My Aerospace Design and Structures Career Engineering LinkedIn version Presentation.pdf

1
Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc. MRAeS. C.Eng. MA&SPA
MY AEROSPACE DESIGN & STRUCTURES ENGINEERING CAREER OVERVIEW.
My current project the Future Deep Strike Aircraft, Configuration FDSA Opt
C and CCA Wingman Opt A. This is a 3 part design study from
Requirements Capture to Preliminary structural design 2021 to date.
My ATDA PRSEUS CFC / Al Li / Ti Airframe structural
design and detail design for automated assembly
study 2013 to 2021.
Future Offensive Air System FOAS
R&D design 1999-2001.
F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C SDD
R&D design 2001-2007.
Mantis MALE UAS: - CDA and Pre Production
design 2007-2011.

This is an overview covering my contributions to Air and Space from 1987 to date including work at
RAE Farnborough, BAe (MAD), and BAE SYSTEMS (Air) in airframe structures design,
manufacturing development and structural test engineering: My Cranfield University MSc Aircraft
Engineering (2007), and my University of Portsmouth MSc in Advanced Manufacturing Technology
(1998), and post BAE Systems academic work for the AIAA Design Engineering Technical
Committee, RAeS, USAFA, and contribute to the Air and Space Power Association UK.
The main focus is on my Aerospace Contributions and my current work which is two fold research
into an Advanced Technology Demonstration Aircraft Airframe Research project of the benefits of
the application of PRSUES technology to conventional wing and tube commercial airframe
structural configuration, (2012 to 2021), which formed a presentation to the RAeS Materials and
Structures Group in 2021. Currently I am working on the Thor Future Deep Strike Aircraft platform
for the A&SPA(UK) which is design and development of a supersonic long range bomber to carry
two ALBM (Skybolt Class) Thunderbolt missiles for optional strategic missions and conventional
war load SDB‟s and other stores for deep interdiction missions based on my original studies and
Cranfield University, for the RAeS Air Power Group Aeroverisety, and A&SPA(UK).
I use the following toolsets:- USAF Academy (USAFA) AeroDYNAMIC™ Jet Designer 3, which is
an academic level MDO package (evaluation for non - military aircraft application) for initial
configuration and loads: Nastran/Patran 2000, for structural analysis based on my Cranfield
University MSc in Aircraft Engineering and IRP work: and Catia V5.R20 for structural design also
based on my Cranfield University MSc in Aircraft Engineering and my University of Portsmouth
MSc in Advanced Manufacturing Technology, and practical experience.
MY CAREER PRESENTATION INTRODUCTION.
2

3
FIRST RAE FARNBOROUGH PROJECT AIRWORTHINESS TESTS ROUTE FOR SPF/DB 1987.
 I developed the structural qualification test program for Eurofighter Typhoon SPF/DB Ti major structural
components at RAE Farnborough reporting to the Eurofighter Joint Structures Committee, and Military
Airworthiness Authority.
 This enabled the production of these components for all subsequent Typhoon aircraft , and for the
process to be maturely applied to other latter airframes.
Figure 1:- Eurofighter Typhoon
SPF/ DB Ti Foreplane structure.
Al Li OUTBOARD FLAPERON

4
SECOND RAE FARNBOROGH PROJECT TESTS ARTICLES PROGRAM FOR HOTOL 1987/89.
HOTOL Major structural component test article development such as: - a sub scale PEEK
(LH) Fuel tank, Fuselage Structural sections, Canard and Wing structural articles, and
building block testing of the thermal protection system wing leading edge, I moved onto
attack weapons project REVISE in late 1989.
Single Stage To Orbit Launch Vehicle.
Length = 62metres:
Wing span = 19.7metres:
Fuselage diameter = 5.7meters:
Height 12.8meters.
Construction Composite largely PEEK,
Titanium alloy, Some Niobium and Steel,
as per the later Lockheed X-33.
Proposed re-entry temperature was
1400°C comparable to the LEROS rocket
engine chamber and nozzle, but for a
shorter exposure period, therefore
coatings were a realistic option rather than
the US Space Shuttle STS Tiles.
Figure 2(a)/(b):- HOTOL SSTO Launch Vehicle.
Fig 2(a)
Fig 2(b)

5
 The REVISE Multi mission missile was developed for airfield attack and anti armour roles, and was
intended to be an air launched carrier for multiple sub - munitions launched from both Tornado or
Typhoon. It had two weapons bays with stores exiting from port and starboard sides and was of modular
assembly.
 My role with was to work with PERME and BAe on the development of the smart sub - munitions and
their deployment mechanism from REVISE carrier missile in such away that selected sub - munitions
could be released when required without effecting the stability or striking the REVISE carrier. As no
general pictures are available I have substituted the Storm Shadow which was about the same size, with
a high mounted wing, but has a different mission.
Figure 3(a) : - Storm Shadow underside view intake (though
further aft), wings and fuselage similar to REVISE but
empennage layout was different
Figure 3(b) : - Storm Shadow top view wings and
fuselage similar to REVISE but empennage layout
was different
THIRD RAE PROJECT Research Vehicle for In-flight Submunition Ejection REVISE.

6
BAe BROUGH STF DEVELOPMENT OF AIRWORTHINESS QUALIFICATION TESTS 1990 - 1991.
 I developed the structural qualification test program for Eurofighter Typhoon SPF/DB Ti major structural
components at RAE Farnborough and conducted this program at BAe Brough in 1990-1991, reporting to
the Eurofighter Joint Structures Committee, and Military Airworthiness Authority.
 This enabled the production of these components for all subsequent Typhoon aircraft , and for the
process to be maturely applied to other latter airframes.
Al Li OUTBOARD FLAPERON
CFC INBOARD FLAPERON
SPF/ DB Ti Foreplane structure.
CFC Co-bonded wing spar structure.
CFC Co-bonded cabin side skins.
Figure 4:- Eurofighter Typhoon

BAe BROUGH STF DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY AIRWORTHINESS QUALIFICATION TESTS 1990 - 1993.
 The Eurofighter Typhoon CFC composite wing which are also fuel tanks consist of two wing skins and an
internal structure as shown in the previous slide, the major load bearing structures are the wing spars and
skins. The lower wing skin is co-bonded to the spars eliminating mechanical fasteners in the highest loaded
wing skin reducing not only the overall weight but the thickness of the wing skin as shown in figure 4.
 From 1991-1993 my major role was to developed the structural qualification test program for Eurofighter
Typhoon lower wing skin co-bonded “J” spars addressing design configuration issues, for the Eurofighter
Joint Structures Committee and Military Airworthiness Authority, enabling the first flight target be met and full
scale IPA aircraft production to start.
 Developing and researching test methodologies i.e. T - pull T – shear rig and environmental chamber,
developing a test proposal with designs based on theses studies in conjunction with stress, airworthiness
(internal BAe and external DRA), and rig design and manufacture. Conducting test program evaluating the
results, report writing and presentation.
 I was also responsible for investigating through physical testing Eurofighter Typhoon Co-bonded Wing
Configuration, and the fwd fuselage cabin side skins structural issues: -
 methods of reduction of bondline peel stress
 test „t‟ pull configuration
 max stress at flange toe n/mm2
7

Running, damage inspection, and reporting on Full scale Major Airframe Fatigue Tests.
Tornado MAFT (Warton).
8
Hawk TMk1a MAFT (STF Brough)
Harrier GR5 MAFT (STF Brough)
T-45 Goshawk MAFT (STF Brough)
Typhoon Front Fuse Typhoon
Wing Substructure: Typhoon
SPF/DB Foreplane. (STF Brough)
One of my major roles running in
conjunction with new airframe
structural development test and
qualification in support of Typhoon
was the running, of STF Major
Airframe Fatigue Test articles
illustrated, involving running the
tests through the FALSTAFF type
cycles with interval inspection, for
fatigue damage, the reporting of
this damage and working with
stress to develop proposals for
repair development.
Figure 5: - MAFT airframes I worked on.

 A major project undertaken from initial program
initiation to final report compilation and presentation
was the Teardown Inspection of the Harrier T Mk4/ Mk2
(which supported the mostly structurally identical
Harrier FA-2 fleet). These MAFT‟s which were run
ahead in fatigue cycles of the operational aircraft
enabled the end users i.e. RAF and RN Fleet Air Arm
to be apprised of through life structural damage issues
and methods of repair before an aircraft became
unsafe or failed in service. These repair schemes
when approved were certified through the Military
Airworthiness Authority.
 I was responsible for the bid proposal, the development
of a detailed teardown inspection plan, proposing the
level to which the teardown should be taken to of the
Harrier TMk2 / Mk4, (Figure 6) and which major
structural build components would yield the most
valuable information on potentially service life ending
damage. I ran the program co-ordinating the teardown
inspection and support, and when critical damage was
discovered I developed an inspection and repair
methodology for this damage which enabled the Royal
Navy Fleet Air arm FA-2 aircraft (Figure 7) to remain in
service for ten years longer than would have been
the case.
BAe BROUGH STF MAJOR AIRCRAFT FATIGUE TESTS 1992 – 1993.
Figure 6:- RN Harrier TMk4.
9
Figure 7:- RN Harrier FA-2.

10
MSc Advanced Manufacturing Technology: - University of Portsmouth UK. Full-time 1996-1998, graduated 1998.
Figure 8: - My MSc in Advanced Manufacturing Technology certificate.
Figure 9: - My MSc in Advanced Manufacturing Technology award letter.

BAE SYSTEMS Warton ATDC Low Observable Technology Integration IPT 1999-2001.
11
 My first major design role within BAe / BAE
SYSTEMS upon re-joining the company as a
design engineer post University of Portsmouth
MSc in January 1999, was develop test bodies for
structural concepts for the wing and weapons bay
for the Anglo French, Future Offensive Air System
project figure 10.
 Further work on FOAS involved the CFC
structural layout design of the wings of the non-
flying demonstration airframe structure.
 Another major work was to investigate new
airframe manufacturing methodologies required
for BAE SYSTEMS to build the FOAS aircraft in
production quantities.
 My final work on FOAS as part of concept
engineering before moving to JSF, involved
concept design trade studies for engine integration
for the FOAS aircraft studies.
Figure 10: - FOAS concept OML mock- up, which
lead to FCAS Tornado IDS replacement.

