Anda di halaman 1dari 83

MECHENG 4108

Aircraft Design Project

HUMAN POWERED AIRCRAFT

Marion Byrne Jesse Coombs Rebecca Mills Mai-Chi Nguyen

1141356 1147910 1113961 1141502

April, 2010

Executive Summary This project details the preliminary conceptual design of a human powered aircraft. The aircraft is design to win the Kremer Marathon prize by completing a specied mission prole in the required time frame. This report details the technical task, statistical analysis, preliminary designs of the aircraft components, weight balance analysis and technical drawings. The nal design features a high wing, large aspect ratio tractor propeller aircraft, driven by the pedalling of a pilot in a faired fuselage, and controlled with ailerons and all moving tail control surfaces.

Contents
1 Introduction 2 Feasibility Study 2.1 The Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Mission Prole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Competitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Regulations and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Patents and Intellectual property . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Financial Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Technology Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 Aircraft type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11 Technical Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11.2 Standard requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11.3 Performance parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11.4 Technical level of the product . . . . . . . . . . 2.11.5 Economical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11.6 Power plant type and requirements . . . . . . . 2.11.7 Main system parameters requirements . . . . . 2.11.8 Special systems and miscellaneous requirements 2.11.9 Reliability and maintainability . . . . . . . . . 2.11.10 Unication level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Literature Review 3.1 Successful Designs . . . . . 3.1.1 Gossamer Condor . 3.1.2 Gossamer Albatross 3.1.3 Musculair I & II . . 3.1.4 Daedelus 88 . . . . . 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 19 19 21 21 21 23 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 29 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

4 Conceptual Design 4.1 Power Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Available power . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Recumbent versus upright pedal cycle 4.1.3 Final power plant design . . . . . . . . 4.2 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Empty weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Wing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Wing span . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Weight Analysis & Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Sizing Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Size to cruise requirements . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

ii

4.5

4.4.2 Size to manoeuverability requirements 4.4.3 Sizing to climb requirements . . . . . 4.4.4 Sizing for human power . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Matching diagram and design point . Concept Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Concept 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Concept 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Concept 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.4 Concept selection . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

30 31 32 32 34 34 34 37 37 39 39 39 40 41 43 43 44 45 47 48 48 49 49 50 52 52 53 53 54 55 55 58 60 60 60 62 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 67 67

5 Preliminary Design 5.1 Wing design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Wing planform design . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Wing airfoil selection . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Design lift coecient and power factor . 5.1.4 Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.5 Moment coecient . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.6 Airfoil selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.7 The DAE series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.8 Wing Structural Considerations . . . . . 5.2 Empennage design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Empennage Planform . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Horizontal tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Vertical tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Tail airfoil selection . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Control surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Design of control surfaces . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Handling of control surfaces . . . . . . . 5.4 Propeller design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Propeller location . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Number of propeller blades . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Propeller optimisation . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Further Propeller Guidelines . . . . . . 5.4.5 Propeller design summary . . . . . . . . 5.5 Drive train design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Possible power transmission mechanisms 5.5.2 Drive train selection . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Landing gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Landing gear type . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Landing gear arrangement . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Landing gear sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 Shock absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.5 Braking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.6 Driven Main Wheel . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.7 Landing Gear Positioning . . . . . . . . 5.6.8 Final landing gear design . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

5.7

Fuselage and frame design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68 70 70 71 72 73

6 Stability analysis 6.1 Aircraft Centre of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Aircraft Neutral Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Static Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusion

iv

List of Figures
2.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.6 The Kremer Marathon Competition course (Royal Aeronautical Society 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Gossamer Condor in ight (Don Monroe 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . The Gossamer Albatross in ight (Jim Harrison) . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Musculair II in ight (Ernst Schoberl 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Daedelus 88 in ight (John McIntyre, 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum output of mechanical power vs total duration of exercise for various types of exercise : x- cycling, + rowing, - running uphill, *cycling and turning a hand crank (the around a symbol indicates performance by a champion athlete) (Wilkie, 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power requirements for touring bicycle, upright and crouched racing bicycles and Vector recumbent human powered vehicle (Hennekam, 1990) Wing area versus empty weight for prototype aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . Wing span versus empty weight for prototype aircraft . . . . . . . . . . Aircraft length versus empty weight for prototype aircraft . . . . . . . . Aircraft height versus empty weight for prototype aircraft . . . . . . . . Aircraft power loading versus wing loading for the prototype aircraft . . Matching diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Met area and design point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sketch of concept 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sketch of concept 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sketch of concept 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Airfoil shapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Airfoil Drag Polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lift coecient versus angle of attack for the three airfoils . . . . . . . . Coecient of moments for the three airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lift to drag ratio versus Reynolds number for various DAE airfoils. . . . Internal wing structure of Zephyrus (Campbell et al. 2009). . . . . . . . Internal wing structure of Musculair (Shoberl 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical tail dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drag polar for tail section airfoils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coecient of moment vs angle of attack for tail airfoils. . . . . . . . . . Thrust and propeller rpm vs. propeller radius for the E193 airfoil with Cl =0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimal propeller chord along the propeller radius. . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimal propeller twist along the propeller radius. . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual sketch of belt-driven power transmission . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual sketch of gear-driven power transmission . . . . . . . . . . . Sketch of the Bionic Bat showing the fairing function of the fuselage on the landing gear (Lloyd 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isometric view of the nal design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 18 18 19 20

22 24 26 27 28 28 29 33 33 35 36 38 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 52 57 59 59 61 62 64 73

4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 7.34 []

List of Tables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [] Prototype aircraft statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prototype aircraft wing loading, power loading and power index . . . . . Wing planform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Airfoil thickness and camber characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design and Stall characteristics at Re=600000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empennage Statistical analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Tail Planform design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Tail Planform design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Tail Planform design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Airfoil characteristics of the E193 and FX60-100 (Barnhart et al. 2004, p. 30). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum propeller eciency and corresponding thrust for the FX60-100 and E193 airfoils at Cl 0.5 and 0.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wheel diameters of human powered aircraft (RAeS 2009). . . . . . . . Horizontal distance between landing gears for recumbent human powered aircraft (RAeS 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions of the selected main and nose tyre (MBL 2007, p.3, p. 14) . Empty weight breakdown by component of prototype aircraft . . . . . . Empty weight breakdown by component of prototype aircraft . . . . . . 25 30 40 40 45 49 49 50 53 55 58 65 68 68 70 71

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Human powered vehicles have been an important part of human history for thousands of years. Before animals were trained to provide transport and well before the internal combustion engine was invented, people had to transport themselves under the power of their own muscles by walking or paddling a boat or, later, by pulling or pushing carts or by using machines such as bicycles. In the last century, human powered vehicles have undergone a revolution. Especially in rst-world countries, the use of human powered vehicles as sporting and recreational equipment has led to technological advancements in the realm of land, water and air vehicles. In particular, the 20th Century saw the birth of a new form of travel by air. The potential for an aircraft powered solely by human muscle was quickly realised however signicant developments in lightweight materials had to be made before the rst successful human powered ight could be made in 1961. Since then several human powered aircrafts have been made and own. In this report, a conceptual design for a human powered aircraft is developed based on a feasibility study, a review of successful human powered aircraft designs and power and sizing requirements. More detail of the design is then presented so that a preliminary design including technical drawings can be found.

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Feasibility Study

Human powered vehicles are largely the domain of hobbyists and interest groups. Due to the low power output of a human, there are many limitations associated with human powered aircraft, particularly range and reliability. This means that there are almost always more practicable means of transportation, even other human powered vehicle solutions, which are more attractive in a variety of ways such as cost, speed, inherent safety and ease of maintenance. Because of this, there has been almost no interest by industry in human powered ying vehicles. The upside of this is that there is little competition, while the downside is that specialised production facilities do not exist.

2.1

The Product

The product to be developed is a human powered vehicle capable of winning the Kremer International Marathon Competition prize, with the extension goal, of the vehicle being either capable or easily adaptable to also attempt to win the Kremer Human Powered Aircraft Competition for Sport. The Marathon prize will be awarded to the rst human powered vehicle, conforming to a number of rules, able of completing series of loops around and gure of eight (Section 2.2). The Sport prize will be awarded to the rst vehicle, also complying with certain rules, completing a course consisting of a 0.5km side-length equilateral triangle, under a mean ambient wind speed of 5m/s. The product is not intended to be sold, and so factors such as market environment and sales strategy are moot. There have been previous human powered vehicles that have been successful in ight, with some winning previous Kremer prizes. It is recommended that these aircraft be used for statistical analysis and benchmarking.

2.2

Mission Prole

As set out by the Royal Aeronautical Society (1988), in order to win the Kremer Prize, the aircraft must complete the circuit shown in Figure 2.1. Starting from the course datum line the aircraft must takeo, perform two laps of the outer, oval circuit followed

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2.1: The Kremer Marathon Competition course (Royal Aeronautical Society 1988)

by one lap of the gure-of-eight circuit and then two more outer circuits all within one hour. All points on the aircraft must be at least 5 meters above the ground when the aircraft is passing the course datum line and the turning point markers. The time taken to land is not included in the time counting but the aircraft must land safely to win the Prize. The radius of the turns at either end of the course is allowed to vary between 25 and 75 meters. This means that the entire distance that the aircraft traverses may vary from 41295.6m to 42867.6m. The historically documented diculty in controling human powered aircraft indicates that attempting the course with the maximum possible turn radius is a better choice, despite the increased range requirements. To complete the chosen, 42867.6m course within an hour the aircraft must have an average velocity of 11.9m/s. The design will assume an average velocity of V = 12m/s for surety.

2.3

Competitors

There are no known groups who are currently attempting to complete the Kremer Marathon course. However, there are other groups known to be attempting to win the Kremer Sport prize, including Virginia Tech University and their aircraft Iron Buttery, and Pennsylvania State University and their aircraft Zephyrus.

FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.4

Regulations and Standards

Due to the low weight of human powered vehicles, they fall into the microlight/ultralight classes, for which the regulations dier, between countries. In America such craft would be qualied under the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA), Federal Aircraft Regulations (FAR), Part 103 (FAR 103), for which no certication is required. In Australia such aircraft would fall under the Civil Aviation Safety Authoritys (CASA), Civil Aviation Orders (CAO), Part 95, Section 95.10. It should be noted that the Australian regulations are currently under review, and it is expected that they will be brought into closer alignment with FAR103. In the United Kingdom, the aircraft falls under the Civil Aviation Authoritys (CAA) Microlight category. The limitations to the aircraft according to the above regulations are summarised below.

FAR103:
If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds empty weight If powered, weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight

CASA Section 95.10:


The vehicle must have a takeo weight of not more than 300kg. The aeroplane is required to have a wing loading not greater than 30 kilograms per square metre at maximum all-up weight The vehicle would be required to be registered with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAA). The vehicle would be required to display a plaque stating Neither CASA nor the RAA guarantee the airworthiness of the aeroplane The vehicle would be required to display a plaque stating The pilot operates the aeroplane at the pilots own risk Another relevant piece of regulation from Section 95.10 with regards to the competition ight is that the aeroplane is generally required to y 500ft above ground level, except

FEASIBILITY STUDY

for when the aircraft is ying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the ight over the land at such a height; and at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person (other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane) and from any public road. Alternatively, written application to CASA to y a craft otherwise than in accordance with the ight conditions and the application must be made at least 28 days prior to the ight.

