Design oI a Hoverwing AircraIt

A Project
Presented to
The Faculty oI the Department oI
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
San Jose State University


In Partial FulIillment
oI the Requirements Ior Degree
Master oI Science
In
Aerospace Engineering



By
Nita B Shah
May 2011
i




















2011
Nita B Shah
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
San Jose State University
ii

UAbstract
Wing-in-Ground eIIect aircraIt is one that manages level Ilight near the surIace oI the
Earth, making use oI the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surIace
known as take advantage ground eIIect. Ground eIIect is a phenomenon that relates to the
airIlow around a wing when it Ilies in close proximity to a surIace, wherein the presence
oI the surIace distorts the downwash Irom the wing and inhibits the Iormation oI vortices.
This eIIect dramatically increases the liIt and reduces the drag compared to that attainable
by a wing in conventional Ilight. The WIG craIts can transport heavy payloads at
relatively high speeds, compared to ships. Since the 1960`s, There have been many
experiments on Wing in Ground EIIect craIts and the Ekranoplan. While some believe
that it will bring a new era oI high speed marine transportation, others believe it holds
less promise than the hovercraIt. This paper presents a Wing-In-Ground eIIect craIt
design as an alternative to the current ships, a means oI Iaster and saIer transportation
over water. An initial design is presented Ior a rigid airship that has the capacity Ior
16,000 lbs oI payload and 2 crew members with 497 miles oI range.
iv

UAcknowledgement
I would like to thank all people who have helped and inspired me during my graduate
study.
I especially want to thank my advisor, Dr. Nikos Mourtos, Ior his guidance during my
project and study at San Jose State University. His perpetual energy and enthusiasm in
aerospace Iield had motivated all his advisees, including me. In addition, he was always
accessible and willing to help his students with their research.
I was delighted to interact with ProI. Nik Djordjevic and Dr. Periklis Papadopoulos by
attending their classes and having them as my co-advisors. They deserve special thanks
as my thesis committee members and advisors.
My deepest gratitude goes to my Iamily Ior their unIlagging love and support throughout
my liIe; this dissertation is simply impossible without them. I am indebted to my parents,
Bhadresh and Meena Shah, Ior their care and love. As typical parents in an Indian Iamily,
my parents worked industriously to support the Iamily and spare no eIIort to provide the
best possible environment Ior me to grow up and attend school. They had never
complained in spite oI all the hardships in their liIe. They uprooted their liIe in India and
moved to United States, so that my sister and I could have a good education and a
comIortable liIe. I cannot ask Ior more Irom my mother, Meena Shah, as she is simply
perIect. I have no suitable word that can Iully describe her everlasting love to me. I
remember many sleepless nights with her accompanying me when I was ill. I remember
v

her constant support when I encountered diIIiculties and I remember, most oI all, her
delicious dishes. I Ieel proud oI my sister, Neha Shah, Ior her talents. She had been a role
model Ior me to Iollow unconsciously when I was a teenager and has always been one oI
my best counselors. I am extremely lucky to have my Iiance, Michael Trettin, who has
supported me through some oI the hardest years and I would like to take this opportunity
to thank him. He has taken many trips to San Jose State University to submit the reports
Ior my classes when I was not able to go. Without his support and love, I would not have
been able to come this Iar.
Last but not least, thanks be to God Ior my liIe through all tests in the past Iour years.
You have made my liIe more bountiIul. May your name be exalted, honored, and
gloriIied.
vi

UTable oI Contents
Abstract.................................IV
Acknowledgement.............................V
Table oI Contents............................VII
List oI Tables.................................IX
List oI Figures.............................X
Nomenclature...............................XII
1. Motivation Mission ProIile............................1
1.1 Motivation............................1
1.2 Mission speciIication.......................3
1.2.1 Mission proIile.....................3
1.2.2 Market analysis.......................4
1.2.3. Technical and economic Ieasibility...............7
1.2.4. Critical mission requirement................8
1.3. Comparative study oI similar airplanes...............9
2. Weight Constraint Analysis.........................12
2.1. Database Ior takeoII weights and empty weights oI similar airplanes.....12
2.2. Determinations oI regression coeIIicients A and B..........12
2.2.1 Manual calculation oI mission weights............13
2.2.2 Calculation oI mission weights using the AAA program.....13
2.3. TakeoII weight sensitivities...................14
2.3.1. Manual calculation oI takeoII weight sensitivities........14
2.3.2. Calculation oI takeoII weight sensitivities using the
AAA program........16
2.4. Trade studies...........................17
3. PerIormance Constraint Analysis......................20
3.1 Stall speed............................20
3.2 TakeoII distance........................20
3.3 Landing distance........................25
3.4 Drag polar estimation.......................26
3.5 Speed constraints........................29
3.6 Matching graph........................30
5. Fuselage Design............................32
vii

6. Wing Design.................................34
6.1. Wing platIorm design......................34
6.2. AirIoil selection.........................36
6.3. Design on the lateral control surIaces...............39
6.4 CAD drawing oI a wing and a winglet...............41
7. Empennage Design.............................44
7.1 Design oI the Horizontal Stabilizer.................44
7.2 Design oI the Vertical Stabilizer.....................47
7.3 Empennage Design Evaluation..................48
7.4 Design oI the Longitudinal and Directional Controls...........51
7.5 CAD drawings.........................51
8. Weight and Balance Analysis........................55
8.1 Component Weight Breakdown...................55
8.1.1 Wing Group Weight...................55
8.1.2 Fuselage Group Weight....................55
8.1.3 Tail Group Weight......................56
9. Stability and Control Analysis........................66
9.1 Static Longitudinal Stability......................66
9.2 Static Directional Stability......................72
10. Drag Polar Calculation........................79
16.1 Wave Making Drag......................82
16.2 Drag Due to the Wetted SurIace on Hull and Side Buoys...........83
16.3 Air ProIile Drag........................84
16.4 Fouling Drag..........................84
11. V-n Diagram...............................88
12. Conclusion..............................92
13. ReIerences...............................96



viii

UList of Tables
Table 1. Mission SpeciIication 4
Table 2. Russian WIG craIts 9
Table 3. Important parameters oI small scale WIG craIts 10
Table 4. Full size aircraIt database oI takeoII weights,
empty weights and ranges 12
Table 5. Calculated results oI thrust-to-weight ratio versus wing loading
as a Iunction oI varied liIt coeIIicient

21
Table 6. Calculated results oI wing loading versus power loading 23
Table 7. Data Ior takeoII speed sizing 29
Table 8. Wing and lateral surIace parameters 42
Table 9. Horizontal and vertical tail parameters 54
Table 10. Determination oI preliminary component weight oI the hoverwing 59
Table 11. Component weight and coordinate data 62
Table 12. Calculation oI downwash gradient 71




ix

UList of Figures
Figure 1. Mission proIile oI hoverwing 4
Figure 2. Mission weights Irom AAA program 14
Figure 3. Mission Iuel Iractions 14
Figure 4. Results oI takeoII sensitivities using AAA 16
Figure 5. TakeoII weight vs Range 17
Figure 6. TakeoII weight vs. Payload weight 17
Figure 7. Thrust-to-weight ratio vs Wing loading as a
Iunction oI varied liIt coeIIicient

22

Figure 8. Power loading vs Wing loading as a
Iunction oI varied liIt coeIIicient 24
Figure 9. AAA calculation Ior landing requirement 25
Figure 10. Drag polar graph 27
Figure 11. Clean drag polar 28
Figure 12. Matching results Ior sizing oI a hoverwing 30
Figure 13. Design oI the Iuselage oI hoverwing 33
Figure 14. Catamaran Iuselage 33
Figure 15. Straight tapered wing geometry 36
Figure 16. Geometry oI Clark Y airIoil 37
Figure 17. LiIt coeIIicient vs Drag coeIIicient

curve Ior Clark Y airIoil 38
Figure 18. Calculation oI liIt coeIIicient using AAA program 39
Figure 19. Geometry oI a wing 41
Figure 20. Geometry oI a winglet 42
x

Figure 21. Shape oI NACA 4412 airIoil 46
Figure 22. LiIt coeIIicient vs Drag coeIIicient Ior NACA 4412 airIoil 46
Figure 23. LiIt coeIIicient vs Drag coeIIicient Ior NACA 0012 airIoil 48
Figure 24. Horizontal tail geometry tapered using AAA 48
Figure 25. Horizontal tail geometry untapered using AAA 49
Figure 26. Vertical tail geometry using AAA 49
Figure 27. Vertical tail planIorm using AAA 50
Figure 28. LiIt coeIIicient Ior horizontal tail oI the hoverwing 50
Figure 29. LiIt coeIIicient Ior vertical tail oI the hoverwing 51
Figure 30. Geometry oI a vertical stabilizer 52
Figure 31. 3D picture oI a vertical stabilizer 52
Figure 32. 3D picture oI a horizontal stabilizer 53
Figure 33. Geometry oI a horizontal stabilizer 53
Figure 34. Location oI centre oI gravity in X-direction 61
Figure 35. Location oI centre oI gravity in Y-direction 62
Figure 36. Center oI Gravity excursion diagram 64
Figure 37. Longitudinal X-plot 66
Figure 38. Geometric parameters Ior horizontal tail location 69
Figure 39. Layout Ior computing Iuselage and contribution
to airplane aerodynamic center location 71
Figure 40. Directional X-plot 73
Figure 41. EIIective value oI vertical tail aspect ratio 74
Figure 42. Factor accounting Ior wing-Iuselage interIerence
xi

with directional stability 76
Figure 43. EIIect oI Iuselage Reynolds number on wing
Iuselage directional stability 77
Figure 44. Drag Polar (Boating) 85
Figure 45. Drag Polar (Planing) 85
Figure 46 Drag Polar (At takeoII, while still on water) 86
Figure 47. Drag Polar (Cruise) 86
Figure 48. Drag Polar 87
Figure 49. V-n Diagram 91
Figure 50. 3D view oI hoverwing 93
Figure 51. Side view oI hoverwing 93
Figure 52. Front view oI hoverwing 94
Figure 53. Top view oI hoverwing 94











xii

UNomenclature
DeIinition Symbol
g Acceleration oI gravity
A C
I
Additional Iriction coeIIicient Ior roughness oI the plate
A.C. Aerodynamic Center
C
L
u
Airplane liIt curve slope
P Air Density

g
Airplane mass ratio
D
a
Air proIile resistance
A Aspect ratio
W
struct
Airplane structural weight
W
A
AirIrame weight
C
p
Center oI pressure


C
I
CoeIIicient oI water Iriction on a smooth plate
C
w
CoeIIicient oI wave-making
W
crew
Crew Weight
C
D
o
Clean zero liIt drag coeIIicient
V
C
Cruising speed
C.G. Centre oI gravity
Vcr Cruise speed
B
c
Cushion width oI air channel
P
c
Cushion pressure in the air channel
xiii

C
D
Drag CoeIIicient
D Drag
D
hI
Drag caused by water Iriction oI hull and sidewalls
D
swI
Drag caused by water Iriction oI sidewalls
I Dihedral angle
dc/du Down wash gradient
U
de
Derived gust velocity
V
c
Design cruising speed
W
empty
Empty Weight
k Empirical constant Iactor
d
I
Equivalent Iuselage diameter
C
I
Equivalent skin Iriction drag
I Equivalent parasite area
GW Flight design gross weight
V

Free stream velocity

F.S. Fuselage station
S
wet
Ius
Fuselage wetted area
D
I
Fuselage diameter
l
I
Fuselage length
W
Iuel
Fuel Weight
W
Ieq
Fixed equipment weight
xiv

D
Il
Fouling drag
S Gross area
S
h
Horizontal size oI the empennage
V
h
Horizontal volume coeIIicient

C
r
h
Horizontal tail root chord length
C
t
h
Horizontal tail tip chord length
b
h/2
Horizontal tail span
C
h
Horizontal tail mean geometric chord
C
L
u
h
Horizontal tail liIt curve slope
S
wet
h
Horizontal tail wetted area
i Incidence angle

w
Kinetic viscosity coeIIicient
L/D LiIt-to-drag ratio
n
lim
Limit maneuvering load Iactor

M
II
Mission Iuel Iraction
M
tIo
Mission trapped Iuel and oil
W
MZF
Mission zero Iuel weight
C
Lmax
TO
Maximum take-oII liIt coeIIicient
C
Lmax
L
Maximum landing liIt coeIIicient
xv

