AE6204 : Aircraft Structures and Materials Assignment

Assessment Submission and Requirements

Submission Instructions

• All assignments must be submitted by the confirmed date and time .

• Students must submit an electronic copy via the Assignments section of Canvas and follow any given instructions.

• Any updates to submission requirements will be communicated through Canvas.

Late Submission Policy

• Work submitted up to one week late will be capped at 40% .

• Coursework submitted after one week will be marked as 0% .

Mitigating Circumstances

• For illness or issues affecting studies, refer to the University Mitigating Circumstances policy .

• Guidance available on MyKingston:
  Mitigating Circumstances Policy

• By submitting work, you confirm you are fit to undertake the assessment. Claims cannot be made retrospectively.

Academic Integrity

• Guidance on avoiding offences such as plagiarism and collusion is available on MyKingston > Academic Regulations .

Module Learning Outcomes

This assessment evaluates the following outcomes:

• Analyse idealisations of typical aircraft structures.

• Evaluate the suitability of materials for aircraft applications.

Scenario Description

• External fuel tanks are essential to extend mission range or endurance for modern military aircraft and occasionally found in civilian ones. As engineering student, you are tasked with fitting an external fuel tank with a fuel mass of 60 kg to extend either range or endurance of the single engine aircraft as shown in Figure 1. Locating the external fuel tank on the aircraft’s wings at an ideal position can improve the overall structural efficiency of the wing structure in terms of bending relief for a given fuel mass without having to redesign the wing. In addition, each type of fuel tank construction has its own unique qualities that may make one type better suited to a particular aircraft than the other in terms of fuel capacity requirements and weight saving.

Early studies have dictated that the wing will have two spars and semi-monocoque construction design. The wing has a NACA 2412 airfoil profile with a rectangular planform and has a chord length of 1.524 m and semi-span of 4.572 m. In the design of the wing structure, Aluminum 2024 T3 is selected as construction material. The maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of the aircraft is 1460 kg and the aircraft wings mass could be estimated as 10% of the MTOM.

The external aerodynamic load is calculated in accordance with the ESDU document 95010 which calculates the span-wise loading of wings with camber and twist in subsonic attached flow using the lifting surface theory. The semi span-wise lift distribution as given in Figure 2 is calculated at the 25

% of the wing chord measured from the leading edge at the dive speed of the aircraft (See Figure 3, V-n diagram which is critical during the design of an aircraft as it affects the operation of the aircraft).

Task 3

• Compare conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) vs. drop tanks .

• Discuss:

  • Structural integrity

  • Aerodynamics

  • Materials

  • Assembly

• Provide three advantages and three disadvantages for each type.

Task 4

• Determine optimal location for external fuel tank on the wing to achieve bending relief .

• Steps:
  a. Draw a free body diagram of the wing.
  b. Calculate shear force and bending moment ; draw diagrams (no bending relief).
  c. Repeat calculations with bending relief (fuel mass + wing mass).
  d. Compare results and discuss three reasons why bending relief is essential.

Hint: Simplify semi-span lift distribution as triangular load distribution.

Task 5

• Evaluate the front wingbox spar beam (Figure 4).

• Assess suitability in terms of:

  • Maximum allowable bending stress

  • Maximum allowable shear stress

• Assumptions:

  • 2/3 of applied load carried by front spar

  • Factor of safety = 1.5

  • Constant spar cross-section: thickness t = 4 mm , height h = 200 mm

• Compare stress results against Aluminium 2024 T3 allowable stress values .

• Provide discussion and conclusions.

Hint: Shear force acts through centroid; bending moment acts at the neutral axis.

Assessment Requirements – Summary

The assessment focused on applying engineering knowledge to aircraft structures, with emphasis on external fuel tank integration and structural evaluation. Key requirements included:

1. Submission Guidelines

   • Submit electronically via Canvas by the confirmed deadline.

   • Late submission capped at 40% (within one week), beyond that = 0%.

   • Academic integrity and mitigating circumstances policies to be observed.

2. Learning Outcomes Evaluated

   • Analyse idealisations of typical aircraft structures.

   • Evaluate suitability of materials for aircraft applications.

3. Scenario Context

   • Fitting a 60 kg external fuel tank to a single-engine aircraft with semi-monocoque construction and NACA 2412 airfoil.

   • Optimising location for bending relief to improve structural efficiency.

