UNIVERSITY COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

School of Aerospace Civil and Mechanical Engineering

INVESTIGATION INTO THE REDUCTION OF THE DRAG AREA OF A PARAMOTOR

By

Jon Longbottom

7 October 2006

SUPERVISOR: Alan Fien

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE FINAL YEAR SUBJECT ZACM4020 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING PROJECT AND THESIS AS PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

ABSTRACT
An experimental investigation and evaluation of the inefficiencies of a typical paramotor was conducted. The aim of this experiment was to attempt to overcome the high drag associated with a paramotor in order to improve the glide ratio during unpowered flight.

Initial baseline data was found from measuring the in flight performance of a typical paramotor while in gliding flight. Previously published glide ratio results with a windmilling propeller were found to be incorrect, with no change in glide ratio between a windmilling or braked propeller. This report found the glide ratio of a paramotor at 6.4 0.5:1, compared to 8.2:1 with the same wing on a paraglider, however the error margin was high due to instability of the local atmosphere. The attitude of the paramotor frame changed from vertical when thrust was produced to typically 23o reclined from perpendicular in accelerated glide. Surface airflow visualisation was also conducted which resulted in a greater understanding of airflow over the paramotor and pilot.

Wind tunnel testing was completed to determine the major contributors to the drag of a standard paramotor while in gliding flight. The measurements were taken at 0, 8, 16, 24 and 32o angle of incidence. These results would be of benefit to both high and low hook-in paramotors. There was a 27% reduction in drag area when a low hang point paramotor changed attitude during accelerated glide. The most significant individual drag contributors were the frame and netting, with the reserve parachute container, motor and propeller having little effect on the overall drag area. A folding propeller would have no benefit if the standard frame and netting were retained.

Redesigning of high drag area components was conducted with the majority of effort placed on the paramotor frame, netting and fuel tank. Each of the components was replaced with alternatives which produced less drag and retained full functionality. The revised paramotor design was retested, resulting in a 17% reduction in drag area. The results obtained were less than desired. It was concluded that it would be more cost effective to remove the netting on the existing paramotor and replace it with smaller diameter Dyneema netting. This would create a small but worthwhile reduction in drag with potential thrust gains.

DISCLAIMER

This thesis has been written in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of Aeronautical Engineering. It is the result of a period of research and analysis by the author while a student of the University of New South Wales. Views expressed do not represent the views of the University College, or the University.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................................A TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................................C NOMENCLATURE.............................................................................................................................................. F GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................................................................... G 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ 1 What is a Paramotor? ................................................................................................................................... 1 Aims............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Limitations..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Summary........................................................................................................................................................ 6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Aerodynamic Forces in Gliding.................................................................................................................................. 6 Aerodynamic drag ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Drag Polar .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Basic Soaring Theory ................................................................................................................................................. 8 A Paraglider Polar Curve............................................................................................................................................ 9 Previous Drag Experimentation on Paragliding Harnesses....................................................................................... 10 Wing Loading of the Paraglider ............................................................................................................................... 13

3.

EVALUATION OF CURRENT PARAMOTOR DESIGN ................................................................... 14 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 SURFACE AIRFLOW EVALUATION EXPERIMENT ................................................................................... 14 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 15
Camera Mount - Manufacture .................................................................................................................................. 15 Surface Airflow Suit................................................................................................................................................. 15

Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF PROPELLER BRAKE ........................................................................... 19 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Method......................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 GLIDE RATIO TESTING ......................................................................................................................... 22 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 22 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 22 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.4 PARAMOTOR CROSS SECTION VISUALISATION ................................................................................... 27 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 27 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 27 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 28 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 29 4. EVALUATION OF A DUCTED FAN PARAMOTOR ......................................................................... 29 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 29
Ducted fan theory ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 Concept of a ducted fan paramotor........................................................................................................................... 33

5.

SCALE MODEL PARAMOTOR ............................................................................................................ 34 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 34

Determination of the scale factor.............................................................................................................................. 34 Scale model of standard paramotor .......................................................................................................................... 35 Low turbulence wind tunnel ..................................................................................................................................... 37

6.

WIND TUNNEL TESTING ..................................................................................................................... 37 6.1 CORRECTIONS AND CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................... 37 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 37 Calculations................................................................................................................................................. 38
Initial method of calculating frontal area.................................................................................................................. 38 Final method of calculating the frontal area. ............................................................................................................ 38

6.2 COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG EXPERIMENT 1 .............................................................. 39 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 39 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 39 Results and Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 39 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 40 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 42 6.3 EFFECT OF FUEL TANK PLACEMENT ON TOTAL DRAG AREA.............................................................. 42 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 42 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 42 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 43 Results and Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 43 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 44 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 44 6.4 DRAG AREA VARIATION CAUSED BY REMOVAL OF PROPELLER AND RESERVE PARACHUTE ............. 44 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 44 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 45 Results and Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 45 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 47 6.5 COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG EXPERIMENT 2 ............................................................... 47 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 47 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 47 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 47 Results and Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 48 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 48 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 49 6.6 TESTING OF ANNULAR AEROFOILS ..................................................................................................... 49 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 49 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 49 Results and Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 51 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 52 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 53 6.7 USE OF FAIRED FORCE BALANCE ARM ............................................................................................... 53 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 53 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 53 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................... 53 Results and Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 54 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 55 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 55 7. REDUCTION IN DRAG AREA BY CHANGE OF NETTING CONFIGURATION ........................ 56 Aims............................................................................................................................................................. 56 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 56 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 56
Netting Drag on Standard Paramotor........................................................................................................................ 56

Calculations................................................................................................................................................. 57
Theoretical Drag....................................................................................................................................................... 57

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 58
Alternatives to existing netting................................................................................................................................. 58 Method of netting attachment................................................................................................................................... 60

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 60 8. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 61

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX A - CLIENT BRIEF ...................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX B - PROJECT SPECIFICATION................................................................................................ 65 APPENDIX C- EXAMPLE OF A STANDARD PARAMOTOR ................................................................... 66 APPENDIX D SURFACE AIRFLOW VISUALISATION EXPERIMENTS ............................................ 67 APPENDIX E PROPELLER BRAKE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE................................................. 74 APPENDIX F GLIDING FLIGHT EXPERIMENTATION........................................................................ 75 APPENDIX G SCALE WIND TUNNEL MODEL DEVELOPMENT....................................................... 80 APPENDIX H CORRECTION FACTORS AND CALCULATIONS ........................................................ 84 APPENDIX I WIND TUNNEL CALIBRATION ......................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX J COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG - EXPERIMENT 1............................... 90 APPENDIX K EFFECT OF FUEL TANK PLACEMENT ON DRAG AREA ....................................... 105 APPENDIX L - DRAG AREA VARIATION CAUSED BY REMOVAL OF PROPELLER AND RESERVE PARACHUTE ............................................................................................................................... 115 APPENDIX M COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG AS A RESULT OF WIND TUNNEL TESTING EXPERIMENT 2............................................................................................................................ 123 CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 143 APPENDIX N - WIND TUNNEL TESTING OF ANNULAR AEROFOILS.............................................. 147 APPENDIX O - FAIRED FORCE BALANCE ARM.................................................................................... 167 APPENDIX P PROPOSED DESIGN........................................................................................................... 176 10 STEP DESIGN PROCESS ............................................................................................................................... 176 PROPOSED DESIGN........................................................................................................................................... 179 APPENDIX R PARAMOTOR CROSS SECTION VISUALISATION.................................................... 190 APPENDIX S - PROJECT TASK OUTLINE................................................................................................ 196 APPENDIX T TASK BREAK DOWN STRUCTURE ............................................................................... 196 APPENDIX U PROJECT GANTT CHART ............................................................................................... 196 APPENDIX V PROJECT MILESTONE CHART ..................................................................................... 196 APPENDIX W RISK ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 196
End ......................................................................................................................................................................... 196

NOMENCLATURE
A AoA AoI Geometric aspect ratio of aircraft. Angle of attack. Angle of incidence. Exit area of duct. Propeller disk area. Intake velocity. Drag coefficient. Parasite drag coefficient. Wing profile drag coefficient. Velocity of air post propeller disk. Lift coefficient. Induced drag coefficient. Net thrust. International Standard Atmosphere. Mass flow of air through propeller disk. Intake air pressure. Pressure at exit area of duct. Glide velocity between thermals. Sink rate velocity. Sink rate velocity while circling in a thermal. Local airflow vector. Propulsive or Froude efficiency.

Aj

Ap Ca CD CD , p CD , Cj CL
2 CL kA

F ISA

m pa pj Vg Vs VSc V

GLOSSARY
AGL DHV Above Ground Level Deutschen Hngegleiterverbandes e.V. The largest type certification testing facility in the world to assess safety and airworthiness of paraglider and paramotors. The ratings are 1 beginner, 1/2 intermediate, 2 advanced, 2/3 serial competition, loadprototype competition (load tested only). Speedbar A flight control system to change the AoI of the wing in flight by weight shift through a pulley system operated by the legs. Half bar is half accelerated flight. Soaring TAS To maintain height in the air without flapping of the wings or using power. True air speed.

1. INTRODUCTION
What is a Paramotor? In 1964, Domina Jalbert invented a double sided fabric wing called the Ram Air Para Foil, US patent No. 3285546 (Knake, 1986). This design was unique as it used the higher pressure at the stagnation point to inflate the aerofoil, creating a lifting surface. This became the common aerofoil wing for parachuting with a glide ratio of 3:1. During the 1970s mountain climbers began using the parachutes as a rapid means of descent from mountains and the new sport was called paragliding or free flight (as opposed to powered flight). Paragliding is undertaken by foot launching from an elevated area or by towing from the ground to an altitude then released. The pilot is then able to soar to increase flight time. Technology rapidly progressed and these parachuting canopies evolved into aspect ratios of up to seven and maximum glide ratios of 9.8:1, with a faired harness for the pilot. The advantages of free flying are the lack of noise from a motor, mastering the skill of gliding unassisted by a power plant and the challenge of extracting the maximum lift from the local atmospheric conditions. The disadvantages include having an appropriate launch site on a mountain and having only a very narrow window of opportunity for launch as wind speed and direction are critical. Pilots began adding a motor to the paragliding wings. Initially powerful engines were needed to provide the thrust needed to overcome the drag associated with early paramotor wings. As paragliding wings evolved and became more efficient a lightweight power plant was used to enable self launching and sustained flight (fig 1). The possibilities for flight are increased as a paramotor can be launched on a small flat field if the conditions are right. Existing paramotor or standard designs (typical specifications are shown in appendix C) are optimised to operate for the majority of the flight with thrust delivered by the power plant. However, the increased noise and vibration in close proximity to the pilot is a disadvantage of the paramotor. In comparison with a paraglider, which undertakes flight after launching from a mountain or being towed aloft, the lift to drag ratio is reduced for the paramotor due to the more upright seating position and the frame and propeller creating additional drag.

Figure 1. Time lapse photography of a paramotor self launching (Goin.2005).

A paramotor is also unique in recreational aviation as the aircraft can be stored in minimal space, such as the boot of a car and can be quickly assembled and flown from an area the size of a cricket field. Due the fact that it is a foot launched vehicle, it can be legally flown below 500 ft AGL unlike other aircraft, however it shares other airspace restrictions. A typical high mount paramotor is shown in figure 2 with the important components labelled.

Figure 2. Component identification of a standard paramotor (Goin.2005).

The forces imposed on the paramotor during flight are similar to other aircraft (fig 3), however they differ in that the wing and propeller of the paramotor are only attached by lines in tension. The pilot warps the wing (as per the Wright Bros. aircraft) in order to steer the aircraft with the brake toggles. If the brake toggles are pulled down simultaneously the wing camber is increased in order to create more lift. The angle of incidence of the wing is controlled indirectly by the length of the paraglider lines and can be adjusted by either: a) releasing the trimmers which lengthens the rear most suspension lines (thereby increasing the trim speed by 10% by weight shift) or b) by use of the speedbar. The speedbar is operated by an extension of the pilots legs which shortens the length of the forward suspension lines (thereby increasing the trim speed by up to 25% by weight shift). The thrust from the motor controls the ascent and descent rates. 2

Figure 3. Overview of forces encountered during flight in a paramotor. (Goin.2005).

Aims The aim of this project is to investigate the feasibility of reducing the drag of a paramotor, in order to increase the lift to drag (L/D) ratio in gliding flight when the motor is not producing thrust. This will be broken down into the following segments: (1) Obtaining experimental results of lift to drag ratio and surface airflow visualisation of a typical paramotor while gliding. (2) Wind tunnel model testing to determine the major contributors to drag of a standard paramotor while in gliding flight. (3) Further wind tunnel testing to investigate the individual contributors to drag of a paramotor and determine the feasibility of the reduction of the drag of the individual components, and to redesign the affected components to individually have a lower drag coefficient than the baseline paramotor. (4) Evaluate the revised complete paramotor design in the wind tunnel to determine if a lower drag can be achieved gliding when compared to a standard paramotor design when overall interference drag between the components is included. There is a desire for a redesigned paramotor that is capable of a high L/D ratio in order to soar efficiently as a glider after launching from flat land under its own power. Standard paramotors are designed for sustained flight with an engine providing the thrust for the duration of the flight, but the L/D ratio is low while undergoing unpowered flight, which is detrimental to effective soaring characteristics. This is shown as a simplified schematic in figure 4.

The problem. A paramotor is inefficient when gliding creating poor soaring performance.

Typical paraglider soaring flight

What is desired. A paramotor that has similar flight characteristics to a paraglider.

Figure 4. Top box shows flight schematic of a standard paramotor, indicating the poor glide ratio in unpowered flight requiring more thermal lift to cover the same distance. Middle box shows a schematic representation of free flight off an elevated launching area. Lower box shows desired flight schematic launching from flat land in a paramotor with improved glide ratio.

Scope It is necessary to perform a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the contributors to drag in the flight of a standard paramotor. The experiments utilised a standard paramotor to obtain actual flight data and used a scaled paramotor model in a low turbulence wind tunnel to obtain drag data. All flight trials were undertaken above Lake George, NSW or in the vicinity of Michelago, NSW within airspace restrictions. During the flights, still images were taken of positioned wool tufts for surface airflow visualisation and a data recording instrument was used to record flight details. These results were used to obtain an accurate measurement of the L/D ratio of a paramotor.

An accurate full sized representation of a paramotor and manikin was created using the CATIA software, depicting the position of the aircraft and pilot during flight. Based on the 3D CATIA rendering, a scaled model was constructed for low turbulence wind tunnel testing. Various configurations were measured for drag in order to determine the individual contributions of various components to total drag.

Using the results of the analysis, a revised paramotor designed to minimise the drag in order to increase the L/D ratio of a paramotor in flight was designed in CATIA and evaluated at 10% scale in the low turbulence wind tunnel. The wing was not modified in this project. Limitations The collection of data during paramotor flight was limited to the accuracy of the flight data recording instrument, an Aircotec Top Navigator. This instrument is an integrated GPS receiver that is able to store the flight path to a high accuracy for later analysis. The influence of the local atmosphere provided the largest errors in measuring the glide slope. To reduce the error rate, all flights were undertaken in nil wind conditions and a stable air mass. The flight testing occurred south of Michelago where there were minimal flight restrictions below 10,000 ft in order to create a longer gliding flight in order to create a longer data sample.

In order to remove any variations caused by piloting inputs in flight glide test results, the piloting was done with control positions to achieve the best glide. There are two methods of yawing a paraglider. The first method is the application of brake control inputs, which warps the wing on the side the turn is to be initiated, creating greater lift and therefore drag on that side. As a result the glider turns in that direction. The other method is weight shifting by the pilot in the harness to create an uneven load on the wing and thus initiate a turn to the side of the harness with the greatest weight. Weight shifting is more efficient as the aerofoil is not deflected from its optimal shape. In order to achieve the straightest glides during the experiments the pilot used only weight shift.

The wind tunnel paramotor representation was limited to a scaled replica of a PAP 1400 paramotor. This model was chosen as it has won three out of five recent paramotoring world championships and is at the forefront of conventional paramotor design. It is also the model of paramotor that was flown by the pilot in order to collect base line data from which the scale model was constructed. The limited space inside the wind tunnel prevented research on a larger model due to the close proximity of the test section walls creating wall interference effects. This reduced the possible size of the model and increased error in the experimental process due to difficulty of creating an accurate 10% scale model.

Summary This initial chapter provided a brief introduction to paragliding and paramotoring, and identifies the reasons for the choice of thesis topic. It also provided an outline of the aims and the scope of the research to be carried out. The limitations of the thesis project were also discussed with the means of reducing the experimental error.

2.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction Aerodynamic Forces in Gliding The forces acting on an aircraft in power off glide are lift (L), drag (D) and weight where thrust is zero (Anderson, 2000, p 391). During equilibrium unaccelerated glide the sum of forces is zero. These individual forces cancel down to L
D = tan 1 ( ) ,

where is the glide angle.

The weight of the paramotor has no bearing on the L/D ratio of the aircraft, but changes the glide velocity; the higher the weight the greater the velocity (Thomas, 1999, p 44). Stall velocity will also increase with a rise in weight; these factors will intensify landing difficulties due to higher approach and stall speeds. These factors and the fact the power plant has to be carried by the pilot during takeoff and landing make it essential that the paramotor weight be kept to a minimum. This leaves only the drag force to be manipulated during this thesis in order to improve the glide ratio. Aerodynamic drag The resistance to motion as a result of aerodynamic drag is expressed as: Aerodynamic Drag = 1 V2 SCD (Anderson, 2001, p. 64) 2 Where: = the air density or mass per unit volume through which the object is travelling.
2 V = the relative velocity.

CD = the objects drag coefficient (not neccesarily constant - Reynolds numbers effects). S = the reference area of the object.

The desired result of experimentation is qualitative data to assess the impact of configuration changes and the most useful term to express these results is drag area. Flat plate drag area
D ( 1 V 2 ) 2 = CD S

is useful in cases where an area of reference is not obvious (such as, for

instance, in the case of a motorcycle) or where several component parts are combined in some system' (Hoerner , 1965, p 1-8). Relative velocity is the dominant force as it is a squared term. The total aerodynamic drag on an object at 0o AoA is divided into two components: pressure drag and skin friction drag (Anderson, 2001, p. 63). Therefore there are two different types of shapes in aerodynamics, a blunt body where most of the drag is pressure drag and a streamlined body where most of the drag is friction drag (fig 5). As the flat plate and cylinder have high pressure drag they are blunt bodies. The current standard paramotor is a blunt body; initial efforts will concentrate on reducing the pressure drag around the pilot.

Figure 5. A comparison of relative shapes in terms of skin friction and pressure drag. The effects of different Reynolds numbers are also shown (Anderson, 2001, p. 64).

Drag Polar Drag on an aircraft is comprised of differing factors, those which vary with lift and those that do not the nondimensional coefficient form of this representation is the drag polar (Brandt et al., 2004, p 130).
2 CL The drag polar is: CD = CD , p + CD , + (assumes CD , p and k are constant) (Cone, 1964, kA 2 CL p14). Where is the induced drag coefficient concerned with the lift produced by a 3D kA

wing, changing the lift is outside the scope of this thesis. CD , is the aircraft drag coefficient. (Babinsky, 1999, p 421) states An analysis of paraglider performance has revealed that wing section drag is the most significant contribution to overall drag (fig 6). This is largely made up of the profile drag of the paraglider wing section and lines maintaining the paragliders wing shape.

Figure 6. Paraglider drag broken down into separate elements and plotted against flight velocity (Babinsky, 1999, pp 422-423).

The importance of reducing parasite drag is emphasised by Cone, (1964, p 17) who states The parasite drag coefficient CD , p plays an important role in determining the sinking velocity of a sailplane and should always be reduced to its lowest possible value. The parasite drag coefficient can be reduced by eliminating as much fuselage and emplanage area as possible and by paying strict attention to such drag-producing details as fuselage wing junctures, canopy contour and fairing, control gaps, miscellaneous protuberances, and the prevention of all areas of separated flow. The equivalent areas on a paraglider are line drag, pilot drag, pilot-paramotor junctures, cage protuberance and areas of separated flow. Basic Soaring Theory To maximise the potential for good paramotor soaring flight a reduction in the sink rate in glide and/or increase in glide airspeed is required. Thomas (1999) states an optimised sailplane (same principles as a paraglider) is designed for a low sink rate VSc while circling, a low sink rate Vs while gliding between thermals and a high inter thermal glide speed Vg . Modifying Vs and Vg are within the scope of this thesis by reducing the overall drag. The effect of this is shown (fig 7). If the glide gradient has a large negative value the paramotor will be forced to land rather than climb up in the next rising air mass. 8

Figure 7. A closer examination of figure 4, in order to maximise soaring flights, Vg should be maximised,

Vs minimised (Thomas, 1999, p 62).

A Paraglider Polar Curve The L/D ratio will increase as the pilots drag decreases and the glide speed will increase slightly as pilot drag decreases (fig 8). The best glide velocity is where a line drawn from the origin is tangent to the drag polar curve; this is in the vicinity of 38km/hr for the experimental wing, an Ozone Rush (an intermediate classed glider).
Approximate Drag Polar for Ozone Rush DHV 1/2 Paraglider

Decent Velocity in m/s

0 -1 -2 -3 0

True Air Speed in km/hr

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Drag Polar Curve For Paraglider Best Glide Velocity Stall Velocity Minimum Sink Best Glide Velocity-no brake position Fully Accelerated

Figure 8. An approximation of the drag polar for the paraglider wing to be used during experimentation, note this is during paragliding flight at correct wing loading. A compilation of two graphs by the author based on drag polar projections from the Para 2000 website (Florit, 2006).

A sailplane drag polar has been used as an example as the principles involved are the same as a paramotor (fig 9). When wing loading is increased the polar moves down and to the right, however the minimum flight path angle remains constant as does the intersection with the polar. To achieve the best L/D ratio, the glider will have a higher velocity and descent rate. The glide angle will change due to increased parasite and profile drag (Babinsky, 1999, p 421). As CDo is increased the drag polar will move to the right and thus the tangent point will move. The net result will be a deteriorated glide angle and decreased interthermal performance. For the soaring paramotor pilot this means flying at minimum sink speed while ascending in a thermal (approximately 30 km/hr), then a higher interthermal glide speed by weight shift (approximately 45km/hr) when bridging thermals.

Figure 9. Left. Drag polar for a sailplane showing the effect of changing the wing loading. min is minimum flight path angle, note it remains constant, and the polar moves down and to the right with increased wing loading (Thomas, 1999, p. 46). Right. As CDo is increased the minimum glide angle is increased and interthermal flight performance is reduced (Thomas, 1999, p. 44).

Previous Drag Experimentation on Paragliding Harnesses Wind tunnel tests with two types of harness and multiple seating and limb positions (fig 10) showed that the position of the legs and arms have a major influence in the overall drag. The contributors to increased drag in order of their decreasing difference in effect are the chest, arms, legs and a profiled helmet (fig 11). The posture in the experiment most similar to the piloted paramotor being evaluated for the thesis studies is the classic style harness with stretched legs at an equivalent flat plate area of 0.41m2. This posture has the arms with elbows out at 90o to the body and airflow, with forearms perpendicular to the ground.

