AIRCRAFT DESIGN I

SKMA 4513

GROUP 2
AGRO-TECH UAV

PROJECT 2: AERODYNAMICS

NAME MATRIX NO.

AIDEEL NOOR MUHAMMAD BIN TUAH A14KM0012
AMIRUL FIKRY BIN SAMSUDIN A14KM0017
YEW ZE GOU A14KM0216
MASATO IMAI X17KM0022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 3
1.1 What is aerodynamics? ......................................................................................... 3
1.2 Aircraft aerodynamics ........................................................................................... 3

2. DESIGN BACKGROUNDS ........................................................................................... 4

2.1 Design specifications ............................................................................................ 4
2.2 Design configurations ........................................................................................... 7

3. AERODYNAMICS CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................... 10

3.1 Airfoil selection .................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Wing planform selection ..................................................................................... 12

4. AERODYNAMICS STUDY: DATCOM METHOD ................................................. 17

4.1 Wing alone .......................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Body alone .......................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Wing-body .......................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Wing-body-tail .................................................................................................... 42

5. WING LOADING ANALYSIS: SCHRENKS METHOD ....................................... 64

6. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 73

2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is aerodynamics?
Though the term "aerodynamics" is most commonly associated with airplanes and the overall
science of flight, in fact, its application is much broader. Simply put, aerodynamics is the study
of airflow and its principles, and applied aerodynamics is the science of improving manmade
objects such as airplanes and automobiles in light of those principles. Aside from the obvious
application to these heavy forms of transportation, aerodynamic concepts are also reflected in
the simplest of manmade flying objects. Engineers apply the principles of aerodynamics to the
designs of many different things, including buildings, bridges and even soccer balls; however,
of primary concern is the aerodynamics of aircraft and automobiles. Following are some
examples of aerodynamics being applied through many circumferences.

Figure 1.1: Applications of aerodynamics concept.

1.2 Aircraft aerodynamics
Aerodynamics comes into play in the study of flight and the science of building and operating
an aircraft, which is called aeronautics. Aeronautical engineers use the fundamentals of
aerodynamics to design aircraft that fly through the Earth's atmosphere. Aircraft are kept in the
air by the forward thrust of the wings or airfoils, through the air. The thrust driving the wing
forward is provided by an external source; propellers or jet engines.

The result of the movement of the wing through stationary air is a lift force perpendicular to
the motion of the wing, which is greater than the downwards gravitational force on the wing
and so keeps the aircraft airborne. The lift is accompanied by drag which represents the air
resistance against the wing as it forces its way through the air. Following figure illustrates
better those four different principles of flight.

Figure 1.2: Flight principles.

3
2. DESIGN BACKGROUNDS
2.1 Design specifications
Agro Tech UAV

Figure 2.1: Conceptual design of Agro Tech UAV

Mission
To assist farmers in crop spraying

Benefits of Agro Tech UAV

Less
Increased chemicals
Faster task
efficiency of penetrating
completion
spraying into
groundwater

4
Technical specifications:

Specifications Value
Empty Weight 34.78 kg
Gross Weight 50 kg
Wing Span 2.73 m
Chord Length 0.57 m
Wing Loading 32.43 kg/m2
Body Length 1.90 m
Range 351.15 km
Endurance 3.79 hours
Cruising Speed 108.08 km/h
Service Ceiling 2.42 km
Engine 2-stroke piston engine 2-cylinder (8.05 hp)
Equipment Camera CM202

Camera specifications:

Specifications Value
Manufacturer UAV VISION
Model Name CM202
Weight 3.5 kg

5
Engine specifications:

Specifications Value
Manufacturer Gbler Hirthmotoren GmbH & Co. KG
Model Name 4103
Engine Type 2-cylinders 2-strokes
Displacement 100 cm3
Stroke 34 mm
Bore 44 mm
Max. Performance 6 kW (8.05 HP) at 6500 rpm
Speed range 1800-6500 rpm
Control Disc valve
Mixture Formation Fuel injection
Ignition system CDI controlled by the ECU
Cooling Air cooled
Weight 3.0 kg

6
2.2 Design configurations

7
8
9
3. AERODYNAMICS CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Airfoil selection
3.1.1 Introduction of Airfoil

`One of the most spectacular things to view is the structure and the body of an aero plane. Its
concept has always been scintillating and technical. It all started with the answer to how birds
can fly. All of us do know that only when an object overcomes the earths natural gravitational
pull, it tends to fly. The wing of an aircraft helps in gliding it through the wind and also in its
landing and takeoff. The shape of such an important component of the aircraft makes a lot of
impact on its movements. This shape is what is called an airfoil.

Figure 3.1: cross section of wing Figure 3.2: Airfoil terminology

3.1.2 Component of Airfoil

A leading edge, a trailing edge, a chord and a camber are the components of an airfoil. The end
which meets the air first is the leading edge and the trailing edge is at the end of the airfoil
which is where the air with high pressure (below the wing) meets the air with lower pressure
(above the wing). The chord is the imaginary line from the leading to the trailing edge. The
camber is the curve on top and bottom of the airfoil. Relative wind is defined as the direction
of air flowing past the airfoil with respect to the direction of the flight. It is always parallel and
opposite to the direction of flight.

10
3.1.3 Types of Airfoil

There are different types of airfoils,

Semi-symmetrical Airfoil: Most of the full size planes have this type installed. Its
thinner than the symmetrical airfoil and has lesser drag. It has a fully curved top and a
half curved bottom.
Symmetrical Airfoil: They are curved on both sides, equally. Generate high lifts with
change in speed and power. They are generally thick and hence are very strong. The
plane maintains its altitude with change in speed.
Flat Bottom Airfoil: Flat bottoms are usually seen in trainer flights. They look
extremely thin. Its bottom is flat and top is curved. Flat bottoms are speed sensitive.
They are similar to symmetrical airfoils. When power and speed is added it produces
great lift
Supersonic Airfoil: A supersonic airfoil is used to generate lift at supersonic speeds. Its
need arises when an aircraft is operated consistently in supersonic range.
Supercritical Airfoil: A supercritical is designed to delay the drag in the transonic speed
range are a few to name. A supercritical is designed to delay the drag in the transonic
speed range. They have a flat upper surface, a highly cambered aft and a greater leading
edge radius.

Figure 3.3 : Basic types of aerofoil

11
3.1.4 Airfoil selection

The purpose of AgroTech UAV is to spray fertilizer at low speed. Hence, these UAV need
aerofoil which low and stable flight. Hence, our team decided to choose deep camber and thick
wing section because it can produce high lift, low speed which is suitable to transports and
cargo. To choose the best airfoil we have to compare different type air airfoil and it properties
at zero angle of attack because to compare the lift while cruising.

Angle of attack : 0o

Reynolds number : 1,000,000

Table 3.1: Data for different type of airfoil

Name of airfoil Cl Cd Cl / C d

CLARK Y 0.3918 0.00645 60.744

S7055 0.3384 0.00518 65.328

SD7034 0.4095 0.00605 67.686

E193 0.3659 0.00547 66.892

GOE 602 0.4104 0.00515 79.689

Due to high coefficient of lift with drag ratio, we decided to choose GOE 602 as airfoil for the
UAV project. The purpose of this airfoil selection is to produce high lift at low speed. This is
because Agro UAV need to distribute the fertiliser while flying at constant low speed.

12
Selected airfoil data:

Figure 3.4: Airfoil of GOE 602

Calculated polar for: GOE 602 AIRFOIL

According to data from Xfoil, the properties of GOE can be summarise as graph below.

Graph 3.1: CL against CD Graph 3.2: CL against CD

13
Graph 3.3: CL/CD against Alpha Graph 3.4: CD against Alpha

Graph 3.5: Cm against Alpha

14
3.2 Wing Configuration

The shape and position of wing greatly influence the performance and stability of an airplane
or UAV. Different position of wing will give different effect in term of stability. To fulfil the
objective of our design UAV. We decided to choose high wing position. This is because of
high positive moment produce by high wing. The UAV must have high stability due to load
carries to distribute the fertilizer. Perhaps, high wing configuration also produce less drag
compare to other configuration.

