Conceptual design of a light sport aircraft

Michael Frederick Boer

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Engineering by course work and research project.

Johannesburg, May 2016

Declaration

I declare that this research project is my own, unaided work, except where otherwise acknowledged. It
is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in
Engineering in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for
any degree or examination at any other university.

Signed this 24 May

___day of__________ 16
20__

___________________________

Michael Frederick Boer.

i
Abstract

The design of a conceptual aircraft was required to fulfil the recreational and commercial flight training
roles as part of a rural development initiative. The regulations regarding the airworthiness of aircraft
and the South African microlight and ultralight aircraft market were investigated to determine the niche
performance requirements. The large sales enjoyed by the new Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category
created an opportunity to design an aircraft conforming to both the non-prescriptive ultralight and
prescriptive LSA consensus standards. This would allow the aircraft be used in several countries. The
best practices regarding design for manufacture used in industry were investigated to create a
framework of consideration for the detailed design of the aircraft. The performance of the market
leading ultralight and LSA was analysed. The Cessna C-162 Skycatcher and Tecnam P-92 were
investigated as the main competitors. Flight speed, payload, structural efficiency and aerodynamic
efficiency were analysed to set target performance requirements. The aircraft was required to have a
minimum power utilisation of 1.05kt/hp, minimum useful load of 250kg and a minimum cruise speed
of 110kts. The aircraft was constrained to a 100hp engine. These performance user requirements were
used with cost, environmental and operational requirements to design a high-level concept. The concept
was developed so that each major system on the aircraft had been designed to create a complete concept.
The method used to develop several concepts for several systems and assess them against the user
requirements was developed from the dialectic engine principle of destruction and creation. This
process was performed simultaneously. The systems were broken into basic principles and components
before being creatively integrated into improved systems. Three design features were generated and
patented. The designs included a propeller spinner that assisted with air induction for better cooling, a
winglet to assist with breakdown of wake vortices and an excrescence free flap system for a light
aircraft. The only design used on this aircraft was the flap system. The aircraft concept was further
refined using the same destruction and creation synthesis technique. The concept aircraft was the subject
of a detailed business plan and launch strategy that would use the aircraft to leverage funding to start a
new industry in the Eastern Cape province. The performance of the aircraft concept was calculated
using standard performance techniques that were modified for use, based on experience with other light
aircraft. The major emphasis was on the energy available to accelerate, climb and turn. The method
developed to analyse a descending turn without power was used to demonstrate that the aircraft could
manoeuvre better than the competitors at low power settings. The energy levels needed to surpass the
competition were used to design an aircraft with a significant energy margin at speeds of 65-85KCAS,
making the aircraft ideal for flight training. The aircraft was designed with a higher aspect ratio and
lower wing loading than the competitors to achieve better energy levels and better performance in hot
and high conditions. The reduction in maximum speed was not significant when compared to the turn
and manoeuvre performance. The structure of the aircraft was then designed to withstand the loads
prescribed by the consensus standards. The aircraft was shown to comply with the standards. The
completion of the structural design of the major components allowed for the design to be costed. The
business plan was revised to include the cost of the manufacturing facility and total investment cost
required to realise the project. The proposer of the project funded a full-size mock-up of the aircraft that
was launched at a major airshow. The regulatory framework of regulations and technical standards was
extensively revised, making the process of obtaining production-built type approval for a design less
onerous. Recommendations for structural testing and transient energy analysis were made.

ii
Published work

Aspects of this research report have been published in the following references:

M.F. Boer and L. Thiel. Business plan 1 – Airspire (Pty) Ltd, launch of SkyWake™. Wits Commercial
Enterprise (Pty) Ltd project WRCA006, Johannesburg, October 2007.

M.F. Boer, A. Hoffe, A. Cachucho, L Biebuyck, T. Herron and J, Nash. An improved spinner for
propeller engines. Provisional South African patent SA 2007/04439.

M.F. Boer and L. Thiel. Business plan 2– Airspire (Pty) Ltd, launch of SkyWake™. Wits Commercial
Enterprise (Pty) Ltd project WRCA006, Johannesburg, August 2009.

M.F.Boer and R. Beach. Design registration for SkyWake™ Light Sport Aircraft, F2010/00928.

M.F. Boer, C. Bodill, A. Schwarck, J. Reeves, A. Bholla, S. Mowatt and J. Nash. Aircraft control
surfaces and mechanisms for moving same, Complete South African patent 2010/00868.

M.F. Boer and A. Hoffe. Method for reducing in flight wake vortices and an aircraft wingtip
arrangement used in such method US 8894018 B2

M.F. Boer, G Mumford, N de Lange. Civil Aviation Regulations Part 44: Maintenance of Non-Type
Certificated Aircraft. Recreation Aviation Administration of South Africa submission to the South
African Civil Aviation Authority, January 2011.

iii
Contents

Declaration ............................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii
Published work....................................................................................................................................... iii
Contents ................................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix
List of symbols....................................................................................................................................... xi
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... xiii
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Blue Crane Development Agency agreement with the University of the Witwatersrand....... 1
1.2. Ultralight aircraft types ........................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Light Sport Aircraft................................................................................................................. 3
1.4. South African ultralight manufacturers................................................................................... 6
1.5. Certification of an aircraft design ........................................................................................... 7
2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3. Literature survey ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.1. Aircraft development ................................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Aircraft type by design standard ................................................................................................ 13
3.3. Aviation regulating authorities................................................................................................... 17
3.4. Target market size ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.5. Atmospheric environment .......................................................................................................... 26
3.6. Available propulsion units ......................................................................................................... 27
3.7. Cessna C-162 Skycatcher........................................................................................................... 29
3.8. Tecnam P92 Echo ...................................................................................................................... 34
3.9. Summary of user requirements .................................................................................................. 38
4. Design framework ............................................................................................................................. 39
4.1. Design technique ........................................................................................................................ 39
4.2. Aircraft design requirements ...................................................................................................... 40
4.3. SWOT analysis of business case ................................................................................................ 45
4.4. Aircraft preliminary sizing ......................................................................................................... 47
4.5. Aircraft refinement..................................................................................................................... 58
4.6. Maintenance considerations ....................................................................................................... 73
4.7. Summary of preliminary design ................................................................................................. 75
4.8. Drag coefficient determination .................................................................................................. 76

iv
 4.9. Aircraft mock-up for marketing purposes .................................................................................. 82
4.10. Aircraft business case .............................................................................................................. 84
5. Detailed design.................................................................................................................................. 91
5.1. Airworthiness regulation ............................................................................................................ 91
5.2. Analysis of performance ............................................................................................................ 92
5.2.1. Field performance ............................................................................................................... 92
5.2.2. Thrust estimation................................................................................................................. 92
5.2.3. Effect of high-lift devices ................................................................................................... 94
5.2.4. Specific excess power ......................................................................................................... 95
5.3. Airworthiness compliance........................................................................................................ 104
5.3.1 Airworthiness compliance with ASTM F2245 subpart 4................................................... 106
5.3.2 Airworthiness compliance with ASTM F2245 subpart 5................................................... 112
5.3.3 Airworthiness compliance with ASTM F2245 subpart 7................................................... 120
5.4. Analysis of structure ................................................................................................................ 120
5.5. Aircraft development ............................................................................................................... 134
6. Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 141
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 149
7.1. Aircraft energy levels, transient energy rates and tumble mechanics ...................................... 150
References ........................................................................................................................................... 151
Appendices.......................................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………………..155
Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………………………..159
Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………………………..166
Appendix D…………………………………………………………………………………………..179
Appendix E…………………………………………………………………………………………..245
Appendix F…………………………………………………………………………………………..250

v
List of Figures

Figure 1. Light Sport Aircraft categories [6] .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Evolution of power utilisation over time ................................................................................. 9
Figure 3. Useful load and useful load ratio of gross mass .................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Power loading over time ........................................................................................................ 11
Figure 5. Useful load compared to useful load percentage of gross mass over time. ........................... 11
Figure 6. Useful load for different primary structure over time. .......................................................... 12
Figure 7. Cruise speed comparison over time. ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. Light Sport Aircraft yearly sales in the United States of America. ....................................... 18
Figure 9. Non-type certificated aircraft 2000-2008 .............................................................................. 20
Figure 10. South African market share in the LSA category ................................................................ 23
Figure 11. UV-B indices for South Africa 1994-2009 [22]. ................................................................. 26
Figure 12. Monthly UV-B indices for South Africa 1994-2009 [22]. .................................................. 26
Figure 13. Rotax 912 ULS (left) and 912 iS (right) [25]. ..................................................................... 28
Figure 14. Rotax 912iS fuel consumption [25]. .................................................................................... 29
Figure 15. Side view comparison of C-162 (top) [34] and C-152 (bottom) [35] .................................. 30
Figure 16. Original Cessna 162 with Rotax 912 engine [36] ................................................................ 31
Figure 17. Cessna 162 with increased vertical stabiliser area [author]. ................................................ 31
Figure 18. Cessna 162 with re-designed vertical tail [36] .................................................................... 32
Figure 19. Cessna 162 with ventral strake [38] .................................................................................... 32
Figure 20. Final Cessna 162 tail design [40] ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 21. Tecnam aircraft range. ......................................................................................................... 35
Figure 22. Tecnam P92 and P2008 general views. ............................................................................... 36
Figure 23. Aircraft design procedure. ................................................................................................... 47
Figure 24. Cabin design process. .......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 25. Full-size side view of an early concept being marked out. .................................................. 48
Figure 26. Sizing the cabin headroom using students [author] ............................................................. 49
Figure 27. Sizing the cabin legroom using students [author]................................................................ 50
Figure 28. Average height student in a Fly Synthesis Storch [author]. ................................................ 50
Figure 29. Initial concept of cabin design [S Gruber, vacation work student]. .................................... 51
Figure 30. Engine firewall position [author] ......................................................................................... 51
Figure 31. Integrated engine mount and landing gear leg [author]. ...................................................... 53
Figure 32. FK-9 indicating strut position [54]. ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 33. Cessna C-162 indicating strut position and strut sweep [55]............................................... 54
Figure 34. Side view of initial concept illustrating strut and landing gear positions. ........................... 55
Figure 35. All-moving horizontal tail attachment [author]. .................................................................. 56
Figure 36. Second iteration of vertical tail shape.................................................................................. 57
Figure 37. Initial concept indicating wing sweep. ................................................................................ 57
Figure 38. Final high-level concept with second vertical tail concept .................................................. 57
Figure 39. Flap extension ...................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 40. NACA 4412 lift and pitching moment data [57]. ................................................................ 60
Figure 41. NASA 0317 lift curve data [55]. ......................................................................................... 60
Figure 42. NASA 0317 Lift and pitching moment coefficients at Re = 4x106 [55]. ............................ 61
Figure 43. Wing cross section ............................................................................................................... 62
Figure 44. Wing assembly. ................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 45. Second iteration of the instrument panel and cabin design. ................................................ 63

vi
Figure 46. Third iteration of the instrument panel and console design. ................................................ 64
Figure 47. Final instrument panel and console design. ......................................................................... 64
Figure 48. Refined cabin concept [author]............................................................................................ 65
Figure 49. Ultralight aircraft with nose gear structure within the cabin. .............................................. 66
Figure 50. FK-9 cabin with visible reinforcement strut [author]. ......................................................... 66
Figure 51. Typical light aircraft engine installation [58]. ..................................................................... 67
Figure 52. Engine bay concept.............................................................................................................. 68
Figure 53. Left side main undercarriage concept. ................................................................................. 69
Figure 54. Initial fuselage space-frame design ..................................................................................... 69
Figure 55. Final cabin space-frame structural concept. ........................................................................ 70
Figure 56. Isometric view of final cabin structural design.................................................................... 71
Figure 57. Visibility out of the cabin in the forwards direction. ........................................................... 71
Figure 58. Wing attachment joint. ........................................................................................................ 72
Figure 59. Side view of structural concept. .......................................................................................... 72
Figure 60. Occupant view during turn manoeuvre................................................................................ 72
Figure 61. Final 3-view of the aircraft. ................................................................................................. 75
Figure 62. Skin friction coefficient [60] ............................................................................................... 76
Figure 63. Aircraft lift/drag ratio. ......................................................................................................... 81
Figure 64. Fuselage and wing manufacture .......................................................................................... 82
Figure 65. Cowling before and after sanding ........................................................................................ 83
Figure 66. Mock-up on display at Africa Aerospace and Defence 2010 .............................................. 83
Figure 67. Upgraded mock-up displayed at the Industrial Development Corporation ......................... 83
Figure 68. Marketing image of the side view. ...................................................................................... 84
Figure 69. Pricing in the market [65] .................................................................................................... 85
Figure 70. Cash flow breakeven analysis [65] ...................................................................................... 85
Figure 71. Cost per aircraft [65]............................................................................................................ 86
Figure 72. Material component cost breakdown in 2009 [65]. ............................................................. 86
Figure 73. Cost parameter sensitivity [65] ............................................................................................ 89
Figure 74. Aircraft assembly facility. ................................................................................................... 90
Figure 75. Propeller efficiency curve. [71] ........................................................................................... 93
Figure 76. Maximum power thrust curves for different engines at sea level ........................................ 96
Figure 77. Cruise power thrust curves for different engines at sea level. ............................................. 97
Figure 78.Maximum and cruise power thrust curves for different engines at sea level........................ 97
Figure 79. SEP at sea level at 600kg take-off mass .............................................................................. 98
Figure 80. SEP at sea level at mass of 550kg ....................................................................................... 99
Figure 81. SEP at 10000ft at mass of 600kg ......................................................................................... 99
Figure 82. Turn performance for three aircraft at SEP =500ft/min. ................................................... 100
Figure 83. Turn performance for three aircraft at SEP =0ft/min. ....................................................... 101
Figure 84. Engine-off sink rate at sea level at 600kg mass ................................................................. 102
Figure 85. Engine-off sink rate at 10000ft at mass of 600kg .............................................................. 102
Figure 86. Engine-off sink rate for 1g and 2g flight at sea level for a mass of 600kg. ....................... 103
Figure 87. Drag polar set for the aircraft with different flap deflections. ........................................... 105
Figure 88. Coefficient of moment for various centre of mass positions. ............................................ 108
Figure 89. Coefficient of moment at forward centre of mass position. .............................................. 109
Figure 90. Coefficient of moment for aft centre of mass position. ..................................................... 109
Figure 91. Stabiliser (elevator) deflection required for trimmed flight............................................... 110
Figure 92. Coefficient of moment with flap deflection at various centre of mass positions............... 110
Figure 93. Coefficient of moment with flap deflection at forward centre of mass position. .............. 111

vii
Figure 94. Coefficient of moment with flap deflection at aft centre of mass position. ....................... 111
Figure 95. Stabiliser (elevator) deflection required for trim with flap deflection at various centre of
mass positions. .................................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 96. Velocity-load factor diagram for mass of 600kg. .............................................................. 113
Figure 97. Fuselage of a research project aircraft. .............................................................................. 121
Figure 98. 3-view of the space frame and empennage. ....................................................................... 121
Figure 99. Nodes for the fuselage space-frame................................................................................... 122
Figure 100. Applied loads to empennage............................................................................................ 123
Figure 101. Original fuselage cabin structure side view. .................................................................... 125
Figure 102. Original fuselage cabin structure top view. ..................................................................... 126
Figure 103. Final fuselage cabin structure side view .......................................................................... 126
Figure 104. Initial rear fuselage structure side view. .......................................................................... 127
Figure 105. Final rear fuselage structure side view. ........................................................................... 127
Figure 106. Rear fuselage and empennage assembly isometric view. ................................................ 128
Figure 107. Structural division of the vertical tail. ............................................................................. 129
Figure 108. Horizontal tail trim mechanism diagram. ........................................................................ 130
Figure 109. Wing rib structural analysis. ............................................................................................ 131
Figure 110. Cross-section of wing structure. ...................................................................................... 131
Figure 111. Landing gear vertical load model. ................................................................................... 132
Figure 112. Process developed for the Recreation Aviation Administration of South Africa. ........... 135
Figure 113. Rendered view of the National Aerospace Centre whiffle tree ....................................... 137
Figure 114. Process for modifications developed for the Recreation Aviation Administration of South
Africa. ................................................................................................................................................. 140

viii
List of Tables

Table 1. South African ultralight manufacturers [9]. .............................................................................. 6

Table 2. ASTM consensus standards [10] ............................................................................................ 14
Table 3. Important changes to the ASTM F2245 standard. .................................................................. 16
Table 4. United States aircraft register [15] .......................................................................................... 17
Table 5. Light Sport Aircraft market share (United States) [6]. ........................................................... 18
Table 6. South African civil aviation register 1999-2008 ..................................................................... 20
Table 7. Active pilots in South Africa .................................................................................................. 21
Table 8. Canadian aircraft register ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 9. United Kingdom aircraft register ............................................................................................ 22
Table 10. Fleet of South African flying schools [20]............................................................................ 25
Table 11. Flying school analysis ........................................................................................................... 25
Table 12. Rotax 912 series history [25]. ............................................................................................... 27
Table 13. Comparison of engine acquisition cost in 2014. ................................................................... 29
Table 14. Comparison between C-162 and C-152. ............................................................................... 30
Table 15. Empennage comparison between C-152 and C-162. ............................................................ 33
Table 16. Specification for the Tecnam P92, P2004 and P2008. .......................................................... 37
Table 17. Comparison of the C-162 to the P2004................................................................................. 37
Table 18. Summary of ASTM F2245 relating to design and construction. .......................................... 42
Table 19. High-level design and user requirements. ............................................................................. 42
Table 20. Operation requirement advantages........................................................................................ 43
Table 21. Cost requirement advantages. ............................................................................................... 43
Table 22. Environment requirement advantages................................................................................... 44
Table 23. Features requirement advantages. ......................................................................................... 44
Table 24. Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats ............................................... 45
Table 25. Comparison of 2D aerofoil data. ........................................................................................... 61
Table 26. Specifications for the aircraft and C-162 and P2004. ........................................................... 75
Table 27. Wing geometry. .................................................................................................................... 78
Table 28. Wing strut geometry. ............................................................................................................ 78
Table 29. Fuselage geometry. ............................................................................................................... 79
Table 30. Horizontal empennage geometry. ......................................................................................... 79
Table 31. Vertical empennage geometry. ............................................................................................. 79
Table 32. Tyre and wheel geometry...................................................................................................... 80
Table 33. Landing gear structure geometry. ......................................................................................... 80
Table 34. Bookkeeping drag breakdown of the wing, empennage and fuselage of the aircraft. .......... 80
Table 35. Bookkeeping drag breakdown of the landing gear of the aircraft. ........................................ 81
Table 36. Zero-lift coefficient of drag determination. .......................................................................... 81
Table 37. Budget for the mock-up project ............................................................................................ 82
Table 38. Instrument cost breakdown [65]. .......................................................................................... 87
Table 39. Fuselage component cost breakdown [65]. ........................................................................... 87
Table 40. Wing material cost [65] ........................................................................................................ 88
Table 41. Empennage material cost [65]. ............................................................................................. 88
Table 42.Basic engine system cost [65]. ............................................................................................... 88
Table 43. Stall speed with flap deflection for different flying masses. ............................................... 104
Table 44. ASTM F2245 sub-part 4 compliance checks. ..................................................................... 106
Table 45. ASTM F2245 sub-part 5 compliance checks. ..................................................................... 113

ix
Table 46. ASTM F2245 sub-part 7 compliance checks. ..................................................................... 120
Table 47. Tube options for the design................................................................................................. 122
Table 48. Results for empennage load case. ....................................................................................... 123
Table 49. Results for symmetrical wing load case.............................................................................. 124
Table 50. Tube sizes used for SkyWake. ............................................................................................ 128
Table 51. Empty mass breakdown of the aircraft. .............................................................................. 133
Table 52. SkyWake specification summary ........................................................................................ 148

x
List of symbols
Symbol Unit
$ United States Dollar
a angle of attack
CD coefficient of drag
CDo zero-lift coefficient of drag
CF coefficient of skin friction
CL coefficient of lift
CM coefficient of pitching moment
CP coefficient of power
d diameter
D/q equivalent parasite drag area
EW empty mass
g gravitational constant
J advance ratio
k skin roughness
KCAS knots, calibrated air speed
KEAS knots, equivalent air speed
KIAS knots, indicated air speed
KTAS knots, true air speed
LED light emitting diode
MTOW maximum take-off mass
n revolutions per second or number of g
NACA National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OEW operating empty mass
Q form factor
R South African Rand
r turn radius
Re Reynolds number
Recut-off cut-off Reynolds number
SEP specific excess power
SG take-off or landing distance
SREF reference wing area
SWET wetted area
T thrust
t time
V speed or velocity
VA manoeuvre speed
VC cruise speed
VD dive speed
VH level flight speed
VL take-off; landing speed

xi
Symbol Unit
VS stall speed
w turn rate
W weight

xii
List of Abbreviations

AME Aircraft Maintenance Engineer

AMO Aircraft Maintenance Organisation
AP Approved Person
ATO Aviation Training Organisations
BCDA Blue Crane Development Agency
BCRM Blue Crane Route Municipality
SACAA Civil Aviation Authority
CAR Civil Aviation Regulations
CAS Calibrated (Computed) Air Speed
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CGE Computable General Equilibrium
DEAET Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism
DO Design Organisation
dti Department of Trade and Industry
EAA Experimental Aircraft Association
E-LSA Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft
GP Gross Profit
JAR Joint Airworthiness Requirement
FAA Federal Aviation Authority
FAJ Floor Assembly Jig
IDC Industrial Development Corporation
IDZ Industrial Development Zone
LSA Light Sport Aircraft
MAUW Maximum All-Up Weight
MO Manufacturing Organisation
MOA Memorandum of Association
MPTO Manufacturing, Processing and Testing Organizations
MPL Microlight Pilot’s License
MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight
NAC National Aerospace Centre
NTCA Non-Type Certified Aircraft
NPV Net Present Value
PDI Previously Disadvantaged Individual
PPL Private Pilot’s License
SA Single engine certified aircraft
SABS South African Bureau of Standards
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
STF Structural test facility
STOL Short Take Off and Landing
ULM Ultralight Motorised
US United States of America
Wits University of Witwatersrand

xiii
1. Introduction

1.1. Blue Crane Development Agency agreement with the University of the Witwatersrand

To create employment and upgrade skills in the Blue Crane Regional Municipality, the Blue Crane
Development Agency (BCDA) developed a strategy to design an ultralight aircraft, which can be
manufactured by a manufacturing organisation housed within the industrial park. Wits Commercial
Enterprise (Pty) Ltd (Wits Enterprise), the intellectual property commercialisation company of the
University of Witwatersrand, and the University of the Witwatersrand’s School of Mechanical,
Industrial and Aeronautical Engineering (Wits University) was contracted to design the aircraft and a
Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was accordingly signed.

The design brief was for an ultralight aircraft with the following characteristics:

1. Composite or Aluminium structure.

2. Good flying qualities with low stall speed and high speed cruise (100 – 120kts).
3. Fuel efficient piston engine using unleaded/low-lead fuel or diesel.
4. Range ±1000 km, endurance ±4 hours.
5. Retractable or fixed undercarriage.
6. Tractor or pusher propeller configuration.
7. Two/four seat configuration.
8. Comply with microlight/ultralight regulation.
9. Performance to satisfy international export market.

In addition, the detailed design must allow for:

10. Cost efficient construction, low prototype and tooling cost.

11. Maximum local material content.
12. Black Economic Empowerment beneficiation / job creation.

The design project started on 1 August 2006 and ended on 31 January 2008 with the delivery to BCDA
of the production drawings of the aircraft. The design forms the core of this report.

1.2. Ultralight aircraft types

Ultralight aircraft occupy a niche between microlight aircraft and type certified light aircraft within the
general aviation industry. This class of aviation has rapidly grown internationally to become a safe and
affordable recreational aviation activity and is considered to be the fastest growing segment of the
general aviation industry. In most affluent countries, ultralights now account for about 20% of the civil
aircraft fleet [1]. In developing countries, ultralights are used for flight training and for commercial
operation such as crop-spraying, border-patrol and Rhino protection [2].

As a result of the transformation of these lightweight aircraft into high performance aircraft, capable of
very respectable speed and range, many international aviation authorities established a category of
aircraft that could be subject to minimum regulation. It should be noted that the weight and speed limits
for this class of aircraft are rarely the same between any two countries.

1
Most countries now require an ultralight pilot's license/certificate however internationally there is no
common set of ultralight rules. The safety regulations used to approve ultralights vary between
countries, the strictest being the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden and Germany, while they are almost
non-existent in France and the United States. This disparity between regulations is a major barrier to
international trade and overflight, as is the fact that these regulations are invariably sub-ICAO
(International Civil Aviation Organisation), which means that they are not internationally recognised
[3].

Ultralight aircraft in the United Kingdom and New Zealand are generally called microlight aircraft and
in France and Italy they are called ultralight motorised (ULM). Some countries further differentiate
between weight shift and 3-axis aircraft, calling the former microlight and the latter ultralight. It should
be noted however that the United States definition of an ultralight is significantly different from that in
most other countries and can lead to some confusion. The United States ultralight is a single seat vehicle
with an empty weight of less than 115 kg and a top speed of 102 km/h. The Australian definition is a
one or two seat aircraft with maximum take-off mass of less than 540kg. The ULM is defined as a two
seat aircraft with maximum take-off mass of less than 450kg and a maximum stall speed of 65 km/h.
The United Kingdom defined an ultralight in the microlight category with an operating empty mass of
no more than 150kg with a maximum fuel capacity of 50 litres and a maximum take-off mass of 390kg.
This definition has been revised with a distinction between single seat and two seat aircraft. Single seat
aircraft have a maximum take-off mass of 300kg and two seat aircraft a maximum take-off mass of
450kg, both having a maximum stall speed of 65 km/h [4].

The introduction of the FAA Light-Sport Aircraft (LSA) category in 2004 introduced a type of aircraft
in the United States which more closely resembles the ultralight categories in other countries. For Light
Sport Aircraft a sport pilot certificate is required, which is similar in requirements to ultralight licenses
in other countries.

At the time of the preliminary design of the aircraft the European aviation community was working on
regulations that were intended to resolve the non-standard definition of the LSA within a reasonable
time frame.

There are several types of aircraft which qualify as ultralights. The different categories comprise of
land/sea aircraft, land/sea powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft (land/sea trike), gyroplanes,
balloons, and airships. These aircraft can be used for private sport and recreation and commercial flight
training, rental, and towing. Rotary-wing aircraft, with the exception of helicopters, have not been
included due to the complexity of operating these aircraft.

1. Weight shift (trike): The first generation ultralights were controlled by weight shift. Most of
the current weight shift ultralights use a hang glider-style wing, below which is suspended a
three wheeled crash-structure containing the engine and pilot/passenger. These aircraft are
controlled by pilot moving his/her centre of mass laterally or longitudinally [3]. Trikes are the
least expensive in terms of both start-up and up-keep cost.
2. Glider/sailplane: Gliders and sailplanes only carry functionality on a recreational level
because they rely on rising air mass rather than an engine to keep them aloft. Whilst some
gliders have engines, the primary job of the engine is simply to raise the glider to an altitude

2
 suitable for gliding, at which point the engine is turned off. Gliders with no engine rely on tow-
aircraft, winches and occasionally land vehicles for launching purposes.
3. Powered parachutes: The powered parachute is a parachute that has an attached frame with
an engine, propeller and wheels. The powered parachute is one of the more popular forms of
recreational sport flying, due to its relatively low cost of start-up and licensing. Powered
parachutes are an extremely versatile sport aircraft
4. Powered paragliding: Also known as paramotoring, is a form of ultralight aviation where the
pilot wears a small engine with a propeller on his back. The low and slow flying capability,
feeling of freedom, portability, low equipment and maintenance costs for this type of flying are
considered its greatest merits.
5. Lighter than air sport aircraft: These aircraft include the likes of airships and hot air balloons
and can vary significantly in design. All lighter than air sport aircraft function using buoyancy
with the filler gas being less dense than air, allowing the balloon to climb and allow for a
particular altitude to be maintained.
6. Helicopter: there are a number of single and two-seat helicopters that fall under the microlight
categories in countries such as New Zealand. However, few helicopter designs fall within the
more restrictive United States ultralight category.

1.3. Light Sport Aircraft

In the United States the general aviation industry began declining in the late 1970’s, lasting throughout
the 1980’s and into the mid-1990’s. Part of this decline was attributed to an increase in liability claims
on aircraft manufacturers over ageing aircraft resulting in dramatic increases in aircraft manufacturing
costs. Manufacturers of standard general aviation aircraft thus reduced their production of single-engine
personal and sport aircraft. Manufacturers estimated that these liability claims contributed upwards of
30% to the cost of a new aircraft [1]. In 1994, Congress passed legislation restricting aircraft product
liability lawsuits, and manufacturers again began looking at the personal and sport market [5].
Subsequent to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the market again began to decline as
significant restrictions were placed on general aviation. Most of these restrictions have since been lifted
but the production costs of single-engine piston aircraft have continued to increase. The United States
General Accounting Office Report “Status of the Industry, Related Infrastructure, and Safety Issues”
noted that the cost of a single-engine piston aircraft increased from $25,000 in 1975 to $112,000 in
1990, representing more than a doubling of cost in constant dollar terms. In January 2003, the list price
of a Cessna Skyhawk, a representative single-engine piston aircraft with standard equipment was
$155,000 [1].

These constraints, coupled with competing cheaper leisure-time activities had the effect of reducing the
general aviation market segment. As the growth in pilot population slowed, hang gliders started to
evolve into ultralight aircraft. Since 1992, the growth of kit aircraft and home built experimental aircraft
has increased dramatically, the worldwide sale of kit aircraft in 1992 was 1,943 and the number of sales
in 2002 was approximately 9,000 [5]. The ultralight community then petitioned the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to liberalise regulations and permit heavier, faster, more powerful aircraft and
the carriage of one passenger. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the designated body for
recreational flying which, represents both recreational flyers and home-builders, had simultaneously
been working with the FAA to expand the home-built activity and petitioned for the Light Sport Aircraft
consensus standards. To encourage growth in pilot numbers, the Young Eagles Program was instituted

3
to give children a flight in a recreational aircraft to emphasize the low operating costs and enjoyment
associated with ultralight aircraft. The EAA flew their 1,000,000th Young Eagle on 17 December 2003,
the centenary of powered flight. The pilot for the historic flight was General Charles “Chuck” Yeager,
he piloted a Douglas C-47.

With the recognition of a declining pilot population and the implications to all air travel, in September
2004 the FAA generated an entirely new category specifically designed to address the desire of people
wishing to fly aircraft primarily for recreational (non-business/compensation) purposes. The Light Sport
Aircraft (LSA) regulation is a comprehensive package specifically addressing recreational aviation by
addressing all aspects of the operation of light sport aircraft including a new pilot certificate, a new
flight instructor certificate, maintenance rules, and medical and aircraft certification. This new category
of the sport aviation market effectively reduced the barriers to becoming a pilot in the United States as
it substantially lowered capital investment and operating costs. Aircraft in this category are cheaper to
purchase, are more fuel efficient and have a lower maintenance cost than larger aircraft. Pilots are not
required to hold a medical certificate, but only need to carry a valid United States driver’s license to
meet the medical eligibility requirements. The basic sport pilot certificate requires a minimum of 20
hours training and a driver’s license (as opposed to a medical examination).

It is feasible that this sport pilot and aircraft classification will enlarge the aviation market among those
who are already pilots, attract a significant number of new pilots to general aviation as well as convert
existing pilots downgrading to cheaper aircraft or for other reasons.

Sport pilots can fly six categories of aircraft as shown in Figure 1. Included in this image is the minimum
number of training hours required to earn a sport pilot certificate in that category.

Figure 1. Light Sport Aircraft categories [6]

The Light Sport Aircraft is not a new concept. Aircraft within this category have existed since the
1930’s, the most famous example of a vintage aircraft complying with the 2004 S-LSA regulation is
the Piper J-3 Cub. The J-3 was developed for flight training, with the occupants seated in tandem
configuration. Between 1937 and 1947 twenty thousand J-3 aircraft were produced and in 2014 the
aircraft was made Pennsylvania’s official state aircraft [7]. The 2004 regulation served only to provide
a standard for performance and safety, whilst limiting unconventional designs. The LSA regulations
saw a resurgence in interest in aircraft such as the compliant J-3. Cub Crafters has re-designed the J-3
using modern materials and the Carbon Cub sold 38 units (Q1-Q3) in 2014 [8].

4
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) can be manufactured and sold ready-to-fly under new LSA certification.
Aircraft certified as LSA may be used for sport and recreation, flight training, and aircraft rental. They
can also be licensed as Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) if kit-built. Both United States and
foreign manufacture of LSA is permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Light sport aircraft are defined as simple, low performance aircraft that, since its original certification,
has continued to meet the following criteria [6]:

 A maximum take-off weight of not more than:

o 300kg for light-than-air aircraft
o 600kg for aircraft not intended for operation on water.
o 650kg for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
 A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power of not more than 120
knots under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
 A maximum never-exceed speed of not more than 120 knots for a glider.
 A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing
devices of not more than 45 knots at the aircraft maximum certificated take-off weight and most
critical centre of gravity.
 A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
 A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
 A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
 A fixed or auto-feathering propeller system if a powered glider.
 A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
 A non-pressurised cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
 Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
 Fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
 Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.
 Powered parachute.
 Weight-shift-control aircraft.

5
1.4. South African ultralight manufacturers

There is a large diversity and range of ultralight and Light Sport Aircraft on the market in South Africa,
available either in kit or fully built form. Fully built aircraft are assembled locally from imported
components; there are hence no fully South African manufactured aircraft. The design features of the
aircraft models are broad. Some are modern versions of designs that have been proven in classic aircraft,
while others are imports from Europe and Australia where lighter aircraft have been in the marketplace
for more than a decade. Some of the more popular aircraft and their manufacturers are profiled in Table
1.

Table 1. South African ultralight manufacturers [9].

Manufacturer Aircraft model Technical Description Photo

Rainbow Aircraft Cheetah XLS High wing braced monoplane

(Ultralight- with aluminium tubular
production built)) structure, clad with Dacron.

Davies Aircraft Thunderbird Enclosed cabin high-wing

Corporation (Microlight- braced two-seat aircraft.
production built) Dacron clad.

Whisper Aircraft Whisper High aspect ratio exposed-

(Motorglider- motor glider.
production built)

The Airplane D-6 Sling (Light Low-wing two-seat

Factory Sport Aircraft-kit Aluminium semi-monocoque
built) structure.

Micro Aviation SA Bantam BJ-22 Semi-enclosed cabin high-

(Microlight- wing braced two-seat aircraft.
production built) Dacron clad.

6
1.5. Certification of an aircraft design

The build quality and airworthiness of ultralight aircraft (LSA category in the United States) now rivals
that of certified light aircraft. It is possible that some aircraft can satisfy both sets of requirements and
can hence be available for registration as either an ultralight or type-certified aircraft. In recent years
there has been a dramatic rise in the number of general aviation pilots flying high performance
ultralights due to the lower costs. Ultralight pilots are permitted to self-perform some of the simple
maintenance tasks, resulting in a lower cost of operation, although the pilot must then follow the
ultralight regulations such as avoiding densely populated urban areas and not flying at night. Many
older pilots have been willing to trade these operational restrictions for the lower operational costs, and
as a result many ultralights are now flown by experienced general aviation pilots or ex-commercial
pilots. In addition, further growth in this market has been driven by the fact that ultralight pilots are not
required to pass periodic physical examinations, as is the case for general aviation pilots.

Although ultralight aircraft (classified as microlights in some countries) started out in the early 1980’s
as slow, lightweight and uncomplicated aircraft, many have evolved into fast, sophisticated machines.
The ultralight aircraft have thus rapidly transformed into high performance aircraft, capable of very
respectable speed and range. These aircraft are now often referred to as recreational aircraft. In South
Africa these aircraft are included in the Non-Type Certificated Aircraft (NTCA) category.

The design, manufacture, approval, and maintenance of non-type certificated aircraft (NTCA) are
controlled and enforced by the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) through rules and
regulations contained in the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) of 1997. With the growth of the NTCA
sector, along with international trends, the SACAA has developed regulatory provisions in order to
properly control and regulate this class of aircraft. The CAR control certification and airworthiness,
operation and the commercial use of NTCA. In addition, separate parts of the CAR (applicable to both
NTCAs and type certified aircraft) control the design of all products, parts and appliances as well as the
licensing of design, manufacturing, and maintenance organisations.

The plan for the industrialisation of the business was thus largely dictated by the need to comply with
the regulatory environment. Of importance are those NTCA regulations that pertain specifically to
production-built aircraft i.e. aircraft of which the prototype has been constructed and approved in terms
of SACAA regulations for the issue of a certificate of airworthiness and which are made available either
fully-assembled or in kit form.

The relevant parts are:

Part 24: Airworthiness Standards: NTCA Aircraft
This Part was signed by the Minister for promulgation in July 2007. The airworthiness, aircraft
documentation, maintenance, inspection and type approval processes are described.
Part 43: Maintenance standards: All aircraft types
This Part describes the procedures for continued airworthiness of an aircraft. Part 43 applies to
all aircraft types and describes the personnel, documentation, maintenance (scheduled and un-
scheduled), repair, overhaul and substitution of aircraft components.

7
Part 147: Design Organisations (DO) for Products, Parts and Appliances.
This part applies to approvals of organisations wanting to produce designs for commercial gain
such as production-built non-type certificated aircraft.
Part 148: Manufacturing Organisations (MO)
This Part applies to the approval and operation of manufacturing organisations that manufacture
specified products, parts or appliances, apply specified processes to products, parts or
appliances; or carry out specified tests on products, parts or appliances.

In order to produce a type-certified production aircraft with a Type Holder Certificate (THC) issued the
SACAA both the design organisation and manufacturing organisation need to obtain authority from the
SACAA. Three points are notable in this regard:
(1) An organisation may only obtain DO Status (approval) from the SACAA if, in conjunction with
its application for a DO licence, it approaches the SACAA with a design with the intention of
obtaining a THC.
(2) Any components produced for the aircraft must be produced by an MO, where the design of the
component must have been produced by a DO.
(3) Due to the processes and human resources prescribed in the manual of procedure, it is highly
unlikely that a single entity could obtain both full DO and MO authority for production of an
entire aircraft.

In order to produce a production-built non-type certificated aircraft, the following must be done:
1. Obtain the type holder certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft.
2. Construct and test the prototype of the aircraft.
3. Conduct a successful flight test programme.
4. Deliver a design for mass production.
5. Deliver the implementation plan for production.

2. Objectives

1. Synthesise a conceptual design that is compliant with the relevant aviation regulations to satisfy
the requirements of the Blue Crane Development Agency.
2. Evaluate the performance of the conceptual aircraft by analysis of the flight envelope in
hot/high conditions.
3. Develop a strategy for commercialising the aircraft, including a launch strategy and business
plan.

8
3. Literature survey

3.1. Aircraft development

The analysis of competing aircraft included aircraft approved as microlight, ultralight, light sport and
very light aircraft. Source data was obtained by processing data extracted from a survey of
manufacturers [9]. This data was used to establish minimum competitive requirements. The majority of
figures have been produced with a qualitative timeline for illustrative purposes.

The power utilisation was calculated using the published cruise speed and the maximum installed
power. Each aircraft has a different engine and propeller combination and the cruise power might not
have been the same for two similar aircraft. The best cruise speed might have been measured or
calculated at different masses and flight altitudes. Manufacturers are not required to publish a type
certificate with certified performance indices for aircraft in these categories. The aircraft sold as kit-
aircraft will have slightly different build standards for each aircraft, this would mean that the
manufacturer supplied performance may not be very accurate. Using the maximum available power
would allow for a more consistent benchmark to be established, allowing for more direct comparison.

Figure 2 indicates a gradual increase in the power utilisation with time. The most efficient aircraft, the
Pipistrel Sinus and Virus, are full composite aircraft that resemble powered gliders. The least efficient
aircraft are; the Thunderbird (microlight), 2000 F-1 evo (high performance kit) and the Teddy (design
based on the Piper J-3 Cub). The Jabiru aircraft utilise Jabiru engines with direct drive and the other
aircraft use Rotax engines with a reduction gearbox. Since the inception of the LSA category aircraft
performance has stabilised at over 1,05 kt/hp. For a competitive design the power utilisation needs to
be a minimum of 1,05 kt/hp.
1995 Pipistrel Virus
1995 Pipistrel Sinus
1984 Zenair Zodiac CH601XL

1997 Sting TL 2000

2000 Dyn'Aero MCR 4S

1991 SG Aviation Rally 105

1996 Sabre Major KP-5

1999 FK-14 Polaris

2001 WT9 dynamic

2001 JK-05 Junior

1,7
2004 Jabiru UL-4
2002 Tecnam P2004
1999 Samba XL
1990 Stork S

1999 Texan TC600

2004 Jabiru SP-4

2004 Jabiru J160

1993 Tecnam P92

1,6
1997 CTSW

1999 Samba

Max
1,5
1998 Sportstar

1,4
1989 FK-9

1,3
Power utilisation [Kt/hp]

1,2
1,1
2004 Whisper
2006 Sportcruiser

2008 Cessna C-162

2008 Tecnam P2008

1,0
2002 Tecnam P2002
1995 Jora U2

0,9
1991 Jabiru J200

1998 Lambada
1995 Allegro 2000
1984 Kitfox 7

2004 Jabiru J230/430

1996 Ikarus C42
1996 A-22 Foxbat
1991 Eurofox

0,8
1990 Cheetah XLS
1986 Zenair STOL CH701

1997 Glasair Glastar

0,7
1989 Savannah

2007 Teddy

0,6
2000 F1 -evo

Min
1985 Thunderbird

0,5
0,4
LSA launch

0,3
0,2
2004

2008
1990

1995

2000

0,1
0,0
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 45,00 50,00
Year of first flight

Figure 2. Evolution of power utilisation over time

9
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) consensus standards for LSA stipulate that
the minimum payload for a two-seat LSA may not be less than 195kg for an aircraft fitted with a 100hp
(75kW) engine [10]. The payload or useful load comprises the occupants, baggage and fuel. The
published useful load for the different aircraft being considered has been plotted against the ratio of
useful load to gross mass. Since a 450kg gross mass microlight and a 750kg very light aircraft might
have the same useful load, but the useful load ratios will be different. Figure 3 illustrates the useful load
and ratio of useful load to gross mass. The ASTM minima for LSA has been included. The Jabiru UL-
4 is a composite aircraft with a gross mass of 500kg with a 85hp engine. The Cessna C-162 is an
Aluminium aircraft with a gross mass of 600kg with a 100hp engine. Both the UL-4 and the C-162 have
similar useful load capability. The Tecnam P92 ultralight has a very competitive useful load for an
aircraft designed with a mixed steel/Aluminium primary structure. The Tecnam P2008 LSA has a
similar useful load compared to the P92. It is not clear what the minimum useful load percentage is,
however a typical useful load of at least 250kg for a steel or Aluminium aircraft would allow for the
design to be competitive.

400 Dyn'Aero MCR 4S 2000

Aluminium F1 -evo 2000
Composite Tecnam P92 1993
350 Glasair Glastar 1997
Steel SG Aviation Rally 105 1991
Eurofox 1991
Useful load [kg]

300 ASTM minimum

Whisper 2004 Tecnam P2008 2008

250 Cessna C-162 2008 Oribi

Bantam B-22J

200
Jabiru UL-4 2004
150 Zenair Zodiac CH601XL WT9 dynamic 2001 Pipistrel Sinus 1995
1984
100
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Useful load percentage of gross mass [%]

Figure 3. Useful load and useful load ratio of gross mass

The power loading performance indicator was calculated using the gross mass and maximum installed
power. The gradual increase in power loading illustrated in Figure 4 indicates that modern aircraft in
these categories are less powerful than earlier designs. The trend has stabilised with the inception of the
LSA category. The two most powerful aircraft are not LSA. The WT9 is a composite aircraft with a
gross mass of 450kg powered by a 100hp Rotax engine and the F1-evo is an Aluminium aircraft with a
gross mass of 900kg powered by a 260hp Lycoming engine. For the design to be competitive, a power
loading of 6,0kg/hp should not be exceeded for a LSA and 5,8kg/hp for an ultralight.

10
 Useful load as percentage of MTOW [%] Power loading [kg/hp]

0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0

0
5
10,0

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55

0
0
1984 Zenair Zodiac 1984 Zenair Zodiac CH601XL
CH601XL A 1984 Kitfox 7 S 1984 Kitfox 7

take-off weight.
1985 Thunderbird S 1985 Thunderbird
1986 Zenair STOL CH701 A 1986 Zenair STOL CH701

5
5
1989 Savannah A 1989 Savannah
1989 FK-9 1989 FK-9
1990 1990 Cheetah XLS A 1990 1990 Cheetah XLS
1990 Stork S A 1990 Stork S
1991 Jabiru J200 C 1991 Jabiru J200
1991 SG Aviation Rally 105 C 1991 SG Aviation Rally 105

10
10
1991 Eurofox S 1991 Eurofox
1993 Tecnam P92 S 1993 Tecnam P92
1995 1995 Allegro 2000 A 1995 1995 Allegro 2000
1995 Pipistrel Sinus C 1995 Pipistrel Sinus
1995 Jora U2 C 1995 Jora U2

15
15
1995 Pipistrel Virus C 1995 Pipistrel Virus
1996 A-22 Foxbat A 1996 A-22 Foxbat
1996 Ikarus C42 A 1996 Ikarus C42
1996 Sabre Major KP-5 A 1996 Sabre Major KP-5
1997 Sting TL 2000 C 1997 Sting TL 2000

20
1997 Glasair Glastar C 1997 Glasair Glastar
1997 CTSW C 1997 CTSW
1998 Sportstar A 1998 Sportstar

11
1998 Lambada C 1998 Lambada
1999 Samba XL C 1999 Samba XL

25
20Year of 25
1999 Samba C 1999 Samba
1999 Texan TC600 C 1999 Texan TC600
1999 FK-14 Polaris 1999 FK-14 Polaris
2000 F1 -evo A

Year of first flight

2000
2001 WT9 dynamic C 2000 2000 F1 -evo 2000 Dyn'Aero MCR 4S

30
first flight30

Figure 4. Power loading over time

2000 Dyn'Aero MCR 4S C

2001 JK-05 Junior C 2001 WT9 dynamic 2001 JK-05 Junior
2002 Tecnam P2002 S 2002 Tecnam P2002
2002 Tecnam P2004 2002 Tecnam P2004
2004 2004 Jabiru J230/430 C 2004 Jabiru J230/430

35
35

2004
LSA launch 2004 Jabiru SP-4 C LSA launch 2004 Jabiru SP-4
2004 Jabiru UL-4 C 2004 Jabiru UL-4
2004 Jabiru J160 C 2004 Jabiru J160
2004 Whisper C
2006 Sportcruiser C 2006 Sportcruiser 2004 Whisper

40
40

2007 Teddy 2007 Teddy

Figure 5. Useful load compared to useful load percentage of gross mass over time.
2008 2008 Cessna C-162 A 2008 2008 Cessna C-162
2008 Tecnam P2008 C/A 2008 Tecnam P2008

45
45

Best
Best

Worst
Worst

50
50

The useful load of the aircraft was investigated and compared to the minimum useful load prescribed
by the ASTM consensus standards and is presented in Figure 6. The majority of aircraft have a useful
A competitive design would typically require a useful load in the range of 45-50% of the maximum

load above the minimum level. The aircraft with the lowest useful load are microlight category aircraft
gross mass of 500kg, hence the higher ratio of useful load to gross mass when compared to the C-162.
Figure 5. The C-162 is the only aircraft not fitted with a Rotax engine. The Jabiru family has a restricted
The ratio of useful load to gross mass indicates a measure of the utility of the design. Aircraft with a
600kg gross mass; CTSW, Tecnam P2008, Texan, Sportcruiser and C-162 have been identified in
with lower gross mass than LSA. The aircraft with the highest useful load were not LSA. The Jabiru
J200C and DynAero MCR 4S are four-seat light aircraft, hence the larger useful load. The Glasair
Glastar is a two-seat aircraft with a gross mass of 890kg. The 600kg gross mass LSA aircraft have been
highlighted. The C-162 has the lowest useful load of the LSA aircraft and is comparable with a Jabiru
UL-4, an aircraft with a gross mass of 500kg. For the design to be competitive the useful load would
need to be 250-300kg and between 45-50% of the maximum take-off weight.

With regards to the material used for primary structure. Each data point in Figure 6 has been labelled
with an A, C or S corresponding to an Aluminium, composite or steel primary structure. The composite
aircraft appear to outperform the C-162. The Tecnam P2008 has a hybrid structure of Aluminium and
carbon fibre and was derived from the P92 and P2004. The P2008 is an LSA whereas the P92 and P2004
are classified as ultralights with versions sold as LSA. The useful load of 250-300kg for a competitive
design is further reinforced.

1997 Glasair Glastar C

1991 Jabiru J200 C

2000 Dyn'Aero
2000 F1 -evo A
450

MCR 4S C
1991 SG Aviation Rally 105 C

2004 Jabiru
2004 Jabiru SP-4 C J230/430 C
1999 Texan TC600 C
1996 Sabre Major KP-5 A

2002 Tecnam P2004

Best

2006 Sportcruiser C
1997 Sting TL 2000 C
400
1997 CTSW C
1990 Cheetah XLS A
1989 Savannah A

2008 Tecnam P2008 C/A

2002 Tecnam P2002 S
1995 Pipistrel Virus C
1993 Tecnam P92 S
1986 Zenair STOL CH701 A

1991 Eurofox S

2004 Jabiru J160 C

2004 Whisper C
1996 A-22 Foxbat A
1995 Allegro 2000 A

1999 Samba XL C

1999 FK-14 Polaris

350
1996 Ikarus C42 A

2008 Cessna C-162 A

2007 Teddy
1998 Sportstar A
1985 Thunderbird S

1998 Lambada C
1984 Kitfox 7 S

1999 Samba C

2004 Jabiru UL-4 C

1989 FK-9

1995 Jora U2 C

300
Useful load [kg]

250

200
1990 Stork S A

2001 JK-05 Junior C

 Aluminium
1995 Pipistrel Sinus C

150  Composite
1984 Zenair Zodiac

 Steel
2001 WT9 dynamic C

Worst
CH601XL A

 ASTM minimum
100
LSA launch

50
2008
2000
1990

2004
1995

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Year of first flight

Figure 6. Useful load for different primary structure over time.

The cruise speeds of the aircraft were analysed and are presented in Figure 7. The cruise speed displays
a gradual increase with composite aircraft having higher cruise speeds that steel or Aluminium aircraft.
The LSA aircraft have been highlighted for comparison. The CTSW, Tecnam P92, P2004, P2008 and
C-162 are high-wing aircraft. The CTSW has a cantilevered wing whereas the C-162 and Tecnam P92
and P2008 have strutted wings. The Texan and Sportcruiser both feature cantilevered low wings. All
LSA aircraft with 600kg gross mass can achieve 100 knots at cruise power settings. A competitive
cruise speed of 110kt is required for the design to be competitive.

12
 1997 Glasair Glastar C
1984 Zenair Zodiac CH601XL A
200

1997 Sting TL 2000 C

2000 Dyn'Aero MCR 4S C

1991 SG Aviation Rally 105 C

1996 Sabre Major KP-5 A

2001 WT9 dynamic C

1999 FK-14 Polaris
1995 Pipistrel Virus C
180

1995 Pipistrel Sinus C

1999 Samba XL C

1999 Texan TC600 C

1991 Jabiru J200 C

1993 Tecnam P92 S

1997 CTSW C

1999 Samba C
160 Best

1990 Stork S A
Cruise speed [knots TAS]

140 1989 FK-9

120

2004 Jabiru J230/430 C

2002 Tecnam P2004

2006 Sportcruiser C

2008 Tecnam P2008 C/A

2008 Cessna C-162 A
100

1998 Sportstar A

2002 Tecnam P2002 S

2004 Jabiru UL-4 C

LSA launch 2004 Jabiru SP-4 C
1998 Lambada C

2004 Jabiru J160 C

2001 JK-05 Junior C
1995 Allegro 2000 A
1984 Kitfox 7 S

2004 Whisper C
1991 Eurofox S

1996 A-22 Foxbat A

1996 Ikarus C42 A
80
1990 Cheetah XLS A
1989 Savannah A

1995 Jora U2 C
1986 Zenair STOL CH701 A

2007 Teddy
60
1985 Thunderbird S

Worst
40

20

2004

2008
2000
1990

1995

0
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00
Year of 30,00
first flight 35,00 40,00 45,00 50,00

Figure 7. Cruise speed comparison over time.

3.2. Aircraft type by design standard

The Federal Aviation Authority has certified a total of 131 aircraft types from Aeronca, Ercoupe,
Interstate, Luscombe, Piper, Porterfield, Quicksilver and Taylorcraft as certified Light Sport Aircraft
[11]. These aircraft qualify as Light Sport Aircraft, but were not originally designed as such.

The ASTM produced a consensus standard for the specification and performance of a light sport aircraft.
The consensus standards were focussed on encouraging the existing manufacturers of light un-regulated
aircraft to design aircraft, produce documents, establish authority (for the design type) and declare
compliance. This new standard would allow manufacturers of small light aircraft to enter production
within a compliance framework less onerous than FAA regulations. The matrix of ASTM consensus
standards is presented in Table 2.

13
 Table 2. ASTM consensus standards [10]

Consensus Standard Topics Aeroplanes

Design and Performance F2245-04 or -06

Required Equipment F2245-04 or -06

Quality Assurance F2279-03 or -06

Production Acceptance Tests F2279-03 or -06

Aircraft Operating Instructions F2245-04 or -06

Maintenance and Inspection Procedures F2483-05

Identification and Recording of Major Repairs and Major Alterations F2483-05

Continued Airworthiness F2295-03 or -06

Manufacturers Assembly Instructions

F2563-06
[Kit builders only]

Wing Interface Documentation N/A

ASTM F2245 has been updated on several occasions. Manufacturers have a six month overlap period
with regards to the changes to the standard. This allows for aircraft that have started the certification
process using the previous standard to introduce any changes to the design [12]. The revision history
issued by the FAA follows:

 F2245-4 3 March 2005

 F2245-6 3 January 2007
 F2245-7a 28 July 2008
 F2245-9 15 October 2009
 F2245-10c 29 July 2011
 F2245-11 23 April 2012
 F2245-12d 11 June 2013
 F2245-13b 27 February 2014

14
The major version changes between F2245-10c and F2245-12d were [13]:

1. Operating manoeuvring speed VO was introduced to protect the structure from damage due to
an abrupt single input such as rapid full elevator deflection.
2. Maximum zero wing fuel weight WZWF was introduced to mitigate against optimistic
assumptions for non-usable fuel remaining in the wing.
3. Minimum useful load definition was re-drafted based on the weight of the persons and
consumable fuel for a flight time of 1 hour.
4. To prevent low control input forces, the minimum force required to obtain the limit
manoeuvring load factor was set at a minimum of 70N for a clean aircraft with centre of gravity
furthest aft.
5. Firewall thickness was reduced from 0.46mm to 0.38mm, the material remains specified as
stainless steel.
6. The definition of suitable restraints was clarified as a pelvic and shoulder restraint.
7. Climb rate for aircraft intended for towing gliders was increased to 90m/min (295ft/min).
8. New airspeed indication system calibration requirements complying with light general aviation
aircraft must be introduced. These were introduced due to a series of near-identical incidents
with one type of light sport aircraft.
9. Fuel strainer requirements have been added as a result of an investigation led by the Air
Accidents Investigation Branch (UK) into a fatal accident in June 2011, where a safety placard
was left in the fuel tank and the fuel dissolved the adhesive thus allowing the safety label to
block the drain hole. The fuel strainer requirements were specifically tailored to prevent foreign
objects from entering the fuel lines [14].

The most important changes to specifications from the ASTM F2245 standard have been summarised
in Table 3.

15
 Table 3. Important changes to the ASTM F2245 standard.

Section Pertaining to
4.5.1.2 Prolonged and (temporary) stick force application:
Pitch – 23N (200N)
Roll – 23N (100N)
Yaw – 110N (400N)
5.1.2.1 Factors of safety:
Castings – 3
Fittings – 1.8
Bearings – 3
Control surface hinges – 6.67
Push-pull control joints – 3.3
Cable control joints and seatbelt joints - 2
5.1.4 Each design requirement must be verified by conservative analysis or test (static,
component, or flight), or both.
5.2.2.4 The maximum negative lift coefficient is specified as being 0.8. Even if the zero lift
pitching moment coefficient is zero (symmetrical aerofoil) a value of at least ± 0.025
must be used.
5.2.3 Gust envelope uses same estimation method as FAR 23
5.2.9.1/2 Engine torque loads. Greater of two cases must be used:
1. Maximum power and propeller speed with 75% of the limit load factor
applied.
2. Maximum continuous power with corresponding propeller speed with 100%
of limit load factor applied.
5.2.9.3 Additional safety factor for direct drive engine-propeller combinations. Safety factors
for four-stroke engines are based on number of cylinders:
1.33 – 5 or more cylinders
2 – 4 cylinders
3 – 3 cylinders
4 – 2 cylinders
8 – 1 cylinder
5.2.10 Side load on the engine must be 150% of the vertical limit load.
5.3.7 Ground gust hinge moments for control surfaces must be calculated at an airspeed of
38kts with a hinge moment coefficient of 0.75.

Table 3 demonstrates the typical level of detail specified in F2245. The primary content of F2245 may
be summarised as follows:

1. The flight envelope is clearly defined. This is achieved by limiting the wing loading, centre of
gravity limits, propeller diameter and rotation speed, climb rate, stability and control,
manoeuvrability and flap geometry.
2. The structural loads may be calculated using empirical data, provided by ASTM, or by physical
test to limit load. Deformation limits and factors of safety are prescribed. The limit load factor
calculations for the gust induced load factors originate from the European light aircraft
regulation and are in metric form. Loads for major systems such as the engine mount, landing
gear, wing and control system are defined as a function of the flight envelope. Load case
analysis has been simplified when compared to the regulations pertaining to general aviation
certified aircraft. Pilot control forces are prescribed and as indicated previously, changes to the
minimum control input forces have been made.

