General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and Procedures

General Aviation Aircraft Design

Applied Methods and Procedures

Snorri Gudmundsson, BScAE, MScAE, FAA DER(ret.)

Assistant Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Dedication

Copyright

Chapter 1. The Aircraft Design Process

Abstract

1.1 Introduction

1.2 General Process of Aircraft Design

1.3 Aircraft Design Algorithm

1.4 Elements of Project Engineering

1.5 Presenting the Design Project

Variables

References

Chapter 2. Aircraft Cost Analysis

Abstract

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Estimating Project Development Costs

2.3 Estimating Aircraft Operational Costs

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 3. Initial Sizing

Abstract

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Constraint Analysis

3.3 Introduction to Trade Studies

Exercises

Variables

Chapter 4. Aircraft Conceptual Layout

Abstract

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The Fundamentals of the Configuration Layout

Variables

References

Chapter 5. Aircraft Structural Layout

Abstract

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Aircraft Fabrication and Materials

5.3 Airframe Structural Layout

Variables

References

Chapter 6. Aircraft Weight Analysis

Abstract

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Initial Weight Analysis Methods

6.3 Detailed Weight Analysis Methods

6.4 Statistical Weight Estimation Methods

6.5 Direct Weight Estimation Methods

6.6 Inertia Properties

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 7. Selecting the Power Plant

Abstract

7.1 Introduction

7.2 The Properties of Selected Engine Types

7.3 Aircraft Power Plant Installation

7.4 Special Topics

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 8. The Anatomy of the Airfoil

Abstract

8.1 Introduction

8.2 The Geometry of the Airfoil

8.3 The Force and Moment Characteristics of the Airfoil

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 9. The Anatomy of the Wing

Abstract

9.1 Introduction

9.2 The Trapezoidal Wing Planform

9.3 The Geometric Layout of the Wing

9.4 Planform Selection

9.5 Lift and Moment Characteristics of a 3D Wing

9.6 Wing Stall Characteristics

9.7 Numerical Analysis of the Wing

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 10. The Anatomy of Lift Enhancement

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Leading-Edge High-lift Devices

10.3 Trailing Edge High-lift Devices

10.4 Effect of Deploying High-lift Devices on Wings

10.5 Wingtip Design

Variables

References

Chapter 11. The Anatomy of the Tail

Abstract

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Fundamentals of Static Stability and Control

11.3 On the Pros and Cons of Tail Configurations

11.4 The Geometry of the Tail

11.5 Initial Tail Sizing Methods

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 12. The Anatomy of the Fuselage

Abstract

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Fundamentals of Fuselage Shapes

12.3 Sizing the Fuselage

12.4 Estimating the Geometric Properties of the Fuselage

12.5 Additional Information

Variables

References

Chapter 13. The Anatomy of the Landing Gear

Abstract

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Tires, Wheels, and Brakes

13.3 Geometric Layout of the Landing Gear

Variables

References

Chapter 14. The Anatomy of the Propeller

Abstract

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Propeller Effects

14.3 Properties and Selection of the Propeller

14.4 Determination of Propeller Thrust

14.5 Rankine-Froude Momentum Theory

14.6 Blade Element Theory

Variables

References

Chapter 15. Aircraft Drag Analysis

Abstract

15.1 Introduction

15.2 The Drag Model

15.3 Deconstructing the Drag Model: the Drag Coefficients

15.4 The Drag Characteristics of the Airplane as a Whole

15.5 Miscellaneous or Additive Drag

15.6 Special Topics Involving Drag

15.7 Additional Information – Drag of Selected Aircraft

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 16. Performance – Introduction

Abstract

16.1 Introduction

16.2 Atmospheric Modeling

16.3 The Nature of Airspeed

16.4 The Flight Envelope

16.5 Sample Aircraft

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 17. Performance – Take-Off

Abstract

17.1 Introduction

17.2 Fundamental Relations for the Take-off Run

17.3 Solving the Equation of Motion of the T-O

17.4 Database – T-O Performance of Selected Aircraft

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 18. Performance – Climb

Abstract

18.1 Introduction

18.2 Fundamental Relations for the Climb Maneuver

18.3 General Climb Analysis Methods

18.4 Aircraft Database – Rate-of-climb of Selected Aircraft

Variables

References

Chapter 19. Performance – Cruise

Abstract

19.1 Introduction

19.2 General Cruise Analysis Methods for Steady Flight

19.3 General Analysis Methods for Accelerated Flight

Variables

References

Chapter 20. Performance – Range Analysis

Abstract

20.1 Introduction

20.2 Range Analysis

20.3 Specific Range

20.4 Fundamental Relations for Endurance Analysis

20.5 Analysis of Mission Profile

Exercises

Variables

References

Chapter 21. Performance – Descent

Abstract

21.1 Introduction

21.2 Fundamental Relations for the Descent Maneuver

21.3 General Descent Analysis Methods

Variables

References

Chapter 22. Performance – Landing

Abstract

22.1 Introduction

22.2 Fundamental Relations for the Landing Phase

22.3 Database – Landing Performance of Selected Aircraft

Variables

References

Chapter 23. Miscellaneous Design Notes

Abstract

23.1 Introduction

23.2 Control Surface Sizing

23.3 General Aviation Aircraft Design Checklist

23.4 Faults and Fixes

Variables

References

Appendix A. Atmospheric Modeling

A.1 Introduction

A.2 Modeling Atmospheric Properties

References

Appendix B. The Aerospace Engineer’s Formula Sheet

B.1 Cost Analysis

B.2 Constraint Analysis

B.3 Weight Analysis

B.4 Power Plant

B.5 Wing Planform

B.6 Tail Sizing

B.7 Lift and Drag

B.8 The Propeller

B.9 The Atmosphere

B.10 Airspeeds

B.11 Take-off

B.12 Climb, Cruise, and Maneuvering Flight

B.13 Range and Endurance

Index

Dedication

I dedicate this book to my Father and Mother, to whom I am forever indebted, and my wonderful wife Linda for her unconditional support and patience.