Figure 3.6: Type of wing configuration

15
3.3 Wing Planform selection

Aspect ratio, taper ratio and sweep back are factors in planform design that are very important
to the overall aerodynamic characteristic of a wing. Aspect ratio is the ratio of wing span to
wing chord. Taper ratio can be either in planform or thickness, or both. In its simplest terms, it
is a decrease from wing root to wingtip in wing chord or wing thickness. Sweepback is the
rearward slant of a wing, horizontal tail, or other airfoil surface. An increase in aspect ratio
with constant velocity will decrease the drag, especially at high angles of attack, improving the
performance of the wing when in a climbing attitude. A decrease in aspect ratio will give a
corresponding increase in drag. It should be noted, however, that with an increase in aspect
ratio there is an increase in the length of span, with a corresponding increase in the weight of
the wing structure, which means the wing must be heavier to carry the same load. For this
reason, part of the gain (due to a decrease in drag) is lost because of the increased weight, and
a compromise in design is necessary to obtain the best results from these two conflicting
conditions. The second means of changing the planform is by "tapering" (decreasing the length
of chord from the root to the tip of the wing). In general, tapering will cause a decrease in drag
(most effective at high speeds) and an increase in lift. There is also a structural benefit due to
a saving in weight of the wing.

Figure 3.7: Types of wing planform

16
Most training and general aviation type airplanes are operated at high lift coefficients, and
therefore require comparatively high aspect ratios. Airplanes which are developed to operate
at very high speeds demand greater aerodynamic cleanness, and greater strength therefore
low aspect ratios. Very low aspect ratios result in high wing loadings and high stall speeds.
When sweepback is combined with low aspect ratio, it results in flying qualities very different
from a more "conventional" high aspect ratio airplane configuration. Such airplanes require
very precise and professional flying techniques, especially at slow speeds, while airplanes with
a high aspect ratio are usually more forgiving of improper pilot techniques.

The elliptical wing is the ideal subsonic planform since it provides for a minimum of induced
drag for a given aspect ratio, though as we shall see, its stall characteristics in some respects
are inferior to the rectangular wing. It is also comparatively difficult to construct. The tapered
airfoil is desirable from the standpoint of weight and stiffness, but again is not as efficient
aerodynamically as the elliptical wing. In order to preserve the aerodynamic efficiency of the
elliptical wing, rectangular and tapered wings are sometimes "tailored" through use of wing
twist and variation in airfoil sections until they provide as nearly as possible the elliptical wing's
lift distribution. While it is true that the elliptical wing provides the best lift coefficients before
reaching an incipient stall, it gives little advance warning of a complete stall, and lateral control
may be difficult because of poor aileron effectiveness. In comparison, the rectangular wing has
a tendency to stall first at the wing root and provides adequate stall warning, adequate aileron
effectiveness, and is usually quite stable. It is, therefore, favoured in the design of low cost,
low speed airplanes. Hence due to consideration to fly stable at low speed, the rectangular
speed is chosen for UAV project design. Following figure shows the shape of the wing
planform designated for AgroTech UAV.

Figure 3.8: AgroTech wing planform.

17
4. AERODYNAMICS STUDY: DATCOM METHOD
4.1 Wing alone

4.1.1 Section Zero-Lift Angle of Attack (Section 4.1.1.1)

Table 4.1: Airfoil Selection

NACA 0 0l (per deg) 0l max (deg) Clmax * (deg)

GOE 602 -2.8758o 0.03233 11.5 1.2882 6.5

4.1.2 Section Lift-Curve Slope (Section 4.1.1.2)

This method account for the development of the boundary layer for airfoils with transition fixed
at the leading edge and with maximum thickness less than approximately 20%. The airfoil
section lift curve slope at mach numbers up to critical mach number is given by

1.05
= [ ] ( )
( )

Where , = 1 ( )2

Where v= 30.02 m/s and = ,

Where temperature is taken during cruising, it is calculated from table by interpolation between
density and temperature. At temperature T=298k at = 1.184 /3 and at T=303k at =
1.165 /3 . Hence at

= 1.17 , = 301.68
3
= (1.17)(287)(301.68)
= 318.28 /

30.02 2
, = 1 (318.28)

= 0.9955

18
According to the thickness of airfoil, from 90% chord and 99% chord from leading edge.
90, = 0.0307 , 99, = 4.384 103
From figure 4.1.1.2-8a, the /( ) is estimated by equation
1
+ 0.9
= 1.07 tan
( ) 2
90, 99,
1 [ ] 100
= 2 2
tan
2 9 0.565
1
tan = 0.259
2

= 1.07(0.259) + 0.9
( )

= 0.6225
( )

From graph 4.1.1.2-8, is estimated from maximum thickness = 0.0789,

= 6.98
Then, overall is calculated as below

1.05
= [ ] ( )
( )
1.05
= [0.6225](6.98)
0.995
= 4.585
= 0.08
4.1.3 Wing zero lift angle of attack (section 4.1.3.1)
For untwisted, constant section wings the zero-lift angle of attack is:

(0 )=0 =

Where , and are the section design lift coefficient, angle of attack for the design lift
coefficient, and section lift-curve slope, respectively. ( The horizontal tail lift also can
estimated by the equation)
Where,
= Section lift coefficient
= Induce angle
= Section lift curve angle

19

(0 )=0 =

0.4104
(0 )=0 = 0
0.08
(0 )=0 = 5.13
4.1.4 Wing or horizontal tail lift curve slope (section 4.1.3.2)
2
=

2 ( )
2 2 2
2+ 2 (1+ )+4
2

Where,

= = Lift curve slope

= Wing half chord sweap= 0

2

A= Wing aspect ratio= 4.83

4.585
= = = 0.73
2 2

2
=
4.83 2
4.83 0.9955 2
2+ ( 1 + 0) + 4
0.732
= 3.416

20
4.1.5 Wing lift in the nonlinear angle of attack (Section 4.1.3.3)
To calculate the lift on conventional, straight-tapered wing at angle of attack from 00 to 900 at
speeds, the basic equations is as followed:
sin2
= = + sin [sin ]
2
Where the quantity of is the linear theory normal force curve slope for the appropriate
speed regime (approximated by at subsonic and transonic speed).
sin 2( )

@
( ) = 2
sin( ) [sin( ) ]
Where,

= 1.15938 ( )

, = 11.54

= = 3.416 ( )

900
= [1 + ]
90 , 90 ,

Sample Calculation at = 80

1.4 900 (1.4)

= 8 [1 + ] = 6.324
90 11.54 90 11.54

= 0.1104

sin 2(11.54)
1.15938 3.416
( ) = 2 = 15.200
(sin(11.54))2

To obtain from the figure 4.1.3.3-55a, we need to have J:

3
(2 + 1)
= 0.3(1 + 1) {(1 + 1)(2 + 1) [ ] }
7

3
4.83 (0 + 1)100
= 0.3(0 + 1) 0 {(1)(1) [ ] }
0.9995 7

= 1.45

21
 0.1104
= = 0.5428
, 0.2014

Based on figure 3 below, = 2

Figure 4.1: Figure Subsonic lift variation with angle of attack

Thus,

= ( ) +

= 15.2 + 2 = 17.2

For CN

2
= + 2
2
2(0.1104)
= 3.416 + 17.22 (0.1104)
2

= 0.30927

Hence

= = 0.30927 cos(8)
= 0.30723

22
 Table 4.2: lift for wing NACA
2
2
(degree) (radian) , 2
-6 -4.6615 -0.0814 -0.3994 2.0000 17.2000 0.1136 -0.3807 -0.2671 -0.2662

