ISSN 2255-9876 (online)

ISSN 2255-968X (print)

Transport and Aerospace Engineering December 2017, vol. 5, pp. 48–59
doi: 10.1515/tae-2017-0018
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/tae

Wing and Engine Sizing by Using the

Matching Plot Technique
Nikolajs Glīzde
Institute of Aeronautics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Transport and Aeronautics,
Riga Technical University, Latvia

Abstract – The research focuses on the development of an Unmanned Aircraft System. For design
purposes, a rather new design method called Systems Engineering Approach is used. Development
of the whole system takes much time and effort. This paper contains a concise description of the
research on the preliminary development phase of Unmanned Aircraft System air vehicle. The
method was first introduced by NASA and later developed by authors of books on aircraft design
used for information purposes for design and are mentioned in references. The obtained results
are rather realistic and promising for further design process. The method is simple and
understandable, and it should be used more often to make it more steady and reliable.

Keywords – Aircraft design, engine, matching plot, unmanned aircraft system, wing.

I. INTRODUCTION

The air vehicle of the Unmanned Aircraft System is designed by using a Systems Engineering
Approach [1], [2]. The design method consists of four phases:
1) Conceptual Design;
2) Preliminary Design;
3) Detail Design;
4) Test and Evaluation.
During the conceptual design phase, the air vehicle is designed with inaccurate results. All parameters
are determined based on a decision-making process and a selection technique.
The preliminary design phase uses the results of calculations. However, the determined parameters are
not final and will be altered later. The parameters determined at this phase are essential and will directly
influence the entire phase of part design. Therefore, a great deal of attention must be paid to ensuring the
accuracy of the results of the preliminary design phase. During the preliminary design phase, three
aircraft fundamental parameters are determined: maximum take-off weight (MTOW), wing reference
area (Sref), and engine power (P) for a prop-driven engine [3].
During the phase of air vehicle part design [4], the technical parameters of all components (wing,
fuselage, tail, and engine), including geometry, will be calculated and finalized.

II. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE

At the conceptual design phase, the designer determines air vehicle configuration. Although there are
no legal regulations for the Unmanned Aircraft System belonging to the category of micro air vehicles,
the designer is firstly restricted by the customer’s requirements. The designer should follow the
requirements imposed by the customer unless he/she can prove to the customer that a specific
requirement is not feasible. Other constraints a designer may face are imposed by the applicable
certification specification. As it was mentioned before, there are no regulations for micro class UAS.

©2017 Nikolajs Glīzde.

This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License Unauthenticated 48
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), in the manner agreed with De Gruyter Open. Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

Therefore, in this case European Aviation Safety Agency Certification Specification CS-VLA shall be
applied [5], [6].
Problem statement: designing an Unmanned Aircraft System with Intelligence, Surveillance, Target
Accusation and Reconnaissance functional capabilities and determined requirements (see Table I).
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF THE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AIR VEHICLE
Requirement parameter Value
Absolute ceiling hac up to 5 000 m
Cruise ceiling hcc 300 m to 400 m
Operational range 50 km
Operational endurance up to 300 min
Payload weight MPL up to 0.4 kg
Take-off run STO hand launch (alternatively – folding launching unit)
Operational readiness air vehicle assembling ≤ 10 min
Cruise speed Vc ≤26 m/s (at cruising altitude 350 m ASL)

III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE

The preliminary design phase will be completed in two stages:

1) determining the air vehicle’s maximum take-off weight (MTOW);
2) the air vehicle’s wing and engine sizing (simultaneously).

A. The Air Vehicle’s Maximum Take-Off Weight

To approximate the air vehicle’s MTOW, in this phase the weight is divided into the following four
elements:
1) payload weight: MPL = 0.385 kg;
2) avionics weight: MA = 0.681 kg;
3) fuel/battery weight: MB = 2.0 kg;
4) empty weight: ME = 4.0 kg.
The weights of these elements were taken from the statistical data average values [3], [7], [8].
The air vehicle’s take-off weight is determined from the following equation:
WMTOW   M PL  M A  M B  M E  g  69.32 N.
(1)
B. Wing and engine sizing
Unlike in the first step, where statistical data were used, in this step the results depend on the air
vehicle’s performance, and the calculations involve the use of the flight mechanics theory. The results of
this method are with high accuracy, and the requirements for air vehicle performance, which are used for
determining sizing, are the following:
− stall speed (Vs);
− maximum speed (Vmax);
− rate of clime (ROCmax);
− take-off run (STO);
− ceiling (hc).