CAA Microlight
The aeroplane can have a maximum of 2 seats A single seat landplane has a Maximum Total Weight Authorised (MTWA) of 300kg A two seat landplane has MTWA of 450kg Wing loading at MTWA less than 25 kg/m2 or stalling speed at MTWA less than 35 knots (calibrated speed) Since the aircraft needs to be own in the United Kingdom to be eligible for the Kremer prize, the CAA Microlight regulation needs to be met. If the aircraft operates in Australia, the regulations in CASA Section 95.10 must also be met.

2.5

Patents and Intellectual property

Numerous patents for human powered aircraft exist, which includes complete aircraft which range from a xed wing type to ornithopters and helicopters. Individual patents for parts for a human powered aircraft, such as drivetrains also exist. Some of these patents are International Patents as well as patents for individual countries. In terms of intellectual property (IP), according to the Australian Patents Act (1990), the patent holders are granted exclusive rights to the patent and prevent others from making, using, importing, selling or otherwise exploiting the patented invention (Hood

FEASIBILITY STUDY

& Dibbens 2010). However, the rights that result from the ling of a patent is only valid for the country in which the patent was led. To gain IP protection in other countries, individual patents for those countries must be applied for. Alternatively, a single international patent may be led which will give protection in countries part of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) (IP Australia 2010). Since this project is a university course project, and the aircraft will not be manufactured, a patent is not necessary. However, if there is any intention for this design to be realised, then it is recommended that a patent is led for Australia and any countries where competitors are present (such as the United States) to protect this design, or a PCT application may be led instead. To be eligible for the any Kremer prize, the ight must be made within the United Kingdom under ocially observed conditions (RAeS 1988). Thus, a patent should be led for the United Kingdom as well.

2.6

Environmental Issues

Due to the vehicles human powered nature, environmental issues are minimal during the operation of the aircraft. No emissions will be produced, and due to the low speed of the aircraft the propeller, the noise produced is considered not to be a pollutant. The only expected environmental issues are within the construction of the aircraft and any maintenance materials required over its lifetime, as well as eventual decommissioning. Where possible, sustainable or recycled materials should be used for the aircraft, although it is noted that this will be dicult if the use of carbon bre materials is extensively used.

2.7

Financial Issues

Although the aircraft has no commercial viability, money is still required for research, development, manufacture, testing and transportation of the human powered aircraft. This is an important consideration as without nancial support, the project cannot proceed. For example the Raven human powered aircraft project was shut down before completion as an additional $300,000 was required for manufacturing of carbon bre components (Illian 2001). It is recommended that sponsorship from Universities, or-

FEASIBILITY STUDY

ganisations, private enthusiasts and manufacturers is found to fund the project, and the budget to be carefully managed.

2.8

Technology Required

Minimal structural weight is desirable for human powered aircraft. Thus, technologically advanced materials are often used to ensure that the aircraft is its lightest while still maintaining structural integrity. As a benchmark, materials used on the successful human powered aircraft, and more modern craft where more modern materials have been used. Materials with high strength to weight ratios are desired throughout the aircraft. Carbon bre should be used for the aircraft main frame and spars for the wing, propeller and control surfaces. Aluminium may also be used in low fatigue areas. Light plastics is recommended for the skin of the aircraft, and the use of balsa wood or foam is recommended for the ribs. Although new and technologically advanced materials can be chosen, the cost, availability, ease of manufacture, maintenance and repair of the aircraft components must be kept in mind. Since the source of income for the project is due to sponsorship, the cost of materials must be factored into the choice of materials. In previous university projects of human powered aircraft (for example the Iron Buttery), many of the components have been manufactured by the team members, thus, the technical level required to manufacture the parts must be suited to the skills of the people available. The repair and detection of manufacturing faults should also be a relatively easy process to ensure safety of the aircraft.

2.9

Risk Factors

The unique application and design of human powered aircraft leads to other design issues, namely the manoeuvrability and structural integrity of the aircraft due to the low weight required.

FEASIBILITY STUDY

A well noted concern of vehicles with very low speeds and relatively long wings is that when the vehicle attempts to turn, the resulting dierence in velocity distribution across the inside and outside wings tends to create a moment that causes the vehicle to overturn. Because of this particular care must be taken when designing the vehicles control mechanisms and surfaces. Another concern is due to the relatively low structural mass and large wing areas that are required to practicably achieve human powered ight that the structure itself will not be strongly resilient to the loads caused by gusts. To mitigate this initially, the craft will only be ow in times and places, where very low winds have been predicted, and only after on site testing of the present wind speeds before the running of the course reveals that it is appropriate, potentially while carrying a data logging and measurement system to check that the structure is behaving as predicted. Subsequent to analysis of this, ight testing during more appreciably gusty conditions could proceed, potentially repeatedly, until the limits of the vehicle are determined. Power system failure is a signicant concern for all aircraft. Being of great concern, the potential failure methods of mechanical power systems, and the resulting reliability that they ensure is well understood and quantiable. Using a human as the power source introduces variability and uncertainty into the systems performance and reliability. To mitigate this issue, only appropriately trained and t pilots will be allowed to operate the vehicle, and they shall be under strict instruction to land the vehicle before the onset of terminal power system failure due to fatigue or other issues. With the above mentioned risks, there is a danger to the pilot and people in the vicinity of the aircraft ight. Even though the aircraft is own at a very low altitude, serious injury can result if the aircraft becomes unstable or uncontrollable. Thus, it is recommended that the pilot should wear protective apparel, such as a helmet.

2.10

Aircraft type

There are three main types of aircraft that have been used in attempt for human powered ight: xed wing, apping wing (ornithopters) and rotary wing (helicopters). Each of

FEASIBILITY STUDY

these designs has advantages and disadvantages and has had varying degrees of success in human powered ight. In addition to the benets and limitations of each design, the major constraint of the low power output and uncertain ight regime requires a high level of technology as well as research. Although the Kremer Marathon competition only allows xed wing aircraft, the ornithopter and helicopter designs are also investigated for completeness.

Fixed Wing Fixed wing aircraft are the conventional design for human powered
aircraft. The method of propulsion is through a propeller that is usually powered by a pedalling motion, and is the most ecient means of propulsion in practice. Many congurations of the xed wing aircraft exist and choices include propeller placement, wing considerations (canard or conventional, high or low wing, biplane or monoplane) and pilot positioning. There are many successful xed wing human powered aircraft. The MIT built Daedalus 88 holds the record for the greatest distance and longest duration ight, which is 115.11km (74 miles) and 3 hours, 54 minutes respectively (FAI 2010). The record for the fastest speed over a closed circuit is 44.32km/h by the Musculair II (FAI 2010). Other notable human powered aircraft include the Bionic Bat, V elair, Gossamer Series, Monarch Series and Airglow.

Ornithopter An ornithopter aircraft consists of wings which undergo a apping motion which produces both lift and thrust, unlike a xed wing aircraft whose wings only produce lift. Ornithopters have some advantages over xed wing design, but also have many limitations. They have a high theoretical eciency, more lift and greater manoeuvrability compared to xed wing and helicopter designs (Chronister n.d.). However, the complexity of creating a apping wing has limited the success of ornithopters. For the wing to produce the lift and thrust, they must twist in the right location with a specic magnitude to produce the required angle of attack. This requires the design of the wing with material properties that allow the wing to twist. The principal shortcoming of a human powered ornithopter remains to be the physical capabilities of the human body.

10

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Several ornithopter manned ights have occurred with limited success, but were not truly human powered. More recently, in 2006 the UTIAS Ornithopter No.1 achieved a 14 second ight at about 2 metres above the ground which covered about 1/3 of a kilometre (Black 2006). The takeo phase of this ight was assisted by jet power. Continuing projects of human powered ornithopters may possible in the future.

Helicopter A helicopter has the ability to take o and land vertically, hover and y
backwards and laterally unlike a xed wing aircraft. In terms of the Kremer Marathon course, a vertical takeo can result in a shorter take o time and hence the aircraft will have more time (compared to a xed wing or ornithopter) to complete the rest of the course. However, there are many limitations with the human powered helicopter which outweigh the advantages. Compared to a xed wing aircraft, helicopters require a higher amount of power to operate for the same gross weight and cruise speed (Leishman 2006, p. 47). Additionally, there is a large lack of knowledge in the theory of human-powered hovering ight. This includes ow around the rotating blade, especially for counter-rotating designs, the ground eect and its eect on the airfoil and stability (Naito 1991, pp. 1-8). Structurally speaking, the loading on a helicopter rotor is high at the rotor tip, in contrast to the wing loading for a xed wing. This produces high bending moments at the blade root which the blades structure has to support. Despite the many challenges of a human powered helicopter, many design attempts and a number of successful hovers have been achieved. The world record for the longest human powered helicopter hover is held by the Yuri-1 helicopter that achieved hover for 19.46 seconds in 1994 at a height of 0.2 m (Sopher 1997, p. 32). To date, there are no human powered helicopters that have achieved forward ight and turn.

In conclusion, ornithopter and helicopter designs are not feasible due to limitations in their development. Even if ornithopters and helicopters were allowed for the Kremer Marathon prize, the required high endurance and altitude is currently not achievable with ornithopters and helicopters. The success of xed-wing aircraft for human powered ight indicates that this is the most feasible design in order to achieve the project objective. Therefore, it is recommended that only xed-wing style aircraft are considered

11

FEASIBILITY STUDY

for the nal design.

2.11
2.11.1

Technical Task
Introduction

There are currently two prizes available for the development of human powered aircraft through the Royal Aeronautical Society which were sponsored by Henry Kremer. The project base is formed on the challenge of designing a human powered aircraft capable of winning the Kremer International Marathon competition. The value of the prize is 50,000 and will be awarded to the rst human powered aircraft to complete a marathon distance course in less than one hour, under ocial competition conditions. The concept of human powered ight is an interesting research and development area, however it does not have a viable commercial market. Funding for the design, build and testing of the aircraft would therefore require sponsorship by Universities or private enthusiasts. Whilst this project is focused on designing an aircraft for the Kremer Marathon Prize, consideration will also be given to the possibility of then modifying the craft to win the 100,000 Kremer Human Powered Aircraft competition for Sport.

2.11.2

Standard requirements

The aircraft must follow the specic rules of the Kremer prize in order to be eligible to win the prize. The Kremer guidelines specify that the aircraft be classied by the F ed eration A eronautique Internationale (FAI) Sporting Code General code and part 11 for class I-C human powered aircraft. The Kremer rules require that the pilot of the human powered aircraft obtain an FAI sporting licence. Human powered aircraft may be classied as ultra light and therefore are required to adhere to the safety regulations and standards of FAR 103 for ultra light aircraft and the CASA 95.10 regulations. As the Kremer prize is based in the UK, the aircraft should also be designed to meet the requirements of the CAA microlight category.

12

FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.11.3

Performance parameters

The performance parameters of the human powered aircraft are determined by the specic rules of the Kremer International Marathon competition. The competition requires the aircraft to complete a 26 mile (42 km) marathon course in less than 1 hour. The course consists of two markers 4051m apart, and a datum line which is set halfway between the markers and perpendicular to the line joining the two markers. The course consists of two laps around the markers, followed by a gure eight and two more laps around the markers. A sketch of the course is shown in Figure 2.1. The recorded elapsed time starts when the aircraft is stationary and positioned such that the front of the aircraft is behind the datum line. When timing starts the aircraft must take o and complete the course. The elapsed time ends when the aircraft crosses the datum line after the course has been own. The landing time is not included in the elapsed time, however a safe landing must be achieved for the ight to be valid. The minimum height of the aircraft when crossing the datum line and the end markers is specied to by 5m. In order to complete the turns the ight altitude is determined, with the only climb parameter being that the aircraft reach this height in the 2km range from take o to the rst turn marker. The cruise speed is determined by the requirement for the aircraft to complete the course in less than 1 hour. Including the turns, the cruise speed is found to be 11.9 m/s.