V
A
Maneuvering speed
C
N
max
Maximum normal coeIIicient
C
L
max
Maximum liIt coeIIicient
C
N
maxneg
Maximum negative liIt coeIIicient
c Mean geometric chord
V
max
Maximum design speed
n
p
Number oI blades
N
crew
Number oI crew
N
e
Number oI engines per airplane
N
p
Number oI propellers per airplane
N
pax
Number oI passengers
n
ac
Number oI air channels on the craIt
e Oswald`s eIIiciency Iactor
W
payload
Payload Weight
W
pwr
Power plant weight
P
bl
Power loading per blade
W/P Power loading
ac
A
Position oI A.C. on wing mean geometric chord
ac
h
Position oI horizontal tail on wing mean geometric chord
S
wet
Plan Iorm wetted area
xvi

M
res
Reserve Iuel Iraction
C
r
Root chord
q
h
Ratio oI horizontal to wing dynamic pressure
S
a
ReIerence area Ior calculating the air proIile drag and liIt
V
stall
Stalling velocity
C
Ie
Skin Iriction coeIIicient
b Span
K
A
Sweep correction Iactor
C
l
u
I
Section liIt curve slope with Ilaps down
C
l
u
Section liIt curve slope
A
c/4
Sweep angle
Ac
/2
Semi chord sweep angle
Side slip angle
V
S
Stall speed
V Speed
SES SurIace EIIect Ship
T/W Thrust-to-Weight ratio
W
o
TakeoII gross weight
T Thrust
xvii

Taper ratio
C
t
Tip chord

t/c

Thickness ratio

W
TO
Take oII weight
D
t
Propeller diameter


t/c

Thickness ratio
T
TO
Tooling total take oII thrust

S
v
Vertical size oI the empennage
V
v
Vertical volume coeIIicient
C
r
v
Vertical tail root chord length
C
t
v
Vertical tail tip chord length
b
v
Vertical tail span
C
v
Vertical tail mean geometric chord length
C
L
u
v
Vertical liIt curve slope
S
wet
v
Vertical tail wetted area
W/S

Wing Loading
S Wing area
C Wing mean geometric chord
b Wing span
xviii

xix

C
L
u
w
Wing liIt curve slope



C
L
u
wI
Wing Iuselage (wing body) liIt curve slope
K
wI
Wing Iuselage interIerence Iactor
W
eng
Weight per engine
W Weight
L Wetted length oI hull or side buoys
S
hI
Wetted surIace areas oI the hull
S
swI
Wetted surIace areas oI the sidewall



Chapter 1. Motivation Mission Profile
1.1. Motivation
In recent years, the need Ior Iast transport between and around many coastal cities has
become important Ior both work and recreational travel. The development oI tourism has
increased the need Ior Ierry operators, which in turn led to the discovery oI new vehicle
types with higher speed and greater transport eIIiciency. The main reason to build a
wing-in-ground eIIect craIt (WIG) is payload capacity and cost. WIG craIts have the
potential Ior payload capacities closer to Iast marine craIts and the cost oI construction is
much lower than aircraIts |1|. The Hoverwing can also be used in paramilitary
applications that include littoral operations, drug-running interdiction, anti-piracy, border
patrol, search and rescue, etc. In addition, the WIG craIts may be diIIicult to detect by
mines or sonar, making them suitable Ior crossing mineIields and mine clearance.
WIG craIts allow Ior high speed marine transportation at 100 knots in comIort, without
water contact, slamming shock, stress, wake, wash or seasickness. These craIts are
extremely Iuel eIIicient. The ability oI WIG craIts to handle sea state opens the potential
usage to coastal, inter island, and major rivers. Hundreds oI millions oI people living and
working in these locations would beneIit Irom WIG craIts.
WIG craIts have many beneIits:
- Faster travel allows Ior more trips, customers, and thereby more revenue
- Brings new destinations closer
- New routes becomes possible
1

There are beneIits oI zero water contact such as no sea motion or sea sickness, low
Iatigue Ior passengers, no wash, shallow water operations. Due to these beneIits, WIG
craIts would be ideal Ior a civilian market |1|.
This project is to design a WIG craIt, called Hoverwing. The idea oI this craIt is based on
current WIG projects taking place in Germany. Mr. Hanno Fischer has successIully
developed and tested a 2-seater WIG craIt called Hoverwing 2VT. His Iuture designs,
according to his website, include developing WIG craIts Ior 15, 20, and 80 passenger and
so on Hoverwing craIts. This project is to design a Hoverwing that carries 8-tons oI
payload. The base parameters, such as takeoII weight, span and maximum speed, were
taken Irom Mr. Fischer`s Hoverwing 80 project to initiate this project |2|.
Hoverwing is a second generation WIG craIt, which means that it uses static air cushion
Ior take-oII, similar to SES and hovercraIts. A hovercraIt or SES-like static air cushion is
sealed all around and air is injected into the cavity under the wing; in Hoverwing craIt`s
case, the air is sealed under the Iuselage. The amount oI air and the pressure oI the air are
much lower than with Power Augmentation (PAR). PAR or air injection is the principle
oI a jet or propeller in Iront oI the wing that blows under the wing at take-oII. The cavity
under the wing is bounded by endplates and Ilaps, so that the air is trapped under the
wing. This way the Iull weight oI the WIG boat can even be liIted at zero Iorward speed.
The HHoverwingH uses air Irom the propeller that is captured by a door in the engine pylon
to power up the cushion. Some other designs propose a very low power auxiliary Ian Ior
this purpose. This report includes the detail work oI calculating important parameters
2

such as empty weight, Iuel weight, drag coeIIicient along with developing the sizes Ior
wings and its control surIaces, vertical and horizontal tails, and Iuselage.
1.2. Mission specification
Table 1. Mission SpeciIication
Range 497 miles
TakeoII Wave
Height
5 It
Cruising Wave
Height
7 It
Cruise altitude 15 It
Number oI Crew
members
2
Payload
Capacity
16,820 lbs
Number oI
Engines
1
Engine Type Turboprop
TakeoII Field
Length
3280 It
Landing Fiend
Length
3280 It
Cruise Speed 125 knots

1.2.1. Mission profile
The Iirst step in designing any craIt is to develop mission requirements and identiIy
critical requirements. For Hoverwing, the mission requirements and critical requirements
are shown in Appendices A and B. A Hoverwing starts in displacement mode at lower
speed to accelerate Irom stand still to its normal service speed over water. AIter
displacement mode, it transits Irom planning mode to Ilying mode. During transition, the
3

craIt operates as a hydroplane. A hydroplane uses the water it`s on Ior liIt, as well as
propulsion and steering. When traveling at high speed water is Iorced downwards by the
bottom oI the boat's HhullH. The water thereIore exerts an Hequal and opposite IorceH
upwards, liIting the vast majority oI the hull out oI the water.

Figure 1. Mission proIile oI hoverwing
1.2.2. Market analysis
The technology oI the WIG eIIect craIt is Iairly new. A WIG craIt is a high-speed
'dynamic hovercraIt surIace/marine vehicle. Most WIG craIts have been developed
Irom analytical theory, model testing and building prototypes. WIG craIt theory and
technology covers wide range oI possible craIt conIigurations. WIG craIt size and speed
ranges Irom single passenger prototypes operating at 50 km/h to large military craIt at
500 km/h. The largest WIG craIt build to-date is KM. With a length oI 348 It and wing
4

span oI 131 It, KM is able to transport 550 tons oI cargo. Due to its massive size, the KM
is also known as Caspian Sea Monster. The next vehicle in KM Iamily was 'Orlyonok.
It was introduced in 1973 with 120-ton takeoII weight and AR oI the main wing 3 |3|.
Another type oI Russian WIG craIt is known as DACS, Dynamic Air Cushion Ships. The
basic element oI DACS is a wing oI small aspect ratio bounded by Iloats and rear Ilaps to
Iorm a chamber. The dynamic air cushion chamber under a wing is Iormed by blowing oI
the air with propellers mounted in Iront oI the vehicle. For DACS, blowing air is a
permanent Ieature present during cruising and takeoII-touchdown modes. Though the
eIIiciency oI DACS is similar to that oI hydroIoil ships, the speed oI DACS Iar exceeds
that oI hydroIoil ships. The Iirst practical vehicle oI DACS type was the Volga-2, which
was capable oI transporting 2.7 ton weight with a cruising speed oI 100 to 140 km/h.
The development and design oI WIG craIt started in 1967 in China. In 30 years, China
has designed and tested 9 small manned WIG craIts. The XTW series were developed in
1996 by China Ship ScientiIic Research Center (CSSRC). Later on, 20-seat passenger
WIG eIIect ship was Iirst tested in 1999. The 6-seater SDJ 1 was developed using
catamaran conIiguration. In 1980s, another Chinese organization, MARIC, started
developing Amphibious WIG craIts. AIter successIully testing 30 kg radio controlled
model, MARIC developed and tested WIG-750 with a maximum TOW oI 745 kg. In
1995, the China State Shipbuilding Corporation completed AWIG-751 named, 'Swan-I.
It has maximum TOW oI 8.1tons and cruising speed oI 130 km/h. Later on, AWIG-750
was developed; it had several new Ieatures including: increased span oI the main wing,
composite wing, combined use oI guide vanes and Ilaps to enhance longitudinal stability.
5

Tests conIirmed overall compliance with the design requirements, but showed some
disadvantages, such as too long shaIt drives oI the bow propellers, lower payload and
lower ground clearance than expected. AWIG-751G, also known as 'Swan-II, had
increased dimensions and an improved composite wing |3|.
In 1963, Lippisch, a German aerodynamicist, introduced new WIG eIIect vehicle based
on the reverse delta wing planIorm. He built Iirst X-112 'AirIoil Boat. This and the
Iollowing Lippisch craIt had a moderate aspect ratio oI 3 and inverse dihedral oI the main
wing enabling them to elevate the hull with respect to the water surIace. The reported liIt-
to-drag ratios were in order oI 25. In Germany, Hanno Fischer developed his own
company 'Fischer Flugmechanik and extended Lippisch design concept to develop and
build a 2-seat vehicle, known as AirIish FF1/FF2. The AirIish was designed to Ily only in
ground eIIect unlike X-112 and X-114. The AirIish was reported to have speed oI 100
km/h at just halI the engine`s power during tests in 1988. Later on, the company
developed 4-seater AirIish-3. Although the craIt was designed to use in ground eIIect, it
could perIorm temporary dynamic jumps climbing to a height oI 4.5 m. A design series
oI AirIish led to Flightship 8. The FS-8 can transport 8 people, including two crew
members. It has cruising speed oI 160 km/h and a range oI 365 km. The originators oI
FS-8 design Fischer Flugmechanik and AFD AeroIoil Development GmbH have recently
announced a proposal to produce a new craIt called hoverwing-20. The hoverwing
technology employs a simple system oI retractable Ilexible skirts to retain an air cushion
between the catamaran oI the main hull conIiguration. This static air cushion is used only
6

during takeoII, thus enabling the vehicle to accelerate with minimal power beIore making
a seamless transition to ground eIIect mode.
The motivation Ior designing the hoverwing airplane is to Iind a cheaper and Iaster
means oI travel in coastal areas. The hoverwing airplanes are aimed at markets in coastal,
interisland, estuary and major rivers throughout the world, with main regions being East
Asia, the Caribbean, the Persian GulI and the Red Sea, the GulI oI Mexico the
Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea, the Maldives and coastal Indian Ocean. Many oI these
regions have a desperate need to improve transport eIIectiveness, which is linked to their
economic growth.
1.2.3. Technical and economic feasibility
WIG craIt is about high speed marine transportation, 100 knots, in comIort, without water
contact, slamming shock, stress, wake, wash or seasickness. It is extremely Iuel eIIicient.
The ability to handle sea state oI WIG craIts open potential usage in coastal, inter island
and major rivers. Hundreds oI millions oI people living and working in locations these
locations would beneIit Irom WIG craIt. WIG craIt is about series/mass production oI
high speed marine craIt at a manuIacturing scale similar to the volume oI the speedboat
sector |3|. The market potential Ior WIG craIt is huge that it is worth trying hard Ior. Low
Iuel consumption oI high liIt-to-drag ratio does not make WIG craIt cheap. In the end,
WIG is simply about being a Iast, comIortable transport solution which asks little oI other
inIrastructure investment. Making WIG craIt commercially successIul is a long journey,
but it is worth taking.
7