Copyright

Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK

225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA

First edition 2014

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier's Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333; email: permissions@elsevier.com. Alternatively you can submit your request online by visiting the Elsevier web site at http://elsevier.com/locate/permissions, and selecting Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material

Notice

No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-397308-5

For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications visit our website at elsevierdirect.com

Printed and bound in United States of America

13 14 15 16 17 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Chapter 1

The Aircraft Design Process

Abstract

Introductionto the fundamentals of aircraft design is provided. These include the definition of the mission of the aircraft and various requirements, such as performance, handling, manufacturing, certifiability, upgradability, maintainability, and many others. This is followed by a general description of the aircraft design process and a general definition of a number of regulatory terms that are frequently encountered in industry. These are of particular importance to the entry level aerospace engineer who usually has a very limited exposure to this part of engineering. Then, a specific aircraft design algorithm is presented whose purpose is to guide the aircraft designer through the conceptual design process. This is prepared in a what to do next format and is based on actual industry experience and are not academic cookbook approaches. This information is followed by an introduction of selected project management tools. Many beginning project leaders are often at a loss as to how to manage a project, warranting the discussion of the tools. Project management revolves around knowing what to do and when to do it. Thus, the manager must construct a chronological order of the tasks that need to be completed. Tools, such as Gantt and Ishikawa diagrams and House of Quality, are described. Finally, helpful approaches to describing engineering ideas using graphics ranging from three-view drawings, solid modeling, FEA, CFD, engineering reports and drawings, as well as composite photo images are discussed.

Keywords

Mission definition; regulations; FAA; EASA; FAR; CS; LSA; design process; design algorithm; Gantt; Ishikawa; project management; House of Quality; three-view drawings; solid modeling; FEA; CFD; composite images; cutaway drawings; engineering reports; engineering drawings

Outline

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The Content of this Chapter

1.1.2 Important Elements of a New Aircraft Design

Definition of the Mission

Performance Requirements and Sensitivity

Handling Requirements (Stability and Control)

Ease of Manufacturing

Certifiability

Features and Upgradability (Growth)

Aesthetics

Maintainability

Lean Engineering and Lean Manufacturing

Integrated Product Teams (IPT)

Fundamental Phases of the Aircraft Design Process

Development Program Phase

Post-development Programs

1.2 General Process of Aircraft Design

1.2.1 Common Description of the Design Process

Elementary Outline of the Design Process

Design Process per Torenbeek

Typical Design Process for GA Aircraft

1.2.2 Important Regulatory Concepts

Type Certificate (TC)

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)

Standard Airworthiness Certificate (AC)

Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC)

Maintenance Requirements

Airworthiness Directives (AD)

Service Bulletin (SB)

Advisory Circular (AC)

Technical Standard Order (TSO)

Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA)

Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA)

1.3 Aircraft Design Algorithm

1.3.1 Conceptual Design Algorithm for a GA Aircraft

1.3.2 Implementation of the Conceptual Design Algorithm

1.4 Elements of Project Engineering

1.4.1 Gantt Diagrams

1.4.2 Fishbone Diagram for Preliminary Airplane Design

1.4.3 Managing Compliance with Project Requirements

1.4.4 Project Plan and Task Management

1.4.5 Quality Function Deployment and a House of Quality

Step 1: Customer Requirements

Step 2: Technical Requirements

Step 3: Roof

Step 4: Interrelationship Matrix

Step 5: Targets

Step 6: Comparison Matrix

1.5 Presenting the Design Project

Three-view Drawings

Images Using Solid Modelers

Images Using Finite Element Modelers

Images Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Software

Cutaway Drawings

Engineering Reports

Engineering Drawings

Variables

References

1.1 Introduction

What is a design? It is probably appropriate to begin a book on design by discussing the term itself, especially considering the concept is often erroneously defined and sometimes even characterized through zeal rather than a true understanding of its meaning. The author recalls a past interview with a renowned designer who, during a TV interview, was asked to define the term. The show that ensued was a disappointing mixture of superficial self-importance and an embarrassing unpreparedness for the question. Following an artful tip-toeing around the issue the concluding response could be summarized as; well, everything is designed. No, nothing could be further from the truth: not everything is designed. Some things are designed while other things are not. When self-proclaimed designers have a hard time defining the term properly it should not be surprising when laypeople misuse the word and apply it to things that are clearly not designed. The least we can expect of any designer is to accurately define the concept to laypeople, some of whom have openly demonstrated an inability to distinguish a regular pattern from a design.

Any attempt at defining the word properly requires an insight into how the brain perceives the geometry that surrounds us. It is a question of great intrigue. How can the brain tell apart a clamshell and a cloud, or a raccoon and a road? This is achieved using the brain’s innate ability called rapid pattern recognition, common to all animals. It is one of the most important biological traits in any species that relies on optics as a primary sensory organ. In fact, this ability, a consequence of a biological evolution lasting over hundreds of millions of years, is imperative to the survival of the species. Its most important strength is that it allows animals to make a distinction between the facial features of a mother and the silhouette of a dangerous predator (for instance, see [1]).

If you see a face when you look at the front end of a typical car, or the silhouette of people or animals when looking at rock formations or clouds, you should know that this is your brain’s pattern recognition subroutine working overtime. It is desperately trying to construct a recognizable image from any pattern that hits the retina to help you quickly identify friends from foes. The faster a member of a species can accomplish this feat, the greater is the chance it may escape a dangerous predator or identify a concealed prey, providing a clear evolutionary advantage. It helps a falcon see a rodent from great heights as much as it helps an antelope identify a lurking lion. However, just as rapid pattern recognition is capable of discerning predator and prey; it can also play tricks with the brain and cause it to assemble random patterns into images of easily recognizable things that are simply not there. This condition is called apophenia. The lack of public education on this elementary biological function is stunning and renders some laypeople altogether incapable of realizing that the interplay of dark and light areas on their toast or potato chip that looks like their favorite celebrity is not a design but only a random pattern the brain has managed to assemble into a recognizable shape. Deprived of knowledge to know any better, many yield to wishful thinking and allow the imagination to run wild.