10

Figure 10. Left. The photograph shows wind tunnel testing being undertaken with a pilot in a classic style paragliding harness (Belloc, 1999, p 1). Right. This is a side view drawing of the wind tunnel testing with the pilot in a reclining position and in a competition type harness showing the location of the force balance to measure the resultant drag (Belloc, 1999, p 1).
Classic Style Harness Equivalent Drag Area SCd
Equivalent Flat Plate Drag Area in Square Meters 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0.53 0.38 0.29 0.38 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.28 0.32 0.35 0.43 0.40 0.30 0.23

Standard + crouching

Elbows on the risers

Chest extended

Crossed arms

Crossed legs

Transition lying

Lengthened arms

Standard Posture 1

Standard posture 2

Stretched legs

Chest

Arm

Leg

Transitional move

Transition

Position Ide ntifie r

Figure 11. This graph has been translated and redrawn by the author from the original French graph by Dr Herve Belloc (Belloc, 1999, p. 4). It details the drag results in the equivalent flat plate drag area found during experimental testing of standard type unpowered harnesses. Note due to the poor resolution of the scanned original figure, the error bars have been estimated at 10%.

Belloc* concluded that the main results were: The standard harness position has an equivalent flat plate area of 0.41 m 2 , equivalent

to 2.5 kg drag. The cocoon position (competition) has an equivalent flat plate area of 0.2 m 2 a 50% reduction over standard. An intermediate glider of initial data of wing area 28 m 2 , mass of 95kg, glide ratio of 7.6:1 and TAS of 36km/hr has by use of a competition harness an improvement of the glide ratio to 8.2:1, a total drag improvement of 14% and a speed improvement of 4.4%. Pilot drag is a key driver for glide ratio improvement, and has little effect on speed. This improvement is [e]specially useful for long straight flights against wind. In the case of a[n] 18km/hr counter wind, improvement is equivalent to 90m altitude and 50 seconds time reduction for a 10 nm ride. It may be very important to successfully take the next thermal.
*(Belloc, 1999, translated and summarised by Caldara, 2005)

11

Standard posture 3

Legs together

Helmet

Profiled helmet

The intermediate glider referred to by Belloc is similar in specification to the glider to be used for the intended paramotor experiments. While it will not be possible to achieve as a result of this thesis an equivalent flat plate drag area of 0.2m2, a similar type of improvement is desired between the current and future paramotor designs A more recent study has been undertaken to find the most aerodynamic competition harness. With careful design a classic seating position can be made to have a low overall drag (Virgilio, 2005, p 12) (fig 12). The Ram Race harness is unique that it has an inflatable rear cowling pressurised from stagnation points near the base of the harness, which creates minimal separation of the airflow around the harness. The advantages of a comfortable seating position are maintained with good piloting control and weight shift being achievable. It does not have a forward cowling for the legs which allows easier launching and landings with less chance of the legs being trapped with an equipment malfunction. Lastly, certain models of competition harnesses with leg fairings have instability in forward flight with the pilot having to hold the harness stable into the oncoming airflow to maintain low drag, which distracts the pilot from the overall function of piloting the aircraft. Comparison of Drag Drag (N)
Figure 12. This graph has been translated by the author from the original Portuguese graph (Virgilio, 2005, p 18). The effectiveness of a streamlined harness to reduce flow separation can be seen in the reduced overall harness drag, the Ram Race harness is to the far right.

The method of drag calculation differed in the French (Belloc, 1999) and Portuguese (Virgilio, 2005) studies. The French study was by force balance data recordings taken from above the pilot and the Portuguese study was from upstream of the pilot (fig 13). The French study reports half the drag in Newtons, as compared to the Portuguese study for a similar harness; therefore in each study the comparative values but not the direct numerical figures can be examined. Also, neither of the studies account for the direction of the oncoming airflow during flight. The classic harness had a glide ratio of approximately 7.2:1. If the Belloc experimental method had accounted for this by inclining the harness to the required

12

angle, then the drag achieved could have been lower due to V not being perpendicular to the torso. The experimental error is reduced in proportion to the level of harness drag.

Figure 13. Showing the method of obtaining drag results on full scale test subjects. Note the cords running horizontally forward into the wind tunnel attached to a force balance at the other end. The harness and leg position is optimised for a horizontal oncoming airflow, not glide ratio (Virgilio, 2005, p 15).

Due to the thoroughness of the French and Portuguese studies, no attempt was made to evaluate the effect of differing pilot positions in the proposed wind tunnel experimentation using full scale test subjects. Instead, a manikin was manufactured in the position adopted by the pilot during actual flight testing. Wing Loading of the Paraglider A paramotor with the engine not operating exhibits similar flight characteristics as a paraglider except for a higher wing loading. Wing loading is the aircrafts weight divided by the wing area, which increases as a result of the added weight of the paramotor. The higher wing loading may result in the flexible paraglider wing distorting because of the maximum take off weight exceeding manufacturers specifications, therefore the wing may not generate as much lift and will also create more drag. The intake at the stagnation point near the maximum AoA flares open and creates a separation bubble at the leading edge of the upper wing surface and the cell centres of the flexible wing may distort (Babinsky, 1999, p 426) (fig 14). The net result of both of these deficiencies is increased separation of airflow and reduced overall lift.

13

Figure 14. Detail of points of airflow separation of a flexible paraglider wing due to distortion at high angles of attack (Babinsky, 1999, p 426).

While not expressly stated by Babinsky, it is plausible that a flexible wing when placed under a load higher than the designer had intended could deform and create a similar situation. Therefore a paramotor at a higher than specified weight rating with equal drag to a paraglider harness may not be able to achieve the same L/D ratio as a correctly weighted paraglider.

3.

EVALUATION OF CURRENT PARAMOTOR DESIGN

Introduction Due to the recent arrival of the sport of paramotoring, there is limited previous research carried out on this particular type of aircraft. As a result a body of quantitative and qualitative data had to be obtained in order to form the baseline for alternative design comparison. This baseline data was collected in experiments which examined surface airflow evaluation, glide ratio measurement, the effect of a windmilling propeller, angle of incidence (AoI) during glide and finding the contributors to drag in the wind tunnel. 3.1 Aims The aims of this experiment were to: (1) (2) Gain a greater understanding of the airflow over the existing paramotor. Gather information to enable an accurate wind tunnel model to be built. SURFACE AIRFLOW EVALUATION EXPERIMENT

Introduction There has been little emphasis on improving the glide ratio of a paramotor, and there is a need to investigate the effect of airflow interaction between the pilot and paramotor which may

14

potentially have a dramatic effect on aircraft drag. This experiment sought to identify any obvious indicators. Procedure Camera Mount - Manufacture To record the airflow over the surface visualisation suit, a digital camera was used with an infrared remote control attached to the left hand paraglider brake toggle. CATIA images of the camera mount can be seen in figure 15, further detail can be found in appendix D. The camera mount was able to be rotated in flight allowing images to be taken from 0o to 90o to the direction of travel. A 3m long boom was used to achieve acceptable focal length as opposed to a close range fisheye lens which would distort the image.

Figure 15. Scale CATIA isometric images of the camera mount, the length of the camera boom can be clearly seen. When launching and landing the camera is also stowed perpendicular to flight direction then rotated after launch in order to achieve frontal photographs.

Surface Airflow Suit A surface airflow visualisation suit was worn by the pilot during experimentation. It consisted of a set of disposable white overalls with attached red wool tufts. The hood was removed to allow access to the reserve parachute in case of an emergency. The pilot's helmet, paramotor netting and frame were also evenly covered in short strips of fluorescent surveyors tape. The surveyors tape was changed after the initial experiment to red wool as the tape did not provide sufficient clarity in the photographs. Results Images taken during experimentation are shown in figures 16 to 19. These are only a small sample of over 200 photographs taken during the course of the experiment; these particular example are shown as representative views at 0, 45 and 90o to direction of flight, other images are shown in appendix D.

15

Wool tufts show extent of turbulence behind pilot.

Inclination of paramotor is not perpendicular to horizon during glide.

Local region of turbulent flow behind pilots feet.

With application of speed bar attitude of pilot and frame changes in relation to

Figure 16. Image of paramotor gliding with half speedbar, local area of reversed airflow is clearly seen behind the pilot and aft of the pilots toes.

Laminar flow through frame netting.

Figure 17. Frontal image of paramotor during glide with half speedbar.

16

Figure 18. Left. Image of paramotor climbing under full throttle with half acceleration by use of the speed bar. Note paramotor frame is perpendicular to horizon when engine is creating thrust. Right. Image of paramotor gliding, half accelerated by use of the speed bar. Note the angle between vertical and the frame is at 23o.

Discussion The photographs in figures 16 to 18 have been labelled to more effectively enable pertinent points to be shown. Common points are that the region of turbulence during glide is behind the pilots upper torso and a significant proportion of the body behind the feet. The soles of the boots especially when the speedbar is applied represent a bluff body where most of the drag is pressure drag. The large pressure drag region is due to flow separation off the sharp edged boot tread. Laminar airflow occurred through the paramotor netting, generally over the frontal half of the pilot and the pilots helmet. Further modification will occur to increase the amount of laminar airflow.

The difference in attitude between a paramotor with full thrust and a paramotor gliding (fig 18) hold the most important findings. As shown earlier in figures 7 and 8, in order to achieve a greater cross country soaring distance the interthermal velocity must be increased. This interthermal velocity is approximately 45km/hr and is affected by use of the speedbar. When the pilot places the pressure on the speedbar this applied a force forward of the carabineer pivot which rotates the paramotor and pilot backward (fig 19).

17

Red arrow points to the carabineer pivot point. Green arrows show routing of the speed bar. As the speed system is depressed the force applies a lifting force forward of the pivot point. This and the lack of thrust produced during glide changes the attitude of the paramotor and pilot to approximately 23o from perpendicular. Figure 19. Image of paraglider gliding, half accelerated by use of the speed bar.

There are several variations in the types of paramotor harnesses (fig 20). The standard paramotor used for experimental testing is a low hook-in type with swing arm. The high hooking attachment type harnesses have the centre of gravity well below the carabineer hook in point and the application of thrust or speedbar on the paramotor has little change in attitude. These types of harnesses generally have poor weight shift characteristics; weight shift is the loading of one side of the harness in order to turn the paraglider wing without use of the brake toggles. Therefore the high hook-in type harness is not preferred for pilots seeking soaring flight.

The low hook-in harness with swing arm has a significant change in attitude of the pilot and paramotor with varying thrust, the centre of gravity (C of G) of the paramotor is at the same height as the carabineer pivot (fig 20). Therefore as thrust is applied the propeller disk becomes perpendicular to the ground. When gliding because the C of G is behind the pivot point this causes rotation of the paramotor to approximately 20o attitude. With application of the
Figure 20. Types of paramotor harness configurations.

speed bar the upwards force forward of the pivot

18

causes the attitude to change further to approximately 23o.

Before this experimentation was conducted, the attitude of a paramotor was during accelerated glide was unknown. This experiment showed the average attitude of the paramotor was 23o. This had implications for the method of mounting the scale model in the wind tunnel at such a reclined AoI, as the effective frontal area of the model was significantly reduced. Therefore a similar reduction in drag was a possibility. Conclusion This experiment set out to gain a greater understanding of the airflow over the existing paramotor in both accelerated glide and full throttle. Also further information about the paramotor's attitude during glide was sought. It was found that the attitude with respect to the horizon changes from 0o when thrust is produced to typically 23o in half accelerated gliding flight.

3.2

DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF PROPELLER BRAKE

Background The effect of a windmilling propeller could have a large influence of the overall L/D ratio of a paramotor. In relation to paramotors, Goin, 2005, p. 220 states: A windmilling prop has dramatically more drag than a stationary one. Expect a 10 to

20% decrease in glide performance with a windmilling prop (clutched units), 2 to 4% decrease with a stopped prop and no change for an idling prop (no clutch).
Due to the slow forward velocity of the paramotor with windmilling propeller during glide it is similar to an autogyro. At the commencement of glide the paramotor had the engine idling with the centrifugal clutch disengaged. The propeller rpm then achieves a balance between the stored kinetic energy of the rotating propeller, the rotor disk extracting power from the local airflow and the frictional drag created by rotation of the reduction gearbox. If the propeller is in an equivalent state of autorotation to a helicopter or forward flight of an autogyro the drag effects are large. A much lower descent rate is possible in forward flight, however the rotor flow state in autorotation is similar to that of a bluff body of the same size, so it is not surprising that comparable drag forces are produced (Johnstone, 1994, p 110).

19

An overlay of an autorotation diagram (Johnstone, 1994, p 111) scaled to the size of the paramotor propeller is shown in figure 21. If autorotation rpm is achieved, the net torques in the outer two circles must be equal. At the beginning of autorotation the collective in a helicopter is reduced to a slightly positive angle to maintain rotor rpm; this is a fundamental difference to a paramotor, as a paramotor has a fixed pitch propeller and its attitude may be high, resulting in a stalled rotor. The attitude will decrease rotation speed, thereby increasing the centre stall region and reducing the accelerating torque region causing reduced drag.

Figure 21. Windmilling propeller energy regions shown when rotational speed is equivalent to autorotation to a helicopter, scaled to actual paramotor dimensions for 1.25m diameter propeller. Note diameters of differing regions are not to scale. Rotor blade in autorotation taken from (Johnstone, 1994, p 111).

Method A method to allow the propeller to be held fixed, windmilling or producing thrust had to be designed. To the best of the authors knowledge a propeller brake has not been fitted to a paramotor before. Several designs were conceived, however the final design utilised a disk brake fitted to the output flange with a mechanically operated calliper mounted to the reduction gearbox to stop rotation. This design allowed for a lightweight brake that the pilot operated during flight and that the motor could overpower if emergency thrust was required. The design was developed using CATIA and was converted into MasterCAM (appendix E). The calliper components were created using the SACME computer aided wire cutter from 0.100 7075 T-6 aluminium alloy. The calliper was not corrosion treated due to the short expected life span of the components. Modified bicycle components were used in the assembly of the calliper; a brake pad was the friction element and the front derailleur shifter operated the brake (fig 22 and 23).

20

Figure 22. Left. Image of propeller brake calliper after 15 flight hours. The calliper was removed and inspected for fatigue. No defects were evident. Right. Image of propeller brake as fitted to the Top 80 paramotor engine. This image was taken after 10 hours operational use, the control cable has been covered in heat shielding to reduce radiated heat effects from the expansion chamber.

Brake assembly fitted to reduction drive gearbox.

Brake control lever.

Figure 23. Image of propeller brake as fitted to the Top 80 paramotor engine showing brake control on left hand underarm bar. The brake controller is a modified front derailleur control from a bicycle.

Several ground test runs were carried out after the brake was assembled; these involved ground runs of 30 minutes at maximum throttle to ensure security of components, application of the brake at idle, maximum rpm at full rotation and maximum throttle from idle. The detrimental effects of the brake were a qualitative reduced thrust and increased noise level; a

21

ripping cavitation-type noise occurred around the disk. If the propeller brake was to be used in a future concept a redesign would need to occur; possibly the use of a propeller spinner would reduce airflow disturbance around the propeller disk brake.

3.3 Aims (1) (2)

GLIDE RATIO TESTING

Determine the glide ratio of a paramotor in standard configuration. Determine a difference in the glide ratio between a windmilling and a vertically fixed propeller.

(3) (4)

Determine the rpm of a windmilling propeller in glide. Determine the drag polar of a paramotor.

Introduction The experiment to determine glide angle was critical to the thesis. The assumption that had developed during previous flights was that a paramotor had significantly reduced glide ratio compared to a paragliding harness. The results of this experiment would determine the effect of a paramotor on glide ratio. Also the contribution to glide as a result of a fixed or windmilling propeller were investigated to confirm the validity of previous data showing a 20% reduction in glide with a windmilling propeller (Goin, 2005, p. 220). The rpm of a propeller during clutched gliding flight was of interest as the rpm reached would determine the amount of drag produced. Procedure The initial gliding flight was undertaken over two blocks of testing separated by several months; a total of 25 flights were performed. The initial flight block consisted of over 10 flights during February 2006, but due to the unfavourable adiabatic lapse rate creating too much vertical movement of the air, there was difficulty in obtaining an accurate glide ratio. Dawn flights are generally considered to be the most stable part of the day, but recorded thermal movements of up to 2.5m/s, created inaccuracies in glide. The decision was made to suspend data gathering flights until early winter in order to obtain a stable air mass. The second block of flights proceeded with less vertical air mass movement however during the two month time period there was a prevailing westerly jet stream and the typical valley

22

inversions to the east of the Great Dividing Range did not occur. As a result the anticipated still air mass did not eventuate, but due to time constraints, testing continued with greater levels of error than desired. The Aircotec Top Navigator (fig 24) that was used as the primary flight data recording instrument, is a combination of a three dimensional GPS with pressure altimeter, vertical accelerometer and temperature sensor to record the location of thermals. An external true air speed (TAS) probe was attached to this instrument to increase the recorded velocity accuracy to 0.25 m/s (Aircotec, 2006). The TAS probe was stabilized using a small weight and shuttlecock type arrangement, which was suspended on a 2m cable below the paramotor to ensure the sensor was aligned with the oncoming airflow. The probe was deployed when sufficient altitude was reached after launch. With the motor operating the airspeed recordings were inaccurate due to proximity of the TAS probe to the propeller. Prior to the commencement of flight testing, the instrument was sent to Austria for recalibration with a new TAS probe purchased to ensure the integrity of the data being recorded.

Figure 24. Left. Aircotec Top Navigator. (Aircotec, 2006) Right. True air speed (TAS) probe. (Aircotec, 2006)

The Top Navigator calculates the drag polar of a particular paraglider setup if glide is recorded at three velocities; minimum sink, best glide and maximum speed. However local wind speed must be less than 2 km/hr for this to be accurate. As mentioned previously the weather conditions did not allow the drag polar to be accurately measured. Results The TN Complete software was used to graph and analyse the data recorded. On this particular data gathering flight a maximum of 6,000 ft altitude was reached due to an upper

23

level westerly wind on that particular day (fig 25). Flights were made to 10,000 ft when weather conditions allowed.

Figure 25. Flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator overlaid onto Google Earth software, high altitude perspective with plumb line from flight path.

To minimalise experimental error, each glide alternated between a windmilling propeller and a vertically braked propeller. In figure 26, between M1 and M2 the propeller windmilled and was braked between M3 and M4. Also glides into and with the prevailing breeze were undertaken with the results averaged out. In Appendix fig F.5 in the lowest graph it can be seen that before and after the milestones there was considerable variation in vertical velocity. This was due the pilot doing a 360o turn pre and post glide for the GPS to calculate the wind velocity and direction. The longitude and latitude for each milestone was found via GPS reading; this data was then used in Geoscience Australias webpage which uses a Vincenty formulae calculator to give an ellipsoidal distance on the mean Australian surface between two points. The error between the mean land surface and the flight altitude for ellipsoidal distance is less than 1%. A table of sample calculations is shown in Appendix F.

24

Figure 26. An example of the format of the flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator GPS. The top left hand corner is a summary of the flight, the box to the right is the instantaneous flight details at the time shown by the vertical purple line at milestone M14. The blue pointer on the dial shows direction of travel with the red tip the local wind velocity and direction. The first graph gives the altitude in metres in the Y axis, time on the X axis (common for all graphs). The complete flight is plotted. The difference in colour is the colour trace from thermal sensor. The middle graph shows the vertical velocity, with the Y axis showing m/s. The lowest graph is horizontal velocity with the Y axis shown in km/hr (as is typical for paragliding).

25

Of the 25 flights undertaken only 6 flights had accurate data, the final average glide ratios were 6.4 0.5 :1 for a windmilling propeller and 6.5 0.5 :1 for a vertically braked propeller. During glide testing the rpm of the windmilling propeller was tested. When at best glide (38 km/hr) the pilot turned around and counted propeller rotations using a wristwatch as a timer. The average windmilling propeller in glide was 120 20 rpm. This rpm could be significantly increased when increasing the local velocity, for example while in a steep descending spiral, and rpm could be made to slow down during the search for stall manoeuvre. Discussion To determine the lift to drag ratio of a paraglider the German magazine Gleitschirm uses a standard harness and pilot for the paraglider to be evaluated and compares the glide to a reference paraglider wing and weighted pilot (always the same for each test); they claim a L/D ratio of relative precision +/- 0.1 and consistency across their tests (Gleitschirm, 2006, translated and summarised by author, 2006). However, whether the absolute reported numbers are accurate remains unknown, as it all depends on whether the initial absolute L/D ratio value for the reference wing was accurate. Other magazines use similar methods; the only test available on the wing used in this experiment was conducted by Vol Libre, which tested the Ozone Rush at 8.2:1 glide ratio. In the context of this thesis, the average glide ratios were 6.4 0.5 :1 for a windmilling propeller and 6.5 0.5 :1 for a vertically brake propeller. It would seem the paramotor has an approximately 20% decrease in glide performance from published figures. However due to the poor local conditions and the lack of a known reference paraglider the experimental glide results should be dealt with a healthy degree of scepticism. There appears to be little difference between the glide ratios of a windmilling propeller and a brake propeller. As a result the scale model can have a fixed vertical propeller for further experiments and will remain relevant to a windmilling propeller. The experimental result of the propeller windmilling during glide at approximately 120rpm at an AoI of 32o is vital for further understanding of the problem. The offset of the propeller disk to the oncoming airflow on a paramotor can be compared to a power-off autorotative descent with forward airspeed for a helicopter. At the commencement of glide for the experimental paramotor, the engine was idling and the centrifugal clutch disengaged. The

26

propeller rpm achieved a balance between the stored kinetic energy of the rotating propeller, with the rotor disk extracting power from the local airflow and the frictional drag created by rotation of the reduction gearbox. Conclusion This experiment found the glide ratio of a paramotor at 6.4 0.5 :1 , however due to instability of the local atmosphere and lack of a reference glider the margin of error was high. There was no appreciable difference in glide ratio between a fixed and windmilling propeller, therefore the assumption that the wind tunnel can utilise a fixed propeller and not corrupt test results is correct. Due to the adverse local weather conditions mentioned, the drag polar of a paramotor was unable to be measured with any degree of accuracy and is therefore not shown.

3.4 Aims (1) (2)

PARAMOTOR CROSS SECTION VISUALISATION

To gain further understanding of the cross sectional area exposed to V . To analyse the fundamental design of the paramotor in order to develop a more streamlined cross sectional area to reduce possible airflow separation.

(3)

To determine a benchmark for future designs to compare reduced pressure drag producing profiles.

Introduction Airflow separation causing viscous pressure drag and interference between bodies is a major cause of drag in a gliding paramotor. Reduction of the effects of airflow separation can be achieved through streamlined profiles. Interference can be reduced by a thorough design to improve placement of bodies in close proximity. As the profiles are equally as important at

0o and 32o AoI, a method was sought to visualise the profiles at 32o AoI. CATIA software
has been used for the calculation of the profiles. Procedure The CATIA model of the PAP1400 paraglider with pilot used for the production of the wind tunnel model was analysed. The model was simplified with the harness and netting removed;

27

due to the difficulty in generating these images in CATIA. The sectioning tool available in the CATIA software was used with dissections taken in 0.1m intervals at 32o angle. This angle was chosen as it replicates the profile area as exposed by V . Results Screen prints from the CATIA software of the model sectioning are provided in appendix R. Discussion The images taken illustrate that the existing paramotor design was not developed to have a streamlined profile at 32o AoI, as its primary task is powered flight. Several possible redesigning features that could reduce drag include the use of vertical tubing in the cage, the streamlining of the tank area and airbox silencer and the improvement of the aerodynamics of the harness and the reserve chute. Cage tubing projects at an angle that increases the effective frontal profile (appendix R, figs R.5 and R.11). The replacement of horizontal structural elements with an increase in vertical elements supporting the outer ring of the cage could reduce pressure drag (fig 27). At the angle of inclination of 32o the circular tubing creates an improvement in streamline profile due to the cross flow principal. This is due to fluid dynamic pressure forces only being applied at the vector V on the cylinder. (Hoerner, 1992, pg 3-11).

