CReSIS UAV Preliminary Design Review:

The Meridian

William Donovan

University of Kansas
2335 Irving Hill Road
Lawrence, KS 66045-7612
http://cresis.ku.edu
Technical Report
CReSIS TR 125
June 25, 2007
This work was supported by a grant from the
National Science Foundation
(#ANT-0424589).

Executive Summary
This report describes the requirements development and preliminary design of three
candidate aircraft for use in the research of ice sheets.

Preliminary sizing,

performance matching, configuration selection, Class I weight and balance, Class I

stability and control, and Class I drag analyses are included in this report for all three
designs. The design mission for this aircraft is to takeoff from a snow or ice runway,
fly to a designated area, then use low frequency radar to perform measurements of ice
sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Three designs were developed:

A Monoplane with Structurally Integrated Antennas

A Monoplane with Antennas Hanging from the Wing

A Biplane with Antennas Structurally Integrated Into the Lower Wing

Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. AST-0424589.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

ii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. vi
Nomenclature ........................................................................................................... viii
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. ix
1
Science Rationale ................................................................................................ 1
2
Requirements Definition and Development...................................................... 2
2.1
Stall Speed and Climb Performance ............................................................. 3
2.2
Aircraft Range............................................................................................... 3
2.3
Takeoff and Landing Distances .................................................................... 8
2.4
Cruise Speed ................................................................................................. 9
2.5
Payload Requirements ................................................................................ 10
2.6
Size Requirements ...................................................................................... 12
2.7
Logistical Requirements ............................................................................. 13
2.7.1
Maintenance Requirements................................................................. 13
2.7.2
Communications ................................................................................. 14
2.7.3
Regulations ......................................................................................... 14
2.7.4
Environmental Issues .......................................................................... 15
2.7.5
Special Operations Requirements ....................................................... 15
2.8
Requirements Summary.............................................................................. 16
3
Aircraft Survey.................................................................................................. 17
3.1
Aircraft Currently Used in Cold-Weather Research................................... 17
3.1.1
Lockheed C130 ................................................................................... 18
3.1.2
Lockheed P-3 Orion............................................................................ 19
3.1.3
DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter......................................................... 20
3.2
Uninhabited Air Vehicles ........................................................................... 21
3.2.1
Similar Uninhabited Air Vehicles....................................................... 24
3.3
Optionally Piloted Vehicle Concepts.......................................................... 29
4
Preliminary UAV Designs ................................................................................ 32
4.1
Red Design.................................................................................................. 34
4.1.1
Preliminary Aircraft Sizing................................................................. 34
4.1.2
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................ 38
4.1.3
Performance Matching........................................................................ 38
4.1.4
Configuration Selection ...................................................................... 40
4.1.5
Class I Weight and Balance ................................................................ 64
4.1.6
Class I Stability and Control ............................................................... 70
4.1.7
Class I Drag Analysis.......................................................................... 73
4.1.8
Red Design Summary ......................................................................... 75
4.2
White Design .............................................................................................. 77

iii

4.2.1
Preliminary Aircraft Sizing................................................................. 77
4.2.2
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................ 80
4.2.3
Performance Matching........................................................................ 80
4.2.4
Class I Drag Analysis.......................................................................... 81
4.2.5
White Design Summary...................................................................... 84
4.3
Blue Design................................................................................................. 86
4.3.1
Similar Aircraft ................................................................................... 86
4.3.2
Preliminary Aircraft Sizing................................................................. 89
4.3.3
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................ 92
4.3.4
Performance Matching........................................................................ 92
4.3.5
Configuration Selection ...................................................................... 96
4.3.6
Class I Weight and Balance .............................................................. 108
4.3.7
Class I Stability and Control ............................................................. 113
4.3.8
Class I Drag Analysis........................................................................ 115
4.3.9
Blue Design Summary ...................................................................... 118
5
Summary of Preliminary Designs.................................................................. 120
6
Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................. 122
6.1
Ongoing Design ........................................................................................ 122
6.1.1
Detailed Landing Gear Design.......................................................... 122
6.1.2
Engine Selection Turboprop Variant ............................................. 123
7
References........................................................................................................ 125

iv

List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Map of Antarctica....................................................................................... 4
Figure 2.2: Design Mission Profile............................................................................. 17
Figure 3.1: Lockheed C130 Operating from Snow Runway [19]............................... 18
Figure 3.2: Lockheed P-3 Orion on Ice Runway in Antarctica [20]........................... 19
Figure 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter Operating from Snow Runway [33] ................ 21
Figure 3.4: Current Commercially Available UAVs [3, 12, 13] ................................ 23
Figure 3.5: General Atomics Predator B [4]............................................................... 25
Figure 3.6: General Atomic Predator [4] .................................................................... 25
Figure 3.7: Northrop Grumman E-Hunter [2]............................................................. 26
Figure 3.8 General Atomics I-Gnat [4]....................................................................... 26
Figure 3.9: AAI Shadow 200 [21] .............................................................................. 27
Figure 3.10: AAI Shadow 600 [21] ............................................................................ 28
Figure 3.11: Geneva Aerospace Dakota UAV [22] .................................................... 28
Figure 4.1: Takeoff Weight Regression Plot for Similar Aircraft .............................. 35
Figure 4.2: Performance Matching Plot for Red Design ............................................ 39
Figure 4.3: Preliminary Fuselage Layout for Red Design .......................................... 41
Figure 4.4: Engine Power ........................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.5: Engine Weight.......................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.6: Engine Power-to-Weight Ratio ................................................................ 46
Figure 4.7: Red Design Wing Planform ..................................................................... 49
Figure 4.8: Lift-Curve-Slop for Clark Y Airfoil [8] ................................................... 51
Figure 4.9: Wing Lift Distribution for the Red Design .............................................. 55
Figure 4.10: Definition of V-Tail Planform Area [7] ................................................. 57
Figure 4.11: V-Tail Planform Drawing for the Red Design ....................................... 58
Figure 4.12: Landing Gear Placement for Lateral Tip-Over Requirements ............... 62
Figure 4.13: Landing Gear Layout and Retraction Scheme for Red Design .............. 63
Figure 4.14: Three-View of Red Design..................................................................... 68
Figure 4.15: Center of Gravity Excursion for the Red Design ................................... 69
Figure 4.16: Longitudinal X-Plot for the Red Design ................................................ 71
Figure 4.17: Directional X-Plot for the Red Design ................................................... 72
Figure 4.18: Drag Polars for the Red Design.............................................................. 74
Figure 4.19: Lift-to-Drag Ratio for the Red Design ................................................... 74
Figure 4.20: Final Three-View of the Red Design ..................................................... 76
Figure 4.21: Takeoff Weight Regression for the White Design ................................. 78
Figure 4.22: Drag Polars for the White Design .......................................................... 83
Figure 4.23: Lift-to-Drag Ratios for the White Design .............................................. 83
Figure 4.24: Summary of the White Design ............................................................... 85
Figure 4.25: Aviat Pitts S-2C [17] .............................................................................. 87
Figure 4.26: Aviat Christen Eagle II [17] ................................................................... 88
Figure 4.27: Beech Model 17 (Staggerwing) [18] ...................................................... 89
Figure 4.28: Takeoff Weight Regression Plot for Blue .............................................. 90

Figure 4.29: Performance Matching Plot for Red Design .......................................... 95

Figure 4.30: Fuselage Layout for Blue Design........................................................... 97
Figure 4.31: Wing Planform for Blue ....................................................................... 101
Figure 4.32: Span-wise Lift Distribution for the Blue Design.................................. 104
Figure 4.33: Empennage Planform for Blue ............................................................. 105
Figure 4.34: Landing Gear Layout for Blue ............................................................. 106
Figure 4.35: Lateral Tipover Criteria for Blue.......................................................... 107
Figure 4.36: Longitudinal Tipover and Ground Clearance Criteria for Blue ........... 107
Figure 4.37: Preliminary Arrangement of Blue Design............................................ 111
Figure 4.38: Center of Gravity Excursion for Blue .................................................. 112
Figure 4.39: Longitudinal X-Plot for the Blue Design ............................................. 114
Figure 4.40: Directional X-Plot for the Blue Design................................................ 115
Figure 4.41: Biplane Interference Factor [28] .......................................................... 116
Figure 4.42: Drag Polars for the Blue Design........................................................... 117
Figure 4.43: Lift-to-Drag Ratios for the Blue Design............................................... 118
Figure 5.1: Comparison of Fuel Usage for 3 Fine Scale Missions ........................... 121
Figure 5.2: Combined Takeoff Weight Regression Chart ........................................ 121
Figure 6.1: CAD Model of Innodyn 165TE.............................................................. 124

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Mission Information for Fine, Local, and Regional Surveys ...................... 6
Table 2.2: Aircraft Range Trade Study Based on Number of Flights Required........... 6
Table 2.3: Summary of Airports in Antarctica [1]........................................................ 8
Table 2.4: Runways in Greenland [5] ........................................................................... 9
Table 2.5: Dimensions of Standard Shipping Containers [9] ..................................... 13
Table 2.6: Summary of Design Requirements............................................................ 16
Table 3.1: Lockheed C130H Summary [14]............................................................... 19
Table 3.2: Lockheed P-3C Orion Summary [14]........................................................ 20
Table 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter-300 Summary [13]............................................ 21
Table 3.4: Summary of Similar Aircraft [3, 12, 13] ................................................... 24
Table 3.5: Optionally Piloted Vehicle Performance Summary [14]........................... 30
Table 3.6: Additional Range Estimates for Crewed Aircraft...................................... 30
Table 4.1: Mission Fuel Fractions for Red Design ..................................................... 37
Table 4.2: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the Red Design........................ 38
Table 4.3: List of Viable Engines [13]........................................................................ 42
Table 4.4: Wing Planform Summary for Red Design................................................. 50
Table 4.5: Volume Coefficient Values for Existing Aircraft [7] ................................ 57
Table 4.6: V-Tail Geometry Summary ....................................................................... 59
Table 4.7: Landing Gear Disposition Comparison ..................................................... 60
Table 4.8: Landing Gear Summary for the Red Design ............................................. 64
Table 4.9: Group Weight Data for Single Engine Propeller Driven Aircraft [6] ....... 66
Table 4.10: Component Weight Breakdown for the Red Design ............................... 66

vi

Table 4.11: Class I Weight and Balance for Red Design ........................................... 67
Table 4.12: Weight and Balance Summary ................................................................ 70
Table 4.13: Mission Fuel Fractions for the White Design.......................................... 79
Table 4.14: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the White Design................... 80
Table 4.15: Mission Fuel Fractions for Blue Design.................................................. 91
Table 4.16: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the Blue Design..................... 92
Table 4.17: Summary of Flap Trade Study for the Blue Design ................................ 94
Table 4.18: Summary of Preliminary Sizing and Performance Matching for Blue.... 95
Table 4.19: Wing Planform Summary for Blue........................................................ 102
Table 4.20: Fuel Storage Comparison ...................................................................... 103
Table 4.21: Empennage Summary for Blue.............................................................. 106
Table 4.22: Landing Gear Summary for Blue .......................................................... 108
Table 4.23: Weight Breakdown for the Blue Design................................................ 109
Table 4.24: Class I Weight and Balance for the Blue Design .................................. 110
Table 4.25: Class I Weight and Balance Summary for Blue .................................... 113
Table 5.1: Summary of Preliminary Design Concepts ............................................. 120

vii

Nomenclature
Symbol
AR
b
c
CD
CD0
CL
CL
cp
D
Dp
e
f
L
M
np
P
Pbl
R
S
SWet
WE
WF
Wpay
WTO

Description
Aspect Ratio
Wing Span
Wing chord
Drag Coefficient
Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient
Lift Coefficient
Lift-Curve Slope
Specific Fuel Consumption
Drag
Propeller Diameter
Oswalds Efficiency
Equivalent Parasite Area
Lift
Munks Span Factor
Number of Propeller Blades
Engine Power
Blade Power Loading
Range
Wing Area
Wetted Area
Empty Weight
Fuel Weight
Payload Weight
Takeoff Weight
Dihedral Angle
Angle of Attack
Wing Twist
Wing Station
Propeller Efficiency
Biplane Interference Factor

viii

Units
~
ft, in
ft, in
~
~
~
Rad-1
Lbs/hp-hr
Lbs
Ft
~
Ft2
Lbs
~
~
hp
hp/ft2
Nm
Ft2
Ft2
Lbs
Lbs
Lbs
Lbs
Deg
Deg
Deg
~
~
~

Abbreviations
Abbreviation
CReSIS
FAR
NSF
UAV

Description
Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets
Federal Aviation Regulations
National Science Foundation
Uninhabited Air Vehicle

ix

1 Science Rationale
The driving question behind the design mission of this aircraft is: What changes
are occurring in the mass of the Earths ice cover, and how will those changes affect
the climate? To answer this question, four areas must be studied: Sea ice, terrestrial
ice sheets, glaciers, and ice caps.

The measure of the area, concentration, and

thickness of sea ice; and the mass balance of terrestrial ice sheets are of paramount
importance. [5]
Advances in aircraft and satellite remote sensing have enabled advances in the
study of the ice sheet mass balance. The most important parameters used to define
these large ice sheets are surface elevation and its change with time, ice velocity and
grounding line locations, ice thickness, and surface melting. All of these parameters
except for ice thickness can be measured with satellites. This is done, however, at
low spatial and temporal resolutions. Efforts are currently underway at NASA to
develop a means of measuring ice thickness from orbit in addition to using NASAs
Geoscience Laser Altimeter System to produce precise lidar measurement of ice
surface elevation and its change over time. This technology has yet to be fully
developed though. [5]
The use of sub-orbital platforms, especially high performance uninhabited air
vehicles, can offer significant improvements in the spatial and temporal resolution of
ice sheet measurements as well as offer synergistic complements to the systems being
developed by NASA. [5]

2 Requirements Definition and Development

One of the first and often most important step in the aircraft design process is to
fully define all of the requirements that will be imposed on the design. Typically, the
majority of these requirements is directly requested by the customer and is not
negotiable. Some of these parameters could include a minimum range, cruise speed,
or payload capacity. The specific combination of requirements depends on the design
mission and therefore varies from project to project.
In addition to the requirements directly specified by the customer, the aircraft must
meet a set of derived requirements determined by the designer. These requirements
typically consist of parameters that are driven by the designers interpretation of the
customers requests. For example, a design request might call for the ability to easily
load payload into a cargo bay. The designer could then use this requirement to
specify a minimum size for the payload opening.
Another example of a derived requirement occurs in the instance when a customer
has very specific needs in certain areas but is flexible in others. For the CReSIS
project the payload integration is of utmost importance, but parameters such as
aircraft range and general performance are not directly specified. The following
methods are often used to develop derived requirements:
1. Use market research to determine the values of performance related parameters
that would result in the most commercially competitive vehicle.
2. Use aircraft regulations such as FAR 23 or FAR 25 to determine the requirements
based on the aircraft class most similar to the design.

3. Use a combination of the given requirements and goals to determine the

importance of the unspecified parameters. Then assign a goal to the parameter
rather than a specific number, such as Increase range or Decrease takeoff
distance.
4. Use aircraft cost requirements to determine the best design that is fiscally
feasible.
The intent of this discussion is to show that it is absolutely imperative for a
designer to transform as many of the qualitative requirements specified in a mission
definition into quantifiable parameters as possible to more easily assess the merit of a
given design.

2.1 Stall Speed and Climb Performance

Requirements for the aircraft stall speed and climb performance were not specified
in the technological requirements.

These values were determined based on the

performance of the DeHavilland Twin Otter as this aircraft is a high performance,

short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft that is commonly used in Antarctica. This
set the required stall speed to 58 kts and the maximum rate of climb at 1,600 ft/min.

2.2 Aircraft Range

One of the most important and most difficult requirements to specify for this
mission was the aircraft range. During the early stages of the CReSIS UAV design,
numerous trade studies were performed investigating the required aircraft range based
on the location, size, and number of runways in Antarctica. These studies showed

that 75 percent of the continent could be reached from three bases with an aircraft
with a range of 4,000 km as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Map of Antarctica

As the CReSIS project continued, specific locations were selected as the primary
areas of interest for research. This spurred on further trade studies in an attempt to
determine the minimum aircraft range that would still satisfy the desired missions.
The science requirements [34] produced three survey definitions as follows:

Regional Survey:

Local Survey:

500 km x 500 km with 10-15 km line spacing

100 km x 100 km with 2.5 km line spacing

350 km Ingress/Egress Distance

Fine Survey:

20 km x 20 km with 1 km spacing
350 km Ingress/Egress Distance

The technology requirements specify that the UAV will have to be able to fly three
fine scale missions in one four week period by December 2008. Upon success of this
mission, the scientists would like to be able to fly at least one local scale survey and
one fine scale survey in a 4 week period. This would allow the scientists to survey a
large area, then return to survey an area of high interest.
The survey areas were converted into vehicle range requirements by first
calculating the ground track distance that must be covered for each survey using
Equation 3.1.

