Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

547 tayangan

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- UAV Capabilities Analysis
- Coast Watch UAV
- Morphing Wing HALE UAV
- High Altitude Long Endurance Recon UAV
- Airplane Performance & Design
- Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) Airfame Design and Manufacture
- Conceptual Design of UAV Airframes
- UAV Thesis
- Uav Report
- Flight Simulation Final Report
- MAGAZINE UAV
- UAV Vision and Control System
- UAV DEASIGN AND BUILD
- (UAV) - Aircraft Design
- UAV
- UAV Predator Manual
- uav msc thesis_very_good
- Wing Spar Calculation
- adp 1 final
- UAV Design(RahaUAV.com)

Anda di halaman 1dari 125

Alex Murray, Manager

Mark Rundle, Deputy Manager

Yeon Baik

Nansi Xue

Marvin Kong

Daniel Campbell

Zhiwei Song

Matthew McKeown

Mark Rundle

Shareil Elia

Jacob Temme

Final Report

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i

Aircraft Specifications Page........................................................................................................ iv

List of Symbols .............................................................................................................................. v

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Mission Description and Analysis .............................................................................................. 2

3. Payload Analysis......................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Synthetic Aperture Radar...................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Electro-Optic-Infrared Sensor .............................................................................................. 5

3.3 Data Link .............................................................................................................................. 5

3.4 Payload Package ................................................................................................................... 5

4. Current Design Summary ........................................................................................................... 5

5. Weight Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 9

5.1 Fuselage.............................................................................................................................. 10

5.2 Wing .................................................................................................................................... 10

5.3 Tail Surfaces ....................................................................................................................... 11

5.4 Landing Gear ...................................................................................................................... 11

5.5 Power Plant ........................................................................................................................ 12

5.6 Control System .................................................................................................................... 12

5.7 Fuel ..................................................................................................................................... 12

5.8 Payload ............................................................................................................................... 12

6. Center of Gravity ...................................................................................................................... 12

7. Airfoil Selection........................................................................................................................ 13

7.1 Airfoil Selection Criteria..................................................................................................... 13

7.1.1 Maximum Lift Coefficient ............................................................................................ 13

7.1.2 Aerodynamic Efficiency ............................................................................................... 14

7.1.3 Off-design Aerodynamic Characteristics..................................................................... 14

7.2 Analysis of Airfoils.............................................................................................................. 14

8. Wing Design ............................................................................................................................. 18

8.1 Wing Geometry ................................................................................................................... 18

8.2 High Lift Devices ................................................................................................................ 19

8.2.1 Trailing Edge Flaps ..................................................................................................... 19

8.2.2 Flap Type ..................................................................................................................... 19

8.2.3 Flap Location and Dimensioning ................................................................................ 20

8.2.4 Flap Performance Analysis.......................................................................................... 21

9. Aerodynamic Performance at Design Points ............................................................................ 21

9.1 Design Trade-offs................................................................................................................ 21

9.1.1 Taper Ratio .................................................................................................................. 22

9.1.2 Wing Span .................................................................................................................... 22

9.1.3 Root chord.................................................................................................................... 22

9.1.4 Current Design............................................................................................................. 23

9.2 Lift (No Flaps)..................................................................................................................... 23

9.3 Lift (Flaps Deployed).......................................................................................................... 25

9.4 Drag .................................................................................................................................... 27

10. Power Requirement................................................................................................................. 29

i

10.1 Power Requirement Calculations ..................................................................................... 29

10.2 Power Requirement at Cruise Altitude ............................................................................. 30

10.3 Power Requirement for Dash and Loiter.......................................................................... 31

10.5 Flight Envelope................................................................................................................. 32

11. Engine Selection ..................................................................................................................... 34

12. Propeller Selection .................................................................................................................. 34

13. Fuel Requirements .................................................................................................................. 36

14. Takeoff and Landing Analysis................................................................................................ 37

14.1 Takeoff Analysis ................................................................................................................ 38

14.2 Landing Analysis............................................................................................................... 39

15. Tail Selection .......................................................................................................................... 40

15.1 Vertical Tail ...................................................................................................................... 41

15.1.1 Vertical Tail Maneuverability Requirements............................................................. 42

15.2 Horizontal Tail.................................................................................................................. 43

15.3 Neutral Point..................................................................................................................... 45

16. Landing Gear and Tire Design................................................................................................ 45

17. Air Inlet Sizing........................................................................................................................ 46

18. Trim Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 47

18.1 Required Aerodynamic Information ................................................................................. 48

18.2 Trim Curves ...................................................................................................................... 48

19. Maneuver and Gust Envelope................................................................................................. 52

19.1 Maneuver Loading ............................................................................................................ 52

19.2 Gust Loading..................................................................................................................... 53

19.3 Effect Due to Flaps ........................................................................................................... 53

19.4 V-n Diagrams.................................................................................................................... 53

20. Wing Loading ......................................................................................................................... 55

20.1 Wing Discretization .......................................................................................................... 55

20.2 Aerodynamic Loads .......................................................................................................... 55

20.3 Inertial Loads.................................................................................................................... 56

21. Wing Structure ........................................................................................................................ 60

21.1 Wing Cross Section ........................................................................................................... 60

21.2 Loads................................................................................................................................. 61

21.3 Wing Bending.................................................................................................................... 61

20.3.1 Effective Skin Width ................................................................................................... 61

21.3.2 Allowables.................................................................................................................. 62

21.3.3 Margin of Safety......................................................................................................... 64

21.4 Wing Torsion..................................................................................................................... 65

21.4.1 Shear Flow ................................................................................................................. 65

21.4.2 Shear Stresses ............................................................................................................ 66

21.5 Tresca Yield Criterion....................................................................................................... 66

21.5.1 Principle Stresses....................................................................................................... 66

21.5.2 Tresca Stresses and Margin of Safety........................................................................ 67

Appendix A: Aircraft Design Comparisons................................................................................ A-1

Appendix B: Aircraft Configuration History.............................................................................. B-1

Appendix C: MATLAB Codes Used in Calculations................................................................. C-1

Appendix D: Aerodynamic Performance Calculations............................................................... D-1

ii

Appendix E: Takeoff and Landing Calculations .........................................................................E-1

Appendix F: Tail Sizing Calculations and History ......................................................................F-1

Appendix G: Structures Calculations.......................................................................................... G-1

Appendix H: Detailed Fuel Requirement Calculations ............................................................. H-1

Appendix I: V-n Diagram Calculations ........................................................................................I-1

Appendix J: References ............................................................................................................... J-1

iii

Aircraft Specifications Page

Basic Specifications

Wingspan b = 27.0 ft

Maximum Power 51 hp (@8000 rpm)

Weight (with oil, coolant, and propeller) 64.7 lbs.

Performance Specifications

iv

List of Symbols

Symbol Definition

A Fuselage Cross Sectional Area

AF Frontal Area

AW Wetted Area

AR Aspect Ratio

AoA Angle of Attack

α Angle of Attack

b Wingspan

C Wing Chord

CD Drag Coefficient

CD0 Parasitic Drag coefficient

CDi Induced Drag Coefficient

CDL&P Air Leakage and Protuberance Drag

CDmis Drag from Components with Large Form Drag

CDtrim Trim Drag Coefficient

Cfc Friction Coefficient

CL Lift Coefficient

CLac Aircraft Lift Coefficient

CLmax Maximum Lift Coefficient

CLt Lift Coefficient of the Tail

Cl Sectional Lift Coefficient

CMacflaps Flaps Pitching Moment

CMacw Wing Pitching Moment

CMfus Fuselage Pitching Moment

Cmac-t Aircraft Pitching Moment without Tail

CG Center of Gravity

c Airfoil Chord Length

cm Lift Curve Slope

D Drag

e Oswald Efficiency Factor

FF Form Factor

γ Flight Path Angle

K Induced Drag Constant

Kf Empirical Pitching Moment Factor

Λm Sweep Angle

L Lift

L/D Lift to Drag Ratio

L/Dmax Maximum Lift to Drag Ratio

μ Coefficient of Viscosity

ηi Engine Efficiency

η Viscous Correction Factor

θ Upsweep Angle

Prequired Required Power

Qc Interference Factor

v

q Dynamic Pressure

ρ Air Density

ρsl Air Density at Sea Level

S Wing Planform Area

SB Braking Distance

SC Climb Distance

SF Flare Distance

SFR Free Roll Distance

SG Ground Roll Distance

SHT Horizontal Tail Area

SR Rotation Distance

STR Transition to Climb Distance

SVT Vertical Tail Area

Sa Approach Distance

Swetc Wetted Area

t Maximum Airfoil Thickness

τ Flap Effectiveness

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

V Airspeed

Vclimbmax Maximum Climb Velocity

Vstall Stall Velocity

VTI Visual Target Identification

WTO Gross Takeoff Weight

vi

1. Introduction

On August 3rd, 2006, President G.W. Bush introduced the launch of “Operation Jump Start:

Acting Now to Secure the Border,” which includes a series of immigration reforms and the

tightening of security along the US-Mexico border. As part of the next phase of Operation Jump

Start, our team has been awarded a contract from the Department of Homeland Security to

design a high-endurance aerial surveillance vehicle to provide real-time border reconnaissance as

well as search-and-rescue information in the case of national emergencies. The designation and

name for the design is The Big Brother XL4000 (BBXL).

Furthermore, the design, as specified by the contract, must meet the following criteria:

Mission Capabilities

Patrol Area: 2500 sq. mi

Patrol Duration: 12 hours of loiter plus 10 visual target identification maneuvers

Payload Capability: 1x Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), 1x Electro-Optical-Infrared

(EO/I) Sensor, 1x Line-of-Sight Data Link

Weight Class: 500 – 1000 lbs

Launch Type: Conventional Runway (maximum 3000 ft.)

Performance Capabilities

Operational Ceiling: 27,000 ft

Cruise Speed: 80 kts

Top Speed: 140 kts

Stall Speed: 35 kts

Max Payload Weight: 150 lbs

Rate of Climb: 1000 ft/min

The primary factors that will be emphasized throughout the design of The Big Brother XL4000

are its effectiveness (ability to satisfy mission requirements), minimization of gross takeoff

weight, and its acquisition cost when compared to existing systems.

A preliminary design was completed in September 2006, based on comparisons to existing UAV

designs, which are available in Appendix A. In the second iteration, the aerodynamic design of

Big Brother XL4000 (BBXL) was done in more detail. The airfoil and wing planform geometry

were chosen, as well as a preliminary design of flaps. The aerodynamic design of the BBXL was

conducted using a MATLAB code to consider many different configurations. The third iteration

finalized these aerodynamic parameters and used them to begin aircraft performance estimates.

The required power was calculated, and an engine and propeller were chosen. Also, takeoff and

landing distances were computed. A summary of the aircraft specifications through each of

these iterations is shown in Appendix B. The fourth iteration calculated the trim stability of the

aircraft and produced a V-n diagram that determines the range of loads that the aircraft will

experience in all flight conditions. The fifth iteration determined the aerodynamic and inertial

loads acting on the wing and the resulting wing structure needed to carry these loads.

1

This document represents the final iteration of the design of the Big Brother XL4000. All of the

calculations have been completed, and a final configuration has been chosen. The purpose of

this document is to present an overview of the design of the Big Brother XL4000.

To properly design the Big Brother XL4000 for its mission, analysis must be conducted to gain

insight on the flight maneuvers required for the UAV. This section will outline a mission and

calculate the duration, flight speed, and distance covered over the various maneuvers.

1. Takeoff, dash to surveillance area, climb to cruise altitude

2. Loiter for a total time of 12 hours

3. Perform a Visual Target Identification (VTI) maneuver when a target is acquired (up

to 10 VTI maneuvers total)

4. Cruise back to base, descend, and land

The UAV will initially take off and then dash at a speed of 140 knots to the center of its 50- by

50-mile surveillance area. A diagram of the mission space is shown in Figure 2.1. When the

UAV has reached the loiter area, it will begin to use its synthetic aperture radar to scan the

surveillance area while climbing to its cruising altitude of 20,000 ft. at climb rate of 18.3 ft/s.

Surveillance Area

Loiter Pattern

6 miles

50 miles

Airbase

27 miles

50 miles

Figure 2.1: Outline of mission space.

Once in the surveillance area, the UAV will follow the pattern outlined in Figure 2.1. The UAV

will fly in a 6 mile diameter circle and alternate between the two elliptical flight patterns. This

loiter pattern will enable the UAV to observe the entire area, while remaining close to the center

2

of the surveillance area. The smallest radius of the loiter pattern is 3 miles, which translates into

a 2 degree bank angle. At such small bank angles, negligible additional power is required for

maneuvering. The UAV is essentially flying a pattern with alternates between a 6 mile diameter

circle and a 27 mile diameter circle. Since the range of the synthetic aperture radar is over 21

miles, a target can be found anywhere within the surveillance area. If a target is found, the UAV

will perform a VTI maneuver.

A VTI maneuver consists of flying at top speed towards the target, which can be anywhere

within the 50- by 50-mile area. If the target is on the edge of the surveillance area, it would be at

best 25 miles from the UAV and at worst 35 miles from the UAV. Taking the average of each

case, we assumed that for each VTI maneuver, the target is 30 miles from the UAV. Once the

UAV has dashed towards the target and descended to 500 ft. altitude, it will loiter in that area for

20 minutes. While loitering, the UAV will collect and transmit optical and infrared imagery

using the onboard video cameras. After the UAV has collected sufficient information, it will

dash back to the center of the surveillance area, climb to 20,000 ft., and resume loitering. Figure

2.2 describes a VTI maneuver.

VTI Maneuver

2. Descend to target

1. Loiter at center

of surveillance

area

500 ft. 4. Return to center of 20,000 ft.

3. Loiter on target

surveillance area

For one mission, the UAV will loiter for a total time of 12 hours and will be able to perform 10

VTI maneuvers. After the mission is completed, the UAV will cruise back to the base while

descending. For this analysis, it is assumed that the base is within 35 miles of the center of the

surveillance area. After calculating each component of the mission, we estimate that a total

mission will take approximately 21 hours and will cover a ground track of 2080 miles. These

values were used to calculate the amount of fuel needed to complete a mission.

The total distance covered and duration of a mission were calculated by breaking up each part of

the mission and calculating the speed, duration, and distance covered. Table 2.1 summarizes the

total mission and Table 2.2 summarizes the VTI maneuver.

3

Altitude Speed Duration Ground Distance

Event Ft. M Knots m/s Minutes Miles Km

Takeoff 0 0 42 21.6 <1 0.5 0.9

Dash to Surveillance 20,000 6096 140 72.0 18* 35 56.6

Area-While Climbing

Loiter (total time) 20,000 6096 80 41.2 720 1,104.7 1,777.8

VTI Maneuver (one) varies varies 140-80 72-41.2 49 90.2 145.2

VTI Maneuver (ten) varies varies 140-80 72-41.2 490 902 1452

Cruise Home, Descend varies varies 80 41.2 25 38 61.15

and Land

TOTAL varies varies varies varies 1254 2080.4 3397.95

(20.9 hrs.)

Table 2.1: Description of typical surveillance mission.

*Assumes average climb rate of 18.3 ft./s

Event Ft. M Knots m/s Minutes Miles Km

Dash to Target / 20,000 6096 140 72.0 11 30 48.3

Descend to 500 ft.

Loiter 500 152.4 80 41.2 20* 30 48.3

Climb and Dash Back 20,000 6096 140 72.0 18 30 48.3

to Surveillance Area

Total varies varies varies varies 49 90 145.2

Table 2.2: Detailed description of a Visual Target Identification (VTI) Maneuver.

*Assumes an average climb rate of 18.3 ft./s

3. Payload Analysis

The requirements state that Big Brother XL 4000 must be able to carry 150 pounds of payload,

which will consist of a synthetic aperture radar, an electro optic infrared sensor and a line of

sight data link. To evaluate these three pieces of equipment, weight and range were the primary

criteria. The ideal payload would be lightweight and yet possess a long range.

The synthetic aperture radar is used for our long range target identification; therefore, a range of

at least 21.5 miles is required to survey a 50 mile by 50 mile area with our loiter pattern. We

chose the Sandia National labs MiniSAR synthetic Aperture Radar because it is a quarter the

weight of other synthetic aperture radars (the MiniSAR weighs 30 pounds) and has a range of

35km (21.75 miles). Other synthetic Aperture Radars were considered, such as the Lynx and

TESAR. These were eliminated because of weight concerns; each weighs over 120 pounds [1].

4

3.2 Electro-Optic-Infrared Sensor

The electro-optic-infrared (EOI) sensor is used for close range target identification; therefore, a

range of only 2 miles is required when loitering at 500 ft. A modest range is desired because the

UAV may want to observe the targets while not being noticed. The EOI package also must be

able to collect imagery in day and night, so a camera and an inferred sensor is required. We

chose the Advanced EO/IR sensor from APM UAV Payloads, based in New Jersey. The

advanced EO/IR sensor has a 4km range (about 2.5 miles) and has both electro-optical and

infrared capabilities [2]. The EO/IR sensor weighs only 50 pounds, so it also meets our weight

requirement.

A line of sight data link is required to transmit the data collected by the EOI sensor and synthetic

aperture radar. The data link is also needed for communicating with the UAV to update any new

mission objectives. The data link chosen for our UAV is the UAV Data Link by L-3. This data

link is ideal because it has been used previously on other UAVs, has line of sight capabilities and

weighs only 0.5 pounds [3].

The sensor suite of the synthetic aperture radar, the EOI sensor, and line of sight data link can

meet all of the mission requirements. These three pieces of equipment in total weigh 80.5

pounds. This leaves 69.5 pounds for auxiliary batteries. The engine chosen comes with an

integrated 2kw generator, which will be the primary power supply for the electronics [4]. In

event of engine failure, the auxiliary batteries will be able to sustain the UAV until it can reach

the base.

This section summarizes the operating parameters of our current UAV design. The following

performance parameters are evaluated against mission requirements:

• Flight envelope

• Maximum rate of climb

• Maximum speed

• Maximum range

• Maximum endurance

• Minimum stall speed

• Ceiling

• Take off and Landing performance

• Payload performance

By comparing these calculated parameters to the specified requirements, we can show that our

design is able to meet or exceed all requirements. Range and endurance calculated for average

5

case. See section 2 for more information. Table 4.1 compares the performance parameters of

Big Brother XL4000 to the design requirements.

Characteristic Requirements Performance Requirements?

Max Flight Speed ≥ 140 Knots 142.8 Knots YES

(@ 500 ft.)

Max Rate of Climb ≥ 16.67 ft/s 31.5 ft/s YES

Max Operating ≥ 27,000 ft. 40,100 ft YES

Altitude (ceiling)

Airstrip Distance ≤ 3,000 ft 847 ft YES

to Land

Airstrip Distance ≤ 1,500 ft 605 ft YES

to Takeoff

Maximum Payload 150 lbs. 150 lbs. YES

Weight

Stall speed ≤ 35 Knots 35 Knots YES

(@ Sea level)

Max Endurance Able to loiter for 12 2080 miles ( for an YES, for most mission

hrs. and 10 VTI’s average mission) applications*

Max Range Able to loiter for 12 21 hours (for an YES, for most mission

hrs. and 10 VTI’s average mission) applications*

*Range and endurance calculated for average case. See section 2 for more information.

The main features of our aircraft were designed to meet the above requirements. In the section

below, these features are listed, followed by a description of the key constraints that dictated

their size.

Wing Area: 74.25 ft.2; Minimum wing area for sufficient lift at cruise. The minimum

wing area will produce the minimum amount of drag.

Tail Area: 7.28 ft.2 (horizontal); 7.0 ft.2 (vertical); Minimum tail area for trimmed

flight at cruise. The minimum tail area will produce the minimum amount

of drag.

Flap Area: 8.92 ft.2 (both flaps); Minimum flap area to meet 35 knots stall speed.

Flap Deflection: 20 degrees; Minimum flap deflection to meet 35 knots stall speed.

6

Drawings of our current design as of December 19th, 2006, are shown below in Figure 4.1

through Figure 4.6. Dimensions of importance are:

• Wingspan = 27.0 ft

• Total height of aircraft = 5.8 ft

• Fuselage length = 10.0 ft

• Distance from nose to center of gravity (full fuel) = 6.24 ft

• Distance from nose to center of gravity (no fuel) = 6.21 ft

• Propeller Diameter = 5.0 ft

• Maximum pitch angle on takeoff: 25°

1:64 Scale

7

27.0’

7.5’ 2.8’

2.5’

6.0’

6.24’

5.0’

5.8’

25°

8.2’

8

10.0’

16.1’

14.0

10.0

8.3

8.0

6.3

6.24

4.2

2.38

Propeller:

1.1 7.0 lb.

z

50.0 Control Tail:

Fuel: 183.4 lb. 57.7 lb.

lb System: 15.0 lb.

Wing: 65.6 lb.

40.0 lb.

SAR: Data

30.0 lb. Rear Gear:

Link: 34.6 lb.

0.5 lb. Front Gear: Additional

17.3 lb. Payload:

69.5 lb.

5. Weight Estimates

The weight estimates were calculated based on a gross takeoff weight of 657.1 lbs. at the

beginning of the iteration. At the end of the iteration, the new gross takeoff weight is

9

approximately 644.8 lbs. The weight estimates were based on the Cessna aircraft weight estimate

procedure and the scaled weights of the Predator. The majority of the weight comes from the

wing and fuel, which comprise approximately half of the gross takeoff weight. Table 5.1 shows

the weight estimates using both of these methods as well as our initial weight estimates.

Weight (lbs.)

Component Cessna Method Predator Scaling Method Our Estimate

Fuselage 77.0 75 75.0

Wing 65.6 66.7 65.6

Tail 15.0 13.3 14.2

Landing Gear 52.0 50 52.0

Power Plant 60.0 90 64.7

Control System 40.0 - 40.0

Fuel 135.1 305 183.4

Payload 150.0 150 150

5.1 Fuselage

We chose a weight of 75 lbs. based on the Predator scaling method. The Cessna method states

that the mass of the fuselage is typically 11% of the gross takeoff weight. This may be a

conservative estimate considering the current design for our fuselage is much smaller than a

typical Cessna fuselage. Furthermore, the Cessna method is for manned aircraft as opposed to

the unmanned aircraft used in our design.

5.2 Wing

Our estimate of the weight of the wing was 68.8 lbs. based on the Cessna method. The

parameters that go into the Cessna weight estimate of the wing are the design gross takeoff

weight, the design load factor, the wing area, the aspect ratio, and the percent thickness of the

wing at the chord center-line. The values of these parameters are shown in Table 5.2.

Parameter Value

Design GTOW (lb) 700

Design Load Factor 3.5

Wing Area (ft2) 74.25

Aspect Ratio 9.82

Thickness of root chord (%) 17.0

The values of the parameters were picked so that the aircraft could have a reasonable CLmax at

stall. The minimum value of CLmax at the stall speed of 35 kts was calculated to be 1.75 from

Equation 5.1 and will be attainable based on our MATLAB code analysis.

10

1

WTO = L = ρ sea SCLmax vStall 2 (Eqn. 5.1)

2

Given the sea-level density of 1.225 kg/m3, the wing area (S) and stall speed, we calculated the

minimum CLmax needed to generate sufficient lift at the stall speed that is equivalent to the WTO.

Our calculations indicate that we can achieve a CLmax greater than 1.75, which is sufficient for the

stall requirement.

The Cessna method predicts our tail weight to be 15.0 lbs. This estimate is a function only of the

horizontal and vertical tail areas, which are 7.28 ft2 and 7.0 ft2, respectively. The Predator

method determined a smaller tail weight of 13.3 lbs. Since our aircraft does not carry

passengers, the design requirements for the tail do not have to meet as strict requirements as

needed for transport aircraft. Thus, we chose to use the average of the two estimates for our tail

weight. The resulting tail weight is 14.2 lbs.