Figure 27. How an inclined circular cylinder can produce less pressure drag as a result of the cross flow principal (Hoerner, 1992, pg 3-11). Drag (and lift) coefficients (on area d times axial length l) of circular cylinders, wires and cables; inclined against the direction of flow at Reynolds numbers below the critical.

28

Another area of possible improvement is in the position of the fuel tank (appendix R, figs R.9, R.10 and R.11). This area has both a separation inducing profile and tubing in close proximity creating interference drag. If the airbox silencer was turned at an angle of approximately 90o forward then the profile view would become more streamlined and possibly reduce airflow separation (appendix R, figs R.5 and R.6). Space exists behind the netting for this to occur on the current paramotor. Alternately the air box could be redesigned to be situated over the top of the motor. This could take the form of a cowling designed to reduce separation of the airflow behind the upper torso of the pilot.
Conclusion

This experiment has been successful in gaining a further understanding of the cross sectional area as exposed to the oncoming airflow. It provided a benchmark for comparison of forthcoming thesis designs, with respect to airflow separation producing profiles. Areas of possible improvement over the existing paramotor may be the use of more vertical and less horizontal tubing to improve the tubing cross sectional profile. Another option would be the redesign of the fuel tank and surrounding area to reduce separation and interference drag. A third option would be to turn the airbox silencer approximately 90o forward to quickly and effectively improve the profile area or if time allowed other airbox solutions could be explored.

4.

EVALUATION OF A DUCTED FAN PARAMOTOR

Introduction

A ducted fan paramotor was evaluated as an alternative to a standard paramotor as it offers the potential advantage of a lower frontal area. This will lower the S term in the drag equation and therefore possibly reduce overall drag. There has been a ducted fan paramotor in the past however it was not a success due to the excessive noise produced. A reexamination of the feasibility of a ducted fan equipped paramotor will occur. Ducted fan theory The paramotor used to collect experimental data was an 80cc two stroke motor driving a 1.25m diameter caged open propeller, which produced 50kg of static thrust (as determined by experimentation). This net thrust (F) due to change in momentum is shown as

29

& & F = m(C j Ca ) (Saravanamuttoo, 2001, p 100). Where m is the mass flow of air through the propeller, C j the velocity post rotor disk and Ca the intake velocity. In the case of a ducted propeller when the air pressure post propeller disk but still inside the duct is higher than the ambient pressure there will be an additional pressure thrust on the duct over the exit area. In this case the equation changes to include momentum and pressure thrust is shown as
& F = m(C j Ca ) + Aj ( p j pa ) , where Aj is the exit area of duct, p j the pressure at area of duct and pa the intake air pressure (Saravanamuttoo, 2001, p 100). An analysis has to occur to find out which is more efficient use, a high exhaust velocity or more mass flow by use of the Froude or propulsive efficiency equation p = 2 [1 + ( C j Ca )] . The most efficient form of propulsion has a higher C j compared to Ca but the amount should not be by too much (Saravanamuttoo, 2001, p 101). At the cruise velocity of approximately 10.5m/s the existing large diameter open propeller efficiently moves a large mass flow at low speed. The ducted fan moves a smaller mass flow at a higher velocity, so increased emphasis on efficient fan/ shroud design is essential to retain a reasonable propulsive efficiency. A potential advantage of the low speed ducted fan is it can be smaller in rotor disk area than an equivalent open propeller for the same propulsive efficiency (Barnard and Philpott, 1995, p 159). This is achieved as the ducted fan acts as a shroud, allowing the blades to be able to be uniformly loaded along their length thus having a higher disk loading. The unshrouded propeller blade tips are less loaded due to span wise flow as a result of pressure inequalities. The shape of the duct if correctly designed can develop a thrust component of its own (McCormick, 1999, p 232). Early studies have found even greater improvements, In the static condition a shrouded propeller produces approximately twice as much thrust as an open propeller (Platt, 1948, p 1). Platt reasoned that this is due to the fixed pitch open propeller having a large part of its area where the blade is stalled creating less overall thrust. The fact that this is measured in the static condition is very important; at a forward velocity this thrust advantage for the same disk area is reduced. A ducted fan could possibly reduce the frontal area of a paramotor, resulting in a reduction of overall drag while in gliding flight. In other air propelled vehicles that operate up to 20m/s such as the airship and the hovercraft the ducted fan or ducted propellers are a common configuration. In the airship, a ducted propeller has the advantages of protection to the ground crew when ground handling, protection to the propeller from trailing ground handling

30

lines, the use of acoustic liners to reduce external propeller noise and enhanced performance through guide vanes to reduce swirl in heavily loaded propellers (Khoury and Gillet, 2004, p 129). All of these advantages are equally relevant to a paramotor. A ducted fan is used in a hovercraft for similar reasons to an airship, with the primary reason of reducing the risk to personnel in close vicinity to the propeller. There is one critical area of difference to a paramotor; both the airship and hovercraft do not have any design requirement to have low drag in no power situations. For an airship, the propulsor volume is minimal compared to the overall volume and drag is of minimal importance as it operates as a balloon with loss of power. Even though there are inherent differences in operations, the design methods to create hovercraft and airship propulsors should be applicable for the paramotor ducted fan design. If the duct is at an AoI not normal to the oncoming airflow the thrust generated by the duct will not be uniform. This asymmetric flow causes greater lift to be generated by the windward side of the duct than the lee side (Weir, 2004, p 421). This is due to the windward side having a higher effective AoI and as a result creating more lift. A large pitching moment is created by this asymmetric lift tending to align the duct with the oncoming airflow. Inlet design will be critical for a ducted fan paramotor as the need for uniform inflow across the rotor face will be critical to achieving a high propulsive efficiency. Large inefficiencies exist at the intake position highlighted by the position of the duct in relation to the pilot (fig 28), as can be seen by the position of duct in relation to the pilot. This particular paramotor only flew a few flights due to the high noise level in operation. This increased noise was possibly due to a direct drive from the Solo 210 motor which caused high propeller tip velocities or it could have been due to airflow separation at the inlet. An efficient intake design for a pusher propeller is shown in figure 28. The Optica pictured was designed for slow speed flight in place of a helicopter for reduced operating costs. One of its uses was power line observation for preventative maintenance. Airflow separation can be reduced with careful design of the intake nacelle. One method to achieve this is by using inlet stator vanes that can pre-turn the air to remove axial swirl as well as screening out flow disturbances to the rotor (Worobel and Mayo, 1973, p 14). Also, the use of inlet vane stators in a pusher prop design can reduce the amount of noise produced over an open propeller with correct size and spacing (Worobel and Mayo, 1973, p 9). Lost propulsive momentum can be regained by the

31

removal of swirl velocity post rotor. A method of achieving this is by adding inlet and/or outlet guide vanes to change the airflow direction (Khoury and Gillet, 2004, p 114).

Figure 28. Left. Photograph of C. Bowles flying his ducted fan paramotor. It is the only ducted fan paramotor known by the author; the duct is a variation of the Q-Fan design (Bowles, 2004). Right. Photograph of a low speed observation aircraft the Edgley Optica which utilised a ducted propeller for its innovative design. Figure taken from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/G-BGMW.jpg. taken 21 July 06.

It appears that most ducted fan designs for low speed flight utilise a diffuser after the rotor on the inside of the duct. A reason for this is provided by Raspet, If the velocity energy of the flow can be recovered as pressure applied to the inclined inner wall of the diffuser, one can gain in static thrust for the same power expended in the propeller (Raspet, 1960, p 8). Computation fluid dynamic studies have also shown that the compromise of reducing post rotor velocity to develop higher pressures on the diffuser shroud are worthwhile with every degree increase [in diffuser angle] is found to give about 1% power saving, and the power saving comes from increased mass flow into the fan duct (Lee, 2004, p 5). However other researchers have found that theory cannot be always practically applied. Adding the diffuser extension also slightly degrades the lift performance. This does not agree with linear invisid flow theory which predicts an increase in lift with increasing exit area and is most likely due to frictional losses and separation losses associated with an increased duct length (Weir, 2004, p 431). However using a diffuser post rotor disk has been identified as a critical component in many studies, as Black states Results show that the most powerful shrouded propeller variable is shroud exit area ratio (Black et al., 1968, p 1). It would appear that as long as the size of the duct does not increase to a point where it may affect cruise or glide performance then a diffuser is essential. No research has been found relating to the effect of gliding with a ducted fan. It would appear that the reason for lack of information on glide effects of ducted fans is due to the use of these devices in vertical lift machines and UAVs where an engine failure is critical and glide angle is irrelevant. The Optica shown in figure 28 is listed as having a glide ratio of 13:1 (Anonymous, 2006) and therefore the possibility of the duct powered aircraft being

32

capable of glide is achievable, however wind tunnel testing is required to determine the full effects on a paramotor. Concept of a ducted fan paramotor A basic study was conducted into the merits of a ducted fan paramotor. A basic concept was drawn in AutoCAD as the basis for obtaining a first order approximation of weight, drag and design of the duct inflow. The basic sketch is shown in figure 29.

Figure 29. Left. Concept sketch of a paramotor optimised for glide using a ducted fan (Author, 2006). Right. Concept sketch of a paramotor shown to scale with standard paramotor frame superimposed for comparison of frontal areas (Author, 2006).

The concept shown has a cutaway cross section for the duct (shown in yellow). It utilised inlet guide vanes to provide pre-swirl also shown in yellow. The blue components illustrate the fan from side on, while the red components are the existing power plant with drive shaft extension. A brief analysis of the concept found the paramotor would weigh significantly more than the existing paramotor due to the weight of the ducting and fan supports even if constructed from advanced composites. The highly loaded propeller disk would possibly consume more power than the existing power plant could supply. There was also high possibility of inlet airflow separation occurring if a small frontal area was used on the duct. If a bell mouth duct inlet arrangement was used to allow sufficient inflow to the fan then during glide this would create excessive drag. At an AoI of 32o parts of the duct would be stalled during glide creating large drag. As the negatives outweighed the potential benefits the ducted fan concept was not pursued.

33

5.

SCALE MODEL PARAMOTOR

Introduction

For accurate data from the wind tunnel testing the manufacture of a very accurate paraglider model was required. Images taken during flight, and measurements from the experimental paramotor were used to develop the model. The PAP 1400AS paramotor was then accurately rendered in CATIA as it was envisaged that the low drag paramotor would be built in the future. Plans were printed in 10% scale and the model was built ready for wind tunnel testing Determination of the scale factor The scale factor for the wind tunnel model is 10% of the full size paramotor. This was determined based on ease of construction and the blockage factor in the low turbulence wind tunnel. With the initial first order approximation that the paramotor is a non porous circular disk in the y and z axes (where x axis is V ) correlating to the outer diameter of the paraglider frame, the wind tunnel blockage factor is 8.14%. This is within the recommended range by (Pankhurst, 1952, p 341) who states Chord should not normally exceed about one third of tunnel height or about two thirds of the tunnel breadth. Span should not exceed 0.7 of tunnel breadth. Pope makes the point that a maximum ratio of model frontal area to test section cross-sectional area of 7.5% should probably be used, unless errors of several percent can be accepted (Pope et al., 1984, p 371). In this experiment the paramotor cage will be measured at an angle of inclination, as a result the circular disk will effectively become an eclipse resulting in a lower frontal area. In addition to this the netting on the frame has a low solidity ratio therefore an effective test section cross sectional area below 7.5% was obtained. In order to reduce scale effect errors to a minimum, dynamic flow similarity must occur. Anderson states the two flows will be dynamically similar if: 1. The bodies and any other solid boundaries are geometrically similar for both flows, and 2. The similarity parameters are the same for both flows (Anderson, 2001, p 36). Therefore because the wind tunnel has walls, the wake blockage factor must be determined (Pope et al., 1984, p 355). To fulfil Popes requirements, the individual wake blockage factor was determined for each model configuration. Maintaining similarity parameters is more involved, Pope states, If the flow cannot be considered incompressible, the Mach number must be matched. Usually it is not necessary to produce the full scale Reynolds number but it must be a reasonable value. In an

34

unpressurised tunnel using air this means that the Reynolds number ratio of model to full size is approximately equal to the scale ratio between the scale-model and the aircraft (Pope et al., 1984, p 38). The basic experimental parameters are that the velocity of flight is 10.6m/s at 0m ASL on an ISA day, then the Mach number is 0.031. This is firmly in the realms of incompressible flow therefore the Mach number does not have to be matched. The Reynolds number of 980,000 is achieved when the paramotor is at the speed and altitude as stated previously, while using a 1.5m chord (as measured from the pilots toes to the propeller). As there is a 10% scale factor of the model, this equates to a scale factor of Reynolds number at 98,000 and a final wind speed velocity of 9.6m/s in the low turbulence wind tunnel accounting for ISA conditions. These calculations are based on Popes methods. Scale model of standard paramotor During previous experimentation, inflight photography showed the standard paramotor with manikin had to be mounted on the force balance from 0 to 32o AoI. Figure 18 became the basis for the model with one minor change. During flight the pilot had to aim an infra red device at the camera to trigger a shutter release. As a result the left hand forearm was always moved forward in the photographs. The manufactured manikin had vertical forearms. After measuring several figurines in toy shops for true life proportions it was decided that none would be accurate enough for wind tunnel testing. Therefore the manikin selected was an 85% percentile male developed from the CATIA database. This accurately matched the typical pilot specifications for the experimental paramotor. A screen print from CATIA was used to manufacture the alloy manikin. This screen print was traced in AutoCAD 2000 then converted to a MasterCAD file for the SACME wire cutter. The manikin was then cut out on the x,y,z axes from a solid block of aluminium (fig 30), then manually sculptured using hand tools to remove excess material for the finished figurine. The final product was sandblasted to achieve a uniform surface finish.

Figure 30. Wind tunnel manikin at 10% scale after initial cuts on 3 axes by the SACME wirecutter from a solid block of aluminium alloy.

35

The experimental paramotor was disassembled to allow measurement. The bare frame was placed onto a Cartesian coordinated grid and all frame junctions and bend radii were measured and photographed. The engine, reduction gearbox, expansion chamber, silencer and engine mounts were also disassembled and photographed from the x,y,z axes. The photographs were printed into a booklet, and the measurements of all the components were recorded on the photographs. This enabled an accurate scale model of the paramotor to be built in CATIA. The accuracy of this rendering was very important as it is intended to build and fly a low drag paramotor in the future and these images will form the basis for these plans. Therefore an extended period of time was devoted to the CATIA model to ensure it was adequate for post thesis uses. From the CATIA, model plans at 10% scale were printed and used as the template for the scale paramotor. The engine, reduction gearbox, inlet silencer, expansion chamber, fuel tank and reserve were manufactured by hand tools from aluminium blocks. These were then sandblasted to achieve a uniform surface finish. The frame was manufactured from 1.2mm diameter hollow stainless tubing that was soldered at the joints. The netting was manufactured from 0.11mm Dyneema fishing line with 5mm openings. The propeller was a model aircraft propeller. The force balance arm (fig 31) was built from 12mm diameter steel that was bent around behind the model to limit interference effects. The arm was placed in a lathe to accurately drill the angle pivot along the same axis as the force balance. The angle pivot allowed the model to be secured at the desired AoI. A locknut was used to adjust the tension on the propeller to allow it to either windmill or be fixed. During later testing the arm was faired.

Figure 31. Completed 10% scale model mounted to force balance in low turbulence wind tunnel, note during experimentation the propeller was vertical and this harness was a initial prototype, the final product was more accurate.

36

Low turbulence wind tunnel The wind tunnel used during experimentation was the SACME low turbulence wind tunnel. It has a range of test velocities from 5 to 35m/s. The velocity of the air in the test section was measured by a pilot probe forward of the model. The model was mounted on the force balance arm in the centre of the test section, which was calibrated before experimentation as detailed in appendix I. An image of the low turbulence wind tunnel is shown in figure 32.

Figure 32. Low turbulence wind tunnel photographed from workstation. Model can be seen through window connected to the force balance. The analogue strain gauge signal is converted to a digital value then sent to the computer for processing by HP-Vee software.

6.
6.1

WIND TUNNEL TESTING

CORRECTIONS AND CALCULATIONS

Introduction

The desired result of model wind tunnel experimentation is qualitative data to assess the impact of configuration changes and the most useful term to express the results is drag area. Flat plate drag area
D = CD S q

is useful in cases where an area of reference is not obvious

(such as, for instance, in the case of a motorcycle) or where several component parts are combined in some system' (Hoerner , 1965, p 1-8). In order to calculate the flat plate area, S, the frontal area of the model in m2 had to be found. D is the force recorded in Newtons by the force balance, q the dynamic pressure of the oncoming airflow and CD the coefficient of drag.

37

Calculations

Initial method of calculating frontal area The method of determining frontal areas was initially calculated by using the screen print of the paramotor model with pilot in CATIA for each attitude which ranged between 0 to 32o AoI (appendix H). The area calculation tool in CATIA software could not be used because the manikin could not be dimensioned in a CATIA rendering. Therefore a screen print was placed into AutoCAD 2000 at the correct scale then redrawn in two dimensions. With this second drawing the AutoCAD area calculator was used to find the areas of each component. The tables in appendix H depict the individual breakdown of frontal area for each component in the different configurations tested at each AoI. The netting area was calculated by manually measuring each Dyneema line used in the model. The total line length of 841mm was multiplied by the diameter of 0.11mm to find the total surface area of the netting at 0o AoI. At 8o AoI it was recalculated at approximately 1% less overall netting frontal area, therefore at each inclination change the frontal netting area was reduced by 1%. An error exists where the individual knots used to tie each line were not included in the frontal area. Final method of calculating the frontal area. The drag area results from initial experiments were of concern as the blockage factor was calculated as if the paramotor maximum frontal area occurred in one plane. At high AoI this excessive blockage factor was exaggerated. Therefore an alternative method of calculating the blockage factor was suggested by the thesis supervisor, Mr Fien. This method was to algebraically find the blockage factor. A sample calculation is shown in appendix H. Once the drag area for the model was calculated using Excel, the drag area value for the force balance arm at that velocity was subtracted. Due to the relocation of the SACME barometer to the supersonic wind tunnel it was difficult to access to obtain the local atmospheric pressure. During some experiments the local air pressure could not be obtained therefore all differing configurations were tested against each other in a short period of time. A pressure altimeter was used to indicate changes in pressure and temperature during each experiment. However it could not be calibrated, therefore a baseline value could not be found. As a result comparisons should only be made between results for each experiment, as opposed a comparison of drag area values between experiments. 38

6.2 Aims

COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG EXPERIMENT 1

This experiment fulfils the second requirement of the primary aims of the thesis project. The aim was to complete low turbulence wind tunnel testing to determine the major contributors to drag while in gliding flight of a conventional paramotor.
Introduction

Full scale glide testing was restricted to flying with a safe aircraft configuration. It was an unacceptable risk to remove components before or during flight in order to determine their drag contribution. Therefore a scale model in the low turbulence wind tunnel was substituted for flight data. The scale model build development is shown in the previous chapter. In order to obtain the drag data, wind tunnel experiments on scale models were undertaken on the SACME low turbulence wind tunnel. Measurements were recorded using a force balance with three axis of freedom, these being lift, drag and the pitching moment, with drag being the area of primary concern.
Procedure

The 10% scale standard paramotor was tested in nine different configurations at 0, 8, 16, 24 and 32o AoI in the SACME low turbulence wind tunnel at velocities between 7 to 19 m/s. The experiment began with the complete paramotor with force balance arm and pilot. The configuration changes are shown in appendix J, figures J.2 to J.4.
Results and Calculations

Raw results are shown for each different configuration and AoI in appendix J. In accordance with the Pope method the Reynolds number ratio of model to full size is approximately equal to the scale ratio between the scale model and the aircraft (Pope et al., 1984, p 38). This calculation is shown in appendix J.

39

0.005 Drag Area in m^2 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001

Drag Area Change by Removal of Paramotor Components at 0 Degrees AoI

0.000 1 Paramotor with pilot and propeller 3 Minus propeller 5 Minus netting 7 Minus cage

2 Minus harness 1 4 Minus fuel tank 6 Minus reserve 8 Minus powerplant

Figure 33. Graph showing the effects of drag area as a result of removal of individual paramotor components in sequence at 0o AoI.

0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0000 1 Paramotor with pilot and propeller 3 Minus propeller 5 Minus netting 7 Minus cage

Drag Area Change by Removal of Paramotor Components at 32 Degrees AoI

Drag Area in m^2

2 Minus harness 1 4 Minus fuel tank 6 Minus reserve 8 Minus powerplant

Figure 34. Graph showing the effects of drag area as a result of removal of individual paramotor components in sequence at 32o AoI.

Discussion

This experiment achieved the aim of determining the contributions of the components to total drag of a standard paramotor. However, due to Reynolds numbers effects at different velocities there is a difference in the drag area recorded. An example of this is shown in appendix J, fig J.15 where the Reynolds numbers are shown along the x axis instead of the 7 to 19m/s velocity. It can be seen that there is a substantial rise in drag area in the vicinity of Re = 120,000. This is caused by the variation of cylinder's drag coefficient with Reynolds number (fig 35). As a result the tables shown in appendix J use an average force balance drag area of 0.003m2 subtracted from the values to remove the effects of the force balance bar. All subsequent

40

wind tunnel testing was completed from the velocity of 5 to 30m/s which is the upper limit of the wind tunnel.

Figure 35. Variation of drag coefficient for a cylinder at various Reynolds numbers (Anderson, 2001, p. 257).

This experiment found a well defined breakdown of drag area for all components. From 0 to 32o AoI there was minimal difference in drag area whether the model was fitted with a harness or vertical propeller, the result was the same as the full model. This signified that a feathering, hinged or folding propeller would not increase the glide ratio for a standard paramotor. The fuel tank which was sourced from a go-kart was not aerodynamically optimised and resulted in a component of drag that reduced as AoI increased. The netting was a minor contributor to drag. The reserve parachute container appeared to have a detrimental effect at 0o AoI but became advantageous at 32o AoI. This could be due to the reserve parachute container acting as a splitter plate type device and reducing the vortex street off the pilots neck and head. Vortex street which occurs at certain Reynolds numbers (fig 36). The frame of the paramotor was the largest drag contributor; the round section tubing creates considerable drag. The power plant created a minimal increase in drag area; this would possibly be due to the intake silencer and expansion chamber protruding outside the pilots silhouette. This drag area was smaller than expected and could possibly be due to the engine stopping the vortex street and thus reducing drag.

Figure 36. Theoretical pattern of vortex street behind a circular object with Reynolds numbers from 104 to 105 (Hoerner, 1965, 8-9).

41

Conclusion

This experiment determined the major contributors to drag while in gliding flight of a conventional paramotor and was performed at a reduced scale in a wind tunnel because of the unacceptable risk of removing components before or during flight. The experiment found a well-defined drag area breakdown of components and was able to identify the main drag contributors. The order of importance in reducing the drag area of a standard paramotor would be a redesign of the frame, netting and fuel tank. More experimentation is needed to determine the interaction between the reserve parachute container and the pilot.

6.3 Aims

EFFECT OF FUEL TANK PLACEMENT ON TOTAL DRAG AREA

Investigate the difference on overall drag area at varying angles of attack on a 10% scale paramotor model when: (1) (2) (3) (4) Standard 10 litre fuel tank is used. Streamlined 10 litre fuel tank. Two 5 litre Jerry can fuel tanks are placed either side of the pilot. Two 5 litre Jerry can fuel tanks with a basic fairing over pilot and tanks.