Ground Track Dist. = (Width * Length) / Line Spacing + Width + Length (3.1)
Equation 3.1 is used to calculate the ground track distance assuming a lawn-mower
type pattern in one direction.

The requirements call for dual coverage with

perpendicular flight paths, which doubles the ground track distance for each survey
area.
The ground track distances for each mission are shown in Table 2.1.

The

ingress/egress distances shown are for missions near Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica.

Table 2.1: Mission Information for Fine, Local, and Regional Surveys
Parameter

SI Units

Fine

Local

Regional

km/hr
km
km
km
km
km
hrs

200
20
20
1
350
880
4.4

200
100
100
2.5
350
8,400
42

200
500
500
10
0
52,000
260

Ground Speed:
Grid Width:
Grid Length:
Line Spacing:
Distance from Base:
Ground Track Distance:
Total Time of Data Acquisition:

English Units

Fine

Local

Regional

Ground Speed:
Grid Width:
Grid Length

Parameter

kts
nm
nm

108
10.8
10.8

108
54
54

108
270
270

Line Spacing:
Distance from Base:
Ground Track Distance:
Total Time of Data Acquisition:

nm
nm
nm
hrs

0.54
189
475.2
4.4

1.35
189
4,536
42

5.4
0
28,080
260

The ground track distances shown in Table 2.1 were then used to determine the
number of flights required to complete a Fine, Local, and Regional mission for
aircraft with various ranges. This is shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Aircraft Range Trade Study Based on Number of Flights Required

Vehicle Range (km)

Fine Scale

Local

Regional

1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

# of Flights
Required
~
3
2
1
1
1
1

Length of
Each Flight
hrs
5
7.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

# of Flights
Required
~
28
11
7
5
4
3

Time for
Each Flight
hrs
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5

# of Flights
Required
~
52
35
26
21
18
15

Time for
Each Flight
hrs
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5

4000
4500
5000

1
1
1

4.4
4.4
4.4

3
3
2

20
22.5
25

13
12
11

20
22.5
25

The Fine and Local scale missions are the only ones considered under these
requirements. The Regional scale data is shown for comparison only.

The time requirement of 4 weeks was used to determine the absolute minimum
aircraft range based on the number of flights required. The weather in Antarctica is
such that flying every day of the 4 week period would be improbable. Therefore, it is
assumed that 1 of every 3 days will be flyable. This leaves 9 flyable days in a given
season. As is shown in Table 2.2 the minimum design range should therefore be
somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 km.
For an aircraft with a range greater than 1,580 km the Fine Scale mission would
only take one day. This leaves 8 flyable days to complete the Local Scale mission.
The required aircraft range was calculated to be 1,750 km (945 nm) using Equation
3.2.
Range =

RGrFine
N Fine

Where:

+ 2 Ringress / egressFine +

RGrLocal
N Local

+ 2 Ringress / egressLocal

(3.2)

RGr = Ground Track Distance

N = Number of Flights (1flight)
Ringress/egress = Ingress/Egress Distance (350 km)

Typically, fuel reserves for 45 minutes of additional flight are added to the fuel
requirements. Due to the extreme nature of the design mission of this aircraft, fuel
reserves will be sized to allow for 1.5 hours of extended flight. At a nominal cruise
speed of 200 km/hr, this essentially adds 300 km to the range requirement.
The Range requirements for this aircraft design are:

Range:
Fuel Reserves:

1,750 km (945 nm)

1.5 hrs @ 200 km/hr (108 kts)

2.3 Takeoff and Landing Distances

The takeoff and landing distances were originally determined by the size of the
closest available runway. The location of Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica, however,
is 2,500 km from a usable runway, which is greater than the desired range of the
aircraft. Fortunately, it is possible to groom a local runway near the area of interest.
The length of this runway has yet to be specified, but members of NSF have indicated
that any area where this aircraft will be used will require supplies to be flown in with
a Lockheed C130 aircraft, which will require a 10,000 ft runway. Essentially, this
means that the runway length in Antarctica will not be the limiting factor.
Table 2.3: Summary of Airports in Antarctica [1]
Airport
~
Marimbo
McMurdo
Palmer Station
Petrel
South Pole Station
Teniente Rodolfo Marsh Martin

Elevation
meters
feet
232
760
21
68
45
149
5
15
2,835
9,300
45
147

Runway
Length (m)
~
meters
feet
Graded Earth 1,260
4,134
Snow
3,048
10,000
Snow
762
2,500
Snow
1,067
3,500
Snow
3,658
12,000
Graded Earth 1,292
4,238

The runways available in Greenland are shown in Table 2.4. The possibility of
using one of these commercial runways is undetermined. There is a possibility that a
groomed snow runway will be used instead. The exact dimensions of the runway that
will be used are unknown. Therefore, the takeoff and landing distance requirement
will be specified in another manner. Members of the NSF have expressed the desire
to be able to operate from the same runway that a DeHavilland Twin Otter could
operate [31].

Table 2.4: Runways in Greenland [5]

Town

Airport Name

ICAO

Usage

Runway

IFR

Runway
Length

Runway
Length

ft

Aasiaat

Aasiaat

BGAA

Civ.

Paved

Yes

2600

792

Constable Pynt

Constable Pynt

BGCO

Civ.

Unpaved

Yes

3200

975

Godthab

Godthab

BGGH

Civ.

Paved

Yes

3100

945

Jakobshavn / Ilulissat

Jakobshavn / Ilulissat

BGJN

Civ.

Paved

Yes

2700

823
1189

Kulusuk

Kulusuk

BGKK

Civ.

Unpaved

Yes

3900

Maniitsoq

Maniitsoq

BGMQ

Civ.

Paved

Yes

2600

792

Narsarsuaq

Narsarsuaq

BGBW

Civ.

Paved

Yes

6000

1829

Sisimiut

Sisimiut

BGSS

Civ.

Paved

Yes

2600

792

Sondre Stromfjord
Thule
Uummannaq

Sondre Stromfjord / Kangerlussuaq

BGSF

Civ.

Paved

Yes

9200

2804

Thule Ab
Qaarsut

BGTL
BGUQ

Mil.
Civ.

Paved
Unpaved

Yes
Yes

10000
2900

3048
884

The Twin Otter has a takeoff and landing distance of approximately 1,500 ft using
conventional landing gear on a conventional runway.

The takeoff and landing

distance requirement will be specified as follows:

The aircraft must be sized to have the same conventional takeoff and landing
distance as the Twin Otter (1,500 ft).
The runway length for snow/ice operations will be determined based on the final
design and may differ from this requirement. In other words, this requirement does
not mean the aircraft will be able to operate from 1,500 ft snow runways, but rather it
will simply have the same takeoff and landing performance as a Twin Otter.

2.4 Cruise Speed

The cruise speed requirement requested by the scientists [34] was initially 200
km/hr or 108 kts. This requirement is driven by the sampling rate of the sensors. The
faster the aircraft flies, the faster the data must be recorded which increases the power
consumption of the sensors. If this requirement is correctly interpreted, then it is
clear that the true desire of the scientists is for the aircraft to maintain a ground speed

of 108 kts, not a cruise speed. This is a more complicated requirement, due to the fact
that the wind speeds in Antarctica can be as much as 30 kts. This means that the
actual cruise speed of the aircraft could be anywhere from 78-138 kts. The lowest
acceptable flight speed for normal operations is typically 1.3 times the stall speed.
The stall speed with flaps extended is 58 kts. This implies the lowest flight speed
with flaps extended is 75 kts. Using the flaps during cruise is unacceptable in terms
of aerodynamic efficiency therefore the acceptable ground speed was renegotiated to
be 120 kts nominally. The ground speed will be allowed to vary to:

110 kts in a 30 kts headwind

140 kts in a 30 kts tailwind.

In terms of the design cruise speed requirement, this implies two separate critical
design conditions:

120 kts at 75% Power (Flying with no wind)

140 kts at 100% Power (Flying into the wind at 110 kts ground speed)

2.5 Payload Requirements

The payload requirements as specified in [34] for the CReSIS UAV are:

On-board data storage of at least 1 Terrabyte

Potential operating frequency of 100MHz-8 GHz
Payload weight 35kg ideal, 55kg worst case
Payload power, 300W
Payload Volume 0.05 cubic meters (1.8 cu ft)*
Minimum antenna area: 75 cm x 10cm each, 7 on 50 cm spacing (75 cm x
370cm area)
Operating altitude <1500m AGL, nominally 1000m AGL
Payload Accommodations: Nadir ports or windows
External wing mounted antennas

10

The primary payload requirements that will affect the vehicle design are the
antenna array size, the payload volume and weight, and the payload power
consumption.
The antennas must be mounted to the wing and are sensitive to the type of structure
around them, specifically any electrically reflective materials that are directly above
the antennas, in other words, in the wing.
Materials such as aluminum, carbon fiber, or even fuel can reflect the signals the
antennas are receiving thereby adding extraneous noise to the signal. There are three
solutions to this problem:
1. Place the antennas one quarter wavelength below the wing (0.5m or 20)
2. Build a radar absorbing material above the antennas allowing them to be
flush-mounted in the lower surface of the wing.
3. Design a dielectric wing that would not reflect the signals, thereby allowing
them to be flush-mounted in the wing.
The first mounting option is the best choice in terms of the antennas due to two
factors. First, this option has the highest probability of success as the second and
third options have not been fully investigated. Secondly, if the antennas are mounted
a quarter wavelength below a reflective surface, then the interference from this
surface will actually add to the total signal, thereby reducing the power required by
the antennas.
In terms of the aircraft design, namely aerodynamic efficiency, the second and third
options are the most desirable. However, the third mounting option was deemed
unacceptable by the antenna designers due to its low probability of success.

11

At the time of this design there was insufficient data to support or refute the
possibility of the second mounting option.

Therefore, at least two independent

aircraft designs should be performed using the two mounting options. This will help
give insight into how much the antenna requirements are driving the aircraft design.

2.6 Size Requirements

Several items were considered to limit the overall geometry of the vehicle. These
included:

Shipping Constraints
Facility Constraints Hangar Size
Manufacturing Facilities
Runway Width

Of these constraints, the most critical was determined to be the shipping

constraints. This is also the most easily quantifiable. The on-site facility constraints
for example are not hard constraints as a larger airplane will simply need a larger
hangar.

This increases the facility setup costs, but in a less drastic way than

exceeding the shipping requirements.

The aircraft will be shipped to Antarctica and Greenland using standard size
shipping containers. The dimensions of example containers are shown in Table 2.5.
The preliminary sizing studies performed [5] show that a twenty foot container will
most likely be the best suited for this aircraft. Therefore, the dimensions for a
standard twenty foot container were used to set the maximum dimensions of the
aircraft. This requirement will take the following form:

12

The aircraft and ground station must fit entirely in a standard twenty foot shipping
container.
This is different than simply specifying the maximum length or wing span of the
vehicle. For instance, the wing could be manufactured in two pieces meaning the
maximum wing span is larger than twenty feet.
Table 2.5: Dimensions of Standard Shipping Containers [9]
20 ft Dry Container
ft
19.42
7.68
7.80

Length
Height
Width

inches
233.00
92.13
93.63

cm
591.82
234.00
237.81

40 ft Dry Container
Length
Height
Width

ft
39.03
7.70
7.80

inches
468.38
92.38
93.63

cm
1189.67
234.63
237.81

2.7 Logistical Requirements

There are several requirements for the UAV that do not directly relate to
performance or geometric requirements. Some of these items are:

Maintenance
Communications
Regulatory Issues
Environmental Issues

2.7.1 Maintenance Requirements

The aircraft must be designed such that it is easily maintainable in the extreme
environments it will be operating in. This means that accessibility to the engine,
payload area, flight control system, and fuel system must be heavily considered
throughout the design process. Also, the aircraft must be designed for easy assembly

13

in cold weather. This means that the number of parts the aircraft is broken into for
shipping should be minimized. It also has implications on the type of connections
and fasteners used.

2.7.2 Communications
The aircraft must be able to communicate with the ground station in terms of
vehicle health and control commands. In other words, the ground station operator
must be able to identify the health state of the UAV in terms of position, attitude, fuel
quantity, etc and must also be able to command changes in the aircrafts mission. The
update rate for this type of control is fairly low so this will not affect the preliminary
design of the vehicle in a large way. Therefore, the communication requirements will
be summarized as follows:
The aircraft must be able to carry the necessary data acquisition and
communications devices to allow monitoring and control of the vehicle at up to 650
km from base.

2.7.3 Regulations
The UAV will be designed for operation in Antarctica, Greenland, and testing in
the United States. The aircraft must comply with all necessary regulations related to
uninhabited air operations in each of these areas.

14

2.7.4 Environmental Issues

The most important requirements with respect to environmental issues in
Antarctica are related to the requirement that no materials can be left on the continent.
This has implications in two areas: fuel dumping and vehicle recovery.
The landing weight of a vehicle can often be considered to be less than the
maximum takeoff weight. This allows the designer to size the aircraft to a smaller
landing distance. However, doing so requires that the aircraft dump fuel in the case
of an emergency landing immediately after takeoff. This is not possible with this
aircraft, so this requirement will set WLand = WTO.
The environmental concerns have implications on the procedures used in the case
of loss of communication. The primary issue is to determine what the aircraft will do
if communications with GPS satellites, or the ground station are lost for a specified
amount of time. One option would be to deploy a parachute recovery system and
land the aircraft at the point of last communication with the ground station. At the
time of this vehicle design this matter was not resolved. This solution could impact
the configuration design. However, these effects are expected to be small. Therefore,
this issue was not included in the aircraft requirements.

2.7.5 Special Operations Requirements

This aircraft is being designed for operation in extreme climates, which must be
accounted for in the design process. The aircraft system must be capable of heating
the engine and all necessary systems to reasonable operating temperatures prior to
flight. This can be done with external heaters; however the temperature of these

15

systems must be maintained throughout the flight, which could require onboard
heaters.
In addition to temperature control in the fuselage, wing icing must be considered.
While current data indicates that icing is rarely a problem in these climates due to low
humidity, it can occur and must be manageable. Therefore, this aircraft must employ
some form of anti-icing on all critical surfaces.

2.8 Requirements Summary

The aircraft design requirements are summarized in Table 2.6. This table shows
the design requirements as well as their relative importance. This table will be used
in making design decisions throughout this aircraft design process. A typical mission
profile for this aircraft is shown in Figure 2.2.
Table 2.6: Summary of Design Requirements
Parameter

Value

Range
950 nm (~1750 km) w/ 1.5 hr Reserve
Endurance
> 9 hrs
Cruise Speed
100-120 kts (~180-220 km/hr)
Maximum Ceiling
15,000 ft (4,500 m)
Rate of Climb
1,600 ft/min (490 m/min)
Takeoff Distance
1,500 ft (~450 m)
Landing Distance
1,500 ft (~450 m)
Payload Volume
20" x 20" x 8" (~0.5 x 0.5 x 0.2 m)
Payload Weight
120 lbs (~55 kg)
Payload Integration
Wing Mounted Antennae
Power Generation
300 W
Stall Speed
58 kts (105 km/hr)
Stability and Control
FAR 23, where applicable
Maneuvering Requirements
FAR 23, where applicable
Aircraft Wingspan
19 ft (5.8 m)
Aircraft Length
19 ft (5.8 m)

16

Importance

Source

High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
High
High

Trade Studies
Trade Studies
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Twin Otter Performance
Twin Otter Performance
Twin Otter Performance
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Technology Requirements
Twin Otter Performance
FAR 23
FAR 23
20 ft. Container Dimensions
20 ft. Container Dimensions

190 nm
(350 km)

190 nm
(350 km)
6
7

1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Warmup
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb (No Range Credit)
Cruise Out (Optimum Alt. and Speed)

6.
7.
8.
9.

Data Acquisition (120 kts @ 5,000 ft AGL)

Cruise Return (Optimum Alt. and Speed)
Descent (No Range Credit)
Land/Taxi

Figure 2.2: Design Mission Profile

3 Aircraft Survey
Three types of aircraft were investigated for this mission:

Commercially available uncrewed air vehicle

Commercially available piloted aircraft
New uncrewed air vehicle design

One of the primary goals of CReSIS is to employ increasingly autonomous systems

in an attempt to increase the amount and rate of data collection while decreasing the
operational costs. The current state of autonomous vehicles is such that there are
currently very few savings in operational costs of UAVs over crewed aircraft, but this
is rapidly changing as the level of autonomy increases.

