The Coyote - an Advanced Pilot Training Aircraft AIAA Graduate Team Aircraft Competition 2017-2018 May 2018 The Beep Beep Hunting Club AIAA number Signature Rapha¨elDubois 918763 Thibault Laurent 919210 Bao Long Le Van 908407 Nayan Levaux 908300 Guillaume Noiset 908299 Axel Piret 908234 Arthur Scheffer 919169 Vincent Schmitz 908516 Team Advisors Grigorios Dimitriadis Ludovic Noels Contents 1 Introduction . 1 2 Mission description & design objectives . 1 3 Choice of configuration . 2 3.1 Number of engines . 2 3.2 Wing planform . 4 3.3 Empennage arrangement . 4 3.4 Cruise altitude . 6 4 Methodology . 6 5 Components design . 7 5.1 Statistical survey . 7 5.2 Weight estimates . 9 5.2.1 Final results . 10 5.3 Wing design . 10 5.3.1 Aspect ratio . 11 5.3.2 Sweep angle . 11 5.3.3 Taper ratio . 12 5.3.4 Thickness ratio . 12 5.3.5 Airfoil selection . 12 5.3.6 Geometric and aerodynamic twist . 12 5.3.7 Lift coefficient and wing area . 12 5.3.8 3D lift curve slope, zero-lift angle & incidence angle . 14 5.3.9 Maximum lift coefficient . 15 5.3.10 Final geometry . 16 5.4 High-lift devices . 17 5.4.1 Leading edge extension . 17 5.4.2 Flaperons . 17 5.4.3 Leading edge flaps . 19 5.5 Propulsion . 19 5.5.1 Engine selection . 19 5.5.2 Fuel consumption and detailed description of the mission segments . 21 5.5.3 Final fuel consumption estimates . 23 5.6 Fuselage, fuel tanks and general layout . 23 5.6.1 Fuselage dimensions . 23 5.6.2 General layout and fuel tanks locations . 24 5.6.3 Tanks capacity estimates . 25 5.7 Centre of gravity estimates . 25 5.8 V-tail design & imposing equilibrium . 28 5.8.1 Sizing . 28 5.8.2 Aspect ratio, taper and sweep angle . 29 5.8.3 Airfoil selection . 30 5.8.4 Aerodynamic coefficients for a V-tail configuration [15] . 30 5.8.5 Enforcing equilibrium . 30 5.8.6 Final geometry . 31 5.9 Landing gear design . 32 6 Aerodynamic study . 34 6.1 Methodology . 35 6.2 Component Buildup Method . 35 6.2.1 Subsonic parasite drag . 36 6.2.2 Supersonic parasite drag . 38 6.2.3 Transonic parasite drag . 38 6.2.4 Induced drag . 39 6.3 Tranair . 40 6.3.1 Qualitative results . 40 6.3.2 Wing lift curve and drag polar . 41 6.4 Aerodynamic centre of the wing . 43 6.5 Tools comparison . 44 6.6 Aircraft total drag . 44 6.6.1 Maximum Mach and L=D diagram . 45 7 Structure design . 47 7.1 Flight envelope . 47 7.2 Aerodynamic and structural loading . 49 7.2.1 Aerodynamic forces . 49 7.2.2 Structural loads . 50 7.3 Rear fuselage . 52 7.3.1 Materials selection . 52 7.3.2 Analytic study . 53 7.3.3 FEM study . 55 7.4 Wing . 57 7.4.1 Materials selection . 58 7.4.2 Analytic study . 58 7.4.3 FEM Analysis . 61 7.5 Further improvements . 63 8 Static stability margins . 64 8.1 Margins estimates . 64 8.2 Computation points . 66 9 Dynamic stability and handling qualities . 68 9.1 Handling characteristics . 69 9.1.1 Longitudinal flying qualities . 70 9.1.2 Lateral flying qualities . 71 9.2 Stability Augmentation . 72 9.3 Future Work . 74 10 Performance . 74 10.1 Level turn . 74 10.2 Climb & ceiling . 77 10.3 Minimum runway length . 79 10.4 Range . 81 10.5 Compliance with the objectives . 81 11 Trade-off study . 83 12 Cost estimates . 85 12.1 Non-recurring costs . 85 12.2 Recurring costs . 86 12.3 Operations and maintenance costs . 87 12.4 Detailed cost and unit price . 88 13 Conclusion . 89 Appendices 90 A 90 1 Aesthetic views . 90 2 Additional figures . 94 3 Summary table . 95 List of Figures 1 Schematic description of the design mission divided into consistent segments. The altitude is measured from the MSL. 2 2 Overview of the design method. Adapted from [11]. 8.