Introduction

The placement of the standard fuel tank on the PAP1400 paramotor appears to be a major contributor to drag (appendix J). As a result, 4 differing configurations of fuel tank placement were tested in order to find the lowest drag. The first was the standard 10 litre tank commonly used on paramotors. The second tank tested was a NACA0025 aerofoil profile tank cut off at 40% chord and installed in place of the standard fuel tank. The NACA profile was set at 30o AoI to vertical to be most efficient at glide AoI. This tank was designed to have a capacity of 10 litres and the aft of the tank was cut off to shroud the lower blade of the propeller to possibly reduce drag. The third fuel tank tested was based on a design by G. Sutherland and involved twin 5 litre fuel tanks one either side of the pilot (fig 37). This design was tested to determine the effect on drag created by the paramotor. The fourth configuration tested is similar to the third fuel tank tested, but with a simple fairing made out of plaster in an attempt to reduce the drag ratio. Photographs of all fuel tank configurations are shown in appendix K. 42

Fuel Tanks

Figure 37. Twin 5 litre fuel tank set up on paramotor designed by G Sutherland.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted as per chapter 6.2 with the exception that the range of test velocity was extended from 5 to 30 m/s.
Results and Calculations

Raw data and initial calculations including frontal areas are shown in appendix K. Frontal area results have been included in the appendix however final calculations were done in conjunction with appendix H. Between 15 to 30m/s at varying AoI the results show the standard tank, faired and unfaired Jerry cans are the worst performers (fig 38) This may be due to the Jerry cans having a defined sharp edge on the lower surfaces which would increase flow separation at that point. Rebuilding the model with higher tanks and greater plaster fairing around the lower surfaces to reduce flow separation was considered, however due to the poor 0o AoI results it was not pursued in the aim of creating larger drag area reductions elsewhere. The lowest drag area from this test was the NACA0025 tank cut off at 60% chord.
0.006 Drag Area in m^2 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0 Deg AoI, Standard Fuel Tank 0 Deg AoI, Faired Side Jerry Cans 32 Deg AoI, Standard Fuel Tank 32 Deg AoI, Faired Side Jerry Cans 01 Deg AoI, Side Jerry Cans 0 Deg AoI, NACA Profile Fuel Tank 32 Deg AoI, Side Jerry Cans 32 Deg AoI, NACA Profile Fuel Tank

Drag Area of Different Paramotor Fuel Tanks

Figure 38. Drag area as a result of fuel tank placement at varying AoI.

43

Discussion

The experiment results show that the fuel tank can be beneficial in lowering the drag area at both 0 and 32o AoI. At 0o AoI there was a larger spread in results in the area of interest ranging from 15 to 30m/s. Surprisingly, both the faired and unfaired Jerry cans were the highest drag areas; this is not due to the propeller becoming unshrouded as the no fuel tank configuration was one of the lower drag performers in the area of interest. The faired Jerry can configuration was optimised toward 0o AoI due to the plaster design forming a gentle transition in frontal area from the knees to tank location. In the area of interest the other three configurations (standard, NACA0025 cut off at 60% and no tank) are similar in achieving lower drag area results. Out of these three the NACA profile appears most promising; it may also be better under power as it could allow more inflow to the propeller disk.
Conclusion

This experiment sought to determine the most efficient position of the fuel tank in terms of location and shape at varying AoI. Five different configurations were tested including the option of no fuel tank. This was done to assess the fuel tank propeller interactions. The 5 litre Jerry can tanks on each side of the pilot was proved to be most inefficient at all angles of attack tested, however the standard tank recorded the worse result at 32o AoI. The NACA0025 tank cut off at 60% chord was the most promising with lower drag area results recorded; this could possibly be further improved by a redesign of the base of the tank.

6.4 Aims

DRAG AREA VARIATION CAUSED BY REMOVAL OF PROPELLER AND RESERVE PARACHUTE

(1)

To quantitatively assess the effect on the overall drag area of a paramotor by removal of the propeller and reserve parachute.

(2)

To gain further understanding of the relationship of overall drag reduction caused by the existing location of the reserve parachute container.

(3)

To gain further understanding of propeller drag to determine whether investigation into feathering or folding propellers is warranted.

44

Introduction

This wind tunnel experimentation was conducted to find the effect of the change in total drag area by removal of the propeller and reserve parachute. The removal of each item was assessed separately. The intent was to ascertain whether earlier test results were correct in that the reserve was a beneficial item as it lowers the drag area at 32o AoI. The tests were conducted with the paramotor model using two 5 litre fuel tanks and a basic fairing over the tanks.
Procedure

The experiment was conducted as per chapter 6.2 with the exception that the range of test velocity was extended from 5 to 30 m/s. The previous experimentation shown in chapter measured the drag forces of the model at varying velocities and AoI. This was used as the base line data for comparison for this experiment. The model was then tested at 0 and 32o AoI with the propeller removed (fig 39). The propeller was then replaced in the fixed vertical position and the reserve parachute container removed. The model with the reserve container removed was measured in the wind tunnel at 0 and 32o AoI.

Reserve Parachute container

Figure 39. Side view of model mounted on force balance at 0o AoI. The reserve parachute container is indicated by the red arrow.

The model was then reconfigured to the standard paramotor configuration and a solution of titanium dioxide (TiO2), kerosene and olive oil was applied. The wind tunnel containing the model was operated at 32o AoI with a velocity of 20m/s. The resulting flow patterns were analysed in the vicinity of the pilots head and reserve parachute container in order to understand local airflow.
Results and Calculations

Raw wind tunnel data is shown in appendix L. All calculations were done as per chapter 6.2, final results are displayed in figure 40.

45

0.0040 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0000

Drag Area of Standard Paramotor with Jerry Can Fuel Tanks Covered with Basic Fairing

Drag Area in m^2

0 Deg AoI, Standard 0 Deg AoI, No Reserve Container 32 Deg AoI, No Propeller

1 0 Deg AoI,No Propeller 32Deg AoI, Standard 32 Deg AoI, No Reserve Container

Figure 40. Showing the drag area of the model for various configurations in the wind tunnel.

Discussion

This experiment confirmed the results of the earlier experiment (Chap 6.2) in that the reserve parachute container is beneficial in reducing the drag area at high AoI. The use of TiO2 solution indicated that further improvement may occur if the reserve container is mounted vertically rather than the current horizontal location (appendix L). It is possible this may reattach airflow from the top of the pilots head and therefore gain a reduced drag. An example of this is shown in relation to two circular cylinders (fig 41).

Figure 41. Drag coefficients of two cylinders, one placed behind the other (Hoerner, 1965, p. 8-1).

The propeller was found to create additional drag during this experiment. This is contrary to earlier experimentation and is due to the change of the fuel tank position to either side of the pilot. This left the propeller unshrouded, and resulted in the propeller having a greater contribution to the overall drag area.

46

Conclusion

This wind tunnel experimentation was conducted to find the effect of the change in total drag area by removal of the propeller and reserve parachute. The intent was to ascertain whether earlier test results were correct in proving that the reserve is a beneficial item in lowering the drag area at 32o AoI. This experiment was successful in proving the reserve container is mildly beneficial at high AoI, however further experimentation has to occur to determine if a vertical container would provide greater benefits. Due to fuel tank repositioning, it was found that unshrouding the propeller created more drag. Potential benefits from fuel tank positioning may have been reduced by the interaction of the propeller. Further experimentation is required to prove this.

6.5 Aims

COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG EXPERIMENT 2

To gain a greater understanding of the major drag contributors in a standard paramotor at 10% scale and varying angles of attack by investigating: (1) (2) (3) The effect of single component removal. The relations between components as a result of interference drag. Whether the reserve parachute container turned at 90o to the airflow would reduce overall flat plate drag area.
Introduction

Component breakdown due to drag in experiment 1 was successful; however it may have produced misleading results due to the fact that the items were removed in series. This series could produce dramatically different drag area results if the order was changed. To correct this potential source of error a further experiment was necessary to individually remove each item for drag testing, followed by replacement prior to testing of the next item.
Procedure

This experiment was conducted in the same manner as experiment 1, with the following exceptions: velocity was measured between 5 to 30m/s and only one component was removed at a time. After data was recorded the component was replaced on the model before a different component was removed for testing.

47

Results and Calculations

Results are shown in appendix M. All calculations were done as per chapter 6.2. Final results are displayed in figures 42 - 43.
Drag Area of Individual Paramotor Components at 0 Degrees AoI

0.006 Drag Area in m^2 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001

0.000 Full Configuration No Intake No Cage

No Reserve 1 No Propeller No Net

No Motor No Tank No Net, No Tank

Figure 42. Drag area results for standard paramotor at 0o AoI.

Drag Area of Individual Paramotor Components at 32 Degrees AoI 0.0040 Drag Area in m^2 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0000

Full Configuration No Intake No Cage

No Reserve 1 No Propeller No Net

No Motor No Tank No Net, No Tank

Figure 43. Drag area results for standard paramotor at 32o AoI.

Discussion

With individual components being removed, tested, then refitted there are differences in results with experiment 1 due to the change in procedure. At 0o AoI there was little difference in drag area effects of the removal of the reserve, motor or intake silencer. The propeller and the netting created a larger drag area than shown in experiment 1. However, the most significant drag contributor was the frame of the paramotor. The results of the testing at 32o AoI was similar to 0o AoI, however the propeller did not create any significant extra drag when fixed vertically. The tank created less drag than recorded in experiment 1 at 32o AoI, therefore there may not be as much emphasis on

48

redesigning as previously concluded. The area of interest in this experiment was with the frame of the paramotor; when it was removed at 32o AoI, the drag area dropped by 50%.
Conclusion

The experiment sought to gain further understanding of the effects of single component removal on a paramotor. A greater understanding of the interference drag between components was also sought. It was found that at varying AoI the reserve parachute container, motor or propeller individually had little effect on the drag recorded. At varying angles of attack the netting was a major contributor to drag, however more significant results were recorded with the paramotor frame. Further design work on the frame would need to be undertaken to reduce drag.

6.6 Aims

TESTING OF ANNULAR AEROFOILS

The aims of this experiment were: 1. To determine if a lower drag paramotor frame can be designed that provides equivalent pilot protection as the standard frame. 2. To determine if a twisted annular aerofoil recorded lower drag at both 0 and 320 AoI.
Introduction

From the data obtained from experiments 1 and 2, the component breakdown due to drag conclude that the paramotor frame was the largest individual drag contributor. In this experiment the aim was to test the standard cage against two annular aerofoils in search of a drag reduction. One annular aerofoil had the chord in line with V at the paramotor 0o AoI. The other has an elliptical profile so that when the paramotor is at 0o AoI the chord of the aerofoil at top/bottom dead centre is at 30 o AoA. At 32o AoI the chord of the aerofoil is effectively at 0 o AoA.
Procedure

A lower drag paramotor frame is virtually useless if it does not adequately protect the pilot in case of a mishap. Therefore, before the frame could be redesigned, a basic understanding of the design loads encountered have to be clarified (appendix P). The standard paramotor was

49

drawn in CATIA with the frame and fuel tank hidden from view. This provided a scaled pilot, power plant and propeller that could be utilised for concept sketching. After multiple ideas were considered, such as using fuel in the frame, streamline grids and other concepts, an annular aerofoil at 30o AoI was chosen as the most practicable. This was then drawn to scale in CATIA (appendix P). A symmetrical NACA0025 aerofoil was chosen with a 150mm chord because it could hold two chrome molybdenum tubes. A second standard annular aerofoil was made to the same profile and dimensions for comparison to determine whether the extra effort of the twisted annular aerofoil was worth while in terms of drag reduction. The annular aerofoils were made by the author by turning down a mild steel bar to a tube of 138mm ID, 142mm OD. A piece of 15mm wide tubing was cut off at 90o, with another piece 15mm wide cut off at 30o (appendix N). A NACA0025 aerofoil template with 15mm chord was made up out of 0.054" stainless steel sheet and the cut off sections were made into annular aerofoils using hand tools. Once the approximate shape had been manufactured, spray putty was applied and the surface built up between sanding to obtain an accurate profile. The frame central members were soldered in place and the model painted. It was not sandblasted as a high standard of surface finish was desired to match the polished stainless steel tubing of the standard paramotor model. The NACA fuel tank from earlier experiments was fitted to the models. The six model configurations are shown in figures 44 to 46. The models were tested with and without the fuel tank, standard cage without netting and both types of annular aerofoil at velocities between 5 to 30m/s. Throughout this thesis the assumption has been made that at 32o AoI a fixed vertical propeller has the lowest drag. To test this assumption, at the end of the experiment, data was recorded with the propeller at 45o and horizontal.

Figure 44. Left. Image of standard paramotor, minus netting and NACA0025 fuel tank at 0o AoI. Centre. Image of annular aerofoil, minus netting and NACA0025 fuel tank at 0o AoI. Right. Image of twisted annular aerofoil, minus netting and NACA0025 fuel tank at 0o AoI.

50

Figure 45. Left. Image of standard paramotor, minus netting and NACA0025 fuel tank at 32o AoI. Centre. Image of annular aerofoil, minus netting and NACA0025 fuel tank at 32o AoI. Right. Image of twisted annular aerofoil, minus netting and NACA0025 fuel tank at 32o AoI.

Figure 46. Left. Image of twisted annular aerofoil, with vertical propeller. Centre. Image of twisted annular aerofoil, with 45o propeller. Right. Image of twisted annular aerofoil, with horizontal propeller.

Results and Calculations

Raw results are listed in appendix N. All calculations were done as per chapter 6.2. Final results are displayed in graphs 47 and 48.
Drag Area for Different Frame Configurations at Various Degrees AoI

Drag Area in m^2

0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000

Differing Configurations 0 Deg AoI, Standard Paramotor 1 0 Deg AoI,Annular Aerofoil 0 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Airfoil 32 Deg AoI, Standard Paramotor 32 Deg AoI, Annular Aerofoil 32 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil 32 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil, with No Fuel Tank

Figure 47. Summary of data of different frames at various degrees AoI. Note netting not fitted to any configuration.

51

Drag Area for Different Propeller Positions at 32 Degrees AoI Drag Area in m^2 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 1 32 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil, with No Fuel Tank Differing Configurations

Twisted Annular Aerofoil, 45 Degree Propeller, with No Fuel T k Figure 48. Drag areas of different propeller positions at 32o AoI. Note netting not fitted to any configuration.

Discussion

If the paramotor was only to fly at 0o then the standard annular aerofoil is clearly the most efficient. However, this expectation is unrealistic. The 30o (twisted) annular aerofoil obtains similar figures to the standard paramotor. At 32o AoI the results are more spread however the twisted annular aerofoil gives an average 13% drag reduction with fuel tank and a 22% reduction with no fuel tank. This decrease is very significant and also shows that the fuel tank is still an inefficient design not optimised for the annular aerofoils (fig 49). The experiment used the same tank between differing configurations to reduce error, therefore on the twisted annular aerofoil because of the separation distance between the aerofoil and the base of the tank, potentially greater losses occurred. Also there was an experimental error, as the chord of the propeller was not accurately 10% of full size; this is significant as the NACA0025 was created in CATIA to suit the full scale propeller. As such when placed on the model the chord was wider than the trailing edge of the tank. There is a possibility that if corrected the NACA tank could provide greater gains at 0 and 32o AoI. The assumption that a vertical propeller at 32o AoI produced the least drag was correct (fig 49).

Figure 49 Left. The red arrow shows potential loss point on the 30o annular aerofoil at 32o AoI. Right. Frontal view of 30o annular aerofoil at 32o AoI, note aerofoil is efficiently moving through air at approximately 0o AoI. The red arrow shows the site of potential drag losses due to poorly designed tank base.

52

Conclusion

This experiment sought to determine the most efficient type of paramotor frame with respect to reducing drag area. At 0o AoI it was found that the standard annular aerofoil was most efficient, with the twisted annular aerofoil producing similar drag to a standard paramotor. At 32o AoI, the twisted annular aerofoil was found to be superior. At 32o AoI, there was an average 13% on drag reduction with the fuel tank and a 22% reduction with no fuel tank. This could possibly be improved by a redesign of the base of the tank. After this redesign further experimentation with the correct scale propeller fitted should be done. The vertical propeller at 32o AoI creates lower drag than at 45o or horizontal.

6.7 Aims

USE OF FAIRED FORCE BALANCE ARM

The aims of this experiment were: (1) To determine if the unfaired force balance arm used in previous experiments was creating error in drag area values. (2) To determine if the modifications to NACA fuel tank on twisted annular aerofoil produced less drag. (3) To determine if propeller at correct chord affects the test results.

Introduction

In an attempt to reduce the Reynolds number effects on the wind tunnel model the force balance arm was faired. Similar model configurations were tested in chapter 6.6, with the design differences of the twisted annular aerofoil having a silicone fillet to blend the base of the tank to the aerofoil. The propeller was also modified to remove the previous experimental error. The chord of the propeller was reduced to enable dynamic flow similarity to a full scale paramotor.
Procedure

The procedure was similar to chapter 6.6, with the following differences: 1. A symmetrical aerofoil constructed from balsa wood was bonded to the existing force balance arm. The profile was based on a NACA0020 aerofoil (fig 50).

53

2.

The NACA fuel tank attached to paramotor model was moved 5mm downwards and rebonded to the frame. The base of the tank was filleted to the annular aerofoil to approximately 5mm radius by use of silicone. Another test was conducted with a domed fairing placed on the tank in an attempt to reduce drag.

3. 4.

The models propeller chord was reduced to 10% scale. Due to the lower drag created by the modified force balance arm the wind tunnel velocity was able to be increased to 35m/s during testing while still remaining under the 50 Amp limit imposed on the wind tunnel fan motor.

Figure 50. Left. The NACA0020 fairing fitted to the force balance arm can be seen at the right hand side of the image, with the base of the fuel tank filleted to the annular aerofoil. Right. Same model, with addition of a silicone mound to the top of the fuel tank.

Results and Calculations

Raw results are listed in appendix O. All calculations were done as per chapter 6. Final results are displayed in figure 51.
Drag Area Comparision with Faired Force Balance Arm

0.007 Drag Area in m^2 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001

0.000 0 Deg AoI Standard Paramotor 1 0 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank 0 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank 32 Deg AoI Standard Paramotor 32 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank 32 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank

Figure 51. Drag areas of different paramotor frames at various AoI. Note netting not fitted to any configuration.

54

Discussion

This experiment produced similar results to the experiment in chapter 6.6. The difference being that during previous experimentation the force balance arm was over accounted for in drag area. With the faired balance arm drag area values for the paramotor increased. This meant instead of a 20% reduction in drag obtained in previous experiment, approximately 11% reduction in drag was obtained. Effectively no difference in drag area was measured between having a fuel tank fitted and removed. The filleting of the bottom of the tank to the twisted annular aerofoil reduced the drag area. This was expected as shown in figure 52. No difference in drag area was recorded with addition of a fairing on top of the fuel tank.

Figure 52. Influence of fairings on interference drag at the junction of two struts (Hoerner, 1965, p. 8-13).

It is difficult to determine if the reduction in propeller chord had any effect. This is due to three changes being made at the same time (chord reduction, filleting of tank and force balance arm fairing). It may have had a slight effect on making the fuel tank configuration more efficient. The coefficient of drag for all configurations is almost identical at approximately 1.0 between 20 to 35 m/s.
Conclusion

This experiment was successful as it determined that the unfaired force balance arm was creating an error. The removal of this experimental error showed that overall drag area was higher than previous calculations. Therefore drag reductions gained were only half the percentage previously determined. The filleting of the base of the NACA profile fuel tank

55

was successful in the reduction of the drag area, but it is difficult to determine if the reduction of the chord of the propeller created a lower drag area.

7.
Aims

REDUCTION IN DRAG AREA BY CHANGE OF NETTING CONFIGURATION

(1) (2) (3)

To determine the contribution to drag caused by the netting in a standard paramotor. To evaluate other forms of protection from the propeller. To determine if design change is worthwhile.

Introduction

The conventional paramotor has shortcomings relating to drag and this may be overcome by alternative designs. This chapter will explore the drag currently produced by the netting and evaluate alternatives.

The netting on a paramotor cage performs a critical safety task, which is the separation of the pilot from the propeller. A paramotor is started by the pilot facing the motor, bracing themselves against the frame with the throttle and recoil starter in either hand. According to incident reports (USPPG, 2006), a significant number of accidents occur at this stage. A starting incident may occur when the pilot inadvertently places their hand against the mesh to hold the propeller away from the body, perhaps in response to the motor being at full throttle or the pilots hand being in a position where the thrust of the paramotor results in an increased application of the throttle. There are several instances where the netting and/or frame have deformed to the point where the hand was struck by the propeller causing injury.
Background

Netting Drag on Standard Paramotor The initial stage of this task was to measure the drag of the netting on a standard paramotor. This was achieved using a scaled model of a paramotor in the wind tunnel and adopting the same procedure as chapter 6.2. Refer to this chapter for the method and calculations (Table 53).

56

Table 53. The drag area effects of removal of netting at 0o and 32o AoI of a standard paramotor. Effect of Netting Removal on Drag Area of a Standard Paramotor at varying AoI Average drag area value for 15 to 30m/s in m^2 32o AoI, Standard Paramotor 32 AoI, No Netting 0 AoI, Standard Paramotor 0 AoI, No Netting
o o o

Percent difference as a result of netting removal

0.0037 0.0032 0.0054 0.0044 17.6% 13.9%

At the velocity of 15 to 30m/s when Reynolds numbers effects have been minimalised, at 0o AoI the removal of netting causes a significant reduction in the drag area of a standard paramotor. At 32o AoI the reduction in drag area is also considerable.

Calculations

Theoretical Drag The Borda equations (Hoerner, 1965, p. 3-24), used to calculate the drag of permeable surfaces, were used for the calculations of drag on the netting of the full scale paramotor. The final drag value was unrealistically low at 0.26 N, due to the low solidity ratio of 0.048 using a 1.2mm diameter line with 50mm square spacing. To obtain a realistic figure, the drag equation D = CD qS was used. The flight velocity of the paramotor at half accelerated flight is approximately 12.5m/s. At this speed the Reynolds number for 1.2mm diameter line is 1027. The variation of cylinder drag coefficient with Reynolds number is shown in figure 54. At this Reynolds number the coefficient of drag is approximately 1.0. Assuming a 1.1m 2 net the drag force created is 5.06 N.

Figure 54. Variation of cylinder drag coefficient with Reynolds number (Anderson, 2001, p. 257).

57

Discussion

Alternatives to existing netting Some alternatives to the netting used in the standard paramotor have been based on the use of a streamline grid or low drag netting. At present an alternative design that doesnt use netting or structural elements to prevent contact with the propeller is unknown. An example of a cageless paramotor for soaring and a design without netting are shown (fig 55). Both designs compromise safety for a potentially better glide ratio. The larger openings in the no-netting design have caused problems during hands-free flight when the paraglider brake toggles come in contact with the propeller during turbulent air (Parajet, 2006), resulting in a higher possibility of the brake toggles becoming wrapped around rotating components causing paraglider collapse. Therefore, designs that do not offer equivalent protection to the standard paramotor have been rejected.

Figure 55. Left. Example of cageless paramotor with folding propeller, weighing a total of 12 kg (Deplanche, 2004). Right. Example of a no-netting frame (Parajet, 2006).