The landing gear weight estimate was based on a modified Cessna method. The Cessna landing

gear estimate is a function of only the gross takeoff weight. The landing gear used for the

estimate is a retractable tri-gear configuration. The Cessna landing gear estimate is based on the

Equation 5.2.

The constant term in the equation seemed too big for our aircraft since the Cessna model is for

aircraft up to 5000 lbs. We scaled the constant by multiplying it by the ratio of the UAV WTO

/5000 lbs. Thus the modified equation is show below.

Using this formula, we were able to get more reasonable numbers, which were closer to the

estimate using the Predator scaling method.

We chose a retractable landing gear configuration because we concluded that it is more efficient

than a static landing gear. Similar UAVs, such as the General Atomics Predator and GNAT-750,

use a retractable landing gear. The weight estimate of 52.0 lbs. for the landing gear is very

similar to a scaled-down weight estimate of the Predator with retractable landing gear.

Also, using analytical calculations we determined that the weight penalty is not as large as the

drag penalty. The increase in weight for retractable landing gear compared to a fixed landing

gear is about 34 lbs. However, the increase in the parasitic drag coefficient for fixed landing gear

is approximately 20%. This requires approximately a 20% increase in power for cruise which

results in a significant weight penalty in extra fuel burned.

11

5.5 Power Plant

We chose a weight estimate for a power plant that is less than the calculations by both the Cessna

and Predator methods. We made this decision based on information for brand new, ultra high

efficiency engines that are currently available on the market. The model that we are

implementing is the AR801, manufactured by UAV Engines Ltd. in Lichfield, U.K. This engine

produces a maximum power of 51 hp at 8000 RPM, which is sufficient for all required flight

conditions. The estimated weight of 64.7 lbs. includes a dry weight of 43 lbs. plus an additional

14.7 lbs. for oil, coolant, and installation hardware [5]. Also, propeller weight of 7.0 lbs. was

included in the weight estimate.

The control system consists of flight and engine controls. According to Cessna weight estimates,

40 lbs. is used for light single fixed propeller engine aircraft. Since our UAV has a single

pushback propeller as the initial design, 40 lbs. seems reasonable. No information was available

on the weight of the control system on the Predator.

5.7 Fuel

The fuel weight was calculated to be 183.4 lbs. based on our mission requirements. These

requirements include takeoff, cruise for 12 hours, 10 VTI maneuvers, cruise back to the landing

strip, and landing. The detailed fuel calculations are carried out in Section 13.

5.8 Payload

The maximum payload of the UAV is set at 150 lbs. This value includes the three payload

components: a Synthetic Aperture Radar sensor, an Electro-Optic-Infrared sensor, and a line of

sight data link. It also includes the mounting hardware, batteries, and other electrical equipment

necessary to integrate these components into the UAV. A payload weight of 150 lbs. must be

accounted for, even if lighter payload components can be found.

6. Center of Gravity

Using the mass calculations from the previous section and layouts, we determined the location of

the center of gravity of the UAV to be 6.24 ft behind the nose of the aircraft when the fuel tanks

are full. The CG moves forward to 6.21 ft behind the nose when the fuel tanks are empty. The

center of gravity is slightly forward of the aerodynamic center of the wing (located at 6.3 ft.) to

ensure aircraft stability. The center of gravity of the aircraft was determined based on the

spreadsheet shown in Table 6.1.

12

Components Weight Distance from Nose Moment

Wing 65.6 6.30 413.1

Tail 14.2 14.00 198.3

Propeller 7.0 10.00 70.0

Powerplant 57.7 8.30 478.9

Front Gear 17.3 2.38 41.2

Rear Gear 34.6 10.00 346.4

SAR 30.0 1.80 54.0

EO/I 50.0 1.10 55.0

Data Link 0.5 2.50 1.3

Additional Payload 69.5 8.00 556.0

Fuel 183.4 6.30 1155.4

Fuselage 53.6 5.00 267.9

Twin Boom 21.4 10.15 217.5

Control System 40.0 4.20 168.0

GTOW 644.8 4023.0

Dry Weight 461.4

CG (Empty Fuel) 6.21

The CG calculations assume that the components have point mass at their respective locations. In

addition, it assumes that fuel is concentrated at the wing aerodynamic center.

7. Airfoil Selection

The selected airfoil must be able to meet all the aerodynamics requirements as given on the

aircraft specification sheet. Furthermore, we would like to select an airfoil with excellent

aerodynamic performance throughout its mission. To this end, we have developed three criteria

with which we would able to judge each airfoil.

The three criteria used for selecting an airfoil are maximum lift coefficient, aerodynamic

efficiency, and off-design aerodynamic performance. The next three sections outline the

importance of each of these criteria.

One of the most desirable characteristics of our airfoil is its lift coefficient. The lift coefficient

dictates how well the aircraft will generate lift during lift-intensive maneuvers, such as takeoff

and landing. The aircraft must have a design sea-level stall speed of 35 knots. The minimum lift

coefficient required to maintain the flight condition at stall speed is given by:

13

1

WTO = L = ρ sea SCL vStall 2 (Eqn. 7.1)

2

Given that the airfoil generally has a lift coefficient higher than that of the entire wing, the airfoil

to be chosen has to have a maximum lift coefficient higher than the value calculated by Equation

7.1.

In addition to meeting the maximum lift coefficient requirement, we would like an airfoil which

has superior lift characteristics in order to minimize the wing area. Wings with a larger lift

coefficient tend to produce more induced drag as well. Therefore, through iterations between our

airfoil selection and wing design, we will choose the best airfoil and wing design which creates

the necessary lift while minimizing drag.

The second most important criterion is the aerodynamic efficiency, given by the maximum lift-

to-drag ratio. To reduce drag and thereby conserve fuel, the aircraft will have to fly in such a

state as to achieve maximum aerodynamic efficiency. Since the aircraft spends the majority of

its flight time either cruising or loitering, the airfoil selected must have the highest aerodynamic

efficiency at cruising and loitering conditions.

The final criterion we considered was off-design performance of the airfoil. Having a high

efficiency at a single angle of attack does not guarantee reasonable aerodynamic performance

throughout the entire flight envelope. Therefore, the airfoil should have a reasonable lift-to-drag

ratio over a broad range of angles of attack. The airfoil must also operate over a wide range of

conditions. Our airfoil must be able to generate negative lift and have reasonable aerodynamic

efficiencies over a broad range of angles of attack

Our team analyzed a wide range of airfoils before choosing the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil,

illustrated in Figure 7.1, as the best choice for our UAV. We analyzed Mark Drela’s DAE low

drag airfoils as well as NACA 5-digit 63-series and 23-series. We compared these with the

NASA Langley general aviation airfoil series. Our analysis shows that the high lift coefficient

and excellent off-design characteristics make the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) the best airfoil for the

Big Brother XL4000.

14

Figure 7.1: NASA GA(W)-1 airfoil cross section.

Airfoils were analyzed at the Reynolds number for each flight condition and at various angles of

attack. We considered the following conditions in the flight profile: cruise, dash, loiter, takeoff

and landing. The XFOIL inputs for each of these conditions are given in Table 7.1.

Reynolds Number 1.66E+06 2.90E+06 2.44E+06 1.38E+06

Mach Number 0.13 0.23 0.12 0.07

Altitude (m) 6096 6096 152.4 0

The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil outperformed all other airfoils in maximum sectional lift

coefficient. Figure 7.2 below shows the drag polar diagram of the airfoils that we analyzed. The

NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) had the highest maximum sectional lift coefficient (CLmax = 1.94) of the

airfoils analyzed. The thicker NACA 23018 had the next highest CL of 1.71. While the NASA

GA(W)-1 (ls417) had the best maximum lift performance, it was important to analyze the drag

performance of the airfoil.

15

NACA 63-015A

NACA 63212

0.05

NACA 63-215

NACA 63-412 0.045

NACA 64-012A

NACA 64-212 0.04

CLmax ≈ 1.5

NACA 64-215

Sectional Drag Coefficient

0.035

drag at low lift

Negative 0.025 coefficients

lift can be

generated 0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Sectional Lift Coefficient

NACA 23015 significantly lower

NACA 23012 0.045 CLmax than NASA

NACA 23018 GA(W)-1 (ls417)

NASA GWA-1 (ls417) 0.04

NACA 23010

0.035

Sectional Drag Coefficient

0.03

Negative

lift can be 0.025 NACA 23-series and

generated NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417)

0.02

have similar sectional

drags

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Sectional Lift Coefficient

16

LS013 0.05

LS413 NASA GA(W)-1

0.045

LS413MOD (LS417Mod)

LS417MOD

0.04

CLmax = 1.94

Sectional Drag Coefficient

sectional drag

0.03

at low lift

Negative coefficients

0.025

lift can be

generated

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Sectional Lift Coefficient

NACA 6712

DAE 11 Good

0.025 DAE 21 aerodynamic

DAE 31 efficiencies

Sectional Drag Coefficient

0.02

No Negative

lift can be

generated

0.015

But very poor

off-design

performance

0.01

0.005

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Sectional Lift Coefficient

17

The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil has slightly higher drag coefficients than most of the airfoils

analyzed. Because most of the UAV mission requires loitering and dashing at high speed, we

compared the sectional drag coefficients at sectional lift coefficients around CL=0.5, which is

near the cruise lift coefficient. The DAE 31, NASA LS413 and NACA 63-series airfoils had CD

values of approximately 0.005 near CL = 0.5. The NACA 23-series airfoils had CD values of 0.7-

0.8, depending on sectional thickness. The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil has a CD value of

approximately 0.8 at CL = 0.5. While the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil had a slightly higher

sectional drag coefficient, it was still comparable to its competitors. While the sectional drag

coefficient can give a good indicator of performance, the overall wing performance is the

deciding factor for airfoil selection.

The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil has excellent off-design characteristics. The airfoil can

generate CL ≈ -0.5 at -8 degrees angle of attack for dive conditions. It also has a wide range of

sectional lift coefficients that generate low sectional drag. While the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417)

airfoil meets all of the airfoil criteria, it is also important to analyze the overall wing performance

to pick the best airfoil. The performance characteristics of the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil

are shown below in Table 7.2.

Lift curve slope m 0.112 degrees-1

Zero-Lift Angle of Attack αL0 -4.0 degrees

Maximum Sectional Lift Coefficient Clmax 1.94

Sectional Pitching Moment CmAC -0.1

Table 7.2: Performance characteristics of the selected NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil.

The next section will discuss the current wing design. As a result of calculating wing iterations

with the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417), NASA ls413 and NACA 23015 airfoils, we found the NASA

GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil to be the best. The high maximum lift coefficient allows us to minimize

the required wing area. The wing area reduction with the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil

outweighs the greater sectional drag of the airfoil. As a result the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417)

airfoil allows us to minimize the engine power required, fuel consumption and thus our gross

takeoff weight.

8. Wing Design

The wing planform shape and high lift devices were selected so that the desirable stall speed and

maximum range requirements were met. We chose a design that met these two parameters for

cost reasons. The wing design is currently a tapered, un-swept, un-twisted wing with simple flaps

for low speed flight. This section outlines the design of the wing and high lift devices in more

detail.

To find the optimal wing planform area, the MATLAB program Liftline.m was used to calculate

the induced drag and the lift distribution. Following our aerodynamic design iterations, we have

18

decided on a wing with a root chord of 3.1 ft. and a tip cord of 2.4 ft. (Figure 8.1). We chose this

current baseline design to reduce the induced drag of our UAV. The reduced drag lessens the

amount of fuel required, the power required, and overall weight of the aircraft.

TipTip

Chord=

Chord=

2.4 2.5

ft. ft. Root Chord= 3.1 ft.

High lift devices such as trailing edge flaps and leading edge flaps are often employed in aircraft

to generate additional lift during takeoff, create drag during landing, and decrease take-off

distance. In order to meet our mission requirements, our team analyzed the advantages and its

associated trade-offs of incorporating such devices in our design.

To achieve a successful takeoff, the amount of lift generated must balance the weight of the

aircraft. Since the amount of lift generated is directly related to the lift coefficient and the speed

of the aircraft, a takeoff scenario would require a high lift coefficient to counter the low speed. If

the wing of the airplane is unable to provide the required lift coefficient, then trailing edge flaps

may be used to increase the camber of the wing and improve the wing lift coefficient. While this

is beneficial during the take-off process, the deployment of flaps also results in a substantial

increase in the drag coefficient of the wing. Thus, the flaps may also be deployed during the

landing phase to create additional drag and aid in the deceleration of the aircraft.

To maintain simplicity and optimize weight, two particular flaps may be considered: the split

flap and the plain flap. As shown by Figure 8.2, the plain flap rotates about a simple hinge while

the split flap uses an upper and lower surface, of which the lower rotates about a simple hinge

while the upper remains immobile. The plain flap is the simplest to implement while the split

flap is more complex but offers better structural strength. In our case of a low speed lightweight

vehicle, the performance of the plain flap is more advantageous than the structural benefits of the

split flap.

19

Figure 8.2: Diagram showing the plain flap and split flap design. [6]

In addition to structural advantages, plain flap is more efficient than split flaps. As shown by

Figure 8.3, plain flap performs 20% better than split flap with 20 degree flap deflection angle.

Figure 8.3: Plain flap performs better than split flaps at 20 degree flap deflection angle.

The positioning of the flap with respect to the wing centerline is important in optimizing the

structural and flow behavior in that region. The flap must be positioned where it is as close as

possible to the fuselage (for stress optimization) but far enough to minimize the boundary layer

effects due to the proximity of the fuselage. Thus, we chose to position the inner side of the flap

a distance roughly equivalent to 2 fuselage diameters (4 feet) from the wing centerline (Figure

8.4). In choosing the dimensions of the flap, our team decided to implement 20% flap chord to

wing chord ratio. The maximum flap chord to wing chord ratio was limited to 30% due to wing

structural consideration. From the MATLAB code, we have iterated the flap dimension process

and we came up with the flap span of 7.0 ft, which was approximately 45% of the half-span of

the wing.

20

13.5 ft

3.1 ft 7.0 ft

2.4 ft

4 ft

cf/c = 0.2

Figure 8.4 Diagram showing flap positioning and dimensioning.

To determine the performance impact of the flaps on the aircraft during takeoff and landing, we

inputted the flap geometry and flight conditions into our main MATLAB solver to determine the

lift and drag coefficients at the two flight conditions. For simplicity, a maximum flap deflection

angle of 20 degrees was assumed throughout the analysis.

From our analysis, it was determined that the utilization of flaps increases the maximum lift

coefficient by 26.2%. A summary of the sectional airfoil performance with the flaps is shown

below in Table 8.1.

Parameter Value

Lift curve slope m 0.112 degrees-1

Zero-Lift Angle of Attack αL0 -7.3 degrees

Maximum Sectional Lift Coefficient Clmax 2.612

Sectional Pitching Moment CmAC -0.252

Table 8.1: Sectional airfoil performance with flaps deployed at 20°.

The aerodynamic performance characteristics of the aircraft were computed at the various design

points of takeoff, cruise, dash, and landing. A MATLAB code was used to perform these

calculations, and it is included in Appendix C.

To come up with the optimal parameters for the aerodynamic design, our team considered

different geometric parameters of the aircraft. We also took design restraint parameters into

consideration such that our initial aerodynamic design parameters do not clash with other design

considerations. The only major design restraint was at dash condition. Our engines will not meet

the dash requirements if the wing area and CD0 values were too high.

21

9.1.1 Taper Ratio

Taper ratio is defined as the ratio between the tip chord length and root chord length. Various

taper ratios were considered while restricting other parameters. Table 9.1 tabulates the

aerodynamic parameter changes according to the taper ratio.

b = 27

cr (ft) ct (ft) taper Able to Takeoff? AR Sw (ft^2) L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash

3.5 3.5 1.000 y 7.71 94.5 15.35 16.17 0.0185 0.0162

3.5 3 0.857 y 8.31 87.75 16.06 16.96 0.0191 0.0168

3.5 2.5 0.714 y 9 81 16.8 17.78 0.0199 0.0175

First condition to look for was whether the aircraft was able to takeoff with decreased taper ratio.

As the taper ratio is decreased, the wing area decreases, which reduces the lift generated by the

wing. A decrease in the taper ratio also increases the aspect ratio, which in return reduces the

induced drag. This is observed in the L/D values as taper is decreased. Most importantly, CD0

increases as taper increases. Therefore, iteration was necessary to find best taper ratio which

maximizes aircraft’s L/D while not increasing CD0 at dash condition.

Wing span was also considered in the sizing of the wing. Table 9.2 shows aerodynamic

parameter changes as a function of wing span.

Wing Span (ft) Able to Takeoff? AR Sw (ft^2) L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash

26 y 9.45 71.5 16.91 17.95 0.0212 0.0186

28 y 10.18 77 17.75 18.83 0.0205 0.018

30 y 10.91 82.5 18.56 19.67 0.02 0.0175

As the wing span is increased it reduced the CD0 values. This is a result of increased wing area

and weight of the wing. Due to our design constraint, it was not recommended to increase the

wing area too much. The optimal wing span was calculated to be 27 ft. from the iteration.

Lastly, the root chord was changed to see how it affects other aerodynamic parameters. Table 9.3

shows the results.

cr (ft) taper Able to Takeoff? AR Sw (ft^2) L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash

3 1 y 10 90 17.61 18.61 0.0191 0.0168

3.5 1 y 8.57 105 16.31 17.16 0.0178 0.0157

4 1 y 7.5 120 15.02 15.71 0.0167 0.0148

From the table, it is clear that increasing the root chord decreases the CD0 value. However, the

cost of increasing has a large negative effect. The aspect ratio decreases and as a result, a large

22

induced drag is experienced by the aircraft. This drag increase harms the L/D ratio and this

would correlate to the amount of fuel it requires to complete the mission.

Current design has a root chord of 3.1 with taper ratio of 0.774. Table 9.4 tabulates the current

design.

b cr ct Able to Takeoff? AR Wing Area L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash

27 3.1 2.4 y 9.82 74.25 17.2 18.2 0.021 0.018

Current long endurance UAVs have L/D values ranging between 15 and 20. Our calculated UAV

L/D values are comparable to similar aircrafts. With the current configuration, our UAV is able

to meet the dash condition.

When the flaps are retracted, we are interested in the maximum angle of attack of the aircraft

when the sectional lift coefficient reaches 1.94. Table 9.1 is the plot illustrating this point.

Figure 9.1: Wing sectional lift coefficient profile at takeoff conditions without flaps [7].

The maximum angle of attack without flaps was calculated to be 16 degrees. Table 9.5

summarizes the aircraft aerodynamic coefficients at various angles of attack. The lift coefficient

of the aircraft was based on the sectional life coefficient values output by Liftline.m. The drag

coefficient calculation will be discussed on section 8.4. The coefficient of moment without the

tail calculation can be found in Appedix D.

23

AoA CL(wing) CL(ac) Cmac-t CD(ac)

0 0.36166 0.32323 -0.10000 0.02647

1 0.45208 0.41601 -0.09118 0.02886

2 0.54250 0.50879 -0.08237 0.03181

3 0.63291 0.60158 -0.07355 0.03533

4 0.72333 0.69436 -0.06474 0.03941

5 0.81374 0.78714 -0.05592 0.04406

6 0.90416 0.87992 -0.04711 0.04927

7 0.99458 0.97271 -0.03829 0.05505

8 1.08499 1.06549 -0.02948 0.06139

9 1.17541 1.15827 -0.02066 0.06830

10 1.26582 1.25106 -0.01185 0.07577

11 1.35624 1.34384 -0.00303 0.08381

12 1.44666 1.43662 0.00579 0.09241

13 1.53707 1.52940 0.01460 0.10158

14 1.62749 1.62219 0.02342 0.11131

15 1.71790 1.71497 0.03223 0.12160

16 1.80832 1.80775 0.04105 0.13246

The pitching moment increases as the aircraft pitches. The main contribution comes from the

fuselage pitching moment. Given these coefficient of drag and lift at various angles of attack, we

were able to investigate whether the UAV was able to takeoff without flaps. The lift generated

by the aircraft is limited by the wing stall angle of attack. A lift greater than 644.8 lbf. is needed

to take off.

Figure 9.2: UAV will not be able to takeoff without the flaps.

24

As observed in Figure 9.2, the wing without flaps deployed at stall angle of attack of

approximately 16 degrees gives lift of 555 lbf., which is incapable of generating sufficient lift for

takeoff with a given stall speed of 35 kts at sea-level.

To calculate the stall speed at cruise condition, Equation 8.1 was used.

2 ⋅W

V = (Eqn. 9.1)

ρ ⋅ S ⋅ (CL ) max

Using Equation 9.1 and using the CLmax of the wing at 16 degree angle of attack, we calculated

the stall speed at cruise conditions to be 50.9 kts. Hence, the UAV will be able to cruise at 80 kts.

Mission requirements specify that the aircraft must perform dash maneuvers with an air speed of

140 kts and at an altitude of 500 ft. Based on our calculations, our UAV will be able to sustain

steady level flight at these conditions. Using the same approach as cruise condition calculation,

we calculated the stall speed at dash to be 38.3 kts. Therefore, the UAV will be able to dash at

140 kts.

When the flaps are deployed, we are interested in the maximum angle of attack of the aircraft as

well as the maximum lift coefficient generated by the flaps. Figure 9.3 illustrates this point.

Figure 9.3: Wing sectional lift coefficient profile with flaps deployed.

The corresponding angle of attack at this condition was approximately 17 degrees. Therefore our

stall angle of attack with flaps deployed is 17 degrees. Table 9.6 summarizes the aircraft

aerodynamic coefficients in the flap deployed configuration.

25

AoA CL(wing) CL(ac) Cmac-t CD(ac)

0 0.71635 0.62129 -0.25153 0.05170

1 0.80677 0.71407 -0.24271 0.05598

2 0.89719 0.80685 -0.23390 0.06082

3 0.98760 0.89964 -0.22508 0.06623

4 1.07802 0.99242 -0.21627 0.07221

5 1.16843 1.08520 -0.20745 0.07875

6 1.25885 1.17799 -0.19864 0.08585

7 1.34927 1.27077 -0.18982 0.09352

8 1.43968 1.36355 -0.18100 0.10175

9 1.53010 1.45633 -0.17219 0.11055

10 1.62051 1.54912 -0.16337 0.11991

11 1.71093 1.64190 -0.15456 0.12984

12 1.80135 1.73468 -0.14574 0.14034

13 1.89176 1.82747 -0.13693 0.15139

14 1.98218 1.92025 -0.12811 0.16302

15 2.07259 2.01303 -0.11930 0.17520

16 2.16301 2.10581 -0.11048 0.18796

17 2.25343 2.19860 -0.10167 0.20127

The necessary lift coefficient needed to takeoff was calculated to be approximately 2.14, which

occurs between 16 and 17 degrees angle of attack. The pitching moment is significantly more

negative with flaps because flaps increase the lift generated by the wing and as a result, they will

produce more negative pitching moment. Also notice the increase in CD as the flaps contribute

more induced drag. The drag contribution due to the flaps can be found in section 8.4.

Without the flaps, we have shown that the aircraft is unable to generate sufficient lift for takeoff

and cruise at sea-level without the flaps. With the flaps deployed we came to conclusion that the

aircraft will generate sufficient lift for takeoff with a flap deflection angle of 20 degrees.

Figure 9.4: Aircraft will generate sufficient lift for takeoff with flaps deployed.

26

From Figure 9.4, we can clearly see that at stall angle of attack of approximately 17 degrees, the

aircraft will be able to takeoff with 675.1 lbf lift force. This is slightly higher than our gross

takeoff weight of 644.8 lbf. Our goal was meet the gross takeoff weight at stall speed since the

UAV will be flying at 1.15 times greater than the stall speed during normal takeoff session. At

1.15Vstall, the UAV will generate approximately 894.5 lbf of lift force and it will have 6 degree

of error margin between stall angle of attack and minimum lift angle of attack.