WIG craIt is a new product, a new market and a new industry. For it to be successIul the
technology must work, the ManuIacturing company must be Ieasible, the Operating
company must be Ieasible. It must also mean something to the ultimate customers/users
in the civil and military markets. To an Engineer, the beneIit oI the WIG craIt is in its
power eIIiciency but to an investor, the beneIit oI the WIG is in its ability to make proIit,
which means lower operating cost. Thought WIG craIt would be cheaper than an aircraIt
at one point, currently that is not the case. One needs to take into account the costs oI
research and development, wind tunnel testing, tank tests, saIety assessment, certiIication
procedure, general design costs ect. II all these costs were included in the price oI one
WIG, it would be more expensive than an aircraIt |4|. In order to make WIG cheaper,
mass production oI 'identical vessels must take place. In order to make money in WIG
craIt, the key is to Iind the right market. WIG cratIs can be used to military or civil
purposes. Why is it important to Iind the market and what does product mean to the
market? There are beneIits oI zero water contact such as no sea motion or sea sickness,
low Iatigue Ior passenger, no wash, shallow water operations. Due to these beneIits, WIG
crIats would be ideal Ior civil market. As Ior the military application, though WIG craIts
have beneIits, the slowness oI adaption oI new technology is costing military to Irown
upon WIG craIts. Some day the WIG craIt market is equal to the helicopter business.
According to author, Graham Taylor, demand will outstrip supply oI WIG craIt at least
the Iirst decade, giving manuIacturers the opportunity to pick their customer.
1.2.4. Critical mission requirement
8

A WIG craIt, such as Hoverwing, need to have well-dimensioned planning surIace and
high power Ior take-oII transition. The engineers involved with WIG research have
Iocused on seeking methods to improve take-oII perIormance and to reduce total installed
power. The design challenge at cruising speed is aerodynamic stability and control due to
its close proximity to the water surIace.
1.3. Comparative study of similar airplanes
The mission capabilities oI the similar airplanes include Ilying in Ground eIIect over
water surIaces at high speeds. WIG technology is at a very early stage and covers wide
range oI craIt conIiguration. The aircraIts listed in Table two are the Russian built
aircraIts. Some other examples oI 2-seater WIGs include Hydrowing2VT, SM-9, SM-10
and Strzh. Table three shows important design parameters oI small scale WIG craIts.
Table 2. Russian WIG craIts
!"# $%&'()(* +" !,-.-/0& 1(&2-3
"4..4()
!5-&&
06,0%450)/-&
5(70& (8
$%&')(*
9%-).,(%/
:6,0%450
)/-&
;<4707
54..4&0
(%=-)7
%0.><0 .?4,
@-..0)20%
A(-/
"-645<5 /-*0(88
B042?/C /
3#DE3 FEG HEE <, /( EGG 3DI
@-'&(-7C / F 3G$>/ <, /( FGG GDIH
@-..0)20%
5(7484>-/4()
FHG EHG J
K450).4().C L=M=N
5
OF=FEDJ=IDJH HJ=OFDH=F#
P3DO=OID#
=33
IODJ=EE=FP
FFD#=ID#=OD
I
L48/ B4)2C !5 IODJ OGI ##3DH HGG EE
QRC &48/ B4)2 3DJF ODGI 3 O F
9

@(B0% ,&-)/S
!/-%/4)2C /',0 -)7
,(B0%
3 9KP /<%A(T0/
0)24)0C 3GEG *2
/?%<./ 8(% 0->?
3 U+JE +
8-) T0/
0)24)0C FG /
/?%<./ 0->?
J 1KF
U"
/<%A(T0/
0)24)0C
FF /
/?%<./
0->?
J U+JI
/<%A(8-)
0)24)0C F3 /
/?%<./ 0->?
3 %(/-%'
,4./()
0)24)0C FHG
?, 0->?
7%V4)2 /B(
,%(,0&&0%.
W%<4.4)2S /',0 -)7
,(B0%
F QX3G
/<%A(,%(,
0)24)0C EGGG ?,
F U+F3 "+
/<%A(,%(,
0)24)0C
FHGGG?,
3 1K
I+"
/<%A(T0/
0)24)0C
FF /
/?%<./
0->?
J U+JI
/<%A(8-)
0)24)0C FO %
/?%<./

W%<4.4)2 .,007C
*5=? Y*)(/.Z
3PG YFHIZ
OIGEGG
Y3GG3FHZ
HGG Y3IGZ
OIGEGG
Y3GG3FHZ
F3G
R-)20C 54&0. EPI FJGIDI F3E3DIE 3EJH FJ#

<, /( FDG FDH H 3DH=ODH GDH
[-V0 ?042?/ O\
Y5Z 9-*0(88=&-)74)2
W%<4.4)2 5(70
<, /( FDH )( &454/ )( &454/ )( &454/ GDO
!/-%4)2 74./-)>0
Y54&0.Z $) >-&5
B-/0%= X)
.,0>484>-/4()
.0-./-/0
FD#I=3DJG
FDEP
FDIE=3DEJ
ODFF
ODIO
FDEP
FDIE=3DEJ
ODFF
GD#3
!/-%/4)2 /450 Y.Z
$) >-&5 B-/0%= X)
.,0>484>-/4()
.0-./-/0
HG=IH JG=FHG FOG=3GG JG=FHG IG=HG
9(<>?7(B) /( ./(,
Y54&0.ZC $) >-&5
B-/0%= X)
.,0>484>-/4()
.0-./-/0
GDIH=FDF3FD#I GDIH=FDGH FDP3=3DJG GDIH=FDGH GDHG=GD#3
9-*0(88 .,007C
*)(/.
FFODOP FFJDIP FHFDFP FFJDIP EOD3

Table 3. Important parameters oI small scale WIG craIts
K0V0&(,50)/ .0%40. 8(% /?0 1(&2- -)7 !/%4]?
!"P !"FG 1(&2-3 !/%]? :1(&2-F
M<4&7 '0-% FPII FPJH FPJ# FPPF FPPJ
10

FPPP
L0)2/?C 8/ O#DH OIDH OJ OIDE EP
"-4) B4)2 .,-)C
8/
O3DO3 3H 3H 3FD# EF
9-4) ?042?/C8/ JDEO FGDJP F3DF FFDJ FHDE
QRC 5-4) /-4& GDP GDP GDP O
W%0B^,-..0)20%. F^ F^ F^I F^F F^FG
Q_[C &A. OHGG EEGG HEGG O3#G ##GG
@-'&(-7C &A. FGGG 3GGG 3GGG FGGG
9?%<./C / OGG A?, OGG A?, OGG A?, O3G A?, OGG A?,
:)24)0 ./0%)
:)24)0 A(B
3 (88
`"`
EG#3FG
3 (88
`"`
EG#3FG
3 (88
`"`
EG#3FG
3 (88
1Q!
EFOO
3 (88
O"O
EG#3DFG
"-645<5 .,007C
*)(/.
IHD# IHD# IHD# PEDH FGJ
W%<4.0 .,007C
*)(/.
#H #H #H JF #H
R-)20C54&0. )=- FJ# HGG OFF FJ#

11

Chapter 2. Weight Constraint Analysis
2.1. Database for takeoff weights and empty weights of similar airplanes
Table 4. Full size aircraIt database oI takeoII weights, empty weights and ranges
AircraIt Payload weight, lbs TakeoII weight, lbs Range, mi Empty Weight, lbs
SM-6 2000 52840 800 50840
Orlyonok 40000 280000 1300 240000
KM - 1088000 2000 -
Spasatel 200000 800000 4000 600000
Volga-2 1500 5400 300 3900
SM-9 1000 3500 n/a 2500
SM-10 2000 4400 300 2500
Volga-2 2000 5400 500 3400
Strzh 1000 3260 300 2260
E-Volga-1 - 6600 300 -
Table Iour includes the payload weight, empty weight, takeoII weight and range oI some
oI the WIG craIts that has been successIully tested.
2.2. Determinations of regression coefficients A and B
According to reIerence |5|, the regression coeIIicients A and B Ior Ilying boats are
0.1703 and 1.0083, respectively. The regression coeIIicients A and B that were Iound
using log-log chart were unattainable due to limited data provided Ior the WIG craIts.
ThereIore, during the calculations oI skin Iriction drag above values Ior regression
coeIIicients are used. The calculation oI empty weight and Iuel weight is shown in
section 3.3.

12

2.2.1 Manual calculation of mission weights
Step 1. The mission payload weight was assumed 16820 lbs
Step 2. The mission TOW was assumed to be 66333 lbs.
Step 3. The mission Iuel weight was calculated to be 8286 lbs, with 25 Iuel reserve
weight.
Step 4. W
OEtent
W
TOguess
- W
F
- W
PL
(1)

W
OEtent
66333 8286 16820 41226 lbs.
Step 5. W
Etent
W
OEtent
- W
tIo
(2)
W
Etent
41226 lbs since crew weight is part oI payload weight.
Step 6. To Iind W
E
, the Iollowing equation was used:
W
E
inv log
10
|(log
10
W
TO
A) / B| (3)
Where the regression coeIIicients A and B were Iound to be 0.1703 and 1.0083.
B log
10
W
E
log
10
W
TO
A
log
10
W
E
A Blog
10
W
TO

W
E
inv log
10
|(log
10
W
TO
A) / B| 41033 lbs
Substituting the values oI A and B into the previous equation gives us a W
E
oI 41033 lbs
Ior a W
TO
66333 lbs.
Step 7. The W
Etent
and W
E
values are within the 0.5 tolerance, the calculations would
not need to be repeated.
2.2.2 Calculation of mission weights using the AAA program
13


Figure 2. Mission weights Irom AAA program

Figure 3. Mission Iuel Iractions

2.3. Takeoff weight sensitivities
2.3.1. Manual calculation of takeoff weight sensitivities
To calculate the takeoII weight the Iollowing equation was used:

10
log W
TO

10
log B (C W
TO
D) (4) A+
where A and B were calculated in section 2.2 to be 0.1703 and 1.0083.
14

To calculate C:
C 1 (1- M
res
)(1 M
II
) M
tIo
} (5)
with M
res
and M
tIo
can be assumed to be zero.
To calculate D:
D W
PL
W
crew
W
Pexp
(6)
To calculate M
II
, the Iollowing equation needed to be used:
M
II
| |
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
2
2 1
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
TO
+ + + + + + + (7)
M
II
|0.992 0.990 0.996 0.985 0.956876 0.996040.9900.990| 0.900006
ThereIore C 1 (1- M
res
)(1 M
II
) M
tIo
1 - (1 - 0.900006) 0.900006
and D W
PL
16820 lbs
This leads the takeoII weight to be calculated with:
10
log W
TO
(C W
TO
D)
10
log B A+
10
log 1.0083 0.1703+ (0.900006 W
TO
16820)
W
TO
W
TO
69343 lbs
16820) - (0.900006W 1.0083log (0.1703
TO 10
10
+
Assuming:
W
TO
66333 lbs
W
E
41033 lbs
A 0.1703
B 1.0083
C 0.90006
D 16820
15

1
10 10
}| / log log |

=
c
c
B A W inv BW
W
W
TO TO
E
TO

63 . 1 =
c
c
E
TO
W
W

1
} ) 1 (

=
c
c
TO TO
PL
TO
W B C D BW
W
W

86 . 3 =
c
c
PL
TO
W
W


2.3.2. Calculation of takeoff weight sensitivities using the AAA program

Figure 4. Results oI takeoII sensitivities using AAA







16

2.4. Trade studies
Takeoff weight vs Range
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000
Takeoff Weight, W
TO
(lbs)
R
a
n
g
e
,

R

(
m
i
)

Figure 5. TakeoII weight vs Range

Takeoff weight vs Payload weight
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000
Takeoff Weight, W
TO
(lbs)
P
a
y
l
o
a
d

W
e
i
g
h
t
,

W
P
L

(
l
b
s
)

Figure 6. TakeoII weight vs. Payload weight
17

Many oI the mission weights such as the mission payload weight, take-oII weight, and
Iuel weight were assumed based on the design oI Hoverwing 80. The W
OEtent
was
calculated to be 41226 lbs, which by itselI seems like a reasonable weight Ior the WIG
craIt. An empty weight oI 41033 lbs was calculated with the regression coeIIicients Irom
a ReIerence |5|. Since the data on WIG craIts is very limited and very scattered on the
graphs, the log-log chart method was not achievable. Since the method described in
reIerence |5| results are within the 0.5 tolerance oI the W
OEtent
, the calculations would
not need to be repeated.
When the mission weights were calculated in the AAA program reliable results were
obtained. The regression coeIIicients Irom reIerence |5| were entered and the results
showed empty weight and Iuel weight to be very similar to those calculated manually.
The growth Iactors Irom AAA suggest that Ior every 3.82 lbs oI payload weight that is
added, one pound oI takeoII weight can be added. The crew growth Iactor is not
applicable to this project. The empty weight growth Iactor suggests that Ior every 1.63
lbs oI empty weight, the takeoII weight increases by one pound. These growth Iactors
are encouraging because that means a higher ratio oI payload to empty weight. When the
growth Iactors were calculated by hand, the results were with 0.5 error margin. The
empty weight sensitivity has 0 error when manually calculated.
The range oI this craIt is assumed to be 497 miles. According to TOP 25, endurance oI
this craIt has to be about 30 minutes during day time. This craIt is assumed to Ily only
during day time, night time endurance has not been taken into consideration. The power
required to operate this craIt is higher than those listed in reIerence |5|, thereIore the
18

propeller will have be chosen. The parameter such as propeller eIIiciency might not be
available.