-4 -2.7349 -0.0477 -0.2340 2.0000 17.2000 0.0392 -0.2240 -0.1848 -0.1846

-2 -0.8083 -0.0141 -0.0691 2.0000 17.2000 0.0034 -0.0663 -0.0629 -0.0629

0 1.1183 0.0195 0.0956 2.0000 17.2000 0.0066 0.0917 0.0983 0.0982

2 3.0449 0.0531 0.2605 2.0000 17.2000 0.0485 0.2493 0.2978 0.2974

4 4.9715 0.0868 0.4261 2.0000 17.2000 0.1292 0.4058 0.5349 0.5329

6 6.8981 0.1204 0.5925 1.0000 16.2000 0.2337 0.5604 0.7941 0.7883

8 8.8247 0.1540 0.7604 0.7500 15.9500 0.3754 0.7125 1.0879 1.0750

10 10.7513 0.1876 0.9300 0.4000 15.6000 0.5429 0.8614 1.4042 1.3796

11.22 11.9265 0.2082 1.0345 0.0000 15.2000 0.6491 0.9503 1.5995 1.5649

4.1.6 Subsonic normal force at angle of attack beyond stall

The equation for nonlinear coefficient at angle of attack beyond the stall is:
2
tan
= ( ) + [( )90 ( ) ] [1 ] + 2 ( )
tan
2.3
Where
( )900 is the normal force coefficient at = 900 .
sin 2
At 900 , ( ) = since sin2 =1 and =0
2

D is an empirical nonlinear term from figure 4.1.3.3-55a

is the maximum lift coefficient of the wing, calculated by using low aspect ratio
method. If the wing has a high aspect ratio, the value ( ) is obtained

4
from figure 4.1.3.4-23 at (1 + 1) cos =

23
 Figure 4.2: Lift variation with wing aspect ratio at 90 degree angle of attack

Sample calculation at = 130

To calculate
( ) = 15.2
At 900 , ( ) = = 1.25 (refer figure 4)
, 0.2014
= = 0.8413
0.2427

= 0.9995

D = -0.4 (refer to figure 3)

= 3.416

= 1.15938

= ( )

Figure 4.3: Maximum lift of wings with position of maximum thickness

24
 Based on figure 5, ( ) = 0.8

= ( ) = 0.8 ( )

3.416 1.15938 2
2
= 15.2 + [1.25 15.2 ][1 (0.8413)] + 0.996 (0.4) ( )
2.3
0.8
= 13.9107
Thus,
sin2 sin(2 0.238)
= 3.416 = 0.782907
2 2
sin [sin ] = 13.91072 (0.238) = 0.7737243

sin2
= + sin [sin ]
2
= 0.782907 + 0.7737243 = 1.512722
= = 1.512722 cos(0.238)
= 1.512722

Table 4.3: lift for wing

, 2 sin2
A D
(degree) (radian) 2
14 14.6045 0.2549 0.7836 4.8300 -1.0000 12.0253 0.7645 0.8335 1.5980 1.5464
16 16.5311 0.2885 0.6879 4.8300 -1.4000 10.7530 0.8706 0.9318 1.8024 1.7279

18 18.4577 0.3221 0.6117 4.8300 -1.5500 10.2650 1.0289 1.0259 2.0548 1.9491

20 20.3843 0.3558 0.5495 4.8300 -1.5500 10.2482 1.2433 1.1153 2.3587 2.2110
30 30.0173 0.5239 0.3534 4.8300 -1.3000 10.9743 2.7465 1.4797 4.2261 3.6593
40 39.6503 0.6920 0.2464 4.8300 -0.8000 12.5035 5.0911 1.6783 6.7694 5.2121

60 58.9163 1.0283 0.1231 4.8300 -0.3000 14.0284 10.2890 1.5104 11.7994 6.0919

70 68.5493 1.1964 0.0802 4.8300 -0.9304 12.0525 10.4406 1.1627 11.6033 4.2433

80 78.1823 1.3645 0.0427 4.8300 -0.9065 12.1165 11.6083 0.6848 12.2931 2.5176
90 87.8153 1.5327 0.0078 4.8300 -0.8827 12.1813 12.1636 0.1301 12.2937 0.4686

25
4.1.7 Maximum lift and angle of attack for maximum lift wing (Section 4.1.3.4)
The method used is for untwisted, constant-section, straight-tapered, high aspect ratio
configurations that satisfy below;
4
>
( 1 + 1) cos
Where
A = Wing aspect ratio, from previous calculation
= 4.83
1 = Function of taper ratio from figure 4.1.3.4- 24b
=0
= The sweep of the wing leading edge = 0 , no angle due to straight wing
> 4, (prove)

= ( ) +

= ( ) + 0 +

Where is the section maximum lift coefficient at M = 0.094 obtained from table 4.1.1-
A,-B. While is the wing curve slope from section 4.1.3.2. Next, 0 is the wing zero-lift
angle from appropriate Mach number at section 4.1.3.1. Lastly, is obtained from
figure 4.1.3.4-21b.
From table

( ) = 0.9(1.2882) , = 0

= 0 ,

= ( ) +

= 1.15938

From graph (4.1.3.2), ( 4.1.3.1) and (4.1.3.4-21b)

= 3.416
0 = 2.8758
= 1.9

26
Substitute to angle of attack equation

= ( ) + 0 +

1.15938
= + 2.8758 + 1.9
3.416(180)

= 0.322

4.1.8 Wing zero-lift pitching moment (section 4.1.4.1)

The low speed zero lift pitching moment for untwisted, constant section wing with elliptical
loading may be approximated by
2 /4 0
(0 )=0 =
+ 2 cos /4
Where
0 = Section pitching moment coefficient at zero lift
= 0.8944
= wind twisted angle
= 0
4

4.83 (1)
(0 )=0 = (0.0988)
4.83 + 2(1)
(0 )=0 = 0.06987

4.1.9 Wing zero-lift drag (section 4.1.5.1)

The subsonic wing zero lift drag coefficient based on reference area Sref, is given by
4
0 = [ 1 + ( ) + 100 ( ) ] .

Where
= Turbulence flat-plate skin friction, from figure 4.1.5-1-2.6 at Re= 3 x 107
= 0.0025
t/c = Average stream wise thickness ratio of the wing, from previous calculation
= 0.138
L = Airfoil thickness location parameter
= 1.2 m

27
 = wetted area of wing
= 0.57 x 2.72 x 2
= 3.1008
Sref = 2.72 x 0.05
=0.136

= Reference area
. = Lifting surface correction factor from figure 4.1.5.1-28b = 1.6
4
0 = [ 1 + ( ) + 100 ( ) ] .

3.1008
0 = 0.0025[ 1 + 1.2(0.138) + 100(0.138)4 ](1.6)
0.136
0 = 0.109611

28
4.1.10 Wing drag at angle of attack (Section 4.1.5.2)
The subsonic drag due lift of twisted, sweptback wings of straight tapered platform for lift
coefficient up to critical lift coefficient given by
2
= + + ( )2

Since = 0 for mini UAV, the equation can be simplify to
2
=

Where,

1.1( )
=

( ) + (1 + )

R= 0.86 from figure 4.1.5.2-53

Hence e= 0.12
Calculation can be summarise as table below
( deg )
-6 0.038901208 0.027887619

-4 0.018707268 0.012892698

-2 0.002171942 0.002196508

0 0.00529383 0

2 0.048554436 0.010385397

4 0.155897239 0.037218413

6 0.34113795 0.08258381

8 0.634401076 0.15015873

10 1.044848573 0.24088254

11.22 1.344374182 0.306571362

29
4.2 Body alone
4.2.1 Body Lift Curve Slope (Section 4.2.1.1)
According to US DATCOM, the lift-curve slope for bodies of revolution at subsonic speeds
using the potential flow term is given by
2(2 1 )0
= 2/3

Where
VB = Total body volume
= 0.0946 m3
(k2 k1) = Apparent mass factor developed by Munk as a function of body fineness
ratio=7.25, from graph 4.2.1.1-209
= 0.9
S0= Body cross-sectional area
= 0.2652 m2
X0 = Body station where the flow ceases to be potential. This is a function of x 1, the body
station where the parameter, dSx/ dx first reaches its maximum negative value X0 and X1 are
correlated.
2(0.9)(0.085592)
=
(0.0946)2/3
= 2.22

Table 4.4: Body lift at angle of attack

(deg) CL
0 2.22
4 2.22
8 2.22
12 2.22
16 2.22

30
4.2.2 Body Lift in the Nonlinear Angle of Attack Range (Section 4.2.1.2)
According to US DATCOM section 4.2.1.2, the expression for the lift coefficient of a body of
revolution is
2(2 1 )0 2 2
= 2/3
+ 2/3