Deploying the flaps will result in changes to aerodynamic properties of the wing. The sectional

lift coefficient of the wing as well as the aerodynamic pitching moment will be affected due to

the flaps. The equations used to calculate these changes are shown in Appendix D.

9.4 Drag

The total drag coefficient can be calculated by adding the parasite drag coefficient, induced drag

coefficient, trim drag coefficient, and the added induced drag due to the flaps. Equation 9.2

illustrates this point.

Each component contributing to the total drag was calculated individually. These calculations

can be found in Appendix D.

The total drag coefficient of the aircraft at takeoff, cruise and dash conditions were plotted and a

2nd degree polynomial fit operation was done to calculate the K value for CD = KCL2 + CD0.

Table 9.7 shows the table of CD0 and K values for all 4 configurations.

CD0 K(ac)

Takeoff (No Flaps) 0.0222 0.0336

Takeoff (With Flaps) 0.0375 0.0339

Cruise 0.0205 0.0336

Dash 0.0181 0.0336

To illustrate this relationship, a drag polar plot for takeoff condition was constructed. This is

shown in Figure 9.5.

27

Drag Polar at Takeoff Condition (-17 deg. to 17 deg.)

Without Flaps With Flaps

0.25

0.2

CD(ac) 0.15

0.1

0.05

0

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

CL(ac)

As you can see from the plot, the y-intercept (CD0) increased with the flaps deployed. This is

expected due to increase in induced drag as well as the trim drag. The K value did not change

much going from retracted to deployed configuration. The slope of drag polar curve remains the

same for both configurations due to this constant K.

The parasite drag coefficient is the major contribution of the drag when the aircraft is at steady

level flight. Table 9.8 shows the breakdown of each component contributing to the parasite drag

at dash condition.

Component CD0

Wing 0.0100

Fuselage 0.0025

Booms 0.0020

Tail 0.0021

Deployed Landing Gear 0.0034

As seen from the table, the major contribution of the parasite drag is the wing. By examining the

equations, the wing surface area was the major parameter related to the wing parasite drag.

Therefore, our team focused on optimizing the wing surface area as much as possible in order to

minimize the wing parasite drag. Another component to observe is the landing gear. When the

landing gear was not retracted, the resultant parasite drag coefficient contribution was

approximately 33% of the wing parasite drag. This was the main motivation behind retractable

landing gear configuration. Additionally, the fuselage and boom wetted areas were directly

calculated from CAD software since this was the most accurate way to calculate it.

28

9.5 Cruise and Dash Performance

During dash, the aircraft is traveling approximately twice as fast at near sea level altitude

compared to cruise conditions.

From the lift section, we have calculated that our stall velocity at cruise is below 80 kts.

Additionally, at dash condition, the stall speed was below 140 kts at maximum angle of attack.

This implies that our aircraft should be able to carry out its mission with targeted airspeed for

both conditions.

For cruise and dash conditions, it is important to consider L/D ratio since this will directly affect

the fuel efficiency of the aircraft. Table 9.9 tabulates the maximum L/D ratio for both conditions

as well as the CLmax and equivalent stall speeds.

Cruise 17.2 5 1.81 50.9

Dash 18.2 5 1.81 38.3

Table 9.9: Maximum L/D ratio occurs near 5 degree angle of attack.

Our UAV will have approximately L/D ratio of 17 for both conditions near 5 degree angle of

attack. This is similar to the L/D ratio of similar aircrafts we have considered at the beginning of

our project.

In order for our aircraft to meet the various speed and altitude requirements, the UAV must have

a sufficiently powerful engine and propeller configuration. To select an appropriate engine, our

team calculated the power requirements based on the current aerodynamic and weight estimates

of the aircraft. The power required was computed at the various design points of cruise, dash

and loiter. Our calculations indicate that with the chosen propeller, a 51 hp engine will be

required to meet all performance specifications.

In steady level flight, the aircraft is flying at a constant altitude and velocity. At this flight

condition, the required thrust is equal to the drag acting on the aircraft. For a propeller aircraft,

the measured output is in horse power and must be converted to thrust. A MATLAB code was

written to perform these calculations and is included in Appendix C.

To maintain steady, level flight, the engine must generate an available power that is greater than

or equal to the power required. The power available, at a specific altitude, in an engine that has a

rated sea level horse power Pshp is given by:

29

ρ altitude

PAval = 0.85ηi (P ) (Eqn. 10.1)

ρ sealevel shp sealevel

It is clear from this equation that power available drops as the altitude increases. Also the term ηi

is a measure of the propeller efficiency and is a function of flight speed and propeller diameter.

The maximum airspeed attainable at a certain altitude occurs when the available power output is

equal to the power required.

The power requirement at the cruise altitude of 20,000 ft was calculated and is given in Figure

10.1. These power requirements are calculated assuming our aircraft is at our GTOW of 644.8

lbs. The power required to cruise at 80 kts is 8.1 hp. With a 51 hp engine, the output gives us a

maximum air speed of 138.9 kts and is also able to meet the power required at the stall speed of

42 kts.

Based on our mission analysis, a large part of our mission profile consists of cruising at 80 kts at

an altitude of 20,000 ft. Therefore, it is important that the cruise speed be close to the airspeed

that requires the minimum amount of power. Given our aerodynamic configuration, the least

power required for steady level flight is 7.6 hp and occurs at a flight speed of 62 kts. Although

we will be cruising with 0.5 hp greater than the optimum, the trade off is necessary in order to

meet our other aerodynamic specifications.

30

10.3 Power Requirement for Dash and Loiter

At the dash and loiter altitude of 500 ft, the power requirement was calculated and is given in

Figure 10.2. These power requirements are calculated assuming our aircraft is at our GTOW of

644.8 lbs. The power required for dash at 140 kts is 39.7 hp. The power required for loiter is 9.4

hp. The engine also delivers enough power to fly at the stall speed of 40.9 kts and attain a

maximum speed of 142.8 kts. From this analysis, we conclude that the 51 hp engine meets our

requirements.

Figure 10.2: Power required and power available at dash/loiter altitude with 51 hp engine.

Our UAV is required to have a rate of climb of 16.67 ft/s at sea level. The maximum rate of

climb, Vmax climb rate can be determined by first calculating the horizontal velocity at which

maximum climb rate is attained, Vmax rate . Vmax rate and subsequently Vmax climb rate for a certain

altitude is given by:

2 ⎛W ⎞ K

Vmax rate = (Eqn. 9.2)

ρ ⎜⎝ S ⎟⎠ 3Cd0

ρ (P ) 1 C S

Vmax climb rate = η p shp SL − ρ (Vmax rate )3 D (Eqn. 9.3)

ρ SL W 2 W

31

Figure 10.3 depicts how the maximum climb rate of our UAV varies with altitude. The weight

of the aircraft was assumed to be the GTOW of 644.8 lbs. It shows that our aircraft easily meets

the required sea level climb rate even at maximum weight. Figure 10.3 also shows that our flight

ceiling is 40,100 ft. The flight ceiling is given by the altitude at which the maximum climb rate

is zero. Our aircraft has a maximum climb rate of 31.5 ft/s at sea level.

Figure 10.3: Maximum climb rate for our UAV at maximum weight and flaps retracted.

The flight envelope depicts the range of speeds that our aircraft can fly at a specific altitude in

steady level flight. The stall boundary line is the locus of our UAV’s Vstall at each respective

altitude, and is determined purely from the aerodynamic properties of our aircraft. The power

boundary line represents the maximum and minimum speeds at which the engine is able to

power the aircraft in steady level flight. The maximum and minimum speed occurs when the

maximum power available from the engine matches the power required for steady level flight.

Since the stall boundary is ahead of the lower power boundary for most of the altitudes, the

minimum airspeeds that our UAV will be able to maintain is usually stall limited. These flight

envelopes are calculated assuming our aircraft is at our GTOW of 644.8 lbs.

Figure 10.4 demonstrates that our UAV, with flaps retracted is able to fly at all the required

flight points with the exception of the sea level stall requirement. However, it can be seen in

Figure 10.5 that with flaps deployed, our UAV is able to satisfy stall requirements.

32

Figure 10.4: Flight envelope of the UAV with flaps retracted.

33

11. Engine Selection

We chose to implement the AR801 engine, manufactured by UAV Engines of Lichfield, United

Kingdom, as the power plant of our aircraft. The engine is a very important part of the aircraft

design. The engine must be able to perform to the demands of the different flight conditions that

our UAV will encounter. The engine must be able to provide adequate power during dash and

take-off, yet be fuel efficient enough to minimize the fuel weight required. To these ends, we

have selected several different engines that meet the maximum power requirement and are

relatively fuel efficient. Table 11.1 shows some different characteristics of the chosen engines.

Type of Engine Rotary 2 Stroke 4 Stroke

Manufacturer UAV Engines BRP-Rotax HKS

Location United Kingdom Austria Japan

Horsepower (bhp) 51 65 60

Weight (lbs) 53.7 110.2 121

Average Fuel Consumption (lb/hr) 15 24 14.3

Dimensions (in) 12.8 X 9.8 X 12 20 X 16.4 X 29.5 25.3 X 17.1 X 18.4

Evaluation Best Option Fuel Inefficient Too Big

Table 11.1: Engine comparison chart.

Our ideal engine will be light, fuel efficient, small, and easy to use. As can be seen from Table

11.1, the AR801, which is made by UAV Engines Ltd., is both light, small, and fuel efficient.

The Rotax 582 UL is heavier and the least fuel efficient of the group. It also is a 2 stroke engine

which requires the extra step of adding oil to the fuel. The HKS 700 E is the most fuel efficient,

but its size is relatively large in comparison to the AR801 due to its horizontally opposed

cylinders. After considering these differences, we chose the AR801 engine to power our UAV.

Its compact rotary engine is perfect for our narrow fuselage. In addition, its low weight and

good fuel consumption will make the fuel weight and therefore overall weight of our UAV

minimal, which is desirable. Appendix H details the fuel consumption of the AR801.

We chose to use a composite-wood two-bladed propeller that is 5 ft in diameter for our initial

design. Two blades and a composite-wood construction were selected because of weight

considerations. A composite two bladed propeller typically weighs less than 7 lbs. [10]. A two

bladed propeller is also the least destabilizing propeller configuration during powered flight.

Proper propeller selection is important because the propeller’s geometry plays an important role

in the propulsion systems overall efficiency and aircraft stability. The initial propeller selection

was conducted by looking at the diameters of propellers for engines of similar power (about 50

hp). A propeller diameter of 52-72 inches was a typical size used on engines ranging in power of

50-70 horsepower [11]. Therefore, no matter what engine is chosen in the 50 horsepower range,

the maximum prop size is 72 inches. To find the optimum propeller size, different propeller

geometries were evaluated based on the following criteria (in order of importance):

34

1. Ability of propeller to fit in current configuration

2. Efficiency of the propeller

3. Weight

4. Ease of installation/operation

5. Contribution to destabilizing downwash on aircraft stability

The efficiency of the propeller is directly related to its size. Therefore, we chose the largest

propeller reasonably possible to get the largest efficiency possible. The design parameters that

limit the size of the propeller are the ground clearance when rotating for takeoff and the

maximum distance between the twin booms (6.28 ft.)

Some propellers can vary their pitch to increase the efficiency. However, the efficiency increase

is only realized at low speeds, and a variable pitch propeller is more complicated and heavier

than a fixed pitch propeller. For these reasons, we chose a fixed-pitch propeller.

From Figure 12.1 below, it is evident that the propeller efficiency is lower at lower speeds. This

is fine for our configuration because the UAV is not power-limited at low speeds; we are power

limited at high speeds. At high speeds, the propeller efficiency is at its maximum (0.98 for our

case) and is adequate to meet our dash requirement.

Using the knowledge of actuator disk theory and research conducted on propellers we were able

to construct a trade-study matrix. We used the trade study matrix in Table 12.1 to evaluate the

best possible configuration and size of the propeller. The design tradeoffs are summarized in the

trade study matrix below.

35

Compatibility Efficiency Ease of Contribution to

CriteriaÆ Weight Conclusion

with configuration of Propeller Installation stability

Design

Considered

Configuration Considerations

2 Blade-Fixed Design

Excellent Adequate Excellent Excellent Excellent

Pitch Chosen

2 Blade- Too heavy

Variable Pitch Excellent Excellent Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Excellent and

complicated

>2 Blade- Too heavy,

Fixed Pitch complicated

Excellent Adequate Poor Excellent Unsatisfactory

and stability

problems

> 2 Blade- Too heavy,

Variable Pitch complicated

Excellent Excellent Poor Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory

and stability

problems

Size Considerations

Propeller;

Not efficient

<5feet Excellent Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent

enough

diameter

Propeller; 5 Design

Excellent Adequate Excellent Excellent Excellent

feet diameter Chosen

Propeller; >5 Poor; cannot fit a Poor; tip Will not fit

feet diameter prop with exceeds Unsatisfactory Excellent Unsatisfactory in current

diameter > 5 ft Mach 1 design

From the trade study matrix, it is clear that a 5 ft. diameter propeller in the 2 blade, fixed pitch

configuration is the best design choice for our design. The propeller will be attached to a 2.3:1

reduction drive that is part of the AR801 engine. The belt drive’s reduction ratio was chosen so

that the propeller blade tips will not exceed Mach 1.

Big Brother XL4000 will need 183.4 lbs of fuel to complete the flight profile detailed in the

Mission Description section. In order to meet the requirements, the aircraft must carry enough

fuel to perform all of its required objectives: take off, perform 10 VTI maneuvers, cruise for 12

hours, and land. Figure 13.1 shows the estimated fuel requirements for each phase of the

mission.

36

Fuel Used During Fuel Used During

Return to Base Takeoff + Climb +

1.89 lbs Dash to

Surveillance Area

5.93 lbs

12 hr Cruise

59.45 lbs

10 VTI Maneuvers

116.10 lbs

Figure 13.1 Breakdown of the amount of fuel required for each segment of the mission profile.

From a fuel consumption perspective, the entire mission profile comprises of 3 types of

maneuvers: climb, steady level flight and a powered descent. In order to perform the more

complex calculations for climb and steady level flight, MATLAB codes (fuel_climb.m,

fuel_levelflight.m) were written and are included in Appendix C.

The MATLAB codes calculate the power required for each maneuver at the specified altitude.

Using the engine manufacture’s data for fuel consumption, we are able to calculate the fuel flow

rate required for each power setting required during the flight. The MATLAB code iterates every

1 second during flight. After every iteration the weight is recalculated based on fuel burned off

(and hence weight lost by the UAV) during each second. The code updates the weight

throughout the flight like a Breguet’s equation simulation, however our simulation accounts for a

variable throttle setting, which Breguet’s equation does not. We believe that our simulation is a

better model of the actual fuel required than Breguet’s equation because our simulation is

tailored for our mission profile and considers more variables. The detailed calculations we used

for calculating the fuel requirements of our aircraft is detailed in Appendix H.

The Big Brother XL4000 will be able to both take off and land well within the distance specified

by our requirements. Our design requirements state that the aircraft must be able to take off and

land on a 3000-foot runway and clear a 50-foot tall obstacle at the end of the field. Our UAV

37

sufficiently meets these requirements. The UAV with flaps deployed and running at full throttle

will take off and reach 50 ft elevation within 605 ft of where it started. For landing, the UAV is

able to clear the obstacle, descend at a -5 degree climb angle and come to a complete stop in 847

ft. Our analysis shows that the UAV design can take off and land on very short runways. This

allows our design to operate on a much larger range of airfields. The detailed calculations used

in this analysis are available in Appendix E.

The total takeoff distance is the sum of the ground roll, SG, the rotation distance, SR, the

transition to climb, STR, and the climb distance, SC.

The full equations for each of these terms are found in Appendix E, and the results of our

calculations are shown in Table 14.1. The velocities used for takeoff and landing are available in

Table 14.2. The UAV is able to takeoff well within the regulations at its max power of 51 hp on

normal fields of concrete or firm dirt. We also computed the minimum power required to takeoff

within the regulated distance and found it to be 16.5 hp. This minimum power yields a takeoff

distance of roughly 2220 ft with actual lift off from the ground occurring before the half-field

point of 1500 ft. At worst case conditions of a wet grass runway, our design can still takeoff in

654 ft. The most important factors in minimizing takeoff distance are weight and power. A

38

decrease in weight or an increase in power will shorten the takeoff distance. Therefore we

decided to take off at maximum power to allow for the minimum possible takeoff distance.

The total landing distance is the sum of the approach distance, Sa, the flare distance, SF, the free

roll distance, SFR, and the braking distance, SB.

S L = Sa + S F + S FR + S B (Eqn. 14.2)

The equations for each of these terms are also found in Appendix E, and values for each are

listed in Table 14.1; the input parameters are also listed in Table 14.3. Our design lands well

within the 3000 ft limits at a distance of 847 ft on a concrete or firm dirt strip. On the worst case

field of wet grass, our aircraft can land in a distance of 1007 ft.

Takeoff Landing

SG = 264 ft Sa = 536 ft

SR = 65 ft SF = 71 ft

STR = 195 ft SFR = 68 ft

SC = 81 ft SB = 172 ft

STotal = 605 ft STotal = 847 ft

39

Takeoff Landing

Takeoff Velocity 65 ft/s Approach Velocity 76.7 ft/s

Transition Velocity 67.9 ft/s Flare Veloctiy 72.57 ft/s

Climb Velocity 70.8 ft/s Touchdown Velocity 67.85 ft/s

Table 14.2: Aircraft velocities during takeoff and landing.

Propulsion

Power 51 hp

Propulsion Efficiency 0.748

Aerodynamic Performance for Takeoff

S 74.25 ft2

CL 0.1

Cdo 0.0375

K 0.0336

Aerodynamic Performance for Landing

S 74.25 ft2

CL 0

Cdo 0.0375

K 0.0336

Landing Weight 461.4 lbs

Gross Takeoff Weight 644.8 lbs

Descent Angle 5 degrees

In our calculations for landing distance we chose a descent angle of -5° instead of the specified

angle of -3°. A steeper descent angle will yield a shorter the landing distance. We attempted to

keep the landing distance as short as possible so as to allow our UAV to make use of the shortest

possible field. A descent angle of -3° will produce a landing distance of 1216 ft., which still

meets our requirements but results in a much longer runway needed. To show that the aircraft is

capable of descending at -5°, we considered the following equation which relates the flight path

angle to the thrust, drag, and the weight of the aircraft.

T −D

sin(γ ) = (Eqn. 14.3)

W

For the minimum flight path angle, the thrust is set to zero. At a speed of 1.15 times the stall

speed and the stall angle of attack, the total drag on the aircraft is 86 lbs. For landing, the aircraft

with all its fuel used up will weigh 461.4 lbs. Solving for γ, we find the minimum flight path

angle to be -10.5°, which is more than we need. Thus, our aircraft is capable of descending at a

flight path angle of at least -5°.

In choosing the optimum tail configuration for BBXL 4000, we considered numerous tail designs

used by existing UAVs. In particular, we studied three tail configurations: V-tail, twin-boom tail,

40

and tailless or flying wing (Appendix F). An H-shaped, twin-boom tail design was chosen as the

final configuration. It offers two distinct advantages over other designs. First, it allows the

extension of the moment arm of tail without the weight and drag penalties of a full fuselage.

Second, it also enables the placement of heavy engine machinery closer to the center of gravity

and hence maintaining the stability of aircraft by keeping the center of gravity close to the

aerodynamic center.

The horizontal and vertical tails are essential for the aircraft’s longitudinal and lateral stability.

The customer requires that the UAV be statically stable in yaw and pitch for all configurations.

In order for the aircraft to be stable, both the lateral stability derivative (Cnψ) and the longitudinal

stability derivative (Cm/CL) have to be negative. To meet these requirements, we chose a total

vertical tail area of 7.0 ft2 and a horizontal tail area of 7.28 ft2. The rudder size is 0.875 ft2 per

tail while the elevator size is 2.9 ft2. An illustration of the tail configuration is shown in Figure

15.1.

1.16

1.08

0.4

0.46

1.68 1.87

6.28

0.64

0.5

1.43

1.92

Figure 15.1 Vertical and horizontal tail dimensions. Diagram not to scale

To calculate the vertical tail size, the yawing effects of the wing, fuselage, propeller, and wing-

body interference were considered. A detailed description of our calculation of this value is

outlined in Appendix F. A desired stability derivative for the aircraft (Cnψ) was calculated based

on our aircraft configuration, and then the vertical tail area was adjusted to meet this

specification. The result of our calculation was a vertical tail area of 4.34 ft2. This value of

vertical tail generates a Cnψ of -1.6x10-4. This indicates that the aircraft is laterally stable.

However, while the vertical tail size of 4.34 ft2 is sufficient to provide directional stability to the

aircraft, it does not guarantee that the aircraft has enough maneuverability. The relation between

the vertical tail size and the maneuverability is explained in the following section.

41

15.1.1 Vertical Tail Maneuverability Requirements

The mission of the BBXL 4000 is to provide patrol and reconnaissance. Given that the intended

targets may do everything in their power to avoid detection and tracking, we require BBXL 4000

to be able to perform high-mobility maneuvers while loitering. This is to prevent targets from

eluding the tracking of BBXL 4000. Therefore, it is important to have adequate tail control

surfaces to provide the required lateral mobility to the aircraft. In our context maneuverability is

defined as the yaw rate of the aircraft. We would like the aircraft to have enough yaw

acceleration to complete a 180° level rotation in less than 15 seconds and to complete a 360°

level rotation in less than 20 seconds.

To determine the yaw rate of the aircraft and thus the required vertical tail size, we fix the rudder

area to be 25% of the vertical tail area and the maximum deflection angle of the rudder to be 30°.

The parameters are fixed based on study of similar aircraft. We also assume that the UAV has to

perform high maneuverability moves when it is loitering at 500 ft. The yawing rate is related to

the vertical tail size area by:

1 dCnv

I zzψ = ρV 2 LVT (δ r )SVT (Eqn. 15.1)

2 dδ r

Where Izz = the polar moment of inertia about z-axis, calculated to be 666.3 slug/ft2;

LVT = the distance between vertical tail aerodynamic center and the wing aerodynamic

center;

ρ = air density at the loiter altitude of 500 ft: 0.0024slug/ft3;

V = loiter velocity: 135 ft/sec;

dC nv

= rudder power, given by the equation:

dδ r

dCnv S L

= −avτ VT VT η v = 3.83 × 10 − 4 (Eqn. 15.2)

dδ r SW b

SVT = vertical tail area

With the original vertical tail size of 4.34ft2, we can obtain a maximum yaw rate of:

1 rad

ψ = 0.0024 ⋅ 135 2 ⋅ 7.7 ⋅ 3.83 × 10 − 4 ⋅ 4.34 = 0.0126 2 (Eqn. 15.3)

2 ⋅ 666.3 s

With a yaw rate of 0.0126 rad/s2, the aircraft does not have enough maneuverability to meet our

turning requirement. Working backwards from the required yaw acceleration, we found that 7 ft2

will allow the aircraft to meet our maneuverability requirement. The comparison of the yawing

moment and the rotating time of the aircraft are presented in Table 15.1.

42

Tail Area (ft2) Yaw rate (rad/s2) 90° turn time (s) 180° turn time (s) 360° turn time (s)

4.52 0.0126 15.8 22.3 31.6

7.0 0.0315 10.0 14.1 20.0

Table 15.1: Comparison of time requirement for prescribed turn angles of the iterated vertical

tail area sizing calculation of 4.34 ft2 and increased area 7 ft2.

