Remote Control Airplane Design

Senior Design Project 37

Mustafa Celebi, ME Joseph Dekar, ME Kyle Gruber, ME, Team Leader Scott Harrigan, ME Sebastian Reyes, ME

Faculty Advisor: Professor Frank Cardullo Sponsor: Binghamton University, Mechanical Engineering Department

Submitted in partial fulllment of the requirements of ME 493/EECE 487 in the Spring Semester of 2013. Thomas J. Watson School of Engineering and Applied Science State University of New York at Binghamton
May 9, 2013

Abstract
The objective of the project was to design a remote controlled airplane following the SAE (Society of Automotive and Aerospace Engineers) Aero design competition requirements. The plane was to be a xed wing aircraft not exceeding a maximum combined height, width and length of 225 inches. The airplane was required to contain a payload bay capable of carrying multiple payloads, through a series of ights. A NACA 4412 airfoil shape was chosen for the airplanes 72 inch wingspan. A rectangular, high wing planform was chosen. The high wing planform was connected to the airplane's balsa wood fuselage which also contained the control system, fuel tank and payload bay. A Magnum XLS61A SAE specied engine was mounted to the front of the fuselage powering a two blade propeller. The plane was to sit atop of a tricycle style landing gear system. In order to control the pitch and yaw of the airplane a conventional style tail was designed and attached to the rear of the fuselage, utilizing a NACA 0009 airfoil shape. A Futaba 4YF 2.4 GHz control system was purchased and was responsible for controlling the airplane while in ight. A complete design of the aircraft was completed in the Fall 2012 semester and was constructed and tested in the Spring 2013 semester. During testing, the airplane met the requirement for a 200 ft maximum takeo distance. During the rst test ight, a takeo distance of 95 ft was recorded. Due to pilot error, the airplane crashed into a tree during the rst test ight, conducted at Tri-Cities Airport. The airplane was damaged beyond repair in the crash. As a result, further tests could not be performed. The aircraft passed all requirement tests prior to the crash.

Contents
I Introduction II Design Requirements III Fuselage
1 Research and Evaluation of Alternative Designs 2 Final Theoretical Design 3 Final Design
3.1 Construction and Changes from Original Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2 3.3 Attaching Wing to Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weight Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Firewall and Mounting the Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 10 11
11 12 13
13 17 17 18 19 20 21

Failure of Fuselage

Re-Construction of Fuselage

IV Wing
4 Spar Analysis 5 Spar to Fuselage Connection Brace
5.1 5.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22
23 26
28 29

6 Rib Analysis 7 Aileron Construction

30 35

V Tail
8 Research 9 Horizontal Stabilizer Sizing 10 Optimum Horizontal Tail Moment Arm 11 Horizontal Tail Incidence
3

37
37 38 39 39

12 Vertical Stabilizer Sizing 13 Vertical Tail Geometry 14 Final Design 15 Construction of Tail

40 41 42 42

VI Landing Gear
16 Research and Evaluation of Alternative Designs 17 Final Design

44
44 44

VII Completed Aircraft VIII Aircraft Performance

18 Lift Analysis 19 Ailerons 20 Power plant specications: 21 Propeller selection: 22 Power Required, Power Available, and Rate of Climb
22.1 Power Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Power Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 Power vs. Airspeed Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 Rate of Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 Takeo Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.6 Takeo Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 Landing Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 48
48 48 51 51 52
52 53 53 54 54 54 55

23 Drag Analysis 24 CG Table

55 55

IX Design Verication X Conclusion

4

58 59

List of Figures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Concept diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compartmentalized design of fuselage. Wing spar slots of fuselage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 40 42 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 50 51

Rods to hold weights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tail attached to fuselage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Front fuselage cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross section for payload plates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connection brace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Payload bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X cross members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Firewall and engine mount. Rebuilt fuselage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collapse of rewall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Symmetrical vs. cambered airfoil (nasa.gov)

Picture of rib outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loading of wing spar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free body diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connection brace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diagram of fuselage and mounting hole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fringe diagram for calculated thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fringe diagram for

t = 0.75.

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

Fringe diagram for two holes.

Comparison of shear/moment due to complex loading versus shear/moment due to point force load approximation. Top view of wing section, with sizing dimensions. and

Simplied chart of pressure values, showing curve areas used to calculate

Cn1

Cn2 .

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

Final aileron design. Aileron rib assembly.

Tail shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stable vs. unstable CG location. (Courtesy: Firebirdsindia.com) . . . . . . . Final design of tail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral landing gear design. Lateral landing gear design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Completed aircraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finite and innite lift coecients versus angle of attack. Aileron deection vs steady roll rate Aileron deection vs time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aileron deection vs bank angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turn radius vs velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turn rate vs. velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42 43 44 45 46

Top-Flite propeller selection guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power required and power available curves vs. airspeed Rate of climb vs. airspeed CG Table Wing planform shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 53 54 56 89

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

List of Tables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Density, compressive and tensile strength, and elastic modulus. . . . . . . . . Magnum XLS 61-A motor specications. Wing planform, Pahl & Beitz method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wing planform, Pugh's method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tail wing, Pugh's method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tail wing, Pahl & Beitz method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engine location, Pugh's method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engine location, Pahl & Beitz method. Propulsion system, Pugh's method. Wing placement, Pugh's method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 51 70 70 71 71 72 72 73 73 74 74 75 75 90 91 91 92

Propulsion system, Pahl & Beitz method.

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

Wing placement, Pahl & Beitz method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landing gear, Pugh's method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landing gear, Pahl & Beitz method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lift force vs. velocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drag force vs. velocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aileron properties at deection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aircraft roll rate and roll ratio at certain velocities.

Part I

Introduction
Each year, SAE International hosts the Aero Design East Series, a collegiate design competition in which students design and build xed-wing aircraft to achieve a desired operational requirement. A variety of competitions are hosted within the Series, consisting of several In particular, the Regular Class aircraft class requirements to meet specic design goals. competition challenges students to design an aircraft capable of lifting as much raw payload weight as possible. Bonuses are given to meet additional goals, such as a successful ight with zero payload, as well as the team's ability to successfully predict the payload weight after each ight. Due in no small part to the team's shared interest in general aviation, it was decided that the team's project would be to design and build an aircraft eligible to enter the SAE Aero Design East Regular Class competition. The team set out to design an aircraft that would meet the Regular Class competition goals, could be constructed within the team's allotted budget of $500, and could be own easily by the team members. During the Fall 2012 semester, initial brainstorming generated a variety of potential designs. These designs were run through several evaluations, namely Pahl & Beitz and Keeping in mind the payloadPughes' methods, to determine the ideal general design.

carrying nature of the aircraft, as well as the limited construction time available to the team, NACA airfoil shapes were chosen that could generate the highest possible amount of lift whilst remaining easy to construct. Fuselage design was kept simple for easy construction and payload accessibility. Balsa was chosen as the main material for the aircraft due to relatively low cost, availability, ease of use in construction, and low weight. Dimensions were initially established using rule-of-thumb ratios, and later ne-tuned to match performance and stability criteria based upon those of full scale aircraft with similar design requirements. CAD drawings were procured and dimensions were nalized by the end of the Fall 2012 semester. Basic performance analyses such as CG, weight, and horizontal stability were documented in a fall semester design report. The Spring 2013 semester focused mainly on construction and stress analysis of critical load-bearing aircraft components. Much of the analysis focused on ensuring the wing spar was sucient to handle the maximum anticipated load during maneuvers which imposed the greatest G-forces upon the aircraft. analyzed under the same conditions. Additionally, the spar-fuselage attachments were Once it was assured the aircraft would be able to

handle all normal ight maneuvers with full payload and a factor of safety of 2, construction commenced. Whilst construction was underway, various performance aspects were calculated and documented, such as power required, power available, takeo distance, takeo speed, and landing distance. Once it was determined that the calculated performance aspects allowed the aircraft to meet the design requirements, testing began. Testing was completed on May 5th, 2013. Remains of the prototype were recovered and delivered to the Industry Advisor on May 7th, 2013.

Figure 1: Concept diagram.

Part II

Design Requirements
The following describes the remote controlled airplane requirements as given in the SAE aerospace competition rule book. 1. Fixed wing Airplane. (a) Aircraft shall takeo within 200 ft. (61 m). (b) Aircraft shall successfully complete one 360 circuit of an SAE approved eld. (c) Aircraft shall complete a full stop landing on an SAE approved eld. (d) Aircraft shall come to full stop within 400 ft. approved landing strip. 2. Aircraft will be powered by a standard, SAE approved engine. (a) Aircraft will be powered by a single, unmodied O.S 61FX engine with an E-4010 Muer, OR a Magnum XLS-61A (XLS version only) engine. 3. Aircraft shall not exceed a combined length, width and height of 225 inches. 4. Aircraft engine and fuel tanks will conform to SAE guidelines. (a) Aircraft shall have a one-to-one propeller to engine RPM. Propeller(s) must rotate at engine RPM. (b) Fuel tank(s) shall be accessible to determine contents during plane inspection. 5. Aircraft must contain payload bay and be capable of carrying multiple payloads. (a) Payload shall consist of a support assembly and payload plates. (b) Payload shall be carried in a single, designated cargo bay of the aircraft. (c) Payload shall be loaded and secured/unloaded and unsecured in less than 1 minute. 6. All additional non-structural aircraft elements will conform to SAE guidelines. (a) Aircraft shall utilize a 2.4 GHz radio for remote control. (b) Aircraft shall utilize a battery pack with no less than 1000 mAh capacity. (c) Aircraft shall utilize either a spinner or a rounded safety nut. 7. Aircraft shall not exceed 65 lbs. with payload and fuel 8. Aircraft shall utilize a control system consisting of at least two ailerons 9. Aircraft shall be capable of multiple remote controlled ights. (122 m), between limits of SAE

10

Part III

Fuselage
The fuselage must house the engine, fuel tank, control system and cargo area for the payload plates. In addition to housing all of these components, they must all be easily accessible. Another important consideration is the material used to make the fuselage. Balsa wood is commonly used in model aircrafts due to its high strength to density ratio. This makes it ideal since weight is a crucial factor when doing trade o analyses.