19

Chapter 3. Performance Constraint Analysis
3.1. Stall speed
An average max liIt coeIIicient value oI 1.4 was assumed. The calculations were
perIormed Ior the max weight oI 66333 lbs as well as a saIer goal weight oI 50000 lbs.
The wing area is already known to be 3175 It
2
. The density oI the air at sea level is
0.00237 slugs/It
3
.
W/S 66333 / 3175 20.89 lb/It
2

max
5 . 0
2
L
s
C
S
W
J

= 105 knots (8)

These equations were repeated Ior a weight oI 50000 lbs, which has a wing loading W/S
16 lb/It
2
thereIore a value oI V
SL
96 knots. The lower the weight was, the lower the
stall speed. A lower stall speed is more Iavorable because it provides a lower landing
speed thereIore a lower landing distance. This parameter is not applicable Ior Hoverwing
since Hoverwing will be Ilying very close to surIace; no stalling conditions are taken into
consideration. It is calculated to estimate landing distance. Since this parameter is not
applicable Ior Hoverwing, AAA analysis was not taken into consideration.
3.2. Takeoff distance
The takeoII wing loading was taken as:
(W/S)
TO
66333lbs / 3175sqft 20.89 lbs/ft
2

o 1 since the pressure at sea level in ratio oI pressure at sea level is very close to 1.
TOP
25
(W/S)
TO
/ oC
L MAXTO
(T/W)
TO
}

114.7 lbs
2
/ It
2
hp (9)
20

S
TOFL
37.5 TOP
25
4304 It
This takeoII distance was unacceptable thereIore working backwards starting with a S
TOFL
oI 3280 It (the takeoII constraint), the takeoII parameter resulted in a value oI 87.47 lbs
2
/
It
2
hp. The equation became:
87.47 lbs
2
/ It
2
hp (W/S)
TO
/{ C
L MAXTO
(T/W)
TO
}

By using diIIerent C
L
s ranging Irom 1.6 to 2.2, and varying the values oI (W/S)
TO
versus
(T/W)
TO
, a graph was produced to see how each oI the three variables aIIected each
other:
Table 5. Calculated results oI thrust-to-weight ratio versus wing loading as a Iunction oI
varied liIt coeIIicient

C
LMAXTO
1.6 C
LMAXTO
1.8 C
LMAXTO
2.0 C
LMAXTO
2.2
(W/S)
TO

(T/W)
TO
(T/W)
TO
(T/W)
TO
(T/W)
TO

5 0.03573062 0.031760551 0.028584496 0.025985905
10 0.071461239 0.063521102 0.057168992 0.05197181
15 0.107191859 0.095281653 0.085753487 0.077957716
20.89 0.149282529 0.132695581 0.119426023 0.108569112
25 0.178653099 0.158802754 0.142922479 0.129929526
30 0.214383718 0.190563305 0.171506975 0.155915431
35 0.250114338 0.222323856 0.20009147 0.181901337
40 0.285844958 0.254084407 0.228675966 0.207887242
45 0.321575577 0.285844958 0.257260462 0.233873147
50 0.357306197 0.317605509 0.285844958 0.259859052
21

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Wing Loading, (W/S)
TO
(lb/ft
2
)
T
h
r
u
s
t
-
t
o
-
W
e
i
g
h
t

R
a
t
i
o
,

(
T
/
W
)
T
O

C
LMAXTO
= 1.6
C
LMAXTO
= 1.8
C
LMAXTO
= 2.0
C
LMAXTO
= 2.2
P
Figure 7. Thrust-to-weight ratio vs Wing loading as a Iunction oI varied liIt coeIIicient


2
2


By using diIIerent C
D
s at C
L
ranging Irom 1.6 to 2.2, and varying the values oI (W/S)
TO
versus (W/P)
TO
, a graph was produced to see how each oI the 3 variables aIIected each
other using below equation
V 77.3 q
P
(W/S)/o C
D
(W/P)}
1/3
(10)
Using V 125 knots, q
P
0.75, and o 1, equation becomes
(W/P) 0.000098 (W/S)}/C
D
Table 6. Calculated results oI wing loading versus power loading

C
L
1.6 C
L
1.8 C
L
2.0 C
L
2.2
(W/S)
TO
(W/P)
TO
(W/P)
TO
(W/P)
TO
(W/P)
TO

5 0.000685 0.0004283 0.000281 0.000192305
10 0.001369 0.0008566 0.000563 0.00038461
15 0.002054 0.0012849 0.000844 0.000576915
20 0.002738 0.0017132 0.001125 0.00076922
25 0.003423 0.0021415 0.001407 0.000961525
30 0.004108 0.0025698 0.001688 0.00115383
35 0.004792 0.0029981 0.001969 0.001346135
40 0.005477 0.0034264 0.002251 0.001538441
45 0.006162 0.0038547 0.002532 0.001730746
50 0.006846 0.004283 0.002813 0.001923051
55 0.007531 0.0047113 0.003095 0.002115356

23


Figure 8. Power loading vs Wing loading as a Iunction oI varied liIt coeIIicient

For Hoverwing, the C
L
oI 1.8 was chosen. It is seen Irom the graph that lower C
L
causes
lower wing and power loadings. It is desirable to have lower wing loadings as to have
lower speeds beIore stall occurs. Also a lower power loading is desired so the aircraIt
could have better perIormance. ThereIore, a point should be chosen that is closest to the
lower leIt corner but preIerably with a medium to high C
L
. In this case, C
L
oI 1.8 was
chosen with wing loading oI 21 to have better power loading, which gives the take oII
power required to be about 6700 HP.
Power required to cruise can be Iound using below equation |5|:
)
1
(
5 . 0 2
1
2
0 ,
3
eA JS
W
SC J P
D req
t
+ = (11)
24

Where, p is 0.00237slugs/It
3
, velocity is 125 knots, S is 3175 It
2
, W is 66333 lb, AR is
3.45, e is 0.88 and C
D,0
is 0.004. Plugging all the values in the above equation gives an
answer oI 1.06 x 10
6
It-lb/sec, which is about 3300 HP. According to this data,
Hoverwing will need about 3300 HP during cruise.
3.3. Landing distance
The FAR landing Iield length is deIined as the total landing distance divided by 0.6. This
Iactor oI saIety is included to account Ior variations in pilot techniques and weather
conditions. It is assumed that Hoverwing will have a landing distance oI 3280 It.
V
A
(S
L
/0.3)
1/2
88 knots (12)
V
SL
V
A
/1.3 104/1.3 67 knots (13)
Compared to the stall speed calculated in section 2.1 oI 66 knots, this value will allow us
to come to a Iull stop within 3280 Ieet.

Figure 9. AAA calculation Ior landing requirement
The landing distance oI 3167 It is required to have a saIe landing, which is seen Irom
Iigure 8. Wing loading oI 96 lb/It
2
is calculated by AAA. This data is acceptable as long
as the wing loading is under 100 lb/It
2
.
25

3.4. Drag polar estimation
To calculate the drag polar
O
D
C
, the regression line coeIIicients Ior takeoII weights
versus wetted area were acquired through reIerence |5|. The values oI c and d Ior Ilying
boats were Iound to be 0.6295 and 0.6708. The W
TO
is 66333 lbs.
10 10
log log
wet TO
S c d W = +
(14)
10
log
wet
S
3.864
To Iind the equivalent parasite area f, 1.9716 was substituted into the Iollowing
equation:
10
log
wet
S
10 10
log log
wet
f a b S = +
(15)
Skin Iriction coeIIicient was Iound using the graph 3.21c in reIerence |5|. The correlation
coeIIicients a and b were Iound through table 3.4 Irom reIerence |5| to be -2.3979 and 1.
f 29.24
The equivalent parasite area and the wetted area S
wet
are related in the Iollowing way:3
Ae
C
C C
L
D D
t
2
0 ,
+ = (16)
where
S
f
C
D
=
0 ,
(17)
By substituting the equivalent parasite area f 29.24 into the zero-liIt drag coeIIicient
equation:
004 . 0
0 ,
= =
S
f
C
D

Substitute this inIormation in C
D
equation to get Iollowing drag polar,
26

212 . 0
85 . 0 * 45 . 3 *
4 . 1
004 . 0
2 2
0 ,
= + = + =
t tAe
C
C C
L
D D

Low speed, clean: C
D
0.0040.109 C
L
2

Clean C
D
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Lift Coefficient, C
l
D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

C
D

Figure 10. Drag polar graph
According to Iigure 10, the higher the liIt coeIIicient, the higher the drag and parasite
drag coeIIicients will be. It is desirable to choose a higher liIt coeIIicient while keeping
the parasite and drag coeIIicients low. It is also seen that during takeoII and landing, the
drag is higher. The liIt coeIIicient oI 1.8 is chosen Ior Hoverwing.
27

Figure 11. Clean drag polar

2
8


The drag polar data Irom AAA were similar to data obtained by excel sheet. Since
Hoverwing will not have any lateral control surIaces or landing gear, only clean drag
calculations were made. The data achieved Irom AAA has similar value at C
l
oI 1.8,
which is 0.360. According to Iigure 9 and 10, the higher the liIt coeIIicient, the higher the
drag and parasite drag coeIIicients will be.
In order to get the skin Iriction coeIIicient, the graph Ior military aircraIt was chosen
Irom reIerence |5|. The aircraIt that has the weight closest to Hoverwing was taken into
consideration. ThereIore, the manual calculations are very reliable Ior drag polar.
The matching plot could not be obtained Irom AAA. Hoverwing does not have Ilaps or
slats, so when data was entered into AAA, it only produced blank graphs with no results.
0B3.5. Speed constraints

Table 1 speciIies a cruise speed oI 125 knots at 15 It. The low speed, clean drag polar Ior
the proposed airplane is given by,
C
D
0.004 C
L
2
/9.20, Ior A 3.45 and e 0.85
The Iollowing equation satisIies the cruise speed sizing Ior FAR 25 airplanes,
Ae S q
W
W
S q C
W
T
O
D
reqd
t
+ = ) ( (18)
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
(T/W)
reqd
4.92/(W/S) (W/S)/9.20
Table 7. Data Ior takeoII speed sizing
(W/S)
TO
(T/W)
TO

15 0.18
20 0.17
25 0.16
29

30 0.15
35 0.13
40 0.12
45 0.11
50 0.10

Table 7 shows the data Ior cruise speed sizing Ior the proposed design. The ratio oI thrust
at V 125 knots at 15 It to that sea level, static is roughly 0.1. This is based on typical
turboIan data Ior this type oI airplane.
1B3.6. Matching graph

Figure 12. Matching results Ior sizing oI a hoverwing
From above graph, it is seen that point P is accepted as a satisIactory match point Ior
Hoverwing. The airplane characteristics are summarized as Iollows:
Take-oII weight: W
TO
66,333 lbs
30

Empty weight: W
E
41,033 lbs
Fuel weight: W
F
8286 lbs
Take-oII: C
L,maxTO
1.8
Landing: C
L,maxL
1.6
Aspect ratio: 3.45
Take-oII wing loading: (W/S)
TO
20.89 lb/It
2

Wing area: S 66333/20.89 3175 It
2

Take-oII thrust-to-weight ratio: (T/W)
TO
0.133
Take-oII thrust: T
TO
8,822 lbs
31

Chapter 5. Fuselage Design
The 'Hoverwing will have a catamaran empennage conIiguration with a T-tail since it is
saIer and easier to operate in water. A catamaran empennage conIiguration helps to build
a static air cushion by diverting some oI the propeller slip-stream, which creates about
80 oI the craIts weight as liIt while the speed is 0. Below is the conIiguration oI the
Iuselage in exact dimensions. The conIiguration on the leIt is bottom view and the
conIiguration on the right is the side view. Hoverwing Ilies very close to surIace,
thereIore the cabin does not need to be pressurized. The seating arrangements are not
being discusses since this craIt is designed to carry cargo only.