16
 3. The design and construction guidelines do not limit exotic designs, since compliance is
demonstrated by physical test rather than by analysis. Materials do not have to be conventional
aerospace materials provided that no structural members fail during test. Apart from testing that
the control system does not lock-up or jam during structural testing and that self-locking
fasteners may not be used as hinges, the standards require the designer to use best practice
during the design of the aircraft. No allowance is made for fatigue in the standards, instead,
inspections on primary structure are prescribed by the manufacturer and are more frequent
when compared to certified aircraft.
4. The powerplant and fuel system guidelines have been made stricter after several incidents and
accidents were attributed to fundamental design problems with the systems. The latest F2245
document has new guidelines regarding fuel systems to increase safety.
5. The required equipment is prescribed, however each country stipulates minimum equipment in
the country aircraft operating regulations. Geography and meteorology influence the equipment
list. In order to obtain a type certificate from a country aircraft regulator, the equipment list in
the pilot operating handbook must often be modified.
6. Additional standards are provided for aircraft intended for towing of gliders and banners,
aircraft designed for flying at night and for aircraft intended for operating on water as float
aircraft or as amphibious aircraft.

3.3. Aviation regulating authorities

The LSA market has shown substantial growth since the introduction of new designs. In the United
States to date, approximately 50 different models of aircraft have already been approved under the
special LSA regulation as ready-to-fly aircraft. Table 4 presents a summary of the United States aircraft
register per aircraft type.
Table 4. United States aircraft register [15]

2005 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2006-10 2006-20

Forecast Annual
Actual Forecast
Growth Rates
Light Sport
170 400 2,700 5,600 10,500 13,200 93.4% 28.4%
Aircraft
Total GA 224,352 226,422 231,343 242,766 261,404 274,914 1.8% 1.4%
Percentage <0.1% 0.2% 1.2% 2.3% 4.0% 4.8%

Table 5 presents market share of LSA in the United States. The market share of 2700 LSA in 2007 can
be compared to the market share of 2550 LSA in October 2013. The market had become saturated and
the predicted market share of 10500 LSA in 2015 would not be achieved.

17
 Table 5. Light Sport Aircraft market share (United States) [6].

Yearly LSA sales in the United States is presented in Figure 10 indicating the initial growth and
subsequent decline in sales [6, 8]. The 2014 data only represents sales (Q1-Q3) for the top three selling
LSA models, the Flight Design CT range, the Cub Crafters Carbon Cub and the Tecnam P92 and P2008
range. The LSA sales for 2014 is predicted to be similar to the annual sales of 2009-2014.
600
LSA sales (United States)

500
400
300
200
100
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year

Figure 8. Light Sport Aircraft yearly sales in the United States of America.

South Africa:

Aviation in South Africa is regulated and overseen by the South African Civil Aviation Authority
(SACAA), which is a part of the Department of Transport. The SACAA is responsible for certifying
aircraft that apply for registration (type certification process) as well as for ensuring that Aircraft
Maintenance Organisations (AMOs); Manufacturing, Processing and Testing Organisations (MPTs);
Design Organisations; and Aviation Training Organisations (ATOs) are effectively inspected, approved
and overseen, and that they perform their work within the framework of their approvals. The size of the
industry overseen by this division can be summarized as follows: 10,730 aircraft (TCA and NTCA);

18
420 AMOs; 90 MPTs; 15 ATOs providing training to Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME); and at
least 3,500 AMEs.

For the purposes of design and manufacturing of aircraft in South Africa, aircraft are put in two major
categories, those which have been designed and manufactured under the standards that meet or exceed
those of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), otherwise known as Type Certified
Aircraft (TCA) and those which are not compliant with ICAO standards, known as Non-Type Certified
Aircraft (NTCA). A NTCA is an aircraft that does not qualify for the issue of a certificate of
airworthiness in terms of Part 21 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARS) of 1997. It includes any
TCA no longer qualifying. With the growth of the NTCA sector, regulatory provisions have been
developed in an attempt to properly control and regulate this class of aircraft. NTCA standards are
contained in the CARs:
– Part 24: certification and airworthiness of NTCA;
– Part 43: general maintenance rules;
– Part 94: recreation operation of the NTCA;
– Part 96: commercial use of NTCA.

Non-type certificated aircraft can be divided into five categories:

(a) Amateur or home- built aircraft: Specifically built in terms of the provisions of CAR Part 24.
The owner performs most of the construction work themselves as a once-off project for the purpose
of flying the aircraft themselves. Aircraft are classified as kit or plan-built.

(b) Production-built aircraft: The build standard and prototype (approved and constructed in terms
of CAR Part 24) are available either fully-assembled or in kit form (< 51% of the airframe has been
constructed and assembled) exclusively for non-commercial purposes. These aircraft must be
constructed/assembled at SACAA approved manufacturing facilities in South Africa.

(c) Veteran aircraft: These aircraft are traditional aircraft that have lost their type certificate.

(d) Ex-military aircraft: All aircraft previously operated by military air forces.

(e) Any other aircraft not qualifying for the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness (CAR Part 21).
NTCA aircraft are further divided into the following sub-groups – (a) aeroplanes, including microlight
aeroplanes; (b) helicopters; (c) gyroplanes/ gyrogliders; (d) gliders; (e) manned captive and manned
free balloons; (f) airships; (g) unmanned aerial vehicles; (h) hang-gliders including powered hang-
gliders; (i) paragliders (powered paragliders and paratrikes); (j) parachutes; (k) model aircraft; and (l)
rockets.

Along with the trends being experienced in the United States and European general aviation markets,
South Africa has experienced a rapid growth in the NTCA market. At the end of 2008, there were
10,730 aircraft on the South African Civil Aircraft Register, of which 49% represented the sport and
recreational NTCA aircraft. The South African civil aviation register is presented in Table 6.

19
 Table 6. South African civil aviation register 1999-2008

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

TOTAL TCA 4 190 4 247 4 311 4 496 4 695 4 901 4 985 5 132 5 497
Aeroplane 3 679 3 718 3 769 3 898 4029 4149 4 204 4,271 4,474
Helicopter 511 529 542 598 666 752 781 861 1,023
TOTAL NTCA 3 294 3 470 3 616 3 907 4 127 4 413 4 536 4 825 5 233
NTCA - Amateur built 507 558 587 688 821 961 1 021 1 105 1 236
NTCA – Production Built 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 512 708
Sub-total: Amateur & 507 558 587 688 821 961 1 021 1 617 1944
Production Built Aircraft
Amateur Built Microlight 1 926 2 014 2 118 2 226 2 232 2 326 2 356 2 023 2 065
Glider (incl. Motorised) 377 393 401 429 456 475 477 495 514
Amateur Built 129 139 144 167 206 219 229 236 257
Gyrocopter/Helicopter
Limited/Research Aircraft 130 129 128 148 154 171 175 175 167
Veteran Aircraft 118 120 120 124 125 128 128 131 130
Other 160 171 173 184 193 210 224 246 284
TOTAL TCA and NTCA 7 484 7 717 7 927 8 403 8 822 9 314 9 521 9 957 10 730

Figure 11 outlines the growth in the NTCA class over the period 2000 - 2008. The market has increased
by 59% over this period. Prior to 2006, it was not possible to determine how many of the NTCA aircraft
were production built as these were included under the broader category of amateur built aircraft.

Figure 9. Non-type certificated aircraft 2000-2008

20
The amateur/production built category has increased from 15% to 37% of the total NTCA market
between 1997 and 2008, with an average annual growth over this period of 17%. Amateur built
microlights remain marginally the largest segment of the market at 39% of the NTCA register. In ghe
year 2000 microlights represented 58% of the class of aircraft, but have had only a 2% average annual
growth over this period.

Table 7 indicates that there has been a growth in recreational flying as the issuing of private pilot
licences increased in line with the aircraft growth in this area of aviation. It is also notable that the
number of student pilot licences has increased. In 2005 and 2006, the number of student learner pilots
exceeded the number of microlight learners.

Table 7. Active pilots in South Africa

Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Others 3 891 3 474 4 187 4 575 4 901 5 500 5 434

Student 1 266 1 412 1 555 935 1 293 1 771 1 848

Microlight 918 1 526 1 222 1 300 1 629 1 580 1 561

Private 4 335 4 034 4 184 4 521 4 925 5 020 5 139

TOTAL 10 410 10 446 11 148 11 331 12 748 13 871 13 982

Canada:

Regulation of ultralight aircraft in Canada is covered by the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The
definition of an "ultralight aircraft" includes advanced ultralight or basic ultralight aircraft, both of
which have only two seats. A "basic ultralight aircraft" is designed and manufactured to have a MTOW
not exceeding 544 kg, whereas the “advanced ultralight aircraft” is designed to have a maximum take -
off weight 480 kg. Table 8 contains the Canadian aircraft register.

Table 8. Canadian aircraft register

Normal Amateur Basic Advanced Other TOTAL

Built Ultralight Ultralight
Total 21,060 3,314 4,674 (14.9%) 968 12,405 31,421

Airplanes 17,978 2,934 4,674 968 1,231 27,785

United Kingdom:

 Very Light Aeroplanes (VLA) have a single engine with not more than two seats and a MTOW
of not more than 750 kg.
 The definition of a microlight is an aircraft having no more than two seats and a MTOW of no
more than:
 300 kg for a single-seater landplane (or 450 kg for a two-seater landplane); or
 330 kg for a single seater amphibian/floatplane, (or 495 kg for a two-seater).

21
Table 9 contains the aircraft register for the United Kingdom.

Table 9. United Kingdom aircraft register

Category 2006 2007 2008

Fixed wing MTOW <= 750 kg 3,077 (16.7%) 3,153 (15.8%) 3,186 (14.9%)

Microlights 4,254 4,392 4,447

Total 18,445 19,890 21,331

Australia:

In Australia a recreational aircraft must have a maximum all-up weight (MAUW) of 544kg or less and
a maximum of two seats. In 2007, Australia had a market of 580 registered aircraft with a MTOW
between 450kg and 544kg [16].

New Zealand:

In New Zealand microlight aircraft are separated into two classes, single and two seat aircraft.
Class 1: Single seat aircraft with a design maximum gross weight of 544 kg (landplanes) or 579kg
(seaplanes/amphibians). Requires aircraft registration and annual condition inspections, but does
not require a permit to fly.

Class 2: Two seat aircraft with a design maximum gross weight of 544 kg (landplanes) or 614kg
(seaplanes or amphibians). Must meet minimum type acceptance standards or via a temporary
permit to fly and flight testing regime. Requires aircraft registration, annual condition inspections,
and a current permit to fly. New Zealand has 637 microlight class II on its aviation register.

Customer Analysis

Ultralight aircraft/Light Sport Aircraft are used extensively for flight training, recreation and various
light commercial purposes. Customers therefore include:

– Flight Schools
– Private individuals
– Businesses
– Government/NGOs

Europe is currently the market leader with the Czech Republic playing a major role [3] and produced
588 ultralight aircraft (worth €40 million) in 2006, 170 more than in the previous year. TL Ultralight,
a German manufacturing company, estimates that currently roughly 80% of the worldwide production
of ultralight aircraft is located in the Czech Republic. Nearly 200 of the 560 ultralight aircraft registered
in the United States in 2006 were produced in the Czech Republic. There are very few United States
manufacturers of such ultralight aircraft.

22
The South African market share based on the 2009 register is shown in Figure 10.

Coyote Cubby Whisper Kitfox Challenger

1% 1% 1% Tecnam 2% 2%
1% Aviatika
2%
Samba
2%

Sycamore
2%

Zodiac
3%
Bushbaby
5%

Cheetah
Others 5%
50%

RV
5%

Jabiru family
11%

Bantam BJ-22
5%
Ikarus C-42
1%
Sportcruiser
0,42%
CTLS CTSW FK-9
0,10% 1% 0,10%

Figure 10. South African market share in the LSA category

A description of the most popular models on the market in South Africa is provided below.
 Jabiru Aircraft Southern Africa
Jabiru Aircraft, a fully SACAA licensed MO and AMO, is the approved agent for the Australian
designed Jabiru series of aircraft and engines. Jabiru has the highest number of NTCA registered
in South Africa. Aircraft are sold either in kit form or fully built. Currently most financial
institutions do not however finance the purchase of kits. The company offers customers the
possibility of customising the aircraft including; the addition of photographic windows, extra fuel
tanks and glass-fibre doors. Jabiru was one of the first design companies to obtain full private
pilot’s license (PPL) training status for the aircraft and claims that sales are increasing as PPL
flight schools realise that the aircraft are affordable to operate.

23
 Cessna - SkyCatcher
Cessna released their conceptual LSA in July 2006. The prototype production aircraft first flew in
2008. The aircraft achieved orders of 1200 aircraft [17]. Following a series of accidents during
testing, manufacturing problems in China and increasing sales price the SkyCatcher production
ended in December 2013 with production of only 275 airframes [17]. The aircraft was offered as
an ideal aircraft for use at flight training schools.
 FK Lightplanes: FK-9
FK-Lightplanes, a German company, markets the FK 9 MK IV. The aircraft was one of the fastest
selling aircraft internationally, but has yet to achieve much market share in South Africa. The
wings have a folding option, requiring no tools, for trailering and storage. The seats are adjustable,
a feature not many LSA aircraft offer.
 Microwings: (Cubby)
The Cubby is available in kit form, ready to fly or fully built but without engine, radio and
instruments. The Cubby can be registered as a 3-axis microlight or an ultralight. The purchase price
is comparatively low and operational costs are kept to a minimum due to the use of automotive
fuel (MOGAS) as opposed to AVGAS. The Cubby is available in tri-gear or tail dragger. Price is
dependent on the choice of engine.
 Kitplanes for Africa: (Bush baby)
The Bush baby is a homebuilt kit aircraft which may be registered as a microlight or an ultralight.
It has a low performance but is a safe entry level aircraft. The majority of Bush baby aircraft were
built as a tail dragger to allow operation out of rough airfields. This configuration however makes
the aircraft more challenging to fly in comparison to the tricycle aircraft, which is better suited for
prepared runways.
 Skystar Aircraft Company: (Kitfox Kits)
The Kitfox is a lightweight, two-seater sport aircraft with excellent STOL performance and the
ability to operate from short and unimproved airfields. Various models include a larger aircraft
designed to fit the needs of a growing segment of the marketplace that wanted a weekend cruiser,
with pilots wanting a recreational aircraft with a greater useful load, certified engine, increased
cabin space, and larger cargo capacity.
 Wing ‘n tracks (Samba and Lambada)
The Samba is a competitively priced aircraft including a variable pitch propeller, two-metre
wingtip extension, glider tow hook and a well-equipped panel and avionics suite. It can use
unleaded MOGAS fuel, AVGAS or a mixture of both. The Lambada differs from the Samba, by
using a shoulder-mounted wing and a T-tail empennage.
 Rainbow Aircraft: (Cheetah)
The Cheetah has been approved by the SACAA for full PPL and hour building towards the CPL.
The Cheetah is available in tail dragger form or with tricycle gear. The Cheetah XL features a
bigger cabin with extra headroom. The company has also started selling the Cheetah as a kit.
 Van’s Aircraft: (RV kit planes)
RV Aircraft are low-wing monoplanes. RVs are designed and built so they can be dismantled when
necessary. All of the tail surfaces are removable. Wings are constructed independently and bolt to
the fuselage, the landing gear attaches to the fuselage with a few bolts. The RV-12 is the only
model compliant with the LSA regulations.

24
 National Airways Corporation (NAC): Tecnam range
The Tecnam, P92, P2004 and P2008 are Italian manufactured LSA. The P92 was the first model
released and featured simple design features such as a steel space-frame fuselage clad with
Aluminium, conventional Aluminium strutted wing and an all-moving horizontal tail. The P2004
featured a wider cabin and cantilevered high-wing. The P2008 was derived from the P2004 and
features a strutted Aluminium wing with a carbon fibre fuselage [18].
 Microaviation: Bantam Microlight
The Bantam is classified as a microlight and is used in crop spraying and other commercial
activities. The Bantam can be registered as an ultralight aircraft and can be used to build up PPL
hours. Due to its quiet operation and short take-off and landing (STOL) capabilities the Bantam is
used extensively in farming and nature conservation as well as by the Police Service for crime
fighting and visible policing. The aircraft claims to have an incredible capability in windy
conditions, outperforming other STOL aircraft that cost more than twice as much.
 The Airplane Factory: Sling 2
The Sling is classified as a production-built Light Sport Aircraft. Development commenced in 2006.
The aircraft is a side-by-side low-wing semi-monocoque design. Manufacturing methods include
numeric controlled punching on the Aluminium components. The aircraft was flown around the
World in 2009. In excess of 60 aircraft kits have been sold [19].

3.4. Target market size

South African flying schools were investigated to ascertain the size of the aircraft fleet used for flight
training, the aircraft used for flight training and average age of the fleet. Growing fuel costs have
increased the cost of flying, meaning that many flight schools have had to reduce operating costs. This
could be done by purchasing aircraft with lower fuel consumption. Aircraft such as the Cessna 172 and
Piper PA-28 are very popular training aircraft. The aircraft can be used as training aircraft or as hire
and fly aircraft. They are certified and night rated. A total of 54 flying schools were surveyed. Data is
presented in Table 10 and 11.
Table 10. Fleet of South African flying schools [20]

Czech
Comco Aircraft Urban
Manufacturer Cessna Piper Jabiru Ikarus works Evektor Air
Samba
cruiser
PA-28

PA-38

Sports
Sport

Aircraft type
C42
150

172

182

430

160

star

XL

Number in
service 61 78 18 102 6 3 4 9 3 1 2

Table 11. Flying school analysis

Number of flight schools analysed 54

Total flight school fleet 290
Percentage of total light aircraft used by flight
schools 21.21
Average age of aircraft (years) 21.22
Number of ultralight aircraft used for flight
school training 22

25
According to Part 96 of the South African Civil Aviation Regulations, only production-built non-type
certificated aircraft may be used for commercial operations such as flight training.

3.5. Atmospheric environment

Four airspeed definitions apply for aircraft:

1. Indicated airspeed as indicated by measurement from pitot static instrument.

2. Calibrated airspeed contains a correction for the location of the pitot static instrument
installation. This accounts for changes in angle of attack, particularly in light aircraft.
3. Equivalent airspeed is a correction to the calibrated airspeed to account for compressibility.
4. True airspeed is a corrected equivalent airspeed to account for air density.

The South African climate poses different challenges compared to the European climate. Flying takes
place year-round in South Africa, whereas in Europe it is limited to the summer months with occasional
flying during good weather days in winter. The majority of South African aircraft are located at flying
fields inland from the coast meaning that the flying happens at elevated altitude. During summer, when
the temperatures are warm, the conditions are classified as hot and high. Hot refers directly to the
temperature, high refers to the density altitude.

South Africa has very high levels of Ultra-Violet (UV) light. UV-B (315-400nm) penetrates the
atmosphere to reach ground level and is capable of damaging skin [21]. UV-B indices are shown in
Figure 11. CP represents Cape Point, CTI represents Cape Town, DA represents De Aar, PE represents
Port Elizabeth, DBN represents Durban and PTA represents Pretoria.

Figure 11. UV-B indices for South Africa 1994-2009 [22].

Figure 12. Monthly UV-B indices for South Africa 1994-2009 [22].

26
UV-B indices above 8 are considered very high. For a sunny climate at a South African latitude the
index reaches 8 at approximately 11am and declines below 8 at approximately 3pm. A UV-B index of
11 or higher is categorised as extreme [23]. The exposure of light aircraft occupants to UV-B would be
of concern. Flight instructors in South Africa would be exposed to good-weather flying conditions more
frequently than European instructors. This would mean that consideration towards UV-B exposure
would be justified for the design of the aircraft and for the safety and comfort of the occupants.

Aircraft components such as seals, composites materials, plastic components, coatings and adhesives
deteriorate when exposed to UV. For a long service life in a country such as South Africa UV-stabilised
components would have to be used if available.

3.6. Available propulsion units

Since the inception of the Light Sport Aircraft category in 2003, the Rotax 80-100hp 912 series has
been the engine of choice in the majority of aircraft that entered serial production. The engine has been
fitted to 320 aircraft types [24] with more than 40000 Rotax 912 series engines produced [25]. The 912
has air-cooled cylinder barrels and water-cooled cylinder heads. It is a geared, four cylinder
horizontally-opposed, normally aspirated, spark ignition engine with altitude-compensating
carburettors that produces a maximum of 100 brake horsepower at 5800 RPM. It may be fitted with a
fixed pitch or ground-adjustable propeller.

The four-cylinder four-stroke engines suffer from a phenomenon unique to aircraft engines. Once an
engine model is certified for a rated power output, the engine power may not increase or else the
certification process must be repeated. What this means is that as the engine design matures, it may
become more fuel efficient and more reliable, but may not become lighter or more powerful. Table 12
lists the history of the Rotax 912 80/100hp engine.

Table 12. Rotax 912 series history [25].

Year Event
1984 912 series engine developed
1989 Type certificate for 912A awarded
1994 Type certificate for 912F awarded
1998 Type certificate for 100hp 912S awarded
2003 Design Organisation authority approved by EASA
2005 912 series compliant with ASTM consensus standards
2005 Production Organisation authority approved by EASA
2009 912 series time between overhaul increased from 1500 hours to 2000hours
2010 Production of 912/914 series achieved 40000 units
2012 912iS with fuel injection type certificate awarded

The Rotax 912 ULS and iS models are shown in Figure 13. The major difference between the engines
is the fuel injection system and intake manifold.

27
 Figure 13. Rotax 912 ULS (left) and 912 iS (right) [25].

Two engines families were considered for the aircraft. The Jabiru J2200/J3300 and the Rotax 912. The
Jabiru engine is an air-cooled engine based on Porsche engine technology, but suffers from thermal
shock during descent when the engine is at idle. This leads to engine block fracture at the cylinder base.
This is a very well-documented issue amongst operators and pilots are advised to make a power descent
instead of a glide descent to keep engine temperature changes minimal. South African hot and high
weather conditions exacerbate the probability of thermal shock. The Jabiru engines are direct drive,
which means the power and torque produced can only drive propellers with small diameter and small
activity factor. Jabiru has produced 3600 J2200 engines and 1700 J3300 engines [26].

The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released a draft instrument in November 2014
citing regulation 11.068 and 11.245. The instrument is in response to numerous engine failures and
limits certain aircraft powered by Jabiru engines from [27]:

1. Carrying any passengers;

2. Flying over populous areas unless a suitable emergency landing area is within gliding
distance; and
3. The aircraft may not be operated below 1000ft, except for climbing out from an airfield
after take-off or approaching to land at an airfield.

This instrument has made Jabiru-powered aircraft unfit for flight training.

The Lycoming IO-233 was not considered due to the dry mass being significantly more than the Rotax
or Jabiru engines. The quoted fuel consumption is presented in Figure 14.

28
 Figure 14. Rotax 912iS fuel consumption [25].

In terms of engine acquisition cost presented in Table 13, the Rotax 912 S and Jabiru J3300 are
significantly cheaper than the fuel injected Rotax 912 iS and Lycoming engines.

Table 13. Comparison of engine acquisition cost in 2014.

Engine Price in Rands (exchange rate of R11/1$)

Lycoming IO-233 R273 900 [28]
Continental O-200 R273 900 [28]
Rotax 912 iS R277 750 [29]
Rotax 912 S R213 800 [29]
Jabiru J3300 R204 600 [30]

The only viable engine for the aircraft is the Rotax 912 family if flight training is to be one of the target
markets.

3.7. Cessna C-162 Skycatcher

The Cessna 152 (C-152) was a two seat light aircraft produced between 1977 and 1985 with 7584
airframes being produced [31]. The manufacturer stopped production in 1985 due to the liability claims
against aircraft manufacturers. Production was not restarted. The aircraft was a popular choice for flight
schools. After the introduction of the Light Sport Aircraft category, Cessna designed the model 162 (C-
162) in accordance with the ASTM F2245 standard, the aircraft was named the Skycatcher.

The engine chosen for the C-162 was initially the Rotax 912 series. The aircraft received large orders
shortly after its launch. Cessna then specified that the direct drive Continental O-200 engine be used
instead. The engine produces the same 100hp that the Rotax 912 produces, but the engine is heavier
than the Rotax and the fuel flow has been calculated as being higher for certain power settings [32, 33].
The reliability of an engine is normally specified as time between overhaul and in mean time between
failures. The Continental engine has higher time specified between overhauls.

The ASTM standards specify the flight envelope in a fairly restrictive manner. Table 14 summarises
the C-162 specifications compared to a Cessna 152.

29
 Table 14. Comparison between C-162 and C-152.

Parameter C-152 C-162

Airworthiness standard FAR 23 ASTM F2245
Empty weight 444kg 379kg
Maximum take-off weight 726kg 600kg
Payload (occupants and fuel) 282kg 221kg
Engine Continental O-200 Continental O-200
Wing span 9.97m 9.26m
Length 7.24m 6.73m
Wing area 15m2 11.14m2
Cruise speed 107kts 112kts
Maximum rate of climb 715ft/min 890ft/min
Wing loading (OEW-MTOW) 36-48kg/m2 43-54kg/m2

The two aircraft types have the same powerplant but are designed to different standards. The C-162 has
a higher wing loading range and much lower payload. Stall speed and maximum speed are governed by
the ASTM standard, which limits the thrust and wing loading to a prescribed target range. The C-162
has better cruise performance as it is lighter and smaller than the C-152, for the same installed power.
To achieve the highest performance possible, its wing area has been reduced when compared to the C-
152.

Figure 15 illustrates the design changes made between the C-152 and the C-162.
Rear fuselage and window modified due to main gear and
strut placement.
Smaller wing area and chord reduces horizontal tail area.
Tail positioned ahead of rudder.

Strut angled forwards from main landing gear attachment,

eases ingress and egress.

When the design was changed from tail-dragging to

tricycle design, the wing and strut attachments were left
unchanged.

Figure 15. Side view comparison of C-162 (top) [34] and C-152 (bottom) [35]

30
Cessna has made four major design changes to the vertical stabiliser of the C-162 during its
development. Figure 16 depicts the original Rotax-powered prototype.

Figure 16. Original Cessna 162 with Rotax 912 engine [36]

The prototype aircraft crashed during spin testing, failing to recover before impacting the ground. The
aircraft was conducting spin testing for four configurations, during the final test for the second
configuration the aircraft entered an uncontrolled flat spin. The pilot parachuted from the aircraft at a
safe height [37].

The C-162 has a smaller wing chord, wing area and mass than a C-152. The horizontal and vertical tail
volume coefficients used for the determination of the longitudinal stability and control characteristics
are generally constant for aircraft with similar geometry and flight envelopes. The C-152 had a
horizontal tail volume coefficient of 0.43 compared to 0.53 for the C-162. The primary reason for the
increased coefficient for the C-162 is the higher wing loading. The directional stability and control was
insufficient at low speed.

The first attempt at fixing the stability issue was to add a large dorsal fillet, pictured in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Cessna 162 with increased vertical stabiliser area [author].

31
Cessna later re-designed the vertical tail and increased the surface area, as seen in Figure 19.

Figure 18. Cessna 162 with re-designed vertical tail [36]

Cessna then added a ventral strake along the keel of the aircraft, pictured in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Cessna 162 with ventral strake [38]

The final tail configuration is depicted in Figure 20. This configuration included a larger vertical
stabiliser with ventral strake and a rudder that extends below the fuselage. Cessna also increased wing
thickness [39].

32
 Figure 20. Final Cessna 162 tail design [40]

The stability issues regarding directional control were corrected by re-design of the vertical stabiliser,
rudder and ventral strake. The parameters are listed in Table 15.

Table 15. Empennage comparison between C-152 and C-162.

Parameter C-152 C-162

Aspect ratio 6.6 7.7
Mean aerodynamic chord 1.66m 1.27m
Horizontal tail area 2.56m2 2.03m2
Horizontal tail moment arm 4.2m 3.7m
Horizontal tail volume coefficient 0.43 0.53
Vertical tail area 1.4m2 0.81m2
Vertical tail moment arm 4.1m 3.94m
Vertical tail volume coefficient 0.039 0.031
Re-designed vertical tail area 1.25m2
Vertical tail volume coefficient 0.048

The following factors clarify why the C-162 experienced stability and control issues:

1. The C-162 has a higher aspect ratio than a C-152. For a similar tail moment arm a more effective
vertical tail is required. This can be achieved by changing the stabiliser and rudder design or by
lengthening the tail moment arm.
2. The rear fuselage shape differs between the C-152 and the C-162. The centre of lift of the
vertical tail on the original C-162 was 0.29m above the thrust line, the C-152 centre of lift was
0.61m above the thrust line. This reduction would lead to reduced coupling between yaw and
roll on the C-162. The re-designed tail for the C-162 featured a distance between thrust line and
centre of lift of 0.26m due to the addition of the ventral strake.
3. The C-162 was designed with a similar cruise speed to the C-152, powered by the same engine,
but was designed to a different flight envelope standard. To best meet the flight envelope the
aircraft baseline design had a higher wing loading.
4. The vertical tail volume coefficient of the C-152 was calculated as 0.039, the vertical tail
volume coefficient calculated of the C-162 as 0.031. The enlarged vertical tail, with ventral
strake had an increased volume coefficient of 0.048.

33
Cessna partnered with the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation in the People’s Republic of China to produce
the aircraft. Cessna cited production capacity issues and production cost savings for the partnership.
Brand loyalty to locally produced United States aircraft led to a cancellation of orders. Cessna have sold
a large number of these aircraft, but the commercial success of the programme was doubted publically
by Cessna CEO Scott Ernest in 2013. He reflected that the C-162 had no future, citing the ASTM flight
envelope requirements and the inferred design constraints and the impact they have had on a good
aircraft design.

3.8. Tecnam P92 Echo

The Tecnam company was established in 1986 by the Pascale brothers after they left the Partenavia
company (since renamed VulcanAir). The P92 was originally designed as an ultralight according to the
European definition. The aircraft was designed for lightness, ease of accessibility and structural
simplicity [41]. The fuselage is manufactured with a semi-monocoque tail cone that is affixed to an
Aluminium-clad steel alloy spaceframe fuselage cabin. The wing is of conventional Aluminium alloy
construction [42].

The aircraft first flew in March 1993 and featured two seats and a gross mass of 450kg. It was powered
by a 80hp Rotax engine. In 1999 the P92 S was introduced with a re-designed wing, 100hp Rotax engine
and increased gross mass of 550kg. The P92 may be purchased in versions that meet
ultralight/microlight regulations, or in an ASTM compliant LSA version. Sales exceeded 1000 units in
2005 [43].

The P92 was further developed into the P2004 Bravo, the first Tecnam aircraft designed with a gross
mass of 600kg. The P2004 featured a cantilevered wing without a strut, but maintained systems
similarity with the P92. The P2004 has been discontinued. The P2008 first flew in 2008 and incorporates
an Aluminium-alloy wing and empennage with a carbon-fibre fuselage [44].

The sales of Tecnam aircraft have been good with 86 LSA units sold from Q1 to Q3 in 2014 [8].

The design evolution from the ultralight P92 Echo light to the P2008 is shown in Figure 21 [18].

34
 P92 Echo light (500kg)
ultralight with simple
cowling, straight-leg
landing gear and trapezoidal
rear window.

P92 Echo classic (600kg)

LSA with a more aesthetic
cowling, shrouded nose
gear, curved main landing
gear leg, vertical tail fillet
and triangular rear window.

P2008 (600kg) LSA with

refined fuselage, refined
vertical tail and revised
cokpit windows.

Figure 21. Tecnam aircraft range.

35
The P92 and P2008 have the same basic design features, even though the fuselages are constructed
using different materials. The P92 is a lower cost all-metal aircraft suited to flight training. The P2008
is a higher cost aircraft suited to the recreational flyer. The major difference for the occupants is that
the P2008 has a cabin width at shoulder height of 1.19m compared to 1.07m for the P92. The three-
view images of the evolution of the aircraft may be seen in Figure 19.

P92 Echo light [42]

P92 Echo classic with

contoured cowling, refined
rear cockpit, winglets and
vertical tail [18].

P2008 with wider cabin,

refined cowling and re-
designed fuselage. Wing is
tapered, horizontal tail has
faired tips [45]

Figure 22. Tecnam P92 and P2008 general views.

36
The critical geometry and performance for the P92 Echo classic, P2004 Bravo and P2008 has been
summarised in Table 16 [44].

Table 16. Specification for the Tecnam P92, P2004 and P2008.

Parameter P92 Echo classic P2004 Bravo P2008

Airworthiness standard ASTM F2245 ASTM F2245 ASTM F2245
Empty weight 325kg 331kg 354kg
Maximum take-off weight 600kg 600kg 600kg
Payload (occupants and fuel) 275kg 269kg 246kg
Engine Rotax 912 ULS Rotax 912 ULS Rotax 912 ULS
Wing span 9.4m 8.4m 8.8m
Length 6.5m 6.61m 6.93m
Wing area 13.4m2 11m2 11.5m2
Cruise speed 110kts 116kts 112kts
Maximum rate of climb 1200ft/min 1200ft/min 1100ft/min
Wing loading (OEW-MTOW) 24-45kg/m2 30-55kg/m2 31-52kg/m2

The P2004 was developed from an ultralight whereas the P2008 was a clean-sheet LSA design. From a
performance perspective the P2008 has less payload, but offers the occupants more space and comfort.

The Cessna C-162 and Tecnam P2004 Bravo have been compared to each other. The aircraft
specifications are stated in Table 17. The P2004 has a lower empty weight, higher payload and similar
wing loading at gross weight. The P2004 is superior to the C-162 in useful load, maximum speed and
features lower wing loading. The rate of climb of the C-162 is greater than that for the P2004, this
should not be considered. Manufacturers do not often give the flying mass corresponding to the rate of
climb. Mass has a large influence on rate of climb. Both aircraft have the same installed power yielding
similar thrust. The C-162 would have lower lift-induced drag due to the greater wing aspect ratio.

Table 17. Comparison of the C-162 to the P2004.

Parameter C-162 P2004 Bravo

Airworthiness standard ASTM F2245 ASTM F2245
Empty weight 379kg 331kg
Maximum take-off weight 600kg 600kg
Payload (occupants and fuel) 221kg 269kg
Engine Continental O-200 Rotax 912 ULS
Wing span 9.26m 8.4m
Length 6.73m 6.61m
Aspect ratio 7.7 6.4
Wing area 11.14m2 11m2
Cruise speed 112kts 116kts
Maximum rate of climb 890ft/min 1200ft/min
Wing loading (OEW-MTOW) 43-54kg/m2 30-55kg/m2

Tecnam has used their market sales and subsequent market share to venture into the type-certified
aircraft category. The P92, P2008 and new P2010 are available in variants conforming to FAR.23 [18].
The P2010 competes with the Cessna 172 in the four-seat light aircraft category.

In conclusion, Tecnam has been able to design aircraft in the ultralight, LSA and light general aviation
markets. The aircraft have the same characteristics and properties designed into the aircraft.

37
The Tecnam approach of designing a small ultralight with subsequent growth of the design has been
successful. The sales reduction in LSA has allowed the company to sell ultralight and general aviation
aircraft.

The characteristics and properties designed into the C-162 by the Cessna Company were not successful.
Designing a LSA to meet every requirement of the ASTM consensus standard did not result in a good
aircraft. Additional lessons gained from the Cessna C-162 is that it is unwise to change a powerplant
once the design has been completed and to ensure that adequate control has been designed for.
Conventional wisdom regarding vertical tail volume coefficients used for sizing LSA vertical tails needs
to be reconsidered.

3.9. Summary of user requirements

The high-level user requirements developed for the aircraft from the design brief were grouped into
four primary requirements:

1. Operation in terms of recreational and commercial operators was the primary requirement.
Recreational operation requires less stringent maintenance, which may be conducted by the
aircraft owner. The materials and manufacturing processes need to comply with production-
built manufacturing standards for an aircraft to be rated as commercial operation compliant. An
aircraft that could be operated in both types of operation would offer an advantage over many
other aircraft.
2. Low production and operating costs was an important requirement. Designing an aircraft and
manufacturing facility for low cost component manufacture, process and assembly would allow
the aircraft to be competitively priced. The operating costs, both direct and indirect, would need
to be minimised.
3. Environmental conditions affect aircraft performance, reliability and maintainability. The
combination of high temperatures, dust content, humidity and UV can cause additional
maintenance costs. The aircraft would need to have a competitive service life and maximise
utilisation hours.
4. Competitive features or properties would need to be incorporated at a systems level. Good
performance, stable flight characteristics, well-harmonised control and robust components that
would enhance all high-level operation requirements, enhancing the operation of the aircraft by
recreational or commercial operators. They would also reduce the production and operating
costs. The features would also allow for the aircraft to be operated in any environment.

38
4. Design framework

4.1. Design technique

Creative design is enabled by constraining debilitating influences [46]. This is difficult to do when
designing a group of interrelated systems, such as on an aircraft. Creative concepts can be developed
by breaking a system down into components, or by starting with components and then developing a
system [47, 48]. This infers that creative design can either start with a general concept ending with a
specific concept, or that it may start with a specific concept and end with a general concept. The
hypothesis that analysis is designing from the general to the specific may be thought of as deduction
and analysis. This then implies that synthesis is designing from the specific to the general case and may
be thought of as induction and synthesis [46]. When designing a system using the deduction and analysis
method, uncertainty and disorder may be introduced. This is termed destructive deduction. The converse
of destructive deduction is constructive induction. It follows that the human thought process of logical
problem solving is often to break the problem into smaller elements and then to recompose them trying
to find a solution. This cycle was termed destruction and creation [46]. Boyd used three theories to
develop the cycle.

The first theory used to create this cycle dated from the 1931 work on the incompleteness and
inconsistency of a system published by Godel [49]. He proved that any consistent system is incomplete
and that consistency within a complete system can not be demonstrated. Using this result to analyse the
consistency of a design system concept and the consistency of the performance of the concept in reality,
when compared to performance prediction, is useful in the design of a system, but no perfect
convergence can be achieved.

The second theory was the concept of consistency, proven by Heisenberg in 1927 [50]. The architect of
destruction and creation infers that the uncertainty values represent the inability in determining the
consistency of the system within the system. In itself this principle does not generally apply to the
design of mechanical systems [46].

The third theory is the concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as applied to the
economic process. High entropy levels were compared to high levels of confusion and disorder. Entropy
also increases within a closed system, hence the confusion and disorder would increase [51].

Combining the theories of Godel, Heisenberg and the second law of thermodynamics, it was proposed
that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system can be reduced by introducing
or creating a new system. The three theories support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued
effort to improve the match-up of a concept with reality would increase the mismatch [46]. This can be
summarised as a design process where destructive deduction breaks a system into components where
the uncertainty in the performance of the design would become reduced. The confidence in the design
could be restored by recomposing the design into a system and comparing the performance to the
prediction. This was termed a dialectic engine [46].

The process of destruction and creation may be used as a method for thought generation applied to a
design process. Given a requirement or section of regulation, the creation of a compliant system to meet
the requirement and satisfy the regulation may be as simple as creating a system using creative
induction. The best system would be produced after the initial concept system has been broken down
and re-formed with external-oriented effort using destruction and creation. This process would not apply

39
to simple mechanical components, but may be used to provide creative and novel systems that are
compliant.

4.2. Aircraft design requirements

General design considerations were extracted from the Douglas Aircraft Company [52]. The
considerations have been expanded:

1. The use of standard parts can dramatically reduce production costs. The majority of systems on a
light aircraft should be sourced from suppliers.
2. Standard size parts should be used where possible. This implies that detailed consideration should
be given to the fit, form and function of every component. Non-standard size material costs more
per unit mass than standard size material.
3. Tolerances and limits must be factored into manufacture to reduce the assembly-related costs. The
technical difference between a limit and a fit needs to be understood. Tolerance being the difference
between the two limits.
4. The possibility of adjustment must be included in the design. Adjustments could be required
because of the manufacturing process, modifications to the design or for alignment during the
rigging of primary structure. Tolerances can be increased if adjustment is designed into the airframe.
5. Minimise the number of parts used for an assembly. The fewer components used results in easier
assembly and for easier modification of the design to be made. This does not mean that single piece
components need to be used, rather that components should be eliminated by using ingenuity.
6. The relative motion between components should be minimised. Motion introduces loading that may
not have been fully designed for and can result in cracks or wear-related component life issues.
Light aircraft may suffer from cracks if stiffener ends are not attached to ribs with a clip or suitable
fastener.
7. The use of oversized bend radii for components must be included in the design for manufacture.
This will allow for a thicker sheet to be used, if required, without affecting the structural design or
manufacturing jigging.
8. Stock size sheet metal should be used. Joints should be designed where required.
9. Joggles should be used for all sheet metal joints. A joggle is a layered indent a single sheet thickness
deep to allow for a smooth skin overlap. For sheet thinner than 0.8mm, the additional process cost
does not usually offer any aerodynamic smoothness benefit.
10. Aluminium should not be used for mating components that need to rotate or translate. Aluminium
fasteners should not be used where frequent removal is necessary.
11. Use should be made of both primary and secondary structure to improve the design. Failure of
primary structure would endanger the safety or operation of the aircraft whereas failure of secondary
structure would not endanger the safety or operation of the aircraft.
12. Control surface clearance should be designed into the airframe from the start. The clearance should
factor in elastic deformation of the lifting surface and the control surface should be capable of free
movement.
13. Drainage holes or passages should be included where necessary. Moisture condenses into water and
accumulates at the lowest parts of airframe components.
14. Regarding the airframe, materials and structural design should be considered from a weight,
strength and rigidity or stiffness perspective. In a light aircraft, where some components experience
very small loads, the lightly loaded components may be designed for the correct load, but end up
being flexible. Vibration of these flexible items could result in relative motion (point 6).

40
15. Fittings need to be considered at an early stage of the design when the primary and secondary
structure is being designed. This can enhance the adaptability of the structure to accommodate
modifications. Fittings should be manufactured with a low part count as a primary consideration.
Prototype aircraft generally differ substantially from production aircraft regarding fittings.
Prototype or experimental aircraft generally use machined fittings and production aircraft generally
use forged fittings for high load applications. Fittings should be designed to accommodate an
oversized fastener if required.
16. Eccentricity needs to be reduced to a minimum to reduce combined loads at fittings. Eccentric loads
can be inadvertently introduced when using sheet stock manufactured into a component.
17. Stress concentrations need to be considered and included in the design of primary and secondary
structure. Bend radii, fillet radii and tapering of fittings all reduce the stress concentrations.
18. Shear fittings need to be used for rivets and shear fasteners. Single and double shear fittings need
to be designed with consideration given to eccentricity and stress concentrations.
19. Tension fittings should be used with care on light aircraft. Localised crushing of the structure
underneath the fastener head may not be easily observed. This can cause the fastener to become
loose. Correctly specified washers may be used to prevent this.

These design considerations were used in the design of the Douglas C-47/DC-3. The considerations
may not, in their entirety, be applicable to a small aircraft. The incorporation of creative design
techniques and the Douglas aircraft company design considerations form the basis of the design method
applied here.

In the framework of the primary user requirements of; operation, cost, the environment and competitive
features, the airworthiness standard governed by the South African Civil Aviation Regulations Part 24
was analysed.

Part 24.01.2 (2) states: “Only those aircraft, of which the type, the local or foreign manufacturing
organisation, the local assembling organisation or agent, or the build standard has been approved by the
Commissioner, may be built or imported and flown within the Republic.”

This was the primary driver behind the business case for the aircraft. Additionally;

Part 24.01.2 (5) states: “The design criteria and the build standard for an amateur- or production-built
aircraft must –
(a) comply with the appropriate design criteria as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-NTCA;
(b) comply with any special conditions prescribed in terms of Regulation
24.02.4 by the Commissioner or, if applicable, the organisation designated for the purpose in terms of
Part 149 of the CAR, 1997, as the case may be; and
(c) incorporate no feature or characteristic that makes the aircraft type unsafe for its intended use.”

This regulation is not prescriptive as the design criteria stipulated was originally developed for
experimental aircraft. The ASTM F2245 would adequately satisfy the design criteria requirement. The
F2245 consensus standards was summarised in §3.2.

The F2245 section 6 relating to design and construction is summarised in Table 18 [10].

41
 Table 18. Summary of ASTM F2245 relating to design and construction.

Section Summarised content

6.1 General The integrity of any novel or unusual design feature having a bearing
on safety shall be established by test.
6.2 Materials Suitable and durable materials that have sufficient strength shall be
used.
6.3 Fabrication methods Manufactured parts, assemblies and completed aircraft shall be
produced in accordance with the manufacturer’s quality and
production assurance and acceptance procedures.
6.4 Self-locking nuts Not to be used on a fastener that is required to rotate.
6.5 Protection of structure Structure must be protected against weathering, corrosion and wear.
Must have adequate ventilation and drainage.
6.6 Accessibility Items deemed critical shall be accessible for inspection, adjustment
and maintenance.
6.7 Rigging Rigging and de-rigging must be able to be performed by a person of
average skill.
6.8 Proof of design Fulfilment of the design requirements must be determined by
conservative analysis, test, or a combination of both. Structural
analysis alone may only be used for validation. Flight tests at
specified mass and speeds are accepted proof.
6.9 Control system- All controls must be free from interference, jamming, excessive
operation test friction and excessive deflection with loads applied to the control
surfaces.
6.10 Pilot compartment Appropriate visibility, accessibility, the ability to reach all controls
and conduct an emergency evacuation must be provided. Seat-belts
or harnesses and their attachments must be designed for maximum
load factor as stipulated.

The original design brief stated in §1.1 was grouped into the high level user requirements listed in §3.9.
The requirements derived from the design brief have been shaded to indicate a relationship between the
user requirements in Table 19.

Table 19. High-level design and user requirements.

Design requirement User requirements

Specification Operation Cost Environment Features
Wing
Fuselage
Engine (non-aviation grade petroleum)
Range
Endurance
Landing gear
Engine installation
Two seat cockpit
ASTM F2245 compliance
Performance to satisfy international export market

42
Each high-level user requirements was expanded to allow for the dialectic engine to be used for design
of a competitive aircraft. Each specification was expanded relative to one of the four user requirements.
The operational user requirements are summarised in Table 20.

Table 20. Operation requirement advantages.

Specification Operation requirement

Wing In-service damage in the flight training role can be
easily repaired if wing is constructed using
Aluminium.
Fuselage Space-frame fuselage offers low weight for high
useful load for recreational users, low empty weight
for flight training.
Engine (non-aviation grade petroleum) Operation from larger number of airfields as
automotive fuel is widely available.
Range Suitable range for a country such as South Africa.
Endurance Long endurance for flight training.
Landing gear Tricycle landing gear can be used by both
recreational and commercial operators. It is easier
for control of the aircraft during take-off, landing
and taxiing.
Engine installation Conventional tractor arrangement offers no
additional complexity for users.
Two seat cockpit Suits both recreational and commercial operators.
Performance to satisfy international export Minimum performance targets established from
market competitors.

The cost user requirements are summarised in Table 21. Manufacturing, assembly and maintenance
costs have been considered, in addition to operating costs.

Table 21. Cost requirement advantages.

Specification Cost requirement

Wing Aluminium offers low material and manufacture cost
compared to composite wing. Aerofoil profile can be
changed without major cost implications.
Fuselage Material and manufacturing processes differ to wing
production. Space frames are generally welded.
Manufacture of engine mount and landing gear would
be similar, reducing facility costs.
Engine (non-aviation grade petroleum) Lower fuel costs for all users, better fuel availability
for recreational users
Landing gear Lower maintenance cost associated with tricycle gear.
Engine installation Tractor installation offers lower maintenance cost,
simplified engine mount.
Performance to satisfy international export Efficient operation for both recreational and
market commercial operators.

The environmental user requirements are summarised in Table 22. The high temperatures, high density
altitudes and high levels of UV have been considered.

43
 Table 22. Environment requirement advantages.

Specification Environment requirement

Wing Needs to be designed for hot and high operation.
Aluminium is not UV sensitive. Corrosion protection
would increase longevity of the airframe.
Fuselage Robust, space-frame allows for less complex fittings
between primary and secondary structure.
Engine (non-aviation grade petroleum) Maximum time-between overhaul for both
commercial and recreational users.
Range Range to allow operation in a country such as South
Africa.
Endurance High endurance for flight training.
Landing gear Robust tricycle gear designed for higher true landing
speed in hot and high conditions would offer
occupants a smoother ride.
Engine installation Tractor installation easier to cool in hot and high
operation than unconventional layout.
Two seat cockpit Comfort for recreational and flight training occupants
in hot and high conditions with high UV indices.
Performance to satisfy international export Safe operation in hot and high conditions.
market

A wing designed to offer lower true air speed field performance than competitors would be
advantageous to recreational and commercial operators. The lower speeds would lessen maintenance
costs associated to the landing gear.

The feature user requirement has been summarised in Table 23. The high level user requirements do
not incorporated actual technology, rather the features that would be desirable.

Table 23. Features requirement advantages.

Specification Features requirement

Tricycle landing gear Designed for low bounce.
Two seat cockpit Introduce technology for flight training and
recreational users.
Performance to satisfy international export Performance benefit when compared to competitor
market aircraft.

The design specification of the performance of the aircraft would lead to an aircraft satisfying the
environmental and operational user requirements, the specifications were derived as follows:

Performance requirements:

1. Minimum power utilisation of 1,05kt/hp based on maximum installed power and cruise
speed (see Figure 2.).
2. Minimum useful load of 250kg (see Figure 6.).
3. Maximum power loading of 5,8kg/hp for an ultralight and 6,0kg/hp for a LSA (see Figure
4.).
4. Minimum cruise speed of 110kts (see Figure 7.).

44
Performance Constraints:

1. Useful load may not exceed 45-50% of maximum take-off mass (see Figure 3.).
2. Design must comply with ASTM F2245 in the case of a LSA or SACAA Part 24 in the
case of an ultralight.

Performance criteria:

1. Performance to exceed competitor performance in hot and high conditions.

2. Performance to suit both recreational and commercial operators.

This performance-based requirement specification would allow for a first pass high-level concept to be
developed using the destruction and creation principles. The cost user requirement would be considered
during the high-level design phase, with it being the primary user requirement during the detailed design
phase. The feature user requirement would be incorporated during the entire design process.

4.3. SWOT analysis of business case

The user requirements were synthesised to decide whether the aircraft would be designed as an ultralight
or as a LSA. The LSA market had shown growth with the majority of aircraft being designed and sold
as production-built aircraft. The decision was made to design an ultralight that could be increased in
gross mass, but that complied with the ASTM consensus standard. This would allow for the aircraft to
be accepted by the SACAA and other authorities as an ultralight. This would shadow the business case
of the Tecnam P92. The business case proposed included the establishment of the DO and a MO for the
commercialisation of the aircraft. The business case was analysed using a high-level risk assessment
and investigation into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to a business venture, as
indicated in Table 24.

Table 24. Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Strengths Weaknesses

– Access to a South African University based – No track record: will be first aircraft
design team through a SACAA approved designed and produced by the venture.
Design Organisation.
– Local labour as yet untrained.
– First production-built South African Light
Sport Aircraft customised for local – Outsourcing strategy for marketing, hence
conditions. potentially less direct control.

– Maintenance and repair of South African – Dependence on imported engines.

production built Light Sport Aircraft made – Access to financing.
easier.

45
 Opportunities Threats

– Growing ultralight and LSA market in South – Currency fluctuations can impact on the
African and internationally. variable cost and hence profitability.

– Potential change in South African – Aviation market traditionally cyclical.

regulations regarding non-type certificated Luxury goods particularly linked to
aircraft. economy/prime lending rate.

– Potential for inclusion of patents with novel – Many existing aircraft already in this
features. category with competition from the Czech
Republic, Italy and Australia.
– South African focus on aerospace industry
growth strategy, AISI and NAC. – Market entrance of strongly-branded Cessna
162 into market.
– Support for after-purchase customisation by
the Design Organisation.

The proposed business case included mitigation against the threats identified and compensation for the
weaknesses through the following strategies.

For compensation against weaknesses:

 The marketing plan identified flying schools as being early adopters in the general aviation industry.
This would be the first segment of the market to be targeted. As soon as awareness and credibility
was proven among flight schools, marketing and sales efforts would result in significant growth in
sales of the aircraft within the second target market such as private customers. Positive word-of-
mouth communication between flight schools would be anticipated and the purchase of the aircraft
by referred customers would further improve the sales effort and the company’s standing in the
industry.

 The design team would be linked to first class universities having a reputation of excellence in this
area. Furthermore, members of the design team are already well known in the South Africa aviation
industry, being involved in air-crash investigations. Their expertise in this area would assist in
providing customers with confidence in the design.

 The use of agents is standard practice in the industry. The appointed agents would serve primarily
as regional distribution and contact points. The marketing strategy would however be driven by
active marketing. It would be beneficial to secure more than one agent in South Africa and
internationally, leading to reduced risk associated with the outsourcing strategy.

 The labour required for the manufacture of the aircraft would be similar to that required by the
automotive industry, with some minor training, the skills are available in South Africa. The minority
of work would be done by some artisans at supervisory level with the majority of work done by
specialist technicians.

 There is potential for a South African designed and manufactured engine to be used in the future,
which will provide further protection against the exchange rate, and will facilitate pricing of the

46
 aircraft in South African Rands in the future. This would provide a competitive advantage against
imported aircraft.

 The joint venture would leverage its funding requirements with the setting up of the Design
Organisation as a national platform.

Minimising the effect of threats:

 The imported aircraft components would be priced in US dollars, hence providing a hedge against
currency fluctuations.

 The joint venture would not only concentrate its marketing strategy on the luxury private aviation
market, but will also focus on diversifying sales to flight training schools and businesses which
utilise Light Sport Aircraft as part of their operational requirements. The cost effectiveness (which
includes the link to a local manufacturing facility for repair and maintenance) of the aircraft in this
context would provide a competitive advantage over imported aircraft.

 The innovative features, price and strategic alliances will provide the joint venture with a benefit
when compared to existing products in the market. Several of these features would specifically be
designed for the South African climate.

 Although there are many existing aircraft in the market, the market is fragmented. Only Jabiru, from
Australia, has market share over 10%, all other companies having market shares of 6% or less.
There is no real dominant supplier in the market.

4.4. Aircraft preliminary sizing

The design procedure used for this aircraft is shown in Figure 23. Due to the type of aircraft and
operational use, the mass of the aircraft would be between 550 and 600kg for most flights. The
environmental conditions and performance goals were used as the primary constraints to size the
aircraft. The structural design of the aircraft would be used to determine the empty mass of the aircraft.
The design would be acceptable if both the performance and payload targets were achieved.

Figure 23. Aircraft design procedure.

The user requirements and performance specifications were used to form the basis for the preliminary
layout of the aircraft. The sizing was conducted using the dialectic engine principles [46].

47
The concept was initially created by conducting calculations within the regulatory framework to
determine geometric limits and targets. The geometry for the cabin, engine bay, rear fuselage and
vertical tail was constructed as a full-size line drawing. The design process used for sizing of the cabin
is shown in Figure 24. Factors such as the door sills, ingress/egress, instrument panel, visibility and
access to engine systems were key factors in the cabin arrangement, firewall and wing placement. This
resulted in a centre of mass estimate that was used for the design of the wing, empennage, fuselage and
landing gear. Similar processes were used for the other major systems of the aircraft.

Figure 24. Cabin design process.

Once the configuration was confirmed the geometry was transferred as coordinate points on to paper.
Figure 25 shows one of the early iterations of the design. Office yarn and thumb tacks provided a
suitable medium. The concept was iterated several times until the basic design satisfied the user
requirements

Figure 25. Full-size side view of an early concept being marked out.

48
The process of sizing the aircraft revolved around the four user requirements.

The fuselage was designed first since it is where the occupants spend the majority of the time. The
cabin, including the occupants, seats, instrument panel, baggage and access were sized. Occupant
geometry was considered and included both teenage pupil pilots (aged 16) and adults. For adults, the
maximum height considered was 95th percentile height for Western Europe at 1880mm and the lowest
height considered was the 5th percentile for Asia at 1540mm [53]. The cabin was crafted around two
occupants with elbow and shoulder room for comfort. The cabin width was established at 1200mm
between body-fuselage contact points. The occupants net body mass would account for 25-30% of the
maximum gross mass. Existing aircraft in the ultralight category do not feature seat adjustment such as
is common to automobiles. To accommodate a variety of human occupants the centre of gravity of the
cabin needed to remain within certain practical limits. The notion that taller occupants having larger
mass than shorter occupants was used to contour an occupant box. The box would contain a shorter,
lighter occupant seated higher up in the cabin and closer to the instrument panel and controls. It would
also contain a larger, heavier occupant seated farther back in the cabin and further from the instrument
panel and controls. This resulted in angled seat rails and meant that motion of the centre of gravity
would not be as large a challenge as on some competitor aircraft. Access was specified so that the door
sills would be lower than the seat offering better ingress and egress. The cabin layout was designed to
be comfortable for long flights in hot conditions. Legroom matching the corresponding occupant height
was designed into the rail geometry. In terms of the operational and environmental user requirements,
this high-level cabin design complied with the requirements.

The student team working on various aspects of the design in fulfilment of vacation work requirements
was used to size the cabin. Figure 26 depicts the differences in headroom and knee clearance with the
instrument panel. The seating position was a comfortable position for the average height student.

Average height student Above average height student

Figure 26. Sizing the cabin headroom using students [author]

The same students were used to investigate the legroom. The position indicated in Figure 27 was
comfortable for the above average height student. The average height student was seated in the position
set for below average height occupants. The legs would impact the instrument panel. If this was raised,
the visibility would be reduced.

49
 Average height student Above average height student

Figure 27. Sizing the cabin legroom using students [author].

Figure 28 depicts an average height student in an ultralight cockpit. The small amount of legroom and
foot-room for ingress and egress should be noted. The seats do not allow for adjustment, instead the
occupant may use a cushion to raise the seating position. The knees are very close to the instrument
panel and the student’s left arm would be in contact with the door. The tubing connecting the left and
right sides of the fuselage would be in the vertical peripheral vision.

Figure 28. Average height student in a Fly Synthesis Storch [author].