1 Research and Evaluation of Alternative Designs

There were several options for the location of the engine. The three main locations were in the front, middle or and rear of the fuselage. Two trade o analysis methods were used to determine which of the three locations would suit the requirements of the project the best. Pugh's method showed that the best alternative was to locate the engine at the front. To do that actual analysis, the front was chosen as the baseline. The middle and rear locations were compared using several criteria: ease of build, cost of build, center of gravity, weight and drag. Pahl and Beitz method also showed that the best alternative was to locate the engine at the front. This trade o analysis method is better since it allows the user to assign weights to the dierent evaluation criteria. Having the engine located at the front was expected. This is by far the most common location, especially for model aircrafts. There were only three reasonable options for the material of the fuselage; balsa wood, high strength ABS plastic and aluminum. As stated before, balsa wood is generally the standard when it comes to reasonably priced model aircrafts. Using balsa wood implies a relatively generic design for the fuselage. The main benets of using this specic wood are its high strength to density ratio. Aluminum is a very good option since has a low density and is very strong compared to balsa and ABS. A problem with using aluminum is it would be more expensive than the other two alternatives. It is also dicult to work with when compared to the other options. g g . Balsa has a density of 0.155 , much lower than Aluminum has a density of 2.83 cm3 cm3 the metal. Since weight is such an important consideration, balsa is denitely the preferred option. High strength ABS plastic was an option due to access to a 3D printer. The printer can make a maximum of 6 by 6 by 6 pieces. This presents a major issue since the fuselage is much larger than this. The solution to this would be to design a fuselage that could essentially be put together from various small components. This adds more complexity than necessary. For this reason balsa wood will be used to manufacture the fuselage.

11

2 Final Theoretical Design

Throughout the fall semester several fuselage designs were created to get an idea of what it would look like. It proved to be quite the challenge without knowing any other parameters of the plane (with the exception of the requirements given by SAE). The only knowns were the engine location, material and estimate for the length of the fuselage. Using these guidelines several design alternatives were created during brainstorming sessions. Since balsa is the weakest of the three alternatives, several solutions were created to compensate for its lower strength. Compartments were included for the dierent components. These compartments add a lot of strength to the sidewalls of the fuselage. Figure 2 shows the design of the members. When it comes to building these cross-sectional members they will most likely be glued in using high strength adhesive.

Figure 2: Compartmentalized design of fuselage.

In order to gain access to all components of the airplane the entire cover of the fuselage was designed as one part that could be easily removed with screws. The original fuselage was designed with the idea that the entire wing planform could be removed simply by removing the cover and lifting the planform. Figure 3 shows a picture of a side view of the fuselage where the wing spar would be placed. After some preliminary analysis to see how much lift was generated by the wings it was feared the cover alone would not hold the wing planform in place. For this reason a total of four struts were created to increase the structural strength of airplane.

12

Figure 3: Wing spar slots of fuselage.

One of the requirements of SAE is for the plane to have modular weights. The specics of them were not in the problem description, so proprietary weight plates were designed to t inside the fuselage. In the actual model cylindrical rods were extruded from to base of the fuselage in one of the compartments to hold the plates. The actual weights will have a cutout in the middle with the same diameter as these rods. Two of the compartments have rods so weight can be placed ahead or behind the center of gravity of the plane. Figure 4 shows a screen shot of these rods. Having multiple locations for the weights has a second role other than satisfying the SAE requirements. It allows for control over the center of gravity.

Figure 4: Rods to hold weights.

3 Final Design
3.1 Construction and Changes from Original Design
Constructing the fuselage was much more of a challenge than initially anticipated. The 3 largest pieces of balsa wood that could be purchased were 4 x 36 x in, because of this 8 3 the thickness of the fuselage was changed to in. Multiple pieces of balsa were glued 8 together to create the appropriate sizes for the sidewalls, ooring and roof of the fuselage.

13

The build process began by gluing pieces of 4 x 36 in together to meet the length and height requirements of the nal Pro-Engineer design. After all pieces were glued together each fuselage member was then measured and cut down to desired specications. When all fuselage members were complete it was then necessary to begin the assembly of the fuselage. The assembly began by attaching the airplanes tail assembly to the base of the fuselage. The tail was mounted on two wooden blocks which were glued to the base of the fuselage. These blocks were manufactured so the tail could be mounted at the desired angle of 3 degrees. The tail assembly and tail mounts were then all fastened to the fuselage using glue and 8 x

11/2

Phillips head screws. After the tail assembly was attached to the fuselage base it was

possible to attach the rear fuselage sidewalls. The horizontal stabilizer airfoil shape was then traced and cut out of the rear sidewalls and they were glued and clamped to the fuselage base. This step can be seen below in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Tail attached to fuselage.

After attaching the rear sidewalls it was then possible to attach the front sidewalls. The fuselage base was lined with glue and the sidewalls were clamped on and left to dry. After completing the the fuselage frame the rewall was then glued into place and the engine mount

14

and engine were attached. Upon attaching the rewall and engine it was then possible to place all internal components along with bracing. Each brace and control component was positioned according to the center of gravity calculations and glued into place. In order to allow for interior accessibility the front fuselage cover was constructed using a 1/32 inch sheet of aluminum hinged at the front of the fuselage. A printed cross member was also added to the front of the fuselage to increase rigidity and to incorporate weight plates. This design allowed for easy placement and removal of the payload plates as well as convenient access to the fuel tank and control system components. The front fuselage cover and cross section can be seen below in Figure 6 & 7.

Figure 6: Front fuselage cover.

15

Figure 7: Cross section for payload plates.

The fuselage assembly was able to be completed over a period of two weeks, with several setbacks and construction issues. A primary issue in the construction of the fuselage was the fragility of the balsa wood in the clamping process. In order to generate a strong bond with the wood glue used it was necessary to clamp parts together. It became imperative that the parts were not clamped too tightly that it would cause fuselage damage. Another issue that was encountered was poor quality of several pieces of the balsa wood. The balsa was ordered from an online website and when received it was evident that several of the primary fuselage pieces were not straight and had been warped. This created an issue in assembling the fuselage to desired specications. Although there were several setbacks it was possible to complete the fuselage within the desired two week time period and move forward with the plane construction. Several changes were made from the initial design of the fuselage.

Method of attaching wing to fuselage Location of weight plates Cross section designs Firewall and method of attaching the engine Tapering at the back end of the fuselage

16

3.1.1 Attaching Wing to Fuselage

In the original design the only method of attaching the wing to the fuselage was with the struts. This couldn't be the only way of fastening the wing planform, so a non destructive method was designed. Two parts similar to the ones shown in Figure 8 were printed.

Figure 8: Connection brace.

Four holes were created instead of two to increase the strength. Analysis of the structural integrity of this design was tested and is provided in Part IV section 5.

3.1.2 Weight Plates

Initially wooden rods were going to be xed to the oor and they would constrain the weight plates. This design had to be scrapped because other components of the plane took up too much room in the fuselage. Instead a payload bay for two plates (weighing approximately 1.5 lbs each) was built directly behind the rewall. Figure 9 shows the payload bay.

17

Figure 9: Payload bay.

3.1.3 Cross Sections

Several rectangular cross sections were going to be placed throughout the fuselage. However due to the saturation of parts inside the fuselage and weight concerns, this idea was also scrapped. Instead X's were constructed from balsa, shown in Figure 10.

18

Figure 10: X cross members.

These members provide more rigidity to the fuselage while weighing less. They also made the cable management inside much easier.

3.1.4 Firewall and Mounting the Engine

The fuselage was originally designed to enclose the engine, this however was scrapped due to concerns over proper cooling of the engine. Instead a third party mount for the engine was purchased and placed in front of the rewall of the fuselage. The rewall was made of plywood instead of balsa due to the increased strength of plywood. fuselage. Figure 11 shows the

19

Figure 11: Firewall and engine mount.

3.2 Failure of Fuselage

During one of the taxi testing sessions the front of the fuselage failed while trying to get the engine to start. Figure 12 shows a photo of the damage.

Figure 12: Collapse of rewall.

The cause of the failure is believed to be fault of the engine hydro-locking due to an oversaturation of fuel. In order to start the engine the propeller must be struck in the correct direction of rotation while the glow plug is heated. The fuselage was initially coping very

20

well with the constant striking of the propeller, but once it hydro-locked all the force applied to the propeller transferred to the fuselage creating immense stresses and causing failure.

3.3 Re-Construction of Fuselage

Due to the catastrophic failure of the fuselage the main priority was to strengthen it. Any pieces of balsa wood that fell o were glued back to regain the shape. Aluminum sheets 1 in thick were wrapped around the front of the fuselage. Figure 13 shows the measuring 32 rebuilt fuselage.

Figure 13: Rebuilt fuselage.

21

Part IV

Wing

In any xed-wing aircraft, it is important to optimize the design of the wing planform. The wing generates the forces required to lift and keep the aircraft in the air, as well as, provide the room for the control surfaces that allow it to pitch, yaw, and roll. The wing is comprised of three main design components: the wing shape (planform), wing location and the airfoil shape (wing cross-section). These basic design variables determine the lift force and drag of an aircraft. The initial design was drawn up using both an aerodynamics textbook as well as electronic sources. The aircraft wing was required to generate lift of at least 20 lbs. In order to determine the best wing design, both Pahl and Beitz and Pugh's methods were used. These evaluations aided in narrowing down the choices for given design aspects. The following criteria were chosen: ease and cost of build, maneuverability, weight, lift and drag, and structural strength. Camber -the asymmetry around an airfoil's chord line- signicantly increases the lift generated by a wing at zero degree angle of attack. The dierences between a cambered and zero cambered airfoil can be found below in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Symmetrical vs. cambered airfoil (nasa.gov)

The angle of attack is the angle between the airfoil's chord line and the free stream of airow. Consulting airfoil data from John Anderson's shapes were chosen based on the lift and drag coecients.

Introduction to Flight

, four airfoil

Using evaluation matrices the

chosen airfoil was NACA 4412 due to its high lift coecient and favorable lift to drag ratio at zero degrees angle of attack. These tables can be found in Appendix B. Ease of build was not a major concern due to the availability of a 3D printer. Because of printing size constraints, the airfoil had to be divided up into three individual sections. The rst design included bolts and a thicker rib, but proved to be a poor design choice due to weight and overall inecient engineering design. The aileron was redesigned to

22

include no outside fasteners with the exception of high strength epoxy and plastic connectors. Because the epoxy's rated yield strength of 4.5 ksi matched the yield strength of the ABS, it was assumed that the structure was one uniform piece of plastic for the rest of our analysis and design.

Figure 15: Picture of rib outline

The initial rib design included two spars. This would require more material and weight than necessary. The nal design consisted of a single spar. Stress analysis was performed on the spar to ensure material failure would not occur.

4 Spar Analysis

Figure 16: Loading of wing spar.

Notes

is the fuselage,

is the strut,

l(x) = 0.895

lb/in, the wing span extending

from the fuselage is 33.5 in.

23

With the distributed load we can begin to analyze the forces and stresses in the beam. Figure 17 shows the free body diagram of the beam.

Figure 17: Free body diagram.

The problem with this is that there are four unknowns and only three equations, so is indeterminate. A quick simplication can be made. We can assume point way

is pinned, this

MB = 0. L Ay By = 0 33.5 MA 9.25 By + L = 0 2 33.5 9.25 = 0 9.25 Ay + L 2

Writing the force and moment balance equations: (1) (2) (3)

Solving for the forces and moments we get

Ay = 24.324 lb By = 54.324 lb MA = 0.003 lb in

From this we can draw the shear and moment diagrams in order to determine the maximum moment. Figures 18 and 19 show the shear and moment diagram respectively.