32


Figure 13. Design oI the Iuselage oI hoverwing

Figure 14. Catamaran Iuselage |4|
33

Chapter 6. Wing Design
6.1. Wing platform design
The wing conIiguration will be the conventional one as there were signiIicant problems
with the other wing conIigurations, which would make the design and construction
process more diIIicult as well as the piloting.
The overall structural wing conIiguration will be a reverse delta wing. The disadvantage
oI delta wing, especially in older tailless delta wing designs, are a loss oI total available
liIt caused by turning up the wing trailing edge or the control surIaces and the high
induces drag oI this low aspect ratio type oI wing. This is the reason that causes delta
winged aircraIt to lose energy in turns, a disadvantage in aerial maneuver combat and
dogIighting. Since the Hoverwing will be Ilying very close to water surIaces, this
disadvantage will have very little to no impact in WIG craIt perIormance.
A reverse delta will be stronger than a similar swept wing, as well as having much more
internal volume Ior Iuel and other storage. Another advantage is that as the angle oI
attack increases the leading edge oI the wing generates a vortex which remains attached
to the upper surIace oI the wing, giving the delta a very high stall angle.
Other advantages oI the delta wing are simplicity oI manuIacture, strength, and
substantial interior volume Ior Iuel or other equipment. Because the delta wing is simple,
it can be made very robust. It is easy and relatively inexpensive to build. The reverse
delta wing also has a signiIicant advantage in the longitudinal stability oI the craIt which
is extremely important in WIG craIts.
34

The reverse delta wing has a large aerodynamic center shiIt as Mach number increases
Irom subsonic to supersonic. This will not be a problem Ior Hoverwing due to expected
low speeds oI the Ilight.
Subsonic wind-tunnel tests were conducted with a variety oI leading- and trailing-edge
Ilap planIorms to assess the longitudinal characteristics oI a reverse delta wing. The
experimental data show that leading-edge Ilaps are highly eIIective at increasing
maximum liIt and decreasing drag at moderate angles oI attack. Trailing-edge Ilaps were
up to 90 as eIIective as delta wing Ilaps in generating untrimmed liIt increments.
A low-wing conIiguration provides extreme ground eIIect while taking oII and landing
while also providing an easier maneuvering capability during both events. It can also be
used to step out onto Ior hoverwing exits. Other advantages include easier access Ior
maintenance and cabin. Because oI low-wing conIiguration, it provides better Ilexibility
on wing span yielding better cruise perIormance.
The wing area and the aspect ratio oI the Hoverwing are 3175 It
2
and 3.45, respectively.
These values were calculated in previous reports. The taper ratio oI the wing is chosen to
be 0.47 Ior the Hoverwing. Tapering a wing gives a higher aspect ratio, root chord to tip
chord over the span thus being more eIIicient. The smaller sections towards the tip
require less structure, both due to size and the reduced stress on the structure. The taper
ratio itselI is usually governed by the perIormance expected Irom the plane.
The Hoverwing will have a dihedral angle oI 2. Dihedral is added to the wings to
increase the spiral stability and dutch roll stability. A major component that aIIects the
aircraIt`s eIIective dihedral is the wing location with respect to the Iuselage. Having
35

dihedral also increases the ground clearance oI the wings. This would be a very important
Iactor when Ilying in rough seas where waves are higher. It is seen that the dihedral
makes an aircraIt more stable.

Figure 15. Straight tapered wing geometry
AAA calculated the tip chord to be 16.2 It and root chord to be 45.6 It, which will be
used to design the main wing. The geometry oI wing could not be obtained Irom AAA
since AAA did not calculate Ior reversed delta wing. This wing conIiguration is very
unique; thereIore AAA plot was not taken into consideration.
6.2. Airfoil selection
The Hoverwing will be Iitted with a Clark Y airIoil Clark. The airIoil has a thickness oI
11.7 percent and is Ilat on the lower surIace Irom 30 percent oI chord back. The Ilat
bottom simpliIies angle measurements on the propellers, and makes Ior easy construction
oI wings on a Ilat surIace. For many applications the Clark Y has been adequate; it gives
reasonable overall perIormance in respect to its liIt-to-drag ratio, and has gentle and
relatively benign stall characteristics. The depth oI the section lends itselI to easier wing
repair. The higher the liIt coeIIicient, the more it will prevail over the eIIects oI the drag
coeIIicient. Due to the expected lower velocities oI Ilight, the eIIects oI drag are not
36

expected to be too signiIicant thereIore increasing the beneIits oI a higher liIt. The C
l
vs
C
d
curve Ior Clark y airIoil is shown in Figure 16. The XFLR soItware was unable to
calculate the curve Ior the Reynolds number oI 1 x 10
7
. ThereIore, the Reynolds number
oI 6 x 10
6
LiIt coeIIicient vs Drag coeIIicient curve is shown in Iigure 17 |6|.
The Hoverwing will have a 4-degree incidence angle. This helps keep the Iuselage level.
It is necessary as it allows the Iuselage and other components to cause as little drag as
possible. It also allows the airplane to takeoII earlier.

Figure 16. Geometry oI Clark Y airIoil |6|
37

3
8



Figure 17. LiIt coeIIicient vs Drag coeIIicient

curve Ior Clark Y airIoil |6|


Figure 18. Calculation oI liIt coeIIicient using AAA program
When the values were entered into the AAA program, the Reynold`s number resulted in
value oI 3.2 x 10
7
. The C
l,max
values were entered in AAA program manually since the
AAA program would not calculate the C
l,max
Ior Clark Y airIoils since it only includes the
C
l,max
data Ior NACA airIoils.
6.3. Design on the lateral control surfaces
The Hoverwing will not have any ailerons, spoilers, Ilaps, slats or airbrakes. Hoverwing
is designed to Ily very close to the water surIace with zero to minimum amount oI
turning. ThereIore, there is no need to have ailerons or any other control surIaces on the
wing. The Hoverwing will have tip tanks and winglets. Wing tip tanks can act as a
winglet, store Iuel at the center oI gravity, and distribute weight more evenly across the
wing spar. The wingtip vortex, which rotates around Irom below the wing, strikes the
HcamberedH surIace oI the winglet, generating a Iorce that angles inward and slightly
Iorward, analogous to a HsailboatH sailing Hclose hauledH. The winglet converts some oI the
otherwise-wasted energy in the wingtip vortex to an apparent HthrustH. The winglets will be
15 It in height, the root chord 21 It, and the tip chord 8 It. It will be located at a 56
o
angle
Irom the main wing.
39

The mean aerodynamic center (MAC) oI the wing was Iound using by Iollowing equation
|7|:
}
=
2 /
0
2
2
b
dv C
S
MAC
(19)
Since the wing oI the Hoverwing is a tapered wing, the location oI the MAC will be
computed using above equation. However, the chord oI the tapered wing can be
calculated by below equation:
)
) 1 ( 2
1 |
) 1 (
2
) ( v
b b
S
v c
w

+
= (20)
The taper ratio oI the Hoverwing will be 0.47 as mentioned in section 6. From the above
equation, the chord oI the wing is 32 It. Using this value, the Reynolds number was
calculated to be 2.23 x 10
7
. The MAC oI the wing will be at / chord oI the MAC. The
coordinates oI the MAC oI the wing will be at 8 It in Irom the leasing edge and 32 It. The
Hoverwing will have reverse delta wings. Reverse delta wings have the same eIIect as
delta wings in terms oI drag reduction, but has other advantages in terms oI low-speed
handling where tip stall problems simply go away. In this case the low-speed air Ilows
towards the Iuselage, which acts as a very large wing Ience. Additionally, wings are
generally larger at the root anyway, which allows them to have better low-speed liIt.
Winglets will be added to the tips oI the wings as to reduce induced drag. A winglet with
a sharp corner with respect to the wing will be used, as it is easiest to construct.
UnIortunately, this choice does create problems. By being located in the pressure rise
region oI the wing, winglets help move the pressure rise oI the winglet behind the trailing
40

edge. Because the winglet causes a Iavorable pressure gradient, it cancels out some oI the
wing`s pressure rise.
6.4 CAD drawing of a wing and a winglet

Figure 19. Geometry oI a wing


41


Figure 20. Geometry oI a winglet
Table 8. Wing and lateral surIace parameters
AR 3.45
Wing area 3175 It
2
taper ratio 0.47
Re 2.31 x 10
7
AirIoil, root Clark Y
AirIoil, tip Clark Y
C
l
1.4
Aerodynamic
Center (x, y)
(8 It, 32 It)
Twist angle, c
w
1
Dihedral angle, G 2
42

LE sweep, L
LE
5
TE sweep, L
TE
50
Elevator, A
e
None
Aileron, A
a
None
Taper Ratio, l c
t
/c
r
0.47
Spoilers no
Flaps no
Leading-edge
Devices
no
Winglets yes

43

Chapter 7. Empennage Design
The tilted vertical tail protects the tail wing Irom exposure to a downwash oI the Iront
wing compared to a T-tail conIiguration. The tilted vertical tail improves product oI tail
moment arm as well as the tail liIt curve slope. Since the vertical tail interIere with the
Iuselage and the horizontal tail, its aspect ratio increases. The local dynamic pressure is
reduced due to the converging Iuselage Ilow going over the tail. The horizontal stabilizer
helps pull the plane`s tail down to balance the wing C.G. moment. Though this type oI
conIiguration is easy and saIe, it is not aerodynamically eIIicient since the engine has to
use twice as much power to balance the plane.
By having T-tail, some aerodynamics advantages can be gained. Having mounted T-tail,
the tailplane is kept out oI airIlow behind the wings. By having smooth Ilow over the tail,
the better pitch control can be gained. T-tail is high mounted thereIore; it can be out oI
way oI rear Iuselage and this conIiguration is beneIicial Ior planes that have engines in
the rear Iuselage. Another advantage oI having T-tail is the increased distance between
wings and tail plane since it does not have signiIicant eIIect on aircraIt weight. But there
are some other disadvantages oI having T-tail. During deep stall, a stalled wing will block
the Ilow over the tail plane, resulting in total loss oI pitch control. To support the Iorces
produced by the tail, the Iin has to be made stiII and stronger which results in increasing
aircraIt weight. Since the elevator surIaces are distant Irom the ground, it makes diIIicult
to check elevators Irom ground.
7.1. Design of the horizontal stabilizer
44

The volume method was utilized to Iind the surIace area oI the horizontal stabilizer. The
distance between the wing and tail wing was 6 It. The equation is as Iollows:

L
A C J
S
h
HT
* *
= (21)
Using a volume coeIIicient oI 0.44 and the wing parameters, the area oI the horizontal
stabilizer was calculated to be 668 It
2
. The aspect ratio Ior the horizontal stabilizer was
assumed to be 2.2 based on table 8.13 in reIerence |7|. Using this data, the root chord oI
the horizontal stabilizer was determined to be 15.9 It and the tip chord was 9.1 It.
The taper ratio was calculated to be 0.57 Ior the horizontal stabilizer. It will also have 10
oI leading edge sweep.
The NACA 4412 was chosen as the airIoil design Ior the horizontal stabilizer. The
maximum liIt coeIIicient oI the NACA 4412 airIoil is 1.65. This parameter is very
important as the maximum liIt oI the wing is strongly connected to it and it is thereIore
decisive Ior the minimum airspeed at which an aircraIt can still Ily horizontally. It is also
seen over the years that NACA 4412`s characteristics with standard roughness such as
dust and bug deposits does not aIIect liIt characteristics. It is a moderately cambered
airIoil with a nearly Ilat bottom. Cambering an airIoil helps provide it with a higher
maximum liIt coeIIicient.

45


Figure 21. Shape oI NACA 4412 airIoil

Figure 22. LiIt coeIIicient vs Drag coeIIicient Ior NACA 4412 airIoil
The incidence angle oI the horizontal stabilizer is assumed to be - 1 as to produce a
down Iorce to counteract the liIting Iorce oI the main wing on the airplane. Hoverwing`s
46

horizontal stabilizer will also have 10
o
oI dihedral angle. It will have the taper ratio oI
0.57.
7.2. Design of the vertical stabilizer
The area oI the vertical stabilizer was Iound by the volume method with the Iollowing
equation:
Sb
S X
J
J J
J
= (22)
Using a volume coeIIicient similar to Ilying boats oI 0.032 and the wing parameters, a
vertical tail area oI 195 It
2
is calculated. The aspect ratio oI the vertical stabilizer was
assumed to be 1.3 based on table 8.14 Irom reIerence |7|. Hoverwing will have two
vertical stabilizers. The area calculated above is Ior one vertical stabilizer. The vertical
stabilizer is recommended to be as small as possible to avoid height weathercock
stability. II an airplane is yawed due to a gust oI wind, its ability to automatically return
to its previous heading depends on the area behind its center oI gravity to produce a
restoring Iorce. The Iuselage ahead oI the center oI gravity will tend to produce a Iorce to
destabilize the aircraIt. This is called weathercock stability. Below Iormula is used to
calculate vertical stabilizer area:
(23)
Based on the equation above, the area oI the vertical tail was calculated to be 169 It
2
,
which is very close to that calculated using equations Irom reIerence |8|. The taper ratio
oI our vertical stabilizer is 0.58. The vertical stabilizer will have 50
o
leading edge sweep.
The vertical stabilizer will have no dihedral angle and will be located 90
o
Irom the
47

horizontal tail. NACA 0012 airIoil will be used Ior the vertical stabilizer Ior simplicity
reasons. Figure 23 shows the liIt coeIIicient curve Ior NACA 0012. This was calculated
using XFLR soItware.

