The Design of Advanced Very Light Jet Aircraft
PRASETYO EDI
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Institut Teknologi Dirgantara Adisutjipto (ITDA)
Lanud Adisucipto, Jl. Raya Janti, Jogjakarta
INDONESIA (55198)
Abstract: - The current state of the art in aircraft design has shown that in order to be economically viable and
competitive it is necessary to investigate technology, which may give an improvement in performance and
operational flexibility goal, but must be shown to be cost-effective. The current competitive environment forces the
potential customers to buy advanced technology aircraft and requires manufacturers to provide more operational
flexibility, without drastic performance penalties. This is a challenging task, which might be solved by the use of
new technologies. It is believed that the application of an advanced high-lift capability, high cruise Mach number
and lower moment turbulent airfoils derived from MS (1)-0317 and MS (1)-0313 to a wing would assist in achieving
such a task. This paper describes an investigation aimed to examine the suitability of an aerodynamic wing design,
allowing for the use of an advanced turbulent wing section concept for advanced medium-speed Very Light Jet
(VLJ) aircraft. The paper describes the phenomenon of configuration design and outlines the wing design process.
Description is then given of the aerodynamic design of a wing incorporated with an advanced turbulent wing section
technology, tail design and aircraft performances. It concludes with a discussion of the results and recommendations
for future work.
Keywords: - business jet; very light jet; aircraft design; aerodynamic configuration; wing design
Received: October 24, 2021. Revised: October 26, 2022. Accepted: November 22, 2022. Published: December 31, 2022.
1 Introduction
For VLJ aircraft, one of the basic aerodynamic
performance objectives is to achieve the highest value
of M(L/D)max at the cruise Mach number. Climb and
descent performance, especially for short range
missions, is also important and may suggest the “cruise”
design conditions be compromised. In the past 20 years,
much airframe development has been aimed at reducing
lift-dependent drag, leading to higher-aspect-ratio-
wings and winglets coupled with overall optimization
of wing design [1].
To achieve further major advances, it is necessary to
look at other aspects of design, in particular, the lift and
cruise Mach number capability of advanced turbulent
airfoil derived from MS (1)-0317 and MS (1)-0313.
Medium-speed airfoils have been designed to fill the
gap between the low-speed airfoils and the supercritical
airfoils for application on light general aviation aircraft.
The intention of medium-speed (MS) airfoil
development was to combine the best features of low-
speed and supercritical airfoil technology; this airfoil
development is discussed in detail in reference [2 & 3].
The advantages of the medium-speed airfoils were to
increase the cruise Mach number of the low-speed
airfoils while retaining their good high-lift, low-speed
characteristics and docile stall behavior.
This paper describes the continuation of previous
work in these areas to assess their broad impact on
configuration design parameters to produce major
increases in aerodynamic efficiency.
2 Configuration Design
Designing an aircraft can be an overwhelming task for
a new designer. The designer must determine where the
wing goes, how big to make the fuselage, and how to
put all the pieces together [1].
A sound choice of the general arrangement of a new
aircraft design should be based on a proper investigation
into and interpretation of the transport function and a
translation of the most pertinent requirements into a
suitable positioning of the major parts in relation to each
other. No clear-cut design procedure can be followed
and the task of devising the configuration is therefore a
highly challenging one to the resourceful designer.
The study of possible configurations should result in
one or more sketches of feasible layouts. They serve as
a basis for more detailed design efforts, and they can
therefore be regarded as a first design phase. Usually
trade studies between several possible configurations
will be required before the choice of the best
configuration is made.
2.1 The market
Bombardier Aerospace’s latest 20-year market
forecast, released on Sunday at the Farnborough
Airshow (14 to 20 July 2014), shows a significant drop
in anticipated deliveries of business jets compared with
its forecast from last year. The current forecast, which
spans from 2014 to 2033, calls for deliveries of 22,000
business jets worth $617 billion. Last year Bombardier
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
261
Volume 2, 2022
predicted demand for 24,000 business jets worth $650
billion from 2013 to 2032. These numbers are for
aircraft segments in which the manufacturer competes,
with its Learjets, Challengers and Globals. According to
Bombardier, “Business aircraft orders are expected to
remain challenging in 2014 across the industry, but
projected to improve beginning in 2015.” The company
sees demand shifting to emerging markets and thus
driving growth of the medium and large jet categories,
with the most rapid growth in the large segment. The
largest number of jets during the forecast period will be
delivered to North American customers, followed by
Europe and then China. The forecast sees deliveries of
950 jets in China from 2014 to 2023 and 1,275 from
2024 to 2033 [44].
