Abstract – This report consists of different weight Table 1 UAV’s Geometric and Performance Parameters

estimations of different parts which are Raymer Method,

USAF Method, Kroo Method, Torenbeek Method, Jay Parameters Values
Gundhlach Method, Kundu Method and more. It also Ww Wing weight 28.27 lbs
includes the comparison of weight estimation between the Sw Exposed Area 132 ft2
method used. The values used are from the previous report Wfw Battery Weight 4.4 lbs
and the 3D model of the UAV.
A Aspect Ratio 7.6
I. Introduction q Dynamic Pressure 0.156 psf
This report will focus on estimating the weight of 𝞚 Sweep Angle 0
different parts of the UAV using different methods. Most λ Taper Ratio 1
methods will be used represents the general aviation airplanes t/c Thickness to Chord Ratio 0.8
or unmanned aerial class vehicle.
N Ultimate Load Factor 5.57
For different parts of the UAV, different parameters Wto Take-off Weight 66 lbs
will be used for estimating the weight. In landing gears, Maximum Level Speed at
takeoff gross weight will be used and for wings including the V 132 ft/s2
Sea Level
empennage the datas will be their own dimensions. b Wing Span 11.5175 ft
Most values will be used in this report will come
from the 3D model of the designers Ultimate UAV. Some The Table 1 shows all the parameters needed in the
values estimated like velocities will also be used in some part estimation of the wing weight which are calculated in the
of the report. previous technical reports.
II. Objectives The following methods are from [1].
This report targets to acquire different weight A. Raymer Method
estimations using different methods from [1] to different
parts. There will be also comparison between the estimated A 0.6
weights on the parts that are subjected to estimation and the WW =0.036 × SW 0.758 ×Wfw 0.0035 × ( 2 )
cos Λ
percentage of the acceptable estimated values to the empty
t -0.3
weight of the UAV. 100×
×q0.006 ×λ0.04 × ( c) ×(N×w )0.49
dg
III. Wing Weight Estimation cos Λ

The Wing weight estimation is important because (1)

wing is the one that produces most of lift of the aircraft. Thus,
The estimated Wing weight is 𝑾𝒘 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟕𝟕 𝒌𝒈.
there are different factors that affect the aircraft weight when
it comes to the construction of the wing. First is the choice of B. USAF Method
material because different materials has different density thus
different weight. For this UAV design, the designer’s chose Wo x Nz A 0.57
Ww = 96.948 × (( 5
)0.65 x ( )
to use balsa wood for the core of the wing and composite for 10 cos ∧
the skin because both material is light weight and has high
Sw 0.61 1+ λ 0.36 V
strength to weight ratio. x x( ) x (1+ )0.5 )0.993 (2)
100 2 x (t⁄c) 500

It is important to minimize weight of the wing
however, it could have led to some compromises. There are
several methods made by different mathematician in order to
estimate weights in which the variables needed to supplement
to the formulas were calculated based on the performance
requirements.
The estimated Wing weight is 𝑾𝒘 = 𝟕. 𝟏𝟗 𝒌𝒈.
C. Kroo Method
Ww = 4.22 x Swg + 1.642 x 10-6 x
Nul x b3 x (TOW x ZFW)0.5 x (1 +2 x λ)
( )
( t⁄c ) x cos2 ∧ x Swg x (1+λ)

(3)

1|Page
 The estimated Wing weight is 𝑾𝒘 = 𝟏𝟒. 𝟗𝟓 𝒌𝒈. IV. Empennage Weight Estimation

D. Torenbeek Method A. Cessna Method

b 0.75 The Cessna equations for horizontal and vertical
Ww = 0.00125 x Wo x ( ) x
cos∧ tails should be applied in small size and with a low
performance aircrafts.
cos∧ 0.5 b x Sw
(1 + 6.3 x ) x Nz 0.55 x ( )0.3
b t x Wo x cos∧ For Horizontal Tail