Unauthenticated 49
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

In this step, two new parameters will be used in almost every equation:
1) wing loading. The air vehicle’s weight and wing area ratio is referred to as wing loading and marked
as W/S. This parameter indicates load on the unit of wing area;
2) power loading. The air vehicle’s weight and engine power ratio is referred to as power loading or
weight and power ratio and marked as W/P. This parameter indicates how heavy air vehicle in
comparison to its engine power is.
The wing area and engine power are calculated in the following six steps:
1. Calculating an equation for each air vehicle’s performance requirement (Vs, Vmax, ROC, STO, hc).
1.1. Stall speed. One of the main air vehicle’s performance requirements is stall speed – Vs. For most
aircraft, the stall speed shall not exceed some minimum defined value. Besides, this parameter is limited
by the certification specification (EASA CS). This parameter is also important because landing is
anticipated to be in deep stall. Alternatively, the landing will be designed with a parachute mechanism.
From the statistics, the following parameters were determined for the UAS air vehicle [7]–[9]:
Clmax = 1.6, Vs = 8.5 m/s.
Using the statistically determined parameters Clmax and Vs the following equation is used for
determining the wing loading parameter:
W  1 N
   Vs Clmax  70.805 2 ,
2

 S Vs 2 m (2)
where ρ is air density at sea level, 1.225 kg/m3.
In general, lower stall speed is required as it results in a safer flight. Lower stall speed results in a safer
take-off and landing. The take-off and landing speed are usually slightly higher than the stall speed (1.1Vs
to 1.3Vs). Thus, considering the above mentioned facts, any stall speed lower than the one defined in the
design requirements is acceptable.

Fig. 1. The stall speed requirements meet the colored region.

1.2. Maximum speed. Another important air vehicle performance parameter is maximum speed. The
main parameters affecting this performance parameter are air vehicle weight, wing area, and engine
power. If in design requirements cruise speed requirements are defined instead of maximum speed
requirements, there shall be taken a 20 % to 30 % greater maximum speed. This is because the cruise
speed for propeller driven aircraft is calculated for 75 % to 80 % of engine power. So the air vehicle’s
maximum speed is as follows:

Unauthenticated 50
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

m
Vmax  1.3VC  33.8 .
s (3)
The following equation is used for the matching plot construction:
W  P
   .
 PSL Vmax 1  V 3 C 1 2K  W  (4)
 
 W  Vmax  S
SL max D0
2 
 
S 
where ηP is propeller efficiency coefficient equal to 0.55
The parameters for (4) are calculated as follows:
1
K  0.0331741,
e  AR (5)
where
K – induced drag factor;
e – Oswald efficiency factor (0.70 to 0.95) [10], [11];
AR – wing aspect ratio; statistically determined as – 12 [9], [12].
The zero lift-drag coefficient CD0 for propeller driven aircrafts is determined as follows:
PSLmax P 4 KW 2
2 
Vmax Vmax
2
S
CD0  ,
SLVmax S
2
(6)
where
PSLmax – engine maximum power at sea level, W;
ρ – air density at flight level, kg/m3;
σ – relative air density (ρ/ρSL).
For an aircraft in the preliminary design phase, the coefficient CD0 can also be determined as an average
value from aircraft with similar performance and configuration:
CD01  CD02  CD03  CD04  CD05
CD0  ,
5 (7)
where CD0i – i-th aircraft CD0 coefficient [8].
At this stage, the coefficient CD0 is calculated as an average value:
 CD01min  CD02min  CD03min   CD01max  CD02max  CD03max 
  