3.1 Aircraft Currently Used in Cold-Weather Research

The best place to begin researching aircraft for this mission is with the vehicles that
are currently used in Antarctica. Three of these vehicles are described here:

17

Lockheed C130

Lockheed P-3

DeHavilland Twin Otter

3.1.1 Lockheed C130

The Lockheed C130 aircraft was originally procured in 1951. Since then over 70
variants have been designed and delivered. The model currently fielded in Antarctica
is the C130H, which is what is described here.

The geometry, weight, and

performance data for the C130 is shown in Table 3.1. [14]

Figure 3.1: Lockheed C130 Operating from Snow Runway [19]

18

Table 3.1: Lockheed C130H Summary [14]

Lockheed C130H
Parameter

Units

Value

ft
ft2
ft

132.6
1,745
97.75

lbs
lbs

155,000
76,000

nm
kts
kts
ft
ft

4,250
300
100
5,160
2,750

Geometry
Wing Span
Wing Area
Length
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Performance
Range
Cruise Speed
Stall Speed
Takeoff Distance
Landing Distance

3.1.2 Lockheed P-3 Orion

The Lockheed P-3 Orion is a land-based maritime and anti-submarine warfare
(ASW) aircraft. Development of the P-3 began in 1958 with the first flight in late
1959. As with the C130, there have been many variants and modifications of the
original P-3 [14]. The data for the P-3C is shown in Table 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Lockheed P-3 Orion on Ice Runway in Antarctica [20]

19

Table 3.2: Lockheed P-3C Orion Summary [14]

Lockheed P-3 Orion

Parameter

Units

Value

ft
2
ft
ft

99.7
1,300
116.8

lbs
lbs

135,000
61,490

nm
kts
kts
ft
ft

4,830
328
112
5,490
2,770

Geometry
Wing Span
Wing Area
Length
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Performance
Range
Cruise Speed
Stall Speed
Takeoff Distance
Landing Distance

3.1.3 DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter

The Twin Otter Canadas most successful commercial aircraft with over 800 built
was developed in early 1964. The aircrafts first flight of the 100 Series was in
May of 1965. The -300 Series added an increased nose for more baggage storage as
well as more powerful engines allowing for a higher takeoff weight. This vehicle is
heavily used in Antarctica as well due to its rugged design, short takeoff and landing
capability, and proven performance in cold weather. The aircraft geometry, weight,
and performance data are shown in Table 3.3. [14]

20

Figure 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter Operating from Snow Runway [33]
Table 3.3: De Havilland Twin Otter-300 Summary [13]

DeHavilland Twin Otter

Parameter

Units

Value

ft
2
ft
ft

65
420
51.75

lbs
lbs

12,500
7,400

nm
kts
kts
ft
ft

700
182
58
1,500
1,940

Geometry
Wing Span
Wing Area
Length
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Performance
Range
Cruise Speed
Stall Speed
Takeoff Distance
Landing Distance

3.2 Uninhabited Air Vehicles

A list of UAVs was created to help show the current state of the market with
respect to the mission specification.

This list includes geometry, weight, and

performance data for over 200 UAVs. The data for this list was taken from a
combination of manufacturers websites as well as a list of UAV resources (See
References 3, 12, and 13).

21

The UAVs were organized in terms of range and payload capacity in Figure 3.4.
Several crewed platforms that are currently used in Cryospheric research are also
shown in Figure 3.4.
The original mission specification for this aircraft design was vague in terms of the
range requirement. The mission concepts varied from small, portable aircraft for
operation from field camps to large, long range vehicles capable of operating from
remote bases. For this wide variety of possible mission, a three tiered approach was
used to help classify aircraft concepts [5]. These were referred to as Tier a, Tier B,
and Tier C and are described as:

Tier A
Small, short-range (<1,000 km) vehicle capable of carrying either the
scanning LIDAR topographic mapper OR the radar depth sounder (~50
kg).
Tier B
Medium range (~5,000 km) vehicle capable of carrying the scanning lidar
topographic mapper AND the radar depth sounder (~100 kg).
Tier C
Long range (>10,000 km) vehicle capable of flying from off-continent any
time of the year and capable of carrying the scanning lidar topographic
mapper, the radar depth sounder, as well as other small payloads such as
cameras or gravimeters (~150 kg).

There are several aircraft in that meet the Tier A requirements in terms of range and
payload weight, but these aircraft do not meet the payload volume requirements.
There are no aircraft that lie directly in the Tier B or Tier C design spaces. This is
due to the fact that the requirements for these aircraft are skewed towards high range
capability with low payload capacity.

22

100000

Tier C

Tier B

10000

10

13
12

4
1
2

Max Range (km)

11

Tier A

1000

Crewed Aircraft
100

10

9
1

0
0

10

100

Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Manufacturer
AAI
Meteor
Aurora
General Atomics
AAI
General Atomics
Aerospatiale
Northrop Grumman
Kawada
Aurora
DeHavilland
Lockheed
Lockheed

1000

Max Payload Weight (kg)

Figure 3.4: Current Commercially Available UAVs [3, 12, 13]

23

10000

Designation
E-Hunter
Mirach 26
Perseus B
Predator
Heron
Gnat 750
Sarohale
Global Hawk
Robocopter
Theseus
Twin Otter
P-3 Orion
C130
100000

3.2.1 Similar Uninhabited Air Vehicles

While the number of UAVs is growing, it is relatively small considering the wide
range of performance characteristics as shown in Figure 3.4. Essentially, this means
that the number of aircraft with similar performance requirements is fairly small. So
the similar aircraft must be selected using a slightly wide set of requirements. For
this design, high performance, long range, reconnaissance and tactical uninhabited
aircraft will be considered. These aircraft are shown in Table 3.4. This list of aircraft
was selected as they represent both high performance vehicles in the Predator and Ehunter as well as tactical, rugged vehicles such as the Shadow 200 and Geneva
Aerospace Dakota.
Table 3.4: Summary of Similar Aircraft [3, 12, 13]
Country
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Country
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Company

Designation

General Atomics
Predator B
General Atomics
Predator
Northrop Grumman
E-Hunter
General Atomics
I-Gnat
AAI
Shadow 600
AAI
Shadow 200
Geneva Aerospace
Dakota
Company

Designation

General Atomics
Predator B
General Atomics
Predator
Northrop Grumman
E-Hunter
General Atomics
I-Gnat
AAI
Shadow 600
AAI
Shadow 200
Geneva Aerospace
Dakota

WE
lb
2,800
1,200
1,430
850
327
200
160

WTO
lb
6,500
2,350
2,100
1,650
585
316
240

Wpay
lb
3,800
450
220
650
85
50
80

bw
ft
66.0
48.7
54.5
42.2
22.4
12.8
15.6

Length
ft
36.0
27.0
24.5
20.8
15.6
11.2
9.5

End.
hr
30
40
30
48
14
8
4.5

Range
nm
OTH*
7,400
OTH*
1,500
575

Ceiling
ft
25,000
25,000
25,000
30,000
17,000
15,000
20,000

Speed
kts
220
220
120
160
108
115
100

WE
kg
1,270
544
649
385
148
91
73

WTO
kg
2,948
1,066
952
748
265
143
109

Wpay
kg
1,723
204
100
295
39
23
36

bw
m
20.1
14.8
16.6
12.9
6.8
3.9
4.8

Length
m
11.0
8.2
7.5
6.3
4.8
3.4
2.9

End.
hr
30
40
30
48
14
8
4.5

Range Ceiling Speed

km
m
km/hr
OTH*
7622.0
371
13,705
7,622
371
OTH*
7,622
203
2,778
9,146
270
5,183
182
4,573
194
1,065
6,098
169
* OTH - Over The Horizon

General Atomics Predator B

The General Atomics Predator B (Figure 3.5) was developed in 2000 as a high
altitude, long endurance (HALE) uninhabited air vehicle for multiple missions and a

24

variety of customers. The Predator B utilizes an internal payload bay as well as

external payload mounting options [4].

Figure 3.5: General Atomics Predator B [4]

General Atomics Predator

The General Atomics Predator (Figure 3.6) was developed as an evolution of the
Gnat system.

The predator has been configured for air-to-air and air-to-ground

weapons and has logged over 65,000 flight hours.

The Predator went into full

production in 1997 and is currently in production for the United States and Italian Air
Force [4].

Figure 3.6: General Atomic Predator [4]

25

Northrop Grumman E-Hunter

The Northrop Grumman E-Hunter (Figure 3.7) is a medium altitude, medium
endurance, tactical uninhabited air vehicle designed for reconnaissance and
surveillance. The E-Hunter is based on the Northrop Grumman Hunter UAV [2]. It
combines the fuselage of the original Hunter UAV with a new tail and longer wing.

Figure 3.7: Northrop Grumman E-Hunter [2]

General Atomics I-Gnat

The I-Gnat (Figure 3.8) is an improved version of the Gnat 750 [4], which was
designed in 1988 and first flight tested in 1989. The I-Gnat was first introduced in
1999 and incorporated improved wing hardpoints, a new Synthetic Aperture Radar,
glycol based de-icing, and a turbocharged heavy fuel engine.

The I-Gnat is

designated as an all-altitude, multi-mission, long-endurance aircraft. [13]

Figure 3.8 General Atomics I-Gnat [4]

26

AAI Shadow 200

The Shadow 200 (Figure 3.9) is a small, tactical UAV designed for surveillance
and target acquisition. The vehicle is constructed of 90 percent composites and
utilizes a detachable tricycle landing gear as well as options for catapult or rocket
assisted takeoff (RATO). It is recovered using conventional wheeled landing or via a
parachute. [13]

Figure 3.9: AAI Shadow 200 [21]

AAI Shadow 600

The Shadow 600 (Figure 3.10) is a larger, more capable version of the Shadow 200.
This aircraft utilizes a pusher engine installation with a twin boom tail configuration.
Over 95 percent of the aircraft is manufactured with composite materials. Like the
Shadow 200, this aircraft can operate from conventional tricycle landing gear as well
as a pneumatic catapult and rocket assisted takeoff. [13]

27

Figure 3.10: AAI Shadow 600 [21]

Geneva Aerospace Dakota

The Dakota UAV (Figure 3.11) is a small, low-cost, tactical UAV designed to carry
a variety of payload packages. This aircraft has been used for surveillance as well as
testing and research oriented missions. The Dakota utilizes conventional tricycle
landing gear for takeoff and landing and is manufactured from a combination of
composite materials and aluminum. [22]

Figure 3.11: Geneva Aerospace Dakota UAV [22]

28

3.3 Optionally Piloted Vehicle Concepts

Several crewed aircraft were investigated for use in the CReSIS missions. This
was done for several reasons. First, an optionally piloted vehicle would mitigate the
risk of system development due to the fact that the aircraft could be operated by a
pilot that can turn the autopilot system on and off. This helps to circumvent several
of the regulatory barriers surrounding UAV testing in the United States airspace.
Another reason is that crewed aircraft are more readily accessible in terms of
acquisition cost than UAVs. Purchasing a crewed aircraft and converting it for
autonomous operation could be more cost-effective than purchasing a full UAV
system that has more capabilities than what is needed for this mission.

These

advantages are being explored by Diamond Aircraft [23].

Table 3.5 shows the piloted vehicles chosen for comparison. These vehicles were
chosen as they are representative of a wide variety of aircraft: small, single and twin
piston engine aircraft; medium sized turboprop aircraft; as well as much larger
aircraft. In addition to this, several of these aircraft have been operated in the
extreme conditions of the arctic regions as discussed in Section 3.1 of this report.

29

Table 3.5: Optionally Piloted Vehicle Performance Summary [14]

Company

Designation

Empty
Weight

~
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond

~
C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star

kg
34,504
27,916
3,677
736
1,725
4,331
1,260

~
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond

~
C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star

lbs
76,000
61,490
8,100
1,621
3,800
9,540
2,780

Gross
Weight

Payload

Range

Cruise Speed

Takeoff
Dist.

kg
20,400
9,075
1,990
544
907
4,375
440

km
8,334
5,000
1,400
1,500
2,000
2,900
2,360

km/hr
602
611
241
259
333
533
250

m
1,433
1,673
457
461
626
994
350

nm
4,500
2,700
780
820
1,100
1,589
1,275

kts
325
330
130
140
180
288
135

ft
4,700
5,490
1,500
1,514
2,053
3,260
1,150

SI Units
kg
70,370
63,451
5,675
1,158
3,973
7,772
1,700

English Units
lbs
155,000
139,760
12,500
2,550
8,750
17,120
3,750

lbs
44,974
20,007
4,387
1,200
2,000
9,645
970

Table 3.5 shows that all of the aircrafts investigated have much higher payload
capacity than is needed for this mission. This excess weight can be converted into
extra fuel by installing additional fuel tanks in these aircraft. The possible increases
in aircraft range were investigated, the results of which are shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Additional Range Estimates for Crewed Aircraft
Company

Designation

Stock
Range

km

Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond

C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star

8,334
5,000
1,400
1,500
2,000
2,900
2,360

nm

Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
DeHavilland
Cessna
Cessna
Beech
Diamond

C130
P-3 Orion
Twin Otter
182
208 (Caravan)
1900D
Twin Star

4,500
2,700
756
810
1,080
1,566
1,274

Estimated Fuel
Consumption

Additional Fuel
Capacity

SI Units
kg/hr
3,900
1,814
262
52
136
249
18

English Units
lbs/hr
8,580
3,991
577
115
299
549
40

Range Adjusted for

Extra Fuel

Total Fuel
Used**

kg

km

Liters

10,173
4,510
968
245
426
2,160
193

8,856
5,498
2,138
2,820
2,626
4,632
4,499

71,504
33,258
4,806
956
2,494
4,573
330

lbs

nm

gallons

22,380
9,922
2,129
757*
937
4,752
424

4,782
18,877
2,969
8,780
1,155
1,269
1,523
252
1,418
658
2,501
1,207
2,429
87
* Extra fuel may be limited by available volume.
** Fuel volume required to complete 3 Fine Scale Surveys.
- Currently used in polar research

30

The fuel consumption numbers were taken from manufacturer specifications. The
additional range was simply determined by multiplying the estimated fuel
consumption by the estimated additional fuel capacity. The additional fuel capacity
was estimated as half of the vehicle payload capacity less the 55 kg (121 lb) science
payload requirement. The fuel densities were assumed to be 6.0 lbs/gal for aviation
gasoline and 6.8 lbs/gal for Jet-A.
The numbers for the Diamond Twin Star shown in Table 3.6 were verified against
an experimental flight test performed by Diamond Aircraft [24]. This test showed the
vehicle range was increased from 1,275 nm to 1,900 nm after installing an additional
26 gallon ferry fuel tank to the existing 78 gallon fuel tank. Only 72 gallons was used
for the flight. The company estimates that the vehicle with the ferry tanks could
achieve a 2,500 nm range, which is very close to the estimate shown in Table 3.6.
The value of total fuel used represents the amount of fuel that would be used to
complete 3 Fine Scale surveys. The highlighted aircraft in Table 3.6 represent the
aircraft that are currently used for polar research. The column indicating the amount
of fuel required to complete 3 Fine Scale missions is representative of the possible
savings in operational costs that can be achieved by transitioning to a smaller, more
efficient platform.
From an operational cost standpoint, the Diamond Twin Star is an ideal candidate
for this mission. It is a high performance aircraft that fits nearly all of the proposed
requirements. However, integrating the antenna array into the Twin Star would be
extremely difficult.

Also, this aircraft is much larger than a UAV of similar

31

performance. These facts do not eliminate the Twin Star as a viable candidate for this
mission. They do, however, support the argument that a new aircraft design should
be performed to see if a better solution can be achieved.

4 Preliminary UAV Designs

Several commercially available aircraft have been considered for this mission
including uninhabited and optionally piloted vehicles. There are several vehicles that
meet the performance requirements, but very few that are compatible with the
antenna integration requirements without major modifications. This is one of the
primary reasons for the investigation of a new aircraft design.
The following aircraft configurations were considered for this design:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Conventional Tail-Aft
Twin Fuselage
Canard
Three-Surface
Joined Wing
Tandem Wing
Flying Wing

The preliminary aircraft design concepts and trade studies performed prior to this
design helped in the selection of the candidate configurations [5]. The canard and
three-surface configurations were not chosen for direct investigation based
preliminary sizing studies that indicated that a single, fuselage mounted engine will
be used [25]. The use of a canard is incompatible with a fuselage-mounted, tractor
engine. However, the implementation of a canard will be considered if the engine is
mounted in a pusher configuration.