BAE SYSTEMS Samlesbury F-35A HT Test Block Structural Design Team 2001 - 2002.
The F-35 Program gave me my first opportunity to design major airframe structural components for
flying aircraft for the SDD phase, although my first design role was for the Horizontal Test Box in
support of the F-35A airframe, figure 11 shows the general configuration of the F-35A with the
Horizontal tail marked.
 My first major design role on the JSF/F-35 project 2001, was to design major components of a
structurally representative test article for the CTOL AV-1 Horizontal Tail (HT) to investigate the
mechanical behaviour of the actual SDD phase HT when subjected to real flight loads.
 Because there was no mature design at this phase of the program the major components and
the manufacturing methods for this test box would form the basis for the final production HT,
and generically would form the template for the STOVL production HT. This would enable both
CTOL and STOVL major control to be produced from cousin parts on the same production line
reducing costs significantly I took design from concept to detail part design for manufacture.
 This design program was completed to cost and on time, although there were issues in
manufacture with the new processes, fibre placement of the HT skins was not continued into
the final production program.
 Assembly design and Joint assessment.
 Reporting weekly to the F-35 JPO LM.
 The build to responsibility for the production build articles for HT was given to BAE SYSTEMS
Brough site.
12

13
Figure 11:- F-35A, I conducted the detail design / structural layout on the F-35A HT Test box.
BAE SYSTEMS Samlesbury F-35A Horizontal Tail Testbox Design Team.
Horizontal Tail fatigue test
article was designed to
structurally represent this
component.
I am pictured fourth from left,
before growing a full beard.

I was responsible as the F-35C Outboard wing Building Block as IPT Design Leader for creating a
test article to meet the structural validation criteria listed below:-
 Validate Structural Analysis,
• Static and Fatigue Load Spectrums.
• Material Design Allowable.
 Demonstrate strength and durability of Structure adjacent to Wing Fold Mechanism.
• Multi-Slice Lugs on Fold Rib
• Bolted joint between Skins and Fold Rib flange caps.
• Bolted joint between Forward Spar and Fold Rib.
 Reduce Design Risk for SDD airframe figure 12 illustrates the F-35C outboard wing.
I was responsible for a small team consisting of designer / stress / and manufacturing engineers to
develop the test articles to meet the following requirements:-
 Manufacture of 2 Outboard Wing Test Articles - (1 Static and 1 Fatigue)
 Test Articles will be unconditioned and tested at room temperature.
 Testing to be completed by LMA.
 The design for these two test boxes was completed approved and signed off by BAE for
manufacture before the full outboard wing structure. Final component manufacture and
assembly was handed over to BAE SYSTEMS Canada as a workload reduction measure,
and I produced Build To Packages for them.
BAE Systems Samlesbury F-35C IPT Design Leader test box F-35C outboard wing 2003 - 2004.
14

15
BAE SYSTEMS Samlesbury F-35C CV Outboard Wing Testbox Design Team.
Port Outboard Wing Test
Box area.
Figure 12:- F-35C, I was responsible for the concept and detail design of the outboard wing
Testbox to evaluate not only the structure but also major element manufacture, and team
leadership.
Port Outboard Wing.

16
Chart 1:- My Role in the F-35C Outboard Wing Engineering Team.

17
Fig 13:- MSc Aircraft Engineering Cranfield University UK. 2003-2006, graduated 8th June 2007.
Part-Time MSc in Aircraft Engineering whilst at BAE Systems in F-35 IPT.
MSc in Aircraft Engineering award letter.

MSc Modules undertaken and passed (highest mark 93%):- Concept Aerospace Design: Catia V5 Computer
Aided Design: Major Airframe Component Design and Structural Layout: Computer Integrated Design: Composite
Manufacturing: Composite Engineering: Finite Element Analysis: Detail Design and Detail Stressing: Fatigue and
Damage Tolerance: JAR/AC design: Performance and Propulsion: Airworthiness.
18
MSc Aircraft Engineering: - Collage of Aeronautics, Cranfield University UK. 2003-2006, graduated 2007.
Chart 2:- Cranfield University / BAE Systems Terrasoar Engineering Team.

19
Figure 14:- Cranfield GDP Terrasoar LUAS Designed in Catia V5 and V4.
The Terrasoar was designed as my Cranfield University Group MSc 9th intake design project as a lite
UAS this was jointly funded by BAE Systems, although originally design for Glass Fibre and foam
construction the final airframe was produced in CFC by RIM. The full MSc thesis is available from the
Cranfield University Library on request. Designed using Cranfield University Academic licence Catia
V5.R10 and BAE Systems in house Catia V4.R24.

Introduction:- The inspiration for my Individual Research Project at Cranfield University was based
on one of the annual American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) sponsors a
collegiate design competitions, which was used as the requirements foundation for a new
Advanced Interdiction Aircraft. The request for proposals (RFP) for the 2001-2002 team university
aircraft design competition outlined a requirement for a stealth supersonic interdictor to replace the
subsonic F-117, the F-111F, and the F-15E Strike Eagle. The RFP‟s mission, payload, and
performance requirements and are given for the original AIA Nova in my Cranfield University
Section, the target cost was $150 million (2001) dollars per airframe, and this could be achieved by
using an existing proven airframe as the starting point, and from this grew the concept of
compatibility with the F-22A airframe, as a starting point.
The concept an aircraft I intended and started designing was in the TSR-2 class with 90ft fuselage
and 46 ft wingspan powered by two F-120 Variable Cycle Turbofan Engines akin to the early FB-22
proposals, to be called Nova AIA and built in modular form using autonomous assembly. I was
using USAFA AeroDYNAMIC MDO toolset for analysis, and used Catia V5.R10 surface / solid / and
kinematics, and FEA using NASTRAN/PATRAN through to preliminary design and produced a
modular airframe capable of modification from two manned crew to an unmanned type.
I am still in the process of developing this concept for a paper I intend to submit to the RAeS Air
Power Group in 2024 and the RAeS Air Power Group, of course using my more advanced toolsets
namely Catia V5.R21, and Nastran 2000 for the design and analysis, combined with AeroDYNAMIC
JD3 for performance analysis.
.
20
Cranfield University Concept, Configuration and Preliminary Structural Design Layout IRP.

21
The Nova Advanced Interdiction Aircraft as designed would have been 1/3rd larger with a different
wing planform, twin wheeled main U/C bogies, all internal weapons storage (no pods), a larger
weapons bay, and all moving ruddervators. This project is now the FDSA for the A&SPA(UK)
submit it to the RAeS Air Power Group Aeroverisety in 2024. Like the ATDA it has no BAE Systems
content at all based on public AIAA text books, design skills, academic knowledge. This project was
favoured by Mr Robert A. Ruszkowski, Jr, Senior Staff Engineer of Lockheed Martin ADP my LM
mentor.
However although this project was a two year study from concept to preliminary design conducted
by myself and in my own time, as my MSc was being paid for by BAE Systems F-35 project, there
was insistence for a project relevant to the F-35, so I developed the smaller single F-120 VCTE
powered, FB-24 / A-24 airframe which has commonality with the F-35C although larger and of
greater finesse ratio, with new wing and empennage, two crew aircraft. This was wholly designed
and analysed on my own student Catia V5.R10 toolset, my AIAA purchased AeroDYNAMIC, and
my own student NASTRAN / PATRAN 2000 toolset in my own home. Both the FB-24 and A- 24
would employ supercruise and stealth to reach time critical targets, employing the selected mission
profile, and with the F-120 VCTE would have loiter capability for targets of opportunity however the
performance would be similar to the SEPECAT Jaguar, the estimated cost of the manned basic FB-
24 airframe would be in the order of $75,823,547.00 to $95,000,000.00 for a 500 aircraft purchase,
depending on equipping, and the final report was submitted to the F-35 JPO LM, and cleared for
Cranfield University. The complete thesis for the Advanced Interdiction Aircraft is in Cranfield
University Library (access by request to BAE Systems).
Cranfield University Concept, Configuration and Preliminary Structural Design Layout IRP.

Table 1:- H of Q requirements for FB-24 to evaluate the importance of each AIA requirement.
22

Figure 15(a):- CU IRP FB-24 / A-24 Final down selected configuration side and front views.
18.70
CoG Most Fwd = FS 9.19
CoG Most Aft = FS 10.11
LG = 8.086m
420
53.50
Ground line
16.250 AI View angle
51.60 EOTS Fwd View angle
500
5.945m
13.722m
3.328m
A/C height = 3.79m
Tip back angle
23

24
Tip over angle = 71.90
CoG Most Aft = FS 10.11
CoG Most Fwd = FS 9.19
W = 3.328m
520
15.320
520
19.153m
Figure 15(b):-CU IRP FB-24 / A-24 Final down selected configuration plan view.

25
Figure 15(c):- FB-24 / A-24 Configuration Comparison with F-35, and JSF Submissions.
McDD /NG/ BAe Configuration completely
different planform lambda wing tails at 23°,
length 15.7m, span 10.7m.
LM /NG/ BAe Configuration different wing and
empennage planform, length 15.7m, span 13.1m.
13.722m
19.153m
GW/CU F-24 / A-24 common AIA manned and unmanned designed by
myself stretched two seat, high finesse ratio, stealth bomber aircraft,
70% CFC, length 19.163m, span 13.722m. Performance better than
Jaguar, but less than my original IRP concept for a larger twin jet.

