Final report Team 5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Team organization 2. MILESTONE CHART 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 3.1 Mission requirements 3.2 Translation into design requirements 3.3 Considered configuration 4. PRELIMINARY DESIGN 4.1 Critical design parameters 4.2 Mission analysis 4.3 Design and sizing trades 4.4 Stability and control analysis 4.5 Structural analysis 5. DETAILED DESIGN 5.1 Dimensional parameters 5.2 Weight and balance 5.3 Flight performance parameters 5.4 Mission performance 5.5 Drawing package 6. MANUFACTURING PLAN AND PROCESSES 6.1 Investigation and selection of major components and assemblies 7. REFERENCES
1

I.

Executive summary

This report describes the design process used by Air-Navigation students, 5th team to develop an aircraft capable of winning the 2012 Design/Build/Fly Competition. The goal of the design was to maximize the total competition score, being a combination of the report score, Solid Works design, XFLR fuselage computations and MathCad problems.

II.

Milestone Chart

The chart below shows the progress over the time allowed, from the beginning of November up to the presentation date. Although, sometimes we did not meet certain deadlines, we managed to accomplish a balance between deadlines and quality.

item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

descrition Complete project Conceptual design Preliminary design Detailed design Airfoil analysis Aerodynamic analysis Stability analysis Component prototyping Aircraft construction

Start date 24.10.2011 24.10.2011 07.11.2011 21.11.2011 24.10.2011 21.11.2011 21.11.2011 20.02.2012 12.03.2012

End date 18.05.2012 31.10.2011 14.11.2011 12.01.2012 31.10.2011 12.01.2012 13.01.2012 23.03.2012 20.04.2012

2011 Oct

2011 Nov

2011 Dec

2012 Jan

2012 Feb

2012 2012 Mar Apr

2012 May

III.

Conceptual Design

In this chapter we shall talk about the conceptual design investigations held throughout the first couple of weeks, from the end of October until the middle of November. The initial design focused on the identification of mission requirements, taking into consideration the imposed rules and the score awarding system. Many of the proposed design patterns have been taken out, due to errors of design or unmet technical requirements.

III.1 Mission requirements Each aircraft is supposed to meet a number of payload, structural, performance, and propulsive requirements for the 2012 DBF competition. Each team should design and build a radio controlled aircraft of limited weight and power, which takes-off in 40 m and flies over the field to return safely to the runway. The competition is divided in two parts, design and flight: In the design part the team will construct a plane considering the requirements and produce a design report to document the design and construction process as well as financial and teamwork approach. This design report is reviewed and graded by the competition jury. The flight competition will consist of as many runs as possible. The goal is to have at least 3 runs. The number of runs depends on the number of teams and weather conditions. Runs will be made even under rainy and windy conditions. The decision if it is possible to fly will be made by the organization team. The best performers score in each mission normalizes scores for all the other competitors, such that the best performance receives the maximum allowable points for that mission and other teams receive a corresponding fraction of the possible points.

III.2 Translation into design requirements The aircraft design may be of any configuration except for the rotary wing or lighterthan- air configurations. The aircraft must take-off only with the energy given by the on-board propulsion battery pack, and its propulsion is the prescribed electric motor and no form of externally assisted take-off is allowed. The motor must be an BL Outrunner C4015/1000 and it must be the only one , the regulations state that the plane must be driven by a single motor and it must be fitted with a regulator electronic Brushless 30A GX Series. The maximum current is limited to I = 25A for the competition flights. The batteries needs have a minimum capacity to ensure the planes can perform at least one flight pattern. The battery must be LiPo AIRSOFT GENS ACE 11.1V/1600 mA/20C model. The connector that makes the link between ESC and Battery must be DEANS type connector. Only one propeller is allowed and the use of a metal one is forbidden. A spinner or security screw must be also used. The propeller must be a commercial and tested product with the safety precautions respected. For the transmission gears, chains and propellers shafts are allowed as long as the rotation ratio between the motor and the propeller is 1:1. The maximum take-off weight must not exceed 2000g, leaving the possibility of varieties of the aircraft design. No autopilot or control assistance systems may be used. Mixing abilities in the transmitter/receiver may be used, as long as they do not use any input of sensors. The aircraft must be able to perform the stability test made during the technical inspection or before flights during the flight competition. The wing will be supported both-ends of the wingspan and should not break within a period of 3 seconds. No autopilot and/or control assistance systems are allowed. III.3 Considered configuration While making the configuration of the aircraft, we took into consideration all the design requirements stated in the FIA DBF Challenge Regulations, that it had to be easy to manufacture due to the easy design of the components and all the devices that we are allowed to use and all the requirements that we need to accomplish:

1. Structural requirements: the system weight is defined as the weight of all components of the aircraft including the battery, engine, receiver, landing gear, propeller and servo system weight. The aircraft must pass this test without failure of any type. 2. Take-off requirements: the maximum takeoff distance for each mission is 40m (wheels off the runway). It is important to note that the field elevation of approximately 80m and ambient temperatures at the competition site will potentially reduce air density, depending on temperature and humidity; no forms of externally help are allowed during take-off.

3. Propulsion: the propeller must be commercially used, tested and safety with precautions respected. The most important reason, that convinced us, was the aerodynamic performances. A scoring analysis was performed to identify the most sensitive variables in the total flight score and assist in the translation into design requirements. Additionally, the analysis revealed the importance of matching battery capacity to the number of laps flown and the relative unimportance of absolute flight speed.

IV.

Preliminary Design

During the preliminary design phase, the team focused on analyzing competition rules to select an aircraft configuration that would maximize competition score. Sensitivity analyses identified system weight and loading time as key design drivers, with performance in the efficiency-based delivery mission a secondary factor. The preliminary design phase focused on fully developing and refining the details of the design chosen during the conceptual design phase. The critical aerodynamic design details were determined to be wing area, aspect ratio, and power requirements at takeoff and cruise. These parameters were optimized using several in-house MATHCAD and Excel-based performance codes, as well as commercial tools such as XFLR. Finally, stability, control, and propulsion system analysis over the entire velocity range of the aircraft was conducted to further refine the design.

Component Wing
6

Types Monoplane

Fuselage Empennage

Landing gear Propulsion IV.1 Critical design parameters

Convetional Convetional V-tail H-tail Tricycle tractor

We realized very quickly, during the brainstorm, that few concepts actually offered significant advantages in terms of weight, simplicity over a fabric pocket design or a rigid box design. A rigid design could potentially serve as the primary aircraft structure. The simplicity and performance per weight of the monoplane would make it the frontrunner. Despite this, the span and aspect ratio limitation made a multi-wing aircraft an attractive option. A flying wing configuration was considered for the fact that it would eliminate the fuselage component of the aircraft. Drawbacks include difficulty of manufacturing and takeoff.

Conventional fuselage is retained for more detailed analysis due to the easy construction and minimization the time of assembly. The T-tail plane surfaces are kept well out of the airflow behind the wing, giving smoother flow, more predictable design characteristics, and better pitch control. As a drawback the aircraft will tend to be much more prone to a dangerous deep stall condition, where blanking of the airflow over the tail plane and elevators by a stalled wing can lead to total loss of pitch control. The V-tail is lighter, has less wetted surface area, and thus produces less drag, but was not considered due to the area required to achieve control equivalent to a conventional tail resulted in no savings in system weight. The conventional configuration tail was retained for more detailed analysis; the former for its low risk and the latter for the possible weight advantage if combined with a reflexed wing airfoil.

Based on the input regarding the limited take-off length and ground stability, a steerable tricycle landing gear type was retained for further analysis. A sample of commonly available electric motors showed a clear trend the smaller motors consistently had higher power density. Given the importance of system weight in total flight score we chose to analyze further the tractor propulsion configuration.

IV.2. Mission Analysis A scoring analysis was performed to identify the most sensitive variables in the total flight score and assist in the translation of the above mission requirements into design requirements. Additionally, analysis revealed the importance of matching battery capacity to the number of laps flown to complete the mission and the relative unimportance of absolute flight speed. The mission analysis indicated that a competitive design would minimize system weight and precisely match the delivery battery weight to the energy needed to complete a chosen number of laps. Current 14.3 12.98 11.7 16.6 16.4 16 15.6 15.2 15 15 14.5 14.3 13.5 Tension 11.3 10.7 10 11.7 11.4 11.35 11.25 11.1 11 10.85 10.75 10.65 10.25 Traction 873.8 789 708 870 860 825 810 800 795 780 760 755 715 122.487884 118.033779 115.064376 111.352622 97.9903071 Pout 124 107 91 Pin 168 144 122 191 180 177 173 168 165 159 155 150 132