2(0.9)(0.085592) 2 2 1.92 0.6232

= + ( 0.63 ) [ ]
(0.0946)2/3 (0.0946)2/3 2
= 2.22 + 5.4204( 2 )
= angle of attack in radian
= Ratio of drag on a finite cylinder to the drag on an infinite cylinder from figure 4.2.1.2-
-----35a
= 0.63
= Body length
= 1.9 m
0 = Maximum front length
= 0.623 m
r = body radius at any longitudinal station
= 0.19 m
= Steady-state cross flow drag coefficient of a circular cylinder of finite length, it based on
the assumption that the flow is potential over the forward part of the body, the flow is assumed
to be entirely viscous, with lift arising solely from the cross-flow drag at Mach number 0.094
= 1.2 from figure 4.2.1.2-35b
Table 4.5: Body lift in non-linear angle of attack

(deg) ()
0 0 0
2 0.0349 0.08413372
4 0.0698 0.181487262
6 0.1048 0.292060626
8 0.1397 0.415853811
10 0.1746 0.552866818
12 0.2095 0.703099646
14 0.2444 0.866552296
16 0.2794 1.043224768
18 0.3143 1.233117061

31
4.2.3 Body Zero-Lift Drag (Section 4.2.3.1)
The subsonic zero-lift drag of an isolated body based on the maximum body frontal area is
given as,

60
0 = [ 1 + 3 + 0.0025 ( )] +

( )

Where the first term on the right hand side of the equation is zero lift drag of the body exclusive
of the base drag and
= The turbulence flat-plate skin friction coefficient from figure 4.1.5.1.26 at
=1.90, k=0.4 x 10-3, Ma=0.094, Re=1x 107
= 0.0027

=Body fitness ratio

= 7.25
CDb = Base-drag coefficient based on the maximum body frontal area given
3
0.029 ( )
=
( )

60
( ) = [ 1 + 3 + 0.0025 ( )]

( )

60 0.9279
( ) = 0.0027 [ 1 + 3
+ 0.0025(7.25)]
(7.25) 0.6438
( ) = 4.5747 103

Substitute base-drag coefficient fuselage into base-drag coefficient

0.029 (0.98)3
=
4.5747 103
= 0.403
Where

=Ratio of base diameter to maximum diameter

= 0.98
( ) = Zero lift drag of the body exclusive of the base

= Body maximum frontal area

= 0.6438 m2

32
 = Wetted area of surface area of the body excluding the base area.
= 0.9279 m2
Where
= Cross-sectional area
= 0.2652 m2
Then substitute all value the body zero lift drag become
0 = 4.5747 103 + 0.0435
0 = 0.048
4.2.4 Body Drag at Angle of Attack (Section 4.2.3.2)
The total drag of a body at angle of attack can be expressed as,
= 0 + ()
Where 0 is the body zero-lift drag, as developed in previous section and () is the drag
due to angle of attack as determined in this section
Method 1:
The subsonic drag due to angle of attack of a body of revolution, based on ( )2/3 , is given as

2(2 1 )0 2 2 3
() = 2/3
+ 2/3

2(2 1 )0 2 2
= 2/3
+ 2/3

Table 4.6: Body drag at angle of attack

(deg) () () 0 0 + ()
0 0 0 0 0.048 0.048
4 0.0698 0.181487 0.012668 0.048 0.060668
8 0.1396 0.415854 0.058053 0.048 0.106053
12 0.2094 0.7031 0.147229 0.048 0.195229
16 0.2792 1.043225 0.259972 0.048 0.307972

33
4.3 Wing-body
4.3.1 Win-Body Lift Curve Slope

( ) = [ + () + () ]( ) ( )

Where

KN, KW(B) and KB(W) represent the ratios of the nose lift, the wing lift in the presence of the
body, and the body lift in the presence of the wing respectively to the wing alone lift.

Se = exposed wing area

SW = total projected area

( ) = lift curve slope of exposed wing based on exposed wing area and exposed aspect ratio

( ) ( )
=
( )

2 0.38 2
= ( ) = ( ) = 0.113
2 2

= 2.7 0.57 = 1.539

0.113
= = 0.074
1.539

( ) = 2 ( )

( ) ( ) = 3.416

2
= (0.074) = 0.043
3.416

( ) = [ + () + () ]( ) ( )

() = 1.1 ( 4.3.1.2.10)

() = 0.19 ( 4.3.1.2.10)

( ) = [0.043 + 1.1 + 0.19](3.416)(0.99) = 4.508/

34
 4.3

Then, we have

( ) = ( )

Where

( ) = lift coefficient of wing body at zero angle of attack

= wing setting angle

= zero-lift angle of attack

= = 0

35
 = 2.8758

( ) = (0 + 2.8758) ( ) (4.508) = 0.2263/
180

( ) = ( ) + ( )

Where

= new effective angle of attack (relative to fuselage line)

( ) = 0.2263 + 4.508

Table 4.7: Wing-Body Lift in the Nonlinear Angle of Attack Range

, degree ( )

-8 -0.40322
-4 -0.08846

0 0.2263
4 0.541059
8 0.855817

11.39 1.122575

4.3.2 Wing-Body Lift in the Nonlinear Angle of Attack Range

= {( ) + [() + () ]( ) }

= {( ) (0.074) + [1.1 + 0.19]( ) }(0.99)

= {( ) (0.074) + [1.29]( ) }(0.99)

= 0.07326( ) + 1.2771( )

Where (CN)e = CN taken from section 4.1.3.3

36
Table 1.8: CN for wing body

(O) (rad) (CN)N (CN)E CN CL

-4 -0.06982 -0.0696 17.2 21.96102 -0.18463
-2 -0.03491 -0.03488 17.2 21.96356 -0.06287
0 0 0 17.2 21.96612 0.098244
2 0.034911 0.034883 17.2 21.96868 0.297415
4 0.069822 0.069596 17.2 21.97122 0.53293
6 0.104733 0.103969 16.2 20.69664 0.788338
8 0.139644 0.137836 15.95 20.37984 1.075009
10 0.174556 0.171031 15.6 19.93529 1.3796
11.22 0.195851 0.190881 15.2 19.4259 1.564944
14 0.244378 0.234764 15.2 19.42912 2.044889
16 0.279289 0.26499 15.2 19.43133 2.4088

4.3.3 Wing-Body Maximum Lift

( )
( ) = ( )
( )

( )
( ) = ( )
( )

Where
( )
( )
= ratio of the wing body maximum lift to wing maximum lift as a function of wing

body geometry, d/b

( ) = wing maximum lift obtained previously

( )
= ratio of the wing body angle of attack at maximum lift to wing angle of attack at
( )

maximum lift as a function of wing body geometry, d/b

( ) = wing alone angle of attack at maximum lift obtained previously

(2 + 1) = 0 = 0

Thus, value is taken at 1 as there is no value 0 in the graph,

37
( )
= 0.19 ( 4.3.1.4 12)
( )

( ) = 1.15938

( )
= 1.1 ( 4.3.1.4 12)
( )

( ) = 11.5

( ) = (0.9)(1.15938) = 1.0434

( ) = (1.1)(11.5) = 12.65 = 0.221/

38
 4.3.4 Wing-body zero lift pitching moment (Section 4.3.2.1)
=
(2 1 )
(0 ) = 2 [(0 ) + ( ) ]
36.5
=0

is the average width of a body increment

(0 ) is the wing zero-lift angle relative to the fuselage reference line
is the incidence angle of the fuselage camber line relative to the fuselage reference
( )
plane at the increment centre
is the length of the body increment
Is the body length

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

INCREMENT wf (m) (0 ) ( ) 2 [(0 ) + ( ) ]

1 0.210 -0.02687
2 0.328 -0.06554
3 0.378 -0.08704
4 0.395 -0.09650
5 0.391 -0.09313
6 0.353 -0.07591
7 0.223 -0.03029
8 0.151 -0.01389
-5.13o 0o 0.11875
9 0.135 -0.01110
10 0.118 -0.008482
11 0.109 -0.007238
12 0.101 -0.006214
13 0.093 -0.005269
14 0.071 -0.003071
15 0.059 -0.002121
16 0.042 -0.001075
Total -0.53374