Bombardier Business Aircraft (BBA) believes that
the long-term market drivers of growth for the business
jet industry remain solid. These market drivers include:
wealth creation, increasing penetration in high growth
economies, globalization of trade, replacement demand,
and market accessibility [45].
2.2 Design requirements and objectives
The following are the design requirements and
objectives of the VLJ aircraft that need to be fulfilled
during the design process in this project.
* Designation: VLJ-25
* Crew: 1 pilot
* Payload: 5 passengers
* Range: 1500 nm with design payload plus alternate
flight as long as 100 nm and holding for 30 min before
landing.
* Cruise Speed: 420 knots at 33,000ft (M = 0.70)
* All engine operative take-off distance at maximum
take-off weight is 2625 ft; landing distance at a landing
weight is 2297 ft.
2.3 Aircraft configuration
Based on an existing aircraft there are two main types
of general arrangement for a business jet aircraft,
namely: conventional and unconventional.
Conventional arrangement (aft-tail). The engine
mounted on the aft fuselage, low wing and T-
Tail/Cross-Tail configuration is the most common for
most VLJ aircraft. This is because of the engine ground
clearance requirements. This configuration has several
advantages, i.e.: aerodynamically clean wing, less
control power for one engine out trim, better engine
rotor burst and engine ground clearance. The
disadvantages include: no wing root bending moment
relief, relatively higher cabin noise levels, heavier fuel
system, difficult aircraft c.g. (center of gravity)
management & engine accessibility. Typical general
arrangement of this configuration is Eclipse 500.
Over the past few years, Honda has been quietly
developing a six- to eight-place very light twinjet
(Honda Business Jet). What makes the HondaJet
particularly unusual is not its creator but its over-the-
wing engine configuration. With no carry-through
structure needed in the aft fuselage for its engine pylons,
this configuration allows a full-width cabin farther aft,
maximizing interior dimension [5].
Honda claims with nacelle located at the optimum
position relative to the wing, the shock wave can be
minimized, and drag divergence occurs at a Mach
number higher than that for the clean-wing
configuration. Compared to clean-wing configuration,
over-the-wing engine configuration has better stall
characteristics, the zero-lift angle increase by 1.2
degrees and maximum lift increase by 0.07.
Preliminary specifications include a 9,200 lb. max.
take-off weight, 420-knot cruise speed, 44,000-foot
ceiling and an NBAA IFR range of 1,100 nm.
Fig. 1. Initial concept of VLJ-25-01
The above configuration also has several
advantages, i.e.: wing root bending moment relief,
relatively lower cabin noise levels, lighter fuel system,
easy aircraft c.g. management (engine close to aircraft
CG) & engine accessibility. The disadvantages include:
aerodynamically not clean wing, more control power
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
262
for one engine out trim, critical engine rotor burst and
more wetted area hence drag and weight due to bigger
engine pylon.
For this project (VLJ-25), the conventional
arrangement was selected as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 and
Fig. 3 show the cabin cross section cross section and
plan view respectively.
Fig. 2. Cabin cross section
Fig. 3. Cabin plan view
3 Aerodynamic Wing Design
Wing design is a highly integrated process involving not
only the aerodynamicists but also all other engineering
disciplines, marketing, sales, manufacturing, and design
groups.
3.1 General requirements
Basic requirements that must be achieved for a
successful wing design include [1 - 43]:
a. The configuration must satisfy the performance
goals in the design specifications whilst achieving good
economic returns.
b. Flight characteristics, handling qualities, and
aircraft operations must be satisfactory and safe over the
entire flight envelope for all aircraft configurations
(high speed, low speed, different flap settings, gear
positions, power settings, and suitable ground
handling).
c. Design of a structure must be possible within the
defined external shape to meet the strength, torsion,
fatigue, flutter, weight, life cycle, maintainability,
accessibility and engine requirements, together with
suitable development and manufacturing costs.
d. Sufficient space must be provided for fuel for the
design range, for retraction of the main landing gear,
and for the aircraft systems (flaps, ailerons, spoilers,
fuel, gear, etc.), where appropriate.
Meeting all these requirements simultaneously is
difficult and will most likely require compromise for a
satisfactory configuration to be achieved.