     0.0245.
3 3
CD0
2 (8)
In further calculations, CD0 coefficient will be recalculated by using (7).
Based on the obtained parameters, matching plot (4) is calculated as follows:
W  0.77322 N
    .
 PSL Vmax 560.064  0.001658  W  W (9)
 
W  S 
 
S 

Unauthenticated 51
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

The UAS design requirements determine an operational altitude of 300 m to 400 m. Therefore, an
average value of 350 m is accepted for the calculations. The design calculations at this stage are made
for the air vehicle’s flight altitude of 350 m above sea level. Also, the design requirements define
launching up to an absolute altitude of 5000 m above sea level, and this limit will be used in further
calculations [13], [14].
To determine the acceptable region of the matching plot, which satisfies the maximum speed
requirements, it is enough to analyze the equation. As Vmax is in denominator, in case when it is
increasing, the value of power loading (W/P) is decreasing. Consequently, any value of Vmax greater than
the one specified in the requirements satisfies the maximum speed requirements, and the region below
the graph is acceptable.

Fig. 2. The maximum speed requirements meet the colored region.

1.3. Take-off run. The requirements for take-off run length are usually determined as a minimum
land run length as all airports have limited runways. The take-off run length is determined as a distance
from the beginning of aircraft take-off to the place where a standard imaginary obstacle is placed, and
the aircraft must clear it. The aircraft must clear the imaginary obstacle at the end of the air section so
that the take-off run includes the land section and air section, the obstacle (EASA CS 25, CS 23, CS
VLA) [4], [5].
The take-off speed is a little bit greater than the stall speed (VTO = 1.1Vs to 1.3Vs):
m
VTO  1.3  8.5  11.05 . (10)
s
In EASA CS VLA 51, it is defined that the range should not exceed 500 m to clear an up to 15 m tall
obstacle. Thus, STO = 500 m is accepted [15].
The matching plot in this case is calculated with the equation:
 1 
1  exp  0.6gCDG STO 
W   W S 
    P .
 P  STO  C   1   VTO (11)
     DG  exp  0.6gCDG STO 
 CLR    W S 

The parameters for (11) are calculated as follows:

Unauthenticated 52
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

CD0TO  CD0  CD0LG  CD0HLD_TO  0.0245  0.004  0.055  0.0835, (12)

where
CD0TO – zero lift-drag coefficient during take-off;
CD0LG – landing gear drag coefficient; accepted as 0.004, which is lower than the one for conventional
aircraft (CD0LG = 0.006 to 0.012) [9];
CD0HLD_TO – high lift device drag coefficient, accepted as 0.055 (CD0HLD_TO = 0.003 to 0.008) [10],
[11].
The aircraft’s take-off lift coefficient is as follows:
CLTO  CLC  CLflapTO  0.3  0.55  0.85,
(13)
where CLC is the aircraft’s cruise lift coefficient, which is usually about 0.3 for subsonic aircraft, and
ΔCLflapTO is high lift devices’ lift coefficient in take-off configuration (ΔCLflapTO = 0.3 to 0.8) [10], [11].
The air vehicle’s drag coefficient in take-off configuration is:
CDTO  CD0TO  KCLTO
2
 0.0835  0.0331741 0.852  0.10747.
(14)
The coefficient CDG is:
CDG  CDTO  CLTO  0.10747  0.08  0.85  0.03947,
(15)
where µ is a runway friction coefficient, and the take-off rotation lift coefficient is taken equal to CLTO,
that is, 0.85, and the take-off rotation speed VR equal to VTO, that is, 11.05 m/s.
The calculation for matching plot construction according to (11) is:
 142.2963 
1  exp  
W   W S  N
    0.18868 .
 P  STO   142.2963   W (16)
0.08  0.1264  exp  
  W S 
To determine the acceptable region of the matching plot, which satisfies the take-off run requirements,
we need to analyze the equation. The equation numerator and denominator contain an exponential value
of STO parameter. If the take-off runway is increasing, the exponential parameter is increasing as well,
so the power loading (W/P) value is also increasing. Consequently, any value of STO greater than the one
specified does not satisfy the take-off run requirements, and the region above the graph is not acceptable.