The rotation time shows that vertical tail size of 7.0 ft2 is the minimum area needed to meet our

maneuverability requirement. The lateral stability derivate at this tail area is -1.2x10-4 and this

shows that the aircraft still has adequate lateral stability despite enlarging the vertical tail by

60%. As such, the vertical tail area of the UAV will be 7.0 ft2, or 3.5 ft2 for each tail.

The horizontal tail size is determined by the elevator power to maintain the aircraft at

equilibrium at maximum lift condition. Elevator size is fixed at 40% of the horizontal tail and

maximum elevator deflection is fixed at 20°. The values of the fixed parameters are based on

study of similar aircrafts. Even though ground effect is not required for the horizontal tail sizing,

we felt that it would be advisable to leave a margin of safety to account for the ground effect at

landing. Therefore, we used a most forward C.G. location of 6 ft instead of 6.21 ft from the nose,

which was calculated from the weight component analysis.

In addition to satisfying equilibrium condition at maximum lift, the horizontal tail has to be able

to provide longitudinal stability as well. For the horizontal tail, a more complicated iteration was

required to account for the pitching moment effects of the fuselage, wing, CG location, and

elevator deflections. The first iteration of this calculation is outlined in Appendix F.

Convergence was determined when the output value of the tail area was within 1% of the input

value. By starting with an initial horizontal tail of 18.56 ft2, we obtain a final horizontal tail size

of 7.28 ft2 after 27 iterations. The tail area obtained after every iteration and its convergence are

presented in Figure 15.2 and Figure 15.3.

43

Figure 15.2: Horizontal tail size against number of iterations.

Figure 15.3: Horizontal tail size converged to within 1% of original tail size.

The convergence of less than 1% is achieved after 27 iterations, with the final horizontal tail size

of 7.28 ft2. We also attempted to initialize the iteration with an initial tail area of more than 18.7

ft2. Results show that the final value at convergence is approximately 7.3 ft2 as well. The tail area

yields a longitudinal directional derivate (Cm/CL) value of -0.15, which is stabilizing. Therefore,

the aircraft is able to maintain longitudinal stability with the given tail area.

44

15.3 Neutral Point

One of the parameters calculated for the horizontal tail sizing is the neutral point, which

determines the farthest allowed aft location of the center of gravity for the aircraft to be stable.

Following the calculations in Appendix F, the stable most rear location of the center of gravity is

6.66 ft behind the nose of the aircraft. The actual farthest aft location of the aircraft’s CG is 6.24

ft, which is forward of the aft limit of the center of gravity. Thus, our aircraft meets the stability

requirements of the neutral point and the actual C.G. locations are within the usable C.G. range.

The landing gear and tire sizing were calculated using a statistical approach. A statistical tire

sizing table was provided by Raymer [6]. This method assumed 90% of the aircraft weight to be

carried by the rear tires while the remaining 10% was carried by the front tires. Equation 16.1

was used to calculate the diameter and width of rear and front tires in inches.

A and B in Equation 16.1 is a constant term given by Raymer. Ww is the weight carried by each

tire. Given our gross takeoff weight of 644.8 lbs, the weight carried by the front and rear tires

were 580.3 lbs and 64.5 lbs respectively. Since we are planning to install 2 rear landing gears,

the weight will be evenly distributed among the two, making the Ww for each landing gear

290.15 lbs. Table 16.1 shows the values of A and B as well as the final diameter and width sizing

of front and rear tires.

Diameter (in.) 1.51 0.349 6.48 11.00

Width (in.) 0.715 0.312 2.63 4.22

Our UAV will implement a retractable landing gear system, and the approximate tire dimensions

can be obtained from Table 16.1. To maintain stability of the aircraft, the rear landing gears are

to be stored within the twin booms. Storing the landing gear in the booms also increases the

space inside the fuselage while making use of twin boom inner capacity. Figure 16.1 and Figure

16.2 illustrates how the landing gears will be retracted into the twin booms.

45

Figure 16.1: Front landing gear retraction.

As seen from the figures above, the front landing gear retracts backwards, and the rear landing

gears retract forward. The rear landing gears in their down position were located slightly rear of

the CG such that the rotation during takeoff can be maneuvered without a large pitching moment.

A simple hinge mechanism and electric motor were incorporated to retract the landing gears.

Our engine requires an air inlet of 80 in2. Our UAV needs an air inlet because the engine is

mounted inside its fuselage. In addition to providing a necessary component for combustion, air

is needed to dissipate heat from the radiator of our liquid cooled rotary engine.

46

We determined the required inlet area required by taking into consideration the following: engine

displacement of 294 cm3, engine revolution limit of 8000 rpm and stall speed of our aircraft at

about 35 knots. Using this information and simple volume flow rate calculations, we conclude

that a maximum area of about 40 in2 is necessary for our engine’s intake.

In addition, it has been found that typical radiators for this size of engine have approximately 60

to 70 in2 of surface area [12]. However, because our radiator will not be placed directly over the

air inlet, but will be set back several inches, air will have time to disperse and diffuse to a larger

area than what our inlet allows. Based on this we have found that an area of about 40 in2 will be

sufficient for our radiator cooling.

With the combined area required for the engine’s intake and the radiator, we determined that the

air inlet area will need to be 80 in2, 40 for the engine’s intake and 40 for cooling the radiator.

This inlet will be placed on the top side of the fuselage to prevent debris from being sucked in

during takeoff and landing, thus helping to prevent damage or clogging of engine components

(see Figure 17.1).

(80 in2)

In order to sustain steady flight, trim analysis must be performed to determine if the aircraft is

able to balance its aerodynamic forces in equilibrium. Also, for a particular symmetric maneuver

or gust as specified by the V-n diagram, we will need to evaluate the aerodynamic loads acting

on the UAV in a trimmed condition. Trim curves generated at the critical design points are also

47

needed for determining the structural stability of the aircraft when subjected to the velocity-load

factor combinations for symmetric maneuvers (zero pitching acceleration).

Aerodynamic information such as of CL, CD and CM is needed to obtain trim curves. This

information is needed for the power-off and tail-off configurations within the range of operating

angles of attack, -17° < α < 16°. The three aerodynamic quantities are obtained from Section 9,

which details the aerodynamic performance at design points.

The following ten graphs show the trim curves for five different configurations and conditions.

The first set of four graphs (Figure 18.1) shows the trim curves for major flight conditions at full

fuel. The next set three graphs (Figure 18.2) shows the trim curves for major flight conditions at

empty fuel. Since takeoff with no fuel is not a feasible maneuver, we have not included the trim

curve for this configuration. Also, because the fuel is located in the wing at the aircraft’s center

of gravity, the change in center of gravity between full-fuel and empty-fuel conditions is

negligible. As a result, the trim curves in Figure 18.1 and Figure 18.2 are essentially the same.

48

49

Figure 18.1: Trim curves for major flight maneuvers with full fuel.

50

Figure 18.2: Trim curves for major flight maneuvers with no fuel.

Each trim curve demonstrates the variation of four sets of non-dimensionalized force coefficients

as functions of angle of attack. The vertical force coefficient for the entire aircraft, CZA, shows

the resultant force in the vertical direction from aerodynamic forces over the entire aircraft and is

given by Equation 18.1.

51

⎛S ⎞

CZA = CZ + CZT ⎜⎜ T ⎟⎟ (Eqn. 18.1)

⎝ SW ⎠

The vertical force coefficient of the wing, CZ, gives the resultant vertical aerodynamic force on

the wing of the aircraft (Eqn. 18.2).

Both of these values increase as the angle of attack increases. Since we assume that the wing

and tail are the only surfaces contributing significantly to the overall vertical aerodynamics force,

the difference between the CZA and CZ shows the necessary vertical force from the tail required

to achieve trimmed longitudinal flight. This will eventually determine the amount of elevator

deflection needed.

Furthermore, the horizontal force coefficient for the entire aircraft, CX, shows the variation of the

resultant force in the horizontal direction from aerodynamic forces as a function of angle of

attack (Eqn. 18.3)

We assumed that CXA and CX are approximately equal, since the force contribution from the tail

in the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is negligible. As shown in Figure 18.1, CX decreases as

angle of attack increases. Lastly, the moment coefficient of the aircraft neglecting the effects of

the tail, CMACT, shows the necessary moment generated by the tail needed to sustain trimmed-

flight at varying angles of attack.

To further demonstrate the aircraft’s capabilities and performance, V-n diagrams were created to

show the variation in load factor with increasing airspeed for in-flight maneuvers and wind gusts.

Flight load factors represent the ratio of aerodynamic force normal to the aircraft’s longitudinal

axis to the aircraft’s weight. The diagram illustrates the general maneuvering flight envelope and

the limit loads (or the maximum aerodynamic loads the airframe must be able to sustain without

permanent deformation) during various flight design points. Since current regulations and

specifications do not specifically define the allowable load factors for an unmanned

reconnaissance aircraft, the limit load factors were instead predetermined partially by the

customer and by FAR Part 23.

Maximum Positive Design Load Factor: +3.50

Minimum Negative Design Load Factor: -1.90

52

From FAR Part 23:

VC (Cruise Velocity): 80 knots

VD (Dive Velocity): 115 knots

Load Factor at Point E: -1.00

During regular flight, atmospheric conditions such as a sudden or sharp gust will affect the

aerodynamic forces acting on an aircraft and thus its load factor. Due to the absence of reliable

gust loading specifications for UAV type aircraft, the customer has suggested using the

parameters as defined in FAR Part 23. FAR regulations specify the vertical gust velocities at

various design points that must be considered. These gust velocities at the design points are

shown below.

VC (80 kt) 50

VD (115 kt) 25

Table 19.1: Sharp in flight vertical gust velocities, as specified by FAR Part 23.

The V-n diagram must also show the structural loading due to flap deployment. Although the

amount of time spent in flight with the flaps deployed is much less than the amount of time

without, it introduces higher structural loading than un-deployed at the same speed.

Consequently, this region is shown in green in the diagrams following. As defined by FAR Part

23 [13], the limiting load factors for flaps deployed are listed below.

Minimum Negative Design (with Flaps) Load Factor: 0.00

By including the effects of the sharp gusts at the specified design velocities in the V-n diagram,

we are able to display both the maneuvering flight envelope as well as the associated gust

envelope. The complete V-n diagrams for both cases of retracted and deployed flaps in empty

and full fuel configurations are displayed in Figure 19.1 and Figure 19.2. The velocities

corresponding to each design point are listed on each diagram. For a full description of the

analysis process, please refer to Appendix I.

53

Figure 19.1: V-n diagram for the Big Brother XL4000 at dry weight.

Figure 19.2: V-n diagram for the Big Brother XL4000 with full fuel.

The four critical loading conditions (design points) are shown in the diagrams above (A,D,E,and

G). The respective velocities and load factors at these points were compiled and shown in the

table below.

54

Design Velocity (Full Fuel) Velocity (Empty Fuel) Load Factor Load Factor

Point (kt) (kt) (full fuel) (empty fuel)

A 63.60 53.99 3.50 3.50

D 115.00 115.00 3.50 3.50

E 115.00 115.00 -1.00 -1.00

G 61.23 51.97 -1.90 -1.90

Table 19.2: Maneuver velocity and load factors at critical load conditions.

Before designing and analyzing the structure of the wing, we have to determine the wing loads at

the critical points in the V-n diagram. The loading conditions for both empty- fuel and full-fuel

conditions will have to be considered. The loads acting on the wing consist of aerodynamic loads

such as lift, drag, pitching moment as well as inertial loads such as wing structural weight, fuel

weight and twin boom weight. In calculating the distribution of loads across the span of the

wing, all of the forces and moments have to be accounted for.

The reference axes of the wing have to be chosen before we can determine the wing loading. The

x-axis is the aircraft reference axis, pointing aft. The y-axis is the quarter-chord line of the wing

in span-wise direction, with the origin at the root of the wing and pointing towards the right wing

tip. The z-axis completes the orthonormal axes, pointing in the direction of the lift forces.

The overall load distribution is calculated by dividing each wing into 100 strips along the y-axis,

with the first strip at the wing tip and the 100th strip closest to the fuselage. The widths of the

strips are smaller nearer the wing tip to better capture the variation of the load distribution near

the tip. The forces acting on the wing are then given as force per length in the span-wise

direction.

The aerodynamic forces acting on the wing are namely the lift, drag and the pitching moments.

The lift acts in the z-direction, the drag acts in the x-direction and the pitching moment acts in

the y-direction. To calculate the distribution of the aerodynamic loads along the span, we will

first need to calculate the aircraft’s total lift coefficient, Cza, which is obtained using the Eqn

20.1, where nz is the load factor and Veq is the equivalent velocity corresponding to the critical

design points in the V-n diagram.

n zW

Cza = (Eqn. 20.1)

1

ρVeq S w

2

2

Subsequently from the trim curve, we can obtain the wing angle of attack corresponding to Cza.

Using the wing angle of attack from the trim curve, we will be able to obtain the sectional lift,

drag and moment coefficient at each span-wise station from the MATLAB code LiftLine.m. The

forces and moments acting at each station can then be calculated by multiplying the coefficients

55

by the respective chord length and dynamic pressure. Finally the loads acting on each strip are

calculated as the averages of the loads acting on the two stations spanning the strip.

The wings are estimated to have a structural weight of 68.8 lb or 34.4 lb per wing. To simplify

our calculation, we assume that the structural weight is uniform across the span, with the center

of gravity of the structure located at ⅓ of the chord behind the leading edge. In addition, the twin

booms are attached to the wing at 2⅓ ft to 3⅔ ft away from the root. Therefore, the span-wise

stations that fall within this distance will have to carry the additional weight of the booms.

The total fuel required is 183.4 lb, or 91.7 lb of fuel per wing. We designed our fuel tank to carry

101 lb of fuel per wing or 15 lb of extra fuel than what is required for the entire mission. The fuel

container is assumed to be a container that has the following rectangular cross section at each

span-wise station:

0.5c

Figure 20.1: Fuel tank position in airfoil.

The length of the fuel tank at each station is ½ of the chord length and the height is 45% of the

maximum airfoil thickness. Since the structural wing box covers 50% of the chord, the design of

the fuel tank ensures that the fuel container is contained within the wing box.

After determining all the forces acting on the wing, the resultant loads on the wing can be

determined. The forces are decomposed along the reference axes and then added together to give

the resultant loads along the reference axes, namely VX, VZ, MT, MX and MZ.

The wing loading distribution will be performed at the four critical design points as indicated in

the V-n diagram, for both empty-fuel and full-fuel configurations. The following five graphs

show the various load distributions that the wing is subjected to.

56

Figure 20.2: Comparision of vertical shear loading Vz at various design points.

From the above Vz graph, the maximum shear force in the z-direction will occur at Design Point

D for the full-fuel configuration. Design Point D corresponds to low positive angle of attack. A

kink in the Vz graph can be noticed at ⅓ ft to 3⅔ ft from the root, which is caused by the offset

from the fuel and twin boom inertial loads.

57

From the above Vx graph, the wing experiences the most x-direction shear force at Design Point

A, which corresponds to high positive angle of attack at full-fuel configuration.

The above graph shows the torsional moment distribution about the y-axis. The maximum

torsion will occur at Design Point E for the empty-fuel configuration.

Figure 20.5: Comparison of bending momnet distribution about the x-axis Mx at various design points.

58

The Mx graph shows that the maximum bending moment about the x-axis occurs at Design Point

D, which corresponds to low positive angle of attack, for the full-fuel configuration.

Figure 20.6: Comparing of bending moment about the z-axis Mz at various design points.

The Mz graph shows the bending moment distribution along the span of the wing about the z-

axis. The maximum bending moment will occur at Design Point A, which corresponds to high-

positive angle of attack, for the full-fuel configuration.

The following table presents the maximum shear stress and moments that the wing will

experience at 0% span (wing root), 27% span, 60% span and 75% span. Wing structural analysis

will be performed at these four cross-sections at the design points where the wing experiences

maximum shear stresses and moments.

Vz (lbf) 871.1 670 332.5 179.6 D (Fuelled)

Vx (lbf) -223.4 -148.3 -61.5 -28.6 A (Fuelled)

MT (lbf-ft) 441.7 314.2 156.8 93.7 E (Empty)

Mx (lbf-ft) 5655 2990 760 250.3 D (Fuelled)

Mz (lbf-ft) 46.9 29.7 10.1 3.81 A (Fuelled)

59

21. Wing Structure

During flight, the aerodynamic loads from drag and lift will place the wing structure in bending

as well as torsion. For the stability and safety of the aircraft, it is crucial that any loading up to

the limit loads of the aircraft not cause permanent deformation of the wing. The wing cross

section will be examined and defined in four locations: at 75% of the span (a required location),

at 60% of the span (the fuel tank is present from 0% of the span up to 60%), at 27% of the span

(note that the cross section at 25% of the span is required to be examined, however 27%

represents the edge of boom, and clearly it makes more sense to define the structural cross

section at this point rather than at 25%), and lastly at 0% of the span. For this analysis, the cross

section will be assumed constant between analyzed locations. Thus, the cross section at 75%

will be the constant cross section between 75% and 100%, the cross section at 60% will be the

constant cross section between 60% and 75%, and so on. Note that this is conservative since the

stress the cross section needs to carry increases from the tip chord to the root chord. The right

hand coordinate system being used in this analysis is defined as follows: +y outboard of the left

side of the aircraft, +x forward to the nose of the aircraft, and +z is vertical (up).

The overall layout of a cross section of the wing at an arbitrary wing station is shown Figure

21.1. There are two spars (numbered 5 and 6) and four flanges acting as spar supports

(numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4). Note that angle spars are being used since they are relatively easy to

machine to variable area cross sections that retain their overall shape compared to ‘hat’ and ‘zee’

stringers. Since the Big Brother 4000XL is a relatively small aircraft, 0.032” thick 2024-T3 clad

aluminum will be used for the skin in the analysis of the aircraft. This thickness of skin is

assumed due to manufacturing and assembly concerns.

Figure 21.1: Cross section of the wing at an arbitrary wing station. Note the stringers and flanges are not

drawn to scale with the airfoil shape.

60

21.2 Loads

The critical loads for each spanwise station under consideration are shown in Table 21.1. Note

that the bending loads and shear loads (Mx, Mz, Vz, and Vz) correspond to Design Point D on the

V-n Diagram of the aircraft at maximum weight. The twisting moment (MT,) corresponds to

Design Point E on the V-n Diagram of the aircraft at maximum weight.

75% 164.4 11.70 91.45 213.9 -1.54

60% 325.7 18.37 154.0 732.0 -3.01

27% 670.0 31.59 304.2 2,989.5 -6.35

0% 871.1 42.76 417.9 5,654.8 -8.99

Table 21.1: Critical loading at the spanwise stations being analyzed.

Bending forces on the wing are created by the lift and drag forces across the span of the wing.

The majority of these stresses will be carried by the flanges that are reinforcing the wing and

supporting the spars. These items are shown in Figure 21.1. Also note that the skin in the

vicinity of the rivet rows attaching the stringers and flanges to the skin of the aircraft will carry

some of this bending stress within an effective width. The analysis in this section follows what

is outlined by E.F. Bruhn in Chapter 19 of Reference 14. Note that because of the low wing

loading, the inclusion of stringers in the design of the aircrafts wing is not necessary.

While the bending stresses of the wing in flight are primarily carried by the stringers and flanges

of the wing, the full width of skin in tension can be considered to carry some of this load, and an

effective width of skin in compression will also carry some of the bending load. The effective

width is defined since the thin sheets that comprise skin tend to buckle at low loads, and the

stress in the skin varies in between the stringers, as is shown in Figure 21.2.

Figure 21.2 The stress distribution of stiffeners and sheet. Note that the stress on the sheet is variable. [14]

61

Instead of trying to account for this variable stress in the sheet, the effective width is defined for

ease of calculation by determining the width of skin around a stiffener over which the stress is

constant. Graphically, this is shown in Figure 21.3. Note that the width is defined per row of

rivets attaching the stiffener to the skin. The equation used for the effective width (w) in this

report is dependent upon the skin thickness (t), the modulus of elasticity of the skin (E), as well

as the stress in the stringer (σst). This formula is shown in Eqn. 21.1.

E

2 * w = 1.90 * t * (Eqn. 21.1)

σ st

Figure 21.3: The effective skin width. Note that the stress over the width is constant. [14]

Note, however, that when the skin is in tension, there is no effective width, and the entire width

of the skin is assumed to carry load.

21.3.2 Allowables

As stated before, the material making up the skin of the aircraft is 2024-T3 clad aluminum sheet.

From Mil-Handbook 5-J, Reference 23, the material allowables are shown below in Figure 21.4.

Note that the compression yield value for 0.032” thick sheet, 36 ksi, is the critical value for

design considerations in bending. For the shear flow calculations, the ultimate shear allowable is

37 ksi.

62

Figure 21.4: Mechanical properties of 2024-T3 Aluminum. [15]

The material comprising the stiffeners is 2024-T351 clad aluminum extrusions. Once again from

Mil-Handbook 5-J, the material allowables are shown below in Figure 21.5. As with the sheet,

the critical allowable is the compression yield stress, in this case 34 ksi.

63

Figure 21.5: Mechanical properties of 2024-T3 Aluminum. [15]

While passenger aircraft are required by FAR Part 23 and 25 to maintain design margins of

safety of 1.50, military aircraft are not so strictly regulated, and there is leeway in determining

the appropriate margin of safety levels for the aircraft. As this is an unmanned drone, we believe

that a margin of 1.50 would be over designing the flight vehicle, and that a margin of safety of

1.35 is adequate. Additionally note that if the margin of safety is in excess of +3.00, it will be

noted as +HIGH.

A sample calculation of the steps to calculating the margin of safety for the wing elements in

bending is shown below inTable 21.2. For a more complete explanation of the calculations that

went into this table, refer to Appendix G. The margin of safety equation is shown in Eqn. 21.2,

and is dependent on the applied stress as well as the allowable stress. Note that the minimum

margin of safety in the wing section at 27% of the span is +HIGH, which surpasses the 35%

established in the above paragraph.

AllowableStress

M .S . = −1 (Eqn. 21.2)

AppliedStress

64

Wing Station: 27% Chord: 34.932 inches

Flange No Strng A Rivet Rows Total Area Z' AZ' AZ'2 X' AX'

1 0.008 1 0.12787249 3.2027404 0.40954 1.311658 6.88 0.879825

2 0.008 1 0.153584285 2.7005231 0.41476 1.120063 24.3 3.731872

3 0.1756736 1 0.1756736 -1.189365 -0.20894 0.248506 24.3 4.268609

4 0.1756736 1 0.1756736 -2.081353 -0.36564 0.761024 6.88 1.20872

Flange No AX'2 AX'Z' Z=Z'-Zbar X=X'-Xbar Sigmab P=sigb*A M.S. Pass?

1 6.053623041 2.81785076 2.80811352 -9.06288 -2766.03 -353.7 11.3 Yes

2 90.67897138 10.078005 2.305896156 8.3551584 -1875.29 -288.014 17.1 Yes

3 103.7209074 -5.07693335 -1.583991636 8.3551584 1641.56 288.379 21.5 Yes

4 8.316579711 -2.51577296 -2.475980256 -9.06288 2011.32 353.335 17.4 Yes

Table 21.2: A sample margin of safety results made at 27% of the span. For a more thorough explanation,

refer to Appendix G.

In Table 21.3 the minimum margin of safety present at each spanwise station is noted. Clearly

the margins are well above what is required, however the stringer areas have not been further

reduced so as to not make machining impractical. Note that all stringer areas are 0.032 square

inches from 0% of the span to 27% of the span, and 0.008 square inches starting at 27% of the

span and extending to the tip of the wing. All of the individual stringer areas as well as their

corresponding margins of safety are presented in Appendix G.