39
 0.9
(0 ) = (0.53374) = 0.01484
36.5 (1.5561)(0.57)
(0 )

(0 ) = [ (0 ) + (0 ) ]
(0 )
0

(0 ) = [0.06987 0.01484](1) = 0.08471

4.3.5 Wing-Body Pitching Moment Curve Slope (Aerodynamic Centre) (Section 4.3.2.2)
..
( ) = ( )


( .. ) + ( .. ) + ( .. )

.. ()
() ()
()
=
+ +
() ()

.. (0.5)(3.416) + (0.247)(4.508) + 0.25(2.22)

=
10.144
..
= 0.3329

..
= ( )


Where = 1 because the wing is straight and rectangular

= 0.3329

..
( ) = ( )


( ) = 0.247

40
4.3.6 Wing-Body Zero Lift Drag (Section 4.3.3.1)

4 ( )
(0 ) = { [1 + ( ) + 100 ( ) ]

60
+ [1 + 3 + 0.0025 ] } + 0

( )

3.1008
(0 ) = {0.0025[1 + 1.2(0.138) + 100(0.138)4 ]1.6
1.5504

60 1.90 0.9279 0.6438

+ 0.0027 [1 + 3 + 0.0025 ] } 1.6 + 0.048
1.90 0.42 1.5504 1.5504
(0.42)

(0 ) = 0.03055

4.3.7 Wing-Body Drag at Angle of Attach (Section 4.3.3.2)

( ) = (0 ) + ( )

( )
( ) = ( ) + [ ()]

Table 4.9: Total drag and wing-body drag at angle of attack

() () ( ) [ ()] ( ) (0 ) ( )
0 0.0000 0.4104 0.09254 0 0.09254 0.03055 0.12309
1 0.0175 0.5439 0.1625 0.000706 0.1628 0.03055 0.19335
2 0.0349 0.6580 0.2379 0.002938 0.2392 0.03055 0.26975

3 0.0524 0.7494 0.3086 0.00687 0.3115 0.03055 0.34205

4 0.0698 0.8412 0.3888 0.012675 0.3934 0.03055 0.42395

5 0.0873 0.9256 0.4707 0.020526 0.4795 0.03055 0.51005

6 0.1047 0.9940 0.5429 0.030597 0.5560 0.03055 0.58655

7 0.1222 1.0803 0.6412 0.043059 0.6597 0.03055 0.69025

8 0.1396 1.1561 0.7343 0.058053 0.7592 0.03055 0.78975

9 0.1571 1.2081 0.8019 0.075854 0.8344 0.03055 0.86495

10 0.1745 1.2511 0.8600 0.096532 0.9014 0.03055 0.93195

41
4.3.8 Wing-Body Subsonic Downwash (Section 4.4.1)
1/2 1.19
= 4.44 [ (cos /4 ) ]

1 1.19
= 4.44 [(0.14)(1)(1.32)(1)2 ]


= 0.5953

4.4 Wing-body-tail
4.4.1 Wing-Body-Tail Lift Curve Slope (Section 4.5.1.1)

is the desired lift-curve slope of the wing-body-tail combination

are the lift-curve slopes of the exposed forward and aft surfaces,
respectively

are the appropriate wing-body interference factors for the

and
forward and aft surfaces, respectively.

is the downwash gradient averaged over the aft surface

Is the average dynamic-pressure ratio acting on the aft surface

are the ratios of the exposed to gross planform area of the fore
and and aft surfaces, respectively.
raito of aft to forward gross planform areas.

42
4.4.2 Wing-Body-Tail Maximum Lift (Section 4.5.1.3)
The wing-body-tail angle of attack at maximum lift is assumed to be identical to the wing-body
angle of attack at maximum lift obtained rom Section 4.5.1.3. The method is based on the wing-
body maximum lift plus the tail-body lift that is required to trim the vehicle at . The
wing-body-tail maximum lift is determined by

Where

Wing-body maximum lift based on wing area.

Horizontal-tail lift at in the presence of the wing-

body, and vertical tail, based on the wing area. The value of this
term is determined from considering the horizontal-tail forces that
affect the vehicle pitching moment.

Where
wing-pitching moment at stall angle of attack based with respect
to
=0.004 horizontal-tail-body drag at
wing-body angle of attack at stall

wing downwash at the horizontal tail

ratio of the height of the quarter-chord point of the horizontal-tail
(main aft wing here) MAC above the quarter-chord point of the
wing MAC, to the wing MAC. The height is measured
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and is positive for the
horizontal tail above the wing.
ratio of the distance from the quarter-chord point of the wing to
the quarter-chord point of the horizontal panel MAC

horizontal-tail pitching moment at with respect to

the quarter-chord point of the horizontal-tail (main wing) MAC
For horizontal tails with symmetric airfoil sections, this term is
neglected

43
Thus,

Finally,

From 4.3.3 Wing-Body Maximum Lift, the value is

() CL CLH(WBV) CLmax
0 0 0 0.0097162 1.0531162
2 0.0841337 0.0034445 0.0097257 1.0531257
4 0.1814873 0.0074303 0.0097369 1.0531369
6 0.2920606 0.0119573 0.0097498 1.0531498
8 0.4158538 0.0170255 0.0097644 1.0531644
10 0.5528668 0.0226349 0.0097809 1.0531809
12 0.7030996 0.0287856 0.0097993 1.0531993
14 0.8665522 0.0354775 0.0098198 1.0532198
16 1.0432247 0.0427107 0.0098424 1.0532424
18 1.2331170 0.0504851 0.0098673 1.0532673

CLmax
1.05328
1.05326
1.05324
1.05322
1.0532
CL max

1.05318
1.05316
1.05314
1.05312
1.0531
0 5 10 15 20
(degree)

44
4.4.3 Wing-Body-Tail Zero Lift Drag (Section 4.5.3.1)
The subsonic zero-lift drag coefficient of a complete configuration is approximated by

Where the subscript refers to the tail panels

= zero-lift drag coefficient for the wing-body configuration

= zero-lift drag coefficient of tail panel, based on the exposed panel geometry

=wetted area of exposed panel

Calculation:
Thus,

Thus,

Mach number is 0.094, Reynolds number is 1107, from the DATCOM Figure 4.1.5.1-26, skin
friction coefficient is 0.003.

For horizontal tail,

For vertical tail,

Thus,

45
4.4.4 Wing-Body-Tail Drag at Angle of Attack (Section 4.5.3.2)
The total vehicle drag at angle of attack consists of the following items:

1. wing-body zero-lift drag

2. wing-body induced drag

3. vertical stabilizer zero-lift drag

4. horizontal-stabilizer zero-lift drag

5. horizontal-stabilizer induced drag

The drag coefficient of a wing-body-tail configuration at angle of attack is given by,

The trim-drag coefficient is given by,

Where

is the horizontal-stabilizer drag coefficient, based on the total horizontal-

stabilizer area and taken relative to the local-flow direction at the
horizontal stabilizer.
is the horizontal-stabilizer lift coefficient required to trim, based on the
total horizontal-stabilizer area and taken relative to the local-flow
direction at the horizontal stabilizer.
is the average downwash angle at the horizontal stabilizer

is the ratio of total horizontal- stabilizer area to the total wing area

is the average dynamic-pressure ratio at the horizontal tail

The horizontal-stabilizer drag coefficient is given by,

Where

is the horizontal-stabilizer zero-lift drag coefficient

is the horizontal-stabilizer induced-drag coefficient given by

46
Where

is the geometric aspect ratio of the horizontal stabilizer

is Oswalds efficiency factor for the induced drag of the horizontal tail. For purpose
of the Datcom, for a horizontal stabilizer mounted on the vertical
stabilizer.

