Tham khảo tài liệu 'aircraft design projects episode 7', kỹ thuật - công nghệ, cơ khí - chế tạo máy phục vụ nhu cầu học tập, nghiên cứu và làm việc hiệu quả | Project study electric-powered racing aircraft 161 Table Component Nemesis Actual Nemesis method 3 FFT Canard method 3 VariEze method 3 Wing Fuselage Horiz. tail Vert. tail Main u c Aux. u c - Structure Engine Propeller Fuel system Propulsion Fixed equip. A C empty Crew Fuel A C gross 100 100 100 100 Gross kg 340 356 643 560 joint structure into either the fuselage or wing mass component uncertainty always exists to the precise division between wing and fuselage components. The above analysis does give a reasonable estimate for the combined wing fuselage structure ratio. This may be due to the design of the landing gear small and with perhaps no brakes for racing aircraft. The method seems to overestimate the mass of the landing gear. Note that the Nemesis empty mass fraction is much higher than the other two general aviation aircraft. At about 70 per cent this is typical for the short range duration single-seat racer aircraft. The analysis above was also done to indicate any variations in mass fractions due to the canard layout. Although both of these aircraft are much heavier than our proposed design some general conclusions can be drawn. The wing structure for the FFT is seen to be about 2 per cent heavier than the Nemesis. This is largely due to the need to sweep the wing planform back to provide an acceptable fin control arm. For both of the canard aircraft the fuselage mass is substantially less than the conventional layout. This is because the pusher layout shortens the fuselage length. In addition the engine is mounted close to the wing fuselage joint making all the heavy loading on the fuselage concentrated in the same area. The control surface mass is slightly higher for the canard designs. .