Minimum M.S. +HIGH +HIGH +HIGH +HIGH

Table 21.3: Minimum margins of safety at each span of the wing. Note that these margins vastly exceed what

is required, however stringer areas have not been reduced out of manufacturing concerns [16].

Aerodynamic forces on the wing create a torsional moment on the wing, denoted Mt in the loads

section above. This twisting action causes a shear flow in the skin covering the wing, as well as

in the forward and aft spars. Only the skin is assumed to carry this shear flow.

The shear center is the point in a cross section of a structure about which applied forces cause the

structure to only bend, and not twist. When the twisting moment MT is applied about this point,

it creates pure shearing stresses in the skin of the wing. Externally applied forces Vx and Vz

create additional shear stresses if these forces are not applied at the shear center of the cross

section of our wing. We calculated the shear flow in each section of the wing making use of the

Matlab code provided, written by Nagaraj Banavara. As input, this code takes the location and

cross sectional areas of the stringers and sparcaps, as well as the location and thicknesses of the

spars and the aircraft skin. The input forces of MT, Vz, and Vx are used to compute the shear

stress present in each section of the skin, as well as the stress present in the spars of the aircraft.

65

It is important to note that the trailing edge section of the wing is assumed to provide no

structural support in the calculation of the stresses in the rest of the wing.

As in the wing bending section, the shear flow in the wing is evaluated at four spanwise stations

of the wing at 0%, 27%, 60%, and 75%. The resulting shear flows, spar thicknesses, and

margins of safety for the wing stations at 75%, 60%, and 0% are shown in Appendix G. A

sample table of results is presented in Table 21.4 for the wing station at 27%. Note that the

stringers and spars for the wing were designed around the critical Tresca stresses, as is shown by

the low margins of safety for the Tresca stresses given in the next section.

(inches) (lbf/in) Shear (psi) Shear (psi)

Leading Edge 0.032 -600.54 18,766 37,000 +0.97

Front Spar 0.032 -299.36 9,355 37,000 +2.95

Rear Spar 0.050 1,303.68 26,073 37,000 +0.41

Wing Skin 0.032 -818.62 25,581 37,000 +0.44

(greatest)

Table 21.4: Shear flow information for the wing at the 27% station.

To stay within the required margins of safety, the rear spar thickness is 0.050” from 0% of the

span to 60% of the span, and 0.032” until the tip of the wing. The forward spar thickness is

0.032” along the entire span.

While the various sections of the wing have passed the set margin of safety of 1.35 without

experiencing yielding in both bending and shear flow, the structure needs to be checked to ensure

that the combination principle stresses do not exceed the yield stress of the material. This can be

checked through use of the Tresca Yield Criterion.

The principles stresses can be easily found by using Mohr’s Circle after using the plane stress

assumption. A plane stress representation of Mohr’s Circle is shown in Figure 21.6, and the

relationships that can be derived from it follow.

66

Figure 21.6: Mohr’s Circle is a graphical representation for finding the principal stresses given the normal

stresses acting on a body. Note that the diagram shown assumes a plane stress situation, and has been

adapted from [14].

2

⎛σ z ⎞

τ max = ⎜ ⎟ + τ zx

2

(Eqn. 21.3)

⎝ 2 ⎠

σz

σ n max = τ max + (Eqn. 21.4)

2

σz

σ n min = − τ max (Eqn. 21.5)

2

These three equations give what the principal stresses on the body are given the applied stresses.

Note that τmax (the Tresca stress) is equal to half the difference between the maximum stress and

the minimum stress.

From the bending and shear analysis sections, the maximum stresses in each spanwise section

are given in Table 21.5. Note that both the maximum tension stresses as well as the maximum

compressive stresses are shown. Whichever value has the greater magnitude will be used to

calculate the normal stresses and the Tresca stress. The margin of safety for the Tresca stress is

then calculated with the 2024 T3 aluminum shear allowable of 37 ksi, as is shown in Figure 21.4.

Recall that by using the margin of safety equation given in (Eqn. 21.2), this value in Table 21.5

must be greater than 0.35.

67

Spanwise Station 0% 27% 60% 75%

Max Shear (psi) 9,471 26,073 21,836 27,159

Max Tension (psi) 3,002 2,011 588 29

Max Compressive (psi) -5,352 -2,766 -221 -29

Sigma_n max (psi) 11,343 24,727 21,727 27,144

Sigma_n min (psi) -8,341 -27,493 -21,948 -27,174

Tresca Stress (psi) 9,842 26,110 21,838 27,159

Minimum Margin of Safety +2.76 +0.42 +0.69 +0.36

The above margins of safety clearly indicate that the Tresca stress does not exceed the allowable

stress at any spanwise station, however the Tresca stresses did prove to be the primary design

driver as is evidenced by the low margins of safety in the table above.

68

Appendix A: Aircraft Design Comparisons

Unmanned aerial vehicles are being widely used for a variety of missions; from reconnaissance

and surveillance since 1950s to their recent more advanced combat and artillery co-ordination

roles. The UAV we are designing is primarily for long-duration border patrol and surveillance

and is further constrained by the requirements stated on page iii. Based on the information

provided, four existing UAVs that are similar to our design requirements are briefly described in

this section to provide a preliminary idea of our UAV design.

aerial vehicle that operates on a 914 Rotax pusher propeller engine that provides up to 100 hp. Its

WTO is 2300 lbs, which exceeds our maximum WTO of 1000 lbs. Capable of carrying 450 lbs of

payload and holding up to 650 lbs of fuel, it has a range of 454 miles, an endurance of up to 40

hrs and a ceiling height of 27,000 ft [17], which satisfy our mission requirements. It has a stall

speed of 54 kts, cruise speed of 70-90 kts, and dash speed of 120 kts [18], of which only the

cruise speed meets our requirement.

The design is characterized by its ability to minimize drag, as the wing is tapered, unswept, and

has a high aspect ratio. In addition, the configuration of each Predator UAV aircraft is such that

it can be disassembled into six main components and loaded into a container, making it very

mobile and operationally-ready for Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and

Reconnaissance (ISTAR) missions.

The GNAT-750, having served as the first long endurance unmanned reconnaissance aerial

vehicle and as the predecessor of the modern Predator and Prowler II, makes for an excellent

example of UAV design. This aircraft is illustrated in Figure A.2. With a maximum takeoff

weight of 1131 lbs, the GNAT is slightly outside of our required weight class. However, since

the GNAT was designed for a loiter endurance of over 30 hours (requiring 426 lbs of fuel) [19],

simply reducing the fuel load to meet our 21 hour endurance requirement easily brings the

maximum gross take-off weight down to 875 lbs and to within our weight class.

A-1

Figure A.2: General Atomics GNAT-750 during flight.

From a design aspect, the GNAT appears almost identical to its offspring, the Predator. The

primary element emphasized in the design appears to be the minimization of drag, as the wing is

tapered, unswept, and has a high aspect ratio. In addition, the fuselage is straight and

streamlined. In addition, with its inverted V-tail rather than a vertical fin and horizontal tail, drag

as well as weight is reduced. Its primary propulsion system is a single Rotax 582 pusher

propeller located at the aft-end of the aircraft. However, having a stall speed of 59 kts and a max

speed of 115 kts, it is slightly shy of completely fulfilling our required specifications.

The Falco, illustrated in Figure A.3, is a medium altitude and endurance UAV system designed

to fulfill electronic and optical surveillance roles. Weighing in at 926 lbs maximum at takeoff

with a maximum payload weight of 154 lbs, the Falco meets both of the weight requirements for

our aircraft design. It also meets our endurance requirements, with a maximum endurance of 14

hrs. The aircraft is powered by a 65 hp engine, giving it a maximum speed of 115 kts and an

altitude ceiling of 19,700 ft [20]. Increasing the power of the engine would be necessary for this

airframe to achieve our speed and ceiling requirements.

The most distinct design features of the Falco are its slightly bent gull wings and its twin tail

booms. The wings are mounted high on the fuselage, allowing optional external payloads of up

to 55 lbs each to be attached to the external hard point located under each wing. The twin boom

design accommodates the pusher prop configuration, which benefits wing efficiency by

removing prop wash over the wing which would have been introduced in a tractor configuration.

The twin boom configuration also allows the relatively heavy engine to be located near the

center of gravity of the aircraft.

A-2

A.4 IAI-MALAT Searcher Mk II

Searcher Mk II, pictured in Figure A.4, is a multi-role UAV system used in the Israeli Air Force.

Its missions include surveillance, reconnaissance, target-acquisition & artillery adjustment. It has

some variants being exported to the Indian Air Force and Singapore Air Force.

Searcher Mk II has a gross takeoff weight of 820 lbs, with maximum payload capability of 139

lbs. Its weight category is consistent with our design specifications. Its payload consists of Multi-

Mission Optronic Stabilized Payload (MOSP), combined TV and forward looking infrared

(FLIR) for both day- and night-time observation, and synthetic aperture radar. It is also equipped

with a GPS system for real-time manual mission control. With a fuel capacity of 220 pounds, it

can stay in air for up to 14 hours.

Searcher Mk II is designed with a slightly swept-back wing and a twin-boom tail configuration.

It is powered by a rear-mounted 35hp Sachs piston engine, capable of flying a maximum speed

of 110 kts and cruise at 55 kts. It has a design ceiling of 18,500 ft [21]. By switching to a more

powerful engine, it is capable of faster speed and higher flight ceiling.

A-3

Appendix B: Aircraft Configuration History

Aircraft Design as of 11/17—End of Engine Selection and Tail Sizing

1:67 Scale

1:125 Scale

15 ft

2.5 ft

2. ft

32 ft

CG = 6.09 ft from nose

B-1

Second Iteration Aircraft Design Drawings

Aircraft Design as of 10/3—End of Initial Aerodynamic Design Iteration

1:67 Scale

1:125 Scale

15 ft

3 ft

37.7 ft

CG = 5.87 ft from nose

B-2

Appendix C: MATLAB Codes Used in Calculations

In order to calculate the performance parameters of our UAV, a MATLAB code was

implemented. This code was used to assist in calculations of the aircraft center of gravity, lift,

drag, pitching moment, and flap effects. The code is presented as follows.

Mainm.m

% Mainm.m Last changes made 10/02/2006 UAV Team 2 (UAVarsity)

% This is the main file which executes other functions This file assumes

% that the user created the necessary input parameters.

% Load Everythingv1.4m to load all necessary parameters needed.

n = 1;

inc = 1;

a(n,1) = alfamin;

% AC)

[mo,y,aa,c,Sw,cwBar,taper,AR,St] = InputParameters(moairfoil,b,cr,ct,a0,agt,vstall,btail,ctail);

[WING_W] = wingweight(AR,Sw,mthickwing);

[Moment Mass cg_tot AC

xw]=CG(WING_W,WING_X,TAIL_W,TAIL_X,POWER_W,POWER_X,FGEAR_W,FGEAR_X,RGEAR_W,RGEAR_X,FUEL_W,FUEL_X,

FUS_W,FUS_X,CONTROL_W,CONTROL_X,TWIN_W,TWIN_X,SAR_X,SAR_W,EOI_X,EOI_W,ADDPAY_W,ADDPAY_X,PROP_W,PR

OP_X,DATA_W,DATA_X);

W_TO = Mass;

x = TAIL_X - WING_X;

','s');

if qflaps == '1'

Df = input('Flap Deflection Angle (deg) : ');

end

awr=linspace(-10,20,500);

% The code is designed such that it will calculate takeoff condition with

% stall velocity and sea level density if the flap deflection angle (Df) is

% greater than 0. Else, the code will calculate the cruise/dash conditions.

if qflaps == '1'

[deltaAlphaLo clMaxF cmacF deltaCDflap SF] = flapFX(cfc, mo, Df, clmax, bflap, cmac, Sw, cr,

taper, b,InboardFlapLoc);

for i = 1:1:101

if abs(y(i))< OutboardFlapLoc & abs(y(i))> InboardFlapLoc

aa(i) = aa(i) - deltaAlphaLo;

end

end

dcl=1; J=0;

while dcl>0

J=J+1;

dcl=min(clMaxF-clflap(:,J));

end

awStallFlap = awr(1,J);

CLwmaxFlap = CLFlapt(J);

C-1

if runpermission == 'y'

figure

plot(y,clflap(:,J),'k-',y,clMaxF,'k:'); xlabel('y (ft)');

ylabel('C_L');title('(C_L_m_a_x)_w Profile');

end

CLmaxac=CLwmaxFlap.*(x./(x-xw)) + cmac.*(cwBar./(x-xw));

else

[CLr, CDir, clr, cdir, AR1r, mr, AZLr, clbr, clar] = LiftLineP(awr,y, aa, mo, c);

clmaxp=clmax*ones(101,1);

dcl=2; J=0;

while dcl>0

J=J+1;

dcl=min(clmaxp-clr(:,J));

end

awStall=awr(1,J);

CLwmax=CLr(J);

if runpermission == 'y'

figure

plot(y,clr(:,J),'k-',y,clmax,'k:'); xlabel('y (ft)'); ylabel('C_L');title('(C_L_m_a_x)_w

Profile');

end

CLmaxac=CLwmax.*(x./(x-xw)) + cmac.*(cwBar./(x-xw));

end

% This is the main for-loop which calculates the CL, CD, Lift, Drag at

% various angles of attack. Again, when Df is greater than 0, the code will

% calculate the cruise condition. Otherwise, it will calculate the takeoff

% condition.

% Not the best design of code. Code will be revised in the future to omit

% unnecessary calculations that are made inside the for-loop.

for alfa = alfamin:inc:alfamax

aoa = alfa;

if n > 1

a(n,1) = a(n-1,1) + inc;

end

Cmact(n,1) = Cmac_t(cmac,FusLength,FusDiameter,Sw,cwBar,aoa);

if qflaps == '1'

v = vstall;

rho = rhosl;

[deltaAlphaLo clMaxF cmacF deltaCDflap] = flapFX(cfc, mo, Df, clmax, bflap, cmac, Sw, cr,

taper, b,InboardFlapLoc);

CLFlapv(n,1) = CLFlap;

CLac = CLFlap.*(x./(x-xw)) + Cmact(n,1).*(cwBar./(x-xw));

(CLFlap,St,TAIL_X,WING_X,cwBar,Sw,clmax,xw,Cmact(n,1),btail,ctail);

CLtail(n,1) = CLt;

[Cdo a1 a2 a3 a4] =

parasite_drag_coefficient(qflaps,rho,v,cwBar,ctail,btail,Sw,xcmwing,mthickwing,sweepwing,FusLengt

h,FusDiameter,BoomLength,BoomDiameter,xcmtail,mthicktail,sweeptail,upsweepangle,propbladearea,Pro

pDiameter,AirbrakeFrontalArea);

C-2

CLoutput(n,1) = CLac;

CDoutput(n,1) = Cdtotal;

Lift(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CLoutput(n,1)*Sw;

Drag(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CDoutput(n,1)*Sw;

else

[CL,CDi,cl,cdi,AR,m,AZL,clb,cla]=LiftLineP(aoa,y,aa,mo,c);

deltaCDflap = 0;

if qflaps == '2'

rho = rhosl;

v = vstall;

end

if qflaps == '3'

rho = rhocr;

v = vcruise;

end

if qflaps == '4'

rho = rhodash;

v = vdash;

end

(CL,St,TAIL_X,WING_X,cwBar,Sw,clmax,xw,Cmact(n,1),btail,ctail);

CLtail(n,1) = CLt;

CLv(n,1) = CL;

CLac = CL.*(x./(x-xw)) + Cmact(n,1).*(cwBar./(x-xw));

(qflaps,rho,v,cwBar,ctail,btail,Sw,xcmwing,mthickwing,sweepwing,FusLength,FusDiameter,BoomLength,

BoomDiameter,xcmtail,mthicktail,sweeptail,upsweepangle,propbladearea,PropDiameter,AirbrakeFrontal

Area);

CLoutput(n,1) = CLac;

CDoutput(n,1) = Cdtotal;

Lift(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CLoutput(n,1)*Sw;

Drag(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CDoutput(n,1)*Sw;

end

n = n + 1;

end

% Calculate K

A = ones(size(CLoutput),2);

A(:,2) = CLoutput.^2;

X = inv(A'*A)*A'*CDoutput;

K = X(2,1);

FrontWheelW = 0.1*W_TO;

RearWheelW = 0.9*W_TO/2;

ADia = 1.51;

BDia = 0.349;

AWid = 0.715;

BWid = 0.312;

FrontWheelDia = ADia*(FrontWheelW^BDia);

FrontWheelWid = AWid*(FrontWheelW^BWid);

RearWheelDia = ADia*(RearWheelW^BDia);

RearWheelWid = AWid*(RearWheelW^BWid);

% Plots

if qflaps == '1'

figure

plot(a,Lift)

C-3

hold on

plot(awStallFlap,Lift)

hold on

plot(a,Mass)

xlabel('Angle of Attack (Deg)'); ylabel('Lift (lbf)');title('Lift against Angle of Attack

(Takeoff, With Flaps)')

end

if qflaps == '2'

figure

plot(a,Lift)

hold on

plot(awStall,Lift)

hold on

plot(a,Mass)

xlabel('Angle of Attack (Deg)'); ylabel('Lift (lbf)');title('Lift against Angle of Attack

(Takeoff, With Flaps)')

end

InputParameters.m

% This function calls the input paramters from the global space.

% It assumes that the parameters loaded from Everythingv1.x.m

function [mo,y,aa,c,Sw,cwBar,taper,AR,St] =

InputParameters(moairfoil,b,cr,ct,a0,agt,vstall,btail,ctail)

M = 100;

theta = [0:pi/M:pi]';

taper = ct/cr;

Sw = b*cr*(1+taper)/2;

AR = b^2/Sw;

y = -b*cos(theta)/2;

c = 2*b*(1-(1-taper)*2*abs(y)/b)/AR/(1+taper);

aat = -a0;

aa = agt*2*abs(y)/b + aat;

cwBar = (cr+ct)/2;

mo = moairfoil*ones(101,1);

St = btail*ctail;

wingweight.m

function [WING_W] = wingweight(AR,Sw,mthickwing)

B = (750*3.5*Sw*(1.9*AR-4))/(1+0.11*100*mthickwing);

WING_W = 69*(B*10^-6)^0.69;

CG.m

% This function calls the input paramters from the global space.

% It assumes that the paramters are generated using InputCG.m

xw]=CG(WING_W,WING_X,TAIL_W,TAIL_X,POWER_W,POWER_X,FGEAR_W,FGEAR_X,RGEAR_W,RGEAR_X,FUEL_W,FUEL_X,

FUS_W,FUS_X,CONTROL_W,CONTROL_X,TWIN_W,TWIN_X,SAR_X,SAR_W,EOI_X,EOI_W,ADDPAY_W,ADDPAY_X,PROP_W,PR

OP_X,DATA_W,DATA_X)

Moment=WING_W*WING_X+TAIL_W*TAIL_X+POWER_W*POWER_X+FGEAR_W*FGEAR_X+RGEAR_W*RGEAR_X+FUEL_W*FUEL_X+

FUS_W*FUS_X+CONTROL_W*CONTROL_X+TWIN_W*TWIN_X+SAR_X*SAR_W+EOI_X*EOI_W+ADDPAY_W*ADDPAY_X+PROP_W*PR

OP_X+DATA_X*DATA_W;

C-4

Mass=WING_W+TAIL_W+POWER_W+FGEAR_W+RGEAR_W+FUEL_W+FUS_W+CONTROL_W+TWIN_W+SAR_W+EOI_W+ADDPAY_W+PRO

P_W+DATA_W;

cg_tot=Moment/Mass;

AC=WING_X;

xw = cg_tot-AC;

InputCG.m

% When launched, it will prompt users to input the necessary parameters to run Main.m

% Save the input parameters as filename.mat file such that it is easy to

% load the parameters in the future.

prompt={'WING_W','WING_X','TAIL_W','TAIL_X','POWER_W','POWER_X','FGEAR_W','FGEAR_X','RGEAR_W','RG

EAR_X','FUEL_W','FUEL_X','FUS_W','FUS_X','CONTROL_W','CONTROL_X','TWIN_W','TWIN_X','SAR_W','SAR_X

','EO/I_W','EO/I_X','Additional Payload','Additional Payload_X'};

title='Aircraft Properties';

answer=inputdlg(prompt,title);

WING_W=sscanf(char(answer(1)),'%f');

WING_X=sscanf(char(answer(2)),'%f');

TAIL_W=sscanf(char(answer(3)),'%f');

TAIL_X=sscanf(char(answer(4)),'%f');

POWER_W=sscanf(char(answer(5)),'%f');

POWER_X=sscanf(char(answer(6)),'%f');

FGEAR_W=sscanf(char(answer(7)),'%f');

FGEAR_X=sscanf(char(answer(8)),'%f');

RGEAR_W=sscanf(char(answer(9)),'%f');

RGEAR_X=sscanf(char(answer(10)),'%f');

FUEL_W=sscanf(char(answer(11)),'%f');

FUEL_X=sscanf(char(answer(12)),'%f');

FUS_W=sscanf(char(answer(13)),'%f');

FUS_X=sscanf(char(answer(14)),'%f');

CONTROL_W=sscanf(char(answer(15)),'%f');

CONTROL_X=sscanf(char(answer(16)),'%f');

TWIN_W=sscanf(char(answer(17)),'%f');

TWIN_X=sscanf(char(answer(18)),'%f');

SAR_W=sscanf(char(answer(19)),'%f');

SAR_X=sscanf(char(answer(20)),'%f');

EOI_W=sscanf(char(answer(21)),'%f');

EOI_X=sscanf(char(answer(22)),'%f');

ADDPAY_W=sscanf(char(answer(23)),'%f');

ADDPAY_X=sscanf(char(answer(24)),'%f');

title='File name';

filename=char(inputdlg(prompt,title));

save(filename,'WING_W','WING_X','TAIL_W','TAIL_X','POWER_W','POWER_X','FGEAR_W','FGEAR_X','RGEAR_

W','RGEAR_X','FUEL_W','FUEL_X','FUS_W','FUS_X','CONTROL_W','CONTROL_X','TWIN_W','TWIN_X','SAR_W',

'SAR_X','EOI_W','EOI_X','ADDPAY_W','ADDPAY_X');

flapFX.m

% This function calculates the changes in wing properties when flaps are

% deployed. Input parameters consists of airfoil properties as well as flap

% chord, span and wing surface area.

function [deltaAlphaLo clMaxF cmacF deltaCDflap SF] = flapFX(cfc, mo, Df, clmax, bflap, cmac, Sw,

cr, taper, b,InboardFlapLoc)

%a flap, given the input parameters of flap geometry and sectional

%characteristics. A plain flap is assumed, but equations for split and

%slotted flaps are included if the type of flap is to be modified.