24

Figure 18: Shear diagram.

Figure 19: Moment diagram.

From the moment diagram it is determined that the maximum moment in the wing spar is

263.3 lb in.
Using Equation 4, the maximum bending stress can be calculated.

xx =
where

Mb I I. y 2

(4)

b and I

are properties of the cross section of the wing spar. Assuming the cross section

is rectangular, Equations 5 and 6 dene

and

b =

(5)

25

I =

1 3 xy 12

(6)

The only dimension that is constrained is the height, it must equal and (5) into (6) and solving for

1 in.

Plugging (4)

x,

Equation 7 is obtained.

x= M
and

6M y 2 xx

(7)

are known, the only unknown is

xx .

Since a factor of safety of 2 is desired and

the yield strength of the spruce is known, it can be found using Equation 8.

F.O.S. =

y xx xx = 2100

(8)

The yield strength of the spruce is 4200 psi. This means values into (7) yields:

psi. Plugging all these

6 (263.3) = 0.752 in (1)2 2100

Which can be simplied to 0.75 in. This gives the optimum dimensions for the wing spar,

0.75 x 1.0 in.

With the nal spar designed using spruce, the construction of the wing itself was started. As crucial as the wing spar is to the strength of the wing planform, the individual ribs provide some structural support but also create and form the airfoil shape. The crucial design factor in the rib design was determining the loading on the wing in order to determine the number of ribs and the spacing between each set. This means that the ribs were a function of bending and structural requirements. These factors also governed the rib thickness and material needed to create a robust wing structure.

5 Spar to Fuselage Connection Brace

After some brainstorming a non-destructive method of xing the wing planform to the fuselage while making it easily removable. A CAD model of the part is shown in Figure 20.

26

Figure 20: Connection brace. The wing spar goes through the rectangular cut-out, and it gets bolted into the sides of the fuselage. Manufacturing is not an issue since it can be printed out, the only concern This is because balsa (fuselage material) with this is the possible failure of the fuselage.

is considerably weaker than spruce (wing spar material) and the ABS (connection brace material). For this reason analysis has to be done on the fuselage. The tensile strength of our batch of balsa has to be determined rst. Table 1 shows the values of several parameters based on the density of balsa.

Table 1: Density, compressive and tensile strength, and elastic modulus. First the density our batch of wood was determined. By weighing a 2 x 4 x 12 inch sample kg . The batch of wood is somem3 where in between low and medium density, which means the tensile strength is somewhere and dividing by the volume it was determined to be 104.88 around 13 MPa.

27

A more accurate value was obtained by using interpolation. This is shown in Equation 1.

T 7.6 19.9 7.6 = 150 75 104.88 75 T T = 12.5 MPa = 1813 psi

(9)

Solving for

5.1 Analysis
In the rst analysis the hole in the fuselage sidewall was modeled as a stress concentration. A diagram of this is shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Diagram of fuselage and mounting hole.

First the average stress generated in the medium surrounding the hole must be found. This was given by Equation 10.

avg = Kc = 3.

F (w D)t

(10)

According the stress concentration charts for this model, the concentration factor would be Plugging this in, Equation 11 was obtained.

max = Kc avg =

Kc F (w D)t

(11)

28

A factor of safety of at least 4 was desired. This means that

max = T /4.

Now the optimal

thickness of the wall can be solved for. This was given in Equation 4.

t=
Plugging in all the parameters (F thickness of

4Kc F (w D)T
lb,

(12)

= 24.324

w=4

in,

D = 0.25

in) a value for the wall

t = 0.0429

in was obtained.

5.2 Discussion
This does not seem to be correct. with the calculated thickness of A nite element analysis of the model was run in Pro in. Engineer to test the validity of the analytical results. Figure 22 shows the fringe diagram

t = 0.0429

Figure 22: Fringe diagram for calculated thickness.

According to the FEA results the highest stress is 10,500 psi. This is way beyond the tensile strength of the balsa, so the analysis must be incorrect. Since the calculated optimal thickness is wrong the analysis must be done again. Instead the thickness was chosen to be 0.75 in. Figure 23 shows the fringe diagram with this new thickness.

29

Figure 23: Fringe diagram for

t = 0.75.

This new thickness gives a factor of safety of about 3, which is much more desirable. Since the part was designed to have two holes, an FEA analysis had to be done with that design. Figure 24 shows the fringe diagram.

Figure 24: Fringe diagram for two holes. Two holes gives an even better factor of safety of 4.

6 Rib Analysis
Now that maximum stress and factor of safety were computed for the wing spar as a standalone structure, a more detailed analysis is desired to account for the structural integrity

30

of the ABS plastic ribs. Report No. 82: Airplane Stress Analysis by the National Advisory Committee For Aeronautics discusses design considerations for aircraft with rib and spar structures wrapped with a fabric skin, similar the current design. Report No. 82 states 

The usual airplane rib may be considered as a beam supported at two points (at the spars) and sustaining the air force on all the fabric lying nearer to itself than to the neighboring ribs...The running load on the rib is not suciently uniform to make applicable the ordinary formulas for uniformly loaded beams. For approximate treatment we may divide the rib into three parts, the segment between the spars, the front segment, and the rear segment, and consider the total running load on each segment as a concentrated load.


Figure 25: Comparison of shear/moment due to complex loading versus shear/moment due to point force load approximation. Note that the aircraft features a single-spar design. Therefore only a two force point load approximation is necessary. Figure 25 from NACA Report 82, shows that the maximum shear forces found through the gure's simplication are nearly identical to the forces found by laborious plotting of the loading due to pressure and subsequent integration. For the purpose of determining max shear force, this simplication is valid. Because the wing planform is

31

rectangular, some assumptions can be made.

It can be assumed that torsion on the spar

generated by the rib is negligible, as the mean aerodynamic center is consistently in line with the spar along the entire length of the wing. It is also assumed that each rib undergoes the same stress as all of the other ribs in the structure, since there is even rib spacing. In order to determine these force approximations, we must rst determine the appropriate values to use for our point air force loads, as well as the location of the point loads along the chord. Equation 13, as derived from John D. Anderson's Introduction To Flight, shows that the integration of pressure coecients along the chord yields an overall coecient of normal force to the rib section. Note that we are not interested in lift force, but rather the actual normal force acting upon the rib. This simplies our case further; the angle of incidence between normal force and lift force on the wing section is negligible.

1 cn = c

(Cp,l Cp,u ) dx

(13)

A benet arising from Equation 13 is that the same result is obtained by observing a chart of tabulated coecients of pressure across the chord, and taking the area underneath the curve. These coecients are then resolved to the normal force by Equation 14, also from

Anderson's Introduction To Flight

Where nd:

cn = N
is the resulting normal force,

N q S q

(14) is the dynamic

is the planform area, and

pressure.

Substituting the dynamic pressure equation and re-arranging Equation 15, we

cn
Since

1 2 V S = N 2 S

(15) up into (16)

is the planform area, and we seek to iterate various rib spacings, we break

its dimensional components.

S = lx
Where

is the chordwise length to represent the two sections where our point loads act

upon. Since the spar acts at will be 3 and 9 inches,

c = 0.25, 3 inches from the leading edge, the two values of x respectively. l is of special note in this case, as it is the value which

is iterated to determine adequate rib spacing. These values are illustrated in Figure 26. The fewer ribs utilized, the greater the value of l , and thus the greater wing area to be "handled" by each rib. This in turn will generate a larger shearing force in the rib.

32

Figure 26: Top view of wing section, with sizing dimensions.

To account for dynamic pressure, standard value of density is used (

lb = 0.00238 ft 3 ).

We want to determine a worst case scenario, so we assume a maximum relative airspeed of

V = 45

mph, or 66 ft/s, for the calculations. Thus, dynamic pressure is found to be 0.035

psi. Lastly, we need to determine the exact values of

Cn1

and

Cn2 .

The plot of the pressure coecients across a chord is entirely dependent on the angle of

mance Of Light Aircraft

attack and the shape of the airfoil. Figure 3 shows data taken from John T. Lowry's

. This data was obtained from a NACA 4412 airfoil at an 8 degree

Perfor-

angle of attack. However, within the text of this reference, Lowry states that the maximum pressure values are signicantly diminished from real-world values, so another source was consulted. Values were changed in the pressure plot simplication to more closely approximate that of Baylor University's

The study was done under the same angle of attack, and is therefore valid to include in the plot. The

Aerodynamic Characteristics of a NACA 4412 Airfoil

study.

CP

upper and lower dierences were plotted along chord length in MATLAB to

construct Figure 27.

33

Figure 27: Simplied chart of pressure values, showing curve areas used to calculate

Cn1

and

Cn2 .
Using MATLAB, the curve in Figure 27 was integrated for the area in front of the spar and the area behind the spar, yielding Cn1 and Cn2. Cn1 was found to equal 0.5403, and Cn2 was found to equal 0.4808. The force locations were determined by approximating the rear pressure plot as a triangular load, and then resolving the forward pressure plot's position by summing moments about the spar. From this data, we can conclude that a rib spacing of 3.5 in. is adequate to prevent From material failure of the ABS plastic ribs under maximum predicted air force load.

a standpoint of rib failure, the ribs could be extended to 5 inches apart and still incur acceptable levels of shear stress. The spar strength is high enough that rib spacing is not a factor in this case. Rather, it is the material failure of MonoKote that is aected most by rib spacing. This analysis is outside the scope of the project. The choice of ABS plastic remains one of convenience (ABS plastic can be quickly 3D printed; carving the airfoil shape out of balsa is a laborious process.) It was determined from hand calculations that the weakest part of the rib would experience a maximum shear stress of 16.9 psi for 3.5 in spacing, and a maximum shear of 29.03 psi for 5 in spacing. Both values fall well below the maximum shear of ABS plastic, 5,800 psi.

34

7 Aileron Construction
Based on the design parameters, the nal ailerons were sized to 15.875 inches in length and 4 inches in width. Using Pro-Engineer, a truss-structure was created for the aileron and was optimized to reduce weight and print more eciently. Each individual aileron rib was attached to three miniature spars using epoxy. The nal design can be seen below in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Final aileron design.

In order to minimize the weight, the ailerons were covered in thermoplastic. Rather than mounting the aileron servos on the wings, a lightweight oak shaft was chosen. This would turn the ailerons from inside the fuselage. Rather than being a perfect circle, the aileron rib shaft hole was squared o to press t to the shaft. Special ribs connected to the full ailerons were also placed in the adjacent center ribs in order to reduce the bending moment of the aileron shaft. A picture of the aileron rib assembly can be seen below in Figure 29.

35

Figure 29: Aileron rib assembly.