2.11.4

Technical level of the product

The nal design is to be within or exceeding the standard of past competition entrants so that it may win. The technical diculty of constructing the aircraft is not of great importance (as the design will not reach the stage of commercial manufacture) however the design must be able to be built given available construction techniques and materials.

13

FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.11.5

Economical parameters

The aim of the human powered aircraft is to win the monetary prize of 50,000. In order for the project to be viable, ideally the monetary outlay on the project should be less than the value of the prize. The main costs involved with designing the human powered aircraft for the Kremer International Marathon competition include: Research and design development Materials and manufacture Testing Competition entry fees Minimum insurance required by the Kremer prize rules Pilot training and cost including FAI Sporting licence

2.11.6

Power plant type and requirements

It is required to design an aircraft that can be solely powered by the human body. This excludes the use of power from any other source (such as fossil fuels, solar power, geothermal power, wind or water power) but does not exclude the use of batteries charged by a hand-cranked electricity generator or any other mechanism with potential energy supplied by the physical exertion of a human. The competition guidelines, however, requires that no energy is to be stored in the aircraft. Additional energy is expected to be provided by thermal updrafts but, as this may be countered by any downdrafts, this is to be neglected. It is therefore required that the power plant be a human with physical tness and body type such that they are capable of producing a mean output of 225W for one hour. The power produced by the person will be used to rotate a propeller to provide the aircraft with the required thrust.

2.11.7

Main system parameters requirements

The aircrafts main system requirements are summarised below:

14

FEASIBILITY STUDY

The human powered aircraft is designed to have xed landing gear for ease of control and reduced manufacturing costs. As no electrical power is allowed to be stored on board the actuation of the control surfaces must be mechanical, through the pilots manipulation of a joystick type handlebar utilising wires and rods attached to the control surfaces The vertical and horizontal tails are designed to be all ying. Due to the requirement of the Kremer prize for the aircraft to operate with no electrical power storage, it is therefore not possible for the pilot to have any onboard avionics to determine ight speed and altitude.

2.11.8

Special systems and miscellaneous requirements

As this is an endurance craft powered by human eort, the pilot/power plant needs to be supplied with amenities to ensure he is capable of continued exertion. The aircraft is to include a space to hold enough liquid to hydrate an athlete competing for at least one hour approximately 1.5L.

2.11.9

Reliability and maintainability

The aircraft will only be required to y for an hour at a time between maintenance sessions. Although the operation time of the aircraft is low, the aircraft should be built to be reliable and easily maintained.

2.11.10

Unication level

It is anticipated that only one aircraft will be built and used for the competition. The aircraft should be design to be easily modied should it is desired to attempt the Kremer Sport prize. To enable modications to the initial design, the various components of the aircraft (fuselage, airfoil, drive mechanism, propeller) should be able to be individually removed and altered.

15

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review

Firstly, a review of the literature related to human powered aircraft (HPA) will be undertaken. So that the conceptual designs take into account the specic qualities that will ensure a capable human powered aircraft, the details of some of the most successful HPAs will also be given. The literature relating to human powered ight, and in particular those previously successful designs of human powered aircraft, has been reviewed. This will include an examination of the market for which HPA are designed. The purpose of the review is to uncover those aspects of aircraft design peculiar to the human powered aircraft and to gain an understanding of the state of the art in HPA design to ensure the conceptual designs generated are able to be competitive to the level required by the technical task.

3.1

Successful Designs

In this section, previously successful designs of human powered aircraft are introduced. Those with performance features relevant to the endurance design considered in this report are expanded on and described in detail. Attempts to make successful human powered aircraft have been made since early last century. Many of the early attempts at human powered ight involved catapult or, in the case of the 1935 HV-1 Mufti, tensioned cables to assist in launch rather than takeo solely under the power of a human being. The rst ocially veried ight of a strictly human powered aircraft was that of Southampton Universitys SUMPAC which ew 650m in 1961. After this, various HPAs (such as the Pun, Liverpun and Jupiter aircraft) were constructed to y distances of about 1km but the Kremer Prize of 500,000 for a ight of 1 mile around a gure-of-eight course was won in August 1997 by AeroVironment Incs Gossamer Condor. This success was followed by the variant aircraft Gossamer Albatross which won the second Kremer Prize for crossing the English Channel under human power in June 1969. The next Kremer Prize to be awarded was the speed prize which was given to MITs Monarch HPA in May 1984 for completing a 1.5km triangular course in under 3 minutes. The Monarch included batteries previ-

16

LITERATURE REVIEW

ously charged by the action of the pilot as a source of extra energy during its ight. The same Kremer sports prize was awarded to the non-US Musculair I in 1984. An aircraft that was not built with the Kremer Prizes in mind but instead a long-range ight to pay homage to the Greek human powered ight myth of Icarus whos father Daedelus is said to have built him wings to y from the island of Crete to the mainland was MITs Daedelus. It holds the F ed eration A eronautique Internationale (FAI) record for the longest time and distance own under human power. Next, some of the design details of these successful human powered aircraft will be discussed.

3.1.1

Gossamer Condor

This aircraft won the rst Kremer prize by taking a novel approach to solving the problem of the very low power to weight ratio possible when using a human to power an aircraft. The design was not based on a sailplane but instead took many of its features from the design of hang-gliders. The conguration can be seen in Figure 3.2. A very large wing area produced more lift at a very slow speed so that the drag penalty imposed by the wire bracing needed for structural support was negated (Drela 1990, pg 101). The aircraft was controlled by a canard control surface and the pilot, in a reclined position, powered the pusher propeller. Roll was controlled by wing warping rather than ailerons which, at the time, would have used too much weight. The wing spars were made of aluminium and the rest of the aircraft was mostly lightweight plastics.

3.1.2

Gossamer Albatross

This aircraft won the second Kremer prize, for crossing the English channel 35.82km in 2 hours and 49 minutes. Like its predecessor, the Gossamer Condor, the Gossamer Albatross was controlled by a large horizontal canard stabiliser. Its large, high aspect ratio wings had backward sweep and their external bracing was also used to warp the wing giving them the twist required to control the aircrafts roll. The wing ribs are made of polystyrene foam, the rest of the aircrafts frame is made of carbon bre which all is covered in a mylar skin.

17

LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 3.2: The Gossamer Condor in ight (Don Monroe 1977)

Figure 3.3: The Gossamer Albatross in ight (Jim Harrison)

18

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1.3

Musculair I & II

Between them, these two aircraft won three Kremer prizes based on their speed and agility. The aircraft had a conventional empennage with pusher propellor behind the tail, monoplane, high wing conguration. To achieve the requried maneouverability the Musculair I had a very small wing area only 16m2 (Roper 1995, p. 231). The Musculair I incorporated stored human energy in batteries to help the pilot achieve the required speeds however the Musculair II (Figure 3.4) was able to improve on the previous Kremer prize speed by 15%, winning another prize.

Figure 3.4: The Musculair II in ight (Ernst Schoberl 1985)

3.1.4

Daedelus 88

A benchmark marathon HPA was MITs Daedelus 88 shown in ight in Figure 3.5. in 1988 this aircraft was own entirely on the power of one pilot from the island of Crete to mainland Greece, a total distance of 74 miles, in 3 hours and 54 minutes. The design of this aircraft contributed a great deal of knowledge about the ight requriements of

19

LITERATURE REVIEW

human powered aircraft. In particular, Drela (1988), designed a new set of airfoil proles (the LE and DAE series) for the Daedelus and its prototype (the Light Eagle ) specically tuned for maximum eciency at the low speed and so low Reynolds numbers of human powered ight. These airfoils were incorporated in the Daedelus very high aspect ratio wings made of very light but strong materials: carbon bre spars with polystyrene ribs covered in a Mylar skin (McIntyre 1988, p. 2). The high aspect ratio meant that the wings required wire bracing.The long, slow, straight ight required from the Daedelus meant that no ailerons were required for its control all steering was achieved by the all-moving rudder and elevator, arranged in conventional tail conguration. Bevel gears were used to transfer the pilots pedalling power to the tractor-conguration propeller.

Figure 3.5: The Daedelus 88 in ight (John McIntyre, 1988)

20

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Conceptual Design

Three conceptual designs for a human powered aircraft are developed. These will be based on probable pilot power, a statistical analysis of the features of successful previous (prototype) designs as well as theoretical weight analysis and required aircraft sizing considerations.

4.1

Power Plant

The requirements of the Kremer International Marathon competition is that the aircraft is to be propelled entirely by human power, with no use of devices for either storage or supply of additional power. In order to achieve these requirements, the concept of converting human work to mechanical power must be investigated to determine the capability of man to produce sucient power to complete the marathon course over the one hour time frame.

4.1.1

Available power

The human muscle converts chemical energy obtained from the oxidation of carbohydrates and glycogen and the conversion of fatty acids into CO2 and water, into mechanical energy at an eciency of approximately 20-25% (Wilkie, 1960). This means that for a total metabolic work of 100 watts, approximately 76 watts go to body heat, leaving 24 watts of usable mechanical power (Bussolari & Nadel, 1989). Figure 4.6 shows that for longer durations of exercise, the constant power output levels out. It was found that for the long duration human powered ight of the Daedalus, the maximum power per kg of human was approximately 3.5 W/kg. Basing the design on a 68kg pilot, and allowing for a reduction in total output power due to the required manoeuvrability, it was found through the matching diagram that the design W/P ratio is 0.44 kg/W, resulting in 225 Watts of power produced. The pedal cycle conguration is a mechanically simple design which can be adjusted for dierent durations, and can achieve the best use of kinetic energy of the moving legs. Whilst power is only obtained through leg movement, the muscle mass of the legs is

21

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Figure 4.6: Maximum output of mechanical power vs total duration of exercise for various types of exercise : x- cycling, + rowing, - running uphill, *- cycling and turning a hand crank (the around a symbol indicates performance by a champion athlete) (Wilkie, 1960)

22

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

large enough to utilise all of the oxygen which can be absorbed therefore making it more ecient over longer durations than exercise congurations which use both the arms and legs such as rowing, or cycling and turning a crank shaft. The rowing conguration involves a sliding seat, and utilises both arms and legs to create mechanical work. This is shown to be a good method of creating mechanical work for durations longer than 3 minutes, however it requires the use of a larger muscle mass for a similar power output to cycling, and therefore has a lower mechanical conversion eciency. In a human powered aircraft it is also required that the pilots have their arms available for controlling the steering of the aircraft around the turns and for controlling level ight stability. The Musculair projects required that the pilot be almost completely immobile above the hips to maintain precise control of the aircraft (Schoberl), therefore the rowing conguration would be ineective for the required ight manoeuvrability. The chosen conguration, therefore, is the pedal cycle for converting human mechanical power.

4.1.2

Recumbent versus upright pedal cycle

Design of the Marathon Eagle (Bliesner, 1994) has suggested that the upright position is more ecient for obtaining peak power levels, however the recumbent cycling position is desirable for minimum aerodynamic drag and the lower aspect ratio is less prone to losses due to sideslip. The recumbent position also allows for more upper body freedom of movement to use the ight controls (Bussolari and Nadel, 1989). Investigations into the on road cycling congurations of human powered vehicles have compared the standard upright position to the aerodynamic recumbent position. Figure 4.7 indicates that in order to achieve the same on road speed, the recumbent human powered vehicle required a much lower power/weight output than the conventional cycle designs, whilst also providing greater back support and therefore increased ride comfort for longer duration use.