Figure 23. LiIt coeIIicient vs Drag coeIIicient Ior NACA 0012 airIoil
7.3. Empennage design evaluation

Figure 24. Horizontal tail geometry tapered using AAA
48


Figure 25. Horizontal tail geometry untapered using AAA
As seen in above Iigures, part oI the horizontal wing is untapered, thereIore, two diIIerent
calculations were run in AAA, one Ior tapered part and other Ior the untapered part. The
reason Ior part oI the horizontal tail is untapered is so that the installment oI vertical tail
to horizontal tail is easier. The planIorm oI the horizontal tail was incorrect in AAA,
thereIore it is not included.

Figure 26. Vertical tail geometry using AAA
49


Figure 27. Vertical tail planIorm using AAA

Figure 28. LiIt coeIIicient Ior horizontal tail oI the hoverwing
When the values were entered into AAA program, the Reynolds number came out to be
about in 10
6
range. Even though the same airIoil is being used Ior horizontal and vertical
tails, Reynolds number came out to be diIIerent Ior both tails.

50

.
Figure 29. LiIt coeIIicient Ior vertical tail oI the hoverwing
7.4. Design of the longitudinal and directional controls
The vertical tail will have a rudder and the horizontal tail will have an elevator. The
rudder surIace area will be 30 oI the vertical tail area. This will provide enough Iorce
Ior directional control and maneuvering. Since Hoverwing is designed to mostly Ily in
straight path, the rudder and elevator will not need to be larger as they will only be used
Ior small directional change. The elevator will be 35 oI the horizontal stabilizer area
|8|. This will provide an eIIective elevator authority to control the aircraIt and provide
longitudinal stability.
7.5. CAD drawings
Figure 30 and 31 shows the geometry oI the vertical tail and its control surIaces and
Iigure 32 and 33 shows the horizontal tail and its control surIaces.
51


Figure 30. Geometry oI a vertical stabilizer

Figure 31. 3D picture oI a vertical stabilizer

52


Figure 32. 3D picture oI a Figure 33. Geometry oI a horizontal stabilizer
horizontal stabilizer



53

Table 9. Horizontal and vertical tail parameters
Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail
AirIoil NACA 4412 NACA 0012
C
LMAX
1.5 1.3
Dihedral angle 10
o
None
Taper Ratio 0.57 0.58
Aspect Ratio 2.2 1.3
Sweep angle 10
o
50
Incidence Angle -1 None
Control SurIaces Elevator Rudder
Sizes oI Control
SurIaces 24.10 It x 5.6 It 5.0 It x 3.8 It

54

Chapter 8. Weight and Balance Analysis
8.1. Component weight breakdown
The estimation oI centre oI gravity location Ior the airplane is calculated based on weight
break down oI major components oI airplane. From weight sizing calculations we have,
- Gross Take oII Weight, W
TO
66,333 lbs
- Empty Weight, W
E
41,033 lbs
- Mission Fuel Weight, W
F
8,286 lbs
- Payload Weight 16,820 lbs
- Crew Weight, W
crew
375 lbs
Hoverwing is a water based aircraIt which Ilies in ground eIIect. The Class I weight
estimation was not helpIul since reIerence |9| did not have published data on Ilying
boats. The Class II Method Ior weight estimation oI the components was used.
8.1.1. Wing group weight
The wing weight Iraction, W
w
/W
:f
, depends upon the design limit normal maneuvering
load Iactor through n
ult
1.5n
limit
. ReIerence |8| oIIers the Iollowing equation Ior initially
estimating the weight oI the wing group
30 . 0
2 / 1
55 . 0 2 / 1 2 / 1 75 . 0
2 / 1
)
cos
( ) |( )
cos 3 . 6
( 1 | )
cos
( 0017 . 0
A
A
+
A
=
MZF
ult MZF w
W
bS
n
b
b
W W
(24)
This equation is written Ior lengths in Ieet and weights in pounds; the quantities W
:f
and
t
r,max
denote aircraIt zero-Iuel weight and wing root maximum thickness, respectively.
8.1.2. Fuselage group weight
For Hoverwing, the Ilying boat equation is used to calculate the Iuselage weight.
55

W
I,Il.boat
1.65W
I
(25)
It is surprising that the design normal load Iactor does not appear in the Iuselage weight
equation. It is suggested that pressure Iorces acting on the Iuselage shell are more
signiIicant than the Iore and aIt bending moments acting at the wing-Iuselage juncture.
The Iuselage weight is diIIicult to estimate because it is a complex structure with many
openings, support attachments, Iloors, etc., but it is strongly dependent on the gross shell
area, S
g
. This is the surIace area oI the complete Iuselage treated as an ideal surIace, that
is, with no cutouts Ior windows or wing and tail attachments. Methods Ior approximating
the gross shell area are given in Appendix B in reIerence |8|.
The Iuselage weight may then be approximated by
2 . 1 2 / 1
) ( } 02 . 0
fgs
f f
h D
f f
S
h W
l J
K W
+
= (26)
In this equation the lengths are in Ieet, the weight is in pounds, and the design dive speed,
J
D
, is in knots. The length l
h
is the distance between the root quarter-chord points oI the
tail and the wing. Above equation was also used to calculate boom weight where W
f
and
h
f
was replaced by W
b
and h
b
. To this basic weight, 7 should be added iI the engines are
mounted on the aIt Iuselage.
8.1.3. Tail group weight
This group also represents a small Iraction oI the take-oII weight, about 2 to 3, but
that weight does have an eIIect on center oI gravity location because oI the long moment
arms. ReIerence |8| suggests the Iollowing Iunctional relationships:

56

0.2
,
cos
h D E
h
h h
h
S J
W
f
k S
| |
= |
|
A
\ .
(27)
0.2
,
cos
v D E
v
v v
v
S J
W
g
k S
| |
= |
|
A
\ .
(28)
The coeIIicients k
h
and k
v
account Ior diIIerent tail conIigurations. For example, current
practice Ior airliners is to have variable incidence tails, and k
h
1.1, while a Iixed
horizontal stabilizer would have k
h
1.0, reIlecting the lighter structure typical oI Iixed
equipment. For Iuselage-mounted vertical tails k
v
1.0 while Ior T-tails 1 0.15
h h
v
v v
S h
k
S b
= + .
In this last equation the quantities h
h
and b
v
correspond to the height oI the horizontal tail
above the Iuselage centerline and the height oI the tip oI the vertical tail above the
Iuselage centerline, respectively.
| 287 . 0
) cos 1000 (
81 . 3 |
2 / 1
2 / 1
2 . 0
=
h
D h
h h h
J S
S K W

(29)
| 287 . 0
) cos 1000 (
81 . 3 |
2 / 1
2 / 1
2 . 0
=
h
D v
v v v
J S
S K W

(30)
The weight calculations oI the power plant group and Iixed equipment group weight
equations were obtained using below equations |11|.
Commercial Transport Airplanes Engine Weight Estimation:
W
e
N
e
W
eng`
(31)
Air Induction System Weight Estimation General Aviation Airplanes Torenbeek Method:
W
ai
W
p
1.03(N
e
)
0.3
(P
TO
)
0.7
(32)
57

Propeller Weight Estimation Commercial Transport Airplanes Torenbeek Method:
W
prop
K
prop2
(N
p
)
0.218
D
P
P
TO
(N
Bl
)
1/2
}
0.782
(33)
Fuel System Weight Estimation Commercial Transport Airplanes GD Method:
For a Iuel system with selI-sealing bladder cells:
W
Is
41.6(W
F
/K
Ips
)/100}
0.818
W
supp
(34)
Propulsion System Weight Estimation Commercial Transport Airplanes GD Method
Engine Controls Ior Iuselage mounted engines
W
ec
K
ec
(l
I
N
e
)
0.792
(35)
Propulsion System Weight Estimation Commercial Transport Airplanes GD Method
Engine starting system Ior airplanes with turboprop engines using pneumatic starting
systems:
W
ess
12.05(W
e
/1,000)
1.458
(36)
Propulsion System Weight Estimation Commercial Transport Airplanes GD Method
Propeller Controls Ior turboprop engines:
W
pc
0.322(N
bl
)
0.589
(N
p
D
p
P
TO
/N
e
)/1,000}
1.178
(37)
Flight Control System Weight Estimation Commercial Transport Airplanes Torenbeek
Method:
W
Ic
K
Ic
(W
TO
)
2/3
(38)
Hydraulic and/or Pneumatic System Weight Estimation Ior commercial transports:
0.0060-0.0120 oI W
TO

Hydraulic and/or Pneumatic System Weight Estimation Commercial Transport Airplanes
Torenbeek Method Ior propeller driven transports:
58

W
hps
W
els
0.325(W
E
)
0.8
(39)
Weight Estimation For The Oxygen System Commercial Transport Airplanes Torenbeek
Method Ior Ilights below 25,000 It:
W
ox
200.5N
pax
(40)
Auxiliary Power Unit Weight Estimation
W
apu
(0.004 to 0.013)W
TO
(41)
Furnishings Weight Estimation General Aviation Airplanes Torenbeek Method Ior single
engine airplanes:
W
Iur
513N
pax
25N
row
(42)
Weight Estimation For Auxiliary Gear:
W
aux
0.01W
E
(43)
Estimating Weight oI Paint
W
pt
0.003W
TO
to 0.006W
TO
(44)
Table 10. Determination oI preliminary component weight oI the hoverwing
Major Comp. Sub-categories W, lbs
Structure Weight, Wstruct Wing 4410
Empennage H. Tail 962.00
2 Jertical Tails V. Tail (each) 245.00
2 Booms Boom (each) 4773.00
Nacelles 689.00
Fuselage 8393.00
Power Plant Weight, Wpr Engine 2025.00
59

Propeller 1263.00
Fuel System 438.00
Propulsion 5719.00
Control 200.00
Fixed Equipm. Weight, Wfeq AvioniInstru 150
SurIace Controls 1098
Hydraulic System 654
Electrical System 1643
Electronics 192
APU 464
Furnishing 200
Auxiliary Gear 460
Baggage & Cargo 262
Paint 460

Table 10 deIines the determination oI the component weight break down Ior the proposed
design. When the numbers in the Iirst column are added, they yield an empty weight oI
39,718 lbs instead oI the desired weight oI 41,033 lbs. The error is around 0.05
thereIore the results are acceptable. We have to keep in mind that Hoverwing is a bridge
between ship and airplane thereIore the equation used to calculate the weight oI the
components are not completely accurate, due to this Iactor the error margin is calculated.
II the judgment is made to manuIacture the proposed design with composites as primary
60

structural materials, signiIicant weight savings can be obtained. A reasonable assumption
is to apply a 10 weight reduction to wing, empennage, Iuselage and nacelles.

