Data and Performances of Selected Aircraft and Rotorcraft Antonio Filippone*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 629}654 Data and performances of selected aircraft and rotorcraft Antonio Filippone* Department of Energy Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Building 404, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark Abstract The purpose of this article is to provide a synthetic and comparative view of selected aircraft and rotorcraft (nearly 300 of them) from past and present. We report geometric characteristics of wings (wing span, areas, aspect-ratios, sweep angles, dihedral/anhedral angles, thickness ratios at root and tips, taper ratios) and rotor blades (type of rotor, diameter, number of blades, solidity, rpm, tip Mach numbers); aerodynamic data (drag coe$cients at zero lift, cruise and maximum absolute glide ratio); performances (wing and disk loadings, maximum absolute Mach number, cruise Mach number, service ceiling, rate of climb, centrifugal acceleration limits, maximum take-o! weight, maximum payload, thrust-to- weight ratios). There are additional data on wing types, high-lift devices, noise levels at take-o! and landing. The data are presented on tables for each aircraft class. A graphic analysis o!ers a comparative look at all types of data. Accuracy levels are provided wherever available. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction. .................................... 631 2. Reliability of the data ............................................ 632 3. Aerodynamic data .............................................. 632 3.1. Drag coe$cients . .......................................... 633 3.2. Lift}drag ratio. ............................................. 635 3.3. Cruise Lift and high-lift performances . ............................. 636 4. Selected performance data . ....................................... 637 4.1. Mach number . ............................................ 637 4.2. Normal acceleration limits . ........................ 637 4.3. Rate of climb . ............................................. 638 4.4. Hover ceiling . ........................................... 638 4.5. Maximum take-o! weight and other weights............................ 638 4.6. Wing loading . ............................................ 638 4.7. Noise levels . ............................................. 638 5. Geometrical data . .............................................. 639 5.1. Wing geometry . ............................................ 639 5.2. Wing span . .............................................. 640 5.3. Aspect-ratios and shape parameters . ............................... 640 * Tel.: #45-45-25-43-24; fax: #45-45-93-06-93. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Filippone). 0376-0421/00/$- see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 7 6 - 0 4 2 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 7 630 A. Filippone / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 629}654 Nomenclature Subscripts/superscripts A wing area; rotor disk area (m ) []# cruise conditions AR wing geometrical aspect-ratio [] root b wing span (m) [] tip B main rotor'snumberofblades(rotorcraft) [] at zero lift c wing/blade chord (m) [] viscous C" drag coe$cient C* lift coe$cient Aircraft wing specixcations C* ! maximum lift coe$cient CD skin friction coe$cient BWB blended wing body d rotor diameter (m) FSW forward swept wing d!* tail rotor diameter (m) SBW swept back wing d equivalent wing span (m) VSW variable sweep (usually discrete posi- D drag force (N) tions) e wing e$ciency factor D conventional delta wing E maximum cargo range D double delta wing g> maximum normal acceleration, g-limit h hovering ceiling, out of ground e!ect (m) Rotorcraft specixcations k reduced frequency l aircraft length, or length scale (m) AT attack, anti-tank, anti-submarine, ad- ¸ lift force (N) vanced military vehicle LE leading edge line C cargo, crane, heavy lift transport (usually M Mach number military vehicle) n normal load factor GE civil/military general purpose vehicle " P* max power loading MTOW/T (kg/kN (patrol, rescue, transport) for jets; kg/kW for propellers) LC light commercial vehicle (for a few pas- P speci"c excess power (m/s) sengers and limited freight) QC quarter chord line UT military utility vehicle (troops, freight, \ q dynamic pressure (kg ms ) mateH riel, support operations) R aircraft range (km) TW twin or tandem rotor, utility vehicle with Re Reynolds number two rotor shafts R! rate of climb (m/min) TR tilt rotor vehicle t/c wing thickness ratio ¹ take-o! thrust rating (kN), International Other symbols and abbreviations Standard Atmosphere (ISA) u aircraft's speed (km/h, or m/s) AoA angle of attack ; aircraft's stalling velocity with #aps EPNdB e!ective perceived noise, measured in dB down (km/h) LERX leading-edge