23

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Figure 4.7: Power requirements for touring bicycle, upright and crouched racing bicycles and Vector recumbent human powered vehicle (Hennekam, 1990)

24

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

4.1.3

Final power plant design

The decision was made to utilise the recumbent bicycle conguration for the power plant of the human powered aircraft. In order for the pilot to maintain better control and visibility while still having full lower back support and a smaller, more aerodynamic frontal area, a semi-recumbent bicycle position was chosen. The pilot is chosen to be a 70kg athlete, with the requirement to deliver 225 Watts of power to maintain the desired ight speed of 11.9 m/s over the marathon distance and one hour duration.

4.2

Statistical Analysis

Several HPAs are treated as prototypes for the aircraft to be designed here. The details of the prototypes design specications, including empty weight, maximum speed, wing loading and span and height and length dimensions, are graphed to create an easy reference for the likely success of the conceptual designs presented in Section 4.5. The data is listed in Table 1. Table 1: Prototype aircraft statistics

AIRCRAFT Gossamer Condor 1 Gossamer Albatross2 SUMPAC3 Iron Buttery4 Raven5 Daedelus 886 Musculair 17 Musculair 27 V elair 887 V elair 897 Monarch8
1 5

empty weight (kg) 31.75 32 58.97 97.5 40.8 31 28 25 37.9 30.5 32.66

wing area (m2 ) 74.32 45.34 27.9 16.7 30.8 16.5 11.7 16.4 17 16.54

span (m) 29.25 29.77 24.4 18.3 35 34 22 19.5 21.7 23.2 18.75

length (m) 9.14 10.36 7.61 6.0 9.1 7.92 7.2 8.4
4

height (m) 5.47 4.88 3.96 3.35 1.83 2.2 1.5 3.4

Taylor (1978), 2 Moulton, Cowley & Lloyd (1979), 3 Southampton Hall of Aviation (viewed 2010), Illian et al. (2008), 6 McIntyre (1988), 7 Frank (2005), 8 McIntyre (2007).

Emory et al. (2005)

25

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

4.2.1

Empty weight

The empty weights of the prototype aircrafts range from 25kg to 66 kg with the majority around 30kg. For the purpose of the initial design sizing, an empty weight of 30kg will be assumed.

4.2.2

Wing area

The wing areas of the prototype aircraft are shown in Figure 4.8. Note that the more maneouverable aircraft such as the Musculair 1 and 2 and the V elair 88 have smaller wing areas (about 17m2 ) while the endurance aircraft, in particular the Gossamer and Daedelus models have much higher wing areas. Although this aircraft is to be designed for the Kremer marathon prize, it will have to be more manoueverable than the longdistance prototype aircrafts so should have a wing area between the two extremes around 20m2 .

Figure 4.8: Wing area versus empty weight for prototype aircraft

26

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

4.2.3

Wing span

The prototype aircraft have spans between 15m and 35m so a preliminary estimate of 30m will be taken for the aircrafts wing span. Note that the Iron Buttery, in Figure 4.9, has a high weight but low wing span because it is a box-wing design in order to provide a large wing surface area and so the requried lift.

Figure 4.9: Wing span versus empty weight for prototype aircraft

4.2.4

Dimensions

The lengths and heights of the prototype aircraft are shown in Figures 4.10 and 4.11, respectively. These will be used as a guide to the overall size of the aircraft for conguration purposes.

4.3

Weight Analysis & Sensitivity

The weight of a human powered aircraft will not change during the ight as there is no fuel to be burned. Competition rules also state that no payload is to be jettisoned from the aircraft. The design will assume an initial estimate for empty weight or 30kg based on the prototype weight values and a pilot weight of 70kg thus a takeo and landing

27

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Figure 4.10: Aircraft length versus empty weight for prototype aircraft

Figure 4.11: Aircraft height versus empty weight for prototype aircraft

28

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

weight of 100kg. The takeo weight of the aircraft is, therefore, directly sensitive to increases in the weight of any component. For example, the sensitivity to pilot weight is WT O = 1 kg/kg. Wpilot (4.1)

4.4

Sizing Analysis

Because this aircraft will operate very close to ground level, throughout this analysis the pressure correction factor ( = p/pref ) is set to 1. Unless otherwise stated, units are imperial so (W/S ) is in lb/ft2 and W/P is in lb/hp. Statistics were gathered to determine the general range for the wing loading (W/S), power loading (W/P) and power index (IP ) of a HPA. These are shown in Figure 4.12 and in Table 2 where the power index is calculated IP =
3

(W/S ) . (W/P )

(4.2)

Figure 4.12: Aircraft power loading versus wing loading for the prototype aircraft

29

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Table 2: Prototype aircraft wing loading, power loading and power index

AIRCRAFT Gossamer Condor Gossamer Albatross Iron Buttery Daedelus 88 Musculair 1 V elair 88 V elair 89 Bionic Bat Average

W/S (lbs/ft2 ) 0.2375 0.3904 1.863 0.5681 1.023 1.153 1.023 1.019 0.9097

W/P (lbs/hp) 472 474 624 702 484 675 621 478 566

IP (hp1/3 /ft2/3 ) 0.0795 0.0938 0.1440 0.0932 0.1283 0.1196 0.1181 0.1287 0.1131

Based on these statistics and the airfoil selection made in Section ??, size limits can be placed on the wing and power loadings of the aircraft.

4.4.1

Size to cruise requirements

The average value for the power index has been found, using statistical analysis, to be 0.1131. Equation 4.2 can then be rearranged to relate the maximum power loading possible during cruise for a given wing loading. W P
3 = IP cruise

W S

= 690.4

W S

lb/hp.

(4.3)

4.4.2

Size to manoeuverability requirements

So that the aircraft can maintain an average velocity of V = 12m/s, it must be able to = 0.05 radians per second. This complete the 180 end turns with sustained turn rate turn rate can also be expressed in terms of the wing loading, = g V (W/S ) 0.5V 2 CL W S
2

(4.4)

where g = 32.2ft/s2 is gravitational accelleration, CL = 1.057 is the wings lift coecient and = 0.076lb/ft3 is standard, sea-level density.

30

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Equation 4.4 can be rearranged to nd the lowest allowable wing loading for manoeuverabitily. W S =
turnrate

0.5V 2 CL /g + 1 V

= 0.381 lb/ft .

(4.5)

4.4.3

Sizing to climb requirements

The Kremer Prize requires that all of the aircraft must be above 5m altitude at the course datum line and the turning point markers. During the R = 75m radius turns a bank angle of = arctan V2 gR = 11 (4.6)

is required. Assuming a statistically reasonable wingspan of 30m, the centre of the wings would have to reach an altitude of h = 5 + (30/2)sin() = 7.9m by the turning point marker after taking o in order to satisfy the Kremer altitude requirements. It is also assumed that there is a takeo distance of around 600m long because of the friction between ground and aircraft and the low power available to a human. This makes the climb gradient that the aircraft must therefore have CGR = 7.9 = 5.43 103 . 4051/2 600 (4.7)

The corresponding rate of climb, for average velocity V = 12m/s is, then, RC = CGR V = 0.0652 m/s. (4.8)

Climb gradient sizing Using the values for lift coecient (CL = 1.057) and lift
to drag ratio (L/D = 175) determined by the airfoil selection, the relationship between wing loading and the corresponding maximum power loading can be calculated. First the climb gradient parameter is CGRP = CGR + (L/D)1 CL
1/2

= 0.0108

(4.9)

and so, assuming a propeller eciency of about P = 0.9, W P =


CGR

18.97P = 1575 CGRP (W/S )1/2

W S

1/2

lb/hp.

(4.10)

31

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Rate of climb sizing A similar expression can be found for the maximum power
loading at a given wing loading based on the rate of climb parameter (with appropriate unit conversion) RCP = 196.85RC = 3.89 104 . 33000
3/2

(4.11)

So the power loading can be calculated, knowing the airfoil has (CL /CD0 )max = 180.8, as W P = P
RC

RCP +

(W/S )1/2
3/2 19(CL /CD0 )

= 2314 +

3435 lb/hp. (W/S )1/2

(4.12)

4.4.4

Sizing for human power

Shenstone (1960, p. 473) requires that the power loading of a human powered aircraft be related to its wing loading by W P = 550 (CL /CD0 )
Shenstone 3/2

W S

= 19384

W S

1/2

lb/hp. (4.13)

Bussolari and Nadel (1989, p. 9) give the maximum, sustained power output of a human as 225 Watts. If we assume that the pilot will weigh around 70kg and that the empty weight of the aircraft is the statistically standard 30kg, this will place a limit on the minimum power loading of the aircraft. W P =
human

2.205 (70 + 30) = 730.8 lb/hp. 0.001341 225

(4.14)

4.4.5

Matching diagram and design point

The sizing equations (4.3, 4.5, 4.10, 4.12, 4.14 and 4.13) are all plotted on the same axes in Figure 4.13. The region where all requirements are met is below all the curves except for the horizontal human power line, which it is above, and the vertical manoeuverability line, which it is to the right of. Figure 4.14 shows a closer view of the met area and the selected design point. This point is at the intersection of the cruise requirement line and the human power limit so is optimum for the majority of the ight. This point has wing and power loadings in the range suggested by the prototypes in Figure 4.12.

32

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Figure 4.13: Matching diagram

Figure 4.14: Met area and design point

33

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

This design point has a wing loading of (W/S ) = 1.06lb/ft2 = 5.17kg/m2 and a power loading of (W/P ) = 730.8lb/hp= 0.444kg/W. Therefore, the aircraft with an approximate takeo weight of 100kg will require a wing area of S = 19.35m2 and a power of P = 225W.

4.5

Concept Selection

Three conceptual sketches are presented, each showing design features that may help the aircraft achieve the desired objective of winning the Kremer marathon prize.

4.5.1

Concept 1

This design, sketched in Figure 4.15, has a high-wing, monoplane design for increased stability. The pilot is in an upright position to maximise his ability to see the path of the aircraft and he controls the crafts movement with an all-moving, vee canard. The aircraft is propelled by a pusher propeller, mounted at the back of an aerodynamically curved fuselage to reduce the drag. Because the propeller is behind the wing and canard it will act with least eciency as it is working in disturbed ow however the propellers wake is not impinging on the aircraft so is not contributing to drag. The pilot can also directly power the front, bicycle-style landing gear wheel to aid in gaining speed for takeo.

4.5.2

Concept 2

The second conceptual design, shown in Figure 4.16, is also a high-wing monoplane conguration however its wing has a particularly high aspect ratio to give the required lift for least induced drag. The empennage is in conventional conguration, behind the fuselage. The pilot pedals in a reclined position, so that the frontal area of the fuselage is minimum in order to reduce the form drag of the aircraft, powering a tractor propeller. Positioning the propeller close to the pedals will reduce the length of the drivetrain so reducing its weight and complexity.

34

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

35 of concept 1 Figure 4.15: Sketch

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

36

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

4.5.3

Concept 3

The third conceptual design, sketched in Figure 4.17, has a more agile, biplane conguration. The two wings allow a larger surface area (and so lift) for smaller wingspan however the extra structural bracing will increase the aircrafts drag. The propeller is placed behind the conventional tail setup so that the fuselage and wings are ying in undisturbed air reducing drag and increasing lift but reducing the eectiveness of the propeller.