is the distance between the vehicle center of gravity and the quarter-chord
point of the horizontal-stabilizer MAC.
is the wing-body pitching moment coefficient given by

is the wing-body pitching-moment-curve slope

is the wing-body zero-lift pitching-moment coefficient

is the wing-body lift coefficient given by

Where

is the wing-body lift-curve slope

is the wing-body zero-lift angle of attack

Is the wing-body angle of attack

47
The value will be bellow.

() cos(-+H) tan(-+H) (Cm)WB L CLH

0 0.99065 0.13764 -0.02882 -10.50077 -0.25054
2 0.99481 0.10223 0.01005 4.58922 0.10949
4 0.99775 0.06707 0.04891 19.99979 0.47718
6 0.99949 0.03207 0.08778 35.23161 0.84059
8 0.99999 -0.00284 0.12665 49.79842 1.18815
10 0.99929 -0.03776 0.16552 63.33131 1.51103
12 0.99736 -0.07279 1.17042 75.629226 1.80445

CLH
2

1.5

1
CLH

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-0.5
(degree)

48
Then, we simplified the equation for (CDi)H, CDH and CDtrim.

() H () sinH cosH CLH CDH CDtrim

0 2.5 0.04361 0.99905 -0.25054 0.16658 0.00797
2 2.5 0.04361 0.99905 0.10950 0.14263 0.00755
4 2.5 0.04361 0.99905 0.47718 0.24435 0.01358
6 2.5 0.04361 0.99905 0.84060 0.47019 0.02597
8 2.5 0.04361 0.99905 1.18815 0.80269 0.04378
10 2.5 0.04361 0.99905 1.51103 1.21368 0.06555
12 2.5 0.04361 0.99905 1.80445 1.67243 0.08971

CDH
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
CDH

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(degree)

CDtrim
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
CDtrim

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(degree)

49
Hence, the drag coefficient of the wing-body-tail configuration at angle of attack.

() (CDi)WB CDtrim CD
0 0.0925 0.00797 0.26804
2 0.2392 0.00755 0.41428
4 0.3934 0.01358 0.57451
6 0.5560 0.02597 0.74950
8 0.7592 0.04378 0.97051
10 0.9014 0.06555 1.13448

CD wing-body-tail
1.2

1
CD wing-body-tail

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(degree)

50
Analysis Summarize
Section
Lift
Zero-Lift Angle of Attack -2.8758o
Lift-Curve Slope 0.08 per deg

(o ) Cl Cd Cm
-6 -0.2042 0.01113 -1.009
-4 0.0066 0.00834 -0.0986
-2 0.219 0.00695 -0.0958
0 0.4101 0.00515 -0.0896
2 0.658 0.00573 -0.0949
4 0.8412 0.0072 -0.0869
6 0.994 0.01171 -0.0748
8 1.1561 0.01531 -0.0642
10 1.2511 0.02112 -0.0438
12 1.2996 0.03195 -0.025
13.5 1.3258 0.04328 -0.0168
14 1.3224 0.04909 -0.015
16 1.2535 0.08471 -0.0219
18 1.084 0.15907 -0.0646

Cl vs
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Cl

0.4
0.2
0
-10 -5 -0.2 0 5 10 15 20

-0.4
(degree)

51
 Cd vs
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
Cd

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
(degree)

Cm vs
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.2

-0.4
Cm

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

52
 Wing
Lift
Zero-Lift Angle of Attack -5.13 o
Lift-Curve Slope 3.416 per rad
Lift in the Non-Linear Angle of Attack
2
2
(degree) (radian) , 2
-
-6 -4.6615 -0.0814 -0.3994 2.0000 17.2000 0.1136 -0.3807 -0.2662
0.2671
-
-4 -2.7349 -0.0477 -0.2340 2.0000 17.2000 0.0392 -0.2240 -0.1846
0.1848
-
-2 -0.8083 -0.0141 -0.0691 2.0000 17.2000 0.0034 -0.0663 -0.0629
0.0629
0 1.1183 0.0195 0.0956 2.0000 17.2000 0.0066 0.0917 0.0983 0.0982

2 3.0449 0.0531 0.2605 2.0000 17.2000 0.0485 0.2493 0.2978 0.2974

4 4.9715 0.0868 0.4261 2.0000 17.2000 0.1292 0.4058 0.5349 0.5329
6 6.8981 0.1204 0.5925 1.0000 16.2000 0.2337 0.5604 0.7941 0.7883

8 8.8247 0.1540 0.7604 0.7500 15.9500 0.3754 0.7125 1.0879 1.0750

10 10.7513 0.1876 0.9300 0.4000 15.6000 0.5429 0.8614 1.4042 1.3796

11.22 11.9265 0.2082 1.0345 0.0000 15.2000 0.6491 0.9503 1.5995 1.5649

Maximum Lift 1.15938

Maximum Angle of Attack 0.322 per rad
Subsonic Normal Force at Angle of Attack Beyond Stall
, 2 sin2
A D
(degree) (radian) 2
14 14.6045 0.2549 0.7836 4.8300 -1.0000 12.0253 0.7645 0.8335 1.5980 1.5464
16 16.5311 0.2885 0.6879 4.8300 -1.4000 10.7530 0.8706 0.9318 1.8024 1.7279

18 18.4577 0.3221 0.6117 4.8300 -1.5500 10.2650 1.0289 1.0259 2.0548 1.9491
20 20.3843 0.3558 0.5495 4.8300 -1.5500 10.2482 1.2433 1.1153 2.3587 2.2110

30 30.0173 0.5239 0.3534 4.8300 -1.3000 10.9743 2.7465 1.4797 4.2261 3.6593
40 39.6503 0.6920 0.2464 4.8300 -0.8000 12.5035 5.0911 1.6783 6.7694 5.2121

60 58.9163 1.0283 0.1231 4.8300 -0.3000 14.0284 10.2890 1.5104 11.7994 6.0919

70 68.5493 1.1964 0.0802 4.8300 -0.9304 12.0525 10.4406 1.1627 11.6033 4.2433
80 78.1823 1.3645 0.0427 4.8300 -0.9065 12.1165 11.6083 0.6848 12.2931 2.5176

90 87.8153 1.5327 0.0078 4.8300 -0.8827 12.1813 12.1636 0.1301 12.2937 0.4686
Pitching Moment
Zero-Lift Pitching Moment 0.6325

53
 Drag
Zero-Lift Drag 0.009615
Drag at Angle of Attack
( deg )
-6 0.038901208 0.027887619
-4 0.018707268 0.012892698
-2 0.002171942 0.002196508
0 0.00529383 0
2 0.048554436 0.010385397
4 0.155897239 0.037218413
6 0.34113795 0.08258381
8 0.634401076 0.15015873
10 1.044848573 0.24088254
11.22 1.344374182 0.306571362

Wing Lift in the Non-Linear Angle of Attack

2

1.5

1
CL

0.5

0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-0.5
Angle of Attack

54
 Cd lift wing in non-linear angle
1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.2

Body
Lift
Lift-Curve Slope 2.22
Lift in the Non-Linear Angle of Attack
(deg) () L
0 0 0
2 0.0349 0.08413372
4 0.0698 0.181487262
6 0.1048 0.292060626
8 0.1397 0.415853811
10 0.1746 0.552866818
12 0.2095 0.703099646
14 0.2444 0.866552296
16 0.2794 1.043224768
18 0.3143 1.233117061
Drag

55
 Zero-Lift Drag 0.048
Drag at Angle of Attack
(deg) () () 0 0 + ()
0 0 0 0 0.048 0.048
4 0.0698 0.181487 0.012668 0.048 0.060668
8 0.1396 0.415854 0.058053 0.048 0.106053
12 0.2094 0.7031 0.147229 0.048 0.195229
16 0.2792 1.043225 0.259972 0.048 0.307972

Body Lift in the Non-Linear Angle of Attack

1.4

1.2

0.8
CL

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Angle of Attack (Degree)

56
 Body Drag at Angle of Attack
0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2
Drag

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack

Wing-Body
Lift
Lift-Curve Slope 4.508 per rad
Maximum Lift 1.0434
Lift in the Non-Linear Angle of Attack
, degree ( )
-8 -0.40322
-4 -0.08846
0 0.2263
4 0.541059
8 0.855817
11.39 1.122575
Pitching Moment
Zero-Lift Pitching Moment 0.61766
Pitching Moment Curve Slope
Drag
Zero-Lift Drag 0.03055