root extension " =/A max wing loading MTOW/A (kg/m ); MTOW maximum take-o! weight (kg) also equivalent disk loading OWE operating empty weight (kg) Z service ceiling in sustained horizontal PAY payload (kg) #ight (m); vertical coordinate P/O PAY/OWE a angle of attack (deg) P/W PAY/MTOW b ' ( dihedral angle, if 0; anhedral if 0 rpm rounds-per-minute (rotor speeds) (deg) V/STOL vertical/short take-o! and landing j " taper ratio c/c SSF single-slotted TE #ap K wing sweep around LE or QC, as speci- DSF double-slotted TE #ap "ed (deg) TSF triple-slotted TE #ap c angle of climb (deg) SL single LE slat k advance ratio SLK LE Kruger slat o air density (kg/m ) USB upper surface blowing p rotor solidity VT vectored thrust HQ maximum sustained rate of turn (deg/s) Aircraft designation Aircraft and rotorcraft are identixed by company name (Antonov, Lockheed)#designation (An-124, F-117)#version (A, B); nickname (Ruslan, Raptor) is rarely used. In the graphics the company names are added only occasionally. Refer to the data base [1] for full information and data that for clarity are not labelled. A. Filippone / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 629}654 631 5.4. Wing sweep . .............................. 640 5.5. Airfoil sections. ............................................ 641 5.6. Other geometrical characteristics . .............................. 642 6. Comparative analysis . ..................................... 642 6.1. Helicopters. .............................................. 642 6.2. Cargo aircraft . ........................... 646 6.3. Fighter jets. ....................................... 649 6.4. Subsonic commercial jets . ........................ 651 7. Perspectives and conclusions . ....................................... 652 References. .................................................. 653 1. Introduction provides useful information for aerospace sciences. The presentation will stick to data and performances related The conceptual design of an aircraft and its aerody- to aerodynamics and propulsion systems of full-scale namic analysis may require a fair amount of independent vehicles. Structures, costs and commercial issues are not parameters. Quantities as essential as the wing aspect- discussed. Out of the discussion are also all those para- ratio have di!erent optima, depending on whether the meters that are di$cult to de"ne with any certainty, or "gure of merit is the acquisition cost, the direct operating are not readily available in the unclassi"ed literature, or costs, the take-o! gross weight, or the block fuel [2]. cannot be presented concisely. Data in this class include Engineers have long recognized that there is no simple all the unsteady aerodynamics characteristics, the aero- solution, and in recent years new multi-disciplinary dynamic derivatives, passenger details and most ranges methods have been devised to treat design problems in and fuel capacity. Seckel [5] in his book on dynamics and complex search spaces. Even then, "rst guess solutions stability reports a few interesting examples of these char- may be required, and often operation points falling o! acteristics. the known space are indication of something new. The vehicles included in the analysis are organized It is estimated it took C. Lindbergh and his team at according to class. This selection provides maximum Ryan Aircraft about 46 days to design and build the order and well consistent trends. In some cases compari- successful Spirit of St. Louis (1927), and K. Tank one year sons are performed across the whole spectrum of aircraft from conception to "rst #ight of his transatlantic Focke and rotorcraft. There are several ways of reading the Wulf Fw-200 (1935). To this day records are broken in data. One is the historical trend. This requires a selection the opposite sense: the B2-A required 24,000 h of wind of design cases to be plotted against a time line (techno- tunnel testing, 44,000 h of avionics testing, 6000 h of con- logy trends). Another option is to compare many vehicles trol systems testing, and 4000 h of #ight testing, for in the same class, to discover trends dictated by old or a grand total of approximately 78,000 h [3]. At the same new design considerations, and experimental work time, some aircraft are known to consist of one million (iso-technology). The curves "t are either lines or power parts, for example Lockheed-Martin F-22: `Designing curves. The best "t is no minor issue, but e!orts have anything that complex takes more than dazzling engin- been done to select the curves that best represent the raw eeringa [4]. data. The increasing level of technology has led to ever Some aircraft classes are de"ned in a very narrow increasing sophistication, while the concomitant increase design space (for example twin turboprops for regional in analytical, computational and simulation