[2]
km/h kilometres per hour
kt knots; nautical miles per hour
kW Kilowatts
L characteristic length
lb/hp pounds per horsepower
2
lb/sq ft or lb/ft pounds per square feet

Lmin D lift corresponding to minimum drag speed

m Metres
M Mach number
MAC mean aerodynamic chord
MHT horizontal tail arm
mm Millimeters
mph statute miles per hour

mr mass ratio
MVT vertical tail arm
Ñ Howe W LS factor
NE number of engines

ng gust factor
nm nautical miles
NT number of fuel tanks
P0 max power at sea level

Pmin Minimum power

q Dynamic pressure at cruise altitude and speed
Q interference factor
r tyre diameter factor
R Reynold's number or Range (see context)
RA aileron to wing area ratio
RE elevator to horizontal tail area ratio
rpm revolutions per minute
RR rudder to vertical tail area ratio
decimal percentage of the vertical tail height that
rVT the horizontal tail is up the vertical tail
S wing reference area
s tyre diameter factor
SA aileron reference area
SCANOPY wetted area of the canopy
SE elevator reference area
SFUSE wetted area of the fuselage

7
SHT horizontal tail reference area
SR rudder reference area
STAIL sum of the reference areas of both tail surfaces
SVT vertical tail reference area

SWET wetted surface area

SWING reference area of the whole biplane wing

t tyre width factor
T.A.S true airspeed
TBO time between overhauls [flight hours]
tc thickness to chord ratio
Td tyre diameter

Tmin minimum thrust

TO Takeoff

TSL thrust for steady and level flight

Tw tyre width
u Tyre width factor

Ude gust velocity

Vc cruising Speed
Vd design speed
vi integral fuel tank volume [US Gallons]

VminP minimum power speed

VminT minimum thrust speed

vt total fuel tank volume [US Gallons]
Vv vertical velocity or climb rate
W AMMO weight of ammunition
W C&E weight of controls and equipment
W CANOPY weight of the canopy
W CONTROLS weight of flying controls
W CREW weight of crew
W ELECTRICS weight of electrical system
W ENGINE weight of basic engine
W EQUIP weight of aircraft equipment
W FACC weight of fuel system accessories
W FR weight of freight
W FTANK weight of fuel tank
W FUELSYS weight of the fuel system
W FURNISHINGS weight of furnishings
W FUSE weight of the fuselage

8
W Fused weight of fuel used during a flight
W HTAIL weight of horizontal tail
W INSTALLED ENGINE weight of installed propulsion system
W LG weight of the landing gear
W LS combined weight of wings and tail surfaces
W MAING weight of main gear
W OE-tent tentative operating empty weight
W OPERATING ITEMS weight of operating items
weight of all other items not already accounted for in that specific
W OTHER method
W PAX weight of passengers
W PAY payload weight
W SYSTEMS weight of aircraft systems
W TAILG weight of tail gear
W TO TO weight
W TOguess TO weight guess
W TOTAL total weight estimate as per method
W VTAIL weight of vertical tail
Ww weight supported by one main wheel
WWING weight of the wing
vertical distance between the lower wing centre chord line and the
Y equivalent monoplane centre chord line
α0 zero lift angle
γ % of P0 being used to attain speed
ζ span ratio
ηCB climb propeller efficiency
ηCR cruise propeller efficiency
λ taper ratio
Λ wing sweep angle at 25% MAC
ΛHT horizontal tail sweep angle at 25% MAC

ΛMAX wing sweep at (x/c)MAX

ΛVT vertical tail sweep angle at 25% MAC
Μ Viscocity
o
ρF fuel density at 15 C
Σ ratio of air densities at specified altitude
Ψ Prandtl’s biplane interference factor
Ω level turn rate

9
Contents Page

Figures ...........................................................................................................14
Tables ............................................................................................................15
1. Introduction ................................................................................................16
1.1 Biplanes – Past & Present ....................................................................16
1.2 Why This Project?.................................................................................16
2. Aerobatics and Aerobatic Aircraft...............................................................18
2.1 Aerobatic Competitions .........................................................................18
2.2 Aerobatic Aircraft ..................................................................................20
3. Initial Aerobatic Biplane Specification ........................................................28
3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................28
3.2 Design Aims & Target Market ...............................................................28
3.3 Specification – Cranfield C1 Biplane.....................................................28
4. Initial Sizing – The Loftin Method ...............................................................30
4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................30
4.2 Sizing Analysis......................................................................................30
4.2.1 Initial Calculations ...........................................................................30
4.2.2 Cruising Speed ...............................................................................32
4.2.3 Stall Loading ...................................................................................33
4.2.4 Landing Distances ..........................................................................34
4.2.5 Takeoff Distances ...........................................................................35
4.2.6 Climb Performance .........................................................................36
4.2.7 Matching Points ..............................................................................40
5. Initial Weight Estimation.............................................................................42
5.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................42
5.2 First W TO Calculation.............................................................................42
5.3 Second W TO Calculation .......................................................................47
6. Wing Design...............................................................................................50
6.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................50
6.2 Taper Ratio ...........................................................................................50
6.3 Wing Planforms.....................................................................................52
6.3.1 Upper Wing .....................................................................................52
6.3.2 Lower Wing .....................................................................................52
6.3.3 Finding the Mean Aerodynamic Chord............................................53
6.4 Wing Aerofoil Section............................................................................54
6.5 Wing Section Data ................................................................................55
6.6 Biplane Wing Arrangement ...................................................................55
6.6.1 The Gap ..........................................................................................55
6.6.2 The Stagger ....................................................................................55
6.6.3 Upper Wing .....................................................................................56
6.6.4 Lower Wing .....................................................................................57
6.6.5 Dihedral...........................................................................................57
6.7 Wing Tip Design....................................................................................58
6.8 Aileron Sizing ........................................................................................59
6.9 Wing Structural Design .........................................................................59
7. Tail Design .................................................................................................61
7.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................61
7.2 The Equivalent Monoplane Wing ..........................................................61
7.3 Vertical Tail Sizing ................................................................................62

10
 7.4 Rudder Sizing .......................................................................................66
7.5 The Vertical Tail Planform.....................................................................66
7.6 Horizontal Tail Sizing ............................................................................67
7.7 Elevators Sizing ....................................................................................69
7.8 The Horizontal Tail Planform.................................................................69
7.9 Tail Aerofoil Sections ............................................................................71
7.10 Tail Section Data.................................................................................72
7.11 Tail Arrangement ................................................................................72
8. Fuselage Design ........................................................................................73
8.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................73
8.2 Fuselage Planform Shape.....................................................................73
8.3 Fuselage Profile Shape.........................................................................73
8.4 Three Dimensional Fuselage ................................................................75
8.5 Fuselage Structural Design...................................................................76
8.5.1 Tubular Aluminium Structure...........................................................76
8.5.2 Composite Structure .......................................................................76
9. Powerplant .................................................................................................78
9.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................78
9.2 Engine Requirements............................................................................78
9.3 Engine Options .....................................................................................78
9.4 Aerobatic Engines.................................................................................79
9.4.1 Wet Sump Oil System .....................................................................80
9.4.2 Dry Sump Oil System......................................................................80
9.4.3 Aerobatic Invertible Oil System .......................................................81
9.4.4 Alternative Systems ........................................................................81
9.5 Wankel Rotary Engines – Design and Theory ......................................81
9.5.1 History of the Wankel ......................................................................81
9.5.2 The Wankel Cycle ...........................................................................82
9.5.3 Advantages over Reciprocating Piston Engines .............................84
9.5.4 Disadvantages of Wankel Engines .................................................85
9.6 Mistral Engines G-300-C2B ..................................................................86
9.6.1 G-300-C2B Specification.................................................................87
9.6.2 To Turbo-charge or Not to Turbo-charge? ......................................88
9.6.3 Engine Weight Comparison ............................................................88
9.6.4 TBO Comparison ............................................................................88
9.6.5 Multiple Fuels Capability .................................................................89
9.6.6 G-300 Derived Data ........................................................................89
9.6.7 Purchase Price Comparison ...........................................................91
9.6.8 Mistral G-300 Geometry Modelling .................................................91
9.7 Propeller Selection................................................................................94
10. Fuel Tank Sizing ......................................................................................95
11. Component Weight Estimates..................................................................97
11.1 Introduction .........................................................................................97
11.2 Loughborough Method [6] ...................................................................97
11.3 Stinton Method [5] ...............................................................................98
11.4 Raymer Method [4]............................................................................101
11.5 Raymer Method (II) [4] ......................................................................104
11.6 Howe Method [7]...............................................................................105
11.7 Total Weight Comparison..................................................................107
12. Centre of Gravity Estimation ..................................................................109

11
 12.1 Introduction .......................................................................................109
12.2 Wing Mass Ratio...............................................................................109
12.3 CG Masses .......................................................................................109
12.4 Axis System ......................................................................................110
12.5 CG Position for Tandem Flights ........................................................111
12.5.1 TO CG:........................................................................................111
12.5.2 Landing CG:................................................................................111
12.5.3 Empty Landing CG:.....................................................................112
12.6 CG Position for Solo Flights ..............................................................112
12.6.1 TO CG:........................................................................................112
12.6.2 Landing CG:................................................................................113
12.6.3 Empty Landing CG:.....................................................................113
12.7 Ballast Tank ......................................................................................113
12.7.1 TO CG:........................................................................................114
12.7.2 Landing CG:................................................................................114
12.7.3 Empty Landing CG:.....................................................................115
12.8 CG Positions as %MAC ....................................................................115
13. Landing Gear .........................................................................................117
13.1 Constraints........................................................................................117
13.2 Gear Damping...................................................................................118
13.3 Tyre Sizing ........................................................................................119
13.4 Tail Wheel Design .............................................................................120
14. Drag Polar Estimation ............................................................................122
14.1 Introduction .......................................................................................122
14.2 Calculating K.....................................................................................122
14.3 Calculating CD0 Components ............................................................122
14.3.1 Fuselage CD0...............................................................................123
14.3.2 Upper Wing CD0 ..........................................................................124
14.3.3 Lower Wing CD0 ..........................................................................124
14.3.4 Vertical Tail CD0...........................................................................125
14.3.5 Horizontal Tail CD0 ......................................................................125
14.3.6 Total CD0 Components ................................................................126
14.4 Calculating CDmisc ..............................................................................126
14.5 Total CD0 ...........................................................................................127
14.6 CD0 Check .........................................................................................127
14.6.1 Raymer Check [4] .......................................................................127
14.6.2 Roskam Check [3].......................................................................128
14.7 Final Drag Polar ................................................................................128
15. Performance ..........................................................................................129
15.1 Introduction .......................................................................................129
15.2 Steady Level Flight ...........................................................................129
15.2.1 Thrust for Steady Level Flight .....................................................129
15.2.2 Steady Flight Speed....................................................................129
15.3 Minimum Thrust ................................................................................129
15.3.1 Minimum Thrust (Minimum Drag) Speed ....................................129
15.3.2 Minimum Thrust for Level Flight..................................................129
15.3.3 (L/D)MAX .......................................................................................130
15.4 Minimum Power ................................................................................130
15.4.1 Minimum Power Speed ...............................................................130
15.4.2 Minimum Power Drag..................................................................130

12
 15.4.3 Minimum Power ..........................................................................130
15.5 Range Calculations ...........................................................................130
15.5.1 Standard Range..........................................................................130
15.5.2 Emergency Range ......................................................................131
15.6 Endurance.........................................................................................131
15.6.1 Standard Endurance ...................................................................131
15.6.2 Emergency Endurance................................................................131
15.7 Climb Rate ........................................................................................132
15.8 Level Turn Rate ................................................................................132
16. Biplane Comparison...............................................................................133
16.1 Introduction .......................................................................................133
16.2 Data ..................................................................................................133
16.3 Biplane Discussion............................................................................133
17. V-n Diagram...........................................................................................135
18. Design Features.....................................................................................139
19. Drawings ................................................................................................141
20. Conclusions ...........................................................................................145
References...................................................................................................146
Bibliography .................................................................................................147
Appendix A ..................................................................................................148
Appendix B ..................................................................................................150

13
Figures Page

Fig. 2.1.1: The Aerobatic Competition Box...............................................................................19

Fig. 2.2.2: Extra 300 three view................................................................................................21
Fig. 2.2.3: MXR Technologies MX2 three view ........................................................................22
Fig. 2.2.4: Sukhoi 31T three view – the Su-29 is very similar ..................................................23
Fig. 2.2.5: Edge 540Tandem three view...................................................................................24
Fig. 2.2.6: Aviat Pitt S-2C three view........................................................................................25
Fig. 2.2.7: Kimble Enterprises Pitts Model 12 three view .........................................................27
Fig. 4.2.6.1 Loftin aircraft matching chart .................................................................................37
Fig. 4.2.6.2: Loftin aircraft matching chart – matching points detail .........................................39
Fig. 6.3.1.1: Upper wing planform ............................................................................................52
Fig. 6.3.2.1: Lower wing planform ............................................................................................52
Fig. 6.3.3.1: Diagrammatic method of finding MAC [4].............................................................53
Fig. 6.3.3.2: CATIA images of how the MAC was found for both upper and lower wings........53
Fig. 6.6.3.1: CATIA image of the 3D upper wing model ...........................................................56
Fig. 6.6.5.1: CATIA image of the 3D lower wing model............................................................57
Fig. 6.7.1: Schematic of various wing tip designs [4] ...............................................................58
Fig. 6.9.1: CATIA image of the full wing set – including main struts & ‘turtle-deck’ struts .......60
Fig. 7.5.1: Example aerobatic aircraft vertical tail planforms [1]...............................................66
Fig. 7.5.2: CATIA image of 2D vertical tail planform sketch .....................................................67
Fig. 7.8.1: Example aerobatic aircraft horizontal tail planforms [1] ..........................................70
Fig. 7.8.2: CATIA image of 2D horizontal tail planform sketch.................................................71
Fig. 7.11.1: CATIA images of 3D tail model .............................................................................72
Fig. 8.2.1: Example aerobatic biplane planforms [1] ................................................................73
Fig. 8.3.1: Example aerobatic fuselage profiles [1] ..................................................................73
Fig. 8.4.1: C1 fuselage planform ..............................................................................................75
Fig. 8.4.2: C1 fuselage profile...................................................................................................75
Fig. 8.4.3: CATIA image of 3D fuselage model ........................................................................75
Fig. 8.5.2: Section through a schematic of a carbon fibre crush tube. .....................................77
Fig. 9.5.2.1: Schematic diagram of a Wankel rotary engine ....................................................82
Fig. 9.5.2.2: The four stages of the Wankel rotary engine cycle ..............................................83
Fig. 9.5.3.1: Comparison of moving parts in a piston engine and a rotary engine ...................85
Fig. 9.6.8.1: Side view of Mistral G-300 used to produce CATIA approximation .....................92
Fig. 9.6.8.2: Front view of Mistral G-300 used to produce CATIA approximation ....................92
Fig. 9.6.8.3: Four-view CATIA image of author’s G-300 model ...............................................93
Fig. 9.6.8.4: CATIA image showing how the G-300 model fits within the fuselage..................93
Fig. 12.4.1: CG calculation axis system .................................................................................110
Fig. 12.8.1: Chart comparing %MAC values for different conditions......................................116
Fig. 13.1.1: Tailwheel landing gear constraints ......................................................................117
Fig. 13.1.2: CATIA image showing landing gear design compliance (Part 1) ........................117
Fig. 13.1.3: CATIA image showing landing gear design compliance (Part 2) ........................117
Fig. 13.2.1: Main gear damping arrangement schematic diagram .........................................119
Fig. 13.4.1: Tailwheel damping arrangement schematic diagram..........................................120
Fig.17.1: C1 V-n Diagram .......................................................................................................138
Fig. 18.1: Diagrammatic demonstration of bulkhead scarfing [4] ...........................................140
Fig. 19.1: Top view drawing of the C1 ....................................................................................141
Fig. 19.2: Side view drawing of the C1 ...................................................................................141
Fig. 19.3: Four view drawing of the C1...................................................................................142
Fig. 19.4: Front view drawing of the C1 fuselage ...................................................................143
Fig. 19.5: Side view drawing of the C1 fuselage ....................................................................143
Fig. 19.6: 4 View drawing of the C1 fuselage .........................................................................144
Fig. B.1: C1 thrust profile ........................................................................................................150

14
Tables Page
Table 4.4.1: Current biplane data [1] ........................................................................................30
Table 4.2.2.1: Cruise speed – wing and power loading relationship data................................33
Table 4.2.3.1 Maximum wing loading determined by stall speed.............................................34
Table 4.2.5.1 TO field length – wing and power loading relationship data...............................35
Table 4.2.6.1: Climb rate – wing and power loading relationship data.....................................36
st
Table 5.2.1: 1 MTOW estimation fuel fractions ......................................................................43
nd
Table 5.3.1: 2 MTOW estimation fuel fractions......................................................................47
Table 6.5.1: NACA 0012 aerofoil data......................................................................................55
st
Table 7.3.1: 1 Derivation of vertical tail area from moment arm estimates ............................63
Table: 7.3.2 Vertical tail areas derived from Jane’s AWA three view drawings .......................64
Table 7.3.3: Calculation of vertical tail volume coefficient........................................................64
nd
Table 7.3.4: 2 Derivation of vertical tail area from moment arm estimates ...........................65
st
Table 7.6.1: 1 Derivation of horizontal tail area from moment arm estimates........................67
Table 7.6.2: Calculation of horizontal tail areas of reference aircraft .......................................68
Table 7.6.3: Calculation of horizontal tail volume coefficient....................................................68
nd
Table 7.6.4: 2 Derivation of horizontal tail area from moment arm estimates .......................69
Table 7.10.1: NACA 0009 aerofoil data....................................................................................72
Table 9.6.1.1: Mistral G-300-C2B rotary engine specification..................................................87
Table: 9.6.3.1 Powerplant weight and volume comparison......................................................88
Table 9.6.4.1: Powerplant TBO comparison ............................................................................88
Table 9.6.6.1: Powerplant purchase price estimates ...............................................................90
Table 9.6.7.1: Powerplant purchase price comparison ............................................................91
Table 10.1: Fuel tank volume estimation results ......................................................................95
Table 10.2: Capacity fuel weight estimation results .................................................................96
Table 11.3.1: Stinton f1 values..................................................................................................98
Table 11.7.1: Total weight estimates......................................................................................107
Table 11.7.2: Total weight estimates – powerplant installation adjustment ...........................107
Table 12.2.1: Wing area contributions....................................................................................109
Table 12.3.1: Masses for CG analysis....................................................................................110
Table 12.5.1.1: CG at tandem TO weight...............................................................................111
Table 12.5.2.1: CG at tandem landing weight ........................................................................111
Table 12.5.3.1: CG at tandem zero fuel weight......................................................................112
Table 12.6.1.1: CG at solo TO weight ....................................................................................112
Table 12.6.2.1: CG at solo landing weight .............................................................................113
Table 12.6.3.1: CG at solo zero fuel weight ...........................................................................113
Table 12.7.1.1: CG at solo TO weight with ballast .................................................................114
Table 12.7.2.1: CG at solo landing weight with ballast...........................................................114
Table 12.7.3.1: CG at solo zero fuel weight with ballast ........................................................115
Table 12.8.1: CG as %MAC of equivalent monoplane...........................................................115
Table 14.3.1: Area Ratio of major aerodynamic contributors .................................................123
Table: 14.4.1: CD of minor aerodynamic contributors.............................................................126
Table 15.8.1: Cruise speed level turn rate .............................................................................132
Table 15.8.2: Design speed level turn rate.............................................................................132
Table 16.2.1: Biplane comparative data [1] ............................................................................133
Table 17.1: C1 stall boundary values .....................................................................................135

15
1. Introduction

1.1 Biplanes – Past & Present

In early aviation biplane configurations were favoured due to the fact that
materials science and structural design were not sufficiently advanced to allow
for the building of cantilever wing monoplanes. However once these became
practical, the biplane was largely ignored as a factory production
configuration, becoming the preserve of the homebuilding community. This
was due to a need for ever increasing speed. Increased speed meant more
successful military aircraft and more profitable civil aircraft. Biplanes were just
too slow and ‘draggy’ for most applications due to the extra wing and
associated flying wires and struts.

There were two areas however, where biplanes were still much used. The first
was agricultural aeroplanes – crop dusters. Biplanes were necessary for the
large payloads, excellent slow speed stability and good turn characteristics
that they possess. However in recent times agricultural fields have become
much larger and monoplanes have been produced with all the above qualities
in sufficient amounts to displace the agricultural biplane.

The second area was, of course, aerobatics. A biplane configuration allows

greater roll rates – this is due to the smaller wingspan. Since the speed of an
aerobatic manoeuvre is a major factor in aerobatic scoring, biplanes
(specifically the Pitts special) have done extremely well in international
aerobatic competitions. Once again however they have been overtaken by
monoplanes. These new aerobatic monoplanes use advanced materials to
allow the use of much smaller wings with higher wing loadings, thus reducing
the wing span and allowing for the aforementioned high roll rates.

1.2 Why This Project?

Having briefly covered the recent history of the biplane the Author’s motivation
for undertaking a conceptual design project for a biplane would seem
appropriate. The Author felt that there were many needs to be met that could
be accomplished in an aircraft of this type.

The first was the excitement that can be had in a (relatively) slow aircraft that
is very manoeuvrable and fun to fly. In recent times, there has been a sad loss
of the magic of flying. As more and more of us holiday in the Mediterranean or
Caribbean seas and other far flung places of the world we have become used
to the concept of flying. The magic has been exchanged for deep vein
thrombosis.

As airport traffic continues to grow, ever greater numbers of people are getting
to fly but without the joy and excitement that this should bring. The aircraft
designed here will be small, agile and light – allowing you to experience the
thrill that flying should provide.
This brings up the second need – low cost light aircraft. Many light aircraft are
either built by private persons in their spare time or built as if the

16
manufacturing companies themselves are just building aircraft as a hobby. To
build a homebuilt aircraft requires great skill, time, dedication and money.
Unfortunately, many of the more exciting ‘factory’ built aircraft are also
manufactured in this way. There are too many people involved in the
production of these aircraft and, as a result, the individual aircraft are very
expensive and the overall output is low. This has remained unchanged for
many years due to the belief that the aerobatics market is small. This is not
the case; it is simply that the aircraft are far too expensive to allow the market
to grow. If an aircraft was produced using modern mass production
techniques that significantly reduce production hours and increase production
numbers then that aircraft would be affordable and many people would buy it.
No longer would solo flying be the preserve of the rich and no longer would
you see adverts for a 15th share in an aeroplane.

The third point is that there is a certain amount of nostalgia attached to

vintage aircraft like biplanes and triplanes. Most of us will never fly a real WWI
fighter plane, but most of us would like to – a biplane configuration allows you
to get close to a vintage experience without the worry associated with flying a
national treasure, should you even get the chance. A very good case can be
made for calling the 1920s and 30s the ‘golden age’ of flying and it is this
period of aviation growth that the biplane is largely responsible for, so it
seems appropriate to pay homage to this great era with a new biplane design.

Finally, aerobatic aircraft make good training aircraft. With their responsive
controls and plentiful excess power they are more forgiving of mistakes by the
inexperienced and enable instructors to allow their charges more time to
correct their own errors which increases learning speeds. Also, when the
controls are engaged by a new pilot they are quicker to learn and understand
the complexities flying brings; as the responses of the aircraft to the controls
are more obvious. Lastly, many observers have noted that the general skill
level of modern pilots has decreased due to a lack of experience with tail
wheel landing gear equipped aircraft. Tail wheel aircraft are more difficult to
land than nose wheel aircraft and so training aircraft are mostly fitted with
nose gear. However this has created a generation of less skilful pilots. This is
because training with tail gear doesn’t just improve landing skills but general
flying skills also; thus a pilot who can land a tail wheel aircraft will almost
invariably be more skilful than one who can’t.