The styling of the interior was deemed as important for the recreational owner. Aircraft are a significant
investment and not many aircraft manufacturers offer interiors that offer the same comfort levels as
automotive manufacturers. Figure 29 shows the initial design of the cabin interior.

50
 Figure 29. Initial concept of cabin design [S Gruber, vacation work student].

The propulsion system was considered as the next priority. The tractor arrangement was favoured over
a pusher arrangement simply because the cabin was designed for a better environmental user
requirement. A tractor propeller arrangement can be mounted with an un-aerodynamic fuselage behind
it whereas a pusher arrangement needs to be mounted behind a fairly aerodynamic fuselage. Additional
consideration was given to the operational user requirement and airfield surface quality. The tractor
arrangement was much better for an aircraft for flight training and recreational use. The engine choices
were given maximum height, width and length dimensions. These propulsion units were arranged in
front of the cabin with consideration given to the view out the front of the cabin by occupants of different
height at the corresponding comfortable seat positions. The engine was positioned with an angled
firewall sloping forward from the instrument panel. This served several purposes. The majority of
engine-related systems need to be on the hot side of the firewall and occupy significant volume. Slanting
the firewall creates larger volume behind the engine above the thrust-line. Systems at this convenient
height would be accessible more ergonomically. The slant also created less volume below the engine
and created more volume in the cabin to allow for the rudder pedal placement to match the occupant
height and associated seat positions. The reduced volume in the engine bay would not pose a problem
since the exhaust is the only component located underneath the engine. In terms of the operational,
environmental and feature user requirements, this combination of high-level cabin and propulsion
design complied with the requirements.

The engine bay is depicted in Figure 30. The instrument panel and nose landing gear are visible.

Figure 30. Engine firewall position [author]

51
The aircraft consisted of a cabin and engine bay, with a layout that offered ergonomic features to satisfy
the operational user requirement. The wing placement decision was considered next. Two-seat light
aircraft can only be designed with a mid-fuselage mounted wing if the aircraft is of canard design with
a pusher engine arrangement. The two types of wing mount for a light aircraft are a low wing
configuration or high wing configuration. The low or high position refers to the position of the wing
mounting on the fuselage.

The low wing option offered more disadvantages than a high wing option. The view of the ground is
restricted to a greater degree during cruise and during manoeuvres and ground effect causes float on
landing increasing the length of the landing roll. After performing destruction and creation on the wing
system, a high-wing mount was selected. The justification was based on increased visibility of the
ground during cruise satisfying the operational requirement. The high wing placement would the only
configuration that would be suitable for operation on rough airfields.

The cabin design with seating that accommodated occupants in a more comfortable position allowed
the high-wing to be mounted further aft than on traditional high-wing aircraft. This allowed for the
occupants to have increased above-horizon visibility out of the cockpit compared to a traditional design.
The inclusion of a strut would allow for a wing-fuselage joint that would increase headroom compared
to a cantilevered wing. To improve the visibility in a turn manoeuvre, the wing was given a small
amount of sweep to move the leading edge and wingtip out of view. The added benefit created by this
feature was that the sweep could be changed during the design for manufacture phase to suit the centre
of mass of the aircraft without affecting the wing joint or other systems.

In terms of the operational and environmental user requirements, this combination of high-level cabin
wing placement satisfied the requirements.

With the cabin, engine bay and wing joint forming the front half of the aircraft concept, the landing gear
was incorporated before completing the rear fuselage. The reason for this was that several aircraft were
inspected and unsatisfactory design features were observed. Several aircraft systems such as the pitch
and yaw control systems were positioned in ergonomically-poor locations. Upon inspection of the
landing gear design, it was deduced that the systems were moved away from landing gear structure
attachment positions at the expense of ergonomic design. With a space-frame fuselage the nose landing
gear would influence the space-frame node points towards the front of the cabin. This would affect
legroom and the profile of the front fuselage. The creativity permitted for the design of a control system
is greater than that acceptable for design of landing gear or for the fuselage space-frame. The nose
landing gear was designed as a steerable unit of trailing link design. The angled firewall meant that the
gear leg could be mounted parallel to the firewall behind the engine. With a cabin design that allowed
for occupants of differing height to be comfortably seated, the rudder pedals could be fixed in position
and linked to the gear. Nose gear steering is not available on several ultralight aircraft and LSA models,
differential braking is used for steering. The trailing link action mechanism was selected due to the
energy-absorbing action. The types of surface commonly found on grass or compacted dirt runways
often have grass tufts that can create large impact loads that can lead to damaged nose landing gear or
components. The landing gear was also incorporated so that it was not part of the engine mount. The
reason for this was to increase assembly ease and allow for engine maintenance or landing gear
maintenance that would not involve much disassembly. Damage caused by a propeller strike would be
isolated to the engine mount and damage caused by a hard landing would be isolated to the landing gear
mount. An integrated engine mount and landing gear structure is depicted in Figure 31. The steering
linkage is located near the lower part of the gear leg.

52
 Landing gear leg

Rotax engine mount

Steering linkage

Figure 31. Integrated engine mount and landing gear leg [author].

The main landing gear position is determined by the centre of mass of the aircraft and influences the
design of the horizontal tail. The position of the main gear also determines the load carried by the nose
landing gear. A tricycle gear configuration was selected because initial flight training is primarily
conducted on tricycle gear aircraft as the ground manoeuvring and cross wind handling during take-off
and landing requires less skill. The main gear attachment position would determine the space-frame
node positions behind the cabin. This would affect the door and cabin floor. The cabin, engine bay,
wing joint and nose landing gear already formed the front half of the aircraft concept. The main landing
gear was positioned aft of the theoretical centre of mass of the aircraft.

The conventional landing gear types used on ultralight and LSA are typically either the tubular-type
using steel or Aluminium or plate-type using steel, Aluminium or composite materials. In addition to
the type of landing gear, the method of load transfer is either a single landing gear component or a split-
design with separate left and right units. The material specification was not important for the concept
gear, the method of load transfer was investigated since landing gear needs to behave like a spring,
absorbing loads with large deflections. Using the destruction and creation principle, the landing gear
selected would be located behind the door due to the space-frame design, ease of assembly and ease of
ingress and egress. The split-type and single piece landing gear load transfer characteristics were
considered. The aircraft landing in hot and high conditions has a higher true air speed than indicated.
Reduction in bounce on landing and lower maintenance in terms of failure required the inclusion of
suspension in the landing gear design.

Several options were considered. The first concept included pivoting the gear leg with a spring and
damper at the fulcrum. This type of design was used in the de Havilland DH-6 Twin Otter. The second
concept incorporated a pivot point and pushrod arrangement as used in Formula 1 vehicles. The
inclusion of suspension would constrain the design to a split-type arrangement, the concepts would
introduce the loads in different directions. The pivoting design would introduce vertical loads whereas
the pivot and pushrod design would introduce additional lateral loads. The design was iterated through
the destruction and creation dialectic engine to refine the two concepts. The benefit gained by using the
pivot and pushrod design was that the left and right landing gear units could be linked to act as a single
bench type unit with left and right load transfer with response. The pivot type would be fully
independent meaning that the suspension would absorb the load, but not necessarily make landing more
comfortable. The pivot hinge axis could be rotated to move the landing gear ground contact point as a

53
form of adjustment in a similar manner to the inclusion of slight wing sweep. The combination of wing
and landing gear adjustment would allow for the centre of lift to be adjusted for centre of mass limits
and the main landing gear could be adjusted for adjustment of the nose landing gear load.

Traditional light aircraft have the strut positioned ahead of the door. With the cabin designed to be
similar to that of an automobile, the strut hinders access to the cabin. The door would also have to be
reduced in size to clear the strut. The solution was to move the fuselage strut mount to aft of the door.
The Fk-9 pictured in Figure 32 has the strut and landing gear connecting to the same section of the
fuselage. The occupant needs to climb over the strut to enter or exit the cockpit.

Figure 32. FK-9 indicating strut position [54].

The creative solution to this problem was to use the wing sweep advantageously. The sweep was
originally incorporated to allow for the static margin to be adjusted during the design. The consequence
of the sweep was additional improvement to the visibility out of the cockpit. The sweep coupled with
the cabin design with movable seats allowed for better centre of mass control thus allowing for the
position of the cabin to be placed for visibility. Another result of this arrangement would include giving
the strut forward sweep. The forward sweep of the strut would be reduced by the wing sweep. The strut
placement of the Cessna 162 is shown in Figure 33.

Figure 33. Cessna C-162 indicating strut position and strut sweep [55].

54
The position of the main landing gear is shown in Figure 34. The wing strut attaches at the same
position.

Figure 34. Side view of initial concept illustrating strut and landing gear positions.

Figure 34 shows the unobstructed view from the occupant position towards the wingtip. Entry to the
cabin would be performed ahead of the strut.

The front half of the fuselage now consisted of the cabin, engine bay, wing placement and the nose and
main landing gear. The empennage consisting of the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces was
conceptualised next. When considering aircraft recognition the general impression, size and shape
principles are used by aircraft spotters and birders to recognise aircraft and birds. In ultralight and LSA,
the cowling and empennage are the primary references to aircraft identification as all high-wing aircraft
appear similar. Function is a primary requirement for good design and aesthetics is the primary
influence for good sales. The horizontal tail was designed before the vertical tail for the reason that
assembly would be done in that order. The horizontal tail types commonly used on ultralights and LSA
are either fixed stabiliser with an elevator or the all-moving type. The fixed type of horizontal tail was
not considered as the design would be more maintenance intensive with a larger number of hinges and
attachment points when compared to the all-moving type. The space-frame fuselage construction would
be better suited to a hinged all-moving surface. The trim drag for the same amount of lift would be
reduced and greater pitch authority is available.

The flight envelope of a LSA has a regulated minimum safe airspeed that is less than a certified light
aircraft, with a similar cruise speed. Pitch authority at low speed needs to be high. The all-moving
horizontal tail was designed with a servo tab that would allow for trim adjustments. This arrangement
is known as link-balanced tab [56]. The position of the horizontal tail was constrained by the distance
from the main landing gear and rotation angle. The lift required from the horizontal tail is inversely
proportional to the distance between the tail and the main landing gear. The height of the tail above the
ground is determined by a defined rotation angle to prevent contact with the ground. The rotation angle
specified for the preliminary design was 16. This would be slightly higher than the stall angle of the
aircraft at low speed with flaps deployed. The height was originally set above the rotation angle at a
convenient height for assembly, inspection and maintenance. The distance aft of the main landing gear
was not defined until the vertical tail had been conceptually designed.

An example of a hinged all-moving horizontal tail fitted to an ultralight is shown in Figure 35. The
counter-weight is indicated. The design is functional with easy access for assembly, inspection and
maintenance, but it is neither aesthetic nor aerodynamic. The important control components of the tail
are exposed to the environment. For a user keeping the aircraft indoors when not in use, this would not

55
be a concern. For a user keeping the aircraft outdoors, the exposure of the control linkages to the
environment would be a concern.

Horizontal tail hinge

Counter-weight

Figure 35. All-moving horizontal tail attachment [author].

The vertical tail is one of the most recognisable and distinguishing components on an aircraft. The
vertical tail needs to be large enough to give control authority at the low-speed envelope, have a high
aesthetic index as a component and contribute a high aesthetic appeal to the rear fuselage. The vertical
tail configuration selected was conventional with respect to the design being a fixed stabiliser with
hinged rudder. The taper ratio was manipulated to lower the height of the lift centre of the vertical tail.
The very first concept resembled the tail design used on the Jabiru aircraft. The next tail concepts had
a curved leading edge to introduce a shape not common to ultralight and LSA aircraft. The tail was also
located above the fuselage. The first Cessna C-162 accident preliminary report finding was used with
the destruction and creation method to modify the concept. The curved vertical stabiliser was modified
to a tapered trapezoidal stabiliser without changing the rudder shape. This was done to ease
manufacture. The aspect ratio of the unit was increased to steepen the lift curve slope. The concept
resulted from breaking the trapezoidal tail into a trapezium and two triangles. The height of the
aerodynamic centre of lift was lowered nearer to the fuselage. The increased stabiliser and rudder area
below the tail would be similar to the solution finally used by Cessna on the C-162. The vertical tail
design may be described as a swept, tapered vertical tail with both a dorsal and ventral strake. The tail
was positioned behind the horizontal tail to allow for a full-span horizontal tail with a common
attachment location to the space-frame for reduced assembly complexity.

The horizontal and vertical tail assembly was positioned at the preliminary length constraint at the
height required for rotation clearance. The rear fuselage was then contoured to create a rear fuselage
boom.

The vertical tail was the aircraft component that was modified the most. The second generation vertical
tail is depicted in Figure 36.

56
 Figure 36. Second iteration of vertical tail shape.

The aircraft Cartesian geometry was extracted from the full size side view and the CAD model was
updated when changed were made. Figure 37 depicts the initial versions of the high-level concepts and
Figure 38 shows the final version of the initial high-level concept.

Figure 37. Initial concept indicating wing sweep.

The final high-level concept is shown in Figure 38.

Figure 38. Final high-level concept with second vertical tail concept

The aircraft was now ready for refinement of the initial design.

57
4.5. Aircraft refinement

Each assembly or system was developed from a high-level concept into low-level component detail.
This development was done in parallel to advance the design with minimal risk of a single system
having a major negative influence on other systems. The four user requirements provided the focus for
the mid-level design. For all assemblies, only minor modifications were required from the initial high-
level design.

The wing assembly included the wing, strut, ailerons and high lift devices. The wing was not as
important as the cabin during the first design pass. The wing was given priority during the second pass.

The original wing was designed using a NACA 4412 section profile. The profile features a fairly flat
lower ordinate locus allowing for lower complexity jigs to be used during assembly. The profile features
a high maximum lift coefficient and mild stall. To reduce the cost of the wing, the profiles of the flaps
and ailerons were made congruent for manufacturing cost reduction. The manufacturing process was
used as the primary influence for this. For the flaps, single-slotted flaps were selected to provide a
sufficient increase to the maximum section lift coefficient, ensuring lower stall speed at high density
altitudes. The destruction and creation principle resulted in a larger wing area than used by competitors.
This lower wing loading and flap system would result in take-off and landing speeds that would be
lower than other aircraft operating in hot and high conditions. The lower take-off and landing speeds
would reduce landing gear loads.

The common practice with single-slotted flaps is to hinge the device on a mechanism that protrudes
below the lower wing surface. The principle of destruction and creation was used to solve the problem
of trying to fit the flap extension mechanism within the profile. This introduced an element of novelty,
at least amongst light aircraft. A guide rail that was enclosed within the geometric perimeter of the
aerofoil was designed to support the flaps. The flap guide was shaped to give translation and rotation
without it being full Fowler motion. The application was novel, but not novel enough to pursue with an
international patent co-operation treaty application. The provisional patent was developed in South
African patent 2010/00868 and may be found in Appendix A. The flap guide is shown in Figure 39.

58
 Flap retracted

Flap extended
for Take-off

Flap extended
for landing

Figure 39. Flap extension

The wing featured a strut to allow for a lighter wing structure at the fuselage joint. The joint was
designed to offer very good visibility, the strut would allow a cut-out in the leading edge of the wing at
the wing joint, giving the occupants upwards visibility.

An aerodynamic assessment of the NACA 4412 and the NASA 0317 was conducted to determine the
suitable aerofoil profile. The lift and pitching moment coefficient data for a NACA 4412 is shown in
Figure 40. The lift coefficient data for a NASA 0317 is shown in Figure 41 and combined lift and
pitching moment data is shown in Figure 42. The data was compared at a Reynolds number of 4x106
which approximated cruise flight conditions of 100kts.

59
 Maximum lift
coefficient

Slope change

Cruise point

Stall angle

Figure 40. NACA 4412 lift and pitching moment data [57].

Maximum lift
coefficient

Slope change

Cruise point

Stall angle

Figure 41. NASA 0317 lift curve data [55].

60
 Figure 42. NASA 0317 Lift and pitching moment coefficients at Re = 4x106 [55].

When comparing the 2-D lift coefficient data at a Reynolds number of four million, corresponding to
cruise speed of 100kts, the comparison is presented in Table 25.

Table 25. Comparison of 2D aerofoil data.

Parameter NACA 4412 NASA 0317 Conclusion

[57] [55]
2D lift curve slope 0.106/deg 0.114/deg NASA 0317 has better lift curve slope.
CLmax clean 1.52 1.8 NASA 0317 has 18% higher maximum lift
coefficient.
CL at 0 0.4 0.32 NASA 0317 produces a cruise lift coefficient
at angle of attack of approximately 0.
Stall angle 13 16 NACA 4412 stalls at a lower angle.
Thickness ratio 12% 17% NASA 0317 is 5% thicker or 50mm thicker
per metre chord.
Aerodynamic 24.5% 26.8% NASA 0317 aerodynamic centre further aft
centre by 23mm per metre chord.
Pitching moment Flat Negative NASA 0317 produces stronger relative nose
slope at 0 down moment with increasing angle of
attack.
CM at 0 -0.09 -0.075 NASA 0317 produces approximately 17%
less nose down pitching moment.
3D lift curve slope 0.08819/deg 0.09349/deg NASA 0317 has better 3D lift curve slope.
(DATCOM
method)

61
The NASA 0317 was selected due to the aerodynamic properties; steeper lift curve slope, higher
maximum lift coefficient, higher stall angle, aft aerodynamic centre position, negative pitching moment
slope, lower cruise pitching moment and higher 3D lift curve slope. The higher lift curve slope, higher
lift coefficient and higher stall angle would compensate for micro imperfections during manufacture of
the aircraft. Therefore the aircraft could be designed for a lower maximum lift coefficient than the
maximum available and the aircraft could still attain good performance. This safety margin would allow
for the ASTM prescribed stall speed to be attained with greater certainty. The thicker section would
allow for the flap mechanism to be fully contained within the section. The thicker wing would allow
for a less complicated fuel tank to be developed and would result in a lighter wing. Figure 43 shows the
cross-section of the wing.

Wing
Flap

Figure 43. Wing cross section

The wing was designed as a stressed semi-monocoque two-spar torsion box, manufactured from
Aluminium alloy. The primary spar would be a built up section using a shear web and sparcaps, with
machined end fittings to attach to the cabin. The high lift single slotted flaps and the ailerons would
attach to the rear spar and will be of the same critical chord length. The wing assembly is shown in
Figure 44.

Flap

Vertical web
stiffener

Front root attachment

Flap guide rail

Figure 44. Wing assembly.

The pitching moment slope for the NASA 0317 is non-linear. The maximum value occurs at an angle
of attack of 7. This is advantageous from a flight training perspective, resulting in slightly different
pitch stick loads when compared to a competing ultralight or LSA. For the recreational user the lower
wing loading would require a lower magnitude of lift coefficient range to be used for manoeuvres, the

62
trim system incorporated would not make the pitch control uncomfortable. The lower wing loading also
reduces the cruise lift coefficient so that the wing is almost at an angle of attack of 0. The aircraft was
designed with an all-moving horizontal tail with link-balanced tab, this would allow for adequate
control with the increased pitching moment caused by the higher lift coefficient resulting from speed
reduction or increased load factor at a constant speed.

The cabin included the wing strut attachment, instrument panel, windows, doors and baggage area. The
cabin was, initially, the most important system from a user perspective. With the wing designed, the
cabin and its features needed to be integrated with the wing. To increase the field of view out of the
cockpit, the instrument panel was lowered and angled upward to lower the height of the panel. The
angle was based on the most comfortable angle for reading a book. This would also assist pilots flying
with progressive lens spectacles. The parallax read-error would be reduced by this inclination and the
instrument panel could be styled similarly to a modern automobile or recreational vehicle such as a
high-powered boat. The wing was positioned with a sweep of 3˚. During physical testing, this sweep
angle made an improvement to the view. The cabin featured some elements that offered improvement
over competing aircraft. The structural tubes connecting the wing root joint to the engine were angled
to move the tubes into peripheral view that was found less intrusive to the most common visual targets,
the horizon and lower lateral view of the ground.

The doors were made as large as the space-frame structure would allow. The firewall angle was revised
for additional legroom. The cabin design of adjustable seats and an angled rail was revised for the field
of view for a short or tall person to remain almost identical while attempting to limit the associated
centre of mass movement. The aerodynamic centre location of the NASA 0317 being further aft than a
NACA 4412 would be advantageous for the geometry selected for the cabin. The instrument panel was
arranged in a left and right side instrument cluster. The cluster would have the basic six instruments;
airspeed indicator, altimeter, vertical speed indicator, artificial horizon and turn and bank indicator. The
other instruments and switches would be housed in a central console. The wide cabin design would
accommodate a 150mm wide console. The instrument panel was profiled to be different to other
instrument panels. The profile was hollowed out in the centre of the panel and was tilted up towards the
occupants, due to the panel being lower. Figure 45 shows the refined concept.

Figure 45. Second iteration of the instrument panel and cabin design.

63
With the electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) being offered to light aircraft manufacturers, the
panel and console was refined to house a combination of one or two EFIS units. The analogue flight
instruments were incorporated to improve the aesthetics of the panel. Figure 46 shows the third iteration
of the panel and console design with a single EFIS and analogue back-up instruments.

Figure 46. Third iteration of the instrument panel and console design.

The final design featured a single EFIS on the left side for the pilot in command with a standard set of
analogue instruments in the centre of the panel. The profile of the panel was lowered directly in front
of the occupants and raised in the centre to emphasise the console design. The lowest cost version of
the panel would incorporate the six analogue instruments only. The empty space on the panel would
contain a storage receptacle or a second EFIS. Figure 47 shows the final design.

Figure 47. Final instrument panel and console design.

64
 Baggage stowage volume was designed into the cabin directly behind the seat. Due to the cabin layout
and the swept wing, the baggage location would be closer to the centre of mass than on other aircraft.
The problem with the common wing strut and landing gear attachment was that access to the baggage
compartment would be from inside the cabin or from behind the landing gear. The wider cabin design
allowed for a gap between the seats to be incorporated so occupants could access the baggage during
flight. The narrow centre console, similar to that installed in an automobile would incorporate a
receptacle for beverages and food.

In summary the aircraft cabin would feature the following:

 Two removable seats containing foam padding upholstered in a variety of material.
 Adjustable seat rails, ergonomically adjustable to comfortably suit all 95% percentile adult humans.
 Adjustable four-point seat belts.
 A neutrally finished interior with customisable back-lit instrument panel.
 Folding armrests fitted on the seats.
 Glare shield with mood lighting and LED map light.
 Centre console containing instruments, air-conditioning, engine instruments and map storage.
 Baggage storage volume of 0.4m3 behind seats, accessible from the cabin or via exterior door.
 Baggage net to prevent articles from shifting in flight.

The cabin layout was iterated to improve the design. The 2-D cabin with 3-D wing and strut is shown
in Figure 48. The student in the figure would have a view out of the window down towards the ground
without a strut in the line of sight. The panel is low enough for the occupant to have good forward
visibility out of the cabin.

Actual leading edge Wing tip

Actual strut Wing root

Seat positions

Strut

Figure 48. Refined cabin concept [author].

65
The engine bay firewall was positioned to provide 600mm between the firewall and the door frame.
This was introduced following determination of the engine moment arm from the centre of mass. The
distance would allow for the space-frame tubing to be positioned to maximise the visibility out of the
cockpit. The design would not have any tubing behind the windscreen. The nose landing gear loads are
carried through the cabin in other designs. This reduces visibility. The aircraft depicted in Figure 49 has
a centrally mounted strut that attaches the nose landing gear to the wing joint.

Wing joint

Landing gear
reinforcement tube

Figure 49. Ultralight aircraft with nose gear structure within the cabin.

The FK-9 has reinforcement tubes that are inside the windscreen as well, as shown in Figure 50.

Reinforcement tube

Figure 50. FK-9 cabin with visible reinforcement strut [author].

66
The flight controls were designed to consist of dual full-control sticks, providing movement to the
elevator and ailerons. Not all ultralight and LSA feature dual control sticks. Some have a single stick in
the centre of the aircraft. The rudder pedals provide the nose landing gear and rudder with movement
and will be fitted with differential toe brakes. An electric flap system will be included between the
occupants on the control panel. Electric trim systems will be used.

The basic engine bay concept was developed to accommodate the Rotax 912 series. The annotated
schematic of a typical design may be seen in Figure 51.

Figure 51. Typical light aircraft engine installation [58].

The concept engine bay differed to a conventional layout in several ways. The upper surface of the
cowling was aligned with the sloped instrument panel to give the occupants an unobstructed forward
view. This meant that all intakes and inlets needed to be on the lateral or lower sides of the cowling.
The Rotax 912 engine has air-cooled cylinders and liquid cooled cylinder heads. This allows the engine
to be operated safely at a reduced power setting after a cooling system failure. In addition to the radiator
circuit for the cylinder head, the oil needs to be cooled with its own radiator. The advantage of the
sloped firewall was that the air volume inside the cowling could be reduced. This reduction would be
due to the shorter distance between radiator inlet and exhaust under the engine. This compact assembly
would be possible because the nose gear was designed as a separate part, independent to the engine
mount. The design is shown in Figure 52.

67
Rotax 912
Space for all engine
systems

Engine cradle

Radiator and oil Nose landing gear

cooler
Trailing link
mechanism
Combined hot air
and exhaust outlet

Figure 52. Engine bay concept

The nose landing gear concept, depicted in Figure 52 was designed not to attach to the engine mount,
even though it shares attachment points on the fuselage space-frame. The trailing link design was
favoured due to type of grass tufts present at South African airfields. The device was designed as
steerable with load arresters designed into the control linkage to absorb impact load, such as those
transferred to the gear during take-off and landing on rugged grass runways.

During the development of the engine bay several ideas were synthesised. A device of novel value was
designed featuring a propeller spinner that would assist engine cooling by forcing additional air into the
cowling using a spring-loaded fan arrangement. The fan would be sprung closed when engine rotational
speed was low and when flight speed was high. When engine rotational speed was high and flight speed
was low, the fan would open due to low dynamic pressure and high centripetal acceleration. The novelty
was limited to the device and not to the method, the patent was not pursued for this reason and for the
fact that the device was inherently more susceptible to damage from a bird strike. The device would
also be difficult to maintain. The provisional patent SA 2007/04439 may be found in Appendix B.

The main landing gear was designed as independent left and right units, the units were designed as
symmetrical, making them left-right interchangeable to reduce manufacturing costs. The landing gear
was designed with a pivot point and a spring damper to allow operation on unimproved airfield surfaces.
The strut would be attached to the fuselage aft of the main landing gear. This would allow for an
inclination angle of the landing gear hinge axis relative to the longitudinal axis to be incorporated. The
initial concept is depicted in Figure 53.

68
 Strut

Landing gear gusset

mount

Landing gear leg

Spring damper
pivot
Centre-line gusset
mount

Figure 53. Left side main undercarriage concept.

The all-moving horizontal stabiliser was of conventional design and featured a servo-tab to reduce stick
control force loads. The trim would be adjusted using a commercially-available electric trim unit
designed as part of the control linkage.

The vertical tail was the final structural component of the aircraft that was designed. This was done to
ensure that it would offer sufficient directional stability and have a high aesthetic index. The tail was
designed to extend below the fuselage to offer positive restorative control during a spin. The taper ratio
was increased to bring the aerodynamic centre towards the predicted drag axis.

The first iteration of the fuselage space frame is shown in Figure 54. The frame featured a heavily
triangulated side structure, single node wing attachment and triangular baggage hatch. The design did
feature large doors, but was heavier than expected.

Single node wing

joint

Triangular baggage
hatch

Triangulated side
truss

Figure 54. Initial fuselage space-frame design

69
 The space-frame design was improved by removing the fuselage side truss structure and placing a
central structure under the console. The space-frame behind the engine was triangulated. The weaker
fuselage sides were reinforced by the larger door sill structure. This allowed for less tube to be used for
the cabin structure. The final fuselage cabin structural concept is shown in Figure 55. The door sill tubes
were positioned farther forward than competitors and were lofted at a flatter angle. This increased the
visibility in the lateral plane through the door with a slight reduction in peripheral visibility when
looking straight ahead.

Door sill structure Dual node wing joint

connecting front spar
attachment to Rectangular baggage
firewall and cabin. hatch

Reinforced front Reinforced central

fuselage for engine floor structure
and landing gear
mount.
Landing gear and
strut reinforced
mounting point

Figure 55. Final cabin space-frame structural concept.

The front fuselage structure is shown in Figure 56. The triangulation of the nose landing gear is visible.
The emergency airframe parachute, known as a ballistic recovery parachute system (BRS) has been
made available for use on ultralight aircraft. The device uses a rocket to extract a parachute to bring an
aircraft down in the event of structural failure, loss of control or engine failure over terrain unsuitable
for a forced landing. The BRS systems need to be attached to the airframe such that the centre of mass
is between the front and rear attachments. A variety of harness types are available. Composite airframes
need to be constructed with channels containing the embedded cables. The cables then tear through the
skin when the BRS is used. Aluminium semi-monocoque airframes need to be designed with an un-
riveted lap joint covering the cables. The cables then bend the overlap without destruction of the joint.
This requires the use of a hat-stiffener. Space-frame fuselages simply need lug attachments on the
structure for the cables and the cables need to be contained in a sheath to prevent fretting of the cables
or space-frame. The BRS was incorporated into the fuselage behind the occupants, above the baggage
compartment. The attachment points for four harness cables are indicated in Figure 56.

70
Door sill structure Ballistic recovery
connecting front spar parachute
attachment to attachment points.
firewall and cabin.

Reinforced front
fuselage for engine
and landing gear
mount.

Figure 56. Isometric view of final cabin structural design.

The forward visibility out of the cabin may be seen in Figure 57. The door sill structure attaches to the
cabin and firewall at the widest position possible.

Dual node wing joint

Door sill structure

Figure 57. Visibility out of the cabin in the forwards direction.

71
Figure 58 shows the left wing joint.

Figure 58. Wing attachment joint.

The space-frame structural concept presented in Figure 59 shows the large doors and wing sweep.

Figure 59. Side view of structural concept.

The visibility in a turn was a major requirement for the recreational and commercial operation. The
visibility from the cockpit for both occupants is shown in Figure 60. The occupants are marked on the
figure. The door sill structure does not block the view of either occupant into the turn.

Figure 60. Occupant view during turn manoeuvre.

72
A novel wingtip was originally developed for this aircraft. The original intention was for a winglet that
could be set at any fixed angle by the pilot. The design developed into one suited for commercial aircraft
to assist in the early destruction of the wake vortices during take-off and landing phases. To achieve
this, the design was able to rotate about several axes in an oscillatory manner. The winglet could also
be fixed at any position. Provision was made for the winglet to oscillate randomly and sinusoidally.
Following various iterations of the high-level concept design, translation along the chord line was
introduced to along for the device to be used for more effective vortex manipulation leading to
breakdown. The device would work at the edge of any lifting surface and control surface. A United
States patent has been granted for this novel idea. Application PCT/IB2010/055708 may be found in
Appendix C.

4.6. Maintenance considerations

The initial target client for the aircraft would be the flying schools. The South African Civil Aviation
Regulations require all non-type certificated aircraft operating in the commercial sector, such as at a
flight training school, to be maintained according to the same standard as a type certificated aircraft
[59]. The maintenance scheme recommended by a manufacturer must include an approved maintenance
schedule (AMS) and a maintenance control manual (MCM). The AMS provides a checklist for regular
scheduled maintenance. The MCM provides guidance on the maintenance responsibilities, functions
and obligations of the operator.

The considerations given to maintenance during the design were factored into the systems during the
design process. The considerations are listed per system:

1. Wing assembly:
a. The wing strut attachment to the wing needed to be watertight without any surface for
water to collect. The attachment needed to be accessible for average size hands and
hand tools. Provision needed to be made at the strut position for the wing to be
supported during removal of the strut.
b. The fuel tanks posed an access problem. On traditional aircraft the pilot may stand on
the strut to refuel the aircraft or conduct routine inspection or maintenance on the
tanks. With the strut removed access to the fuel filler cap and fuel tank would be
difficult.
c. The flaps and ailerons were supported on internal hinges. The hinges for the ailerons
and guide rails for the flaps would be accessible through maintenance panels on the
lower wing surface. The hinge brackets or guide rails would be disconnected and the
flap with hinge attached would be removed. This would make removal less time
consuming than the dis-assembly of hinges.
d. The front spar attachment would be accessible from the cabin, the rear spar attachment
would be accessible from outside the cabin. For ergonomic reasons this was deemed
easier that having both inside or outside the cabin. Access to the rear spar would also
allow for inspection of the ballistic parachute system and cable harnesses.

73
2. Empennage assembly:
a. The all-moving horizontal tail would be accessible for maintenance through inspection
panels above and below the hinge on the fuselage. Removal of the unit would be
achieved by removal of the upper portion of the vertical tail and rudder. The space-
frame fuselage would terminate at the tail joint.
b. The control linkages for the rudder and horizontal tail would run along the lower
fuselage space-frame members. Access could be gained from the baggage
compartment and the inspection hatches at the tail.
3. Engine bay:
a. The engine cowling was designed so that the upper cowling could be removed for
basic maintenance and the lower cowling would only be removed when required. The
angled firewall would ensure that all engine-related systems would be directly behind
the upper part of the engine at convenient working height.
4. Landing gear assembly:
a. The nose landing gear would be accessible for maintenance with the upper cowling
removed. Nose landing gear removal would be accomplished after removal of the
entire cowling to expose the fasteners attaching the gear. The nose and main landing
gear wheels and tyres were specified as being the same to reduce part count and to
allow for wheel commonality. Grease points would be located on the upper surfaces
to allow for simple greasing.
b. The main landing gear would be accessible with removal of the fairing over the strut
and gear attachment. The jack-point would be located under the strut attachment to
allow for the person conducting maintenance to have more legroom and to reduce
accidental impact with maintenance equipment such as jacks. The rear seat mounts
would be accessible from this maintenance panel. Additional panels would be included
behind the seats under the baggage compartment for access to the main landing gear
mechanism.
5. Cabin assembly:
a. The front spar wing joint would be accessible from the seats of the aircraft for removal
of the wings.
b. The control mechanism for the ailerons was designed with a joint at the rear spar joint,
this would be accessible from outside the aircraft in the same hatch used for removal
of the rear spar. The flap actuator would be housed within the wing and could be
accessed through the maintenance panel used for inspection of the flap guide rail.
c. The instruments would be removed by removing the panel face. This would expose
the lattice structure to which the instruments are attached.
d. The rudder and control stick control linkages would be accessed by removal of the
floor panels. The floor was designed with sufficient depth to allow average size hands
to access the linkage joints, the linkages would be suspended in the floor space.

74
4.7. Summary of preliminary design

The final sizing of the aircraft was completed and led to an aircraft that had a lower wing loading than
competing LSA. This would give the LSA good performance in hot and high conditions while making
it a very good performing ultralight if operated at a reduced maximum take-off mass.

The final orthographic view of the concept aircraft may be seen in Figure 61.

Figure 61. Final 3-view of the aircraft.

The specifications for the aircraft are listed with the same data from the C-162 and P2004 as the current
direct competitor products in Table 26. The empty mass of 315kg compares favourably to the
competitors. The rate of climb values are presented for a mass of 600kg (900ft/min) and 550kg
(1000ft/min).

Table 26. Specifications for the aircraft and C-162 and P2004.

Parameter Aircraft C-162 P2004 Bravo

Airworthiness standard ASTM F2245 ASTM F2245 ASTM F2245
Empty mass 315kg 379kg 331kg
Maximum take-off mass 600kg 600kg 600kg
Payload (occupants and fuel) 335kg (310kg) 221kg 269kg
Engine Rotax 912 ULS 100hp Continental O-200 Rotax 912 ULS
Wing span 11.2m 9.26m 8.4m
Length 6.7m 6.73m 6.61m
Aspect ratio 10.18 7.7 6.4
Wing area 12.32m2 11.14m2 11m2
Cruise speed 105kts 112kts 116kts
Maximum rate of climb 900-1000ft/min 890ft/min 1200ft/min
Wing loading (OEW-MTOW) 24-49kg/m2 43-54kg/m2 30-55kg/m2

75
4.8. Drag coefficient determination

The wing of the aircraft was larger than that of the competitors and had a higher aspect ratio. This
allowed for the zero-lift coefficient to be lower than the competitors, the higher aspect ratio and lower
wing loading would result in a lower coefficient of drag than the competitors. The larger wing area
would unfortunately result is a slightly higher drag magnitude at higher speeds, but would result in
lower drag than the competitors at lower speed during take-off, climb and during manoeuvring.

Preliminary performance data for the aircraft has been calculated based on the standard aircraft
configuration without optional wheel spats operating in windless International Standard Atmosphere
(ISA) conditions. The performance would vary within statistical limits with individual aircraft, factors
such as aircraft configuration, atmospheric conditions and Air Traffic Control (ATC) would also affect
the performance.

The parasite drag or zero-lift drag coefficient CDo for a light aircraft is comprised of the skin friction
drag, form or pressure drag and interference drag. Skin friction drag is a function of the surface
roughness of the aircraft component and the skin friction coefficient Cf. The surface roughness is
generally estimated using metrology guidelines and differs for Aluminium skin (round and flush rivets),
composite and fabric covering. The skin friction coefficient is determined using the Reynolds number
for the aircraft component. The cut-off Reynolds number, determined as the transition between laminar
and turbulent flow is compared to the flight Reynolds number, at cruise speed. Two cases generally
exist for determination of skin friction coefficient. If the flight Reynolds number is less than the cut-off
Reynolds number, the skin friction coefficient is determined using flight Reynolds number. If the cut-
off Reynolds number is less than the flight Reynolds number, the cut-off Reynolds number is used.
Figure 62 shows the skin friction coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for flow over a flat plate.
Skin friction coefficient reduces with increasing Reynolds number.

Figure 62. Skin friction coefficient [60]

76
Roskam [61] developed an equation for Cf where,
0.455
𝐶𝑓 = 2.58 1
(log10 𝑅𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑡−𝑜𝑓𝑓 ) (1+0.144.𝑀2 )0.58

Due to the log-log relationship of the skin friction coefficient lines, the following equation was derived
for a small range of Reynolds numbers applicable to light aircraft;

𝐿 1.067
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡−𝑜𝑓𝑓 = 31.3713 × (𝑘) 2
where L is the characteristic length and k is the skin roughness. k and L must be specified in SI units,
generally metres.

The pressure drag contribution is characterised by a form factor Q [61] and differs for a lift producing
surface and a body of revolution.

𝑡 𝑡 4
𝑄𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 = 1 + 𝐿 ( ) + 100 ( ) 3
𝑐 𝑐

The form factor for lifting surface would be used for the wing, empennage and any excrescences that
resembles an aerofoil. The t/c is the aerofoil thickness ratio, L is a function of the pressure distribution
over the aerofoil and differs between equivalent NACA four and six series profiles.
60 𝑙
𝑄𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 1 + 𝑙 3
+ 0.0025 ( ) 4
( ) 𝑑
𝑑

The form factor for a body of revolution would be used for any component that does not resemble an
aerofoil. Components such as the fuselage, wheel spats, aerials or Pitot tube would be considered bodies
of revolution. The l/d term is the finesse ratio of the body of revolution.

The bookkeeping drag estimation method involves the summation of the component form factor, skin
friction coefficient and wetted area into an equivalent frontal parasite drag area, defined as D/q. The
CDo may then be obtained by dividing the equivalent frontal parasite drag area by the reference wing
area. This yields a parasite drag coefficient that can be added to the induced drag coefficient. Aircraft
components may be added or subtracted from the overall equivalent frontal parasite drag area as
required. To add a component to the airframe, the frontal area and parasite drag coefficient of the item
needs to be known. These can be summed to a micro equivalent frontal parasite drag area that may be
directly added to the macro equivalent frontal parasite drag area. Once that is divided by the wing
reference area the CDo of the airframe with the addition is then given by:

∑[𝑄.𝐶𝑓 .𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 ] 𝐷
𝐶𝐷𝑜 = 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓
= 𝑞.𝑆 5
𝑟𝑒𝑓

The total clean aircraft drag coefficient is thus;

𝐿 𝐶2
𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷𝑜 + 𝜋.𝐴𝑅.𝑒 6

77
The geometry of the major external components of the aircraft are presented in Tables 27-33. These
measurements and wetted areas were used to calculate the zero-lift coefficient of drag.

Table 27. Wing geometry.

Wing Specification
Mean aerodynamic chord 1.1m
Chord tip 1.1m
Chord root 1.1m
Taper ratio 1.0
Semi-span 5.6m
Panel area 6.16m2
Area of fuselage 2.64m2
Thickness ratio 0.17
Pressure distribution factor 1.2
Wetted area 22m2

The wetted area of the wing was calculated with the exclusion of the roof section of the fuselage. The
strut geometry listed in Table 28 includes a parasite drag coefficient for an elliptical cylinder. The flow
over an ellipse is not the same as for a cylinder. The angle of attack range was used to create an average
CD for the strut. The D/q for the strut would be the sum of total frontal area and the drag coefficient.

Table 28. Wing strut geometry.

Struts Specification
Thickness 0.04m
Length 2m
Parasite coefficient of drag
[62] 0.3
Frontal area 0.16m2

The wetted area of the fuselage was obtained using a method of summation of trapezoidal areas. The
method developed required two orthographic views of the fuselage. The two base dimensions were
obtained from the two orthographic views of the same fuselage station. These base dimensions were
converted into an equivalent diameter for an ellipse of the same circumference. This provided the base
dimension for one of the parallel edges of a trapezium. The procedure was repeated at another span
station to provide the dimension for the other parallel edge of the trapezium. The linear distance between
span stations provided the height of the trapezium. The area could then be easily calculated. The method
was derived for calculating complicated wetted areas for a variety of second and third generation jet
fighters. The wetted areas were compared to the values obtain by Roskam [61]. The method achieved
very good correlation. The additional advantage of dividing the fuselage into a lot of small sections is
that changes can easily be incorporated into the design. The summarised fuselage geometry is presented
in Table 29.

78
 Table 29. Fuselage geometry.

Fuselage Specification
Length 6m
Mean diameter 1.2m
Finesse ratio 5.0
Wetted area 16.22m2

The wetted areas for the horizontal and vertical empennage was calculated in the same way as for the
wing. The geometry is presented in Table 30 and 31.

Table 30. Horizontal empennage geometry.

Horizontal empennage Specification

Mean aerodynamic chord 0.65m
Chord tip 0.65m
Chord root 0.65m
Taper ratio 1.0
Semi-span 1.35m
Panel area 0.878m2
Area deduction due to
fuselage 0.117m2
Thickness ratio 0.12
Pressure distribution factor 2
Wetted area 3.393m2

Table 31. Vertical empennage geometry.

Vertical empennage Specification

Mean aerodynamic chord 0.840m
Chord tip 0.32m
Chord root 1.15m
Taper ratio 0.28
Semi-span 1.18m
Panel area (including rudder
behind fuselage) 1.12m2
Thickness ratio 0.12
Pressure distribution factor 2
Wetted area 2.240m2

The equivalent frontal parasite drag area for the wheels and tyres was calculated by using the frontal
drag coefficient of a short cylinder with rounded edges resembling a square ellipsoid from the front.
The configuration used did not have wheel spats. Most aircraft used for flight training do not use spats.
The geometry for the wheels and tyres is presented in Table 32.

79
 Table 32. Tyre and wheel geometry.

Wheels Specification
Nose Main
Width 0.13m 0.13m
Diameter 0.36m 0.36m
Parasite coefficient of drag 0.5 0.5
2
Frontal area 0.0374m 0.0749m2

The landing gear leg equivalent frontal parasite drag area was calculated using the same procedure
used for the wing struts. The geometry is presented in table 33.

Table 33. Landing gear structure geometry.

Landing gear legs Specification

Nose Main
Diameter 0.05m 0.05m
Length 0.8m 1.2m
Parasite coefficient of drag 0.3 0.3
2
Frontal area 0.016m 0.048m2

The form factor, flight Reynolds number, cut-off Reynolds number and skin friction coefficient were
determined for the cruise condition of 105KCAS. The equivalent parasite drag areas were determined
from the product of skin friction coefficient, wetted area and form factor. The wing, empennage, strut
and fuselage calculation is presented in Table 34. The strut equivalent parasite drag area was determined
directly from the parasite drag coefficient and frontal area.

Table 34. Bookkeeping drag breakdown of the wing, empennage and fuselage of the aircraft.

Cf (skin
Q (form k (skin roughness) friction Swet D/q
Component factor) [m] Recut-off coefficient) [m2] [m2]
Wing 1.288 0.787x10-6 0.831x106 4.591x10-3 22.0 0.1301
Horizontal empennage 1.261 0.787x10-6 0.474x10 6
5.117x10 -3
3.39 0.0219
Vertical empennage 1.261 0.787x10-6 0.623x10 6
4.851x10 -3
2.24 0.0137
Fuselage 1.493 0.787x10-6 5.08x10 6
3.328 x10 -3
16.22 0.0806
Wing struts n/a 0.787x10-6 24.2x10 3
9.965 x10 -3
n/a 0.0039

The landing gear drag breakdown is presented in Table 35. The equivalent parasite drag area was
determined directly from the parasite drag coefficient and frontal area of each component. The
calculation was done for an aircraft not equipped with wheel spats.

80
 Table 35. Bookkeeping drag breakdown of the landing gear of the aircraft.

Component D/q [m2]

Wheels and tyres Nose 0.018
Main 0.037
Landing gear Nose 0.012
Main 0.036

The interference drag created adverse pressure gradients in the location of the wing and empennage
joints and at the strut attachment was estimated at 10%. The excrescence drag due to lights, latches,
hinges, skin overlays, pitot tubes, aerials, rivets, exhaust pipes and cowling gaps was estimated at 10%.
These two drag contributors are independent of angle of attack. The relative contribution is not as
important as the net contribution. Glide tests conducted on the Airplane Factory Sling 4 indicated that
the combined contribution of interference and excrescences was approximately 25% after deduction of
the elevator trim drag [63]. Flight data was extracted (from another project) and used to determine the
zero-lift drag coefficient of the Skyworx SW-18. The combined contribution of interference and
excrescences was determined to be 20%. The fabric skin led to a higher skin friction coefficient. This
aircraft has the skin friction properties of the Sling so 20% was used to allow for the strut. The final
zero-lift drag coefficient is presented in Table 36.

Table 36. Zero-lift coefficient of drag determination.

CDo calculation Input D/q [m2]

Interference 10% 0.0359
Excrescences 10% 0.0359
Total D/q 0.3594
Zero-lift drag coefficient 0.0359

The published zero-lift drag coefficient for the Cessna 150 is 0.0327 [61]. This is expected since the C-
150 has a larger wing than the aircraft. The aircraft efficiency for the aircraft and the Cessna 150 is
shown in Figure 63. The aircraft has a better lift/drag ratio at higher lift coefficients.

Figure 63. Aircraft lift/drag ratio.

81
4.9. Aircraft mock-up for marketing purposes

Once the design of the primary structure was complete, students were employed to build a full-scale
mock-up of the aircraft. The budget and expenditure is presented in Table 37. The aircraft was launched
in Somerset East and at Africa Aerospace and Defence 2010. The project was funded by the Blue Crane
Development Agency and Industrial Development Corporation. The project was completed under
budget.

Table 37. Budget for the mock-up project

Item Budget Expenditure

Design R 20 280 R 20 280

Students - vacation work R 24 624 R 24 624

Material R 55 000 R 33 331
Per diem Somerset East R 4 760 R 4 830
Per Diem AAD 2010 R 11 550 R 9 056
Vehicle fuel costs SE R 2 416 R 2 371
Vehicle fuel costs AAD R 4 528 R 3 984
Vehicle rental AAD R 11 918 R 12 657
Trailer rental R 2 900 R 3 600
Sub-Total R 38 072 R 36 498
TOTAL R 137 976 R 114 734

The aircraft was manufactured from 1010 grade steel alloy square tube to allow for inexperienced
students to profile the tubes more easily prior to welding. The surfaces including the wings, flaps,
ailerons and both tail surfaces were constructed using polyurethane foam, finished with glass fibre and
gel-coat. The construction of the fuselage and wing is shown in Figure 64.

Figure 64. Fuselage and wing manufacture

For the fuselage, the steel frame was covered in two-component expanding polyurethane foam, used
for taxidermy. Sections of foam sheet were then bonded to the expanding foam before being sanded
and finished in glass fibre and gel-coat.

82
 Figure 65. Cowling before and after sanding

The aircraft mock-up was displayed in Somerset East, at the Africa Aerospace and Defence 2010 and
at the Industrial Development Corporation, a funder of the project.

Figure 66. Mock-up on display at Africa Aerospace and Defence 2010

Figure 67. Upgraded mock-up displayed at the Industrial Development Corporation

83
 Figure 68. Marketing image of the side view.

4.10. Aircraft business case

Two full business plans were done for the aircraft as it developed. The latter one is attached as Appendix
D. The summary of the business case is presented.

At the time the closest performing competitors were the FK- 9, Tecnam P92, P2004 and the Cessna 162
Skycatcher. These aircraft are priced above R 780,000. The pricing and market analysis indicated that
Cessna sold more Skycatcher aircraft than the higher performing FK-9. In addition, the best-selling
aircraft was the Jabiru J170, which had average ratings in terms of construction, operation and
ownership criteria. This analysis seems to indicate that the higher performance end of the market, there
is a degree of compromise between pricing and performance.

The Jabiru J170 also sold better than lower priced, medium performance aircraft such as the Bush Baby,
Cheetah, Zodiac and Ikarus C-42. This would imply that at the lower end of the price market,
performance remains an important consideration.

The conclusion of this analysis is that there are two market segments in which the aircraft could
compete:
 Against the high performance, high price aircraft such as the Tecnam P92, P2004 and Cessna
Skycatcher by offering a more competitively priced aircraft with similar performance.
 Against the lower priced, medium performing aircraft such as the Zodiac and Bush Baby by
offering a higher performing aircraft for a competitive price.

The aircraft was named SkyWake, the name and logo were registered as trademarks and the aircraft
design was registered [64]. The pricing is summarised in Figure 69. The SkyWake was pitched at being
the cheapest LSA in the market. If operated in the ultralight aircraft category the aircraft would be
cheaper than the best-selling Jabiru J170. The aircraft would be slightly more expensive that the fabric
covered Cheetah XLS, but with a 30kt higher cruise speed.

84
 Figure 69. Pricing in the market [65]

The sales forecast and cash flow breakdown analysis presented in Figure 70 was based on a sales
forecast based on the market share analysis [65].

R 25 000 000

R 20 000 000
Second investment in
Construction of first facility expansion
R 15 000 000
manufacturing facility
R 10 000 000
Rands per Annum

R 5 000 000

R0

-R 5 000 000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

-R 10 000 000

-R 15 000 000

-R 20 000 000
Cumulative Cash flow Net Profit After Tax Net Cash Flow

Figure 70. Cash flow breakeven analysis [65]

The profit per aircraft was calculated based on the net difference between the cost per aircraft and the
net selling price. Figure 71 indicates the total cost per aircraft and the predicted bi-annual sales.

85
 Figure 71. Cost per aircraft [65]

The components for the aircraft were sourced from suppliers of the components. The contribution to
airframe cost is presented in Figure 72. The largest contributor to airframe cost was the Rotax engine.

Fuselage materials Fuel tanks

Cockpit 3,6% 0,7% Navigation/Communication
Stabilisers 1,8% 7,1%
1,8%
Instruments Ballistic parachute
5,5% 7,4%
Exhaust
Landing Gear
1,9%
2,4%
Propeller
Brakes
4,4%
3,5%
Wheels
2,7%
Crash structure &
engine mounting cradle
2,3%
Wings
5,3%
Total Cost: R 338, 816

Engine
49,6%

Figure 72. Material component cost breakdown in 2009 [65].

86
The breakdown of instrument costs is presented in Table 38. The instruments are for a complete set of
analogue gauges and indicators. This would be the typical minimum instrument equipment required for
the aircraft to be used for flight training, which is classified as commercial activity. Recreational users
could specify lower cost instruments. The EFIS was not included, but would cost approximately
R50 000 [66].

Table 38. Instrument cost breakdown [65].

Instruments Total R 42 505

Oil pressure R 1 966
Oil Temperature R 478
Engine
Ammeter R 190
Tachometer R 1 286
Altimeter R 3 103
Air Speed indicator R 1 064
Artificial horizon R 3 978
Flight Instruments Direction indicator R 3 761
Vertical speed indicator R 1 645
Compass R 553
Slip indicator R 481
Navigation/Communication Nav/Com R 24 000

The cost of the components for the fuselage is presented in Table 39. The cockpit equipment was
sourced from suppliers to ultralight kit builders. The BRS was included in the aircraft as mandatory.
The unit was fairly heavy, to keep the centre of mass in the correct position heavy safety items were not
made optional. The material costs for the landing gear components were obtained from suppliers of
wheels, tyres and brakes [67].

Table 39. Fuselage component cost breakdown [65].

Fuselage Total R 82 570

Seatbelts R 580
Seats R 2 000
Cockpit
Fire extinguisher R 295
First aid kit R 200
BRS Ballistic parachute system R 25 000
Lighting R 3 000
Fuel tanks R 2 500
Gear R 8 000
Brakes R 12 000
Landing gear
Wheels R 8 000
Spats R 1 000
Fuselage and engine cradle R 7 792
Tail Boom R 3 384
Material costs Fuselage skin R 3 119
Cowling, doors R 4 200
Windows and Windscreen R 1 500

87
The cost of the material for the landing gear, spats and material for the fuselage was based on quotations
obtained from manufacturers during the research phase of the business plan.

The material cost for the wing is presented in Table 40. The cost was calculated after calculating the
thickness of the wing, flap and aileron skins and ribs. The cross-sectional area of the stiffeners was
calculated. Using standard thickness sheet of standard size the number of sheets of Aluminium was
determined. The total length of stiffener material was determined by constraining all stiffeners to the
same profile. The strut was positioned to manipulate the shear force and bending moment reaction loads
such that the stiffener area could be standardised for front and rear shear webs without a large mass
penalty.

Table 40. Wing material cost [65]

Wing Total R 18 038

Struts (Streamline Tubing) R 5 875
Material costs Wings R 10 663
Fillets and Wingtips R 1 500

The cost of the material required for manufacture of the horizontal and vertical tail assemblies is
presented in Table 41. Standard thickness Aluminium sheet of standard size was used for the two
empennage surfaces.

Table 41. Empennage material cost [65].

Vertical Stabiliser Total R 2 410

Material costs Vertical Stabiliser R 2 410
Horizontal Stabiliser Total R 3 593
Material costs Horizontal Tail R 3 593

The Rotax 912s engine was selected for the aircraft. The engine system cost is presented in Table 42.
The engine and propeller combination was specified without option for a cheaper unit so that the aircraft
would qualify for production–built approval from the SACAA. The cost for the exhaust was sourced
from the same manufacturer as the fuselage.

Table 42.Basic engine system cost [65].

Engine Total R 189 700

Rotax 912 ULS R 167 000
Propeller R 15 000
Exhaust R 6 500
Battery R 1 200

The bill of material may be found in Appendix E.

88
There were many components that were not included in the cost. These items included; control linkages,
internal haberdashery and finishes, fasteners, rivets, engine mount, wire harness and paint. These items
were factored into the labour cost since they would be manufactured by the company. The electronic
trim actuator for the horizontal tail was not included in the cost because the unit would be developed
for the aircraft.

The cost sensitivity was analysed against the estimated total investment amount of R15 million and is
presented in Figure 73. The highest impact index parameters were selling prices and variable cost. These
would have a larger impact than the exchange rate. The majority of components would be sourced from
suppliers in the Unites States of America, the engine would be sourced from Austria. A local supplier
was found for the initial purchase of engines, instruments and materials. Once the company was
launched, the company would import directly.

20 000 000
19 000 000
Selling Price
18 000 000 Variable Cost
South African Rands

17 000 000 Capital Cost

Development Cost
16 000 000
Labour
15 000 000 SA Inflation

14 000 000 Agency Fee

Exchange Rate
13 000 000
12 000 000
11 000 000
10 000 000
-10% 0% 10%
Percentage variance off base case

Figure 73. Cost parameter sensitivity [65]

Lastly a manufacturing facility was designed with production bays rather than an assembly line. The
wings and empennage would be manufactured in a sheet-metal section. The engine mount, landing gear
and fuselage would be manufactured in a steel-tube section. The sheet-metal processing would involve
cutting, forming and bending, tube processing would involve notching and profiling. A composite
materials section was included for manufacture of the interior, wingtips and fairings. All components
would share a paint section. The electrical section would be where the wire harness and assembly of
the instrument panel would occur. Ergonomics were considered in the design of the plant layout.

Material processing would occur next to the assembly area for the component. Assembly would take
place in an open space adjacent to the front of the plant. Included in the plant layout was a design office
and provision was made for all the responsible persons required by the SACAA for DO and MO
approval. The plant was sized for initial production rates. The second facility shown in Figure 70 would
be a duplicate facility without the office space.

The initial tooling investment was estimated at R340 000 with full production manufacturing labour
costing R108 000 per month for the 18 employees. The report for the proposed manufacturing facility
with equipment list may be seen in Appendix F. Figure 74 indicates the floor plan required for the
facility to manufacture the aircraft.

89
Figure 74. Aircraft assembly facility.

90
5. Detailed design

The design of this aircraft was undertaken as a commercial activity by the University. The design
analysis was limited to software permitted for such use such as the Microsoft Office suite. The
University procured a single commercial license for Solid Edge version 19 for production of
manufacturing drawings. This was done at the conclusion of the design. The use of any numerical
simulation was not permitted due to the restrictions imposed by academic software licenses, which do
not allow their use on work for commercial gain. To analyse the space-frame fuselage, the results from
another LSA that was re-designed as an academic and educational research project is presented. The
method followed was the same used for this aircraft. The analysis was done with a student version of
the Prokon package, a finite element solver specifically designed for use in Civil Engineering
applications.