In short, a regular pattern is a combination of geometrical, physical, or mathematical features that may or may not be random, but appears either repetitious or regular through some characterization, such as learning. In fact, our environment is jam-packed with regular patterns. The repetition (or regularity) of a pattern allows the brain to separate it from the truly random background. People, familiar with the term design, erroneously deduce that since a pattern appears to be regular it must be designed, when in fact it is not. A design is a pattern of geometrical, physical, or mathematical features that is the consequence of an intent and purpose. A design requires an originator who intended for the pattern to look a certain way so it could serve its proposed purpose. This way, a design is a subset of regular patterns and one that has a preconceived goal, requires planned actions to prepare, and serves a specific purpose.

Consider the natural shapes in Figure 1-1. The mountain range to the left was not designed but formed by the mindless forces of nature. There was no preconceived plan that the range should look this way and not some other way. It just formed this way over a long time – it is a random but repetitious pattern. The contrails that criss-cross the sky over the Yosemite National Park, in the right image, were not planned either. They are a consequence of random departure times of different airplanes in different parts of the USA, headed in different directions at different altitudes. While the arrangement of the airway system is truly designed it was not conceived with the contrails in mind but for a different purpose altogether. No one planned the airway system so this pattern would form over El Capitan in this fashion and not some other. No one was ever tasked with figuring out that this particular day the winds aloft would allow the pattern to stay so regular. Its appearance is nothing but a coincidence. The geometry of the contrails, just like the mountain range in the left image, is the consequence of random events that were not designed. Claiming these are designs, automatically inflicts a burden-of-proof obligation on the petitioner: Show the plans, the originator, and explain the purpose and, if unable to, simply call it by its proper name until such plans surface: a pattern is a pattern until it can be shown to be a design.

FIGURE 1-1 Examples of random patterns. The mountain range to the left is shaped by the random forces of nature. The pattern of contrails over the Yosemite National Park is the consequence of random departure times of the aircraft involved that are influenced by random decisions of air traffic controllers. There is absolutely no intentional intelligence that forms these shapes. They just appear that way. (Photos by Snævarr Guðmundsson)

With the philosophy of design behind us, we can now focus on the primary topic of this book – the design of aircraft, in particular General Aviation aircraft. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the term General Aviation aircraft (from here on called GA aircraft) refers to all aircraft other than airlines and military operations [2]. This includes a large body of aircraft, ranging from sailplanes and airships to turbofan jets. Most aircraft are designed to comply with strict regulatory standards. In the USA these are managed and maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In Europe the standards are set by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These standards are similar in most ways, which results from an effort between the two agencies to harmonize them. Table 1-1 lists a number of standards for selected classes of aircraft.

TABLE 1-1

Certification Basis for Several Classes of Aircraft

In the USA, a light sport aircraft (LSA) is treated differently from an aircraft certified to 14 CFR Part 23 or 25. Instead of a direct involvement in the certification process, the FAA accepts compliance based on so-called consensus standards. These standards are neither established nor maintained by the agency itself but by some other organization. Some of these are really watered down FAA rules that are far less burdensome to comply with than the originals. This can partially be justified on the basis that the airplanes they apply to are much simpler than regular aircraft.

The acceptance of consensus standards (LSA) is effectively based on the honor system. In other words, a manufacturer tells the FAA its product complies with the applicable standards and, in return, receives an airworthiness certificate. This is done as long as no issues surface. The system is a form of self-regulation and is designed to keep the FAA out of the loop. The LSA industry recognizes that responsible compliance is the only way to avoid more burdensome regulations. According to FAA officials in 2012, this system has been more or less problem free, excluding one instance [3].

Currently, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is the primary organization that establishes and maintains consensus standards for LSA. ASTM has developed a number of standards that apply to different types of aircraft. The FAA accepts some of these in lieu of 14 CFR. Which standard ultimately depends on the subclass of aircraft (aircraft, glider, gyrocopter, lighter-than-air, powered parachutes, and weight-shift control) and on a number of specific fields (design and performance; required equipment; quality assurance; and many others). For instance, for the subclass aircraft, design and performance is accepted if it complies with ASTM F2245, required equipment must also comply with ASTM F2245, but quality assurance must comply with ASTM F2279, maintenance and inspection with ASTM F2483, and so on. Gliders, gyroplanes, and other light aircraft must comply with different ASTM standards. The matrix of requirements can be obtained from the FAA website [4].

While this book will mostly focus on the design of new GA aircraft, other classes of aircraft will be discussed when needed. The designer of GA aircraft should be well rounded in other types of aircraft as well, a point that will be made repeatedly throughout this book.

GA aircraft certified under 14 CFR Part 23 are subject to a number of limitations as stipulated under 14 CFR Part 23.3-Airplane categories. The regulations place aircraft to be certified into four categories; normal, utility, aerobatic, and commuter. These categories must abide by the restrictions listed in Table 1-2. With the exception of the commuter category, an aircraft may be certified in more than one category provided all requirements of each are met.

TABLE 1-2

Restrictions for Aircraft Classes Certified under 14 CFR Part 23

W = maximum T-O weight. Maneuvering loads are based on 14 CFR 23.337.

A whip stall may occur when the airplane is stalled while in a slip. This can cause the outer wing to stall first and drop abruptly [5].

New aircraft are designed for a variety of reasons, but most are designed to fulfill a specific role or a mission as dictated by prospective customers. For economic reasons, some aircraft (primarily military aircraft) are designed to satisfy more than one mission; these are multi-role aircraft. Others, for instance homebuilt aircraft, are designed for much less demanding reasons and are often solely based on what appeals to the designer.

No matter the type of aircraft or the reason for its design, specific tasks must be completed before it can be built and flown. The order of these tasks is called the design process. This process is necessitated by the fact that it costs a lot of money to develop a new aircraft. Organizations that develop new aircraft do not invest large amounts of funds in a design project until convinced it can perform what it is intended to. A design process makes this possible by systematically evaluating critical aspects of the design. This is primarily done using mathematical procedures, as well as specific testing of structural configuration, materials, avionics, control system layout, and many more.