Streamline grids have a much smaller loss coefficient than a round wire grid (or netting) up to a solidity ratio of 0.5 (Hoerner, 1965, p. 3-23), resulting in the reduction of drag. The use of vertical streamline members in the frame construction of a paramotor to prevent contact with the propeller has the potential to reduce drag over the 0o to 30o AoI. This method has not been explored due the potential cost of making high strength low weight streamline sections. A powered paraglider is a cost sensitive aircraft; one of the appeals of it is the low entry cost to flying. If the price increased significantly this form of recreational aviation would become less attractive to the potential pilot. The cheapest method of obtaining low drag netting is by using advanced materials with superior tensile strength enabling a smaller diameter netting to be used with no loss in

58

strength. Dyneema (Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene) is a prime example of such a material (fig 56). It has been used for trawling as it is much stronger than nylon (the more conventional material for trawling nets) and the twines only need to be 55% of the diameter. This reduces the drag on the net by about 40%, resulting in a substantial increase in efficiency (Onbekend, 2005, p. 1). It is also becoming widely used for recreational fishing due to the low density (0.97g/cm3) and minimal elongation of 5% for braided fishing line (DSM Dyneema, 2006). Early braided lines were made from Kevlar (which breaks down under UV light), whereas current braided lines made of Dyneema are unaffected by UV light (Australian Monofil Co Pty Ltd, 2006, pers. comm., 25 Aug.). Due to the reduction in diameter and the lack of stretch, the potential of Dyneema to lacerate the pilot upon impact is greater, but this must be determined by further experimentation.

Figure 56. High level strength to tensile modulus against other materials. The existing polyester nylon netting material can be seen in the lower left corner (DSM Dyneema, 2006).

The current netting material on the standard paramotor is unknown. Assuming that the material is braided nylon, for high quality 1.2mm diameter twine of Du Pont type 66-728, the breaking strain is 119lbs (Duratech netting, 2006, p.1). An equivalent breaking strain in braided Dyneema fishing line is approximately 0.5mm diameter (DSM Dyneema, 2006). A sample calculation for calculating the drag on a 0.5mm diameter Dyneema netting is in appendix N. This shows for a reduction in line diameter by approximately half, there is a 60% reduction in drag at accelerated glide velocity. In the current paramotor, the elongation of the nylon twine is approximately 30% (DuPont, 2006); the netting is prestretched on the frame by an undetermined amount. As Dyneema has 5% elongation before yield (DSM Dyneema, 2006), this could possibly enhance the safety

59

level by increasing the distance between the netting and propeller under applied load due to the lack of stretch. Method of netting attachment The standard paramotor has the netting attached to the frame by means of zip ties at approximately 50mm intervals. These zip ties increase interference drag and have a higher possibility of snagging suspension lines during launch. An alternative method of fastening the netting is to drill small diameter holes in the forward face of the main frame hoop. Lengths of Dyneema line could then be threaded through the holes with a soft ferrule to protect against abrasion. The lines are then knotted by hand with the use of a wooden block to ensure consistency in the size and quality control of the netting, and joined to the centre of the frame by a tensioning device. This method of netting construction could be used to increase the torsional rigidity of the outer frame due to the minimal elongation of the Dyneema. This has not yet been tested by analysis.
Conclusion

With a standard paramotor the netting drag is a major contributor to a reduction in glide ratio; therefore design improvements are worth pursuing. Alternative designs may be advantageous because they have reduced drag area, but because pilot protection from the propeller is compromised these designs were not considered. The streamline grid design has potential but present cost considerations rule it out. The use of an advanced material in the netting such as Dyneema, which offers reduced weight, a potential reduction in drag of 60% and reduced elongation under load, safety is improved and the netting contributes to the overall structural integrity. The disadvantage of this design is the potential to cause injury during impact due to the small diameter and lack of elongation of the netting. Further experimentation on a full scale frame needs to occur with impact testing, to ensure safety of proposed Dyneema netting, before a design change can be recommended.

60

8.

CONCLUSION

There were four basic aims to investigate the feasibility of the reduction of drag of a paramotor to increase the lift to drag (L/D) ratio in gliding flight. The first aim of the thesis was to obtain experimental results of lift to drag ratio and surface airflow visualisation of a typical paramotor while gliding. This aim was successfully executed, with the design and construction of camera mounts and propeller brake, to facilitate the collection of lift to drag ratios when gliding at trim and accelerated velocities, and with the propeller windmilling and vertically braked. Previously published glide ratio results with a windmilling propeller were found to be incorrect, with no change in a windmilling and 120 rpm propeller found on glide angle when at 32o AoI. Surface airflow visualisation was also conducted to obtain a greater understanding of airflow over the paramotor and pilot. The subsequent aim of the wind tunnel testing was completed to determine the major drag contributors to drag of a standard paramotor while in gliding flight. Measurements taken at 0, 8, 16, 24 and 32o AoI would be of benefit to high and low hook-in paramotors. Experiments showed that there is a 27% reduction in drag area when a low hook-in paramotors AoI changes from 0 to 32o during accelerated glide. At various AoI, the most significant individual contributors to drag area were the frame and netting. The reserve parachute container, motor and propeller individually had little effect on the drag recorded. A folding propeller would have no benefit if the standard frame and netting was retained. The third aim involved the further wind tunnel testing and redesigning of high drag area components. This was conducted with the majority of effort placed on the paramotor, frame, netting, fuel tank and reserve. Each of the components was replaced with alternatives which produced less drag, but retained full functionality. The final aim was the testing for reduction of drag of the revised paramotor design. Repeatable experiments found over 10% reduction in drag area at 32o AoI, the glide ratio would therefore improve (fig 57). These results do not include the 60% reduction in drag obtained by use of advanced netting materials. There is a calculated reduction in drag area from 0.0040m2 for a 32o AoI standard paramotor to0.0033m2 for a 32o AoI twisted annular aerofoil paramotor when netting is included, effectively a 17% reduction in drag area. At 0o AoI the paramotor would be creating thrust therefore drag at this AoI is less relevant.

61

Drag Area Comparison at Varying Degrees AoI

Average Drag Area in m^2 0.0060 0.0050 0.0040 0.0030 0.0020 0.0010 0.0000
0 Deg AoI Standard Paramotor 1 0 Deg AoI,Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank 32 Deg AoI Standard Paramotor 32 Deg AoI,Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank 32 Deg AoI Standard Paramotor with netting 32 Deg AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with Dyneema Netting
Figure 57. Comparison of drag area results, experimental error is shown at top of column.

The drag reduction obtained is less than desired. The proposed design is shown in appendix P, however unless the current paramotor frame is destroyed it will not be built in the near future. It is more cost effective to remove the existing netting, replace it with smaller diameter Dyneema netting and create a small but worthwhile reduction in drag with potential thrust gains.

62

REFERENCES
Anderson, J. D. (2000). Introduction to flight. Singapore, WCB/ McGraw-Hill. Anderson, J. D. (2001). Fundamentals of aerodynamics. New York, McGraw-Hill. Babinsky, H. (1999). The aerodynamic performance of paragliders. The Aeronautical Journal Vol. 103 (no. 1027): pp. 421-428. Belloc, H. (1999). Etude experimentale, en soufflerie, de la trainee du pilote de parapente. Toulouse, ENSICA. Brandt, S. A., R. J. Stiles, et al. (2004). Introduction to aeronautics: a design perspective. Reston, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Cone, C. D. (1964). The design of sailplanes for optimum thermal soaring performance, Langley Research Center. FitzPatrick, P. (2005). Calculation of thrust in a ducted fan assembly for hovercraft. Hovercraft Club of Great Britain. Goin, J. (2005). The Powered Paragliding Bible. Naperville. Air Head Creations. Hoerner, S.F. (1965). Fluid-Dynamic Drag. Published by author, Po Box 65283, Vancouver, WA 98665. Johnstone, W. (1994). Helicopter theory. Mineola, Dover Publications. Khoury, G. A. and J. D. Gillet (2004). Airship technology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Knake, T. W. (1986). Technical-historical development of parachutes and their applications since World War 1. Albuquerque, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. McCormick, B. W. (1999). Aerodynamics of V/STOL flight. Mineola, Dover Publications. Onbekend, (2005). High strength, lightweight fibres in trawler nets. CADDET, IEA, OECD Pankhurst R, H. D. (1952). Wind tunnel technique. London, Pitman Press. Pardun, R. (1998). Aerodynamics of solar vehicles. Aerodynamic Journal, April 1998. Pope, A., J. B. Barlow, et al. (1984). Low speed wind tunnel testing. New York, WileyInterscience. Saravanamuttooo, H. I. H. (2001). Gas turbine theory. Essex, Pearson Education Limited. Thomas, F. (1999). Fundamentals of sailplane design. Maryland, College Park Maryland. Virgilio, N. F. E. (2005). Estudo da eficiencia aerodinamica de equipamento de Voo Livre.

63

Weir, R. J. (Unknown). Aerodynamic Design Considerations for a Free-Flying Ducted Propellor. Albuquerque, Sandia National Laboratories. Worobel, R. and M. G. Mayo (1973). Q-Fans for general aviation aircraft. Windsor Locks, NASA.

Internet References

Aircotec (2006). Top Navigator Specifications, retrieved 1 March 2006, from Aircotec website at http://www.aircotec.ch/ Florit, G. (2006). Wing comparisons, retrieved 23 February 2006, from Para 2000 Website at http://parapente.para2000.free.fr/wings/ Parajet (2006). Parajet - paramotor forum, retrieved 24 August 2006 at http://www.parajet.com/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=2 DSM Dyneema (2006). Dyneema netting, retrieved 24 August 2006 at http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/hpf/nets.htm DuPont (2006). Properties of nylon, retrieved 24 August 2006 at http://www.dupont.com/filaments/media/h78786.pdf#search=%22DuPont%20nylon%20elon gation%22 Duratech netting (2006). Nylon netting, retrieved 24 Aug 2006 at http://thejugscompany.com/products/nets.cfm? Geoscience Australia (2006). Geodetic Calculations - Vincenty's formulae, inverse method, retrieved 3 February 2006 at http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/datums/vincenty_inverse.jsp Gleitschirm (2006), Leistungsme - schwierig, fehleranfallig, aufwendig - aber machbar, retrieved 20 February 2006 at http://www.gleitschirm-magazin.com/pdf/neues-testverfahrenGLEITSCHIRM.pdf US Powered Paragliding Association (2006), Incidents, retrieved 20 July 2006 at http://usppamembers.org/incidents/incident_list_public1.cfm

Personnel Correspondence

Australian Monofil Co Pty Ltd, (personnel correspondence with General Manager), 24 August 2006. Caldara, O. (personal communication, December 10, 2005). Translation of key points of Dr Herve Belloc study.

64

Appendix B

APPENDIX A - CLIENT BRIEF

Removed for online version

APPENDIX B - PROJECT SPECIFICATION

Removed for online version

65

Appendix C

APPENDIX C- EXAMPLE OF A STANDARD PARAMOTOR

Table C.1. Specifications of paramotor used during experimentation.

PAP 1400AS, POWERED BY TOP 80

Motor Type Cylinder Carburettor Power & Ignition Reduction gear Reduction ratio Transmission Start *Thrust (kg) TOP 80 single cylinder, 2-stroke, forced air cooled 78,63 cc (47,7x44mm) Walbro 24 mm. Optional DellOrto 17,5 mm 15 HP at 9200 R.P.M., Electronic Mechanical in oil bath, inclined teeth 1/3.84 Centrifugal clutch Manual (pull) with foot extension (kick start in flight) +/- 50 Leaded or unleaded Super grade + synthetic oil 2% (we Fuel recommend Castrol) Fuel tank 13,5 L *Autonomy hours +/-4h Cage Round pipes in stainless steel , T.I.G. welding Cage in 2 parts yes Wood propeller (cm) 2 blades 125 Metal reinforced Wood propeller Optional Carbon fibre propeller Optional Paramotor weight including harness 25,5 kg. Max. Pilot weight 100 kg. Recommended Pilot weight 80 kg. Sup'Air Special PAP, with automatic buckles + neoprene Harness pockets. Size (cm) 140 x 140 x 40 Propeller case yes Head rescue system yes RPM counter optional / yes * Thrust, autonomy and general performance depend greatly on the glider, the altitude and the pilot, so the data offered here must be taken only as reference data. ** The best thrust we have obtained with carbon prop

Figure C.2. Rear view of paramotor used during experimentation.

66

Appendix D

APPENDIX D SURFACE AIRFLOW VISUALISATION EXPERIMENTS

Camera mount

Eccentric cam lever

Boom clamps

Figure D.1. Image of camera mount components in MasterCAM as drawn to be cut out in the SACME wire cutter.

67

Appendix D

Figure D.2. Technical drawing of camera mount (overview).

68

Appendix D

Figure D.3. Technical drawing of camera mount (detail).

69

Appendix D

Figure D.4. Frontal image of paraglider climbing under full throttle. Note direction of wool tufts around the cage signifying inflow to the propeller.

70

Appendix D

Figure D.5. Image of paramotor in full climb from a lower 45o angle. Greater inflow to propeller disk during climb creates attached airflow over pilots body.

71

Appendix D

Figure D.6. Image of paramotor gliding from a 45o perspective. Note turbulence in upper half of paramotor cage. Differing AoI of wool in proximity of pilot signifies an increased local wind velocity. Increased AoI away from interference of pilot shows more accurate indication of glide ratio. At rear of tank is either minimal airflow or a downwards air stream.

Figure D.7. Image of half accelerated glide.

72

Appendix D

Figure D.8. Image of half accelerated glide, braked propeller.

Figure D.9. Image of unaccelerated glide.

73

Appendix E

APPENDIX E PROPELLER BRAKE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE

Figure E.1. Image of propeller brake components in MasterCAM as drawn to be cut out in the SACME wirecutter as delivered by author to workshop.

74

Appendix F

APPENDIX F GLIDING FLIGHT EXPERIMENTATION

Table F.1. Flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator converted to a glide ratio.

Sample calculations for glide ratio Windmilling Propeller Date Marker TAS Distance (km/hr) (m) 06.05.05 M1-M2 38 1747.64 Braked Propeller Date Marker

Alt Start Alt Finish Altitude loss Glide ratio :1 (m) (m) 1785 1513 272 6.43

TAS Distance Alt Start Alt Finish Altitude loss Glide ratio :1 (km/hr) (m) (m) (m) 06.05.06 M3-M4 38 1201.537 1462 1277 185 6.49 The calculations are performed using GRS80 ellipsoid values which is used for Australia's new coordinate system (The Geocentric Datum of Australia - GDA). http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/datums/vincenty_inverse.jsp

75

Appendix F

Figure F.1 Flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator. Figure F.2. Flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator. Detail of flight path between milestones with propeller windmilling.

76

Appendix F

Figure F.3. Flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator. Detail of flight path between milestones with propeller windmilling.

77

Appendix F

Figure F.4. Flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator. Detail of flight path between milestones with propeller braked.

78

Appendix F

Figure F.5. Flight path data recorded 5/5/06 on Top Navigator. Detail of flight path between milestones with propeller braked.

79

Appendix G

APPENDIX G SCALE WIND TUNNEL MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Figure G.1. CATIA rendering of experimental paramotor.

80

Appendix G

Figure G.2. CATIA rendering of experimental paramotor.

81

Appendix G

Figure G.3. CATIA rendering of experimental paramotor.

82

Appendix G

Figure G.4. CATIA rendering of experimental paramotor.

83

Appendix H

APPENDIX H CORRECTION FACTORS AND CALCULATIONS

Model at 0o AoI

Figure H.1. (left) CATIA rendering at 0 AoI used to create the low turbulence wind tunnel model for o frontal area calculations. H.2. (right) The model in the wind tunnel at 0 AoI minus the harness. Table H.3. Frontal area figures at 0o AoI

Standard Paramotor 0o AoI Components Pilot Tank Propeller Engine Netting Reserve Parachute Frame Total Frontal Area is Area (m2) 0.004503 0.000111 0.000060 0.000370 0.000464 0.000161 0.001325 0.006994m2

84

Appendix H

Model at 8o AoI

Figure H.4. (left) CATIA rendering at 8 AoI used to create the wind tunnel model and for frontal area o calculations. H.5. (right) The model in the low turbulence wind tunnel at 8 AoI. Note the force balance arm is pivoted along the axis of the force balance.

Table H.6. Frontal area figures at 8o AoI

Standard Paramotor 8o AoI Components Pilot Tank Propeller Engine Netting Reserve Parachute Frame Total Frontal Area is Area (m2) 0.004244 0.000264 0.000060 0.000377 0.000459 0.000128 0.001311 0.006843m2

85

Appendix H

Model at 16o AoI

Figure H.7. (left) CATIA rendering at 16 AoI used to create the wind tunnel model and for frontal o area calculations. H.8. (right) The model in the low turbulence wind tunnel at 16 AoI. Table H.9. Frontal area figures at 16o AoI

Standard Paramotor 16o AoI Components Pilot Tank Propeller Engine Netting Reserve Parachute Frame Total Frontal Area is Area (m2) 0.003985 0.000495 0.000000 0.000485 0.000454 0.000075 0.001298 0.006792m2

86

Appendix H

Model at 24o AoI

Figure H.10. (left) CATIA rendering at 24 AoI used to create the wind tunnel model and for frontal o area calculations. H.11. (right) The model in the low turbulence wind tunnel at 24 AoI. Table H.12. Frontal area figures at 24o AoI

Standard Paramotor 24o AoI Components Pilot Tank Propeller Engine Netting Reserve Parachute Frame Total Frontal Area is Area (m2) 0.003707 0.000533 0.000060 0.000464 0.000449 0.000000 0.001285 0.006498m2

87

Appendix H

Model at 32o AoI

Figure H.13. (left) CATIA rendering at 32 AoI used to create the wind tunnel model and for frontal o area calculations. H.14. (right) The model in the low turbulence wind tunnel at 32 AoI. The complete shape of the force balance arm is easily seen. The reason for the shape was to minimise the wake turbulence on the model. Table H.15. Frontal area figures at 32o AoI

Standard Paramotor 32o AoI Components Pilot Tank Propeller Engine Netting Reserve Parachute Frame Total Frontal Area is Area (m2) 0.003660 0.000586 0.000090 0.000571 0.000444 0.000000 0.001285 0.006636m2

88

Appendix H

Algebraic Method of Finding the Blockage Factor

Step 1. Local Density

P RT

Step 2. Blockage Factor D

1 2

VC 2

TSA Where:

= blockage factor
D=drag recorded in N TSA=test section area VC = VM (1 + ) VC = corrected velocity

Step 3. Sub VC into D

1 2

(VM (1 + )) 2
TSA

Step 4. Solve for , as all other values are constants. Step 5. Find corrected velocity VC = VM (1 + ) Step 6. Calculate drag area in m 2 CD A = D 1 V 2 2 C

89

Appendix J

APPENDIX I WIND TUNNEL CALIBRATION

Removed for online version

APPENDIX J COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG EXPERIMENT 1

Sample Calculations

In accordance with the Pope method the Reynolds number ratio of model to full size is approximately equal to the scale ratio between the scale model and the aircraft (Pope et al., 1984, p 38). This calculation is shown below.
Re FS = Re = VFS LFS

12.5 1.5 1.225 1.789 E 5 VSM LSM

Re = 1.284 E 6 Re SM =

1.284 E 6 =

VSM 0.15 1.225 1.789 E 5

VSM = 12.5m / s

Figure J.1. Configuration 1- Paramotor with pilot and propeller. Image shows model in wind tunnel mounted to force balance. Note that during testing the model and propeller were vertical.

90

Appendix J

Figure J.2 Left. Configuration 2 Harness was removed from the model. Image shows model in wind tunnel. Centre. Configuration 3 - Propeller was removed from the model. Right. Configuration 4 Fuel tank was removed from the model.

Figure J.3 Left. Configuration 5 - Netting was removed from the paramotor frame.Centre. Configuration 6 - Reserve was removed from the paramotor frame. Right. Configuration 7 - Frame was removed from the model.

Figure J.4 Left. Configuration 8 - Power plant was removed from the model. Right. Configuration 9 - Force balance arm.

91

Appendix J

Results
Table J.5. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 0o AoI. Drag Area of Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI in Varying Configurations 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 0.0044 0.0044 0.0045 0.0041 0.0032 0.0033 7 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0035 0.0033 0.0034 9 0.0044 0.0044 0.0045 0.0037 0.0034 0.0034 11 0.0044 0.0044 0.0043 0.0037 0.0034 0.0033 13 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0037 0.0033 0.0031 15 0.0043 0.0043 0.0042 0.0034 0.0034 0.0032 17 0.0044 0.0045 0.0042 0.0036 0.0034 0.0031 19 Average 15 to 30m/s 0.0044 0.0044 0.0043 0.0036 0.0033 0.0031 Percent Difference 0.00 2.24 18.03 23.78 28.05 From Full Configuration

7 Minus cage 0.0025 0.0022 0.0025 0.0022 0.0023 0.0022 0.0022 48.94

8 Minus powerplant 0.0024 0.0022 0.0022 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 51.47

92

Appendix J

Drag Are a of a Standard Param otor at 0 De gre e s Angle of Attack In V arying Configurations .

0.0050

Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 7 9 11 13 V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s 1 Paramotor w ith pilot and propeller 4 Minus f uel tank 7 Minus cage 2 Minus harness 5 Minus netting 8 Minus pow erplant 3 Minus propeller 6 Minus reserve 15 17 19

Figure J.6. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 0o AoI.

93

Appendix J

Table J.7. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 8o AoI. Drag Area of Standard Paramotor at 8o AoI in Varying Configurations 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 0.0042 0.0042 0.0041 0.0037 0.0029 0.0030 7 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0035 0.0030 0.0031 9 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0035 0.0031 0.0030 11 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0034 0.0028 0.0030 13 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0033 0.0028 0.0028 15 0.0040 0.0040 0.0039 0.0033 0.0029 0.0029 17 0.0040 0.0040 0.0038 0.0034 0.0031 0.0028 19 Average 15 to 30m/s 0.0040 0.0040 0.0039 0.0034 0.0029 0.0028 Percent Difference 0.00 2.26 15.59 25.96 28.88 From Full Configuration

7 Minus cage 0.0021 0.0018 0.0019 0.0017 0.0019 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 54.46

8 Minus powerplant

94

Appendix J

Drag Are a of a Standard Param otor at 8 De gre e s Angle of Attack In V arying Configurations .

0.0050

Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 7 9 11 13 V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s 1 Paramotor w ith pilot and propeller 4 Minus f uel tank 7 Minus cage 2 Minus harness 5 Minus netting 3 Minus propeller 6 Minus reserve 15 17 19

Figure J.8. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 8o AoI.

95

Appendix J

Table J.9. Calculated drag Area Values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 16o AoI. Drag Area of Standard Paramotor at 16o AoI in Varying Configurations 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 0.0034 0.0034 0.0038 0.0035 0.0024 0.0029 7 0.0035 0.0035 0.0037 0.0028 0.0027 0.0027 9 0.0038 0.0038 0.0036 0.0029 0.0026 0.0026 11 0.0037 0.0037 0.0036 0.0030 0.0025 0.0026 13 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0030 0.0023 0.0026 15 0.0036 0.0036 0.0029 0.0025 0.0026 17 0.0035 0.0035 0.0034 0.0030 0.0025 0.0025 19 Average 15 to 30m/s 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0030 0.0024 0.0026 Percent Difference 0.00 2.16 16.55 31.34 27.96 From Full Configuration

7 Minus cage 0.0017 0.0017 0.0016 0.0016 0.0015 0.0016 0.0015 0.0015 56.56

8 Minus powerplant

96

Appendix J

Drag Are a of a Standard Param otor at 16 De gre e s Angle of Attack In V arying Configurations .