5.1. Airworthiness regulation

The design of the aircraft needed to comply with the 1997 South African Civil Aviation Regulations:

Part 24.01.2 relating to airworthiness requirements of NTCA states:

“(5) The design criteria and the build standard for an amateur- or production-built aircraft must –

(a) comply with the appropriate design criteria as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-NTCA;

(b) comply with any special conditions prescribed in terms of Regulation 24.02.4 by the Commissioner
or, if applicable, the organisation designated for the purpose in terms of Part 149 of the CAR, 1997, as
the case may be; and

(c) incorporate no feature or characteristic that makes the aircraft type unsafe for its intended use.

(6) Production-built aircraft may not be delivered to the public by a manufacturer or agent unless the
aircraft has been registered in the name of the new owner: Provided that this restriction shall not apply
in the case of the sale of a plan according to an approved build standard, in which case the provisions
of sub-regulation (4)(a) applies.” [68].

Due to the aircraft being designed as a LSA, the ASTM F2245 was used for compliance as the design
criteria. The build standard required for an amateur-built aircraft differs from that for a production-built
aircraft. The owner of an amateur-built aircraft assumes responsibility for the build standard whereas
the company (MO) assumes responsibility for the build standard of production-built aircraft. The build
standard for a prototype aircraft of a production-built aircraft will be different to the final build standard
accepted by an aviation authority for the design to be approved as a production-built aircraft. This
process allows for the development costs to be reduced. The analysis of the airworthiness of the aircraft
was the focus of the work in this report. For the build standard to be developed, the aircraft components
would be tested before the build standard could be confirmed.

91
5.2. Analysis of performance

5.2.1. Field performance

Field performance of an aircraft consists of several phases of flight. The take-off distance includes the
ground run and airborne phases. The ground run consists of acceleration from the initial stationary
position to lift-off velocity under maximum power. The airborne phase consists of an accelerated climb
from lift-off velocity to obstacle velocity with a height gain to clear an obstacle of specified height.
Within the ASTM standards the reference speeds are slightly different to FAR23 reference speeds. The
reference take-off speed is not prescribed, the reference speed most appropriate is VSl which is defined
as the minimum controllable flying speed for the aircraft in a given configuration. The configuration
could vary according to the pilot’s choice of flap deflection for take-off. Flap deflection for take-off is
optional for most light aircraft. The ground run reference speed would need to be greater than V Sl for
the take-off aircraft configuration. The airborne phase reference speed was given as 1.3VSl as a
minimum.

The landing distance includes an airborne phase with a constant velocity power glide from a specified
obstacle height to a short flare manoeuvre before impact and a ground roll phase where the aircraft
decelerates using brakes to a stationary position. The reference speed at the obstacle height must be no
less than 1.3VSO where VSO is the minimum controllable airspeed in the landing configuration.

5.2.2. Thrust estimation

Propeller engine thrust can be derived from the power coefficient and the propeller advance ratio. The
power coefficient is a function of the engine power, air density, propeller rotation speed and propeller
diameter. The power coefficient is a useful coefficient if the engine properties are known. The
commonly available data such as rotation speed and power can be used to calculate the CP. [61]
𝑃
𝐶𝑃 = 𝜌.𝑛3 .𝑑5 7

Where P is power in W, n is propeller revolutions per second and d is propeller diameter in metres.
Advance ratio is a measure of forward flight speed against the rotational speed of the propeller. [61]
𝑉
𝐽= 8
𝑛.𝑑

where V is in m/s. [61]

The propeller efficiency ηP for a given flight condition may be determined from the intersection of
power coefficient and advance ratio using Figure 75. The chart may also be used for determining the
blade angle that would achieve the required efficiency at the desired speed.

92
 Figure 75. Propeller efficiency curve. [71]

This propeller efficiency is the ideal propeller efficiency. Using the thrust equation, the ideal thrust may
be calculated. [61]
𝜂𝑃 .𝑃
𝑇= 𝑉
9

where T is in N and velocity V is in m/s.

The propeller slipstream interacts with the aircraft structure behind the propeller. Roskam proposed a
correction method for the scrubbing of air over the fuselage and empennage [61]. Based on flight test
data from a Piper J-3 Cub, the equation was modified for excrescences typically found on light aircraft
such as door handles, door hinges and sharp changes in surface geometry. The final form being; [61]
𝜎.0.015.𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡
𝐹𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1 − 1.558 ( ) 10
𝑑2

Thus 𝜂𝑃 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 = 𝜂𝑃 . 𝐹𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 , where SWet is in m2 and d is in m.

The method used for the prediction of static thrust was to use the CP and the relationship of power
coefficient to thrust coefficient to determine a static thrust. The equation was derived from Roskam
[61]:
𝐶 𝑃
𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 227.56 (𝐶𝑃 ) (𝑛.𝑑) 11
𝑇

where P is in Hp.

The activity factor for a Cessna 150 (AF=77 [61]) was used since the propeller rpm, diameter and power
was similar. The static thrust predicted using this method was corrected for scrubbing.

93
5.2.3. Effect of high-lift devices

The method of calculating the lift contribution from a trailing edge flap used a span ratio of flap span
to the wing span and a flap factor based on the type of flap used. The equation being: [61]

𝜕𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑏
∆𝐶𝐿 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 = 𝜕𝛿𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝
. 𝛿𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 . 𝑏 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 12
𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝜕𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥
Where the 𝜕𝛿𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝
factor was approximated at 2.2/Rad because the flap geometry selected was not the
pure rotation of a simple or plain flap. The flap translated and rotated, but not with the same motion as
a single slotted flap. The lift contribution method described by Roskam [61] differs in that the method
𝜕𝐶𝐿 𝑚𝑎𝑥
uses area ratio instead of flap ratio. For the same net lift coefficient, the 𝜕𝛿𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝
factor was calculated.

The drag contribution from the flaps was developed from the Roskam method. The flap parasite drag
due to its deflection from the reference chord line of the wing was added to the induced drag from the
lift coefficient produced by the flap deflection using the induced term in equation 6. The parasite drag
was calculated using flat plate drag theory where:
2 𝑆
𝐶𝐷𝑜 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 = 1.1 (𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛿𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 )) (𝑆 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 ) , modified from [61]. 13
𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔

Induced drag from the wing was added to this contribution and this was summed with the zero-lift
coefficient of drag of the aircraft. For any flap deflection, the drag coefficient would be:
2
𝐶𝐿 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 2 (𝐶𝐿 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 −𝐶𝐿 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 )
𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷𝑜 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 + 𝐶𝐷𝑜 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 + 𝜋.𝐴𝑅 + 14
𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 .𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝 𝜋.𝐴𝑅.𝑒

Where the first three terms would be constant for a given flap deflection. The take-off ground run
equation was derived from Dommasch [69] and is denoted SGR.

𝑀.𝑉𝐿𝑂 2
𝑆𝐺𝑅 = 15
𝑔.(𝑇𝑜 +𝑇𝐿𝑂 −𝐷𝑜 −𝐷𝐿𝑂 )

Where To and TLO are the thrust values corresponding to static and to lift off conditions. Do is the rolling
friction and DLO is the parasite aerodynamic drag at lift off velocity.

The take-off airborne phase is denoted SGA. The drag during the airborne phase would include parasite
drag and lift-induced drag.

(𝑉𝑂𝐵𝑆 2 −𝑉𝐿𝑂 2 )
𝑀.(ℎ+ )
2.𝑔
𝑆𝐺𝐴 = (𝑇 16
𝐿𝑂 +𝑇𝑂𝐵𝑆 −𝐷𝐿𝑂 −𝐷𝑂𝐵𝑆 )

Where TLO and TOBS are the thrust values corresponding to lift off and obstacle reference speeds. DLO
and DOBS are the drag values at lift off and obstacle reference speeds inclusive of lift-induced drag.

94
5.2.4. Specific excess power

Climb is generally defined as flight at constant indicated airspeed or flight at constant dynamic pressure.
Because normally aspirated engine power decreases linearly with air density as a function of the
stoichiometric energy and since the true airspeed increases with increasing altitude at constant indicated
airspeed, the climb rate decays with altitude. The same indicated airspeed at two different altitudes will
result in the lift and drag coefficients being comparable even though the true air speed and Mach
numbers will differ. This is true for slow aircraft flying at speeds less than Mach 0.3.

Rate of climb is also referred to as an energy level. Energy levels were first used to characterise combat
aircraft by Col. John R. Boyd (USAF) [70]. Climb rate is dependent on the thrust loading and wing
loading. Purely ascending and descending rates are useful performance indices, as are the climb and
descent angles.

Climb angle is calculated from the net propulsion thrust, whereas climb rate is calculated from the
product of the net propulsive thrust and velocity. Specific excess power (SEP) has been defined by
Boyd [70] as the product of net propulsive force and velocity divided by the mass. The lowest SEP is
obtained at maximum mass. [70]
(𝑇−𝐷).𝑉
𝑆𝐸𝑃 = 𝑀
17

SEP may be used for determining the climb, descent, level-altitude acceleration and deceleration
performance. It may also be used for determining the turn climb, descent, level-altitude acceleration
and deceleration performance. The manoeuvre envelope can be divided into two main categories, climb
and turn. The SEP chart links turn rate to load factor, turn radius and energy level as a function of
velocity for any altitude, configuration and mass. The SEP chart contains a substantial amount of
information that is useful. The turn rate lines must be plotted for constant load factor with termination
at stall speed and dive speed. The turn radius lines must be cross-plotted using the turn rate lines as
intersection points. The radius lines terminate at stall speed and at maximum limit load factor. The lines
of constant SEP must be plotted with intersections of turn rate and radius. [61]

𝑉2
𝑅= . 18
𝑔.√𝑛2 −1

provides the turn radius in metres, note that it is not dependant on mass

𝑔.√𝑛2 −1
𝜔= 𝑉
19

provides the turn rate in Rad/s and is also independent of mass.

Substituting the lift equation into the induced portion of the drag equation and then substituting equation
17 into equation 19, the following equation has been derived.

180.𝑔 𝑆𝐸𝑃.𝑀 𝐾 𝑞.𝑆 2

𝜔= √[(𝑇 − ) 𝑞.𝑆 − 𝐾. 𝐶𝐷𝑜 ] . [ 𝑀 ] − 1 20
𝑉.𝜋 𝑉

𝜌.𝑉 2
where, 𝑞 = 2.𝑔
and 𝐾 = 𝜋. 𝐴𝑅. 𝑒

95
This equation produces lines of constant SEP and allows for the parameters affecting SEP to be
optimised. This was not necessary for this type of aircraft. The higher aspect ratio of the design allowed
for better SEP states at lower speeds than the competitors.

The equation used to determine the time required to accelerate or decelerate over an increment of
velocity is provided by: [70]
𝑉 .∆𝑉
𝑖
𝑡 = 𝑔.𝑆𝐸𝑃 21

where Vi is initial velocity, V is the difference in velocity.

Before considering the ASTM standard specifications, the flight envelope was developed to meet the
performance requirements. The determination of the maximum sea level flight speed was conducted at
a mass of 600kg. The thrust curve lines were generated using the method described. A variety of
different engines were included to compare them to the Rotax. The Rotax engine would allow for a
maximum level flight speed of 115kts, less than the 120kts ASTM maximum. The thrust for the
different engine and drag data for SkyWake is shown in Figure 76. The units for thrust and drag are in
kilograms because the SEP equation uses kilograms as input.

Figure 76. Maximum power thrust curves for different engines at sea level

The cruise speed was calculated for a mass of 600kg at sea level. The power setting used for the Rotax
engine was 75% of maximum corresponding to 75hp at 4300rpm. The engine thrust for several engines
was plotted for comparison. The cruise speed is shown in Figure 77 and was determined as 106kts,
yielding a power utilisation of 1.06kt/hp at maximum power and 1.41kt/hp at cruise power. This
exceeded the performance requirement of 105kt/hp.

96
 Figure 77. Cruise power thrust curves for different engines at sea level.

The Rotax 912 maximum thrust and cruise thrust data was overlaid on a clean drag curve for the aircraft,
shown in Figure 78.

Figure 78.Maximum and cruise power thrust curves for different engines at sea level.

97
SEP charts were completed using the conditions specified in the captions of Figures 79-81, in order to
demonstrate the energy and manoeuvre envelope. The SEP line indicating 0ft/min is the zero-energy
line. This represents the steady state energy level. For sea level at 600kg mass as shown in Figure 79,
the maximum level flight speed is seen as 115KCAS. The peak turn performance is a load factor of
2.5g, corresponding to a turn rate of 38/s and a turn radius of approximately 52m. The maximum
energy level is 900ft/min, which is achievable between 68-74KCAS.

Figure 79. SEP at sea level at 600kg take-off mass

During a typical training flight the aircraft would not operate at maximum take-off mass. Figure 80
shows the sea level performance at a mass of 550kg. The maximum speed is approximately the same,
this is due to the low wing loading resulting in a minimal change in induced drag at high speed. The
maximum energy level has increased to 1000ft/min. The 900ft/min energy level is now available
between 54-87KCAS. The maximum sustained turn performance parameters have all increased, with a
peak load factor of 2.75g. This is due to the increase in energy level and reduction in stall speed.

98
 Figure 80. SEP at sea level at mass of 550kg

The aircraft performance at maximum mass of 600kg at an altitude of 10000ft was determined as shown
in Figure 81. The maximum speed has reduced to 99KCAS, which is approximately 115KTAS. As
expected the energy levels are reduced. The maximum energy level is 600ft/min between 55-72KCAS.
The maximum sustained turn performance is a 2g turn at 59KCAS with a turn radius of 75m and turn
rate of 28/s.

Figure 81. SEP at 10000ft at mass of 600kg

99
The energy levels for the Cessna-162, Tecnam P2004 and the aircraft concept were analysed to
determine if the design did demonstrate higher energy levels and a better flight envelope than the
competitors. The SEP value chosen was 500ft/min. The aircraft geometric characteristics were used
with identical parasite drag coefficients since the zero-lift coefficient of drag did not have a large effect
on the result. The aircraft thrust was also assumed as the same since the aircraft have the same installed
power and have similar wetted areas in the scrubbing zone. Low wing loading and high wing aspect
ratio provided better energy levels at low speed. This is shown in Figure 82.

Figure 82. Turn performance for three aircraft at SEP =500ft/min.

The maximum energy levels for the Cessna-162, Tecnam P2004 and the aircraft concept were also
analysed to determine if the design did demonstrate higher energy levels and to check if the maximum
speeds were realistic. The SEP value chosen was 0ft/min. The maximum speed of the aircraft was
expected to be slightly less than the competitors due to the larger wing. The maximum speed of the
Cessna C-162 was calculated as 116.6KCAS. The flight manual indicates that the maximum speed is
118KCAS [34]. The discrepancy was deemed acceptable for this type of aircraft. This is shown in
Figure 83.

100
 Figure 83. Turn performance for three aircraft at SEP =0ft/min.

The glide SEP chart was developed for this aircraft and features turn radius, turn load factor and sink
rate with velocity. The chart indicates sink rate at zero power for any possible turn combination of
radius and load factor. The engine would have to arrest the sink rate in terms of additional SEP to
maintain altitude. The infinite radius line corresponds to a 1g glide at constant speed. This figure would
be used during flight tests to determine the drag coefficients including trim drag.

Figure 84 shows the data for the glide SEP at a mass of 600kg at sea level. For a final approach turn in
clean configuration at a speed of 70KCAS, the turn would be a 1.6g manoeuvre with a sink rate of
approximately 700ft/min. The pilot would be in trouble when comparing that data point to the SEP chart
(refer to Figure 79). At 1.5g at 70KCAS the maximum energy available is approximately 630ft/min. If
the pilot was in the gliding turn and applied full power the net energy would be -70ft/min. The pilot
could resolve the situation by unloading the load factor. The glide SEP and climb/acceleration SEP
charts are useful for determining energy levels during manoeuvres.

101
 Figure 84. Engine-off sink rate at sea level at 600kg mass

Figure 85 shows the glide performance at altitude at maximum mass. The same manoeuvre stated above
would result in a gliding turn at 70KCAS with a sink rate of -1200ft/min at 100m turn radius with a
load factor of 2g. The higher load factor is due to the higher true air speed. Referring back to Figure 81,
the maximum energy level if the pilot applied full power would be approximately 50ft/min. The net
sink rate would be -1150ft/min.

Figure 85. Engine-off sink rate at 10000ft at mass of 600kg

102
The glide SEP for the Cessna C-162 and the aircraft concept is shown in Figure 86. The aircraft has a
better glide ratio than the C-162 at speeds less than 85KCAS. The aircraft has significantly lower sink
rate than the C-162 at a load factor of 2g.

Figure 86. Engine-off sink rate for 1g and 2g flight at sea level for a mass of 600kg.

Comparing the performance of the aircraft to the original performance requirement. The minimum
power utilisation of 1.05kt/hp was exceeded. The power loading of 6.0kg/hp was achieved with a 100hp
powerplant. The minimum cruise speed performance requirement of 110KCAS was not met. The design
produced was focussed on the criteria of good hot and high performance and a flight envelope that
exceeded that of the competition. This resulted in a design with a high aspect ratio and lower wing
loading, this reduced the cruise speed to 106KCAS. This predicted cruise speed was with the aircraft
operated without drag-reducing wheel spats. The aircraft did have better performance for the aircraft
cost than any other LSA and had better energy and manoeuvre performance than more expensive LSA.

For the business case the launch strategy was developed, a mock-up aircraft was designed and built and
the design of a manufacturing facility was completed. A structural wing testing facility was designed
and constructed at the University. The strategy to achieve design and manufacturing organisation
approval was developed and presented to the Innovation Fund. The application was rejected because
the proposal covered the cost of the aircraft and manufacturing facility as well as costing for an airfield
and industry. It was deemed too ambitious.

103
5.3. Airworthiness compliance

The stall speeds have been calculated for a range of flap deflections at different masses. The total flap
span was 6.1m (54% of wing span) and was modelled as a single slotted device. The maximum
permitted stall speed of 45kts was achievable in the clean configuration. The target stall speed of
36KCAS was selected because this would result in a stall speed of 40.8KTAS in Johannesburg at a
temperature of 30C. This would be less than the maximum stall speed and would lead to reduced
landing gear loads and better SEP energy levels than any competitor aircraft at 45KCAS. The maximum
coefficient of lift was underestimated (refer to aerofoil selection in §4.5) and the flap contribution was
also underestimated. The device was modelled as having a higher lift contribution than a simple flap,
but not as much as a single slotted flap would contribute [71].

The principle of adjustment was used since the maximum coefficient of lift is easily reduced during
development of an aircraft if required. It is not easily increased. The stall velocities for different mass
and flap deflections are presented in Table 43. The shaded values are combinations of mass and flap
deflection resulting in a stall velocity that is higher than 36KCAS and were not considered for operation.
The nose-down pitching moment CM has been derived using the pitching moment from wind tunnel
data [55] and the ASTM F2245 pitching moment approximation for a quarter chord moment coefficient.

Table 43. Stall speed with flap deflection for different flying masses.

Mass 400 450 500 550 600

Net
Flap deflection [deg] Flap CL Net CL CM Stall velocity [KCAS]
0 0.00 1.60 -0.08 35.0 37.1 39.2 41.1 42.9
5 0.12 1.72 -0.13 33.7 35.8 37.7 39.6 41.3
10 0.25 1.85 -0.18 32.6 34.6 36.4 38.2 39.9
15 0.37 1.97 -0.23 31.6 33.5 35.3 37.0 38.6
20 0.49 2.09 -0.28 30.6 32.5 34.2 35.9 37.5
25 0.62 2.22 -0.33 29.7 31.6 33.3 34.9 36.4
30 0.74 2.34 -0.38 29.0 30.7 32.4 33.9 35.5
35 0.87 2.47 -0.43 28.2 29.9 31.5 33.1 34.6

104
The parasite drag coefficient was calculated and a clean drag polar was derived for an aircraft without
wheel spats. The polars for different flap deflection angles is shown in Figure 87. The take-off setting
of 10 and maximum setting of 35 were of importance in the ASTM calculations. Relatively good lift
to drag ratios were made possible because of the high flap span and single-slotted design.

Figure 87. Drag polar set for the aircraft with different flap deflections.

The lift, drag and pitching moment data due to flap deflection was required for compliance calculations
for subpart 4 of ASTM F2245 as it relates to take-off, landing and low-speed control.

105
5.3.1 Airworthiness compliance with ASTM F2245 subpart 4

The ASTM compliance calculations have been summarised with an explanation of the method used.
Table 44 relates to sub-part 4 of ASTM F2245 regarding flight

Table 44. ASTM F2245 sub-part 4 compliance checks.

Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted

criterion from
VSO wings level stall Flight test 34.6KCAS using 35 flap deflection, at 600kg Y
speed in landing refer to Table 43.
configuration
VLO take-off speed Calculation 44KCAS using 10 flap deflection at 600kg. Y
This was calculated as 110% of stall speed. For
CL values refer to Table 43.
Ground roll distance Calculation 118m at 600kg, 10 flap deflection and thrust Y
values from Figure 78. CL = 1.53, CD = 0.0689,
Do = 15kg, DLO = 27kg, TO = 173kg, TLO =
135kg. Using equation 15.
Distance to clear a Calculation 168m at 600kg, 10 flap deflection and thrust Y
50ft obstacle values from Figure 78. TLO = 135kg, TOBS =
130kg, DLO = 42.7kg, VOBS = 52KCAS, DOBS =
39kg. CLOBS = 1.09. Using equation 16.
Rate of climb at best Calculation 915ft/min at 71KCAS from SEP chart in clean Y
climb speed configuration. Exceeds 312ft/min minimum
requirement
Climb gradient at Calculation Gradient is 1/6.9 at 52KCAS. Exceeds 1/12 Y
best climb angle requirement.
Balked landing Calculation The reference speed of 52KCAS happens to be Y
climb gradient the same as best climb angle speed due to low
wing loading, value of 1/6.9 exceeds 1/30
minimum requirement.

106
 Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Longitudinal Calculation Horizontal tail volume coefficient of 0.411. The all- Design
control and flight test moving type would produce more lift than a standard compliance
type. could be
obtained
At VSO the CM = -0.43 using the ASTM by limiting
approximation with wind tunnel CMO. The CM the
available from the horizontal tail is +0.41 per unit CL. pitching
With thrust acting as a positive pitching moment and moment1.
the cabin centre of mass position making the static
margin small. Flight tests would allow for VSO to be
determined as per ASTM F2245 4.4.1. The maximum
flap deflection might need to be reduced to 30. The
wind tunnel data from Abbott [57] suggests a CM with
flaps of -0.3 would be more realistic.

The thrust line is below the wing drag line. During

slow flight at VSO the wing contributes 26kg of
drag, this is 74% of the total aircraft drag. The
thrust of approximately 135kg would contribute
a nose up pitching moment.

At VLO the CM = -0.18 using the ASTM

approximation. The CM available from the horizontal
tail is + 0.41 per unit CL. The horizontal tail provides
sufficient authority.

At the worst case for unstick speed at VSO with flap

deflection limited to 30, the total nose down rotation
moment due to mass and pitching moment is
1.67kNm, the nose up pitching moment due to the
horizontal tail is 1.97kNm with a CL of 1.0 at the tail
at a deflection of -15. The lift curve of the horizontal
tail was calculated as 0.069/deg using the DATCOM
method.
Directional Calculation Vertical tail volume coefficient of 0.032 excludes the The aileron
control and flight test fillet. The value is similar to the original C-162. The gap may be
aircraft has 38% more vertical tail area at a similar modified if
moment arm. The higher aspect ratio wings reduce required.
the volume coefficient. The higher aspect ratio wing The rudder
with sweep may assist the aerodynamic coupling that size could
opposes a spin. The high aspect ratio means the be
ailerons centre is located 5.45m from the centre of increased if
mass. necessary.

The critical rear centre of mass position is constrained

by the cabin geometry.
1
the flap deflection could be limited to reduce the overall pitching moment at minimum flight speed
should pitch control authority be minimal. This would not affect performance greatly as the low wing
loading still allows for a low stall speed.

107
 Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Lateral Calculation Aileron volume coefficient of 0.059. Aileron span of Y, ailerons
control and flight test 3.6m combined with a chord of 0.3m. The higher size is
aspect ratio wing means the ailerons are further adequate.
outboard than on other aircraft. The chord and
aerofoil profile will be the same as for the flaps. 3
degrees of dihedral has been included for static
lateral stability.

The design of the ailerons is the Frise type. The

aileron gap was selected to introduce adverse yaw
into a turn with the differential aileron deflection.
Meaning that if the aircraft was rolled to the left, the
aircraft would yaw left slightly.

The longitudinal stability and control authority was estimated for the centre of mass range of 20-32%
mean aerodynamic chord. The increase in nose-down pitching moment due to flap extension was
included in the estimation. The downwash factor was calculated using the method described by Brandt
[74] and Etkin [75]. The downwash factor of 0.003/deg was included in the calculation. Figure 88
presents the coefficient of moment with respect to the centre of mass as a function of the coefficient of
lift. The forward, intermediate and aft centre of mass positions were used in conjunction with a zero
deflection angle for the horizontal stabiliser. For the forward (20% MAC) and intermediate (25% MAC)
conditions, the aircraft has an increasing nose-down pitching moment coefficient. For the aft (32%
MAC) condition the aircraft demonstrates a decreasing nose-down pitching moment coefficient. The
coefficient of moment tends to zero near stall for the aft centre of mass condition. The airfoil section
exhibits a strong nose-down pitching moment tendency near stall, this, as shown in Figure 42. This was
not considered for this estimation, since the horizontal stabiliser provides adequate pitch authority.

Figure 88. Coefficient of moment for various centre of mass positions.

108
Figure 89 shows the coefficient of pitching moment as a function of the lift coefficient for the forward
centre of mass position (20% MAC). The aircraft is considered trimmed when the coefficient of moment
is zero. The aircraft is trimmed using a total horizontal stabiliser deflection range of 4 degrees.

Figure 89. Coefficient of moment at forward centre of mass position.

Figure 90 shows the coefficient of pitching moment as a function of the coefficient of lift for the aft
centre of mass position (32%). The aircraft is trimmed using a total of 2.5 of horizontal stabiliser
deflection. This may seem very small, but the pilot only controls the tab of the stabiliser and the control
harmony was carefully examined for this aircraft.

Figure 90. Coefficient of moment for aft centre of mass position.

109
The horizontal stabiliser deflection angle required for trimmed flight in the clean configuration was
calculated for four centre of mass positions. Due to the all-moving horizontal stabiliser design, the
stabiliser is always deflected downwards, except when the coefficient of moment tends to zero. At
manoeuvre speeds of 80KCAS and greater, the required deflection range of the stabiliser is small, hence
justifying the electronic trim system.

Figure 91. Stabiliser (elevator) deflection required for trimmed flight.

The deflection of a high-lift control surface increases the nose-down pitching moment of an aircraft.
The four flap deflection cases were 0, 10, 25 and 35. The flap retraction speed was determined by
analysis of the drag polars and lift/drag ratios. Figure 92 shows the coefficient of pitching moment as a
function of lift coefficient with flap deflection and various centre of mass positions. The pitching
moment coefficient no longer tends towards zero for the aft centre of mass position. All three lines
indicate much large pitching moment magnitudes, as expected.

Figure 92. Coefficient of moment with flap deflection at various centre of mass positions.

110
The coefficient of pitching moment for flap deflection at the forward centre of mass position was
calculated for the range of lift coefficients. The horizontal stabiliser deflection range, required for trim,
has increased to 17. As shown in Figure 93, the aircraft can be trimmed at maximum mass for any flap
deflection.

Figure 93. Coefficient of moment with flap deflection at forward centre of mass position.

The coefficient of pitching moment for flap deflection at the aft centre of mass position was calculated
for the range of lift coefficients. The horizontal stabiliser deflection range, required for trim was
estimated at 8.5. As shown in Figure 94, the aircraft can be trimmed at maximum mass for any flap
deflection.

Figure 94. Coefficient of moment with flap deflection at aft centre of mass position.

111
The final pitch authority compliance check was that the required horizontal stabiliser deflection required
for flight should be less than the deflection available. Figure 95 shows the stabiliser deflection required
for trimmed flight across the design speed range for flap deflections at four centre of mass positions.
This demonstrates that the aircraft has positive and negative pitch authority for the design flight
envelope.

Figure 95. Stabiliser (elevator) deflection required for trim with flap deflection at various centre of mass positions.

The important design aspect included in this aircraft was the small deflection range required at
manoeuvre speeds.

5.3.2 Airworthiness compliance with ASTM F2245 subpart 5

Figure 96 shows the flight envelope velocity-load factor diagram. It was derived from the ASTM F2245,
with explanation in Table 45. The lift coefficient at VA for level cruise flight was calculated as 0.4. The
energy level available at that speed at maximum mass and maximum power is 700-800ft/min. The flap
velocity-load diagram is also shown in the same figure. The aircraft stall speeds for clean and landing
configuration at maximum mass is shown. The ASTM prescribed stall speed is 45kts. This aircraft stalls
below that requirement meaning that flaps are not necessary for landing from a regulation perspective.
In the event of a flap extension failure the landing gear would not be over-stressed due to high touch-
down speeds. The low wing loading resulted in a lower VA and a higher energy level at the reference
speed.

112
 Figure 96. Velocity-load factor diagram for mass of 600kg.

The reference speeds are required for the compliance calculations for sub-part 5. Table 45 relates to
sub-part 5 of ASTM F2245 where structural loads are determined. Several conflicts were discovered.
The ASTM F2245 is not very prescriptive and, in some instances, refers to ASTM F2245 Appendix X1
– the simplified design load criteria for light sport airplanes. This appendix contains non-mandatory
information, some of which conflicts the F2245 consensus standard. The conflicts are discussed where
they occur.

Table 45. ASTM F2245 sub-part 5 compliance checks.

Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted

criterion from
Maximum flap Calculation 1.4VS in the clean configuration is 60.1KCAS, 2.0VSO Y
speed in the landing configuration is 69.2KCAS. The
ASTM stipulates that the greater value must be used.

The design flap speed is therefore 69.2KCAS.

Manoeuvring Calculation VA determined as 85.8KCAS using ASTM F2245 Y
speed 5.2.4.1.

VA was calculated to be 95KCAS using the method

described in ASTM F2245 Appendix X1.

VA used is 85.8KCAS due to the lower wing loading

of the aircraft and higher maximum lift coefficient.
Design cruise Calculation VC must not be less than 104KCAS based on Y
speed maximum wing loading according to ASTM F2245.

The minimum required cruise speed calculated

according to ASTM F2245 Appendix X1 1.2.5.2 was
107.5KCAS. The appendix also states ”VCmin need not

113
exceed values of 0.9VH actually obtained for the
lowest weight category for which certification is
desired”. Using this, VC need not be greater than 90%
of maximum level flight speed VH. VH is 115KCAS,
therefore 0.9VH is 103.5KCAS.

Due to this conflict the regulation would take

precedence over the appendix. It is suspected that due
to the aircraft wing loading being lower than
competitors the conflict is due to the constants in the
ASTM equations being based off data from the first
LSA.

The calculated cruising speed has been determined as

106KCAS.

VC would be 103.5KCAS in this case. This would be

the minimum required cruise speed.

114
Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Design dive Calculation VD must be 140% of the minimum required cruise Y
speed speed.

The VD is thus based on 140% of 0.9VH resulted in VD

of 144.9KCAS. There is no defined never-exceed
velocity for this category of aircraft.
Positive limit Regulation N1 of 4g used. N3 calculated as 4g based on wing Y
manoeuvring loading. The low wing loading ensured that N1 and N3
load factor would be equal.

N1 is the positive limit load factor at VA, N3 is the

positive limit load factor at VC.
Negative limit Regulation N2 of -2g used. N4 calculated as -2g based on wing Y
manoeuvring loading. The low wing loading ensured that N2 and N4
load factor would be equal.

N2 is the negative limit load factor at VA, N4 is the

negative limit load factor at VC.
Loads on the Calculation N1flap = 2g, N2 = 0 for any deflection up to the VF of Y
flap 69.2KCAS. Gust intensity of 7.5m/s must be applied
with flap fully down at VF.

Load per flap without gust, lift = 618N, drag = 61N

and net force = 621N. These were determined using
the standard lift and drag methods applied solely to
flap geometry.

Load per flap with gust, lift = 846N, drag = 104N and
net force 852N. These were calculated with an angle
of attack and velocity change due to the gust and the
standard lift and drag method applied solely to the flap
geometry.
Gust Regulation At VC 15m/s gusts must be applied in both up and Y
intensities down directions. At VD 7.5m/s gusts must be applied,
in both directions.
Rolling Calculation Roll control deflection loads must be combined with Y
conditions two thirds of N1 loads. Torsion loads due to the
pitching moment of the deflected ailerons must be
accounted for in the unsymmetrical flight loads.

115
Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Engine torque Calculation Engine torque would be one of the loads for the design Y
of the front fuselage and engine mount. The worst
torque load case would be determined by examining
two ASTM F2245 load cases.

Maximum limit torque based on take-off power and

propeller speed acting with 75% of vertical loads due
to N1 . This was computed as an engine torque of
122Nm at 3g.

Limit torque based on maximum cruise power and

propeller speed acting with vertical loads due to N1.
This was computed as 125Nm at 4g.

For a four cylinder four-stroke engine a factor of two

must be used on limit torque. The design maximum
torque load would thus be 250Nm.
Engine side Calculation Limit load factor of 1.5 used, this load may be Y
load assumed to be independent of other load conditions.

Any engine mount designed to withstand the vertical,

longitudinal and torque loads stipulated would be able
to withstand more than 150% of the engine mass in a
lateral direction. This load would be 883N for an
engine weighing 60kg.
Control Regulation The control system stops for the load applied at the Y
system loads grip on the control stick must be designed for 445N
for pitch and for 180N for roll.

The rudder pedals must be designed for 580N acting

on a single pedal in the forwards direction and 580N
applied to both pedals in the forward direction.
Dual control Regulation A dual system must be designed for both pilots Y
system pilot applying 75% of the control system loads in opposite
loads directions. This would be necessary for an aircraft
used for flight training.
Ground gust Calculation The equation specified in ASTM F2245 5.3.7 resulted Y
conditions in the following ground gust moments:

Ailerons = 39Nm

Rudder = 3.7Nm

Horizontal stabiliser = 110Nm

All control surfaces should have stops to withstand

the greater of the forces due to pilot force, 125% of
surface load or ground gust loads.

116
 Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Average limit Regulation Based on ASTM F2245 Figure X1.4 and X1.5 the Y
control surface loads were determined. The load distributions
surface specified in Table X1.2 resulted in the following loads:
loading
Ailerons = 900N/m2 resulting in a vertical load of
283.5N on each aileron.

Vertical stabiliser = 1100N/m2 resulting in a horizontal

load of 982N.

Horizontal stabiliser = 1250N/m2 resulting in a

symmetrical load case of 1097N total load and an
unsymmetrical load of 1097N on one side and 713N
on the other side1.

Flaps = 1200N/m2 resulting in a vertical load of 1647N

upwards and 412N downwards.

Tabs = 1500N/m2 resulting in a load of 1520N for the

servo tab on the horizontal stabiliser.

Horizontal Calculation At VA of 85.8KCAS the maximum deflection of the Y

tail horizontal tail in upwards and downwards deflections
manoeuvring must be used.
loads
At VD of 144.9KCAS the deflection of the horizontal
tail must be one third of maximum.

Gust loads previously described apply.

Vertical tail Calculation At VA of 85.8KCAS the maximum deflection of the Y
manoeuvring rudder in both directions must be used.
loads
At VD of 144.9KCAS the deflection of the rudder must
be one third of maximum.

Gust loads previously described apply.

1
The asymmetrical tail load is applied during a structural test where the combined loading is applied
to the fuselage. The asymmetric load case for the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces must be applied
simultaneously.

117
Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Supplementary Regulation Using the higher of the horizontal tail manoeuvring Y
load conditions loads, 75% of the horizontal and vertical tail loads
for stabilising must be applied simultaneously.
surfaces
The fuselage and stabilising surfaces must also be
designed for the higher of the horizontal and vertical
tail manoeuvring loads where 100% load is applied
on one side and 70% applied to the other side of the
tail.
Symmetrical Calculation At VA of 85.8KCAS the loads due to N1 must be used Y
flight loads to calculate the loads. N2 must be used for the
negative g load case.

At VD of 144.9KCAS the loads due to N1 must be

used to calculate the loads. N2 must be used for the
negative g load case.

In the absence of better data a maximum lift

coefficient of 1.35 must be used. The maximum lift
coefficient of 1.8 was used based on wind tunnel data
for the section (see §4.5, Table 25). The aerodynamic
loads may be applied normal to the relative wind and
a safety factor of 1.05 must be applied to the loads.

Flap loads at VAflap and at VF must be used with the

load factor stipulated as 2g.
Unsymmetrical Calculation At VA of 85.8KCAS the wing and carry-through Y
flight loads structures must be designed for 100% of the N1 load
on one side of the aircraft and 70% of N1 load on the
other side.

At VA or VC the wing and carry-through structures

must be designed for a combination of loads resulting
from 75% of N1 loads on both sides with maximum
torsion due to the ailerons. The additional pitching
moment for the up aileron is CM+ = 0.17 and for the
down aileron CM- = -0.28.

Using ASTM F2245 Appendix X1.3.3.4 the critical

aileron deflection case was determined. Using a total
aileron deflection of 45 the value of K was
determined as 0.897. VC of 106KCAS would be used
for aileron torsion loads.

118
Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Aileron Calculation At VA of 85.8KCAS the maximum deflection of the Y
manoeuvring ailerons must be used.
loads
At VD of 144.9KCAS the deflection of the ailerons must
be one third of maximum.
Landing Calculation Drop height was calculated at 288.5mm using the Y
gear loads ASTM equation and the aircraft wing loading.
(level
landing with The load factor on the wheels nj was calculated as 3g
nose wheel giving a total landing gear deflection at full load of
off the 300mm, including tyre and landing gear leg.
ground)
The vertical load on each main gear was calculated at
8.84kN.

The level landing inclination was stipulated at 14.

Landing Calculation The centre of mass height was estimated at 1.18m above Y
gear loads the ground and 0.15m ahead of the main landing gear.
(level
landing Main wheel load of 6.05kN each inclined at 14 to
inclined vertical.
reactions)
Nose gear load of 5.56kN inclined at 14 to vertical.
Landing Regulation The loads matrix was derived from ASTM F2245 Y
gear loads Figure 3 and 4.
(braked Direction Magnitude
loads and
side loads) Load name Load
number x y z Fx Fy Fz

1 -1 0.54W
Braked roll
2 1 0.67W

3 1 0.33W

4 1 0.67W

5 1 0.5W
Side load
6 1 0.67W

7 -1 1.34W

8 -1 0.83W

Where x, y and z denotes the longitudinal, directional

and lateral axes respectively. The sign indicates the
direction relative to the axis. W denotes the weight of
the aircraft. For example, load 1 is a load of 3178N
towards the rear of the aircraft.

Any shock absorber is assumed to be in the static

position.

119
 Compliance Determined Estimated value Accepted
criterion from
Tie down Regulation Tie down points must be designed N, tie down points were not
points for the maximum open area wind designed.
speed of 38kts.
Parachute Regulation Must comply with ASTM F2316. N, parachute loads were not
system loads specifically designed for
given the space-frame
design.

5.3.3 Airworthiness compliance with ASTM F2245 subpart 7

Table 46 relates to sub-part 7 of ASTM F2245 regarding the powerplant. Consideration was given to
the compliance, but because the aircraft progressed no further than a mock-up the systems were not
designed in detail. The design would be modified as necessary if the project progresses.

Table 46. ASTM F2245 sub-part 7 compliance checks.

Compliance Determined Requirement

criterion from
Installation Regulation The powerplant installation must be easily accessible and
withstand the applicable load factors.
Fuel system Regulation Tanks must be protected from wear, vibration and must withstand
inertial loads due to manoeuvres.

The tanks must be vented and withstand a pressure of 24.5kPa.

Fire prevention Regulation Firewall must be of stainless steel no thinner than 0.46mm or mild
steel (with corrosion protection) no thinner than 0.46mm.

5.4. Analysis of structure

As mentioned at the beginning of §5.3 commercial software was not permitted for use in the design of
this aircraft due to licensing restrictions. A method was developed for the re-design of an LSA as a non-
commercial research project. The method was verified and improved before being applied to the current
design. The method as applied to the research project is presented here as the results for the current
design are embargoed due to the software licence restrictions.

The research aircraft was a re-design of a South African home-built aircraft. The original aircraft was
developed from Piper Cub wings and Piper Super Cub fuselage and empennage components. Instead
of using steel alloy tube the aircraft was constructed using wood. The aircraft externally resembled a
Super Cub, but had a low useful load due to the high empty mass. The re-design was to produce a design
using low-strength steel tube. The tube was constrained to AISI 1010 mild steel tubing by the research
proposer. The ASTM standards do not limit the use of this material. The original Piper aircraft that the
design was based on used AISI 4130 Chrome-Molybdenum tube and was certified under FAR 23.

To improve the design of the fuselage, the fuselage space-frame node points were moved to
accommodate new contours for the door and roof. These could be achieved because the wing was also
being re-designed to make use of a single strut instead of two struts. The wing structure was modified

120
to have a single highly-loaded main web with a strut and a lightly-loaded rear web. The empennage was
designed with a trapezoidal shape at the request of the proposer. The re-designed fuselage is shown in
Figure 97.

Figure 97. Fuselage of a research project aircraft.

The ASTM F2245 was used to check the design and check the compliance with the consensus standards.
For the most important components of the aircraft, the original Piper Super Cub was analysed using
F2245. The loads were compared to the loads calculated for SkyWake. The loads were comparable
since the research aircraft had a mass of 600kg and a wing area of over 16m2. The aircraft did not have
flaps. The space-frame is shown in Figure 98.

Figure 98. 3-view of the space frame and empennage.

121
Prokon software was used to analyse the structure. The academic license allowed the use of 50 nodes.
The entire fuselage and empennage is shown in Figure 99. Each node was input from a spreadsheet.
The properties of each tube, represented by a nodal link, was input.

Figure 99. Nodes for the fuselage space-frame.

Different tube sizes were used in the design to reduce the mass of the fuselage, the reduced strength of
the 1010 tube would have a negative effect on wall thickness. The tubes in tension would have to be
thicker than if a stronger grade material was used. The output loads from Prokon were used with a sort
function in a spreadsheet to select the correct tube for the section. The tubes used for this design are
presented in Table 47. Pipe 7 is solid rod used for empennage bracing.

Table 47. Tube options for the design.

Outer Wall Cross Yield Force Young's Moment of

Pipe diameter thickness section area stress yield modulus area
No mm mm mm2 N/mm2 kN N/mm2 mm4
5
1 10.9 .9 28.27 305 8.62 2.07x10 356.29
5
2 19.1 0.7 40.46 305 12.34 2.07x10 1714.90
5
3 19.1 0.9 51.46 305 15.70 2.07x10 2135.88
5
4 19.1 1.6 87.96 305 26.83 2.07x10 3395.54
5
5 22.2 0.9 60.22 305 18.37 2.07x10 3421.49
5
6 22.2 1.6 103.55 305 31.58 2.07x10 5525.78
7 4 0 12.57 305 3.83 2.07x105 12.57
8 19.1 1.2 85.92 305 26.21 2.07x105 4608.89
5
9 19.1 2 136.80 306 41.86 2.07x10 6758.15
5
10 19.1 2 212.80 305 64.90 2.07x10 38134.05
5
11 25.4 2.5 356.00 305 108.6 2.07x10 114165.37

The load case for symmetrical horizontal tail load combined with vertical tail load is presented. For this
load case both sides of the horizontal tail were loaded with 100% of the stipulated load vertically
downwards and 100% of the vertical tail load was applied towards the positive z-axis. This corresponds
to ASTM F2245 X2.4. The fuselage was constrained by the cabin-wing joint. The load case is shown
in Figure 100.

122
 Figure 100. Applied loads to empennage.

The load in each member was determined and the tensile and buckling failure criteria were used. For
buckling, the Johnson and Euler conditions were tested. Table 48 presents the data for this load case.
The nodal length of each tube was used. For these loads the safety factors are all acceptable. Proof of
compliance would still be done by practical test as required by SACAA Part 24.01.2 (6).

Table 48. Results for empennage load case.

Tensile
Length Force in Pipe F yield Safety F critical Compressive
Nodes [mm] member [kN] number [kN] factor [kN] Safety factor
36-42 1112 8.61 3 15.7 12.31 1.43
42-46 1245 6.2 2 12.3 7.88 1.27
2-48 727 3.54 3 15.7 4.43
39-43 1088 7.46 2 12.3 10.32 1.38
43-47 1230 6.06 2 12.3 8.08 1.33

The load case for symmetrical wing load is presented. For this load case both wings were loaded with
100% of the stipulated load vertically upwards and the loads at the wing joint and strut joint were
applied to the fuselage. The fuselage was constrained by the cabin-wing joint in the vertical direction
only. The loads applied corresponded to 7g. Table 49 presents the data for this load case.

The compressive safety factors that are less than one have been highlighted. The reason for inclusion
was that this was part of the structural design process. When a safety factor that was problematic was
found, the structure was put through the destruction and creation loop since the majority of the tubes
were longer than a single nodal length. The lower fuselage keel tubes were 6m long and ran from the
firewall to the tail to reduce the number of joints. If a load was problematic the option of local
reinforcement was preferred to specifying a larger tube. The benefit of having structural members in
convenient locations for attachment of all the aircraft systems means that almost all tubes in the fuselage
would have a lug, gusset or finger plate welded to them. For any highly stressed tube with a welded
attachment bracket, the tube would be analysed for the resulting combined loading.

123
 Table 49. Results for symmetrical wing load case.

Tensile
Length Force in Pipe F yield Safety F critical Compressive
Nodes [mm] member [kN] number [kN] factor [kN] Safety factor
9-14 253 6.9 8 26.2 13.10 1.90
1-8 580 6.48 8 26.2 4.04 13.10
1-13 692 17.55 3 15.7 7.85 0.45
8-20 410 7.2 3 15.7 2.18 7.85
1-12 608 14.9 4 26.8 13.41 0.90
22-48 492 10.4 4 26.8 13.41 1.29
22-26 492 8.9 8 26.2 13.10 1.47
2-14 608 3.55 4 26.8 13.41 3.78
21-23 326 5.24 8 26.2 5.00 13.10
23-27 304 6.3 8 26.2 13.10 2.08
27-34 580 6.96 8 26.2 13.10 1.88
26-33 580 9.72 8 26.2 13.10 1.35
1-6 743 21.5 8 26.2 1.22 13.10
2-7 743 3.4 8 26.2 7.71 13.10
39-50 214 1.31 4 26.8 13.41 10.24
38-48 214 3.59 4 26.8 7.47 13.41
14-39 170 16.27 8 26.2 1.61 13.10
13-39 170 13.88 8 26.2 1.89 13.10
13-38 160 25.5 8 26.2 1.03 13.10
41-50 170 16.62 8 26.2 1.58 13.10
41-49 170 19.35 8 26.2 1.35 13.10
12-38 170 23.55 10 64.9 2.76 32.45
12-48 130 16.31 4 26.8 13.41 0.82
40-48 170 22.95 8 26.2 1.14 13.10
16-19 150 11.39 8 26.2 13.10 1.15
4-10 1046 10.75 4 26.8 22.11 2.06
6-10 588 13.37 8 26.2 1.96 13.10
4-11 1049 9.84 4 26.8 2.73 21.99
19-42 370 9.06 8 26.2 13.10 1.45
15-17 670 9.73 11 108.6 54.29 5.58
40-49 160 22.95 8 26.2 1.14 13.10

For the SkyWake aircraft a total of 93 nodes with 150 members were used for the analysis of the cabin
structure between the firewall and rear fuselage attachment point. The rear fuselage had 42 nodes with
111 members. The method used was less elegant than that presented for the research aircraft. The load
cases were applied using simplified truss theory. The critical load cases were tested until a maximum
load for that member was observed. The member was sized for that applied load. Given the size of the
model, not all load cases were tested. ASTM F2245 Appendix X2.1 stipulates that at VA the vertical
load must be 4W with a tangential forward load of W applied. At VD a vertical load of 4W and tangential
rearwards load of 0.2W must be applied. At the negative load factor manoeuvre point a vertical load of
2W must be applied downwards and a tangential forwards load 0.4W applied with flaps extended. W
being the maximum weight of the aircraft in Newtons. These loads would be applied during static
testing.

124
The primary concern was the maximum loads applied from the nose landing gear and engine mount and
the loads from the wing and main landing gear. The fuselage space-frame appears very different to that
of the Piper Cub design, but the wing and strut load combination were the same order of magnitude and
the tube specified was similar in dimension. The method of validation used during the aircraft re-design
project involved comparison of the tube specified for a particular member of the fuselage with the tube
specified for that member on the original aircraft. The comparison included an analysis of the buckling
properties of round AISI 4130 tubes against the square AISI 1010 tubes. The forces obtained for each
fuselage space-frame member resulted in a fuselage that was equivalent to the original aircraft. The
fuselage was slightly heavier than the original due to the thicker tube wall thickness of the lower strength
tube. This formed the basis for the analysis of the SkyWake fuselage.

The material chosen was AISI 4130 Chrome-Molybdenum tube. For the cabin section there were only
18 tubes that had lengths longer than 500mm. The maximum stress obtained in any member was
367MPa, the conservative yield stress used for 4130 steel tube was 560MPa [85]. The minimum tube
outer diameter used was 1/2in (12.7mm) and the maximum outer diameter used was 1 1/4in (31.5mm)
tube. The thicknesses varied between 0.72-1.25mm. All tube was of nominal size. Due to the use of
4130 steel tube in many racing vehicle, aircraft engine mount and kit aircraft application, the most
readily available tube sizes are imperial. The decision was made to standardise the tubes as imperial.

To accommodate changes in the design the tubes were over-specified and large diameter tubes were
preferred for rigidity. Wall thickness could be varied to withstand local buckling or to reduce the mass
of tubes in tension. The tube length for the cabin totalled 64.5m and the tubes had a combined mass of
24.9kg. The initial fuselage cabin structure side view is shown in Figure 101. The cabin includes the
original engine mount attachment. The tail boom would be a separately manufactured structure that
would join the rear of the cabin. The side view of the cabin only shows the nodal network down the
side of the aircraft. The lower keel truss can be seen on the top view in Figure 102 This was done to
reduce the structure across the floor of the cabin and to absorb the high strut and main landing gear
loads.

Figure 101. Original fuselage cabin structure side view.

125
The top view of the cabin is shown in Figure 102. The high number of tube members is apparent. The
redundancy in the structure is high. The difficulty in welding the tubes was the primary reason for
changes made to the design. The cost of manufacturing a fuselage with a very high number of nodes is
significant. The tube profiling, jigging, welding and painting would require a large amount of time and
this would create a manufacturing bottle-neck, since the aircraft could only be assembled once the cabin
was complete.

Figure 102. Original fuselage cabin structure top view.

The design was only drawn in CAD once a single professional license had been obtained. The final
cabin structure is shown in Figure 103. The engine loads were transferred to the wing and lower
fuselage. The side truss was removed in favour of a loaded structure within the centre console. The rear
door profile was given a gentle curve to contrast the straight lower and front edges.

Figure 103. Final fuselage cabin structure side view

126
The rear fuselage was designed as a separate space-frame that would attach to the cabin. ASTM F2245
Appendix X2.4 stipulates that the worst case of bending and torsion resulting from the empennage be
applied to the fuselage. These loads were applied from the tail to the fuselage and resulted in lower
forces being applied to the structure than for the cabin structure. The maximum length of any member
was 880mm, with a maximum stress of 207MPa obtained for the highest load member. The tubes used
for this section were 1/2in (12.7mm) for the smallest diameter tube and 3/4in (19.05mm) for the largest.
The tube thicknesses varied between 0.72-0.9mm. The total tube length for the rear fuselage was 52.9m
and the combined mass was calculated as 15.2kg. The initial rear fuselage is shown in Figure 104. The
fuselage consisted of six tubes in a hexagonal arrangement with triangulation.

Figure 104. Initial rear fuselage structure side view.

The structure between the first and second bulkhead in the rear fuselage was modified to accommodate
the changes made to the cabin. The attachment of the vertical tail was designed using a three-point
attachment. The space-frame would attach to the vertical stabiliser front web above and below the
horizontal stabiliser. The rear attachment would be a single point attachment. The final rear fuselage is
shown in Figure 105. The number of tubes used for the rear fuselage remained unchanged as the design
evolved. The combined SkyWake fuselage space-frame had a total mass of 40.1kg. For the Super Cub
aircraft fuselage shown in Figure 89, the mass for the tube was calculated as 47.4kg for the first iteration
and 45.8kg after refinement. This was considered reasonable since the tube did not have a high yield
stress.

Figure 105. Final rear fuselage structure side view.

127
The tube sizes used for the fuselage have been listed in Table 50. The fuselage tube wall thickness was
constrained to three sizes to reduce welding defects and changes to tube profiling grinding wheels. In
some instances tubes with the same outer diameter have been specified with different wall thicknesses.
The 19.05mm tube has been specified as the major load-carrying tube for the fuselage. The three
thicknesses allowed for a slight weight reduction.

Table 50. Tube sizes used for SkyWake.

Structure Number of tubes Outer diameter [mm] Wall thickness [mm] Total tube mass [kg]

Tail boom 11 11.13 0.71 0.32

60 12.7 0.89 6.49
30 19.05 0.71 5.67
9 19.05 0.89 2.27
Fuselage 23 11.13 0.71 1.74
50 11.13 0.89 3.19
4 12.7 0.89 0.54
13 14.29 1.25 2.47
42 19.05 0.89 7.64
3 19.05 1.25 0.67
2 22.2 1.25 0.76
12 25.4 1.25 7.15

The isometric view of the rear fuselage and tail assembly is shown in Figure 106.

Figure 106. Rear fuselage and empennage assembly isometric view.

The vertical tail was designed as a two-spar semi-monocoque structure. The structure was analysed
using a shear flow analysis common for the analysis of the wing and horizontal tail. The largest design
loads were applied to the structure. The loads were calculated using three approximations.

128
The distributed loads according to Schrenk’s approximation were compared to loads calculated from
lift calculations with an assumed maximum lift coefficient at the reference speed. These loads were
compared to the loads derived from the ASTM load estimation method. The loads from Schrenk’s
method and for the lift calculations were comparable. The ASTM loads would be applied during static
tests with bag masses or by whiffle tree. The cellular division of the vertical tail for the shear flow
analysis is shown in Figure 107.

Figure 107. Structural division of the vertical tail.

The front web thickness required to satisfy shear and buckling requirements was determined to be
0.8mm. The applied load of 5.33kN was calculated at VD and was applied to the stabiliser. The rear web
was required to be 0.8mm thick. The skin used was 0.5mm thick. The material thickness was increased
so that the front and rear webs could be integrally stiffened with stiffeners manufactured using the same
material used for the horizontal tail. The front web was increased to 1.6mm with a 1.6mm thick stiffener
and the rear web was thickened to 1.6mm with a 1.6mm thick stiffener. The material mass for the
vertical tail was calculated as 5.2kg for the stabiliser. The total mass for the entire tail was calculated at
10kg including a push-rod control system specified for 120mm rudder pedal travel with a control
gearing of 4.73 Rad/m.

The horizontal tail was designed using a two-spar semi-monocoque structure with a single carry-
through web and load box in the centre. The left and right stabilisers would be separated to allow
rotation about the hinge point through the space-frame fuselage. The loads were calculated at unstick
speed and at VA and VD. The thickness of the front carry-through web was specified as 2mm with 1.6mm
stiffeners. The rear web was specified at 1.6mm thick with 1.6mm stiffeners. The ribs and skin were
specified as 0.5mm thick. The factor of safety for the web was 8.9 for the shear stress of 30.8Mpa. The
factor of safety for the critical compressive load in the web stiffeners was calculated as 2.53 for the
compressive stress of 87.7MPa. The mechanism for the tab was modelled and is shown in Figure 108.
L1 represents the chord of the stabiliser. The length of L2 would be adjusted by the electronic trim
actuator to manipulate the angle of the tab, denoted as R’. For the zero trim setting R’ would be the
same as elevator angle . The centre of gravity limits used were between 20%-32% mean aerodynamic
chord. These were set as outer limits for the conceptual design. The aircraft would not have a large
centre of gravity range as the cabin was designed to constrain the position of the passengers. The pitch
authority provided by the horizontal tail was calculated for these large limits.

129
The limits would be reduced during the proving flight phase of testing. The limit of travel for the trim
actuator would be controlled by adjusting L3 and h1.

Figure 108. Horizontal tail trim mechanism diagram.

The wing was analysed using Schrenk’s approximation at the reference speeds stipulated by the ASTM
standards. The strut was positioned on the main web. The lateral position from the fuselage was
determined by calculating the overall shear force and bending moment on the wing for different strut
positions. The location of the strut at a distance of 1.7m from the wing joint and 2.32m from the centre-
line resulted in lower root reaction loads and lower bending loads for the wing. The reactions in 3 axes
were calculated at the front web fuselage joint, rear web fuselage joint and at the strut attachment. The
bracket attaching the strut to the wing was designed as a reinforced plate that introduced the loads across
the entire web. Due to the angle of the strut to the axis of the strut, the ribs and web were stiffened to
resist the strut moment. The strut mounting bracket was a machined Aluminium plate with maximum
thickness of 10mm. The front web was specified as 2.3mm thick and the rear web as 1.6mm thick. Five
web stiffeners were used for the wing. Three for the front web and two for the rear. The stiffener cross
section was standardised as 22.2mm x 3.2mm Aluminium 6061 angle. The vertical web stiffeners were
specified as the same section angle. The total number of 0.5mm thick ribs specified for each wing was
14 with each rib being attached to the web with a vertical stiffener on both sides of the web.