BAE Systems F-35B STOVL Design Lead VT SWAT design trade studies 2004 - 2005.
Responsibilities:-
 Lead a small team to undertake a series of `near term‟ STOVL Weight Improvement studies including
new substructure and structural layouts using my original CTOL designs as the baseline, on STOVL
AFT Fuse, Horizontal Tail and Vertical Tail products, to enable selected design solutions to be
incorporated into the SDD phase airframe build as soon as possible, 30 trades studies most were
complex.
 To deliver results into Empennage team and AFT Fuse team, and ultimately to John Hoffschwelle (LM)
- JSF STOVL Weight Improvement Studies – Lead, to complete `near term‟ studies by March 1st 04
however agreed with John Hoffschwelle that this is CTOL personnel availability dependant, I Lead the
Vertical Tail SWAT team consisting of two designers (myself and one other, one weights engineer, one
stress engineer, and manufacturing engineer, I generated the original concepts and interfaced with the
team, and Aft fuse teams and fuel system teams to turn them into viable solutions, reporting weekly to
John Hoffschwelle (LM).
 After these trade studies I was promoted to Senior Design Engineer and was made responsible for the
design of primary structural components and build philosophies for all F-35 VT variants until 2007.
 The out come of these studies were design solutions enabling the STOVL F-35 SDD aircraft to be
completed and reach a weight within 10% of its target weight. I all so produced the detail design of the
primary substructure for the STOVL HT-7, and CTOL vertical tail designs which enabled the mass
production manufacturing to be handed to BAE SYSTEMS Woodford site of these structural
components. I likewise produced the detail design for the STOVL TVT-7 horizontal tail for the mass
production of these structural components to be handed over to BAE SYSTEMS Brough site.
 Following this work I was involved in the F-35 fuel systems design integration team on the Aft
fuselage before transferring to the Mantis UAS MALE program.
26

27
BAE Systems F-35B STOVL Design Lead VT SWAT design trade studies 2004 - 2005.
Figure 16:- F-35B, I was responsible for leading a small team and, conducting design structural
layout and materials selection, and systems integration trade studies to reduce the component of
the F-35B vertical tails which were co-ordinated and presented to Lockheed Martin and resulted in
the airframe coming in within 10% of target. Inset photo I am second from right with full VT team.
Vertical Tail component was
the main focus of my SWAT
design trade studies.

28
Figures 17 (a) / (b) BAE Systems Chairman's award for Innovation 2005 and the SWAT Team award 2004.

29
Chart 3:- My Role post SWAT in the F-35B Vertical Tail Engineering Team.

30
Figures 17 (c) / (d) My Chartered Engineer Certification 13th Jan 2006 and award letter 13/06/2006.

31
Figures 17 (e) / (f) My RAeS Membership 17th April 2001 and AIAA Senior Membership April 2010 .

31
I am third from left second row back before growing a beard.
Figure 18(a): -BAE SYSTEMS Samlesbury / Brough F-35 STRUCTURAL CERTIFICATION TEAM.

Responsibilities in the Combined Structures Certification Team 2005-2007.
I moved to the F-35 Combined structures on VT
design completion, I was responsible for
developing a structural loading test solution
for the rear fuselage and the empennage
addressing theses issues, involving extensive
liaison with Brough STF and LM:-
 What are we trying to simulate?
• Aerodynamic loading
• Inertia loading
• Buffet loading
• Landing and taxiing loads
• Pressurisations (fuel, cockpit,
intakes ……)
 How sophisticated does the solution
need to be?
 What standard of test article do we
require?
 How are we going to support the test
article?
 How are we going to introduce the loads?
 What systems are included in the aircraft
for test, bearing in mind this is a flying
aircraft subjected to proof loading?
Figure 18(b):- Proposed structural loading of CTOL test article.
33

34
BAE Systems Warton AS&FC:- Mantis MALE Structural Layout and Configuration Senior Design Engineer.
Following the completion of the F-35 design phase and as a result of my design work on the Terrasoar
light UAS I was assigned to the new Autonomous Systems & Future Capability group established within
BAE SYSTEMS to develop the Mantis MALE Multi-role UAS from 2007 to 2011.
At this stage of the only the requirements were known, so like Terrasoar the task was Concept design
through to first flight but the time scale was only 18 months, the Spiral 1 basic (releasable) fuselage
configuration is shown in figure 18. The Mantis MALE basic requirements were as follows:-
 Be fully autonomous and all electric flight control system (no hydraulics),
 Able to either be transported to a forward operating base or self deploy 66 feet wing span,
 Conduct long duration ISR and strike missions with precision guided weapons,
 Out-class the US General Atomics Predator A and B aircraft and incorporate advanced cost reducing
manufacturing technologies,
 Easily maintained with reduced cost of ownership over manned and competitor unmanned systems
(Reaper),
 Enabled export productionised examples to markets in Mid and Far east as well as Canada, Europe,
and Australia.
Initial concept and preliminary structural layout design was undertaken by the small Warton team of which
I was a senior design engineer, the design of the fuselage was retained by Warton for detailed
manufacture, the wing was subcontracted to BAE SYSTEMS Brough (contracted out to Slingsby for
manufacture), the manufacture of the empennage was also subcontracted to BAE SYSTEMS Brough.
Following completion of the test program I was responsible for production maturation.

My role in the design and structural layout of Mantis MALE (CDA) and Pre-Production Aircraft was: -
 Conceptual design of the fuselage and structural layout of the forward fuselage:
 Manufacturing design of the main load bearing advanced composite fuel tank:
 Integration of the forward landing gear and systems:
 Detail design and integration of structural components through to manufacture and flight within a concept
demonstration airframe:
 Configuration trade studies for the production aircraft for the UK and Export.
 On 31st December 2011 I left BAE Systems on VR as part of a mass redundancy program.
Figure 18(c):- Mantis MALE Concept demonstrator on test flight (Bing photo).
35
BAE Systems Warton AS&FC Mantis Structural Configuration Senior Design Engineer 2007- Dec 2011.

36
My last work prior to FDSA was an academic research consultancy project as a member of the
AIAA DETC, and RAeS S&M Group, involving structural design trade studies into the benefits of
applying the new PRSUES stitched composite preform structural design methodology to the
airframe design of large transport aircraft, starting with a baseline conventional large transport
structure as a control and subsequently evaluating more advanced airframe concepts.
The objective of this work is to contribute to the current studies of this technology, and to evaluate
the ability of current design and analysis systems namely Catia V5.R20, and NASTRAN / PATRAN
to accommodate this new manufacturing technology in terms of how new designs will be visualised
for manufacture and structurally assessed. Charts 4 to 9 cover the current research plan focusing
first on the application of PRSUES technology and subsequently on Mission Adaptive Wing control
systems to replace existing control surfaces reducing further weight and drag from current wing
designs. Figures 19 through 24 illustrates the full scope of my current and planned PRSEUS
technology applications research to conventional / advanced Wing and Tube airframes. The five
presentations of this project will be available in the profile employment section.
Also is included is the outline of my latest project the FDSA twin engined bomber concept to fill the
place of the FB-111, F-15E and B-1B, figures 25, 26 and 27 show initial considered configurations,
presentations will be available in the profile employment section.
Updates are published on my Linked In account URL: - uk.linkedin.com/pub/geoffrey-wardle-
msc-msc-snr-maiaa/75/a8/891/
Design Engineering Technical Committee Consultant 2013-to-2019.

37
A&SPA(UK), and RAeS, academic contributor 2020 to Date.
The concept design studies I have conducted for the RAeS and AIAA, and my current concept
studies for the RAeS and A&SPA(UK) are products of my own design work undertaken
academic licenced Catia V5.R21 toolset, and component structural analysis undertaken using
academic PATRAN / NASTRAN 2000 toolset, (applying the SAFESA approach), airframe loads
being derived from the USAFA AeroDYNAMIC toolset and classical calculation methods. These
are non profit academic study which allows me to continue research into advanced aerospace
technology, whilst maintaining my capability skills set to contribute to employment.
Figure 19(a)i:- My home study / office. Figure 19(a)ii:- The FDSA Option A Catia V5.R21 assembly KDM.

38
Figure 19(b):- Aircraft airframe design structural considerations.
Different Objectives - Different Configurations - Similar Process.
 RPV:-
 Long range:
 Loiter XX hours with out refuelling.
 Military Fighter / Attack: -
 Combat air and strike:
‫ח‬Z = 7.5g
 Passenger transport:-
 350 passengers:
 50 year service life:
 All weather:
 High reliability:
 Low maintenance:
 Damage tolerant.
Criteria:
Requirements:
Objectives:
 FAR‟s:
 Mil specs:
 SOW/PDS.
External Loads
Environment:-
 Pressure:
 Inertial:
 Thermal:
 Acoustic.
Configuration
 Internal loads:
 Load paths.
Analysis
Sizing.
Methods:
Tests:
Allowables
Certification
reports

Figure 20(a):- Overall configuration and dimensions of the ATDA baseline aircraft.
70.52m (231ft 3.3in) Code F
18.34m (60ft 7in)
11.51m (37ft 1.6in)
30.58m (100ft 3.8in)
O/A 75.87m (248ft 1.3in) Code E
74.47m (244ft 3.8in)
34.45m (113ft 2.4in)
O/A 75.27m (246ft 10.7in)
Fuselage sized for
twin aisle 9 abreast
2 LD-3 containers
5.99m (235.85in)
Section on „A‟
„A‟
„A‟
17.85m
(58ft 4.6in)
11.92m (39.136ft)
7.771m
14.154m
17.248m
39

Figure 20(b):- ATDA Configuration C of G, Tip back, and Overturn angles.
11.51m (37ft 1.6in)
75.87m (248ft 1.3in) Code E
74.47m (244ft 3.8in)
34.45m (113ft 2.4in)
17.85m
(58ft 4.6in)
Aft C of G 36.787m
C of G 36.089m
Fwd C of G 36.089m
Fwd C of G 36.089m
Aft C of G 36.787m
43°
57°
10°
NLG
MLG
75°
From analysis of the Catia Concept model Tip back angle = 10°: Overturn angle = 75°
40

IMPERIAL DATA. METRIC DATA.
Wing Span (ft / in) 231 / 3.3 Wing Span (m) 70.52
Length (ft / in) 240/88 Length (m) 75.88
Wing Area (sq ft) 4,375.49 Wing Area (sq m) 406.481
Fuselage diameter (in) 235.83 Fuselage diameter (m) 5.99
Wing sweep angle 35° Wing sweep angle 35°
Fuselage Length (ft /in) 244 / 3.8 Fuselage Length 74.47
Engine number / type 2 X RR Trent XWB Engine number / type 2 X RR Trent XWB
T-O thrust (lb) 83,000 T-O thrust (kN) 369.0
Max weight (lb) 590,829 Max weight (tonnes) 268.9
Max Landing (lb) 451,940 Max Landing (tonnes) 205.0
Max speed (mph) 391 Max speed (km/h) 630
Mach No 0.89 Mach No 0.89
Range at OWE (miles) 9,321 Range at OWE (km) 15,000
41
Table 2:- Baseline Aircraft Data for the AIAA study (highlighted data used for baseline).