   • Materials: Aluminium 2024 T3, MTOM = 1460 kg, wing mass ≈ 10% of MTOM.

   • Aerodynamic loads calculated using ESDU 95010.

4. Tasks to Complete

   • Task 3 : Compare Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) vs. Drop Tanks in terms of structural integrity, aerodynamics, materials, and assembly, highlighting 3 pros and cons of each.

   • Task 4 : Analyse optimal fuel tank location by:
     a. Drawing free body diagrams.
     b. Calculating shear force and bending moment (without bending relief).
     c. Repeating with bending relief (fuel + wing mass).
     d. Comparing results and discussing 3 reasons why bending relief is essential.

   • Task 5 : Evaluate front wingbox spar beam for bending and shear stresses with assumptions:

     • 2/3 load carried by front spar

     • Factor of safety = 1.5

     • Thickness = 4 mm, Height = 200 mm

     • Compare stress results against allowable limits of Aluminium 2024 T3.

Academic Mentor’s Step-by-Step Guidance

Step 1 – Clarifying Requirements

The mentor began by reviewing submission rules, policies, and learning outcomes with the student. This ensured the student understood both the academic expectations and the technical goals of the assignment.

Step 2 – Understanding the Scenario

The mentor helped break down the aircraft details:

• Explained semi-monocoque wing design and its relevance.

• Discussed why bending relief is critical in wing design.

• Highlighted the importance of material selection, focusing on Aluminium 2024 T3.

Step 3 – Structuring Task 3

• Guided the student to research CFTs vs. Drop Tanks.

• Encouraged a balanced discussion with structural, aerodynamic, material, and assembly considerations.

• Helped in framing three advantages and disadvantages of each type, supported by theory and examples.

Step 4 – Approaching Task 4

• Supported the creation of a free body diagram of the wing.

• Explained methods for calculating shear force and bending moment without bending relief.

• Demonstrated how to repeat calculations with fuel tank contribution to bending relief.

• Guided comparison of both results and discussion of three reasons bending relief enhances wing performance.

Step 5 – Tackling Task 5

• Introduced beam theory concepts for the front spar evaluation.

• Helped apply assumptions: load distribution, safety factors, and spar dimensions.

• Guided the student through bending stress and shear stress calculations.

• Ensured results were checked against Aluminium 2024 T3 allowable limits.

• Encouraged critical discussion of findings and justification of beam suitability.

Step 6 – Integrating Theory and Practice

• Mentor reinforced the use of structural analysis principles, material property data, and aerodynamic load theories.

• Helped student balance technical calculations with engineering reasoning in the report.

Outcome and Learning Achievements

Through this structured guidance, the student:

• Produced a well-organised report meeting submission and academic integrity standards.

• Delivered a comparative analysis of fuel tank types with clear pros/cons.

• Demonstrated ability to calculate and interpret shear force and bending moment diagrams under different loading conditions.

• Evaluated the front spar beam concept against safety and material strength criteria.

• Showed critical thinking in discussing bending relief benefits and structural implications.

• Met all targeted Learning Outcomes (LOs):

  • LO1 : Analysed aircraft structural idealisations.

  • LO2 : Evaluated materials (Aluminium 2024 T3) for suitability in design applications.

The assignment not only achieved the technical requirements but also enhanced the student’s ability to:

• Apply theory to practical aircraft engineering scenarios.

• Integrate structural mechanics with material considerations.

• Reflect critically on design decisions in aerospace contexts.

Get Access to Expertly Written Assignment Help

Looking for a reliable way to understand complex assessment tasks? Download this sample solution to see how professional academic writing is structured, researched, and presented. Please remember: this file is meant for reference and guidance only. Submitting it as your own work could lead to plagiarism issues and academic penalties.

If you need a fresh, plagiarism-free, custom-written solution tailored to your exact requirements, our team of expert academic writers is here to help. We deliver assignments that are 100% original, meet your university guidelines, and are designed to boost your grades while keeping you stress-free.

Why Choose Our Custom Solutions?

• Written by professional academic writers with subject expertise

• 100% plagiarism-free and tailored to your assessment brief

• Delivered on time with proper referencing and formatting

• Helps you understand, learn, and improve your academic writing

Plagiarism Disclaimer: This sample is for study and reference purposes only. Use it to learn how to structure and approach your assignment, not as a direct submission.

Ready to take the next step?

Download Sample Solution

Order Fresh Assignment