57
Subsonic Downwash 0.5953
Drag at Angle of Attack
() () ( ) [ ()] ( ) (0 ) ( )
0 0.0000 0.4104 0.09254 0 0.09254 0.03055 0.12309

1 0.0175 0.5439 0.1625 0.000706 0.1628 0.03055 0.19335

2 0.0349 0.6580 0.2379 0.002938 0.2392 0.03055 0.26975

3 0.0524 0.7494 0.3086 0.00687 0.3115 0.03055 0.34205

4 0.0698 0.8412 0.3888 0.012675 0.3934 0.03055 0.42395

5 0.0873 0.9256 0.4707 0.020526 0.4795 0.03055 0.51005

6 0.1047 0.9940 0.5429 0.030597 0.5560 0.03055 0.58655

7 0.1222 1.0803 0.6412 0.043059 0.6597 0.03055 0.69025

8 0.1396 1.1561 0.7343 0.058053 0.7592 0.03055 0.78975

9 0.1571 1.2081 0.8019 0.075854 0.8344 0.03055 0.86495

10 0.1745 1.2511 0.8600 0.096532 0.9014 0.03055 0.93195

Wing-Body Lift in the Non-Linear Angle of Attack

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
Lift

0.2

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Angle of Attack

58
 Wing-Body Drag at Angle of Attack
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Drag

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Angle of Attack

Wing-Body-Tail
Lift
Lift-Curve Slope 4.554
Maximum Lift 1.053

59
Discussion of result

CL versus alpha
2

1.5

airfoil
1
wing
0.4101
0.50.2263 body
CL

0.0982
0 wing body
0
tail
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
wing body tail
-0.5

-1
alpha

The figure above shows the relation between coefficient of lift with various angle of
attack for airfoil, wing, body, wing body and tail. Ass mention from airfoil selection, our UAV
used the GOE602 as airfoil this is because of its advantages in term of gliding ability and slow
speed cruising. From the figure above we can observe the relationship between airfoil and wing
coefficient which the wing produce less lift compare to airfoil. These is because of
consideration of wing span and aspect ratio calculation 3D behaviour of wing When the lift is
created, the pressure difference will also causes the flow from the underside of the wing to
upper side of the wing at the wing tips. This type of swirl flow is at the tips of the wing is called
vortices. In fact, the vortex exist along the wing but strongest at the wing tips. The result of it
is that the vortices induced a downward flow at the wing, called downwash. This downward
flow cause a change in the local wing angle of attack. The downwash decrease the local angle
of attack to a certain value, called induced angle of attack, i. As a result, the airfoil only react
to effective angle of attack to create lift. This is the biggest reason why a wing have different,
in fact lower coefficient of lift if compare to 2D airfoil. It is also shown that as the aspect ratio
of the wing increase, the lift coefficient versus angle of attack also reduced.

Different case happen while calculating the lift coefficient between body wing and body
(fuselage). Wing body give large different of lift compare to fuselage. This is because lift
produce by fuselage is not affected by wing airfoil, which produce less lift cause by surface
area of the body. However, the lift produce by body lift is effected by the wing lift and area of
the lift body. This provide more lift compare to body lift.

60
 For the case of tail lift, the coefficient of lift, CLH is negative at zero angle of attack,
which is -0.25, however the gradient of the graph is the highest among the others that leads to
a higher increment of value in which it exceeds the coefficient of lift of airfoil at roughly 8 o of
angle of attack. Theoretically, the value of coefficient of tail should be lower than the airfoil
and wing due to lower area and aspect ratio of tail compared to wing. This error might be cause
by the formula of the calculation of the tail lift as it assumes a horizontal tail in which is
different from the V-shape of our tail. Furthermore, there might be some errors regarding the
calculation before which may lead to inaccurate results. The graph of coefficient of lift of wing
body tail shows a constant value of rougly 1.053 which does not really change with the angle
of attack, . According to the calculation, the value of the coefficient of lift changes slightly at
the 4 decimal places which can be neglected compared to the other graph of coefficient of lift.

Hence we can conclude that the coefficient of lift increase as angle of attack increases
reach the maximum angle. Next, the coefficient of lift can be arrange in descending order which
is airfoil, wing, body wing, body and tail.

61
 CD versus alpha
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2 airfoil
1 wing
Body
CD

0.8

0.6 wing body

tail
0.4
0.12309
wing body tail
0.2
0.048
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.2
alpha

Figure above show the relationship between coefficients of lift with various angle of
attack for airfoil, lift wing, wing, body and tail. From the graph airfoil produce less drag
compare to other. This is because it aerodynamic shape which reduce drag. Compare to wing
drag because of rectangular shape wing, it produce greater drag at wing tip of UAV the
gradient produce by wing drag also higher that body drag.

The effect of body drag give small changer at different angle of attack, this is because
effect of body orientation give small area different to calculate drag. However different case
happen for wing body drag. The increasing in angle of attack cause high increasing in drag
produce.

For tail drag coefficient, the graph pattern is an exponential graph as the value
increases tremendously after 2.5o angle of attack which makes it has the highest drag at high
angle of attack. In the case of coefficient of drag of wing body tail, the graph pattern is more
like a linear graph with a slight distortion at the angle of 8o.

62
Conclusion

The results are not expected as it deviated from the theory in which the coefficient of
lift graph values is the highest for airfoil and the follow by the wing, wing-body, wing-body-
tail as the drag of wing is produced by the downwash. The body does not produce much lift
due to its shape which is not effective to generate, thus more drag is generated. However, in
our case, at lower angle of attack (<8o), the values of CL follows the arrangement below from
high to low:

Wing-body-tail > Airfoil > Wing-body > Wing > Tail > Body

At high angle of attack (>8o),

Tail > Wing > Airfoil > Wing-body-tail > Wing-body > Body

In term of CD graph, theoretically speaking, the value of CL is inversed of CD which

means that the value of CD of airfoil should be the lowest. At the maximum value,

Tail > Wing-body-tail > Wing-body > Wing > Body > Airfoil

The hierarchy of values is roughly correct as the drag is dependent of the shape.
However, the pattern of graph of wing-body-tail and wing-body are not common as they have
a linear pattern where the common pattern are exponential. In terms of exponential graph, the
tail has a higher increment of gradient at lower angle of attack compared to the other
exponential graphs.

These deviation might be caused by the errors in calculation and the assumption as
well as the ineffective design of our UAV. Despite the deviation from theory, our CL
increases with for all the components.

As conclusion between the coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag, the lift produce
by UAV is much larger than drag produce. For example during cruising at zero angle of
attack the total lift coefficient lift produce is 0.7346 while coefficient of drag is 0.17109. This
high lift and low drag can help the UAV to glide longer during operation.

63
5. WING LOADING ANALYSIS: SCHRENKS METHOD
Parameters Value
Wing section GOE 602
Wingspan, b 2.73 m
Wing area, S 1.5418 m2
Aspect ratio, AR 4.83
Chord length, c 0.57 m

Top view:

20 Divisions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Half wing span = 1.365m

64

Station y (m) [ ( ) ] ( )



1 0 0 1 0.718983965
2 0.06825 0.05 0.998749218 0.718084673
3 0.1365 0.10 0.994987437 0.715380013
4 0.20475 0.15 0.988685997 0.710849378
5 0.273 0.20 0.979795897 0.704457539
6 0.34125 0.25 0.968245837 0.696153231
7 0.4095 0.30 0.953939201 0.68586699
8 0.47775 0.35 0.9367497 0.673508014
9 0.546 0.40 0.916515139 0.658959689
10 0.61425 0.45 0.893028555 0.642073212
11 0.6825 0.50 0.866025404 0.622658379
12 0.75075 0.55 0.835164654 0.600469995
13 0.819 0.60 0.8 0.575187172
14 0.88725 0.65 0.759934208 0.54638051
15 0.9555 0.70 0.714142843 0.513457253
16 1.02375 0.75 0.661437828 0.475563192
17 1.092 0.80 0.6 0.431390379
18 1.16025 0.85 0.526782688 0.378748306
19 1.2285 0.90 0.435889894 0.313397845
20 1.29675 0.95 0.3122499 0.224502671
21 1.365 1.00 0 0