The tandem wing design is fundamentally

incompatible with the antenna integration requirement [25].

32

The flying wing

configuration was eliminated based on poor cross-wing capability [25].

The

conventional and joined wing (biplane) configurations were selected as the options
for further study.
In the payload requirements definition, two antenna mounting options were
developed. One assuming flush-mounted antennas and one assuming the antennas
would hang below the wing. Typically, in preliminary aircraft design it is desirable to
perform independent design studies of different configurations. These preliminary
designs can then be evaluated to determine the best configuration that will be
optimized in the detail design process.

Therefore, three independent Class I

preliminary aircraft design studies will be performed, each with a different antenna
mounting solution.
Aircraft Configurations:
1. Red Design:
2. White Design:
3. Blue Design:

Conventional Monoplane w/ Flush-Mounted Antennas

Conventional Monoplane w/ Hanging Antennas
Biplane with Antennas Mounted in Lower Wing

The purpose of the remainder of this section is to describe the Class I preliminary
design of these four configurations. This will include:

Preliminary Aircraft Sizing

Fuselage Layout
Propulsion Selection
Wing Planform and Lateral Controls Design
High-Lift Device Sizing
Empennage Sizing
Landing Gear Selection and Sizing
Class I Weight and Balance
Class I Stability and Control Analysis
Class I Aerodynamic Analysis

33

4.1 Red Design

The Red Design will be a conventional tail aft aircraft with the following
requirement imposed:
The antennae will utilize a special material backing such that the antennas
can be mounted flush with the wing skin and the electrical interference properties of
the wing do not need to be limited.

4.1.1 Preliminary Aircraft Sizing

The preliminary design of the CReSIS UAV was performed using the process
describe in Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes by Roskam [6].
The purpose of this section is to determine an estimation of the aircraft takeoff,
empty, and fuel weights.

Takeoff Weight Regression

A takeoff weight regression plot was created using the aircraft listed in Table 3.4 as
shown in Figure 4.1. This is used to generate a relationship between takeoff and
empty weights of current aircraft. The result of the preliminary sizing of the Red
Design is also shown in Figure 4.1.

34

10,000

Predator B

Red Design
Point

E-Hunter

Shadow 600

1,000
Empty Weight, lbs

Shadow 200
Predator
Dakota
I-Gnat

100

log10(W TO) = A + B*log10(W E)

A = -0.0183
B = 1.0930
10
100

1,000

10,000

Takeoff Weight, lbs

Figure 4.1: Takeoff Weight Regression Plot for Similar Aircraft

Mission Fuel Fractions

Fuel fractions were determined for each segment of the design mission profile as
specified in Section 2.8 on page 16. A fuel fraction is defined as the ratio of end
weight to initial weight for a given segment. For simplicity, the cruise out, data
acquisition, and cruise return segments of the mission profile were converted to one
cruise segment. This implies the cruise speed is the same for the ingress, egress, and
data acquisition segments.
The fuel fractions for the warm-up, taxi, takeoff, descent, and land/taxi segments
were estimated using historical data. The warm-up fuel fraction was modified to
account for the cold weather operations by doubling the warm-up time. This was
implemented via Equation 5.1.

35

M ff warm up = M 2ffTyp warmup

(5.1)

The fuel fractions for the climb and cruise segments were calculated using the
Breguet endurance and range equations respectively [6].
The following assumptions were used for the climb segment:

Climb Height:

5,000 ft

Rate of Climb:

500 ft/min

L/D:

11.5 (Based on class I drag polar)

Specific Fuel Consumption:

0.56 lbs/hp-hr

(Based on manufacturers data for the Rotax 912-A [26])

Propulsive Efficiency:

0.75 (Conservative Assumption)

Speed:

80 kts (For Best ROC)

The following assumptions were used for the cruise segment:

Range:

950 nm (1,750 km)

Speed:

120 kts

Propulsive Efficiency:

0.75 (Conservative Assumption)

Specific Fuel Consumption:

0.47 lbs/hp-hr

(Based on manufacturers data for the Rotax 912-A [26])

L/D:

10.5 (Based on class I drag polar)

The mission fuel fractions determined as well as the total mission fuel fraction are
shown in Table 4.1.

36

Table 4.1: Mission Fuel Fractions for Red Design

Mission Segment

Fuel Fraction

Warm-Up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb
Cruise
Descent
Land/Taxi
Total Mission

0.980
0.996
0.996
0.996
0.841
0.992
0.992
0.801

Takeoff Weight Estimation

The takeoff weight was then estimated using the method described in [6]. The
following parameters were used in the takeoff weight estimation:

Payload Weight:

120 lbs (55 kg)

Trapped Fuel and Oil:

0.5% of WTO (Assumed)

Fuel Reserves:

22.5% of WTO

(Based on mission specification for 3 hr fuel reserves)

The following weights were determined for the Red design:

WTO = 760 lbs

WE = 450 lbs

WF, Mission = 150 lbs

WF, Reserve = 34 lbs

The preliminary sizing data shown here are the results of several iterations. This
preliminary sizing process produces an estimation of the takeoff weight based on the
mission specification and several assumptions including aerodynamic efficiency,
engine performance, and selection of similar platforms.

37

The aerodynamic and

propulsion performances can and have been verified using class I methods. However,
the ratio of takeoff to empty weight is driven by the selection of similar aircraft.
Therefore, several iterations were performed using different combinations of aircraft
in the regression plot to determine how this would affect the WTO estimation. The
final iteration was selected as the most reasonable based on the designers judgment.

4.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity of takeoff weight to the parameters cp, L/D, p, payload weight, and
empty weight were calculated using methods described in [6]. These values are
shown in Table 4.2 for the cruise and climb segments.
Table 4.2: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the Red Design
Sensitivity

Units

Cruise

Climb

W to/W pl
W to/W e

4.8

4.8

1.9

1.9

Fuel Consumption

W to/cp

hp-hr

1,100

31

Range

W to/R

lb/nm

0.7

W to/(L/D)
W to/(p)

lb

-50

-1.5

lb

-828

-19.2

Payload
Empty Weight

Lift-to-Drag
Propeller Efficiency

4.1.3 Performance Matching

The purpose of the performance matching is to select the appropriate wing loading
(W/S), power loading (W/P), and maximum lift Coefficient, CL,max based on the
performance requirements specified in Section 2.8. The performance requirements
imposed on the performance matching are:

Stall Speed: 58 kts

Takeoff Distance: 1,500 ft

38

Landing Distance: 1,500 ft

Max Cruise Speed: 140 kts @ 100% Power

Climb Requirements: 1,600 ft/min

The performance matching plot shown in Figure 4.2 was generated using the above
requirements. The wing loading, power loading, and maximum lift coefficient chosen
are:

(W/S)TO = 15.5 lb/ft2

(W/P)TO = 11.0 lb/hp

C Lmax = 1.6
L

C LmaxTO = 1.2

Design Point
(W/S) = 15.5 psf
(W/P) = 11.0 lb/hp

C LMaxTO = 1.2

C LMax = 1.6
L

Figure 4.2: Performance Matching Plot for Red Design

39

The wing loading, power loading, and maximum lift coefficients were chosen as
the result of several iterations trading airfoil selection, flap sizing, and performance
requirements.

4.1.4 Configuration Selection

The purpose of this section is to describe the configuration design in terms of
fuselage layout, selection of the propulsion system, wing layout, empennage layout,
and landing gear disposition.

Fuselage Layout
The purpose of this section is to describe the design of the fuselage layout for the
Red Design. The following items will be installed in the fuselage:

Rotax 912-A Engine

Science Payload (20 x 20 x 8)

Avionics (Approximately 6 x 6 x 6)

Data Acquisition/Health Management (Approximately 15 x 8 x 8)

Nose Gear

Main Gear

Fuel Tank and Sytems

GPS Antenna (Assumed 3 x 3 x 3)

Communications Antenna (Assumed 12 x 6 x 6)

The fuselage layout can be seen in Figure 4.3. The engine and science payload
widths are fairly similar and therefore drove the fuselage width. The engine height
however is larger than the science payload height. The height of the fuselage is

40

therefore driven by the engine size. This results in a moderate amount of unused
space in the fuselage. The fuselage height could be contracted immediately after the
firewall to save wetted area however, the change in wetted area would be relatively
small. The excess available volume will serve as a buffer in case of increases in the
required payload, fuel, or landing gear volume.

Figure 4.3: Preliminary Fuselage Layout for Red Design

Propulsion System Selection and Disposition

The aircraft will be powered by an existing piston/propeller. The purpose of this
section is to describe the selection of the propulsion system.
Number of Engines
Originally, a requirement for two engines was derived from the mission
specification for redundancy purposes [5]. This requirement was created when the

41

aircraft range was expected to be >10,000 km. Now that the range requirement has
decreased, the aircraft will be operating much closer to base. This greatly increases
the probability of being able to retrieve the aircraft in the case of a crash. Also, the
amount of data that would be lost in the event of a crash would be much less than
previously thought.
The sensitivity analysis shown in Section 4.1.2 on page 38 of this report indicated
that the engine specific fuel consumption is one of the most critical parameters for
this design. Table 4.3 shows that the engines that could be used in a twin-engine
configuration (< 60 hp) have much higher s.f.c. values than the larger engines.
A single engine configuration was chosen for the purposes of simplifying the
aircraft systems and maximizing efficiency in terms of fuel consumption.
Table 4.3: List of Viable Engines [13]
Manufacturer
~

Country
~

Model
~

Cooling
~

Power
hp

SFC
lbs/hr-hp

Weight
lbs

P/W
hp/lb

135
160
100
227
70

0.36
0.40
0.53
0.32
0.36

295
327
205
423
121

0.46
0.49
0.49
0.54
0.58

50
95
50
68
86
42
65
81
100
115

0.50
0.52
0.70
0.54
0.62
0.70
0.59
0.47
0.47
0.47

43
112
35
163
181
59
64
122
125
141

1.16
0.85
1.41
0.42
0.48
0.71
1.02
0.66
0.80
0.82

165

0.70

188

0.88

Diesel Engines
Centurion
DeltaHawk
DieselAir
SMA
Zoche Aerodiesels

Germany
US
UK
France
Germany

1.7
DH160V4
DAIR-100
SR 305
ZO03A

Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Air
Air

Avgas Engines
UAV Ltd
UAV Ltd
Limbach
Limbach
Limbach
Rotax
Rotax
Rotax
Rotax
Rotax

UK
UK
Germany
Germany
Germany
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria

AR801
AR682
L550 E
L2000 EO/EC
L2400 EB
447-UL
582-UL
912-A
912-ULS
914-UL

Innodyn

US

165TE

Liquid
Liquid
Air
Air
Air
Fan
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid

Turboprop Engines
Air

42

Engine Selection
The selection of the engine depends on several factors:

Power
Weight
Power-to-Weight Ratio
Specific Fuel Consumption
Cold Weather Operations
Cost

The most important of these factors for this design are fuel consumption, power,
and cold weather operations. The engine power-to-weight ratio is important, but the
sensitivity analysis showed that an increase in specific fuel consumption would have
a bigger effect on the overall design than an increase in empty weight. Therefore, the
engine with the lowest s.f.c. that meets the power requirement is the primary engine
choice disregarding cold-weather operations.
Figure 4.4 through Figure 4.6 show the power, weight, and power-to-weight ratios
respectively for the selected engines, plotted against specific fuel consumption. As
can be seen from the three plots, the Zoche ZO03A and Rotax 912-A are the most
appealing engines for the Red Design in terms of power-to-weight ratio and s.f.c.
However, the Zoche ZO03A engine has not been manufactured or tested. Using this
engine as the primary choice for the CReSIS UAV would be extremely risky.
Therefore, the Rotax 912-A was chosen as the primary engine choice.

43

250

SMA SR 305
Innodyn 165TE

200
DeltaHawk DH160V4

Centurion 1.7

Power, hp

150

DieselAir DAIR-100
Rotax 914-UL

100
Rotax 912-S
Rotax 912-A

Zoche ZO03A

50
Diesel Engines
Avgas Engines
Turboprops
0
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Specific Fuel Consumption, lbs/hr/hp

Figure 4.4: Engine Power

44

0.60

0.70

0.80

450

400

SMA SR 305

350

DeltaHawk DH160V4
Centurion 1.7

300
Innodyn 165TE
Weight,lbs

DieselAir DAIR-100
250
Rotax 914-UL
200
Rotax 912-S
Rotax 912-A

150

Zoche ZO03A
100

50

Diesel Engines
Avgas Engines
Turboprops

0
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Specific Fuel Consumption, lbs/hr/hp

Figure 4.5: Engine Weight

45

0.60

0.70

0.80

1.60

1.40
Innodyn 165TE
1.20

Power-to-Weight, hp/lbs

Rotax 914-UL
1.00

Rotax 912-S

0.80
Rotax 912-A
0.60
Zoche ZO03A
SMA SR 305
0.40
Centurion 1.7
0.20

0.00
0.00

Diesel Engines
Avgas Engines
Turboprops
0.10

DieselAir DAIR-100

DeltaHawk DH160V4

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Specific Fuel Consumption, lbs/hr/hp

Figure 4.6: Engine Power-to-Weight Ratio

46

0.60

0.70

0.80

Propeller Diameter
The propeller diameter was then determined using Equation 5.1.
DP =

4 PMax
n p Pbl
Where:

(5.2)

Dp = Propeller Diameter
nP = Number of Blades
Pmax = Maximum Power
Pbl = Blade Power Loading

The blade power loading was selected based on an average number for single
engine aircraft. The power loading selected is 3 hp/ft2, which resulted in a propeller
diameter of 50 inches. This diameter is comparable to a typical propeller diameter for
a Rotax 912 engine, so it is reasonable.
Engine Disposition
The decision between a tractor or puller engine installation depends on several
factors including:

Forward-looking visibility for cameras

Empennage layout
The empennage for a pusher may require use of tail boom extensions
from the wing.
Stability considerations
Pusher engines are stabilizing.
Buffeting
A pusher propeller will be closer to the horizontal tail, causing more
possibilities for buffeting.
Center of Gravity
Systems layout

Many currently available UAVs utilize a pusher engine configuration due to

forward looking visibility for an infrared camera. There are no forward looking

47

infrared (FLIR) requirements for this aircraft. The engine will therefore be mounted
in a tractor configuration.
A typical ratio of the engine weight to gross takeoff weight for single engine,
general aviation aircraft is 0.15-0.20. While this aircraft is not in the general aviation
class, this weight ratio can still be used as a general guideline. The engine-to-takeoff
weight ratio for the current Red Design with the Rotax 912-A is 0.16, which is
acceptable.

Wing Layout and Lateral Controls

The purpose of this section is to describe the design of the wing planform for the
Red Design. This includes the wing layout, high-lift device sizing, as well as a
preliminary sizing of the lateral controls.
Wing Planform
The wing planform geometry is shown in Figure 4.7. The root chord was sized
such that there is a 15% chord margin in front of and behind the antennas. The span
and taper were then traded in an attempt to achieve the highest aspect ratio possible,
while meeting the wing area requirement.
For high aerodynamic efficiency, the wingspan should be maximized while
minimizing the wetted area. In the case of this design increasing the wingspan is not
possible without also increasing the wing area thereby increasing the wetted area.
This is due to the fact that the antennas are driving the size of the wing chord.

48

Figure 4.7: Red Design Wing Planform

The wing planform geometry is summarized in Table 4.4.

49

Table 4.4: Wing Planform Summary for Red Design

Parameter

Value

Units

XLE, w

85.4

in

Zc/4, w

37.6

in

Area
AR
Taper Ratio
c/4
Mean Chord
Span
W

49
4.8
0.57
3.9
3.27
15.33
5

ft
~
~
deg
ft
ft
deg

-2

deg

i,f

13

% b/2

o,f
cf/cw

64

% b/2

0.13

i,a

64

% b/2

o,a
cf/cw

100
0.13

% b/2
~

Wing Disposition
The wing will be a cantilever wing and will attach to the fuselage in a low wing
configuration. These decisions are both driven by the antenna requirements. The low
wing was selected so that the antennas would not be obstructed by the fuselage in any
way.
Airfoil Selection
The Clark Y [8] airfoil will be used for the wing. This airfoil was chosen primarily
for its flat bottom design as this will help with antenna integration. This airfoil has a
moderately high lift coefficient, as well as a moderate pitching moment coefficient.
The lift-curve-slope of the Clark Y airfoil is shown in Figure 4.8.

