GROUP 2

L3 Application Report Group 2

Foo Sze Wei, Tan Kah Ming, Kanneganti Sameer, Emmanuel Taiwo, Mehrnaz Dehghan-nayeri, Muhammad
Iqmal Rahim, Muhammad Abid Shekhani

1 INTRODUCTION
This report details the design, manufacture, and
performance discussion of the glider by Group 2.

x =

2 DESIGN PROCESS & PERFORMANCE MODEL

Five key areas: gear train, aerodynamics, flight
trajectory, stability and structural design.

y =g+

2.1 GEAR TRAIN

The torque required to overcome the gravitational
effects from launching off the ramp, the drag and
the rolling friction were determined. The motors
torque was found to have a linearly negative
correlative relationship with its speed. Utilising
this relationship along with the torque required,
an analytical solution to the glider velocity was
obtained. This predicted velocity however, was
subject to assumptions such as perfect
transmission of torque and ideal transmission of
battery power.
2.2 AERODYNAMICS
Two design concepts were considered: hang
glider and the sailplane. As the sailplane has a
higher glide ratio than the hang glider, it was
decided upon. [1] Since the Reynolds number
was calculated to be between 5000 and 15000,
the use of low Reynolds number airfoil sections
were first considered. However due to difficulties
in manufacturing the exact airfoil shape, a flat
design was used instead. The flat plate allowed
for good aerodynamic performance while having
the advantage of the ease of manufacturing. To
minimize mass, a flat plate design was also used
for the tailplane. Since no yaw or roll motions
were observed during the test flights, neither the
vertical tailplane nor a dihedral was included.
2.3 FLIGHT TRAJECTORY
A MATLAB code was used to model the flight
trajectory. The code used the Runge Kutta 4 th
order numerical solver to determine the
horizontal (x-axis), vertical (y-axis) and rotational
( ) velocities and displacements of the glider

flight trajectory. The equations used are shown

below. The variables are defined according to
Figure 1.

Dw cos ( )L w sin ( )Dt cos ( )Lt sin ( )

(1)
m
Lw cos ( ) D w cos ( )+ Lt sin ( ) D t cos ( )
(2)
m

( L w sin ( )DW cos ( ) ) x w sin ( )

1 + ( L w cos ( ) D w sin ( ) ) x w cos ( ) (3)
=
I zz (L sin ( )D cos ( ) ) x sin ( )
t
t
t
( Lt cos ( )D t si n ( ) ) x t cos ( )
Glider parameters (i.e. chord, aspect ratio) were
then varied in order to maximize the distance
travelled. In the optimization process, the wing
and tail setting angles were also modified to
achieve a trimmed pitch and longitudinal stability.
2.4 STABILITY
Longitudinal static stability was required to
ensure that the glider remained at a relatively
constant angle of attack. The main criterion for
longitudinal stability is

C m
< 0 . This means

that a correcting moment will be generated if the

glider is perturbed from equilibrium. Given the
wing
and
tail
were
flat
plates,

C L ,w C L, t
=
=2 ,

C m

this

simplified

the

equation. This resulted in the static

margin being only a function of the ratio of wing

areas, the distance between the C.G. and A.C. of
the wing and the downwash at the tail. By setting
these parameters, the moment arm of the tail
required to ensure

C m
< 0 was obtained.

2.5 STRUCTURAL AND MATERIAL DESIGN

A key structural material was depron foam. It was
selected due to its rigidity and its low mass.

Department of Aeronautics: L3 Applications Exercise Report

1 | Page

GROUP 2
Contrastingly, acrylic/acetal were heavy.(Figure
2)
2.6 PERFORMANCE MODELLING
As in Figure 3, the glider was predicted to travel
a distance of 2.3m at a ramp angle of

0 .

