PP380F Figure 1 – Artists Impression of a VLA PrandtlPlane Aircraft (Frediani, et al., 2003)

Motivation Flight Path 2050 / Clean Sky 2 The 80x80m Airport Box Rule. (Objective to be achieved by 2050 in respective to the year 2000) Reduction of CO2 by 75% Reduction of NoX by 90% Reduction of Noise by 65% The 80x80m Airport Box Rule.

Non-Planar Designs Figure 2 – Span efficiency values across multiple non-planer configuration where h/b = 2. (Kroo, 2005, p. 4)

PrantlPlane Configuration Figure 3 –Visual representation of the vortices occurrences (Anderson Jr, 1999, p. 79)

Figure 4. 1 and Figure 4. 2 – How vortices effect the AoA Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 – How vortices effect the AoA. Screen shot of clip from (AviationEnglishTV, 2016, p. 2:09 and 3:00)  

Figure 5 – Example diagram showing tip leakage rotation of the main wings and then there horizontal components. (Schiktanz, 2011, p. 44)

Objective To Adapt The A380F To Utilise A Prandtl-plane Configuration. To Translate The Design To Be Used By The Merlin Flight Simulation’s Mp521 Simulator With The Excalibur Ii Software. To Test And Compare The Conceptual Design Against A Standard A380f Model, Also Translated For Use By Merlin Flight Simulation’s, Mp521 Simulator, With The Excalibur Ii Software.

Design Of The Prandtl-plane A380F It Was Determined That For The Conceptual Design To Be Comparable With The Pre-existing Design It Had To Be As Similar As Possible To The Original. When Designing the wings it was determined that for comparability the Wing Area remained the same (9100ft2) Effective Aspect Ratio increased to 9.9 from 7.53 Other Factors Which Subsequently Requiring Attention: Engine Placement CoG and Gear Placement Control Surfaces

Figure 7 – Hand Drawn Conceptual Comparison of Prandtl vs Conventional (Front) Figure 6 – Hand Drawn Conceptual Comparison of Prandtl vs Conventional (Top Down)

Figure 8 – Hand Drawn Conceptual Prandtl Design (Top Down)

Figure 9 – Hand Drawn Conceptual Prandtl Design (Front)

Figure 10 – Sketch showing H-panel specification of the Prandtl-Plane A380F

Figure 11 – Sketch showing Location of Control Surfaces A380F vs PrandtlPlane A380F

Initial testing of the Prandtl-Plane A380F

Testing And Comparison of the A380F and the PP380F Climb Performance Longitudinal Static Stability Descent Performance Short Period Mode Height Control Task Phugoid Dutch Roll Mode Roll Mode Heading Control Task Roll Control Task Steady Heading Sideslip Spiral Mode

Results

Conclusion No significant difference was found in the handling and performance of either aircraft, the phugoid test was the biggest difference as the Prandtl-Plane does required better damping however opposing this downside, the Prandtl-Plane generally scores higher from a pilots perspective for the ease of handling and execution of basic control tasks.

References Frediani, A. et al., 2003. Development of an Innovative Configuration for Transport Aircraft; A project of Five Italian Universities, s.l.: s.n. Jenkinson, L. R., Simpkin, P. & Rhodes, D., 1999. Civil Jet Aircraft Design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kroo, I., 2001. Drag Due to Lift: Concepts for Prediction and Reduction. Annual Review of Fluid Dynamics, Issue 33, pp. 587-617. AviationEnglishTV, 2016. Induced Drag (Aviation English). [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX87NeDqGGE [Accessed 2016 April 04]. Schiktanz, D., 2011. Conceptual Design of a Medium Range Box Wing Aircraft, Hamburg: Hamburg University of Applied Sciences - Master Thesis.

Any Questions?