C-5

deltac = 0; % No slotted flaps

moF = max(mo);

c0 = cfc*cr*(1+2*InboardFlapLoc*(taper-1)/b);

cn = cfc*cr*(1+2*(InboardFlapLoc + bflap/2)*(taper-1)/b);

SF = bflap*(c0+cn)/2;

%(Plain assumed)

tau = 4.375E+00*cfc^3 - 6.500E+00*cfc^2 + 3.775E+00*cfc + 9.059E-14;

eta = 7.292E-09*Df^5 - 1.581E-06*Df^4 + 1.277E-04*Df^3 - 4.560E-03*Df^2 + 5.759E-02*Df + 5.679E-

01; %Plain

%eta = 2.7778E-07*Df^3 - 1.4881E-05*Df^2 - 3.6409E-03*Df + 5.7714E-01; %Split

%eta = 1.4583E-07*Df^4 - 1.8472E-05*Df^3 + 6.3958E-04*Df^2 - 1.1897E-02*Df + 8.8071E-01;

%Slotted

deltaAlphaLo = -tau*eta*Df;

%(Plain or Split assumed)

deltacl = moF*tau*eta*Df;

deltaClMaxOdeltaCl = 5.5611*cfc^5-17.817*cfc^4+20.665*cfc^3-9.8256*cfc^2+.4242*cfc+.9924; %Plain

or Split

%deltaClMaxOdeltaCl = 137.12*cfc^5 - 128.31*cfc^4 + 26.886*cfc^3 - 1.113*cfc^2 - .2078*cfc +

1.003; %Slotted

clMaxF = clmax + deltaClMaxOdeltaCl*deltacl;

%(Plain, Split, Slotted assumed)

deltaCmOdeltaCl = -0.1246*cfc^2+0.3849*cfc-0.2576; %Plain, Split, or Slotted

cmacF = deltaCmOdeltaCl*deltacl;

%(Plain or Split assumed)

deltaCDflap = 1.7*cfc^1.38*(SF/Sw)*(sin(Df*pi/180))^2; %Plain or Split

%deltaCD = 0.9*cfc^1.38*(SF/Sw)*(sin(Df))^2; %Slotted

LiftLineP.m

function [CL,CDi,cl,cdi,AR,m,AZL,clb,cla]=LiftLineP(aw,y,aa,mo,c)

%LiftLine determines the performance of a wing using Glauert's solution

% method of the lifting-line-theory wing equation.

%Version: 2.0

%Code: Luis P Bernal

%Date: 9/18/05

error(['LiftLine input error: Incorrect number',...

' of input arguments'])

end;

[NMO,MMO]=size(mo);[NC,MC]=size(c);

[ny,MY]=size(y);[NAA,MAA]=size(aa);

if MY~=1|1~=MMO|1~=MC|1~=MAA|ny~=NMO|ny~=NC|ny~=NAA

error(['LiftLine input error: Section input arrays ',...

'must be column vectors of the same length'])

end;

[MAW,M]=size(aw);

if MAW~=1

error(['LeftLine input error: aw must be a row vector']);

end;

% wing tip sections and the midspan section.

if ny<5|mod(ny,2)~=1

error(['LiftLine input error: Section input arrays ',...

'must contain at least 5 elements and the length',...

C-6

' must be an odd numebr'])

end;

% Verify that the wing planform is symmetric and

% includes the symmetry plane

ns=fix(ny/2)+1;

if y(1:ns)~=-y(ny:-1:ns)|abs(y(ns))>0.00001

error(['LiftLine input error: The y locations must ',...

'be symmetric about the center plane and',...

' include the symmetry plane'])

end;

if c(1:ns)~=c(ny:-1:ns)

error(['LiftLine input error: The c values must ',...

'be symmetric about the center plane'])

end;

if c(1) < 0.0001*c(ns)

c(1)=0.0001*c(ns);c(ny)=c(1);

end;

if aa(1:ns)~=aa(ny:-1:ns)

error(['LiftLine input error: The at values must ',...

'be symmetric about the center plane'])

end;

aw=aw*pi/180;aa=aa*pi/180;mo=mo*180/pi;

mc=mo.*c;b2=abs(y(1));mcs=mc(ns);b=2*b2;P=mcs/4/b;

S=abs(trapz(y,c));AR=b^2/S;

% Initialize arrays

theta=zeros(ny,1);st=theta;snt=zeros(ny,ny);B=snt;BI=snt;

clb=theta;cla=theta;Ao=theta;A2=theta;AA=theta;

aat=zeros(ny,M);A=aat;

CL=zeros(1,M);CDi=CL;cl=zeros(ny,M);cdi=cl;

theta=acos(y/b2);st=sin(theta);

for j = 1:ny

for n = 1:ny

snt(j,n)=sin(theta(j)*n);

if theta(j)==0

B(j,n) = n^2*P;

elseif theta(j)==pi

B(j,n) = n^2*P*(-1)^(n-1);

else;

B(j,n) = snt(j,n)*(mcs/mc(j)+P*n/st(j));

end;

end;

end;

% Compute the lift and induced drag coefficients

% for different wing angles of attack

% array including all cases

A=B\aat; %Compute the An coefficients

CL=P*pi*AR*A(1,:); % Find CL

CDi=(P^2*pi*AR)*(diag((repmat([1:ny]',1,M).*A)'*A))'; %Find CDi

% coefficient distributions

cl=mcs*(snt*A)./repmat(c,1,M);cdi=cl.*(aat-cl./repmat(mo,1,M));

% 'Basic' and 'Additional' lift coefficient distributions

if M==1

Ao=A;aa1=aa+0.1;A2=B\aa1;daa=0.1;

else

C-7

Ao=A(:,1);A2=A(:,2);daa=aw(2)-aw(1);

end;

AA=(A2-Ao)/daa;

m=P*pi*AR*AA(1);AZL=aw(1)-Ao(1)/AA(1);Ab=Ao+(AZL-aw(1))*AA;

cla=(snt*AA)*mcs/m./c;clb=(snt*Ab)*mcs./c;

AZL=AZL*180/pi;m=m*pi/180; % convert to degrees

Cmact_t.m

% Cmac of the wing is Cmac of the airfoil section as our wing is unswept

% and has no taper.

% Cmac of fuselage is calculated using the formula described above.

% Cmac change due to the flaps are implemented in the flap section.

KF = 0.045;

cmfus = KF*FusDiameter^2*(FusLength)*aoa/(cwBar*Sw);

trimmed_drag_coefficient.m

(CL,St,TAIL_X,WING_X,cwBar,Sw,clmax,xw,Cmact,btail,ctail)

x = TAIL_X - WING_X;

ARt = btail^2/(St);

vht=(x*St)/(cwBar*Sw);

CLt =(CL*xw/cwBar+Cmact)*x/(x-xw)*1/vht;

et=1.78*(1-.045*ARt^.68)-.64;

Cdtrim=CLt.^2./(pi*et*ARt)*(St/Sw);

parasite_drag_coefficient.m

% Wing, Tail, Fuselage, Boom properties as well as density and velocity

% values are necessary to calculate this coefficient.

(qflaps,rho,v,cwBar,ctail,btail,Sw,xcmwing,mthickwing,sweepwing,FusLength,FusDiameter,BoomLength,

BoomDiameter,xcmtail,mthicktail,sweeptail,upsweepangle,propbladearea,PropDiameter,AirbrakeFrontal

Area)

mju = 3.62e-7;

a = 1116.437;

WingRe = Re(rho,v,cwBar,mju);

C-8

if WingRe < 500000

Cfwing = 1.328/sqrt(WingRe);

else

Cfwing = 0.455/((log10(WingRe)).^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a).^2).^0.65);

end

FF1=(1+.6/(xcmwing)*(mthickwing)+100*(mthickwing)^4)*(1.34*(v/a)^.18*cos(sweepwing*pi/180)^.28);

Q1 = 1;

FusRe = Re(rho,v,FusLength,mju);

Cffus = 1.328/sqrt(FusRe);

else

Cffus = 0.455/((log10(FusRe))^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a)^2)^0.65);

end

f2=FusLength/FusDiameter;

FF2=(1+60/f2^3+f2/400);

Q2=1;

BoomRe = Re(rho,v,BoomLength,mju);

Cfboom = 1.328/sqrt(BoomRe);

else

Cfboom = 0.455/((log10(BoomRe))^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a)^2)^0.65);

end

f3=BoomLength/BoomDiameter;

FF3=(1+60/f3^3+f3/400);

Q3=1;

TailRe = Re(rho,v,ctail,mju);

Cftail = 1.328/sqrt(TailRe);

else

Cftail = 0.455/((log10(TailRe))^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a)^2)^0.65);

end

FF4=(1+.6/(xcmtail)*(mthicktail)+100*(mthicktail)^4)*(1.34*(v/a)^.18*cos(sweeptail*pi/180)^.28);

Q4=1.08;

% Calculating Cdmis, drag contribution of components with large form drag (fuselage

% upsweep, propellar and speed brakes)

Dq5=3.83*upsweepangle*(pi/180)*pi*FusDiameter^2/4;

% Dq6=0.1*propbladearea*pi*PropDiameter^2/4

% Propellar is assumed to be running at all times

Dq6 = 0;

Mlanding = (1.15*v)/a;

Dq7=(.139+.419*(Mlanding-.161)^2)*AirbrakeFrontalArea;

Cdmis=(1/Sw)*(Dq5+Dq6+Dq7+0.25);

else

Cdmis=(1/Sw)*(Dq5+Dq6+Dq7);

end

%Calculating Cdo

C-9

Cdo1=1/Sw*((Cfwing*FF1*Q1*Sw*2)+(Cffus*FF2*Q2*44.7)+(Cfboom*FF3*Q3*22*2)+(Cftail*FF4*Q4*ctail*bta

il*2))+Cdmis;

a1 = (Cfwing*FF1*Q1*Sw*2)/Sw;

a2 = (Cffus*FF2*Q2*44.7)/Sw;

a3 = (Cfboom*FF3*Q3*22*2)/Sw;

a4 = (Cftail*FF4*Q4*ctail*btail*2)/Sw;

%Leakage Drag

Cdlp=.08*Cdo1;

Re.m

% Inputs are rho(density), v(velocity), l(characteristic length),

% mju(coefficient of viscosity)

function a = Re(rho,v,l,mju)

a = rho*v*l/mju;

total_drag_coefficient.m

% Input parameters :

% Cdo : Parasite Drag Coefficient

% deltaCDflap : Drag increased due to the flap

% CDi : Induced Drag

% Cdtrim : Trimmed Drag

Density.m

%This function takes calculates the air density for a given altitude in

%English units.

%Code taken from McClamroch's notes Chp 2 Pg 15 and verified with standard

%atmosphere tables in Appendix A and also with online sources.

%Variables

%h: altitude (ft)

%rho: air density (slugs/ft^3)

%=======predefined constants===========

a0 = -6.5e-3;

g = 9.80665;

mol = 28.9644;

R0 = 8.31432;

R = R0/mol*1e3;

T0 = 288.15;

p0 = 1.01325e5;

rho0 = 1.225;

%=======================================

C-10

h = h*0.3048/1000; %Converting altitude in ft to km

p = p0.*(T./T0).^(-g/a0/R); %Calculating pressure at altitude h

rho = rho0.*(T./T0).^(-g/a0/R-1); %Calculating density at altitude h in kg/m^3

return

thrust_levelflight.m

%This function calculates thrust required for steady level flight given

%true air speed, air density, wing area, parasitic drag coefficient,

%weight, and K.

%

%Formulas taken from notes Aircraft Performance pg 6

%Input parameters can be row vectors if needed.

%Variables:

%Inputs:

%rho: Air Density (slugs/ft^3)

%S: Wing Area (ft^2)

%CD_o: Parasitic Drag Coefficient

%W: Aircraft Weight (lbf)

%K: Aerodynamic parameter

%Outputs:

%T: Thrust (lbf)

%V_minthrust: Speed for minimum thrust (ft/s)

%S_minthrust: Wing area for minimum thrust (ft^2)

%CL_minthrust: Lift coefficient at minimum thrust

T = (0.5.*rho.*(V.^2).*S.*CD_o) + ((K.*(W.^2))./(0.5.*rho.*(V.^2).*S));

V_minthrust = ( (2./rho).*(W./S).*((K./CD_o).^0.5)).^0.5;

S_minthrust = (2*W./(rho.*(V.^2))).*((K./CD_o)^0.5);

CL_minthrust = (CD_o./K).^0.5;

return

Power_levelflight.m

%This function calculates power required for steady level flight given

%a range of true air speeds, altitude, wing area, parasitic drag coefficient,

%weight, and K. It also plots the actual available power of the engine

%given the power of the engine(ideal) at sea level.

W, K, plotvariable)

%

%Formulas taken from notes Propulsion System Design pg 14

%Variables:

C-11

%Inputs:

%V_initial & V_final: Provides the bounds of which to iterate V

% across (kts)

%h: Altitude (ft)

%P_engine: Power of the uninstalled engine at sea

% level (hp)

%D_prop: Diameter of propeller (ft)

%S: Wing Area (ft^2)

%CD_o: Parasitic Drag Coefficient

%W: Aicraft Weight (lbf)

%K: Aerodynamic parameter

%plotvariable: Boolean Variable that determines whether

% function plots the power curves

%Outputs:

%P_needed: Power required for steady level flight

% (hp)

%V_max: Maximum airspeed (kts)

%Transients:

%V: A row vector containing airspeeds

%rho: Air density (slugs/ft^3)

%A_prop: Area of propeller (ft^2)

%T: Thrust (lbf)

%CT: Coefficient of thrust

%eta_i: Propeller efficiency coefficient

%P_engine_i: Ideal power output of the engine in flight at altitude

% (hp)

%in ft/s

rho = density(h);

A_prop = pi*(D_prop/2);

for i = 1:size(V,2)

T(i) = thrust_levelflight(V(i), rho, S, CD_o, W, K);

CT(i) = T(i)/(0.5*rho*(V(i)^2)*A_prop);

eta_i(i) = 2/(1+sqrt(1+CT(i)));

P_needed(i) = T(i)*V(i)/eta_i(i)*0.001818182;

P_engine_i(i) = P_engine*0.85*eta_i(i)*rho/density(0);

end

if P_engine_i(size(V,2)) < P_needed(size(V,2)) %Check that power needed exceeds

%power available

for j = 1:size(V,2)

error(j) = abs(P_needed(j) - P_engine_i(j));

end

counter = find(error == min(error)); %Entry where minimum error occurs

V_max = V(counter);

else

display('V_max does not fall within specified air speed range. Please redefine range of V');

V_max = 'not found';

end

V = V.*0.592483801;

V_max = V_max.*0.592483801;

if plotvariable == 1

plot(V,P_needed,V,P_engine_i)

xlabel('True Air Speed, V (kts)');

ylabel('Power (hp)');

title('Plot of Airspeed versus Power Needed and Power Output');

legend('Power Needed for Level Flight','Power Provided By Engine');

end

C-12

return

flight_envelope.m

%This function plots the flight envelope of the aircraft.

%Variables:

%Inputs:

%h: A row vector of altitudes at which to determine

% V_max (ft)

%P_engine: Power of the uninstalled engine at sea

% level (hp)

%D_prop: Diameter of propeller (ft)

%S: Wing Area (ft^2)

%CD_o: Parasitic Drag Coefficient

%W: Aicraft Weight (lbf)

%K: Aerodynamic parameter

%Outputs:

%V_max: Maximum airspeed possible with available power

% (kts)

%V_min: Minimum airspeed possible with available

% power from engine (kts). Note that this is

% not the same as the stall speed that is

% determined by aerodynamic properties of the

% aircraft.

%V_stall: Stall airspeed calculated from aerodynamic

% parameters of the aircraft (kts)

V_final = 150;

CD_o = CD_o*ones(size(h));

end

K = K*ones(size(h));

end

error('Dimensions of altitude vector and CD_o vector do not match')

end

error('Dimensions of altitude vector and K vector do not match')

end

%Finding the maximum and minimum airspeed attainable at each altitude test case

for i=1:size(h,2)

[V_max(i),V_min(i)] = power_levelflight(V_initial, V_final, h(i), P_engine, D_prop, S,

CD_o(i), W, K(i),0);

h(i)

end

[V_stall] = stall_boundary(h,W,S,CL_max);

ceiling = 27000;

plot(V_max, h,'-k', V_min,h,'-k',V_stall,h,0:1:160,ceiling,'--')

xlabel('True Airspeed V (knots)')

ylabel('Altitude h (ft)')

title('Flight Envelope')

C-13

Stall_boundary.m

%This function calculates the stall boundary of the aircraft over a range

%of altitudes. This data is required for the stall boundary of the flight

%envelope.

%This function uses the equations for stall boundary from Aircraft

%Performance notes pg 13.

%Variables

%Inputs

%h: A row vertor of test altitudes (ft)

%W: Weight of aircraft (lbf)

%S: Wing Area (ft^2)

%CL_max: CL_max of the wing

%Output

%V_stall: Stall velocity (kts)

for i = 1:size(h,2)

rho(i) = density(h(i)); %calculating density at the respective altitudes

V_stall(i) = ((2.*W./(rho(i).*CL_max.*S)).^0.5)*0.592483801;

End

fuelflowrate.m

%This function determines the fuel flow rate for the AR 801 engine for a

given

%throttle setting. The equation was obtained from engine data obtained

%from the engine manufacturer.

%Variables

%Input

%P_sealevel: Output of engine at sea level

%Output

%fuel_rate: Fuel mass flow rate (lbs/s)

Fuel_levelflight.m

%This function calculates the total fuel expended during a steady level

%flight at a defined altitude and velocity for a defined duration. The

%function updates the current weight of the aircraft for every predefined

%step in time to account for the fuel burnt during the steady level flight

%phase. It outputs both the total fuel consumed and the final weight of

%aircraft at the end of the phase.

CD_o, W_initial, K)

C-14

%Variables

%Inputs

%h: Altitude of flight (ft)

%V: Speed of flight (knots)

%duration: Duration of phase (seconds)

%P_engine: Power generated by the engine at sea level (hp)

%D_prop: Diameter of the propeller (ft)

%S: Wing Area (ft^2)

%CD_o: Parasitic Drag Coefficient

%W_inital: Starting weight of the aircraft (lbs)

%K: Aerodynamic parameter

%Outputs

%total_fuel_consumed: Total fuel consumed during the phase (lbs)

%W_final: Final weight of the aircraft (lbs)

%Transients

%W_current: Weight of the aircraft during the current

% iteration (lbs)

%P_needed: Power required for flight (hp)

%P_generated: Sea level power that engine needs to

% generate to produced required power for

% flight (hp)

W_current = W_initial;

duration = duration + (step - mod(duration,step)); %round up

end

[P_needed,eta_i] = power_levelflight2(V, h, P_engine, D_prop, S, CD_o, W_current, K);

P_generated = P_needed/0.85/eta_i;

fuel_consumed = step*fuelflowrate(P_generated);

W_current = W_current - fuel_consumed; %subtracting expended fuel

%weight from aircraft weight

%at the end of each iteration

end

W_final = W_current;

total_fuel_consumed = W_initial - W_final;

Fuel_climb.m

%assumes that the engine is operated at full throttle during the entire

%climb maneuver. It also assumes that the aircraft is flying with maximum

%climb speed permissible by the engine. The function is iterative and

%recalculates the maximum climb speed and aircraft weight at a predefined

%altitude interval.

h_final, P_engine, S, CD_o, W_initial, K, eta_i)

%Variables

%Input

%h_initial: Starting altitude (ft)

%h_final: Final altitude (ft)

%P_engine: Power generated by the engine at sea level (hp)

%D_prop: Diameter of the propeller (ft)

%S: Wing area (ft^2)

%CD_o: Parasitic drag coefficient

%W_inital: Starting weight of the aircraft (lbs)

%K: Aerodynamic parameter

C-15

%Output

%total_fuel_consumed: Total fuel consumed during the phase (lbs)

%W_final: Final weight of the aircraft (lbs)

%hor_dist_covered: Horizontal distance covered during climb

% (ft)

%total_time_taken: Total time taken to complete the climb

% phase (s)

W_current = W_initial;

fuelflow = fuelflowrate(P_engine); %calculating fuel consumption at max throttle

total_time_taken = 0;

hor_dist_covered = 0;

for h = h_initial:step:h_final

rho = density(h); %calculating density at current altitude

P_avail = 550*P_engine*0.85*eta_i*rho/density(0);

vclimb_max = P_avail/W_current -

(4/3)*sqrt((2*W_current/(rho*S))*sqrt(3*(K^3)*CD_o));%calculating maximum climb speed

v_horizontal = sqrt( 2*W_current/(density(h)*S)*sqrt(K/CD_o));%corresponding horizontal speed

time_taken = step/vclimb_max;%time taken to complete each iteration

fuel_consumed = time_taken*fuelflowrate(P_engine*rho/density(0));

W_current = W_current - fuel_consumed;

total_time_taken = total_time_taken+time_taken;

hor_dist_covered = v_horizontal*time_taken + hor_dist_covered;

end

W_final = W_current;

total_fuel_consumed = W_initial - W_final;

LoadMain.m

%This program calculates and compares the load distribution along the span of the wing.

choice = 1;

i=1;

while choice < 8

[wingloads1 y fuel_weight]=LoadFunc(choice);

[wingloads2 y fuel_weight2]=LoadFunc(choice+1);

VzFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,1);

VxFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,2);

MTFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,3);

MxFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,4);

MzFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,5);

VzEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,1);

VxEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,2);

MTEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,3);

MxEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,4);

MzEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,5);

i=i+1;

choice=choice+2;

end

figure(1)

plot(y,VzFuel,y,VzEmpty,':')

legend('A Fuelled','D Fuelled','E Fuelled','G Fuelled','A Empty','D Empty','E Empty','G Empty');

xlabel('y (ft)')

ylabel('Vz (lbf)')

title('Vz')

figure(2)

plot(y,VxFuel,y,VxEmpty,':')

legend('A Fuelled','D Fuelled','E Fuelled','G Fuelled','A Empty','D Empty','E Empty','G Empty');

xlabel('y (ft)')

ylabel('Vx (lbf)')

C-16

title('Vx')

figure(3)

plot(y,MTFuel,y,MTEmpty,':')

legend('A Fuelled','D Fuelled','E Fuelled','G Fuelled','A Empty','D Empty','E Empty','G Empty');

xlabel('y (ft)')

ylabel('MT (lbf)')

title('MT')

figure(4)

plot(y,MxFuel,y,MxEmpty,':')

legend('A Fuelled','D Fuelled','E Fuelled','G Fuelled','A Empty','D Empty','E Empty','G Empty');

xlabel('y (ft)')

ylabel('Mx (lbf)')

title('Mx')

figure(5)

plot(y,MzFuel,y,MzEmpty,':')

legend('A Fuelled','D Fuelled','E Fuelled','G Fuelled','A Empty','D Empty','E Empty','G Empty');

xlabel('y (ft)')

ylabel('Mz (lbf)')

title('Mz')

LoadFunc.m

function [wingloads,yp, fuel_weight] = LoadFunc(choice)

%-----------------Aircraft weight---------------------

W_full=644.8; %lbf

W_empty=461.4; %lbf

%-----------------------------------------------------

if choice == 1;

V=107.3;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint A, Fully fuelled

W=W_full;

TrimMain2;

elseif choice == 2;

V=91;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint A, Empty fuel

W=W_empty;

TrimMain2;

elseif choice == 3;

V=194;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint D, Fully fuelled

W=W_full;

TrimMain2;

elseif choice == 4;

V=194;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint D, Empty Fuel

W=W_empty;

TrimMain2;

elseif choice == 5;

V=194;nz=-1; %DesignPoint E, Fully fuelled

W=W_full;

TrimMain2;

elseif choice == 6;

V=194;nz=-1; %DesignPoint E, Empty Fuel

W=W_empty;

TrimMain2;

elseif choice == 7;

V=103.3;nz=-1.9; %DesignPoint G, Fully fuelled

W=W_full;

TrimMain2;

elseif choice == 8;

V=87.7;nz=-1.9; %DesignPoint G, Empty fuel

W=W_empty;

TrimMain2;

else

display('You have entered an invalid choice');

end

C-17

load aircraftCza.mat

%---------------------

%User Input Parameters

%---------------------

cdo=0.0077; %Profile drag coefficient

M=100; %Number of spanwise stations

rho_f = 44.988; %fuel density, lbs/ft^3

Sw=74.25; %wing area

b = 27; %wing span

a0=-4; %zero lift AoA

cr = 3.1; %root chord

ct = 2.4; %tip chord

Cmo=-0.1008*ones(M+1,1);%sectional moment coefficient

rho=0.00237; %sea level

%rho=0.001266; %cruise

%rho=0.0023423; %dash

%---------------------

%=================================================================

%This part of the code needs updating when the stall angles change

%=================================================================

Czabar=nz.*W./(0.5.*rho.*V.^2.*Sw); %Total normal force coefficient

aw=16+33*(Czabar-Cza(end))./(Cza(end)-Cza(1)) %Finding aw from Trim Curve

alfa=aw+a0;

q=0.5*rho*V.^2; %Freestream dynamic pressure

%=================================================================

[cl,cd,c,y]=sectionalCLCDi(aw,cdo);