The ring ribs were modelled as shown in Figure 109. Standard shear flow analysis was used. For the
maximum applied load at VD the shear stress in the front web was calculated as 27.5MPa and the shear
stress in the rear web was calculated as 28.1MPa. The factor of safety for the main web was determined
to be 10.0 for the front web and 9.8 for the rear web. The peak point load was at the strut attachment.
The front web factor of safety reduced to 5.3 for this load application. The critical buckling case for the
web stiffeners was in compression. The factor of safety was calculated as 1.12 for the front web
stiffeners and 1.29 for the rear web stiffeners based on a crippling stress of 360MPa. The rivets
specified for the web-stiffener had diameter of 4.8mm. The rivet shear stress of 177MPa would support
a shear load of 3.2kN. The spacing determined for the skins was 23.6mm and for vertical stiffeners the
spacing was calculated at 19.5mm. The rivets were specified as solid rivets for the ribs, webs and
stiffeners. The skins would be attached with pop rivets on the underside and solid rivets on the upper
surface. Round head rivets were specified since the aircraft was a low-speed aircraft and the
manufacturing costs associated with countersunk rivets are high. The total mass for the webs, skins and
stiffeners for the wing (neglecting the flaps fuel tanks and ailerons) was calculated as 30.7kg per wing.
The Super Cub aircraft wings were constructed of Aluminium primary structure with fabric covering.
They were larger in area, with a USA 35B profile and weighed 31kg each.

130
The wings did not feature flaps, the low wing loading and larger centre of mass limits, due to the tandem
seating arrangement, meant that the additional pitching moment created by flaps would require a larger
horizontal tail. The SkyWake wings were comparable in mass and featured Aluminium primary
structure, Aluminium skin and flaps. For a wing of similar span and slightly less area, this initial mass
estimate was reasonable.

Figure 109. Wing rib structural analysis.

The wing cross-section is shown in Figure 110. The front web has three stiffeners. Two are located to
absorb the compressive load on the upper surface and a single stiffener absorbs the tensile load on the
lower surface. The lower stiffener is located behind the web as the strut attaches on the front of the web.
The two stiffeners used for the rear web are attached on the front of the web. The vertical stiffeners are
indicated. The aileron hinge point and push-rod attachment that enable Frise motion are also shown.

Web stiffeners

Vertical web
stiffeners

Aileron push-rod
attachment

Aileron mounting
bracket

Figure 110. Cross-section of wing structure. Aileron web

The main landing gear was designed to offer better comfort and low bounce performance. The analysis
used to design the landing gear leg was initially a static load analysis given the maximum landing load
factor nj of 3g. The combined load applied at the axle mount of each main gear leg was 8.84kN. The
leg was specified as a heated-treated AISI 4340 tube with a yield stress of 834MPa [72]. The outer
diameter was calculated as 2in (50.8mm) with a 1/4in (6.35mm) wall thickness. The peak static bending
moment resulted in a maximum stress of 631MPa. The horizontal static reaction load required from the
spring damper was calculated as 64kN for an axle deflection of 300mm. The load on the pivot was
calculated as 111kN.

To analyse the landing gear the model used for vertical loads is shown in Figure 111. F1 and V represent
the forces aligned with the gear leg, forces F2 and F3 represent loads aligned with the aircraft. The
ASTM provide a maximum load factor for the design of the landing gear. The landing gear may be
designed for this load case where static analysis may be used. Alternatively the impact may be modelled
to calculate the forces. The analysis of the loads generated during a hard landing is not trivial. For this
aircraft the static case was used for the stress analysis.

131
The spring damper was specified to resist the maximum displacement under static load. The vibration
response of the system was calculated by assuming spring constants for the tyre, leg and spring of
190kN/m, 1760kN/m and 209kN/m respectively. The total spring constant equivalent was calculated as
94kN/m. The overall damping constant was determined to be 1000Ns/m. This was determined from
high-speed video of aircraft landings and the assumption that the deflection for a perfectly smooth
landing was 40mm. The impact needed to be damped after 5 oscillations and approximately 1.5s. The
landing gear was analysed assuming the aircraft itself was a rigid body. The spring damper combination
would be adjusted on a structural prototype.

The ASTM consensus standards do not prescribe calculations for spin-up loads. The landing gear is
testing with the drop test and static tests are required for the loads calculated in Table 45.

Figure 111. Landing gear vertical load model.

132
The mass of the material contributing to the empty mass of the aircraft is presented in Table 51.

Table 51. Empty mass breakdown of the aircraft.

Component Mass Comment

[kg]
Fuselage space- 40.1 Conservative as the mass was calculated based on nodal tube length.
frame Compares favourably to the mass for the research aircraft (see Figure
97).
Fuselage skin 15 Includes Aluminium skin, glazing and cowling
Flight 12 Includes the flight instrument panel.
instruments
Wing 100 Includes skin, ribs, webs, stiffeners, struts, flaps, ailerons and paint.
Engine 80 Includes Rotax 912 ULS and battery.
Landing gear 20 Includes wheel, leg, stub axle, brake and spring damper.
(main)
Landing gear 8 Inclusive of wheel, axle, spring damper and steering mechanism.
(nose)
Horizontal tail 14 Includes stabiliser, tab and control linkage (2.3kg).
Vertical tail 10 Includes stabiliser, rudder and control linkage (2kg).
Interior 15 Includes carpeting, console and seats.
Total empty 315
mass

The aircraft empty mass of 315kg allows for a total payload of 235kg to be carried when operating as
an ultralight at a take-off mass of 550kg and for a payload of 285kg to be carried when operated as a
LSA. This exceeds the requirement of 250kg by a sufficient margin.

With reference to the user requirements:

1. The aircraft was designed for recreational and commercial operations. The materials specified
for the aircraft would enable the design to follow a maintenance schedule similar to current
trainer aircraft. The design was conservative with regards to structure. The space-frame
fuselage would allow for equipment installation to be adapted for different user requirements.
2. The aircraft was designed for low production and operating costs. The manufacturing facility
for the aircraft was conceptually designed for low cost component manufacture and assembly
that allowed for the aircraft to be competitively priced.
3. The aircraft was designed for typical South African hot and high environmental conditions.
Consideration was given to aircraft performance, reliability and maintainability. The
performance of the aircraft was assessed on maximum available energy levels, where a definite
advantage over the competitors was designed into the aircraft.
4. The aircraft was designed with competitive features and properties that were incorporated at a
systems level. Three patents were filed using ideas that were generated for the design. The flap
system guide rail being the only patent included in this design. The flap system would eliminate
flap mechanism outside the aerofoil profile reducing drag and the chance of cranial or facial
impact with the mechanism.
5. The aircraft was designed to meet the requirements of ASTM F2245.

133
A micro air-conditioning unit was designed to fit adjacent to the ballistic parachute and duct cool air
down the centre console. A small food and beverage receptacle was included in the console to be cooled
by the cool air. The design has not been included in this report.

With reference to the business requirements, two business plans were created. The first business plan
was written assuming the design was to be developed by the Blue Crane Development Agency. The
second business plan was written based on a business model where the University of the Witwatersrand
would apply for CAA Part 147 Design Organisation approval and the company would apply for Part
148 Manufacturing Organisation approval. The business plans were presented to venture capital
consortia and to the following funders (Aerosud, Denel, the Innovation Fund, Industrial Development
Corporation, Department of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry, the
Employment Creation Fund and the United Nations). The Industrial Development Corporation, Blue
Crane Development Agency and University of the Witwatersrand funded the construction of a mock-
up of the aircraft. A funding proposal was written for a University-housed DO, this was supported by
the National Aerospace Centre. Funding has been awarded to the project from the Eastern Cape
government, the priority was to establish the Somerset East airport and industrial park. Should the
project be completed on time without budget overrun, this project would be funded in the second phase
of the funding. The industry growth plan was named the Somerset East Bureau of Aeronautics
(SEBuAer).

5.5. Aircraft development

In terms of the South African regulations regarding the developmental design of an aircraft, SACAA
Part 24 was viewed by the aviation community and by the regulating authority as problematic. The
regulations for non-type certificated aircraft were never developed for the mass-production of
production-standard aircraft. They were written for home-built experimental aircraft, vintage, veteran
and ex-military aircraft. Several issues with the regulation language, intent and interpretation were
observed by both the industry and the SACAA. The Recreation Administration of South Africa
approached the University to investigate changes to the regulations to enable the industry to be regulated
based on approvals and type-acceptance basis rather than on a certification process. The regulations
were examined and this lead to a proposal to the administrative body responsible for the oversight of
non-type certificated aircraft. The regulations were re-drafted [68] in conjunction with industry and
regulator participation and the response from industry has been very positive.

The process required to build an amateur-built aircraft with the intention of obtaining a production-built
type certificate is illustrated in Figure 112, developed from [72]. The processes for assessing the
airworthiness were based on the experienced gained from this project and the understanding of the
ASTM standards for LSA. The processes would also need to be developed to assess the airworthiness
against FAR 23. That project is in its early stages.

134
Figure 112. Process developed for the Recreation Aviation Administration of South Africa.

135
The static testing requirement for a new design intended for production-built approval was clarified.
The new regulation pertaining to testing follows:

“Part 24.01

(6) In the case of-

(i) Amateur built aircraft, static tests, as required, are to be carried out on the aircraft prior to
its first flight or after a structural modification, referred to in Regulation 44.03.14, according to
Document SA-CATS-NTCA.

(ii) Production built aircraft, in the absence of static test documentation from an appropriate
authority acceptable to The Director for Civil Aviation, static tests, as required, are to be carried
out on the aircraft prior to its first flight or after a structural modification, referred to in
Regulation 44.03.14, according to Document SA-CATS-NTCA.” [68]

While funding for the aircraft was being sourced, the testing equipment required to test the aircraft was
designed. The projects were suitable as final year design projects. The design inputs and user
requirements were developed by students with the aim of developing a centre for aircraft structural
testing at the university. Funding was sourced from the National Aerospace Centre and from the
University to build some of the testing equipment. The structural testing designs completed include:

1. Engine bay test apparatus where the front end of the aircraft would be attached to a small, light
rolling stock wagon for high speed testing on unused rail track. The engine bay could be tested
at flight speed in very hot conditions in summer and very cold conditions in winter. The
apparatus was generated with the use of destruction and creation.
2. Landing gear testing apparatus was designed to test landing gear individually as the first design.
The second iteration was a gantry that could reproduce a variety of impact not tested in the
ASTM F2245 drop test. The aircraft would be supported by the ballistic parachute attachment
points. The aircraft could be dropped at different pitch and lateral angle combinations. The
aircraft could also be dropped at any angle combination with a lateral velocity created by
allowing the aircraft to swing during the drop. This apparatus was also created using destruction
and creation.
3. Landing gear load cells were designed that would allow for realistic tyre slip during the drop
testing. This would allow for realistic data to be extracted for the gear to be optimised. The
traditional drop test does not allow the tyres to slide laterally as they would on a real aircraft
during a landing.
4. Wing structural testing facility was designed for load application to a variety of different wing
geometries. This facility was designed to test rear fuselages as well. In addition to testing the
wing, the ailerons and flaps can be loaded during the test as well with independent whiffle trees.
This project received funding and is being constructed in the University laboratory. The
SkyWake wing can be seen attached to the whiffle tree in Figure 113.

136
 Figure 113. Rendered view of the National Aerospace Centre whiffle tree

As part of the development of new Civil Aircraft Regulations related to the airworthiness of non-type
certificated aircraft, the maintenance requirements were found to be problematic and contradictory for
some aircraft types. Part 44 was developed specifically for the maintenance of non-type certificated
aircraft. Extracts comparing the regulations are presented.

1997 regulations: 43.02.2 (3) Any person may carry out maintenance on an amateur built aircraft or
a production-built aircraft, or any component thereof, if such person –

(a) is authorised by the Commissioner or by the organisation designated for the purpose by the
Commissioner in terms of Part 149, as the case may be, to carry out the maintenance; or

(b) carries out the maintenance under the direct supervision of a person authorised by the
Commissioner or by the organisation referred to in subregulation (a). [59]

This regulation was problematic regarding an owner-builder of an aircraft. The build standard of a kit
aircraft would vary with each builder. The 2011 regulations gave clarity in terms of the supervision
necessary and for an owner-builder maintaining his/her aircraft. The substitution of parts complying
with a material specification was also clarified. This would allow for Design Organisation approval to
be gained by small enterprises that manufactured non-critical aircraft accessories.

2011 regulations: 44.01.4(1) A person may carry out maintenance on an amateur built aircraft or a
production-built non-type certificated aircraft, or any component thereof, if such person-
(a) is appropriately rated or approved on type by The Director for Civil Aviation, or the
organisation designated for the purpose in terms of The Act, as the case may be, to carry out
maintenance; or

137
(b) carries out the maintenance under the prescribed supervision of a person authorised by The
Director of Civil Aviation or by the organisation referred to in sub-regulation (a). A dual check
of the maintenance carried out must be performed by a person referred to in sub-regulation
(a); or

(c) is the owner of the aircraft provided that an appropriately rated approved AMO, AME or
Approved Person, rated in accordance with Regulation 66.4, performs a dual check on the
maintenance which was carried out; or

(d) is an appropriately rated approved AMO, AME or Approved Person, rated in accordance with
Regulation 66.4.

(2) Components and parts intended to be used on non-type certificated aircraft may be
fabricated by a person or organisation not licensed in terms of Part 66 or Part 145 of these Regulations.
The owner of the aircraft must provide The Director for Civil Aviation, or the organisation designated
for the purpose in terms of The Act, as the case may be, with evidence that the components or parts
meet the minimum specification for the component or part as specified by the Original Equipment
Manufacturer. An appropriately rated approved AMO, AME or Approved Person, rated in accordance
with Regulation 66.4 shall sign off the component or part in the appropriate logbook. [72]

The regulation of modifications was over-regulated, as such many aircraft were left in a modified stated
without a certificate of airworthiness. The 1997 regulation effectively required an engineering report
for a very trivial modification of an aircraft.

1997 regulation: 43.02.15 (1) No person shall, without the prior written approval of the Commissioner,
carry out any modifications, including changes to equipment or the installation thereof, which affect,
or are likely to affect, the serviceability of the aircraft, or the safety of its occupants or of any other
persons or property.

(2) Before the approval of the Commissioner is considered for a modification as referred to in
subregulation (1), the owner of the aircraft, or any other person who applies for the modification, shall

(a) furnish the Commissioner with such information, data, calculations, reports on tests, drawings or
wiring diagrams relating to the design, and proof of effectiveness or airworthiness of such modification,
as the Commissioner may require; and

(b) be accompanied by the appropriate fee as prescribed in Part 187.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subregulations (1) and (2), such modifications as may from time
to time be recommended by the manufacturer of the type of aircraft or equipment concerned, may be
carried out if the modifications are carried out in accordance with the said manufacturer's
recommendations. [59]

The difference between an aircraft used for recreation, experimentation or for commercial gain was
clarified in the 2011 regulations. Two categories of modification were introduced. A minor modification
was defined as being a modification to an aircraft that did not change any load condition. The regulation
was primarily created to allow owner-builders of non-type certificated aircraft to experiment. Any
person owning a production-built aircraft would need approval from the authority, because these aircraft
could be used for commercial activity.

138
2011 regulation (1) A person may carry out any modifications, including changes to equipment or the
installation thereof, which affect, or are likely to affect, the serviceability of the aircraft, or the safety
of its occupants or any other persons or property. In the case of-

(a) a minor modification, as defined in Part 1 of these Regulations, to-

(i) an amateur built aircraft, a notification of the modification must be submitted to The
Director for Civil Aviation, or the organisation designated for the purpose in terms of The Act,
as the case may be, once the modification has been performed.

(ii) a production built aircraft, a notification of the modification must be submitted to The
Director for Civil Aviation, or the organisation designated for the purpose in terms of The Act,
as the case may be, within 30 days of the modification being performed. All subsequent
modifications shall be an amendment to the build standard.

(b) a major modification, as defined in Part 1 of these Regulations, to amateur built and production
built aircraft, an application for the approval of the modification and authority to fly, as prescribed in
Document SA-CATS-NTCA, must be submitted to The Director for Civil Aviation, or the organisation
designated for the purpose in terms of The Act, as the case may be, before the modification has been
performed.

(2) The application as specified in sub-regulation (1) must be accompanied by the appropriate
fee as described in Part 187.

(3) All approved modifications shall be entered into the appropriate logbook(s).

(4) An appropriately rated approved AMO, AME or Approved Person, rated in accordance
with Regulation 66.4 shall sign in the appropriate logbook(s) that all procedures, as stated in the
application for modification, were adhered to and that he or she is satisfied with the quality of the work
which was carried out. [72]

The major modification was distinguished from a minor modification. The process allowing for a
modification to be approved has been developed and is illustrated in Figure 114.

139
 Figure 114. Process for modifications developed for the Recreation Aviation Administration of South Africa.

This process is expected to make the possibility of modifying an amateur-built aircraft significantly
easier. The airworthiness assessment process was developed using the structural analysis methods and
experience gained during the design of SkyWake. These new processes would allow for a designer to
experiment with aircraft performance and structure. This would allow for an experimental home-built
aircraft to be developed into a factory produced production-built aircraft. This would allow the industry
to grow.

140
6. Discussion

The intention of the Light Sport Aircraft category of aircraft and its associated airworthiness consensus
standards, as described in §1.3, was to promote and nurture general aviation. Student pilots would be
able to afford to fly these aircraft before graduating on to type certified aircraft fitted with similar, but
certified equipment. These new aircraft would have similar performance to type certified aircraft. Flight
schools could purchase these aircraft and they would be used as the preferred flight training platform,
replacing expensive legacy aircraft. The operational and insurance costs were intended to be lower than
older, traditional, type certified trainer aircraft. Private pilots could purchase these aircraft for
recreational use since the cruise speed and aesthetics would be comparable to certified aircraft. New
companies could enter the market with new airframes, avionics, engines, components and systems being
brought to market without the prohibitive FAR 23 certification costs that have made certified aircraft
expensive.

The aircraft in this study was designed as an ultralight that would meet the Light Sport Aircraft design
specifications established by the ASTM. The standards were incomplete when initially published and
have been modified on several occasions to improve the safety of LSA. The flight envelope defined by
the ASTM placards the minimum and maximum flight speeds. Should a manufacturer design a very
light structure with a 80hp engine to minimise purchase price, the aircraft would not be capable of
achieving a cruise speed of 100KCAS nor would it be capable of transporting a payload of 250kg. The
aircraft would also not be competitive against more expensive aircraft fitted with a 100hp engine. If the
manufacturer were to use an engine with more than 100hp, the aircraft would exceed the placard speeds
and would not be compliant with the ASTM specifications, by exceeding the stipulated flight envelope.
The baseline design that would meet the lower placard speeds, with adequate performance at the
maximum flying mass, would limit the designer to a 100hp engine. The limits placed on the design by
the ASTM consensus standards constrain the aircraft, so that most aircraft of a certain wing
configuration would be very alike in terms of appearance and performance. Several vintage aircraft
such as the Piper Cub could be made to comply with ASTM F2245, meaning that the aircraft could still
be produced for the LSA market. This aircraft would fly slowly with a very low wing loading and very
low airframe complexity. The Piper Cub would only be fitted with basic flight instruments due to the
narrow cabin width, the maximum speed would be less than 100KCAS, but the aircraft would have
adequate performance for a vintage design for a limited target market. The new category of modern
LSA aircraft would feature a higher flying speed, higher wing loading and higher airframe complexity.
This, in combination with the excellent performance would allow for the aircraft to suit both recreational
and commercial operating roles. Any new design would have to offer the market some initial
competitive benefit to gain sales. The new design would have to be designed with new technology such
as EFIS flight instruments, LED lighting and electric trim to offer additional benefits to the user.

The design as described in §1.1 was conceived to give critical mass to a rural airfield development. The
proposer of the design had some criteria that the new aircraft needed to meet. These criteria were based
on a basic assessment of existing aircraft in the microlight and ultralight categories. The most suitable
aircraft type was a conventional aircraft in the ultralight category, which would be designed as a non-
type certificated aircraft. The ultralight category includes a variety of sub-categories as mentioned in
§1.2. The aircraft would need to be designed according to the vague SACAA Part 24 airworthiness
standards for type approval in South Africa to be awarded. The basic requirements for gaining type
approval were discussed in §1.5 and the design and manufacturing organisation approvals necessary for
the aircraft to be approved as a production-built aircraft were investigated.

141
The good sales figures for the new LSA category in both the recreational and commercial markets, in
addition to a common consensus standards for the design of the aircraft, would allow for the aircraft to
be designed to a common international standard, something the SACAA Part 24 did give guidance on.
Light aircraft production in South Africa was investigated. The only aircraft produced in South Africa
as presented in Table 1 that would meet some of the criteria was the Airplane Factory Sling, which at
the time this design was started, did not exist.

Performance parameters were investigated to refine the proposed criteria. The flight cruise speed was
specified at a minimum of 1.05 kt/hp. The payload minimum was set at 250kg to accommodate two
adults, baggage and fuel. The aircraft power loading target was stipulated at not more than 6kg/hp. The
competitive cruise speed was determined to be 110KCAS. The market-leading ultralight and LSA
aircraft performance was explored with the engines available for use on these aircraft. The Rotax 912
series was selected as the most suitable engine. The engine selection was described in §3.6.

The market-leading aircraft based on pre-sales orders was investigated in §3.7. The C-162,
manufactured by Cessna, gained substantial sales with the prototype aircraft. The design resembled a
legacy aircraft of the same manufacturer. The company made changes to the powerplant to satisfy local
demand for a legacy engine. The manufacturing was moved from an existing factory to an international
factory. The performance appeared to be market-leading, but a series of accidents resulted in a drop in
sales. The aircraft was designed from the start as an ASTM compliant aircraft. The accidents were all
due to loss of directional control. An investigation showed that vertical tail surfaces sized using the
conventional vertical tail volume coefficients for typical light general aviation aircraft would result in
insufficient directional control and stability. The C-162 required a major modification to the vertical
tail to improve the directional control.

The dwindling sales of the aircraft resulted in production being terminated. This has resulted in the
Piper Cub being the only production United States-designed LSA. The C-162 aircraft was intended to
infiltrate flight schools worldwide. Cessna has now been left without any aircraft that is smaller and
cheaper than the C-172. It has also left the company without a successful high-wing very light aircraft
since the company ended production of the C-152 in 1985.

The Tecnam family of ultralight and LSA aircraft was examined in §3.8. The P92 series evolved from
an austere ultralight into a very well-equipped LSA. The sales have been consistently good, resulting
in product and company growth. The company has begun to offer certified aircraft as well that compete
with Cessna and Piper aircraft. This growth was explored given the airfield development project goal.
The evolution of the design was explored because Cessna failed to develop growth once the aircraft
entered production. The Tecnam design approach of modification of an initial ultralight design into a
LSA was adopted as the lowest risk to market entry. This approach was also selected as the ASTM
specification was yet to be adopted by the SACAA. The design complexity of the Tecnam design has
increased with product evolution. The initial aircraft appears as being manufactured to a cost constraint
rather than a performance constraint. The later aircraft appear to be designed for good performance and
comfort rather than for simple, low-cost manufacturing. The P92 Echo classic, P2004 Bravo and P2008
were compared. The P2004 was the evolution of the ultralight P92. The P2008 is a clean sheet LSA
design with a lower useful load compared to a P2004, but superior performance to the C-162.

142
The SkyWake design was focussed on self-developed user requirements with proposer-developed
criteria and specifications. To achieve the required specifications, qualitative goals were researched
before being turned into quantitative targets. Economic goals had to be satisfied by transforming
quantitative targets into performance specifications. At the commencement of this project the C-162
appeared to have the correct quantitative targets and the P92 appeared to be an average aircraft in the
ultralight category. The P92 has been evolved into the leading ultralight and Tecnam is the leading LSA
manufacturer. The criteria for the design were based, initially, on the perception of the ideal solution.

For the performance the primary criteria used was energy, or more explicitly, the specific excess power.
By using energy the competition could be beaten in climbing turns, descending turns, level turns and
gliding turns. This could be achieved without compromising the aircraft with regards to any of the other
user requirements. This approach to the design of a clean-sheet aircraft of this type has novelty.

The most important theoretical tool used in the design process was the principle of destruction and
creation. The notion of deconstructing a design, equation, problem, drawing, system or regulation into
base elements and then construction an alternative seems to contradict the standard method of aircraft
design prescribed by the majority of authors. For the alternative solution to be successful, the
constructed solution needs to be continually assessed against the requirement. The destruction and
creation method was not meant to be randomly applied to a complex situation. The approach needed
structure. Having correctly prioritised user requirements, structure was provided for the dialectic engine
to work. The destruction and creation loop was also used for the creation of concepts with broad
capability. For this aircraft the simultaneous destruction and creation loops were structured for
operation, cost, environment and competitive features in order of decreasing priority. Each component
or system was designed using this method.

Other contributing influences such as the Douglas Aircraft Company general guidelines for design and
manufacture were used as constraints to continually assess the concepts during development. Three
novel ideas were patented that resulted directly from this design process. A novel propeller spinner was
developed to assist with engine cooling during high heat, high power slow manoeuvres. The spinner
was an assembly of petal blades retained by a spring. By balancing centripetal force and dynamic
pressure the petals would open and act as a fan ahead of the propeller. A South African provisional
patent was filed for this invention. The second innovative design was a flap guide rail that was fully
housed inside the aerofoil shape. The flap motion was a mixture of translation and rotation. The device
would lower the excrescence drag. A South African patent was awarded for this device. The third design
was a winglet originally derived to offer a tailored position for the reduction in induced drag. The
winglet could be positioned at angle of attack, yaw and cant. The device was further developed to
oscillate in a sinusoidal manner and in a random manner to assist in destabilising the wingtip vortices
during the roll-up phase. Translation along the longitudinal axis was included for a Patent Cooperation
Treaty application. This device was proven to work during wind tunnel tests. US 8,894,018 B2 was
awarded in November 2014. Only the flap design was incorporated into the design. The patents were
filed to give the design funding applications some intellectual property. The patents are appended as
Appendices A, B and C.

The user requirements were used to refine the original requirements. The major systems of the aircraft
were designed from the general to the specific. The high-level concepts for the wing, fuselage, landing
gear, engine installation and cockpit were generated to best meet the original proposed criteria. The
design was developed combining elements of these high-level concepts.

143
The design of this aircraft was conducted within a framework of fundamental design concepts. The
individual concepts that were amalgamated to create aircraft systems at different levels in the system
were not unique. In most cases the concepts had not yet been incorporated into an aircraft of this type
by other manufacturers. By utilising scientific and operational knowledge of physics, materials and
structural elements of an aircraft, the individual concepts could be synthesised into a unique overall
concept. For this aircraft the layout of the cabin influenced every other major component of the aircraft.
The layout was developed within the architecture of a destruction and creation framework. The physical
size and mass of different occupants was used to position the occupants. This allowed for maximum
visibility and ergonomic comfort. It also allowed for the change in centre of mass of the cabin to be
constrained. The instrument panel and doors could be positioned using the seating as practical geometric
limits. The engine was positioned and engine systems were ergonomically placed after incorporating
an angled firewall. The wing and landing gear was incorporated before the inclusion of the rear fuselage
and empennage.

These components were then designed in isolation before being integrated back into the design. Most
components of the aircraft started as creative features where qualitative limits of operation morphed
them into a standard configuration. The dialectic engine was used to develop the design and to solve
problems encountered where individual qualitative limits could not be mutually satisfied. The flight
envelope was identified as the problem that resulted in the demise of the C-162. The C-162 was
designed for a high speed envelope and its resulting low speed envelope was not what the market
wanted. The Tecnam approach to good low speed envelope and an acceptable high speed envelope has
resulted in a commercial success. The Tecnam design sacrificed top-end speed for better all-round
performance.

The basic sizing of the aircraft was completed using several teams of students during the university
vacation periods. The students conducted research into very specific aspects of the design. The students
were then used to size the physical aircraft as demonstrated in §4.4. The students were used to give live
feedback during the destruction and creation process. The additional creative input was that less than
5% of the students involved were pilots, the feedback was thus based on opinion of the design without
any prejudice or preference. Short and tall students were used to size the cabin. Students would represent
the younger generation of aspiring student pilots, an aircraft design project that involved students was
within the spirit of the developmental goals of the proposer. Other older pilots were brought in to give
their opinion of the design once the design had evolved. The only large changes made to the design
during this preliminary sizing was a change in wing aerofoil from a NACA4412 to a NASA 0317. This
lightened the wing, provided more space for the flap guide-rail and resulted in lower stall speed with
negligible increase in drag. The increase in manufacturing cost due to the larger surface area of the
internal wing components was offset by the increase in rivet spacing, resulting in a more ergonomic
environment when working with the wing.

The aircraft was then refined with a different set of students. The exceptional students from the first
contingent were used to defend the original design that they had helped with, against scrutiny from the
new students. Minor changes were introduced only if the change improved the design against the user
requirements for two cases. Firstly the individual change needed to improve the design in isolation.
Secondly the change needed to improve the design after all other systems were engineered to
accommodate the change. This meant that changes were only incorporated if the resulting aircraft was
better than the baseline. This process was useful in that each student worked on a small portion of the
aircraft but was exposed to the entire aircraft as it evolved.

144
The refinement of the aircraft, covered in §4.5, verified that the initial conceptual aircraft had fewer
negative features than some of the popular competitor aircraft. The wing joint resulted in unobstructed
vision, the strut position and door position meant easier access as indicated in Figures 32, 49 and 50.

Maintenance considerations were used in conjunction with the Douglas Aircraft Company guidelines
to design sub-systems at a high-level prior to the compliance calculation checks made against the ASTM
specifications. This was done because a sub-system can readily be made compliant, whereas a complete
system requires more time to be made so.

The initial business case for the aircraft was re-considered as a result of the dialectic engine being used
on the entire airfield development. The original idea as proposed by the airfield developer was for an
aircraft that would be used for flight training in the Eastern Cape. The company would sell the initial
production aircraft to the flight school and rely on word-of-mouth sales from satisfied student pilots,
flight instructors and sight-seeing flight customers. By combining the goals of the developer with the
goals of a university and the global LSA sales goals, the project was re-scoped further. The business
plan presented in this report is appended as Appendix D and only covers the aircraft, launch strategy
and manufacturing facility. Extensive planning was done to create a new aircraft industry in South
Africa. The aircraft design would, therefore, need to be a commercially successful production-built non-
type certificated aircraft. This would enable the owner of the design to gain both design and
manufacturing organisation approval, this would allow for product evolution to occur as Tecnam has
demonstrated. The manufacturing organisation would be an all-inclusive light industry park located at
the airfield with manufacturing companies producing aerospace components in addition to other
products such as microlights, parachutes, gliders, racing cars and wind turbines. The design organisation
would be a separate company with the university participating in research, development, and design
with testing capability. This would allow for spin-off companies to be incubated using the university
and industry-linked design and manufacturing hub. The multiple manufacturing organisations and
single design organisation would begin producing a variety of aerospace products using the assembly
facility for this aircraft to create an industrial hub. For this aircraft several manufacturing facility designs
were developed. The sales forecast and business plan required an investment of R15 million for the
project.

The best method of demonstrating the three dimensional aesthetics, design features, ingress and egress
is to build a model of the aircraft. The decision to manufacture a low-cost full-size mock-up of the
aircraft was made once the refinement of the design had been completed. Twelve students, led by a
student that had done vacation work during the first round of student involvement, built a mock-up in
a twelve week period. The students had no practical experience in welding, metalwork, foam work or
in composites manufacturing. The mock-up was presented along with the completed business plan to a
variety of potential customers, investors and manufacturers. The aircraft was pitched as being the
cheapest LSA in the market with performance comparable with the market leading aircraft. It was
therefore pitched as having the best performance in the flight training role at speeds of 70-85KCAS as
demonstrated in Figures 82 and 83. The lower wing loading and higher aspect ratio were used to
demonstrate the good performance in hot and high conditions. The construction of the mock-up was
summarised in §4.9.

The performance was calculated using methods developed by the leading authors in the field of aircraft
design. Some of the methods were modified for use on aircraft in this category based on flight test data
obtained from LSA aircraft. The thrust model was originally used to evaluate the performance changes
resulting from a 20% increase in power on a Parker Teenie two. The method resulted in good
correlation. The method was refined during the re-design of the Super Cub, described in §5.4. The

145
inclusion of scrubbing to correct the ideal thrust for the aircraft fuselage, wing and empennage in the
propeller slipstream was verified using flight data for that aircraft. The aircraft was fitted with a 120hp
Jabiru engine. The thrust model was further verified by a student during his final year research report
on performance enhancements to the Sling. The method of drag estimation has been verified on the
projects listed. Two of the aircraft were Aluminium semi-monocoque low-wing monoplane aircraft with
mass ranges of 300-700kg and flight speeds of 80-130KCAS. The high-wing aircraft was a fabric
covered aircraft. The parameters with high levels of uncertainty used to predict the zero-lift drag
coefficient, were better understood during these projects. The skin friction and form factor for light
aircraft were investigated to resolve the discrepancy between calculated drag coefficient and flight test
drag coefficient. The drag coefficient calculation method was described in §4.8.

The specific excess power during climb and during manoeuvres was assessed as the most important
performance parameter considering the combined user requirements. The performance of this aircraft
in this regard exceeds that of the P92 and C-162. The zero specific excess power level of the SkyWake
was verified by estimation of the maximum level flight speed. The verification was achieved by
modelling the P-92 and C-162. The maximum level flight speeds for the two competitors was accurate,
the C-162 maximum speed was 1.4KCAS less than advertised as seen in Figure 83. At a speed range of
70-110KCAS, the SkyWake demonstrates a higher maximum energy level. This means that the Aircraft
can perform tighter manoeuvres than the competitors and can out accelerate them. If the aircraft was
used to tow a banner or a glider, the higher energy level would allow the aircraft to absorb the extra
drag without reducing the climb rate significantly. New performance graphs for aircraft were developed
to assess the engine-out glide energy levels of an aircraft. The aircraft would be safer to conduct flight
training in than a current market-leading LSA as described using Figures 82 and 83. The performance
analysis of this aircraft has resulted in several new graphical methods of performance comparison.

The compliance calculations have been summarised, with only the important portions of the consensus
standards appearing. The compliance checks were developed for the SkyWake once the design was
undergoing refinement. The checks were theoretical when applied to a conceptual aircraft. To verify
the checks, the re-designed Super Cub project was used. The verification was based on load calculation
and specification of structure for the load, then comparing the specified structural member to the
member used on the original aircraft. The method was tested and modified, where necessary, before
being used to check the compliance in a second iteration of the compliance analysis. The only concerns
were with pitch authority and with directional control. With regards to the pitch authority provided by
the horizontal tail, the all-moving design provides adequate pitch control from un-stick speed to
minimum controllable flight speed. The aircraft pitching moment was analysed and elevator angle
required for trim is within the elevator travel limits as shown in Figure 95. Should flights demonstrate
that the pitch authority at low speed is inadequate, the flap deflection would be reduced. The low wing
loading and large flap resulted in a stall speed that was less than that required by the consensus
standards. The reduction in flap deflection would be preferred to enlargement of the horizontal tail. This
is an example of a change that would affect every other system on the aircraft. The enlargement of the
tail would result in more parasite drag, greater fuselage loads and a centre of mass shift. As additional
mitigation, the rear fuselage and horizontal tail structure was over-designed to allow for growth in
surface area. Aerodynamic fixes such as vortex generators would only be used for measurement
purposes.

With regards to the directional control, the aircraft was designed with a highly tapered high aspect ratio
vertical tail. The volume coefficient is similar to that of the C-162. The final version of the vertical tail
fitted to the C-162 has features common to this aircraft, where the final shape was completed before the
final C-162 configuration was published. The tail features a large ventral section that is not filleted. The

146
dorsal section has a fillet with a full-span rudder. The actual tail area is larger than that fitted to the C-
162. The major difference between this design and the C-162 is the fuselage cross-section, the C-162 is
a rounded square and the SkyWake design features a rounded hexagon. The blanketing effect of the
fuselage shape on the vertical tail may have led to the poor directional control on the C-162. The control
surface loads were calculated using Schrenk’s approximation and by using flat plat lift theory to gauge
a worst case set of loads. The ASTM recommended control surface loads were directly proportional to
wing loading. The low wing loading of this design means that the loads expected at the control surfaces
should be less than stipulated for the worst case load set. The structure was then designed for the worst
case loads. Based on measurement during the prototype proving flights, the structure could be lightened,
if necessary. This approach may require a large modification workload, but that was preferable to a high
expense burden during the design phase. The cost of a single finite element modelling software license
was approximately equivalent to two fully manufactured fuselages.

The structural components covered in the report summarised the work done on the aircraft. The structure
was analysed using fairly simple methods that could be done with the use of a spreadsheet. The fuselage
was divided into a cabin and rear section. The cabin design was changed substantially as described in
§5.4. The rear fuselage was refined slightly. The tube size and mass estimate for the fuselage was
compared to the re-designed Super Cub, the design was comparable. The models for load estimation
were either self-derived as in the case of the landing gear or else followed a standard procedure such as
the shear-flow analysis in a semi-monocoque box beam for the wing and empennage. All components
designed for the aircraft were originally drawn on paper. This was done to save the cost of a CAD
licence during the design. With additional funding, a single licence seat was purchased and the paper
drawings were drawn in CAD. Many minor changes to components were made at this stage. The
Douglas Aircraft Company guidelines were consulted during the drawing phase. Part count was reduced
for the wing and horizontal empennage by making every wing rib identical, every aileron and flap rib
was also made identical and the stabiliser and tab ribs were made identical. The aesthetics and
functionality of the vertical tail justified the taper, the ribs were therefore different.

The aircraft evolved from an ultralight into a LSA. The performance, operational, environmental and
cost user requirements were successfully achieved using a standard design procedure with unorthodox
systems being combined into an orthodox design offering better energy performance than the
competitors. The design was used to develop a business plan for the aircraft and for a development plan
to create an industry. The project was gaining critical mass following the construction of a mock-up of
the aircraft. Since then the global economy has experienced a down-turn and the LSA market has
stabilised at lower than expected annual sales, meaning that a new market entrant is unlikely to be
successful. Although the project may never progress, funding was secured for an innovative wing
structural testing facility. Funding is being sourced to construct a wing, empennage and fuselage for
structural research. The methods, models, intellectual property and know-how derived from this project
is being used on other projects currently. More knowledge is being added to the methods.

147
The SkyWake 3-view and specification is given in Table 52.

Table 52. SkyWake specification summary

Parameter SkyWake
Airworthiness standard ASTM F2245
Empty mass 315kg
Maximum take-off mass 600kg
Payload 335kg
Engine Rotax 912 ULS 100hp
Wing span 11.2m
Length 6.7m
Aspect ratio 10.18
Wing area 12.32m2
Cruise speed 105kts
Maximum rate of climb 900-1000ft/min
Take off ground run 118m

The work conducted for the regulatory authority on the airworthiness and maintenance regulations and
technical standards resulted in a largely improved Part 24 where the airworthiness requirements for
amateur built, production built, veteran, vintage and ex-military aircraft was clarified. The airworthiness
assessment for each type of aircraft is now specific to the aircraft type. This replaced the older generic
approach to airworthiness that was too strict in some instances. The new regulations also give owners
that made illegal modifications to an aircraft an opportunity to achieve an airworthiness certificate. The
maintenance of non-type certificated aircraft was originally derived from Part 43. This approach
resulted in some safety concerns for non-type certificated aircraft used for commercial activity. Part 44,
a new part of the regulations was created specifically for all non-type certificated aircraft. The part
makes allowance for non-type certificated aircraft use in commercial activity. The part also cleared up
minor and major modifications. The substitution of parts with appropriate fit, form and function was
included if the part conformed to the general specifications of the original part.

The structural test facility would be very useful to a regulatory authority since the whiffle tree method
is more accurate than the traditional sand-bag test. The facility would enable FAR23 tests to be
conducted for aircraft certification. The ability to conduct such tests would assist small companies to
gain design organisation approval from the regulator. Aircraft originally designed as amateur designed
and built aircraft could be tested as part of a research project at low cost. The design could then be
improved with the objective of gaining a type certificate in the case of a certified aircraft or gaining
type acceptance in the case of a non-type certificated aircraft. This would allow aircraft to progress from
amateur-built to production built in accordance with the regulations. The facility would thus act as a
design incubator.

148
7. Conclusion

A conceptual aircraft was synthesised. The synthesis, described in §4.4 included high-level, mid-level
and low-level detailed design. The design was then refined in §4.5. Maintenance considerations were
introduced in §4.6 and a business plan was produced §4.10 to demonstrate the feasibility of the design.
The flight envelope was derived according to the appropriate ASTM F2245 consensus standard as
described in §5.3 and the aircraft flight loads were determined in accordance with the method
prescribed. The major components of the aircraft were designed to be compliant with the additional
system loads calculated using the consensus standards in §5.4.

The flight envelope of the aircraft was developed and the aircraft was tailored to demonstrate superior
energy levels to the competitors. The energy levels were assessed in §5.2 for climbing, gliding and
turning manoeuvres. A method for evaluating engine-out manoeuvring glide performance was
developed and shown in Figures 84 and 85. The conceptual aircraft had better performance than the
competitors at any speed between stall speed and the cruise speed recommended by the ASTM as shown
in Figure 83. The low speed performance was better due to the lower wing loading and higher aspect
ratio offered by the wing. The high speed cruise performance was slightly less than the competitors but
the time taken to accelerate to the maximum speed was less than for the competitors. The cruise speed
was marginally less than the competitors, but the combination of energy performance and purchase
price mitigated this. The pitch stability was investigated with flap deflection in §5.3, adequate
longitudinal control was demonstrated. Deficiencies in the vertical tail design used on the market
leading competitor was described in §3.7. The vertical tail of the aircraft was designed for improved
directional control over that of the competitors.

The mass specifications for the aircraft were an empty mass of 315kg, payload fraction of 55.8% of
maximum take-off mass of 600kg. The geometry of the wing allowed for improved manoeuvre
performance with aspect ratio of 10.18 and wing area of 12.32m2, resulting in a wing loading of
48.7kg.m-2. The cruise speed was determined to be 105KCAS with a maximum speed of 114KCAS.
The maximum rate of climb energy level was estimated at 1000ft/min using a performance model that
predicted the performance of the market leading competitor with 1.2% error. The aircraft demonstrated
superior engine on and engine off performance as show in Figures 82 and 86 respectively.

A strategy for developing an aircraft industry was developed. The manufacturing facility for the aircraft
was designed and costed in detail. The business plan in §4.10 and Appendix D included a market survey,
sales forecast, investment requirement, operational costs and launch strategy. A mock-up of the aircraft
was constructed as described in §4.9. Three design features were patented, as described in §4.5 to assist
with fund-raising. Funding for a structural testing facility was received, the facility that received funding
would allow for the wing, flap and aileron structures to be validated.

149
7.1. Aircraft energy levels, transient energy rates and tumble mechanics

The analysis of energy levels used in the design of the aircraft resulted in the ability to determine the
maximum energy levels of a light aircraft for level altitude manoeuvres such as a turn or level altitude
acceleration. The maximum energy levels were also used to determine rate of climb at constant speed.
The zero-thrust energy levels were used to determine sink rate in a turn, glide rate and could be used
for level altitude deceleration. The analysis of energy levels for a given steady state altitude and airspeed
is useful for a light aircraft in the event of airshow display authorisation or in an accident investigation.

The analysis of transient energy was identified as a future research field. Transient energy would enable
the changes in speed, altitude and position to be determined during a manoeuvre. The future energy
state of an aircraft is function of the current energy level and rate of energy gain or loss. An example
would be a light aircraft at stall. The level altitude recovery would require the pilot to apply full power
and lower the nose as the speed increased. The altitude loss recovery with full power applied would
result in greater acceleration due to the combination of horizontal energy and vertical energy
contributing to the change in energy level. From an energy rate perspective the altitude loss recovery
results in a faster transient between energy states. To complicate the altitude loss recovery, if the aircraft
was put into a turning manoeuvre during the recovery, the horizontal energy level would decrease due
to load factor and vertical energy level would increase for the same reason. To achieve the same energy
state as for the original altitude loss recovery, a different end state would result.

To apply this analysis to a light aircraft would not result in information that would improve
understanding of aircraft or safety. The analysis would be very useful to airshow pilots performing
tumble manoeuvres. The analysis of energy levels and rates during stalled or near-stalled manoeuvres
would allow for safe speed and altitude margins to be made. Pilots skilled in aerobatics understand
energy and energy levels. The transients are not well understood, particularly when a manoeuvre exit
energy level and energy rate is not as expected by the pilot. The result has been many instances of
controlled flight into terrain where the pilot needed extra energy and altitude ran out before that could
be achieved.

The SEP charts for aircraft have only been produced for aircraft using stall as a lower reference speed.
With aerobatic aircraft, many aircraft are controllable post-stall with the pilots using the propeller
slipstream with elevator and rudder to control the aircraft. This regime of flight and the associated
energy levels will be investigated.

150
References
1 Wilbur Smith Associates, "Overview of the General Aviation Industry: Sport Aviation Study", url:
http://www.zelieairport.com/Impact-Technical.pdf, accessed 2008.
2 Hluhluwe-Imfolozi park, "Bathawk aircraft",
http://www.savetherhino.org/africa_programmes/hluhluwe-imfolozi_park_south_africa, accessed
February 2015.
3 Wikipedia, Ultralight aircraft", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation, accessed in 2008.
4 Gunston B, "The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary", 2nd edition, Cambridge, 2009 pages
415,621,734-735, 773.
5 Aubert GW, Hession, M, “Trends and developments: The general aviation revitalization act", url:
http://www.aircraftbuilders.com/UserFiles/File/lr2004c.pdf, accessed 2008.
6 Johnson D, "Market and Sales Information for LSA", https://www.bydanjohnson.com/, accessed 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013.
7 Staff reporter, The Express, "J-3 Cub now official Pennsylvania aircraft",
http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/554613/J3-Cub-now--official-Pa--aircraft-
.html?nav=5200, accessed February 2015.
8 General Aviation Manufacturers Association, "General Aviation Aircraft Shipment Report - 2014
third quarter", GAMA, accessed 30/10/2014.
9 Manufacturer websites, accessed in 2009.
10 ASTM, "Developing international sport aircraft standards", http://www.astm.org, ASTM International
& Committee F37 presentation, accessed February 2014.
11 EAA, “Light sport aircraft, existing models” http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/slsa/ accessed 2013.
12 Federal Aviation Administration, "Notice of availability", 27 February 2014, http://www.faa.gov,
accessed March 2014.
13 EASA, "Notice of proposed amendment 2013-05", http://www.easa.europa.eu, accessed February
2014.
14 Air Accident Investigated Branch, “Report on G-OLSA", http://www.aaib.gov.uk, accessed March
2014.
15 Federal Aviation Administration, "General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity (and Avionics) Surveys
2000-2005", http://www.faa.gov, accessed in 2006.
16 Tulip C, "General Aviation Sport Aircraft Equipment Survey 2004", Australian CASA, page 7.
17 Wikipedia, "Cessna 162", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162, accessed February 2015.
18 Tecnam aircraft, "Aircraft specifications", http://www.tecnam.com/Default.aspx, accessed February
2015.
19 Wikipedia, "Airplane Factory Sling 2", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Airplane_Factory_Sling_2,
accessed February 2014.
20 Avdex, "South African civil aviation register", http://www.avdex.co.za/saregister, accessed in 2008.
21 Dunlop S, "A dictionery of weather", Oxford university press, 2nd edition, 2008, p273.
22 Ncongwane K, "UV-B monitoring and research activities at the South African Weather Service", -
presentation, 28/05/2012, reference RES-GAW-MOL009-001.1-2012-05-29.
23 World Health Organisation, "Global solar UV index, a practical guide", 2002, accessed in February
2015.
24 Wikipedia, "Rotax 912", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912, accessed March 2014.
25 Rotax Aircraft Engines, "Powerful Light Efficient", Rotax, 2012, page 4, 7-8.
26 Wikipedia, "Jabiru aircraft engines", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabiru_Aircraft#Engines , accessed
March 2014.
27 Farquharson T, "Conditions and direction concerning certain aircraft fitted with engines manufactured
by Jabiru Aircraft (Pty) Ltd,"Australia CASA, accessed February 2015.
28 Legend Aircraft Sales, "Legend Cub kit order form", http://www.legend.aero/pdf/Legend-Cub-Kit-
Order-Form.pdf, accessed February 2015.
29 Lockwood, "Aircraft Engine pricelist", http://www.lockwood.aero/c-1-rotax-aircraft-engines.aspx,
accessed February 2015.
30 Jabiru Australia, "J230 kit price list", http://jabiru.net.au/kits/j230-kit, accessed February 2015.
31 Wikipedia, "Cessna 152", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_152, accessed March 2014.
32 http://www.elkgroveairport.org/c150.pdf, accessed February 2015.
33 http://www.roaxservice.com/documents/912perf.pdf, accessed February 2015.

151
34 Cessna, "Information manual Cessna 162 SkyCatcher", Cessna aircraft company, 2009, page 12.
35 Cessna, "1968 Cessna Model 150 Owner's Manual", Cessna aircraft company, 1984, page ii.
36 Cessna 162 prototype image,
http://www.aircraftrecognition.co.uk/images/Aircraft/Cessna/Skycatcher/Cessna_162_SkyCatcher_-
270_sm.jpg, accessed March 2014.
37 NTSB, "DFW08FA234", Cessna 162 accident report,
http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20081004X11739&
ntsbno=DFW08FA234&akey=1, National Transportation Safety Board, accessed February 2015
38 Easo flyers media, image of Cessna 162, http://www.easofly.com/medios/cessna162.html, accessed
March 2014
39 Bertorelli P. "Production Skycatcher Debuts at AOPA Summit; AVweb Flies It",
http://www.avweb.com/news/aopa/AOPASummit2009_CessnaSkycatcher_ProductionModel_201451-
1.html, accessed March 2014.
40 Cessna 162 image, http://www.tannkosh.de/796.0.html, accessed March 2014.
41 Jackson P, "Jane's all the world's aircraft 2004-2005" Jane's group, 2004, p322-325.
42 Tecnam, "Flight manual P92 Echo", Tecnam aircraft company, October 1998, page 6.
43 Gunston B, "World encyclopedia of aircraft manufacturers", 2nd edition, Sutton publishing, 2005,
page 455.
44 Jackson P, "Jane's all the world's aircraft 2011-2012" Jane's group, 2012, p394-396.
45 Tecnam, "P2008 specifications and description", Tecnam aircraft company, http://www.tecnam.com,
page 8, accessed February 2015.
46 Boyd, J “Destruction and Creation”, USAF, September 1976.
47 Osborne, A “Applied Imagination” Scribers and sons, 1963.
48 Polyani M “Knowing and being”, University of Chicago, 1969.
49 Godel, K “On formally undecided propositions of the principia mathematica and related systems”,
Raven press, 1965.
50 Heisenberg, W “Physics and philosophy” Harper torchbooks, 1962.
51 Georgescu-Roegen, N “The entropy law and the economic process”, Harvard university press, 1971.
52 Anderson NH, "Aircraft design and layout", McGraw-Hill, 1941, pp 95-107.
53 Ashby P, "Engineering handbook 1, human factors design data", Design Institute publication, pages 4-
8.
54 FK-9 image, http://www.ultraleicht-pilot.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/fk9_utility_air.jpg, accessed
March 2014.
55 McGhee R, Beasley W, "Low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of a 17-percent-thick medium-speed
airfoil designed for general aviation applications", NASA technical paper 1786, 1980, pp 20-65.
56 Heinemann E, Rausa R, Van Every K, "Aircraft design", N&A publishers, 1985, page 69.
57 Abbott I, Von Doenhoff A, "Theory of wing sections", Dover publications, 1959, page 196.
58 Gudmundsson S, "General Aviation Aircraft Design", Elsevier, 2014, page 212.
59 SACAA Civil Aviation Regulations of 1997 Part 43 – general maintenance rules.
60 Nicolai L, “ Estimating r/c model aerodynamics and performance", Lockheed Martin corporation,
June 2002, accessed February 2014.
61 Roskam, J “Airplane aerodynamics and performance”, Darcorp, 2008 pg 296, 303, 644.
62 Lindsey W, "Drag of cylinders of simple shapes", NACA report 619, page 172.
63 Van Zyl R, "Recommendations for range improvements for the Sling 4", MECN4006 project
supervised by M F Boer, 2014, p61.
64 M.F.Boer and R. Beach. Design registration for SkyWake™ Light Sport Aircraft, F2010/00928.
65 M.F. Boer and L. Thiel. Business plan 2– Airspire (Pty) Ltd, launch of SkyWake™. Wits Commercial
Enterprise (Pty) Ltd project WRCA006, Johannesburg, August 2009.
66 Aircraft Spruce, "MGL avionics price
list",http://www.aircraftspruce.com/categories/avionics_instruments/av/menus/in/efis_mgl.html,
accessed February 2015.
67 Grove Aircraft, "Price catalog", http://www.groveaircraft.com, accessed, 2006, 2008, February 2015.
68 SACAA Civil Aviation Regulations of 1997 Part 24 – airworthiness of non-type certificated aircraft.

152
69 Dommasch D, "Airplane performance", Pitman 1967 page 310.
70 Coram R, "Boyd, the fighter pilot that changed the art of war", Back Bay Books, New York, 2002,
page 144.
71 Torenbeek E, "Synthesis of subsonic airplane design", Delft University Press, 1982, page 253.
72 Shigley JE, "Mechanical engineering design", 6th edition, McGraw-Hill, page 1196.
73 M.F. Boer, G Mumford, N de Lange. Civil Aviation Regulations Part 44: Maintenance of Non-Type
Certificated Aircraft. Recreation Aviation Administration of South Africa.
74 Brandt SA, “Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design Perspective”, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, pages B-ccviii – B-ccix.
75 Etkin B, Reid LD, “Dynamics of Flight, Stability and Control”, 3 rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, pages 332-334.

153
Appendices

Appendix A – Provisional patent specification for the wing flap

Appendix B – Patent application for the propeller spinner

Appendix C – US patent for the winglet

Appendix D – Business plan

Appendix E – Bill of sheet metal material

Appendix F – Prototype costing for the SkyWake aircraft

154
APPENDIX A

SA Provisional Application 2009/00359

PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION

Applicant: University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg,
1 Jan Smuts Avenue,
Johannesburg,
Republic of South Africa.

Inventors: Michael Boer

Christopher Bodill
Arne Schwarck
James Reeves
Amit Bholla
Sean Mowatt
Jonathan Nash

Title: Improved Airfoil Deployment Mechanism.

155
BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION:

Light aircraft have mechanisms to adjust the position of the second element of an airfoil
external to the wing such that they cause excrescence drag when retracted. Figures 1 and
2 show this type of prior art mechanism.

Figure 1. Conventional device for a single slotted flap.

Figure 2. Commonly used external pivot mechanism for single slotted flap systems.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION:

According to the invention, there is provided an internal mechanism for the translation
and rotation of the second element or flap of an airfoil into a position to increase the
coefficient of lift of the airfoil by allowing airflow over the upper surface of the flap.

Preferably the internal mechanism comprises of a horizontal translation guide and a dual
guide rail to induce rotation of the flap. These guides are internal to the elements of the
airfoil, not creating excrescence drag.

156
Further, the internal mechanism comprises of a horizontal translation guide and a dual
guide rail with multiple rollers to induce rotation of the flap whilst maintaining an
optimum gap between the wing and the flap.

DESCRIPTION OF A PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION:

The device is an internal mechanism intended to deploy the second element of a

conventional airfoil using horizontal translation and a dual-guide rail to induce rotation
with the purpose of increasing the coefficient of lift of the airfoil. The geometric locus of
the flap is similar to that commonly regarded as a single-slotted flap. Figure 3 depicts the
wing assembly, incorporating the device.

Figure 3. Flap guide rail

Figure 4. General arrangement of the device

The mechanism is contained within the first and second elements of the airfoil, thereby
eliminating excrescence drag. The effect of a high lift device is to increase the coefficient
of the lift of the airfoil, whilst increasing drag to a lesser extent. The coefficient of lift is
proportional to the camber (curvature) of an airfoil, increasing the relative angle between
the first and second element increases the camber. The increase in the coefficient of lift
may be calculated from first principles using Kutta-Joukowsky, thin airfoil or lifting line

157
theory. The device offers an insignificant improvement to the coefficient of lift but
reduces the coefficient of drag by eliminating the external pivot mechanism.

There are several options for the actuator system, including hydraulic, pneumatic and
electrical actuators. The movement of the flap is shown in Figure 5.

Flap retracted

Flap extended for Take-off

Flap extended for landing

Figure 5. Three primary flap deployment positions

The rollers may be seen in Figure 5, represented as dots. The curvature of the guide rails
keeps the flap at the correct angle and allow for the air gap to be optimized.

The drag when retracted would be substantially less than the conventional systems
employed, shown in Figures 1 and 2.

This flap mechanism would be unique in its robustness and modular construction, making
it suitable for installation in a multitude of aircraft.

158
APPENDIX B

PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION

Applicant: University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg,
1 Jan Smuts Avenue,
Johannesburg,
Republic of South Africa.

Inventors: Michael Boer

Anthony Hoffe
Andre Cachucho
Louis Biebuyck
Terence Herron
Jonathan Nash

Title: An Improved Spinner for Propeller Engines.

159
BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION:

Propeller engines, such as used on aircraft, have a spinner to guide air into a positioned
air intake for the cooling of the engine. Figure 1 shows a conventional spinner installed
on an aircraft engine (the conically shaped component covering the propeller hub, with
the air intake duct below the spinner).

Figure 1: A conventional spinner installed on an aircraft engine.

A problem with such conventional spinners is that they do not assist in providing air for
cooling, especially under high-power low-speed, conditions where typical engine
installations can overheat. This commonly occurs during take-off and climb.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION:

According to the invention, there is provided a spinner for a propeller engine on which
vanes are positioned to enhance the acceleration of the flow of air into the engine air
intake.

The vanes are positioned to be axi-symmetric, so that the propeller engine is balanced,
and the contours of the vanes are such that air is accelerated into the air intake of the
engine when the rotational speed of the spinner exceeds the forward velocity of the
propeller.

According to one aspect of the invention, two or more vanes are planar, axi-symmetric,
such that the vanes are emerge radially from the spinner axis.

160
According to another aspect of the invention, the planar vanes above are positioned such
that the outer edge is curved in the direction of rotation of the spinner.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, the vanes are not planar, but curved
such that a concave surface of the vanes moves in the direction of rotation of the spinner,
effecting an acceleration of the flow of air over the spinner.