The efficiency of the battery after the analysis was 74%

Tractiune
1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 60 120 180 240 270 Tractiune

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 60 120 180 240 270 Curent Tensiune

In order to achieve the predicted drag and lift, each member of the team has chosen a different airfoil for both wing and empennage that performed well at low Reynolds numbers and that also had the maximum lift coefficient. The analysis of these factors was performed in XFLR5 program at the same range of Reynolds numbers i.e. = 80000 = 200000.4

IV.2.1 Wing
Wing airfoils

Graphs of Drag polar

After carefully comparing the properties and behavior of every airfoil, the selected airfoil is NACA 1412.

10

NACA 1412 characteristics: Thickness: Camber: 12.0% 1.0% 16.5

o

Max CL: Max L/D:

1.098 15.0 6.0 0.836 -1.0 41.806

Max CL angle: 64.9% 3.5% Max L/D angle: Max L/D CL: Zero-lift angle:

Trailing edge angle: Lower flatness: Stall angle: 7.0 Leading edge radius:

This airfoil provides an optimum range of Lift over Drag values, allowing the aircraft to be flown efficiently at a number of cruise attitudes. The NACA 1412 airfoil is a high lift airfoil, which is required for an aircraft with the design constraints provided in the contest. For aerodynamic modeling, the lift is optimized by varying wing span and area. The system of equations used in the optimization program sets the required lift for certain performance situations, and optimizes the wing dimensions to fit the best design. To provide the lift required and minimal drag, the wing is designed for an incidence of -4. This is based on the high lift airfoil design, an optimum lift to drag ratio, and larger range to advert stall. The calculated lift to drag ratio was plotted against angle of attack, which is shown in the figure.
Lift Drag Ratio with respect to Angle of attack

11

IV.2.2 Empennage (Vertical and horizontal stabilizers) Empennage airfoils :

12

The NACA 0008 airfoil was selected for both horizontal and vertical tail due to the symmetric profile and ease of construction. This airfoil is thin, lightweight, and commonly used for most tails. The tail was designed to be mounted at an incidence of 0.

NACA 0008 characteristics: Thickness: Camber: 8.0% 0.0% 9.7o 0.8% Max CL: 0.692 12.5

Max CL angle: Max L/D:

Trailing edge angle: Lower flatness: Stall angle: 4.5 Leading edge radius:

30.528 4.5 0.528 0.0

45.6%

Max L/D angle: Max L/D CL: Zero-lift angle:

IV.3. Design and sizing trades Each team member began by creating a series of models to estimate the weight of wing and tail surfaces, size tail surfaces based on wing span and tail arm lengths, and relate plan form limitations to possible aircraft dimensions. The preliminary aircraft optimization resulted in a basic aircraft geometry which served as a starting point for the design and refinement of the structure, propulsion system, detailed aerodynamics, and stability characteristics. 10

13

To select the best aircraft configuration for the contest requirements, assembly methods for both the wing and tail were analyzed in addition to the traditional tail and wing configurations. The primary variable that can be changed to size the aircraft is the wing chord.

IV.3.1 Wing Having in mind the need to simplify the wing construction, a trapezoidal mono-wing was chosen. To size the wing, the wingspan was held constant at 500 mm and the chord was varied. The wing tip chord of 76 mm and a root chord of 130 mm were chosen to optimize the total flight score. IV.3.2 Tail The horizontal tail must provide enough momentum to rotate for takeoff and provide longitudinal stability. This tail size with a conventional elevator provided the needed momentum to rotate for takeoff, but an initial stability analysis yielded a high static margin.

Since the tail slides into the fuselage, the root chord of the horizontal tail was limited to 130 mm; therefore, the tail was sized to a 250 mm span by an 76 mm tip chord. The vertical tail was also sized using previously designed tail volumes. The vertical tail root chord was sized to 140 mm to stay close to the chord of the horizontal tail, while the tip chord was 84 mm for aesthetic reasons. This required the overall span of the vertical tail to be 150 mm.

IV.3.3 Fuselage The selected fuselage starts by having a cylindrical nose with a diameter of 114 mm that continues with a parallelepiped which is decreasing in volume until reaches the length of 900 mm.