Vertical Tail
Boom
Engine
Fuselage
C.G.
Fuel
Wing
Horizontal Tail
Figure 34. Location oI centre oI gravity in X-direction

61


C.G.
Fuselage
Engine Boom V.T. H.T. Wing Fuel
Figure 35. Location oI centre oI gravity in Y-direction
Figure 34 and Figure 35 represents the Centre oI gravity locations oI major components
Ior the proposed design in X and Z directions. The X, Y, Z coordinates oI each
component centre oI gravity are tabulated in Table 11. The zero reIerence point is
considered so that all the coordinates are positive.
Table 11. Component weight and coordinate data
Major
Comp. Component W xi xi + 10 Wixi yi
yi +
10 Wiyi zi
zi
+
10 Wizi
Structure
Weight,
Wstruct Wing 4410 433.08 434.08 1914292.8 726 736 3245760 0 0 0
H. Tail 962 1223.28 1233.3 1161749.76 1256 1266 1192572 0 0 0
V. Tail 245 1199.28 1209.3 272088 1246 1256 282600 0 0 0
Boom 4773 923.28 933.28 4407881.44 650 660 3117180 0 0 0
Nacelles 689 660 670 448230 588 598 400062 0 0 0
Fuselage 8393 388.48 398.48 3322492.89 204 214 1784332 0 0 0

Power Plant
Installation 9645 170 180 1724760 372 382 3660324 0 0 0

Fixed
Equipment 5583 198 208 1099072 680 690 3645960 0 0 0
Fuel 8286 433.44 443.44 3674343.84 180 190 1574340 0 0 0
Payload 16820 540 550 9251000 168 178 2993960 0 0 0
WTO 66300 xcg total: 388.21 27275910.7
ycg
total: 261.4 21897090
zcg
Tot.: 0 0
62

The centre oI gravity locations must be calculated Ior all Ieasible loading scenarios. The
loading scenarios depend to a large extent on the mission oI the airplane. Typical loading
combinations are,
1. Empty Weight
2. Empty Weight Fuel
3. Empty Weight Payload Fuel
4. Empty Weight Crew Fuel Payload Take oII Weight
5. Empty Weight Crew Payload
As mentioned in Figure 28 and Figure 29, the centre oI gravity Ior these loading
scenarios is calculated.
1. Weight Empty 41000 508.37
2. Empty WeightFuel
49826
450.98
3. Empty WeightPayloadFuel
66106
445.11
4. TakeoII Weight
66300
443.60
5. Empty WeightCrewPayload
58195 480.33
63

35000.00
40000.00
45000.00
50000.00
55000.00
60000.00
65000.00
70000.00
75000.00
425.00 450.00 475.00 500.00 525.00
Center of Gravity Location, C.G. (in)
W
e
i
g
h
t
,

W

(
l
b
s
)
"(./ -8/
"(./ 8B7
[
9$
[
:
:5,/' [042?/C
@-'&(-7 a >%0B
:5,/' [042?/a b<0&
:5,/' [042?/C b<0&
a @-'&(-7
Figure 36. Center oI Gravity excursion diagram


6
4


Figure 30 represents the C.G excursion diagram oI the proposed design. The loading
sequences as well as the critical weights such as W
E
and W
TO
are determined. The C.G
locations are plotted in terms oI Iuselage station (F.S). From Figure 68, the most Iorward
C.G occurs at W 66300 lbs, F.S 443.60 in. and most aIt C.G occurs at W 41000 lbs,
F.S 508.37 in.
The parametric study is perIormed based on the proposed mission speciIication by using
wing analysis program. The sweep angle Ior the proposed wing design is 50
o
, so here I
perIormed the study Ior 48
o
, 50
o
and 52
o
Ior a Iixed aspect ratio and varying the taper
ratio Irom 0.4 to 0.6 and twist Irom -5
o
to 5
o
. The results Irom parametric study matched
to that oI matching graph as discussed in section 3.6
65

Chapter 9. Stability and control analysis
9.1. Static longitudinal stability
Figure 31 represents the longitudinal X-plot. Note that the two legs oI the X are
representative oI,
1. The c.g leg represents the rate at which the c.g moves aIt(Iwd) as a Iunction oI
horizontal tail area.
2. The a.c leg represents the rate at which the a.c moves aIt (Iwd) as a Iunction oI
horizontal tail area |11|.
Longitudinal X-Plot
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Horizontal Tail Area, S
h
(It
2
)
X
a
.
c
.
A

A
N
D

X

c
.
g
.

(
i
n
Xa.c. A
S.M DESIRED
Xc.g AIt

Figure 37. Longitudinal X-plot
The c.g leg is calculated with the help oI the class II weight and balance analysis. From
the class II weight analysis the weight oI the horizontal tail is known on a per It
2
basis.
66

Assuming this quantity to be independent oI surIace area, the c.g can be Iound Ior any
area oI the horizontal tail.
The a.c leg is calculated with the Iollowing equations:
wb
c
c
h
h
wb
A
L
c
ac
c
L
ac
h h
L
ac
ac
Wh
F
C
S
S
X
d
d
C X
S
S
d
d
C
X
X
o
o o
o
c
o
c
|
)} ( ) 1 ( ) )( 1 (
|

+
=
(45)
Where
wb
c
c
h
h
L
c
ac
c
L
ac
h h
L
C
S
S
X
d
d
C X
S
S
d
d
C
F
o
o o
o
c
o
c
)} ( ) 1 ( ) )( 1 (
1 |
+
+ =
(46)
The aerodynamic quantities can be computed with methods presented in reIerence |8|. As
the proposed design is a tail-aIt airplane, thereIore set S
c
0 and consider S
h
as the
independent variable. Both the c.g and the a.c leg oI the X` can now are plotted as a
Iunction oI area. This completes the longitudinal X-plot. The wing liIt curve slope may
be estimated Irom the Iollowing equation.
| } 4
)
tan 1
(
2 |
2
2 / 1
2
2 /
2
2
2 2
+
A +
+
=
|
|
t
o
c
L
k
A
A
C
w
(47)
Where:
S
b
A
2
= is the wing aspect ratio
) 1 (
2
M = | (48)
67

) 1 (
) (
2
M
C
k
l

=
o
(49)
Ac
/2
is the semi chord sweep angle.
From wing calculations, we have
A 3.45 Ac
/2
12

M 0.12 Ac
/4
18

By substituting the values in above equation, we get
C
L
u
w
3.68 rad
-1

The airplane liIt cure slope may be estimated Irom,
) 1 )( ( ) 1 )( (
o
c
q
o
c
q
o o o o
d
d
S
S
C
d
d
S
S
C C C
c c
c L
h
h L L L
c h wf
+ + + =
(50)
Where:
C
L
u
wI
is the wing Iuselage (wing body) liIt curve slope, given by
w wf
L wf L
C K C
o o
= (51)
Where: K
wI
is the wing Iuselage interIerence Iactor given by:
2
) ( 25 . 0 ) ( 025 . 0 1
b
d
b
d
K
f f
wf
+ = (52)
By perIorming the calculations and substituting the values in wing Iuselage liIt curve
slope, we get
C
L
u
wI
3.53 rad
-1

68

o
c
d
d
down wash gradient at the horizontal tail which is equal to,
}
) (
) (
| }
2
1 ) (cos
| 44 . 4
0
19 . 1 4 /
=
+ A
=
atM L
atM L
c h A
w
w
C
C
K K K
d
d
o
o

o
c
(53)
Where,
) 1 (
1
)
1
(
7 . 1
A A
K
A
+
= (54)
7
) 3 10 (

= K (55)

3 / 1
)
2
(
) 1 (
b
l
b
h
K
h
h
h

= (56)

Figure 38. Geometric parameters Ior horizontal tail location
Based on Figure 38, the parameters Ior the l
h
and h
h
are calculated Ior the proposed
design.
69

By substituting the values in above equation, we get
dc/du 0.505
The horizontal tail liIt curve slope may be estimated Irom below equation.
| } 4
)
tan 1
(
2 |
2
2 / 1
2
2 /
2
2
2 2
+
A +
+
=
|
|
t
o
c
L
k
A
A
C
h
(57)
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
C
L
u
h
3.19 rad
-1

C
L
u
3.92 rad
-1
The Iollowing equation may be used to compute the location oI the airplane aerodynamic
center in Iractions oI mean geometric chord.
o
o o o
o
c
q
o
c
q
L
ac
c
L c
ac
h
L h L
ac
ac
C
X
S
S
d
d
C X
S
S
d
d
C C X
X
c
c
h
h wf
wf
A
}| ) )( 1 ( ) )( 1 ( ) |( +
=
(58)
Where:
f w wf
ac ac ac X X X A + = (59)
) (
) (
w
f
L
ac
C c S q
d
dM
X
o
o
= A (60)

=
=
A =
13
1
2
}| ) ( ) ( )|
08 . 0
)(
5 . 36
( ) (
i
i
i i f
L
X
d
d
W
C
q
d
dM
i
w
o
c
o
o
(61)
70


13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Figure 39. Layout Ior computing Iuselage and contribution to airplane aerodynamic
1
center location
Table 12. Calculation oI downwash gradient
I W
I
AX
i
c d /du
1 3.2 0.978 5.7
2 4.2 1.9 8.3
3 5.6 1.2 8.3
4 6.2 0.956 7.5
5 10.2 1.1 5.6
6 28.6 1.5 12.0
71

7 24.5 1.3 8.8
8 4.9 1.1 8.1
9 4.8 1.1 8.0
10 4.8 1.3 10.6
11 4.8 1.12 10.6
12 5.0 1.15 7.10
13 5.0 0.560 7.9

By substituting the values in downwash gradient equation, we get
(dM/du) 9.6 * 10
6

By substituting these values in equation, we get
X
ac
A

5.154
9.2. Static directional stability
Figure 38 shows the X-plot Ior static directional stability. The c.g leg is determined with
the help oI class II weight analysis. The weight per It
2
oI the vertical tail is known Irom
the weight analysis.
72

Directional X-Plot
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0 100 200 300
Vertical Tail Area, S
V
(It
2
)
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

C

n

(
d
e
g
-
1
)

Figure 40. Directional X-plot

The C
n
leg oI the X-plot Iollows Irom:
) )( (
b
X
S
S
C C C
v v
L n n
J wb
o | |
+ = (62)
For twin vertical tails, the eIIective aspect ratio oI the vertical tail may be estimated Irom
Iigure 35:
73


Figure 41. EIIective value oI vertical tail aspect ratio
From empennage calculations, we have
b
v
13 It, S
v
169 It
2

by using these values we get,
A
v
1.664
The vertical liIt curve slope may be estimated Irom the Iollowing equation.

}| 4
)
tan 1
(
2 |
2
2
2 /
2
2
2 2
+
A +
+
=
|
|
t
o
c
veff
veff
L
k
A
A
C
v
C
L
u
v
2aA
veII
/ |2 A
veII
2

2
/k
2
(1 tan
2
A
c/2
/
2
)
4}
1/2
(63)

By substituting the above calculated values in above equation, we get,
C
L
u
v
1.69 rad
-1

The Iuselage contribution is calculated by,
) ( 3 . 57
Sb
l S
K K C
f f
R N n
s
l
f
=
|
(64)
74

Where:
K
N
is empirical Iactor determined Irom Figure 42.
K
R
l
a Iactor dependent on Reynold`s number and obtained Irom Figure 43.
S
I
s

and l
I
are deIined in Figure 43.
75


Figure 42. Factor accounting Ior wing-Iuselage interIerence with directional stability |11|
76


Figure 43. EIIect oI Iuselage Reynolds number on wing Iuselage directional stability |11|
77

By substituting these values in equation, we get
C
n

-0.038
78

Chapter 10. Drag Polar
BeIore we determined the drag, one needs to calculate whether the Hoverwing will sink
or Iloat when speed is 0. In order to calculate buoyancy Iorce, one needs to determine
water displacement, which can be calculated by below equation.
V 35W
Buoyancy p*V
p Ior salt water is 64 lb/It
3
. Buoyancy Iorce works out to be 73,920 lbs, while Hoverwing
weighs 66,333 lbs. II Hoverwing weighed more than 73,920 lbs, it would sink but since it
does not weigh more than 66,333 lbs, it will Iloat.
In order to calculate zero liIt drag, it is important to calculate total wetted area oI the
aircraIt. The wetted area oI the airplane is the integral oI airplane perimeter versus
distance Irom nose to tail. A convenient way to Iind the wetted area is to split the airplane
into components such as,
1. Fuselage
2. Wing
3. Empennage
4. Nacelles
5. Other contributions which contribute to wetted area
Wetted areas Ior PlanIorms
The wetted area Ior the proposed design is calculated by,
}
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) / ( 25 . 0
1 2
. exp

t
+
+
+ =
r
plf wet
c t
S S
plf
(65)
79

Where t (t/c)
r
/ (t/c)
t
and c
t
/c
r

From all the parameters obtained in section 6 and 7 and by substituting the values in
equation, we get
S
wet
plI
1296 It
2

Wetted area Ior Iuselage
The wetted area Ior Iuselage is calculated by,
)
1
1 ( )
2
1 (
2
66 . 0
f f
f f wet
l D S
fus

+ H = (66)
Where
f
f
f
D
l
=
From CAD drawings, we have,
D
I
43 It, l
I
73 It
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
S
wet
Ius
3,304 It
2

Wetted area Ior Nacelles
The Iollowing components oI the nacelle contribute to wetted area: Ian cowling, gas
generator cowling and the plug. The wetted area Ior these components is calculated by,
)} )( 1 ( 15 . 1
8 . 0 35 . 0
2
1 1 1
n
ef
n n n
hl
n
n n wet
D
D
l
l
D l
D l
l
l
D l S
cowl
fan
+ + + = (67)
}| ) ( 18 . 0 1 ) 1 )(
3
1
( 1 |
6 . 1
g
g
g
eg
g g wet
l
D
D
D
D l S
gen
gas
H = (68)
p p wet
D l S
plug
H = 7 . 0 (69)
80