According to another aspect the invention, there is provided a spinner for a propeller
engine on which hinged petals are positioned to increase the momentum of the flow of air
into the engine air intake. The cambered petals form a semi-enclosed spinner when at low
rotational speed and at high forward velocities.

The petals are positioned to be axi-symmetric, so that the propeller engine is balanced,
and the contours of the petals are such that air is accelerated into the air intake of the
engine when the rotational speed of the spinner exceeds the forward velocity of the
propeller.

Further to this aspect of the invention, two or more petals are planar, axi-symmetric, such
that the petals emerge radially from the spinner shaft.

Preferably for this aspect of the invention, the planar petals above are positioned such
that the chord line of the petals form a positive angle of attack to the oncoming air in the
direction of rotation of the spinner.

According to yet another embodiment of this aspect of the invention, the petals are not
planar, but curved such that a cambered surface of the vanes moves in the direction of
rotation of the spinner, effecting an acceleration of the flow of air over the spinner.
Again, the cambered petals form an enclosed spinner when at low rotational speed and at
high forward velocities.

Further, the invention is a spinner substantially as described herein.

PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION.

The device of the first embodiment of this invention is a fixed rotational component
attached to an aircraft propeller and is intended to accelerate air into a positioned air
intake with the purpose of imparting velocity to the air flowing over the spinner. The
axis-symmetric body employs carefully positioned vanes to accelerate the air. The
general term for such a smooth axis-symmetric body is a spinner. Figure 2 depicts the
general arrangement of the spinner.

161
Figure 2. General arrangement of a preferred embodiment of the spinner of the first
embodiment of the invention.

The device aims to accelerate airflow over the spinner to increase the mass flow rate of
air, allowing for more efficient heat dissipation from a standard heat exchanger. The
vanes on the spinner could be regarded as an un-ducted fan.

The contour of the vanes needs to be carefully matched to the propeller rotational speed
and the forward velocity of the aircraft. The contour should only accelerate air under
conditions where the rotational speed of the spinner exceeds the forward velocity of the
aircraft. This would occur under high-power low-speed conditions.

The spinner of this first embodiment would be the first spinner to offer enhanced cooling
properties for a liquid or liquid/air cooled engine. The spinner could easily be adapted for
a multitude of propeller driven aircraft.

162
The device of the second embodiment of the invention, a novel variation of the first
embodiment, consists of a shaft connected to the propeller hub, for which the front end of
the shaft has machined lugs which act as pivot points for the petals. The petals are
connected to the shaft at the pivot points and are connected to the slider by means of
small pushrods, connected to lugs on the inner surfaces of the petals. The slider acts
against a compression spring as centripetal force, due to the rotation, exerts a force on the
petals, causing them to open. Figure 3 depicts the general arrangement of the spinner.

Figure 3. General arrangement of the second preferred embodiment of the spinner of the
invention.

The contour of the petals, including camber and twist, needs to be carefully matched to
the propeller rotational speed and the forward velocity of the aircraft. The combination of

163
rotational centripetal force, thrust generated by the petal and aerodynamic drag needs to
be determined to specify the spring. The compression spring needs to have non-linear
stiffness, since the loads are proportional to the square of the velocity, which may require
a combination of springs, The contour should only accelerate air under conditions where
the rotational speed of the spinner exceeds the forward velocity of the aircraft. This
would occur under high-power low-speed conditions.

The petals on the spinner could be regarded as an un-ducted fan.

Figure 4 gives different views of the second embodiment of the invention, in order to
illustrate the concepts.

(a) Side view, spinner closed (b) Side view, spinner open

164
(c ) Isometric view, spinner closed (d) Isometric view, spinner open

Figure 4: Views of the second preferred embodiment of the invention from different
perspectives.

Some other images….

165
APPENDIX C USOO8894018B2

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,894,018 B2

Boer et a]. (45) Date of Patent: Nov. 25, 2014

(54) METHOD FOR REDUCING IN FLIGHT (56) References Cited

WAKE VORTICES AND AN AIRCRAFT
WINGTIP ARRANGEMENT USED IN SUCH U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
METHOD
4,457,479 A * 7/1984 Daude ......................... .. 244/203
4,722,499 A * 2/1988 Klug ........................ .. 244/199.4
(75) Inventors: Michael Frederick Boer, Lyndhurst
(ZA); Anthony Charles Hoffe, (Continued)
Parktown North (ZA)
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
(73) Assignee: University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg (SA) DE 19926832 A1 * 1/2001 .............. .. B64C 5/08
DE WO 2006122826 A1 11/2006
(*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this (Continued)
patent is extended or adjusted under 35
U.S.C. 154(b) by 126 days. OTHER PUBLICATIONS

(21) App1.No.: 13/514,105 International Search Report in International Application No. PCT/
IB20 1 0/055708. International Search completed and mailed Apr. 18,
(22) PCT Filed: Dec.10, 2010 201 1.

(86) PCT No.: PCT/IB2010/055708 Primary Examiner * Benjamin P Lee

§ 371 (0X1)’ (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm *Wiggin and Dana LLP;
(2), (4) Date: Sep. 11, 2012 Gregory S. Rosenblatt; Jonathan D. Hall

(87) PCT Pub. No.: WO2011/070532 (57) ABSTRACT

PCT Pub. Date: Jun. 16, 2011 This invention discloses a method to break down, destabilize,
or destroy an in ?ight wake vortex shed from an aircraft’s
(65) Prior Publication Data Wing. The Wingtip has a Winglet mounted to an extremity of
US 2013/0001367 A1 Jan. 3, 2013 the Wing, and means for actuating displacement of the Winglet
relative to the Wing. The Winglet is displaced from a station
(30) Foreign Application Priority Data ary position, in Which the in ?ight wake vortex is stable, to a
continuous moving condition, in Which the Winglet is dis
Dec. 10, 2009 (ZA) ............................... .. 2009/08787 placed to a secondary temporary stationary position, remote
from the initial stationary position, and having any angle
(51) Int. Cl.
B64C 23/06 (2006.01) relative to a plane extending through a vertical, longitudinal,
or lateral axis of the aircraft to alter the Winglet’s angle of
(52) US. Cl.
CPC ........... .. B64C23/065 (2013.01); Y02T50/164 attack, and persisting in the moving condition as long as
(2013.01) required to break down, destabilize or destroy the in ?ight
USPC ................................... .. 244/199.4; 244/199.3 wake vortex. The invention includes a Wingtip arrangement
(58) Field of Classi?cation Search for use in the method and an aircraft including the Wingtip
USPC ........... .. 244/198, 199.1, 199.2, 199.3, 199.4, arrangement.
244/201, 203
See application ?le for complete search history. 14 Claims, 7 Drawing Sheets

166
 US 8,894,018 B2
Page 2

(56) References Cited 2005/0184196 A1* 8/2005 Shmilovich et a1. ........ .. 244/199
2007/0045476 A1* 3/2007 Shmilovich et a1. ..... .. 244/199.4
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 2008/0042013 A1* 2/2008 Shmilovich et a1. ..... .. 244/199.4
2008/0191099 A1* 8/2008 Werthmann et a1. ..... .. 244/199.4
6,345,790 B1: 2/2002 BriX_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~- 244/1994 2009/0173835 A1* 7/2009 Shmilovich et a1. ..... .. 244/199.3
353332 5%,, 135882 Sglftyyh~~~~ ~31 ~~~~2424€1V9290i 2010/0006706 A1* 1/2010 Breitsamteret a1. ..... .. 244/199.3
* * 10V“ et ' """ ~ ' 2013/0092797 A1* 4/2013 Wrightetal. 244/199.4
7,150,434 B1* 12/2006 Bandyopadhyay ~~~~~~~~~ -~ 244/130 ZOE/0256460 A1* 10,2013 R 31 244,199,,
7,275,722 B2* 10/2007 Irvingetal. ..... .. 244/201 Oman“ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~
7,597,289 132* 10/2009 Shmilovich etal. . 244/199.3
7,661,629 B2* 2/2010 Shmilovich etal. ..... .. 244/199.2 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
8,016,244 132* 9/2011 Shmilovich etal. ..... .. 244/199.3
8,376,285 B1 * 2/2013 Shmilovich 6131. ..... .. 244/199.3 EP 1493660 A1 * 1/2005 .............. .. B64C 3/10
8,387,922 132* 3/2013 Breitsamter et a1. ..... .. 244/199.3 GB 2282996 A 4/1995
2002/0066831 A1 6/2002 Ngo wo wo 2008031620 A2 * 3/2008 ............ .. B64C 23/06
2004/0000619 A1* 1/2004 Barriety ...................... .. 244/219
2005/0133672 A1* 6/2005 Irving et a1. ................ .. 244/201 * cited by examiner

167
US. Patent Nov. 25, 2014 Sheet 1 0f7 US 8,894,018 B2

FIGURE 7

168
US. Patent NOV. 25, 2014 Sheet 2 0f 7 US 8,894,018 B2

18/28

FIGURE 2

169
US. Patent Nov. 25, 2014 Sheet 3 0f7 US 8,894,018 B2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

170
US. Patent Nov. 25, 2014 Sheet 4 0f7 US 8,894,018 B2

FIGURE 5

171
US. Patent Nov. 25, 2014 Sheet 5 0f7 US 8,894,018 B2

FIGURE 7 14

172
U S. Patent N v. 25, 2014 Sheet 6 0f7 US 8,894,018 B2

173
US. Patent Nov. 25, 2014 Sheet 7 0f7 US 8,894,018 B2

85881881 88

174
 US 8,894,018 B2
1 2
METHOD FOR REDUCING IN FLIGHT There is also provided for the moving condition to com
WAKE VORTICES AND AN AIRCRAFT prise oscillation or reciprocation of the winglet.
WINGTIP ARRANGEMENT USED IN SUCH There is further provided for the moving condition to com
METHOD prise rotation of the winglet about an axis parallel to the
lateral, vertical, or longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED Further features of the invention provide for the moving
APPLICATIONS condition to comprise linear translation of the winglet along
an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Alter
This application is the National Stage of International natively, the moving condition comprises linear translation of
Application No. PCT/IB2010/055708, ?led Dec. 10, 2010, the winglet along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of
the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by ref the aircraft, which linear translation coincides with rotation,
reciprocation, or oscillation of said winglet about an axis
erence.
parallel to either the longitudinal, lateral, or vertical axis of
FIELD OF THE INVENTION the aircraft.
There is also provided for the actuating means to comprise
This invention relates to aeronautics. In particular, the
a hinge arrangement operatively connected to switching
means operable to regulate winglet displacement timing.
invention relates to a method to break down, destabilize, or
Preferably, the switching means comprises at least one sole
destroy an in ?ight wake vortex shed from an aircraft’s wing noid.
and to an aircraft wingtip arrangement that can be used in 20 There is further provided for the hinge arrangement to
such method of reducing in ?ight wake vortices by using comprise a ?rst hinge that extends parallel to the vertical axis
same. of the aircraft, the ?rst hinge being disposed between a ?rst
base plate and a second base plate, the ?rst base plate being
BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION connectable to the extremity of the wing while the second
25 base plate operatively accommodates the winglet thereby
Aircraft wings produce aerodynamic lift by creating a pres allowing the winglet to in use follow a curvilinear path about
sure distribution over the aerofoil section with a resultant the vertical axis of the aircraft.
force perpendicular to the ?ight trajectory. Because the wing Alternatively, there is provided for the hinge arrangement
is not in?nitely long the pres sure distributions over the upper to comprise a second hinge that extends parallel to the longi
and lower surfaces of the wing meet at the wingtip. The result 30 tudinal axis of the aircraft and substantially perpendicular to
is an intense rotational ?ow known as a lift-induced wingtip the ?rst hinge, the second hinge being operatively connected
vortex. This vortex is shed from the wingtip and interacts with to the second base plate and operable to accommodate the
the air?ow over the wing, known as downwash. In doing so winglet thereby allowing the winglet to in use follow a cur
the vortex becomes what is termed a wake vortex. vilinear path about either the longitudinal or vertical axis of
Wake vortices may linger in the air for several minutes 35 the aircraft.
before breaking down due to natural instabilities present in Further alternatively, there is provided for the hinge
rotational ?ow. Aircraft ?ying through a wake vortex may arrangement comprises a third hinge disposed between a third
experience loss of control or structural failure due to the base plate to which the winglet is connectable and the second
severe turbulence induced by the vortex. Because the wake base plate, the third hinge extending parallel to the lateral axis
vortex is dangerous to other aircraft and because it takes a 40 of the aircraft and substantially perpendicular to the second
long time to break down naturally, long distances are required hinge, the third base plate being operable to accommodate the
between aircraft approaching an airport, reducing the number winglet thereby allowing the winglet to in use follow a cur
of aircraft an airport can accommodate. vilinear path about the lateral, longitudinal, or vertical axis of
This inventions seeks to, at least in part, address these the aircraft.
problems. 45 The invention also provides for a guide means to be con
nected to any of the ?rst to the third base plates to permit
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION translational displacement of the hinge arrangement along an
axis parallel to the lateral, longitudinal, or vertical axis of the
According to the invention there is provided a method to aircraft. Preferably, the guide means is a rail adapted to slid
break down, destabilize, or destroy an in ?ight wake vortex 50 ably receive any of said base plates.
shed from an aircraft’s wing having a wingtip arrangement Finally, the invention includes a suitable power source and
with at least one winglet movably mounted to an extremity of control circuitry for controlling displacement of the winglet.
the aircraft’s wing, and actuating means connected to the Additionally, two wingtip arrangements, located at extremi
winglet for actuating in use displacement of the winglet rela ties of two opposing wings, can be controlled and displaced in
tive to the aircraft’s wing, the method comprising: 55 such a way that vortices generated from respective wings
actuating the actuating means to displace the winglet from have a destructive and destabilizing effect on each other.
an initial stationary position, in which the in ?ight wake
vortex shed from the wing is stable, to a continuous moving BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
condition, in which the winglet is displaced to at least one
secondary temporary stationary position, remote from the 60 Embodiments of the invention will now be described, by
initial stationary position, and having any angle relative to a way of example with reference to the accompanying non
plane extending through a vertical, longitudinal, or lateral limiting drawings, wherein:
axis of the aircraft so as to alter the winglet’s angle of attack; FIG. 1 shows a schematic bottom perspective view of an
and aircraft having a wingtip arrangement for use in a method
persisting in the continuous moving condition as long as it 65 according to an embodiment of the invention;
is required to break down, destabilize or destroy the in ?ight FIG. 2 shows a schematic top perspective view of the
wake vortex. wingtip arrangement of FIG. 1;
175
 US 8,894,018 B2
3 4
FIG. 3 shows a schematic front view of the wingtip FIGS. 1 and 7) different to that of winglet 12 in the initial
arrangement of FIG. 1 as it is displaced between position A stationary position A. It will be appreciated that in other
and position B about an axis parallel to a longitudinal axis of embodiments of the invention (not shown) the moving con
the aircraft; dition includes rotation of winglet 12 about an axis parallel to
FIG. 4 shows a schematic side view of the wingtip arrange either the lateral axis of the aircraft, as shown in FIG. 4, or
ment of FIG. 1 as it is displaced about an axis parallel to a vertical axis of the aircraft, as shown in FIG. 5.
lateral axis of the aircraft; In another embodiment of the invention, as shown in FIGS.
FIG. 5 shows a schematic side view of the wingtip arrange 2 and 6, the moving condition includes linear translation of
ment of FIG. 1 as it is displaced about an axis parallel to a the winglet 12 along an axis C-D running parallel to the
vertical axis of the aircraft; longitudinal axis of the aircraft, thereby permitting backward
FIG. 6 shows a schematic side view of the wingtip arrange and forward movement of winglet 12 along axis C-D.
ment of FIG. 1 as it is linearly displaced along an axis parallel Although not shown in the drawings, it is also envisaged that
to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft; the moving condition may include translation of the winglet
FIG. 7 shows a schematic front view of the wingtip 12 along a curvilinear path behind wing 14.
arrangement of FIG. 1 as it is displaced about an axis parallel Alternatively, the moving condition includes linear trans
to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft; lation of winglet 12 along axis C-D, which translation coin
FIG. 8 shows a front view with winglet at 0° of a Compu cides with rotation, reciprocation, or oscillation of winglet 12
tational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) diagram of the winglet of about an axis parallel to the longitudinal, lateral, or vertical
FIG. 1 as it oscillates about an axis parallel to the aircraft’s axis of the aircraft. It is thus possible to move the winglet 12
longitudinal axis; 20 in any direction as it moves back and forth along axis C-D.
FIG. 9 shows a front view with winglet at 30° of a Com This moving condition ensures that winglet 12 oscillates
putational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) diagram of the winglet of sinusoidally thereby increasing air?ow irregularities present
FIG. 1 as it oscillates about an axis parallel to the aircraft’s in the wake vortex leading to predictable breakdown of the
longitudinal axis; vortex.
FIG. 10 shows a top view illustrating vortex formation and 25 Breakdown of wake vortex 22 can also occur by the inter
the start of sinusoidal motion of the wake vortex; and action between two vortices generated from either wing. This
FIG. 11 shows a top view illustrating vortex formation and can lead to destructive interference and aid in causing insta
progression of sinusoidal motion down the vortex. bilities within the vortices. Therefore, it is envisaged that
displacement of two wingtip arrangements 10 located at
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 30 extremities 16 of two opposing wings may be used and con
trolled in such a way that vortices generated from respective
The description below is not intended to limit the invention wings 14, which both are equal in strength, but rotate in
in any way and is provided only to describe speci?c embodi opposite directions, have a destructive and destabiliZing
ments of the invention. effect on each other. The same results is believed to be achiev
In the drawings, like numerals generally indicate like com 35 able when a vortex from the aircraft’s right horizontal stabi
ponents, unless otherwise indicated. lizer interacts with the wake vortex from the right wing, for
Referring to FIG. 1, reference numeral 10 generally refers example, since the vortices rotate in opposite directions and
to a wingtip arrangement in accordance with the invention. are of non-uniform strength.
The Wingtip arrangement 10 includes a winglet 12, movably The actuating means 18, as best shown in FIG. 1, includes
mounted to an extremity 16 of an aircraft wing 14, and actu 40 a hinge arrangement 28 operatively connected to switching
ating means 18 connected to the winglet 12 for actuating in means operable to regulate winglet displacement timing.
use displacement of the winglet 12 relative to the wing 14. Preferably, the switching means comprises a solenoid.
Displacement of winglet 12, as best shown in FIGS. 2 and The hinge arrangement 28 may also have a second hinge 38
3, alters the angle that a leading edge 20 of winglet 12 makes that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and
with oncoming air?ow (also referred to as the angle of attack). 45 substantially perpendicular to the ?rst hinge 32 and which is
In essence, winglet 12 is displaced from an initial stationary connected to the second base plate 36. The second hinge 38
positionA to a moving condition, as can be seen from FIG. 3. may also accommodate the winglet 12 and allows same to, in
With the winglet 12 in its initial stationary positionA, an in use, follow a curvilinear path about the longitudinal axis of
?ight wake vortex 22 ?owing off, or shed from, the wing 14 is the aircraft. Displacement of winglet 12 about hinge 32 and
stable. The wake vortex refers to air with an intense rotational 50 hinge 38 at the same time is thus also possible.
?ow caused by the wing 14 not being in?nitely long thereby The hinge arrangement 28 may also have a second hinge 38
forcing pressure distributions, which ?ow over upper and that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and
lower surfaces 24,26 of wing 14, to meet at extremity 16 substantially perpendicular to the ?rst hinge 32 and which is
before being shed from extremity 16 and before interacting connected to the second base plate 36. The second hinge 38
with air?ow over wing 14 (known as downwash). The result 55 may also accommodate the winglet 12 and allows same to, in
of the interaction is an intense vortex termed a wake vortex. use, follow a curvilinear path about either the longitudinal
The winglet 12, in its moving condition, is displaced to a axis of the aircraft. Displacement of winglet 12 about hinge
selected angle to destabilize said in ?ight wake vortex. The 32 and hinge 38 at the same time is thus also possible.
angle 0t may be any angle relative to a plane extending The hinge arrangement 28 may also have a third hinge (not
through a vertical, longitudinal, or lateral axis of the aircraft. 60 shown) disposed between a third base plate (not shown), to
To illustrate this, the winglet 12 is shown oscillating or recip which the winglet 12 is connected, and the second base plate
rocating between a second stationary position B and the ini 36. The third hinge then extends parallel to the lateral axis of
tial stationary position A. Typically, A and B are remote from the aircraft and substantially perpendicular to the second
each other and winglet 12 is only temporarily either in posi hinge 38. The third base plate may be adapted to accommo
tion A or in position B. The second stationary position B 65 date winglet 12 to allow winglet 12 to, in use, follow a
allows winglet 12 to form a yaw angle a (shown in FIG. 1), curvilinear path about the lateral, longitudinal, or vertical axis
rake angle [3 (shown in FIG. 1), and/or cant angle 00 (shown in of the aircraft.
176
 US 8,894,018 B2
5 6
A guide means 40, best shown in FIG. 2, is connectable to persisting in the continuous moving condition as long as it
any of the ?rst to the third base plates and permits linear is required to break down, destabilize or destroy the in
translational displacement of the hinge arrangement 28 away ?ight wake vortex.
from extremity 18. Thus, winglet 12 is linearly movable, 2. The method of claim 1, including continuously oscillat
along an axis parallel to the lateral, longitudinal, or vertical 5 ing or reciprocating the winglet.
axis of the aircraft. Preferably, the guide means is a rail 40 3. The method of claim 1, including:
adapted to slidably receive any of said base plates. More rotating, reciprocating, or oscillating the winglet about an
preferably, said translational movement occurs only along an axis parallel to either the longitudinal, lateral, or vertical
axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. axis of the aircraft while the winglet is linearly displaced
It will be appreciated that the winglet 12 will be equipped along the guide means.
with a suitable power source and control circuitry for control
4. The method of claim 3, including:
ling displacement of the winglet.
Preliminary Computational Fluid Dynamics (CPD) has providing a hinge arrangement having a ?rst hinge that
been done on winglet 12 oscillating about an axis parallel to extends parallel to the vertical axis of the aircraft, the
the aircraft’s longitudinal axis. The CFD shows that these ?rst hinge being disposed between a ?rst base plate and
oscillations can cause sinusoidal motion to be exhibited in the a second base plate, the ?rst base plate being connect
trailing vortex. able to the extremity of the wing while the second base
FIGS. 8 and 9 show front views of the wing 14, showing the plate operatively accommodates the winglet; and
winglet 12 moving through an angle of 30°, starting at the actuating the ?rst hinge to effect rotation, oscillation, and/
vertical, or neutral, position. FIGS. 10 and 11 show top views 20 or reciprocation of the winglet about the vertical axis of
of vortex formation and motion of the wake vortex. Looking the aircraft.
at these two ?gures, the sinusoidal motion can clearly be seen 5. The method of claim 3, including:
as the wave moves along each vortex. This was done over a providing a hinge arrangement having
distance of 10 m and so no destruction of the vortex can be a ?rst hinge that extends parallel to the vertical axis of the
seen yet, but due to the fact that the sinusoidal motion exists 25 aircraft, the ?rst hinge being disposed between a ?rst
in the vortex core this early on, namely during the plateau base plate and a second base plate, the ?rst base plate
phase, suggests that instability will occur sooner than normal being connectable to the extremity of the wing; and
and result in early destruction of the vortex. a second hinge that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis
A method of reducing in ?ight wake vortices in which the of the aircraft and substantially perpendicular to the ?rst
wingtip arrangement 10, as described above, is actuated and 30
hinge, the second hinge being operatively connected to
displaced to destabilize an in ?ight wake vortex shed from an
the second base plate and operable to accommodate the
extremity of an aircraft’ s wing is believed to hold great bene?t
since the combined motion of winglet 12 will cause wake
winglet; and
vortices created behind the aircraft to be broken down soon
actuating the second and/or ?rst hinge to effect rotation,
after formation, resulting in the distances required between 35
oscillation, and/or reciprocation of the winglet about
aircraft departing and approaching an airport to be reduced. either the longitudinal or vertical axis of the aircraft.
This will increase the hourly number of ?ights operating at an 6. The method of claim 3, including:
airport. providing a hinge arrangement having
While preferred embodiments of the invention are shown a ?rst hinge that extends parallel to the vertical axis of the
and described, it will be understood that it is not intended to 40 aircraft, the ?rst hinge being disposed between a ?rst
limit the extent of the invention, but rather it is intended to base plate and a second base plate, the ?rst base plate
cover all modi?cations and alternate methods, including: being connectable to the extremity of the wing;
methods and processes for manufacturing a wingtip arrange a second hinge that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis
ment falling within the spirit and the scope of the invention. of the aircraft and substantially perpendicular to the ?rst
The wingtip arrangement 10 and associated method of use 45 hinge, the second hinge being operatively connected to
thereof, thus, provide a neat and cost effective solution to the second base plate; and
current problems associated with wake vortex formation. a third hinge disposed between a third base plate, to which
the winglet is connectable, and the second base plate, the
The invention claimed is: third hinge extending parallel to the lateral axis of the
1. A method to break down, destabilize, or destroy an in 50 aircraft and substantially perpendicular to the second
?ight wake vortex shed from an aircraft’s wing having a hinge; and
wingtip arrangement with at least one winglet movably actuating the ?rst and/ or second and/ or third hinges to
mounted to an extremity of the aircraft’s wing, guide means effect rotation, oscillation, and/or reciprocation of the
that extends parallel to a vertical, longitudinal or lateral axis winglet about either the longitudinal, vertical axis, or
of the aircraft, and actuating means connected to the winglet 55 lateral axes of the aircraft.
for actuating in use displacement of the winglet relative to the 7. The method of claim 6, including linearly displacing any
aircraft’s wing, the method comprising: of the ?rst to the third base plates along guide means to permit
actuating the actuating means to displace the winglet, lin translational displacement of the winglet along an axis par
early along the guide means, from an initial stationary allel to the lateral, longitudinal, or vertical axis of the aircraft,
position, in which the in ?ight wake vortex shed from the 60 which translational winglet displacement occurs either in
wing is stable, to a continuous moving condition, in conjunction with, or separate from, rotation, oscillation, and/
which the winglet is displaced to at least one secondary or reciprocation caused by any of the ?rst to third hinges.
temporary stationary position, remote from the initial 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the guide means is a rail
stationary position, and having any angle relative to a adapted to slidably receive a base plate.
plane extending through a vertical, longitudinal, or lat 65 9. The method of claim 1, including displacing the winglet
eral axis of the aircraft so as to alter the winglet’s angle and causing the ?ight wake vortex shed from the aircraft’s
of attack; and wing to exhibit generally sinusoidal motion.
177
 US 8,894,018 B2
7 8
10. The method of claim 1, including: of the winglet relative to the wing so as to alter the
providing actuating means in the form of a hinge arrange winglet’s angle of attack, the hinge arrangement having
ment including a suitable power source, control circuitry a ?rst hinge that extends parallel to the vertical axis of the
for controlling displacement of the winglet, and switch aircraft, the ?rst hinge being disposed between a ?rst
ing means operable to regulate displacement timing. base plate and a second base plate, the ?rst base plate
11. A method to break down, destabilize, or destroy an in being connectable to the extremity of the wing;
?ight wake vortex shed from an aircraft’s wing, which
a second hinge that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis
method includes:
of the aircraft and substantially perpendicular to the ?rst
providing a wingtip arrangement having a winglet mov
ably mounted to an extremity of each of the aircraft’s
hinge, the second hinge being operatively connected to
the second base plate and operable to accommodate the
respective wings, guide means that extends parallel to a
winglet; and
vertical, longitudinal or lateral axis of the aircraft, and
actuating means connected to said winglets for actuating a third hinge disposed between a third base plate, to which
in use displacement of the winglets relative to the air the winglet is connectable, and the second base plate, the
craft’s wing; third hinge extending parallel to the lateral axis of the
actuating the actuating means to displace the respective aircraft and substantially perpendicular to the second
winglets, linearly along the guide means, from an initial hinge;
stationary position, in which in ?ight wake vortices shed so that upon actuation of the ?rst and/or second and/or
from the respective wings are stable, to a continuous third hinges, rotation, oscillation, and/or reciproca
moving condition, in which the winglets are displaced to 20 tion of the winglet is affected about either the longi
any angle relative to a plane extending through a verti tudinal vertical or lateral axis of the aircraft.
cal, longitudinal, or lateral axis of the aircraft so as to 13. The wingtip arrangement of claim 12, wherein any of
alter the winglets’ respective angles of attack; and the base plates is connected to guide means, preferably in the
persisting in the continuous moving condition as long as it form of a rail, to permit translational displacement of the
is required to break down, destabilize or destroy the in 25 winglet along an axis parallel to the lateral, longitudinal, or
?ight wake vortices of said winglets so that wake vorti vertical axis of the aircraft, which translational winglet dis
ces generated from respective wings have a destructive placement occurs either in conjunction with, or separate
and destabiliZing effect on each other. from, said rotation, oscillation, and/or reciprocation caused
12 . A wingtip arrangement for an aircraft wing comprising: by any of the ?rst to third hinges.
at least one winglet movably mountable to an extremity of 30
the wing; and 14. An aircraft including the wingtip arrangement of claim
12.
actuating means in the form of a hinge arrangement con
nected to the winglet for actuating in use displacement

178
APPENDIX D

PLAN – AIRSPIRETM (PTY) LTD

Launch of SkyWakeTM

AUGUST 2009

WITS COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE (PTY) LTD

Written by:
Dr Lorraine Thiel
Mr Michael Boer

179
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ 182
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 183
1 COMPANY OVERVIEW ............................................................................... 184
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 184
1.2 Mission Statement ........................................................................................... 184
1.3 Strategic Objectives ......................................................................................... 184
1.4 Organisational Strategy ................................................................................... 185
1.5 Product Description and Position in the Market ................................................ 186
1.6 Strategic Context ............................................................................................. 186
2 TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 188
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 188
2.2 Nature of the Technology ................................................................................. 188
2.3 Technology Analysis ........................................................................................ 191
2.4 Intellectual Property ......................................................................................... 193
2.5 Anticipated Time to Commercialisation ............................................................ 194
3 INDUSTRY and MARKET ANALYSIS ......................................................... 195
3.1 Industry Analysis .............................................................................................. 195
3.2 Market Place Analysis...................................................................................... 196
3.3 Customer Analysis ........................................................................................... 200
3.4 Competitor Analysis ......................................................................................... 201
3.5 Pricing Analysis ............................................................................................... 204
4 MARKETING PLAN ...................................................................................... 206
4.1 Marketing Objective ......................................................................................... 206
4.2 Product Positioning .......................................................................................... 206
4.3 Pricing Strategy ............................................................................................... 207
4.4 Market Segments............................................................................................. 207
4.5 Sales and Marketing Activities ......................................................................... 210
4.6 Distribution Strategy......................................................................................... 212
4.7 Sales Forecast ................................................................................................. 213
5 DESIGN AND CERTIFICATION OF SKYWAKETM ...................................... 215
5.1 Phase I: Design of a New Light Sport Aircraft .................................................. 217
5.2 Phase II: Mock up and Detailed Design ........................................................... 217
5.3 Phase III: Prototype and Ground Testing ........................................................ 219
5.4 Phase IV: Prototype and Flight Testing ........................................................... 219
5.5 Phase V: Type Holder Certification .................................................................. 219
6 ESTABLISHMENT of AIRSPIRETM – MANUFACTURING ORGANISATION221
6.1 Location ........................................................................................................... 221
6.2 Regulatory Compliance.................................................................................... 221
6.3 Insurance Coverage ........................................................................................ 221
6.4 Organisational Structure .................................................................................. 221
6.5 Design of Manufacturing Facility ...................................................................... 222
6.6 Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 223
6.7 Labour Requirements of the Manufacturing Facility ......................................... 224
7 BUDGET ....................................................................................................... 225
7.1 Phase I: Design of SkyWakeTM ........................................................................ 226
7.2 Phase II: Mock-up and Detailed Design ........................................................... 226
7.3 Phase III: Prototype and Ground Testing ......................................................... 226
7.4 Phase IV: Prototype and Flight Testing ............................................................ 227
7.5 Phase V: Type Holder Certification .................................................................. 228
7.6 Phase VI: Launch of SkyWakeTM ..................................................................... 228
7.7 Total Budget .................................................................................................... 228

180
8 FINANCIAL PLAN ........................................................................................ 229
8.1 Product Costing ............................................................................................... 229
8.2 Cost of Production ........................................................................................... 231
8.3 Economic Assumptions.................................................................................... 233
8.4 Financial Assumptions ..................................................................................... 233
8.5 Financial Budget .............................................................................................. 234
8.6 Financial Analysis ............................................................................................ 234
9 BUSINESS RISKS ........................................................................................ 237
9.1 SWOT Analysis................................................................................................ 237
9.2 Risk Management Strategy .............................................................................. 237

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Provisional Patent Information
APPENDIX 2: Comparison of the Specifications of Some NTCA in South Africa.
APPENDIX 3: Detailed Project Plan
APPENDIX 4: Cash Flow
APPENDIX 5: Income Statement
APPENDIX 6: Balance Sheet
APPENDIX 7: Discount Cash Flow

181
ABBREVIATIONS

AME Aircraft Maintenance Engineer

AMO Aircraft Maintenance Organisation
AP Approved Person
ATO Aviation Training Organisations
BCDA Blue Crane Development Agency
BCRM Blue Crane Route Municipality
SACAA Civil Aviation Authority
CAR Civil Aviation Regulations
CAS Calibrated (Computed) Air Speed
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CGE Computable General Equilibrium
DEAET Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism
DO Design Organisation
dti Department of Trade and Industry
EAA Experimental Aircraft Association
E-LSA Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft
GP Gross Profit
JAR Joint Airworthiness Requirement
FAA Federal Aviation Authority
FAJ Floor Assembly Jig
IDC Industrial Development Corporation
IDZ Industrial Development Zone
LSA Light Sport Aircraft
MAUW Maximum All-Up Weight
MO Manufacturing Organisation
MOA Memorandum of Association
MPTO Manufacturing, Processing and Testing Organizations
MPL Microlight Pilot’s License
MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight
NACoE National Aerospace Centre of Excellence
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NTCA Non-Type Certified Aircraft
NPV Net Present Value
PDI Previously Disadvantaged Individual
PPL Private Pilot’s License
SA Single engine certified aircraft
SABS South African Bureau of Standards
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
STF Structural test facility
STOL Short Take Off and Landing
ULM Ultralight Motorised
US United States of America
Wits University of Witwatersrand

182
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

183
1 COMPANY OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
Wits Enterprise intends to create a new company, AirspireTM (Pty) Ltd, to commercialise innovative Light
Sport Aircraft (LSA). The first aircraft, trademarked as SkyWakeTM, will be launched in Q3 2012 with first
sales anticipated in Q1 2013. In South Africa, Light Sport Aircraft are defined as two-seat aircraft with 3-
axis control having a maximum take-off mass of 600kg with a stall speed not exceeding 65km/h. New
regulations governing Light Sport Aircraft were promulgated in the US in 2004. LSA are fast becoming the
best selling aircraft amongst recreational flyers due to the good performance and range associated with
the newly designed purpose-built aircraft. The operating costs are significantly less than existing
recreational aircraft such as the popular Cessna C150/2 and Piper PA-28 families.

The University of the Witwatersrand’s School of Mechanical, Industrial and Aeronautical Engineering
(SMIA) houses significant resources, expertise and know-how in the aeronautical environment. The SMIA
has expertise in aircraft design, performance estimation, competitive engineering design, analysis and
testing of metallic and composite structures, numerical simulation and the analysis of aerial vehicles. The
SMIA offers the only accredited undergraduate degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Africa. The SMIA
also has specialised research groups with focus on fluid flow, thermodynamics, composite materials,
applied mechanics, flight mechanics and aerodynamics.

Wits Enterprise now proposes the establishment of a Light Sport Aircraft manufacturing and marketing
business. This business, Airspire™ (Pty) Ltd will be built on either a LSA design licensed from the Blue
Crane Development Agency (BCDA) (discussions in this regard are currently underway), or alternatively
through the creation of a new LSA design developed by the SMIA. The design for the aircraft will be
registered with the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) and production of the aircraft prototype
will follow. The appropriate regulatory activities required to obtain “Authority to Fly” from the SACAA and to
accredit the organisation as a manufacturing organisation will be implemented.

The launch of SkyWakeTM will pave the way for the introduction of further Light Sport and Recreational
Aircraft which will incorporate additional innovations currently being researched and patented by Wits, with
further development of innovative design solutions. AirspireTM will thus be positioned to continue to bring
innovative design features, compliant with international standards, to the market to meet the growing
demand for this category of aircraft.

1.2 Mission Statement

“AirspireTM will be the first South African Manufacturing Organisation to design and manufacture
innovative and affordable Light Sport Aircraft, specifically tailored for the African aviation
enthusiast.”

1.3 Strategic Objectives

AirspireTM will:
1. Bring to market the first “Proudly South African” designed and manufactured, innovative, and
affordable production-built Light Sport Aircraft for the aviation enthusiast.
2. Introduce a range of state-of-the-art Light Sport Aircraft through the introduction of patented
innovations developed by the South African Design Organisation.
3. Create an export market for the South African aircraft which will be designed to meet the international
class of Light Sport Aircraft regulations.
4. Facilitate the establishment of a SACAA certified South African Design Organisation.
5. Facilitate the growth of an aircraft manufacturing industry through the creation of jobs and the
development of scarce and higher levels of skill, relevant to the requirements of the aerospace
industry.

184
1.4 Organisational Strategy
The South African Civil Aviation Authority states that only those aircraft of which the type, the local or
foreign manufacturing organization, the local assembling organization or agent, or the build standard has
been approved by the Commissioner, may be built or imported and flown within the Republic. In addition,
no organisation shall design any product or a change thereof, except under the authority of, and in
accordance with the provisions of an approved design organisation. In order to comply with these
regulations, two types of organisations are required: (1) a Manufacturing Organisation (MO) and (2) a
Design Organisation (DO). These organisations will jointly ensure that SkyWake™ will apply to have its
build standard approved and become type certified.

AirspireTM, will be established as a Manufacturing Organisation (MO) and comply with Part 148 -
Manufacturing Organisations as set by the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA). Approval as a
MO is required in order to (i) manufacture specified products, parts or appliances; (ii) apply specified
processes to products, parts or appliances; or (iii) carry out specified tests on products, parts or
appliances.

In parallel, Wits Enterprise is working together with other interested parties to create a Design
Organisation according to the standards, rules, requirements, methods, specifications, characteristics and
procedures for a DO set up by the SACAA. The DO will support Airspire™’s products in production by
offering technological improvement, manufacturing advancements and market driven innovation. It is
envisaged that the DO will have the necessary skills and competence to engineer new aircraft, modify
existing aircraft and design aircraft components for manufacture, design and manufacture of prototype
aircraft, flight proving and certification. [The formation of this DO is the subject of a separate proposal and
business plan].

The need to establish a DO has been identified as critical to the success of any aircraft design initiative in
South Africa. South Africa is emerging as a risk-sharing partner in the manufacture of sizeable aircraft
structural components however, its design participation is very limited and very few organisations in South
Africa have obtained DO status from the SACAA. The DO will provide the first steps towards a substantial
design expertise and resource base in South Africa. The DO will incubate new conceptual designs;
generate detailed designs and commercialisation strategies that are predicted to be commercially viable
projects in the context of a South African aviation industry. The DO will hence be established in the
interests of establishing a national centre of expertise in design of relevance for human capital
development and the creation of employment and wealth in the engineering based aviation field.

In addition to the DO, a Structural Test Facility (STF) will be established by Wits University. The STF will
be established as a publically-accessible commercially viable facility capable of testing commercial, home-
built and new aircraft with maximum take-off weight initially limited to 1000 kg. The STF will be staffed, at
least initially, by the SkyWake™ design team working for the DO. The STF would be set up midway
through the DO incubation period, allowing for early SACAA approval of the SkyWake™, the Light Sport
Aircraft to be manufactured by AirspireTM and which forms the subject of this business plan. SkyWake™
will be the first aircraft to obtain NTCA type certification from this DO. [The formation of this STF is the
subject of a separate proposal and business plan].

AirspireTM will be owned by Wits Enterprise. Should the sale of any shares in the company be required, for
example to raise funds for the development of the prototype, this will be negotiated on a case-by-case
basis. Different classes of shares could be considered, but this will depend on the needs of any potential
future shareholders and the requirement of the company to raise capital over successive rounds.

185
1.5 Product Description and Position in the Market
The emergence of ultralight aviation has its beginnings more than 25 years ago as flying became more
and more expensive. General aviation (defined as all aircraft not flown for commercial or military purpose)
is cyclical, with periods of growth followed by decline. New improved aircraft marked each period of
growth. Due to the oil-crisis progressing into the late 1970’s a pronounced decline in the industry began
and the number of pilots began to decrease, partly contributed to by increasing aircraft manufacturing
costs. This lasted throughout most of the 1980’s and into the mid-1990’s.

During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s many people wanted to fly affordably and this led to the
emergence of ultralights in the field of general aviation. In the 1970's people started to put small engines
and landing gear on foot launched hang gliders. These aircraft developed rapidly becoming faster and
more manoeuvrable. These first generation Ultralights were essentially hang gliders with small engines
added to them for self-launching, with wire-braced wings, and were steered by shifting the pilot's weight
under the wing. Second generation ultralights began to appear in the mid-1970s and were designed as
powered aircraft, although they still used wire braced monoplane wings. The third generation utlralights,
launched in the early 1980’s, had strut-braced wings, a structurally efficient fuselage and nearly all used 3-
axis control systems, as used on standard aircraft.1

Ultralights/Light Sport Aircraft hence occupy a niche between microlights and type certified light aircraft
within the general aviation industry. This class of aviation has rapidly grown internationally to become a
safe and affordable recreational aviation activity and is considered to be the fastest growing segment of
the general aviation industry. In most affluent countries, ultralights now account for about 20% of the civil
aircraft fleet.2

As a result of the transformation of these lightweight aircraft into high performance aircraft, capable of very
respectable speed and range, many international aviation authorities set up definitions that could be
subject to minimum regulation. It should be noted that the weight and speed limits for this class of aircraft
are rarely the same between any two countries.

In 2004, the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) approved a new sport pilot certification program and
aircraft category called Light Sport Aircraft (LSA), with the aim of making aviation even more accessible
and affordable3. The LSA is a small two-person aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 600 kg and may
be purchased pre-constructed or as a kit. The aircraft are fuel efficient and have lower maintenance costs
than larger aircraft. The sport pilot license or certificate is easier to obtain requiring only 20 hours to qualify
as a sport pilot versus the 40 – 45 hours for a private pilot’s license.

Airspire™’s first entry level aircraft, SkyWakeTM, will have a number of innovative features to distinguish it
from its competitors. These features will be tailored to meet specific needs and provide benefits identified
as being important in the market for this category of aircraft, particularly within the African flying
conditions. The planned aircraft will comply with international regulations, thus opening the export market
for South African-developed aircraft and creating a skills pool in the field of Light Sport Aircraft aviation.

1.6 Strategic Context

This emerging market represents an opportunity for South Africa in its implementation of an aviation
Industry as it seeks opportunities for job creation and skills development. The timing of this project
coincides with South Africa’s identification of the aerospace industry as a high-priority sector expected to
follow a growth and consolidation path similar to that experienced by the automotive industry. The
government, in its commitment to the well-being of the industry, has created three synergistic initiatives.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation
2 Overview of the General Aviation Industry: Sport Aviation Study. Wilbur Smith Associates
3 FAR Part 103

186
 The National Aerospace Centre of Excellence (NACoE), a Department of Trade and Industry (dti)
programme, is a collaboration between government, industry, academia and research institutions and
is hosted by Wits. NACoE is the first Industrial Centre of Excellence under the Industrial Policy
framework.
 The Aerospace Industry Support Initiative (AISI), a dti initiative co-ordinated by the CSIR, aimed at
repositioning the South African Aerospace Industry as a future growth industry. The CSIR and the dti
aim to upgrade the South African Aerospace Industry and integrate the industry into global supply
networks.
 The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy (AMTS), a Department of Science and
Technology initiative, is a national strategy focussing on the automotive and aerospace industries.

187
2 TECHNOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
The University of Witwatersrand (Wits) initiated development of an African ultralight design (MTOW <
550kg) in 2003. An analysis of market needs in regards to ultralight/Light Sport Aircraft in the South
African market was undertaken and research conducted into pilots’ wishes and needs. Work on a South
African designed aircraft was subsequently initiated by final-year students at Wits. The aircraft was
designed to compete directly against the Australian Jabiru series, a popular aircraft in the South African
market. In addition, the aircraft was designed specifically for South Africa’s harsh interior climate and
instead of being composite and incorporated a stressed aluminium wing with a steel-alloy space frame
fuselage. The design was, however, not pursued since the overall design was rendered obsolete by the
introduction of the LSA regulations in 2004. The experience gained with regard to the market analysis,
research, design process and methodology followed, and performance modelling was invaluable and
contributed significantly to the knowledge base existing at Wits.

In 2006, Wits Commercial Enterprise (Pty) Ltd (Wits Enterprise), the intellectual property
commercialisation company of the University of Witwatersrand, and the University of the Witwatersrand’s
School of Mechanical, Industrial and Aeronautical Engineering (SMIA) was contracted by the Blue Crane
Development Agency (BCDA) to produce a conceptual design for a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA). The design
project was completed in March 2008.

Wits Enterprise now proposes the establishment of its own Light Sport Aircraft manufacturing and
marketing business to build either the LSA design licensed from the BCDA (discussions in this regard are
currently underway), or alternatively through the creation of a new LSA design developed by the SMIA.
Several improvements and enhancements to the original BCDA design have been identified and
provisional patents submitted. These are: (1) a single-slotted flap mechanism to eliminate the hinge
mechanism resulting in reduced drag; and (2) a spinner thruster which will result in a performance
increase and improve the airflow into the cowling for engine cooling. A full South African patent application
has been filed for (2). These may be incorporated into the first generation Light Sport Aircraft,
trademarked SkyWakeTM, to be produced by AirspireTM.

The design for the aircraft will be registered with the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) and
production of the aircraft prototype will follow during the course of 2010. The appropriate regulatory
activities required to obtain “Authority to Fly” from the SACAA and to accredit the organisation as a
manufacturing organisation will be implemented. Airspire™ will launch SkyWakeTM in 2012 as its first
aircraft in this market.

2.2 Nature of the Technology

The market opportunity to be addressed by Airspire™ is two-fold. Firstly, a robust Light Sport Aircraft
tailored specifically to African operating conditions has not yet been designed. Secondly, the South African
Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) has recently adopted a slightly modified version of the Federal Aviation
Authority’s LSA regulation, CAR Part 24: Non-Type Certificated Aircraft. African countries are then
expected to follow South Africa’s lead. The intent is, therefore, to design an aircraft that matches expected
international trends, with the performance to beat leading competitors, particularly in inland African
conditions, and is suited to South African and African markets.

To some extent the regulation limits the degree of innovation and performance enhancement that can be
addressed. The cost incurred to certify a completely innovative structural design would not be conducive
to commercial success. The regulatory authorities have placed a limit on the minimum structural mass, so
even if an innovative structure could be used, any reduction in weight would be limited, making the cost of
innovation unjustifiable. The innovation to be contained in SkyWakeTM is hence constrained to the user-

188
interface and non-structural assemblies, offering several novel features that provide clear benefits to the
operator in comfort and performance.

Analysis of market needs in regards to the ultralight/Light Sport Aircraft market in South Africa was
undertaken by Wits University. Research was conducted into pilots’ wishes and needs. Many non-pilots
were interviewed to determine optimum control and system placement. The cockpit arrangement was then
refined after a full size mock-up was built. The embodiment of the aircraft was also researched and the
majority of pilots expressed preference for low cost, good performance and good comfort. The ergonomic
interface was researched by measuring body geometry and the results were compared to historic data
obtained from the SABS and NASA. Work undertaken by a final year student in 2007 has confirmed that
the identified design features and improvements would be accepted by the majority of pilots.

Performance has been specifically tailored for hot and high altitude African conditions; the aircraft has
excellent take-off and landing performance, exceeding the performance of its competitors. Competitive
design methodology will, for example, allow for the use of standard materials, such as high-strength steel
and aluminium alloys, in the aircraft structure. Competitors use carbon/glass reinforced plastic which
offers better stiffness and surface finish, but is not damage tolerant nor does it lend itself to modification
based on customer requirements. The metallic structure will be fully recyclable whereas composite
materials are not currently. SkyWakeTM will be designed with an aluminium clad tubular space frame crash
structure and tail boom with an aluminium semi-monocoque strut-supported wing and all-moving tab-
balanced aluminium tail.

TABLE 1: Competitive features and benefits to be included in the AirspireTM prototype design
COMPONENT FEATURE BENEFIT
 Tricycle landing gear.  Robust landing gear suitable for the
 Steerable trailing-link nose landing gear. roughest landing strips in South
 Spring-damped main landing gear. Africa.
Landing Gear  Reliable mechanism.
 Energy absorbing with low-bounce
characteristics.
 Good ground handling.
 Gill flaps operated by an electronically  Modelled for the different types of
controlled servo-motor - unique in the engine that will be fitted.
LSA class.  Gill flaps control the amount of air
Automatic Gill Flaps
for cooling of the engine, automatic
gill flaps would reduce the pilot
workload.
 The tab will be unique in both the
general aviation and the LSA class.
 The wingtip-mounted trim tab will allow  Reduces pilot workload.
Wingtip for level flight to occur without the
constant stick-load experienced in
traditional aircraft.
 Research is being conducted into the  Would increase safety when flying
influence of a vortex shedding device in formation, towing gliders and
which would cause instability and banners and reduce the following
subsequent destruction of the wingtip distance required in a circuit.
vortices.

189
COMPONENT FEATURE BENEFIT
 A modular wing box will allow the wing  Allowing for tailored aircraft models
span to be increased or decreased from with either extra payload or better
the standard span. cruise speed.
 Allows medium speed flight training
Adaptable Structure
in hot conditions.
 The fuselage has been designed as a  Allows the fitment of surveying,
modular assembly, allowing for surveillance and specialist
modifications to be made. equipment making the aircraft
versatile.
 An aesthetically appealing all moving  Has been sized for good control
horizontal stabiliser has been designed authority at low speed with good
high speed trim characteristics.
Tail  Electronic trim system.  Ease of flight control.
 A conventional and aesthetic vertical tail  Provides easy ground manoeuvring
design has been used, with rudder
control linked to the nose-wheel.
Cowling  Inspiration for the shape comes from  It will be both aesthetically pleasing
classic sports cars such as the Ferrari and aerodynamically clean.
Dino and Jaguar E-Type.
 Air intake will be designed to capitalise  The pressure-recovery used by the
on the ram-air effect. intake will be unique in the LSA
class allowing for a slight boost in
power.

SkyWakeTM cowling
 The design of the cockpit seats, inspired
by sports car interiors, will be completely
adjustable. The height, angle and
longitudinal position of the seat and arm-
rests can be adjusted.

Interior Layout

SkyWakeTM Cockpit
 The design will offer a choice of tinted  Increases safety and enhances the
colours to change the colour of cabin pilot’s flying experience.
light.
 Photographic windows will allow the pilot  Scientific studies have shown that
to have uncompromised view out of the this feature has a beneficial effect
aircraft. on fatigue resistance, which is
lowered by vibration and constant
noise in aircraft.

190
COMPONENT FEATURE BENEFIT
 Air conditioning will be offered as a  Provides additional pilot comfort
standard feature.
 Use of heat-pipe technology would allow
an air-conditioning unit to be fitted with
negligible reduction of engine power.
 The vertical instrument panel will be  Leads to minimal read-error
Interior Layout tilted for reduced parallax read-error.
(cont’d)

Conventional instrument panel of

Instrument Panel concept the Fly Synthesis Storch

Additional features offering competitive advantage include:

 A ballistic parachute will be supplied as standard in all aircraft. The ballistic parachute has become
standard equipment in Europe and the US as a safety device. A ballistic parachute is simply an
airframe parachute that is deployed during an emergency.
 The customer will have a choice as to the external colour and external enhancements.
 The customer may also select the instrument suite and general arrangement of the instrument panel.
 Engine:
To suit a variety of pilot's needs and budget, the aircraft will be available with an option of different
engines in the 60 - 75 kW (80 - 100 Hp) categories. In the future, a South African aviation engine
(currently in development) may be chosen.
 Rotax (imported ex Austria) engines are the worldwide recognised standard for ultralight aircraft.
The 60-75 kW engines are respected for their reliability and customer service. The four-cylinder
engines feature air-cooled cylinders and liquid-cooled cylinder heads.
 The Jabiru (imported ex Australia) 2,200cc and 3,300cc Aircraft Engines are air cooled engines in
the 60-90kW category and are the less expensive than Rotax engines.
 Adept Airmotive have developed a high performance South African piston engine for aviation use.
The engine under development is, however, not suitable for use in LSA since it produces more
than 200kW. Adept Airmotive have indicated that a 3-cylinder LSA engine may be developed and
should that materialise, the LSA will be adapted to use the engine when it is available.

2.3 Technology Analysis

The SkyWakeTM has been designed as an Ultralight according to the South African definition, a Light Sport
Aircraft according to the US definition and Very Light Aircraft according to the European definition. The
definitions follow in section 3 of the business plan. The SkyWake™ will be a factory-built all metal, single
piston engine high-wing monoplane seating two persons, including the pilot. The seating is configured as
side-by-side. Allowance for luggage has been made behind the seats. The SkyWake TM will be equipped
per South African SACAA regulations to meet day VFR flight requirements. The major features of
SkyWake™ are as follows:

1. The wing structure is a built-up two-spar strut-braced semi-monocoque Aluminium alloy structure.
The airfoil is a NASA 0317 low speed laminar-flow section. The wing is equipped with single-slot flaps
and frise-type ailerons. The wing has been designed to allow for operating weights of between 550-
600kg depending on the country of registration.

191
2. The horizontal tail featuring a Camm-type balanced tab all-moving stabiliser, manufactured using two
built up spars and is of semi-monocoque Aluminium alloy construction.
3. The fuselage is a 4130 steel alloy tubular welded structure clad in Aluminium and incorporates a
600mm crash-crumple-zone.
4. The nose landing gear is steerable and incorporates a trailing link spring-damper.
5. The main landing gear consists of independent pivoted legs with fuselage mounted spring-dampers.

3-View of SkyWakeTM

TABLE 2: General Specifications of SkyWake™

Engine Rotax 912 S
Power output 100HP at 5800rpm
Propeller Composite two-blade fixed pitch propeller
Service ceiling 15000ft
Maximum gross weight 600kg
Standard empty weight 315kg
Maximum useful load 255kg
Usable fuel capacity 85 litres
Overall height 2.5m
Overall length 6.7m
Wing span 11.2m
Shoulder height cabin width 1.2m

Preliminary performance data for the proposed SkyWake™ design has been calculated based on the
standard aircraft configuration with optional wheel spats operating in windless International Standard

192
Atmosphere (ISA) conditions. Field performance, including take-off and landing phases, has been
calculated using a level hard dry surface. The performance will vary within statistical limits with individual
aircraft. Factors such as aircraft configuration, atmospheric conditions and Air Traffic Control will affect the
performance.

TABLE 3: Estimated performance of SkyWake™

Take-off distance, sea level ground run 70m
Take-off distance, sea level to clear 50ft obstacle 118m
Maximum climb rate, sea level 1200ft/min
Maximum speed, sea level 120KTAS
Cruise range and endurance, 1000ft MSL 525nm, 5hrs
Cruise speed, 1000ft MSL 105KTAS
Landing distance, sea level ground roll 60m
Landing distance, sea level to clear 50ft obstacle 205m*
Take-off distance, 5000ft MSL (ISA +20°C) ground run 121m
Take-off distance, 5000ft MSL (ISA +20°C) to clear 50ft obstacle 176m
Maximum climb rate, 6500ft MSL 800ft/min
Maximum speed, 6500ft MSL 110KTAS
Maximum range and endurance, 6500ft MSL 287nm, 2.7hrs
Cruise speed, 6500ft MSL 103KTAS
Landing distance, 5000ft MSL (ISA +20°C) ground roll 68m
Landing distance, 5000ft MSL (ISA +20°C) to clear 50ft obstacle 215m*

(Estimated performance shown for SkyWake™ with 30min fuel reserve, flying weight of 550kg)
* Calculated at 3 degree glide slope.

2.4 Intellectual Property

Wits Enterprise has filed the name AirspireTM for trademark registration in class 42: Engineering design
and services. The chosen name for the aircraft to be produced according to the design is SkyWake TM and
this name has also been submitted by Wits Enterprise for registration in class 12: Aircraft. Logos for both
AirspireTM and SkyWakeTM have been developed.

FIGURE 1: Logos for SkyWakeTM and AirspireTM

Wits Enterprise has developed the design specifications for two novel aspects which may be included in
the design of SkyWakeTM. The provisional patents for these innovations have been registered by Wits
Enterprise. The patent details are appended in Appendix 1. The first patent describes a propeller spinner
used to increase cooling airflow and provide a small amount of thrust. The second patent describes a flap
mechanism that is not used in current LSA. The mechanism offers very little drag for a small weight
penalty.

193
In the future, the DO would support products in production by offering technological improvement,
manufacturing advancements and market driven innovation. Design methodology would be kept
confidential and clearly marked as sensitive. The only information that will enter the public domain will be
the design general arrangement (3-view), and this will be protected by registration of the design. The
structures will be statically tested and the test reports remain the property of the SACAA. The test
methods followed are internationally standardised.

Within the framework of contract research undertakings and taking cognisance of the requirements of the
Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development bill, any IP generated will
be the property of the University, and the exclusive rights to the commercialisation of this technology will
be assigned to Airspire™.

2.5 Anticipated Time to Commercialisation

The project plan is to either license the BCDA LSA design (discussions are currently underway) or to
alternatively create a new LSA design for the development of the prototype aircraft. The timing outlined
below is associated with the latter scenario.