%Begin Iteration

for i=1:M+1

dLwdy(i)=q.*c(i).*cl(i); %lift/ft

dDwdy(i)=q.*c(i).*cd(i); %drag/ft

dNwdy(i)=dLwdy(i).*cosd(alfa); %normalForce/ft

dCwdy(i)=dDwdy(i).*cosd(alfa)-dLwdy(i).*sind(alfa); %chordwiseForce/ft

dMacdy(i)=-q.*(c(i)).^2.*Cmo(i); %pitching moment/ft

dFIGzdy(i)=-nz.*w_w;

w_f(i) = -0.5*c(i)*0.45*0.17*c(i)*rho_f; %fuel weight

end

%boom consideration

for j=1:M

Dy(j)=abs(y(j)-y(j+1)); %spanwise lengths of stations

DNw(j)=(dNwdy(j)+dNwdy(j+1)).*Dy(j)./2;

DCw(j)=(dCwdy(j)+dCwdy(j+1)).*Dy(j)./2;

DMac(j)=(dMacdy(j)+dMacdy(j+1)).*Dy(j)./2;

if y(j)<-2.33 & y(j)>-3.67

B(j) = -60.225; %boom weight per ft

else B(j) = 0;

end

%====== fuel weight =======

%fuel weight concentrated near to the wing root

if y(j) > -7

fuel(j) = (w_f(j) + w_f(j+1))/2;

fuel_tot(j) = fuel(j)*Dy(j);

else fuel_tot(j)=0;

end

fuel_tot(j) = 0;

end

DFIGZ(j)=(dFIGzdy(j)+dFIGzdy(j+1))*Dy(j)./2 + fuel_tot(j);

C-18

DFIGZ(j) = DFIGZ(j) + B(j)*Dy(j);

Dxcg(j)=(c(j)/12+c(j+1)/12)/2;

end

fuel_weight = sum(fuel_tot);

Vz(1)=0;

Vx(1)=0;

Mz(1)=0;

Mx(1)=0;

MT(1)=0;

for J=1:M-1

Vz(J+1)=Vz(J)+DNw(J)+DFIGZ(J);

Vx(J+1)=Vx(J)+DCw(J);

Mz(J+1)=Mz(1)-(Vx(J).*Dy(J))-(DCw(J).*Dy(J)./2);

Mx(J+1)=Mx(J) + (Vz(J).*Dy(J)) + (DNw(J).*Dy(J)./2) + (DFIGZ(J).*Dy(J)./2);

MT(J+1)=MT(J)+DMac(J)+(DFIGZ(J).*Dxcg(J));

end

for H=1:M

yp(H)=(y(H)+y(H+1))/2; %y location of each spanwise station

end

end

TrimMain2.m

%TrimMain2.m Last changes made 11/29/06 UAV Team 2 (UAVarsity)

if choice == 1

load UAVspecs.mat;

load Afull.mat;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

elseif choice == 2

load UAVspecsNoFuel.mat;

load Aempty.mat;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

elseif choice == 3

load UAVspecs.mat;

load Dfull.mat;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

elseif choice == 4

load UAVspecsNoFuel.mat;

load Dempty.mat;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

elseif choice == 5

load UAVspecs.mat;

load Efull;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

C-19

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

elseif choice == 6

load UAVspecsNoFuel.mat;

load Eempty;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

elseif choice == 7

load UAVspecs.mat;

load Gfull;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

elseif choice == 8

load UAVspecsNoFuel.mat;

load Gempty;

CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);

[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =

trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);

else

display('You have entered an invalid choice.')

break

end

C-20

Appendix D: Aerodynamic Performance Calculations

η - is the viscous correction factor

The aerodynamic pitching moment is changed as well, given by the following equation.

Δ cm

Δ cm = ⋅ Δcl (Eqn. D.2)

Δcl

The aircraft pitching moment coefficient without the tail is given by the following equation.

( CM )ac−t = ( CM AC

) + (C )

w

M fus (

+ ΔCM AC ) flaps

(Eqn. D.3)

) is equivalent to the pitching moment of the airfoil since

the wing has no sweep. The airfoil pitching moment is -0.13 for the NASA GA(W)1. The change

in pitching moment due to the flaps calculation can be found in the flap section. Lastly, the

pitching moment due to the fuselage is given by the following.

D-1

K f l fus D fus 2

( CM ) fus = α (Eqn. D.4)

cS

Kf is an empirical pitching moment factor, which can be obtained by looking up the tabulated Kf

value for different wing AC location on the fuselage. For our design, the wing is located

approximately at 42% of the fuselage and the corresponding Kf value is 0.018.

The parasite drag coefficient (CD0) during takeoff, cruise and dash were calculated using Eqn.

D.5.

1

CD 0 =

S

∑ ( C fc FFcQc Swetc ) + CDmis + CDL&P (Eqn. D.5)

The subscript c denotes component c. A total of 4 components were considered for the

calculation: wing, fuselage, twin booms and tail. Cfc is the friction coefficient, FFc is the form

factor, Qc is the interference factor and Swetc is the wetted area. CDmis is drag contribution of

aircraft components with large form drag, such as non-retracted landing gear and fuselage

upsweep. CDL&P is the drag associated with air leakages and protuberance, which is usually 8% of

the CD0.

0.455

Cf = (Eqn. D.6)

( log10 Re )

2.58

(1 + 0.144M )

2 0.65

This equation assumes that the Re is above 500,000. Given the dimensions of each component,

even at stall conditions, the Re was above 500,000. Fuselage length and boom length were used

as characteristic length while the mean aerodynamic chord was used for wing and tail.

Form factors for wing and tail used the formula shown in Eqn D.7.

⎡ 0.6 t ⎛ t ⎞ ⎤⎡

4

0.28

FF = ⎢1 + (Eqn. D.7)

⎢⎣ ( x / c )m c ⎝ c ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎣ ⎦

The variable (x/c)m represents the chordwise location of the airfoil maximum thickness while

(t/c) is the airfoil maximum thickness. The sweep angle ( Λ m ) was set to 0 since the swept wing

only benefits flight as transonic speeds. For fuselage and booms, slightly different equation was

used to calculate the form factor.

D-2

⎛ 60 f ⎞ l

FF = ⎜1 + 3 + ⎟, f = (Eqn. D.8)

⎝ f 400 ⎠ d

As shown from Eqn D.8, only length and diameter of fuselage and boom were required to

calculate the form factor.

The interference factor, Q, was set to 1 for all components except the tail, which was set at 1.08

due to the H-shape of the tail. The surface wet area for each component was simple to calculate

since the dimensions of geometry were specified from the beginning.

The miscellaneous drag mainly comes from the fuselage upsweep. In addition, the fuselage

upsweep, windmilling propellers, and speedbrakes add to the miscellaneous drag. However, we

assumed that the propeller does not stop and no speed brakes are applied. Eqn D.9 shows the

drag contribution due to the fuselage upsweep.

θ is the upsweep angle in radians and A denotes the fuselage cross-sectional area. A MATLAB

code was created to calculate the CD0 of the aircraft (Appendix C)

CLt 2 St

CDtrim = (Eqn. D.10)

π et ARt S

Eqn D.10 was used to calculate the trim drag. e is the Oswald efficiency factor while the

coefficient of lift of tail was calculated from obtaining CL of the wing and the aircraft pitching

moment without the tail.

D-3

Appendix E: Takeoff and Landing Calculations

The ground roll can be computed with the following equations, where μ is the friction coefficient

of the ground, Vi is zero, and Vf is 1.1 times stall speed.

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎪⎧ KT + K AV f ⎪⎫

2

SG = ⎜ ⎟ ln ⎨ 2⎬

(Eqn. E.1)

⎝ 2 gK A ⎠ ⎩⎪ KT + K AVi ⎭⎪

⎛T ⎞

KT = ⎜ ⎟ − μ (Eqn. E.2)

⎝W ⎠

ρ

KA =

2(W / S )

( μC L − CD0 − KCL2 ) (Eqn. E.3)

The rotation distance can be computed next, where VTO is 1.1 times the stall speed of 35 knots.

The rotate time, trotate, is 1 second.

R is the radius of the arc about which the aircraft rotates during transition, as shown in Figure

14.1.

⎛T −D ⎞

STR = R ⎜ ⎟ (Eqn. E.5)

⎝ W ⎠VClimb

The vertical distance traveled as UAV transitions to steady climb is a function of R and the flight

path angle, γclimb.

The horizontal distance traveled as UAV climbs to avoid the obstacle is computed last.

hobstacle − hTR

SC = (Eqn. E.7)

tan(γ climb )

E.2 Landing

The total horizontal distance traveled as the UAV clears obstacle and approaches the runway

depends on the obstacle height, the flare height, hF, and the flight path angle.

E-1

hobstacle − hF

Sa = (Eqn. E.8)

tan(γ a )

The horizontal distance traveled as the UAV flares up and prepares to land depends on the

radius, R, of the arc that the aircraft makes as it transitions to flare.

The vertical distance traveled during the flare maneuver depends on the flight path angle and the

radius.

The distance traveled on the runway after touchdown and before brakes are applied depends on

the touchdown velocity, VTD, and the time, td, before the brakes are applied. The touchdown

velocity is 1.15 times the stall speed, and td will be 1 second.

Finally, the distance traveled while the brakes are applied until the UAV comes to rest is

calculated by the following equations.

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎧ KT ⎫

SB = ⎜ ⎟ ln ⎨ 2 ⎬

(Eqn. E.12)

⎝ 2 gK A ⎠ ⎩ KT + K AVTD ⎭

⎛T ⎞

KT = ⎜ ⎟ − μ (Eqn. E.13)

⎝W ⎠

ρ

KA =

2(W / S )

( μC L − CD0 − KCL2 ) (Eqn. E.14)

E-2

Appendix F: Tail Sizing Calculations and History

The equations and intermediate values obtained in the vertical tail calculation are presented in

this section.

The initial estimate of the vertical tail volume coefficient, CVT, is based on existing aircraft

designs. The coefficient is selected s 0.04, which is typical for small single-engine aircraft.

The vertical tail area, SVT, is related to the vertical tail volume coefficient by:

C bS

SVT = VT W (Eqn F.1)

LVT

Where b is the wing span, SW is the wing planform area and LVT is the distance from the

aerodynamic center of the wing to the aerodynamic center of the tail.

Given that SW = 74.25 ft2, b = 27 ft and LVT = 7.7 ft; our initial estimate of vertical tail area is:

0.04 × 27 × 74.25

SVT = = 10.4 ft 2 (Eqn. F.2)

7.7

Next, an estimate of the directional stability of the aircraft, (Cnψ)ac, is obtained using the

following equation:

(C nψ )ac = (C nψ )W + (C nψ ) fus + (C nψ )prop + (C nψ )v + Δ1C nψ + Δ 2 C nψ (Eqn. F.3)

Where W, fus, prop and v denote the contributions to directional stability by the wing, the

fuselage, the propeller and the vertical tail respectively. The last two terms are correction factors

that compensate for the wing geometry and sidewash and interference due to wing-fuselage

combination.

The wing contribution to directional stability, (Cnψ)W, is obtained from equation (108) from the

aforementioned lecture notes, given by:

(C ) = −6 × 10 −5 (Λ0 )

0.5

nψ W (Eqn. F.4)

0

Where Λ is the sweep angle of the wing at quarter chord. Since our wing is un-swept, the wing

contribution to directional stability is 0.

V

(C nψ ) fus = fus (K 2 − K1 ) (Eqn. F.5)

28.7 SW b

Where Vfus is the fuselage volume and (K2 – K1) is a function of the fineness (length to diameter)

ratio of the fuselage.

Given the nature of our aircraft design, the fuselage volume, Vfus, is taken as the combined

volume of the fuselage and the twin boom. For simplification, the fuselage is viewed as a 6-ft

cylinder with diameter 2 ft having a 2-ft tall cone attached to each end. The twin booms are

simplified as two cylinders with a diameter of 6 inches and length of 8.1 ft. Therefore, Vfus is

calculated to be:

F-1

⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞2 ⎛1 ⎛ 2.5 ⎞ ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜

2

⎛ 0.5 ⎞ ⎞⎟⎤

2

= π ⎢6 × ⎜ ⎟ + 2 × 2 × ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ + 2⎜ 8.1× ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎥ = 26.2 ft (Eqn. F.6)

2

⎜

⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎠⎦⎥

Our aircraft has a fineness ratio of 5. Reading off the Fig 10 of the lecture notes, the correlation

factor (K2 – K1) is 0.8. Therefore, the fuselage contribution to directional stability is:

(Cnψ ) fus = 26.2

× 0.8 = 3.65 × 10 − 4 (Eqn. F.7)

28.7 × 74.25 × 27

The propeller contribution on directional stability, (Cnψ)prop, is given the following equation:

⎡ ⎛ dCYp ⎞ ⎤

⎢ πD p l p ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ N p ⎥

2

dψ

(C nψ )prop = 1.5⎢⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥

⎥

(Eqn. F.8)

4 SW b

⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

Where Dp is the diameter of the propeller, lp is the distance from the propeller to the center of

gravity of the aircraft, Np is the number of propellers, and dCYp/dψ is the rate of change of the

yawing moment coefficient due to the side force of the propeller with respect to ψ. For the

design of our UAV, we are using a single twin-bladed propeller of diameter 5 ft for the aircraft.

The propeller is located 3.76 ft behind the center of gravity of the aircraft. dCYp/dψ is estimated

to be 0.00165 based on the lecture notes. The contribution of propeller to directional stability is:

2

(Eqn. F.9)

⎣ 4 × 74.25 × 27 ⎦

⎛ S ⎞⎛ L ⎞

(C )

nψ v= − a v ⎜⎜ VT ⎟⎟⎜ VT ⎟η v (Eqn. F.10)

S

⎝ W ⎠ ⎝ b ⎠

Where av is lift curve slope of the vertical tail, given in Fig 35 as a function of the aspect ratio of

the tail, and ηv is the vertical tail efficiency.

The initial tail has an effective aspect ratio of 2.5 and this gives us a lift curve slope of 0.05. The

vertical tail efficiency is assumed to be 1. Therefore, the tail contribution is:

(Cnψ )v = −0.05⎛⎜ 10.41 ⎞⎟⎛⎜ 7.7 ⎞⎟1 = −0.0019 (Eqn. F.11)

⎝ 74.25 ⎠⎝ 27 ⎠

The first correction factor, Δ1Cnψ, is determined by the wing geometry. The wing of our aircraft

is mounted on top of the fuselage, and the correction factor is:

Δ 1C nψ = −0.0002 (Eqn. F.12)

The second correction factor, Δ2Cnψ, is to account for the contribution to directional stability due

to sidewash and interference flow from the fuselage-wing combination. Given the high wing

geometry,

Δ 2 C nψ = 0.0006 (Eqn. F.13)

F-2

Now that we have all the terms that contribute to directional stability, the estimate for the aircraft

can be obtained:

(Cnψ )ac = (C nψ )W + (C nψ ) fus + (Cnψ )prop + (C nψ )v + Δ1Cnψ + Δ 2 C nψ

(Eqn. F.14)

(Cnψ )ac = 0 + 0.000238 − 9.11× 10 −5 + −0.0002 − 0.00002 + 0.0006 = −0.00125

An estimate for the desired directional stability is provided in equation (127) of the notes:

0.5

⎛ SW ⎞

(C nψ )desirable = −0.0005⎜ 2 ⎟ (Eqn. F.15)

⎝b ⎠

For our aircraft, the desired directional stability is:

0.5

⎛ 74.25 ⎞

(C ) nψ desirable

= −0.0005⎜ 2 ⎟

= −1.60 × 10 − 4 (Eqn. F.16)

⎝ 27 ⎠

The desired directional stability is only about 1/10 of the actual aircraft stability, and therefore

the initial estimate of the tail area is not good enough to provide a desired directional stability.

The vertical tail area has to be altered to match the desired directional stability. Therefore, the

new tail contribution should be:

[ ] [ ]

(Cnψ )v new = (Cnψ )desirable − (Cnψ )W + (Cnψ ) fus + (Cnψ )prop + +Δ1Cnψ + Δ 2Cnψ = −8.3 ×10−4 (Eqn. F.17)

Using the new Cnψ value and equation (123), the new vertical tail area is:

S VT =

[

− (C nψ )v S W b ]

η v a v LVT

(Eqn. F.18)

8.3 × 10 − 4 × 74.25 × 27

S VT = = 4.52 ft 2

1 × 0.05 × 7,7

The calculated vertical tail area is 4.52 ft2, or 6% of the wing area. While the vertical tail area of

4.34 ft2 may be able to provide directional stability to the aircraft, it does not guarantee that the

aircraft will have sufficient maneuverability.

The first iteration of the horizontal tail sizing is presented in this section. Iterations will be

performed until the tail area at the end of iteration is within 1% of the tail area at the beginning

of the iteration.

The horizontal tail size of BBXL was begun with a simplified calculation using the following

equation where we assumed the volume coefficient of the horizontal tail to be the same as that

for a typical small single-engine aircraft.

c ⋅S

S HT = C HT w w (Eqn. F.19)

LHT

Where:

cw = 2.75 ft S w = 74.25 ft2 C HT = 0.7 LHT = 7.7 ft

F-3

2.75 ft ⋅ 74.25 ft

S HT = 0.7 = 18.56 ft 2 (Eqn. F.20)

7.7 ft

By assuming the horizontal tail volume coefficient to be 0.7 and using previously calculated

values for the wing mean chord, wing area, and the moment arm between the horizontal tail and

the aerodynamic center, we estimated the horizontal tail are to be 18.56 ft2. This value was a

good start to our horizontal tail sizing iterations which includes more aerodynamic parameters

for the desired horizontal tail performance. Note, we began our calculations with the value of 0.7

for the horizontal tail volume coefficient but it will change with each iteration using the below

equation.

S HT ,new ⋅ LHT

C HT ,new = (Eqn. F.21)

cw ⋅ S w

Before using iterations key parameters that affect the performance of the horizontal tail must first

be calculated. These parameters include the volume of the fuselage, twin booms, and the lift

curve slopes of the wing and horizontal tail. The total volume of the fuselage and the twin boom

is given by:

2 2 2

4 ⎛ Df ⎞ ⎛ Df ⎞ ⎛ Dtb ⎞

Vf = π⎜ ⎜ ⎟ + (L f − 4)π ⎜

⎜ ⎟

⎟ + 2π ⋅ Ltb ⎜ 2 ⎟ (Eqn. F.22)

3 ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

The lift curve slopes of the wing and the horizontal tail are obtained from the following

equations:

ao

aW = (Eqn. F.23)

57.3 ⋅ r ⋅ ao

1+

π AR

ao , HT

aT = (Eqn. F.24)

57.3 ⋅ r ⋅ ao , HT

1+

π ARHT

Where:

Df = 2 ft (fuselage diameter)

Lf = 10 ft (fuselage length)

Ltb= 8.1 ft (twin boom length)

ao= 0.11 (lift curve slope of 2D wing)

ao,HT = 0.12 (lift curve slope of 2D horizontal tail)

r=1 (correction factor of end plates)

Dtb= 0.5 ft (twin boom diameter)

( 27 ft )

2

b2

AR = = = 9.82 (Eqn. F.25)

S w 74.25 ft 2

( bHT ) ( 6.28 ft )

2 2

S HT 18.7 ft 2

F-4

Using these values we find:

2 2 2

4 ft ⎛ 2 ft ⎞ ⎛ 2 ft ⎞ ⎛ 0.5 ft ⎞

Vf = π⎜ ⎟ + (10 ft − 4 ft ) π ⎜ ⎟ + 2π ⋅ 8.1 ft ⎜ ⎟ = 26.22 ft (Eqn. F.27)

3

3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

0.11

aW = = 0.0913 (Eqn. F.28)

57.3 ⋅ 1 ⋅ 0.11

1+

π ⋅ 9.82

0.12

aT = = 0.059 (Eqn. F.29)

57.3 ⋅1⋅ 0.12

1+

π ⋅ 2.10

After we found these values we can apply them to find the rate of change of moment coefficients

with respect to lift coefficient of the fuselage. Because the primary function of the horizontal tail

is to counter the moments created by the fuselage and wings this term is essential to the

calculation of the desired horizontal tail area. Using the values calculated above, we are able to

obtain:

⎛ Cm ⎞ V K

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = fus ⋅ (Eqn. F.30)

⎝ CL ⎠ fus 28.7 S w ⋅ c w ⋅ a w

⎛ Cm ⎞ 26.22 ft 3 0.8

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⋅ = 0.0392 (Eqn. F.31)

⎝ C L ⎠ fus 28.7 74.25 ft ⋅ 2.75 ft ⋅ 0.0913

2

Where K is an empirical factor based on experimental results and can be found by reading from

Figure 10 in the Static Stability for Aircraft and Trim Curves Lecture Notes. This value was

interpolated to be 0.8 for a fuselage fineness ratio of 5. The average angle of downwash at the

tail is given by ε. This downwash of a horizontal tail causes a reduction in the angle of attack and

therefore the lift. It is also important in our analysis to include the changes of the angle of attack

as it is related to the downwash angle. This is given below:

d ε 114.6

= ⋅ aw (Eqn. F.32)

dα π AR

dε 114.6

= ⋅ 0.0913 = 0.3393 (Eqn. F.33)

dα π ⋅ 9.82

After finding the values of these parameters, they are used to find the stability derivative of the

aircraft without the effects of the propellers using equation (52):

⎛ Cm ⎞ xcg − xac ⎛ Cm ⎞ at ⎛ dε ⎞

⎜ ⎟ = +⎜ ⎟ − ⋅ CHT ⋅ηt ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (Eqn. F.34)

⎝ CL ⎠ ac c ⎝ CL ⎠ fus aw ⎝ dα ⎠

⎛ Cm ⎞ 6.24 ft − 6.3 ft 0.059

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = + 0.0392 − ⋅ 0.7 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 − 0.3393) = −0.281 (Eqn. F.35)

⎝ C L ⎠ ac 2.75 ft 0.0913

We then use these values to find the neutral point, the most aft location of the CG before the

aircraft becomes unstable by applying the following equation:

F-5

xac ⎛ Cm ⎞ at ⎛ dε ⎞

No = −⎜ ⎟ + ⋅ CHT ⋅ηt ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (Eqn. F.36)

c ⎝ CL ⎠ fus aw ⎝ dα ⎠

6.3 ft 0.059

No = − 0.0392 + ⋅ 0.7 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 − 0.3393) = 2.55 (Eqn. F.37)

2.75 ft 0.0913

The stick fixed neutral point with wind milling propellers is calculated at the point where

dC m

is zero, and the aircraft is stable. This stick fixed neutral fixed point comes as a result

dC L

of the CG moving further aft.

N oWind = N o − N p

⎛ dCN

⎜

⎝ d α

⎞

⎟ (

⎠ pT =0

dβ

)

l S

dα p p a C η d β ⎛ dC ⎞

− t HT t N

(Eqn. F.38)

⎜ ⎟

S w c ⋅ aw aw 0.07 dα ⎝ dα ⎠ pT =0

Where:

Np= 1 (number of propellers)

⎛ dCN ⎞ = 0.00165 (attained from approximate empirical data)

⎜ dα ⎟⎠ pT =0

⎝

( d β dα ) =1.5·1.2 = 1.8 (

(approximately 1 + d ε

dα ) increased by 20% for maneuverability)

NOTE: ( d β dα ) values of 1.35 and 1.85 were used, and resulted in

minimal effects of less that 0.1ft2 in the final SHT. It was decided to

average these values to 1.5.