17
2. Aerobatics and Aerobatic Aircraft

2.1 Aerobatic Competitions

Aerobatic competitions are held regularly at regional, national and

international levels. There are five different skill categories - obviously only the
top categories are competed for on an international level.

o Primary or Beginner
o Sportsman
o Intermediate
o Advanced
o Unlimited

There are also various different ‘programs’ that is; types of event.

o Known
 This is where a set of manoeuvres is set out ahead of the
season by the governing body

o Free
 Each pilot chooses the manoeuvres they think most likely to
impress and performs them as well as they are able

o Unknown
 This event is only performed by Intermediate level pilots and
above: The manoeuvres are only released 24 hours before the
competition starts, no practise is allowed and the stunts are
chosen by the chief judge of the competition

o 4 Minute Free

 This event is only performed by Unlimited level pilots and is

usually used as an opportunity to invent new moves or
sequences – the greater the difficulty the higher the points

During the competition the pilots must compete with in the aerobatic box: a
1000m cube of airspace in which the aeroplane must remain while performing
the sequence. White ground markers at each corner of the box make it visible
to the pilot from the air. A centre line is also marked that runs parallel to the
judges and is known as the A-Axis – it is along this line that most tricks are
flown. The official wind direction (according to the judges) always blows
parallel to the A-Axis. This, however, does not always reflect reality, and
generally during the course of a sequence the pilot will drift either toward or
away from the judging line. The floor of the box is at 1,480ft (450m) for
beginners and is reduced with each category down to 330ft (100m) for
unlimited pilots. The ceiling is 1000m above the floor of the box. A pilot
entering the box at 160kt (185mph, 300km/h) will take just 12 seconds to
traverse the entire cube. When you consider that they could be flying with a
direct tail wind and the fact that they will be penalized for leaving the box, they

18
are left with not much more than 10 seconds in which to do a manoeuvre and
turn around. Having turned around they then have another 10 seconds in
which to perform the next trick or they will fly out of the box on the side they
first entered! Clearly aerobatics requires both very quick pilots and
aeroplanes.

Fig. 2.1.1: The Aerobatic Competition Box

The score for each trick is determined by giving it marks out of ten for
accuracy and this is then multiplied by a difficulty factor. The final score is the
total for all tricks performed.

19
2.2 Aerobatic Aircraft

Almost all modern aerobatic aircraft are monoplanes, so they are the
dominant feature of this section; however, when it comes to comparisons
between the author’s design and current aircraft these will be with biplanes
since it is difficult to compare physical characteristics of monoplanes and
biplanes.

CAP Aviation 232

The CAP 232 is an aerobatic aircraft with a proven performance record; A

CAP 232 flown by Eric Vazeille took 1st place in the 2000 World Aerobatic
Championship and Catherine Maunoury flew another into 5th position (1st
placed woman). The 232 has very high g limits of ±10 combined with high
wing loading (16.56lb/ft2 [80.9kg/m2]); this kind of performance is only
achievable through the use of a carbon fibre wing. The wing consists of a
large root chord (6ft [1.83m]) and high taper, leading to a small tip chord (3ft
[0.91m]). As previously mentioned, these features allow high roll rates due to
the reduced span. This is certainly true of the CAP 232 with the second lowest
wing span (among monoplanes mentioned here) at only 24ft 3in [7.39m] and
an amazing 420° per second roll rate. This roll rate is also a result of the large
ailerons that occupy approximately 2 thirds of the span. Currently, the CAP
232 is experiencing a drop in popularity, due in part to a belief that it is a little
underpowered. The powerplant is a Textron Lycoming AEIO-540 developing
224kW [300hp]. Whilst this is a large engine for an aircraft of this size, it does
produce slightly higher power loading than newer designs at 6.03lb/hp
[3.67kg/kW]. [1]

Fig. 2.2.1: CAP 232 three view [1]

20
Extra EA-300L

The Extra 300 is a very popular plane despite having generally lower
performance than most new designs. This can be attributed to a couple of
reasons: It is designed and built in Germany and the reputation for
engineering quality that Germany possesses is well earned; the Extra is a
typical example with excellent build quality that gives excellent reliability. It
has also been designed very aesthetically with good clean lines that rightly
attract a lot of attention. The Extra features a lot of carbon fibre and titanium in
the design for reduced weight and good strength – always a good idea with
±8g limits. It also has a 300hp [224kW] Lycoming engine; this gives power
loading of 6.39lb/hp [3.89kg/m2]. This is the lowest power loading of all the
aircraft featured here which just shows how well built the Extra must be. To be
able to compete successfully for sales against better performing aircraft just
shows that absolute performance is not the only thing that aerobatic pilots are
interested in; clearly cost of ownership and reliability are also important. Still,
the Extra 300 is highly manoeuvrable with full span ailerons and highly
tapered wings. [1]

Fig. 2.2.2: Extra 300 three view [1]

21
MXR Technologies MX2

The MX2 is the ultimate example of carbon fibre structural design. Almost the
entire aircraft is made of carbon fibre and only weighs 1287lb [839kg] – even
with a highly tuned 380hp [283kW] Lycoming engine installed. This generates
power loading of only 3.39lb/hp [2.06kg/kW]. It has full span ailerons and
extremely high g limits of ±14. The MX2 is also the shortest, with the smallest
wingspan of the monoplanes featured here. Interestingly the creator of the
MX2 originally planned to build it from steel tube wood and fabric with a 200
hp engine. He changed the design when he realised that the stiffness and
strength provided by carbon fibre was perfect for aerobatic aircraft. The MX2
has not sold in large numbers; this may be due to the difficulties people
associate with carbon fibre repair. Another possibility is the lack of an effective
marketing campaign – the MX2 has not won much publicised success in
either aerobatic competitions or the Red Bull Air Races. [1]

Fig. 2.2.3: MXR Technologies MX2 three view [1]

22
Sukhoi SU-29

First built in the early 1990s this is widely regarded as the first of the ‘modern’
aerobatic monoplanes. It still compares well with newer designs and features
a huge VOKFM radial engine of either 394hp or 414hp. This enormous engine
allows a brute force approach with the greatest take off weight at 2,645lb
[1,200kg] leading to a power loading identical to the Extra 300. Another of the
trademark features of the SU-29 is the titanium spring landing gear that gives
a very small frontal area to reduce drag. This aircraft is no longer in production
and has been replaced by the SU-31. [1]

Sukhoi SU-31T

The ‘T’ in SU-31T stands for ‘Turnirnyi’, which is Russian for competition and
it’s easy to see why: At the 2001 World Aerobatic Championships, Su-31s
gained 1st place and seven of the next 14 places. Essentially, it is a major
structural update of the SU-29, with more carbon fibre, more titanium and an
even more powerful VOKFM engine (an unbelievably high 420+ hp). These
structural modifications give a weight reduction of 511lb [232kg]. A carbon
fibre bucket seat has been added, which is designed to allow the pilot to more
easily absorb the +12/-10g that the SU-31 is capable of regularly subjecting
it’s occupants to. The SU-31T features shorter and higher tapering wings than
its ancestor to take advantage of the lower weight to simultaneously reduce
wing loading and power loading whilst reducing wing area and span. [1]

Fig. 2.2.4: Sukhoi 31T three view – the Su-29 is very similar [1]

23
Zivko Edge 540

The Edge 540 is the current king of aerobatic competition with a string of
victories in all levels of competition as well as being the favourite mount of the
Red Bull Air Race pilots. It has the perfect balance of power (340hp [254kW]
modified Lycoming engine), roll rate (420o per second), and structural design.
The wings are sharply tapered and the design features large amounts of
carbon fibre and titanium. The structure is optimised to limits of ±10g to
provide a balance between strength and weight. Unlike the other monoplane
aircraft featured here the Edge has a mid wing (rather than a low wing) and
includes transparent panels in the side of the cockpit to aid visibility on
landing. The Edge comes in both solo and tandem versions and is the
benchmark which all new unlimited aerobatic designs will have to aim at. [1]

Fig. 2.2.5: Edge 540Tandem three view [1]

24
Aviat Pitts Special-2C

The Pitts Special is the granddaddy of all aerobatic biplanes, first built way
back in 1943 by Curtis Pitts just for a little fun. Unfortunately Curtis Pitts is no
longer with us but his spirit of creativity and fun live on in the many derivatives
of his famous ‘stinker’ series of biplanes. The original design was much
admired and Curtis built a few more ‘stinkers’ for famous aerobatic pilots of
the day. In the early 1970s Curtis produced plans so that anyone could build
his Pitts S1 aerobatic biplane (certified 1971). He went on to produce a
tandem seat version the S-2A which was eventually certified in 1971. In later
years the design was bought and sold by various companies and
improvements were added to produce the S-2B (certified 1981). Further
improvements in more recent times have created the S-2C (certified 1998).
The Pitts Specials were the undefeated champions of the world
championships for decades and are still the yard stick against which all other
aerobatic aeroplanes are rightly judged.

Fig. 2.2.6: Aviat Pitt S-2C three view [1]

25
Aviat Christen Eagle II

In 1977 Frank Christensen, a manufacturer of inverted oil and fuel systems for
the Pitts Special, tried to buy the company; they wouldn’t let him so he
decided to build his own aerobatic biplane based on the Pitts S-2C. He
wanted to design a homebuilt aircraft that would allow people with either less
time or fewer skills to build their own aircraft. When he introduced the Eagle II
most homebuilt aircraft were created from plans – you had to provide
everything else yourself. Christensen introduced the kit concept; supplying
plans and parts – many of which were already assembled into sub
assemblies. Whilst having this central kit concept Christensen also retained
the agility and performance of the Pitts S-2A on which it had been based. [1]

26
Kimble Enterprises Pitts Model 12

This aircraft is one of the last projects that Curtis Pitts was involved in and is
an amazingly powerful biplane based around the huge VOKFM radial engines
that power the Su-29 and Su-31. Originally called the Macho Stinker; it is the
pinnacle of biplane development with advanced carbon fibre and titanium
being used extensively in the structure. To appeal to as many customers as
possible the aircraft is also available with a 330hp Lycoming engine as the
VOKFM engines have become quite hard to reliably source. There is also an
upgraded variant with a tuned engine and even more carbon fibre that is
called the Pitts Python, apparently because of its ability to squeeze pilots
during high g manoeuvres. The aircraft is similar to a biplane produced by
Curtis Pitts in 1945 known as the Pitts Samson. That aircraft was built around
a large Pratt & Witney radial piston engine. The Model 12 differs from the
Samson in some important aspects; the lighter modern materials and more
advanced aerodynamics vastly improve performance over its vintage forebear
and also safety: The original Samson crashed in midair with another aircraft;
most likely due to the poor visibility caused by the NACA cowling around the
engine which the Model 12 doesn’t include.

Fig. 2.2.7: Kimble Enterprises Pitts Model 12 three view [1]

The full specifications of all these aircraft can be found in Appendix A.

27
3. Initial Aerobatic Biplane Specification

3.1 Introduction

The following is the specification drawn up by the author as the aim for the
conceptual design. The Author chose the various targets by first reviewing the
statistics available for the two Pitts biplanes and the Christen Eagle II
mentioned in the previous section.

3.2 Design Aims & Target Market

The basic aim was to try to produce an aircraft capable of performing on equal
terms or better with the three biplanes mentioned above. This was to be
attempted whilst producing an exciting, affordable, safe, reliable and easily
maintainable aircraft.

The aircraft was to be aimed at all aerobatic training and competition levels up
to and including advanced level. The reason for this choice is that unlimited
aerobatics is now sole the preserve of monoplanes, and therefore it makes
sense to aim at the other levels. Biplanes are still very competitive at
advanced level competitions and that is why this design is aimed at these
markets. Finally, there are very few people wish to subject themselves to
more than ±7g.

3.3 Specification – Cranfield C1 Biplane

o Cruise Speed = 140kt [259km/h; 161mph]

 Biplanes are slower than monoplanes due to their increased drag;

therefore a relatively slow cruise speed is appropriate.

o Stall Speed = 55kt [km/h; mph]

o Service Ceiling = [3,048m] 10,000ft

 Aerobatics are usually performed at low level unless a fairly new

pilot is being trained so a high ceiling is not necessary – especially
since a pressurised cabin would add significant weight.

o T-O Run = 200m [656ft]

 It should be possible to achieve a run this short as biplanes have

excellent lift at low speed

o Max Range = 200 nm (km; miles)

 There is no need for a strictly aerobatic aircraft such as this to have

an extended range.

o G limits = ±7g

28
  These limits have been selected on the basis of the level of
performance required to compete in advanced aerobatic
competitions.

o Biplane wing configuration

 The wings should be made from removable wing sub-assemblies so

that transporting the aircraft by road would be easier and wouldn’t
require a police escort.

o Tractor piston engine

 The aim is to keep the vintage feel of the biplane – a pusher engine
would be in conflict with this.

o Fixed, tail wheel style of landing gear

 This style has been chosen for the reasons mentioned in the
introduction and also because this design is lighter and simpler than
a nose wheel type.

o Large conventional tail surfaces

 The length of this aircraft must be kept to a minimum as this

improves manoeuvrability. However, this reduces stability so larger
tail surfaces are needed.

o Excellent inverted flying characteristics

Aerobatic aircraft perform high negative g manoeuvres; consequentially the

aircraft must generate significant lift with the ‘wrong side’ of the wings.

29
4. Initial Sizing – The Loftin Method

4.1 Introduction

The method used in this section is taken from NASA RP 1060 by L.K Loftin
[2]. Loftin details how to size various different types of aircraft; however the
method used here should only be referred to by those who are designing
biplanes, as different factors and design decisions will be needed for other
designs. The values chosen for the analysis are based around the three
biplanes mentioned above to ensure a good match. However, for a new
design to be successful it should have performance at least equal to current
designs so the emphasis has been on trying to improve over these three
aircraft. The following table details the relevant information for each of these
biplanes:

Aircraft Christen Eagle II Pitts S-2C Pitts Model 12

266km/h 278km/h 282km/h
Cruise Speed
[165mph] [173mph] [175mph]
TO Field
Length 457m [1,500ft] 262m [860ft] 91m [300ft]
Stall Speed 90km/h [58mph] 104km/h [65mph] 103km/h[64mph]
640m 884m 914m
Climb Rate
[2,100ft]/min [2,900ft]/min [3,000ft]/min
Aspect Ratio 6.12 5.98 6.25
Table 4.4.1: Current biplane data [1]

4.2 Sizing Analysis

4.2.1 Initial Calculations

First the aircraft will be sized to 3 different cruise speeds: 170, 180 and 190
mph at 8,000 ft.

The aircraft resulting from these three cruise sizing calculations will be
examined in relation to stalling speeds of 56 and 66 mph; climb performances
of 3000, 3500 and 4000 ft/min; and TO field lengths of 250 and 350 feet.

As this design is a biplane, it falls into Loftin’s Class III category, that of
biplanes and strutted monoplanes. This means that the average value for
Class III CD0 of 0.043 will be used. The Author felt this was appropriate as this
design will not have any ‘advanced biplane’ features such as retractable
landing gear, but equally; the aircraft will have clean lines as there are no
unusual protuberances and proper use of modern computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) analysis would enable poor aerodynamic features to be
altered before production.

The aspect ratio is assumed to be 6; not as an average from the data above,
but as a nice round figure in the same region. Oswald’s span efficiency factor
is assumed to be 0.7; in line with Loftin’s assumption.

30
Having established these values the first requirement is to estimate several
aerodynamic values, either through rough calculation or “guesstimation”:

(L/D)MAX = ½ √[(πAe) ÷ CD0]

(L/D)MAX = ½ √[(π×6×0.7) ÷ 0.043]

(L/D)MAX = ½ √[(13.19) ÷ 0.043]

(L/D)MAX = ½ √[306.74]

(L/D)MAX = ½ (17.51)

(L/D)MAX = 8.76

Lift coefficient at (L/D)MAX = CLm

CLm = √πAeCD0

CLm = √π×6×0.7×0.043

CLm = √0.57

CLm = 0.75

(CL3/2/CD)MAX = {[1.345(Ae)3/4] ÷ CD01/4}

(CL3/2/CD)MAX = {[1.345(6×0.7)3/4] ÷ 0.0431/4}

(CL3/2/CD)MAX = {[1.345(4.2)3/4] ÷ 0.46}

(CL3/2/CD)MAX = {[1.345×2.93] ÷ 0.46}

(CL3/2/CD)MAX = {[3.94] ÷ 0.46}

(CL3/2/CD)MAX = 8.67

CLc = CL at (CL3/2/CD)MAX

CLc = √3CD0πAe

CLc = √3×0.043×π×6×0.7

CLc = √1.7

CLc = 1.305

For the TO calculation (see below), Figure 6.11 on page 338 of [2] is used.
CLto, that is CL on TO, is assumed to be 1.4 as there are no flaps but the

31
aircraft is a biplane so it will not require flaps as biplanes have plenty of lift at
low speeds.

As there are no flaps, CLmax is assumed to equal 1.4 as the data from Figure
6.8 on page 334 of [2] suggests that aircraft with flaps up have CLmax values in
this region. It could be argued that this assumption is too low as biplanes are
optimised to fly without flaps. However it must also be remembered that the
aircraft featured in the figure have retractable landing gear whereas this
biplane does not.

Assume cruise propulsive efficiency = 0.85 in line with Loftin’s assumptions.

Assume climb propulsive efficiency = 0.7 in line with Loftin’s assumptions.

The values collated above are now used for the various sizing calculations
that follow; they are collected here for easy reference:

A=6
e = 0.7
CD0 = 0.043
(L/D)MAX = 8.74
CLm = 0.57
(CL3/2/CD)MAX = 8.64
CLc = 1.305
CLto = 1.4
CLmax = 1.4
ηCR = 0.85
ηCB = 0.7
c = 0.5

This constant ‘c’ is the aircraft efficiency factor; unfortunately the Author could
not locate a simple formula for calculation of this factor without significant
knowledge of the aircraft, which we obviously do not yet have. Loftin assumes
a value of 0.5 in his example so the Author proposes to do the same.

4.2.2 Cruising Speed

The first calculation, as previously mentioned, will be that of sizing to cruising

speed. Only one calculation will be performed here; however results for all
proposed speeds will be shown in a table at the end of the calculation.

First, you take one of the assumed cruising speeds and find Ki from Figure 6.4
on page 327 of [2]:

Ki = 136

The next step is to assume a range of wing loading values between 5 lb/ft2
and 30lb/ft2 incrementing by 5 lb/ft2. Then substitute the Ki, Vc, γ, σ, and the
range of wing loading values into the following formula to give a power against
wing loading curve.

32
 γ = 75% power = 0.75

σ = 0.7385 at 8,000 ft

(W TO/P0) = (Ki ÷ Vc)3 × (W TO/S) × (γ ÷ σ)

(W TO/P0) = (136 ÷ 170)3 × 5 × (0.75 ÷ 0.7385)

(W TO/P0) = 0.83 × 5 × (1.0156)

(W TO/P0) = 0.512 × 5.0779

(W TO/P0) = 2.6 lb/hp [1.582 kg/kW]

This process is then repeated with the other values in the wing loadings
range, after which the next Vc is used and another curve is generated:

Vc [mph] γ σ Ki (Ki/Vc)3 γ/σ WTO/S [lb/ft2] WTO/P0 [lb/hp]

170 0.75 0.739 136 0.512 1.0156 5 2.600
10 5.200
15 7.800
20 10.399
25 12.999
30 15.599
180 0.75 0.739 136 0.431 1.0156 5 2.190
10 4.380
15 6.571
20 8.761
25 10.951
30 13.141
190 0.75 0.739 136 0.367 1.0156 5 1.862
10 3.724
15 5.587
20 7.449
25 9.311
30 11.173
Table 4.2.2.1: Cruise speed – wing and power loading relationship data

4.2.3 Stall Loading

Now two wing loadings for two different stall speeds are calculated using the
following formula:

WTO/S = 0.00257 × CLmax × Vs2

At 56 mph: WTO/S = 0.00257 × 1.4 × 562

WTO/S = 0.003598 × 3136

33
 WTO/S = 11.283 lb/ft2 [55.088 kg/m2]

Simply repeat for the other stall speed to give two wing loading limits:

Vs CLmax Vs2 WTO/S [lb/ft2]

56 1.4 3136 11.283
66 1.4 4356 15.673
Table 4.2.3.1 Maximum wing loading determined by stall speed

4.2.4 Landing Distances

To find the ground run and landing distances, take the assumed values of Vs
and use Figures 6.9 and 6.10 on page 336 of [2] to find the ground run and
landing values respectively:

For 56 mph: Ground run = 600 ft [182.88 m]

Landing distance = 1160 ft [353.568 m]

For 66 mph: Ground run = 880 ft [268.224 m]

Landing distance = 1720 ft [524.256 m]

These values are useful because if you need a shorter landing distance then a
reduced Vs is required, which may mean you have to limit the wing loading.

34
4.2.5 Takeoff Distances

To find the power loadings for the previously selected TO ground run
distances simply use the distance and the assumed value of CLto with Figure
6.11 on page 338 of [2] to give the “TO parameter”.

TO parameter = [(W TO/S) ÷ (W TO/P0)]

250 ft TO parameter = 70

Having established this figure, divide it by the range of wing loading values to
give the equivalent power loadings:

(W TO/P0) = [(WTO/S) ÷ (WTO/P0)] ÷ (W TO/S)

(W TO/P0) = 70 ÷ 5 = 14 lb/hp [8.516 kg/kW]

Repeat the calculations using another TO estimate to produce two power

loading curves for TO ground run distance:

WTO/P0
TO Field Length [ft] [W TO/S ÷ W TO/P0] WTO/S [lb/ft2]
[lb/hp]
250 70 5 14.00
10 7.00
15 4.67
20 3.50
25 2.80
30 2.33
350 90 5 18.00
10 9.00
15 6.00
20 4.50
25 3.60
30 3.00
Table 4.2.5.1 TO field length – wing and power loading relationship data

35
 4.2.6 Climb Performance

For Climb performance; once again, a range of wing loadings are used but
this time the inverse of the power loading is being calculated – the results
must then be converted into actual power loadings to generate the loading
curve.

(P0/W TO) = (1 ÷ ηCB) × {(CR ÷ 33000) + [√(W TO/S) ÷ 19(CL3/2/CD)MAX]}

(P0/W TO) = (1 ÷ 0.7) × {(3000 ÷ 33000) + [√(5) ÷ 19(8.64)]}

(P0/W TO) = (1.429) × {(0.0909) + [2.236 ÷ 164.16]}

(P0/W TO) = (1.429) × {(0.0909) + [0.0136]}

(P0/W TO) = (1.429) × {0.1045}

(P0/W TO) = 0.149

(W TO/P0) = 1 ÷ 0.149 = 6.697 lb/hp [4.074 kg/kW]

This process is then repeated to give three different loading curves:

1÷ WTO/S P0/WTO WTO/P0

CR (ft/min) CR ÷ 33000 19(CL3/2/CD)MAX
ηCB [lb/ft2] [hp/lb] [lb/hp]
3000 1.429 0.091 164.16 5 0.149 6.697
10 0.157 6.354
15 0.164 6.113
20 0.169 5.925
25 0.173 5.768
30 0.178 5.633
3500 1.429 0.106 164.16 5 0.171 5.849
10 0.179 5.586
15 0.185 5.399
20 0.190 5.251
25 0.195 5.128
30 0.199 5.021
4000 1.429 0.121 164.16 5 0.193 5.192
10 0.201 4.983
15 0.207 4.834
20 0.212 4.715
25 0.217 4.615
30 0.221 4.528
Table 4.2.6.1: Climb rate – wing and power loading relationship data

The various power loading curves are then placed on a single chart to show
the range of matching possibilities:

36
Fig. 4.2.6.1 Loftin aircraft matching chart

37
As can be seen from the resulting chart, the 66mph stall speed limit produces
wing and power loadings that are too large for an aerobatic design; as a result
the 56mph stall speed will be used as the wing loading boundary. Despite this
limitation, there are still several matching points. In the next chart the section
that is of interest has been scaled up to allow easier location of the matching
points:

38
Fig. 4.2.6.2: Loftin aircraft matching chart – matching points detail

39
4.2.7 Matching Points

Point 1 – [170mph & 4000ft/min]

This point gives a very high climb rate which is obviously necessary for
aerobatics. However the cruise speed is quite low. Unfortunately the wing
loading is the lowest – this could result in an overly large wing. If the wing
area is too large then it could be difficult to keep the wing span low enough for
a sufficient roll rate and also a large chord could require a large horizontal
stabiliser that would increase drag.

Point 2 – [170mph Vc & 3500ft/min]

This point is similar to point one; however, the reduced climb rate is due to a
slightly increased wing loading which has the advantage of reducing the size
of the wing in comparison to point one.

Point 3 – [250ft TO & 3000ft/min]

This point would greatly reduce the size of both the wings and the engine over
points 2 and 3. However it would also result in a fairly poor climb rate and also
a very low Vc in the region of 160mph, as can be seen from the distance from
the Vc 170mph loading line.

Point 4 – [350ft TO & 56mph Vs]

This point has the advantage of the smallest wings and the smallest engine
but these values also result in an unacceptably low Vc.

Point 5 – [250ft TO, 56mph Vs & 3000ft/min]

This point, again, would produce small wings and powerplant; however the Vc
would still be too small at around 160mph and the climb rate is also on the low
side.

Point 6 – [170mph Vc & 250ft TO]

This point would still provide the benefits of smaller wings and powerplant but,
unfortunately also still has the same two weak points; low cruise speed and a
low climb rate.

Point 7 – [3500 ft/min & 56mph Vs]

This point is very similar to points 5 and 6, but has an improved rate of climb
and a slightly larger engine requirement.