This configuration provided a good glide distance

despite the slight instability observed at the end
of the flight trajectory. (Figure 3)
3 MECHANICAL IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 ELECTRICAL CIRCUITRY AND PROGRAMMING
An Arduino code was used to program the
microcontroller. The controller was configured to
attain maximum speed in the shortest possible
time as there was no wheel slippage. This
configuration provided a higher take-off speed
than the gradual acceleration mode.
The circuit components are connected directly to
the microcontroller board in order to minimize
wire use and hence, mass. (Figure 4) This also
makes the circuitry compact, allowing for a
smaller fuselage.
3.2 GEAR, SHAFT AND MOTOR PLACEMENTS
The gear shaft and motor were placed in the
most efficient manner to minimise mechanical
loses and mass. Carbon fibre rods were used as
shafts due to its light weight. A direct gear
connection between the motor and the wheel
shaft was opted for as this maximised the
mechanical energy transferred while minimising
tooth friction losses. The simplicity of the
connection improved the ease of manufacturing
and reduced the need for additional supporting
structures which may weaken the Styrofoam
fuselage structure.
Custom-made washers (Figure 2) were used to
prevent motion of the shaft and wheel bearings.
This constraint was essential for ensuring a
straight ramp motion and hence, optimal flight
direction and distance.
3.3 OTHER KEY MODIFICATIONS
Initial tests showed that due to insufficient lift
being generated by the wing, the glide distance
obtained was short. A thin mylar film was thus
added to increase the wing area and increase lift.

4 ROBOT PERFORMANCE
4.1 RESULTS
The finalized glider (Figures 5 & 6) had a mass of
50.0g and attained a glide distance of 2.00m at a
ramp angle of 0 .
Table 1: Actual & Modelled Glider Performance
Takeoff
Model
Actual
Deviation
Speed
Distance Distance
2.90ms-1
2.41m
-17.0%
2.00m
1.75ms-1
1.90m
+5.3%
As seen in Table 1, a large 17% deviation was
obtained between the predicted and actual glide
distance when the design takeoff speed of
2.90ms-1 was used. This large deviation is
attributed to the fact that a much lower takeoff
speed of 1.75ms-1 was obtained during the actual
test.
A re-run of the model using the actual takeoff
speed resulted in a predicted distance of 1.90m.
Hence the deviation between the actual and
predicted distances decreased to 5%. This small
deviation indicated that the model was able to
accurately model the flight conditions and
performance of the glider.
4.2 DISCUSSION
The 40% deviation in take-off speed between the
actual test and the mathematical model was due
to two reasons: slight deformations were present
at the holes in the fuselage where the shaft
passed through (shaft holes) and the wheels
were geometrically imperfect upon assembly.
Upon impact, significant reaction forces were
transferred from the shaft to the styrofoam
fuselage, causing the shaft hole to widen. As a
result, the bearings were not well supported and
this caused unnecessary vertical motions of the
shaft. This reduced the fitting of the motor gear to
the shaft gear, causing a reduction in the torque
transferred to the wheels.
The glider wheels required D-shaped shafts.
However as these were not available, circular
shafts were used. In order to obtain an
interference fit between the wheels and the shaft,
the circular shafts had to be forced into the Dshaped holes for the wheels, causing damage
and reducing traction.

Department of Aeronautics: L3 Applications Exercise Report

2 | Page

GROUP 2
4.3 KEY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
With a total mass of 50.0g, the glider was at the
upper limit of the mass restriction. Reducing
mass would reduce the downward acceleration
on the glider. This would increase the gliders
flight time, allowing it to travel further. One way to
do this would be to use thin acetal plates with
carbon rods to create a monocoque design. Such
a design would lower mass while maintaining
high structural rigidity.
Further optimization of speed would also improve
the distance travelled. An acetal fuselage would
mitigate impact damages, improving torque
transmission. Circular shaft compatible wheels
would reduce manufacturing damage and

improve traction. A 5:1 motor should also be

selected.
Since Mylar was able to maximize wing area and
minimize mass, the wing could be completely
replaced by Mylar.
5 CONCLUSION
With good teamwork, a computational model that
provided an accurate estimate of the glide
performance and a well-thought out mechanical
implementation, a good glide distance was
obtained.
With
further
research
and
improvements in the fabrication process, greater
distances can be achieved.

Department of Aeronautics: L3 Applications Exercise Report

3 | Page

WEBSITE LINK: HTTP://GROUP2IGLIDER.WEEBLY.COM/

6

APPENDIX

Fi
gure 2: Wheel Bearings and
Custom Made Washers

Figure 1: Glider Free Body Diagram

Figure 3: Actual and Model Trajectory Results

Figure 5: Finalised Glider (Top View)

7

Figure 4: Circuit Configuration

Figure 6: Finalised Glider (Bottom View)

REFERENCES

[1] Akira Azuma. (1992) Flight By Gliding. In: Anonymous The Biokinetics of Flying and Swimming. Tokyo,
Springer-Verlag. pp. 38.