0.0050

Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 7 9 11 13 V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s 1 Paramotor w ith pilot and propeller 4 Minus f uel tank 7 Minus cage 2 Minus harness 5 Minus netting 3 Minus propeller 6 Minus reserve 15 17 19

Figure J.10. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 16o AoI.

97

Appendix J

Table J.11. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 24o AoI. Drag Area of Standard Paramotor at 24o AoI in Varying Configurations 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0029 0.0022 0.0025 7 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0027 0.0020 0.0024 9 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0027 0.0023 0.0024 11 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0027 0.0022 0.0024 13 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0026 0.0022 0.0023 15 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0027 0.0022 0.0023 17 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0026 0.0022 0.0022 19 Average 15 to 30m/s 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0026 0.0022 0.0023 Percent Difference 0.00 -0.14 18.73 31.70 30.00 From Full Configuration

7 Minus cage 0.0017 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 55.38

8 Minus powerplant

98

Appendix J

Drag Are a of a Standard Param otor at 24 De gre e s Angle of Attack In V arying Configurations .

0.0050

Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 7 9 11 13 V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s 1 Paramotor w ith pilot and propeller 4 Minus f uel tank 7 Minus cage 2 Minus harness 5 Minus netting 3 Minus propeller 6 Minus reserve 15 17 19

Figure J.12. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 24o AoI.

99

Appendix J

Table J.13. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 32o AoI. Drag Area of Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI in Varying Configurations 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 0.0029 0.0029 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0025 7 0.0029 0.0029 0.0030 0.0024 0.0020 0.0023 9 0.0030 0.0030 0.0029 0.0023 0.0020 0.0022 11 0.0028 0.0028 0.0030 0.0023 0.0020 0.0021 13 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0023 0.0019 0.0020 15 0.0028 0.0028 0.0030 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 17 0.0028 0.0028 0.0029 0.0022 0.0019 0.0020 19 Average 15 to 30m/s 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0022 0.0019 0.0020 Percent Difference 0.00 -2.11 22.66 32.79 28.99 From Full Configuration

7 Minus cage 0.0016 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 57.24

8 Minus powerplant 0.0013 0.0012 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011 61.94

100

Appendix J

Drag Are a of a Standard Param otor at 32 De gre e s Angle of Attack In V arying Configurations .

0.0050

Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 7 9 11 13 V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s 1 Paramotor w ith pilot and propeller 4 Minus f uel tank 7 Minus cage 2 Minus harness 5 Minus netting 8 Minus pow erplant 3 Minus propeller 6 Minus reserve 15 17 19

Figure J.14. Calculated drag area values in m2 of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 32o AoI.

101

Appendix J

Table J.15. Raw data of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 0o AoI. Summary of Raw Data for Standard Paramotor At 0o AoI Average Drag Force Recorded in N 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 0.222 0.364 0.541 0.758 1.009 1.276 1.633 0.222 0.364 0.541 0.758 1.009 1.276 1.633 0.224 0.363 0.548 0.747 1.012 1.261 1.575 0.209 0.318 0.488 0.688 0.906 1.120 1.443 0.183 0.307 0.464 0.648 0.849 1.105 1.379 0.185 0.310 0.462 0.637 0.823 1.077 1.323

7 Minus cage 0.160 0.251 0.392 0.519 0.707 0.888

8 Minus powerplant 0.159 0.252 0.374 0.516 0.686 0.872 1.102

Table J.16. Blockage factors of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 0o AoI. Summary of Blockage Factors for Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 0.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0316 0.0303 0.0291 7 0.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0316 0.0303 0.0291 9 0.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0316 0.0303 0.0291 11 0.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0316 0.0303 0.0291 13 0.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0316 0.0303 0.0291 15 0.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0316 0.0303 0.0291 17 0.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0316 0.0303 0.0291 19

7 Minus cage 0.0246 0.0246 0.0246 0.0246 0.0246 0.0246 0.0246

8 Minus powerplant 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244

102

Appendix J

Table J.17. Corrected velocity of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 0o AoI. Summary of Corrected Velocity for Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI. 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 7.249 7.249 7.240 7.221 7.212 7.204 7 9.320 9.320 9.309 9.284 9.273 9.262 9 11.391 11.391 11.377 11.348 11.333 11.320 11 13.462 13.462 13.446 13.411 13.394 13.378 13 15.533 15.533 15.515 15.474 15.455 15.437 15 17.604 17.604 17.583 17.537 17.515 17.495 17 19.675 19.652 19.652 19.600 19.576 19.553 19

7 Minus cage 7.172 9.221 11.271 13.320 15.369 17.418 19.467

8 Minus powerplant 7.171 9.220 11.268 13.317 15.366 17.415 19.464

Table J.18. Dynamic pressure of differing configurations of standard paramotor at 0o AoI. Summary of Dynamic Pressure on Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI 1 Paramotor 2 Minus 3 Minus 4 Minus fuel 5 Minus 6 Minus Indicated velocity m/s with pilot and harness propeller tank netting reserve propeller 29.937 29.937 29.867 29.712 29.637 29.568 7 49.487 49.487 49.373 49.115 48.991 48.877 9 73.925 73.925 73.754 73.369 73.185 73.014 11 103.251 103.251 103.012 102.475 102.217 101.979 13 137.464 137.464 137.146 136.431 136.087 135.770 15 176.565 176.565 176.156 175.238 174.796 174.389 17 220.554 220.043 220.043 218.896 218.344 217.836 19

7 Minus cage 29.310 48.451 72.377 101.089 134.586 172.868 215.935

8 Minus powerplant 29.298 48.432 72.349 101.049 134.533 172.800 215.851

103

Appendix J

Drag Area of Force Balance Bar With No Model.

0.0050

D gA ao F rc B la c B r inm 2 ra re f o e a n e a ^

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 50,000

70,000

90,000

110,000

130,000

150,000

Reynolds Number

Bare Force Bar

Figure J.19. Calculated drag area values in m2 vs. Reynolds number of the force balance bar with no model fitted.

104

Appendix K

APPENDIX K EFFECT OF FUEL TANK PLACEMENT ON DRAG AREA

Results
Table K.1. Summary of Raw Data for Paramotor with Standard Fuel Tank Raw Data for Paramotor with Standard Fuel Tank Average Drag Force Recorded in N Indicated velocity m/s 0o AoI 8o AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.130 0.120 0.106 0.103 10 0.480 0.454 0.415 0.395 15 1.082 1.015 0.936 0.932 20 1.897 1.834 1.725 1.696 25 2.964 2.871 2.716 2.601 30 4.297 4.169 3.827 3.812

32o AoI 0.094 0.379 0.864 1.599 2.453 3.584

Table K.2. Summary of Raw Data for Paramotor with Side Jerry Cans Raw Data for Paramotor with Side Jerry Cans Average Drag Force Recorded in N Indicated velocity m/s 0o AoI 8o AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.136 0.117 0.093 0.121 10 0.465 0.438 0.413 0.398 15 1.077 1.018 0.936 0.887 20 1.973 1.861 1.733 1.622 25 3.000 2.883 2.729 2.489 30 4.420 4.122 3.918 3.686 Table K.3. Summary of Raw Data for Paramotor with Faired Side Jerry Cans Raw Data for Paramotor with Faired Side Jerry Cans Average Drag Force Recorded in N o o Indicated velocity m/s 0 AoI 8 AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.131 0.107 0.108 0.106 10 0.493 0.450 0.416 0.405 15 1.127 1.014 0.974 0.929 20 1.994 1.846 1.732 1.657 25 3.091 2.931 2.737 2.637 30 4.403 4.221 3.951 3.820

32o AoI 0.096 0.387 0.846 1.531 2.427 3.391

32o AoI 0.099 0.360 0.867 1.536 2.440 3.501

Table K.4. Summary of Raw Data for Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank Raw Data for Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank Average Drag Force Recorded in N Indicated velocity m/s 0o AoI 8o AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.114 0.117 0.102 0.096 10 0.462 0.439 0.415 0.361 15 1.047 0.996 0.871 20 1.884 1.795 1.662 1.574 25 2.943 2.732 2.564 2.495 30 4.115 4.001 3.771 3.628

32o AoI 0.090 0.349 0.820 1.511 2.324 3.373

105

Appendix K

Difference in Raw Force Balance Readings As A Result Of Fuel Tank Placement On A Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI.
5.0

Force Recorded in N

4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind Velocity (uncorrected) m/s Standard Fuel Tank NACA 0025 Profile Tank Cut Off at 40% Chord Unfaired Jerry Cans Faired Jerry Cans
Figure K.5. Difference in Raw Force Balance Readings as a result of fuel tank placement on a paramotor at 0o AoI.

Difference in Raw Force Balance Readings As A Result Of Fuel Tank Placement On A Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI.
4.0

Force Recorded in N

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind Velocity (uncorrected) m/s Standard Fuel Tank NACA 0025 Profile Tank Cut Off at 40% Chord Unfaired Jerry Cans Faired Jerry Cans
Figure K.6. Difference in Raw Force Balance Readings as a result of fuel tank placement on a paramotor at 32o AoI.

106

Appendix K

Calculations

Frontal areas for standard paramotor are shown in Appendix G. Other configurations are shown below.
Figure K.7. Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank at 0, 8, 16, 32o AoI

Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank at 0o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.004503 Tank 0.000000 Propeller 0.000060 Engine 0.000370 Netting 0.000464 Reserve Parachute 0.000161 Frame 0.001325 Total Frontal Area is 0.006883m2

Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank at 8o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.004244 Tank 0.000119 Propeller 0.000060 Engine 0.000377 Netting 0.000459 Reserve Parachute 0.000128 Frame 0.001311 Total Frontal Area is 0.006698m2

Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank at 16o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.003985 Tank 0.000325 Propeller 0.000000 Engine 0.000485 Netting 0.000454 Reserve Parachute 0.000075 Frame 0.001298 Total Frontal Area is 0.006622m2

107

Appendix K

Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank at 24o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.003707 Tank 0.000433 Propeller 0.000060 Engine 0.000464 Netting 0.000449 Reserve Parachute 0.000000 Frame 0.001285 Total Frontal Area is 0.006398m2

Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank at 32o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.003660 Tank 0.000469 Propeller 0.000090 Engine 0.000571 Netting 0.000444 Reserve Parachute 0.000000 Frame 0.001285 Total Frontal Area is 0.006519m2

Figure K.8. Paramotor with Jerry Fuel Tanks at 0, 8, 16, 32o AoI

Paramotor with Jerry Fuel Tanks at 0o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.004503 Tank 0.000634 Propeller 0.000178 Engine 0.000168 Netting 0.000450 Reserve Parachute 0.000161 Frame 0.001300 Total Frontal Area is 0.007394m2

108

Appendix K

Paramotor with Jerry Fuel Tanks at 8o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.004244 Tank 0.000689 Propeller 0.000130 Engine 0.000197 Netting 0.000440 Reserve Parachute 0.000160 Frame 0.001300 Total Frontal Area is 0.007160m2

Paramotor with Jerry Fuel Tanks at 16o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.003985 Tank 0.000743 Propeller 0.000248 Engine 0.000170 Netting 0.000440 Reserve Parachute 0.000128 Frame 0.001298 Total Frontal Area is 0.007012m2

Paramotor with Jerry Fuel Tanks at 24o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.003707 Tank 0.000820 Propeller 0.000420 Engine 0.000095 Netting 0.000430 Reserve Parachute 0.000161 Frame 0.001265 Total Frontal Area is 0.006478m2

109

Appendix K

Paramotor with Jerry Fuel Tanks at 32o AoI Components Area (m2) Pilot 0.003660 Tank 0.000828 Propeller 0.000510 Engine 0.000104 Netting 0.000420 Reserve Parachute 0.000100 Frame 0.001265 Total Frontal Area is 0.006467m2

Figure K.9. Paramotor with Basic Fairing over Jerry Fuel Tanks at 0, 8, 16, 32o AoI

Paramotor with Basic Fairing over Jerry Fuel Tanks at 0o AoI.

Paramotor with Basic Fairing Over Jerry Fuel Tanks at 8o AoI.

110

Appendix K

Paramotor with Basic Fairing Over Jerry Fuel Tanks at 16o AoI.

Paramotor with Basic Fairing Over Jerry Fuel Tanks at 24o AoI.

Paramotor with Basic Fairing Over Jerry Fuel Tanks at 32o AoI.

111

Appendix K

Figure K.10. Technical drawing of NACA0025 cut off at 60% chord fuel tank for wind tunnel model.

112

Appendix K

Table K.11. Summary of Drag Area of Paramotor with Standard Fuel Tank. Drag Area of Paramotor with Standard Fuel Tank. Indicated velocity m/s 0o AoI 8o AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.0057 0.0051 0.0042 0.0040 10 0.0051 0.0047 0.0041 0.0037 15 0.0052 0.0047 0.0042 0.0041 20 0.0051 0.0048 0.0044 0.0043 25 0.0051 0.0049 0.0045 0.0042 30 0.0051 0.0049 0.0043 0.0043 Table K.12. Summary of Drag Area of Paramotor with Side Jerry Cans. Drag Area of Model Paramotor with Side Jerry Cans. Indicated velocity m/s 0o AoI 8o AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.0061 0.0049 0.0034 0.0052 10 0.0048 0.0044 0.0040 0.0038 15 0.0051 0.0047 0.0042 0.0038 20 0.0054 0.0050 0.0045 0.0040 25 0.0052 0.0049 0.0045 0.0039 30 0.0054 0.0049 0.0045 0.0041 Table K.13. Summary of Drag Area of Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank. Drag Area of Paramotor with Streamlined Fuel Tank. Indicated velocity m/s 0o AoI 8o AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.0047 0.0049 0.0040 0.0036 10 0.0048 0.0044 0.0041 0.0032 15 0.0049 0.0046 0.0037 20 0.0050 0.0047 0.0042 0.0038 25 0.0051 0.0045 0.0041 0.0040 30 0.0048 0.0047 0.0043 0.0040 Table K.14. Summary of Drag Area of Paramotor with Faired Jerry Cans. Drag Area of Paramotor with Faired Side Jerry Cans. Indicated velocity m/s 0o AoI 8o AoI 16o AoI 24o AoI 5 0.0058 0.0043 0.0043 0.0042 10 0.0053 0.0046 0.0041 0.0039 15 0.0055 0.0047 0.0044 0.0041 20 0.0055 0.0049 0.0045 0.0042 25 0.0054 0.0050 0.0046 0.0043 30 0.0053 0.0050 0.0046 0.0043

32o AoI 0.0035 0.0035 0.0037 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039

32o AoI 0.0036 0.0036 0.0035 0.0037 0.0038 0.0036

32o AoI 0.0032 0.0030 0.0034 0.0036 0.0035 0.0036

32o AoI 0.0038 0.0032 0.0037 0.0037 0.0038 0.0038

113

Appendix K

Difference in Drag Area As a Result of Fuel Tank Placement On Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI.
0.007

Drag Area (D/q) in m^2

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002 5 10 15 20 25 30

Local Air Velocity in m/s Standard Fuel Tank NACA0025 Profile Tank Cut Off, 60% Chord Unfaired Jerry Cans Faired Jerry Cans No Tank
Figure K.15. Drag area as a result of fuel tank placement at 0o AoI.

Difference in Drag Area As a Result of Fuel Tank Placement On Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI.
0.007

Drag Area (D/q) in m^2

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002 5 10 15 20 25 30

Local Air Velocity in m/s Standard Fuel Tank NACA0025 Profile Tank Cut Off, 60% Chord Unfaired Jerry Cans Faired Jerry Cans No Tank
Figure K.16. Drag area as a result of fuel tank placement at 32o AoI.

114

Appendix L

APPENDIX L - DRAG AREA VARIATION CAUSED BY REMOVAL OF PROPELLER AND RESERVE PARACHUTE
0o AoI

Figure L.1. Complete model in wind tunnel at 0o AoI. Table L.2. Table showing the raw data for the complete paramotor at 0o AoI. Average Values for 0o AoI Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 0.00 -0.03 0.13 10 0.01 -0.10 0.49 15 0.03 -0.24 1.13 20 0.05 -0.39 1.99 25 0.08 -0.67 3.09 30 0.12 -0.97 4.40

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI With Full Configuration, Streamlined Fairing Over Jerrycans and Fixed Vertical Propeller
5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Recorded Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

Figure L.3. Graph shows averaged data plotted complete paramotor at 0o AoI to confirm force balance was operating correctly.

115

Appendix L

0o AoI Minus Propeller

Figure L.4. Complete model in wind tunnel at 0o AoI with no propeller fitted. Table L.5. Table showing the raw data for the complete paramotor at 0o AoI with no propeller fitted. Average Values for 0o AoI, No Propeller Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 0.003 -0.022 0.105 10 0.013 -0.098 0.444 15 0.030 -0.222 0.997 20 0.053 -0.411 1.799 25 0.083 -0.643 2.816 30 0.120 -0.946 4.007

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI With Full Configuration, Streamlined Fairing Over Jerrycans and No Propeller
5 Force Measured in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s Pitch Lift Drag

Figure L.6. Graph shows averaged data plotted complete paramotor at 0o AoI with no propeller fitted to confirm force balance was operating correctly.

116

Appendix L

0o AoI Minus Reserve Parachute

Figure L.7. Complete model in wind tunnel at 0o AoI with no reserve parachute container fitted. Table L.8. Table showing the raw data for the complete paramotor at 0o AoI with no reserve parachute container fitted. Average Values for 0o AoI, No Reserve Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 0.004 -0.032 0.132 10 0.013 -0.097 0.484 15 0.028 -0.215 1.098 20 0.052 -0.397 1.950 25 0.080 -0.602 3.008 30 0.115 -0.866 4.426

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI With Full Configuration, Streamlined Fairing Over Jerrycans, No Reserve and Fixed Vertical Propeller 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2

Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity m/s

Figure L.9. Graph shows averaged data plotted complete paramotor at 0o AoI with no reserve parachute container fitted to confirm force balance was operating correctly.

117

Appendix L

32o AoI

Figure L.10. Complete model in wind tunnel at 32o AoI with no propeller fitted. Table L.11. Table showing the raw data for the complete paramotor at 32o AoI with no propeller fitted. Average Values for 32o AoI Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 0.000 -0.014 0.099 10 -0.002 -0.054 0.360 15 -0.007 -0.117 0.867 20 -0.014 -0.251 1.536 25 -0.020 -0.342 2.440 30 -0.028 -0.545 3.501

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI With Full Configuration, Streamlined Fairing Over Jerrycans and Vertical Fixed Propeller 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Reaction Force in Newtons

Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure L.12. Graph shows averaged data plotted complete paramotor at 32o AoI with no propeller fitted to confirm force balance was operating correctly.

118

Appendix L

32o AoI Minus Propeller

Figure L.13. Complete model in wind tunnel at 32o AoI with no propeller fitted. Table L.14. Table showing the raw data for the complete paramotor at 32o AoI with no propeller fitted. Average Values for 32o AoI Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 -0.001 -0.012 0.082 10 -0.004 -0.043 0.336 15 -0.008 -0.096 0.781 20 -0.014 -0.167 1.402 25 -0.022 -0.234 2.227 30 -0.030 -0.380 3.213

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI With Full Configuration, Streamlined Fairing Over Jerrycans and No Propeller 4 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure L.15. Graph shows averaged data plotted complete paramotor at 32o AoI with no propeller fitted to confirm force balance was operating correctly.

119

Appendix L

32o AoI Minus Reserve Parachute.

Figure L.16. Complete model in wind tunnel at 32o AoI with no reserve parachute container fitted. Table L.17. Table showing the raw data for the complete paramotor at 32o AoI with no reserve parachute container fitted. Average Values for 32o AoI, No Reserve Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 -0.001 -0.001 0.114 10 -0.003 -0.050 0.383 15 -0.007 -0.127 0.880 20 -0.013 -0.230 1.563 25 -0.019 -0.372 2.480 30 -0.029 -0.557 3.578

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI With Full Configuration, Streamlined Fairing Over Jerrycans, No Reserve and Vertical Fixed Propeller 4 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure L.18. Graph shows averaged data plotted complete paramotor at 32o AoI with no reserve parachute container fitted to confirm force balance was operating correctly. Table L.19. Table showing the drag area of the model for various configurations in the wind tunnel. Summary of Drag Area in m2 for Standard Paramotor With Jerry can Fuel Tanks and Basic Fairing Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 AoI 0.0039 0.0035 0.0036 0.0036 0.0035 0.0035 No Propeller No Reserve 0.0027 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 0.0039 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0035 No Prop 0.0018 0.0019 0.0021 0.0021 0.0022 0.0022 32 AoI 0.0026 0.0021 0.0024 0.0024 0.0025 0.0025 No Reserve 0.0034 0.0024 0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0026

120

Appendix L

Drag Area of a Complete Paramotor With Faired Jerry Fuel Tank, Showing The Effect of Propeller and Reserve Removal At 0 Degrees AoI.
0.0040 Drag Area in m^2 0.0038 0.0035 0.0033 0.0030 0.0028 0.0025 5 10 15 20 25 30 Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

0 AoA

No Propeller

No Reserve

Figure L.20. A graph of the drag area of the model at 0o AoI.

Drag Are a of a Com ple te Param otor With Faire d Je rry Fue l Tank , Show ing The Effe ct of Prope lle r and Re s e rve Re m oval At 32 De gre e s AoI.

0.0040 0.0038 0.0035 0.0033 0.0030 0.0028 0.0025 0.0023 0.0020 0.0018 0.0015 5 10 15 20 25 30

Drag Area in m^2

Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s 32 AoA No Prop No Reserve

Figure L.21. A graph of the drag area of the model at 32o AoI.

121

Appendix L

Figure L.22. Close up detail of TiO2 solution on model at pilots head to reserve parachute container. Separation point to side and top of pilots head is shown by the red arrows.

Figure L.23. Top down detail of TiO2 solution on the model, note the model was only partially painted. Remnants of an airflow separation bubble at top of pilots head is indicated by green arrow. The point of reattachment on the reserve container can be seen as well as the aft separation point indicated by the red arrow.

Figure L.24. Detail of the reserve container removed from the model. This view is taken from the left hand view with the red line indicating the position of the pilots neck. The turbulence due to airflow separation can be seen at the aft side of the reserve container.

122

Appendix M

APPENDIX M COMPONENT BREAKDOWN DUE TO DRAG AS A RESULT OF WIND TUNNEL TESTING EXPERIMENT 2
Raw results for 0o AoI

Force Balance Arm

Figure M.1. Force balance arm. Table M.2. Force balance arm values Average Values for Force Balance Arm in N Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 Lift 0.002 -0.004 -0.005 -0.009 -0.010 0.007 Drag 0.040 0.161 0.352 0.620 0.958 1.388

Force Balance Arm Values Recorded Force in Newtons 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

Figure M.3. Graph shows force balance arm values

123

Appendix M

Complete Paramotor at 0o AoI The data was corrupted for the complete paramotor at 0o AoI so no useable data exists. For calculations the equivalent data from Appendix I was substituted.