(4) 3.184 𝑥 𝑊𝑜0.887 𝑥 𝑆ℎ0.101 𝑥 𝐴ℎ0,138

Wh = (7)
57.5 𝑥 𝑡𝑟 0.223
The estimated Wing weight is 𝑾𝒘 = 𝟐. 𝟎𝟒𝟐 𝒌𝒈.
Where the values are Wo is equal to 66 lbs, Sh is
E. Jay Gundlach Method 1.14, Ah is 4, and tr is 1. When the all the values is
substituted to (7), Wh is equal to 2.79 lb.
Ww = 0.0038 x (Nz x Wo )1.06 x A0.38 x
Sw 0.25 x (1 + λ)0.21 x ( t⁄c )0.14 For Vertical Tail
(5) 1.68 𝑥 𝑊𝑜0.887 𝑥 𝑆𝑣 0.101 𝑥 𝐴𝑣 0,138
Wv = (8)
15.6 𝑥 𝑡𝑟 0.223𝑥 (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛬1 )0.882
The estimated Wing weight is 𝑾𝒘 = 𝟕. 𝟒𝟐 𝒌𝒈. 4

F. Kundu Method Where the values Sv is 1.14, Av is 4, and the value

of Λ is 1 . When the all the values is substituted to (8), Wv is
Ww = 0.0215 x (Nz x Wo )0.48 x A x Sw0.78 x equal to 4.58 lb.
wF 0.4
(1- )
0.4 wo
(1 + λ) X
cos∧ x ( t⁄c )0.4 B. Usaf Method

(6) The suggested equations by Usaf should be applied to

aircrafts with performance that will not exceed above 300
The estimated Wing weight is 𝑾𝒘 = 𝟕. 𝟗𝟒𝟕 𝒌𝒈. knots speed.
Table 2 Comparison of Calculated Wing Weight
For Horizontal Tail
Method Weight
𝑊𝑜 𝑁𝑧 0.87 𝑆ℎ 1.2
Raymer method 10.77 kg Wh = 127𝑥 (( ) 𝑥 ( ) x 0.289
105 100
USAF method 7.19 kg
Kroo method 14.95 kg 𝑙ℎ 0.493 𝑏ℎ 0.5 0.458
𝑥 ( ) 𝑥 ( ) )
Torenbeek method 2.042 kg 10 𝑡ℎ

Jay Gundlach method 7.42 kg (9)

Kundu method 7.95 kg Where the values are Wo is equal to 66 lbs, Nz is
Solidworks 12.82 kg 5.57, Sh is 1.14, lh is 4, bh is 1.14, and th is 1. When the all
the values is substituted to (9), Wh is equal to 0.603 lb.
The Table 2 shows the wing of the weight values
For Vertical Tail
obtained from different equations. In the designer’s 3D
design of the UAV made in Solidworks the weight of the 𝑊𝑜 𝑁𝑧 0.87 𝑆𝑣 1.2 𝑙𝑣 0.493
Wh = 127𝑥 (( ) 𝑥 ( ) 𝑥 ( )
wing is 12.82 kg. In which based on the calculated values 105 100 10
using Raymer’s, USAF and Jay Gundlach method , it 𝑏𝑣 0.5 0.458
satisfies the weight from the design. However, by using 𝑥 0.289 𝑥 ( ) ) (10)
𝑡𝑣
Kundu and Torenbeek method, the obtained values are not so
near to the designed value. Where the values are, Sv is 1.14, lv is 4, bv is 1.14,
and tv is 1. When the all the values is substituted to (10), Wv
is equal to 0.702 lb.

2|Page
C. Torenbeek Method
The following is applied to light transport aircrafts which
has Vd is less than 200 knots.
2 0.75
Wemp = 0.04 𝑥 (𝑁𝑧 𝑥 (𝑆𝑣 + 𝑆ℎ) )
Where the Nz is the maximum load factor is equal
to 5.57. The values of Sh and Sv is 1.14. When the all the
values is substituted to (11), Wv is equal to 0.5 lb.
Memp = 0.0213 𝑥 (𝑀𝑡𝑜 𝑥 𝑁𝑧)0.48 𝑥 𝑆𝑤 0.78 𝑥 𝐴 𝑥 (1+𝜆)0.4 /
𝑡 0.4
(𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛬 𝑥 ) (14)
𝑐
Where the Nz is equal to 5.57 and MTO is 66 lbs.
(11) The values of Sw is 2.28, t/c is thickness-to-cord ratio is
1.151, A is 4, 𝜆 is 1, and Λ is 1. When the all the values is
substituted to (14), Memp is equal to 5.72 lbs.