Sp= 19.635 ft2 (area of our 5ft diameter propeller)

N oWind = 2.562 − 1 ⋅

(

0.00165(1.8)(− 3.76 ft ) 19.635 ft 2

−

)

0.059 0.7 ⋅ 1

⋅ (1.8)(0.00165) = 2.544

74.25 ft ⋅ 2.75 ft ⋅ 0.0913

2 2

0.0913 0.07

We then found the CG location due to ground effects from the wind milling propellers.

xcg ge = 2.5546 ⋅ 2.75 ft = 7.02 ft (Eqn. F.40)

We then found the value that represents the shift in the stick-fixed neutral point from propeller

wind milling to critical power on flight configuration. This shift was taken from empirical data

determined for a single engine.

To find the neutral point with power on we sum the shift in the stick fixed neutral point with the

shift associated with the wind milling of the propellers.

N oPower = N oWind + ΔN o (Eqn. F.42)

F-6

N oPower = 2.544 + (0.00) = 2.544 (Eqn. F.43)

This result comes from the requirement that the aircraft must have a stick-fixed longitudinal

stability with power on. We then found the CG location when the power in the below expression.

xcg ge power = c ⋅ N oPower (Eqn. F.44)

xcg ge power = 2.75 ft ⋅ 2.544 = 7.00 ft (Eqn. F.45)

The deflection angle when the lift coefficient is equal to zero is found below.

Where:

Cmac = -0.1 (wing pitching moment coefficient at aerodynamic center)

αo= -4° (zero lift angle of attack)

τ = 0.59 (elevator effectiveness given the elevator area = 0.4 SHT)

−Cmac α

δ eo = − o (Eqn. F.46)

at ⋅ CHTηtτ τ

− (− 0.1) −4

δ eo = − = 10.87° (Eqn. F.47)

0.059 ⋅ 0.7 ⋅ 1 ⋅ 0.59 0.59

The most forward location of the CG is used to find the change in the moment coefficient as it

related to the change in the lift coefficient. The most forward location of CG is assumed to be 6

ft from the nose.

⎛ dCm ⎞ xcg fw

⎜ ⎟ = − N oWind (Eqn. F.48)

⎝ dCL ⎠ fwd c

⎛ dC m ⎞ 6 ft

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = − 2.544 = −0.362 (Eqn. F.49)

⎝ dC L ⎠ fwd 2.75 ft

Because the most aft location of the CG corresponds to CLmax, we then found the maximum

change of the elevator angle below.

⎛ dδ e ⎞ δ e,max − δ e 0

⎜ ⎟ = (Eqn. F.50)

⎝ dCL ⎠ max CL max

⎛ dδ e ⎞ − 20 − 10.87

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = = −15.91 (Eqn. F.51)

⎝ dC L ⎠ max 1.94

Using the above value, we then found the new horizontal tail volume coefficient in the below

expression.

⎛ dCm ⎞

⎜ dC ⎟

⎝ L ⎠ fwd

CHT ,new = (Eqn. F.52)

⎛ dδ e ⎞

atηtτ ⎜

⎝ dCL ⎟⎠ max

− 0.362

C HT ,new = = 0.653 (Eqn. F.53)

0.059 ⋅ 1 ⋅ 0.59 ⋅ −15.91

We then use this new volume coefficient to calculate a new horizontal tail area.

F-7

CHT ,new S w c

S HT = (Eqn. F.54)

LHT

0.653 ⋅ 74.25 ft 2 ⋅ 2.75 ft

S HT ,new = = 17.32 ft 2 (Eqn. F.55)

7.7 ft

The first iterated horizontal tail area is 18.6 ft2, and this value is about 7% different from the tail

area at the beginning of the iteration. Therefore, further iteration is required until the tail area

convergence is less than 1%.

The relaxed design requirements for the unmanned aircraft left us substantial freedom in its

design. After reviewing various proven designs, many different types of tail configurations were

considered before we came to our baseline design. Three tail configurations were considered; V-

tail, boom-tail, and tailless (flying wing). Below provides a detailed analysis of the pros and cons

of the three designs.

The inverted V-tailed configuration was considered because it is a characteristic feature of many

of the US-manufactured UAVs. Theoretically, the V-tail reduces wetted area and will benefit the

aircraft design by reducing the aircraft weight. Also, the interference drag and spiraling

tendencies are significantly reduced when using a V-tail design. However, extensive NACA

research suggests that the V surfaces need to be enlarged so that they have the equivalent wetted

area as a conventional design in order to provide good stability and control [6]. Also, because of

the inverted V arrangement, the aircraft’s landing gear will need to be significantly longer, and it

will require more stringent ground clearance for landing and take-off. For these reasons, we

decided not to include an inverted V tail design into our baseline design.

A twin boom configuration was considered because such a configuration can accommodate a

pusher prop layout while allowing the heavy engine to be located near the center of gravity of the

aircraft. The long slender booms also allow the tail of the aircraft to be positioned farther aft of

the wing, maximizing the moment arm of the tail surfaces without having to incur the full weight

penalty of building an equivalently long fuselage.

The twin boom tail configuration however could force the wing structure to be more robust than

a traditional design, because the booms are usually fixed to the wing. Also, the booms could

create additional wetted area, which could increase the drag on the aircraft. Figure illustrates the

twin boom tail configuration. Based on our aircraft specification, we decided that the twin boom

tail configuration is the best to suit our mission requirements.

F-8

Figure F.1: A typical UAV twin boom configuration [7].

A flying wing design was considered because of its inherent efficiency. The flying wing

configuration eliminates the fuselage and all tail surfaces—reducing the wetted area and drag.

Eliminating these components would also improve the structural efficiency of the aircraft.

Reducing the drag and the structural mass of the aircraft would mean that it could have longer

endurance and require less fuel.

However, a problem with this design is that the wing must be designed very carefully so that the

wing can be stable with limited control moments. Because of this restriction, compromises

usually need to be made in the design that could counteract the structural and aerodynamic

advantages that the flying wing has. Even with these compromises, many flying wing designs

suffer from stability problems [8]. The flying wing would be a risky design to pursue because

many other flying wing designs have had stability problems [9]. Because of the complexity of

the flying wing design, we decided not to incorporate this design in our UAV.

F-9

Appendix G: Structures Calculations

This appendix outlines the procedure to calculate the bending margins of safety present on the

stiffeners of the wing, as was introduced in Section 20: Wing Structure. Also noted are the

stringer areas present at each spanwise section of the wing, as well as the margin of safety for

each stringer. For reference, the diagram below shows the location of each stringer at an

arbitrary spanwise station. Additionally, the stringer numbering scheme is also shown.

To reduce the weight of the wing skeletal structure, the cross sectional area of each stringer has

been tailored to the stresses at its particular location. The table below presents the stringer areas:

75% 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008

60% 0.01 0.015 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02

27% 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1

0% 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20

Associated with each stringer is a margin of safety for the bending loads present on the wing. As

is noted in the Wing Structure section, some of the margins present are vastly in excess of what

they need to be. However practical considerations dictate how small the stringer can reasonably

be machined. Also note that due to coupling between the load carrying stringers, it would be

almost impossible to ensure that all the stringers were at the design margin of safety of +0.35

without a highly detailed analysis, that would be impractical to conduct at this early stage of

development for the Big Brother 4000XL. The margin of safety for each stringer at each station

is:

75% +8.91 +6.66 +6.06 +7.13 +31.09 +12.74 +9.11 +8.70

60% +0.56 +0.36 +0.36 +0.61 +18.41 +4.01 +2.69 +2.87

27% +0.90 +0.50 +0.43 +0.75 +2.75 +1.11 +0.69 +0.69

0% +0.91 +0.47 +0.40 +0.75 +1.73 +0.66 +0.37 +0.36

G-1

G.2 Bending Calculations

As stated previously, the method for calculating the bending margins of safety on the wing are

outlined in Chapter 19 of Reference 22. The spreadsheet below summarizes what was

calculated. Note that a program was set up to iteratively calculate the effective width of skin

included with each stiffening member, and the resulting stress and margin of safety present in

that member. The full spreadsheet for the calculations at 27% of the span is shown below.

In this spreadsheet, the area of the stringer is entered into the first column. Note that if the skin

around the stiffener is in tension, this area includes the effective area of the skin. The number of

rivet rows attaching each stiffener to the sheet is needed to take into account the effective width

of the skin. There is only one rivet row for each stiffener since the stiffeners are all angle

extrusions more than one is not necessary. The total area of the stiffener is the sum of the

stringer area as well as the area of the effective skin. The z location Z’ (height above the chord

line) of the stringer is entered as well as the x location X’ (distance back from the leading edge

G-2

of the section). Also calculated is the area of the stiffener multiplied with Z’, and then with X’;

these values are used in computing the c.g. location of the section, which is noted as Zbar and

Xbar in the chart. The equation for Zbar is:

Zbar =

∑ A * Z' str

(Eqn. G.1)

∑A str

The equation for Xbar is similar. Next in the table are the products A*X’*Z’, A*Z’2, and

A*X’2, which are used in calculating the moments of inertia Ixx, Izz, and Ixz. Note that the

calculation of these values make use of the parallel axis theorem. The values of the area

moments of inertia are noted on the table. Their equations are shown below:

Ixx = (∑ A str )

* Z ' 2 − (∑ Astr )* Zbar 2 (Eqn. G.2)

Izz = (∑ A str )

* X ' 2 − (∑ Astr )* Xbar 2 (Eqn. G.3)

In the table, the values of Z and X with respect to the c.g. of the section are computed. To find

the stress present in the stiffener, the design moments Mx and Mz must be specified. The stress

due to the bending moments present at a location in the cross section is then given by the

equation:

Ixz

K1 = (Eqn. G.6)

Ix * Iz − Ixz 2

Iz

K2 = (Eqn. G.7)

Ix * Iz − Ixz 2

Ix

K3 = (Eqn. G.8)

Ix * Iz − Ixz 2

The stress present in each stiffener is then noted in the table. The force P in the stiffener can

then be computed as the product of the stiffener area and the stiffener stress. The calculation of

this value acts as a check on the computation, since in order for the structure to be in static

equilibrium, the sum of P over all the stiffeners should be zero. We can see from the spreadsheet

that it is very close. The margin of safety in the stringer can then be found using the compressive

yield allowable Fcy and the tension yield allowable Fty. Finally, for a given margin of safety,

G-3

the spreadsheet indicates whether the margin in that particular stringer exceeds the desired

margin.

Below are the critical results from the shear flow Matlab code that was provided. Recall that for

margins of safety higher than +3.00, +HIGH is shown.

Section Thickness Shear Flow Applied Allowable M.S.

(inches) (lbf/in) Shear (psi) Shear (psi)

Leading Edge 0.032 -421.46 13,170 37,000 +1.80

Front Spar 0.032 -208.40 6,512 37,000 +HIGH

Rear Spar 0.032 896.45 27,159 37,000 +0.36

Wing Skin 0.032 -610.83 19,088 37,000 +0.93

(greatest)

Section Thickness Shear Flow Applied Allowable M.S.

(inches) (lbf/in) Shear (psi) Shear (psi)

Leading Edge 0.032 -312.07 9,752 37,000 +2.79

Front Spar 0.032 -173.72 5,428 37,000 +HIGH

Rear Spar 0.032 698.76 21,836 37,000 +0.69

Wing Skin 0.032 -442.97 13,842 37,000 +1.67

(greatest)

0% of the span:

Section Thickness Shear Flow Applied Allowable M.S.

(inches) (lbf/in) Shear (psi) Shear (psi)

Leading Edge 0.032 -174.42 5,450 37,000 +HIGH

Front Spar 0.032 -136.85 4,276 37,000 +HIGH

Rear Spar 0.050 473.58 9,471 37,000 +2.90

Wing Skin 0.032 -212.09 6,627 37,000 +HIGH

(greatest)

G-4

Appendix H: Detailed Fuel Requirement Calculations

The fuel requirement calculations were made based on the mission profile outlined in Section 2:

Mission Description and Analysis.

30

2

y = 0.0036x + 0.2406x + 2.9915

25

Fuel Comsumption (lb/hr)

20

15

10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Horsepower

H-1

H.2 Climb

During climb, the engine is assumed to be operated at full throttle and is assumed to be climbing

at the maximum climb rate. The fuel required for each climb maneuver can be calculated with

the following equations, which are calculated in steps of 100 ft to account for the changing

ambient air density and the reduction in weight of the aircraft due to fuel consumption. These

calculations are performed via a MATLAB code (fuel_climb.m).

Firstly, the power available is calculated via the following equation where the altitude is taken to

be the altitude at the beginning of each step:

ρaltitude

Pavailable = 0.85ηi (P ) (Eqn. H.1)

ρsea level shp sea level

Thus maximum climb rate and the corresponding horizontal velocity are given by:

Pavailable 4 2Wcurrent

Vclimbmax = − 3K 3CD0 (Eqn. H.2)

Wcurrent 3 ρS

2Wcurrent K

V= (Eqn. H.3)

ρS 3CD0

The time taken to complete each 100 ft step can thus be calculated by:

100

tstep =

Vclimbmax

(Eqn. H.4)

Therefore the fuel consumed and aircraft weight after each step is given by:

Pavailable

Wfuel = tstep c (Eqn. H.5)

0.85ηi

Wnew = Wcurrent − Wfuel (Eqn. H.6)

where c is the specific fuel consumption of the engine given in units of lbs-hp-s. Also, the

horizontal distance covered per step is given by:

The above calculations are then repeated until the required climb altitude is attained, with the

fuel weight and horizontal distance of each climb step being summed up.

H-2

H.3 Steady Level Flight

During the steady level flight phases of our mission profile, namely cruise, dash and loiter.

During these phases, the phase duration and flight speed are defined. The fuel required for each

steady level flight phase is calculated via the following equations, which are performed in steps

of 1s to account for the changing weight due to fuel consumption during flight. These

calculations are performed via a MATLAB code (fuel_levelflight.m).

Firstly, the thrust and power required to fly at the defined speed is calculated by the following

equations:

2

1 KWcurrent

T = ρaltitudeV SCD0 +

2

(Eqn. H.8)

2 1

ρaltitudeV 2 S

2

T

CT = (Eqn. H.9)

1

ρaltitudeV 2 ADp

2

2

ηi = (Eqn. H.10)

1 + 1 + CT

Prequired = TV (Eqn. H.11)

Thus the fuel consumed per 1s time step and aircraft weight after each time step is given by:

Prequired

Wfuel = c (Eqn. H.12)

0.85ηi

Wnew = Wcurrent − Wfuel (Eqn. H.13)

where c is the specific fuel consumption of the engine given in units of lbs-hp-s. The above

calculations are then repeated until the required flight duration is attained, with the fuel weight

and horizontal distance of each time step being summed up.

H-3

Appendix I: V-n Diagram Calculations

This appendix outlines the steps and procedures taken to calculate the flight maneuver envelope

and gust-loading envelope and display the results in the form of V-n diagrams. This calculation

was performed using Professor Friedmann’s lecture notes on Flight Envelope and V-n Diagrams.

The non-dimensional load factor is the ratio of the projection of the aerodynamic and propulsive

loading in the aircraft z-axis and the weight of the aircraft. The equation for the load factor is

listed below in Equation G.1.

(Eqn. I.1)

Since our pusher-propeller engine is aligned parallel with the aircraft x-axis, we assume that the

propulsion system has no net loading in the z-axis direction.

(Eqn. I.2)

The aerodynamic loading of the aircraft in the z-direction can be represented by a coefficient

(Cza). This was previously determined by the trim curves and is represented by the equation

below.

(Eqn. I.3)

From convention, the maximum positive normal loading coefficient is multiplied by a factor 1.25

to determine the dynamic normal force coefficient, shown below.

(Eqn. I.4)

When the flaps are deployed, it changes the net aerodynamic forces acting on the z-axis of the

aircraft. In most cases, the loading from flaps deployed will increase and will thus require

separate analysis.

(Eqn. I.5)

The load factor for the flaps deployed case is quite similar to Equation G.1 except the normal

aerodynamic force coefficient is determined with the set of aerodynamic data determined for the

flaps down case.

The maneuver envelope in the case of flaps deployed must extend up to a maximum design

velocity expected for operation with flaps deployed. This velocity is determined by the equation

below. The flaps design velocity must not be less than 1.4 times the stall speed with flaps

retracted or 1.8 times the stall speed with flaps deployed (whichever is greater).

(Eqn. I.6)

I-1

I.3 Gust Loading Envelope

The effect of a sharp gust may be very devastating to an aircraft, particularly if the load factor

due to the gust loading exceeds that of the limit loads specified by FAR and by the

specifications.

The gust load factor begins at a n=1 and extends linearly and equally in the positive and negative

direction as can be seen in Equation G.7.

(Eqn. I.7)

(Eqn. I.8)

The variable a is the partial derivative of the coefficient of normal force with respect to the angle

of attack and is shown in Equation G.9.

(Eqn. I.9)

The variable is the airplane mass ratio is represented by the following equation.

(Eqn. I.10)

(Eqn. I.11)

From the steps, the load factors due to maneuver, flaps, and gust could be plotted as a function of

flight velocity. The design velocities from which to base the wing loading calculations were

predetermined by FAR Part 23 and are listed in Section 18 of the body. All the analysis and

plotting were performed using Microsoft Excel.

I-2

Appendix J: References

Mileshosky. <http://www.sandia.gov/RADAR/whatis.html>

<https://peoiewswebinfo.monmouth.army.mil/portal_sites/IEWS_Public/rus/eoir.htm>

3com.com/csw/Product/docs/31-Mini%20UAV%20Data%20Link%20-

MUDL%20gen2.pdf>

[4] “AR801R – 51 BHP – Rotary Engine for UAVs.” UAV Engines Ltd. 2004.

<http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/index.php?id=403>

[5] “AR801-50BHP Rotary Engine for Drones and UAVs” .UAV Engines. Lynn Lane

Shenstone. <http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/fileadmin/datapack/AR801.pdf>.

[6] Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Third Edition. Reston, VA:

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. ,2006.

<http://www.kodiakbs.com/2intro.htm>.

power.co.jp/hks_aviation/english.htm>.

[10] “Powerfin Composite Propellers”. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Company .Airframe Parts

– Propellers. <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/powerfin.php>.

[11] “Prince Aircraft Company P-tip Props”. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Company .Airframe

Parts – Propellers. <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/princeprops.php>.

Pejznoch. <http://aluminiumracing.com/index_e.htm#Radiators>.

AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES” .Federal Aviation Administration.

Regulatory and Guidance Library. 04 Nov 06

<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?

OpenFrameSet>.

J-1

[14] Military Handbook - MIL-HDBK-5H: Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace

Vehicle Structures (Knovel Interactive Edition). U.S. Department of Defense.

[15] Bruhn, E.F. Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures. Carmel, Indiana: Jacobs

Publishing, Inc., 1973.

[16] Banavara, Nagaraj. Shear Flow and Shear Stress Calculation. 01 Nov 06. MATLAB®

<http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator>.

[18] “RQ-1 Predator Medium Altitude Endurance (MAE) UAV” GlobalSecurity. 17 Sept 06.

<http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/predator-specs.htm>.

<http://www.uavforum.com/vehicles/production/gnat750.htm>.

sas.com/datasheets_ga/FALCO.pdf>.

[21] “UAV Operations in the Indian Air Force.” Indian Air Force. 17 Sept 06

<http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/main.php?g2_itemId=2885>.

J-2

- UAV Capabilities AnalysisDiunggah olehAviation/Space History Library
- Coast Watch UAVDiunggah olehmohadi20
- Morphing Wing HALE UAVDiunggah olehYoungmin Park
- High Altitude Long Endurance Recon UAVDiunggah olehTanveer Ali
- Airplane Performance & DesignDiunggah olehjwzumwalt
- Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) Airfame Design and ManufactureDiunggah olehImmaculate Immanuel
- Conceptual Design of UAV AirframesDiunggah olehmohibookavimit
- UAV ThesisDiunggah olehMahmoud Arij
- Uav ReportDiunggah olehkhghost
- Flight Simulation Final ReportDiunggah olehRaksok Khankhampoch
- MAGAZINE UAVDiunggah olehargonautabizarro
- UAV Vision and Control SystemDiunggah olehAlok Singum
- UAV DEASIGN AND BUILDDiunggah olehAishwarya Ravi
- (UAV) - Aircraft DesignDiunggah olehginno18019048
- UAVDiunggah olehgayaxni
- UAV Predator ManualDiunggah olehfraifikmushi
- uav msc thesis_very_goodDiunggah olehapi-3772840
- Wing Spar CalculationDiunggah olehJürgen Storl
- adp 1 finalDiunggah olehrahul_vh
- UAV Design(RahaUAV.com)Diunggah olehRj Jagadesh
- Chapter3 Drag PolarDiunggah olehmanikandan_murugaiah
- VIP_Wing Layout Structure_short IntroductionDiunggah olehThehoang Nguyen
- Aerodynamic Design and Optimization of a Long Rang UavDiunggah olehAhmed Hassan
- UAVDiunggah olehAadhi Nana Murali
- WINGDiunggah olehRaj Manova
- AGARD Landing Gear DesignDiunggah olehDita Febriana
- Landing Gear Design-1Diunggah olehAb Rahman Adib
- Aircraft Design Project Group 5Diunggah olehPugal Venthan
- Aircraft DesignDiunggah olehBenny Basit
- clasificacion uavDiunggah olehSaid Arafat

- The Realities of Reentry DisposalDiunggah olehAndreas_amp
- Wright BrothersDiunggah olehBara Giri Wardhana
- AREA RULEDiunggah olehKaleeswaran Einstein
- Chapter 11 CG Stability and ControlDiunggah olehCm Low
- shc irec aiaa launch vehicleDiunggah olehapi-359883631
- FAR 23 Training OutlineDiunggah olehsadi_koa
- helicopter design v n dalinn.pdfDiunggah olehMrdemagallanes
- Gemini 8 PAO TranscriptDiunggah olehBob Andrepont
- CS-29 Amdt. 1.pdfDiunggah olehErhan
- The Final FrontierDiunggah olehThe London Free Press
- STS-61 Space Shuttle Mission ReportDiunggah olehBob Andrepont
- annotated bibliography nhd apDiunggah olehapi-309159244
- Md90 SystemDiunggah olehejt01
- Types of Aerospace IndustryDiunggah olehrajeshyalmanchili2
- Little Joe 5B (Capsule No. 14)Diunggah olehBob Andrepont
- NASA Launch Schedule _ NASADiunggah olehclgv00
- SKGODiunggah olehCriiztiän Ramirez
- Basic Aviation Safety 2013Diunggah olehJannys Kharisma Asyam Nashrullah
- HybridPropulsionDiunggah olehapi-3827338
- AELODOS FactsheetDiunggah olehMiguel Adrian Carretero
- The Cost-optimal Size of Future Reusable Launch VehiclesDiunggah olehWilliam Frederick Chen-Chung Wou
- Weight and Balance[1]Diunggah olehMatej Trtnik
- 9A21604 Flight Vehicle DesignDiunggah olehsivabharathamurthy
- Integration of Developing Technologies Into Flight Inspection AircraftDiunggah olehMarcus Drago
- Aircraft Structural ComponentsDiunggah olehmgskumar
- 3%2E63004Diunggah olehAmit Bidlan
- Glonass(rolll no89)Diunggah olehGanesh Kanase
- Wind Tunnel Testing of a Twisted Wing for Longitudinal Control in a Joined-Wing AircraftDiunggah olehMiguel Angel Garcia
- AE G2011 Model 001Diunggah olehMahesh J Rao
- A7L SpacesuitDiunggah olehJack Gillbanks