42
Fig 20(c):- Design difference military thin wings use spar pitch to inhibit skin buckling.
As a Rule of Thumb:- The mass of the skins is in the order
of twice that of the sub-structure. Therefore where the wing
chord thickness is between 3.9 inches and 11.8 inches, it is
more efficient to increase the number of spars in order to
reduce the skin thickness an hence reduce weight. As the
skin section supported becomes a long thin section in the
spanwise direction which is more efficient at resisting skin
buckling. Although for highly loaded combat aircraft or
bombers spars are used in wings with root chord
thicknesses up to 15 inches in combination with stiffeners.
F/A-22 Raptor wing structural layout.
In military combat aircraft wing
ribs are generally limited to the
control surface attachments
weapons carriage and fuel tank
boundary stations.
<2.9 inch ~ SQUARE EDGE / TAPERED
EDGE (HONEYCOMB SANDWICH)
2.9 inch - 3.9 inch (WAFFLE STRUCTURE)
3.9 inch - 11.8 inch (RIBS AND SPARS)
> 11.8 inch (STRINGER STIFFENED SKIN PANEL)

Conventional laminated two-dimensional composites are not suitable for applications where trough
thickness stresses may exceed the (low) tensile strength of the matrix (or matrix / fibre bond) and in
addition, to provide residual strength after anticipated impact events, two–dimensional laminates
must therefore be made thicker than required for meeting strength requirements. The resulting
penalties of increased structural weight and cost provide impetus for the development of more
damage-resistant and tolerant composite materials and structures. Considerable improvements in
damage resistance can be made using tougher thermoset or thermoplastic matrices together with
optimized fibre / matrix bond strength. However, this approach can involve significant costs, and the
improvement that can be realized are limited. There are also limits to the acceptable fibre / matrix
bond strength because high bond strength can lead to increased notch-sensitivity.
An alternative and potentially more efficient means of increasing damage resistance and through-
thickness strength is to develop a fibre architecture in which a proportion of fibers in the composite
are orientated in the z-direction. This fibre architecture can be obtained, for example, by three-
dimensional weaving or three-dimensional breading.
However a much simpler approach is to apply reinforcement to a conventional two-dimensional
fibre configuration by stitching: although, this dose not provide all of the benefits of a full three-
dimensional architecture. In all of these approaches, a three dimensional preform produced first
and converted into a composite by either RTM / VARTM, or CAPRI (see Part Work Presentation 1
Slides 51-52). Even without the benefits of three-dimensional reinforcement, the preform approach
has the important advantage that it is a comparatively low-cost method of manufacturing composite
components compared with conventional laminating procedures based on pre-preg.
43
PRSEUS Structural element design derived from NASA/CR-2011-216880.

44
The fundamentals of PRSEUS structural concept as shown in figure 21 is to arrest damage growth
and enable a full fail-safe design philosophy to be adopted for major composite airframe
components. This study proposes to examine the feasibility of using this structural concept to
reduce the weight of the:- wing, fuselage and empennage large transport aircraft.
As conceived in NASA/CR-2011-216880, the PRSEUS was applied to bi-directionally stiffened
panel design, to resist loading where the span wise wing bending are carried by the frame
members (like skin / stiffeners on a conventional transport wing), and the longitudinal (fuselage
bending loads in a HWB aircraft), and pressure loads being carried by the stringers, I feel this
concept could be used to take the bending, torque, and fuel pressure loads in a conventional wing,
and also applied to tube fuselages and empennage of conventional layout. This view is supported
by a NASA sponsored Boeing stitched / RFI wing demonstrator program of 1997, which produced
28m (92ft) structure 25% lighter and 20% cheaper than an equivalent aluminium structure. The
highly integrated nature of PRSEUS is evidenced by figures 21(a)/(b), and 22(a)/(b) which shows
ATDA specific structural assemblies of dry warp-knit fabric core, pultruded rods, materials, which
are then stitched together to create the optimum structural geometry. Load path continuity at the
stringer – frame intersection is maintained in both directions. The 0º fiber dominated pultruded rod
increases local strength / stability of the stringer section while simultaneously shifting the neutral
axis away from the skin to enhance overall panel bending capability. Stringer elements are placed
directly on the IML (Inner Mold Line), skin surface and are designed to take advantage of carbon
fiber tailoring by placing bending and shear – conductive layups where they are most effective. The
stitching is used to suppress out-of-plane failure modes, which enables a higher degree of tailoring
than would be possible using conventional laminated materials.
PRSEUS Structural element design derived from NASA/CR-2011-216880.

45
Figure 21(a):- My design fundamentals of the PRSEUS airframe technology explored.
2 Rows of
stitching
2 Rows of
stitching
Pultruded
Rod
Over wrap
knit fabric
PRSEUS:- Pultruded Rod Stitched Efficient
Unitised Structure (Stringer).
Stitched
Stub Rib
Stitched
Stub Rib
Tensile Load
Tensile Load
PRSEUS Stitched
Stringer
HT Lower
Cover Skin
Induced crack defect
Damage
growth
A
B
C
D
Failure methodology
A = Damage growth initiated :
B = Damage arrested by PRSEUS Stringer flange:
B - C = Fibre split damage growth:
C = Damage arrested by PRSEUS Stub Rib flange:
D = Skin failure at DLL.
0ºSkin Fibre
Direction
0ºStub Rib
Fibre
Direction

46
Figure 21(b):- My design of examples of the PRSEUS airframe technology explored.
Load
Displacement
 Arrested damage enables fail-
safe design philosophy:
 Furthermore PRSEUS meets the
requirements of FAR Part 25:-
25.571 Damage - tolerance and
fatigue evaluation of structure
in that:- PRSEUS identifies the
principle structural elements
and multi-bay damage
scenarios, and validates
damage arrestment and residual
strength by test and analysis.

47
 All detailed parts were constructed from AS4 standard modulus 227,526,981kPa (33,000,000
lb/in²) carbon fibers and DMS 2436 Type 1 Class 72 (grade A) Hexflow VRM 34 epoxy resin.
Rods were Toray unidirectional T800 fibres with a matrix of 3900-2B resin. The preforms were
stitched together using a 1200 denier Vectran thread, and infused with a DMS2479 Type 2 Class
1 (VRM-34) epoxy resin (dimensions in mm). PRSEUS Upper wing cover skin stringer is shown
as a typical example, each stack is of 18 ply layup (0.21336mm ply) giving a ply stack thickness
of 4.0mm in the following configuration: -
Pultruded rod 0º
Each stack: - (-45º/+45º/-45º/+45º/-45º/0º/90º/0º/90º/90º/0º/90º/0º/-45º/+45º/-45º/+45º/-45º).
The stringer stack is overwrapped around the pultruded rod and the web is formed by stitching
the overwrapped stack together with two stitching runs 14.8mm from the radius ends to allow
needle clearance and any defects that the stitching. The flanges are formed from continuations
of the same stack and are stitched to the tear strip (same as a capping strip) with a braided
noodle cleavage filler. Two stitching runs secure each flange to the tear strip and skin, again the
inboard stitching runs are offset 8mm from the radius ends, and the outboard runs are 15mm
inboard of the edge. For standard wing stringers the flange with is 77mm and the stringer height
is 77mm overall shown in figure 22(a).
 The PRSEUS Coaming Stringers have an 18 ply stack layup of 0.21336mm ply giving a
thickness of 4.0mm, in the following configuration:-
Each stack: - (-45º/+45º/-45º/+45º/-45º/0º/90º/0º/90º/90º/0º/90º/0º/-45º/+45º/-45º/+45º/-45º).
Flange Stitching runs are angled at 45º inboard, and normal to the flange surface outboard. The
height is 126mm and the flange with is 120mm shown in figure 22(b).
My construction of the ATDA study PRSEUS wing skin stringers.

48
Figure 22(a):- My section layout of a typical ATDA study PRSEUS wing skin stringers.
Flange Stitching runs
and vectors
30º Chamfer of the Stringer
flange to reduce peel stress
Web Stitching runs
and vectors
Stringer Ply stack
Overwrap
Pultruded Rod (10mm Dia)
Lower Wing Cover
Skin Section
Tear Strip
C/L

49
Figure 22(b):- My section layout of the ATDA Study PRSEUS Coaming Stringers.
Web Stitching runs
and vectors
30º Chamfer of the Stringer
flange to reduce peel stress
Flange Stitching runs
and vectors
Stringer Ply stack
Overwrap
Pultruded Rod (10mm Dia)
Lower Wing Cover
Skin Section
Tear Strip
C/L

Composite Wings and
Empennage applied PRSEUS
stitched composite
technology.
All electric control system with
MAW technology and advanced
EHA actuation system.
Hybrid Laminar Flow
Control on wing
upper surface.
Composite Fuselage
applied PRSEUS stitched
composite stringers.
Natural Laminar
Flow on nacelles.
Advanced
Engines.
Variable Trailing
Edge Camber.
Wing aspect ratio >10.
Riblets on fuselage.
Hybrid Laminar Flow Control
on Vertical and Horizontal tails .
SOFC/GT Hybrid APU.
Positive control winglets.
HT Thermoplastic
composite engine pylons.
Thermoplastic composite
fuselage frames.
Belly Fairing.
Figure 23(a):- My Advanced Technology Demonstration Aircraft “Tube and Wing” 2030.
50

Figure 23(b):- My Advanced Technology Demonstrator Aircraft Project Work Breakdown.
Wing Carry Trough Box Structure defined
and sized ( section 7 wing report).
PRSEUS stitched
composite technology
empennage 2016-2020.
PRSEUS stitched composite
technology wing 2013-2018.
Automated Assembly of wing
structure 2016-2020.
fuselage frames 2017-2018.
Positive control winglets
2016-2020.
Composite Fuselage applied
PRSEUS stitched composite
stringers 2017-2018.
Belly Fairing 2017-2020.
H Temp Thermoplastic
composite engine pylons
proposed 2016-2018.
Wing Torsion Box Structure defined
and sized (section 7 wing report).
51

Figure 23(c):- My ATDA Port OB Wing section structural assembly model.
52
PRSEUS stitched
composite stitched ribs.
Additive Manufacturing
Technology (laser disposition)
Al/Li tip rib.
Additive Manufacturing
Technology (laser disposition)
Al/Li Aileron actuator
attachment ribs.
CFC Thermoplastic
resin spars.