65
n Wo Station y (m) c (m) cCL CL
4 50 1 0 0.57 0.644492 1.130688 0.043971 113.0557
4 50 2 0.06825 0.57 0.644042 1.129899 0.04391 112.8976
4 50 3 0.1365 0.57 0.64269 1.127526 0.043786 112.5802
4 50 4 0.20475 0.57 0.640425 1.123552 0.0436 112.101
4 50 5 0.273 0.57 0.637229 1.117945 0.043349 111.4563
4 50 6 0.34125 0.57 0.633077 1.110661 0.043032 110.6407
4 50 7 0.4095 0.57 0.627933 1.101638 0.042646 109.6473
4 50 8 0.47775 0.57 0.621754 1.090797 0.042186 108.4669
4 50 9 0.546 0.57 0.61448 1.078035 0.04165 107.0878
4 50 10 0.61425 0.57 0.606037 1.063222 0.041031 105.4953
4 50 11 0.6825 0.57 0.596329 1.046192 0.040321 103.6702
4 50 12 0.75075 0.57 0.585235 1.026728 0.039511 101.5876
4 50 13 0.819 0.57 0.572594 1.00455 0.038588 99.21472
4 50 14 0.88725 0.57 0.55819 0.979281 0.037535 96.50663
4 50 15 0.9555 0.57 0.541729 0.950401 0.036326 93.39989
4 50 16 1.02375 0.57 0.522782 0.917161 0.034926 89.79962
4 50 17 1.092 0.57 0.500695 0.878413 0.033274 85.55236
4 50 18 1.16025 0.57 0.474374 0.832235 0.031261 80.37604
4 50 19 1.2285 0.57 0.441699 0.77491 0.028629 73.60931
4 50 20 1.29675 0.57 0.397251 0.696932 0.013556 34.85474
4 50 21 1.365 0.57 0 0 0 0

66
Station y (m) V M (N.m) Ln
1 0 1962 130.0485 130.0485 130.0485
2 0.06825 1848.944 122.3378 122.3378 122.3378
3 0.1365 1736.047 114.6434 114.6434 114.6434
4 0.20475 1623.466 106.9761 106.9761 106.9761
5 0.273 1511.365 99.34725 99.34725 99.34725
6 0.34125 1399.909 91.76819 91.76819 91.76819
7 0.4095 1289.268 84.25086 84.25086 84.25086
8 0.47775 1179.621 76.80771 76.80771 76.80771
9 0.546 1071.154 69.4519 69.4519 69.4519
10 0.61425 964.0664 62.19751 62.19751 62.19751
11 0.6825 858.5711 55.05973 55.05973 55.05973
12 0.75075 754.9009 48.05531 48.05531 48.05531
13 0.819 653.3133 41.20293 41.20293 41.20293
14 0.88725 554.0986 34.52394 34.52394 34.52394
15 0.9555 457.592 28.04338 28.04338 28.04338
16 1.02375 364.1921 21.7917 21.7917 21.7917
17 1.092 274.3925 15.80781 15.80781 15.80781
18 1.16025 188.8401 10.1455 10.1455 10.1455
19 1.2285 108.464 4.890754 4.890754 4.890754
20 1.29675 34.85474 1.189418 1.189418 1.189418
21 1.365 0 0 0 0

67
 CLvs y
1.2

0.8

0.6
CL

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
y (m)

As we can see, the coefficient of lift is the highest at the root of the wing and smallest at the
wing tip. The value decreases gradually until the wing tip where the value sudden drops to
zero.

The maximum CL is 1.13.

cCl vs y
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
cCl

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
y (m)

cCl vs y

This graph is similar to the graph before which is CL vs y in the same pattern with the
multiplication with c, chord length that means wing load distribution coefficient in order to
determine the shear force values shown in the graph below. The maximum value of cCL is
0.6445.

68
 Clellipse, cCl and Half platform wing vs y
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Cl

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
y (m)
plan view half wing cCl vs y ellipse, cy vs y

According to Peery, Schrenks Approximation assumes that the load distribution on an

untwisted wing or tail has a shape that is average of the actual planform shape and an elliptic
shape of the same span and area, which results in Cy (ellipse lift coefficient).

From the observation on the graph, the Cy (ellipse lift coefficient) has a higher lift coefficient
that cCL at the wing root, however the lift coefficient of Cy is lower than cCL after the 0.8m
of the wing span which is 57.14% of the wing span. This can be explained using the formula
for both lift coefficients.

2 2
41 ( )

=

2 2
41 ( )

= +
2 2

As we can observe from both of the equations, the lift coefficient of cCL will definitely be
smaller than Cy because the 1st term of the equation is half of Cy, thus lowering its value as
the 1st term value is higher than that of 2nd term which is c/2.

The higher lift at the root and lower lift at the tip is also a better condition for the wing as the
wing will experience less bending which results in longer lifespan of the wing.

The maximum value of Cy is 0.7190 whereas the maximum value of cCL is 0.6445.

69
 Ln vs y
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Ln (N)

800
600
400
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
y (m)

LN is the local lifting force at specified station,

( )
=

Where n is the maximum load factor in which we assume to be 4.

Wo is the maximum takeoff weight, kg

g is the gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2

As we can see that the lift is the highest at the wing root and quadratically become zero at the
wing tip.

The maximum LN is 1657.07N

70
 V vs y
2500

2000

1500
V (N)

1000 y = -1481.5x + 1908.1

500

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
-500
y (m)

= 21 + 20 + +

( )
=

The maximum value of VN is 1962 N which located at the wing root and zero at the wing tip.

The graph is a roughly linear graph with a trendline of y=-1481.5x + 1908.1.

The value is higher at the wing root because of the formula as the the value at the wing root is
summation of all of , at all station, as the shear
force moves to the next station, the 1st station is not considered, thus reducing the shear force
value.

Basiclly, the shear force calculation is based on the summation of lift force at each station in
a cummulative sequence which means that the higher the lift force, the higher the shear force.

71
 M vs y
1400

1200

1000
M (Nm)

800

600

400

200

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
y (m)

+1 +
= (+1 )
2

= 21 + 20 + +

Similarly, the bending moment is affected by the value of V which is affected by the value of
L, thus the higher the value of L, the higher the value of V, the higher the value of M,
bending moment.

Therefore, the bending moment is the highest at the wing root which is 1218.54Nm and zero
at the wing tip due to no lift at the wing tip.

However, compared to previous graph which is V vs y, M vs y shows a inversely

proportional graph instead of a linear graph.

To sum it up, M increases with V and V increases with L, thus M increases with L as well.

72
6. REFERENCES
i. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, Barnes W. McCormick, 1979.
ii. Aerofoil. Retrieved on November 1, 2017 from
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:aerofoil.
iii. Aerofoil in General. Retrieved on November 1, 2017 from
http://www.dynamicflight.com/aerodynamics/airfoils/.
iv. Aerofoil and Airflow. Retrieved on November 1, 2017 from
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html.

v. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, D.P Raymer, Fourth Edition, AIAA

Education Series, 2006.
vi. Aircraft Performance and Design, J.D. Anderson, McGraw-Hill, 1999
vii. Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis, Denis Howe, John Wiley & Sons, 2005
viii. Airfoil Data Base. Retrieved on November 7, 2017 from
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=goe602-il

ix. Airplane Design Part VI : Preliminary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust and Power
Characteristics, Dr. Jan Roskam, 2008.
x. Civil Drones (Unmanned Aircraft). Retrieved on October 25, 2017 from
https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/civil-drones-rpas
xi. Components of Control Loop. http://controlguru.com/the-components-of-a-control-
loop/.

xii. Douglas Aircraft Division (1978). U.S.A.F. Stability and Control Datcom. United
States of America: McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
xiii. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, E. Torenbeek, Delft University Press,
Netherlands, 1979
xiv. The Design of the Aeroplane, D. Stinton, 1983
xv. Wings Design. http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/wing31.htm.

73