Performance requirements will typically include the
aircraft manufacturer company management’s
perception of the airline requirements for the design
payload, cargo, range and speed. Objectives will vary
from specific requirements, such as sea level and high-
altitude field performance and span limitations, to
constraints such as approach speed and initial cruise
altitude capability. Compatibility with current flight
operations (speed and altitude) must be considered.
Design Mach number and lift coefficient will be based
on either average cruise performance or on climb and
descent conditions. Short range aircraft, which spend a
majority of their flight time relatively in high speed,
flaps up, climb and descent, should consider average
climb and descent speeds, weights and altitudes for
design conditions. Economic return is a direct function
of aircraft purchase price, direct operating costs (DOC),
and fuel efficiency and will significantly influence
aircraft sales.
Flight characteristics and handling qualities
influence wing design primarily in stall speeds and
handling characteristics prior to and during stall, in
initial buffet boundaries, and in longitudinal and lateral-
directional stabilities.
The aircraft’s structural design will impact the wing
design primarily in its influence on aeroelasticity wing
span limitations and landing gear storage. Structural
efficiency for minimum wing weight is defined by not
only span and chord but also by spar depth.
Requirements for fuel volume, flap and control systems
and actuator sizes all influence the spar depth and thus
weight.
It is convenient to separate wing area and wing
shape effects in the design process. Wing area and the
high lift flaps are closely related to aircraft performance.
Wing shape parameters such as planform, sweep, taper,
twist, and airfoil sections will typically influence stall
and buffet characteristics. This is complicated by span
and aspect ratio, which are planform parameters that
affect performance.
Parameters affecting wing design [1 - 43] are
presented in Fig. 4.
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
263
Fig. 4. Parameters affecting wing design
3.2 Aerodynamic design objectives
The main objectives of the wing design are:
a. To obtain a pattern of approximately straight
isobar sweep at an angle at least equal to the wing
sweepback angle, with the upper surface generally
being critical for drag divergence. If this aim is
achieved, the flow will be approximately two-
dimensional and the drag-divergence will occur at the
same Mach number everywhere along the span.
b. To obtain the highest possible wing efficiency
(L/D) in cruise flight. The maximum reduction in drag
for the wing must be obtained for the cruise CL
corresponding to the design case for the proposed
aircraft. To achieve the objectives for the design, it was
required that the airfoil pressure distributions (suitably
interpolated over the span) should be realized by the 3D
wing.
c. To have a good performance in off-design
operations.
3.3 Wing design
Wing design is of key interest to the aerodynamicist
because of its dominant influence on aircraft
performance. Early jet transport wing designs were
based almost entirely on previous military flight
experience and considerable wind tunnel testing.
Computational aerodynamics is changing the design
process so that more highly refined configurations are
possible.
The transport wing design procedure is a continually
evolving process. The process has evolved from one of
only wind tunnel testing mixed with considerable
experience to a procedure that includes tunnel testing,
experience and analytical computational aerodynamics.
With the advent of computational aerodynamics, the
process used to achieve a successful wing design has
been improved. Both wind tunnel testing and
computational aerodynamics techniques are still
required so that the wing design process will continue
to change and improve with time.
Although many wing design procedures provide a
first-cut try at a “good” wing design, the procedure is
not substantiated well enough to guarantee a successful
design without considerable wind tunnel testing. It
should be anticipated that several cycles of wind tunnel
testing will be required to achieve a successful wing
design. The primary deficiencies in computational
aerodynamics include inadequate modeling of
separated and vortex flow, no detailed shock/boundary
layer interaction scheme, no adequate drag calculations
and no body boundary-layer simulation.
It is beyond the scope of this work to undertake a
complete wing design, as described above. In this study,
only the aerodynamic aspect will be considered.
3.3.1 Airfoil design
Selection/design of the outboard wing sweep and
outboard airfoil section are made at the same time.
Usually for most swept wings, the outboard airfoil
section defines the wing Mach number capability. This
is a result of the higher outboard wing section loading
compared to the inboard wing. The lower inboard wing
lift is due to wing taper and the lower lift curve slopes
near the side of the fuselage. The outboard wing airfoil
is selected/designed based not only on the design Mach
number but also on the airfoil off-design characteristics.
Good low Mach number lift capability is required for
climb performance and for aircraft gross weight growth
capability. High Mach number characteristics should
exhibit low drag creep below cruise Mach number and
still maintain gentle stall buffet characteristics. Shock
position should remain fairly stable with small changes
in Mach number or angle of attack to maintain good ride
quality and handling characteristics.