Point 8 – [180mph Vc, 4000ft/min & 56mph Vs]

40
This point has excellent overall performance without having significantly high
wing and power loading. In fact this point is very similar to point 1 without the
disadvantage of extremely low wing loading.

Point 9 – [190mph Vc & 56mph Vs]

This point has the highest Vc, however this comes at the price of the lowest
power loading which would require the largest engine. This would mean
increased fuel consumption and thus a larger fuel load. This would obviously
increase the size of the aircraft quite significantly.

The results of this analysis indicate that the best matching point would be
point 8. This is because it has the greatest performance with the smallest
penalties.

Point 8 gives the following loadings:

WTO/S = 11.28 lb/ft2 [55.074 kg/m2]

WTO/P0 = 5 lb/hp [3.041 kg/kW]

Now that these estimates have been made a weight estimate must be
calculated to enable the required wing reference area and powerplant
horsepower values to be calculated.

41
5. Initial Weight Estimation

5.1 Introduction

An established method for making weight estimates at this stage of a design

is through the use of a fuel fraction method. This is where the fuel load is
calculated by approximating the fuel burned during the different phases of the
flight as a fraction of the W TO. The Author decided to use the method detailed
in Jan Roskam’s book; Airplane Design – part I [3] as this seemed to have the
most detailed set of fuel fraction tables. For reasons that will be explained
later the Author did two different W TO calculations.

5.2 First W TO Calculation

The first step is to calculate the payload weight WPAY using the following
formula:

WPAY = W PAX + W CREW + W FR + WAMMO

This aircraft has no passengers, freight or ammunition, so the payload is

simply the W CREW which is based on an average man’s weight of 180lb plus
10lb baggage. The baggage weight is minimal because there is no real need
for any kind of baggage on an aerobatic flight:

WPAY = W CREW = 2 × (180 + 10) = 380lbs [172.37 kg]

Now an educated guess of the TO weight must be made so as to arrive at a

first approximation of the fuel weight:

WTOguess = 1650lb [748.43 kg]

Next the fuel fractions for the different phases of flight will be listed. The
values are taken from the ‘homebuilt’ class in Roskam’s tables. This is
because the Author felt that this would be a better approximation than the
alternative class; ‘single engined general aviation’. The Author believes this is
a fair approximation since high performance aerobatic aircraft of this type are
much closer in concept and design to a homebuilt aircraft than to a general
aviation aircraft such as a Cessna 150.

First the different phases of flight will be listed:

1) Engine Start
2) Taxi
3) Takeoff
4) Climb
5) Cruise
6) Loiter
7) Descent
8) Land, Taxi, Shutdown

42
 Phase Fuel Fraction Value
1 W1/WTO 0.998
2 W2/W 1 0.998
3 W3/W 2 0.998
4 W4/W 3 0.995
5 W5/W 4 To be calculated
6 W6/W 5 To be calculated
7 W7/W 6 0.995
8 W8/W 7 0.995
st
Table 5.2.1: 1 MTOW estimation fuel fractions

The fractions for the cruise and loiter sections are calculated using range and
endurance formulae respectively, using some assumed typical values for
propeller efficiency, specific fuel consumption and the value of L/D calculated
using the sizing method. It must also be remembered that different values of
L/D are used for the cruise and loiter calculations. For cruise (L/D)MAX should
be used but for loiter 0.866(L/D)MAX is used [4].

Range = 375(ηP ÷ C) × (L/D)MAX × ln(W 4/W 5) [statute miles]

This formula is rearranged and the following data entered:

A reasonable range compared to the three biplanes would be 345miles.

Roskam’s typical ηP and C values during cruise are 0.85 and 0.75lb/hp/hr.

ln(W 4/W 5) = Range ÷ [375(ηP ÷ C) × (L/D)MAX]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 345 ÷ [375(0.85 ÷ 0.75) × (8.76)]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 345 ÷ [375(1.133) × (8.76)]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 345 ÷ [425 × (8.76)]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 345 ÷ [3723]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 0.092667

(W 4/W 5) = e0.092667

(W 4/W 5) = 1.0971

(W 5/ W 4) = 1 ÷ 1.0971 = 0.9115

Endurance = 375(1 ÷ Vloiter) × (ηP ÷ C) × 0.866(L/D)MAX × ln(W 5/W 6)

[hours]

This formula is rearranged and the following data entered:

A reasonable endurance for loiter is 30 minutes = 0.5hours

43
Vloiter is estimated to be 1.5 × Vs = 1.5 × 56 = 84mph

Roskam’s typical ηP and C values during a loiter are 0.75 and 0.65lb/hp/hr.

ln(W 5/W 6) = 0.5 ÷ [375(1 ÷ Vloiter) × (ηP ÷ C) × 0.866(L/D)MAX]

ln(W 5/W 6) = 0.5 ÷ [375(1 ÷ 84) × (0.75 ÷ 0.65) × 0.866(8.76)]

ln(W 5/W 6) = 0.5 ÷ [375(0.012) × (1.154) × 7.586]

ln(W 5/W 6) = 0.5 ÷ [4.464 × 8.754]

ln(W 5/W 6) = 0.5 ÷ [39.077]

ln(W 5/W 6) = 0.012795

(W 5/W 6) = e0.012795

(W 5/W 6) = 1.0129

(W 6/W 5) = 1 ÷ 1.0129 = 0.9873

The final fuel fraction for the whole flight is calculated by multiplying all the
other fractions:

FF = (W 1/WTO) × (W 2/W1) × (W n+1/W n) etc

FF = 0.998 × 0.998 × 0.998 × 0.995 × 0.9115 × 0.9873 × 0.995 × 0.995

FF = 0.8812

This final fuel fraction is then entered into the following formula to find the fuel
used during the flight:

WFused = (1 – FF) × W TOguess

WFused = (1 – 0.8812) × 1650

WFused = (0.1188) × 1650

WFused = 196lb [88.90 kg]

To find the weight of the total fuel volume to be carried during the flight
substitute the used fuel weight into the following equation that adds a 25%
fuel reserve:

WF = W Fused + (0.25 × WFused)

WF = 196 + (0.25 × 196)

44
WF = 196 + (49) = 245lb [111.13 kg]

The next step is to make a tentative estimation of the operating empty weight
using the following formula:

WOE-tent = W TOguess – WF – W PAY

WOE-tent = 1650 – 245 – 380 = 1025lb [464.93 kg]

From this value a tentative estimate of the empty weight can be calculated by
subtracting the weight of trapped fuel and oil (0.5% of the guessed TO
weight):

WE-tent = WOE-tent – W Tf+o

WE-tent = 1025 – (0.005 × 1650)

WE-tent = 1025 – (8.25) = 1017lb [461.30 kg]

This tentative value is now compared with the empty weight calculated with
the following formula:

WE = 10^{[(Log10 W TO) – A] ÷ B}

The factors A and B are based on the class of the aircraft; once again the
Author used the factors for homebuilt aircraft for the reasons stated above.

A = 0.3411 B = 0.9519

WE = 10^{[(Log10 1650) – 0.3411] ÷ 0.9519}

WE = 10^{[(3.2175) – 0.3411] ÷ 0.9519}

WE = 10^{[2.8764] ÷ 0.9519}

WE = 10^{3.0217} = 1051lb [476.73 kg]

This value is 35lb larger than the tentative value so a new, increased W TOguess
is needed to generate the next iteration:

WTOguess = 1750lb [793.79 kg]

This time only the results will be shown rather than the full calculations. Note
that the FF value remains unchanged as it is only a fraction of W TOguess rather
than a weight.

WFused = (1 – 0.8812) × 1750 = 208lb [94.35 kg]

WF = 208 + (0.25 × 208) = 260lb [117.93 kg]

45
WOE-tent = 1750 – 260 – 380 = 1110lb [503.49 kg]

WE-tent = 1110 – (0.005 × 1750) = 1101lb [499.40 kg]

WE = 10^{[(Log10 1750) – 0.3411] ÷ 0.9519} = 1118lb [507.12 kg]

This time the difference in the empty weight estimates is only 17lb [7.71 kg]
which is a good improvement; however, further iterations are needed to reach
a more accurate W TO. The results of the final iteration are shown below:

WTOguess = 1845lb [836.88 kg]

WFused = (1 – 0.8812) × 1845 = 219.24lb [99.45 lb]

WF = 219.24 + (0.25 × 219.24) = 274.05lb [124.31 lb]

WOE-tent = 1845 – 274.05 – 380 = 1190.95lb [540.21 kg]

WE-tent = 1190.95 – (0.005 × 1845) = 1181.73lb [536.02 kg]

WE = 10^{[(Log10 1845) – 0.3411] ÷ 0.9519} = 1182.21lb [536.24 kg]

This gives a difference between the empty weight values of 0.48lb [0.22 kg],
which is an acceptable level of accuracy.

This result means that WTOguess is now W TO; the Author then used this value to
establish the required wing reference area and required horsepower. Here the
wing and power loadings are stated for easy reference before the calculation:

WTO/S = 11.28 lb/ft2 [55.074 kg/m2]

WTO/P0 = 5 lb/hp [3.041 kg/kW]

S = 1845 ÷ 11.28 = 163.56ft2 [15.20 m2]

P0 = 1845 ÷ 5 = 369hp [271.40 kW]

Now that the required wing area is known, an initial wing planform can be
designed.

However, when the Author attempted to produce a wing planform it quickly

became clear that this wing area would produce an aircraft with an
unacceptably large wing span. This would be bad for aerobatic performance
because the roll rate would be low; also the vertical stabiliser would also be
overly large which would introduce an extra drag penalty.

This would mean that a new matching point would have to be chosen with
increased wing loading or the weight of the aircraft must be reduced.

46
5.3 Second W TO Calculation

It was at this point that the author realised that the problem was that the
weight was too great due to some incorrect assumptions during the fuel
fraction build up.

The first issue is that the aircraft was sized for a cruise distance. This is
completely incorrect as this biplane is not being designed to cruise but to do
aerobatic training and competitions. Therefore less fuel would be needed
which would reduce the W TO.

The second problem is the loiter phase, if this were a commuter aircraft flying
between the smaller city airports then a loiter would be necessary, but in the
environment under investigation a loiter would be unnecessary: During a
competition the airspace is kept clear and, unlike Cranfield, most small
airports are not very busy which means a specific loiter fuel fraction is
unnecessary.

To rectify this error the final fuel fraction was recalculated as follows:

Phases of flight:

1) Engine Start
2) Taxi
3) Takeoff
4) Climb
5) Aerobatics
6) Descent
7) Landing, Taxi, Shutdown

Phase Fuel Fraction Value

1 W1/WTO 0.998
2 W2/W 1 0.998
3 W3/W 2 0.998
4 W4/W 3 0.995
5 W5/W 4 To be calculated
6 W6/W 5 0.955
7 W7/W 6 0.995
nd
Table 5.3.1: 2 MTOW estimation fuel fractions

Since the aerobatic segment cannot be based on a distance travelled, the

Author decided to approximate 1hour of aerobatics to a modified loiter.

There are two basic reasons for this choice. Firstly, not even very experienced
pilots would perform aerobatics manoeuvres for more than an hour because it
is very tiring. Secondly, if the flight is a training flight, it is difficult to learn
complex skills like flying for protracted periods. If we look at the similar skill of
learning to drive, learner drivers are advised not to drive for extended periods

47
as it takes high levels of concentration and effort to drive (or fly) if you are not
used to it.

The following formula will be used to estimate the aerobatic segment:

Endurance = 375(1 ÷ Vloiter) × (ηP ÷ C) × 0.866(L/D)MAX × ln(W 4/W 5) [hours]

The (previously mentioned) modifications to this formula are as follows:

The Vloiter value has been increased to 180mph, this because aerobatics
involves large increases and decreases in speed so the Author felt that Vc
would prove a good middling value.

The ηP value has been decreased to 0.7 – In the previous set of FF

calculations, the ηP values used in the cruise and loiter calculations are 0.85
and 0.75 respectively. However in aerobatics, the large changes in speed
would reduce the ηP.

The C value has been increased from 0.75 lb/hp/hr for cruise and 0.65
lb/hp/hr for loiter; up to 0.8 lb/hp/hr as aerobatic flying involves lots of
accelerating which increases fuel consumption.

The 0.866(L/D)MAX value has been changed to (L/D)MAX since aerobatics

generally results in higher lift values due to increased g during manoeuvres.

The resulting formula is:

Endurance = 375(1 ÷ 180) × (0.7 ÷ 0.8) × 8.76 × ln(W 4/W 5) [hours]

This is then rearranged to give:

ln(W 4/W 5) = 1 ÷ [375(1 ÷ 180) × (0.7 ÷ 0.8) × 8.76]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 1 ÷ [375(0.006) × (0.875) × 8.76]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 1 ÷ [2.083 × 7.665]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 1 ÷ [15.969]

ln(W 4/W 5) = 0.0626

(W 4/W 5) = e0.0626

(W 4/W 5) = 1.0646

(W 5/W 4) = 1 ÷ 1.0646 = 0.9393

These figures are then multiplied as before:

FF = (W 1/WTO) × (W 2/W1) × (W n+1/W n)

48
FF = 0.998 × 0.998 × 0.998 × 0.995 × 0.9393 × 0.995 × 0.995

FF = 0.9197

Having worked out the new fuel fraction, the same sequence as before is
followed; as the iteration method has already been demonstrated above, only
the final result will be shown:

WTOguess = 1470lb [666.781 kg]

WFused = (1 – 0.9197) × 1470 = 120lb [54.43 kg]

WF = 120 + (0.25 × 120) = 150lb [68.04 kg]

WOE-tent = 1470 – 150 – 380 = 940lb [426.38 kg]

WE-tent = 940 – (0.005 × 1470) = 932.65lb [423.04 kg]

WE = 10^{[(Log10 1470) – 0.3411] ÷ 0.9519} = 931.17lb [422.37 kg]

This gives a difference between the empty weight values of 1.48lb [0.67 kg],
which is an acceptable level of accuracy.

As before, the value of W TOguess is now W TO. The Author then proceeded to
use this new value of WTO to once again establish the required wing reference
area and required horsepower.

WTO/S = 11.28 lb/ft2 [55.074 kg/m2]

WTO/P0 = 5 lb/hp [3.041 kg/kW]

S = 1470 ÷ 11.28 = 130.319ft2 [12.11 m2]

P0 = 1470 ÷ 5 = 294hp [219.23 kW]

49
6. Wing Design

6.1 Introduction

Now that the required reference area is known, an initial wing planform can be
designed; this will be based on the required wing reference area, a limit being
placed on the wing span to keep roll rates high.

This process was complicated by two important factors: Firstly, the fact that
the design specification required removable wing sub-assemblies meant that
the span of one wing completely controlled the span on the other, which
limited the possibilities. Secondly, sketching the planform of a set of biplane
wings is complicated by the fact that the wings have the additional stagger
dimension to define.

Nonetheless, the Author proceeded by drawing several planform shapes onto

graph paper so that the area could be easily found. Having found the area of
the planform drawing, a conversion figure could then be calculated as follows:

n mm2 = 130.319ft2

1 mm2 = (130.319 ÷ n) ft2

1 mm = √(130.319 ÷ n) ft

This then enabled the Author to evaluate the dimensions of the wing produced
by the sketch. Unsurprisingly, the low wing span requirements produced a
series of wings with quite long chords.

6.2 Taper Ratio

The Author wanted the wings to have some taper to improve the spanwise lift
distribution. Unfortunately, taper decreases the area available for a specific
span. This meant that the degree of taper that was possible was quite a bit
lower than the optimum ratio of 0.45 [5].

It should be remembered however that the fact that there is a strut between
the upper and lower wings of a biplane will change the value of optimum taper
ratio. This is because taper moves the spanwise lift distribution inboard,
towards the fuselage, thereby reducing the amount of lift being produced
further outboard along the wing. This affects two characteristics of the wing:

If a larger proportion of the lift is generated near the wing tips, then more
powerful wing tip vortices will be produced. This of course creates more drag.
Another problem created by having more lift generated further along the wing
is that this increases the bending moment on the wing due to lift. This means
that the structure of the wing must be stronger and that means a weight
penalty.

50
In the case of a biplane however, the increased bending moment is negated
by the main struts that join the upper and lower wings. As a result, the
optimum taper ratio for a biplane would have to be based purely on wing tip
vortex generated drag effects.

Unfortunately the Author was unable to find a source stating an optimum

value of taper ratio for strut supported biplane wings. As a result, the taper
ratio of the C1 wings was not biased towards a target value but instead was
designed within the constraints dictated by the span and area requirements
discussed above.

51
6.3 Wing Planforms

After drawing several different planform sketches the Author chose slightly
tapered wings with the following dimensions:

6.3.1 Upper Wing

b = 21.259ft [6.48m]
c’ = 3.189ft [0.972m]
A = 6.596
S = 68.516ft2 [6.37m2]
cR = 3.614ft [1.102m]
cT = 2.764ft [0.842m]
λ = 0.765
Λ = 1.146o

Fig. 6.3.1.1: Upper wing planform

6.3.2 Lower Wing

b = 19.984ft [6.091m]
c’ = 3.189ft [0.972m]
A = 6.162
S = 64.81ft2 [6.02m2]
cR = 3.614ft [1.102m]
cT = 2.764ft [0.842m]
λ = 0.765
Λ = 1.219o

Fig. 6.3.2.1: Lower wing planform

It should be noted that, when the area of both these wings are added
together, the new value of S = 133.326ft2 [12.386m2]

52
Which makes W TO/S = 1470 ÷ 133.326 = 11.026lb/ft2 [53.833kg/m2]
Now that the two wings have been sized the aspect ratio can be properly
calculated. The aspect ratio of a biplane is calculated with the following
formula:

A = 2b’2 ÷ S

A = 2 × 20.6222 ÷ 133.326 = 6.379

6.3.3 Finding the Mean Aerodynamic Chord

To find the MAC, the Author used a diagrammatic method demonstrated in

reference [4]:

Fig. 6.3.3.1: Diagrammatic method of finding MAC [4]

The Author was able to take the planform sketches, draw them full scale in the
CATIA program and then simply use the measuring tool to find the MAC
values:

Upper Wing Lower Wing

MAC = 3.305ft MAC = 3.273ft

Fig. 6.3.3.2: CATIA images of how the MAC was found for both upper and lower wings

53
6.4 Wing Aerofoil Section

As stated in the design specification, aerobatic aircraft require good inverted

flying qualities. This requires an aerofoil that produces good amounts of lift
when inverted.

Unlimited class aerobatic aircraft must have wings with zero incidence, zero
dihedral and zero twist as well as a symmetrical wing section. This is due to
the extreme g levels that these aircraft are capable of reaching – in the event
of a high g inverted flight manoeuvre it could be disastrous if the aircraft did
not have identical flying characteristics when inverted.

However, the C1 biplane is not designed for unlimited aerobatic competition;

this means that truly identical inverted flying characteristics are not necessary.
As a result some small amounts of incidence, dihedral and twist could be
incorporated if these should prove beneficial.

Focusing on the aerofoil section, it seems clear that there are many sections
that could be chosen that provide adequate inverted characteristics without
being symmetrical. Indeed, the Pitts Model 12 can be supplied with a
symmetrical section but the standard model comes with a NACA 23012
section. This section could be one of the factors behind the greatly improved
range and cruise speed performance of the Model 12 over the Pitts S-2C and
Christen Eagle biplanes.

On closer examination of the implications of a non-symmetrical wing section it

becomes clear that there would be serious disadvantages. The biggest
problem is that this would lead to a loss of function from the wing sub-
assembly concept.

The advantages of having symmetrical wing sub-assemblies are:

1) Maintenance times for the wing can be hugely reduced by simply

replacing a damaged wing sub-assembly with a spare and then
repairing the removed assembly at another time. This would be
especially advantageous in an aerobatic training environment where
incidental damage during ground manoeuvring could be quite frequent.
Limiting the number of teaching hours lost to repairs would be crucial in
maintaining healthy profit margins.

2) It allows the maintainer of the biplane to carry only one wing sub-
assembly. This is because just one sub-assembly could be fitted to any
of the four attachment points on the aircraft, as a symmetrical section
would allow the sub-assembly to be ‘flipped’ over if required without
any negative consequences on performance such as anti symmetric
lift. Reducing the number of spares required for an aircraft is important
as it makes for simpler maintenance and less space is required for the
parts. This is important, especially when you consider that hanger and
other storage space is costly.

54
These are very important features, the lack of which would damage the
marketability of the aircraft. There is also no persuasive argument for a non-
symmetrical section since (as previously discussed) range and cruise speeds
are not very important for this design and so a symmetrical section is a good
choice in this case.

6.5 Wing Section Data

The author decided to choose a NACA 0012 section for the upper and lower
wings of the C1 biplane as this section provides good characteristics for this
application. The section data of the NACA 0012 is shown below:

Tc Lift Slope [a∞/degree] Α0 [degrees] CM0 h0 [% chord]

0.12 0.106 0 0 0.25
Table 6.5.1: NACA 0012 aerofoil data

It should be noted that this aerofoil is a fairly thin section, but biplanes are
able to utilise such sections due to the extra strength gained from their
external bracing. In fact, choosing a thicker section would negate one of the
main benefits of external bracing – weight saving. Monoplanes have thicker
sections to provide space for their internal cantilever bracing that gives their
smooth aerodynamic shape – biplanes loose out aerodynamically then but
gain in terms of reduced weight. This means that to use a section with a
greater tc value on a biplane would compound the aerodynamic penalties
associated with external bracing as even more drag would be introduced by
this thicker section. In short; whilst this section is by no means the ‘best’
section for any specific aerodynamic quality it has good all round
characteristics which are required for the varied flying attitudes that would be
taken by an aircraft such as the C1.

6.6 Biplane Wing Arrangement

6.6.1 The Gap

The gap is the vertical distance between the two wing centre chord lines. The
minimum allowable gap is equal to the largest mean chord of the two wings.
However there is no aerodynamic penalty for increasing the gap. The problem
with increasing the gap is that the length of the supporting struts must also
increase – this obviously increase weight and drag.

For the C1 biplane the gap is 4.039ft [1.231m]. This is greater than the
minimum allowable gap so that forward visibility is improved.

6.6.2 The Stagger

The stagger is the horizontal distance between the leading edges of the upper
and lower wings. Positive stagger is where the upper wing is ahead of the
lower wing and negative stagger is the opposite; that is the lower wing ahead
of the upper wing. Theoretically there is no benefit to stagger however
historically there have been very few examples of negatively staggered

55
biplanes. This is probably due to the fact that a negatively staggered upper
wing would be competing for space with the cockpit.

The C1 has 2.34ft [0.713m] of positive stagger, and for a very good reason:
Without the lower wing being positioned under the cockpit it would be a lot
harder to enter the aircraft. The root of the wing is reinforced to allow it to be
used as a step to aid entry to the cockpit. If there was no stagger or negative
stagger then there would have to be steps buried in the side of the fuselage
which would have two drawbacks:

The first is that extra drag would be created. The second is that this would
negatively affect the aesthetics of the aircraft. Aircraft must look good to sell
well so this should be taken seriously.

6.6.3 Upper Wing

The upper wing is composed of the ‘turtle deck’ and two wing sub-assemblies.
The ‘turtle deck’ is the wing structure that is supported on the wing struts
above the forward fuselage. The trailing edge of the ‘turtle deck’ has an arc
shaped cut-out to provide improved visibility for the pilots.

6.6.3.1 Decalage

The upper wing has no dihedral or twist. However the wing is set at an
incidence angle of 1.5o. This is to provide a small amount of decalage. In
biplane terminology, decalage is the difference in incidence angle between the
two wings. The purpose of this is to ensure that the upper wing stalls before
the lower wing. As a result of the fact that the lower wing is behind the CG
position, when the upper wing stalls, lift produced by the lower wing causes a
decrease in the angle of attack, thus restoring upper wing lift. This is a
common safety feature on biplanes. Obviously monoplanes cannot have such
a facility, but it only works if the upper wing is at a greater incidence angle
than the lower wing.

Fig. 6.6.3.1: CATIA image of the 3D upper wing model

56
6.6.4 Lower Wing

The lower wing is composed of two wing sub-assemblies attached to

mounting points on the fuselage. A section of constant chord joins the two
wing-subassemblies to complete the reference area of the lower wing.

6.6.5 Dihedral

The sub-assemblies are attached to the fuselage at a slight angle to provide

2o of dihedral. This is to reduce the chance of the wing tip striking the ground
during a landing attempt. This small angle combined with the slightly shorter
wing span of the lower wing greatly decreases the chance of a tip strike.
Obviously, to catch the wing tip on the ground requires a serious error of
judgement, but this can happen, especially if the pilot is inexperienced.