4.5.4

Concept selection

The weight, drag, complexity and potential lift- and power-generating potential of the three concepts are compared. The biplane conguration, concept 3, will be the most heavy design because of its extra bracing. The canard control surfaces in concept 1 will disturb the air upstream of both the fuselage and the propeller incresing the drag and reducing the propellers eciency. The high aspect ratio, tractor propeller conguration of concept 2 is therefore chosen as the best compromise in terms of weight and drag and it also has the added benet of less induced drag on the wings. The conceptual design following is, therefore, to design based on the Conguration 2 sketch in Figure 4.16.

37

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

38

Figure 4.17: Sketch of concept 3

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5
5.1

Preliminary Design
Wing design
Wing planform design

5.1.1

The aircraft designed for the Kremer marathon prize is required to be optimised for both endurance and manoeuvrability in order for the aircraft to complete the required marathon length course. From statistical analysis of previous human powered aircraft designs, it is evident that these aircraft have been designed for either endurance, in the case of the Daedalus, or for speed and manoeuvrability such as the Musculair and V elair designs. It is therefore required that the main planform design parameters including wing loading, aspect ratio and taper ratio for the marathon aircraft are selected to optimise for both range and turning ability. The wing loading (W/S) is found from the matching diagram in Figure 4.14. The design point for the human powered aircraft is found to be W/S= 5.17 kg/m2 . Based on a total takeo weight of 100kg, the wing reference area is therefore found to be 19.35m2 . The aspect ratio of human powered aircraft is required to be high. The advantages of a high aspect ratio wing is that it has lower induced drag at low air speeds (Roskam 1986, p. 185), and a high lift curve slope which results in greater pilot visibility. The disadvantage of a high lift curve slope is that it produces a rough ride if there is any turbulence in the air, therefore requiring that the aircraft is to be own on a still day in minimal wind conditions. The high aspect ratio also increases the weight of the aircraft due to the large span. The wing is chosen to have a symmetrical linear taper both front and back in order to simulate an elliptical wing, which produces lower induced drag on the aircraft. For an aircraft with a large wing span, the taper is important to reduce the weight of the wings. The taper ratio chosen is =0.46. The wing planform design dimensions are shown in Table 3.

39

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Table 3: Wing planform.

Wing span, b Wing area, S Aspect ratio Taper ratio Root chord Tip chord MAC Position MAC 5.1.2 Wing airfoil selection

24.9 m 19.35 m2 32 0.46 1.06 m 0.487 m 0.809 m 5.6 m

Human powered aircraft airfoils are optimised for low Reynolds number operation, as they use a high wing and low ight speed. At low Reynolds number ows, the viscous eects are prominent, which causes increased drag on standard airfoils (Lissaman 1983). For this reason the development of human powered aircraft has led to the development of specic airfoils for the low Reynolds number ight. These airfoils include the Lissaman 7769, Wortmans FX76- MP series developed for the V elair and Drelas DAE series developed for the Daedalus. From the wing planform dimensions, at an airspeed of 11.9 m/s, the design Reynolds number at the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) is 591 316. The key parameters which are assessed when selecting an airfoil are design lift coecient and wing power factor, stall and moment coecients. A comparison was conducted using the output from Javafoil to analyse the lift, drag and moment coecients of the FX76-140MP, DAE-21 and Lissaman 7769. The airfoil shape and characteristics are outlined in Figure 5.18 and Table 4. Table 4: Airfoil thickness and camber characteristics.

Max t/c (%) camber (%)

Lissaman 7769 11 4.4

DAE-21 11.9 6.6

FX76-140MP 14 6.7

40

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

(a) Lissaman 7769

(b) DAE-21

(c) FX76-140MP

Figure 5.18: Airfoil shapes.

5.1.3

Design lift coecient and power factor

The airfoil is selected such that the most maximum and therefore most ecient L/D ratio is chosen for the cruise segment of ight. The design point is found by looking at the drag polar of the airfoil and taking a tangent to the polar curve through the origin. This point corresponds to the maximum L/D for the airfoil. If the airfoil is well designed, the drag at this point should be equal to the skin friction drag (Raymer 2006, p. 45). Figure 5.19 shows the drag polar for the three airfoils. It can be seen that the DAE-21 displays greater lift than the Lissaman 7769, and a lower drag coecient than the FX76-140MP. Another aspect which is looked at for the human powered aircraft is the power factor which is given by Kogiso and Tsushima (2000) as CL . CD
3/2

(5.1)

The comparison of these values is shown in Table 5. The maximum L/D is higher for the DAE-21 than for the FX76-140MP, however they display a similar power factor.

41

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Figure 5.19: Comparison of Airfoil Drag Polar

42

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5.1.4

Stall

Stall of a wing occurs when the airfoil operates at its maximum lift coecient. The stall characteristics of the three airfoils are compared in Table 5. The FX76-140MP displays the highest lift, however it also stalls sooner than the DAE and Lissaman airfoils.

Figure 5.20: Lift coecient versus angle of attack for the three airfoils

5.1.5

Moment coecient

For a very high aspect ratio wing, the magnitude of the moment coecients are critical, with lower moments equating to reduced induced drag and lower torsional wing loading. The comparison of moment coecients are shown in Figure 5.21. It can be seen that the Lissaman airfoil displays the lowest moment coecients. The FX76-140MP has the

43

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

highest moment coecients.

Figure 5.21: Coecient of moments for the three airfoils

5.1.6

Airfoil selection

The airfoil performance characteristics are compared and displayed in Table 5. The DAE-21 and FX76-140MP display much higher power factor and maximum L/D, as well as higher maximum lift coecients at stall than the Lissaman 7769. While the DAE-21 and FX76-140MP have similar power factors, the DAE-21 has lower coecients of pitching moment, which is important for a high aspect ratio wing (Drela, 1990), therefore the DAE airfoil series is selected for this design.

44

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Table 5: Design and Stall characteristics at Re=600000.

Lissaman 7769 Design point CL 0.842 CD 0.008 L/Dmax 109.63 Power factor 100.6 at L/Dmax 5 Stall characteristics CL max 1.546 stall 15 Moment coecient at = 0 Cm -0.024 5.1.7 The DAE series

DAE-21 1.057 0.006 175.87 180.8 3 1.928 15 -0.124

FX76-140MP 1.46 0.009 150.67 182.06 3 2.178 13 -0.221

The DAE series of airfoils was developed by Drela for use in the low Reynolds number ight range of the Daedalus. The Daedalus utilised the thicker DAE-11 airfoil at the root of the wing, the DAE-21 in the midsection, and the 11.1% thickness DAE-31 at the tip of the wings. The aim of the variable airfoils was to reduce the thickness to chord ratio as the Reynolds number became lower toward the wing tip, in order to reduce the induced drag on the wing. A comparison was made for our aircraft wing to determine if the airfoil was required to change along the wing span, and if so, the location of the transition. Figure 5.22 shows the lift to drag ratio of the aircraft vs Reynolds number for ow over the airfoil. The plot indicates that the DAE-21 has greater L/D for Reynolds numbers higher than 440000. Given the taper on the wing planform, this Reynolds number occurs at a distance of 9.6m from the aircraft centre line, with the DAE-31 performing better for the 2.9m of wing nearer to the tip. The DAE-31 has approximately 5% improvement in L/D for Reynolds numbers less than 440000, however the length of the segment which receives this benet is likely to be smaller than the ailerons which occur in this region of the wing. For simplicity of aileron design and manufacture and therefore reduced cost, the DAE-21 airfoil is selected for use along the entire wing span.

45

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Figure 5.22: Lift to drag ratio versus Reynolds number for various DAE airfoils.

46

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5.1.8

Wing Structural Considerations

The wing structure of aircraft is usually dependant on strength requirements, however due to the very high aspect ratio of human powered aircraft, stiness constraints become more prevalent (Drela 1990). The load prole on high aspect ratio wings cause deections which alter the aerodynamic properties of the wing requiring structural stiness criterion which are based on maximum safe speed and load factors. The wing structure of early human powered aircraft was constructed mostly from balsa wood or aluminium, the more recent designs have embraced the development of composite materials including carbon bre, plastics and Styrofoam. The wing structure of the Zephyrus is shown in Figure 5.23. This consists of a tubular spar, whereas the Musculair in Figure 5.24 uses an I beam spar. Campbell et al. (2009) found that the tubular construction has a lighter structural weight than the I-beam. The tubular spar is designed to take all of the torsion in the wing, therefore the D shaped tubes formed by the airfoils either side of the spar do not take any load or torsion, allowing them to be constructed out of this foam or lightweight breglass layers.

Figure 5.23: Internal wing structure of Zephyrus (Campbell et al. 2009).

The ribs are placed perpendicular to the spar and take loads long the wing. From Roskam part III, the rib spacing in the wing is estimated to be approximately 0.9m.

47

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Figure 5.24: Internal wing structure of Musculair (Shoberl 1986).

5.2
5.2.1

Empennage design
Empennage Planform

The tail sections of the aircraft are important for trim, aircraft stability and control. The control surfaces on the horizontal tail are used to control pitch, and on the vertical tail the rudder controls the yaw of the aircraft. The trim is a lift force which is generated in the horizontal and vertical tails to balance moments around the centre of gravity (Raymer 2006, p. 73). The preliminary design of the horizontal and vertical tail sections is achieved through statistical analysis of previous human powered aircraft design. The main equations for the sizing of the tail sections are SH = H S C V , xH V Sb V SV = , xV (5.2) (5.3)

H and V V are the where SH and SV are horizontal and vertical tail areas respectively, V horizontal and vertical tail volume coecients, x is the tail arm from the 25% chord of the wing to the 25% chord of the horizontal (or vertical) tail, S is the wing reference is the wing MAC. area, b is wing span, C

48

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

From statistical analysis of existing human powered aircraft designs, Table 6 gives the volume coecients and areas for both the vertical and horizontal tail sections. Table 6: Empennage Statistical analysis.

Daedelus Musculair I V elair 88 Monarch Zephyrus

S (m2 ) 30.8 16.5 16.4 16.54 11.8

(m) C 0.905 0.75 0.756 0.88 0.61

b (m) 34 22 21.7 18.75 17.5

xH (m) 5.5 3 3.75 5.4 4.1

H V 0.52 0.509 0.45 0.66 0.5

SH (m2 ) 2.66 2.1 1.5 1.8 0.88

xV (m2 ) 6.2 3.6 3.6 6 4.8

V V 0.01 0.011 0.01 0.034 0.02

SV (m2 ) 2.07 1.14 1.05 1.78 0.86

5.2.2

Horizontal tail

A suggested range for the volume coecient of the horizontal tail is between 0.5 and 0.65 (Campbell et al, 2009). By analysing the statistical data the horizontal tail volume coecient is chosen to be 0.44. The horizontal tail arm, xH is chosen to be shorter than the Daedalus for improved manoeuvrability and larger than the Musculair and V elair sport designs. Therefore xH is chosen to be 3.5m. Table 7 provides the horizontal tail planform dimensions. Table 7: Horizontal Tail Planform design.

VH xH (m) SH (m2 ) mean chord (m) taper ratio horizontail tail span (m)

0.44 3.5 1.998 0.647 0.7 3.1

5.2.3

Vertical tail

Campbell et al. (2009) suggest a range for the volume coecient of the vertical tail to be between 0.02 and 0.05. By analysing the statistical data the vertical tail volume

49

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

coecient is chosen to be 0.02. The vertical tail arm, xV is chosen to be 5.15m. Table 8 provides the vertical tail planform dimensions. Table 8: Vertical Tail Planform design.