Unauthenticated 53
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

Fig. 3. The take-off run requirements meet the colored region.

1.4. Rate of climb. All aircraft configurations should be in conformity with the defined rate of climb
(ROC) requirements. The rate of climb requirements are defined in the certification specification. In
EASA CS VLA 65, it is defined that ROC should not be less than 2 m/s [4], [5]. As the maximum ROC
value can be reached at sea level, the value “air density ρ” at sea level (1.225 kg/m3) is used for the
calculations.
The rate of climb is a function of engine power and propeller efficiency; for altitude gain, the determined
propeller efficiency coefficient (ηP) is equal to 0.55 and the determined lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)max is equal
to 11.5 [11]. Thus, the matching plot equation is the following:
W  1
   
 P  ROC ROC 2 W   1.155 
      

P 3  C D0  S   L D max   P 

K
1 N

W  W
3.6363  1.0969     0.1826
S (17)
The acceptable region, which satisfies the take-off run requirements, is determined by analyzing the
equation. The ROC value is a denominator in the equations, so when the rate of climb is increasing, the
value of power loading (W/P) is decreasing. Consequently, any value of ROC greater than the one
specified complies with the rate of clime requirements, and the region below the graph is acceptable.

Unauthenticated 54
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

Fig. 4. The rate of climb requirements meet the colored region.

1.5. Ceiling. It is generally defined for several types of ceiling:

1) absolute ceiling – hac. The absolute ceiling is an altitude where the aircraft flight ROC is zero;
2) service ceiling – hsc. The service ceiling is an altitude where the aircraft flight ROC is 0.5 m/s;
3) cruise ceiling – hcc. The cruise ceiling is an altitude where the aircraft flight ROC is 1.5 m/s;
4) combat ceiling – hcc. The combat ceiling is an altitude where the fighter can take altitude with a
speed of 5 m/s. This altitude is defined only for combat aircraft.
The above mentioned can be summarized as follows:
ROCAC = 0.0 m/s;
ROCSC = 0.5 m/s;
ROCCrC = 1.5 m/s;
ROCCoC = 5.0 m/s.
The matching plot can be created by using the same equation (16) as for the calculation of ROC. In
this design phase, when the air vehicle has not been completely designed, the following approximation
should be used:
 
PC  PSL  C   PSL C .
 0  (18)
Then (16) can be rewritten in the following form:
W  C
   .
 PSL C ROCC 2 W   1.155  (19)
    
P 3CD 0 S    L D max P 
C
K
And for the absolute ceiling, it can be rewritten as follows:
W  AC
   .
 PSL AC 2 W   1.155  (20)
   
3CD 0 S    L D max P 
AC
K

Unauthenticated 55
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

According to the design requirements, the air vehicle should be operational at 350 m above ground.
Therefore, for the preliminary design phase calculations, a cruise ceiling of 350 m above sea level is
accepted with ROCCrC = 1.5 m/s, and equation (18) is used for the calculation of the matching plot:
W  0.60082 N
   .
 SL C
P W  W (21)
1.875  1.8256   0.1255
S 
The acceptable region, which satisfies the take-off run requirements, is determined by analyzing the
equation. The ROC and ρC values represent a denominator in the equations, so when the altitude is
increasing, ρC is decreasing, and the relative air density is decreasing as well. Whereas ρC value is in
denominator of denominator, in case of altitude increasing, power loading (W/P) is decreasing.
Consequently, any altitude greater then defined hc altitude satisfies the ceiling requirements, and the
region below the graph is acceptable.

Fig. 5. The cruise ceiling requirements meet the colored region.