The order of the tasks that constitute the design process may vary depending on the company involved. Usually there is an overlap of tasks. For instance, it is possible that the design of the fuselage structure is already in progress before the sizing of the wing or stabilizing surfaces is fully completed. Generally, the actual process will depend on the size and maturity of the company in which it takes place and the order of tasks often varies. However, there are certain steps that must be completed in all of them; for instance, the estimation of weight; sizing of lifting surfaces and the fuselage; estimation of performance; and other essential tasks.

In mature companies, the design process is managed by individuals who understand the big picture. They understand the scope of the project and are aware of the many pitfalls in scheduling, hiring, design, and other tasks, that many engineers consider less than glamorous. These people must be well-rounded in a number of disciplines: aerodynamics; performance analysis; stability and control; handling; power plants; weight analysis; structural layout; environmental restrictions; aviation regulations; history of aviation; and aircraft recognition, to name a few. Although not required to be an expert in any of these fields, their understanding must be deep enough to penetrate the surface. Knowing what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, is the key to a successful aircraft development program.

1.1.1 The Content of this Chapter

• Section 1.2 presents a general description of the aircraft design process.

• Section 1.3 presents two specific algorithms intended to guide the aircraft designer through the conceptual design process. If you are unsure of what to do next, refer to these. They are based on actual industry experience and are not academic cookbook approaches.

• Section 1.4 presents project management tools. Many beginning project leaders are often at a loss as to how to manage a project. If this is your predicament you need to study these tools. Project management revolves around knowing what to do and when to do it. Thus, the manager must construct a chronological order of the tasks that need to be completed.

• Section 1.5 presents helpful approaches to describing engineering ideas using graphics ranging from three-view drawings to composite photo images. These are extremely helpful when trying to sell an idea.

1.1.2 Important Elements of a New Aircraft Design

Before going further, some specific topics must be brought up that the lead airplane designer must introduce and discuss thoroughly with the design team. Among those are:

Definition of the Mission

It is imperative that the mission of the new aircraft is very clearly defined. Is it primarily intended to serve as a cruiser? If so, what airspeed and cruising altitude is it most likely to see during its operation? Is it a cargo transport aircraft? How much weight must it carry? How fast, far, and high shall it fly? Is it a fighter? What energy state or loitering capabilities are required? The mission must be clearly defined because the airplane will be sized to meet that particular mission. An aircraft designed in this fashion will be most efficient when performing that mission. Clarity of this nature also has an unexpected redeeming power for the designer: It is very common during the development of aircraft that modifications to capabilities are suggested by outside agencies. In spite of being well meant, some such suggestions are often detrimental to the mission. A clearly defined mission allows the designer to turn down a disadvantageous suggestion on the basis that it compromises the primary mission.

Performance Requirements and Sensitivity

Performance requirements must be clearly defined and are usually a part of the mission definition. It is imperative to quantify characteristics such as the take-off distance, time to cruise altitude, cruise range, and even environmental noise for some types of aircraft. But it is also important to understand how deviations from the design conditions affect the performance. This is referred to as performance sensitivity. How does high altitude and a hot day affect the take-off distance? How about the upward slope of the runway? How does having to cruise, say, some 5000 ft below the design altitude affect the range? How about if the airplane is designed for a cruising speed higher than would be permitted by air traffic considerations and, therefore, is consistently operated at a lower cruising speed? How will that affect the range? Clearly, there are many angles to designing an aircraft, but rather than regarding it as a nuisance the designer should turn it into strength by making people in management and marketing aware of the deficiencies. And who knows – perhaps the new aircraft is less sensitive than the competition and this could be turned into a marketing advantage.

Handling Requirements (Stability and Control)

How important is the handling of the aircraft? Is this a small aircraft that is operated manually, rendering stick forces and responsiveness imperative? Is it a heavy aircraft with hydraulic or electric actuators, so stick forces are fed back to the pilot electronically and, thus, can be adjusted to be whatever is considered good? How about unsuspected responses to, say, thrust forces?

The Lockheed SA-3 Viking, an anti-submarine warfare aircraft, features a high wing with two powerful turbofan engines mounted on pylons. When spooling up, the aircraft experiences a powerful nose pitch-up tendency that is captured by a stability augmentation system (SAS) that was not originally designed into the prototype. The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress uses spoilers for banking. When banking hard, the spoiler on the down-moving wing is deployed and this reduces lift on the outboard part of that wing. This, in turn, means the center of lift moves forward, causing a nose pitch-up tendency, which the pilot must react to by pushing the yoke forward (for nose pitch-down). Handling issues of this nature must be anticipated and their severity resolved.

Ease of Manufacturing

Is it imperative that the aircraft will be easy to manufacture? Ease of manufacture will have a profound impact on the engineering of the product and its cost to the customer. A straight constant-chord wing can be manufactured at a lower cost than one that has tapered planform and compound surfaces, but it will be less efficient aerodynamically. Which is more important? The designer must have means to demonstrate why a particular geometry or raw material is required for the project. The concept of ease of marketing always looks good on paper, but this does not guarantee its success. For instance, it is simple to select composites for a new aircraft design on the grounds that this will make it easier to manufacture compound surfaces. But are they really needed? For some aircraft, the answer is a resounding yes, but for others the answer is simply no.

As an example, consider the de Havilland of Canada DHC-2 Beaver (see Figure 1-2). Designing this otherwise sturdy airplane from composites would be an unwise economic proposition. In the current environment it would simply be more expensive to build using composites and sell at the same or lower price than the aluminum version. To begin with, it is not easy to justify the manufacturing of an aerodynamically inefficient frustum-style fuselage¹ and constant-chord wing featuring a non-laminar flow airfoil with composites. Composites are primarily justifiable when compound surfaces or laminar flow wings must be manufactured. They require expensive molds to be built and maintained, and, if the aircraft ends up being produced in large numbers, the molds have to be manufactured as well; each may only last for perhaps 30–50 units.

FIGURE 1-2 The de Havilland of Canada DHC-2 Beaver. (Photo from Wikipedia Commons)

The interested reader is encouraged to jump to Section 2.2, Estimating project development costs, for further information about manufacturing costs (in particular see Example 2-3, which compares development and manufacturing costs for a composite and aluminum aircraft). Cost analysis methods, such as the widely used DAPCA-IV, predict man-hours for the engineering development of composite aircraft to be around two times greater than that of comparable aluminum aircraft. They also predict tooling hours to double and manufacturing hours to be 25% greater than for aluminum aircraft. Labor and material are required not only to manufacture the airplane, but also to manufacture and maintain expensive tooling. As a result, composite aircraft are more expensive to manufacture in spite of substantial reduction in part count.