Development of an airfoil is concerned mainly with
the selection of the desired pressure distribution. Once
this is done, the shape can be computed by a
mathematical procedure. However, not all pressure
distributions correspond to physically meaningful
airfoil shapes; real flow constrains the pressure
distribution to have a leading-edge stagnation point, low
pressure forward, and gradually rising pressure aft,
ending somewhat above ambient at the trailing edge.
However, airfoils described above are often prone to
increased shock growth, which result in earlier
occurrence of drag rise conditions, relative to an airfoil
with an adverse ‘roof-top’ pressure gradient. In
fundamental wing design terms, this implies increased
sweep, reduced thickness/chord ratio, and/or reduced
wing loading, all of which reduce the aerodynamic
and/or structural efficiency of the wing for a specified
design condition. An alternate approach may be to use
an airfoil with a mildly adverse ‘roof-top’ pressure
gradient to improve wave drag and lift capabilities.
Careful consideration would be required to
select/design an airfoil section to achieve maximum
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
264
aircraft efficiency and minimum operating economics
with turbulent flow and a suitable off-design
performance.
Airfoil design requirements
In order to satisfy the above aerodynamic wing
requirements, the airfoil design requirements are:
a. Low section profile drag coefficients are desired
at cruise and climb conditions. Consideration should
also be given to provide some operational margin. For
this application, cruise performance is more important
than climb performance, and so more emphasis was
placed on low drag at cruise conditions.
b. The section maximum lift coefficient with no flap
deflection should be at least 1.8. The loss in maximum
lift coefficient due to leading edge contamination
should be less than 7%. The stall characteristics should
be docile.
c. At cruise condition, the section pitching moment
coefficient should not be too negative to minimize the
trim drag penalty. In addition, the hinge moment
coefficient, that is, aileron floating tendency, should not
be excessive.
d. Airfoil thickness must be 17% chord (root) and
13.5% chord (tip) to ensure sufficient fuel volume to
satisfy the range requirement.
e. The drag divergence Mach number should be
higher than 0.70 at cruise condition.
Clean airfoil.
It selected two airfoil types of NACA 65(3)-218 and
medium speed airfoils MS(1)-0317 as shown in Fig. 5.
The pressure distribution of MS(1)-0317 airfoil is
predicted with XFOIL 1.0 code. XFOIL 1.0 was written
by Mark Drela in 1986. XFOIL is an interactive
program for the design and analysis of subsonic isolated
airfoils. The results are as shown in Fig. 6.
The MS(1)-0317 has higher lift coefficient at zero
angle of attack and 2-D maximum lift coefficient
(clmax) than NACA 65(3)-218, as presented in Table 1.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of the airfoils thickness to the
maximum lift coefficient. The highest maximum lift
coefficient occurs at 14% thickness ratio for medium
airfoil series and 12% for NACA series.
A high-speed characteristic of Mach Drag
Divergence (MDD) for various thickness ratios was
analyzed using MSES code. As shown in Fig. 8, MDD
for MS(1)-0317 is higher than for NACA 65(3)-218.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the airfoils candidate
Fig. 6. NASA/LANGLEY MS(1)-0317 airfoil
Fig. 7. The effect of thickness ratio to the maximum
lift coefficient of the airfoils
For this study, the wing airfoils are derived from
MS(1)-0317 and MS(1)-0313 with modifying the lower
aft portion to decrease pitching moment. The root airfoil
has a thickness ratio of 17% and 13.5% thickness ratio
for the tip airfoil (it is a compromise between structure,
maximum lift coefficient, lift-to-drag ratio, Mach drag
divergence and to ensure sufficient fuel volume to
satisfy the range requirement). The geometries of the
above airfoils are as shown in Fig. 9.
Table 1 Comparison of the characteristics of the airfoil
candidates
ITEM
NACA 65(3)-218
MS (1)-0317
Cl max
1.48
1.98
Alfa max
18
18
Cl at alfa = 0
0.15
0.35
Cd at Cl = 0
0.0045
0.0070
Cm at Cl = 0
-0.03
-0.075
Leading edge
shape
Sharp
Blunt
Notes: Cd = drag coefficient
Cm = moment coefficient Cl = lift coefficient
Fig. 8. Mach Drag Divergence (MDD)
The effect of t/c to the Clmax aerofoil
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
810 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
t/c (%)
Clmax
LS-MS Series
NACA 230 Series
NACA 44 Series
NACA 24 Series
NACA 65 Series
The effect of t/c to the Clmax aerofoil
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
810 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
t/c (%)
Clmax
LS-MS Series
NACA 230 Series
NACA 44 Series
NACA 24 Series
NACA 65 Series
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
265
Fig. 9. Airfoils for wing root and tip
Flap.