53
Chart 4:- ATDA Project study structure task flow.
Task 1:-
Identify Future
Scenario.
Identify Advanced Structural
and Manufacturing Technology
Identify Advanced Vehicle
Structural Concepts
Analysis and Structural
Sizing of Baseline aircraft
configuration using
Advanced structural
technology.
 Weight;
 Performance;
 Fuel Burn;
 Field Length;
 Emissions.
Explore advanced
configurations using
Advanced structural
technology.
Task 2:- Develop Advanced Airframe:-
Task 3:- Assess Airframe
Technology Risk & Generate
Technology Roadmap to de-risk:-
Concept & Technology
Risk Analysis
Develop Technology
Risk reduction Roadmap
Task 4:- Reporting:-
ATDA Airframe Report:-
 Future Scenario Definition:
 Advanced Vehicle Structural
Concept;
 Enabling Technologies and
Roadmap.
Establish Missions and
Reference Configuration
The development and application of advanced
structural concepts, and mission adaptive control
surfaces to commercial aircraft. Estimated at:-
6,240hrs (15 hour weeks over 8 years)

54
DETERMINE AIRFRAME
CONFIGURATION.
DEVELOP BASELINE
STRUCTURAL LAYOUT
Wing size, sub structure
layout, control surface
layout, interfaces and LG /
fuel tankage integration.
Fuselage diameter, internal
structural layout plus
cutouts, and structural
interfaces with the wing,
empennage and LG.
Empennage size,
structural internal layout,
control surface layout and
sizing, interfaces with
surfaces and fuselage.
DETERMINE STRUCTURAL
LOADING AND LOAD
PATHS
Structural sizing of all
major airframe
components.
Detailed structural
analysis of selected
airframe components.
Chart 5:- Activity dependency for the design trade studies of the ATDA airframe.

55
Chart 6:- Activity dependency for the design trade studies for the ATDA report.
Work book 1:- Composite airframe design
Work book 2:- GSA airframe design
Phase 1:- Baseline composite / metallic
wing box, and wing carry through box
layout design structural component sizing.
Baseline composite / metallic wing
box and wing carry through box
design structural / weight analysis.
Work book 3:- Control surface kinematic
design analysis and sizing.
Phase 2:- Advanced concept composite
PRSEUS wing box, and wing carry through
box layout design structural component
sizing.
Phase 1:- Baseline control surface design,
structural sizing and operational analysis.
Advanced concept composite PRSEUS wing
box and wing carry through box design
structural / weight analysis.
Phase 3:- Future concept full composite
PRSEUS wing box, and wing carry through
box layout design structural component
sizing and weight analysis.
Phase 2:- MAW control surface design
trades, structural sizing, weight and
operational analysis.

STAGE 1:-DEVELOPMET OF BASELINE AIRFRAME.
Generate concept iterations for parametric
analysis using AeroDYNAMIC™ to give
sizing of major airframe components
against mission requirements, first pass
airframe structural loads drop.
Use initial loadings for preliminary sizing of
airframe sub-structure, integrating between
major airframe component interfaces and
installations (power plants, landing gear,
fuel tankage) as a Composite / metallic
airframe build to Airbus / Boeing design
standards meeting FAA / CAA design
regulations.
Produce a preliminary airframe design using
Catia V5.R20 and Patran / Nastran toolset, to
be using current manufacturing technology
which forms the baseline for the PRSEUS
trade study.
STAGE 2:- EVOLUTION OF BASELINE TO PRSEUS
STRUCTURE.
Using the baseline airframe for a twin
engined twin aisle long range transport
develop a PRSEUS stitched airframe
alternative retaining the same sub structure
layout and OML, to be produced using RTM
and RIM techniques. Analyse the resulting
airframe structure and compare with the
conventional baseline airframe in terms of
weight, complexity, ease of imparting
design intent to manufacturing.
Conduct airframe assembly studies, to
determine possible automated assembly of
major airframe components.
Conduct integration studies of proposed
mission adaptive flight control systems for
the wing and empennage, factoring these
into complexity and performance trades.
STAGE 3:-FUTURE CONCEPTS.
Apply the results and experience gained in
stages 1 and 2 to the design and
development of advanced configuration
airframes to maximise the benefits of
PRSEUS stitched composite structural
technology, advanced manufacturing and
automated assembly technology, and
mission adaptive control surfaces.
These airframe concepts are to be in both
single aisle medium range, and twin aisle
long range transports.
Also to be explored is the application of
thermoplastic resin matrix composites and
processing technologies.
56
Chart 7:- Development Stages of the PRSEUS airframe design for the ATDA program.

57
Chart 8:- Design Trade Study Project Milestones for the ATDA Project.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MILESTONE % COMPLETED.
PROJECT
YEAR.
ADVANCED WING CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY MILESTONES.
Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 1
Workbook 3
Workbook 2
Workbook 1
SEE THE ATDA PRESENTATIONS IN THE EXPERIENCE SECTION OF MY PROFILE FOR FULL
SETUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE DETAILS.

58
Chart 9(a):- ATDA baseline analysis using AeroDYNAMIC™ Jet Designer 3.
Twelve Disciplines: Definition
1 Customer Focus Determining the customer's needs and the priority which the customer gives to each need
2 Design Synthesis Creating design concepts that can reasonably be expected to meet the customer's needs
3 Geometry Modeling Representing the the shape of a design concept in sufficient detail that it can be analyzed
4 Aerodynamic Analysis Calculating the non-dimensional aerodynamic characteristics of the geometry model
5 Propulsion modeling Choosing an engine cycle and representing the variation of its characteristics with speed and altitude
6 Constraint Analysis Determining what combinations of wing loading and thrust loading will allow the concept to meet the ciustomer's needs
7 Mission Analysis Determining what fuel fraction the concept requires to fly customer-specified design missions
8 Weight Prediction Predicting the weight per unit area of the design concept's various components
9 Sizing Determining how large the concept will need to be in order to meet all the customer's requirements
10 Cost Analysis Determining how expensive the concept will need to be in order to meet all the customer's requirements
11 Optimization Finding the variation of the design concept that meets the customer's needs for the least cost
12 Performance Analysis Calculating the expected performance of the final optimal design, and comparing it to the customer's requirements
15,500km (9,631m) 370km
(230m)
45,000
ft
13,716m

59
Chart 9(b):- Desired Operational Profile for the ATDA aircraft concept design.
45,000
ft
13,716m
15,500km (9,631m)
370km
(230m)
Based on Reference 12 profiles.
Nominal Performance:
Standard Day:
Jet A Kerosene Fuel density:- 820 kg/m³
Revised Mission
Cruise
at
LRC
Mach
Changes:-
 Reduced taxi times:
 Optimised climb:
 Cruise climb:
 Loiter eliminated:
 Reduction in flight fuel
allowance
 Reduction in hold time.

60
Figure 24(a):- My ATDA Fuselage design build philosophy selected and panel sizing.
Fwd CFC Barrel Section
(B787 example).
Aft CFC Barrel Section
(A350 example).
Section 15 CFC Keel Panel
(A350 example).
Section 13/14 Crown panel:-
Area = 68.051m²: Length = 12.792m
Section 15 Crown panel:-
Area = 110.074m²: Length = 20.645m
Section 16/18 Crown panel:-
Area = 74.569m²: Length = 14.391m
Port Section 13/14 Side panel:-
Area = 39.176m²: Length = 12.792m
Port Section 15 Side panel:-
Area = 63.635m²: Length = 20.645m
Port Section 16/18 Side panel:-
Area = 47.865m²: Length = 14.391m
Section 13/14 Keel panel:-
Area = 87.734m²: Length = 12.792m
Section 15 Keel panel:-
Area = 92.423m²: Length = 20.645m
Section 16/18 Keel panel:-
Area = 94.923m²: Length = 14.391m
Analysis will be of Section 15 Panels initially.
(*Note Port and Stbd side panel dimensions are identical).

61
Figure 24(b):- My ATDA Fuselage design showing structural layout.
Note: - Section stringers omitted from structural layout
view for clarity.
PRSEUS CFC Stringer
Stitched to skin cleated to frame.
Section 13/14 typical
structural layout.
CFC Cargo bay floor.
CFC Cabin floor.
CFC Cabin curved aft
pressure bulkhead
120mm
100mm
Ti alloy Wing attachment
Frame C -section TYP.
Ti Wing Carry through Box /
Frame interface attachments.
MLG Bay.
120mm
100mm
Baseline CFC Ω - section
Stringer co-bonded to skin.
101.6mm
38mm 38mm
38.6mm
PRSEUS CFC I Frame C - section
Stitched to skin and bolted to cabin
internal structure TYP.
180mm
50mm
CFC Cabin Frames
I -section.
CFC Cabin floor
stanchions.
CFC Cabin
floor beams.

62
Figure 24(c):- My ATDA Fuselage cabin window line cargo bay sizing and spacing.
Window C/L 1,750mm above
cabin floor top surface OML.
Clearance = 5cm
Clearance = 7.62cm
1.62m
1.87m
LD3 Container.
VIEW LOOKING AFT.
Planned Passenger capacity 320:- 48 in Business
class 6 abreast (8 rows) and 272 in Economy class 9
abreast (30 rows).
Planned cargo capacity 36 standard LD3 containers,
or 11 Pallets.
The proposed fuselage PRSEUS and thermoplastic application design and structural
development will use Airbus composite fuselage structural design philosophy with a
Boeing style CFC barrel cabin / nose section, and a CFC barrel tail section.
Composite Fuselage skins
with PRSEUS stitched
composite stringers.
Monolithic back to back C- section
Thermoplastic resin composite
fuselage frames.

This is the design concept for a paper I intend to submit to the RAeS Air Power Group in 2023,
A&SPA(UK). and a frame work for a course for the RAeS Aeroverisety. The project is to cover the
first, three stages of the concept design process: -
1) Requirements capture: -
2) Design trade studies part 1, evaluation and performance part 2: -
3) Preliminary down selected design proposal and firm structural layout: -
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) sponsors a collegiate design
competitions (reference 1), which was used as the requirements foundation for a Future Deep
Strike Aircraft. The request for proposals (RFP) for the 2001-2002 team university aircraft design
competition outlined a requirement for a stealth supersonic interdictor to replace the subsonic F-
117, the FB-111, F-15E and even the B-1B and to augment the ATB (now the Northrop B-21
Raider) additions and modifications to this RFP have been made to modernize it as RFP - 997. This
study will use public source material which will be referenced to formulate the FDSA proposal
response and will not contain any ITAR or IP material it is an academic tool for use by such
institutions as the RAeS Aeroverisety and the RAFC Cranwell.
I will use USAFA AeroDYNAMIC JD3™ MDO toolset for concept performance analysis, and used
Catia V5.R21 surface, solid (CFC and Metallic structural layout and component design), and
kinematics, and FEA using Nastran 2000, through to preliminary design to the Cranfield
Aerospace Solutions Design Manual CIT/COA/AA0/1 Issue 3 (29/07/99), producing a modular
airframe capable of modification from two manned crew to an unmanned type, and designed for
autonomous assembly, and in service maintenance.
63
Future Deep Strike Aircraft (Thor.) Concept and Preliminary Design Study.