This inflicts an important and serious constraint on the scope of production. Composites require heating rooms to ensure the resin cures properly so it can provide maximum strength. Additionally, vacuum bagging or autoclaves are often required² to force tiny air bubbles out of the resin during cure to guarantee that the certified strength is achieved. The manufacturer must demonstrate to the authorities that material strength is maintained by a constant production of coupons for strength testing. Special provisions must be made to keep down moisture and prevent dust from entering the production area, not to mention supply protective clothing and respirators to all technicians who work with the material. All of this adds more cost and constraints to the production and all of it could have been avoided if the designer had realized that requiring composites was more a marketing ploy than a necessity. This is not to say that composites do not have their place – they certainly do – but just because composites are right for one application, does not mean they are appropriate for another one.

Certifiability

Will the aircraft be certified? If the answer is yes, then the designer must explore all the stipulations this is likely to inflict. If no, the designer bears a moral obligation to ensure the airplane is as safe to operate as possible. Since non-certified airplanes are destined to be small, this can be accomplished by designing it to prevailing certification standards, for instance, something like 14 CFR Part 23 or ASTM F2245 (LSA aircraft).

Regulations often get a bad rap through demagoguery by politicians and ideologues, most of whom sound like they have less than no understanding of their value. In fact, regulations are to be thanked for the current level of safety in commercial aviation; commercial air travel is the safest mode of transportation because of regulations and this would be unachievable in their absence. As an example, commercial aviation in the USA, which operates under 14 CFR Part 121, operated with fewer than 1.5 accidents per million departures and no fatalities over the years 2007–2009 [6]. Up until May 2012, there had only been one fatal accident in commercial aviation since 2007, the ill-fated Colgan Air Flight 3407 [7]. Unfortunately, GA suffers from approximately 6 accidents and a little over 1 fatal accident per 100,000 flight hours – a statistic that has remained relatively constant since 2000.

Of course it is possible to make regulations so strict they smother industry; however, this is neither the intent nor does it benefit anyone. The intent is public safety. The modern aircraft is a very complicated machine, whose failure may have catastrophic effects on people and property. The early history of aviation is wrought with losses of life that highlight this fact. For this reason the flying public has the right to know the risk involved before embarking on a flight. Although admittedly extreme, a number of intriguing questions can be posed: would we board an aircraft knowing there was a 50% chance it would crash? No? What percentage would we accept? And generally, how do we know commercial aviation is safe enough to accept the risk?

The fact is that the flying public is completely oblivious to the risk they take when boarding an airplane. While most have heard that aviation is the safest mode of transportation, how do people really know? Aviation is far too complex for anyone but experts to evaluate the level of safety. So, what has convinced people that the risk is indeed very low? The answer is statistics; statistics driven by standards not intended to guarantee profits, but the manufacturing of safe aircraft; standards that all players must adhere to by law.

There is only one way to promote such adherence and it is to employ a body powerful enough to enforce the standards and prevent negligence that otherwise would be rampant. This body is the government. History is wrought with examples of industries that let operational and product safety take the back-seat to profits. After all, this is what spurred the so-called strict-liability clause of 1963 (see Section 2.1.2, A Review of the State of the General Aviation Industry). While, at the time of this writing, LSA is a form of self-regulation that seems to work, this cannot be extrapolated to other industries. It works for LSA because compliance is less expensive than refusing to comply. But this does not hold for all other industries. Rather than focusing a futile effort on getting rid of regulations, the focus should be on streamlining them to make sure they work for everybody. Regulations are akin to a computer code – they contain wrinkles that need to be ironed out. There is a golden medium between regulations that are too strict and no regulations at all. In the experience of this author, this is exactly what industry and the authorities are trying to accomplish. Aviation authorities are well aware of the effects burdensome regulations have on businesses, and for that reason, on a regular basis, review regulatory paragraphs for the purpose of streamlining them. Such reviews always include representatives from industry, who wield a deep understanding of the topic, and also benefit from making aviation regulations the safest and least burdensome possible. That aside, it is in fact very beneficial for industry that everybody must comply with the same set of rules – nothing is worse for industry than rules that favor one company over another. Other aspects of regulations are discussed in more detail in Section 1.2.2, Important Regulatory Concepts.

Features and Upgradability (Growth)

The weight of most civilian and military aircraft increases with time. It is not a question of if, but when and how much. There is not an example of the opposite, to the knowledge of this author. Requirements for added capabilities and systems raise the weight and often require substantial changes such as the introduction of a more powerful engine, and even wing enlargement. Additionally, it is often discovered during prototyping that the selected material and production methodology leads to a heavier aircraft than initially thought. The careful designer sizes the aircraft for a weight that is 5–10% higher than the projected gross weight.

Aesthetics

In light of the above topics, looks may seem like a secondary concern. But it is one that should never be underestimated. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is a fact of business that aircraft that have a certain look appeal to a larger population of potential buyers and, therefore, sell better, even if their performance is less than that of the competition. The so-called Joint Strike Fighter program is a great example of such appeal (even though difference in performance is not the issue). The purpose of the program was to introduce an aircraft for the US armed forces that simultaneously replaced the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, and AV-8B tactical fighter aircraft. Three versions of the aircraft were planned and in order to keep development, production, and operating costs down, a common shape was proposed for which 80% of parts were interchangeable. There were two participants in the contract bid; Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Lockheed’s entry was the X-35 and Boeing’s X-32 (see Figure 1-3). Both aircraft were thought to be worthy candidates, but on October 26, 2001, Lockheed’s design was announced as the winner. The reason cited by the Department of Defense, according to The Federation of American Scientists, an independent, nonpartisan think tank, was:

The Lockheed Martin X-35 was chosen over the competing Boeing X-32 primarily because of Lockheed’s lift-fan STOVL design, which proved superior to the Boeing vectored-thrust approach. [8]

FIGURE 1-3 Does the Boeing X-32 or the Lockheed X-35 look better? (Photos: (left) by Jake Turnquist; (right) by Damien A. Guarnieri, Lockheed Martin)

Apparently, in hover, the X-32’s engine exhaust would return to the intake, and lower its thrust. However, soon thereafter rumors began running rampant that the real reason was in fact the looks of the two proposals, a claim denied by James Roche, the then secretary of the Air Force [9]. Rumor held that military pilots did not like the looks of the Boeing proposal, some allegedly referring to it as ‘the flounder.’ This rumor cannot be confirmed, but perhaps the reader has an opinion on whether the looks of the two aircraft in Figure 1-3 could have had an impact on its acceptance.