After completing the ailerons it was then possible to complete the construction of the wing. The wing was constructed by sliding each individual printed rib onto the spar and epoxying them into place. After fastening the ribs to the spar it was then possible to attach each of the two aileron assemblies and the wing struts, thereby completing the wings' skeletal structure. The entire wing was then covered using MonoKote. The plastic was heated using an iron allowing it to adhere to each rib. Lastly, a heat gun was applied to the MonoKote, allowing it to shrink and harden to the shape of the NACA 4412 airfoil.

36

Part V

Tail

8 Research
The tail design was chosen from four possible solutions. The four choices were a conventional, twin, t-tail, and v-tail.

Figure 30: Tail shape.

The various tail designs were evaluated based upon the following criteria: Ease of build, build cost, contribution to airplane maneuverability, weight, prole drag on tail, and inherent strength of design. A Pahl & Beitz evaluation is included in Appendix B. In this evaluation, the conventional tail design proved to be ideal, primarily due to ease of manufacturing. Additionally, the conventional tail fared equal or better in all other criteria with the exception of prole drag, in which the V-Tail fared better. However, it was decided that the drag benet of the V-Tail was not worth the tradeo in terms of strength or design complexity. Therefore, a conventional tail was picked for our plane. A conventional tail is made up of two parts, the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The horizontal stabilizer includes an elevator which generates a pitching moment on the aircraft. The pitch in an aircraft is the movement of the planes nose in the vertical direction. The vertical stabilizer includes the rudder, which is the part of the plane that controls the yaw. Yaw is the movement of the plane in a horizontal motion during ight. NACA 0009 was chosen as the airfoil section for both the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Since the primary function of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers is to provide control and stability rather than provide a main source of lift for the aircraft, it was not deemed necessary to choose a cambered airfoil with high lift characteristics. A symmetrical airfoil proved to be more desirable, as the airfoil should provide equal lift in both directions normal to the control surface, so that the plane is equally eective at pitching up and down using the elevator, and yawing left and right using the rudder. To address weight concerns, it was determined that the stabilizer surfaces would be created entirely from solid balsa. For this reason, it was decided that an easily manufacturable airfoil section would be chosen. NACA 0009 is also a widely used tail airfoil section in high wing aircraft, such as the Cessna 172. For ease of manufacturing, it was determined that for the relatively low speeds the aircraft is operating at, a dierent vertical stabilizer airfoil section was not necessary. The airplane requires a symmetrical airfoil with a high lift curve slope. The NACA 0009 airfoil satises these requirements.

37

9 Horizontal Stabilizer Sizing

The preliminary horizontal stabilizer surface area was derived from a rule-of-thumb ratio; 25 2 percent of the wing's surface area. This was calculated to be 216 in . With this calculation, an overall width of 24 in and a chord length of 9 in was chosen. Due to the nature of a conventional tail design, some horizontal surface area is  lost to the fuselage connection point between the horizontal and vertical stabilizer. Estimating the fuselage connection to 2 make up 22.5 in of the original horizontal stabilizer area, the eective surface area of the 2 horizontal stabilizer was found to be 193.5 in . For ease of manufacturing and analysis, the horizontal stabilizer was not designed with a sweep or a taper. The preliminary elevator sizing was also rst determined by a rule-of-thumb ratio; 25 2 percent of the horizontal stabilizer surface area. From this ratio, a surface area of 54 in was calculated. The design for the placement of the elevator was determined by creating two 2 separate elevators, one on each side, each with a surface area of 27 in . The span of each elevator was determined to be 9 in with a chord length of 3 in. It was strongly desired to determine the eectiveness of these chosen design parameters early on in the design process. volume coecient, To gain insight into the horizontal stabilizer contribution (Sadraey 320) This value is an indicator of the handling to the aircraft's longitudinal stability, a non-dimensional value known as the horizontal tail

Vh was employed.

qualities of the tail. For high values of

Vh

the aircraft is more longitudinally stable and less

longitudinally maneuverable. For low values of such as the Cessna 172 has a

Vh ,

the aircraft is less longitudinally stable

and more longitudinally maneuverable. For example, a high-wing, easy to y trainer aircraft

Vh of 0.76, while a highly maneuverable ghter aircraft such as the Euroghter 2000 has a Vh of 0.063. Many transport planes which require very high stability employ Vh values in excess of 1.0. Equation 17 describes Vh in terms of several wing
sizing parameters.

Vh =
Where in), in). After researching the values of determined as the design

Sh lh Sw C
,

(17) is the optimum horizontal tail arm (35

Sh

is the horizontal tail area

193.5 in2 864 in2

lh

Sw

is the surface area of the wing

, and

is the mean chord of the wing (12

Vh

found in a variety of aircraft, a value of 0.65 was

Vh .

This was deemed to be well in the acceptable range given the

design goals, and this value gives the aircraft a longitudinal maneuverability-to-stability ratio similar to that of a light transport aircraft, such as the Piper PA-46 Mirage. The

Vh

satises

the stability requirements desired for safe takeo and landing, yet allows for satisfactory pitch maneuverability during climbs, descents, and turns, taking into consideration the primary function of the aircraft: carrying a payload in a whilst maintaining enough maneuverability to navigate around the SAE aireld.

38

10 Optimum Horizontal Tail Moment Arm

After sizing parameters and Sadraey's

Vh

were determined for the horizontal tail stabilizer, an opti. While virtually any length can

mum tail moment arm was calculated. All tail calculations were sourced from Mohammad be chosen for the tail arm given the appropriate tail sizing, it is desired that the fuselage drag and weight are minimized for best aircraft performance. Thus, a moment arm length is desired in which the arm is sucient to balance the lift due to the wing and the horizontal stabilizer, but no greater that unnecessary drag and weight is created. Drag is proportional to the wetted area of any surfaces that experience airow. Equation 11 in Appendix B establishes that the aft wetted area of the plane to be determined is the sum of the aft fuselage area and the total horizontal stabilizer area. Equation 12 in Appendix B is a close approximation for the wetted area of the aft fuselage, which is dependent upon the fuselage geometry. Since our fuselage is rectangular, a simple surface area calculation is all that is required. 20 in . In this calculation,

Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach

Pf us is

the perimeter of the fuselage, which is Equation 17 in Appendix B gives

Lf

is length of the fuselage to be determined.

the optimum moment arm for the aircraft in the interest of drag and weight reduction. In this nal calculation, Kc is a factor that compensates for the inaccuracy of the fuselage approximation as a conical shape. In small, aircraft that have mostly conical fuselages, such as the Cessna 172, K would be close to 1.1, whereas for large transport aircraft with more square fuselages, K would be close to 1.4. A high K represents a high fuselage deviation from a conical shape. Since the fuselage is tapered, but rectangular, a high value of K was chosen. The design K = 1.4. As a result, the optimum tail moment arm of 35 in was determined.

11 Horizontal Tail Incidence

The last factor to be determined was the angle at which the horizontal tail is placed relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. As determined by our fuselage design, the design This results CG is slightly forward of the mean aerodynamic center of lift for the wing. instability from a rearward CG, as shown in Figure 31. The longitudinal stability of the aircraft is governed by Equation 26 in Appendix B. From this equation, some signicant assumptions were made. It was assumed that the vertical distances between the tail center of lift, the wing center of lift, the engine thrust line and the CG were very small compared to the horizontal distances, to the point in which the vertical distances were negligible. From here, a few more assumptions were established. The angle of attack is measured in radians, and is small enough to assume the sine terms become equal to the value of the angle in radians, and the cosine terms drop to 1. Additionally, the coecient of drag is very small relative to the coecient of lift, and therefore the drag terms can be neglected in the moment equation. Lastly, the moment equation can be approximated as a sum of moment and lift coecients rather than a sum of actual moments and lifts. This is due to Equation 22 and Equation 23, which show that the coecients of moments and lift are proportional to the actual moments and lifting forces incurred by the aircraft. Because the wing area and chord terms dier from horizontal stabilizer area and chord terms, the vertical

in an aircraft that has inherent stability by design, rather than a plane that has inherent

39

tail volume coecient was employed to  normalize the horizontal stabilizer coecients to those of the wing.

Figure 31: Stable vs. unstable CG location. (Courtesy: Firebirdsindia.com)

With these assumptions in mind, a simplied form of Equation 19 in Appendix B was constructed. Equation 20 in Appendix B is written entirely in terms of coecients, positions of the CG and aerodynamic center of lift, and the horizontal tail volume coecient. Note the absence of an aerodynamic pitching moment coecient for the horizontal stabilizer. This is due to the smaller size of the horizontal stabilizer, as well as the symmetry of the airfoil section. At this point, all variables were known with the exception of the horizontal stabilizer lift coecient. Since longitudinal stability requires that the moment coecients sum to zero, the required horizontal stabilizer coecient of lift was calculated, as shown in Equation 28 in Appendix B. It was determined that a coecient of -0.154 was necessary to provide longitudinal stability at cruise. With the required horizontal stabilizer coecient of lift known, all that was further required was to determine the appropriate angle incidence to place the horizontal stabilizer. The negative lift coecient shows that the stabilizer must be connected to the fuselage at a negative angle to balance the aircraft. In an attempt to consider the basic forces of downwash, sample MATLAB code from the textbook

was used. (Sadraey 345) This code is shown in Appendix B, and uses the lifting line theory to calculate a required horizontal stabilizer lift coecient given a certain angle of attack. Using Equation 10 in Appendix B, the section lift curve slope of the horizontal stabilizer was converted into the tail lift curve slope necessary for the MATLAB code. From there, various angles of attack were input into the code until an output lift coecient was given that was close to -0.154. It was determined that a horizontal stabilizer incidence of -3.4 degrees would be required to fully balance the aircraft in a cruise conguration.

Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach

12 Vertical Stabilizer Sizing

Since a conventional tail was determined in the initial design analysis, the general form of the vertical stabilizer was known. The preliminary sizing for vertical stabilizer surface 2 area was 86.25 in ; about 10 percent of the wing surface area as starting rule-of-thumb ratio. Additionally, a rule of thumb ratio for the rudder was used. The rudder was sized 2 to approximately 30 percent of the entire horizontal surface area, 25.31 in . This in turn provides increased stability in the tail, allowing for better control while turning. While there

40

is an inherent trade o resulting in decreased control responsiveness, the goals of this project favor aircraft stability over high control response. Similar to

Vh ,

a vertical tail volume coecient,

Vv

exists, which describes the vertical

stabilizer contribution to directional stability. It is described by Equation 18.

Vv =
Where

Sv Lv Sw b Sv
is the vertical tail area

(18)

Vv

is the vertical tail volume coecient,

the tails aerodynamic center to the center of gravity of the plane (35 in), 2 area of the wing 864 in , and b is the wingspan (72 in). The value of

86.25 in2 , Lv is Sw is the surface

falls between the

Vv

was chosen to be 0.04. For general aviation aircraft, if

Vv

values between 0.02 and 0.05. The above design falls into the higher end of this scale, which means that it is possible to see a tail that has a more eective moment than most average planes. For single-propeller, general aviation aircraft, 0.04 is a suitable value. Having a and right, a benecial performance characteristic.