Unfortunately if this does occur, the crash will be severe. This is because the
energy provided by the forward speed of the aircraft will be large and the tip
hitting the ground will result in the nose of the aircraft swinging rapidly towards
the ground. If the propeller does not plough into the ground, it is likely that the
aircraft will ‘cartwheel’, throwing lots of debris over the airfield which could
cause further damage to other aircraft if it is not properly cleared. In short, it
makes sense to reduce the chances of this kind of accident as much as
possible.

As previously mentioned, it is not possible to reduce the wing span due to the
wing sub-assemblies. Further, it also is not possible for the wing to have
greater dihedral, as this would adversely affect the inverted flying
characteristics by too great an amount.

Fig. 6.6.5.1: CATIA image of the 3D lower wing model

57
6.7 Wing Tip Design

Wing tip design is an area of greatly differing opinions and often complex
solutions. However, for this design, simplicity of manufacture is one of the
aims so the chosen tip must not be too complicated.

Helical vortices of air are produced as the high pressure air under a moving
wing passes around the end of the tip. These vortices are large contributors to
lift dependant drag and as such, it is advisable to limit their generation. As has
been mentioned, one way of doing this is to taper the wing to move the
spanwise lift distribution inboard. It is also clear that tip design will have an
effect on vortex generation. The following diagram in reference [4] shows the
most common wing tip designs:

Fig. 6.7.1: Schematic of various wing tip designs [4]

Rounded tips are the worst performing and allow easy generation of vortices
so they can be eliminated from consideration. Sharp tips are a slight (but fairly
insignificant) improvement over rounded tips so they can also be eliminated.
Cut-off tips are held to be effective and easy to manufacture. Hoerner tips are
generally said to be one of the best designs, but in his book Stinton states
that;

“The most efficient tip appears to be one that is raked [aft-swept in

the diagram above], with the trailing edge of the wing longer than
the leading edge… Hoerner shows that a sawn-off square tip gives
excellent results… His [Hoerner’s] results do not appear to reveal a
clear advantage of the so-called ‘Hoerner tip’ over the raked or
square-cut tip.” [5]

Almost in response, Raymer [4] mentions that one of the disadvantages

of raked tips is that the lift distribution is moved towards the trailing edge

58
thus increasing torsion loads on the wing. Upswept and drooped tips
would be too difficult to manufacture in this case and can be eliminated.

The Author chose to have cut-off tips for the following reasons:

1) There is doubt over the performance advantages of Hoerner tips and

they would also be more complex to manufacture.

2) Raked tips would increase the stresses on the wings, since during high
g manoeuvres this stress could be quite significant the Author felt that
this style of tip would be inappropriate.

3) Cut-off tips give good results, but more importantly, they are probably
the easiest to manufacture and they lend the design quite a stylish
finish.

6.8 Aileron Sizing

Within the time constraints of this design it isn’t possible to do a very detailed
analysis of an aspect that, at this stage, can be considered fairly minor. As a
result, a simple method based on the average ratio will be used:

Stinton quotes a range of values and, due to the aerobatic nature of this
aircraft, the highest value in each range will be used; also the ailerons will be
based on an average area between the upper and lower wings. This is
because the ailerons are attached to the wing sub-assemblies and therefore
cannot be different for each wing. As a result the ailerons on the upper wing
will be slightly undersized and those on the lower slightly oversized. The
Author believes that this will not matter since, structurally, biplane wings are
one unit.

SA = RA × S

SA = 0.1 × 133.326 = 13.33ft2 [1.24m2]

This is the total aileron area, so each aileron has an area of:

13.33 ÷ 4 = 3.33 ft2 [0.31m2]

6.9 Wing Structural Design

The wing structure is a simple fabric covered dual spar and rib arrangement.

The spars have attachment points on their inboard ends: This is so they and
the wing sub-assemblies they hold can be disconnected from the wing
mounting points on the fuselage and turtle deck. The spars are manufactured
from pressed aluminium; they start as metal sheet which is then formed into C
section spars.

59
The ribs are similarly manufactured from aluminium sheet. The ribs provide
the aerodynamic shape as the fabric is wrapped around and bonded to the
spar and rib structure. The fabric is not traditional canvas but a high
performance plastic material known as DACRON™. This material is wrapped
around the skeleton of ribs and spars and then coated with adhesive and
treated. The treatment causes the fabric to permanently shrink around the
wing structure and the adhesive ensures it will not move. Each wing sub-
assembly is built in this manner and so is the ‘turtle deck’.

DACRON™ is a flexible fabric used to make racing yacht sails. Thus it is

extremely strong and durable, lightweight and non-permeable to air and
moisture. These characteristics are ideal for this application. Strength and
durability are important since the weight of the aircraft must be carried by the
fabric. Light weight is also very necessary; there is a large amount of fabric
needed to cover the wings and if it was relatively heavy then this could be
quite damaging to the aircraft’s performance. If air is able to pass through the
fabric, it is also clear that large amounts of lift would be lost.

Resistance to water penetration is also important as otherwise water vapour

could enter the wings at altitude and condense during the descent. After a
number of flights this could produce enough water to create a problem familiar
to fuel system designers known as ‘slosh’. This is when a certain mass of fluid
in a fairly open volume (a space, such as the inside of a wing) moves as the
aircraft banks. As the aircraft rolls to one side the water would then flow
towards the low end of the wing. This could cause the aircraft to roll much
further than the pilot expects. Having a mass so far from the centreline would
make the aircraft very difficult to fly.

Fig. 6.9.1: CATIA image of the full wing set – including main struts & ‘turtle-deck’ struts

This is how the two wings are arranged. Note that the ‘turtle deck’ struts are
angled both laterally and longitudinally to provide effective reactions to flying
loads.

60
7. Tail Design

7.1 Introduction

Now that the wing dimensions are fixed the tail surfaces can be sized.
However there is one problem; the formulae are based on monoplane wings.

To get around this an equivalent monoplane wing must be calculated.

7.2 The Equivalent Monoplane Wing

The first step in calculating the monoplane wing equivalent to the C1 biplane
wings is to work out the equivalent monoplane span. The method for doing so
is taken from [5]:

bE = k × b’

b’ = ½(Upper Span + Lower Span)

b’ = ½(21.259+19.984) = 20.622ft [6.29m]

k = √[2(1 + ψ)]

To find the value of ψ; the Author used Figure 12.32 on page 299 of [4]. Here
the value of ψ is found by dividing the gap (that is the distance between the
upper and lower wing centre lines) by the average wing span. Then the value
of ψ is read from the intersection of the line of the gap ÷ average span, with
the trend line. There are several trend lines for different span ratio values.

ζ = (shorter span ÷ longer span)

So, for the C1 equivalent monoplane:

ζ = (19.984 ÷ 21.259) = 0.94

‡ = Gap ÷ b’ = 4.039 ÷ 20.622 = 0.196

From Figure 12.32:

ψ = 0.51

k = √[2(1 + ψ)]

k = √[2(1 + 0.51)]

k = √[2(1.51)]

k = √[3.02] = 1.738

b’ = ½(Upper Span + Lower Span)

61
b’ = ½(21.259 + 19.984)

b’ = ½(41.243) = 20.622ft

bE = k × b’

bE = 1.738 × 20.622 = 35.841ft [10.92m]

The equivalent monoplane wing must have the same area as the biplane
wings so it is therefore possible to calculate the equivalent monoplane mean
chord:

S = bE × cE

So;

cE = S ÷ bE

cE = 133.326 ÷ 35.841 = 3.72ft [1.13m]

Now to find the vertical location of the equivalent monoplane the following
formula is used:

Y = Gap × (4/7) [feet]

Y = 4.039 × (0.571)

Y = 2.308ft [0.703m] above the centre line of the lower wing

It should be noted that the equivalent monoplane here calculated is merely a

theoretical device so there will be no calculations of MAC, planform drawings
or 3D models produced.

7.3 Vertical Tail Sizing

To size the vertical tail, the following formula will be used;

SVT = (CVT × bE × S) ÷ MVT

The value of the vertical tail volume coefficient will be taken from [4]; the value
chosen is that quoted for homebuilt designs. Once again, this was done on
the assumption that an aerobatic aircraft has more in common with a
homebuilt aircraft than a standard single engined general aviation aircraft. The
equivalent monoplane span has been used, as the standard equation does
not allow for biplane wings.

The tail arm for the vertical tail was given a number of different values spaced
around an arbitrary average value of 11ft, this was chosen to reflect the fact
that the biplanes studied by the author always have a wing span greater than

62
the overall length of the aircraft. The purpose of selecting a range of values
was to find the sensitivity of the calculation to the tail arm value. It would be
good to see if a significant reduction in vertical tail size could be achieved
without a significant increase in vertical tail arm. For a standard monoplane
design the tail arm is measured from the wing quarter chord to the quarter
chord of the tail surface. However when an equivalent monoplane is used the
tail arm is measured from 23% of the equivalent monoplane to the quarter
chord of the tail surface.

Here only the steps taken to find the SVT calculated using a tail arm of 11ft will
be shown; results of the other calculations follow:

SVT = (CVT × bE × S) ÷ MVT

SVT = (0.04 × 35.841 × 133.326) ÷ 11

SVT = (191.141) ÷ 11

SVT = 17.376 ft2 [1.614m2]

CVT BE [ft] S [ft2] MVT [ft] SVT [ft2]

0.04 35.841 133.326 10.00 19.114
10.25 18.648
10.50 18.204
10.75 17.781
11.00 17.376
11.25 16.990
11.50 16.621
11.75 16.267
12.00 15.928
st
Table 7.3.1: 1 Derivation of vertical tail area from moment arm estimates

These values of are much larger than the value quoted for the Pitts Model 12
(the only biplane for which data was available) of 10.51ft2. However, the
Author felt that one sample would not be sufficient basis for changing the
value of CVT. Therefore the Author took black and white three view diagrams
from Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft website of each biplane. These were then
resized and printed out onto graph paper. Using the known length of each
biplane it was possible to find the area of the vertical tail of each aircraft from
the area of the vertical tail on the graph paper:

n mm = known length ft

1 mm = (known length ÷ n) ft

1 mm2 = (known length ÷ n)2 ft2

The method was validated by finding the area of the Model 12 vertical
stabiliser as this was already known from the data. The results are shown
below:

63
 Aircraft Christen Eagle II Pitts S-2C Model 12
SVT [ft2] 7.6 7.11 10.26
Table: 7.3.2 Vertical tail areas derived from Jane’s AWA three view drawings

You can see that the Model 12 value is only 2.38% less than the quoted value
of 10.51 and therefore the method is valid.

It was at this point that the Author realised that it would take a great deal of
time to work out the equivalent monoplane of each biplane so that the tail arm
could be found and then the new value of CVT calculated. So a compromise
was devised: The tail arm of each biplane would be found from the black and
white images; from the quarter chord of the upper wing to the quarter chord of
the vertical tail. This would then be combined with the SVT values found from
the printouts to find new values of CVT. This new coefficient would take into
account both the apparent inaccuracies of the quoted value of CVT when
applied to biplanes and the obvious problem of sizing only from the upper
wing.

The original formula is rearranged. Please note that the equivalent span has
been replaced with the average span of upper and lower wings. The lower
span was also found from the printouts and the average calculated.

SVT = (CVT × bE × S) ÷ MVT

CVT = [(SVT × MVT) ÷ (b’ × S)]

For continuity the CVT value found from the printout of the Model 12 will be
used. Only one calculation will be shown here (for the Model 12). Further
results are displayed in a table:

CVT = [(SVT × MVT) ÷ (b’ × S)]

CVT = [(10.26 × 12.152) ÷ (21.645 × 150.8)]

CVT = [(124.68) ÷ (3264.09)]

CVT = [0.038]

Aircraft b [ft] S [ft2] MVT [ft] SVT [ft2] CVT

Christen Eagle II 19.4 125 11 7.6 0.034
Pitts S-2C 19.33 127.5 10.6 7.11 0.031
Model 12 21.645 150.8 12.152 10.26 0.038
Table 7.3.3: Calculation of vertical tail volume coefficient

Thus the average CVT is 0.034; this value is a fairly small numerical difference
from Raymer’s value of 0.04 but it will make quite a significant difference in
the result of the calculation as it is a coefficient.

64
The average CVT value can now be used to find the reference area of the
vertical tail using the average span and an MVT measured from the upper wing
quarter chord to the quarter chord of the vertical tail. Since an almost identical
set of calculations has already been performed above, only a results table will
be shown:

CVT B [ft] S [ft2] MVT [ft] SVT [ft2]

0.034 20.6215 133.326 10.00 9.348
10.25 9.120
10.50 8.903
10.75 8.696
11.00 8.498
11.25 8.309
11.50 8.129
11.75 7.956
12.00 7.790
nd
Table 7.3.4: 2 Derivation of vertical tail area from moment arm estimates

As can be seen, the tail arm does have quite a significant effect on the
required vertical tail reference area. The C1 is a larger aircraft than the Eagle
and S-2C and smaller than the Model 12, so an SVT value between that of the
other aircraft seems reasonable. Thus the chosen values are:

MVT = 11ft [3.35m]

SVT = 8.498ft2 [0.789m2]

65
7.4 Rudder Sizing

As with the ailerons, the rudder will be sized with the high value from Darrol
Stinton’s vertical tail to rudder ratio range since the C1 is an aerobatic aircraft:

SR = RR × SVT

SR = 0.6 × 8.498 = 5.099ft2

7.5 The Vertical Tail Planform

The shape of the vertical tail and its arrangement in relation to the horizontal
tail determines the spin recovery characteristics of the aircraft, so it is
important to get the design right. The Author was unable to investigate the
established theory for good spin recovery due to time constraints, so instead
decided to study the shape of other aerobatic aircraft vertical tail planforms
and base the C1 planform on those.

Fig. 7.5.1: Example aerobatic aircraft vertical tail planforms [1]

From the diagram we can see the following features:

1) The horizontal tail is positioned approximately a third of the way up the

vertical tail. This is to prevent the horizontal tail placing the rudder in a
turbulent air stream where the rudder could not be used to escape
from a spin.

2) The vertical tail is highly tapered. This is to improve the roll rate – a
wide tip chord would create roll resistance.

3) The rudder has a ‘point’ on the trailing edge (at the end nearest the tail
wheel). This is to enable spin recovery during inverted flight, in the
same way as point one. The difference is that obviously there cannot
be a long fin protruding downwards as the floor gets in the way on the
ground; so the chord is broadened.

66
With these points in mind, the vertical tail planform was designed as shown
below:

Fig. 7.5.2: CATIA image of 2D vertical tail planform sketch

Vertical Tail Data:

hVT = 2.764ft [0.842m]

c’ = 3.079ft [0.938m]
AVT = 0.899
SVT = 8.498ft2 [0.789m2]
cR = 4.466ft [1.361m]
cT = 1.691ft [[0.515m]
λ = 0.379
MAC = 3.287ft [1.002m]
ΛVT = 19.87o

7.6 Horizontal Tail Sizing

To size the horizontal tail the Author began, as before, by using the standard
formula with the equivalent monoplane chord, and the horizontal tail volume
coefficient from Raymer’s homebuilt class:

SHT = (CHT × cE × S) ÷ MHT

The results are as follows:

MHT
CHT cE [ft] S [ft2] SHT [ft2]
[ft]
0.5 3.72 133.326 10.00 24.799
10.25 24.194
10.50 23.618
10.75 23.068
11.00 22.544
11.25 22.043
11.50 21.564
11.75 21.105
12.00 20.666
st
Table 7.6.1: 1 Derivation of horizontal tail area from moment arm estimates

67
This time however there was no data available for the horizontal tail areas of
the reference biplanes which meant that the only solution was to use the
printout method to determine these values. To validate the approximations,
the same pictures were used to find the areas of the wings, the results of
these calculations were then compared with the actual wing area data which
was available:

Christen Eagle Pitts S-

Aircraft Model 12
II 2C
S actual [ft2] 125 127.5 150.8
S estimate [ft2] 121.91 129.22 154.31
% difference - 2.47 + 1.33 + 2.27
SHT [ft2] 16.878 16.548 19.572
Table 7.6.2: Calculation of horizontal tail areas of reference aircraft

It can be seen that the approximation is valid due to the low percentage
differences. However we can also see that, once again, the tail areas are
significantly lower than those calculated with the equivalent monoplane
method. Whilst it would be invalid to use two different methods to size what is
essentially the same thing in a different geometric plane; it is still important to
show that such a decision is necessary. SHT for the C1 was then calculated in
a similar manner to before by finding the CHT from the rearranged formula:

SHT = (CHT × c × S) ÷ MHT

CHT = [(SHT × MHT) ÷ (c × S)]

The data derived from the three view diagrams was then used in the
rearranged formula to find the CHT values from which an average can be
found:

Aircraft c [ft] S [ft2] MHT [ft] SHT [ft2] CHT

Christen Eagle II 3.2 125 10.68 16.878 0.451
Pitts S-2C 3.188 127.5 10.29 16.548 0.419
Model 12 3.427 150.8 11.797 19.572 0.447
Table 7.6.3: Calculation of horizontal tail volume coefficient

68
Thus the average CHT value is 0.439 which is, again, a significant difference
from Raymer’s quoted value of 0.5; the differences in the resulting SHT will
probably be equally significant:

MHT
CHT c [ft] S [ft2] SHT [ft2]
[ft]
0.439 3.189 133.326 10.00 18.665
10.25 18.210
10.50 17.776
10.75 17.363
11.00 16.968
11.25 16.591
11.50 16.231
11.75 15.885
12.00 15.554
nd
Table 7.6.4: 2 Derivation of horizontal tail area from moment arm estimates

Again, it would be best to pick values that will produce horizontal tail surfaces
bigger than the Eagle or S-2C but smaller then the Model 12. Therefore the
following values have been chosen:

MHT = 10.75ft [3.277m]

SHT = 17.363ft2 [1.613m2]

7.7 Elevators Sizing

As with the ailerons and rudder, the elevator will be sized with the high value
from Stinton’s horizontal tail to elevator ratio range, since the C1 is an
aerobatic aircraft:

SE = RE × SHT

SR = 0.55 × 17.363 = 9.55ft2 [0.887m2]

This is the total elevator area, so each elevator has an area of:

9.55 ÷ 2 = 4.775ft2 [0.444m2]

7.8 The Horizontal Tail Planform

The horizontal planform has no specific conditions, but again the Author felt
that an overview of current aerobatic designs could be useful:

69
 Fig. 7.8.1: Example aerobatic aircraft horizontal tail planforms [1]

From the diagram we can see the following features:

1) The trailing edge of the horizontal tail has an inverted ‘V’ shape at the
midpoint. This is to allow the rudder to be operated as the vertical tail
protrudes both below and above the level of the horizontal tail.

2) As with the vertical tail, the planform is tapered; this is to reduce

resistance to roll.

Interestingly, two of the designs have smaller spans with longer chords and
the other two are the opposite. Whilst neither pair is an extreme example of
their style, this does indicate that there is no consensus opinion. So the choice
appears to be whether to increase the roll rate by having a long span / short
chord tail or a short span / long chord tail.

The decision is actually made because of a surprising factor: Road

transportation. Since that the wings are removable, the widest point on the
aircraft becomes the horizontal tail. To further improve the benefits of having
removable wings, it is clear that a short span broad chord tail is the right
choice. If the wings were not removable, of course, this could not be argued.

It should be noted that, since the calculated horizontal tail area is a reference
area, the following planform lacks an inverted ‘V’ on the trailing edge:

70
 Fig. 7.8.2: CATIA image of 2D horizontal tail planform sketch

Horizontal Tail Data:

bHT = 6.667ft [2.032m]

c’ = 2.604ft [0.794m]
AHT = 2.56
SHT = 17.363ft2 [1.613m2]
cR = 3.72ft [1.134m]
cT = 1.488ft [0.454m]
λ = 0.4
MAC = 2.764ft [0.843m]
ΛHT = 12.15o

7.9 Tail Aerofoil Sections

Both the horizontal and vertical tails must have a symmetrical section. This is
because both surfaces have to produce lift in both directions: The horizontal
tail must generate positive lift to produce a nose down pitching moment and
negative lift to produce a nose up pitching moment. The vertical tail must
generate lift in both directions to produce both port and starboard yawing
moments.

As has been discussed above, an aerobatic aircraft must have good inverted
flying qualities so (unusually) the horizontal tail is not set at an incidence angle
for cruise. Since the aircraft is not designed for good cruise characteristics this
is not a problem.

71
7.10 Tail Section Data

A NACA 0009 section was chosen; this is a standard section for tail
applications and can be found on many aircraft. The data for this section is
shown below:

Tc Lift Slope [a∞/degree] α0 [degrees] CM0 h0 [% chord]

0.09 0.108 0 0 0.25
Table 7.10.1: NACA 0009 aerofoil data

7.11 Tail Arrangement

To provide sufficient area for spin recovery, the horizontal tail will be attached
at the point where the vertical tail attaches to the fuselage, giving good areas
both above and below the level of the horizontal tail:

Fig. 7.11.1: CATIA images of 3D tail model

72
8. Fuselage Design

8.1 Introduction

The fuselage of an aircraft of this type is essentially just a large wing section.
When an aerobatic aircraft performs a knife edge manoeuvre (where the
aircraft flies with its wings perpendicular to the ground) the required lift must
be generated by the fuselage.

8.2 Fuselage Planform Shape

Now that there is a known distance between the wing and the tail, the
planform shape of the fuselage can be drawn to give a blunt aerofoil shape to
provide good knife edge characteristics. The distance the fuselage protrudes
ahead of the fuselage was based on the planforms of the following biplane
designs:

Fig. 8.2.1: Example aerobatic biplane planforms [1]

8.3 Fuselage Profile Shape

To draw the side elevation, reference was again made to the previously
referenced diagrams:

Fig. 8.3.1: Example aerobatic fuselage profiles [1]

Note: It might seem strange that biplane planforms and monoplane profiles
are used as reference. This is because, due to the position of a biplane wing,
the fuselage planform will look different, whereas a biplane profile is the same
as a monoplane but harder to distinguish when viewed from the side, as a
result of the wing struts.

73
From the diagrams we can see the following features:

1) All the ‘bottom’ lines of the fuselages slope upwards towards the tail.
This is because these aircraft are tail wheel landing gear aircraft so this
line is angled to be parallel to the ground when the aircraft is in its
ground attitude.

2) The three aircraft powered by ‘in-line’ engines have ‘flat’ areas above
and behind the nose and a more highly sculpted profile below the nose.
This is to improve visibility and ventral cooling air exhaust channel
respectively. The in-line engines also have more volume below the
spinner line (that is the horizontal line running longitudinally from the tip
of the spinner) and this means the fuselages are sculpted around them.

3) The radial engined Sukhoi has a much blunter shape, since there is an
equal amount of engine volume above and below the spinner line.

4) Three of the designs have the canopy over the cockpit blend into the
rear fuselage. This serves two purposes: Firstly, it gives a more
streamlined look, which may or may not be aerodynamically effective,
but is certainly more aesthetically appealing. Secondly, it is easier to
arrange the emergency canopy discarding mechanism using this
canopy design. Most canopies have two different opening mechanisms.
The first is a black handle that unlocks the canopy and enables the pilot
to push it up and open; this is the normal system. There is also a
second red handle that, when pulled backwards parallel to the canopy
edge, quickly slides the canopy rearwards, where it falls off.

At this stage of the design the Author was unsure which engine or indeed
what type of engine would be installed in the C1, however a radial engine was
not being considered since not many are made and the best models have
become very difficult to source, since the demise of the Soviet Union. As a
result the fuselage would have a flattened nose.

The design of the aircraft features tail wheel landing gear, so the rear fuselage
would slope upwards at the rear. The Author also felt that having the canopy
blend into the rear fuselage was a good choice.

74
8.4 Three Dimensional Fuselage

From the previous two sections the author was able to produce the following
top and side elevation sketches:

Fig. 8.4.1: C1 fuselage planform

Fig. 8.4.2: C1 fuselage profile

These profiles were then combined, to create this three dimensional fuselage:

Fig. 8.4.3: CATIA image of 3D fuselage model

75
8.5 Fuselage Structural Design

The fuselage features two distinct forms of structure and these will be
discussed in separate sections:

8.5.1 Tubular Aluminium Structure

Some unlimited aerobatic aircraft have a tubular steel structure, due to the
extreme loading that they are capable of achieving. Since the C1 biplane is
only designed to compete up to advanced level competitions, such an
extremely strong structure is not required.

A tubular aluminium structure was therefore chosen for the empennage and
forward fuselage. In this case, the empennage includes the two tail surfaces
and this is why there was no section for tail structural design. Tubular metal is
a very efficient material as it has a large second moment of area and thus
high stiffness for the amount of material present, which obviously gives a
lighter structure than solid bar for instance.

This metal structure is then covered with DACRON™, the fabric discussed in
section 3.9.