VH xH (m) SH (m2 ) mean chord (m) vertical tail span (m)

0.02 5.15 1.80 0.893 1.96

The span of the vertical tail is found to be 1.96m. The tail is shaped as shown in Figure 5.25 in order to reduce the vertical tail span for the calculated tail area required. A conventional tail conguration is selected with the vertical tail positioned entirely above the empennage rod. This is due to the requirement for the angle between the rear landing gear and the lower most point of the empennage being less than the stall angle of the aircraft, to ensure the tail does not touch the ground during takeo. As the aircraft takes o with a low climb gradient of 0.3 degrees, any interference is unlikely.

Figure 5.25: Vertical tail dimensions.

5.2.4

Tail airfoil selection

The airfoil used for the tail sections is selected by analysing tail airfoils for previous human powered aircraft designs. The airfoil used for the tail sections should be symmet-

50

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

rical in order to provide lift in either direction (Roskam pt III 1986, p. 272), and have a small thickness to chord ratio of approximately 10%. From the tail planform design, the tail airfoils are required to operate at in the Reynolds number range of 4 105 to 7 105 . The airfoils which were chosen for comparison are the Eppler 182 used on the V elair, NACA 0009 used on the Zephyrus, NACA 0010 which was used on the MIT Monarch and FX76-100MP which was designed for the Musculair 1 and 2. The drag polar in Figure 5.26 shows that the FX76-100MP displays the most desirable aerodynamic L/D characteristics, with low drag coecient and high maximum lift coecient. The FX series were developed by Wortmann for specic use in human powered aircraft. The FX76-100MP is a symmetric airfoil with 10% thickness ratio. The moment coecients for the NACA airfoils and the FX76-100MP are very similar as shown in Figure 5.27, therefore the airfoil FX76-100MP is selected for both the vertical and horizontal tail sections.

Figure 5.26: Drag polar for tail section airfoils.

51

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Figure 5.27: Coecient of moment vs angle of attack for tail airfoils.

5.3
5.3.1

Control surfaces
Design of control surfaces

Aileron The ailerons are control surfaces on the main wings which are used to control
the roll motion of the aircraft during turning. As the marathon aircraft is required to turn around the end markers, the ailerons need to be sized for eciency in manoeuvrability. From statistics, the aileron size/wing size ratio is determined from the previous designs for the speed and manoeuvrability Kremer prizes, as the endurance prize did not require the aircraft to undertake any turns. By convention the chord of the ailerons is 25% of the wing chord. The length of the aileron is determined by statistical analysis as displayed in Table 9. From this it is determined that the aileron length to wing span ratio is 0.25, therefore the length of the ailerons is 6.2m. The aileron tip is positioned 1.2m from the wing tip.

Elevator and rudder The horizontal and vertical tails are designed to be all
moving, to allow for ease of construction, reduced weight and increased performance (Campbell et al. 2009). The all moving control surfaces have been utilised in the past

52

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Table 9: Vertical Tail Planform design.

Aircraft Iron Buttery Musculair I MIT Monarch Zephyrus average

Aileron Length/wingspan ratio 0.3 0.23 0.18 0.29 0.25

on the Marathon Eagle, V elair 88 and Zephyrus human powered aircraft designs. The horizontal tail is the elevator and is used to control the pitch movements of the plane, whereas the rudder is the vertical tail section which controls the yaw motion.

5.3.2

Handling of control surfaces

The control of the control surfaces in a human powered aircraft is very important for the stability of the aircraft, especially during turning. It is required that the pilot is able to make precise movements of the ailerons, rudder and elevator whilst pedalling and maintaining aircraft stability. The Musculair and Marathon eagle both adopted a three axis control system mounted on the handle bars of the cycle. The ailerons are controlled by the sideways tilt, rudder by rotation about the vertical axis and the elevator by rotation of the hand grips. The control surfaces are actuated by cables and rods connected to the control column (Bliesner 1994).

5.4

Propeller design

As a xed wing aircraft was chosen for the overall conguration, a propeller is chosen for thrust generation. The main requirement of the propeller is to produce thrust that is greater than the drag of the aircraft. Due to the low amount of power available to the propeller, it should be designed to be as ecient as possible. However, the propeller is limited by the diameter, weight and manufacturing constraints.

53

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5.4.1

Propeller location

The propeller locations that have been used in previous designs are the tractor and pusher conguration. There are benets and limitations with these designs from an aerodynamic and mechanical (drivetrain) point of view. The tractor conguration allows the aircraft to y in undisturbed air, so the propeller eciency is high, and the drag is lower. However, the rest of the aircraft ies in turbulence from the propeller wake. The drivetrain for a tractor conguration has the potential to be mechanically simple as it can be designed to be vertical, which also minimises weight. A need for fewer components may also increase the eciency of the drivetrain. A propeller in the pusher conguration has a reduced eciency as it works with the disturbed airow from the fuselage, wing and tails. However, the skin friction drag of the aircraft is reduced as it ies in undisturbed air. Due to the location of the propeller, this conguration requires larger tails and a larger rear weight. The propeller shaft is also longer (and therefore heavier) than the tractor propeller shaft. Additionally, there is a risk of the propeller touching the runway during takeo as the aircraft noses up. This is an important consideration as the propeller radius is very close to the fuselage height. It therefore needs a greater clearance and longer landing gear compared to a tractor and the additional structure for this may increase the weight and drag of the aircraft. A modied pusher design has been used where the propeller is located behind the fuselage but before the tail. This was seen in the Bionic Bat where the propeller shaft was in line with the tail boom. This seems to be a trade o between the aerodynamic advantages and disadvantages of the tractor and pusher design. The eciency of the propeller and skin friction drag of the aircraft will lie between the values of the tractor and pusher conguration. The tail heavy weight distribution problem with a pusher propeller is not as pronounce in this design, however the propeller clearance from the ground during takeo still needs to be considered. Despite these advantages, the drivetrain for this aircraft has the potential to be heavier and less ecient than a tractor conguration, as it needs to cover a larger distance (horizontal to the rear of the fuselage, then vertical) to have a shorter propeller shaft.

54

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

The propeller of this aircraft will be a tractor propeller. This will achieve the highest propeller and drivetrain eciency, lower weight and the danger with the propeller striking the ground during takeo is eliminated.

5.4.2

Number of propeller blades

Theory states that propeller eciency increases with blade number. However, this does not account for interference between the blades as the blade number increases, so two bladed propellers are more ecient due to the less disturbed ow. Additionally, a two bladed propeller will achieve minimum weight, which is desirable. These reasons are probably why all previous successful human powered aircraft have used two bladed propellers. Therefore, a two bladed propeller will be used for this design as well.

5.4.3

Propeller optimisation

The propeller should be optimised to produce the greatest thrust (and hence eciency as they are directionally proportional) for the given input power of 225 watts at the design ying speed of 11.9m/s. The nal propeller design requires the determination of a radius, rpm, twist and airfoil prole for the design point. Two potential airfoils are investigated: the E193 and the FX60-100. The E193 airfoil has been used for the propeller for the Monarch and the Gossamer Albatross. The FX60-100 was designed specically for human power and was used on the V elair. Thus, it can be assumed that the properties of these airfoils at low rotational and forward speeds are best suited to human powered aircraft. The characteristics of the airfoil is summarised in Table 10. Table 10: Airfoil characteristics of the E193 and FX60-100 (Barnhart et al. 2004, p. 30).

Parameter Thickness Camber LE radius TE angle

E193 0.1023 0.0354 0.0087 5.5406

FX60-100 0.0999 0.0356 0.0069 5.2198

55

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

The minimum induced loss propeller design for human powered vehicles by E. Eugene Larrabee (Larrabee 1984, p. 9-11) is used to determine these optimum parameters. The theory has been implemented in a design excel sheet provided by the Royal Aeronautical Society. This spreadsheet requires the input of propeller radius, blade number, ying speed, rpm, power and airfoil data (Cl, Cd and Cl0), and give the performance, optimum chord along the radius and propeller twist. Since there are three unknown inputs (propeller radius, rpm and airfoil data) an iterative approach was taken to determine the best propeller blade. The airfoil section data was determined from Javafoil, for a range of Reynolds numbers. In propellers, the design lift coecient is usually around 0.5 (Raymer 2006, p. 379) so this value is initially chosen. The Monarch, Goassamer Albatross and V elair aircraft had a design lift coecient of 0.7, and the Daedalus had a lift coecient of 0.8, so an optimisation for a lift coeeicnt of 0.7 was also performed. For each airfoil, the optimum rpm for a xed radius was determined, and the corresponding eciency and thrust was recorded. It was ensured that the appropriate airfoil section data was used to be similar to the reference Reynolds number (the Reynolds number at 75% of the radius of the propeller). Figure 5.28 shows the dependence of thrust and propeller rpm on the propeller radius for the E193 airfoil with Cl =0.5. The optimum rpm decreases with increasing propeller radius. This trend is also observed with the FX 60-100 airfoil. It can be seen that the greatest thrust occurs at a radius of about 3 metres which is impractical for the nal design. The thrust produced increases with increasing radius prior to the optimum 3 metre mark, so the largest radius allowable should be chosen. Therefore, a propeller radius of 1.5 metres was chosen for analysis for the E193 with Cl =0.7 and for the FX60-100. For the xed radius of 1.5m, the airfoil with lift coecient of 0.7 had better performance than the airfoil with lift coecient of 0.5 for both airfoils. The desired lift coecient is achieved by placing the blade at the corresponding angle of attack. The E193 airfoil with Cl =0.7 exhibited the best eciency as seen in Table 11. Thus, this airfoil is chosen for the propeller. The corresponding chord and twist angle is shown in Figures 5.29 and 5.30. The chord

56

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Figure 5.28: Thrust and propeller rpm vs. propeller radius for the E193 airfoil with Cl =0.5

57

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Table 11: Maximum propeller eciency and corresponding thrust for the FX60-100 and E193 airfoils at Cl 0.5 and 0.7.

Cl=0.5 Cl=0.5

eciency (%) thrust (N) eciency (%) thrust (N)

FX60-100 0.1023 0.0354 0.1023 0.0354

E193 0.0999 0.0356 0.0999 0.0356

of the propeller is quite narrow, about 9cm at the widest point. This gives a maximum thickness of about 9mm (the thickness of the E193 airfoil is about 10% of the chord as shown in Table 10), which is quite small. This seems too narrow to produce the required thrust so the shape should be veried with a dierent propeller analysis program. Since this project is the rst iteration of design, this is beyond the scope of the project and the propeller will be left as is. From a structural point of view, a spar is required to pass through the centre of the blade for stiness and torsional rigidity. This is not possible for the rst 0.2m of the radius. However, the inner part of the propeller to about 25% of the radius has a very small contribution to the thrust (Raymer 2006, p. 251), so the propeller chord from r=0 to 0.375m can be ignored, and tailored to be suited to the structural requirements of the blade. In its place, a spinner can be placed over this area to push the air out to where the propeller is more ecient. In piston engines, the spinner is not this size due to the need for an air intake for engine cooling. For a human powered aircraft there is no engine, so the spinner can cover the full 25% of the propeller radius. However, having a spinner with diameter 0.75m is impractical as the placement of the propeller at the top of the fuselage, in front of the wing will produce a lot of drag. The greater eciency gained by such spinner is outweighed by the drag it will produce. Hence, a more reasonably sized spinner will be used.