IV.3.4 Propeller Only single propeller is allowed. However, the use of metal propellers is forbidden. We had to mention a maximum of three types of propellers in the report which we have chosen to use in the flight competition. The organizers will provide the team with one GWS Direct Drive 10 x 6 propeller, which has to be one of the 3 presented in the report. The chosen propeller provides the adequate amount of thrust for the aircrafts mission. Thus larger propellers were not needed to gain the thrust needed for takeoff. Therefore the team decided to use the one provided by the organizers.
14

IV.3.5 Motor The motor is a BL Outrunner C4015/1000 which has an efficiency and torque enough to drive propellers. The characteristic of this type of motors are: maximum intensity of current is 27 Amps; mass of 90 grams; maximum traction of 1400 grams; rotation speed of 1000 rpm; dimension D 40 x 15 mm.

IV.3.6 Landing gear A bow-shaped landing gear was chosen for simplicity of construction and mounting. The width of the landing was designed to ensure stable ground handling, and the height of the landing gear gives clearance for the large propeller.

IV.4 Stability and control analysis

IV.4.1 Stability analysis The aircraft we have chosen was optimized to develop a versatile enough design to handle all mission requirements. With carefully selected wing and tail airfoils, a static longitudinal stability analysis was able to balance the aircraft while placing both the wing and empennage incidence angles at 0 degrees from the aircraft fuselage. The process for achieving static stability for our aircraft configuration required refining a center of gravity model and updating a stability spreadsheet that provided the necessary calculations and graphs for both static and dynamic stability. The major contributors to pitch stability are the wing, tail, and fuselage. Because our aircraft uses a high lift airfoil, a large negative pitching moment was produced.

15

IV.4.2 Control analysis The aileron roll capability was calculated for mission requirements. The ailerons create a differential lift that counteract the payload roll moment. The aileron roll equation is unique from traditional aerodynamic parameters in that it is a function of aileron deflection () and velocity. For future analysis, the aileron moment coefficient was presented within the aileron roll moment equation below.

This aileron moment equation is based upon strip theory and used to analyze roll control methods. Because flight velocities are lowest at takeoff and landing, the goal was to create enough aileron moment to counteract the asymmetric loading before reaching aircraft stall velocity. After the velocity increases, the roll moment from the ailerons is sufficient to control the aircraft in flight. To achieve static and dynamic longitudinal control, the elevator must be properly sized. In order to balance the aircraft for all necessary trim conditions, the elevator to horizontal tail area ratio was determined to be 2/3. The size of the elevator attains a 6.13 cm chord and 22 cm span. This elevator control allows for trim over a spread of 15 degrees angle of attack and was considered sufficient for all maneuvers required in the mission. The selected rudder was sized similar to the elevator with a 6.1 cm chord-wise length and 12 cm in vertical span. IV.5 Structural analysis The structure developed met the specified requirements based on the sizing of the aerodynamic and propulsions calculations performed by the team. Utilizing the selected conceptual design and benchmarking previous successful aircraft, trade studies were conducted to select structural configurations.

IV.5.2 Fuselage analysis After analyzing the configuration and design of the fuselage, we got to the conclusion that it has a high lift coefficient. The input data were taken from the stability analysis previously made in XFLR5. Also some of the data were taken from the actual airplane design measurements like nose, fuselage and backward surfaces.

16

IV.5.3 Landing Gear To accomodate the range of payload weight distribution for the mission, the landing gear design is paticularly important. A tricycle configuration with additional outriggers was selected in the conceptual design phase to provide the ground handling characteristics required for asymmetrical loads. For the main landing gear, carbon fiber composites were selected for high strength-to-weight ratio; and the bow shape of the main gear allows for impact absorption on landing. Carbon fiber composites were also selected for the outriggers. While not a primary support mechanism, the outriggers must also be strong enough to withstand a hard landing, as it is anticipated that the plane will land at the end of the mission.

V.Detailed design Having experience from the conceptual and preliminary design, we had an excellent starting point for the detailed design phase. After certain brainstorms, we had a clear understanding of the issues that needed to be complete in this final design phase. During the detailed design phase, every specific sizing and operational parameter was settled so that the aircraft could be manufactured effectively and accurately. During this phase the geometrical properties were decided.