Another case in point is the Transavia PL-12 Airtruk, shown in Figure 1-4. It was originally developed in New Zealand as the Bennett Airtruck (later Waitomo Airtruk). It is a single-engine agricultural sesquiplane of all-metal construction. Among many unusual features is a cockpit mounted on top of the engine, twin tail-booms that are only connected at the wing, designed to allow a fertilizer truck to back up and refill the airplane’s hopper, and the sesquiplane configuration generates four wingtip vortices that help better spread fertilizer. It is a capable aircraft, with a 2000 lb fertilizer capacity, and can be used as a cargo, ambulance or aerial survey aircraft, as well. But a strange-looking beast it is, at least to this author.

FIGURE 1-4 The Transavia PL-12 Airtruk agricultural aircraft. (Photo by Geoff Goodall, Ed Coates' Collection)

Maintainability

Maintainability is the ease at which an airplane can be kept airworthy by the operator. Maintainability is directly related to ease of manufacturing. Complicated manufacturing processes can result in an aircraft that is both hard and costly to maintain. One of the advantages of aluminum is how relatively easy it is to repair. Composites on the other hand can be very hard to maintain. Maintainability also extends to the ergonomics of repairing. Are expensive tools required? Will the mechanic need to contort like an acrobat to replace that part? Will it take 10 hours of labor to access a part that will take 5 minutes to replace? These are all issues that affect maintainability. It cannot be emphasized enough that a novice engineer should consult with A&P mechanics and try to understand their perspective. Many valuable lessons are learned from the technicians who actually have to do the work of fabrication, assembly, and maintenance.

Lean Engineering and Lean Manufacturing

The concepts lean engineering and lean manufacturing refer to design and production practices whose target is to minimize waste and unnecessary production steps. For instance, consider the production of a hypothetical wooden kitchen chair. Assume that pride has the manufacturer attach a gold-plated metal plaque to the lower surface of the seat that reads: ‘World’s finest kitchen chairs, since 1889.’ Assume it takes five separate steps to attach the plaque: two drilling operations of pilot holes, one alignment operation, and two operations in which the plaque is screwed to the seat’s lower surface. Not only would the plaque have to be attached, but an overhead labor is required to order it from an outside vendor, transport it to the manufacturer, keep it in stock, and so on. Strictly speaking, the purpose of a chair is to allow someone to sit on it and, then, the said plaque is not visible. It can be argued the plaque serves no other purpose than to brag about the manufacturer and, as such, it brings no added value to the customer. In fact, it only brings up the cost of production; it certainly does not make the seating experience any more enjoyable. The plaque is therefore simply wasteful and from the standpoint of a lean production should be eliminated from the process.

The purpose of lean manufacturing is to refine the production process to ensure minimum waste. This increases the profitability of a business through efficiency. Since production processes either add value or waste to the end product, the purpose of lean engineering is to refine the design of a product so that simple, effective, and non-wasteful production processes may be employed. The scope of lean manufacturing is large and can entail topics such as optimizing the layout of templates for cutting material for clothing to minimize the amount of material that goes to waste; to the operation of the stock room, where parts are ordered from vendors just before they need to be assembled (so-called just-in-time philosophy), so the assembler won’t have to keep capital in parts in an inventory. The overall consequence of such practices is a far more efficient production, and therefore, less expensive products, both to the customer and Mother Earth.

The philosophy behind lean manufacturing is usually attributed to Toyota the car manufacturer, which is renowned for its adherence to it in its production processes. For this reason, it is also known as Toyotism, and the success of the company's philosophy has afforded it plenty of attention. An imperative step in Toyota’s approach is to identify what is called the Seven Wastes [10]. The approach was originally developed by Toyota’s chief engineer Taiichi Ohno, who identified seven common sources of waste inside companies: (1) overproduction, as in the manufacturing of products before they are needed; (2) waiting, which occurs when parts are not moving smoothly in the production flow; (3) transporting, as in moving a product in between processes; (4) unnecessary processing, when expensive, high-precision methods are used when simpler methods would suffice; (5) unnecessary inventory, which is the accumulation of vendor parts and components in stockrooms; (6) excessive or unnecessary motion, which is the lack of ergonomics on the production floor, which may increase production time; and (7) production defects, which are inflicted on the production floor and are costly due to the inspection and storage requirements.

The above discussion barely scratches the surface of lean manufacturing, but is intended to whet the appetite of the reader.

Integrated Product Teams (IPT)

An integrated product team is a group of people with a wide range of skills who are responsible for the development of a product or some feature. The formation of IPTs are very common in the aviation industry, as the modern airplane is a compromise of a number of disciplines. To better understand how IPTs work, consider the development of a pressurization system for an aircraft. An example IPT could consist of the following members:

(1) A structural analyst, whose task is to determine pressurization stresses in the airframe and suggest airframe modifications if necessary.

(2) A performance analyst, whose responsibility is the evaluation of the benefits of the higher cruise altitude and airspeed the pressurization will permit.

(3) A power plant expert, who solves engine-side problems, such as those associated with bleed air, heat exchangers, and liaison duties between the engine and airframe manufacturers.

(4) An interior expert, who evaluates the impact of the pressurization system on the interior decoration, such as those that stem from the requirement of sealing and condensation.

(5) An electrical expert, who evaluates the electrical work required to allow the pilot to operate the pressurization system.