For simplicity reasons, a single slotted flap to be applied
in VLJ-25 to achieve the given requirement. The flap
chord ratio is 28% airfoil chord.
Fig. 10 shows the flap deflection schedule for clean,
take-off and landing configuration. MSES code is used
to define the flap gap and overlap, the result is shown in
Fig. 11.
3.3.2 Wing aerodynamic design
The wing is designed to satisfy the low and high-speed
requirements. The wing performance presented in this
section is for Wfx1-3 configuration, which is slightly
different from VLJ-25-01 (Fig. 1). The wing geometric
parameters are:
* Area (S) = 17 m2
* Aspect ratio (AR) = 9
* Span = 12.36 m
* c/4 sweep = 4.33 deg.
* Taper ratio
* Incidence = 2 deg.
* Twist = -3 deg.
* Dihedral = 5 deg.
* Root chord = 1.96 m
* Tip chord = 0.79 m
* Mean aerodynamic chord = 1.458 m
* Thickness ratio (t/c)root = 0.17
* Thickness ratio (t/c)tip = 0.135
Fig. 10. Flap deflection schedule for clean, take off
and landing configuration
The low-speed requirements are maximum lift
coefficient (CLmax) and the stall characteristics; while
the high-speed requirements are MDD (Mach Drag
Divergence), shock wave and buffet (buffet is caused by
unsteady separated flow at high and low speeds and
large angles of attack, it can be caused by shock waves
at high speed). For take-off and landing configuration
CLmax (aircraft max. lift-coefficient) must be at least
2.2 and 2.5 respectively. These requirements are
defined in the aircraft configuration sizing to achieve
the required performances.
Fig. 11. Gap and overlap scheme for take off
configuration
The stall characteristics can be defined by using the
span load distribution calculated by VSAERO code for
various angles of attack. At stall, clmax at root and at tip
of the wing is a tangent line to the span load distribution
at appropriate Reynolds number and certain angle of
attack. It might be addressed/designed that the stall
starting point will occur on a certain location of the wing
for untwist and –3 degrees twist of the wing
configuration.
For the untwisted wing, the stall starting point is at
56% semi span and for –3 degrees twisted wing the stall
starting point is at 36% semi span, as shown in Fig. 12
- 15. Therefore, the twisted wing provides the good stall
starting point as well as good stall characteristics.
Fig. 12. Stall characteristics and progression over the
wing (M 0.2, untwist and flap def = 0 deg.)
Based on the “Mach vs CD” chart, MDD is defined
as Mach number where dCD/dM = 0.1. For this study,
MDD was calculated using SYN88 code. As shown in
Fig. 16, the value of MDD is about 0.72 at cruise lift
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
266
coefficient of 0.310 for 7500 lbs maximum take off
weight.
Comparison of chordwise pressure distributions on
wing for several Mach number and angle of attack is
shown in Fig. 17; it can be seen that at design point the
shape of the chordwise pressure distribution is similar
to its 2D (rooftop) and there is no strong shock wave
until Mach number 0.7. The pattern of approximately
straight isobar sweeps at an angle at least equal to the
wing sweepback angle, with the upper surface generally
being critical for drag divergence. Hopefully the flow
will be approximately two-dimensional and the drag-
divergence will occur at the same Mach number
everywhere along the span (in the future need to be
supported by 3D calculations).
Fig. 13. Stall characteristics and progression over the
wing (M 0.2, -3 deg twist and flap def = 0 deg.)
For wings with a varying maximum thickness ratio,
the objective is to maintain isobars that are swept along
constant percent chord lines. To achieve this goal will
require camber modifications that will probably result
in characteristics equivalent to thicker airfoil sections.
Fig. 14. Stall characteristics and progression over the
wing (M 0.2, -3 deg twist and flap def = 10 deg.)