8.5.2 Composite Structure

The section of fuselage containing the cockpit is made from carbon fibre
composites. This is to provide a ‘racing car’ style crash cell. The basic idea is
that all the structure around the crash cell can be destroyed during a crash but
the pilots would be secured inside the crash cell which keeps them safe. This
concept is taken from Formula One motor racing:

During bad crashes where the car goes into a spin around its longitudinal axis,
there have been instances where only the section from the bulkhead just
behind the driver, to the bulkhead just ahead of the foot pedals is left intact;
the rest of the car has disintegrated.

These crash cells must also be able to withstand large side impacts; if a car
has spun and is broadside on then it is possible that another car could hit the
stationary car with the pointed carbon fibre nose cone.

This amazing capability is achieved through clever design. To build the cell,
first, several layers of carbon fibre are laid. Then an aluminium honeycomb is
bonded to it. This honeycomb provides much of the energy absorption during
a crash. This is because carbon fibre shatters when the loads become too
great, providing no protection. Further layers of carbon fibre are then bonded,
after the aluminium has been secured, to complete the structure. The cell is
completed in two halves which are subsequently bonded together. This makes
manufacture easier and means that fewer resources will be wasted in the
case of a fault. If the crash cell was made in only one part then a fault would
lead to the entire cell being thrown away, whereas two parts would halve the

76
wasted materials and energy as only one half would have to be scrapped in
the event of a fault.

Obviously the energy absorption provided by the aluminium honeycomb is not

sufficient for some of the more extreme crash cases. In Formula One the
problem was solved by the introduction of carbon fibre crush tubes. These are
tubes of wound carbon fibre with specially prepared ends:

Fig. 8.5.2: Section through a schematic of a carbon fibre crush tube.

As can be seen, the crush tube has one chamfered end. When pressure is
brought to bear on the tube, this end begins to crumble. As the pressure
continues, this crumbling continues down the length of the tube and, in this
manner, the crash energy is absorbed. There are many tubes spaced
throughout the aluminium honeycomb layer to produce wide energy
absorption coverage.

77
9. Powerplant

9.1 Introduction

It can be argued that the correct choice of power plant is half the success of
an aerobatic aircraft: It does not matter if you build a really efficient structure
or have the best aerodynamics – if the choice of powerplant is poor then the
design will not be successful.

9.2 Engine Requirements

As was established at the end of section 3.5 the power loading is as follows:

WTO/P0 = 5 lb/hp [3.04kg/kW]

Substituting the established TO weight the required power can be found:

P0 = 1470 ÷ 5 = 294hp [219kW]

Now it is highly unlikely that there is an engine that will produce 294hp
exactly, so a more likely figure must be used to narrow down the number of
engines. 300hp is a nice round figure, as there are many good 300hp engines.
It would also be preferable to increase the power rather than reduce it for
obvious reasons. Finally, from the data it can be seen that many aerobatic
aircraft are currently using 300hp engines or engines derived or tuned up from
300hp engines.

Changing the engine size to 300hp slightly changes the power loading:

WTO/P0 = 1470 ÷ 300 = 4.9lb/hp [3.02kg/kW]

9.3 Engine Options

The Author retrieved a large table of engine data from Jane’s website. The
plan was to simply eliminate as many engines as possible until there were few
enough engines to enable a more detailed comparison study.

As stated in section 8.3, the Author had already ruled out using a radial
engine like the VOKBM engines that power the Sukhoi 29 and 31T and which
are options on the Pitts Model 12. However, there are not many radial engines
available, so this still left an astonishing number of engines. At first the Author
simply narrowed these down into those engines that were of sufficient power;
ie 300hp or more and those that were not. This still left 42 different engines!

As a result the Author chose to restrict the power output to 300hp exactly,
simply to cut down on the number of engines. This produced a stripped down
list of (merely) 11 engines.

There were only three manufacturers on the list; Bombardier (Rotax) from
Canada (one engine), Teledyne Continental from the USA (six engines), and

78
Textron Lycoming also from the USA (four engines). The next step was to
narrow down the engines by weight; so the lightest engine from each
manufacturer was then compared. Obviously; there was no point in doing a
power to weight ratio analysis since they all produce the same amount of
power.

The Bombardier has 6 cylinders in a ‘V’ arrangement and this engine was the
heaviest, despite having the smallest capacity: The capacity was 2.74 times
smaller than the next smallest engine. A small capacity usually translates into
low fuel consumption which would be advantageous, since fuel prices
continue to increase. Smaller capacity also means that less space is needed
which might result in a reduction in structural weight and drag as the nose of
the aircraft could be made shorter and/or narrower.

On the other hand, in an aircraft where the total weight is estimated to be

1470lb, an engine that weighs 463lb could be too heavy. Possible reasons for
the high weight could be that the smaller capacity is due to an increased
compression ratio which requires heavier components or to the presence of a
liquid cooling system.

A liquid cooling system is, of course, a much more complicated system, which
would seem to indicate reduced cooling system reliability. In fact, because a
liquid cooling system is more effective than air cooling, it increases the life of
the other engine components. This means that despite the cooling system
being a source of (comparatively) low reliability, the engine as a whole has
much better reliability than a similar air cooled engine.

The Teledyne Continental has 6 horizontally opposed cylinders, which are air
cooled. It had the next lowest capacity at 8,500cc and weighed the least at
only 405.57lb.

The Textron Lycoming engine was almost exactly the same as the Continental
engine, except that it had a capacity of 8,860cc and weighed 449lb.

At this point it seems that the choice is a simple one; the lightest engine
should be chosen even though the Bombardier engine would probably be
more reliable due to the liquid cooling system. There seemed no point in
choosing the Lycoming engine.

9.4 Aerobatic Engines

It was only at this point, when the engine choice had almost been made, that
the Author noticed a slight flaw in the engine selection plan: There was a
reason why all the aircraft (not powered by radial engines) in the database
were powered by Lycomings. Textron Lycoming is the only manufacturer to
have certified aerobatic engines.

An aerobatic engine is one which has been certified for inverted running. It is
easy to forget that this is not a feature of every engine, since a powerplant
capable of running upside down is not something that is required in everyday

79
life. Cars, for instance, only require the engine to produce power when the car
is the correct way up!

After further research of Lycoming’s aerobatic engines it became apparent

that two features are needed for an engine that will run upside down for time
periods longer than just a few moments:

1) A fuel injection system. Carburettors do not provide the correct ratios of

fuel when an engine becomes inverted.

2) An invertible oil system. A standard oil system would not be able to

lubricate the engine properly during inverted flight as the oil would drain
away from the oil sump.

Of course, a fuel injection system is a fairly common feature of engines that

produce power in the region of 300hp. The invertible oil system, on the other
hand, is sufficiently unusual to be worthy of further investigation.

First it would be necessary to describe the two different types of oil systems
that are used to lubricate piston engines

9.4.1 Wet Sump Oil System

A wet sump is a system which uses an oil reservoir or sump built into the
engine itself.

To lubricate the engine, oil is pumped into the various engine bearings and
thereafter allowed to drain to the base of the engine. Here, the oil is collected
in a large pan at the base of the engine, known as the sump, where it is
pumped back up to the bearings by the oil pump, built into the engine. Due to
its size, the sump greatly increases the height of the engine and thus raises
the centre of gravity.

It is a very simple design; there is only one pump and the oil reservoir is an
integrated part of the engine. Since the sump is internal, there is no need for
hoses or pipes to connect the engine to an external oil reservoir, which limits
the chances of an oil leak. On the other hand, since the oil pump is built into
the engine, it can be much harder to remove it for maintenance.

9.4.2 Dry Sump Oil System

A dry sump is a system which uses an external oil reservoir which is separate
from the main engine.

As before, oil is pumped into the bearings to lubricate the engine and allowed
to drain to the base of the engine. However, in a dry sump, rather than the oil
being collected by the sump; it is pumped into an external oil reservoir by one
or more scavenger pumps. These pumps are powered by belts from the front
or back of the crankshaft. To complete this lubrication cycle, the oil is then
pumped from this external reservoir back to the bearings of the engine.

80
A dry sump gives many advantages over a wet sump: The lack of a sump pan
means that the engine is not as high, which lowers the centre of gravity in a
car, or reduces the frontal area (and thus the drag) of an aircraft. As the
external reservoir is not positioned below the engine it can be much larger;
which means that the oil will be a lot cooler, reducing the heat load of the
engine. Finally, because the oil pumps are outside the main engine, they are
much easier to remove for cleaning or maintenance.

9.4.3 Aerobatic Invertible Oil System

Now we can look at the invertible oil system in a Lycoming engine. It turns out
that it is, in fact, a strange hybrid of both these systems:

The engine actually has two small, wet sump style, oil pans, one below the
engine, and another pan above the engine which is upside down. This is so
that, when the engine is upside down, the oil simply drains into the oil sump
above the engine in exactly the same way as the normal oil pan.

However the difference is that the oil is pumped out of these small pans into
an external oil reservoir on the engine centre line. From here the oil is pumped
‘up’ (whichever direction that happens to be at the time) to the ‘top’ of the
engine to drain down to the waiting sump pans.

9.4.4 Alternative Systems

All this seems to indicate that there is no option but to pick the Lycoming
engine. There are however, some alternatives. Radial engines are the other
type of powerplant currently in use by aerobatic aircraft.

Radial engines do not have a complicated inverted oil system. This is due to
the fact that the engine does not have a top or bottom as far as the cylinders
are concerned since they are arranged symmetrically around the drive shaft.
This means that the oil and fuel systems are automatically suitable for
aerobatics simply as a result of the cylinder layout.

However the Author has also mentioned previously that due to supply
problems radial engines were not to be considered for the C1 biplane. So
what is the alternative? Is there one? After some further research another
engine concept was found that also does not have a top or bottom and
therefore would be suitable for aerobatic aircraft for exactly the same reason
as the radial engines: A Wankel Rotary Engine.

9.5 Wankel Rotary Engines – Design and Theory

9.5.1 History of the Wankel

The concept of the Wankel engine cycle was invented in the 1924 by Felix
Wankel; a largely self taught engineer. During the 1930s however Wankel was
out of favour with Hitler and the Nazi party and, as a result, he was unable to

81
make any further progress. During WWII Wankel designed seals and rotary
valves for torpedoes. After the war he was then imprisoned again, this time by
the allies. His work was confiscated and his laboratory shut down. It was not
until the early 1951 that he started working on his engine again – this time
with help form the German car and motorcycle manufacturer NSU (an
automotive manufacture that was amalgamated into what is now the
Volkswagen group some years ago). In 1954 the first engine prototype was
developed and in 1957 NSU produced the first Wankel powered car.
Unfortunately this car and its Wankel powered successors had little success
due to the engine’s poor reliability. Soon after, nearly all NSU Wankel engined
production ceased.

Despite this inauspicious start Mazda was extremely interested in the concept
– in the early 1960s they started working with the design and in 1967 began
production of a Wankel engined car – since then Mazda have always had at
least one rotary engined car in production. The latest of course being the RX-
8, an award winning coupé, powered by their latest generation engine the
RENESIS™ engine.

9.5.2 The Wankel Cycle

The manner in which a Wankel engine operates is very different to that of a

standard piston engine and therefore it is constructed from some unusual
parts:

 = Fuel & Air Injection Inlet

 = Housing
 = Rotor
 = Offset Lobe
 = Eccentric Shaft
 = Spark Plugs
 = Exhaust Outlet

Fig. 9.5.2.1: Schematic diagram of a Wankel rotary engine

The rotary cycle is shown below; starting with the injection of fuel and air and
progressing through each stage to the exhaust phase:

82
 Fig. 9.5.2.2: The four stages of the Wankel rotary engine cycle

The rotor [the blue bit] is the equivalent of a ‘normal’ engine’s piston as the
rotor compresses the fuel and is pushed round by the expanding exhaust to
generate the power.

The offset lobe [the green bit] is analogous to the cranked part of a crankshaft.
Actually, it is not a separate piece, but an integral part of the eccentric shaft.

The eccentric shaft [the red bit] is a combination (of sorts) of a crankshaft and
a drive shaft.

In the diagrams above only one rotor can be seen, however, just as there are
multi-cylinder piston engines; there are also multi-rotor engines. With piston
engines the number of cylinders is usually an even number to balance the
engine. The exception is radial piston engines where there are always an odd
number of cylinders to ensure that only one cylinder has a power stroke at any
one time. Multi-rotor engines, on the other hand, can have any number of
rotors. This means that if a single rotor engine produces 50hp, for instance,
then to generate 100hp only one more rotor is needed.

83
In the Wankel engine cycle, the normal four strokes of a piston engine occur
in the gap between the rotor and the inside of the housing. The eccentric shaft
passes through the centre of the rotor and is supported by bearings. The rotor
both rotates around the offset lobe on the eccentric shaft, and makes orbital
revolutions around the shaft. At each point of the rotor there is a seal that
divides the housing making a total of three moving combustion chambers.

As the rotor rotates and orbitally revolves, each side of the rotor alternately
gets closer and farther from the wall of the housing, compressing and
expanding the combustion chamber which is similar to the strokes of a piston
in a reciprocating engine.

While a four-stroke piston engine makes one combustion stroke for every two
rotations of the crankshaft, each combustion chamber in the Wankel
generates one combustion stroke every time the eccentric shaft rotates. Or, in
other words, one complete rotation of the rotor gives three rotations of the
eccentric shaft.

9.5.3 Advantages over Reciprocating Piston Engines

This greater rotation means that the power output of a Wankel engine is
higher than that of a four stroke piston engine of similar volume, all other
factors being equal. This also means, of course, that the same power as the
four stroke piston engine can be generated by a Wankel engine of smaller
volume. This makes the Wankel engine especially suitable for aircraft since
the engine can have a smaller frontal area than a piston engine of equivalent
power.

Also, Wankel engines generally have a much higher maximum rpm value than
a reciprocating engine of similar size since the power is produced through a
rotary motion instead of through the use of connecting rods and a crankshaft
to convert reciprocating motion into rotary motion. This is very important as
the true measure of an engine is not just its maximum power output but its
maximum rpm. This is because an engine that can spin very much faster than
another can be geared to produce far more torque even though it might be of
only half the power.

Wankel engines are considerably less complex and contain far fewer moving
parts than traditional piston engines. For example, since intake and exhaust
operations are accomplished by simple ports cut into the walls of the rotor
housing, they have no valves or complex valve timing mechanisms.

In addition, since the rotor is geared directly to the eccentric shaft, there is no
need for connecting rods, a conventional crankshaft or crankshaft balance
weights. The elimination of these parts not only makes a Wankel engine much
lighter, but it also completely eliminates the huge reciprocating masses of a
piston engine. This means that power in delivered much more smoothly;
which in turn allows the engine to run at the higher rpm values mentioned
above.

84
The following photo illustrates this well: On the left; just some of the moving
parts in a traditional piston engine including the crank and cam shafts. On the
right; the moving parts in a Wankel engine – the eccentric shaft and the rotor:

Fig. 9.5.3.1: Comparison of moving parts in a piston engine and a rotary engine

In addition to the enhanced reliability derived from the elimination of this

reciprocating strain on engine components, the Wankel engine is constructed
with an iron rotor within a housing made of aluminium. Since aluminium has a
greater coefficient of thermal expansion than iron; even a severely overheated
Wankel engine cannot seize like a piston engine would. This is a substantial
safety benefit because no valves can burn out.

9.5.4 Disadvantages of Wankel Engines

All this sounds marvellous of course but there are some disadvantages with
the Wankel design – as with most things.

Firstly, the fuel consumption tends to be higher, in recent times great strides
have been made and the consumption of the Mistral G-300 will be shown, in a
later section, to be at least comparable to competing piston engines. But all
things being equal a rotary still has slightly worse fuel consumption.

In the past, the single biggest problem with the Wankel rotary engine was how
to produce an effective tip seal. This is of course analogous to a piston ring.
The problem is that the tip had to be able to easily slide around the casing and
simultaneously seal the chamber. Piston ring alloys were unfortunately not
suitable since they were not durable enough and this led to big reliability
problems. However, recent ceramic advances now mean that both the inside

85
of the housing and the rotor tips can be covered with a non-wearing ceramic
material. The only drawback now being the expense of these materials

The final problem is a cooling problem. In a piston engine all four strokes take
place in the same cylinder so that the very cold temperatures produced by
injected fuel evaporating and the very high temperatures produced by ignition
average themselves out. If reference is made to the Wankel cycle diagram
above, it becomes clear that the cold injection area and the hot ignition area
are on opposite sides of the engine. The engine has a cold side and a hot
side. This produces great stress in the housing; which is understandable when
you consider that the cool side approaches 0oC and the hot side 2000oC. To
get around this a liquid cooling system must be used. Generally these are
arranged so that the liquid takes heat from the hot side and then transfers it to
the cold side before going to a heat sink.

As previously mentioned, whilst liquid cooling systems have lower reliability

than air cooling systems, they give greater engine reliability as a whole. This
means that modern Wankel engines are not just more reliable due to the
elimination reciprocating motion; but also the fact that a liquid cooling system
is necessary means the extra reliability of this method of cooling comes ‘as
standard’.

9.6 Mistral Engines G-300-C2B

The undeniable masters of the Wankel rotary engine; Mazda, do not currently
make an aviation version of their proven designs, however another company
has been granted the right to work with their technology to do so:

Mistral Engines of Switzerland applied for certification of the G-300-C2B

engine on March 20th 2007. This 3 rotor naturally aspirated Wankel is the
lead engine, the other three engines produced by the company: A standard 2
rotor, a turbocharged 2 rotor and a turbocharged 3 rotor will be certified next.
The company has already been supplying their 2 rotor engines to
homebuilders in the United States who fly under the experimental category.

The G-300 engine is based on the Mazda 13B Wankel rotary engine that
successfully powered the first ever rotary engined Le Mans 24 hour race
winner in 1991. It is interesting to note that the rotary engine that powered
Mazda to victory was so much better than its reciprocating rivals that the
design was banned. It strikes the Author that this makes it look as though the
engine was felt to be so much more reliable that the opposition, that it was
deemed to be ‘cheating’. Thus the first ever Le Mans winning car powered by
a Wankel engine was also the last.

The aviation certification system does not allow constant updates to certified
designs – in the automotive industry a manufacturer can improve any part of
the design that they wish; at any time. However a change in any aspect of a
vehicle’s design could result in any number of unforeseen side effects that do
not appear during routine testing. In a car, if something goes wrong, you can
simply pull over to the side of the road. In an aeroplane this is not possible

86
and this is why the certification system doesn’t allow constant updates. This is
why Mistral does not source any of their parts from Mazda. If Mazda were to
change a part that was part of the Mistral design then the certification would
become invalid. This does have an upside however: Since Mistral produce the
engine entirely in house they will have a much better idea of the issues
surrounding Wankel engine design.

9.6.1 G-300-C2B Specification

The G-300-C2B engine is a three rotor Wankel engine with the following
specification:

Engine Type Naturally Aspirated Rotary

Number of Rotors 3
Displacement 1,962cc (654cc per rotor)
Cooling:
Coolant 50/50 – water/ethylene glycol mix
Coolant Heat Load 87kW [297kBTU/hr]
Oil Heat Load 39kW [135kBTU/hr]
Engine Management Supervised dual-channel digital
TBO 3,000 hours
Multiple redundant electronic indirect injection, twin
Fuel Injection
electric fuel pumps
100LL Avgas
Recommended fuels:
Unleaded auto gasoline (RON 91+)
Prop Speed Reduction 6-pinion planetary gears – ratio 2.8235:1
Unit Hydraulic CS propeller governor drive
Tractor configuration: clockwise
Propeller Rotation
Pusher configuration: anti-clockwise
Take-off power 300 HP SAE @ 2,200 propeller rpm
Max. continuous power 300 HP SAE @ 2,100 propeller rpm
75% cruise power 225 HP SAE @ 2,000 propeller rpm
Weight 159 kg / 375 lbs
Main alternator Bosch 14V or 28V 70 Amp
Table 9.6.1.1: Mistral G-300-C2B rotary engine specification

87
9.6.2 To Turbo-charge or Not to Turbo-charge?

Possibly the first thing that stands out about this engine, is the fact that it is
not turbocharged. This was a deliberate design choice for two important
reasons:

1) The design aims were to have ease of maintenance and good

reliability; turbo charging went against this aim by adding significant
complexity and a requirement for increased technical knowledge in
terms of maintenance.

2) With a operating ceiling of 10,000 ft – an altitude which, in practise,

would never be required due to the nature of the target market – there
was no need to have a turbo charger to cope with the less dense air
found at altitude. If a pilot should take it into his head to see how high
he could go then there would obviously be a drop in available power.
However; in terms of likely use of the aircraft there is no need for good
performance at altitude since aerobatic flights would never go above
about 5,000ft.

9.6.3 Engine Weight Comparison

The following table shows how much smaller and lighter the G-300 is, when
compared to the only two Lycoming aerobatic engines powerful enough to
achieve the required power loading of the C1:

Cylinder capacity Dry weight

Manufacturer Designation Max power [hp]
[cc] [lb]
Textron Lycoming AEIO-540-L 8,860 449 300
Textron Lycoming AEIO-580-L 9,554 449 320
Mistral Engines G-300-C1B 1,962 375 300
Table: 9.6.3.1 Powerplant weight and volume comparison

As can be seen the Mistral engine is easily the lightest and occupies the least
volume.

9.6.4 TBO Comparison

To show how much more durable the G-300 is, when compared to the other
three engines; the following table shows the TBO quoted by the manufacturer:

Manufacturer Designation TBO

Textron Lycoming AEIO-540-L 1400
Textron Lycoming AEIO-580-L 1400
Mistral Engines G-300-C1B 3000
Table 9.6.4.1: Powerplant TBO comparison

The Mistral engine is by far the most durable engine with a TBO more than
twice that of the Lycoming engines.

88
9.6.5 Multiple Fuels Capability

One of the innovations that the G-300 features is an ability to run on different
fuels; as can be seen in the specification. However, the really clever thing is
that any of the three basic fuel types can be mixed together in any proportion
and the digitally controlled injection system will simply adjust the intake
parameters. In other words it doesn’t matter which fuel the pilot fills the tank
with – the computer detects the quality of the fuel through exhaust sensors
that track the emissions from the engine and then changes the fuel air mix to
get the best performance from the fuel available.

The computer mentioned above is actually two dedicated modules

programmed in different programming languages by two different teams
working separately. The two modules monitor themselves and check one
another for errors. In the unlikely event of a failure of one of the modules; the
remaining module takes sole control of the injection system.

A further benefit of this system is a ‘future proofing’ capability: If in the future

fuel sources change, then a simple software update containing data for the
new fuel(s) would enable the injection system to calculate the optimum ratios
for the new fuel – air mixture.

Whilst Lycoming do supply a similar system for their aerobatic engines; it is

still in the early stages of development, it does not have the same level of
flexibility and it is not included in the basic engine price.

9.6.6 G-300 Derived Data

Unfortunately the data concerning fuel consumption and purchase price of the
Mistral G-300 engine was not available. As a result this data has been
calculated from figures available for the G-190 engine, which is the 2 rotor
naturally aspirated engine supplied by Mistral. The relevant data for the G-190
is shown below:

The G-190 naturally aspirated, 2 rotor engine running on standard US

unleaded motor gasoline; research octane number 91, produces the following
results:

For best Economy:

C = 0.46 lb/hr/hp at 150hp (or 79% of maximum power)

For Cruise:

C = 0.47 lb/hr/hp at 75% of maximum power (or 142.5hp)

The G-190 has a purchase price of US$31,500

These values can then be used to derive the rough figures for the G-300 using
the following principle:

89
Earlier it was shown that to double the power of a single rotor engine; simply
add another rotor. This means that if the data for the G-190 were to be divided
by 2 then the figure per rotor would be found. These could then be multiplied
by 3 to find the same values for the G-300 3 rotor engine:

C = 0.46 lb/hr/hp ÷ 2 = 0.23 lb/hr/hp per rotor

0.23 × 3 = 0.69 lb/hr/lb for best economy at 79% of maximum power (or
237hp)

0.47 lb/hr/hp ÷ 2 = 0.235 lb/hr/hp per rotor

0.235 × 3 = 0.705 lb/hr/hp at 75% of maximum power (or 225hp)

These values are, of course, only the roughest of approximations, but since
(as shown below) the maximum power produced by the Mistral engine seems
to increase by slightly more than just another rotor’s worth – it could be
argued that the true values might be slightly better than those calculated here.

Adding another rotor adds more than one rotor’s worth:

The G-190 is a two rotor, 291lb engine that develops a maximum of 190hp:

190hp ÷ 2 = 95hp per rotor

The G-300 is a three rotor, 375lb engine; that produces a maximum of 300hp:

300hp ÷ 3 = 100hp per rotor

Since each rotor is identical this seems to prove that adding more rotors adds
more than just the explicit power of that rotor.