D. Raymer Method F. Jay Gundlach Method

The following equations from Raymer are established The Gundlach’s Formula is established for both small
for general aviation aircrafts. and big aircrafts by changing a constant Wa value according
to aircraft type. The constant ranges between 3.5 to 8 for
For Horizontal Tail supersonic flights while in small aircrafts is 0.8 to 1.2.

Wh = 0.016 𝑥 (𝑊𝑜 𝑁𝑧)0.414 𝑥 𝑞 0.168 𝑥 (𝑆ℎ)0.896 Wemp = Wa x (Sh + Sv) (15)

100 𝑥 𝑡/𝑐 −0.12 𝐴 0.043 Where Wa is 0.8 since the type of aircraft we use is
𝑥 ( ) 𝑥 ( ) 𝑥 𝜆−0.02 (12)
𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛬 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛬 UAV. Then the value of Sh and Sv is 1.14. If we substitute
Where the Nz is the maximum load factor is equal the values to (15), Wemp is 1.82.
to 5.57 and Wo is 66 lbs. The q is dynamic pressure which V. Fuselage Weight Estimation
have a value of 32.35. The values of Sh is 1.14, t/c is
thickness-to-cord ratio is 1.151, A is 4, 𝜆 is 1, and Λ is 1. Fuselage weight estimation is important in this
When the all the values is substituted to (12), Wh is equal to report, because it is where the necessary parts of the aircraft
0.208 lb. needed in order to accomplish the objective of the aircraft.
Table 1 consists of datas that will be required for calculation
For Vertical Tail with different methods of fuselage weight estimation.
Wv = 0.073 𝑥 Table 2 The Required Values for Fuselage Estimation

𝐻𝑡 Value Value
(1 + 0.2𝑥 ) 𝑥 (𝑁𝑧 𝑥 𝑊𝑑𝑔)0.376 Parameters
𝐻𝑣 (English) (Metric)
Fuselage Diameter 1.67 ft 0.509 m
𝑡 −0.49
100 𝑥 Fuselage Length 11.52 ft 3.511 m
𝑥 𝑞 0.122 𝑥 (𝑆ℎ)0.873𝑥 ( 𝑐)
𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛬 Surface Area 109.96 𝑓𝑡 2 10.216 𝑚2
Takeoff Weight 66.1387 lbs 30 kg
0.357
Empty Weight 32 lbs 14.5 kg
𝐴
𝑥 ( ) 𝑥 𝜆ℎ 0.039 (13) Cruise Speed 132 fps 40 mps
𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛬
Diving Speed 164.98 fps 541.3 mps
Where the Nz is equal to 5.57 and Wdg is 66 lbs. Ultimate load factor 5.57
The q is dynamic pressure which have a value of 32.35. The
values of Sh is 1.14, t/c is thickness-to-cord ratio is 1.151, A
A. Jenkinson Method
is 4,𝜆ℎ is 1. When the all the values is substituted to (13), Wv
is equal to 0.206 lb. The following formula (16) is suggested by Howe.

𝑊𝑏 = 0.039 ∗ (2 ∗ 𝐿 ∗ 𝐷 ∗ √𝑉𝑑 )1.5 (16)

E. Kundu Method
The equation used here is established for Civil
aircraft. Both the horizontal and vertical tails plane mass
estimations have similar form but in the values of constants
is different.
Using Jenkinson method there will be 10% increase
for large cargo door. Having fuselage weight of 𝑾𝒃 =
𝟖. 𝟏𝟗 𝒌𝒈.