Figure M.4. Complete paramotor at 0o AoI

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Reserve

Figure M.5. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Reserve Table M.6. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Reserve o Average Values for 0 AoI, No Reserve Fitted Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.002 0.009 0.019 0.035 0.058 0.076 -0.007 -0.079 -0.158 -0.320 -0.556 -0.536 0.131 0.501 1.103 1.953 3.026 4.373

Paramotor At 0o AoI With No Reserve Fitted

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.7. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Reserve

124

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with Reserve at 90o

Figure M.8. Paramotor at 0o AoI with Reserve at 90o Table M.9. Paramotor at 0o AoI with Reserve at 90o Average Values for 0o AoI, 90o Reserve Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.003 0.010 0.023 0.038 0.064 0.086 Lift -0.027 -0.037 -0.173 -0.312 -0.542 -0.936 Drag 0.126 0.502 1.081 1.946 2.951 4.283

Paramotor At 0o AoI With 90o Reserve Fitted 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2

Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.10. Graph of pParamotor at 0o AoI with Reserve at 90o

125

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Motor Fitted

Figure M.11. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Motor Fitted Table M.12. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Motor Fitted Average Values for 0o AoI, No Motor Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.002 0.009 0.020 0.036 0.057 0.083 Lift -0.024 -0.082 -0.178 -0.290 -0.486 -0.692 Drag 0.130 0.488 1.088 1.957 3.073 4.378

Paramotor At 0o AoI With No Motor Fitted 5 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.13. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Motor Fitted

126

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted

Figure M.14. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted Table M.15. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted Average Values for 0o AoI, No Intake Silencer Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.001 0.008 0.021 0.040 0.062 0.085 Lift -0.009 -0.080 -0.116 -0.313 -0.489 -0.780 Drag 0.141 0.502 1.114 1.957 3.005 4.348

Paramotor At 0o AoI With No Intake Silencer Fitted 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2

Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.16. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted

127

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Propeller Fitted

Figure M.17. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Propeller Fitted Table M.18. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Propeller Fitted Average Values for 0o AoI, With No Propeller Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.004 0.010 0.020 0.035 0.055 0.082 Lift -0.003 -0.092 -0.151 -0.261 -0.398 -0.568 Drag 0.128 0.451 1.054 1.841 2.830 4.097

Param otor At 0o AoI With No Prope lle r 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0

Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lif t Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicate d Wind tunne l V e locity in m /s

Figure M.19. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Propeller Fitted

128

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Tank Fitted

Figure M.20. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Tank Fitted Table M.21. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Tank Fitted Average Values for 0o AoI, With No Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.002 0.007 0.020 0.038 0.060 0.083 Lift -0.024 -0.075 -0.165 -0.331 -0.490 -0.759 Drag 0.119 0.490 1.082 1.886 2.957 4.406

Paramotor At 0o AoI With No Tank 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s Pitch Lift Drag

Figure M.22. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Tank Fitted

Reaction Force in Newtons

129

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Cage Fitted

Figure M.23. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Cage Fitted Table M.24. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Cage Fitted Average Values for 0o AoI, With No Cage Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.002 0.007 0.015 0.027 0.044 0.064 Lift -0.007 -0.058 -0.127 -0.214 -0.349 -0.503 Drag 0.096 0.366 0.846 1.508 2.334 3.364

Paramotor At 0 AoI With No Cage

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.25. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Cage Fitted

130

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting Fitted

Figure M.26. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting Fitted Table M.27. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting Fitted o Average Values for 0 AoI, With No Netting Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.003 0.008 0.019 0.034 0.054 0.079 Lift -0.026 -0.072 -0.138 -0.275 -0.354 -0.627 Drag 0.117 0.432 0.978 1.712 2.690 3.838

Paramotor At 0o AoI With No Netting or Tank

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure M.28. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting Fitted

131

Appendix M

Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted

Figure M.29. Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted Table M.30 Paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted Average Values for 0o AoI, With No Netting or Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.002 0.010 0.020 0.037 0.058 0.083 Lift -0.020 -0.070 -0.141 -0.253 -0.428 -0.622 Drag 0.114 0.442 0.999 1.724 2.712 3.899

Paramotor At 0o AoI With No Netting or Tank 5 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s Pitch Lift Drag

Figure M.31. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted

132

Appendix M

Raw results for 32o AoI

Complete Paramotor at 32o AoI

Figure M.32. Complete Paramotor at 32o AoI Table M.33. Complete Paramotor at 32o AoI Average Values for Complete Paramotor at 32o AoI Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.002 -0.003 -0.005 -0.014 -0.017 -0.011 Lift -0.065 -0.057 -0.043 -0.286 -0.491 -0.346 Drag 0.094 0.388 0.879 1.520 2.408 3.444

Complete Paramotor At 32o AoI

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity m/s

Figure M.34. Complete Paramotor at 32o AoI

133

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Reserve Fitted

Figure M.35. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Reserve Fitted Table M.36. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Reserve Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, No Reserve Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.000 -0.002 -0.005 -0.007 -0.010 -0.012 Lift -0.027 -0.034 -0.150 -0.271 -0.358 -0.733 Drag 0.094 0.388 0.857 1.559 2.388 3.386

Paramotor At 32o AoI With No Reserve Fitted 4 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.37. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Reserve Fitted

134

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with Reserve Fitted at 90o

Figure M.38. Paramotor at 32o AoI with Reserve at 90o Table M.39. Paramotor at 32o AoI with Reserve at 90o Average Values for 32o AoI, 90o Reserve Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.001 0.000 -0.007 -0.009 -0.012 -0.010 Lift -0.063 -0.045 -0.106 -0.248 -0.418 -0.406 Drag 0.094 0.389 0.880 1.539 2.394 3.430

Paramotor At 32o AoI with Reserve Fitted at 90o 4 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.40. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI with Reserve at 90o

135

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Motor Fitted

Figure M.41. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Motor Fitted Table M.42. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Motor Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, No Motor Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.001 -0.002 -0.005 -0.008 -0.011 -0.019 Lift -0.018 -0.048 -0.108 -0.241 -0.317 -0.538 Drag 0.097 0.377 0.862 1.496 2.370 3.474

Paramotor At 32o AoI with No Motor Fitted 4 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.43. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI with No Motor Fitted

136

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted

Figure M.44 Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted Table M.45. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, No Intake Silencer Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.000 -0.002 -0.004 -0.009 -0.013 -0.018 Lift -0.049 -0.044 -0.087 -0.190 -0.310 -0.607 Drag 0.090 0.381 0.861 1.489 2.366 3.392

Paramotor At 32o AoA with No Intake Silencer Fitted

4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag

10

15

20

25

30

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.46. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Silencer Fitted

137

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Propeller Fitted

Figure M.47. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Propeller Fitted Table M.48. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Propeller Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, With No Propeller Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.002 -0.003 -0.006 -0.009 -0.018 -0.025 Lift -0.027 -0.019 -0.135 -0.178 -0.267 -0.410 Drag 0.097 0.382 0.823 1.475 2.314 3.340

Paramotor At 32o AoI with No Propeller

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure M.49. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI with No Intake Propeller Fitted

138

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Tank Fitted

Figure M.50. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Tank Fitted Table M.51. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Tank Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, With No Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.001 -0.004 -0.005 -0.003 -0.011 -0.014 Lift 0.024 -0.058 -0.106 -0.125 -0.378 -0.485 Drag 0.106 0.385 0.859 1.546 2.395 3.452

Paramotor At 32o AoI With No Tank

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure M.52. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI with No Tank Fitted

139

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Cage Fitted

Figure M.53. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Cage Fitted Table M.54. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Tank Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, With No Cage Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.001 -0.001 -0.003 -0.005 -0.006 -0.010 Lift -0.007 -0.043 -0.082 -0.199 -0.257 -0.417 Drag 0.072 0.295 0.678 1.210 1.899 2.717

Paramotor At 32o AoI With No Cage

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure M.55. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Tank Fitted

140

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting Fitted

Figure M.56. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting Fitted Table M.57. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, With No Netting Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.000 -0.002 -0.002 -0.006 -0.012 -0.013 Lift -0.016 -0.049 -0.067 -0.201 -0.369 -0.406 Drag 0.089 0.361 0.804 1.401 2.177 3.162

Paramotor At 32o AoI With No Netting 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0

Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure M.58. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting Fitted

141

Appendix M

Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted

Figure M.59. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted Table M.60. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted Average Values for 32o AoI, With No Netting or Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.001 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006 -0.009 -0.014 Lift -0.016 -0.048 -0.113 -0.192 -0.285 -0.444 Drag 0.089 0.343 0.783 1.404 2.166 3.125

Paramotor At 32o AoI with No Netting or Tank 5 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s Pitch Lift Drag

Figure M.61. Paramotor at 32o AoI with No Netting or Tank Fitted

142

Appendix M

CALCULATIONS
Table M.62. Summary of Blockage Factors for Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI. Summary of Blockage Factors For Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Force Balance Full No Reserve Arm Configuration 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0378 0.0378 0.0378 0.0378 0.0378 0.0378 90o Reserve 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 No Motor 0.0381 0.0381 0.0381 0.0381 0.0381 0.0381 No Intake 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 No Propeller 0.0356 0.0356 0.0356 0.0356 0.0356 0.0356 No Tank 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 0.0376 No Cage (includes no tank) 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 No Net 0.0337 0.0337 0.0337 0.0337 0.0337 0.0337 No Net, No Tank 0.0341 0.0341 0.0341 0.0341 0.0341 0.0341

Table M.63. Drag Area On Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI. Drag Area On Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI Indicated velocity m/s Force Balance Full No Reserve Arm Configuration 0.0058 0.0054 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.005289 1.2 90o Reserve 0.0055 0.0054 0.0052 0.0053 0.0051 0.0051 0.005165 3.5 No Motor 0.0057 0.0052 0.0052 0.0053 0.0054 0.0053 0.005295 1.1 No Intake 0.0064 0.0054 0.0054 0.0053 0.0052 0.0052 0.005291 1.1 No Propeller 0.0056 0.0046 0.0050 0.0049 0.0048 0.0048 0.004866 9.1 No Tank 0.0050 0.0052 0.0052 0.0050 0.0051 0.0053 0.005157 3.6 No Cage (includes no tank) 0.0036 0.0033 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0035 0.003562 33.4 No Net 0.0049 0.0043 0.0045 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.004411 17.6 No Net, No Tank 0.0047 0.0045 0.0046 0.0044 0.0045 0.0045 0.004500 15.9

5 0.0028 0.005247 10 0.0028 0.005241 15 0.0027 0.005324 20 0.0027 0.005347 25 0.0026 0.005375 30 0.0026 0.005360 Average 15 to 30m/s 0.0026 0.005352 Percent Difference From Full Configuration

143

Appendix M

Drag Area of a Standard Paramotor at 0 Degrees Angle of Attack.

0.0060 0.0058 0.0056

Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0054 0.0052 0.0050 0.0048 0.0046 0.0044 0.0042 0.0040 5 10 15 20 25 30

Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

Full Configuration

No Reserve

90 Degree Reserve

No Motor

No Intake

No Propeller

No Tank

No Cage (includes no tank)

No Net

No Net, No Tank

Figure M.64 Graph of drag area results for standard paramotor at 0o AoI.

144

Appendix M

Table M.65. Summary of Blockage Factors For Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI. Summary of Blockage Factors For Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI. Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Force Balance Full No Reserve Arm Configuration 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 90 Degree Reserve 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 No Motor 0.0302 0.0302 0.0302 0.0302 0.0302 0.0302 No Intake 0.0299 0.0299 0.0299 0.0299 0.0299 0.0299 No Propeller 0.0294 0.0294 0.0294 0.0294 0.0294 0.0294 No Tank 0.0304 0.0304 0.0304 0.0304 0.0304 0.0304 No Cage (includes no tank) 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 No Net 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279 No Net, No Tank 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276

Table M.66. Drag Area On Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI. Drag Area On Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI. Indicated velocity m/s Force Balance Full No Reserve Arm Configuration 0.0035 0.0037 0.0036 0.0038 0.0037 0.0036 0.0037 0.99 90 Degree Reserve 0.0035 0.0037 0.0038 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 -0.17 No Motor 0.0036 0.0035 0.0037 0.0035 0.0036 0.0037 0.0036 1.76 No Intake 0.0032 0.0035 0.0037 0.0035 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 3.01 No Propeller 0.0037 0.0036 0.0034 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 6.69 No Tank 0.0043 0.0036 0.0036 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.42 No Cage (includes no tank) 0.0021 0.0022 0.0024 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0024 35.00 No Net 0.0032 0.0032 0.0033 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 13.90 No Net, No Tank 0.0032 0.0029 0.0031 0.0032 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 15.39

5 0.0028 0.0034 10 0.0028 0.0037 15 0.0027 0.0038 20 0.0027 0.0036 25 0.0026 0.0037 30 0.0026 0.0037 Average 15 to 30m/s 0.0026 0.0037 Percent Difference From Full Configuration

145

Appendix M

Drag Area of a Standard Paramotor at 32 Degrees Angle of Attack.

0.0044 0.0042 0.0040

Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0038 0.0036 0.0034 0.0032 0.0030 0.0028 0.0026 0.0024 0.0022 0.0020 5 10 15 20 25 30

Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

Full Configuration

No Reserve

90 Degree Reserve

No Motor

No Intake

No Propeller

No Tank

No Cage (includes no tank)

No Net

No Net, No Tank

Figure M.67. Graph of drag area results for standard paramotor at 32o AoI.

146

Appendix N

APPENDIX N - WIND TUNNEL TESTING OF ANNULAR AEROFOILS

Construction of Annular Aerofoils
Figure N.1. Construction process annual aerofoils

Image of bar stock of mild steel turned down to 140mm diameter with 4mm wall thickness; cut off at 30o.

Image of bar stock from different angle, showing annular airfoil centre.

Image of annular airfoils, one cut off at 90o to axial; the other cut off at 30o.

147

Appendix N

Initial Results

Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI

Figure N.2. Model at 0o AoI Table N.3. Average values for standard paramotor at 0o AoI Average Values for Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.002 0.007 0.017 0.031 0.049 0.068 Lift -0.009 -0.052 -0.106 -0.241 -0.373 -0.473 Drag 0.107 0.427 0.968 1.702 2.661 3.877

Standard Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI

5 Force Measured in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure N.4. Graph of standard paramotor at 0o AoI

148

Appendix N

Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI

Figure N.5. Model at 32o AoI Table N.6. Average values for standard paramotor at 32o AoI Average Values for Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 0.000 -0.049 0.088 10 -0.002 -0.054 0.348 15 -0.003 -0.081 0.784 20 -0.007 -0.304 1.381 25 -0.010 -0.448 2.165 30 -0.022 -0.433 3.103

Standard Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI

5 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity m/s

Figure N.7. Graph of standard paramotor at 32o AoI

149

Appendix N

Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI, no fuel tank

Figure N.6. Model at 0o AoI Table N.7. Average values for standard paramotor at 0o AoI Figure N.8. Graph of standard paramotor at 0o AoI

150

Appendix N

Paramotor at 32o AoI, no fuel tank

Figure N.9. Model at 32o AoI with no fuel tank Table N.10. Average values for standard paramotor at 32o AoI with no fuel tank Average Values for Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI, With No Netting or Fuel Tank Fitted Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.000 -0.004 -0.003 -0.006 -0.010 -0.018 Lift -0.004 -0.031 -0.067 -0.188 -0.366 -0.532 Drag 0.090 0.354 0.782 1.418 2.142 3.124

Standard Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI With No Netting or Fuel Tank

4 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure N.11. Graph of standard paramotor at 32o AoI with no fuel tank.

151

Appendix N

Paramotor at 0o AoI, Annular Aerofoil with NACA fuel tank

Figure N.12. Model at 0o AoI fitted with annular aerofoil. Table N.13. Average values for paramotor at 0o AoI with annular aerofoil. Average Values for 0o AoI, Annular Aerofoil with NACA0025 Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.002 0.007 0.018 0.034 0.053 0.079 Lift -0.008 -0.048 -0.140 -0.233 -0.462 -0.634 Drag 0.130 0.437 0.932 1.604 2.480 3.544

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI With Annular Airfoil with NACA0025 Fuel Tank
Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 5 -1 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure N.14. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with annular aerofoil.

152

Appendix N

Paramotor at 32o AoI, Annular Aerofoil with NACA fuel tank

Figure N.15. Model at 32o AoI with annular aerofoil. Table N.16. Average values for paramotor at 32o AoI with annular aerofoil. Average Values for 32o AoI, Annular Aerofoil with NACA0025 Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.002 -0.006 -0.005 -0.027 -0.044 -0.064 Lift 0.009 0.061 -0.076 0.287 0.474 0.649 Drag 0.075 0.378 0.891 1.551 2.436 3.505

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, Annular Airfoil with NACA0025 Fuel Tank

4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s Pitch Lift Drag

Figure N.17. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI with annular aerofoil.

Reaction Force in Newtons

153

Appendix N

Paramotor at 0o AoI, Annular Aerofoil with no fuel tank

Figure N.18. Model at 0o AoI with annular aerofoil and no fuel tank. Table N.19. Average values for paramotor at 0o AoI with annular aerofoil and no fuel tank. Average Values for 0o AoI, Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.002 0.008 0.018 0.039 0.060 0.088 Lift -0.010 -0.070 -0.142 -0.268 -0.428 -0.797 Drag 0.109 0.421 0.917 1.675 2.567 3.660

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI, Annular Airfoil With No Fuel Tank

4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2

Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure N.20. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI with annular aerofoil and no fuel tank.

154

Appendix N

Paramotor at 32o AoI, Annular Aerofoil with no fuel tank

Figure N.21. Model at 32o AoI with annular aerofoil and no fuel tank. Table N.22. Average values for paramotor at 32o AoI with annular aerofoil and no fuel tank. Average Values for 32o AoI, Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.002 -0.006 -0.013 -0.027 -0.041 -0.056 Lift -0.002 0.062 0.131 0.282 0.402 0.646 Drag 0.106 0.379 0.869 1.619 2.432 3.578

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, Annular Airfoil with No Fuel Tank

4 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s Pitch Lift Drag

Figure N.23. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI with annular aerofoil and no fuel tank.

155

Appendix N

Paramotor at 0o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA fuel tank

Figure N.24. Paramotor at 0o AoI, twisted annular aerofoil with NACA fuel tank Table N.25. Average values for standard paramotor at 0o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with NACA fuel tank Average Values for 0O AoI, 30o Annular Aerofoil with Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.001 0.010 0.024 0.047 0.071 0.102 Lift -0.050 -0.155 -0.345 -0.638 -0.947 -1.393 Drag 0.103 0.488 1.113 1.973 3.133 4.478

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI, 30 Degree Annular Airfoil With Fuel Tank

5 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure N.26. Graph of standard paramotor at 0o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with NACA fuel tank

156

Appendix N

Paramotor at 32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA fuel tank

Figure N.27. Model at 32o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with NACA fuel tank Table N.28. Average values for paramotor at 32o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with NACA fuel tank Average Values for 32o AoI, 30o Annular Aerofoil With Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.006 -0.012 -0.017 Lift -0.022 -0.068 -0.132 -0.167 -0.242 -0.254 Drag 0.078 0.315 0.706 1.277 2.026 2.902

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, 30 Deg Annular Airfoil With Fuel Tank

4 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure N.29. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with NACA fuel tank

157

Appendix N

Paramotor at 0o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with no fuel tank

Figure N.30. Model at 0o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank Table N.31. Average values for paramotor at 0o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank Average Values for 0o AoI, 30o Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.004 0.010 0.020 0.035 0.055 0.082 Lift -0.003 -0.092 -0.151 -0.261 -0.398 -0.568 Drag 0.128 0.451 1.054 1.841 2.830 4.097

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI With 30 Degree Annular Propeller With No Fuel Tank
Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure N.32. Graph of paramotor at 0o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank

158

Appendix N

Paramotor at 32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with no fuel tank

Figure N.33. Model at 32o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank Table N.34. Average values for paramotor at 32o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank Average Values for 32o AoI, 30o Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.001 -0.002 -0.004 -0.005 -0.010 -0.017 Lift -0.032 -0.052 -0.130 -0.160 -0.202 -0.400 Drag 0.072 0.319 0.736 1.312 2.056 2.877

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, 30 Deg Annular Airfoil With No Fuel Tank 5 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure N.35. Graph of paramotor at 32o AoI twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank

159

Appendix N

Paramotor at 32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank and 45o Propeller Angle

Figure N.36. Model at 32o AoI, twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank and 45o propeller angle. Table N.37. Average values for standard paramotor at 32o AoI, twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank and 45o propeller angle. Average Values for 32o AoI, 30o Annular Aerofoil, 45o Prop, With No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch -0.001 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006 -0.014 -0.021 Lift -0.026 -0.049 -0.079 -0.084 -0.178 -0.264 Drag 0.071 0.334 0.788 1.386 2.196 3.097

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, 30 Degree Annular Airfoil, 45 Degree Propeller With No Fuel Tank
5 Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure N.38. Graph of standard paramotor at 32o AoI, twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank and 45o propeller angle.

160

Appendix N

Paramotor at 32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank and Horizontal Propeller

Figure N.39. Model at 32o AoI, twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank and horizontal propeller. Table N.40. Average values for standard paramotor at 32o AoI, twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank and horizontal propeller. Average Values for 32o AoI, 30o Annular Aerofoil, Horizontal Propeller, With No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.000 -0.001 -0.004 -0.009 -0.019 -0.031 Lift -0.019 -0.057 -0.142 -0.178 -0.211 -0.261 Drag 0.098 0.368 0.814 1.448 2.191 3.155

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, 30 Degree Annular Airfoil, Horizontal Propeller, With No Fuel Tank 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0

Reaction Force in Newtons

Pitch Lift Drag 5 10 15 20 25 30

Indicated Wind tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure N.41. Graph of standard paramotor at 32o AoI, twisted annular aerofoil with no fuel tank and horizontal propeller.