It can be argued that whilst fuel economy can be directly linked to the number
of rotors, purchase price cannot. Therefore, alternative calculations based on
the cost per lb and cost per hp have also been included to calculate a range of
price estimates:

Value Number of Rotors Horsepower Weight

US$ per value 15750 165.789 108.247
Price Estimate [US$] 47,250 49,737 40,593
Table 9.6.6.1: Powerplant purchase price estimates

As none of these methods could be thought of as conclusive; a good rounded

up value for the price would seem to be US$50,000.

90
9.6.7 Purchase Price Comparison

The following table details the manufacturer’s quote (where available) of a

brand new baseline engine with no optional extras:

Manufacturer Designation Price [US$]

Textron Lycoming AEIO-540-L 57,500
Textron Lycoming AEIO-580-L 63,300
Mistral G-300-C1B 50,000
Table 9.6.7.1: Powerplant purchase price comparison

In theory a Wankel engine should cost less to manufacture than a

reciprocating piston engine of similar size; due to the fact that there are far
fewer parts to be made and assembled. However, practise has shown that the
more advanced materials used for tip seals and other components drives the
cost of production up. Since a rotary engine is an unknown quantity to many
aircraft owners and, because Mistral Engines, as a company, is also less well
known; it is likely that far fewer numbers of the G-300 will be sold than a new
piston engine design. Lower output results in increased cost of production per
engine as the fixed costs are the same no matter how many engines are
produced. These factors cast doubt onto the veracity of the estimated price for
the Mistral engine.

In the long term however the Mistral is quite likely to be much cheaper overall
due to having a TBO of more than double that of the Lycoming engines.

9.6.8 Mistral G-300 Geometry Modelling

Once the G-300 was fixed as the chosen powerplant, it was important to see if
the engine would fit into the fuselage; as drawn, or whether an expansion of
the faired area would be needed.

To do this, the Author studied some basic technical drawings available from
the Mistral Engines website to come up with the basic dimensions of the
engine. It was decided that it was important to draw the shape of the engine
as accurately as possible in the time available. This was because; if a cuboid,
based on the maximum dimensions in each direction, was drawn; then it might
appear that the engine didn’t fit in the forward fuselage when in fact it would
do. As a large amount of work had already been done to find a good engine in
the first place; the Author wanted to avoid errors caused by precipitate
actions.

The following are two of the diagrams used to construct the CATIA model.
These images clearly show the heat sink, below the main engine, which is
designed to have air flowing along the strakes which are positioned in the
direction of flight for efficient heat transfer:

91
Fig. 9.6.8.1: Side view of Mistral G-300 used to produce CATIA approximation

Fig. 9.6.8.2: Front view of Mistral G-300 used to produce CATIA approximation

92
 Fig. 9.6.8.3: Four-view CATIA image of author’s G-300 model

This 4-view picture shows all the protuberances of the CATIA model as well
as a simplified model of the main mass of the engine.

Fig. 9.6.8.4: CATIA image showing how the G-300 model fits within the fuselage

In the image showing how the Mistral engine would be positioned in the
forward fuselage, you can clearly see the nose of the C1 is in fact too deep for
the Mistral engine – in a further iteration of the fuselage model the forward
fuselage would be more strongly streamlined to take advantage of this. Also
noticeable is how very good the positioning of the heat sink is in relation to a
good site for a cooling air intake; just below the spinner.

93
9.7 Propeller Selection

The chosen propeller for the C1 aerobatic biplane is a Hartzell HC-C3YR-1A.

This is a composite, three bladed, constant-speed propeller; specifically
designed for aerobatics. It has a diameter of 6.5ft and, as it was designed for
the AEIO-540 Lycoming which produces 300hp, it will be a good match.

94
10. Fuel Tank Sizing

The fuel tank is sized to hold the weight of fuel determined during the fuel
fraction weight estimation; that is 150 lb of fuel. Due to the fact that the wings
are made from fabric covered ribs, the fuel cannot be stored in them. As a
result there is a discrete tank between the engine firewall and the cockpit
bulkhead. The tank is positioned here, rather than behind the cockpit where
there is more space, for two reasons:

1) This position means that the change in CG position due to fuel

consumption is greatly reduced.

2) In the event of a crash the tank cannot be ripped from its mountings
and collide with the rear of the cockpit.

Due to the nature of the engine it is possible to run it with different types of
fuel. This means that the volume of the tank will be dependant on whichever
fuel takes up the greatest volume for the given weight of 150lb.

To calculate this volume the following formula is used:

FV = W F ÷ ρF

The example calculation will be for avgas 100LL, the results for the other fuels
will be shown in a table following the calculation.

WF = 150lb = 68.039kg

ρF = 721.4kg/m3

FV = 68.039 ÷ 721.4 = 0.0943m3

Fuel Temperature [oC] Weight [kg] Density [kg/m3] Volume [m3]

avgas 100LL 15 68.039 721.4 0.0943
mogas 91 15 68.039 726.4 0.0937
mogas 95 15 68.039 731.4 0.0930
mogas 97 15 68.039 738.7 0.0921
mogas 99 15 68.039 741 0.0918
Table 10.1: Fuel tank volume estimation results

It is clear that the largest volume that will be necessary is the 0.0943m3
required to contain 150lb of avgas 100LL.

95
Since the tank is capable of holding more of some fuels than others it would
be well to discover how much a full tank of each fuel would weigh. This simply
requires the above formula to be slightly rearranged:

WF = FV × ρF

Fuel Temperature [oC] Volume [m3] Density [kg/m3] Weight [kg]

Avgas 100LL 15 0.0943 721.4 68.039
Mogas 91 15 0.0943 726.4 68.510
Mogas 95 15 0.0943 731.4 68.982
Mogas 97 15 0.0943 738.7 69.671
Mogas 99 15 0.0943 741 69.887
Table 10.2: Capacity fuel weight estimation results
The difference in fuel load of 1.848kg is negligible so only the standard 150lb
weight of fuel will be used in the CG analysis.

96
11. Component Weight Estimates

11.1 Introduction

The only remaining item to be designed is the landing gear. To find the correct
position for the gear, an estimate of the centre of gravity must be calculated.

This done by finding the weight of the various parts of the aircraft and then
using their distance from a datum position to find the moment that they
contribute to the total moments in each direction.

The various methods will also be used to find the TO weight; each method will
then be compared in terms of total weight.

WARNING: All the formulae input values are in imperial – except for the Howe
method, which uses SI input values.

Note: Stinton’s fuel weight estimate needs input values to be in imperial

gallons. Raymer’s method however uses US Gallons.

The ultimate factor, N is used in many of the formulae so the formula is

presented here:

N = maximum g limit × 1.5 = 7 × 1.5 = 10.5

11.2 Loughborough Method [6]

0.25
WWING = W/S + (0.0004×b + 0.001×c)N .
W TO 1 + (0.004×b + 0.001×c)N
Due to the fact that the C1 is a biplane the value of b and c will be the sum of
both spans and chords respectively:

0.25 . + (0.0004×41.234 + 0.001×6.378)10.5

WWING = 11.026 .
W TO 1 + (0.004×41.234 + 0.001×6.378)10.5

WWING = 0.023 + (0.016 + 0.006)10.5.

W TO 1+ (0.165 + 0.006)10.5

WWING = 0.023 + (0.0229)10.5

W TO 1+ (0.171)10.5

WWING = 0.023 + 0.24

W TO 1+ 1.799

WWING = 0.263 + 0.094

W TO 2.799

97
WWING = 1470 × 0.094 = 138.18lb

WFUSE = 8 to 10% W TO = 1470 × 0.09 = 132.3lb

WHTAIL = 1.5% W TO = 1470 × 0.015 = 22.05lb

WVTAIL = 1% W TO = 1470 × 0.01 = 14.7lb

WLG = 4 to 6% WTO = 1470 × 0.05 = 73.5lb

WC&E = 6% W TO = 88.2lb

WTOTAL = 138.18 + 132.3 + 22.05 + 14.7 + 73.5 + 88.2 = 468lb

This value must, of course, have the engine weight, fuel weight and the pilots
and baggage added to it, to give the TO weight estimate for this method:

468 + 375 + 150 + 380 = 1373.93lb

11.3 Stinton Method [5]

WWING = W TO × f1 × f2 × N × [(2.5b + 120) ÷ 10,000]

f1 is a weight factor based on the value of the ultimate factor. Stinton quotes
the following values:
Ultimate Factor f1
10 0.61
11 0.56
Table 11.3.1: Stinton f1 values

To interpolate these values for an ultimate factor of 10.5:

Find the difference in f1: 0.61 – 0.56 = 0.05

Divide by the difference in ultimate factor: 0.05 ÷ 1 = 0.05

Multiply by the increment of ultimate factor: 0.5 × 0.05 = 0.025

Add the f1 increment to the original f1 value 0.56 + 0.025 = 0.585

f2 is a wing design factor of 0.77 derived from figure 14.2 on page 515. It is
based on the design of the wing – the C1 is a biplane so the value used for b
in this formula will be the longer upper wing:

WWING = 1470 × 0.585 × 0.77 × 10.5 × [(2.5×21.259 + 120) ÷ 10,000]

WWING = 6952.696 × [(53.148 + 120) ÷ 10,000]

WWING = 6952.696 × [(173.148) ÷ 10,000]

98
WWING = 6952.696 × [0.017]

WWING = 120.38lb

WFUSE = WTO × [f3 × (WFUSE/SFUSE) × (SFUSE ÷ WTO)]

f3 is a design factor derived from table 14-9 on page 516. It is based on the
structural design of the fuselage. The C1 is a non-pressurised fuselage (a
pressurised fuselage gives a factor of 1.08) with fixed gear which gives a
factor of 0.96 due to the fact that there is no gear bay that requires structural
reinforcement. The tube and fabric structure gives a factor of 1.675 but the
composite crash cell gives a further factor of 0.9. These components give the
following factor:

f3 = 0.96 × 1.675 × 0.9 = 1.447

(W FUSE/SFUSE) is a fuselage weight to fuselage wetted area ratio taken from

table 14-8 on page 516: (W FUSE/SFUSE) = 1.27lb/ft2

The value of SFUSE used in the formula was found to be 101.622ft2 using the
CATIA model of the fuselage.

WFUSE = 1470 × [1.447 × (1.27) × (101.622 ÷ 1470)]

WFUSE = 1470 × [1.838 × (0.069)]

WFUSE = 1470 × [0.127]

WFUSE = 186.75lb

WCANOPY = f4 × SCANOPY

f4 is a weight to surface area ratio for glazing, again from table 14-8. This time
the value ranges from 1.5 to 2lb/ft2. The Author felt that the higher value
should be used since the canopy has complex curvature.

Again the CATIA model was used to find the wetted area of the canopy;
SCANOPY.

WCANOPY = 2 × 3.14 = 6.28lb

WTAIL = WTO × (f5 ÷ f2) × (STAIL ÷ S) × (WWING ÷ W TO)

f5 is another design factor derived from figure 14.2, this time however the
value is 1 since the tail is not braced like a biplane wing.

STAIL = SVT + SHT = 8.498 + 17.363 = 25.861ft2

WTAIL = 1470 × (1 ÷ 0.77) × (25.861 ÷ 133.326) × (120.38 ÷ 1470)

99
WTAIL = 1470 × (1.299) × (0.194) × (0.082)

WTAIL = 30.33lb

For the landing gear weight Stinton states a factor of 4.5% W TO (for
nosewheel gear only):

WLG = WTO × 0.045 = 1470 × 0.045 = 66.15lb

This value can be separated into the following components:

WMAING = 0.8 × W LG = 0.8 × 66.15 = 52.92lb

WTAILG = 0.2 × W LG = 0.2 × 66.15 = 13.23lb

WFTANK = 7 + (0.38 × TkVOL)

WFTANK = 7 + (0.38 × 20.746)

WFTANK = 7 + (7.88) = 14.88lb

WFACC = W TO × 0.05 × (Engine Weight ÷ WTO)

The fuel system accessory weight is basically the weight of all components
that aren’t the tank.

WFACC = 1470 × 0.05 × (375 ÷ 1470)

WFACC = 73.5 × (0.255) = 18.75lb

WSYSTEMS = W TO × f6

Stinton defines the systems as:

o Flying Controls
o Hydraulics
o Pneumatics
o Electrics
o De-Icing System

The C1 only has flying controls, electrics and a pitot tube de-icer. The value of
f6 ranges from 0.06 to 0.12; As the C1 has dual controls and four ailerons, the
value of f6 has been set as 0.065:

WSYSTEMS = 1470 × 0.065 = 95.55lb

WEQUIP = W TO × f7

Stinton defines the equipment as:

100
 o Navigation/Communication equipment
o Safety equipment
o Air conditioning
o Instruments

The C1 is a short range, stripped down aerobatic aircraft. The value of f7

ranges from 0.06 to 0.1; As the C1 has dual instruments the value of f7 has
been set as 0.062:

WEQUIP = 1470 × 0.062 = 91.14lb

WTOTAL = 120.38 + 186.75 + 6.28 + 30.33 + 14.88 + 18.75 + 95.55 + 91.14

WTOTAL = 564.06lb

Once again, this value must have the engine weight, fuel weight and the pilots
and baggage added to it, to give the TO weight estimate for this method:

564.06 + 375 + 150 + 380 = 1469.06lb

11.4 Raymer Method [4]

WWING = 0.036×S0.758×(A÷cos2Λ)0.6×q0.006×λ0.4×(100tc÷cosΛ)-0.3×(N×WTO)0.49

For Λ the average sweep will be used = 1.183o

For λ the average taper ratio will be used = 0.765

q at 8,000ft and 180mph = 65.098lb/ft2

WWING = 0.036 × 133.3260.758 × (6.379 ÷ cos21.183)0.6 × 65.0980.006 ×

0.7650.4 × (100×0.12 ÷ cos1.183)-0.3 × (10.5 × 1470)0.49

WWING = 0.036 × 40.802 × (6.379 ÷ 0.9996)0.6 × 1.025 ×

0.898 × (12 ÷ 0.9998)-0.3 × (15435)0.49

WWING = 1.469 × (6.382)0.6 × 0.921 × (12.002)-0.3 × 112.815

WWING = 152.633 × 3.041 × 0.474

WWING = 220.01lb

This total weight is then multiplied by Raymer’s biplane factor of 0.82:

WWING = 220.01 × 0.82 = 180.41lb

WHTAIL = 0.016 × (N×WTO)0.414 × q0.168 × SHT0.896 ×

101
 (100tc ÷ cosΛHT)-0.12 × (AHT ÷ cos2ΛHT)-0.12 × λHT-0.02

WHTAIL = 0.016 × (10.5×1470)0.414 × 65.0980.168 × 17.3630.896 ×

(100×0.09 ÷ cos12.15)-0.12 × (2.56 ÷ cos212.15)-0.12 ×0.4-0.02

WHTAIL = 0.016 × (15435)0.414 × 2.017 × 12.903 ×

(9 ÷ 0.978)-0.12 × (2.56 ÷ 0.956)-0.12 × 1.018

WHTAIL = 0.424 × 54.205 × (9.202)-0.12 × (2.678)-0.12

WHTAIL = 22.983 × 0.766 × 0.889

WHTAIL = 15.65lb

WVTAIL = 0.073 × (1 + 0.2rVT) × (N × W TO)0.376 × q0.122 × SVT0.873 ×

(100tc ÷ cosΛVT)-0.49 × (AVT ÷ cos2ΛVT)0.357 × λVT-0.02

rVT = 0.25

WVTAIL = 0.073 × (1 + 0.2×0.25) × (10.5 × 1470)0.376 × 65.0980.122 × 8.4980.873

×

(100×0.09 ÷ cos19.87)-0.49 × (0.899 ÷ cos219.87)0.357 × 0.379-0.02

WVTAIL = 0.073 × (1 + 0.05) × (15435)0.376 × 1.664 × 6.476 ×

(9 ÷ 0.94)-0.49 × (0.899 ÷ 0.884)0.357 × 1.02

WVTAIL = 0.802 × (1.05) × 37.573 × (9.574)-0.49 × (1.017)0.357

WVTAIL = 31.64 × 0.331 × 1.006

WVTAIL = 10.54lb

WFUSE = 0.052 × SFUSE1.086 × (N × W TO)0.177 × Tail Arm-0.051 × (FL÷FD)-0.072 ×

q0.241

Here the Tail Arm will be the average of the two values used to size the
vertical and horizontal tails:

(11 + 10.75) ÷ 2 = 21.75 ÷ 2 = 10.875

FL was found from the CATIA model to be 18.708ft

FD was found from the CATIA model to be 3.304ft

102
WFUSE = 0.052 × 101.6221.086 × (10.5 × 1470)0.177 × 10.875-0.051 ×

(18.708 ÷ 3.304)-0.072 × 65.0980.241

WFUSE = 0.052 × 151.213 × (15435)0.177 × 0.885 × (5.662)-0.072 × 2.736

WFUSE = 19.039 × 5.513 × 0.883

WFUSE = 92.68lb

Raymer then provides an adjustment factor for the composite structure used
in the construction:

0.9 for a composite fuselage – however, as the composite section is only

about a third of the length of the fuselage; this will be adjusted to 0.95

Raymer doesn’t have an adjustment for the fabric and tube construction so
the factor from the Stinton method will be used:

This gives a total adjustment of 0.95 × 1.8 = 1.71

Thus the final WFUSE = 92.68 × 1.71 = 158.48lb

WCONTROLS = 0.053 × FL1.536 × b0.371 × (N × WTO ×10-4) 0.8

In a biplane the controls for the ailerons go through the lower wing so the b
value will be the lower wing span. However, a biplane also has external rods
to manipulate the ailerons on the upper wing, so a fixed value of 10lb will be
added; 5lb for each external aileron rod.

WCONTROLS = [0.053 × 18.7081.536 × 19.9840.371 × (10.5 × 1470 ×10-4) 0.8] + 10

WCONTROLS = [0.053 × 89.915 × 3.038 × (1.544) 0.8] + 10

WCONTROLS = [14.478 × 1.416] + 10

WCONTROLS = 20.5 + 10 = 30.5lb

WFUELSYS = 2.49vt0.726 × {1 ÷ [1 + (vi÷vt)]}0.363 × NT0.242 × NE0.157

WFUELSYS = 2.49 × 24.7360.726 × {1 ÷ [1 + (0 ÷ 24.736)]}0.363 × 10.242 × 10.157

WFUELSYS = 2.49 × 10.27 × {1 ÷ [1 + (0)]}0.363 × 1 × 1

WFUELSYS = 25.57 × {1 ÷ [1]}0.363

WFUELSYS = 25.57 × {1}0.363

WFUELSYS = 25.57 × 1 = 25.57lb

103
WELECTRICS = 12.8(W FUELSYS)0.51

WELECTRICS = 12.8(25.57)0.51

WELECTRICS = 12.8 × 5.223

WELECTRICS = 66.86lb

WFURNISHINGS = (0.0582 × W TO) – 65

WFURNISHINGS = (0.0582 × 1470) – 65

WFURNISHINGS = (85.55) – 65

WFURNISHINGS = 20.55lb

WINSTALLED ENGINE = 2.575 × WENGINE0.922 × NE

WINSTALLED ENGINE = 2.575 × 3750.922 × 1

WINSTALLED ENGINE = 2.575 × 236.187 = 608.18lb

WTOTAL = 180.41 + 15.65 + 10.54 + 158.48 + 30.5 + 25.57 + 66.86 + 20.55 +

608.18 = 1116.33lb

Again, this value must have, fuel weight and the pilots and baggage added to
it, to give the TO weight estimate for this method:

1116.33 + 150 + 380 = 1646.33lb

11.5 Raymer Method (II) [4]

WWING = 2.5 × S = 2.5 × 133.326 = 333.32lb

333.32lb × 0.82 [Biplane Factor] = 273.32lb

WHTAIL = 2 × SHT = 2 × 17.363 = 34.73lb

WVTAIL = 2 × SVT = 2 × 8.498 = 17lb

WFUSE = 1.4 × SFUSE

To take account of the part composite, part tube and fabric structure; the 1.71
structural design factor, detailed in the first Raymer, method will be used
instead:

WFUSE = 1.71 × 101.622 = 173.77lb

WINSTALLED ENGINE = 1.4 × W ENGINE = 525lb

104
WOTHER = 0.1 × W TO = 0.1 × 1470 = 147lb

WTOTAL = 273.32 + 34.73 + 17 + 173.77 + 525 + 147 = 1170.82lb

As before, this value must have fuel weight and the pilots and baggage added
to it, to give the TO weight estimate for this method:

1170.82 + 150 + 380 = 1700.82lb

11.6 Howe Method [7]

Please note this method requires input values in SI units

WFUSE = C2 × [FLAF × (FB + FD) × Vd0.5] 1.5

C2 is a design factor taken from table 6.6 on page 154, the value ranges from
0.06 to 0.04. The Author chose a value of 0.055 due to the mixed composite
and tube and fabric construction

FLAF was found using the CATIA model = 4m

FB was found using the CATIA model = 0.788m

Vd = 1.25 × Vc = 1.25 × 180 = 225mph = 100.58m/s

WFUSE = 0.055 × [4 × (0.788 + 1.007) × 100.580.5] 1.5

WFUSE = 0.055 × [4 × (1.795) × 10.029] 1.5

WFUSE = 0.055 × [72.008] 1.5

WFUSE = 0.055 × 611.041 = 33.61kg

WOPERATING ITEMS = 77 × Number of Occupants = 77 × 2 = 154kg

Howe defines the operating items as the crew and baggage and the safety
equipment.

WSYSTEMS = C4 × WTO

C4 is a design factor from table 6.9 on page 162 = 0.12

Howe defines the systems weight as the systems (but not the fuel system),
the equipment and the landing gear.

WSYSTEMS = 0.12 × 666.781 = 80.01kg

WINSTALLED ENGINE = C3 × W ENGINE

105
C3 is a design factor from table 6.8 on page 159 = 1.4

Howe defines the installed engine weight as the engine; its mountings and
exhaust system, cowlings, propeller and the fuel system.

WINSTALLED ENGINE = 1.4 × 170.1 = 238.14kg

WLS = C1×{A0.5×S1.5×secΛ×[(1+2λ)÷(3+3λ)]×(WTO/S)×Ñ0.3×(Vd÷tc)0.5} 0.9

C1 is a design factor, calculated using the following formula:

C1 = A1 – (B1 × WTO × 10-3)

A1 and B1 are factors based on the design of the wing, the values are taken
from table 6.7 on page 157:

A1 = 1.74×10-3
B1 = 112×10-6

C1 = 1.74×10-3 – (112×10-6 × 666.781 × 10-3)

C1 = 1.74×10-3 – (7.468×10-5)

C1 = 1.395×10-3

Ñ = 1.65 × g limit = 1.65 × 7 = 11.55

WLS = C1×{A0.5×S1.5×secΛ×[(1+2λ)÷(3+3λ)]×(WTO/S)×Ñ0.3×(Vd÷tc)0.5} 0.9

WLS = 1.395×10-3 × {6.3790.5 × 12.3861.5 × sec1.183 ×

[(1 + 2×0.765) ÷ (3 + 3×0.765)] × (53.833) × 11.550.3 × (100.58/0.12)0.5}

0.9

WLS = 1.395×10-3 × {2.526 × 56.065 × 1.0002 ×

[(1 + 1.53) ÷ (3 + 2.295)] × (53.833) × 2.083 × (838.167)0.5} 0.9

WLS = 1.395×10-3 × {15883.634 × [(2.53) ÷ (5.295)] × 28.951} 0.9

WLS = 1.395×10-3 × {459847.088 × [0.478]} 0.9

WLS = 1.395×10-3 × {219806.908} 0.9

WLS = 1.395×10-3 × 64244.685

WLS = 89.621kg

To find the individual contributions of the wing and the tail the following
formulae are used:

106
WWING = W LS ÷ C5

WTAIL = W LS - WWING

C5 is a coefficient taken from table 6.10 on page 162 = 1.24

WWING = 89.621 ÷ 1.24 = 72.275kg

WTAIL = 89.621 – 72.275 = 17.346kg

WTOTAL = 33.61+ 154 + 80.01 + 238.14 + 89.621 = 595.381kg

This weight must have the fuel weight added to it to give the TO weight:

595.381 + 68.039 = 663.42kg

11.7 Total Weight Comparison

Now that the different totals have been calculated they can be compared:

Method Loughborough Stinton Raymer Raymer II Howe Average

Total (lb) 1373.930 1469.060 1646.330 1700.820 1462.591 1530.546
Total (kg) 623.204 666.354 746.763 771.479 663.420 694.244
Table 11.7.1: Total weight estimates

The average value is only 60lb greater than the original W TO, however, it can
be argued that Raymer’s W INSTALLED ENGINE estimate is too high. If the reader
recalls the fact that the basic engine weight is 375lb; the Raymer estimate of
608.18lb is more than 1.6 times the weight of the basic engine. To put this in
perspective, Howe’s engine factor of 1.4 includes the installed engine and the
fuel system. When it is remembered that Raymer has a separate estimate for
the fuel system weight, an installation factor of 1.6 seems too high.