By substituting the values in above equations, we get
S
wet
Ian
cowl.
285 It
2

S
wet
gas

gen.
-10 It
2
S
wet
plug
60 It
2

Wetted area Ior Horizontal tail
The wetted area Ior horizontal tail is calculated by,
}
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) ( 25 . 0
1 2

t
+
+
+ =
r
h wet
c
t
S S
h
(70)
From empennage calculations, we have
S
h
630 It
2

h
0.57
S
v
169 It
2

v
0.58
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
S
wet
h
350 It
2

Wetted area Ior Vertical tail
The wetted area Ior vertical tail is calculated by,
}
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) ( 25 . 0
1 2

t
+
+
+ =
r
v wet
c
t
S S
v
(71)
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
S
wet
v
237 It
2

Total wetted area S
wet
plI
S
wet
Ius
S
wet
Ian
cowl.
S
wet
gas

gen.
S
wet
plug
S
wet
h
S
wet
v

intersection oI wing and Iuselage
81

S
wet
5,250 It
2

Comparing with reIerence |5|, shows that Ior transport jets with a take oII weight, oI
66,333 lbs the wetted area is predicted to be 5,270 It
2
. This is with in the 10 expected in
the wetted area correlations.
- Equivalent Parasite drag oI the airplane I`
The equivalent parasite drag oI the proposed airplane is I 21 It
2
.
- Clean Zero liIt drag coeIIicient C
Do

The clean zero loIt drag coeIIicient is calculated by,
S
f
C
O
D
=
By substituting the values, we get
C
D
o
0.004
The total craIt drag beIore take-oII can be expressed as Iollows:
D D
hw
D
hI
D
sww
D
swI
D
aw
D
a
D
Il
(72)
AIter craIt take-oII, the total drag can be expressed as Iollows:
D D
aw
D
a
(73)
The total drag and each separate drag component are discussed in the Iollowing.
The determination oI craIt drag is divided into Iour steps linked to the operating modes,
i.e. boating; hovering or planing beIore take-oII; at take-oII while still on water surIace;
and in Ilying mode |12|.
10.1. Wave-making drag
82

The Wave-making resistance is aIIected by beam to length ratio, displacement, shape oI
hull, Froude number. The wave-making resistance due to air cushion pressure under the
main wings can be predicted based on Newman and Poole`s Iormula as Iollows:
D
aw
C
w
B
c
P
2
c
(74)
C
w
I (F
rc
,C/B
c
) (75)
F
rc
V/Sqrt (gC) (76)
For approximate calculation, this can be written as:
P
c
kW/ (B
c
Cn
ac
) (77)
Where
k CoeIIicient Ior estimating the proportion oI the weight liIted by craIt air cushion on
water surIace, 0.8.
C
w
is calculated to be 0.0638 Irom above equation using weight oI 66333 lbs, air cushion
channel width oI 21.9 It, and Froude number oI 1.76.
10.2. Drag due to the wetted surface on hull and side buoys
The drag caused hull and side buoys can be estimated as Iollows:
D
hI
(C
I
Delta C
I
) S
hI
q (78)
D
swI
(C
I
Delta C
I
) S
swI
q (79)
C
I
0.075/ (logRe-2)
2
(80)
Re l
s
V
s
/
w
(81)
For Reynolds number oI 2.31 x 10
7
, the skin Iriction drag is 0.0026. Delta C
I
is additional
drag caused by roughness oI the plate, which is estimated to be roughly 10-20 oI C
I
.
C
dhI
and C
dswI
is calculated to be 0.0856 and 0.00546, accordingly.
83

10.3. Air profile drag
Air proIile drag can be predicted based on model experiments in wind tunnel.
D
a
1/2pV
2
C
x
S
a
(82)
In general, the air drag coeIIicient can be expressed as:
C
d,a
C
xo
K(h)C
2
L
/aA (83)
For C
L
1.8, A 3.45, C
xo
0.002 which is obtained Irom Iigure in reIerence |14|, and
K(h) 0.2 which is obtained Irom reIerence |14|, C
a
is 0.0612.
10.4. Fouling drag
Since the total drag oI WIG CraIt is rather small compared with conventional ships, the
drag caused by the Iouling is more signiIicant, particularly during take-oII, as it eIIects
the drag and also the liIt acting on both hull and sidewall/side buoys. However, in case oI
newly built craIt or models, this drag component can be neglected. A Iactor does need to
be added Ior perIormance reduction in service; however, as the hull surIaces will never
be perIectly clean, a suggested Iactor is to increase the skin Iriction drag by 10, which
is 0.000061.
The equations Ior the boating, planing beIore take-oII, at take-oII while still on water
surIace and in Ilying mode oI the proposed design are as Iollows:
Low speed, clean: C
D
0.004 0.03744 C
L
2

Boating: C
D
0.077 0.03798 C
L
2

Planing beIore take-oII: C
D
0.102 0.03798 C
L
2

At take-oII while still on water surIace: C
D
0.222 0.0424 C
L
2
Cruise: C
D
0.125 0.0424 C
L
2
84

Drag Polar (Boating)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
CoeIIicient oI LiIt, C
L
C
o
e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
I

D
r
a
g
,

C


D

Figure 44. Drag Polar (Boating)



Drag Polar (Planing)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
CoeIIicient oI LiIt, C
L
C
o
e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
I

D
r
a
g
,

C


D

Figure 45. Drag Polar (Planing)

85

Drag Polar (At takeoff, while still on water)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
CoeIIicient oI LiIt, C
L
C
o
e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
I

D
r
a
g
,

C


D

Figure 46 Drag Polar (At takeoII, while still on water)



Drag Polar (Cruise)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
CoeIIicient oI LiIt, C
L
C
o
e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
I

D
r
a
g
,

C


D

Figure 47. Drag Polar (Cruise)


86

8
7



Drag Polar
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4
CoeIIicient oI LiIt, C
L
C
o
e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
I

D
r
a
g
,

C


D
Drag Polar (Clean)
Drag Polar (Boating)
Drag Pola(Cruise)
Drag Polar (Planing, Before
Take-off)
Drag Polar (At take-off While
On Water)
Figure 48. Drag Polar
Chapter 11. V-n diagram
The V-n diagrams are used to determine design limit and design ultimate load Iactors as
well as the corresponding speeds to which airplane structures are designed. Figure 85
shows the V-n diagram Ior the proposed design. The mission speciIication Ior the
proposed aircraIt is based on FAR 25 requirements. It will be assumed that under FAR 25
and will be certiIied under this category.
Determination oI 1g stall speed: V
S


The design stall speed is given by,
max
) (
2
N
S
C
S
GW
J

= (84)
From weight sizing calculations, we have
GW Ilight design gross weight in lbs 66,333 lbs
S wing area in It
2
3,175 It
2

p air density in slugs/It
3
0.002378 slugs/It
3

C
Nmax
maximum normal Iorce coeIIicient
C
L
1.4
In preliminary design it is acceptable to set:
C
N
max
1.1 C
L
max
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
V
S
105 kts
Determination oI design cruising speed: V
C


88

The design cruise speed is given by,
Knots J J
B C
43 + > (85)
Where V
B
design speed Ior maximum gust intensity
We have V
B
163 kts,
As
lim
n J J J
S A B
> > (86)
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
V
c
206 kts
Determination oI V
D
:

The design dive speed is given by,
C D
J J 25 . 1 = (87)
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
V
D
257 kts
Determination oI n
lim
:

The positive limit load Iactor Ior the proposed design is given by,

}
) 10000 (
000 , 24
1 . 2
lim
+
+ >
GW
n
pos
(88)
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
n
lim
pos
2.41
Determination oI gust load Iactor lines, V
C,
V
B
and V
D
:

The airplane mass ratio is given by,
o

L
g
gC c
S
GW
) (
2 = (89)
89

By substituting the values in above equation, we get

g
17
The gust alleviation Iactor is given by,
) 3 . 5 (
88 . 0
g
g
g
K

+
= (90)

By substituting the values in above equation, we get
K
g
0.67
The gust load Iactor is given by,
) ( 498
) (
1
lim
S
GW
JC U K
n
L de g o
+ = (91)

For the V
C
gust lines, U
de
50 Ips
For the V
D
gust lines, U
de
25 Ips
For the V
B
gust lines, U
de
66 Ips
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
n
lim
gust
1 3.22 * 10
-3
V

Ior the V
C
line.
n
lim
gust
1 1.61 * 10
-3
V Ior the V
D
line.
n
lim
gust
1 4.25 * 10
-3
V Ior the V
B
line.
Determination oI V
A
:

lim
n J J
S A
> (92)
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
V
A
146 kts

90

Determination oI negative stall line: V
S
neg


It is assumed that C
L
maxneg
-1.0. This yields C
N
maxneg
-1.1
The negative stall speed is calculated by,
neg
neg
N
S
C
S
GW
J
max
) (
2

=
By substituting the values in above equation, we get
V
S
neg
126 kts.
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Speed,V (knots)
L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r
,

n
n
limpos
n
limneg
A C D
V
A
LINE
V
C
LINE
V
D
LINE

Figure 49. V-n Diagram
91

Chapter 12. Conclusion

The Hoverwing is a unique craIt which is a mix between a ship and an airplane. As seen
Irom above data, the manual calculations oI all the parameters are more reliable than
those obtained Irom AAA soItware. The airplanes with takeoII values closest to
Hoverwing were taken into consideration when calculation drag, horizontal and vertical
stabilizer. Though this method would not give a larger error margin, it is better than
computing in AAA soItware as the soItware compares and uses the values Ior airplanes
that are into certain categories such as military, jet transport, Ilying boat, etc. To obtain
the data, Ilying boats were used as a comparison. When the data Ior Ilying boats was not
available, the aircraIt with similar takeoII weight was taken into consideration. The
category with similar takeoII weight was commercial transport aircraIt. The weight
sensitivity results were obtained within 0.5 error margin. The CAD drawing oI
Hoverwing is shown in Iigure 50.
92


Figure 50. 3D view oI hoverwing



Figure 51. Side view oI hoverwing



93


Figure 52. Front view oI hoverwing

Figure 53. Top view oI hoverwing

The drag calculation has been completed Ior the Hoverwing. As seen Irom the drag polar,
the highest drag was encountered when Hoverwing is transiting Irom air to water. This
94

data is correct since WIG craIts require more power to overcome hump speed drag.
Hoverwing will not have any landing gear as it takes oII, lands and operates on water. As
seen Irom weight and balance analysis, Hoverwing is capable oI Ilying in all 5 scenarios
with C.G. movement. Overall, iI this design was used to produce a real craIt, it would be
successIul.
Hoverwing is about series/mass production oI high speed marine craIt at a manuIacturing
scale similar to the volume oI the speedboat sector. The market potential Ior Hoverwing
is enormous. In the end, Hoverwing is simply about being a Iast, comIortable
transportation solution which requires little other inIrastructure investment. Making
Hoverwing commercially successIul is a long journey, but it is a venture worth exploring.
95

Chapter 13. References
|1| Taylor, G. WIG What Are You Waiting For? International ConIerence on Fast Sea
Transportation FAST`2005, St.Petersburg, Russia, 2005.
|2| Rozhdestvensky, K. Wing-in-ground effect vehicles. 9
th
International ConIerence on
Hydrodynamics, Shanghai, China, 2010.
|3| Fischer, H., and Matjasic, K. The Hoverwing Technologv-Bridge between WIG and
ACJ. RTO MP-15, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1998.
|4| Taylor, G. The 90 Knot Zero-Wash Ferrv. The PaciIic 2004 International Maritime
ConIerence, Sydney, Australia, 2004.
|5| Roskam, Dr. Jan. Part I. Preliminarv Si:ing of Airplanes. DAR Corporation, Kansas,
2004.
|6| Marchman, J., and Werme, T. Clark-Y Airfoil Performance at Low Revnolds
Numbers. AIAA 22
nd
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 1984.
|7| Roskam, Dr. Jan. Part III. Lavout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing and
Empennage. Cutawavs and Inboard Profiles. DAR Corporation, Kansas, 2004.
|8| Torenbeek, E. Svnthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 1982.
|9| Roskam, Dr. Jan. Part J. Component Weight Estimation. DAR Corporation, Kansas,
2004.
|10| Halloran, M. and O`Meara, S. Wing in Ground Effect Craft Review. DSTO
Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia, 1999.
|11| Roskam, Dr. Jan. Part JI. Preliminarv Calculation of Aerodvnamic, Thrust and
96

97

Power Characteristics. Airplane Design. Kansas, 2004.
|12| Yun, L., Bliault, A., and Doo, J. WIG Craft and Ekranoplan. Ground Effect Craft
Technologv. Springer New York Dordrecht Heibelderg, London, 2009.