Chart 10(a):- Weapons System Engineering Concept strategy used in this project.
This design study will employ the Weapons System Engineering Concept strategy Chart 10 to
develop this study within the USAF structured capabilities - based assessment methodology taking
the study from concept to (theoretical) IOC. This enables evaluation by the USAFA for use as an
academic study, below is the Weapons Systems Engineer visualisation V-model to be applied.
64
Develop Systems
Concept, Understand
User Requirements and
Validation plan.
Develop Systems
Performance
Specifications and
Systems Validation plan.
Expand Performance
Specifications into CI
“Design - to” Specifications
and CI Validation plan.
Evolve “Design -to”
Specifications into “Build -
to” Documentation and
Inspection plan.
Fabricate, Assemble and
Code to “Design - to”
Documentation.
Inspect
“Build - to”
Documentation.
Assemble CI‟s and
Preform CI Verification
to CI “Design - to”
Specification.
Integrate Systems and
Perform Systems Verification
to Performance
Specifications .
Demonstrate and
Validate Systems to
User Validation plan.
Time

Chart 10(b):- Weapons System Design / Qualification strategy UK MoD.
65
Weapons System
Spec
Sub-System
Spec
Sub-System Design
Description.
Equipment Spec.
Equipment Design.
IMPLIMENTATION.
Equipment
Vendor.
Equipment Qualification.
Equipment Design
Certification.
Equipment Qual‟n Regs
Sub-System Qualification.
Sub-System Statement of
Design.
Flight Test
Aircraft Certificate of
Design
Weapons Systems Qualification
Process Plan. (QPP).
Sub-Systems Qualification
Process Plan. (QPP).

66
Chart 10(c): - Generic New Combat Aircraft Procurement Process.
Customer. Industry.
 Asses Actual and Potential Threats in
terms of Current and Predicted Military
Capability and compare with national
Current and Predicted Capabilities.
 Translate into an Air Staff Target or
Naval Staff Target (AST/NST)
document. Identify Performance
requirements, Numbers required, In -
Service dates. Generate Request for
Proposals.
 Contract for Development Program.
 Contract for Series Production.
 Contract for Series Production.
 Threat analysis.
 Gap analysis.
 Produce
AST/NST.
 Translate into an Air Staff Requirement
or Naval Staff Requirement (ASR/NSR)
document. Identify Performance
requirements, Numbers required, In -
Service dates. Generate Request for
Proposals.
 Produce
ASR/NSR.
 Development
contract..
 Production
contract.
 Support
contract.
 Produce costed
concept options &
Program against
AST/NST.
 Produce costed
concept options &
Program against
ASR/NSR.
 Development
program..
 Production
program..
 Support
program..
 Industry responds with a
range of concept options
based on on-going research
and development programs
with performance / cost
design trade studies.
 Industry responds with a
costed proposal / program
against the customers
ASR/NSR and a preferred
concept.

The basing and range factors were are based on the assumption of stealth or protected tanker
support being available, for all practical operational scenarios outside total nuclear war, the
fallowing assumptions will be made for this requirement: -
1) Tanker support is available:
2) The tanker force can operate within 500nm of the aggressors coastal defence envelope:
3) Next Gen Tankers KC-Y / KC-Z to replace the KC-10‟s and KC-135R will have stealth
characteristics will be protected by the LALDS for self protection this will be the first steps
against the aggressors A2/AD system:
4) Development of a new AHSAM / ASHPMM (Phantom) (WSC-87930) with a range of 1000nm
and carry either a Ultra - High Power Microwave generator, or Multiple Smart Submunition‟s, for
use against large fixed targets e.g. Airfields, BMC², IADS, and this will impart additional range
to the FDSA which will carry 2 or 4 internally over its combat radius in place of normal weapons
configuration:
5) The FDSA will have a large internal weapons bay capable of carrying current and future
weapons including Phantom(PCA)/(PEA) and the AALBM (Meteor Storm) (WSC-95401), and
will be equipped with modular multi weapon standardised interfaces:
6) Propulsion will be from two ADVENT derivative engines each of 45,000lb dry thrust and
60,000lb thrust with afterburner, with 2-d thrust vectoring nozzles, which yield 40% greater
range, 60% greater loiter time, and meet NATO airfield requirements:
7) The FDSA will be provided with a form of ALDS effective against SAM missile threats and AAM.
67
Assumptions made for defining the FDSA mission requirements.

The primary missions that the Future Deep Strike Aircraft must be capable of completing are
described below and through the developments in PGM, one aircraft will be tasked with multiple
targets Phantom and Meteor Storm details beyond OML / dimensions held in WSC‟s.
a) Penetrating Electronic Attack (PEA) ASHPMM, precision strike in all weathers day / night
against deployed IADS assets over a combat radius of 2,500nm on internal fuel (from the last
tanker contact). These will include S-400 battalions and command and control equipment using
the Phantom(PEA) ASHPMM this will afford an additional 1,000nm range and is carried
internally.
b) Penetrating Counter Air (PCA), precision strike in all weathers day / night against enemy air
bases using AALBM, over a combat radius of 2500nm on internal fuel, using Meteor Storm and
or Phantom(PCA) ASHAM, which will afford an additional 1,000nm range to target and is
carried internally.
c) Loyal Wingman Control and UAS mission tasking platform.
d) Penetrating Strike and Reconnaissance missions against fixed and mobile tactical nuclear
weapons sites, air - to - air support and self defence.
Full evaluation of these key requirements for the FDSA and how to meet them are evaluated in the
presentation FDSA Stage 1, in the FDSA section of my work experience in my LinkedIn profile. The
initial concepts are shown below and the systems integration and structural layout for Concept
Option A Lambda Wing Phase B is also shown from FDSA Stage 2(Part 1) with an overview of the
design trades between 2-d vectored and LOAN 3-d vectored nozzle configurations, evaluation and
performance data will be presented in the FDSA Stage 2(Part 2) presentation.
68
Future Deep Strike Aircraft Mission and Key Attributes Required.

69
Positive
Synergy
Interference
negative
Strong
Positive
FDSA AeroDYNAMIC™ House of Quality
Design Features Light airframe High AR Internal Advanced Stealth Advanced DEW Customer Needs
Customer Needs Weight Wings Weapons bays Structure LO Engines Capability Priorities Rank
Combat radius 2,500nm max 9 3 6 0 2 2 0 0.080 1
Stealth LPI sensors/coms 0 8 2 9 9 3 9 0.080 2
Internal weapons bays 5 0 3 6 3 3 2 0.060 3
Supports 2 X SHIELD DEW 100kW laer turrets 6 0 0 6 4 9 9 0.080 4
Acommodates two crew members 6 0 9 2 9 9 9 0.065 5
Damage tolerant CFC structure 9 0 8 4 0 8 7 0.050 6
All weather capability 8 1 5 5 5 0 8 0.080 7
Structural limit loads 50% fuel +7g to -3g 5 0 8 4 4 5 6 0.050 8
Maximum speed Mach 1.80 2 0 9 9 8 6 8 0.050 9
Stability meets MIL-F-8785B 3 6 5 0 2 0 6 0.040 10
Two adaptive cycle engines 60,000lbf each 4 0 0 4 5 5 2 0.063 11
Max Operational altitude 65,000ft 7 7 5 8 8 6 8 0.062 12
Combined mission with UAS as comand hub 7 8 5 9 9 5 8 0.080 13
Max instantanius turn rate 8°per second 8 0 8 6 3 2 5 0.040 14
SEP(1g)dry thrust 1.8M @50,000ft = 0ft/s 8 0 8 7 6 0 5 0.030 15
SEP(1g)wet thrust 1.8M @50,000ft = 200ft/s 8 0 8 7 5 0 5 0.030 16
SEP(2g)wet thrust 1.8M @50,000ft = 0ft/s 8 0 8 7 5 2 5 0.030 17
Systems commanality with F-35 6 0 9 8 4 2 2 0.030 18
Design Feature Priorities 5.916 2.274 5.275 5.518 5.296 4.122 6.047 1.000 Checksum
Target values 120,000lbs 6.00 15,000lbs 2035 0.008m² 2x ADVENT 2x Shield
Chart 11:- FDSA House of Quality ranking the importance of the RFP requirements.

Item / area. Design Requirement. Value.
Crew. Two pilots with single pilot operation. Weight 500lb (227kg) with equipment.
Structural loading.
Positive g loading.
Negative g loading.
Dynamic Pressure.
Factor of safety.
7g (50% internal fuel).
3g (50%internal fuel).
2,133psf (120kPa).
1.5
Fuel.
Self Sealing tanks.
OBBEGS Nitrogen Wash.
JP8 or Biofuel
Stability.
Static margin
Active flight control for unstable aircraft.
10% to -30%
Stealth.
Frontal aspect
Balanced RCS, IR, Visual, Acoustic, LPI sensors,
LPI transmitters, Internal stores.
0.025m² in 1-18GHz frequency range.
Operation.
Can be housed in NATO Hardened Aircraft Shelters.
Runway length.
All weather operations and weapons delivery.
Length 98ft max, Wing span 65ft max.
8,000ft (2,438m) max.
Cost
Max cost per aircraft fully equipped.
Minimized Operational Life Cycle Costs.
Maximum operational availability.
$250,000,000.
70
Table 3(a): - FDSA Operational Requirements from AIAA / USAFA RFP.