It could be argued, on the other hand, that the installation of a Wankel rotary
engine would be heavier since there isn’t as much experience of mounting this
type of engine – and that, therefore, a more generous estimate is appropriate.
This is not the case however, as Mistral have designed the engine to be
mounted on existing mountings – obviously as a way of encouraging
customers to replace their old engines with the Mistral engine.

If the installed engine weights found in each Raymer method were replaced
with the basic engine weight to find a more appropriate estimate, the table
looks like this:

Method Loughborough Stinton Raymer Raymer II Howe Average

Total (lb) 1373.930 1469.060 1413.560 1550.820 1462.591 1453.992
Total (kg) 623.204 666.354 641.180 703.440 663.420 659.520
Table 11.7.2: Total weight estimates – powerplant installation adjustment

107
Obviously this now means that the average value is now too low since the
engine no longer has an installed estimate (except in Howe’s method).
However, it does seem better to have no installation estimate than an
estimate that is so exaggerated.

Note: For the purposes of calculation continuity the value of W TO will stay as
1470lb.

108
12. Centre of Gravity Estimation

12.1 Introduction

To calculate the CG position, the geometric centroid of each item was found
using the CATIA model. These coordinates are then multiplied by the item
mass to produce a moment.

Once all the moments are calculated, they are totalled to give an overall
moment. This moment is then divided by the total weight to provide the CG
position.

12.2 Wing Mass Ratio

The upper and lower wing weights are calculated by dividing the weight
estimate by the ratio of area between the two wings:

Total Area (ft2) 133.326 %

Upper 68.516 51.39
Lower 64.810 48.61
Table 12.2.1: Wing area contributions

12.3 CG Masses

Due to the fact that the methods for estimating the weight lump different
sources together in unknown proportions only the following main masses will
be used to find the CG position:

o Engine
o Upper Wing
o Fuel Tank
o Fuselage
o Pilot 2
o Lower Wing
o Pilot 1
o Tail

All other masses are assumed to be spread evenly over the aircraft – and thus
have little effect on the CG position.

109
The following masses will be used to find the CG position. Due to the fact that
the CATIA program produces coordinates in mm, the average weights in kg
will be used to find the CG.

Author Loughborough Stinton Raymer Raymer II Howe Average

Engine 170.10 170.10 170.10 170.10 170.10 170.10
Upper Wing 32.21 28.06 42.05 63.71 37.14 40.64
Main Tank 68.04 68.04 68.04 68.04 68.04 68.04
Fuselage 60.01 84.71 71.89 78.82 33.61 65.81
Pilot 2 81.65 81.65 81.65 81.65 81.65 81.65
Lower Wing 30.47 26.54 39.78 60.26 35.13 38.44
Pilot 1 81.65 81.65 81.65 81.65 81.65 81.65
Tail 16.67 13.76 11.88 23.46 17.35 16.62
Table 12.3.1: Masses for CG analysis

12.4 Axis System

Since the C1 is symmetrical only two CG coordinates are needed, the

following diagram shows how these are arranged:

Fig. 12.4.1: CG calculation axis system

The origin is positioned at the tip of the spinner and the CG positions are
measured from there.

110
12.5 CG Position for Tandem Flights

12.5.1 TO CG:

Component mass (kg) x (mm) y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 68.03 1678.000 0.000 114149.660 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 81.63 2520.000 20.000 205714.286 1632.653
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 562.836 1156336.942 19620.814

X (mm) Y (mm)
CG 2054.482 34.861
Table 12.5.1.1: CG at tandem TO weight

12.5.2 Landing CG:

The landing CG is calculated by having the weight of the main tank reduced
by subtracting the WFUSED value from the WFUEL value:

68.027 – 54.422 = 13.605kg

Component mass (kg) x (mm) y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 13.61 1678.000 0.000 22829.932 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 81.63 2520.000 20.000 205714.286 1632.653
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 508.415 1065017.215 19620.814

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 2094.781 38.592
Table 12.5.2.1: CG at tandem landing weight

111
12.5.3 Empty Landing CG:

The empty landing CG is calculated for when there has been a problem and
all the reserve fuel has been consumed – thus producing a fuel tank weight of
0kg:

Component mass (kg) x (mm) y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 0.00 1678.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 81.63 2520.000 20.000 205714.286 1632.653
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 494.809 1042187.283 19620.814

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 2106.241 39.653
Table 12.5.3.1: CG at tandem zero fuel weight

12.6 CG Position for Solo Flights

To calculate the CG for a solo flight, the weight of ‘Pilot 2’ is reduced to 0kg:

12.6.1 TO CG:

Component mass (kg) x (mm) Y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 68.03 1678.000 0.000 114149.660 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 0.00 2520.000 20.000 0.000 0.000
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 481.204 950622.657 17988.161

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 1975.510 37.382
Table 12.6.1.1: CG at solo TO weight

112
12.6.2 Landing CG:

Component mass (kg) x (mm) Y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 13.61 1678.000 0.000 22829.932 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 0.00 2520.000 20.000 0.000 0.000
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 426.782 859302.929 17988.161

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 2013.448 42.148
Table 12.6.2.1: CG at solo landing weight

12.6.3 Empty Landing CG:

Component mass (kg) x (mm) Y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 0.00 1678.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 0.00 2520.000 20.000 0.000 0.000
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 413.176 836472.997 17988.161

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 2024.494 43.536
Table 12.6.3.1: CG at solo zero fuel weight

12.7 Ballast Tank

As can be seen from the CG tables; the CG moves forward when there is only
one pilot. This is not good from an aerobatics aspect. For best
manoeuvrability the CG should be as aft as possible – if the CG moves
forwards without the front pilot then a solo pilot will not have the same level of
performance.

To rectify this problem a ballast tank will be inserted into the rear fuselage: If it
positioned above the tail wheel mounting point, then the extra structural
weight will be limited by co-location of the stress points.

This ballast tank will be filled with water and then drained when not needed.
To work out the correct amount of water to put in the tank the pilot would
simply read the appropriate amount of water from a graph adjusted for their
weight.

113
The tank is sized to produce an x component as close as possible to a
standard tandem landing x position. This is because the landing of a tail wheel
aircraft is complicated by the fact that the CG is behind the main wheels. This
can cause the empennage of the aircraft to swing around to the side –
possibly causing the plane to crash. By having the same x component the
difference in landing characteristics is minimal and the landing becomes much
more like normal. This improves the ease of landing and thus the safety of the
aircraft.

The following tables show the CG position with the ballast tank filled with a
mass of water designed to replicate the standard weight of pilot 2.

12.7.1 TO CG:

Component Mass (kg) x (mm) y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 68.03 1678.000 0.000 114149.660 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 0.00 2520.000 20.000 0.000 0.000
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Ballast Tank 15.73 4301.900 -34.500 67668.887 -542.685
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 496.934 1018291.544 17445.476

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 2049.150 35.106
Table 12.7.1.1: CG at solo TO weight with ballast

12.7.2 Landing CG:

Component mass (kg) x (mm) y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 13.61 1678.000 0.000 22829.932 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 0.00 2520.000 20.000 0.000 0.000
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Ballast Tank 15.73 4301.900 -34.500 67668.887 -542.685
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 442.512 926971.816 17445.476

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 2094.795 39.424
Table 12.7.2.1: CG at solo landing weight with ballast

114
12.7.3 Empty Landing CG:

Component mass (kg) x (mm) y (mm) Mx (kgmm) My (kgmm)

Engine 170.07 966.485 -19.138 164368.197 -3254.762
Upper Wing 40.63 1633.783 765.319 66378.367 31093.863
Fuel Tank 0.00 1678.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Fuselage 65.80 2425.844 -28.237 159610.634 -1857.879
Pilot 2 0.00 2520.000 20.000 0.000 0.000
Lower Wing 38.43 2478.832 -419.457 95263.446 -16120.059
Pilot 1 81.63 3300.000 50.000 269387.755 4081.633
Ballast Tank 15.73 4301.900 -34.500 67668.887 -542.685
Tail 16.62 4901.480 243.398 81464.598 4045.366
Totals 428.906 904141.884 17445.476

x (mm) y (mm)
CG 2108.017 40.674
Table 12.7.3.1: CG at solo zero fuel weight with ballast

12.8 CG Positions as %MAC

As the C1 is a biplane it has two MACs – since this would make CG position
as %MAC rather unclear the Author has chosen to present these results with
respect to the equivalent monoplane discussed above in section 7.2. The
position of the equivalent monoplane wing between the two biplane wings has
already been defined both vertically and longitudinally by the method that
produces the equivalent monoplane. Therefore the Author simply added a
crude 2D sketch of the monoplane wing to the CATIA model in the correct
orientation, which enabled the CG positions to be found in terms of their
distance along the monoplane wing. Once these values were known, the
%MAC values were calculated using this simple formula:

%MAC = (Distance Along MAC ÷ Total Monoplane Chord) × 100

Total Monoplane Chord = 1133.98

Condition Distance Along MAC (mm) % MAC
Solo w/ Ballast Zero Fuel 621.58 54.81
Solo Zero Fuel 538.05 47.45
Tandem Zero Fuel 619.80 54.66
Solo w/ Ballast Landing 608.36 53.65
Solo Landing 527.01 46.47
Tandem Landing 608.34 53.65
Solo w/ Ballast TO 562.71 49.62
Solo TO 489.07 43.13
Tandem TO 568.04 50.09
Table 12.8.1: CG as %MAC of equivalent monoplane

In the chart below it can readily be seen how the ballast tank achieves its
intent by moving the Solo CG positions as close as possible to Tandem CG
positions:

115
 CG Position as %MAC

Tandem TO

Solo TO

Solo w/ Ballast TO

Tandem Landing

Solo Landing

Flight Condition
Solo w/ Ballast Landing

Tandem Zero Fuel

Solo Zero Fuel

Fig. 12.8.1: Chart comparing %MAC values for different conditions

Solo w/ Ballast Zero Fuel

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% MAC

116
13. Landing Gear

13.1 Constraints

Having found the CG limits the landing gear can now be designed in line with
the following diagram, taken from [4]:

Fig. 13.1.1: Tailwheel landing gear constraints

The forward and aft CG limits must fall within an arc of between 16o and 25o.
The tail down angle must be between 10o and 15o. A further requirement is
that the gear legs should be angled at least 25o from the vertical.

As can be seen from the following CATIA images, the C1 gear meets these
requirements, the two symbols indicate the most extreme positions that the
CG can occupy; both vertically and laterally:

Fig. 13.1.2: CATIA image showing landing gear design compliance (Part 1)

Fig. 13.1.3: CATIA image showing landing gear design compliance (Part 2)

117
There is no constraint on the vertical position of the wheels, nor a maximum
gear leg angle constraint. As a result the author chose to have fairly short
gear legs to reduce weight and frontal area and also fairly widely spaced legs
to improve ground handling and stability.

As can be seen from the images, the wheels of the gear are faired with what
are known as ‘pants’ – the pants where modelled by copying the profile of the
pants visible on the black and white three view diagrams of other aerobatic
aircraft. The pants were modelled once the tyre size was known.

13.2 Gear Damping

Many current light aircraft have inadequately damped landing gear. The
damping system absorbs the energy of an aircraft coming in to land. It is an
extremely important, safety critical aspect of the design. Unfortunately current
light aircraft frequently have landing gear mounted on springs or large bungee
chords to absorb the energy.

These types of system are not well thought out – springs and bungee chord
do not dissipate the energy that is fed into them on landing. They simply store
the energy and then release it by pushing upwards. This leads to bouncy
landings as the bungee or spring stores the energy, pushes the aircraft back
up into the air and then receives a new energy load as it comes down again.
The whole process is a vicious circle.

To put it in perspective – kangaroos use just such a system to enable them to

jump for long distances without getting tired. The kangaroo uses the energy
from landing to provide a lot of the energy needed for the next jump. They
store the energy in large tendons in their legs – a bit like bungee chords.

To solve this problem there must be a system to remove the energy from a
landing as well as providing some resistance to the downwards direction of
the aircraft. The solution is an oleo shock absorber. These are oil filled pistons
with a hole that allows the oil to pass from one side to the other. The size of
the hole controls the level of oil flow and thus, the level of damping.

To mount two small oleo shock absorbers into the biplane the following
system is used:

118
 Fig. 13.2.1: Main gear damping arrangement schematic diagram

By having two shock absorbers there is a level of redundancy added to the

design, also it allows the stroke of the pistons to be reduced which is
necessary due to the small space available for the system.

The cranked legs are made from titanium so that they are strong enough to
take the loadings but light enough not to add significant weight to the design

13.3 Tyre Sizing

To size the tyres the following formulae are used:

Td = r × Wws

Tw = t × Wwu

The various factors are taken from table 11.1 on page 233 of [4]

r = 1.51
s = 0.349
t = 0.715
u = 0.312

To find the weight each main wheel supports, Ww; the W TO must first be split
into the proportions supported by the main and tail gears:

1470 × 0.9 = 1323lb

Ww (each) = 1323 ÷ 2 = 661.5lb

Td = 1.51 × 661.50.349 = 14.57in [370mm]

Tw = 0.715 × 661.50.312 = 5.42in [138mm]

119
These measurements are then used to find the nearest larger tyre. These
results require the selection of a size known as a, ‘Type III 6.00-6’.

To validate this result the Author used tyre finders from online vendors.
A tyre finder simply asks for the make and model of the aircraft so it can tell
you which size you need. By looking up the WTO of various aircraft with a W TO
similar to the C1, it is possible to use the tyre finder to select the correct tyre
size.

The online tyre finders suggested tyre sizes of Type III 6.00-6 and Type III
5.00-5

Due to the likelihood that the C1 would be operating from more rural airfields
with rougher grass strips the Author decided that the larger 6.00-6 tyre was a
better choice.

13.4 Tail Wheel Design

Just like the main gear the tail wheel needs damping; the tail wheel sits on the
end of a motorcycle style ‘swing arm’ with an oleo shock positioned
horizontally in the rear fuselage:

Fig. 13.4.1: Tailwheel damping arrangement schematic diagram

The tail wheel is steered by servo motors which can be linked via computer
with a gyro operated directional indicator; a fairly standard instrument in
modern light aircraft. This would allow the computer to take over steering from
the pilot during the landing run.

As has been mentioned, landing a tail wheel aircraft is problematic due to the
fact that having the CG behind the main wheels is naturally unstable: The
aircraft can suddenly go into a ground loop, often with tragic results.

Linking the gyro to the servo motors would mean much safer landings as the
gyro is more sensitive than a human pilot and the computer is faster acting.
This removes some of the difficulty of landing a tail wheel aircraft as the
traditional ‘dance’ on the rudder pedals is no longer necessary.

The system would be set to follow the bearing of the runway by the pilot
during their approach and only activates once the tail wheel has touched

120
down so that the pilot retains rudder control in the air. A simple pressure
switch with a time delay would be perfect for this.

Also, a ‘kill’ switch could be incorporated into the throttle lever to that the pilot
can instantly apply power and take the system offline with one hand in the
event of a mistake such as the pilot setting the bearing of the landing strip
incorrectly.

This system could also be used on TO where the gyroscopic forces from the
propeller can cause ground looping as the aircraft is accelerated to TO speed.

Finally, having the tailwheel servo controlled means that it could be locked in
place during flight. The advantage of this is that the wheel would not swing out
when the rudder is operated.

121
14. Drag Polar Estimation

14.1 Introduction

A drag polar is the standard method of presenting the aerodynamic data

required for performance calculations. This is the form of the polar:

CD = CD0 + KCL2

The drag polar estimation method used here is from Raymer’s book [4].

14.2 Calculating K

K = 1 ÷ (πAe)

For a biplane e is found from the following formula:

e = [ζ2 × (1+ A2)] ÷ [ζ2 + 2ψζA + A2]

ζ = 0.94
ψ = 0.51

A = 64.81 ÷ 68.516 = 0.946

e = [0.942 × (1+ 0.9462)] ÷ [0.942 + 2×0.51×0.94×0.946 + 0.9462]

e = [0.884 × (1+ 0.895)] ÷ [0.884 + 0.907 + 0.895]

e = [0.884 × (1.895)] ÷ [2.686]

e = [1.675] ÷ [2.686] = 0.624

K = 1 ÷ (π×6.379×0.624)

K = 1 ÷ (12.505) = 0.08

14.3 Calculating CD0 Components

CD0 = Σ (Cf × FF × Q × AR) + CDmisc

The brackets must be solved for each component – and then all the results
must be summed. To finish, all the other miscellaneous sources of drag are
added to give an estimate of CD0.

The drag polar will be calculated for the following conditions:

V = 264ft/s (E.A.S)
75% power = 225hp at 2,000 propeller rpm
Altitude = 8,000ft

122
These conditions give the following constants:

ρ = 0.1869×10-2sl/ft3
a = 1,085.3ft/s
μ = 0.3576×10-6sl/ft-s
q = 65.098lb/ft2
V = 264 ÷ √0.786 = 297.78ft/s (T.A.S)
M = 297.78 ÷ 1,085.3 = 0.274

AR is the ratio of Component SWET to SWING. The values of SWET were found
from the CATIA model. The table below shows the AR for each component:

Component Wetted Area [ft2] AR

Fuselage 101.622 0.7622
Upper Wing 123.354 0.9252
Lower Wing 114.097 0.8558
Vertical Tail 30.139 0.2261
Horizontal Tail 35.736 0.2680
Table 14.3.1: Area Ratio of major aerodynamic contributors

14.3.1 Fuselage CD0

R = (ρ×V×L) ÷ μ

For the fuselage L = 18.708ft

R = (0.1869×10-2×297.78×18.708) ÷ 0.3576×10-6 = 29.116×106

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log10R)2.58 × (1+0.144M2) 0.65]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log1029.116×106)2.58 × (1 + 0.144×0.2742) 0.65]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(7.464)2.58 × (1 + 0.144×0.075) 0.65]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [178.759 × (1.0108) 0.65]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [178.759 × 1.007]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [180.01] = 2.528×10-3

FF = 1 + (60÷f3) + (f÷400)

f = L ÷ [√(4÷π) × AMAX] = 18.708 ÷ [√(1.273) × 7.169] = 2.313

FF = 1 + (60÷12.374) + (2.313÷400)

FF = 1 + (4.849) + (5.783×10-3) = 5.855

For the Fuselage Q = 1

123
(Cf × FF × Q × AR) = (2.528×10-3 × 5.855 × 1 × 0.7622) = 10.077×10-3

14.3.2 Upper Wing CD0

R = (ρ×V×L) ÷ μ

For the Wings and Tails; L = MAC

L = 3.305ft

Therefore R = (0.557×3.305) ÷ 0.3576×10-6 = 5.148×106

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log10R)2.58 × 1.007]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [135.918 × 1.007] = 3.324×10-3

FF = {1 + [0.6÷(x/c)MAX]tc + 100(tc)4} × {1.34M0.18 × [cosΛMAX]0.28}

For Upper Wing:

(x/c)MAX = 0.3
tc = 0.12
ΛMAX = 0.917o

FF = {1 + [0.6÷0.3]0.12 + 100(0.12)4} × {1.34×0.2740.18 × [cos0.917]0.28}

FF = {1 + [2]0.12 + 100×2.074×10-4} × {1.34×0.792 × [1]0.28}

FF = {1 + 0.24 + 0.021} × {1.061 × 1}

FF = {1.261} × {1.061} = 1.338

For the Upper Wing Q = 1

(Cf × FF × Q × AR) = (3.324×10-3 × 1.338 × 1 × 0.9252) = 4.115×10-3

14.3.3 Lower Wing CD0

L = 3.273ft

Therefore R = (0.557×3.273) ÷ 0.3576×10-6 = 5.098×106

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log10R)2.58 × 1.007]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log10 5.098×106)2.58 × 1.007] = 3.258×10-3

FF = {1 + [0.6÷(x/c)MAX]tc + 100(tc)4} × {1.34M0.18 × [cosΛMAX]0.28}

124
For Lower Wing:

(x/c)MAX = 0.3
tc = 0.12
ΛMAX = 0.975o

FF = {1.261} × {1.061 × [cos0.975]0.28}

FF = {1.261} × {1.061 × 1} = 1.338

For the Lower Wing Q = 1.25

(Cf × FF × Q × AR) = (3.258×10-3 × 1.338 × 1.25 × 0.8558) = 4.663×10-3

14.3.4 Vertical Tail CD0

L = MAC = 3.287ft

Therefore R = (0.557×3.287) ÷ 0.3576×10-6 = 5.12×106

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log10R)2.58 × 1.007]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log105.12×106)2.58 × 1.007] = 3.255×10-3

FF = {1 + [0.6÷(x/c)MAX]tc + 100(tc)4} × {1.34M0.18 × [cosΛMAX]0.28}

For Vertical Tail:

(x/c)MAX = 0.3
tc = 0.09
ΛMAX = 18.501o

FF = {1 + [0.6÷0.3]0.09 + 100(0.09)4} × {1.34×0.2740.18 × [cos18.501]0.28}

FF = {1 + [2]0.09 + 100×6.561×10-5} × {1.061 × [0.948]0.28}

FF = {1 + 0.18 + 6.561×10-3} × {1.061 × 0.985}

FF = {1.187} × {1.045} = 1.24

For the Vertical Tail Q = 1.05

(Cf × FF × Q × AR) = (3.255×10-3 × 1.24 × 1.05 × 0.2261) = 0.958×10-3

14.3.5 Horizontal Tail CD0

L = 2.764ft

Therefore R = (0.557×2.764) ÷ 0.3576×10-6 = 4.306×106

125
Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log10R)2.58 × 1.007]

Cf = 0.455 ÷ [(Log104.306×106)2.58 × 1.007] = 3.426×10-3

FF = {1 + [0.6÷(x/c)MAX]tc + 100(tc)4} × {1.34M0.18 × [cosΛMAX]0.28}

For Horizontal Tail:

(x/c)MAX = 0.3
tc = 0.09
ΛMAX = 9.517o

FF = {1.187} × {1.061 × [cos9.517]0.28}

FF = {1.187} × {1.061 × 0.996} = 1.254

For the Horizontal Tail Q = 1.05

(Cf × FF × Q × AR) = (3.426×10-3 × 1.254 × 1.05 × 0.2680) = 1.209×10-3

14.3.6 Total CD0 Components

Σ (Cf × FF × Q × AR) = 10.077×10-3 + 4.115×10-3 + 4.663×10-3 +

0.958×10-3 + 1.209×10-3 = 21.022×10-3

14.4 Calculating CDmisc

To calculate the contribution of the landing gear and struts, the appropriate
value from table 12.5 on page 287 is selected. This value is then multiplied by
the frontal area of the item.

For the struts and gear legs the frontal area was calculated simply by
multiplying the constant width by the length. For the wheel and fairings, on the
other hand, the Author approximated the frontal area as the average of the
circular areas produced by the diameters of the widest points: left to right and
top to bottom.

This gives the value D/q [ft2], which must be divided by the SWING to give the
CD contribution of the item. Finally the number of each item is multiplied by the
CD contribution to give the total value of CD for that set of components. The
results of this analysis are displayed in the table below:

Component Value Af [ft2] D/q [ft2] CD [×10-3] Quantity CD [×10-3]

Faired Gear 0.13 0.4608 0.0599 0.4493 2 0.8986
Turtle Deck Strut 0.05 0.0739 0.0037 0.02772 4 0.1109
Wing Strut 0.05 0.4594 0.0230 0.1723 2 0.3445
Gear Leg 1.4 0.1561 0.2185 1.63904 2 3.2781
Total 4.6321
Table: 14.4.1: CD of minor aerodynamic contributors

126
Total CDmisc = 4.6321×10-3

14.5 Total CD0

To calculate the final value of CD0 the results from sections 14.3.4 and 14.3.5
are entered in the original CD0 equation:

CD0 = Σ (Cf × FF × Q × AR) + CDmisc

CD0 = 21.022×10-3 + 4.6321×10-3 = 25.6541×10-3

CD0 = 21.022×10-3 + 4.6321×10-3 = 0.0257

14.6 CD0 Check

To check that the value of CD0 is reasonable, two ‘quick check’ methods for
CD0 will be shown:

14.6.1 Raymer Check [4]

Raymer’s ‘quick check’ uses the following formula:

CD0 = CfE × (SWET ÷ SWING)

The value of CfE is found from table 12.3 on page 280:

CfE = 0.0055

SWET = Fuselage + Upper + Lower + Vertical Tail + Horizontal Tail Wetted

Areas

SWET = 101.622 + 123.354 + 114.097 + 30.139 + 35.736 = 404.948ft2

CD0 = 0.0055 × (404.948 ÷ 133.326)

CD0 = 0.0055 × (3.0373) = 0.0167

This value of CD0 is obviously lower than the component estimate – but this is
due to the fact that the value of CfE is for a light single engined aircraft rather
than specifically for a biplane which obviously has more drag.