Wing upper surface isobars (constant Cp’s) are the
key to the wing performance and achievement of the
equivalent 2D aerofoil performance. Usually isobars
are defined to be swept along constant percent
chordlines on the wing. Constant percent chordline
isobars are desirable so that at transonic speeds the
shock strength and location and section loading will be
constant. This is relatively easy to achieve for a
trapezoidal wing with constant thickness. The
chordwise values of the isobars are directly a function
of the aerofoil pressure distributions and are left to the
discretion of the designer.
Fig. 15. Stall characteristics and progression over the
wing (M 0.2, -3 deg twist and flap def = 30 deg.)
Fig. 16. Mach Drag Divergence
Fig. 17. Chordwise pressure distributions on wing
wing (df0 -3 twist) spanload curves
W B M ac h=0.2 R e=6 E+06
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
01234567
Y/2
LOCAL LIFT COEFFICIE NT, Cl
alpha=0 alpha=8
alpha=12 alpha=15
alpha=18 alpha=20
alpha=-2 alpha=-4
C lm ax b ou nd ary
(M S E S )
STALL STAR T P OINT
about 36% span
Stall progression
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
267
Fig. 18 shows wing-span-load distributions for
several Mach number and angle of attack, where its
shape is almost triangular.
Choice of the wing span-load distribution is an
important decision in the wing design process. Ideally,
an elliptic distribution is desirable at the cruise
condition because of the implied minimum induced
drag. However, several factors make a slightly
triangular distribution very desirable. First, an elliptic
loading at cruise will tend to overload the wing tip at the
design load condition. This implies a more outboard
center of pressure and associated increased wing
structural weight. Also associated with the further
outboard loading is the tendency for increased tip stall
and its influence on pitch-up and handling qualities.
Trade studies of increased drag and reduced wing
weight for more triangular span-load distributions must
be made.
Fig. 18. Wing-span load distributions
4 Tail Design
The airfoils for horizontal and vertical tail are MS(1)-
313 (installed inverted) and NACA 651A013,
respectively.
The horizontal tail should be kept out of the wing
wake at cruise (this may require significant tail
dihedral). However, a high tail should be carefully
evaluated because tail effectiveness at the stall may
become inadequate (Fig. 19), resulting in pitch-up,
and/or the possibility of a “deep stall” [4 & 43]. In a
deep stall, the horizontal tail is immersed in separated
flow from the wing, so that there is insufficient
longitudinal control power to get out of the stall.
The pitch-up characteristics of the aircraft are as follows
(Figure 19) [4 & 43]:
Region A Pitch-up at high lift generally preceded by
warning
Region B Pitch-up without warning, avoid
Region C Generally no pitch up at subcritical speeds
Region D Generally no pitch-up
To prove the stability of the above VLJ
configuration, further detail analysis, including wind
tunnel test is needed.
Fig. 19. Guidelines for wing design and horizontal-tail
position in VLJ aircraft
5 Aircraft Performances
The aircraft performances (Fig. 20) are predicted at
maximum take-off weight = 7,500 lbs., operating empty
weight = 4,780 lbs., fuel weight = 1,695 lbs. and design
payload (5 passengers @ 205 lbs.) = 1,025 lbs.
The summary of aircraft performances is:
* Range = 1,500 nm
* Max speed at cruise = 420 knots (M = 0.70)
* The payload-range diagram is presented in Figure 20.
* Take-off field length = 2,311 ft
* Landing field length = 2,225 ft
(with the assumption of maximum lift coefficient for
take-off and landing are 2 and 2.6 respectively).
Fig. 20. Payload vs. Range diagram
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
268
6 Conclusions
A methodology has been developed for the
aerodynamic wing design, allowing for the use of an
advanced high-lift capability, high cruise Mach number
and lower moment turbulent airfoils derived from MS
(1)-0317 and MS (1)-0313 for VLJ aircraft.
To simulate the real flow, the grid should be fine
enough, especially in the region of high curvature (e.g.,
leading edge), the grid adjacent to the wall and in the
regions of high-pressure gradients.
The conclusion can finally be drawn, that the
application of an advanced turbulent airfoils concept is
feasible for a VLJ aircraft from an aerodynamic point of
view, with the same reservations that apply to the
feasibility of any advanced turbulent airfoils aircraft,
i.e., that the economic aspects depend on manufacturing
and operational data. Before advanced turbulent airfoils
technology can be applied to VLJ aircraft, a large
multidisciplinary research effort is needed in order to
master the technology and to demonstrate it on flying
test-beds, and during in-service operational tests.