71
Table 3(b): - FDSA Operational Requirements from AIAA / USAFA RFP.
Item / area. Design Requirement. Value.
Performance.
Supercruise mission radius.
Specific Excess Power.
1-g Mach 1.6 @ 50,000ft Dry
1-g Mach 1.6 @ 50,000ft Wet
2-g Mach 1.6 @ 50,000ft Wet
Instantaneous Turn Rate, Mach 0.9 @ 15,000ft
2500nm
0 ft /s (0m/s)
200ft/s (61m/s)
0ft/s (0m/s)
8°/sec
Prime Weapons
load out.
 Phantom(PCA) AHSAM (Advanced Hypersonic
Stealth Attack Missile); - Length 25ft (7.6m); Width
3.5ft (1.07m); Height 3.5ft (1.07m); Weight 4,150lbs
(1,882kg); Range 1000nm (1,852km); Multiple
smart Submunition's.
 Meteor Storm ALBM (Air Launched Ballistic
Missile) both HASSM and NS configurations; -
Length 28ft (8.53m); Body Diameter 3.0ft; Weight
3,150lbs (1,430kg); Range 1000nm (1,852km) to be
launched at 65,000ft ( 19,812m) altitude.
 Phantom(PEA) AHPMM (Advanced High Power
Microwave Missile); - Length 25ft (7.6sm); Width
3.5ft (1.07m); Height 3.5ft (1.07m); Weight 5,250lbs
(1,882kg); Range 1000nm (1,852km); RTG and
UHPM 2 x Antennae's.
 Main Flexible Weapons Bay: - Length
375” = 31.25ft (9.525m); Width 114” =
9.50ft (2.89m); Depth 84” = 6.95ft
(2.11m).
 DEW Bay for upper and lower aircraft
hemisphere coverage to accommodate
2 X SHiELD turrets.
Engines Two XE-137 ADVENT with F-22 Vectoring Nozzles 60,000lb max thrust +/- 20° vector on C/L.

72
2-D vectoring nozzles ± 20º in the z
plane joint motion or independently.
Inlet Flow guide
vanes .
Auxiliary drive and
IEPP housings.
Augmenter section.
LPT section.
HPT section.
Floatwall
Combustor.
Bypass section.
1st stage Fan
section.
2nd stage Fan
section.
3rd stage Fan
section.
2-D vectoring
nozzles drive unit.
Compressor section.
VERTICAL
FOREWARD LATERAL
Fixed trunnion mount.
Free - sliding trunnion mount
for engine radial expansion.
Link – mount for
engine axial
expansion.
Figure 25(a): - My design Catia V5.R21 FDSA Concept Engine XE-137A 2D.

73
Figure 25(b): - Dimensions of the FDSA Concept Engine XE-137A.
21.691ft ( 6.61m )
5ft ( 1.52m )
4.33ft ( 1.3m )
3.67ft (1.12m) Entry
Fan Diameter.
4.66ft ( 1.42m )
1.37ft (0.42m)
Minimum exit width.
Dry weight 3,900lb (1,769kg)

74
Figure 26(a): - My FDSA Phase (B) 2D TVN aerodynamic layout trades.
My FDSA Option A
Configuration 1(B).
Top Side Plan View. Under Side Plan View.
Front View.
Port Side View. ISO View.
Length 103.38ft:
Wing Span 96ft:
L/E sweep 50°:
Wing area 3442ft².

Figure 26(b): - My FDSA Phase (B) aerodynamic and structural layout trades.
75
My FDSA Option B
Configuration 2(B).
Top Side Plan View.
Under Side Plan View.
Port Side View.
Front View.
ISO View.
Length 103.38ft:
Wing Span 74.36ft:
L/E sweep 61.2°:
Wing area 2275ft².

Figure 26(c): - My FDSA Phase (B) aerodynamic and structural layout trades.
My FDSA Option C
Configuration 3(B).
Front View.
Port Side View.
76
ISO View.
Length 103.38ft:
Wing Span 84.5ft:
L/E sweep 58°:
Wing area 2979ft².

 The development of a common fuselage for each wing configuration as was the method used in
the FB-22 study was viable for the FDSA and could accommodate a weapons bay of sufficient
size to accommodate the desired stores as shown in Stage 2 presentation, the adoption of
deep magazine SHiELD LAIRCM turrets with a substantial field of regard eliminated the need
for the two ASRAAM bays reducing weight and increasing tankage space, figures 28(a) through
(c), and figures 30(a) through (d) show final LAIRCM integration.
 The Phase A common fuselage for all wing configurations using the XE137A engine with the 2D
vectoring nozzle required a broad mid and aft fuselage for the spacing of the engines to yield
the required control for manoeuvre recovery without elevators or canards, and a substantial
drag and weight penalty, although body lift off-set this the finesse ratio was poor resulting in
creased fuel consumption, requiring increased tankage, increasing weight further and
additionally the wing span growth for option (A) configurations both in Phase A and B lead to
flutter in Phase A configuration 1(A) and high drag in Phase B configuration 1(B). The main
landing gear also had to be positioned outboard of the engine ducts as the engine thrust line
needed to be on the plane of the aircraft C/L for 2d pitch control of a long slender fuselage.
 The development to TRL-8 and MRL-6 of the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle system for
the XE137 engine as the XE137B (figures 27(a)(b), and its adoption by the customer has lead
to a greatly improved common fuselage design resulting from the much greater all axis thrust
control offered by this nozzle, hence the engine line has been raised and separation reduced,
enabling the main landing gear to be stored under the engine ducts. This rework of the common
fuselage has enhanced the finesse ratio of the fuselage by reducing cross section and
enhanced performance shown in figures 28(a) to (c).
77
Future Deep Strike Aircraft Design Trades (Stage 2) Key Results.

78
Figure 27(a): - My design Catia V5.R21 FDSA Concept Engine XE-137B LOAN.
Divergent actuators
Response to A8 modulation
Sync Ring Translation
Area ratio modulation
Thrust vectoring
Sync Ring Rotation
Sync Ring Actuators (4)
for Pitch and Yaw. Sync Ring.
Articulated Divergent Internal Nozzle.
Drive Rods.
Sync Ring External Nozzle.
My Low Observable
Axisymmetric Nozzle.
Fitted to the XE-137 engine based on
that tested by NASA on the F-15
Advanced Control Technology for
Integrated Vehicles, ACTIVE
Demonstrator and F-16 LOAN.

79
Figure 27(b): - Dimensions of the FDSA Concept Engine XE-137B.
21.61ft ( 6.59m )
4.33ft ( 1.3m )
4.33ft ( 1.3m )
4.25ft (1.29m) Sync
Ring Diameter.
2.75ft (0.84m) Nozzle
Exit Diameter.
3.67ft (1.12m) Entry
Fan Diameter.
Dry weight 3,750lb (1,700kg)

Figure 28(a): - My FDSA Phase (B) LOAN aerodynamic layout trades.
80
Top Side Plan View.
Port Side View.
Front View.
ISO View.
Length 104ft:
Wing Span 74ft:
L/E sweep 51°:
Wing area 2426.8ft².
My FDSA Option A Lambda
Configuration 1(C).

Top Side Plan View.
Length 104ft:
Wing Span 74.36ft:
L/E sweep 61.2°:
Wing area 2275ft².
Port Side View.
Front View.
My FDSA Option B Trapezoidal
Configuration 2(c).
ISO View.
81
Figure 28(b): - My FDSA Phase (B) LOAN aerodynamic layout trades.

82
Figure 28(c): - My FDSA Phase (B) LOAN aerodynamic layout trades.
My FDSA Option C Delta
Configuration 3(C).
Length 104ft:
Wing Span 75.4ft:
L/E sweep 63°:
Wing area 2940ft².
Front View.
Port Side View.
ISO View.

Figures 29(a) to (c) illustrate the integration of the nose landing gear and the final overall landing
gear layout.
Figures 31(a) to (b) illustrate the twin seat cockpit integration into the proposed structural layout
and general arrangement layout for the Pilot and MSO seats, control consoles, and duel side stick
controllers RH /L/H, sized for both in the 3rd and 99th Percentile aircrew.
Figure 32 illustrates the integration of Diverterless Intake technology into the FDSA airframe and
frame structure and the CFD behind its integration. This reduces the weight and complexity of
traditional supersonic door intakes as on the F-15, and aids in signature reduction.
Figure 33(a) illustrates the FDSA Option (A) common centre fuselage component integration and
layout.
Figure 33(b) illustrates Option (A) common centre fuselage structural layout.
Figure 34 illustrates Option (A) Common aft fuselage general component integration and structural
layout.
Figure 35(a) and 35(b) illustrates the Wing (Port/Stbd) Common External and Substructure Layout
for FDSA Option (A) Lambda Wing LOAN Configuration 1C.
Figure 36 illustrates final down selection configuration i.e. Option (C) to go forward to stage 3, with
the listings for major stage 3 tasks.
Figure 37 illustrates career aspirations based on pervious BAE Systems experience and academic
qualifications.
83
Future Deep Strike Aircraft Design Trades (Stage 2) Key Results.

84
Figure 29(a): - My FDSA Phase (B) Nose Landing Gear layout.
Folding Backstay
Retraction Actuator
Installation
Shock Strut
Assembly
Steering Actuators
and Piston
Lower Folding
Backstay
Down Lock
Actuator
Upper Folding
Backstay
Up Lock
Strut Brace
Backstay
Torque Tube
Trunnion
22” diameter
wheel / tyre
assembly
7.1ft (2.16m)
Nose Landing Gear Retraction.
Nose Landing Gear Extended.
NLG Bay wall / frame attachments
Shock Strut
Assembly
NLG Bay Roof Attachments

85
Figure 29(b): - My FDSA Phase (B) Nose Landing Gear Integration layout.
Nose Landing Gear Extended.
I/B Longerons form Nose
Landing Gear bay walls.
Nose Landing Gear Retracted.

86
Figure 29(c): - My FDSA Option C Phase (B) LOAN Landing Gear layout.
Landing Gear Layout.
 Tip back tail strike angle 17.2°
 Tip over angle 22°
 Wheel Base 58.7ft (17.89m)
 Wheel Track 19ft (5.97m)
 Main LG 88% GTOW = 102,080lbs (46,302kg).
 Nose LG 12% GTOW = 13,920lbs (6,314kg).
 Main Wheel / Tyre assembly Diameter = 32” X 10” width.
 Nose Wheel / Tyre assembly Diameter = 22” X 8” width.
 Ground Clearance 57” at GTOW.
Fwd C of G position Aft C of G position
22°
17.2°
58.7ft 17.89m
13ft 3.96m

87
Figure 30: - My FDSA integration of SHiELD SSL Turrets in Forward Fuselage.
Fig 30(c): - Basic Pulse SSL Turret assembly.
Upper Solid State Laser
Turret Installation.
Upper Solid State Laser
Turret Installation.
Beam Optics / Projector.
Turntable.
Drive Interface Adaptor.
RTG augmented power source.
Fig 30(a): - 500kW Pulse SSL Turret Mounting.
Fig 30(b): - 500kW Pulse SHiELD SSL Turret Mounting.
Optically Transparent EM
tuned Turret Covers .
Fig 30(d): - Basic Pulse SSL Turret covers.
Projector Housing.