Vv

on the higher end of the scale will result in an aircraft that will be able to quickly yaw left

13 Vertical Tail Geometry

It was rst assumed that the vertical tail moment arm was equal to the placement of the horizontal tail moment arm. The vertical tail moment arm helped determine the vertical volumetric coecient seen in Equation 8. Since the surface area had previously been calculated, the dimensions of the vertical stabilizer must be found. The chord at the bottom of the airfoil was assumed to be the same size as horizontal stabilizer chord, 9 in. The top airfoil chord size was then assumed to be 9 in. This gave a height for the stabilizer to be 11.5 in. The sizing of the rudder was determined in a similar fashion. The height of the airfoil was 11.25 in. with a width of 2.25 in. Once the dimensions of the vertical tail had been determined, it was possible to nd both the aspect ratio and taper ratio. The aspect ratio can be seen in Equation 8.19 in Appendix B. The value 7.5 came from the mean chord aspect ratio which is the bigger width of the airfoil plus the smaller width divided by two. The value calculated is considered to be a normal aspect ratio, not too high. A high aspect ratio means that there is a longer yawing moment, which means that the airplane should have much higher directional control. At the same time though, it also means that the vertical tail is more susceptible to fatigue. The taper ratio is the ratio between the tip chord and the root chord. The ratio found by the vertical wing can be found in Equation 34 in Appendix B. Since the airplane created has a single tail, there is no dihedral angle. However, the sweep angle was determined using Equation 35 in Appendix B. The sweep angle of the vertical stabilizer plays a role in determining the yaw performance of the aircraft. A higher yaw angle means the plane will have a better turning radius, yet worse stability. Since the plane is designed to carry a payload and not be an acrobatic aircraft, a low sweep angle was chosen, which provides more stable ight characteristics.

41

14 Final Design
The horizontal and vertical stabilizers were modeled in Creo, as shown in Figure 32. Necessary adjustments were made from the initial design to provide sucient clearance for the control surfaces to move freely. The rudder was sized down to an 11.4 in. height and mounted as high as possible on the vertical stabilizer to avoid contact with the horizontal stabilizer during operation.

Figure 32: Final design of tail.

15 Construction of Tail
The build process began by gluing several blocks of 36x4x2 inch together to create the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. To construct the solid horizontal and vertical sections it was necessary to print full scale CAD drawings of the sections and trace the NACA 0009 airfoil shape on the balsa blocks. Using a bandsaw, planar, le and sandpaper it was possible to transform the solid blocks into the horizontal and vertical stabilizer shapes. This process can be seen below in Figures 1&2. After completing each component it was then necessary to cut out the sections of the tail to create the elevator and rudder. After cutting out the desired elevator and rudder sections it was then necessary hinge the sections in order to control the pitch and yaw of the airplane. The elevator and rudder were hinged using Robart Hinges. The Robart Hinge consists of a steel joint covered in plastic for easy implementation to the airplane. Two Robart hinges were used per control element. Therefore six hinges were used overall, two per elevator, and two for the rudder. Due to the fact that the hinges steel construction, they maintain

42

a yield stress higher than that of the balsa wood in which they are mounted, meaning that the hinges would not fail during ight. and rudder to be achieved. After installing the elevator and rudder it was necessary to install the elevator connector. The elevator connector was constructed using an aluminum bar and allowed the left and right elevator to move in unison. The connector was glued into place and provided adequate clearance for maximum elevator deection. The Final step in the tail construction was to connect the vertical stabilizer to the horizontal stabilizer. The center of the horizontal stabilizer was led down to provide a at surface for the vertical stabilizer to rest, and the two components were then fastened together using glue and 8x1-1/2 Phillips head screws. The overall construction of the tail assembly went according to plan and did not encounter any problems. Each part was manufactured to the desired specications and after incorporation to the fuselage and control system allowed for the proper horizontal and vertical deection angles of 30 degrees. The hinges were fastened to the control surfaces using Gorilla Glue, and allowed for the maximum deection of 30 degrees for the elevator

43

Part VI

Landing Gear
16 Research and Evaluation of Alternative Designs
In designing the landing gear of a propeller driven airplane it is important to take into account several primary functions. The rst function in which the landing gear must uphold is to provide adequate clearance between the ground and the tip of the propeller. The landing gear must also  permit the plane to rotate both on takeo and landing so that the wings angle of attack comes close to the stalling angle of its airfoil (Lennon 1996). It is at this angle of attack that the coecient of lift is the greatest allowing for lower takeo and landing speeds. These lower landing and takeo speeds allow for greater control of the aircraft as well as reduce the risk of the plane crashing on either takeo or landing. The nal function of the landing gear is to provide stability to the aircraft while it was on the ground. It was important to design the landing gear so that the aircraft would not tip over while on the runway as well provide enough stability for a straight and ecient takeo and landing. It is these combined functions that allowed the size and placement of the landing gear to be determined. The landing gear design was narrowed down to two concepts and evaluated using Pugh's and Pahl & Beitz methods. The two landing gear concepts evaluated were tricycle and tail dragger. The tricycle concept places one landing gear at the nose of the plane and two laterally spaced landing gears around the center of gravity of the plane. The tail dragger concept places one small landing gear on the tail of the plane while two laterally spaced landing gears are placed at the front of the airplane around the center of gravity. The two concepts were evaluated based on ease of build, cost, maneuverability, weight and stability. When using a tail dragger design it is a frequent occurrence for the plane to become directionally unstable during takeo. This is due to the fact that once the tail wheel is o the ground the plane begins to lean forward allowing the center of gravity to move past the front landing gear causing the propeller to hit the ground. It is due to this fact that the tricycle landing gear concept was chosen for the plane. The tricycle landing gear allows for directional stability at all speeds as well as allows for greater control during the taxi stage of takeo. This is due to the fact that the rudder will not steer the plane until the plane has reached a fast enough speed. For slow speeds it is necessary for the front landing gear to steer the plane which can only be accomplished through the use of a tricycle landing gear design.

17 Final Design
With the center of gravity determined to be at the mean aerodynamic center of the airfoil, it was then possible to determine the placement the landing gear. The laterally spaced landing gear was placed at a 20 degree angle from the center of gravity, putting it precisely 18.75 inches from the front of the fuselage. The front nose landing gear was then placed directly under the front of the fuselage located underneath the aircraft's engine. This design places

44

the laterally spaced landing gear approximately 11.5 inches behind the center of gravity allowing for equal weight distribution and balance. After determining where to place the landing gear on the fuselage it was then possible to determine the lateral wheel spacing of the front landing gear. According to R/C Model Aircraft Design by Andy Lennon  the tricycle system should have lateral wheel spacing equal to 25 percent of the wing span (Lennon 1996). With the wingspan being 72 inches the landing gear was to have lateral spacing of 18 inches. In order to provide enough ground clearance for the propeller the landing gear must provide at least 5.5 inches of clearance for our 11-inch propeller. The nal landing gear design consisted of the main laterally spaced landing gear placed behind the center of gravity with 20 degrees from the tail with respect to the ground, and was constructed using a continuous piece of 1/8 inch thick aluminum from wheel to wheel in order to prevent bending loads from being absorbed by the fuselage. In order to prevent damage to the tail section of the airplane upon take o and landing a rear skag was also incorporated into the landing gear design. The skag was constructed by fastening a 4 inch semicircular piece of balsa wood to the rear of the fuselage to prevent the tail from dragging in the ground in the case of an improper take o or landing. The nal landing gear design can be seen below in Figure 33 and 34.

Figure 33: Lateral landing gear design.

45

Figure 34: Lateral landing gear design.

46

Part VII

Completed Aircraft
The design of a complex mechanical system such as this aircraft is an iterative process. There are far too many design variables to allow for a single solution. While the general dimensions of the aircraft have not changed since the Fall 2012 semester, small changes to the connecting points of the aircraft are apparent, and are a result of further analysis and experience gained throughout the nal design/construction process. Figure 35 shows a picture of the completed aircraft.

Figure 35: Completed aircraft.

47

Part VIII

Aircraft Performance
18 Lift Analysis
Equation 1 in Appendix B shows that lift force on an airplane is dependent upon the coecient of lift generated by the wing. Unlike the innite wings used in airfoil test data, nite wings incur vortices at the wingtips, resulting in decreased lift. Figure 36 shows how this results in a nite lift coecient

CL

that is lower than the innite lift coecient,

Cl .

Finite

lift coecients were used in all lift and drag performance equations, so that the real-world behavior of the airplane may be best approximated. It is of importance to note that despite the loss in lift coecient,

CL

at zero degrees is still positive, showing that the wing generates

lift in level ight, a key lift characteristic of any payload-bearing airplane.

Figure 36: Finite and innite lift coecients versus angle of attack.

19 Ailerons
In order to determine if the ailerons are up to specications, several plots were generated using MATLAB. It was deemed very important to determine the airplane's roll characteristics as a function of aileron deection. The other set of calculation was done in order to determine the turning radius and turning rate based on the loading factor of the plane. Several assumptions were made in order to simplify calculations. These computer generated graphs can be seen below in Figures 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41.

48

Figure 37: Aileron deection vs steady roll rate

As we can see from the graph above, the aileron sizing gives a large steady state roll rate of roughly 17 rad/s at a deection angle of 25 degrees. This degree is less than our originally designed deection of 30 degrees, which was caused by servo limitations. The next graph discusses bank angle, which helps determine the response of the aircraft as the ailerons are deected.

Figure 38: Aileron deection vs bank angle

As is shown by the graph above, the curve is very steep initially which would indicate that the aircraft would quickly begin to bank and approach a turn. The next important

49

factor to consider in aircraft performance prediction is the time it would take to achieve steady-state roll rate.

Figure 39: Aileron deection vs time

Based on the graph above, our aircraft would be able to reach steady-state roll rate in under 0.5 seconds which is fairly common for an RC aircraft of this size. While the previous graphs rely on a constant velocity, the next set is functions of wing loading factor, n. The rst performance calculation is the turning radius, which can be found below in Figure 24.

Figure 40: Turn radius vs velocity

If we follow the load factors, we notice that the faster the aircraft is moving and the greater the loading, the turning radius will be the tightest possible. The relationship of

50

loading factor, n, can be determined from the aileron deection. This means that the larger deection, the larger the loading.

Figure 41: Turn rate vs. velocity

The larger the load factor and slower the velocity, the faster the plane is going to roll. This relationship can be seen from the graph above. Based on these graphs, the ailerons are very eective for the type of aircraft we originally planned on designing.

20 Power plant specications:

For our purposes, the Magnum XLS 61-A is identical in performance specs to the O.S. engine used in SAE competitions from previous years. Similar to its predecessor, the XLS 61-A is a .61 cubic inch, two cycle nitro motor, with a range of 2,000 to 16,000 RPM. Table 2 lists the manufacturer supplied specs of the XLS 61-A. Displacement (cu in) 0.61 RPM Range 2000-16000 Output Horsepower 1.9 HP @ 16,000 RPM Weight (oz) 22.5

Table 2: Magnum XLS 61-A motor specications.