161

Appendix N

Calculations
Table N.42. Summary of raw data at 0o AoI. Summary of Raw Data For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations At 0o AoI Average Drag Force Recorded in N
Indicated Force Balance velocity Arm m/s Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank Standard Paramotor, Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank Fitted Annular Aerofoil 30o Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank

5 10 15 20 25 30

0.040 0.161 0.352 0.620 0.958 1.388

0.107 0.427 0.968 1.702 2.661 3.877

0.131 0.501 1.103 1.953 3.026 4.373

0.130 0.437 0.932 1.604 2.480 3.544

0.109 0.421 0.917 1.675 2.567 3.660

0.103 0.488 1.113 1.973 3.133 4.478

NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

Table N.43. Summary of raw data at 32o AoI. Summary of Raw Data For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations At 32o AoI Average Drag Force Recorded in N
Indicated Force Balance velocity Arm m/s Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank Standard Paramotor, With No Fuel Tank Annular Aerofoil with Fuel Tank Annular Aerofoil 30o Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank With Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, Vertical Propeller With No Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, 45o Prop, With No Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, Horizontal Propeller, With No Fuel Tank

5 10 15 20 25 30

0.040 0.161 0.352 0.620 0.958 1.388

0.088 0.348 0.784 1.381 2.165 3.103

0.090 0.354 0.782 1.418 2.142 3.124

0.075 0.378 0.891 1.551 2.436 3.505

0.106 0.379 0.869 1.619 2.432 3.578

0.078 0.315 0.706 1.277 2.026 2.902

0.072 0.295 0.678 1.210 1.899 2.717

0.071 0.334 0.788 1.386 2.196 3.097

0.098 0.368 0.814 1.448 2.191 3.155

NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

162

Appendix N

Table N.44. Summary of blockage factors at 0o AoI. Summary of Blockage Factors For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations At 0o AoI
Indicated Force Balance velocity Arm m/s Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank Standard Paramotor, Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank Fitted Annular Aerofoil 30o Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank

5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126

0.0337 0.0337 0.0337 0.0337 0.0337 0.0337

0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379

0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313 0.0313

0.0323 0.0323 0.0323 0.0323 0.0323 0.0323

0.0389 0.0389 0.0389 0.0389 0.0389 0.0389

Table N.45. Summary of blockage factors at 32o AoI. Summary of Blockage Factors For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations At 32o AoI
Indicated Force Balance velocity Arm m/s Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank Standard Paramotor, Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank Annular Aerofoil 30o Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank With Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, Vertical Propeller, With No Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, 45o Prop, With No Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, Horizontal Propeller, With No Fuel Tank

5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128

0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275 0.0275

0.0274 0.0274 0.0274 0.0274 0.0274 0.0274

0.0308 0.0308 0.0308 0.0308 0.0308 0.0308

0.0304 0.0304 0.0304 0.0304 0.0304 0.0304

0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259

0.0243 0.0243 0.0243 0.0243 0.0243 0.0243

0.0277 0.0277 0.0277 0.0277 0.0277 0.0277

0.0279 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279

NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

163

Appendix N

Table N.45. Summary of drag area at 0o AoI. Summary of Drag Area For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations At 0o AoI in m2
Indicated Force Balance velocity Arm m/s Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank Standard Paramotor, Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank Fitted Annular Aerofoil 30o Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank

5 0.0028 0.005247 10 0.0028 0.005241 15 0.0027 0.005324 20 0.0027 0.005347 25 0.0026 0.005375 30 0.0026 0.005360 Average 0.0026 0.005352 15 to 30m/s Percent Difference From Full Configuration
NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

0.0058 0.0054 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.005288 1.2

0.0058 0.0045 0.0042 0.0040 0.0039 0.0039 0.003977 25.7

0.0044 0.0042 0.0040 0.0042 0.0041 0.0041 0.004120 23.0

0.0039 0.0052 0.0054 0.0054 0.0055 0.0055 0.005428 -1.4

Table N.46. Summary of drag area at 32o AoI. Summary of Drag Area For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations At 32o AoI in m2
Indicated Force Balance velocity Arm m/s Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank Standard Paramotor, Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank with Fuel Tank Annular Aerofoil 30o Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank With Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, Vertical Propeller, With No Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, 45o Prop, With No Fuel Tank 30o Annular Aerofoil, Horizontal Propeller, With No Fuel Tank

5 0.0028 0.0031 10 0.0028 0.0030 15 0.0027 0.0031 20 0.0027 0.0031 25 0.0026 0.0031 30 0.0026 0.0031 Average 0.0026 0.0031 15 to 30m/s Percent Difference From Full Configuration
NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

0.0032 0.0031 0.0031 0.0032 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 -0.95

0.0022 0.0035 0.0039 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 -22.46

0.0043 0.0035 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0039 0.0039 -24.60

0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027 0.0027 13.51

0.0021 0.0022 0.0024 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0024 22.41

0.0019 0.0028 0.0031 0.0031 0.0032 0.0031 0.0031 -0.90

0.0037 0.0034 0.0033 0.0034 0.0032 0.0032 0.0033 -5.18

164

Appendix N

Table N.47. Summary of data at 32o AoI. Summary of Drag Area For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations At 32o AoI in m2
30o Annular 30o Annular 30o Annular Standard Standard Annular Annular 30o Annular Indicated Aerofoil, Aerofoil, Aerofoil, Aerofoil Paramotor Paramotor, Aerofoil Aerofoil velocity Vertical 45o Prop, Horizontal with Fuel with No Fuel with Fuel with No Fuel with Fuel m/s Propeller with with No Fuel Propeller, with Tank Tank Tank Fitted Tank Tank No Fuel Tank No Fuel Tank Tank

5 0.0031 10 0.0030 15 0.0031 20 0.0031 25 0.0031 30 0.0031 Average 0.0031 15 to 30m/s Percent Difference From Full Configuration

0.0032 0.0031 0.0031 0.0032 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031

0.0022 0.0035 0.0039 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038

0.0043 0.0035 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0039 0.0039

0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027 0.0027

0.0021 0.0022 0.0024 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0024

0.0019 0.0028 0.0031 0.0031 0.0032 0.0031 0.0031

0.0037 0.0034 0.0033 0.0034 0.0032 0.0032 0.0033

-0.95

-22.46

-24.60

13.51

22.41

-0.90

-5.18

NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

Drag Area of Different Paramotor Frames at 0 Degrees AoI. Drag Area of Model in m^2

0.0055

0.0050

0.0045

0.0040 5 10 15 20 Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s 25 30

Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank 30 Deg Annular Airfoil with Fuel Tank

Annular Airfoil with Fuel Tank

Figure N.48. Drag areas of different paramotor frames at 0o AoI.

Drag Are a of Diffe re nt Param otor Fram e s at 32 De gre e s AoI. 0.0040 Drag Area of Model in m^2 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 5 10 15 20 25 30

V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s Standard Paramotor With Fuel Tank 30 Deg A nnular A irf oil With Fuel Tank A nnular A irf oil w ith Fuel Tank

Figure N.49. Drag areas of different paramotor frames at 32o AoI.

165

Appendix N

Drag Area of Different Propeller Positions at 32 Degrees Angle of Attack. 0.0040 Drag Area of Model in m^2 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 5 10 15 20 25 30 Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

30 Deg Annular Airfoil, With No Fuel Tank 30 Deg Annular Airfoil, 45 Degree Prop, With No Fuel Tank 30 Deg Annular Airfoil, Horizontal Propeller, With No Fuel Tank

Figure N.50. Drag areas of different propeller positions at 32o AoI.

Sample calculation to determine netting drag

Solidity Ratio= =

So S

For 1m 2 area with 50x50mm netting. So = 2 (20 1 0.0012) So = 0.02m 2

= 0.02m 2 Vd Re =
Re = 12.5 0.0012 1.225 1.789 E 5

Re = 214 From Anderson, pg 257, 2001 CD = 1.05 D = CD qS D = 2.00 N Standard paramotor has approximately 1.1m 2 of netting. DT = D 1.1 = 2.2 N

166

Appendix O

APPENDIX O - FAIRED FORCE BALANCE ARM

Initial Results Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI

Figure O.1. Standard paramotor model in wind tunnel at 00 AoI.

Standard Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI
5 Force Measured in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m /s

Figure O.2. Graph of standard paramotor model at 00 AoI force balance. Table O.3. Standard paramotor model at 00 AoI summary data . Average Values for Standard Paramotor at 0o AoI Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.000 0.006 0.020 0.038 0.066 0.092 Lift -0.033 -0.079 -0.067 -0.106 -0.024 -0.172 Drag 0.075 0.317 0.723 1.247 1.969 2.855

167

Appendix O

Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI.

Figure O.4. Standard paramotor model in wind tunnel at 320 AoI.

Standard Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI

Reaction Force in Newtons 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity m/s

Figure O.5. Graph of standard paramotor model at 320 AoI force balance. Table O.6. Standard paramotor model at 320 AoI summary data Average Values for Standard Paramotor at 32o AoI Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch -0.002 -0.004 -0.001 -0.001 -0.005 -0.003 -0.005 Lift -0.031 -0.053 -0.064 -0.065 -0.117 -0.140 -0.117 Drag 0.076 0.268 0.557 0.936 1.462 2.095 2.852

168

Appendix O

Twisted Annular Aerofoil with Filleted Fuel Tank Paramotor at 0o AoI

Figure O.7. Twisted annular airfoil paramotor with faired fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 00 AoI.
Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI With Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA0025 Fuel Tank
Reaction Force in Newtons 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure O.8. Graph of twisted annular airfoil paramotor with faired fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 00 AoI force balance. Table O.9. Twisted annular airfoil paramotor with faired fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 00 AoI summary data Average Values for 0o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA0025 Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pitch 0.001 0.009 0.028 0.056 0.083 0.125 Lift -0.038 -0.106 -0.225 -0.371 -0.655 -0.797 Drag 0.102 0.414 0.880 1.546 2.428 3.503

169

Appendix O

Twisted Annular Aerofoil with Filleted Fuel Tank Paramotor at 32o AoI

Figure O.10. Twisted annular aerofoil paramotor with faired fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 320 AoI.

Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank
Reaction Force in Newtons 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure O.11 Twisted annular aerofoil paramotor with faired fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 320 AoI force balance graph. Table O.12 Twisted annular aerofoil paramotor with faired fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 320 AoI summary data Average Values for 32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch -0.001 -0.003 0.004 0.014 0.023 0.014 0.022 Lift -0.028 -0.080 -0.095 -0.081 -0.073 -0.425 -0.360 Drag 0.068 0.237 0.489 0.842 1.280 1.920 2.564

170

Appendix O

Twisted Annular Aerofoil with no Fuel Tank Paramotor at 0o AoI

Figure O.13 Twisted annular airfoil paramotor with no fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 00 AoI.

Paramotor At 0 Degrees AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank

Reaction Force in Newtons 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch Lift Drag

Figure O.14. Twisted annular aerofoil paramotor with no fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 00 AoI force balance graph. Table O.15. Twisted annular aerofoil paramotor with no fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 00 AoI summary data Average Values for 0o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil With No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch 0.002 0.010 0.033 0.062 0.096 0.139 0.185 Lift -0.045 -0.178 -0.289 -0.467 -0.875 -1.153 -1.676 Drag 0.113 0.397 0.924 1.577 2.494 3.566 4.726

171

Appendix O

Twisted Annular Aerofoil with no Fuel Tank Paramotor at 32o AoI

Figure O.16. Twisted annular airfoil paramotor with no fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 320 AoI.
Paramotor At 32 Degrees AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank
3 Reaction Force in Newtons 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Wind Tunnel Velocity in m/s

Figure O.17. Twisted annular aerofoil paramotor with no fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 320 AoI force balance graph. Table O.18. Twisted annular aerofoil paramotor with no fuel tank model in wind tunnel at 320 AoI summary data Average Values for 32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank Indicated velocity m/s 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pitch -0.001 -0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.005 -0.010 Lift -0.011 0.010 0.074 0.085 0.330 0.687 0.638 Drag 0.060 0.226 0.490 0.841 1.308 1.868 2.459

172

Appendix O

Faired force balance arm values

Faired Force Balance Arm Values
Recorded Force in Newtons 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pitch Lift Drag

Indicated Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

Figure O.19. Graph of faired force balance. Table O.20. Faired force balance summary. Average Values for Force Balance Arm in N Indicated velocity m/s Pitch Lift Drag 5 0.000 -0.005 0.006 10 0.001 -0.013 0.029 15 0.006 0.068 0.062 20 0.016 0.133 0.109 25 0.026 0.207 0.174 30 0.036 0.423 0.286 35 0.050 0.325

173

Appendix O

Calculations
Table O.21. Summary of drag area. Drag Area For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations in m2
Indicated Force velocity m/s Balance Arm 0 AoI Standard Paramotor
o

0o AoI, Twisted Annular 0o AoI, Twisted 32o AoI Annular Aerofoil Standard Aerofoil with NACA Fuel with No Fuel Tank Paramotor Tank

32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank

32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank

5 0.0004 0.0046 0.0063 0.0070 10 0.0005 0.0048 0.0063 0.0061 15 0.0005 0.0049 0.0060 0.0063 20 0.0005 0.0047 0.0059 0.0060 25 0.0005 0.0048 0.0059 0.0061 30 0.0005 0.0048 0.0059 0.0060 35 0.0005 0.0059 Average 20 0.0005 0.0048 0.0059 0.0060 to 35m/s Percent Difference From Full Configuration

0.0047 0.0040 0.0037 0.0035 0.0035 0.0034 0.0035 0.0035 0.00

0.0042 0.0035 0.0032 0.0031 0.0030 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 11.30

0.0037 0.0034 0.0032 0.0031 0.0031 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 12.51

NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

Table O.22. Summary of coefficient of drag. Coefficient Of Drag For Different Frame and Propeller Configurations in m2
0 AoI Standard Paramotor
o

Indicated Force velocity m/s Balance Arm

0o AoI, Twisted Annular 0o AoI, Twisted 32o AoI Annular Aerofoil Standard Aerofoil with NACA Fuel with No Fuel Tank Paramotor Tank

32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank

32o AoI, Twisted Annular Aerofoil with No Fuel Tank

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average 20 to 35m/s

0.155 0.184 0.176 0.175 0.178 0.203 0.170 0.1814

0.959 1.015 1.028 0.997 1.008 1.015 1.0070

1.040 1.056 0.998 0.986 0.991 0.993 0.9899

1.148 1.013 1.047 1.006 1.018 1.011 0.984 1.0046

1.294 1.141 1.055 0.997 0.997 0.992 0.992 0.9944

1.295 1.134 1.038 1.006 0.979 1.020 1.001 1.0012

1.154 1.083 1.041 1.005 1.001 0.992 0.959 0.9895

NOTE: netting not fitted to any configuration

174

Appendix O

Drag Are a of Diffe re nt Param otor Fram e s at 0 De gre e s AoI. 0.0070 Drag Area of Model in m^2 0.0060 0.0050 0.0040 0.0030 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s 0 Deg A oI Standard Paramotor 0 Deg A oI,Tw isted A nnular A erof oil w ith NA CA Fuel Tank 0 Deg A oI, Tw isted A nnular A erof oil w ith No Fuel Tank

Figure O.23. Drag areas of different paramotor frames at 0o AoI.

Drag Are a of Diffe re nt Param otor Fram e s at 32 De gre e s AoI. 0.0045 Drag Area of Model in m^2 0.0040 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

V e locity of Wind Tunne l in m /s 32 Deg A oI Standard Paramotor 32 Deg A oI,Tw isted A nnular A erof oil w ith NA CA Fuel Tank 32 Deg A oI, Tw isted A nnular A erof oil w ith No Fuel Tank

Figure O.24. Drag areas of different paramotor frames at 32o AoI.

Coefficient of Drag of a Paramotor at 32 Degrees AoI (including force balance arm).

Coefficient of Drag

1.20 0.80 0.40 0.00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Velocity of Wind Tunnel in m/s

Force Balance Arm 0 Deg AoI Standard Paramotor 0 Deg AoI,Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank 32 Deg AoI Standard Paramotor 32 Deg AoI,Twisted Annular Aerofoil with NACA Fuel Tank

Figure O.25. Drag areas of different paramotor frames at 32o AoI.

175

Appendix P

APPENDIX P PROPOSED DESIGN

10 STEP DESIGN PROCESS

1.

Identification of a need.

As stated in Client Brief description.

2.

Problem Definition.

As stated in Client Brief aim.

3.

Search.

Experimentation has provided sound background knowledge of the drag contributors in a paramotor.

4.

Constraints.

Constraints imposed on the future design are: i. Forces the paramotor has to withstand (first order approximations): a. b. Resistant to damage from a hard landing. Assume 2G tolerance. An asymmetric collapse of paraglider wing during flight with a resulting spin, creates total lift loading on one underarm bar at 4G. c. Engine mounts must withstand thrust developed by power plant (50kg static thrust). d. Method of stopping pilots body from entering propeller arc. Worst case scenario is for a jammed throttle on start up. Pilot places fingers into mesh fingers to keep paramotor away from body, with engine producing 50kg of opposing thrust. e. Fuel tank to retain structural integrity on hard landing. Assume 4G landing. f. Limiting travel of engine mounts as a result of hard landing to reduce the possibility of the propeller arc impacting with a structural member. Assume 2G landing.

176

Appendix P

g.

Incorrect forward launch in moderate wind causes paraglider wing to pull the paraglider pilot onto their back. Results in paramotor and pilot placing full weight on cage with propeller possibly at maximum rpm. Assume 2G load.

h.

Forces exerted on top hoop of paramotor frame by paraglider suspension lines during forward launch.

ii. iii.

Use existing Top 80 powerplant and propeller in future design. Use existing harness and reserve parachute in future design, therefore pilots positioning will remain the same.

iv.

Create a design that can be homebuilt by amateur builders.

5.

Criteria.

The criterion that the future design will be assessed against is shown below. i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Increase in glide ratio. Feasibility. Safety Weight Reduction in moment of inertia in Z axis Cost.

6.

Alternative solutions.

i. ii.

Ducted fan Folding propeller a. b. c. Folding along driveshaft axis. Folding along rotation plane. Feathering.

iii.

Cage a. b. c. Umbrella cage Streamlined cage No cage

iv.

Mesh a. Folding mesh barrier

177

Appendix P

b.

Curtain type mesh barrier

7.

Analysis.

As shown in chapters 4 to 7.

8.

Decision.

As shown in chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9.

9.

Specification.

To be detailed in this appendix.

10.

Communication.

As per chapter 8, decision not to proceed to build stage.

178

Appendix P

PROPOSED DESIGN Introduction

The paramotor currently has a 6.5:1 glide ratio with the same wing in paragliding having a 8.2:1 glide ratio. The design aim was to achieve a glide ratio of 7.35:1, halfway between these points. Therefore the design principal was minimal drag at 30o AoI (23o recline plus 7o glide slope). Wind tunnel testing determined that a twisted annular aerofoil recorded the lowest drag of any configuration tested. A lower drag paramotor frame is virtually useless if it does not adequately protect the pilot in case of a mishap. Before the frame could be redesigned, a basic understanding of the design loads encountered had to be clarified. This was done in the 10 step design process shown previously.

Construction

Weight of the replacement frame was desired to be lighter than the existing frame, however through calculations performed in CATIA and by direct measurement, the outcome of the proposed frame was heavier (table P.1). The increase in weight of 0.3 kg could possibly be reduced with further structural analysis. The fuel system was not weighed separately, therefore a conservative weight of 1 kg has been given for the plastic tank and lines. The proposed paramotor design is shown in figures P.2. to P.9.

A symmetrical NACA0025 aerofoil was chosen with a 150mm chord because it could hold two hoops of 1.4m diameter. These hoops were constructed from 12.7mm diameter, 0.9mm wall thickness, chrome molybdenum tubing. The centre of the frame was constructed from 25.4mm diameter chrome molybdenum tubing. This tubing was to have been TIG welded.

The non structural aerofoil section is created from 2 plies of pre-impregnated bidirectional carbon fibre cloth. The plies were to have 0 the 45o orientation. The aerofoils would be created in two halves in 1 metre long sections in a straight mould (fig. P.10). Once manufactured the fairing half would be joined to balsa wood ribs bonded at 0.5m intervals and at the ends. Two halve fairings would be placed over the hoops of the frame with cold cure adhesive applied to contact points. A vacuum bag would then be placed over the fairings and vacuum applied. The anticipated result would be the composite fairing twisting to follow the outer hoops of the frame to create a twisted annular aerofoil. Trial and error would have to occur to obtain correct balsa wood spacing to obtain the optimal result.

179

Appendix P

Table P.1 Table of mass build up of proposed design as a comparison with existing paramotor.

Mass of proposed design

Quantity 2 Volume (m3) 4.4 Density (kg/m3) 0.262 * Description Weight per component (kg) Sub total (kg)

Outer hoops, 12.7mm dia, 0.9mm 1.153 2.306 wall thickness, chrome moly tubing. Inner frame, 25.4mm dia, 1.2mm 1 2.2 0.544 * 1.197 1.197 wall thickness, chrome moly tubing. 2 0.00002011 7850 Underarm mounting brackets 0.158 0.316 35 0.00000003 7850 TIG weld 0.00025 0.009 Fairing, 2 ply hot bonded 1 0.00084 1740 # 1.462 1.462 bidirectional graphite pre preg 16 0.000004 140 ~ Balsa wood ribs 0.001 0.009 281 0.000001 970 Dyneema netting 0.001 0.214 4 1430 ~ Delran wheels 0.024 0.096 7850 Wheel mounts 0.000 0.000 3 0.000002 7850 Axles 0.016 0.047 1 7850 ~ RH underarm bar 0.115 0.115 1 7850 " LH underarm bar 0.285 0.285 Fuel system(empty) 1.000 TOTAL WEIGHT (kg) 7.055 Weight of PAP1400AS frame, minus harness (kg) 6.726 * As per Performance Metals specifications, specifications are length and density per metre. # As per Shackelford, J.F. (2000). Materials science for engineers, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall ~ As per CATIA calculations " Approximation

The netting would be made to the frame as mentioned in chapter 7. Holes would be drilled at intervals around the outer hoop. Lengths of Dyneema line would be knotted and a protective ferrule would be made to cover it. The lines would be placed into the frame by use of a vacuum cleaner over the desired hole to draw the Dyneema line through the frame. This line would then be pulled out with the ferrule preventing abrasion of the Dyneema on the tubing. A 50mm cube of wood would be used to maintain hole spacing when making the net. If desired the hole size could be reduced at points of likely contact. Using net making techniques the net would be tied working towards the centre of the frame. The two sides would be secured by a modified tie down strap ratchet mechanism. This would enable quick disassembly of outer hoops for transport and could control netting tension.

180

Appendix P

Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

The CATIA model was constructed to enable FEA, which allows point of high stress or strain to be identified when the model is placed under load and allows any structural shortcomings in the design to be identified the design revised.

As a result of the decision not to proceed with the building of the proposed design, FEA was not completed.

Moment of inertia calculations

These were not completed beyond first approximations due to the decision not to proceed with building the proposed design. An indication of the C of G of both the pilot and paramotor can be seen in figure P.7.

181

Appendix P

Figure P.2. CATIA Images of the proposed low drag design are shown below with non structural composite fairing fitted.

182

Appendix P

Figure P.3. CATIA Images of the proposed low drag design are shown below with non structural composite fairing removed showing the 12.5mm OD, 0.9mm wall thickness chrome-moly double hoop frame. The centre frame is constructed from 25.4mm OD, 0.9mm wall thickness chrome-moly tubing.

183

Appendix P

Figure P.4. CATIA Images of the proposed low drag design are shown below with non structural composite fairing removed as well as the hoop arcs to the sides. This configuration was for transport.

184

Appendix P

Figure P.5. Isometric view of the proposed low drag design.

185

Appendix P

Figure P.6. Isometric view of the proposed low drag design with non structural fairing removed.

186

Appendix P

Centre of Gravity

Overall Centre of Gravity with proposed paramotor weight and full tank of fuel.

Figure P.7. Isometric view of the proposed low drag design, pink dot signifies C of G of pilot, cross is overall C of G with proposed paramotor weight and full tank of fuel.

187

Appendix P

Figure P.8. Isometric view of the proposed low drag design with side hoops to showing mounting dowels.

Figure P.9. Emphasis on hard landing wheels fitted to proposed low drag design.

188

Appendix P

Figure P.10. Preliminary plans created by author for SACME workshop. Used to discuss how mould would be created, to manufacture fairing for proposed low drag design. Insert. Image of bonded balsa wood ribs to composite skin.

189

Appendix R

APPENDIX R PARAMOTOR CROSS SECTION VISUALISATION

Figure R. 1. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

Figure R. 2. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

190

Appendix R

Figure R. 3. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

Figure R. 4. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

191

Appendix R

Figure R. 5. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

Figure R. 6. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

192

Appendix R

Figure R. 7. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

Figure R. 8. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

193

Appendix R

Figure R. 9. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

Figure R. 10. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

194

Appendix R

Figure R. 11. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

Figure R. 12. Slice taken at 32o AoI, in an attempt to visualise profile of paraglider and paramotor to oncoming airflow.

195

Appendix W

APPENDIX S - PROJECT TASK OUTLINE

Removed for online version

APPENDIX T TASK BREAK DOWN STRUCTURE

Removed for online version

APPENDIX U PROJECT GANTT CHART

Removed for online version

APPENDIX V PROJECT MILESTONE CHART

Removed for online version

APPENDIX W RISK ASSESSMENT

Removed for online version End

196