Acknowledgement:
The author is grateful to ITD Adisutjipto Jogjakarta and
Indonesian Aerospace (IAe/PT. DI/IPTN) for
supporting this research.
References:
[1] Prasetyo Edi and J. P. Fielding. Civil-Transport
Wing Design Concept Exploiting New
Technologies. Journal of Aircraft, AIAA, Volume
43, Number 4, July – August 2006, page 932 –
940.
[2] Robert J. McGhee and William D. Beasley. Low-
Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 17-
Percent-Thick Medium-Speed Airfoil Designed
for General Aviation Applications. NASA
Technical Paper 1786. 1980.
[3] Robert J. McGhee and William D. Beasley. Low-
Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 13-
Percent-Thick Medium-Speed Airfoil Designed
for General Aviation Applications. NASA
Technical Paper 1498. 1979.
[4] Zainul Huda, Prasetyo Edi, Abdulhakim A.
Almajid, and Ahmed Z. Al-Garni. New Trends in
Designing Markets, Configurations and Materials
for Very Light Jet Aircrafts. Journal of Aerospace
Engineering (ASCE: American Society of Civil
Engineers, USA), 25(3), 369–375, Volume 25,
Issue 3 (July 2012).
[5] M. Fujino, Honda R&D Americas. ”Design and
Development of the HondaJet”, AIAA 2003-2530.
Dayton, Ohio, 14-17 July 2003.
[6] Prasetyo Edi. A Flow Control for a High Subsonic
Regional Aircraft Exploiting a Variable Camber
Wing with Hybrid Laminar Flow Control. IASME
TRANSACTIONS Journal on Fluid Mechanics
and Aerodynamics, Issue 6, Volume 2, August
2005, ISSN 1790-031X, page 927-936.
[7] Prasetyo Edi. An Aircraft Family Concept for a
High Subsonic Regional Aircraft. IASME
TRANSACTIONS Journal on Fluid Mechanics
and Aerodynamics, Issue 7, Volume 2, September
2005, ISSN 1790-031X, page 1140-1148.
[8] Prasetyo Edi. The Development of N-250 Military
Version. WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on Fluid
Mechanics, Issue 8, Volume 1, August 2006,
ISSN 1790-5087, page 832-837.
[9] Prasetyo Edi, Nukman Y. and Aznijar A. Y. The
Application of Computational Fluid Dynamic
(CFD) on the Design of High Subsonic Wing.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on APPLIED and
THEORETICAL MECHANICS, Issue 9, Volume
3, September 2008, ISSN: 1991-8747.
[10] D. Stinton. The Anatomy of the Airplane. BSP
Professional Books. 1989.
[11] DAeT 9439. Aircraft Design Lecture Note. AVT-
CoA-Cranfield University. Cranfield. UK.
[12] A. J. Bocci. Modern Wing Aerodynamic Design.
A course of lectures. Originally prepared by P.R.
Ashill. High Speed and Weapon Aerodynamics
Department. DRA Bedford. 1997
[13] J. Szodruch. Viscous Drag Reduction on
Transport Aircraft. AIAA 91-0685.
[14] D. Stinton. The Design of the Aeroplane. BSP
Professional Books. 1989.
[15] Prasetyo Edi. A Feasibility Study on the
Application of Variable Camber Wings on a
Military Tactical Transport Aircraft. Research
Thesis (MSc) Supervisor: Dr. J. P. Fielding.
AVT/CoA/Cranfield University, Cranfield - UK,
1994.
[16] Egbert Torenbeek. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane
Design. Delft University Press. 1982.
[17] Bertil Dillner, Fred W. May and John H.
McMasters. Aerodynamic Issues in the Design of
High-Lift Systems for Transport Aircraft. Boeing
Aircraft Company. AGARD-CP-365.
[18] D. S. Woodward and D. E. Lean. Where is High-
Lift Today? - A Review of Past UK Research
Programmes. DRA Farnborough - UK. AGARD-
CP-515. Sept. 1993.
[19] D. J. Butter. Recent Progress on Development and
Understanding of High-Lift Systems. AGARD-
CP-365.
[20] Walter O. Valarezo, Chet J. Dominik, Robert J.
McGhee and Wesley L. Goodman. High Reynolds
Number Configuration Development of a High-
Lift Airfoil. AGARD-CP-515. Sept. 1993
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
269
[21] Walter O. Valarezo, Chet J. Dominik, Robert J.