21 Propeller selection:
For sustained ight, engine performance is heavily dependent upon propeller selection. To start, the team consulted reference material supplied by RC propeller manufacturer TopFlite. Figure 42 shows the propeller selection guide which was used.

51

Figure 42: Top-Flite propeller selection guide

Using the guide, an initial propeller sizing of 12 x 7 was determined, based upon the engine displacement of .61 cu in. This allows the engine to produce the greatest possible thrust at a given RPM, maximizing in-ight engine performance. For a given propeller at a given airspeed, a propeller eciency, Equation 19, where

exists which represents the ratio of power available

to the power delivered to the propeller by the engine. This relationship can be rewritten as

TA

is available thrust,

is airspeed, and

is power delivered to the

propeller by the engine. (Anderson 696)

=
test and compare corresponding values of

TA V P

(19)

Budget limitations prevented the team from purchasing a wider variety of propellers to

It was understood by the team that a further

performance renement would include this additional testing to determine the ideal propeller within the range given by the Top-Flite propeller sizing guide.

22 Power Required, Power Available, and Rate of Climb

22.1 Power Required
Power required denes the minimum power needed to allow the aircraft to achieve level, unaccelerated ight. It is dened by:

52

Pr = qV S CD,0wing +
with units of brake horse power, bhp. Where

W (qS )2

eAR

1.81 103

(20)

1 q = V 2 2

(21)

22.2 Power Available

Available power is the result of a complex interaction of thrust, current airspeed, propeller eciency, and horsepower supplied. As such, an analytical solution for available power at a given airspeed was outside the scope of this project. Horsepower vs. airspeed data was obtained from the propeller manufacturer under a similar RPM engine range. This data was plotted in MATLAB as an available power curve, as seen in Appendix F.

Pa = Ta V

(22)

22.3 Power vs. Airspeed Chart

Figure 43 shows power required and power available versus airspeed. This graph presents us with vital performance information.

Figure 43: Power required and power available curves vs. airspeed

From this graph, it is shown that the minimum airspeed for level, unaccelerated ight is approximately 15 ft/s, and the maximum airspeed is 85 ft/sec. Thus our level ight speed envelope is dened, and for any speed within the envelope, there is sucient thrust available for ight.

53

22.4 Rate of Climb

Rate of climb is determined from Equation 23, the dierence between power required and power available, divided by aircraft weight, with a conversion from horsepower to ft/s:

RoC =

Pa Pr W

1.81 103

(23)

In Figure 44, it can be seen that the aircraft climbs fastest at an airspeed of 42 ft/s

Figure 44: Rate of climb vs. airspeed

22.5 Takeo Speed

Takeo speed, as determined by Anderson, is dened in Equation 24

:
(24)

VT O

1.2 2W = SCL,max VT O = 53.88

These known parameters are substituted in Appendix F, giving a value of .

ft/s

22.6 Takeo Distance

Takeo distance, according to Anderson, is given by

:
(25) This

ST O =

1.44W 2 gSCL,max (8 (DT O + R))

Known parameters are also substituted in Appendix F, giving a value of 107 ft. satises the takeo distance requirement of 200 ft maximum.

54

22.7 Landing Distance

Landing distance, according to Anderson, is dened by

:
(26)

SL =

1.69W 2 gSCL,max (DL + R)

Known parameters are substituted in Appendix F, giving a value of 371 ft. This satises the landing distance requirement of 400 ft maximum.

23 Drag Analysis
The power available/power supplied curve (Figure 43) proves that drag is suciently low inside the ight envelope that the available thrust exceeds drag. Power available is dened in Equation 22. By dividing power available by velocity at any point inside the envelope, we can determine thrust. Additionally, drag coecient is dened in a simplied form by Equation 27.

CD0 is

the constant, zero lift drag coecient, with a

value of 0.006 obtained from airfoil data.

CDi is

the induced drag coecient due to lift.

Together, these coecients approximate the total drag on the airplane. Note that includes the zero lift prole drag given by NACA 4412 airfoil data.

CD0 only

A thorough analysis

of all additional zero lift drag contributions was considered to be outside the scope of this project, and negligible at such load speeds. Equation 2 in Appendix B shows the relation between drag coecient and drag force.

CD = CD0 + CDi 2 CL CDi = AR e

Next, thrust and drag are evaluated at that velocity.

(27) (28)

To verify the calculations provided by Figure 43, a velocity inside the envelope is chosen. For 30 ft/s, available thrust is 5.5 lbs. Drag force at this speed is 0.10 lbs, more than an order of magnitude less than thrust. Towards the end of the ight envelope, at 80 ft/s, available thrust is much lower, equaling 0.96 lbs. Conversely, the higher airspeed has increased drag to 0.67 lbs, and the aircraft comes very close to having all available thrust negated by drag. As is conrmed by Figure 43, once the aircraft has reached 88 mph, thrust is insucient to produce level ight, and the aircraft will start to descend.

24 CG Table
Center of Gravity In order determine the center of gravity of the airplane it was rst necessary to weigh each component of the plane. aircraft. After all individual components were weighed it was then necessary to determine where each component was going to be placed within the To determine how each component would aect the airplanes center of gravity it was necessary to determine the X, Y, and Z location of all airplane components. Each

55

components coordinate location was measured with respect to the rewall of the airplane and the desired center of gravity of location was determined to be 11.68 inches in the X (horizontal) direction, 2.5 inches in the Y (vertical) direction and 0 inches in the Z (side). It was these distances that placed the center of gravity exactly at 25% of the chord which corresponds to the center of lift of our airplane. Each component was positioned in the The airplane to achieve a center of gravity as close to the desired locations as possible. Center of Gravity Table can be seen below in Figure 45.

Figure 45: CG Table

In looking at the above gure it is possible to see that the calculated center of gravity locations were very close to the desired center of gravity locations. In calculating the center of gravity we ran into several minor problems along the way. The rst problem in which we encountered was a dierence in the planes unloaded (no payload) calculated weight and the planes actual weight after completing construction. As seen in the above gure the calculated total weight of the airplane without the payload weight plates was 11.38 lbs. whereas upon completion, the airplanes actual weight was 12.75 lbs., giving a weight dierence of exactly 1.37lbs. Additionally, the center of gravity upon completion was 2 inches farther back than expected. Upon further investigation it was determined that a majority of the weight dierence was due to the fact that it was nearly impossible to accurately represent the weight of glue used to construct the plane. To counter this discrepancy, two steel CG adjustment plates were installed, as seen in Figure 45. A nal center of gravity test was conducted by balancing the airplane both in the horizontal and vertical direction on a ful-

56

crum. The results of the fulcrum test concluded that the calculated center of gravity was an accurate representation of the planes actual center of gravity.

57

Part IX

Design Verication
Construction on the aircraft was completed on April 24th, 2013. Dimensional and PreFlight requirement tests passed on that date without issue. On April 25th, during the start of the aircraft's Ground operations testing, hydro-locking of the engine occurred, causing the motor to break o of the front fuselage whilst being started by hand. Further testing was set back for a week as repairs were underway. After sucessfully completing all ground testing procedures a ight test was then conducted. The results of the ight test concluded that the aircraft met the design requirement for take o distance. Due to pilot error the aircraft was destroyed midight preventing anyfurther design verication from being compleated.

58

Part X

Conclusion
Through the advancement of technology and engineering analysis, it is possible to generate many forms of important information and data that can be used to ensure the safety and durability of something such an airplane. The objective of the project was to design a remote controlled airplane following the SAE Aero design competition requirements. The plane was to conform to specic length, height, and width not exceeding 225 inches, and be capable of multiple payload ights. Due to the fact that the project is split over the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 semesters it was possible to complete a design during the Fall 2012 semester and complete construction and testing during the Spring 2013 semester. This design was completed through the use of a series of analytical tests as well as through the use of Pro Engineer, to ensure that the aircraft system would perform properly under predicted and adverse conditions. The preliminary results concluded that the airplane would generate enough lift for sustained ight and be capable of payload ights. After a complete analysis of the wing planform the wing structure and mounting system was designed and constructed using three dimensional printing technology and thermal MonoKote plastic. The airplane was analyzed and constructed to achieve an overall factor of safety of two. Upon completing the construction phase of the airplane the previously mentioned testing phase was commenced . Upon testing, it was possible see that the nal constructed airplane was able meet most engine and runway tests. After several modications to ensure the airplane passed all preliminary runway tests, the plane was then ready for ight testing. Although a ight test has yet to be concluded due to adverse weather and terrain conditions and pilot availability, it is expected that the airplane will meet all in ight requirements. In looking at the current airplane design, it is possible to conclude that after construction and testing, the airplane will perform as desired, and conform to all SAE rules and regulations.

59

Appendix A: CAD Drawings

60

A) 1/4-20 UNC Thru - C-Bore 0.1

Revisions 2.25 .25

A

.41 R.09 .81

.50 .75

.75

9.00 1.00

24.00 .50 SDP 37: AERO DESIGN 1.00

All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.

Horizontal Stabilizer
Scale: 0.200
Dimension in INCHES

NO.
Drawn by:

Mat'l:
Kyle Gruber

Balsa Wood Date: 12/09/2012

Revisions

8.90 1.10 A) 0.25 A

0.35

R0.29 B) 0.20

2.90

SDP 37: AERO DESIGN Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.

All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

Elevator
Scale: 0.500
Dimension in INCHES

NO.
Drawn by:

Mat'l: Kyle Gruber

Balsa Wood Date: 12/09/2012

6.84

Revisions

3.81

11.50 1.10

9.40

A .50

A) 1/4-20 UNC Tap 1

.41

1.35 R.22
All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

SDP 37: AERO DESIGN Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.

3.50

Vertical Stabilizer
SCALE 0.250
Dimension in INCHES

NO.
Drawn by:

Mat'l:
Scott Harrigan

Balsa Wood Date: 12/11/2012

Revisions 1.20 A) R0.13 A

0.50

R0.21 B) R0.09

11.40

SDP 37: AERO DESIGN Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.

All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

2.41

Rudder
SCALE: 0.400
Dimension in INCHES

NO.
Drawn by:

4 Mat'l: Kyle Gruber

Balsa Wood Date: 12/11/2012

Revisions

1.00

.75

72.00

SDP 37: AERO DESIGN Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.

All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

Wing Spar SCALE 0.100

Dimension in INCHES

NO.
Drawn by:

Spruce
Date:

5 Mat'l: Joseph Dekar

04/26/2013

Revisions

.75 R.13 R.13 1.00

1.44

1.53

11.45

.13

SDP 37: AERO DESIGN Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.