3|Page
B. Howe Method

Howe methods have only slight modification on Table 3 Comparison of Calculated Fuselage Weight
(16).
Method Weight
𝑊𝑏 = 0.044 ∗ (𝐿 ∗ (𝐵 + 𝐻) ∗ √𝑉𝑑 ) 1.5
(17) Jenkinson Method 8.19 kg
Howe Method 9.24 kg
The estimated fuselage weight is 𝑾𝒃 = 𝟗. 𝟐𝟒 𝒌𝒈. Kundu Method 8.45 kg
Roskam Method 2.57 kg
C. Kundu Method Raymer Method 14.66 kg
Usaf Method 4.26 kg
The value of index x depends on the maximum
Kroo Method 10.74 kg
loading factor of the aircraft. For the UAV, the loading factor Jay Gundlach Method 16.7 kg
is 5.57 therefore 0.002 will be choosen from [1].
1.5
𝑊𝑏 = 0.038 ∗ 𝑘𝑢 ∗ 𝑘𝑒 ∗ (𝑊𝑜 ∗ 𝑁𝑧 ) 𝑥 (2 ∗ 𝐿 ∗ 𝐷 ∗ √𝑉𝑑 ) The less weight of the fuselage structures the more
(18) cargo percentage on the MTOW. From the designers 3D
model on SolidWorks the weight of the UAV is 12.696 kg
The estimated fuselage weight is 𝑾𝒃 = 𝟖. 𝟒𝟓 𝒌𝒈. including its material used. Therefore the best method
estimation is 8.19 kg which is Jenkinson Method.
D. Roskam Method

It is also known as General Dynamic Method by VI. Landing Gear Weight Estimation
Roskam [1]. A. Howe method
𝑞 0.283 𝑊𝑜 0.95 𝐿
1.42
𝑊𝑏 = 10.43 ∗ 𝑘𝑖𝑛 ∗( ) ∗( ) ∗ ( )0.71 (19) Wg = 0.048 x Wo (24)
100 1000 𝐻

The estimated fuselage weight is 𝑾𝒃 = 𝟐. 𝟓𝟕 𝒌𝒈.

Landing gear is calculated by equation (24) for
E. Raymer Method takeoff gross weight 30 kg, and the result is 1.44 kg.

𝑊𝑏 = 0.052 ∗ (𝑊𝑜 ∗ 𝑁𝑧 )0.177 ∗ 𝑞 0.241 ∗ 𝑆𝑓1.086 ∗ 𝐿−0.051 ∗ B. Kroo method

𝐿
( )−0.072 (20) Landing gear is weight fraction of the takeoff
𝐷
weight, and estimated to be about 4.0% of the take-off
The estimated fuselage weight is 𝑾𝒃 = 𝟏𝟒. 𝟔𝟔 𝒌𝒈. weight. This is the total landing gear weight including,
actuating system, structure, and the rolling assembly
F. Usaf Method
consisting of wheels, tires, and brakes. The rolling assembly
𝑁𝑧 0.286 𝐿 0.857 𝐵+𝐻 is approximately 39% of the total gear weight.
𝑊𝑏 = 200 ∗ ((𝑊𝑜 ∗ ) ∗ ( 𝑓) ∗( )∗
105 10 10
𝑉𝑐𝑟 0.338 Wg = 0.04 x Wo (25)
( ) )1.1 (21)
100
Landing gear is calculated by equation (25) for
The estimated fuselage weight is 𝑾𝒃 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟔 𝒌𝒈. takeoff gross weight 30 kg, and the result is 1.2 kg.
G. Kroo Method
C. Nikolai method
𝑊𝑏 = (1.051 + 0.102 ∗ 𝐼𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒 ) ∗ 𝑆𝑓 (22)
The following equation established by Usaf and
The estimated fuselage weight is 𝑾𝒃 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟕𝟒 𝒌𝒈. introduced by Nikolai:
H. Jay Gundlach Method Wg = 62.21 x (Wo/1000)0.84 (26)
0.3796
𝑊𝑏 = 0.5257 ∗ 𝑓𝑚 ∗ 𝑓𝑛 ∗ 𝑓𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑣 ∗ 𝑓𝑡 ∗ 𝐿 ∗ Landing gear is calculated by equation (26) for
(𝑊𝑐 ∗ 𝑁𝑧)0.4863 ∗ (1.3 ∗ 𝑉𝑑/100)2 (23) takeoff gross weight 30 kg, and the result is 3.2 kg.
The estimated fuselage weight is 𝑾𝒃 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟕 𝒌𝒈.