(6) A systems expert, to work on the pressurization system ducting layout, interface issues with heat exchangers, cabin pressure relief valves, cabin sealing, and so on.

Such a group would meet, perhaps once a week, to discuss issues and come up with resolutions, often with the inclusion of representatives of the manufacturers of the various systems.

Fundamental Phases of the Aircraft Design Process

In general, the aircraft design process involves several distinct phases. These are referred to as:

(1) Requirements phase

(2) Conceptual design phase

(3) Preliminary design phase

(4) Detail design phase, and

(5) Proof-of-concept aircraft construction and testing phase.

These will now be discussed in greater depth. It should be stressed that these differ in detail from company to company. Some tasks that here are presented in the conceptual design phase may be a part of the preliminary design phase in one company and a part of a different phase in another. The exact order of task is not important – its completion is.

(1) Requirements Phase

From a certain point of view, requirements are akin to a wish list. It is a list of expectations that the new design must meet. It specifies the aircraft capabilities, such as how fast, how far, how high, how many occupants, what payload, and so on (in other words, its mission). The requirements may be as simple as a few lines of expected capabilities (e.g. range, cruising speed, cruising altitude, and number of occupants) or as complex as documents containing thousands of pages, stipulating environmental impact, operating costs, maintainability, hardware, and avionics, just to name a few. It is the responsibility of the design lead to ensure the airplane has a fair chance of meeting the requirements and this is usually demonstrated during the next phase, the conceptual design phase.

(2) Conceptual Design Phase

The conceptual design phase formally establishes the initial idea. It absorbs just enough engineering to provide management with a reliable assessment of likely performance, possible looks, basic understanding of the scope of the development effort, including marketability, labor requirements, and expected costs. Typically, the following characteristics are defined during this phase:

• Type of aircraft (piston, turboprop, turbojet/fan, helicopter)

• Mission (the purpose of the design)

• Technology (avionics, materials, engines)

• Aesthetics (the importance of good looks)

• Requirements for occupant comfort (pressurization, galleys, lavatories)

• Ergonomics (occupants and occupant ergonomics)

• Special aerodynamic features (flaps/slats, wing sweep, etc.)

• Certification basis (LSA, Part 23, Part 25, Military)

• Ease of manufacturing (how will it be produced)

• Maintainability (tools, labor, and methods required to maintain the aircraft)

• Initial cost estimation

• Evaluation of marketability.

The conclusion of this phase is an initial loft and a conceptual design evaluation, which allows management to make a well-reasoned call as to whether to proceed with the design by entering the preliminary design phase.

(3) Preliminary Design Phase

The preliminary design ultimately answers whether the idea is viable. It not only exposes potential problems, as well as possible solutions to those problems, but yields a polished loft that will allow a flying prototype to be built. Some of the specific tasks that are accomplished during this phase are:

• Detailed geometry development

• Layout of major load paths

• Weight estimation

• Details of mission

• Performance

• Stability and control

• Evaluation of special aerodynamic features

• Evaluation of certifiability

• Evaluation of mission capability

• Refinement of producibility

• Maintainability is defined

• Preliminary production cost estimation.

Ideally, the conclusion of this phase is a drawing package and a preliminary design evaluation. If this evaluation is negative, this usually spells a major change to, if not a cancellation of, the program. If positive, a decision to go ahead with the fabrication of a proof-of-concept (POC) aircraft is usually taken.

(4) Detail Design Phase

The detail design process primarily involves the conversion of the loft from the preliminary design into something that can be built and ultimately flown. Of course, it is far more complicated than that, and a limited description of the work that takes place is listed below:

• Detail design work (structures, systems, avionics, etc.)

• Study of technologies (vendors, company cooperation, etc.)

• Subcontractor and vendor negotiations

• Design of limited (one-time use) tooling (fixtures and jigs)

• Structural detail design

• Mechanical detail design

• Avionics and electronics detail design

• Ergonomics detail design

• Mock-up fabrication

• Maintenance procedures planning

• Material and equipment logistics.

The conclusion of this phase is the final outside mold line and internal structure for the POC. This is generally the beginning of the construction planning, although it almost always begins long before the detail design phase is completed.

(5) Proof-of-Concept Aircraft Construction and Testing Phase

The construction of the POC aircraft or prototype, begins during the detail design phase. For established companies that intend to produce the design, this is a very involved process, as the production process, with all its paperwork and quality assurance protocols, is being prepared at the same time. Some of the tasks that are accomplished are listed below:

• Detail design revisions (structures, systems, avionics, etc.)

• Application of selected technologies

• Tooling design and fabrication

• Fabrication and assembly

• Structural testing

• Aeroelastic testing (ground vibration testing)

• Mechanical testing

• Avionics testing

• Maintenance procedures and refinement of maintainability.

The culmination of this phase is maiden flight of the POC. This is followed by the development flight testing as discussed below.

Development Program Phase

A development program follows a successful completion of the preliminary design. The development of this phase usually begins long before the maiden flight and is usually handled by flight test engineers, flight test pilots, and management.

• Establish aircraft operating limitations (AOL)

• Establish pilots’ operating handbook (POH)

• Prepare master flight test schedule (MFTS)

• Envelope expansion schedule (or Matrix)

• Test equipment acquisition

• Flight support crew training

• Group roles must be trained prior to flight – not on the job

• Establish emergency procedures

• Establish group responsibilities

• Revision of AOL, POH, MFTS

• Flight readiness review.

The conclusion of this phase is a certifiable aircraft. This means the organization understands the risks and scope of the required certification effort and is convinced the certification program can be successfully completed.

Post-development Programs

A lot of work still remains, even though the development program comes to an end in a successful manner. A viable aircraft design continues in development when customers begin its operation and discover features that would greatly benefit the design. There is the advancement of avionics. New equipment must be installed and these must be engineered. A broad scope of various post-development programs is listed below:

• Development flight test/structural/systems/avionics program

• Certification flight test/structural/systems/avionics program

• Aircraft is awarded with a type certificate

• Production process design

• Production tooling design and fabrication

• Delivery of produced aircraft

• Eventual reception of production certificate.