All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

Rib SCALE 0.400

Dimension in INCHES

NO. 6
Drawn by:

ABS Plastic Mat'l: Joseph Dekar

Date:

04/27/2013

Revisions

3.75 .38

23.00 4.75

3.38

28.00 5.38

94.2 SDP 37: AERO DESIGN Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.
All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

51.00

Fuselage SCALE 0.100

Dimension in INCHES

NO. 7
Drawn by:

Balsa Wood
Date:

Mat'l: Joseph Dekar

04/19/2013

Revisions 20.05 4.02 2.00

3.00

12.03

8.04 150.7 6.03 1.53

4.53

.06

SDP 37: AERO DESIGN Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Dept.

All Tolerances to 0.02 to last decimal, unless stated otherwise.

Central Landing Gear SCALE 0.200

Dimension in INCHES

NO. 8
Drawn by:

Mat'l: Joseph Dekar

Aluminium Date: 04/24/2013

Appendix B: Pugh's / Pahl & Beitz Method

69

Wing Planform
Rectangular was the best choice.

Table 3: Wing planform, Pugh's method.

Table 4: Wing planform, Pahl & Beitz method.

70

Tail Wing Type

Conventional tail was the best choice.

Table 5: Tail wing, Pugh's method.

Table 6: Tail wing, Pahl & Beitz method.

71

Engine Location
An engine located at the front was the best choice.

Table 7: Engine location, Pugh's method.

Table 8: Engine location, Pahl & Beitz method.

72

Propulsion System
The best choice was a puller propulsion system.

Table 9: Propulsion system, Pugh's method.

Table 10: Propulsion system, Pahl & Beitz method.

73

Wing Placement
High wing was the best choice.

Table 11: Wing placement, Pugh's method.

Table 12: Wing placement, Pahl & Beitz method.

74

Landing Gear
Both types were the same. A combination of the two was best chosen.

Table 13: Landing gear, Pugh's method.

Table 14: Landing gear, Pahl & Beitz method.

75

Appendix B: Additional Calculations

76

Wing
1. Lift equation

1 1 L = CL AV 2 = (0.0747)(1.5)(5.5833)(100) = 30.34 lb 2 2
2. Drag equation

(29)

1 1 D = CD AV 2 = (0.0747)(0.021)(5.5833)(100) = 0.42 lb 2 2
3. Roll damping

(30)

Cl p =
4. Roll authority

cl + cd0 5.01 = = 0.836 6 6

(31)

cla =
5. Roll rate equation

2 cln (b2 3.165 (16.8752 32.752 ) 2 b1 ) = = 0.489 b2 72

(32)

p=
6. Roll ratio

Cla 2V a Cl p b

0.489 2 30 0.836 180

rad 2 32 = 3.26 6 s

(33)

RR =

2pV 2 3.26 32 = = 3.67 b 6

(34)

77

Tail

78

Horizontal Stabilizer
1. Tail conguration: Conventional 2. Horizontal tail location: Aft 3. Horizontal tail volume coecient

Vh =
4. Horizontal tail planform area

193.5 lh Sh lh = = 0.65 Sw C 864 12

(35)

Sh =

12 864 0.653 CSVh = = 193.5 lh 35

(36)

5. Horizontal tail airfoil selection: NACA 0009 6. Horizontal tail sweep angle and dihedral:

7. Horizontal tail aspect ratio and taper ratio

ARh =
Taper ratio = 1.0 8. Tail lift curve slope

b2 242 h = = 2.98 Sh 193.5

(37)

CLa =

CLah 1+
CLah ARh

7.16 .16 = 3.86 1 + 7 2.67

(38)

79

Optimum Tail Arm

1. Total wetted aft area

Swet,af t = Saf t,f us + Saf t,h

2. Approximation of fuselage wetted area

(39)

Saf t,f us = Pf us Lf
3. Approximation of total horizontal stabilizer area

(40)

Saf t = 2 Sh
4. Rewriting Equation C.3.1

(41)

Saf t,h =
5. Substituting Equation C.4.1

2CSw Vh lh

(42)

Swet,af t = (Pf us l) +
6. Derivative to determine minimized arm length

2CSw Vh lh

(43)

dSwet,af t 2CSw Vh = Pf us + =0 2 dlh lh

7. Optimum tail moment arm

(44)

lh,opt = Kc Kc = 1.4:

2CSw Vh = 1.4 Pf us

2 12 864 0.65 = 34.9 20

(45)

General aircraft single engine with transport capabilities (not conical). 35

in was used.

80

Moment and Longitudinal Stability Equations

1. Cruise lift coecient at level ight

CLw = CLw0 = 0.4

Established from airfoil charts. 2. Governing longitudinal stability equation

(46)

Mcg = 0 = Macw +Lw cos (w (hcg hacw ))+Dw sin (w (hcg hacw ))Lh Sh CLh
3. Simplied Equation 19

(47)

CMcg = 0 = CMacw + CLw (hcg hacw ) Vh CLh

4. Required horizontal tail lift coecient

(48)

CLh =

CMacw + CLw (hcg hacw ) 0.08 + (0.4 (0.2 0.25)) = = 0.154 Vh 0.65 M qSC L qSC

(49)

5. Denition of moment coecient

CM =
6. Denition of lift coecient

(50)

CL =

(51)

81

Vertical Stabilizer
1. Vertical tail conguration: Conventional 2. Vertical tail volume coecient

Vv =
3. Vertical tail planform area

Lv Sv 35 86.25 = = 0.048 Sw b 72 864

(52)

Sv = 0.1 Sw = 0.1 864 = 86.25

4. Vertical tail aspect ratio

(53)

ARv =
5. Vertical tail taper ratio

bv 11.5 = = 1.53 Cv 7.5

(54)

v =
6. Vertical tail sweep angle

Cv,tip 6 = = 0.67 Cv,root 9 3 = 14.6 11.5

(55)

= arctan

(56)

82

Landing Gear
1.

= 20 , h = 9.96

in,

is the horizontal distance from the center of gravity

tan =
2. Solving C.24 for

h x

(57)

x x = h tan = 9.96 in tan 20 = 3.36 in

(58)

Therefore with the center of gravity located 16.77 in from the front of the fuselage, the lateral landing gear was placed

16.77 + 3.63 = 20.4

in from the front of fuselage.

83

Appendix C: Project Schedule

84

Milestones
Fall
Project award and formal start: 9/21/2012 Project design and research complete: 10/24/2012 CAD drawings and preliminary analysis executed from 11/12/2012 to 11/21/2012 Interim design report due: 12/12/2012 Interim presentation due: 12/12/2012 Formal presentation given: 12/14/2012

Spring

Construction starts: 2/1/2013

Preliminary model complete, testing begins: 3/16/2012 Testing complete: 3/19/2012 Redesign/retest period: 3/20-4/15/2013 Final ight test complete: 4/20/2013 Final model complete: 4/23/2013

85

Gantt Chart

86

Appendix D: Budget

87

Appendix E: Charts/Tables

88

Figure 46: Wing planform shape.

89

Table 15: Lift force vs. velocity.

90

Table 16: Drag force vs. velocity.

Table 17: Aileron properties at deection.

91

Table 18: Aircraft roll rate and roll ratio at certain velocities.

92

Appendix F: MATLAB Code

93

%Written By: Scott Harrigan and Kyle Gruber clc clear all close all %Thrust Required for Level, Unaccelerated Flight vs. Airspeed (ft/s) %Data obtained from SZABOLCS FUZESI's Static Thurst Calculator % http://personal.osi.hu/fuzesisz/strc_eng/ %Prop: 12 x 7 %Density: 0.0023423 slugs/ft^3 RPM= [1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 ... 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000]; T =[0.04 0.16 0.36 0.64 1.01 1.45 1.98 2.58 3.27 4.04 4.89 5.82... 6.83 7.92 9.09 10.35 11.68]; W=17; %Max weight possible g=32.2; %ft/sec %Prop Horsepower Data obtained from APC Prop manufacturer, prop @ 7,000 RPM Pa = [0.446 0.422 0.399 0.376 0.354 0.331 0.309 0.301 0.295 0.288 0.281 0.274 ... 0.266 0.258 0.249 0.239 0.229 0.218 0.207 0.194 0.181 0.167 0.153 0.137 0.122 ... 0.106 0.089 0.071 0.054 0.038]; %Prop velocity data obtained V_Prop = [0 3.38 6.76 10.29 13.67 17.05 20.43 23.96 27.34 30.72 34.10 37.63 41.01... 44.39 47.78 51.30 54.68 58.07 61.44 64.97 68.36 71.74 75.12 78.65 82.03 85.41 88.79 ... 92.31 95.70 99.08]; V=linspace(5,120,30); %Velocity feet/sec (0 to 80 mph) e=0.98; %Oswald Efficiency Factor AR=6; %Aspect Ratio alpha_W=[-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16]; %Angle of Attack Cl_W=[-0.75 -0.8 -0.7 -0.475 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.85 1 1.15 1.35 1.45 1.5 1.4]; Cd_W=0.007; CD0_W=0.007; Cl_HS=-0.3; Cd_HS=0.006; CD0_HS=0.0055; alpha_HS=-3; Cl_VS=0; Cd_VS=0.0055; CD0_VS=0.0055; alpha_VS=0; a0=0.1125; %Same value for all rho=0.0023423; %slugs/ft^3 q=.5*rho*V.^2; a=a0/(1+((57.3*a0)/(pi*e*AR))); %a0 for Wing CL_W=a*(alpha_W-(-4)); CL_HS=a*(alpha_HS-(0)); CL_VS=a*(alpha_VS-(0)); S=6; %area of wing ft^2 (72"*12")