V.1. Dimensional parametres The dimensional parameters for the final design consist of dimensions for the aircraft, as seen in the table below: Fuselage
Lenght (cm) Diameter(cm) Hight(cm) Tip lenght(cm) Tip aspect ratio Backward lenght(cm) Aspect ratio Section aria(cmp) 90 11,4 12 20 20

Wing
Airfoil Span(cm) Tipchord(cm) Root chord(cm) Aria(cmp) Aspect ratio Incidence angle(deg) Aileron area(cmp) 17 NACA 1412 500 7,6 13

Horizontal stabilizer Airfoil Naca0008 Span(cm) Tip chord(cm) Root chord (cm) Incidence angle(deg) Elevator aria(cmp)

Vertical stabilizer Airfoil Naca0008 Span(cm) Tip chord(cm) Root chord (cm) Incidence angle(deg) Rudder aria(cmp)

V.2. Weight and balance The weight and balance information for the final aircraft design can be seen below. In the table below, the individual weights for the major components in the aircraft can be seen along with the various total weights for the aircraft based on all possible payload configurations across the mission.The table also shows the cg shifts in the lateral and vertical directions.
Weight and balance Weight(g) Xcg(cm)

Component Structure Fuselage Wing Vertical Tail Horizontal Tail Propulsion Battery Motor Propeller Landing gear Front Rear

Ycg(cm)

Zcg(cm)

V.3.Flight performance parametres Using the final aircraft design, flight performance parameters were calculated. The general aerodynamic and flight performance qualities for the aircraft are shown in the table below. Aircraft Parameters Cl0 Cd0 Clmax L/D

18

V.4. Mission Performance After the design was finished, mission performance was reevaluated for more accurate goals and expectations for mission performance.

Mission Performance Cruise speed Maximum speed Takeoff Distance Stall incidece

V.5. Drawing phase In this phase, the plane was entirely drawn using SolidWorks. The following pages consist of the following drawings: Aircraft 3-View, Systems Layout;

19

20

21

VI. MANUFACTURING PLAN AND PROCESSES This phase of the project centered on planning , executing the creation of components and the assembly of the aircraft itself . A great deal of planning was done in scheduling, construction techniques and materials used , due to the time restrictions . The manufacturing plan was divided into four major components: Fuselage, Wings, Tail, Landing Gears. The following manufacturing plan defines the alternatives investigated, and the processes selected. A set of figures were established to help in the manufacturing decision making process for the manufacturing of all the aircraft components . The construction method must provide enough structural integrity to the system so that it can perform all the required missions and it must have a relatively small time of implementing , because of this we have chosen four figures : ease of construction, structural integrity maintainability and weight. VI.1 Investigation and selection of major components and assemblies Many manufacturing processes were researched to determine the most reliable light weight process for each major assembly though we listed in the following section only the most appealing ones for every major component. VI.1.1 Fuselage The fuselage had major methods considered for its construction, however we chose the XPS material leaving only one method available. While weight and construction time were still the dominating factors for this piece of the aircraft, maintenance was also highly considered due to its integration role for all the other components of the aircraft.

Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) consists of closed cells, offers improved surface roughness and higher
stiffness and reduced thermal conductivity. The density range is about 28 45 kg/m3. Extruded polystyrene material is also used in crafts and model building, in particular architectural models. Because of the extrusion manufacturing process, XPS does not require facers to maintain its thermal or physical property performance. Thus, it makes a more uniform substitute for corrugated cardboard. Thermal resistivity is usually about 35 mK/W (or R-5 per inch in American customary units).

22

VI.1.2 Landing Gear The landing gear consisted of three different pieces: main gear, rear wheel, and outriggers. Benchmarking previous designs, a composite layup construction method was used. The molds for the main gear and rear wheel are going to be made of high density foam which will provide a smooth surface for composite layup. The final construction layup of the main gear consisted of a carbon fiber composite layup. The rear gear will be also a composite layup, but with a Kevlar fabric core, which will provided durability and a higher spring constant.

VII. References XFLR5, 24 Oct, 2011. <http://xflr5.sourceforge.net/xflr5.htm> UIUC Airfoil Coordinate Database. 24 Oct, 2011. SolidWorks 2010 Mihai M.Nita,Florentin V.Moraru si Radu N.Patraulea Avioane si rachete concepte de proiectare, Ed. Militara Bucuresti 1985 Wikipedia

23