5.4.4

Further Propeller Guidelines

The tip speed of the propeller should be below sonic speed. For the design point of 180 rpm, the tip speed is Vtip = n d/60 = 28.27m/s, which is clearly less than the speed of sound (340 m/s). Thus, the propeller tip will always be kept below sonic speed.

58

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Figure 5.29: Optimal propeller chord along the propeller radius.

Figure 5.30: Optimal propeller twist along the propeller radius.

59

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

The helical tip speed of a propeller should be limited to about 700fps to reduce noise. For the human powered aircraft, Vtip helical = which is within the specied limits
2 + V 2 ) = 30.68 m/s = 100.6 fps (Vtip

5.4.5

Propeller design summary

The selected propeller is in a tractor conguration and consists of two blades with a radius of 1.5 metres and an E193 airfoil section. Its twist and chord is determined from minimum induced loss propeller theory which states that this propeller has 93.9% eciency and produces 17.74N of thrust at 180rpm. The blades are installed at an angle of attack of 2.5 degrees for a design lift coecient of 0.7. A spinner will be placed over the propeller for increased eciency, without increasing the drag penalty.

5.5

Drive train design

The predalling power of the pilot must be transmitted to rotation of the propeller. In this section a drive train is designed to provide maximum mechanical eciency for lowest weight. The drive train must t inside the fuselage to reduce drag and not impede the forwards view of the pilot. First the known power transmission requriements are described, then possible transmission mechanisms are evaluated. The chosen drive train design is described in detail. The pilot is assumed to pedal at a rate of 90rpm and the propeller is designed for optimal thrust at 180rpm. A speed increase of 2:1 is therefore required. The axes of rotation of the driving and driven actions are at right angles to each other and oset. In order to reduce the weight and mechanical complexity of the drive train design, no changes in speed ratio will be incorporated. This will require a higher torque output from the pilot at takeo as they build up the propellers speed.

5.5.1

Possible power transmission mechanisms

There are three main methods of transmitting power between rotating bodies: belt drives, chain drives and gear systems. The benets and disadvantages of each system

60

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

are described by Blazewicz (2010).

Belt drives Belt drives can transmit power across the greatest distance and some
angle of twist can be introduced into their motion, allowing power transmission between non-parallel axes. They typically have a mechanical eciency of around 97%. A belt drive driven by the pedals could extend to the top of the fuselage, twisting by 90 to an orientation where it can then turn the propeller shaft (as sketched in Figure 5.31). This design has the advantage of simplicity and, therefore, light weight.

Figure 5.31: Conceptual sketch of belt-driven power transmission

Chain drives Chain drives are used over a shorter distance than belt drives and
must generally transmit power in the same plane hence, no twisting is possible. Although chain drives typically have a mechanical eciency greater than 97%, they must not only be oriented in the same plane, the driven and driving sprockets should not be vertically aligned. These limitations mean that it is not practical to t a chain drive to the pilots pedals.

61

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Gear drives Gear drives have the highest mechanical eciency (around 99%) but
driven and driver gear must be touching. This means that to transmit the pilots power from the pedals to the propeller shaft, for example by an intermediate hypoid bevel gear as shown in Figure 5.32, the intervening space must be bridged by a shaft. A gear drive will, therefore, be heavier than either a belt or chain drive, as will the fastenings required to hold the shafts in position.

Figure 5.32: Conceptual sketch of gear-driven power transmission

5.5.2

Drive train selection

A twisted belt drive is chosen to transmit the pilots power to the propeller. The lower weight of a belt drive is considered to be a greater benet than the slightly higher mechanical eciency of a gear driven system. A at belt is extended from a driver pulley of radius R (attached directly to the pedal shaft) and twisted through 90 to turn the driven pulley (attached directly to the propeller shaft). In order to achieve the desired

62

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

speed increase from 90rpm to 180rpm, the driven pulley must have radius 0.5R. From Funk (1996, Table 31.3) the smallest standard pulley sizes for at-belt drives are chosen to meet this radius relation. The propeller shaft pulley is to have a diameter of 80mm and the driver pulley a diameter of 160mm. To keep the weight of the system down, wooden pulleys will be used and a mineral-tanned leather belt will be used to maximise the coecient of friction (Blazewicz, p. 50). The pedals will rotate at a radius of 180mm (based on a survey of bicycle pedals) so the given pilot power of 225W implies a torque of 23.9Nm. A mechanical eciency of 97% combined with the pulley ratio of 1:2 means that the propeller shaft will be turned wtih torque of 11.6Nm. This is sucient to drive the chosen propeller.

5.6

Landing gear

The landing gear is required to absorb the impact energy during landing, provide manoeuvrability on the ground and to allow the aircraft to achieve the required speed for takeo, with minimal weight.

5.6.1

Landing gear type

The landing gear types under consideration are xed landing gears and retractable landing gears. Fixed landing gears are cheaper, lighter and more reliable than retractable landing gears, but generate considerable drag. Aircraft with cruise speeds less than 120-140 knots generally have a xed landing gear, and fairings are then used to reduce the landing gear drag (Arjomandi 2010, p. 218). The designed human powered aircraft has a cruise speed of 23 knots so a retractable landing gear is not required. This is the case for the majority, if not all, operating human powered aircraft. However, in some human powered aircraft designs, retractable landing gears have been proposed but the aircraft did not eventually y. The Marathon Eagle, which was designed for the Kremer Marathon prize featured a driven retractable landing gear (Bliesner 1994, p. 6). The Raven human powered aircraft (2001) featured a retractable landing gear due to the 4.5lb drag restriction on the aircraft. Thus, a xed landing gear will be used for weight saving, ease of manufacture and reliability.

63

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5.6.2

Landing gear arrangement

The landing gear arrangement should be chosen to have the lowest weight, friction and drag. Since the aircraft is light, a quadricycle and multi-bogey arrangement will not be considered. A bicycle, taildragger and tricycle landing gear will be considered as potential landing gear arrangements. Bicycle gears are have two main wheels, with small outrigger wheels at the wings. They are suited to aircraft with high lift at low angles of attack, and aircraft with a narrow fuselage and a wide wing span (Raymer 2006, p. 261).Taildraggers allow for a greater propeller clearance for tractor propellers and have less drag and weight, but are inherently unstable. Additionally, this conguration causes the aircraft to tile up, which impairs the pilots vision of the ground. Tricycle landing gears are commonly used as they provide good steering and ground stability and good forward visibility. The most suitable arrangement for a human powered aircraft is a bicycle gear, as the aircraft is has a narrow fuselage and wide wing span. This conguration is found on the majority of human powered aircraft. The main wheel is at the rear and is placed close to the pilot and the smaller wheel is placed at the front of the fuselage. There are some aircraft which have small wheels at the wingtips in case of a possible wing tip strike or at the base of the vertical tail in case of tail scrape to protect the structure. Many aircraft also use the fuselage to partially cover the wheel, acting like a fairing (Figure 5.33).

Figure 5.33: Sketch of the Bionic Bat showing the fairing function of the fuselage on the landing gear (Lloyd 1985).

64

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

The aircraft will have a bicycle conguration with no outrigger wheels on the wings. It is assumed that the handling of the aircraft is similar to a bicycle due to its narrow body. For this aircraft, a high wing conguration is used. Additionally, competition rules state that a wing tip handler can help stabilise the aircraft so wingtip wheels are not required. Part of the landing gear wheels will be sunken into the fuselage, such that the fuselage acts as a fairing.

5.6.3

Landing gear sizing

For the conceptual design of the landing gear, it is recommended to use the tyre sizes of similar designs or a statistical approach (Raymer 2006, p. 266). Limited data exists for the wheel sizes of human powered aircraft and is summarised in Table 12. The V elair and Musculair 1 have a pusher conguration, while the others have a pusher conguration which may explain the larger nose wheel diameter. From this small subset of data, the main wheel should be 8 to 10 inches (20-25cm) in diameter, and the nose wheel should be 3 to 4 inches (7.5-10cm) in diameter. The shock absorption and braking functionality of the main wheel is also considered to determine the wheel sizing. Table 12: Wheel diameters of human powered aircraft (RAeS 2009).

AIRCRAFT Daedelus Monarch B V elair Musculair I

Main wheel diameter (in) 8 10 10 8

Nose wheel diameter (in) 3.5 3 8 7

Landing gear sizes from aircraft manufacturers are not suited for the application on the human powered aircraft. Firstly, the rated load and speeds are much greater than the aircraft, which is a point of overdesign. Secondly, the weight of the smallest tyres are around 5kg each (Goodyear 2002, p. 22) which is much too heavy for the human powered aircraft. Thus, another source of wheels is required. The wheels need to be able to withstand the 100kg load and be lightweight. Therefore, tyres manufactured for scooters and wheelchairs are deemed suitable for this application.

65

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5.6.4

Shock absorption

Shock absorption is required during landing and taxiing. Since the landing weight is not high (design point is 100kg), the shock absorption can be provided by the tyre deection. This reduces the aircraft weight, increases simplicity and reduces the size of the fuselage. To ensure this choice is reasonable, the deection of the tyre is during landing calculated. The deection is given by S=
2 vvert , 2gNgear

(5.4)

where Ngear the vertical deceleration rate and is the shock absorber eciency. For a general aviation aircraft, Ngear = 3, and for a tire, = 0.47 (Raymer 2006, pp. 275-276). Assuming that the aircraft lands at a distance of 2025m (the distance between the course datum line and turning point marker) from an altitude of 5 metres, the vertical velocity is 0.03m/s. Therefore the deection of the tyre from shock absorption is S= 0.032 = 0.03 mm. 2 9.81 0.47 3 (5.5)

It is assumed that the wheel chosen can deect by this amount during landing.

5.6.5

Braking

The nal design of the human powered aircraft should have a braking mechanism. Although no requirement is set for the landing distance in the Kremer Marathon prize, braking may be required for landing and during tax. The main wheel diameter should therefore be large enough to provide a brake that can absorb the braking kinetic energy. This is given in Raymer (2006, p.271) as KEbraking = 1 Wlanding 2 1 100 Vstall = 4.442 = 100.5 Nm/s. 2 g 2 9.81 (5.6)

Assuming all this braking is provided by the main wheel, this kinetic energy gives a wheel diameter range of 7-10 inches (Raymer 2006, p. 271). This lies in the range of the main wheel dimensions from statistical analysis.

66

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

5.6.6

Driven Main Wheel

The main wheel of the landing gear may be geared so that the rolling resistance of the wheels can be overcome. This is seen on the Monarch B where the main wheel was driven for the rst 25 feet of the ground roll (Roper 1995, p. 233). However, a driven wheel will increase the aircraft weight. A mechanism to transfer the power from the driven wheel to the propeller shaft should also be incorporated to maximise the power to the propeller. To determine if a driven gear is required, the rolling resistance of the wheels is calculated. The force of rolling resistance is determined by F = Crr Nf , where Crr is the rolling resistance coecient and Nf is the normal force. The rolling resistance of a bicycle tyre is 0.0022 to 0.005 (Morrison 2010). Taking the upper value of Crr , and the normal force equal to the takeo weight of the aircraft, the rolling resistance is 4.9N, which is less than the thrust produce by the propeller (17 N). Thus, a driven wheel is not necessary.

5.6.7

Landing Gear Positioning

The positioning of the landing gear is important, particularly in take o and for stability considerations. For the bicycle landing gear arrangement, the aircraft centre of gravity should be aft of the midpoint between the two wheels (Raymer 2006, p. 264). Roskam (1997) states that the aircraft centre of gravity should lie between 50% and 60% of the distance between the nose and main landing gear throughout the entire mission. This requires an iterative process as the aircraft centre of gravity is unknown. Thus, a statistical approach is used to determine a suitable landing gear distance. From Table 13, the mean distance between landing gears is 1.13m thus the distance between the landing gear is selected to be 1.13 m as the preliminary value.