CL=17./(.5*rho*V.^2*S); Tr_W=q*S*CD0_W+((17^2)./(q*S*pi*e*AR)); %Thrust Required Wing Pr=(0.5*rho*V.^3*S).*(CD0_W+(((17./(0.5*rho*V.^2*S)).^2)./ (pi*e*AR)))*(1.81*10^-3); %Thrust required %Take Off Distance - Assume max effective RPM is 14,000 CL_max=1.2; phi=(((16*.875)/6).^2)/(1+(((16*.875)/6).^2)); V_TO=1.2*sqrt((2*W)./(rho*S*CL_max)) D_TO=.5*rho*(0.7*V_TO).^2*S.*(CD0_W+phi*((CL_max.^2)./(pi*e*AR))); %Take off Drag L_TO=.5*rho*(0.7*V_TO).^2*S*CL_max; %Take off Lift mu_r1=.02; R1=mu_r1*(W-L_TO); S_TO=(1.44*W.^2)./(g*rho*S*CL_max*(8-(D_TO+R1))) %Take off distance %Landing Distance - Assume max effective RPM is 14,000 CL_max=1.2; phi=(((16*.875)/6).^2)/(1+(((16*.875)/6).^2)); V_L=1.3*sqrt((2*W)./(rho*S*CL_max)); D_L=.5*rho*V_L.^2*S.*(CD0_W+phi*((CL_max.^2)./(pi*e*AR))); %Take off Drag mu_r2=.04; R2=mu_r2*(W); S_L=(1.69*W.^2)./(g*rho*S*CL_max*(D_L+(R2))) %Landing Distance to full stop %Rate of Climb RoC=((Pa-Pr)/W)./(1.81*10.^-3); %Plot Static Thrust vs. RPM figure(1) plot(RPM,T) xlabel('Engine RPM') ylabel('Thrust (lbs)') grid on title('Static Thrust vs Engine RPM') %Plot Thrust vs. Air Speed figure(2) plot(V,Tr_W) title('Thrust Required vs Air Speed') xlabel('Air Speed (ft/sec)') ylabel('Thrust') grid on %Plot Power Required/Power Availible vs. Air Speed figure(3) plot(V,Pr,V_Prop,Pa) grid on title('Power Required vs. Air Speed') xlabel('Air Speed (ft/sec)') ylabel('Power Required (BHP)') %Plot Angle of Attack vs. Lift Coefficient figure(4)

plot(alpha_W,Cl_W, alpha_W,CL_W,'o') grid minor title('Angle of Attack vs Lift Coefficient') xlabel('Angle of Attack (degrees)') ylabel('Lift Coefficient') legend('C_lwing','C_Lwing') %Rate of Climb vs. Velocity figure(5) plot(V,RoC) grid on title('Rate of Climb vs. Velocity') xlabel('Velocity (ft/s)') ylabel('Rate of Climb (ft/s)')

Appendix G: Test Procedures/Results

97

SDP#37RemoteControlAirplaneDesignTestPlan/ TestProcedure
TestPlan(OutlineandTestCaseNumber)

1.DimensionRequirementTests: a.AircraftWeightTest(Test01) b.AircraftSizeTest(Test02)

2.PreFlightRequirementTests: a.EnginePropRPMRatioTest(Test03) b.FuelAccessibilityTest (Test04) c.PayloadOperationTest(Test05) d.SAESafety/ControlRequirementTest(Test06) e.CGVerificationTest(Test07) f.ControlSurfaceFunctionalityTest(Test08)

3.GroundOperationRequirementTests: a.EngineStartup/ThrottleControlTest(Test09) b.TaxiTest(Test10)

4.FlightRequirementTests: a.TakeoffDistanceTest(Test11) b.InFlightManeuversTest(Test12)

c.LandingDistanceTest(Test13)

1.AircraftDimensionRequirementTests:

a.AircraftWeightTest

(Requirements2.5)

i.Theaircraftshallbefullyloadedwithmaximumfuelandallweights placedinpayloadbay. ii.Theweightoftheaircraftshallbemeasuredbyplacingaircraftupon ascale,withaccuracyof+/0.5lbs. iii.Theweightoftheaircraftshallbecomparedtothemaximum allowedweight(65lbsmaximum). iv.Iftheweightoftheaircraftdoesnotexceed65lbs,thentheaircraft weightrequirementhasbeenpassed.

b.AircraftSizeTest

(Requirements2.1)

i.Thecombinedlength,width,andheightdimensionsshallbe measuredwitharulerortapemeasureaccurateto+/1/8 ii.Thecombinedlength,widthandheightoftheentireaircraftshallbe comparedtothemaximumdimensions(acombinedwingspan, length,andheightof225linearinches). iii.Ifthecombinedmeasuredlength,width,andheightoftheaircraft doesnotexceed225linearinches,thentheaircraftsizerequirement hasbeenpassed.

2.AircraftPreFlightRequirementTests:

a.EnginePropRPMRatioTest

(Requirements2.2.1)

i.Aircraftengineshallbevisuallyinspected/operatedtoensureengine islinkedtopropellerinaonetooneratio. ii.IftheengineandpropellerRPMoperateataonetooneratio,then theEnginePropRPMRatioTesthaspassed.

b.FuelAccessibilityTest

(Requirement2.2.2)

i.Thefuselageopeningsforthefuelcompartmentshallbeopened andclosedtoensurefueltankiseasilyaccessible. ii.Fuelshallberemovedandaddedviathefuselageopeningto ensurefullaccessforSAEfuelinspection. iii.Thefuelaccessibilitytestispassedwhenfuelisremovedand addedviathefuselageopening,andtheopeningisresecuredafter fuelrefill.

c.PayloadOperationTest

(Requirements2.3)

i.Thefuselageopeningsforthepayloadcompartmentsshallbe openedandclosedtoensurepayloadiseasilyaccessible. ii.Weightsshallbeaddedandremovedviathefuselageopeningto ensurefullaccessinbetweenrepeatedflights. iii.Aircraftshallbevisuallyinspectedtoverifythatpayloaddoesnot

contributetothestructureoftheaircraft. iv.Loadingandunloadingofweightsshallbetimedtoensurepayload canbeloadedandunloadedwithin1minute. v.Ifaflightwithpayloadiscompleted,andaflightwithoutpayloadis completed,andthepayloaddoesnotcontributetothestructureofthe aircraft,andthepayloadisloadedandunloadedwithin1minute,then thepayloadaccessibilitytesthaspassed.

d.SAESafety/ControlRequirementTest

(Requirements2.4)

i.Transmittersetupshallbevisuallyinspectedtoensurea2.4Ghz radioisbeingutilizedanditisoperatinginthe2.4 ii.Batterypackshallbemeasuredwithavoltmetertoverifycapacityis greaterthanorequalto1000mah iii.Aircraftshallbevisuallyinspectedtoensureaspinnerorrounded safetynutisinstalled.Spinner/safetynutwillbeturnedbyhandto ensureitissecure. iv.Ifthetransmitteroperatesat2.4Ghz,thebatterypackcapacityis measuredtobeatleast1000mah,andthespinner/safetynutis installed,theSAESafetyandControlRequirementTesthaspassed.

e.CGVerificationTest

(Requirement2.7)

i.PlaceaircraftupontwosupportslocatedatassumedCGposition, placedundereachwing. ii.Observepitchingbehaviorofairplanewhenplaceduponsupports. (Pitchforward=CGtoofarforward,Pitchbackward=CGtoofaraft) iii.AddorremoveweightsforwardandaftoftheassumedCGbased uponobservedpitchingbehavior.Repeatuntilaircraftmaintainspitch stabilitywhilstrestingonsupports.

iv.TheCGverificationtestispassedwhentheaircraftmaintainspitch stabilitywhilstrestingontestsupports.

f.ControlSurfaceFunctionalityTest

(Requirement2.6)

i.Moveremotetransmittercontrolstooperateservos. ii.Verifyleftandrightaileronsexperienceopposingdeflection. iii.Verifyelevatordeflectsupwardsanddownwards. iv.Verifyrudderdeflectsleftandright. v.Thecontrolsurfacefunctionalitytestispassedwhenallcontrol surfacesoperateproperlywithnonoticeablecontrolslop.

3.GroundOperationRequirementTest

a.EngineStartup/ThrottleControlTest

(Requirement2.6)

i.Withenginemountedonatestblock,engageelectricstarter. ii.Bringthrottletofull. iii.Bringthrottlebacktoidle. iv.Theenginestartup/throttlecontroltestispassedwhentheaircraft engineissuccessfullystarted,broughttofullpower,idled,andshutoff insequence.

b.TaxiTest

(Requirement2.6)

i.Utilizingradiocontrol,fromafullstop,bringaircrafttoasafetaxing speed. ii.Steertheaircraftleftandright,visuallyinspectingthattheaircraft canbesteeredtotheleftmostandrightmostsidesoftherunway withoutissue. iii.Taxiaircrafttotakeoffposition,idlethrottletostopaircraft. iv.Iftheaircraftisabletoreachtaxingspeedfromafullstop, maneuverleftandrightalongrunway,andmakeafullstoptotakeoff position,theTaxiTesthaspassed. 4.FlightRequirementsTest a.TakeoffDistanceTest i.Fromfullstopatbeginningofrunway,bringenginepowerto maximum. ii.Allowaircrafttoachieveminimumsafespeedtopitch(30MPH)for ascent.. iii.Determinepointonrunwaywhereaircraftbecomesairborne. iv.TheTakeoffDistancetestispassedifaircraftbecomesairborne beforetraveling200ftdownrunway. b.InFlightManeuversTest i.Atcruisealtitude(TBD),bankaircrafttoa30degreeangle, initiatingfirstturn. ii.Onceaircrafthascompleteda180degreeturn,leveloutaircraft andreturntocruisealtitudeandheading. iii.TheInFlightManeuverstestispassediftheaircraftisableto completethemaneuverandrecovertocruisingflight.

c.LandingDistanceTest i.Fromcruisealtitude,lowerthrottleandbegindescent. ii.Setthrottleto1/4shortlybeforetouchdown.Reducetoidleas aircraftreachesofapprox4feetAGL(abovegroundlevel). iii.Withrulers/groundmarkers,measuredistancealongrunwayat whichaircraftreachesafullstopaftertouchdown.Verifyaircraft comestoafullstopatapointlessthan400ftfrombeginningof runway. iv.Thelandingdistancetestispassediftheaircraftisabletocometo afullstopinlessthan400feetwithoutexperiencingaverticalbounce offtherunway.

Acknowledgments
Professor Frank Cardullo, ME, Faculty Adviser Professor Colin Selleck, ME, Senior Project Teacher Professor Jack Maynard, EE, Senior Project Teacher Mr. Gerard Corprew for letting us use the Tri-Cities Airport for testing. Mr. Victor Fiori, Mr. Bob Pulz, and Mr. Dave Richner, for their invaluable assistance in the student shop. Binghamton University Mechanical Engineering Department

117

References
Anderson, J.D. Introduction To Flight. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Abad, Alan, Hernando Buendia, Oscar Villatora, and David Garzon. Florida International University, SAE AERO DESIGN EAST COMPETITION Bond, Gene. Design Parameters for Slowyers/Parkyers. Last modied 2005. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/ /showthread.php?t=1432585 Cardullo, Frank. Fundamentals of Flight and Aircraft Control. ME 435 Binghamton University. Binghamton, N.Y. September, 2012. Garner, W.B.

2009. http://dc-rc.org/pdf/Model_Propellers_Article.pdf. LeBeau, Jr., Raymond P. Lennon, Andy.

MODEL AIRPLANE PROPELLERS. ME 380 Aircraft Design. R/C Model Aircraft Design.

University of Kentucky.

Ridgeeld, CT:

Air Age Media Inc., 1996.

MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics, Basic Aircraft Design Rules. Last modied 2005. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses /aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-01-unied-engineering-i-ii-iiiiv-fall-2005-spring-2006/systems-labs-06/sp18.pdf Rules of thumb for plane design. Last modied 2005. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php? t=1432585

Division, McCook Field, http:books.google.com/books

Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach. Structural Analysis And Design Of Airplanes.
Sadraey, Mohammad. Wiley Publications, 2012.

Engineering

118