TABLE 4: Anticipated Time to Commercialisation of SkyWake TM

hase Time Start Date End Date
I. Conceptual/Detailed 3 months 1 January 2010 31 March 2010
Design

II. Mock-up and detailed 9 months 1 April 2010 31 December 2010

design

III. Prototype and Ground 10 months 1 January 2011 31 October 2011

Testing

IV. Prototype and Flight 9 months 1 October 2011 30 June 2012

Testing

V. Certification 3 months 1 July 2012 30 September 2012

VI. Launch of SkyWake™ September 2012

194
3 INDUSTRY and MARKET ANALYSIS
3.1 Industry Analysis4
There are several types of aircraft qualifying as ultralights. These aircraft can be used for sport and
recreation, flight training, rental, and glider-towing. The different categories are described below.
 Weight Shift (Trike) - are first generation ultralights controlled by weight shift. Most use a hang glider-
style wing, below which is suspended a three wheeled structure containing the engine and aviators.
Trikes can use internal combustion engines or a pedal system to produce thrust.
 Glider - rely on rising air and very efficient aerodynamic properties to keep them aloft. Whilst some do
have engines, the engine’s role is to raise the glider to an altitude suitable for gliding, at which point the
engine is turned off. Gliders with no engine rely on tow-aircraft, winches and occasionally land vehicles
for launching purposes.
 Powered parachutes - includes a frame with engine, propeller and wheels. The powered parachute is
a popular form of recreational sport flying, due to its relatively low cost of start-up and up-keep.
 Powered paragliding - in which the pilot wears a small motor on his back and runs into the air with lift
from a parafoil wing. This form of flying offers low and slow flying capability, 'open' feel, portability, low
equipment and maintenance costs, and safety aspects.
 Gyroplane - are similar to small, one-seater helicopters, except that instead of spinning its winged
rotor by motor, the gyroplane uses the principle of autorotation to keep its rotor spinning and the
aircraft in flight.
 Lighter-than-Air Sport Aircraft - rely on filling a balloon with gas that is less dense than air, allowing
the balloon to rise to and maintain a particular altitude.
Most countries now require an ultralight pilot's license/certificate however internationally there is no
common set of ultralight rules. The safety regulations used to approve ultralights vary between countries,
the strictest being the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden and Germany, while they are almost non-existent in
France and the United States. This disparity between regulations is a major barrier to international trade
and overflight, as is the fact that these regulations are invariably sub-ICAO (International Civil Aviation
Organisation), which means that they are not internationally recognised. 5

For example, ultralight aircraft in the United Kingdom and New Zealand are generally called microlight
aircraft and in France and Italy they are called ultralight motorised (ULM). Some countries further
differentiate between weight shift and 3-axis aircraft, calling the former microlight and the latter ultralight. It
should be noted however that the US definition of an ultralight is significantly different from that in most
other countries and can lead to some confusion. The US "ultralight" is a single seat vehicle with an empty
weight of less than 115 kg and a top speed of 102 km/h. The introduction of the FAA "Light-Sport Aircraft"
(LSA) regulations in 2004 introduced a category of aircraft in the US which more closely resembles other
countries' ultralight categories. For Light Sport Aircraft a sport pilot certificate is required, which is similar
in requirements to other countries' ultralight license. [The introduction of this category of aircraft will be
discussed below.]

The European aviation community is working on regulations that are intended to resolve the non-standard
definition of the LSA within a reasonable time frame.

The build quality and airworthiness of ultralight aircraft (LSA category in the US) now rivals that of certified
light aircraft. It is possible that some aircraft can satisfy both sets of requirements and can hence be
available for registration as either ultralight or certified status. In recent years there has been a dramatic
rise in the number of general aviation pilots flying high performance ultralights due to the lower costs.
Ultralight pilots are permitted to perform some of the simple maintenance tasks, resulting in a lower cost of
operation, although the pilot must then follow the ultralight regulations such as avoiding densely populated
urban areas and not flying at night. Many older pilots have been willing to trade these operational

4 Overview of the General Aviation Industry: Sport Aviation Study. Wilbur Smith Associates
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation

195
restrictions for the lower operational costs, and as a result many ultralights are now flown by experienced
general aviation pilots or ex-commercial pilots. In addition, further growth in this market has been driven
by the fact that ultralight pilots are not required to pass periodic physical examinations, as is the case for
general aviation pilots.

Thus, although ultralights (microlights in some countries) started out in the early 1980’s as slow,
lightweight and uncomplicated aircraft, many have evolved into fast, sophisticated machines. The ultralight
aircraft have thus internationally rapidly transformed into high performance aircraft, capable of very
respectable speed and range. These aircraft are now often referred to as recreational aircraft.

Data published by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) in the 2008 General Aviation
Statistical Databook & Industry Outlook indicating growth factors for several sectors is depicted below.

TABLE 5: Federal Aviation Authority Forecast.

st
Growth Factor 1 rank 2nd rank / 3rd rank 4th rank
(percentage (percentage (percentage (percentage
growth) growth) growth) growth)
Annual sales Light Sport Turbo-jet aircraft Piston engine Experimental home-
Aircraft (9.9%) (5.6%) rotorcraft (4.7%) built aircraft (2.2%)
Annual hours Light Sport Turbo-jet aircraft Piston engine Experimental home-
flown Aircraft (12.1%) (7.7%) rotorcraft (5.0%) built aircraft (2.5%)
Pilot population Light Sport Pilot Rotorcraft Pilot Student Pilot Commercial Pilot
License (13.7%) License (2.1%) License (1.0%) License (0.5%)

3.2 Market Place Analysis

3.2.1 United States:
With the recognition of a declining pilot population and the implications to air travel, in 2004 the FAA
generated an entirely new category specifically designed to address the desire of people wishing to fly
aircraft primarily for recreational purposes. The Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) regulation is a comprehensive
package addressing all aspects of the operation of Light Sport Aircraft for recreational purposes, including
a new pilot certificate, a new flight instructor certificate, maintenance rules, and medical and aircraft
certification. This new category of the sport aviation market effectively reduces the barriers to becoming a
pilot in the US as it substantially lowers capital investment and operating costs. These aircraft are cheaper
to purchase, are more fuel efficient and have a lower maintenance cost than larger aircraft. Pilots are not
required to hold a medical certificate, but need only to carry a valid US driver’s license to meet the medical
eligibility requirements. The basic sport pilot certificate requires a minimum of 20 hours training and a
driver’s license medical certificate.

The Light Sport Aircraft is not a new concept. Aircraft within this category have existed since the 1930’s,
the most famous example of a vintage aircraft complying with the 2004 S-LSA regulation is the Piper J-3
Cub. The 2004 regulation serves only to provide a standard for performance and safety, whilst limiting
absurd designs.

Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) can be manufactured and sold ready-to-fly under new LSA certification. Aircraft
under this certification may be used for sport and recreation, flight training, and aircraft rental. They can
also be licensed as Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) if kit-built. Both US and foreign manufacture
of LSAs are authorised. The design limitations imposed on the LSA producers are depicted in the
diagram below.

196
 FIGURE 2: Light Sport Aircraft Regulations6

It is anticipated that this sport pilot and aircraft classification will enlarge the aviation market among those
who are already pilots, attract a significant number of new pilots to general aviation as well as convert
existing pilots downgrading to cheaper aircraft.

The LSA market has shown substantial growth since the introduction of new designs. In the US to date,
approximately 50 different models of aircraft have already been approved under the special LSA
regulation as ready-to-fly aircraft.

TABLE 6: The US Aircraft Register7

2005 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2006-10 2006-20
Forecast Annual
Actual Forecast
Growth Rates
Sport Aircraft 170 400 2,700 5,600 10,500 13,200 93.4% 28.4%
Total GA 224,352 226,422 231,343 242,766 261,404 274,914 1.8% 1.4%
Percentage <0.1% 0.2% 1.2% 2.3% 4.0% 4.8%

3.2.2 South Africa:

Aviation in South Africa is regulated and overseen by the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA),
which is a part of the Department of Transport. The SACAA is responsible for certifying aircraft that apply
for registration (type certification process) as well as for ensuring that Aircraft Maintenance Organizations
(AMOs); Manufacturing, Processing and Testing Organizations (MPTs); Design Organizations; and
Aviation Training Organisations (ATOs) are effectively inspected, approved and overseen, and that they
perform their work within the framework of their approvals. The size of the industry overseen by this
division can be summarized as follows: 10,730 aircraft (TCA and NTCA); 420 AMOs; 90 MPTs; 15 ATOs
providing training to Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME); and at least 3,500 AMEs.

For the purposes of design and manufacturing of aircraft in South Africa, aircraft are put in two major
categories, those which have been designed and manufactured under the standards that meet or exceed
those of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), otherwise known as Type Certified Aircraft
(TCA) and those which are not compliant with ICAO standards, known as Non-Type Certified Aircraft
(NTCA). A NTCA is an aircraft that does not qualify for the issue of a certificate of airworthiness in terms of
Part 21 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARS) of 1997 8. It includes any TCA no longer qualifying. With

6 http://www.eaa.org/sportpilot/sourcebook.pdf
7 Source: 2000-2005, FAA General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity (and Avionics) Surveys.
8 As amended

197
the growth of the NTCA sector, regulatory provisions have been developed in an attempt to properly
control and regulate this class of aircraft. NTCA standards are contained in the CARs:
– Part 24: certification and airworthiness of NTCA;
– Part 94: operation of the NTCA;
– Part 96: commercial use of NTCA.

NTCA can be divided into five categories.

(a) Amateur- or home- built aircraft: Specifically built in terms of the provisions of CAR Part 24. The
owner performs most of the construction work themselves as a once-off project for the purpose of
flying the aircraft themselves. Aircraft are classified as kit or plan-built.
(b) Production-built aircraft: The build standard and prototype (approved and constructed in terms of
CAR Part 24) are available either fully-assembled or in kit form (< 51% of the airframe has been
constructed and assembled) exclusively for non-commercial purposes. These aircraft must be
constructed/assembled at SACAA approved facilities in South Africa.
(c) Veteran aircraft: These aircraft are traditional aircraft that have lost their type certificate.
(d) Ex-military aircraft: All aircraft previously operated by military air forces.
(e) Any other aircraft not qualifying for the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness (CAR Part 21).
NTCA aircraft are further divided into the following sub-groups – (a) aeroplanes, including microlight 9
aeroplanes; (b) helicopters; (c) gyroplanes/ gyrogliders; (d) gliders; (e) manned captive and manned free
balloons; (f) airship; (g) unmanned aerial vehicles; (h) hang-gliders including powered hang-gliders; (i)
paragliders (powered paragliders and paratrikes); (j) parachutes; (k) model aircraft; and (l) rockets.

Along with the trends being experienced in the US and European general aviation markets, South Africa
has experienced a rapid growth in the NTCA market. At the end of 2008, there were 10,730 aircraft on the
South African Civil Aircraft Register, of which 49% represented the sport and recreational NTCA aircraft.

TABLE 7: South African Civil Aircraft Register: 1999 - 2008

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
TOTAL TCA 4,190 4,247 4,311 4.496 4,695 4,901 4,985 5,132 5,497
Aeroplane 3 679 3 718 3 769 3 898 4029 4149 4 204 4,271 4,474
Helicopter 511 529 542 598 666 752 781 861 1,023
TOTAL NTCA 3 294 3 470 3 616 3 907 4 127 4 413 4 536 4 825 5 233
NTCA - Amateur built 507 558 587 688 821 961 1 021 1 105 1 236
NTCA – Production Built 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 512 708
Sub total: Amateur &
Production Built Aircraft 507 558 587 688 821 961 1 021 1 617 1944

Amateur Built Microlight 1 926 2 014 2 118 2 226 2 232 2 326 2 356 2 023 2 065

Glider (incl. Motorised) 377 393 401 429 456 475 477 495 514
Amateur Built
Gyrocopter/Helicopter 129 139 144 167 206 219 229 236 257
Limited/Research Aircraft 130 129 128 148 154 171 175 175 167
Veteran Aircraft 118 120 120 124 125 128 128 131 130
Other10 160 171 173 184 193 210 224 246 284
TOTALTCA and NTCA 7 484 7 717 7 927 8 403 8 822 9 314 9 521 9 957 10 730

9 Microlight aircraft are further defined as having restricted minimum flying speed and the maximum take-off
mass, with a MTOW of 450kg for a two-seater and a minimum flying speed at MTOW less than 65km/h.
10 Other includes hot air balloons, gyrocopters, amateur built helicopters

198
Figure 3 outlines the growth in the NTCA class over the period 2000 - 2008. The market has increased by
59% over this period. Prior to 2006, it was not possible to determine how many of the NTCA aircraft are
production built as these were included under the broader category of amateur built aircraft.

FIGURE 3: Non-Type Certified Aircraft 2000 - 2008

The amateur/production built category has increased from 15% to 37% of the total NTCA market between
1997 and 2008, with an average annual growth over this period of 17%. Amateur built microlights remain
marginally the largest segment of the market at 39% of the NTCA register. In 2000 microlights
represented 58% of the class of aircraft, but have had only a 2% average annual growth over this period.

Table 7 indicates that there has been a growth in recreational flying as the issuing of private pilot licences
increased in line with the aircraft growth in this area of aviation. It is also notable that the number of
student pilot licences has increased. In 2005 and 2006, the number of student learner pilots exceeded the
number of microlight learners.

TABLE 8: Number of Active Pilots in South Africa

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Others 3 891 3 474 4 187 4 575 4 901 5 500 5 434
Student 1 266 1 412 1 555 935 1 293 1 771 1 848
Microlight 918 1 526 1 222 1 300 1 629 1 580 1 561
Private 4 335 4 034 4 184 4 521 4 925 5 020 5 139
TOTAL 10 410 10 446 11 148 11 331 12 748 13 871 13 982

3.2.3 Canada:
Regulation of ultralight aircraft in Canada is covered by the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The definition
of an "ultralight aircraft" includes advanced ultralight or basic ultralight aircraft, both of which have only two
seats. A "basic ultralight aircraft" is designed and manufactured to have a MTOW not exceeding 544 kg,
whereas the “advanced ultralight aircraft” is designed to have a maximum take -off weight 480 kg.

199
 TABLE 9: The Canadian Aircraft Register
Normal Amateur Basic Advanced Other TOTAL
Built Ultralight Ultralight
Total 21,060 3,314 4,674 (14.9%) 968 12,405 31,421
Airplanes 17,978 2,934 4,674 968 1,231 27,785

3.2.4 United Kingdom:

 Very Light Aeroplane (VLA) has a single engine with not more than two seats and a MTOW of not
more than 750 kg.
 The definition of a microlight is an aircraft having no more than two seats and a MTOW of no more
than:
 300 kg for a single-seater landplane (or 450 kg for a two-seater landplane); or
 330 kg for a single seater amphibian/floatplane, (or 495 kg for a two-seater).

TABLE 10: The UK Register certification summary 1 Jan 2004

2006 2007 2008

Fixed wing MTOW <= 750 kg 3,077 (16.7%) 3,153 (15.8%) 3,186 (14.9%)

Microlights 4,254 4,392 4,447

Total 18,445 19,890 21,331

3.2.5 Australia:
In Australia a "Sport/Recreational aircraft" must have a maximum all-up weight (MAUW) of 544 kg or less
and a maximum of two seats. Australia has in the order of 580 registered aircraft with a MTOW between
450 kg and 544 kg.

3.2.6 New Zealand:

In New Zealand microlight aircraft are separated into two classes, single and two seat aircraft.
Class 1: Single seat aircraft with a design maximum gross weight of 544 kg (landplanes) or 579 kg
(seaplanes/amphibians). Requires aircraft registration and annual condition inspections, but does not
require a permit to fly.
Class 2: Two seat aircraft with a design maximum gross weight of 544 kg (landplanes) or 614 kg
(seaplanes or amphibians). Must meet minimum type acceptance standards or via a temporary
permit to fly and flight testing regime. Requires aircraft registration, annual condition inspections, and
a current permit to fly. New Zealand has 637 microlight class II on its aviation register.

3.3 Customer Analysis

Ultralight aircraft/Light Sport Aircraft are used extensively for flight training, recreation and various light
commercial purposes. Customers therefore include:
– Flight Schools
– Private individuals
– Businesses
– Government/NGOs

200
3.4 Competitor Analysis
The Europeans are currently the market leaders with the Czech Republic playing a major role11 producing
588 ultralight planes (worth €40 million) in 2006, 170 more than in the previous year. TL Ultralight, a
German manufacturing company, estimates that currently roughly 80% of the worldwide production of
ultralight aircraft is located in the Czech Republic. Nearly 200 of the 560 ultralight aircraft registered in the
US in 2006 were produced in the Czech Republic. There are very few US manufacturers of such ultralight
aircraft.

There is an enormous diversity and range of ultralight and Light Sport Aircraft on the market in South
Africa, available either in kit or fully built form. Fully built aircraft are assembled locally from imported
components; there are hence no fully South African manufactured aircraft. The design features of the
aircraft models are broad. Some are modern versions of designs that have been proven in classic aircraft,
while others are imports from Europe and Australia where lighter aircraft have been in the marketplace for
more than a decade. Some of the more popular aircraft and their manufacturers are profiled in the
following table.

TABLE 11: South African Ultralight Manufacturers 12

Manufacturer Aircraft model Technical Description Photo
Rainbow Aircraft Cheetah XLS High wing braced monoplane
(Ultralight- with aluminium tubular
production built)) structure, clad with Dacron.

Davies Aircraft Thunderbird Enclosed cabin high-wing

Corporation (Microlight- braced two-seat aircraft.
production built) Dacron clad.

Whisper Aircraft Whisper High aspect ratio exposed-

(Motorglider- motor glider.
production built)

The Airplane Factory D-6 Sling (Light Low-wing two-seat Aluminium

Sport Aircraft-kit semi-monocoque structure.
built)

Micro Aviation SA Bantam BJ-22 Semi-enclosed cabin high-

(Microlight- wing braced two-seat aircraft.
production built) Dacron clad.

The diagram below indicates the market share, by company, as at the end of 2008 according to the
SACAA register.

11 http://www.aero-friedrichshafen.com/html/en/home/home.php?lid=9653
12 All images taken from manufacturer’s websites.

201
 FIGURE 4: The South African NTCA Market (1944 aircraft in 2008)

A description of the most popular models on the market in South Africa is provided below. The attached
Appendix 2 outlines a comparison of the specification of some of these aircraft.
 Jabiru Aircraft Southern Africa
Jabiru Aircraft, a fully SACAA licensed MO and AMO, is the agent for the Australian designed Jabiru
series of aircraft and engines. Jabiru has the highest number of NTCA registered in South Africa.
Aircraft are sold either in kit form or fully built. (Currently most financial institutions do not however
finance the purchase of kits). The company offers customers the possibility of customising the aircraft
e.g. through addition of photographic windows, extra carry on fuel tanks and glass-fibre doors. Jabiru
was one of the first to obtain full private pilot’s license (PPL) training status for the aircraft and claims
that sales are increasing as PPL flight schools realise how affordable the aircraft are to run.
 Cessna - SkyCatcher
Cessna released their conceptual LSA in July 2006. The prototype production aircraft has just started
its test flight program and over 800 Cessna C162 SkyCatchers have been ordered globally.
Production is in China.
 FK Lightplanes: FK-9
FK-Lightplanes, a German company, markets the FK 9 MK IV. The aircraft is one of the fastest selling
aircraft internationally, but has yet to achieve much market share in South Africa. The wings have a
folding option, which require no tools, for trailering and storage. The seats are adjustable.
 Microwings: (Cubby)
The Cubby is available in kit form, ready to fly or fully built but without engine, radio and instruments.
The Cubby can be registered as a 3-axis microlight or an ultralight. The purchase price is low and
operational costs are kept to a minimum due to the use of automotive fuel (MOGAS) as opposed to
AVGAS. The Cubby is available in tri-gear or tail dragger. Price is dependent on the choice of engine.
 Kitplanes for Africa: (Bush Baby)
The Bushbaby is a homebuilt kit aircraft which may be registered as a microlight or an ultralight. It
has a low performance but is a safe entry level aircraft. The majority of Bushbabys are tail draggers
as the aircraft was designed to operate out of rough fields. This configuration however makes the

202
 aircraft more challenging to fly in comparison to the tricycle aircraft, which is better suited for
prepared runways.
 Skystar Aircraft Company: (Kitfox Kits)
The Kitfox is a lightweight, two-seater sport aircraft with excellent STOL performance and the ability
to operate from short and unimproved airfields. Various models include a larger aircraft designed to fit
the needs of a growing segment of the marketplace that wanted a “Weekend Cruiser” i.e. pilots
wanting a recreational aircraft with greater useful loads, certified engines, increased cabin space, and
larger cargo capacity.
 Wing ‘n tracks (Samba and Lambada)
The Samba is a competitively priced aircraft including a variable pitch propeller, two-metre wingtip
extension, glider tow hook and a well-equipped panel and avionics suite. It can use unleaded
MOGAS fuel, AVGAS or a mixture of both. The Lambada differs from the Samba, the differences with
a shoulder mounted wing and a T-tail.
 Rainbow Aircraft: (Cheetah)
The Cheetah has been approved by the SACAA for full PPL and hour building towards the CPL. The
Cheetah is available in tail dragger form or with tri-cycle gear. The Cheetah XL features a bigger
cabin with extra headroom. The company has also started selling the Cheetah as self-build kits.
 Van’s Aircraft: (RV kit planes)
RV Aircraft are low-wing monoplanes. RVs are designed and built so they can be dismantled when
necessary. All of the tail surfaces are removable. Wings are constructed independently and bolt to the
fuselage, the landing gear attaches to the fuselage with a few bolts.
 National Airways Corporation (NAC): Tecnam range
The Italian Tecnam, P92 Echo Super, has a spacious cabin, bigger instrument panel, smaller wing
surface and highly efficient single-slotted flaps in comparison to the others. The Sierra has an all-
moving horizontal stabiliser and a tapered wing which improves aerodynamic efficiency. The P92
2002 has a retractable gear reducing drag and making this aircraft a good performer.
 Microaviation: Bantam Microlight
The Bantam is classified as a microlight and is used in crop spraying. The Bantam can be registered
as an ultralight aircraft and can be used to build up PPL hours. Due to its quiet operation and STOL
capabilities the Bantam is used extensively in farming and nature conservation as well as by the
Police Service for crime fighting and visible policing. The aircraft claims to have an incredible
capability in windy conditions, outperforming other STOL aircraft that cost more than twice as much.

A comprehensive technical analysis of SkyWakeTM compared to its nearest competitors 13 the FK-9 ELA
and the Jabiru J 170, as well as the Cessna SkyCatcher is attached as Appendix 2. In summary, the FK-9
is the nearest competitor in terms of design specification. The SkyWake TM has been designed with a wing
approximately 2% larger in area than the FK-9 offering 20% less lift induced drag, attributable to the
geometry. The SkyWakeTM produces 8% less total drag at 110km/h than the FK-9 and 1% less drag at
184km/h. SkyWakeTM has been designed to have the best performance at its maximum flying weight.

The SkyWake™ has been compared to the FK 9 ELA, Jabiru 170 and Cessna SkyCatcher using a
weighting scheme (refer to Appendix 2a for further details of this comparison). Each criterion has a highest
possible score of 100%. As can be seen, SkyWake™ scores very well in all categories. Performance wise,
SkyWake™’s closest competitors are the FK- 9 ELA and the SkyCatcher, with the best being the FK9.

13 As determined by detailed technical analysis by the School of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering.

203
General Specific Criteria Cessna FK 9 Jabiru SkyWake
Criteria SkyCatcher 170
ConstructionDamage tolerance, corrosion resistance 67% 58% 50% 92%
and degree of modification
Operation Landing gear, flight performance, 55% 70% 52% 92%
equipment and performance at altitude
with elevated temperature
Ownership Parts availability, degree of customisation 55% 40% 55% 100%
and cabin layout
OVERALL RATING 3 2 4 1

3.5 Pricing Analysis

Prices of the different models are as varied as are the models themselves, ranging from R 364,000
(Cheetah XLS) to R 838,000 (Flight Design CTLS). The cost of the average light sport is estimated to be
roughly a quarter of the cost of a new type certified four-seater single-engine, such as a Cessna and less
than half the cost of a type certificated two-seater.

Figure 5 demonstrates the pricing analysis demonstrating the comparative aircraft sales - marker size is
proportional to sales. Aircraft registered to the flight schools are also indicated in this graph for
comparative purposes, although being in a higher weight and cost category. The graph also included
prices of a microlight aircraft (Bantam) and lower weight ultralight kit aircraft such as the Cubby and Bush
Baby. The SkyWake price is the average price (of three models that will be marketed – refer to section
4.3 below).

Performance wise (refer to table above) SkyWake™’s closest competitors are the FK- 9 ELA and the
SkyCatcher. Both of these aircraft are priced above R 780,000. The pricing and market analysis indicates
that the Cessna SkyCatcher sells more aircraft than the higher performing FK-9. In addition, the best
selling aircraft is the Jabiru J170, which based on the analysis in section 3.4 above, has average rating in
terms of construction, operation and ownership criteria. This analysis seems to indicate that the higher
performance end of the market, there is a degree of compromise between pricing and performance.

At the same time, the Jabiru J170 also sells better than lower priced, medium performance aircraft such
as the Bush Baby, Cheetah, Zodiac and Ikarus. This would imply that at the lower end of the price
market, performance remains an important consideration.

The conclusion of this analysis is there are two market segments in which SkyWake could compete:
 Against the high performance, high price aircraft such as the Cessna SkyCatcher.
 Offer is a more competitively priced high performing aircraft
 Against the lower priced, medium performing aircraft such as the Zodiac and Bush Baby.
 Offer is a higher performing aircraft for a competitive price.

Airspire will introduce more than one model of the SkyWakeTM design to accommodate this positioning in
the market.

204
FIGURE 5: Pricing Analysis - South African NTCA

205
4 MARKETING PLAN
The LSA/ultralight market is becoming recognised as the future of general aviation. It is anticipated
that this market sector will not only rejuvenate the general aviation industry by encouraging new
students to enter flight training, but will also provide flight schools with a highly competitive
alternative to the current fleet of Cessnas and Pipers that they are now utilising, allowing them to
upgrade their fleets with modern, safe and more affordable aircraft. LSA aircraft have demonstrated
55-65% reduced fuel burn when compared to two-seat legacy aircraft such as the Cessna 152 and
Piper Super-Cub.

It is always a challenge for any manufacturer to enter a highly competitive market; however Wits
University has carefully researched the market needs and has tailored the company’s first entry level
aircraft, SkyWakeTM, to meet specific needs identified in the market for ultralight aircraft. SkyWakeTM
will incorporate a number of unique aspects in comparison to its competitors in the LSA category.
The performance of the aircraft has been tailored to the rugged climate of the plateau regions and
comfort of the occupants has been maximised. Also of importance is the fact that it will comply with
international Light Sport Aircraft regulations in order to satisfy the international export market. This
product will thus open the export market for South African developed aircraft.

It is believed that these innovative features incorporated in the SkyWakeTM design will offer a
competitive advantage allowing AirspireTM to reach sales of 50 aircraft within 3 years of launch.

4.1 Marketing Objective

The company’s marketing strategy is centred around the objective of SkyWakeTM becoming the
leader in the South African ultralight market within the first five years of operation, and obtaining
market share in the expanding international LSA market.
1. 20% of all new sales in the production/amateur built aeroplane category within 5 years, and
25% within 7 years.
2. To convert 7.5% of microlight sales into SkyWakeTM sales within 4 years.
3. To enter into the export market within 3 years.
 Market share of up to 1.2 5% of new aircraft sales are projected in Northern Hemisphere
countries and in Australia/New Zealand.
4. The target is to have sold 125 aircraft by the end of year 3 and over 330 by the end of year 5.

4.2 Product Positioning

“AirspireTM will be the first company to bring to market a “Proudly South African” designed
and manufactured innovative Light Sport Aircraft for the aviation enthusiast in Africa.”

AirspireTM will leverage its competitive edge, based on product innovations/features and price
competitiveness. The major competitive edges are:
1. The design of a high performance Light Sport Aircraft designed specifically for the South
African climate and unique flying conditions.
2. The luxurious interior of the aircraft and the ability for the customer to tailor the colour and
fittings to suit their taste at an affordable price.

Acquisition cost is one of the principal factors which restricts the purchase of new aircraft, second
only to the cost associated with aircraft operation and maintenance. The vision for AirspireTM is thus
to introduce the option for an aircraft priced such that it offers significantly improved reliability and

206
operational efficiency, coupled with a comfortable cabin, reliable power plant and customised novel
features.

4.3 Pricing Strategy

Analysis of the pricing of the best-in-class ultralight aircraft in South Africa as depicted in Figure 5
above has demonstrated that the aircraft representing the closest competition in terms of both price
AND performance is the Jabiru J170 priced at R 644,344. The FK-9 retails for R 981,000. As has
been demonstrated in the competitive analysis above, SkyWake TM offers potential customers better
value for money in terms of performance as well as additional features such as customised seating,
air-conditioning, ballistic parachutes, and other innovative features.

SkyWakeTM, as the first Light Sport Aircraft to be launched by AirspireTM, will be within a price range
of R 520,000 to R 600,000 (delivered to agent’s airfield). This price hence allows for an agency fee
to be received by the marketing company. The prices are14:
 Entry level: Conventional instruments & Jabiru J 330 engine
Cost: R 520,000 (US$ 74,286)
 Middle range: Glass cockpit instruments & Jabiru J 330 engine
Cost: R 550,000 (US$ 78,571)
 Top of the range: Glass cockpit instruments & Rotax 912 S engine
Cost: R 600,000 (US$ 85,714)

Prices will be fixed in US$ to protect Airspire TM against currency fluctuations. Approximately 78% of
the variable cost of manufacture is priced in US$, hence currency exchange rates could potentially
have a major impact on the profitability of the business.

4.4 Market Segments

Figure 6 outlines the 3 main market segments in which Airspire will compete for sales with its models
of the SkyWakeTM aircraft.

Market Segment 1: Flight Schools

The first market segment targeted will be flight schools and the young, aspiring pilots trained by
them. NTCAs may be used for flight training provided the flying school is the holder of the
appropriate aviation training organization approval (issued in terms of Part 141 of the CARs).
SkyWakeTM will provide the schools with a safe, affordable aircraft, as an alternative to certified
aircraft such as Cessna and Piper aircraft, which will help flight schools establish and expand their
business. A number of flying schools have been identified as initial targets and some research was
conducted. This research indicated that the average age of the aircraft used by the 54 schools
analysed is over 21 years. These aircraft will shortly have to be replaced. Already, nearly 8% of the
flight school aircraft are LSAs.

Number of flight schools analysed 54

Total flight school aircraft fleet 290
Percentage of SA aircraft used by flight schools15 21.21 %
Average age of aircraft 21.22 Years
Number of LSA currently used as training aircraft 22

14 At an exchange rate 2009 of SA Rand 7.00/US$

15 Single engine certified aircraft fleet used by flight schools (e.g. Cessna 152)

207
The SkyWakeTM top of the range aircraft is targeted at this market segment. This aircraft has glass
cockpit instruments & the higher performance engine, the Rotax 912 S.

Market Segment 2: Private and Business Pilots

Subsequent to achieving market presence through selecting and entering this early adopter market,
the company will be able to extend its service to its secondary target groups. Within this market
segment, SkyWakeTM will compete against the higher priced, high performance aircraft such as the
FK-9 and Cessna SkyCatcher. Its closest competitor is the medium priced, medium performance
Jabiru J170. (Refer to analysis in section 3.4).

AirspireTM will target the following market segments in South Africa:

 Private Pilots – recreational flying. There are 2 categories of potential purchasers, aspiring
young pilots as well as the high net worth individuals
 Private Pilots – businesses, government and non-governmental organisations (e.g. farms,
construction companies, sight-seeing organisations etc.) in terms of part 96 of the CARs -
Commercial Operation of NTCAs.
 “Communal” aircraft bought by a few parties with a common interest. Each owner would own a
share in the aircraft. This has become popular amongst recent flight school graduates in the
US.

The Middle and Top Range SkyWakeTM are likely to be the most popular models in this market
segment.

Market Segment 3: Private and Business Pilots

With an appropriately priced model (entry level model), SkyWakeTM intends to capture market share
from the following aircraft market segments:
 Pilots purchasing the lower priced, medium performance aircraft such at the Cheetah XLS and
the Bush Baby. Whilst both are available in kit form, they are also sold as fully complete
models. Other aircraft in this segment include the Ikarus.
 South African microlight pilots – upgrading to an affordable Light Sport Aircraft. Pilots with MPL
licenses may fly any aircraft with a MTOW of less than 600kg in South Africa. Data contained
in Figure 3 indicates that in recent years growth in the microlight market segment has been
stagnating. Although this market segment is still the dominant NTCA sector, the
homebuilt/amateur built market is capturing significant market share.

208
FIGURE 6: Marketing Positioning Analysis - South African NTCA

209
4.5 Sales and Marketing Activities
4.5.1 Launch Plan:
During 2011, whilst the prototype is under construction, letters, brochures, a web-site and
presentations will be designed in order to prepare for the initial sales effort. The company will run a
training course for all appointed marketing agents to enhance their product and sales expertise.

The “Approval to Fly” process will start in July 2011 followed by the formal sales process with the
initial contacts made at the Air Shows. The official product launch will be during the biannual African
Aerospace and Defence Exhibition (AADE), to be held in September 2010 at the Ysterplaat Air
Force Base, Cape Town. AirspireTM will be represented with its own booth and its first aircraft, co-
locating with the Design Organisation.

Marketing activities after launch include ensuring that AirspireTM has a continuing presence at the air
shows.

The product launch and the initial sales effort will be supported by a press conference prior to the
trade show. In addition, an advertising and public relations campaign will be started using a
professional public relations agency.

Publicity would also be generated by the aircraft setting a South African endurance record.

4.5.2 Phase 1: South Africa:

Appointment of Regionally Located Specialised Sales Agents:
AirspireTM will carefully select and appoint official distributors, in South Africa and abroad, to market
SkyWakeTM. Marketing companies are generally located at airfields around the country. Over a
period of time, 3 marketing companies will be appointed and will cover Gauteng, Western Cape and
KwaZulu Natal. An additional location in the Eastern Cape will also be considered.

Selection of the marketing agent will be based on its technical skills, presence at airfields and air
shows and on their ability to provide customers with the appropriate after-sales service. Each
marketing company appointed will be provided with an aircraft, which will be run and operated at its
own cost that will be used for flight demonstration.

Marketing and sales efforts are anticipated to result in significant growth of sales of SkyWakeTM
amongst private customers as soon as awareness and credibility is proven among flight schools and
new pilots. Positive word-of-mouth communication between flight schools and the purchase of
SkyWakeTM by "reference customers" will further improve the sales effort and the company’s
standing in the industry.

Maintenance Contracts:
A competitive advantage will be provided through AirspireTM entering into a maintenance agreement
with flying schools which have purchased SkyWakeTM aircraft. It is a SACAA requirement that all
NTCA aircraft are maintained such that they are airworthy at the commencement of any flight. All
NTCAs must therefore undergo an annual inspection not later than 365 days after the previous
inspection and this must be carried out by an Approved Maintenance Organisation (AMO). Following
completion of this maintenance an appropriately rated Approved Person (AP) or Approved
Maintenance Engineer (AME) may then issue the Authority to Fly. This provides a competitive

210
advantage over imported aircraft which often need to be sent back to the country of origin should the
aircraft not pass the inspection.

Exposure at Major South African Airshows:

Airshows are viewed as being major launch and marketing platforms for the sale of new aircraft as
evidenced by the fact that leading companies in the industry time their product development to
match the cycle of the aviation trade exhibitions in order to present their new products (termed
premieres) and innovations. AirspireTM, and its agents, will maintain an ongoing visible presence
through the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and other air shows held around the country
during the course of the year. Interested customers will be identified at these air shows and will be
followed up by the marketing agents. Upon definite interest by the customer, product presentations
will be held at the customer’s closest airfield. Depending on the interest of the customer, a
demonstration flight will be performed on a route chosen by the customer.

The first major marketing event for AirspireTM will be the biannual African Aerospace and Defence
Exhibition (AADE), to be held in September 2010 at the Ysterplaat Air Force Base, Cape Town. This
is South Africa’s ONLY international Aerospace Exhibition/Air Show, featuring aircraft from fighters
to model aircraft from more than 400 exhibitors from over 30 countries. The show draws more than
22,000 professional trade visitors from Africa and beyond. The public days featuring some of the
world’s most advanced aircraft draw over 90,000 spectators. This exhibition is therefore an
expanded showcase for local, regional and global exhibitors who supply civil, military and security
products, systems, components and services to customers in Africa and around the world. AirspireTM
will be represented with its own booth and its first aircraft.

Some further air shows already identified include the following:

 April – Margate air show (This Air Show is particularly popular amongst private pilots)
 May – Rand Airport Show (Gauteng’s only Air Show)
 June – Klerksdorp (This is an EAA airshow, popular with private flyers)
 July – Durban Wings Club Air show
 August – African Bush Pilots Fly-In Barberton
 October – Mafikeng Airshow
 November – Overberg Fly-In, Bredasdorp

Direct Identification of Potential Clients through extensive Market Research activities:

Through AirspireTM market research conducted, potential customers - including private individuals,
flight schools, and government organisations - have been identified including contact persons and
information on the individual/organisation’s specific travel needs. Marketing of aircraft generally does
not generally proceed via direct marketing channels; however contact with specifically targeted
customers will be initiated. These potential customers will be provided with a sales brochure, press
reprints and customized information detailing the exact benefits for the customer’s identified specific
aviation needs. The sales brochure will also describe the product offer and the pricing. Depending
on definite interest by the customer, product presentations will be held at the customer’s closest
airfield and a demonstration flight performed.

Associations with Aircraft Financing Companies:

AirspireTM will form associations with the relevant aircraft financing companies in South Africa.
Examples include WesBank Aviation Finance, the aviation finance arm of WesBank which provides
specialist aircraft finance solutions to the general aviation industry. The bank has entered into formal
or informal arrangements with most of the respected suppliers of aircraft in South Africa. Aviation
Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd offers aviation financing expertise to all current and prospective aircraft

211
owners. Dennis Jankelow & Associates is an organisation providing an insurance programme for
aircraft owners. This includes an in-depth technical inspection by an Aircraft Assessing Company of
the aircraft to one of 5 predetermined levels. These strategic partnerships are hence an important
component in the sales efforts.

4.5.3 Phase 2: Export Market:

Phase 2, export marketing outside of South Africa will begin in the second half of year 3 once the
SkyWake™’s brand is established. Market penetration into the South African market sectors will be
followed by extensive sales efforts in the export market, particularly the USA, UK, Canada, Australia
and New Zealand. These markets have been identified as being those with the greatest growth
potential, and hence ability to absorb new innovative products into the market. There is also potential
in Africa for flight schools. AirspireTM will identify marketing agents in the selected countries through
which the sales and marketing effort will be championed.

The annual US AirVenture Oshkosh air show organised by the US EAA is attended by more people
and by more aircraft than any other air show in the world. More than 750,000 aviation enthusiasts
including international visitors attend AirVenture annually. The air show also includes talks by
influential people in aviation, as well as a large area with booths where aircraft, aircraft parts, aircraft
services, and aircraft memorabilia are traded. The other major yearly air show organized by the EAA
is "Sun 'n Fun", held in Florida. Both EAA airshows feature a LSA mall and showcase events
highlighting new products and the unveiling of new aircraft. Sales and technical consultants attend to
potential customers.

The annual US Sport Aviation Expo is held at the Sebring regional airport in Florida during January.
In 2009 the event was deemed highly successful even though the US was in a financial recession.
Many different LSA were showcased and sold.

In Europe, the two largest air and aerospace trade shows are the Farnborough Air Show (England),
held in even years, and the Le Bourget Air Show (France), and held in odd years. In addition to
displays for the general public, these two shows have important showcases and display halls for
professionals. They are two of the few occasions when aerospace companies announce deals.

Aero Friedrichshafen is the largest European Sport Aviation show, being held in Germany during
April. The event mimics the US Sport Aviation Expo.

Asian Aerospace, previously the third largest exhibition in the world, will be held in Hong Kong from
2008. The Singapore air show has taken place in Singapore since 2008. The air show, advertised to
be Asia's largest air show, is held in February in even years, at a convention centre purpose-built for
aviation and aerospace exhibitions.

4.6 Distribution Strategy

The location of AirspireTM in Somerset East, Eastern Cape is relatively close to Port Elizabeth such
that potential customers can visit the manufacturing facility and observe SkyWake TM being
assembled should they be interested.

The sales strategy involves using agents based at various small airports around South Africa.
Aircraft will hence be delivered to the customers at these airports. Common practice is that most
local customers will fly the aircraft themselves out of these airports. The aircraft is signed over to the
owner at the agent’s airfield. The owner then flies the aircraft home.

212
The aircraft would be flown to the agency’s airfield directly from the manufacturing facility. Sales in
Johannesburg would be made at Grand Central Airport, a small privately-owned airfield which is
open to public air traffic. It is located in Midrand, halfway between Johannesburg and Pretoria in
South Africa. Prior permission to land at Grand Central is not required for light aircraft pilots, a radio
call is sufficient. Grand Central is a fully-equipped airfield and is open 24 hours a day. It is also the
base of numerous flying schools for both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. There are 2 or 3 fixed
base operators on the airfield which provides maintenance and repair facilities for light aircraft. This
is a small airfield that is restricted to light aircraft only.

A van and trailer would also be available to transport an aircraft to an airfield for delivery. A team of
at least 2 people would be required to transport the aircraft, put the wings on and complete a pre-
delivery check (fuel, lights and control systems).

SkyWakeTM has been designed to fit into a 6m container (tail off) for shipping. Shipping is normally
an extra. Ferry or shipping would be an extra cost. Customers in Africa would either collect the
aircraft from the factory or pay a ferry pilot to deliver the aircraft.

Distribution costs of 2.5% of turnover have been assumed, which will cover insurance for the
transport of the aircraft and the cost of the ferry pilot.

4.7 Sales Forecast

The sales forecast is based on careful modelling of market potential on the one hand and an
assessment of the company’s sales capacity on the other hand. These projections are based on only
those countries for which marketing information could be obtained.

The sales forecast is detailed in the table below with the first aircraft being sold in 2013. Market
growth is assumed as follows:
 The South African NTCA production/amateur built market category: 15% per annum for
5 years (refer to section 3.2.2 followed by 10% per annum
 The South African microlight category: 2% (refer to section 3.2.2).
 US market: projections according to section 3.2.1 (FAA projections)
 United Kingdom: Market growth 2.5%
 Canada, Australia and New Zealand: Conservative market growth of 2% per annum

It is assumed that sales are split equally between the three different SkyWakeTM models.

The table below outlines the sales forecast for the first 5 years of operation.

213
 TABLE 12: SkyWakeTM Sales Forecast
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
TOTAL NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED (refer to section 3.2)

South African Market

Fixed Wing 1 944 2 571 2 957 3 400 3 655 3 910 4 203 4 497 4 834 5 171 5 430 5 688 5 973 6 257 6 570 6 883
Microlight 2 065 2 148 2 191 2 235 2 258 2 280 2 303 2 326 2 349 2 372 2 396 2 419 2 444 2 468 2 493 2 517
US 2 700 5 600 6 580 7 560 8 050 8 540 9 030 9 520 10 010 10 500 10 770 11 040 11 310 11 580 11 850 12 120
CANADA 4 674 4 908 5 153 5 411 5 546 5 681 5 823 5 965 6 114 6 264 6 420 6 577 6 741 6 906 7 078 7 251
United Kingdom 3 186 3 266 3 347 3 431 3 474 3 517 3 561 3 605 3 650 3 695 3 741 3 787 3 834 3 882 3 930 3 979
Australia/New
Zealand 1 217 1 342 1 479 1 631 1 712 1 798 1 888 1 982 2 081 2 186 2 295 2 410 2 530 2 657 2 789 2 929
MARKET SHARE (refer to section 4.1)
South Africa
Fixed Wing 2.0% 3.5% 5.0% 8.0% 9.5% 11.0% 16.0% 17.0% 18.5% 20.0% 21.1% 22.2%
Microlight 5.0% 5.5% 5.9% 6.4% 6.8% 7.3% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5%
US 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
CANADA 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.7% 2.0%
United Kingdom
Australia/NZ 1.0% 1.3% 1.7% 1.8%
NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT SOLD 5 9 15 24 33 42 45 48 59 65 76 80
South Africa
Fixed Wing 5 8 14 23 32 37 41 43 52 56 66 69
Microlight 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
US 4 3 3 4 5 5 5
CANADA 1 1 2 2 3
United Kingdom
Australia/NZ 1 1 2 2
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT SOLD 5 14 29 53 86 128 173 221 280 345 421 501

214
5 DESIGN AND CERTIFICATION OF SKYWAKETM
As discussed above, the design, manufacture, approval, and maintenance of NTCA aircraft are controlled and
enforced by the SACAA through rules and regulations contained in the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) of
1997. With the growth of the NTCA sector, along with international trends, the SACAA has developed
regulatory provisions in order to properly control and regulate this class of aircraft. The CARs control
certification and airworthiness, operation and the commercial use of NTCAs. In addition, separate parts of the
CARs (applicable to both NTCAs and type certified aircraft) control the design of all products, parts and
appliances as well as the licensing of design, manufacturing, and maintenance organisations.

The plan for the industrialisation of the business is thus largely dictated by the need to comply with the
regulatory environment. Of importance are those NTCA regulations that pertain specifically to production-built
aircraft i.e. aircraft of which the prototype has been constructed and approved in terms of SACAA regulations
for the issue of a certificate of airworthiness and which are made available either fully-assembled or in kit form.

The relevant parts are:

Part 24 - Airworthiness Standards: NTCA Aircraft
This Part was signed by the Minister for promulgation in July 2007. The airworthiness, aircraft
documentation, maintenance, inspection and type approval processes are described within the Part.
Part 147 - Design Organisations for Products, Parts and Appliances.
The Design Organisation (DO), to be established by WE, will be established in compliance with this Part.
SkyWakeTM will form the first NTCA prototype to obtain a certificate to fly through this DO and will hence
form the platform through which the DO obtains its certification.
Part 148 - Manufacturing Organisations
This Part applies to the approval and operation of manufacturing organisations (MO) that manufacture
specified products, parts or appliances; (apply specified processes to products, parts or appliances; or
carry out specified tests on products, parts or appliances.

In order to produce a production aircraft with a Type Holder Certificate (THC) from the SACAA both the DO and
MO need to obtain approval from the SACAA. Two points are notable in this regard:
(1) An organisation may only obtain DO Status (approval) from the SACAA if, in conjunction with its
application for a DO licence, it approaches the SACAA with a design with the intention of obtaining a
THC.
(2) Any components produced for the aircraft must be produced by an MO, where the design of the
component must have been produced by a DO.

The intent is to obtain SACAA certification of AirspireTM as a Manufacturing Organisation. In terms of NTCA
regulations, AirspireTM will be required to contract with a DO in order to obtain type certification for its prototype
aircraft, SkyWakeTM, and to facilitate the mass production of SkyWakeTM. The responsibilities of the DO in
terms of the commercialisation of SkyWakeTM are as follows:

1. To obtain the type holder certificate (THC) of airworthiness for SkyWakeTM.

2. To construct and test the prototype of SkyWakeTM.
3. To conduct a successful flight test programme.
4. To deliver a design for mass production.
5. To deliver the implementation plan for production.

215
[Full details as to the establishment of the DO, including a summary of the regulatory requirements for its
accreditation form the subject of a separate proposal.]

The establishment and commercialisation of AirspireTM is outlined in the figure below and will be conducted in 5
phases over a total time period of 36 months. [A more detailed project plan indicating the activities to be
completed in this regard is attached as Appendix 3].

TABLE 13: Project Plan Time Table

Phase Time Start Date End Date
I. Conceptual/Detailed 3 months 1 January 2010 31 March 2010
Design

II. Mock-up and detailed 9 months 1 April 2010 31 December 2010

design

III. Prototype and Ground 10 months 1 January 2011 31 October 2011

Testing

IV. Prototype and Flight 9 months 1 October 2011 30 June 2012

Testing

V. Certification 3 months 1 July 2012 30 September 2012

VI. Launch of SkyWakeTM September 2012

FIGURE 7: Implementation of AirspireTM (Pty) Ltd and the Manufacture and Marketing of SkyWakeTM

216
5.1 Phase I: Design of a New Light Sport Aircraft
5.1.1 Completion of the Preliminary Design
The user requirements of a LSA for the South African market based on the potential customers, regulations
and current constraints have been defined. The specification of the aircraft i.e. performance goals, geometry
and engine, performance and handling characteristics have been established. The possible concepts have
been identified and a preferred concept for development has been selected.
Preliminary Design
– Refined sizing of preferred concept to increase performance/reduce weight
– Design examined/establish confidence
– Update embedded technology
– Initial cost estimates

This activity will be completed by the DO under contract by AirspireTM.

5.2 Phase II: Mock up and Detailed Design

5.2.1 Application to Civil Aviation Authority:
The SACAA regulations state that in order to build and fly aircraft in South Africa, both the type of aircraft and
the Manufacturing Organisation must be approved by the SACAA. Under the terms of these regulations (part
CAR Part 148), AirspireTM will apply for a manufacturing (“M”) rating which qualifies it for the manufacture of
specified products, parts or appliances. The requirements for the MO are:
 The organisation structure is prescribed and includes a layered management structure (as per Figure
11 below).
– The upper management tier is accountable to the commissioner of the SACAA.
– The lower management tier is responsible for the certification of each component
manufactured, processed or tested.
 The MO must produce two specific documents according to the SA-CATS-MORG (South African Civil
Aviation Technical Standards for Manufacturing Organisations)
– A Manual of Procedure (MOP) which requires the company to demonstrate that it has the
facilities, working conditions, equipment and tools, processes and associated materials,
personnel numbers and competence, in order to fulfill its responsibilities.
– A Quality Control (QC) system which outlines how the organisation will ensure that each
completed aircraft conforms to the approved design data and is in condition for safe operation
for the issuing of authorised release certificates to certify airworthiness or conformity.
 The MO must ultimately be in receipt of all approved data from the DO to determine conformity with the
applicable design data; and have a procedure to ensure that approved data is correctly incorporated in
its production process.
 The MO must be able to conduct structural tests of completed assemblies and must be sufficiently
staffed with manufacturing and certification staff with adequate management to competently perform
actions described in SA-CATS-MORG.

A MO approval is issued for an unlimited duration. It remains valid unless the company fails to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable requirements or there is evidence that the company cannot maintain
satisfactory control of the manufacture or that it no longer meets the requirements of the CARs.

217
 FIGURE 8: Organogram of Manufacturing Organisation according to SACAA regulations

5.2.2 Performance, handling and strength tests:

These tests must be conducted in compliance with the provisions of SA-CATS-NTCA. These aspects of the
certification process will be performed by the Structural Test Facility (STF) to be established by Wits University.

The following tests will be performed by the STF in terms of the regulatory process for the approval of a new
prototype production built aircraft such as SkyWakeTM:

1. Proof of engineering design analysis:

(i) The design criteria basis in terms of which the aircraft must:
 Be able to withstand the maximum loads (static test programme) to be expected.
 Withstand ultimate (limit) loads multiplied by a specified safety factor.
 Have no unsatisfactory features of design and construction.
 Use approved aircraft components (where possible).
 Undergo a test sequence of the complete power plant installation.
(ii) A schedule of how compliance with the design criteria basis is proposed;
(iii) A predicted performance analysis prior to commencing of proving flights;
(iv) An aerodynamic analysis appropriate to the type of aircraft;
(v) A structural analysis appropriate to the type of aircraft; and
(vi) An analysis of the power plant/s and of the systems appropriate to the type of aircraft.
2. The empty mass of the aircraft (including the mass of equipment and instruments necessary for the safe
operation of the aircraft) and its centre of gravity must be determined.
3. Static tests must be carried out before the aircraft’s first flight and be witnessed by a designated
airworthiness representative. The primary aircraft structure shall be tested to the limit loads for which the
aircraft will be registered.

218
5.2.3 Completion of Detailed Design:
The next step to be completed in order to obtain a complete detailed design of the chosen aircraft, both
structurally and aerodynamically, are as follows.

– Drawings released
– Only minor modifications
– Final cost estimates

5.3 Phase III: Prototype and Ground Testing

5.3.1 Manufacture of Prototype Aircraft:
An application must be made to the SACAA for a build number before the construction of the prototype can
commence. The application must be accompanied by a copy of the design criteria for the aircraft as prescribed
in SA-CATS-NTCA.

The aircraft must be manufactured by an organization approved, or which will be applying for approval, by the
Commissioner in compliance with the provisions in terms of SA-CATS-NTCA. At various stages of construction,
the aircraft shall be inspected by an Approved Person (AP) with the appropriate inspection rating for the type of
aircraft, in order to prevent the possibility of undesirable features. When the aircraft is completely assembled,
with engine, essential instruments and equipment in place, the aircraft shall again be made available for
inspection by the AP.

5.4 Phase IV: Prototype and Flight Testing

5.4.1 Certificate of Airworthiness:
An application must be submitted for a “Proving Flight Authority” which includes the submission of the complete
build standard of the prototype - a package defining the dimensions, materials and processes used in the
construction of the aircraft - together with associated documents showing that the design complies with
established design criteria.

A minimum of 40 hours of flight time is required, with an appropriately rated test pilot carrying out the final flight
test on the aircraft. The SACAA may also require the aircraft to be inspected by an authorised person.

During the period of validity of the Proving Flight Authority, normally a maximum of six months, the
manufacturer may make modifications and repairs as required. However, should a major modification or repair
be required, certain proving flights may need to be repeated.

An Authority to Fly follows successful completion of the proving flights.

5.5 Phase V: Type Holder Certification

5.5.1 Engineering Design for Mass Production:
After successful completion of the proving flights with the prototype and based on the results of these flights,
the engineering design for mass production shall include the following:
1. Recorded, validated performance and aerodynamic analysis for complete flight and mass envelope.
2. Recorded, validated and detailed structural analysis.
3. Validated and detailed production status engineering design for each part, component and assembly of the
aircraft.
4. Recorded, validated and proven power plant and systems analysis for the production status power plant/s
and systems.

219
5.5.2 Issue of Type Holder Certificate:
In summary, following completion of the above process, the following documentation must be provided by the
MO to the SACAA:
1. Proof of compliance with the outlined technical standards.
2. A copy of the Authority to Fly issued for the prototype aircraft.
3. Proof that the applicant has been or may be approved as a MO and that the aircraft will be manufactured
according to the approved build standard.

Following the successful provision of this documentation, the applicant will be issued with a production-built
NTCA type certificate as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-NTCA.

220
6 ESTABLISHMENT of AIRSPIRETM – MANUFACTURING ORGANISATION
6.1 Location
The production facility and the company headquarters will be located at Somerset East Airfield in the Eastern
Cape. The facility will handle the production of SkyWakeTM, including final assembly of all structural
components and parts, aircraft system assembly and installation, completion of the interior, and painting.

6.2 Regulatory Compliance

Section 5.3.2 above outlines the requirements for AirspireTM to comply with SACAA regulations for a
Manufacturing (“M”) rating

6.3 Insurance Coverage

Insurance is currently being discussed during the drawing up of the license agreement between Wits Enterprise
(Pty) Ltd and the Blue Crane Development Agency for the commercialisation of SkyWake™.

6.4 Organisational Structure

The structure of the MO is as illustrated in the diagram below. The dotted lines illustrate the personnel that will
interact with the DO.
FIGURE 9: Organogram of AirspireTM
Manufacturing
Organisation Board

Responsible
Manager

Compliance
Sales and
Manager
Marketing
Manager

Airshows Finance Advertising Certifying Staff

Test Flights
Manufacturing
Assembly Processes
Manager

Steel tube
Steel tube Wing Fuselage Aluminium sheet
Aluminium sheet Reinforced
Reinforced plastics
plastics

Empennage Landing gear

Treatment
Metal forming

Instrument panel

Engine

The manufacturing organisation, according to Part 148 of the CARs must have the following personnel:

221
1) Responsible Manager, accountable to the Commissioner, with overall responsibility within the
organisation to ensure that all production is performed to the required standards and that the production
organisation is continuously in compliance with the data and procedures identified in the manual of
procedures. This person will be the company CEO. It is essential that the CEO has both a technical grasp
of the industry as well as business expertise. Ideally, the main attribute for this position is a pilot with
technical knowledge and business background.
2) A Compliance Manager nominated to ensure that the organisation is in compliance with the CARs and
who has been identified together with the extent of their authority. In this respect, such person or persons
must be directly responsible to the manager identified above. This person can be trained by Wits University
with regard to all the relevant technical details. An engineering degree or technical diploma would be
required as well as previous experience in manufacturing technology, quality control and non-destructive
testing.
3) Certifying Staff, defined as those personnel who are authorized by the manufacturing organisation to sign
the documents issued under the scope or terms of its approval. The knowledge, background (including
other functions in the organisation), and experience of the certifying staff shall be appropriate to discharge
their allocated responsibilities. This person can be trained by Wits University with regard to all the relevant
technical details. An engineering degree or technical diploma would be required as well as previous
experience in manufacturing technology, quality control and non-destructive testing.

6.5 Design of Manufacturing Facility

The manufacturing facility for SkyWakeTM will be designed according to the following requirements, constraints
and criteria.
Requirements:
 The facility must be able to handle 2 – 8 aircraft per month whilst still catering for customisable aspects of
the aircraft.
 The facility will be equipped with facilities to be able to deal with customised interiors and paint finishes.
 The speed of the build – lead time will be on par, if not less than average of competing aircraft
manufacturers.
 The quality of finish will not be compromised even when production is at the maximum.
 The cost will be kept to a minimum in order to make it competitively priced.
Criteria:
 The facility will be as automated as possible to ensure consistency in manufacturing.
 The number of skilled labourers will minimised, whilst ensuring that there are enough skilled employees
to make the process of constructing and fabricating as efficient as possible without sacrificing build quality
of the aircraft.
 The facility will be made as efficient as possible at a reasonable cost.
 All manufacturing operations and waste disposal operations will be as clean and as environmentally
friendly as possible.
 Provisions for manufacturing facility growth are to be considered if the demand for the aircraft increases.
This will also incorporate the expansion of the product range to other items e.g. ballistic parachutes.