1.2 General Process of Aircraft Design

This section presents several views of the general process of airplane design, from the introduction of a request for proposal (RFP) to a certified product. Since great effort is exerted in designing the airplane to comply with civil aviation regulations, a brief introduction to a number of very important regulatory concepts is given as well.

1.2.1 Common Description of the Design Process

Elementary Outline of the Design Process

A general description of the aircraft design process is provided in several aircraft design textbooks intended for university students of aerospace engineering. Understanding this process is of great importance to the aircraft designer, in particular design team leaders. An elementary depiction of the design process is presented in Figure 1-5. While the diagram correctly describes the chronological order of steps that must be accomplished before the POC is built, it is somewhat misleading as the overlap between phases is not presented. In a real industry environment there really is not a set date at which conceptual design ends and preliminary design begins. Instead there is substantial overlap between the phases, as this permits a more efficient use of the workforce. Instead, the conceptual design stage is slowly and surely phased out.

FIGURE 1-5 An elementary outline of the aircraft design process.

As an example, in the form presented in Figure 1-5, the engineers responsible for the detail design would effectively be idle until the design reached the detail design stage. This would present a costly situation for any business. Instead, the preliminary design takes place in various stages that are parallel to the detail design stage. This way, the preliminary design of the fuselage might take place after the wings, whilst the detail design of the wing takes place at the same time.

Design Process per Torenbeek

In his classic text, Torenbeek [11] discusses the process in detail and presents a depiction, reproduced in Figure 1-6. This diagram demonstrates the process in a realistic manner, by showing overlapping activities. There is really not a specific date beyond which the previous phase ends and a new one begins. It also shows important milestones, such as a configuration freeze, go-ahead approval, and acceptance of type

FIGURE 1-6 Aircraft design process per Torenbeek (1986).

FIGURE 1-7 Aircraft design process for a typical GA aircraft.

certificate. A configuration freeze is a set date after which no changes are allowed to the external geometry or the outside mold line (OML), even if a better geometric shape is discovered. It marks the date for the aerodynamics group to cease geometric optimization, as the frozen configuration is adequate to meet the requirements. The go-ahead approval is the date at which upper management gives the green light for the design team to proceed with the selected configuration and develop an actual prototype. In other words, it marks the readiness of the organization to fund the project. A type certificate is described in Section 1.2.2.

The diagram correctly shows that the preliminary design begins before the conceptual design is completed. Of course, most major geometric features (wings, fuselage, tail, etc.) have already been sized by then, but many others remain as work in progress. Evaluation of the effectiveness of winglets, control surface sizing and hinge moment estimation, landing gear retraction mechanism, and many others, are examples of such tasks.

Torenbeek’s diagram also shows that detail design begins during the preliminary design phase, and even manufacturing overlaps the other two. The manufacturing phase includes the design and construction of production tooling, establishment of vendor relations and other preparatory tasks.

Typical Design Process for GA Aircraft

The following process is based on the author’s experience and explains the development of typical GA aircraft. It parallels Torenbeek’s depiction in most ways, but accounts for iteration cycles often required during the preliminary design phase. This reflects the fact that during the preliminary design phase, issues will arise that may require the OML of the configuration to be modified; in particular if the design is somewhat unorthodox. Such an issue might be a higher engine weight than expected, requiring it to be moved to a new location to maintain the original empty-weight CG position. This, in turn, calls for a reshaping of the engine cowling or nacelle, calling for other modifications. Such changes are handled by numbering each version of the OML as if it were the final version, because, eventually, the one with the highest number will be the configuration that gets frozen. This allows the design team to proceed with work on structures and other internal features of the aircraft, rather than waiting for a configuration freeze.

1.2.2 Important Regulatory Concepts

It is the duty of the government of the country in which the aircraft is designed and manufactured to ensure it is built to standards that provide sufficient safety. If the aircraft is built in one country and is being certified in another, it is still the duty of the government of the latter to ensure it complies with those same standards. This task requires the standards (the law of the land) to be enforced – and may call for a denial of an airworthiness certificate (see below) should the manufacturer refuse to comply with those standards. This is why this important task should remain in the hands of a government – for it has the power to force the compliance.

From the standpoint of manufacturers, certifying aircraft in a different country can become contentious when additional, seemingly local, requirements must be complied with as well. Such scenarios can often inflict great frustration, if not controversy, on the certification process. International harmonization of aircraft certification standards remains an important topic. In effect, such harmonization would allow the demonstrated compliance in one country to be accepted in another, upon review of certification documents. This would be helpful to already cash-strained businesses that have clearly demonstrated they already side with safety. It underlines a fair complaint often leveled by industry that a serious review and justification for the presence of selected paragraphs in the regulatory code is in order.

The standards that aircraft are designed and built to have names like the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR, now obsolete), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR, current in the United States), Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR, European, obsolete as of September 28, 2003), or Certification Specifications [12] (CS, current in Europe). The current government agencies that enforce adherence to these standards have names like the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA, now obsolete), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, current in the United States), Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA, European, obsolete as of June 30, 2009), or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA, current in Europe). With respect to FAR, the convention is to refer to them as Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or simply 14 CFR. This way, a particular section of the regulations is cited by adding it to that code. For instance Part 23 would be written as 14 CFR Part 23, and so on.

Type Certificate (TC)

Once the manufacturer of a civilian (i.e. non-military) aircraft, engine, or propeller has demonstrated that their product meets or exceeds the current airworthiness standards set by its regulatory agency, it is awarded a TC by publishing a type certificate data sheet (TCDS). The TCDS is a document that contains important information about operating limitations, applicable regulations, and other restrictions. This means the aircraft is now officially defined by the TC. TCDS for all civilian aircraft can be viewed on the FAA website [13].

Obtaining a TC is a very costly proposition for the manufacturer, but it is also very valuable in securing marketability of the product. It can be stated with a high level of certainty that a specific product without a TC (and thus considered experimental) is unlikely to sell in the same quantity or at the same price it would if it had a TC. The reason being that the TC guarantees product quality, which is imperative to the customer: it makes the product trustworthy. The reason why a TC is so costly is that it requires the product to undergo strenuous demonstration of its safe operation and quality of material and construction. Additionally, the