If the formula is rearranged and the ‘quick check’ value is exchanged for the
component value of CD0 we can see what Raymer’s CfE value would be:

CD0 ÷ (SWET ÷ SWING) = CfE

0.0256541 ÷ (3.0373) = 0.0845

127
This value is higher than anything in Raymer’s table, with the highest value
being 0.065 for a propeller seaplane. However there are no values for a
strutted monoplane or biplane so it is not beyond all possibility – it is just a
little high.

14.6.2 Roskam Check [3]

CD0 = f ÷ SWING

Log10 f = a + Log10SWET

a = – 2.0458 from table 3.4 on page 122

Log10 f = – 2.0458 + Log10404.948

Log10 f = – 2.0458 + 2.6074 = 0.5616

f = 100.5616 = 3.6442

CD0 = 3.6442 ÷ 133.326 = 0.027

This value is much closer – but this probably due to the fact that Roskam has
a larger range of f values available compared to Raymer’s CfE values.

It appears that, as far as can be established, the value of CD0 from section
14.3 is correct.

14.7 Final Drag Polar

CD = CD0 + KCL2

CD = 0.0257 + 0.08CL2

128
15. Performance

15.1 Introduction

Now that the physical attributes of the C1 biplane and its aerodynamic
qualities are established; it is now possible to calculate the performance of the
aircraft. All the equations in this chapter have been taken from reference [4].

15.2 Steady Level Flight

15.2.1 Thrust for Steady Level Flight

This is an example calculation using cruise speed (180mph) at sea level – the
full thrust profile is contained within Appendix B:

(TSL/W TO) = [q×CD0 ÷ (WTO/S)] + [(W TO/S) × (K ÷ q)]

(TSL/W TO) = [65.098×0.0257 ÷ (11.026)] + [(11.026) × (0.08 ÷ 65.098)]

(TSL/W TO) = [1.673 ÷ (11.026)] + [(11.026) × (1.229×10-3)]

(TSL/W TO) = [0.152] + [0.014] = 0.166

TSL = 0.166 × 1470 = 244.02lb

15.2.2 Steady Flight Speed

CL = W TO ÷ (q × S) = 1470 ÷ (65.098 × 133.326) = 0.1694

V = √[(2 ÷ ρCL)×(W TO/S)] = √[(2 ÷ 1.869×10-3×0.1694) × (11.026)] =

263.914ft/s

15.3 Minimum Thrust

CLmin thrust = √(CD0 ÷ K)

CLmin thrust = √(0.0257 ÷ 0.08) = √0.321 = 0.567

15.3.1 Minimum Thrust (Minimum Drag) Speed

VminT = √[(2 ÷ ρCLmin thrust) × (W TO/S)]

VminT = √[(2 ÷ 1.869×10-3×0.567) × (11.026)] = 144.254ft/s

q at VminT = 19.446lb/ft2

15.3.2 Minimum Thrust for Level Flight

Tmin = (q×S) × [CD0 + K CLmin thrust 2] = (q×S) × [CD0 + CD0]

129
Tmin = (19.446×133.326) × [0.0257 + 0.0257] = 133.263lb

15.3.3 (L/D)MAX

(L/D)MAX occurs at minimum thrust (minimum drag) conditions

Lmin D = qSCLmin thrust = 19.446 × 133.326 × 0.567 = 1470lb

(L/D)MAX = Lmin D ÷ Tmin = 1470 ÷ 133.263 = 11.031

15.4 Minimum Power

CLmin power = √(3CD0 ÷ K) = 0.982

15.4.1 Minimum Power Speed

VminP = √[(2 ÷ ρCLmin power) × (W TO/S)]

VminP = √[(2 ÷ 1.869×10-3×0.982) × (11.026)] = 109.613ft/s

q at 109.613ft/s = 11.228lb/ft2

15.4.2 Minimum Power Drag

DminP = (q×S) × [CD0 + 3CD0]

DminP = (11.228×133.326) × [0.0257 + 3(0.0257)] = 153.89lb

(L/D)minP = (qSCLmin power) ÷ (DminP)

(L/D)minP = (11.228×133.326×0.982) ÷ (153.89) = 9.553

15.4.3 Minimum Power

Pmin = DminP × VminP = 153.89 × 109.61 = 16867.883ft-lb/s = 30.669hp

15.5 Range Calculations

15.5.1 Standard Range

R = (550 ηP ÷ C)(L/D) × ln[W TO÷(W TO - W FUSED)]

For best range fly at speed corresponding to (L/D)MAX ie: Minimum Drag
Speed

To evaluate C, the power required for the minimum drag speed will be
compared with engine maximum of 300hp:

144.254ft/s requires 34.964hp

130
34.964 ÷ 300 = 11.65% Power which will have a negative effect on C

The engine is digitally controlled and there is a prop speed reduction unit to
allow the engine to run at a higher rpm than the propeller so estimate C = 0.75

R = (550×0.85 ÷ 0.75)×(11.031) × ln[(1470/(1470 – 120)]

R = (623.33)×(11.031) × ln[1470/1350]

R = 6875.99 × ln[1.089] = 6875.99 × 0.085 = 585.544 miles

15.5.2 Emergency Range

This is the range with the use of the reserve fuel.

R = (550 ηP ÷ C)(L/D) × ln[W TO÷(W TO - W FUEL)]

R = 6875.99 × ln[(1470/(1470 – 150)] = 740.067 miles

15.6 Endurance

For best endurance the aircraft must fly at minimum power speed =
109.613ft/s

To evaluate C, the power required for the minimum power speed will be
compared with engine maximum of 300hp:

109.613ft/s requires 30.683hp

30.683 ÷ 300 = 10.23% Power which will have a negative effect on C

The engine is digitally controlled and there is a prop speed reduction unit to
allow the engine to run at a higher rpm than the propeller so estimate C = 0.75

15.6.1 Standard Endurance

E = (550 ηP ÷ C × VminP) × (L/D)minP × ln[W TO÷(W TO - W FUSED)]

E = (550×0.85 ÷ 0.75×109.613) × 9.553 × ln[1470÷(1470 – 120)]

E = (467.5 ÷ 82.21) × 9.553 × ln[1.089]

E = (5.687) × 9.553 × 0.085 = 4.618 hours

15.6.2 Emergency Endurance

This is the endurance when including the reserve fuel:

E = (550 ηP ÷ C × VminP) × (L/D)minP × ln[W TO÷(W TO - W FUSED)]

131
E = (53.328 × ln[1470÷(1470 – 150)] = 5.74 hours

15.7 Climb Rate

The best rate of climb occurs at VminP, however as this flying state is not a
steady one the required power is replaced by the maximum available power:

Vv = [(550×hp×ηCB)÷WTO] – [(DminP×VminP)÷W TO]

VminP corresponds to 109.613ft/s and 153.89lb of Drag:

Vv = [(550×300×0.7)÷1470] – [(153.89×109.613)÷1470]

Vv = [(115500)÷1470] – [(16868.345)÷1470] = 67.097ft/s

15.8 Level Turn Rate

Vc Turn Rate:

Ω = [g(√n2 – 1)] ÷ Vc

n = 2g turn

Vc = 264ft/s

Ω = [9.80665(√22 – 1)] ÷ 264 = 0.064 rad/s = 3.69o/s

N Ω [o/s]
3 6.02
4 8.24
5 10.43
6 12.59
7 14.75
Table 15.8.1: Cruise speed level turn rate

Vd Turn Rate:

Vd = 330ft/s

N Ω [o/s]
2 2.95
3 4.82
4 6.59
5 8.34
6 10.07
7 11.8
Table 15.8.2: Design speed level turn rate

132
 16. Biplane Comparison

16.1 Introduction

Now that the C1 performance has been calculated, it would seem appropriate
for a comparison to be made between this design and the other biplanes,
against which it should be judged, i.e. the Pitts Special S-2C, the Christen
Eagle and the Kimball Pitts Model 12. Since this is a comparison the only
performance calculation results which will be tabulated will be those for which
the Author has been able to find an equivalent statistic for the other biplanes.

16.2 Data

The following table contains the data taken from reference [1] plus the
calculated values of the C1 Biplane:

Christen Eagle II Pitts S-2C Pitts Model 12 C1 Biplane

b 6.07m (19ft 11in) 6.10m (20ft 0in) 6.71m (22ft 0in) 6.48m (21ft 3in)
Length 5.46m (17ft 11in) 5.41m (17ft 9in) 5.99m (19ft 8in) 5.79m (19ft 0in)
Height 1.98m (6ft 6in) 1.96m (6ft 5in) 2.97m (9ft 9in) 1.95m (6ft 5in)
Wheel track - 1.54m (5ft ¾in) 2.29m (7ft 6in) 1.62m (5ft 3¾in)
Wheel base - 4.14m (13ft 7in) 4.42m (14ft 6in) 3.45m (11ft 4in)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
S 11.61m (125.0ft ) 11.85m (127.5ft ) 14.01m (150.8ft ) 12.39m (133.3ft )
WE 465kg (1,025lb) 524kg (1,155lb) 624kg (1,375lb) 423kg (933lb)
Max W PAY 210kg (463lb) 168kg (371lb) - 172kg (380lb)
Max W TO 715kg (1,578lb) 771kg (1,700lb) 1,020kg (2,250lb) 667kg (1,470lb)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Max W TO/S 61.6kg/m (12.6lb/ft ) 65.1kg/m (13.3lb/ft ) 72.8kg/m (14.9lb/ft ) 53.8kg/m (11.0lb/ft )
Max W TO/P 4.8kg/kW (7.9lb/hp) 4.0kg/kW (6.5lb/hp) 4.15kg/kW (6.82lb/hp) 3.0kg/kW (4.9lb/hp)
Powerplant Lycoming AEIO-360 Lycoming AEIO-540 Lycoming AEIO-580 Mistral G-300
Max Power 149kW (200hp) 194kW (260hp) 246kW (330hp) 221kW (300hp)
Vd 182kt (210mph) 185kt (212mph) 207kt (239mph) 195kt (225mph)
Vc 143kt (165mph)@75% 150kt (173mph)@75% 152kt (175mph)@70% 156kt (180mph)@75%
Vs 51kt (58mph) 56kt (65mph) 56kt (64mph) 49kt (56mph)
Max Vv 10.67m/s (35ft/s) 14.73m/s (48.3ft/s) 18.29m/s (60ft/s) 20.45m/s (67.097ft/s)
Max range 380nm (437miles) 246nm (284miles) 525nm (604miles) 473nm (585miles)
g limits +9/-6 +6/-5 +9/-7.5 ±7.5
Table 16.2.1: Biplane comparative data [1]

Obviously the only comparisons that can be made between the C1 and the
other biplanes are for characteristics that reference [1] has data for. We
cannot compare turn rates for example, because [1] has no data for the other
three aircraft.

16.3 Biplane Discussion

First we see that, when the various lengths, spans and areas are considered,
the C1 biplane is slightly smaller than the Model 12 and bigger than the Eagle
and the Pitts S-2C. The C1 is smaller than the Model 12 because this aircraft
is powered by the Lycoming AEIO-580 which is the bulkiest and heaviest
engine. This means that the Model 12 needs to be bigger in volume, not only

133
to accommodate the engine itself, but also the larger quantity of fuel that an
engine of this size requires. The C1 has to be larger than the Eagle and S-2C
because of its larger wings which reduce the wing loading in comparison with
these aircraft.

It is interesting to note the maximum payloads listed above in that they reflect
the design intent of each aircraft; the Eagle is designed more towards a
general aviation aircraft that can do aerobatics rather than a specifically
aerobatic aircraft like the S-2C and the C1: 29.4% of the Eagle’s WTO is for
payload in comparison with 22% for the S-2C and 26% for the C1.

The next point of interest is the empty and maximum TO weights. The C1
appears to be unrealistically underweight in comparison with the other aircraft
when we consider that, in general, the vital statistics of the C1 should fall
between the Model 12 and the other two biplanes. This is most likely due to
the somewhat simplistic nature of the weight analysis performed for the C1. If
the design was taken to a further iteration such a deficiency would be
accounted for. It would therefore follow that the wing and power loading would
increase. This would make sense it light of the fact that these values for the
C1 appear to be quite optimistic when examined against the other three
biplanes.

The Vd and Vc values all follow the general pattern when it is considered that
the Model 12 is using 5% less power than the other three aircraft for its
specified cruise speed. The C1 is able to have the slowest stalling speed due
to the low wing loading already mentioned. Again, this would mean an
increase in stall speed during the next design iteration. The disproportionate
advantage of the C1 over the other biplanes with respect to the maximum
climb speed is most probably due to the optimistic weight estimate and low
power loading.

The flight range of the C1, as with the other values, is between that of the
Eagle and S-2C and that of the Model 12. The distribution of ranges is most
likely down to the physical space available for fuel tanks.

Overall, we can clearly see that the calculated values, even when optimistic or
unlikely, follow a trend and from this we can say that the analysis is valid.

134
17. V-n Diagram

The V-n diagram is a standard way of clearly displaying the flight envelope of
the aircraft under study, the formulae used to calculate this envelope are
defined by the Certification Specification documentation applicable to the
aircraft’s weight and design. Originally there was some confusion in the
Author’s mind as to which certification specification category the C1 biplane
would come under. The first category to be considered was that of the CS-
VLA that is, the Certification Specification for Very Light Aircraft, however this
documentation is only applicable to non-aerobatic aircraft. Next the author
considered appendix A of CS-23: “Appendix A – Simplified Design Load
Criteria for Conventional, Single-Engine Airplanes of 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) or
Less Maximum Weight”. However, according to this appendix the C1 does not
qualify as a “Conventional” aircraft due to its biplane configuration. As a result
the C1 falls under the standard CS-23 documentation. Please note that the
formulae for the V-n diagram are all quoted in SI units.

The first thing to calculate is the value of Vd to find the right hand boundary.

Vd = 1.25 × Vc = 80.467 × 1.25 = 100.584m/s

Next, the Va boundary must be calculated with the following formula:

Va = [(n × W TO × g)÷(½ρSCLmax)]0.5

When n = 1

Va = [(1 × 666.781 × 9.80665)÷(½×1.225×12.386×1.4)]0.5

Va = [6538.888÷10.621]0.5

Va = [615.657]0.5 = 24.812m/s

This is simply repeated for all other values of n:

n Va [m/s]
2 35.091
3 42.977
4 49.626
5 55.483
6 60.779
7 65.649
Table 17.1: C1 stall boundary values

These values are also mirrored below the x axis because the C1 is fully
aerobatic.
To work out the gust lines the gust load factors must be calculated:

ng = 1 ± [(kg×a×ρ0×Ude×V) ÷ 2(W TO/S)] [Note: (W TO/S) is in N/m2]

135
Ude is the gust velocity for the speed being studied:

Ude = 7.62m/s at Vd
Ude = 15.24m/s at Vc
Ude = 20m/s at Vb

Vb = 1.6 × Va for n =1:

Vb = 1.6 × 24.812 = 39.699m/s

kg is the gust alleviation factor:

kg = (0.88mr) ÷ (5.3+mr)

mr is the aeroplane mass ratio:

mr = [2(WTO/S)]÷(ρ×c×a×g)

a = airfoil lift curve slope

Lift curve slope of NACA0012 = 0.106 a∞/degree = 6.074 a∞/radian

However, this value is for a theoretical wing of infinite span – it doesn’t take
into account tip effects. To do this we must take the aspect ratio of the wing
(6.379) and read off a correcting factor from figure 3.9 on page 40 of [6]. This
figure gives us a correction factor of 0.8, so the true value of the lift curve
slope is:

6.074 × 0.8 = 4.859 a∞/radian

mr = [2(527.925)]÷(0.9579×0.972×4.859×9.80665)

mr = [1055.85]÷(44.366) = 23.798

kg = (0.88×23.798) ÷ (5.3+23.798) = 20.942 ÷ 29.098 = 0.72

Vd:

ng = 1 ± [(kg×a×ρ0×Ude×Vd) ÷ 2(W TO/S)]

ng = 1 ± [(0.72×4.859×1.225×7.62×100.584) ÷ 2(527.925)]

ng = 1 ± [(3284.728) ÷ 1055.85] = 1 ± 3.111 = 4.111 or – 2.111

Vc:

ng = 1 ± [(kg×a×ρ0×Ude×Vc) ÷ 2(W TO/S)]

136
ng = 1 ± [(4.287×15.24×80.467) ÷ 1055.85]

ng = 1 ± 4.979 = 5.979 or – 3.979

Vb:

ng = 1 ± [(kg×a×ρ0×Ude×Vb) ÷ 2(W TO/S)]

ng = 1 ± [(4.287×20×39.699) ÷ 1055.85]

ng = 1 ± 3.224 = 4.224 or – 2.224

These results are displayed in the diagram below.

As you can see, due to the aerobatic nature of the C1, the gust loads are not
near the limit loads.

137
Fig.17.1: C1 V-n Diagram

138
18. Design Features

Having now dealt with the physical, aerodynamic, performance and loading
design of the C1 biplane, the Author will proceed by outlining a number of
innovative design features that could be integrated into the design to make it a
better equipped aircraft.

1) Laser Landing Altimeter.

Currently, when attempting to land some aircraft with low wings and
tailwheel landing gear, the pilot has to make a ‘crabbed’ approach.
They must sideslip towards the landing site as they cannot see the
ground clearly. This is obviously due to the position of the wing but also
the due to the tail wheel gear. Landing a tail wheel aircraft requires a
different angle of approach as the landing must be performed on three
points rather than two.

This problem is even worse in a biplane where this also an upper wing
blocking some of the forward visibility. To remove this problem a laser
altimeter could be fitted to the belly of the aircraft. Similar to a standard
laser range finder, the system would be switched on by the pilot as part
of his approach and the height accurately displayed in the cockpit.

This system is good because laser range finding technology has been
around some years now so it is reliable, and also because the
equipment is relatively cheap and light.

2) HILEDs

High Intensity Light Emitting Diodes are the perfect solution to the
problems associated with current external lights on aircraft.
Unfortunately many eternal lights have short life spans – the Cranfield
bulldog aircraft, for example has lights with a life span of only 50 flight
hours. Compare that with the life of an LED; estimates range from
100,000 to 1,000,000 hours.

LEDs are also more physically durable than traditional bulbs and they
draw far less power which is especially useful in aircraft applications
where the size of batteries is a real problem.

These modern light sources are now being produced with the power to
fulfil all lighting requirements in aircraft and, because demand for LEDs
has caused a big increase in production and investment they are
becoming more capable and cheaper all the time.

3) Automotive racing harness

139
 Current aerobatic harnesses are very heavy and difficult to use. They
have heavy forged clasps and buckles which are totally unnecessary.
Modern motor sport harnesses are designed to the same brief: Secure
the occupant against high loads and above all do not let them fall ‘up’
between the shoulder straps.

Since the aim is the same it would be easy to use a racing harness and
by doing so, weight is reduced and ease of use is increased.

4) Airbags

There are now quite a few airbag manufacturers able to supply airbags
designed specifically for aviation applications. They are relatively small
and light and would greatly increase the survivability of forward
crashes.

They could be easily fitted behind the instrument panel and arranged to
emerge from a slot (as in cars) just above the instruments.

5) Scarfed Bulkheads

A scarfed bulkhead is one where the bottom edge is raked rearwards.

The purpose is to reduce the chances of the ‘scooping’. This is where
the bulkhead of the engine bay (for instance) digs into the ground as
the belly of the aircraft slides along the ground – thus bringing the
aircraft to a sudden stop. As Raymer says, we want:

Fig. 18.1: Diagrammatic demonstration of bulkhead scarfing [4]

This principle can also be applied to the rear of the crash cell. By
scarfing the bottom edge of the rear wall of the crash cell towards the
nose; the ballast tank would be effectively deflected if it came away
during a crash.

140
19. Drawings

Fig. 19.1: Top view drawing of the C1

Fig. 19.2: Side view drawing of the C1

141
Fig. 19.3: Four view drawing of the C1

142
Fig. 19.4: Front view drawing of the C1 fuselage

Fig. 19.5: Side view drawing of the C1 fuselage

143
Fig. 19.6: 4 View drawing of the C1 fuselage

144
20. Conclusions

The C1 biplane is a very good design – both in terms of looks and

performance. It matches up very well with the other aircraft in its class and fits
the market niche between the outright performance of the Kimball Pitts Model
12 and the classic appeal of the Pitts Special S-2C.

The stated aims of ease of use and maintainability have been adhered to by
the choice of a low maintenance engine and other items components
increased life over current standard equipment. The aircraft would be
responsive and enjoyable to teach and learn the principles of aerobatics in.

The age old problem of landing a tail wheel aircraft has alleviated with
introduction of properly damped gear, a laser altimeter and the use of gyro
controlled servo motors that take over the job of ‘dancing’ on the rudder
pedals during landings.

Also, the aircraft has been designed in such a way as to enable the use of
mass production manufacturing methods. By removing the human element of
the manufacturing process, costs are cut which can be passed on to the
purchaser and also the production volume can be dramatically increased –
again reducing cost. The quality of build would also improve and become
more uniform.

Further work could include a combined CFD and FEA analysis of the wing
structure: This would enable an accurate assessment to be made of the
benefits structurally, and disadvantages aerodynamically of having flying
wires.

Also necessary for progression of the project would be a detailed

manufacturing analysis, to see which parts of the design could be efficiently
automated for instance.

145
References

[1] Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft – online database.

[2] NASA Reference Publication 1060 – “Subsonic Aircraft: Evolution and the
Matching of Size to Performance” Laurence K. Loftin, Jr. August 1980

[3] “Airplane Design – Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes” Dr. Jan Roskam
1989

[4] “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach” 3rd Edition Daniel P. Raymer

1992

[5] “The Design of the Aeroplane” 1st Edition Darrol Stinton 1983

[6] ”Light Aircraft Design Handbook” 3rd Edition Loughborough University 1971

[7] “Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis” Denis Howe 2000

146
Bibliography

[1] NASA TM 75059 – “Effect of Flap Deflection on the Lift Coefficient of

Wings Operating in a Biplane Configuration” J. Stasiak 1977

[2] AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 13, No.4 – “Experimental Determination of

Improved Aerodynamic Characteristics Using Biplane Wing Configurations” –
E. C. Olson & B. P. Selberg 1976

[3] NACA RM L54E03A – “Stresses & Deflections of a Swept Biplane Wing”

George W. Zender 1954

[4] NACA TIB 4138 – “Preliminary Investigation at Subsonic and Transonic

Speeds of The Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Biplane Composed of a
Sweptback & a Sweptforward Wing Joined at the Tips” Jones F. Cahill 1954

[5] ARC R&M 1715 – “A New Form of Biplane” H. B. Irving 1936

[6] NACA R 501 – “Relative Loading on Biplane Wings of Unequal Chords”

Walter S. Diehl 1934

[7] NACA R 458 – “Relative Loading on Biplane Wings.” Walter S. Diehl 1933

[8] NACA R 445 – “Working Charts for the Determination of the Lift
Distribution Between Biplane Wings” Paul Kuhn 1932

[9] NACA R 362 – “An Extended Theory of Thin Aerofoils & Its Application to
the Biplane Problem” 1930

[10] NACA R 256 – “The Air Forces on a Systematic Series of Biplane &
Triplane Cellule Models” Max M. Munk 1927

[11] ARC R&M 1098 – “The Distribution of Pressure Over a Monoplane and a
Biplane with Wings of Unequal Chord and Equal Span” A. S. Batson 1927

[12] NACA TN 143 – “Calculations for a Single Strut Biplane with Reference to
the Tensions in the Wing Bracing” O. Blumenthal 1925

[13] ARC R&M 997 – “The Distribution of Pressure over a Biplane with Wings
of Unequal Chord and Span” H. B. Irving

[14] ARC R&M 901 – “Theoretical Relationships for a Biplane” H. Glaurt 1923

[15] NACA R 151 – “General Biplane Theory” Max M. Munk 1922

[16] NACA TN 70 – “The Effect of Staggering a Biplane” F. H. Norton 1921

147
Appendix A

Here all the data collected from [1] has been arranged:

148
149
 Required Power vs Velocity at 8,000ft
350
Appendix B

300

250

Power
Required

200
Min
Power

150 Min Drag

Required Power [hp]

Max

Fig. B.1: C1 thrust profile

Power
100

50

74.736 98.355

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Velocity [mph]

150