50

cl = 4.3 rad 1
clMax = 1.55

stall = 18o
cm = 0.06

Figure 4.8: Lift-Curve-Slop for Clark Y Airfoil [8]

High-Lift Device Sizing
The flap sizing was performed for each of the wing layouts using Advanced
Aircraft Analysis. The required change in lift coefficient is 0.5, which is attainable
with plain flaps. Plain flaps also help to minimize the use of complicated moving
parts, which affects cost as well as cold weather operations.

51

The first step in the flap sizing is to determine the maximum lift coefficient of the
wing. This is done by determining the lift-curve-slope of the clean wing using
Equation 5.2 from [7].

(5.2)
Where:

fgap = f(AR,gap location, gap size)

= 1 M 2
k=

cl

This is then combined with the stall angle of attack of the wing to determine the
maximum clean lift coefficient for the wing. At this stage of the design it is safe to
assume that the wing lift coefficient relates to the aircraft lift coefficient as follows:
C LMaxW = 1.05C LMax

(5.3)

The maximum clean lift coefficient and the assumed lift coefficients for takeoff and
landing are:

C LMaxClean = 1.1

C LTO = 1.2

C LL = 1.6

52

The flap sizing has shown that the wing design is feasible with respect to flap
integration. Typical aileron dimensions for single engine, propeller driven aircraft
are:
Aileron chord ratio:
Aileron span ratio:

0.17 0.30
0.60 1.00

The flap sizing results are shown in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.7. The maximum
outboard span ratio for the flaps will be set as 0.64. This leaves the outer 36% of the
wing half-span for lateral controls. This should be sufficient and will be examined
further in the Class II stability and control analysis.
Fuel Volume

One of the major considerations with this design is the fuel placement. There are a
number of design options for places to store the fuel:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Store all fuel in wing

Store all fuel in fuselage
Store all fuel in tanks mounted at wing tip
Store fuel in fuselage in fuselage and wing
Store fuel in fuselage and tip tanks

The best option is to store all of the fuel in the wings due to root bending moment
relief as well as center of gravity considerations. Therefore, the available storage of
the wings was calculated first. This was done using Equation 5.4 from Ref [6] and
verified using CAD.

53

(5.4)
The fuel volume calculations resulted in the following:

Fuel Required:

184 lbs
29 gallons
3.90 ft3

Available Fuel Volume in Wing

215 lbs
34 gallons
4.56 ft3

The following assumptions were made for the fuel volume calculations:

Fuel is stored in wet wing.

All fuel stored between 25% chord and 75% chord of wing.
All fuel stored between 13% half-span and 85% half-span of wing.
Density of fuel = 6.0 lbs/gal
Fuel expansion = 4.0%

The assumption that the wing will be a wet wing, meaning the structure of the wing
is sealed to form the fuel tank instead of using separate bladders, is not necessarily
correct. There is a possibility that fuel bladders will be used. However, there is a
sufficient amount of excess volume available for fuel to account for using fuel
bladders.

54

Wing Dihedral Angle, Incidence Angle, and Twist

The wing dihedral angle was selected by examining similar single engine propeller
driven configurations. A dihedral angle of 5o was selected preliminarily. This value
will be iterated in the stability and control analysis.
A twist of -20 was selected due to the tapered wing design. This value was selected
as the result of a wing lift distribution analysis. The lift distribution of the wing with
2o of washout and an angle of attack of 18o is shown in Figure 4.9. The point of
maximum sectional lift coefficient is inboard of the ailerons, which is acceptable in
terms of tip stall.

Aileron Inboard Station

Figure 4.9: Wing Lift Distribution for the Red Design

The wing incidence angle was sized for the mid-cruise lift coefficient using
Equation 4.1. The wing incidence was set to iw = 2.5o .

55

iw =

2(WTO 0.4W fuel ) 180

Equation 4.1

U S (1.05C L ) 2
2
1

Empennage Layout
The purpose of this section is to discuss the selection of the empennage size,
location and disposition, as well as the size and disposition of the longitudinal and
directional control surfaces for the Red Design.
Empennage Configuration

The following empennage configurations were considered for the Red Design:

Fuselage Mounted Vertical and Horizontal Tails

Boom Mounted Tails
T-Tail or Cruciform Tail
Butterfly/V Tail

The goal for the design of the fuselage is to achieve the highest aerodynamic
efficiency possible. With this in mind the V tail design is very appealing due to the
decreased wetted area and decreased interference drag. The V tail also decreases the
number of actuators required for the longitudinal and directional control surfaces.
Historically, these advantages came at the cost of complicated control mixers, but this
is not necessary in the CReSIS UAV due to the full digital flight control system.
The volume coefficient method will be used for the V tail preliminary sizing. This
process uses Equation 5.5 to calculate a V tail area and moment arm based on current
aircraft shown in Table 4.5 from [7]. The V-tail planform area is defined in Figure
4.10 from [7].

56

Vvee =

S vee X acvee X cg

Equation 4.2

S w cw
Table 4.5: Volume Coefficient Values for Existing Aircraft [7]
Vvee

Aircraft
V-35 Bonanza

0.512

Global Hawk

0.581

Predator

0.78

YF-23

0.194

Fouga

0.596

HKS III

0.597

SHK

0.586

Std. Austria SH 1

0.352

SB 5B

0.338

PIK 16 Vasama

0.426

HP-8
Moneral
HP-18
fs 23 "Hidalgo"

0.779
0.34
0.486
0.279

The surface area of the V tail is defined in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10: Definition of V-Tail Planform Area [7]

57

The volume coefficient chosen for this design is Vvee = 0.6 based on the data in
Table 4.5. The empennage moment arm and V-tail area were then traded in an
attempt to minimize wetted area. This resulted in the empennage design is shown in
Figure 4.11. As a first estimate, the V-Tail dihedral angle was set at 45o, which
indicates that it is equally effective in the lateral and longitudinal modes. This will be
optimized in the stability and control analysis section.
The control surface known as a ruddervator, was sized based on typical values for
longitudinal control surfaces. The ruddervator will be a full-span control surface with
a chord ratio of 0.30. All of the geometry data for the V-Tail is shown in Table 4.6.

Figure 4.11: V-Tail Planform Drawing for the Red Design

58

Table 4.6: V-Tail Geometry Summary

Parameter

Value

Units

XLE, Vee

205

in

Zc/4, Vee

59.9

Svee

10.5

in
2
ft

ARVee

vee

0.5

c/4,vee
cvee

26.3

deg

1.68

ft

bvee

3.24

ft

vee

45

deg

i,e

% b/2

o,e
ce/cvee

100

% b/2

0.3

Landing Gear Disposition

The purpose of this section is to describe the preliminary sizing and disposition of
the landing gear. The following will be determined in this section:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Number, type, and size of tires and skis

Length and diameter of struts
Preliminary disposition
Retraction feasibility

The landing gear integration is one of the most crucial parts of any airplane design.
This seemingly simple step has been a show-stopper for many preliminary designs
and will therefore be handled with great care. The unique payload requirements of
this design are such that the landing gear integration will be difficult. This may lead
to unique or unconventional designs.
Landing Gear Type and Configuration

The first step in the landing gear design is to decide between retractable and fixed
landing gear. Retractable landing gear will be used for the following reasons:

59

For increased aerodynamic efficiency for high performance

requirements.

To provide an unobstructed view for the antennas.

There are three possibilities that will be considered for the landing gear
configuration:
1. Tailwheel
2. Conventional or Tricycle
3. Tandem with Outriggers
There are arguments that could support using any of the three types of landing gear.
Therefore, all three were heavily considered. Table 4.7 shows a comparison of the
three types of landing gear.
Table 4.7: Landing Gear Disposition Comparison
Landing Gear Type

Taildragger

Tricycle

Tandem w/ Outriggers

Pros

Cons

Good for rough field

conditions.

Propensity to ground loop.

Provides weight savings

over tricycle and tandem.

Complicates autopilot control

for takeoff and landing.

Good handling qualities on

the ground.

Nose gear integration is

difficult with antenna in
fuselage.

No ground looping
characteristics.
Good for integration with
complicated structure
(Antenna in center of
fuselage.)

Takeoff rotation is difficult if

not impossible.

Heavy.

The landing gear disposition choice was made primarily based on integration
issues. The antenna integration requirements are such that placing the landing gear
on the wing is not possible. Also, the antenna located in the fuselage causes problems

60

with integrating the landing gear into the fuselage (see Figure 4.13). This type of
requirement indicates that a tandem gear installation could be the best option.
However, a tandem landing gear does not necessarily agree well with the short field
requirements due to takeoff rotation limitations of tandem gear configurations. The
tandem gear configuration was then removed from consideration.
The tail-dragger configuration was considered due to the integration with the
center antennae. The tail dragger was not chosen however as retraction of the main
gear would intersect the wing spar and it would cause problems in the design of an
auto-land/auto-takeoff system due to the ground-looping problem associated with taildraggers. The tricycle gear design and retraction scheme is shown in Figure 4.13.
The main gear cannot be mounted in the wing due to the antennas, so it will be
mounted in the fuselage. The main gear retracts rearward utilizing a tilted pivot
retraction scheme.

The nose gear retracts straight back into the fuselage.

The

actuators are not shown in the retraction scheme.

The landing gear width was sized to satisfy lateral tip-over constraints as specified
in Roskam [6]. This is shown in Figure 4.12. The fuselage station of the main gear
was located to satisfy longitudinal tip-over. This can be seen in Figure 4.14.

61

Figure 4.12: Landing Gear Placement for Lateral Tip-Over Requirements

62

Note: See Figure 4.14 for detailed

dimensions.

Figure 4.13: Landing Gear Layout and Retraction Scheme for Red Design

63

The maximum static loads for each strut were calculated and tabulated in Table 4.8.
These values were used along with data from [6] to select reasonable tire sizes. These
are also shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Landing Gear Summary for the Red Design
Parameter

Units

Value

Nose Gear F.S.

Main Gear F.S
Ln
Lm

in
in
in

70.0
115.0
31.4

in

13.6

Pn

lbs

230.0

Pm

lbs

264.8

Pn/WTO
2Pm/WTO

0.30

0.70

Tire Diameter
Tire Width

in
in

9
3.4

The design mission calls for the ability to use skis or tires as this aircraft will
operate from a wide variety of surfaces. The ski design/selection will be performed
in Class II design.

4.1.5 Class I Weight and Balance

The purpose of this section is to describe the preliminary aircraft component weight
breakdown as well as the center of gravity calculations for the Red Design.

Initial Component Weight Breakdown

The aircraft components were broken down into the following list for the weight
fraction calculations.

64

1. Fuselage Group
2. Wing Group
3. Empennage Group
4. Engine Group
5. Landing Gear Group
6. Nacelle Group (Engine Cowling)
7. Fixed Equipment Group
8. Trapped Fuel and Oil
9. Fuel
10. Payload
The aircraft empty weight is the sum of items 1 through 7. The aircraft operating
empty weight is defined as the sum of items 1 through 8. The aircraft gross takeoff
weight is the sum of items 1 through 10. The Nacelle group refers to the engine
cowl weight.
The weight of each of these components was calculated using the weight fraction
method described in [6].

Essentially, this method calculates the ratio of the

component weights to the gross takeoff weight for various aircraft, then uses this to
estimate the weights of components for the current design. This reference data is
only available for crewed aircraft such as a Cessna 150 or 182, but it can still be used
to provide a good preliminary estimate for the structural weight breakdown. The
weight fractions for several single engine aircraft are shown in Table 4.9. This data
was taken from [6].
The weight fractions in Table 4.9 were averaged, then multiplied by the design
gross takeoff weight of 760 lbs. This resulted in the data shown in Table 4.10. When
the weights of the first column are added, they yield an empty weight of 471 lbs
instead of the calculated empty weight of 450 lbs due to rounding errors. Therefore,
the weight of each component was adjusted in proportion to their component weight.

65

Table 4.9: Group Weight Data for Single Engine Propeller Driven Aircraft [6]
Weight Item, lbs
Gross Takeoff Weight, GW
Empty Weight, lbs

C-150
1500
946

C-172
2200
1243

C-175
2350
1319

C-180
2650
1526

C-182
2650
1545

L-19A
2100
1527

Beech J-35
2900
1821

Structure/GW
Powerplant/GW
Fixed Equipment/GW
Empty Weight/GW

0.406
0.177
0.068
0.631

0.352
0.157
0.072
0.565

0.330
0.177
0.068
0.561

0.319
0.206
0.065
0.576

0.326
0.206
0.065
0.583

0.327
0.262
0.136
0.727

0.312
0.201
0.115
0.628

Wing Group/GW
Empennage Group/GW
Fuselage Group/GW
Nacelle Group/GW
Landing Gear Group/GW

0.144
0.024
0.154
0.015
0.069

0.103
0.026
0.160
0.012
0.050

0.097
0.024
0.149
0.013
0.047

0.089
0.023
0.152
0.012
0.042

0.089
0.023
0.151
0.013
0.050

0.113
0.030
0.103
0.016
0.064

0.131
0.020
0.069
0.021
0.071

Wing Group/S, psf

Empennage Group/Semp,psf
Ultimate Load Factor, g's

1.35
0.85
5.7

1.29
1.08
5.7

1.30
1.08
5.7

1.34
1.17
5.7

1.34
1.18
5.7

1.37
1.19
5.7

2.13
1.62
5.7

Wing Area, ft2

Horizontal Tail Area, ft2
Vertical Tail Area, ft2
Empennage Area, ft2

160
28.5
14.1
42.6

175
34.6
18.4
53

175
34.6
18.4
53

175
34.6
18.4
53

175
34.1
18.4
52.5

174
35.2
18.4
53.6

178
0
0
35.8

Table 4.10: Component Weight Breakdown for the Red Design

Wing
Empennage
Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear
Power Plant
Fixed Equipment
Empty Weight

Initial Estimate
lbs

Adjustment
lbs

Class I Weight
lbs

83
19
102
11
43
150
64
471

-4
-1
-5
0
-2
-7
-3
-21

79
18
97
11
41
143
61
450

Payload
Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil

122
184
4.4

Takeoff Gross Weight

760

The power plant weight shown in Table 4.10 is an estimate based on the weight
fraction method and does not reflect the actual weight of the engine. The actual
weight of the Rotax 912A is 122 lbs. The additional 28 pounds will be used as a

66

buffer for engine accessories. These details will be examined further in Class II
weight and balance.

Preliminary Aircraft Arrangement

The fuselage, wing, and empennage designs developed were combined to create a
preliminary arangement of the aircraft. This arrangement was then used to locate
each of the weight components listed in Table 4.10. This was then used to tabulate
the fuselage station, water line, and buttock line of the center of gravity of each
weight component. The centers of gravity for the fuselage, wing, engine cowl, and
empennage were then estimated using data from Roskam [6]. These values were used
to determine the center of gravity for the vehicle as shown in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Class I Weight and Balance for Red Design
Class I Weight
lbs

X_cg
in

Y_cg
in

Z_cg
in

Wing
Empennage

79
18

106.3
221.0

0.0
0.0

45.0
50.0

Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear - Extended
Landing Gear - Retracted

97
11
41
41

120.0
60.0
102.0
111.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

50.0
50.0
32.0
40.0

Power Plant

143

66.0

0.0

45.0

Fixed Equipment

61

110.0

0.0

45.0

Empty Weight - Gear Ext

450

100.0

0.0

45.2

Empty Weight - Gear Ret

450

100.8

0.0

45.9

Payload

121.2

100.0

0.0

50.0

Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil

184
4.4

101.0
101.0

0.0
0.0

50.0
50.0

TOTAL - Gear Extended

TOTAL - Gear Retracted

760
760

100.2
100.7

0.0
0.0

47.2
47.6

A c.g. excursion diagram was created as shown in Figure 4.15. There are two
feasible loading scenarios for this aircraft:

67

Load Payload then Add Fuel

Add Fuel then Load Payload

The total c.g. travel is the same for both scenarios, but the latter also shows the c.g.
range for the aircraft with no payload (+Fuel leg). This is important as some of the
initial flight tests will be performed without any payload.