In 2008 the design of a manufacturing facility for a LSA aircraft as envisaged in this business plan was
undertaken and updated in 200916. Following a literature study to obtain an understanding of the design and
layout of a LSA manufacturing facility, different layouts of existing and conceptual LSA manufacturers were

16 Alberto Cipolat under supervision by Professor DR Snaddon and Mr MF Boer, MECN4006 – Research Project:
Facility to manufacture a Light Sport Aircraft.

222
analysed. SkyWake™’s assembly sequence, together with metal forming and other major operations which
govern the requirements for machinery, moulds, and equipment for the facility, was then determined. The most
suitable layout was selected according to the criteria outlined above.

Assembly lines are used for manufacturing, each consisting of a sequence of production steps. There are six
major sub-assemblies: 1) fuselage/body, 2) tail assembly, 3) wings, 4) landing gear assemblies, 5) power plant,
and 6) flight control systems/instruments. A series of floor assembly jigs will be used to hold, support, and
locate the individual work pieces or sub-assemblies until they can be riveted, bonded, or bolted in place. Some
jigs are permanently installed, while others are on rollers so they can be moved to the assembly line when
needed at a pace determined by the production rate. Specific features of the chosen design for SkyWake™’s
manufacturing facility are:
 A cellular layout wherein each cell is equipped with the machinery and tooling that will allow it to perform
a specific set of processes allowing for a more compact and less wasteful system.
 The empennage assembly area and wing, flap and aileron assembly area are side by side as the
components being assembled in these 2 areas follow a similar sequence. Thus, when production rates
are low, one of these areas can manufacture all of these components, hence decreasing labour costs.
 The composites and plastics cells, as well as the engine cell are located close to an exterior wall,
allowing for adequate ventilation.

6.6 Capital Cost

The capital cost of the facility, excluding the building itself, is estimated to be in the order of R 1.779 million as
outlined in the table below. The overall area of the manufacturing facility required is approximately 900 m2 .
This accommodates a production rate of up to eight aircraft per month.

TABLE 14: Machinery Costs

Quantity Cost/Unit17 Cost
EQUIPMENT
Press Brake 1 406,798 406,798
Tube Profiling Machine 1 450,000 450,000
Horizontal Band Saw 1 250,000 250,000
Paint Booth and Mixing room 1 324,900 324,900
Hydraulic Press 1 250,000 250,000
Hand Drill 5 2,548 12,743
Rivet Hammer 4 2,164 8,656
Welding Equipment 1 11,950 11,950
MOULDS 4 6,250 25,000
WORK AREAS 20,000
HEAVY LIFTING/TRANSPORT 4,104
Engine Crane 2 2,052 4,014
Trolley (for fuselage) 3 1,250 3,750
TOTAL COST 1,779,761

A value for the facility has as yet not been determined as this is dependent on factors such as location and size
of the entire facility (not just of the manufacturing section).

17 Exchange Rates: 1 Euro = R 11.86 and 1 US Dollar = 8.17

223
A second manufacturing facility, to produce an additional 96 aircraft per annum, will be constructed in
Year 6 (2017) as the sales volumes are projected to reach maximum capacity.
6.7 Labour Requirements of the Manufacturing Facility
Although the industry assembles a complex and high-tech product, its assembly process is relatively labour
intensive. Production of aircraft is carried out at relatively low rates relative to most manufacturing industries.
Furthermore, a large proportion of an aircraft is hand-made due to the fact that manufacturers are cautious
about the expensive damage that could be caused by a malfunctioning machine.18

The production process requires expertise in reading blueprints, proficiency in the use of several different tools,
and the ability to anticipate and solve various assembly problems to meet demanding technical standards.
Many employees are thus involved in managing and inspecting the process. For these personnel, well-
developed technical skills are essential. In addition, many more technical non-production workers are required.
Overall, staff required to manufacture SkyWakeTM will comprise precision production, craft, and repair workers,
professional and technical workers as well as less skilled jobs such as operators, fabricators, and general
labourers.

Labour costs have been estimated based on values for less skilled, through to highly skilled workers. The most
specialised workers (e.g. welder, paint booth operator and specialised machinery operators) are paid the most.
The table below displays the estimated labour costs for the facility based on the assumption that it operates 8
hours a day and 5 days per week producing a maximum of 8 aircraft monthly.

TABLE 15: Number of Operators and Labour Costs at Full Capacity (8 aircraft per month)
Cell Operator Task Operators Rate Daily
(R/Hour)19 Cost
Space Frame Crash boom, tail boom & engine mounting 2 100 1,600
Construction cradle welding
Metal Preparation Press 1 25 200
Tube cutting and profiling 1 70 560
Stores Receive, record, pack, handout materials 1 20 160
GFRP Moulding 1 25 200
ABS plastic Forming 1 25 200
Engine Filling, connecting, testing 1 80 640
Inspection bays 1 & 2 Inspect components & sub-assemblies 1 25 200
Paint booth Masking, priming and painting 1 50 400
Instrument panel Instrument unpacking, preparing, 2 25 400
instrument panel assembly & testing
Skin covering Drilling, installing of components & securing 2 25 400
skin
Wing, aileron & flap Assembly 2 25 400
Empennage Assembly 1 25 200
Primary Assembly Assemble sub-components 2 25 400
Total 19 5,960
MONTHLY TOTAL 119,200

18 Productivity in aircraft manufacturing: Monthly Labour Review, June, 1993 by Alexander Kronemer, J. Edwin
Henneberger
19 Labour rates based on an interview held by A. Cipolat with M Bandini (September 2008)

224
7 BUDGET
The budget below is in South African Rands over a three year period which will deliver a flying prototype with
certificated structure.

Manhour Costs/Salaries:
Salary component budgeted for the team of part-time design engineers required during the incubation of the
Design Organisation. The design team comprises 7 postgraduates working. An allocation has also been made
for student stipends. The experience gained will improve skills. An advisory panel of experts will review the
project monthly, providing advice and feedback as necessary.

Prototype Costs:
Raw materials would be required at the commencement of the project, with decreasing demand for new
material during the second year. The material includes all metal, composites, electrical, electronic
sub-assemblies and interior equipment. Several sets of full flight instruments would be required for the
prototype, flight simulator and certification equipment. An engine will be required during each year for ground
testing, airframe testing and for the prototype. The budgeted amount includes all auxiliary equipment, propeller,
battery and engine silencer. Four high-specification computers will be purchased during the first year, regular
maintenance and minor upgrades are accounted for in year two. Fuel will be required for ground testing and
flight testing. The fuel allowance includes all fluids required for engine use, including oil and anti-corrosion
products. Machinery will be required during the first year for production of various components; less machinery
will be required during the following year, as production processes are finalised. The larger assemblies will be
manufactured under contract by suitably accredited manufacturers

Running and Other Costs:

Additional office space for the design team will be leased from the SMIA for the duration of the project and until
the company moves into the offices at the Manufacturing Facility. Other costs encompass expenses
associated with patent, trademark and design registration, drafting of contracts and agreements, legal fees, and
overhead costs (as per the University’s external work policy guidelines). The project management and
administration will be handled by the project leader in conjunction with Wits Enterprise.

Testing Costs:
Wind tunnel tests would be carried out using the School’s low-speed tunnels and equipment. The tunnel results
would be used to confirm flight test results and used to enhance the design. Results from Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) for structural analysis and Computational Fluid dynamics (CFD) for aerodynamic analysis are
required prior to certification.

Commercialisation Costs:
The marketing strategy would only be commenced once construction of the prototype is completed, and flight
testing initiated. A company CEO will be recruited in April 2012. A budget allocation has been made for
marketing and commercialisation activities – these include consultant costs, travel, web-site development,
literature and brochure printing, mailing campaigns, establishment of linkages with market players, building of
awareness of the project’s outputs and maintaining an awareness of the market (attendance of Air Shows,
procurement of market surveys etc.).

225
7.1 Phase I: Design of SkyWakeTM
TABLE 16: Budget for Phase I: Design of a new Light Sport Aircraft

Rands (nominal – inflation 8% per annum) 2010 2011 2012

Manhours
Design of New Light Sport Aircraft 193 882
Preliminary Design Review 69 854
Other Costs
Travel 8 640
Printing 2 592
Phone 7 776
Stationary 1 890
Logistics 2 970
Rental 45 360
Patent expenses 270 000
Project management 75 807
678 771 0 0

7.2 Phase II: Mock-up and Detailed Design

TABLE 17: Budget for Phase II: Mock-up and Detailed Design

Rands (nominal – inflation 8% per annum) 2 010 2 011 2 012

Manhours
Application to the Civil Aviation Authorities 25 091
Utilisation of the Structural Test Facility 1 154 531
Design for Manufacture 210 719 227 576
Other Costs
Travel 8 640 9 331
Printing 2 592 2 799
Phone 7 776 8 398
Stationary 1 890 2 041
Logistics 2 970 3 208
Rental 45 360 48 989
Patent expenses 270 000 174 960
Project management 75 807 63 370
1 805 375 540 672 0

7.3 Phase III: Prototype and Ground Testing

TABLE 18: Budget for Phase III: Ground Testing

Rands (nominal – inflation 8% per annum) 2 010 2 011 2 012

Manhours
Phase 3 - Prototype and ground testing 155 551
Other Costs
Prototype 816 480

226
 Rands (nominal – inflation 8% per annum) 2 010 2 011 2 012
Engine 116 640
Fuel 34 642
Wind Tunnel testing 5 832
Machinery 58 320
Computational Fluid Dynamics 34 992
Apparatus 116 640
Finite Element Modelling 34 992
Travel 9 331
Printing 2 799
Phone 8 398
Stationary 2 041
Logistics 3 208
Rental 48 989
Patent expenses 174 960
Project management 63 370
1 689 452

7.4 Phase IV: Prototype and Flight Testing

TABLE 19: Budget for Phase IV: Flight Testing

Rands (nominal – inflation 8% per annum) 2 010 2 011 2 012

Manhours
Prototype and Flight testing 249 524
Other Costs
Prototype 881 798
Engine 125 971
Fuel 34 642
Consultant Costs 62 986
Certification 251 942
Insurance 535 378
Travel 10 078
Printing 3 023
Phone 9 070
Stationary 2 204
Logistics 3 464
Rental 52 908
Project management 86 333
0 2 309 322

227
7.5 Phase V: Type Holder Certification
TABLE 20: Budget for Phase V: Certification

Rands (nominal – inflation 8% per annum) 2 010 2 011 2 012

Manhours
Design review and certification 192 056
Other Costs
Travel 10 078
Printing 3 023
Phone 9 070
Stationary 2 204
Logistics 3 464
Rental 52 908
Project management 81 113
0 0 353 916

7.6 Phase VI: Launch of SkyWakeTM

TABLE 21: Launch of SkyWakeTM
2010 2011 2012
Travel 22 675
Exhibitions / shows etc. 125 971
Market development /research 50 388
Web-site development 62 986
Recruitment Costs 75 583
Printing and literature costs 100 777
Office set up costs
Furniture 151 165
Laptops and computers 75 583
Software 37 791
TOTAL BUDGET 680 244

7.7 Total Budget

TABLE 22: Total Implementation Budget for Development and Launch of SkyWakeTM - a new Light
Sport Aircraft
2009 2010 2011 2012
Phase I: Preliminary Design 678 771 0 0
Set up of
Phase II: Mock up and Final Design 1 805 375 545 505 0
Design
Phase III: Ground Testing 1 689 452 0
Organisation
Phase IV: Flight Testing 0 2 304 102
– No cost to
Phase V: NTCA and MO Certification 0 0 353 916
AirspireTM
Phase VI: Launch 680 244
TOTAL BUDGET 2 484 147 2 234 958 3 338 263

TOTAL BUDGET (including inflation): R 8.057 million

228
8 FINANCIAL PLAN
The following Financial Statements are attached as appendices:
APPENDIX 4: Cash Flow Statement
APPENDIX 5: Income Statement
APPENDIX 6: Balance Sheet
APPENDIX 7: Discount Cash Flow
8.1 Product Costing
8.1.1 Variable Costs:
The design project completed in 2008 by a student in the Wits SMIA determined a very basic bill of raw
materials and costing for the manufacture of the LSA. The variable cost of manufacture, as currently
TM
determined, of the SkyWake middle of the range aircraft with Jabiru 3300 engine and with navigation system
is R 310,816 (see table below). The Rotax 912S engine costs R 167,000 hence putting the top of the range
variable cost at R 343,816. The entry level cost of manufacture without a glass-cockpit instrument system is
R 286,816. The engine contributes between 40.7 – 46.1% of the variable cost of manufacture of the aircraft.
Both engines are currently imported. Overall, between 73 – 79% of the variable cost of the aircraft models are
imported.

TABLE 23: Gross Margins for SkyWakeTM Range of Aircraft

Entry Level Mid Range Top of Range
Sales Price 520,000 550,000 600,000
Variable Cost 275,597 299 597 329 597
Gross Margin 244 403 250 403 270 403
Gross Margin % 45.1% 45.5% 47.0%
Imported Component 79% 73% 75%

FIGURE 10: Breakdown of Variable Cost of Manufacture of SkyWakeTM “Mid Range” Aircraft

It is estimated that the variable cost of manufacture can be reduced by at least 15% as economies of scale in
production are reached. The costs of individual raw material components can be reduced due to bulk
purchasing.

229
 TABLE 24: Variable Cost of Production for SkyWakeTM (middle of the range)
Total US $ SA Rands
Instruments $5 901 41 310
Oil pressure $272 1 905
Oil Temperature $63 443
Engine
Ammeter $29 201
Tachometer $177 1 239
Altimeter $414 2 897
Air Speed indicator $139 974
Artificial horizon $519 3 636
Flight Instruments Direction indicator $489 3 423
Vertical speed indicator $223 1 561
Compass $83 581
Slip indicator $64 450
Navigation/Communication $3 429 24 000
Fuselage $13 328 93 295
Seatbelts $83 580
Seats $286 2 000
Cockpit
Fire extinguisher $90 630
First aid kit $29 200
Ballistic parachute $3 800 26 600
Lighting $1 070 7 490
Fuel tanks $357 2 500
Gear $1 143 8 000
Brakes $1 659 11 615
Landing gear
Wheels $1 098 7 685
Spats $143 1 000
Crash structure and engine mounting cradle $1 113 7 792
Tail Boom $483 3 384
Fuselage skin $446 3 119
Material costs
Cowling, doors $600 4 200
Windows and Windscreen $214 1 500
Fitting $714 5 000
Wing $2 362 16 535
Struts (Streamline Tubing) $763 5 341
Material costs Wings $1 385 9 694
Fillets and Wingtips $214 1 500
Stabilisers $858 6 003
Material costs Vertical Stabilizer $344 2 410
Material costs Horizontal Tail $513 3 593
Engine $20 351 142 455
Jabiru J3300 $17 403 121 818
Propeller $1 948 13 636
Engine
Exhaust $844 5 909
Battery $156 1 091
GRAND TOTAL $42 800 299 597

230
8.1.2 Fixed Costs
Fixed costs include the following:
 Labour:
 Chief Executive Officer: R 650,000 per annum
 Compliance Officer: R 400,000
 Certification Manager: R 350,000
 Marketing Manager: R 450,000
 Personal Assistant: R 150,000 per annum
 Bookkeeper (part-time): R 200,000 per annum
 Direct labour (See 5.4.3 above): R 119,200 per annum per 96 aircraft produced)
 Agency Fee: 10% of turnover annually
 Insurance Costs: 3% of turnover annually
 Maintenance on Plant & Equipment: 1.5% of net asset value
 Distribution Costs: 2.0% on turnover annually.
 Rental: R 55/m2 per annum. First facility of 900m2 and second facility after 5 years a further 900m 2.
 General Admin costs: R 39,000 per month

Admin consumables 7 200

Audit fee 40 000
Bank Charges 9 600
Cleaning materials 6 000
Electricity 150 000
IT and Support 36 000
Legal Fees 18 000
Office repairs and maintenance 15 000
Printing 18 000
Postage and courier fees 18 000
Staff training 60 000
Subscriptions 6 000
Telecommunications 84 000
TOTAL 467,800

 Marketing Costs:
 Local and international travel: R 20,000 per month
 Advertising and entertainment: R 30,000 per month
 Shows and exhibitions: R 120,000 per annum
 Depreciation: Straight line over 10 years on aircraft provided for marketing purposes. The development
costs of the prototype are also capitalised and depreciated over 10 years.

8.2 Cost of Production

Figure 11 compares the total cost of production, including depreciation, against the sales price for the top of the
range model. This graph indicates the economies of scale effect in years 1 to 4, with turnover exceeding the
cost of production in the second half of year 2. The company’s breakeven sales are 19 aircraft.

231
 FIGURE 11: AirspireTM Fixed and Variable Costs vs Sales Price

The graph below shows the breakdown of the production cost in 2014, when the company reaches economy of
scale. This graph clearly shows that the variable cost of production is the major contributor towards the
production cost (of which the engine contributes between 40.7 – 46.1%).

FIGURE 12: Total Average Production Cost in 2014

232
8.3 Economic Assumptions
Key economic assumptions upon which the financial statements are based include the following:
 Income tax is paid at 28%.
 SA Inflation is 8% - constant for the life of the project.
 US Inflation is 2.5% - constant for the life of the project.
 SA Rand/US$ 2009 is R 7.00/US$
 The forward R/$ exchange rate is calculated on the differential in SA and US inflation rate i.e. purchasing
power parity is assumed.
 The project’s capital is depreciated over 10 years in the calculation of tax.
 Prime interest rate: 11%

8.4 Financial Assumptions

BALANCE SHEET:
 The investment is assumed as a combination of debt and equity (10:90).
 New aircraft for marketing are produced and used by AirspireTM at variable cost in Q1 2012, Q1 2013 and
Q1 2014.
 A second investment in a manufacturing facility is undertaken in 2017 funded by a long-term loan.

INCOME STATEMENT:
 No dividend policy included as yet.
 Interest is paid at 2% below prime on debt incurred.

CASH FLOW:
 Working Capital is calculated as follows:
 Creditors Days: 60
 Debtors Days: 30
 Inventory: 90
 Discount factor/Risk adjusted cost of capital calculated as follows:
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) = Cost of equity x (percentage equity) + Cost of Debt x
(percentage debt) x (1 – tax rate)
 Cost of debt = prime interest rate = 11%
 Cost of equity = Risk Free Rate + Market Premium
 Risk free rate = R 153 = 7.27%
 Market Premium = 6%20
Discount Factor/Risk Adjusted Cost of Capital = WACC + risk factor
 Risk Factor = 20%21
 Calculated Risk Adjusted Cost of Capital = 32.7%
 Terminal value calculation Gordon’s constant growth model formula as follows:
P0 = D1 / (k – g) where
 P0 = Terminal value
 D1 = cash flow in year 1
 g = growth rate = 8% (equivalent to inflation)
 k = risk adjusted cost of capital

20 Report by PriceWaterHouse: Business enterprise valuation survey 2003 stating market premium average of 6%.
21 Assumed

233
8.5 Financial Budget
The full investment budget required to commercialise SkyWakeTM, including the development of the design,
construction of the manufacturing facility, and support during the first 2 years of operation is outlined in the
table below. A full investment totalling R 18.801 million is required.
TABLE 25: Financial Investment in AirspireTM Startup/Launch
ITEM Rands
Development Expenses 7 377 123
Launch Costs 680 244
Van and trailer 476 171
Marketing Aircraft 467 758
Labour 4 882 114
Working Capital 2 696 476
Facility 2 241 028
TOTAL 18 801 569

Assumptions:
 Support of Working Capital: Q1 2012 – Q2 2013
 Support of Labour: Q4 2012 – Q4 2013
 Purchase of new aircraft for marketing at variable cost in Q1 2013.
 Purchase of van and trailer for transport of aircraft to agent’s site.
 Launch costs: refer to section 7.6 above.

8.6 Financial Analysis

The figure below shows AirspireTM earnings after tax, net cash flow and cumulative net cash flow.
FIGURE 12: AirspireTM Breakeven Cash Flow and Net Profit Analysis

234
Key financial indicators are outlined in the table below. This table compares results with and without the Phase
2 investment in Q3/4 2016.

TABLE 26: Financial Results

Base Case Base Case

Phase 1 and 2 Phase 1 only
NPV (Rands) 14.99 million 6.724 million
IRR (%) 56 47
Peak Cash Outflow (Rands) (19.24 million) (19.24 million)
Peak Cash Outflow (Year) Q1/2 2014 Q1/2 2014
Breakeven (Year) Q3/4 2016 Q3/4 2016

The graph below indicates a sensitivity analysis of some of the main variables over a range of ± 10%. This
indicates that the factors with the most impact are that of sales price, variable cost and exchange rate.

FIGURE 13: Sensitivity Analysis

 Sales Price: The pricing of the 3 SkyWakeTM models is however supported by the analysis contained in
Figures 5 and 6 above. The marketing strategy and positioning of the aircraft is associated with this pricing
strategy. [The top range model is very competitively priced against is closest benchmark, Jabiru 170, which
is the highest selling aircraft in the South African market (R 600,000 vs R 644,000).] AirspireTM believes that
this pricing risk is mitigated against by its flexibility in the range of aircraft models offered to the market.
AirspireTM has the ability to select the engine to be included as well as the inclusion or exclusion of glass
cockpit instruments. (See sections 2.2 and 4.3)

235
 Variable Cost: Section 8.2 describes how the variable cost is the largest component of the aircarft’s
manufacturing costs. Of the raw materials used, the item with the single largest ability to impact the
variable cost is the engine – both engines used are currently imported. Once a local engine e.g. from
Adept Airmotive is procured, this risk will decline. Furthermore, AirspireTM will work to reduce the variable
cost further by investigating bulk purchasing as well as more competitive sources of parts locally.
 Exchange Rate: The impact of exchange rate is due to the high percentage of imported components
(particularly the engine) in the manufacture of SkyWakeTM, and is linked therefore to the overall impact of
variable cost on the project. The impact of exchange rate on sales price will be managed by pricing
annually in US dollars. The procurement of the engines and other imported parts will be managed by
securing forward cover on foreign currency where possible.

236
9 BUSINESS RISKS
9.1 SWOT Analysis

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
– Access to South African University based design – No track record: will be first aircraft designed and
team through DO to be established. produced by AirspireTM.
– First production-built South African Light Sport – Local labour as yet untrained.
Aircraft customised for local conditions. – Outsourcing strategy for marketing, hence
– Maintenance and repair of South African potentially less direct control.
production built Light Sport Aircraft made easier. – Dependence on imported engines.
– Potential for inclusion of patents with novel – Access to financing.
features.
– Affordably priced in comparison to the top of the
range imported models.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
– Growing light sport aviation/ultralight market in – Currency fluctuations can impact on the variable
South African and internationally. cost and hence profitability.
– Potential change in SA legislation along FAA – Aviation market traditionally cyclical. Luxury
introduction of LSA class. goods particularly linked to economy/prime
– South African focus on National Aerospace lending rate.
industry: (NACoE) – Many existing aircraft already in this category
with competition from Czech Republic and
Australia and entrance by strongly branded
Cessna into market.

9.2 Risk Management Strategy

AirspireTM will mitigate against the identified threats and compensate for the weaknesses through the following
strategies:

Weaknesses:
 The marketing plan has identified flying schools as being early adopters in the general aviation industry.
This is hence the first segment of the market to be targeted. As soon as awareness and credibility is proven
among flight schools, marketing and sales efforts will result in significant growth in sales of the aircraft with
secondary target market i.e. private customers. Positive word-of-mouth communication between flight
schools is anticipated and the purchase of SkyWakeTM by "reference customers" will further improve the
sales effort and the company’s standing in the industry.
 The design team will be linked to first class universities which have a reputation of excellence in this area.
Furthermore, members of the design team are already well known in the South Africa aviation industry,
being involved in aircrash investigations. Their expertise in this area is hence already well established
providing customers with confidence in the design.
 The use of agents is standard practice in the industry. The appointed agents will serve primarily as regional
distribution and contact points. The marketing strategy will however be driven by the AirspireTM marketing.
It is intended to secure more than one agent in South Africa and internationally, hence mitigating against
the outsourcing strategy.

237
 The labour required for the manufacture of aircraft is similar to that required by the automotive industry,
with some minor training, the skills are available in South Africa.
 There is potential for a South African designed and manufactured engine to be used in the future, which will
provide further protection against the exchange rate, and will facilitate pricing of the aircraft in South African
Rands. This will provide a competitive advantage against imported aircraft.
 AirspireTM will leverage its funding requirements with the setting up of the Design Organisation as a national
platform.

Threats:
 SkyWakeTM will be priced in US dollars, hence providing a hedge against currency fluctuations.
 AirspireTM will not only concentrate its marketing strategy on the luxury private aviation market, but will also
focus on diversifying sales to flight training schools and businesses which utilise Light Sport Aircraft as part
of their operational requirements. The cost effectiveness (which includes the link to a local manufacturing
facility for repair and maintenance) of SkyWakeTM in this context will provide a competitive advantage over
imported aircraft.
 The innovative features, price and strategic alliances will provide AirspireTM with the edge to compete
against existing players in the market. Several of these features are specifically designed for South African
conditions and climate.
 Although there are many existing aircraft in the market, the market is incredibly fragmented. Only Jabiru,
from Australia, has market share over 10%, all other companies having market shares of 6% or less. The
market is also experiencing dramatic growth and there is no real dominant supplier in the market.

238
 Appendix 2: Competitor Analysis: Performance comparison

Cessna 162 B&F Technik Jabiru SkyWakeTM

SkyCatcher FK 9 mk IV J17022
Wing Aluminium Hybrid Full Aluminium
Semi- Aluminium Composite Semi-Monocoque
Monocoque Ceconite
Fuselage Aluminium Steel alloy Full Steel alloy
Semi- spaceframe composite spaceframe
Monocoque covered with covered with
Construction Ceconite aluminium
Landing gear Tapered Metal/Carbon Steel, un- Steel tube,
steel tube, fibre composite, damped spring-damped
un-damped un-damped
Empennage Aluminium Aluminium Composite Aluminium
Semi- Semi- Semi-Monocoque
Monocoque Monocoque

Type Continental Rotax 912 Jabiru J2200 Rotax 912 series

O-200D series
Power 100hp 80 or 100hp 80hp 80 or 100hp
Engine Propeller Composite Composite Wood- Composite three-
two-blade three-blade composite blade ground-
fixed pitch ground- Two-blade adjustable
adjustable fixed pitch

Empty weight 377kg 268kg 295kg 240-260kg

Useful load 222kg 252kg 245kg 260-280kg
Weight
Gross weight 599kg 520kg 540kg 520kg
Fuel load 73kg 80kg 108kg 70-90kg

Wingspan 9.14m 9.85m 8.12m 10.5-11m

Length 6.95m 5.85m 5.78m 6.1-6.2m
Dimensions Cabin width 1.12m 1.09m 1.14m 1.15-1.2m
Wing area 9.96m2 11.3m2 8.04m2 11-12m2
Aspect ratio 8.39 8.6 8.2 9.6

Stall speed N/A 35kts 45 (49)kts 35kts

(Clean)
Cruise speed 112kts @ 104kts @ 75% 100kts @ 100-105kts @
77% power power 75% power 75% power
Performance Maximum 118kts 125kts 115kts 115-120kts
speed
Range 470nm 700nm 1030nm Approx 500-
650nm
Take-off 381m 220m

22 Previously Jabiru J160C

239
 distance

Cruise 0.29 0.257 0.406 0.248

coefficient of
lift
Induced drag 0.004 0.0031 0.008 0.0025
coefficient
Induced drag 1:73 1:83 1:51 1:99
glide ratio
Wing Loading 60.1kg/m2 46 kg/m2 67.2 kg/m2 45 kg/m2
Wing chord 1.1m 1.15m 1.0m 1.1m
Calculated Reynolds’ cut- 2.7e6 2.86e6 2.5e6 2.7e6
dataA off number
Skin friction 0.00375 0.0037 0.0038 0.00375
coefficient
Coefficient of 0.024 0.027 0.024 0.027
parasite drag
Coefficient of 0.028 0.030 0.032 0.0295
drag
Glide ratio 1:10.4 1:8.5 1:12.7 1:8.4
Power 76Hp* 75Hp* 50HpB 75Hp*
required to fly
A Data calculated using standard performance analysis determination
B 50Hp significantly less than the 60Hp specified for cruise, data not verified
* Data within 1% of manufacturer’s data, performance verified

The performance was compared and the results follow with explanation:

The SkyWakeTM at a gross mass of 600kg has been added since the aircraft may be flown with a Microlight
Pilots’ license at a take-off mass of 520kg and on a Private Pilot’s license at 600kg.

240
1. Aircraft Drag Polar
The drag polar is a curve relating the lift of an aircraft the drag generated. The slope of the curve is non-linear
and is primarily affected by the wing geometry.
1.6

B
1.4

1.2

1
Coefficient of Lift

0.8

0.6

0.4

C162
0.2 Fk-9
J-160C
SkyWake
0
A
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Coefficient of Drag

Fig 1: Drag Polar

At point A, where the aircraft is at maximum speed the coefficient of lift required is very small. The SkyWake TM
does not have the lowest drag, however at point B, at lower speeds; the SkyWakeTM produces the lowest
amount of drag. The 520kg and 600kg version of SkyWakeTM will have the same polar slope.

2. Aircraft Glide Ratio

The glide ratio is the slope that the aircraft will glide; a glide ratio is simply the ratio of lift divided by drag. A
glide ratio of 10 means that the aircraft will be able to fly horizontally for 10m for a height loss of 1m. The higher
the glide ratio, the more efficient the aircraft.
1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Coefficient of Lift

0.8

0.6

0.4

C162
0.2
Fk9
J160C
SkyWake
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Glide ratio

Fig. 2: Glide ratio

241
At point C the SkyWakeTM has the highest glide ratio and thus the best lift to drag ratio, the fuel flow will thus be
the lowest.

3. Glide ratio with speed

The glide ratio depicted above is non dimensional. The following figure depicts the glide ratio with forward
speed.

15
D C162
Fk9
14 J160C
SkyWake
SkyWake max
13

12

11
Glide ratio

10
E

6
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Speed [KTAS]

Fig. 3: Glide ratio with speed

At point D, the SkyWakeTM clearly has the best glide ratio, at point E the C162 has the higher ratio, the C162
also has poor take-off and stall performance. The 600kg SkyWake has a better glide ratio at higher speeds
than the 520kg model.

4. Power required to fly

The power required to fly is derived from the drag polar and is an indication of best operating speed. It is the
minimum power required to fly, and excess power may be used for manoeuvring.

100

90

G
80

70

60
Power required

50

40

30

F
20
C162
Fk9
10 J160C
SkyWake
SkyWake max
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Speed [KTAS]

Fig. 4: Power required to fly

242
At point F, the SkyWakeTM requires the least amount of power while at point G it requires slightly more power to
fly. At medium speeds (80 Knots or less) for low-level flight the SkyWakeTM will use less power and hence less
fuel. As expected the 600kg version of SkyWakeTM requires more power at low speeds and less power at high
speeds than the 520kg model.

5. Angle of Attack
The flying angle of attack is a measure of wing area relative to the aircraft’s weight; this is known as wing
loading. The Jabiru has the smallest wing area and hence the largest wing loading. The figure below
demonstrates that the Jabiru requires a higher angle of attack during flight. The SkyWakeTM and FK-9 are
similar. The 600kg version of SkyWakeTM flies at a slightly higher angle of attack.

25

20
Angle of attack [deg]

15

10

5 C162
Fk9
J160C
SkyWake
SkyWake max
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Speed [KTAS]

Fig 5: Angle of Attack

243
 APPENDIX 2A

Cessna FK-9 mark

Jabiru J 170 SkyWake
SkyCatcher IV
Construction 67% 58% 50% 92%
Damage tolerance 3 2 1 4
Corrosion resistance 2 3 4 3
Degree of
modification 3 2 1 4

Operation 55% 70% 52% 92%

Low bounce
Landing gear characteristics 3 3 3 4
Energy absorption 2 1 3 4
Robustness 3 2 1 4
Ground handling 2 3 1 4
Stall speed 2 3 1 4
Manoeuvrability 2 3 1 4
Fuel flow 2 4 3 3
Controllability 3 4 2 4
Payload 1 3 2 4
Empty weight 1 4 2 3
Cruise speed 4 2 3 2
Range 2 3 4 3
Take-off distance 1 3 2 4
Tailored flight
instruments 3 1 2 4
Safe operation at
hot/high conditions 2 3 1 4

Ownership 55% 40% 55% 100%

Parts availability 3 1 2 4
Customisation Interior 1 2 3 4
Exterior 3 1 2 4
Cabin layout 1 3 2 4
Training of
maintenance staff 3 1 2 4
Overall Rating 57% 62% 52% 93%
Price 869 700 981 000 644 344 600 000

244
APPENDIX E – Bill of materials

Quantity
Required
Component per Aircraft Manufacturing Functions
Ailerons
Cut holes/profile 3mm plate/De-burr/ Corrosion
Aileron - Elevator Stick Crank (3mm) 4 protection
Cut holes/Profile 3mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Aileron Bracket 3mm - Left 1 protection/Bend 3mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 3mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Aileron Bracket 3mm - Right 1 protection/Bend 3mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 4mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Aileron Bracket 4mm - Left 2 protection/Bend 4mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 4mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Aileron Bracket 4mm - Right 2 protection/Bend 4mm plate 90°
Aileron Bracket Support - Left Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
(0.5mm) 3 protection/bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Aileron Bracket Support - Right Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
(0.5mm) 3 protection/bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Aileron Hinge Bracket 3mm - Left 1 protection/bend 3mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Aileron Hinge Bracket 3mm - Right 1 protection/bend 3mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 4mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Aileron Hinge Bracket 4mm - Left 2 protection/bend 4mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 4mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Aileron Hinge Bracket 4mm - Right 2 protection/bend 4mm plate 90°
Aileron Rigging Pulley Support Cut holes/Profile 3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Bracket - Bottom (3mm) 2 protection/bend 3mm plate 90° & 134°
Aileron Rigging Pulley Support Cut holes/Profile 2mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Bracket - Top (2mm) 2 protection/bend 2mm plate 97° & 134°
Cut holes/Profile 1.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Aileron Spar - Left (1.5mm) 1 protection/bend 1.5mm plate 97° & 79°/ NDT
Cut holes/Profile 1.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Aileron Spar - Right (1.5mm) 1 protection/bend 1.5mm plate 97° & 79°/ NDT
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Aileron Front Rib (0.5mm) 6 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Aileron Rear Rib (0.5mm) 6 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Differential Deflection Crank For Cut holes/Profile 3mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Ailerons (3mm) 2 protection/Bend 3mm plate 90°
Crank Mounting Bracket (Aileron) At Cut holes/profile 1.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Twin Tube (1.5mm) 2 protection/bend 1.5mm plate 90°
Form leading edge/Cut to appropriate size/Cut
Sheet Metal skin (0.5mm) 2 holes/de-burr/corrosion protection

Vertical Stabiliser
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 1 Aft (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°

245
 Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 1 Mid (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 2 Aft (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 2 Front (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 3 Aft (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 3 Mid (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 3 Front (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 4 Aft (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 4 Mid (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 4 Front (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 5 Aft (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rib 5 Mid (0.5mm) 1 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 1.6mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
protection/Bend 1.6mm plate 90°/ bend entire 1745mm
Spar Cap (1.6mm) 2 178°
Cut holes/Profile 1.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Spar Front (1.5mm) 1 protection/NDT
Cut holes/Profile 1.6mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Spar Rear (1.6mm) 1 protection/Bend 1.6mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 3mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Vtail Control System Crank (3mm) 2 protection/Bend 3mm plate 90°
Form leading edge&panels/Cut to appropriate size/Cut
holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/cut inspection panel
holes/reinforce periphery of inspection panel
Sheet Metal Skin/leading edge holes/attach anchor nuts to which inspection panels
(0.5mm) 1 can be screwed
Rudder
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 3mm
Bracket Rudder (3mm) 1 plate/bend 3mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 1.6mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rudder Spar (1.6mm) 1 protection/Bend 1.6mm plate 90°
Cut holes/Profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Rudder Rib (0.5mm) 5 protection/Bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 3mm
Bracket Rudder Long (3mm) 1 plate/bend 3mm plate 90°
Form leading edge&panels/Cut to appropriate size/Cut
Sheet Metal Skin (0.5mm) 1 holes/de-burr/corrosion protection

Horizontal Stabiliser
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 3mm
Horizontal Tail Crank (3mm) 2 plate
Horizontal Tail Tab Inner End Plate Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 2mm
(2mm) 1 plate/bend 2mm plate 90°

246
Horizontal Tail Tab Outer End Plate Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 2mm
(2mm) 1 plate/bend 2mm plate 90°
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 3mm
HTail Control Linkage Mount (3mm) 2 plate/bend 3mm plate 90°
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 0.5mm
HTail Front Rib-O (0.5mm) 8 plate/bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 0.5mm
HTail Middle Rib-O (0.5mm) 10 plate/bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 2mm
HTail Front Spar (2mm) 1 plate/NDT
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 1.6mm
Htail Rear Spar (1.6mm) 1 plate/bend 1.6mm plate 86°/NDT
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 1.6mm
Htail Spar Cap (1.6mm) 2 plate/bend 1.6mm plate 90°
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 1.5mm
HTail Hinge Box Front Plate (1.5mm) 1 plate
Htail Hinge Box Front Spar Cap Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 1.6mm
(1.6mm) 2 plate/bend 1.6mm plate 90°
Htail Hinge Box Bracket (4mm Base) Cut holes/ profile 4mm & 5mm plate/deburr/corrosion
5mm (Vertical) Unknown protection
Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 0.5mm
Htail Hinge Box Panel (0.5mm) 2 plate
Htail Hinge Box Triangulation Bracket Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 2 mm
(2mm) 2 plate/ bend 2mm plate to 160°
Htail Rear Spar Tab Hinge Mount Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 2mm
(2mm) 2 plate/bend 2mm plate 90°
O-Horizontal Tail Tab Inner End Plate Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/profile 2mm
(2mm) 1 plate/bend 2mm plate 90°
O-Horizontal Tail Tab Outer End Plate Form leading edge/Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion
(2mm) 1 protection/profile 2mm plate/bend 2mm plate 90°
Form leading edge/Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion
protection/cut inspection panel holes/reinforce
periphery of inspection panel cut-outs/attach anchor
Sheet metal skin/leading edge (0.5mm) 1 nuts to which inspection panels can be screwed

Elevators
Elavator&Actuator Hinge Bracket A Cut holes/profile 3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
(3mm) 2 protection
Elavator&Actuator Hinge Bracket B Cut holes/profile 3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
(3mm) 2 protection
Elavator&Actuator Hinge Bracket C Cut holes/profile 3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
(3mm) 2 protection
Cut holes/Profile 3mm sheet metal/ De-burr/corrosion
Elevator PushRod Crank A (3mm) 2 protection
Cut holes/Profile 3mm sheet metal/ De-burr/corrosion
Elevator PushRod Crank B (3mm) 2 protection
Cut hole/Profille 2mm sheet metal /De-burr/corrosion
2 × 2mm Spacer (2mm) Numerous protection
4-3 Geared Elevator Pushrod Crank Cut holes/Profile 3mm sheet metal /De-burr/corrosion
(3mm) 6 protection
Cut hole/Profille 2mm sheet metal /De-burr/corrosion
4 × 2mm Spacer (2mm) Numerous protection
Form leading edge/Cut to appropriate size/Cut
64mm Bush (ID 12mm OD 16mm) Unknown holes/de-burr/corrosion protection

247
 Cut holes/Profile 2mm plate/de-burr/Corrosion
Elevator Rib (2mm) 6 protection/Bend 2mm plate 90°
Form leading edge/Cut to appropriate size/Cut
Sheet metal skin (0.5mm) 2 holes/de-burr/corrosion protection

Wing
Cut holes/profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Front Wing Rib (0.5mm) 28 protection/bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/profile 0.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Middle Wing Rib - O (0.5mm) 28 protection/bend 0.5mm plate 90°
Cut holes/profile 2mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Rear Wing Rib - O (2mm) 28 protection/ bend 2mm plate 90°
Cut holes/profile 2.3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Front Spar (2.3mm) 2 protection/NDT
Cut holes/profile 3.175mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Front Spar Cap 1 (3.175mm) 3 protection/ bend 3.175mm plate 90°
Cut holes/profile 3.175mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Front spar Cap 2 (3.175mm) 3 protection/ bend 3.175mm plate 90°
Cut holes/profile 1.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Rear Spar (1.5mm) 2 protection/ NDT
Cut holes/profile 3.175mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Front Spar Stiffener (3.175mm) 56 protection/ bend 3.175mm plate 90°
Front Spar Attachment Bracket Cut holes/profile 22mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
(22mm) 2 protection/NDT
Front Spar Attachment Plate double Cut holes/profile 5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
milled (5mm) 2 protection/NDT
Front Spar Attachment Plate single Cut holes/profile 5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
milled (5mm) 2 protection/NDT
Cut holes/profile 12mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Rear Spar Attachment Bracket (12mm) 2 protection/NDT
Cut holes/profile 5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Rear Spar Attachment Plate (5mm) 2 protection
Cut holes/profile 3mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Hinge Plate Doubling Plate (3mm) 6 protection
Cut holes/profile 1.5mm plate/de-burr/corrosion
Hinge Crank (1.5mm) 2 protection
Form leading edge/Cut to appropriate size/Cut
holes/de-burr/corrosion protection/cut inspection panel
holes/reinforce periphery of inspection panel cut-
outs/attach anchor nuts to which inspection panels can
Sheet metal skin/leading edge (0.5mm) 2 be screwed

Flaps
Cut holes/profile 2.3mm plate/bend 2.3mm plate
Flap Actuator bracket 2.3mm 4 90°/de-burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 0.5mm plate/bend 0.5mm plate
Flap Bracket Support - Left 0.5mm 14 90°/de-burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 0.5mm plate/bend 0.5mm plate
Flap Bracket Support - O (0.5 mm) 14 90°/de-burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 0.5mm plate/bend 0.5mm plate
Flap Rib Front (0.5mm) 18 90°/de-burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 0.5mm plate/bend 0.5mm plate
Flap Rib Rear (0.5mm) 18 90°/de-burr/corrosion protection

248
 Cut holes/profile 3mm plate/bend 3mm plate 90°/de-
Flap Rib Bracket 3mm - Left 1 burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 3mm plate/bend 3mm plate 90°/de-
Flap Rib Bracket 3mm - Right 1 burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 4mm plate/bend 4mm plate 90°/de-
Flap Rib Bracket 4mm - Left 2 burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 4mm plate/bend 4mm plate 90°/de-
Flap Rib Bracket 4mm -Right 2 burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 3.17mm plate/bend 3.17mm plate
Flap Track Bracket 3.17mm Left 1 90°/de-burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 3.17mm plate/bend 3.17mm plate
Flap Track Bracket 3.17mm Right 1 90°/de-burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 4mm plate/bend 4mm plate 90°/de-
Flap Track Bracket 4mm Left 2 burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 4mm plate/bend 4mm plate 90°/de-
Flap Track Bracket 4mm Right 2 burr/corrosion protection
Cut holes/profile 1.47mm plate/bend 1.47mm plate
Flap Spar (1.5mm) 4 79°/de-burr/corrosion protection/NDT
Form leading edge/Cut holes/de-burr/corrosion
protection/cut inspection panel holes/reinforce
periphery of inspection panel cut-outs/attach anchor
Sheet metal skin/leading edge (0.5) 2 nuts to which inspection panels can be screwed

Wing Strut
Cut to appropriate length/cut holes/ de-burr/corrosion
Tubing 2 protection
Strut Mounting Bracket 10mm 2 Cut 10mm plate/cut hoes/de-burr/ NDT
Cut Fairing to appropriate size/form fairing/ de-
Strut Fairing 2 burr/cut holes/attach to tubing

249
APPENDIX F

Report
detailing

PROTOTYPE COSTING FOR SKYWAKE

22 July 2011
DRAFT 1

Contact Person: Mr. Michael F. Boer

University of the Witwatersrand,

Organisation
Johannesburg

Tel: 011 717 7314

Fax: 011 717 7049

Email: [email protected]

Postal Address: Private Bag 3, Wits, 2050

250
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 252
Bill of materials............................................................................................................................... 253
Organogram .................................................................................................................................... 255
Labour requirements at the manufacturing facility ......................................................................... 256
Tooling costing ............................................................................................................................... 257
Factory layout ................................................................................................................................. 260
Budget ............................................................................................................................................. 261

251
Introduction

South Africa has always had a very small aerospace industry. The large state-assisted companies did
develop aerospace products, but only for military purposes. Since 1994 other companies have been
established exclusively to manufacture small components for international civil aerospace companies.
Several small companies have started to produce small recreational aircraft including microlights,
gliders and sport aircraft. These companies work in isolation, have no research and design capability,
have limited ties to universities and, as a result, cannot grow into international markets or develop
world-class products.

The Blue Crane Development Agency (BCDA) in Somerset East, Eastern Cape and the University of
the Witwatersrand (Wits) has design of a highly competitive Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) has been
completed and construction of the prototype needs to commence. The aircraft will attain Civil
Aviation Regulation Part 24 certification once flight-tested. The aircraft design was managed and
supervised by staff within the University, with the majority of the design work being completed by
students involved with the student development model.

The LSA will allow for a Manufacturing Organisation (MO) to be established and approved. The
Manufacturing Organisation will be able to manufacture the LSA and other aircraft and aviation
related products. The organisational structure of MO has been designed for strategic establishment of
the aerospace industry and the seamless interaction with the universities will allow for many new
aircraft designs to be undertaken. Additionally, the three goals of the Industry Participation Action
Plan II (IPAP) for aerospace are to develop rural areas, increase skills and promote manufacture. This
project would exceed expectations for all three goals. To date, R9.5Mil has been invested in the
project, including a R8.8Mil academic donation by Wits University. To establish a facility to build the
two prototypes and establish a toolset and skills set, capable of supporting future aviation projects,
requires an investment of R1.6Mil.

252
Bill of materials

Instruments R 42,505
Oil pressure R 1,966
Oil Temperature R 478
Engine
Ammeter R 190
Tachometer R 1,286
Altimeter R 3,103
Air Speed indicator R 1,064
Artificial horizon R 3,978
Flight Instruments Direction indicator R 3,761
Vertical speed indicator R 1,645
Compass R 553
Slip indicator R 481
Navigation/Communication nav/com R 24,000
Fuselage R 82,570
Seatbelts R 580
Seats R 2,000
Cockpit
Fire extinguisher R 295
First aid kit R 200
Ballistic parachute R 25,000
Lighting R 3,000
Fuel tanks R 2,500
Gear R 8,000
Brakes R 12,000
Landing gear
Wheels R 8,000
Spats R 1,000
Crash structure and engine mounting cradle R 7,792
Tail Boom R 3,384
Material costs Fuselage skin R 3,119
Cowling, doors R 4,200
Windows and Windscreen R 1,500
Wing R 18,038
Struts (Streamline Tubing) R 5,875
Material costs Wings R 10,663
Fillets and Wingtips R 1,500
Vertical Stabiliser R 2,410
Material costs Vertical Stabilizer R 2,410
Horizontal Stabiliser R 3,593
Material costs Horizontal Tail R 3,593
Engine R 156,700
Jabiru J3300 R 134,000
Propeller R 15,000
Exhaust R 6,500
Battery R 1,200
GRAND TOTAL R 305,816

253
 Fuselage materials Fuel tanks Navigation/Communicatio
Cockpit 4,0% 0,8% n
2,0% 7,8%
Stabilizers
2,0%
Instruments Ballistic parachute
6,1% 8,2%
Exhaust
2,1% Landing Gear
2,6%
Propeller
4,9% Brakes
3,9%

Wheels
2,9%

Crash structure & engine

mounting cradle
2,5%

Wings
5,9%

Total Cost: R 305,816

Engine
44,2%

Figure 1. Contributive materials costing

Wits University is establishing a structural testing facility, which is being partly funded by the
National Aerospace Centre, a dti initiative. The facility will be used to test a non-flying prototype of
the aircraft that is identical to the flying version, just without an engine. Once the testing is complete,
a flying prototype will be built.

254
Organogram

The organogram proposed is in line with international practice and is required by the Civil Aviation
Authority.

Manufacturing
Organisation Board

Responsible
Manager

Compliance
Sales and
Manager
Marketing
Manager

Airshows Finance Advertising Certifying Staff

Test Flights
Manufacturing
Assembly Processes
Manager

Steel tube
Steel tube Wing Fuselage Aluminium sheet
Aluminium sheet Reinforced
Reinforced plastics
plastics

Empennage Landing gear

Treatment
Metal forming

Instrument panel

Engine

Figure 2. Manufacturing Organisation organogram

The roles and responsibilities of the key people is described;

1) Responsible Manager, accountable to the Director for Civil Aviation, with overall responsibility within the
organisation to ensure that all production is performed to the required standards and that the production
organisation is continuously in compliance with the data and procedures identified in the manual of
procedures. This person will be the company CEO.
2) A Compliance Manager nominated to ensure that the organisation is in compliance with the Civil Aviation
Regulations and who has been identified together with the extent of their authority. In this respect, such
person or persons must be directly responsible to the manager identified above. An engineering degree or
technical diploma would be required as well as previous experience in manufacturing technology, quality
control and non-destructive testing.

255
Labour requirements at the manufacturing facility

Although the industry assembles a complex and high-tech product, its assembly process is relatively labour
intensive. Production of aircraft is carried out at relatively low rates relative to most manufacturing industries.
Furthermore, the aircraft are almost 100% hand-made due to the fact that manufacturers are cautious about the
expensive damage that could be caused by a malfunctioning machine.

The production process requires expertise in reading blueprints, proficiency in the use of several different tools,
and the ability to anticipate and solve various assembly problems to meet demanding technical standards. Many
employees are thus involved in managing and inspecting the process. For these personnel, well-developed
technical skills are essential. In addition, many more technical non-production workers are required. Overall,
staff required to manufacture SkyWakeTM will comprise precision production, craft, and repair workers;
professional and technical workers as well as less skilled jobs, such as operators, fabricators, and general
labourers.

Labour costs have been estimated based on values for low skilled, through to highly skilled workers. The most
specialised workers (e.g. welder, paint booth operator and specialised machinery operators) are paid the most.
The table below displays the estimated labour costs for the facility based on the assumption that it operates 8
hours a day and 5 days per week producing a maximum of 8 aircraft monthly.

Table 1. Labour rates

Production Operator Task Operators Rate Daily

cell (R/Hour) Cost
Space Frame Crash boom, tail boom and engine mounting cradle 2 100 1,600
Construction welding
Metal Press 1 25 200
Preparation
Tube cutting and profiling 1 70 560
Stores Receive, record, pack, handout materials 1 20 160
GFRP Moulding 1 25 200
ABS plastic Forming 1 25 200
Engine Filling, connecting, testing 1 80 640
Inspection Inspect components and sub-assemblies 1 25 200
bays 1 & 2
Paint booth Masking, priming and painting 1 50 400
Instrument Instrument unpacking, preparing, instrument panel 1 25 200
panel assembly and testing
Skin covering Drilling, installing of components and securing skin 2 25 400
Wing, aileron Assembly 2 25 400
and flap
Empennage Assembly 1 25 200
Primary Assemble sub-components 2 25 400
Assembly
Total 18 5,960
MONTHLY 107,280
TOTAL

256
Tooling costing

Equipment No. Needed? Cost(Rands)

Machinery
Hydraulic Press 1 n R -
Router Multicam 3000 Series 1 1 n R -
Band Saw Cosen Automatic Band Saw 1 n R -
Cut-Off Machine 1 y R 1,500.00
Press Brake 1 y R 225,000.00
20 Tonne Hydraulic Press 1 y R 4,000.00
Notching machine Otmar Tube Notcher 1 y R 4,000.00
Welder TA 200 Amp 1 y R 11,000.00
Gas Regulator 1 y R 450.00
Autoclave 1 y R -
Subtotal R 245,950.00

Riveting Equipment
Rivet Squeezer 2 y R 1,190.00
Solid shank rivet gun set (incl. bucking bars) 2 y R 4,480.00
Blind rivet gun 2 y R 8,400.00
Rivnut speed driver 1 y R 1,400.00
Subtotal R 15,470.00

Fastening Equipment
Manual spanner set (Imperial sizes) 1 y R 450.00
Air wrench 2 y R 900.00
Torque wrench 1 y R 500.00
Ratchet Set 3 y R 450.00
Imperial socket set 2 y R 1,000.00
Cleco pliers 2 y R 61.60
Clecos y R -
Screwdriver set 3 y R 300.00
Offset screwdriver set 1 y R 61.25
Soldering Iron Ellies 40W 1 y R 650.00
Wire crimping tool 2 y R 479.50
Swaging tool 1 y R 910.00
G-clamp set 1 y R 800.00
Tool clamp set 2 y R 2,200.00
Bench vice 2 y R 1,800.00
Cable tie gun kit 1 y R 385.00
Safety wire pliers 2 y R 350.00
Subtotal R 11,297.35

257
Moving Equipment
Manual 2 ton crane 1 y R 1,700.00
Load Leveler 2 y R 600.00
Chain Block 1 tonne 3m lift 4 y R 1,600.00
Slings 1 y R -
Restoration Rotator 4 y R -
Dolly 2 y R -
Tow Bar 1 y R 700.00
Subtotal R 4,600.00

Material removal tools

Pneumatic hand drill 2 y R 990.00
Drill Bit set (Imperial sizes) 1 y R 200.00
Drill Press 1 y R 1,795.00
Bench grinder 1 y R 575.00
Tool grinder 1 y R 269.00
Small angle grinder 1 y R 300.00
De-burring tool 3 y R 315.00
Electrical wire stripper 2 y R 120.00
Control cable cutter 1 y R 1,050.00
Hand operated tube cutter 1 y R 245.00
Fine tooth hacksaw 1 y R 75.00
Side cutters 1 y R 40.00
Tin Snips 2 y R 80.00
Hand file set 1 y R 145.00
Stanley Knife 2 y R 120.00
Allen Key Set 2 y R 120.00
Subtotal R 6,439.00

Inspection and Alignment Equipment

Multimeter 2 y R 500.00
Vernier (digital) 3 y R 885.00
Micrometer (digital) 2 y R 990.00
Internal Micrometer 1 y R 2,000.00
Sheet metal micro 1 y R 1,274.00
Set square 2 y R 260.00
V-block set 1 y R 500.00
Tape Measures 4 y R 160.00
Laser level 2 y R 1,000.00
Spirit Levels 2 y R 300.00
Control cable tensiometer 1 y R 1,820.00
Instrument Calibration System 1 y R 7.00
Subtotal R 9,696.00

258
Miscellaneous
Hand fuel tube bender (RDB-25) 1 y R 1,400.00
Compressor (screw compressor) 1 y R 20,000.00
Hole finder 1 y R 210.00
Centre Punch 1 y R 45.00
Sealant dispensing gun 1 y R 3,850.00
Fire Extinguisher 4 y R 1,400.00
Ladders 2 y R 1,130.00
Battery Charger 1 y R 195.00
Engine Fluids Drip Tray 1 y R 210.00
Hand crank fuel pump 1 y R 1,400.00
Tyre Inflator 1 y R 150.00
Label Maker 1 y R 900.00
Fire Proof Cabinets (1830x915x459) 1 y R 6,000.00
Work Benches (lkgoodwin.com) 2 y R 7,000.00
Scales 1 y R 560.00
Subtotal R 43,890.00

PPE
Welding Mask 2 y R 990.00
Welding Gloves 2 y R 2.00
Welding Aprons 2 y R 2.00
Work Gloves 6 y R 6.00
Overalls 6 y R 6.00
Safety Boots 6 y R 6.00
Safety Goggles 6 y R 6.00
Dust Mask 6 y R 6.00
Ear Plugs 6 y R 6.00
Painting Mask 1 y R 1.00
Painting Overalls 1 y R 1.00
Subtotal R 1,032.00

TOTAL R 338,374.35

259
Factory layout
The hangar presently in existence at the Somerset East airfield will be equipped according to the production facility layout

Autoclave
5 sq m 13 sq m 19 sq m 19 sq m 11 sq m 13 sq m

Layup Table

Toilets Composites Paint Booth HAZMAT Store Electrical

732.25

Parts
Hydraulic Storage H-Tail Table V-Tail Table Rudder Table
Press 14 sq m

Wing Assembly Table 5.5m x 2m

Press
Wing Assembly Table 5.5m x 2m
Brake
17 sq m Tool Cart Wing Skeleton

95 sq m
Tool Cart

Workbench with
Drill Press x2 Wing Assembly Table 5.5m x 2m
Sheet Metal Prep 14 sq m

H-Tail Table
Parts
Fuselage Jig 5.5m x 2m Engine Jig
Storage V-Tail Table
Fuselage Jig 5.5m x 2m
Tool Cart

Tool Cart

Wing Assembly Table 5.5m x 2m

Notching
Steel Tube Prep Machine
14 sq m
Parts Fuselage Jig 5.5m x 2m
17 sq m
Storage

Cut-Off Fuselage Guts

Machine

Tube Prep Tool Cart

19 sqJig
Fuselage m 5.5m x 2m
MIG
Welder

Tool Cart
Welding Bay
Welding
Engine Jig
Table

General
Engineering 9 sq m 9 sq m manager

60 sq m
42 sq m 57 sq m

Production
manager

Raw Materials Store Front office

9 sq m 15 sq m
Kitchen

Secretary

Figure 3. Production facility layout

260
Budget

The budget has been drawn up using the data provided above. The values have been rounded with
several percent contingency margin. The labour has been calculated at 7 months full-time, which
would be spread over a period of 7-12 months. The total funding required is R 1 620 000.

Contribution received Amount required for 12 month

period
LSA design R 240 000
Wits University (19000 manhours) R 4 750 000
Wits University facilities R 4 000 000
Mock up R 135 000
Hangar building R 400 000
Total funding received R 9 525 000

Contribution required
Materials for structural testing prototype R 200 000
Materials for flying prototype R 320 000
Tooling for established facility R 340 000
Labour for contract work R 756 000
Total funding required R 1 616 000

Total project value R 11 141 000

Leverage ratio (received / required) 5.9

261