5.6.8

Final landing gear design

A bicycle landing gear conguration will be used for this aircraft, with a xed landing gear that is partially shrouded by the fuselage to reduce drag. The distance between the main and nose tyre is set to be 1.13m. From tyre catalogues, the nose and main

67

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Table 13: Horizontal distance between landing gears for recumbent human powered aircraft (RAeS 2009).

AIRCRAFT Daedelus Monarch b V elair Musculair I

Distance between nose and main landing gear (m) 1.18 1.02 1.20 1.12

wheel is chosen and is summarised in Table 14. Table 14: Dimensions of the selected main and nose tyre (MBL 2007, p.3, p. 14)

Parameter Diameter x Width (mm) Axle diameter (mm) Axle width (mm) Weight (g) Rated Load (kg)

Main tyre 200x50 15 45 480 75

Nose tyre 100x22 8 45 220 75

5.7

Fuselage and frame design

Fairings have the potential to greatly reduce the drag developed by the vehicle. Given the low level and nature of the thrust source, as well as the ambition cruise speed and endurance required, it is imperative to minimise the drag that the pilot must overcome. Hence a fairing was developed to enclose the pilot, the frame, and as much of the wheels as possible. To reduce form drag, the body should be kept long and thin, with a smooth surface and a shape that delays transition in the boundary layer. Although a thin fairing is desirable, it is necessary for the pilot to be able to t within the fairing and so it must have at least its widest part of slightly greater than shoulder width. Investigation into a symmetrical airfoil of the desired thickness to chord ratio approximately 0.25 to minimize total (form and friction) drag, revealed that the NACA 0024 would be suitable as well as relatively simple with regards to fabrication simplication. As with several previous HPA designs, the fairing around the pilot is to be made of

68

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

clear plastic such as Mylar to maximise the pilots eld of view. The frame was designed to as to be most suitable for transferring loads between the wheels, the seat, and the top of the frame, while minimizing the space required and still allowing for the cyclist to t comfortably, and allowing for sucient height in the structure that the propeller would not be in danger of coming into contact with the ground.

69

STABILITY ANALYSIS

6
6.1

Stability analysis
Aircraft Centre of Gravity

The percentage of the total, 30kg empty weight of the aircraft made up by each component is to be determined statistically. The standard aircraft weight breakdown estimations are not valid for a human powered aircraft as there is no engine or fuel to be considered. Thus, a statistical analysis of the aircraft weight breakdown of human powered aircraft was conducted. The weight percentage of each structural component is given for three aircraft in Table 15. From these an approximately average value for each component is taken for this design. Table 15: Empty weight breakdown by component of prototype aircraft

AIRCRAFT wing (%) fuselage (incl. gear) (%) propulsion & drivetrain (%) empennage (%) miscellaneous (%)
1

Daedelus 886 50 25 7 3 15
3

Pun2 62 15.4 12.1 6.1 4.4

V elair 893 52 28.8 9.8 4.7 4.7

average 55 23 10 5 7

Wilson (1989, p. 5),

Wimpenny (1975),

Frank (1994).

This aircraft will only operate in one condition, that is with the pilot in his seat the structural components being xed. The centre of gravity of the aircraft, therefore, can only occur at one position. This is calculated in Table ?? with the weights of the various components assumed to be the statistically average fraction of the total 30kg weight. The centre of mass of each component is assumed to be at their geometrical centre and the miscellaneous components, expected to be the pilots water etc, will be located at the same position as the pilot. These positions are found, or estimated (in the case of the pilot), from the technical drawings included at the end of this report and presented in Table 16. The propulsion system weight is assumed to be located at the medium position between propeller and pedals. All distances are with reference to the front-most tip of the plane.

70

STABILITY ANALYSIS

Table 16: Empty weight breakdown by component of prototype aircraft

Component wing fuselage (incl. gear) propulsion & drivetrain empennage miscellaneous pilot SUM

Weight, Wi (kg) 16.5 6.9 3 1.5 2.1 2.1 100

xi (m) 0.81 1.74 0.405 5.135 1.21 1.21

Wi xi (kg.m) 0.049 0.252 0.135 3.423 0.576 0.019 4.453

zi (kg) 0.02 -0.455 -0.455 0.98 -0.455 -0.455

Wi zi 0.0012 -0.066 -0.152 0.653 -0.217 -0.0065 0.214

The centre of gravity of the aircraft can then be found to be xCG = xCG = Wi xi = 0.0445 m, Wi Wi zi = 0.002 m. Wi (6.1) (6.2)

In terms of percentage of total aircraft length (7m) the centre of gravity is at x GC = 0.174 (6.3)

6.2

Aircraft Neutral Point

The aircraft neutral point is calculated using equations given by Roskam (1997) for a conventional conguration, x ACwf +
x ACH CL
H

SH S

x AC =

CLW +F
H SH S

1+ CLH 1

(6.4)

CLW +F

where, for subsonic ight as in this case, 2CLH H = . AH (6.5)

71

STABILITY ANALYSIS

For this aircraft we have already found that CLH = 0.11, CLW +F = 0.1098, x ACH = 25.1, x ACW +F = 25.1, SH = 1.998 m2 , S = 19.35 m2 , and AH = 3.1 b = = 4.8. SH 1.998
2 2

(6.6) (6.7) (6.8) (6.9) (6.10) (6.11) (6.12) (6.13)

Therefore 2 0.11 H = = 0.015, 4.8 and so x AC = 1 0.25 +


.998 0.25(0.11(10.015)( 1 19.35 )) 0.1098 .998 0.11(10.015)( 1 19.35 ) + 0.1098

(6.14)

0.27547 = 0.217. 1.27183

(6.15)

6.3

Static Margin

The static margin of the plane is, therefore, SM = x AC x CG = 0.217 0.174 = 0.043, (6.16)

i.e. 4.3%. This means that, for the only ight conguration possible, the aircraft is longditudinally stable. The static margin is quite small, however, so for safety it could be increased by moving the wings towards the rear of the plane or by seating the pilot more forwards.

72

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

A plane has been designed to satisfy the specications given in the technical task. Technical drawings of the aircrafts preliminary design are presented at the end of this report. Specically a three-view, a detailed view and a manufacturing drawing show the features discussed and calculated in this report.

Figure 7.34: Isometric view of the nal design

73

REFERENCES

References
Barnhart, F, Cuipa, M, Stefanik, D & Swick, Z 2004, Micro-Aerial Vehicle Design with Low Reynolds Number Airfoils, Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Black, D 2006, It ies! Aviation history is made by the apper, Toronto Star, 9 July, p. A3. Blazewicz, A 2010, Design for Function Design Manual, University of Adelaide. Bliesner, W 1994, Design and construction overview for the Marathon Eagle aircraft, AIAA International Human Powered Flight Symposium, Seattle Washington Bussolari, S & Nadel, E 1989, The physiological limits of long-duration human power production lessons learned from the Daedelus project, Human power: the Technical Journal of the IHPVA, vol. 7, no. 4, pp 1-16. Campbell A et al 2009, PSU Zephyrus: Design Of A Human-Powered Aircraft For Sport, AIAA Region I-MA Student Conference 2009. Chronister, N n.d., Ornithopter Zone, accessed 26/4/2010, http://www.ornithopter.org/ Drela, M 1988, Low-Reynolds number airfoil design for the MIT Daedelus prototype: A case study, Journal of Aircraft, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 724-732. Drela, M 1990, Aerodynamics of human-powered ight, Annual Review Fluid Mechanics, 1990.22, p93-110. Emory, C, Faruque, I, Janeway, M, Jeans, B, Roadman, J, Skidmore, L & Slemp, W 2005, The Iron Buttery A Human Powered Aircraft for Sport, Human Powered Aircraft Group, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA. FAI 2010, World Record Claims - Class I (Manpowered aircraft), accessed 10/6/2010, http://records.fai.org/data?v1=178 Frank P 1994, The human powered aircraft V elair: Design details and result of structural, prop and ight tests, 1994 International Human Powered Flight Symposium.

74

REFERENCES

Frank P 2005, Human Powered Flight, Skytech Engineering, website viewed May 2010, http://www.skytec-engineering.de/hpa.htm Funk, W 1996, Chapter 31: Belt Drives, Standard Handbook of Machine Design, 2nd Ed., Shigley, J & Mischke, C (ed), McGraw Hill. Hennekam, W 1990, The Speed of a Cyclist, Phys. Educ. , volume 25, pp 141-146 Hood, S & Dibbens, J 2010, Intelletual Property & Use of Notebooks, Adelaide Research & Innovations Pty Ltd. Illian, P et al. 2001, Raven FAQ, The Raven website viewed May 2010, http:// ravenproject.org/html/faq.shtml Illian, P 2001, RAVEN Project closing, accessed 20/4/2010, http://ravenproject.org /html/notes.shtml IP Australia 2010, Protect your valuable export markets, accessed 26/4/2010, www. ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/international index.shtml Kogiso, N and Tsushima, T 2000, Wing Planform optimization of Human Powered Aircraft in Low Reynolds Number Range, 8th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimisation. Larrabee, E 1984, Propellers for human-powered vehicles, Human Power, vol. 3, no.2, pp. 9-11. Leishman, J 2006, Principles of helicopter aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, New York. Lissaman, P 1983, Low-Reynolds-Number Airfoils, Annual Review Fluid Mechanics, 1983.15, p223-239 Moulton, R, Cowley, M & Lloyd, A 1979, The Gossamer Albatross, AeroModeller, September 1979. McIntyre, J 1988, Mans greatest ight, AeroModeller, August 1988.

75

REFERENCES

McIntyre, J 2007, Monarch B: Kremer World Speed Competition, Royal Aeronautical Society Human Powered Flight Group. Museum of Flight 2010, MacCready Gossamer, website viewed May 2010, http://www. museumoight.org/aircraft/maccready-gossamer-albatross-ii. Naito, A 1991, Review of Developments in Human-Powered Helicopters, Human Power, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-9. RAeS 1988, Regulations and Conditions for the Kremer International Marathon Competition, The Royal Aeronautical Society, London. Raymer, D 2006, Aircraft Design: A conceptual Approach, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Virginia. Roper, C 1995, History and Present Status of Human-Powered Flight, in Abbot, A & Wilson, D (ed.), Human-Powered Vehicles, Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinoise, pp. 217-238. Roskam, J 1986, Airplane Design (Part III), Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Kansas Schoberl, E 1986 The Musculair 1 & 2 Human- Powered Aircraft and Their Optimization, Third International Human Powered Vehicle symposium. Sopher, R 1997, The AHS Igor Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter competition, Vertiite, May-June, pp. 32-34. Southampton Hall of Aviation, Southampton University Man Powered Aircraft SUMPAC, website viewed May 2010, http://www.spitreonline.co.uk/popup/other7.html Taylor, J 1978, Janes All The Worlds Aircraft 1978-79, Janes Yearbooks. Wilkie, D.R. 1960, Man as a source of Mechanical Power, Ergonomics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp 1-8 Wilson, D 1989, Daedelus the aircraft, Human Power, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 5-8.

76

REFERENCES

Wimpenny J 1975, Structural design considerations of human powered aircraft, Symposium on Man-Powered Aircraft, The Royal Aeronautical Society, 10th February 1975.

77

Anda mungkin juga menyukai