Figure 4.14: Preliminary Arrangement of Red Design

68

Figure 4.14 shows the aircraft arrangement for a detailed arrangement as well as the
simplified layout. A detailed CAD model has been used to estimate the centers of
gravity for each component. This was then used to estimate the center of gravity for
each group listed in Table 4.11. The simplified model is used because the weight and
location of every component is not known at this stage of the design. For Class I
analysis using simplified weight groups provides the best weight and balance
estimate.
800
Retract Landing Gear
W TO
750
- Fuel

+ Payload
700

650
Weight, lbs

+ Fuel
600

- Payload

550

Extend Landing Gear

500

Trapped Fuel
and Oil
W OE

Wing mgc

450
WE
0.21

400
99

0.22

0.23

0.24

100

0.25

0.26

0.27

101

102

Fuselage Station, in

Figure 4.15: Center of Gravity Excursion for the Red Design

The c.g. excursion shows that the landing gear has a significant effect on the center
of gravity. The most aft c.g. is approximately 25% of the wing chord and the total
travel is 4% of the mgc as shown in Table 4.12. These are both acceptable numbers;
however, the c.g. travel could be less if not for the landing gear contribution.

69

Table 4.12: Weight and Balance Summary

Parameter
Most Forward c.g.
Most Aft c.g.
c.g. Range

Inches
100.0
101.6
1.6

% mgc
0.23
0.27
0.04

4.1.6 Class I Stability and Control

The purpose of this section is to describe the Class I stability and control analysis
performed.

This includes determining the static longitudinal stability and static

directional stability. Consideration was given to takeoff rotation and aircraft trim
capability, but these factors were not included in these calculations as they are part of
Class II design.
The first step in the stability analysis process is to decide whether the aircraft will
be designed for inherent or de-facto stability:

Inherent Stability Required of all aircraft that do NOT rely on a

stability augmentation system.

De-facto Stability Required of all aircraft that are stable ONLY with
a stability augmentation system.

The latter method provides improved aerodynamic efficiency due to decreased trim
drag in cruise. However, for this Class I design the aircraft will be designed for
inherent stability with a static margin of approximately 10 percent. This decision can
be iterated in Class II design if necessary.

Longitudinal Stability
The static longitudinal stability of the aircraft was verified using a longitudinal Xplot. This plot shows how the aircraft center of gravity and aerodynamic center vary

70

with v-tail size. This method was used to resize the v-tail as it is more precise than
the volume coefficient method.
The longitudinal X-plot for the Red Design is shown in Figure 4.16. The minimum
v-tail size is shown as 5.5 ft2. This is the v-tail size shown in Figure 4.14.
0.7

0.6

Location in Terms of m.g.c

0.5

0.4
X_c.g.
X_a.c.

SM = 10%
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

10

Vee Tail Area, ft

12

14

16

18

Figure 4.16: Longitudinal X-Plot for the Red Design

Directional Stability
The static directional stability of the aircraft was verified with a directional x-plot
as shown in Figure 4.17. A target value for the overall directional stability is:

C n = 0.001deg 1

71

0.005

Directional Stabiltiy, Cn , 1/deg

0.004

0.003

0.002
Minimum Area
for Directional
Stability
0.001

-0.001
0

10

Vee Tail Area, ft

Figure 4.17: Directional X-Plot for the Red Design

Figure 4.17 shows that the directional stability requirements would drive the tail to
be approximately 2.8 ft2. This means that the v-tail dihedral angle should be changed
using Equation 4.3 from [6], where Sv and Sh represent the minimum tail areas based
on the directional and longitudinal X-plots respectively.
Vee = Tan 1 (S v / S h )

Equation 4.3

This resulted in a V-tail dihedral angle of 27o. This is a fairly small dihedral angle
for a V-tail. Experience has shown that the vertical tail size is usually driven by
crosswind capability, not the directional X-Plot. Therefore, at this time the V-tail

72

dihedral angle will not be changed. This parameter will be investigated further in
Class II design.

4.1.7 Class I Drag Analysis

The purpose of this section is to describe the development of the Class I drag polars
for the Red Design. Drag polars were generated for the following flight conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Cruise (Clean)
Takeoff Gear Down
Takeoff Gear Up
Landing Gear Down
Landing Gear Up
OEI

The first step in the Class I drag polar estimation process is to determine the aircraft
wetted area. This was done using a 3-D solid model, and is therefore very accurate.
The wetted area for the Red Design is SWet = 200 ft2.
The drag polars for the Red Design are shown in Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.19. The
L/D ratio was estimated as 12.5 for the preliminary sizing (Section 4.1.1). Figure
4.19 shows that a mid-cruise L/D of 12.5 is achievable based on the Class I drag
analysis.

73

2
Clean
OEI
Takeoff Gear Up
Takeoff Gear Down
Landing Gear Up
Landing Gear Down

1.8

1.6

Drag Polars:
2
Clean: CD = 0.0158 + 0.0857CL
OEI:
CD0 = 0.006

Reference Data:
W TO = 760 lbs

1.4

Lift Coefficient

TOGU:
TOGD:
LGU:
LGD:

S = 49 ft
AR = 4.8
e = 0.80

1.2

CD0 = 0.010
CD0 = 0.025
CD0 = 0.020
CD0 = 0.040

0.8

0.6
VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel
Mid-Cruise Weight
0.4

0.2

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Drag Coefficient

Figure 4.18: Drag Polars for the Red Design

2
Clean
OEI
Takeoff Gear-Up
Takeoff Gear-Down
Landing Gear-Up
Landing Gear-Down

1.8

1.6

Reference Data:
W TO = 760 lbs

Lift Coefficient

1.4

S = 49 ft2
AR = 4.8
e = 0.80

1.2

0.8

0.6

VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel

Mid-Cruise Weight

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

11

12

L/D

Figure 4.19: Lift-to-Drag Ratio for the Red Design

74

13

14

15

4.1.8 Red Design Summary

The Red Design is a monoplane with flush-mounted antennas. This integration of
the antennas into the wing allowed for a moderate L/D for the Red Design. However,
the antennas drove the wing chord to be large with respect to the wing area
determined from the performance matching, hence the very low aspect ratio.
Aerodynamics depend on wing span and wetted area.

As the antennas have

constrained the wing chord, the only way to gain wingspan is to add wing area,
thereby decreasing the wing loading and increasing wetted area.
While the Red Design is feasible, it is suboptimal for several reasons:

The center antenna will interfere with ski retraction.

A higher L/D ratio could be achieved if the antennas are reduced in

size.

The feasibility of integrating the antennas into the wing is questionable

[30].

75

Red Design Summary

Salient Characteristics:
Monoplane design
Flush-mounted antennas
Low wing aspect ratio
driven by antennas
V-Tail
Tricycle Landing Gear

Figure 4.20: Final Three-View of the Red Design

76

Parameter

Value

Units

(W/S)TO

15.5

lb/ft

(W/P)TO

11.6

lb/hp

W TO

760

lbs

WE

450

lbs

W Fuel
W Fuel_Res

185

lbs

Wing AR

34
4.6

lbs
~

Wing Area
Preq

49
66

ft2
hp

4.2 White Design

The White Design will be a conventional tail aft aircraft with the following
requirement imposed:
The antennae will be mounted 0.50 meters beneath the bottom surface of the
wing, which will be made of some electrically reflective material such as aluminum or
carbon fiber.
For the white design, the antennas will be attached to the wing using pylons. This
is a method that has been successfully implemented on larger aircraft such as the
Lockheed P-3 Orion. This type of installation results in very large drag penalties as
will be shown. The L/D penalties of the pylons are unacceptably large (From 12.5
8.0), yielding this design infeasible. In addition, many of the design features of the

White Design are similar to the Red Design. Therefore, to save space only the
preliminary sizing, performance matching, and Class I drag analysis of the White
Design will be presented.

4.2.1 Preliminary Aircraft Sizing

The purpose of this section is to describe the preliminary sizing of the White
Design.

Takeoff Weight Regression

A takeoff weight regression plot was generated for the White Design as shown in
Figure 4.21. The aircraft defined in Section 3.2.1 were used to generate this plot.

77

10,000

Predator B
E-Hunter
White Design
Point
Shadow 600

1,000
Empty Weight, lbs

Shadow 200
Predator
Dakota
I-Gnat

100

log10(W TO) = A + B*log10(W E)

A = -0.0183
B = 1.0930
10
100

1,000

10,000

Takeoff Weight, lbs

Figure 4.21: Takeoff Weight Regression for the White Design

Mission Fuel Fractions

The sizing of the White Design was very similar to the sizing of the Red Design
except for the lift-to-drag ratios for the cruise and climb segments. Hanging the
antennas below the wing with pylons will produce a substantial increase in drag. This
is discussed in detail in Section 4.2.4 on page 81.
The inputs for the fuel fraction calculations are:

Climb Height:

5,000 ft

Rate of Climb:

500 ft/min

L/D:

9.5 (Based on class I drag polar)

Specific Fuel Consumption:

0.56 lbs/hp-hr

78

(Based on manufacturers data for the Rotax 914-A [26])

Propulsive Efficiency:

0.75 (Conservative Assumption)

Speed:

80 kts (Assumed)

The following assumptions were used for the cruise segment:

Range:

950 nm (1,750 km)

Speed:

120 kts

Propulsive Efficiency:

0.75 (Conservative Assumption)

Specific Fuel Consumption:

0.56 lbs/hp-hr

(Based on manufacturers data for the Rotax 914-A [26])

L/D:

8.0 (Based on class I drag polar)

The mission fuel fractions determined as well as the total mission fuel fraction are
shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.13: Mission Fuel Fractions for the White Design
Mission Segment

Fuel Fraction

Warm-Up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb
Cruise
Descent
Land/Taxi
Total Mission

0.980
0.996
0.996
0.996
0.763
0.992
0.992
0.727

Takeoff Weight Estimation

The takeoff weight of the White Design was estimated using the methods described
in [6]. The following parameters were used in the takeoff weight estimation:

Payload Weight:

120 lbs (55 kg)

79

Trapped Fuel and Oil:

0.5% of WTO (Assumed)

Fuel Reserves:

22.5% of WTO

(Based on mission specification for 3 hr fuel reserves)

The following weights were determined for the White design:

WTO = 1,270 lbs

WE = 720 lbs

WF, Mission = 425 lbs

WF, Reserve = 78 lbs

The preliminary sizing results shown here are the results of several iterations.

4.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity of takeoff weight to the parameters cp, L/D, p, payload weight, and
empty weight were calculated using methods described in [6]. These values are
shown in Table 4.14 for the cruise and climb segments.
Table 4.14: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the White Design
Sensitivity
Payload
Empty Weight
Fuel Consumption
Range
Lift-to-Drag
Propeller Efficiency

Units

Cruise

Climb

W to/W pl
W to/W e

6.97

6.97

1.9

1.9

W to/cp
W to/R

hp-hr

3,820

48

lb/nm

2.3

W to/(L/D)
W to/(p)

lb

-267

-3

lb

-2,850

-36

4.2.3 Performance Matching

The performance matching for the White Design was the same as for the Red
Design (See Section 4.1.3). The results of the performance matching are:

80

(W/S)TO = 15.5 lb/ft2

(W/P)TO = 11.0 lb/hp

C Lmax = 1.6
L

C LmaxTO = 1.2

4.2.4 Class I Drag Analysis

The purpose of this section is to describe the development of the Class I drag polars
for the White Design. The drag analysis was performed by estimating the drag of the
aircraft without the pylons.

Methods from [27] were then used to estimate the

incremental increase in zero-lift drag due to the pylons based on both skin friction
drag and interference drag.
Equation 4.4 from [27] was used to estimate the incremental increase in
interference drag of a wing-strut intersection. This drag coefficient is based on the
strut chord length.

Therefore, Equation 4.5 was used to transform this into an

incremental zero-lift drag based on the wing area of the White Design.

C DC =

( )

( )

D t 2
= 17
0.05 t
2
c
c

qc

Equation 4.4

Where:

t/c Thickness to chord ratio of the strut

CD = CDc

Equation 4.5

c2
S

Where:

c Chord of strut

81

Equation 4.6 from [27] was then used to estimate the skin friction drag of the struts.
This drag coefficient is based on the strut area. Equation 4.7 was used to convert this
to an incremental zero-lift drag coefficient based on the wing area of the White
Design.

( )

( )

3
C D0 Strut = c f 4 + 2 c + 120 t
t
c

C D0 = C D0 Strut

Equation 4.6

Equation 4.7

tc
S

The drag increase due to the pylons was calculated for various thickness ratios and
pylon chord lengths. For a 25 percent thick pylon with a 6 inch chord, the change in
zero-lift drag is C D0 = 0.013 . While, these parameters are not finalized, this is a
good estimate for the increase in drag due to the pylons.
The drag polars for the White Design are shown in Figure 4.22. The drag polar of
the aircraft without any struts is also displayed to show the effect of the pylons. The
increment in zero-lift drag due to flaps and landing gear were approximated using
estimates from [6]. This drag analysis is the result of several iterations.

82

2
Clean
OEI
Takeoff Gear Up
Takeoff Gear Down
Landing Gear Up
Landing Gear Down
No Pylons

1.8

1.6

Reference Data:
W TO = 1,270 lbs

1.4

Lift Coefficient

Drag Polars:
No Pylons: CD = 0.0172 + 0.0497CL2

S = 82 ft
AR = 8.0
e = 0.80

1.2

Pylons:
OEI:

CD0 = 0.013
CD0 = 0.003

TOGU:
TOGD:
LGU:
LGD:

CD0 = 0.010
CD0 = 0.025
CD0 = 0.020
CD0 = 0.040

0.8

0.6

0.4

VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel

0.2

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Drag Coefficient

Figure 4.22: Drag Polars for the White Design

2
Clean
OEI
Takeoff Gear-Up
Takeoff Gear-Down
Landing Gear-Up
Landing Gear-Down
No Pylons

1.8

1.6

Reference Data:
W TO = 1,270 lbs

1.4

Lift Coefficient

S = 82 ft
AR = 8.0
e = 0.80

1.2

0.8
VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel
Mid-Cruise Weight
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

L/D

Figure 4.23: Lift-to-Drag Ratios for the White Design

83

18

19

20

4.2.5 White Design Summary

The results of the Class I design of the White aircraft are shown in Figure 4.24.
The pylon mounted antennas created a decrease in the L/D of the aircraft from 12.75
to 8.0 despite the fact that a higher aspect ratio wing was used. This reduction in
aerodynamic efficiency resulted in a much higher takeoff weight than the other
designs (1,270 lbs). This larger weight resulted in a larger wing, which allowed for
more optimization of the wing planform. As with the other designs, the wing chord
near the root was driven by the antenna requirements. The additional wing area was
added by increasing the wingspan such that the aircraft aspect ratio is maximized.
The wing area of the white design is larger than 19 feet, therefore it would have to
be manufactured in two parts to fit in the shipping container.

84

White Design Summary

Salient Characteristics:
Monoplane design
Hanging antennas
Large span
Low L/D due to
antennas
V-Tail
Tricycle Landing Gear

Figure 4.24: Summary of the White Design

85

Parameter

Value

Units

(W/S)TO

15.5

lb/ft

(W/P)TO

11.6

lb/hp

W TO

1,270

lbs

WE

720

lbs

W Fuel
W Fuel_Res

425

lbs

Wing AR

78
8

lbs
~

Wing Area
Preq

82
110

ft
hp

4.3 Blue Design

The Blue Design will be a biplane aircraft with the following requirement imposed:
The antennae will be mounted in the dielectric lower wing 0.50 meters
beneath the bottom surface of the upper wing, which is made of some electrically
reflective material.

4.3.1 Similar Aircraft

The aircraft listed in Section 3.2.1 apply in addition to the biplane aircraft listed
here:

Aviat Pitts S-2C

Aviat Christen Eagle II

Beech Model 17 (Staggerwing)

The UAVs shown in Section 3.2.1 are similar to this aircraft in performance, which
is the primary metric when collecting a list of comparable aircraft. However, this
unique design requires that attention be paid to aircraft of similar configuration as
well. The goal in generating the list of similar aircraft was to collect information on
the most modern biplane designs. However, most current biplanes are simply replicas
of much older designs.

Aviat Pitts S-2C

The Pitts S-2C (Figure 4.25), which is currently manufactured by Aviat, was
developed from the Pitts S-2 aerobatic aircraft. The Pitts S-2 aircraft is a two-seat
version of the original Pitts S-1, which was first flown in 1944. The S-2C has

86

modified wingtips, empennage tips, ailerons, and lower fuselage as compared to the
S-2. [16]

Figure 4.25: Aviat Pitts S-2C [17]

Aviat Christen Eagle II

The Eagle II (Figure 4.26) is a homebuilt, aerobatic aircraft originally developed by
Frank Christensen in 1977. The Eagle II is a two seat aircraft based on the Pitts
Special.