4|Page
D. Pazmany method Wlg = Kl x Kret x Klg x Wl x (Hlg / b) x nult0.2 (31)

For nose wheel type:
Wg = 0.055 x Wo
Landing gear is calculated by equation (27) for
takeoff gross weight 30 kg, and the result is 1.65 kg.
E. Jay Gundlach method
The following general landing-gear weight equation
for all scales of unmanned aircraft is:
Wg = Fg x Wo
Where Fg is the landing-gear mass fraction, which
will vary from 0.03 to 0.06. This method obscures landing-
gear configuration and dimensions.
Kl – landing place factor and is 1.8 for navy aircraft and 1
otherwise.
(27)
Kret -1 for fixed landing gear and 1.07 for retractable landing
gear.
Klg – Landing gear weight factor, and ranges between 0.48
and 0.62 for general aviation and home built aircrafts.
b – Wing span.
Hlg – Height of landing gear
(28)
Wlg – landing weight of aircraft.
Kl = 1, Kret = 1.07, Klg = 0.55, Wl = 66.14 lbs, Hlg =
0.88 ft b = 11.52 ft, nult = 5.57

An initial Fg value of 0.04 is recommended for Landing gear is calculated by equation (31), the result for
aircraft that take off and land on paved runways. landing weight of aircraft is 4.19 lbs or 1.9 kg.

Landing gear is calculated by equation (28) for H. USAF method

takeoff gross weight 30 kg and a Fg value of 0.04, and the
result is 1.2 kg. The following equation (32) is applied to light and utility type
airplanes with performance up to about 300 knots.
F. Raymer method
Wg = 0.054 x Lm0.501 x (Wl x Nu)0.684 (32)
The following equations apply to general aviation aircrafts.
Lm = 0.88 ft, Wl = 66.14, Nu = 5.57
Main landing gear weight:
Landing gear is calculated by equation (32), the result for
Wmg = 0.095 x (Nl x Wl)0.768 x (Lm / 12)0.409 (29) landing gear weight of aircraft is 2.88 lbs or 1.31 kg.

Nose landing gear weight Table 4 Comparison of Calculated Landing Gear Weight

Wng = 0.125 x (Nl x Wl)0.566 x (Ln / 12)0.845 (30) Method Weight

Howe Method 1.44 kg
Wl - landing design gross weight. lb Kroo Method 1.2 kg
Nikolai Method 3.2 kg
Nl – ultimate landing load factor.
Pazmany Method 1.65 kg
Lm - main gear height. ft Jay Gundlach Method 1.2 kg
Raymer Method 1.62 kg
Ln – nose gear hight. ft Sadraey Method 1.9 kg
USAF Method 1.31 kg
Wl = 66.14 lbs, Nl = 5.57, Lm = 0.88 ft, Ln = 1.24 ft

Landing gear is calculated by equations (29) and (30) for
takeoff gross weight 30 kg, where the main landing gear
weight is 3.05 lbs or 1.39 kg and the nose landing gear weight
is 0.52 lbs or 0.23 kg. The total landing gear weight is 1.62
kg.
G. Sadraey method
Sadraey equation applies to various types of airplanes and it
is controlled mainly by landing weight and partly by ultimate
load factor, wing span, and aircraft height. The landing gear
is calculated as follow:
Its good for the aircraft to have the small weight of
a landing gear but does have great durability. The best result
the designer decided to use Sadraey Method estimation which
is 1.9 kg.
V. Results
Having only 14.5 kg on empty weight for the and
15.5 kg for the payload, the designers need to use materials
on the parts that will fit the 14.5 kg empty weight. The wing
occupies the 88% of the empty weight, Fuselage 56% of the

5|Page
empty weight, Landing Gear 13% of the empty weight and
Empennage 16% of the empty weight.

The total of 173% of empty weight. Which means

that the method used in this report is 73% more accurate than
the estimated value from the previous report because it
includes the material used for the UAV and it uses the values
got from the 3D model which is the exact size of the UAV.

References

[1] Abdulhakim Essari – Estimation of Component

Design Weights in Conceptual Design Phase for Tactical
UAVs for University of Belgrade, Doctoral Dissertion
Belgrade 2015

6|Page