2. The matching plot is made on the basis of the obtained results.

The MATLAB code for the matching plot construction is as follows:

% The following data are obtained from the design requirements:

Vs = 8.5; % The stall speed according to the requirements in
% certification specification EASA CS VLA, m/s
Vc = 26.0; % The cruising speed according to the design requirements, m/s
Vmax = 33.8; % Calculated maximum speed, m/s
Vto = 2.915; % Calculated take-off speed, m/s
Vto = 11.05;
Vr = Vto; % Take-off rotation speed, m/s
hC = 350; % Normal service altitude/ceiling above sea level, m
hac = 5000; % Absolute ceiling altitude, m
Clmax = 1.6; % Maximum lift coefficient for the preliminary design phase
e = 0.8; % Oswald efficiency factor
AR = 12; % Wing aspect ratio for the preliminary design phase
K = 0.0331741; % Calculated induced drag coefficient
g = 9.81; % Gravitational acceleration, m/s^2
Cd0 = 0.0245; % Zero lift-drag coefficient
Cd0to = 0.0835; % Zero lift-drag coefficient at take-off

Unauthenticated 56
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

Clto = 0.85; % Aircraft lift coefficient at take-off

Cdto = 0.10747; % Aircraft drag coefficient at take-off
Cdg = 0.03947; % Coefficient
Clr = Clto; % Lift coefficient at take-off rotation
nu = 0.08; % Drag coefficient for the launch unit
Sto = 2; % Launch unit length
rhosl = 1.225; % Air density at sea level
rhoc = 1.184; % Air density at a cruising altitude of 350 m above sea level
rhoac = 0.736; % Air density at absolute ceiling altitude
mupto = 0.55; % Propeller efficiency coefficient at take-off
mupac = 0.8; % Propeller efficiency coefficient at cruising altitude
LDmax = 11.5; % Lift drag value for the preliminary design faze
ROCAC = 0; % Rate of climb at absolute ceiling, m/s
ROCSC = 0.5; % Rate of climb at service ceiling, m/s
ROCCrC = 1.5; % Rate of climb at cruise ceiling, m/s
ROCCoC = 5; % Rate of climb at combat ceiling, m/s
% Stall speed.
WS = 1/2*rhosl*Vs^2*Clmax;
x1 = WS;
x2 = WS;
y1 = 0;
y2 = 1.5;
plot([x1,x2],[y1,y2],'-g')
text(55,1.2,'Stall speed')
axis([0 80 -0.5 1.5])
xlabel('W/S, N/m^2')
ylabel('W/P, N/W')
grid on
hold on
% Maximum speed.
WSms = 0:2:80;
WPvmax =
mupac./((0.5*rhosl*Vmax^3*Cd0./WSms)+(((2*K)./(rhoc*(rhoc/rhosl)*Vmax)).*WSms));
plot(WSms,WPvmax,'--r')
text(10,-0.05,'Maximum speed')
% Take-off run.
WPsto = (((1-exp(0.6*rhosl*g*Cdg*Sto)./WSms))./(nu-
(nu+Cdg/Clr).*(exp(0.6*rhosl*g*Cdg*Sto)./WSms))).*(mupto/Vto);
disp(WPsto)
plot(WSms,WPsto,'b--o')
text(5,1.2,'Take-off run')
% Rate of Climb.
WProc = 1./(3.6363+(sqrt(1.0969.*WSms)*0.1826));
plot(WSms,WProc,'*-c')
text(5,0.3,'Rate of clime')
% Cruise ceiling.
WPslc =
(rhoc/rhosl)./((ROCCrC/mupac)+sqrt((2/(rhoc*sqrt(3*Cd0/K)))*WSms)*(1.115/(LDmax*m
upac)));
plot(WSms,WPslc,'*-y')
text(10,0.5,'Cruise ceiling')

Unauthenticated 57
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

The matching plot is as follows:

Fig. 6. Matching plot with a design point.

3. Inside the matching plot graph, an acceptable region conforming to all air vehicle performance
requirements is identified. The acceptable region can be recognized by Vmax value, which changes
inside the acceptable region. As mentioned before, the acceptable regions for all the plots are
situated below the graph and on the left side of the stall speed graph. Whereas Vmax graph is the
lowest, all air vehicle requirements will satisfy the region between Vmax graph and Vs, ROC, STO,
hc graphs that shows lowest engine power point “Design point”.
4. To define a design point. As it was mentioned above, there is only one design point, and it shows
the lowest engine power. Consequently, the design point is in the intersection of Vmax and Vs
graphs. The MATLAB code for the intersection point and coordinate determination is as follows:

% Find design point coordinates

[xint,yint] = polyxpoly([x1,x2],[y1,y2],WSms,WPvmax);
plot(xint,yint,'ok')
text(65,-0.2,'Design point')
disp([xint,yint])

5. The design point makes it possible to obtain two parameters: corresponding wing loading (W/S)d
and power loading (W/P)d.
(W/S)d = 70.805;
(W/P)d = 0.0963.
6. The wing reference area and engine power are calculated from the obtained values by the
following equations:
WTO
S ~ 0.98 m2 ;
W S d (22)
WTO
P  719.834 W ~ 0.952 hp.
W P  d (23)

Unauthenticated 58
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM
 Transport and Aerospace Engineering
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5

IV. CONCLUSION

The obtained results are feasible for the class of the system and prove that the Systems Engineering
Approach method can be used for designing the air vehicles of micro systems as well as for other aircraft
[12], [15]–[18]. The system should be regularly applied to obtain more stable results.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Urbahs and V. Žavtkēvičs, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Route Optimization When Performing Oil Pollution Monitoring
of the Sea Aquatorium,” Aviation, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 70–74, Apr. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2017.1344139
[2] A. Urbahs and I. Jonaite, “Features of the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Agriculture Applications,” Aviation,
vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 170–175, Dec. 2013. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2013.861224
[3] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular: Aircraft Weight and Balance
Control, Washington, D.C., 2005. [Online]. Available:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-27E.pdf
[4] A. Urbahs and A. Barovs, “Peculiarities of Calculating the Main Performance Characteristics of the Remotely Piloted
“LARIDAE” Aircraft Transport Means,” in Proceedings of the International Conference, 2015, pp. 474–477.
[5] European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications, CS-VLA, 2009. [Online]. Available: www.easa.europa.eu
[6] European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications, CS-23, 2015. [Online]. Available: www.easa.europa.eu
[7] M. C. Y. Niu, Composite Airframe Structures, 5th ed. Hong Kong Conmilit Press, 2005.
[8] M. P. Groover, Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons,
2010.
[9] M. Sadraey, Aircraft Design. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[10] J. Roskam, Airplane Design, vol. I. DAR Corporation, 2005.
[11] L. J. Bertin and R. M. Cummings, Aerodynamics for Engineers, 5th ed. Pearson / Prentice Hall, 2009.
[12] B. S. Blanchard and W. J. Fabrycky, Systems Engineering and Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, 2006.
[13] C. Rao, H. Tsai, and T. Ray, “Aircraft Configuration Design Using a Multidisciplinary Optimization Approach,” in 42nd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 5–8, 2004, AIAA-2004-536.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-536
[14] J. Roskam, Lessons Learned in Aircraft Design. DAR Corporation, 2007.
[15] E. C. T. Lan and J. Roskam, Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance. DAR Corporation, 2003.
[16] H. Eschenauer, J. Koski, and A. Osyczka, Eds., Multicriteria Design Optimization: Procedures and Applications.
Springer, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48697-5
[17] I. Kroo, S. Altus, R. Braun, P. Gage, and I. Sobieski, “Multidisciplinary Optimization Methods for Aircraft Preliminary
Design,” 5th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Sep. 1994 https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1994-4325
[18] M. Sadraey, Aircraft Performance Analysis. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2009.

Nikolajs Glīzde obtained a degree of Bachelor of Technical Sciences in 1993 and a professional
degree of Automotive Enterprises Engineer in 1994. He received a degree of Master of Transport
Systems Engineering in 2011. The author began studies for a Doctoral degree in 2015.
For the last fifteen years the author has been working as a technical specialist. His work is related
to military vehicles of different types.
The author’s current interests of research refer to the development of Unmanned Aircraft Systems,
as the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in common European Aerospace is the latest
European trend which requires research and development in different technological fields.
Address: Institute of Aeronautics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Transport and Aeronautics,
Riga Technical University, Lomonosova 1A, k-1, Riga, LV-1019, Latvia.
Phone: +371 67089990
E-mail: [email protected]

Unauthenticated 59
Download Date | 1/7/18 1:13 AM