The aircraft was designed for unlimited class aerobatic competition,

aerobatic training, and cross-country sport flying. It is one of the most successful kitplanes ever developed. [17]

87

Figure 4.26: Aviat Christen Eagle II [17]

Beech Model 17 (Staggerwing)

The Beech Model 17 (Figure 4.27), known as the Staggerwing due to the top wing
being staggered behind the lower wing, was first flown in 1932. The wings of the
Model 17 were staggered opposite of what is considered normal in biplane design.
Typically, the upper wing is set forward of the lower wing to limit the aerodynamic
interference between the wings. The Model 17 utilizes a negative stagger meaning
the upper wing is behind the lower wing. While this is considered to have negative
effects on aerodynamics, it has positive effects on stall characteristics.

88

Figure 4.27: Beech Model 17 (Staggerwing) [18]

4.3.2 Preliminary Aircraft Sizing

The preliminary design of the Blue design was performed using the process
describe in Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes by Roskam [6].
The purpose of this section is to determine an estimation of the aircraft takeoff,
empty, and fuel weights.

Takeoff Weight Regression

A takeoff weight regression plot was created using the aircraft listed in Table 3.4 as
shown in Figure 4.28. The biplane aircraft listed in Section 4.3.1 were not included
in the weight regression as they have very different missions than the current design.
The result of the preliminary sizing of Blue is also shown in Figure 4.28.

89

10,000

Predator B
E-Hunter
Blue Design
Point
Shadow 600

1,000
Empty Weight, lbs

Shadow 200
Predator
Dakota
I-Gnat

100

log10(W TO) = A + B*log10(W E)

A = -0.0183
B = 1.0930
10
100

1,000

10,000

Takeoff Weight, lbs

Figure 4.28: Takeoff Weight Regression Plot for Blue

Mission Fuel Fractions

Fuel fractions were determined for each segment of the design mission profile as
specified in Section 2.8 on page 16. A fuel fraction is defined as the ratio of end
weight to initial weight for a given segment.
The following assumptions were used for the climb segment:

Climb Height:

5,000 ft

Rate of Climb:

500 ft/min

L/D:

11.0 (Based on class I drag polar)

Specific Fuel Consumption:

0.56 lbs/hp-hr

(Based on manufacturers data for the Rotax 914-A [26])

90

Propulsive Efficiency:

0.75 (Conservative Assumption)

Speed:

80 kts (Assumed)

The following assumptions were used for the cruise segment:

Range:

950 nm (1,750 km)

Speed:

120 kts

Propulsive Efficiency:

0.75 (Conservative Assumption)

Specific Fuel Consumption:

0.56 lbs/hp-hr

(Based on manufacturers data for the Rotax 914-A [26])

L/D:

10.0 (Based on class I drag polar)

The mission fuel fractions determined as well as the total mission fuel fraction are
shown in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Mission Fuel Fractions for Blue Design
Mission Segment

Fuel Fraction

Warm-Up
Taxi
Takeoff
Climb
Cruise
Descent
Land/Taxi
Total Mission

0.980
0.996
0.996
0.997
0.804
0.992
0.992
0.767

Takeoff Weight Estimation

The takeoff weight was then estimated using the method described in Section [6].
The following parameters were used in the takeoff weight estimation:

Payload Weight:

120 lbs (55 kg)

Trapped Fuel and Oil:

0.5% of WTO (Assumed)

91

Fuel Reserves:

22.5% of WTO

(Based on mission specification for 3 hr fuel reserves)

The following weights were determined for the Red design:

WTO = 950 lbs

WE = 550 lbs

WF, Mission = 220 lbs

WF, Reserve = 50 lbs

The preliminary sizing results shown here are the results of several iterations.

4.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity of takeoff weight to the parameters cp, L/D, p, payload weight, and
empty weight were calculated using methods described in [6]. These values are
shown in Table 4.16for the cruise and climb segments.
Table 4.16: Takeoff Weight Sensitivity Summary for the Blue Design
Sensitivity
Payload
Empty Weight
Fuel Consumption
Range
Lift-to-Drag
Propeller Efficiency

Units

Cruise

Climb

W to/W pl
W to/W e

5.65

5.65

1.88

1.88

W to/cp
W to/R

hp-hr

1,950

29

lb/nm

1.2

W to/(L/D)
W to/(p)

lb

-110

-1.5

lb

-1470

-23

4.3.4 Performance Matching

The purpose of the performance matching is to select the appropriate wing loading
(W/S), power loading (W/P), and maximum lift Coefficient, CL,max based on the

92

performance requirements specified in Section 2.8. The requirements imposed on the

performance matching are:

Stall Speed: 58 kts

Takeoff Distance: 1,500 ft

Landing Distance: 1,500 ft

Max Cruise Speed: 140 kts @ 100% Power

Climb Requirements: 1,600 ft/min

The performance matching of the Blue Design was iterated several times
investigating the effect of flaps. The antenna requirements specify that the lower
wing contain no control surfaces. This would require the flaps to be only in the upper
wing. Using flaps on the upper wing of a biplane is generally a bad idea due to the
interference the flap has on the lower wing [29].
The use of a standard control surface on the lower wing is unacceptable however, a
split flap manufactured from fiberglass and Kevlar, and actuated from inside the
fuselage could possibly be used on the lower wing without interfering with the
antennas. The benefits of this were investigated by examining the performance
matching results for an aircraft with a low CLmax and a highCLmax as shown in Table
4.17.

93

Table 4.17: Summary of Flap Trade Study for the Blue Design
CL, max
(W/S)TO
S
W TO
WF

Units

No Flaps

With Flaps

1.1

1.6

psf
2
ft

10.8

15.5

88

55

lbs

950

850

lbs

270

225

The two examples shown in Table 4.17 represent a safe (lower performance with
no flaps) option and an ideal option (higher performance with complicated flaps).
The difference in takeoff weight between the two options is not enough to support
using complicated flaps, therefore no flaps will be used on the Blue Design.
The performance matching plot shown in Figure 4.2 was generated using the above
requirements. The wing loading, power loading, and maximum lift coefficient chosen
are:

(W/S)TO = 10.8 lb/ft2

(W/P)TO = 9.8 lb/hp

C Lmax = 1.1
L

C LmaxTO = 1.1

94

140 kts @
Full Power
Design Point
(W/S) = 10.8 psf
(W/P) = 9.8 lb/hp

C LMaxTO = 1.1

C LMax = 1.1
L

Figure 4.29: Performance Matching Plot for Red Design

The wing loading, power loading, and maximum lift coefficients were chosen as
the result of several iterations trading airfoil selection and performance requirements.
The results from the sizing and performance matching are shown in Table 4.18.
Table 4.18: Summary of Preliminary Sizing and Performance Matching for Blue
Parameter

Value

Units

(W/S)TO

10.8

lb/ft2

(W/P)TO

9.8

lb/hp

W TO

950

lbs

WE

550

lbs

W Fuel
W Fuel_Res

220

lbs

Wing AR

50
3.43

lbs
~

Wing Area
Preq

88
97

ft
hp

95

4.3.5 Configuration Selection

The section will describe the configuration selection and design for the Blue
design.

Fuselage Layout
The purpose of this section is to describe the design of the fuselage layout for the
Blue design. The following items will be installed in the fuselage:

Rotax 912-A Engine

Science Payload (20 x 20 x 8)

Autopilot/Avionics (Approximately 8 x 8 x 8)

Data Acquisition System (Approximately 15 x 8 x 8)

Nose Gear

Main Gear

Fuel Tank and Fuel System

Communications Antenna (Assumed 12 x 6 x 6)

GPS Antenna and mounting (Assumed 3 x 3 x 3)

The fuselage layout is shown in Figure 4.30. Both the science payload and the fuel
tanks are centered close to the estimated center of gravity. The GPS Antenna location
represents a volume much larger than actually needed for the antenna to account for
any mounting hardware.

96

Figure 4.30: Fuselage Layout for Blue Design

Propulsion System Selection

Number of Engines

One engine will be used for the Blue design for the following reasons:

Fuel consumption requirements

Simplifies operation

Antenna requirements limit lateral spacing of engines

While the fuel consumption is the primary concern driving the decision to use a
single engine, the antenna requirements play a role as well. The antenna must be
spaced laterally from any metallic structure to limit interference. If a twin boom
design was used, the antenna spacing would either drive the booms very far apart,
which adversely affects OEI conditions; or the antennas would have to be spaced at

97

uneven intervals. The latter approach is feasible, but it would drive the design to a
higher wing area than optimal. For these reasons, a single engine will be used.
Engine Selection

The power loading (W/P) required for the Blue design is 9.8 lb/hp as determined in
Section 0. For a takeoff weight of 950 lbs, this results in a power requirement of 97
hp. The Rotax 914-F was selected for this design as it has a low specific fuel
consumption and meets the power requirement as shown in Figure 4.4.
Propeller Diameter

The blade power loading was selected based on an average number for single
engine aircraft. The power loading selected is 3 hp/ft2, which resulted in a propeller
diameter of 60 inches. This diameter is comparable to a typical propeller diameter for
a Rotax 914 engine, so it is reasonable.
Engine Disposition

The decision between a tractor or puller engine installation depends on several

factors including:

Forward-looking visibility
Empennage layout
The empennage for a pusher must use tail boom extensions from the
wing.
Stability considerations
Tractor engines are destabilizing.
Buffeting
A pusher propeller will be closer to the horizontal tail, causing more
possibilities for buffeting.
Center of Gravity

Many currently available UAVs utilize a pusher engine configuration due to

forward looking visibility for a camera. There are no forward looking requirements

98

for this aircraft. The engine will be mounted in a standard tractor configuration due
to the small benefits of a pusher configuration.

Wing Layout and Lateral Controls

This section describes the design of the wing for the Blue aircraft.
Wing Planform

The wing design of the Blue design is inherently different from typical wing design
in that it is a biplane or box-wing. The biplane configuration was used for several
decades, but was dropped with the advent and improvement of the monoplane.
Aerodynamic efficiency is primarily driven by wingspan and wetted area.

The

wingspan should be maximized while minimizing the wetted area. A biplane will
typically have a lower wingspan than a monoplane of equivalent wetted area.
Therefore, monoplanes are almost always superior to biplanes. Due to this, little
work has been done to improve the performance of biplanes. One of the most notable
areas of improvement lies in the endplate design.
Traditionally biplanes did not utilize endplates, but rather struts and wires.
Properly designed endplates can produce decreases in the large induced drag
associated with low aspect ratio wings. This type of configuration a biplane with
endplates is typically referred to as a box wing.
The endplate effects will not be heavily considered in Class I design. Traditional
biplane design and analysis tools will be used to estimate the vehicle performance.
Biplane design and analysis is described in several NACA reports [32] as well as in
Richard Von Mises Theory of Flight [28]. The problem of conventions presents itself

99

with biplane design due to the fact that there are two wings instead of one. The
convention used in [28] and in this report are:

S Sum of both wing planform areas

AR Average aspect ratio of the two wings

Chord Average chord of the two wings

Biplane design introduces several new design parameters:

Decalage The angle between the two wing chord lines

Stagger The distance from the leading edge of the lower wing to the
leading edge of the upper wing measured in the direction of flight

Gap Vertical separation of the wings

Many biplanes have been flown with various combinations of these parameters.
Positive stagger (meaning the top wing is forward of the lower wing) has shown to be
aerodynamically beneficial. However, negative stagger has been shown to delay and
smooth out wing stall.
Decalage is can be used to distribute the load between the two wings in the desired
manner. These effects will be ignored in Class I design.
The gap between the two wings has a large effect on the aerodynamics of the
aircraft. Typically, the gap is set to be larger than the wing chord. This is not
possible for this design however due to the antenna requirements The wing lower
wing must be wavelength (~20) below the upper wing. The effect the gap has on
the aerodynamics will be discussed in Section 4.3.8.

100

The wing planform is shown in Figure 4.31. The lower wing is used to house the
antenna and therefore must be completely dielectric. This means that all of the
control surfaces and fuel must be in the upper wing. This aircraft will not utilize flaps
as discussed in Section 0. The ailerons will span the entire upper wing and will have
a chord ratio of ca/cw = 0.30.

Figure 4.31: Wing Planform for Blue

The wing planform is summarized in Table 4.19. Please note the upper and lower
wings have the same chord, span, taper ratio, and quarter-chord sweep angle.

101

Table 4.19: Wing Planform Summary for Blue

Parameter

Value

Units

Area
AR
Taper Ratio
c/4
Mean Chord
Span
W

88
3.43
1
0
2.5
17.17
0

ft
~
~
deg
ft
ft
deg

deg

i,a

13.5

% b/2

o,a

100

% b/2

ca/cw
Gap
Stagger
Decalage

0.3
19.69
0
0

~
in
in
deg

Airfoil Selection

The Clark Y airfoil will be used for the upper wing due to its relatively flat bottom
surface. The Clark Y will also be used for the lower wing for the following reasons:

Commonality between the wings

Data is readily available for biplanes with Clark Y airfoils

Simplifies the calculations

This decision will be reexamined in Class II design.

Fuel Volume

The fuel volume results for the Blue aircraft are:

102

Fuel Required:

270 lbs
45 gallons
6.0 ft3

Available Fuel Volume in Wing

190 lbs
31.7 gallons
4.31 ft3

The following assumptions were made for the fuel volume calculations:

Fuel is stored in wet wing.

All fuel stored between 20% chord and 70% chord of wing.
All fuel stored up to 85% half-span of wing.
Density of fuel = 6.0 lbs/gal
Fuel expansion = 4.0%

These calculations show that additional fuel storage is required. There are several
options to fix this problem as shown in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20: Fuel Storage Comparison
Fuel Storage Type
Tank in Fuselage

Pros

Increases root bending

moment.

Increases wetted area.

Reduces root bending

moment.

Increases wing loading which

decreases performance.

Reduces root bending

moment.

Tanks at Wingtips

Enlarge Wing

Cons

Does not adversely affect

performance.

The first solution was adopted as it does not adversely affect the aerodynamic
performance of the aircraft.

103

Wing Dihedral Angle, Incidence Angle, and Twist

The wing dihedral and incidence angles were initially set to 0o for the Blue Design.
This decision will be examined further in Class II stability and control using a
combination of classical analytical methods and CFD. The wing twist angle was set
to 0o based on the lift distribution shown in Figure 4.32.

This lift distribution

represents the lift distribution of the equivalent monoplane wing and was created
using the Advance Aircraft Analysis program [7]. Again, this will be examined
further with a CFD analysis.

Figure 4.32: Span-wise Lift Distribution for the Blue Design

Empennage Layout
The following empennage configurations were considered:

Fuselage Mounted Vertical and Horizontal Tails

Boom Mounted
T-Tail or Cruciform Tail

104

Butterfly/V Tail

The V tail design is very appealing due to the decreased wetted area and decreased
interference drag. The V tail also decreases the number of actuators required for the
longitudinal and directional control surfaces. Historically, these advantages came at
the cost of complicated control mixers, but this is not necessary in the CReSIS UAV
due to the full digital flight control system.
The v-tail planform is shown in Figure 4.33 and summarized in Table 4.21.

Figure 4.33: Empennage Planform for Blue

105

Table 4.21: Empennage Summary for Blue

Parameter

Value

Units

Svee

6.5

ft

ARVee

vee

0.5

c/4,vee

26.3

deg

cvee

1.32

ft

bvee

5.1

ft

vee

45

deg

i,e

% b/2

o,e
ce/cvee

100

% b/2

0.3

Landing Gear Disposition

The landing Gear for the Blue will be similar to that of the Red and Blue designs in
that it will be a retractable tricycle gear arrangement as shown in Figure 4.34.

Figure 4.34: Landing Gear Layout for Blue

The lateral and longitudinal tip-over criteria are both met as shown in Figure 4.35
and Figure 4.36 respectively.

106

Figure 4.35: Lateral Tipover Criteria for Blue

Figure 4.36: Longitudinal Tipover and Ground Clearance Criteria for Blue
The maximum static loads for each strut were calculated and tabulated in Table
4.22. These values were used along with data from [6] to select reasonable tire sizes.
These are also shown in Table 4.22. The relatively short distance between the nose
and main gear results in a fairly large amount of the static load distributed to the nose
gear. The static loads on each wheel are almost equal; therefore the tires for the nose
and main gears will be the same.

107

Table 4.22: Landing Gear Summary for Blue

Parameter

Units

Value

Nose Gear F.S.