Figure 31(a): - My FDSA Cockpit integration and Forward Fuselage Layout.
88
LO Structure Canopy Frame
(not sized).
Ti alloy Pilot and MSO Frames (not sized).
Flush Air data probes.
AESA Radar support Frames
for antenna area of 5.79ft² per
side and a total of 11.58ft² .
Two place Cockpit sized for 3rd and
99 percentile aircrew.
Gold coated canopy and CFC YF-23
type structural RAM frame.
Two ACES 5 Next Generation Ejection Seats
for Pilot and MSO aircrew.
CFC / RTM Longerons layout (not sized).
Ai/Li / AMT Frames layout (not sized).
Chine attachment
longeron .
Chine attachment
longeron .
Selective Frequency
pass radome.
Structural RAM Intake.

89
Figure 31(b): - My FDSA Pilots Vision in Cockpit Forward Fuselage Layout.
Flush Air data probes as F-22 / F-35 / B-2A.
11°
11°
10” (254mm) head movement envelope.
Pilot eye reference point.
Vision reference plane.
Fuselage reference plane.
Downward Vision
over the nose.
*Downward Vision over the nose meets USAF requirements of 11°.

Cone
Comp
Surface
Transition
Shoulder
Diffuser
Fairing
Cowl
Figure 32: - My FDSA Integration of Diverterless Intake Technology.
90
 Waverider-like “Bump” diverts boundary
layer using pressure gradient (Ref 7).
 CFD tool advances allowed for integration
into today‟s vehicles.
STEPS:
 Define 3-D Compression Surface From
“Virtual Cone” CFD Solution
• Early: Traditional Cone
• SOA: Isentropic Cone at a
 Develop “Centerline” Geometry
• Compression Surface / Shoulder /
Diffuser Fairing Integration
• Cowl / Ai / At Integration
 Integrate Complete Inlet / Forebody
• Forebody / Aperture / Duct Integration
• Real Aircraft Constraints
Compression
Surface
Intakes
Ducts

Figure 33(a): - My FDSA Option A Centre Fuselage Integration and Layout.
91
Frame 17 Fwd Ti
alloy Mate Bulkhead
(not sized).
Frame 39 Aft Ti alloy Mate
Bulkhead and TE Spar
attachment frame (not sized).
CFC Upper Fuselage
Blended skin (not sized).
CFC / RTM Fwd Inboard
Longerons (not sized).
CFC / RTM Weapons bay.
CFC / RTM Aft Inboard
Ai/Li / AMT Frames
TYP (not sized).
Port Ti Alloy FWD Ruddervator
Actuator Attachment Longerons
(not sized).
Port CFC RTM Main
Landing Gear Bay
CFC Lower Fuselage
Blended skin (not sized).
Port / Stbd CFC
Engine Ducts. PORT
FWD
UP

Figure 33(b): - My FDSA Option A Centre Fuselage Structural Element Layout.
92
Frame 17 Fwd Ti
alloy Mate Bulkhead
(not sized).
Frame 39 Aft Ti alloy Mate Bulkhead and TE
Spar attachment frame (not sized).
CFC / RTM Weapons
Bay Inboard Longerons
(not sized).
CFC / RTM Aft Inboard
Frame 18 Ti alloy LE Spar
Attach (not sized).
Ai/Li / AMT Frames
TYP (not sized)
Frame 21 Ti alloy Spar 1
Attach (not sized).
Attach (not sized).
Port Ti Alloy Wing Root
Attachment Longerons
(not sized).
Attach (not sized).
Stbd Ti Alloy Wing Root
Attachment Longerons
(not sized).
Attach (not sized).
Attach (not sized).
Frame 39 Ti alloy TE
Spar Attach (not sized).
PORT
FWD
UP

Figure 34: - My FDSA Option A Aft Fuselage Structural Element Layout.
93
Port Ti Alloy Outboard
Upper Longerons (not sized).
Stbd Ti Alloy Outboard
Upper Longerons (not sized).
Port Ti Alloy Lower
Stbd Ti Alloy
Outboard Lower
Stbd Ti Alloy Inboard
Port Ti Alloy Inboard
Ti Alloy AM Frames
TYP (not sized).
Port Ti Alloy Engine
Containment Tunnel
(not sized).
Port Ti Alloy Engine
Containment Tunnel
(not sized).
ECM / IRCM
Pod.
Port Ruddervator
actuator bay.

94
Figure 35(a): - My FDSA Option A Lambda Port Wing General Arrangement.
PORT
FWD
UP
LE Slat BMI Composite Internal Structure
coated with Ceramic RAM.
TE Inboard Flaperon BMI Composite Internal
Structure coated with Ceramic RAM.
TE Outboard Flaperon BMI Composite Internal
Structure coated with Ceramic RAM.
Wing Skins RTM Thermoplastic Composite Thk 30mm at root to 6mm at
tip. Coated with Ceramic RAM: Internal spars FP CFC (green) and Ti alloy
HIP (gray): Internal Ribs Ti alloy HIP. .
Flaperon Actuators and covers.
Transition Rib plumbed
for LO Fuel tank..
Underside View.
Top View.
Single piece Leading Edge Slat driven by four
rotary actuators.

95
Figure 35(b): - My FDSA Option A Lambda Port Wing Structural Layout.
HIP = HOT ISOSTATIC PROCESSING.
FP + FIBER PLACEMENT.
Frame 18 Ti alloy LE Spar
Attachment.
LE Spar Ti alloy HIP + 5 axis machined Bath
tub joint to Tip rib.
Inboard Spars 1 / 2 / 3 and 4 CFC C spar
FP, Tab attachment both.
Outboard Spar 1 CFC C spar FP Tab
attachment both ends.
Lower TE Spar Ti alloy HIP + 5 axis machined Bath
tub joint to Transition rib.
Upper TE Spar Ti alloy HIP + 5 axis machined Bath tub
joint to Transition and Tip ribs.
Spar 5 Ti alloy HIP + 5 axis machined Bath tub joint
to Root and Transition ribs (not sized).
Multi Section Inboard Actuator Support Rib with shear
attachments Ti alloy HIP + 5 axis machined. Bath tub both ends.
Root Rib with shear attachments
Ti alloy HIP + 5 axis machined.
Bath tub both ends.
Transition Rib with shear attachments Ti alloy
HIP + 5 axis machined. Bath tub to LE Spar.
Outboard Spar 2 Ti HIP + 5 axis machined
Bath tub joint to Transition rib and Tip rib.
Multi Section Outboard Actuator
Support Rib with shear attachments
Ti alloy near HIP + 5 axis machined.
Bath tub both ends.
Tip Rib Ti alloy HIP + 5 axis
machined.
PORT
FWD
UP

96
Figure 36: - My FDSA Option C Stage 3 down - selected Configuration.
Two place Cockpit sized for
3rd and 99 percentile aircrew.
Upper Pulse SSL SHiELD turret.
Stbd Single piece Leading Edge Slat Ceramic RAM
Coated and driven by four rotary actuators.
Ruddervators all moving driven by EHA actuator.
Port Inboard Elevon driven by EHA actuator.
Port Outboard Elevon driven by EHA actuator.
Pitch Flap driven by EHA actuator.
Low Observable
Axisymmetric
Nozzles
EOTS / IRST

97
FDSA Stage 3 in progress.
 Systems integration Avionics / actuators / sensors / defensive systems / Fuel / Payload:
 Structural sizing FEA Patran / Nastran representative structural components:
 Final materials selection based on structural analysis, signature and cost based on TRL/MRL :
 Manufacturing methods materials manufacturing and structural assembly methods based on
TRL/MRL.
 Chart 12 gives current progress of the Future Deep Strike Aircraft project.
My FDSA Option C Stage 3 Work Package.

98
Chart 12:- Gantt Chart FDSA Project Thor Aircraft Concept Design Study (11/06/24).

My future design career aims are within aerospace design.
99
Figure 37: - Career aims and objectives: - Permanent post in current and future combat aircraft airframe
structural design research and development and platform integration, applying my design advanced
manufacturing and automated assembly technologies experience, within BAE Systems (Air).

1) NASA/TM-2009-215955:-Experimental Behaviour of Fatigued Single Stiffener PRSEUS
Specimens: by Dawn C. Jegley : NASA Langley Research Center: Dec 2009.
2) NASA/CR-2011-216880:-Damage Arresting Composites for Shaped Vehicles Phase II Final
Report: by Alex Velicki et al: NASA Langley Research Center: Jan 2011.
3) Composite Airframe Structures: Conmilit Press Ltd Hong Kong: by Michael Chun-Yung Niu:
1992: ISBN 962-7128-06-6.
4) Composite Materials for Aircraft Structures second edition: AIAA Education Series: by Alan
Baker et al: 2004: ISBN 1-56347-540-5.
5) Airframe Structural Design: Conmilit Press Ltd Hong Kong: by Michael Chun-Yung Nui: 1992:
ISBN 962-7128-04X.
6) Project Thor TSR-3 Advanced Interdiction Aircraft Concept study replacement capability for the
GD F-111 still in progress.
7) Advanced Interdiction Aircraft: MSc Individual Research Project Cranfield University: By Mr.
Geoffrey Allen Wardle. MSc. MSc. MRAeS. C.Eng. Snr. MAIAA. Cranfield University Library.
2006.
8) Advanced Technology Demonstrator Aircraft (Application of PRSUES to wing and tube
commercial airframes): by Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle. MSc. MSc. Snr. MAIAA. MRAeS. C.Eng.
Design research for the AIAA Design Engineering Technical Committee and Royal Aeronautical
Society.
100
Current reference material in use for this presentation.

My Aerospace Design and Structures Career Engineering LinkedIn version Presentation.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to My Aerospace Design and Structures Career Engineering LinkedIn version Presentation.pdf

Similar to My Aerospace Design and Structures Career Engineering LinkedIn version Presentation.pdf (20)

More from Geoffrey Wardle. MSc. MSc. Snr.MAIAA

More from Geoffrey Wardle. MSc. MSc. Snr.MAIAA (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

My Aerospace Design and Structures Career Engineering LinkedIn version Presentation.pdf