McGhee, Wesley L. Goodman and Keith B.
Paschal. Multi Element Airfoil Optimization for
Maximum Lift at High Reynolds Numbers. AIAA-
91-3332-CP.
[22] Dr. E. Greff (Deutsche Airbus GmbH, Bremen,
FRG); “Aerodynamic Design For A New
Regional Aircraft”; 17th ICAS Congress -
Stockholm, 9th-14th September 1990; Paper No.
90-2.7.1.
[23] Dr. Jan Roskam. Airplane Design Parts I-VIII.
Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation.
Ottawa, KS. 1989.
[24] J. A. Jupp. Winglets for the Airbus.
[25] D. E. Hoak and D. E. Ellison. USAF Stability and
Control DATCOM. Flight Control Division, Air
Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, WPAFB,
Ohio, 45433-0000, 1978, revised.
[26] Hermann Schlichting and Erich Truckenbrodt.
Aerodynamics of the Airplane. McGraw-Hill
International Book Company. 1979.
[27] D. Kuchemann. The Aerodynamic Design of
Aircraft. Pergamon Press Ltd. Oxford, England.
1978.
[28] Daniel P. Raymer. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach. AIAA Education Series. 1992.
[29] Michael C. Y. Niu. Airframe Structural Design.
Practical Design Information and Data on
Aircraft Structures. Conmilit Press Ltd. 1988.
[30] Bernard Etkin and Lloyd Duff Reid. Dynamics of
Flight. Stability and Control. Third edition. 1996.
John Wiley &Sons, Inc.
[31] McRuer, Ashkenas, and Graham. Aircraft
Dynamics and Automatic Control. Princeton
University Press. 1990.
[32] M. V. Cook. Flight Dynamics Principles. College
of Aeronautics, Cranfield University. Arnold.
1997.
[33] D. L. Berry. Civil Aircraft Propulsion
Integration: Current & Future. SAE 932624,
AeroTech 93 Conference. Anaheim, Ca.
September, 1993.
[34] B. C. Clem, J. K. Elliott, T. L. B. Tamigniaux, and
E. N. Tinoco. Recent CFD Applications on Jet
Transport Configurations. Boeing Commercial
Airplane Group. AIAA-92-2658-CP.
[35] W. H. Jou, W. P. Huffman, D. P. Young, R. G.
Melvin, M. B. Bieterman, C. L. Hilmes, and F. T.
Johnson. Practical Considerations in
Aerodynamic Design Optimization. The Boeing
Company. AIAA-95-1730.
[36] T. J. Kao, T. Y. Su, and N. J. Yu. Navier-Stokes
Calculations for Transport Wing-Body
Configurations with Nacelles and Struts. Boeing
Commercial Airplane Group. AIAA-93-2945.
[37] Leigh Ann Smith and Richard L. Campbell.
Applications of a Direct/Iterative Design Method
to Complex Transonic Configurations. NASA TP
3234. 1992.
[38] Yasuhiro Tani and Kanichi Amano. Experimental
and Numerical Investigation on Liplets for
Wing/Nacelle Interference Drag Reduction.
ICAS-94-6.4.5. 1994.
[39] J. A. Jupp and T. Markham. The Prediction and
Reduction of Interference and Parasite Drag of
Transport Aircraft with Reference to the A310
Wing Development. Royal Aeronautical Society
Symposium on “The Prediction and Reduction of
Aircraft Drag”, 2nd March 1983.
[40] H. Zimmer. The Aerodynamic Optimization of
Wings at Subsonic Speeds and the Influence of
Wingtip Design. NASA TM-88534. May 1987.
[41] J. J. Spillman. Wing Tip Sails
[42] Dieter Schmitt. Advanced Technology Constant
Challenge and Evolutionary Process.
L’Aeronautique et l’Astronautique. No. 145-
1990-6-17.
[43] Nicolai, L. M. Fundamentals of aircraft design.
Mets, San Jose, CA. 1975.
[44] Matt Thurber. BOMBARDIER DOWN
GRADES 20-YEAR BUSINESS JET
FORECAST. July 15, 2014, 15:05.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-
07-15/bombardier-downgrades-20-year-business-
jet-forecast (Cited on Saturday 10/1/2015 @
21.30 KSA time).
[45] Bombardier Business Aircraft: Market Forecast
2011-2030.
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.35
Prasetyo Edi
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
270
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US