Main Gear F.S
Ln
Lm

in
in
in

70.0
115.0
31.2

in

13.8

Pn

lbs

290.2

Pm

lbs

328.9

Pn/W TO
2Pm/W TO

0.31

0.69

Tire Diameter
Tire Width

in
in

9
3.4

The design mission calls for the ability to use skis or tires as this aircraft will
operate from a wide variety of surfaces. The ski design/selection will be performed
in Class II design.

4.3.6 Class I Weight and Balance

The purpose of this section is to describe the preliminary aircraft component weight
breakdown as well as the center of gravity calculations for the Blue Design.

Component Weight Breakdown

The aircraft components were broken down into the following list for the weight
fraction calculations.
1. Fuselage Group
2. Wing Group
3. Empennage Group
4. Engine Group
5. Landing Gear Group
6. Nacelle Group (Engine Cowling)
7. Fixed Equipment Group
8. Trapped Fuel and Oil
9. Fuel
10. Payload

108

The aircraft empty weight is the sum of items 1 through 7. The aircraft operating
empty weight is defined as the sum of items 1 through 8. The aircraft gross takeoff
weight is the sum of items 1 through 10. The Nacelle group refers to the engine
cowl weight.
The weight of each of these components was calculated using the weight fraction
method described in [6]. This method was described in more detail in Section 4.1.5.
The component weights are tabulated in Table 4.23.
Table 4.23: Weight Breakdown for the Blue Design

Wing
Empennage
Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear
Power Plant
Fixed Equipment
Empty Weight

Initial Estimate
lbs

Adjustment
lbs

Class I Weight
(Alum.)
lbs

104
23
127
14
53
188
80
590

-7
-2
-9
-1
-4
-13
-5
-40

97
22
119
13
50
175
75
550

Payload
Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil

122
270
6.1

Takeoff Gross Weight

948

Preliminary Aircraft Arrangement

The fuselage, wing, and empennage designs developed were combined to create a
preliminary arrangement of the aircraft (Figure 4.37). Figure 4.37 shows both a
detailed and simplified weight and balance layout. The detailed model was used to
determine the center of gravity of the simplified groups such as the fuel system and
the fixed equipment. This is useful due to the fact that the weight of every specific

109

component has yet to be determined. In addition, there are several components that
are not included in the detailed arrangement such as wiring and servos. Therefore,
using an estimated center of gravity for groups provides a better estimate at this stage
of the design. As the design progress, the detailed CAD model will be used to
estimate the center of gravity as well as moments of inertia.
Figure 4.37 was then used to locate each of the weight components listed in Table
4.24. The fuselage station, water line, and buttock line of the center of gravity of
each weight component were then tabulated. The centers of gravity for the fuselage,
wing, engine cowl, and empennage were then estimated using data from Roskam [6].
These values were used to determine the center of gravity for the vehicle as shown in
Table 4.24. Note that the landing gear design is such that both the main and nose
gears retract aft. This caused a center of gravity shift as shown in Table 4.24 and
Figure 4.38.
Table 4.24: Class I Weight and Balance for the Blue Design
Class I Weight
lbs

X_cg
in

Y_cg
in

Z_cg
in

Wing
Empennage

97
22

104.0
221.0

0.0
0.0

45.0
50.0

Fuselage
Nacelles
Landing Gear - Extended
Landing Gear - Retracted

119
13
50
50

120.0
60.0
102.0
111.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

50.0
50.0
32.0
40.0

Power Plant

175

66.0

0.0

45.0

Fixed Equipment

75

110.0

0.0

45.0

Empty Weight - Gear Ext

550

99.4

0.0

45.2

Empty Weight - Gear Ret

550

100.4

0.0

45.9

Payload

122

100.0

0.0

50.0

Fuel
Trapped Fuel and Oil

270
6.1

101.0
101.0

0.0
0.0

50.0
50.0

TOTAL - Gear Extended

TOTAL - Gear Retracted

948
948

100.8
100.5

0.0
0.0

47.2
47.6

110

A c.g. excursion diagram was created as shown in Figure 4.38. There are two
feasible loading scenarios for this aircraft:

Load Payload then Add Fuel

Add Fuel then Load Payload

Figure 4.37: Preliminary Arrangement of Blue Design

111

The total c.g. travel is the same for both scenarios, but the latter shows the c.g.
range for the aircraft with no payload (The +Fuel leg). This is important as some of
the initial flight tests will be performed without any payload.
Wing Chord
0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

0.26

0.27

0.28

0.29

0.3

1000
Retract Landing Gear

W TO

950

+ Payload

900
850

- Fuel

Weight, lbs

800
750
- Payload

700

Trapped Fuel
and Oil

650

Extend Landing
Gear

600

+ Fuel

W OE
550
WE
500
450
400
98

99

100

101

Fuselage Station, in

Figure 4.38: Center of Gravity Excursion for Blue

Figure 4.38 shows the aircraft center of gravity travel due to fuel, payload, and
landing gear retraction. The landing gear retraction is the biggest contributor to c.g.
travel. The total travel is approximately 4% of the wing m.g.c., which is acceptable.
However, the total c.g. travel could be much smaller without the landing gear
contribution. This may lead to changes in the landing gear retraction scheme. The
summary of the Class I weight and balance for the Blue Design is shown in Table
4.25.

112

Table 4.25: Class I Weight and Balance Summary for Blue

Parameter
Most Forward c.g.
Most Aft c.g.
c.g. Range

Inches

% mgc

99.4
100.5
1.1

0.25
0.28
0.04

4.3.7 Class I Stability and Control

The purpose of this section is to describe the Class I stability and control analysis
of the Blue Design. This consists of producing longitudinal and directional X-plots,
which describes the relation of the aerodynamic center to the center of gravity.
Classical methods were used for this analysis which is questionable for a biplane.
These methods are acceptable for Class I design, but more detailed analysis possibly
using computational fluid dynamics will be required in Class II analysis.
The Blue aircraft will be designed to be inherently stable with a static margin of at
least 10 percent.

Longitudinal Stability
The static longitudinal stability of the Blue aircraft was verified using a
longitudinal X-plot based on methods described in [6]. This plot shows how the
aircraft center of gravity and aerodynamic center vary with V-tail size. This method
was used to size the V-tail and locate the wing.
The longitudinal X-plot for the Blue Design is shown in Figure 4.16.
minimum V-tail size is shown as 6.5 ft2.

113

The

0.7

0.6

Location in Terms of m.g.c

0.5

0.4
SM = 10%
0.3

0.2

0.1
x_c.g.
x_a.c.
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

Vee Tail Area, ft

Figure 4.39: Longitudinal X-Plot for the Blue Design

Directional Stability
The static directional stability of the Blue Design was verified with a directional Xplot as shown in Figure 4.40. The minimum value for the overall directional stability
is:

C n = 0.001deg 1

114

0.003

Directional Stabiltiy, Cn , 1/deg

0.002

Minimum Area
for Directional
Stability

0.001

-0.001
0

10

Vee Tail Area, ft

Figure 4.40: Directional X-Plot for the Blue Design

Figure 4.40 shows that the directional stability requirements would drive the
dihedral of the V-tail to be less than the current design via Equation 4.3. At this point
in the design, however, the v-tail dihedral angle will not be changed as this parameter
should be investigated more in Class II analysis.

4.3.8 Class I Drag Analysis

A Class I drag analysis was performed for the Blue design using methods described
in [28].

This method utilizes the traditional drag polar equation, but with an

equivalent aspect ratio based on the Munk span factor M as shown in Equation 4.8.
C D = C D0 +

C L2
eM 2 A

Equation 4.8

115

M =

(1 + )
+ 2 +
2

Where: =

Equation 4.9
2

b2
b1

L2 L1

The biplane interference factor, , is

shown in Figure 4.41 for various
values of spans and gap-to-span ratios.
The interference factor used for the
Blue design is 0.65. A rule of thumb
for biplanes is that the wing separation
distance should be at least one chord
length.

This is not possible for the

Blue Design as the wing separation

and chord length are driven by antenna
requirements. Figure 4.41

Figure 4.41: Biplane Interference

Factor [28]

The drag polars for the Blue design are shown in Figure 4.42. Note that there are
no flaps in this design. The lift-to-drag ratios are also plotted with an indication of
the mid-cruise lift-to-drag ratio in Figure 4.43. The mid-cruise L/D was determined
from the Class I Drag analysis is approximately 11.5, which is higher than the value
of 10.0 estimated in preliminary sizing (Section 4.3.2). The preliminary sizing will
not be recalculated however due to the marginal reliability of the Class I drag analysis
for a biplane.

116

If the Class II drag analysis results agree with these findings, then the design will
be iterated. Until this analysis is performed, the decision will be to keep the current,
conservative estimate.
2
Clean
1.8

OEI

1.6

Reference Data:
W TO = 950 lbs

Gear Down

S = 88 ft
AR = 3.4
AREquiv = 4.15
e = 0.80

Lift Coefficient

1.4

Clean:
CD = 0.0135 + 0.0793CL
OEI:
CD0 = 0.010
Gear Down: CD0 = 0.025

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel

0.2

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Drag Coefficient

Figure 4.42: Drag Polars for the Blue Design

117

0.35

0.4

2
Clean
OEI

1.8

Gear Down
1.6

Reference Data:
W TO = 950 lbs
2

S = 88 ft
AR = 3.4
AREquiv = 4.15
e = 0.80

Lift Coefficient

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6
VCr = 120 kts @ SeaLevel
0.4

0.2

0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

L/D

Figure 4.43: Lift-to-Drag Ratios for the Blue Design

4.3.9 Blue Design Summary

The Blue aircraft is a novel approach to this design problem in that it invokes a
seldom used configuration the biplane. The biplane or box-wing concept fits
very well with the requirements for this aircraft, namely the low cruise speed and
large, wing-mounted antennas.

118

Red Design Summary

Salient Characteristics:
Biplane design
Flush-mounted antennas
Wing chord and spacing
driven by antennas
Moderate L/D ~10.0
V-Tail
Tricycle Landing Gear

119

Parameter

Value

Units

(W/S)TO

10.8

lb/ft

(W/P)TO

9.8

lb/hp

W TO

950

lbs

WE

550

lbs

W Fuel
W Fuel_Res

220

lbs

Wing AR

50
3.43

lbs
~

Wing Area
Preq

88
97

ft
hp

5 Summary of Preliminary Designs

Three preliminary designs have been presented to satisfy the requirements for the
CReSIS polar research mission:

A monoplane with flush-mounted antennas

A monoplane with hanging antennas

A biplane with flush mounted antennas

The three designs are summarized in Table 5.1. The fuel required to complete 3
fine-scale mission is shown in Figure 5.1 for the three designs as well as the
Lockheed P-3 and the De Havilland Twin Otter. Figure 5.2 shows the aircraft plotted
on the takeoff weight regression chart.
Table 5.1: Summary of Preliminary Design Concepts
Parameter
Geometry
Wing Area
Wing Span
Length Overall
Height Overall
Weights
Takeoff Weight
Empty Weight
Payload Weight
Fuel Weight
Performance
Range
L/DCr
Powerplant
Engine
Power

Units

Red Design

White Design

Blue Design

ft
ft
ft
ft

49
15.33
16
5.5

82
25.6
17.5
5.6

88
17.2
16.5
5.6

lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs

760
450
121
185

1,270
720
121
425

950
550
121
270

nm
~

1,750
12.5

1,750
8.0

1,750
10.0

~
hp

Rotax 912-A
81

Rotax 914-F
115

Rotax 914-F
115

120

Twin Otter
P-3 Orion

1,200

Blue Design

8,000

White Design

119

Red Design

188

82

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Fuel Required for 3 Fine Missions, gallons

Figure 5.1: Comparison of Fuel Usage for 3 Fine Scale Missions

10,000

Predator B

E-Hunter

Shadow 600

1,000

Predator

Empty Weight, lbs

Shadow 200
I-Gnat
Dakota

100

log10(W TO) = A + B*log10(W E)

A = -0.0183
B = 1.0930
10
100

1,000
Takeoff Weight, lbs

Figure 5.2: Combined Takeoff Weight Regression Chart

121

10,000

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The CReSIS UAV design process has progressed from requirements definition and
development through the Class I design of several vehicles, three of which were
presented here. Each of these designs present unique solutions to what has become
the dominant requirement: The antenna integration. While none of these aircraft are
ideal in terms of aerodynamic efficiency, Figure 5.1 shows that they will provide
dramatic decreases in fuel usage over the aircraft that are currently used for this
research.

6.1 Ongoing Design

The three aircraft designs shown in this report represent complete Class I aircraft
concepts. One of these will be selected for Class II and further detailed design.
Before the Class II design process is started, however several issues must be
addressed in more depth:
1. Detailed Landing Gear Design Integration of Skis
2. Engine Selection Turboprop Variant

6.1.1 Detailed Landing Gear Design

Currently, each of the three presented designs has working conventional landing
gear designs. Simple retraction schemes have been employed based on examples
found on other aircraft. More analysis and design must, however be done to ensure
the aircraft can operate from snow runways. This could mean modifying the current
landing gear design or simply adding options for various methods of takeoff and
recovery. Some options under consideration are:

122

Retract skis flush against fuselage skin

Takeoff from droppable sled

Takeoff from catapult

Rocket Assisted Takeoff (RATO)

One or many of these options can be employed with the current designs. Providing
several different methods for takeoff and recovery on a UAV has been done on
currently available aircraft [13].

6.1.2 Engine Selection Turboprop Variant

The engines selections shown for the three aircraft in this report were driven by
power and specific fuel consumption requirements. The reliability of these engines in
a cold-weather environment is questionable. Also, from a logistics standpoint, the
Rotax engines are suboptimal as the primary fuel used in Antarctica is Jet-A, not
aviation gas. For these reasons, the Innodyn 165TE (Figure 6.1) has been selected for
further investigation. The Innodyn is a fairly new, small turbopropeller engine that
has yet to be fully tested. Therefore, the specific fuel consumption of the engine is
somewhat unknown.

123

Figure 6.1: CAD Model of Innodyn 165TE

The current specific fuel consumption estimate for the Innodyn engine is 0.70
lbs/hp-hr, which is much higher than the Rotax 912 and 914 value of 0.56 lbs/hp-hr.
Nonetheless, the reliability and maintainability issues make this engine very
appealing for this mission.

The aircraft designs shown in this report will be

augmented with variants utilizing the Innodyn engine.

124

7 References
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

www.worldaerodata.com/countries/Antarctica.php
www.is.northropgrumman.com
www.uavforum.com
www.uav.com
Mission Concepts for Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles in Cryospheric Science
Applications. University of Kansas Remote Sensing Laboratory. KS, 2004.
Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design: Parts I-VIII. DARCorporation. Lawrence, KS.
1997.
Advanced Aircraft Analysis Software. DARCorporation. Lawrence, KS. 2005.
Simons, Martin. Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, 4th Edition. Nexus Special
Interests, 1999.
www.oceanairlogistics.com
www.piaggioamerica.com/
Raymer, Daniel P. Enhancing Aircraft Conceptual Design using
Multidisciplinary Optimization. Ph. D. Thesis, Swedish Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2002.
Worldwide UAV Roundup. www.aiaa.org/images/PDF/WilsonChart.pdf. 2003.
Munson, Kenneth. Janes Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Targets Issue 11. 1999.
Lambert, Mark ed. Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1993-94. Janes Information
Group. Alexandria, VA. 1993.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: An
Emerging New Engineering Discipline, Advances in Structural Optimization
(483-496), Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, 1995.
www.airliners.net. April 25, 2006.
www.aviataircraft.com. April 25, 2006.
www.staggerwing.com. April 25, 2006.
www.comnap.com. May 19, 2005
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00042.htm. May 19, 2006.
www.aaicorp.com. May 19, 2006.
www.genaero.com. May 19, 2006.
www.diamondair.com. May 19, 2006.
http://www.diamond-air.at/en/press/pressarchive/40820.htm. May 19, 2006.
Donovan, William. CReSiS Airborne Platform Summary. The University of
Kansas. 2006.
www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. May 19, 2006.
Hoerner, Sighard. Fluid-Dynamic Drag. Published by Author. Great Britain,
1958.
Von Mises, Richard. Theory of Flight. Dover Publications. New York, 1959.
Barrett, Ron. Discussion Regarding Biplane Design. The University of
Kansas. May 10, 2006.

125

30 Allen, Christopher. Discussion Regarding Antenna Design. The University of

Kansas. April 2006.
31 Palais, July, et al. Meeting with NSF Representatives. February, 2006.
32 Munk, Max M. General Biplane Theory. NACA Report No. 151. 1923.
33 www.nsf.gov. May 19, 2006.
34 Science Requirements for Field Work in CReSIS. The University of Kansas.
September 15, 2005.

126